The expert in handwriting can seldom be coaxed into a position in which he can be _proved_ wrong. Really it is extremely simple. Is the signature of the deceased so exact that no one would dare dispute it? Not he! The expert will declare it a tracing should his retainer dictate; otherwise _not_; but whichever way he testifies he can never really be _proved_ wrong, at least in this world, since the one who could tell has passed away to another. Under the circumstances, no wonder the expert can afford to be very positive. In criminal cases these experts affect the side of the prosecution. Is a conviction secured? It is the result of his skill, while in case of an acquittal, he protests that justice has been cheated, and the prosecuting attorney never fails to indorse this view. He dearly loves a forgery case. If retained by the prosecutor, that official will protect the expert, and have witnesses to corroborate his opinion; while, should the defence secure his services, the expert’s opinion will be corroborated by the defendant himself. The only thing which will _prove_ the expert in error would be a confession—an unlikely occurrence. But disputed writings, disguised, and anonymous communications are his joy, and again it is almost impossible to prove him wrong; and again his work is very simple. In these cases the guilty man, whoever he may be, never comes forward to admit his crime, so that the expert can blame whom he pleases or, rather, whom he is paid to blame. It is simplicity itself—similarities are to be pointed out. It is self-evident that all writings must contain similarities, for were there no resemblances the art of writing would be useless. In fact, that one person can read another person’s writing, is based on this principle. Surely it is just because we all do make the twenty-six letters of our alphabet more or less alike, that we can read each other’s writing at all. In such a case the _dissimilarities_ (and they are in all writing) will be regarded as attempts at disguise. And, since all writings must consist of similarities or dissimilarities, either or both will be argued as proof against a victim of this kind of evidence. To sum up, their art is to offer a theory favorable to the side retaining them, in such a manner that it may be believed or doubted, but which cannot be disproved. Another question regarding this class of experts is, do they keep their oath, “to tell the truth, the _whole_ truth, and nothing but the truth?” If engaged by the prosecution do they disclose the points favorable to the defendant—no matter how apparent? Never. Although under oath to tell all, they are advocates for one side only. They are always positive, they swear to their opinions; but are they accurate? Suppose they should be tested, examined with writings of known and living persons, and knew nothing of the circumstances of the case, and had no District Attorney to warn and protect—suppose some one tried to fool them—a child could do it!