The constitution of Ohio provides many other guarantees for the preservation of the liberty of the citizen against heedless legislation. It preserves the right of trial by jury, prohibits the treatment of persons arrested with unnecessary rigour, and makes provisions for a fair and impartial trial of accused persons. The latter provision is as follows: "That in all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face to face; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour," &c. The right of persons accused of felony to be defended by counsel has only lately been conceded in England, and of course the innovation was opposed by most of the judges. There is no right to a copy of the indictment. Here we find a people assembled in the forests of Ohio forty-six years ago, setting an example of reason and humanity to the legislators of England; and those intelligent and high-minded people of Ohio at the same time set many other examples which have lately been followed in England. We fully believe that the time is not far distant when all their principal views on the subject of legislation and government will be coincided in by the people of this country. The constitution of Ohio also provides that in prosecutions for any publication respecting the official conduct of men in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may always be given in evidence. But in England, until within the last two or three years, upon an indictment for a libel on private individuals, the truth was not allowed to be shown, although in actions for damages it was otherwise; and even at the present time it is no defence to an indictment for an alleged libel on the government or public officers, that the statements made are true. We are gradually and humbly following in the steps of our more enlightened transatlantic brethren, and we trust soon to overtake them in their bright career of improvement. The constitution of Ohio forbids cruel and unusual punishments, and contains the following noble sentiment : "All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offence. No wise legislature will affix the same punishment to the crime of theft, forgery, and the like, which they do to murder and treason. When the same undistinguished severity is exerted against all offences, the people are led to forget the real distinction in the crimes themselves, and to commit the most flagrant with as little conipunction as they do the slightest offences. For the same reasons, a multitude of sanguinary laws are both impolitic and unjust, the true design of all punishment being to reform, not to exterminate mankind." Compare this with the sanguinary code of England at the same period, the year 1802, and behold how far the American democrats of those days were in advance of the English legislature. Until American example had shamed the English parliament, the British criminal laws were perfectly brutal. Hundreds of human beings were executed for petty offences, and a score might be seen hanging at one time. Women were capitally punished for stealing a yard or two of ribbon-children for felony-and even North American Indian barbarities were rivalled, and in some instances surpassed, by christian Englishmen in what was called the administration of justice. Before the act 54 Geo. III., a traitor was condemned to be disembowelled, after being hanged for a time, and cut down alive; and by the present law the body is to be mangled and cut into pieces. Murderers were, a few years since, hanged in chains until their flesh rotted and their bones whitened in the sun. Women convicted of petit treason-i. e. the murder of a husband or master-were, before the Act 30 Geo. III., burnt alive. This was English christian humanity-these were the means resorted to for inspiring "the vulgar herd" with "wholesome terror." Despotism is always cruel, because it is always cowardly. What must have been the opinion of the Americans of that day— with what scorn and loathing must they have looked down upon the men in whose hands were placed the destinies of the British people? Yet we are told that British laws and institutions have for centuries been the object of the envy and admiration of the world. The admiration of America! Preposterous fiction! But, to proceed with the provisions of the constitution of Ohio. It is declared that no ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the validity of contracts, shall ever be made; that the people have a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult for the common good; that the people have a right to bear arms; that no hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honours shall ever be granted or conferred. Private property cannot be interfered with by the legislature, except when required for the public use, and then full compensation must be made to the owner in money. In England, parliament can deprive any man of his property, and pass any law whatever, no matter how outrageous. Lord Brougham, in his speech on legislation and the law, in the House of Lords, on May 12, 1848, speaking of private acts, says:— "They deal with private vested interests and unquestionable legal rights in every one instance and in every one provision. The reason, and only reason for passing each of them is, that the law of the land has protected some party whom it is desired to strip of his rights. This branch of law-making is truly transcendental; it is wholly occupied with transferring to one man the property of another; compelling persons to part with their estates for the benefit of others; breaking contracts already made; annulling settlements of estates; setting aside the wills of persons deceased; dissolving the tie of marriage, by law indissoluble; abrogating laws made for the whole community, in favour of some individuals or against others. Such a branch of legislation requires, of all others, peculiar care and close and scrupulous attention, to avert error and prevent abuses; yet error flourishes and abuse triumphs here more than in the construction of public acts."