But apart from the law-breakers consider the effect of such a miscarriage of justice upon a young, honest and zealous officer.  First, all his good work, his bravery, his conscientious effort at safeguarding the sleeping public had been disregarded, tossed aside with a sneer, and had gone for naught.  The jury had stamped his story as a lie and stigmatized him, by their action, as a perjurer.  They had chosen two professional criminals as better men.  His whole conduct of the case instead of being commended as meritorious had resulted in a solemn public declaration that he was not worthy of credence and that he had attempted wilfully to railroad to State’s prison two innocent men.  In other words. that he ought to be there himself.  What was the use of trying to do good work any longer?  He might just as well loiter in an area on a barrel and smoke a furtive cigar when he ought to be “on post.”  Perhaps he might better “stand in” with those 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 there the performance was a shocking example of what is possible under present conditions.