Allor v. Board of Auditors

Construction of statutes — Local self-government — Constables. The validity of particular provisions in a statute cannot properly be decided unless expressly involved in a case, and are not passed on where the only questions concern other provisions in the law. Courts cannot lawfully be subjected to executive or ministerial interference in the exercise of their functions, and should not submit to it or receive directions for any purpose except from such other courts as by the Constitution have superintending control over inferior courts. Judicial power in Michigan can be vested only in courts and judicial officers, and all the judges and judicial officers must bo elected directly by the people of the State or of the local districts. Due process of law for the restraint of personal liberty requires a warrant issued by a court or magistrate upon a proper showing or finding, except in cases of reasonable belief of treason or felony, or breach of the peace committed in the presence of the officer. Municipal government, under the Constitution of Michigan, must be managed by popular representatives and agencies deriving their authority from the inhabitants, and no municipal business can be controlled by State or other outside authorities. A statute is to be construed in view of its title and its lawful purposes, assuming as far as possible that broad language should be confined to lawful objects, and inferring no unlawful intent except where too plain to be mistaken. Justices of the peace in Michigan have constitutional jurisdiction in civil cases, and are necessary magistrates in cities, as well as outside of them; their oriminal jurisdiction is given them by the general statutes, but is to some extent contemplated by the Constitution, and in cities can only be restrained by the special municipal criminal jurisdiction. Municipal courts cannot be authorized to try extra-municipal crimes; and justices of the peace in Detroit have power under the general laws of the State to dispose of all criminal business arising in Wayne county outside of the city. The power to examine and commit persons charged with crime is not judicial, but is one of the duties of conservators of the peace, and it may be vested in other persons than courts; and those in whom it is vested by the Constitution cannot be deprived of it by legislation. Officers named in tlie Constitution are there contemplated as having a known legal character, and though their duties may sometimes be varied, by legislation, they cannot be so changed as to destroy the powers of the office or to essentially alter it. The Metropolitan Police force of Detroit, so far as lawfully constituted, is merely an additional force of'constables and watchmen appointed by the State for certain limited purposes. . It cannot supersede the local peace officers for all common law purposes. Constables in Michigan are local peace-officers, ministerial officers of justices of the peace, and bailiffs of courts of record of criminal jurisdiction in the county. Their power to serve process in civil cases was conferred merely because civil powers were conferred on justices. Constables are the only peace officers elected by the corporation of Detroit, and they can act within the city as well as elsewhere in the county in serving the criminal process issued by justices, and are entitled to compensation for such service. Their powers cannot be. superseded by the exclusive authority to serve process within the city conferred by the Police Act upon members of the Metropolitan Police. Constables have always been peace officers in the arrest of criminals and the prosecution of crimes and disturbances, and have always been chosen by popular vote for the preservation of peace in the territory of their constituents.

Mandamus. Office is tbe right to exercise a public function or employment, and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it, both in the case of a salaried office and- of those offices that are compensated by fees where^the receipt of compensation depends" on the exercise of the prerogatives of the office. 2 Bl. Coin. 36; 3 Kent’s Com. 454; Bouvier’s Law Diet, tit. “ Office.” The office of constable is a most ancient one, and existed at the common law. Of all the offices known to the common law and still preserved, none, save perhaps that of sheriff, has the “grey antiquity” of that of constable. Like many other of the very ancient institutions of the common law, its origin is obscured with the mists of time, but at a very early day in the history of England, prior even to the legal “ time immemorial ” (A. D. 1189), we find offices possessing at least some of the functions of that of the comparatively short-time-later one of constable; and as early as the reign of King John (A. D. 1215) we find the office of constable, having functions of a bailiff, recognized as a then existing fact. Of the ancient functions and prerogatives of the office of constable, most of which were incident and appertaining to it at the common law, were those of serving and executing various civil and criminal writs, arresting on suspicion, serving and executing criminal warrants issued by justices of the peace, of being the ministerial officer of justices of the peace, of being conservators of the peace, and perhaps some other functions. Before the office of justice of the peace proper was created, which was in the reign of Edward III. (the justices sitting as a court at quarter-sessions before this), constables were the ministerial officers of the inferior and local courts, and executed their writs. Various