ALBERT SANDS SOUTHWORTH AND JOSIAH JOHNSON HAWES ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHYCompiled by William S. Johnson.[Compiled 2004, revised and expanded 2024]/ (2024)

[NOTE 1: I just (2024) found this bibliography from a backed-up disk I thought I had lost years ago. This bibliography was originally compiled for the book Young America: The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes, published in 2005; which I completed while I was working at the George Eastman House in Rochester, NY. I had access to a vastly different range of materials in that place, and I composed the reference citations in accord with the standards of that book’s publisher. That bibliography was probably published in some shorter form, as that has always happened when I worked for a publisher.
I am now going to do a standard literature search from sources not available at that time, integrate the results, and post the item on-line – even though, unfortunately, I do not own any Southworth & Hawes photographs. I wincingly remember passing up a full-plate daguerreotype in Boston back in the day because $50 was too much money for me. (My customary practice has been to post bibliographies of artists whose work I own or have owned.)

NOTE 2. My intent is to get this expanded bibliography into public view as quickly as possible so I can do other things. Since this file runs to hundreds of references and the file I am pulling from my database search has hundreds more at this point; I am intercutting the references in chronological order, but not changing the formats of each reference. The formats in the two files probably vary in minor details, but are similar enough to co-exist without me having to spend a lot of time reformatting one set or the other simply to be neat. Other inconsistencies in the references may be attributed to the state of the resources today and to my personal circumstances. I have, due to the World Wide Web, a vastly larger access to certain materials than was available thirty or twenty or even ten years ago, but as an “independent scholar” (i. e. one not currently connected to a major educational institution with its vast trove of digital databases) that access is not complete. For example, available 19th c. periodicals holdings on-line are amazing, but holdings of on-line titles are not necessarily complete. So there may be references in some magazines that are not here because the portions of that title are not currently on-line.

NOTE 3. Points to remember:
My 19th c. database file only covers from 1839 to 1869.
A second, older and much less complete database, covers only from 1870 to 1879.
I intend to bring an on-line search only to about 1902 (final partner’s death date.), so I did not make a serious literature search for anything published after 2005. WSJ]
This annotated chronological bibliography provides an extensive record of instances when Albert Sands Southworth and Josiah Johnson Hawes were mentioned in print during the course of their professional careers, including a sampling of books, journals, and other materials that published engraved or lithographed prints drawn from their daguerreotypes. The bibliography also contains a selection of references about these artists published after their deaths, to indicate the path of their evolving reputations both within the history of photography and in the larger arena of American cultural history. A limited selection of Web citations to indicate the types of references available through electronic resources is included as well.
References to either Southworth or Hawes as individuals that were published during the period of their professional partnership are located under “Southworth & Hawes.” However, both artists drew on materials and experiences that were created during their partnership for the remainder of their long lives and careers, so materials on the partnership may be found in those sections as well. In the annotations, “b & w” refers to reproductions of photographic prints or daguerreotypes—even if, as they almost certainly were before 1880, those reproductions are in the form of engravings or lithographs. The term “illus.” refers to reproductions or illustrations of items or objects or of other types of artwork.
Almost all of the references from the important early Boston area newspapers and almanacs were directly or indirectly derived from Chris Steele’s research on nineteenth-century Massachusetts photography, a portion of which he generously shared for this bibliographic project. Greg Drake was also extremely generous with his time and his research in New England photography. I would also like to thank Liz Dodds, Andy Eskind, Sheila Foster, Ron Polito, and Lita Tirak for their suggestions and assistance on this project. William S. Johnson
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ALBERT SANDS SOUTHWORTH AND JOSIAH JOHNSON HAWES

A. S. SOUTHWORTH & CO., 1840–CA. 1845
(Albert Sands Southworth with Joseph Pennell and/or Josiah Johnson Hawes and/or Somerby)

1840

“The Daguerreotype.” SPRINGFIELD GAZETTE (Springfield, Mass.), Wednesday, April 15, 1840, p. 2, col. 6. [“We have witnessed several specimens, and our expectations have been more than realized, in observing the accuracy, and perfect delineation of objects by means of natural agents solely. No brush or pencil is needed, to furnish a permanent and perfect representation of any given object, and in a manner to excite the surprise of every beholder.”]

“The Daguerreotype” [advertisement]. HAMPDEN POST (Springfield, Mass.), Wednesday, April 15, 1840, p. 3, col. 4. [“A new and most extraordinary discovery by which perfect representations, of objects, near and more distant, are exhibited in all their proportions … Views of buildings and adjoining yards, landscapes, trees and shrubbery, portraits and miniatures, are taken with such accuracy, that the most skeptical will be convinced of this (almost) magical discovery. … Description, when compared with reality, is beggared indeed.” Signed J. Pennell, A. S. Southworth. This ad was also published in the Springfield Gazette (Springfield, Mass.), April 15, 1840, p. 3, col. 2.]

“The Daguerreotype.” SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN (Springfield, Mass.), Saturday, April 18, 1840, p. 2, col. 5. [Announcement of a week-long exhibition and demonstration of the daguerreotype process held at the Mechanics Hall and later in the Union Hall in Springfield, by Joseph Pennell and Albert S. Southworth. “The views of the south front side of the Hampton Coffee House; of the south side of State street, … of several places in Cabotville—and of the City Hall in New York—were all strikingly accurate and familiar.”]

“The Daguerreotype.” SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN (Springfield, Mass.), Saturday, April 18, 1840, p. 3, col. 1. [“Daguerreotype: Last day of exhibition at Mechanics’ Hall, Saturday, April 18. Views taken at 2 o’clock P.M.”]

1841

Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. The Third Exhibition of Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association…in the City of Boston, September 20, 1841. Boston: Press of T. R. Marvin, 1841 [This exhibition, which began in 1837, was held every three years. WSJ)
. Reports of the judges, etc.

326. J. A. WHIPPLE, Boston. Daguerreotype portraits…. (p. 90.)
327. T. H. DARLING, Boston. One Case of Daguerreotype Miniatures. No. 2…” (p. 92.)
328. A. S. SOUTHWORTH & CO., Boston. Twenty-two Daguerreotype Miniatures. The best exhibited. Diploma. One
     Daguerreotype Apparatus.
329. GERROULD & SMITH, Boston. Two Daguerreotype Miniatures.
330. The Same. A Daguerreotype Machine.
331. D. S. LEARNNARD, Boston. Eight specimens of Penciling.
332. J. S. F. HUDDLESTON, Boston. Six Daguerreotype Miniatures. No. 5. One Thermometer.
333. C. A. FOSTER, Boston. One Picture….” (p. 94)
334. KEENE & CANNON, Salem. Four Daguerreotype Miniatures. No. 5….
335. H. I. ABEL, Boston. Eight Daguerreotype Miniatures, taken in the light of a common window. No. 6.
336. E. W. JONES, Boston. Six Paintings on Chairs….” (p. 96)
337. W. M. WESSON, Boston. Daguerreotype Miniatures. No. 3.
338. J. PLUMBE, Boston. Daguerreotype Apparatus and Miniatures….
339. G. EVANS, Worcester. Daguerreotype Apparatus and Miniatures….” (p. 99)
340. HALE & SMITH, Boston. A Frame of Daguerreotype Miniatures….
     In concluding their Report, the Committee would observe, with respect to the several specimens of the Daguerreotype Process exhibited, that, as this art is yet in its infancy, they do not profess to be sufficiently acquainted with its details, to be able to decide upon the comparative merits of the various apparatus in the Hall. The instruments, however, appeared to them to be neatly made, and well adapted to the purposes for which they were designed.” (p. 100)]

[“Daguerreotype Likenesses.”] SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN (Springfield, Mass.), Saturday, April 24, 1841, p. 2. [“We have seen some specimens of daguerreotype likenesses, executed by Southworth & Co. at Cabotville, which are more accurate than anything we have seen—and presume they are equal to what is done in that line in the cities.”]

“Daguerreotype Miniatures.” TAUNTON WHIG (Taunton, Mass.), Monday, June 28, 1841, p. 2. [“These miniatures are now made with a rapidity which is truly astonishing, and with a correctness which cannot be attained by any other means. In short, it is like imprinting the image of one’s face on a mirror. We have now before us a beautiful one executed by A. S. Southworth & Co. of Boston.”]

“Daguerreotype Miniature Rooms, 60½ Court Street, or 6½ [sic 5½] Tremont Row” [advertisement]. AMERICAN TRAVELER (Boston), Friday, December 10, 1841, p. 4, col. 3. [“The first establishment in New England for making Photographic Miniature Plates &c. is that of A. S. Southworth & Co.”]

1842

Second and Third Annual Reports of the American Institute of the City of New York made to the Legislature for the Year 1842 and 1843 (1844) “N.Y. State Senate Document No. 108, Apr. 8, 1843.”
[“List of Premiums Awarded by the Managers of the Fifteenth Annual Fair of the American Institute, October, 1842.”
Fine Arts.
J A. MCDOUGALL, 11 Park Place, for the best specimen of miniatures; diploma.
A. S. SOUTHARD & CO., Boston, for the best specimens of daguerreotype; diploma. [Is this Southworth & Co?]
CHARLES E. JOHNSON, Albany, for the second best specimens of daguerreotype. diploma.
CARSE & WEST, 472 Pearl-street, for the best. specimen of glass staining, (silver medal having been before awarded;) diploma..
THOMAS THOMAS, 136 Spring street, for the second best specimen of stained glass; diploma.
GEORGE HARVEY, Dobb’s Ferry, N. Y for atmospheric views of American scenery, (silver medal having been before awarded;) diploma.
HANNAH N. COLLINS, for the best painting of flowers, silver medal.
E. WHITFIELD, Albany,. for, the best painting of fruit; silver medal.
ELIZA J. BURR, for. painting of flowers; diploma.
JAMES THOM; Dey-street, for a splendid sun-dial; silver medal.
BENJ. PIKE & SONS, for a marble sun-dial; diploma.
HENRI HEIDEMAN, New-York for the best lithographic portraits; diploma.
JOHN T. BOWEN, Philadelphia, for the best lithography of animals; diploma.
E. W. SMITH, 484 Cherry-street, for the, best. machine drawing; diploma.
F.J. SWINTON, Staten-Island, for a drawing of a cottage and church. in water colors; silver medal.
MISS CATHARINE RAINSFORD, 430 Houston-street, for a pencil drawing; diploma.” (p. 85.)
“(F.) List of Premiums: Awarded by the Managers of the Fifteenth Annual Fair of the American Institute, October, 1842.” In The Second and Third Annual Reports of the American Institute of the City of New York, Made to the Legislature for the Years 1842 and 1843. Albany: Printed by Order of the Senate, E. Mack, Printer, 1844. [“Fine Arts: A. S. Southard [sic] & Co., Boston, for the best specimens of daguerreotype; diploma” (p. 85). Charles E. Johnson (Albany) received the only other diploma given for daguerreotypes.”]

1843

N.C. “The Daguerreotype.” SALEM REGISTER (Salem, Mass.), Monday, May 15, 1843, p. 2. [“I would call the attention of your readers to some fine specimens of Daguerreotypes now exhibiting at the Mechanic Hall, by Messrs. Snell & Bowdoin. … I think that these gentlemen produce the finest impressions I have seen except Southworth’s, who is acknowledged to be the best Daguerreotyper in the country, and whose miniatures command the highest price.”]

“Premium Daguerreotype! ‘Taking Colors’ Albert S. Southworth & Co. 5½ Tremont Row” [advertisement]. BOSTON COURIER, Monday, May 15, 1843, p. 3. [“Albert S. Southworth & Co., / No. 5 1-2 Tremont Row. At the Fair of the American Institute, held in New York in October last, we received the Premium for the best Daguerreotype Miniatures; also in Boston, at the Mechanics’ Fair, Sept. 1841. We color our Miniatures, and did so long before any other establishment in the city. For distinctness of outline and delicate shading, for natural and pleasing expression of the features, especially the eyes; for beautiful and picturesque effect, we shrink not from the severest comparisons and criticisms. Our terms are fair, and if desired we will warrant a BETTER LIKENESS and HANDSOMER picture than can be obtained at any other establishment of the kind. If an impartial decision, by artists, is against us, we will pay all expenses. Children of any age can have perfect Miniatures.—The time of their sitting is less than five seconds. Mrs. Southworth will wait upon Ladies and assist them in arranging their drapery. All persons interested are invited to our rooms, to decide for themselves. The best of Apparatus and Materials for sale on reasonable terms. A. S. SOUTHWORTH & CO., / 5 1-2 Tremont Row.” This advertisement ran in the Courier an average of three times a week from May 15, 1843, until early October, when frequency increased. From December 1843 to February 15, 1844, it ran almost every day.]

“Premium Daguerreotype / ‘Taking Colors’ [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY BEE, Friday, June 16, 1843, p. 3. This advertisement, with slight variations in text and image, also ran in the Daily Bee an average of three times a week from June 16 to September 27, 1843.]

Southworth, A. S. “Daguerreotype. Taking Colors.” LIBERATOR 13:25 (June 23, 1843): 100. [“From the Mercantile Journal. Editor: — We are often asked, whether the colors are transferred or taken by daguerreotype. For the information of those interested, it seems desirable to correct the erroneous impressions that the colors of nature either from the dress or complexion affect the colors of the picture. Such a desideratum has never been obtained in the slightest degree, and a series of experiments during three and a half years of assiduous application have satisfied us that there are philosophical objections to such a theory. Whilst it may not be difficult for the unprincipled operator to deceive and humbug the ignorant, those who examine the subject, will learn that there are fixed laws in this, as in all science, established and settled beyond controversy. We will with pleasure demonstrate the facts to any who may wish perfectly to understand them, and hope the time is not far distant when all engaged in this wonderful art will choose to disseminate correct information rather than to make those unacquainted with it believe that a daub of carmine is the rosy tint of beauty, or a rusty copper smutch, flesh or color. A. S. Southworth & Co.5 1-2 Tremont Row.”]

“Beautiful Specimens of Photographic Miniatures” [advertisement]. SALEM GAZETTE (Salem, Mass.), Tuesday, July 4, 1843, n. p. [Advertisement for J. Ropes Gallery, Salem. Ropes states that he had “been connected for several months with the establishment of Southworth & Co., Prize Photographers …”]

1844

Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. The Fourth Exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. at Quincy Hall, in the City of Boston, September 16, 1844. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1844.
[“Reports of the Judges.” pp. 22–37.
“In Daguerreotypes, the Committee are gratified to observe a marked improvement from former Exhibitions. There are now several competitors; and the task of judging between them is an exceedingly-difficult one. Some specimens are peculiar for strength of color; others for distinctness; and others again for pleasing and natural expression. To this last point, the attention of the Committee has been particularly directed, as the difficulty seems hitherto to have been, that a sort of general expression, apparently peculiar to the process, has taken from that individuality which is so important a requisite in every portrait. But as Mr. PLUMBE seems to have overcome this difficulty, in a greater degree than any other of the present competitors, the Committee have ranked his specimens, (No. 392,) as No. 1, although, in distinctness and strength of effect, they are, perhaps, excelled by MR. SOUTHWORTH’S, (No. 1017,) which we rank as No. 2, and equalled (p. 25) by MESSRS. LONG’S, (No. 401,) and HALE’S, (No. 1352,) which we think should rank as No. 3. MR. EAMES has also two very good specimens, (No. 1067.)” (p. 26)
(Etc., etc.)

401. H. H. LONG, Boston. One Frame of Daguerreotypes,
     Remarkable for fullness of color. Diploma. (p. 30)
     (Etc., etc.)
     “1008. A. B. YOUNG, Boston. Model of the Custom House. Good specimen of modelling.
402. A. S. SOUTHWORTH, & Co., Boston. Five Frames of Daguerreotype Miniatures. Contain some fine specimens conspicuous for distinctness and strength of color. Diploma.
403. A. HEWINS, Boston. One Portrait. An old picture, apparently well restored.
404. MRS. W. LINCOLN, Boston. Portraits. (p. 34)
     (Etc., etc.)
405. A. W. EAMMES, Boston. Two Daguerreotype Miniatures. Very good. (p. 35)
406. C. E. HALE. Boston. Specimen of Pencil Drawing. Specimen of Pen Drawing.
     Frames of Daguerreotypes. (p. 37)
     (Etc., etc.)
407. J. PLUMBE, Boston. One Daguerreotype Apparatus. (p. 76)]

1845

Trial and Imprisonment of Jonathan Walker, at Pensacola, Florida, for Aiding Slaves to Escape from Bondage, with an Appendix, Containing a Sketch of His Life. Boston: Anti-Slavery Office, 1845. [Two b & w: “Jonathan Walker” (frontispiece) and “Hand of Captain Jonathan Walker” (title page). 1850 ed., “Engr. by J. Andrews from a Daguerreotype by Southworth.”]

1 b & w (“Wendell Phillips.”) as frontispiece. Phillips, Wendell. “The Constitution.” LIBERTY BELL. BY FRIENDS OF FREEDOM (Jan 1, 1845): 151-155. [“Etched by J. Andrews from a Daguerreotype by Southworth.” (Boston: Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Fair, 1845. This annual publication included a frontispiece portrait of different authors each year, including William Lloyd Garrison (1846) and Francis Jackson (1849). These are not credited, but some are from daguerreotypes, and some may have been made by Southworth. WSJ)]

“The Liberty Bell for 1845. By Friends of Freedom.” LIBERATOR 15:1 (Jan.3, 1845): 3. [Review. “The present volume appears in a beautiful typographical dress, which is highly creditable to the printers,— Andrews, Prentiss and Studley, 11 Devonshire-street. It has a very good engraving of Wendell Phillips, etched by J. Andrews from a Daguerreotype by Southworth, which the numerous friends of this widely beloved and most eloquent advocate of emancipation will be delighted to obtain, though it be nothing better than the shadow of the substance— the semblance of the reality….”]

1 b & w (“The Branded Hand.”) in: “The Branded Hand.” EMANCIPATOR AND WEEKLY CHRONICLE 10:15 (Aug. 6, 1845): 59. [(Illustration is a woodcut of a hand branded with the letters S S (Slave Stealer) taken from a daguerreotype made by Albert Sands Southworth. This is accompanied with a poem written by John G. Whittier.) [“Below we give an exact representation of the brand, which was burnt with a hot iron, by an officer of the United States, into the living flesh of a citizen of Massachusetts. It was copied from a Daguerreotype picture belonging to Dr. Bowditch, who kindly loaned the picture for this purpose. Ponder it, fellow citizens, and as you burn, and blush, and weep, at the disgrace of our country, the indignity done to a worthy neighbor, and the misery of the poor slaves, let the fire burn until your soul is enkindled to the high resolve, that the letters on Jonathan Walker’s hand shall be made to read–Salvation To the Slave. The Branded Hand By John G. Whittier.
Welcome home again, brave seaman! with thy thoughtful brow and grey,
And the old heroic spirit of our earlier, better day–
With that front of calm endurance, on whose steady nerve, in vain,
Pressed the iron of the prison, smote the fiery shafts of pain!
Is the tyrant’s brand upon thee? Did the brutal cravens aim
To make God’s truth thy falsehood, His holiest work they shame?
When all blood-quenched, from the torture the iron was withdrawn,
How laughed their evil angel the baffled fools to scorn!
They change to wrong, the duty which God hath written out
On the great heart of humanity too legible for doubt
They, the loathsome mortal lepers, blotched from foot-sole up to crown,
Give to shame what God hath given unto honor and renown!
Why, that brand is highest honor!– than its traces never yet
Upon old armorial hatchments was a prouder blazon set;
And thy unborn generations, as they crowd our rocky strand,
Shall tell with pride the story of their father’s Branded Hand!
As the templar home was welcomed, bearing back from Syrian wars
The scars of Arab lances, and of Paynim scimetars,
The pallor of the prison and the shackle’s crimson span,
So we meet thee, so we greet thee, truest friend of God and man!
He suffered for the ransom of the dear Redeemer’s grave,
Thou for His living presence in the bound and bleeding slave;
He for a soil no longer by the feet of angels trod,
Thou for the true Shechinah, the present home of God!
For, while the jurist sitting with the slave-whip o’er him swung,
From the tortured truths of freedom the lie of slavery wrung,
And the solemn priest to Molech, on each God-deserted shrine,
Broke the bondman’s heart for bread, poured the bondman’s blood for wine–
While the multitude in blindness to a far off Savior knelt,
And spurned, the while, the temple where a present Savior dwelt;
Thou beheld’st Him in the task field, in the prison shadows dim,
And thy mercy to the bondman, it was mercy unto Him!
In thy lone and long night watches, sky above and wave below,
Thou did’st learn a higher wisdom than the babbling school-men know;
God’s stars and silence taught thee as His angels only can,
That, the one, sole sacred thing beneath the cope of heaven is man!
That he, who treads profanely on the scrolls of law and creed,
In the depth of God’s great goodness may find mercy in his need;
But woe to him who crushes the Soul with chain and rod,
And herds with lower natures the awful form of God!
Then lift that manly right hand, bold ploughman of the wave!
Its branded palm shall prophecy ‘Salvation To the Slave!
Hold up its fire-wrought language, that whoso reads may feel
His heart swell strong within him, his sinews change to steel.
Hold it up before our sunshine, up against our Northern air–Ho!
Men of Massachusetts, for the love of God look there!
Take it henceforth for your standard– like the Bruce’s heart of yore,
In the dark strife closing round ye, let that hand be seen before!
And the tyrants of the slave land shall tremble at that sign,
When it points its finger Southward along the Puritan line:
Woe to the State-gorged leeches, and the church’s locust band,
When they look from slavery’s ramparts on the coming of that hand!]

“The Branded Hand.” EMANCIPATOR AND WEEKLY CHRONICLE 10:16 (Aug. 13, 1845): 63. [“From the Christian Citizen. In the Boston Chronicle of Wednesday, we find an article under the above caption which must appeal to every sentiment of humanity in the heart of the reader. There is the hand of that great-hearted hero, Jonathan Walker, opening its branded palm to the reader, into which are burned those letters of mighty and immortal significance, S. S. Salvation to the Slave. Slavery has created a new order of knighthood in this heroic age of philanthropy, and its burning and bloody badges will open to the wearer a fellowship with the great heart of Humanity, and command a reverence from the world which neither the star of the Legion of Honor nor the blazonry of the Garter, could procure. God has a ‘Legion of Honor’ in this fallen world; and, as in the day of its institution, it is still made up of men who are not afraid to make themselves of no reputation, like their Master; who are not afraid of stripes and bruising and branding irons;— poor men— in rags many— but rich, immensely rich, in faith in God, and immensely mighty in his power: who, from the great, heaven-inspired love that is in them, can work like a legion of strong angels for man. That ‘Branded Hand!’ look at it, ye Belshazzars enthroned on the necks of three millions of God’s human children! No transient apparition, that; no mystic, vapory characters of ambiguous meaning has it traced upon the crumbling walls of slavery. This thing, which you have done unto the least of his little ones, ye have done it unto Him who died for the slave. Into his hands, still bearing the nail-marks of the cross, have you burned the literal signet of your malignity to man and human freedom. That hand! the subtle daguerreotype has imaged it, like a petrified vapor, on these thin, sibyl leaves, to endure for a day: but in lines that will deepen and darken through eternity, is that branded hand daguerreotyped in the chancery of heaven; where, we ween, it shall be shown in pride to every angel that comes to look into the record of human actions.”]

“Poetry. From the Emancipator. The Branded Hand.” LIBERATOR 15:33 (Aug. 15, 1845): 132. 1 b & w. [“Below we give an exact representation of the brand, which was burnt with a hot iron, by an officer of the United States, into the living flesh of a citizen of Massachusetts. It was copied from a Daguerreotype picture belonging to Dr. Bowditch, who kindly loaned the picture for this purpose. Ponder it, fellow citizens, and as you burn, and blush, and weep, at the disgrace of our country, the indignity done to a worthy neighbor, and the misery of the poor slaves, let the fire burn until your soul is enkindled to the high resolve, that the letters on Jonathan Walker’s hand shall be made to read–Salvation To the Slave. The Branded Hand by John G. Whittier.
Welcome home again, brave seaman! with thy thoughtful brow and grey,
And the old heroic spirit of our earlier, better day–
With that front of calm endurance, on whose steady nerve, in vain,
Pressed the iron of the prison, smote the fiery shafts of pain!
Is the tyrant’s brand upon thee? Did the brutal cravens aim
To make God’s truth thy falsehood, His holiest work they shame?
When all blood-quenched, from the torture the iron was withdrawn,
How laughed their evil angel the baffled fools to scorn!
They change to wrong, the duty which God hath written out
On the great heart of humanity too legible for doubt
They, the loathsome mortal lepers, blotched from foot-sole up to crown,
Give to shame what God hath given unto honor and renown!
Why, that brand is highest honor!– than its traces never yet
Upon old armorial hatchments was a prouder blazon set;
And thy unborn generations, as they crowd our rocky strand,
Shall tell with pride the story of their father’s Branded Hand!
As the templar home was welcomed, bearing back from Syrian wars
The scars of Arab lances, and of Paynim scimetars,
The pallor of the prison and the shackle’s crimson span,
So we meet thee, so we greet thee, truest friend of God and man!
He suffered for the ransom of the dear Redeemer’s grave,
Thou for His living presence in the bound and bleeding slave;
He for a soil no longer by the feet of angels trod,
Thou for the true Shechinah, the present home of God!
For, while the jurist sitting with the slave-whip o’er him swung,
From the tortured truths of freedom the lie of slavery wrung,
And the solemn priest to Molech, on each God-deserted shrine,
Broke the bondman’s heart for bread, poured the bondman’s blood for wine–
While the multitude in blindness to a far off Savior knelt,
And spurned, the while, the temple where a present Savior dwelt;
Thou beheld’st Him in the task field, in the prison shadows dim,
And thy mercy to the bondman, it was mercy unto Him!
In thy lone and long night watches, sky above and wave below,
Thou did’st learn a higher wisdom than the babbling school-men know;
God’s stars and silence taught thee as His angels only can,
That, the one, sole sacred thing beneath the cope of heaven is man!
That he, who treads profanely on the scrolls of law and creed,
In the depth of God’s great goodness may find mercy in his need;
But woe to him who crushes the Soul with chain and rod,
And herds with lower natures the awful form of God!
Then lift that manly right hand, bold ploughman of the wave!
Its branded palm shall prophecy ‘Salvation To the Slave!
Hold up its fire-wrought language, that whoso reads may feel
His heart swell strong within him, his sinews change to steel.
Hold it up before our sunshine, up against our Northern air–Ho!
Men of Massachusetts, for the love of God look there!
Take it henceforth for your standard– like the Bruce’s heart of yore,
In the dark strife closing round ye, let that hand be seen before!
And the tyrants of the slave land shall tremble at that sign,
When it points its finger Southward along the Puritan line:
Woe to the State-gorged leeches, and the church’s locust band,
When they look from slavery’s ramparts on the coming of that hand!]

“The Branded Hand.” LIBERATOR 15:36 (Sept. 5, 1845): 141. [“From the Christian Citizen. in the Boston Chronicle of Wednesday, we find an article under the above caption which must appeal to every sentiment of humanity in the heart of the reader. There is the hand of that great-hearted hero, Jonathan Walker, opening its branded palm to the reader, into which are burned those letters of mighty and immortal significance, S. S. Salvation to the Slave. Slavery has created a new order of knighthood in this heroic age of philanthropy, and its burning and bloody badges will open to the wearer a fellowship with the great heart of Humanity, and command a reverence from the world which neither the star of the Legion of Honor nor the blazonry of the Garter, could procure. God has a ‘Legion of Honor’ in this fallen world; and, as in the day of its institution, it is still made up of men who are not afraid to make themselves of no reputation, like their Master; who are not afraid of stripes and bruising and branding irons;— poor men— in rags many— but rich, immensely rich, in faith in God, and immensely mighty in his power: who, from the great, heaven-inspired love that is in them, can work like a legion of strong angels for man. That ‘Branded Hand!’ look at it, ye Belshazzars enthroned on the necks of three millions of God’s human children! No transient apparition, that; no mystic, vapory characters of ambiguous meaning has it traced upon the crumbling walls of slavery. This thing, which you have done unto the least of his little ones, ye have done it unto Him who died for the slave. Into his hands, still bearing the nail-marks of the cross, have you burned the literal signet of your malignity to man and human freedom. That hand! the subtle daguerreotype has imaged it, like a petrified vapor, on these thin, sibyl leaves, to endure for a day: but in lines that will deepen and darken through eternity, is that branded hand daguerreotyped in the chancery of heaven; where, we ween, it shall be shown in pride to every angel that comes to look into the record of human actions.”]

1 b & w (“Hand of Captain Jonathan Walker.” “… copied from a Daguerreotype picture belonging to Dr. Bowditch.”) “The Branded Hand.” SALEM GAZETTE (Salem, Mass.), Tuesday, September 16, 1845, n. p.

“Report of the Hampden Agricultural Fair.” DAILY REPUBLICAN (Springfield, MA), Thursday, October 16, 1845, p. 3. [“We noticed two superior Daguerreotype Pictures (copies) by Southworth of Chicopee Falls …”]

1846

Dickinson, S. N. The Boston Almanac for the Year 1846. “Vol. 3, No.2” Boston: Thomas Groom & Co., 1846. 168 p. illus., maps.
[“Business Directory.”
Daguerreotype Miniatures.
Adams, J. S. 115 Court
Bowdoin, D. W. 11 1-2 Tremont r.
Campbell & Davis, 34 Tremont row
Cannon, J. 190 Washington
Chase, Lorenzo G. 257 Washington
Hale, L. H. 109 Washington
Charter, Miss, 8 Tremont Temple
Litch & Whipple, 96 Washington
Plumbe, J. Jr. 75 Court
Southworth, A.S. & Co. 5 1-2 Tremont. r.
White, Asa, 20 Washington” (p. 71)
“Advertisements.”
Southworth & Co’s Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5 ½ Tremont Row. The attention of all persons interested in procuring Daguerreotype Likenesses of themselves or friends, or Copies from Portraits, Miniatures, Paintings, Engravings, or Statuary, is particularly invited to our Specimens. Our arrangements are such, that we take Miniatures of Children of any age, and of deceased persons, either at our Rooms, or at private residences. We have in attendance two Ladies, and Females can have assistance in arranging their dress and drapery, and consult them as to colors most appropriate and harmonious for the Daguerreotype process. In style of execution and picturesque effect – in boldness of character and beauty of expression – in variety of sizes and delicacy of lights and shadows, we shall aim at the highest perfection possible.
A. S. Southworth,
J. J. Hawes,
No. 5 ½ Tremont row.” (p. 158)]

@@SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, ca. 1845–ca. 1860
(Albert Sands Southworth and Josiah Johnson Hawes partnership)

1846

American Institute of the City of New York. The American Institute Catalogue of Articles Exhibited at the Nineteenth Annual Fair, October 1846. New York: The Institute, 1846. [Southworth & Hawes among the seventeen daguerreotypists in the exhibition; only three others also from outside New York City. “No. 981. Seven Frame Daguerreotypes. Southwick & Haws [sic], Boston” (p. 21).]

“Daguerreotype Miniatures: Southworth, A. S. & Co.” and “Southworth & Hawes. Daguerreotypes the Size of Life. A Mistake Corrected” [advertisement] and “Southworth & Hawes, Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5½ Tremont Row” [advertisement]. In Adams’s New Directory of the City of Boston: Containing a General Directory of the Citizens, and a Special Directory of Trades, Professions, &ct. 1846–7. Boston: James French, 1846, p. 17. [“Southworth, A. S. & Co.” listed with twelve other firms (p. 208).]

“Southworth & Hawes, Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5½ Tremont Row” [advertisement]. In The Boston Almanac for the Year 1846. Boston: S. N. Dickinson, 1846, p. 158. [Example of the types of advertisements placed by the Southworth & Hawes gallery in the local business directories and newspapers. Polito 1993 lists at least eight such advertisements published between 1846 and 1856 in the Boston Almanac, the Boston Municipal Directory, the Roxbury Municipal Directory, and the like. Other similar examples may be found in A Directory of the City of Newburyport, 1856–57 and, undoubtedly, elsewhere.]

1 b & w (“Wm. Lloyd Garrison.”) as frontispiece.” Garrison, William Lloyd. “Fight On!” LIBERTY BELL. BY FRIENDS OF FREEDOM (Jan 1, 1846): 165. [“Not credited, but probably from a daguerreotype by Southworth.”]

“The Twelfth National Anti-Slavery Bazaar.” LIBERATOR 16:4 (Jan. 23, 1846): 14-15. (Lists the displays and donations for the Fair.) “…An excellent Daguerreotype of Frederick Douglass, and another of the ‘Branded Hand,’ the gift of Mr. Southworth, elicited much attention; as did a kit-kat portrait of Frederick Douglas, by W. P. Brannan, a very promising young artist of Lynn, at whose studio it may be seen, and, as we understood, purchased….”]

“Patent Daguerreotype Polishing Apparatus” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, April 8, 1846, p. 3, col. 1. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes have perfected and are ready to furnish their polishing apparatus …”]

“$100 Reward. Daguerreotype Coloring” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, April 8, 1846, p. 3, col. 1. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes will pay the above sum to any person who will color or enamel by any patent process a Daguerreotype miniature equal to theirs by their own process.”]

“The Daguerreotype.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, April 9, 1846, p. 4, col. 1. [“We were never more convinced of the beauty and perfect harmony of which the Daguerreotype art is capable than whilst examining the productions of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes …”]

“Daguerreotype” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, April 15, 1846, p. 3, col. 1. [“The attention of all persons interested in procuring Daguerreotype Likenesses, of themselves or friends …” The “$100 Reward” and “Daguerreotype” advertisements (above) are also reprinted in this issue.]

“The Eclipse in Daguerreotype.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Monday, April 27, 1846, p. 2, col. 4. [Notice that Southworth & Hawes have taken several daguerreotypes of the recent eclipse of the sun.]

“The Eclipse in Daguerreotypes.” ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE (Alexanderia, Virginia), Friday, May 1, 1846, p. 3. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … have the pleasure of announcing to the lovers of science, that they succeeded in taking several views of the eclipse, in different stages of its progress, in great perfection.”]

“News. Items. The Eclipse in Daguerreotypes.” THE COLUMBIAN FOUNTAIN (Washinton, D. C.), Friday, May 1, 1846, p. 2. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … have the pleasure of announcing to the lovers of science, that they succeeded in taking several views of the eclipse, in different stages of its progress, in great perfection.”]

“The Eclipse in Daguerreotypes.” THE WASHINGTON UNION (Washinton, D. C.), Friday, May 1, 1846, p. 3. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … have the pleasure of announcing to the lovers of science, that they succeeded in taking several views of the eclipse, in different stages of its progress, in great perfection.”]

“The Eclipse in Daguerreotypes.” SALEM REGISTER (Salem, Mass.), Thursday, May 7, 1846, p. 1. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … have the pleasure of announcing to the lovers of science, that they succeeded in taking several views of the eclipse, in different stages of its progress, in great perfection.”]

“Monthly List of Patents.” FISHER’S NATIONAL MAGAZINE AND INDUSTRIAL RECORD 3:2 (July 1846): 199-201.
To Albert S. Southworth & Josiah J. Hawes, of Boston, Mass., for improvement in Apparatus for Holding Plates for Polishing. Patented 13th June, 1846.” (p. 200)]

“Patent List.” NEW YORK FARMER AND MECHANIC 4:11 (Nov. 1846): 367-368. [“13th June, 1846. – To Albert S. Southworth & Josiah J. Hawes, of Boston, Mass., for improvements in Apparatus for Holding Plates for Polishing.” (p. 368)]

1847

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1846. House of Representatives. 29th Congress, 2d Session. Doc. No. 52. January 23, 1847. Read, and referred to the Committee on Patents. Patent Office, January 1847. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1847. 366 p.
[“Doc. No. 52.
Class XVIII.–Arts, Polite,” Fine, And Ornamental, Including Music, Painting, Sculpture, Engraving, Books, Printing, Binding, Jewelry, &c.
Books, binders’ boards, cutting Geo. S. Scofield Philadelphia, Pa. June 16, 1846.
Daguerreotype plates, coloring Fred. Langenheim Philadelphia, Pa. January 30, 1846.
Daguerreotype pictures, improvement in coloring Fred. Langenheim, assignee of J. B. Isenring, Switzerland. Philadelphia, Pa. January 30, 1846.
Daguerreotype miniatures, improved method of finishing William A. Pratt Alexandria, D. C. March 14, 1846.
Metallic reeds, method of tuning J. Shaler Ives New York, N. Y. May 9, 1846.
Musical instruments, bellows for Jeremiah Carhart Buffalo, N. Y. December 28, 1846.
Pencils, lead, self-feeding ever-pointed James Boss Philadelphia, Pa. July 20, 1846.
Pencils, ever-pointed A. G. Bagley, assignee of Jno. Durant New York, N. Y. June 27, 1846.
Pencils, ever-pointed A. G. Bagley New York, N. Y. November 6, 1846.
Pencil and pen combined Jacob J. Hatcher Philadelphia, Pa. November 6, 1846.
Pen-case A. G, Bagley New York, N. Y. June 6, 1846.
Piano forte Luther Philleo Utica, N. Y. July 2, 1846.
Piano forte John Schriber New York, N. Y. October 29, 1846.
Printing press, double & single Napier A. B. Tyler New York, N. Y. April 4, 1846.
Printing press W. W. Marston . New York, N. Y. September 12, 1846.
Printing calico R. Ferguson & Jno. Clark Glasgow, Scotland April 25, 1846; English patent dated September 14, 1844.
Printing in colors Alex. D. McKinzie Philadelphia, Pa. November 6, 1846.
Plate holder, self-regulating suspension Southworth & Hawes Boston, Massachusetts June 13, 1846.
Typography, universal Josiah Warren New Harmony, la. April 25, 1846.” (p. 145)
(Etc., etc.)
“H.List of Patentees.”
No. 4573. Southworth, Albert S., & J. J. Hawes. Boston, Mass. (p. 169)
(Etc., etc.)
“No. 4573.
Having thus described our apparatus for holding plates to be polished, what we claim therein as our own invention, and desire to have secured to us by letters patent, is the supporting the plate holder on a bar constructed for holding the same firmly, substantially as herein above described, and suspended by right angular arms, dd, projecting upwards from its ends, and hung upon pivots b b, as set forth, so that the top of the plate in the holder will adapt itself, as it were, to the face of the polishing tools when touched by the same, as herein above set forth. Albert S. Southworth. Josiah J, Hawes. Boston, November 25, 1845.”
(p. 264)]

Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. The Fifth Exhibition of Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association…in the City of Boston, September 1847. Boston: Published by Dutton & Wentworth, for the Association, 1848. [This exhibition, which began in 1837, was held every three years. WSJ)
[“Reports of the Judges.”

381. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Stereoscope. This Stereoscope, it is believed, surpasses all its predecessors in the beauty and perfection of the results which it attains. It is upon the plan of Wheatstone’s Reflector Stereoscope, which appears to have been rendered almost perfect by the improvements now made. An entirely new method is adopted for taking the stereoscopic pictures, to which their beauty is mainly due. This method has been explained to the Committee, and they are informed that it will shortly be made known to the public. In addition to the improvement in the pictures themselves, a new method of bringing them into the field of vision and withdrawing them therefrom has been devised. Heretofore this has been performed by hand, but, in the present case, it is done by the simple turning of a crank. The pictures are made to appear in pairs in the proper order, and after remaining a certain length of time in view, are withdrawn, and replaced by others. The mechanism by which this is accomplished is as simple as it is effective. Gold Medal.” (pp. 11-12)
     “Fine Arts.”
     William T. Andrews, D. C. Johnston,
     Hammatt Billings, Ammi B. Young,
     Stephen H. Perkins, Judges.
     It is much to be regretted, that the objects, presented for the consideration of the Committee on the Fine Arts, were so few in number, and of so small a degree of merit. Setting aside the Daguerreotypes, the Imitations of Wood, &c., and some few specimens of Engraving, the Exhibition contains nothing, which can be considered as a fair sample of what our various Artists have produced, and are constantly producing; still less of what they are capable of attaining to, under more favorable circumstances, and with extended opportunities. Even the exceptions made above, are so, rather comparatively, with regard to what has been done, than positively, as marking the full capabilities of these Arts….” (p. 18) “…The Association has it within its power, by the establishment of a proper School of Design, to give the first, and by well-conducted Exhibitions to create the last. In the first, it should direct and foster all attention to the production of beautiful works of use, and disseminate a knowledge of Design in those classes who are connected with the various manufactures of fabrics, of glass, of lamps, of curtains, of carpets, and, in fine, of all articles of daily use. It would thus, in a few years, be enabled, not only to present, in its Exhibitions, splendid specimens of Decorative Art, but would draw forth genius, now lying inert, but capable, with proper culture, of the highest aims, and of producing the noblest results. And thus it would also create a Public, capable of appreciating, and being influenced by, the higher works of Art.
     Daguerreotypes. These works are, in their department, the most beautiful and worthy of any on exhibition. Indeed, the best of them are at least equal to any ever produced. In composition, arrangement of their various parts, and expression, many of them, by each of several of the Exhibitors, are equal to some of the best portraits produced by our Painters, and, in some respects, of course, they are beyond all rivalry by painting. It would be impossible, had we not the opportunity of comparison, to estimate the vast difference between a poor and a first-rate daguerreotype. In the former, every, thing is hard, dry, rigid, and disagreeable; the flesh, mere blotches of light and shade; the eyes, glaring or completely dead; the action of the figures, stiff and constrained; the folds of the draperies, hard as though carved in wood. In the latter, the flesh is preserved in all its beautiful gradations of form and texture, the most delicate lights playing over its surface in a thousand different degrees of intensity; the fabrics are soft, easy, and graceful; the action and expression natural and refined. In these respects, the works of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, (No. 1092,) and Mr. Whipple, (No. 807,) are by far the finest in the Exhibition. So excellent are the works presented by both these Artists, that it would seem almost invidious to draw any line of distinction between them; but it must be recollected, that it is just in the last delicate and almost imperceptible refinements, that the Artist shows his extreme susceptibility to beauty, and that it is these, which raise a work from the rank of a merely good imitation, to the dignity of a creation. Though the works of Mr. Whipple are distinguished by good arrangement, and a careful manipulation in the Operator, which gives, at the same time, force and delicacy, yet the last subtle gradations of tint and expression are better given in the best specimens of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes. It would be impossible, in this Report, to specify, one by one, these productions, and give to each its degree in the scale; we must therefore be content to indicate these general grounds on which the preferences are based….” (pp. 21-22)
     (List of exhibitors follows. WSJ)
382. JAMES WILLOCK, Lowell. Five Specimens of Marble Painting, on Boards. Good, but not excellent.
383. WILLIAM SHARPE, Boston. Three Frames, containing Specimens of Chromolithic and Lithographic Printing in Colors
     . Silver Medal.
384. H. M. HILL, Boston. Specimen of Penmanship.
     31, SYDNEY SOUTHWORTH, Boston. Four Frames, containing Specimens of Sea Flowers.
385. LUCINDA P. LEURS, Lynn. Three Frames, containing Specimens of Drawing.
386. MISS N. T. THAYER, Boston. Two Specimens of Flower Painting….” (p. 23)
387. MISS ELIZA. J. ROGERS, Boston. Two Frames of Crayon Drawing. Respectable.
388. JOHN MARSHALL, Boston. One Frame of Crayon Drawing.
389. PETER STEPHENSON, Boston. One Case of Cameos. Handsomely executed. Diploma.
390. N. D. GOULD, Boston. Specimens of Penmanship.
391. RICHARD PLUMBE, Boston. One Frame of Daguerreotypes. Generally second rate; but some very excellent.
392. JOHN PLUMBE, Boston. One Frame of Daguerreotypes, second rate.
393. MISS CHARLOTTE L. M. CHASE, Boston. One Crayon Drawing. First attempt.
394. CHARLES EVERETT, Quincy, Ill. One Drawing of Mormon Temple. Lines neatly drawn, but no shadows, to give effect to the building….” (p. 25)
395. H. C. PRATT, Boston. One Portrait. Coloring opaque. .
396. JOSEPH PETTEE, Boston. Two Frames of Daguerreotypes Quite good, especially that of Alderman Wilkins. Diploma.
397. THOMAS BALL, Boston. Three Oil Paintings. The old gentleman good; the other portraits not so well. ‘Christ disputing with the Doctors, gives evidence of the possession of talents of a high order….”
     (p. 26)
398. JOHN A. WHIPPLE. Boston. Specimens of Daguerreotypes. Very good. (See Preliminary Remarks, pp. 21, 22.) Silver Medal.
399. PLUMMER FOSS, Boston. Six Frames of Daguerreotypes.
400. ROBERT ANDREWS, Boston. One Portrait, engraved by Thomas Kelley, Boston. Rather dry; but a good specimen of portrait engraving….”
401. JOHN CANNON, Boston. Three Frames of Daguerreotypes. Second rate.
402. EDWIN B. LARCHAR, Boston. One Case of Birds.
403. A. S. CURRIER, Meredith, N. H. One Frame of Pencil Drawing. Neatly drawn.
404. LEE, & CO., New York, by Kittredge & Blakes, Boston. Two Wire Window Screens. Painting good. Diploma.
405. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Specimens of Daguerreotypes. Excellent. Best in the Exhibition. (See Preliminary Remarks, pp. 21, 22.) Silver Medal….” (p. 28)
406. MISS N. N. SOUTHWORTH, Boston. One Specimen of Daguerreotypes, Colored. The coloring is managed so as to diminish the regret that it should be attempted….” (p. 29)
407. CHARLES P. SNOW, Concord. Two Boxes of Pencils.
408. WILLIAM SHEWS, [sic SHEW] Boston. Specimen of Daguerreotypes. Good; but not of the highest class.
409. S. G. PRIEST, Chelsea. One Frame, Specimen of Pen Drawing….” (p. 30)
410. CHARLES HENRY PERKINS, Boston. Two Specimens of Map Drawing.
411. WILLIAM LYDSTON, JR., Boston. One Miniature, Painted after Death.
412. WILLIAM LYDSTON, JR., Boston. One Miniature.
413. JOHN A. WHIPPLE, Boston. Specimen of Daguerreotype, representing, in one group, The Government of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association….” (p. 31)
     “…We arrange the subjects committed to us under their appropriate heads of— 1st. Painting, including crayon, pencil, and pen drawing; 2d. Sculpture, including engraving, and copper-plate printing, also castings, when from original designs; 3d. Architecture; and 4th. Miscellaneous Articles, not properly belonging to the Fine Arts, but difficult, perhaps, to class under any other head.
     Paintings, &c.
     In our preliminary remarks we regretted the meagerness of the present display, and we regret still more the apparent end and scope of Art as it now exists among us. Our artists seem to estimate art either solely as to its paying capabilities, or as their highest aim, according to the present fame it brings. Now it is evident that whatever owes its origin to either of the above motives, must partake of their inherent defects. If from these first, they are produced merely with regard to their money value in the market; if from the second, they cater to the prevailing fancy of the hour; and all are valueless alike. When the artist shall work from the pure love of art and of truth, as the great masters of old did, then, and not till then, may we hope to see them equaled, perhaps excelled. (p. 98)
414. MISS M. IMOGENE ROBINSON, Auburndale, Mass. Four Paintings, and a Book of Specimens in Water Colors. These specimens do the fair artist great credit. Bronze Medal.
415. WILLIAM SHARP, Dorchester, Mass. Paintings: Railroad Jubilee, 1851; Angel of Death; Fruit and Flower piece: In Memory of the Great and Good; Study of Flowers from Nature. Other Committees have spoken in high terms of the Fruit and Flower piece of this artist, and the present specimens are fully worthy of his former reputation. Bronze Medal.
416. WILLIAM SHARP & SON, Dorchester, Mass. Three Chromo-Lithographs: Portrait of Webster, from Hoyt’s picture, an excellent specimen; Head of a Dog with Game, very good; Fruits, very fine. Messrs. Sharp have in former Exhibitions shewn specimens of their skill in this branch of art. The present ones are not at all inferior. Silver Medal.
417. HENRY N. GARDNER, Boston. Specimen of Painting: Box Top, — a bouquet of flowers. Better than many things of more pretensions. Diploma.
418. MISS J. S. COOK, Boston. One Frame Painting: Webster Mansion. Shows some feeling for color and effect, but we recommend a closer study of nature.
419. MISS MARIA J. EDMANDS, Charlestown, Mass. Specimen of Engraved Oil Painting, (colored photographs.) Very well done. Hunting Piece, enlarged from a small engraving. The coloring, effect and handling, very well indeed. Pen Drawing, Head of Clay, with ornamented border of flowers. Wonderfully delicate, with much artistic feeling. Silver Medal.
420. EDWIN S. MOORE, Springfield, Mass. Fancy Sign Painting. An apprentice, second year. Very well, considering the practice he has had.
421. H. E. BRACKET, Newton, Mass. Specimen of Carving and Painting. Very ingenious. Diploma.
422. MRS. LILLY M. SPENCER, New York, by W. Schaus. One Frame Painting: “Power of Fashion.” By far the best Oil Painting in the Exhibition; good in every respect. Silver Medal.
423. C. HENRY ADAMS, Boston. Specimen of Sign Painting, &c., in the peculiar style of Boston painters. Very well done.
     Diploma.
424. GEORGE M. SILLSBEE, Boston. Specimen of Ivory Miniature Painting. The only specimen in the Exhibition. The author should discard all mannerism, and study nature closely. Diploma.
425. C. L. NIXON, Boston. One Frame, colored Crayon. A rather strong picture; the drapery well done; the whole showing talent. Diploma….” (pp. 99-100)
     Daguerreotypes.
     It is exceedingly difficult to come to a right judgment in this branch of art, from the fact, that when there are many contributors, there will be found among the productions of each, some specimens which are equal to anything shown. We must take, therefore, what each contributor sends as a whole, and judge of the average merit of each, by comparing his whole contribution with others. We are much gratified to find that a better knowledge of the necessary materials and processes, is rapidly spreading beyond the limits of the city. We also see with pleasure that more and more artistic ability in the management of light, in grouping, and choice of position, is becoming apparent everywhere.
426. G. K. WARREN, Lowell, Mass. Specimens of Daguerreotypes. In this beautiful contribution from a neighboring City
     there are some specimens equal to anything in the Exhibition. Bronze Medal.
427. JOHN A. WHIPPLE, Boston. Daguerreotypes; Specimens of Crystallotypes, or Daguerreotypes on Paper. Mr. Whipple keeps up his well-earned reputation in every respect, so far as Daguerreotypes are concerned. His groups have
     certainly no superiors, and the same may well be said of many of his single figures. We have great pleasure in recommending the award of a Silver Medal.
     In the specimens called by him Crystallotypes, in Europe Photographs, he leaves all others far behind. Indeed the Committee are not aware that anything, in this country, at least, will compare with them at all. His perseverance in perfecting this admirable process amongst obstacles of all kinds, is worthy of all praise, and we are confident that a comparison of the specimens exhibited at the last Exhibition with those in the present, will fully justify all we have said. Silver Medal.
428. MASURY & SILSBEE, Boston. Specimens of Daguerreotypes. Among these specimens there are many excellent ones, as good, we think, as any shown. Bronze Medal.
429. C. THAYER, Charlestown, Mass. One Case Daguerreotypes. This gentleman, we believe, was a contributor to the last Exhibition. The specimens now shown exhibit a great improvement. Diploma.
430. L. H. HALE, Boston. Specimens of Daguerreotypes. There is always very great merit in this gentleman’s work; of which we can state with truth, that many of his specimens have no superiors in the Exhibition. Bronze Medal.
431. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Daguerreotypes. The splendid contribution of these gentlemen could not, we are confident, be excelled in this country, if anywhere else. It seems difficult to imagine anything more beautiful than many of their specimens, both as regards artistic feeling, and judgment; as well as the practical part of the work. We also have willing testimony to their untiring zeal and disinterestedness in perfecting their beautiful art. They may be held up as remarkable exceptions to the mere money-getting spirit of the day, which we fear is seeking to bear rule in the world of art, as it already does elsewhere. The Stereoscopic process, which they have greatly improved, and which, belonging to another department, we cannot speak of as a Committee, we can nevertheless admire as among the almost magical results of scientific ability, aided by artistic skill. The ingenious machinery which gives motion to the Stereoscope pictures, we need not speak of, as that will doubtless be estimated by another Committee. Silver Medal.
432. P. G. CLARK, Boston. Daguerreotype Views in California, Very interesting, and some of them fine specimens, particularly a “Placer,” with miners at work. Bronze Medal.
433. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Improved Daguerreotype Frames. A very pretty design, and well suited to its purpose. Diploma.
     Miscellaneous.
434. GAHERY & GENDROT, Boston. Specimens of Carving in Wood. These beautiful specimens are decidedly superior to any American carvings which the Committee have ever seen, and we have great pleasure in recommending a high award. (See page 46, where a medal is awarded.) …” (pp. 104-105)
     Chemicals.
435. WILLIAM T. ANDERSON, South Boston. Thirty-four Specimens of Colors, and One Box of Daguerreotype Colors. These specimens of Colors appeared fine, and well put up. Mr. Anderson laid before the Committee letters and certificates from Artists, and others who have used his Colors, all of which were highly commendatory. His ‘transparent window-blind green’ is particularly recommended, as not containing arsenic, by Mr. Cobb of the United States Navy Yard, Charlestown, and as “superior to any Green that he is acquainted with.” The Committee recommend the award of a Silver Medal. (p. 178)]

“Southworth & Hawes, Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5½ Tremont Row” [advertisement]. In The Boston Directory: Containing the City Record, a General Directory of the Citizens, and a Special Directory of Trades, Professions, &ct. 1847–8. Boston: James French, 1847, p. 305.]

“Daguerreotypes of the Deceased …” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Monday, January 11, 1847, p. 2, col. 7. [“… often beautiful, like quiet sleep; also pleasant Pictures from Casts of the Face, (something new) taken by SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, 5½ Tremont Row.” This advertisement ran six days a week from January 11 to February 18, 1847, usually printed on page 2, always after the death notices.]

“Daguerreotype.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, February 17, 1847, p. 2, col. 4. [“We have seen several recent specimens of Daguerreotype pictures taken by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … which were the most perfect specimens that have yet fallen under our eye. … They have taken many pictures from deceased persons, and from casts of the face, that possess a very pleasing effect, and which are really beautiful, a counterfeit of quiet sleep, divested of the ghastliness of death.”]

“List of American Patents which issued in June, 1846.” JOURNAL OF THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE 3rd s. 14:2 (Aug. 1847): 83-102.
[“18. For an Apparatus for Holding the Plates in the Photographic Art; A. S. Southworth, and J. J. Haws, [sic Hawes] Boston, Massachusetts,
June 13.
This is an apparatus for holding the plates during the process of polishing their surfaces. The plate is held by adjustable plates that project from the surface of the block, about half the thickness of the plate to be polished, so that they gripe and hold the plate by the edges, instead of extending over the edges, as heretofore. The patent, however, is not granted for this, but for the manner of suspending the block, that it may yield to the motions of the polishing instrument; and, as the character of this device is pointed out in the claim with sufficient clearness, we will omit any farther description.
Claim. “Having thus described our apparatus for holding plates to be polished, what we claim therein as our own invention, and desire to have secured to us by letters patent, is the supporting the plate holder on a bar constructed for holding the same firmly, substantially as herein above described, and suspended by right angular arms, projecting upwards from its ends, and hung upon pivots,, as set forth, so that the top of the plate in the holder will adapt itself, as it were, to the face of the polishing tools when touched by the same, as herein above set forth.” (p.89)]

“Miscellany. The Mechanics’ Exhibition.” TRUMPET AND UNIVERSALIST MAGAZINE 20:17 (Oct. 9, 1847): 68. [From the Boston Evening Transcript. “At last we have seen the Mechanics’ Exhibition. We went with the honest intention of giving our readers some account of its contents; but we had no sooner entered Fanueil Hall, and glanced around upon the multiplicity of objects arranged for display, than we began to have misgiving as to our enterprise. As we traversed the suspended gallery, and passed into the suite of spacious halls over Quincy Market, and saw the musical instruments, the articles of jewelry, of glass and all sorts of ware, the steam engines and spinning jennies, the cabinet work and upholstery, the agricultural implements, the clocks, the artificial legs, the beds and bedsteads, the daguerreotypes, the patent shower baths, the silver pitchers, the shell combs, and we know not what–our misgiving increased to downright despair.”…( Author then develops the figurative fantasy that he is showing the long-dead Governor Hancock around the exhibition.) ”The Governor pressed our arm…We led him up to the man who was exhibiting the operation of the magnetic telegraph… ‘Are there not statutes still against witchcraft?’ We then led him to the display of Daguerreotypes by Whipple, Southworth & Hawes, Plumbe and others. ‘That is a very curious style of drawing,’ said he; ‘who are the artists?’ ‘They are all work for one great artist,’ said we. ‘And what is his name? “The Sun!” The governor sank into a chair….”]

“Daguerreotypes.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Monday, November 8, 1847, p. 2, col. 3. [“We would refer the reader to the advertisement of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, in another column. … Some of the finest specimens ever taken in the world may be seen at their rooms.”]

“Two Silver Medals as First Premiums, Awarded to Southworth & Hawes …” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Monday, November 8, 1847, p. 3, col. 2. [“Two Premiums for the Best work are awarded us. … The public, with unanimous voice, pronounced our pictures the best they ever saw. Professor B. Stilliman, Jr. complimented us on the perfection and size of our Portraits and Copies …” This ad was also placed, on the same day, in the Daily Chronotype (Boston) (p. 3) and The National Whig and Star (Boston) (p. 3).]

“The Curious in Portraiture …” THE NATIONAL WHIG AND STAR (Boston), Wednesday, November 10, 1847, p. 2. [“… are advised to step in to the rooms of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … where they will be gratified with the sight of a splendid collection of daguerreotype likenesses.”]

“First and Highest Premium Daguerreotypes” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, November 24, 1847, p. 3, col. 2.]

1848

“First and Highest Premium Daguerreotypes, 5½ Tremont Row” [advertisement]. In The Boston Almanac for the Year 1848. Boston: Coolidge & Wiley, 1847, p. 188. [“Their Groups, Views, Copies &c, were universally pronounced, not only the best, but absolutely perfect; also their Miniatures of Infants and Children, and the Deceased, unequalled.”]

“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, the only premium Daguerreotype Rooms …” [advertisement]. In The Boston Directory: Containing the City Record, a General Directory of the Citizens, and a Special Directory of Trades, Professions, &ct. 1848–9. Boston: James French, 1848, p. 11.]

“Daguerreotypes.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Saturday, January 29, 1848, p. 2, col. 3. [“… have taken a daguerreotype of Signora Biscaccianti, which is one of the best specimens of the art and most faithful likenesses we remember to have seen…”]

“Daguerreotypes.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, February 8, 1848, p. 2, col. 2. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes have just received from New Orleans a Daguerreian portrait of Gen Taylor, taken since his return from Mexico. … These portraits can be seen at the rooms, and copies taken.” (The original daguerreotype was by Maguire of New Orleans.)]

