Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-03-05
cRlrnCrslNG SPEED CONTESTS.



From the New York sun. t
ssThere appears 70 be a good deal of humbug,"
said an experienced stenogrspher yesterday,
sin the much-advertised speed contests in pho
biography and typewriting that have atiiiceed
the public Of late The public are told that
Mr.. Jones of Oshkosh or Miss Brown of New
York, has taken down $40 words q minute in
shorthand; or ratified of l25 words a minute on
the typewriter. have not seen the product of
any of these wonderful contests. but q phono-
graphic journal lately circulated what 10 claimed
TO be fac-similes of the work done in these
contests. and it was gravely conceded that there
were anywhere from fifty to sixty-eight per
cent OF errors. So far as the typewriting lie
concerned, the work, according to the
fac-simile, was such that no bushes man
would accep. ii from his typewriter as
even memorandum TO be put in his own
pocketbook. much less to send il away as
letter or file it in court as paper in a suit.
The fac-simile presented a perfect hodge-podge
OF words and letters out of alignment and
crushed together, or letters written over each
other, or words misspelled. The whole effect
OF the fac-simile was 10 convey the impression
to the mind that printers case had been pied
As to the alleged wonderful performance in
shorthand, 1T was conceded according TO the
Phonogralldic Journal, that as large percent
age of errors was made in the transcript
This is rather amusing to a law reporter, who
knows how much trouble he would get into il,
In reporting a case in court or before a referee,
he should make even one serious error in any
number OF follos or pages He is supposed to be
absolutely accurate, and his employers, whether
IN court or before a referee, have the right to
expect that he shall be. The amount at stake
IN suit, or the life or liberty of man ON trial,
may be imperiled by even one serious blunder
in recording the testimony.
These speed tests are OF no practical utility
NO stenographer can be properly judged until
he is required 10 take notes in an actual pro-
ceeding, where witnesses or lawyers speak az
rapidly as they ordinarily do in courts or before
referees and furnish transcript. BY that
transcript the stenographer can best be judged
1 have known stenographers who could take
notes that escaped criticism when they were
asked to read them aloud, but whose transcripts,
owing 70 the dulness of their understanding,
their lack of general education, and their
apparently complete ignorance Of the sub
ject that they had been reporting, were
laughable book could be written about
the funny blunders that half-educated
stenographers make in their transcripts. 1t
may be set down as a safe rule that first-class
stenographer cannot be too well-informed upon
any subject, and all irst-class stenographer
IN the city of New York endeavor to improve
themselves constantly. Any number of stenog-
raphers in and around New York gravely call
themselves law stenographers. But lawyers
who are afflicted with their transcripts are
apt to form poor opinion of law stenographers
in general. There is, perhaps, no higher test
of a stenogrepher's ability in note taking than
is presented by an argument in court between
distinguished counsel and before Judge who
likes to take hand in himself"