第6章

THEconsiderationoftheeffectoftheuseofinkuponcivilizationfromprimitivetimestothepresent，aswehaveseen，offersamostsuggestivefieldandcertifiestotheimportanceofthemanufactureofhonestinksasnecessarytothefutureenlightenmentofsociety。Thatithasnotbeenfullyunderstoodorevenappreciatedgoeswithoutsaying；apropergeneralizationbecomespossibleonlyinthelightofcorroborativedataandtheexperiencesofthemany。

Historyhasnotgivenusthenamesofancientinkmakers；butwecanbelievetheremusthavebeenduringaperiodofthousandsofyearsagreatmany，andthatthekindsandvarietiesofinkswerewithoutnumber。ThoseinkswhichremaintousaretobefoundonlyaswrittenwithonancientMSS。；theyareofbutfewkinds，andincompositionandappearancepreserveaphenomenalidentity，thoughbelongingtocountriesandepochswidelyseparated。Thisidentityleadstothefurtherconclusionthatinkmakingmusthavebeenanindustryatcertainperiods，overlookedbycarefulcompounderswhodistributedtheirwaresoveravastterritory。

“Gall“inkand“linen“paperasalreadystatedareAsiaticinventions。BothofthemseemtohaveenteredEuropebywayofArabia，“handinhand“attheveryendoftheeleventhorbeginningofthetwelfthcenturiesandforthenexttwohundredyears，notwithstandingthefactthatchemistrywasalmostanunknownscienceandthesecretsofthealchemistsknownonlytothefew，thiscombinationgraduallycameintogeneralvogue。

Inthefourteenthcenturywefindoneorbothofthemmoreorlesssubstitutedfor“Indian“ink，parchment，vellumand“cotton“paper。Itwas，however，themonksandscribeswhomanufacturedfortheirownandassistants’use“gall“ink，justastheyhadbeeninthehabitofpreparing“Indian“inkwhenrequired，whichsofarasknownwasnotalwaysacommodity。

AsanindustryitcanbesaidtohavedefinitelybegunwhentheFrenchgovernmentrecognizedthenecessityforone，A。D。1625，bygivingacontractfor“agreatquantityof’gallink’toGuyot。”whoforthisreasonseemstooccupytheuniquepositionofthefatherofthemoderninkindustry。

Inkmanufactureasagrowingindustryheretoforeandtoalargeextentatpresent，occupiesapeculiarlyanomaloussituation。Otherindustriesfollowthelawofevolutionwhichmayperhapsbearcriticism；buttheinkindustryfollowsnone，nordoesitevenpretendtopossessany。

Thousandsareengagedinitspursuit，fewofwhomunderstandeitherinkchemistryorinkphenomena。

Theconsumerknowsstillless，andwithblindconfidenceplacidlyacceptsnondescriptcompoundslabeled“Ink。”whetherpurchasedatdepotsorfrom“combined“

itinerantmanufacturingpeddlersandwiththemwriteorsigndocumentswhichsomedaymaydisturbmillionsofproperty。Andyetinacomparativesenseithasoutpacedallotherindustries。

WiththecommencementoftheeighteenthcenturywefindtheindustrysettlinginDresden，Chemnitz，Amsterdam，Berlin，ElberfieldandCologne。StilllaterinLondon，Vienna，Paris，EdinburghandDublin，andinthefirsthalfofthenineteenthcenturyintheUnitedStates，ithadbeguntomakeconsiderableprogress。

Amongthefirstpioneersofthelatermoderninkindustryabroad，maybementionedthenamesofStephens，Arnold，Blackwood，Ribaucourt，Stark，Lewis，Runge，Leonhardi，Gafford，Bottger，Lipowitz，Geissler，Jahn，VanMoos，Ure，Schmidt，Haenle，Elsner，Bossin，Kindt，Trialle，Morrell，Cochrane，Antoine，Faber，Waterlous，Tarling，Hyde，Thacker，Mordan，Featherstone，Maurin，TriestandDraper。

Intheperiodcoveredbythenineteenthcenturyathome，thelegitimateindustryincludedover300

inkmakers。ThosebestknownareDavids，MaynardandNoyes，Carter，Underwood，Stafford，Moore，Davis，Thomas，Sanford，Barnes，Morrell，Walkden，Lyons，Freeman，Murray，Todd，Bonney，Pomeroy，Worthington，Joy，Blair，Cross，Dunlap，Higgins，Paul，Anderson，Woodmansee，Delang，Allen，Stearns，Gobel，Wallach，Bartram，FordandHarrison。

Theinkphenomenaincludedinthepasteightyyearshasdemonstratedacontinuingretrogressionininkmanufactureandaconsequentdeteriorationofnecessaryinkqualities。Whentheattentionofsomeinkmakersareaddressedtothesesadfacts，theyattributethem，eithertothedemandofthepublicforanagreeablecolorandafreeflowingink，ortoaninabilitytocompetewithinferiorsubstitutes，whichhavefloodedthemarketsincethediscoveryofthecoaltarcolors；theyhavebeencompelledtodepartfromoldandtriedformulas，intheextravagantuse(misuse)oftheso-called“added“color。

Anexceptionalfewoftheolderfirmscontinuetocatalogueunadulterated“gall“inks；butthedemandforthemexceptinlocalitieswherethelawCOMPELStheiremployment，isonlylittle。

Interestingdeductionscanbemadefromtheaccompanyingbriefsketchesoftheleadinginkmanufacturersoftheworld。

The“Arnold“brandofinkspossessesaworldwidereputation，althoughnotalwaysknownbythatname，beginningA。D。1724underthestyleofR。

Ford，andcontinuinguntil1772，whenthefirmnamewaschangedtoWilliamGreen&Co。In1809itbecameJ。&J。Arnold，whoweresucceededin1814byPichardandJohnArnold，thefirmnamebywhichitisknownatthepresentday。Thislastnamedconcernlocatedat59Barbican，onthesiteoftheoldCityHallinLondon，andlatermovedtotheirpresentaddress，No。155Aldersgatestreet。Theinksmadebythe“fathers“ofthefirmwere“gall“inksWITHOUT

“added“color。Atthecommencementofthenineteenthcenturywefindthemmakingtanno-gallateofironinkstowhichwereaddedextractivematterfromlogwoodandothermaterialstoformthickfluidsforshipmenttoBrazil，Indiaandthecountrieswherebrushesorreedswereusedaswritinginstruments。

Forthemorecivilizedportionsoftheworldsimilarinksbutofanincreasedfluidityweresupplied，thatthequillpensmightbeemployed。Thedemandsforstillmorefluidinkswhichwouldpermittheuseofsteelpens，resultedinthemodernblue-blackchemicalwritingfluid，the“added“blueportionbeingindigoinsomeform。Itwasfirstputonthemarketin1830。Theymanufactureoverthirtyvarietiesofink，butonlyonereal“gall“inkwithout“added“color。

IntheearlypartofMay，1824，ThaddeusDavidsstartedhisinkfactoryatNo。222Williamstreet，NewYorkCity。Hisfirstandbesteffortwasastrictlypuretanno-gallateofironink，whichheplacedonthemarketin1827underthenameof“SteelPenInk。”guaranteedtowriteblackandtopossess“record“qualities。In1833hemadeinnovationsfollowingthelineslaiddownbyArnoldandalsocommencedthemanufactureofachemicalwritingfluid，withindigofor“added“color。Manymore“added“colorswereemployedatdifferentperiods，likelogwoodandfustic，withtheincorporationofsugar，glucose，etc。IntheearlyfiftiesthecheapgradesoflogwoodinkaftertheformulaofRunge(1848)andwhichcostaboutfourcentspergallonwasmarketed，principallyforschoolpurposes；

itwasneversatisfactory，becomingthickand“colorfading。”Mr。Davidsmademanyexperimentswith“alizarin“inksintheearlysixtiesbutdidnotconsiderthemvaluableenoughtoputonthemarket。

In1875thefirmintroducedvioletinkmadefromtheanilinecolorofthatname。Experimentationsin1878

withtheinsolubleanilineblacksandvanadiumwereunsuccessful；butthesolubleanilineblack(blue-

black)knownasnigrosinetheyusedandstilluseinvariouscombinations。Duringthislongperiodtheirestablishmentshavebeenindifferentlocations。FromNo。222WilliamstreetitwaschangedtoEighthstreet，withtheofficeatNo。26Cliffstreet。In1854

theworkswereremovedtoNewRochelle，Westchestercounty，N。Y。In1856thefirmnamewasThaddeusDavidsandCo。，Mr。GeorgeDavidshavingbeenadmittedasapartnerandtheirwarehouseandofficesatthistimewerelocatedatNos。127and129

Williamstreet，whereabusinessofenormousproportions，whichincludesthemanufactureofthirty-threeinksandotherproducts，isstillcarriedonatthepresentdayunderthenameandstyleof“ThaddeusDavids，Co。”Theold“Davids’SteelPenInk“continuestobemanufacturedfromtheoriginalformulaandistheonlytanno-gallateofironinktheymake，WITHOUT“added“color。