functions have been from time to time attached to this office, some of a somewhat permanent nature, others more or less temporary, but those above mentioned were the most prominent, and constituted the principal duties of the office of constable. They gave to that office its peculiar characteristics, distinguishing it from other executive or ministerial offices, particularly from that of a mere policeman or patrol. The function of serving criminal warrants issued by justices of the peace and that of being the ministerial officer of those magistrates, has from the time the office of justice of the peace was created down to the present day, been a constituent part of the office of constable, and distinguished that office from all other bailiffs. These functions continued to mark that office from at least the reign of Edward III. down through the subsequent history of England to the colonization of America, through the old colonial days to the severance of the relations with the mother country, from that time through the settlement of the Northwest Territory to the erection of Michigan into a State, and through the subsequent history of the State to the adoption of the Constitution of 1850. They still continue to mark and distinguish the office of constable throughout the entire State of Michigan, except within the limits of the city of Detroit. Among the early allusions to the office of constable, showing the character of that office and some of its powers and functions, are the following from the Magna Charta of King John: “No sheriff, constable, coroner or other our bailiffs shall hold pleas of the crown.” “ No constable or bailiff of ours shall take corn or other chattels of any man, unless he presently give him money for it, or hath respite of payment by the good-will of the seller.” “No consta~ ble shall distrain any knight to give 'money for castle guard, if he himself will do it in his person, or by another able man, in case he cannot do it through any reasonable cause.” “We will not make any justices, constables, sheriffs or bailiffs, but of such as know the law of the realm and mean duly to observe it.” Creasy on the Eng. Const, pp. 120-147; Lieber’s “ Civil Liberty and Self-Government” appendix iv. pp. 459-470. From the foregoing, and notes to chapter xi. of the work of Mr. Creasy, above cited, it will be seen that in addition to the powers of a bailiff and conservator of the peace, and perhaps other powers analogous to those of the later constable, that officer at the time of the Magna Charta, was possessed of the power to levy troops land provisions in the king’s name. The Magna Charta •was signed by King John, on June 19, A. D. 1215. Edward I. ascended the throne of England about A. D. 1272, and reigned until about 1307. Of • this monarch Sir Matthew Hale said: “It appears that the very scheme, mould and model of the common law, especially in relation to the administration of the common justice between party and party, as it was highly rectified and set in a much better light and order by this king than his predecessors left it to him; ■ so in a very great measure it was continued the same in all succeeding ages to this day; so that the mark or epocha we are to take for the true stating of the law of England, what it is, is to be considered, stated and estimated from what it was when this king left it.” Hale’s Hist. Com. Law 163. It was during the reign of this king that the Statute of Winchester (13 Edw. I. st. 2 c. 6), the first statute of “hue and cry” was passed. Reeves’ Hist. Eng. Law, vol. ii. pp. 121 122 123. This statute recognizes the then and previous existence of the office of constable, and adds to it some powers: “The Statute of Winchester ordaining every citizen to have armour according to his condition to keep the peace, requires that in every hundred and franchise two constables be chosen to make the view of armour twice a year, and that the said constables ‘shall present before justices assigned such default as they do see in the country about armour, and of the suits, and of watches and of highways; and also shall present all such as do lodge strangers in uplandish towns for whom they will not answer.’ These are the officers known as high constables, who are especially charged with the peace of the hundred just as the petty constables are charged with the peace of the parish or township.” Ene. Britt, title “ Constable1 Bl. Com. 411. In the reign of Edward III., which began about 1327, some additional legislation was had concerning constables. “The Statute of Winchester, passed in the reign of Edward I., and all laws for the ordering of the police may be treated as ordinances calculated for the better discovery and bringing to justice of suspected persons, that being one of their great objects. It had been ordained by the Statute of Winchester that any stranger passing the country in the night might, upon suspicion, be arrested and delivered to the sheriff. It was now ordained that because many felonies had lately been committed by persons called roberdesmen, waisters and draw-latches, any person suspected of being such might be arrested by day or by night by the constable of the town (if within a franchise, by the bailiff), and delivered to the sheriff to be kept in prison till the coming of the justices of gaol delivery.” Reeves’ Hist. Eng. Law vol. ii. - p. 322. Prior to the reign of Edward III. it would seem that the justices of. the peace sat for the trial of causes at quarter sessions, but in that reign they were given power to sit alone for the trial of certain offenses, and from that day to the