Legal Anthropometry. So in this court Tucker had a fair field, and Purchas no favor. "T. Purchas denies ever authorizing Sir C. Gardiner to buy any warming-pan or fowling-piece for him, etc.," is the court record of the defense. The charges are somewhat mixed in their nature, and the verdict of the six judges, "councillors" or "assistants," is therefore lumped. It runs: "Verdict for
33
the plaintiff, 2£. 12s. 6d. for the two articles, s. 6d., costs of court." The designation of the offense by the plaintiff, and the judgment of the court, are subjects for the scrutiny of the more tech nical intellects of the legal profession of to day — who will doubtless take into view, also, the kind of " goods " that Sir Chris topher palmed off upon the rural fisherman, and the rights of the innocent holder.
LEGAL ANTI MR. Edmund R. Spearman contributes to the " London Law Journal," the following interesting paper, which will be read with interest by the legal profession in America. "It is now just five years since my trans lation of M. Alphonse Bertillon's descrip tion of his system of legal or police an thropometry was published in your columns. That description was originally compiled in the form of an address for the meeting of the International Penitentiary Congress at Rome in 1885, and my translation was pre pared at the request of the French Govern ment, which had, and has, the greatest interest in calling the attention of other gov ernments to the Bertillon system, and to endeavor to obtain its adoption by its neighbors. Unfortunately the original impression of my translation, printed for private administrative use by the French Government, was issued without any revi sion on my part, and, although of course handsome in appearance, had such errors of typography as to prejudice, at first sight, the English official world; alas, only too ready for an excuse for delay or do noth ingness in this as in other matters. To somewhat repair this initial disaster in a crusade which I had taken in heart, I had recourse to the hospitality of your columns, and afterwards I issued the translation in pamphlet form, but not in such attractive
shape as might have been the French pamphlet, if properly supervised. How ever, the publication in the " Law Journal" of August 31, September 7, and September 14, 1889, was a landmark in the history of a great reform in criminal procedure. Previ ously the only attention paid in England to M. Bertillon's wonderful innovation were various communications of my own to the press and some questions in Parliament by friends of mine, rising at my special request. I fear these earlier attempts were little ap preciated either by the general public or even by the class more specially interested in the administration of the law. My ap peals to the Home Office and to Scotland Yard met with careless incredulity and indifference. With the publication of M. Bertillon's own succinct description all in telligent and reasonable persons at once awakened to the importance of the anthro pometric idea. The question was widely debated, and my subsequent contributions to the periodical literature met with a gen eral chorus of sympathy. When, in the early years of the French Anthropometric Bureau, I became acquainted with M. Ber tillon and his system, and, with my long experience of the terrible defects of our English administration in this matter of criminal identification, I resolved on de voting my energies to having anthro pometry introduced into England, not the
