that　Judge　Ransom　rendered　the　opinion　and　made
  the　order　for　its　chemical　examination　which　is　cited
  in　full：
  Estate　of　Thomas　J。　Monroe。〃This　is　an　application
  by　the　special　guardian　and　contestant　in
  this　proceeding；　which　is　now　pending　before　the
  assistant；　for　leave　to　photograph　the　various
  papers　which　have　been　filed　as　the　will　of　the
  deceased；　and　to　compel　the　filing　of　two　parts　of
  one　of　said　wills；　which　was　executed　in　triplicate；
  likewise　that　the　last　paper　be　subjected　to　chemical
  tests　for　the　purpose　of　disclosing　the　nature　of
  the　composition　of　the　ink　and　the　process　or
  processes　to　which　it　has　been　subjected。
  〃Upon　the　oral　argument　the　surrogate　decided
  the　applications　first　stated　in　favor　of　the　petitioner；
  reserving　only　the　question　of　his　power　to
  direct　or　permit　the　chemical　tests。　The　special
  guardian　on　the　oral　argument　stated　that　he　was
  unable；　to　find　any　authority　for　the　application。
  〃Consultation　of　the　various　sources　of　authority
  upon　the　subject　of　expert　testimony　and　the
  various　tests　for　the　purpose　of　establishing　or　disproving
  handwriting　has　not　resulted　in　the　discovery
  of　any　authority　for　granting　the　application。
  It　is　apparent；　however；　from　some　of　the　cases
  that　such　an　examination　must　have　been　permitted；
  for　instance；　in　Fulton　v。　Hood　（34th
  Penn。　State　Reports；　365）；　expert　testimony　was
  received　in　corroboration　of　positive　evidence　to
  prove　that　the　whole　of　an　instrument　was　written
  by　the　same　hand；　with　the　same　ink；　and　at　the
  same　time。　It　is　inconceivable　how　testimony　of
  any　value　could　be　given　as　to　the　character　of
  ink　with　which　an　instrument　was　written；　unless
  it　had　been　subjected　to　a　chemical　test。　The
  writer　of　a　valuable　article　in　the　eighteenth　volume
  of　the　American　Law　Register；　page　281　（R。　U。
  Piper；　an　eminent　expert　of　Chicago；　Ill。）；　in
  commenting　upon　the　rule　as　stated　in　the　case　of
  Fulton　v。　Hood　（supra）；　very　properly　says：
  〃　'Microscopical　and　chemical　tests　may　be　competent
  to　settle　the　question；　but　these　should　not
  be　received　as　evidence；　I　think；　unless　the　expert
  is　able　to　show　to　the　court　and　the　jury　the　actual
  results　of　his　examination；　and　also　to　explain　his
  methods；　so　that　they　can　be　fully　understood。'
  〃The　writer　of　this　article　is　also　authority　for
  the　statement　that　in　the　French　Courts　every
  manipulation　or　experiment　necessary　to　elucidate
  the　truth　in　the　case；　even　to　the　destruction　of　the
  document　in　question；　is　allowed；　the　Court；　as　a
  matter　of　precaution；　being　first　supplied　with　a
  certified　copy　of　the　same。
  〃The　most　obvious　argument　to　be　urged　against
  allowing　a　chemical　test　to　be　made　on　a　will；　and
  one　that　was　suggested　by　the　court　on　the　argument
  of　this　motion；　is　that；　inasmuch　as　the　paper
  may　be　the　subject　of　future　controversy　in　this　or
  some　other　tribunal；　future　litigants　should　not　be
  prejudiced　by　any　alteration　or　manipulation　of　the
  instrument。　I　do　not　think；　however；　that　this
  objection　is　sound。　Take　an　extreme　case；　of　permitting
  a　sufficient　amount　of　the　ink　（which　the
  affidavit　of　the　expert　shows　to　be　but　infinitesimal）
  for　the　purpose　of　chemical　examination；
  the　form　of　the　letter　would　remain　upon　the　paper；
  if　not；　the　form　and　appearance　of　the　entire　signature
  might；　as　a　preliminary　precaution；　be　preserved
  by　photography。　The　portion　of　the　signature
  remaining　would　afford　ample　material　for
  future　experiments　and　investigations　in　subsequent
  proceedings　wherein　it　might　be　deemed　advisable
  to　take　that　course。
  〃Because　the　subject　matter　of　the　controversy
  may　be　litigated　hereafter　should　not　deprive　parties
  in　the　proceeding　of　any　rights　which　they
  would　otherwise　have。　They　certainly　are　entitled
  to　all　rights　in　this　proceeding　that　the　parties　to
  any　future　proceedings　would　have。　Besides；　all
  the　parties　whose　presence　would　be　necessary　to
  an　adjudication　in；　for　example；　an　ejectment　proceeding；
  are　（or　their　privies　are）　parties　here。　It
  certainly　cannot　be　that　the　law；　seeking　the　truth；
  will　not　avail　itself　of　this　scientific　method　of
  ascertaining　the　genuineness　of　the　instrument　because
  of　some　problematical　effect　upon　the　rights
  or　opportunities　of　parties　to　future　litigations
  respecting　the　same　instrument。　The　possibilities　of
