The purpose of such a proposal on the part of Russia (and we are inclined to credit the story because such methods are highly characteristic of Russian diplomacy), is, of course, obvious. It is intended to embarrass Japan in her future relations with China and the Powers. But, apart from any question as to the ultimate disposition of this territory, Japan could not thus be deprived of her right to the use of this region for military purposes. See editorial in N. Y. Times for May 15th.

There has also been a report, emanating from St. Petersburg, to the effect that the Chinese have tacitly agreed to cooperate with the operations of the Japanese against Russia. The Japanese propose, it is said, to drive General Kuropatkin's forces into Mongolia. This, it is urged, would place the Russians in the position of in

vaders of Chinese or neutral territory, and would enable General Ma's army to make reprisals, thus cleverly avoiding the infringement of Chinese neutrality by Japan or China. See N. Y. Times for May 16th.

If Russian troops should be driven into Chinese territory, a well-known and indisputable rule of International Law requires that they be interned and kept there at Russia's expense until the close of the war or until exchanged. China has again recently given repeated assurances of her intention to observe all her neutral obligations toward both belligerents. For the recent attacks of Chinese bandits in Manchuria on Russian outposts and coal mines, China can in no wise be held responsible unless they have been inspired or encouraged by the Chinese govern

ment.

IT

T was in the early days of the Southwest where the juries were apt to be more familiar with Spanish than with English. The case against the prisoner was strong. There was upon the evidence, offered by the district attorney, not a shadow of a doubt that the defendant had stolen the horse, and the cross-examination by his counsel had not helped matters in the least. In spite of all this, however, and the fact that horse-stealing in that region was more serious than murder or robbery, the defendant's counsel, who was something of a student of human nature, as well as learned in the law, managed to win his case. As soon as he had learned from his client the weakness of the defense, he had sought out a Spanish speaking friend and had learned from him four words of Spanish,-"Gentlemen of the jury." He had practised on these until his accent was irreproachable. Then, when the time came for the argument, he arose deliberately and turning to the jury spoke those four words; all the Spanish he knew.

In an instant, the district attorney was on his feet, objecting to the use of Spanish in

the argument, that English was the official language of this country, that such an innovation was without precedent, and a great deal more to the same effect. But the defendant's counsel waxed indignant also, and in the most urgent manner showed to the court that this case was of vital importance to the prisoner, that an argument to the jury lost half its force when filtered through an interpreter. Again and again, he shouted that it was the right, not only of the accused, but of the jury to have the argument made in a language that they could understand.

Finally, as he had expected, the court decided against him, and the argument was finished in English. As he had also expected, however, the jury, though unable to understand English well, had got the idea into their heads that he had wanted to address them in Spanish and had not been allowed to do so, and also got the notion that they themselves had in this way suffered a slight, and accordingly, with a fine disregard for the evidence, promptly gave their verdict in favor of the prisoner.

Chalmers, heard MacGuire say not only "You hit me in the back," but also "You are a coward" and "I could have you arrested for assault and battery." He testified, however, that MacGuire did not hit Chalmers, that he only advanced in a threatening manner. He thought that Chalmers had struck believing that MacGuire was about to strike him. He thought that the two were one to three steps apart and that MacGuire might be said to have sprung forward. When Chalmers hit out he thought that MacGuire's right side was turned somewhat forward and that the latter was hit on the right side of the chest. He had little idea of what happened after this blow-until Poe led MacGuire into the building.

The third witness, MacGuire's friend, gave decidedly the most accurate account. His recollection as to details was very complete. He was not asked by either counsel what was said. As a matter of fact, he had heard the defendant utter the alleged words of slander. In testifying as to the details of the encounter, he was so clear and accurate that curiously enough some of the jurors in view of the rather confused accounts of the other witnesses, were firmly convinced that he must be lying. One part of his testimony was wrong. He stated that Chalmers hit MacGuire on the right shoulder, and that Poe took hold of MacGuire from the left side and turned him to the left. When later the actual facts were again acted out before him, he was amazed, stating that he had been more convinced of the truth of that portion of his testimony than of any other, and he says even now, that he has a clear mental picture of the right shoulder being forward. and of the turning to the left.

The fourth witness, curiously enough, did not hear MacGuire say that Chalmers hit him in the back. He was rather confused as to the details of the encounter, but testified that Chalmers hit MacGuire twice on the left arm, and that MacGuire seemed only

threatening Chalmers. As to Poe, the witness did not remember much as to what he did. His most positive testimony was as to the hitting on the left shoulder, thereby testifying correctly to the one thing as to which all the other witnesses had been mistaken.

A review of the testimony of the four witnesses reveals several interesting facts. Three out of the four testified correctly to the use of the words "You hit me in the back," and two of these remembered the accompanying "You are a coward," and "I could have you arrested for assault and battery." The words made no impression on one witness. As to the actions, the third witness only saw what led up to the blow. Two -the first and second-were entirely mistaken: one "saw" MacGuire strike Chalmers; the other "saw" the former spring forward threateningly. The fourth had a rather indefinite impression as to what led up to Chalmers' blow. As to the blow itself, one— who in other respects proved the most accurate-thought that the blow was on the right arm, one thought that it was on the right side, the third thought that it was somewhat to the left of the middle of the chest, and the fourth alone perceived that the blow was on the left shoulder. The fact that there were seemingly two blows in rapid succession escaped all but this witness.