--" All is here done by compromise among a few parties, and the public is always disregarded; the weaker individuals and their rights and interests are continually set at nought." There are various other provisions in the constitution of Ohio which it is unnecessary here to detail. A government which does not emanate from the people is compelled to preserve its authority by withholding the most important rights from the people, especially the right of bearing arms and acquiring skill in their use; and also the fundamental right of meeting together, and freely discussing the acts of their rulers. A settled democratic government is never afraid of the people, because it is the people's government; the persons composing the dissatisfied minority know that they may soon be the majority. In a democracy, therefore, the people are the defenders of the country, and not a few mercenaries; there is no fear of public meetings or processions, no jealousy of the people being armed, no apprehension of evil consequences from disaffection being excited by speeches or discussions. CHAPTER II. THE CONSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNMENTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES (continued.) 1. Comparison between the Constitution of Ohio and the Constitutions of other States-Sedition laws in the Slave States-The electoral franchise-Reform of the old Constitutions, and introduction of universal suffrageProperty qualification for Representatives-The various judiciary sys tems. II. The election of the judges directly by the people every two or three years. IV. Tendency of the more modern Constitutions in this respect-Expediency of leaving the people to elect directly the principal office-holders, judges, &c. V. The new Constitution for the State of New York. VI. Remarks on the American electoral system-Universal suffrage and annual elections. VII. Equal electoral districts. VIII. Property qualification for Members. IX. Voting by ballot. X. Payment of Representatives-Mode of conducting elections-Remarks on the English system-The recent adoption of the American system in Europe. I. Comparison between the Constitution of the State of Ohio and the Constitutions of the other States.—We have more than once mentioned the fact that the constitutions of the different States do not correspond with each other; but all are republican and anti-aristocratic. In all of them the great mass of the people are the recognised source of all power. The principal difference will be found between the constitutions of the free and slave States. In the latter, for example, laws exist to prevent discussion on the subject of slavery. Slave-holding needs sedition laws for its support like those of England. The slave-owners fear the consequences of free discussion, knowing that the poor white population of the slave States might be easily roused to a consciousness of the benumbing and vicious results of the institution of slavery. In all the States the power of the legislature is limited, and there are provisions similar to those in the constitution of Ohio, guaranteeing and preserving fundamental rights of the citizens. In all the States, with the exception of Virginia, all the male white citizens of twenty-one years of age, who are tax-payers, are the electors of the representatives in the State and federal legislatures. In most of the States the electors are not required to be tax-payers, but a simple residence in the State for a certain period is sufficient to confer the franchise. In Virginia, to be an elector a man must be a freeholder, householder, and tax-payer; but these restrictions will not last much longer. Within the last few years amendments have been made in several of the old constitutions, whereby they have been made more democratic. This has been the case in New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York. New Jersey formed a new constitution in 1844, New York in 1846, and all the new States have sound democratic constitutions. Generally speaking the representatives of the people, whether in the State legislature or in congress, are not required to possess any property qualification. There are, however, a few exceptions to this rule. The representatives of North Carolina in congress are required to own 100 acres of land; those of South Carolina are required to own a freehold estate of the value of £150; those of Georgia a like estate of the value of £50; those of New Hampshire to be worth £100; those of Louisiana to own real estate worth £100; those of Massachusetts the same, or £200 of other property. In the same States the senators in congress and the governors are required to possess a somewhat larger qualification. But in every instance the amount of property which the representative is required to own is so small, that very little, if any, practical effect is produced by the restriction. The principle, however, of a property qualification is expressly repudiated in all the constitutions that have been formed within the last half century. As an example of one of the modern constitutions, we will presently take that of New York, formed in the year 1846; but before doing so will say a few words about the judiciary systems of the various States, and some other matters. In some of the States the judges are appointed by the legislature; in others by the governor; in others by the governor and upper branch of the State legislature; in others by the governor and his council. In some States the superior judges are appointed for life; in others for five, six, or seven years, or some other short period. In most of the States the justices of the peace are elected by the people, but in some of them they are appointed by the governor, &c. II. By the more modern constitutions it is provided that all the judges shall be periodically elected by the people. Where this principle is carried out, it seems that the trial by jury might be dispensed with, for the true object of the interposition of a jury between the judge and the suitors or accused, is to infuse the democratic principle into the proceedings. This democratic principle is sufficiently adopted when the judges themselves are elected by the popular voice, and there is no occasion for a jury. Trial by jury is a democratic institution; it is of great value |