who are not mistrusted at all。＇1＇
The lack of conscientiousness is common to all ages； both sexes； and to all sorts and conditions of men。 But it is most characteristically frequent and sharply defined among people who have no real business in life。 Whoever romances in the daily life； romances when he ought to be absolutely truthful。 The most dangerous of this class are those who make a living by means of show and exhibition。 They are not conscienceless because they do nothing worth while； they do nothing worth while because they are conscienceless。 To this class belong peddlers； street merchants； innkeepers； certain shop…keepers； hack…drivers； artists； etc。； and especially prostitutes （cf。 Lombroso； etc。； etc。）。 All these people follow a calling perhaps much troubled； but they do no actual work and have chosen their profession to avoid regular； actual work。 They have much unoccupied time； and when they are working； part of the work consists of gossip； part of loafing about； or of a use of the hands that is little more。 In brief；since they loiter about and make a profit out of it； it is no wonder that in giving evidence they also loaf and bring to light only approximate truth。 Nor is it difficult to indicate analogous persons in the higher walks of life。
The most hateful and most dangerous of these people are the congenital trampspeople who did not have to work and faithfully pursued the opportunity of doing nothing。 Whoever does not
＇1＇ Cf。 Lwenstimm； in H。 Gross's Archiv； VII； 191。
recognize that the world has no place for idlers and that life on God's earth must be earned by labor； is without conscience。 No conscientious testimony need be expected from such。 Among the few rules without exception which in the course of long experience the criminalist may make； this is onethat _the real tramps of both sexes and all walks of life will never testify conscientiously；hic niger est； hunc Tu； Romane； caveto_。
Section 5。 （c） The Correctness of Testimony。
The training of the witness into a _*capacity_ for truth…telling must be based； （1） on the judge's knowledge of all the conditions that affect； negatively； correct observations and reproductions； （2） on his making clear to himself whether and which conditions are operative in the case in question； and （3） on his aiming to eliminate this negative influence from the witness。 The last is in many cases difficult； but not impossible。 That mistakes have been made is generally soon noted； but then； ‘‘being called and being chosen'' are two things； and similarly； the discovery of _*what_ is correct and the substitution of the essential observations for the opinionative ones； is always the most difficult of the judge's tasks。
When the witness is both unwilling to tell the truth and unable to do so； the business of training may be approached from a few common view…points。 Patience with the witness is perhaps the most important key to success。 No doubt it is difficult to be patient where there is no time； and what with our contemporary overtasking； there is no time。 But that must be altered。 Justice must have strength to keep everybody's labor proportional to his task。 A nation whose representatives do not grant money enough for this purpose must not expect satisfactory law courts‘‘no checkee no washee；'' no money no justice。 People who have time will acquire patience。
Patience is necessary above all while taking evidence。 A great many witnesses are accustomed to say much and redundantly； and again； most criminal justices are accustomed to try to shut them off and to require brief statements。 That is silly。 If the witness is wandering on purpose； as many a prisoner does for definite reasons of his own； he will spread himself still more as he recognizes that his examiner does not like it。 To be disagreeable is his purpose。 He is never led by impatience beyond his introduction； and some piece of evidence is lost because almost every accused who speaks unintelligibly on purpose； says too much in the course of his speech and brings things to light that no effort might otherwise have attained to。 Besides； whoever is making a purposely long…winded testimony does not want to say anything superfluous； and if he actually does so； is unaware of it。 And even when he knows that he is talking too much （most of the time he knows it from the impatient looks of his auditors）； he never can tell just what exceeded the measure。 If； then； he is asked to cut it short； he remains unmoved； or at most begins again at the beginning； or； if he actually condescends； he omits things of importance； perhaps even of the utmost importance。 Nor must it be forgotten that at least a large proportion of such people who are brought to court have prepared their story or probably blocked it out in the rough。 If they are not permitted to follow their plans； they get confused； and nothing coherent or half…coherent is discovered。 And generally those who say most have thought their testimony over before。 Those who merely have to say no more than _*yes_ and _*no_ at the trial do not reduce the little they are going to say to any great order； that is done only by such as have a story to tell。 