sacks of loot through the streets of the city at 4 A.M.
simply because they are presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty. And if "arrest on suspicion" were not permitted,
demanded by the public, and required by the police ordinances,
away would go the crooks and off would go the silverware, the
town would be full of "leather snatchers" and "strong-arm
men," respectable citizens would be afraid to go out o'
nights, and liberty would degenerate into license. That is
the point. We Americans, or at least some of the newer ones
of us, have an idea that "liberty" means the right to steal
apples from our neighbor's orchard without interference. Now,
somewhere or other, there has got to be a switch and a strong
arm to keep us in order, and the switch and arm must not wait
until the apples are stolen and eaten before getting busy. If
we come climbing over the fence sweating apples at every
pore, is Farmer Jones to go and count his apples before
grabbing us?

The most presumptuous of all presumptions is this "presumption
of innocence." It really doesn't exist, save in the mouths of
judges and in the pages of the law books. Yet as much to-do
is made about it as if it were a living legal principle.
Every judge in a criminal case is required to charge the jury
in form or substance somewhat as follows: "The defendant is
presumed to be innocent until that presumption is removed by
competent evidence" . . . "This presumption is his property,
remaining with him throughout the trial and until rebutted by
the verdict of the jury." . . . "The jury has no right to
consider the fact that the defendant stands at the bar accused
of a crime by an indictment found by the grand jury." Shades