THE HISS CASE
485
such is the political and cultural context of the Hiss case that feelings
have considerable precedence over reason, especially among Hiss's de–
fenders. In addition, the tone of
S eeds of Treason
is of a kind that
is likely to reduce the persuasive power of its facts for the very people it
might have hoped to influence.
Where our emotions are involvcd-and wherever there are ideas
there are emotions-we all of us tend to hear what we wish to hear,
believe what we wish to believe. Evidence, in the sense in which it is
sought by the law, is something to which we repair only as it supports
our emotions, and it is one of the everlasting miracles of the American
jury system, impcrfect as it may be, that again and again twelve human
beings can be brought together and be disciplined, or discipline them–
selves, to
try
to free themselves of prejudice and reach a decision only
on objective grounds. The effort of objectivity which we see demon–
strated in a courtroom would probably not be possible were it not for
the living presence of a defendant to remind the jury of its respon–
sibility. The juror functions in direct and immediate relation to the
object of his decision, and this is his great protection against self-delusion.
An analogy to the juror at work might be thc psychoanalyst at work–
both have been warned of their need for an extraordinary consciousness
of their unconscious processes. It is a caution that is reinforced for the
juror by the judge's last words to him as he files out to make his decision:
he is charged to his prime duty of self-awareness.
But we who are not in the jury box have no one to charge us to
beware of our hidden motives. We are perfectly free to function in
relation to ourselves, or to some prejudicial concept of mankind or
progress, instead of in relation to immediate fact. Public opinion is
seldom face to face with responsibility. Especially in a case like Hiss's,
where there are so many historical and political ramifications, our
awareness of our unconscious partisanships is likely to be in inverse
proportion both to our passion and our pride of conscience.
If
one dare measure the unmeasurable, I would offer it as my
impression that as the public-the articulate public-has lined up for
and against Hiss, there has been more conscience on the Hiss side, more
consciousness on the side of those who think Hiss guilty. By conscience, I
mean a formulated moral intention. By consciousness, I mean an aware–
ness of subjective motive. It is those who believe Hiss, much more than
those who believe Chambers, who are worried about the consequences of
the case, fearful of the uses to which the retrograde forces in this
country will put his conviction. Those who believe Chambers are turned
more to the past than the future. Hiss's conviction represents a retroac-
