of Sir Henry Hawkins! Does the judge expect that they are
actually to swallow that? Here is a jury sworn "to a true
verdict find" in the case of an ugly looking customer at the
bar who is charged with knocking down an old man and stealing
his watch. The old man--an apostolic looking octogenarian--is
sitting right over there where the jury can see him. One look
at the plaintiff and one at the accused and the jury may be
heard to mutter, "He's guilty,--all right!"

"Presumed to be innocent?" Why, may I ask? Do not the jury
and everybody else know that this good old man would never,
save by mistake, accuse anybody falsely of crime? Innocence!
Why, the natural and inevitable presumption is that the
defendant is guilty! The human mind works intuitively by
comparison and experience. We assume or presume with
considerable confidence that parents love their children, that
all college presidents are great and good men, and that wild
bulls are dangerous animals. We may be wrong. But it is up
to the other fellow to show us the contrary.

Now, if out of a clear sky Jones accuses Robinson of being a
thief we know by experience that the chances are largely in
favor of Jones's accusation being well founded. People as a
rule don't go rushing around charging each other with being
crooks unless they have some reason for it. Thus, at the very
beginning the law flies in the face of probabilities when it
tells us that a man accused of crime must be presumed to be
innocent. In point of fact, whatever presumption there is
(and this varies with the circumstances) is all the other way,
greater or less depending upon the particular attitude of mind