Mr. HANSCOM moved to strike out “bill of attainder." As far as any practical purpose was concerned, we might just as well enact that the Council of Ten of Venice, should not govern us, or that the car of Juggernaut should not drive up to the capitol. He did not press the motion, but merely mentioned it on the principle that the declaration of the Bill of Rights should be as simple as possible.

The motion was lost.

Mr. GOODWIN said that before disposing of the question, it would be proper to refer to the state of judicial decisions relating to it.

Under the clause of the constitution of the United States prohibiting State Legislatures from passing laws impairing the obligations of contracts, the Supreme Court of the United States had some time since made two decisions bearing upon it. One was the case of a law of Illinois in relation to mortgages, extending the time of redemption, and declared to be invalid with respect to pre-existing mortgages.

In the other the appraisement laws as they are called; laws prohibiting the sale of property on execution when a certain appraised value was not reached-were declared within the provisions, and invalid with respect to previous contracts.

in respect to contracts entered into previous to their passage, and not within the prohibition.

Soon after, the same question came before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and that court, carrying out the reasoning of the U. S. Supreme Court, as to previous contracts, unconstitutional. held such laws within the prohibition, and

So that the decisions of the courts of

New York and of this State are opposed to each other, on this point, and it has been thought best, so I am informed, to Court of the United States for its decision. present the matter directly to the Supreme

As this is an important question, it may be proper for the Convention to settle the done in the Article before us as in any point now; and perhaps it can as well be other way.

in which it is necessary that the legislature Mr. TIFFANY-There are many cases should have the power to pass retroactive laws, and there are cases in which it would not be so. I therefore concur with the gentleman from Wayne, that we should know specifically how far the constitution is to prohibit the legislature from passing retrospective laws.

Mr. WALKER-It seems to me that the

amendment now offered would lead to endless difficulty, and does not assert a correct principle. I believe, sir, that we should not stop here, but should look at both sides of the question. Gentlemen talk about the rights of the creditor; but is the credi tor only to be protected? Has the debtor no claim upon us; and do you not impair that claim by the passage of any more stringent collection law? I see no reason for putting this guard on the one hand, and not on the other. The laws specify ing the time that execution shall be stayed, we cannot change, without leaving all the Soon after a case came before our Su- laws in operation under which contracts preme Court in respect to our exemption were made. This would introduce confulaws, which it was urged were involved un- sion in the administration. It ties up the der that provision and for similar reasons. hands of the legislature, if it does not give The Supreme Court of the United States the same benefit to the debtor as the credihad, in some of the opinions delivered, tor. I rather prefer the amendment of the used language to the effect that State ex- gentleman from Ingham, than that of the emption laws were not within the prohibi- gentleman from Wayne; but the better tion; and our court did not feel bound to place to insert it would be in the provision carry out the principle of reasoning of the relating to the exemption of property from court beyond the limit prescribed by them- execution. It would give it a more defiselves, and held the exemption laws validnite meaning, It is better to pass it now,

so as to incorporate it in the provisions of that bill.

lieve in the present day, amongst our Canadian friends, they put them in the "black hole" until they pay. But about the old law of Rome, this 427 years, I do not know any thing about it.

Mr. PIERCE-Go to the law of the Twelve Tables.

Mr. WITHERELL-The law of the Twelve Tables, was it? Well, cutting a man up on the Guinea scale, might do in California; it will not do here. The amendment of my friend from Wayne operates equally well upon both sides.

Mr. REDFIELD-I was in the legisla ture, and voted for these relief laws that have been under discussion, and I look back to it with pleasure. I find that the laws have been universally approved, and I now think if any thing of the kind is embraced in the constitution, it will be the main cause of its rejection by the people. I am confident that any thing tending to restrict any contingency that might arise would be unfavorably received.

Mr. FRALICK-I understand that this is to settle a principle-that is, whether we wish to live up to our contracts or have the privilege of referring to the legislature of the State, after getting other peoples' property, to shelter us from paying for it as we agreed.

