3

ants, nor unless the people thereof, by a di

the Legislature. No city shall be incorpo- vinced me that there are several objec- the second clause, prohibiting the Leg-
rated with less than seven thousand inhabit- tions to the adoption of this amend- islature from passing any special acts
rect vote upon the question, shall have ment. If I did not think it would for that purpose.
decided in favor of such incorporation.” work injuriously, and operate badly in Mr. P. D. WARNER. I think I
Mr. WITHEY. I call for a division practice, I would favor it. But I am had the honor, or at least I took the
of the question upon the amendment of the opinion that it would be better responsibility, as a member of the com-
to the amendment. I ask that the to leave this matter to the discretion of mittee on the Legislative Department,
vote be first taken upon the motion to the Legislature.
to suggest as a section of this article,
strike out.
the following:

The CHAIRMAN. A division of the question having been called, the vote will be first taken upon striking out

the word "cities.'

Mr. GIDDINGS. I would ask the gentleman if his objection would apply to the first clause of the amendment? It seems to me that his objection will not apply to that clause.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Before the motion is put I desire to say to the gentleman from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL,) that I think he has got his figures a little too high. I think we would hardly be warranted in saying that we would not villages, might work allow any city organization with less than seven thousand inhabitants. In many parts of the State when they get up to five thousand they think they are worthy of a city organization. I think we should not have so large a figure as the gentleman has employed.

"The Legislature shall not pass special acts extending the time for the collection of taxes, nor for the incorporation of villages."

The committee, after giving the subMr. LUCE. I have no objection to ject that consideration which its merits the first clause. But, it seems to me seemed to demand, decided by a very that the other clause of the amendment, decisive vote against the second part which prohibits legislation in any way of the proposition. The first part is in reference to incorporated cities or contained in this article, in the thirtyinjuriously. I first section, which provides that the understand that in the State of New Legislature shall not pass special acts York they have a provision for incor- extending the time for the collection of porating cities under general law; at taxes. all events, they do incorporate them Now, so far as relates to the incorunder general law. But, I noticed in poration of villages, I, myself, am of an article in the New York Post, that the opinion that a general law might during the last session of the Legisla- be passed which would provide for all ture one hundred and seventy bills the necessities of the State. Therefore, were introduced to amend the general if that was the proposition before the law. If that is to be the case in this committee, I would give it a willing State, I cannot see that we will gain much by adopting this amendment, If we are to amend the general law every time any city or village needs to The next question was upon adding be incorporated, it seems to me that it to the amendment the following: "No will take up as much time as it would city shall be incorporated with less to grant a special charter. These are than seven thousand inhabitants, nor unless the people thereof, by a direct vote upon the question, shall have decided in favor of such incorporation." The question was taken, and it was not agreed to.

The question was then taken upon striking out the word "cities," and it was not agreed to.

The next question was upon striking out the words "except cities containing over. ten thousand inhabitants," and being taken, it was not agreed to.

The question then recurred on the amendment of Mr. SUTHERLAND.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I call for a division on that amendment, and ask that the vote be taken upon the clauses separately.

The CHAIRMAN. The division of the question having been demanded, the first question will be upon adding to section twenty-six the following:

"The Legislature shall provide by general law for organizing townships, cities and villages, on such conditions and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed."

Mr. LUCE. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr. SUTHERLAND,) what would be the effect of this amendment, in relation to cities now organized, in regard to amending their charters; would it affect them in any way?

support. But there are two other
propositions which I conceive are not
practicable; they cannot be made prac-
ticable as portions of the organic law.
From the experience I have had, and
from the necessities and requirements
of different localities in the State, I
objections which suggest themselves to believe that if we adopt the restrictions
my mind. If we can avoid in any way contained in the amendment proposed
this large mass of legislation for incor- by the gentleman from Saginaw, (Mr.
porations of this kind, it would cer- SUTHERLAND,) every Legislature that
tainly be a great benefit to this State. will convene under the Constitution we
But if we are to pass a general law, are now forming, if it shall be approved
and then be obliged to amend it one by the people, will be embarrassed in
or two hundred times each session, as its action with reference to these two
in the State of New York, what will measures, first, the organization of
we gain by it? It seems to me that it townships, and second the incorpora-
is a matter to be left to the sound dis- tion of cities.
cretion of the Legislature. The ques-
tion has been very much agitated in
the Legislature in reference to passing
some general law in regard to the in-
corporation of villages and cities. I
still think this matter should be left to
the Legislature.