TheParishouseof“Antoine“asmanufacturersofwritinginksdatesfrom1840。TheyarebestknownasthemakersoftheFrenchcopyingink，ofaviolet-

blackcolor，madefromlogwood，whichwasfirstputonthemarketin1853underthenameofEncresJaponaise。In1860anagencywasestablishedinNewYorkCity。Theymakealargevarietyofwritinginksbutdonotofferforsaleatanno-gallateofironinkwithout“added“color。

“Carter’s“inkscameintonotorietyin1861，bytheintroductionofa“combinedwritingandcopyingink。”ofthegallandirontypeandincluded“added“

color。Itwasthefirstinnovationofthischaracter。

AttheendoftheCivilWar，JohnW。CarterofBoston，whohadbeenanofficeroftheregulararmy，purchasedaninterestinthebusiness，associatingwithhimselfMr。J。P。DinsmoreofNewYork，thefirmbeingknownasCarter，Dinsmore&Co。，Boston，Mass。

In1895Mr。CarterdiedandMr。Dinsmoreretiredfromthebusiness。Thefirmwasthenincorporatedunderthestyleof“TheCarter’sInkCo。”Theydoanimmensebusinessandmakeallkindsofink。Ofthelogwoods，“RavenBlack“isbestknown。WhenthestateofMassachusettsin1894decidedthatrecordingofficersmustusea“gall“inkmadeafteranofficialformula，theycompetedwithothermanufacturersfortheprivilegeofsupplyingsuchaninkandwonit。Theydonotofferforsale，however，“gall“

inkWITHOUTaddedcolor。Theirlaboratoriesaremagnificentlyequipped；thewriterhashadthepleasureofcollaboratingwithseveraloftheirexpertchemists。

The“Fabers。”whodatebacktotheyear1761，areknownallovertheworldasleadpencilmakers。Theyalsomanufacturemanyinksandhavedonesosince1881，whentheybuiltnowfactoriesatNoisy-le-Sac，nearParis。Blue-blackandviolet-blackwritingandcopyinginksoftheclassmadebythe“Antoines“

aretheprincipalkinds。Theydonotofferforsale，tanno-gallateofironinkwithout“added“color。A

branchhouseinNewYorkCityhasremainedsince1843。

“Stafford’s“violetcombinedwritingandcopyinginkwasfirstplacedontheNewYorkmarketin1869，thoughitwasin1858thatMr。S。S。Stafford，thefounderofthehouse，beganthemanufactureofinks，whichhehascontinuedtodotothepresentday。Hischemicalwritingfluidsareverypopular，buthedoesnotmakeatanno-gallateofironinkwithout“added“color，forthetrade。

CharlesM。HigginsofBrooklyn，N。Y。，in1880

commencedthemanufactureof“carbon“inksforengrossing，architecturalandengineeringpurposes，andhassucceededinproducinganexcellentliquid“Indian“ink，whichwillnotloseitsconsistencyifkeptfromtheair。Itcanalsobeusedasawritingink，ifthinneddownwithwater。Hedoesnotmakeatanno-gallateofironinkwithout“added“

color。

MaynardandNoyes，whoseinksweremuchesteemedinthissectionforoverfiftyyears，isnolongerinbusiness，asisthecasewithmanyotherswellknownduringthefirsthalfofthenineteenthcentury。

Theenormousquantitiesofinkofeverycolor，qualityanddescriptionmadeintheUnitedStatesalmostsurpassesbelief。Itissaidthattheoutputforhomeconsumptionaloneexceedstwelvemillionsofgallonsperannum，andforexportthreethousandgallonsperannum。

Itisverysafetoaffirmthatlessthan1/50of1percentofthisquantityrepresentsatanno-gallateofironinkWITHOUT“added“color。Mostcoloredinksand“gall“oneswhichpossess“added“colorifplacedonpaperunderordinaryconditionswillnotbevisibleahundredyearshence。

Thisstatementofminemightbeconsideredaltogetherparadoxicalwereitnotforassociatedevidentialfacts，whichbyprovingthemselveshaveestablisheditscorrectnessandtruth。TorepeatoneofthemistorefertothereportofProfessorsBairdandMarkoe，whoexaminedforthestateofMassachusettsallthecommercialinksonthemarketatthattime。

“Asaconclusion，sincethegreatmassofinksonthemarketarenotsuitableforrecords，becauseoftheirlackofbodyandbecauseofthequantityofunstablecolorwhichtheycontain，andbecausethefewwhosecoloringmattersarenotobjectionablearedeficientingallandironorboth，wewouldstronglyrecommendthattheStatesetitsownstandardforthecompositionofinkstobeusedinitsofficesandforitsrecords。”

AnofficialinkmodelledsomewhataftertheformulaemployedbythegovernmentofGreatBritainwascontractedforbythestateofMassachusetts。Itreadasfollows：

“Takeofpure，drytannicacid，23。4partsbyweight。

ofcrystalgallicacid，7。7parts。

offerroussulphate，30。0parts。

ofgumarabic，10。0parts。

ofdilutedhydrochloricacid，25。0parts。

ofcarbolicacid，1。0part。

ofwater，sufficienttomakeupthemixtureatthetemperatureof60degreesF。

tothevolumeof1，000partsbyweightofwater。”

Suchaninkpreparedafterthisreceiptwouldbeastrictlypuretanno-gallateofironinkWITHOUTany“added“colorwhatever。

Theestimationinwhichsuchaninkisheldbythemajorityoftheinkmanufacturersisbestillustratedbyquotingfromtwoofthemostprominentones，andthusenablethereadertodrawhisownconclusions。

“Wedonotmakeatanno-gallateofironinkwithoutaddedcolor，andsofarasweknow，thereisnosuchinkonthemarket，asitwouldbepracticallycolorlessandillegible。”

*******

“Thereisnosuchink(atanno-gallateofironinkwithoutaddedcolor)manufacturedbyanyink-

makerasfarasIknow。Itisobsolete。”

Thecommercialnamesbestowedonthemultitudeofdifferentinksplacedonthemarketbymanufacturersduringthelastcenturyareinthethousands。

Afewofthemarecitedasindicativeoftheirvariety，someofwhicharestillsoldunderthesenames。

KosmianSafetyFluid，BablahInk，UniversalJetBlack，TreasuryLedgerFluid，EverlastingBlackInk，Raven-BlackInk，Nut-gallInk，PernambucoInk，BluePostOfficeInk，UnchangeableBlack，DocumentSafetyInk，BirminghamCopyingInk，CommercialWritingFluid，GermaniaInk，HorticulturalInk，ExchequerInk，ChesnutInk，CarbonSafetyInk，VanadiumInk，AsiaticInk，Terra-cottaInk，JuglandinInk，PersianCopying，Sambucin，ChromeInk，SloeInk，SteelPenInk，JapaneseInk，EnglishOfficeInk，CatechuInk，ChineseBlueInk，AlizarinInk，SchoolInk，BerlinInk，ResinInk，Water-glassInk，ParisianInk，ImmutableInk，GraphiteInk，NigrilinInk，MunichInk，Electro-Chemical，EgyptianBlack，“Koal“BlackInk，EbonyBlackInk，ZuluBlack，CobaltBlack，MaroonBlack，AeilytonCopying，Dichroic，CongressRecord，Registration，“OldEnglish。”etc。

Thelistofover200names，whichfollow，includesthoseofmanufacturersofthebestknownforeignanddomestic“black“inksand“chemicalwritingfluids“

inuseduringthepastcentury，aswellasthoseofthepresenttime。

AdrianaAllfieldAndersonAntoineArnaudonArnoldArtusBalladeBallandeBarnesBartBartramBeaurBehrensBelmondiBerzeliusBizangerBlackwoodBlairBolleyBonneyBossinBoswellBottgerBoutenguyBraconnotBrandeBufeuBuftonBureCarterCawCellierChampionChaptalChevallierClarkeCloseCochraneCollinCookeCoupierandCollinsCoxeCrockCrossDarcetDavidsDavisDelunelDelarveDelangDerheimsDizeDraperDruckDuhaldeDumasDumovlenDunandDunlapEllisEisnerFaberFaucherFauxFeatherstoneFesneauFontenelleFordFourmentinFreemanFuchsGaffardGastaldiGeisslerGeoffroyGebelGooldGoupeirGrasseGreenGuesnevilleGullierGuyonGuyotHaenlesHagerHaldatHanleHareHarrisonHausmanHeerenHenryHerepathHevrantHigginsHogyHuntHydeJahnJamesJoyKarmarschKasleteyerKindtKlaprothKloenKnafflKnechtLanauxLanetLarenaudiereLemancyLenormandLeonhardiLewisLeyKaufLinkLipowitzLormeLuhringLyonsMacCulloghMackensicMathieuMaurinMaynardandNoyesMelvilleMendesMeremeeMergetMinetMollerMooreMordanMoserMorrellMozardMurrayNashNissenOhmeOttPaulPayenPerryPeltzPetibeauPlatzerPlisseyPomeroyPonceletProlliusProustPusherRappReadeRedwoodReidRemigiReinmannRheinfeldRibaucourtRickerRoderRuhrRungeSanfordSchaffgotochSchleckumSchmidtSchoffernScottSeldrakeSelmiSimonSouberinSouirsseanStaffordStarkSteinStephensStevensSyuckerbuykSwanTabuyTarlingThackerThomasThumannToddTomkinsTrialleTriestTrommsdorffUnderwoodValletVanMoosVogelWagnerWalkdenWallachWaterlousWindsorandNewtonWinternitzWoodmanseeWorthingtonCHAPTERXXIII。

