Chapter IV: Preface (3)

So if one writes a threatening letter to your father, telling him that he will kidnap his child unless he pays ten thousand dollars by a certain time, such person is exercising his constitutional right to freedom of expression, but no one would think that it was right to permit him thus to abuse his constitutional right without being punished for it; and consequently such person may be arrested and tried, and if found guilty, punished.

So in these later days it has been found wise, not to prohibit persons from giving expression to their views about our government, but to punish those who show by their words or writing that they are rebels against our government, endeavoring by their words to cause a revolution, to incite people to use force, bombs, or the torch to destroy our government.

No one can ever be punished for criticising our government, or any of the officers of our government, so long as he does not undertake to destroy our government, and I am sure that you would not think it right to permit any one to destroy the government controlled by ourselves which has brought to us so many blessings. Nearly every one agrees that if a person should use bombs or the torch in an effort to cause revolution and destroy our form of government, such a person should be punished; but there are a few who think that they should not be punished until they actually begin destruction. Of course we cannot agree with them. The man who goes out on the street corner and advocates the use of the bomb and the torch to destroy our government, who arouses passions willfully with the purpose of destroying the government, is doing just as much wrong as is done by the person who follows his advice and uses the bomb and the torch. In fact the man who advocates revolution and destruction, who preaches the use of the bomb and the torch, who plants the poison in the hearts of his fellowmen, and incites them to revolutionary action is more guilty of wrong than are those who, stirred by his appeals, carry out his wishes.

In punishing those who thus violate every principle of loyalty, patriotism, and right the constitutional provision is in no manner modified. The worst revolutionist has the freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed to him. The law which punishes him does so only because under the protection of the Constitution, he commits a crime against his country and against humanity.

America has done more than any other nation in the world in the cause of educating the common people. It should exercise care that the people should be educated in the true spirit of America, that their minds should not be poisoned by the vicious teachings of those, not Americans at heart, who seek to poison souls and rob the people of their patriotism and of their loyalty.

In the olden days so tyrannical was the king that in many instances when the people complained of their burdens and sought rights and privileges they were punished for daring to seek relief. The king would usually give them what he thought they ought to have and would not listen to complaints. One of the rights which the people always hoped for was the privilege of assembling, meeting together, talking over their troubles, drawing up a petition, signing, and presenting it, praying “a redress of grievance”. When the representatives of the people met in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia they had before their minds the things that the people had suffered under old forms of government and it was their earnest effort to provide constitutional guaranties which would prevent the abuses to which the people were compelled to submit in the old world. Therefore one of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States is the following:

“_Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._”(57)

Under this constitutional guaranty the people have the right to assemble peaceably at any time or place, to talk over their troubles, and to draw up a petition to the government seeking relief from unjust burdens. Where they assemble peaceably there is no officer of the government and no court that can interfere with them; and when they petition the government they cannot be reprimanded or punished in any way. Of course under our representative government where the people themselves select those who make the laws, the necessity for assembling and drawing up petitions is not so great. Yet in Congress and in the legislatures of the various States nearly every day petitions come in from some body of people urging the adoption of a certain law or objecting to a certain proposed law. If you were in Congress or in the legislature you would probably see some member arise and say, “Mr. Speaker, I present the petition of the people of my district objecting to the passage of Bill No. 781, which I desire to have made part of the record”, and the Speaker, who is the presiding officer, would respond in substance, “the request of the gentleman will be granted and the petition will be made part of the record”.

What I desire especially to impress upon you this morning is the value of this right and the failure of our people to take advantage of the privilege granted. This being a government by the people and the laws being made by their agents, these agents of the people, members of Congress and of the State legislatures, cannot carry out the will of the people unless they know what the people want. Ask your father when you go home whether or not he has ever written to the member of Congress from this district telling him about some law he would like to have passed or about some proposed law he would like to see defeated. The truth is that there are large numbers of people in this city who do not even know the name of their congressman, or representative in the legislature of the State. They do not pay any attention to such things, yet when the legislature or Congress passes a law they are always ready to criticise and condemn, despite the fact that before it was passed they did not take interest enough to give an expression of their views to those who were trying to follow the wishes of the people. From time to time the people should assemble in every community to talk over government matters, their matters, the things that come most close to them in life. You will find men and women meeting every month in their lodges and clubs, discussing all sorts of things, music, art, and literature, but we find hardly any organized meetings for the discussion of the big things in life, our liberties, our rights, and our duties as citizens of this free republic. I hope to see the time when there will be community centers and regular assemblies, not for amusement but for serious discussion, serious thought, and earnest coöperation in the affairs of the city, State, and Nation. There is so much complaint in these days that it would be of great value at these assemblies to allow every person who has a grievance against the government or any branch of the government to present it for discussion. The rights and duties of each individual in government are of importance to every other person, and there should be frankness, honesty, and earnestness in every discussion of grievance and remedies, so that public sentiment may be developed. Government in a democracy is government by the sentiment of the people; and the sentiment of the people can only be created and manifested by talking over the things in which all people are interested—the problems of life, liberty, and happiness.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. Which colonists came to America to avoid religious persecution?

