Edith Smith (police officer)

Edith Smith (21 November 1876 – 26 June 1923) was the first female police officer in the United Kingdom with full power of arrest.
Life.
Edith Smith was born on 21 November 1876, in Oxton, Birkenhead. She was one of six children of nursery and seedman James Smith and his wife Harriet. In 1897 she married stationer and tobacconist William Smith. They had three daughters and a son together. She worked for a time as a sub-postmistress. Her husband died in 1907. The 1911 Census shows Smith had moved to London and was training to be a midwife. The daughters were at different schools and the son was in an orphanage near Blackburn. Shortly after this she took up a post as a matron at a nursing home.
Founded in 1914, the Women Police Volunteers (WPV) was staffed by volunteers such as Smith. It was founded by Nina Boyle and Margaret Damer Dawson, who fell out over its anti-prostitution role in London and elsewhere in February 1915, with Boyle leaving the organisation and Dawson reforming it as the Women's Police Service (WPS) with herself as head. Smith remained with the WPS and in August 1915 she was appointed the first woman police constable in England with full power of arrest. Her duties were to deal with cases where women were involved. She was concerned with trying to reduce the number of prostitutes in Grantham who were attracted there by the nearby army base. She received 28 shillings (£1.40) a week. In April 1917 this was raised to £2 10 shillings (£2.50 a week). This was more than the oldest male police Constable in the force due to the fact that her "duties were most onerous" and took into account that she was also a qualified nurse.
In 1916, PC Smith cautioned 100 wayward girls in larceny cases and also 16 women and 15 girls who had been found to be drunk. Ten prostitutes were convicted, 10 were handed over to their parents and 50 were cautioned. Smith wrote of her time in Grantham: "The appointment has made such a vast difference - the prostitutes have found that it does not pay and the frivolous girls have bowed down."
Smith travelled around Britain giving talks about women's policing at conferences and writing pamphlets. The legitimacy of policewomen was often questioned during World War One due to their blurred status and limited powers. Their role was left in the hands of individual Chief Constables leading to extreme conservatism in some areas and to daring innovations in others.
Smith left the WPS (renamed the Women's Auxiliary Service after the war) after working seven days a week for a period of two years. She left in 1918 due to chest trouble. Until January 1919, Smith was also the matron nurse at Lindis Nursing Home, Dudley Road in Grantham where she worked seven days a week.
Smith moved to Runcorn in Cheshire to work for a Nursing Association. Finding it to be low on funds, she gave lectures, organised whist drives and conducted shorthand classes to raise money. However, there were some local concerns, who "“did not complain about the nurse's work, but about her methods”."
She died on 26 June 1923 after she took an overdose of morphia, five years after leaving the force. The coroner returned a verdict that she took her own life while temporarily insane. Her life is commemorated in Grantham Museum. Her grave at Halton Cemetery in Runcorn was unmarked until two policewomen launched a fundraising campaign to buy a headstone in 2018. She shares the grave with her niece, Marjorie, who died aged two years on the tenth day after Smith's death.
Commemoration.
In 2014, a blue plaque was unveiled on the wall of the old prison building between the Grantham Guildhall and the Grantham Museum where she had worked as a policewoman. Deputy Chief Constable Heather Roach, of Lincolnshire Police, said: ""She spent time getting to know the people in her area and thoroughly understood the concept of 'neighbourhood policing'.”"
On 16 June 2018 a blue plaque was erected on 18 Palm Hill, Oxton, where she had lived. The plaque was unveiled her granddaughter Margaret Smith.
On 8 March 2019 a blue plaque was erected on St Mary's Church Hall, Halton village, Runcorn, on the site of the old almshouses where Edith had been living at the time of her death.


Perth Mint Swindle

The Perth Mint Swindle is the popular name for the robbery of 49 gold bars weighing 68 kg from the Perth Mint in Western Australia on 22 June 1982. The bullion was valued at A$653,000 at that time (2011:$2.02 million). , the value of the 68 kilograms of gold would approach AUD $3.7 Million.
According to police at the time, three brothers, Ray, Peter and Brian Mickelberg, orchestrated the robbery. The three went to trial and were found guilty of the conspiracy and sentenced in 1983 to twenty, sixteen and twelve years in jail respectively.
All three convictions were overturned in 2004. To date the case remains unsolved and continues to be fought by the Mickelbergs who maintain their innocence and allege a conspiracy by the Western Australia Police to frame them.
Mickelberg brothers.
Soon after the robbery police investigations focused on the Mickelberg brothers. According to the police, the brothers stole cheques from a Perth building society and then fooled the mint into accepting those cheques in exchange for gold bullion which, it was alleged, the brothers had a courier pick up. The gold was picked up by a security company who delivered it to an office in Perth and then to Jandakot Airport, from where it seemingly disappeared.
In a separate matter, in September 1982, the three brothers, their parents and another man Brian Pozzi were charged over a matter relating to a manufactured gold nugget known as the "Yellow Rose of Texas". Perth Businessman Alan Bond had purchased the nugget for $350,000 in November 1980. It was later found to be worth less than $150,000 and Raymond Mickelberg and Brian Pozzi pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to fraud at their June 1984 trial.
After serving nine months of his jail term and having his conviction overturned on appeal, Brian was released from jail but died in a light aircraft crash on 27 February 1986, when the twin-engined Aero Commander he was flying ran out of fuel near Canning Dam on the outskirts of Perth. Whilst in prison, Ray and Peter embarked on a series of seven appeals against their convictions, essentially on the grounds that their confessions had been fabricated by police investigators. Ray and Peter served eight and six years of their sentences respectively before being released on parole.
In 1989, 55 kg of gold pellets, said to have been from the swindle, were found outside the gates of TVW-7 (currently Channel Seven Perth), a Perth television station, with an anonymous note addressed to one of the station's reporters—Alison Fan—protesting the Mickelberg's innocence and claiming that a prominent Perth businessman was behind the swindle.
Police officers.
Don Hancock.
The senior investigating officer in the case was Detective-Sergeant Don Hancock who was later promoted to head of the State Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB). Hancock and a friend, Lou Lewis, died in a bomb explosion outside Hancock's home in Lathlain in September 2001.
Tony Lewandowski.
In 2002, midway through a State Royal Commission into police corruption, a retired police officer, Tony Lewandowski, who had been at the centre of the case, made a confession of his involvement in fabricating evidence which was used to help frame the brothers. Lewandowski's senior officer during the investigation was Don Hancock. The two were the only people present at the brothers' interviews following the Mickelberg arrests.
"(On that day), Don Hancock came into the room and told me to make Peter strip naked. Don then went up to Peter and gave him two or three quick punches in the solar plexus. The statements purportedly taken from Peter Mickelberg on 26 July 1982, were in fact not taken in Peter's presence that day, but were a fabrication made by Don Hancock and myself shortly after 2 September 1982. I gave evidence at the trial and numerous appeals. All that evidence in relation to the so-called confessions was false." —Statement of Tony Lewandowski
Lewandowski was subsequently charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, making false statements, fabricating evidence and perjury. In May 2004, just before facing trial, Lewandowski apparently committed suicide, Although now dead, Lewandowski's confession directly implicated Hancock in fabricating evidence in the Mickelberg case.
Convictions quashed.
In July 2004 the Western Australian Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the brothers' convictions after seven unsuccessful attempts. The judge ruled that with the suppression of their sentence, they were entitled to a presumption of innocence. The Assistant Police Commissioner, Mel Hay, expressed disappointment with the decision which prompted a threat of a defamation lawsuit from the brothers. The brothers subsequently sued the Western Australian government for libel, and as part of the settlement, the West Australian police issued a public apology in December 2007.
After lodging claims for compensation, in January 2008 State Attorney-General Jim McGinty offered $500,000 in ex-gratia payments to each brother for the "injustice done to them". The payment followed $658,672 paid to cover legal costs of their two appeals. The Mickelbergs' lawyer had asked for $950,000 in compensation for Ray and $750,000 for Peter.
Books about the case.
Author Avon Lovell wrote a book about the case in 1985: "The Mickelberg Stitch", which alleged questionable investigation practices by the police, including production of unsigned confessions and a forged fingerprint. The police union collected a levy of $1 per week from each member to fund legal action against Lovell and his publishers and distributors to suppress publication of the book. It was estimated that between one and two million dollars was raised. The book was banned by the State Government, but was still freely available to be read at the J S Battye Library. The ban was eventually lifted.
A second book by Lovell, "Split Image", was published in 1990 and met a similar fate to the first. This ban was also lifted later.
In March 2011, Lovell launched a third book on the case, "Litany of Lies", at about the same time that Antonio Buti wrote on the subject
In popular culture.
Two telemovies based on the swindle have been made.
One actor, Caroline McKenzie, appeared in both features, playing Detective Ljiljana Cvijic in the 1984 version and Peg Mickelberg in 2012.


