but　not　till　then；　should　we　lose　sight　of　the　corpse。
  〃And　now　what　are　we　to　make　of　the　argument；　that　the　body　found
  could　not　be　that　of　Marie　Rog阾；　because；　three　days　only　having
  elapsed；　this　body　was　found　floating？　If　drowned；　being　a　woman；　she
  might　never　have　sunk；　or　having　sunk；　might　have　reappeared　in
  twenty…four　hours；　or　less。　But　no　one　supposes　her　to　have　been
  drowned；　and；　dying　before　being　thrown　into　the　river；　she　might
  have　been　found　floating　at　any　period　afterwards　whatever。
  〃　'But；'　says　L'Etoile；　'if　the　body　had　been　kept　in　its　mangled
  state　on　shore　until　Tuesday　night；　some　trace　would　be　found　on
  shore　of　the　murderers。'　Here　it　is　at　first　difficult　to　perceive
  the　intention　of　the　reasoner。　He　means　to　anticipate　what　he
  imagines　would　be　an　objection　to　his　theory　…　viz：　that　the　body　was
  kept　on　shore　two　days；　suffering　rapid　decomposition　…　morerapid
  than　if　immersed　in　water。　He　supposes　that；　had　this　been　the　case；
  it　might　have　appeared　at　the　surface　on　the　Wednesday；　and　thinks
  that　only　under　such　circumstances　it　could　so　have　appeared。　He　is
  accordingly　in　haste　to　show　that　it　was　not　kept　on　shore；　for；　if
  so；　'some　trace　would　be　found　on　shore　of　the　murderers。'　I　presume
  you　smile　at　the　sequitur。　You　cannot　be　made　to　see　how　the　mere
  duration　of　the　corpse　on　the　shore　could　operate　to　multiply　traces
  of　the　assassins。　Nor　can　I。
  〃　'And　furthermore　it　is　exceedingly　improbable；'　continues　our
  journal；　'that　any　villains　who　had　committed　such　a　murder　as　is
  here　supposed；　would　have　thrown　the　body　in　without　weight　to　sink
  it；　when　such　a　precaution　could　have　so　easily　been　taken。'　Observe；
  here；　the　laughable　confusion　of　thought！　No　one　…　not　even　L'Etoile
  …　disputes　the　murder　committed　_on　the　body　found_。　The　marks　of
  violence　are　too　obvious。　It　is　our　reasoner's　object　merely　to　show
  that　this　body　is　not　Marie's。　He　wishes　to　prove　that　Marie　is　not
  assassinated　…　not　that　the　corpse　was　not。　Yet　his　observation
  proves　only　the　latter　point。　Here　is　a　corpse　without　weight
  attached。　Murderers；　casting　it　in；　would　not　have　failed　to　attach　a
  weight。　Therefore　it　was　not　thrown　in　by　murderers。　This　is　all
  which　is　proved；　if　any　thing　is。　The　question　of　identity　is　not
  even　approached；　and　L'Etoile　has　been　at　great　pains　merely　to
  gainsay　now　what　it　has　admitted　only　a　moment　before。　'We　are
  perfectly　convinced；'　it　says；　'that　the　body　found　was　that　of　a
  murdered　female。'
  〃Nor　is　this　the　sole　instance；　even　in　this　division　of　his　subject；
  where　our　reasoner　unwittingly　reasons　against　himself。　His　evident
  object；　I　have　already　said；　is　to　reduce；　us　much　as　possible；　the
  interval　between　Marie's　disappearance　and　the　finding　of　the　corpse。
  Yet　we　find　him　urging　the　point　that　no　person　saw　the　girl　from　the
  moment　of　her　leaving　her　mother's　house。　'We　have　no　evidence；'　he
  says；　'that　Marie　Rog阾　was　in　the　land　of　the　living　after　nine
  o'clock　on　Sunday；　June　the　twenty…second。'　As　his　argument　is
  obviously　an　ex　parte　one；　he　should；　at　least；　have　left　this　matter
  out　of　sight；　for　had　any　one　been　known　to　see　Marie；　say　on　Monday；
  or　on　Tuesday；　the　interval　in　question　would　have　been　much　reduced；
  and；　by　his　own　ratiocination；　the　probability　much　diminished　of　the
  corpse　being　that　of　the　grisette。　It　is；　nevertheless；　amusing　to
  observe　that　L'Etoile　insists　upon　its　point　in　the　full　belief　of
  its　furthering　its　general　argument。
  〃Reperuse　now　that　portion　of　this　argument　which　has　reference　to
  the　identification　of　the　corpse　by　Beauvais。　In　regard　to　the　hair
  upon　the　arm；　L'Etoile　has　been　obviously　disingenuous。　M。　Beauvais；
  not　being　an　idiot；　could　never　have　urged；　in　identification　of　the
  corpse；　simply　hair　upon　its　arm。　No　arm　is　without　hair。　The
  generality　of　the　expression　of　L'Etoile　is　a　mere　perversion　of　the
  witness'　phraseology。　He　must　have　spoken　of　some　peculiarity　in　this
  hair。　It　must　have　been　a　peculiarity　of　color；　of　quantity；　of
  length；　or　of　situation。
  〃　'Her　foot；'　says　the　journal；　'was　small　…　so　are　thousands　of
  feet。　Her　garter　is　no　proof　whatever　…　nor　is　her　shoe　…　for　shoes
  and　garters　are　sold　in　packages。　The　same　may　be　said　of　the　flowers
  in　her　hat。　One　thing　upon　which　M。　Beauvais　strongly　insists　is；
  that　the　clasp　on　the　garter　found；　had　been　set　back　to　take　it　in。
  This　amounts　to　nothing；　for　most　women　find　it　proper　to　take　a　pair
  of　garters　home　and　fit　them　to　the　size　of　the　limbs　they　are　to
