i. The Articles could not be amended without the consent of all of

the States. Several times one State defeated the amendment of the Articles.

44 The small States having only small areas and therefore less room for settlers, were afraid of any form of union government which gave the States proportional representation in Congress. These small States declared they would not ratify the Articles of Confederation until those States having large areas of western lands would agree to cede those lands to the Federal government. The seven States holding western lands agreed to cede their lands in January, 1781, and on March 1st, Maryland as the last State ratified the Articles of Confederation.

45 The various States chose a total of sixty-five delegates to attend the Federal convention at Philadelphia. Of these, fifty-five actually sat in the convention. Of the entire number, forty-two were present on the last day and thirty-nine signed the Constitution.

Of the fifty-five who sat in the convention, twenty-five were from north of the Mason and Dixon Line, or from the northern States, and thirty were from the southern States. Of the thirty-nine signers, nineteen were from the North and twenty from the South. The three who refused to sign were Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia. These three men thought the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and did not leave enough to the States.

Eight of the men who signed the Constitution were of foreign birth. They were Alexander Hamilton, William Patterson, James Wilson, Robert Morris, James McHenry, Thomas Fitzsimons, William R. Davie, and Pierce Butler. You will notice that Hamilton, Wilson, Patterson, and Morris were among the most influential men in the convention. Many of America’s greatest men have been of foreign birth.

The oldest man in the convention was Benjamin Franklin who was eighty-one years of age. The youngest man was Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey who was only twenty-seven. Charles Pinckney was twenty-nine years old, and Alexander Hamilton was thirty. The average age of the entire membership in the convention was 43-2/5 years.

The membership in the convention included a remarkable group of men—in fact the most remarkable group of statesmen that ever assembled for the making of a constitution. They had gained their experience in five different ways: colonial legislatures, State legislatures, State conventions, Continental Congresses, and in the Congress of the Confederation. Six of them had the honor of having signed the Declaration of Independence—Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, Robert Morris, Roger Sherman, George Read, and George Clymer. Thirty delegates were college men and twenty-six had degrees.

46 A careful study of the debates in the Federal convention will reveal the following allusions to the government and institutions of other countries. A total of two hundred and twenty-three allusions were made to the governments of Europe, the most important of which were the following: one hundred and thirty allusions were made to England, of which fifty were commendatory, and twenty-four were warnings; nineteen allusions were made to France, of which five were commendatory and three were warnings; Germany, or rather the German States, had seventeen allusions; Holland had twenty allusions; Greece had twenty-five; Rome had twenty-six. The two hundred and twenty-three allusions were made in such way as to indicate that the delegates were widely read in both government and history.

47 The Constitution in Article VII says, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

The first State to ratify was Delaware on December 7, 1787. New Hampshire, the ninth State, ratified on June 21, 1788, and Rhode Island, the last, on May 29, 1790.

48 Every right begets a duty. The more rights our government gives us, the more duties are imposed upon each one of us. In an absolute monarchy the people have very few rights and they also have very few duties to perform. In democracies like the United States the people have a right to participate in government, they also have the duty of becoming intelligent and becoming acquainted with the various details of the administration of government. When people have a right to participate in government, they have the duty of attending every election and casting an intelligent ballot. Where people have a right to make law, they must accept the duty of helping enforce law. Where people have freedom of religious belief and worship, they must refrain from interfering in the belief of other people. Where they have freedom of speech and press, they must protect other people in that same right. Where people have the right of trial in a legally constituted court of law, they must refrain from mob rule or from lynch law. The greater the privileges given a people by law, the greater are their duties to see that law is always respected and carefully enforced.

49 The government of the United States is a dual government. There is a State government within each State, which is supreme over the affairs of that State alone. Then there is a Federal government which is supreme and sovereign throughout the entire United States in all those affairs which the Federal Constitution gives to the control of the Federal government. The _police power_ of a State is commonly defined as the power of a State to control all of its domestic internal affairs. The Federal government is not permitted to interfere with the police powers of the States.

50 “No state allows its government to dictate to any one what church he shall attend or compels him to contribute to the support of any church, the establishment of state churches being everywhere forbidden. No person is disqualified from holding office or exercising legal rights because of his religious views, although a very few states make belief in the Deity a requisite for holding certain state offices.”—Hart’s _Actual American Government_, Sec. 13.

51 Constitution of the United States, Amendment I.

52 Church and state are wholly separated in the United States. When a man takes office, no one asks him to what church he belongs, or what his faith is. If a man wants to believe in the religions of India or China, no officer of the National government has a right to interfere with him, providing he does not violate a law of the land. Religious tolerance is a growth. The Puritans who founded New England, although they fled to America because of religious persecutions, did not practice religious tolerance in the New World.

53 “The witchcraft craze at Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692, is commonly thought to have been the legitimate outgrowth of the gloomy religion of the Puritans. Nineteen persons were hanged or burned at the stake for having bewitched children. One was crushed to death under heavy weights because he would not confess that he was possessed of the devil. From the time of King John down to 1712, innocent lives were constantly sacrificed in England on this charge.”—Thwaites’s _The Colonies_, p. 190.

54 Constitution of the United States, Amendment I.

55 The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States are limitations on the powers of Congress, and these amendments do not is any way limit the powers of the several States. It is a fact, however, that practically all the States have incorporated these same amendments in their Constitutions thereby placing the same limitations upon their legislatures. A State may change its Constitution and thereby curtail freedom of speech and press as it may think necessary to protect its people, and some of the States have enacted laws forbidding anarchists to hold public meetings or to publish yellow journals in which they berate the government or instigate rebellion or sedition among the people. But the Federal government cannot pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or press except such as may be enacted under the war powers of the government when in actual war, such as was enacted in the Espionage Act of 1917.