It seems from this that as soon as each witness received a definite impression his efforts to impress this on his mind caused him to fail to observe what followed. A good illustration of this interesting fact, was that all four failed to notice what Poe did, and how he came to lead off MacGuire.

It seems also that when the witness received this definite impression, his idea of the accompanying details was what he thought likely to have happened rather than what he actually saw. These imagined details made as vivid a part of his mental picture as did the impression which he received

from the actual occurrences which made the definite impression. In this resulting mental picture he was unable to distinguish in any way between what he imagined he had seen and what he had actually seen. He was as honestly convinced that he had seen the one as the other.

Surprising as the result of this experiment has been, the conditions under which it was conducted were remarkably favorable for accurate testimony. The assault and the attending circumstances were extremely simple, not lasting more than eight or ten minutes. The witnesses were above the average in mental ability; two of them are among the highest rank men in the present second year class. They knew at the time that they

would have to testify to the occurrence. Accordingly every faculty was alertly directed toward accurate observation. They were on their mettle both to see exactly and to report exactly. They were honest. The fact that two were friends of the parties did not seem to make any difference; their better acquaintance with details may be attributed to their more trained minds. These facts, together with the immediate examination of the witnesses by the counsel, all made the chances of obtaining an accurate account on the witness stand unusually favorable.

Yet under such conditions it was impossible to convey to the jury what actually occurred. After listening to all of the testimony the jury were in hopeless confusion.

A

CERTAIN "daughter of Erin," of many summers, and twice wedded, -once in Ireland where she left "her ould man to shift fur hisself and become silf-supparting," and once at a certain mining camp in the far West-came into my office recently in a state of considerable excitement, and while extracting a ten dollar bill from a tobacco sack, recited her trouble as follows: "Sure and wud ye belive it, sor, but thim vinimous neighbors o' mine is all puttin' their dirty hids togither and sayin' that Mrs. Pat Mulligan (and that's mesilf) has broke the law and committed 'hogamy' and that they'll soon be about giting the shiriff after me, sure, and Mr. O'Hooligan, the only dacent man in the town, says I must see a lawyer to onct, and git all the advice I kin for ten dollars. He says I must buy a divarce, and thin shake the coort papers in the shiriff's face, if he ivir presoom to put his unsoightly mug

inside my door. And that's jist what I'll be after dooin'! How soon kin I buy a divarce from one or the ither of them onery curs that I tied mesilf up to in a moment of silfforgitfulness?" I told her that there was no such crime known to the law as "hogamy," -was she sure that was the name? "Well, sur," she explained, "ye see it's jist this way, thim same dirty neighbors o' mine call it pigamy, but I calls it hogamy, sure I do, because the fust time I ever heard the beastly name applied to mesilf, it come straight from one o' thim; and till me now what difference can that make whin it comes to buying a divarce?" So it gradually dawned on me that her dear neighbors had been whispering around that she had committed the crime of bigamy, and had made threats that they would have her "arristed" for it. Then I ascertained that her first husband, so far as she knew to the contrary, was still living at the same place in the "ould countrie"

where she had left him "to shift for hissel! and become silf-supparting"-no letters hav ing ever passed between them. "Supposing," I said, "that a divorce is what you need, and that I can get it for you, which of your two husbands do you prefer to be separated from?" "I lave that entoirely to you, sor,-entoirely," she promptly replie i, the only proviso being that she "could gi thim papers from the coort to shake in the shiriff's face if he ivir presoomed,” etc. Then I told her not to worry about it, and to say nothing (a rather useless suggestion doubtless under the circumstances) until I could write a letter to a certain magistrate "in the ould countrie" and find out if her first husband was still in the land of the living,assuring her, as a matter of course, that she had nothing to fear in the meantime, as I would defend her "in coort" if the "shiriff should arrist her." She gave me the last known address of husband No. 1 and went away well satisfied with my advice.

In due time I received a reply from "the ould countrie" to the effect that "the gentleinan enquired about had for over two years past reposed peacefully" in a certain graveyard where "he had been buried at public expense." The magistrate added a note to the effect that he personally knew the man in question, and that as soon as he was thrown upon his own resources by the emi

gration of his wife, he commenced to waste away, "and being disinclined to work for a living, in due time had laid himself down and died." I then found that his exit from this mundane sphere antedated, by several months, my client's alliance with husband No. 2. I sent for her and told her she needed no "divarce," and had committed no crime. "Ye've done well, sor, but ye must put it in writing, and I'll nail it on me front door as a warnin' to thim dirty neighbors and the sheriff, too, that I'm an honest loidy and know how to 'consilt' a lawyer whin my good name is set upon by sich as thim." So it was "put in writing," and for weeks afterwards Mrs. Mulligan's front door was decorated with my "opinion" which had been tacked thereto, after the aforesaid lady had ornamented my letterhead with heiroglyphics of her own, intended to spell the word "WARNING." Some daring miscreant upon a certain night, so I have been told, removed this "opinion" of mine from the door in question (it is the only one of all my "opinions" that has ever been published exactly as written), but Mrs. Mulligan has more than triumphed over her "vinimous" neighbors, and I have heard no more of either her domestic, or foreign, affaires de coeur, or of the crime of "hogamy" for which she at one time so feared "arrist."