ally responsible."

"Why, of course they were!" said Mr. Tutt. "Why shouldn't they be? If
animals have souls why shouldn't they be responsible for their acts?"

"But they haven't any souls!" protested Tutt.

"Haven't they now?" remarked the elder lawyer. "I've seen many an old
horse that had a great deal more conscience than his master. And on
general principles wouldn't it be far more just and humane to have the
law deal with a vicious animal that had injured somebody than to leave
its punishment to an irresponsible and arbitrary owner who might be
guilty of extreme brutality?"

"If the punishment would do any good--yes!" agreed Tutt.

"Well, who knows?" meditated Mr. Tutt. "I wonder if it ever does any
good? But anybody would have to agree that responsibility for one's acts
should depend upon the degree of one's intelligence--and from that point
of view many of our friends are really much less responsible than
sheep."

"Which, as you so sagely point out, would, however be a poor reason for
letting their families punish them in case they did wrong. Just think
how such a privilege might be abused! If Uncle John didn't behave
himself as his nephews thought proper they could simply set upon him and
briskly beat him up."

"Yes, of course, the law even to-day recognizes the right to exercise
physical discipline within the family. Even homicide is excusable, under
Section 1054 of our code, when committed in lawfully correcting a child
or servant."

"That's a fine relic of barbarism!" remarked Tutt. "But the child soon
passes through that dangerous zone and becomes entitled to be tried for
his offenses by a jury of his peers; the animal never does."

"Well, an animal couldn't be tried by a jury of his peers, anyhow," said
Mr. Tutt.

"I've seen juries that were more like nanny goats than men!" commentated
Tutt. "I'd like to see some of our clients tried by juries of geese or
woodchucks."

"The field of criminal responsibility is the No Man's Land of the law,"
mused Mr. Tutt. "Roughly, mental capacity to understand the nature of
one's acts is the test, but it is applied arbitrarily in the case of
human beings and a mere point of time is taken beyond which,
irrespective of his actual intelligence, a man is held accountable for
whatever he does. Of course that is theoretically unsound. The more
intelligent a person is the more responsible he should be held to be and
the higher the quality of conduct demanded of him