of economy by which it can be shown that it direction of a court, with the aid of the prosewould be cheaper to do away with any safe-cutor, than he would be that the prosecution guard of this kind, would apply with equal force should proceed upon the oath of a single indiagainst the necessity of maintaining govern-vidual, or the information of a single officer. ments at all. Such being the primary object of Some gentlemen had objected to the Grand all governments it is clear that there can be no Jury system on the ground that it is a hoary security for human rights unless crimes are pun-headed system, and have proceeded to argue as ished. But courts of justice, Mr. President, if, because it is ancient it must necessarily be are sources of great expense, and, on the same wrong. Why, do gentlemen suppose that truth ground of economy, ought to be abolished. is a novelty, and that they invent it? On the Sir, we all know that there must be tribunals contrary, truth is eternal; truth always existed.. for the punishment of crimes. We all know Men may not always have perceived it, and it that there must be authorities who will present may be a novelty to a man when he does first. criminals to be punished; and, though it might { perceive it; but because a truth has been known. be possible to substitute a cheaper system than and acted upon for four thousand years, it does courts of justice, yet who can doubt that it not, therefore, cease to be a truth. It is no arwould be bad economy in the matter of govern-gument, then, against an institution, or against ment? Why, sir, when once you establish that principle, you throw mankind back into an entire state of nature and isolation. No man will then care to exercise his industrial powers, because no man will feel secure in his house, in his liberty, or in his person, unless there be not only laws to punish those who violate rights, but efficient means to carry those laws into execution. This argument of economy, therefore, may be applied against the necessity of all government whatsoever, and cannot, and ought not to have any weight as against one of the great safeguards of our liberty.

truth that it has stood the test and examination of men of various ages and countries. On the contrary, it is evidence that men's reason everywhere have conceded it to be a truth. There are many truths embodied in the common law, which existed far anterior to the common law itself. There are many truths which have always been recognised as truths, and that have been acted upon wherever there was a government among men; and it is not our business to overthrow these truths, and reject them because the experience of ages has sanctioned and admitted them.

Now, Mr. President, it is important in cases Mr. President, it has been urged as an objecof crime, that men be satisfied that the criminal tion to the Grand Jury system, that it was used is not only fairly and properly brought before in support of the British crown. The gentlea tribunal, but also that he is fairly and honest- man from Wayne used the argument very ly punished, when he is convicted. It is ar- properly. He said he traced it to its origin. gued that nineteen-twentieths of all the persons I do not know whether he did or not; but in indicted for felony, where the indictment origin- England the "crown" is to the British govern-ates with the Grand Jury, escape conviction.ment, what "the people" are to this GovernThis is not the fault of the system of present-ment. It represented the power of the State; ments. But it is because our law, very proper- and if I have read aright the history of the feuly, does not regard an indictment by a Grand dal system, there was a period in the history of Jury as a trial. It regards it only as a charge Great Britain, and indeed of all the nations of that there is a probability of guilt, while at the Europe, when the crown did truly represent same time, the law holds that a man is fully the people, when the crown was the protector and entirely innocent, until he is proved guilty of the people, in short when the crown was the beyond a doubt. On the final trial, the law State. In the feudal ages of Europe, all the will not admit that there is any suspicion of great lords had jurisdiction in their principalities. guilt, but demands that there shall be proof of The only power which represented the state it beyond all question. Now, I say that it is was the king. He was the representative and important in all governments that the people the protector of the people. It was the crown themselves, who are the subjects of govern- which granted to the burgesses the privilege of ment, should be satisfied that the powers exer- towns and cities and corporations; which secucised over them are justly and fairly exercised. {red to these individuals the rights of freedom They must be satisfied that the presentation of against the feudal lords; and by the intervenpersons accused of crimes, is properly and hon- tion of the crown operating in favor of the estly made-made with a view to the promotion people against the feudal system, the germ of of public justice. They must be satisfied that civil liberty was established. In that manner laws prohibiting certain acts are necessary for the House of Commons, representing the people, the public good, and necessary for the protec-arose. I say, therefore, that gentlemen have tion of individual rights, otherwise they will not be willing to aid in the execution of such laws. Now, I contend that every individual in the community, is far better satisfied with the presenta- { tion of an individual by a Grand Jury, under the

traced this system properly to the crown; for the crown was to the State then, what the people are to the State now. The crown then undertook to protect the citizens in the enjoy{ment of those rights, which had been guaran

tied to them; and so now do the people, in whom our sovereignty resides, undertake to protect the rights of the citizens of this State, as they are guarantied to them in our Constitution and laws; and among other things, they have undertaken to punish all offences committed against the rights of individuals, whether as regards their persons or their property. The people in their sovereign capacity, have undertaken to punish all crimes, and this (the Grand Jury system) is one of the steps by which they proceed to that punishment.

