The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-08-16

20 1u1l correspondent Is today the
nrst assistant postmaster general, and
the public man who repudiated the
interview is in private life.
A QUESTION OF VERACITY.
Here is another authentic case which
occurred in the last administration re-
lated to me by member of the senate
a Few days ago. A fellow senator, now
in New England, came to him and
quoted something outrageous which
President Cleveland was reported to
have said. He could not have said
anything of the kind" said the first
senator. II shall ask him about it,"
Before the first senator could get to
the White house, there appeared in q
New York paper an interview with the
second senator, in which he accused
the president of making the offensive
remark. When the two senators met
again, the first said to the second: "I
have seen the president and he de-
MES that he ever said anything of the
kind" The next morning there ap-
peared In local paper an indignant
denial of the interview published in
New York. Senator No. said the
correspondent Of the paper had mis-
quoted and misrepresented him. There
the matter rests. The public record
makes the correspondent appear a liar.
put the senator who told me the story
knows that the liar is his friend, the
senator from somewhere
l had a conversation with BENTON
McMillin, of Tennessee, recently and
wrote 1T out that afternoon. When he
had read it, he said to me: THAT is
one OF the most remarkable feats I
have ever known. You have written
down everything 1 said and in my own
Language, and yet you did not take
note Of any kind" Senator Morrill,
no IN. TT
with him at STAFFORD, said: II have
no doubt l said all these things in Just
this way, but / would rather have them
appear differently" Chauncey Depew.
revising a report of a conversation
which was not intended originally for
publication, said it repeated what he
had said accurately, but he thought
it was too dynamite" for public use,
and so he modified it.
A short time ago I had long talk
with Senator Jones, of Arkansas, the
chairman Of the Democratic national
committee.
Our conversation turned to newspaper
interviewing and the injustice which
the senator thought some newspaper
correspondent had done him. I told
him how easy 1T was for a man with
the most honest intentions to misunder-
stand and so misquote the man he was
interviewing. An interview reproduced
from memory is usually the thought Of
the interviewed expressed in the words
OF the interviewer, but always the
thought as the interviewer interpreted
it, II appreciate the value of accur-
acy," said the senator. 1T had that i'm
pressed on me during the war. At
one period when we were living on very
snort rat1ons-a few ears of corn each
day for each man-some one made an
accusation against one Of our comrades
in connection with the supplies I
denied the charge rather Indignantly
and said that 1 would tell the man
about it that he might defend himself.
Later in the day 1 saw the man and
told him what had been said, and he
went back and abused his accuser. Not
long afterward I said to the man next
me, When l repeated what X said, it
did not seem such a dreadful thing
after ALL I should say not said the
other man. You left out the most i'm
portant part of it, And he repeated
to me what had been said in the Ian
guage the accuser had used. I thought
you modified 1t on purpose he said At
first I thought that 1 would write on
and correct my report of the charge,
but on second thought I concluded that
the accused would probably kill the ac-
cuser If 1 gave him the story literally,
and l restrained myself but / learned
in that little experience how easy it
is for a man to forget the most impor-
tant part Of what he has heard some
one else say.
ODD INSTANCES.
II have not the most implicit conf
dence in circumstantial evidence" said
the senator when we were discussing
criminal case now occupying a great
deal of public attention. "One day the
sheriff came to me at my home in Ar
kansas and said that certain fellow
citizen of ours was charged with a
grave crime. And I believe he is
guilty. said the sheriff I asked him
what made him think SO. Why, when
l went to him and accused him of it
1t frightened him so it actually made
him sick, said the sheriff. That, SAID
l, is the best reason in the world to
my eyes for believing him innocent II
man for whom 1 have the respect
that l have for you came to me and
seriously accused me of such Il crime,
] think and it would make me sick,
too My theory proved correct The
man was able to prove his innocence
absolutely. but his unfortunate manner
came very near convic:ing HIM in the
eyes Of some people"
In the course of nv conversation
with him Senator Jones told me- Of an
odd operation of the mind coming
within his professional experience 'In
my early career as a lawyer" he said,
I was employed as counsel in a case
and prepared a brief, ready to go into
court. The case did not come to trial,
and my brief was put away. Some
years later the same case came up
again. The matter had escaped my
memory in the meantime Again l
was employed as counsel, and L set
about the preparation of brief. T
worked over it very sedulousIy, and re-
vised and re-revised my work until
had put together what I considered
nearly perfect brief. Remembering
my former experience with the case. /
said to myself: Tt is q good thing l
did not go to trial with this case be-
fore when I had had so little expert
ence. I could never have prepared a
brief like this then I went TO my safe
to look for some other papers the next
day, and among them I found the old
brief which 1 had prepared years be-
fore. Curious to compare the two, 1
read the old one and then put the new
one beside It, They were almost iden-
teal. I had not remembered what l
had written before. That .-nuld have
been impossible. But my mind had
followed exactly the same processes
and reached the same results
George Grantham Balm.