have no voice at his own trial, where practically every crime
was punishable with death, and where only the Crown could
produce and examine witnesses. Every one will have to agree
that the English system was very harsh and very unfair indeed.
To-day it is better than ours, simply because its errors have
been systematically and wisely corrected, without diminution
in the national respect for law. When we devised our own
system we adopted those humane expedients for evading the law
which were only justified by the existing penalties attached
to convictions for crime,--and then discarded the penalties.
We were through with tyrants once and for all. The Crown had
always been opposed to the defendant and the Crown was a
tyrant. We naturally turned with sympathy towards the
prisoner.

We gave him the right of appeal on all matters of law through
all the courts of our States, and even into the courts of the
United States, while we allowed the People no right of appeal
at all. If the prisoner was convicted he could go on and test
the case all along the line,--if he was acquitted the People
had to rest satisfied. We stopped the mouth of the judge and
made it illegal for him to "sum up" the case or discuss the
facts to any extent. We clipped the wings of the prosecutor
and allowed him less latitude of expression than an English
judge. Then we gazed on the work of our intellects and said
it was good. If an ignorant jury acquitted a murderer under
the eyes of a gagged and helpless judge, we said that it was
all right and that it was better that ninety-nine guilty men
should escape than that one innocent man should be convicted.
Yes, better for whom? If another murderer, about whose guilt