whattheniftwoorthree，ormore？Eachsuccessiveoneismultipleevidence-proofnot_added_toproof，butmultipliedbyhundredsorthousands。Letusnowdiscover，uponthedeceased，garterssuchasthelivingused，anditisalmostfollytoproceed。Butthesegartersarefoundtobetightened，bythesettingbackofaclasp，injustsuchamannerasherownhadbeentightenedbyMarie，shortlyprevioustoherleavinghome。Itisnowmadnessorhypocrisytodoubt。WhatL’Etoilesaysinrespecttothisabbreviationofthegarter’sbeinganusualoccurrence，showsnothingbeyonditsownpertinacityinerror。Theelasticnatureoftheclasp-garterisself-demonstrationoftheunusualnessoftheabbreviation。Whatismadetoadjustitself，mustofnecessityrequireforeignadjustmentbutrarely。Itmusthavebeenbyanaccident，initsstrictestsense，thatthesegartersofMarieneededthetighteningdescribed。Theyalonewouldhaveamplyestablishedheridentity。Butitisnotthatthecorpsewasfoundtohavethegartersofthemissinggirl，orfoundtohavehershoes，orherbonnet，ortheflowersofherbonnet，orherfeet，orapeculiarmarkuponthearm，orhergeneralsizeandappearance-itisthatthecorpsehadeach，and_allcollectively_。
CoulditbeprovedthattheeditorofL’Etoile_really_entertainedadoubt，underthecircumstances，therewouldbenoneed，inhiscase，ofacommissiondelunaticoinquirendo。Hehasthoughtitsagacioustoechothesmalltalkofthelawyers，who，forthemostpart，contentthemselveswithechoingtherectangularpreceptsofthecourts。Iwouldhereobservethatverymuchofwhatisrejectedasevidencebyacourt，isthebestofevidencetotheintellect。Forthecourt，guidingitselfbythegeneralprinciplesofevidence-therecognizedand_booked_principles-isaversefromswervingatparticularinstances。Andthissteadfastadherencetoprinciple，withrigorousdisregardoftheconflictingexception，isasuremodeofattainingthemaximumofattainabletruth，inanylongsequenceoftime。Thepractice，inmass，isthereforephilosophical；butitisnotthelesscertainthatitengendersvastindividualerror。{*16}
“InrespecttotheinsinuationslevelledatBeauvais，youwillbewillingtodismisstheminabreath。Youhavealreadyfathomedthetruecharacterofthisgoodgentleman。Heisabusy-body，withmuchofromanceandlittleofwit。Anyonesoconstitutedwillreadilysoconducthimself，uponoccasionofrealexcitement，astorenderhimselfliabletosuspiciononthepartoftheoveracute，ortheill-disposed。M。BeauvaisasitappearsfromyournoteshadsomepersonalinterviewswiththeeditorofL’Etoile，andoffendedhimbyventuringanopinionthatthecorpse，notwithstandingthetheoryoftheeditor，was，insoberfact，thatofMarie。’Hepersists，’saysthepaper，’inassertingthecorpsetobethatofMarie，butcannotgiveacircumstance，inadditiontothosewhichwehavecommentedupon，tomakeothersbelieve。’Now，withoutre-advertingtothefactthatstrongerevidence’tomakeothersbelieve，’couldneverhavebeenadduced，itmayberemarkedthatamanmayverywellbeunderstoodtobelieve，inacaseofthiskind，withouttheabilitytoadvanceasinglereasonforthebeliefofasecondparty。Nothingismorevaguethanimpressionsofindividualidentity。Eachmanrecognizeshisneighbor，yettherearefewinstancesinwhichanyoneispreparedtogiveareasonforhisrecognition。TheeditorofL’EtoilehadnorighttobeoffendedatM。Beauvais’unreasoningbelief。
“Thesuspiciouscircumstanceswhichinvesthim，willbefoundtotallymuchbetterwithmyhypothesisofromanticbusy-bodyism，thanwiththereasoner’ssuggestionofguilt。Onceadoptingthemorecharitableinterpretation，weshallfindnodifficultyincomprehendingtheroseinthekey-hole；the’Marie’upontheslate；
the’elbowingthemalerelativesoutoftheway；’the’aversiontopermittingthemtoseethebody；’thecautiongiventoMadameB，thatshemustholdnoconversationwiththegendarmeuntilhisreturnBeauvais’；and，lastly，hisapparentdetermination’thatnobodyshouldhaveanythingtodowiththeproceedingsexcepthimself。’ItseemstomeunquestionablethatBeauvaiswasasuitorofMarie’s；