Vasily Aleksanyan

Vasily Georgievich Aleksanyan (, ; 15 December 1971 – 2 October 2011) was a Russian lawyer and a former Executive Vice President of Yukos oil company. He headed the company’s legal department and represented Mikhail Khodorkovsky when the Kremlin accused the oil tycoon and his managers of money laundering and embezzlement in 2006. Aleksanyan was arrested and charged as an accomplice to tax evasion and money laundering. After refusing to allegedly provide false evidence against other Yukos executives, he served two years in prison while suffering from advanced cancer and AIDS. After a decision by European Court of Human Rights, he was released on a bond on 12 January 2009, dying from complications of AIDS on 2 October 2011.
Lawyer and businessman.
Vasily Aleksanyan graduated from Moscow State University and the Law School of Harvard University as a Master of Laws. In 1992 through 1994 he worked for the USA law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton. In 1995–1996 he was the head of the legal department for the British Investment firm SUN Group. Since 1996 he worked as the head of the legal department for Yukos.
On 1 April 2006, amidst the legal troubles over Yukos company, his position was elevated to that of Executive Vice President, replacing Roman Khomenko. His new position was accepted by the shareholders on 4 April. His main stated goal in the new role was to streamline the corporate governance, achieving direct control over the assets of the company from the London Yukos headquarters bypassing the Moscow based offices of Yukos RM and Yukos EP. The decision was quite important for the struggling company as the Moscow-based offices bluntly refused all the supervision from London obeying orders of the government-controlled Rosneft instead. According to Aleksanyan, the lost control over the Moscow offices led to financial irregularities, including e.g. surfacing of counterfeit 10 billion ruble promissory note.
On 6 April 2006 Aleksanyan was taken into custody as a suspected accomplice to tax evasion and money laundering by Yukos. According to prosecutors, Aleksanyan was an accomplice to the embezzlement of more than 12 billion rubles. The arrest was based on the testimonies of Svetlana Bakhmina, a subordinate of Aleksanyan arrested in 2004. According to Aleksanyan, Bakhmina's testimonies were false, and were taken from her under pressure.
In prison.
After his arrest Aleksanyan started a hunger strike, insisting that his arrest without court hearings was illegal. He aborted his strike on 27 April 2006.
During Aleksanyan's imprisonment, his health rapidly deteriorated due to HIV-related illnesses. He became almost blind and developed cancer of the liver with metastasis into the lymph nodes. He also became ill with tuberculosis.
Despite the grave medical situation demanding urgent antiretroviral treatment and chemotherapy in a hospital, he was denied both. The prosecutors also ignored three injunctions by the European Court of Human Rights on 27 November 2007, on 6 December 2007 and on 20 December 2007. According to Aleksanyan, the prosecutors are demanding false evidence against other Yukos executives from him before starting his medical treatment. On 26 December Aleksanyan made public a statement asking for help from human rights advocates.
Eleven days into a hunger strike in his favour by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Aleksanyan was transferred from a pre-trial prison to an oncological hospital on 8 February 2008. On 20 October 2008 Simonovsky Court of Moscow approved continuing pre-trial detention of Alexanyan despite his grave illnesses (he had cancer, tuberculosis and AIDS and his spleen was surgically removed).
On 8 December 2008 Moscow City Court reversed the decision of Simonovsky Court and decided to release Alexanyan under a bond of 50 million rubles (approximately $2 million). He was to be released after the money was paid. Human rights advocates Lev Ponomaryov and Lyudmila Alexeyeva welcomed the court decision but expressed concern whether Alexanyan would be able to pay this sum of money.
Release and death.
On 22 December 2008 European Court of Human Rights made its decision over the "Aleksanyan v. Russia" case. The court found Russia in violation of four articles of European Convention on Human Rights and obliged Russia to release Alexanyan immediately without any bond.
On 12 January 2009, after a bond of 50 million rubles was paid, Aleksanyan was released. But he was repeatedly summoned to attend court hearings, where he wore a face mask and could barely stand up during the proceedings. The case against him was only dropped last year as the statute of limitations ran out.
Aleksanyan died at his home in Moscow on 2 October 2011, due to complications from AIDS.


Nanzatico

The Nanzatico (Nantaughtacund) community was a group of Native Americans that included remnants of earlier tribes displaced by English settlers in and around King George County, Virginia. The group was made up of Portobagos from Maryland, Patawomecks from the Northern Neck area, Matchotics, and Rappahannock tribe members along with others. The original Nantaughtacund were noted by that name living on the Rappahannock River by John Smith on 1608, represented on his map as a "king's house".
They occupied land on opposite sides of the Rappahannock in present-day Caroline and King George counties. The town of Nanzemond was recorded by 1654, and the towns of Warisquock and Ausaticon in 1655. The Portobacco town was south of the river, about where Smith's "king's house" was shown. The only surviving deed for a land sale by the tribe was signed by their "weroance" Attamahune in 1662. The Matchotic (Mattehatique) formed a section of them on the 1669 census. In that census, the Nanzatico counted fifty bowmen, and the Portobacco sixty. In 1680, the "weroance" Pattanochus signed onto an annexe of the 1677 Treaty of Middle Plantation for both groups. In 1684, the Colony ordered the 70 total remaining Rappahannock to join with the Portobacco, for their protection against Seneca Iroquois raids. These groups were allied with the Doeg tribe, who held land just upriver in Caroline as late as 1720. In the 1697 census, both the Nanzatico and Portobacco groups were counted together with 40 bowmen, and in 1702 they had 30 bowmen between them.
In April 1704, the Nanzatico complained to the House of Burgesses that English settlers were encroaching onto their remaining enclave, on both sides of the river. These complaints were never acted upon by the Virginia Colony, and on August 30, a war party of ten Nanzatico men killed one of the encroaching settlers, John Rowley, and his family. A company of the Richmond County militia hunted down and captured 49 Nanzaticos and tried them for murder. 5 men were hanged for the murder, and all the other Nanzaticos over age 12 were sold into slavery in the West Indies under a 1665 law that held communities responsible for any murders of English settlers. Children were forced to work as servants for officials of the Virginia Colony.
The affiliated Portobacco / Rappahannock tribe were not deported at this time, and were noted by Robert Beverley in 1705 as living north of the river with five bowmen. The Name Nanzatico means warrior chief.


John de Sotheron

Sir John de Sotheron (died after 1398) was an English landowner, lawyer and judge, who served briefly as Lord Chief Justice of Ireland.
He was the son of Thomas de Sotheron, Lord of the Manor of Great Mitton in Lancashire; Mitton had passed by inheritance to the de Sotherons from the de Mitton family. He inherited his father's lands before 1368, when he was involved in a dispute over the advowson (i.e. the right to nominate the parish priest) of Mitton Church, and in February of that year he was defendant in a claim for a debt of 40 shillings brought against him by William de Mirfeld. He is known to have been acting as an attorney at this time.
In 1377 he was pardoned for killing John de Holden. He lived in a violent age, where case of manslaughter and even murder among the ruling class were not uncommon, and a royal pardon was easy enough to obtain; nor would a criminal record necessarily hinder one's career, as de Sotheron's own later life shows.
In 1384 he was sent to Ireland as Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas, but he took up office as Lord Chief Justice instead. He served for one year, returned to England, then came back to Ireland in 1386, as a legal adviser to Sir John Stanley, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He remained in Ireland for several years. He lived at Dangan, County Meath. Ball states that his wife Joanna was kidnapped from Dangan Castle in 1392, but gives no further details of the episode.
He returned to England sometime after 1392, was knighted, and retired to his estates in Lancashire.
He married Joanna, daughter of Sir Simon Cusack, and had at least two surviving children. He was still living in 1397/8, when he and his eldest son and heir Christopher were in dispute with Roger White and others as to the ownership of lands at Great Mitton. The estate passed to Christopher, whose descendants remained there for several generations. The family name was later spelt Sherburne.


Frederik Wilhelm Stabell

Frederik Wilhelm Stabell (25 May 1763 – 2 June 1836) was a Norwegian military officer and politician. He was a member of the Norwegian Constituent Assembly in 1814, and ended his military career with the rank of general.
Personal life.
Stabell was born in the parish Hole, Ringerike, as the son of holzførster Lars Bastian Stabell and Lucie Marie Bruenech. He married Helene Voigt in 1792. He died in Christiania in 1836.
Military career.
Stabell served in the Infantry Regiment of Southern Norway from 1777, and studied at the Norwegian Military Academy in Christiania () from 1780 to 1783. After a period out of the military, he resumed his military career, first as a non-commissioned officer at the Sleswick Infantry Regiment. From 1786 he served at the "Kongsberg Infantry Company", which was incorporated in the newly formed "Norske gevorbne jegerkorps" in 1788. He held the rank of Captain from 1791, commanded his own company from 1801, was interim commander of the "Søndenfjeldske skiløperbataljon" from 1805, and was given the rank of Major in 1807. He was decorated Knight of the Order of Dannebrog in 1808, for his merits at the battle of Trangen and at Jaren during the Dano-Swedish War. From 1809 to 1810 he was interim commander at the Kongsvinger Fortress, and thereafter he served at the "Akershusiske skarpskytterregiment", with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel from 1811. During the Swedish-Norwegian War in 1814 he commanded 3,000 troops. He was appointed Colonel and commander of the "2nd Akershusiske Infanteribrigade" in 1818, was appointed Major General in 1818, Lieutenant General in 1821, and General in 1833.
Political career.
Stabell represented the "Akershusiske skarpskytterregiment" and Smaalenenes amt at the Norwegian Constituent Assembly in 1814.