“Daguerreotypes.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, February 15, 1848, p. 2, col. 2. [“Notwithstanding the progress that has been made in the art of daguerreotyping, good specimens are still rare. … [Portraits] … of Seguin and Biscaccianti have been transferred to stone … The engravings are published by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, and may be had at the music stores …” (Engraved or lithographed portraits from a daguerreotype were most often produced for a journal or as a frontispiece to a book; however, in some instances, these prints were also published separately, sometimes by the photographic gallery. Bibliographic records for this type of publication are extraordinarily fugitive; nevertheless, Southworth & Hawes published several of these prints, for example, the “Portrait of Rufus Choate,” engraved by Hezekiah Wright Smith, Boston, n. d. (11.8 x 10.1 cm), may be a detached frontispiece from the book by Choate published in 1862. However, there is also another “Portrait of Rufus Choate” engraved by Henry Bryan Hall, n. p., n. d. (25.5 x 17.5 cm), which seems to have been issued as a separate print. The “Portrait of Levi Woodbury,” lithographed by Samuel Rowse, printed by J. H. Bufford, Boston, 1848 (45 x 35 cm), although from the same daguerreotype source, is different from the portrait printed by B. W. Thayer that was published in the book Writings of Levi Woodbury in 1852. Other known engraved or lithographed portraits from Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes include the “Portrait of Bennet Tyler,” engraved by Hezekiah Wright Smith, Boston, n.d. The “Portrait of Edward Seguin” on the cover of the sheet music score Seguin’s Collection of Bass Songs. No. 1. Primo basso Yes Am I. Song From the Postillion, J. Blaker, engraver, is “from a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes,” printed by J. H. Bufford (Boston: Geo. P. Reed, 1848). A similar portrait of Elisa Biscaccianti, Boston-born coloratura soprano, lithographed by Samuel W. Rowse (23.8 x 14.5 cm), was also published by Southworth & Hawes in 1848. A lithograph portrait of President Franklin Pierce was made by Abram J. Hoffman ca. 1852; and another portrait of President Franklin Pierce, lithographed by Leopold Grozelier and printed by B. W. Thayer & Co., is known. Grozelier also lithographed a portrait of the Reverend Daniel Sharp, pastor of the Charles Street Baptist Church, Boston (55.5 x 48.5 cm), that was printed by B. W. Thayer & Co. in 1853. A portrait of the shipbuilder Donald McKay (49 x 39 cm), lithographed by Grozelier, was printed by S. W. Chandler & Bro., ca. 1854. Grozelier also created two lithographs of Charles Sumner. One, signed L. Grozelier (with a printed area of 29.1 x 18.6 cm), was printed by J. H. Bufford in the 1850s. The second, signed “L. G. 1856” (with a printed area measuring 39.6 x 30 cm), was printed by C. H. Brainard in 1856. Other portraits, of the piano maker Jonas Chickering and the author Ralph Waldo Emerson, were also lithographed by Grozelier. And an engraved print of the singer Jenny Lind may have been made from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype. There is also known to be a portrait of Benjamin F. Butler, major general of the U.S. Army (43 x 26 cm), lithographed by Joseph E. Baker and published by J. H. Bufford, Boston, in 1861, which is credited “Taken from a Photograph by Southworth.” (I am assuming this was a photographic copy of an earlier Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.) A lithograph portrait of Daniel Webster (24 x 15 cm), from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype, was printed by A. W. Elson & Co., Boston. To complicate matters, there also seems to have been a flurry of portraits taken from the 1840s–50s daguerreotypes but engraved in the 1880s or even later to illustrate historical biographies or articles in magazines. Occasionally, references to these prints, separated from their original context, surface in bibliographic citations. WSJ)]

“Biscaccianti.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thur., Feb. 17, 1848): 2. [“Proof copies of the admirable portrait of this popular cantatrice, lithographed by Rowse, from Messrs. Southworth & Hawes’s recent daguerreotype, are for sale by Messrs. S & H. and at the print and music stores.”]

1 b & w (“Robert C. Winthrop”) as frontispiece in: “Life and Public Services of the Hon. Robert Charles Winthrop, Speaker of the House of Representatives.” THE AMERICAN REVIEW: A WHIG JOURNAL DEVOTED TO POLITICS AND LITERATURE 7:3 (Mar. 1848): 275–79. [Engraving from a daguerreotype source, possibly by Southworth & Hawes.]

“Two Silver Medals for the Best Pictures and Plates.” [advertisement.] BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Sat., Apr. 22, 1848): 2. [“The only First Premium. DAGURREOTYPE ROOMS are at 5½ Tremont Row, Boston. MESSRS. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, assisted by Mrs. and Miss Southworth, will answer their well-earned reputation. No cheap work done. Plates perfectly polished. They neither use steam, humbug by false pretenses, nor wear laurels won by competitors.”]

“The Greek Slave—Daguerreotype Views.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Friday, July 21, 1848, p. 2, cols. 1–2. [“A beautiful artistic achievement in connection with the statue was shown to us yesterday in an admirable daguerreotype of the ‘Greek Slave’ [by American sculptor Hiram Powers] taken by those very successful copyists, Southworth & Hawes. … we have three separate representations of the statue on one plate—the back, front and side view—each conveying a perfect idea of the original.”]

1849

“The Only First Premium. Southworth & Hawes, Artists Daguerreotype Rooms” [advertisement] and “Daguerreotypes! Premium Daguerreotypes, 5½ Tremont Row” [advertisement]. In Boston City Directory 1849–50. Boston: George Adams, 1849, pp. 35, 208.]

1 b & w (“Francis Jackson.”) as frontispiece in: Garrison, Wm Lloyd. “A True Hero.” LIBERTY BELL. BY FRIENDS OF FREEDOM (Jan 1, 1849): 165. [“See portrait accompanying the present volume.” Not credited, but probably from a daguerreotype by Southworth.”]

“Mr. Southworth.” THE DAILY CHRONOTYPE (Boston), Monday, January 29, 1849, p. 2. [“Mr. Southworth, the Daguerreotypist, is also bound for the gold regions. He is Director in the Bunker Hill Mining and Trading Company.”]

1 b & w (“George Nixon Briggs”) as frontispiece in: PICTORIAL NATIONAL LIBRARY: A MONTHLY MISCELLANY OF THE USEFUL AND ENTERTAINING IN SCIENCE, ART, AND LITERATURE 2:2 (Feb. 1849). [This journal, published in Boston, printed a series of three or four-page-long biographies, titled “Pen and Pencil Portraits,” in almost every issue during 1848–49. Each was accompanied by a crudely executed full-page engraved portrait as frontispiece. The February 1849 portrait is credited “From a Daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes” and the December 1848 portrait is credited “From a daguerreotype by Chilton & Co.” The others are not credited, but certainly one of these portraits, Levi Woodbury (Pictorial National Library 3:3 [September 1849]), and possibly others were taken from Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype sources.]

1850

Adams, George. The Brighton and Brookline Business Directory: Containing Town Officers, Schools, Churches, Societies, Etc.: with an Almanac for 1850: Besides Other Interesting Matter.
Boston: Printed by David Clapp, 1850. 55, [32] p. ill.
[“FIRST AND HIGHEST
Premium Daguerreotypes
SOUTHWORTH & HAWES
Were awarded the only first and Highest Premiums at the late Fair, (being two silver Medals,) for the BEST DAGUERREOTYPES and the BEST PLATES.
Rooms, 5½ Tremont Row.” (“Boston Advertisements” section p. 69.)
(Lovering’s Daguerreotype Rooms, John A. Whipple, Plumbe’s National daguerreian Gallery, L. H. Hale & Co., Chase’s daguerreian Rooms, White’s Daguerreotype Rooms, A. Winslow’s Daguerreotype Rooms also advertised in this Directory. WSJ)]

Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. The Sixth Exhibition of Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. at Faneuil and Quincy Halls, in the City of Boston, September, 1850. Boston: Eastburn’s Press, 1850.
[This exhibition, which began in 1837, was held every three years.]
—————————————
Reports of the Judges.
Fine Arts.
“…The Committee’s estimate of the Daguerreotypes exhibited is sufficiently signified in the awards they have made, and the remarks, with which they have accompanied them. It would be invidious to express a preference where each seems to excel in different particulars. They deem it incumbent to remark however, that an improvement in Photography, by which glass is used for receiving the first picture instead of paper, as formerly, invented by Messrs. Whipple & Jones, seems to promise improvement in clearness and tone, which has hitherto been almost entirely wanting in this art. Much however remains to be done before it can at all equal the Daguerreotype….” (p. 140)
“The Committee were gratified to discover a continued advance in the art of Daguereotyping. (Daguerreotype is misspelled throughout the volume. WSJ) Specimens considered good a few years since would now scarcely be considered tolerable. And from what has been done, they cannot but hope that the great desideratum of color, will finally be attained.

30. L. G. CHASE, Boston. Specimen of Daguereotypes. Very well, — many of the attitudes particularly well chosen, and natural. Silver Medal.
31. L. G. CATHAN, Boston. Specimen of Daguereotypes. Very pretty specimens; mostly small.
32. L. H. HALE, Boston. Frame of Daguereotypes. The expression of the single heads and groups, more than usually pleasing. Diploma.
33. JOHN A. WHIPPLE, Boston. Specimen of Daguereotypes. Groups decidedly best; single figures, very good. Silver Medal.
34. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Specimen of Daguereotypes. Portraits generally good; many as good as any exhibited.
35. B. F. UPTON, Bath, Me. Eight specimens of Daguereotypes….” (p. 147)
36. C. THAYER, Charlestown, Mass. Daguereotypes.
37. P. G. CLARK, Boston. Eight cases of Daguereotypes.
38. J. STARKWEATHER, Roxbury, Mass. Specimens of Daguereotypes in cases. Very pretty specimens.
39. LANCEY & CO., Roxbury, Mass. Daguereotypes. Some of the pieces are very pretty.
40. L. M. IVES, Boston. Daguereotypes. The architectural views, particularly of the Custom House, and the City Hall, very superior. The Committee, consider the first, the best of the kind they have ever seen. Some single heads equal to any others exhibited; attitudes generally well chosen. Silver Medal.
41. WHIPPLE & JONES, Boston. Improvements in Photography. These specimens are decidedly superior to any of the English specimens shewn to the Committee, and almost entitle these improvements to be called a new art.
42. W. A. PERRY, Lowell, Mass. One dozen specimens of Daguereotypes. Many of these specimens were very good….” (p. 148)]

“Daguerreotype Miniatures” [advertisement] and “Daguerreotypes! Premium Daguerreotypes …” [advertisement]. In The Boston Almanac for the Year 1850. Boston: Coolidge & Wiley, 1849, pp. 79–80, 208. [Southworth & Hawes are among the thirty-one firms listed. The advertisement states that “Southworth & Hawes were awarded, at the late Fair, the only First and Highest Premiums, being two Silver Medals for the Best Daguerreotypes and Best Plate.”]

“The Only First Premiums” [advertisement]. In The Boston Directory: Embracing the City Record, a General Directory of the Citizens, and a Special Directory of Trades, Professions, &ct. 1850–1. Boston: George Adams, 1850, p. 43.]

1 b & w (“Zachary Taylor”) as frontispiece in: Montgomery, Henry. The Life of Major General Zachary Taylor, Twelfth President of the United States. 20th ed., rev. and enl. Auburn: Derby, Miller & Company, 1850.]

“Daguerrean Artists.” In The Massachusetts State Directory: Containing the Names, Residence, and Business of Every Individual Firm … Together with a Short Advertising Register, Carefully Arranged for the Year 1850–51. Boston: S. B. Brooks & Geo. B. Haskell, 1850, p. 119. [Southworth & Hawes are listed with twenty-three other daguerreotype firms for Boston.]

“The Only First Premium, Two Medals, for the Best Miniatures and Plates were awarded to Southworth & Hawes, Daguerreotype Rooms, 5½ Tremont Row, Boston” [advertisement]. In Programme of Jenny Lind’s Concert, for this Evening. Tremont Temple, Boston. Boston: White & Potter, 1850. [Jenny Lind, the celebrated singer, toured the United States in the early 1850s. A program guide for each performance was usually published locally in each city where she performed, and each program would contain local advertising which varied from city to city. Lind gave at least two performances in Boston in the autumn of 1850 at the Tremont Temple theater; the second, “on the 10th Instant … for Charitable Purposes” (as was often her practice). Southworth & Hawes published the same advertisement in both of these programs.]

“Editorial Correspondence.” BOSTON MEDICAL AND SURGICAL JOURNAL 42:18 (June 5, 1850): 374-378. [“Glasgow, Scotland.–By leaving Belfast in a steamboat at half past 1, P. M., passengers are landed at Androssin, a place of coal-pits and iron forges 34 miles from Glasgow, at half past 9–as it was called–the same evening, but in reality nearer 11 o’clock. From thence, railroad cars convey them to Glasgow, the New York of Scotland. The river Clyde, from Androssin to that city, has been made navigable for large vessels, where shallow water, a few years since, presented a complete hindrance to navigation…. (Author describes Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the medical institutions and universities there, then concludes as follows.) “Thus far the best specimens of mechanical dentistry have been met with in Edinburgh; but the artists here are thirty years behind their bretheren in New England and New York. The same holds true of photographic miniatures. If show cases are any indication of skill, those accustomed to the beautiful, accurately defined pictures taken by Whipple or Southworth, in Boston, might conjecture they were taken by moonlight here. The photographers and dentists of the United States should be well represented in the great exhibition in London, in 1851.”]

“New Daguerreotype Discovery.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Friday, August 23, 1850, p. 2, col. 3. [“The ingenius [sic] daguerreotype artist, Mr. Hawes, Tremont Row, has discovered a process by which an ordinary sized miniature can be magnified to life size, or larger, if necessary, and thrown upon a canvas or any flat surface …”]

“General News. New Daguerreotype Discovery.” SATURDAY EVENING POST 30:1519 (Sept. 7, 1850): 2. [The Boston Transcript announces that Mr. Howes [sic Hawes], a daguerreotypist of that city, has discovered a process by which an ordinary sized daguerreotype miniature can be magnified to life size, or larger, if necessary, and thrown upon a canvass or any flat surface, retaining at the same time all the clearness and detail of the daguerreotype, and that an artist may seat himself before this magnified reflection, and render it a perfect copy, in light and shade, as well as in outline, of the original.”]

“Mechanics Exhibition. Section No. 4. The Rotunda.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, September 19, 1850, pp. 1–2, cols. 5, 1. [Exhibition review. “The specimens of Southworth & Hawes, Boston, are greatly admired for their peculiar delicacy of finish.”]

“Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics Association.” THE DAILY CHRONOTYPE (Boston), Sunday, October 27, 1850, p. 1. [Exhibition report. “The committee of judges having all completed their reports, the Executive Committee are now enabled to publish the additional awards … Silver Medals—Southworth & Hawes, daguerreotypes …”]

1851

“Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5½ Tremont Row, Boston. Southworth & Hawes” [advertisement]. In The Boston Directory: Embracing the City Record, a General Directory of the Citizens, and a Special Directory of Trades, Professions, &ct. 1851–2. Boston: George Adams, 1851, pp. 32–33. [Detailed two-page advertisement describing desirable attributes for good portraits and containing a listing of services and products, from copying to landscapes, available from the gallery. “This establishment offers to the admirers of perfect daguerreotypes the highest inducements for patronage. … Particulars Interesting To Those Wanting Daguerreotypes. … Likenesses From Life. … As no cheap work is done, we shall spend no time in bantering about prices; and wish to have all understand that ours is a one price concern.”]

Greenwood, Grace. Greenwood Leaves: A Collection of Sketches and Letters. “3rd edition.” Boston: Ticknor, Reed, and Fields, 1851. viii, 406 p. 21 cm.
[“Selections from Letters.
“Letter XIV.”
“Brooklyn, Conn., July 28, 1848.”
“We reached this beautiful village on the afternoon of the 26th, after a somewhat wearying journey from Lynn. We did not leave the seashore on Monday, as we expected to do. The temptation of a few more rides and rambles was too much for our resolution, and we gave in with exemplary resignation to the urgent solicitation of our friends. On Monday we rode up to Boston, where we spent the greater part of the day. We again visited the daguerreotype rooms of Southworth & Hawes, when we had a general exchange of miniatures, and very fine ones they were too. I would cordially recommend to all such as have a desire to see themselves on plate, this admirable establishment. Messrs. Southworth & Hawes are gentlemanly persons, as well as experienced and conscientious artists; and their enthusiasm, fine taste, and unwearying politeness, agreeably impress their sitters, and convert into a pleasure what is (p. 353) usually an intolerable bore. I have seen nothing in this department of art to equal their pictures for truthfulness and elegant finish; they are, to my eye at least, perfect. After a last look at Faneuil Hall, Old South, the Hancock House, and the Common, we rode out to Mount Auburn, and spent some hours in that hallowed spot. Oh, how sweet, how peaceful, how almost enviable, seemed the grave-rest there!…(Etc., etc.) (p. 354)]

1 b & w (“Charles Sprague”) as frontispiece in: Sprague, Charles. The Poetical and Prose Writings of Charles Sprague. New and rev. ed. Boston: Ticknor, Reed, and Fields, 1851. [Probably by Southworth & Hawes.]

1 b & w (“Laura Bridgman.”) on p. 285 in: “Laura Bridgman.” REYNOLD’S MISCELLANY OF ROMANCE, GENERAL LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART 6:150 (May 24, 1851): 253. [(The illustration depicts the blind girl guiding a companion in reading a book in Braille. This image is engraved from a drawing, but the portrait of Bridgman bears a strong resemblance to the Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype of Miss Bridgeman, possibly, in this case re-drawn from a woodcut illustration in an American magazine, itself taken from the S & H daguerreotype.)]

1 b & w (“John L. Tucker, Esq.”) GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 1:5 (May 31, 1851): 72. [“The likeness herewith presented is from a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes, Tremont Row, and is a very excellent one of Mr. John L. Tucker, the well known and popular host of the Tremont House, a gentleman whose liberal and generous spirit particularly fitted him for the filling of so important a post as landlord of the first hotel in New England, and one of the best in the world….”]

“The Boston Light Guard.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, June 4, 1851, p. 2, col. 5. [“Afterwards the company proceeded to the Common, where a daguerreotype view of them was taken by Mr. Southworth.”]

1 b & w (“Gov. George S. Boutwell.”) GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 1:7 (June 14, 1851): 100. [Note on p. 125 credits Southworth & Hawes.]

“Daguerreotype Artists.” GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 1:8 (June 21, 1851): 125. [“We unintentionally omitted to acknowledge our indebtedness to Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, 5 ½ Tremont Row, for the daguerreotype likeness from which our artist transferred the head we gave in our last week’s number of Governor Boutwell. If our readers would enjoy a rich treat, let them step into the exhibition room of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, and examine their specimens of the art.”]

“Fine Arts.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, June 26, 1851, p. 2, col. 4. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, the daguerreotypists, presented Miss Lind today a very neat and appropriate gift, being miniature daguerreotypes of George Washington and Daniel Webster, set in a double faced locket of an elegant pattern. The Washington is from Stuart’s celebrated head and the Webster from an original daguerreotype taken a few weeks since. We are glad to see, by the way, that Mr. Southworth has returned in good health from his California trip.”]

1 b & w (“Major General John E. Wool.”) GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 1:9 (June 28, 1851): 137. [“We must not fail to acknowledge our indebtedness to Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, Daguerrean artists.”]

[Humphrey, S. D.] “Boston Daguerreotypists.” DAGUERREIAN JOURNAL 2:4 (July 1, 1851): 114-115. [(Mentions French, Sawyer, Hale, Whipple, Ives, Chase, Ormsbee & Silsbee, Southworth & Hawes.) [“During a recent though short visit to this city, we called on a few of our fraternity, and spent the single day allowed us among the friends of our art, very pleasantly. We found a good mutual feeling existing there, which may be looked upon, by almost every other city, as worthy of imitation. We find our art fairly and well represented, and in the hands of those whose exertions have been crowned with the most eminent success. We can point out no one in particular, but rejoice to find so many peculiarly worthy the name of Artists. We found friend French busily engaged in furnishing materials from his extensive assortment. Mr. Sawyer also contributing his share in the furnishing line; while Mr. Hale had just completed a fine specimen Daguerreotype of the “Belle of Cambridge,” and produced many gems of the art. One particularly arrested our attention—the likeness of a little child; these together with his suit of beautifully furnished Rooms, attract many to his establishment. Friend Whipple we found going it by steam, in some respects, however, reversing the general application by making it to cool rather than heat his room. He has a large fan so arranged and worked by steam, that it keeps a cool and rather inviting breeze, and prepares the complexion of the subject for one of his best, even in the warmest weather; by steam he cleans his plates; by steam he polishes his plates, heats his mercury, distils water and steam like sits his picture—hence we conclude that Mr. W. lives by steam. Mr. Ives we found very busy with his customers, and after taking a hurried look through his collection of specimens, we were not in the least surprised to find so many waiting their turn. We took a peep into Mr. Chase’s world-wide known establishment, and were convinced that our former high opinion of his skill as an artist was not in the least exaggerated. Ormsbee & Silsbee had not opened their new, elegant and unique rooms, yet we were kindly invited through their establishment, which is well arranged and is a proud feature of the Daguerreian art in the city of Boston; we shall speak of this, as well as others, more at length in a future number. We exceedingly regretted that our time was so limited while we were at the old establishment of Southworth & Hawes. To these gentlemen our art owes much. Their exertions have been, though somewhat extensively, we fear but faintly appreciated. We find here many an experiment has been performed, these too with results which have proved most flattering to the experimenters, and yet they have rested for want of encouragement from the public. These gentlemen were, we believe, the first, in this country, to present the very large Daguerreotypes. We saw plates with impressions, 13 ½ by 16 ½ inches, this is a much larger size than our double wholes. We intend to speak more of this establishment anon. Our limited time forbade our enjoying many more calls, which would have afforded much pleasure; we, however, shall embrace an early opportunity to renew our visit. We must say that the warm feeling there expressed among members of the fraternity, is certainly one of the most prominent marks of noble and generous minds. With such minds to prompt, we may look for advancement and improvement. Would that the spirit of the Boston Daguerreotypists was more generally adopted and experienced.”]

“Daguerreotype of Jenny Lind.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, July 1, 1851, p. 2, col. 3. [“… have just taken several daguerreotype likenesses of Md’lle Lind, which are said, by her intimate friends, to be better renderings of her pleasant features and benevolent expression than anything that has hitherto been obtained at home or abroad.”]

“A Likeness of Jenny.” GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 1:12 (July 19, 1851): 191. [Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, 5 ½ Tremont Row, were favored by Jenny Lind, during her late visit to Boston, with sittings, and they have now in their rooms some five or six very fine originals of the Nightingale. Drop in and see to what a state of perfection these daguerreotypists have brought the art.”]

“Portrait of Jenny Lind.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Friday, July 25, 1851, p. 2, col. 4. [“The friends of this sweet songstress may see at 5½ Tremont Row, a Crayon drawn by Kimberly from a daguerreotype from life by Southworth & Hawes.”]

“Daguerreotypes of the Eclipse.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, July 29, 1851, p. 2, col. 6. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes we learn daguerreotyped the eclipse in its different stages, yesterday …”]

“First Exhibition of the M. M. Association, September 1851” [Lowell, MA]. [This is a printed exhibitor’s pass; handwritten on the reverse is the information “Received from Southworth & Hawes. 32 Specimens of Daguerreotypes.” Southworth & Hawes Archive:17–123, George Eastman House, Rochester, NY.]

1 b & w (“Chief Justice Shaw.”) GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 1:20 (Sept. 13, 1851): 320. [“…from a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.” “Our artist has given us a very perfect likeness of the original, for which we are indebted to Southworth & Hawes… an establishment, by the by, that we most cordially recommend to our readers.”]

“Daguerreotypes” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, September 17, 1851, p. 3, col. 2. [“The finest, largest and by far the best and interesting specimens … are in the Exhibition Room of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes …”]

“American Daguerre Association.” PHOTOGRAPHIC ART JOURNAL 2:4 (Oct. 1851): 245-249. [Report of meeting to found the organization and write its constitution. M. M. Lawrence elected President. Vice Presidents were Gurney, Southworth, Fitzgibbon, Van Lorn, Nobyns, Faras… The Constitution and By-Laws are published here.]

“American Daguerre Association.” DAGUERREIAN JOURNAL 2:11 (Oct. 15, 1851): 342-346. [(Includes Constitution and By-laws.) “At a meeting of a number of Daguerreotypists held in the City of New York, the 15th of July, 1851, J. Gurney was called to the Chair, and S. D. Humphery appointed Secretary. At this meeting it was resolved to form an association for the promotion of the Heliographic science, and Messrs. S. D. Humphrey, H. E. Insley, A. Litch, and J. Gurney, were appointed a committee to in a Preamble and Constitution, and report next meeting. At a meeting on the 17 July, J. M. Clarke was called to the Chair and S. D. Humphery appointed Secretary. The Committee on Preamble and Constitution reported, which report was accepted, the Constitution taken up and adopted in sections. At a subsequent meeting the following named gentlemen were appointed and served to draft Bye-Laws. Messrs. A. Morand, A. Beckers, R. Weston, J. F. Prud’homme, and M. M. Lawrence. The committee reported at next meeting which was accepted and committee discharged. These Bye-laws embodying much of the former Constitution was taken up and a few amendments was adopted as here after annexed. The following are the officers for the American Daguerre Association: M. M. Lawrence, President.
J. Gurney, New York, J. H. Fitzgibbon, St. Louis, A. Southworth, Boston, S. Van Loan, Philadelphia, T. J. Dobyns, New Orleans, T. Faris, Cincinnati, Vice-Presidents.
S. D. Humphrey, Recording Secretary…”]

1852

“Daguerreotype Miniatures: Southworth & Hawes” [listing] and “Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5½ Tremont Row, Boston. Southworth & Hawes” [advertisement]. In The Boston Directory: Embracing the City Record, a General Directory of the Citizens, and a Special Directory of Trades, Professions, &ct. 1852–3. Boston: George Adams, 1852, p. 222. [Southworth & Hawes listed with twenty-six other firms (p. 291). Extensive advertisement of products and activities, featuring a section on the Stereoscope.]

“Daguerreotypes” [advertisement] and “Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5½ Tremont Row, Boston. Southworth & Hawes” [advertisement]. In The Massachusetts Register: A State Record, for the Year 1852, Containing a Business Directory of the State, with a Variety of Useful Information. Boston: George Adams, 1852, pp. 327–28.]

1 b & w (“Oliver Wendell Holmes”) as frontispiece in: Holmes, Oliver Wendell. Poems. New and enl. ed. Boston: Ticknor, Reed, and Fields, 1852.]

Hunt, Robert. Photography; A Treatise on the Chemical Changes Produced by Solar Radiation, and the Production of Pictures from Nature, by the Daguerreotype, Calotype, and Other Photographic Processes. By Robert Hunt … With additions by the American editor. New York, S. D. Humphrey, 1852.
[ “Chapter XXI.”
“Views by the Daguerreotype Process.”
“Daguerreotype views are at present commanding much attention in this country. Their interest is not confined to the operator alone, but the public appreciate the unequalled pencillings of nature. This department of the Daguerreotype art owes much to the well-known Artists, Southworth & Hawes, of Boston. These gentlemen have carried on their experiments with a very marked and important success. H. Whittemore, a gentleman who has travelled. over most of South as well as North America, has probably made the most valuable collection of views ever produced in this country. His collection presents a map of paramount interest. I saw a single view of the Falls of Niagara, which surpassed anything of the kind that has ever been presented before me; the harmony of tone, the exquisite mellowness and faithful delineations, were unsurpassed, while the whole effect presented a charm rarely attending a Daguerreotype view. Mr. W. produced his views with a common mirror for a reflector….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 257)]

1 b & w (“Levi Woodbury” “From a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.”) as frontispiece in: Woodbury, Levi. Writings of Levi Woodbury, LL.D.: Political, Judicial and Literary. Now First Selected and Arranged in Three Volumes. Vol. I – Political. Boston: Little, Brown, 1852.]

1 b & w (“Hon. Benjamin Seaver, Mayor of Boston.”) GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 2:5 (Jan. 31, 1852): 72. [“…we solicited the favor of a sitting, which he kindly granted us, and thus from a most perfect daguerreotype, by Southworth & Hawes, Tremont Row, our artist has been enabled to produce an excellent likeness….”]

“‘Where Were You Last Night at Twelve?’ A Judicial Sketch.” DAILY REPUBLICAN (Springfield, Mass.), Saturday, January 24, 1852, n. p. [A story, apparently fictional, describing a comical exchange between an unsophisticated sitter and a Daguerreian operator. The operator in the story is named, perhaps fortuitously, “Southworth.”]

1 b & w (“Col. N. A. Thompson.”) GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 2:6 (Feb. 7, 1852): 88. [“From a Daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.”]

“Jenny Lind.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, February 10, 1852, p. 2, col. 2. [“All interested in having engraved in rich style the best likeness, and finest picture of the Queen of Song, are invited to subscribe for copies at Southworth & Hawes’ Daguerreotype Rooms, 5½ Tremont Row. The list is now open, and the copy to be engraved may be seen together with several others, the last of which was taken the week of her marriage. Miss Lind has pronounced on them the best likeness of herself ever made. The size of the plate will be 12 by 16 inches.”]

“Funny.” GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 2:8 (Feb. 21, 1852): 127. [“Southworth & Hawes, Tremont Row, Boston, lately took a portrait of a lady so admirably that her husband preferred it to the original!”]

“‘Where Were You Last Night at Twelve?’ A Judicial Sketch.” WESTERN LITERARY MESSENGER. A FAMILY MAGAZINE OF LITERATURE, SCIENCE, ART, MORALITY, AND GENERAL INTELLIGENCE 18:1 (Mar. 1852): 32. [“There was a judicial functionary residing in Boston some years since, whose legal acumen and profundity only equalled his general character otherwise, and who was a man “not to be sneezed at”—at least when he was seated upon the bench of the Police Court, where he presided two or three days in each week. When seen in the act of delivering an opinion, the learned Judge was a “picture to behold;” and when he finally got it off, his was an opinion that was an opinion, and nothing else. But the Judge was very like other people in one respect—he would eat! And as he wended his way slowly across Tremont Row, to dinner, one day, his situation was arrested by the display of sundry “heads of people” in Southworth’s daguerreotype showcase. The idea suddenly struck him that his own countenance wasn’t a bad un for a picture—so he found his way up stairs, at once, into the reception room.
“What’s the price of that size!” he asked of the polite attendant.
“Five dollars, sir.”
“And this?”
“Three dollars.”
“Couldn’t you put me on that for three!” pointing to the largest plate.
“We have but the regular prices, sir.”
“Yes, I know. But you see I’m one of the Judges at the court—p’lece court—and these dog’ratype places are getting to be so very numerous in this community.”
”Yes sir, but a good picture”—
“Ah, I und’stand. But you can take a copy, put it in the case below—and everybody knows the judges of the p’lece court.”
“Well, sir, as you are a public man, I shall take your picture.”
“Thank’ee— thank’ee,” said his honor. When shall I come in?”
“Tomorrow, at eleven if you please, sir,” responded the attendant, civilly—and the Judge departed. Next day, at half past ten o’clock, a hand cart man arrived before the door. He looked up, satisfied himself that all was right, and then shouldered a portion of his load, quickly found his way into the reception room of the artist, where he dumped his goods upon the floor, without ceremony, and turned to bring up the balance.
“Hollo, friend,” said the attendant, “what’s all this about?”
“This is Soth’orth’s, aint it!”
“Southworth’s—yes.”
“It’s all right then. Boss’ll be here in a few minits. He’s a comin’ to have his pictur taken.”
“0, the judge!” asked the attendant.
“Yes,” replied the carman, and five minutes afterwards the latter decamped, leaving sundry papers, books, inkstands, etc., which he had brought up agreeably to order. At eleven o’clock, according to appointment, the learned functionary made his appearance, with the luxury of a clean dickey on, and looking as wise as an owl,
“All ready?” inquired his honor, good-naturedly.
“Yes, sir; be seated,” said the operator, who now made his appearance,
“One moment, Mr. Dogratype,” remarked the Judge, and an expression altogether indescribable, (with pen and ink) pervaded the learned gentleman’s phiz. “One moment, sir, if you please. There is much in the character of a picture; and much depends on what persition the setter takes, in dog’ratypes as well as any other portraits.”
The artist was convinced instanter; and if he had entertained the slightest doubt before, all anxiety vanished at once, as the learned judge concluded the sentence. But he was not ready yet
“Therefore,” continued his honor, ” in would’nt do to take me in the ordinary way. Persition, Mr. Artist, persition is everything in these matters.”
“You are right, sir.”
“To be sure I am; and I want to be taken, you see, with my law-books and things here, in my official persition.”
“Exactly,” said the enthusiastic artist, entering into the spirit of the thing.
“Yes there—that’s it,” continued his honor, raising himself up, and assuming a show of ferocity. “Now, do you see, I’ll fix myself; and when I say ‘ take me,’ it’ll be the time. You must imagine a witness standing there, and me addressing him, Mr. Artist. Mind now; and when I put the question to him, look out for the expression—Eh!”
“I understand, air.”
The Judge put on an unearthly scowl; his broad bald forehead was filled with a dozen wrinkles; his round face was gathered up from its extremities, until it resembled a huge, well baked apple; and then it was that the fearful interrogatory burst from his lips, ” Where were you last night at twelve.”
“Take me now! take me now!” shrieked the judge, as the perspiration rolled down the sides of his face; and Southworth did his best. The cap was placed upon the cylinder, and the deed was accomplished. The judge had been taken in his “official position.” A few minutes after, the operator produced his work. Such a twisted, contorted, bald pated, inexpressible countenance had never been conceived before, in all time!
“What’s this, Mister!” exclaimed the judge, confounded.
“It’s your picture, sir.”
“Completed?”
” Complete, sir,”
“I know it, sir, and beg your pardon; but it is a most striking likeness of your official position? added the artist quietly.
“It looks like a ghost of a dead nigger,” continued his honor, half facetiously and half in a chagrin.
“How much is it?”
“Three dollars, sir.”
“How much to rub it out?”
“Two dollars.”
“Rub it out, sir—rub it out!’ exclaimed his honor, indignantly; “here’s the money.”
“The judge paid the V, the picture was destroyed, one to be taken in the natural way; and ever after that daguerreotype was finished, his countenance wore a pleasant expression, even when he was most deeply engaged in the perplexing duties of his “official position.”]

“The Stereoscope.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, March 3, 1852, p. 2, col. 3. [“At the artist daguerreotype rooms, 5½ Tremont Row, Professor Wheatstone’s new optical instrument, the stereoscope, is on exhibition, for the purpose of representing daguerreotypes as solid bodies or statues.”]

S. [Southworth, Albert Sands.] “Daguerreotype Likenesses.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, March 2, 1852, p. 4, cols. 1–2. [Extensive discussion on ways of judging quality in portraiture, and the relationship between sitter and photographer. Signed “S., Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms, 5½ Tremont Row, Boston.”]

S. [Southworth, Albert Sands.] “Daguerreotype Likenesses No. II.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, March 24, 1852, p. 1, cols. 3–4. [Extensive discussion on the means of judging quality in portraiture, and the relationship between sitter and photographer. In effect, a credo of aesthetics by the artist.]

“The Stereoscope.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, March 25, 1852, p. 1, col. 5. [“The phenomena of vision have engaged the attention of some of the most distinguished philosophers … Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … have constructed a perfect Stereoscope, on the above principle, and the effects are truly wonderful.”]

1 b & w (“F. Gleason, Publisher.”) on p. GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 2:14 (Apr. 3, 1852): 216. [Credited on p. 223.]

“Likeness of the Publisher.” GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 2:14 (Apr. 3, 1852): 223. [“On page 216 we give a likeness of F. Gleason, publisher and proprietor of the Pictorial, by the earnest solicitation of numerous friends. It is from a likeness by Southworth & Hawes, Tremont Row, and is surrounded by an appropriate scroll.”]

“The Stereoscope.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Monday, April 12, 1852, p. 2, col. 2. [“We find in the British Museum the following account of a most ingenious contrivance, a specimen of which may be seen at the Daguerreotype establishment of Messrs. Southworth and Hawes in this city … A full length portrait of Lola Montez, which we saw stereoscoped at the room of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, the other day, was very life-like.”]

S. [Southworth, Albert Sands.] “Daguerreotype Likenesses No. III.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, April 15, 1852, p. 1, cols. 1–2. [“That the art of the daguerreotype is one of the most interesting and wonderful discoveries of the modern times will be readily conceded, and its results beautiful beyond comparison.”]

“Correction.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Friday, April 16, 1852, p. 2, col. 3. [Several typographical errors, which confused the meaning in the previous day’s article, are corrected.]

S. [Southworth, Albert Sands.] “Daguerreotype Likenesses No. IV.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Friday, May 7, 1852, p. 1, cols. 1–2. [“The improvements in daguerreotype are … so apparent to all … that it is a matter of some moment to the public to learn how far this new art may be carried … The writer believes it practicable to construct lenses … that the occupants of a carriage driven at the most rapid rate our ‘city fathers’ deem safe may be perfectly pictured on the plate, and that the light of an ordinary room will permit a ball-room party to be taken distinctly and definitely in the midst of their dance.”]

“Kossuth.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Monday, May 17, 1852, p. 2, col. 1. [“Kossuth yesterday morning attended divine service in the Bowdoin-Square Church … Gov. Kossuth sat for a daguerreotype at Southworth & Hawes’s gallery this morning.”]

“Governor Kossuth.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, May 18, 1852, p. 2, col. 1. [“Governor Kossuth and Secretary may now be called upon … at the gallery of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … The illustrious Hungarians will be introduced through the medium of the Stereoscope; and those who would witness the very embodiment of Kossuth, as he appeared yesterday, must call.”]

“Where Were You Last Night at Twelve?” A Judicial Sketch.” SPIRIT OF THE TIMES; A CHRONICLE OF THE TURF, AGRICULTURE, FIELD SPORTS, LITERATURE AND THE STAGE 22:14 (May 22, 1852): 159. [“There was a judicial functionary residing in Boston, some years since, whose legal acumen and profundity, only equaled his general character otherwise, and who was a man, “not to be sneezed at”–at least when he was seated upon the bench of the Police Court, where he presided two or three days in each week. When seen in the set of delivering an opinion, the learned Judge was a “picture to behold,” and when he finally got it off, his was an opinion as was an opinion, and nothing else…. The Judge…wended his way slowly across Tremont Row one day, to dinner, his attention was arrested by the display of sundry ‘heads of people’ in Southworth’s daguerreotype show-case. The idea suddenly struck him that his own countenance wasn’t a bad ‘un for a picture-so he found his way upstairs, at once, into the reception room. ‘Whats the price of that size?’ he asked of the polite attendant. ‘Five dollars, sir.’ ‘And this?’ ‘Three dollars.’ ‘Couldn’t you put me on that for three?’ pointing to the largest plate. ‘We have but the regular prices, sir.’ ‘Yes, I know. But you see I’m one of the judges at the court—p’liece court—and these dog’ratype places are getting to be so very numerous in this community.’ ‘Yes, sir, but a good picture…’ ‘Ah, I understand. But you can take a copy, put it in the case below—and everybody knows the judges in the p’leice court.’ ‘Well, sir, as you’re a public man, I shall take your picture.’ ‘Thank’ee-thank’ee,’ said his honor. ‘When shall I come in?’ ‘To-morrow at eleven, if you please, sir,’ responded the attendant, civilly—and the judge departed. Next day, at half past ten o’clock, a hand cartman arrived before the door. He looked up, satisfied himself that all was right, and then shouldering a portion of his load, quickly found his way into the reception room of the artist, where he dumped the goods upon the floor,… (Judge sent over books, inkstands, and other props, then shows up and directs the photographer to capture him as he postures ferociously as if demanding information from a suspect,…) “…the fearful interrogatory burst from his lips, ‘where were you last night at twelve?’ (The photograph proves to be ugly, and the judge pays the photographer the three dollars agreed upon for it and then an additional two dollars to destroy it, then he sits for another portrait.) “The judge paid the V, the picture was destroyed, and one taken in the natural way; and ever after that daguerreotype was finished, his countenance wore a pleasant expression, even when he was deeply engaged in the perplexing duties of his official position.’”]

1 b & w (“Portrait of Hon. N. P. Banks, Speaker of the Massachusetts Legislature.”) in: GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 2:25 (June 19, 1852): 392. [Woodcut engraving, credited “From a Daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.”]

“Graham’s Small-Talk. A Fine Lithograph.” GRAHAM’S AMERICAN MONTHLY MAGAZINE OF LITERATURE, ART, AND FASHION 41:1 (July 1852): 110. [“Messrs. Fetridge & Co., produced a lithograph… Miss E. Kimberly, the celebrated Shaksperian reader and actress, in the character Isobella in “The Fatal Marriage.” …It is from a Daguerreotype by Southworth & Harvey [sic Hawes], Boston…”]

“Movements of the Daguerreotypists.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 4:6 (July 1, 1852): 95. [Mentions that Southworth was in California.]

“The Stereoscope.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Friday, July 16, 1852, p. 2, col. 2. [“A country correspondent asked information respecting this new and beautiful invention for imparting to daguerreotypes an effect at once startling and beautiful.”]

“The Stereoscope.” TO-DAY: A BOSTON LITERARY JOURNAL 2 (July 24, 1852): 55–56. [“Mr. Southworth has a large stereoscopic arrangement of some daguerreotypes of the Laocoon, in the Athenaeum Library in Boston, which is remarkably fine …” A fairly extensive discussion of stereoscopic vision follows.]

“Things Theatrical. Miss E. Kimberly.” SPIRIT OF THE TIMES; A CHRONICLE OF THE TURF, AGRICULTURE, FIELD SPORTS, LITERATURE AND THE STAGE 22:29 (Sept. 4, 1852): 348. [From the Boston Evening Gazette, Aug. 29. “We have been presented with a beautiful lithograph likeness of this accomplished lady,… The likeness is from a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes, the lithograph by B. W. Thayer & Co. Both are excellent specimens of the ability of these talented artists…

“Daguerreotype Fair—The Stereoscope.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Saturday, October 2, 1852, p. 2, col. 2. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … have accomplished … which they have so long aimed … the completion of the Grand Parlor and Gallery Stereoscope. They will on Monday next open their new Exhibition Room … In their collection are more than one hundred pictures never before exhibited … views … interiors … likenesses from life … of distinguished men.”]

“Daguerreotype Fair. The Stereoscope” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, October 5, 1852, p. 3, col. 4. [“Southworth & Hawes’s new Exhibition Room, with more than 100 pictures never before exhibited, will be open day and evening on and after October 4. … Single admission 25 cents. Season ticket 50 cents.”]

“City Amusements … Business … Notices: Monday Evening, October 12, 1852.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, October 12, 1852, p. 2, col. 4. [“Southworth & Hawes’ Daguerreotype Fair and Exhibition of their Grand Parlor and Gallery Stereoscope, 5½ Tremont Row.” This notice was also published on October 25, and, probably, at other times.]

“The Stereoscope.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, October 21, 1852, p. 1, col. 4. [“This is a time very properly affixed to a new invention or discovery by which pictures on plain surfaces have all the appearance of solidity and weight, and the perspective of the objects themselves.”]

“Likenesses of Daniel Webster.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, October 27, 1852, p. 2, col. 2. [“At the Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms, 5½ Tremont Row … may be seen several daguerreotypes taken from life, at different periods, of the Great Statesman whose loss the nation now so deeply mourns.”]

“A Portrait of Daniel Webster.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Tuesday, December 14, 1852, p. 2, col. 3. [“Of the fifty or more engraved portraits of Mr. Webster, there is no one among them all that we can pronounce really good. … Is there not some eminent and patriotic citizen, who can command the best talent in the country, who would be willing to undertake the work?” This request for a good engraved portrait of Webster elicits a letter from Southworth, then a brief exchange of other letters.]

“S.” [Southworth, Albert Sands.] “Welch’s Engraving of Washington.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, December 16, 1852, p. 1, col. 6. [“About a year since Messrs. Southworth & Hawes furnished Mr. Welch with three Daguerreotypes of Stuart’s Washington; and also with the use of their new apparatus for enlarging and tracing upon transparent paper, a copy the exact size of his intended picture …” This is in response to the article of December 14.]

“Justice.” “Welch’s Engraving of Stuart’s Washington.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Monday, December 20, 1852, p. 1, col. 3. [“Justice” argues that “S.” had slighted Welch’s artistic integrity by stating that the artist copied from daguerreotypes. Includes a letter from Charles Folsom praising Welch.]

Southworth, Albert S. “Welch’s Engraving of Washington.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, December 23, 1852, p. 1, col. 5. [Letter identifying himself as the “S.” of the earlier letter, denying that he had denigrated the artist Welch, but that he had simply wanted to “make known to the public the value of daguerreotypes, and the aid daguerreotypists may afford engravers in their sphere of the fine arts.”]

1853

Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. The Seventh Exhibition of Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. at Faneuil and Quincy Halls, in the City of Boston, September 1853. Boston: Press of Damrell & Moore and George Coolidge, 1853.
[This exhibition, which began in 1837, was held every three years. Mentions: Southworth & Hawes; J. A. Whipple; Lerow; Hale; Root; R. Plumbe; J. Plumbe; Pettee; Foss; Cannon; Miss N. N. Southworth; Shew. WSJ]
—————————————
Reports of the Judges.
Machinery and New Inventions.

381. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Stereoscope. This Stereoscope, it is believed, surpasses all its predecessors in the beauty (p. 11) and perfection of the results which it attains. It is upon the plan of Wheatstone’s Reflector Stereoscope, which appears to have been rendered almost perfect by the improvements now made. An entirely new method is adopted for taking the stereoscopic pictures, to which their beauty mainly is due. This method has been explained to the Committee, and they are informed that it will shortly be made known to the public. In addition to this improvement in the pictures themselves, a new method of bringing them into the field of vision and withdrawing them therefrom has been devised. Heretofore this has been performed by hand, but, in the present case, it is done by the simple turning of a crank. The pictures are made to appear in pairs in the proper order, and after remaining a certain length of time in view, are withdrawn, and replaced by others. The mechanism by which this is accomplished is as simple as it is effective. Gold Medal. (p. 12)
     —————————————
     Chemicals.
     “…381. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Specimens of Electrotype Silver Plating. The specimens of this new and beautiful art exhibited and explained to the Committee, present most perfect results, and leave little further to be desired. The plates were of very large size, of even surface, and perfect polish. There is a completeness in the means adopted which shows that skill and perseverance have overcome great obstacles. The Committee advise a Silver Medal.” (p. 83)
     —————————————
     Fine Arts.
     “…1466. MISS M. IMOGENE ROBINSON, Auburndale, Mass. Four Paintings, and a Book of Specimens in Water Colors. These specimens do the fair artist great credit. Bronze Medal.
382. WILLIAM SHARP, Dorchester, Mass. Paintings: Railroad Jubilee, 1851; Angel of Death; Fruit and Flower piece: In Memory
     of the Great and Good; Study of Flowers from Nature. Other Committees have spoken in high terms of the Fruit and Flower piece of this artist, and the present specimens are fully worthy of his former reputation. Bronze Medal.
383. WILLIAM SHARP & SON, Dorchester, Mass. Three Chromo-lithographs: Portrait of Webster, from Hoyt’s picture, an excellent specimen; Head of a Dog with Game, very good; Fruits, very fine. Messrs. Sharp have in former Exhibitions shewn specimens of their skill in this branch of art. The present ones are not at all inferior. Silver Medal.
384. HENRY N. GARDNER, Boston. Specimen of Painting: Box Top, — a bouquet of flowers. Better than many things of more pretensions. Diploma.
385. MISS J. S. COOK, Boston. One Frame Painting: Webster Mansion. Shows some feeling for color and effect, but we recommend a closer study of nature.
386. MISS MARIA J. EDMANDS, Charlestown, Mass. Specimen of Engraved Oil Painting, (colored photographs.) Very well done. Hunting Piece, enlarged from a small engraving. The coloring, effect and handling, very well indeed. Pen Drawing, — Head of Clay, with ornamented border of flowers. Wonderfully delicate, with much artistic feeling. Silver Medal….” (p. 99)
     . Drawings.
     We regret to see so small a display in this branch of art. What there is, are studies, or copies principally. Our young artists do not seem to be aware that there is more merit in even a rude design, or a sketch from nature, than in any copy, no matter how well done….”
387. D. KIMBERLY, by SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Portrait in Crayon. The best in the exhibition. There is great character and sweetness of expression, as well as agreeable handling, and sufficient finish to make the whole pleasing. We are not so well able to judge of this artist’s work as we should have been with more specimens. Bronze Medal….: (p. 100)
     Daguerreotypes.
     It is exceedingly difficult to come to a right judgment in this branch of art, from the fact, that when there are many contributors, there will be found among the productions of each, some specimens which are equal to anything shown. We must take, therefore, what each contributor sends as a whole, and judge of the average merit of each, by comparing his whole contribution with others. We are much gratified to find that a better knowledge of the necessary materials and processes, is rapidly spreading beyond the limits of the city. We also see with pleasure that more and more artistic ability in the management of light, in grouping, and choice of position, is becoming apparent everywhere.
388. G. K. WARREN, Lowell, Mass. Specimens of Daguerreotypes.
     In this beautiful contribution from a neighboring City there are some specimens equal to anything in the Exhibition. Bronze Medal.
389. JOHN A. WHIPPLE, Boston. Daguerreotypes; Specimens of Crystallotypes, or Daguerreotypes on Paper. Mr. Whipple keeps up his well-earned reputation in every respect, so far as Daguerreotypes are concerned. His groups have certainly no superiors, and the same may well be said of many of his single figures. We have great pleasure in recommending the award of a Silver Medal.
     In the specimens called by him Crystallotypes, in Europe Photographs, he leaves all others far behind. Indeed the Committee are not aware that anything, in this country, at least, will compare with them at all.
     His perseverance in perfecting this admirable process amongst obstacles of all kinds, is worthy of all praise, and we are confident that a comparison of the specimens exhibited at the last Exhibition with those in the present, will fully justify all we have said. Silver Medal
390. MASURY & SILSBEE, Boston. Specimens of Daguerreotypes. Among these specimens there are many excellent ones, as good, we think, as any shown. Bronze Medal.
391. C. THAYER, Charlestown, Mass. One Case Daguerreotypes. (p. 104)
     This gentleman, we believe, was a contributor to the last Exhibition. The specimens now shown exhibit a great improvement. Diploma.
392. L. H. HALE, Boston. Specimens of Daguerreotypes. There is always very great merit in this gentleman’s work; of which we can state with truth, that many of his specimens have no superiors in the Exhibition. Bronze Medal.
393. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Daguerreotypes. The splendid contribution of these gentlemen could not, we are confident, be excelled in this country, if anywhere else. It seems difficult to imagine anything more beautiful than many of their specimens, both as regards artistic feeling, and judgment; as well as the practical part of the work. We also have willing testimony to their untiring zeal and disinterestedness in perfecting their beautiful art. They may be held up as remarkable exceptions to the mere money-getting spirit of the day, which we fear is seeking to bear rule in the world of art, as it already does elsewhere. The Stereoscopic process, which they have greatly improved, and which, belonging to another department, we cannot speak of as a Committee, we can nevertheless admire as among the almost magical results of scientific ability, aided by artistic skill. The ingenious machinery which gives motion to the Stereoscope pictures, we need not speak of, as that will doubtless be estimated by another Committee. Silver Medal.
394. P. G. CLARK, Boston. Daguerreotype Views in California, Very interesting, and some of them fine specimens, particularly a “Placer,” with miners at work. Bronze Medal.
395. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Improved Daguerreotype Frames. A very pretty design, and well suited to its purpose. Diploma. (p. 105)]

“Daguerreotype Miniatures: Southworth & Hawes” [listing] and “Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5½ Tremont Row, Boston. Southworth & Hawes” [advertisement] and “New Exhibition of Art: The Stereoscope” [advertisement]. In The Boston Directory: Embracing the City Record, a General Directory of the Citizens, and a Special Directory of Trades, Professions, &ct. 1853–4. Boston: George Adams, 1853, p. 47. [Southworth & Hawes listed with thirty other firms (p. 315). The firm is also listed under “Daguerreotype Miniatures” in 1854 with forty other firms (p. 347), in 1855 with thirty-eight other firms (p. 341), in 1856 with thirty-seven other firms (p. 381), in 1857 with thirty-seven other firms (p. 398), in 1858 with forty other firms (p. 411), and, for the first time, in 1859 listed under “Photographs” with eleven other firms (p. 470). Texts of the Southworth & Hawes advertisements varied from year to year.]

“Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5½ Tremont Row, Boston. Southworth & Hawes” [advertisement] and “The Stereoscope” [advertisement]. In The Massachusetts Register for the Year 1853, Containing a Business Directory of the State, with a Variety of Useful Information. Boston: George Adams, 1853, pp. 326–27.]

1 b & w (“Lyman Beecher” “Engd. By C. E. Wagstaff & J. Andrews, from a Daguerreotype.”) as frontispiece in: Beecher, Lyman. Views of Theology, as Developed in Three Sermons, and on His Trials before the Presbytery and Synod of Cincinnati, June, 1835, with Remarks on the Princeton Review. Beecher’s Works, vol. 3. Boston: John P. Jewett, 1853.

Jones, Abner Dumont. The Illustrated American Biography; Containing Correct Portraits and Brief Notices of the Principal Actors in American History; Embracing Distinguished Women, Naval and Military Heroes, Statesmen, Civilians, Jurists, Divines, Authors and Artists; Together with Celebrated Indian Chiefs. …”Complete in Six Volumes, One volume to be issued annually.” “Vol. 2” New York: J. M. Emerson, 1853–55, [Three volumes only published, afterwards combined in one with title: The American portrait gallery …”] 26 cm.
[“ ARTISTS’ DAGUERREOTYPE ROOMS.”
No. 5½ Tremont Row, Boston.
In extending a cordial invitation to all who chance to peruse these pages, to visit our exhibition gallery, it is proper to state in a plain and comprehensive manner what we would have visitors expect, especially those who are judges of pictures. We aim in our profession to please Artists, and those whose taste for the fine arts has been cultivated and refined. Our patrons and customers have uniformly been of this class; and as we have aimed to do superior work, our services have commanded much higher prices than others in the same business are able to obtain. In every possible application of the Daguerreotype, we have led the way beyond all competition, until the best judges of art in the country pronounce some of our work superior to any pictures in any of the renowned European Galleries. This will seem extravagant to all who are strangers to us; and yet we ask all Artists to expect to see something superior to what they have ever seen at all, and we will risk their being disappointed. As to the different styles of work, they are all our own entirely-such as Crayon, (so called,) Illuminated Clouds, &c., and Ornamented Border. Some of these are claimed as Patented; but we say that we practiced them for years before any one else, and long since gave them to the public; and a patent on either Crayon or Bordered Daguerreotypes, or on taking several persons or objects on the same plate, at different times, so as to have the picture seem as though made at once, without any dividing mark, can not be sustained, ought not, and shall not be, wherever we can show our work; for we have it in such form as to constitute testimony convincing to any one who may be interested.
At the late Fair in Boston, we received five highest premiums for best specimens exhibited, viz.: “Gold Medal for Stereoscope;” “Silver Medal for best Daguerreotypes;” “Silver Medal for best Daguerreotype Plates;” “Silver Medal for best Crayon,” and “Diploma for best Daguerreotype Frames.”
THE STEREOSCOPE
Is a wonder in itself, and in its design and use we have reached the very climax of perfection, having effected an arrangement which renders it a complete gallery of life-size tableaux, which must be seen to be realized or appreciated. We promise a rich treat to all who visit us. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES.” (p. 390)]

Southworth, Albert Sands. The “Lone Oak” of Sacramento. Boston: [s. n.], 1853. [One-page broadside (26 x 20 cm). Caption title. Poem. “Respectfully inscribed to William M. Parker, Esq., of Manchester, N.H., my very worthy friend and tent-mate in California.” University of California, Berkeley, Library collection.]

Southworth, Albert Sands. Lines on the Death of the Late Mrs. Samuel H. Walley, of Roxbury, Mass. Boston: [s. n.], 1853. [One-page broadside (25 x 19 cm). Caption title. Poem. “Inscribed Respectfully and Tenderly to Her Husband and Children.” Southworth & Hawes Archive, George Eastman House, Rochester, NY Item 17-21.]

1 b & w (“Charles White, D. D.” “Dag. of Southworth & Hawes.” “C. E. Wagstaff & J. Andrews, So.”) as frontispiece in: (White, Charles, D. D. Essays in Literature and Ethics. Boston: S. K. Whipple and Co., 1853.]

“The Stereoscope.” GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 4:2 (Jan. 8, 1853): 29. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, 5½ Tremont Row, have so vastly improved upon Professor Wheaton’s stereoscope principle and discovery, as to have perfected an invention which may be said to have made the whole discovery their own. There were formerly insurmountable difficulties attached to the application of this principle to daguerreotypes, which the above scientific operators have entirely overcome, and as the principle is illustrated and improved by them, it forms an entirely new and most perfect department of art. This invention has been the result of months of pains-taking and experiment, as it regarded overcoming the great difficulties experienced in the stereoscope, heretofore; and the above-named gentlemen have now produced the first perfect stereoscope picture ever exhibited. The whole, as witnessed in the instrument, also of their own construction, is a great curiosity. Let us add, also, in this connection, a bit of advice to our friends, who propose to obtain the “counterfeit presentment” of themselves, or others. Messrs. Southworth & Hawes are known as being among the best daguerreotype artists, not alone in this city, but in comparison with famous European establishments.”]

1 b & w on p. 136 in: “Mayor and Aldermen of Boston.” GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 4:9 (Feb. 26, 1853): 136, 143. [Nine portraits engraved from separate daguerreotypes, presented together. “……In the matter of the undoubted resemblance of each picture to the person it is designed to represent, we are indebted to those excellent daguerreian artists, Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … to whom the gentlemen kindly sat, and to the pencil of Mr. Rowse, artist and designer, for these accurate portraitures….”]

“Another Portrait of Mr. Webster.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Saturday, April 2, 1853, p. 2, col. 3. [“Mr. W. Willard has just completed a second portrait of the lamented statesman. … It was painted from a daguerreotype taken by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes about a year previous to his death.”]

“Portrait of the President.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Friday, April 15, 1853, p. 2, col. 2. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes … issued yesterday a lithographic portrait of President Pierce, by L. Grozelier, the artist, from a daguerreotype taken by themselves a few weeks since.”]

Farnham, Rev. Luther. “Boston Pulpit. No. 1–No. 22.” GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 5, nos. 1–22 (July 2, 1853–November 26, 1853): 12, 28, 44, 60, 76, 92, 108, 124, 140, 156, 172, 188, 204, 220, 236, 252, 268, 284, 300, 316, 332, 348. [Series of biographies of Boston ministers, each accompanied by an engraved portrait and an engraved view of their church. Seven of the portraits are credited “From a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.” Six are credited “From a daguerreotype by Whipple.” Two are credited “From a daguerreotype by Masury & Silsbee.” The remainder are not credited. The credited Southworth & Hawes portraits are: “No. 2—Rev. George Richards, Central Church, Boston” (July 9, 1853, p. 28); “No. 7—Rev. Rufus Ellis, Chauncey Place Church” (Aug. 13, 1853, p. 108); “No. 11—Rev. William T. Smithett, Christ Church, Boston” (Sept. 10, 1853, p. 172); “No. 14—Rev. George W. Bosworth, South Baptist Church” (Oct. 1, 1853, p. 220); “No. 15—Rev. Rufus W. Clark, Maverick Church” (Oct. 8, 1853, p. 236); “No. 17—Rev. Joseph Cummings, Bromfield Street Church” (Oct. 22, 1853, p. 268); “No. 21—Rev. Otis A. Skinner, Fifth Universalist Church” (Nov. 19, 1853, p. 332). The portrait for “No. 22—Rollin H. Neale, D.D.” (Nov. 26, 1853, p. 348) is not credited, but it was copied from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype. Some of the other uncredited portraits may have been as well.]

1 b & w (“Truman Henry Safford.”) in: “Truman Henry Safford—The Young Mathematician.” FORRESTER’S BOYS’ AND GIRLS’ MAGAZINE, AND FIRESIDE COMPANION (July 1, 1853): 14. [“In this picture, my young readers have a correct likeness of Truman Henry Safford, the mathematical prodigy whose wonderful mental powers have already made his name famous in two hemispheres. It was engraved expressly for this work from a Daguerreotype, taken a few weeks since by Southworth, of this city.”]

“New Likeness of Dr. Sharp” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, July 20, 1853, p. 3, col. 2. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes have received proof impressions of their new lithograph of Dr. Sharp [Reverend Daniel Sharp, 1783–1853], which may be now seen and compared with the stereoscopic Statue at their rooms …”]

“Portrait of Dr. Sharp.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Monday, August 1, 1853, p. 2, col. 3. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes have just published a large size lithographic portrait of the late Dr. Sharp.”]

“Daguerreotypes in the Mechanic Exhibition.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, September 22, 1853, p. 2, col. 4. [Exhibition review. “There is no art that has taken such strides of improvement within the last ten years … In proof of this bold assertion, we would call upon artist and connoisseurs in art, to divest themselves of all prejudice, and examine critically the collection of pictures by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes. Many familiar portraits of distinguished individuals will be seen.”]

