well-known fact that corporations that have much litigation, such as car and railroad companies, have training schools where they train witnesses to give false testimony. There are accident lawyers and divorce lawyers who have schools for a like purpose. In fact, in every case it is easy to get witnesses to testify to almost anything. To the novice it may seem strange. But to the experienced it is a matter of fact, a matter of common occurrence, a usual affair. Furthermore, the false witness is more likely to inspire belief than the true witness. Policemen, detectives, and so-called inspectors and special inspectors, (employed by various boards and societies, as the Board of Pharmacy, County Medical Societies, County Dental Societies, etc.,) as a rule, perjure themselves much more than lay witnesses, because the former have often business in court and know that there is nothing to be afraid of perjury, and these are the witnesses who are generally believed. These witnesses are skilful in giving false testimony, are experts at lying, answer the questions to the point, know the law and know what important facts are necessary to adduce at the trial, what facts are necessary to emphasize, and these witnesses generally win their cases.

COMPULSORY PERJURY.

By compulsory perjury we do not mean cases where an employer compels his employee to testify in his favor under threat of discharging him, though this is a matter of every day occurrence. We mean compulsion by law itself. Our law of evidence is

such that, to prove the most honest claim, you must train the witnesses to "stretch" the truth, to testify in a particular way. The following is an illustration: John Brown ordered goods of Henry Jones. Henry Jones sent the goods with his confidential clerk. Brown does not pay for the goods. Mr. Jones is certain that his clerk delivered the goods, first, because he is convinced in the honesty of his clerk, and, second, his clerk brought him a receipt signed by an employee of Brown. At the trial, unless the clerk or Brown's employee should testify to the delivery, Mr. Jones must lose his case. Supposing that the clerk or the employee is out of town, sick or dead, or cannot otherwise be found, what should Mr. Jones do? His testimony that he is positive that his clerk delivered the goods will not be allowed in evidence, nor will the receipt be admitted, because it is hearsay, i. e., his knowledge of the delivery comes from being told by his clerk that he delivered the goods and got a receipt for it, he knows it from mere hearing of his clerk say that, not of his own knowledge, and such evidence must be excluded, he will not be allowed to say a word about it. What should he do? He is positive that the goods were delivered, but Brown is dishonest and does not admit. All he has do is to testify that subsequent to the delivery he had a conversation with Brown and Brown admitted to him that the goods were delivered. The conversation, as a matter of fact, never took place, but Jones is compelled to testify falsely to such a conversation to prove his honest

cause.

A witness cannot under our law of evidence relate all that he knows about a certain case. There are so many things which the law prohibits from being told or becoming known, that even an honest case must be "bolstered" up with false evidence, with false testimony. If a lawyer should have no conversation with his witnesses before the trial, if he should not prepare them, if he should not "coach" them, he is sure to lose his case.

HONEST JUDGES.

Even if the judges be perfectly honest, not much justice can be expected to be done. With his best intentions, the judge cannot gauge the honesty of the witnesses, cannot tell who is telling the truth and who is not. The judge himself must grope in the dark.

Judges are only human beings; they have their weaknesses, their prejudices. Some judges are inclined to sympathize with the poor man, and they naturally side with him; most judges believe the rich. In either case it is wrong, as no more respect must be shown to the rich and no more sympathy to the poor, as all ought to be equal before the law.

Some judges are inclined to believe the plaintiff more; some, the defendant; the former because they believe that if the plaintiff had no good cause, he would not have undertaken the expense and the trouble of suing; the latter, that if the defendant owed the money he would have paid and would not have gone to the expense and trouble of defending

himself.

Both are wrong. There are people who will prosecute worthless claims; there are people who will fight and resist the most honest claim.

In criminal cases, there are judges that consider every prisoner brought before them guilty, though the law presumes every one innocent till his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are judges who will be influenced by the testimony of a woman, particularly of a pretty woman. Others, again, believe that all women are liars and perjurers. Both are wrong.

Some judges, whose family life was an unhappy one, are naturally prejudiced against women and are inclined to decide against them. Most judges will decide in favor of the fair sex. Both classes of judges are not likely to do what is just right.

I have known a judge who was quite honest, but was prejudiced against wage-earners. His father was an employer and once suffered a defeat in a lawsuit by a workingman against him. generally decided against the wage-earner.

He

I know a judge who is lazy and likes to drink. He would like to have as little work as possible. He has therefore an aversion against all the plaintiffs, because they disturb his rest; they cause him to work; if no cases were brought, he would have nothing to do, and would receive his salary without work. He almost invariably decides in favor of the defendant. Should it happen, however, that the plaintiff obtained a judgment by default, that is, because the defendant failed to be at the trial by some accident or inadvertence, he would not allow

the defendant to open the default and defend himself, because then he would have the trouble of trying the case over again.

However honest a judge should be, we cannot be certain of justice being done. Honesty is being guided by conscience. Do all men have the same conscience? Can all judges have the same conscience? If every one should measure distance with his own foot, you cannot expect to have exact measurement. If we are compelled to submit our controversies to the conscience of judges, how can we expect a correct decision? Not all judges have the same conscience, the same standard of morality.

However, if all judges were honest it would not be so bad. At least all would have an equal chance in the game. Very often the truth is apparent. Very often the truth could have been ascertained. Unfortunately, most judges do not stand higher in morality than the average man, very often much lower. What can be expected of them? What can be expected of judges who get their positions through politics? You will not find on the bench one who was not a strong adherent to one political organization or another. A judge is one who was with his party, right or wrong; who was partial; who saw only the good side of his party and overlooked the bad side; who was blind to the good side of the opposing party; who was narrow-minded. What can be expected of him?

DISHONEST JUDGES.

Favoritism goes on everywhere. Right or wrong, judges, as other officials, as men in general,