“I have proved that when the frauds of 1877 and 1896 were repeated in 1904, and the incriminating documents were found to be in the handwriting of 1877, stroke for stroke, peculiarity for peculiarity, almost word for word, the fact that the authorities had admitted that Mr. Beck _could not be_ the author of the 1877 frauds or the writer of the 1877 documents was utterly ignored, and the responsible authorities, with every proof of Mr. Beck’s innocence in their possession, allowed him to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted again. “I have proved that the identification of Mr. Beck by the female witnesses as the man who robbed them was a monstrous farce. “I have proved that, so far from Mr. Beck being the ‘double’ of John Smith, he was utterly unlike him, except that each had a gray mustache. Beck had neither the noticeable scar at the point of the jaw nor the noticeable wart over one eye that are striking marks of identity in John Smith--marks which would not escape the most casual observer. “I have proved that Beck’s conviction in 1896 was secured by a device which was utterly unworthy of a British court of justice--a device so unfair and unjust that an innocent and inoffensive foreigner, a Norwegian who had sought the hospitality of our shores, was by its employment sent into penal servitude for seven years for the crimes of another man. “I have proved that Mr. Beck was in 1904 convicted of repeating letter for letter, word for word, trick for trick, check for check, false address for false address, false name for false name, the frauds of 1877 and 1896, of which the authorities had absolute proof that he was innocent, and of which, though they had never remitted one day of his sentence, they had _admitted_ that he was innocent. “I have been careful to keep to the main issue, and have refrained from examining the side issues, some of which reveal most lamentable features in connection with our criminal procedure. “I will prove one thing more, and leave the facts I have established to the judgment of the public. “At the end of the report of the second trial of Adolf Beck, which took place at the Old Bailey on June 27, 1904 (Sessions Paper CXL., Part 837), are these words, printed as I give them below: “‘GUILTY. _He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of obtaining goods by false pretenses at this Court on February 26, 1896. Judgment respited._’ “Pleaded guilty to a former conviction! Adolf Beck pleaded guilty to nothing. How could he plead guilty, being an innocent man! He cried aloud when the charge of the first conviction was read aloud to him, ‘As God is my witness, I was innocent then as I am innocent now.’ “The epilogue to the tragedy of our English Dreyfus is written in those damning words in the Sessions Paper, the official minutes of evidence in Central Criminal Court trials.