56 Libel is defined as any statement printed, or written, or any picture or caricature that causes another person to be brought into hatred, contempt, or ridicule or to be shunned by his associates. Slander is any oral statement that causes another person to be brought into hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to be shunned by his associates. In order to constitute either slander or libel the statement or utterance must be communicated to a third party.

“The right of citizens to petition the government to remove abuse was won in Europe only after many hard conflicts. It is not conceded in some European governments today, and men in those countries who lead in reforms and advocate democratic measures are often thrown into prison, banished, or exiled. This amendment to the Constitution was inserted to guard against the tyranny of officers, who might abuse the authority conferred upon them by the people.”

57 Constitution of the United States, 1st Amendment.

“The right of assembly is coupled with the guaranty of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances; but it is not to be understood as limited to that object. Without doubt assemblages for social, political or religious purposes are protected by such against legislative prohibition unless attended with circumstances rendering the exercise of the right inimical to public peace, security or welfare.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, p. 85.

“The right to assemble may be restricted so far as necessary to prevent its being exercised to promote unlawful purposes or in such manner as to result in public inconvenience.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, p. 85.

“The provision to the amendment to the Federal Constitution is a limitation only on the powers of the Federal Government and does not apply to the several states. The states have largely copied the same provision into their constitutions.”

“The right of petition is important as recognizing a lawful occasion for the assembly of the people and in connection with the guaranty of freedom of speech and the press. The subject matter of a petition cannot be made the basis for a prosecution for public or private libel if it is kept within the limits of the privilege accorded.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, p. 675.

“Through the right of petition the people have a means of informing their lawmakers of their wishes and of guiding public opinion.”

“The rules of the national House of Representatives provide that members having petitions to present may deliver them to the clerk and the petition, except such as, in the judgment of the speaker, are of an obscene or insulting character, shall be entered upon the journal.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, p. 675.

58 Constitution of the United States, Amendment II.

“This right to keep and bear arms, although stated in connection with the militia, is held broad enough to cover the keeping and carrying of such weapons as are suitable for self-defense, or defense of the home. But the keeping of unusual weapons, or the carrying of unusual weapons in an unusual manner, as by having them concealed on the person, may be prohibited.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 165.

“This amendment, like the other eight amendments to the Federal Constitution, does not apply to the States, and a State may legislate as it pleases regarding the carrying and using of arms. Many states prevent the carrying of arms of any kind except with legal permission given through the proper officer for stated specific reasons.”

“The amendment means no more than that this right shall not be infringed by Congress. Police protection of the people is left to the States.”

59 One of the grievances of the colonists stated in the Declaration of Independence was the quartering of large bodies of armed troops in the colonies, but the guaranty found in the Federal Constitution and in many State Constitutions is that soldiers shall not in times of peace be quartered upon private persons. This guaranty has respect to the recognition of the right of every man not to be unwarrantably disturbed or intruded upon in his home. “Every man’s house is his castle.”

60 Constitution of the United States, Amendment IV.

“One of the most serious grievances of the colonists was, the assertion and exercise of a prerogative of the crown to issue warrants for searching private premises in order to obtain evidence of political offenses. This had been the subject of controversy in England and was made the basis of a protest in Massachusetts by James Otis against the Writs of Assistance which were in effect, general warrants.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. III, p. 654.

“The privilege contended for was that the privacy of the dwelling house should not be invaded by public officers without the consent of the owner save for the purpose of making an arrest, and then only by an officer of the law—who carried a warrant giving him such authority.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. III, p. 654.

The protection afforded by the constitutional provision is against attempts made under the disguise of public process to pry into private affairs on mere suspicion that a crime has been committed or contemplated.

The principle of this guaranty is being violated if the postal authorities open sealed letters in the mail to discover whether improper use of the mail is being made. It is also violated by compelling the production of private papers of the defendant in a criminal prosecution.

A warrant is not always necessary to arrest an individual. For example, a police officer does not need a warrant in order to arrest a person who is violating a law in his presence, or a person whom he has good reason to think has committed a felony.—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. III, p. 655.

61 Constitution of the United States, Amendment V.

“A _capital crime_ is such crime as the law declares punishable by death penalty.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol I, p. 284.

“An _infamous crime_ is such crime as the law declares punishable by imprisonment in a state prison.”

A grand jury, or an indictment, or a presentment jury, or an inquest jury, is a jury (differing as to numbers in different States) for the purpose of investigating alleged crimes. If, upon investigation, the jury believes the accused person has either committed the act or has had a part in the crime, it will draw up a formal accusation in writing. This accusation is called an indictment and is presented to the court. In a few States a person may be brought to trial for violation of a law of the State upon information filed by the prosecuting attorney.

A _petit jury_, or _trial jury_, is a jury of twelve men selected by the court—according to a law determining the manner—to hear the accusation against the person charged along with the evidence submitted during the trial in court. After hearing the evidence and receiving from the judge instructions concerning the law governing the case, the jury will determine whether the accused person is guilty or not. The Federal government, and most of the States, require a unanimous verdict. If the jury disagrees they report such to the court (the judge) and they are dismissed and the case may be tried again with a different jury.

“Constitutional guaranties of the right of trial for crime only on indictment by a grand jury, imply a common law grand jury of whose number at least twelve men concur in finding the indictment, but by provision in state constitutions a smaller number of grand jurors than required by common law and concurrence of a smaller number than twelve in the finding of an indictment may be authorized.”

