TOPICS OF THE DAY

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1665, 27 January 1904, Page 17

TOPICS OF THE DAY

(From Our Special Correspondent.) A TELL-TALE FIN UKR-BRUNT, LONDON, December 4. . A finger-print on' a window-frame — it doesn’t seem very incriminating evidence at first glance, yet it- lias proved sufficient to send two men to gqoll for twelve months' hard Labour. This fingerprint system of - identification, which, is now in use in the. colonies as wefll as in England, was vindicated in stinking fashion, at tho Marlborough Police Court this woek. Four prisoners were charged on suspicion of stealing £SOOO worth of jewellery from, the auction gaiUernes of Messrs Knight. Frank and Rutley, iAConduifc two of ,the,men no evidence was offered, anJd fchov wore accordingly discharged; Nor

was .there a case upon which to commit the other two for trial on the charge of burglary. The stolen jewcplery had completely disappeared; even the Magistrate was'moved to express his admiration of the ingenpity with which the jewels had been spirited away. Tho accused might have got off altogether but for that unlucky finger-print. It was discovered; by the detectives on a win-dow-pane in the roof through which an entry to the auction-gal!lories had been effected. There woro four marks on the glass. Three of them were blurred, but the fourth was an impression oi the middle finger of the left hand. This was identified from the police records as the print of the middle finger of Eliott, who had boon convicted oil a previous occasion , - when;the print of his fingers was taken. The pane of glass wus produced in Court, and'the Magistrate had before him the whole process or ident fication on which the prosecution relied, ibis was the only proof that Elliott had had anything to do with the burglary, and thoughtt convinced the Magistrate that Elliott had been on the roof on the night of the burglary, st.ii; it was not in itself sufficient evidence that lie stole the jewels. It was deeded, however, to deal with both ELiott and Smith under the Prevention of Crimes Act. as persons who had. been convicted within seven years previously, and' were believed to be gaining a dishonest living. Evidence on. this charge was forthcoming, and the Magistrate sentenced both men to twelve mouths’ imprisonment. This is only one of many eases in which finger-prints have fed -to the identification of criminals and the detection of crime. This year alone Scotland Yard has been able to make over throe thousand identifications by this process. Up till 1901 the system was used in conjunction with the Belli 1 /, ion system of measurements, but the latter has now been dropped by the Engl sb authorities, anti the finger-print system is used exclusively. Deteetivo-Sergcaut Collins,'who identified Elliott’s impression on the window-pane, is. probably the greatest expert in the world in. the use of the process. In Ifs tune he has dealt with something like half a million finger-, prints. No mistake in identification has ever been known to occur, because no two persons have ever been found' to possess the same marking oil their fingers. LADIES AND.THE LAW.

Portia pleading in the law courts ia doubtless a picturesque figure, but the average man or woman will feel inclined to agree that under present conditions the lady barrister is impossible. So think the Benchers of Gray’s Inn,' and a bevy of Judges, presided over by the Lord' Chance!lor, this week endorsed that opinion. Miss Bertha Gave, an enterprising young with a taste for the law applied to be entered on the books Oif Gray’s Inn, and the Benchers had the 'temerity to refuse the application. So the lady hied her to 'the Judges, and besought their ruling. She has not yet gone up for any of tho law exams., not even for matriculation : but she was quite prepared, she told the Judges, to eat tbo dinners and wear the wig and gown!. This touching admission seemed to amuse their -lairds)ups considerably, but it failed to win their acquiescence. The proceedings, which were private, lasted only a few minutes. Miss Cave briefly stated her case, urging the example set by other countries such as Austria, Switzerland and Holland, and arguing that there was no legal obstacle in the, way of her becoming a student. Then their lordships briefly conferred together, and the Lord* Chancellor informed the aspirant, with an expression of regret, that they could not interfere with the discretion of Gray’s Inn. There was no precedent-, and they saw no reason to create one. There will, therefore, bo no ady barristers just yet. Miss Cave did not seem at all dismayed by the decision, althougli-she expressed her indignation to the reporters. She was particularly severe on the Benchera. “Extremely mean,’’ was her comment on their action. “They get only soup, meat, and fruit tarts, so I shan’t miss much,” she added, in contemptuous allusion to the “dinners.” “If there is any loophole,” she continued, resolutely, “I shall try to get in. lam now going to try to get on the rolls as asoLicitor.” Meantime, she will resume her studies, begun under a barrister friend, preparatory to going up for the LL.B. degree.