Mr. J. D. PIERCE-Mr. Chairman, of what importance is it to take care of the debtor? He is of no consequence. The gentleman from Wayne avows it to be his object, by his amendment, to take away all power of action by the legislature in this matter, so that they shall pass no law which shall effect the remedy of the creditor against the debtor. But he is disposed to allow the legislature to pass laws still more stringent against the debtor; to draw the cord still tighter. Such, sir, has been the legislation of ages, upon the principle of government taking care of the rich, and the rich taking care of the poor. Sir, look to Ireland; there the rich have been taking care of the poor for centuries, and they are taking care of them yet. So, in Great Britain; there too, the rich have been taking care of the poor for generations, and they are yet doing it; and so the old world over. The rich are taking care of the poor, and the great mass of the legislation of ages gone by has been for the express purpose of providing laws and means to enable the rich to do it most effectually. And they have succeeded to admiration. But, sir, what is a contract? Is it not a voluntary matter between parties? Why, then, should the State step in when The gentleman from Cass considers it a the relation is formed, and put its credit to the State to pass laws having rewhole power into the hands of one of the trospective action; in other words, that we parties, to crush the other? Where is the may be allowed, under one set of laws, to right, the justice? And, because there get other peoples' property, then apply to has been some little legislation within some the legislature, and get those laws changed few years past, in favor of the man and so that it is impossible for the creditor to get his family, in favor of humanity, to pro- his own. Now, sir, I, for one, do not contect the debtor class against the all selfish-sider such a course of conduct creditable ness of the other, what a hue and cry! If to the State. But if we are to have a gentlemen want more stringent collection homested exemption-a large personal exlaws, and if such laws are evidence of high civilization or refinement, let them go back to the old Roman code. That contained laws tolerably stringent, which were in operation 427 years, and were a part of the Twelve Tables for 120 years. That code provided that when the debtor failed to pay, his creditors might cut him to pieces, each of them taking a share proportioned to his demand; and there, sir, you have your scales of justice.

Mr. WITHERELL-I do not suppose that any one here wishes to make a more stringent law. In former times, and I be

emption--let that then be the order of the day. But I do want the principle fixed that no remedy shall be impaired; that when a contract is made, that contrast shall be enforced, and the people of the State will not ask, at least they ought not to ask for any thing different.

Mr. VAN VALKENBURG-I trust that no restrictions will be put upon the legislature upon this subject. It appears to me the gentleman from Wayne misapprehends our meaning. It is not for the purpose of breaking contracts, but for the purpose of protecting the poor honest man

from undue severity on the part of his creditors for the purpose of preventing any Shylock from exacting the pound of flesh. And, sir, I wish for no restriction, because I believe with the gentleman from Cass, that the laws alluded to that were passed for the relief of the people met with general approbation. We want, if a similar contingency should arise, to have a similar power of protecting the people, that the honest man who has toiled for a little pittance shall not have wrested by a hard hearted creditor the means of supporting his family.

that the poor man, entering into a contract, shall have all the benefit of the laws which he knows to exist at the time he entered into such contract.

Gentlemen have said they were members of the Legislature when certain laws were passed, and felt happy to rejoice over that fact. How many a poor man's farm was mortgaged under the law giving two year's redemption after sale, who finds that the Legislature has seen fit to change the time of redemption from two years to one? Is this legislating for the benefit of the poor man? If so, gentlemen are welcome to all the glory to be obtained therefrom. The principle involved in the different amendments and the substitute proposed, is simply this: shall the people of this, State hereafter have the privilege of making contracts in accordance with existing laws, and enforcing these contracts accord

Legislature having the power to alter, materially, the nature of the remedy? And in this the poor man is equally interested with the rich. All classes are interested alike in having a permanent system of legislation. I am utterly opposed to any legislation for the benefit of a class. The rights of all should be equally respected, by making the remedy as sacred as the obligation of a contract, of which it is a part.

Mr. BUSH-I have never exacted the pound of flesh. I seldom, if ever, enforce the law; but in forming a constitution for the government of the legislature and the people, and defining the original laws of the land, we should have principles, and have them clearly expressed. It is not, sir, whether 100 or $1000 should be ex-ing to those laws, without a subsequent empt from execution; but that legislation should be uniform. Our principles should be clear, and such that the Supreme Court, when it makes its decisions, will concur in. I learn from our presiding officer that the Supreme Court of the State of New-York and the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan differ in their decisions about the constitutionality of exemption laws. What a view does this present, when learned judicial tribunals differ! Does it not show. the necessity of simplifying our principles of government, so that all can understand? And when we have done that, we have done what the people ask. I care not whether the people accept or reject this constitution. It is not for me to inquire what the action of the people will be. It is for me to do my duty. That duty is to protect each man in his person and property, and that should be clearly understood, and not left to a vague uncertainity If the principle is pushed to its extreme verge, an equal distribution of property throughout the land, I shall still be in as good a position as the gentleman from Cass. But let us do justice, though the heavens should fall! Mr. BUTTERFIELD-It is said that object of the proposed amendment was to prevent legislation for the benefit of the poor man, I disclaim any such intention. I believe the effect of the amendment is that the rights of all, whether rich or poor, shall be equally protected;

th

Mr. VAN VALKENBURG--I suppose that we came here to represent the interests of our constituents, not our own views and feelings. We are bound to consider the voice of the masses. I hold that we are the servants of the public. I hold to the doctrine of instruction; and we should endeavor to incorporate in our acts what we know to be public sentiment.

