1880.] 



MICROSCOPICAL JOUENAL. 



n 



but in attempting to enlarge upon 

 several points we soon found that 

 it was impossible to do justice to 

 the subject, in the space at our 

 disposal. 



While we heartily approve of the 

 system under which such valuable 

 and expensive books canbepublished 

 by the Government, we cannot but 

 regret that when those books are 

 issued, they are not to be obtained 

 by the persons who most need them. 

 The method of distribution is very 

 defective, and probably always will 

 be, unless the books are put on sale 

 at a price even below the cost of pro- 

 duction. We strongly favor the sale 

 of Government publications of this 

 nature ; for although students of 

 science are not usually men of 

 wealth, and comparatively few 

 would be able to purchase the more 

 expensive books, nevertheless a 

 larger number of such publications 

 would find their way into the hands 

 of scientists, than is they do under 

 the present system. 



Dr. TreadwelPs Evidence. 



Dr. Tread well writes to us that the 

 report of his testimony in the Hay- 

 den trial, which we published last 

 month, has placed him in a false 

 position. 



We are pleased to learn that he 

 disclaims the assertions regarding 

 the possibility of identifying human 

 blood, that have been attributed to' 

 him, and his letter will have all the 

 prominence of the former article. 



We quote from it the following 

 portion : 



" In the March number of your 

 journal — a copy of which some 

 one has kindly sent me — you quote 

 me as saying in my testimony in 

 the Hay den case, 'In one instance 

 he testified, after measuring only 

 four corpuscules (having accidental 



ly lost the others) that ranged from 

 s^s^" to Ts'iTs" i^i diameter, as fol- 

 lows: I am quite positive that these 

 were human blood-corpuscles, and 

 that they did not belong to the blood 

 of the pig, sheep, goat, horse or 

 cat. In another place referring to 

 some other examinations, he stated 

 that he had obtained certain proof 

 of human blood in one instance 

 only (this was from stains on a 

 knife). Further on you say ' This 

 review is based upon the reports of 

 the trial given by the daily New 

 York papers, which seem to be quite 

 reliable.' 



" I wish to say that the expression 

 ' I am quite positive that these were 

 human blood corpuscles,' and the 

 statement that I had 'obtained 

 certain proof of human blood in 

 one instance only,' or in any ins- 

 tance, originated very far outside of 

 my testimony. I gave no opinion 

 whatever as to any blood being 

 human blood except in distinction 

 from the blood of some animal or 

 animals named, and I defy any 

 person to show that I have ever ex- 

 pressed such an opinion as al- 

 leged, in any of the comparatively 

 numerous cases in which I have 

 testified, I have always been careful 

 to state that there are animals whose 

 blood cannot be distinguished from 

 human blood and that consequently 

 the latter has nothing in itself by 

 which it can be identified or its 

 origin detennined. That I have th us 

 testified in every case in which I 

 have been engaged and in which the 

 question of the possibility of dis- 

 tinguishing the blood of man from 

 that of other mammals has arisen, 

 I can abundantly prove. If you 

 will take the trouble to obtain and 

 consult the official stenographer's 

 report, you will find that 1 testified 

 to this eifect in the Ilayden case. 



" One of the fractions given in 

 your quotation is incorrect, as is 