Bayonne Statute

The Bayonne Statute () or Bayonne Constitution () or Bayonne Charter (), officially in the original document Constitution (), and officially in French, "Acte Constitutionnel de l’Espagne"—was a constitution or a royal charter () approved in Bayonne, France, 6 July 1808, by Joseph Bonaparte as the intended basis for his rule as king of Spain.
The constitution was Bonapartist in overall conception, with some specific concessions made in an attempt to accommodate Spanish culture. Few of its provisions were ever put into effect: Joseph Bonaparte's reign as Joseph I of Spain was a period of continuous conventional and guerrilla war ("See Peninsular War").
Background.
In 1808, after a period of shaky alliance between the Spanish "Antiguo Régimen" and the Napoleonic French First Empire, the Mutiny of Aranjuez (17 March 1808) removed the king's minister Manuel de Godoy, Prince of the Peace, and led to the abdication of king Charles IV of Spain (19 March 1808). His son Ferdinand VII briefly held the reins of power, but Napoleon determined to settle the monarchy of Spain on a member of his own family his older brother Joseph, conferred the title Prince of Spain to be hereditary on his children and grandchildren in the male and female line.
On 5 May 1808, Charles IV renounced his rights to the Spanish Crown in favor of Napoleon. Later the same day, Ferdinand VII, unaware of Charles's abdication, abdicated in favor of his father, effectively passing the Crown to Napoleon. Along with other Spanish members of the House of Bourbon, including Infante Antonio Pascual of Spain, they went into a comfortable, if forced, exile in France, at the Château de Valençay.
In an attempt to conform at least mildly to the tradition of legal continuity, Napoleon ordered his general Joachim Murat, Grand Duke of Berg, to convene in Bayonne a Cortes of thirty deputies chosen from among the notables of Spain to help draft and to approve the constitutional basis for the new regime. However, in the context of the Dos de Mayo Uprising in Madrid and various other uprisings elsewhere in Spain, only about a third of the invited Spanish notables attended. On 4 June 1808, Napoleon designated his brother Joseph as king of Spain; he was proclaimed king at Madrid on 25 July. The rump Cortes began meeting in Bayonne on 15 June to begin drafting a "constitution", for which Napoleon provided them with an extensive initial draft; it was promulgated July 8.
Content.
The Bayonne Statute placed many nominal limits on royal power, but few effective ones. There was to be a tricameral legislature; nine ministers (as against five or six in recent Bourbon governments); an independent judiciary; and various individual liberties were recognized, though not freedom of religion. Although generally Bonapartist in conception, the statute shows clear influence by the few Spanish notables who were involved in drafting it that it retained Catholicism as a state religion, and banned all other religions. In the Spanish tradition, it was promulgated "In the name of God Almighty" ("En el nombre de Dios Todopoderoso").
In the event, most provisions of the Statute were never put into practice: throughout the entire Bonapartist period in Spain, the constitution was effectively suspended by French military authorities. Most decisions were made by Napoleon and his generals, not by King Joseph. Nonetheless, French-controlled Spain saw some serious attempts at liberal reform, though many of them ignored the Bayonne Statute and, of course, this legislation was not recognized after the Bourbons were restored. The new regime abolished feudalism, the Inquisition, and the Council of Castile; suppressed numerous convents and monasteries as well as all military orders; declared that no new "mayorazgos" could be created; divided the country into French-style departments; abolished internal customs borders and many state monopolies; abolished the Mesta (a powerful association of sheep holders) and the tax known as the "Voto de Santiago"; privatized numerous state-owned factories; and began to introduce the Napoleonic Code into Spain's system of law.


Slave patrol

Slave patrols—traditionally known as patrollers, patterrollers, pattyrollers or paddy rollers by enslaved persons of African descent—were organized groups of armed men who monitored and enforced discipline upon slaves in the antebellum U.S. southern states. The slave patrols' function was to police enslaved persons, especially those who escaped or were viewed as defiant. They also formed river patrols to prevent escape by boat.
Policing the movements of Black people, slave patrols were explicit in their design to empower the White population. They were first established in South Carolina in 1704, and the idea spread throughout the colonies before their use diminished following the Civil War in the 1860s.
Formation of slave patrols.
Slave patrols first began in South Carolina in 1704 and spread throughout the thirteen colonies, lasting well beyond the American Revolution. As the population of enslaved Black people boomed, especially with the invention of the cotton gin, so did the fear of resistance and uprisings by the enslaved. The development of slave patrols began when other means of slave control failed to quell enslaved people's resistance. Their biggest concern were the enslaved being held against their will on the plantations since that is where enslaved populations were highest. Initially, incentives were offered to Whites such as tobacco and money to urge Whites to be more vigilant in the capture of runaway slaves. When this approach failed, slave patrols were formally established. Laws were put into place to regulate the activities of both Blacks and Whites. Black persons were subjected to questioning, searches, and other harassment. Slaves who were encountered without passes from their White "master" were expected to be returned to their owners, as stated in the slave code. Punishment for runaway slaves, such as whippings and beatings, could be expected. More than floggings and beatings, however, enslaved people feared the threat of being placed on the auction block and being separated from their families. If caught by patrols and returned to their masters, being placed on the auction block was an option for masters who no longer wanted to deal with their "non-compliant" slaves. During these times, slaves were often neglected and mistreated despite having permission to travel.
State militias as patrollers.
Slave owners feared gatherings held by enslaved people would allow them to trade or steal goods, and had the potential for organizing a revolt or rebellion. South Carolina and Virginia selected patrols from state militias. State militia groups were also organized from among the cadets of the Southern military academies, of The Citadel and the Virginia Military Institute, which were founded to provide a military command structure and discipline within the slave patrols and to detect, encounter, and crush any organized slave meetings that might lead to revolt or rebellion.
Slave codes and fugitive slave laws.
The Fugitive Slave Laws helped enforce the necessity for slave patrols to abide by the law. Although these laws were initially created to keep tensions low between the north and the south, it caused the physical formation of slave patrols. During the Civil War, the theory of Contraband prevented the return of Southern slaves who reached Union-held territory. This helped limit the role of slave patrols/catchers and changed the war. Another form of help for slaves was the Underground Railroad, which aided slaves in their escape to Northern states. Outside of the Underground Railroad, enslaved Black people went further south to ensure their freedom. Black people also formed their own organized networks and means of escape from slavery to Florida, where Black people negotiated with Native Americans and the Spanish government, and were able to live self-determined and free lives. Formerly enslaved people formed their own towns, military, and merged with the Florida population as Seminoles. Formerly imprisoned Europeans, Irish immigrants, and other former institutionalized Europeans were immigrated through race-based policies to found the state of Georgia. They were partially recruited to form a buffer state to stop enslaved Black people from escaping from the Carolinas, Georgia, and Virginia to Florida. Slave patrols in Georgia were formed for this purpose. Free Black cities and armed and trained Black militaries in Florida were a direct challenge to White dominance and profits in slave-owning states. The concept of self-determined freedom was also a direct challenge to the concept that Whites should rule and to the institution of slavery. Slave patrols and plantation police were organized by Whites as legal and extra-legal means to stop this from occurring.
The use and physical formation of slave patrols came to its end in 1865 when the Civil War ended. This end, however, is linked to post-Civil War groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, which continued to terrorize and threaten the black community.
In South Carolina, colonists began to write laws that constricted slaves long before slave patrols were alive and well. Laws implemented set in motion curfews for slaves, strengthening their militia, preventing slaves from bartering goods, and establishing the Charleston town watch. These are examples of some of the laws and ideas that molded what we know as slave codes.
Patrollers' duties.
Slave patrollers had their own characteristics, duties, and benefits, apart from slave owners and overseers. Patrollers were often equipped with guns and whips and would exert force in order to bring slaves back to their owners.
At times, black people developed many methods of challenging slave patrolling, occasionally fighting back violently. The American Civil War developed more opportunities for resistance against slave patrols and made it easier for enslaved people to escape. Slave patrol duties started as breaking up slave meetings. These slave meetings occurred on holidays, in which they would plan revolts and uprisings. Eventually, slave patrols expanded to be year-round, not just on holidays. Slowly, new duties and rights of patrollers became permitted, including: "apprehending runaways, monitoring the rigid pass requirements for Blacks traversing the countryside, breaking up large gatherings and assemblies of blacks, visiting and searching slave quarters randomly, inflicting impromptu punishments, and as occasion arose, suppressing insurrections."
Slave patrols consisted mostly of White citizens. Most people in slave patrols came from working and middle-class conditions. In some southern states, the militia and army served as slave patrols. In other southern states, slave patrols came about from colonial or state government legislation. Slave patrols typically rode on horseback in groups of four or five, sometimes even in family groups. They often worked sun-up to sun-down and varied their times and locations of patrol, to lower the chances of slaves escaping. They used no special equipment. Their chief tools, instead, were whips and intimidation.
Some states, such as South Carolina, required every White man, under consequence of forty shillings, to arrest and chastise any slave found away from their home without proper verification. After slaves were arrested and chastised, they were returned to their masters. In some instances, White men encouraged slaves to escape for the sake of being rewarded after the slave had been caught and returned to their master. In some areas, killing a slave was not considered a crime by the courts or community.
Slave patrollers were compensated in several ways, including exemption from public, county, and parish taxes and fees during their term of service. In addition, some patrollers were paid additional sums with surplus money.
Also, regardless of the power patrollers held, they had limitations. For example, although whippings and beatings were permitted, a deterrent also existed. This was the fact that, if whipped or beaten too severely, the slave was then of no use to their masters as laborers the next day. As a consequence, overly-brutal patrollers could expect revenge from slave owners.
Diminishing use of slave patrols.
American Civil War.
The Civil War, which lasted four years, directly threatened the very existence of slavery and, in turn, slave patrols. The first year after the Civil War began, slave patrols increased. Whites were expecting slave revolts, which inspired Whites to appoint more patrols. As the war dragged on, more and more White men were being called upon to serve in the Confederate army. White men who would have served in slave patrols had they remained in their communities, went to serve in the Confederate army. Some young men who were turned away by the army, mostly for medical reasons, ended up taking places within the slave patrols. As slave owners entered the Confederate army, some slaves lost the shield they once had to protect them from the harsh and brutal beatings.
After the Emancipation Proclamation, the increasing number of White men being called to the militias of the South in 1862 and 1863 resulted in many slave patrols simply not having enough men to be as active as they once were. As the Union army moved into local areas and communities, the likelihood that enslaved people that could flee to the areas controlled by the Union increased. Enslaved people who were considered obedient started to disappear in the night, running toward the Union army to emancipate themselves.
Reconstruction.
With the war lost, Southern Whites' fears of African Americans increased in 1865 due to Reconstruction governments that were perceived as oppressive to the South. Even though slavery and patrols were legally ended, the patrol system still survived. Almost immediately in the aftermath of the war, informal patrols sprang into action. Later, city and rural police squads, along with the help of Union army officers, revived patrolling practices among free men. During the post-Civil War Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, old-style patrol methods resurfaced and were enforced by postwar Southern police officers and also by organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan.