“Daguerreotype Movements.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 5:14 (Nov. 1, 1853): 223. [“Southworth & Hawes of Boston, still continue to hold their lowest price Daguerreotypes at Five Dollars each. The gentlemen are doing a fine business, affording substantial proof that superior Daguerreotype portraits are appreciated in the old New England City.”]

1 b & w: (“Rollin H. Neale, D.D.”) in: GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 5:22 (Nov. 26, 1853): 348. [Woodcut engraving, not credited, but from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.]

1854

1 b & w: “Robert Rantoul, Jr.”) as frontispiece in: Hamilton, Luther, ed. Memoirs, Speeches and Writings of Robert Rantoul, Jr. Boston: John P. Jewett, 1854. [Possibly by Southworth & Hawes.]

“S.” [Southworth, Albert Sands.] “Suggestions to Ladies Who Sit for Daguerreotypes. Part 1.” In LADY’S ALMANAC FOR 1854. Boston: J. P. Jewett, 1854, pp. 102–3. [“Expression is everything in a daguerreotype. All else, the hair-jewelry-lace-work-drapery or dress, and attitude, are only aids to expression. It must at least be comfortable, and ought to be amiable. It ought also to be sensible, spirited and dignified, and usually with care and patience may be so. A little practice, with a friend to prompt, before a mirror, will save time, and very likely be the means of much increasing the satisfaction of those for whom the likeness is made. The hair in its arrangement should assist the proportions of the head. If the head is too long and the face thin, the hair should widen and round the features. If the cheek bones are too high and too broad, the breadth of the hair should fall lower down so as not to exaggerate features already too large. The hair may be smooth or lay evenly, but should never be sleeked or matted down; and the practice of shaving the forehead or pulling out the hair is altogether too bare-faced for a lady. It should be arranged in curves, waves or curls, avoiding angles and horn-shaped protuberances. Caps, turbans, lace, and jewelry, should conform to the same rules in aiding the general contour towards good proportions.
All lace-work should be light and thin, never massy; though it may be white or black to suit the occasion. Flowing curls for misses, over a low-necked dress, or for young ladies with handsome outlines of neck and shoulders, are picturesque and pleasing; but thin necks and projecting collar-bones require high dresses with lace, whether in fashion or not. The same remarks apply to arms and hands. If not well filled out, with good outlines, let them be appropriately covered in a picture. Simple jewelry may be taken, but if heavy or massy, it is not admissible except for fancy pictures. If the figure is good the fashion of the dress should show all handsome lines or curves, and hide all that are not so. If the figure is not well proportioned the fashion of the dress should make it appear so as nearly as possible. It is ridiculously absurd for all females to adopt the same fashion one exact size and pattern for all would hardly be more so. Whatever the fabric selected, avoid large figures or broad stripes. (p. 102)
Figures of the same material and color, as watered, striped or figured dark silks, or very narrow striped light silks, are well suited to the daguerreotype.
Dark colors are generally more appropriate than light. Fair complexions may be taken in bridal or ball costume; and dark ones may if the figure is represented on a small scale. Remember that positive red, orange, yellow or green, are the same as black, or nearly so; and violet, purple and blue are nearly the same as white; and arrange your costume accordingly. Rich figured shawls or scarfs and dresses usually show well in a picture. Full promenade, carriage, or riding dresses, look well as such, although not suited for a simple likeness.
Infants too young to sit upright, should be taken in their usual long frocks, but when a little older their feet need not be covered; but the whole figure may be prettily taken if they can be kept quiet four or five seconds. As a good rule, let the frock be very low in the neck, with short waist, not tight, yet fitting the form, reaching to the foot; the sleeves very short and loose, ornamented with narrow lace. The skirt should be of woollen fabric, not too full, reaching about half way from the knee to the ankle, and worked, figured or scalloped around the bottom. No other underclothing should be worn except of the thinnest and most pliable material.
If the child is taken half reclining, the bottom of the dress can easily be arranged to show parts of the bottom of the skirt, and the feet and ankles, and all be in good keeping and taste. The color of the frock may be pink, drab, blue, or any color which will show light in the picture. All desirable information in regard to colors and fashions best suited to the daguerreotype may at any time be obtained at Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms, 5½ Tremont Row, directly opposite Brattle Street. S*” (p. 103)
(Etc., etc.)
“ARTISTS’ DAGUERREOTYPE ROOMS, 5½ Tremont Row, directly opposite Brattle Street SOUTHWORTH & HAWES. Gold and Silver Medals and Diplomas awarded for the best Daguerreotypes Frames, Plates, Crayons, and Stereoscopes at the late Exhibition Every possible application of the art of Daguerre typing performed in a more finished and artistic manner than can be elsewhere done in this country or Boston. 5½ Tremont Row. (This advertisement was printed in gold leaf on blue stock on the inside back cover of the volume. WSJ)]

“Daguerreotype Movements.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 5:18 (Jan. 1, 1854): 287. [W. H. Sherman (Erie, PA); Grannis (Waterbury, CT); S. Root (NYC); Southworth & Hawes; G. N. Warren (Lowell, MA); S. L. Walker (Poughkeepsie, NY); R. E. Churchill (Albany, NY); Jacobs (New Orleans, LA); J. J. Outley (St. Louis, MO); Barnes (Mobile, AL); Webster & Brother (Louisville, KY); E. Long (St. Louis, MO);S. W. Fisher (PA); James Brown (NYC); T. H. Benedict (Syracuse, NY); E. Church (Nashville, TN).]

“Another Portrait of Mr. Chickering.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Thursday, February 2, 1854, p. 2, col. 2. [“We are indebted to Messrs. Southworth & Hawes for a copy of a very fine lithographic portrait of the late Mr. Jonas Chickering, being an enlarged copy of their daguerreotype from which the Crystalotypes and Talbotypes have been taken.”]

S. B., A.M. “Daguerreotypes in Boston.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 5:21 (Feb. 15, 1854): 331. [“Boston, Feb. 7, 1851 [sic 1854]. S. D. Humphrey, Esq. Dear Sir,”
“It is with no little degree of pleasure I peruse the pages of Humphrey’s Journal. I never look into its pages without finding (to me) something new and interesting. I look upon the present as one of the most important eras of the Photographic Art. This department of science is attracting a lively interest in all Europe, and the fever begins to kindle — I fear too moderately — in this country. The engraver’s block forms a tablet for the pencilings of the sun, and the draftsman Iooks on with surprise, beholding in his almost powerless hand the pencil; while he views the lines delineating the figure with such unequaled precision and delicacy. The linen fabric now receives indelible impression while prepared and exposed to light. This is truly an age of progress; and among our Boston folks none are more industrious than your friend Whipple, who has stolen the moon from Heaven, and drives his earthly career by steam. Olmsbee continues on in the march of payers, while Southworth and Hawes support a dignity worthy their profession. Others here I could and would mention, did I not fear that your patience would be wearied by this intrusion upon your time. More anon. Respectfully and truly yours. S. B., A.M.”]

“Daguerreotype.” GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 6:8 (Feb. 25, 1854): 125. [“Daguerreotypes We were struck with admiration, a few days since, while on a visit to the extensive and unsurpassed daguerrian establishment of Southworth & Hawes No. 5½ Tremont Row. The steady and extraordinary advancement exhibited in the art, as evidenced by the specimens on exhibition here, is a matter of surprise and satisfaction to the appreciating mind.”]

“Portraits of Jonas Chickering.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Friday, March 10, 1854, p. 2, col. 3. [“Copies of the large daguerreotype taken by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, and published by them in lithography, can be had …”]

“Donald McKay.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, April 26, 1854, p. 2, col. 2. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, daguerreotypists, Tremont Row, published this morning a fine lithographic likeness of this well known ship builder.”]

“The New Clipper Ship Champion of the Seas.” BOSTON DAILY ATLAS, Saturday, May 20, 1854, p. 1, cols. 7–8. [“Over the transom sofa are three panels, which contain daguerreotype pictures. The first is a representation of the ship Great Republic, under all sail by the wind, the second is the outline of the Champion of the Seas, as she now lies broadside on, and other objects in the background, and between the ships is a portrait of Mr. Donald McKay, their builder. These pictures were taken by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, and are about the best of the kind we have seen.”]

“List of Patents Issued from the United States Patent Office for the Week ending July 11, 1854.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Friday, July 14, 1854, p. 2, col. 3. [“Albert S. Southworth & Josiah J. Hawes, of Boston, for improvements in taking daguerreotypes for stereoscopes.”]

“City Amusements, Business Notices, &c.: Daguerreotype Exhibition in Springfield.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Saturday, July 22, 1854, p. 2, col. 6. [“Messrs. Southworth & Hawes will next week offer our friends in Springfield, a rare treat in the way of pictures. In connection with a free display of likenesses, views, &c., they will exhibit their new Parlor and Gallery Stereoscope, filled with their ‘Patent Stereoscopic Daguerreotypes’ …”]

“Southworth & Hawes, Daguerreotype Rooms …” [advertisement]. BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Saturday, July 22, 1854, p. 3, col. 3.]

“The Daguerreotype.” GLEASON’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 7:7 (Aug. 19, 1854): 109. [“We read the other day, in a foreign journal, a notice of the discovery of a process, which, if perfected, will greatly facilitate the diffusion of a taste for the fine arts among the masses. This marvelous discovery was nothing short of an application of the daguerreotype or photographic process to engraving upon steel. It will be remembered that copies of Allston’s outline drawings were made in this city by the daguerreotype process upon a prepared plate, and the lines thus delineated were then engraved with the burin, thereby securing a fidelity and accuracy that the best trained eye and hand could never attain. The instrument employed was one constructed by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes of this city, and the perfection of the achromatic lenses was such that not the slightest spherical aberration was perceptible,….” “…Thus we are promised views of nature drawn and engraved by herself. When this process is thoroughly perfected, together with that now in embryo, of producing colors by the daguerreotype, the acme of natural representation will have been obtained. The question naturally arises, what influence this perfection and development of the daguerreotype have upon art? Will not these natural pictures by the hand of nature supersede all the efforts of human skill? To this we reply that these wonderful discoveries do not trench upon the province of art, nor will art cease to be cultivated and appreciated until machines can be taught to think. The daguerreotype does but amass materials and create facilities for the artist; it cannot rival his skill. The highest works of art are not literal copies of natural subjects. … ideal types… Take a daguerreotype portrait, it is an accurate representation of the physical features of the sitter and of his expression at the moment of sitting, but it cannot represent the soul, without which the individuality of the man is lost. Compare one of these daguerreotype portraits…with a portrait by Vandyke, or Reynolds, or Copley, or Stuart, or Inman, and you will see the difference between a work of art and a work of mechanism…In the painting you behold the man, not the being of a minute, or a year, but bearing the outward manifestations of the inner spirit which a life time has developed. But where the daguerreotype ends, art begins, for the starting point and not the goal of art is the literal imitation of nature… The daguerreotype cannot call up the stately visions of the past or the bright dreams of the future. It has its wide and useful province, but it is circumscribed by narrow limits, while art owns no bounds. The past, present and future are within its scope—beauty, such as eye never dwelt upon, forms existing only in inspired dreams. To multiply copies of great works, to scatter broadcast beautiful images from nature, is to awaken taste and a desire for that higher beauty of which the artist alone is the minister.”]

“Likenesses of Dr. Woods.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, August 30, 1854, p. 2, col. 5. [“… apparently a statue, taken after the only correct arrangement just patented in this country and England, by Southworth & Hawes. … Mr. J. A. Whipple has also just issued a life-like photograph of the late Dr. Woods.”]

1 b & w (Donald M’Kay.) on p. 193. “Donald M’Kay.” NATIONAL MAGAZINE; DEVOTED TO LITERATURE, ART, AND RELIGION 5:3 (Sept. 1854): 193-199. 3 illus. [Portrait not credited, but probably from a daguerreotype, and that daguerreotype was probably by Southworth & Hawes. The three additional illustrations are of several of McKay’s ships under sail, and they are from drawings.]

“List of Patents Issued from July 8 to August 8.” THE PLOUGH, THE LOOM, AND THE ANVIL 7:3 (Sept. 1854); 189-192.
[(Etc., etc.)
“F. B. Smith, Craigsville, N. Y., for improvement in lifting jacks.
Albert S. Southworth and Josiah J. Hawes, Boston, for improvement in taking daguerreotypes for stereoscopes.
R. H. St. John, Columbus, Ohio, for improvement in bedstead-fastenings. (Etc., etc.) (p. 189)]

“List of American Patents Issued from July 11th, to August 1, 1854.” JOURNAL OF THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE 3rd s.28:4 (Oct. 1854): 233.
[“99. “For an Improvement in Taking Daguerreotypes for Stereoscopes; Albert S. Southworth and Josiah J. Hawes., Boston, Massachusetts.” (p. 232)]

B. K. P. “Our Boston Letter: Stereoscope—Southworth and Hawes.” NATIONAL MAGAZINE; DEVOTED TO LITERATURE, ART, AND RELIGION 5:5 (Nov. 1854): 474. [“In no one of the arts has there been a more rapid advance than in that of photography. One beautiful discovery after another has brought it to a very high degree of perfection, and fairly placed the sun in lively competition with art in the work of portrait and landscape taking. Of late the daguerreian art has been most happily applied to the illustration of an interesting optical discovery, made by Professor Wheatstone, styled the stereoscope….” (Description of the phenomenon.) “In applying this beautiful discovery to daguerreian pictures this discrepancy became peculiarly apparent, and presented an interesting optical problem for study and solution.
Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, who rank among the first of our artists in this branch of the profession, and who are besides gentlemen of liberal scholarship, having become interested in stereoscopic experiments, and continually oppressed by this practical difficulty, simultaneously fell upon the discovery of the cause. It occurred to them that in forming the image of an object we not only received an impression through both eyes, but corrected this impression by a vertical motion. They therefore took the second picture for the stereoscope, not only two inches to the right of the other, but raised two inches out of the plane of the other. This experiment proved perfectly successful; the image not only, at once, became statuesque, but remained correct in drawing, every part preserving its proper perspective. This discovery of the stereoscopic angle, or angle of vision, the ingenious discoverers have made their own…. Invented an admirable portable case… fifty or more double daguerreotypes are arranged in the box, and, by the movements of one or two levers, turned by a small wheel, the pictures are made to glide noiselessly to the eye…. For academies, for public or private exhibitions, and even for families, a more delightful and instructive entertainment could not be secured than that offered by this admirable optical panorama.”]

“List of Patents Issued from July 8 to August 8.” THE PLOUGH, THE LOOM, AND THE ANVIL 7:3 (Sept. 1854); 189-192.
[(Etc., etc.)
“F. B. Smith, Craigsville, N. Y., for improvement in lifting jacks.
Albert S. Southworth and Josiah J. Hawes, Boston, for improvement in taking daguerreotypes for stereoscopes.
R. H. St. John, Columbus, Ohio, for improvement in bedstead-fastenings.” (Etc., etc.) (p. 189)]

1855

The Maine Register, for the Year 1855: Embracing State and County Officers, and an Abstract of the Laws and Resolves; Together with a Complete Business Directory of the State, and a Variety of Useful Information. By George Adams. Portland, ME: Blake & Carter, Portland, etc., 1855. 432, [88] p.; Illus. 20 cm.
[“Advertising Department.”
SOUTHWORTH & HAWES,
ARTISTS’ DAGUERREOTYPE ROOMS
5½ Tremont Row, opposite Brattle St.
GRAND PARLOR AND GALLERY STEREOSCOPE.
(Woodcut view of the table model stereoscope, looks to be about the size of a piano. WSJ)
“N.B.-Daguerreotypes in every possible variety of style, and, also, Crystalotypes, Talbottypes, &c. Miniatures in Clouds, Crayon, Illuminated Back Ground, &c., all our own original invention.”
“We invite those who read this to visit our rooms, with their friends, when they happen in Boston, and examine the largest collection of Daguerreotype known. Some of the very best are pictures of young Ladies from Maine. We want more specimens of the Down East Belles and their admirers, and engage to spare no efforts to make Likenesses equal to the originals. Stereoscopes of all sizes, to that of our Grand Parlor Stereoscope, the size of a Piano Forte which is one of the most interesting and wonderful novelties of modern times. In the Stereoscope, pictures appear like living statues-like nature in solidity and relief. We were presented with the highest premiums at the last Fair in Boston, being six different awards over all competitors, for the best Stereoscopes, Daguerreotypes, Plates, Frames, Crayons, and Pencil Drawing. No cheap work done. We neither use steam humbug, by false pretences, nor wear laurels won by competitors.
SOUTHWORTH & HAWES,
5½ Tremont Row, opposite Brattle Street, Boston.” (Advertising department p. 67)]

Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1854. Senate. 33rd Congress, 2d Session. Ex. Doc. No. 42. Read, and referred to the Committee on Patents. Patent Office, January 1847. Washington: Beverly Tucker, Printer, 1855. 776 p.
[“Doc. No. 42.
Class XVIII.–Arts, Polite,” Fine, and Ornamental, Including Music, Painting, Sculpture, Engraving, Books, Printing, Binding, Jewelry, &c.
(Etc., etc.)
Books, machine for rounding the backs of. Leonard F. Markham. Cambridge, Mass. Dec. 5, 1854.
Bracelet, clasp…-John Mansure, assignor to Farr & Thompson.. Philadelphia, Pa. May 23, 1854.
Daguerreotype cases, &c., apparatus for the manufacture of. Henry T. Anthony and Frank Phoebus New York, N. Y. May 23, 1843.
Daguerreotype cases, manufacture of. Samuel Peck New Haven, Conn. Oct. 3, 1854.
Daguerreotype plate holder Philander H. Benedict. Syracuse, N. Y…. Jan. 31, 1854.
Daguerreotype plate holder Reuben Knecht. Easton, Northampton county, Pa. Feb. 7, 1854.
Daguerreotype plate holder. Joseph Hill. Skaneateles, N. Y. Aug. 22, 1854,
Daguerreotype plates, apparatus for polishing.. Benjamin F. Upton Bath, Maine. Sept. 19, 1854.
Daguerreotype plates, apparatus for cleaning and buffing. Thomas Longking. Brooklyn, N. Y. Jan. 31, 1854.
Daguerreotype, cameras for taking stereoscope or other. Silas A. Holmes Brooklyn, N. Y. May 30, 1854.
Daguerreotypes for stereoscopes, taking. Albert S, Southworth and Josiah J. Hawes. Boston, Mass. July 11. 1854.
Earrings, fastening for. George E. Higgins Syracuse, N. Y. May 16, 1854.’
(Etc., etc.) (p. 88)
“Alphabetical List of Patentees.”
No. 11304. Southworth, Albert S., and J. J. Hawes. Daguerreotypes for Stereoscopes, taking. July 11, 1854. XIV. (p. 166)
(Etc., etc.)
No. 11,304. Albert S. Southworth and Josiah J. Hawes-Mode of Taking Daguerreotypes for Stereoscopes. — Patented July 11, 1854.
Claim.-A method of taking stereoscopic pictures, in which the two positions of the camera are upon a line making an angle of 45° with the horizon. It is accomplished by placing the camera as represented at figure 1, and after taking one picture changing its position to that represented at figure 2, and taking the other picture.” [p. 492)]

Duyckinck, Evert A., and George L. Duyckinck. Cyclopaedia of American Literature: Embracing Personal and Critical Notices of Authors, and Selections from Their Writings, from the Earliest Period to the Present Day; with Portraits, Autographs, and Other Illustrations. 2 vols. New York: C. Scribner, 1855. [Two b & w: “Albert Gallatin” (vol. 1, p. 494) and “Francis Parkman” (vol. 2, p. 709); probably others throughout. “… numerous portraits … from original sources, and are now engraved for the first time, from old paintings, or recent daguerreotypes and photographs … A few choice daguerreotypes are from the hands of Messrs. Southworth & Hayes [sic] of Boston, and Mr. Richards of Philadelphia, while a large number have been by Mr. M. B. Brady of New York …” (vol. 1, p. x).]

1 b & w (“Oliver Wendell Holmes”) on p. 23 in: Knickerbocker Gallery: A Testimonial to the Editor of the Knickerbocker Magazine from Its Contributors. With forty-eight portraits on steel, from original pictures engraved expressly for this work. New York: Samuel Hueston, 1855. [Engravings not credited, but the Holmes portrait, at least, is from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.]

Southworth, A. S., Firm of Southworth and Hawes. “Suggestions to Ladies Who Sit for Daguerreotypes. No. II.” In LADY’S ALMANAC FOR 1855. Boston: J. P. Jewett, 1855, pp. 117–118.]

“Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms” [advertisement]. In LADY’S ALMANAC FOR 1855. Boston: J. P. Jewett, 1855, p. 125. [“Every possible application of the art of Daguerreotyping performed in a more finished and artistic manner than can be elsewhere done in this country or Europe.”]

1 b & w (“Men of the Times: Donald McKay.”) BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 8:1 (Jan. 6, 1855): 12. [“In America, rank, in the highest sense, does not depend upon one’s family or place of birth–upon wealth or place alone, upon mere show or pretense–but rather upon what one has really done to distinguish himself as an American citizen, that has brought honor to his country and that has conferred benefits upon mankind… Engraved from an accurate daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.”]

1 b & w: “Alvin Adams.”] BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 8:7 (Feb. 17, 1855): 108. [See p. 124 for attribution.]

1 b & w (“Isaac Adams, Inventor of the Adams Power Press.”) BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 8:8 (Feb. 24, 1855): 124. [“As the press is recognized as one of the mightiest powers by which the car of civilization is driven onward, it is fitting that due honor be paid to those who increase its activity and efficiency. Among those whose inventive powers have been devoted to the improvement of the mechanism of the press, the subject of the present sketch holds an honorable rank …” “…from a daguerreotype by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, who also furnished us with the heads of Colonel Adams and Donald McKay, published in preceding numbers.” (Uncredited portrait of an Alvin, not Colonel, Adams on p. 108.)]

1 b & w (“Charles Gordon Greene: Editor of the Boston Post.”) BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 8:11 (Mar. 17, 1855): 172. [“…from an admirable daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.”]

“List of Patent Claims Issued from the United States Patent Office, for the Week Ending June 19, 1855.” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 10:42 (June 30, 1855): 330-331.
[“Moving Stereoscopic Pictures—A. S. Southworth & J. J. Hawes, of Boston, Mass: We claim giving to the pictures of a stereoscope or other analogous instrument a padoramic [sic panoramic?] motion into and out of the fields of vision, by means of mechanism substantially as described, or by any other equivalent means.” (p. 330)]

1 b & w (“C. H. Peaslee, Collector of the Port of Boston”) as frontispiece in: UNITED STATES REVIEW (UNITED STATES MAGAZINE AND DEMOCRATIC REVIEW) n. s. 6:1 (July 1855). [“Engraved by J. C. Buttre from a daguerreotype by Southworth.”]

Root, M. A. “A Trip to Boston Artists.” PHOTOGRAPHIC AND FINE ART JOURNAL 8:8 (Aug. 1855): 246-247. [“The Boston Daguerreotypists and Photographers, as a body, probably occupy a higher place of intelligence, energy and personal reputation, than those of any other city in the United States. Already they have done, and
they are now doing much for the elevation of Heliography and its professors, in the public esteem. Even the “twenty-five,” “fifty cents,” and “one dollar” operators are more skilful, and produce better results than many of the “first class” elsewhere.
But the profession, even here, is degraded by some of the same class, who have wrought so much mischief in other sections of our country. To such narrow-minded “Rats” in the vocation, (to borrow an epithet from the printers,) we say, “Shame — shame,” — for thus debasing in the public estimation an Art at once so beautiful and so rich in valuable uses!
One of the oldest practitioners in the United States, and probably the very oldest in Boston, is Albert Southworth, now, and for several years past of the firm of Southworth & Hawes, Tremont Row. To their honor be it said, they have never lowered the dignity of their Art or their profession by reducing their prices, but their fixed aim and undeviating rule has been to produce the finest specimens, of which they were capable, — the finest in every respect, artistic, mechanical, and chemical; graceful, pleasing in posture and arrangement, and exact in portraiture. Their style, indeed, is peculiar to themselves; presenting beautiful effects of light and shade, and giving depth and roundness together with a wonderful softness or mellowness. These traits have achieved for them a high reputation with all true artists and connoisseurs.
Their plates, too, have an exquisitely pure, fine, level surface, being re-silvered and polished on their “patent swinging plate vice;” and are entirely free from waves, bends and dents, — in short, as nearly perfect, as is perhaps possible. And yet, strange to say, their pictures seem to me to be fully appreciated neither by the majority of Heliographers nor by the public.
This firm have devoted their time chiefly to daguerreotypes, and have paid but little attention to photography on paper.
I noticed, however, in their Gallery, a photographic copy of Gilbert Stuart’s original portrait of Washington, full size, and decidedly the best photographic copy of that celebrated portrait I have ever seen. Saving the color, it is as perfect as one could wish.
They have also invented and patented a beautiful instrument, by which 24 or 48, or even more (stereoscopic) pictures— taken either upon plate, or paper, or glass, — are exhibited stereoscopically: and so perfect is the illusion, as to impress the beholder with the belief, that the picture is nature itself!
Mr. Southworth explained the wonders of the stereoscope very clearly, and he takes his pictures of this class without distortion or exaggeration. I think his principle correct, for his specimens were stereoscopically beautiful, and exempt from the many faults witnessed in those of others. I hope his theory, with instructions for its use, may be published.
At our friend Whipple’s, (now “Whipple & Black,”) Washington street, all was in active movement, — steam puffing; engine whizzing; shafts, buff-wheels, and even the miniature “sun-sign” above the door, revolving. These things, with the busy motions of the several assistants, male and female, imparted to the whole establishment an aspect of great industry and prosperity.
Whipple & Black have ever been, and still are “hard-working” young men, and have now the advantage, in some points, of all other Boston Heliographers. Competitors, however, are pressing them closely, and may, unless they are vigilant, outstrip them.
Their daguerreotypes are like the majority taken by others.
Their collodion photographs struck me as, generally, a little inferior to some others, taken in Boston and elsewhere. And yet a few of the cabinet size were remarkable for clearness and depth, boldness, force and brilliancy. Many, however, on exhibition (p. 246) lacked roundness, softness, fineness, and other properties essential to good portraiture.
The crystalotypes, or albumen pictures, contrast strongly with the collodion pictures recently produced, both at Whipple’s and several other Boston establishments. Except for views and copies (for which it is admirably fitted) the albumen must give way to the collodion process. For portraiture on paper or glass, the latter process, in the hands of several American artists, infinitely transcends at present all other modes of taking Heliographs.
The Ambrotype Patent being reserved exclusively by J. A. Cutting & Co., in Boston, others have had little encouragement to experiment in this beautiful style of Heliographic portraiture. Yet I saw, taken by Mr. Black, a specimen likeness of a gentleman, which in delicacy and beauty was not only vastly superior to the finest daguerreotypes, but was what an enthusiastic virtuoso would pronounce “a miracle of art.”
In truth, all enthusiastic daguerreotypists who succeed in producing good photographic or ambrotype portraits by the collodion process, will probably lose — for a time at least — much of their attachment for the daguerreotype process: so much more pleasing, and easily handled by the skilful artist, is the former than the latter.
And here I would earnestly urge on Messrs. Cutting & Co. the propriety of sending to all located daguerreotypists who may desire to make these pictures, the right of so doing, at rates, so moderate, as to inflict upon them no injustice, — offering the same to all, and permitting the most skilful to “lead the field.”
In the Gallery of Masury & Silsbee, Boston, I witnessed specimens, which, artistically considered; i. e. for fine delineation, clear development and perfect “
relief’ from the background, coupled with beauty of finish, are, I think, rarely surpassed in this country. Mr. Silsbee is an artist, and himself colors many of his pictures.
In most specimens observed by me, he has selected the best position of the person and of the face; his shadows are beautifully disposed, and, for the most part, soft and harmonious; and the expression of the sitter has evidently been caught more happily, than by most artists. The lights and blacks in these photographs are rich, clear, and brilliant, and the collection, as a whole, exhibits much uniformity of tone and excellence.
Mr. Cahill, in Washington street, has taken a position in the front rank of excellence. His photographs are quite equal to the best I have seen without retouching or coloring, and some are exquisitely beautiful, of both small and life size. There is a uniformity of excellence in his specimens, not often surpassed by the ablest Boston professors.
I ought not, in concluding these notices, to omit mentioning Mr. Hale, of Washington street, who has confined himself hitherto to daguerreotypes. His establishment is a perfect bijou in all its arrangements and appointments, from the front-door show-case through its whole interior. Everywhere neatness, taste, elegance, — everywhere cheering and enlivening agencies, of which the sight and the song of rare-plumed and musical birds, are not the least. The Artist himself is a human bijou, and his pictures are very creditable specimens of the art.
Of Mr. Ives and Mr. Chase, both also located in Washington street, and both devoting their attention to daguerreotypes exclusively, I can speak in terms of high commendation. By their many beautiful productions they have shown themselves able proficients in their art, while by their character and manners they do honor to their profession, M. A. R., Philadelphia, cor. Chestnut and Fifth sts.” (p. 247.)]

“Personal and Art Intelligence.” PHOTOGRAPHIC AND FINE ART JOURNAL 8:8 (Aug. 1855): 255-256. [“— The suggestion of our correspondent G., in our last number, in regard to the formation of Photographic Exchange Clubs, has met with general approbation, and much interest appears to be felt in the success of the measure. Important Photographic matter crowds so upon us this month, that we have not the space to devote to the subject that we at first intended. We shall take occasion in our next to present our views in relation to the importance and advantages of clubs of this kind. We have long cherished the wish to see a stable and useful Photographic Society organized in this country, and we hope that the club now formed will be the nucleus of a great and noble institution.
The following gentleman have sent in their names as members of the American Photographic Exchange Club, No. 1
B. Betts, Philadelphia, Pa. M. M. Lawrence, New York
S. Broadbent, Philadelphia, Pa. J. De Witt Brinckerhoff, New York
W. Brown, Philadelphia, Pa. Mr. Holt, New York
C. Ehrmann, Philadelphia, Pa. R. Lewis, New York
W. L. Germon, Philadelphia, Pa. H. H. Snelling, New York
C. Guillou, Philadelphia, Pa. G. Harrison, Brooklyn, L. I.
F. Langenheim, Philadelphia, Pa. ” A. Faris, Cincinnati, Ohio.
J. E. M’Clees, Philadelphia, Pa. Webster Bros., Louisville, Ky.
F. D. B. Richards, Philadelphia, Pa. A. Hesler, Chicago, Ill.
C. C. Schoonmaker, Albany. G. N. Barnard, Syracuse, N. Y,
It now requires but five more subscribers to make up the compliment of the first Photographic Club. The five names first received after the publication of this number will be placed in the list with the above. If more than that number are received they will go to the formation of Exchange Club No. 2, or if thought advisable by the Club will be included in the first organization. The future government of the Society will be arranged and conducted by the members. In order to its proper organization we invite the gentlemen composing the Club to meet at our residence — No. 91 Seventh street (Decatur Place) — on the evening of the first Tuesday in September. Mr. Schoonmaker suggests that descriptions of the manipulations observed for their production, accompany each photograph; but this, as well as other subjects of a kindred nature, which have been mentioned to us, can be discussed and arranged at the primary meeting.
— We have been favored with the following letter, and as it explains, in part, Mr. Cutting’s views in regard to his Ambrotype patent, we are permitted to publish it. In regard to our remarks in a former number, on the Ambrotype, they were based upon the information we received from Mr. Barnard, but we find on looking over his letter again, that Oswego was included in the price charged ($1,000), and we make this correction in favor of the patentee; still we think the price too high. Mr. Howes misapprehends our remarks in regard to the patent. We have never denied that the method of sealing the picture claimed is a good one, or that Mr. Cutting is entitled to a patent for his originality, and our remarks can only be distorted into such an interpretation as given by Mr. Howes; but we think there are other methods quite as good, and that it is folly for a man to pay anything like the prices charged for this peculiar process when such is the case Our duty as a conservator to the interests of the Daguerrean public requires an impartial judgment on all matters affecting their interests, and we have no personal feelings otherwise in this matter. Few men deserve more credit for their enterprise than Mr. Cutting, and when we can do so conscientiously he will find no warmer advocate than ourselves.”
“Boston, July 7th, 1855.” “Mr. G. N. Barnard: Sir, — There seems to be a misapprehension in your vicinity with regard to Mr. Cutting’s prices for Ambrotype rights. Mr. Appleby, of Rochester, informs me that he learned from you that $1,000 was demanded for the right in Syracuse, and Mr. Snelling seems to have heard the same reports, and is quite severe in his remarks upon exorbitancy and extortion. Now, sir, with respect to Syracuse, there has no one been authorized yet to offer it at any price. And if any person has set the above price, he has done it without Mr. Cutting’s knowledge and without the least shadow of authority. Mr. Cutting’s prices are founded upon this basis — he says that 5000 inhabitants compactly situated ought to afford good support for one Daguerrean Artist, and in his opinion any artist having such support, ought not to refuse $100 for a right. So the prices paid in New England have not varied much from $100 to 5000 inhabitants. Of course some modification is necessary in large cities and among people who do not appreciate the fine arts. We prefer to sell county rights if we can do so, and for this purpose are willing to abate the price somewhat. Mr. Snelling seems to have changed his mind with regard to the worth of the patent. He now thinks that artists need not fear to buy it if they can get it at a fair price, but advises them not to buy at an exorbitant price as “there are other things as good.” — Now we do not wish any one to buy at an exorbitant price, and if any person feels satisfied that there are other things as good, we think he would be foolish to buy at all. If any one considers it more for his interest to spend his time in bothering with gum tragaeanth and rag plasters, and thereby producing second rate pictures, than to purchase a right at the above-named rate, why we have no sort of objection, and heartily wish him God speed. Mr. Cutting has had long experience in photographic experiments, and feels confident that he knows as much of Glass Pictures as Mr. Snelling or his correspondent in Michigan, and he is very well satisfied to trust the election to the sober common sense of artists and the public. The disposal of your county is in my hands at present, and I assure you that any good artist who may wish to purchase shall find me disposed (p. 255) to do all that they can ask in fairness, and I should much prefer to sell to a resident artist rather than let the county go into the hands of speculators.
Please excuse me for trespassing so far upon your time, and I shall be happy to give you any further information if you should feel so much interested as to address,
Yours obedient servant, W. R. Howes, Mattapoisett, Mass.
P.S. From what we have been able to learn of Onondaga County we think it worth $800. W. R. H.”
— A London paper furnishes us with the following well deserved compliment:
Photography. — A new exhibition of photographs and sun pictures of eminent individuals has been arranged at the gallery of Mr. Mayall, the eminent photographer, of Agyll-place, Regent-street. The collection is an exceedingly interesting one, as it contains specimens of every branch of photography, and each style of its application. Views, panoramas, fine art pictures, stereoscopic objects, &c, show the capabilities of the process, while its more immediate value is displayed by a great number of portraits of eminent individuals, many of which are life-size. The latter are mostly upon paper, and exhibit a new treatment of the photographic art. During the past few days, Mr. Mayall has been honored by sittings from a great number of noble and distinguished persons, among whose names may be mentioned the Duke of Argyll, the Duke of Newcastle, Viscount Palmerston, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl Granville, Lord John Russell, Viscount Barrington, the Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Riversdale, the Earl of Clarendon, the Earl of Harrowby, Sir Charles Wood (the First Lord of the Admiralty), Lord Robert Clinton, Lord Cranworth (the Lord High Chancellor), Lieut. General Sir De Lacy Evans, Lord Lucan, Sir William Molesworth, Lord James Stuart, Sir George Grey, Sir James Graham, Major Reed, M. P., Mr. Sidnev Herbert, M. P., Mr. Gladstone, M. P., the Earl of Wicklow, Sir W. Ousley, General Sir William Herries, Sir David Brewster, Sir W. Newton, Lieut.-Colonel Maitland, Major Tipping, Major Maude, General Cunningham, General Dunstable, Colonel Vicars, Admiral Sharpe, Mr. Scholefield, M. P., Mr. Chas. Dickens, Mr. Alfred Tennyson, D. C. L., Lady Campbell, Lady Frances Hope, Lady Frances Ryder, Lady Neville, &c, &c.
— Webster & Bro, of Louisville, Ky., have shown us some very fine Photographic portraits lately. We have had occasion before to speak of the excellence of these young artists’ work, and we are pleased to state that these last specimens confirm all we have said. They have made decided improvement. All they require is to obtain a slight degree more delicacy of light and shade to place them in the front rank.
— Messrs. Southworth and Hawes, of Boston, have patented an instrument in which to exhibit stereoscopic pictures which we have heard highly spoken of. They claim, ” Giving to pictures of a stereoscope or other analogous instrument a panoramic motion, into and out of the field of vision, by means of mechanism,” as described in their specification. Not having seen one of the instruments, all we can do is to announce it.
— “The University Portraits — A Great Mistake. — We are disposed to regard the proposed execution of the Photographic portraits of the Faculty and students of the University, a failure. A valuation for the money advanced has not been given. The production of some 2000 portraits, is of an importance sufficient to demand caution in securing the conditions of an honorable fulfilment of the contract. — But the professors, students, and others who are interested in this matter, are now left without redress for having themselves so illy represented in a series of Photographic representations, which possess not the slightest artistic merit. Offers were received from Whipple, of Boston, Root, of New York, and Kelsey & Hovey, of Rochester, and all agreeing as to the price at which they could be well executed. The subsequent offer made by Mr. Lawrence, an unsuccessful Photographer of New York, was some two or three cents less on ‘each picture. The Photographs now seen are therefore of his production. It is generally considered economy in whatever investment in trade, to pay a reasonable price, and get something valuable for the money invested. Especially is this so in matters of Art, for a picture without fidelity is worthless. This fact is now being realized by many who are dissatisfied. These pictures do not fairly represent the process by which they were taken, and designed to injure public confidence in that style. Beautiful productions, even to the life size, are now made in this way, which possess rare merit, and challenge our admiration. It is against this late transaction, and non-fulfilment on the part of this inefficient foreign artist, that we would earnestly protest, which protest we make in behalf of the Photographic Art.”
We clip the above from a Rochester paper, and must say that a more unjust, and willfully malicious article could not have been published. It must have been written by some disappointed aspirant, with more egotism than taste, and more malice than brains. We have taken considerable interest in these portraits of Mr. Lawrence, because whatever success he might obtain in their production, would establish a fact interesting to every Photographer. We know the difficulties under which he has labored — and the assiduous devotion he has bestowed upon them— frequently sitting up all night mounting and finishing them — in order to deliver them at the proper time. We doubt whether the writer of this libel could have taken the necessary inexperienced minds Mr. Lawrence has and taught them — in the brief time he has — to produce results anything equal to those he condemns. Mr. Lawrence has accomplished much more than we should have expected of him, and he richly deserves praise, not censure, as these heads, considering the difficulties under which he labored, are unusually fine.
— Mr. Faris, of Cincinnati, has been with us, and we have seen some of the exquisite gems which he executes. To say that he is unsurpassed by any artist in paper Photography is giving but a faint idea of the beauties of his work. Of his skill it is only necessary [for us to state that he produces cabinet and life size photographs, equal in tone, sharpness and delicacy of light and shade, to any of the smaller pictures we have ever seen. In this particular he has outstripped all competitors so far as we have seen. With his permission we will give in our next his method of executing these pictures.
— Marshall, July 11th, 1855.
Mr. Snelling. — Dear Sir — I would call your attention to the property possessed by carbon in reducing the per-nitrate of iron into the proto-nitrate; also some of the per-sulphates and per-chlorides into the proto-salts. Would it not be a valuable agent in preventing a solution of the proto-nitrate from turning into the pro-nitrate where the same is made in greater quantities than is wanted for immediate use. Never having seen the same in print, (when commonly got at) it is well to call attention to the subject, that experiments may be made by those interested. J. J. R.
” A Card” published in the usual underhand style of the author, is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end, as also several other scurrilous paragraphs in the same Journal.
Hardwich’s Manual of Photographic Chemistry; first American Edition, by the author’s sanction. Price, Fifty cents. See advertisement.
The Poetry of Physic. — Doses have always been associated in our minds with wry faces, and medicine has seemed from the days of childhood, another word for nausea and disgust. Its remedies were the worst part of sickness, and pain was not so hard to bear as the revolting portions we are compelled to swallow for its relief. Dr. Ayer’s preparations herald another era. His Cherry Pectoral is like honey on the tongue, and healing balm on the stomach. His Pills 1 Try them — they are sweet morsels to the taste, and glide sugar-shod over the palate, but their energy although wrapped up, is there, and strikes with telling force to the very foundations of disease.-— Cincinnati Citizen, O.”]

Southworth, Albert S. “Photographs and Stereoscopic Angles. —The True Theory.” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 11:5 (Oct. 13, 1855): 35. [“The scientific world have justly awarded to Prof. Wheatstone the honor of discovering that two distinct pictures of nature, taken from different points of view, may he made to coincide as one, and appear like a model, or solid in perfect relief. For this purpose Wheatstone arranged an instrument using reflectors, and named it the “Stereoscope,” from two Greek words, which mean “seeing.” Another instrument was constructed with an arrangement of lenses by Brewster. The perfect human vision of the two eyes is stereoscopic, and with a little careful practice two pictures, 6 by 8 inches in size, may be seen stereoscopically without either reflectors or lenses. The fact of the apparently solid combination having been established, it was not difficult to comprehend that daguerreotypes and other photographs might be readily made to answer the purpose admirably. Thus we see how the question must arise at once as to the points of sight from which to make the two pictures, or, in other words, an inquiry for the correct stereoscopic angles. An article of eighteen pages in the North British Review for May, 1852, gave very elaborate algebraic calculations for varying the angles according to the distance of the points of sight from the objects to be pictured. The space between the eyes, or two and a half inches, was to he the distance of eighteen inches from the object; and twelve feet from the object, the space between the points was to be eighteen inches. Sir David Brewster read a paper before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and illustrated his theory by experiments, attempting to prove that the distortion universally noticed in the stereoscopic picture was caused by using lenses larger than the lens of the eye, and this theory was very generally embraced. In March, 1852, Messrs. Southworth and Hawes, of Boston, Mass., simultaneously discovered in their course of experimenting that the directions of Wheatstone were not correct as to the points of sight, that instead of these being on a horizontal line the two points should be at an angle of 45 deg. with the horizon; that is, as far as one point is carried from the other to the right or left horizontally, so much must it he raised or lowered perpendicularly, and that the average space between the eyes is as near the proper distance for each movement as under the various circumstances can be attained. The pictures thus taken combine perfectly, without distortion, and appear to an artist’s eye correct in drawing, and in perfect proportion. As there have been so many theories advanced, it is not to be presumed that a new one will be embraced without a clear philosophical demonstration of its principles.

1. Binocular Vision.—There is delineated upon the retina of each eye different images of the same objects, because the eyes occupy different points of sight. The slightest change in position varies the images upon the retina, and the universal joint of the neck; and our means of locomotion permit us, in judging of sizes, distances, and proportions, to realize very many different views of objects much quicker than we can express our judgment by language. In a fixed position, with the eyes on a horizontal line, we do not see objects in nature as they are, or in other words, the assumption that “the human eyes are only placed two and one half inches apart, and see solid objects in their proper solidity and relief is incorrect and untrue, either in fact or in theory. With the two eyes on a horizontal line, all horizontal lines of objects towards which we direct our vision, whether near or distant, appear on the same plane. We see nothing over or under one line with one eye that is not seen with the other. We could, therefore, draw on one canvas all the horizontal lines seen with both eyes. Not so the perpendicular lines. With the right eye we should see lines beyond and around the nearer ones not seen with the left; and so with the left eye we should see lines around and behind not seen with the right. We could not draw the perpendicular lines, seen with both eyes, on one canvas, or in one picture. The perpendicular lines would have their own planes, and each would be different and in perspective. For example, suppose a cylinder supported horizontally by two columns; take a stand directly opposite, at equal distances from each column; the cylinder will appear, on its upper and under outline, to touch what lies in the background, whilst the columns will come forward to their proper places. Nothing will appear to one eye behind the cylinder that does not appear to the other, hut each eye will see behind the columns in the background something not seen by the other eye. It is not a fact, then, that the human eyes see objects in nature as they are from two points on a horizontal line. Let us suppose, instead of the left human eye occupying the present horizontal relation which it does to the right eye, that it had been placed first as far over its present position as it is removed from the right horizontally, we should then, in one fixed position, have seen around on right and under objects with the right eye, and as far around on the left, and over objects with the left eye. We should see over horizontal lines or under as much as we see to the the right or left of perpendicular ones. Each horizontal line would be in the same picture plane with its own perpendicular. Each eye would require its own canvas to picture what it sees, both horizontally and perpendicularly. As, however, our eyes are placed in the best position, considering their various relations and uses, we are given the universal joint of the neck, and powers of locomotion, so as to change them into the particular positions which our various duties may dictate. We feel, on reflection, that the common phrase “unless my eyes deceive me,” is neither inappropriate nor improper.
2. Stereoscopic Pictures.—A picture may represent nature as seen with one eye in a fixed position; but until Wheatstone arranged the stereoscope it required a model of nature—the actual sculptured forms of things—to represent what we see with two eyes, or to represent solidity. Wheatstone taught us that two pictures might be so arranged as to appear solid and statue-like, showing relief not by lights and shadows, but by difference of outline, by combining them into one apparent image, the same as the images on each retina combine to show us nature itself. But it was seen at once that the pictures made and arranged according to Wheatstones’ theory were out of proportion and out of drawing; that whilst they were wonderful as curiosities, they were also wonderful monstrosities. In this fact, Brewster and others were not mistaken; and had they not erred in assuming that “objects seen correctly with the eyes when pictured, and the images again reproduced upon the retina from the pictures, instead of showing nature, were distorted and disproportioned,” they would doubtless have finished the solution of the problem of the stereoscope so well commenced. Having shown that the human eyes in one fixed position do not see solid objects correctly, it follows, of course, that an exact reproduction of the same images upon the retina will produce again the same imperfections. As it is not known how to combine more than two images in the stereoscope, and whilst viewing them we cannot change the outlines by inclining the head to the right or left, or changing place, we ask, “From what two points of sight, in any case, shall pictures be made and arranged to represent nature without any distortion or disproportion ~ The true stereoscopic angles are always upon a line at an angle of 450 with the horizon, and about three inches and sixteenths apart. This is for the average space between the eyes, allowed to be two and one half inches. It makes no difference which way the angle is drawn, as it regards the relative proportions of the picture or its correctness. Having selected one point of view, there are four other points from which a correct stereoscopic combination may be made. These four points are the four angles of a square, whose sides are five inches, two sides horizontal and two perpendicular: the first position being the interesting point of two lines drawn diagonally from opposite angles. This is correct for any distance beyond the focus of the ordinary vision. For objects very far off, or for microscopic objects, an allowance must be made, so as not to exceed that distance which will permit the two pictures to combine easily without troubling the vision or appearing double. We come now to the only difficult question in connection with this subject. Do the lines of objects in nature in the same plane as the two points of sight taken at an angle of 450 with the horizon, and arranged in the stereoscope, show proper relief and assume their places, or do they appear to touch the background. The answer is, they appear in precisely the same relief as their own horizontals and perpendiculars, and appear true to nature. Explanation—Nature is solidity, and the stereoscope represents it as solid. Nature has her horizon or water level; the horizontal supports or balances, the perpendicular. In whatever position we place our eyes, or however we may view nature, we are conscious of the horizontal and the perpendicular; we measure every other line or angle from the horizontal to the perpendicular. Every intermediate line must have its own horizontal and perpendicular, and these are its support. The horizontal and perpendicular lines supporting one another being each to its own position in nature and in the stereoscope. Thus a brace at an angle of 450 must have its support from its perpendicular post, and though viewed in a stereoscopic representation, will assume its proper place whether the post or beam to which it attaches is in the view or not. It bears the same relation to its supports as though they were pictured in the view. These are principles upon which the value and perfection of stereoscopic pictures depend, and they are as unchangeable as any problem in geometry. This theory, and the peculiar manner of taking the pictures is our own by discovery, and covered by letters patent in the United States and England.
   Albert S. Southworth. Boston, 1855.”]

Mascher, John F. “Photographs and Stereoscopic Angles—The True Theory.” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 11:12 (Dec. 1, 1855): 91. [“A communication appeared in No. 5, this Vol. Scientific American, with the above heading, the doctrines of which appear so monstrous, that, were it not for the high position the author occupies in the daguerrean art, I would not have seen fit to controvert them. I have come to the conclusion after perusing this article carefully, that the author has not studied, nor does not understand the article which I had the honor to contribute to your valuable journal on page 251, Vol. 10. I have there proven that stereoscopic pictures, possessing all the stereoscopic relief to which they are, by nature, entitled, can be taken from two points of sight, distant from each other only 2 1-2 inches, or the same distance the human eyes are apart, without having recourse to Messrs. Southworth & Hawes’ patented arrangements, the fallacy of which, I supposed, would, ere this, have become apparent to the inventors themselves, or I should have given the subject more than a mere passing notice in my article alluded to. The human eyes can only coalesce objects that are parallel to the base of vision, and they cannot coalesce vertical and horizontal objects of the same picture at one and the same time, (the implied assertion of Mr. Southworth to the contrary, notwithstanding.) he makes this strange assertion, “that the human eyes, in one fixed position, do not see objects correctly.” If this were true, I would ask Mr. Southworth if he does not believe the Creator, in his infinite wisdom, would have placed one eye in its present position and the other in the place now occupied by the bump of causality? That Mr. Southworth has read inattentively, is evident from the allusion which he makes to a paper read by Sir David Brewster before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and illustrated his theory by experiments, attempting to prove that “the distortions universally noticed in stereoscopic pictures was caused by using lenses larger than the lens of the eye,” &c. Now any person that will take the trouble to obtain and read the article of Mr. Brewster’s, which originally appeared in the report of the British Association for 1852 and 1853, and which I find is the same that I alluded to on page 358, Vol. 10, of your journal, they will find that not one word is said in the whole article about stereoscopes at all! Let Mr. Southworth take a 1-4 size daguerreotype plate and draw a line lengthwise upon it in such a manner that the line will divide the plate into two equal portions, and fix a pin say four inches long, perpendicular, upon the middle of said line, then take, by means of his patented arrangement, a stereoscope picture of the plate so arranged, in such a manner that the resulting pictures will be as large as will fit a one-quarter sized stereoscope, he will find that by looking at the picture through the stereoscope it will be impossible for him to coalesce the two pins on the pictures into one (which they will do, however, if the pictures are taken in the manner pointed out by me on page 251,) and the reason why they do not do so, is perfectly obvious, from the fact that the upper ends of the pins do not (in the picture) fall upon the line of the arranged plate; the base of the pins do, hut the tops do not; whereas, if the pictures are taken either in the ordinary, or in the manner pointed out by me, both the base and the top of the pin will fall upon the line. The human eye possesses the power of coalescing pictures situated parallel to the base of vision, to the extent of 37 1-2 degrees, and they can, and do see one and the same object naturally, under every angle of convergence, from 37 1-2 to 0 degrees, simply by viewing the object at a greater or less distance from the eye; but they cannot coalesce pictures situated vertically to the eyes. They can combine pictures taken vertically, that is to say, by two cameras, one immediately above the other, just as well as those taken horizontally, that is, if they are put into the stereoscope in a laying or horizontal position. In that case a picture taken of a man, for example, while standing, would, when properly put in a stereoscope, appear, in that instrument, as if he were lying down; but there is no compromise between the vertical and the horizontal position. Writers on binocular vision have always spoken of the eyes as if they possessed no compensating power for the loss of stereoscopic relief of distant objects. The fact, however, is that they do possess such power to a considerable extent, which they exercise by means of two very ingenious contrivances. The first is the ball and socket joint of the eye, by means of which they move further apart for distant than for near objects, thereby increasing the angle of vision. The other is, they possess the power of contracting their aperture, and they do so when viewing distant objects. Now I have established the fact in the article before alluded to, that the stereoscopic relief of pictures is increased by a diminution of the aperture of the lenses, and consequently the contraction of the diaphragm of the eye also increases the stereoscopic effect. Hence it is that we find in small insects not only small eyes, but also that they are situated close together. Their sphere of vision is comparatively limited, from the very fact ot their eyes being small, and objects to us invisible become visible to them. Their eyes are natural microscopes—ours natural telescopes. If our eyes were no larger than a mathematical point, the most minute atom of matter would be visible to us. In conclusion, I may state that I speak from experience, having, as soon as Messrs. S. & H’s patent was issued, taken a picture according to their claim, which picture possesses the fault one might naturally expect, namely: if the two pictures are placed in the stereoscope in such a manner that the four eyes of the portraits are parallel to the sides of the case, the rounds of the chair upon which the person sits, will not be parallel, producing a strain and contortion to the eyes of the observer in their endeavor to assimilate this unnatural picture. This contortion is somewhat similar to what takes place when viewing ordinary stereoscopic pictures that have not been put up parallel—an occurrence that often takes place in the hands of the inexperienced or careless artist. I have very frequently met with pictures which were put up, one at least a quarter of an inch higher than the other. Indeed, it is not unusual to meet with pictures in the rooms of some of our best artists, which are put up stereoscopic reverse, that is, the right picture where the left one should be, and vice verse. How is it possible to see such pictures correctly?
John F. Mascher. Philadelphia. Nov. 14, 1856.”]

1856

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1855. Arts and Manufactures. Volume I. 34th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 20. Patent Office, January 1847. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1856.vii, 784 p..
[“Alphabetical List of Patentees.”.
(Etc., etc.)
12700 Southworth, A. S. Cameras, plate-holder for April 10, 1855. XVIII.
13106 Southworth, A. S., and J. J. Hawes. Stereoscopic pictures, apparatus for moving. June 19, 1855. XVIII.
(Etc., etc.) (p. 115)
Class XVIII-Arts Polite, Fine, and Ornamental, including music, painting, sculpture, engraving, books, paper, printing, binding, jewelry, &c.
No. Inventions or discoveries. Patentees. Residence. Date of patent.
(Etc., etc.)
12477 Breastpins, & c., safe-catch for. E. C. Benyaurd. Philadelphia, Pa. Mar. 6, 1855.
12700 Cameras, plate-holder for. A. S. Southworth. Boston, Mass April 10, 1855,
12344 Daguerreotype-plate holder. David N. B. Coffin, jr. Lynn. Mass. Feb. 6, 1855.
12560 Daguerreotype plates, machine for polishing. David Shive Philadelphia, Pa. Mar. 20, 1855.
13196 Daguerreotype face-plates or mats, machine for beveling and polishing the inner edges of. Edward Brown, assignor to Scoville Manufacturing Company. Waterbury, Conn. July 3, 1855,
13410 Daguerreotype cases, manufacture of. H. Halverson, assignor to Horace Barnes. Cambridge, Mass. Aug. 7, 1855.
13665 Daguerreotype-plate holder. David Shive. Philadelphia, Pa.. Oct. 9, 1855,
13701 Daguerreotype-plate vise. Samuel S. Day. New York, N. Y. Oct. 23, 1855.
13516 Electrotyping, machine for. Joseph Alexander Adams Brooklyn, N. Y Sept. 4, 1855.
(Etc., etc.) (p. 198)
“Classified List of Patents issued.”
“No. 13106. Stereoscopic Pictures, apparatus for moving. A. S. Southworth and J. J. Hawes. Boston, Mass. June 19, 1855.” (p. 202)]

Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1855. Arts and Manufactures. Vol. 2. Senate. 34th Congress, 1st Session. Ex. Doc. No. 20. Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, Printer, 1856. 380 p. illus.
[“No. 12,700.-Albert S. Southworth.-Plate-Holder for Cameras.— Patented April 10, 1855. (Plates, p. 290.) This plate-holder consists of a stationary casing ABEF. B is a zinc plate in front of the daguerreotype-plate Y, and contains a square opening C equal to one-fourth of the plate Y. The hollow square space within part E of the casing is of proper dimensions, so that when the frame Ĝ, holding plate Y, is successively slid into the four corners of said hollow space, the parts 11 21 31 4¹ of plate Y will be successively exhibited opposite the opening C, ready to receive the picture. The plate-holder G is brought into said four positions by moving the square knob I into the four corners of opening k in the rear part F of the casing. This motion can be made so quickly that the four pictures can be taken without covering the aperture of the camera from first to last. When exhibiting 31 and 4¹ the knob rests with its under surface on the top surface of the hinged block L, which block is then in a vertical position close to frame F. To exhibit 11 after 4¹ the block L is brought into position shown in fig. 4, the knob is slid down along edge a till its corner rests in groove c, and then passing the knob to the other end of said groove, 3¹ is exhibited. The object of this arrangement is to obtain rapidly a succession of pictures, timing them differently in order to select the best, and also to take stereoscopic pictures with one camera.
Claim. The within described plate-holder in combination with the frame in which it moves, constructed and operating in the manner and or the purpose substantially as herein set forth.” (p. 168)
No. 13,106.—Abel S. Southworth and Josiah J. Hawes.-Apparatus for Moving Stereoscopic Pictures.-Patented June 19, 1855. (Plates, p. 316.)
In figure 1 the plates 10 10¹ are in the fields of vision; as the crank revolves, the toes g having passed the arms h upon the vertical rod, the latter are left free to revolve when necessary; the cogged segments now engage with the racks upon the bottom of the plates 4 91 4 91, and drive them in the direction of the arrows, moving forward (as they advance) the plates 5 10 5¹ 10¹ into spaces S, the plates depressing the fingers k as they advance into recesses in the sides of the box revolving the rods into position figure 8; the teeth of segment P having now become disengaged from the rack on the bottom of plates 9 9¹, the said plates are allowed to remain stationary in the fields of vision during a semi-revolution of shaft o. While this is taking place the toes g come again in contact with the arms h, and the fingers k are again thrown into position figure 1; by which means the plates are moved forward in the direction of arrows f, thereby again vacating the spaces S, &c. The inventors say: We claim giving to the pictures of a stereoscope, or other analogous instrument, a panoramic motion into and out of the fields of vision by means of mechanism substantially as described, or by any other equivalent means.” (p. 224)]

Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. The Eighth Exhibition of Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association at Faneuil and Quincy Halls, in the City of Boston, September, 1860. Boston: Press of Geo. C. Rand and Avery, No. 3 Cornhill, 1856.
—————————————
Reports of the Judges.
Machinery and New Inventions.

935. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Parlor Stereoscope. This instrument, which is for the purpose of presenting to the eye as one, two Daguerreotypes taken from two points of view, and thereby giving a bolder relief, is a beautiful and interesting combination of graphic and mechanic art. It was on exhibition in 1853, and received the award of a Gold Medal. In its mechanical details it has been materially simplified and improved, and deserving the notice of all lovers of the beautiful. (p. 25)
     (Etc., etc.)
936. GEORGE STIMPSON, JR., Boston. Unalterable Bank Bill Vignette. A photograph accompanies this specimen, illustrating the want of success attending this mode of copying. The subject is one of vast importance in a commercial community; and in the limited time which could be given to it, the Committee could not satisfy every doubt; but they feel that every inventor should be encouraged to present his plans for public examination, and that they should be subjected to the severest ordeals which science can suggest, in the most liberal spirit. They would show their sense of the necessity and importance of protection, in the hope that at another Exhibition the highest mark of approbation may be justly claimed, by awarding a Diploma.” (p. 108)
     —————————————
     . Photography.
     In this department there is much to excite our admiration, and which we can freely commend. The Committee have given careful attention to the various collections offered for examination, and, if their judgment is not unanimous, it is owing to the high degree of excellence attained by several of the contributes. In daguerreotypes, no marked improvement is apparent during the past three years. The pictures of this class offered by Messrs. Masury, Silsbee and Case; Southworth & Hawes; Hesler; and Whipple & Black, are each and all of the highest order. The ambrotypes, by Mr. D. W. Bowdoin, are also very satisfactory in execution, and if, as asserted, they possess greater durability than the pictures on metallic plates, they have a strong claim on our attention. The word photograph has been distinctively applied to pictures upon paper, and in this sense we use it. They are offered for our examination, in various conditions:—
     1st. Plain, as they came from the action of sunlight, through the negative
     glass plate, upon the prepared paper.
     2d. With their tone heightened by washes, usually of gum water, producing an effect similar to that of varnish upon a painting.
     3d. More or less changed by pencilling with India ink.
     4th. Painted in water colors.
     5th. Painted in oils.
     All of these may be considered fair and legitimate ways of making an agreeable picture. Many of our best portrait painters do not hesitate to avail themselves of the aid to correct drawing furnished by the transfer of (p. 132) photographic outlines to their canvass, and, on the other hand, skillful artists are employed by our photographers for the coloring of their pictures upon paper. In these cases all traces of the foundation are covered by the super-structure, except to an experienced eye. The Committee are of opinion that such pictures must be judged as paintings, and in this view they prefer to all others those executed by Mr. W. Winter, of Chicago. A peculiar charm of the photographic art is that by which it satisfies the mind of absolute truthfulness of representation. This is, in a measure, lost by any alteration or deepening of the lines, or by the addition of color. That it is not required is proved by specimens offered by several of the contributors. The Committee are unanimous in thinking that photographs untouched by brush or pencil are of highest value. They are not, however, of one mind as to the comparative merits of those offered by two of the contributers whose works they think the best. They find, in a large number presented by Messrs. Whipple & Black, excellent grouping, great clearness and distinctness of outline, and a most agreeable effect. In those offered by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, a peculiar delicacy, very appropriate to many of the subjects, and giving to the flesh a softness similar to that observed in the engravings of Raphael Morghen. There is, also, a breadth of effect in some of their photographs, which the Committee would highly commend. The productions of both these establishments are so good that we desire to leave them upon equal terms. The Committee would have been pleased to find among the photographs more representations of inanimate objects. Our artists find it for their present interest to confine themselves almost exclusively to the human face. The same skill directed to the copying of the highest order of pictures which may be accessible, would, certainly, produce valuable results. (p. 133)
937. A. HESLER, Chicago, Ill. Daguerreotypes and Photographs. Daguerreotypes equal to any in the Exhibition, for clearness and beauty. Arrangement of figures graceful and effective. Silver Medal.
938. W. WINTER, Chicago, Ill. Painting of Photographs, for Hesler. Remarkably clear and transparent, rivalling in beauty the best miniatures upon ivory. Silver Medal.
939. John Andrew, Boston. Six Frames of Wood Engravings. Spirited in design; clear in execution; decidedly the best in the Exhibition. Silver Medal…..” (p. 135)
940. MASURY, SILSBEE & CASE. Photographs, plain and colored. Daguerreotypes. The specimens exhibited were very good, and some of them remarkably fine. Bronze Medal.
941. L. GROZELIER, Boston. Six Frames Lithographic Portraits. In the usual artistic style which has made Mr. Grozelier’s works so highly appreciated. Bronze Medal.
942. GEORGE D. RUSSELL, Boston. One Oil Painting. Diploma.
943. ALBERT BIERSTADT, New Bedford. Four Oil Paintings. Very good landscapes of the modern German school. Correct in drawing; clear and transparent in tone. The best landscapes exhibited. Silver Medal.
944. A. B. BROWN, Boston. Map Drawing. (p. 137)
945. C. & D. COBB, Boston. Lithographs….
946. M. S. CAHILL, Boston. Daguerreotypes, Photographs, and Ambrotypes. This artist has exhibited some fine plain photographs. Diploma.
947. G. K. WARREN, Lowell. Photographs. All remarkably pure, and apparently free from touches with brush or pencil. Bronze Medal. (p. 138)
948. P. STEPHENSON, Boston. Three Marble Busts — Truth, Psyche, and Indian Girl. The Committee cannot give unqualified praise to either of these works. They are, however, by no means wanting in merit, and we award them a Silver Medal.
949. G. V. ALLEN, Boston. Photographs and Daguerreotypes. These pictures are generally of the class referred to before, as being materially changed by pencilling with India ink. Diploma.
950. MISS M. A. PETTENGILL, Lawrence. Six Frames of Specimen Paintings.
951. N. S. DEARBORN, Boston. One Card of Engraving and Printing. Good specimen of card engraving. Diploma.
952. D. W. BOWDOIN, Boston. Ambrotypes. Diploma.
953. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Photographs. Daguerreotypes and Stereoscopes. Silver Medal….
954. M. ORMSBEE, Boston. Photographs and Daguerreotypes.
955. MISS KELLY, Boston. Two Small Frames Oil Paintings.
956. WHIPPLE & BLACK, Boston. Photographs, plain and colored. Daguerreotypes. Silver Medal.
957. Miss J. R. Cutler, Boston. Grecian Painting.
958. M. J. WHIPPLE & CO., Boston. Crystalline Tracing Linen. A useful article, carefully prepared. Diploma.
959. G. J. & G. E. JOHNSON. Specimen of Painting on Glass….” (p. 139)
960. MICHAEL WOODS, Boston. Mausoleum Daguerreotypes Cases…. (p. 140)]

1 b & w (“Charles Sumner.”) as frontispiece in: Sumner, Charles. Last Three Speeches on Kansas and Freedom: February 7th, March 6th, and May 19th & 20th, 1856. Boston: Higgins and Bradley, 1856. [Engraving by H. Wright Smith, probably from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.]

1 b & w (“Charles Sumner”) as frontispiece in: Sumner, Charles. The Crime Against Kansas. The Apologies for the Crime. The True Remedy. Speech of Hon. Charles Sumner, in the Senate of the United States, 19th and 20th May, 1856. Boston: J. P. Jewett; New York: Sheldon, Blakeman, 1856.]

1 b & w (“William Warren”) as frontispiece in: Brough, William. Number One, Round the Corner. A Farce in One Act … and a Memoir of William Warren, Esq. of the Boston Museum. Spencer’s Boston Theatre, vol. 7:52. Boston: William V. Spencer, 1856. [Probable portrait by Southworth & Hawes.]

“Photographic and Stereoscopic Angles. —The True Theory.” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 11:21 (Feb. 2, 1856): 163. [“The public will expect an answer to Mr. Mascher’s article on page 91, this volume of the Scientific American. His opinions would have been appreciated had his remarks been confined to scientific examples and illustrations —avoiding personal allusions to any neglect or lack in studying and understanding his article on my part. The article of Brewster, heretofore referred to by me, is upon the size of lenses, as affecting their images, and Photographs made by the same images. A photograph for a stereoscopic tableaux is, singly, the same as any other, and if one or both are distorted, separately considered, they must be when stereoscopically combined. My inference was true from that paper. I might have quoted columns, published three years since, which Mr. Mascher on page 231, last volume Scientific American, through nearly one half of his whole communication, follow in every essential, thus decidedly endorsing the error into which Brewster and others had been led, and which our “true theory” corrected. Was there the least necessity for so doing. Mr. M. appealed to persons to read Brewster’s article, and “that they would not find one word about stereoscopes at all,” but I had not so implied nor used the term “stereoscope.” Here permit me to rectify an error (in the use of Brewster’s name, as follows, “In titis fact Brewster and others were not mistaken,” &c.,) into which I was led by the statement of Mr. M., on page 231 (before referred to) in connection with this sentence, “To explain the why and the wherefore of these facts has challenged the attention of Prof. Wheatstone. Sir David Brewster, and a host of others,” &c. One of these facts, as Mr. M. has it, is “the human eyes are only placed two and a half inches apart, and see solid objects in their proper solidity and relief.” Now, what says Brewster on this point, my denial of which Mr. M. calls “monstrous ~ He says, “we do not see the true forms of objects in binocular vision. But though we see more of the body in binocular vision, it is only parts of vertical surfaces perpendicular to a line joining the eyes that are thus brought into view, the parts of similar horizontal surfaces remaining invisible as with one eye. . . The two eyes were necessary to give beauty to the human form.” I trust these quotations will be considered ample reparation for inadvertently imputing to Brewster so unphilosophical an idea on Mr. Mascher’s authority. This is the doctrine of all writers on Optics. Nor has there been published one word of controversy or difference of opinion on the “two facts” above mentioned, between Prof Wheatstone and Brewster. But “writers on binocular vision have spoken of the eyes as if they possessed no compensating power for loss of stereoscopic relief of distant objects.” Smith published the fact of the eyes turning outward when viewing distant objects a century since, and it is known to every body that knows an eye from a mathematical point. Did Mr. M. mean to tell us that he had discovered the two ingenious contrivances which he describes? It surely required more than ordinary ingenuity to discover, first, that the eyes having turned outward to their furthest limit, and exhausted their power to discern stereoscopic relief, turn further apart still, and separate objects which they cannot see at all; and, second, that the aperture diminishes for distant objects, when every general writer upon Optics and the anatomy of the eye, tells us that it is for “near objects” that the aperture diminishes. Stereoscopic relief is lost at a point from which the optic axes converge, and continue onward in a direct line. Beyond this the joints of the body and our powers of locomotion and the telescopic arrangement of lenses permit the selection of such points of sight at will, by parallax, afford the best positions for trigonometrical calculations. This is the only compensating power which the eyes possess for loss of relief of distant objects. We come now to the fourth section of Mr. Macher’s article containing his proposition for solution. I will arrange, as he proposes, a quarter size daguerreotype plate and pin. I will take one picture from one point chosen by himself; and then will change the position of the plate by reversing its ends, and take the other picture from his second chosen point. When stereoscopically arranged, he cannot detect \he change; or I will turn the pin one half round in the second picture, and it will not appear that there has been any movement of the objects in the interval of taking the pictures. The most inexperienced tyro will know at once, that similar points do not coalesce when the ends of ~he plate are changed, or when the pin is moved half round, though they seem to. Let me propose an example: take a small statue of the Apollo Belvidere, a ad stand it on the window-sill; make one picture, and turn it half round and make the other. Will these coalesce? Surely not. Corresponding points and outlines must be dissimilar enough to show relief, and not so dissimilar as not to blend or harmonize in vision. If two points of sight horizontally are chosen, the extended arm will appear as though viewed with one eye and will appear in the same plane with the horizontal bars of the window sash but the body will be seen as from two points, and its vertical surfaces will be relieved, and will stand out from the vertical bars of the sash. But suppose the two points of sight are selected on a vertical line, that is, having the two cameras placed one over the other. The arm is now seen from two points, over and under whilst the vertical surfaces of the body are seen as from one point. When stereoscopically arranged, the arm will be relieved from the horizontal bars of the sash, whilst the body will be in the same plane as the vertical bars. If we now arrange these last taken pictures of the “model man,” as Mr. M. proposes, lying down, in the stereoscope, what becomes of the arm? Will that appear lying down? Will the windows and all nature in the back-ground appear to be lying down? By the same reasoning, two pictures of the statue, or “man” lying down, made from two horizontal points would represent the same standing up. If such were the facts, the stereoscope would be, as Brewster terms it, an instrument of “ocular equivocation.” How easy to go to work philosophically and take the two pictures from two points at an angle of 45 degrees. with the horizon, giving equal relief to both horizontal and vertical surfaces, with the bars of the sash in the same plane. I need scarcely allude to the concluding section of Mr. M.’s article. He says, “Having taken a picture according to our claim, it possesses the fault one might naturally expect, and if placed in the stereoscope with the four eyes parallel to the sides of the case, the rounds of the chair will not be parallel,” &c. Now, how can the four eyes in the two pictures be parallel in the stereoscope, two being taken from one point of sight, and two from another point. There are two different perspectives to the same vanishing point, and of course the four eyes cannot be on the same line in nature, according to the laws of perspective. Two corresponding eyes in the different pictures may be arranged parallel, and two corresponding points of the chair rounds, but not the four eyes nor the rounds in their length. Therefore, if Mr. M. placed the four eyes on a line, he turned the plates obliquely, and thus, in unskillful hands, a single experiment has resulted unsatisfactorily. After three years~ carefully experimenting, we have never failed in, nor discovered a single exception to, our rule. We have the Apollo, and the Laocoon, the monument and the street, the forest near and distant, the ship on her stocks, with her horizontal bracing, all as perfectly modelled and as perfectly relieved in their horizontal lines and surfaces as in their vertical. The eyes may view all our stereoscopic tableaux, without weariness at all for any length of time, and the artist may copy forms with pencil, brush, or chisel, as perfectly as from nature itself.
Albert S. Southworth. Boston, Jan. 11, 1836.
[Two eyes are given to man for another purpose beside beauty of form. A person having only one eye is not a correct judge of distance. — Ed.]”]

1 b & w (“Laura Bridgman, pupil at the Perkins Institute for the Blind.” BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 10:251 (Apr. 26, 1856): 268. [Woodcut engraving, not credited, but from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.]

“Photography.” BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 11:262 (July 12, 1856): 29. [“We have seen some beautiful specimens of a new style of photographic pictures, invented and patented by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, of this city. They have a delicacy and softness surpassing that of the finest mezzotint engravings or crayon drawings, and resemble, in some respects, monochromatic pictures in oil. The effect is remarkably fine.”]

1857

1 b & w (“Charles Sumner” (frontispiece). Engraving by H. Wright Smith”) as frontispiece in: Sumner, Charles. Recent Speeches and Addresses. Boston: Higgins, Bradley and Dayton, 1857. [Probably from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.]

“Obituary. Seth Cheney.” THE SPECTATOR 1:2 (Jan. 3, 1857): 31. [“Seth Cheney died at Manchester, Conn., his native town, on the 10th of September. He was an artist of refined taste and distinguished talent; having commenced his art career under the instruction of his brother, John Cheney, engraver. His works were mostly crayon drawings of portraits and ideal heads. Some of his female heads and heads of children were exquisite productions. He painted a few subjects in oil; but his best works were drawings in crayon. The “ Crayon’ justly styles him the father of that branch of art in which there are now so many following in his footsteps. He resided several years in Boston, where many of his finest works remain.
Among Mr. Cheney’s fine crayon heads in this city, was that of the late Rev. Dr. Peabody. Of this head Messrs. Southworth & Hawes have succeeded in making some very excellent photographic copies, which are for sale by the print sellers, and of which the friends of that lamented divine will no doubt be glad to possess themselves.”]

[Advertisement.] “Artists Daguerreotype Rooms.” THE SPECTATOR 1:3 (Jan. 10, 1857): 40.
[“Directly opposite Brattle Street, No. 19, (formerly 5½) Tremont Row. Every variety of Photographing, and Oil and Water Colored, and India Ink Portraits, from Life, or from Daguerreotypes, or other Likenesses.
In taking pictures called Crystalotypes, Ambrotypes, Melainotypes, &c., more properly Photographs on paper, glass, steel, stone, wood, cloth, &c., we will excel in perfection of work and artistic merit, all competition.
We received the highest premium at the late Fair for Daguerreotypes and Photographs. Our Stereoscopes will surpass every other ever made, and are worthy of examination Stereoscopic pictures in correct perspective and proportion, are taken only by our Patent.
SOUTHWORTH & HAWES,
19, (formerly 5½ Tremont Row, directly opposite Brattle Street.” (p. 40)
[(Ad repeated in next issue, on p. 56. WSJ)]

1 b & w (“John Howard Payne.”) on p. 300 in: BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 12:12 (Mar. 21, 1857): 300. [(Not credited, but from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype. WSJ)]

“Photographic Ware.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 9:1 (May 1, 1857): Additional section; 7-8. [Geo. Mathiot; J. Gurney; Fredricks; Southworth & Hawes; Whipple & Black; J. H. Fitzgibbon mentioned.]

“Photographic Ware: Southworth & Hawes.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 9:1 (May 1, 1857): Additional section; 7. [Praise for their daguerreotypes and photographs.]

Root, M. A. “Daguerreotype and Its Destiny.” PHOTOGRAPHIC AND FINE ART JOURNAL 10:6 (June 1857): 164-165. [“Mr. Editor: — No one can rejoice more heartily than myself, at the rapid progress and vast development of the sun-painting Art since its inauguration by Daguerre, barely eighteen years ago. I can look with pleasure and admiration on the many varieties of the solar picture, viz. the Photograph, the Ambrotype, the Hallotype, &c., which have sprung from the original impress upon silvered copper, produced by the great Frenchman.
I cannot, however, help regretting that, in the brilliancy of the new discoveries, the Daguerreotype should have sunk so far into neglect, for, through its intrinsic merits, to speak of nothing beside, it deserves a better fate.
To touch on some of these merits is the principal object of this brief article, and to this object, after a few preliminaries, I I shall proceed.
In the production of the sun-picture, whatever its class, there are two distinct departments — the mechanical and artistic.
The operant, who will best succeed in the former, is the one who observes most carefully, manipulates most skillfully, and most dexterously handles all implements and appliances.
Viewed artistically, the Heliographic Picture is the work of him who presides over the camera. It is, in fact, the product of his thought and feeling, variously manifested, as, e.g. in determining the position of the subject or sitter, in disposing judiciously the lights and shadows falling upon him, and finally, what is most essential of all, in calling forth and arresting the highest and best expression of the subject.
Here then, as must be obvious to all, something more and other than mere mechanical aptitude is indispensable to produce pictures of eminent merit. This is the proper sphere of the born artist — him who, together with rare perceptive powers and’ a sensitive, enthusiastic temper — possesses a matured judgment, and an accurate appreciation of the beautiful in nature and in art.
With such endowments, and such alone, can he produce portraits, which, instead of being mere shadows of senseless, lifeless forms, are truthful, life-like representations of intelligent, sensible persons, so felicitously pictured, that we may almost read, in the mute impression, the mental workings of the subject at the instant of taking.
Such characteristics impart to the portrait, a genuine enduring value. And the artist, who, being organically dowered with the genius especially appropriate to this department, persists in faithfully exercising the same upon every successive subject, will, within no lengthened interval, give to his establishment, (p. 164) a reputation of far greater worth, than any amount of money-capital would be.
And, what to the artist by organization must be a most grateful thought, he may, the while, aid potently towards exalting his favorite Heliograph} 7 to that honorable rank among the Fine Arts, which by the misjudging sciolists in aesthetic lore is so often denied it, but which it so amply merits and will, at no distant day, universally receive.
The Daguerreotype Picture, when skillfully executed, upon a pure silver surface, in the highest style of the Art, is still one of the wonders of our age; and with the sole exception of the sometimes obscuring reflection from the polished metallic surface, remains, as yet, unequalled in its beauty of tone and its minute fidelity and truthfulness to nature, by any other among the multitudinous present varieties of the Heliographic Art.
Were the Daguerreotype, in its existing state of perfection, to be brought out new at the present moment, it would, beyond all question, create a strong sensation, and be enthusiastically and universally lauded.
My own belief is, that the Daguerreotype is destined to remain permanently a favorite with the public. I believe also, that this species of pictures will continue to be taken by first-class operants in the leading establishments, in connexion with other popular varieties of Heliography, and will always constitute an important and profitable branch of the Art.
Among the thousands who, in this country, have professedly practised this, the most difficult of all the known varieties of Heliography to excel in, there are, comparatively speaking, very few, who have achieved eminence by their superior execution, or their production of what deserved, in every sense of the term, the name of Pictures.
Among these I rejoice, that I can freely specify Messrs. Southworth and Hawes, Masury and Silsby, and John A. Whipple of Boston, — J. Gurney and M. M. Lawrence of New York, Hesler of Chicago, and Fitzgibbons of St. Louis.
These, and perhaps a few beside, have contributed to render this department popular and lucrative”; and, I believe, they still continue to devote to this, in connexion with other branches, the same skill and the same unremitting attention and energy, as in times foregone.
I trust they may persist in so doing; and that thy may find themselves remunerated amply by golden returns, while they do honor alike to themselves and to the memory of their great leader and exemplar, Daguerre.
Should I find occasion to communicate again with you, Mr. Editor, I may take up the Photograph, the Ambrotype, the Hallotype, &c. M. A. Root. Phila. May 16, 1857.]

1 b & w (“Statue of Major Gen. Jos. Warren, by Henry Dexter, Sculptor, for the Monument Association. From a Photograph by Southworth & Hawes.”) in: FRANK LESLIE’S ILLUSTRATED NEWSPAPER 4:81 (June 20, 1857): 36.

1 b & w (“Henry Dexter, the Sculptor of the Warren Monument. Photographed by Southworth & Hawes.”) in: FRANK LESLIE’S ILLUSTRATED NEWSPAPER 4:81 (June 20, 1857): 44.

1 b & w (“Statue of General Warren.”) BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 13:316 (July 11, 1857): 17. [“…drawn by Mr. Hill from an admirable photograph by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, Tremont Row.”]

1 b & w (“Hon. Robert I. Burbank. commander of the First Regiment, M. V. M.”) “From a Daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.” BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING-ROOM COMPANION 13:328 (Oct. 3, 1857): 220. [“We present herewith a portrait of the popular and gallant commander of the First Regiment, M. V. M. drawn expressly for us by Homer, from a photograph by Southworth & Hawes. Col. Burbank is one of our most popular fellow-citizens, widely known through the State, and beyond its borders, by honorable reputation, but best appreciated and best loved by those to whom he is most intimately known.”]

“Personal & Art Intelligence.” PHOTOGRAPHIC AND FINE ART JOURNAL 10:12 (Dec. 1857): 384. [“Mr. Hall’s Improved Photograph. As photographers have a right to expect that we will at the earliest possible moment inform them of every improvement made in the photographic Art, we take pleasure in calling their attention to the fact that Mr. Hall, the inventor and patentee of the Hallotype, has invented a process, which he and others claim to be far superior to any other mode of treating pictures. We still claim with Mr. Hall that the Hallotype process, when properly managed, produces exceedingly beautiful results; but we were some time ago informed by him, that he was satisfied from the failures of many who first attempted it, that the majority would not make it practicable, and therefore he had never travelled one mile to sell it. We have seen certificates from Southworth & Hawes and others, who unqualifiedly pronounce the process vastly superior to that of the Hallotype; and we unhesitatingly say that the results are, judging from the specimens we have seen, in every respect equal. Mr. Hall in this method has sought for simplicity in manipulation, and assures us these pictures cannot be surpassed on that score .Mr. Hall intends to give personal instruction to all who desire to purchase the process, in order that there may be no future disappointments on the part of the purchaser His terms will also be reasonable.”]

1858

1 b & w (Charles Goodyear.) on p. 18. “The Valley of the Naugatuck.” NATIONAL MAGAZINE; DEVOTED TO LITERATURE, ART, AND RELIGION 12:1 (Jan. 1858):11-20. 8 illus. [History and prospects of this rural area. Charles Goodyear, now famous, was raised in Union City, a suburb of the town of Naugatuck, which is why his portrait is in this article. Portrait not credited, but probably from a daguerreotype or photograph—in fact, quite possibly from a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes. Additional illustrations are landscape views and townscapes.]

1 b & w (“Gideon F. Thayer.”) opposite p. 612 in: “IV. Gideon F. Thayer.” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 4:12 (Mar. 1858): 612-621. [“Engraved by H. Wright Smith from a Dag. By Southworth & Hawes.”]

1 b & w (“George B. Emerson.”) opposite p. 417. “VII. George B. Emerson.” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 5:14 (Sept. 1858): 417-425. [“Engr. By H. W. Smith from a Dag. by Southworth & Hawes.”]

1 b & w (“Calvin E. Stowe.”) opposite p. 586. “XVII. Calvin E. Stowe.” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 5:14 (Sept. 1858): 586-592. [“Engr. By J. C. Buttre from a Dag. by Southworth & Hawes.”]

“The Orphan’s Fair Again.” IRISH MISCELLANY (BOSTON, MA) 2:42 (Nov. 27, 1858): 249.
[“In our last week’s issue we called attention to the fair which commenced at the Music Hall on Tuesday last, and we wish now to say a word more on the subject.
Our attention has been called to this matter by our having seen many of the articles of curious workmanship, furnished by the zealous managers and contributors to this charity; and we can say, in truth, that it richly deserves the most liberal patronage of our whole community. Every table is crowded with articles of curiosity and utility, and is a perfect curiosity shop. Each table is unlike all the rest, so that the whole presents a museum worthy as much examination as any exhibition ever seen in the city.
At the table of St. Aloysin’s chapel, the children will find their old friend SANTA CLAUS, who is making an early exploration among his clients in order to find out who are worthy of his Christmas attentions. Those who pay their respects to him, at the Music Hall, he will be sure to remember when the holidays come.
Let the children all remember that Santa Claus is out, that he knows all about the fair, and all about them. He will not forget his friends; but his enemies, we are afraid, will not have a ‘Merry Christmas’ or a ‘Happy New Year.’
Messrs. Southworth & Hawes have prepared some very interesting photographic groups of the Sisters and orphans, and other parties, which will make a valuable collection of pictures by these talented artists.
We learn from the directors and managers that the interest of the public in this matter seems to be more manifest now than ever before, and we hope, and expect, the result will equal the hopes and expectations of the most sanguine.” (p. 249)]

“Editor’s Easy Chair. Gossip With the Reader.” BALLOU’S PICTORIAL DRAWING ROOM COMPANION 15:391 (Dec. 18, 1858): 398. [“Fox Talbot, the London photographist, has discovered a method of transferring the photographic image directly to the copper or steel plate, ready for the tool of the engraver. We believe that Southworth & Hawes of this city performed that feat years ago…”]

1859

“Portrait of Dr. James Jackson.” THE BOSTON MEDICAL AND SURGICAL JOURNAL 59:6 (Sept. 9, 1858): 127. [“Messrs. Editors, I had the opportunity of seeing, a few days since, through the politeness of a medical friend, a portrait of Dr. Jackson, just completed by Mr. F. L. Lay, for a gentleman of this city, from a photograph of Southworth & Hawes. Those familiar with the name of the artist, will not be surprised to learn that he has succeeded in producing a likeness of this distinguished gentleman, of remarkable. accuracy and artistic excellence. The portrait is a full length, and the artist has succeeded in combining great softness and delicacy with a more than usual degree of clearness and distinctness of effect….” (p. 127)]

1860

The Boston Almanac for the Year 1860. No. XXV. By Damrell & Moore, and George Coolidge. Boston: Brown, Taggard & Chase, 1860. 255, [8] p. 14 cm.
“Business Directory.”
“Daguerreotype Miniatures.”
(Etc., etc.)
“Southworth & Hawes, 19 Tremont.”
(Etc., etc.) (p. 141)
[Approximately 50 firms listed. 13 firms, including Southworth & Hawes, listed again under “Photographs” on p. 202.]

The Boston Directory: Embracing the City Record, and a Business Directory for the Year Commencing July 1, 1860. Boston: Adams, Sampson, & Co., 1860. 580 p. 90 adv. p. illus.
“Boston [H] Directory.”;
“Hawes, Josiah J. (Southworth & Hawes) 19 Tremont.” (p. 208)
“Boston [S] Directory.”
“Southworth, Albert S. (Southworth & Hawes), 19 Tremont Row, boards 34 Bowdoin.
(Etc., etc.)
“Southworth & Hawes (A. S. Southworth & J. J. Hawes), daguerreotypists, 19 Tremont row.” (p. 397)
“Business Directory.”
Daguerreotype Apparatus.
French Benjamin, 109 Washington
Safford M. 36 Washington
SAWYER JOHN & CO. 123 Wash.
(see advertising department, p. 47)
Daguerreotype, Ambrotype, and Photograph Artists,
Anderson H., Central square, corner
Saratoga, E. B.
Bailey T. 659 Washington
Bartlett Richard H. 168 Hanover
Batchelder P. M. 173 Washington
Bell J. R. 117 Hanover
Bent Israel, 142 Washington
Black & Batchelder, 173 Washington
Briggs Jesse, 123 Washington
Cahill M. S. 293 Washington
Campbell B. F. 145 Hanover
Chamberlin Francis, 131 Hanover
Chapman D. & G. D. 257 Washington
Chute R. J. 13 Tremont row
Clark George jr. 59 Court
Clark George F. 230 Commercial
Clifford D. A. 335 Washington
Crosby R. R. 140 Court
Davis & Co. 2 Winter
Dodge C. W. 2 Lewis, E. B.
Donovan M. B. 94 Hanover
Eastman W. B. 75 Court
Fancy Joseph A. 247 Washington
Griffin Lemuel H. 268 Washington
Hale L. H. 109 Washington
Hamilton George D. 63 Court
Harley & Metcalf, 103 Court
Haskins Fred. W. 14 Hanover
Hatstat A. J. 211 Broadway
Hazelton B. C. 140 Washington
Heywood Geo. W. 208 Hanover (p. 481)
BUSINESS
Heywood John D. 228 Washington
Heywood & Heard, 10 Tremont row
Higgins & Bros. 114 Hanover
Homer & Fancy, 247 Washington
Horton H. W. 113 Washington
Loomis & Shepard, 7 Tremont row
Marshall A. 63 Court
Masury S. 289 Washington
Morris L. H. 659 Washington
Norton W. H. 49 Tremont
Ormsbee M. 203 Washington
Proctor Alfred N. 2 Lewis, E. B.
Rider G. W. 258 Washington
Soule John P. 130 Tremont
SILSBEE, CASE, & CO. 299) Wash. (see advertising department, p 61)
Starkweather J. B. 631 Washington
Southworth & Hawes, 19 Tremont row
Sylvester C. T. 4 Summer
Trott A. P. 199 Hanover
Turner J. W. 47 Hanover
WHIPPLE J. A. 96 Wash. (see adv. department, page 49)
Whittaker G. L. 194) Hanover
White Abiel F. 121 Court
White Geo. C. 659 Washington
Winslow A. 93 Hanover
Wyman & Co. 335 Washington.” (p. 482)]

Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. The Ninth Exhibition of Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association at Faneuil and Quincy Halls, in the City of Boston, September 1860. Boston: Press of Geo. C. Rand and Avery, No. 3 Cornhill, 1856.
—————————————
Reports of the Judges.
“…The periods between your Exhibitions are comparatively too brief to present to the casual or even to the critical observer, many marked and striking improvements at each occasion.
To realize the progress of improvement (which your Association has done so much to encourage) in greater force, we have but to carry our memories back to a period within the recollection of the youngest of your Committee, that of your first Exhibition, and there look in vain for the Sewing Machine, the Daguerreotype, the Electric Telegraph Apparatus, the Electrotype, and other entire arts, then unknown, which, in their various modifications, form no inconsiderable part of the attractions and interest of this occasion….” (p. 2)
—————————————
Philosophical Instruments.

491. A. BECKERS, New York, by Jos. L. Bates, Boston. Rosewood Stereoscope. This is a very ingenious arrangement, by means of which a large number of stereoscopic pictures may be presented to view, by simply turning a handle at the side. This is accomplished by placing the pictures in frames which are attached to an endless belt passing over a square axle; by which means, each picture is brought at once to the proper position by the lower edge of the picture-frame resting upon the square part of the axle. It is this peculiar contrivance which allows a very large number of pictures to be arranged in a very limited space. There is, also, an adjustment by which the focal distance of the pictures can be arranged for persons with long or short sight. It is beautifully made of rosewood, and very ornamental for parlor use. It compares favorably with other stereoscopes, in exhibiting both opaque and transparent pictures, and it possesses the great advantage over others of preserving the entire selection of pictures from injury by handling or accident. As a most interesting and ingenious apparatus for exhibiting the beautiful optical effects of binocular vision, this instrument is deserving of high commendation. Bronze Medal. (p. 67)
     —————————————
     Chemicals, Paints, Varnishes, Etc.
492. JAMES R. NICHOLS & CO., Boston. Case of Chemicals., A large assortment, very neatly exhibited in a glass case. Most of the 75 articles are pharmaceutical preparations, which appear to be of good quality. They include many articles of recent introduction, such as Propylamine, Glonoine, the Valerianates and Hypophosphites. There are also various salts of iron and other metals, chloroform, sulphuric ether and other ethers. Some articles used in photography are included. The whole bears testimony of the enterprise of this firm. Bronze Medal. (p. 107)
     —————————————
     Fine Arts.
     Le Baron Russell, Benjamin S. Rotch,
     Chester Guild, Jr., Robert W. Hooper,
     Judges.
     The Committee on the Fine Arts herewith present their report on the specimens submitted for their examination.
     Sculpture and Painting.
     The specimens in these departments do not appear to your Committee to require special notice at this time. Some of the contributors have received medals and diplomas at previous Exhibitions of the Association, and there is not sufficient evidence of improvement, in the works submitted, to call for a second award.
     Photography.
     The contributors in this department are numerous, and many of the specimens examined show a high degree of merit. The art of Photography has made much progress during the last few years, and is no doubt destined to take a still higher position hereafter. It is much to be desired that those who devote themselves to it should direct their attention more especially to the improvement of their own art, instead of attempting to make up for its present deficiencies by the aid of painting, which in most instances seems to your Committee to detract from the value of their work. The Committee have unanimously given the preference to those specimens which are untouched by the brush. Every stroke of the brush, however carefully applied, must obscure something of the beauty of a genuine photograph. Most colored photographs, particularly the large portraits on which so much labor is bestowed, are very unsatisfactory as works of art. Some of these are very beautifully executed, but those which have the most merit owe their chief value to the artist in oil or in water colors who painted them, and should be exhibited in his name.
     One of the chief causes of the deficiencies in many of the specimens of photographic portraits at our exhibitions, is the want of attention to artistic effect in the position and attitude of the sitter. This is particularly observable in representations of families and other groups. There would seem to be great difficulty in the attainment of a graceful and natural grouping in these pictures. There are many exceptions to the application of these remarks, among which may be mentioned groups and single figures by Messrs. Black & Batchelder, Southworth & Hawes, and by others. A part of the difficulty in obtaining satisfactory portraits by photography (p. 120) is no doubt owing to the length of time during which the sitter is obliged to remain motionless in a required position, the effort to maintain which has often the effect to discharge all natural expression from his features. If, by any improvement in the process, an impression could be taken instantaneously of persons, as is now sometimes done of scenery, a great advantage would be gained. Some of the finer specimens of English and French portraits show an ease and grace of attitude, with a judicious management of light and shade, and a natural and unconstrained expression of the features, which are not often to be met with in our exhibitions.
     Many of the views of scenery and buildings exhibited as specimens are very beautiful, and show decided progress in the art. Those of streets and places in Boston by Messrs. Whipple, and Southworth & Hawes, of buildings by Messrs. Black & Batchelder, and those taken at Nahant and the seashore by Messrs. Silsbee, Case & Co., are particularly worthy of notice. In many specimens, however, a neglect of attention to artistic effect in the selection of the proper point of view, and the general arrangement of the picture is very apparent. There is also a want of the fine gradations of light and shade, and of good atmospheric effect, which are found in some of the best foreign photographs, showing that, although our artists have produced many admirable works, they have yet much to learn in these important particulars. The energy, ingenuity, and skill which so many among them are daily devoting to their pursuit, leave no room for doubt that they may eventually equal and perhaps surpass their foreign competitors.
     The application of Photography to the copying of engravings and paintings promises to be of much value, and is well worthy of attention. It is to be regretted that the subjects selected are not always of the highest class, and that engravings of little or no merit are so often reproduced. Some very successful attempts have been made to introduce a higher order of subjects, and the specimens exhibited by Messrs. Southworth and Hawes of this kind, particularly those from the Toschi series after Correggio, have great merit, almost equalling the original engravings in beauty. The art of Photography is so admirable in itself, and capable of such wonderful effects, that we look with great interest upon all efforts to improve its processes and enlarge the sphere of its useful application. Among the later improvements may be mentioned the method of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, by which they are able to represent the upright outlines of tall buildings as perpendicular and parallel, instead of converging and inclined as is usually the case. We would also call attention to the beautiful stereoscopic views of the moon by Mr. Whipple, as among the most interesting new applications of the art. (p. 121) of the stereoscopic pictures many of those exhibited by Mr. Deloss Barnum are remarkable for their clearness and delicacy of execution, and their accurate representation of the forms of natural scenery. Some of the specimens by Mr. Bierstadt also have much merit.
     Wood Engraving.
     Some excellent specimens of Wood Engraving are exhibited by Messrs. Bricher & Russell, from photographs of objects taken directly from the negative plate upon the surface of the block, by a new process which promises to be of great value. The exhibitors do not claim the merit of the invention, but of the introduction of it into use, they having purchased the patent right for Boston and the vicinity. This process is particularly applicable to engravings of machinery and of all objects where accuracy and fidelity of representation are indispensable. Good specimens are noticed of wood engravings by other artists, some of whom have received diplomas or medals at former exhibitions.
     Lithography.
     The best specimens of Lithography are those of Mr. Sonrel, to whom a Silver Medal was awarded at the last Exhibition. Those by Messrs. Bufford, and Fabronius, are very creditable to them and show much care and a considerable improvement. The chromo-lithographs by Messrs. Prang and others, intended for ornamental cards and illustrations of machinery, are well executed and well adapted to their purpose.
     The following is a list of the specimens for which the Committee recommend medals or diplomas:
493. J. B. GUELPA, Chelsea, Mass. Specimens of Oil Painting on Glass. Diploma.
494. A. SONREL, Woburn, Mass. Frame Lithographs. Silver Medal at last Exhibition.
495. G. E. JOHNSON, Boston. Frame Engravings. Diploma.
496. ALBERT E. SWASEY, JR., Boston. Frames of Architectural Drawing. Diploma.
497. D. C. FABRONIUS, Boston. Ten Frames Lithographs. Diploma.
498. LUTHER W. CLARK, Boston. Case of Minerals, from Lake Superior. Bronze Medal.
499. L. PRANG & CO., Boston. Frames of Ornamental Cards. Diploma….” (p. 122)
500. ANDREW & FILMER, Boston. Wood Engravings. Bronze Medal.
501. JOSEPH H. MERRIAM, Boston. Medals, Letter-Cutting and Die Sinking. Bronze Medal.
502. JOHN H. BUFFORD, Boston. Lithographs. Diploma.
503. DELOSS BARNUM, Roxbury. Stereoscopic Pictures. Bronze Medal.
504. BIERSTADT BROTHERS, New Bedford, Mass. Photographs and Stereoscopic Pictures. Bronze Medal.
505. BLACK & BATCHELDER, Boston. Photographs. Silver Medal.
506. SILSBEE, CASE, & CO., Boston. Photographs. Silver Medal.
507. SAMUEL MASURY, Boston. Photographs. Bronze Medal.
508. SOUTHWORTH & HAWES, Boston. Photographs. Silver Medal.
509. JOHN A. WHIPPLE, Boston. Photographs. Silver Medal.
510. D. T. SMITH, Boston. Specimen of Map Engraving on Wood. Diploma.
511. FRANKLIN HEDGE, Boston. Wood Engraving. Diploma.
512. C. NEEDHAM & CO., Boston. Painting and Graining on Doors. Diploma. (p. 123)]

1 b & w (“Nehemiah Adams” “Engraved by H. Wright Smith from a photograph by Southworth & Hawes.”) as frontispiece in: Memorial Volume by the Essex Street Church and Society, Boston, to Commemorate the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Installation of Their Pastor, Nehemiah Adams, D.D. Boston: Printed for the use of the members, 1860. 128 p. 1 port. (front.) 20 cm.]

1 b & w (“Rufus Choate” “Engraved by H. B. Hall from a Photograph by Southworth & Hawes.”) as frontispiece in: Parker, Edward G. Reminiscences of Rufus Choate, the Great American Advocate. New York: Mason Brothers, 1860.

“Editorial Matters.” PHOTOGRAPHIC AND FINE ART JOURNAL 13:4 (Apr. 1860): 116.
[“Philadelphia, 6th May, 1860. H. H. Snelling Esq. Dear Sir— Enclosed is a brief article for your Journal in which is offered a suggestion for the consideration of yourself and others, who may feel an interest in the improvement and elevation of the Heliographic Art generally. Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, now engaged in this beautiful, and if rightly managed, profitable pursuit, know but little of the true principles of their adopted vocation. How few at present understand at all the Daguerreotype process. And how few if any of the profession even in their palmiest days, were complete masters of this branch of Heliography; and could produce such fine, artistic portraits, as left the hands of Southworth & Hawes, Whipple, and others, of Boston— of Brady, Root, and others, of New York— of M. A. Root, McClees and German, and Broadbent of Philadelphia-and of Hesler, Fitzgibbons, North, Farris and others, in different sections of our country. And yet, in our opinion, even these were but more skillful manipulators than others. Few, if any, of them, understood all that was requisite to produce a genuinely artistic picture; but could still derive much benefit from a more careful study of position, light and shadow, arrangement, expression &c. And yet these essential requisites to a perfect picture are quite as important to the Photographer in whatever branch, as to the Daguerreotypist, and should, as they could be made a special department under a competent teacher, in a school such as we have suggested and hope to see ere long, in successful operation, under the patronage of the Photographic Society in New York. As stated in the body of the article I have sent a copy of it, for publication, to each of the three Photographic Journals in N. Y. and to Mr. Seely have given permission, if he thinks best, to bring it before the Photographic Society Yours truly, M. A. Root.”]

1 b & w (“Thomas Sherwin.”) opposite p. 461. “VI. Memoir of Thomas Sherwin.” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 8:21 (June 1860): 461-468. [“Dag. by Southworth & Hawes.” “H. Wright Smith, Engr.” Headmaster of English High School of Boston, MA.]

1 b & w (“Benjamin Peirce.”) as frontispiece. “Editorial Items. Prof. Peirce’s Portrait.” MATHEMATICAL MONTHLY 2:10 (July 1860):359. [“It gives us great pleasure to present to our readers in this number of the Monthly an admirable portrait of Prof. Benjamin Peirce, of Harvard University, engraved by the eminently successful and distinguished artist, H. Wright Smith, Esq., of Boston, from an excellent daguerreotype taken by Messrs Southworth and Hawes;… The daguerreotype was taken just previous to his sailing for Europe, and we can see in the portrait a faint trace of the ill health which it is hoped his six month’s absence abroad will entirely remove.”]

1 b & w (“Bennet Tyler.”) CONGREGATIONAL QUARTERLY 2:4 (Oct. 1860): facing page 351. [“E. Wright Smith, Sc., Dag. By Southworth & Hawes.”]

Ex-Photo. “The Mechanic’s Fair in Boston.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 12:11 (Oct. 1, 1860): 163-164. [“To the Editor of Humphrey’s Journal: While spending a few days in Boston I availed myself of the opportunity of visiting the Fair, held every four years, under the management of the Mechanics’ Charitable Association, in two large halls, Fanueil Hall and Quincy Hall, connected by a bridge, one Hall, even the largest in Boston, not being sufficiently large to accommodate all the contributors. As a description of every article would require more space and time than you and I have to spare, it may be interesting to some of your readers to know how the Photographic Art is represented there, and, with your permission, I will, as briefly as possible, inform them. Colonel Chickering, as one of the Committee in Fanueil Hall, and to whom in a great measure the success of this department is due, arranged the space for the display of Photographs in such a manner as to give the exhibitors perfect satisfaction. Each exhibitor, with one exception, has an alcove by himself containing some two hundred square feet of space, and each alcove is numbered. The names of the exhibitors are: Hamilton, Masury, Whipple, Black & Batchelder, Silsbee & Co., Heywood & Heard, and Southworth & Hawes.
Alcove No. 5, Southworth & Hawes — A miscellaneous collection, consisting of views, copies of statuary, plain and colored portraits, large and small. As daguerreotypists this firm have received the first premium at nearly every fair of this kind, I am informed; but their display of photographs will not warrant their success at this Exhibition. Some of their views are large and very fine, but the display looks to me as they were behind the times.
Alcove No. 8, Silsbee & Co.—These gentlemen have a very fine display of plain, colored, and India-ink pictures, and their collection is one of the best in the Hall.
Alcove No. 9 is the exception I spoke of, being filled by two exhibitors, but I am informed that the whole space was allotted to Mr. Masury, who generously consented to give up one half to Mr. Hamilton, as it was the only available space in this Hall. Mr. Masury has, therefore, not so large a display as most of the others, but what he lacks in number, he fully makes up for in point of execution. His pictures consist principally of full-length figures finished in water colors to the utmost perfection, India-ink pictures which will compare with any I have ever seen, and a few specimens of the ivorytype which I have never seen equalled.
Mr. Hamilton, who is also in alcove No. 9, exhibits some good half-life size pictures, printed by the solar camera, the only ones of the kind I saw in the Exhibition printed by the ammonio-nitrate process. The oil pictures were inferior to most of his other styles, but on the whole it is a very good display.
Alcove No. 10, John A. Whipple.-This gentleman has a very large and beautiful collection of retouched India-ink photographs, some fine views, many beautiful groups, life-size crayons, and oil paintings. Were I to point out the superior excellence of this gentleman’s work, it would be in the execution of his life-size crayons, which are the best in the Exhibition. Oil painting on paper is to me the most absurd thing an artist can do. Whipple has some of this work, which, if it were on canvas, would be considered very fine; but I am sure that a photograph taken on paper and pasted on to canvas is not the proper material for oil-painting, and should not be encouraged. It is, and should be, condemned by all good artists.
Alcove No. 11, Black & Batchelder.—This firm have filled their space to the utmost, having more pictures than any other contributor, and they have no reason to be ashamed of their display. Most of these pictures are made on white backgrounds, in what is called the vignette style, and are rather pleasing than otherwise. To my eye, the grouping of some of these pictures is very fine, and among all the specimens here exhibited, none display more taste for the artistic arrangement and beautiful posing, which is a great fault generally among Photographers.
Alcove No. 12, Heywood & Heard.—I hardly know what to say of this collection, comprising, as it does, a little of everything in the photographic picture line—oil paintings, crayons, India ink and water colors, copies in any quantity, put in, I should think, to fill up the space. The likenesses may be good, but the style of finish is not pleasing, and, if I should venture an opinion, I should say the most of them were specimens made a long time since, and very good at the time they were taken.
This, Mr. Editor, includes all I saw, and I have given you my candid opinion of them, and think the contributors themselves, who may read this article, will not say I have done any one injustice. On the whole, I must say that the Exhibition of Photographs in Fanueil Hall is one of the best I have ever seen, and hardly think it could be excelled in any city in this country. Yours truly, Ex Photo.”]

1861

Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1860. Washington; Government Printing Office, 1861. lxviii, 86 p.
[“Commissioner of Patents.”
“Persons whose patents for inventions have expired.”
4573 Southworth, Albert S., and Jonah J. Hawes. Plates, apparatus for holding, for polishing. June 13, 1846..XVIII. (p. 17)
(Etc., etc.)
…Alphabetical list of persons to whom patents have been reissued during the year 1860.
No. Name of patentee. Residence. Invention or discovery. . .Date of Reissue.

1049. Southworth, Albert S. Boston, Mass Cameras, plate holder for.. Sept. 25, 1860 (p. 152)
      (Etc., etc.)
      “No. 1,049.-Improved Plate Holder for Cameras.—I claim bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified. ALBERT S. SOUTHWORTH.” (p. 827)]

Fields, James Thomas, ed. Favorite Authors: A Companion-Book of Prose and Poetry. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1861. [Two b & w: “Ralph Waldo Emerson” (opp. p. 240) and “Oliver Wendell Holmes” (opp. p. 265). This is a compilation of writings by twenty-eight contemporary authors, each piece accompanied by a full-page engraved portrait of the artist. Some of these engravings were copied after drawings or paintings, but several were clearly drawn from unattributed daguerreotype or photographic sources, including portraits of Barry Cornwell, Thomas De Quincey, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mrs. Jameson, Walter Savage Landor, Charles Robert Leslie, John G. Lockhart, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, James Russell Lowell, Gerald Massey, John G. Saxe, Alexander Smith, Charles Sprague, and John Greenleaf Whittier. From correspondence it is known that the publisher Ticknor brought some of his authors to the Southworth & Hawes studio for portraits to be used as frontispieces in their books. Several of the portraits in this publication are definitely from Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes, others may very well be so.]

1 b & w (“Augustus A. Gould.”) as frontispiece in: ANNUAL OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, OR YEAR-BOOK OF FACTS IN SCIENCE AND ART FOR 1861 (1861): frontispiece. [“N. Wright Smith. … Southworth & Hawes, Dag.”]

1 b & w (“Cornelius Conway Felton.”) opposite p. 265. “XV. Cornelius Conway Felton.” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 10:24 (Mar. 1861): 265-300. [“Southworth & Hawes, Dag. “Engr. By H. Wright Smith.”]

“History and Discovery of the Stereoscope.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 12:21 (Mar. 1, 1861): 321-322. [“The discovery of the Stereoscope, with all its beautiful delineations of nature and art, would never have been made if Photography had not been ushered into the world by such minds as Daguerre, Talbot, Archer, and others, who were mainly instrumental in perfecting this wonderful art. Although two drawings can be made of one object to produce the stereoscopic effect, yet the perfection of the Stereoscope is not so great as when made by the photographic process. Certain diagrams have been made of ovals and cubes, which were admired as curious drawings, but they have all given place to those made by the light of the sun. The invention was due mainly to the researches of Prof. Wheatstone. of King’s College, London, who was instituting certain experiments with a view to explain the phenomena of vision, when the idea occurred to him of looking at two pictures of the same object with both eyes, at the same time separating the view of each eye. The original Stereoscope, at first invented by Prof. Wheatstone, consisted of two parallel mirrors so placed that their edges should be in contact and inclined at right angles one to the other. These mirrors were attached to a vertical support with slides into the center of a base-board. Near the two ends of the base-boards were supports for receiving the pictures, which were so placed that they should face each other. Then, by looking into the two mirrors at the same time, the images of the two pictures were formed on the same portion of the retina of the eye, convoying to the mind an impression of an object in relief. This form of the Stereoscope was found useful only for large pictures, and has been superseded by lenses made in a certain form for viewing the smaller stereoscopic pictures, which instrument was invented by Sir David Brewster. A large instrument for viewing large stereoscopic pictures was made by Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, of Boston, Mass., and exhibited at a Fair in that city, which was constructed with mirrors upon the plan of Professor Wheatstone. This elicited much attention at the time from scientific gentlemen who saw it, yet it never has been brought into general notice, mainly from its great cost of construction. But when the stereoscopic branch of the photographic art shall become enlarged, and the public demand larger pictures, this mode of construction may be adopted. For viewing the ordinary-sized stereoscopic pictures the refracting stereoscope instrument, as constructed by Sir David Brewster, is used. This popular instrument, now so generally in use, consists mainly of a pyramidal body of wood, or any other substance, about five and a-half inches high, surmounted at the top by two eye-pieces or half lenses, separated from each other a distance equal to the space between the two eyes, generally about two and a-half inches. The body of the instrument is pierced near the base to form a receptacle for the pictures to be viewed. A small mirror is usually arranged in front to allow light to fall on opaque pictures, and a ground glass is fitted at the end to view transparent ones. Now if we take two correct drawings, or, more properly, two correct photographic pictures taken from two different points of view, and place them in the stereoscope instrument, we shall find, on looking through the lenses, that the two plane representations will appear united forming one solid picture of the most perfect description; and, if they are perfectly taken with a view to produce the most perfect stereoscopic effect, they will appear to the observer as an actual reality—a solidity, as the name stereoscope imports, they become one solid picture. But this truly wonderful result cannot be obtained unless the drawings are exact copies of nature, even more correct than the human hand can execute. We are, therefore, obliged to call in the aid of Photography, without which stereoscopic pictures would have never attained that perfection which we now see exhibited. This art enables us to obtain with great facility the most beautiful pictures, more correct in detail and perfect in light and shade than by any other known process. The rapid strides this art has made in the few years it has been practised renders it certain that it will yet attain to a greater degree of perfection, and surpass in wonder any previous revelations of the photographic skill.”]

1862

1 b & w (“Rufus Choate”) as frontispiece in: Brown, Samuel Gilman. The Works of Rufus Choate: With a Memoir of His Life. 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown, 1862. [“The engraving which accompanies this volume, from a photograph of Messrs. Southworth & Hawes, is considered the best likeness which exists of Mr. Choate in repose” (p. vii).]

1864

Root, Marcus A. The Camera and the Pencil; or, The Heliographic Art: Its Theory and Practice In All Its Various Branches; e. g.-Daguerreotypy, Photography, &c.; Together with Its History in the United States and in Europe; Being at once a Theoretical and a Practical Treatise, and Designed Alike, as a Text-Book and a Hand-Book. Illustrated with Fine Engravings on Steel and on Wood. By M. A. Root, Professional Heliographic Artist Recipient of Eighteen First Prizes Awarded by Institutions in Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Washington, Harrisburg, Etc., for Superior Artistic Productions in the Art. Philadelphia: M. A. Root, 1864. xviii, 456 p. illus. pl. 4 port., diagrs. 20 cm.
[Southworth & Hawes cited (p. xi); discussed “…Among the most prominent of those who earliest entered this field, were the elder Van Loan, Anthony, Edwards, &c., in New York; Southworth in Boston; and Thompson in Philadelphia. Thompson was, in 1855, the leading American heliographer in Paris….” (p. 359) and “In 1844-7, the leading practitioners of the art were Southworth & Hawes, Litch & Whipple, French & Hale, Chase & Ives, in Boston; and in New York, Anthony, Edwards & Clark, the proprietors of the National Gallery, J. Gurney, Edward White, and M. B. Brady….” (p. 361) in “Chapter XXIX: History of the Heliographic Art in the United States.”
(Southworth & Hawes are one of four teams listed as working in Boston in the mid-1840s, among only forty-eight American photographers listed or discussed in this very early history text.) WSJ]

1 b & w (“Lyman Beecher” “Engraved by C. E. Wagstaff & J. Andrews from a Daguerreotype.”) as frontispiece in: CONGREGATIONAL QUARTERLY 6:3 (July 1864). [A biographical essay accompanies the portrait. This is the same engraving used in Lyman Beecher’s Views of Theology (1853).]

1865

Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. The Tenth Exhibition Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association, at Faneuil and Quincy Halls, in the City of Boston, September and October 1865. Boston: Wright & Potter, 1865. [(Neither Southworth or Hawes submitted any work to these exhibitions again. WSJ)]

1 b & w (“Augustus A. Gould.” “Southworth & Hawes, Dag.”) as frontispiece in: Tryon, George W., ed. The America Journal of Conchology. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: G. W. Tryon, 1865.

1870

1 b & w (“Benjamin Peirce” as frontispiece in: The Annual of Scientific Discovery: or, Year-book of Facts in Science and Art for 1870. Boston: Gould, Kendall, and Lincoln, 1870.
[Steel engraving by H. W, Smith, from a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes, first printed in The Mathematical Monthly (July 1860).]

1 b & w (“Rufus Chote.” “Engraved by H. W. Smith from a photograph by Southworth & Hawes.”) as frontispiece in: Brown, Samuel Gilmore. The Life of Rufus Choate. “2nd edition” Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1870.]

1 b & w (“John Greenleaf Whittier.” “Engraved by H. W. Smith from a photograph by Hawes.”) as frontispiece in: Whittier, John Greenleaf. The Poetical Works. 2 vols. Boston: Fields, Osgood, 1870.
[This is from a copy photograph by Hawes from the earlier Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype. The second edition (1875) credits the frontispiece to “Schoff, sc.,” with no mention of Hawes, but this is the same portrait.]

Allen, E. L. “Old Times.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:74 (Feb. 1870): 46–48. [Allen describes his own past. “I am proud to say I have been in the ranks of picture makers in the most palmy days of the business, when our friends Messrs. Southworth & Hawes were making the most beautiful daguerreotypes ever produced in the world….” (p. 47)]

1871

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1869. Volume 1. 41st Congress. 2nd Session. House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. No. 102. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office. 1871. 619 p.
[“List of Persons whose Patents for Inventions and Discoveries Has Expired.”
“No. 13,106. Southworth, A. S. and J. J. Hawes. Apparatus for moving stereoscope pictures June 19, 1855.” (p. 42)
“Alphabetical List of Patentees for the Year 1869.”
Southworth, Albert S., Boston, Mass. Plateholder for Camera. (Extension) April 8, 1869.” (p. 474)]

1872

“The History of Photography in America, With Pen Portraits of Prominent Workers.” PHRENOLOGICAL JOURNAL AND LIFE ILLUSTRATED n. s. 6:4 (Apr. 1872): 250-258.
[“Albert S. Southworth and Josiah J. Hawes.”
These gentlemen formed a co-partnership in 1843 for the practice of photography. This union was productive of many valuable fruits. Among the more important may be mentioned the invention of the “swing-polishing-plate-holder.” In the spring of 1846 they daguerreotyped the sun in the course of an eclipse, using the object-glass of a telescope as an aid; the pictures were pronounced of surpassing excellence. They also made some fine daguerreotypes of the moon. Another important contrivance invented by them was an arrangement of triple lenses by which straight lines could be copied, and which was of considerable service to engravers. In 1846-7 they, together, invented a camera by means of which several different pictures could be produced on the axis of the lens successively at different periods. In 1852 they discovered a method of making stereoscopic views so as to avoid all distortion. In 1853 they perfected a grand parlor stereoscope presenting pictures of the dimensions of life. In 1854 they secured a patent for a movable plate-holder which they invented. They also devised a method for softening prints to any degree of mellowness. In 1857 Mr. Southworth originated a plan of photographing disputed handwriting so as to assist in its identification. The legal profession had frequent occasion to avail itself of Mr. Southworth’s ingenuity in the settlement of vexed questions involving disputed, obscure, or partially obliterated handwriting. And in Massachusetts the efficacy of photography in dispelling doubts in such cases has been so fully demonstrated, that for several years past Mr. Southworth has devoted his almost exclusive attention in this direction. It is seldom that industry and ingenuity are so fruitful as to yield so many important results in a brief lifetime as it is our pleasure to record in this sketch.” (p. 255)]

1873

1 b & w (“Daniel Webster” “Engraved by Alonzo Chappel. Likeness from a daguerreotype from life.”) in vol. 2, facing p. 129 in: Duyckinck, Evert A. Portrait Gallery of Eminent Men and Women of Europe and America: Embracing History, Statesmanship, Naval and Military Life, Philosophy, the Drama, Science, Literature and Art, with Biographies. 2 vols. New York: Johnson, Wilson, 1873.
[Freely translated, but the clothing, pose, and expression all suggest that this was a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.]

1 b & w (“Benjamin Peirce” “Engraved by H. Wright Smith from Dag. by Southworth & Hawes.”) following p. 580 in “Biography. Professor Benjamin Peirce, LL.D” on pp. 580-581 in: The Science Record for 1873. A Compendium of Scientific Progress and Discovery During the Past Year…..Edited by Alfred A. Beach. New York: Munn & Co., 1873. 618 p. illus.

1877

1 b & w (“Charles Sumner” “From a daguerreotype taken for E. L. Pierce in 1853.”) as frontispiece in: Pierce, Edward L. Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Volume 1, 1811–1838. Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1877. [(By Southworth & Hawes.)]

Black, James W. “Days Gone By.” ST. LOUIS PRACTICAL PHOTOGRAPHER 1:7 (July 1877): 220–21. [“The first men to practically show us that we must know something of composition and light and shade was the firm Southworth & Hawes. They certainly, at that time, took the lead, and made some of the most exquisite results—only the profession had not the cultivation to appreciate them. I have known those men to devote days to producing what they considered a good likeness, and many of their productions are to-day unequaled.”]

1880

1 b & w (“Augustus A. Gould, M.D.”) following p. 112 in: Bouvé, Thomas T. Historical Sketch of the Boston Society of Natural History, with a Notice of the Linnaean Society, Which Preceded It. Boston: The Society, 1880. vii, 250 p., [10] leaves of plates; illus., ports.; 30 cm.
[“Portraits in this Volume.” (Etc., etc.) “Augustus A. Gould, M.D. Engraving by H. Wright Smith, from a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes, originally published in the Annual of Scientific Discovery for 1861. Opposite page 112.” (p. 250)]

1882

1 b & w (“Ralph Waldo Emerson”) as frontispiece in: Alcott, Amos Bronson. Ralph Waldo Emerson: An Estimate of His Character and Genius, in Prose and Verse. Boston: A. Williams, 1882.
[The volume is extra-illustrated, with tipped-in Woodburytype prints. The Emerson portrait is also a Woodburytype print, not credited but from Southworth & Hawes.]

1 b & w (“Calvin Ellis Stowe” “Engraving by John C. Butler, after a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.”) on p. 287 in: Cleaveland, Nehemiah, and Alpheus Spring Packard. History of Bowdoin College: With Biographical Sketches of Its Graduates, from 1806 to 1879, inclusive. Boston: J. R. Osgood, 1882.

1883

1 b & w (“Ralph Waldo Emerson”) as frontispiece, vol. 1 in: Carlyle, Thomas. The Correspondence of Thomas Carlyle and Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1834–1872. 2 vols. Boston: J. R. Osgood, 1883.
[Emerson’s portrait credited “From a photograph from a daguerreotype taken in 1846 now in the possession of Mrs. Alexandra Carlyle. Etched by S. A. Schoff.”]

