Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

den &c. R. R. Co. Bald. 205; Enfield Br. Co. v. Hartford &c. R. R. Co. 17 Conn. 40; Lexington & O. R. R. Co. v. Applegate, 8 Dana, 289; Tuckahoe Co. v. Railroad Co. 11 Leigh, 42; Piscataqua &c. Br. v. N. H. Br. 7 N. H. 35; Barber v. Andover, 8 N. H. 393; Pierce v. Somersworth, 10 N. H. 370; Backus v. Lebanon, 11 N. H. 20; Varick v Smith, 5 Paige, 146; Dyer v. Tuskaloosa Br. Co. 2 Port. 26; Boston W. P. Co. v. Boston &c. R. R. Corp. 40 Mass. 360; L. &c. R. R. Co. v. Chappell, 1 Rice, 383; Armington v. Barnet, 15 Vt. 745; West Riv. Br. Co. v. Dix, 16 Vt. 446; Bloodgood v. M. &c. R. R. Co. 18 Wend. 14.

9 Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. 13 Wall. 180; Pratt v. Brown, 3 Wis. 613; Walker v. Shepardson, 4 Ibid. 511; Goodall v. Milwaukee, 5 Wis. 39; Weeks v. Milwaukee, 10 Wis. 242; Fisher . Horicon Iron Co. Ibid. 353; Newell v. Smith, 15 Wis. 104. But see Alexander v. Milwaukee, 16 Wis. 248.

10 Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. 13 Wall. 166; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 144.

11 Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378.

12 Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457.

13 U. S. v. Chicago, 7 How. 195; U. S. v. Ames, 1 Wood. & M. 76. 14 Gilmer v. Shellenberger, 2 Black, 510.

15 Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229; Heyneman v. Blake, 19 Cal. 579. See People v. Kerr, 3 Barb. 357.

16 Consol. Chan. Co. v. Cent. Pac. R. R. Co. 51 Cal. 269; Newcomb v. Smith, I Chand. 71. But see Ex parte Barnard, 4 Cranch C. C. 294.

17 Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. 13 Wall. 177; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 18 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 116; Wynehainer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378; Weismer v. Vill. of Douglass, 64 N. Y. 92.

18 Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484.

19 Newcomb v. Smith, 1 Chand. 71.

20 U. S. v. Russell, 13 Wall. 623; Taylor v. Railroad Co. 6 Cold. 646; as in case of military necessity-Clark v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 564; or in case of a conflagration-Bishop v. City of Macon, 7 Ga. 200.

21 Taylor v. R. R. Co. 6 Cold. 646; Williams v. Wickerman, 44 Mo. 434. 22 Newcomb v. Smith, 1 Chand. 71.

23 Pitcher v. U. S. 1 Nott. & H. 7.

24 Kohl v. U. S. 91 U. S. 357; Trombley v. Humphrey, 23 Mich. 471; Darlington v. U. S. 33 Leg. Int. 400. But see Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229; Burt v. Merchants' Ins. Co. 106 Mass. 356.

25 St. Louis Co. Court v. Griswold, 53 Mo. 175. See Supplement, post, 322.

Compensation on condemnation.-The Constitution does not recognize any necessity as authority for taking property for public use without compensation,1 even on the rightful taking of property for public use or destruction by a military officer; but the power to confiscate the property of public enemies is not affected by the restrictions of this amendment.3 Private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.4

DESTY FED. CON.-23.

There must be a condemnation or an agreement consummated. The actual occupant of vacant land is entitled to damages, even where it is taken under an act of Congress. So, the rights of owners to adjacent streets is as much property as the lots they own." Congress cannot authorize a telegraph company to construct its lines over private property without just compensation.8 In the exercise of its power over post-offices and post-wards, Congress cannot take property without the consent of the owner, or a just compensation ; nor, in improving naviga tion, can it divert waters from their natural channel without compensation to riparian owners.10 The making of compensation must be as absolutely certain as that the property is taken. Just compensation means just in regard to the public as well as to the individual, 12 the means of ascertaining which is to be in the discretion of Congress.13 If the congressional act provides a special tribunal, no other can be resorted to.14 The advantage to land not taken cannot be set off against its intrinsic value. 15 See Supplement, post, 322.

