In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district, wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."

§ 388. Upon the main provisions of these articles, a few remarks only will be made, since they are almost self-evident, and can require few illustrations to establish their utility and importance.

§ 389. The first clause requires the interposition of a grand jury, by way of presentment or indictment, before the party accused can be required to answer to any capital and infamous crime, charged against him. And this is regularly true at the common law, of all offences, above the grade of common misdemeanors. A grand jury, it is well known, are selected in the manner prescribed by law, and duly sworn to make inquiry, and present all offences committed against the authority of the State government, within the body of the county, for which they are impannelled. In the National courts, they are sworn to inquire, and present all offences committed against the authority of the National Government, within the State or district, for which they are impannelled, or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of the National Government. The grand jury may consist of any number, not less than twelve, nor more than twenty-three; and twelve at least must concur in every accusation. They sit in secret, and examine the evidence laid before them by themselves. A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of their own mere motion, of an offence upon their own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before them, and without any bill of indictment laid before. them at the suit of the government. An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of

of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it. But an indictment is usually, in the first instance, framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. When the grand jury have heard the evidence, if they are of opinion, that the indictment is groundless, or not supported by evidence, they used formerly to endorse on the back of the bill, "ignoramus," or we know nothing of it, whence the bill was said to be ignored. But now, they assert, in plain English, “not a true bill," or, which is a better way, "not found ;" and then the party is entitled to be discharged, if in custody, without further answer. But a fresh bill may be preferred against him by another grand jury. If the grand jury are satisfied of the truth of the accusation, then they write on the back of the bill, “a true bill," (or anciently, "billa vera.") The bill is then said to be found, and is publicly returned into court; the party stands indicted, and may then be required to answer the matters charged against him.

§ 390. From this summary statement, it is obvious, that the grand jury perform most important public functions; and are a great security to the citizens against vindictive prosecutions, either by the government, or by political partisans, or by private enemies. Nor is this all: the indictment must charge the time, and place, and nature, and circumstances, of the offence, with clearness and certainty; so that the party may have full notice of the charge, and be able to make his defence with all reasonable knowledge and ability.

391. Another clause declares, that no person shall be subject, "for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb." This, again, is another great privilege secured by the common law. The meaning of it is, that a party shall not be tried a second time, for the same offence, after he has once been convicted, or acquitted of the offence charged, by the verdict of a jury, and judgement has passed thereon for or against him. But it does not mean, that he shall not be tried for the offence a second time, if the jury have been discharged without

ment has been arrested upon it, or a new trial has been granted in his favor; for, in such a case, his life or limb cannot judicially be said to have been put in jeopardy.

§ 392. The next clause prohibits any person from being compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, or from being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This also is but an affirmance of a common-law privilege. But it is of inestimable value. It is well known, that in some countries, not only are criminals compelled to give evidence against themselves; but they are subjected to the rack or torture, in order to procure a confession of guilt. And what is worse, it has been (as if in mockery or scorn) attempted to excuse or justify it, upon the score of mercy and humanity to the accused. It has been contrived, (it is pretended,) that innocence should manifest itself by a stout resistance, or guilt by a plain confession; as if a man's innocence were to be tried by the hardness of his constitution, and his guilt by the sensibility of his nerves! Cicero, many ages ago, although he lived in a state, wherein it was usual to put slaves to the torture, in order to furnish evidence, has denounced the absurdity and wickedness of the measure in terms of glowing eloquence, as striking, as they are brief. They are conceived in the spirit of Tacitus, and breathe all his pregnant and indignant sarcasm. Ulpian, also, at a still later period in Roman jurisprudence, stamped the practice with severe reproof.

§ 393. The other part of the clause is but an enlargement of the language of Magna Charta; "Neither will we pass upon him, or condemn him, but by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land." Lord Coke says, that these latter words, "by the law of the land,' mean, by due process of law; that is, without due presentment or indictment, and being brought in to answer thereto by due process of the common law. So that this clause, in effect, affirms the right of trial, according to the process and proceedings of the common law.

§ 394. The concluding clause is, that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This is an affirmance of a great doctrine established

by the common law, for the protection of private property. It is founded in natural equity, and is laid down by jurists as a principle of universal law. Indeed, in a free government, almost all other rights would become utterly worthless, if the government possessed an uncontrollable power over the private fortune of every citizen. One of the fundamental objects of every good government must be, the due administration of justice; and how vain it would be, to speak of such an administration, where all property is subject to the will or caprice of the legislature and the rulers!

§ 395. The other article, in declaring, that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State or district, wherein the crime shall have been committed, (which district shall be previously ascertained by law,) and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the witnesses against him, does but follow out the established course of the common law in all trials for crimes. The trial is always public; the witnesses are sworn, and give in their testimony, (at least in capital cases,) in the presence of the accused; the nature and cause of the accusation is accurately laid down in the indictment; and the trial is at once speedy, impartial, and in the district where the offence is charged to be committed. Without in any measure impugning the propriety of these provisions, it may be suggested, that there seems to have been an undue solicitude to introduce into the Constitution some of the general guards and proceedings of the common law in criminal trials, (truly admirable in themselves,) without sufficiently adverting to the consideration, that, unless the whole system is incorporated, and especially the law of evidence, a corrupt legislature, or a debased and servile people, may render the whole little more than a solemn pageantry. If, on the other hand, the people are enlightened, and honest, and zealous in defence of their rights and liberties, it will be impossible to surprise them into a surrender of a single valuable appendage of the trial by jury.

§ 396. The remaining clauses are of more direct sig

compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel. A very short review of the state of the common law, on these points, will put their propriety beyond question. In the first place, it was an anciently and commonly-received practice, derived from the civil law, and which Mr. Justice Blackstone says, in his day, still obtained in France, although, since the Revolution, it has been swept away, not to suffer the party accused in capital cases to exculpate himself by the testimony of any witnesses. Of this practice, the courts grew so heartily ashamed from its unreasonable and oppressive character, that another practice was gradually introduced, of examining witnesses for the accused, but not upon oath; the consequence of which was, that the jury gave less credit to this latter evidence, than to that produced by the government. Sir Edward Coke denounced the practice as tyrannical and unjust; and contended that, in criminal cases, the party accused was entitled to have witnesses sworn for him. The House of Commons, soon after the accession of the house of Stuart to the throne of England, insisted, in a particular bill then pending, and, against the efforts both of the Crown and the House of Lords, carried a clause affirming the right, in cases tried under that act, of witnesses being sworn for, as well as against, the accused. By the statute of 7 Will. 3, ch. 3, the same measure of justice was established throughout the realm in cases of treason; and afterwards, in the reign of Queen Anne, the like rule was extended to all cases of treason and felony. The right seems never to have been doubted, or denied, in cases of mere misdemeanors. For what causes, and upon what grounds, this distinction was maintained, or even excused, it is impossible to assign any satisfactory, or even plausible reasoning. Surely, a man's life must be of infinitely more value than any subordinate punishment; and if he might protect himself against the latter, by proofs of his innocence, there would seem to be irresistible reasons for permitting him to do the same in capital offences. The common suggestion has been, that, in capital cases, no man could, or