2. Why do people fight and die for their religious beliefs?

3. In what ways were people persecuted for their religious beliefs?

4. Where was the first statute granting absolute freedom of worship passed?

5. Why is it a good thing to have freedom of speech?

6. Name some famous Americans who have been outspoken in saying what they thought.

7. Can you publish in the paper a statement that Mr. X is a burglar? If so, can you be punished if your statement is not true? If so, how can you have freedom of speech?

8. Is the Constitution of the United States in force in all the States of the Union?

9. Are there other constitutions which the people of different States must observe?

10. Why did the people want the right to assemble?

11. Do you know of any countries where they do not allow it?

12. Do you know of anyone who ever sent a petition to a State legislature? To Congress? What was it like?

13. How many assemblies of people and petitions help to make our representatives do what we want them to do?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. Name the places in the world, where to-day there is religious persecution.

B. Describe the conditions in Armenia.

C. What are the real advantages of religions liberty?

D. Just how would it affect a person if freedom of speech were not allowed?

E. How may the right to freedom of speech be abused?

F. During the recent war, men were punished for what they said under what is known as the Espionage Act. How can this be reconciled with freedom of speech?

G. Discuss the method of organizing a community meeting.

H. Discuss the method of preparing a petition.

I. Suppose the opinion of the meeting should be divided, what should be the procedure?

J. Plan a method to make the people talk more about government.

K. What are the dangers of a lack of interest in the affairs of government?

L. How will a congressman represent the wishes of the people if he receives no petitions?

M. Write a paper on the following:

The Story of the Pilgrims

Roger Williams and the Providence Colony

Lord Baltimore

Thomas Jefferson and Religious Liberty

Censorship of the Press and Freedom of Speech

What to do with an Anarchist Meeting

Socialist Papers

The Importance of the Right of Petition

Keeping In Touch with our Representatives

Some Petitions I have Seen

Things for Which We Should Petition the Legislature

X. MILITARY PROVISIONS

Rights Of Citizens To Bear Arms—Restrictions On Quartering Soldiers In
Homes

Again we find the framers of the Constitution looking back into the past at abuses imposed upon the people by kingly power. They inserted in the Constitution the following provision:

“_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._”(58)

They were making a government of free States. They did not wish to see the National government become the master of the States nor the master of the people. They believed that the government should be the servant and not the master. They wanted to have the power in the hands of the people of the States to protect their rights if they ever should be invaded by force; and therefore they furnished to the people of all the States the guaranty that the States should have the right to have militia, that is, soldiers organized to maintain order and to defend the State, if necessary, against abuse of power; and they guaranteed to the people the right to bear arms lawfully.

If you read the history of the old world you will find many instances of soldiers entering the homes of the people to search for fire arms or other weapons, taking them away, possibly punishing those who had them. The people are guarded by our Constitution against any such conduct on the part of soldiers or representatives of the National government. Of course this right, like the right of free speech, may be abused and when abused punishment may be imposed. For instance, it is dangerous to the good order of a community that persons should carry concealed weapons and therefore in every State there is some law concerning this. If a man should walk down the street here with a loaded revolver in his pocket he could be arrested and imprisoned, or fined, but in this State a man could walk down the street with a shot gun in his hands or any other weapon where it is exposed so people could see it. A law against carrying concealed weapons imposes no burden upon any law-abiding citizen. There are regulations, of course, permitting certain persons to carry weapons concealed, police officers, a sheriff, and other peace officers; and there is a law under which any person of good moral character may make application for authority to carry concealed weapons which will be granted under certain restrictions. Some States require a bond to be filed guaranteeing good conduct. Persons who have to carry large sums of money, express messengers upon the trains, post office employees who carry registered mail, and other persons may be granted the privilege of carrying concealed weapons. The laws regarding carrying concealed weapons differ from State to State, the punishment in some being a term in the penitentiary.