Now, the gentleman who preceded me very properly said that the weak had no protection except in the law; that the law was devised to protect the weak against the strong, because the strong were able to protect themselves. This is unquestionably the very purpose of the law. Now, I understand my colleague to say that a Grand Jury was the engine of the great man in his county or neighborhood. I think the very reverse, and regard it as the protection of the weak man against the strong one in the county.

yet it is not wholly impossible. . Such a state of things has heretofore existed in our own Rev-olution, and in the revolutionary times of our Anglo Saxon ancestors, in England. If I read history aright, it was by means of "information" that the bloody-minded Jeffreys enacted his bloody executions for political offences. It was not through the intervention of Grand Juries that the patriots of that period were murdered under the sanction of law. The English spirit would have rebelled against it, as it frequently did rebel when juries refused to be brow-beaten into the finding of verdicts to suit the pleasure of the court.

Mr. PETTIT. If my friend will allow me, I will correct him in regard to a matter of history. The "bloody assizes" as they are called, were conducted by eighteen grand jurors. Jeffries put no man to death against whom an indictment had not been found by a Grand Jury.

Mr. CLARK. I am not so thoroughly versed either in the history of those times, or in legal lore, as to speak very positively on this subject, but my impression is, that the history is as I have stated it. At any rate, in the celebrated trial of the five bishops who refused to read the King's proclamation, I think the proceeding was by information, and not by indictment. They were not indicted at all, but were proceeded against by the King's officer, and by the King's command. Those who are familiar with the history of that trial, will unquestionably remember how the feelings of a British Jury were aroused, and that a glorious triumph was achieved for freedom over arbitrary power. It may be that I was mistaken in regard to the victims of the "bloody assizes." If so, it should be remembered that a Grand Jury was the only power which stood between the subject and the power of the monarch, and that under the influence of those institutions of which the Grand Jury system lies at the foundation, the spirit of that people was roused to the assertion of their rights, and the world knows how glo-riously they triumphed, and overthrew that despotism.

For what purpose is a Grand Jury summoned? Why, sir, it is to inquire, among other things, whether the great man has committed a crime, whether the strong man has trespassed upon the rights of the weak, whether the rich man has trampled upon the rights of the poor, and to present all such without fear, or favor, or affection. It is, therefore, emphatically an institution which is the refuge and protection of the weak against the strong. One of the greatest glories of our institutions is that there is no man so high as to be above the law; no man so low as to be beneath its protection; that the law is supreme, above all, and that it provides protection for all. As I have already intimated, if we were to fall upon troublesome times, if crimes were perpetrated partaking of the nature of treason, if offences against the State were to be committed, we all know that under our system, the majority would elect all the officers, both those required to prosecute such offences, and those required to carry the decisions of a court into execution; and who is there that knows not that, when the public mind is inflamed, the officers of justice them-tem. selves will partake of the prejudice, if there be any; and in a case like that, what protection would a man have who might be accused of offending against the State. What prosecutor would resist the public opinion? Would not a jury of the county-those citizen sovereigns, who are not responsible to any tribunal, but responsible only to their country and their God-be far less likely to act unjustly, arbitrarily, or ty-secrecy may occasionally be used as an engine rannically, than a mere prosecutor, who was the instrument of the majority, and who was elect⚫ ed by the dominant party? Yes, sir, and though it seems very improbable that any such state of things will rise in this country-and I hope in Heaven, that such a calamity is very far from us,

Now Mr. President, a few words upon the subject of the secrecy of the Grand Jury sys