“A grand jury affords a safeguard against the unwarranted ignominy of being put on public trial for an offense which there is no reasonable ground to believe the accused has committed.”

“The grand jury is to investigate the cases of those who have been arrested and held under preliminary information on oath by private accusers; and it may also investigate cases of supposed crime of which it has knowledge or to which its attention may be called by the public prosecuting officer. Its proceedings are secret and its members are sworn not to subsequently divulge them.”—McClain’s _Constitutional Law_.

62 Constitution of the United States, Amendment V.

“The rule of procedure generally recognized is that when an accused person has been put on trial under a valid indictment in a court having jurisdiction of the case, and a jury has been empaneled and sworn to try the case and give a verdict, and a verdict of _not guilty_ is given—the accused cannot be again put on trial for the same crime, or any included crime for which he might have been convicted in that prosecution.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, p. 251.

“A verdict of not guilty is conclusive and the defendant must be discharged. If however he is convicted, he may in some instances appeal the case to a higher court for review and that is not being again put in jeopardy.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol II, p. 251.

“Jeopardy is complete when the court proceeds with a jury to ascertain the defendant’s guilt.”

“As the criminal jurisdiction of the Federal Court extends only to offenses against the Federal laws, and no prosecution for such offenses can be entertained in the state courts—it follows that there can be no questions of former jeopardy as between a federal and a state court.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol II, p. 251.

63 Constitution of the United States, Amendment V.

In our own early colonies persons were frequently tortured to compel them to give evidence against themselves or against other people, but at that time the colonies were still under British authority.

An instance was recently reported of a man appearing before a sheriff and confessing to the commission of five different murders in as many different places in a western State. Upon investigation it was found that murders had been committed in these places about the time he confessed to having committed the crimes, so he was arrested and held by the sheriff. Upon further investigation it was discovered that he was mentally unbalanced and having read of all these crimes he imagined he had committed them. He was released from arrest and was committed to a hospital for the insane. In this instance an innocent man might have been executed if his own testimony had been sufficient to convict him.

If a person confesses to having committed a crime and the facts as stated are found to be correct, he may then be convicted of the crime, but the conviction is made on the basis of the evidence disclosed by his confession and not on the confession itself. Having made a confession the officers may then from the facts told by the accused find other facts sufficient to convict without offering the confession in evidence.

“A confession is not admissible in evidence where it is obtained by temporal inducement, by threats, promise or hope of favor held out to the party in respect of his escape from the charge against him, by a person in authority.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 387.

“When an inducement destroys a confession it must be held out by a person in authority.”

64 Constitution of the United States, Amendment V.

This is a part of the fifth amendment to the Federal Constitution, and the fourteenth is an expansion of it, and assumes that the man charged with the crime is innocent until proven guilty. The old standard set in Europe was that a person charged with crime was considered guilty until he was proven innocent. All citizens, whether native or foreign born, have the protection of this amendment.—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 622.

Previous to 1679 in England an accused person could be detained in prison for months or even for years and had no recourse to the courts, but might be thus detained in prison upon a mere charge brought by some one jealous of him and without real reason. In that year the people demanded that Parliament should give relief against unjust or false imprisonment, and Parliament enacted the Habeas Corpus Act. The provisions of this notable act require that a person imprisoned may demand a preliminary hearing and learn the cause of his being seized and imprisoned. Either he or his friends or relatives could go before a judge of a court and demand a _writ of habeas corpus_. Such writ was issued by a judge and directed to the jailer or the person detaining the accused and he was compelled to bring the accused person before the court and show legal reason why that person should be detained. If no such cause or reason could be given, the accused person must be set at liberty. The guaranty of the right to a writ of habeas corpus under our Constitution is considered hereafter. See page 144.

_Due process of law_ may be defined as “according to the law of the place in which the trial is held”. It means in this instance that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the right of judicial trial. _Due process of law_ does not necessarily mean _jury trial_. If a jury trial is the legally recognized method of trying such case, then jury trial is _due process_, but if trial without a jury is legally provided for when permitted by the Constitution, in that instance, _due process_ does not require jury trial. For cases in which the right of trial by jury is guaranteed see pages 111, 125, and 160.

“In a word, ‘due process of law’ to-day signifies ‘reasonable law’, in which sense it bestows upon the courts, and especially upon the Federal Courts, as final interpreter of the national constitution, a practically undefined range of supervision over legislation both state and national.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, p. 615.

“Due process of law, is law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.”—Story’s _Commentaries_, Vol. III, pp. 264, 661;—18 _Howard_ 272.

“Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age or custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice.”—110 _U. S._ 516.

“Due process of law in each particular case means, such an exercise of the powers of government as the settled maxims of the law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of the individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs.”—Cooley’s _Constitutional Limitations_, p. 441.

“This provision does not imply that all trials in state courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury.” This depends to some extent upon the constitution of the respective states, except as limited by the United States Constitution.—92 _U. S._ 90.

65 Constitution of the United States, Amendment V.

Eminent domain means the right and authority of the government to take private property for public purposes upon the payment of a just compensation.

“The superior right existing in a sovereign government by which private property may in certain cases be taken or its use controlled for the public benefit, without regard to the wishes of the owner.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 657.

“Eminent domain is said with more precision to be the right of the nation or the state, or of those to whom the power has been lawfully delegated, to condemn private property to public use, upon paying to the owner a due compensation, to be ascertained according to law.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 651.

