S' n 1 ■ A^ — — 8 9 6 5 = 1 3 ■■ o ^H > ^H > ^H — ^1 y A MANUAL STUDY OF DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER OF HANDWRITING TO DETECT FRAUD AND FORGERY INCLUDING SEVERAL NEW METHODS OF RESEARCH BY PEESIFOE lFRAZER DOCTEUR feS-SCIENCES NATURELI,ES OFFICIER DE L'INSTRUCTION PUBLIQUE (FRANCE) CORRESPONDENT DER KK REICHSANSTALT ZU WIEN ETC ILLUSTRATED PHILADELPHIA J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY 1894 Copyright, 1S94, BY Persifor Frazer. Printed by J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphja, U.S.A. ,\'y TO Dr. BDWAED pepper this work is affectionately dedicated KY THE AUTHOR OH! OO/C-I PREFACE, The first attempt to separate a branch of study from other cognate branches; to define it and establish for it an individual existence, is not always successful. Any one man is likely to be too much influenced by his own point of view, and thereby to include too much or too little. But any earnest eftbrt will be attended with the re- sult of directing other minds to the subject, so that if the object be worthy its evolution will be aided, and if not it will be dropped. I have this conviction to for- tify me for producing another book, and hope this subject will be given its final shape by abler hands if, as I believe, it has a reason for existing. I have suggested Bibliotics as its name, because Bt^Mo'/ (book, sheet, scroll, libel at law, etc., according to the best authorities) is broad enough to apply to any object which it may be desired to investigate, such as parchment, wax tablets, papyrus, printing-paper, stone,' or, in fine, any substance capable of receiving and retaining characters. It will include hieroglj-ph- ics, writing, printing, or designs of any kind intended to impart specific information by symbols, in contra- distinction to general impressions conveyed by art (lesisrus. It will include also all the nuiterials used to VI PREFACE. make tracings, such as paint, inks, and other coloring matters. In a word, Bibliotics would include the study of all the materials used in making designs for the transmission of intelligence, as well as the individ- ual character exhibited in the designs themselves ; and though it is distinct from art conceptions, from lit- erary or historical criticism of the intelligence con- veyed, and from accurate chemical investigation into the nature of bodies, yet it accepts and needs the aid of all three of these studies in obtaining its results. It will follow that Bibliotics as such is not exclusively concerned either with the establishing of character, or the discovery of fraud, but includes both subjects. The first of these I venture to call Grammapheny, from rpdiiij.a, a writing, and — 16 A 1 I Bl 16 A 2 f B2 AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 53 Plate II., Figs. A, Al, A2, B, Bl, B2, represent photo-micrographs of intersections of the lightest and the darkest of commercial inks. The darker (desig- nated by C wlien it is underneath and by 3 when it is above) and the lighter (designated by R when it is underneath and by 16 when it is the upper line) are given each once in an inferior and once in superior position by perpendicular, and twice in each situa- tion by oblique vision. The more strongly marked character of the darker ink makes it appear to be the superior line in both cases where the axis of the pho- tographic instrument was perpendicular to the plane of the paper. When these same slides are photo- graphed with the axis of the instrument oblique to the plane of the paper, however, the true order of superposition becomes apparent to the eye. (See Al, A2, Bl, B2.) The ^o. 16 ink, although much lighter in color than the other, is distinctly seen to pass con- tinuously across the darker ink in an uninterrupted line in Al and A2. It will be understood by those familiar with micro- scope photography that if the plane of an object be ever so slightly oblique to the axis of the instrument only a very minute area adjoining the axis ot" rotation will be ai'in'oxiniately in focus, and in all positions except where the plane of the slide is perpendicular to the axis of the microscope, the front and rear por- tions of this plane will be out of focus. This gives to the inlc line [)c'r[H'n(licular to the axis 54 STUDY OF HANDWRITING of rotation less intensity than it really lias, and might lead some persons to snppose that, owing to this fact alone, the lighter ink maintains its character across the darker. It should be remembered, however, that the portion of the darker line which is crossed by the lighter is equally with the latter in focus. This cross- ing is not a mathematical point, but an area of sensi- ble magnitude rendered easily visible by the mag- nification employed. If the darker line were really superposed, therefore, it would appear to be the darker in all positions and under any illumination, as can be seen in Figs. Bl and B2. Figs. A2 and Bl are represented in order to show that the appearance is the same when the underlying line is made to coincide with the axis of rotation of the slide. In Fig. A2 the same slide was photo- graphed as in Al, but the overlying ink, 16, instead of crossing the field from left to right runs from top to bottom, yet although by this position the extremities of this line are out of focus, it is clearly seen to over- lie the line C. In the figure B2 the overlying ink, ISTo. 3, is as dis- tinctly above the line R while in a horizontal position as it is in Bl while in a vertical position. A2 and B2 were prepared to meet a possible objec- tion that either ink may be made to appear the upper or the lower in a phototype reproduction according to tlie manner of its presentation. This is true of the lighter of two inks, but not of the darker. Xo AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 55 change in the conditions of making the picture could make ink Xo. 3 appear to be the lower in the three figures B, Bl, and B2, as Mr. Wingate states in his note which follows. It is hardly necessary to say that these phototypes have not been retouched or the nega- tives altered in any way. The phenomenon is much easier to observe in the microscope than to represent in a photograph or a phototype print made from one, for the reason that the " glare" or lustre from the surface of the paper inter- feres with the definition of the ink lines. Nevertheless, Mr. Harold Wingate, of Philadelphia, an amateur who has devoted much time and achieved great success in microscope-photography, has suc- ceeded in fixing the image seen by the eye as a posi- tive on glass, and has then enlarged this to a glass negative. The ditficulties he encountered were greater than we had supposed, although we had not been sure of attaining the desired end. His account of the method he found it necessary to pursue here follows : Philadelphia, April lit, 1894. Dr. Persifor Frazer: Mv dear Doctor, — I am sending you to-day the last negative of the series illustrating your method of determining the superposition of pen-strokes. I first photographed the crosses C — 16 and K — 3, magnified to a little more than twenty diameters, with the light ink horizontal and the dark ink vertical in both instances; but in the former (C — 16) the light ink, 16, superposed, and in the latter (R — 3) the same light ink, R, underneath. I used a one-and-one-half-inch objective and a Lieberkuhn, getting thereby a nearly vertical illumi- 56 STUDY OF HANDWRITING nation, or almost the same effect as is seen in the microscope when diffused daylight is used as the illuminant. You notice that both photographs show the dark ink on top. (See A and B.) In order to get pictures of the slides in an inclined position, after much experimentation I was forced to construct a photo-micro- graphic camera for the purpose, with the stage of the microscope part inclinable throughout ninety degrees distally. (See Fig. 7.) Fig. 7. As a good microscope lens has almost no depth of focus, it was im- possible to get immediately an enlarged picture of the cross, as only one plane would be in focus at one time. Mr. Zentmayer kindly lent me a lens made on the principle of the portrait-lens of two inch equivalent focus, and I stopped it down to f. 20. With this I was able to get a fair field and a magnification of a little more than one- half diameter. From negatives made in this way lantern-slides were made by contact, and from these the larger negatives, — thus bringing the enlargement up to more than four diameters. The direct negatives were made by daylight, facing a small win- dow, with the stage at an angle of 8° to 11° upward inclination from the optical axis of the lens, and the whole apparatus inclined in such a way that the stage holding the slide was nearly horizontal, or inclined a little downward. In slide R — 3, where the very black ink was on top, no great AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 57 trouble was encountered in photographing the cross as it appears to the eye ; but in C — 16, where the light ink, 16, formed a very thin layer over the underlying black stroke, it became difficult to make the plate reproduce what the ej'e saw, as the underlying mass of black at the cross dominated the fainter ink, owing to the greater absorp- tion of light at this point ; but by slightly rotating the whole appa- ratus to the right or left I found that an illumination could be secured which gave the diflerentiating tone to the lighter ink and permitted the taking of a photograph showing the continuity of the superposed line. But in this case of C — 16, if the light 16 ink were not on top, I could not by any possible means make it appear so, nor do I believe any one else can. Very truly yours, Harold Wingate. For ordinary puqioses the compound microscope, consisting of an eye-piece as well as an objective lens, is not necessary, and the test is more easily made with such a long focus and low power objective as was alluded to on a previous page. If, for instance, a one-and-a-half-inch objective with a tubular diaphragm be laid almost parallel with the paper, and the latter held towards a good but not too strong sky-light, the order of placing two crossed lines will be observable with greater facility than in a compound microscope. 58 STUDY OF HANDWRITING CHAPTER VIII. HESITATION AND TREMOR OF FEEBLENESS, ILLITERACY, OR FRAUD. Labored Writing. — It is not always an evidence of fraudulent intent that the writing shows evidences of slow and labored motion of the pen, but in connection with other facts this becomes an important point to observe. It has been stated under the head of gen- eral observations of a writing that the hesitation and tremor, as shown by an illiterate person, by a feeble person or one under some condition of mental aber- ration, and by a well-skilled penman anxious to deceive, are all dift'erent. The pen-strokes of the illiterate person are strong enough, but uneven and erratic. No strokes nor parts of strokes are sym- metrical. The handwriting is unformed and child- like, but not lacking in vigor. The pauses are made because of the inability of the writer to continue a line to its required length by a proper accommodation of the muscles, or to avoid an accidental obstacle, such as a grain of hard pulp or a crease in the paper, with- out making the pen sputter or taking a new position with the hand. The attempt to imitate a copy or ideal in tracing a word or signature is similar to an attempt by the same hand to copy a landscape AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 69 or to improvise one. Undue force is usually appar- ent everywhere, except on the hair-lines, where the attempt to be gentle necessitates drawing them slowly, and therefore in uncertain wavy lines. Parts of let- ters are drawn out of shape, and other parts written over them, as if the writer had memorized a certain number of strokes which it was necessary to make, and made them consecutively without regard to where his pen might be at the time he began each. In this respect it resembles the writing in the dark of a man whose faculties are dulled by fatigue or drugs. Feebleness. — The signature or other writing of a not inexperienced penman, who is ill or feeble, is characterized by a general lightness of stroke and much tremulousness. If any parts of the lines are heavy, these parts are short, and not infrequently terminate with a perforation of the paper. Ftq. 8. Tremor of Feebleness. The pressure of the fingers is light, and the attempt to make parts of the writing heavier is by throwing too much weight upon the pen without the ability to ac- curately gauge the amount of the added pressure, with the result frequently of a puncture of the paper. No line of any considerable length is free from the 60 STUDY OF HANDWRITING wavy evidences of tremor, yet there is a distinct resemblance between the word and the same word written in a state of health. In the example given of the tremor due to feebleness (the word " Philada"), it is clearly manifest not only that the idea of form which the writer had in his mind was excellent, but that in the main it was well carried out. The mean of all the divergences and waved lines makes a well-formed and symmetrical word. It must be confessed that the persistence in flourishes which bring out into prominence the writer's weak- ness, and the correct general direction in forming the letters are unusual, but the same features may be observed in lesser degree on any writing of a good penman which is tremulous on account of his feeble- ness. All the points noted as characteristic of this kind of imperfect writing are strongl}'^ accentuated in this example. The writer was a gentleman of over ninety years of age. Illiteracy. — In the case just mentioned there is a manifest attempt to reproduce a reasonable ideal which is partially successful, whereas in the illiterate signa- ture the attempt seems to be to repeat a certain num- ber of up-and-down strokes and their connecting strokes without considering as a whole what thev were intended to produce. An identification of the signa- ture of a very illiterate person becomes almost purely an identification of separate lines or letters. AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 61 The example of the tremor clue to illiteracy is given in the word "Pennsylvania." It was obtained from Fig. 9. Tremor of Illiteracy an ignorant carter, who, however, was not illiterate enough to produce so good a type as the preceding. The tremors and angular features introduced are by no means indicative of lack of power, but the power is misdirected. After traversing the road which traced the name of the great Colonial Governor, the real difficulties begin, and in the struggle to master them the combat is transferred far from the guide-line of the paper. The last three syllables are little else than a repetition of the prescribed number of strokes up and down, but the second part of the " n" has been carried over to the " i" and has made an " n" of that letter, so that the appearance of the word resembles " Penn- sylzoina." It is instructive to compare the two words with each other. Fraud. — The simulated tremor of a skilful penman is rarely successful in deceiving a trained eye aided by a moderate magnification of the writing. The tendency to produce symmetrical tracings and natural curves is a second nature which cannot be readily overcome. Under the microscope the rhyth- 62 STUDY OF HANDWRITING mic lapses from easy to perturbed writing and back again, remind one of the imitation of a drunken man in amateur theatricals. The things which are really difficult for an illiterate or feeble person to do, such as the proper union of the small letters, are performed usually with address, as if the writer were in a hurry to commence acting his part in the next following let- ter. The dash (if there he one) will assume a graceful curve. The dot will appear in the place where the forger is accustomed to write it, or if both of these be carefully imitated there is sure to be some betrayal in the crossing of the " t's," the shading of some of the letters, the preservation of a straight line for the base line, or in some other part of the writing. Fig. 10. Tremor of Fraud. The signature of Isaac Taylor, above represented, will serve as an illustration of the tremor almost in- separable from forgery. A comparison of this signature and those of George W. Hawley and Enos V. Garrett (Fig. 12), with the composites of the names they were intended to simu- late (Plate VI.), will illustrate the fundamental dif- ferences of their characters and also the difficulty experienced by a good penman in feigning to be a bad one. The real signature of Isaac Taylor is not only AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 63 tremulous from age, but is angular, unsymmetrical, and lacking in proper curves or proper straight lines. The forged signature, on the contrary, is full of evi- dences that the hand which traced it was accustomed to make both with unusual skill. Observe, for in- stance, the general accuracy of the slope of the down stroke in the initial I, and T, and the 1, and first part of the y. In these and similar instances used in the book for illustrations, for special reasons the tables of measure- ment have not been printed. It will be apparent that such a table would show the same discrepancies which have been fully set forth in the preceding pages, where the names have not been given. The purpose of these illustrations was to show that the method of study by composite photography is valuable in getting at essen- tial character and in detecting fraud. The tremors of a simulating hand are never so numerous nor so fine as real tremors. Observations will be referred to farther on which demonstrate that in a single long stroke, like that of an "f" or an "1," there are often many devia- tions right and left from the straight line which the will desires to trace, by the ordinary penman in a normal state of health; and, while it is not possible that these should exactly overlap in any two signa- tures, nor probable that they are invariably identical in number, yet in both respects two such lines by the same hand are apt to resemble each other more closely 64 STUDY OF HANDWRITING than any such line by another hand will resemble either of them. This tremor is natural to all hands, and is what prevents the most practised hand from drawing a perfect straight or curved line, though its effects are not easily visible except by the use of magnifiers. The faltering due to age or feebleness is greater in the excursions of the pen ; but, besides this, these devi- ations have superposed upon them even more numer- ous and finer tremors than are observed in the writing of a person in health. So fine are these, indeed, that it is doubtful if they can be simulated, and still more doubtful if the tremors, even if artificially produced, would resemble those they were intended to imitate. If this be so, one of the best means of detecting the fraudulent character of a writing purporting to be by a feeble person is the comparison of the tremors evi- denced in his genuine writing with those in the sus- pected imitation. Retouching. — The repainting or