1884

1 b & w (“Rufus Choate” “Engraved by George E. Perine, New York.”) as frontispiece in: Neilson, Joseph. Memories of Rufus Choate, With Some Consideration of His Studies, Methods, and Opinions, and of His Style as a Speaker and Writer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1884.
[No credit given to Southworth & Hawes, but this is the same portrait as that credited in Edward G. Parker, Reminiscences … (1860). Includes two other engravings. One, a full-page, full-body portrait of Choate (opp. p. 92), is credited to be from a painting by Alonzo Chappel. (Except for the background, this painting seems to have been largely drawn from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.) The second engraving is a view of “Mt. Auburn, Mass. Engraved by George E. Perine from a Photograph.” (This view of Choate’s gravestone in the Mount Auburn Cemetery strongly resembles other known daguerreotypes by Southworth & Hawes.)]

1 b & w (“George Barrell Emerson” “Engraved by H. W. Smith from a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.”) as frontispiece in: Waterston, Robert Cassie. Memoir of George Barrell Emerson, LL.D.: Presented at the Meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society, May 10, 1883. Cambridge, Mass.: John Wilson and Son, 1884.]

1885

1 b & w (“Oliver Wendell Holmes.” “Portrait engraved by T. Johnson, from an old daguerreotype.”) in: Stedman, Edmund Clarence. “Oliver Wendell Holmes.” CENTURY MAGAZINE 29:2 (Feb. 1885): 502–14.
[(By Southworth & Hawes.)]

1886

“Portraits of Noted Men.” WORCESTER DAILY SPY (Worcester, Mass.), Wednesday, January 6, 1886, n. p.

1887

1 b & w (“Ralph Waldo Emerson”) as frontispiece in: Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Emerson’s Complete Works, Vol. 1, Nature, Addresses, and Lectures. New and rev. ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1887.
[“Portrait in first volume was etched by Mr. Schoff from a photographic copy (kindly furnished by Mr. Alexander Ireland, of Manchester, England, of a daguerreotype taken in 1847 or 1848, probably in England …” (p. iv).]

1 b & w (“Ralph Waldo Emerson”) in vol. 2, facing p. 343 in: Wilson, James Grant, and John Fiske. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography. 6 vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1887–89.
[“List of Portraits on Steel” credits this portrait to “Munroe, artist” and “Hall, engraver,” but the portrait is from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.]

1 b & w (“Julia Ward Howe” Engraved by C. A. Powell. Photographed by J. J. Hawes.) as frontispiece in: CENTURY MAGAZINE 34:4 (Aug. 1887).

1888

1 b & w (“John Greenleaf Whittier” “Engraved by John A. Wilcox, 1888, from a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.”) as frontispiece in: Whittier, John Greenleaf. The Writings of John Greenleaf Whittier, vol. 3, Anti-Slavery Poems: Songs of Labor and Reform. Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton, Mifflin, 1888.]

1889

1 b & w (“Ralph Waldo Emerson” “Engraved by J. A. A. Wilcox.”) as frontispiece in: Emerson, Edward Waldo. Emerson in Concord: A Memoir, Written for the “Social Circle” in Concord, Massachusetts. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1889. [No credit to daguerreotype source.]

1890

1 b & w (“Millard Fillmore”) on p. 32, vol. 2 in: Nicolay, John G., and John Hay. Abraham Lincoln: A History. 10 vols. New York: Century Co., 1890.]

Loomis, G. H., Newtonville, Mass. “Monumenting Daguerre.” INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL OF ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN AND AMERICAN PROCESS YEARBOOK FOR 1890 (1890): 229-230. [“Better late than never,” that some suitable memorial should be erected to this one of the world’s grand discoverers. We were (p. 229) born a sufficient time before this invention to remember well how it amazed the people.
It was for a while regarded as pure magic, almost witchcraft, and to be fully convinced otherwise, was to go and sit and see for yourself….” “…The picture, if not the subjects, has stood the test of time wonderfully, and as we often pick up these daguerreian productions and study their fine artistic points, we feel almost tempted to go in and boom them anew, as superior to any of the later so styled improvements in portraiture. We remember the fine specimen work of Root, Mead, Southworth & Hawes, Hale, Whipple and many others, produced in the early days of this discovery, and though by reason of the highly polished surface it was not always an easy matter to “view them in the right light,” they were true to nature and the perfection of art….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 230)]

1891

1 b & w (“Oliver Wendell Holmes”) as frontispiece in: Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table; Every Man His Own Boswell. Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1891.

1 b & w (“Rufus Chote.” “Engraved by H. W. Smith from a photograph by Southworth & Hawes.”) tipped-in behind p. 124 in: Hill, Clement Hugh. “Memoir of the Hon. Rufus Choate.” PROCEEDINGS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL SOCIETY 2nd series 11:3 (Oct. 1896): 124-155.

1892

1 b & w (“John G. Whittier” “From a photograph by J. J. Hawes, taken about 1855.”) as frontispiece in: NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE 7:3 (Nov. 1892)]

1893

The National Cyclopædia of American Biography: Being the History of the United States as Illustrated in the Lives of the Founders, Builders, and Defenders of the Republic, and of the Men and Women who are Doing the Work and Moulding the Thought of the Present Time, Edited by Distinguished Biographers, Selected from Each State, Revised and Approved by the Most Eminent Historians, Scholars, and Statesmen of the Day. Volume XXVIII. New York: J. T. White & Company, 1893. 471 p. illus., ports, plates.
[“Hawes, Josiah Johnson, photographer, was born at East Sudbury (later Wavyand), Mass., making Feb. 20, 1808, son of Edward and Martha (Johnson) Hawes, and a descendant of Edward Hawes, who came from England to settle at Dedham, Mass., in 1635. From Edward and his wife Eliony Lumber (probably Elinor Lombard), the line was through their son Joseph and his wife Deborah Dewing; Jeremiah and Mary Patterson, and Joseph and Alasa Blake, the grandparents of Josiah J. Hawes. After attending the public schools, he was apprenticed to a local carpenter and learned the trade at which worked until his twenty. third year. He then took up the study of electricity and chemistry, and later he and a friend, Paul Dodge, delivered lectures, with experiments, in various New England towns. Next he became interested in art and after a period of self-instruction began painting portraits, landscapes and miniatures on ivory, in which work he was successfully engaged for ten years. In March1840 Flauvel-Gouraud visited Boston to demonstrate daguerreotypy just a year after Louis Jacques Daguerre had announced his invention. to the French Academy of Science. Hawes was so impressed with the possibilities of the new. process that he relinquished painting and, with à partner named Somerby, began to make daguerreotypes in Boston. The following year they joined forces with Albert Sands Southworth (below) and his partner, Joseph Pennell, who had been doing similar work at Cabotville, Mass. From 1841 to 1946 they conducted a studio in Boston, under the name of Albert S. Southworth & Co. From 1846 to 1862 the firm name was South worth & Hawes, the other partners having withdrawn. During this period Southworth joined the “forty-niners” and was in California for two years. In 1862 Southworth left the firm and Hawes continued the business alone until his death. They were among the first daguerreotypists in the country and their work was of such quality that they always ranked with the leading daguerreotypists in America, receiving general recognition. From the year that the first partnership was founded (1841) until 1860 they received various medals and diplomas for the work they exhibited at the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. The report for 1853 was especially laudatory of their work, stating: “The splendid contribution of these gentlemen …. could not be excelled in this country, if anywhere else. It seems difficult to imagine anything more beautiful than many of these specimens.” The awards to Southworth & Hawes for that year consisted of a diploma for daguerreotype frames, a silver medal for their pictures and a gold medal for their stereoscope, which was characterized by the report as “surpassing all its predecessors in the beauty and perfection of the results which attains.” This instrument, while it showed pictures admirably, was too large and too expensive (costing $1000) for general use and Hawes later developed the hand stereoscope and the manufacture of these instruments and of stereoscopic views was for some years a profitable part of their business. Among the distinguished daguerreotype sitters for Southworth & Hawes were Presidents John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and Zachary Taylor, and many other celebrities, including Daniel Webster, Edward Everett, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Charles Sumner, William Lloyd Garrison, Rufus Choate, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Susan B. Anthony, John Howard Payne, Jenny Lind, George Peabody and Henry W. Longfellow. In the early 1850’s the firm of Southworth & Hawes also began photographs, using a “wing back” camera for correcting the distortion of lines in the pictures of buildings and other tall objects. Hawes was among the first, if not the first, to use this device and claimed he was the inventor of it, although he never took out a patent. He also constructed and used a camera which carried glass plates of 18 by 24 inches, and would take either a full-length or a life-size head and bust picture. In addition he experimented successfully with combinations of lenses and originated what later became known as the Dallmeyer lens. Southworth withdrew from the firm in 1862 and Hawes continued alone until his death. During this period he was famous for his fine portrait work, his sitters including many eminent men. He also photographed many scenes in and around Boston and elsewhere, among them a panorama, made in 1865 from the cupola of the Massachusetts state house. A notable collection of his daguerreotypes was later presented to the Metropolitan museum of art in New York city by I. N. Phelps Stokes. Hawes was a man of scrupulous integrity and was a kind and loyal friend and extremely generous toward young photographers. He had a poetic temperament and displayed a fine taste in literature and art. In religion he was a Congregationalist, and in polities was a Republican. He was married in Boston, in May 1819, to Nancy Niles, daughter of Asa Southworth and sister of his partner, Albert S. Southworth. They had three children: Alice Mary, Marion Augusta and Edward Southworth Hawes. He died at Crawfords, N.H., Aug. 7, 1901,
Southworth, Albert Sands, photographer and handwriting expert, was born at West Fair. Jee, Vt., Mar. 12, 1811, son of Asa and Nancy (Niles) Southworth. Constant Southworth, his first paternal American ancestor, came from England to Massachusetts in 1628, at the age of thirteen; his mother, Alice (Carpenter) Southworth, was married for the second time to Gov. William Bradford (q. v.) of Plymouth colony. From Constant and his wife Elizabeth Collier, the line was through their son William and Rebecca Pabodeg; Nathaniel and Mary Torrey: Josiah and Esther Procter, and Asa and Hannah Allen, the grand parents of Albert S. Southworth. Educated at Thetford Hill academy, Vermont, and at Phillips academy, Andover, Mass., he was engaged for several years in farming, teaching and trading. In 1839 he opened a drug store at Cabotvill. Mass. In the spring of 1810 he made a trip to New York city to see the newly invented daguerreotype process. He was so impressed that he purchased an outfit and began to make pictures at (p. 420) Cabotville in partnership with Joseph Pennell. Their experiments proved successful and they sent examples of their work to New York and Boston and also to England. Wherever exhibited, these daguerreotypes received the highest praise. In 1841 Southworth and Pennell removed to Boston and joined forces with Josiah J. Hawes (above) and a Mr. Somerby, who were already making daguerreotypes in Boston and vicinity. The business of making daguerreotypes and dealing in supplies and apparatus was carried on under the firm name of Albert S. Southworth & Co. until 1846, when the firm of Southworth & Hawes was established, the other partners having withdrawn. Southworth retired from the business in 1862. During 1849-51 he was away from Boston, having joined the “forty-niners” in the quest for gold in California. After retiring from business, he devoted himself to the study and examination of handwriting, being one of the first to employ photographic enlargements for this purpose. He became one of the leading handwriting experts of the latter half of the 19th century and was employed in many important legal cases. In religion he was a Congregationalist, and in polities was a Republican. He was married twice: (1) at Vershire, Vt., Nov. 2, 1842, to Louise Roxana, daughter of Pliny Dwight, of that community; (2) at Charlestown, Mass., July 21, 1891, to Abba Louisa, daughter of John D. Ward, of that place. He died, without issue, at Charlestown, Mar, 3, 1894. (p. 421)
[(Portrait of Hawes (as old man) with holographic signature on plate page following p. 420; Portrait of Southworth (as younger man), with holographic signature on second plate page following p. 420. WSJ)]

1894

1 b & w (“Donald McKay” “From a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.”) on p. 551 in: Hill, Hamilton Andrew. “Boston and Liverpool Packet Lines, Sail and Steam.” NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE n. s. 9:5 (Jan. 1894): 545–63.]

1 b & w (“Horace Mann” “From a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.”) on p. 654 in: Wells, Kate Gannett. “In and About the Old Bumstead Place.” NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE n. s. 9:5 (Jan. 1894): 649–59.]

1 b & w (“The Massachusetts Reception Committee”) on p. 531 in: Boutwell, George S. “Kossuth in New England.” NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE n. s. 10:5 (July 1894): 529–43. [Engraving from a daguerreotype.]

1895

1 b & w (“Oliver Wendell Holmes”) as frontispiece in: Smith, Joseph E. A. The Poet Among the Hills: Oliver Wendell Holmes in Berkshire. Pittsfield, Mass.: George Blatchford, 1895.]

Sedgwick, Henry Dwight. “Reminiscences of Literary Berkshire.” CENTURY MAGAZINE 50:4 (Aug. 1895): 552–69. [Two b & w: “Oliver Wendell Holmes, from a Daguerreotype” (p. 557) and “Ralph Waldo Emerson, from a Daguerreotype” (p. 563).]

1896

1 b & w (“Oliver Wendell Holmes”) as frontispiece, vol. 1 in: Morse, John T., Jr. The Life and Letters of Oliver Wendell Holmes. 2 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1896.]

Davis, Mrs. D. T. “The Daguerreotype in America.” MCCLURE’S MAGAZINE 8:1 (Nov. 1896): 2–16. [Five b & w: “Daniel Webster” (p. 7), “Oliver Wendell Holmes” (p. 11), “Louis Kossuth” (p. 12), “Edward Everett” (p. 13), and “Jenny Lind” (p. 15). Several of the reproductions are credited “From a carbon reproduction by Sherman and McHugh of an original daguerreotype taken and now owned by Josiah J. Hawes, Boston.” Discusses M. B. Brady, J. W. Draper, F. Gouraud, J. Gurney, E. E. Hale, Meade Brothers, S. F. B. Morse, Southworth & Hawes. Describes a visit to Hawes’ studio (p. 16).]

1 b & w (“Rufus Choate” “From a photograph by J. J. Hawes.”) as frontispiece in: NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE 15:3 (Nov. 1896).]

1 b & w: (“Ralph Waldo Emerson. From an untouched negative by J. J. Hawes”) as (frontispiece) in: Sanborn, F. B. “The Portraits of Emerson.” NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE 15:4 (Dec. 1896): 386, 449–68. Includes photographic portraits attributed to James W. Black, plus others by Allen & Rowell, Foss, Gutekunst, Marshall; as well as paintings, sketches, etc.]

1897

1 b & w (“Annie Adams Fields”) as frontispiece) in: Fields, Annie Adams. Authors and Friends. 2d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1897.]

1 b & w (“Robert C. Winthrop”) as frontispiece in: Winthrop, Robert C., Jr. A Memoir of Robert C. Winthrop. Prepared for the Massachusetts Historical Society. Boston: Little, Brown, 1897.]

Hart, Charles Henry, introduction and notes. “Life Portraits of Daniel Webster.” MCCLURE’S MAGAZINE 9:1 (May 1897): 619–30. [Painted portraits of Webster and his wife. Photographs by Richards (Philadelphia, 1846); Southworth & Hawes (Boston, 1850); Ormsby & Silsbee (Boston, 1851); James W. Black (Boston, 1852?). Brief information on the photographers and the sittings in the captions.]

1898

1 b & w (“S. Margaret Fuller. After a photograph by J. J. Hawes of Boston, of a Daguerreotype”) on p. 191 in: Howe, M. A. DeWolfe. American Bookmen: Sketches, Chiefly Biographical, of Certain Writers of the Nineteenth Century. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1898.]

1899

Cobb, Darius. “Mental and Moral Training in Photography.” PHOTO-ERA 3:2 (July 1899): 361-365.
[“I have noted the importance to photography of manual training in the art of drawing. In acquiring a mastery of the hand we develop the mental organs that govern the sight. We have seen that the practice of drawing from nature will increase the judgment for selection, and the judgment of the ultimate result. In this paper we shall consider the effect of mental and religious culture on the development of photographic art….” (p. 361) (Etc., etc.)
In the posing of heads and figures, and adjusting them in forceable effects of chiaroscuro, the results will accord with the comprehension of the operator. No manipulation will change the conditions. The daguerreotype presents marked evidence of this truth, for in the process of its development no manipulation is possible. One daguerreotype, from which photographs are now taken, is presented as an eminent example of strong effects produced by power of mind. This (p. 364) is the portrait of Judge Shaw, taken by Southworth and Hawes. The judge himself was a tower of strength, but it required a strong intellect to produce the remarkable daguerreotype which we now see represented by the photographs. The pose and light and shade are indicative of power comprehending power. William Hunt’s portrait of Judge Shaw is a strong one, but in Southworth and Hawes’ portrait is the absolute power of a crag vitalized by a human spirit. We can find nothing in the boldest work of the boldest portrait painter that equals this work for its expression of supreme power. That this was no accident is evinced by Southworth and Hawes’ daguerreotypes of Daniel Webster, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and other eminent men.
The female heads of these daguerreous were no less remarkable for their beauty in pose and chiaroscuro. They saw and they knew. They produced their work with minds of comprehension.
Certain sceptics affirm that art has naught to do with religion. On the contrary, the highest art of all ages has been founded on religion. When we consider that the soul of man finds true life only through religion, we can understand that art, which is born of the soul, finds in it the highest development. All the arts music, poetry, architecture, painting, sculpture and photography are subject to this law. Through the profane they crawl on the earth; by the sacred element they ascend heights of inspiration. (p. 365)
(This essay reprinted in The British Journal of Photography 47:2049 (Aug. 11, 1899): 505-506. WSJ)]

1900

Southworth & Hawes. [Account Book] March 22, 1859–May 1900. [Microfilm “History of Photography Series.” Monographs. Reel 169:1856. An account book with handwritten entries, copied from the Southworth & Hawes archives at the George Eastman House, Rochester, NY]

1 b & w: (“Daniel Webster”) as (frontispiece) in: NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE 23:4 (Dec. 1900): 354.]

1901

Sanborn, Franklin B. “Our Boston Literary Letter: The Death of Samuel W. Rowse Brings Back Memories of His Early Days as Engraver and Crayon Artist.” SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN (Springfield, Mass.), Saturday, June 1, 1901, p. 11, cols. 1–2. [“I therefore went to his attic in Tremont Row, not far from the daguerreotype rooms of Southworth & Hawes, found him at work on a lithographic stone, and gave him … to engrave …” Informed eyewitness commentary for background on the printmaking and photographic trade in Boston ca. 1852.]

Sanborn, Franklin B. “Our Boston Literary Letter: Tours about Boston—Attractions of Concord—J. J. Hawes in the Development of Photography Since Daguerre—The Camera and Literature.” SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN (Springfield, Mass.), Saturday, August 17, 1901, p. 5, cols. 1–3. [“The death of the nonagenarian photographer, J. J. Hawes, demands a special mention of his life’s history … almost all who were famous in Boston from 1843 to 1863, had their pictures taken by Southworth & Hawes, either from life, or from crayons or oil paintings. I had occasion, in 1853, to note the care and pains Mr. Southworth, who would go into the country to take portraits, managed in the case of invalids who were to appear on his delicate silvered plates. He and his partner … were true artists, and this gave their work a special value.”]

1 b & w (“Rufus Choate, taken between 1855 and 1860.”) in: CENTURY MAGAZINE 62:5 (Sept. 1901): 732.]

1902

Batchelder, Frank Roe. “Letters to the Editor: A Picture That Webster Sat For.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Saturday, December 27, 1902, p. 23, cols. 3–4. [Letter to the editor by Batchelder, relating an anecdote told him by the portrait painter William Willard about how Willard convinced Daniel Webster to sit for a portrait by Southworth & Hawes in 1852. “In reply to Webster’s ‘When?’ ‘Immediately,’ said I, and I at once went across the street and made the necessary arrangements for the use of the gallery. I returned to Mr. Webster and he accompanied me to the gallery. There, after five trials, I succeeded in obtaining this daguerreotype. … From this daguerreotype I painted, in all, sixteen portraits of Webster.”]

1903

1 b & w (“Ralph Waldo Emerson”) as frontispiece) in: Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Essays. 2nd series. Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1903.]

1 b & w (“Daniel Webster”) as frontispiece, vol. 14 in: Webster, Daniel. Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster. 18 vols. Boston: Little, Brown, 1903. [“… from a daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes, in the possession of Mr. William Willard.”]

1908

Sanborn, Franklin B. “Our Boston Literary Letter: H. G. Smith, Photographer and Artist—Mrs. Babb’s Inaccuracies Concerning Margaret Fuller.” SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN (Springfield, Mass.),Saturday, February 1, 1908, p. 7, cols. 5–6. [Southworth & Hawes mentioned in this affectionate summary of the lengthy career of H. G. Smith.]

1909

1 b & w (“Charles Sumner”) as frontispiece in: Haynes, George H. Charles Sumner. Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs, 1909.]

1915

French, Wilfred A. “Louis Jacques Mande Daguerre.” PHOTO-ERA 35:5 (Nov. 1915): 216–23.
1 b & w (“Daniel Webster” (p. 221). Alludes to Southworth & Hawes work (p. 222). Brief summation of Daguerre’s career and impact, illustrated with some American daguerreotypes, including this seldom published variant portrait of Webster, credited to J. J. Hawes.]

Sanborn, Franklin B. “Our Boston Literary Letter: The Photographs of Southworth and Hawes—Seth Wells Cheny, the Crayoner—Sanborn’s Early Contributions to Prose and Verse to the Unitarian Monthly Religious Magazine.” SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN (Springfield, Mass.), Saturday, December 11, 1915, p. 17, cols. 1–2. [“The Boston of which Julia Ward Howe and her husband were such ornaments, Boston from 1840 to 1880, has its memory revived by the exhibition at the gallery of Doll & Richards, 73 Newbury street, of some scores of the large old photographs of Southworth & Hawes, who were in their glory as artists in 1854–55 …”]

1916

State Street Trust Company, Boston. Some Interesting Boston Events. Boston: Printed for the State Street Bank Company, ca. 1916. [One b & w (“The First Ether Operation” (before p. 61). The image is an uncredited engraving after a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype, with each participant in the operation numbered and identified. The brief article is a popular discussion of the event, with a biography of Dr. Morton, a surgeon present at the event.]

1918

1 b & w (“Lemuel Shaw”) as frontispiece in: Chase, Frederic Hathaway. Lemuel Shaw. Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1830–1860. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1918.]

1922

1 b & w (“Annie Adams Fields”) as frontispiece in: Howe, M. A. DeWolfe. Memories of a Hostess: A Chronicle of Eminent Friendships Drawn Chiefly from the Diaries of Mrs. James T. Fields. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1922.]

1934

“Josiah Johnson Hawes, Daguerreotyper, No. 5½ Tremont Row, Boston.” WITHIN THE COMPASS OF A PRINT SHOP 3:1 (Nov. 1934): 1–9. [Article serves as catalogue for the exhibition Daguerreotypes of Famous Persons by Josiah Johnson Hawes, Holman’s Print Shop, Boston. Seventy-nine daguerreotypes of fifty-two people listed as on exhibition and for sale.]

Boyer, Richard O. “Print Shop Shows Figures of the Past; Lifelike Pictures in Park St. Window.” BOSTON HERALD, Sunday, November 4, 1934, pp. 1, 23. [Exhibition review: Daguerreotype Portraits, Holman’s Print Shop, Boston.]

“Many Notables of Last Century Seen in Holman Exhibit of Daguerreotypes: When Photography Was in Its Infancy.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (Boston), Tuesday, November 6, 1934, p. 3. [Exhibition review: Daguerreotype Portraits, Holman’s Print Shop, Boston. Portraits are: “Donald McKay, Shipbuilder,” “Charlotte Cushman, Actress, With Friend,” “Charles Sumner, Statesman,” “Jenny Lind, the ‘Swedish Nightingale,’” and “Daniel Webster, Statesman.”]

“Daguerre’s Art Preserves 19th Century Bostonian Faces.” BOSTON DAILY EVENING TRANSCRIPT, Wednesday, November 7, 1934, sec. 3, p. 1. [Exhibition review: Daguerreotype Portraits, Holman’s Print Shop, Boston. Portraits are: “Horace Mann,” “Donald McKay,” “Jenny Lind,” “Lola Montez, and Cigarette,” “Lyman and Henry Ward Beecher,” and “Justice Lemuel Shaw.”]

Philpott, A. J. “Daguerreotype Portraits of Highest Distinction Shown. Famous Men and Women of Boston and of Nation Shown as They Actually Were in Life.” BOSTON GLOBE, Saturday, November 10, 1934, p. 3, cols. 2–3. [Exhibition review: Daguerreotype Portraits, Holman’s Print Shop, Boston.]

“Boston Celebrities in Daguerreotypes.” BOSTON SUNDAY POST, Sunday, November 11, 1934, p. B6, cols. 4–5. [Exhibition review: Daguerreotype Portraits, Holman’s Print Shop, Boston.]

“In Days When Photographs Were of Stern Mien. Century-Ago Daguerreotypers Barred Bombast in Publicity.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (Boston), Monday, November 26, 1934, p. 3. [“Lola Montez,” “Charles Morris,” “Sam Houston,” “William Henry Harrison,” “John C. Calhoun.”]

1935

“A Year Ago …” WITHIN THE COMPASS OF A PRINT SHOP 3:2 (Oct. 1935): 61–62. [Holman’s Print Shop, Boston. “A year ago we had a very interesting and successful exhibition and sale of Daguerreotypes made by Mr. J. J. Hawes.” Mentions sales of images that were “to be presented to the New York Public Library.” Lists additional portraits subsequently identified and offered for sale.]

1937

Grafly, Dorothy. “Portraiture Through the Ages.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (Boston), Tuesday, November 2, 1937, p. 10. [Exhibition review: Problems of Portraiture, Pennsylvania Museum of Art, Philadelphia, October 16–November 28, 1937. Mentions J. J. Hawes. “How the camera virtually superceded the art of the miniature painter is also shown, by placing … miniatures … by Duplessis and Malbone near daguerreotypes by Josiah Johnson Hawes and character portraits by David Octavius Hill, Mathew Brady … Alexander Gardner.”]

1938

Newhall, Beaumont. Photography: A Short Critical History. 2d ed., rev. and amended. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1938. [One b & w (“Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw” (pl. 12). Discusses Southworth & Hawes (p. 30), with brief biographies (p. 211). “Their work must be considered among the finest ever produced, and posterity is indeed fortunate that they made it an invariable rule to photograph all sitters three times …”]

Taft, Robert. Photography and the American Scene: A Social History, 1839–1889. New York: Macmillan, 1938. [Southworth & Hawes mentioned, discussed (pp. 38, 74, 76, 144, 178, 477). Reprinted New York: Dover Publications, 1964.]

Goodyear, A. Conger. “All Good Americans.” PARNASSUS 10:4 (Apr. 1938): 15–19. [Extended discussion of forthcoming survey exhibition of American art, organized by the staff of the Museum of Modern Art, New York, and held at the Museum of the Jeu de Paume, Paris. Beaumont Newhall organized the photography section of the exhibition, which included “… daguerreotypes by Draper, Hawes [Southworth & Hawes] and Whipple …” (p. 19).]

1939

Phelps Stokes, I. N. The Hawes-Stokes Collection of American Daguerreotypes by Albert Sands Southworth and Josiah Johnson Hawes. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1939. [Exhibition: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, November 4–December 7, 1939.]

Philpott, A. J. “Romance of Photography’s History Hinted in Exhibitions Here.” BOSTON EVENING GLOBE, Friday, January 13, 1939, p. 15. [One b & w (“Daniel Webster.” Exhibition review: “J. J. Hawes Daguerreotypes,” Holman’s Print Shop, Boston, and “The Boston Camera Club,” Boston Camera Club Gallery.]

“Daguerreotypes Seen at Museum: Collection Containing Portraits of Noted Personages Presented to Metropolitan.” NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, November 5, 1939, p. 48. [Exhibition review: “show to commemorate the centenary of the invention of photography …” Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, November 4–December 7, 1939. Announcement and brief description of the I. N. Phelps Stokes gift.]

“American Album.” NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, November 5, 1939, rotogravure sec. 8, p. 2. [Exhibition notice: “Southworth & Hawes,” Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, November 4–December 7, 1939.]

McCausland, Elizabeth. “Exhibitions in New York: Daguerreotypes and Photographs.” PARNASSUS 11:7 (Nov. 1939): 18–19. [Exhibition review: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: “the selection of over sixty specimens from the Hawes-Stokes collection of American daguerreotypes by Albert Sands Southworth and Josiah Johnson Hawes and of an equal number of photographs …”]

1940

A Pageant of Photography. San Francisco: Crocker-Union, 1940. [One b & w (“Lola Montez” (inside front cover). Southworth & Hawes mentioned in introduction by Ansel Adams (p. 4). Golden Gate International Exposition, San Francisco, 1939–40. “… we cannot fail to be impressed by the magnificent daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes …”]

1941

1 b & w (“Donald McKay”) as frontispiece in: Matthiessen, F. O. American Renaissance: Art and Expression in the Age of Emerson and Whitman. London: Oxford University Press, 1941. [“I have chosen to reproduce the finest daguerreotype I have ever seen, the portrait by Southworth and Hawes (1854) of Donald McKay …” (p. xxv).]

1942

Holmes, Pauline. One Hundred Years of Mount Vernon Church 1842-1942. Published by Mount Vernon Church of Boston, May 1942. xv, 221 p. front., plates, ports., facsims. 25 cm.
[“Some Boyhood Reminiscences of Mount Vernon Church and of the Boston of Day Before Yesterday,” by Edward Southworth Hawes. (p. 150-161.) “First a bit of topography, a little ramble over the slopes of Beacon Corner Hill, with “notes and observations,” starting from the western corner of Temple and Cambridge Streets. There are several reasons, which I hope will unfold themselves as we go on, for choosing this now forgotten spot as our point of departure….” (Etc., etc.)
(Chatty commentary by the son of J. J. Hawes and his wife, the sister to A. S. Southworth, provides some background information. WSJ)]

Morgan, Willard D., ed. The Complete Photographer: An Encyclopedia. 10 vols. New York: National Educational Alliance, Inc., 1942–43. [Two b & w: “Lola Montez” (p. 1687) and “Daniel Webster” (p. 1999). Southworth & Hawes discussed in Phillip Andrews, “Fashion Photography” (p. 1685); Southworth mentioned in Beaumont Newhall, “History of Photography” (p. 1999) and Robert Taft, “Samuel F. B. Morse” (p. 2620). Also published as The Complete Photographer: A Complete Guide to Amateur and Professional Photography, nos. 1–55, 1942–43.]

Newhall, Beaumont. “Photography as a Branch of Art History.” COLLEGE ART JOURNAL 1:4 (May 1942): 86–90. [Newhall mentions that the Print Room of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, possesses an enviable selection of daguerreotypes by Southworth & Hawes (p. 90).]

1945

Lécuyer, Raymond. Histoire de la photographie. Paris: Baschet, 1945. [Southworth & Hawes briefly and inaccurately discussed (p. 40). “Un de ses disciples, Josiah J. Hawes, associe avec Edouard Southworth, devint professionnel repute … La famille Hawes conserve-t-elle une abondante collection de daguerreotypes!”]

1947

Newhall, Beaumont. “The First American Masters of the Camera.” ART NEWS 46:11 (Nov. 1947), sec. 2, pp. 91–98, 168–72. [“In the hands of Southworth and Hawes, however, the crude technique became a highly refined medium: they attained an extraordinary technical proficiency and their work, especially in the field of portraiture, reached an aesthetic peak seldom excelled in the history of photography.” Portfolio of Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes from the Metropolitan Museum collections, with a general survey of the careers of Southworth and Hawes.]

1948

Newhall, Beaumont. “The Daguerreotype.” ANTIQUES 53:4 (Apr. 1948): 278–80. [Images by Southworth & Hawes and others.]

1949

Newhall, Beaumont. The History of Photography from 1839 to the Present Day. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1949. [Two b & w: “Lemuel Shaw, Chief Justice of the MA Supreme Court,” credited to Hawes (p. 28), and “President John Quincy Adams,” credited to Southworth & Hawes (p. 30). The Adams portrait is now known to be a copy from another daguerreotype made by P. Haas. Southworth & Hawes discussed in “The Mirror with a Memory” (p. 32).]

1 b & w (“Ralph Waldo Emerson, at age of about Fifty-one”) as frontispiece in: Rusk, Ralph L. The Life of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1949. [From a Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype.]

1950

“95-Year-Old Machine Shows Rare Photos in 3 Dimensions.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (Boston), Wednesday, December 6, 1950, p. 15. [Announcement that the George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, has obtained thirty-eight rare daguerreotypes and the Southworth & Hawes “Grand Parlor Stereoscope” from Frank Roy Fraprie to complement the Holman Print Shop and Alden Scott Boyer collections.]

1953

“The Boyer Collection.” IMAGE 2:7 (Oct. 1953): 41–48. [Issue devoted to the Boyer Collection at the George Eastman House, Rochester, NY. Article contains sections on Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes, calotypes, Hill & Adamson, and Boyer’s book collection.]

1954

Whitehill, Walter Muir. “The Boston Athenaeum Collection of Topographical and Architectural Views of Boston and Vicinity.” EYE TO EYE: BULLETIN OF THE GRAPHIC HISTORY SOCIETY OF AMERICA:4 (Mar. 1954): 10–17. [Southworth & Hawes discussed (p. 13). “… 457 photos of the period 1860–1880 (from negatives made by Southworth & Hawes and now owned by Holman’s Print Shop, Tremont Place, Boston).”]

“3-D Daguerreotypes in America.” IMAGE 3:1 (Jan. 1954): 1–3. [Three Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes reproduced; from the George Eastman House collection, Rochester, NY]

Dexter, Lorraine. “American Collections of Stereoscopic Photographs.” EYE TO EYE: BULLETIN OF THE GRAPHIC HISTORY SOCIETY OF AMERICA:5 (June 1954): 3–23. [Contains a note that George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, owns “… the grand parlor stereoscope constructed by the Boston gallery of Southworth & Hawes to show their … daguerreotypes at the Crystal Palace Exhibition in New York, 1853 and 1854 …” (p. 21).]

1956

White, Minor. “Pictures from the Collection.” IMAGE 5:1 (Jan. 1956): 20–21. [One b & w (“Ralph Waldo Emerson,” by Southworth & Hawes, from the George Eastman House collection.]

Culver, D. J. “The Camera Opens Its Eye on America.” AMERICAN HERITAGE 8:1 (Dec. 1956): 49–64. [Two b & w: “John Quincy Adams” (p. 62) and “Daniel Webster” (p. 63). Portfolio of daguerreotypes. The Adams portrait has since been found to be a daguerreotype copy by Southworth & Hawes of another daguerreotype made by P. Haas.]

1957

1 b & w (“Chief Justice Shaw”) as frontispiece in: Levy, Leonard W. The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957. [Not credited to photographer, “Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.”]

“Index to Resources: American Portrait Daguerreotypes.” IMAGE 6:4 (Apr. 1957): 94–95. [American daguerreotypes: unknown (four), Southworth & Hawes (one), J. H. Whitehurst (one).]

“Index to Resources: Southworth and Hawes Collection of Daguerreotypes.” IMAGE 6:5 (May 1957): 120–21. [American daguerreotypes: three by Southworth & Hawes reproduced; 486 daguerreotypes at George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, 1,434 items of correspondence, etc., in the Southworth & Hawes collection.]

1958

Newhall, Beaumont, and Nancy Newhall. Masters of Photography. New York: A & W Visual Library, 1958. [“Albert Sands Southworth and Josiah Johnson Hawes” (pp. 21–31). Includes nine b & w by Southworth & Hawes.]

Pollack, Peter. The Picture History of Photography, from the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1958. [Five b & w: “Portrait of woman, medallion daguerreotype” (p. 71), “Portrait of woman” (p. 71), “Harriet Beecher Stowe” (p. 74), “John Q. Adams” (p. 74), and “View down Brattle Street, Boston” (p. 75). Mentions Southworth (pp. 63, 65).]

Deschin, Jacob. “‘Sittings’ in Minutes. Daguerreotypes Shown in Museum Exhibit.” NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, September 28, 1958, p. X29. [Exhibition notice: America in Daguerreotypes, New-York Historical Society. Special loan exhibition from the George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, supplemented with works from the Historical Society collections. Mentions Southworth & Hawes.]

1961

Newhall, Beaumont. The Daguerreotype in America. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1961. [Southworth & Hawes featured in “Boston Pioneers” (pp. 38–48), mentioned and discussed throughout, with twenty-two plates. 3d rev. ed. New York: Dover Publications, 1976.]

1964

Newhall, Beaumont. “Critic’s Choice: ‘More living than the memory of the man’: Daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.” POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY 55:5 (Nov. 1964): 152–53, 176. [One b & w. “Unknown sitter,” subsequently identified as the Rev. Rollin Heber Neale.]

1965

Doty, Robert M., ed. Photography in America, 1850–1965. New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery, 1965.
1 b & w (“Donald McKay, ca. 1855” (p. 9). Exhibition: Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, October 13–November 28, 1965.]

1966

“Special Double Issue: Photography. All at Once, a Moment Can be Caught Forever.” LIFE, 61:26 (Dec. 23, 1966): 32–50. [Two b & w: “Daniel Webster in 1850” (p. 35) and “At Boston’s Massachusetts General Hospital, surgeons re-enact for daguerreotype their first operation using ether in 1846” (p. 38).]

1967

“Harvard’s Hidden Treasury of Historic Photographs: A Search through the University’s basements, boxes, and unused files uncovered an amazing cache of important early photographs.” HARVARD ALUMNI BULLETIN 69:14 (Jan. 14, 1967). [One b & w (“Oliver Wendell Holmes.”]

Deschin, Jacob. “Photography: Auction of Historical Miscellany Yields $17,865.” NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, May 28, 1967, p. D24. [Discusses Southworth & Hawes. “At first, this ($1,800 for 34 calotypes by Hill & Adamson) was thought to be a record in its class, but Beaumont Newhall, director of the George Eastman House, recalls that in 1937, when he was director of exhibitions for the Museum of Modern Art, Southworth and Hawes daguerreotypes of personalities like Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams were offered to the museum for $500 each.”]

1969

Gernsheim, Helmut, in collaboration with Alison Gernsheim. The History of Photography from the Camera Obscura to the Beginning of the Modern Era. Rev. and enl. ed. London: Thames & Hudson, 1969. [One b & w (“A vessel in Boston dry dock, ca. 1850” (pl. 48). Mentions Southworth & Hawes (pp. 122, 126, 254).]

Fabian, Monroe H. “A Portrait of William Henry Harrison.” PROLOGUE: THE JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES 1:3 (Winter 1969): 29-32. 1 b & w, 2 illus.
[“In 1967 the National Portrait Gallery was offered the opportunity of purchasing a portrait of President William Henry Harrison from M. Knoedler and Company of New York. The portrait was attributed to Albert Gallatin Hoit, a 19th-century New England artist.’ Stylistically the painting compared well with other portraits by Hoit, and the quality of the modeling suggested that it might well have been a life study. Since no other Harrison portrait as fine as this was available and since the painting was, by New York dealer standards, very moderately priced, it was purchased for the gallery’s collection of Presidential portraits….” (p. 29)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Left: William Henry Harrison by Albert Gallatin Hoit, oil on canvas, 30 x 25 in. Below: Daguerreotype of Hoit’s portrait of Harrison, probably made by Albert S. Southworth in 1841, shown here actual size. (Metropolitan Museum of Art, gift of I.N. Phelps Stokes, Edward S. Hawes, Alice Mary Hawes, Marion Augusta Hawes, 1937.) Right: Harrison by Denison Kimberly and Oliver Pelton after Hoit, engraving, 18¾ x 15½ in. plus margins. (National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution.) (p. 31)
“…According to this letter, therefore, Hoit’s life study of Harrison should have been painted in Cincinnati on May 25, 1840, making it the last known portrait from life done of him.
The letter also appears to solve the problem of a William Henry Harrison daguerreotype in the possession of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City which is almost identical in composition with the Hoit portrait. The daguerreotype came to the museum out of the collection of descendants of Josiah Johnson Hawes, a partner in the Artists Daguerreotype Rooms of Albert S. Southworth and Company which was established in Boston in 1841, and has generally been accepted by authorities on Presidential portraiture as being made from life. The author, however, has examined the original daguerreotype and is convinced that it is not a life study of Harrison but a copy of the Hoit painting. Too many details in the daguerreotype are in agreement with the portrait for it to be otherwise. Moreover, it is very unlikely that any artist could have enlarged the image from the daguerreotype to the size of the canvas with the fidelity of proportion that exists between the two. In fact, the existence of the daguerreotype, with its history of Boston ownership, bolsters the prestige of the painting now owned by the National Portrait Gallery. It is known that Hoit returned to Boston with the Harrison portrait because it was engraved there in 1841 by Kimberly and Pelton. There is no reason then to doubt that the painting could also have been copied by the daguerreotype camera about the same time. Indeed, an original life portrait of the Whig presidential nominee would have been an ideal subject to copy for a studio seeking to publicize the new process invented by M. Louis J. M. Daguerre. In Stimpson’s Boston Directory for the years 1841 and 1842, the address of Hoit’s art studio is listed at 8½ Tremont Row; the 1842 directory lists Albert S. Southworth’s daguerreotype studio for the first time at 5½ Tremont Row.”
This information from the directory, Hoit’s letter from Cincinnati, the notation on the Kimberly and Pelton engraving, plus the existence of at least two other prints of the portrait dating from the second quarter of the 19th century present rather convincing evidence that the honor of precedence should be given to the painting rather than the daguerreotype. It appears then that the National Portrait Gallery has made one of the rare finds in the area of Presidential portraits-the last portrait from life of William Henry Harrison.” (p. 32)]

1970

Oliver, Andrew. Portraits of John Quincy Adams and His Wife. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1970.
1 b & w (“John Quincy Adams” (p. 286); two b & w (lithographs after the daguerreotype): “John Quincy Adams” (p. 284). Southworth image discussed (pp. 282–87). The author, assuming that the earlier attributions of this portrait of John Quincy Adams were accurate, discusses both Philip Haas and Albert Southworth in relation to this image and draws some convoluted conclusions to justify conflicting dates. Later scholarship, aware that buying and copying other photographers’ images was a common accepted practice in the nineteenth century, has concluded that this portrait was taken by Haas.]

Oliver, Andrew. “An Antiques Book Review: Portraits of John Quincy Adams and His Wife.” MAGAZINE ANTIQUES 98:5 (Nov. 1970): 748–53. [One b & w (“John Quincy Adams, 1843” (p. 753).]

1971

Great Photographers. Life Library of Photography. New York: Time-Life Books, 1971. [Nine b & w: “A. S. Southworth” (p. 11), “J. J. Hawes” (p. 11), “Brattle St., Boston” (p. 14), “Daniel Webster” (p. 15), “Rev. Daniel Sharp” (p. 15), “Mother and Child” (p. 16), “Emerson School” (p. 16), “Laura Bridgman” (p. 17), and “Woman in Mobcap” (p. 17). Discusses Southworth and Hawes (p. 13).]

Rudisill, Richard. Mirror Image: The Influence of the Daguerreotype on American Society. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1971. [Twenty-eight b & w by Southworth & Hawes. Hawes, Southworth, or Southworth & Hawes discussed throughout.]

Bunting, W. H., comp. Portrait of a Port: Boston, 1852–1914. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1971. [Four b & w: “Champion of the Seas” (p. 75), “Donald McKay’s shipyard, East Boston” (p. 77), “The Niagara, at Atlantic Dock, East Boston” (p. 398), and “Boston Navy Yard, Charleston” (p. 435). Two b & w by J. J. Hawes: “Two Sprague, Soule & Co., steamers at Long Wharf, ca. 1867” (p. 317) and “The bark Acacia, at North End Wharf” (p. 341). Brief discussion of Southworth & Hawes (p. 495).]

Mayor, A. Hyatt. Prints & People: A Social History of Printed Pictures. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Distributed by New York Graphic Society, 1971. [One b & w (“Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw” (fig. 653).]

1973

Stewart, Martha. “Photographic Resources of the Bostonian Society.” BOSTON PHOTOGRAPHY SURVEY NEWSLETTER 1:1 (Mar. 1973): 17–31. [Mentions four portraits by J. J. Hawes and two cartes-de-visite portraits by Southworth & Hawes (p. 23), and approximately twenty-five Boston street scenes by J. J. Hawes (p. 29). The issue also contains a copy of “Harvard’s Hidden Treasury of Historic Photographs” published in Harvard Alumni Bulletin 69 (Jan. 14, 1967).]

Appel, Odette M. “Photography Collection—Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.” BOSTON PHOTOGRAPHY SURVEY NEWSLETTER 1:2 (Nov. 1973): 5–9. [“Southworth and Hawes—Daguerreotypes” (p. 5), “Hawes, Josiah Johnson” (p. 6). Mentions twenty-four framed portraits and outdoor views, twenty-two portraits and views in cases, sixty-two unframed daguerreotypes by Southworth & Hawes, as well as a copy of J. J. Hawes’ first daguerreotype (also in the MFA collection),“Snow scene on the northeast corner of the Boston Common.”]

1974

Doty, Robert M., ed. Photography in America. Introduction by Minor White. New York: Published for the Whitney Museum of American Art by Random House, 1974. [Six b & w: “John Quincy Adams” (attributed to Southworth & Hawes, p. 23), “Lola Montez” (p. 24), “Edward Everett” (p. 25), “Harriet Beecher Stowe” (p. 26), “Rufus Choate” (p. 26), and “Lemuel Shaw” (p. 27). Mentions and discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 7, 11).]

1975

Moore, Charles Le Roy. “Two Partners in Boston: The Careers and Daguerreian Artistry of Albert Southworth and Josiah Hawes.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1975. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms; Dissertation Abstracts International Order No.76-11674. [Bibliography (pp. 408–21).]

“A Bicentennial Treasury: American Masterpieces from the Metropolitan.” THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART BULLETIN 33:4 (Winter 1975–76): 165–244. [One b & w (“Boston woman in lace shawl” (pl. 48).]

Appel, Odette M. “A New Attribution.” BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO ART MUSEUM 9 (1975–76): 10. [Identifies a whole-plate daguerreotype of a view taken in the Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge, MA, now in the University of New Mexico collection, as by Southworth & Hawes.]

1976

Sobieszek, Robert A., and Odette M. Appel, with research assistance by Charles R. Moore. The Spirit of Fact: The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes, 1843–1862. Boston: David R. Godine, 1976. [Exhibition: George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, February 20–May 30, 1976. Appendix A: François Gouraud’s Lecture and Manual”; “Appendix B: Southworth & Hawes Plates and Hallmarks.”]

“Exhibitions: Boston Photographers.” ART JOURNAL 35:3 (Spring 1976): 271–72. [Exhibition notice: “Southworth & Hawes,” George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, February 20–May 30, 1976.]

“Daguerreotype Images Are ‘The Spirit of Fact.’” NEW YORK–PENNSYLVANIA COLLECTOR: ARTS & ANTIQUES 1:2 (Mar. 1976): 1–2. [Exhibition notice: The Spirit of Fact, George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, February 20–May 30, 1976.]

“International Museum of Photography at George Eastman House, Rochester, NY.” CAMERA (Lucerne) 55:4 (Apr. 1976): 47–48. [Exhibition notice: The Spirit of Fact, George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, February 20–May 30, 1976.]

“Quick Takes: The Golden Daguerreotypes.” PENTHOUSE PHOTO WORLD 1:1 (April–May 1976): 12. [Exhibition notice: The Spirit of Fact, George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, February 20–May 30, 1976.]

Poli, Kenneth. “Critical Focus: Photography’s Oldest and Oddest Process Has Impressive Show.” POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY 79:7 (July 1976): 14, 16, 120. [Exhibition review: The Spirit of Fact, George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, February 20–May 30, 1976.]

Showers, Paul. “The Guest Word: The Spirit of Fact.” NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW, Sunday, July 4, 1976, p. 3. [Book review: The Spirit of Fact.]

“Book Review: The Spirit of Fact.” ARTWEEK 7:26 (July 31, 1976): 14. [Book review: The Spirit of Fact.]

Jarvis, E. P. “After M. Daguerre.” NEW BOSTON REVIEW 2:2 (Fall 1976): 10–11. [Exhibition review: The Spirit of Fact, George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, February 20–May 30, 1976.]

Thornton, Gene. “Books: Photography: From Boston to British India.” ART NEWS 75:9 (Nov. 1976): 117–18, 122, 126, 130. [Book review: The Spirit of Fact. Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 117–18).]

Madigan, Mary Jean. “The Spirit of Fact: The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes, 1843–1862.” MUSEUM NEWS 55:2 (November–December 1976): 66. [Book review: The Spirit of Fact.]

Sobieszek, Robert A. “Albert Sands Southworth and Josiah Johnson Hawes: Introductory Comments. The Daguerreotypes of Southworth and Hawes, 1843–1861.” CAMERA (Lucerne) 55:12 (Dec. 1976): 4–13, 34–37. [Excerpts from The Spirit of Fact (pp. 34–37).]

1977

Ackley, Clifford. The Spirit of Fact: The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes, 1843–1862: A Loan Exhibition Organized by the International Museum of Photography at George Eastman House, Rochester. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1977. [Illustrated checklist of the exhibition held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, January 19–March 20, 1977.]

Butler, Joseph T. “America: National Portrait Gallery Opens Department of Photographs.” CONNOISSEUR 195 (July 1977): 225. [One b & w (“Daniel Webster” (p. 225).]

“Readers Guide: Spirit of Fact: The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes, 1843–1862.” YALE REVIEW 66:2 (Winter 1977): x, xiv. [Book review: The Spirit of Fact.]

Perloff, Stephen. “Southworth and Hawes.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTO REVIEW 2, nos. 10–11 (October–November 1977): 11–12. [Book review: The Spirit of Fact.]

1978

Pfister, Harold Francis. Facing the Light: Historic American Portrait Daguerreotypes: An Exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, September 22, 1978–January 15, 1979. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1978. [Twelve b & w: “George Peter Alexander Healy” (p. 59), “Francis Parkman” (p. 90), “Calvin Ellis Stowe” (p. 111), “Ralph Waldo Emerson” (p. 141), “Oliver Wendell Holmes” (p. 156), “Annie Adams Fields” (p. 159), “James Thomas Fields” (p. 160), “Charlotte Cushman” (p. 170), “Daniel Webster” (p. 212), “Millard Fillmore” (p. 225), “William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips and George Thompson” (p. 254), and “Wendell Phillips” (p. 266). Arranged by portrait sitter; “Catalogue” (pp. 293–360) provides a listing of all other known daguerreotype portraits of the individuals in the exhibition, with variants, published reproduction sources, and many thumbnail images. Southworth & Hawes mentioned and discussed throughout.]

Welling, William. Photography in America: The Formative Years, 1839–1900. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1978. [Two b & w: “Photography Documents First Surgery under Ether” (p. 54), “Nancy Southworth” and “J. J. Hawes” in double daguerreotype case (p. 65). Southworth quoted (pp.17–18), mentioned (pp. 84, 113, 115), profiled and quoted (pp. 209, 387); Southworth & Pennell discussed (p. 20); Southworth & Hawes advertisement reprinted (p. 66) and quoted (p. 68); Southworth & Hawes mentioned (p. 72).]

Janis, Eugenia Parry. “Books in Review.” PRINT COLLECTOR’S NEWSLETTER 9:2 (May–June 1978): 56–60. [Book review: The Spirit of Fact.]

Hoyle, Pamela. The Development of Photography in Boston, 1840–1875: The Catalogue of an Exhibition Held at the Boston Athenaeum, June 27–July 31, 1979. Boston: Athenaeum, 1979. [Three b & w by J. J. Hawes: “George Bruce Upton, c. 1865” (p. 46), “William Hickling Prescott, c. 1865” (p. 47), and “Saturday Evening Club of Boston Physicians, c. 1864” (p. 48). Southworth & Hawes mentioned or discussed (pp. 6–8, 32); Hawes images discussed (pp. 26, 32, 35, 39). Most of these images, attributed to Hawes, are actually his rephotographs of his own earlier daguerreotypes. At least some additional images, attributed to anonymous, have been found, through further research, to also be by Southworth & Hawes.]

1979

“Matthew Isenburg Gives Society First Look at Historical Southworth & Hawes Papers.” PHOTOGRAPHICA 11:8 (Oct. 1979): 4–5. [Report on speech given to the Photographic Historical Society of New York. Includes a holographic copy of an agreement drawn up between Southworth and Hawes in 1849.]

Isenburg, Matthew. “Photographic Medal Brings Record Auction Price.” PHOTOGRAPHICA 11:9 (Nov. 1979): 5. [An 1847 silver medal awarded to Southworth & Hawes is auctioned for $2,100.]

1980

Robinson, William F. A Certain Slant of Light: The First Hundred Years of New England Photography. Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1980. [Seven b & w: “Landscape daguerreotype” (p. 10), “Third operation using anesthesia at the Massachusetts General Hospital, 1846” (p. 61), “Photograph of patient from Buckminister Brown’s Cases in Orthopedic Surgery,” photo, 1868 (p. 62), “Dr. and Mrs. Buckminister Brown at Their Home, 59 Bowdoin St., Boston,” photo, ca. 1860s, by J. J. Hawes (p. 122), “Lemuel Shaw” (p. 33), “The Branded Hand of Jonathan Walker” (p. 38, plus illus.), and “Classroom of the Emerson School” (p. 42). Includes an 1856 advertisement for the “Grand Parlor Stereoscope Viewer” (p. 67). J. J. Hawes, A. S. Southworth, Southworth & Co., and Southworth & Hawes mentioned, discussed, quoted throughout.]

Sobieszek, Robert A., and Odette M. Appel, with research assistance by Charles R. Moore. The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes, 1843–1862. New York: Dover Publications, 1980. [Revised edition of The Spirit of Fact, published in 1976.]

Isenburg, Matthew R. “The Daguerreotypes of Southworth and Hawes.” In Photohistory West: The Proceedings of the First Western Photohistory Symposium, May 16, 1980, Presented by the Western Photographic Collectors Association in Conjunction with the California Museum of Photography, edited by W. P. Carroll, pp. 55–69. Riverside, Calif.: The Museum, ca. 1981.

1 b & w (“Self portrait, A. S. Southworth”) on p. 24 in: “Christies East, New York” [advertisement]. ART NEWS 79:4 (Apr. 1980). [Full-page representation, announcing May 14–16, 1980, auction sale.]

1 b & w (“Self portrait, A. S. Southworth”) as frontispiece, p. 74 in: “Christies East, New York” [advertisement]. APOLLO (London) 111 (May 1980). [Full-page representation, announcing auction sale of May 14–16, 1980.]

1 b & w (“Self portrait, A. S. Southworth”) on front cover in: PHOTOGRAPHIC COLLECTOR 1:1 (Spring 1980). [Note about sale on title page: record sale price for a photograph, $36,000 for Southworth & Hawes portrait.]

“World Record Price Set at Christies’ Auction.” NEWSLETTER OF THE FRIENDS OF PHOTOGRAPHY 3:6 (June 1980): 2. [Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype sells for $36,000.]

Turano, Jan van Norman. “Book Reviews: The Daguerreotypes of Southworth and Hawes.” AMERICAN ART JOURNAL 12:3 (Summer 1980): 83–84. [Book review: The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes.]

1981

Hoyle, Pamela. The Boston Ambience: An Exhibition of Nineteenth-Century Photographs. Boston: Athenaeum, 1981. [Exhibition: Boston Athenaeum, February 9–March 5, 1981. Checklist of 100 prints. Discusses photos by Edward L. Allen, Samuel Bemis, James W. Black, J. G. Case & Wm. Getchell, Augustine H. Folsom, J. J. Hawes, Augustus Marshall, James Notman, Notman Photographic Co., Silsbee, Case & Co., Southworth & Hawes, Austin A. Turner, John A. Whipple, and others.]

Rinhart, Floyd, and Marion Rinhart. The American Daguerreotype. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981. [A. S. Southworth, J. J. Hawes, and Southworth & Hawes mentioned or discussed (pp. 53, 62–64, 77, 176, 194, 197, 199, 206, 227, 230, 264, 299, 300, 309, 357, 394, 410, 431). Illustrations include copies of announcements, advertisements, and patent drawings as well as daguerreotype portraits (pp. 78, 198, 205, 231, 253, 265).]

Tarshis, Jerome. “Book Reviews: The Past through Photographs.” AMERICANA 9:2 (March–April 1981): 90–94. [One b & w (“Daniel Webster” (p. 93). Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 92–93). The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes reviewed with six other books.]

Frankel, Stephen Robert. “The Photography Market: A Decisive Moment?” ART NEWS 80:1 (Jan. 1981): 94–98. [One b & w (“Self portrait, A. S. Southworth” (p. 94), with discussion of image (pp. 94, 95). Southworth & Hawes sold for $36,000.]

Day, Diane L. “Lola Montez and Her American Image.” HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY 5:4 (Oct. 1981): 339–53. [Two b & w: both titled “Lola Montez” (pp. 344, 346).]

1982

Newhall, Beaumont. The History of Photography from 1839 to the Present. Rev. and enl. ed. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1982. [One b & w (“Lemuel Shaw, Chief Justice of the MA Supreme Court” (p. 37). Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 34, 39); reproduces Southworth & Hawes advertisement (p. 39).]

Glueck, Grace. “Humaniser l’entreprise.” CONNAISSANCE DES ARTS no. 367 (Sept. 1982): 66–71.
1 b & w (“Self portrait, A. S. Southworth” (p. 67). Article about the Gilman Paper Company collections.]

1983

1 b & w (“Reenactment of ether anesthesia operation, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston”) on p. 55) in: Shakely, Lauren: “Passion for Genius: Photographs from the Arnold H. Crane Collection.” APERTURE no. 90 (1983): 48–59.]

1984

Rosenblum, Naomi. A World History of Photography. New York: Abbeville Press, 1984. [Three b & w: “Charles Sumner” (p. 52), “Portrait of woman, medallion daguerreotype” (p. 53), and “Operating room, Boston General Hospital” (p. 170). Southworth quoted (p. 38); Southworth & Hawes discussed and mentioned (pp. 50, 52, 78, 96, 167).]

Hoyle, Pamela. “Boston’s First Photographers.” Views: THE JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY IN NEW ENGLAND 5:3 (Spring 1984): 6–9. [Discusses photos by Samuel A. Bemis, James W. Black, Albert S. Southworth and Josiah J. Hawes, John A. Whipple, and others.]

“The 1860 Mechanics’ Fair in Boston.” HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY 8:2 (April–June 1984): 150–52. [Reprinted from Humphrey’s Journal (Oct. 1860) with three photos of the fair. Black & Batchelder, Hamilton, Heywood & Heard, Masury, Silsbee & Co., Southworth & Hawes, and Whipple displayed works, each briefly discussed.]

Ruby, Jay. “Post-Mortem Portraiture in America.” HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY 8:3 (July–September 1984): 201–22. [One b & w (“Portrait of anonymous child, ca. 1850” (p. 204). Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 206, 209).]

1985

Sobieszek, Robert A. Masterpieces of Photography: From the George Eastman House Collections. New York: Abbeville Press, 1985. [Two b & w: “Group portrait of three women” (p. 96) and “Group portrait of same three women” (p. 97). Discusses and mentions Southworth & Hawes (pp. 24, 96, 102, 356).]

Naylor, Jack. “Dr. Hopkins Auction—An Upbeat Day for Collectors.” PHOTOGRAPHICA JOURNAL 2:2 (March–April 1985): 4–5. [Auction of camera equipment, memorabilia. Two illus.: front and back of 1847 silver medal (front cover). Silver medal (one of two) awarded to Southworth & Hawes by the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association in 1847. Discussion of the medal (p. 2); note that Matthew Isenburg paid a record price of $3,450 for it (p. 4).]

Marien, Mary Warner. “The Rhetoric of the Image: Silver Cities: The Photography of American Urbanization, 1839–1915.” AFTERIMAGE 13:2 (Oct. 1985): 12–13. [Two b & w: “Donald McKay’s Shipyard” and “Mt. Auburn Cemetery” (p. 13). Discusses Southworth & Hawes images (p. 12).]

