, 1879-02-16

other; but as long as they persist in con-
Quoting their investigations OF protess'on.n
sinners with closed doors the public cannot
Of course, judge Of their proficiency IN 'ne
hyperbolic line. Even the modest literary
guild unconsciously gliacs into the domain
of the incredible. When accused OF that
form of appropriation euphemlstlcally ter"eo
a plagiarism, and confronted with strik'ngco-
incidences of phraseology from previous puo-
lcation, they demur to the soft Impeachment
by intimating that they never heard OF
t'other fellow or his book, and that IT any
possible resemblance exists it must be owing
to the absorption of an asslmilatlve and re-
tentive memory which hardly ever forgets
thing, but sometimes fails to remember
where it got it. Il would be queer thing
if the ssdark horse" in the race should be
one Of those quiet "literary fellers y! But
the field will not be loft entirely to those OF
peaceful pursuits. The military profession
has already indicated disposition to take
part in the contest. In the late RENO in
ouiry several witnesses swore positively that
m officer was " staggering drunk on one
occasion, on which several others swore with
equal positiveness that they were with him
nil the time, and he hadn't 81 assimilated
drop. That case is evidently entitled to
contribute from its cloud of Witnesses to our
list of competitors. But we do not need to
swell the number further.
In that unique organization known as the
"Sazerac Lying Club" an account OF whose
transactions was lately published in piqu-
ant volume, the qualifications for member
ship consisted solely in an ability to tell
enormous and elaborate 1' no~such- things -
tho man who could tell the biggest whopper
being entitled to the Presidency Of the Club
We do not know whether it is true that by
the rules of this Club al witnesses in famous
civil, military, or religious cases arc entitled
to er-qdnD membership, without further
evidence of fitness; but, if SO, we think the
Club would run but little risk of securing
suitable and desirable acccssions. It would,
however, be compelled to limit this provision
strictly to the most distinguished witnesses;
otherwise the Club would be overrun with
applicants It would be necessary, OF course,
to exclude witnesses in our lower courts OF
law, where the spectacle OF liars in the wit
ness-box is too common to possess novelty
for lawyers, and yet furnishes an important
illustration of our subject. It is frequent
experience among attorneys that smart
witness who lies straight out and all the
time is nearly Us hard to catch as
one who tells tho truth all the time.
The theory that IA lie we'll stuck to
is as good as the TRUTH" seems to be an
especial favorite in the witness-bo1. The
faint-hearted half-iar is easy to trap; but
the shrewd, out-and-out one, who lnvents
one story to cover up another, is nearly IN
vulnerable. He is bold and successful, for he
scruples at nothing, and conscience never
ssmakes towards Of his kind. ltfrequently
happens that all Court and jury can do in
the iumbla of conflicting testimony is to
make up their minds which sido has proba-
bly, lied the lenst, and give it the case. The
Irishman who, when asked "Guilty or not
guilty?" replied, ''How can I tell, your
Honor, till T hear the evidence?" did not
make the bull that was supposed. It is not
SO much doubt as to the law or facts that
makes case uncertain, as it is doubt as to
what will be sworn to by the other side.
We have in our courts the most elaborate
and improved machinery for detecting lies
and getting at the truth, but it is evident
that it does not do the work well. Lying IN
the witncss-box has become SO much Of a
fine art that an art equally fine is needed to
detect it. Who will pro luce new Invention
for the certain detection and discontinue of
linrs2