Just compensation is generally arrived at by those whose duty it is to secure the land for the government, by offering a good fair price for the land. If the owner of the land refuses to accept the offer, the land may be seized by the proper authority and the matter settled according to law. The law generally provides that a body of appraisers be appointed who appraise the value of the land and this amount is offered to the owner. If he refuses, the matter is carried to the court for determination. A jury is summoned to assess the value of the land and from this the owner may usually appeal, but the government cannot appeal; it must pay the appraised valuation or allow the owner to keep his property. It must be remembered that private property may only be taken by the government for public purposes.

Some purposes for which the government may take private property are: forts and arsenals, army posts, or public parks. It may take food supplies for use of the army or navy in time of war. It may take over the railroads for the benefit of the people of the Nation, etc. In all cases it must give just compensation.

66 Constitution of the United States, Amendment VI.

“A speedy trial is, it appears, one that is brought on without unreasonable delay for preparation; and a public trial is not necessarily one to which every one may obtain admission but one sufficiently free and open to allow the friends of the accessed and others to watch the proceedings.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_.

“Criminal prosecution is the means adopted to bring a supposed offender to justice and punishment by due course of law.”

“The speedy trial to which a person charged with crime is entitled under the constitution is a trial at such a time, after the finding of the indictment, as shall afford the prosecution a reasonable opportunity, by the fair and honest exercise of reasonable diligence, to prepare for trial, and if the trial is delayed or postponed beyond such period, when there is a term of court at which the trial might be had, by reason of neglect of the prosecution in preparing for trial, such delay is a denial to the defendant of the right of a speedy trial, and in such case a person confined, upon application by _habeas corpus_, is entitled to a discharge from custody.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. II, p. 1023.

Every jury is sworn to decide according to the evidence presented, guided by instructions in the law given by the judge. Juries are therefore held to be _impartial_.

The entire United States is divided into judicial districts, of which there are about ninety-two. These districts are found within the States as judicial districts do not cut State boundaries. Where the population is more sparse a Federal district comprises an entire State. Where the population is more dense a State may contain two or more districts. There are four United States District Court districts in the State of New York, two in Iowa, and only one in Nevada, and some other western States.

Congress may by legislative act lay out Federal court districts. These districts were first established in the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. As the population increases Congress may increase the number of districts.

67 Constitution of the United States, Amendment VI.

If one is not given a preliminary hearing shortly after his arrest, the right to a writ of _habeas corpus_ (defined in another chapter), gives the accused an opportunity to know the exact nature of the charge against him and why he is held or detained in prison. Then he is faced by his accusers in court and bears the charge against him. In all criminal cases the accused is privileged to be present throughout the entire trial, in fact he is required to be present during the trial.

In early England, and in many other European countries in early times, the accused person was not even permitted to know the reason for his imprisonment, and furthermore was tried in court and found guilty without hearing the evidence or knowing who testified in court.

The right of trial upon indictment of a grand jury, and the privilege of confronting one’s accusers in court, having witnesses in one’s behalf, and having an attorney to defend one accused, is not yet allowed in certain parts of Russia and perhaps other countries in Europe and Asia. These privileges have been the recognized right of all people in the United States since our glorious Constitution was adopted and became the fundamental law of our country in 1789.

Teachers of civics in our schools ought to ask permission of the judge to take their classes to visit a session of the court. The judge is able to inform the teacher as to when certain cases of most value to pupils and other persons are to be tried. The trial of certain kinds of cases brings out many fundamental facts of rights and duties of citizenship that boys and girls, as well as many adult persons, ought to know.

“The accused is of all men the most miserable, unless the law gives him an equal chance to defend himself. Time was when the courts could hear privately the witnesses against the prisoner, and then call him into court to answer charges, which he never had heard of, made upon the testimony of witnesses he never had seen, without any legal means of compelling his own witnesses to come to court to testify for him and without any lawyer to speak for him against the trained counsel for the government. Many of these abuses had been weeded out before the Constitution was adopted.”—Bacon’s _American Plan of Government_, p. 272.

“Almost all the reform needed to make criminal procedure humane and just, has been incorporated into the constitutions and laws of the states during the first era of independence; but the people of the United States bad no such safeguards.”—Bacon’s _American Plan of Government_, p. 273.

“The charge to be answered by the defendant on trial in a criminal court must be clear, explicit, and definite. The prosecution has no right to compel the accused to show that he is a good member of society.”—_7 Peters Rep. 138._

68 Constitution of the United States, Amendment VI.

“In judicial procedure a witness is one who is duly called upon to testify under oath as to matters within his knowledge. By rules of procedure some persons are disqualified from testifying on account of want of mental capacity as, for instance, idiots, insane persons, and infants who have not attained the age of discretion. Others who are qualified to testify may be of such character that their testimony is not entitled to the weight which should be given to some other witness. Furthermore, a witness may be so related to the subject matter or to the parties as that in the particular case his testimony should not be received, or should be received under limitations as to its credibility and weight. And finally the competency of testimony offered is regulated by rules of evidence fixed by law.”

“Under constitutional guaranties of religious freedom, the religious belief of a witness cannot be made a ground for his disqualification to testify.”

“As to criminal prosecution, it is usually provided in state constitutions as it is in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Federal Constitution that the accused shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself and that he has a right to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. These are privileges which the accused may waive.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. III, p. 693.

69 “Compulsory process is the means of compelling a witness to appear before the court at the time of trial and, under oath, tell what he knows about the matter under consideration.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. II, p. 766.

