Forty Centuries of Ink Part 23

Such an ink prepared after this receipt would be a strictly pure tanno-gallate of iron ink WITHOUT any "added" color whatever.

The estimation in which such an ink is held by the majority of the ink manufacturers is best ill.u.s.trated by quoting from two of the most prominent ones, and thus enable the reader to draw his own conclusions.

"We do not make a tanno-gallate of iron ink without added color, and so far as we know, there is no such ink on the market, as it would be practically colorless and illegible."

"There is no such ink (a tanno-gallate of iron ink without added color) manufactured by any ink- maker as far as I know. It is obsolete."

The commercial names bestowed on the mult.i.tude of different inks placed on the market by manufacturers during the last century are in the thousands.

A few of them are cited as indicative of their variety, some of which are still sold under these names.

Kosmian Safety Fluid, Bablah Ink, Universal Jet Black, Treasury Ledger Fluid, Everlasting Black Ink, Raven-Black Ink, Nut-gall Ink, Pernambuco Ink, Blue Post Office Ink, Unchangeable Black, Doc.u.ment Safety Ink, Birmingham Copying Ink, Commercial Writing Fluid, Germania Ink, Horticultural Ink, Exchequer Ink, Chesnut Ink, Carbon Safety Ink, Vanadium Ink, Asiatic Ink, Terra-cotta Ink, Juglandin Ink, Persian Copying, Sambucin, Chrome Ink, Sloe Ink, Steel Pen Ink, j.a.panese Ink, English Office Ink, Catechu Ink, Chinese Blue Ink, Alizarin Ink, School Ink, Berlin Ink, Resin Ink, Water-gla.s.s Ink, Parisian Ink, Immutable Ink, Graphite Ink, Nigrilin Ink, Munich Ink, Electro-Chemical, Egyptian Black, "Koal" Black Ink, Ebony Black Ink, Zulu Black, Cobalt Black, Maroon Black, Aeilyton Copying, Dichroic, Congress Record, Registration, "Old English," etc.

The list of over 200 names, which follow, includes those of manufacturers of the best known foreign and domestic "black" inks and "chemical writing fluids"

in use during the past century, as well as those of the present time.

Adriana Allfield Anderson Antoine Arnaudon Arnold Artus Ballade Ballande Barnes Bart Bartram Beaur Behrens Belmondi Berzelius Bizanger Blackwood Blair Bolley Bonney Bossin Boswell Bottger Boutenguy Braconnot Brande Bufeu Bufton Bure Carter Caw Cellier Champion Chaptal Chevallier Clarke Close Cochrane Collin Cooke Coupier and Collins c.o.xe Crock Cross Darcet Davids Davis Delunel Delarve Delang Derheims Dize Draper Druck Duhalde Dumas Dumovlen Dunand Dunlap Ellis Eisner Faber Faucher Faux Featherstone Fesneau Fontenelle Ford Fourmentin Freeman Fuchs Gaffard Gastaldi Geissler Geoffroy Gebel Goold Goupeir Gra.s.se Green Guesneville Gullier Guyon Guyot Haenles Hager Haldat Hanle Hare Harrison Hausman Heeren Henry Herepath Hevrant Higgins Hogy Hunt Hyde Jahn James Joy Karmarsch Kasleteyer Kindt Klaproth Kloen Knaffl Knecht Lanaux Lanet Larenaudiere Lemancy Lenormand Leonhardi Lewis Ley Kauf Link Lipowitz Lorme Luhring Lyons MacCullogh Mackensic Mathieu Maurin Maynard and Noyes Melville Mendes Meremee Merget Minet Moller Moore Mordan Moser Morrell Mozard Murray Nash Nissen Ohme Ott Paul Payen Perry Peltz Petibeau Platzer Plissey Pomeroy Poncelet Prollius Proust Pusher Rapp Reade Redwood Reid Remigi Reinmann Rheinfeld Ribaucourt Ricker Roder Ruhr Runge Sanford Schaffgotoch Schleck.u.m Schmidt Schoffern Scott Seldrake Selmi Simon Souberin Souirssean Stafford Stark Stein Stephens Stevens Syuckerbuyk Swan Tabuy Tarling Thacker Thomas Thumann Todd Tomkins Trialle Triest Trommsdorff Underwood Vallet Van Moos Vogel Wagner Walkden Wallach Waterlous Windsor and Newton Winternitz Woodmansee Worthington

CHAPTER XXIII.

