USA > Michigan > Men of progress : embracing biographical sketches of representative Michigan men with an outline history of the state > Part 3
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70
Sept. 26, 1836: Convention met-declined terms proposed by Congress.
Dec. 5-6, 1836: Delegates elected to second con- vention of assent. Dec. 14, 1836: Convention met-assent given.
Jan. 26, 1837: State formally admitted by action of Congress.
The first constitution (1835), provided that the seat of government should be per- manently established by the Legislature not later than the year 1847. It remained in De- troit up to this time, the capitol building
8
MEN OF PROGRESS.
being the former territorial capitol, located on what is now known as Capitol Park. The building and site ultimately passed into the hands of the Detroit Board of Education, and, with considerable additions, was used for school purposes up to January, 1893, when it was destroyed by fire. The Legislature of 1847, in obedience to the constitutional re- quirement, passed an act establishing the cap- ital at Lansing. There was much difficulty in agreeing upon a location. Nearly every interior town of much consequence in the State was proposed, only to be rejected. Lansing was finally agreed upon as being a point central to the then settled portion of the State. The locating act is probably one of the shortest public acts every passed. After the enacting elause it provides "that the seat of government of this State shall be in the township of Lansing, in the county of In- gham." A supplementary act was passed, however, providing for the removal. This act provided for the laying out of a village plat to be designated as the town of "Michi- gan," in which the capitol should be located. "Michigan" was therefore the name of the capital of the State for one year, until, by act of April 3, 1849, the name was changed to Lansing.
Commissioners were selected to locate a site within the town of Lansing, and the site of the present city of Lansing was chosen, partly because it was a "school section," there being
but a single settler in the immediate vicinity. A frame building, costing, with an addition subsequently made, about $22,500, was erect- ed during the summer of 1847, and occupied by the Legislature on the first of January, 1848, and continued to be used as the "State House" umtil 1877. At the legislative ses- sion of 1871, an aet was passed providing for the erection of a new State capitol. A "Board of State Building Commissioners" was pro- vided for, who solicited competitive designs for the new capitol, the preference being given to the design furnished by Mr. E. E. Myers. The cost of the building and inci- deutal expenses was limited to $1,200,000, $100,000 payable in 1872, $200,000 in each of the years 1873, 1874, 1875, and 1876, and $300,000 in 1877. A preliminary appropria- tion of $10,000 was made for plans, etc., in 1871, and in 1875 special appropriations for heating and ventilating, for changes and in- provements, roofing, cornice, ete., were made, amounting to $175,000. The length of the building, exclusive of porticoes, is 345 feet; width, 191 feet; height of lantern, 265 feet. The edifice accommodates the Legislature, State offices, Supreme Court, State Library, etc. The cornerstone was laid on the second day of October, 1873, and the contract time for its completion was the first of December, 1877. It was completed and occupied by the State during 1878, the Legislature holding its first session in the new edifice in 1879.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY HISTORY.
First Constitution and Statutes Similar to Those of New York- Method of Choosing State Officers and Judges-Time of Elections-Process of Amendment-Senators and Representatives, How Chosen-Salaries-Constitution of 1850-Legisla- tive in Its Character-Variances from the First Constitution-The More Important Amendments -Constitutional Convention of 1867 and Consti- tutional Commission of 1873-The Work of Both Rejected by the People-Subsequent Votes on the Question of Ordering a General Convention- Legislative Authority Under the Territory-Com- pilations of the Statutes in 1822 and 1833-Re- vised Statutes of 1838 and 1846-Compilations of 1857 and 1871-The Howell Compilation-The Miller Compilation-Reprint of Territorial Laws.
