the back of the room, then I know he's guilty!" as the foreman
said in the old story. What good does the presumption of
innocence, so called, do for the miserable Robinson? None
whatever--save perhaps to console him in the long days pending
his trial. But such a legal hypocrisy could never have
deceived anybody. How much better it would be to cast aside
all such cant and frankly admit that the attitude of the
continental law toward the man under arrest is founded upon
common sense and the experience of mankind. If he is the
wrong man it should not be difficult for him to demonstrate
the fact. At any rate circumstances are against him, and he
should be anxious to explain them away if he can.

The fact of the matter is, that in dealing with practical
conditions, police methods differ very little in different
countries. The authorities may perhaps keep considerably more
detailed "tabs" on people in Europe than in the United States,
but if they are once caught in a compromising position they
experience about the same treatment wherever they happen to
be. In France (and how the apostles of liberty condemn the
iniquity of the administration of criminal justice in that
country!) the suspect or undesirable receives a polite
official call or note, in which he is invited to leave the
locality as soon as convenient. In New York he is arrested by
a plainclothes man, yanked down to Mulberry Street for the
night, and next afternoon is thrust down the gangplank of a
just departing Fall River liner. Many an inspector has earned
unstinted praise (even from the New York Evening Post) by
"clearing New York of crooks" or having a sort of "round-up"
of suspicious characters whom, after proper identification, he