CHEMICO-LEGAL INK.

ESTIMATED VALUE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AS HELD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS--NOW BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF CRITICISM--VERDICTS IN THE TRIALS OF CAUSES AFFECTED BY SUCH EVIDENCE--LENGTH OF TIME NECESSARY TO OVERCOME PREJUDICE AND IGNORANCE-- WHERE OBJECTIONS TO SUCH EVIDENCE EMANATE-- SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT SUCH EVIDENCE GENERALLY-- WHEN PRECEDENT WAS MADE TO CHEMICALLY EXAMINE A COURT EXHIBIT BEFORE TRIAL--THE CONTROVERSY IN WHICH JUDGE RANSOM MADE THIS NEW DEPARTURE--CITATION OF THE CASE AND ITS OUTCOME-- DECISION IN THE GORDON WILL CASE OBTAINED BY THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE--COMPLETE STORY ABOUT IT--HISTORY OF THE DIMON WILL CASE AND HOW CHEMISTRY MADE IT POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER IT--OPINION OF JUDGE INGRAHAM--PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK V. CODY--THE ATTEMPT TO PROVE AN ALLEGED "GOULD" BIRTH CERTIFICATE GENUINE, FRUSTRATED BY CHEMICAL EVIDENCE--THE DEFENDANT CONVICTED--THE PEOPLE V. KELLAM--CHEMICAL EVIDENCE MAKES THE TRUTH KNOWN--THE HOLT WILL CASE AND THE EVIDENCE WHICH AFFECTED ITS RESULT--THE TIGHE WILL CASE--OPINION OF JUDGE FITZGERALD.

"The administration of justice profits by the progress of science, and its history shows it to have been almost the earliest in antagonism to popular delusion and superst.i.tion. The revelations of the microscope are constantly resorted to in protection of individual and public interests. . . .

If they are relied upon as agencies for accurate mathematical results in mensuration and astronomy, there is no reason why they should be deemed unreliable in matters of evidence. Wherever what they disclose can aid or elucidate the just determination of legal controversies there can be no well- founded objection to resorting to them." Frank v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 37 Superior Court (J. & S.) 34, affirmed in Court of Appeals, 84 N. Y.

209.

THIS decision by a final court of adjudicature, expresses in no uncertain terms the now generally estimated value of evidence which science may reveal.

The importance which that branch of it denominated "Chemico-legal ink" has attained and its utilization in many trials of causes both civil as well as criminal, places it beyond the purview of criticism or objection.

With the introduction of a new cla.s.s of inks in the last two decades, its scope has been much broadened.

Innumerable verdicts by juries wherever the system prevails, all over the world, the opinions of learned judges, whether presiding during a jury trial or sitting alone, more or less affected by this character of evidence, presents fairly the trend of the views of the public mind respecting it.

Constant experiment and successful demonstrations, covering a period of over fifty years, was necessary to overcome prevailing prejudices and ignorance.

The conditions to-day, which happily obtain, are that the objection to the introduction of such evidence finds its source usually in the side seeking to obscure and hide the truth or facts, while the honest litigant or innocent individual hastens to advocate its employment.

Another feature worthy of consideration is that persons who possess intimate knowledge of ink chem.

istry and who might otherwise successfully perpetrate fraud if opportunity presented itself, refrain from making the attempt because of that very knowledge, which is sufficient also to teach them of the possible exposure of their efforts. Again, they and others are aware of the reliance placed on chemico-legal evidence as an aid to the cause of justice by courts and juries and this is an added reason why they hesitate to take chances. These propositions being true, they establish another one, viz: that most of the attempted frauds at the present time in this connection, are by the ignorant and those whose conceit does not permit them to believe that any one knows more than themselves.