A _subpoena_ is an order issued in a court and given to a sheriff or other executive officer, to be served upon or read to a witness, compelling him to appear before the court at the time stated. He must lay aside all pretenses and excuses, and appear before the court or the magistrate at the time and place named in the subpoena, under a penalty therein cited for failure to appear. His failure to obey the order of the court, or subpoena, is known as _contempt_. Contempt is punishable in Federal courts, and in most States by the order of the judge, and is not subject to jury trial. (Oklahoma is an exception.)

70 “At common law a prisoner was not allowed counsel. In England this right was not granted in all cases before 1836.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, p. 487.

The United States was the earliest of nations to not only permit every person accused of crime and tried before a court to have counsel, but to furnish counsel for every person who was not himself able to get counsel or able to pay for counsel.

71 Constitution of the United States, Amendment VII.

“Common Law is that system of law or form of the science of jurisprudence which has prevailed in England and in the United States, in contradistinction from other great systems, such as Roman or civil law.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 370.

“Common law is used to distinguish the body of rules and of remedies administered by courts of law, technically so called, in contradistinction to those of equity administered by courts of chancery, and to the canon law, administered by ecclesiastical courts.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 370.

72 Constitution of the United States, Amendment VII.

“A jury is a body of men sworn to declare the facts of a case as they are proven from the evidence placed before them.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_.

The definition of a jury explains why the facts of a case are not open for re-examination after being declared by a jury. It is because a jury meets in a court in the place where the offense has been committed, and is therefore better able to know the whole truth, and to determine what the facts really are than would be possible for any other body of men who did not have such means of knowing. A higher court in reviewing a case on an appeal cannot usually go behind the facts as declared by a jury.

73 In ordinary instances arrests may be made only by officers of the law upon warrants issued by a magistrate. Any officer may, however, upon his own cognizance of a crime being committed, arrest the person or persons without warrant. If such authority were not given to officers of the law, many persons violating law would be able to escape before a warrant could be issued. Furthermore, under the laws of some States, any person who sees a crime committed is legally required to pursue and arrest the offending person and may himself be punished if he refuses to act. Sheriffs and other officers of the peace may call upon and require other persons to assist in the pursuit and capture of fleeing criminals.

74 Constitution of the United States, Amendment VIII.

In criminal actions the matter of bail is determined by statute. Bail is often denied to those accused of committing serious crimes.

The term _bail_ is used to designate a person who becomes a surety for the appearance of the defendant in court at the time called for. But in modern usage the term _bail_ means the amount of money pledged by another person for the appearance of the defendant. If the defendant fails to appear the person going his bail must pay the stipulated amount into the court. The payment of the bail does not, however, relieve the delinquent defendant of further punishment. He may be again seized and punished as according to the charge, and furthermore may be given additional punishment for “jumping” his bail.

“The defendant usually binds himself as principal with two sureties; but sometimes the bail alone binds himself as principal, and sometimes one surety is accepted by the sheriff. The bail bond may be said to stand in the place of the defendant as far as the sheriff is concerned, and if properly taken, furnishes the sheriff a complete answer to the requirement of the writ, requiring him to take and produce the body of the defendant.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 211.

75 United States Constitution, Amendment VIII.

“The amount of fine is frequently left to the discretion of the court, who ought to proportion the fine to the offense.”—Cooley’s _Constitutional Limitations_, p. 377.

“The object of punishment is to reform the offender, to deter him and others from committing like offenses, and to protect society.” “A state may provide a severer punishment for a second than for a first offense providing it is dealt out to all alike.”—159 _U. S._ 673.

“Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution.”—136_U. S._ 436.

A warden of a State penitentiary was recently found guilty of inflicting cruel punishment because he punished a convict by suspending his body from chains placed around his wrists.

The British Museum contains several machines of torture used to punish criminals in early days. One is a machine in the form of a hollow case fitting a human form. This case is filled with sharp spikes driven through from the outside. The machine was so constructed that when a victim was placed inside, the sides could be gradually turned up to fit the body and press these spikes into the body of the victim so as to produce death.

Another machine is constructed much as a cross in form of the letter X. The victim was fastened in such manner as to bind his wrists and ankles to the ends of the bars. A horse was then hitched to either his arms or legs and they were torn from the body.

Many States in the United States have now adopted electrocution as the means of inflicting the death penalty because it is believed to be the most humane way.

76 Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIII, Sec. 1.

This amendment was submitted to the States by resolution of Congress in 1865 and by proclamation of the President of December 18th of that year was declared to have received the approval of the requisite number of States.

So far as the abolition of slavery is involved there has been no question as to the effect of the amendment, but as to what constitutes involuntary servitude important questions have arisen. While the primary object of the amendment was to free the colored race, the general purpose was to render impossible the existence within the jurisdiction of the United States of any legal or social institution imposing involuntary labor on any class of persons. The introduction here of the peonage system prevalent in Mexico, the coolie system of China, or the padrone system of Italy fall within the prohibition.

The amendment permits imprisonment and also involuntary servitude as a penalty for failure to pay a fine imposed as a punishment. Moreover the services of persons imprisoned for crime belong to the State and may be leased, subject of course to humanitarian regulations as to the method in which such services may be employed.

Under the enforcement clause Congress has legislated against peonage, that is, a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor is restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some contract, debt, or obligation. But without such legislation, State statutes imposing imprisonment or servitude for non-performance of contractual obligations are invalid as in conflict with the provisions of the amendment.—Emlin McClain, in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. III, p. 536.