present time they have possessed the power to sit alone for the trial of' causes, the jurisdiction varying somewhat from time to time, though in the main increasing in kind and magnitude. Beeves’ Hist. Eng. Law vol. ii. p. 284 et seq. From this time certainly constables have executed the criminal process of justices of the peace, and have been their ministerial officers. Ben Johnson, who.was born about 1574 and died in 1637, makes frequent mention of the office of constable in .his dramatic writings. Allusions to this office and some of the functions then appertaining to it, such as arresting for breach of the peace, serving warrants, and executing the directions of inferior magistrates, may be found in “Every Man out of his Humor,” act v. sc. 4; “Bartholomew Fair,” act ii. sc. 1; act iii. se. 1, and “The Tale of a Tub,”'act i. sc. 3; act ii. sc. 1; act iii. sc. 1, sc. 3, sc. 5. Shakspeare was bom 1564 and died 1616. His father was high bailiff and chief alderman of his little town. Taine’s Hist, of Eng. Lit., title “Shakspeare.” His father’s office, coupled with his own life and occupation, undoubtedly made Shakspeare tolerably familiar with the functions ordinarily exercised by constables. He alludes to this officer in various portions of his dramatic writings, among others the plays of “ Henry IV.,” part ii. act v. sc. 4, and “Much Ado about Nothing,” act iii. sc. 3. The functions of being a ministerial officer of justices of the peace and the right to arrest on suspicion are recognized. Writing further of these ancient’peace officers, Beeves, in his History of English Law, vol. ii. pp. 328-9, says: “The peace in the most extensive sense of the word took in, perhaps, the whole of the criminal law; and as most offenses were said to be against the peace, all magistrates who had authority to take cognizance of such offenses might be considered as a sort of guardians of the peace ex officio; such were the king’s justices, inferior judges, and ministers of justice, as sheriffs, constables, tything men, headborough, and the like; all these were ex officio guardians and conservators of the peace. * * * The manner in which these officers might exercise their authority was by committing to custody those whom they saw actually breaking the peace; or, as is said, they might admit them to bail or oblige them to give sureties for keeping the peace. This might be done by them all, even down to the constable.” We find in the report of Coleman’s case, decided in 16 Jac. I. Hil. Term. B. E., that constables not only might serve the warrants of justices of the peace, but were indictable for refusing to execute them. 1 “Nota que Coleman & auters constables de Chichester fueront indicted pur le refusing d’execute le garrant d’un justice de peace, que fuit directed a eur d’apprehend un pur contempt & 1’indictment sur cest, matter fuit allowed:” 2 Eoll Eep. 78. Of the office of constable, Sir Matthew Hale, who died before 1680, writes: “For the office of constable is of two-fold extent. I. Ministerial and relative to justices of the peace, coroners, sheriffs, etc., whose precepts he ought to execute, or in default thereof he may be indicted and fined. 2. Original and primitive, as he is a conservator of the peace at common law:” Hale P. C. (1st Am. ed.) pp. 88 to 97 and notes. Writing of warrants issued by justices of the peace the same learned judge says: “But if it be directed to a known officer, as to the ' sheriff, who_ is a known officer in the county, or to a constable, who is a known officer in the vill,” etc.; Ibid. p. 116. Hawkins, in his Pleas of the Crown, published in 1716, writes of this ancient office of constable and its functions as follows: “And first, as to the antiquity of the office of constable, it seems to be the better opinion, that both constables of hundreds which are commonly called high constables, and also constables of tythings, which are at this day commonly called petit constables or tything men, and were anciently called chief pledges, were by the common law, and not first ordained by the statute of Winchester, cap. 6, as it is holden by some that they were, for that statute doth not say that there shall be such officers constituted, but clearly seems to suppose that there were such officers before the making of it. As to the nature of this office there seems to be no doubt but that the original institution of it was for the better preservation of the peace,- for which purpose a constable is said to be authorized by the common law to arrest felons, and also all suspicious persons that go abroad in the night and sleep by day, or resort to bawdy-houses, or keep suspicious company, and to suppress affrays. And to the same end also, it seems, that he ought by the ancient common law, to present at the Torn or Leet all those within his precinct who have not been admitted into some tything and sworn to the king’s allegiance; and it seems that he still ought, by the law in use at this day, to present all offenses inquirable at the Torn or Leet; yet, in the oath set down by Kitehin, he only swears to present all bloodsheds, outcries, affrays and reseouses done within his office. Also, it is said that a constable was at the common law a subordinate officer to the conservators of the peace, and consequently, since the office of such conservators hath been disused and justices of the peace constituted in their stead, it hath been ahvays holden that the constable is the proper officer to a justice of the peace, and bound to execute his warrants, and therefore it hath been resolved that when a statute authorizes a justice of the peace