East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1864-07-20

place when tho Constitution Of the
United States was established. The
immunities of person and property
from arbitrary seizure by executive
authority, and the freedom OF the
press, with oil the legal machinery by
which they are protected, were of
course brought hither by our ances-
tors as part of the common law; and
after the Revolution they became in
corporated in all our State constitu-
tons as conditions of social existence,
without which there can be, according
to the feelings of our fathers, no life
that is not civil death, no happiness
that is not the happiness of slaves
When, therefore constitution for the
national government was presented to
the people of the several States for
their adoption, and it was seen that it
proposed to establish government
with direct and sovereign powers,
without placing that government un-
der the restrictions in respect to the
rightsof person and property which the
people and their ancestors for 50 many
generations had been accustomed to
regard as indispensable to liberty, it is
not surprising that determination
was formed by wise and sagacious
men to supply what they regarded as
a serious defect in the new national
system. That determination was un-
questionably shared in and sustained
by the masses of the people. 1t was
quickened mainly by the observation
of one positive feature and several
negative features of the proposed Con-
stitution. Ii was observed that the
Constitution contained no special pro-
lection for the liberty of the press; no
distinct and express reservation of the
rights that would remain in the peo-
pie and in the several States, after
granting to the central power the
rights enumerated in the instrument |;
and none of the usual means by which
reserved and inalienable rights of per-
son and property are secured in gov
ernments Of the American constitu-
tional type 1t was further observed
that the Constitution containeda a clause
which would confer on the new ma
tional government an implied power
to suspend tho writ Of habeas corpus
under certain circumstances and
hence it was supposed that govern
ment which could do this, and which,
at the same time, was placed under
no positive restriction in respect to the
modes of orresting, imprisoning and
trying persons charged with offences,
would have the liberties of the citizen
completely in its grasp, no withstand
ing all the provisions Of the common
law of the States and of the State
Constitutions. There was great force
in this reasoning, and great iounda-
ton fr the jealousy displayed; not a
foundation resting upon any evil de-
sign Of any person concerned in the
framing of the new government, but
foundation existing in the nature
and relations Of the system proposed.
For it was correctly reasoned that
as the people of each State were to
grant to central government certain
pow rs of sovereign nature, with SUI
preme authority of Legislation reach
ing to the person of the citizen, and as
the same authority was also to have
the power to suspend the writ OF ha
5eds corpus on certain occasions, 1t
would be a just inference that the
people did not intend to reserve their
common and personal rights, or the
political rights of their States, if they
did not say so. This inference, if it
had been allowed to be drawn, would
have justified the position that for
great national purposes the people
meant to create national govern
ment of a totally different character
from the character of their State gov
ernu ent, and that they were willing,
for national ob lects, TO live under an
arbitrary or despotic power, while
for domestic purposes they were to
live under limited constitutional re-
public. In order TO preclude forever
all ground for such an inference. the
people, by great majority, resolved
that certain amendments of u restrain
ing character should be added to the
Constitution. 1t does not in the least
detract, in my Judgment, from the
force that should be given to what
then took place, that the Fe eral Con
stituticn was ratified i'll five States
without the proposal of amendments
have studied the history Of these
occurrences with care, and have ex-
amined, in connection with them, the
conteniporaneous popular feelings and
purposes; and L am entirely satisfied
that even at the close of the year
1851, when the Constitution had been
ratified 10y five States without propos-
ing amendments, vast majority of
the people of the whole country, in
cludlng majorities in those five States,
were convinced that the rights of per-
son and property must be secured by
proper provisions, and were determin-
ed TO have it done. When, in the be-
ginning of 1888, the people of Massa-
chusetts acted upon the Constitution,
and it was found that it could not be
carried without plainly insisting that
its ratification should be followed by
amendments protecting the common
and fundamental rights of the citizen
and the rights Of the Statos--an ex-
ample that was quickly followed by
all the remaining states--there was
an undoubtsd and overwhelming ma
jority of the nation who meant to pre-
vent, by every possible means, any fu.
ture style of construction or adminis-
tration which would make the gov
ernment under any circumstances, one
Of arbitrary or unrestraincd powers.
This, as you know, was done by adj
ding to the Constitution alter its adop-
ton, and so, as to make them part
90 al. ...t..,.,,.nt fhaoa .,~,..,.,.,o