In the early days many of the American colonies permitted imprisonment for debt, and one of the greatest patriots and philanthropists of colonial times, Robert Morris, was imprisoned for debt by the State of Pennsylvania.

77 James Bryce has written of our government: “The American Union is ... a state which, while one, is nevertheless composed of other states even more essential to its existence than it is to theirs.”

78 Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV. Sec. 1.

A person may attain to citizenship in the United States in any of seven different ways: 1. By birth—i.e. natural born. 2. By naturalization, which usually requires continuous residence for five years. 3. By treaty regulation. 4. By statute of Congress. 3. By annexation of territory. 6. By marriage—if a foreign woman marries an American citizen. 7. By honorable discharge from the army or navy, upon which the court admits to citizenship regardless of the time of residence in the United States.

In the United States we recognize a dual citizenship—citizenship in the United States, and citizenship in a State. Any person who is a citizen of the United States is also a citizen of the State wherein he or she resides. Nine different States grant the right of suffrage and State citizenship to such foreigners as take out their first naturalization papers. These States are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, and Texas.

Citizenship must not be confused with the right of suffrage. Neither one necessarily includes the other. All citizens cannot vote—children for example. All voters are not necessarily citizens, those in the above nine States for example.

Aliens in the United States have practically all the civil rights that are enjoyed by citizens, but they do not have political rights. An alien may purchase, own, and convey property. He may sue and be sued in the courts.

“There can be no doubt that the minimum expectation of the framers of this amendment to the Constitution was that it would make the first eight amendments to the Constitution binding upon the states, as they already were upon the Federal Government, and that it should be susceptible not only of negative enforcement by the courts but also of direct positive enforcement by Congress.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, p. 41.

79 Constitution of the United States, Amendment XV.

80 “By a series of decisions the most important of which were those in the Slaughter House cases (16 Wallace 36) and in the Civil Rights Cases (109 U.S. 3) the United States Supreme Court established the following principles: (1) that the prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment are addressed to the states as such and not to private individuals; (2) that these prohibitions contemplate only positive state acts and not acts of omission; (3) that the amendment recognizes a distinction between state citizenship and United States citizenship; (4) that it protects from state abridgement only ‘the privileges and immunities’ which the Constitution by its other provisions bestows upon ‘citizens of the United States’ as such.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, p. 41.

The nineteenth amendment which is now ratified by the States, provides that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”—Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIX.

81 “The good citizen must in the first place, recognize what he owes his fellow citizens. If he is worthy to live in a free republic he must keep before his eyes his duty to the nation of which he forms a part. He must keep himself informed, and he must think of himself as well as of the great questions of the day; and he must know how to express his thoughts.”—Theodore Roosevelt.

82 In receiving applications for the many appointments which it was his duty to make, President Taylor said: “I shall make honesty, capacity and fidelity indispensable requisites to the bestowal of office; and the absence of any one of these qualities shall be deemed sufficient cause for removal.”

83 “The American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given moment by the brain and purpose of man.”—William E. Gladstone.

“It will be the wonder and admiration of all future generations and the model of all future constitutions.”—William Pitt.

“Our fathers by an almost divine prescience, struck the golden mean,” when they made the Constitution.—Pomeroy.

“It (The U. S. Constitution) ranks above every other written constitution for the intrinsic excellence of its scheme, its adaptation to the circumstances of the people, the simplicity, brevity and precision of its language, its judicious mixture of definition in principle with elasticity in details.”—James Bryce.

84 “This is the most famous writ in the law; and, having for many centuries been employed to remove illegal restraint upon personal liberty, no matter by what power imposed, it is often called the great writ of liberty.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 917.

85 In 1861 Chief Justice Taney decided in the United States Circuit Court of Maryland that Congress alone possessed the power under the Constitution to suspend the writ.—_American Law Register_, 524.

The privilege of the writ is, however, necessarily suspended whenever martial law is declared in force; for martial law suspends all civil process.

“As a recognized legal remedy, resort to the proceeding by habeas corpus may be had where a person is imprisoned under pretended legal authority which in fact for any reason is absolutely void, as where the warrant of arrest or commitment is insufficient or the proceeding under which the warrant was issued was without legal authority.”

“A state court or judge cannot inquire by habeas corpus into the validity of arrest or detention of a person under federal authority. The right to redress in such cases, if any, must be sought in the Federal courts. But on the other hand Federal courts and judges may inquire into the cause of the restraint of liberty of any person by a state when the justification of Federal authority or immunity is set up for the act complained of.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, p. 106.

86 Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3.

“The effect of attainder upon a felon is, in general terms, that all his estate, real and personal, is forfeited; that his blood is corrupted, and so nothing passes by inheritance to, from or through him.”

“In the United States the doctrine of attainder is now scarcely known, although during and shortly after the Revolution acts of attainder were passed by several of the states. The passage of such bills is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.”—Bouvier’s _Law Dictionary_, Vol. I, p. 190.

“A bill of attainder, as thought of in the United States to-day, would be such law as permitted a person charged with the commission of a crime, to be tried and found guilty and sentenced without being present at the trial.” It is one of the rules of procedure in court to-day that in all criminal cases the person charged with crime must be present during the entire trial. Another fundamental judicial fact is that all criminal punishment terminates with the death of the person found guilty; his children are exempt.

87 “An ex-post-facto law is a law which in its operation makes an act criminal which was not criminal at the time the act was committed, or provides a more severe punishment for criminal acts already committed, or changes the rules of procedure so as to make it more difficult for one accused of crime to defend in a prosecution of such crime.” “The prohibition relates to retroactive criminal statutes providing a punishment for an act previously committed or increasing the punishment making it more difficult for the accused to defend, but not to retroactive laws, even though criminal, which mitigate the punishment or merely change or regulate the procedure without imposing any additional substantial burden on the accused in making his defense.”—_Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, p. 700.