Once the stream of talk breaks loose it is best allowed to flow on； and only then interrupted with appropriate questions when it threatens to become exhausting。 Help against too much talk can be found in one direction。 But it must be made use of before the evil begins； and is in any event of use only in the description of a long chain of events；e。 g。； a great brawl。 There； if one has been put in complete possession of the whole truth； through one or more witnesses； the next witness may be told： ‘‘Begin where X entered the room。'' If that is not done； one may be compelled to hear all the witness did the day before the brawl and how these introductions； in themselves indifferent； have led to the event。 But if you set the subject； the witness simply abandons the first part of possibly studied testimony without thereby losing his coherence。 The procedure may be accurately observed： The witness is told； ‘‘Begin at this or that point。'' This deliverance is generally followed by a pause during which he obviously reviews and sets aside the part of his prepared speech dealing with the events preliminary to the required points。 If； however； the setting of a starting point does not work and the witness says he must begin at the earlier stage； let him do so。 Otherwise he tries so hard to begin according to request that； unable to go his own way； he confuses everything。
The patience required for taking testimony is needful also in cross…examination。 Not only children and slow…witted folk； but also bright persons often answer only ‘‘yes'' and ‘‘no；''＇1＇ and these bare answers demand a patience most necessary with just this bareness； if the answers are to be pursued for some time and consecutively。 The danger of impatience is the more obvious inasmuch as everyone recognizes more or less clearly that he is likely to set the reserved witness suggestive questions and so to learn things that the witness never would have said。 Not everybody； indeed； who makes monosyllabic replies in court has this nature； but in the long run； this common characteristic is manifest； and these laconic people are really not able to deliver themselves connectedly in long speeches。 If； then； the witness has made only the shortest replies and a coherent well…composed story be made of them； the witness will； when his testimony is read to him； often not notice the untruths it might contain。 He is so little accustomed to his own prolonged discourse that at most he wonders at his excellent speech without noticing even coarse falsehoods。 If； contrary to expectation； he does notice them； he is too chary of words to call attention to them； assents； and is glad to see the torture coming to an end。 Hence； nothing but endless patience will do to bring the laconic witness to say at least enough to make his information coherent； even though brief。 It may be presented in this form for protocol。
Section 6。 （d） Presuppositions of Evidence…Taking。
One of the most important rules of evidence…taking is not to suppose that practically any witness is skilled in statement of what he remembers。 Even of child training； Frbel＇2＇ says； ‘‘Men must be drawn out； not probed。'' And this is the more valid in jurisprudence； and the more difficult； since the lawyers have at most only as many hours with the individual as the teacher has years。 However； we must aim to draw the witness out； and if it does not work at first； we must nevertheless not despair of succeeding。
The chief thing is to determine the witness's level and then meet him on it。 We certainly can not succeed； in the short time allowed us； to raise him to ours。 ‘‘The object of instruction'' （says Lange＇3＇） ‘‘is to endow the pupil with more apperceptive capacity； i。 e。； to
＇1＇ Pathological conditions； if at all distinct； are easily recognizable； but there is a very broad and fully occupied border country between pathological and normal conditions。 （Cf。 O。 Gross： Die Affeklage der Ablehnung。 Monatschrift fr Psychiatrie u。 Neurologie； 1902； XII； 359。）
＇2＇ Frbel： Die。 Mensehenersiehung。 Keilhau 1826。
＇3＇ K。 Lange： ber Apperzeption。 Plauen 1889。
make him intellectually free。 It is therefore necessary to discover his ‘funded thoughts；' and to beware of expounding too much。'' This is not a little true。 The development of apperceptive capacity is not so difficult for us； inasmuch as our problem is not to prepare our subject for life； but for one present purpose。 If we desire； to this end； to make one more intellectually free； we have only to get him to consider with independence the matter with which we are concerned； to keep him free of all alien suggestions and inferences； and to compel him to see the case as if no influences； personal or circumstantial； had been at work on him。 This result does not require merely the setting aside of special influences； nor the setting aside of all that others have said to him on the matter under discussion； nor the elucidation of the effect of fear；＇1＇ of anger； of all such states of mind as might here have been operative；it requires the establ