of the poor old pigeon fancier, and the Judge questioned him: where he lived; where his barn was; just where the pigeon-loft was; what his name was; whether he had a nickname. The old man answered, peevishly, but fully enough for the Judge to learn what he wanted to know. This was the very man, his were the pigeons, his loft was the same old loft which he, the Judge, and his gang had burglarized years ago. And now the Law expected him, a Judge, to send to prison these boys who were no worse than he was; nay, who were better, for they had the “sand” he lacked! If he, the Judge, had been sent up for burglary he might not have become County Judge, and if he didn’t send up these boys as burglars, they might become county judges, or — since they had more “sand” — something better.
But there was the Law; what about that ? The boys had committed a crime; what was the Judge to do with them ? He didn’t know; he would have to “think it over.” And he thought it over. He went back to first principles. What did the complainant really want ? Only to have his property protected. And what was the law against burglary for? To protect property by preventing burglary. Wasn’t there any other way to achieve these common ends except by punishing these boys as burglars ? And if he put them