The first constitution of the State was, in
many of its features, modeled after the con- stitution of New York. The general statutes and polity of the State also reflected those of the State of New York, from which the migration to the State during the 1830 decade, forming the great bulk of the popula- tion, was largely drawn. The only elective State officers provided for by the constitution of 1835 were the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The administrative officers were either appointed by the Governor or chosen by the Legislature. Judges were appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by
9
HISTORICAL SKETCHES.
the Senate. Late in the 1840 decade, how- ever, the constitution was so amended that judges and State officers were made elective. The general elections were held two days- the first Monday and Tuesday of November, following in a measure the practice at that time in New York, where the elections were held three days. A person entitled to vote at a general election could vote at any poll in the county in which he resided. Amend- ments to the constitution had to be approved by two consecutive Legislatures, and then submitted to popular vote. As the Legisla- ture held annual sessions, the process of amendment was less dilatory than might otherwise seem. An amendment proposed by the Legislatures of 1843 and 1844 changed the time of the general election to the first Monday of November. State Senators were elected by districts composed of several conn- ties each, the term being two years, but so classified that one-half were chosen each year. Representatives were elected in the counties at large. The fixing of salaries of all State officers and judges was left to the Legislature, the pay of members of the latter being limited to three dollars per day, as at present.
The constitution of 1850 was a radical de- partnre in some of its features from the in- strument that it superseded, without, in all eases, being an improvement. Legislation under the first constitution had in view a prudent economy in the fixing of official sala- ries, an economy that was every way com- mendable in the infancy of the common- wealth with an immigrant population strug- gling to make homes for themselves and to de- velop the State. The framers of the consti- tution of 1850 seem to have assumed that these salaries were fixed for all time, and for a State grown to opulence, with a population numbered by millions. The salaries that had been fixed by legislation were by them made constitutional and unchangeable except by amendment to the fundamental law. In many other respects the new constitution be- came legislative in its provisions. It also restricted or forbade legislation on many sub-
jects. The first constitution contemplated in express tenus internal improvements by the State. Its successor forbade them except in the expenditure of grants to the State. Among the inhibitions upon legislation by the con- stitution of 1850 were: The granting of spe- cial charters, other than municipal; granting extra compensation to public officers or con- tractors; against special legislation in certain cases; against granting licenses for the sale of liquor-subsequently expunged.
Many amendments have been made to the present constitution, the more important of which are summarized following:
Banking corporations: Amending section 3 of article 5 so as to make stockholders ratably liable for obligations to the amount of their stock.
Legislative sessions: Under the constitution, as first adopted, legislative sessions were limited to forty days. The amendment limits the introduc- tion of bills to fifty days, but places no limit upon the duration of the sessions. (1860.)
Removals from office: Amending section 8 of article 12 so as to empower the Governor to remove public officers in certain cases. (1862.) This amendment was adopted by a vote of 3,180 in its favor to 1,273 against, the vote in favor being only about two per cent. of the voting population of the State.
As to banks: Under the constitution, as first adopted, banks could be organized only under a general law. By the amendment, the Legislature was empowered, by a two-third vote, to create "a single bank, with branches." (1862.) The organi- zation of the U. S. banking system rendered this provision wholly nugatory.
Regents of the University: Providing for the election of eight regents in the State at large instead of one from each judicial district. (1862.)
As to soldiers voting: Providing that Michigan soldiers in the field may be authorized to vote at elections. (1866.)
Railroads: Authorizing the Legislature to fix maximum rates for transportation so as to guard against discrimination, and forbidding the con- solidation of competing lines. (1870.)
Salaries: Increasing the salaries of circuit judges to $2,500 per annum. (1882.) Increasing the salary of the Governor to $4,000 per annum. (1889.)
10
MEN OF PROGRESS.
Amendments proposing an increase in the sal- aries of State officers have been submitted at vari- ous times, and have been uniformly rejected ex- cept as above. Noteworthy under this head was an amendment voted upon in 1891 increasing the salary of the Attorney General. The vote as re- turned to the Board of State Canvassers was 69,- 622 in favor to 68,385 against. Suspicions of fraud or error arose, and a recanvass was ordered by the Supreme Court, showing 69,248 for and 69,651 against. A proposed amendment voted upon in 1893 made a general increase in the salaries of State officers. First reported adopted, 64,422 to 62,601. A recanvass for reasons similar to those above stated gave 59,317 in favor to 70,772 against. Fraud was so manifest in the matter that prose- cutions followed, and a conviction in one case in Wayne County, but there was no sentence, and the matter was for some reason allowed to drop.
