self-protection the world over. No one presumes a person
charged with crime to be innocent, either in Delhi, Pekin,
Moscow, or New York. Under proper circumstances we believe
him guilty. When he comes to be tried the jury consider the
evidence, and if they are reasonably sure he is guilty they
convict him. The doctrine of reasonable doubt is almost as
much of a fiction as that of the presumption of innocence.
From the time a man is arrested until arraignment he is
quizzed with a view to inducing him to admit his offence or
give some evidence that may help convict him. Logically, why
should not a person charged with a crime be obliged to give
what explanation he can of the affair? Why should he have the
privilege of silence? Doesn't he owe a duty to the public the
same as any other witness? If he is innocent he has nothing
to fear; if he is guilty--away with him! The French have no
false ideas about such things and at the same time they have a
high regard for liberty. We merely cheat ourselves into
thinking that our liberty is something different from French
liberty because we have a lot of laws upon our statute books
that are there only to be disregarded and would have to be
repealed instantly if enforced.

Take, for instance, the celebrated provision of the penal laws
that the failure of an accused to testify in his own behalf
shall not be taken against him. Such a doctrine flies in the
face of human nature. If a man sits silent when witnesses
under oath accuse him of a crime it is an inevitable inference
that he has nothing to say--that no explanation of his would
explain. The records show that the vast majority of accused
persons who do not avail themselves of the opportunity to