But in all this we find only regulation and careful provision to help maintain order and peace; and with it all we find the absolute right given by the Constitution to the people to maintain their State militia and to keep and bear arms within reasonable regulations which may be provided by the different States.

Then we find a strict guaranty of the Constitution against an abuse which was common in the old world. You know before America came into being the strength of a government was the power of a government. The people were ruled by force; they were kept in constant fear. When this Nation was organized it was the hope of the founders that we could have laws so just that people would have love for their country and respect for its laws, so that we would not have to inspire fear in the hearts of the people in order to make them obey. Laws should be obeyed not because of fear, but because of respect, because of a sense of duty. Laws should be obeyed because we know that laws are necessary to protect our own liberties. We know that without law, liberty is impossible.

So that when the Constitution was framed, reflecting upon the abuses of the old world, the makers of the Constitution inserted this guaranty:

“_No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law._”(59)

In the olden days the military power was supreme. The soldier was part of the military power. The ordinary citizen was compelled to submit to many of the wishes of the soldiers in times of peace as well as in times of war. In reading the history of the world you will find that soldiers exercised the right to enter the homes of the people and demand food and shelter. Of course the people, being in fear of the military power, would not think of refusing anything demanded; but the people of America, under our Constitution, are supreme. The soldier is subject to the people, not the people subject to the soldier. While we must respect those who are the defenders of our country, we must also respect our own rights and privileges. And every soldier, general or private, must also respect our rights and privileges. No soldier can enter any home, no matter how humble, without the consent of the owner, except in times of war. Even in times of war he cannot enter except under circumstances and conditions prescribed by law. The law being made by the people, they will be protected against abuse. Of course in times of war every one should be glad to give freely of what he has for the soldiers of his country, but in times of peace in this country the soldier, under our Constitution, understands that the home is sacred and that he has no right there unless the owner invites him to enter.

I wonder if the people realize what these guaranties mean to them. I wonder if they understand how earnestly and how carefully those who framed the Constitution endeavored to protect the sacred rights of every man, woman, and child in this country.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. Why did the Germans refuse to allow the Belgians to keep and bear arms?

2. Why is this right important to us?

3. Ask some soldier who fought in France to tell you about how soldiers quartered in the village. Would you like to see this in America? Why not?

4. What rights has a soldier in time of peace to demand admittance to a house, or to demand food?

5. In time of war under what conditions may a soldier be quartered in any house?

6. Where is the whole power of government in America? Where is it in a kingdom or monarchy?

7. Do you know the name of your congressman?

8. When should a person be allowed to carry weapons?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. What is the importance of the right of keeping and bearing arms?

B. What is the status of the National Guard in your locality? What are its duties? What is its purpose?

C. What is the fundamental objection to the quartering of soldiers on a population in time of peace?

D. Write a paper on the following:

The Right to Bear Arms

The Evils of Quartering of Soldiers

The Purpose of the National Guard

How the Soldiers Were Quartered in France

XI. SEARCH WARRANT AND INDICTMENT

The Home Protected Against Unlawful Search And Seizure—Grand Jury
Indictment Required

Following the provision that we last discussed that no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war except in a manner prescribed by law, we find the Constitution making a most positive provision guarding the sacredness of the home, the sacredness of the person, and the things belonging to each person. In the olden days the people had to submit to the most brutal conduct. A man might think some one had stolen his ring or his watch. Suspecting a neighbor, and being the stronger, or assembling his friends, or some officers, he might enter the neighbor’s home, search all through the house among papers, in the desks, and in every trunk and other place where personal belongings were kept, might search the person himself, his pockets, and clothing.

Of course you can easily understand that the people who were thus abused would resent such actions. In England the people in early days had protested and had secured some guaranties from the king against these outrages, but the first absolute written guaranty of the full rights of the people was when the following provision was inserted in our Constitution:

“_The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._”(60)