1986

Johnson, Robert Flynn. The Power of Light: Daguerreotypes from the Robert Harshorn Shimshak Collection. San Francisco: Achenbach Foundation for Graphic Arts, California Palace of the Legion of Honor, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1986. [Two b & w: “Mother and Child” (p. 24) and “Woman, ca. 1850” (p. 31); images listed in checklist (p. 18). Exhibition: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, August 16–November 2, 1986.]

Orvell, Miles. “Almost Nature: The Typology of Late Nineteenth Century American Photography.” VIEWS: THE JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY IN NEW ENGLAND 8:1 (Fall 1986), Supplement, pp. 14–19. [Illustrations by Southworth & Hawes and others.]

1989

Field, Richard S., Robin Jaffee Frank, Matthew R. Isenburg, and Alan Trachtenberg. American Daguerreotypes from the Matthew R. Isenburg Collection. New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery, 1989. [Exhibition catalogue: Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, November 10, 1989–January 3, 1990. “Portraits by Southworth & Hawes” (pp. 91–106); Southworth & Hawes discussed (pp. 107–20); Southworth & Hawes photographs, documents, memorabilia, items 165–178 in exhibition (listed pp. 125–26). Reproduces four hand-colored daguerreotypes, ten b & w daguerreotypes by Southworth & Hawes.]

Buerger, Janet E. American Photography: 1839–1900. Rochester, NY: International Museum of Photography, George Eastman House, 1989. [Exhibition: September 29, 1989–January 7, 1990. Expanded checklist. Mentions Southworth & Hawes (p. 7); lists eight Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes (pp. 12–13, 16, 19, 21).]

Wood, John, ed. The Daguerreotype: A Sesquicentennial Celebration. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989. [Six hand-colored daguerreotypes (pls. 1–5, 34); eight b & w daguerreotypes (pls. 35–37, 42, 47, 86, 99–100); two b & w “Unattributed woman” (p. 32); “James Jackson Lowell, as a child” (p. 39). Ben Maddow, “Rembrandt Perfected” (pp. 30–41); Matthew R. Isenburg, “Southworth and Hawes: The Artists” (pp. 74–78); Ken Appollo, “Southworth and Hawes: The Studio Collection” (pp. 79–90).]

Ambler, Louise Todd, and Melissa Banta, eds. The Invention of Photography and Its Impact on Learning: Photographs from Harvard University and Radcliffe College and from the Collection of Harrison D. Horblit. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Library, 1989. [One b & w (“Photograph of Southworth … taken from a Daguerreotype made in 1846,” salt print from a daguerreotype (p. 73); two b & w by J. J. Hawes: “Lateral curvature of the spine before and after treatment, 1868” (p. 76). The catalogue claims that the “… patient in the photograph is the noted photographer Albert Sands Southworth.” In the medical record accompanying the 1846 photograph, which discusses subsequent medical history, there is a statement “… vide photograph taken in 1887.” Exhibition: Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, Cambridge, Mass., November 1989.]

Whiteley, George S. A Lasting Impression: The Daguerreotype in America. Atlanta: High Museum, 1989. [One b & w (“Niagara Falls in Winter,” attributed to Platt D. Babbitt on commission to Southworth & Hawes (p. 15; listed p. 21); five daguerreotypes listed (pp. 19, 20). Exhibition: High Museum of Art, Atlanta, November 30, 1989–February 23, 1990.]

Fels, Thomas Weston. O Say Can You See: American Photographs, 1839–1939: One Hundred Years of American Photographs from the George R. Rinhart Collection. Preface by George R. Rinhart. Foreword by Debra Bricker Balken. Pittsfield, Mass.: Berkshire Museum; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989. [Two b & w: “Harriet Beecher Stowe” (p. 24) and “Black & White Hands on a Prayer Book” (attributed, p. 27), with discussion of images (pp. 123–24). Exhibition: Berkshire Museum, Pittsfield, Mass., April 8–June 17, 1989.]

Szarkowski, John. Photography Until Now. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1989. [Three b & w: “Portrait of woman” (p. 36), “Rufus Choate” (p. 38), and “Man in Sheraton Chair” (p. 327). Mentions Southworth & Hawes (p. 265). Exhibition: Museum of Modern Art, New York, February 14–May 29, 1989.]

Cameron, John B., and Wm. B. Becker. Photography’s Beginnings: A Visual History: Featuring the Collection of Wm. B. Becker. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1989. [One b & w (“Group Portrait” (pl. 11), with discussion (p. 136). Mentions Southworth & Hawes (p. 30). Exhibition: Meadow Brook Art Gallery, Oakland University, Rochester, Mich.]

Trachtenberg, Alan. Reading American Photographs: Images as History: Mathew Brady to Walker Evans. New York: Hill & Wang, 1989. [Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 22, 27, 29, 35).]

“Masters of the Daguerreotype.” AMERICAN HISTORY ILLUSTRATED 24:1 (September–October 1989): 32–33. [Discusses Southworth & Hawes, among others, in special issue commemorating 150 years of photography in America.]

Raynor, Vivien. “Art: ‘American Daguerreotypes,’ at Yale.” NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday, December 3, 1989, p. CN38. [One b & w (“Portrait of a Well-Dressed Gentleman.”Exhibition review: American Daguerreotypes from the Matthew R. Isenburg Collection, Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, November 10, 1989–January 3, 1990.]

1990

Johnson, William S. Nineteenth-Century Photography: An Annotated Bibliography, 1839–1879. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1990. [Includes brief biography of Josiah Johnson Hawes with eight annotated references (p. 292), twenty-five annotated references for Southworth & Hawes (pp. 585–87), and brief biography for Albert Sands Southworth with eighteen annotated references (p. 587). Southworth & Hawes cited approximately sixty additional times throughout the bibliography.]

Nelson, Kenneth E. “The Cutting Edge of Yesterday.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1990. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1990, pp. 30–41. [One b & w (“Mr. Nelson” (p. 30). Mentions Southworth & Hawes (p. 35).]

Southworth, Albert Sands. “Death in Sacramento: A Friend Remembered.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1990. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1990, pp. 52–53. [Replica of the broadside The Lone Oak at Sacramento, written and published by A. S. Southworth. A contemporary woodcut of the Sacramento Cemetery also published.]

Fink, Daniel. “Funerary, Posthumous, Postmortem Daguerreotypes.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1990. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1990, pp. 54–65. [One b & w (“Postmortem of young girl” (p. 54). Transcribes Southworth & Hawes 1848 advertisement, discusses Southworth & Hawes (p. 59).]

Palmquist, Peter E. “Appendix: Miscellaneous Daguerreian Biographies and Chronologies: Chase, Lorenzo G.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1990. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1990, pp. 189–90. [Discusses Southworth & Hawes, quotes 1845 letter from L. Chase to Southworth & Hawes.]

1991

Sandweiss, Martha A., ed. Photography in Nineteenth-Century America. With essays by Alan Trachtenberg et al. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1991. [Two b & w: “Young Girl” (p. 79) and “Daniel Webster” (p. 81). Mentions and discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 76, 328–29). Exhibition: Amon Carter Museum, Fort Worth, October 26, 1991–January 5, 1992.]

Kennedy, Joseph Terry. “Toward a Theory of Photographic Portraiture.” Ph.D. diss., University of Georgia, 1991. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1991; Dissertation Abstracts International Order No. DA913349. [Discusses work of Southworth & Hawes and others.]

Polito, Ron. “Photographers of the late 1850’s: Capsule Reviews from the Photographic Journals of the Period.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1991. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1991, pp. 49–73. [Mentions Southworth & Hawes, reprints excerpt from July 1851 Daguerreian Journal (pp. 52–53).]

1992

Clarke, Graham, ed. The Portrait in Photography. London: Reaktion Books, 1992. [Three b & w: “Unidentified Girl with Gilbert Stuart’s Portrait of George Washington” (p. 2), “Standing Portrait of Erastus Hopkins” (p. 179), and “Nancy Southworth Hawes Next to Her Portrait in Oil” (p. 183). Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 1, 3).]

Dilley, Clyde H. “The Rinhart Collection of Photographs.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1992. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1992, pp. 29–33. [Rinhart Collection at Ohio State University. Lists Southworth & Hawes (p. 30).]

Isenburg, Matthew. “In Search of the Elephant.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1992. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1992, pp. 121–25. [Transcriptions of notes, a contract between Southworth and Hawes, three letters from A. S. Southworth to his wife Louise while he was in California in 1849–50. Portrait of A. S. Southworth.]

Rombout, Melissa K. “Daguerreotypy Meets dBase III in Boston! (A Case Study for Automating Mirrors of New England’s Past at the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities).” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1992. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1992, pp. 209–20.
1 b & w (“Militia muster on Boston Common” (p. 211). Mentions Southworth & Hawes (pp. 216, 219).]

1993

Roark, Carol E., Paula Ann Stewart, and Mary Kennedy McCabe, comps. Catalogue of the Amon Carter Museum Photography Collection. Fort Worth: Amon Carter Museum, 1993. [One b & w (“Portrait of young girl” (p. 565). Brief biography (p. 564).]

Polito, Ronald, ed. A Directory of Massachusetts Photographers, 1839–1900. Camden, Me.: Picton Press, 1993. [Lists of studio addresses, residence addresses, and published advertisements in city and state business directories annually from the 1840s to 1900. Lists “Hawes, Josiah Johnson” (pp. 74–75), “Southworth & Hawes,” “Southworth & Pennell,” “Southworth, Albert Sands” (p. 124). One b & w: photograph of J. J. Hawes traveling photographic van and assistant (on adjacent unnumbered leaf recto); two b & w: portraits of J. J. Hawes (on adjacent unnumbered leaf verso); one b & w: branded hand of Captain Jonathan Walker; two b & w (a copy daguerreotype) and a carte-de-visite (group portrait of the Southworth family) by James W. Black (on adjacent unnumbered leaf verso). One illus.: woodcut portrait of Captain Walker (on adjacent unnumbered leaf recto). Southworth & Hawes listed twice in “Appendix C—Photographic Patents Issued in Massachusetts” (p. 537).]

Hambourg, Maria Morris, et al. The Waking Dream: Photography’s First Century: Selections from the Gilman Paper Company Collection. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, distributed by Harry N. Abrams, 1993. [One b & w (“A. S. Southworth self-portrait” (p. 131). Mentions and discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 120, 310, 314, 315). Exhibition: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, March 25–July 4, 1993.]

Aldred, Nannette. “The Portrait in Photography.” BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS 33:3 (July 1993): 305–7. [Book review: The Portrait in Photography, edited by Graham Clarke. Discusses Southworth & Hawes (p. 305).]

Davis, Mrs. D. T. “The Daguerreotype in America.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1993. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1993, pp. 91–102. [Reprinted from McClure’s Magazine (Nov. 1896). Davis describes a visit to Hawes’ studio. Five of the illustrations in the article are from Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes.]

Isenburg, Matthew R. “Early Equipment.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1993. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1993, pp. 201–54. [Reproduces photographs of equipment and apparatus from the Southworth & Hawes studio (pp. 243, 245, 246).]

1 b & w (“A. S. Southworth and Alice Hawes, daughter of J. J. Hawes”) on p. 7 in: “Collector Profile: Marc and Mona Klarman.” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 5:4 (July 1993): 1, 6–7, 12.]

1994

Pierce, Sally, and Sloane Stephens. The Daguerreotype in Boston: Process, Practitioners, and Patrons. Boston: Athenaeum, 1994. [Exhibition catalogue: Boston Athenaeum, September 8–November 10, 1994. Items number 1, 8, 54–58, 60–62 in the exhibition were by Southworth & Hawes. Includes biographies of J. J. Hawes (p. 52) and A. S. Southworth (pp. 55–56).]

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15th ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1994. [Four b & w: “John Quincy Adams” (vol. 1, p. 85), “James Clarke” (vol. 3, p. 353), “Harriet Beecher Stowe” (vol. 11, p. 55), and “Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw” (vol. 25, p. 765). Entry: “Southworth, Albert Sands; and Hawes, Josiah Johnson” (vol. 11, p. 55); discusses Southworth & Hawes (vol. 25, p. 765).]

Erickson, Bruce T. “A Mammoth Plate Daguerreotype in Hawaii: The Result of a Diplomatic Indiscretion.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1994. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1994, pp. xii, 1–10. [Two b & w: “Alexander Liholiho and companions” (p. 5) and “Same group” (p. 6). Discusses daguerreotypes and photographs of Hawaiian royalty Lot Kamehameha and Alexander Liholiho and their companion Dr. Judd (p. 7), taken by Southworth & Hawes and others during a tour of the United States and Europe. Author’s conclusion is that the mammoth plate daguerreotype was not by Southworth & Hawes.]

Steele, Chris. “A Glimpse into the Massachusetts Historical Society Daguerreotype Collection.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1994. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1994, pp. 80–117. [Eight b & w: portraits of John Brown, Annie Adams Fields, Frances James Child, Thomas Starr King, Donald McKay, Elizabeth Sprague Tobey with doll, Edward S. Tobey and family, Donald McKay with woodcut transcription. Mentions Southworth & Hawes (pp. 81, 117).]

Fondiller, David S. “America in Amber. (Increased Popularity in Collecting Daguerreotypes).” FORBES 154:6 (Sept. 12, 1994): 260–62. [Discusses aspects of Matthew Isenburg’s daguerreotype collection.]

1 b & w (“Lockwood & Company, view of building”) on cover in: DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 6:5 (October–November 1994)]

1995

Wood, John. The Scenic Daguerreotype: Romanticism and Early Photography. Foreword by John R. Stilgoe. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1995. [Two b & w: “Boston Navy Yard” (p. 171) and “Flood scene on Niagara River” (p. 171).]

Foresta, Merry A., and John Wood. Secrets of the Dark Chamber: The Art of the American Daguerreotype. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995. [Eleven b & w by Southworth & Hawes (pp. 47, 49–50, 132–33, 178, 180, 183–84, 191, 201, 203). Exhibition: National Museum of American Art, Washington, D.C., June 30–October 29, 1995. Reprints: A. S. Southworth, “Suggestions to Ladies Who Sit for Daguerreotypes,” Lady’s Almanac 1854 and 1855 (pp. 281–84); A. S. Southworth, “An Address to the National Photographic Association” (1870), Philadelphia Photographer (Oct. 1871) (pp. 289–300); A. S. Southworth, “An Address to the National Photographic Association,” Philadelphia Photographer (June 1872) (pp. 300–305); A. S. Southworth, “Comments at the National Photographic Association,” Philadelphia Photographer (Sept. 1873) (pp. 305–10); A. S. Southworth, “The Use of the Camera,” Philadelphia Photographer (Sept. 1873) (pp. 310–11); A. S. Southworth, “Photography, Painting and Sculpture,” Photographic Times (Nov. 1897) (pp. 313–15); J. J. Hawes, “Stray Leaves from the Diary of the Oldest Professional Photographer in the World,” Photo-Era (Feb. 1906) (pp. 315–17). Discusses Albert S. Southworth (pp. 19, 21, 22, 212, 213–14, 316).]

Ruby, Jay. Secure the Shadow: Death and Photography in America. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995.
1 b & w (“Postmortem photograph of unidentified child” (p. 53). Quotes advertisements (pp. 54, 65). Southworth & Hawes mentioned, discussed, and quoted (pp. 52–54, 62, 71, 164–66).]

Marder, William, and Estelle Marder, with Sally Pierce. “Philip Haas: Lithographer, Print Publisher and Daguerreotypist.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1995. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1995, pp. 20–39. [Mentions and discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 21, 25–26). Portrait of John Quincy Adams, previously attributed to Southworth & Hawes, because of a copy daguerreotype created by their studio, was actually made by P. Haas in 1843.]

1 b & w (“Daguerreotype of a portrait painting of William H. Harrison”) on p. 114 in: Weprich, Thomas M. “The Pencil of Nature in Washington, DC: Daguerreotyping the President.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1995. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1995, pp. 114–18. [Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 117–18).]

Havinga, Anne E. “The Collection of Southworth and Hawes Daguerreotypes at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1995. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1995, pp. 226–75. [More than 175 Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.]

Watson, Roger C. “‘… A Pleasant Employment for Ladies …’” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1995. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1995, pp. 276–80. [Discusses the practice of employing women in daguerreotype studios; cites letters from A. S. Southworth to his sister Nancy.]

1 b & w (“Man and woman”) on p. 9 in: “Collector Profile: Dale Walden.” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 7:1 (January–February 1995): 1, 6–10.]

“A Selection of Daguerreotypes from the Collection of Charles Moore.” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 7:1 (January–February 1995): 13. [Not by Southworth & Hawes. This is actually a notice about Moore’s dissertation, “Two Partners in Boston …” Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1975.]

1 b & w (“Copy of a large painting, of naiads swimming”) on p. 18) in: “Daguerreian Enigmas: or those that are just plain neat.” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 7:1 (January–February 1995): 18–19.]

Goode, Stephen. “Early Method of Photography was America’s Type of Portrait.” INSIGHT ON THE NEWS 11:29 (July 31, 1995): 32. [Exhibition review: Secrets of the Dark Chamber, National Museum of American Art, Washington, D.C. Mentions Southworth & Hawes.]

Barber, James G. “Who’s Who?” AMERICAN HERITAGE 46:4 (July–August 1995): 76–86. [Two b & w: both titled “Unknown woman” (pp. 80, 81). Mentions Southworth & Hawes (p. 79). Southworth & Hawes portraits used in comparison with other portraits in a discussion of the debate about whether a newly discovered daguerreotype is an early portrait of Abraham Lincoln.]

Holliday, Taylor. “The Daguerreotype’s Legacy: Portraits for the Masses.” WALL STREET JOURNAL, Thursday, September 14, 1995, p. A16. [Exhibition review: Secrets of the Dark Chamber, National Museum of American Art, Washington, D.C. Mentions Southworth & Hawes.]

1996

1 b & w (“Unknown Lady”) on p. 659, vol. 24 in: Turner, Jane, ed. The Dictionary of Art. New York: Grove, 1996. [“Entry: Mary Christian, “Southworth & Hawes” (vol. 29, p. 245); Southworth & Hawes briefly discussed in Naomi Rosenblum, “Photography, II, 2: History and influence: Portraiture” (vol. 24, p. 661).]

Christman, Margaret C. S. 1846: Portrait of the Nation. In Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Founding of the Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996. [Three b & w: “Demonstration of etherisation, operating room of the Massachusetts General Hospital” (p. 93), “Francis Parkman” (p. 99), and “Jonas Chickering” (p. 182). Exhibition: National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., April 12–August 18, 1996.]

Felix, John R. “Otis H. Cooley: Possible Photographer of the Only Known Photograph of Emily Dickinson.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1996. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1996, pp. x, 1–7. [Southworth & Hawes discussed (p. 5), rejected as the makers of the portrait.]

Jacob, Michael G. “Vignetted Daguerreotypes: The Evolution of an Art.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1996. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1996, pp. 8–21. [Two b & w: “Marion Hawes” by J. J. Hawes (p. 14) and “Unknown woman” by Southworth & Hawes (p. 15). Discusses Hawes and Southworth & Hawes (pp. 13–16).]

Barger, M. Susan. “United States Patents Related to the Practice of Daguerreotypy.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1996. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1996, pp. 45–51. [Lists Southworth & Hawes patent USP 4573 (June 13, 1846) for a plateholder (p. 46) and Southworth & Hawes patent USP 113304 (July 11, 1854) for a stereo camera (p. 49).]

Murray, Joan. “Rare Image of Childhood.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1996. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1996, pp. 168–69. [One b & w by J. J. Hawes: group portrait of his children Marion Augusta Hawes, Alice Mary Hawes, and Edward Southworth Hawes.]

“Daguerreotypes Featured in Library of Congress Acquisition: Library of Congress Acquires Notable Collection of Americana from Marian S. Carson of Philadelphia.” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 8:6 (November–December 1996): 24. [Mentions that a daguerreotype portrait of Josiah J. Hawes is in the collection.]

Edward, Elizabeth. “Secure the Shadow: Death and Photography in America.” JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE 2:4 (Dec. 1996): 729–30. [Book review: Secure the Shadow: Death and Photography in America, by Jay Ruby. Brief discussion of Southworth & Hawes.]

1997

Moore, Charles LeRoy. “Expression: The Soul of the Daguerreotype.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1997. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1997, pp. x, 1–25. [Includes a reproduction of a rare, now damaged, hand-colored daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.]

Norris, Rebecca. “In Praise of Scratched Daguerreotypes: Portraits of the Whitridge Brothers.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1997. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1997, pp. 32–46. [Three b & w: variants of “First operation under ether” (pp. 36–37).]

1 b & w (“Young Girl (damaged)” on p. 18 in: Murray, Joan. “In My Opinion: Daguerreotype Abuse (and what you can do to help!).” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 9:3 (May–June 1997): 3–4.]

1 b & w (“Margaret Fuller”) on p. 11 in: Avallone, Charlene. “What American Renaissance? The Gendered Genealogy of a Critical Discourse.” PMLA 112:5 (Oct. 1997): 1102–1120.]

Stauffer, John. “Daguerreotyping the National Soul: The Portraits of Southworth and Hawes, 1843–1860.” PROSPECTS 22 (1997): 69–107. [Discussion of Southworth & Hawes’ daguerreotypes in the context of the writings of Hawthorne, Emerson, Melville, and Whitman, and within the prevailing cultural aesthetic theory of the time.]

1998

Eskind, Andrew H., ed. International Photography: George Eastman House Index to Photographers, Collections, and Exhibitions. 3 vols. Enlarged and expanded version of Index to American Photographic Collections, 3d enl. ed. New York: G. K. Hall; London: Prentice Hall International, 1998. [656 institutions reported holdings statements to this Index. Of these, 35 institutions cite holdings for “Southworth & Hawes.” The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and the George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, are listed as owning “major” holdings and the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, as “substantial” holdings. The George Eastman House claims to hold 1,225 daguerreotypes, three photographs, and other items by Southworth & Hawes. Nine institutions reported holdings for “Southworth, Albert Sands” and “Southworth & Co.” Twenty-four institutions reported holdings for “Hawes, Josiah Johnson.” The George Eastman House claims to hold 59 items by Hawes.]

Frizot, Michel, ed. A New History of Photography. Cologne: Koennemann, 1998. [Three b & w: “Photographic button with inlaid daguerreotype” (attributed, p. 33), “Brand on the hand of Captain J. W. Walker” (p. 51), and “First Operation under Anesthetic, using Ether” (listed as anonymous, p. 54). One color: “Flowers,” hand-colored daguerreotype (p. 56). French ed., 1994.]

Lowry, Bates, and Isabel Barrett Lowry. The Silver Canvas: Daguerreotype Masterpieces from the J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 1998. [One b & w (“The Greek Slave by Hiram Powers”; one illus. (reconstruction of the daguerreotype) reproduced and discussed (pp. 128–31). Three b & w: “Operation with ether, post-operation view, reconstructed view of operation,” reproduced and discussed (pp. 282–85). Exhibition: The Art of the Daguerreotype, Getty Museum, Los Angeles, April 14–July 12, 1998.]

Ledes, Allison Eckardt. “Current and Coming: Daguerreotypes at the Getty.” MAGAZINE ANTIQUES 153:6 (June 1998): 786, 788. [Exhibition review: The Art of the Daguerreotype, Getty Museum, Los Angeles, April 14–July 12, 1998. Discusses Southworth & Hawes (p. 786).]

Solomon-Godeau, Abigail. “The Truth of Appearances: Nineteenth-Century Photography at the Getty.” AFTERIMAGE 26:3 (November–December 1998): 9–11. [Comparison of two exhibitions held simultaneously at the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, The Art of the Daguerreotype and Framing the Asian Shore: Nineteenth-Century Photographs of the Ottoman Empire. Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 10–11).]

THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1998. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1998. [Mark S. Johnson, “Special Section: A Portfolio of the David Feigenbaum Collection of Southworth & Hawes, Introduction” (pp. 188–91, 197–229); Denise Bethel, “The David Feigenbaum Collection of Southworth & Hawes” (pp. 192–95); Christopher Mahoney, “Southworth & Hawes, Daguerreian Innovators” (pp. 196, 198–99); “John Wood, Speaking at Sotheby’s Pre-Sale Symposium, on the Importance of the Feigenbaum Collection” (pp. 202–3); Sally Pierce, “My first thought was, ‘There’s more?’” (p. 206); Grant Romer, “First Thoughts” (p. 210) and “Observations” (pp. 214, 216–17); “Sally Pierce, Speaking at Sotheby’s Pre-Sale Symposium, Told of the Detective Work Involved in Identifying This Daguerreotype” (pp. 218–19).]

1999

Johnson, William S., Mark Rice, and Carla Williams. Photography: From 1839 to Today: George Eastman House, Rochester, NY. Cologne: Taschen, 1999. [“Southworth & Hawes” (pp. 78–89). Brief description of Southworth & Hawes career and the collection of 1,200 daguerreotypes and 2,310 items of photographic ephemera in the manuscript collection at the George Eastman House. Eleven b & w, one illus. of pages from the gallery’s Sitters Book.]

1 b & w (“Operation using Ether” on p. 47 in: Masterpieces of the J. Paul Getty Museum. Photographs. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 1999. [Southworth & Hawes discussed by Weston Naef (p. 46).]

1 b & w (“View of Boston from the State House,” attributed to Southworth & Hawes ) on p. 110 in: Anninger, Anne, and Julie Mellby. Salts of Silver, Toned with Gold: The Harrison D. Horblit Collection of Early Photography. Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Library, Harvard University, 1999.
Exhibition: Houghton Library, Harvard University, March 10–May 26, 1999. Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 109–10, 147). Horblit collection contains nine daguerreotypes and one paper photograph, taken ca. 1857, attributed to Southworth & Hawes, and one landscape photograph, taken ca. 1875, by J. J. Hawes.]

Pelizzari, Maria Antonella. “‘An Exhaustless Store for the Imagination to Feed Upon’: Reflections on American Art and Photography.” In America: The New World in 19th-Century Painting, edited by Stephan Koja, pp. 240–47. Munich: Prestel, 1999. [Discusses the work of Southworth & Hawes, among others.]

Sotheby’s (Firm). The David Feigenbaum Collection of Southworth & Hawes and Other 19th-Century Photographs. New York: Sotheby’s, 1999. [Exhibition: April 24–27, 1999. Auction: April 27, 1999.]

Newberry, Susan A. “The Magic Mirror at Home.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1999. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1999, pp. 34–65. [Daguerreotypes of children, living and dead. Southworth & Hawes postmortem practices discussed (p. 54) and quoted (p. 58).]

1 b & w (“Unidentified child with dog” on p. 175 in: Kelbaugh, Ross J. “Man’s Best Friends.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1999. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1999, pp. 161–87.]

DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 11:1 (January–February 1999). [Four b & w: “Portrait of A. S. Southworth, taken August–September 1840” by Southworth & Pennell (p. 5) (advertisement: Christies Art Auction, New York, April 23–28, 1999); “Sleeping Baby” (p. 7); “Portrait of J. J. Hawes in a fanciful Alpine landscape” (p. 9); “Two Young Women” (p. 11) (full-page advertisements: Sotheby’s, New York, April 27, 1999).]

3 b & w: “Portrait of Lajos Kossuth” (front cover), “Portrait of little girl smiling” (attributed, p. 15), and “Mother with her children” (attributed, p. 17) in: “Our Feature Portfolio: Selections from the Collection of James Novomeszky.” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 11:2 (March–April 1999): 12–18.]

1 b & w (“Sleeping Child.”) in: Loke, Margaret. F. “The Photographic Treasures of a Secret Collector.” NEW YORK TIMES, Wednesday, April 14, 1999, p. E3. [Discusses Southworth & Hawes.]

Halpert, Peter Hay. “Prized Daguerreotypes at Sotheby’s.” ART & AUCTION 21:15 (Apr. 15–30, 1999): 32. [Offered at auction: 240 daguerreotypes, including 70 whole-plate daguerreotypes, by Southworth & Hawes.]

Daniel, Malcolm. “Inventing a New Art: Early Photographs from the Rubel Collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.” THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART BULLETIN 56:4 (Spring 1999): 1–56.
1 b & w (“Sculpture Gallery, Boston Athenaeum, ca. 1854/55” (p. 46). Discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. 43–44).]

Pyle, Richard. “$43,700 Paid for 1855 Photo of Falls Victim.” BUFFALO NEWS (Buffalo, NY), Wednesday, April 28, 1999, p. A7. [Report on Feigenbaum collection sold at auction.]

“Snippets: Record Prices Develop for Photos.” HOUSTON CHRONICLE, (Houston, Tex) Thursday, April 29, 1999, p. 2. [Details record prices gained at Sotheby’s auction.]

Becker, William B. Photos by Nick Graver and Ken Nelson. “Auction News: The David Feigenbaum Collection of Southworth & Hawes. Sotheby’s New York April 27, 1999.” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 11:3 (May–June 1999): 6–9.

Horton, A. “Photography.” ART & AUCTION 21:19 (June 15–30, 1999): 47.

Prisant, Barden. “Photos Fetch Top Prices; Auctioneers Eye Private Buyers.” ART BUSINESS NEWS 26:7 (July 1999): 16. [Discusses sale of Feigenbaum collection.]

1 b & w (“Two Women posed with Chair” on p. 76 in: “International Auction Review.” ART ON PAPER 3:6 (July–August 1999): 76–84. [Discusses Sotheby’s auction (p. 76); $3.3 million realized.]

Bethel, Denise. “Sotheby’s Photo Expert on the Dag Sale of the Century: Art Inc.” AMERICAN PHOTO 10:5 (September–October 1999): 18. [Discusses Sotheby’s auction; 111 lots sold, taking in $3.3 million.]

1 b & w (“Boy with toy hoop” on p. 15 in: “Selections from the Daguerreian Society Benefit & Consignment Auction 1999.” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 11:6 (November–December 1999): 15–20.]

2000

Banta, Melissa. A Curious & Ingenious Art: Reflections on Daguerreotypes at Harvard. With contributions by M. Susan Barger, Deborah Martin Kao, and Robin McElheny. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2000. [Nine b & w: “Truman Henry Safford” (p. xx), “Early operation using ether, reenactment” (p. 52), “Early operation using ether” (p. 54), “Early operation using ether” (p. 56), “John Collins Warren” (p. 66), “Jeffries Wyman” (p. 70), “Lemuel Shaw” (p. 76), “Ralph Waldo Emerson” (p. 98), and “Oliver Wendell Holmes” (p. 152). Mentions and discusses Southworth & Hawes (pp. xx–xxii, 2, 55, 57, 75, 77, 79, 85, 87, 98, 99, 100, 152).]

“A Collection Beyond Point-and-Shoot.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (Boston) Friday, January 14, 2000, p. 19. [Southworth & Hawes auction sales briefly discussed in this summary of photography collecting prices.]

1 b & w (“John Quincy Adams” on p. 481 in: Portolano, Marlana. “John Quincy Adams’s Rhetorical Crusade for Astronomy.” ISIS 91:3 (Sept. 2000): 480–503. [This misattributed portrait of Adams, known for years within the photographic community to not be by Southworth & Hawes, is still so identified in other disciplines.]

2001

1 b & w (“Woman in white with her young son, ca. 1850,” on p. 62 in: “Purchases with Funds from Foundations, Trusts, and Endowments.” BULLETIN OF THE DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS 75:1 (2001): 50–65. [Description (p. 62).]

1 b & w (“Woman in Wedding Gown”) on p. 76 in: “Acquisitions of the Art Museum 2000: Photographs.” RECORD OF THE PRINCETON UNIVERSITY ART MUSEUM 60 (2001): 75–84. [With daguerreotype listed p. 84).]

1 b & w (“Robert C. Winthrop”) on p. 7 in: “Sally Pierce Identifies a Previously Unknown Sitter.” DAGUERREIAN SOCIETY NEWSLETTER 13:2 (March–April 2001): 7.]

“Amon Carter Museum Announces Major Photography Acquisitions.” PR NEWSWIRE, August 17, 2001, p. 1671. [Two whole-plate daguerreotypes by Southworth & Hawes added to the collections.]

2002

1 b & w (“Sleeping Baby” on p. 186 in: Rule, Amy, and Nancy Solomon, eds., with research assistance by Leon Zimlich. Original Sources: Art and Archives at the Center for Creative Photography. Tucson: Center for Creative Photography, University of Arizona, 2002. [one illus.: verso of daguerreotype plate (p. 188). Southworth & Hawes discussed by Ellwood C. Perry III (pp. 187–89). Four Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes in the CCP collections.]

Nelson, Kenneth E. “On Not Quite Reuniting a Grand Parlor Stereoscope Pair: Preliminary Research into the Origin of Three Daguerreotypes Owned by the Painter Frederick Edwin Church.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 2002–2003. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 2003, pp. 10–23. [Discusses a number of daguerreotypes of Niagara Falls in winter, attributed to Southworth & Hawes and Platt D. Babbitt.]

Rosenthal, Donald. “Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University/Cambridge: A Curious and Ingenious Art: Reflections on Daguerreotypes at Harvard.” ART NEW ENGLAND 23:3 (April–May 2002): 34–35. [Exhibition review. Discusses Southworth & Hawes, among others.]

Larkin, Marilynn. “The Art of Science and Industry.” THE LANCET 359 (Apr. 13, 2002): 1357. [Discusses Southworth & Hawes daguerreotype “Uses of Ether” in a general review of the J. Paul Getty Museum Web page.]

“George Eastman House (Newswire). Southworth & Hawes Photography Exhibit.” AFTERIMAGE 30:1 (July–August 2002): 2. [Note that the George Eastman House, Rochester, NY, and the International Center of Photography, New York, have received a $300,000 grant for an exhibition and catalogue on Southworth & Hawes.]

“U.S. Postage Stamps (Newswire).” AFTERIMAGE 30:2 (September–October 2002): 2. [Southworth & Hawes among the twenty photographers in the “Masters of American Photography” postage stamp set issued by the U.S. Postal Service.]

2003

“Boston Bosses Best in the Mid-19th Century.” BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY 150 (Feb. 5, 2003): 12. [Announcement of forthcoming Southworth & Hawes exhibition by George Eastman House.]

Seiling, Susan. “Top Photography Collections Inspire and Educate: You don’t have to go to art school to become an expert on master photographers. Photo Collections).” ART BUSINESS NEWS 30:3 (Mar. 2003): 104–5. [Mentions Southworth & Hawes in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts collections (p. 104), although not in the George Eastman House collections.]

2005

Young America: The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes. Edited by Grant B. Romer and Brian Wallis. New York: International Center for Photography; Rochester, NY: George Eastman House; Gottingen, Steidl, 2005. 552 p. 152 p. of plates. [513 references.]

ALBERT SANDS SOUTHWORTH (1811–1894)

1837

Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. First Exhibition and Fair of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association at Quincy Hall, in the City of Boston, September 18,1837. Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1837, 104, 24 p.
[“Reports of the Judges.”
Fine Arts
(Etc., etc.)

631. COPMAN, Boston. A Portrait of Daniel O’Connel-a firm, boldly painted picture; the Committee think, however, that it cannot be an original. Also, a copy from Lawrence in Encoustic-exhibited as a specimen of this style of painting, which, if capable of sufficient force and variety of effect, is of great value from its durability.
     T. COLE, Boston. A Portrait of Capt. Armstrong—a strong, bold picture, giving promise of high excellence, when the artist shall have had more experience. Also, a Portrait of J. L. Dimmock, which, bating a certain stiffness in the air of the figure, is very good. A Diploma.
     MRS. TURNER, Boston. Colored Drawings—fruit and flowers from nature -generally very well done; some excellent.
     MISS MONDS, Boston. Colored Drawings-neatly finished.
632. MISS GOODRICH, Boston. Several Miniatures-decidedly the best in the exhibition. A Diploma.
633. SOUTHWORTH, Boston, A miniature likeness of Hon. Stephen Fairbanks-good in some respects, but faulty in coloring and expression.” (p. 85)]
     [(A “N. Southworth, 333 Armory Hall” is listed under miniature painters in an 1846 Boston Almanac. Is this Nancy Southworth, or Albert before he became a photographer? WSJ)]

1854

Locke, Jane Ermina. The Recalled; in Voices of the Past, and Poems of the Ideal. Boston and Cambridge: James Munroe and Co., 1854. vii, 246 p. front. (port.) 19cm.
[(The portrait is an engraving taken from a daguerreotype.)
“Note 9, page 103.
‘The Lone Oak, & c.’ ‘Near Sutter’s Fort, two miles east of the Sacramento River, and about the same distance south of the American Fork, is the burial -place of the emigrants in that section of the country . . . . . Marking this hallowed and mournful spot, from the far distance, may be distinguished one of those thrifty, wide -branching oaks, so familiar to all who have visited California . It is known through the whole region as “The Lone Oak,” and under its branches the first grave was made for an emigrant from the civilized world . This grave was that made by a father for his child, who, with his wife and family, had made their pilgrimage there by the land route of Sierra Nevada, having buried several others by the way .’Private Notes of Albert S. Southworth.” (p. 245)]

1855

“American Patents which issued in April 1855.” JOURNAL OF THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE 3rd ser. 29:6 (June 1855): 370-384.
[“86. For a Plate Holder for Cameras; Albert S. Southworth, Boston, Mass.
Claim.” The plate holder, in combination with the frame in which it moves.” (p. 375)]

1860

“Patent Claims issued from the United States Patent Office for the Week ending September 25, 1860.” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN n. s. 3:15 (Oct. 6, 1860): 235-238.
[“A. S. Southworth, Boston, Mass., for a Plate Holder for Cameras. Patented April 10, 1855:
I claim, bringing the different portions of a single plate or smaller plates successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.” (p. 238)]

“List of American Patents Issued from September 1, to September 30, 1860.” JOURNAL OF THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE 3rd s. 40: (Dec. 1860):415-420.
“Cameras. Plate-holder for. A. S. Southworth Boston, Mass. 4.” (p. 420)]

1861

Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the Year 1860. Vol. 1. Arts and Manufactures. 36th Congress, 2d Session. Senate. Ex. Doc. No. 7.3 6th Congress, 2d Session. Senate. Ex. Doc. No. 7. 36th Congress, 2d Session. Senate. Ex. Doc. No. 7. Washington: George W. Bowman, Printer. 1861. 862 p.
[“No. 1,049. Improved Plate Holder for Cameras.—I claim bringing the different portions of
a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera,
substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.
Albert S. Southworth. (p. 827)]

1864

Circuit Court of the United States, Massachusetts District. In Equity: Simon Wing, Complainant, vs. Charles F. Richardson, Respondent. 2 vols. Boston: Alfred Mudge & Son, 1864. [The case involved Southworth’s patent battle over a device for taking more than one image on a plate. Includes testimony from many daguerreotypists describing their practices, especially Southworth & Hawes.]

Gray, Horace, Jr. Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. Vol. XIII. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1864. ix, 671 p. 25 cm.
[“September Term 1859.”
Daniel Bacon vs. Almond Williams & another.
“A witness who had been for many years a photographer, and previously “a teacher of the branches usually taught in select schools,” including handwriting, was permitted to state his opinion whether certain words on a paper shown him were written before or after the paper was folded. Held, that the admission of this evidence was no ground of exception.”
“A disputed signature cannot be used in cross-examination of a witness to test his accuracy as to another signature. The rejection of a plan, offered in evidence after all the testimony on both sides is closed, is within the discretion of the presiding judge, and not subject to exception. Action of Contract on a promissory note for $300, made by Almond Williams and Avery Williams to the plaintiff. Answer, payment.
At the trial in the court of common pleas, at December term 1858, before Mellen, C. J., the defendants gave in evidence a receipt in these words: “Received of Avery Williams three hundred dollars, for a note against Almond in the hands of Brimblecom. Barre, March 17th 1857. Daniel Bacon.”
The plaintiff contended that the receipt was in whole or in part a forgery, and among other witnesses called Albert S. Southworth as an expert, who was examined as to his qualifications and competency as an expert, and on said examination testified “that his occupation was photographing, in which he had been engaged since 1840; that previously to that time he had been a teacher of the branches usually taught in select schools, and, as a teacher, had attended to handwriting; that he had given attention to a comparison of fine and coarse lines, and to an examination of colors; that he had been unable to photograph the receipt exhibited, in the time he had had; but had examined the receipt with a magnifying glass.” The presiding judge decided that the witness was not qualified to testify as an expert to his opinion of the genuineness of the receipt by a comparison merely of handwriting; but, against the defendant’s objection, allowed him to testify “as to his opinion whether the words ‘Daniel Bacon’ were written before the (p. 525)
(Etc., etc.)
“…The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants alleged exceptions.
F. H. Dewey & W. A. Williams, for the defendants. 1. Southworth’s testimony should have been rejected. He had not the requisite skill and experience in the examination of feigned and simulated handwriting, and in detecting forgeries, to qualify him as an expert. And his testimony related to matters equally within the knowledge of the jury. Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. 490. Page v. Homans, 14 Maine, 478. Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 302. Mulry v. Mohawk Valley Ins. Co. 5 Gray, 541….” (Etc., etc.)
(p. 527)]

1865

“The Multiplying Camera Patent Case: Simon Wing vs. Charles F. Richardson.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 17:6 (July 15, 1865): 91. [Simon Wing and A. S. Southworth suing Charles Richardson.]

“The Wing Patents. United States of America—Circuit Court of the United States—District of Massachusetts—May Term, 1865. Opinion in the Case of Simon Wing vs. Chas. F. Richardson.” THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY n. s. 8:12 (Dec. 15, 1865): 272–77.

1867

Circuit Court of the United States. Massachusetts District. Hetty H. Robinson, in equity, vs. Thomas Mandell, et al.: arguments of Hon. T. D. Eliot, and T. M. Stetson, esq. for respondents / reported by J. M. W. Yerrinton. Boston: A Mudge, 1867. 216 p.; 22 cm.
[“…No. 15 does not match No. 1 as well as No. 10 does; but BOTH are in the case; it yields cumulative evidence and the coincidence of the three is an argument stronger than that of two. [Gavit, p. 887, ints. 13 and 14; Cary, p. 868, int. 6; Sawyer, p. 936, int. 11: Southworth, p. 719; Phippen, 799.]
To the intrinsic force of the argument from the mere exhibition of these coincidences, we add the following evidence from the most eminent experts known:
Southworth, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 728; Comer, 826, 827; Paine, 781, ints. 8, 10 and 11; Paine, 784, ints. 23 to 31; Gavit, 886, 887, 889, int. 4 to the end; Congdon, 848, ints. 5 to 12; Williams, 769, 770, 771, int. 8; Lincoln, 810, ints. to the X. [W. F. Davis, 860, ints. 6 to 12; Phippen, 798, ints. 6, 9, 10; Carey, 868, ints. 6, 10; Smith, 876, ints. 7, 12, 13, 14; Sawyer, 936, ints. 10, 11, 12, 54; Sawyer, 958, ints. 110 to 114 and 127.] (p. 113)
“…Mr. Southworth (718) suggests an effect of a tracing, — that to eliminate the characteristic variations you can remove the matched couples to a distance, and then see only the substantial mechanical identity of situation and position. The waves of a pond are, so to speak, strung upon the still water level. Looking from a distance, the variation vanishes, and the mathematical level is as apparent as if the water were calm.” (p. 123)
“…On the other hand, a bungler may trace so badly, and the paper might slip about so, that it might be difficult to say that it was a tracing; but between these two (p. 136) extremes, ordinary writers, by using the mechanical framework of tracing, will attain to structural, mechanical identity and characteristic variation; and this is the law of tracing. It is thus stated by Mr. Southworth, who has studied and demonstrated it more than any expert. It is acted upon unexpressed by the experts in handwriting, and is demonstrated in this case by photographic illustration. A scientific witness, appreciating the law exactly, styles it “agreement in position, diversity in form,” — meaning the same thing. Tracing is a mechanical aid to success in imitation, not a guaranty of it….” (p. 137)
“…They have nothing in common except mechanical positions. [Southworth, 719, 720, 722, 727, 741, 746; Williams, 769; Benham, 999; Morse, 185, ints. 56, and cross-int. 97; Lowell, 288, ints. 14 to 18; Clark, 912, ints. 36 to 41; Gavit, 889, int. 7; Phippen, 802; Comer, 826, ints. 14, 26, 27, 38; cross-ints 57 to 74; Mathiot, 328, ints. 69, 70, 71, p. 326, int. 50.] Indeed it is one of the clearest indications that tracing has been employed, when we find the down-strokes obstinately occupying the same positions of those in another signature, while the connectives are diverse….” (p. 138)
“…We want an eye like Mr. Southworth’s, who, in looking over a parcel of Sylvia Ann Howland’s signatures, came to No. 1 and instantly said he had met that figure before. He had in fact seen No. 10 in examining other signatures, and these objects to common eyes indistinctive, are to him like persons, and when he came to its duplicate it was like meeting an acquaintance. All this was absolutely without any information. Such a test of vision and of accurate attention to writing is an answer to those who decry all study of comparative handwriting because they have seen testify, not its adepts, but its ignoramuses. [Southworth, 723 and 757, Int. 66.]…” (p. 140)
“…I have cited eight witnesses who call attention to this movement of tracing, and who rely upon it in the formation of their opinions. Their statements, so palpably confirmed by the large photographs, and even by the small microscope, are unanswered. [Clark, 912, ints. 37, 38, and cross ints. 62 on p. 913; Williams, 768, ints. 4, 5; and 777, int. 46; Horsford, 1,016, int. 16; Southworth, 719, 722; Gulliver, 997, ints. 1, 2, 5; Phippen, 799, int. 9; Sawyer, 935, ints. 10 to 14; Comer, 828, int. 22.] The next subject of inquiry in these mysterious signatures, is anticipated above in the remarks upon the effects of tracing, where it was shown that if a signature be traced by an ordinary person, the characteristic peculiarities of the tracer’s own handwrit ing would be found in it….” (p. 164)
“…After all is said that can be said, there will still be that indefinable aspect which affects the eye of the expert, as a painter tells a copy from an original painting, but cannot explain how to others. In this case we have much manuscript for study, and by the aid of magnified photographs, which only help the Court in doing what might be done without great labor, this study of the characteristics of No. 10 and No. 1, can be reduced almost to an exact science; and we do not submit it to the Court upon the testimony of the experts alone, although Mr. John E. Gavit of New York, President of the American Bank Note Company; Messrs. Southworth, Comer, and others, of Boston; Mr. Williams, President of the Metropolitan Bank, of New York; Mr. Paine, the best writer in the City of New York; and all of them students of chirography, are the best of experts of handwriting; but to a considerable extent we also bring the thing itself to the eye of the Court. Some of the characteristics relied on have been cut from the photographs and pasted in juxtaposition with those pointed out in Nos. 10 and 1; and if the Court will study the plates long enough to train the eye to that perception which the untrained eye has not, we shall have great confidence in the inquiry. But if time cannot be had for this, we refer to the authority of the experts. This demonstration undertakes to speak for itself. After being explained and the points for attention are pointed out by the deposition of Mr. Southworth, (718, ints. 3, 6, 7, 8; 737, cross-int. 37,) it cannot be either accepted or rejected without full inquiry into its truth. [Southworth, 2d dep. 4, page 894; Southworth, 1st dep. page 717, ints. 2, 6, 8, 9, cross-int. 37; Gavit, appendix, 889; Williams, 768, ints. 4, 8; Comer, 826, ints. 14, 24 to 32, and page 834, cross-ints. 11, 14, 57, 66, 67; Phippen, 799, int. 10, cross-ints. 14, 15, 39; Paine, 780, ints. 8, 12, 13, cross-ints. 67, 69; Sawyer, 936, ints. 13 to 19; appendix, p. 970; Clark, 913, int. 40.]….” (p. 165) “…We give a list of some of the more prominent characteristic peculiarities. I think Mr. Southworth states some hundreds, but knowing that your Honors’ time is limited, and life is short, we have selected only a few of them. We claim that this signature No. 10 shows in it the characteristics of the plaintiff and we point them out for inquiry. We pointed them out in the case of the first witness who testified on the subject, Mr. Southworth, and they have not been answered yet. They are characteristics of the bodies of the documents Nos. 1 and 10, found in the signature of No. 10. 1. The angular dot or finish of the S.
Williams, 770, 768…..” (p. 168)
“…Williams, 769.
But for full discussion of characteristics, we refer to depositions of Mr. Southworth.
This treatment is very long and thorough. It my be tedious. So is any exhaustive analysis. A detailed statement of Professor Peirce’s process would be yet more difficult, and perhaps quite impossible for unprofessionals to follow. Sometimes witnesses have testified to characteristics, who were themselves superficial, and not masters of their subject; but the grasp and capacity of no science is to be tested by the experiments of the inexpert. The common law recognizes that handwriting may be identified by a comparative anatomy of its descriptive points. Then let the investigation be well done. You cannot often have direct evidence of a forgery, for it is a crime of secrecy, and without attesting witnesses. If it is true that the ancient and simpler crimes are giving place to a grade of more intellectual offences, it is the interest of the public that the power of detection keep pace with the progress of crime, and society needs the trained detective of handwriting as well as the detectives of burglars and murderers — and when a person of the unquestioned integrity of Mr. Southworth brings to this art such exhaustive industry, such clear, good sense, such skillful senses, he is entitled to very great consideration from the business community and the Court. We have surveyors trained to identify tracks from metes and bounds and stakes and stones, courses and distances; who know ancient marks of early proprietary surveys and particular marks of particular surveyors, and we need, in this higher walk of descriptive identification, an equally competent person by whom the indicia of handwriting can be clearly read. (p. 169) “…It is unanswerable. We press it out of the region of irresponsible opinion by a printed list of letters referred to. (Southworth, 718, 737.) We produced Plate 7, also, in 1866, challenging specific and accurate inquiry into exact facts, and the (p.170)
plaintiff’s alleged experts coming in 1867, do not and cannot answer us. It is not enough for the witness Crosman to make a formal assertion that 10 has characteristics of S. A. Howland. No capacity of his so to judge appears. What does he mean by a “characteristic,” and what ones are they?
This is no way to meet the elaborate and specific detail of Messrs. Williams and Comer, and especially of Mr. Southworth, so presented that the Court can see and determine at leisure. Why does he not dare to locate one, so that his conclusion may meet supervision and re-examination? But Mr. Crosman does not claim to have ever studied comparative characteristics; and it is dangerous, in these days of enlarged photographs, to locate characteristics, without great time and exhaustive inspection and skill. When these are furnished (deposition of Southworth), a proof by characteristic signs, which has seemed intangible and indistinct in the imperfection of jury trials and consultations, becomes plain demonstration….” (p. 171)
“…No. 51 shows this in an aggravated degree. Her purpose was legibility to herself. In F. W. P. 19, she leaves the second n in Ann half written. In this signature, and in F. W. P. 21, where ruled lines are furnished her, she cannot see the lines at all. This state of her eyesight is noticed by many of the witnesses.
Southworth, 758.
Horsford, 1016, 1028, 1029.
Sawyer, 945.
Williams, 772,
Comer, 828….” (p. 173)
“…Mr. Agassiz then goes further and points out differentia in No. 10 from 1; naming almost all the exact characteristics of the body of the documents 1 and 10 pointed out by Mr. Southworth (pp. 737 to 751). Mr. Agassiz only knows these things as differences, and cannot tell what inference to draw. The thorough expert knows that these natural out-croppings are the places to investigate concerning the authorship of the tracing.
To the point that No. 10 has been retouched we have, besides the engraver Crosman, Mr. Comer, who compares No. 10 to “a sign painted over a previous name ” (p. 825, ints. 12 and 14; pp. 827, 828, 841, 842). Mr. Comer styles the underwriting “pencil or some similar material,” by which we presume he means similar in color.
Mr. Comer used a microscope of thirty diameters in his examination (842), which is the size Mr. Agassiz says (426, int. 6) will show everything he saw, and it appears (830) that Mr. Comer has long experience in the use of powerful microscopes. Mr. Southworth testifies also to the retouching, and he used a microscope powerful enough to exhibit the end of a fibre of paper. (729, 719, 722, 723, 741, 742.)
Mr. Gavit, whose opinion on this point is entitled to the greatest weight, used ordinary lenses and a compound microscope of Tolles, one of the best makers, at seventy-five diameters, and he testifies that No. 10 was traced and then inked over. (887, 888, 889.)…” (p. 178)
“…In short, the whole question of the use of tools is a practical question. If the danger of error from the absence of necessary implements for the solution of an investigation, exceed that from theoretic error of tools, the tools should be used. 5. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts holds that even if unattested by their maker, photographs may, in the discretion of the Court be used for illustration when attested by the maker we understand that they cannot be rejected without legal exception. [Hollenbeck vs. Rowley, 8 Allen, 475, and they were admitted in Elliott vs. Pray, 10 Allen, 378.]
|In the case at bar we offer such attestation in ample form from the maker, Mr. Southworth, and by other tests. We even submit our accuracy to be tested under a magnifying power of 14 linear, (increased in area 210 times,) and we beg again to remind your Honors that no instance of erroneous representation in form, or distortion in any line, position or direction, is pointed out in our plates of signatures, by the plaintiff’s counsel after their most elaborate and adverse examination. ―――
We proceed now to the proofs of accuracy of defendants’ photographic plates.
This has been so completely established that we do not know whether the effort of the plaintiff to resist them is persisted in. These photographs were made by the two best photographers in Boston, Mr. Southworth and Mr. Whipple, at Mr. Whipple’s rooms, and with a lens which is believed to be the best in use, the Voigtlander, though other lenses have their partisans; but for photographs of signatures of a few inches long, and even less than the diameter of the lens, there could be no visible error with any average photographic lens in use. Plates which are photographs of paper scales magnified about three and one-(p. 185) half times were put in the book as illustrations of the accuracy of the work.
The plaintiff calls two photographers, Rowell and Mathiot, and two amateur dabblers about the outer edges of photography, Crosman and Woerd, partisans of the Globe lens, and they praise the Globe and decry the Voigtlander, — none of them having ever tried or seen the particular Voigtlander used in this case; and Mr. Black, who made the plaintiff’s photographs, and whose repute, we understand to be equal to that of Mr. Whipple or Mr. Southworth, they do not call….” (p. 186)
“… The complete character of this blunder is seen by reference to Southworth, 2d. dep. (p. 897, int. 9), because no apparatus at all was used in taking those in this envelope. They are heliographs without the intervention of any lens or camera at all, and must be absolutely perfect. The wet paper in drying has contracted them, but as they are to compare inter sese and contract equally, it is a truer mode of exhibiting the tracer’s creases, and how they were used, than ordinary photographs. Distortion or error is absolutely impossible, and a better photographer or more just witness would not have fallen into this error….” (p. 187) “…The test of this scale could not be made without proportional dividers, which would show if one section was equally magnified with another on the originals, though said sections might themselves be unequal. But none of the plaintiff’s witnesses used proportional dividers. Why is the use of appropriate tools omitted? why is not “best evidence” sought? [Southworth, 895, 899, int. 4; Benham, 1000, ints. 5, 13; Rowell, 471, ints. 28, 29; Mathiot, 354,]…” (p. 188)
“…In reply to this class of evidence we offer Mr. Southworth, whose experience and skill is unequalled in photography, who was the earliest photographer in Massachusetts, and who made these photographs, using Mr. Whipple’s magnificent instruments with the aid of Mr. Whipple; Southworth, p. 891, 896, and 897; Whipple, p. 464; and Mr. Alvan Clark, the eminent optician, who makes his own micrometers of the greatest accuracy, and the largest refracting telescopes in the world, and makes his own. lenses. He made the Voigtlander lens of Mr. Whipple. His testimony thoroughly proves the accuracy of the defendants’ photographs. On cross-examination his eye sees a variation of 1-160 of an inch in one plate of five or six inches long, (p. 930,) that is 1 in 800 or 900, in the negative of Plate 13, an amount perfectly trivial. As the plaintiff did not ask him to examine the original paper plates, the test of accuracy of the lens is not reached. Perhaps this 1-800 of an inch is the exactest copy of a variation of zoo of an inch in the paper scale.
Mr. Clark also (p. 908 and 915) examined the plates of signatures which we propose to use, and verifies their exact accuracy and equality of expansion.
He also explains the Voigtlander lens (p. 907 and 919), and its accuracy, and shows that it has an adjustability by which it can be regulated till a straight line copies by it exactly straight, and it is then correct. The plaintiff’s witnesses, who are evidently not so experienced in photography, do not appear to understand this quality of the Voigtlander. Perhaps having faith in other lenses they are not aware of it. Mr. Clark mentioned that Mr. Southworth was aware of it twelve years since, (p. 189) when he and Mr. S. were photographing straight lines (p. 907, 108.)
Gen. H. W. Benham, Col. of U. S. Engineers, whose qualifications for accurate measurement cannot be excelled, has also examined the defendants’ photographs, and testifies to their complete accuracy, using proportional dividers, measuring not only the scale, but the photographed signatures….” (p. 190)
“…But it is a waste of time to discuss fanciful questions about lenses, and photographs of varying paper scales, in view of the demonstration by Gen. Benham’s silk, and by Professor Horsford’s examination of the more stringent test of Plate 11, vol. 2, the signature magnified 14 times.
Besides, alleged errors, that are not visible at all to such men as General Benham, Alvan Clark (910, int. 24,) Charles S. Peirce, Albert Southworth and Professor Horsford, cannot be deemed worthy of the slightest consideration, especially in view of the admission of Mr. Crosman.
Finally, the plaintiff claims to have perfect photographs. That is true enough. These small subjects are effected with any average instrument. It is a street or a mass meeting which tests the perspective of the lens. Then why did they not make one single photograph of the Howland signatures, or any one of them, of the same scale with ours, and match them? This is the simplest and surest test of all. It is a demonstration. So conclusive a proof the advisers of the plaintiff would never have omitted, had it been safe to try it. But the Court will not conclude in favor of those who keep back the best evidence. The plaintiff does not make one single photograph of the same scale as ours.
We should say, does not produce any, for it appears from Crosman (p. 400), that she did make some of No. 10, which, for some reason or other, are not produced. This is a very noticeable case of omission to use “best evidence.”
This ends all we have to say as to the accuracy of our photographs; but we have something to say as to the fairness of the evidence employed on behalf of the plaintiff….” (p. 193)
“…Again the witness A. Driscoll, seeks to discredit our photographs by saying she went into Mr. Whipple’s with the plaintiff and found a girl touching some with India ink. She does not say where, whether on signature or on background, which is allimportant; but tries to create a suspicion by this vague story. Fortunately we have the witness Penney, who supervised and directed the operation, and she testifies that it was a touching out of spots in the background, and not in the writing; and also that these so touched went to New Bedford, and none of them were in Mr. Southworth’s order. She also testifies that (971 and a wet sponge will at once remove any India ink. 973).
Mr. Southworth, who made our books of illustration, testifies that no pen or pencil, or any instrument, ever touched them; and we offer, in case the plaintiff’s counsel can state that they (p. 195) suspect any place, to have the wet sponge applied in presence of the Court.
But we hardly believe such imputations will be made by counsel on the indistinct report of a witness who evidently was a spy, (see cross-examination of Alice Driscoll, and especially answer to cross-int. 45.)…” (p. 196)
“…2d. And yet there remains the evidence of Albert S. Southworth (p. 717).
As a student of handwriting, no witness has qualified himself more thoroughly to examine, to interpret or to judge. His evidence illustrates these propositions (pp. 718 to 722): First. That the name “Sylvia Ann Howland” upon papers No. 10 and No. 15 is not a genuine signature. Second. That it is a tracing.
Third. That it is a tracing from the signature on paper No. 1.
Fourth. That the hand that made the signature on paper No. 1 did not make the signature on paper No. 10 and paper No. 15.
Fifth. That the bodies of the writing in No. 1, No. 10 and No. 15 furnish intrinsic proof that the same hand which wrote those papers did, in fact, make the signatures on papers Nos. 10 and 15. And this proof is offered, not for the ultimate purpose of proving affirmatively that any party did trace the signature on the “second page” No. 10 or No. 15, but for the purpose of disproving the averment which the plaintiff makes, and is bound to prove, to wit, that the signatures to Nos. 10 and 15 were in fact made by Miss Howland.
The first four propositions as stated have been testified to and proved in different ways by fourteen witnesses, in behalf of the respondents; that is to say, by— Albert S. Southworth, p. 717; J. E. Williams, p. 767; J. E. Gavit, p. 885; J. B. Congdon, p. 847; S. Lincoln, p. 809; Geo. Phippen, Jr., p. 797; C. A. Putnam, p. 817; W. F. Davis, p. 859; A. C. Cary, p. 867; G. G. Smith, p. 875; L. Gulliver, p. 996; G. N. Comer, p. 823; G. A. Sawyer, p. 934; J. E. Paine, p. 781….” (p. 206)]

“An Extraordinary Will Case.” FRIEND; A RELIGIOUS AND LITERARY JOURNAL 41:11 (Nov. 9, 1867): 84-85. [From the New York Tribune. “We copy the following as illustrating the truth of the apostolic declaration that “The love of money is the root of all evil,” which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” “One of the most remarkable cases on record destined to rank high among the Causes Celebres, is now the talk of Boston…. (Suit of equity, brought by Hetty H. Robinson against Thomas Mandell and others, in United States Circuit Court, Justice Clifford presiding. Argument over the legality of a will, in which various experts, including Albert Sands Southworth, were brought in to testify whether various signatures were forgeries.) “…Two skillful photographers have been employed for weeks; and experts have expended months in procuring and comparing, in a great number of cases, numerous signatures by the same person, so as to determine the chances that any one person should write three signatures exactly alike….On the other hand, M. Southworth, after similar research, declares that the three signatures coincide with mathematical accuracy, not only letter for letter and space for space, but also that each has the same slant to the base line of each paper, so that the eye sees them parallel. His testimony covers fifty pages, and he pronounces the two contested signatures to be forgeries, executed by tracing… Prof. Benjamin Pierce of Harvard College,… mathematician… said… this phenomenon of coincidence could occur only once in two hundred thousand six hundred and sixty-six millions of millions of millions of times,… Among the collateral questions raised was one interesting to photographers, as to the comparative merit of the Voigtlander and Globe lenses.”]

