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