2003 Swedish euro referendum

A non-binding referendum on introduction of the euro was held in Sweden on 14 September 2003. The majority voted not to adopt the euro, and thus Sweden decided in 2003 not to adopt the euro for the time being. Had they voted in favour, the plan was that Sweden would have adopted the euro on 1 January 2006.
The ballot text was "Do you think that Sweden should introduce the euro as currency?" (). Sweden in Europe was the main umbrella group campaigning for a Yes vote. The No vote campaign was led by two organisations, representing left () and right wing politicians respectively. The political parties were divided. The Centre Party, Left Party and Green Party were against. The Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberal People's Party were for. The Social Democrats did not take a position due to internal disagreements.
Background.
Sweden joined the European Union in 1995 and its accession treaty has since obliged it to join the euro. However, one of the requirements for eurozone membership is two years' membership of ERM II, and Sweden has chosen not to join this mechanism and as a consequence tie its exchange rate to the euro ±2.25%. While there is government support for membership, all parties have pledged not to join without a referendum in favour of doing so.
Results.
The voter turnout was 82.6%, and the result was 55.9% against and 42.0% in favour. A majority of voters in Stockholm voted in favour of adopting the euro (54.7% "yes", 43.2% "no"). In Scania and Stockholm counties the "yes" votes (49.3%) outnumbered the "no" votes (48.5%), although the invalid and blank votes resulted in no majority for either option. In all other parts of Sweden, the majority voted no. Among municipalities, a majority of those in western Scania, and in Stockholm, voted yes. Kungsbacka and Haparanda also voted "yes". All other municipalities voted "no".


Danny McNamee

Gilbert "Danny" McNamee (born 29 September 1960) is a former electronic engineer from Crossmaglen, Northern Ireland, who was wrongly convicted in 1987 of conspiracy to cause explosions, including the Provisional Irish Republican Army's (IRA) Hyde Park bombing on 20 July 1982.
McNamee was arrested on 16 August 1986 at his home in Crossmaglen by the British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary, then flown to London and charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. At his trial at the Old Bailey, he denied even having sympathy for the IRA, and no evidence was ever presented that he had any paramilitary links. Additionally, the IRA itself stated that he was not a member, and never claimed him as a "prisoner of war". However, his fingerprint was found on electronic circuits in an arms cache that was linked to the Hyde Park bombing. At his trial, he explained that he may have handled the circuits when working for a previous employer, who he did not know had IRA connections. After five hours of deliberation by the jury, McNamee was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
In September 1994, McNamee and Paul Magee were among six prisoners who escaped from Whitemoor Prison, shooting and wounding a prison officer as they did so, before being captured two hours later.
In 1997, his case was examined by Channel 4's "Trial and Error" programme. McNamee was later to be the first case referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and his conviction was overturned on 17 December 1998, because of other, much more prominent, fingerprints on the same circuits, belonging to known IRA bomb-maker Dessie Ellis (who received a ten-year sentence in Ireland for possession of explosives after the bombings, but before MacNamee's trial), which were not disclosed at McNamee's original trial. Despite quashing McNamee's conviction, the appeal judges stated, "The Crown makes a strong case that the appellant [McNamee] was guilty of a conspiracy to cause explosions." Supporters of the campaign to clear his name included the comedian Jeremy Hardy.
In February 1999, McNamee read the IRA Roll of Honour at the Burns and Moley commemoration and the following month he sat with the Caraher family during the trial of Michael Caraher and other members of the Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade sniper team.


Nicholas Barnewall (Irish judge)

Sir Nicholas Barnewall (died after 1465) was an Irish judge and landowner of the fifteenth century who held office as Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. He was the ancestor of the Barnewall Baronets of Crickstown.
He was born at Crickstown, County Meath, the eldest son of Sir Christopher Bernevall (died 1446) and his wife Matilda (or Maud) Drake, an heiress of the wealthy Drake family of Drakerath. She was a close relative, possibly a sister, of John Drake, who was three times Lord Mayor of Dublin in the early 1400s, and led the citizens of Dublin to a decisive victory over the O'Byrne clan of County Wicklow at the Battle of Bloody Bank in 1402.
Nicholas's father was Lord Chief Justice of Ireland for more than a decade. Nicholas was "bred up to the law", and was appointed to the same office as his father in 1457, with a knighthood. In 1461 he was superseded in favour of Sir Thomas Fitz-Christopher Plunket, but regained office later the same year. He retired about 1463, and was still alive in 1465.
He married Ismay, daughter and co-heiress of Sir Robert Serjeant of Castleknock, County Dublin: they had at least two sons, Christopher and Edmund. Ismay's sister Joan married Sir Jenico d'Artois the younger. There was a bitter dispute over the family inheritance between the two sisters and their respective husbands, from which the Barnewalls emerged the winners, acquiring far more than the half of the estate which Ismay was entitled to by law.
Christopher, Nicholas's eldest son, inherited Crickstown, where the Barnewall family remained for several generations. He married Ellen Butler, daughter of Edmund Butler, 8th Baron Dunboyne. In 1623 his descendant Sir Patrick Barnewall was conferred with a baronetcy, which still exists.
Ismay outlived her husband, and remarried the prominent Yorkist nobleman Sir Robert Bold, 1st and last Baron Ratoath, who died in 1479. Catherine Bold, Lord Ratoath's daughter and heiress by his previous marriage, married Ismay's younger son Edmund Barnewall: they settled at Dunbrow in County Dublin, where their descendants remained for several generations.
Nicholas's younger brother Robert was created the first Baron Trimleston in 1461.


Indemnity Act (Bangladesh)

The Indemnity Act of Bangladesh was formulated to give immunity from legal action to the persons involved in the assassination of president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The assassination took place on August 15, 1975.
As the parliament of Bangladesh, the Jatiya Sangsad, was not in session, the law was promulgated on September 26, 1975, in the form of an ordinance by President Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad. It was titled "Indemnity Ordinance 1975", being Ordinance No. 50 of 1975. It was made a formal statute by Major General Ziaur Rahman and later approved by the Jatiyo Sangshad by the fifth amendment to the constitution brought about on April 6, 1979, the Indeminity Act became enshrined in the Constitution of Bangladesh.
Initially the legislation gave immunity to the persons involved in the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, which took place on August 15, 1975 but later Zia and Ershad further extended the law to legalise the military coups, martial law decrees and orders and other political events and decrees promulgated under their rule.
On 12 November 1996, the Indemnity Act was repealed by parliament after the Awami League formed a government with Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of Sheikh Mujib, as Prime Minister of Bangladesh.
A 2005 court ruling further pronounced the rule of Ziaur Rahman and the coup overthrowing Sheikh Mujib as illegal. Later it was ratified by the parliament.
In February 2010, the fifth amendment to the constitution was declared illegal by the High Court of Bangladesh.


Prinzenerlass

Prinzenerlass (, "princes decree", also spelled Prinzenerlaß) was the name of a decree issued in 1940 by Adolf Hitler that prohibited members of Germany's formerly reigning houses from participating in any military operations in the Wehrmacht.
In May 1940, Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, the grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, took part in the invasion of France. He was wounded during the fighting in Valenciennes and died in a field hospital in Nivelles on 26 May 1940. His funeral service was held at the Church of Peace, and he was buried in the Hohenzollern family mausoleum in the Antique Temple in Sanssouci Park. The service drew over 50,000 mourners. His death and the ensuing sympathy of the German public toward a member of the imperial family greatly bothered Hitler, and he began to see the Hohenzollerns as a threat to his power. Shortly afterwards, the "Prinzenerlass" was issued, and all members of the former German royal houses were relieved from combat duties. The decree prohibited members of Germany's formerly reigning families from actively serving in the Wehrmacht, fearing that this would increase the public's sympathy for the deposed dynasties and threaten his grip on power.


Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act

The Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, Bill-C74 was first introduced in the Canadian House of Commons on November 15, 2005. Introduced as a part of a package of "lawful access" proposals, Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act (MITA) if passed, would have required telephone and internet service providers to design, create and maintain interception capabilities into existing networks and into new technologies as they are introduced into Canada. Second, it would have allowed law enforcement to compel telephone and internet service providers to disclose subscriber information without a warrant. The bill failed to pass into law when Parliament was dissolved on November 28, 2005. Lawful access legislation was, however, was re-introduced under the name Bill C-13 (short titled "Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act"t) by Stephen Harper's Conservative government on November 20, 2013 and it passed through all legislative stages to receive royal assent on December 9, 2014.
Background.
Under the "Criminal Code", "lawful access" provisions for the interception of communications by law enforcement was first adopted in 1974. The Criminal Code was amended in the 1980s and again in the 1990s to allow law enforcement the ability to search and seize computer systems. In 1984 the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act was passed by Parliament giving law enforcement the right to lawfully intercept private communication in defence of national security. Supporters of Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act and other "lawful access" legislation, being proposed to date, believe the passage of these bills will amend current provision for "lawful access" in existing legislation like the Criminal Code and Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and support law enforcement to lawfully access transmission data from new technologies such as smartphones.
Concerns raised include:
The dissolution of Parliament on November 28, 2005, ended all bills introduced during the 38th Parliament by the, then Liberal government, including "Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act", Bill C-74. Anticipating passing of this bill, however, ISPs such as Bell Sympatico have modified their various policies and agreements to contain language to the effect that they may monitor, investigate, and disclose information to satisfy laws, regulations, or government requests. On April 4, 2006, the Prime Minister's Throne Speech did not mention the bill, which fueled speculation that bill had become a low priority for Harper government. However, the Harper government would later introduce its own legislation to modernize lawful access.
Reintroduction of Bill.
Liberal MP Marlene Jennings re-introduced the "Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act" as a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-416 in March 2007 and again in February 2009, as a Private Member`s Bill, Bill C-285. In both instances, Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act only received one reading before new elections were called, ending the review process of the bill.
Related legislation.
During the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, a series of lawful access bills were introduced by the Harper Government:
The introduction and first reading of these bills were completed on November 1, 2010; the review process for all three bills ended with the dissolution of Parliament on March 26, 2011.
During the 2011 election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to combine the Justice bills introduced prior to the dissolution of Parliament into one all-encompassing crime bill. This bill, known as the "Safe Streets and Communities Act" (Bill C-10), was introduced on September 20, 2011, and received its second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on September 28, 2011; however, the provisions relating to lawful access previously found in Bills C-50, C-51 and C-52 are not included in Bill C-10, and there is no mention of lawful access in this new bill.


Vasily Shulgin

Vasily Vitalyevich Shulgin (; 13 January 1878, Kyiv – 15 February 1976, Vladimir) was a Russian conservative monarchist, politician and member of the White movement.
Young years.
Shulgin was born in Kiev. His father was a Professor of history, monarchist and editor of a monarchist newspaper. Shulgin studied at the Law faculty of Kiev University and was disgusted with the constant students' protests. At that time he became an ardent opponent of a revolution and supported the monarchy. He began to write articles in his father's newspaper. He also held antisemitic views but opposed open violence such as the notorious pogroms which were common in Kiev at the time. Later, in 1913, he heavily criticised the government for the Beilis trial. Shulgin understood that participation in or turning a blind eye on the most odious manifestation of antisemitism was detrimental to the government.
Politician.
In 1907 Shulgin became a member of the Duma. He advocated right-wing views, supported the government of Pyotr Stolypin, including introduction of courts-martial, and other controversial changes. When the First World War broke out, Shulgin joined the army. In 1915 he was wounded and returned home. Shulgin was shocked by the inefficient organization and supply of the Russian army. Together with members of the Octobrists, the Cadets, and other right-wing or centrist politicians he established the Progressive Bloc. The aim of the Bloc was to provide the army with everything necessary since the government failed to do it.
Revolution and emigration.
Obviously, Shulgin opposed the revolution, though it was evident that absolute monarchy in Russia would no longer exist. Together with Alexander Guchkov he persuaded Nicholas II to abdicate from the throne since he believed that a constitutional monarchy with Michael Alexandrovich being the monarch was possible, and that this or even a republic, if a strong government was established, would be a remedy for Russia. For the same reason he supported the Provisional Government and Kornilov's coup. When all hope was lost he moved to Kiev where he participated in the White movement. In 1920 Shulgin emigrated to Yugoslavia. In 1925-26 he secretly visited the Soviet Union. He described this visit and his impression of the New Economic Policy in the book called "The Three Capitals" ("Три столицы"). While in emigration Shulgin continued keeping in touch with other leaders of the White movement until 1937 when he ceased his political activity.
Return to the Soviet Union.
In 1944 the Soviet army entered Yugoslavia. Shulgin was arrested and sentenced to 25 years for his "hostile to communism antisoviet activity". After twelve years in prison he was released in 1956 under the amnesty. Since then he lived in Vladimir. In his later books he argued that communism was no more a disaster for Russia since former Bolsheviks turned into patriots of Russia. In 1965 Shulgin was the main character in a documentary film, "The Verdict of History" in which he told his story to a Soviet historian.


Gang system

The gang system is a system of division of labor within slavery on a plantation. It is the more brutal of two main types of labor systems. The other form, known as the task system, was less harsh and allowed the slaves more self-governance than the gang system did. The gang system allowed continuous work at the same pace throughout the day. The first gang, or "great gang," was given the hardest work, for the fittest slaves. The second gang was for less able slaves (teenagers, old people, or the unwell slaves) and this gang was given lighter work. The third gang was given the easiest work.
As an example, the planting gang in the McDuffie plantation was split into three classes (as quoted by Metzer):
The first class had to go ahead and create small holes with about distance to each other. The second class then dropped cotton seeds in these holes and the 3rd class covered the holes with dirt.
In the United States, the gang system developed in the nineteenth century and is characteristic of the ante-bellum period (c. 1820-1865). It is especially associated with cotton production in the Deep South, but also is associated with tobacco and sugar production. Rice plantations in Carolina, for example, never adopted a gang system of labor. The idea of a gang system is that enslaved workers would work all day (traditionally, from sunrise to sunset) under the supervision of an overseer. Breaks for lunch and dinner were part of the system. This is opposed to the task system, under which the worker is released when his assigned task for the day is completed.


Lars Andreas Oftedahl

Lars (Laurentius, Lauritz, Lauriz) Andreas Oftedahl (19 May 1781 – 17 March 1843) was a Norwegian priest and a member of the Norwegian Constituent Assembly at Eidsvoll that wrote the Constitution of Norway on 17 May 1814.
Biography.
Oftedahl was born in Copenhagen, his parents were Lars Larsen Oftedahl, later captain and arms manager, and Ellen Andersdatter (born Evetoft). He moved with his parents to Nyborg, and later to Christianssand, where he graduated as cand.theol. in 1801. From 1809 he was vicar at Rennesøy, Stavanger Amt. He became a renowned speaker, and was elected as one of three delegates from Stavanger Amt to the Eidsvoll Assembly in 1814, where he represented the unionist side. He was first deputy, representing the official class. Along with him from Stavanger Amt came merchant Christen Mølbach and farmer Asgaut Olsen Regelstad.
He served as a curate in Christianssand from 1817, and dean from 1825, and was vicar in Eker from 1831. He served as deputy representative to the Norwegian Parliament for two terms. He was also engaged in social matters such as education and poor relief. He issued a catechism explanation in 1814, and a Latin grammar in 1923.
Claus Pavels' diaries.
Oftedahl is mentioned twice in Claus Pavels' diaries. Pavels describes Oftedahl's University speech from 1813 as being "without doubt the most beautiful of them all".
The catechism explanation.
Oftedahl's catechism explanation from 1814, "Forklaring over Luthers Katekismus", consists of an introductory chapter with 27 questions on religion and moral, followed by five chapters ("1. Om Troens Artikle", "2. Om Guds Lov eller de ti bud", "3. Om Bønnen", "4. Om Daabens Sakramente", and "5. Om Alterens Sakramente"), containing 223 questions and answers.