1868

United States Supreme Court. In Equity. “No. 389” Hetty H. Greene & Edward H. Greene, in equity, vs. Thomas Mandell and others / Sidney Bartlett, Benjamin R. Curtis, F.C. Loring, of counsel for complainants; Thaxter & Bartlett, complainant’s solicitors; Benjamin F. Thomas, Thomas D. Eliot, Thomas M. Stetson, of counsel for respondents. Appeal from the Circuit Court, for the District of Massachusetts, filed December 17, 1868. Washington: 787 pages; 23 cm.
[“…Did you attend the taking of the depositions of the experts on the part of the respondents in this case? If so, which was the earliest that you attended?
Ans. I heard some of the experts give their opinion. The first was Southworth I think-a big, stout man….” (p. 106) “…..143 Direct examination resumed:
Int. 1. Whether or not you know by sight or otherwise Albert S. Southworth a photographer, and, if yea, whether or not has he been present during the morning of this day while your examination was proceeding?
Ans. I don’t know him….” (p. 143) “… …I never had the slightest doubt, and never heard the suggestion of a doubt from any source of their genuineness until after my return from the west in 1866, which was a day or two prior to the taking of the depositions in New Bedford, when I was told by defendant’s counsel that they should try to prove them to be forgeries. Since then I have been shown photographs of the signatures, taken by Mr. Southworth, and the question has been incidentally asked if I could explain the appearances shown by those photographs….” (p. 193) “…
Ans. It was at Judge Thomas’s office. Mr. Southworth was there, Judge Thomas, and Mr. Stetson.…” (p. 203) “…My impression at the time was, that she was coloring the photograph with India ink, or some dark color. (Objected to as incompetent.)
Int. 18. Were you present any part of the time, when the deposition of Mr. Southworth was being taken in this case? (Objected to as immaterial.)
Ans. I was.
Int. 19. Whether or not was Mr. Southworth present at Mr. Whipple’s rooms on the occasion you have stated?…” (p. 327)
Ans. I think it might have been Mr. Southworth but cannot say positively. …” (p. 328) “……Crosman with about fifty copies, with riders not made transparent, of the group of three signatures Sylvia Ann Howland, both in small and large size. These I received from Mr. Albert S. Southworth I mean fifty of each–making in all about two hundred photographs of signatures. About the last of March I went to Mr. Southworth’s establishment and asked him if he could furnish me with fifty copies with riders of the two groups of the three Sylvia Ann Howland signatures, as they appeared in the small books filed by the respondents as exhibits….” (p. 335) “……Have you, and have you brought with you, the photographic negative, so called, which you were directed by the subpoena. served on you as a witness to bring here, to wit, the photographic negative, so called, made by you at the request of A. S. Southworth and having upon its surface a representation of engine-divided scales, or portions of scales, being the negative of the scales photographed…” (p. 346) “…… by you for said Southworth to be used as evidence in this cause, and which was at the office of the Honorable B. F. Thomas, May 14, 1867, and will you produce the same, and leave it with the examiner for a day or two, that it may be examined by plaintiff’s witnesses?…” (p. 347) “……I mean its being taken out of my possession and sight. Int. 3. You have permitted it to go out of your possession and sight at the request of respondents’ counsel, have you not?
Ans. I let Mr. Southworth take it. …” (p. 347)
“…Cross-int. 2. Please to state with what care and accuracy the photographs which you furnished Mr. Southworth for the respondents in this cause were made, and what lens you used in making them, and whether said lens is in your judgment an accurate and correct instrument for the purpose or not….” (p. 348)
“Friday, Sept. 21, 1866.”
Deposition of Albert S. Southworth.
I, Albert S. Southworth of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, State of Massachusetts, aged fifty-five years, on oath depose and say: My business is photographing. I have been engaged in that business about twenty-five years, except an interval of a year or two in California, and a year or two in Vermont. During the past six or seven years my attention has been very much taken up with questioned handwriting, matters of controversy before courts and between individuals, anonymous communications, simulated writing, forgeries, and such like. In the earlier part of my life my business was teaching, and a portion of the time teaching penmanship particularly.
Int. 1. Whether or not, in connection with the art of photography, have you had occasion to examine the different branches of this subject? (Objected to for form.)
Ans. I have. In illustrating and demonstrating the peculiarities of handwriting by enlarging and magnifying it, so as to make it easy for the ordinary eye to follow fine lines and changes, to make more apparent genuine signatures, or to clearer show made-up ones. (The counsel for respondents put into the hands of the witness original exhibit marked F. W. P., 1; also bills of sale marked R. C. P., 1 to 30, inclusive, and 32 to 49, inclusive; and exhibits marked R. C. P., 50, and R. C. P., 51; also exhibits marked F. W. P., 10, and F. W. P., 15, and then puts the following question:) Int. 2. State whether or not you have made examinations of the papers put into your hands and the signatures thereto, and whether or not the signatures to exhibits marked F. W. P., 10, and F. W. P., 15, are genuine signatures? 718 (Objected to on the ground that in the state of the pleadings in this case the question is not open to the respondents, and so is incompetent; and, farther, that it is leading; and gives notice that any cross-examination of this witness upon the subject of this interrogatory will be de bene esse, and not waiving the objection.)
Ans. I have made examination of all those papers-all of the sig (p. 530) natures. These two signatures to Nos. 10 and 15 are simulated sig natures of the hand in the standards and in No. 1, F. W. P.; and are made up, traced, and copied by another hand from No. 1 as an original, and are not genuine. Int. 3. State the examination which you have made of Exhibits F. W. P., No. 10, and F. W. P., No. 15, and the other papers above named, and give the reasons for the conclusion which you have stated. (Objected to for form and substance.)
Ans. I have examined those papers repeatedly for the past four or five weeks. I have compared each and all the signatures by every test with which I am familiar. I have superimposed them one upon the other; have analyzed each of them in all their parts, measuring each and all of them with care. I find No. 10, F. W. P., to have the same general mechanical effect or picturesqueness when seen at a little distance, particularly in the length of the name, the length of each word in the name, and length of spaces between each word. I find, in these particulars, almost mathematical exactness. I have meant to refer to F. W. P., 10, and F. W. P., 1; these are the papers I superimposed and compared. As I lay these two papers one upon the other, so as to bring their margins the same, they each have the same width of margin on each side; they each have the same slant in relation to the base-line of each paper, so that the eye sees them parallel; they each have the same curvature, very nearly, from point to point, extending through the whole name from S to 1 in each, and from 1 to a; from the first part of A to the last part of the last n in Ann; from the first part of H to o. from o to 1 in Howland; from 1 to the first part of n in each name, making a succession of lines of curvature on the same radius. When 10 is superimposed on 1 the lines hide or cover 1 from vision almost entirely. The only remarkable discrepancy is the dot of the i, which seems in 10 to stand over the 1. The movement of the hand in 10 is very slow, and the lines have that varying movement or effect in many places, which we see in tracing. The first tracing over is mostly covered up by again touching the paper after the first mark or touch of the pen, touching the lines. The y has all been overwritten; in 1 the overwritten mark does not commence quite as soon as the underwritten, and we there see it. The movement of the pen in A, from the commencement toward the top, seems made with a hitching motion, stopping to start onward, and making the hair stroke larger than the opposite body stroke in the same letter. The last n in Ann has been overwritten; there is a double stroke from the turn of v to the finish. The commencement of H, the wave line, is very heavy has been overwritten; the wave from o to w, from w to l, the last part of a, and the last part of d. There is scarcely a forward movement-a ready forward movement-in the whole name. In 15, F. W. P., the mechanical arrangement of the name in its general measurement and spacings is very nearly the same. The words are not so loaded with ink, and the tracing is more perceptible. There is no forward quick motion of the pen, ready motion, from beginning to end of the name. The general measurements are (p. 531) nearly the same as the other two, and as near No. 1, F. W. P., as I should expect would be marked with a pen. In its effect to the eye it is a little lighter in tone than No. 1, while No. 10, from the amount of ink, is a little darker. No. 15 has a touch under the bottom of the S, and also under the commencement of the bottom of A, a little horizontal touch which seems like a measure, or a bound; likewise at the end of d. The top of A is unlike the A in either of the others. In other respects the mechanical effect of the three to the eye in the distance is generally the same; the base-line of the writing is very nearly the same, giving the same radius of curvature as the others. The margin of F. W. P., 15 does not match with the margin of 10 or 1. When No. 15 is superimposed on No. 1, the right-hand corner of No. 15 comes a little lower than the left-hand. By bringing it a little lower the three names in general effect seem parallel. When these names are arranged one over the other, so that the first touch of S in each shall be perpendicular, or one exactly over the other, a parallel ruler fastened at the left margin, there may be twelve lines drawn through the names touching the same point in each one, nearer than can be made with the ordinary movement of a good pen. 720 To be precise about it, they would have to be drawn with a point. These and other measurements and lines which may be mathematically drawn over and under each name in a horizontal direction, and the same points in each, will very nearly coincide. I have measured in this way more than forty-five names of Sylvia Ann Howland, signatures of Sylvia Ann Howland, attached to these papers, bills of sale marked “R. C. P.,” dated all of same date, Apr. 2nd, 1860, and I do not find any two of them having in the length of the name, the length of each word in the name, and length of space between each word the same dimension; and when lines are drawn horizontally over and under, the variations answer in some instances to nearly half an inch. The hand of Sylvia Ann Howland, as shown in these bills of sale standards, produced lying here, and as seen in No. 1, F. W. P., is forward, direct, plain, without superfluous marks or ornaments. The first touch of the pen is nearly straight down. The proportion between hair-strokes and body-strokes is well preserved. In crossing the A in No. 1, the termination of the righthaud body-stroke is continued into the movement to cross the A, with a circular motion, concave upon the upper side, carried a little to the left, turned and crossed to the letter n, but little below the level of the small letters. In Nos. 10 and 15 the pen starts back from the bottom of the body-stroke of A, a little upward, is curved to the left until it reaches to the opposite side, concave on the under side; it then comes round and is carried to n-very much lower in proportion than the cross of the A in No. 1. The movement from right to left in Nos. 15 and 10 is around and over, while the movement in No. 1 is around and under, making it exactly the reverse; while the general effect of these three signatures, Nos. 1, 10, and 15, is the same in their mechanical arrangements. The characteristics (p. 532) of hand, which distinguish separate hands, on near and close examination, become very apparent. Directions in the movement of the pen in the commencement of S, the turn as it goes to make the loop of S, the shape of the loop itself and its slope, and the curvature of the body of S resemble each other in 15 and 10, and do not resemble the same movements in 1. The turns at the bottom of 1 in Sylvia, No. 1, of i and of a in Sylvia, of the last part of the last n in Ann, and of 1 in Howland have two angles or corners, which show them to be characteristic of her hand. 721 1 The same angles are seen after the first touch of S in the turn. The same turns in No. 10 are oval, or with one angle, and are characteristic of the hand that wrote No. 10. The hairstroke of I in Sylvia, and of 1 in Howland-in No. 1-is concave on the left or upper side, while the same hair-strokes in 10, and 1 in Sylvia-in 15-are concave on the right or under side at first start, and then concave upon the upper side, making a line of two curvatures. These are characteristic of the hand that wrote 15 and 10. The failure to imitate the cross of A, in No. 15 and No. 10, with 1, shows a natural characteristic of the movement of the hand that wrote 15 and 10. The wave lines from v to i in Sylvia, from o to w and w to 1 in Howland, and the wave line of the top of H are well made with a motion lowering to the right, or sagging line, while seven out of eight of the same movements in 10 and 15 are drawn straight or with a rising line to the right. These differences between 15 and 10 and No. 1 show the characteristics of the hand that wrote 15 and 10, and also show the characteristic in that particular of the hand which Sylvia Ann Howland wrote. The wave line in No. 1 and in the bills of sale and these standard papers have the same characteristics, and do not have the characteristics of 10 and 15. The letter a in Sylvia-in No. 1-0 in Howland, a in Howland, and the first part of d in Howland, is nearly straight on the left side, and is a characteristic of her hand. The same letters in 15 and 10 are more circular on the left, and also on the right side, and are not characteristics of Sylvia Ann Howland’s hand. The w in Howland in No. 1 has its first part nearly straight, the second part nearly straight and almost perpendicular, and the hair-stroke of the last part carried up nearly straight. In 15 and 10 the same marks are much more rounded on the left, the second stroke of w is nearly parallel with the first, and in its form is unlike the same characteristics of No. 1. The letter H in No. 1 is wider apart from the top, in proportion, than it is in 15; the parts of the letter H in 15, when viewed separately, are not, in any particular, like H in No. 1. The point and slope of the 1’s in 15 and 10, and loop. are different in characteristics from the same strokes in No. 1. Taking the letters separately of 15 and 10, and comparing those with the same letters and movements in No. 1, there are very few points having similar characteristics. (p. 533)
722 10-H in Howland, 1 in same, d in same, are acute, angular, leaving in the appearance of the blank on the right a figure less than the angles of a right angle. These are not characteristics of the hand that wrote No. 1. I find, then, in the slow, heavy movements of 10 and 15; the zig-zag lines; the writing over in No. 10; the joining together of letters in No. 15, after the following marks were made, as connecting H with o in Howland; the last part of w with its wave line; the 1 to a; the n to d. in same word; the general correspondence in mechanical measurements, as seen in the distance, the clearest expression in the two names, that they are either imitations one of the other, or that they are both imitating some other name. I find that in comparing 15 with 1, it is an imitation of 1 nearer than an imitation of 10, yet not so near 1 as 10 itself. I find, then, 10 an improvement in imitation on 15, in general effect, particularly A and H. For the reasons I have stated, I can come to no other conclusion than that these are intended imitations; that is, F. W. P., 10, and F. W. P., 15, of F. W. P., 1, and that it would be difficult, although they are bad imitations, to do them much better; and from my experience, I believe it to be utterly and absolutely impossible to find three genuine signatures having so many mathematical agreements, and so few characteristics in common. (Here the witness expresses a desire to look over minutes that he has made of the examinations in question, to see if he has overlooked any point of importance in his testimony. The witness states, in answer to a question put by the examiner. at the request of the complainant, that the minutes he desires to examine do not contain a written statement of the substance of his tes timony, but are notes of the examinations made by him from time to time, scattered over several pages. Complainant objects to the witness referring to his minutes, but the objection is overruled, and after referring thereto, the witness continues:) I do not think of anything at this moment to add. I would like to add, that when I speak of No. 1 and 10 and 15, I refer to the papers marked F. W. P., 1, F. W. P., 10, and F. W. P., 15; and when I speak of the bills of sale, I refer to those here, (pointing to the exhibits attached to deposition of Benjamin Irish,) all of which I have examined and studied, and which have my own mark upon them. 723 Int. 4. State when you first examined the papers marked F. W. P., No. 1, and F. W. P., No. 10, and what examination you made, and how, and to what conclusion, if any, you came.
Ans. In the clerk’s room of the U. S. circuit court. A perfect stranger invited me into the room. The papers were lying before me on the table. I took up a bill of sale of a ship, with the signature of Sylvia Ann Howland, and other names, T. Mandell and Mr. Robinson. I took up, immediately following, a deed signed Sylvia Ann Howland. Either the next paper, or the next but one, I took up F. W. P., No. 10. The moment I saw No. 10, the overwriting (p. 534) and the underwriting affected my mind to question that paper as an attempt to conceal. The covering-up was pretty well done, but not enough to hide several marks of suspicion uncovered. I went on with the papers, taking up another and another among them, one with blue ink written over a name, and came to No. 1. When I came to No. 1, it had the same effect upon my mind that a figure I had seen before would have in the distance. I immediately looked for No. 10, which had gone under the papers, took one in my right hand, and one in my left, went to the window, and superimposed them as transparencies. On carefully looking at them, I found that the mechanical effect of the two was the same. I expressed my opinion to the gentleman with me, and left the court-house with him. in the direction of my place of business. We walked some little distance together, and I expressed the opinion that 10 was copied from 1. I did not know the gentleman nor what relation he had to the case. As he turned to leave me, I asked him his name. He then told me his name was Stetson, from New Bedford. Int. 5. State as accurately as you can when the first examination was made, and how many times you have examined the papers since, which you then saw in the clerk’s office, and which are marked as exhibits here.
Ans. The first was very near the middle of August-a Thursday or Friday, I think-then one day after, or on Saturday, I went with Judge Thomas and examined the paper; spent, I should say, hours in the examination. I think some time in the week following, I examined them again at Judge Thomas’s office. I think once again there. At one time, I know, Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., were all there at his office, and another time, I think. 10 and 15 were there. Perhaps a week after I examined them at Mr. Palfrey’s office. Some weeks or so later, I examined them there again. I examined them here again, at the clerk’s room, yesterday, and likewise this forenoon. The length of these examinations have been two or three hours usually; sometimes more. Adjourned to Saturday, Sept. 22, at 91, a. m. Saturday, Sept. 22.
Examination resumed:
Int. 6. State any other reasons that occur to you, if there are any, tending to strengthen or weaken the conclusion you have given as to the genuineness of the signatures to Nos. 10 and 15.
Ans. I was asked yesterday only in reference to the signatures of Sylvia Ann Howland, as I understand the question. I did not state that I had compared the signatures of 10 and 15 with the handwriting in the bodies of Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W..P., with the handwriting of No. 11, F. W. P., and with some other papers marked F. W. P., the numbers of which I do not remember, but which are among these papers numbered in order F. W. P., from 1 to 16 or 17. I have compared the handwriting in the signature No. 10 and 15, F. W. P., with the filling-out of those papers, and the others mentioned; and taking this comparison alone and separate from the com-(p. 535) parisons of these signatures of 10 and 15, F. W. P., with the other signatures of Sylvia Ann Howland, I can come to no other conclusion than that the same hand which filled out these papers mentioned, made up, copied, and traced these two signatures of 10 and 15 from No. 1. My first reason is the entire harmony of hand in its expressed characteristic points. The two signatures No. 10 and No. 15, F.W.P., are in harmony with each other. They are likewise in harmony in the same particulars with the hand that filled out the papers referred to. The power of the hand 725 in light and heavy strokes, for slow or rapid movements, in measure of heights of strokes, slopes, and turns, in form of body strokes of S; its straight and stiff appearance, without what is termed a double curvature, or line of beauty; the finishing touches of the pen at the termination of letters, and dots of i; the fashion of loops of small 1, and their slope when measured from the point under and between the body-stroke to the highest point of the top; the double curvature, or line of beauty, from the commencement of 1 to the top of its loop; the wave lines from v to a at the top of H, from o to w, and from w to 1; the rounder blank, inclosed in the o part of a; the turns at the bottom of 1, i, a, n, and w, and d; and the peculiar finishing stroke of d, leaving on the outside an acute angular blank, are the common characteristics of the hand in the filling-out of these papers, and the others referred to, and lead me to the conclusion that it must be the same hand. The power to write over another line, so as to cover it, is seen in the letters 8, i, g, in the paper marked No. 1, F. W. P., immediately after the signature. The peculiar body-strokes of S, in Nos. 10 and 15, is seen in the letters I, S, J, in the filling of No. 1. Upon now referring to the original exhibits, I find that the papers I referred to, the numbers of which I could not recollect, are F. W. P., Nos. 2, and an envelope marked No. 14. (The witness here proposes to refer to his minutes of references to points or same characteristics in 10 and 15, their locality in the filling out of Nos. 1, 10, and 15, and also in the other papers. These minutes were made upon my previous examinations of these papers. Complainant objects, upon the ground that, if upon the inspection of the originals, now before the witness, he cannot find and state the marks or distinctions upon which he relies, he cannot go to the memorandum to find them there. It is ruled by the examiner that the witness may be permitted to look at his minutes for the purpose of refreshing his recollection.) In the filling of No. 1, F. W. P., the habit of the stiff body-stroke of I, in the first line, and its finish or point, is identical with the bodystroke of S in the signature in No. 10. The S in the word second, sixth line from the bottom, has the same finish. (I still refer 726 to No. 1, F. W. P.) The body of I, after the word first, in the middle of the page, has the same finish; the body of J, in January, has the same straight, stiff appearance. The peculiar, stiff movement in the wave line of H, in Nos. 10 and 15 signatures, is (p. 536) seen in the words T in Thomas, T in Taber; on the next page, in No. 1, twice in the word third, in the word Thomas following, and again in the word Thomas following. }. In No. 10, I and S, in the first line, the whole of (S;) the body stroke of I, before give; I, before the word “have;” J, in the word “Judge,” I, before “wish,” on last page; I before “am;” I, before “therefore;” F, in Father; body of L, in “Lord;” body of S, in Sixty-in their straight, stiff appearance, are characteristic of the same points in the signatures of No. 10 and 15, F. W. P. The first touch and turn of S, in Nos. 10 and 15 signatures, in their turn, slope, and form, are found in the same movements, very often repeated in the filling of Nos. 10 and 15, in the filling of No. 11, No. 2, and No. 1, (all F. W. P.) Leaving out the slow movement-apparent in the signatures 10, Nos. 10 and 15-and the attempted mathematical tracing, the hand generally, in the signature to those numbers 10 and 15, conforms to the filling of Nos. 1, 10, and 15, 2 and 11, and also the address on an envelope marked (14, F. W. P.) The peculiar characteristic of the cross in A, to the signatures 10 and 15, by starting low down on the right-hand body-stroke of A to cross to the letter n, are seen in the movement connecting the two body-strokes of the first H on the envelope No. 14; also seen in the turn from the right to the left, concave on the under side, as it is swept around to connect with “e” following. This same habit of movement to the left, with a concave curve underneath, is seen in the next H, and in H, the last letter on the address on the envelope. This movement is also seen in H in No. 1, filling out (sixth line from the bottom;) also the following one in the same line; also in two H’s, in the middle of the first page; and occurs repeatedly in the other numbers. The first touch of the hair-stroke in 1, and its extension to the top-in the signatures to Nos. 10 and 15-occur constantly in the same movements in the filling out of these numbers before mentioned in the letters 1 and h; that is, the habit of a double curvature, by making the commencement at the right hand 727 concave, and concave at the left, as the hand proceeds to the top-as is seen in 1, in lawful, fourth line from the top, in No. 1; in 1, in words publish, declare, and last, in the sixth line from the top, before “will.” The looping of 1 and the first hair-stroke is seen in the commencement of “h,” and other similar movements-commencing with a hairstroke and going high up for a long letter. The first turn of v may be seen generally through the writing corresponding with the letter v in Sylvia. The “i’s” in No. 10 signature and 15 are natural in the hand of the filling. The connected letters, a, n, d, in Howland, have, in their size, form of body and hair strokes, turns, loops, connections, and ending, the same characteristics. The H in Howland, No. 15 signature, has, in its first and last parts, characteristics of the hand in the filling of the numbers before mentioned, when separating its two parts, so as to make the first part a T, and the last part (p. 537) tioned, when making too long strokes above the line, is to make those strokes nearly parallel. The H in 15 signature has its two parts nearly parallel, and no imitation of the H in No. 1 signature. The delicate characteristics of this handwriting, as seen in No. 1 signature, could not be seen and traced through the papers on which Nos. 10 and 15 signatures are written, while general forms and spaces would appear indefinite somewhat, and as though in the distance. The letter “a” in its whole shape, in Nos. 10 and 15, is natural with the hand in the filling of the papers before mentioned, and may be found in No. 1 in Howland, and in ten or a dozen other words on same page; on the next page there are nearly as many. In the filling of No. 15, there are very many of the same fashion, varying only in size. 728 The letter “n” is very recognizable, running with naturalness through the whole writing in various sizes. The blank point made by the down-stroke, turn, and finish of “d,” in Nos. 10 and 15 signatures, in such like turns and strokes in the filling, constantly occurs. The characteristic points common to the signatures in 10 and 15, when carefully counted, amount to forty or fifty in each signature, as compared with the characteristic of the filling out of the papers before mentioned; and these are not characteristics of the signature of No. 1, or of Sylvia Ann Howland’s signature in the standards. I should say then, generally, that in comparing the signatures on Nos. 10 and 15 with the filling out of Nos. 10 and 15, Nos. 1, 2, and 11, and the address on the envelope 14, there can be, in my mind, no doubt but that they are all written by the same hand. And my mind would have come to the same conclusion had I not have had any genuine writing of Sylvia Ann Howland’s before me. I should say, also, with the signatures 10 and 15 alone, I should have considered them simulated without any other writing whatever. Taking either of them separately, I should have believed them simulated from the internal evidence in each; and taking them with the signatures of Sylvia Ann Howland in either of the three particulars which I have mentioned, alone, with the filling and altogether, in either of those three there is overwhelming evidence, in my own mind, that signatures to Nos. 10 and 15 are not genuine. Int. 7. State what you mean by the term angular blank.
Ans. I mean the white paper at the right of the down stroke in d, and likewise above the stroke of d from the turn to the finish, making a point or angle, if you were to exactly cut off the “d” and leave the paper; by the blanks of o, a, and d, I mean the white paper cut out of the inside without cutting off any of the stroke; by the blanks under and above the line, I mean the cutting out by following either above or below the line the pen-strokes, so as to separate the writing from the white paper. Int. 8. From your examination of the signatures to the bills of sale referred to, state whether or not you found any such mechanical correspondence between them, or any two of them, as you found between Nos. 10 and 15 with No. 1. (Objected to for form.) (p. 538)
Ans. I have examined and measured every signature on the bills of sale, in the length of its whole name, length of each part of the name, length of spaces between each part of the name, and right and left margins of the paper upon which they are written. I have measured them nearer than can be measured with the eye-to less than the one thirty-secondth of an inch. There are no two alike in all of these measurements together; nor any two the differences of measurements of each of the parts put together do not amount to more than two-thirty-secondths of an inch; and they vary from two thirty-secondths to more than twenty-thirty-secondths in the amount of those differ ences; and, in some instances, where the length of the name 729 is the same but parts of the name and spaces vary, or where parts of the name measure the same, or where spaces measure the same, the length of capitals in those signatures, the length of the long letters, as “1” and “d” and “y,” vary in their general proportion in length, so as to have no correct or exact mathematical measurement similar to the signatures of 10 and 15, when compared with signature to 1, horizontally or perpendicularly, generally. Int. 9. When you made your first examination at the clerk’s office, state whether or not you had your microscope glass with you.
Ans. I had; as I generally carry in my pocket one with which I can see the end of a fibre of paper.
Cross-examination de bene esse:
(The cross-examination which follows is stated by S. Bartlett, esq.. of counsel for complainant, to be de bene esse, and without waiver of any objections heretofore taken.
Respondents do not admit the right of complainant to so examine.
Witness being then cross-examined says:)
My occupation, generally, before the age of twenty-one years, was on a farm in Vermont, except for four years before, when I taught school winters, and attended school generally one term in the year. My writing schools that I referred to were not taught then, at those winter schools. I only taught writing as usually taught in common. schools.
At the age of twenty-one I commenced going to school quite regularly; went to Bradford Academy, Vt., nearly nine months; taught school four or five months; went to Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass.; attended lectures on school teaching, teachers’ meetings, etc.; and studied for the purpose of learning to teach. Was at Phillips Academy three years, except while absent teaching. Taught my first writing school in Phillips Academy; afterwards taught select schools, and writing schools, and had just closed my school in Springfield, Mass., when I was requested by an old room-mate to come to New York city, to take hold of daguerreotyping. That was in the winter of 1839 and 1840.
I went to California in the winter of 1848-1849. I was there fourteenth months. I exercised out of doors in the mining country, dug, and did everything I could properly do in the open air, as one great object of my going was to get away (p. 539) from the confinement of many years, where I had been steadily employed teaching and studying. Since then I have been a year or two in Vermont. I went on to a farm. My business principally was the settlement of my father’s estate, the general care of a farm, which come into my possession by the death of my wife’s father at the same time, in connection with attention to disputed signatures in hand writing, which occupied a considerable part of my time. The most important of those cases, so far as property was concerned, which I remember now, was what was known in Norwich, Conn., as the will case. I think some of the heirs, through their counsel, employed me; the particulars I did not understand.
I was called to examine paper. There were several wills, but I saw but one. I was called upon to examine that document, signatures and all, and see if there had been any changes in it. It was settled the evening before court in some way, and I was not called as a witness. I was employed by counsel who questioned the genuineness of the document. My opinion was that the signature was genuine, but that there were fraudulent interlineations in the attempted imitation of the handwriting of the testator. I was also sent for to go to Boston twice to testify before the U. S. circuit court, and once before the U. S. district court, in the same matter. It was in regard to identifying handwriting in account-books with that on an envelope. I was employed by the government to examine the papers, and see if they were written by the same hand. The government claimed the identity of the handwriting. I testified that they were identical in my judgment. I had also, during this time, (respondents here object to these inquiries as incompetent,) papers for examination, which were considered unfinished matters. I was called as a witness, to Boston, into court, before Judge Chapman, by Mr. Ellis, in another case. The question was, as to the time in which an endorsement might have been made, and the differences between that and other writings.
Mr. Ellis was a lawyer in the Old State House block. I can’t tell what Mr. Ellis’s desire was; he only wanted me to examine the papers.
(My emphasis. WSJ)
Cross-int. 1. What was the ground taken by Mr. Ellis’s client with reference to these differences-that they existed or did not exist? (Objected to as incompetent and immaterial.) 731
Ans. I can only remember about the particulars of this case, that Mr. Ellis and, I think, his client wanted to have me go upon the stand after I made the examination, and give them my opinion.
Cross-int. 2. In consequence of your opinion?
Ans. I do not think they would have wanted me to get on the stand if it had been different. I do not now recollect particularly any other cases while in Vermont.
Cross-int. 3. Since you left Vermont, have you been called on as a witness in any cases pending in court? If so, name all of them, as near as you can recollect.
Ans. I recollect one, when Mr. Bartlett employed me, or examined (p. 540) me. I only recollect the names of counsel and of Thompson as one of the parties. Mr. Paine was one of the opposing counsel. The question there I do not remember. It was about a questioned piece of writing.
Cross-int. 4. Whether or not was the opinion you gave the counsel who called you in favor of their client or not? (Objected to for form and substance.)
Ans. I think it was.
Cross-int. 5. Name any other cases you can recollect in which you have been called as a witness. (Objected to as above.)
Ans. I was called in a case by Mr. Nickerson, the lawyer; and Messrs. Hutchins and Wheeler were opposing counsel. I think it was before a commissioner. The question was as to the genuineness of writing-interlineations.
Cross-int. 6. Was the opinion you gave him in favor of his client? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. I think it was.
Cross-int. 7. Do you recollect any other case in which you were called as a witness, either before a court, magistrate, or referees? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. I was called in the case of a complaint by the Faneuil Hall Bank against a young man for forgery. I was called for the government. I was first employed by the directors of the bank.
(Objected to as above.)
Cross-int. 8. Did you give the directors the opinion that it was or was not a forgery? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. That it was.
Cross-int. 9. Do you remember any other case?
Ans. I was called into court in another case, but not called on the stand. It was the question of the genuineness of the signature to an order, or the order itself. I was employed by Messrs. Nickerson and Sweetser, or their client; I don’t remember which came first.
Cross-int. 10. Did they wish to establish the forgery or genuine, ness of the paper? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. I think they wished to establish that the paper was not genuine.
Cross-int. 11. Did you give them an opinion, when they called upon you, that the paper was or was not genuine? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. After examination my opinion coincided with theirs.
Cross-int. 12. Can you remember any other case of the description named?
Ans. I do not now remember any other instance.
Cross-int. 13. You have found this a very lucrative occupation, have you not? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. I should say that I am generally fairly and well compensated. (p. 541) If I knew what Mr. Bartlett considers a lucrative occupation, I could answer better. I might consider an occupation lucrative which, he would not. I do not think, for the time I have spent in studying handwriting, that anything but the pleasure of it has paid me. All the money that I have ever received in this business would not be as much as I could earn in the same time in my business of photographing.
Cross-int. 14. How large is the largest compensation you have ever received in any case? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. I suggested a few questions ago, that I might have to throw myself upon the protection of the examiner in regard to answering as to private matters; I now desire to ask his ruling upon the question, whether it is my duty to answer it, and will abide by it in my 733 answers. (The examiner rules that the witness is not required to answer it, and declines to order him to do so.)
Cross-int. 15. How large is the largest sum you have ever received for services similar in amount and kind to those rendered by you in this case to respondents? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. I never had a similar case.
Cross-int, 16. Have you ever had a case involving as much labor as this? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. I have not. I may have had cases before me for longer time, and to which I devoted as much time.
Cross-int. 17. What is the largest compensation you ever received in the cases last mentioned, and wherein do they differ as to standard of compensation from this case? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. I decline to answer, unless the magistrate considers it my duty, while the word compensation stands in question; as to the latter part of the question, the word compensation still stands as a part of the question. I shall still adhere to my first suggestion to the magistrate, that I shall be guided entirely by what he considers my duty.
Adjourned to Thursday, Sept. 27, 10 a. m., by agreement of parties, and the appointment of the examiner.
Thursday, September 27th. Witness resumes: On considering the question since it was first asked me, I will withdraw my declining to answer so far as it relates to myself and what I consider my own private matters, and will answer the question as respects compensation, still believing that I am not required to answer it. The highest compensation I ever received was ($300) three hundred dollars.
Cross-int. 18. How long have you been employed in this matter. (p. 542) 543 and what compensation do you expect to receive? Have you made any journeys in regard to it; if so, where and how frequently?
Ans. Since the middle of August, or near that; as to my expectations, I have formed none. I went to New Bedford once; that is all the journeying. 734
Cross-int. 19. You have labored a good deal in the matter, have you not, from the time you first took it up; and what do you think would be a fair compensation?
Ans. I have labored a good deal; I do not know how much more may be necessary for me to do. As it regards my estimate, I do not consider this any time for me to reflect upon how much it ought to be, and I have not done it.
Cross-int. 20. Turn it in your mind, and give us your present judgment as to what would be a fair compensation.
Ans. I cannot do so until the matter, so far as I am concerned, is finished.
Cross-int. 21. Will you answer the question as to your past services in this case?
Ans. The responsibilities of my present situation forbid my giving my mind to it.
Cross-int. 22. Should you think a thousand dollars too small a sum?
Ans. I can no more go into that subject under present circumstances. I cannot go into that subject under present circumstances.
Cross-int. 23. Looking at it off-hand, should you think a thousand dollars would be too small?
Ans. I cannot, under present circumstances, consider any question eff-hand.
Cross-int. 24. I repeat the question.
Ans. As I am now circumstanced, I have deferred other questions since I took up this, where great interests were at stake, until this was completed, and refused to consider them off-hand. I cannot now go into any off-hand judgments in the presence of this court; never accustomed to do so.
Cross-int. 25. What court do you suppose yourself to be in the presence of; and does that create your difficulty in giving us an offhand opinion?
Ans. Not the court; but any court where I was sworn, and giving testimony upon a particular matter. I suppose myself before a magistrate appointed by the United States court; that he is amenable to them, and I to him.
Cross-int. 26. You know, do you not, the character and extent of the services you have rendered the defendant in this case hitherto?
Ans. My mind has been so much taken up with other things, that I have not considered it in amount in any way whatever.
Cross-int. 27. Have you not just answered that you had put by other and grave things to consider this matter? Read your answer to the 24th cross-interrogatory and say if it is true.
Ans. It is true. (p. 543)
Cross-int. 28. How many books of manuscript have you written in this case? (Objected to for form.)
Ans. I am accustomed to use small books containing a few sheets of paper; and to fill out, and partially fill out, others in analysis of handwriting. I have done the same in this case, and have used perhaps half a dozen, varying not much from that-some of them perhaps having not more than two or three or four pages written in them, and others filled out.
Cross-int. 29. Have you the books here, and what is the size of the pages, and how many pages have you written?
Ans. Some, and not all. The pages are about the size of a letter sheet. As to the number of pages, I can’t say; I have not paged them. A general analysis of hand usually requires me to write from thirty to sixty pages where the analysis embraces comparison between signatures which are genuine and similar handwriting, and simulated signatures and the handwriting with which to compare them.
Cross-int. 30. Will you refer to your books, and state to the magistrate, before this examination is closed, what number of pages have been written by you in this case?
Ans. As far as I can, I will do so.
Cross-int. 31. While you have been testifying upon the defendants’ examination, have you not constantly referred to those books to aid you?
Ans. I have referred to them to aid me as to mathematical numbers and localities in lines, so as to more readily mark places; and in giving reasons for my opinion, looked them over to see if I had omitted any special point. [I think now. after looking them 736 over to find whether I had omitted a special point (complainant objects to clause in brackets as irresponsive,) that I did not go on farther.]
Cross-int. 32. You have stated, have you not, that you have compared the bodies of the handwriting of the documents marked F. W. P., 1 to 10, with the signatures of F. W. P., 10 and 15? Will you now take those papers in your hand, and without reference to your written books, state in detail every fact or reason which they furnish you in coming to the conclusion which you have stated? (Objected to as assuming a fact not proved, especially that all the documents from 1 to 16 were examined by witness for the purpose named.)
Ans. I have not so stated, but have stated that there were certain papers within those numbers which I had so compared. (Upon this answer complainant proposes to put another question, as the residue of the question cannot be answered until he does.)
Cross-int. 33. Will you take the documents F. W. P., 1 to 16, inclusive, and examine them, and say which you did use in making the comparison?
Ans. F. W. P. No. 1, F. W. P. No. 10, F. W. P. No. 15, F. W. P. No. 2, F. W. P. No. 11, and an envelope, F. W. P. No. 14.
Cross-int. 34. Were those papers selected from the rest for you, I (p. 544) mean from the documents from No. 1 to 16, inclusive; or did you select them yourself? Were all those documents shown you?
Ans. All of the documents were shown me on the table before me, except No. 15; and afterwards I found No. 15 in the same package or envelope, and examined them myself, independently of any suggestions from others, entirely that I remember. No person suggested comparisons between signatures to 10 and 15, and any filling out whatever, or anything except the signatures, Sylvia Ann Howland, to standards.
Cross-int. 35. Then you mean to say, do you, that before giving your testimony you had seen and examined all the documents from No. 1 to 16, inclusive, and that you yourself, unaided, made the selection of the numbers that you have stated?
Ans. I do mean to say so.
Cross-int. 36. Will you now take those papers that you selected, F. W. P., 1, 10, 15, 2, 11, and 14, into your hand; and, without reference to your written books, state in detail every fact or reason which they furnish you in coming to the conclusion which you have stated? 737
Ans. I will do so, understanding that I may use the enlarged copies of 10 and 15 for convenience. I will do it without those, if desired.
Cross-int. 37. Will you answer the question, using your eye merely on the originals; and if you desire it, your lens?
Ans. Taking signatures to 10 and 15 and comparing them together (At this point, the counsel for complainant, saying that he desired to make the question more specific, adds to the end of the 36th cross interrogatory after the word stated, as follows: That the same hand which filled out those papers made the signatures to No. 10 and 15. To the question thus modified, the same being stated to witness, he replies) I take the signatures first, because they were first put into my hands. I first make an analysis of those signatures, and learn if possible the characteristics of the hand that wrote them, noting the characteristics in each name, in the whole name to each paper, and in both of them together. I find in No. 10 common movements in several different letters, which show me naturalness in their form generally by being several times repeated Beginning with the first turn of the first part of S, I find that same turn occurring in a in Sylvia, and in 1. Taking the turn at the bottom of 1 in Sylvia, I find it in i, recognize it in the second part of the first n in Ann, the last part of d, turn at the bottom. The narrow appearance of v, and its wave to i, the narrow appearance of o in Howland, and its wave line to w, and the wave line of w to 1, repeat the same habit or characteristics. The peculiar form of the n’s, by being spread generally at the bottom, and, likewise, their turn at the top, lead me to another characteristic. The nearly straight mark of the first part of a, from near its top to quite near its bottom, and its hair-stroke to the second part, and the second part in its slope and position compared with the first part taken with the (p. 545) a in Howland and the first part of d, repeat another class of characteristics of the hand, particularly in the form and slope of the different parts, and in the openness of each letter at the top. The loops of the two l’s, and of S at the commencement, in their form and slope, point to me another characteristic. Taking now these characteristics and going to No. 15, I find the first touch of the S and its extended. mark to the turn, and after the turn, the turn of 1 in Sylvia, the turn of last part of d in Howland, similar in their characteristics to 738 the turns before mentioned in signatures to No. 10. I find in v in Sylvia and o in Howland the appearance of narrowness, also in the wave from v to a and w to 1. I find a in Sylvia, a in Howland, and the first part of d to have the same characteristics. I find that I in Sylvia the hair-stroke is concave at its first start on the right side; as it approaches the top, it is convex. I find the same movement in 1 in Sylvia, No. 10; and I find in 1 in Howland, No. 10, the same movement nearly covered up by a line drawn over from w to 1. Finding three out of four similar movements in signatures 10 and 15, I consider them characteristics of the hand. The loops in 15 are blind, the same as in No. 10 in S and each of the l’s, and coincide in that respect with the same strokes in No. 10. The general appearance of the last part of H in Nos. 15 and 10 form also a characteristic with the l’s generally in their slope and turns at the bottom. The habit of a varying size in the letters, as o smaller and w larger, n smaller and n larger, shows to me a varying habit of sizes in the hand. The cross of A in each, by sliding the pen upward a little, on the down-stroke of A, carrying it circularly to the left, bringing it down concave on the under side, making a loop lower down than the bend of the line of the smaller letters following, considerably extending the line to the commencement of the next letter much higher up to the right, leads me to another characteristic of the hand. The endings of the letters in each signature, in a in Sylvia, of each d in Howland, and the blank partially enclosed on the right of each, lead me to another characteristic. The point at the finish in the S in Sylvia, No. 10, the point at the finish of y in same, the point at the finish of y in Sylvia, No. 15, in its peculiar shape made by the pressure and peculiar manner of lifting the pen, lead me to another characteristic. The peculiarities of the loops in the two l’s in each name in 10 and 15, as appears by drawing a line between the hair and body-strokes, at the commencement of the hair-strokes underneath and the highest turning point at the top, form a characteristic in the sameness of slope, generally, in each; and to this may be added the same remark in respect to S in Sylvia, No. 10. Each H spreads widest at top, and, from that fact, I should suspect. another characteristic. The peculiar joining of i to a in each name, or direction of hair-stroke; the peculiar joinings of 1 to a and of n to d in its relation to the height of first part of letters a and d, have peculiar sameness, occurring six times. I should say they are characteristic of the hand. (p. 546)
Going now from these two signatures to the handwriting in the filling of No. 1, the first point I notice is I in the first line-its dot at the finish, the form of the pressure of the pen, and the way the pen leaves it as compared with the same point in signatures No. 10 and 15, in S in No. 10, and in each y in 10 and 15. The hair-stroke of 1 from y to l in its two curves, concave on the right in its first part, and convex on the right higher up; the same general effect of mark, as seen in C in County, second line of No. 1; 1 in lawful, fourth line; in last, sixth line; I in land, eighth line from the bottom; h in her, sixth line from the bottom; h in Thomas, last line; t in these, last line; h in hereto, sixth line over the page; h in have, h in hand, seventh line; h in hundred, ninth line; b in by, eleventh line; I in last, thirteenth line; and in four more instances following in the same general movement, these show me characteristics in the filling of No. 1, and harmony with the signature 10 and 15 in the same point, in the form and habit of the stroke; and in examining this characteristics in the filling of 1 and signatures 10 and 15, I find nothing in the power of the hand that did the filling in No. 1, in these particulars respecting the letter 1, which I do not find in the signatures to 10 and 15. The hand that made 1 has the power to make the others, and vice versa.
Taking next the stiff appearance of the body of S in the signatures 10 and 15, or straightness of form of the body, I find that same movement in the body of I in the filling of No. 1; in the F in First, near the middle of the page on the left; in the I before give, next word; F in Farm, on the right, a little below the middle of the page; Sin Second, on the left, near the bottom of the page; I before wish, fourth line from the bottom; T in Thomas, last line; T in the word Taber, over; T in third, twice; T in Thomas, third line; J in January, seventh line; S in signed, near the middle of the page on the left. Taking the peculiarity of the loops of S, also the commencement in signatures Nos. 10 and 15, I find in the filling of No. 1, as to the commencement in S in Sylvia; first line in S in School; a little below the middle of the page in S in Second, at the left, near the bottom; in S in Signed, over near the middle of the page; and in S in Sylvia, three lines below-harmony in movement and power of hand, and vice versa, showing the hand, that made these in No. 1 has the power to make the same movements in signatures 10 and 15.
In the general form and outline given to the loops in the two S’s in the signatures to 10 and 15, and the I’s in each signature, I find the same occurring in S in Sylvia, in the filling of No. 1; 1 in lawful, fourth line; 1 in last, sixth line; I in last, over fourth line; 1 in seal, seventh line; S in signed, middle of the page on the left; and generally in the form of 1, in its upper part or loop. The fact that some I’s are open, and others closed in their loop, does not change their characteristic. The loops of other similar letters, as the top of h, have the same characteristic. I will point out h in her and have, last line but one over the page; and one or two others on the same (p. 547)
The habit of the wave line in the signatures, which I have before mentioned, in 10 and 15, from v to i, o to w, w to l, is seen in the third line, from r to i, in Bristol; w to f in lawful, fourth line; d to s in disposing, same line; o to r in memory, fifth line; b to l in publish, fifth line; w to i in will, sixth line; o to w in following, and twice more in same word, seventh line; w to 1 in Howland, ninth line; twice in Robinson, same line; b to u in buildings, seventh line from bottom, o to v, w to 1; in first line over, twice in sixth line, and three or four times below the signature.
In comparison of the large and small sizes of the small letters in Signatures 10 and 15, they occur, s often in No. 1 in the same words as small e before d in remembered; small a in Commonwealth, third line; the small narrow o in word disposing, fourth line; same in memory, fifth line; small a before last, in sixth line; narrow o in personal, at the left, near middle of page; narrow second o in goods, same line, very remarkably; same o in description, eleventh line from bottom; narrowness of o in house, tenth line from bottom; o in the abbreviated word Co’s., ninth line from bottom; the last part of u in without, fifth line from bottom, standing wide apart at the bottom, looking in its narrowness like a v; narrow o in Cornelius over, first line; o in Bedford, fourth line; and in our, last line, The sameness of characteristics in these points between the signatures No. 10 and 15 in same particulars and the filling of No. 1 shows in these respects entire harmony of hand-the power of the hand in Nos. 10 and 15 signatures, to make these characteristics in No. 1 filling, and vice versa.
Taking the general outline on the right of a, in the signatures 10 and 15, in 10 a in Sylvia and a in Howland, and in 15 a in Howland, I find in the filling of No. 1 a in Howland second line, three times in the third line, two or three times in the fourth line, in declare in the sixth line, repeated two or three times in the sixth and seventh lines, in the eighth and ninth line, once or twice in the tenth, and three or more times on the rest of the page; over in the first line, the second line, twice in the third, once in the fourth, twice in the fifth, in the seventh, in the eleventh twice, twice in the twelfth, in the thirteenth, and repeated in the following lines. In the general formation, the characteristics are the same in the first part, down-stroke, turn, hairstroke, place of joining to the last part, and last part of the letter a, making, in this letter in its formation, entire harmony of hand in the filling out of No. 1, with the signatures to Nos. 10 and 15 in the same particulars. The joining of the letter a to n, in Howland, in its form and direction, and the form of n, in each signature in No. 10 and 15, and the line of joining to d, in Howland following it, seen in a and d in Howland, second line of filling in No. 1, the word and, third line, twice in the fourth line, twice in the fifth line, once in the sixth, once in the eighth, twice in the ninth, once in the tenth, once in the twelfth, three times in the thirteenth, three times in the fourteenth, once in the sixteenth, and once more on the first page. It is seen (p. 548) and, before declared, same word before for, and once or twice more on the same page.
[Coming to the connection of letters, I find the mechanical arrangements of the two signatures to be such; the mathematical sameness in many points; the movement of the hand from point to point; the apparently hidden parts, partially exposed, of short touches and marks-lead me to the conclusion, that in these particulars there is design to imitate and to cover up, (objected to as irresponsive to end of bracket,) so as to disguise either one’s own hand, or imitate some other, or for some other purpose.]
I am obliged, then, to separate between certain mathematical and mechanical arrangements in Nos. 10 and 15, and leave them by separating, if possible, the natural characteristics of the hand, from the particular measurement in the length of syllables and words, from forms of parts of letters or whole ones, in these signatures of 10 and 15 which in them do not seem to be characteristic with each other, and to leave likewise spacings between letters and words, and in these particulars follow only general movements of the pen in the characteristics and forms of letters where they are several times repeated.
I find, however, that the “and” even in its measurements, in spacings between letters, differing slightly in 10 and 15, is very often repeated in the filling of No. 1, in form very near the same, in movement entirely unlike.
The movement in the filling of No. 1 is very ready and off-hand, but in these two, taking them separately and together, the movement is only the hand of tracing and copying. In A in Ann, signatures 10 and 15, there is no characteristic except the weight of hand in the last stroke of each toward the bottom, and the loop of each. Taking each of the parts together, of 10 and 15, except these, there is nothing similar, either in form or slope, but the movement of tracing. Taking the loop as a characteristic, I find it in H in Howand, second line, in the filling of No. 1.
H, twice in the ninth line, and twice in the sixth line from the bottom. I find the habit of carrying the hair-stroke of the loop of the cross of A from a lower part, higher to the next letter, in the first letter of the ninth line of the filling of No. 1, and in the sixth line from the bottom. I find then, in this particular, harmony as to the power of the hand in each of the particulars mentioned, in the hand which wrote the filling of No. 1, with the signature to Nos. 10 and 15 in A. I find No. 10 signature to be written over, or patched over, from point to point in various places with second strokes of the pen. I find entire power to write over, and follow the line in parts of the word signed in the filling of No. 1, middle of page, left hand, first word after the signature. I find the point over the i in Sylvia out of place in No. 10, and I find the same in the word witness, the last word of the filling out of No. 1. The short, angular turnsseen in i in Sylvia, No. 10, at the bottom; n last part in Howland; and the d-occurs in the word it, in both the i and t, in the first line of the filling of No. 1; in letters t and d, following, in same line; (p. 549) in I and d, twice in second line; in i, once, and so forward, very often through the filling of No. 1.
I find the abrupt ending of y in No. 10 and 15 signatures in Sylvia, in the fifth line from the bottom; in y and in the habit of finishing or leaving off y in two or three instances on the page. I find it over in the word my, in the sixth line; the word sixty in ninth line, and in the long stroke of the letter p in presence, in the last line but one in No. 1.
The power to bring the hand to a certain point in a down-stroke, and leave it with a dot, is seen exactly in the word day, in the seventh line in the y, so that in my mind the hand that could make the y in day, in the filling of No. 1, has the power entirely to execute the movements in the y in the signatures 10 and 15. And therefore taking those before mentioned in No. 1 with this last one, we have perfect harmony of hand and power of hand between the marks, in this particular, in the filling of No. 1, and the down-strokes of each of the y’s in 10 and 15 signatures.
The wave line of H, Nos. 10 and 15, is similar in its stiff movement, commencement, and joining the first body-stroke of H, and being in the loops unlike each other. I leave out the form of the loop as any characteristic of the hand, and take the joining of the wave lines to the body-stroke, and its height from the top of the body-stroke, and its somewhat straight and stiff appearance as characteristic of the hand that wrote these two signatures. I find the joining and height from the top, in each of the words, first, on the first page, in the filling of No. 1; the stiffness and slope of the wave, in the word first, ninth line from the bottom; the slope in the word Thomas, last line, letter T, the stiffness and joining and height, from the top in the word Third, over second line from the top. The remark on the harmony between the same movements in the different papers would be the same as before. The power of the hand in making the H in Howland, last part of the H in the signatures 10 and 15, is the same that would be required in C in County, second line, No. 1, in filling out. The habit of spreading the N widest at the bottom is seen continually in No. 1, filling out, and in five of the six n’s in the signatures to Nos. 10 and 15. I do not now, without my notes, remember that I have anything further to say of the comparison of the filling in of No. 1, with the signatures to No. 10 and 15.
What might be termed the geometrical movement of the hand, so as to space between parts of letters, is somewhat similar in the connection of the letters i a in Sylvia, in the name after the signature, with the same movements in 10 and 15. The name I refer to is in the sixth line from the bottom on filling out of No. 1. I now turn from No. 1 to the filling of No. 10. I have so many times alluded to the particular characteristics of the letters in 10 and 15 signatures, that I will now take these referring to the same characteristics in course, in No. 10 filling out: the turn of t and the blank angle at the right in it, on the first line in 10; the t in that same line, the S in Sylvia, in its commencement and first turn; the (p. 550) form of loop in the S and straight body-stroke; the wave from b to 1 in publish, third line; the shape of b below its loop as compared with v, in signatures 10 and 15; the word and, the word and in the fourth line; two t’s in testament; J in January; the n in n, commencement of the fifth line; the second 1 in following; the two o’s in same word; hair-stroke of h in hereby, o in revoking, a in made, sixth line; h in the word her in the eighth line, and the word and following in the ninth line; the letter h in her, twice repeated, as to its hairstroke; letters a n in Mandell, same line; straight, stiff mark of I in tenth line.
J in Judge, same line; the d, last letter in eleventh line; “and” in the thirteenth line; “and” in the fifteenth line; “at” in the fifth line from the bottom; I at the top of the page over, its dot or finish, and in the third line; commencement and first turn of Lord in fourth line; “and” in the fifth line; Fin Father, eight line; turn of the tin it, at the bottom of same line and in the ninth line; “and” in thousand, in the eleventh line; h in have, fourth line from the bottom, in its hair-stroke and loop; L in Lord, in its commencement, turn, and body-stroke, and the word “and” in the last line-all point to the same characteristics that I have before mentioned in the signatures to 10 and 15.
Taking No. 15 in its filling out, the angle at the turn of t in it, and the blank at the right of it; the habit of dotting the bottom or finish of a capital letter in I and S, first line; the general commencement of S, its turn, loop, and body-stroke; narrow v in Sylvia, first line, as compared with narrow v’s in signatures 10 and 15; habit of carrying the hair-stroke from the first part of a high up on the body stroke, as seen in signature to 15-is seen also in the d, first letter of third line of filling out of 15; the double curve of hair-stroke of h following, the word “and,” same line; nd in second, also, “and” in fourth line; hair-stroke of h in hereby, sixth line; narrow v and o in revoking, same line; I in seventh line, stiff body-stroke, and dot finish; h in her, ninth line, “and” following, and “h” also in same line; J in Judge, eleventh line, and in the fourteenth line; “and” in the sixteenth line; hair-strokes of h repeatedly in two or three next lines; I in third line from bottom in its straight, stiff body-strokes; nd in found, over page, a in after, and once following in same line; two I’s in next line; peculiar curved hair-strokes repeated in h several times; “and” in fourth line; narrow o in “old, torn,” same line; same in word “fourth,” next line; commencement of I. in Lord, in sixth line; wave of T in Thousand, “and” in Thousand, and the word “and” following; “and” in seventh line; narrow o’s in proof, same line; I in eleventh line and in twelfth line and in fifteenth line; I in sixteenth line; “and” in seventeenth line; likewise a-n-d in hand, same line; and the same letters in the last line but one, twice repeated-these all exhibit characteristics which I have before pointed out in the signatures Nos. 10 and 15.
In No. 14 the loop of H making the cross to the next letter, starts from a point low down on the last part of H, and after the turn is made, is carried higher up to form the loop of e, and onward. (p. 551) In this particular it is the same characteristic that exists in the A in Ann in Signatures 10 and 15. The stiff wave line in H in Howland, in Nos. 10 and 15 signatures, is seen in the wave of H, and its distance from the joining to the top in No. 14, first capital. The S in the initials has the commencement generally and hair-stroke and almost straight body-stroke; the loop at the top is larger, as to form in perfect keeping. The acute angular turn, seen repeatedly in the signatures to 10 and 15, is seen in the last part of the A, in the initials in 40. The characteristic in the cross of the last H in this address, No. 14, shows the same power of hand as the cross of A in Ann, in 10 and 15.
In the filling out of 10 and 15, and the writing on the envelope 14, these points which I have just enumerated are very common and characteristic, and in the power of the hand that wrote the signatures to 10 and 15. And the point in 10, 15, and 14 not found in the signatures to 10 and 15, are all within control of the hand that wrote the signatures to 10 and 15. Whatever of differences there may be in letters in their forms, sizes, spacings, and every thing that I can see pertaining to the handwriting, they are entirely consistent 746 in the filling out, in the power of hand, with the signatures to 10 and 15; and whatever differences there are in mathematical or mechanical arrangement of words or letters, and in the movement of the hand in 10 and 15, are attributable to a partially covered up purpose or design in the tracing and copying, and with this distinction there is absolute harmony of hand throughout.
Taking up No. 2, the first down-stroke in the filling of B, the hairstroke of E, following in its double curvatures; the turn of t in the word “it” at the bottom; variations of the sizes of small letters in the word remembered; straight body-stroke of I; C in County, second line; narrow o and turn of 1 at bottom in the word Bristol, in same line and following; variations of sizes of letters in the word Commonwealth; “and” in the third line; “and” in the fourth line; top of the F in First, commencement of second paragraph; both I’s following; and fourth line, same paragraph; letter S, first part to its turn, at commencement of third paragraph; “and” at the end of the line; I in the next line; I in Irish, and over the page, first word, and same word following in same line; the wave of T in Trustees, fourth line, second paragraph; narrow v in vacancies, last line but one in that paragraph; commencement of L in word Lastly, third page, second line, its turn, loop, and body-stroke; body of I following; I in word in, before witness, in sixth line; the word and in fifth line from the bottom, and the hair-stroke of h, third line from the bottom, also twice in second line from the bottom-these are common characteristics found in this paper, and likewise found in the signatures to 10 and 15.
For the purpose of brevity, I have not repeated each characteristic as I have passed.
I have classed the characteristics of this last paper. In comparing the pressure of the pen, in making the dot over the i in Sylvia, No. 10, I find its peculiarity in the fourth line, from the bottom of the (p. 552) filling of No. 2, between the word to wit and that over i in said ninth line from the bottom, after the word forever, near the middle of the page, over, the space, between the words “degree” and “that;” at the end of the first paragraph, after the words to wit, and with slight variations in several other places on the same page. This characteristic likewise occurs after the word testament, fifth line, third page; and over the word Robinson, fifth line from the bottom.
I remember no other points to which I think it necessary to refer in that number.
I should remark in the same way precisely, in reference to the harmony between the hand in the filling of No. 2, and the signatures to No. 10 and 15, that I did in relation to the other papers. I now take up No. 11. The turn at the bottom of t in the second word, and the blank at its right, likewise the d following in the word remembered; d in Bedford, second line; I in lawful; and d in and, fourth line, correspond with the same turn and blank in No. 10 signature. And the same turn and blank is recurring very often on the rest of the page repeatedly, on the second page, and also on the third.
