It may be, perhaps, cynically hinted that men who have made the science of disputed handwriting a study should be willing to bear all kinds of arrogance for the public good.  In the first place, many thoroughly competent experts in any department of science distinctly and peremptorily refuse to be mixed up in any affair which may expose them to cross examination.  Many experts will investigate a matter, give a report of their conclusions, but absolutely refuse to appear in court.

Another not very edifying spectacle is that of paid handwriting experts standing in court and contradicting each other, or pretending to contradict in the interests of their respective clients, is not exactly right.  These men would change places and reverse positions and arguments if necessary.  Men of the world are tempted to say that “Science can lay but little claim to certainty in demonstrating the truth or falsity of handwriting and the whole procedure is more a mass of doubtful speculations than a body of demonstrable truths.”  But it must be remembered that a professional expert must be paid for his services, and always tell the truth as it appears to him.

It is clearly seen that our present method of dealing with experts regarding disputed handwriting is found to be on all sides not just exactly satisfactory.  Oftentimes the public is skeptical and many honest and thorough experts are scandalized.  The bench and bar share this feeling but unfortunately are disposed to blame the individual rather than the system.

There is no question but what this unanimity of dissatisfaction will vanish as soon as a remedy is seriously proposed.  To that, however, we must come unless we are willing to dispense with expert evidence altogether.

It is contended by many that an expert should be the adviser of the court, not acting in the interest of either party in a lawsuit.  Above all things an expert ought to be exempt from cross-examination.  His evidence, or rather his conclusions, should be given in writing and accepted just as the decisions of the bench on points of law.

Opinions of eminent judges have differed widely respecting the reliance to be placed upon testimony founded upon expert comparisons of handwriting, but it should be remembered that those opinions have been no more varied than has been the character and qualifications of the experts by whose testimony they have been called forth.

It is too true that very frequently persons have been allowed to give testimony as experts who were utterly without experience in any calling that tends to bestow the proper qualifications for giving expert testimony.