“See here,” said Sampson, arising and confronting his companions, “we may just as well look this thing squarely in the face. I don't want to send him up any more than the rest of you do. But I am going to be honest with myself in this matter if I have to stay out here for six months. We've heard all of the evidence. It seems pretty clear to all of us that the defendant was responsible for the loss of that money, even if he didn't take it himself. He was the treasurer of the concern. He had absolute charge of the funds. So far as we are concerned the State has made out its case. We are supposed to be impartial. We are supposed to render a verdict according to the law and the evidence. We cannot be governed by sympathy or conjecture. “When I left the court-room with the rest of you gentlemen to deliberate on a verdict, I will confess to you that I had in my heart a hope that you men would do just what you have done all along: vote for acquittal. When I came into this room seven hours ago, I was eager to vote just as you have voted. Then I began to reflect. I asked myself this question: how can I go back to that court-room and look the district attorney and the Court in the face and say that James Hildebrand is not guilty? If I did that, gentlemen, I am quite sure I could never look an honest man in the face again. We have all been carried away by our sympathies--I quite as much as the rest of you. I am convinced that there isn't a man among you who can stand up here and say, on his honour, that the evidence warrants the discharge of the defendant. “God knows I want to set him free. I am inclined to believe his story. He is not the sort of man who would steal. But, after all, we are bound, as honest men, to carry out the requirements of the law. The Court clearly stated the law in this case. Under the law, we can do nothing else but convict, gentlemen. “You, Mr. Foreman, have said that Hildebrand perhaps knows who took the money. You will admit that you are guessing at it, just as I am guessing. In his own testimony he was careful to say nothing that would lead us to believe that he knows the guilty man. The State definitely charges him with the crime and it produces evidence of an overwhelming nature to support the charge. Against this evidence is his simple statement that he did not take the money. He had already pleaded not guilty. Is it to be expected of him, therefore, that he should say anything else but that he did not rob his partners?