Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1906-07-09
ABOLISH IMMUNITY
The CITY ATTORNEY OF ST. LOUIS
WOULD Compel EVIDENCE.
r1r. Anderson Would Abolish Fifth
Amendment to Federal COnstitu.
fiOn, and Compel Alleged Criminals
to Testify. He Proposes a Radi.
Cal Reform.

The fifth amendment to the federal
constitution provides that no person
shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be witness against himself. 1t was in
the spirit OF this amendment that the
attorneys for the packers successfully
pleaded before Judge Humphrey at Chi.
cago. Thomas l.. Anderson. CITY at.
torney for st. Louis, speaking recently
before the Southern Society of East st.
Louis, vigorously attacked the provision
referred to. Mr. Anderson said:
1.-The only privilege that an innocent
man wants is the opportunity to tell the
Truth, whereby. under our careful system
OF justice, he must be liberated. The
only privilege that criminal should be
entitled to is privilege to be fried by the
truth. BY what occult or metaphysical
force is an innocent man going to have a
ball and chain attached to him by giving
him the privilege, or compelling him, ii
you please, to tell the truth? Can YOU
imagine in what way an innocent man
would have suffered ii during the past
there had been no constitutional exemp.
tions for defendants testifying in criminal
causes? The exemption is termed a
cherished right of citizenship. | deny
that to remain silent is the cherished
right OF an American citizen. 1t is the
cherishe right OF the American criminal.
1t has protected more bribery, grating
and felony than any mistake in our ma.
tional history. 1t gives the rich criminal
a feeling of security; it encourages the
poor to do his bidding. 1t saps all en-
couragement from the heart of the prose.
cutting official. 1t tends to make a
mockery OF the law
The reform proposed by Mr.. Anderson
may appear to be radical. and lawyers
will, perhaps. be slow to indorse it. But
Mr.. Anderson has presented the case in
IA forceful and convincing way. The
Commoner believes he IS right.
1t is difficult to imagine in what way
event the constitutional exemption for
defendants testifying in criminal cases
were removed. This provision grew, we
believe, out OF an abuse in England of
the rights of prisoners. In days when
there were no safeguards whatever
thrown around the accused he was often
subjected to catechism under such cir.
cnmstances and embarrassments as to
preclude the possibility OF fair hearing
And out of this grew the determination
to give defendant on trial for life or
liberty every possible opportunity Of
avoiding an unjust conviction.
But now there are sufficient safeguards
thrown around man accused of crime.
He is entitled to counsel, and if he is too
poor to pay for it, the state foots the bill.
The pendulum has swung in the other
direction, and the plan which was adopt
ed to rectify an evil with respect to an
individual has produced another and
equally as great an evil with respect to
society. 1t is not likely the constitution
will be amended in this particular at an
early day, but it would be well for men
to think seriously upon the reform as
proposed by Mr.. Anderson. The Sim
munity bath" ought to 90. and the con.
stitutional exemption for defendants
testify ing in criminal causes ought to be
abolished. -Bryan's Commoner.