Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-12-02
This has now been done, and


the result is stated below.
Miss Mary GUSTS Lee. eldest ,lauGh.
ter and only surviving child of General
Lee. writes OF what VIC may nov call
the Lloyd Letter" THE handwriting
bears not the slightest resemblance to
my fathers. Nor does the signature
in the least resemble his"
Captain Va Cioruou McCabe. Of Rich
mond. Va. the HIGHEST authority OF all
matters concerning General Lee, and
the official custodian Of his letters.
writes: "Thc so-callcd original letter
London. is not i'll General Lees hand
writing. nor has the writer Of this let
ter made even an attempt to initiate
his handwriting.
Albert s. Osborn. Of New York City
an expert examiner of questioned doc
umentS. writes: Il have made an en-
animation of the original Of the Duty
Letter and have compared i, With
genuine writings OF General Lee, and
as result of such examination and
comparison. l ;'m OF the positive opin-
son that the letter WAS not written by
General Lee. Furthermore ] am OF
the opinion that the letter WAS mot
written i'll imitation OF the handy rlt-
ing of General Lee
If space permitted the publication,
sid" by side. of photographs of the
Lloyd Letter" and Of genuine let
ter OF General Lee, il would be mani
fest to any one at u glance that the
Lloyd Letter" is totally unlike Cen
cral Lees writing. AND was not meant
to be an imitation.
What. then. WAS the genesis of the
Lloyd Letter: Can the Lloyd Let
ter be the pretended letter of Cen
eral Ice. from which the New York
sun printed the DUTY Letter. in 1864?
This is not impossible. as the "Lloyd
Letter. judging by its appearance and
watcrmark. is old enough TO have been
in existence in 1861. But compari-
son of the Lloyd Letter" with the
sun letter makes i; almost certain
that the Lloyd Letter" was not the
copy from which the sun printed the
DUTY Letter. There arc such varia-
mons i'll the sun letter from the Lloyd
Letter as no compositor would have
made or proofreadcr overlooked
The explanation of the Lloyd Let
ter no doubt is that it is no more
IMAM copy OF the DUTY Letter" first
printed. the copyist making a number
OF changes. mostly verbal from acct
dent or design. The copy was perhaps
sent TO his son by Il father who was
~ '"'i'iiS i VI NItucIal Lee, and who.
OF course. believed ~" l~ttn" .,o.
rms view Of the 'T.loyd Letter" leaves
the question Of the forgery of the
sun letter unaffected by the "I.Ioyd
Letter. and where ii was left by the
papers read before the Virginia state
i'af Association above referred to-
IL may be of interest To add ;hjs
extract form letter of Bernard
tluaritch The letter of General lie.
has been under tile consideration of ,ha
britiSh Museum authorities 1t mus,
he distinctly understood that there j.,
ho doubt whatever that the letter is =
forgery. but. at tha same time. as you
state most remarkable forgery" And
ME- Lloyd. on whose behalf the letter
was sold. writes:
I nave received Your PAMPHLETS To
an impartial observer they seem to
establish, without reasonable doubt
that the letter in question was n for
gerry"
In later letter Bernard Ouaritch
adds: with regard to the handwri,
Ing OF General Lees letter. VIC here in
england are in an unfortunate position,
as so far as can trace we have no
! specimen of his handwriting. and we
| have TO depend on inadequate racsimi
les. This is probably the reason that
neither the auctioneer nor the orisina