Of course it is apparent that so long as we have crimes committed the wrongdoer must be punished. Wrongdoers naturally try to conceal the evidence of their crimes: the murderer seeks to hide the revolver, the thief seeks to hide the money, the bonds, or the jewels. So it is necessary, in order to find criminals and to recover valuable things they may have taken, to have the privilege of searching persons or houses. But the thing which the Constitution guarantees is that no such search shall be made except upon warrants issued by some court, which are commands to a peace officer to seize a certain person (arrest him) or to search a certain house or other place for things which might aid in administering justice. No warrants shall be issued by any court until some one has appeared and filed a solemn statement under oath showing some reasonable grounds for believing that the search or seizure will disclose evidence of the offense. The place must be described. The things or the persons to be seized must be described. A warrant issued by any court, no matter how high, without such a sworn statement being presented, is void and in violation of the rights of every person under the Constitution. The courts are often called upon to enforce this right of the people. The home, especially under our Constitution, is recognized as sacred. “Every man’s house is his castle” and wherever, without the proper warrant, search or seizure is made, the court will promptly punish the wrongdoer and if something has been seized or taken possession of wrongfully the court will order it returned. Even though valuable as evidence of guilt, the court will not permit it to be used, if it has been seized in violation of the guaranty of the Constitution.

No matter how humble the home, whether it be owned or rented, whether it have one room or a dozen, it stands exactly the same under this constitutional provision, and is guarded against “unreasonable searches and seizures”. No matter how poor the owner, he can stand at his door and defy all the officers of State or government, yes, and all the soldiers of the republic, defy them to enter until the provisions of the Constitution of the United States shall have been complied with.

Now, we come to guaranties of the right of the people to protection against any trial, except the same be conducted in accordance with the guaranties of the Constitution. These guaranties are for all persons, young or old, rich or poor. You know sometimes the innocent are charged with grave crimes. A crime is committed in the darkness of the night. The criminal has fled. The first duty of the officers of the government—the servants of the people—is to find the criminal so that he may be punished for his wrongdoing. This is not an easy task, and no matter how careful officers may be, mistakes are sometimes made and innocent persons are arrested and charged with the offense. Bring this home to yourself, because every one of these constitutional guaranties are for you, for each of you, for your father, mother, brothers, and sisters. Keep this in mind. Do not consider them as applying to somebody away off, some stranger in whom you have no interest. _They apply to you._

Now suppose that to-night a murder should be committed, and to-morrow your father should be arrested and charged with the crime of which he was entirely innocent. It will be very important to him that he should have a fair chance, a fair trial. His liberty would be at stake, and liberty under the Constitution is a sacred thing. Thinking of liberty his mind would naturally turn to the Constitution, and if he examined it, he would find the following guaranty:

“_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval __ forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger._”(61)

Now you do not understand this, do you? And yet it is very simple. When a man is arrested, he is brought before the court for trial. But how, and before whom shall he be tried?

Remember that in America the enforcement of law is in the hands of the people. Remember that this is a government by the people and that the chief purpose of government is to protect the liberties of the people. Here is your father’s liberty at stake. If he should be convicted of having committed this murder, he might be hanged or sent to prison for life, so it is very important to him that the investigation into the charge against him shall be conducted in the right manner.

Under this constitutional guaranty which is also included in your State Constitution, there is no court and no judge in the United States big enough or powerful enough to call your father before the court for trial until he has been indicted by a grand jury. A grand jury, generally composed of twelve or more men selected from ordinary citizens, is brought together every term of court. They sit in a room by themselves and hear evidence as to the commission of offenses. They have no power to find a man guilty or not guilty. Their power and their duty is to decide whether the evidence brought before them is sufficient to justify putting the accused man on trial for the offense. They hear the witnesses for the State or government. The defendant is not brought before them personally, nor is he represented in any way. It is simply a secret investigation. If these men upon this investigation decide the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the trial of a man, he is discharged. He cannot be put on trial before the court. Before the court can proceed the grand jury must first say that the man shall be tried. The people thus have in their hands the power of protecting the innocent, and the power of instituting proceedings against the guilty. The grand jury brings in its report by an “indictment” which is merely a written statement to the court that the grand jury believes the defendant should be put upon trial for a certain offense. When this indictment is brought in, the defendant is called before the court, the charge is read to him, and he is then required to say whether he is guilty or not guilty. If he says that he is not guilty, then preparation must be made for a trial in the court, before a petit jury, a trial jury, which we will consider later. The thing I want to impress upon you now is the care with which the framers of the Constitution guarded the right of your father to have an investigation by a body of citizens before he can be brought up for trial for this murder which has been committed. He cannot be dragged by officers before some court and forced to go hurriedly through a form of trial only to be found guilty. The proceedings must be deliberate and careful. The Constitution guards him against danger of conviction without substantial proof of his guilt.

