Jury trial.

Religious worship, and

liberty of

or in the same manner upon all persons who stand in the same category; that is to say, upon all persons who stand in the same relation to the law, in respect to the privileges and immunities conferred by it, or the acts which it prohibits.-Smith vs. Judge Twelfth Judicial District, 17 Cal., p. 554; French vs. Teschemacher, 24 id., p. 544; Bourland vs. Hildreth, 26 id., p. 256; Brooks vs. Hyde, 37 Cal., p. 366. It was not intended by this provision to prevent legislation which is local in its operation or special in its effect. It was not intended to overturn the laws of nature, or disturb the relations of cause and effect, or obliterate distinctions, where, from the very nature and necessity of things, distinctions must exist. It was not intended that all differences founded upon class or sex should be ignored. This must be so from the very nature of things, and from the universal custom and practice of law makers."

SEC. 3. The right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties, in all civil cases, in the manner to be prescribed by law.

NOTE.-Smith vs. Pollock, 2 Cal., p. 92; Russel vs. Elliot, 2 Cal., p. 245; Exline vs. Smith, 5 Cal., p. 112; Gillespie vs. Benson, 18 Cal., p. 409; Cahoon vs. Levy, 5 Cal., p. 294; Smith vs. Billet, 15 Cal., p. 23; Doll vs. Feller, 16 Cal., p. 432; Waltham vs. Carson, 10 Cal., p. 178; Doll vs. Anderson, 27 Cal., p. 248; Bodley vs. Furgeson, 30 Cal., p. 511; Brewster vs. Bours, 8 Cal., p. 501; Walker vs. Sedgewick, 5 Cal., p. 192. The right of trial by jury applies only to civil and criminal cases in which issues of fact are joined. It has no application to proceedings for ascertaining the value of private property taken for public use.-Koppikus vs. State Capitol Commissioners, 16 Cal., p. 248. The right of trial by jury in all common law actions is secured by the Constitution, hence a statute authorizing a reference without the consent of the parties is void.-Grim vs. Norris, 19 Cal., p. 140.

SEC. 4. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or prefer. conscience. ence, shall forever be allowed in this State; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so con

strued as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.

NOTE.-The Constitution does not make void legislation, the effect of which is to promote religion or advance the interest of a particular sect.-Ex Parte Andrews, 18 Cal., p. 678; per contra, Ex Parte Newman, 9 Cal., p. 502. A witness is competent without respect to his religious sentiments.-Fuller vs. Fuller, 17 Cal., p. 605.

corpus.

SEC. 5. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus Habeas shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require its suspension.

bail, fines,

SEC. 6. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor exces- Excessive sive fines imposed; nor shall cruel or unusual punish- and punments be inflicted; nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained.

SEC. 7. All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great.

NOTE.-Admission to bail in capital cases where the proof is evident or the presumption great, may be by law made a matter of discretion, or may be forbidden; but in all other cases admission to bail is a constitutional right.-People vs. Tinder, 19 Cal., p. 539.

SEC. 8. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land and naval forces in time of war, or which this State may keep, with the consent of Congress, in time of peace, and in cases of petit larceny, under the regulation of the Legislature) unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury; and, in any trial in any Court whatever, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend, in person and with counsel, as in civil actions. No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due pro

ishments.

All offenses one

bailable

exception.

Personal

rights, and

rights of

property.

cess of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

NOTE GRAND JURY.-The provision of law that exceptions to the Grand Jury must be made at a particular time is constitutional.-People vs. Magallones, 15 Cal., p. 426. The 273d Section of the Criminal Code, providing that where the accused is indicted under a wrong name, and he gives his true name when arraigned, it shall be so entered on the minutes, and the accused tried under his true name is not in violation of this section.-People vs. Kelly, 6 Cal., p. 210.

RIGHT OF COUNSEL.-If in a criminal case the Court imposes upon counsel against their consent a limitation of time for argument before the jury, it is done at the risk of a new trial, if it be shown by the uncontradicted affidavits of counsel for the prisoner that the prisoner was deprived by the limitation of the opportunity of a full defense.- People vs. Keenan, 13 Cal., p. 581. Counsel in cases have the right to read from law books in illustration of their argument to the jury. People vs. Anderson, July T., 1872.

TWICE IN JEOPARDY.-Jeopardy attaches when a party is once placed upon his trial before a competent Court and jury upon a valid indictment, and if the party be acquitted by the verdict of the jury he cannot be held to answer again for the same offense, no matter by what mistakes or errors on the part of the Court, jury, or prosecution the acquittal was obtained. So, too, if the jury be discharged without legal necessity or consent from rendering a verdict, the party cannot again be put upon trial.-People vs. Webb, 38 Cal., p. 722. If the defendant is acquitted by reason of such a variance between the indictment and proof that a conviction was legally impossible, he has not been "in jeopardy."-People vs. McNealy, 17 Cal., p. 333.