Improving roads: Authorizing the creation of county and township boards and the contraction of loans for improving highways. (1893.)
Liquor traffic: Propositions submitted under this head will be found noted in the chapter on that subject.
The constitution provides that every six- teenth year, beginning with the year 1866. "and at such other times as the Legislature may by law provide, the question of the gen- eral revision of the constitution shall be sub- mitted to the eleetors qualified to vote for members of the Legislature, and in case a majority of the electors so qualified, voting at such election," shall vote in favor, the Legis- lature shall provide for the election of dele- gates to a convention for the purpose of fram- ing a revision. In 1866 the vote was in favor of a convention. The convention met in 1867 and framed a revision, which was voted upon at the April election in 1868 and rejected, 71,733 to 110,582.
At the legislative session of 1873 a joint resolution was passed for the appointment of a commission, two from each congressional dis- trict, to prepare amendments to the constitu- tion, to be submitted to the Legislature at a special session or at the next regular session. The members of the commission were ap- pointed by Gov. Bagley , and reported the re- sults of their labors to him on the completion of their work October 16, 1873. It was by the
Governor submitted to the Legislature at a spe- cial session in March, 1874. It was considera- bly changed by the Legislature from the form in which it was reported to them, and was sub- mitted to the people at the November elec- tion in a single joint resolution as "amend- ments" to the constitution. It was to all in- tents and purposes a revision, and the manner of its preparation and submission was irreg- ular and outside of any process contemplated by the constitution for making amendments, and there is little doubt but that it would have been held illegal by the courts. Had it been approved by a clear majority of the voting population it might have been sus- tained as the latest expression of the popular will, but with a bare majority of those voting, it could hardly have stood the test. It is doubtful if the people who voted upon it real- ized to any great extent its questionable char- acter. Its failure may be eredited largely to the liquor dealers, who opposed it through a State organization, and to the railway inter- ests, who looked upon it with disfavor. It was disapproved by a vote of 39,285 to 124,034.
In 1882, pursuant to the constitutional provision, the question of calling a conven- tion for the purpose of a revision was voted npon and the proposal failed by a vote of 20,937 to $5,123. The same question was submitted by the Legislature at the general election in 1890 and again in 1892. It failed in the first instance on a vote of 16,431 to 26,261, and in the other case it carried by the small margin of 703 votes, there being 16,948 for and 16,245 against. But although the proposition had a majority of the votes in its favor, it did not receive the majority eon- templated by the constitution. An amend- ment to the constitution may be ratified by a majority of the votes cast for and against the particular proposition, but a convention for the purpose of a general revision must receive a majority of all the votes cast at the election at which the question is voted upon. Not having such majority, the Legislature of 1893 took no aetion in the matter. At the election
11
HISTORICAL SKETCHES.
in 1898, the third reeurring sixteenth-year period, the question of ealling a general eon- vention was again voted upon, receiving 162,123 votes in favor to 127,147 against. With this large margin in its favor it still failed, not having a majority of the total vote east, the total vote- at that eleetion being 121,164.
