Chapter XXIII: Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been (2)

“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.

c. Federal legislation governing both marriage and divorce
throughout the Nation.

d. Federal jurisdiction over all cases affecting foreigners—for
example in instances like the Italian riot in New Orleans, or in the
Japanese problem on the Pacific coast.

101 The following is a brief outline of the various attempts at union
among the colonies.

(a) 1643-1684—New England Confederation: Massachusetts Bay;
Plymouth; Connecticut; New Haven.
(b) 1684—Albany Council.
(c) 1690—First Colonial Congress.
(d) 1696—William Penn’s Plan.
(e) 1701—Robert Livingston’s Plan.
(f) 1722—Plan of Daniel Cox.
(g) 1754—Plan of Rev. Mr. Peters.
(h) 1754—Plan of the Lords of Trade.
(i) 1754—Albany Plan.
(j) 1765—Stamp Act Congress.
(k) 1774—First Continental Congress.
(l) 1775—Second Continental Congress.
(m) 1781—Congress of the Confederation.
(n) 1787—The Federal Convention.
(o) 1789—The New Government.

The chief reasons keeping the colonies apart were:

1. Natural geographical divisions—North, Middle, and South.
2. The great differences in size—Virginia many times larger than
Rhode Island.
3. The instinct of local self government.
4. Character of settlers and the motives in making settlements.
5. The slave question, especially after 1750.
6. Their different forms of government—Royal, Proprietary, Charter.