business." But, while the speaker rushed on to new assertions, the audience found themselves asking: "Who is this man? What is the source of your information ? Under what conditions, in what manner, and at what time were these investments made?" References should be sufficiently exact to enable any one, if he wishes, to look up the original source for himself. To quote "House Report 32," or "an official report of the Treasury Department," or "Volume 33 of the Forum," is to substitute a weak, general reference for a strong, specific reference.

2. Is the "Authority" merely Hearsay? - Goldsmith's Citizen of the World reports a story heard from his landlady, who had it from one neighbor, who had it from another neighbor, who heard it on very good authority. That is called hearsay evidence. Its value does not depend wholly on the credit to be given one person, but also on the veracity and the competency of other persons. The objections to hearsay evidence, for purposes of argument, are (1) the variations from truth liable to occur during its passage through such fallible media as human minds and language, and (2) its irresponsibility. So small are the chances of getting the truth unblemished through such a course, and so great is the difficulty of calling it to account, that hearsay evidence is weak at one remove from the original source, and in a few removes becomes worthless. "Its intrinsic weakness, its incompetency to satisfy the mind as to the existence of the fact, and the frauds that may be practiced under its cover, combine to support the rule, that hearsay evidence is totally inadmissible." In short, it has no weight as authority.

3. Is the Authority capable of giving Expert Testimony?—The value of expert testimony depends on the

special ability of the witness to speak on the point at issue. Assuming that he is honest, and void of any special interest in the case to be decided, his testimony is valuable in proportion to his mastery of the subject Experts on mental diseases are constantly called in court to testify as to the sanity of prisoners; engineers are called to give expert opinion as to the condition of bridges; expert foresters are engaged to estimate the value of timberlands. But each man's judgment is given special consideration only on those subjects in which he is especially skilled.

Even expert testimony must be closely scrutinized. A first reason is that the expert is inclined to be prejudiced in favor of the side that calls him to its support and pays him for his testimony. A second reason is that in almost every litigated issue, eminent specialists can be found by both sides: some to testify that the blood is human, others that it is not human; some to testify that the signature is absolutely genuine, others that it is certainly a forgery; some to testify that a certain brand of canned meat is adulterated, others to affirm that it is pure. "The devil can cite Scripture to his purpose.

What the telescope can assure us of; what the microscope can assure us of; what we can be assured of by chemical tests; what we can be assured of by careful induction produced by long and accurate observation as to all these lines of in

formation experts are summoned to give their testimony under oath. They are, in the main, highly cultivated men, sensitively conscientious. They are usually selected from among the front ranks of their class. They have ample time given to them for their investigations. They are liberally paid for their services, so as to enable them to take any trouble requisite for their special inquiries. Yet, notwithstanding this, there is scarcely a case in which expert testimony is summoned where we do not find, after two or three experts have

testified on one side, about the same number ready to testify on the other side.1

4. Has the Authority had Sufficient Opportunity to know the Facts?- President Roosevelt's Message to Congress on the Panama Canal, written immediately after his visit to Panama, was considered especially trustworthy. Senator Thurston's speech on "The Condition of Affairs in Cuba" found special favor because he had just visited the island. These men had opportunities to know the facts. On the other hand, no expert engineer, even though he stood the other tests of authority, could give a reliable estimate of the cost of the Panama Canal without adequate chance to acquire first-hand information; and no physician's general reputation would commend him to the court as an authority regarding the cause of a particular death, unless he had taken the opportunity to examine the body at the proper time. The first speech in opposition to the intervention of the United States in the Congo Free State (Appendix VIII) employs numerous authorities who had special chances to know the facts.

5. Is the Authority Prejudiced? The reason why we distrust prejudiced authority is grounded in human nature itself; and is quite apart from the question of the integrity of the authority. A prejudiced man sees evidence in a distorted way; he has a keen eye for what supports his own interests or opinions and is inclined to overlook the rest. He evades complete research when he has an instinctive feeling that the results will not be pleasing to him; he carries his arguments only far enough to support his preconceived notions, instead of pushing them rigorously to their logical conclusions. His

1 Francis Wharton, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence in Criminal Issues, p. 12.

keen desire that such and such should be the truth makes him believe that it is the truth. For these reasons his testimony is untrustworthy, no matter how sincere may be his beliefs.

It is therefore weak to quote, as to the effect of shipping subsidies, the opinion of a ship-builder; or the testimony of the owner of a meat-packing establishment as to the need of government inspection. If the president of a temperance union and the head of a brewery should have exactly the same chances for observation, and should be equally honest, their reports of the working of the prohibitory law would probably be widely at variance. Indeed, this is common experience. Prejudice narrows the vision, distorts the view, colors all the objects of sight, and invalidates the very reasoning process itself.

Burke, in his speech at Bristol, tried to show that he was not prejudiced: —

I confess to you freely that the sufferings and distresses of the people of America, in this cruel war, have at times affected me more deeply than I can express. Yet, the Americans are utter strangers to me; a nation among whom I am not sure that I have a single acquaintance.

Senator Thurston opened his speech on "Affairs in Cuba" in this way:

I went to Cuba firmly believing that the condition of affairs there had been greatly exaggerated by the press, and my own efforts were directed in the first instance to the attempted exposure of these supposed exaggerations. There has undoubtedly been much sensationalism in the journalism of the time, but as to the condition of affairs in Cuba there has been no exaggeration because exaggeration has been impossible.1

1 John M. Thurston, U. S. Senate, March 24, 1898.

Lord Erskine, in defense of John Stockdale when tried for a libel on the House of Commons, 1789, opened his plea with an attempt to show that if he had any prejudice, it was against the client :

GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, Mr. Stockdale, who is brought as a criminal before you for the publication of this book, has, by employing me as his advocate, reposed what must appear to many an extraordinary degree of confidence, since, although he well knows that I am personally connected in friendship with most of those whose conduct and opinions are principally arraigned by its author, he nevertheless commits to my hands his defense and justification.

Thus a speaker endeavors to show that he himself is free from prejudice, and that the authorities he cites are prejudiced, if at all, in favor of the causes against which they are compelled to furnish evidence.

6. Is the Authority Reluctant?-Testimony which is given reluctantly is especially valuable because of the increased probability that it is true. The unwilling admissions of an opponent are strong material for evidence. Lawyers make the most of such concessions as they can wring from the other side. Burke used the unwilling testimony of Lord Dunmore, Governor of Virginia, to the effect that the colonists were capable of self-government. As Dunmore was considered a bitter enemy of the colonies, his admission was strong evidence. The statement of a mill-owner to the effect that more stringent child-labor laws should be passed would be a concession, if such laws were liable to decrease the profits of his mill.

Even a reluctant authority may have ulterior motives. What is damaging to himself considered from one viewpoint may be advantageous from another. The millOwner, for example, may have political aspirations, or he may be eager to damage a rival manufacturer, or he