exaggeration or overstatement of facts. These are the most common forms of deception, and are as base as statements in which there is not a particle of truth. Nor does it matter whether the subject be important or unimportant; a lie told as a joke is no less a lie because it is a joke, and a joking liar can not be a gentleman. There can be no such thing as an innocent lie, or a harmless liar.

Truth as to words spoken.-It is not unusual to hear persons attempt, not only to give the ideas expressed by another, but to state them in the precise language in which they were uttered. While it is very desirable to quote the very words that fall from another's lips, it is also very difficult, and very few persons have the natural ability or the cultivation to do it with entire accuracy.

Anecdote.-To illustrate to his school the necessity of absolute precision in the statement of words, and the difficulty of acquiring it, a gentleman selected from the high school six of his most capable boys, whose average age was, perhaps, seventeen years. He explained the experiment he was about to make, and desired them to give it their close attention, in order, if possible, to repeat the words he was about to give them. The plan was to show Master A a short sentence written on a piece of paper, which he was requested to memorize and whisper to Master B, who, in turn, was to communicate it to Master C, and so on, till the last of the six should receive it, and write it upon the blackboard.

The boys were anxious to prove that they could tell a straight story when they applied their minds to it, especially, since a failure on this trial would show them to be inaccurate, and consequently unreliable in all ordinary state

Is it right to tell a lie as a joke? Is there danger of lying habits? How are they formed? Why is it difficult to give the precise language of others? Is it often attempted? With what results? Give the experiment.

ments, where no unusual efforts were made to report correctly. The following sentence was prepared for the trial. "Maternal affection is an instinct which most animals possess in common with man." After each boy had communicated the sentence to his neighbor, the last one wrote the following, as his version: "Maternal affection is an instinct which all animals possess except man."

A comparison of these two sentences proves that it is a difficult feat of memory to repeat, even under favorable circumstances, any words uttered by another. Since these boys, selected for their smartness, accustomed to give attention as pupils, anxious to show their ability to hear exactly and repeat accurately, failed to make a true report of eleven words, how much more liable must ordinary persons be, under circumstances less favorable, to report incorrectly the precise words in a given conversation. A change of two or three words in the above experimental sentence makes the last boy state the very reverse of the sentiment expressed by the first one. How absurd it is to suppose that persons generally can reproduce the exact language of others, and how exceedingly cautious we should be in giving or receiving statements claiming to be so accurate.

Doubtful Credibility.-There are persons with very remarkable memories, who are able to repeat, not only the sentiments of another in the order in which they are delivered, but also to give the exact language in which they are uttered. Such people are exceedingly rare; so that it may be safely assumed as a rule, that witnesses who unhesitatingly testify to the precise language of another, especially in a long conversation, are of doubtful credibility.

Why did it fail? Repeat each sentence given in the experiment. What is the difference between them? Why was this a favorable test? Why would the boys be anxious to succeed? Would persons generally be more successful than these boys? If there was a failure in a test case like this, is it likely that persons generally can repeat language accurately? Why should we have a care about stating words precisely? Can we always credit those who say they state the precise words of a conversation? Why? What danger is there in attempting to give the precise words?

Gossip.-The following little poem will illustrate the inability of some persons to report words correctly, as spoken of in the preceding chapter:

"Said Gossip One to Gossip Two,
While shopping in the town,
'One Mrs. Pry to me remarked,
Smith bought his goods of Brown.'

"Says Gossip Two to Gossip Three,
Who cast her eyelids down,
'I've heard it said to-day, my friend,
Smith got his goods from Brown.'

"Says Gossip Three to Gossip Four,
With something of a frown,

'I've heard strange news--what do you think?
Smith took his goods from Brown.'

"Says Gossip Four to Gossip Five,

Who blazed it round the town,

'I've heard to-day such shocking news--
Smith stole his goods from Brown.'"

Truth as to things done.--The same principle of evidence holds good with reference to things done as in words spoken. If we are likely to be inaccurate in the report of language, so we may fail to be correct in narrating what

What is the subject of Chapter XII? Repeat the text. Give the substance of the little poem. What does the poem teach? Are such exaggerations common? Why?

we see. If, by inattention, we hear erroneously, by the same neglect we may see imperfectly. Several persons may witness an exciting occurrence, and, while they agree as to the general facts, may differ very much in their statement of the separate incidents. One may see what entirely escaped the notice of another who had an equal opportunity for observation.

Now, it is evident that, in giving testimony, they may disagree in many particulars, and yet each may state exactly the impressions made on his mind and be entirely truthful. If they differ, their disagreement is not necessarily an evidence of a want of veracity, but only a confirmation of the truth that two persons are rarely impressed by what they see in precisely the same way.

Promises.-A promise may be defined as "an agreement to do, or not to do, a certain thing." When such an engagement is made, the party or parties are in honor bound to fulfill it in its letter and spirit. As no one can look into the future to determine what may happen, the greatest care should be taken not to promise anything that he may not reasonably expect to perform. If a boy promises his teacher, for instance, to prepare a given lesson by to-morrow, and willfully neglects the duty, he lies; for the promise was made with an intention to deceive. If the promise was made in good faith and forgotten, he did not tell the truth, nor did he tell a lie, but his neglect to perform the work was a wrong to himself and his teacher, the repetition of which would result in a habit injurious to his character and reputation.

If the promise was made with the intention of perform

Do people generally see more accurately than they hear? May two persons state the fact of any occurrence differently and both tell the truth? How? If they disagree does it prove that either is lying? What is a promise? Is a person morally bound to keep his promises? Suppose he is unable, does he lie? Suppose he is able, and does not, does he lie? Is a forgotten promise a lie? Why? Is it an untruth? Why? What is our duty in reference to promises? What must excuse us from performing a promise? Why?

ing it, and in returning home he had fallen and broken his leg, so that it was impossible for him either to study or to return to school, he should not be held responsible, as he is not to blame for the non-performance of his agreement. From these illustrations it will be perceived that we have no right to promise what we are unable or unwilling to perform; but if we make any engagement with the intention of keeping our word, and are prevented by circumstances we did not foresee, and could not control, we do no wrong. Every promise should be understood as depending upon providential circumstances.

Of promises to do wrong.-There are some promises which are made in good faith that ought never to be fulfilled. A boy agreed with his classmates to go to a neighboring orchard to steal apples. When the appointed time came, he determined not to go, for his conscience had whispered, "Thou shalt not steal," and he concluded to obey it. The boys jeered him for a coward, and claimed that as an honorable boy he should stick to his promise. He reasoned in this way: "Before I made this agreement, I was under obligations to God and man not to steal. I had no right to promise to do wrong. My first duty was to obey God, and while it was wrong to make the promise, it would be a greater wrong to keep it, therefore I shall not go." If this reasoning be correct, it is wrong to promise to do wrong, and therefore such a promise is not morally binding.

If we are under no moral obligation to fulfill a promise made to do a wrong, there can be no dishonor in refusing its performance. Dishonor belongs to those who persist in doing wrong after they have discovered the right.

Is a promise to do wrong binding? Why? Give the illustration and the argument. Is the argument correct? What, then, is our duty in reference to promises to do wrong? Shall we make such promises? Shall we fulfill them?