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，intheextravagantusemisuseoftheso-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。IntheearlyfiftiesthecheapgradesoflogwoodinkaftertheformulaofRunge1848andwhichcostaboutfourcentspergallonwasmarketed，principallyforschoolpurposes；
itwasneversatisfactory，becomingthickand“colorfading。”Mr。Davidsmademanyexperimentswith“alizarin“inksintheearlysixtiesbutdidnotconsiderthemvaluableenoughtoputonthemarket。
In1875thefirmintroducedvioletinkmadefromtheanilinecolorofthatname。Experimentationsin1878
withtheinsolubleanilineblacksandvanadiumwereunsuccessful；butthesolubleanilineblackblue-
blackknownasnigrosinetheyusedandstilluseinvariouscombinations。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。”
*******
“Thereisnosuchinkatanno-gallateofironinkwithoutaddedcolormanufacturedbyanyink-
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，37SuperiorCourtJ。&
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。Hood34thPenn。StateReports，365，experttestimonywasreceivedincorroborationofpositiveevidencetoprovethatthewholeofaninstrumentwaswrittenbythesamehand，withthesameink，andatthesametime。Itisinconceivablehowtestimonyofanyvaluecouldbegivenastothecharacterofinkwithwhichaninstrumentwaswritten，unlessithadbeensubjectedtoachemicaltest。ThewriterofavaluablearticleintheeighteenthvolumeoftheAmericanLawRegister，page281R。U。
Piper，aneminentexpertofChicago，Ill。，incommentingupontheruleasstatedinthecaseofFultonv。Hoodsupra，veryproperlysays：
“’Microscopicalandchemicaltestsmaybecompetenttosettlethequestion，buttheseshouldnotbereceivedasevidence，Ithink，unlesstheexpertisabletoshowtothecourtandthejurytheactualresultsofhisexamination，andalsotoexplainhismethods，sothattheycanbefullyunderstood。’
“ThewriterofthisarticleisalsoauthorityforthestatementthatintheFrenchCourtseverymanipulationorexperimentnecessarytoelucidatethetruthinthecase，eventothedestructionofthedocumentinquestion，isallowed，theCourt，asamatterofprecaution，beingfirstsuppliedwithacertifiedcopyofthesame。
“Themostobviousargumenttobeurgedagainstallowingachemicaltesttobemadeonawill，andonethatwassuggestedbythecourtontheargumentofthismotion，isthat，inasmuchasthepapermaybethesubjectoffuturecontroversyinthisorsomeothertribunal，futurelitigantsshouldnotbeprejudicedbyanyalterationormanipulationoftheinstrument。Idonotthink，however，thatthisobjectionissound。Takeanextremecase，ofpermittingasufficientamountoftheinkwhichtheaffidavitoftheexpertshowstobebutinfinitesimal
forthepurposeofchemicalexamination；
theformoftheletterwouldremainuponthepaper；
ifnot，theformandappearanceoftheentiresignaturemight，asapreliminaryprecaution，bepreservedbyphotography。Theportionofthesignatureremainingwouldaffordamplematerialforfutureexperimentsandinvestigationsinsubsequentproceedingswhereinitmightbedeemedadvisabletotakethatcourse。
“Becausethesubjectmatterofthecontroversymaybelitigatedhereaftershouldnotdeprivepartiesintheproceedingofanyrightswhichtheywouldotherwisehave。Theycertainlyareentitledtoallrightsinthisproceedingthatthepartiestoanyfutureproceedingswouldhave。Besides，allthepartieswhosepresencewouldbenecessarytoanadjudicationin，forexample，anejectmentproceeding，areortheirpriviesarepartieshere。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。
“SignedRASTUSS。RANSOM，“Surrogate。”
Onthe19thofJune，1889，pursuanttotheorderofthecourt，theallegedwillreferredtowasfirstphotographed，andlaterinthatdaysuchplacesashadbeendesignatedintheorderwerechemicallytreated，aspartofaseriesofexperiments。Theresultsobtainedbrieflysummarizedwereas，follows：TheinstrumentwhichpurportedtobeaholographicwillofThomasJ。Monroetheexperimentsshowedconclusivelytobenotthecase，asneitherpennorinkinthebodywritingportionorinthedecedent’ssignaturehadevertouchedthepaper；thedateandnamesofthewitnessesthereonwerewritten，however，withpenandink。Furthermore，theexperimentsdemonstratedbeyondquestionthatexclusiveofitsdateandnamesofwitnesses，thatitwaswhatiscommonlyknownasatransfertakenfromagelatinepadhektograph，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，establishedbymeansofadraftofitwhichheAdamshadretained。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。Gordonhadexecutedawillin1868whichheAdamshaddrawnatGordon’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。Keeryatitsdate1891wasstillinhismind，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。Kellam1895，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-LEGALINKCONTINUED。
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’sprivilegetobetheexpertemployedinthelowercourtaboutwhosetestimonyJudgeCullenremarksN。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。
’Thequestionarisingonsuchpaperchecks
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。380Inthepresentcasethefraudulentalterationofthecheckswasnotmerelyintheperforationoftheadditionalfigure，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。