Asimov's Future History Volume 1 (55 page)

“How
dared
you do such a thing?”

“The First Law, Professor, does not let me, through any inaction, allow harm to come to human beings. Certainly, considering your reputation in the world of sociology and the wide circulation your book would receive among scholars, considerable harm would come to a number of the human beings you speak of.”

“But do you realize the harm that will come to me now?”

“It was necessary to choose the alternative with less harm.” Professor Ninheimer, shaking with fury, staggered away. It was clear to him that U. S. Robots would have to account to him for this.

There was some excitement at the defendants’ table, which increased as Prosecution drove the point home.

“Then Robot EZ-27 informed you that the reason for its action was based on the First Law of Robotics?”

“That is correct, sir.”

“That, in effect, it had no choice?”

“Yes, sir.”

“It follows then that U. S. Robots designed a robot that would of necessity rewrite books to accord with its own conceptions of what was right. And yet they palmed it off as simple proofreader. Would you say that?”

Defense objected firmly at once, pointing out that the witness was being asked for a decision on a matter in which he had no competence. The judged admonished Prosecution in the usual terms, but there was no doubt that the exchange had sunk home – not least upon the attorney for the Defense.

Defense asked for a short recess before beginning cross-examination, using a legal technicality for the purpose that got him five minutes.

He leaned over toward Susan Calvin. “Is it possible, Dr. Calvin, that Professor Ninheimer is telling the truth and that Easy was motivated by the First Law?”

Calvin pressed her lips together, then said, “No. It
isn’t
possible. The last part of Ninheimer’s testimony is deliberate perjury. Easy is not designed to be able to judge matters at the stage of abstraction represented by an advanced textbook on sociology. It would never be able to tell that certain groups of humans would be harmed by a phrase in such a book. Its mind is simply not built for that.”

“I suppose, though, that we can’t prove this to a layman,” said Defense pessimistically.

“No,” Admitted Calvin. “The proof would be highly complex. Our way out is still what it was. We must prove Ninheimer is lying, and nothing he has said need change our plan of attack.”

“Very well, Dr. Calvin,” said Defense, “I must accept your word in this. We’ll go on as planned.”

In the courtroom, the judge’s gavel rose and fell and Dr. Ninheimer took the stand once more. He smiled a little as one who feels his position to be impregnable and rather enjoys the prospect of countering a useless attack.

Defense approached warily and began softly. “Dr. Ninheimer, do you mean to say that you were completely unaware of these alleged changes in your manuscript until such time as Dr. Speidell called you on the sixteenth of June?”

“That is correct, sir.”

“Did you never look at the galleys after Robot EZ-27 had proofread them?”

“At first I did, but it seemed to me a useless task. I relied on the claims of U. S. Robots. The absurd – uh – changes were made only in the last quarter of the book after the robot, I presume, had learned enough about sociology –”

“Never mind your presumptions!” said Defense. “I understood your colleague, Dr. Baker, saw the later galleys on at least one occasion. Do you remember testifying to that effect?”

“Yes, sir. As I said, he told me about seeing one page, and even there, the robot had changed a word.”

Again Defense broke in. “Don’t you find it strange, sir, that after over a year of implacable hostility to the robot, after having voted against it in the first place and having refused to put it to any use whatever, you suddenly decided to put your book, your
magnum opus,
into its hands?”

“I don’t find that strange. I simply decided that I might as well use the machine.”

“And you were so confident of Robot EZ-27 – all of a sudden – that you didn’t even bother to check your galleys?”

“I told you I was – uh – persuaded by U. S. Robots’ propaganda.”

“So persuaded that when your colleague, Dr. Baker, attempted to check on the robot, you berated him soundly?”

“I didn’t berate him. I merely did not wish to have him – uh – waste his time. At least, I thought then it was a waste of time. I did not see the significance of that change in a word at the –”

Defense said with heavy sarcasm, “I have no doubt you were instructed to bring up that point in order that the word-change be entered in the record –” He altered his line to forestall objection and said, “The point is that you were extremely angry with Dr. Baker.”

