The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 5, 1864.

only two or three others of the sane remarkable
description, wu found in the carriage, left by Mr.
Bamos's murderer. And since the German Soddy
can neither explain these damning facts nor tell
us, with all their research, where Mvid.za wee on
the night of the murder, nor where the clothes
are which he wore at the time, they misspend their
time in setting up irrelevant assertions, and in sug-
gesting possibilities which even if true would
leave untouched the main circumstances on which
the conviction turned.

The truth is that such attempts as these only
bring into stronger relief the character of the cir-
cumstantial evidence on which the jury
proceeded. It is seen that it is not
a chain which breaks at its weakest
point, but a solid pyramid of facts, rising
to an apex of conviction, from which a single im-
perfect stone may be detached without in any way
weakening the coherence and solidity of the rest.
It is true that there still remains, as the German
Society urges, a certain element of "mystery."
But it is the mystery which belongs to all things
human, and which is unveiled only to the one All-
seeing Eye. Even in the clearest cases of direct
evidence there still remains an element of uncer-
tainty. The witness who has actually seen a
murder done has ere now been found to be mis-
taken in identity. Often another witness, of un-
deniable veracity, has sworn to something wholly
incompatible with the deed. The senses them-
selves deceive us sometimes, when we think we can
rely most firmly on them. But in the manage-
ment of our affairs, even when they in-
volve the terrible issues of life and death,
we cannot proceed upon the measurement
of such nice possibilities. We can but use our
judgment as it has been given us, leaving to
the Maker of all to correct by His infinite wisdom
the errors and failings which we make in the exer-
cise of our finite powers. But in circumstantial
evidence, such as we are now reviewing, there is a
degree of assurance such as is not to be always
found in the direct evidence on which we unhesi-
tatingly act.'• We are content with but one wit-
ness in direct evidence, and even the Jewish and
canon laws require no more than two. But in
circumstantial evidence there is the independent
concurrence of many witnesses to the proof of
several independent facts, from the combination
of which our reason draws the inference of guilt.
So, in cases that have excited less public atten-
tion, juries every day convict for murder, and all
wise men approve their verdict, on evidence of this
circumstantial character. Proof of the presence of
the accused in the neighbourhood, of articles be-
longing to him being found on the scene, of his
possession of property of the victim, of his being
unable to account for his movements, and of his
givingtfalse statements on material facts, make up
a body of evidence far more trustworthy than that
of any one witness who might swear to having
seen the deed. It is unfortunate, moat of all for
.Muutai himself, that his countrymen do not
acknowledge this truth. But the public will hold
to it, for the safeguards of society are gone if.we
refuse to administer justice where no rational
doubt exists of the author of a crime, the snore
horrible iu that its actual perpetration was unseen
by mortal eye.