to convict a man of a crime and to levy the penalty by warrant of distress, without saying to whom such warrant shall be directed, or by whom it shall be executed, the constable is the proper officer to serve such warrant, and indictable for disobeying it.” Yol. ii. pp. 61-2,- and cases cited. Blaekstone, in his commentaries, the lectures composing which he commenced to deliver in 1758, uses the following language concerning the office under discussion: “ Constables, tything men, and the like, are also conservators of the peace within their own jurisdictions, and may apprehend all breakers of the peace and commit them till they find sureties' for their keeping it.” Yol. i. p. 350. “ The constable, of whose office we formerly spoke, hath great original and inherent authority with regard to arrests. He may, without warrant, arrest any one for a breach of the peace committed in his view, and carry him before a justice of the peace. And in case of felony actually committed, or a dangerous wounding whereby felony is likely to ensue, he may, upon probable suspicion, arrest the felon, and for that purpose is authorized (as upon a justice’s warrant) to break open doors, and even to kill the felon, if he cannot otherwise be taken; and if he or his assistants be killed in attempting such arrests, it is murder in all concerned.” Yol. iv. p. 292. See also 2 Hale’s P. C. 88, 89. “Fourthly, then, of the constable. The word constable is frequently said to be derived from the Saxon koning-stapel, and to ■ signify the support of the king. But as we borrowed the name, as well as the office of constable, from the French, I am rather inclined to deduce it, with Sir Henry Spelman and Dr. Cowel, from that language, wherein it is plainly derived from the Latin comes stabuli, an officer well known in the empire, so called because, like the great constable of France, as well as the lord high constable of England, he was to regulate all matters of chivalry, tilts, tournaments, and feats of arms which were performed on horseback. This office of lord high constable hath been disused in England, except only upon great and solemn occasions, as the king’s coronation and the like, ever since the ■attainder of Stafford, duke of Buckingham, under King Henry VIII., as in France it was suppressed about a century after by an edict of Louis XIII.; but from his office, says Lambard, this lower constableship was first drawn and fetched, and is, as it were, a very finger of that hand. For the statute of Winchester, which first appoints them, directs that, for the better keeping of the peace, two constables in every hundred and franchise shall inspect all matters relating to asms and armowr. Constables are of two sorts, high constables and petty constables. The former were first ordained by the statute of Winchester, as before mentioned, are appointed at the court leets of the franchise or hundred over which they preside, or, in default of that, by justices at their quarter-sessions, and are removable by the same authority that appoints them. The petty constables are inferior officers in every town or parish subordinate to the high constable of the hundred first instituted about the reign of Edward III. These petty constables have two offices united in them — the one antient, the other modern. Their antient office is that of headborough, tything-man, or borsholder, of whom we formerly spoke, and who are as antient as the time of King Alfred — their modern office, as that of constable merely, which was appointed, as was observed, so lately as the reign of Edward III., in order to assist the high constable. The general duty of all constables, both high and petty, as well as of other officers, is to keep the king’s peace in their several districts, and to that purpose they are armed with very large powers of arresting and imprisoning, of breaking open houses and the like.” Vol. i. pp. 355-6. It would seem that Blackstone intended to convey the impression that the office of constable originated with the- statute of Winchester, and Coke, in 4 Inst. 267, seems to take that view. I think, however, that the weight of history is the other way,' and that it is quite clear that the office of constable existed at the common law prior to the statute of Winchester. In addition to the authorities above cited, Mr. Chitty, in a note to an edition of Blaekstone’s Commentaries, says: “ Constables have been known as most efficient public officers long before the statute of Winchester: 13 Edw. I., st. 2, c. 6, A. D. 1285. This is evident from a writ or mandate preserved in the adversaria to Watt’s edition of Matthew Paris, and from which cc. 4, .6, of the statute of Winchester are evidently taken, though it has, says Sir Thomas Tomlins, escaped the notice of every writer or speaker upon the subject.” Sir Matthew Hale also insisted that constables were of the common law, and that the statute of Winchester only gave some special and additional functions. 