Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1905-03-02
A Bad Bill Defeated.

A Bad Bill Defeated.
Tuesday the Senate killed Gov
ernor Folks bill to exempt wit
nesses for the State from incrimi-
nation by any evidence they may
give in matters of bribery. The
measure was a Democratic plat
form pledge and was killed in an
alleged Democratic Senate by a
vote of II to IA. OF the II votes
against the measure, 10 were cast
by Democrats - Senator j. w.
Farris, of this district, being one
OF them.-Scott County Kicker.
The fact that a Democratic con-
vention dominated by Folk re-
solved in favor of such a law does
not add anything to it's merit, but,
in my judgment, tends rather to
detract from it. Aside from this,
however, there, are grave questions
involved in such proposition
which the maudlin sentiment of a
Folk convention should not even
influence, much less determine.
The Federal constitution and the
constitution of this State both pro-
vide that, in criminal cases, no
person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself. This pro-
vision was embodied in the funda-
mental law of the land to shield
and protect'a person charged with
crime by imposing upon the charg-
ing party the burden of establish
ing his guilt without any assist
ance, directly or indirectly, by the
person charged.
The provision that a person thus
compelled to testify shall be ex-
empt from prosecution, so far as
the particular transaction he is
testifying about is concerned, does
not protect him for, while he may
not be prosecuted for the particu-
lar crime he discloses, he is, never
theless, forced to brand himself as
felon and thereby destroy his
own reputation, and that too, with
out any criminal charge being
lodged against him. In other
words, such a law would authorize
a prosecuting attorney land those
officials have by far too much
arbitrary power now) to say to A:
"You appear as witness and
swear that B accepted a bribe from
you, or will shift the charge and
have B as a witness to swear that
you bribed him." and this would
simply put premium on perjury.
In addition to the above observa-
tions such law would compel a
witness, or might do so, to unlock
the door which conceals evidence
that could be used to convict of an
offense of the same character, but
committed at a different time, and,
by such indirection, accomplish
what both constitutions provide
may not be done.
Again I do not believe that any
person charged with crime should
be convicted by the unsupported
testimony of an accomplice and,
while the law as it now is, reluct-
antly permits this to be done, it
nevertheless enjeins that such
testimony shall be received by
courts and juries with great eau
ton. Why? Simply because the
law recognizes thata man who has
the hardihood to voluntarily brand
himself as criminal would COM
nit perjury as readily as he would
give or take a bribe, or commit
any other crime.
1t is no answer to say that bribe
givers and bribe takers ought to
be punished; so ought all crimi.
nails, but they cannot be forced te
furnish the evidence to procure
their own conviction.
Had the bill under considera.
ton possessed any merit, it would
have been stripped of the Foil
demagogery that manacled it, anc
made to apply to all crimes as wei
as bribery. l think the Senate
rendered the State a service wher
it killed Folks bill.-Bloomfelt
Courier.
Gives Health, VigOr and Tone.