The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-11-25

Cohen to be registered upon the First
Precinct register of the Forty-tbird As
sembly Distri CT. Cohen was called as
witness and asked the following questions:
Mr.. Cohen, where do you reside?
On the Sd day of October. 1894, where did
you reside?
Do you know the defendant, Louis
Stein berger?
Did you have any conversation with
Mr.. Stein berger on the Sd day of last Oc-
tober respecting your going and procuring
yourself TO be placed on the Great Register
of this county?
Or the precinct register of this city and
county?
Did you register or procure your name
to be placed upon the precinct register of
he first precinct of the Forty-rhird Assem-
bly District on the Sd of last October?
Were you present at the Baldwin Hotel
with Mr.. Steinoerger on the Sd day of DC.
tober?
At Mr.. Sieiuberger's direction did the
clerk of the Baldwin Hotel furnish you
with key to a certain room in the hotel?
Cohen refused to answer each of these
questions as they were propounded to
him, on the ground that his answer mi ght
incrIminate him. wbereupon the Judge
stated to him: sit is a legal impossible
ity in this case to expose yourself by your
testimony here. l instruct you that you
are bound to answer. You must answer"
But Cohen wouldn't and didn't answer,
and for his sins was rewarded without
| $5OO tine Tor contempt of court and sem
fenced to be confined in iail until the
requisite answers were forth coming. Car
| roll Cook toe out writ of habeaS corpus
at once, and the Supreme Court heard
arguments on the matter 10 Sacramento.
In deciding that Judge Wallace was
| right the court said: ''The right of the
Legislature TO determine who shall be COM
! pstent witnesses TO establish any fact
under judicial examination and TO compel
| the attendance of such witnesses cannot
be disputed Every person is subject to
| the power OF the Legislature to compel
| bin In any judicial proceeding to give tes-
timony of any fact within his knowledge
and material to the issue, except in so far
| as the constitution restraints the Legisla-
ture from exercising this power or pro-
| tects the individual from a compulsory
| compliance with is attempted exercise
| The constitution Of this State has limited
the extent 10 which the Legislature may
| exercise this power and has given to the
] individual protection against It's exercise
! bv providing in article |, section 13. that
| No person shall be compelled in any GRIM
nal case to be witness against himself
! 1T ls needless to review the history and
development Of this provision. 1t is an
outgrowth of the common law of England.
| and almost at the commencement of our
| present government was Incorporated into
the constitution, and is found ia the con-
stitution OF every State in the country.
| The object OF the provision Is the immun-
| ity OF the individual from compulsory
sef-accusation. This immunity is, how
ever. to be limited to the purpose for
| which 1t is given, viz: the protection of
the witness from being compelled to fur
| nish any evidence from which he NAV be
su9Jeeteo 10 persecution or punishment,
ana Is not TO be extended so as to include
an exemption from being compelled to give
evidence that could not under apy circnm-
stances tend TO his conviction of an Of
tense against the laws of the State
ne provision that person shall not
oe compelled in criminal case 10 bs n
witness against himself is to be con-
strued as protecting him from being com
relied to give evidence which in a crimjnaI
prosecution against himself might ia any
degree tend to establish the offense with
Wnlch he may be charged. 1t is only
wnen his evidence may tend to establish
an olIense Tor which he may be punished
under the laws Of the State that lie is a
witness against himself in a criminal
case. The criminal case in which he is a
witness need not be against himself, bu t
1 MS immunity from compulsion extends to
| all evidence against himself which may be
uSeu In any criminal case against him,
under whatever circumstances such evil
dence may be sought; but the fact that in
a proceeding in which he is not the de-
PENDANT his test mony may tend to show
that he has violated the laws of the State,
is not. sufficient to entitle him to claim
THIS protection Of the constitution, unless
he is at the same time liable to prosecu-
ton and punishment for such violation.
If at the time of the transactions, re-
specting which his testimony is sought the
acts themselves did not constitute an
| nense, or ii at the time of giving the tes-
| timony the acts are no longer punishable