i6 



At the same time in New Hampshire, many days were con- 

 sumed by the court in carefully inquiring whether the pris- 

 oner was in that State on certain days and nights, and there 

 killed his brother. And throughout the trial, no one asked 

 the prisoner a single question about a single fact connected 

 with the case. And moreover, although he sat silent under 

 the accusing evidence, no one suggested to the jury that 

 his silence under these circumstances, his faikire to con- 

 tradict testimony which, if false, he could easily do, created 

 any presumption against him. 



In the dignity and decorum befitting a court of justice, 

 the American trial was immeasurably superior to the 

 French trial. Yet in spite of this, is there not something 

 worthy of consideration in the contrasting methods ? A 

 two hours' examination of Isaac Sawtelle by the attorney 

 general of New Hampshire would probably have accom- 

 plished more toward discovering his guilt or innocence, 

 than all the rest of the evidence together accomplished. 



To trace the origin and growth of the rule that no man 

 is bound to incriminate himself will certainly prove inter- 

 esting to the student of social science, but is too far apart 

 from the purposes of this discussion to be undertaken here. 

 The rule certainly did not exist in England for a half 

 century after the first settlement of New England. How- 

 ever it originated, it has become firmly fixed in our jurispru- 

 dence and holds a place in the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, 

 which provides that " no subject shall be compelled to ac- 

 cuse or furnish evidence against himself." To dispute the 

 wisdom of a principle sanctioned by the constitution and 

 by two centuries of almost unquestioned existence, requires 

 something of temerity. But a righteous institution can en- 

 dure criticism and profit by it, while none other has a right 