We should keep in mind that both “bills of attainder” and “ex post facto” laws have only to do with crimes and their punishment. These laws do not relate to civil matters.

88 Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Sec. 8.

Titles of nobility as recognized in many European countries include the following: duke, earl, marquis, viscount, and baron. These titles were in part hereditary and in part acquired. They always conferred special privileges both in rank and in political preferment. Such titles cannot exist in a democracy because they in their very nature destroy equality before the law, and that is the fundamental principle of democratic government.

“The provisions prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility are designed, no doubt, first to preserve equality before the law, and second, to secure in perpetuity a republican form of government. Such provisions are not essential to theoretical equality before the law, for such equality is fundamental in the law of England notwithstanding the existence of titles of nobility. But the framers of the Constitution evidently contemplated a form of government in which there should be no special privileges conferred by rank or title. The additional provision in the Federal Constitution prohibiting the acceptance by any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States of any present, emolument, office or title from any foreign sovereign or power without the consent of Congress, was probably intended to prevent the exercise of foreign influence in governmental affairs. These articles in the Constitution are substantially borrowed from the Articles of Confederation.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. II, p. 58.

89 Constitution of the United States, Art. III, Sec. 3, Cl. 1.

Treason is defined in this article of the Constitution and therefore Congress cannot define it in any other manner. Many people use the word “treason” very loosely. They often speak of a person committing treason when the act committed is not treasonable at all, but is some less severe crime. Treason consists only in levying war against the United States or in giving aid or comfort to enemies of the United States.

The meaning of “two witnesses to the same overt act” is that the Constitution requires that two persons will appear in court and swear to the fact that they personally saw the act committed. “Overt act” means “openly committed act”. Chief Justice John Marshall knew that in the trial of Aaron Burr it would be impossible to get two persons to swear to having seen Burr commit the conspiracy, so he took advantage of the technicality in the indictment and threw the case out of court. This trial was held at Richmond, Virginia.

“Confession in open court” is about the only instance in which such confession will convict a person charged with committing a crime. As a rule a person’s own confession will not be accepted as evidence against him, in criminal prosecutions, because few confessions are made without some threat or inducement and under the guaranty (p. 99) that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself they are excluded.

90 Constitution of the United States, Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 3.

Impeachment is the manner of trial fixed by the Constitution for the trial and removal of Federal officers who are accused of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress alone has the power of conducting an impeachment of Federal officers. The legislature of a State has the power of impeaching State officers. Impeachment, as the word is commonly used, includes both accusation and trial. The “Impeachment” or accusation is brought by a two-thirds vote of the lower house, and the trial and conviction or acquittal is carried on by the upper house. Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, was impeached—i.e. he was formally accused, but he was acquitted in his trial in the Senate. Conviction in an impeachment proceeding causes an officer to be removed from office and disqualified from ever holding any office of honor or trust under the government again. A person may be convicted and not given the full penalty. He may be only removed from office, but not disqualified from again holding office.

It is possible that a crime may be committed on a river that forms State boundaries. Where a river forms a boundary the middle of the main channel is made the boundary line. It is often difficult to determine on which side of the line the crime was committed, and both States may then claim to have jurisdiction over the case. This must be decided as any other fact in the case.

The manner of the trial in use, before jury trial was established, was by ordeal or by battle. In trial either by ordeal or by battle the issue was left to God to decide and He was thought to perform a miracle to reveal the guilt or innocence of the accused person. One form of ordeal was to compel the accused to plunge his arm into boiling water and if innocent the Lord would protect him from being scalded. Another form of ordeal was to compel the accused to walk barefoot over hot plow shares. If innocent the Lord would again protect his feet from being burned.

The first form of jury to displace the old ordeal or battle as a means of deciding guilt or innocence was the “compurgators” or “oath bearers”. They comprised a group of men who would appear before the court and give oath that the accused was not a bad man and had committed no crime. They did not investigate the accusation, they only testified to the good character of the accused. If a man accused could not produce compurgators, he must undergo the ordeal. The duty of these oath bearers gradually became more extended until they became investigators, and finally became a grand jury.

91 Constitution of the United States, Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 1.

“The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in, any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state; may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the description”—Corfield vs. Coryell, _Washington C. C. Rep. 380_.

92 Constitution of the United States, Art. 6, Cl. 3.

While no religious test of any kind may ever be required from any officer of the United States as a condition of his being elected, or holding office, public sentiment nevertheless favors Christian character among the people. If a candidate for office were an atheist and made public confession as to his lack of belief in God, it would doubtless mitigate against his election.

“The general principle of equality of all persons before the law excludes discriminations made on account of religions belief, with the result that religious tests should not be made the basis of political rights or for determining qualifications for office or in general for the possession, exercise, or protection of civil rights.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in the _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. III, p. 176.

“This clause was introduced for the double purpose of satisfying the scruples of many persons who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test or affirmation, and to cut off forever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government”—Story’s Const. Sc. 1841.

93 A glance at the motives of Europeans in coming to America will reveal the fact that thousands of the best people of European countries left their homes to escape either religious or political persecution at the hands of the government or the king. Such was true of the Huguenots of France, the Pilgrims and Puritans of England, and only recently, the Jews of Russia.

