The expert in handwriting may have your life, liberty, and fortune in his hands; but he comes from—where? Who taught him? Who has tested or examined him as to his knowledge and accuracy? Think of it! The right to swear away the life, or liberty, or property of another is bestowed upon this class of “experts” by themselves. And the law permits it. Where do this class of “experts” study their “science”? What school has classes or lectures on this subject? What college has a chair for the instruction of experts in questions of disputed writings? Is there a university with a department for their training? What does Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia in America, or Oxford and Cambridge in England, have to say on this subject? All scientific things are recognized by these great colleges and universities. The study of questions arising from disputed handwritings is recognized in none of them; hence this study is not, at least as yet, a science. Another reason why this study is not a science, is that it is based on the theory of probabilities; it is mere speculation. For this reason experts in handwriting cannot even agree together on their own specialty. They lack the unity of even a trade. Experts in handwriting have no guild—no society. Why is this? Because this class of professional witnesses can never formulate their conflicting theories; they cannot agree on any one point; they have no common standards, no principles laid down and agreed to, no mutual foundation or basis for their theories to rest upon. Again why? Because they would have to violate them in the very next case into which they might be called. Therefore experts in questions of disputed handwriting are not scientists. In courts of justice no experts should be allowed to plead (_ex-parte_) for the side they espouse. Experts in handwriting are notorious for this; and their methods and deductions are always according to the testimony desired by the side retaining them. Their opinions are tinctured by retainers. In many cases where large sums of money are involved in litigation, as, for instance, a disputed “will case,” experts in handwriting appear on each side. The question in such cases often narrows down to the simple proposition: “Is the signature of the last will and testament genuine?” It must be either genuine or forged; and yet we find the phenomena of prominent experts in handwriting holding diametrically opposite views, and giving reasons under oath in support of their opinions. Now it naturally follows that if one side is right, the other side _must_ be wrong, and _vice versa_; the signature cannot possibly be both genuine and forged. If the testimony of _all_ the experts is in accord with _conscience_, some experts are—to be charitable—inaccurate.