II 



sought to avoid the results of this terrible code, bv inter- 

 posing between the prisoner and conviction all manner of 

 nice and subtle technicalities. The prisoner not only could 

 not testify in his own behalf, but on the other hand, the 

 government was not permitted to inquire of him with respect 

 to the crime with which he was charged. 



But the law has become more humane. The atrocious 

 penalties of former times have been abolished. The people 

 have taken into their own hands the prosecution of offend- 

 ers, with the determination that no man shall be unjustly 

 convicted and punished. The prisoner is permitted at all 

 times to testify in his own behalf, and deny and explain 

 any evidence that may be produced against him. In short, 

 the accused needs no longer the protection of technicalities 

 and subtleties, but may rely with confidence upon the fair- 

 ness of the prosecuting officers, the learning of the judges, 

 and the determination of the jurors to see that justice is 

 done between the Commonwealth and him. I believe the 

 time has come when we can afford to sweep away many of 

 the rules of the criminal law which have grown up in other 

 times and under other circumstances, and which not only 

 afford a shelter for the guilty, but increase largely the ex- 

 pense of the administration of the law. 



I propose to discuss one or two venerable rules of the 

 criminal law, and ask you to consider with me whether 

 they could not, with profit to the community, be changed 

 or abolished. But before so doing, I wish to refer to a 

 detail of practice, the continuance of which shows how 

 much easier it is to let things alone than to question and 

 change them. You probably are aware in a vague sort of 

 way that, with reference to the power of the courts to pass 

 sentence upon offenders who have been found to be guilty. 



