Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-11-21

which I shall arrive, or have arrived, at
the solution Of this mystery is in the direct
ratio Of Its apparent insolubility in the eyes
of the police"
/ stared at the speaker in mute astonish-
ment.
Il am now awaiting" continued he look
Ing toward the door of our apartment-'I
am now awaiting person who, although
perhaps not the perpetrator Of these butch
cries, must have been in some measure i'm
pltcated In their preparation. OF the worst
portion of the crimes committed, 1t Is prob
able that he is innocent. I hope that I am
right In this superstition; for upon it build
my expectation of reading the entire riddle.
look for the man herein this room
every moment 1t is true that he may not
arrive; but the probability is that he will.
Should he come, 1t will be necessary to de-
tain him. Here are pistols; and we both
know. Now to use them when occasion de-
mands their use"
l took the pistols, scarcely knowing what
did or believing what l heard, while Du-
pin went on, very much as if in a soliloquy.
L have already spoken of his abstract man
ner at such times His discourse was ad-
dressed to myself; but his voice, although
by no means loud, had that information
which Is commonly employed in speaking to
some one at a great distance. His eyes.
vacant in expression, regarded only the
wall.
said, "by the party upon the stairs were
not the voices of the women themselves was
fully proved by the evidence. This relieves
US of all doubt upon the question whether
the old lady could have first destroyed the
daughter and afterward have committed
suicide. 1 speak of this point chiefly for
the sake of method; for the strength of
Madame L'ESpanaye would have been ut
terly unequal to the task of thrusting her
daughters corpse up the chimney as 1t was
found; and the nature of the wounds upon
her own person entirely preclude the idea
of self-destruction Murder, then, has been
committed by some third party; and the
voices of this third party were those heard
in contention. Let me now advert not to
the whole testimony respecting these voices,
but to what was peculiar In that testimony.
lid you observe anything peculiar about
IT,"
I remarked that while all the witnesses
agreed in supposng the gruff voice to be
that Of a Frenchman, there was much dis
agreement in regard to the shrill, or, as one
individual termed it, the harsh voice.
That was the evidence ITSELF" said Du-
pin, but it was not the popularity of the
evidence. You have observed nothing dis
tinctive Yet there was something to be
observed. The witnesses, as you remark,
agreed about Athe gruff volce-they were
here unanimous. But in regard to the shrill
| voice, the popularity is not that they dis
agreed, but that while an Italian, an Eng
ltshman, Spaniard. Hollander and a
, Frenchman attempted to describe it, each
one spoke of 1t as that of a foreigner.
Each Is sure that it was not the voice of
one Of his own countrymen. Each likens
1t not to the voice of an individual of any
nation of whose language he is conversant,
but the converse The Frenchman sup
poses it the voice of Spaniard, and might
have distinguished some words had be been
acquainted with the Spanish The Dutch
man maintains it to have been that of a
Frenchman, but we find 1t stated that not
understanding French. this witness was ex-
amined through an interpreter The Eng
lishman thinks it the voice Of German,
and does not understand German The