should be absolutely abolished by a positive provision of the constitution. He would rather leave it open to the legislature to abolish it or not, when public opinion could be ascertained in regard to it. If its abolition should be found to operate badly, and no good substitute could be found, it would then be easy to restore it; if abolished by the Constitution, it could only be restored by an amendment, after much time and great inconvenience. He thought in cases of high crimes, involving the punishment of death or imprisonment for life, it might be well to require that the accused should be put upon his trial by the indictment of a grand jury, and he would therefore offer the following as a substitute for the proposition of the gentleman from Cass, [Mr. SULLIVAN,] which he hoped would meet the views of the committee and avoid the necessity of further discussion: "The legislature may abolish the grand jury in all cases except where the crime charged is punishable with death or imprisonment for life."

The

the common good, to sacrifice that object
to mere sentimentality. We have not met
here to offer an indiscriminating reverence
to the past. We are here upon a work of
reform; to correct the records of the past,
and to frame a constitution of government
adapted to the progressive spirit and ideas.
of the times. Let us bring measures to
the standard of truth and reason.
present generation of men have as much
capacity to judge of the tendencies of
measures as those which have preceded.
We have vastly better means of judging,
because we have their experience added
to our own. If the institution of a grand
jury is an ancient one, that of monarchy
(as has been well stated by the gentleman
from Calhoun, Mr. J. D. PIERCE,) is yet
older. If the institution of a grand jury
is an imposing one, the trappings of mon-
archy and nobility are yet more imposing.
We have been reminded by the gentleman
from Wayne, [the President,] that the in-
stitution of the grand jury is secured by
the constitution of the United States, and

Mr. SULLIVAN remarked that gentle by those of most of the States of the Union. men had urged as a strong reason against stitution of the United States, we must While we reverence, as we ought, the conthe abolition of the grand jury system, that remember that it was the work of fallible it had not been demanded by the public. remember that it was the work of fallible He could not admit that the bare fact that but yet men. He had looked into the conand imperfect men-great men indeedno decided evidence of popular sentiment had been furnished to the convention, af- stitution of the United States, and found forded any ground for inaction. He freely their offices during good behavior. He af-there a provision that judges shall hold subscribed to the doctrine, that the repre- found a further provision that they should sentative is bound by the will of his con- be appointed by the Executive, by and stituents, so far as it is known. Where it with the consent of the Senate. Are we stituents, so far as it is known. Where it is unknown, he must act according to the light of his own judgment, and take the prepared to adopt these provisions? If risk of consequences. Who knows what not, let us not take it as authority from kind of judiciary system the people want? Whether an independent supreme court, or a nisi prius system? He doubted whether any member of the Convention had reliable evidence upon that point; and yet a every constitution which has been system must be framed and submitted for recently formed, contained new provisions. their approval or rejection. It had been He was entirely mistaken if very imporurged that the institution of the grand jury sent system; if, for example, the structant alterations were not made in our pre- was an ancient one. He did not deny that some importance was due to that consider-ture of the judiciary system was not essenation. When an institution has been of tially changed. long continuance, it ought not to be rashly withdrawn; but where the reasons against it are strong and clear, the duty of a public servant is plain. It would very little become wise men, assembled to consult for

which it is little less than treason to dissent while we disavow its authority in referin reference to this particular measure, ence to other and very important measures. Almost

When he addressed the committee at a former period, he took occasion to remark that the institution of a grand jury was an expensive one. He did not pretend that this afforded any argument against its

:

culation could be made by which the expense of each grand jury could be reduced below one hundred and fifty dollars. We had, then, grand jury expenses of three thousand dollars to set off against magistrates' fees of two hundred dollars..

