Okolona messenger. (Okolona, Miss.) 1900-current, 1906-04-25

1aEI Society Of East st. Louis Friday
night, on the subject Of the fifth constitutional
amendment, which provides that no man may be
compelled to testify against himself.
| That this provision, part Of the bill of rights,
was ch Id OF the fear inspired by the Star Cham
Der, whose rigOrs fOreiathers had SO lately ex.
tperlenced, is historical truth. That the danger
which they anticipated OF the punishment OF limo
cent men was exaggerated in their minds is prob
able, at least il s certain that the danger does not
exist to day.
The logic, the philosophy the practical reason
behind the provision ably attacked by Mr..
Anderson In these terms:
The only privilege that an innocent man wants is
the opportunity to tell the TRUTH whereby, under
careful system Of justice, he must be liberated.
The only privilege that criminal should be enti-
tied to is privilege to he tried by the truth. By
what occult or metaphysical force is an innocent
man going to have q ball and chain attached to him
by giving him the privilege or compelling him, II
you please, to tell the truthf Can you imagine in
what way an innocent man would have suffered if
during the past there had been no constitutional
exemption for defendants testifying in criminal
causesf The exemption is termed cherished right
OF citizenship. deny that to remain silent is the
cherished right Of an American citizen 1t is the
cherished right of the American criminal. 1t has
protected more bribery, grating and felony than
any mistake in national history 1t gives the
rich criminal feeling OF security; it encourages the
poor to do his bidding. 1t saps all encouragement
from the heart OF the prosecuting official. Ii tends
to make mOCkery Of law.
That iOrceinl arraignment is scarcely answerable.
Happiy the remedy for the coDRTitutiOnal mistake
lies practically and to large extent with the States
Themselves. Each State has its bill Of rights in
which the immunity provision occurs. In the years
to come when public opinion shall have thoroughly
made mp It's mind that the privilege OF silence is an
error, the States may repeal those provisions. The
United States Supreme Court has held plainly-and
probably established the doctrine ior all time-that
unless the right to immunity is granted to de,
endant by the State Constitution he cannot refuse
/ to testify in the State courts.
IA change in the Constitution of the United States
would be more difficult and diatOry matter, but
the thought and sentiment Of the times approach
ing demand for such change. II is curious to
observe in the attitude Of the Judges OF the Su
preme Court Of the United States toward the i'm
munity doctrine strong disbelief in its logic, q
depreciation OF fts practical results in thwarting
rather than promoting Justice. The decision Of
Judge Humphreys granting immunity to the beef
packers, and the consequent special message to
Congress upon the subject OF immunity, are strik
/ ing incidents gerDane which make for the radical
change in our criminal system. That it s in strong
need Of reform s the settled opinion Of the bench
and bar generally, and 1t is only question Of time
until the country adopts the change 10 respect Of
immunity.