Another sentiment that I have heard about the constitution of the State of New York. Sir, I am a native of the State of New York, and I refer to her with pride, but it is not proper that the talent and intellect of this State should be made to follow the State of New York. The State of Michigan has advanced ahead of the State of New York in many respects. We may appeal to our own courts and our own decisions with pride; and, I doubt not, we shall have a constitution that will compare well with the constitution of the State of New York.

I hope that the Legislature will not be

STOREY, the committee rose, reported
progress, and asked leave to sit again.
The committee, through their chairman,

The CHAIR-The question now is up-reported the article back to the Conven on striking out section 16, and taking up tion, and asked and obtained leave to sit the substitute of the gentleman from Jack again. son, that "no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, either civil or criminal, shall be passed, nor any law impairing the obligation of a contract, or the remedy existing at the time such contract shall be made."

On motion of Mr. STOREY, the Con vention then adjourned.

On motion of Mr. HANSCOM, the last vote was reconsidered, and the question being on the amendment of Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. WITHERELL moved to amend the amendment by adding after "therefor," in first line, "nor for the use of any corporation without compensation previously made or tendered."

Pending which, on motion of Mr.

tion of the road. A question has arisen in the Supreme Court, whether such authority to appropriate private property, was lawfully conferred. The determination of that question will depend upon the fact, whether the corporation is public or private. If, by the terms of their charter, the company are bound to transport persons and property over their road upon pay

bo Mr. W. said: The amendment offered by the gentleman from Lenawee might cover the ground; if so, a good and valuable purpose would be answered. The State would be left as it now stands under the present constitution. By the amendment proposed, payment for the property would be required from corporations previous to taking possession. He believed the State would always be ready to meet its engagements.ment of a reasonable toll, then the use beWith respect to roads, he saw no necessity for any provision. The public roads do not belong to corporations, but to the State. There has never been any difficulty about them, as the law now stands.

Mr. TIFFANY-Under the article reported by the committee, private property may be taken for public purposes, whether paid for before or after. His proposition. was that it should not be taken without previous payment, except in the case of common roads. It had been urged against its adoption, that it might be found inconvenient in any case of emergency, such as a state of war. But in time of war they would most probably act independent of all law.

Mr. WHIPPLE did not perceive the necessity for adopting the amendment to the amendment. If he understood the amendment correctly, it proposes that no corporation shall take private property, except in certain cases. In his opinion, the section reported by the committee was all that was necessary for the security of private rights. It is to be borne in mind that it is not within the constitutional authority of the legislature to authorize any and every corporation to appropriate private property to their use. It is only where private property is to be appropriated to public use, that the high sovereign power in question can be legitimately exercised. It is not competent for the legislature to authorize mere private corporations to appropriate the private property of the citizen to its use. The distinction between a public and private corporation, and a public and private use, must be steadily kept in view, in considering the question before us. To illustrate the distinction, I will state a case: The legislative authority of the late Territory, incorporated the Detroit and Pontiac Railroad Company, and authorized them to enter upon and appropriate private property, when necessary for the construc

comes public, and the authority to appropriate private property was properly exercised. On the contrary, should it turn out that there exists no legal obligation on the part of the company to transport persons and property, on payment of a reasonable toll, then the use is private, and the grant nugatory and void.

I see no propriety in adopting the amendment of the delegate from Wayne; nor do I altogether like that proposed by the del egate from Lenawee. The first branch of the amendment I think desirable, but the latter branch, I think quite unnecessary. We fulfill our whole duty, when we direct that adequate compensation be made before private property can be appropriated to public use. The article under discus“ sion should assert general principles, and not go too much into detail.

Mr. TIFFANY-The objection is to that part of the amendment referring to some provision to be made by law. I thank the gentleman for calling my attention to it. My object is, that provision may be made in the case of minors or persons residing out of the State. You cannot pay or tender payment to them. To meet those cases, I would insert the clause.

Mr. WHIPPLE-The object is a good one, but it is not necessary to insert this provision. The law describes to whom payment shall be made in such cases. I dislike this detail to go with the constitution. I want the article to assert general and fundamental principles, without going into petty detail.

Mr. TIFFANY said it appeared to him to be a necessary provision for cases which have not been provided for, in cases of guardians and minors, where it might be difficult to pay or tender payment.

Mr. CORNELL-We are come here to frame a constitution, and not to legislate; to deliberate upon fundamental principles, and not details. I would ask whether the