argument is obviously an ex parte one, he should, at least, have left this matter out of sight; for had any one been known to see Marie, say on Monday, or on Tuesday, the interval in question would have been much reduced, and, by his own ratiocination, the probability much diminished of the corpse being that of the grisette.  It is, nevertheless, amusing to observe that L’Etoile insists upon its point in the full belief of its furthering its general argument.

“Reperuse now that portion of this argument which has reference to the identification of the corpse by Beauvais.  In regard to the hair upon the arm, L’Etoile has been obviously disingenuous.  M. Beauvais, not being an idiot, could never have urged, in identification of the corpse, simply hair upon its arm.  No arm is without hair.  The generality of the expression of L’Etoile is a mere perversion of the witness’ phraseology.  He must have spoken of some peculiarity in this hair.  It must have been a peculiarity of color, of quantity, of length, or of situation.

" ‘Her foot,’ says the journal, ’was small — so are thousands of feet.  Her garter is no proof whatever — nor is her shoe — for shoes and garters are sold in packages.  The same may be said of the flowers in her hat.  One thing upon which M. Beauvais strongly insists is, that the clasp on the garter found, had been set back to take it in.  This amounts to nothing; for most women find it proper to take a pair of garters home and fit them to the size of the limbs they are to encircle, rather than to try them in the store where they purchase.’  Here it is difficult to suppose the reasoner in earnest.  Had M. Beauvais, in his search for the body of Marie, discovered a corpse corresponding in general size and appearance to the missing girl, he would have been warranted (without reference to the question of habiliment at all) in forming an opinion that his search had been successful.  If, in addition to the point of general size and contour, he had found upon the arm a peculiar hairy appearance which he had observed upon the living Marie, his opinion might have been justly strengthened; and the increase of positiveness might well have been in the ratio of the peculiarity, or unusualness, of the hairy mark.  If, the feet of Marie being small, those of the corpse were also small, the increase of probability that the body was that of Marie would not be an increase in a ratio merely arithmetical, but in one highly geometrical, or accumulative.  Add to all this shoes such as she had been known to wear upon the day of her disappearance, and, although these shoes may be ‘sold in packages,’ you so far augment the probability as to verge upon the certain.  What, of itself, would be no evidence of identity, becomes through its corroborative position, proof most sure.  Give us, then, flowers in the hat corresponding to those worn by the missing girl, and we seek for nothing farther.  If only one flower, we seek for nothing farther — what then if two