But even if some men deserve punishment, who is to judge? The old injunction still comes back and ever will return when man arraigns his fellow, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” To find a judge without sin in the ordinary meaning of the world is necessarily out of the question. They must of course pretend to be holier than the rest, and organized society helps out the farce and fraud. At the best, one guilty man is set up to judge another,—one man filled with his weaknesses, his infirmities, his shortcomings, sets himself up to judge not only that his fellow man is a criminal but that he himself is better than his fellow. And yet all the past and the present has conspired to make him good, to keep him from temptation, that he might the better pass judgment on another, while all the world has conspired to place the victim where he is. Verily, in the light of infinite justice, no greater crime could be committed than to judge and condemn your fellows, and if there shall ever be a final day when the crooked is made straight and the purpose of all shall be revealed and understood, safer far will be the man who has received the sentence than the one who has dared to pass judgment on another’s life and pronounce it bad. But how is this judge to determine the guilt or innocence of his fellow? He cannot know his life and does not seek to know. To understand fully another’s life would require infinite pains and such research as no judge could give or pretend to give. The judge cannot balance up the character of his victim; he simply seeks in a poor, clumsy, imperfect way to ascertain whether he did a certain act. Whatever else he did, his attitude of mind, his necessities, his early training, his opportunities and temptations, the number of temptations resisted before one proved too much—all of this is beyond the power of a human judge to know; yet all of it bears upon the real character of the man and should go to show whether, on the whole, he deserves blame or praise, and the extent of each.