This, however, is not all. Witnesses, if taken to the county seat, are to be paid their travelling expenses from the scene of crime, which may be fifteen or twenty miles distant; whereas, if the examination is before a magistrate, it will be in the vicinity of the spot where the offence is committed, and expenses will be proportionably diminished. The same thing is true in regard to officers' fees-their traveling fees under the proposed system will be only to a neighboring magistrate, while under the

seat, which may be considerably distant. These remarks are all made upon the assumption that the difference in the matter of expense is only the difference between the cost of grand jury and justices' examinations; whereas, under existing regulations, it is necessary in a vast number of cases to encounter the expense of both tribunals.

continuance, if it brought any compensating benefit. If otherwise, it did. We are here principally, perhaps, to provide for a retrenchment of public expenditures, and the matter of expense in this case deserves consideration. The gentleman from St. Joseph [Mr. WILLIAMS] had referred to a document on our tables, from which it appears that the amount paid to grand jurors is only between three and four thousand dollars a year. A large number of counties are not included in that statement-no returns have been received from them. Admitting, however, its fullness and accuracy, so far as it goes, it includes a very small portion of the expenses of a grand jury system. It includes only the amount paid to the grand jurors themselves-not the sheriffs' fees in summon-existing system they are to the county ing them, and subpoenaing witnesses, nor the fees of witnesses themselves. Suppose, however, three thousand dollars covered the whole expense; is that a sum so insignificant as to excite our contempt? Sir, any conventional body, or any legislative body, that yields to such a course of argumentation, will find itself plunged into boundless expense. The world is made up of atoms. It is only by attending to When he addressed the Convention beitems that we can save any thing in the fore, he alluded to the fact that the examiaggregate. Suppose the salary of a judge nation before the grand jury was secret-of the supreme court was four thousand that it was an anomaly in judicial proceeddollars, and he were to propose to reduce ings-that the best security for the faithit to three, could it not be urged with ful performance of judicial duties was pubequal force, one thousand dollars is a sum licity; so that if fraud, or partiality, or too small to be regarded-it is a tax upon corruption existed, the world could see it. the citizen too paltry to be felt? So every It has been urged, however, that the force proposed retrenchment could be combat- of the objection is lost, from the circumted, and no reform in public expenditures stance that the grand jury proceedings could ever be adopted. It has been de-are merely preliminary. It is true, they nied that the expense of the existing sys- are preliminary. But are they therefore tem is equal to that of the proposed one. unimportant? If so, we had better disLet us analyze a little this matter of ex- pense with them. If important at all, the pense. We will suppose that two hun-examination ought to be full and public. dred examinations are to take place in It is urged that secrecy is necessary to twenty different counties, allowing ten secure criminals. Granted; but when is it cases to each of the counties. Suppose needed? It is previous to the arrest-for the matter goes before a magistrate; his that object accomplished, the argument fees in each case are, on an average, per- for secrecy ceases. Cannot a complaint haps, from seventy-five cents to a dollar. be made to a magistrate, a warrant issued Call them a dollar, (and there must be and a criminal arrested with much more magistrates enough here to correct him if secrecy than he can be taken by virtue of the estimate was incorrect,) we had, then, proceedings before a grand jury? Can two hundred cases examined by magis- twenty-three men keep a secret better than trates for two hundred dollars. Suppose one? Will a body of men, known to the cases had gone to grand juries; no cal- be assembled for the purpose of ferreting

tem inducements are held out to prosecuting officers to draw up prosecutions. The particular modus operandi is not pointed

out criminals, be less narrowly watched than all the various magistrates of the county? In the present careless mode of selecting grand juries, corruption often en-out; what new facilities are afforded, or ters the grand jury room-accomplices in villainy are often there, and reveal everything to their fellows.

Is it not a fact that most cases presented to the grand jury in the first place, are of an inferior grade, while those of a more aggravated stamp come to them from the magistrates?

It is urged by the gentleman from Wayne [the President] that the jury derive important help from the charge of an able and learned judge. The benefit derived from the charge is small. The charge of the judge is generally a shot at random. He does not know what particular matters may be under consideration before the grand jury; and it is ten chances to one whether it has any applicability to the business before them. Besides, it is necessarily of too general a character to afford much help to their investigations.

what new inducements of that character are held out by the proposed system, are not disclosed. The fact is, there is no difference between the two in this respect. Complaints for crimes can now be made to two tribunals-it is proposed to limit them to one. What earthly motive or facility does it present for drumming up prosecutions? Where the prosecuting officer is allowed a salary, the more common mode of paying him, it is obviously to his advantage to have as few prosecutions as possible under either system. It has been urged that, under the proposed system, incompetent or corrupt prosecuting attorneys will be elected; all the rogues will vote for a man of that stamp. He did not perceive the applicability of the argument to the subject under consideration. It related to an entire different matter, and that was whether prosecuting attorneys should be elected. If it had any bearing upon the grand jury system he did not perceive it. But, although the remark was outside of the case, he begged leave to suggest that the competency and integrity of the prosecuting officer which would render him obnoxious to rogues, would array on his side all the moral worth of the community. He hoped it was not questionable in any county of this State which side in such a controversy would predominate.

