Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-01-20


son, Thompson, of Maury, Warner-5O
Mr.. Carriers amendment being rejected
and the question recurring on the adoption
of the section as reported, it was agreed
| to.
Sections II, II, and Is were now reaC
and adopted as follows:
Sec. II. That laws made for the pun.
ishment of acts committed previous to the
existence of such laws, and by them only
declared criminal, are contrary to the
principles of free government where,
fore no &c post fdcto law shall be made.
Sec. IL. That no conviction shall work
corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
The estate of such persons as shall destroy
their own lives shall descend or vest, as in
case of natural death. If any person be
killed by casualty, there shall be no forfeit
ure in consequence thereof.
Sec. 10. That no person arrested and
confined in Jail shall be treated with I'M
necessary rigor.
Section IA was then read:
Sec. a. That no citizen shall be put to
answer any criminal charge but by pre-
sentiment, Indictment or impeachment.
Mr. House, of Montgomery, proposed
to amend by striking out the entire sec
ton and substituting the following:
Mr.. House, of Montgomery, proposed
to strike out the 14th section, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
No person shall be held to answer for
a capital, or otherwise Infamous crime,
except by presentment, Indictment or i'm
parchment; but the Legislature, in cases
of petit larceny, and in cases of assault
and battery, affray, riot, unlawful assem-
bly,, vagrancy and other misdemeanors of
like character, may dispense with the
inquest OF a grand jury, an Indictment or
presentment, and may authorize prosecu-
tons for such offenses by such inferior
count OF courts as may be established by
the Legislature, and the proceedings in
such cases shall be regulated by law Pro-
vided, that all defendants so arraigned
shall have the right of trial by jury unless
the same shall be expressly waived in
such modes as may be established by
law.
Mr.. House said he had explained this
in full to the Convention when he offered
the same matter as an amendment to the
Bill of Rights few days ago.
Mr.. Jones, of Lincoln, said that next to
the habeas corpus he regarded the right of
trial by jury in the Bill of Rights as the
most important-including the Grand
Jury.
Mr.. House interposed to say that his
included the right of trial by
jury.
Mr.. Jones, OF Lincoln, continuing-And
| am not certain, but between the two |
would rather surrender the habeas corpus
than the jury trial as now regulated, in
Guiding the grand iuries. All the gentle
man asks for is that misdemeanors may
be prosecuted without that right. And l |
say all that he has said, in favor of abOl- |
ishing the grand jury in regard to INSIDE |
will apply with equal force to the
higher offences. The habeas corpus at
the time that it was wrung from an IN
willing and tyrannical king of England-it
was done to bring the persons of men out |
of prison. At that time they could arrest
persons without warrant and without
charge and incarcerate them in prison,
and there was no law by which they could
be brought out. 1t was forced from
that king, if understand the history, in
order that persons thus inCarcerated might |
have hearing. But that is not the case |
now, when we have courts whose duty it |
is to have persons confined in jail brought |
10 a speedy trial. But what l object to
in the proposition of the gentleman from
is, that it makes an inroad
upon that sacred right of the grand Jury,
that no person shall be held to answer any
criminal charge except upon presentment
and Indictment. There may be some very
small offenses; but when you have once en-
tered the wedge-when you have once sue
cessfully assaulted the grand jury know |
not where it will end. 1t may be that the |
time will come when they will be abol- |
shed; when men will come to the conClu- |
sion that one man is better qualified TO de- !
eide upon the case of the criminal, than |
twelve illiterate persons taken from the |
lregs and scum of society. And this |
may be the argument. In the multitude |
Of counselors there is safety, and if you
charge me with an OffenseI say give me
all the legal facilities for acquittal Let
me be presented by a grand jury. Let
me examine witnesses face to face before
a jury of my country, and let them de-
.ermine. ], sir, desire to preserve the
grand jury and all the rights of trial by
Jury.
Mr.. Brown of DavidsOn-I do not
know how far the amendment offered by
he gentleman from Montgomery may
conflict with the Constitution of the Uni
os,,I,- ,DfI ID ,y,l
form. He reads the fifth article. What
sit for the accused to be informed of the
nature Of the offense if the offender be
AIKEN by a Warrant-Warrants are of
7ague form; lawyers all know
What these warrants are; they are so
7ague that you can scarcely tell what they
IMPLY. To be informed implies something
more than a warrant. Now, as to
III the gentleman says about economy |
nave nothing TO say. But l am afraid
hat in taking this step, though he might
accomplish something in saving money,
le might run the hazard of reaching the
amparts of liberty to which the gentle
nan from Lincoln has referred; and is it
lot better to bear the evils incident to
hese trials in the forms in which we now
AVE them than to sweep them away. If |
is doubtful, it seems to me that we
ught not to do it. But again, this artic's
prescribes that no person shall be held
o answer for a capital or an otherwise in
amOus crime, etc. And the gentleman
proposes to exclude petit larceny from that
ategory. Now, you may callit petit larceny
Y what you please, but can't take away
he infamy from it, You can make no
hing by giving it new name. 1t is still
Infamous. You might as well assume
hat forgery and treason are not infamous.
hey belong to the category of things in
bis world, which, if they were baptized
4 the river Jordan, they could not be
leansed from the infamy which attaches
D them l make these remarks because |
his thing petit larceny or larceny in any
hape is by its nature infamous, and be-
ause at the same time it seems to me this
ropositiOn would be in violation of this {
fth article of the United States Constitu-
ion. Whenever l can see that we can !
ave even a hundred dollars TO these coun-
les, I intend to be with those who
Tish to do so. But, at the same
inc, what is money compared with the
light of the citizen: and the right of a
nan accused of petit larceny or any of
be smaller offenses, are just as sacred as
be rights of the President of the United
tates. ! submit then, to the Convention,
7hether it is not safer if there is any
oubt about it, to leave the forms of jury
rial as we now have them rather than
verturn or hazard the rights of the man. ;
cled criminal These ramparts of liberty
ave stood until their stumps have become
loss- grown. To my mind the PROPOSE