kes me ask myself
whether the discovery of Cocoleu's rascality would not be rather
injurious than beneficial to M. de Boiscoran."

The doctor was furious. He cried,--

"I should like to know"--

"Nothing can be more simple," replied the advocate. "Cocoleu's idiocy
is, perhaps the most serious difficulty in the way of the prosecution,
and the most powerful argument for the defence. What can M. Galpin say,
if M. de Boiscoran charges him with basing a capital charge upon the
incoherent words of a creature void of intelligence, and, consequently,
irresponsible."

"Ah! permit me," said Dr. Seignebos.

But M. de Chandore heard every syllable.

"Permit yourself, doctor," he said. "This argument of Cocoleu's
imbecility is one which you have pleaded from the beginning, and which
appeared to you, you said, so conclusive, that there was no need of
looking for any other."

Before the doctor could find an answer, M. Folgat went on,--

"Let it be, on the contrary, established that Cocoleu really knows what
he says, and all is changed. The prosecution is justified, by an opinion
of the faculty, in saying to M. de Boiscoran, 'You need not deny any
longer. You have been seen; here is a witness.'"

These arguments must have struck Dr. Seignebos very forcibly; for
he remained silent for at least ten long seconds, wiping his gold
spectacles with a pensive air. Had he really done harm to Jacques de
Boiscoran, while he meant to help him? But he was not the man to be long
in doubt. He replied in a dry tone,--

"I will not discuss that, gentlemen. I will ask you, only one question:
'Yes or no, do you believe in M. de Boiscoran's innocence?'"

"We believe in it fully," replied the two men.

"Then, gentlemen, it seems to me we are running no risk in trying to
unmask an impostor."

That was not the young lawyer's opinion.

"To prove that Cocoleu knows what he says," he replied, "would be fatal,
unless we can prove at the same time that he has told a falsehood, and
that his evidence has been prompted by others. Can we prove that?
Have we any means to prove that his obstinacy in not replying to any
questions arises from his fear that his answers might convict him of
perjury?"

The doctor would hear nothing more. He said rather uncourteously,--

"Lawyer's quibbles! I know only one thing; and that is truth."

"It will not always do to tell it," murmured the lawyer.

"Yes, sir, always," replied the physician,--"always, and at al