CHEMICO-LEGALINK。

ESTIMATEDVALUEOFSCIENTIFICEVIDENCEASHELDBY

THECOURTOFAPPEALS——NOWBEYONDTHEPURVIEWOF

CRITICISM——VERDICTSINTHETRIALSOFCAUSESAFFECTED

BYSUCHEVIDENCE——LENGTHOFTIMENECESSARY

TOOVERCOMEPREJUDICEANDIGNORANCE——

WHEREOBJECTIONSTOSUCHEVIDENCEEMANATE——

SOMEOBSERVATIONSABOUTSUCHEVIDENCEGENERALLY——

WHENPRECEDENTWASMADETOCHEMICALLY

EXAMINEACOURTEXHIBITBEFORETRIAL——THE

CONTROVERSYINWHICHJUDGERANSOMMADETHISNEW

DEPARTURE——CITATIONOFTHECASEANDITSOUTCOME——

DECISIONINTHEGORDONWILLCASEOBTAINED

BYTHESCIENTIFICEVIDENCE——COMPLETESTORY

ABOUTIT——HISTORYOFTHEDIMONWILLCASEAND

HOWCHEMISTRYMADEITPOSSIBLETOCONSIDER

IT——OPINIONOFJUDGEINGRAHAM——PEOPLEOFTHE

STATEOFNEWYORKV。CODY——THEATTEMPTTOPROVE

ANALLEGED“GOULD“BIRTHCERTIFICATEGENUINE，FRUSTRATEDBYCHEMICALEVIDENCE——THEDEFENDANT

CONVICTED——THEPEOPLEV。KELLAM——CHEMICAL

EVIDENCEMAKESTHETRUTHKNOWN——THEHOLT

WILLCASEANDTHEEVIDENCEWHICHAFFECTEDITS

RESULT——THETIGHEWILLCASE——OPINIONOFJUDGE

FITZGERALD。

“Theadministrationofjusticeprofitsbytheprogressofscience，anditshistoryshowsittohavebeenalmosttheearliestinantagonismtopopulardelusionandsuperstition。Therevelationsofthemicroscopeareconstantlyresortedtoinprotectionofindividualandpublicinterests……

Iftheyarerelieduponasagenciesforaccuratemathematicalresultsinmensurationandastronomy，thereisnoreasonwhytheyshouldbedeemedunreliableinmattersofevidence。Whereverwhattheydisclosecanaidorelucidatethejustdeterminationoflegalcontroversiestherecanbenowell-

foundedobjectiontoresortingtothem。”Frankv。ChemicalNat。Bank，37SuperiorCourt(J。&

S。)34，affirmedinCourtofAppeals，84N。Y。

209。

THISdecisionbyafinalcourtofadjudicature，expressesinnouncertaintermsthenowgenerallyestimatedvalueofevidencewhichsciencemayreveal。

Theimportancewhichthatbranchofitdenominated“Chemico-legalink“hasattainedanditsutilizationinmanytrialsofcausesbothcivilaswellascriminal，placesitbeyondthepurviewofcriticismorobjection。

Withtheintroductionofanewclassofinksinthelasttwodecades，itsscopehasbeenmuchbroadened。

Innumerableverdictsbyjurieswhereverthesystemprevails，allovertheworld，theopinionsoflearnedjudges，whetherpresidingduringajurytrialorsittingalone，moreorlessaffectedbythischaracterofevidence，presentsfairlythetrendoftheviewsofthepublicmindrespectingit。

Constantexperimentandsuccessfuldemonstrations，coveringaperiodofoverfiftyyears，wasnecessarytoovercomeprevailingprejudicesandignorance。

Theconditionsto-day，whichhappilyobtain，arethattheobjectiontotheintroductionofsuchevidencefindsitssourceusuallyinthesideseekingtoobscureandhidethetruthorfacts，whilethehonestlitigantorinnocentindividualhastenstoadvocateitsemployment。

Anotherfeatureworthyofconsiderationisthatpersonswhopossessintimateknowledgeofinkchem。

istryandwhomightotherwisesuccessfullyperpetratefraudifopportunitypresenteditself，refrainfrommakingtheattemptbecauseofthatveryknowledge，whichissufficientalsototeachthemofthepossibleexposureoftheirefforts。Again，theyandothersareawareoftherelianceplacedonchemico-legalevidenceasanaidtothecauseofjusticebycourtsandjuriesandthisisanaddedreasonwhytheyhesitatetotakechances。Thesepropositionsbeingtrue，theyestablishanotherone，viz：thatmostoftheattemptedfraudsatthepresenttimeinthisconnection，arebytheignorantandthosewhoseconceitdoesnotpermitthemtobelievethatanyoneknowsmorethanthemselves。

Chemico-legalinkevidenceasbeforestatedhasbeenemployedinthetrialsofcausesformanyyears；

butitwasnotuntiltheyear1889thataprecedentwasestablishedforthechemicalexaminationofasuspecteddocumentprecedinganytrial。ThehonorofthisdeparturefromtheordinarymodesofprocedurebelongstotheHon。RastusS。Ransom，whowassurrogateofthecountyofNewYorkatthetime。

ThematterincontroversywasanallegedwillexecutedintriplicatebyoneThomasJ。Monroe。Chargesweremadethatthethreewillswerespurious，astheywerefacsimilesofeachother。Itwasforthemainpurposeofdeterminingthemethodsoftheirmake-upthatJudgeRansomrenderedtheopinionandmadetheorderforitschemicalexaminationwhichiscitedinfull：

EstateofThomasJ。Monroe——“Thisisanapplicationbythespecialguardianandcontestantinthisproceeding，whichisnowpendingbeforetheassistant，forleavetophotographthevariouspaperswhichhavebeenfiledasthewillofthedeceased，andtocompelthefilingoftwopartsofoneofsaidwills，whichwasexecutedintriplicate；

likewisethatthelastpaperbesubjectedtochemicaltestsforthepurposeofdisclosingthenatureofthecompositionoftheinkandtheprocessorprocessestowhichithasbeensubjected。

“Upontheoralargumentthesurrogatedecidedtheapplicationsfirststatedinfavorofthepetitioner，reservingonlythequestionofhispowertodirectorpermitthechemicaltests。Thespecialguardianontheoralargumentstatedthathewasunable，tofindanyauthorityfortheapplication。

“Consultationofthevarioussourcesofauthorityuponthesubjectofexperttestimonyandthevarioustestsforthepurposeofestablishingordisprovinghandwritinghasnotresultedinthediscoveryofanyauthorityforgrantingtheapplication。

Itisapparent，however，fromsomeofthecasesthatsuchanexaminationmusthavebeenpermitted；

forinstance，inFultonv。Hood(34thPenn。StateReports，365)，experttestimonywasreceivedincorroborationofpositiveevidencetoprovethatthewholeofaninstrumentwaswrittenbythesamehand，withthesameink，andatthesametime。Itisinconceivablehowtestimonyofanyvaluecouldbegivenastothecharacterofinkwithwhichaninstrumentwaswritten，unlessithadbeensubjectedtoachemicaltest。ThewriterofavaluablearticleintheeighteenthvolumeoftheAmericanLawRegister，page281(R。U。

Piper，aneminentexpertofChicago，Ill。)，incommentingupontheruleasstatedinthecaseofFultonv。Hood(supra)，veryproperlysays：

“’Microscopicalandchemicaltestsmaybecompetenttosettlethequestion，buttheseshouldnotbereceivedasevidence，Ithink，unlesstheexpertisabletoshowtothecourtandthejurytheactualresultsofhisexamination，andalsotoexplainhismethods，sothattheycanbefullyunderstood。’

“ThewriterofthisarticleisalsoauthorityforthestatementthatintheFrenchCourtseverymanipulationorexperimentnecessarytoelucidatethetruthinthecase，eventothedestructionofthedocumentinquestion，isallowed，theCourt，asamatterofprecaution，beingfirstsuppliedwithacertifiedcopyofthesame。

“Themostobviousargumenttobeurgedagainstallowingachemicaltesttobemadeonawill，andonethatwassuggestedbythecourtontheargumentofthismotion，isthat，inasmuchasthepapermaybethesubjectoffuturecontroversyinthisorsomeothertribunal，futurelitigantsshouldnotbeprejudicedbyanyalterationormanipulationoftheinstrument。Idonotthink，however，thatthisobjectionissound。Takeanextremecase，ofpermittingasufficientamountoftheink(whichtheaffidavitoftheexpertshowstobebutinfinitesimal)

forthepurposeofchemicalexamination；

theformoftheletterwouldremainuponthepaper；

ifnot，theformandappearanceoftheentiresignaturemight，asapreliminaryprecaution，bepreservedbyphotography。Theportionofthesignatureremainingwouldaffordamplematerialforfutureexperimentsandinvestigationsinsubsequentproceedingswhereinitmightbedeemedadvisabletotakethatcourse。