Constitution of the Philippines

The Constitution of the Philippines (Filipino: "Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas" or "Konstitusyon ng Pilipinas", Spanish: "Constitución de la República de Filipinas") is the constitution or supreme law of the Republic of the Philippines. Its final draft was completed by the Constitutional Commission on October 12, 1986 and was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February 2, 1987.
Three other constitutions have effectively governed the country in its history: the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, and the 1986 Freedom Constitution.
The earliest constitution establishing a "Philippine Republic", the 1899 Malolos Constitution, was never fully implemented throughout the Philippines and did not establish a state that was internationally recognized, due in great part to the eruption of the Philippine–American War following its adoption.
Background of the 1987 Constitution.
Ruling by decree during the early months of her tenure as a president installed via the People Power Revolution, President Corazon Aquino was granted three options: restore the 1935 Constitution, retain and make reforms to the 1973 Constitution, or pass a new constitution. She decided to draft a new constitution and issued Proclamation No. 3 on March 25, 1986, abrogating many of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution adopted during the Marcos regime, including the unicameral legislature (the Batasang Pambansa), the office of Prime Minister, and provisions which gave the President legislative powers. Often called the "Freedom Constitution", this constitution was intended as a transitional constitution to ensure democracy and the freedom of the people. The Freedom Constitution provided for an orderly transfer of power while a Constitutional Commission was drafting a permanent constitution.
The Constitutional Commission was composed of forty-eight members appointed by Aquino from varied backgrounds, including several former members of the House of Representatives, former justices of the Supreme Court, a Roman Catholic bishop, and political activists against the Marcos regime. The Commission elected Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, as its president. Several issues were of particular contention during the Commission's sessions, including the form of government to adopt, the abolition of the death penalty, the retention of U.S. bases in Clark and Subic, and the integration of economic policies into the constitution. Lino Brocka, a film director and political activist who was a member of the Commission, walked out before the constitution's completion, and two other delegates dissented from the final draft. The Commission finished the final draft on October 12, 1986 and presented it to Aquino on October 15. The constitution was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February 8, 1987.
The constitution provided for three governmental branches, namely the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The executive branch is headed by the president and his appointed cabinet members. The executive, same with the other two co-equal branches, has limited power. This is to ensure that the country will be "safeguarded" if martial law is to be declared. The president can still declare martial law, but it expires within 60 days and Congress can either reject or extend it.
The task of the Supreme Court is to review whether a declaration of martial law is just. The legislative power consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are twenty-four senators and the House is composed of district representatives. It also created opportunities for under-represented sectors of community to select their representative through party-list system. The judiciary branch comprises the Supreme Court and the lower courts. The Supreme Court is granted the power to hear any cases that deals with the constitutionality of law, about a treaty or decree of the government. It is also tasked to administrate the function of the lower courts.
Through the constitution, three independent Constitutional Commissions, namely the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and Commission on Audit, were created. These Constitutional Commissions have different functions. The constitution also paved a way for the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman, which has a function of promoting and ensuring an ethical and lawful conduct of the government.
Attempts to amend or change the 1987 Constitution.
There are three possible methods by which the Constitution can be amended: a Constituent assembly (Con-Ass), Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), or People's Initiative. All three methods require ratification by majority vote in a national referendum. Following the administration of Corazon Aquino, succeeding administrations made several attempts to amend or change the 1987 Constitution.
The first attempt was in 1995. A constitution was drafted by then-Secretary of National Security Council Jose Almonte, but was never completed because it was exposed to the media by different non-government organizations. They saw through a potential change regarding the protection of the people's interests in the constitutional draft.
In 1997, the Pedrosa couple created a group called PIRMA followed with an attempt to change the constitution through a People's Initiative by way of gathering signatures from voters. Many prominent figures opposed the proposition, including Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who brought the issue all the way to the Supreme Court and eventually won the case. The Supreme Court ruled that the initiative not continue, stating that a People's Initiative requires an enabling law for it to push through.
During his presidency, Joseph Ejercito Estrada created a study commission for a possible charter change regarding the economic and judiciary provisions of the constitution. The attempt never attained its purpose after various entities opposed it due apparently to the attempt serving the personal interests of the initiators.
After the Estrada presidency, the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo endorsed constitutional changes via a Constitutional Assembly, with then-House Speaker Jose de Venecia leading the way. However, due to political controversies surrounding Arroyo's administration, including the possibility of term extension, the proposal was rejected by the Supreme Court.
The next attempt was from then-Speaker of the House Feliciano Belmonte Jr. during President Benigno Aquino III's administration. Belmonte attempted to introduce amendments to the Constitution focusing on economic provisions aiming toward liberalization. The effort did not succeed.
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte oversaw the possibility of implementing federalism on the country. Following his ascension as president after the 2016 presidential election, he signed Executive Order No. 10 on December 7, 2016, creating the Consultative Committee to Review the 1987 Constitution.
Structure and contents.
The preamble and eighteen self-contained articles with a section numbering that resets for every article.
Preamble.
The preamble introduces the constitution and the source of sovereignty, the people. It follows the pattern in past constitutions, including an appeal to God. The preamble reads:
Article I – National Territory.
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Article II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies.
Article II lays out the basic social and political creed of the Philippines, particularly the implementation of the constitution and sets forth the objectives of the government. Some essential provisions are:
Article III – Bill of Rights.
Article III enumerates specific protections against the abuse of state power, most of which are similar to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Some essential provisions are:
Similar to U.S. jurisprudence and other common law jurisdictions, the scope and limitations of these rights have largely been determined by the Supreme Court through case law.
Article IV – Citizenship.
Article IV defines the citizenship of Filipinos. It enumerates two kinds of citizens: natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect Philippine citizenship. The Philippines follows a "jus sanguinis" system where citizenship is mainly acquired through a blood relationship with Filipino citizens.
Natural-born citizenship forms an important part of the political system as only natural-born Filipinos are eligible to hold high offices, including all elective offices beginning with a representative in the House of Representatives up to the President.
Article V – Suffrage.
Article V mandates various age and residence qualifications to vote and a system of secret ballots and absentee voting. It also mandates a procedure for overseas and disabled and illiterate Filipinos to vote.
Article VI – Legislative Department.
Article VI provides for a bicameral legislature called the Congress composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It vests upon Congress, among others, the power of investigation and inquiry in aid of legislation, the power to declare the existence of a state of war,
the power of the purse, the power of taxation, and the power of eminent domain.
Article VII – Executive Department.
Article VII provides for a presidential form of government where the executive power is vested on the President. It provides for the qualification, terms of office, election, and power and functions of the President. It also provides for a Vice President and for the presidential line of succession.
Article VIII – Judicial Department.
Article VIII vests the judicial power upon the Supreme Court and other lower courts as may be established by law (by Congress). While the power to appoint justices and judges still reside with the President, the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy, a body composed of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Secretary of Justice, the Chairs of the Senate and House Committees on Justice, and representatives from the legal profession.
Article IX – Constitutional Commissions.
Article IX establishes three constitutional commissions: the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit,
Article X – Local Government.
Article X pursues for local autonomy and mandates Congress to enact a law for the local government, now currently the Local Government Code.
Article XI – Accountability of Public Officers.
Article XI establishes the Office of the Ombudsman which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting government officials. It also vests upon the Congress the power to impeach the President, the Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, and the Ombudsman.
Article XII – National Economy and Patrimony.
Article XII lays down the goals and objectives of the Philippine government in terms of wealth distribution, division of goods and services and to offer job opportunities to elevate the lives of Filipino people. This section also provides important provisions such as:
Article XIII – Social Justice and Human Rights.
Article XIII divulge the utmost responsibility of the Congress to give the highest priority in enactments of such measures which protects and enhances the rights of all the people to human dignity through affirming that present social, economic and political inequalities as well as cultural inequities among the elites and the poor shall be reduced or removed in order to secure equitable welfare and common good among Filipino people. It also establishes the role of the Commission on Human Rights which ensures appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all the persons within the Philippines as well as Filipinos residing abroad. Moreover, this section also lays down salient provisions such as:
Article XV – The Family.
Article XV establishes the recognition of the state on the Filipino family as the basic foundation of the nation as it shall reinforce and bolster its solidarity and steadily promote its development. Alongside with this, it also states important provisions such as:
Article XVII – Amendments or Revisions.
Article XVII establishes the methods by which the Constitution may be amended or revised. Amendments may be proposed by either: a) a three-fourths vote of all Members of Congress (called a Constituent Assembly), b) a Constitutional Convention, or c) a petition of at least twelve percent of all registered voters, and at least three percent of registered voters within each district (called a People's Initiative). All amendments must be ratified in a national referendum.
Article XVIII – Transitory Provisions.
The Constitution also contains several other provisions enumerating various state policies including, i.e., the affirmation of labor "as a primary social economic force" (Section 14, Article II); the equal protection of "the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception" (Section 12, Article II); the "Filipino family as the foundation of the nation" (Article XV, Section 1); the recognition of Filipino as "the national language of the Philippines" (Section 6, Article XIV), and even a requirement that "all educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors." (Section 19.1, Article XIV) Whether these provisions may, by themselves, be the source of enforceable rights without accompanying legislation has been the subject of considerable debate in the legal sphere and within the Supreme Court. The Court, for example, has ruled that a provision requiring that the State "guarantee equal access to opportunities to public service" could not be enforced without accompanying legislation, and thus could not bar the disallowance of so-called "nuisance candidates" in presidential elections.
But in another case, the Court held that a provision requiring that the State "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology" did not require implementing legislation to become the source of operative rights.
Historical development.
The 1897 Constitution of Biak-na-Bato.
The Katipunan's revolution led to the Tejeros Convention where, at San Francisco de Malabón, Cavite, on March 22, 1897, the first presidential and vice presidential elections in Philippine history were held—although only "Katipuneros" ("viz." members of the Katipunan) were able to take part, and not the general populace. A later meeting of the revolutionary government established there, held on November 1, 1897 at "Biak-na-Bato" in the town of San Miguel de Mayumo in Bulacan, established the "Republic of Biak-na-Bato". The republic had a constitution drafted by Isabelo Artacho and Félix Ferrer and was based on the first Cuban Constitution. It is known as the "Constitución Provisional de la República de Filipinas", and was originally written in and promulgated in the Spanish and Tagalog languages.
The organs of the government under the Constitution consisted of three divisions: (1) the Supreme Council, which was authorized with the power of the Republic in which it was headed by the President and the four different secretaries which was the interior, foreign affairs, treasury, and war; (2) the Consejo Supremo de Garcia Y Justicia (Supreme Council of Grace and Justice), which has the authority to create decisions and validate and refute the sentences given by the other courts and to command rules for the administration of justice; and (3) the Asamblea de Representantes (Assembly of the Representatives), which was to be assembled after the revolution to create a new constitution and to choose a new Council of Government and Representatives of the people.
