hand, this public, having performed its own policing from the time of the Saxon moot, is jealous of its liberties and privileges. In the investigation of crime, the detective has to tread cautiously lest he incur castigation or an action for damages. His powers are but slightly greater than those of the ordinary citizen. Everything works to protect an arraigned person from policeman, lawyer, Magistrate and Judge right up to the time of being found guilty. Juries too are chary of accepting circumstantial evidence unless heavily streaked with direct testimony. Therefore, the English detective must see to it that his technique in crime investigation produces evidence of the kind and quality acceptable to a Court, obtained in accordance with legal rules and thus admissible. The quiet dignity of an English Court makes for restraint and mental discipline to which the detective subconsciously inclines. The English detective's methods will not differ, except perhaps in degree, from those of his American colleague. Although not admitted, the degree is dependent on what the public will tolerate. The public's toleration will depend on its conceptions of personal liberty, racially, historically, culturally and politically arrived at, but it will invariably also be governed by the kind and the amount of crime prevalent at the time. When atrocious crime is rampant, the citizen is prepared to forego something in order to bring about its suppression. In America, the public attitude differs in almost every State and town; this is also reflected in the differing State laws, despite the same common law. The illegal rounding up and the temporary incarceration of mere suspects, tolerated in one Police area and not in another, is illustrative of varying methods of crime investigation which do not operate in England. Of course, the crime problem in America, on account of its enormity and variety, calls for entirely different handling and treatment than it does in England.