Mr. T. G. SMITH. I would inquire of the gentleman from Branch, (Mr. LUCE,) how many of the bills introduced into the New York Legislature, to which he refers, were passed?

The question was raised this forenoon in relation to the county that was organized last winter. The reason assigned by the Supreme Court was that the act of organization did not conform to the requirements of the Constitution. With all due deference to the learned gentleman from Saginaw, I will take the responsibility of stating that I cannot be mistaken; that in support of that decision it was stated, among other things, that one supervisor could not constitute a board. That was urged by the Supreme Court, or rather stated by the Supreme Court, Mr. GIDDINGS. It seems to me as one of the reasons why that law was that none of us are opposed to the in conflict with the Constitution of this first clause of this amendment. I State. There may be other counties think we are willing to confer upon the having but one supervisor; if there Mr. LUCE. I stated before the Legislature power to provide by gen- should be, there would be a difficulty recess the objections to this amend-eral law for organizing townships, cit- in the organization of townships. But ment, which then occurred to my ies and villages. But I think there are there may not be a county in the State mind. Further reflection has con-many of us who do have objections to in that condition. The organization of

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I do not think it would have any effect at all upon them; it was not designed to affect them.

Mr. LUCE. There were one hundred and seventy of them passed and signed by the Governor.

Legislature passing laws authorizing such conveyances, inserted this provision in the present Constitution. I see no reason why, by solemn act of the Legislature, any person shall be authorized to convey real estate to another without any adjudication of rights, and, as you may say, without any standing in court of other parties interested. I Mr. VAN RIPER. I move to amend see no reason why a special and private this section by striking out the words, law of the State of Michigan should "authorize by private or special law authorize the private conveyance of the sale or conveyance of any real real estate by one individual to anestate belonging to any person, nor;" other. That course was resorted to in order to quiet titles without, going "The Legislature shall not vacate nor alter through courts of law, and to give any road laid out by the commissioners of force and legality to titles without

so that the section will read:

1

+

:

going into the courts, and that, too, by a Legislature which has no judicial power at all, and that did not have any judicial authority. In that way parties would have no standing in court, to defend their rights, and no opportunity to be heard, and could have no chance to enforce any remedy.

I will not prolong my remarks further, than to say that the object of this section was to cut off that kind of special legislation, by which interested parties could come here and acquire a sort of sanction to a title, whether good or bad, simply by making representations to the Legislature. These were the views which the committee had in reference to this section; in fact the object was so apparent that I do not know there was any discussion upon it. I will inquire of the members present here of the Convention of 1850, whether that was not the subject of complaint prior to the formation of the present Constitution?

.

Mr. McCLELLAND. That was the reason why this provision was inserted in the Constitution of 1850. Frequent applications had been made before that time to the Legislature, and acts had been passed upon an ex parte showing, and great injustice had been done, in many cases, throughout the State. In consequence of that, the Convention of 1850 thought it best to put this restriction in the present Constitution; and I think it is one of the most salutary restrictions in that Constitution.

Mr. CONGER. That is all. The amendment of Mr. CROSWELL was then agreed to.

Mr. CROSWELL. I move to amend this section by inserting after the word "street," the words "or public grounds;" Mr. HOLT. I move to amend this so that that portion of the section will section merely for the purpose of read: "Nor vacate nor alter any road changing its phraseology somewhat. laid out by commissioners of highways, I move to strike out the words “nor or any street or public grounds in any vacate nor alter," and insert in lieu city or village, or in any recorded town thereof "or authorize the vacation or plat. alteration of." That will not change the sense of the section, but merely correct its phraseology, and I think make it read very much better.

