If we wish to be true to ourselves,--if we wish to benefit our fellow-men--if we wish to live honorable lives--we will give to every other human being every right that we claim for ourselves. There is another thing that should be remembered by you. You are the judges of the law, as well as the judges of the facts. In a case like this, you are the final judges as to what the law is; and if you acquit, no court can reverse your verdict. To prevent the least misconception, let me state to you again what I claim: First. I claim that the constitution of New Jersey declares that: "_The liberty of speech shall not be abridged_." Second. That this statute, under which this indictment is found, is unconstitutional, because it does abridge the liberty of speech; it does exactly that which the constitution emphatically says shall not be done. Third. I claim, also, that under this law--even if it be constitutional--the words charged in this indictment do not amount to blasphemy, read even in the light, or rather in the darkness, of this statute. Do not, I pray you, forget this point. Do not forget, that, no matter what the Court may tell you about the law--how good it is, or how bad it is--no matter what the Court may instruct you on that subject--do not forget one thing, and that is: That the words charged in the indictment are the only words that you can take into consideration in this case. Remember that no matter what else may be in the pamphlet--no matter what pictures or cartoons there may be of the gentlemen in Boonton who mobbed this man in the name of universal liberty and love--do not forget that you have no right to take one word into account except the exact words set out in this indictment--that is to say, the words that I have read to you. Upon this point the Court will instruct you that you have nothing to do with any other line in that pamphlet; and I now claim, that should the Court instruct you that the statute is constitutional, still I insist that the words set out in this indictment do not amount to blasphemy. There is still another point. This statute says: "Whoever shall _willfully_ speak against." Now, in this case, you must find that the defendant "willfully" did so and so--that is to say, that he made the statements attributed to him knowing that they were not true. If you believe that he was honest in what he said, then this statute does not touch him. Even under this statute, a man may give his honest opinion. Certainly, there is no law that charges a man with "willfully" being honest--"willfully" telling his real opinion--"willfully" giving to his fellow-men his thought.