It has been urged that under the proposed system groundless prosecutions will be instituted. There are precisely the same facilities for making them now. The existence of a grand jury does not prevent complaints before a magistrate. It is to the grand jury, however, that groundless accusations are most likely to be made, because a man may hope at least that he stabs in the dark, and that no eye can see the hand which wields the dagger. It is there that malevolence will seek to be gratified, because it is shielded by dark-peat what he had said on a former occamess from public scorn.

It has been urged by the gentleman from Wayne [the President] that a grand jury often rescues an innocent man from the infamy of a public accusation. If this were so, it would accomplish a noble object. But the fact is different; the charge is certain to be made public--witnesses are not sworn to secrecy they disclose to their acquaintances the testimony they have given-it is known to the public-it is carried to every part of the county. The secrecy before the grand jury is only as to the general mode of proceeding before them, a matter which it is most important should be public; about results there is none.

It is urged that under the proposed sys

And now, in conclusion, he would re

sion; that it is but justice to the accused to allow him to confront the witnesses, to cross-examine them, to give him an opportunity to prepare for trial, and to explain circumstances that seem unfavorable to him. How often does it happen that an array of circumstances are brought forward against an innocent man, which a word will explain to the satisfaction of every one. Notwithstanding all the supposed advantages of the grand jury system in sheltering a man from unfounded accusations, he would repeat the question he had put on a former occasion to the intelligence of every man, whether, if he were unjustly accused, he would prefer a secret and ex parte examination, or would he choose to meet his accusers face to face

REPORTS.

Mr. HANSCOM, from the committee on the militia, reported

Article -~- Militia.

before a magistrate. The answer to this question cannot be doubtful. A full examination of evidence on both sides, be fore one, two, or three magistrates, would, in his opinion, be better both for the pub1. The militia of this State shall be comlic and the accused. posed of all able bodied white male citHe had listened attentively to the argu-izens between the ages of eighteen and ments on the other side, but, notwithstanding their great ability, his original opinion remained unshaken.

By Mr. ALVORD: of George Duffield and 419 others of Wayne county, praying that the right of suffrage may be extended to persons of color. Referred to committee on the elective franchise.

By Mr. McLEOD: of Robert Banks and 134 other citizens of Detroit, praying for certain alterations in the present constitution. Referred to the committee on the elective franchise.

Also, memorial of Wm. M. Johnston, in behalf of sundry civilized Indians, praying the rights of American citizenship. Referred to committee on the government and judicial policy of the Upper Peninsula.

forty-five years, except such as are, or may hereafter be exempt by the laws of the United States or of this State,

2. The legislature shall provide by law, for organizing, equipping and disciplining the militia, in such manner as they shall deem expedient, not incompatible with the laws of the United States.

3. Officers of the militia shall be elected or appointed in such manner as the legislature shall from time to time direct, and shall be commissioned in such manner as may be provided by law.

Read first and second time by its title, and referred to committee of the whole and ordered printed.

RESOLUTIONS.

Mr. COOK offered the following:

Resolved, That on and after Monday next, the Convention will hold two daily sessions; the morning sessions to commence at 8 o'clock A. M.; the afternoon sessions to commence at 2 and a half o'clock P. M.

The question being upon the adoption of the resolution,

Mr. BRITAIN said if the member would reflect a little upon the condition of things, he would not, I am sure, press his motion at the present time. We can under the present arrangement meet and hold By Mr. GARDINER: of citizens of a session of four or four and a half hours Pittsfield, Washtenaw county, for incorpo- every day, giving us plenty of time to finration of an article in the revised constitu- ish the business that we have previously tion, prohibiting the legalization of the matured elsewhere. And I would ask the traffic in ardent spirits as a beverage. Re- member, if he does not think it better to ferred to select committee of five. prepare his resolutions in his own room, By Mr. WALKER: memorial of a pub-rather than here. Much of the success of lic meeting held at Romeo, in Macomb county, relative to various amendments to the constitution. Referred to committee of the whole.