retouching of a letter or part of a letter is not always evidence of fraud. Many persons contract the bad habit of going over what they have written with a pen to correct blemishes, and this habit sometimes becomes so pro- nounced that the writer invariably repaints his signa- ture, whether it show blemishes or not. To a person in the habit of retouching his own writing an uncon- scious skill is ultimately developed which enables him to put his pen at the exact point required, and to join AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 65 two disconnected lines with an accuracy far in excess of anything else of the same kind which he is capable of accomplishing. It is not rare to discover the habit only after a minute examination of numerous speci- mens of the writing under considerable magnitication. N^o hand is capable of tracing a line of any great length on paper without leaving traces of deviation from its projected direction. The more nervous the hand, the greater and more numerous will be these deviations. In the hand of one sufi'ering from illness or weak from age the deviations will be most pro- nounced. To a less degree the same will be observed in a hand which is striving to accomplish something- difficult, and to avoid betraying itself by falling into numerous pitfalls. However expert the writer, if the copy is beset with little peculiarities the tracing will be slower than is his usual habit, and the natural and unavoidable divergence from his ideal will have superadded to it that which comes from decreased rapidity of execution. It is like the deviation caused by the wind in projectiles. The greater the velocity of the latter the less will be the eftect of the perturbing force. One peculiarity of these tremors is that in a practised hand they are not easily visiljle except under consider- able magnification. With a power of fifty or sixty diameters they l)ecome plain, and little knots appear in the writing which were almost unnoticealde before, and which seem to be due to the continued flow of 66 STUDY OF HANDWRITING ink from a nibbed pen which has been brought for an instant to a full stop in the course of forming a letter owing to some feature in the copy which re- quired a new adjustment of muscles to execute. The natural tremors which can be discovered in free-hand w^riting are surprisingly numerous, including under that name all changes in pressure on the pen as well as alterations in the direction of its movement. Making due allowance for the irregularities in the paper, which would show differences in the result when none existed in the motor, there are probably not less than three or four in every centimeter of average handwriting. There have been shown more than twenty impulses superposed upon the force exerted by a writer of moderate skill in tracing the sino-le stem of a lono; " f." If this be so, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that twice that many may be found in the writing of the sick or infirm. In fact, the number of these deviations is concealed by the coarseness of the tracing in which they are sought. If writing were produced by a very fine-pointed stylus, this number would probably be very much increased. With a previous knowledge of the signature, and the peculiarities which a forger would have to imitate, it is of great importance to note wdiere the hesitation is shown by the examination under the microscope. If it occur just before these diflicult parts are at- tempted, it will probably distinguish false wa-iting from AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 67 genuine, because habit will have caused the originator of these peculiarities to write them with as much free- dom as any other part. CHAPTER IX. THE SUBSTANCE WRITTEN UPON. Materials of which It is made. — The material which bears the writing nnder investigation may be of cotton, linen, esparto, wood pulp, or parchment. All but the last have readily recognizable fibres, each differing in appearance and in fact from the other. Photo-micro- graphs of these may be seen in the " Text-Book of Paper Making," ^ by C. T. Cross and E. .J. Bevan, and in other similar treatises and articles. Paper Making-. — The fibres are interlocked with each other during the process of " beating" the pulp, and are further " loaded" with clay, kaolin, or an as- bestos-like material called " agalite," which is nearly pure magnesium silicate. These materials, which are added to all but special grades of paper, are not harm- ful constituents unless in excessive amount, and the last named being by nature fibrous, like the organic mate- rials with which it is mixed, assists in binding them together and imparts a hard finish to the paper. The ' E. «& F. N. Spun, 125 Strand, London, and 35 Murray Street, New York, 1888. 68 STUDY OF HANDWRITING " pearl hardening" is effected bj means of precipi- tated calcium sulphate (gypsum, plaster of Paris), In addition to these " loading" ingredients, papers intended to be written upon are " sized" or immersed in an aluminum resinate soap mixed with about one- third its weight of starch paste, which serves to hold together the fibres and also to prevent the ink from running. After about four parts by weight of this mixture to one hundred parts of the pulp have been thoroughly mixed, a solution of alum is run in, after having been dissolved in lead or copper tanks, as this substance acts rapidly on iron, and would saturate the pulp with the iron salt and thus impair its value. It may be said that, in spite of the careful preparation of the paper pulp, the finished product is often adul- terated by iron in some slight degree and will give a reaction for that metal by a sufficiently delicate test. Nearly three times the amount of alum is required to precipitate the resin from its combination with sodium. Ultramarine blues and aniline pinks are added to counteract the yellowish color of the cellulose. Hand- made papers are sized by dipping them into a solution of gelatin and hanging them up on lines or poles to dry. The sheets are then calendered, either by pass- ing them between heated or cold metallic rolls, or one of metal and one of compressed paper ; or by pressing them in larger bundles of alternating paper and metal plates (Gross and Bevan). The effect of this is to give the surface of the paper a hard and often polished sur- AXD DETECTION OF FORGERY. 69 face, on which tlie tracing of ink remains without running- or V)lotting, and is absorbed into the loading and size and also stains the fibres of paper of which these materials fill the interstices. Erasures. — When an erasure is made on the surface of such a paper, the mineral and organic materials of the sizing and loading are removed, and the fibres of the paper which they unite are deranged in form and position. Such a surface exhibits invariably the teased-up ends of the fibres, and generally shows by tlie agreement in their direction in what way the scratching was done. Even in cases where a substitute for the sizing has been so successfully added that no change in color or surface is observable, the fibres will show by their unusual positions that they have been disturbed. When an attempt has been made to write over the place without sufiiciently restoring the sizing, the effects can be seen in the running of the ink between the fibres and the staining of the body of the paper to a considerable depth from the surface and to a con- siderable distance from the spot. Insertion of Pages. — In cases where a document of more than one page is under investigation, and tam- pering is suspected with only one or more of the sheets, a general investigation of the character of the paper, as well as of the ink in each sheet, becomes necessary. If the paper be ruled, careful measure- ments of the distance apart of the lines in each sheet 70 STUDY OF HANDWRITING and the distances of the iirst and last lines from the upper and lower edges of the paper should be made and compared. "Water-marks. — Any water-mark or other device wrought into the paper should be looked for. The water-mark is made by receiving the soft pulp on a wire screen on which a design of some kind is placed. When this pulp is raised out of the tub, there is less pulp over the raised design (or more if the design be in relief) than in the rest of the sheet, and although the subsequent pressure to which the paper is sub- jected prevents the eye from detecting the difterence in thickness, the design remains. Other marks are introduced by the " dandy roll," a light roll covered with raised wires in the form de- sired, pressing lightly on the paper while still moist, while the other side has the mark of the Avire cloth. If the " dandy roll" be also covered with wire cloth, the two sides appear alike, and the paper is called " wove" {Cross and Bevan). Any such marks in the paper furnish excellent means of establishing whether or not one or more of the sheets of the document has been substituted. "When the water-mark is faint, or not immediately noticeable while using the paper, it is so much the better as a means of identification. Concealment of Tell-tale Spots. — Awkward marks which might prove tell-tales are sometimes scribbled over with a pen, or covered by a seal, or in by-gone AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 71 (lays, when wafers were coninioiily used to close let- ters, one of them was affixed to the paper. Chevallier and Lessaigne have met with a case where pieces of ])aper were pasted over the suspicious place. A patient and systematic study of the paper will usually lead to a suspicion of such treatment, and will suggest means for its discovery. Parchments. — It sometimes happens that the docu- ment is a veritable parchment. Parchments are usually made of the skin of sheep or lambs, if in- tended for writing purposes. Goat and wolf skins used to be employed for drum-heads ( Peignot). The finer and smoother sorts of parchment called vellum are nuade from the skins of very young calves. The preparation of the skin for writing purposes has scarcely been improved since the time when Hildebert, Archbishop of Tours (born 1054), described it incidentally in a sermon. He says, " A writer first cleanses his parchment from the grease, and takes off most of the dirt. He then entirely rubs off the hair and fibres with })umice stone. If he did not do so the letters upon it would not be good, nor would they last long. He then rules lines that the writing may l)e straight," etc. (Penni/ Cydopsedia). Practically when the skin has been deprived of its hair or wool it is placed for a time in a lime pit, whence it is taken and stretched on a frame and drawn tight. The workman then scrapes the ficsh side with a blunt 72 STUDY OF HANDWRITING iron instrument, and wets it with a moistened rag covered with powdered chalk, and rubs it with pumice stone. This operation is repeated once or twice, when the hair side is turned and scraped. After drying, it is again scraped with a finer tool. The parchments of the time of the Romans must have been very superior to those of the early middle ages, and these again to the parchments of the eleventh and tw^elfth centuries. From that time to the six- teenth century when paper began to be employed, parchment gradually became an article of luxury and imperfect manufacture. It is still occasionally used on account of its great durability. In examining a parchment on w^hich a supposed forgery is inscribed, Mr. Sittl remarks that a similarity between the two sides of the sheet (which can be de- termined by the equal visibility of the ink) gives very strong reason to doubt the great age of the skin, be- cause there is always a marked difference between the hair side and the flesh side in really old parchments. The great differences of inks of different periods enables the fraudulent character of corrections, emen- dations, and notes to be discovered. These obser- vations, however, apply to cases where it is desired to judge parchment documents belonging to centuries long past. Erasures in parchments produce prominences on the opposite side of the sheet. The ink placed upon such erasures has a peculiar bluish tinge. It happens at AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 73 times that a whole page is taken out, either by scratch- ing or rubbing with pumice (which was the practice in the eleventh century, when parchment became so valuable that it was common to keep up the supply by erasing the writing on old parchments) or by washing. When the latter method was used, the writing as in palimpsests can be made to reappear by warming. The parchment can be either laid on a hot plate or pressed with a hot flat-iron between two sheets of paper (Siftl). Furrows traced by the Pen-nibs. — TJnder the micro- scope the furrows traced by the pen-nibs are usually easily visible, and they differ with every variety of pen employed. A stiff", fine-pointed pen makes two comparatively deep lines a short distance apart, which appear blacker in the writing than the space between them, because they till witli ink, which afterwards dries, and produces a thicker layer of black sedi- ment than those elsewhere. The variations of press- ure upon the pen can be easily noticed by the alter- nate widening and narrowing of the band between these two furrows. The tracing appears knotty- and uneven, when made by an untrained hand, while it appears uniformly thin, and generally tremulous or in zigzags when made by a weak but trained hand. A soft and broad-nibbed pen exhibits the same peculi- arities witli the difference that there are no fine lines, but broad and broader lines, not infrequently inter- 74 STUDY OF HANDWRITING ruptecl h\ blots, and obliterations of letters by the untrained hand. The depression of both borders of a pen-stroke gives rise to the appearance of convexity in the line which is observed under the microscope and in photo-micro- graphs of lines. This funnshes another means of comparison between the genuine and the suspected writing ; but, owing to the fact that the differences in depth of the furrows is very slight, even with notable differences of pressure, it is not a guide upon which the investigator can always rely. Within certain limitations it is an important object to study, and may give indications of value to corrobo- rate or refute the hypotheses based upon other lines of study. Mackinnon and Stylographic Pens. — As was re- marked before, the introduction of the stylographic pen has changed the character of the letters when viewed under the microscope, and in the future, when instruments executed by this writing tool shall come under examination, some of the clues which were useful in the metal-pen era will disappear. The stylus, or light metal wire, which acts as a plug to restrain the flow of ink when the pen is not in actual use, is kept down either by a verj- small weight, as in the Mackinnon pen, or by a fine spring, as in the ordinary stylograph. The amount of pressure neces- sary to press this needle back is so slight that the weakest hand is capable of accomplishing it, and as AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 75 there is practically no farrow observable, and the ink flows over all sides of the stylus to the paper, the effect is of writing with a very fine camel's-hair pencil. Furrow, convexity, and shading in the line disappear. Even the effects of tremor are with difficulty discern- ible, if they be visible at all, whether heavy or light pressure be employed, because the line is nearly of uniform width. The stopping of the pen on the paper does not produce a notably heavier deposit of ink, because the friction of the ink on all sides of the annular space in the nozzle is sufficient to stop the flow of ink until the pen is again put in motion (provided that the latter be in good order). The in- troduction of the stylograph type of pen deprives the expert in handwriting of several lines of investigation. CHAPTER X. ALTERATIONS OF THE CHARACTER OF THE DOCUMENT. Difficulties. — It is difficult to lay down any general rules for guidance in establishing the fact of such alter- ations. There is usually something forced or unnatu- ral which strikes the eye in looking at examples of this kind. They differ from the bona fide alterations made by the author, with no attempt at concealment, but they diff'er in so many different ways that it is not easy to bring them under one general categorv. 76 STUDY OF HANDWRITING As a rule, they err on the side of too great care and legibility. A hand which has never made a clear and distinct figure " 2" or letter " t" or word " five" here appears for the first time, under suspicious circum- stances, to have thrown off* ambiguity and to have plainly formed the letter or figure out of one of differ- ent character. It may be that some trick of writing has ordinarily deprived the character of clearness, and in this case the peculiarity appears, but so subordinated that there can be no doubt as to what was intended to be con- veyed to the reader. Such reformations from bad habits in writing are always very suspicious when they occur at critical points and times, and when they show not only a desire to improve a bad handwriting, but to confer a substantial benefit upon some one which has nowhere else been alluded to. The aim of the forger has been to make the altered character distinct, in order that no ambiguity shall rob him of the benefit of the change, and this labored effort to be distinct may lead to his detection. In cases where it is the sense of the sen- tence which is altered by the addition or the elimina- tion of words, the case falls under the general head of complete forgeries, and all the aids to investigation of the characters of handwriting, the constitution of inks, and the other branches of the subject discussed in this book, may be employed; but where a part of a letter or integer is grafted on another, in order to AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. i i change its value, the character of the ink in the two parts deserves especial attention. Motive. — It is a just ground of suspicion if the document under investigation attempt to accomplish by a few added words more than such a document is ordinarily employed to accomplish : as, for instance, when a cheque, of which the mission is usually to enable the drawer to transfer a sum of money to a given person, by the added words " in full," etc., is transformed when cancelled into a receipt, which pre- vents the recipient from claiming any additional sum, even although the cheque was given only in part payment. This Avas not the case in the illustration introduced elsewhere, but the plaintiiFs plea was rendered plausi- ble jpnma /(2Cie on this account. Other alterations that may be expected are those of " raising" a cheque, or making it transfer a larger sum to the payee by the addition of ciphers, or integers, or tiie alteration of one digit to another. Not all the digits are equally easy to change into each other, but a 1 is frequently changed to a 4; or a 3 or 6 to an 8 ; or a 7 to a 9, etc. When there are traces of ditferent inks on the same figure, and the mark of one kind makes a nuniljer inferior to that produced by both together, the proba- bility of a forgery is much iK-ightened. "Writing over a Stroke or Dash, or where One has been removed. — Tlie methods ( .;<^^ /* A^N ^■i . .