There are a few minor offenses, sometimes called misdemeanors, and there are violations of city ordinances, in which an indictment is not necessary, but an indictment by a grand jury is necessary whenever the crime is infamous or capital; that is, generally speaking, when punishment would involve imprisonment in the penitentiary or the taking of life by hanging or otherwise. You will understand this better as we consider the trial before the petit jury.

You may think it is difficult to learn all about grand juries, the number of jurors, and the manner in which they are sworn to perform their duties. I do not blame you. But bear in mind I am not insisting that you shall learn all these details. Of course the more knowledge we have about these matters the better. But _the important thing_ is that you shall learn that away back more than one hundred and thirty years ago the people of America in framing the Constitution of our country, by written guaranties, made this a government by the people. Knowing that the most sacred thing on this earth is human liberty, they sought to guard it by providing every possible safeguard which would protect the innocent from unjust conviction. They trusted the people. While courts were provided, the power to accuse the humblest human being living under the American flag of a grave offense and bring him before a court for trial was reserved to the people themselves.

Grand juries are merely representatives or agents of the people. As they sit in court they are exercising some of the highest and most important duties exercised by men. Grand jurors and petit jurors hold in their hands the liberty of their fellowmen.

It is these great truths I wish to impress upon you. I want you to have the knowledge, but more than this, I want you to have the spirit, the spirit of confidence in your government, and the spirit of gratitude that you live in America where the people rule, where the people not only make the law, but enforce it.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. In the olden days how could a strong man abuse one suspected of stealing?

2. What would he be compelled to do to-day?

3. Why are the guaranties regarding trials important to you?

4. Who may accuse or charge a person with a crime?

5. Is a person charged with a crime necessarily guilty?

6. What is a grand jury? What is its purpose?

7. How are members of a grand jury servants of the people?

8. Is a search warrant valid if no sworn statement has been filed?

9. What are the rights of the owner, if a search is made without proper warrant or papers?

10. State the guaranty of the Constitution with reference to indictment by a grand jury.

11. Is the session of a grand jury secret or public?

12. Is the defendant present before the grand jury during the investigation?

13. What is meant by “indictment”?

14. What is done when the grand jury returns an indictment?

15. What offenses may be prosecuted without an indictment?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. Discuss the procedure of securing a search warrant?

B. If we had no guaranty of security of property rights what effect would this have with reference to working, earning, and saving?

C. How is the fact that we have a grand jury an evidence of the care with which our government guards our rights?

D. What is a heinous crime?

E. Write a paper on:

Early Abuses of Power in Search and Seizure

Some Interesting Violations of this Right

The Grand Jury as an Evidence That the People Rule

An Account of the Work of One Grand Jury

XII. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED

Acquittal By Jury Final—Accused Not Compelled To Be A Witness

Now keeping in mind that this is a personal matter with each one of us, that we are talking about our own rights, that some day our liberties may be in danger, let us take up the next guaranty of the Constitution: “_nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb_”.(62)

I am sure you do not know what that means. I am sure there is not one of you who ever dreamed that such a thing might happen to you as to be “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”. This is very important and likewise very simple. In the olden days, in the old world, many a man was tried for a crime in court and found not guilty, and then later was arrested and put on trial again and found guilty. Suppose your father, as I said the other day, should be arrested, although he were innocent. Suppose he were indicted by this grand jury and brought on for trial. He would be compelled to hire a lawyer, if he were able to, and get ready for trial. The trial would come on, and days or possibly weeks might be spent in examining witnesses. Finally the case would close and the jury would bring in a verdict of “not guilty”. It would be an expensive proceeding. Perhaps it would take all the money he had saved. It would not only be expensive but it would be a hard strain upon him, your mother, the other children, and yourself. It is a very serious matter for an innocent man to be tried for murder. Still the verdict of “not guilty” comes in and you are all full of joy to realize that his life and liberty have been saved. Now suppose it were possible that within a couple of weeks afterwards he could again be arrested, indicted, put on trial. All of the family would again be subjected to worry and sorrow. You do not think it would be just, do you? It would not be right. Of course it wouldn’t be right, but men in the olden days have been compelled to submit to such injustices. So when the Constitution was adopted this guaranty which I just read was put in there, so that for any offense against the United States no man can be tried again after acquittal. Once a jury of his fellowmen, his neighbors, brings in a verdict of “not guilty” that ends forever any prosecution for the same offense. He is free and there is no power in the United States nor any of its officers to call him again for trial for that offense. Most of the States have a like constitutional guaranty.

