The world below
more far-seeing than mine, and that she thought so also. But I think
that we have done so much harm that it might not be easy to increase it.
I can see that we cannot go on together unless we find some reconciling
way when our thoughts differ. Let us do this. We will go to them, and
they shall say for themselves what they can say, to which one of us
shall answer, and the other shall judge their fate. Which is to
question, and which to decide, shall be their own choice; and we will
both agree to take the judgment of the other, which we know will be
fairly given.”
I said, “Come quickly, for the fire increases,” and we ran together.
We went round to the entrance, where the sound of my axe-stroke had
roused the sleeping guard, the night--it seemed so long!--before, and
finding none there to stay us, we climbed some stairs to a
platform-grating which extended between the pens. There were five
a-side. The floors of them were of loose bars only, and were somewhat
higher than the grating on which we stood, so that the Killers could
pull out the bars without stooping. The water steamed and bubbled
beneath them, and we looked down and saw it below the grating on which
we stood. Beyond the pens we saw the open tank extending on every side
but that by which we entered. At the farther end was the stone pier
which I had seen previously, reaching far out into the deep water.
Four of the pens on the left hand were occupied. In each was one of the
judges. They crouched dismally on the bars, with wings extended. The
heavy dark bald heads, with their cruel horny beaks, were drooping
hopelessly forward. Their eyes followed us with an intelligence that
seemed afraid to hope, but begged for pity.
On the other side, there were three like them, and then two others that
could move their wings, and these two were not still, but flopped
unceasingly from side to side, sometimes almost reaching to the roof,
and then coming down with clumsy flappings.
My companion addressed the one with the largest beak, and reached her
point very promptly. “My Leader told me of you. It appears from your own
tale that you are unfit for life. Do you agree?”
He answered, “She was very treacherous, for she let us tell all before
she gave any sign that she had a Dweller’s mind.”
“I also may have a Dweller’s mind,” she answered coldly, “but listen,
for your lives are balanced on the choice I give you. There is one with
me who is not as I. You may think him more of your kind. I do not know.
I think that you should die quickly, but he is less willing.
“Neither of us has heard your defence, and we will do so fairly. Your
choice is this. One of us will question you to show that you should be
in the tank below, and you shall reply as best you may. The other shall
judge, and all shall accept the issue. It is yours to choose the one
that shall judge you. You can also choose the one that shall speak for
the rest, but it must be one only, except that the two who were the
accusers can speak separately, if they will.”
Then the nine closed their minds from us, and disputed for a long time
(as thought is counted) among themselves. Then the one to whom we had
spoken told us, “We are all agreed that we shall argue this thing, and
accept your verdict. The two wish to speak separately. We are not agreed
on who shall speak for the seven, nor which shall judge us.”
My companion answered with patience, “It is necessary that you should
agree quickly, but we cannot make you do so. In two minutes from now, if
you should still be in this difficulty, we will drop one of you into the
tank, and perhaps you will find that six agree more easily. If not, we
will make further reductions as long as this assistance is needed.”
He looked at us with eyes that were naturally hard and cruel, but were
now flaccid with misery, and a cunning gleam was in them, as he tried to
probe our minds to find which would be the first to be sentenced, but my
companion baffled him.
It was but a few seconds later that he answered, “I am to speak for the
seven. You will argue against me, and the Prehistoric will judge us. So
we have decided by a majority, for fools are many.”
“You may be right in that,” my companion answered, “but I think that it
will make no difference.”
CHAPTER XXVII
THE VERDICT
My companion commenced her examination immediately. I have thought since
that it might be a model in many ways for the conduct of a prosecuting
counsel in our own courts.
I knew that she considered the accused unfit to live, and that they had
been competently tried and condemned already. Yet, now that the decision
had been placed with me, and it was her part to accuse them, her
questions were direct and fair, without subtlety or dissimulation,
seeking the truth without favour, and equally ready to develop a point,
whether it were against or for them.
The fact that the spokesman of the accused was accustomed to legal
argument, (which she certainly was not), and was of an acute and
vigorous mentality, gave additional interest to the quick exchange of
thoughts by which their lives were decided.
“We have been told that you are judges among your own kind?”
“Yes.”
“Is it necessary that you should be unanimous, or do you decide by a
majority?”
“By a majority.”
“A female was brought before you for stealing food, and was condemned to
be beaten?”
“Yes.”
“Were you unanimous in this case?”
“Yes. I should explain. She was first brought before two only. She was
condemned, and appealed. The appeal was heard by five, who confirmed the
verdict.”
“Did the appeal relate to her guilt only, or to her sentence also?”
“To both.”
“Was the sentence altered at the appeal?”