I

Mr. LEACH. This amendment might perhaps in most cases be beneficial. But I am apprehensive that there may be cases where it will pre- Mr. BLACKMAN. I think the vent the doing of that which may be amendment of the gentleman from very desirable. In the village where I Muskegon, (Mr. HOLT,) does somereside there is among the public thing more than merely change or squares, set apart and dedicated to the alter the phraseology; I think it use of the public, one upon which the changes the entire sense of the section. citizens hope eventually to erect a It now provides that the Legislature union school building. If this amend- shall not authorize by private or ment is adopted it seems to me it special law, the sale or conveyance of would prohibit us from doing anything any real estate to any person; and also of that kind. That may also be the that the Legislature shall not vacate case with other villages. It seems to nor alter any road, etc. It does not me that this amendment would pro- say they may not authorize by a genhibit anything of that kind being done. eral law, the vacating or alteration of Mr. CONGER. I am in favor of the any road by a court, but merely says amendment proposed by the gentleman the Legislature themselves shall not from Lenawee, (Mr. CROSWELL.) In do it. answer to the remarks of the gentle- Mr. HOLT. I withdraw my amendman from Grand Traverse, (Mr. LEACH,) ment. I read this section very hastily. I will say that the law already provides Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Mr. COOLIDGE. My impression is a proper and very expeditious mode of move to amend this section by striking that there was another reason for this vacating any streets or public grounds, out the words "private or," so that it provision; I think it was true that, be- by petition to the circuit court, upon will read, "the Legislature shall not fore this clause was put into our Con- the notification of the parties interested. authorize by special law the sale or stitution, persons came here for legis- It is a system which I have had occa- conveyance of any real estate," etc. If lative aid who had, for various reasons, sion to employ, and so understand the it is a private law of course it is a placed their property out of their workings of it in reference to vacating special law. hands. I recollect some of those cases streets and also public grounds. It is where men, from interested motives, a very direct, simple and concise mode of put their property into the hands of reaching the object the gentleman has their children, and, after a while, de- in view. It merely provides that the siring to obtain the management of it parties interested shall have proper Mr. CONGER. I desire to say that themselves, they would come to the notice of the proposed change, and an I do not oppose any particular criticism Legislature, and, through some pre- opportunity to be heard in court; I of the language of this section. "Acts," tence or other, get an act restoring the think that will meet all the objections in the common acceptation and use of property to themselves. I would in- to this amendment urged by the gen- the word, are divided into public acts quire. of the gentleman from Wayne tleman from Grand Traverse. He is and private acts, into public acts and (Mr. MCCLELLAND) if such was not also doubtless familiar with the law on this special acts. A special act refers to the case? subject. The same rule would apply one passed for a special purpose. I Mr. MCCLELLAND. I have myself to vacating public grounds that would think there is used in this section a known several instances where author-apply to vacating public streets. ity was given to guardians, adminis- Mr. ALEXANDER. I would intrators and others, to sell property quire of the gentleman from St. Clair, without any investigation at all, and (Mr. CONGER,) where the Legislature great injustice resulted from it. I get their authority, or where the cirthink all such things should be investi- cuit court would get authority, to vagated by the courts; the court is the cate any village property, town plat, proper tribunal to decide upon ques- street or public property of any kind, tions of this kind. if the Constitution prohibited the LegMr. COOLIDGE. I have not a par-islature from granting such authority? ticle of doubt but what this is a wise Mr. CONGER. It could be done provision, and I should be very sorry under general law; this provision simto see it stricken out.

Mr. GIDDINGS.. I think the word "private" has some technical signification; and I would, therefore, leave it in the section on that ground.

term of very common legal acceptation "private acts." With all deference to the opinions of my friend from Oakland, (Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH,) I cannot see the advantage to be derived from striking out a word of well-known legal signification, and leaving a word to stand which might perhaps be much more properly stricken out.

Mr. VAN VALKENBURGH. Is not a private law a special law? Mr. CONGER. The common law