A science is a matter of exact knowledge and precise rules, and interviewing cannot be practiced by any exact and unvarying method. In a stack of shorthand notebooks piled away at home I have the original notes of many hundreds of interviews, but I have written out many scores besides of which there were no original notes. Not all our eminent men and women will permit an interviewer to make notes; the sight of a note-book would terminate the conversation and kill the interview right off. No two men will interview in just the same way. The whims and foibles of great men are brought to no one's notice more sharply than to the interviewer's. Hence interviewing is a very art ful art. The successful interviewer must have, above all things, tact. In that one word "tact" is included an easy address, self-assured yet not obviously impudent: a fluent tongue, ready yet not impertinent; a quick, almost intuitive, perception of the situation between himself and the person to be interviewed, so as to avoid offence and win confidence by asking the right question in the right way, and leaving awkward things unsaid. Add to this tact three things, (1) the ability to report speech verbatim, (2) the capacity to remember vividly and accurately the substance of what is said in an hour's conversation, and (3) a good general acquaintance with the merits of the questions (the facts and arguments involved) to which the interviews relate, and you have the completely-equipped inter viewer.