  litigation　over　a　will　are　almost　infinite；　and　if　such
  a　rule　should　obtain　this　important　channel　of
  investigation　would　be　closed。　Suppose　the　same
  objection　were　raised　to　the　first　action　of　ejectment
  which　might　be　brought；　it　might　then　with
  the　same　force　be　urged　that　parties　to　some　future
  ejectment　suit　would　be　prejudiced　by　a　chemical
  test　of　the　ink　used　in　the　will；　and　so　on　ad　infinitum。
  〃By　not　availing　itself　of　this　method　of　ascertaining
  the　truth　as　to　the　character　of　the　ink；　the
  Court　deprives　itself　of　a　species　of　evidence　which
  amounts　to　practical　demonstration。
  〃I　can　see　no　reason　why　the　application　should
  not　be　granted。〃
  The　order　in　part　reads：
  〃It　is　ordered　and　directed　that　Charles　H。
  Beckett；　the　special　guardian　aforesaid；　be　and　he
  hereby　is　allowed　permission　to　photograph　the
  aforesaid　paper　writings　described　in　said　order　to
  show　cause；　viz。；　one　of　the　two　parts　of　a　triplicate
  Will　of　Thomas　J。　Monroe；　deceased；　dated
  February　10th；　1873；　which　were　filed　in　the　office
  of　the　Surrogate　of　the　City　and　County　of　New
  York　on　or　about　the　9th　day　of　May；　1889；　and
  also　the　contested　Will　herein　dated　March　27th
  and　June　1st；　1888；　and　to　have　the　said　paper
  writing；　bearing　date　March　22d　and　June　1st；
  1888；　subjected　to　such　chemical　test　or　tests　as
  shall　disclose　the　nature　of　the　composition　of　the
  ink　and；　if　possible；　the　process　or　processes　to
  which　it　has　been　subjected；　if　any。
  〃And　it　is　further　ordered　and　directed　that
  such　chemical　test　be　applied　to　the　ink　or　writing
  fluid　on　said　alleged　Will　to　the　following　specified
  portion；　or　any　part　of　such　portions；　viz。〃
  Specifications　in　minute　detail　follow；　calling　attention
  to　the　words　and　spaces　which　are　permitted　to
  be　chemically　tested；　and　then　continues：
  〃And　it　is　further　ordered　and　directed　that　the
  said　paper　writings　shall　be　photographed　before
  any　chemical　tests　are　applied　thereto。
  〃And　it　is　further　ordered　and　directed　that
  such　photographing　and　chemical　tests　be　performed
  by　David　N。　Carvalho；　Esq。；　a　proper　and
  suitable　person；　at　the　places　above　indicated
  respectively；　between　the　10th　and　the　20th　days　of
  June；　1889；　inclusive；　in　the　presence　of　the　parties
  in　interest　or　their　attorneys；　upon　at　least　two
  days'　notice　to　all　parties　herein　or　their　attorneys。
  〃And　it　is　further　ordered　and　directed　that　in
  the　event　of　destruction　or　breaking　of　the　negatives
  after　such　paper　writings　have　been　photographed；
  the　said　special　guardian；　upon　similar
  notice；　shall　have　leave　to　re…photograph　the　said
  paper　writings；　at　the　same　place　and　by　the　said
  David　N。　Carvalho；　between　the　10th　and　20th
  days　of　June；　1889；　inclusive。
  〃（Signed）　　　　　　　　　　　　RASTUS　S。　RANSOM；
  〃Surrogate。〃
  On　the　19th　of　June；　1889；　pursuant　to　the　order　of
  the　court；　the　alleged　will　referred　to　was　first　photographed；
  and　later　in　that　day　such　places　as　had
  been　designated　in　the　order　were　chemically　treated；
  as　part　of　a　series　of　experiments。　The　results　obtained
  briefly　summarized　were　as；　follows：　The　instrument
  which　purported　to　be　a　holographic　will　of
  Thomas　J。　Monroe　the　experiments　showed　conclusively
  to　be　not　the　case；　as　neither　pen　nor　ink　in
  the　body　writing　portion　or　in　the　decedent's　signature
  had　ever　touched　the　paper；　the　date　and　names
  of　the　witnesses　thereon　were　written；　however；　with
  pen　and　ink。　Furthermore；　the　experiments　demonstrated
  beyond　question　that　exclusive　of　its　date　and
  names　of　witnesses；　that　it　was　what　is　commonly
  known　as　a　transfer　taken　from　a　gelatine　pad　（hektograph）；
  a　method　of　duplicating　popularly　in　vogue
  at　that　time。　The　deduced　facts　in　the　matter　being
  that　Thomas　J。　Monroe　had　written　his　will　in　an
  aniline　purple　ink；　to　which　he　had　appended　his　name；
  leaving　blank　spaces　to　be　filled　in　for　the　date；　names
  of　witnesses；　etc。；　and　had　transferred　the　same　to　a
  hektograph；　from　which　he　had　taken　a　number　of
  duplicate　facsimile　copies；　and　at　some　other　time　had
  filled　in　the　blank　spaces　by　ordinary　methods　and　to
  which；　at　his　request；　the　names　of　the　witnesses　had
  been　written　with　a　pen　and　ink。　In　the　trial　which
  followed　the　surrogate　declined　to　sustain　the　allegation
  of　the　proponents　that　the　alleged　signature　was
  the　original　writing　of　Thomas　J。　Monroe；　or　indeed
  of　any　person。　The　will　was　not　admitt