Then there is another important guaranty: “_nor shall (he) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself_”.(63)

I wonder if you have ever heard of the days when men were tortured to make them confess. I wonder if you ever heard of the rack where men were stretched, almost torn limb from limb, or of the days when men were hung up by their thumbs, in order to compel them to admit their guilt of some crime. Have you read of the burning of the soles of men’s feet? Or the application of red hot irons to other parts of the body in order to extort a confession? Well those were common things in some of the countries in the days before America was born. Men would be arrested, charged with an offense, and then an effort would be made to torture them into confessing to the crime. And often where no such brutal torture was employed, men were brought into court, put on the stand, threatened, examined, and cross examined by lawyers to try to gain admissions which might help to prove their guilt. Of course this was all wrong. It was brutal. It was a violation of human right. When the Constitution of the United States was framed this great abuse of human privilege was absolutely barred by the provision, that no one can “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. In this country, when a man is brought into court charged with a crime, it is the duty of the government to prove his guilt. This proof must be by the sworn testimony of witnesses of certain facts or circumstances, aside from any statement or admission by the defendant. He cannot be compelled to be a witness at all. If he so wishes, however, he may be a witness for himself. This privilege was denied him under the English practice for generations, and even in this country in many of the States until a comparatively recent time; but never since the Constitution was adopted could any person charged with a crime against the United States be compelled to testify to any fact or circumstance in relation to the crime. Not only can he sit in the court room and listen to the stories told against him, but he is guaranteed this right by protection against any threats or inducements outside of court and before the trial which would lead him to say anything against his innocence. Every judge in criminal courts has been compelled at times to refuse to admit in evidence before the jury certain statements or alleged confessions. You may see in the paper where some man has been arrested for breaking into a bank or committing some other offense, and it may be further stated that the defendant has confessed that he broke into the bank. Naturally you then say to yourself that he will be found guilty. Well this constitutional guaranty not only protects him in court but protects him out of court. He cannot be compelled to give answers after his arrest while he is in jail, or even if he is at liberty under bond, which can be used against him upon the trial. Of course a person charged with a crime may waive this constitutional guaranty. He may voluntarily say that he wants to tell his story, and if he does so without any inducement, promises, or threats it may be admitted against him when the trial comes. Otherwise not. To be admitted, it must appear to be absolutely voluntary and of his own free will. If it appears that the confession has been induced by promises of lighter sentence or “that it will be easier for him”, or if any other inducement is used to get him to consent to make his statement, such statement cannot be used in evidence because of his constitutional guaranty. Many times I have seen the court refuse to admit proof of an alleged confession of a defendant, and I could see that the jury trying the case and the people sitting in the court room were surprised that the judge would not admit such proof even when the confession was signed by the defendant; but the jury and the people did not happen to think of this constitutional provision. Perhaps they had never heard of it. Every judge is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. No judge can permit any provision of the Constitution to be violated if he can help it. A man is on trial before him. A written confession is offered in evidence to help convict him. The defendant’s attorneys claim that the confession was not voluntary but was induced by threats or promises. The court then makes inquiry and hears the witnesses upon this question, and if the court finds that the confession was not the voluntary act of the defendant, the same will be excluded because the Constitution provides that no man “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.

Let us turn again to the false accusation against your father. He is charged with murder. He is on trial before a jury. The attorney for the government pulls a paper out of his pocket and offers it in evidence. It appears to be signed by your father. Your father’s attorney objects to having it considered by the jury for the reason that the policemen took your father into a cell in the jail, and threatened that they would beat him with their clubs unless he would sign a paper telling how he committed the offense, and that in terror he signed the paper. At this point, the court would hear the statements of your father, and other evidence, and if it appeared that there were any threats of any kind used to get your father to sign the paper, it would not be admitted in evidence at all. Your father would only claim his constitutional rights as an American, and they would not be denied to him.

There are notable instances in which confessions were made and signed by innocent parties, who were discouraged because the facts seemed to be all against them, who felt that they were certain to be convicted, and that their punishment would be lighter if they would make a confession. Under this impression they made and signed a confession. It was afterward found that the confession was false and that they were innocent of the crime. This constitutional guaranty protects against any injustice of this kind.

These careful efforts of the makers of the Constitution to guard the liberties of the most humble persons must impress us with the earnestness of their efforts to make this a free country, where no one shall be deprived of his life or liberty except where proven guilty, after a most carefully guarded trial.