this Convention must depend upon the shape in which matter is presented here; for, if bills or resolutions are presented in a crude or bad shape, with the action of By Mr. CHURCH: of A. D. Rathbone one hundred different minds upon the suband 165 others, residents of Kent county, ject, we shall make but little satisfactory praying that ordained ministers of the gos- progress in their correction. If there were pel may be prohibited holding offices of no business before the committees, it still, honor or trust under the constitution. Re-at the present time, would be of no advanferred to committee on miscellaneous pro- tage to the State to have more than one visions. session per day; but when we know that

livan, Sutherland, Town, Van Valkenburg, Waite, Walker, Whipple, Whittemore, Williams, Warden, 59.

eighteen or nineteen of the committees the most important-have not yet matured their reports, I trust this Convention will not alter its order by having two sessions Nays-Messrs. Alvord, Arzeno, J. Barper day. tow, Beardsley, Britain, Asahel Brown, Mr. COOK-I hope sir, that this resolu-Burns, Carr, Church, Conner, Danforth, tion will be adopted. We have been here two weeks, and if we make no further progress than we did yesterday, we shall be here six months.

The Convention refused to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. BRITAIN—The gentleman from Hillsdale thinks it time for us to act. I wish to inquire of him whether as much may not have been done in the afternoon, as in the four hours we speak here? Why have we not made more satisfactory progress? Because our minds have not been matured at home. What progress would the gentleman expect us to make if we were compelled to transact all our business here, under the rules of the Convention? I apprehend we should not make much progress, and that the work would not be worth paying for. I do not find my mind matured. I find it necessary to investigate, and I presume that other members find it likewise necessary; but the labors of the committees are at the present time a sufficient answer.

Mr. COOK demanded the yeas and nays, and the resolution was passed as follows:

Eastman, Hart, Kingsley, Lee, Lovell, Mc-
Leod, Roberts, Robertson, Story, Sturgis,
Webster, Wells, White, Willard, Wood-
man, President, 27.

Mr. McLEOD offered the following:

That the use of this Hall be allowed to Mr. BIBB, of Detroit, this afternoon, to explain the views of the colored inhabitants of Michigan in reference to the elective franchise.

Mr. McC. had been informed that a convention of colored people had been held in Detroit to petition this Convention with regard to the elective franchise, and that Mr. BIBB had been appointed to represent their views, which to them were of vital importance, and had moreover been endorsed by a respectable number of the white inhabitants of the State; and it would be an act of courtesy on our part to listen to their views. The afternoon of this day (Saturday) would appear to be the most favorable time, as by the resolution we commence two sessions on Monday. Mr. CHAPEL moved to amend by substituting 5 o'clock.

Mr. WHIPPLE-I hope that this will not grow into a precedent. If it does, we shall be requested to give up this Hall for all political questions.

Mr. WILLIAMS-Let them all come. Mr. WHIPPLE-Then we shall be deprived of sitting here.

Mr. GALE-I hope the amendment will not prevail. Members of this Convention would be glad to hear Mr. BIBв speak, to hear what he has to say. There is no session this afternoon, and those who wish to hear him should not be deprived of it. Those who do not, can stay away. I hope it will not prevail.

Mr. ROBERTSON-If any good reason can be given by my colleague, [Mr. CHAPEL,] I shall vote for it; we have had no reasons as yet.

Yeas-Messrs. W. Adams, Anderson, Axford, Bagg, Barnard, H. Bartow, Alvarado Brown, Ammon Brown, Bush, But terfield, Chandler, Chapel, Choate, J. Clark, S. Clark, Comstock, Cook, Cornell, Crary, Crouse, Daniels, Desnoyers, Dimond, Eaton, Gale, Gardiner, Gibson, Graham, Green, Hanscom, Harvey, Hascall, Hatha- Mr. CHAPEL-I can give reasons, and way, Kinney, Leach, Mason, McClelland, can give them in a few words. I believe Moore, Morrison, Mosher, Mowry, New- the subject is not properly connected with berry, O'Brien, N. Pierce, Prevost, Red- the business of the Convention. I do not field, E. S. Robinson, Skinner, Soule, Sul- I know what right this Convention has to