Chemico-legal ink evidence as before stated has been employed in the trials of causes for many years; but it was not until the year 1889 that a precedent was established for the chemical examination of a suspected doc.u.ment preceding any trial. The honor of this departure from the ordinary modes of procedure belongs to the Hon. Rastus S. Ransom, who was surrogate of the county of New York at the time.

The matter in controversy was an alleged will executed in triplicate by one Thomas J. Monroe. Charges were made that the three wills were spurious, as they were facsimiles of each other. It was for the main purpose of determining the methods of their make-up that Judge Ransom rendered the opinion and made the order for its chemical examination which is cited in full:

Estate of Thomas J. Monroe.--"This is an application by the special guardian and contestant in this proceeding, which is now pending before the a.s.sistant, for leave to photograph the various papers which have been filed as the will of the deceased, and to compel the filing of two parts of one of said wills, which was executed in triplicate; likewise that the last paper be subjected to chemical tests for the purpose of disclosing the nature of the composition of the ink and the process or processes to which it has been subjected.

"Upon the oral argument the surrogate decided the applications first stated in favor of the pet.i.tioner, reserving only the question of his power to direct or permit the chemical tests. The special guardian on the oral argument stated that he was unable, to find any authority for the application.

"Consultation of the various sources of authority upon the subject of expert testimony and the various tests for the purpose of establis.h.i.+ng or disproving handwriting has not resulted in the discovery of any authority for granting the application.

It is apparent, however, from some of the cases that such an examination must have been permitted; for instance, in Fulton v. Hood (34th Penn. State Reports, 365), expert testimony was received in corroboration of positive evidence to prove that the whole of an instrument was written by the same hand, with the same ink, and at the same time. It is inconceivable how testimony of any value could be given as to the character of ink with which an instrument was written, unless it had been subjected to a chemical test. The writer of a valuable article in the eighteenth volume of the American Law Register, page 281 (R. U.

Piper, an eminent expert of Chicago, Ill.), in commenting upon the rule as stated in the case of Fulton v. Hood (supra), very properly says:

" 'Microscopical and chemical tests may be competent to settle the question, but these should not be received as evidence, I think, unless the expert is able to show to the court and the jury the actual results of his examination, and also to explain his methods, so that they can be fully understood.'

"The writer of this article is also authority for the statement that in the French Courts every manipulation or experiment necessary to elucidate the truth in the case, even to the destruction of the doc.u.ment in question, is allowed, the Court, as a matter of precaution, being first supplied with a certified copy of the same.

"The most obvious argument to be urged against allowing a chemical test to be made on a will, and one that was suggested by the court on the argument of this motion, is that, inasmuch as the paper may be the subject of future controversy in this or some other tribunal, future litigants should not be prejudiced by any alteration or manipulation of the instrument. I do not think, however, that this objection is sound. Take an extreme case, of permitting a sufficient amount of the ink (which the affidavit of the expert shows to be but infinitesimal) for the purpose of chemical examination; the form of the letter would remain upon the paper; if not, the form and appearance of the entire signature might, as a preliminary precaution, be preserved by photography. The portion of the signature remaining would afford ample material for future experiments and investigations in subsequent proceedings wherein it might be deemed advisable to take that course.

"Because the subject matter of the controversy may be litigated hereafter should not deprive parties in the proceeding of any rights which they would otherwise have. They certainly are ent.i.tled to all rights in this proceeding that the parties to any future proceedings would have. Besides, all the parties whose presence would be necessary to an adjudication in, for example, an ejectment proceeding, are (or their privies are) parties here. It certainly cannot be that the law, seeking the truth, will not avail itself of this scientific method of ascertaining the genuineness of the instrument because of some problematical effect upon the rights or opportunities of parties to future litigations respecting the same instrument. The possibilities of litigation over a will are almost infinite, and if such a rule should obtain this important channel of investigation would be closed. Suppose the same objection were raised to the first action of ejectment which might be brought, it might then with the same force be urged that parties to some future ejectment suit would be prejudiced by a chemical test of the ink used in the will, and so on ad infinitum.

"By not availing itself of this method of ascertaining the truth as to the character of the ink, the Court deprives itself of a species of evidence which amounts to practical demonstration.

"I can see no reason why the application should not be granted."

The order in part reads:

"It is ordered and directed that Charles H.