A brief reference to the history of the statutes of the State will appropriately fol- low a sketeh of its constitutional history. Under the first territorial organization the Governor and Judges were both the makers and administrators of the law. Later the Legislative Couneil became the law making power. A revision and compilation of all aets in foree was ordered by the first Legislative Council and printed in 1822 in a volume of some 700 pages. A further compilation was made and printed in 1833. With the or- ganization of the State government came the necessity for adapting the laws to the new order of things. By aet of the Legislature of March, 1836, William A. Fleteher was appointed a commissioner to prepare and ar- range a eode of laws for the State. He was then one of the territorial judges and was soon after appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court of the State. The double labor delayed the preparation of the eode until November 9, 1837, on which day the Legislature met in adjourned session for the purpose of acting upon the report. Their ses- sion continued into the regular session of 1838, and the Revised Statutes of 1838 was the produet. E. B. Harrington and E. J. Roberts were appointed commissioners to supervise the publication. In a preface it is said:
"In the ehange from a Territorial to a State government, great inconvenience was experi- eneed in adapting the territoriol laws under the State constitution. They consisted of en- aetments of a period of more than thirty years, eommeneing with those adopted and pub- lished by the Governor and Judges, a part of which had been re-enaeted by the first legis- lative eouneil of the late Territory of Miehi-
gan. Each subsequent couneil passed its ad- ditional quota of aets, seemingly without any regard to former enaetments, and they appear in many instanees without date of approval. Several repealing aets had been passed with- out designating the aets or parts of aets in- tended to be repealed, and frequent legaliz- ing and explanatory acts, all serving to eon- fuse rather than explain. These various aets were scattered through loose and fragmentary publications, commencing in the year 1805."
The statutes of 1838 are comprised in a single volume of 688 pages, exelusive of in- dex, which is quite full. The work is admir- ably arranged and the mechanical execution excellent.
The next (and last) revision of the statutes is that of 1846. The work was begun in 1844, under an act of the Legislature of that year, by Judge Sanford M. Green. The re- vision was passed upon by the Legislature of 1846, and Judge Green was commissioned to superintend its publication. The work is in one volume, but little larger than its predeces- sor, although of mueh closer print. It is not out of place to mention that this work was printed on the first power printing press brought into Michigan, and it is believed the first one ever used west of Rochester, N. Y.
By the State Constitution, adopted in 1850, it is provided that no general revision of the statutes shall be had, but that "when a reprint becomes necessary the Legislature in joint convention shall appoint a suitable per- son to colleet together such aets and parts of acts as are in foree, and without alteration, arrange them under appropriate heads and titles." Under this provision the late Judge Thomas M. Cooley was appointed in 1857, and the Compiled Laws of that year were the result. They are in two volumes, with con- seeutive section numbers running through the whole, giving great convenience of reference, with marginal notes referring to decisions bearing upon the matter of the text. The next compilation, that of 1871, by Judge James S. Dewey, has nothing specially to dis- tinguish it from the former compilation.
12
MEN OF PROGRESS.
In 1882 the Legislature authorized the purchase and official use of Judge Andrew Howell's work, "The General Statutes of Michigan in Force," popularly spoken of as Howell's Annotated Statutes. The original work is in two volumes, with very full nota- tions, and a supplementary or third volume published subsequently.
A new compilation was ordered by the Legislature in 1885, and Lewis M. Miller was appointed to the work. The publication of
the work was delayed for some months pend- ing a suit at law in behalf of Judge Howell, who alleged an infringement of copyright. The case was, however, decided adversely to Judge Howell, and the work has since been published in three volumes, with an index forming a fourth volume.
In 1873 a reprint of the territorial laws was ordered by the Legislature, which is com- prised in three volumes.
TIIE JUDICIARY.
Judges and Courts Under the Territorial Govern- ment and Under the First Constitution-Associate Judges in the Counties-Increase in the Number of Circuits-County Courts-The Supreme Court -When Provided for and Organized-Provision for a Fifth Judge-Circuit Court Commissioners and Masters in Chancery.
The "Governor and Judges," as the law- making and law-executing power under the first territorial organization, have been else- where referred to, the civil machinery was aided by inferior courts. By act of the Gov- ernor and Judges, July 27, 1818, a Court of Probate was established in each county. A system of County Courts and of District Courts was also in vogue. A "Court of Gen- cral Quarter Sessions of the Peace" was pro- vided for by act of November 25, 1817, com- posed of the justices of the county courts and the justices of the peace of each county. They were required to hold four stated sessions per year, their duties being similar to those of the board of supervisors as now . constituted. Judicial officers (other than the federal judges), including justices of the peace, were appointed by the governor. Under the later territorial regime the federal judges became simply judicial officers, subject to the laws enacted by Congress and by the Legislative Council. By act of the Council of April 13, 1827, the three judges were constituted the Supreme Court of the territory, with two ses- sions of such court each year. The judges were, however, made judges of the Circuit. Courts to be held in the counties. This plan
was followed in organizing the courts under the State government, the judges being ap- pointed as judges of the Supreme Court (one of them as Chief Justice), but assigned to the several circuits as presiding judges. The County Courts were composed of a chief jus- tice and two associate justices. They had jurisdiction in civil cases of all matters not cognizable by justices of the peace up to one thousand dollars, and concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit Courts in criminal cases, ex- cept capital erimes. The office of master in chancery existed, with powers analogous to those of Circuit Court commissioners at the present time.
