he claimed to represent, or by whom employed, etc. Hotel registers should be examined closely for any registration in handwriting identical with that in the forged check. In order to establish the identity of the forger if not known, or to learn the direction in which he may have gone, the detective may proceed along the lines outlined with regard to burglary cases.

I have handled hundreds of forgery cases and will say that I never found the forger a criminal difficult to apprehend. There are two good reasons why this should be so; the first is that the forger, as a rule, must present himself in person at the bank or other place to secure the money on his check, and by so doing enables the detective to secure a good description of him, how he was dressed, etc.; the second reason is that the forger when filling in his check, or by endorsing it, must necessarily leave behind one of the very best clues for the detection of any criminal, that being his handwriting.

In fully ninety per cent of forgery cases I have handled I have found that the person whose signature was forged could tell, after being questioned, who was responsible for the forgery, and I will show you that the process is very simple and easy. I have in mind a good many cases each of which I cleared up in less than half an hour after arriving upon the ground. My plan was to first secure the best description obtainable of the forger, then a specimen of his handwriting, after which I would see or call upon the person whose signature was forged. To that person I would submit the description and the handwriting, and, as previously stated, ninety per cent of them were able to tell very quickly which employee, relative, friend, acquaintance, or enemy was responsible.

After the detective has learned the identity of a forger but cannot locate him, he should keep in touch, under some good pretext, with the forger’s parents, wife, sweetheart, sister, brother or other relative or friend. The forger will communicate with his sweetheart, friends or relatives sooner or later; it is human nature and I have never seen it fail. When the detective has succeeded in causing the arrest of a forger, or of a suspected forger, he should endeavor to secure a confession from him. I have secured many confessions from forgers by saying to them in a friendly way that the best way for them to prove that they had nothing to do with the forgery with which they were charged, was to write a specimen of the forged check. It is really surprising how many professional forgers will allow themselves to be led into this simple ruse.

While the forger’s mind is laboring under the strain of being under arrest, and seeing possible conviction ahead, he is eager to take advantage of what he thinks is an opportunity to prove that he did not write the forgery and will rely upon his ability to disguise his handwriting sufficiently to mislead the detective. Another reason why he will comply with such a request is that he will fear his refusal to give a specimen of his handwriting will be taken as an evidence of guilt. As a matter of fact I have found no persons in my experience who could successfully disguise their handwriting with their minds under any kind of strain. The forger can therefore be easily led into hanging himself with his own rope, as it were.

After securing such handwriting the detective should take out his facsimile, or photographic copy of the forged check, and if he finds the handwritings identical, he should point out the similarities to the forger. There should be no difficulty experienced in securing a full confession, and in addition the detective will have in his possession the handwriting of the forger, which, I neglected to state, should be secured in the presence of one or two reliable witnesses, so that the confession and handwritings can be substantiated in court if necessary. It goes without saying that efforts should be made by the detective to secure such handwritings and the confession as soon after the forger’s arrest as possible. Should the forger or suspect have an opportunity to confer with an attorney before this is done, the chances are that no handwritings or confession will be secured.

Great care must be exercised by the detective when it is left to him to have warrants issued for criminals of this class. It often happens that one person will forge a signature or endorsement to a check, then delegate a confederate or other person to present the check for payment. Under these circumstances the presenter of such a check could hardly be convicted of forgery, but he could be convicted of passing the forged check and of obtaining money thereon. The point to be borne in mind by the detective in such cases is, that in order to convict a person of forgery, it is necessary to prove the handwriting, or produce one or more witnesses who actually saw the signature or endorsement being written. Warrants should be issued accordingly; the best kind of warrant to be gotten out in such cases being one in which the offender is charged with passing the forged check and with obtaining the money.

I have known quite a few clever forgers, who with the aid of good attorneys, succeeded in beating their cases simply because the warrants for their arrest were not properly gotten out, and which resulted in improper indictments being returned against them. I have known dozens of bungling detectives and officers to swear out warrants charging persons with forgery when, as a matter of fact, the forgery could not be proven, but a charge of passing a forged check and obtaining money thereon could have been made and proven. In the cases I have in mind the offenders went scott free simply because the wrong charge was brought against them, and because they were given advantage of the law itself to escape punishment.

As a whole I consider the forger one of the most dangerous of criminals to be at large, but as stated, one of the easiest to apprehend when proper methods are applied. I believe I will do well to recount here what I considered, when it was first submitted to me, my most difficult forgery case, but which in the end proved quite easy to unravel and clear up. One day it was discovered by a bank in a small town in the West that during the preceding seven months it cashed for some unknown person eleven checks to which were forged the signature and endorsements of one of the bank’s customers. These forgeries were discovered when the customer came into the town from his ranch to have his pass book balanced. Upon being handed his cancelled checks he discovered the forgeries.

In this particular case no person connected with the bank could recall in the slightest degree for whom, nor for what kind of person they cashed the checks. From the fact that the customer called at the bank so rarely they did not know him by sight. Inasmuch as this customer lived far out from the city on a ranch, he could throw no light on who forged his signature to obtain the money from the bank, which, as I recall it, amounted to several hundred dollars.

In looking over the forgeries and the dates upon which they were paid, I found that they had been presented at the bank and were paid, on an average, of one every three weeks. Outside of the forger’s handwriting, there was absolutely no clue upon which to work. After giving the case several hours’ thought, I came to the conclusion that the case, to my way of thinking at that time, could be cleared up along only one line, that being that I find the person through his handwriting.