1 Norris v. Doniphan, 4 Met. (Ky.) 385; Corbin v. Marsh, 2 Duvall, 193.

2 Grant v. U. S. 1 Ct. Cl. 41; 2 Ibid. 551; Wiggins v. U. S. 3 Ct. Cl. 412. 3. Miller v. U. S. 11 Wall. 268.

4 Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243; Bucker v. State, 7 Bank. Reg. 262; Case of De Groot, 9 Op. Att.-Gen. 431; Young v. McKenzie, 3 Ga. 31; Danville &c. R. R. Co. v. Comm. 73 Pa. St. 29.

5 Whitman v. Boston &c. R. R. Co. 85 Mass. 138.

6 California &c. R. R. Co. v. Gould, 21 Cal. 254.

7 Lackland v. North. Mo. R. R. Co. 31 Mo. 180.

8 Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co. v. Chicago &c. R. R. Co. 6 Biss. 158.

9 Dickey v. Turnp. Co. 7 Dana, 119.

10 Avery v. Fox, 1 Abb. U. S. 246.

11 Young v. Harrison, 6 Ga. 130; Carr v. Georgia &c. R. R. Co. 1 Kelly, 524; Miller r. Craig, 3 Stock. 106; Buffalo &c. R. R. Co. v. Ferris, 26 Tex. 588; Bloodgood v. Mohawk &c. R. R. Co. 18 Wend. 9.

12 Chesapeake & O. Can. Co. v. Key, 3 Cranch C. C. 599.

13 Chesapeake & O. Can. Co. v. Key, 3 Cranch C. C. 599; Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. 427; Mann v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; 69 Ill. 80.

14 Meade v. U. S. 2 Ct. Cl. 224.

15 People v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 6 Barb. 309; Jacob v. Louisville, 9 Dana, 114; Rogers v. Railroad Co. 3 Me. 310; Iwale v. Baltimore, 5 Md. 314; Buffalo &c. R. R. Co. v. Ferris, 26 Tex. 588; Hatch v. Vermont Cent. R. R. Co. 25 Vt. 4); State v. Miller, 3 Zab. 383.

ARTICLE VI.

MODE OF TRIAL IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

SECTION 1.

Accused entitled to speedy trial; to confront witnesses; to have counsel; place of trial, etc.

1

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment, proposed 25th September, 1789; ratified 15th December, 1791. These prohibitions are exclusively restrictive on the Federal powers, to prevent interference with the rights of States and their citizens; it does not apply to acts of the legislatures of the several States, though it applies to the case of offenses committed within the limits of the State.3 This article does not apply to the power to confiscate the property of public enemies, 4 nor to a proceeding to annul the license of a pilot for neglect of duty. The exception as to trial by military and naval courts, expressed in the Fifth Amendment, governs this amendment by implication. The guaranty of the right of trial by jury is intended for a state of war as well as for a state of peace, and is equally binding on rulers and people. The indictment must set forth the offense with clearness and certainty. Where the accused wrongfully kept away the witnesses, he waives his right to be confronted by them;" so, where he admits that absent witnesses will testify to the facts set forth in the affidavit produced on behalf of the United States. 10 The jury are not constituted judges of the law in criminal cases. See Supplement, post, 323.

1 Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410. 2 Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321; Murphy v. People, 2 Cow. 815; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cowen, 819: Campbell v. State, 11 Ga. 353; Guillote v. New Orleans. 12 La. An. 432; Ex parte Smith, 10 Wend. 449; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90.

3 U. S. v. Dawson, 15 How. 467.

4 Miller v. U. S. 11 Wall. 268.

5 Low v. Commissioners, R. M. Charl. 302.

Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 123; In re Bogert, 2 Sawy. 402.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

7 Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 119.

8 U. S. v. Cruikshank, $2 U. S. 542; 1 Woods, 308.

9 Reynolds v. U. S. 7 Am. L. R. 9.

10 U. S. v. Sacramento, 2 Mont. 239.

11 U. S. v. Morris, 1 Curt. 23; U. S. v. Shive, Bald. 510; U. S. v. Battiste, 2 Sum. 243; Townsend v. State, 2 Blackf. 151; Pierce v. State, 5 How. 504; 13 N. H. 336; Commonwealth v. Porter, 51′ Mass. 268; Moutée v. Comm. 3 J. J. Marsh. 150.

ARTICLE VII.

TRIAL BY JURY.

SECTION 1.

