The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-29
THE DISPUTED LETTER.
Expert Hay and BreclSinridge's Priv
MT. Secretary Examined.

ate Secretary Examined.
No sooner had the Circuit Court met to-
day than Judge Wilson, OF the plaintiffs
counsel, requested that the disputed letter
which had been in the hands Of the Brock
inridge forces be placed in the custody Of
the clerk of the court. He also requested
that "Col" E. 3. Hay, the expert on hand
writing, be recalled for further cross-ex-
animation. Mr.. Wilson asked him some
questions about his method of judging
handwriting, whereat Mr.. Hay gave dis
sertation upon specific" characteristics,
as he called them, illuminating his remarks
by Illustrations drawn offhand the
blackboard.
When Mr.. Wilson inquired in what char
acteristic the expert laid the greatest stress
Mr. Hay replied. with an impressive genu-
Election: 1.-The tout ensemble" The spec
tators snickered. Judge Bradley smiled.
some of the jurors looked puzzled, as
though they suspected there was impro-
priety lurking in the words, and Mr.. Will
son requested that the expression be rem
dered into English.
From this point Mr.. Wilson turned to in
quire if Mr. Hay remembered having testi-
fed as an expert before congressional
committee upon a letter supposed to have
been written TO Congressman Springer by
one F'indley. Mr.. Hay recalled the case,
and Mr.. Butterworth recollected also that
he had been a member of the committee
Eyes, you wrote the report" remarked
Mr.; Wilson.
No; but it was a good report" Mr..
Bgtterworth replied and andoI, signed NED i ty,,so
repeated. The object of his reference to
the case was shown when he proceeded to
read extracts from Mr.. Hays testimony
a show
said at different times that he placed great
est weight upon general characteristics and
upon special characteristics. Cool as the
traditional cucumber, expert Hay explained
how he reconciled his statements. Asked
| if he had not testified that Findley did not
write the Springer letter when 1t had been
proved that he did, Mr. Hay replied that
his belief remained unchanged that Find
did you not testify in this court re-
Gently that a will was a forgery, when it
was proved undoubtedly genuine? Mr..
Mr. Hay denied that this was the fact,
and Mr.. ButteTworth insisted that the case
referred to should De named.
Mr.. Hay. who is an expert penmGn HIM
| self, asserted that he could initiate any
individual letters in the disputed document.
but would not be able to combine them
into plausible imitation of the handwrit-
ing. He did not remember case involving
the genuineness of some naval vouchers
in which the experts had picked out the
original vouchers as forgeres. He had new
er known a case In which experts had diff
and incidentally remarked tnat Congress
| had never paid him for the twenty-five
| days of hard work upon the case.
Mr. Butterworth added that the govern
ment never paid anything il could avoid
paying, except its bonds, an observation
! which would have pleased General Coxey
| of the commonweal.
After giving an explanation of the meth
DDS of tracing the expert averrSd that none
of them could have been employed in maxi
| ing the letter before him. Lawyers Wilson
and Butterworth INDUCED in dispute over
of
al committee on the Findley letter. Mr. But
terworth explained that the Republicans and