  encircle；　rather　than　to　try　them　in　the　store　where　they　purchase。'
  Here　it　is　difficult　to　suppose　the　reasoner　in　earnest。　Had　M。
  Beauvais；　in　his　search　for　the　body　of　Marie；　discovered　a　corpse
  corresponding　in　general　size　and　appearance　to　the　missing　girl；　he
  would　have　been　warranted　（without　reference　to　the　question　of
  habiliment　at　all）　in　forming　an　opinion　that　his　search　had　been
  successful。　If；　in　addition　to　the　point　of　general　size　and　contour；
  he　had　found　upon　the　arm　a　peculiar　hairy　appearance　which　he　had
  observed　upon　the　living　Marie；　his　opinion　might　have　been　justly
  strengthened；　and　the　increase　of　positiveness　might　well　have　been
  in　the　ratio　of　the　peculiarity；　or　unusualness；　of　the　hairy　mark。
  If；　the　feet　of　Marie　being　small；　those　of　the　corpse　were　also
  small；　the　increase　of　probability　that　the　body　was　that　of　Marie
  would　not　be　an　increase　in　a　ratio　merely　arithmetical；　but　in　one
  highly　geometrical；　or　accumulative。　Add　to　all　this　shoes　such　as
  she　had　been　known　to　wear　upon　the　day　of　her　disappearance；　and；
  although　these　shoes　may　be　'sold　in　packages；'　you　so　far　augment
  the　probability　as　to　verge　upon　the　certain。　What；　of　itself；　would
  be　no　evidence　of　identity；　becomes　through　its　corroborative
  position；　proof　most　sure。　Give　us；　then；　flowers　in　the　hat
  corresponding　to　those　worn　by　the　missing　girl；　and　we　seek　for
  nothing　farther。　If　only　one　flower；　we　seek　for　nothing　farther　…
  what　then　if　two　or　three；　or　more？　Each　successive　one　is　multiple
  evidence　…　proof　not　_added_　to　proof；　but　multiplied　by　hundreds　or
  thousands。　Let　us　now　discover；　upon　the　deceased；　garters　such　as
  the　living　used；　and　it　is　almost　folly　to　proceed。　But　these　garters
  are　found　to　be　tightened；　by　the　setting　back　of　a　clasp；　in　just
  such　a　manner　as　her　own　had　been　tightened　by　Marie；　shortly
  previous　to　her　leaving　home。　It　is　now　madness　or　hypocrisy　to
  doubt。　What　L'Etoile　says　in　respect　to　this　abbreviation　of　the
  garter's　being　an　usual　occurrence；　shows　nothing　beyond　its　own
  pertinacity　in　error。　The　elastic　nature　of　the　clasp…garter　is
  self…demonstration　of　the　unusualness　of　the　abbreviation。　What　is
  made　to　adjust　itself；　must　of　necessity　require　foreign　adjustment
  but　rarely。　It　must　have　been　by　an　accident；　in　its　strictest　sense；
  that　these　garters　of　Marie　needed　the　tightening　described。　They
  alone　would　have　amply　established　her　identity。　But　it　is　not　that
  the　corpse　was　found　to　have　the　garters　of　the　missing　girl；　or
  found　to　have　her　shoes；　or　her　bonnet；　or　the　flowers　of　her　bonnet；
  or　her　feet；　or　a　peculiar　mark　upon　the　arm；　or　her　general　size　and
  appearance　…　it　is　that　the　corpse　had　each；　and　_all　collectively_。
  Could　it　be　proved　that　the　editor　of　L'Etoile　_really_　entertained　a
  doubt；　under　the　circumstances；　there　would　be　no　need；　in　his　case；
  of　a　commission　de　lunatico　inquirendo。　He　has　thought　it　sagacious
  to　echo　the　small　talk　of　the　lawyers；　who；　for　the　most　part；
  content　themselves　with　echoing　the　rectangular　precepts　of　the
  courts。　I　would　here　observe　that　very　much　of　what　is　rejected　as
  evidence　by　a　court；　is　the　best　of　evidence　to　the　intellect。　For
  the　court；　guiding　itself　by　the　general　principles　of　evidence　…　the
  recognized　and　_booked_　principles　…　is　averse　from　swerving　at
  particular　instances。　And　this　steadfast　adherence　to　principle；　with
  rigorous　disregard　of　the　conflicting　exception；　is　a　sure　mode　of
  attaining　the　maximum　of　attainable　truth；　in　any　long　sequence　of
  time。　The　practice；　in　mass；　is　therefore　philosophical；　but　it　is
  not　the　less　certain　that　it　engenders　vast　individual　error。　｛*16｝
  〃In　respect　to　the　insinuations　levelled　at　Beauvais；　you　will　be
  willing　to　dismiss　them　in　a　breath。　You　have　already　fathomed　the
  true　character　of　this　good　gentleman。　He　is　a　busy…body；　with　much
  of　romance　and　little　of　wit。　Any　one　so　constituted　will　readily　so
  conduct　himself；　upon　occasion　of　real　excitement；　as　to　render
  himself　liable　to　suspicion　on　the　part　of　the　over　acute；　or　the
  ill…　disposed。　M。　Beauvais　（as　it　appears　from　your　notes）　had　some
  personal　interviews　with　the　editor　of　L'Etoile；　and　offended　him　by
  venturing　an　opinion　that　the　corpse；　notwithstanding　the　theory　of
  the　editor；　was；　in　sober　fact；　that　of　Marie。　'He　persists；'　says
  the　paper；　'in　asserting　the　corpse　to　be　that　of　Marie；　but　cannot
  give　a　circumstance；　in　addition　to　those　which　we　have　commented
  upon；　to　make　others　b