and afterward it should prove that a life hung
on your being able to say which word it was I uttered. Do you think,
monsieur, you could be certain?

"No, monsieur; and so courts are wise to require a full explanation
of every extraordinary fact. George Goykovich, an Austrian, having no
knowledge of the Italian language, swore in the court of an American
state that he heard a prisoner use the Italian word sparate! and that he
could not be mistaken.

"I would not believe him, monsieur, on that statement; but he explained
that he was a coal miner, that the mines were worked by Italians, and
that this word was called out when the coal was about to be shot down
with powder.

"Ah, monsieur, the explanation is complete. George Goykovich must know
this word; it was a danger signal. I would believe now his extraordinary
statement."

The Count stopped a moment and lighted another cigarette.

"Pardon me if I seem to proceed obliquely. The incident is related to
the case I approach; and it makes clear, monsieur, why the courts of
France, for example, permit every variety of explanation in a
criminal trial, while your country and the great English nation limit
explanations.

"You do not permit hearsay evidence to save a man's life; with a fine
distinction you permit it to save only his character!"

"The rule," replied the American justice, "everywhere among
English-speaking people is that the best evidence of which the subject
is capable shall be produced. We permit a witness to testify only
to what he actually knows. That is the rule. It is true there are
exceptions to it. In some instances he may testify as to what he has
heard."

"Ah, yes," replied the Count; "you will not permit such evidence to
take away a man's horse, but you will permit it to take away a
woman's reputation! I shall never be able to understand these delicate
refinements of the English law!"

"But, Count," suggested Sir Henry Marquis, "reputation is precisely that
what the neighborhood says about one."

"Pardon, monsieur," returned the Count. "I do not criticize your
customs. They are doubtless excellent in every variety of way. I deplore
only my inability to comprehend them. For example, monsieur, why should
you hold a citizen responsible in all other cases only for what he does,
but in the case of his own character turn about and try him for what
people say he does?

"Thus, monsieur, as I understand it, the men of an English village
could not