“No, sir. Not angry.”

“You didn’t give him a copy of your book when you received it.”

“Simple forgetfulness. I didn’t give the library its copy, either.”

Ninheimer smiled cautiously. “Professors are notoriously absentminded.”

Defense said, “Do you find it strange that, after more than a year of perfect work, Robot EZ-27 should go wrong on your book? On a book, that is, which was written by you, who was, of all people, the most implacably hostile to the robot?”

“My book was the only sizable work dealing with mankind that it had to face. The Three Laws of Robotics took hold then.”

“Several times, Dr. Ninheimer,” said Defense, “you have tried to sound like an expert on robotics. Apparently you suddenly grew interested in robotics and took out books on the subject from the library. You testified to that effect, did you not?”

“One book, sir. That was the result of what seems to me to have been – uh – natural curiosity.”

“And it enabled you to explain why the robot should, as you allege, have distorted your book?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Very convenient. But are you sure your interest in robotics was not intended to enable you to manipulate the robot for your own purposes?”

Ninheimer flushed. “Certainly not, sir!” Defense’s voice rose. “In fact, are you sure the alleged altered passages were not as you had them in the first place?”

The sociologist half-rose. “That’s – uh – uh – ridiculous! I have the galleys –”

He had difficulty speaking and Prosecution rose to insert smoothly, “With your permission, Your Honor, I intend to introduce as evidence the set of galleys given by Dr. Ninheimer to Robot EZ-27 and the set of galleys mailed by Robot EZ-27 to the publishers. I will do so now if my esteemed colleague so desires, and will be willing to allow a recess in order that the two sets of galleys may be compared.”

Defense waved his hand impatiently. “That is not necessary. My honored opponent can introduce those galleys whenever he chooses. I’m sure they will show whatever discrepancies are claimed by the plaintiff to exist. What I would like to know of the witness, however, is whether he also has in his possession
Dr. Baker’s
galleys.”

“Dr. Baker’s galleys?” Ninheimer frowned. He was not yet quite master of himself.

“Yes, Professor! I mean Dr. Baker’s galleys. You testified to the effect that Dr. Baker had received a separate copy of the galleys. I will have the clerk read your testimony if you are suddenly a selective type of amnesiac. Or is it just that professors are, as you say, notoriously absent-minded?”

Ninheimer said, “I remember Dr. Baker’s galleys. They weren’t necessary once the job was placed in the care of the proofreading machine –”

“So you burned them?”

“No. I put them in the waste basket.”

“Burned them, dumped them – what’s the difference? The point is you got rid of them.”

“There’s nothing wrong –” began Ninheimer weakly.

“Nothing wrong?” thundered Defense. “Nothing wrong except that there is now no way we can check to see if, on certain crucial galley sheets, you might not have substituted a harmless blank one from Dr. Baker’s copy for a sheet in your own copy which you had deliberately mangled in such a way as to force the robot to –”

Prosecution shouted a furious objection. Justice Shane leaned forward, his round face doing its best to assume an expression of anger equivalent to the intensity of the emotion felt by the man.

The judge said, “Do you have any evidence, Counselor, for the extraordinary statement you have just made?”

Defense said quietly, “No direct evidence, Your Honor. But I would like to point out that, viewed properly, the sudden conversion of the plaintiff from anti-roboticism, his sudden interest in robotics, his refusal to check the galleys or to allow anyone else to check them, his careful neglect to allow anyone to see the book immediately after publication, all very clearly point –”

“Counselor,” interrupted the judge impatiently, “this is not the place for esoteric deductions. The plaintiff is not on trial. Neither are you prosecuting him. I forbid this line of attack and I can only point out that the desperation that must have induced you to do this cannot help but weaken your case. If you have legitimate questions to ask, Counselor, you may continue with your cross-examination. But I warn you against another such exhibition in this courtroom.”

“I have no further questions, Your Honor.”

Robertson whispered heatedly as counsel for the Defense returned to his table, “What good did that do, for God’s sake? The judge is dead-set against you now.”

