Morning journal and courier., 1880-11-01
THE FORGED LETTER.

Ample Evidence of FOrgery-The Crime
 Being Brought Home to Philip.
 Special dispatch to the JOURNAL AND CoURIER.J
 NEW YORK, Oct. 31.
 In the examination of Philip, charged with the forgery of the Mercy letter, the follow ing facts have been proved by testimony which is not disputed by the defense. The Mercy letter is dated January 23, 1880. Itis claimed to have passed through the mail to Lynn, Mass. The envelope in which it is said to have been so transmitted is produced by Philips counsel On that envelope are three distinct lines of erasure corresponding in position to the place where if this envel- ope had been previously used, the address to the person, the city or town and the State would naturally come These ensures are distinctly visible to the naked eye. What words have been erased cannot be seen ex- cept that at the end of the first erased line the word "Esq." :" first can be made out. The Mercy letter is alleged to have been transmit ted through the mail to Lynn, Mass This envelope has upon it an undoubted stamp showing that it had been in the New York postofice. But it is undisputed that by the routine of the postofice letters posted in Washington and addressed to Lynn do not. come into the New York postofice The bags containing such letters pass direct ly from the cars at Jersey City to the Boston cars in the upper part of the city. On Sun days, however, as there is no morning train to Boston, the bags remain in the New York postofice, but are never unloaded or opened This alone shows that when this envelope was in the mail it not addressed to Lynn, but was addressed to some person in New York city. But more than this there are in New York city eighteen sub-stations to which the general postofice in that city sends let ters received there by the mails and addressed to persons residing or having their places of business within the district in which the sub-station is situated. On receipt of letter at one of these sub-stations it is again stamped. The envelope produced has on 1t the stamp of sub station, thus showing that it has not only been in the general postoffice in New York, but has been sent from there to sub-station in the city. What sub-sta- tion it was cannot be announced, as that has also been erased from the face of the envelope. The result of this evidence is that under the system preva- lent in the postofice, letter posted in Washington and addressed to Lynn could not under any circumstances get into the New York postoffice If however, it's accidentally got there it could not from there get into @ sub station. It is by this alone perfectly obvi- ous that the envelope is a fraud, that the en- velope of letter which was originally ad- dressed to and received in New York has been taken, the address erased and a new ad- dress to H. l.. Mercy, Lynn. Mass, written upon it and that it has been in the mail with that address on it. This address to Mercy is, by the admission of all parties, in the same handwriting as the body of the Mercy letter. This envelope was probably selected for the alteration because 1t has on 1t the printed stamp of the House of Represen- tatives.
 But the undisputed proof goes further. The Mercy letter already stated is January 8, 1880. The envelope produced is stamped with the Washington postmark- The date and month of the postmarking cannot be made out, those having been like every other fac-similes published the date Janu- arv is a fraud. This, however, ab- solutely demonstrated that the month in which the letter was postmarked was not January, for the postmark is made and the postage stamp is cancelled by stamps which were not used by the Washing ton postoffice until after February l. The precise date when the change of stamps was made in that office cannot be ascertained, but it was certainly after February 1 and prob ably after February 15. letter dated January 23 would hardly be sent in an en- velope postmarked February l. Further than this one figure is left without ensure in the date on the stamp showing the receipt of the letter at the New York postofice. That fio1re is figure st2." It obviously formed the last of two figures. The date of the receipt at the New York postoffice must therefore have been the s12th or 22nd of the same month. letter dated on January 23d would hardly be sent in an envelope re- ceiyed in New York on either the 18th or 22nd. It is thus absolutely and repeatedly demonstrated that the envelope in which the Mercy letter is asserted to have been sent is fraudulent The same hand that wrote the letter undoubtedly wrote the address the envelope. Is there any escape from the con- clusion that the letter is equally fraudulent? All the facts above stated are formed by un- contradicted testimony upon these points. It is admitted by Philp that he wrote the ed itorial charging General Garfield with being A liar. The defence denies that Philip wrote the Morey letter, and asserts that General Garfield wrote it. On the question whether PhiIp wrote the letter, the prosecution have proyed by persons intimately acquainted with him and his handwriting that in their opinion he wrote it. One witness, under whom Philp worked for 8 long time, states that he recognized the letter as being in PhiIp's writing and so stated before he knew he was suspected. They have also proved by Messrs. Paine, Southworth, Hagan and Ames who are the four leading experts in hand writing in the country, that in their opinion the Mercy letter was written by the same
 
 to by Philip, though of course this Mercy let ter is in disguised writing. But the experts point out in detail the similarities arising from unconscious habits in writing which are not and cannot be disguised. The 1 same experts also say with positiveness that | the Morey letter was not written by General | Garfield Persons who have seen Garfield I write hundreds of times say if is not in his writing.
 Thus far the defense has introduced no | a1-. kI, 1n4As | GarHeld's writing They have introduced
 various witnesses, mostly newspaper men
 employed in the Brooklyn Eagle office. a Democratic paper, who swear that in I their opinion the letter is not in Philips writing They have also introduced an | alleged expert who on his direct examination
 stated that in his opinion the letter was not in Philips handwriting, but on cross -examina i ton this expert admitted that he en ami ned the fac-simile when published and declare it
 was forgery But thereafter he went te 1 the office of Trstth, and having been paid i .05 ba ,,,ada an affidavit that in his n inioT