Beckett, the special guardian aforesaid, be and he hereby is allowed permission to photograph the aforesaid paper writings described in said order to show cause, viz., one of the two parts of a triplicate Will of Thomas J. Monroe, deceased, dated February 10th, 1873, which were filed in the office of the Surrogate of the City and County of New York on or about the 9th day of May, 1889, and also the contested Will herein dated March 27th and June 1st, 1888, and to have the said paper writing, bearing date March 22d and June 1st, 1888, subjected to such chemical test or tests as shall disclose the nature of the composition of the ink and, if possible, the process or processes to which it has been subjected, if any.

"And it is further ordered and directed that such chemical test be applied to the ink or writing fluid on said alleged Will to the following specified portion, or any part of such portions, viz."

Specifications in minute detail follow, calling attention to the words and s.p.a.ces which are permitted to be chemically tested, and then continues:

"And it is further ordered and directed that the said paper writings shall be photographed before any chemical tests are applied thereto.

"And it is further ordered and directed that such photographing and chemical tests be performed by David N. Carvalho, Esq., a proper and suitable person, at the places above indicated respectively, between the 10th and the 20th days of June, 1889, inclusive, in the presence of the parties in interest or their attorneys, upon at least two days' notice to all parties herein or their attorneys.

"And it is further ordered and directed that in the event of destruction or breaking of the negatives after such paper writings have been photographed, the said special guardian, upon similar notice, shall have leave to re-photograph the said paper writings, at the same place and by the said David N. Carvalho, between the 10th and 20th days of June, 1889, inclusive.

"(Signed) RASTUS S. RANSOM, "Surrogate."

On the 19th of June, 1889, pursuant to the order of the court, the alleged will referred to was first photographed, and later in that day such places as had been designated in the order were chemically treated, as part of a series of experiments. The results obtained briefly summarized were as, follows: The instrument which purported to be a holographic will of Thomas J. Monroe the experiments showed conclusively to be not the case, as neither pen nor ink in the body writing portion or in the decedent's signature had ever touched the paper; the date and names of the witnesses thereon were written, however, with pen and ink. Furthermore, the experiments demonstrated beyond question that exclusive of its date and names of witnesses, that it was what is commonly known as a transfer taken from a gelatine pad (hektograph), a method of duplicating popularly in vogue at that time. The deduced facts in the matter being that Thomas J. Monroe had written his will in an aniline purple ink, to which he had appended his name, leaving blank s.p.a.ces to be filled in for the date, names of witnesses, etc., and had transferred the same to a hektograph, from which he had taken a number of duplicate facsimile copies, and at some other time had filled in the blank s.p.a.ces by ordinary methods and to which, at his request, the names of the witnesses had been written with a pen and ink. In the trial which followed the surrogate declined to sustain the allegation of the proponents that the alleged signature was the original writing of Thomas J. Monroe, or indeed of any person. The will was not admitted to probate.

Experiments, both in open court or during its sessions in the testing of ink and paper, microscopically and chemically, are of frequent occurrence, and many contests involving enormous interests have been more or less decided as the result of them.

The contest of the alleged will of George P. Gordon, tried before the late Chancellor McGill of New Jersey in 1891, ill.u.s.trates in a remarkable degree just how certain are the results of investigations of this character. The chancellor's decision, after listening to testimony for many weeks, was in effect to declare the will a forgery, largely because of the fact that the premise on which it rested was a so-called draft, from which it was sworn it had been copied. The ink on this draft it was proved could not have had an existence.

until many years after the date of the forged will.

The decedent, who died in 1878, was the inventor of a famous printing press, and left a large fortune.

A will offered for probate soon after the death of Gordon was not probated, owing to the discovery that the witnesses had not signed it in each other's presence.

The princ.i.p.al beneficiaries, however, under that will, the widow and daughter of Gordon, agreed to a division of the estate which was satisfactory to the other heirs at law, and the matter apparently was settled.

But a retired lawyer named Henry C. Adams began in 1879, a year after Gordon's death, to endeavor to obtain the a.s.sistance of some heirs at law in an enterprise which was finally ended only when Chancellor McGill's decision was rendered.