xpert in handwriting. A
peculiar education made practically applicable by experience in this
latter field of study is absolutely necessary to determine with
accuracy what the microscope reveals, and its importance to give value
to any conclusions reached by its use. The connection of effect with
cause, and the determination of the latter as a matter of individualism
cannot be accomplished merely from what is seen under the microscope.
The examiner must by experience and education be fitted to ascertain
from personal characteristics manifested in the writing of a signature
necessitated their appearance as a matter of individuality.

From one of the best-known European experts on handwriting and who has
figured conspicuously in important cases some interesting facts
relative to this subject recently were learned. To the question, "What
is the primary requisite for a conscientious opinion on the
genuineness of any submitted handwriting?" this expert unhesitatingly
replied, "An utter and entire absence of either feeling or prejudice.
In other words, one should be perfectly dispassionate when engaged in
such a work and use a first-class compound microscope."

To make his analysis the expert uses a microscope of great power, and
by a strict and close attention to the subject-matter he can determine
the exact means or methods employed in making the individual letters
and the formation of the words and also the several inks that were
used. Handwriting as defined by this expert is a mechanical operation
pure and simple. Its general excellence or the reverse is largely
dependent on the education which the hand has received. When a man
sits down to write he mechanically reproduces on paper what is in his
mind, and this may be said to be his natural handwriting. Should he
stop to think even for a moment, not of what he is transferring to the
paper but of the writing itself, he instantly ceases to write his
natural hand, the transcription becoming only a copy or drawing from
memory.

In the opinion of the expert, emphatically expressed, a person never
writes twice exactly alike. This is stated to be the point around
which all his subsequent developments revolve when examining a
manuscript. Let several examples of the natural handwriting of an
individual be compared. It is true that there will be a general
similarity, but, as has been asserted, when placed in juxtaposition or
subjected to a careful comparison under a microscope no