Right of, in civil actions.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment, proposed 25th September, 1789; ratified 15th December, 1791.

Trial by jury.-This provision relates to trials in the United States courts, and not to trials in State courts.1 It does not extend to suits against the Government.2 The restriction is general and applies to all the departments of Government alike, the governor as much as any other department, and to the legislative and judiciary of the Territories, and to tribunals established under a provisional government. The phrase "common law" is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction, and embraces ail suits at common law, whatever may be their peculiar form, brought to settle legal rights. The trial by jury" means a trial by a tribunal of twelve men acting only upon a unanimous determination; hence, a territorial statute allowing a verdict upon agreement of three-fourths of the jury is void; but it does not prevent such legislature from extending the right to cases involving less than twenty dollars.9 The benefit of the right herein secured may be waived, but the act of waiver should be plain and explicit. 10 The inhibition contained in this article refers to suits at common 'aw alone, and not suits in admiralty, although the courts f common law have a concurrent jurisdiction,!! in which tits in admiralty the trial is never by jury, 12 nor does provision embrace the established exclusive jurisdic

tion of courts of equity, 18 nor to a proceeding under statutory provisions and forms specially provided ;14 as to an examination of a claim under a fugitive slave law, 15 or a proceeding to assess damages. 16 See post, 324.

1 Livingston v. Moore, 7 Peters, 469; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 434: Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 92; 27 La. An. 14; Boring v. Williams, 17 Ala. 510; Dawson v. Shaver, 1 Blackf. 204; Colt v. Eves, 12 Conn. 243; Foster v. Jackson, 57 Ga. 206; Railroad Co. v. Heath, 9 Ind. 558; State v. Keyes, 8 Vt. 57; Huntington v. Bishop, 5 Vt. 186; Livingston v. Mayor, 8 Wend. 85; Lee v. Tillotson, 24 Wend. 337.

2 McElrath v. U. S. 12 Ct. Cl. 312.

3 Kleinschmidt v. Dunphy, 1 Mont. 118.

4 Claim of Reside, 9 Op. Att.-Gen. 200.

5 Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437; Morris, 487; Whallon v. Bancroft, 4 Minn. 109.

6 Scott v. Billgerry, 40 Miss. 119.

7 Parsons_v. Bedford, 3 Peters, 433; Ins. Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258; U. S. v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437; Bains v. The James & Catherine, Bald. 554.

8 Kleinschmidt v. Dunphy, 1 Mont. 118.

9 Whallon v. Bancroft, 4 Minn. 109.

10 Bank v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235; Parsons v. Armor, 3 Peters, 415; U.S. v. Rathbone, 2 Paine, 578.

11 Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; The Huntress, 2 Ware, (Dav.) 89; U. S. v. Bright, Bright, 19; Bains v. The James & Catherine, Bald. 544. 12 U. S. v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; The Margaret, 9 Wheat. 421; The Betsey, 4 Cranch, 443; Whelan v. U. S. 7 Cranch, 112; U. S. v. The Queen, 4 Ben. 237; Clark v. U. S. 2 Wash. C. C. 519; U. S. v. Irma, 12 Int. Rev. Rec. 42.

13 Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. 353; Woodworth v. Rogers, 3 Wood. & M. 135; Ely v. M. & B. Manuf. Co. 4 Fish. 64; Scott v. Billgerry, 40 Miss. 119; Motts v. Bennett, 2 Fish. 642.

14 Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506; 3 Wis. 157; Miller v. McQuerry, 5 McLean, 469; Ex parte Martin, 2 Paine, 348.

15 Miller v. McQuerry, 5 McLean, 469; Ex parte Martin, 2 Paine, 348. 16 Bonaparte v. Camden &c. R. R. Co. Bald. 205.

Right, when not to attach.-This section does not apply to a motion for summary relief, as that judgment may be entered against the surety on an appeal bond,2 or a judgment by default for failure to produce books and papers, or for judgment on a forfeited recognizance;4 nor does it apply to preliminary inquiries which do not involve a trial of the merits,5 nor to cases where the facts are conceded, nor to a proceeding to annul the license of a pilot, nor to the imposition of a fine for failure to comply with the inspection laws, nor where there is default in proceedings under confiscation laws, in a seizure on land;9 but in an information in rem, the claimant is entitled to a trial by jury. 10 A trial by

« ForrigeFortsett »