Gentlemen say that a Grand Jury is in the nature of a secret inquisition; that it holds its sessions in secret, for the purpose of aiding the malice, and the enmity of those who wish to injure their fellow-citizens, and they would, therefore, have all the accusatory proceedings in public; and it is proposed to make a kind of history of these proceedings, and to file them in the clerk's office. Now, however

of malice, it is designed for no such purpose here. On the contrary, its very object is benevolence, for it is designed to conceal from the eye of the public those investigations which do not result in a charge against the individual. It is designed to screen the individual who

court, as in the case of a mob, should take upon themselves voluntarily to decide upon his guilt or innocence, then he would feel a spirit of revenge, and a spirit of enmity would unavoidably spring up between the accused and the accusers. I say, therefore, that there must be some power in whose hands this duty may be intrusted; and I also say that it cannot, with safety to the public interest, be entrusted to the hands of any individual.

Mr. President, there are many gentlemen much more able to discuss this question than I am, and I will not, therefore, exhaust the time of the Convention by extending these remarks any further.

might be suspected of crime, but against whom
there was not sufficient evidence to create a
probability of guilt. Now, sir, on the other
hand it is proposed that all the testimony that
can be had against an individual shall be taken
down; and when it is taken down, a record is
to be made of it, and it is to be kept in the of-
fice of the Clerk of the county, there to stand {
forever as a record of suspicion against the in-
dividual. The whole causes of suspicion will
thus be placed before the world, and individual
character will be infinitely more injured by that
system than it can be by the present. Well, sir,
before a Grand Jury you have also the very
same prosecutor to make a charge which you
would have, if all the preliminary investigations
were made before justices of the peace. If
you can entrust a prosecutor with this high au-
thority, without the concurrence of a Grand
Jury, why does he not correct the improper ac-
tion of the Grand Jury itself, when holding its
secret sessions? Why, gentlemen here dis-
trust the very man in whom they are willing to
invest this great authority. They say, that al-insert the following: —
though he was sworn to do his duty, he had
not done his duty; that he has colluded with
the Grand Jury; that he and they have sat as
a secret inquisition, seeking maliciously to tra-
duce the characters of their fellow-citizens.

Mr. BASCOM said he did not rise to prolong the discussion on this question, and with the permission of the Convention he would withdraw his amendment.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn. Mr. HOLMAN offered the following as an amendment to the resolution :

"Strike out all after the word, resolved, and

"1. That the public will shall not be restricted by unnecessary limitation of the legislative power.

"2. That the manner of preferring and the matters purely legislative, and should be left to mode of prosecuting a criminal accusation are the legislative department of the government.

"3. That the committee on criminal law be

instructed to omit the words 'indictment, presentment, or impeachment,' where the same oc

cur in sections twelve and thirteen of article

first of the old constitution.”

Mr. BASCOM moved to amend the amendment by inserting the words, "to inquire into the expediency of," so as to make it a resolution of inquiry.

Mr. PĚTTIT. I was about to submit a motion, if no other gentleman wishes to address the Convention on the subject, this evening, and that is, that the further consideration of this resolution be postponed for four, five, or ten days.

Mr. President, I contend that experience shows, that unless you have a Grand Jury, or something equivalent to it-some tribunal whose duty it is to enquire into the commission of crimes, and present the suspected offender, then all manner of offences will go unpunished. My colleague stated what was true in regard to what we experienced in our own town, in relation to the prosecution of minor offences-that many offences which were committed, and which were not brought before a Grand Jury, were never brought before any tribunal at all; and that the offenders were consequently allowed to escape unpunished. There must, therefore, be some power, some tribunal, whose duty it is to present offenders; and when it is made their duty by law, the citizens do not resent it. They do not oppose their action, but, on the contrary, they regard them as performing their solemn duty, and they require of them that they should perform it. On the other hand, if an individual undertakes to do that which belongs to the public authorities to do, { it is regarded as a malicious prosecution. The SEVERAL MEMBERS. Adjourn; adjourn. man who is prosecuted regards it with resent- Mr. BIDDLE. I think the question ought ment, and it engenders enmity and ill-feeling to be decided upon the merits of the resolubetween the friends both of the prosecutor and{tion. I have something to say on the subject, the prosecuted. Widely different is the case where duties devolve upon parties under a well ordered system of law. No man complains of the jury who tries him for his life, knowing that they are compelled to sit and decide upon his case. Every man knows that such a duty is an unpleasant one, and that it is imposed upon jurors by law; but if that same jury and

SEVERAL MEMBERS. No, no, no. Vote,

vote.