By the constitution of 1835 it was provided that "the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such other courts as the Legislature may from time to time estab- lish." It, however, provided for the election of judges of probate, for judges of County Courts, and for associate judges of Circuit Courts. The provision as to judges of County Courts was obsolete, as no County Courts ex- isted at that time, it having been abolished by the territorial law some years before and its functions transferred to the Circuit Courts.
The judicial system, under the constitution, was instituted in 1836. The appointment of judges of the Supreme Court was provided for, the judges being assigned to hold courts in the circuits. Two associate judges were elected in each county, who sat with the pre- siding judge in the trial of causes, thus con-
13
HISTORICAL SKETCHES.
tinuing a practice established under the terri- torial regime. These "side judges," however, as they were called, were found to be more ornamental than useful, and they were dis- pensed with in 1846. The State was first divided into three circuits, which had in- creased in number until by the constitution of 1850 it was provided that the State should be divided into eight circuits, the judges being elective. The number of circuits has in- creased until there are now thirty-six, with six judges in the Wayne circuit and two each in the Kent, Saginaw and St. Clair circuits, a total of forty-four judges. A Court of Chan- cery was established in 1836, but was abol- ished ten years later and its powers and func- tions transferred to the Circuit Courts.
A County Court (which held uo relation to the territorial court by that name, which had been discontinued as previously stated), was provided for by statute in 1846. A judge and second judge were to be elected, cach for a term of four years. The second judge was to act only in cases where the judge was a party in interest or in cases of absence or disability. The court was to sit in term on the first Monday of each month, and during such part of the mouth as might be requisite for transacting the business before it. This court was the fruit of a reform agitation largely centering in Washtenaw county, which demanded cheaper and more speedy means of securing (or trying to secure) justice for the average citizen or poor litigant than was afforded by the Circuit Courts. It was not a popular institution with the lawyers, who dubbed it "the one-horse court." It went out of existence with the adoption of the constitution of 1850. The circuit judges, sit- ting together, constituted the Supreme Court of the State until the system was changed as hereafter noted.
Section 1 of article 6 of the constitution provides: "The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court, in Circuit Courts, in Pro- bate Courts, and in justices of the peace,"
with authority on the part of the Legislature to establish municipal courts in cities. It was provided that after six years the Legislature might provide for what was popularly termed an independent Supreme Court, "to consist of one chief justice and three associate justices," to be elected by the people. This power was acted upon by the Legislature of 1857, and judges were elected at the spring election in that year, the court being organized January 1, 1858. The term of the judges was eight years, and they were so classified that their terms expired successively every second year. It is provided in the constitution that the court, when established, should not be changed for eight years. To what extent changes might be made after eight years may be a matter of construction. In 1867 the Legislature so far departed from the letter of the constitution as to provide that the judges should be elected as judges or justices of the Supreme Court, without designating any per- son as chief justice, and that the senior judge in service should be chief justice. An even number of judges was found to work great inconvenience, because on some questions of importance there was an equal division, and hence no decision. In 1885 a bill was intro- duced in the State Senate by Senator Hubbell, providing for an additional judge. An exam- ination of the convention debates of 1850, made at his request, showed quite clearly that the intention was to have a bench of four judges only. Whether this was his reason for not pressing his bill is not known, but no ac- tion was had upon it at that session. At the next session a bill was passed for a fifth judge with a ten-year term.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.