2 Hale P. C. (1st Am. ed.) p. 88 et seq. This same learned judge also so held in a case decided by him. Hawkins, cited above, fully sustains this view. In 1 Salk. p. 175 occurs the following, under title Constable:” “The high constable was an officer at common law before the statute of Winton, as well as petit constable, and they are officers to the justices of peace, as the sheriff is to the court of King’s Bench.” On page 380 of the same volume, the decision in the case of Queen v. Wyat is reported. This was by Lord Chief Justice Holt. In that case the court said: “ 1st, Though the constable is not named in the statute, nor appointed to be the officer to execute these warrants, yet the justices may command him to execute them; for as at common law the constables were subordinate officers to the conservators of the peace, so are they now the proper officers of the justices: The constable of the hundred may arrest for breach of the peace as well as a petit constable, 3 Cro. 878, and was an officer at common law, notwithstanding the opinions to the contrary; and the statute of Winton only enlarges his authority. Vide Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, 3 Keb. 231.” “2dly, Where an officer neglects a duty incumbent on him, either by common law or statute, he is for his default indictable. Et nota; In this case, the indictment was not laid contra formam statuti, nor need it have been, though the constable had been named in the statute; because the constable is an .officer of common law, and when a statute requires him to do what without requiring had been his duty and he must have done, it is not imposing a new duty, and he is indictable at common law for it. Vide also 5 Yin. Abr. 427-8 title ‘ Constable Powell J. in 2 Ld. Raym. 1189.” Having thus reviewed the origin of this office, its history and its functions and prerogatives in England, and having seen that the service of the criminal warrants of justices of the peace and being the ministerial officers of such magistrates, were of the peculiar attributes of the office of constable by the common law, the status of that office in the American colonies and the states of the Union properly comes next in order for consideration. The office of constable seems to have existed in the early colonies as a matter of course. While it is probably correct to say that this office did not exist in Plymouth colony on December 25th, 1620, the day the originators of that colony disembarked from the May Flower, yet it is historically true that it has been in existence from the settlement of New England to the present time. The colonists organized a body politic ¡before they landed, and in a few years thereafter we find the office of constable in full existence. The May 'Flower dropped her anchor in the roadstead of what is now Provincetown, on Cape Cod, November 11th, 1620. A journal of the proceedings on board says: “ This day, before we came to harbor, observing some not well affected to unity and concord, but gave some appearance of faction, it was thought good there should be an association and agreement that we should combine together in one body, and to submit to such government and governors as we should, by common consent, agree to make and choose, and set our hands to this that follows, word for word.” The following was the instrument which they executed : “In ye name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwriten, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne lord, King James, by ye grace of God, of Great Eritaine, Franc and Ireland, king, defender of ye faith, etc., having undertaken, for ye glorie of God and advancements of ye Christian faith and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye northern part of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually, in ye presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of ye ends aforesaid, and by virtue hearof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just and equall laws, ordinances, acts, constitution and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for ye general! good of ye colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names, at Cap Codd, ye 11 of November, in ye year of ye raigne of our soveraigne lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland ye eighteenth, and of Scotland ye fiftie-fourth, Ano. Dom. 1620.” Bryant’s Hist. U. S. vol. i. p. 388-9. We see here, at the beginning of permanent civilized life on this continent, not only the contemplation of and provision for civil offices among the colonists, but also the practical application of the principle of local self-government, a principle of Anglo-Saxon derivation which, surviving the Norman Conquest, has always obtained, to a great and increasing extent, in England, and has ever been one of the fundamental principles of civil liberty in the rise, growth and progress of governments and governmental institutions in America. We find that as early as 1623 the holding of “town meeting” in the spring for the election of officers and the transaction of other business had become established. Bryant’s Hist. U. S. vol. i. p. 408. By 1632 the various settlements had formed into townships, and these had become an aggregated commonwealth. Ib. pp. 538-9. It was about this time that Eliot began his efforts to Christianize the Indians, and some of the converts were made magistrates and constables. Ib. p. 540. It is fair to infer that this office had previously become fully established among the colonists. The following was a warrant addressed by an Indian magistrate to a constable: “1. I, Hidondi. 2. You, Peter Waterman. 3. Jeremy Wicket. 