The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was never fully implemented, and was overtaken by the Pact of Biak-na-Bato between the Spanish and the Philippine Revolutionary Army.
The 1899 Malolos Constitution.
The Filipino revolutionary leaders accepted a payment from Spain and went to exile in Hong Kong. The Americans defeated the Spanish in the Battle of Manila Bay and Aguinaldo was transferred to the Philippines by the United States Navy. The newly reformed Philippine revolutionary forces returned to the control of Aguinaldo and the Philippine Declaration of Independence was issued on June 12, 1898. On September 17, 1898, the Malolos Congress was elected, which was composed of wealthy and educated men.
The document was patterned after the Spanish Constitution of 1812, with influences from the charters of Belgium, Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Guatemala and the French Constitution of 1793. The Malolos Constitution, namely, the Kartilya and the Sanggunian-Hukuman, the charter of laws and morals of the Katipunan written by Emilio Jacinto in 1896; the Biak-na-Bato Constitution of 1897 planned by Isabelo Artacho; Mabini's Constitutional Program of the Philippine Republic of 1898; the provisional constitution of Mariano Ponce in 1898 that followed the Spanish constitutions; and the autonomy projects of Paterno in 1898.
The Malolos Constitution was the first republican constitution in Asia. It declared that sovereignty resides exclusively in the people, stated basic civil rights, separated the church and state, and called for the creation of an Assembly of Representatives to act as the legislative body. It also called for a parliamentary republic as the form of government. The president was elected for a term of four years by a majority of the Assembly. It was titled "Constitución política", and was written in Spanish following the declaration of independence from Spain, proclaimed on January 20, 1899, and was enacted and ratified by the Malolos Congress, a congress held in Malolos, Bulacan.
The Preamble reads:
Acts of the United States Congress.
The Philippines was a United States Territory from December 10, 1898 to March 24, 1934 and therefore was under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government of the United States. Two acts of the United States Congress passed during this period can be considered Philippine constitutions in that those acts defined the fundamental political principles and established the structure, procedures, powers and duties of the Philippine government.
Philippine Organic Act of 1902.
The Philippine Organic Act of 1902, sometimes known as the "Philippine Bill of 1902" or the "Cooper Act", was the first organic law for the Philippine Islands enacted by the United States Congress. It provided for the creation of a popularly elected Philippine Assembly, and specified that legislative power would be vested in a bicameral legislature composed of the Philippine Commission (upper house) and the Philippine Assembly (lower house). Its key provisions included a bill of rights for the Filipinos and the appointment of two non-voting Filipino Resident Commissioner of the Philippines to represent the Philippines in the United States House of Representatives.
Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916.
The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, sometimes known as the "Jones Law", modified the structure of the Philippine government by removing the Philippine Commission as the legislative upper house and replacing it with a Senate elected by Filipino voters, creating the Philippines' first fully elected national legislature. This act also explicitly stated that it was and always had been the purpose of the people of the United States to renounce their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize Philippine independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein.
Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act (1932).
Though not a constitution itself, the Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act of 1932 was the precursor the Tydings–McDuffie Act, which laid down the promise of independence to the Philippines after 10 years of transition period and other provisions; however, because of infighting within the Philippine Congress, it was not ratified and only became the basis for the creation of the Tydings–McDuffie Act.
Tydings–McDuffie Act (1934).
Though also not a constitution itself, the Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934 provided for autonomy and defined mechanisms for the establishment of a formal constitution via a constitutional convention.
The 1935 Constitution.
The 1935 Constitution was written, approved and adopted in 1934 by the Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935–1946) and later used by the Third Republic (1946–1972). It was written with an eye to meeting the approval of the United States Government as well, so as to ensure that the U.S. would live up to its promise to grant the Philippines independence and not have a premise to hold onto its possession on the grounds that it was too politically immature and hence unready for full, real independence.
The Commonwealth Constitution was ratified to prepare the country for its independence. This constitution was dominantly influenced by the Americans, but possess the traces of the Malolos Constitution, the German, Spanish, and Mexican Constitution, constitutions of several South American countries, and the unwritten English Constitution.
It originally provided for a unicameral legislature composed of a president and vice president elected for a six-year term without re-election. It was amended in 1940 to provide for a bicameral legislature composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The President is to be elected to a four-year term, together with the Vice-President, with one re-election; the right of suffrage for male citizens of the Philippines who are twenty-one years of age or over and are able to read and write were protected; this protection, later on, extended to the right of suffrage for women two years after the adoption of the constitution.
The draft of the constitution was approved by the convention on February 8, 1935 and was ratified by President Roosevelt in Washington D.C. on March 25, 1935. Elections were held on September 16, 1935 and Manuel L. Quezon was elected as the first President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
The Preamble reads:
The original 1935 Constitution provided for a unicameral National Assembly, and the President was elected to a six-year term without the possibility re-election. It was amended in 1940 to have a bicameral Congress composed of a Senate and House of Representatives, as well the creation of an independent electoral commission and to grant the President a four-year term with a maximum of two consecutive terms in office.
A Constitutional Convention was held in 1971 to rewrite the 1935 Constitution. The convention was stained with manifest bribery and corruption. Possibly the most controversial issue was removing the presidential term limit so that Ferdinand E. Marcos could seek re-election for a third term, which many felt was the true reason for which the convention was called. In any case, the 1935 Constitution was suspended in 1972 with Marcos' proclamation of martial law, the rampant corruption of the constitutional process providing him with one of his major premises for doing so.
The 1943 Constitution.
The 1943 Constitution was drafted by a committee appointed by the Philippine Executive Commission, the body established by the Japanese to administer the Philippines in lieu of the Commonwealth of the Philippines which had established a government-in-exile. In mid-1942, Japanese Premier Hideki Tōjō promised the Filipinos "the honor of independence" which meant that the commission would be supplanted by a formal republic.
The Preparatory Committee for Philippine Independence tasked with drafting a new constitution was composed, in large part, of members of the prewar National Assembly and of individuals with experience as delegates to the convention that had drafted the 1935 Constitution. Their draft for the republic to be established under the Japanese occupation, however, would be limited in duration, provide for indirect, instead of direct, legislative elections, and an even stronger executive branch.
Upon the approval of the draft by the Committee, the new charter was ratified in 1943 by an assembly of appointed, provincial representatives of the Kalibapi, the organization established by the Japanese to supplant all previous political parties. Upon the ratification by the Kalibapi assembly, the Second Republic was formally proclaimed (1943–1945). José P. Laurel was elected President by the National Assembly and sworn into office on October 14, 1943. Laurel was highly regarded by the Japanese for having openly criticized the U.S. for the way that they governed the Philippines and because he had a degree from the Tokyo International University.
The 1943 Constitution remained in force in Japanese-controlled areas of the Philippines, but was never recognized as legitimate or binding by the governments of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, or the guerrilla organizations loyal to them. In late 1944, President Laurel declared war on the United States and the British Empire and proclaimed martial law, essentially ruling by decree. His government, in turn, went into exile in December 1944, first to Taiwan and then Japan. After the announcement of Japan's surrender, Laurel formally dissolved the Second Republic.
The Preamble reads:
The 1943 Constitution provided for strong executive powers. The Legislature consisted of a unicameral National Assembly and only those considered to be anti-US could stand for election, although in practice most legislators were appointed rather than elected.
Until the 1960s, the Second Republic and its officers were not viewed as a legitimate Philippine government or as having any standing with the exception of the Second Republic-era Supreme Court, whose decisions, limited to reviews of criminal and commercial cases as part of a policy of discretion by Chief Justice José Yulo, continued to be part of official records. This was made easier by the Commonwealth government-in-exile never constituting a Supreme Court, and the formal vacancy in the position of Chief Justice for the Commonwealth with the execution of José Abad Santos by the Japanese. It was only during the Macapagal administration that a partial political rehabilitation of the Japanese-era republic took place, with the official recognition of Laurel as a former president and the addition of his cabinet and other officials to the roster of past government officials. However, the 1943 Constitution was not taught in schools, and the laws of the 1943–44 National Assembly were never recognized as valid or relevant.
The 1973 Constitution.
The 1973 Constitution, promulgated after Marcos' declaration of martial law, was supposed to introduce a parliamentary-style government. Legislative power was vested in a unicameral National Assembly whose members were elected for six-year terms. The President was ideally elected as the symbolic and purely ceremonial head of state chosen from amongst the Members of the National Assembly for a six-year term and could be re-elected to an unlimited number of terms. Upon election, the President ceased to be a Member of the National Assembly. During his term, the President was not allowed to be a member of a political party or hold any other office.
Executive power was meant to be exercised by the Prime Minister who was also elected from among the sitting Assemblymen. The Prime Minister was to be the head of government and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. This constitution was subsequently amended four times (arguably five, depending on how one considers Proclamation No. 3 of 1986, see below).
From October 16–17, 1976, a majority of barangay voters (also called "Citizens' Assemblies") approved that martial law should be continued and ratified the amendments to the Constitution proposed by President Marcos.
The 1976 amendments provided:
The Sixth Amendment authorized the President to legislate on his own on an "emergency" basis:
Whenever in the judgement of the President there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the Interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may, in order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders or letters of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land.
The 1973 Constitution was further amended in 1980 and 1981. In the 1980 amendment, the retirement age of the members of the judiciary was extended to 70 years. In the 1981 amendments, the parliamentary system was formally modified into a French-style semi-presidential system and provided:
The last amendments in 1984 abolished the Executive Committee and restored the position of Vice-President (which did not exist in the original, unamended 1973 Constitution).
While the 1973 Constitution ideally provided for a true parliamentary system, in practice, Marcos made use of subterfuge and manipulation in order to keep executive powers for himself, rather than devolving these to the Assembly and the cabinet headed by the Prime Minister. The end result was that the final form of the 1973 Constitution – after all amendments and subtle manipulations – was merely the abolition of the Senate and a series of cosmetic rewording. The old American-derived terminology was replaced by names more associated with a parliamentary government: for example, the House of Representatives became known as the "Batasang Pambansâ" (National Assembly), departments became "ministries", and their cabinet secretaries became known as "cabinet ministers", with the President's assistant – the Executive Secretary – now being styled as the "Prime Minister". Marcos' purported parliamentary system in practice functioned as an authoritarian presidential system, with all real power concentrated in the hands of the President but with the premise that such was now constitutional.
The 1986 Freedom Constitution.
Immediately following the 1986 People Power Revolution that ousted Marcos, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 as a provisional constitution. It adopted certain provisions from the 1973 Constitution while abolishing others. It granted the President broad powers to reorganize government and remove officials, as well as mandating the president to appoint a commission to draft a new, more formal Constitution. This document, described above, supplanted the "Freedom Constitution" upon its ratification in 1987. This is the transitional constitution that lasted a year and came before the permanent constitution. It maintained many provisions of the 1973 Constitution, including in rewritten form the presidential right to rule by decree. The Convention compose of 48 members appointed by the President.


