ed law of evidence, which must exclude hearsay
evidence; the judge must refrain from cross-examining witnesses; the
verdict must be upon the evidence alone, and it must be _guilty_ or _not
guilty;_ [Footnote: In some countries the verdict may leave a stigma upon
an accused person, against whom guilt cannot be proven. Of this nature was
the old verdict, "_not proven._"] the punishment must be in proportion to
the offense, and in accordance with common sense and justice; and there
must be no injudicious pardoning power, which is a direct interference
with the true government of law.

Most, if not all but the last, of the points mentioned by Dr. Lieber are
covered by that rich inheritance which we have from England, that
unwritten constitution, the common law. The question of how best to
regulate the pardoning power is still unsettled.

[1] He may have his trial at the next term of court, which is never very
remote. But the accused may, at his own request, have his trial postponed.

[2] Publicity is secured by the keeping of official records to which all
may have access, by having an oral trial, by the admission of spectators
to the court room, and by publication of the proceedings in the
newspapers.

[3] For the mode of securing the "impartial jury," see page 63.

[4] It is provided in the body of the constitution (III., 2, 3,) that
criminal trial shall be by jury, and in the state where the crime was
committed. This amendment makes the further limitation that the trial
shall be in the _district_ where the crime was committed, so a person
accused of crime cannot be put to the trouble and expense of transporting
witnesses a great distance.

[5] The nature of the accusation is specified in the _warrant_ and in the
indictment, both of which, or certified copies of them, the accused has a
right to see.

[6] Not only do the witnesses give their evidence in the presence of the
accused, but he has also the right to cross-examine them.

[7] But for this "compulsory process" (_called a subpoena_), persons
entirely guiltless might be unable to produce evidence in their own
behalf. The natural desire of people to "keep out of trouble" would keep
some knowing the circumstances of the case from giving their testimony,
and others would be afraid to speak up for one under a cloud and with all
the power of the government arrayed against him.

[8] The accused may plead his own cause, or he may engage a lawyer to do
it for him. I