4. Quick you take him. 5. Fast yon hold him. 6. Straight you bring him. 7. Before me, Hidondi.” — The Neto England History, by Charles W. Elliott, vol. 1 p. 326. An incident in the history of the Massachusetts Bay colony serves to show the existence of this office and its functions. In 1651 the Bev. John Clark, a Baptist minister from Newport, the Bev. Obadiah Holmes, another Baptist minister, and one Crandall, went together to Lynn as representatives of the church at Newport, to visit one William Witter, a sick brother in the church, who was nearly seventy years of age and blind. While there the following is related of them: “On Sunday after their arrival, ‘not having freedom in our spirits,’ says Clark, ‘ for want of a clear call from God to go unto the public assemblie to declare there what was the mind, and counsel of God concerning them,’ he ‘ judged it a thing suitable ’ to hold divine service in the house and with the family of Witter, and four or five others who came in to join their worship. While thus engaged, there came in two constables with a warrant for their arrest. A request to finish the services was denied, and ‘the erroneous persons being strangers,’ whom the writ of Justice Bridges commanded should be brought before him in the morning, were marched off as prisoners — bail being refused — to the inn for safe keeping.”— Bryant’s Hist. U. S. vol. ii. p. 106. In the same work, p. 180, is related an incident in the Plymouth colony in 1658, where the inhabitants would not permit the constable to take Nicholas Upshall on his warrant, who was charged with favoring Quakers. In New Hampshire, in 1662, it was ordered that a cage be made by the selectmen “to punish such as sleepe, or take tobacco on the Lord’s Day out of the meeting in time of publick exercise,” and that “one householder or more walk every Sabbath day in sermon time with the constable to every publick house in ye town, to suppress ill order, and if they think convenient, to private houses also.” Bryant’s Hist. U. S. vol. ii. p. 424. In the same work, on page 425, an incident is related as happening in New Hampshire in 1662, where Walter Barefoot prevailed upon a constable to surrender his warrant of execution against three Quaker women sentenced to be publicly whipped at the cart’s tail through the town. See also same work, p. 469, for an account of the Bev. Stephen Burroughs being driven out of Salem and afterwards arrested on a charge of witchcraft by tioo constables sent from that town. In the early resolves of the Massachusetts Bay colony there are some, though few, allusions to the office of constable. There are no provisions creating that office, and those referring to it seem to indicate the office as existing with the ordinary functions appertaining to it. This office is in this country, unquestionably, by the common law, and would, without special enactment, possess those functions and prerogatives which go to make up that office and commonly appertain to it. In the colonies as in England, the functions which, among others, gave peculiar character to the office of constable were those of serving the criminal warrants of justices of the peace and of being their ministerial officer. They have continued to mark this office in the several States where the office has existed, not only in New England, but outside of it, in some of the original States and in many of those States which have come into existence as such since the formation of the Federal Union. In the earliest state constitution of Connecticut, in that of New Jersey, adopted in 1776, in that of New York, adopted in 1777, and in that of Georgia, also adopted in 1777, this office is mentioned and continued, but alluded to by name only, as having a well understood signification. Webster in defining in his dictionary the word “constable,” says: “In the United States, constables are town and city officers of the peace, with powers similar to those possessed by constables in Great Britain. They are invested also with powers to execute civil as well as criminal process and to levy executions.” The foregoing definition would seem to involve an idea which is to a certain extent true, namely: that if anything can be said to have been added to the office of constable, it is the power to execute civil, not criminal, process, which latter would be a natural concomitant, certainly a necessary outgrowth of an office existing for the preservation of the peace and the like, and itself an outcome of a rude and disturbed state of society. Constables being original peace officers, and having as functions of their office those involved in this case, namely, of serving criminal warrants of justices of the peace, and of being their ministerial officer, would very naturally have conferred by common consent or by statute the function of executing civil process when such justices should have conferred on them jurisdiction of civil causes. The function of serving civil would follow, not lead, that of serving criminal process of justices of the peace. Mention is made of this to illustrate that, in depriving a constable of the functions of that office, as attempted by the Police Act in respect to those herein involved, there are taken from that office what has ever constituted, above all others, its peculiar and original characteristics; and that a much greater inroad, a far more striking and radical change in the constitution of that office is thereby made, than there would be if the entire function of executing civil process were swept away. This brings us to a consideration of the constitution of the office of constable in Michigan. This office, in respect to those of its functions involved in this case is, in this State as at the common law in England and the colonies. It has not been modified by legislation. The statutes, while pointedly referring to the functions last mentioned, and perhaps intensifying those peculiarities, are really declaratory. The prerogatives of this office involved in the present controversy have ever formed in Michigan a constituent part thereof. A glance at the legislation concerning it will verify this statement. Among the early legislation relative to this office was an act passed Nov. 3, 1815, providing for the appointment of a competent number of constables in the judicial districts of the territory, who should have same powers and emoluments as marshals. It was also provided in this act that sheriffs and coroners should be the ministerial officers of all courts within their respective counties, except those of justices of the peace. 