Isn’t it fine to live in a country where the people have a Constitution written in such simple language that even the little children can read it? I want every one, even the smallest child, to understand that every line of the Constitution was written to guard and protect each one of us, young and old, against injustice and wrong. These safeguards cannot be taken away except by the people themselves. The President cannot change the Constitution. Congress cannot change it. Judges cannot change it. No one but the men and women of America can alter it in the least.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. Show how being put on trial again and again for the same offense would be an injustice.

2. Why is it right to have the verdict of “not guilty” final?

3. What would be the result if it were not final?

4. Why is this of _particular_ advantage to the poor man?

5. Why should no man be compelled to be a witness against himself?

6. Why do they allow a man to be a witness if he so desires?

7. What is the importance of the guaranty protecting the defendant from being examined as a witness?

8. When a person is indicted for an offense, what is the duty of the government with reference to proof of guilt?

9. How is guilt proven in court?

10. When may a confession made outside of court be introduced as evidence?

11. Why would anyone accused of a crime confess guilt, when in fact he might not be guilty at all?

12. Can the President or Congress or a judge change any of the provisions of the Constitution?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. Discuss the democracy of the provision that the verdict of “not guilty” is final while that of “guilty” may not of necessity be final?

B. Why are confessions wrung from frightened or tortured men likely to be untrustworthy?

C. Why should the “Third Degree” methods be prohibited?

D. Write a paper on the following:

The Third Degree

Early Cases of Torturing Accused Persons

The Burdens, Disadvantages, and Injustice of Permitting a Retrial
After A Verdict of “Not Guilty”

Methods Sometimes Used to Secure a Confession of Guilt

XIII. LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY

Rights Protected By Due Process Of Law—Property Taken For Public Use

The three great things which every man, woman, and child cherishes are life, liberty, and property. We see in every one of these guaranties how careful the people who made the Constitution were to see that these valuable things were sacredly guarded.

It is stated in the Constitution that:

“_No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law._”(64)

You can understand how important this is if you will realize how in the olden days people were so brutally treated by their fellowmen, especially by those in power who happened to represent the government. Have you ever read the story of the Bastile, a prison in which hundreds of French people were thrown without a trial, in which many were murdered and many kept in dark cells chained to the floor for years? Have you ever read the story of the Tower in London, where men were imprisoned and murdered without a trial by any court and without an investigation by any one, often without the knowledge of their closest friends? Have you ever read about how the property of people was taken away from them without trial or investigation to be turned over to the king or to some of his friends? Until you have read something of the past, and realize how people suffered, how they lost their lives, their liberty, and their property, you will never realize the wisdom of those who framed our Constitution, nor the affection which they had for the people of America in protecting them against such horrible treatment.

No person’s property can be taken, no person’s life can be taken, no person’s liberty can be taken under our Constitution without due process of law. We do not need to discuss the meaning of “due process of law”. You will learn more about this later, as you study more fully the details of the Constitution. It is sufficient now to say that no person’s life, liberty, or property can be taken away from him without his consent, except by a trial before a legal court, in which the person shall have the right to a fair hearing. He must have notice of the charge or claim made against him. He must have a chance to appear in person. He must have the right to employ attorneys to represent him. He must have the privilege of bringing in witnesses to tell the truth about the charges that may be made. There must be a decision by the court after a speedy public trial. In all the States of this country any one is entitled to such a trial, and he is also, in case of defeat, entitled to appeal and present his case to a different and a higher court. These courts are the courts of the people, selected by the people, and neither government nor individuals have any right to take away anyone’s life, liberty, or property unless the people by and through their courts shall so find and do.

Then we find the following constitutional provision: “_nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_.”(65)

Of course the government at times must have property which may belong to a private person. The public must at times take property belonging to an individual. Property may be taken, even when the owner will not consent to it, when it is taken for public use. One man’s property cannot be taken by the government and given to another person. Government buildings must be erected and land must be obtained for such purposes. The public must have railroads, and a railroad can only be built when land is obtained for what is called the right of way. Sometimes a railroad must run through lots or farms belonging to private owners. The higher right of the public to these conveniences, these necessities, requires that when necessary the private individual must give up his right of ownership to these higher public uses. But even for the Nation, or the State, or railway, or for any other public use, not one foot of land may be taken from the poorest man in the country unless he is first fully paid its value therefor. Usually, of course, the owner will sell his property for such purpose at a fair price, but, if he is stubborn and will not do so, or if a fair price cannot be agreed upon then the government of the State or of the Nation, or the agents of the State or of the Nation may take such property by first having its value fixed by a commission, or a jury, composed of the neighbors of the owner. Where the amount fixed by such commission or jury is not satisfactory to the owner of the property, he may appeal to the court and have a trial, usually a jury trial, in which he can bring his witnesses and prove the value of his property, so that he will finally receive its full, fair, just value.

