Is there any reason why a man who has been convicted of a charge of an aggravated assault under the Civil Code of Civil Procedure should not have to provide evidence against him?

Just as rapists, conspirators to lynch and cold-blooded murderers are dangerous menaces to society, so are people intending to overthrow the government by force. Their threatened force so to overthrow the government established by our constitution would accomplish its purpose in part, if it succeeded in overthrowing the basic concept of that constitution that men may not be forced to supply the evidence convicting them of crime. They may be witnesses who, as seen supra, are able to show their innocence if tried, but reasonably fear indictment. No reason exists why, because of the serious character of the offense, they should be denied the liberal interpretation of this constitutional provision of Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. supra, page 562, 12 S.Ct. page 197; 35 L.Ed. 1110.