1 Terr. L. 220. On Nov. 4, 1815, provision was made for the punishment of persons unlawfully resisting constables, etc. Ib. 124. On May 8, 1820, the county commissioners were authorized to divide counties into townships, and to recommend persons to the Governor for appointment as constables. The Governor was required to appoint a suitable number of constables. Ib. 661-671. In the same year, on May 11, constables were authorized to execute judgments of justices of the peace in criminal cases, and forms of writs were prescribed. Ib. 598-99. A few days later, May 20, an act was passed defining the powers of constables in civil cases, and prescribing the forms of writs. They were prohibited from advocating causes before justices of the peace. Ib. 604, 619. On Nov. 28, 1820, a general act concerning constables was passed. After providing for their appointment and other things, the following was enacted: Section 5. And_ be it further enacted, That constables shall be the ministerial officers of justices of the peace in their respective counties; and it shall be the duty of constables to apprehend and bring to justice, all felons and disturbers of the peace; to suppress riots, and give information of all offences against the laws, which may come to their knowledge: they shall also keep and preserve the peace in their respective counties; and the authority of constables, in civil and criminal cases, shall be co-extensive with the counties, for which they may be respectively appointed, within which they shall serve such process as may be directed to them, agreeably to laxo: And they shall attend upon the Supreme Court and county courts in their respective counties, when thereto warned by the order of such courts, and shall do and perform such other services as are or may be required by law. Section 7. * * * The same being adopted from the laws of three of the original states, to wit, the states of Massachusetts, New York and Ohio, as far as necessary and suitable to the circumstances of the territory of Michigan. Ib. pp. 683-6. On June 29, 1832, the Legislative council passed an act amending an act relative to the city of Detroit. This provided, among other things, “That hereafter the constables of the city of Detroit, while in office, shall be respectively vested with the same power and perform the same duties which may be vested in and performed' by any constable of the county of Wayne, and shall be subject to the same fees and take the same oath.” There was no important legislation after this concerning constables, except as to fees (lb. p. 778), until Michigan became a State. The functions of this office, as indicated by section five of the act of 1820, have ever attached to and formed a component part of it in Michigan. Rev. Stat. 1838, pp. 66, 210, 398; Rev., Stat. 1846, p. 93; Comp. L. 1857, p. 241; Comp. L. 1871, p. 287. This somewhat extended review of the origin, history ^ and functions of the office of constable brings us to 1850. It covers a period of over seven centuries. Whatever may have been the origin of this office, we find, beyond question, that for more than five hundred years continuously, and immediately prior to the adoption of the Constitution of 1850, constables served the criminal warrants of justices of the peace, and were the general ministerial officers of those magistrates. Those functions, during all of this long period of time, have ever constituted a part of that office, and have been’its peculiar and distinguishing characteristics. It may be very justly said that they are of the original functions of that office, and ^hat if any, others, not ■ these have been added. They have ever been the functions of a constable in Michigan, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1850, they were known and understood to be a part of that office. The people of this State never knew the office of constable without these prerogatives. They had known this office as it existed at the common iaw, and as declared by their statutes from the time Michigan became a State, and earlier. They had inherited it. They were satisfied with it. Therefore, in 1850, the office whose existence had theretofore depended upon the legislative will was made permanent by the people in the organic law of the State. Constitution of 1850, Art xi. § 1. Particular expressions used in a Constitution are to be understood as conveying the thoughts which they represented when introduced, Newell v. People 7 N. Y..97; Gibbons v. Ogden 9 Wh. 188; Cooley’s Const. Lim. 58-61. As at the common law constables were the local peace officers, and the functions of being the ministerial officers of justices of the peace, and of serving criminal warrants, originally constituted the office of constable (his civil functions having been since added), and the office, as then constituted, having been confirmed and made permanent by the Constitution, the Legislature cannot deprive the locality of its constitutional office by transferring the functions which comprise it to some creature of the central government. Hubbard v. Springwells 25 Mich. 158; People v. Draper 15 N. Y. 532; People v. Raymond 37 N. Y. 428; Warner v. People 2 Denio 272; State v. Hastings 10 Wis. 525; McCabe v. Mazzuchelli Í3 Wis. 478; State v. Brunst 26 Wis. 412.