Mr. PETTIT. If any gentleman wishes to address the Convention I will not make the motion.

but I am not quite prepared to address the Convention this evening. As so much debate has been had upon the subject, I think it might be as well to proceed with the consideration of the resolution now as to postpone it for five or ten days. But I am well satisfied that I could not obtain the ear of the Convention to-night for my remarks, and as I do not wish the resolution

The amendment was agreed to, and the motion, as amended, was adopted.

Mr. MORRISON of Washington then offered the following resolution :

from township schools to a State university," under the patronage of the State.

Mr. WALPOLE explained briefly the object he had in view in proposing this amendment. In the 2d section of the 9th article of the present Constitution of the State, he said, it was prescribed that the Legislature should provide for a general system of education, ascending in a regular gradation, from township schools to a State university. His object was to transfer all the seminary fund, consisting of fines and forfeitures, and all the funds by law appropriated on account of seminaries of learning, including the State university, to the support of district schools. The resolution merely directed the committee to inquire into the propriety of so transferring these funds. But, at the request of the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. Morrison,) he withdrew the amendment, not wishing to embarrass the original proposition, giving no

tice that he would offer a series of resolutions upon the subject of the amendment, at some future day.

Mr. MORRISON'S resolution was was then adopted by unanimous consent.

PUBLICATION OF THE DEBATES IN THE NEWS

PAPERS.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a communication from the principal Secretary, enclosing his correspondence with the publishers of the Indiana State Journal and the Indiana State Sentinel, with reference to the publication of the Convention Debates, which was read by the Secretary, and is as follows: INDIANAPOLIS, IND., Oct. 22, 1850.

HON. GEO. W. Carr,

to state that I have this day received the following communication from the editors of said papers, in reply to a letter addressed them on the 19th inst., enclosing a copy of the resolution in question.

Resolved, That the committee on education be President of the Convention, instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a provision in the amended Constitution, ed on the 19th inst., in relation to publishing SIR: In accordance with the resolution, adoptrequiring that the proceeds from the sales of all lands which have been or may hereafter be grant-nal and Sentinel of this city, I have the honor the proceedings of the Convention in the Joured by the United States, to this State, for common school purposes; and the proceeds of all lands or other property, given by individuals, or appropriated by the State, for like purpose; and the proceeds from the sales of all lands that have been or may be hereafter granted to this State, and which shall not be granted for any other specific object, shall be and remain a perpetual fund, the interest and increase of which, together with the rents of all such lands as may remain unsold, shall be inviolably appropriated, and annually applied, to the maintenance of common schools, and to no other purpose what

ever.

Mr. WALPOLE proposed the following amendment, to be added to the resolution, which was read by the Secretary, to-wit :

That the committee on education be instructed to inquire into the expediency of abrogating so much of section number two of article number nine of the present Constitution of the State, as contemplates "a general system of education, ascending in a regular gradation,

Very respectfully,

WM. H. ENGLISH, Sec. C. C.
INDIANAPOLIS, Oct. 22, 1850.

WM. H. ENGLISH, ESQR.,

Secretary of Convention,

DEAR SIR: In reply to your note of the 19th, in relation to the publication of the debates in our respective papers, we have to say that we agree to the proposition made by the Convention. Yours, &c.,

JOHN D. DEFREES,
AUSTIN H. BROWN.
On motion, by Mr. WOLFE, the communi-
cation was laid upon the table.

UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

Mr. HAWKINS offered for adoption the following resolution :

Resolved, That the committee on the elective franchise and apportionment of representation be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing, by a clause in the new Constitution, "that a majority of the legal votes of this State at a general election, by a direct vote upon the subject, may extend the right of universal suffrage."

The question being upon the adoption of the resolution, the yeas and nays were demanded, and they were ordered.

