Objections are of three main kinds: irrelevant, immaterial, and
incompetent. They are like the magic words that open or unlock the
doors of evidence and let it in or keep it out. They have three
distinct meanings which lawyers understand. A thing may be immaterial,
but not incompetent, or incompetent and not immaterial, or irrelevant
and not immaterial, or irrelevant and not incompetent, or incompetent
and not irrelevant, or one or both or not at all. Any student of law
can fully explain the difference, but the distinction is immaterial
and irrelevant, and if the reader is in doubt let him ask any lawyer
friend to tell him in plain words, without insulting his common sense,
what the distinction between immaterial and irrelevant is.

The confusion of one young man found expression finally in the terms
"irreverent, impertinent, and--and--and--no--matter."

The lawyer, when he objects, usually attempts a few other suggestions
which may be considered by the judge, such as "the question is leading
and suggestive; grossly improper; calling for a conclusion; objected
to as argumentative or because of its ambiguity."

Whatever the trouble with objections may be, it is neither the fault
of the lawyer, the judge, nor the witness. When certain evidence is
not allowed by law it is proper that it be objected to. Unreasonable
and often comical as objections sound, the basis of their existence in
law is that the court wants the best possible proof.

Instead of a copy of a letter the judge and the jury ought to see the
original. Instead of the copy of a will the paper actually signed by
the testator is wanted. Suppose a question arises as to the payment of