“It was increased. But that was because the accused attempted escape,
while the appeal was pending.”
“What were the two sentences?”
“Eight strokes were to be given under the wings with a five-thonged
scourge for the theft, and sixteen similar strokes for attempt to break
her prison.”
“Then two of the judges are not responsible for the larger part of the
sentence?”
“We are all responsible. It is our law that if a sentence be increased,
or an additional one given, by an appeal court, it must be approved by
the court below. The power of the appeal court being to confirm, reduce,
or cancel.”
“Tell us, in your own way, of what this female was charged, on what
evidence she was condemned, why you considered her action worthy of
punishment, and defend the sentences.”
“She was charged with the theft of a neighbour’s food. She confessed her
guilt. We consider theft deserves punishment, and that the safety of the
community requires it. But we do not make the laws. It is our duty to
administer them. The responsibility rests with the whole community. We
considered the sentence to be fair and moderate, and such as is
necessary to prevent the spread of dishonesty among the class of
population to which the accused belonged. We have ourselves been
condemned with greater severity, for a fault which we do not recognise
or understand, by a tribunal of which we were previously ignorant, and
under a code of conduct of which we had not even heard, and under which
our civilisation could not be maintained for a week.”
“You have not defended the second sentence.”
“I did not suppose that any defence were needed. She had been condemned
as guilty, and was in custody, pending appeal against the sentence she
had received. To attempt to escape under such circumstances was a
defiance of the laws under which we live, and it would be impossible to
maintain order or discipline if such incidents should pass unpunished.”
“I understand your arguments, though they may not convince me. The
injustice of inflicting further penalties for an attempt to escape those
already threatened is too obvious for serious argument, and I notice
that you do not attempt to assert it, but prefer to rely upon the
argument of expediency only. It is not reasonable to suppose that the
victim of such a sentence as you had imposed should be a consenting
party thereto, and in this instance you knew that she was not, for she
had appealed against it. You could not suppose that she would submit to
the sentence, if she could avoid it successfully. By keeping her in
custody while the appeal was pending, you admitted this to be so. This
duty (if such it were) was performed inefficiently, or the opportunity
to escape could not have arisen. For this fault of your own servants you
condemned her to a penalty even heavier than that which had been
inflicted originally.
“The argument of necessity could have been used with greater force in
her own defence as against the first accusation than by you in this
connection, and additionally so because the rights of the community, if
it be justly organised, must always be subordinate to those of the
individuals who compose it. For the rest, I propose to explain exactly
why I think the decision of the Dwellers is right, and that your lives
should not be continued. You will then be better able to reply in such a
way as may be convincing to the one you have chosen to judge you. But
there are a few points of fact on which I am ignorant, which may
possibly help you, and these I will ask you first. You complain that you
yourselves have been condemned under a law of which you had not known,
and to which you had not consented. You said also that she had confessed
her guilt, and you said later that she appealed both against the verdict
and the sentence. This requires explanation. I think you should answer
here very carefully, for I think we are confronted with that which
threatens the foundation of the strongest of the defences which you have
set up.”
For the first time there was a pause of some seconds before his mind
took up the challenge. I think he was quick to recognise her meaning,
and the danger of which she warned him. I think he also appreciated for
the first time the keenness of the intellect which confronted him.
“The explanation is simple. We were dealing with a female of exceptional
obstinacy. She was charged with theft. She admitted the theft. That is a
plea of guilty according to the custom of our courts. She appealed on
the ground that the theft was justified. There is no such thing as a
justified theft in the code of any civilised state. Her appeal had no
possibility of succeeding. She was in the position of having pleaded
guilty, yet of declining to admit that she had done so.”
“Then, when you said that she admitted her guilt, you meant only that
she admitted the accuracy of the statements made by those who complained
against her. You also admit the facts on which your own condemnation is
founded. To that extent you have pleaded guilty also. How can you assert
the authority of your own tribunal over this female, and deny that of
the Dwellers who condemned you?”
“Very easily. She was a female of our nation, and was under the
authority of our laws.”
“Do you contend that she was under the authority of your laws simply
because she was a female of your species, or had she herself consented
to them?”
“It is necessary in any civilised state to assume the assent, or, in any
case, the liability, of individuals to the laws of those among whom they
live, and to impose penalties should they fail to obey them.”
“Let us be clear upon our facts before we argue upon them. She had not
consented?”
“To obtain individual consent to every law is obviously impossible.”
“She had not consented?”
“Not in that way; but she knew that she must obey the laws of the
country in which she lived.”
“That cannot be so, because in fact she refused to do so.”
“She knew that she must submit to the laws of her people, or render