Mr. KELSO. According to our general understanding of the right of universal suffrage, I have no objection to the adoption of the resolution; but if it be the intention of the mover of the resolution to extend the right of suffrage to females and negroes, I am against it. "All free white male citizens over the age of twenty-one years,"I understand this language to be the measure of universal suffrage: that there shall be no property qualifications, no religious tests, and so I understand the mover of the resolution. I do not wish to detain the Conven

tion. If I do not understand the gentleman aright, he can easily say so.

a vote on the original proposition, and would, therefore, move to lay the amendment of Mr. Hovey on the table;

And upon this motion he demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. EDMONSTON enquired of the Chair if it would be in order to move to amend the motion to lay the amendment on the table so as to include the original resolution?

Mr. BORDEN. What would be gained by an amendment to the motion? The questions would have to be taken separately if a division { were demanded.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that a motion to amend is not in order.

Mr. COLFAX. I would ask how a motion. to lay on the table can be amended? For after the motion to lay on the table has been entertained, no person can obtain the floor until that question is disposed of.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has already decided that the motion to amend is not in order. The question is upon the motion to lay the amendment to the resolution upon the ta-ble, upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered. The Secretary will proceed with the call.

The yeas and nays being taken, the Secretary reported-yeas thirty-six, nays one hundred and five, as follows:

guire, March, Mather, May, McClelland, Mor-gan, Mowrer, Niles, Ritchey, Watts, and Wheeler-36.

Mr. HAWKINS. I do not see any necessity for gentlemen being so sensitive. From time to time there have been resolutions, though not exactly of this character, introduced and adopted by this body without objection; resolutions (of inquiry, to be sure) prohibiting not only the right of universal suffrage, but even the right of immigration. This, also, is simply AYES.—Messrs. Anthony, Balingall, Beard, a resolution of inquiry, and if the subject shall Berry, Bicknell, Biddle, Borden, Bracken, Brybe reported against by the committee, I shall ant, Chapman, Clark of Tippecanoe, Cole, Colbe content; but if I can get a report in its fa- fax, Conduit, Crawford, Davis of Vermillion, vor, it will be another testimony in favor of that Foley, Garvin, Gibson, Gordon, Hamilton, Hawdemocracy which is fast diffusing itself through-kins, Helm, Kendall of Warren, Kindley, Maout the world. No man can deny that it is a democratic rule or maxim, that a majority of the legal voters of the State have a right to decide who shall be admitted into partnership with them in the direction and administration of public affairs. I admit that the present Constitution is a contract or agreement between the white male population of the State over the age of twenty-one years, and that the Constitution which we may send out (if accepted) will be a compact between such white male citizens; but if the people, who are the contracting parties to that compact, should choose so to do, ought they not to have the right to admit others into that compact? The gentleman by this time, I suppose, understands me to mean that a majority of the legal voters of the State have the right at any time, by their own will, to call upon the colored population to assist them in the administration of public affairs. I say amen to this doctrine. It is an inherent right belongingver, Shannon, Sherrod, Smiley, Snook, Smith to all free governments. of Ripley, Smith of Scott, Spann, Steele, SteMr. HOVEY proposed to amend the resolu-venson, Tague, Taylor, Terry, Thomas, Todd, tion by inserting, in the proper place, the words "except negroes, mulattoes and indians."

Mr. COLFAX said, that he was desirous of

NOES.-Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Badger, Barbour, Bascom, Blythe, Bourne, Bowers, Bright, Butler, Carr, Carter, Chandler, Chenowith, Clark of Hamilton, Coats, Cookerly, Davis of Madison, Dick, Dobson, Dunn of Jefferson, Duzan, Edmonston, Farrow, Fisher, Fris-bie, Gootee, Graham of Miami, Graham of War-rick, Haddon, Hall, Holliday, Harbolt, Hardin, Helmer, Hendricks, Hogin, Holman, Hovey, Howe, Huff, Johnson, Jones, Kelso, Kendall of Wabash, Lockhart, Logan, Mathis, McLean, Miller of Fulton, Miller of Gibson, Milroy, Mooney, Moore, Morrison of Marion, Morrison of Washington, Murray, Nave, Newman, Nofsinger, Owen, Pepper of Ohio, Pepper of Crawford, Pettit, Prather, Rariden, Read of Clark, Read of Monroe, Ristine, Robinson, Schoono

Trimbly, Vanbenthusen, Wallace, Walpole, Wiley, Wolfe, Work, Wunderlich, Yocum, Zenor, and Mr. President-105.