But one must be allowed to suspect that M. Bourget was a little to blame himself.  Even a practical joker has some little judgment.  He has to exercise some degree of sagacity in selecting his prey if he would save himself from getting into trouble.  In my time I have seldom seen such daring things marketed at any price as these conscienceless folk have worked off at par on this confiding observer.  It compels the conviction that there was something about him that bred in those speculators a quite unusual sense of safety, and encouraged them to strain their powers in his behalf.  They seem to have satisfied themselves that all he wanted was “significant” facts, and that he was not accustomed to examine the source whence they proceeded.  It is plain that there was a sort of conspiracy against him almost from the start—­a conspiracy to freight him up with all the strange extravagances those people’s decayed brains could invent.

The lengths to which they went are next to incredible.  They told him things which surely would have excited any one else’s suspicion, but they did not excite his.  Consider this: 

          “There is not in all the United States an entirely nude
          statue.”

If an angel should come down and say such a thing about heaven, a reasonably cautious observer would take that angel’s number and inquire a little further before he added it to his catch.  What does the present observer do?  Adds it.  Adds it at once.  Adds it, and labels it with this innocent comment: 

          “This small fact is strangely significant.”

It does seem to me that this kind of observing is defective.

Here is another curiosity which some liberal person made him a present of.  I should think it ought to have disturbed the deep slumber of his suspicion a little, but it didn’t.  It was a note from a fog-horn for strenuousness, it seems to me, but the doomed voyager did not catch it.  If he had but caught it, it would have saved him from several disasters: 

          “If the American knows that you are traveling to take notes, he
          is interested in it, and at the same time rejoices in it, as in
          a tribute.”

Again, this is defective observation.  It is human to like to be praised; one can even notice it in the French.  But it is not human to like to be ridiculed, even when it comes in the form of a “tribute.”  I think a little psychologizing ought to have come in there.  Something like this:  A dog does not like to be ridiculed, a redskin does not like to be ridiculed, a negro does not like to be ridiculed, a Chinaman does not like to be ridiculed; let us deduce from these significant facts this formula:  the American’s grade being higher than these, and the chain-of argument stretching unbroken all the way up to him, there is room for suspicion that the person who said the American likes to be ridiculed, and regards it as a tribute, is not a capable observer.