from them.  Witnesses are often offended and run amuck because they are not given a chance upon the stand to tell the story of their lives.  This must be guarded against and steps taken to have their statements given in such a way that they are audible and intelligible.  A few lessons in elementary elocution are generally vitally necessary.  The man with the bassoon voice must be tamed, and the birdlike old lady made to chirp more loudly.  But all this is the self-evident preparation which must take place in every case, and while highly important is of far less interest than the development of the circumstantial evidence which is the next consideration of the district attorney.

The discovery and proper proof of minute facts which tend to demonstrate the guilt of an accused are the joy of the natural prosecutor, and he may in his enthusiasm spend many thousands of dollars on what seems, and often is, an immaterial matter.  Youthful officials intrusted with the preparation of important cases often become unduly excited and forget that the taxpayers are paying the bills.  The writer remembers sitting beside one of these enthusiasts during a celebrated trial.  A certain woman witness had incidentally testified to a remote meeting with the deceased at which a certain other woman was alleged to have been present.  The matter did not seem of much interest or importance, but the youth in question seized a yellow pad and excitedly wrote in blue pencil, “Find Birdie” (the other lady) “at any cost!” This he handed to a detective, who hastened importantly away.  It is to be hoped that “Birdie” was found speedily and in an inexpensive manner.

When the case against Albert T. Patrick, later convicted of the murder of the aged William M. Rice, was in course of preparation, it was found desirable to show that Patrick had called up his accomplice on the telephone upon the night of the murder.  Accordingly, the telephone company was compelled to examine several hundred thousand telephone slips to determine whether or not this had actually occurred.  While the fact was established in the affirmative, the company now destroys its slips in order not to have to repeat the performance a second time.

Likewise, in the preparation of the Molineux case it became important to demonstrate that the accused had sent a letter under an assumed name ordering certain remedies.  As a result, one of the employees of the patent-medicine company spent several months going over their old mail orders and comparing them with a certain sample, until at last the letter was unearthed.  Of course, the district attorney had to pay for it, and it was probably worth what it cost to the prosecution, although Molineux’s conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals and he was acquitted upon his second trial.

The danger is, however, that a prosecutor who has an unlimited amount of money at his disposal may be led into expenditures which are hardly justified simply because he thinks they may help to secure a conviction.  Nothing is easier than to waste money in this fashion, and public officials sometimes spend the county’s money with considerably more freedom than they would their own under similar circumstances.