16 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND.

This article referred to in discussing whether a witness who was a mem-
ber of the club under indictment for a violation of a local option law,

should have been excused from testifying. Chesapeake Club v. State, 63:
Md. 461 (dissenting opinion).

When a person accused of crime by a sufficient indictment is subjected,
like all other persons, to the law in its regular course, this article is not
violated. Object of this article. Lanasa v. State, 109 Md. 610.

See article 15, section 5, of the Md. constitution.

Art. 22. That no man ought to be compelled to give evidence against
himself in a criminal case.

This article is waived if the traverser becomes a witness in his own
behalf. Guy v. State, 90 Md. 33.

When a law provides that, in case of its violation by any corporation,
association, etc., each of its members "shall be liable and shall suffer
imprisonment," etc., upon the indictment of a club for the violation of the
liquor laws, a member may not be compelled to give testimony which
might incriminate him; the privilege is a personal one and must be claimed
by the witness upon oath. It is for the court to decide whether the privi-
lege is well claimed or not; hence it must appear from the surrounding
circumstances and the nature of the evidence sought to be elicited whether
reasonable grounds exist for apprehending that the witness will incrim-
inate himself. The privilege may be claimed after a witness has testified'
to other matters without objection. Chesapeake v. State, 63 Md. 456.

The state may not compel a traverser to produce in evidence against
himself his private books and papers; this is true although such books
and papers have, prior to the traverser's indictment, been turned over
under an order of court to-receivers. The fourth and fifth amendments
to the constitution of the United States are in pari materia with this arti-
cle and article 26. Cases reviewed. History of this article. Blum v.
State, 94 Md. 380. Of. Lawrence v. State, 103 Md. 35.

The fact that certain bonds and certificates of stock were illegally taken
from the traverser, does not render them inadmissible in evidence against
him. Lawrence v. State, 103 Md. 33.

The registry act of 1865, chapter 174, disfranchising those who had
been in the Confederate army and requiring a test oath, held not to be in
violation of this article—see note to article 1, section 1, of the constitu-
tion. Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 611, 590, and 585.

For cases dealing with this article as it stood in the constitution of
1851, but no longer applicable by reason of changes in this article, see
Day v. State, 7 Gill, 325; Broadbent v. State, 7 Md. 427. And see Blum
v. State, 94 Md. 381.

Cited but not construed in Davis v. State, 38 Md. 70 (dissenting opinion)..

See article 35, section 4, et seq., of the Annotated Code.

Art. 23. That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized
of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any
manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by
the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land.

Law of the land.

The act of 1878, chapter 415, section 10, conferring jurisdiction upon
justices of the peace to try and commit vagrant and disorderly persons to
the house of correction, is constitutional. Design of this article. State v.
Glenn, 54 Md. 599. And see State v. Loden, 117 Md. 385; Lancaster v
State, 90 Md. 215. Cf. Danner v. State, 89 Md. 225.

The power conferred upon the managers of the house of refuge by
article 27, section 526, of the code of 1904, is in nowise in conflict with
the declaration of rights or the constitution of Maryland. Roth v. House
of Refuge, 31 Md. 334.