EMINENT DOMAIN.-The right of eminent domain is inherent in Government; it is one of the attributes of sovereignty.-Gilmer vs. Lime Point, 18 Cal., p. 229. The term "property," as applied to lands, embraces all titles, legal or equitable, perfect or imperfect.Teschemaker vs. Thompson, 18 Cal., p. 11. Public use-defined to be a use which concerns the whole community, as distinguished from one which concerns only a particular individual or a particular number of individuals.-Gilmer vs. Lime Point, 18 Cal., p. 229. The question of the public character of railroads and of their necessity for public use is a political one, and rests much if not entirely in the sound discretion of

the Legislature.-Contra Costa R. R. Co. vs. Moss, 23 Cal., p. 323. The Legislature alone determines the question as to whether a railroad will or will not be a public benefit.-Napa Valley R. R. Co. vs. Napa County, 30 Cal., p. 435. Whether a given road will subserve the public need is a question for the Legislature and not for the Courts.-Sherman vs. Buick, 32 Cal., p. 255. The Legislature has the power to pass laws for the opening of "private roads."-Sherman vs. Buick, 32 Cal., p. 241. Private property cannot be taken for public use unless ample means of remuneration are provided.McCann vs. Sierra Co., 7 Cal., p. 121; San Francisco vs. Scott, 4 Cal., p. 114. The Legislature may declare that in ascertaining what is a just compensation to be paid to the owner of land taken for a railroad the benefit which may result to the remaining land of the same parcel shall be set off in satisfaction or part satisfaction of the particular land taken.-S. F. and Alameda and Stockton R. R. Co. vs. Caldwell, 31 Cal., p. 367. The provision that "just compensation" be made only requires that a certain and adequate remedy be provided by which the owner can obtain his compensation without unreasonable delay.-Gilmer vs. Lime Point, 18 Cal., p. 229. Private property cannot be taken for public use unless compensation precede or accompany the taking. - Gillan vs. Hutchinson, 16 Cal., p. 153. Compensation for land taken by a county for public use must precede or accompany the taking.-Johnson vs. Alameda Co., 14 Cal., p. 106. Private property cannot be taken from the owner for public use until compensation is paid or secured him, and such compensation must be made within a short period or the privilege of taking the property under the condemnation will be waived.-Bensley vs. Mountain Lake Water Company, 13 Cal., p. 306. The provision which requires payment for private property taken for public use does not apply where the property is destroyed to prevent the spreading of fre.-Surrocco vs. Geary, 3 Cal., p. 69; Dunbar vs. Alcalde of S. F., 1 Cal., p. 355. The Legislature may confer the right to enter upon land pending the proceedings for condemnnation.-Fox vs. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 31 Cal., p. 538. The Legislature may prescribe the proceedings by which the taking of land for public use shall be effected, and the time at which, in view of the mode adopted, the taking shall be deemed complete.-Fox vs. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 31 Cal., p. 538. Land is not taken for "public use" until the last act pre

Liberty of speech and

law of

libel.

scribed by the mode of condemnation required to transfer the title is performed.-Fox vs. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 31 Cal., p. 538.

SEC. 9. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and

press, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions on indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives. and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and

Popular assemblies

Uniformity of general laws.

the fact.

SEC. 10. The people shall have the right freely to assemble together to consult for the common good, to instruct their Representatives, and to petition the Legislature for redress of grievances.

SEC. 11. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.

66

but_܂

NOTE.-Laws may be absolute, or may depend upon contingency, etc.-Blanding vs. Burr, 13 Cal., p. 343. An Act to remedy the failure on the part of a tax collector to publish the names of the owners, etc., cannot be defeated upon the ground that it is not uniform in its operation. Such an Act is not general," "special."-Moore vs. Patch, 12 Cal., p. 265. The Legislature may pass a special law directing a Court to transfer an indictment for murder pending therein to another district for trial. The word "uniform" in this section does not mean "universal." The section intends simply that the effect of all laws of a general nature shall be the same upon all persons who stand in the same relation to the law. The Legislature may deny to one man a privilege extended to another man without infringing the Constitution. It is only infringed in this respect when a privilege extended to one is denied to another on substantially the same facts.-Smith vs. Judge Twelfth Dist. Court, 17 Cal., p. 547. Separate fee bills may be passed for each county.-Ryan v. Johnson, 5 Cal., p. 86.