634 ANNUAL EEPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1912. 



also whether or not he hunself is conscious of outward influences; the 

 cool and impartial historian, in the light of observed facts, can reach 

 no other conclusion than that Herschel must have conceived his 

 idea from observations of similar affairs made on the spot. A similar 

 judgment was early rendered by a writer m the Ninteenth Century 

 (1894, p. 365) who championed the cause of the Chinese in the priority 

 of the finger-print system. Herschel himself, however, wa§ of a 

 different opuiion and indignantly rejected such a point of view. 



In a letter addressed to Nature (vol. 51, 1894, p. 77) Herschel 

 claimed for himself that "he chanced upon finger prints" in 1858 and 

 followed it up afterwards, and that he placed all his materials at the 

 disposal of Galton. While vindicatmg the honor of the invention for 

 himself, he at the same time deprecated ' ' as being to the best of his 

 knowledge wholly unproved the assertion that the use of finger marks 

 in this way was origmally invented by the Chinese." "I have met 

 no evidence," he continues, "which goes anywhere near substantiat- 

 mg this. As a matter of fact, I exhibited the system to many pas- 

 sengers and officers of the P. and O. steamship Mongolia in the Indian 

 Ocean during her outward voyage in February, 1877, and I have the 

 finger prints of her captain, and of all those persons, with their 

 names. It is likely enough that the idea, which caught on rapidly 

 among the passengers, may have found a settlement in gome Chinese 

 port by this route, and have there taken a practical form; but 

 whether that be so or not, I must protest agamst the vague claim 

 made on behalf of the Chinese until satisfactory evidence of antiquity 

 is produced." 



The notion here expressed by Herschel that his thought might have 

 spread to some Chmese port is, to say the least, somewhat naive, and 

 the fact remains that the use of finger prints is well authenticated in 

 China long before his lifetime. The gauntlet brusquely thrown down 

 by him was soon taken up by two scholars — a Japanese, Mr. Kuma- 

 gusu Minakata,* and the always combative Prof. G. Schlegel,- of 

 Leiden. Both were actuated by the sincere intention of furnishing 

 proof of the antiquity of the method of fuiger prints in China and 

 Japan; but both failed in this attempt for lack of proper understand- 

 ing of what the finger-prmt system really is. Both confused with the 

 latter the hand stamp; that is, a slight impression taken from the 

 palm. These are entkely different affairs, and in view of the general 

 knowledge now existing in regard to the significance and effects of 

 finger prints it is needless to emphasize the fact that a mere impres- 

 sion of the j)alm can never lead to the identification of an individual, 

 which is of first importance in finger prints. The entire argument of 

 Schlegel is restricted to two references occurring in his Dutch-Chinese 



» The Antiquity of the " Finger-Print" Method {Nature, vol. 51, 1894, pp. 199-200). 

 ' T'ouJig Fao, vol. tj, 1895, p. 148. 



