he did, the free man might immediately have his “law”—­“have the law on him,” as the good old expression was—­for no king or sheriff was above the law.  In fact, we were so energetic in providing safeguards for the individual, even when a wrong-doer, that we paid very little attention to the effectiveness of kings or sheriffs or what we had substituted for them.  And so it is to-day.  What candidate for office, what silver-tongued orator or senator, what demagogue or preacher could hold his audience or capture a vote if, when it came to a question of liberty, he should lift up his voice in behalf of the rights of the majority as against the individual?

Accordingly in devising our laws We have provided in every possible way for the freedom of the citizen from all interference on the part of the authorities.  No one may be stopped, interrogated, examined, or arrested unless a crime has been committed.  Every one is presumed to be innocent until shown to be guilty by the verdict of a jury.  No one’s premises may be entered or searched without a warrant which the law renders it difficult to obtain.  Every accused has the right to testify in his own behalf, like any other witness.  The fact that he has been held for a crime by a magistrate and indicted by a grand jury places him at not the slightest disadvantage so far as defending himself against the charge is concerned, for he must be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  These illustrations of the jealousy of the law for the rights of citizens might be multiplied to no inconsiderable extent.  Further, our law allows a defendant convicted of crime to appeal to the highest courts, whereas if he be acquitted the people or State of New York have no right of appeal at all.

Without dwelling further on the matter it is enough to say that in general the State constitutions, their general laws, or penal statutes provide that a person who is accused or suspected of crime must be presumed innocent and treated accordingly until his guilt has been affirmatively established in a jury trial; that meantime he must not be confined or detained unless a crime has in fact been committed and there is at least reasonable cause to believe that he has committed it; and, further, that if arrested he must be given an immediate opportunity to secure bail, to have the advice of counsel, and must in no way be compelled to give any evidence against himself.  So much for the law.  It is as plain as a pikestaff.  It is printed in the books in words of one syllable.  So far as the law is concerned we have done our best to perpetuate the theories of those who, fearing that they might be arrested without a hearing, transported for trial, and convicted in a king’s court before a king’s judge for a crime they knew nothing of, insisted on “liberty or death.”  They had had enough of kings and their ways.  Hereafter they were to have “a government of laws and not of men.”