The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-11-30

Perhaps nobody even remotely sus- pected that this poor fellow who had been blind from his birth, was on this occasion actually playing a part in a divine drama, and writing himself into immortal history.
 An hour later, still other spectators saw a still more unusual thing. This same fellow was now seen actually waving his staff and carrying it clear of the ground as he partly skipped and partly ran on his way along the streets which lead from the pool to the temple.
 At once he was the center of interest and the subject of excited gossip. The majority of those who noticed him were simply impressed by the almost unbelievable change that had taken place in his appearance. Some of them didn't yet know that his blindness had gone. There were others, however, for whom the change which had taken place in this fellow had a profound meaning and significance. These were the theologinas and doctors of law, called Pharisees.
 And There Was Light.
 For these the change which had talk en place in this man, blind from birth, presented an important religious issue. At the same time it indirectly pre- scented, still more important to them, an economic consideration. This single incident perchange would render these dignitaries less secure in their position, and jeopardize their coveted places on the most desirable payroll in their country.
 It was only natural, therefore, that they should investigate the strange case which now presented itself. They i'm mediately constituted themselves a sort of curbstone court. They put the man who had been blind on the witness stand. He had already given testimony that was materially against them. That testimony was having profund i'm pression with the jury-constituted by the scores and hundreds of persons who had heard about the case. These Phari- sees, therefore, determined that it was necessary for them to cross-examlne this witness. They well knew that nc substitute has ever been found for cross examination as a means of separating the truth from falsehood, and for re- ducing exaggerated statements to their true dimensions.
 This court was ready enough to be lieve that the witness Lad either made an honest mistake or had committed perjury. More likely they believed both. While there is a marked distinc tion between discrediting the testimony of witness and the discrediting of tho witness himself, it is easy to believe that the prosecution here was anxious to do both.
 A Good Witness.
 The witness had told an honest straightforward story of exactly how his sight had been restored.
 Lawyers we'll know that it is absurd to suppose that any witness that ha' sworn positively to certain set O. facts, even if he has inadvertentl! stretched the truth, is going to be read fly induced to alter them and ackonwl edge his mistake. They know, too, how futile, and often fatal, it is for tn cross-examiner to simply ask the wit ness to re-tell the story related on di rect examination.
 | Perhaps it would have been better fo the ross-examiners here to have care fully avoided the original story of tn witness, except insofar as it was neces sary to refer to it in order to point ou its weak spots, if any. But like tn modern inexperienced cross-examiner they simply asked their question in sucl way that the witness repeated til