Morning journal and courier., 1882-11-11

handwriting, and you must confess that their arguments and conclusions rest on doubtful premises. They argue frequently from grounds which have no existence.
 The written note which Whitaker claimed he had received a warning that he was to be foully dealt with was discovered to be GOV cred with words similar to those in the note of warning, written criss -crsss, upside down and every way. The expert argued from this that Whitaker had written the words to practice concealing hisshandwriting before he wrote the note to himself, and had then par tially erased the lines To arrive at this re- Suit the expert enlarged tho photograph eight times it's natural size by means of & microscopic lens and then photographed it. Then he studied the picture thus obtained and thought he detected this practice writ ing. Now mark, the alleged words wore of the usual size of handwriting after the note of warning had been magnified. They were very faint even to the discoverer's eye, and to make them plainer he put carboniZed paper under the note and with hard, blunt point traced the alleged underwriting on 8 separate sheet of paper. The argument was made from this sheet of paper but I reduced the writing to it's natural size by photographing & sheet, and it was about the size of agate type. It was absurd to suppose that Whitaker or anyone else could write with pencil as fine that. That had not occurred to tho expert who made the discovery of the under writing. If he had enlarged from the photo graphic negative he would have proceeded in a correct manner, but he enlarged from the paper photograph. Paper is made of any thing and everything. Its flores tu.n this way and that way, and when it is msgnifed you csn build castles in it just as you can in grate of burning coals. It was an optical delusion born of the experts intense desire to find something."
 What then, is the proper province of tho photographer ln court ?"
 "Many lawyers and judges believe now that they are of no use, and that the only sure course Is to use magnifying glass on the suspected handwriting in court. Of course, if any of the lines in 8 suspected signature have been painted or transferred 70 the will from 8 genuine signature by ing glass will make such forgery plain to any eye. But, while this use of a magnifying glass is good for single letter, it is of no real use in court. To make an examination 'f a questioned handwriting can only look at letters and sections of letters with the mi croscops, and carry in my head what have observed, in order to compare it with the IS deceptive, as you will find when you try to carry home the color of silk dress pattern. You'll find it impossible. So the magnieying glass is not fair expouRder in the court room. But in photographs you can magnify the genuine signature and the suspected handwriting, and put the original and the suspected writing, thus msgnifed, on a framework as big as the side of barn, and show it to judge and jury and let them judge for themselves. In the enlarged handwriting you have the documents before you, and can measure and point out difficulties in presence of the court. It is not the similarity of two pieces of handwriting which shows their genuineness as the experts affirm and argue, out it is the natural dissimilarities which prove the Renuipenessn