“Becausethesubjectmatterofthecontroversymaybelitigatedhereaftershouldnotdeprivepartiesintheproceedingofanyrightswhichtheywouldotherwisehave。Theycertainlyareentitledtoallrightsinthisproceedingthatthepartiestoanyfutureproceedingswouldhave。Besides，allthepartieswhosepresencewouldbenecessarytoanadjudicationin，forexample，anejectmentproceeding，are(ortheirpriviesare)partieshere。Itcertainlycannotbethatthelaw，seekingthetruth，willnotavailitselfofthisscientificmethodofascertainingthegenuinenessoftheinstrumentbecauseofsomeproblematicaleffectupontherightsoropportunitiesofpartiestofuturelitigationsrespectingthesameinstrument。Thepossibilitiesoflitigationoverawillarealmostinfinite，andifsucharuleshouldobtainthisimportantchannelofinvestigationwouldbeclosed。Supposethesameobjectionwereraisedtothefirstactionofejectmentwhichmightbebrought，itmightthenwiththesameforcebeurgedthatpartiestosomefutureejectmentsuitwouldbeprejudicedbyachemicaltestoftheinkusedinthewill，andsoonadinfinitum。

“Bynotavailingitselfofthismethodofascertainingthetruthastothecharacteroftheink，theCourtdeprivesitselfofaspeciesofevidencewhichamountstopracticaldemonstration。

“Icanseenoreasonwhytheapplicationshouldnotbegranted。”

Theorderinpartreads：

“ItisorderedanddirectedthatCharlesH。

Beckett，thespecialguardianaforesaid，beandheherebyisallowedpermissiontophotographtheaforesaidpaperwritingsdescribedinsaidordertoshowcause，viz。，oneofthetwopartsofatriplicateWillofThomasJ。Monroe，deceased，datedFebruary10th，1873，whichwerefiledintheofficeoftheSurrogateoftheCityandCountyofNewYorkonoraboutthe9thdayofMay，1889，andalsothecontestedWillhereindatedMarch27thandJune1st，1888，andtohavethesaidpaperwriting，bearingdateMarch22dandJune1st，1888，subjectedtosuchchemicaltestortestsasshalldisclosethenatureofthecompositionoftheinkand，ifpossible，theprocessorprocessestowhichithasbeensubjected，ifany。

“AnditisfurtherorderedanddirectedthatsuchchemicaltestbeappliedtotheinkorwritingfluidonsaidallegedWilltothefollowingspecifiedportion，oranypartofsuchportions，viz。”

Specificationsinminutedetailfollow，callingattentiontothewordsandspaceswhicharepermittedtobechemicallytested，andthencontinues：

“Anditisfurtherorderedanddirectedthatthesaidpaperwritingsshallbephotographedbeforeanychemicaltestsareappliedthereto。

“AnditisfurtherorderedanddirectedthatsuchphotographingandchemicaltestsbeperformedbyDavidN。Carvalho，Esq。，aproperandsuitableperson，attheplacesaboveindicatedrespectively，betweenthe10thandthe20thdaysofJune，1889，inclusive，inthepresenceofthepartiesininterestortheirattorneys，uponatleasttwodays’noticetoallpartieshereinortheirattorneys。

“Anditisfurtherorderedanddirectedthatintheeventofdestructionorbreakingofthenegativesaftersuchpaperwritingshavebeenphotographed，thesaidspecialguardian，uponsimilarnotice，shallhaveleavetore-photographthesaidpaperwritings，atthesameplaceandbythesaidDavidN。Carvalho，betweenthe10thand20thdaysofJune，1889，inclusive。

“(Signed)RASTUSS。RANSOM，“Surrogate。”

Onthe19thofJune，1889，pursuanttotheorderofthecourt，theallegedwillreferredtowasfirstphotographed，andlaterinthatdaysuchplacesashadbeendesignatedintheorderwerechemicallytreated，aspartofaseriesofexperiments。Theresultsobtainedbrieflysummarizedwereas，follows：TheinstrumentwhichpurportedtobeaholographicwillofThomasJ。Monroetheexperimentsshowedconclusivelytobenotthecase，asneitherpennorinkinthebodywritingportionorinthedecedent’ssignaturehadevertouchedthepaper；thedateandnamesofthewitnessesthereonwerewritten，however，withpenandink。Furthermore，theexperimentsdemonstratedbeyondquestionthatexclusiveofitsdateandnamesofwitnesses，thatitwaswhatiscommonlyknownasatransfertakenfromagelatinepad(hektograph)，amethodofduplicatingpopularlyinvogueatthattime。ThededucedfactsinthematterbeingthatThomasJ。Monroehadwrittenhiswillinananilinepurpleink，towhichhehadappendedhisname，leavingblankspacestobefilledinforthedate，namesofwitnesses，etc。，andhadtransferredthesametoahektograph，fromwhichhehadtakenanumberofduplicatefacsimilecopies，andatsomeothertimehadfilledintheblankspacesbyordinarymethodsandtowhich，athisrequest，thenamesofthewitnesseshadbeenwrittenwithapenandink。InthetrialwhichfollowedthesurrogatedeclinedtosustaintheallegationoftheproponentsthattheallegedsignaturewastheoriginalwritingofThomasJ。Monroe，orindeedofanyperson。Thewillwasnotadmittedtoprobate。

Experiments，bothinopencourtorduringitssessionsinthetestingofinkandpaper，microscopicallyandchemically，areoffrequentoccurrence，andmanycontestsinvolvingenormousinterestshavebeenmoreorlessdecidedastheresultofthem。

ThecontestoftheallegedwillofGeorgeP。Gordon，triedbeforethelateChancellorMcGillofNewJerseyin1891，illustratesinaremarkabledegreejusthowcertainaretheresultsofinvestigationsofthischaracter。Thechancellor’sdecision，afterlisteningtotestimonyformanyweeks，wasineffecttodeclarethewillaforgery，largelybecauseofthefactthatthepremiseonwhichitrestedwasaso-calleddraft，fromwhichitwasswornithadbeencopied。Theinkonthisdraftitwasprovedcouldnothavehadanexistence。

untilmanyyearsafterthedateoftheforgedwill。

Thedecedent，whodiedin1878，wastheinventorofafamousprintingpress，andleftalargefortune。

AwillofferedforprobatesoonafterthedeathofGordonwasnotprobated，owingtothediscoverythatthewitnesseshadnotsigneditineachother’spresence。

Theprincipalbeneficiaries，however，underthatwill，thewidowanddaughterofGordon，agreedtoadivisionoftheestatewhichwassatisfactorytotheotherheirsatlaw，andthematterapparentlywassettled。

ButaretiredlawyernamedHenryC。Adamsbeganin1879，ayearafterGordon’sdeath，toendeavortoobtaintheassistanceofsomeheirsatlawinanenterprisewhichwasfinallyendedonlywhenChancellorMcGill’sdecisionwasrendered。

In1868Adamslivedwithhisfatherandbrothersonafarm，nearRahway，N。J。，adjoiningtheGordonplace。Thetwomenbecamewellacquaintedthroughtheircommoninterestinmusic。AdamscalleduponA。SidneyDoane，anephewofGordon，andtoldhimthatGordonhadmadeawillin1868whichmightbefoundoriflost，establishedbymeansofadraftofitwhichhe(Adams)hadretained。Mr。Doanerefusedtoactuponthisproposition。ThenAdamspresentedthemattertoGuthbertO。Gordon，abrothertoGeorgeP。Gordon。Hedeclinedtoconsidertheproposedsearchforanewwill。AdamsthenwrotetoGuthbertGordon，Jr。，cautioninghimtosaynothingtoanyone，buttocomeandseehim。GuthbertGordon，Jr。，declinedtoacceptAdams’sinvitationforasecretconference。AdamsdidnotwriteorcommunicatewiththewidowordaughterofGeorgeP。Gordon，orwithanyoftheofficialsorotherpersonswhodealtwiththeestate。FindingthattheheirsatlawweresatisfiedwiththearrangementoftheestateunderGordon’sdaughter’smanagement，hegaveuphiseffortsatthattime。

In1890MaryAgnesGordon，thedaughter，diedinParis，andremittancesfromherceasingandherwillnotbeingsatisfactorytothosewhohadbeenreceivingthemfromher，anothercontestwasbegun。ThiscausedarenewalofAdams’sactivity。In1890hewrotetoMessrs。Black&King，afirmoflawyerswhorepresentedthecontestantsofMaryAgnesGordon’swill。Adams’slettertothelawfirmcontainedthisexpression：

“IfoneofyouwillcomeoverhereonSundaymorning，bringingnobrassband，fifeordrums，I

willtellyousomethingworthknowing。”

