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 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 and experience of the individual.