Waterbury Democrat., 1900-11-19
CHAPTER II.
THE WAGER.

What I mean to assert" said Ralph Sturgis, with quiet conviction, lis that every crime is it's own historian; that all it's ninutest details are written in circumstantiai evidence as completely as an eyewitness could see them-aye, more fully and more truly than they could be described by the criminal him. self.'
 The reporter was man of about 30, whose regular features bore the un- mistakable stamp of intelligence and refinement. In repose, they wore an habitual expression of introspective concentration, which might have led n careless observer to class Ralph Stur- gis in the category of aimless dream CTS. But single flash of the piercing gray eyes generally sufficed to dispel any such impressions; and told of keen perception and underlying power. The mouth was firm and kind; the bearing that of a gentleman and man of cdu- cation.
 ''But," objected the host, "you surely do not mean to express belief in the infallibility of circumstantial evil dence?"
 "Why not?'
 'Because you must. know as well as anyone how misleading uncorroborated circumstantial evidence is. I do not for get what remarkable results you have often accomplished for the Daily Tem- pest in detecting and following up clews to which the official detectives were blind. But, frankly, were not your conclusions usually the result of lucky guesses, which would have re- mained comparatively useless as evil dence had they not been subsequently proved correct by direct testimony"
 'Let me reply to your question by an- other, Sprague," answered Sturgis. "When you draw a check, does the pay ing teller at the bank require the tes- timony of witnesses to your signature before admitting it's genuineness ?" No; of course not"
 Precisely. He probably knows the signature of Harvey M. Sprague, the depositor, batter than he does the face of Sprague, the artist. And yet l the evidence here is purely circum- stantial. I know of at least one re- cent instance in which the officials of New York bank placed their inn 1 plicit reliance upon circumstantial evidence of this sort, in spite of the direct testimony of the depositor, i who was willing to acknowledge the genuineness of a check to which his [ name had been forged"
 q suppose you refer to the Forsyth case," said Sprague; "but you must remember that Col. Forsyth was actuated by the desire to shield the forger, who was his own scapegrace son."
 "That is just the point" replied Sturgis; another witness will be biased by his interests or prejudices, blinded by jealousy, love or hatred, or handicapped bv oyerzealousness, stupidity, lack of memory, or what | not. Circumstantial evidence is al- ways impartial, truthful, absolute. | When the geologist reads the history of the earth, as it is written in its crust; when a Kepler or Newton formulates the immutable laws of the universe, as they Ire recorded in the motions of the heavenly bodies, they draw their conclusions from evidence which is entirely circumstantial
 ''Yes; but you forget that science has often been mistaken in it's con clusions," interrupted Sprague, 'so that it has constantly been necessary to alter theories to fit newly acquired l or better understood facts" Granted" rejoined Sturgis, ."but that is because the interpreters of the evidence are fallible; not because the evidence itself is incomplete. The same cause will always produce the same effect; the same chain of events will invariably terminate in one, and thu same catastrophe. The apparent deviations from this law are due to unrecognized differences in the pro- ducing causes, to additional or miss ing links in the chain of evidence. Therefore hold that criminal, however clever he may be, leaves be- hind him complete trace of his every act. from which bis crime may be re-