witness on account of his opinion on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace of this state."

I do not think it is necessary to say a word in one of our constitutions about religion, worshipping, speaking, and printing, as little as about teaching, curing diseases, making shoes, etc., because a real free state never interferes with honest industry, never can have anything to do with such private affairs, except they are practised or managed in such a manner that they violate rights and give rise to complaints, when the judiciary will be called upon to look into the matter.

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

I have spoken of this so-called privilege in the first part.

A general proviso, forming at the same time a part of the American common law, that no person shall be arrested unless guilty of disobedience when summoned, or of a criminal act (felony) and suspect of flight from justice, would now answer better for the real protection against abuse of power than this privilege; because in spite of it, there are constantly persons arrested and set free on bail who should never be molested in this

manner.

I refer here only to the injuncture-procedure against the mayor of the city of New York, in the metropolitan police-law controversy, who, in opposing as mayor, this law, became neither a felon nor "suspect" to fly from justice, but was notwithstanding arrested. Secondly, I mention an arrest of the mayor of Brooklyn because some one felt offended by his official acts. For what use is this rigor?

"5.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor shall cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted, nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained."

General phrases of this kind are useless; a witness should never be detained, but instantaneously examined and dismissed.

It should be common law with us, that no person can be forced to bear testimony except before his regular court, to

whom, if not the court of litigation or trial, the case, with questions from both parties, may be sent for this purpose. This is the judicial practice, to my knowledge, on the continent of Europe. It works well, is expeditious, and just and humane, while the English custom deserves to be called savage.

"6. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and cases of the 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 offence; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

The grand jury is also a part of the judicial machinery, at present considered by many of doubtful utility. Its deliberations ought to be secret, while in all cases of suspected violent death the coroner's inquest, preceding the action of the grand jury, is public! If a person has been acquitted for want of proof, and later clear proof of guilt is found, there is no good reason why the accused should not be tried again. Justice toward society requires, under such circumstances, a new investigation, just as against a condemnatory sentence a new trial is allowed. That an accused may defend himself by counsel is well enough; but it can not be denied that the admittance of counsel from the beginning of the trial is more calculated to defeat the ends of justice than to promote them. The prohibition of confessing a crime or making a clean breast, or as the phrase is, to be witness against one self, is immoral. To deprive one by law of his property, even for the benefit of beggars or paupers, would no doubt be unjust; but it is daily done. All political charity, and all taxes raised by force of law for the support of the poor, are so many violations of this maxim. Therefore no good government should draw charity into its sphere. It seems to be done in Great Britain, on account of a general popular custom, expressed by a cant phrase which you may often hear, viz., “the town or county owes me a living." I attribute

to it much of our public pauperism. According to the pauper statistics of Brooklyn, N. Y., in 1856-'57 there were relieved, at public expense, by law, 2,295 families, viz., 479 American, 2,519 Irish, 122 English, 15 Canadian, 31 Scotch, 2 Nova Scotians, 1 Welsh, 71 Germans, 183 French, showing an immense preponderance of the English for beggarism, probably because the city owes them a living, a phrase unknown to Germans. There is, if not a larger, an equal proportion of English (Irish included) and German inhabitants in this city. What good have those English beggars done for this city to oblige her to give them a living? I stop for an answer.

Charity, when practised by the state, will be made use of for political capital, and demoralize the indigent, evils easily avoided by prudent private charity. In Europe, many political contrivances, as high taxes, standing armies, frequent wars, interference with industry by laws, produces poverty, which, afterward, political charity tries to mitigate. Our system of government, which leaves every man entirely at liberty to procure by industry his daily bread, is diametrically opposed to such a monarchical policy.

We should, therefore, never have imitated the same. It is a false pride to boast of our poor-house palaces. They are giving the lie to the principles of self-government. Both our beautiful rich country and excellent system of governing should have prevented the growth of such foreign social parasitical plants. The Friends give the right example in this regard. The ladies should look into this political charity business.

Of the municipal, land, and naval forces of this state, more

anon.

LETTER III.

Compensation for Private Property when taken for Public Use.-Roads. Liberty of the Press. -Libels. - Assembling and Petition Right.. Divorce. - Lottery.- Escheats.- Feudal Tenures.- Allodiums.- Leases of Land. - Fines. - Quarter - Sales. - Indian Land - Sales. - Common Law. - Colonial Law. - Royal British Grants. - Property Laws. American Common Law. Rights of Self-Government. - Prohibition of Foreign Laws. - The Church Poor-Laws. - State Scholars.

You will soon perceive that we are in the beehive of society.

"7. When private property shall be taken for any public use, the compensation to be made therefor, when such compensation is not made by the state, shall be ascertained by a jury, or by not less than three commissioners appointed by a court of record, as shall be prescribed by law. Private roads may be opened in the manner to be prescribed by law; but in every case the necessity of the road, and the amount of all damage to be sustained by the opening thereof, shall be first determined by a jury of freeholders, and such amount, together with the expenses of the proceeding, shall be paid by the person to be benefitted."

The proviso that no private property shall be taken for public use without compensation, is perfectly right. Specialities belong to spe- . cial laws. Even no property of towns or counties shall be taken for the use of the state without compensation. The metropolitan state police-law encroached upon the property-right of towns or cities, by claiming their telegraphs, etc., for state purposes, and was, therefore, unconstitutional.

"8. Every citizen may freely speak, write, 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 or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous 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 the fact."

I refer to my remarks at clause third. It has been a disputed question among jurists, since time immemorial, whether a man who calls his neighbor a thief may be justified by proving that he has

stolen once, which, of course, constitutes a thief. The constitution says such chiding or calumniating may be justifiable; but I think the matter belongs to a statute-book. People in a few years may think differently about the calling of bad names, and therefore consider such acts discourteous and not justifiable. Manners and morals alter from time to time, and laws bearing upon them also. Constitutions must not bar such alterations. The common sense expressed by an honest court and jury is the best judge in such things. In this clause is an express acknowledgment of the liberty of the press. I like in this regard that which is called in Great Britain a constitution much better for being silent on this subject. There is no free society without liberty of industry, that of printing, speaking, preaching, etc., included. Better preserve this most precious liberty without saying a word about it in the constitution. Public opinion is the surest guaranty of such things, while printed words may be quibbled away by unreasonable interpretation. The heart of the people, from which emanates public opinion, no court, no lawyer can quibble away.

"9. The assent of two thirds of the members elected to each branch of the legislature shall be requisite to every bill appropriating the public moneys or property for local or private purposes.”

This clause betrays a want of principle and a wrong view of state institutions. Their resources are, presumptively, taxes raised for the support of this institution, and not for that of private persons under whatever pretexts. To prevent this by a twothird vote or a unanimous vote of the legislature, is realizing injustice and an abuse of state power. Canals, concerts, theatres, agriculture, tailoring, book-writing, and a thousand other private affairs, however good and desirable, must not induce a good legislature to spend a cent of the state revenues for such things. Free or unsubject society, if not impoverished by high taxes, is well able to take care of all private affairs; but no society as it is at present can go along without a state institution providing justice.

"10. No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceedings; nor shall any lottery hereafter be authorized, or any sale of lottery tickets allowed, within the state."