The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-06-20
7he Virginia" recently undertook 10 say:

7he VrbtntdR recently undertook 10 say:
our friend most evidently did not see the
point ut which We were driving Emphat!cHily
II IT, not that the power Of the state Il, require
upon his waiver Of HIS constitutional right 10
refuse 10 incriminere himself What the law
Is upon this close question must Of course, await
the decision Of the high court, but it is by no
means settled doctrine, the Register assumes
that the statute must fall if centravene a
sacred constitutional guarantee" That is but a
half truth. and the statute ia question. or the
class of starutes, does not attempt TO DO away
with the guarantee except in 80 far compel
testimony by provision Of immunity from prose-
oution In other words the construction Of su h
constitutional provisions IN many States Is that
they are operative only so long as the witness
Is In danger Of prosecution. A statute there
fore. which gives him immunity from punish
ment when he is called on 10 testify does away
with. the idea that he IS discriminating him
self although his testimony is az to facts which.
without the protection or The statute. would con
stituto q crime
The point in such legislation is mat the State
reserves the right 70 nutomatIcnllv pardon . a
crime the moment It ia testified to by the crtn-
inal, IN such csse, the witness does not actu-
ally incrintnate himself, even though he be com
PEELED to testify 10 his criminal actions. If
surii Testimony were dependent upon the election
or the criminal to take immunity, the statute
would be worthless, since no man would will
tngly testify 10 facts which would tend to huulf-
late and degrade him. Such testimony the law
nevert heIess requires where the ends OF Justice
are 70 be served by II The intent OF the I'M
munltY statutes IN general is 70 chanEe an al
mission Of crime into a mere compulsory con-
fession OF personal lapse.
The conviction of the. notorious brihe-takers
IN Lee and Wise counties, in our opinion. de-
ponds wholly upon whether the Court OF APP
peals follows the doctrine above outlined. or that
stricter constitutional construction to which the
Register ahheres,
That is to say, that we had confidence IN
the power of the highest court in Virginia to
reconcile law with passion. while still preserv-
ing law. On the one side are those who bring
all the inventions OF the theorists, OF the psy-
ehists and the others to bear and influence
practical matters.
This decision means that that confidence IL
NOT deceived. 1t will bear fruit We could
hops, within Fl limited sphere OF influence, that
It might generally call tho attention of the
country to the negligible fact that the gener-
ality OF jurists are rather attempting to pre-
serve TO us those things which have than
to proclaim that we have no,property in them.
and that thereby they gain their only title TO
the praise of demagogues.
As matter OF fact the decision OF the SUI
preme Court OF Appeals in this State estab-
fishes precedent which no progressive who
is running away can fail to stop and con-
slider
The trouble with the average progressive Is
that bound on himself breaking neck over
the precipice, he insists that aH others should
be pushed over in advance Of him.