\^ \ ' X si w ; i \ \^ AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 137 rest of the arm. The breadth of the space occupied by these three letters is from 0.75 to 0.87 centimeter (or five-eighths to seven-eighths of an inch), and con- siderably within the range of coincidence of the curve and straight line before referred to; owing to this fact there is onl}^ a moderate degree of reinforce- ment of the letters in the composite, because these let- ters might fall into the first or last part of the five centimeters of space which was the limit of movement with a fixed elbow. It is worthy of note that even in this case the middle letter of the three is darker in the composite than either of the outside letters. The fifth and last movement was the flourish which dots the " i" and crosses the " t" by one stroke. This was done in the freest of free hands, often, as it seems probable, without resting hand or arm on the table at all. Therefore there is no coincidence of the lines in this part of the composite, and the region of variation is wider than that of any other part of the signature. All the signatures used in the accompanying plate iJX.) (seven in number) are unquestionably genuine. With the exception of one, which is the property of the writer, they were carefully chosen from a number of authenticated signatures in the possession of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. No. 1 is on a letter dated December 18, 1776, from near the Falls of Trenton, and addressed to Washing- ton's brother Samuel. No. 2 is on a letter dated Ilead-quarters, November 138 STUDY OF HANDAVRITING "4, 1777, and is addressed to the writer's great-grand- father, Lieutenant-Colonel Persifor Frazer, then a prisoner of war in Philadelphia. No. 3 is on a letter dated September 27, 1777, and is to William Henry, of Lancaster. JSTo. 4 is the composite of all the signatures by Gal- ton's process of using one sensitive plate made by Mr. W. Curtis Taylor. 5^0. 4a is the composite of Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 8, made by Mr. Truscott, who photographed the superposed positives on celluloid strips. J^o. 5 is on a letter dated Head-quarters in Morris- town, February 22, 1777. The person to whom the letter was addressed is not stated. No. 6, dated September 26, 1793, is affixed to the commission of David Lenox. No. 7, of the same date, is affixed to David Lenox's appointment as agent for the relief and protection of American Seamen. No. 8, May 24, 1799, on a letter to Thomson Mason. The following statement of the celebrated contest over the Whitaker will is condensed from the paper- book of Mr. Samuel Dickson before the Court of Common Pleas No. 1, Philadelphia County, Sheets vs. Whitaker, on the motion for a new trial. Robert Whitaker was killed on the 23d of August, 1878, and on the evening of the 28th of August a tele- gram was sent from New York in the name of Wil- AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 139 liam R. Dickerson to the Reo-ister of Wills, statino; that he had a will of Robert Whitaker which he would bring over for probate. Certain persons were arrested on the charge of forgery. Before the magistrate, testimony was given that these persons drafted a will and had it copied by the former attorney of Robert Whitaker, whom they had associated with them in the conspiracy. The sig- nature of Whitaker was traced by an expert forger from a genuine signature found upon a deed made by Robert Whitaker several years before. The copy of the signature, seal, and the concluding lines of the last page of this famous document has been made from a photograph kindly loaned to the author for that purpose by ex-Judge F. Carroll Brews- ter : the original document, now in the possession of the Register of Wills of this city, having been found by the photographer sent to his office to copy it too much soiled and mutilated to admit of a satisfactory copy being taken. The signature affords a further example of the tremor of fraud, — i.e., that tremor and uncertainty which result from the slow motion of the pen over the paper, necessary to a hand unaccustomed to writing a signature when all the minute details visible in that signature must be repeated. Still it would have been hazardous to pronounce the name a simulated writing in the absence of genuine examples of the writing of the man whose signature it purports to be. 140 STUDY OF HANDWEITING Under a moderate magnification the continual changes in the pressure of the pen on the paper and the constantly recurring deviations in the pen-mark are sufficiently manifest, and with the light which has been shed upon the history of the signature it is im- possible not to ascribe them to their proper cause. But in the absence of such light it would be claim- ing too much to profess the ability to discriminate with exactness between the halting and uncertainty due to fraud and that due to feebleness, or illiteracy, or other unknown cause. The composite of the name was obtained from five signatures to letters written long before the period of the will (1849-54). Perhaps among the voluminous testimony taken in this case the observation may be found that Mr. Whitaker had adopted the habit of writing his name " R. Whitaker" for a long time be- fore the date of the will, and that during the period previous to this when he wrote his name " Robert "Whitaker" he employed a final " r" different in kind from that attached to the will. The character in the name appears clearly in the composite, and differs from that in the signature entirely. Each name of the signature was photographed separately for a composite, and the two were joined by careful measurement of the relation between the names in the genuine signatures. The photographs were made by Gal ton's process of exposures of the successive objects to the same plate, each for its f AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 141 fraction of the time necessary for complete develop- ment. This is a good illustration of the pitfalls awaiting the forger, who usually leaves evidences of his unlaw- ful work. The dragged and manipulated appearance of the taj)e may be compared with that of the stretched tape shown in a previous chapter, while a close inspection will reveal a scratch across the face of the " D" on the seal, which played an important part in the trial. Wlien the composite has been made, it should be submitted to the same measurements as the separate signatures, though it will not usually be found so tractable. The portions of greatest value in deter- mining the elements of the given handwriting are those which are the most black, because these indi- cate the most frequent routes of the pen. It is more difficult to measure spaces between letters in the composite, because its dark kernel is broader and less well defined than the similar parts of a single signa- ture, and it will in fact often cover nearly as much paper as the space itself. In general, wherever a column representing the measurements of the same ele- ment in different signatures shows large variations in the numbers, the said element will a[>poar in the com- posite as a broad blur or as a nunil)er of distinct lines. It is advisable not to attempt to get a measurement 142 STUDY OF HANDWRITING thus obscured from the composite, but to pass it by and rely for the expression of its average on the numerical mean obtained by measuring individual letters or distances between them. In Plate VI, will Fig. 12. be found composites of genuine signatures of Isaac Taylor, George W. Hawley, and Enos V. Garrett, which when compared with the forgeries of their names (Fig. 12) illustrate the use of the process in detecting fraudulent writing. The signature of Thomas J. Morris was made from twenty-seven undisputed examples written by him during a period of eight or ten years. The agreement in these signatures was so great in parts of the name as to almost amount to coincidence. The black line represents the ideal of the writer's signature which he never attained entirely at any one time, and the blur indicates local and accidental deviation of individual signatures from that ideal. It will be understood from what has been already said that the measurement of the composite is not the only, nor perhaps the most important aid it can ren- der a jury which is to decide upon the falsity or genu- rLATK \'I. .^l <^^^ , / Ay^^/^^ ,'^:r/' '.4^' Zf/^^^, J : //f^' /v^ ^ l^T^-ri^ AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 143 iiieness of a signature. To a jury it lurnishes that most valuable of criterions, an authentic pattern of the ideal signature, while to the expert it gives the kinds of variation, their distribution in the separate letters, and their limitations. In Table I. the agree- ment of the numerical and the graphic methods and of both with a previously unrecognized genuine sig- nature is strikingly shown. CHAPTER XV. " GUIDED HANDS." Character of such Writing. — Cases frequently come before the court where it is admitted that the hand of the person who wrote the signature was guided by the hand of some one else. The writing produced by two hands conjointly is usually erratic, and, at first sight, hard to connect with the handwriting of any one person. In appearance it changes abruptly from very high or very wide to very low or very narrow letters. Theory. — This is to be explained by the non-agree- ment in phase of the impulses due to each of the two writers. If both are endeavoring at the same moment to write a given stroke, the length of that stroke will be measured by the sum of the impulses given by the two writers. If they act in opposition to one another, 144 STUDY OF HANDWRITING one seeking to make a down stroke while the other is trying to make an up stroke, the result will be a line equal to the difference between the stronger and the weaker force. As these coincidences and oppositions occur at irreg- ular but not infrequent intervals, like the interference and amplification phases of light and sound-waves, the result traced on the paper might be expected in advance to be — and in fact is — a distorted writing where maxima and minima of effect are connected together by longer or shorter lines of ordinary writing. The tabular statement by numerical average of one case will be shown and more specifically explained farther on. The only state of things which can justify the guiding of a hand executing a legal instrument is the feebleness or illness of its owner. Explanations. — When such assistance is required it is usually given by passing the arm around the body of the invalid and supporting the writing hand while the necessary characters are being made. Both participants in this action are looking at the writing, and both are thinking of the next letter which must be written, and of the motion of the pen necessary to produce it. Unless the executing hand were abso- lutely lifeless or entirely devoid of power, it would be impossible for it not to influence the guiding and presumably stronger hand; for the least force exerted cannot fail to deflect a hand, however strong, in an AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 145 unnatural and cramped position. Nor can the hand of the guider fail to add its contribution to the joint effort, however much the brain whicli controls it may strive to render the hand entirely passive. Both minds are busy with the same act, and insensibly both hands will write the same letter with the results just described. Analysis of Guided 'Writing'. — Can the character- istics of each liand be separated from those of the other and the relative amount of the two contribu- tions to the joint signature be stated ? This is a question which is naturally asked during the trial of a case involving the consideration of a guided hand. From the comparatively small number of experiments made by the writer in this direction it would be too hazardous to answer it in the affirmative, but it may be said that some of the characteristics of each band can usually be made apparent by the system of measurement, and the indications seem to point to the probability of being able to increase the number of characteristics elicited in proportion to the number of observations made. If the significance of every part of every stroke could be properly interpreted, it follows that a complete separation of characteristics would be effected, but this would require an indefi- nitely large number of observations to be made and a quite unattainable skill in explaining them. Example. — Table 11. contains the data of the study of a disputed signature. 10 146 STUDY OF HANDWRITING o ■g JO 33[0J1S UAvop jsjg JO aippinijoaiSuv VJl a> 10U3O SS^SS 5gg S 00 00 S JO 9-![01'\S dn }sjg JO aiSuy . to •^ JO ejjojjs dn pnoo3sjo8[Snv «o 60 0) oco«o ooooo o ■-1 --icoe; S5'-'=5 . s • s •» JO ajfoiis UAvop JO 8iSav ?- 60 "9 Q coco CO §mmSS ocoo ■*COi-0 o o ■»e6 o ■fi. JO 9310J1S dn 5SBI JO aiSuv «. Isss SS2SS sss o o in Oin •* •« JO a^iojjs uAvop ;sBi JO aiStiv «i so ai ooooa tOtOiOtCiO iC O lO s s gg CO ■V JO jqSiaH to tc l~ t~ to iC !OI>-iO to in§ into' IN ■S JO iqSl8H - iceo i> to t> I^ c~ to to to in '--- to to - •^ JO iqSian in i^ to cK >.iH •4- S o lO iC in to in iri iC inoi do o isjg JO sjansi 8uii 3A0qB qqSiaq aSujaAy « oo-d § d o o i-i o o-|.S e _d OS •anil aAoqBfl^ jojqStaH (N i-HOdrHO lo - dd 00 ■ff JO jqSiaH l> t= I> CC t~ ^ 5ot~to^ i-j|J in""* 8 t~ •p—H qiSuai 9 ■"j'ooo iOiC lO en CO oj en ci ^r >o*o»c CO -"iJooo iCOiO in ino o •p— V qjSnai lass in COC^i-J COlO i.O00I> -ji in in s •*-* lis ■V-g qjSuai ■n M C^ CO CO CO MCOCO CO CO loS co'r4 Tf S—fi qiSuai I— t^ootooto in t>cid in in to' CO •^— ? q^Snai ^ ooocc t- t^ CO (M Ci cncno 00 iC 00 s r-od CO •)—r) qiSuai I. .3 Tf l^ 00 lO CO in tor^co iOtJI id in - •v—H qi3aai g rJiCOCO ITS to to i« us in ■^eoi> in in ■s in in O -•a . <;«;;c;a fc. a W u > 1 AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 147 Columns one to thirteen inclusive refer to measure- ments between certain selected parts of letters, heights of letters, etc. Columns fourteen to nineteen inclusive include an- gular measurements of parts of letters. The first three horizontal lines represent a name at the commencement of a will, the same name as a sig- nature, and an average of their combined measure- ments. The following eleven horizontal lines contain corresponding measurements of as many undisputed signatures, with their averages in the lowest line. The first things to strike the eye are the disagreement in the measurements of the name and the signatures in many characteristics and their close agreement in others. These facts alone would indicate that the case was a peculiar one. The variations between close approxi- mation or identity of measurement and w^ide diver- gence would lead one to suspect the cause to have been periodical perturbation of a normal liand, and this view is strengthened when one compares the num- bers representing the successive measurements of the elements of the disputed signature with the corre- sponding numbers of the undisputed series. In columns three, six, and sixteen the measure- ments of the signature agree fairly well with the averages, but in seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen (all angles), the signature shows the widest discrepancies when compared with the averages of the larger series. There are too many approximations between the 148 STUDY OF HANDWRITING two to render it probable that the signature was made entirely independently of the hand which made the lower series, and yet the wide divergences in a large number of the components investigated show that another force was modifying the first. It had the appearance of a guided hand, and this appearance was further confirmed when analysis showed that several elements in the signature difi:ered radically from about one hundred and seventy-five instances of the same elements in the hand which was suspected of having forged it, while agreeing very closely with them in the undisputed signatures. This method supported the view (which was afterwards corrob- orated by direct testimony) that the suspected signa- ture was produced by the hand of the person whose name it indicated, guided by the hand suspected of forging it. These tables are introduced for the purpose of show- ing the system by means of which the separate ob- servations are recorded, combined, and employed, Plate VII. and Tables III. and IV. illustrate an ex- periment in this direction. The supposititious name "Edwin S. Barley" was selected, and two persons, A and B, practised writing it for some time, in order to attain some facility, at least remotely resembling that which every one has in writing his own name. In Experiment I., Plate VII., the name was written freely by A. In the group of three experiments, II., ff, b, and c, B supported the elbow of A while the PLATE VII. II. Group, b III. Group, h \ cf-C?ti<^-*-^>->'«-^ <^. Ui?^?>«i>^^5^ IV- Group. 6 j <^^J^c.u-Zn^^ 'Cf' <^^k.^^^f/ V. Group. 6 VI. Group VII. Group. /< VIII. AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 149 latter wrote the name ; both A and B, however, in this, as in all but the first and last experiments, to- gether kept their attention fixed upon the writing. In the group of three experiments, III., a, b, and c, the middle of the forearm of A was grasped by B. In the Group IV., «, b, and c, the forearm was grasped and supported immediately behind the wrist. In the Group V., a, b, and e, the wrist itself was grasped and supported and its motion largely hin- dered. In the Group VI., «, b, and e, the hand itself was tightly grasped, the wrist motion entirely prevented, and only the fingers and the arm left free to move. In VIL, a, b, and c, the hand and fingers were tightly held and free motion only allowed to the arm. In VIII., B wrote the name without assistance or interference from A. The signature was then examined, and seventeen elements selected for measurement, which are indi- cated at the heads of the seventeen columns ruled on the paper. The first seven columns refer to horizontal distances in millimeters between certain parts of letters. The succeeding five columns give the heights of as many letters selected from the rest, because it was thought that they would give more significant indications as to character. The last five data refer to angles with the horizontal, or slopes of the letters. 150 STUDY OF HANDWRITING h-; ^ 1 « to to \ 7 bb CO to CO JO aiSay SS c5SSS o oiotb t>OOCft inooin inoom Oinoot-^ o COdCJlN IM cocoes C4^-!rco CO CO-* CO in un CO ■* •* 50 eo CO ■ff bii O ". CO JO oiSuv a> 00 OOOi-H OTJO-* OOiOO— 1 oooo unoood oomoo s P -a. •<»'-9<'wa> lO'S'^-a' ■a> ^co-* OlO UOlO in-COCO CO to to si in P CO (M-^r-li-H OICJ f-l.