The laws of “attainder” in England in the early times confiscated the property of persons, however innocent they themselves might be, if they were near relatives of other persons who had committed grave crimes.

Before the passage of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 in England, any person of royalty or high official standing in the government could falsely accuse another person of crime and cause that innocent person to languish in prison for years, or even for life, because he could not get before a court of justice to establish his innocence.

In many European countries the peasants were burdened with taxes to support kings and courts without the slightest representation in the tax levying authority. In France, just preceding the French Revolution, the peasants were obliged to purchase a certain number of barrels of salt each year, without having the slightest use for the salt, because the crown lands produced salt and the revenues went to the king.

In many European countries a state church was established and the people obliged to support it by taxes levied against their property, regardless of whether it represented their religious beliefs.

94 A comparison of the provisions of the Declaration of Independence with those of the Constitution will show the wrongs of the English king righted by the Constitution.

Declaration of Independence.—“He has refused assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

Constitution of the United States.—A bill if vetoed by the President may be repassed by two-thirds of the senate and house of representatives.

Declaration of Independence.—“He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.”

Constitution of the United States.—Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, etc. (See Const. Art. I, §. 8.)

Declaration of Independence.—“He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.”

Constitution of the United States.—Congress shall meet at the seat of government—once each year.

Declaration of Independence.—“He has refused, for a long time after dissolution, to cause others to be elected.”

Constitution of the United States.—The time, place and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.

Declaration of Independence.—“He has obstructed the administration of justice.”

Constitution of the United States.—Jurisdiction of Courts fixed by Constitution. Judges not responsible to the President, but to Congress, which represents the people.

Declaration of Independence.—“He has made judges dependent on his will alone.”

Constitution of United States.—Judges subject to removal only by impeachment by Congress.

Declaration of Independence.—“He has kept standing armies ... without consent of the legislature.”

Constitution of the United States.—“Congress shall have power to raise and support armies.” “To provide and maintain a navy.”

Declaration of Independence.—“For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.”

Constitution of the United States.—“Such trial shall be held in the state where said crime shall have been committed.”

Declaration of Independence.—“For depriving us, in many cases, of the right of trial by jury.”

Constitution of the United States.—“The trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury.”

Declaration of Independence.—“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.”

Constitution of the United States.—“No soldier shall in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner.”

Declaration of Independence.—“For imposing taxes on us without our consent.”

Constitution of the United States.—“Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes.”

95 On December 2, 1917, in New York City, in a meeting of men who called themselves Bolshevists and I. W. W.’s, the following paragraph was an introduction to a set of resolutions drawn up: “We are the Bolshevists of America. We denounce governments, institutions and society; we hail social revolution and the destruction of the existing order of things.”

In the preamble to the Constitution of the Independent Workers of the World (I. W. W.) we find this statement: “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. Between these two classes the struggle must go on, until the workmen of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system. Our motto is—_The abolition of the wage system._”

How foolish is the above statement that the working class and the employing class have nothing in common. The truth of the matter is that they have everything in common. Every employer—almost without exception—was once a workman. He was a successful workman, therefore he became more than a workman—he became an employer. Furthermore, workmen cannot exist without employment. Neither can employers exist without the workmen. They are not only each concerned in the welfare of the other; neither can exist without the other.

The following is another passage taken from the resolutions drawn up by the Bolshevists in which they say the general strike is their weapon of defense: “We will strike for a six hour day, then for a four hour day, then for a two hour day, with increased wages all the time, and then we will be strong enough to take everything and work no more.”

We wonder how any sensible man can believe such logic as this. Was it not Saint Paul who said that if any man would not work neither should he eat.

The Socialist party platform of 1912 declared in favor of the abolition of the United States Senate, the amendment of the Constitution of the United States by a majority vote of the people, the election of judges for short terms of office, the denial of the right of the U. S. Supreme Court to declare the acts of Congress void.

96 Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides for the amendment of that fundamental law of the country. It says amendments may be proposed by a bill for amendment being introduced into either house of Congress and passing each house by a two-thirds vote, or secondly, by the State legislatures of two-thirds of the States demanding that Congress call a national convention in which amendments may be proposed. If these proposed amendments are ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States or by conventions called in three-fourths of the States, they become an integral part of the Constitution.

97 Some of this good legislation includes: Child Labor Laws; Workmen’s Compensation Laws; Industrial Insurance for Workingmen; Compulsory Education; Pure Food Laws; Better Sanitary Conditions in Factories; Safety Appliances; Free Medical Inspection for School Children; and Care of the Poor.

98 If you read carefully the fifth article of the Constitution of the United States, you will learn that the Constitution may be amended either by the people’s representatives who sit in Congress, and in State legislatures, or by the legislatures of the States demanding that a National convention shall be called in which the people may choose the members Which ever method of amending the Constitution is used, it is the people who exercise the power of changing the Constitution.

99 Every teacher in every public school ought to feel in duty bound to teach the fundamental principles of the Constitution to all the children in the school. A recitation period ought to be set aside each day for the study of civics of the community, of the locality, of the State, and of the United States. Every pupil in every public school ought to feel proud of the opportunity to learn how his government is made and how his government works, how he may become a helpful citizen by being an intelligent voter when he comes to be a man. Adult people ought to organize civic clubs in the community for the discussion and study of questions of government and politics.

100 The following suggestions have been made by good, honest people who have their country’s welfare at heart. Thus far the people as a whole have not advocated their adoption, but some of them may be made part of the Constitution in time to come.

a. The direct popular election of President and Vice President of the United States.

b. The adoption of the initiative, referendum, and recall in the National government.