Mr。KingvisitedAdams，whowasthenlivingatOrange，N。J。，andwastoldbyhimthatMr。Gordonhadexecutedawillin1868whichhe(Adams)haddrawnatGordon’sinstance，andthathehadretainedacorrecteddraftfromwhichthewillitselfhadbeencopied。HealsotoldKingthattheoriginalwillafteritsexecutionhadbeenleftwithhisfather，andthatitmustbeathisfather’shomesteadnearRahway，wherehewouldtrytofindit。AfewdayslaterhewrotetoBlack&Kingthatthewillhadbeenfound，andthenextdaywentwiththelawyerstoRahwayandidentifiedthepackagefoundbyhisbrotherEdwardAdams，whooccupiedtheRahwayfarm，asthatwhichcontainedthewill。Thepackage，unopened，wastakentoasafedepositcompanyandtheoriginaldraftwasdepositedwiththesecretaryofstate。Theallegedwill，whichChancellorMcGillpronouncedaforgerywhenfinallyopenedinthepreliminaryprobateproceedings，wasfoundtobeaverylongandcomplicateddocument，writtenonbluepaperinblackink。Thedraft，whichwasonwhitepaper，wasalsowritteninthemaininblackink，butacopiousquantityofredinkhadbeenusedininterlineations。Thesignificantparagraphofthenewwillwasadirectiontohisheirstopurchase，ifthetestatorhadnotsucceededindoingsobeforehisdeath，theHenryAdamsfarmfor$32，000。Minutedirectionsweregiventoinsurethepurchase，butnolowerpricethan$32，000

wasmentioned。CommentinguponthisChancellorMcGill’sremarks：

“ItisalsotobeherenotedthattheAdamsfarmisnowscarcelyworthone-thirdthepriceforwhichitisdirectedtobepurchased。”

Continuingthecourtsays：

“TheonlylivingpersonwhoprofessestohavehadknowledgeofthisdisputedpaperpriortoNovember，1890，isHenryC。Adams。HemostclearlyandpositivelytestifiedthathedrewthedisputedpaperattheinstanceofMr。Gordon。Heproducedadraftfromwhichhesaiditwascopied……IhavealreadystatedthatMr。Adamstestifiedmostpositivelywhenthedraftofthedisputedpaperwasofferedinevidencethatitwastheidenticaldocumentfromwhichthewillof1868hadbeencopied，anditistoberememberedthattheinterlineationsinthatdraftarealmostallmadewithredink，andthatMr。Adamstestifiedthatthoseinterlineationsexistedwhenthewillwascopiedfromthedraft。Withaviewtotestingthetruthofthistestimonythecontestantssubmittedthedrafttoscientificexperts，whopronouncedtheredinktobeaproductofeosine，asubstanceinventedbyaGermanchemistnamedCarointheyear1874，andafterthattimeimportedtothiscountry。Atfirstitwassoldfor$125apound，andwassoexpensiveitcouldnotbeusedcommerciallyinthemanufactureofink。Afterwardsthepricewassogreatlyreducedthatitbecamegenerallyusedinmakingredink。Itisdistinguishedbyapeculiarbronzecastthatisreadilydetected。

ItwasrecognizedintheredinkinterlineationsinthedraftofthedisputedpaperproducedbyMr。

Adamsbyanumberofscientificgentlemen，amongwhomweresomeofthebestknowninkmanufacturersinthecountry，andMr。CarlPickhardt，whofirstimportedeosine。Uponfurtherexaminationthewitness，Adams，saidhethoughtthedraftproducedtobetheoriginaluntilhesawthewillonbluepaper，andthatthenhewasperplexed，butdismissedhisdoubtuponthesuggestionofcounsel，butafterwardhethoughtuponthesubject’inthevigilsofthenight，’butbyanunfortunatecoincidencedidnotreachsubstantialdoubtenoughtocorrecthisprevioustestimonyuntilafterthetestimonyconcerningthecharacteroftheredinkhehadusedininterlininghadbeenproduced……

ItisimpossibletostudythisremarkablecaseatthispointwithoutgravedoubtsastothetruthfulnessofMr。Adams，andindeedastothefranknesswithwhichthecasewasproducedincourtinbehalfoftheproponents。”

AstoAdamsasawitness，thecourtfinallysays：

“AndasIreadtheconfusedanswersofMr。

Adamsandnotehisapparentmisapprehensionofquestionsthatwouldtendtoinvolvehim，andnotetheapparentfailureofhistheretoforewonderfullyclearandexactmemoryofthemosttrivialandunimportantdetails，Iaminclinedtorejectthewholestoryasafabricationthathasbeenpuncturedandfallentopieces……IfindittobeimpossibletorelyuponthetestimonyofHenryC。Adams。Excludingitthewillisnotproved……

“Iwilldenyprobate，revokingthatwhichI

haveheretoforegrantedincommonform。”

*******

IntheattemptmadetoprovetheallegedlastwillandtestamentofStephenC。Dimon，deceased，chemistrywastheall-determiningfactorinthemostimportantbranchofthecase。Thepeculiarfeaturesofthisremarkableanduniquecasearebestdescribedbypresentingthemwithabriefhistoryoftheentirematter。

In1884StephenC。DimonofthecityofNewYorkmadeandexecutedawill，choosingaslegateeandexecutrixaMrs。MarthaKeery。Thewillheintrustedtothecustodyofhiscounsel。Itappeared。

thatsometimeduringthefollowingyearhisattorneytransferredthiswillfromitsrestingplaceinadeskdrawertoanewsafeandrecalledhavingseenitsenvelopeayearlater，butsaidheneversawthewillthereafter。

In1893Mr。Dimondied。Nowillbeingproduced，hisbrothertook，outlettersofadministration。WhereuponMrs。MarthaKeerycommencedasuitagainstthebrotherandthenextofkinherepresented，inanefforttoobtainthedeadman’sestate。ShebasedherclaimsolelyontheLOSTwill，thecontentsofwhichwererecalledinthetrialbyMr。Dimon’sformercounsel，whowasalsooneofthewitnessestothelostwill。DuringthecourseofthetrialintheSupremeCourt，presidedoverbyJusticeGeorgeL。Ingraham，Mrs。Keery’sattorneyproducedamutilateddocumentwhichfromitsreadingindicatedthatithadoncebeenawill，thoughnotthe“lost“one。Butthenamesofthelegatee，executrix，testator，namesofwitnessesandtheiraddresseswerecompletelyobliterated。

ThewrittenportionsstillundisturbedshowedittobeinthehandwritingofStephenC。Dimon。

Mrs。Keery’sstorywasthatafterthedeathofMr。

Dimoningoingoveranoldcoatformerlywornbyhim，shehadfounditinasidepocketandhadgivenittohercounseljustasitcameintoherhands。

Itsconditionshowedittobeconsiderablypocket-

worn。Theobliterationsreferredtorepresentedhugeblotsofblackinkcoveringalotofscratchesandmakingitimpossibletodeciphertheunderwriting。

Defendant’sCounselimmediatelyrequestedthatthedocumentbeturnedovertoanexpert，toseewhatcouldbedonewithit。Thejudgegrantedthemotionandadjournedthecaseforseveraldaystoawaitresults。

Counselonbothsidesjoinedintheselectionofmyself。Threedayswereoccupiedinitsdecipherment。

Thewilloccupiedtwosidesofafullsheetoflegalcap。Theoriginalinkwhichwasemployedinthewritingofthewillwasofpalegraycolor。Thefirstobliterationswereaseriesofpenandinkscratchesandmarkswhichdestroyedthewriting。

Notsatisfiedwiththemtheoperatorhadwithasaturatedpieceofblottingpaper，brushedoverthescratchesandasthatinkwasofgoodqualityeverymarkofwritinghaddisappearedinthejumbleandblots。Itsohappenedthatthreeinkshadbeenemployed。

Theoriginalink，theinkusedforscratchingandtheoneemployedtodotheblotting。Thethreeinkswerehappilymixturescontainingdifferentconstituents，andsobyutilizingthereagentofonewhichdidnotaffecttheother，graduallytheencrustedupperinkswereremovedandlatertheoriginalwritingappearedsufficientlyplainnotonlytobereadbuttoidentifyit。Photographsmadebeforeandafterthechemicalexperiments，permittedcourtandcounseltomaketheirowncomparisonsduringthegivingofthetestimonyaboutit。

ItpermittedalsothefindingofthetwowitnesseswholivedoutsideofthecityandtolearnmanydetailsfromthemastoMr。Dimon’sconductinthematter。

TherestoredwillshowedthatMrs。Keeryatitsdate(1891)wasstillinhismind，anditsdestructionbyhimself——thathehadchangedhismind。

JusticeIngrahamcompleteshisopinionindecidingthecaseasfollows：

“Inthiscase，however，thelongtimethatelapsedbetweenthetimeofthedeliveryofthewilltoMr。Morganandthedeathofthetestator，theabsenceofmysatisfactoryproofoftheexistenceofthewillfromthetimeitwasdeliveredtoMr。Morgantothetimeofthetestator’sdeath，andthefactthatthetestatormadeanotherwill，makingsubstantiallythesamedispositionoftheproperty，whichhesubsequentlydestroyed，alltendtocastadoubtuponthefactthatthewillwasinexistenceatthetimeofthetestator’sdeath，andthereispositivelynoevidencethatitwaseverfraudulentlydestroyed。