Defense replied calmly, “But Ninheimer is good and rattled. And we’ve set him up for tomorrow’s move. He’ll be ripe.”

Susan Calvin nodded gravely.

The rest of Prosecution’s case was mild in comparison. Dr. Baker was called and bore out most of Ninheimer’s testimony. Drs. Speidell and Ipatiev were called, and they expounded most movingly on their shock and dismay at certain quoted passages in Dr. Ninheimer’s book. Both gave their professional opinion that Dr. Ninheimer’s professional reputation had been seriously impaired.

The galleys were introduced in evidence, as were copies of the finished book.

Defense cross-examined no more that day. Prosecution rested and the trial was recessed till the next morning.

Defense made his first motion at the beginning of the proceedings on the second day. He requested that Robot EZ-27 be admitted as a spectator to the proceedings.

Prosecution objected at once and Justice Shane called both to the bench.

Prosecution said hotly, “This is obviously illegal. A robot may not be in any edifice used by the general public.”

“This courtroom,” pointed out Defense, “is closed to all but those having an immediate connection with the case.”

“A large machine of
known
erratic behavior would disturb my clients and my witnesses by its very presence! It would make hash out of the proceedings.”

The judge seemed inclined to agree. He turned to Defense and said rather unsympathetically, “What are the reasons for your request?”

Defense said, “It will be our contention that Robot EZ-27 could not possibly, by the nature of its construction, have behaved as it has been described as behaving. It will be necessary to present a few demonstrations.”

Prosecution said, “I don’t see the point, Your Honor. Demonstrations conducted by men employed at U. S. Robots are worth little as evidence when U. S. Robots is the defendant.”

“Your Honor,” said Defense, “the validity of any evidence is for you to decide, not for the Prosecuting Attorney. At least, that is my understanding.”

Justice Shane, his prerogatives encroached upon, said, “Your understanding is correct. Nevertheless, the presence of a robot here does raise important legal questions.”

“Surely, Your Honor, nothing that should be allowed to override the requirements of justice. If the robot is not present, we are prevented from presenting our only defense.”

The judge considered. “There would be the question of transporting the robot here.”

“That is a problem with which U. S. Robots has frequently been faced. We have a truck parked outside the courtroom, constructed according to the laws governing the transportation of robots. Robot EZ-27 is in a packing case inside with two men guarding it. The doors to the truck are properly secured and all other necessary precautions have been taken.”

“You seem certain,” said Justice Shane, in renewed ill-temper, “that judgment on this point will be in your favor.”

“Not at all, Your Honor. If it is not, we simply turn the truck about. I have made no presumptions concerning your decision.”

The judge nodded. “The request on the part of the Defense is granted.”

The crate was carried in on a large dolly and the two men who handled it opened it. The courtroom was immersed in a dead silence.

Susan Calvin waited as the thick slabs of celluform went down, then held out one hand. “Come, Easy.”

The robot looked in her direction and held out its large metal arm. It towered over her by two feet but followed meekly, like a child in the clasp of its mother. Someone giggled nervously and choked it off at a hard glare from Dr. Calvin.

Easy seated itself carefully in a large chair brought by the bailiff, which creaked but held.

Defense said, “When it becomes necessary, Your Honor, we will prove that this is actually Robot EZ-27, the specific robot in the employ of Northeastern University during the period of time with which we are concerned.”

“Good,” His Honor said. “That will be necessary. I, for one, have no idea how you can tell one robot from another.”

“And now,” said Defense, “I would like to call my first witness to the stand. Professor Simon Ninheimer, please.”

The clerk hesitated, looked at the judge. Justice Shane asked, with visible surprise, “You are calling the
plaintiff
as your witness?”

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“I hope that you’re aware that as long as he’s your witness, you will be allowed none of the latitude you might exercise if you were cross-examining an opposing witness.”

Defense said smoothly, “My only purpose in all this is to arrive at the truth. It will not be necessary to do more than ask a few polite questions.”

“Well,” said the judge dubiously, “you’re the one handling the case. Call the witness.”