An extraordinary and almost unprecedented discussion has arisen within the last few weeks as to the use of "Finger Clues." The chief occasion for this curious clamor seems to have been the faulty use of this new way of finger-prints in the case of the two brothers Stratton, who were hanged for a double murder at Deptford, known as the "Mask" murders. Mr. James P. Budden, the well-known criminal solicitor, who was for the defense, asked Inspector Collins, " Can you give me the name of any medical or legal authority who takes any notice of this so-called science?" - " I do not know any." - [Standard, 26th April, 1905.] In what is headed as " A Strong Letter," Mr. Budden wrote to the Birmingham Gazette and Express (July 12th) giving some additional details of interest. He says: " On this point a remark made by Inspector Collins, of the Scotland Yard Fingerprint Department, when I cross-examined him is significant. I asked him whether his finger-print system, of which he appeared in court as an expert, was an exact science. He replied that it was. ' Then, if it is an exact science, ' I said, 1 it must have a name, ' and I asked him for the name of his science. He said he did not know it. It was then suggested to him that it had been called 'dactylography' or ' dactyloscopy ' - terms of Greek origin - and he said, ' Oh, yes! that's a German name for it.' I ask," continues Mr. Budden, "whether the user of the finger-print system against prisoners should be left in the hands of non-scientific men." Mr. Budden also states that his views on "the use of finger-prints as evidence against an accused person are the same as those expressed by Mr. Justice Channell in his masterly charge to the jury in the Stratton Case. I think the opinion of a judge of such wide experience and authority well worth following by an ordinary individual." I was privileged with a seat at the solicitor's table during that important trial, and was afforded an opportunity of scrutinizing the exhibits, commented on in another part of this work. Just before the trial I had publicly expressed somewhat similar views to those held by Mr. Budden, and happen to know that the learned judge having been made acquainted with my opinion as to the necessity of scientific training for experts, entirely agreed with that view and expressed himself to that effect before his remarkable charge was delivered to the jur