“Idonotthinkthecourtisjustifiedindivertingalargesumofmoneyfromthoselegallyentitledtoit，byallowing，alostwilltobeproved，exceptupontheclearestandmostsatisfactoryevidenceoftheexistenceofthewillatthetimeofthetestator’sdeath。AndthetestimonyinthiscasefallsshortofwhatIconsidernecessarytoestablishsuchawill。

“Thereshouldbe，therefore，judgmentforthedefendantswithcosts。”

*******

AcaseofconsiderableinterestwastriedbeforeHon。CliffordD。GregoryinthemonthofMarch，1899，inthecityofAlbany，NewYork。Itwasentitledthe“PeopleoftheStateofNewYorkagainstMargaretE。Cody。”aschargedwiththecrimeofblackmail，inthesendingofalettertoMr。GeorgeJ。

Gould，inwhichshethreatenedtodivulgecertaininformationwhichsheclaimedtopossessabouthisdeadfather，JayGould。ThecharacterofthisinformationwassuchthatiftrueitmeantthatJayGouldandhiswifehadlivedinbigamousrelationsduringagreatnumberofyearsprecedingtheirdeathandhencealsoaffectedthelegitimacyoftheentireGouldfamily。Mrs。CodyassertedthatJayGouldwasmarriedtoaMrs。Angelsometimein1853，andthatasaresultofthat“lawful“marriageshegavebirthtoadaughter，aMrs。Pierce，whowasstillaliveandlivingsomewhereinthewest。AsMrs。Codyofferedtosellorsecretetheinformationwhichshesaidshepossessedforaconsideration，Mr。GeorgeJ。

Gouldandhissister，MissHelenGould，instantlydeterminedthatitcouldbenothingelsethanaclearcaseofanattemptatblackmail，whichfalselyimpugnedthereputationsoftheirdeadparents。TheyinstitutedcriminalproceedingsagainstMrs。Cody，chargingthatMrs。CodywhenshewrotetheletterwellknewthatherclaimthathisfatherhadbeenmarriedtoMrs。AngelandthatMrs。Piercewastheirdaughter，wasabsolutelyfalse。Twotrialsfollowed，thefirstin1898inwhichthejurydisagreed，andasecondonein1899whichlastedoveraweek。Itwasinthesecondtrialthatchemicaltestsonacertainentryinachurchrecordinthepresenceofthejuryweremade，whichshowedconclusivelythatancientwritingofanothercharacterthanthatwhichhadbeensubstitutedwasstillexistentbeneaththewritingwhichwasapparenttothenakedeye。

Thefollowingareexcerptsofthejudge’schargetothejury：

“Iwishtoinviteyourattention，forafewmoments，tothebaptismalcertificate。YouhavehadproducedherebeforeyoutheoriginalbaptismalrecordofthechurchatCooperville。Ithasbeensubstantiallyadmitted，intheargumentsofthiscase，thattherehasbeenachangemadeinthiscertificate。IdonotthinkthattheDistrictAttorneyclaimsthatthereisanyevidencethatMrs。

Codyherselfchangedthisrecord；thereisnoclaim，asIunderstandit，madebytheprosecutingofficerthatshewentthereandobtainedthisbook，andwithherownhandchangedthisrecord；butheasksyoutoinferandfindfromtheevidencethathasbeengiven，thatshewasapartytothischange，thatshewasprivytothischange，andthatknowingthatfactshehadguiltyknowledgewhenshewrotetheletteruponwhichtheindictmentisbased。

“YouwillrememberthatMr。Carvalho，theexpertinhandwriting，wasplaceduponthestand；

andhehastestifiedinyourpresenceastohisqualificationsindeterminingdisputedhandwritings，andwhathisexperiencehasbeenduringalongseriesofyears。Hetellsyouthathehasexaminedthisrecord，andthatthereisnoquestionbutsomeofthewordshavebeenerasedandotherssubstitutedintheirplaces。Hetellsyouthatthewords’JayGoulds’werenottheoriginalwordsinthecertificate，oriftheywere，thepresent’JayGoulds，’astheyappearinthecertificate，havebeenforged；thatthewords’MaryS。Brown，’

the’sexmois，’theFrenchwordsforsixmonths，andotherchangeswhichhehasdescribedtoyouareforgeries。

“Ishallsubmittoyou，asaquestionoffact，whetherornotMrs。Codyhadanyknowledgeortookanypart，orauthorizedorconnivedatanyofthechangesmadeinthiscertificate。Idonotsaythatshedid；Ileaveittoyoutosay，fromtheevidenceinthiscase，whetheryourmindsareconvincedthatshehadanypartorparcel，orundertookinanywaytoaccomplishthechangeswhichhavebeenmadeinthisbaptismalrecord。

Andifyoufindasmatteroffactthatshehadsuchknowledgeatthetimethisletterwaswritten；

ifyoufindasmatteroffactshehadthisinformationgiventoherbyMrs。Angel，thenIleaveittoyoutosaywhethershehadsuchknowledge，suchguiltyknowledge，asshouldpreventher，ifactinghonestly，fromwritingalettersuchashasbeendescribedhereandcontainedintheindictment。”

Thejurybroughtinaverdictofguilty。

InthetrialofthePeoplev。DavidL。Kellam(1895)，whowaschargedwithalteringthedatesofthreenotesfor$6，000each，thecontentionoftheprosecutionwasthatthedatesofthenoteshadbeenchangedbychemicals，andwiththeconsentofthedefenseareagentwasappliedtothesuspectedplacesandtheoriginaldatesrestored。Theverdictofthejurywasguilty。

IntheHoltWillcase，triedinWashington，D。C。，inthemonthofJune，1896，greatstresswaslaidonthefactofthedifferenceintheadmixtureofinksfoundonletterscontemporaneouswiththedateofthewill，anditwasassertedalsothattheinkwithwhichthewillwaswrittenwasnotinexistenceatthetimeitwasallegedtohavebeenmade，June14，1873，andprobablynotearlierthantenyearslater。

Furthermore，thatitwasahabitofJudgeHoltuptothetimeofhisdeath，whichhabitwasillustratedinhiswritingsandcorrespondenceto“sand“hiswriting。

Thejurydecidedthewillwasaforgery。

AnotherfamouscaseinwhichthescientifictestimonyaboutinkandpencilwritingmusthaveassistedthecourtinarrivingataconclusionwasinthetrialofthefamousTighewillcontest，triedbeforeHon。

FrankT。Fitzgerald，oneofthepresentsurrogatesofthecountyofNewYork。Thestoryofthiscaseisincorporatedintheopinionwhichiscitedinpart：

“Hon。FrankT。Fitzgerald，SurrogateofthecountyofNewYork：

“ThatRichardTighediedonthe6thdayofMay，1896，atNo。32UnionSquare，inthecityandcountyofNewYork，wherehehadlivedforfiftyyearspriortohisdeath，andwasatthetimeofhisdeathoverninetyyears。

“Thatthetestator，onoraboutthe27thdayofMarch，1884，inthepresenceoftheattestingwitnesses，dulysignedtheinstrumentinwriting，anddulypublishedanddeclaredthesametobehislastwillandtestament，andrequestedsaidwitnessestowitnessthesame，andpursuanttosuchrequestsaidattestingwitnessesdidsubscribesaidwillasattestingwitnesses。ThatatthetimesaidRichardTighesosigned，publishedanddeclaredthesaidinstrumenttobehislastwillandtestament，thesaidRichardTighewasinallrespectscompetenttoexecutethesame，andwasnotunderanyrestraintorundueinfluence。Thatthesaidinstrument，sosigned，publishedanddeclaredbytestatorwasandconsistedoftheidenticalsheetsofpaperandtheidenticalwritingnowappearinguponthesameastoallexceptpencilwriting；thetestatordidnotpublishordeclarethemarks，wordsorfigureswritteninoruponsaidinstrumentinpenciltobeapartofhislastwillandtestament，anditisnotfoundthatsuchmarks，wordsorfigureswereuponsaidinstrumentatthetimewhensaidinstrumentwassopublishedanddeclaredtobethelastwillandtestamentofthetestator。

Thatthesaidlastwillandtestamentiswrittenconsecutivelyupontwosheetsoflegalcappaper。

“Thatthesaidlastwillandtestamentwasoriginallypreparedwithblankspacesleftfortheinsertionofthenumbersofsharesintendedtobebequeathedanddevisedtothevariousbeneficiariesnamedtherein，andassopreparedwasinthehand-writingofCarolineS。Tighe，thewifeoftestator，andthatatsomesubsequenttimeandbeforetheexecutionofthesaidinstrumentbythesaidRichardTighe，theblankspaceshereinafterreferredtoasfilledininink，werefilledinbyorunderthedirectionofthetestator。Uponsaidinstrumentasofferedforprobatethereappearsintheblanksoriginallyleftthereon，insomeinstances，pencilwritingssuperimposedoverotherpencilwritings，whichhavebeeneitherwhollyorpartiallyerased，andinotherinstancesinkwritingdifferentfromthebodyoftheinstrumentinthematerialemployed，appearingoverpencilwritingswhollyorpartiallyobliterated……