Committee of Nine

The Committee of Nine was a group of conservative political leaders in Virginia, led by Alexander H. H. Stuart, following the American Civil War, when Virginia was required to adopt a new Constitution acknowledging the abolition of slavery before its readmission into the Union. They engineered the federal and state political machinery so that separate votes would be taken on the constitution (which was overwhelmingly ratified) and provisions restricting voting and office-holding rights of former Confederates (which was narrowly defeated).
Background.
Following the American Civil War and testimony before Congress that President Andrew Johnson's self-reconstruction was not allowing newly freed slaves many civil rights, Congress passed four Reconstruction Acts which set forth requirements for civilians to take control over the state governments in formerly Confederate states, instead of the military. Because Virginia's 1850 Constitution supported slavery, which became illegal during the American Civil War, and the delegates drafting the 1864 Constitution under provisional Governor Francis Harrison Pierpont did not represent the entire state, Virginia needed to draft and adopt a new Constitution to end military rule.
Many high-ranking former Confederates were not permitted and others chose not to vote for members of the Constitutional Convention of 1867-68, which included African-American delegates and abolitionist federal judge John Curtiss Underwood dominated. The Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868 actually began its work in December 1867. Virginia newspapers and Conservatives, including Alexander H.H. Stuart, began criticizing the Convention, particularly its African-American members, during that month.
Nonetheless, the Convention continued, and did include former Confederates as members. Major areas of debate concerned state administration, voting regulations, restrictions on officeholding by former Confederates, and social policies. During acrimonious sessions in early 1868, many Conservative members either left or were dismissed by the Convention before it approved a draft in April, which needed to be approved by voters. The "Underwood Constitution" included "free schools for both races, equal rights provisions, and reforms of local government."
It also included controversial and very strict clauses concerning ex-Confederates, which were unpopular, so Virginia's military ruler during Congressional Reconstruction, General John Schofield, and later President-elect Ulysses S. Grant delayed the ratification vote for what turned out to be more than a year. Meanwhile, by the autumn of 1868, Virginia's Republican party split because of the anti-Confederate provisions. Governor Henry H. Wells (who succeeded Pierpont) argued that Unionists would be at risk in Virginia if the disabling clauses were removed from the proposed Virginia Constitution.
Stuart had appointed former Confederate general John Echols as part of a committee of three, along with F. G. Ruffin and James D. Johnston, which was to recommend eight other men to serve in the Committee of Nine. Echols would never formally become a member of the Committee of Nine, although he worked closely with Stuart to publish the "Senex" letter described below and set up the compromise.
By the end of 1868, Republicans who had been displeased with the final constitution approved by the convention joined forces with what formally became the Committee of Nine. These Republicans, such as Edgar Allan and Franklin Stearns, worked with the committee in Washington in the fight for a separate vote on the anti-Confederate provisions. They joined in meeting important Congressmen since the Republicans dominated the Congress at the time, and their work proved influential. Nonetheless, when the Congress reassembled in December 1868, the Virginia Republican executive committee requested a vote on the Underwood constitution. On December 9, the House Committee of Reconstruction passed a bill to provide money for the referendum, however, the Christmas holiday recess arrived before the Senate received the bill.
Formal creation of Committee of Nine.
Alexander H. H. Stuart wanted to get rid of the disenfranchisement clauses (which Conservatives particularly disliked, and moderate Republicans thought abrogated General Grant's terms given to Confederate General Robert E. Lee) before the referendum was held. Stuart wrote a letter to outline his plans and publicize his objections concerning the clauses. He argued for universal amnesty and for the creation of another constitution with the disenfranchisement clauses to present to the Congress. His letter was published in the Richmond papers under the pseudonym, "Senex."
In his work, "A narrative of the leading incidents of the organization of the first popular movement in Virginia in 1865 to re-establish peaceful relations between the northern and southern states, and the subsequent efforts of the "Committee of Nine," in 1869, to secure the restoration of Virginia to the Union", Alexander H. H. Stuart describes his motives behind writing and publishing the letter as following:"I have no doubt that hundreds—nay, thousands—of my fellow-citizens thought and felt as I did as to the necessity of taking action on the subject. But no one seemed to be willing to assume the responsibility of taking the lead! Under these circumstances, as the necessity for moving in the matter was urgent, and the time within which action likely to lead to a successful result was limited to two weeks, I determined to
sound a note of alarm by calling the attention of the people of Virginia to the frightful dangers which threatened them, and urging those who thought as I did to unite in an organized attempt to avert them. With this object in view, I wrote “a communication,” over the signature “Senex,” intended for publication in the Richmond Dispatch. This paper was written entirely on my own responsibility, and without conference or consultation with anyone. My purpose was to try and arouse the people to the necessity of immediate action, and to suggest as the most feasible, if not the only, means of obtaining relief from the disenfranchisement and test oaths embodied in the Underwood Constitution, the tender to Congress on behalf of Virginia of a compromise, on the basis of universal suffrage as an equivalent for universal amnesty."
Campaign in Washington.
Although some Conservatives criticized Stuart's letter, many moderates and centrist Virginians favored Stuart's plan. These Virginians met at the Exchange Hotel, in Richmond, on December 31, 1868 and January 1, 1869. Their meetings led to the creation of the Committee of Nine: Alexander H. H. Stuart would act as a chairman to a committee of nine people who would visit Washington to voice objections concerning the Underwood Constitution.
The committee aimed to go to Washington to authorize separate votes on the proposed new state constitution, and the provision which continued to disenfranchise former Confederates (mostly white Virginians) under the Reconstruction Acts.
John L. Marye, of Fredericksburg, one of the members of the Committee of Nine, suggested that Stuart invite Gilbert C. Walker, a northerner and who had been "defeated for a seat in the Underwood convention", to help the committee gain support in Washington. As predicted, Walker, a northern Republican, helped the committee receive sympathy in the north. Horace Greeley's Republican newspaper, New York Tribune, joined the campaign. The Committee of Nine spent approximately two weeks in Washington. They met with congressmen and appeared before both the House and Senate committees.
Upon meeting with the Committee of Nine, and despite Governor Wells following the Committee of Nine and their supporters around in Washington, Congress approved the separation of the disabling clauses. However, in order to be readmitted, it required Virginia to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment as well.
President Grant and the 1869 Virginia Gubernatorial Election.
During meetings with members of the Committee of Nine in Washington, President-elect Grant showed sympathy towards the committee's objects and plans.
Grant was inaugurated on March 4, 1869. On May 14, 1869, President Grant issued the following proclamation:“Every person who has been a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President or Vice-President, or who held any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” The committee thus achieved its goal of authorizing a separate vote for the provisions restricting former Confederates and sympathizers.
Radical Republicans and Governor Wells (who became their candidate for actual election as Governor) wanted the referendum to take place as the Convention had stated. They feared that the separate votes would lead to failure of the anti-Confederate provisions and thus restore conservative dominance in the state. In March 1869, Virginia Republicans held a convention to nominate candidates for the state elections.
Moderate Republicans were sometimes referred to as "Stearns Republicans", after Franklin Stearns, and also included William L. Owen, and Gilbert C. Walker. Although they failed to gain control of the Republican party, they nominated Walker, a former northern businessman as a moderate candidate. The alliance between the moderate Republicans and Conservatives led to Gilbert C. Walker winning the Gubernatorial Election of 1869.
Even though Radical Republicans, who had passed the Reconstruction Acts in 1866, still dominated the Congress, because the provisions of the new Constitution other than the anti-Confederate provisions passed overwhelmingly, Virginia was readmitted into the Union on January 26, 1870. Virginia's new Governor, Gilbert C. Walker, signed a letter announcing the readmission.
Committee members.
As the chairman, Stuart opened conferences when members appeared before federal legislators, as well as publicly set forth their objections to the Underwood Constitution.
CSA Colonel Baldwin presented and elaborated on their views to the House and the Senate. He also wrote a paper requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee which explained the alterations the Committee of Nine wanted to make in the Underwood Constitution. All of the members signed the documents. Stuart stated that with this role, Baldwin became "the most conspicuous member of the committee."
CSA Colonel W. T. Sutherlin, of Danville, was among those who joined Alexander H. H. Stuart at the Exchange Hotel in Richmond, as was General Echols. After hearing Stuart's words, Sutherlin promised to work with them. Later, General Echols met with various newspapers to publish the "Senex" articles, although many refused, including "Richmond Dispatch" and "Richmond Enquirer". After Sutherlin joined Echols to visit the "Richmond Whig," editor Alexander Mosely agreed to publish them.


Claudio Teehankee, Jr.