the delictum itself; but the proofs of the delictum are
infinitely variable according to the nature of things; they may
be general or special, principal or accessory, direct or
indirect; in a word, they form that general effect (ensemble)
which goes to determine the conviction of an honest man." If
such a contention as M. Chaussier's were correct, said the
Avocat-General, then it would be impossible in a case of
poisoning to convict a prisoner after his victim's death, or, if
his victim survived, to convict him of the attempt to poison. He
reminded the jury of that paragraph in the Code of Criminal
Procedure which instructed them as to their duties: "The Law
does not ask you to give the reasons that have convinced you; it
lays down no rules by which you are to decide as to the fullness
or sufficiency of proof . . . it only asks you one question:
`Have you an inward conviction?'" "If," he said, "the actual
traces of poison are a material proof of murder by poison, then a
new paragraph must be added to the Criminal Code--`Since,
however, vegetable poisons leave no trace, poisoning by such
means may be committed with impunity.'" To poisoners he would
say in future: "Bunglers that you are, don't use arsenic or any
mineral poison; they leave traces; you will be found out. Use
vegetable poisons; poison your fathers, poison your mothers,
poison all your families, and their inheritance will be yours--
fear nothing; you will go unpunished! You have committed
murder by poisoning, it is true; but the corpus delicti will
not be there because it can't be there!" This was a case, he
urged, of circumstantial evidence. "We have," he said, "gone
through a large number of facts. Of these there is not one that
does not go directly to the proof of poisoning, and that can only
be explained on the supposition of poisoning; whereas, if the