Tlie press comments .on the incident are not encouraging to the champion, of the fair sex. The “St. James’s Gazette” in particular heaves a great sigh of relief. “Consternation (it says) would have been let- Loose in the Inns of Cop fit had the decision.' been otherwise. What chance would any man.have had in competition with the persuasive sex in a profession where persuasion spells success Y The only way to bring things level again, if ladies bbcame barristers, would be to impanel them in juries also; then the male counsel might once more have a chance of occasionally winning a verdict for his client. And when the fair practitioners attained, as of course they quickily would, to seats on tho judicial bench,- the pungent, comments on tho proceeds of ‘my learned sister’ would beat anything that.now falls from the lips of those who are so ‘deeply conscious a? each other’s shortcomings.' Tlie fuilh bottomed wigs would often, bo on the preen/’ * " *

THE DREYFUS CASE. The re-opening of the Dreyfus case, which has been decided upon by' tbo' Keeper of the Seals after cue o discovery that wiiaic are eup!iem:®tically termed “sophisticated documents’ were communicated; to the Rennes, ■com t-inar-tiail, and that other documents tending to prove Dreyfus’s innocence- were withheld, will not bo popular in France.’ For several years the long and pr.iuiinil controversy d v:d d f m lies and fr ends, but of late'it seemed to bo fading out ci men’s memories. New. it seems, the whole business is to be gone tiirougn again, old animosities will be revived, and.old sores re-opened. General Andre, tho Minister of War ; however, has rightly decided that the cause of truth and justice must bo pursued at any cost, and a consultative commission has been appointed to inquire into the question of revision. If revision be decided upon, the matter will go before a Cabinet Council!, the Minister of Justice remaining responsible for submitting the case to the Court of Cassation. The Judges or the Criminal Chamber of that court would then deliberate cn a report of the case drawn up by one of their counsellors, and after examination of aV. documents and hearing cf evidence - would give a decision. In this clec.sion, which would declare that there was reason for revision, a court-martial would be designated for the whole rehearing ct the Dreyfus case. M. Dreyfus .and Ins backers do not. however, want another courtmartial. They desire a purely judicial decision on the whole oa.se, and expect to see the Court of Cassation quash the Rennes verdict once and for all. Dreyfus himself, in his application for revision last April tc the War Minister, based it on two-facts:—First, on tlve use made of a forged document, namely, 'the bordereau annotated bv tho German Enu peror. Secondly, cn tho mendac-ous and fraudulent testimony of tho witness Czernuski before the court-martial of 1899. The Rennes court-mart;ail in English eyes was a judicial .farce pure and simple, settling nothing, and! the verdict or a majority against Dreyfus, followed by the pardoning of the' prisoner, suggested to many of us that the trial was arranged so as to cone (ha to the army , placate the Dreyfusarcis, anjl bring the affair to an end. These suspicions appear to have been justified. A COSTLY SCHEME. A scheme which competes to a..great extent with the Government scheme for tho re-organisation of the docks cf London. which reached the committee stage in the Commons last session, and was then “hung up,” is now in hand, and next session Pai/iament is to be asked to sanction a project the object of which is practical l v to convert forty miles of the navigable portion of the Thames into one huge dock. For this purpose a Board of Commissioners is seeking to be incorporated and to be invested wren power to construct- across the Thames, between Gravesend on the one shore and Chatlwoll on the other, a dam, with locks, weirs and sluices, and other works, and thus to form what is described as “the harbour of the Thames,” comprising the onti-ro river between Gravesend and Teddington Weir. The coinmissLoniera desire to purchase on lease all existing wharves and buildings abutting on the river between Gravesend ant Toddington, to eotrol the abstraction of water from the river for waterworks, manufacturing, and other purposes, to regulate the ow of the river and all its tribfiitaries within the “harbour,” to use the overflow waters for the purpose of generating electricity, to erect turbines, power-houses and other works in conjunction ‘therewith, and to sell the electric energy thus produced. For the above purposes the promoters require to borrow on the security of their prospective revenue tlie sum of £5,000,000, in order to enable them to carry tho rcaem© into effect. Until tlie full details of the scheme are available criticism would be out of place, but even from tho bat!d outline we are permitted to see at present, the project has much to comment! it from the point of view of those who are interested in Mapping. At present the navigation of the Thames by vessels of any .considerable size it attended with some danger and many delays owing to tidal fluctuations, thousands of pounds being lost annually through vessels being detained in the lower reaches of the river owing to insufficiency of water. But £5,000,000 is an altogether inadequate sum wherewith to erect the necessary works and obtain ooutrol of tlie riverside front Gravesend to Teddington. With ten times that amount it might be possible to buy and lease the best- abutting lani'Ts and premise®.