“Thatthesaidwordswrittenininkfillingsuchblanksasaforesaidexpressedthefinaldeterminationofthetestatorwithregardtothebeneficiariestowhomthesameapplied；andthatthewordsandfigureswritteninpencilfillingsuchblanksasaforesaidwerewrittenonlydeliberatelyandtentativelyandthatastothosewordsandfiguresthetestatorhadnotatthetimewhenheexecuted，publishedordeclaredsaidinstrumenttobehislastwillandtestamentdeterminedastowhomorinwhatproportionshewouldgivetheseveralsharesofhisestateandpropertycoveredbysaidwordsandfigures，butthetestatorattemptedandintendedtoreservetohimselfthepowerofmakingdispositionofsaidsharesthereafter，andintendedthefinaldispositionthereoftobeininkwriting……”

CHAPTERXXIV。

CHEMICO-LEGALINK(CONTINUED)。

FAMOUSCASEOFCRITTENV。CHEMICALNATIONAL

BANK——STORYOFTHECASEINCLUDEDINTHE

OPINIONOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSASWRITTENBY

JUSTICEEDGARM。CULLEN——THEPINKERTONCASEOF

“BECKER“——STORYOFHOWHESECURED$20，000

THROUGHTHEALTERATIONOFA$12CHECK——BECKER’S

COMMENTSABOUTHIMSELF——ACRITICISMOF

BECKERANDHISWORK——NAMESOFSOMECASES

INWHICHCHEMICALEVIDENCEWASPRESENTEDTO

COURTSANDJURIES。

THEbookscontainnoclearerormoreforcibleexpositionof“Chemico-legal“ink，initsrelationshiptofactsadducedfromillustratedscientifictestimony，thanistobefoundinthefinalopinionwrittenbythateminentjuristHon。EdgarM。CullenonbehalfofthemajorityoftheCourtofAppealsoftheStateofNewYork，inthecaseofDeFreesCrittenv。TheChemicalNationalBank。Itwastheauthor’sprivilegetobetheexpertemployedinthelowercourtaboutwhosetestimonyJudgeCullenremarks(N。Y。Rep。，171，p。223)

“ThealterationofthechecksbyDaviswasestablishedbeyondcontradiction。”andagain，p。227，“Theskillofthecriminalhaskeptpacewiththeadvanceinhonestartsandaforgerymaybemadesoskillfullyastodeceivenotonlythebankbutthedrawerofthecheckastothegenuinenessofhisownsignature。”

Themainfactsareincludedintheportionoftheopinioncited：

“Theplaintiffskeptalargeandactiveaccountwiththedefendant，andthisactionistorecoveranallegedbalanceofadepositduetothemfromthebank。TheplaintiffshadintheiremployaclerknamedDavis。ItwasthedutyofDavistofillupthecheckswhichitmightbenecessaryfortheplaintiffstogiveinthecourseofbusiness，tomakecorrespondingentriesinthestubsofthecheckbookandpresentthecheckssopreparedtoMr。Critten，oneoftheplaintiffs，forsignature，togetherwiththebillsinpaymentofwhichtheyweredrawn。

AftersigningacheckCrittenwouldplaceitandthebillinanenvelopeaddressedtotheproperparty，sealtheenvelopeandputitinthemailingdrawer。DuringtheperiodfromSeptember，1897，toOctober，1899，intwenty-fourseparateinstancesDavisabstractedoneoftheenvelopesfromthemailingdrawer，openedit，obliteratedbyacidsthenameofthepayeeandtheamountspecifiedinthecheck，thenmadethecheckpayabletocashandraiseditsamount，inthemajorityofcases，bythesumof$100。Hewoulddrawthemoneyonthechecksoalteredfromthedefendantbank，paythebillforwhichthecheckwasdrawnincashandappropriatetheexcess。OnoneoccasionDavisdidnotcollectthealteredcheckfromthedefendant，butdepositedittohisowncreditinanotherbank。WhenacheckwaspresentedtoCrittenforsignaturethenumberofdollarsforwhichitwasdrawnwouldbecutinthecheckbyapunchinginstrument。

WhenDavisalteredacheckhewouldpunchanewfigureinfrontofthosealreadyappearinginthecheck。ThecheckssoalteredbyDaviswerechargedtotheaccountoftheplaintiffs，whichwasbalancedeverytwomonthsandthevouchersreturnedtothemfromthebank。ToDavishimselftheplaintiffs，asarule，intrustedtheverificationofthebankbalance。ThisworkhavingintheabsenceofDavisbeencommittedtoanotherperson，theforgerieswerediscoveredandDaviswasarrestedandpunished。Itistheamountoftheseforgedchecks，overandabovethesumsforwhichtheywereoriginallydrawn，thatthisactionisbroughttorecover。Thedefendantpleadedpaymentandchargednegligenceonplaintiff’spart，bothinthemannerinwhichthechecksweredrawnandinthefailuretodiscovertheforgerieswhenthepassbookwasbalancedandthevoucherssurrendered。OnthetrialthealterationofthechecksbyDaviswasestablishedbeyondcontradictionandthesubstantialissuelitigatedwasthatoftheplaintiff’snegligence。TherefereerenderedashortdecisioninfavoroftheplaintiffsinwhichhestatesasthegroundofhisdecisionthattheplaintiffswerenotnegligenteitherinsigningthechecksasdrawnbyDavisorinfailingtodiscovertheforgeriesatanearlierdatethanthatatwhichtheyweremadeknowntothem。

“Therelationexistingbetweenabankandadepositorbeingthatofdebtorandcreditor，thebankcanjustifyapaymentonthedepositor’saccountonlyupontheactualdirectionofthedepositor。

’Thequestionarisingonsuchpaper(checks)

betweendraweeanddrawer，however，alwaysrelatetowhattheonehasauthorizedtheothertodo。

Theyarenotquestionsofnegligenceorofliabilitytopartiesuponcommercialpaper，butarethoseofauthoritysolely。Thequestionofnegligencecannotariseunlessthedepositorhasindrawinghischeekleftblanksunfilled，orbysomeaffirmativeactofnegligencehasfacilitatedthecommissionofafraudbythoseintowhosehandsthecheckmaycome。’(Crawfordv。WestSideBank，100N。Y。50。)Therefore，whenthefraudulentalterationofthecheckswasproved，theliabilityofthebankfortheiramountwasmadeoutanditwasincumbentuponthedefendanttoestablishaffirmativelynegligenceontheplaintiff’sparttorelieveitfromtheconsequencesofitsfaultormisfortuneinpayingforgedorders。Now，whilethedrawerofacheckmaybeliablewherehedrawstheinstrumentillsuchillincompletestateastofacilitateorinvitefraudulentalterations，itisnotthelawthatheisboundsotopreparethecheekthatnobodyelsecallsuccessfullytamperwithit。(SocieteGeneralev。MetropolitanBank，27L。T。[N。S。]849；Belknapv。NationalBankofNorthAmerica，100Mass。380)Inthepresentcasethefraudulentalterationofthecheckswasnotmerelyintheperforationoftheadditionalfigure，butintheobliterationofthewrittennameofthepayeeandthesubstitutionthereforoftheword’Cash。’Againstthislatterchangeoftheinstrumenttheplaintiffscouldnothavebeenexpectedtoguard，andwithoutthatalterationitwouldhavenowayprofitedthecriminaltoraisetheamount……”

APinkertoncaseofinternationalrepute，bestknownasthe“Becker“case，includedthesuccessful“raising“ofacheckbychemicalmeansfrom$12to$22，000。ThecriminalauthorofthisstupendousfraudwasCharlesBecker，“kingofforgers。”

whoasanallroundimitatorofanywritingandmanipulatorofmonetaryinstrumentsthenstoodattheheadofhis“profession。”ArrestedandtakentoSanFranciscohewasbroughttotrial。Twoofhis“pals“turnedstate’sevidence，andBeckerwassentencedtoalifeterm。ThroughanerroronthepartofthetrialjudgehesecuredanewtrialonanappealtotheSupremeCourt。Thejurydisagreedonasecondtrial，butonthethirdtrialhewasconvicted。

Beckerpleadedformercy，andashewasanoldmanandshowedsignsofphysicalbreak-down，thecourtwaslenientwithhim。Sevenyearswashissentence。

AfterhisincarcerationinSanQuetinprison，hedescribedinonesentencehowhehadrisentotheheadofthecraftofforgers。“Aworldofpatience，aheapoftime，andgoodinks，——thatisthesecretofmysuccessintheprofession。”

Oncompletinghissentence，hisreplytothequestion，“Whatwastheunderlyingmotivewhichinducedyoutoforge？“wasoneword，“Vanity！“