-l OJ^dl-H C^C^C^Cl Ncqco:^ eo CO to CO CO ■p si CO to CO CO JO aiSuy P ^ oooo oooooi CO oooo-* oooeo Oino--J o oooeo o TfOOlO-* Tt>o»o6 00i>f-t^ to 00 oi 00 CO -10^ ?4 OOX t~I> ^^ r-i i-l—c ■ii-lr-i-^ '"' a CO to CO CO •s oir: CO u'S O U3 lO lOO to in 00 in in in in in 00 in s« 00 t~ O l-^ CO CO to to CO CO t~ to 00l>001>^ O 05 OS Oa oooo to I> ;:3 to CO CO CO to •3- a >" L-; ic u-5 iC to in icco in 00 in in in 00 in in to in s '^ OlOOOOO OJ t^ to t-^ t-^t^i-^r-^ o6oDt>I> d sioic) CO 00 in to l> s„ OiO lOO o oo uo.n m 2 in in •^^3- i-HO-H—l coiciri-fli -loitf-i totoo' t^ IMt^ -^CO OOlfH to 00 S =" oooo oooo OOiOO 05 01001 — OSOO t~i>t>i> t- rHrtr-rl a^ CO to CO to •^— o tr; c^ to o >a in 00 in in uo into in ^ X oooo 00 GO no— >oo6 -iooeo— 1 eooooit-^ COl-^QCO •^ ^ cn-J A OJ C-) CMIMIM ) CO ..^ CO •o— ff a '•'= O 00 ooo6i^i> ini-o t>t6ooo CRt-aooo i> in X t^ in 66 00 1> in to in in in oq in in CO in "» ■* a o CO ct ?0 to ■ff-S- u'5 rt CO inm CO in in CO UO -; in in in S 2 O Oo'OiCi ^HrHOO ddoci oooo CO COCO -^ dcoioio) oo Ooot-ao CO c-t^oot~; oun t~O00 00 oioood in U-; CIO in t^ CO in o ^ "" '"' —' ■^ 0) 2' he V S a a> > > p > '. ■ .< ■< So V > So u> 2 > ^ "^ 1-1 1 M ^ ^ ^ — « >> > > » >» > 1 AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 151 S 's CD e EH . ^ <2) •33loj)s dn 'j JO aiSuv •inajs lUVVl 'S JO 8i3uv Cl IM — I CO lO CO 00 lO 00 CO CO CC CO CO CO CO QO 00 O lO •n—^ ■fl—v ■v—3 s—s S 00 00 00 -H t-.' « IM C< d CO «-l lO lO a CO 00 lo CO S in •p-a^ CO CO CO ainoocOeooiHco gicooo6r*o6o>irico 152 STUDY OF HANDWRITING To prevent the error which would be likely to re- sult from considering but one series of measurements for each of the seven cases just described, all but the first and last were repeated three times, and the aver- ages of these triple measurements were taken as single observations and compared with each other and with the single signatures at the commencement and the close. The resulting figures are complicated, but in general they show the greatest divergences from the type fur- nished by each of the experimenters in the middle spaces III., IV., V., and VL, or where the motions of both A and B had the greatest freedom ; and the least divergence in the spaces nearest to the type signatures. Summary. — If the average of Experiment VII. (Table III.) be compared in numerical results with that of the free-hand Experiment VIII., it will be seen that about half of the results differ by less than fifteen per cent. To be more accurate, they are as follows, counting the seventeen columns from left to right: 0.11, 0.17, 0.33, 0.04, 0.22, 0.006, 0.019, 0.011, 0.31, 0.30, 0.002, 0.015, 0.32, 0.78, 0.14, 0.27, 0.15. Eight out of the seventeen results differ by fifteen per cent., or less, whereas the results in the middle space III., IV. ^ and V. differ in almost every case by much more than fifteen per cent., which has been arbitrarily assumed as the maximum variation to be generally allowed be- tween any genuine signature and the average of a number of them. AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 153 Table IV. gives only the averages mentioned on Table III., omitting the separate measurements for the purpose of obtaining greater simplicity. The greatest diiFerences between Series VII. and Vni. are found in the angles representing slopes of the letters or inclination to a horizontal line. This is an additional instance of the value of this element in determining normal signatures. Note. — Since this book was in press the daily papers report some testimony of an expert in a case of guided handwriting. Whether or not it be considered established that with care the ele- ments of each handwriting can be proven in the guided signature, the expert's opinion was certainly premature if he were correctly re- ported as stating that "it was impossible for a person holding an- other's hand to infuse the character of the guider's hand into the writing." (See Philadelphia Evening Telegraphy May 22, 1894. PART II. CHEMICAL EXAMINATION. CHAPTER XVL THE TESTING OF INKS. Objects in Vie^w. — The testing of inks on docu- ments may have for its object the decision as to whether two different ink-marks give the same re- actions ; whether certain substances are contained in an ink; or which of two crossed lines is the upper one. These and a variety of other questions belong to the chemical part of an expert's duties, and are here to be considered by themselves. It is evident that, in an important document, it is out of the question to think of making a quantitative analysis of an ink. To do so would destroj^ the document, and even if by this means a satisfactory analysis could be made (which is doubtful) it would be at too great a sacrifice. But it is not likely that a satisfactory quantitative analysis of the ink could be made from the extremely thin and dried films of its marks on paper, for whether mechan- 154 DETECTION OF FORGERY. 155 ical or chemical means were used to collect it, the sub- stance examined would always be rendered impure by the material derived from the surface of the paper, which could not be entirely separated from it. Some constituents of inks are volatile, and conse- quently the result attained by an ultimate analysis of the material which could be secured from a dried piece of writing would be but little more precise in sug- gesting the original constitution of the ink than such qualitative tests as may be conducted without injur}- to the document as a record. Importance of photographing the Document. — "While it is perfectly true, as has been said before in this work, that a good photographic copy should be made of every document before it is submitted to chemical examination, the latter is far from the dangerous process which judges and opposing counsel sometimes seem to consider it. Plea for Proper Chemical Testing. — It is frequently remarkable to observe with what equanimity the court can see an important document soiled by dirty fingers, folded and sometimes torn, pricked with pins, and adorned with "Exhibit" marks, while it forbids the application of a minute drop of a reagent to the ink or paper of which the eflects could onh- be seen by a magnitying-glass, and which would have some real value in the establishment of the truth : as if the act of testing chemically we're a sacrilege. This prejudice of the court against permitting a document to be 156 STUDY OF HANDWRITING chemically tested seems not to be shared to the same extent abroad. If the truth is to be elicited some liberty is to be allowed the expert, but it is not necessary that he should be permitted to mutilate or destroy the paper. On the contrary, in dealing with valuable documents none should be allowed to apply tests of any kind but those known to have the necessary experience to do so safely, and those who have a respect for records. The tests applicable to a writing are necessarily qualitative, — that is, they are exclusively directed to determining the presence of a substance and not to the quantity of that substance Avhich exists in the ink. The proof of the presence of a substance is obtained by the reactions it gives, which are in these cases usu- ally changes of color or shade on the application of the testing substance. It is not necessary that this should be effected over any considerable surface of the ink- mark tested. An exceedingly small drop applied on a fine point to a given part of an ink line, and then ex- amined carefully under the magnifying-glass, will give the same assurance of the presence of a component as would the entire document if immersed in the reagent. It is seldom necessary to effect so great a change as to be remarked by a casual glance at the document. Never- theless, it in no way invalidates the authenticity of a document if the color of parts of a few letters has been changed, especially if the exact parts of the docu- ment to which reagents have been applied are noted, AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 157 and can be recognized and testified to by the expert who makes the experiment. Nor does it deprive the expert who is studying the character of handwriting of the opportunity to pursue his investigation if the lines he is following are occasionally mottled with colors different from that of the ordinary ink, so long as the lines remain in other respects as distinct as before. This should generallj- be the case, but there are tests which leave the ink spread out in little blots where the reagent has been applied. Tests like these should be avoided wherever possible, and when they must be undertaken the amount of the reagent should be as small as is consistent with a proper observation of the reaction. For the purpose of examining inks upon written documents, the following are the reagents which it will usually be found sufficient to employ : Reagents Desirable. — Oxalic acid, three per cent, solution ; citric or tartaric acid, ten per cent, solution ; hydrochloric acid, ten per cent.; sulphuric acid, tifteen per cent. ; nitric acid, twenty per cent. ; a solution of one part tin chloride, one part hydrochloric acid, and ten parts of distilled water ; saturated solution of sul- phurous acid ; four per cent, solution of gold chlo- ride ; a solution of sodium hyposulphite one i>art, ammonia one part, and distilled water ten parts ; a solution (which should always be freshly made) of potassium ferrocyanide one part, hydrochloric acid one part, and distilled water ten parts ; a solution of 158 STUDY OF HANDWRITING potassium sulphocjanate one part, hydrochloric acid one part, and distilled water ten parts ; a four per cent, solution in distilled water of sodium hydrate ; a two per cent, solution of chlorinated lime ; some crystals of iodine ; absolute alcohol ; aqua ammonia, and distilled water. Convenient Form of Apparatus. — The writer finds it convenient to arrange these reagents in a portable case, of which a representation is given in Plate VI., Figs. 5 and 6. The little reagent-bottles, each containing about twenty cubic centimeters, are held in separate compart- ments, on two sides of a double strip, hinged at the top. In carrying, the two strips are pressed together and slipped into the grooves on the ends of the outside case ; while in use, the strips are separated and rested on the table, when they are ready at hand. A broad pocket extending over the entire length of the outside case is useful for carrying the glass rods, feathers, pens, etc., necessary for applying the reagents. Manner of testing. — Strips of clean, white blotting- paper should always be provided before commencing the examination. If the document be very old or the ink with which it is written very pale, it is well to apply a drop of distilled water to the place where the reagent has been applied, and as soon as sufficient time has been allowed to judge of the reaction, to remove the surplus fluid at once by means of the blotting-paper. AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 159 According to Hager and Holdermann ^ the most frequently employed black inks are prepared from the following substances : Constitution of the Principal Inks. — 1. Gallo-tannic acid (nutgalls), copperas, gum arabic (with or without acetic acid or wood vinegar). This ink is generally called nutgall ink. 2. Alizarine ink is prepared like that of nutgalls, but receives an addition of indigo-carmine, or a solu- tion in water of indigo in sulphuric acid to which iron has been added. 3. Nutgall ink with logwood is prepared like nut- gall ink, but instead of water a decoction of logwood is employed. 4. Logwood ink (with potassium chromate) is pre- pared with one thousand parts of a decoction of log- wood and one part of potassium chromate. 5. Unknown inks are brought into commerce under different names, but are chiefly prepared from log- wood infusions with various salts (such as, for instance, cupric chloride). 6. Copying-inks consist mostly of the foregoing inks, with glycerin and an addition of sugar, or they are prepared from solution of extract of logwood, with the addition of alum, blue vitriol, glycerin, in- digo-carmine, etc. 7. Aniline inks are prepared from aniline colors. ^ Hager's Untersuchungen, etc., Dr. H. Hager and E. Holder- mann. Leipzig : Ernst Giinther's Verlag, 1888. 160 STUDY OF HANDWRITING General Considerations. — It is often important to know the constitution of these universally employed inks, and to pay attention to them in the examination of supposed forgeries. The testing of a writing demands every precaution, for often only one written letter, a simple stroke, con- stitutes the object of the examination, and it must be proved from this stroke whether it has been made with other ink than that used in the rest of the docu- ment. Again, sometimes the proof must be furnished whether a written character is of later date than the remainder of the document. When it concerns important documents, and es- pecially in legal cases, as has been reiterated, it is ad- visable to have a photographic copy taken of the writing, or the suspected part of the writing. Preliminary Investigation. — At the commencement of the investigation one should use a lens or a magni- fying-glass in order to determine whether several ad- jacent characters have been apparently made with the same ink. .They should be viewed with a magnify- ing-glass in reflected and transmitted light in order to recognize a variation in color, lustre, or thickness of the ink-film. Many inks blot on bad paper, — that is, the written characters surround themselves with a paler border ; other inks which contain, for example, much gum do not possess this characteristic. The lens determines this easily, but it must not be overlooked that many papers are badly sized, or have AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 161 individual spots which are not sufficiently sized, and hence cause the ink to flow. An ink rich in gum, or an ink concentrated by evaporation in an inkstand, gives a more lustrous and thicker stroke. Many inks sink deeper into the material written on, so that the character can be seen and observed on the other side of the paper with the lens. At the place where written characters cross, and these written characters have been made at different times, or with different inks, it can often be recognized, with the aid of a lens, which char- acter lies under or over the other, and therefore which was made first or last. If it be necessary to employ the microscope, a magnifying-power of tenfold linear measure with a lateral illuminating lens is generally strong enough. Next comes the use of reagents. Oxalic Acid (C^HjO^ -j- 2Ati). — With a soft quill or gold pen which has been dipped in solution of oxalic acid (one part acid to ten or fifteen per cent, of dis- tilled water), minute dots are made oh, or cross- strokes are made through the broader and narrower parts of some of the written characters, and these are examined by the naked eye after drying, and with the lens. With iron-holding inks a fading or paling will occur more quickly in fresh writings, and more slowl}- in old writings. Fresh characters traced in nutgall ink one or two days before the observation disappear under oxalic acid easily, or become light gray; older 11 162 STUDY OF HANDWRITING characters become a little paler or gray, and the same is true of nutgall ink with logwood ; the charac- ters written with alizarine ink become by solution of oxalic acid bluish or blue ; characters made with log- wood inks, on the other hand, orange red, raspberry red, or brownish red. Aniline ink is not materially changed. Hydrochloric Acid (HCl). — Hereupon the pen is dipped in twelve and a half per cent, hydrochloric acid, and strokes are made as before through separate parts of the writing, and allowed to dry without warm- ing. "Writings of nutgall ink, if not more than a day old, become yellow ; if older, yellowish-gray ; those with nutgall ink containing logwood, reddish or red- dish-gray; with alizarine ink, greenish; logwood inks, more or less red ; aniline ink, more or less reddish or brownish-gray. Ammonium Hydrate (x^H^OH). — This substance, known in commerce simply as ammonia or hartshorn, is one of the three strongest alkalis. It is preferable as a reagent to potassium or sodium hydrates, because it is entirely volatile, and any excess which may be left on the substance to which it is applied may be entirely expelled by moderate heat. Ammonium hydrate is very subject to the capillary action of the paper, and runs over a large space Outside of that to which it is applied. The use of parallel strips of blotting-paper AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 163 is to be recommended when it is applied to a written instrument. In moist ammoniacal air, or by touching with caustic ammonia, the places in the writing which have been changed in color by acids become darker (even blackish violet, like the logwood inks), fre- quently with blurred outlines; but the writings least of all or not at all darkened are those made with nutgall ink and bleached by acids. Potassium Perrocyanide. — Ferrocyanogen forms with most metals compounds insoluble in water, and usually exhibiting characteristic colors. Its com- pound with iron, even when an infinitesimal amount of the latter is present as a sesquioxide or sesqui-salt, produces an intense blue — Prussian blue — which is not effected by hydrochloric acid, but is dissolved by potassium hydrate. In using this reagent on a document for the purpose of proving the presence of iron in the ink unusual precautions are necessary. In the first place, as has been stated in the remarks on the constitution of paper, a small drop of the reagent should be applied to the paper of the document at parts where there is no ink, and left there for a minute. If no change of color take place, the drop should be removed by soft blotting-paper, and its traces still further obliterated by successive drops of distilled water on the same spot also removed by blotting-paper. 164 STUDY OF HANDWRITING The reagent should then bo applied in a minute drop to the ink. If, at the expiration of sixty seconds no change of color appear in the drops or on the paper under it, the solution should be removed by bibulous paper, and the place washed by successive drops of distilled water, which should be allowed to stand for an equal time, and removed in the same way. If the solution be exposed to the light and air it will sufier decomposition, and part of its iron contents will fur- nish the very reaction for iron which is sought in the material to which it is applied. Documents which have been tested by the reagent without having been subsequently freed from it, as above suggested, invariably exhibit blue spots which ignorant or designing persons may ascribe to reactions with the iron in the ink or paper when no such iron was present. While this reagent is invaluable, it requires more care than all the rest to avoid leaving a stain on the document. It should not be applied in drops broader than the ink lines it is meant to test, but in very minute drops lying wholly within the lines, and the reaction, if any, should be observed with a glass magnifying four or five diameters. If no reaction for iron is observed on the blank paper, while a reaction is seen when the reagent touches the ink, the proof that the color is due to the iron in the ink is con^^ncing.^ ^ An actual instance where this test proved of great value was in the Whitaker will trial. AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 165 Potassium Sulphocyanate (^KCN^S). — This reagent when aciduhited, as recommended in the table of reagents, or, indeed, in all but distinctly alkaline solu- tions of iron sesquioxide salts, produces in them an intense red color, although not a precipitate. This test is one of the most delicate in qualitative chemistry, and, in the absence of molybdenum dioxide and hyponitric acid (of which the presence in the sub- ject of examination is excluded), is convincing as to the presence of iron in the ink. Indeed, its very deli- cacy, which takes note of the adventitious existence of the minutest particles of ferriferous substances in paper or ink, is almost a drawback to the formation of an opinion when it gives the reaction for iron ; l)ut when even this substance fails to show the slightest trace of iron, it is useless to seek proof of such a trace A will, purporting to have been made by Robert Whitaker, on the 7th of May, 1875 (a copy of the last page of which will be found among the illustrations of this book), was presented for probate upon his death in 1878. The appearance of the ink with which the signa- tures were written was of that peculiar reddish-brown assumed by iron inks after the lapse of several years. If it were an iron ink, therefore, it must give, with potassium ferrocyanide, the blue color characteristic of this element. If, on the contrary, it gave no reac- tion for iron, it was no common writing fluid, but a coloring matter chosen to imitate an oxidized iron ink. So thought the writer, who was requested to examine the will, and preparations were made to test this. The writing fluid was proved to be an unusual one containing no iron but simulating old iron ink, and it was stated to bo probably Winsor and Newton's brown, which was subsequently corroborated by the confession of the forgers. 166 STUDY OF HANDWRITING by any other. It has also the advantage over potas- sium ferrocyanide of not containing iron within itself, which may by internal change produce the very re- action it is employed to show in other substances. Tartaric Acid (C^HgOg = HoT). — That of commerce is sufficiently pure for purposes of testing. It is to be kept as a powder and a solution made when required, for it decomposes by exposure to light and air, as can be observed when a white film forms on its upper surface. Citric Acid (CgHgOy = HgCi). — Like tartaric acid, is useful in preventing sesquioxide of iron solutions from precipitation by alkalis ; it dissolves sesquioxide of iron, and therefore bleaches an ink of which the dried film contains this substance. Sulphuric Acid (HjSO^). — The reactions of this most powerful of all the acid reagents are too well known to need recapitulation here. It readily dis- solves the sesqui-salts of iron in an ink-film and pro- duces characteristic color reactions with the various inks. Nitric Acid (IINO3) is equally with the preceding well known to chemists and non-chemists. It is a powerful oxidizing agent and solvent, and its salts are generally easily soluble in distilled water. AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 167 Acidified Tin Bichloride (SnClg.HCl).— This is a powerful deoxidizing or reducing agent. It extracts the oxygen present in the ink-film, and breaks up the compounds, while the free hydrochloric acid removes the iron. This reagent is difficult to preserve for use, and should be made when needed. It should be kept in a well-stoppered bottle slightly acidulated with hydrochloric acid, and some metallic tin should be added. Its tendency is to form tin perchloride, which destroys its value as a reagent. Gold Terchloride (AuClg). — This solution is used as a strong oxidizing agent. In the act of raising the stage of oxidation it precipitates metallic gold as a reddish-brown powder. It is not so subject to change in the reagent-bottle as the substances just considered. Ammoniacal Sodium Hyposulphite (Xa.^SjOj-f- NH4OH + Aq). — This well-known reagent, employed extensively in photography, has powerful reducing prop- erties, and reacts on the various constituents of inks with characteristic color effects noted in the table at the end of this chapter. Sodium Hydrate (N'aOH). — This is one of the two strongest alkalis, and is employed both for neutral- izing acids previously applied to portions of the paper, 168 STUDY OF HANDWRITING and for its decomposition and color-indications on the materials to which it is applied. (See table.) Chlorinated Lime (CaOClg). — This is simply the bleaching powder of commerce dissolved in water. It has a bleaching and an oxidizing effect, the two being due to the same characteristic, the release of oxygen by the free chlorine and the destruction of coloring matter by the former. Like all the other re- agents, but with greater reason than for any but strong sulphuric and nitric acid, it should not be left in con- tact with the document longer than is necessary for the observation of the reaction, otherwise it is liable to destroy the paper w^ith which it comes in contact. Iodine (I^ — crystals). — This element is volatile, even at ordinary temperature, and is characterized by its strong blue color when brought in contact with starch. Its uses are more particularly set forth in the two succeeding chapters. This reaction was supposed to be merely physical, but the best authorities now regard it as a true chemical combination, and Mylius finds it to contain eighteen per cent, of iodine, of which part is hydrogen iodide, and gives the formula (C24H^o02ol4) HI (Sadtler). Alcohol (C2H5(OII)). — The use of this substance as a test on portions of a paper where writing has been erased, and the bare place has been re-sized by means of resin, soap, and paste, or other like substances, has AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 169 been already alluded to. Besides this, however, it is of value in causing the reappearance of writing which has been rendered invisible, as described in the ex- periments of Chevallier and Lassaigne in a succeeding page. Care is necessary in using alcohol on docu- ments on account of its strong tendency to spread and run over a large area of tlie sheet, carrying its stain and coloring materials to a considerable distance from the spot to be tested. Where this would interfere with the investigation, it is recommended to place strips of blotting-paper on either side of and close to the spot to be treated with alcohol, and to press them firmly upon the document before applying the small drop of alcohol between them. Superposition in Crossed Lines. — To distinguish the ages of two ink-films which cross each other, whether, for instance, a crossing-out, a writing, or a blot was first made (if nutgall was the ink used), the place is touched with a brush dipped in the above- named solution of oxalic acid, because it can be as- sumed that the upper ink-film will lileach sooner than the under and older, which has penetrated deeper into the paper fibres. If a logwood ink has been used for crossing out, it can be made to disappear by touching with ammonia. If the overlying ink is nutgall ink, and the writing logwood, the proper place should be re- peatedly moistened with oxalic acid or solution of fluoride of potassium acidified hy sulphuric acid until 170 STUDY OF HANDWRITING it has become so pale that the lower writhig can be read. During this operation the moistened part should be frequently observed in a good light. If the ink-film to be removed is very thin, and if the writing covered by it consists of fine strokes, it is recommended to saturate blotting-paper with the acid or the ammonia and by tapping and pressing upon it to take up the ink-film. When the covering ink-film is removed, if the writing be more or less attacked, it is allowed to dry without warming. In the case of nutgall inks, it is touched with a small quantity of a solution of gallic acid, and in the case of logwood ink with very dilute solution of chloride of copper, and is allowed to dry without warming. Approximate Age of Writing. — To assist in deter- mining the ages of writings by one and the same ink, it is to be observed that the older the writing the less soluble it is in dilute ammonia. If the writing be lightly touched with a brush dipped in ten per cent, ammonia, the later writing will always give up more or less soluble matter to the ammonia before the earlier. In case of inks of different kinds this test is not ser- viceable, for characters written in logwood ink, for instance, will always give up their soluble material sooner than nutgall inks, even if the last named be later applied. To estimate the age of writing from the amount of bleaching in a given time by hydro- chloric or oxalic acid is very precarious, because the AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 171 thickness of the ink-film in a written character is not always the same, and the acid bleaches the thinner layer sooner than the thicker. (See later to determine the age of a writing accord- ing to Carre.) CHAPTER XVII. hager's method.^ Reagents used by Forgers. — The forging of papers or the removal of written characters occurs, accord- ing to experience, in two ways. Either by erasure or by washing with chemical reagents. The erased place is usually covered by rubbing with sandarach powder, an alum powder, or a partial sizing. To the chemical washing reagents belong oxalic acid, citric acid, hydrochloric acid, potassium oxalate, chlorine, chlorinated lime solution, and acid sodium sulphite. For the purpose of establishing a forgery of writing of this kind, observe the surface of the paper, whether it is rough or smooth, whether the particular place exhibit any difference in reflected and in trans- mitted light, as well as by feeling with tlie fingers. The place in question is either rough or smooth, or rubbed with the previously-mentioned powders, or it possesses a greater transparency and is thinner. ^ Hager's Untersuchungen, Zweiter Band : Leipzig, Ernst Giin- thers Verlag, 1888. 172 STUDY OF HANDWRITING In hand-made paper (which at present is l^ut rarely met witli, and is only superficial!}' sized) the erased places are easier to detect than in machine-made paper. The sizing which is applied to ordinary writing- paper is a paste holding resin soap. In order to heighten the white of the paper a hlue material, either nltramarine or Berlin blue, is added. On the other hand, almost every paper contains traces of iron de- rived from the water which is used in its manufacture. If the forgery of the writing have been effected b}'^ the aid of chemical means, certain changes in the color of the paper will be noticeable. On the places in question will be found gray, yellow, or white spots, recognizable in reflected and transmitted light. Reagents in the Cold. — A piece of slightly moist litmus paper is laid on the suspected place and pressed strongly. If acid still stick to the document's surface (oxalic, citric), the litmus paper will be reddened. After this test the suspected area is exposed to the action of ammonia gas, by laying it on a beaker glass in which is some spirit of sal ammoniac. In an hour the parts of the paper where the ink-decomposing re- agents acted will have shown themselves changed, or the written characters which have been disturbed will appear in some color or other. If the change have taken place in consequence of the action of ammonia gas, but is only moderately distinct, the place is touched over gentl}' Avith a mixture of equal parts of dilute ammonia and ninety-per-cent. alcohol. If nothing AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 173 appears by this iiietliod the moistened place is allowed to become dry and then is painted over with a solution of one part gallic acid or gallo-tunnic acid in twenty parts of forty-five-per-eent. alcohol. If parts of oxide of iron from the decomposed written characters are found in the mass of the paper fibre they will now a[)- pear perhaps somewhat blurred. If the paper contain in itself oxide of iron (recognizable by the yellow or brownish-yellow color), it is advisable, instead of gallic acid or gallo-tannic acid, to employ a dilute solution of ferrocyanide of potassium in water. This latter is to be recommended if the above acids have given no result. If the ink with which the decomposed letters were made contained copper salts, or iron and copper salts, this should insure a result. Heating- in Presence of Reagents. — Heating the paper with chemical reagents is recommended (by Chevallier & Lassaigne) in forgeries. The paper, pre- viously moistened with alcohol, should be heated di- rectly at the fire, or laid between two paper sheets and pressed by a hot iron until the upper sheet browns feebly, or becomes the color of chamois skin. This operation must be conducted with the greatest caution. Another experiment recommended consists in the action of iodine vapor on the paper. A few iodine crystals are placed in a tlat glass vessel which is covered by the suspected parts of the paper. In fifteen to thirty minutes the paper will have been colored yel- 174 STUDY OF HANDWRITING lowish, and the erased portions, or the places which contained writing, will appear surrounded by a colored border. It is, nevertheless, advisable that a previous experi- ment be made with the same paper in order to ascer- tain its behavior to iodine. If it be colored very deeply by iodine vapor the color can be again removed by vapor of ammonia. Whether the one or the other reagent be employed, a preliminary experiment with the same paper is always to be undertaken in order to observ^e its be- havior to the reagent. Cases can very well occur w^here a reagent can- not be employed if the paper thereby will be darkly colored. For documents the paper should be manufactured from a pulp which has received an addition of ferro- cyanide of potassium, caustic ammonia, and proto- chloride of iron. Determination of Age. — The determination of the age of a written paper is a problem difficult of solu- tion. According to F. Carre the age can be approxi- mately determined if the characters written in iron ink are pressed in a copying-press, and a commercial hydro- chloric acid diluted with eleven parts of water is sub- stituted for water; or, if the written characters are treated for some time with this diluted acid. The explanation is that the ink changes in time, its organic substance disappears little by little, and leaves AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 175 behind an iron compound, wliicli in part is not attacked even by acids. An unsized paper is impregnated with the described dilute acid, copied with the press, and a copy from a writing eight or ten ^'^ears old can be obtained as easily as one by means of water from a writing one day old. A writing thirty years old gives, by this method, a copy hardly legible, and one over sixty years old, a copy hardly visible. In order to protect the paper against the action of the acid, it should be drawn through ammoniacal water. Sympathetic Inks. — The discovery and proof of the use of sympathetic ink are sometimes required of the expert. Solutions of salts of cobalt, nickel, lead, copper, ferrous oxide, mercurous oxide, ferrocyanide of potassium, besides solution of iodide of potassium, diluted sulphuric acid, onion-juice, solution of tannic acid, gallic acid, and radish-juice, furnish material for sympathetic inks. First, heat must be applied, and measures taken to hold the paper over a lamp with a glass cylinder until a slight browning occurs. Characters made with cobalt salt appear blue, those with nickel salt are green, those with the sulpliuric acid and plant-juice are gray or blackish. If the warming produce no result, cross-lines ;ire made across the paper sheet l)y means of a very soft-cut goose-quill dipped in a reagent. 176 STUDY OF HANDWRITING Reagents. — The appropriate reagents are : 1, gallo- tanuic acid ; 2, ferrocyanide of potassium, acidified with a little sulphuric acid; 3, hydrogen-sulphide water ; 4, ammonium sulphide ; 5, copper vitriol ; 6, iron vitriol ; 7, solution of potassium iodide ; 8, caustic ammonia ; 9, lime-water. Procedure. — Blotting-paper is saturated with that particular reagent which produces a color reaction, and pressed strongly on the paper containing the invisible writing, or the latter is drawn quickly through a dilute solution of the reagent. If neither heating nor any reagent produce a result, vapor of iodine is allowed to act upon it, by laying the paper in a saucer or plate, of which the bottom is covered with iodine crystals ; and if in this way no result be ob- tained, the paper is strewn with burnt ivory or fine charcoal powder, and a sheet of paper is laid over it and pressed. When the charcoal powder is removed by light tapping, enough dust remains in contact with the written characters, which have been made with some indifferent substance (dextrine, india-rubber, glue, etc.), to render the writing legible. Writings w^ith sympathetic ink are not always to be sought on simple white paper ; more frequently they are found on the margins or between the lines of epistles written with black ink, on the margins of printed documents, or the parts of notes uncovered by writing. If the piece of writing be observed in an obliquely AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 177 falling daylight, the usually duller '\\Titten characters can be recognized, if not deciphered. The paper can also be laid between glass plates, and ol^served in transmitted sunlight. CHAPTER XVIII. BAUDKIMONT METHOD.^ Reagents needed. — The reagents needed are alco- hol, reagent papers, silver nitrate, and some others. Distilled water is very useful in many cases to ascer- tain whether the paper has been scratched and par- tially sized or treated with resin. If it have not been altered by chemical agents, this partial sizing and the resinous matter used, give to the paper a peculiar ap- pearance. Sizing takes away from tlie whiteness of the paper, and, thinned by the scratching or washing, it absorbs water much more quickly even when it has been partially sized. Mode of Operation. — Place the document suspected of being a forgery on a sheet of white pai)er or, ])etter still, on a piece of glass; thou moisten little l)v little with a paint-brush all parts of it, paying close atten- 1 Dictionnaire des alterations et falsifications des substances ali- nientaires, etc., par E. Baudriinoiit. Paris: Asselin et Cie, 1882. 12 178 STUDY OF HANDWRITING tion to the behavior of the liquid as it comes in contact with the paper. Water. — By means of water one can discover what acids, alkalis, or salts the parts of the paper with colored borders or white spots contain. "With the aid of a pipette cover these spots with water and let it remain for ten or fifteen minutes ; then with the pipette remove the liquid and examine the products it holds in solution. Afterwards make a comparative experiment on another part of the paper which is neither spotted nor whitened. If the original writing have been done with a very acid ink on a paper containing a carbonate, such as calcium carbonate, the ink, in attacking the calcareous salt, stains the paper, so that if the forger have removed the ferruginous salts this removal is denoted by the semi-transparence that water gives to the paper. To study carefully the action of the water it is necessary to repeat the experiment several times, al- lowing the paper to dry thoroughly before recom- mencing it. Alcohol. — According to Tarr}-, it is necessary to have recourse to alcohol to discover whether the paper has been scratched in any of the parts and then cov- ered with a resinous matter to prevent the ink from blotting. Place the document on a sheet of white paper and with a paint-brush dipped in alcohol of sp)ecific gravity 0.86 or 0.87 cover the place supposed to have been AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 179 tampered with. It may be discovered if the writing thickens and runs when the alcohol has dissolved the resin. Hold the paper moistened with alcohol between the eye and the light : the thinning of the paper shows the work of the fol'ger. Some more skilful forgers use paste and resin at the same time to mask their fraudulent operations; in this case luke-warm water sliould be first employed and then alcohol ; water to dilute the paste, and alco- hol to dissolve the rosin. The result is that the ink added on the places scratched out spreads, and the forger}' is easily seen. Test-papers. — Test-papers (litmus, mauve, and Georgina paper) serve to determine whether a paper has been washed either by the help of chemi- cal agents, acids incompletely removed, or the sur- plus of which has been saturated by an alkali, or by the help of alkaline substances. The change of the color to red indicates an acid substance ; an alkali would turn the reddened litmus paper to blue, and the mauve and Georgina test-papers to green. Take a sheet of test-paper of the same dimensions as the document to be examined, moisten it, and cover it underneath with a sheet of Swedish filter-paper. These two sheets together (the filter-pa|)or underneath) are then applied to the document which has been moistened already. The whole is then laitl between 180 STUDY OF HAND WRITING two quires of paper, covered by a weighted board, and left in contact for about an hour. At the end of this time examine the test-paper to see if it has partly or altogether changed color. This examination finished, put the test-paper in con- tact with distilled water, to be afterwards removed and tried by appropriate tests to discover the nature of the alkali or acid present. Instead of test-papers, tinctures of litmus, mauve, or purple dahlia may be used. Silver Nitrate. — Silver nitrate is used to discover whether the paper has been washed with chlorine or chlorides. A paper in that way becomes acid. The chlorine changes to hydrochloric acid, which dissolves in the water with which the suspected document is moistened, and at the contact of silver nitrate little spots of silver chloride appear. Various other Tests. — Certain reagents, such as gallo-tannic acid or infusion of nutgalls prepared a short time before, potassium ferrocyanide, alkaline sulphites, and sulphuretted hydrogen, may all be used with advantage to restore writings that have been re- moved by washing. Place the document on a sheet of white paper and moisten the whole of its surface with a paint-brush dipped in the reagent, taking care not to rub it or strongly press it. When the surface is well impregnated allow the solution to act for an hour, and at the end of this time examine the document again. Then moisten it a second time, and the follow- AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 181 ing day examine the results. Repeat the moistening several times if necessary, for it often takes some time to make the traces of writing reappear. Use of the Vapor of Iodine. — Chevallier and Las- saigue experimented together on the effect produced by the vapor of iodine on the surface of papers or documents upon which the alteration of writing was suspected. Take a bottle with a wide mouth from ten to eleven centimeters in height, and the opening from five to six centimeters in width. This last is covered by a disk of unpolished glass. Into the bottom of this vessel introduce from twenty to thirty grams of iodine in crystals. Place the portion of paper on wliich the vapor of iodine is to act at the opening of the bottle, and cover it with the stopper of unpolished glass, on which put a weight so as to exert a slight pressure, and in order that the aperture may be hermetically closed. Then allow the vapor of iodine to act on the dry paper for three or four minutes at the temperature of 15° to 16° (Cent.) and examine it attentively. When the sur- face has not been spotted by any liquid (water, alcohol, salt water, vinegar, saliva, tears, urine, acids, acid salts, or alkalis) a uniform pale-yellow or yellow- ish-brown tinge will be noticed on all i>arts of the paper exposed to the vajtor of iodine. Otherwise a different and easily-distinguished tinge shows itself on the surface that has been moistened and then drird in tiu- open air. 182 STUDY OF HANDWRITING Machine-made papers with starchy and resinous sizing give such decided reactions that sometimes it is possible to distinguish by the color the portion of the paper treated with alcohol from that moistened with water. The spot produced by alcohol takes a bistre-yellow tinge; that formed by water becomes a violet-blue, more or less deep, after having dried at an ordinary temperature. As to the spots produced by other aqueous liquids, they approach in appear- ance (though not in intensity) those occasioned by pure water. Feeble acids, or those diluted by water, act like water; but the concentrated mineral acids, in altering more or less the substances of the sizing, produce spots that present differences. The spots which become apparent in using the vapor of iodine are due to chemical agents whose strength has altered either the fibres of the surface, or the paste uniting them. For this reason stamped papers, whose preparation and sale are superintended by the French government, are less easy to falsify than ordinary ma- chine-made papers. In a word, the test of a paper by vapor of iodine has the double advantage of indicating the place of the supposed alteration and operating afterwards with appropriate reagents to bring back the traces of ink. It is only the reappearance of former letters or figures written or effaced that demonstrates forgery. The difference of the action of the vapor of iodine on the surface of a paper which is not homogeneous AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 183 permits one to judge whether or not it has received, in certain parts limited in area, a fine layer of some glutinous matter (gum, gelatin, or flour paste) to make it adhere to other sheets of paper. This method of testing may be tried at the same time with that w^hich consists in proving this addition, either by the reflection of incident light on paper in- clined at a certain angle or by the transmission of daylight or artificial light through the same paper. Machine-made papers and stamped papers take a violet-blue color in the parts covered by starchy paste, but with the first a more intense color is pro- duced in the parts treated with a thin layer of gum arable, fish-glue, or gelatin, whereas these same substances spread on certain parts of the surface of stamped papers become neither darker nor yellower than the parts free from it. But on looking at the light incident to the surface of the paper held obliquely, it is easy to distinguish the parts to which these various substances have been applied. Table V., from the Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, of October 31, 1892, is a useful compendium of the more usual tests which may be applied to tlie inks of written documents. It was published origi- uallyiin the Pharmacciitische Central-Halle, Ncue Folge, 1892, No. 13, p. 225, by A. Robertson and J. Kofmaun. 184 STUDY OF HANDWEITING TABLE v.— TESTS FOR INKS. Di'aw a moistened quill or gold pen over the ink-mark, and observe %vith a magn ifying-glass. INKS. REAGENTS. Iron Tannate. " Nutgall." Logwood with KaCr O4. Logwood with CU.SO4. Nigrosin. Vanadium. Resorcinol. Oxalic Acid 3 per cent. Disap- pears. Violet. Orange- yellow. Unaltered. Bleached and runs slightly. Bright red. Citric or Tar- taric Acid 10 per cent. Bleached. Violet. Orange- yellow. Runs and becomes dark blue. Bleached Disap- and runs. pears. HCI. 10 per cent. Disap- pears, leaving a yellow color. Purple- red. Blood-red. Little al- tered. Bleached i Bright slightly, 1 rose, runs ' slightly. H2SO4 15 per cent. Disap- pears. Red. Purple- red. Unaltered. Bleached i Bright red. slightly. 1 HNO3 20 per cent. Disap- pears. Red. Purple- red. Runs slightly. Bleached slightly. Bright rose. SnCla 1 pt. 1 HCI 1 pt. y Water 10 pts. j Disap- pears. Red. Magenta- red. Unaltered. Bleached slightly. Disap- pears. SOo (sat. sol.). Bleached. Gray- violet. Red. Unaltered. Bleached Bleached, slightly and runs. AUCI3 4 per cent. Bleached slightly. Red- brown. Brown. Unaltered. Unaltered. Becomes brown and NajSoOs 1 pt. 1 runs. Aq. Ammo- 1 nia 1 pt. 1 Water 10 pts. J Dark red. Unaltered. Dark blue. Becomes dark vio- let and Runs Brown, freely. I KFe.Cylpt. ■) HCI 1 pt. y Water 10 pts. J runs. Blue. Red. Brick-red. Unaltered. Unaltered. Rose. NaHO 4 per cent. Dark red. Brown. Becomes dark red and runs. Becomes dark vio- let and runs. Becomes Unaltered, dirty brown and runs. Chlorinated Lime 2 per cent. Disap- pears. Disap- pears. Disap- pears, leaving a yellow co'lor. Brown. Unaltered. Brown. AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 185 CHAPTER XIX. CONCERNING THE LAWS RELATING TO THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS ON HANDWRITING. It was the original intention of the author to cause to be made a short compendium of the laws governing the testimony of expert witnesses in for- gery cases in the various courts of this and other countries, but lack of space and of the ability to even properly edit such a chapter have caused him to forego this attempt. In the absence of such a compilation the follow- ing extract from Stephen's Law of Evidence^ is ap- pended for the benefit of those who are interested in looking up the authorities cited for themselves. STEPHEN'S LAW OF EVIDENCE. PART I., CHAPTER V. ARTICLE XLIX. OPINIONS OF EXPERTS ON POINTS OF SCIENCE OR ART. " When there is a question as to any point of science or art, the opinions upon that point of persons specially 1 A Digest of the Law of Evidence, by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, K.C.S.I. A Judge of the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division. Fourth English edition. American Edition with annotations and references to American cases, by George Chase, LL.B., Professor of Criminal Law, Torts, and Procedure in the Law School of Columbia College. New York : Printed for the editor, 1890. 186 STUDY OF HANDWEITING skilled in any such matter are deemed to be relevant facts. " Such persons are hei'einafter called experts. " The words ' science or art' include all subjects on which a course of special study or experience is neces- sary to the formation of an opinion, and amongst others the examination of handwritino;. ILLUSTRATION. " The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. " The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person, or by different persons, are deemed to be relevant.^ AKTICLE LI. OPINION AS TO HANDWRITING, WHEN DEEMED TO BE RELEVANT. " When there is a question as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the supposed writer that it was or was not written or signed by him, is deemed to be a relevant fact.^ " A person is deemed to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has at any time seen that person write,^ or when he has received 1 " 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 8 ; see Art. 52, and note. 2 "For a valuable article on this subject, see Am. Law Rev., xvi. 569. ' " Having seen him write once is enough ; this effects the weight, AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 187 documents purporting to be written b}- that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority, and addressed to that person/ or when in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually sub- mitted to him. ^ not the competency, of the testimony. Hammond r. Varian, 54 N. Y. 398 ; Comm. v. Nefus, 135 Mass. 533 ; McNair t;. Comm., 26 Pa. St. 388. So a person's mark may be proved in this way. Strong's Excrs., 17 Ala. 706; Fogg v. Dennis, 3 Humph. 47; Jackson v. Van Dusen, 5 Johns. 144; contra, Shinkle v. Crock, 17 Pa. St. 159. But a person who sees another write, or examines his handwriting, ex- pressly for the purpose of being able to testify, is, in general, an in- competent witness. Eeese v. Reese, 90 Pa. St. 89; Board of Trustees V. Nusenheimer, 78 111. 22 ; Hynes v. McDermott, 82 N. Y. 41, 53. A witness may testify as to handwriting who cannot read or write himself. Foye v. Patch, 132 Mass. 105. 1 "Chaffee v. Taylor, 3 Allen, 598; Clark v. Freeman, 25 Pa. St. 133 ; Cunningham v. Hudson River Bk., 21 "VVend. 557 ; Empire Mf'g Co. V. Stuart, 46 Mich. 482. But this is sometimes not sufficient authentication. McKeone v. Barnes, 108 Mass. 344. So if the wit- ness has received letters or other writings of a person, who has after- wards, by words or acts, acknowledged their genuineness (Gr. Ev. 1, ^ 577; Johnson v. Daverne, 19 Johns. 134; Snyder v. McKeever, 10 Bradw. 188) ; but not if he has only seen letters to strangers, pur- porting to be those of the person in question. Phila. etc. R. Co. r. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318; Nunes v. Perry, 113 Mass. 276. ^ " See Illustration ; Titford v. Knott, 2 Johns. Cas. 211 ; Comm. V. Smith, 6 S. «& R. 568. Thus public officers who have seen many official documents filed in their office, having the signature of a cer- tain justice, may testify as to an alleged signature of hi.s. Rogers r. Ritter, 12 Wall. 317 ; Amherst Bk. r. Root, 2 Met. 522 : Still v. Reese, 47 Cal. 294. As to signatures upon ancient writings, a person may 188 STUDY OF HANDAVRITING ILLUSTRATION. " The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in Calcutta. "B is a merchant in London, who has written let- ters addressed to A, and received in answer letters purporting to be written by him. C is B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspond- ence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually sub- mitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising with him thereon. " The opinions of B, C, and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are rele- vant, though neither B, C, or D ever saw A write.^ " The opinion of E, who saw A write once twenty years ago, is also relevant. ^ AKTICLE LII. COMPARISON OF HANDWRITINGS. " Comparison of a disputed handwriting with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine is permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings, and the evidence of witnesses respecting testify who has gained his knowledge by inspecting other ancient au- thentic documents bearing the same signature. Jackson v. Brooks, 8 Wend. 426, 15 id. 111. 1 " Doe V. Suckermore, 5 A. & E. 705 (Coleridge, J.) ; 730 (Patte- son, J.) ; 739-40 (Denman, C. J,). ■^ "K. V. Home Tooke, 25 S. T. 71-2; see Brachmann v. Hall, 1 Disney, 539. AND DETECTION OF FORCxERY. 189 the same, may be submitted to the court and jury as evidence of the genuineness or otherwise of the wri- ting in dispute. This paragraph applies to all courts of judicature, criminal or civil, and to all persons having by law, or by consent of parties, authority to hear, receive, and examine evidence." ^ 1 " 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 27 ; 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 8. There are diverse rules on this subject in difterent States. A rule substantially- like the Enfiflish rule prevails in all the New England States, in New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Texas, Ohio, Iowa, and Kansas. Woodman v. Dana, 52 Me. 9; State v. Hastings, 53 N. H. 452; but here the jury judge whether the writing used as a standard is genu- ine ; State v. Ward, 39 Vt. 225 ; Costello v. Crowell, 133 Mass. 352 ; Pub. St. K. I., c. 214, ? 42; Tyler v. Todd, 36 Ct. 218, Peck v. Cal- laghan, 95 N. Y. 73; Laws of 1880, N. Y. c. 36 ; N. J. Rev , p. 381; Koons V. State, 36 O, St. 195 ; Singer Mf g Co. v. McFarland, 53 la. 540 ; Macomber r. Scott, 10 Kan. 335. But in many States, collateral and irrelevant writings cannot be introduced for comparison : Wil- liams V. State, 61 Ala. 33; First Nat. Bank v. Eobert, 41 Mich. 709; Hazleton v. Union Bank, 32 Wis. 34; State v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380; Brobstoii r. Cahill, 64 111. 356; Burress's Case, 27 Gratt. 946; Her- rick V. Swomley, 56 Md. 439; Hawkins v. Grimes, 13 B. Mon. 260; Yates V. Yates, 76 N. C. 143 ; so in the Federal Courts : U. S. v. Jones, 20 Blatch. 235; generally, however, in these States genuine writings properly in evidence in the case may be used for comparison by the jury, and in a number of thciu such comparison may be made by experts to aid the jury (Id). In Indiana comparison may be made by experts with writings admitted to be genuine : Shorb v. Kinzie, 80 Ind. 600. In Pennsylvania comparison with writings proved to be genuine may be made bj' the jury' as corroborative evi- dence, but not by experts. Borryhill r. Kirchner, 96 Pa. St. 489. See this general subject fully treated in Am. Law Kev. xvii. 21 ; Gr. Ev. 1, U 576-582. 190 STUDY OF HANDWRITING The opinion of one who saw another write twenty years ago is relevant (p. 188) ; and a witness may tes- tify as to handwriting who cannot himself read or write (p. 187, n.) ; but a person who sees another write expressly for the purpose of being able to testify, is in general an incompetent witness (Ibid.). Handwriting- Evidence in Pennsylvania. — The law in Pennsylvania applicable to expert testimony on handwriting has been very ably and fully summed up by the late Chief-Justice "Woodward, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion in the case of Travis vs. Brown, reported in 43 Pennsylvania State Reports, page 9. This opinion avowedly restricts itself to expounding the law as it exists, and if the latter be " A person's signature or other writing made in court at the trial will not generally be allowed to be used for comparison. Comm. v. Allen, 128 Mass. 46; Gilbert v. Simpson, 6 Daly, 29; "Williams v. State, 61 Ala. 33. But this is something permitted upon cross-exami- nation, or when the writing is made at the request of the opposite party who oflfers it for comparison. Chandler v. LeBarron, 45 Me. 534; Bronner r. Loomis, 14 Hun, 341 King v. Donahue, 110 Mass. 155. " Letter-press copies cannot be used for comparison. Cohen v. Teller, 93 Pa. St. 123; Comm. v. Eastman, 1 Cush. 189. But photo- graphic copies may be when the originals are also before the court. Hynes v. McDermott, 82 N. Y. 41 ; Marcy v. Barnes, 16 Gray, 162; but see Tome v. Parkersburgh, etc., K. Co., 39 Md. 36. " Experts in handwriting may also testify to other matters ; as, e.ff., whether a writing is forged or altered, when a writing was prob- ably made, etc. : Travis r. Brown, 43 Pa. St. 9 ; "Withee v. Kowe, 45 Me. 571." AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 191 little in keeping with the age it is no fault of the learned jurist. This opinion recurs so frequently in eases involving the kind of investigations which have been considered that it is given here at length, except the concluding sentences which are concerned with the application of the principles just announced to a particular case be- fore the court, and which throw no additional light on those principles. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 43 Penna. State Reports, page 9. (Travis vs. Brown.) (The opinion of the court was delivered, May 2^, 1862, by Wood- ward, J.) All evidence of handwriting, except in the single instance where the witness saw the document written, is in its nature comparison of hands. It is the belief which the witness entertains, upon com- paring the writing in question with the exemplar in his mind derived from some previous knowledge. Any witness, otherwise disinter- ested, who has had the opportunity of acquiring such an exemplar, is competent to speak of his belief. It is one of the few instances in which the law accepts from witnesses belief in facts, instead of facts themselves. No prudent witness will undertake to swear that any signature or document was written by the person by whom it pur- ports to have been written, unless he saw it written; but if, from having seen the party write, or from correspondence or business with him he has become familiar with his hand, he may testify to his belief as to the genuineness of the writing in question. This is the ordi- nary every-day rule of practice in the trial of causes. But though it is in its nature a comparison of the writing under investigation with the exemplar in the witness's mind, it is not what 192 STUDY OF HAXD WRITING is technically called comparison of hands. Still less is it that peculiar kind of proof which is known in the books as the testimony of ex- perts. Comparison of handwritings was defined by Judge Duncan, in Commonwealth vs. Smith, 6 S. & K., 571, to be " when other wit- nesses have proved a paper to be the handwriting of a party, and then the witness on the stand is desired to take the two papers in hand, compare them, and say whether or not they are the same hand- writing. The witness collects all his knowledge from comparison only : he knows nothing of himself: he has not seen the party write nor held any correspondence with him." Starkie's definition is more condensed, though to the same eflect : " By comparison is meant," he says, " a comparison by the juxtaposition of two writings, in order, by such comparison, to ascertain whether both were written by the same person :" Metcalf's Starkie on Ev., part 4, p. 654. Now this is as distinct and separate a thing from that comparison which a witness called to testify to handwriting makes between the writing in question and the exemplar in his mind, as an external, visible, and tangible object is distinct from a mental impression or memory. It is the distinction between what is objective and what is subjective. A few words now as to experts. In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, they are derived from the Latin experti, which signifies instructed by experience, and are defined as persons selected by the courts or the parties in a cause, on account of their knowledge or skill, to examine, estimate, and ascertain things, and make report of their opinions. See also note to 1 Greenl. Ev., pi. 44, p. 572. Thus when professional men give evidence on matters of skill and judgment, their evidence frequently does not and cannot, from the nature of things, extend beyond opinion and belief. An engineer may be examined as to his judgment of the effect of an embankment on a harbor ; a seal-en- graver as to whether a particular seal has been forged ; a ship-builder as to the seaworthiness of a ship from a survey made by others ; and the testimony of medical men is constantly admitted with respect to the cause of disease or of death, and as to curing insanity, although they found their opinions entirely on facts, circumstances, and symp- AND DETECTIOX OF FORGERY. 193 toms established in evidence by others: Sharswood's Starkie on Ev., p. 152, and the cases collected in notes. The propriety of admitting the evidence of experts in investigating questions of forgery is now recognized by statute with us in the 53d section of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is a necessary rule of evidence on general principles. Common sense dictates that in all investigations requiring special skill, or when the common intelli- gence supposed to be possessed by the jury is not fully adequate to the occasion, we should accept the assistance of persons whose studies or occupations have given them a large and special experience on the subject. Thus, such men of experience or experts are admitted to testify that work of a given description is or is not executed with ordinary skill ; what is the ordinary price of a described article : whether described medical treatment or other practice was conducted with ordinary skill in a specific case ; which of two colliding vessels, their respective movements being given, was in fault; whether one invention was an infringement of another, looking at the models of both ; and other cases already mentioned. This is as near to an exact definition of who are admissible as ex- perts as it is possible for us to come. In all these cases it is to be ob- served that the expert is to speak from no knowledge of the particular facts which he may happen to possess, but is to pronounce the judg- ment of skill upon the particular facts proved bj' other witnesses. Of course the court nmst be first satisfied that the witness oft'ered is a person of such special skill and experience, for if he be not, he can give no proper assistance to the jury ; and of course, also, very much must at last be left to the discretion of the court, relative to the need of such assistance in the case; for very often the matter investigated may be so bunglingly done that the most common degree of obser- vation may be sufficient to judge it. Where a witness is called to testify to handwriting, from knowl- edge of his own, however derived, as to the hand of the party, he is not an expert, but simply a witness to a fact in the only manner in which that fact is capable of proof. Nor is he an expert who is called to compare a test writing, whose genuineness is established by others, 13 194 STUDY OF HANDWRITINCx with the writing under investigation, if he have knowledge of the handwriting of the party, because his judgment of the comparison will be influenced more or less by his knowledge, and will not be what the testimony of an expert should be, a pure conclusion of skill. But when a witness, skilled in general chirography, but possessing no knowledge of the handwriting under investigation, is called to compare that writing with other genuine writings that have been brought into juxtaposition with it, he is strictly an expert. His con- clusions then rest in no degree on particular knowledge of his own, but are the deductions of a trained and experienced judgment, from premises furnished by the testimony of other witnesses. According to many authorities, these forms of proof are admissible in appropriate circumstances, in cases both civil and criminal ; but when evidence by comparison of hands should be received ; whether the witness making the comparison should be qualified by personal knowledge of the party's handwriting; when mere experts should be admitted to make the comparison ; and what degree of evidence is re- quired to establish the genuineness of test papers, are questions that have been debated in a multitude of cases; from the attainder of Algernon Sydney and its reversal, in the reign of Charles II. and the case of the Seven Bishops, in the time of James II. See 3 State Trials, 802, and 4 Id. 338. The English and American authorities will be found collected in the notes to Starkie and Greenleaf, and whoever will undertake to go through them, will be struck with the confusion, obscurity, and contradiction which have arisen almost entirely from disregard of the distinctions above stated. Questions have been dis- cussed as belonging to the law of experts, and of comparison of hands, which belonged to other heads, and judges and compilers have often written loosely even when these subjects were legitimately before them. Every one knows how essential it is to all scientific discussions that terms be first correctly defined, and then always used in the de- fined sense. If this rule had been reasonably observed in treating of the branch of the law we are now upon, we should not have so many inconsistent cases in the books, and it would not have been, as it is now, exceedingly difficult for judges and lawyers to know what the AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 195 mind of the law is touching proof of writings by comparison of papers. "Without detaining ourselves to make a minute analysis of the CHses in England and our sister States, I propose to examine our leading cases in Pennsylvania, and to state as clearly as I can, the rule which is fairly deducible from them. McCorkle vs. Binns, 5 Binn. 348, involved a comparison of printed papers. The law of written papers came in only incidentally by way of illustration, and Chief-Justice Tilghman simply stated the rule in the most general terms, that " after evidence had been given in sup- port of a writing it may be corroborated by comparing the writing in question with other writings, concerning which there is no doubt.'' By whom compared, whether by the jury or a witness, and if by a witness, what qualifications he must have, were points which the Chief Justice did not touch. In the Farmers' Bank vs. Whitehill, 10 S. & R. 110, Whitehill was sued as endorsee of a promissory note, and the genuineness of his sig- nature was the point in question. Matthiut and McClure both swore to their belief that the endorsement was in Whitehill's handwriting. They had both seen him write, and ilatthiot had Whitehill's signa- ture to a receipt in his possession. Of course they were both qualified to prove the endorsement according to the ordinary rule of evidence. But to corroborate their opinions, an original administration account was offered in evidence, which Whitehill and his mother had settled, signed and sworn to in the presence of the register who proved it. This account, the genuineness of which was thus indubitably estab- lished, was the test paper that was brought into juxtaposition witii the endorsed note, and it was offered in evidence by the plaintiff to the jury " that they might compare the signature of the defendant there- to with the handwriting of the note." The Judge of the CunmiDn Pleas rejected the evidence, but this court ruled that it ought to have been admitted. The doctrine which this case established, therefore, was that, in corroboration of antecedent testimony of a signature, a test paper, clearly proved, might be submitted to the jury to make comparison of the two papers. This was evidence by comparison of hands, but it was comparison by jury instead of a witness. 196 STUDY OF HANDWRITING In Lodge vs. Pipher, 11 S. & K. 334, the effort was to prove that a receipt of Keuben Haines had been forged by one William Shaw, and for this purpose several papers were produced, and fully identified as Shaw's writing. Instead of submitting them to the jury to compare with the receipt, Israel Pleasants was called as an expert to make the comparison, and to give his opinion of the signature of the receipt. He had never seen Shaw write, but he had been a man of business for many years, bad an extensive correspondence, and was accustomed to see a great deal of writing. The court admitted him to testify, but this court reversed the ruling in an emphatic opinion by Chief Jus- tice Tilghman. This case is entirely consistent with the Bank vs. Whitehill, and the two taken together establish the rule that comparison of hands may be made by a jury but not by a mere expert. Bank of Pennsylvania vs. The Administrators of Samuel Jacobs, deceased, 1 Penna. Rep. 178. The genuineness of a certain check, purporting to have been drawn by Samuel Jacobs in his lifetime, was in question in this case. After several genuine checks had been given in evidence on the part of the defendant, three witnesses were called who had seen Jacobs write frequently, and had for a long time done business and carried on correspondence with him, and they were per- mitted to compare the genuine checks with the doubtful one, and to give their opinion that it was a forgery. Then, on the part of the Bank, three cashiers of other banks were called to testify as experts. They had all the experience in judging of writings which cashiers of banks usually acquire, but they had never seen Jacobs write. Their testimony was also admitted. This court, in a very satisfactory opin- ion by the late Judge Smith, decided that the three witnesses on part of the defendant, were rightly admitted, but that the testimony of the three cashiers on the part of the plaintiff ought to have been excluded. It is manifest that, according to general rules, the three witnesses were competent to speak of the signature of the check, because they had seen Jacobs write. They had exemplars in their minds, and com- paring the check with these, they had a right to speak. The point of the ruling was that they might also compare the check with the AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 197 accredited tests that were in evidence ; but the learned judge fell into error when he cited Bank vs. Whitehill as an authority on this point, because, as we have sesn, that case ruled that the jury, not witnesses, were to make the comparison. He more accurately quoted Pipher vs. Lodge, as an authority against admitting the experts. I do not think the court meant to advance a step in this case beyond the doctrine of the prior cases. The testimony of the defendant's witnesses was ad- missible, without reference to the peculiar doctrine of comparison of hands, and I hold that the comparison which the case in 10 S. & R. had decided was to be made by the jury, was as much the rule after Jacobs's case as before it. Callan vs. Gaylord, 3 Watts 323, is not a very intelligible case. Though a civil action for libel, the opinion of Gibson, C. J., is a good deal occupied with an argument to prove that the rule of evi- dence in regard to comparison of hands is the same in civil and crimi- nal cases. The account books which were produced as tests were proved by witnesses who were acquainted with the defendant's wri- ting, and we understand the chief justice to have ruled that they were admissible for the jury to make comparison of them with the alleged libel. This was consistent with Bank vs. Whitehill, which he cited, and doubtless meant to follow. Baker vs. Haines, 6 Wh. 291, states the general principle of the ad- missibility of comparison of hands, without intimating whether the comparison is to be made by witnesses or the jury, and then rules that very strict proof should be given of the genuine or test paper, — such as would leave no reasonable doubt on that point. And the proof of the test papers in that case was held insufficient, though it was made by witnesses wiio had seen the party write. This is a very important case in regard to what is sufficient to establish a test ; but who is to apply the test when established, whether jury or witness, is not de- cided in the case. So when, Depue vs. Place, 7 Barr, 429, the question related to the sufficiency of the authentication of the test papers rather than to the application of them. In Power vs. Frick, 2 Grant's Cases, 307, there was no test paper in question. The ruling related entirely to the knowledge of a party's 198 STUDY OF HANDWRITING handwriting which a witness must possess to enable him to prove a lost note. So in Fulton vs. Hood, 10 Casey, 366, there was no test writing, and therefore, strictly speaking, no comparison of hands. The question was upon the alteration of the date of the bond in suit. McKinney, the subscribing witness, was the scrivener who prepared the bond, and he swore that the alteration in the date and the addition of the concluding words were made before the bond was executed. After the defendant had given evidence to contradict him, the plaintiif was permitted to prove by experts, in corroboration of the sub.scribing witness, that the whole bond, including the additional date, appeared to be written by the same hand, with the same pen and ink, and at the same time. We sustained this ruling. There are not wanting cases in the books to show that experts may be called to testify ■whether a particular handwriting is natural and genuine or forged and imitated. See Sharswood's Starkie, p. 152, in notes. And such cases sustain our ruling in Fulton vs. Hood ; but it is only necessary to recur to the distinctions which I stated at the outset of this opinion, to see that this case bears no relation to the cases on evidence by comparison of hands. Taking Bank vs. Whitehill, 10 S. & K., Lodge vs. Pipher, Id., and Baker vs. Haines, 6 Wh., as the leading cases in Pennsylvania on this branch of law, the following summary may be stated as fairly result- ing from them. 1st. That evidence touching the genuineness of a paper in suit may be corroborated by a comparison, to be made by the jury, between that paper and other well-authenticated writings of the same party. 2d. But mere experts are not admissible to make the comparison, and to testify to their conclusions from it. * 3d. That witnesses having knowledge of the party's handwriting are competent to testify as to the paper in suit; but they, no more than experts, are to make comparison of hands, for that were to with- draw from the jury a duty whicb belongs appropriately to them. 4th. That test documents to be compared should be established by the most satisfactory evidence before being admitted to the jury. AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 199 5th. That experts may be examined to {jrove forged or simulated writings, and to give the conclusions of skill in such cases as have heen mentioned, and their like. Our cases are all reconcilable with these conclusions, though the language of judges has not always been as guarded as would have been well. No doubt inconsistent authorities may be found outside our borders, but it is not worth our while to discuss them, for if we have got a settled rule of our own it is enough for us to adhere to it, etc. This decision prevents the expert from placing the genuine and disputed signatures in juxtaposition, and drawing the attention of the jury to their resemblances or differences, although the learned judge very truly saj's in the first sentence of his opinion that a com- parison of one kind or another, whether it be with an actually visible pattern or with an ideal stamped upon the memory, is necessary to the formation of any judg- ment. Conforming to the Law. — With the purpose of con- forming strictly to the law, which makes the jury and not the expert compare the genuine and suspected sig- natures, the writer has devised the plan of prei)aring a table in which each horizontal line is devoted to the description of a particular signature, while each of the vertical columns into which the paper is ruled is dedi- cated to one element of the signatures. The expert thereupon reads separate descriptions of signatures and their averages by reading in succession the hori- zontal lines, while the jury, by reading the columns 200 STUDY OF HANDWRITING vertically downward, observ^es at once the differences between the separate signatures and their averages. This method, as well as the application of composite photography, to effect the same purpose, are briefly ex- plained in Chapters XIIL and XIV. Both these methods enable the expert to prepare the work for the jury's consideration, and to leave it to the judgment of the members of that body without ob- truding an opinion at all, — unless counsel should hap- pen to ask for it. Best Method of Presentation. — It is really not in- frequently practicable to explain to a jury of intelli- gence the methods by which tabular or graphic results have been reached, and to leave entirely in its hands the decision as to w^hat these results show ; and when this is done the jury's decision must carry greater weight than when it may be asserted that they have been influenced by the words or manner of the expert witness. But it is unjust to be obliged to evade the letter of a bad precedent, having the effect of a bad law, in the attempt to further the interests of that very justice in behalf of which the decision itself was undoubtedly made ; and it is to be hoped that the present law will soon be relegated to the limbo of all those laws and decisions which have hampered progress and stood in the way of eliciting truth. It may be said that if one who is an expert be forbidden to juxtapose and make comparison before a jury of a handwriting admitted AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 201 to be genuine with one in doubt, it is in consonance with the spirit of such a law that he should be forbid- den to use such comparison in forming an opinion. It is certain that without a comparison he can form no opinion, and the statement that in his belief the writing in question is or is not a forgery implies that he must have made such a comparison; it can have no other basis. Of course it is immaterial whether the genuine and the questioned writings be placed side by side, whether the expert carry in his mind the peculiarities of the one when he views the other, or whether he produce tables of the two writings. In either case this judgment can only be the result of comparison and the detection of differences. Either the decision of genuineness must be left to the fortuitous impressions of those who have not given scientific study to the subject, or those who have made handwriting a serious study must be allowed the use of the tool with which they do their work, and that tool is comparison, no matter how the task be under- taken. One of the palpable anomalies of the present practice is that a person who has seen another write, no matter how ignorant the observer may be, is com- petent to testify as to whether or not certain writing is by the hand of the person he has once seen engaged in the act of writing, while an expert in handwriting may only testify that the hand appears to be sinmlated, but may not point out the differences between speci- 202 STUDY OF HANDWRITING mens of genuine writing and the instrument in con- troversy. It is safe to presume that the apparently unreason- able position of the law was assumed with a good object in view, and it is probable that the object was the protection of the court from the swarm of soi-disants experts which might be hatched by a laxity in the wording of the law. Few things would be easier for a dishonest person than to swear he was a competent expert, and then to swear that a document was, in his opinion, forged or genuine, according to the requirements of his hirer. The framers of the practice in reference to expert testimony on documents seem to have had in mind that the only possible kind of testimony as to documents was that based upon impressions ; and that the only method of coming to a conclusion was by giving words to the first mental effect produced on a witness after he has looked at a writing. For this reason the practice has grown up in many trials of preparing carefully-forged signatures and pro- ducing them before the witness as a test of how far he is able to distinguish genuine from forged signatures. However expert a witness may be, however success- ful in discriminations of this kind, self-respect and a becoming modesty should induce him to refuse to an- swer them without distinctly stating that his answer, which gives his best judgment at the time, must be subject to reversal if by longer and more thorough AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 203 investigation it appear that the opposite view were the true one. It is doubtful if the present practice in Pennsylvania would have been inaugurated had there prevailed a system of exact measurement, and a method of care- fully explaining all the steps which led to an expert's conclusions, and it will probably cease as soon as the courts are convinced that the principles involved in the examination of handwriting are as purely scien- tific as those employed in the researches of ethnolog}* or philology. Some of the extraordinary consequences resulting from the decisions of other courts than those of Pennsylvania, as well as the peculiar features of the present law in this State, will suggest the inquiry whether it would not be advisable to bring them more into conformity with the spirit of the age. As long as there were no other means of establishing the genuineness or falsity of handwriting but by the vague impressions or guesses of persons more or less " accustomed to handwriting," the restrictions of the law in Pennsylvania may have been useful in reducing the number of sham experts by narrowing the field in which their testimony was competent ; but there can be no excuse for such curtailment if the study be ad- mitted to stand on the same basis as other studies which involve the application of scientific principles to specific and useful purposes. If it l)e true, as Chief-Justice Woodward said, that 204 STUDY OF HANDWRITING comparison of some sort must form the basis of all opinion as to genuineness, why should the expert be prevented from directly comparing a suspected signa- ture with a genuine, or, still better, with the iyjpe of a number of genuine signatures, instead of with a men- tal image; and pointing out to the jury wherein the differences between the two are unimportant, and wherein they are essential. The very act of doing this intelligently would offer the best guarantee of the witness's title to be called an expert. AND DETECTION OF FORGERY. 205 BOOKS CONSULTED IN THE PREPAKATION OF THIS MANUAL. The Handwriting of Junius Professionally Investigated, by Mr. Charles Chabot (expert), with a preface and col- lateral evidence, by the Hon. Edward Twisleton. yVoD? 6pii xaL vdibq axobcv raXXa xuxpa /.ai zo7. Kinds of tape, S5. 214 INDEX. 4 deviations in, 63. Lack of space affects writing, 34. Lassaigne, 44, 71, 169, 173, 181. Law, American, as to testimony, 185. Leaving comparison to jury, 200. Legal sense " science and art," 186. Leonhardi ink-factory, 32, 89. Leptodesma type, 125. Letterpress copies, 190. Letters, curvature in line, 24. not joined in words, 27. shading, 25; slant in, 24. Lifting pen from paper, 23. Light and air on inks, 90. effects as tests, 96. monochromatic, 104. strokes, 128. transmitted, 38. Lighter ink seems the lower, 48. Lime-water, 176; pit, 71. Limpid inks, 32. Line, base, 25 ; color of, 46 : organic, 122 ; thickens, 33. Linen fibre, 67. Litmus paper, 172, 179. Loading in paper-making, 67. Logwood ink, 159. Lustre hinders photograph, 55. dulled, 95. metallic, of aniline ink, 94. Machine-made papers, 182. Mackinnon pen, 30, 74. Magnifier, choice of, 45. Magnifying power, 46. Manipulation, 98; of colored prisms, 102; test papers, 179. with iodine vapor, 181. Manner of writing, 19; AVashing- ton's, 135. Manual of handwriting, 20. Mary Reynolds, 8. Material of substance bearing writ- ing, 66. Maximum and minimum, 125. Maxwell's theory of color, 104. Measurements, letters and spaces. 41 ; colored prisms, 102; ealorimetric, 103; of composite, 141; choice of, 111. Metallic particles in inks, 96. rolls in calendering, 68. Methods of making composites, 129 ; recommended, 133. Hager's, for testing inks, 171; AVingate's, 58. qualitative, 106; quantitative, 106. selection of, 39 ; of tabulation, 200; Baudrimont's, 177. Microscope, objective, 45 ; observa- tion by, 30 : study of ink. 88. Minute drops of reagents, 156. Mishandling pen, 27. Misspelling names, 23. Mitchell, Dr. S. Weir, S. Moistening with water, 177, 178. Monochromatic light, 104, 105. Morris, Thomas J., composite, 142. Most difficult writing to read, 27. Motive, 77. Names omitted in tables, 118. Natural tremor in free hand, 66. Nervous hands most erratic, 65. Netherclift, Fredk. George, 9. Neumann and Schluttig, 32, 88. Nibs of metal pens, 29. of quill pens, 30. Nitric acid, 157; uses of, 166. None but experts should use reagents, 156. Not advisable measurements, 141. Numerical average, 109, 119, 134, 189. Nutgalls, 90, 159, 180. ^_, difficulty in measuring from, 113. Objectives, 45, 57. INDEX. 215 Objects in testing inks, 154. Oblique excamination, 2S ; illumina- tion, 99, 176; vision, ol. Obvious mistakes of forgers, 83. Old inks have yellowish tinge, 9.'). Opaque objects covering erasures, 41. Opinion, expert, 185, 201 ; of witness of writing, 190. ChIKF-Ji-STICE WOODWAIID, 191, 199; based on impressions, 2ll2. Organic nature of human designs, 122. Oxalic acid, 151, 161, 169, 170. Pages, insertion of, 69. Pale inks, 32. Palimpsests, 73. Palmistry and finger-prints, 9. Paper destroyed by some inks, 47. fibre as a filter, 92. ruling of, 69 j ruling for meas- urement, 113; for documents, 174 Parabolic reflector, 99. Parchment, 67, 71 ; manufacture, 71 ; of Romans, 72. Part II., chemical examination, 154. Parts written unconsciously, 24. Paste with resin soap, 41. Pattern ideal, evolution, 26. Paying-teller, Ki. Pearl hardening, 68. Peculiarities of signatures, 112. Peignot, 71. Pen-marks on documents, 38. Pennsylvania law, 15. Penny Cyclopanlia, 71. Pens, 15S; past and present, 29. Penumbra around spots, 4:i. Persons qualified to testify, 186. Pharmaceutisclic Central- llallc, 183. I'hiladelphiii, 9. Philosophy of handwriting, 24. riiosphorus, 16. Photograph to bo previously taken, 37. Photographing document, 155. on celluloid, 129. Photography, composite, 111, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126. Photo-micrographs of fibres, 67. Phototype of crossed lines, 55. Phrases, composites of, 126. Phrenology and craniology, 9. Physical examination, 19. defects, influence of, in writing, 128. difl"erences in marks, 96. Pin-pricks on documents, 35. Pitfalls for forgers, 141. Pivot and radius, 23 ; in writing, 20. Places of conformity in pen's path, 128. to look for S3-uipathetic writing, 176. where hesitation important, 06. Plassopheny, 8. Plaster of Paris, 68. Plate I., 50; II., 52; III., SO; IV., 136; v., 140; VI., 142; VII., 148. Plea for chemical testing, 155. Position of arm in writing, 2(1. Possibility of analyzing guided hand, 145. Postulates, three, 109. Potassium chromate, 159. ferrocj'anide, 157, 163, 173; pre- cautions, 164 ; instance, 165. fluoride, 169; iodide, 176. sulpluicyanate, 158; delicacy of test, 165. Powdered chalk, 72. Practical components of inks, 91. Practice in Pennsylvania, 20;!. Prejudice of courts, 155. Preliminary examination, 34, 160. Prejiaring forgeries for experts, 202. Presiding judge, 15. Press copy with acid, 175. Prisms of colored glass, 16. Probability of forgery, 77. 216 INDEX. Procedure, 39. Professors of h.andwriting, 14. Prominences, 72. Proper treatment of document, 36. Public officials qualified to testify, 187. Pulp beating and loading, 67. Pumice, erasing writing by, 73. Qualitative tests, insufficient, 106. Qualities of good ink, 89, 90. Quantitative tests, 106, 154. Question at issue on Table I., 119. Quill, goose, 29 ; pen-nibs, 30 ; trim- ming, 30. Radius between pivot and pen, 21. and jiivot, 23. Raising a cheque, 77. Reading character by writing, 24. Reagents, used only by experts, 37. desirable, 171. used by forgers, 171. Reappearance of writing, 73. Reflected light, 46. Reflector, parabolic, 99. Refolding paper, 35. Reformation of bad writing, 76. Relation between position and writing, 129. Relative ages of crossed ink lines, 169. Remains of tracings, 39. Remelting sealing-wax, 86. Removal of characters, 41. Resin, effect on surfaces, 43. soap, 41. Restoration of original marks, 43. Restricted use of high powers, 46. Retouching, 63. Reynolds, Mary, 8. R. Whitaker, 140. Robert Whitaker, 138, 139; com- posite, 140 ; tape and seal, 141. Roberts, A., 183. Rough handling of documents, 35. Rounding of wax edges, 86, 87. Rubbing and scratching paper, 41. Ruling of paper, 69 ; for measure- ments, 113. Running of ink, 42. Sal ammoniac, spirit of, 172. Saline solutions, washing with, 43. Sandarach on rubbed surface, 42. Saturating blotting-paper, 170. Scanning document, 40 ; by trans- mitted light, 38. ScHLUTTiG and Neumann, 32, 88. "Science and art," 185. Scratched paper detected by touch, 42. Scratching or rubbing paper, 41. Script, elements of, 9. Seal of Whitaker will, 141. Sealing-wax, 86. Seals, wafers on erasures, 41. Seeing one once write qu.alifies, 186. writing done to qualifj', 187. Selection, method of procedure, 39. Separate lines of character, 60. Sequence in crossed lines, 48. Shade and color, 33 ; judging of, 46. Shading letters, 25. Shallow single-furrow stylus pens, 31. Sham experts, restriction of, 203. Side illumination changes color, 100. Signature, the French, 27. difference from writing, 127. made in court inadmissible, 190. repetition with variation, 123. type never quite realized, 123. typical elements, 107. AVashington's, 134; manner of writing, 135. Silver-nitrate test, 180. Simulated tremor, 61. Simulation by trained hands, 28. Single letter composites, 131. SiTTL expert handwriting, 38, 39. old inks, 95; on parchment, 72. Sixteenth century paper, 72. Sizing of papers, 41, 68. INDEX. 217 Sizing on writing-paper, 172. Skeleton arm illustrationsi, 20. Skin deprived of hair or wool, 71. marks on wa.\, 87. Slant of letters, 24. Sleeve on diaphragm, 45. Slight differences of shade, 46. Slope, 24. Slower movement induces tremors, 65. Soap, aluminum resinate, 68. Sodium flame, 104. hydrate, luS. nitrate, 167. Soft pens, 29. Solid particles in inks, 91. Sorting signatures, 130. Space, spaces, 23, 34. Spirit of sal ammoniac, 172. Spots, concealment of, 71. Spuriousness, 40. Staining of straggling fibres, 50. Stephen's Law of Evidence, 185. Stroke or dash, writing over, 77. Structure of tapes, 84. Stylograph, 30. Subphrase in two lines, 127. Substance written upon, 67. Substitute for sizing, 69. Successive images on plate, 130. Sugar, 159. Suggested improvements, 108. Sulphuric and sulphurous acid, 157; used, 166. acid with potassium fluoride, 169. Summary of experiments, 152. Superposed lines, 63. Superposing celluloid prints, 130. Superposition in crossed lines, 169. judged by perpendicular sight, 94. Surface roughened, 171. Surveying and plotting useful, 112. Symbolism in writing, 2f). Sympathetic inks, 175. Table I., angular measurements, 117. II., guided hand, 146. III., guided hand, 150. IV., condensed from III., 151. v., reaction, 183, 184. Tabulating results, 118. Tampering, evidences of, 41. with tapes, 86. Tape, illustrations, 80. kinds of, S5. on Whitaker will, 84, 140, structure, 84. Tartaric acid j)roperties, 157, 166. " Taste" silk, 85. Taylor, Isaac, composite, 142 ; Plate "VI., 142; forged signatures, 62. Taylor, W. Curtis, com|)osites, 131. Teachers of writing, 13. Teased-up fibres, 69. Tenfold magnifier, 161. Test-papers, litmus, Georgina, etc., 179. Testimony as to ancient writings, 188. Testing inks, 152. nature of surface, 178. Tests which change writing, 157. Text-book of paper-making, 67. "The Human Faculty," 120. Thickness of ink film, 46. Three postulates, 109. TiLGHMAN, Richard, 9. Tin dichloride, 157; uses, 167. Too great legibility suspicious, 76. Topograjihical plotting, 112. Tours, IIiLDKiiERT, bishop of, 71. Tracings of signature, 25; super- jiosed, 26. remains of, 39. Transmitted ligiit, 99; scanning by, 38. sunlight, 177. Transparency of ink lines, 4S. TiiAVIs t'». liuow.N, 190 ; opinion, I'.U. Tremor in tracings of pen, 30. natural, 66; simulated, 63. 218 INDEX. Tremor of fraud, 139; simulated, 61. of slow tracing, 65. Trimming quill pens, 30. Truscott, Charles, composites, 132, 133. Twenty impulses in long letter, 66. TwisLEToN, Hon. Edw., 9, 10. Two classes of inks, 32. parts of ink, 91. Type face by composite, 121. signatures by composite, 123. Typical signature, 107. Ultramarine in paper-making, 68. Unaided eye, 39. Uniformity of fibre, 85. United States inks, 32. Unreasonable law, 202. Untrained hand, 27. Upper line widened, 49. Use of averages obtained, 116. of magnifj'ing instrument, 45. Usual angles of writing, llfi. Value of angles for handwriting, 153. Vapor of iodine, 181. Variations important in study, 125. in composite, 25. in movement of arm, 129. in numerical table, 141. Vellum, 71. Vinegar, wood, 159. Violet blue from iodine, 183. Volatile constituents, 155. Wafers, etc., over erasures, 41. Warme's treatment, 44. Washing with reagents, 42, 171. Washington's signatures, 131 ; illus- tration, 134 ; manner of writing, 135; dots and flourishes, 136; his- tory of, 137. Water, distilled, 158. AVater and alcohol, 179. Water-mark, 38, 70. Wax, sealing, 86. skin-marks on, 87. Wetting document with alcohol, 44. When opinion on handwriting rele- vant, 186. Whitaker will, history of, 138. White blotting-paper, 158. " Whorls" of skin-prints, 88. AVhy magnifying aids color determi- nation, 46. AVidening of upper ink line, 49 ; illustration, Plate I., 50. AA^iNGATE letter, 55; apparatus, 56. A7itness competent though illiterate, 187. AVolf and goat skin, 71. AVoo(J-pulp fibre, 67. AA^)od vinegar, 159. AA'oonwARD, Judge, 15, 114, 190. AA^ords of letters not joined, 27. " AVove'' paper, 70. AA'riter, identifying one's self with, 38. Writing affected by subject, 40. diS"erence between, and signature, 127. fluid, 32. genuine and suspected, must not be juxtaposed, 199: must be black when made, 91. instrument, 29. manner of, 19. most difficult to read, 27. of stylus pens, 31. over an erasure, 79. over flourish line, 78. over stroke or dash, 77. without guide-lines, 115. without restoring sizing, 69. Yellowish color of cellulose, 68. "Young, theory of color, 104. THE END. ,. ■/ University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. P^nrif 9 2006 5-78 91' 83 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 3 1158 00015 AA 000 896 513 9 Ur