who would inevitably be preferred to him by a jury of their
peers.

What must have been the effect on the court officers, the
witnesses, the defendants out on bail, the complainants, the
spectators? That the whole business was nonsense and rot!
That the jury system was ridiculous. That the jurymen were
either crooks or fools. That the only people who were not
insulted and sneered at were the lawbreakers themselves. That
if two such rogues were to be set free all the other jailbirds
might as well be let go. That an honest man could whistle for
his justice and might better straightway put on his hat and go
home. That the only way to punish a criminal was to punish
him yourself--kill him if you got the chance or get the crowd
to lynch him. That if a thief stole from you the shrewdest
thing to do was to induce him as a set-off to give you the
proceeds of his next thieving. That it was humiliating to
live in a town where a self-confessed rascal could snap his
fingers at the law and go unwhipped of justice.

The jury's action must have been due either to a wilful
disregard of their oath or an entire misconception of it.
Assuming that the jury deliberately declined to obey the law,
the whole twelve elected to become, and thereby did become,
lawbreakers. They disqualified themselves forever as
talesmen. No prosecutor in his senses would move a case
before a jury which numbered any one of them. They had
arraigned themselves upon the side, and under the standard, of
crime. They became accessories after the fact. If on the
other hand they misconceived the purpose for which they were