Thedetailedfactswhichfollowarefromthe“AmericanBanker：“

“OnDecember2，1895，asmooth-speakingman，underthenameofA。H。Dean，hiredanofficeintheChroniclebuildingatSanFrancisco，undertheguiseofamerchantbroker，paidamonth’srentinadvance，andonDecember4hewenttotheBankofNevadaandopenedanaccountwith$2，500

cash，sayingthathisaccountwouldrunfrom$2，000to$30，000，andthathewouldwantnoaccommodation。Hemanipulatedtheaccountsoastoinviteconfidence，andonDecember17hedepositedacheckordraftoftheBankofWoodland，Cal。，uponitscorrespondent，theCrocker-

WoolworthBankofSanFrancisco。TheamountwaspaidtothecreditofDean，thecheckwassentthroughtheclearing-house，andwaspaidbytheCrocker-

WoolworthBank。Thenextday，thecheckhavingbeencleared，Deancalledanddrewout$20，000，takingthecashinfourbagsofgold，thetellernothavingpapermoneyconvenient。Hehadavehicleatthedoor，withhisofficeboyinsideasdriver，andawayhewent。Attheendofthemonth，whentheCrocker-WoolworthBankmadereturnstotheWoodlandBank，itincludedthedraftfor$22，000。

Herethefraudwasdiscovered，andherethelessontobankersofadvisingdraftsreceivedanewillustration。TheBankofWoodlandhaddrawnnosuchdraft，andtheonlyoneithaddrawnwhichwasnotaccountedforwasonefortwelvedollars，issuedinfavorofA。H。Holmestoaninnocent-

lookingman，who，onDecember9，calledtoaskhowhecouldsendtwelvedollarstoadistantfriend，andwhetheritwasbettertosendamoneyorderoranexpressorder。Whenhewastoldhecouldsenditbybankdraft，heseemedtohavelearnedsomethingnew；supposedthathecouldnotgetabankdraft，andhetookit，payingthefee。

Herecamebackthatinnocenttwelve-dollardraft，raisedto$22，000，andonitswayhadcostsomebody$20，000ingold。

“Thealmostabsoluteperfectionwithwhichthedrafthadbeenforgedhadnearlydefiedthedetectionofeventhemicroscope。Inthebodyoftheoriginal$12drafthadbeenthewords，’Twelve……Dollars。’Theforger，bytheuseofsomechemicalpreparation，haderasedthefinalletters’lve’fromtheword’twelve，’andhadsubstitutedtheletters’nty-two，’sothatinplaceofthe’twelve，’isitappearedinthegenuinedraft，therewastheword’twenty-two’intheforgedpaper。

“Inthespacebetweentheword’twenty-two’

andtheword’dollars’theforgerinsertedtheword’thousand，’sothatinplaceofthedraftreading’twelvedollars，’asatfirst，itread’twenty-twothousanddollars，’aschanged。

“Intheoriginal$12draft，thefigures’1’and’2’andthecharacter’$’hadbeenpunchedsothatthecombinationread’$12。’Theforgerhadfilledintheseperforationswithpaperinsuchawaythatthepartfilledinlookedexactlylikethefieldofthepaper。Afterhavingfilledintheperforations，hehadperforatedthepaperwiththecombination，’$22，000。’

“Thedates，too，hadbeenerasedbythechemicalprocess，andintheirsteadweredateswhichwouldmakeitappearthatthepaperbadbeenpresentedforpaymentwithinareasonablelengthoftimeafterithadbeenissued。Thedatesintheoriginaldraft，ifleftontheforgeddraft，wouldhavebeenliabletoarousesuspicionatthebank，fortheywouldhaveshownthattheholderhaddepartedfromcustomincarrying，suchavaluablepapermorethanafewdays。

“Thatwastheextentoftheforgerieswhichhadbeenmadeinthepaper，themannerinwhichtheyhadbeenmadebetrayedthehandofanexpertforger。Theinterjectedhand-writingwassonearlylikethatintheoriginalpaperthatittookagreatwhiletodecidewhetherornotitwasaforgery。

“Intheplaceswherelettershadbeenerasedbytheuseofchemicalsthecoloringofthepaperhadbeenrestored，sothatitwaswell-nighimpossibletodetectavarianceofthehue。Itwastheworkofanartist，withpen，ink，chemicals，camel’shairbrush，watercolors，paperpulpandaperforatingmachine。Moreoverthecrimewaseighteendaysold，andtheforgermightbeinJapanoronhiswaytoEurope。TheProtectiveCommitteeoftheAmericanBankers’AssociationheldahurriedconsultationassoonasthenewsoftheforgeryreachedNewYork，andordersweregiventogetthisforger，regardlessofexpense——hewastoodangerousamantobeatlarge。Itwaseasiersaidthandone；buttheskillofthePinkertonswasarousedandthewiresweremadehotgettinganaccuratedescriptionofDeanfromallwhohadseenhim。

Suspectedbankcriminalswereshadowednightanddaytoseeiftheyconnectedwithanyoneansweringthedescription，butpatient，hardlaborfornearlytwomonthsdidnotseemtopromisemuch。”

NotsatisfiedwiththeirsuccessinSanFranciscothesesamebankworkersbeganaseriesofoperationsinMinneapolisandSt。Paul，Minnesota。ThisinformationbychancereachedthePinkertonswholaidatrapandcapturedtwoofthegang。ShortlyafterwardBeckeroninformationfurnishedbythemwasalsoarrested，takentoCaliforniaandafterthreeseparatetrialsasbeforestated，senttoSanQuetin。

Thistriumphoftheforger’sart，IexaminedinthecityofSanFranciscoandalthoughitwasnot，thefirsttimeIhadbeenbroughtintocontactwiththeworkofBecker，wascompelledtoadmitthatthisparticularspecimenwasalmostperfectandmorenearlysowithasingleexceptionthananyotherwhichhadcomeundermyobservation。Beckerwasasortofgeniusinthejugglingofbankchecks。Heknewthevaluesofinkandthecorrectchemicaltoaffectthem。Hispapermillwashismouth，inwhichtomanufacturespeciallypreparedpulptofillinpunchholes，whichwhenironedover，madeitmostdifficulttodetectevenwithamagnifyingglass。Hewasablealsotoimitatewatermarksandcouldreproducethemostintricatedesigns。Hesayshehasreformed。

DuringthelasttwentyyearsquiteanumberofcaseshavebeentriedinNewYorkCityandvicinityinwhichthequestionofinkswasanallimportantone。

Thetitlesofafewnotalreadyreferredtoaregiven。

herewith：Lawless-Flemming，AlbingerWill，Phelan-

PressPublishingCo。，Ryold，Kerr-Southwick，N。Y。

DredgingCo。，Thorless-Nernst，Gekouski，Perkins，Bedellforgeries，Storey，Lyddy，Clarke，Woods，Baker，Trefethen，Dupont-Dubos，Schooley，Humphrey，Dietz-Allen，Carter，andRineard-Bowers。

CHAPTERXXV。

INKUTENSILSOFANTIQUITY。

THEGRAVINGTOOLPRECEDESTHEPEN——CLASSIFICATION

UNDERTWOHEADS，ONEWHICHSCRATCHEDANDTHE

OTHERWHICHUSEDANINK——THESTYLUSANDTHE

MATERIALSOFWHICHITWASCOMPOSED——POETICALLY

DESCRIBED——COMMENTSBYNOELHUMPHREYS——RECAPITULATION

OFVARIOUSDEVICESBYKNIGHT——BIBLICAL

REFERENCES——ENGRAVEDSTONESANDOTHER

MATERIALSTHEEARLIESTKINDSOFRECORDS——WHEN

THINBRICKSWEREUTILIZEDFORINSCRIPTION

PURPOSES——METHODSEMPLOYEDBYTHECHINESE——

HILPRECHT’SDISCOVERIES——THEDIAMONDASASCRATCHING

INSTRUMENT——HISTORICALINCIDENTWRITTEN

WITHONE——BIBLICALMENTIONABOUTTHEDIAMOND——

WHENITBECAMEPOSSIBLETOINTERPRET

CHARACTERVALUESOFANCIENTHIEROGLYPHICS——DISCOVERY

OFTHEROSETTASTONEANDADESCRIPTIONOF

IT——SOMEOBSERVATIONSABOUTCHAMPOLLIONAND

DR。YOUNGWHODECIPHEREDIT——ITSCAPTUREBY

THEENGLISHANDPRESERVATIONINTHEBRITISH

MUSEUM——EMPLOYMENTOFTHEREEDPENANDPENCIL-

BRUSH——THEBRUSHPRECEDEDTHEREEDPEN——THE

PLACESWHERETHEREEDSGREW——COMMENTSBY

VARIOUSWRITERS——METHODOFFORMINGTHEREED

INTOAPEN——CONTINUEDEMPLOYMENTOFTHEMIN

THEFAREAST——THEBRUSHSTILLINUSEINCHINA

ANDJAPAN——EARLIESTEXAMPLESOFREEDPENWRITING——

WHENTHEQUILLWASSUBSTITUTEDFORTHE

REED——REEDPENSFOUNDINTHERUINSOF

HERCULANEUM——ANECDOTEBYTHEABBE，HUC。