By this constitutional guaranty every person is well guarded in his ownership and possession of property. In countries existing before America not much attention was paid to the rights of property owners. If the king or emperor should demand possession of a certain piece of property the owner had little to say about it. He received his orders and obeyed them, because he was afraid of the power of the government. The government could pay or not as it pleased. But this period of wrong and injustice was ended, so far as the people of America were concerned, when the Constitution became the final power in this land.

There are a few people in this country who seek to have private ownership of property abolished. No law taking away the right to own property can ever come into force in this country until the people by their votes change the Constitution. The Constitution stands guard over the farms, the homes, the money, and all forms of personal property. It guards the cottage of the widow with the same jealous care that it does the ten-story building of the bank. No person and no power can interfere with the right to accumulate property and to hold it, provided only it is honestly obtained.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. What are the three things that every man, woman, and child cherishes?

2. What does the Constitution say about these three things?

3. What was the Bastile? The Tower of London?

4. Show how injustice was worked by confining people without due process of law.

5. What are some of the essentials of “due process of law”?

6. When can private property be taken by the government?

7. When the State wishes a piece of land, end the owner will not sell for a fair price, how is the matter adjusted?

8. What right for reconsideration has a person against whom a judgment has been rendered in a trial court?

9. How can the reasonable value of property be established or proven?

10. Suppose the President of the United States wished a certain piece of property upon which to build a summer home. Could the President secure the land? Give reasons.

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. What are some of the steps necessary to due process of law?

B. What would be the effect on people if life, liberty, or property could be taken without due process?

C. Discuss the process of condemning property.

D. Write a paper on the following:

Evils of the Bastile and the Tower of London

Why Military Courts Do Not Always Follow This Law

The Different Purposes For Which Property May Be Taken For Public
Use

Why Ownership of Property Should Be Protected

XIV. CRIMINAL TRIALS

Accused Guaranteed A Speedy Public Trial By An Impartial Jury Of The Local
District

I hope no one here this morning will ever be arrested for a crime of any kind, and yet, as I have already explained to you, the innocent are sometimes brought before the court charged with a grave offense. Therefore you should be interested in the investigation of the truth of any charge that may be made against you, whether by a private individual or by a public officer.

I have already explained to you that in all grave offenses when a person is charged with a crime, he cannot be brought before the court for trial until the grand jury has investigated the facts and until they have returned an indictment, or written charge, to the court. Until this is done, the court has no power to proceed.

But now suppose that you have been arrested, suppose that a grand jury has investigated the charge against you, has heard witnesses, and has returned an indictment. You are then brought up before the court, and the indictment is read to you. This indictment I will explain to you more fully later. When the indictment is read you are then required to say whether you are “guilty” or “not guilty”. If you have committed the crime charged, it may be advisable to plead guilty and ask for the mercy of the court in the punishment which he may impose. Courts usually temper justice with mercy. Courts will usually impose a lighter sentence when a guilty person pleads “guilty” and avoids the delay and expense of a trial. But, if you are innocent, you will plead “not guilty”, and then the government, through its officers, will get ready for trial. You may not be tried right away, as it usually takes some time to investigate the facts and get the witnesses into court. As I will hereafter explain, you will be entitled to an attorney when the time comes for your trial, when you will have a chance to hear the witnesses offered by the prosecution, introduce your own witnesses, and, under our present law, testify yourself, tell your own story.

If you will walk into a court some day you will see the judge and over at one side twelve chairs for the jury. When your case is called for trial the first thing will be to select the twelve men who will be the jury in your case. I am not going to give the manner of selection at this time. This will be fully explained later. I wish now to impress upon you the fact that the Constitution expressly guards your rights by providing that you shall be entitled to have your case tried, not before a judge, but by a jury composed of men from the ordinary walks of life, laborers, merchants, farmers, people of all classes; men just like your fathers are. They are called. They hold up their right hands and take an oath to try your case fairly and justly and to make a finding according to the evidence which is brought before them.

The Constitution provides: