A witness must testify under oath. Bell v. State, 2 Cr. App., 216.

One called as a juryman, who refuses to make oath touching his qualifications on account of conscience, but who offered to affirm, should be allowed to affirm. Riddles v. St., 46 S. W. R., 1058.

SEC. 6. All men have a natural and indefeasable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

Held that under this section securing to all men the right of freedom of worship, that a part of a petition setting up the religious belief of the defendant, as a cause of divorce, should be stricken out. Haymond v. Haymond, 12 S. W. R., 90.

SEC. 7. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any sect or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor

shall property belonging to the state be appropriated

for any such purposes.

SEC. 8. Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecution for the publication of papers investigating the conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

An ordinance of a city, declaring a named paper a nuisance and forbidding its sale, curtails the liberty of the press. Ex parte Neil, 32 Cr. App., 275; 22 S. W., 923.

The laws of the state, defining and punishing libellous publications, are constitutional. Morton v. St., 3 Cr. App., 510; Belo. v. Wren, 63 T., 686; Express Printing Co. v. Copeland, 64 T., 354.

Preventing a defendant in a suit for alienation of wife'saffection, from talking to her, writing to her, or associating with her, is not a derogation of freedom of speech, press or locomotion. Ex parte Warfield, 50 S. W. R., 933 (Cr. App.).

SEC. 9. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all unreason

able seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,

Probable cause means a reasonable ground for suspicion, together with circumstances so strong as to make a cautious man believe that the person is guilty. Land v. Obert, 45 T., 539.

In a damage suit, requiring the party injured to submit to an examination, may be inconsistent with this section of the Constitution, but we understand that the Supreme Court has not determined this question. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 72 T., 95; 10 S. W. R., 1; Ry. Co. v. Underwood, 64 T., 463; G. C. & S. Fee v. Butcher, 18 S. W. R., 583.

A warrant for arrest, and the complaint upon which it is issued, must state the accused name, if it be known, and if unknown, must give reasonable description of him. Alford v. St., 8 Cr. App., 546.

There is a question as to how far an officer, in entering and searching a house for a witness, under an attachment, may go. Bristow v. St., 36 Cr. App., 379.

SEC. 10. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel or both; shall be confronted with the witnesses against him, aud shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.

And no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine, or imprisonment otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army and navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

The admission of dying declarations does not violate the right that the accused shall be confronted with his witnesses. Taylor v. St., 38 Cr. App., 552; 43 S. W. R., 1019; Benavides v. St., 31 Cr. App., 579; Burrell v. St., 18 Cr. App., 713; Black v. St., I Cr. App., 368.

Answers of despatches sent by defendant can not be admitted against him. Chester v. St., 23 Cr. App., 577; 5 S. W. R., 125.

Evidence against the accused, given by a witness on another hearing or on preliminary examination, can not be read against the accused. Cline v. St., 36 Cr. App., 320; 36 S. W. R., 1099; Steagald v. St.; 22 Cr. App., 464; 3 S. W. R., 777; Johnson v. St., 1 Cr. App., 333.

"Confronted with witnesses against him" means. that on a trial in a criminal prosecution before a jury, the accused shall be confronted with witnesses adverse to him, before the trial jury. Cline v. St., 36 Cr.. App., 320; 36 S. W. R., 1099; Lillard v. St., 17 Cr. App., 114. To be merely confronted with the witnesses is not enough. Greenwood vs. St., 35 Cr. App., 588; Steagaldt v. St., 22 Cr. App., 464; Ketry v. St., 17 Cr. App., 178; Sullivan v. St., 6 Cr. App., 319; Johnson v. St., 1 Cr. App., 333; Black v. St., 1 Cr. App., 368 (overruled).

This section excludes all evidence except that of confronting witnesses and depositions taken according to law. Id.

Right of defendant not to give evidence against himself is waived where he is sworn as a witness in his own behalf. Pyland v. St., 33 Cr. App., 382; 26 S. W. R., 621; White v. St., 33 Cr. App., 177; 26 S. W. R., 72; Brown v. St., 38 Cr. App., 597; Hargrove vs. St., 33 Cr. App., 431; Thomas v. St., 33 Cr. App., 607; Bain v. St., 38 Cr. App., 635.

Law compelling persons who are engaged in sale and slaughter of animals to make a report to the commissioners' court of cattle killed, is not compelling a person to give evidence against himself. Aston v. St., 27 Cr. App., 574; 11 S. W. R., 637.

Testimony given at a former trial, by a witness who has since died, may be proven by a person who heard it and who can repeat it all. Black v. St., 1 Cr. App., 368.

The exeeption to the rule "that the confession made by the accused, when under restraint, cannot be used in evidence against him" that when with such confession he makes a statement which is subsequently found to be true and which proves to establish his guilt, that it can be used in evidence, does not violate. this section. Brown v. St., 26 Cr. App., 314.

Testimony taken at a hearing of a habeas corpus is not admissible against defendant on his final trial. Childers v. St., 30 Cr. App., 160.

Testimony given in defendant's absence, there being no waiver, conviction cannot stand. Bell v. St., 32 Cr. App., 436.

The privilege of being confronted with the witnesses against him does not prevent documentory evidence to prove collateral facts which are admissible under the statutory or common law. Patterson v. St., 17 Cr. App., 102; May v. St., 15 Cr. App., 430; Rogers v. St., 11 Cr. App., 608.

Act 319 authorizing officers to compel witnesses to testify as to violations of gaming law, does not violate this section. Wright v. St., 23 Cr. App., 313.

Defendant cannot be asked if he has not previously been convicted of the same offense for which he is