Whatever difference does exist in character between the
testimony of men and women has its root in the generally
recognized diversity in the mental processes of the two
sexes. Men, it is commonly declared, rely upon their powers
of reason; women upon their intuition. Not that the former
is frequently any more accurate than the latter. But our
courts of law (at least those in English-speaking countries)
are devised and organized, perhaps unfortunately, on the
principle that testimony not apparently deduced by the
syllogistic method from the observation of relevant fact is
valueless, and hence woman at the very outset is placed at a
disadvantage and her usefulness as a probative force sadly
crippled.

The good old lady who takes the witness-chair and swears that
she knows the prisoner took her purse has perhaps quite as
good a basis for her opinion and her testimony (even though
she cannot give a single reason for her belief and becomes
hopelessly confused on cross-examination) as the man who
reaches the same conclusion ostensibly by virtue of having
seen the defendant near by, observed his hand reaching for
the purse, and then perceived him take to his heels. She has
never been taught to reason and has really never found it
necessary, having wandered through life by inference or, more
frankly, by guesswork, until she is no longer able to point
out the simplest stages of her most ordinary mental
processes.

As the reader is already aware, the value of all honestly