Variations between the sizes of small letters in the word remembered, as in the m’s and e; between mand o in Commonwealth; the very narrow second o in Commonwealth and its wave to n; the very narrow o in memory, fifth line, and its wave to r; the narrow second o in following, and its wave to w in seventh line; the narrow v in revoking and its wave to o, eighth line, likewise o, are all characteristic of the narrow v and o in the signatures 10 and 15. The narrow v in the word every, sixth line from the bottom; the narrow v in the word give, second line from top of second page; narrow o in the word implore, and its wave to r; the narrow v and o in the word favor, and their wave lines, fifth line; narrow o and its wave in nothing, sixth line; narrow v in unfavorable, seventh line; narrow o in or, tenth line; narrow o in property, seventh line from bottom; also same in same, sixth line from bottom; o in dollars, second line from bottom; word Thomas, seventh line from the top of third page, are in keeping with the o’s in Howland in the signatures to Nos. 10 and 15, as are the v’s and their wave lines where I have named them.
I in second line, first page; commencement of S, and its body-stroke at commencement of second paragraph; commencement and loop of S, first letter on second page; I, fifth line from the bottom; commencement, loop, and body of L in Lord, last line but one before space for signature, are all in keeping with the commencement of S, and the stiff body-stroke, nearly straight, of S, in the signatures to 10 and 15. The form of y in its top turn in Sylvia; the comparative height between the first part of y in the top of the second part, in the second lines of No. 11, is in these respects in entire harmony with the signatures to 10 and 15.
The hair-strokes of 1 in Sylvia, second line, No. 11, its loop and curvature of body, is in keeping with 1 in Sylvia, 15; and its turn at the bottom is in keeping with same in No. 10. The (p. 553) wave from v to i is in perfect keeping with the wave from v to i in signature No. 10; and the turn of i at the bottom, the fashion of the a, are in entire harmony with the same in Sylvia’s signature No. 10. The n’s generally in Ann have the same turns, except the finishing turn of the last n in Ann, which is left so as to form nearly the same angle with the d in Howland in No. 10.
The a and n in Howland, second line, the first part of d, the hairstroke, are all in perfect keeping with the an, and first part of d in No. 10.
Adjourned to Friday, Sept. 28, at 9½, a. m.
Friday, Sept. 28.
Witness resumes:
The word and, as it occurs in second line in Howland (No. 11) and same word in third line twice, also in the fifth line; once in the sixth, once in tenth, once in eleventh, once in twelfth, once in fourteenth, once in fifteenth, twice in sixteenth, and repeatedly onward and over the page, and repeatedly on the last page, the letters of this word, when taken together and seen in the distance, so as to lose the disguise and simulation apparent in the signatures to Nos. 10 and 15, have a sameness easily recognizable to an observing eye, to the signature No. 10 and 15. The characteristics common to parts of those signatures in 10 and 15, when compared with each other in the same signature, amount in No. 10 to seventy or more, and in No. 15 to fifty or more in round numbers.
In No. 10 the first touch and start of S, its slope, its turn, its hair. stroke to the top, its loop, its body-stroke, and finish or point, making seven; No. 15 has the same. The y in its commencement, its turn at top, its turn at bottom, comparative height of second stroke, its straight body-stroke, and its point or finish, making 5 or 6. No. 15 has three or four of those. The 1 in Signature 10 in Sylvia, has its commence. ment, double curvature, its loop, its slope, its curved body, its turn at the bottom, making six or seven. In signature 15, 1 in Sylvia has five of these.
The letter v in Sylvia, signature 10, in its comparative size, its narrowness, and wave line, has three points. No. 15, v has the same.
The letter i in Sylvia, No. 10, in its straight body-stroke, slope, and turn at bottom, and hair-stroke towards the next letter, has four points.
The same in No. 15 has four. The letter a in No. 10, signature in Sylvia, in its commencement of the o part, its open top, straight lefthand side, turn at bottom, hair-stroke to second part, comparative height of second part, slope of same part, turn at bottom and finish, has nine characteristics.
In No. 15 signature, the same letter has a blind loop, open top, straight body-stroke of second part, comparative height of second part, slope, turn, and finish-making five or six or more characteristics. The A in Ann has, in its first touch as compared with the (p. 554) first touch of S, a characteristic in No. 10 signature; and, compared with same letter, No. 15 signature, has the bottom of its last part, the sliding back of its pen on the body-stroke, the loop in its turn and form, the cross, its extent to the left, and line of direction to the next letter-making six or more. The turns at the top of the two n’s in Ann, (No. 10,) and the bottom turns of the second part of each n, hair-stroke, and finish, the comparative slope of those parts, make ten or more characteristics in the Ann’s in 10 and 15.
The first touch of the pen in H in Howland, No. 10, (signature, its slope to turn, its wave line after the turn, the union of the wave line with the body-stroke, comparative height of the wave where it touches the body-stroke to the top, the hair-stroke of the second part from the first and onward to the top, the loop, bottom turn, and hairstroke towards o, make ten characteristics in No. 10, and seven or eight in the same letter in No. 15 signatures.
The touch of the preceding hair-stroke to o, in signature No. 10, in its comparative height from base-line, the narrowness, the joining at the top, height of second stroke, and wave to next letter, make five or six characteristics. The corresponding letter in 15 has one less characteristic. The first stroke of w, in its body and slope, turn and bottom, height of second part, slope and turn, curvature on the right in hair-stroke from the bottom of second part upward, the wave line to 1, make six or seven characteristics in No. 10, and two or three less in No. 15.
The 1 in Howland has the same as the 1 in Sylvia, No. 10-making six or seven. In 15, corresponding letter, there is one less. The a in Howland has the same as a in Sylvia-seven or eight or more. The n in Howland, the same; the same as the n’s in Ann-three or four.
The o part of the d in Howland, same as the o part of a preceding, in No. 10 signature; and the last part of d, in its slope, turn, and finish, have, in all, five or six characteristics; n, d, in No. 15, has four or five of these.
These characteristics when regarded in the light of mathematical numbers, do not make up as many as are found in the filling of the papers Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, and 15, from the fact that fewer letters are required in making these signatures; and that they do not contain all of the letters of the alphabet, or the various sized letters, capitals, and forms found in the filling. The different letters found in the filling require in their formation and appearance here upon the paper, in every particular-I mean those not found in the signatures 10 and 15-no marks, forms, or movements requiring more capacity or more practice of hand or ability, in any respect whatever, than are required to make the signatures to Nos. 10 and 15; and in their parts of movements, their connections to other letters, have the same height of hand and control of the pen; and in them are found, though different, very many of the characteristics enumerated to Signatures 10 and 15.
Indeed, it is more difficult to find forms and characteristics unlike, and not presenting characteristics enumerated in 10 and 15, than it (p. 555) is to see those that are natural and the habit of the hand; and the whole answer to the question may be, that there is scarcely a point or a place where the hand is not distinctly traced. Not that one of these points or places, or two, or ten, constitute sufficient ground for an opinion, but in their mathematical arrangement and absolute harmony in every respect, disconnected from the simulation of the sig. natures in 10 and 15, they are like the footsteps of an individual, (objected to from this point as irresponsive,) under different circumstances-sometimes slow and sometimes rapid; sometimes on a hard path and sometimes in the sand; sometimes with the measured tread on the floor, or on tiptoe on the muddy flag. stone; sometimes in the slipper, in the boot, or in the rubber, or barefoot; sometimes in the jostling crowd, the measured step to the drum, the whirl of the giddy dance; and in every other position in which the step or mark could be seen, measured, compared, and recognized mathematically. So many combinations of characteristics are circumstantial truths to my mind, making it an absolute demonstration. I undertook yesterday, on the spur of the moment, to answer Mr. Bartlett’s question by pointing out characteristics in detail. I undertook an impossibility; the detail covers the whole; there is not a shadow on which to hang a doubt in my mind.
Cross-int. 38. Will you now take the pen and ink furnished you, and write your full name, that it may be annexed as an exhibit to your deposition?
Ans. I will annex it to the deposition.
(Counsel for respondents here say to witness that he is not obliged to do it now.) I have my signature here in various places. All the papers I have are at Mr. Bartlett’s disposal. I will annex my signature to the deposition.
Cross-int. 39. I desire that it may be done now in the presence of us here; will you do it?
Ans. I decline to write now. I have my signatures here in various places in my books; you may carry them away or do what you please with them.
Cross-int. 40. Why do you decline to write now?
Ans. I do not think it is my duty. I do not feel like writing.
Cross-int. 41. Why do you not feel like writing now?
(Before answering this question, witness looks over his books and papers, and says that he desires to correct his previous answer, as he finds he has left his books having signatures at home, but that he will in a short time furnish as many signatures of his writing previously as counsel desires.)
Ans. I said I did not think it was my duty; I supposed I had answered that question.
Cross-int. 42. I repeat the question. Why did you say you did not feel like writing now?
Ans. I feel ready to do my duty. I do not feel that that is my duty, and therefore I do not feel like doing it. (p. 556)
Cross-int. 43. Will you now do what was requested of you in the thirty-eighth cross-interrogatory?
(Objected to as assuming a fact not in evidence.)
Ans. Whenever I am asked by the magistrate to sign my deposition I will sign it.
Cross-int. 44. I repeat the question.
Ans. I know of no other answer proper for me to give.
Cross-int. 45. Until, then, you finish your deposition, and it is closed, you decline to write your name in the presence of the examiner, do you?
Ans. I will write my name at any time or to any paper that the magistrate presents to me and says that it is customary and my duty.
(The counsel for complainant here desires the examiner to order the witness to comply with the request in the thirty-eighth cross-interrogatory; the examiner declining to do so, upon the suggestion of counsel for the complainant, and with the assent of all parties, and under the clause in the sixty-seventh amended rule in equity, which provides “that the examiner may upon all examinations state any special matters to the court as he shall think fit,” the question was thereupon brought before his honor John Lowell, one of the judges of the circuit court of the United States sitting as chambers, and the same having been briefly spoken to by counsel on both sides, the judge sustained the objection taken by the witness, and declined to instruct the examiner to order the witness to do as required by said interrogatory.
Whereupon counsel for complainant excepted to the ruling, and gives notice that if the same shall not be sustained by the court at the hearing of the cause, he shall object to the use of the deposition. Counsel for respondents note that they claim that the decision of the judge at chambers on this point is not the subject of exception, and reserve their rights.)
Cross-int. 46. I repeat the question, and state that the object of the question is to enable the counsel for complainant, by comparing your handwriting made at different times and under different circumstances, to examine you in relation to the correctness of certain portions of your testimony given for the respondents. Will you do what the question asks?
(Counsel for respondents here ask that the magistrate might explain the question to the witness, but upon objection made withdraws the request; but the whole is noted at the desire of counsel for complainant.)
Ans. I do not think it my duty to write my name here, but will furnish my manuscripts containing every signature of mine within my reach up to this time, to be used by Mr. Bartlett or his friends in a legitimate manner.
Cross-int. 47. Have you looked at your books, or any of them-I mean your manuscript books-since the adjournment yesterday?
Ans. I looked for the purpose of paging, as Mr. Bartlett requested; but not for any examination concerning the papers put into my hand yesterday. (p. 557)
Cross-int. 48. You have now in answer to the cross-interrogatories stated, have you not, all the characteristics, as you call them, of the handwriting of the signatures in F. W. P., No. 10, and 15; and you have also selected the letters in the bodies of papers marked F. W. P., Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, and 15, which you say have the same characteristics, have you not?
Ans. I do not think I have stated that I have named all the characteristics either in Signatures 10 and 15 or to the filling in the other papers, Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, and 15. I have intended to state those in the signatures to 10 and 15, all that I could see, and do not remember any omissions. In the filling of the papers just named, to state all and everything in every point would occupy very great length of time. I have only stated the particular characteristics pertaining to 10 and 15 found in the filling in marked and prominent places, and added and explained the reasons for not going farther into details.
Cross-int. 49. Will you now state whether the same letters which you have selected from the bodies of No. 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are not also found in the other parts of the same documents?
Ans. I have no doubt but what they are so found.
Cross-int. 50. In giving your direct testimony, you stated the cases in which you had been called as a witness; did you not omit the case of Hunt vs. Goding, both residents of Brighton, tried at Lowell four or five years ago?
(Objected to for form and substance.)
Ans. I have not attempted to state all of the cases in which I have been called or examined, or generally. I have alluded to several different cases and counsel who have employed me, in answer to questions. I did not attempt to state them all or generally, and therefore made no omissions.
Cross-int. 51. Is your statement of fact just made as reliable as the other parts of your testimony?
Ans. I should like an explanation of what the “fact” means.
(Here the question is reread to witness.)
Had I been making a statement of all the cases in which I have been employed and left that out, I should say then that I had omitted that case, either through lack of memory or design. Having never attempted to state cases in detail, I have omitted, in the sense I understand the word, nothing. I am now and ever ready to state all and every transaction connected with paper examinations relating only to myself. Names and parties connected with me in the same thing, and interested wherever I have been, sworn, when called upon, I will also state as far as I can remember; and will recall by my books as far as they exhibit, making no reserve.
Cross-int. 52. Were you called as a witness in the case last named, and did you testify or not that an instrument or the signature in issue was a forgery?
(Objected to as leading in form, immaterial in substance, and relating to matters wholly incompetent under the issue.)
Ans. I was. I testified that a date in figures had been altered from what was first written. (p. 558)
Cross-int. 53. Did you pursue the same course of analysis, as you call it, in that case which you have done in this, and testify at great length in relation to the same?
(Objected to as above and also assuming a fact not appearing on the record nor proved.)
Ans. The case was not susceptible of this sort of analysis; being, as far as I remember, the alteration of one or two (I don’t remember which) figures. I have not in my mind exactly the amount of space covered by the change made on the book; nor have I any recollection of my method of procedure farther than that I illustrated it by a diagram; nor do I remember taking any notes on the subject, or having any whatever.
The question and its circumstances would scarcely permit of a very extended examination, had it not have been for the ridicule and efforts of counsel in the cross-examination, in placing my judgment upon it against the testimony of interested persons, who, if I recollect right, swore that the seeming alteration was accidental, or accounted for it in some other way.
Cross-int. 54. Had you not various other papers, besides the one in controversy in that case, put into your hands to enable you to form a judgment; and did you not produce various photographs to support your judgment?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. I produced various photographs, and recollect that the book in which the alteration was was very small, if I recollect aright. I have no means of recalling at this moment any particulars as to standards, except that in this small pass-book (I think it was.) I must presume that there was other writing and figures with which to institute comparisons, as the question, I think, related only to an alteration by the same hand that usually wrote in the book. I cannot now recall that there was any question as to hand, but as to an alteration or writing over of the same hand. Records and papers may doubtless be found that would represent the whole thing exactly. My memory of the case relates only to the fact that I was engaged in it; that it was an alteration; that the case was decided against the counsel that employed me. [And that one of the jurors afterwards came to me and stated that he and several of his comrades believed my judgment correct, but that they chose on a second trial in the superior court, I think, on a question of $100, to give the party opposed to the counsel that employed me, the case; feeling conscientiously justified on his swearing-the man who was supposed to have made the alteration-that it was a straightforward transaction.] Separate from these generalities, I would not attempt to now state, because I do not remember.
(Complainant objects to clause in brackets as impertinent and irresponsive.)
Cross-int. 55. Did you testify on that occasion that you were as sure that the figures had been written over or touched as that you were a witness on the stand, or to that effect?
(Objected to as above.) (p. 559)
Ans. I cannot recall any particular statement, not having any minutes, photographs, or diagrams of the matter. I can only say that I now believe that what I then stated must have been correct.
Cross-int. 56. Did you distinctly swear that it was a case of forgery or alteration, or did you leave it in doubt?
(Objected to, as above.)
Ans. I can only say that I must, in my mind at the time, have had no doubt, as I do not remember ever to have been sworn upon a question of handwriting where I had any doubt.
(Respondents object to the answer as irresponsive.)
Cross-int. 57. Whether or not immediately you left the stand in that case, there was a pass-book containing original entries of the same transaction, produced and put on evidence?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. I have no recollection of any such, and believe now that when I left the stand I immediately left to take the cars for Boston before any other testimony was produced.
Cross-int. 58. Was any expert called after you left the stand?
(Objected to as above, and as opening on cross-examination matter not opened in chief.)
Ans. I do not now know whether before or after, but I feel sure another expert was there, but have no further recollection about it.
Cross-int. 59. Who was that other expert?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. A. R. Dunton, the writing-master.
Cross-int. 60. Were you called as a witness in the Fairchild trial before referees Judge Chapman and Samuel Hoar?
Ans. I was not.
Cross-int. 61. Will you state the names of the persons in Boston and its vicinity who are deemed or called experts in this matter? Name all you can.
(Objected to for form, substance, and as impertinent.)
Ans. I can only answer as to that, the names of persons who have been on the witness stand, or employed one side or the other, in cases when I have been employed. Whether they are deemed experts, or deem themselves experts, I should not be willing to say. I have seen Geo. N. Comer on the stand twice or more; Mr. Henry Williams twice or more, a Mr. Dunton, brother to the former one, who is now teaching in the city, once certainly; Mr. Davis, the broker, I think Wm. T. I cannot now recall any other There are several from State street, but I don’t remember their names. I presume a name might be suggested to me.
Cross-int. 62. Have you and Mr. Comer been called as witnesses on opposite sides in cases of supposed forgery, and in how many instances?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. I now recollect but two, and in one instance he did not testify, but left the court-house, stating to me that it was too evident that he should not agree with the party who had employed him, (p. 560) or should agree with the party that employed me. I don’t recollect which expression he used..
Cross-int. 63. Name both of those cases.
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. One of them was the case of Hewins and Parker; the other between Mr. Marcy and Mr. Barnes, in Worcester county.
Cross-int. 64. Did you differ also in the case of Howe vs. Thompson-a case of forgerybefore Mr. Hillard?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. I have now no remembrance of Mr. Comer’s being in that case at all.
Cross-int. 65. You were called to testify that it was a forgery, were you not?
(Objected to as above.)
I testified to alterations in writing. or forgeries, the particulars of which I cannot now recall.
Cross-int. 66. Before you gave your opinion to the parties who employed you in this case, you inquired, did you not, as to the age of Viss Howland, whether she suffered from nervous affections, and wrote with difficulty or ease?
Ans, I never made any such inquiry. [Never knew anything of the papers which were laid before me till they were spread and opened; no name of any party interested in the case, either as counsel or otherwise; selected the paper No. 10 first from two or three others; selected No. 1 afterwards; laid them together, examined them with a glass, superimposed them as transparencies, and looked at them in every point in the two signatures, from beginning to end; then stated to the gentleman who brought me to the clerk’s room that signature No. 10 was traced, copied, and made from signature No. 1, without going, as I remember, in an opinion any farther. In my own mind I had seen that some of the other signatures were by the same hand as No. 1; but had not then settled in my mind whether the writer of No. 1 signature did not make also No. 10 signature. The examination as a whole was a hurried one, without design that it should at that time be extended; and opportunity was not afforded me to go into a detailed examination from the fact that a gentleman stepped into the room and interrupted it. As I saw that he had some connection with the gentleman who introduced me, and supposing it to be in reference to the same matter, I left the room.]
(Complainant’s counsel object to clause in brackets as irresponsive.)
Cross-int. 67. You have at no time been told by those who employ you, have you, that the nervous condition of Miss Howland was at times such that it took her a long time to make her signature; that at times she was obliged to make her mark, and at times to retouch her letters, or anything to that effect?
(Objected to as leading in form, assuming facts not proved, and immaterial in substance.)
Ans. I never heard any remark whatever, from any person living, (p. 561) and knew nothing of her more than I may have seen in newspapers, her condition, age, or habits of hand, or anything in reference to them, until after I had written out at length my notes on all the papers that I have named. I myself found the writing over of letters and words in the signature, in twenty or more different signatures of Sylvia Ann Howland, in the standards, noting the place and number and particular letter, describing in my notes each particular signature, in its writing over and forms, not one having any purpose in its expression but legibility. I never was told anything like what is stated in the question by anybody, at any time.
Cross-int. 68. Who, if any one, first told you that the body of either of the exhibits marked F. W. P., No. 1 to 15, inclusive, was in the handwriting of the complainant, and when were you so told?
Ans. No remark was ever made to me about the handwriting in the filling out of any of the papers which I have been examining, or any intimation given as to their author, until I had taken my notes and made diagrams, and shown them to those who employed me. There were two, three, or four persons in the room. By some one, I am not sure whether one of the counsel or not, disapprobation was expressed of introducing other comparisons of hand, except the signatures. I then stated, I think, if not then soon after, that the proof connecting Signatures 10 and 15 with the handwriting of the filling of Nos. 1, 10, 15 was as strong as the proof, in my mind, that the signatures in 10 and 15 were not written by the hand that wrote the standard exhibits. Some one, I think one of the counsel, stated that the handwriting in the filling of Nos. 1, 10, and 15 either was, or was supposed to be, the handwriting of Miss Robinson. Two gentlemen then, one of them one of the counsel, in their conversation, conveyed to me very strongly the idea that that kind of testimony would not be gone into at all.
I made the analysis, as I usually do, of all the writing presented to me of this filling out, independent of the other, and left it to answer or not as called upon.
(Complainant objects to all the answer which states anything other than who first told him that the body of either of the exhibits inquired about was in the handwriting of the complainant.)
Cross-int. 69. Will you please confine yourself to a direct answer to the question, and state who, if any one, first told you that the body of either of the exhibits referred to was in the handwriting of the complainant, Miss Robinson?
Ans. I received my information in the conversation last alluded to, in the course of it between Mr. Eliot and Mr. Mandell, or Judge Thomas and Mr. Mandell, without its being directed to me personally, that I remember.
Cross-int. 70. The question is not how you first received the information, but who, if anyone, first told you?
Ans. That is the way I received it. I know of no other way to answer the question. I do not know that any one of them addressed any of the conversation to me particularly.
Cross-int. 71. Do you mean to say that you do not understand the (p. 562) question, which asks you who first told you, if anyone, that the handwriting in the body of these exhibits was Miss Robinson’s?
Ans. I mean to say that I obtained my information in the 760 room with gentlemen whom I supposed were in serious conversation with each other, and would state only facts, by hearing them remark on the subject, after I had examined the papers. No one has ever stated, for the purpose of giving me any information particularly, that I remember, respecting the filling out; but, after this conversation, in that sort which occurs between counsel and witness, wherever there has been any intimation or allusion to the subject, the filling out of Nos. 1, 10, and 15 have been alluded to as Miss Robinson’s handwriting; and in one or more of these papers, (1, 10, 15,) I have heard it stated that they were either hers, or supposed to be hers; to the filling of the other papers I do not remember ever having any word or allusion made, although there may have been to some of them.
Cross-int. 72. You say that no one ever made any statement concerning the filling out of the papers referred to by you in your last answer, for the purpose of giving you any information in particular about them. What did they state their purpose to be by which you knew this?
Ans. The allusion made to them was on account of my own statements and diagrams; and the conversation between the counsel, or one of them, and Mr. Mandell conveyed the idea to me that the purpose of the statement, or allusion to the author of the writing in Nos. 1 and 10, was to discourage or prevent me from dwelling upon that point-that is, comparison of hand of the signatures 10 and 15 with the filling of 1, 10, and 15,
Cross-int. 73. What was the conversation you refer to? State as nearly as you can the words, and where you cannot give the words give the substance.
(Objected to as immaterial.)
Ans. I do not recollect the words; the substance I have given; that is, that on showing them my demonstrations or diagrams there was a manifestation of disapprobation by Mr. Mandell, and, I think, Mr. Eliot; the conversation was between themselves, and I only remember generally, as I overheard it, that it belonged to this subject.
Cross-int. 74. What did Mr. Mandell say to you, or any one in the room, in discouragement of your dwelling upon that point?
Ans. He did not say anything directed to me that I remember. His conversation with Mr. Eliot gave me the impression that he thought in the judgment of handwriting it was signatures, rather than anything else, that were to be used as standards.
Cross-int. 75. Was that acquiesced in, so that you understood you were to confine your attention to signatures?
Ans. There was no acquiescence expressed to me in any direct or indirect manner, except this impression which I received from this conversation.
Cross-int. 76. And do you mean to say that the only information you ever received, that the bodies of either of the exhibits F. W. P.. (p. 563) from No. 1 to No. 15, inclusive, was in the handwriting of the complainant, is that which you have stated in the interview in which Mr. Mandell and Mr. Eliot were present, referred to in your last answer? I mean to limit the inquiry to the time before the taking of your deposition.
Ans. I have not received it for any purpose of giving me information, but it has been tacitly admitted by Judge Thomas or Mr. Eliot in our interviews.
Cross-int. 77. When they have referred to either of these exhibits from 1 to 15, before you, have they stated to you that it was not for the purpose of giving you any information in whose handwriting they were?
Ans. I can, in this matter, only give general ideas respecting it, and have answered that question positively, as they have made no direct statements to me on the subject that I remember, and what I learned from them I overheard between Mr. Mandell and Mr. Eliot.
Cross-int. 78. In what you overheard did either of them. in substance, say, or did either of them, in any and what way, by their action, intimate that this was not intended to be heard by you or was not for your information?
Ans. They were conversing together, and, judging from what I can now remember of appearances, I should be unable to say anything about their motive or purpose, farther than that if they intended to affect me, they would have addressed me particularly.
Cross-int. 79. Where was it that you then were, and who were in the room with you?
Ans. At Judge Thomas’s office. 31 Washington street. Judge Thomas, Mr. Eliot, and Mr. Mandell, and, I think, one other, whom I do not remember.
Cross-int. 80. The conversation you have referred to was between Mr. Mandell and Mr. Eliot in relation to discouraging you from dwelling on the point referred to, was it? (Objected to as assuming a fact not proved, and as impertinent.)
Ans. I had no conversation with Mr. Mandell that I remember.
Cross-int. 81. Will you please answer the last question, which does not call for any conversation with you?
Ans. I received my impression from a conversation between those two, or from their appearance. I cannot now define how I received it, but am satisfied that in some way I did receive such an impression.
Cross-int. 82. Were only the exhibits No. 1, 10, and 15, of those marked F. W. P., from 1 to 15, inclusive, present at the interview referred to in the answer to the seventy-ninth cross-interrogatory?
(Objected to as assuming a fact not proved.)
Ans. I have no recollection that there were any exhibits present at all, and do not now remember ever seeing those exhibits Nos. 1, 10, and 15, or any paper here before me, but on one day, at Judge Thomas’s office, and that, the day that Mr. Thaxter came in and went out with me. I cannot state whether that was this day or not. (p. 564)
Cross-int. 83. Do you mean to say that Mr. Thaxter came in with you?
Ans. No, sir. I said Mr. Thaxter came in there, and went out with Mr. Olney and myself, to go to the photograph room.
Cross-int. 84. Is Mr. Olney with Judge Thomas, and did Mr. Thaxter go with you while you were making photographs for the counsel for respondents?
Ans. He is in the office with him. Mr. Thaxter went with me on the day I saw the exhibits at Judge Thomas’s office. I do not recollect seeing the exhibits at his office any other time.
Cross-int. 85. At that time, had those exhibits-1, 10, 15-the marks on them of F. W. P., 1, 10, and 15, respectively?
Ans. I remember these marks upon the photographs. They must have been there.
Cross-int. 86. When you were present at the interview between Mr. Mandell and Mr. Eliot, referred to by you in your answer to the seventy-ninth cross-interrogatory, had you seen anywhere either of the exhibits, from No. 1 to 15, inclusive, other than 1, 10, and 15?
(Objected to as assuming the fact that witness had seen 15 at that time.)
Ans. I think I saw Mr. Mandell there previous to the day when Mr. Thaxter came in, and I think I had not then seen 15. I have not now the means of fixing the dates. I had seen in the clerk’s office before this, when the papers were first shown me, so as to glance over some of them, and so as to mark in my mind and remember some of them, some of these exhibits, between Nos. 1 and 16 or 17. inclusive.
Cross-int. 87. When was this, with reference to your employment in this case, that you saw these papers at the clerk’s office?
Ans. It was the Thursday or Friday nearest the 15th of August. It was the first time I was employed or called on in the matter.
Cross-int. 88. Can you now state which of these exhibits F. W. P., 1 to 15, you had seen before the interview at Judge Thomas’s office, at which Mr. Mandell and Mr. Eliot were present, to which you have referred?
Ans. Nos. 1, 2, and 10 are the only ones I now recollect seeing that day in the clerk’s office at my first employment. I do not recollect seeing any others, except those three, until I saw those at Mr. Palfrey’s, except I think I saw 15 at Judge Thomas’s office before I went to Mr. Palfrey’s. I recollect now that I did see 15 at Judge Thomas’s office before seeing it at Mr. Palfrey’s office.
Ans. I do not remember any conversation in particular. I have an impression that there was conversation. I do not remember whether I took any part in it; probably I did; but I do not remember anything that I said, or anything that was said to me.
Cross-int. 90. Where were you when you were first applied to by (p. 565) any one to be employed to examine any of the papers in this case, and by whom were you first spoken to?
Ans. At my office, 23 Hanover street, by one whom I now know as Mr. Stetson; he was a stranger to me.
Cross-int. 91. What did he say to you when he first applied to you?
(Objected to for form and substance.)
Ans. He inquired my name, and whether I was the Mr. Southworth who sometimes examined handwriting.
Cross-int. 92. Did he say anything at that time on the subjects of forgery, or your examining handwriting with reference to its genuineness?
Ans. He asked me if I was the gentleman who examined handwriting, or something to that effect; I do not recollect the language.
Cross-int. 93. And that was all that he said at that time on the subject of handwriting, was it?
Ans. I do not remember that he said anything in particular. I took out some diagrams that I had in my possession, and showed them to him. I interested him in them a little while, and he asked me if I would go to the clerk’s office and examine some papers, and I did.
Cross-int. 94. Were the diagrams which you then shew him some which you had taken to establish or to illustrate some case of forgery?
Ans. They were such as I had made in a case of questioned handwriting, which has never come into any court, upon which I have never been sworn and questioned.
Cross-int. 95. Will you please answer the question, and state for what purpose they were taken?
Ans. The case was a private one thus far. It is a case of suspected forgery by some parties. I do not wish to express an opinion to go
into print about it.
Cross-int. 96. Without asking for the names of the parties, were these diagrams taken for parties who were suspicious of forgery?
Ans. They were; and I have no doubt but what those parties know it to be so.
Cross-int. 97. In any case where you have been examined or employed as an expert in regard to the genuineness of handwriting, have you ever made a bargain or agreed beforehand as to the amount of compensation you were to receive?
Ans. I think I have.
Cross-int. 98. In more than one case?
Ans. No doubt, I have many times; small cases are often presented to me, and parties desire to know the fee.
Adjourned to 93 a. m., Saturday, Sept. 29. 1866.
Saturday, Sept. 29, 1866.
Direct resumed:
(The direct examination is here resumed by respondents.)
Int. 10. Will you state whether or not you have been called on and your services desired in other cases than this by the counsel for complainant; and, if so, by which of them?
(Objected to as not in answer to any cross-examination.) (p. 566)
Ans. I have not been called upon by any counsel that I know of on the opposite side in other cases, but have answered questions to them as counsel in a case on the witness stand; I refer to Mr. Bartlett.
Int. 11. In the case referred to, state whether or not your services were employed by the party for whom Mr. Bartlett was acting.
(Objected to as above and as immaterial.)
Ans. The junior counsel with Mr. Bartlett called on me and made. all the arrangements, so far as I remember.
Int. 12. State whether or not you have been called on in reference to this case by either of the counsel for the complainant, or applied to by either of them; and, if so, state when and by whom.
Ans. I was called upon after I had seen Mr. Stetson and Judge Thomas, or after they had called upon me, by Mr. Bartlett. I can’t say applied to, strictly speaking. I was asked whether I had been applied to, or given an opinion in the case, or both questions.
Int. 13. State whether or not anything has been said, and, if so, what, to you as to compensation in this case.
Ans. No remark has been made by any one having allusion to compensation, reward, or satisfaction in any manner whatever.
Adjourned to Monday, Oct. 1, at 10 a. m.
Monday, Oct. 1
Direct examination resumed:
Int. 14. Whether or not did Mr. Bartlett say anything to you about his confidence, or otherwise, in your opinion about matters concerning handwriting; and, if so, state what?
(Counsel for complainant objects to the question as incompetent and impertinent.)
Ans. He said he had a great deal of confidence in my opinion in regard to handwriting.
(The deposition having been read over to the witness, he now desires to answer as promised, in answer to the thirtieth cross-interrogatory, that he has counted the pages and they amount to about fifty-five; and also to qualify the answer to the eighty-second cross interrogatory, by saying that it had slipped his mind at the time; that he had seen some standards of Sylvia Ann Howland’s handwriting, Exhibits R. C. P., 50 and 51, and some of the bills of sale, several times, at Judge Thomas’s office; also, witness adds, “that upon my referring to my notes I find that I had seen some of the original exhibits, F. W. P., two or three times at Judge Thomas’s office.”)
Albert S. Southworth.” (p. 567)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Ans. I am very sorry to be obliged to say that I have no doubt whatever of the correctness of the conclusion to which I have come.
Int. 9. Whether or not have you heard the testimony in this case given by A. S. Southworth?
Ans. I have not. I have come to my own conclusions from my own examinations, and before I suspected any tracing.
(The cross-examination which follows is stated by S. Bartlett, esq., of counsel for complainant, to be de bene esse, and without waiver of any objections heretofore taken.
Respondents do not admit the right of complainant to so examine.)
Cross-int. 1. Have you heard anything said about Mr. Southworth’s testimony?
Ans. I heard none of his testimony. I carefully avoided knowing anything of it. Mr. Stetson told me he would tell me of it when it was proper.
Cross-int. 2. Do you mean to say that you have never heard any one say whether Mr. Southworth had or had not formed or expressed any opinion as to these signatures?
Ans. What I do mean to say is, that I formed my own opinion as to these signatures before hearing anything of Mr. Southworth. may have heard since what his opinion was, but it did not bias me at all. I came to my own opinions.
Cross-int. 3. Have you ever seen Mr. Southworth to talk with him, and, if so, when?
Ans. I have never spoken to him, nor he to me.
Cross-int. 4. Was he ever present at any time when you were looking at either of the papers you have testified as to?
Ans. Never to my knowledge.
Cross-int. 5. In examining the signatures to the bills of sale, have you noticed any signatures of Miss Howland where any letters appear to have been retouched, and, if so, how many such letters did you notice?…” (p. 571)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Cross-int. 47. When you were shown the photographs, as you have stated, in New York, did you have the curiosity to ask by whom they were made?
Ans. No, sir; [but since I have been here, I have compared them with the originals, and think them well made.]
(Clause in brackets objected to as irresponsive.)
Cross-int. 48. Did you, at that time, have the curiosity to ask Mr. Stetson if anybody else had examined these signatures?
Ans. No, sir.
Cross-int. 49. And nothing was said by you or him at this time as to who took these photographs, or as to the opinion of the photographer or any one else as to the genuineness of the signature?
Ans. Mr. Stetson may have said who took them. I did not ask. If he did, it came with no force to my mind, as I had never heard of him as an expert, although I had heard the name of Southworth as a photographer. Nothing was stated as to the opinion of any one before I gave mine. After that, I cannot recall what was said, but I know the impression left on my mind was, that the photographer had pronounced the signature not genuine.
John E. Williams….” (p. 576)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Ans. I think I was; but I am called in so many cases as an expert in handwriting and accounts, that I cannot possibly remember particular cases unless my attention is sufficiently drawn to it, and in this case have no remembrance whatever other than of having been called. I cannot remember either the parties or the counsel, excepting that I believe Mr. Bartlett, the gentleman here, was one.
Cross-int. 19. Do you remember enough to know whether or not Mr. Southworth, the photographer, was also called as a witness in that case, and that you did not agree?
(Objected to as before and as immaterial.)
Ans. I really do not….” (p. 615)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Cross-int. 20. Have you been a witness upon the genuineness of writing and signatures in cases where George N. Comer and Albert S. Southworth, or either of them, have been examined as witnesses upon the same question?
(Objected to as immaterial.)
Ans. I have, with both.
Cross-int. 21. Have you in every such case always agreed with them, or either of them, in the opinion you gave as to the genuineness of the paper or signature in question?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. I have not….” (p. 636)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Tuesday, Nov. 27, 1866.
Deposition of Albert S. Southworth.
I, Albert S. Southworth, of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, aged fifty-five years, on oath say:
In answer to written interrogatories propounded on behalf of the respondents:
Int. 1. Whether or not has your deposition been taken before in this suit?
Ans. It has.
Int. 2. Will you state what is your business, and say for how long a time you have been engaged in it, and in what places, if more than one?
(Objected to as matter originally examined in the previous deposition.)
Ans. Photographing and attention to questioned handwriting is my business, including the illustration of questioned handwriting by photography, so as to show easily to the naked eye and with facility what is seen with the magnifying glass by a slower process. I have been a photographer since the winter of 1839-’40, and have applied photography to handwriting since 1858. I have practised photog. raphy in New York, in Professor Morse’s gallery; in Cabotville, Springfield, and in Boston.
Int. 3. Will you state who was the first person within your knowledge who practised the art of photography in Massachusetts, and when that was?
(Objected to as not within the order allowing the re-examination of this witness, and as otherwise incompetent.)
Ans. I know of no one who practised it in Massachusetts when I commenced, and for some eight months afterwards, except the partner I had with me. The time of my commencement in Massachusetts was in February, 1840.
Int. 4. Will you now state whether you have or not since your former deposition made photographic copies or illustrations of the exhibits produced in this case or any of them; and, if so, will you produce them, and state what they are?
(Objected to on the ground that in the state of the pleadings in the case the question is not open to the respondents, that it does not appear that the witness is qualified as an expert in relation to the matters inquired of, also that the question is otherwise incompetent, and also because such copies and illustrations are incompetent; and complainant gives notice that any cross-examination of this witness will be de bene esse. and not waiving these objections.)
Ans. I have made such copies and illustrations. I here produce Books marked R. C. P. Book 1, vol. 1; R. C. P. Book 1, vol. 2; R. C. P. Book 2; R. C. P. Book 3; R. C. P. Book 4; R. C. P. Book 5; R. C. P. Book 6; R. C. P. Book 7; R. C. P. Book 8; R. C. P.; Book 9; R. C. P. Book 10; R. C. P. Book 11; R. C. P. Book 12; R. C. P. Book 13; R. C. P. Book 14; R. C. P. Book 15; R. C. P. Book (p. 653)
16; R. C. P. Book 17; R. C. P. Book 18; R. C. P. Book 19; R. C. P. Book 20; R. C. P. Book 21; R. C. P. Book 22; R. C. P. Book 23; R. C. P. Book 24; R. C. P. Book 25; R. C. P. Book 26; R. C. P. Book 27; R. C. P. Book 28; R. C. P. Book 29; R. C. P. Book 30; R. C. P. Book 31.
The two larger volumes, marked R. C. P., Book 1, vol. i., and R. C. P., Book 1, vol. ii., contain as follows:
Vol. 1.-Plate 1st has four figures the natural size of F. W. P., Nos. 1 and 10.
Plate 2d has the first page of No. 1, F. W. P., enlarged. Plate 3d is the second side of the leaf No. 1, F. W, P., enlarged. Plate 4th is the first side of No. 10, F. W. P., enlarged. Plate 5th is the second side of the same. Plate 6th is a section of No. 11, F. W. P., enlarged Plate 7th is a section of No. 2, F. W. P., enlarged. Plate 8th is the concluding parts of Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., for the signatures, enlarged.
Plate 9th is concluding parts of Nos. 1 and 10, for the signatures, enlarged.
Plate 10th is the concluding parts of Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., natural size, with a rider of same impression transparent by oil.
Plate 11th is the same enlarged-the same signatures, I mean.
Plate 12th is signature to No. 10, F. W. P., taken through the paper as a transparency, the light, when taken, coming from behind the original.
Plate 13th is signature to No. 15, F. W. P., taken in the same manner as the last described.
Plate 14th are the signatures to the standards bills of sale, power of attorney, and deed, natural size, with riders of same respectively made transparent with oil, the Nos. corresponding with the Nos. R. C. P. on the original exhibits.
Plates 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th are enlarged copies of the same, numbers corresponding as above.
Vol. 2 has the following:
On the cover, in the large envelope, is a mica parallel scale, (marked R. C. P., mica scale.) This scale is to test the accuracy of lines ruled on Plate 4, Fig. 2d, vol. 2d, by placing the mica over the signatures to F. W. P., 1, 10, and 15 originals, similarly arranged, the third line on the left of the mica to just touch the top of the capital S in Sylvia. The second envelope contains an architect’s scale engine, ruled divisions, sixtieths of an inch and thirtieths of an inch, to test the instrument used in photographing. These are the originals of Plates 12 and 13, vol. 2. (These are marked by the examiner, R. C. P. Scale 1, R. C. P. Scale 2, R. C. P. Scale 3, R. C. P. Scale 4, R. C. P. Scale 5, R. C. P. Scale 6.)
The third envelope contains photographs, in natural size, of originals F. W. P. 1, 10, and 15, some rendered transparent by oil and some not. (These are marked R. C. P. Photograph 8, R. C. P. (p. 654) Photograph 9, R. C. P. Photograph 10, R. C. P. Photograph 11, and R. C. P. Photograph 12.)
Plate 1st is a drawing of the sizes of Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., with the base line of each word in the signatures marked in red, as for ruling, with transparent riders photographed, laid over as a test.
Plate 2d contains copies of the three papers F. W. P., 1, 10, and 15, pasted upon a card-board for the purpose of measuring by the tests in the third envelope the stretch of the paper when pasted upon card and when not so pasted-it being the universal tendency in pasting a damp sheet upon a dry, that the dry holds the damp in tension, and stretches it.
Plate 3d are the measures of the whole length of the signa894 ture, the length of each name in the signature, and length of spaces between each name, corresponding with the numbers F. W. P., 1, 10, and 15, and the numbers in red of the standards marked R. C. P., composed of bills of sale, power of attorney, and deed.
Plate 3 are the photographs, natural size, 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., with the signatures superimposed and transparent. Plate 4th. Fig. 1st are curves drawn with the same radius under Signatures 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., placed nearly horizontal and perpendicular to each other.
Fig. 2d are the same signatures in the same position with parallel lines drawn through with parallel ruler clasped to the signatures on the left, remaining the same until the last line is drawn.
Plate 4 is No. 1, F. W. P., signature underneath, with No. 15, F. W. P., signature placed over, cut through and across, both in natural and enlarged sizes.
Plate 5 are the signatures to Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., enlarged, with curves of same radius drawn underneath each word; also with a rider.
Plate 5 is the exact size, without folding, of Nos. 1, 10, and 15. F. W. P.
(These being movable are identified with the examiner’s name.) Plate 6th contains signatures to Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., also signatures to Nos. 48, 49, 50, and 51, R. C. P., enlarged, and signature to No. 1, F. W. P., and signatures to Nos. 48, 49, 50, and 51, R. C. P., natural sizes, with parallel lines drawn across them.
Plate 7th are the signatures to Nos. 10 and 15, F. W. P., natural size and enlarged, with sections cut from the filling of Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 15, F. W. P., placed in juxtaposition; also, letters cut natural size from Nos. 10 and 15 signatures, dotted with red underneath, with letters cut from the filling placed in juxtaposition.
Plate 8th is No. 10, F. W. P., signature enlarged, taken as a transparency, with four sections cut from the filling placed in juxtaposition.
Plate 9th is No. 15 treated in the same way, with two similar sections.
Plate 10th has signatures to Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., en-(p. 655) larged, with signature to No. 10 cut through and placed over signature of No. 1, F. W. P.; also one natural size similarly placed.
Plate 11th has photographs of signatures to F. W. P., No. 10. arranged for testing the correctness of the photographs in these two volumes, and all of the photographs produced in the other books heretofore produced in this answer.
The manner of testing is to take proportionate dividers, setting the short legs at any given distance on the smaller signatures, and the longer legs at corresponding points on the larger signatures, then by adjusting the short legs at pleasure to any portion of the small ones. the long legs will point out corresponding portions of the other.
Plates 12 and 13 are copies of the scale divided into thirtieths and sixtieths of the scale in Envelope 2d on the cover of this book, enlarged photographs, for the purpose of testing the correctness of the photographs now produced in the several books referred to in this answer. The test is to be made with the sheets now pasted on cardboard. [These are marked with the name of the examiner for verification. The transparency is from the same negative as the opaque, and the test is to be made by varying the transparency over the surface of the opaque at pleasure.
An additional test is by the proportionate dividers, using the originals for the short legs, and the enlarged copies for the longer ones. The ratio between the different sizes of the photographs of the signatures, taking the signature to F. W. P., 10, as the standard, is (24) twenty-four-sixty-fourths of an inch for the length of the S in Sylvia natural size; (4) seventy-one-sixty-fourths for the same, the next size above; (4)one hundred forty-six-sixty-fourths for the one taken as a transparency, and (344) three hundred forty-four-sixty-fourths for the enlarged one from it on Plate 11, where all these may be found.
In testing, all of these must be pasted on card-board, or none of them.
Plate 14 has signatures to bills of sale of standards, power of attorney, and deed, being exhibits marked R. C. P. of enlarged size. Plates 15, 16, 17, and 18 are plates in continuation of the same, and of signatures to Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., with riders of same impressions.
Enclosed between two leaves at the end of the volume are skeletons, from which sections used in Plate 7 were cut. The riders in any of the books, large or small, here produced, are to be applied only to photographs taken at the same instant, on the same negative, as they are placed in the books. This is for the purpose of comparing only those of same proportions with each other.
The small books, marked respectively R. C. P., Book 2″ to “R. C. P., Book 31,” inclusive, are made up of the following photographs, viz: Copies of Nos. 1 and 10, F. W. P., natural size; of the three signatures placed nearly horizontal or perpendicular to Nos. 1, 10, and 15, F. W. P., with riders, natural and enlarged size; Nos. 10 and 15, F. W. P., signatures, taken as transparencies and signatures to the (p. 656) bills of sale, deed, and power of attorney, natural size, used as standards with transparent riders.
These books are all photographs, without touch of pen, pencil, or any instrument whatever that I know of. I mean this to apply to all the books, large and small.
(Complainant objects to the production of each and every book and each and every plate and exhibit produced, and all explanations of the same, as incompetent.)
Int. 5. In making the photographs concerning which you have testified, will you state what instrument you used, and what is its character for accuracy?
(Objected to as immaterial and otherwise incompetent.)
Ans. I used the long-focus Voigtlander instrument, made in Vienna. Voigtlander’s instruments stand as high or higher than other instruments among photographers, as far as I know. In copying signatures such as are contained in the books I have furnished, the proportion is accurate, and no variation can be seen, measured, or in any way detected.
Int. 6. Whether or not in making these photographs, was the work done by you, and under your personal supervision?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. The most of it was done with my arrangement and personal supervision. Previous to my being employed in this case, several negatives had been taken; these negatives I have tested, by taking the same signatures again; they were correctly taken, and no imperfection in the drawing or proportions can be seen, measured, or detected.
Int. 7. Say whether or not you have examined, and, if so, state whether or not the photographic copies you have produced are correct and true copies from the original exhibits, or how otherwise. State, if you please, what the fact is. (Objected to as above and for form.)
Ans. I have examined them all carefully. They are true copies as I have before stated-in drawing and proportions, without any exception of the original signatures and filling out in the papers F. W. P., 1, 2, 10, 11, and 15, and bills of sale, power of attorney, and deed, marked R. C. P.
Int. 8. State as well as you can what degree of care you took in doing this work, (Objected to as immaterial and otherwise incompetent.)
Ans. I have made every effort in my power to do it with accuracy, by first arranging the papers to be copied properly, parallel to the axis of the lens, and in all my measurements endeavored to be as precise as practicable. I cannot think of any omissions of care and effort in doing this work.
Int. 9. State whether any of these photographs have been taken by you without the use of a lens; and, if so, which, and how were they taken? (Objected to as above.)
Ans. The photographs used for the measures of the sizes of the (p. 657) papers F. W. P., 1, 10, and 15, were taken by superposition, letting the light shine through the originals on the sensitive paper. Those in Envelope 3, Book 1, vol. 2, the measures Plate 1, and the whole of Plate 2, the whole of Plate 3, the whole of Plate 5½, all in same Book 1, vol. 2, are all photographs of this kind.
Int. 10. Look at Exhibits R. C. P., 5th photograph; R. C. P., 6th photograph; and R. C. P., 7th photograph, annexed to deposition of George G. Smith, and say whether or not you made them, and whether or not they are true copies of the originals.
(Objected to as not covered by the order of the court allowing the re-examination of the witness, and as immaterial and otherwise incompetent.)
Ans. No. 7 I made. Nos. 5 and 6 were made from a negative which I have proved and used. They are both from the same negative. They are true copies of the originals.
Int. 11. Look at Exhibits R. C. P., 1st photograph, a; R. C. P. 1st photograph, b; R. C. P., 2d photograph, a; R. C. P., 2d photograph, b; R. C. P., 3d photograph; and R. C. P., 4th photograph, annexed to deposition of Joseph E. Paine, and say whether or not you made them, and whether or not they are true copies of the originals. (Objected to as above.)
Ans. R. C. P., 3d, and R. C. P., 4th, are duplicates of the same negative referred to in my answer to the last question, which negative, as I stated, I have proved. R. C. P., 1st photograph, a; and same, b; and R. C. P., 2d photograph, a; and same, b, are duplicates from the same negative used in Plate 1, Book 1, vol. 1. which negative I have proved. They are all true copies of the originals. Cross-examination:
(The cross-examination which follows is by David Thaxter, esq., of counsel for complainant, and is stated to be de bene esse, and not waiving the objections heretofore taken.)
Cross-int. 1. Were all the photographic copies or illustrations produced by you in answer to the fourth interrogatory taken from negatives, which negatives had been obtained before your first examination?
Ans. Some of the negatives have been taken since my first examination.
Cross-int. 2. Any negatives of F. W. P., 1, 10, and 15, or any other exhibit marked F. W. P. which you have referred to?
Ans. The photographs referred to as measures have all been taken since. No others of those inquired of, except the large ones as shown in Plates 12 and 13, in Book 1, vol. 1. I find I am mistaken. The negatives for Plates 6 and 7 were taken since I gave my former deposition. These are in the same book and volume. The one enlarged from the one taken as a transparency of No. 10, as shown on Plate 11, vol. 2, Book 1, has also been taken since. I think that is all.
Cross-int. 3. Where, at whose rooms, and by whom were the negatives of F. W. P., 1, 10, and 15, obtained before your previous examination, and used in making any of the photographs referred to in your answer to the fourth interrogatory, made? (p. 658)
Ans. Made at Mr. Whipple’s photograph rooms. Part of them I made or arranged to be made, and superintended the work throughout. The negatives of the others I found there; examined and proved them.
Cross-int. 4. Can the riders which are contained in the books produced by you be used over the same class of signatures, that is, natural or enlarged size, found in books or plates other than where you have placed them?
Ans. If placed over corresponding plates in other books, they could be so used equally well. If placed over any impression made from the same negative at the same instant, they will compare in proportion; they would do so over a negative made at a different time if the negative was made precisely the same size; if placed over a larger or a smaller print, and the purpose is to measure, the proportionate dividers and scale would then have to be used.
Cross-int. 5. What number of books of the size of the small books produced by you in answer to the fourth direct interrogators have you in fact made?
Ans. Fifty.
Direct resumed:
(And thereupon the direct examination is resumed by respondents, as follows:)
Int. 12. Was it or not since your former deposition that you were requested to make these verifications and tests of the photographs?
(Objected to for form, and as not relating to any matter of crossexamination and as otherwise incompetent.)
Ans. Since.
Int. 13. When were the verifications and examinations completed by you?
(Objected to as not relating to any matter of cross-examination and as otherwise incompetent.
Ans. To-day, at half past ten o’clock.
Int. 14. When were the printed photographs and books ready for production as produced to-day?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. To-day, at half past ten o’clock.
Albert S. Southworth.” (p. 659)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Saturday, May 11, 1867.
Deposition of Alvan Clark.
I, Alvan Clark, of Cambridgeport, in the county of Middlesex, aged sixty-three years, on oath say: My occupation at present is that of a maker of telescopes and optician; this has been my exclusive occupation for fifteen years; before that I was a painter of portraits and miniatures; from the age of twenty-two to thirty-one I was employed as an engraver for calico-printing. In this work of calico-printing engraving there was much tracing to be done, and I was familiar with the use of the tracing-point or needle. I have since been in almost constant practice of tracing-using the camera lucida in por trait painting, and tracing the outlines from the life picture; and even up to the present time I paint some; generally painting three or four portraits in the course of a year.
In making telescopes we furnish the instrument complete; I work the object-glasses myself; we make all parts of the instrument for astronomical work; we mount them with circles, driving-clocks, and micrometers complete. We make them mostly for colleges; we have made a number for high schools also.
The micrometer is a piece of mechanism with spider-lines at the focus of the object-glass; one of the spider-lines is fixed upon a frame, the other is movable upon a frame by a fine screw; upon one end of this screw is a small circle divided into one hundred parts; by the use of this screw a very small amount of motion is apparent. The spider-lines and the image of the object to be observed are brought in contact, and if the object be a double star, one web of the micrometer is placed upon one star and one upon the other. When both stars are accurately bisected the divisions upon the small circle mentioned show what portion of the revolution of the screw has been em-(p. 662) ployed in bringing the webs to this distance. This relates to objects so close as not to be at the distance of one revolution of the screw. Where the distances exceed this there is a little scale connected with the frame that carries the movable thread which indicates the number of revolutions the screw has been turned. This instrument is capable of measuring to the ten-thousandth part of an inch. Beside this measurement of distances the whole frame of the micrometer is attached to a circle from four to six inches in diameter, and is termed the position circle; its function is to determine the angle which the line joining the two stars makes with the meridian. The micrometrical observation of double stars includes the measurement of the angle of position and the distance. The observer sees the stars and the webs at the same time through the same eye-piece. The width of the screw-threads is from a sixtieth to a seventieth of an inch. I make these measurements myself.
Eye-pieces are used of different magnifying powers in connection with the micrometer, varying from fifty to a thousand diameters. The largest telescope we have ever made-and it is the largest refracting telescope in the world-is eighteen and a half inches in diameter of the object-glass, and the focal distance is twenty-three feet. I ground its lenses myself, and my two sons both worked on it. This is the glass that discovered the companion star of Sirius. This glass is in Chicago.
I have also furnished Amherst, Williams, and Alleghany Colleges, and the Sheffield scientific school attached to Yale College; also, a college in Pennsylvania, whose name I do not recall; and also one for a college in Kingston, Canada, and one for a government observatory in Quebec. We have five object-glasses in England, between seven and one-quarter and eight and one-quarter inches in diameter; also, one five and one-half. We have one in Ireland of about four inches.
And the examination then proceeds upon interrogatories in writing by the respondents’ counsel, as follows:
Int. 1. Are you a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences?
(Objected to as immaterial.)
Ans. I have been for some three years.
Int. 2. State whether you received their gold medal.
(Objected to as immaterial.)
Ans. I have received the Rumford medal; it was for my improved method of working object-glasses.
Int. 3. What acquaintance have you with the Voigtlander lens, if any?
(Objected to on the ground that in the state of the pleadings in this case the question is not open to respondents; also, that it does not appear that the witness is an expert in relation to the matters enquired of, and because it is not in rebuttal to the plaintiff’s evidence, but merely cumulative testimony upon that part of the case where respondents have closed, and as otherwise incompetent; (p. 663) and complainant gives notice that any cross-examination of this witness will be de bene esse, and without waiving these objections.)
Ans. I have repeatedly examined them; measured the curves of all the lenses for the purpose of copying them in some cases upon magnified scales. We made one instrument, of about nine inches aper ture, for Mr. Whipple, the photographer, in Boston, a photographic camera, in which we employed the proportions we found in the Voigtlander lens.
Int. 4. What is the quality and accuracy of this lens?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. It has been the most extensively used as the best in photog raphy. I think, though I am not certain, that it is still the most extensively used.
Int. 5. It is desired to obtain your own opinion as to its accuracy and quality.
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. The most desirable point in a camera is the extent and flatness of the field, the sharpness and distinctness of the image at the centre and border of the field; the field of a camera may be large and flat, and the images badly defined all over it; a lens for a camera or a telescope can never form a good image at one point and near by a bad image at the same time, and the reverse is of course true—if one image is bad at one place all the images near it will be bad also. The Voigtlander lens is adjustable-by that adjustability straight lines of a building, or a straight edge falling towards the margin of a picture, can be made straight as the original, or by changing the adjustment of the lens that straight edge may be made to assume a curve upon the picture in a given direction, or if the change be made in an opposite direction the curve will be in an opposite direction. When the lens is in perfect adjustment the images of straight lines in objects falling upon or near the margin of the picture will be straight. That is the evidence of the excellence of the adjustment. If, with that, due sharpness of the image is visible, the camera is perfect. I have found that, upon examination, to be the general character of the Voigtlander instruments; although when the 908 whole aperture is employed with the instrument in perfect focus at the centre of the picture it will be a little out of focus at the edges. That effect is not so apparent when the aperture is diminished. Hence, in copying, it is usual for photographers to reduce the aperture.
Int. 6. Do you happen to know whether Albert S. Southworth, the Boston photographer, is or is not acquainted with the adjustment of the Voigtlander lens?
(Objected to as above and as leading in form.)
Ans. He is. Some twelve or fifteen years ago I had occasion to be with him in an investigation which required us to obtain such an adjustment of the instrument as would give straight lines. That was the first time my attention was called to it. I found he was familiar with it before I was. (p. 664)
Ans. I should say that they afford us an excellent test of the excellence of the instrument.
Int. 16. If there was error in the instrument or in the adjustment of its lens, how would such error show itself in these scales or their negative?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. In the curvature of marginal lines and in the graduations of the scale, growing either coarser or finer as you recede from the centre.
Int. 17. Please to state whether objects of the size of signatures on Plate 14, same volume, would or not test the accuracy of the instrument more or less than said scales.
(Objected to as above and for form.)
Ans. These scales would be more convenient and reliable by far in testing the accuracy of the instrument.
Int. 18. Please to state whether or not you have examined Plate 10, Volume 1, Book 1, R. C. P., and compared the signatures thereon with their originals F. W. P., 1, 10, and 15, now before you.
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. I have.
Int. 19. And with what care or otherwise?
(Objected to as above and for form.)
Ans. I should say with a good measure of care.
Int. 20. State whether said Plate 10 is or is not of the same scale with said originals. I refer to the signatures.
(Objected to as to No. 18 and previous interrogatories.)
Ans. It is.
Int. 21. What confidence, if any, have you in this statement?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. Perfect.
Int. 22. Please refer to Plate 4, Volume 2, Book 1, R. C. P., and state whether you have examined the signatures thereon, (I refer to the larger picture,) and whether or not you have measured the same, comparing them with the original signatures now before you, F. W. P., 1, 10, and 15?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. I have examined them and found the original signatures and the photographs equal in size.
Int. 23. With what degree of care did you make this measurement, if any, and what confidence have you in the result which you have stated?
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. With all the care I could bestow with a pair of sharp-pointed dividers, and the difference of dimensions in the whole length of the signatures can’t certainly exceed the one-hundredth of an inch. have complete confidence in the result which I have stated..
Int. 24. Whether or not any difference in the length of the photographed signatures and the corresponding originals was apparent to your eye?
(Objected to as above.) (p. 665)
(Etc., etc.)
Ans. I am. My eyes are as good for distant objects as ever, but they will not focus for the inspection of near objects or reading fine print without the interposition of a lens. I do not perceive but that my vision is as good as ever when suitable glasses are used. I do use glasses.
Cross-int. 77. Your occupation has been for a long number of years to manufacture lenses through which to view heavenly bodies, has it not?
Ans. Yes, sir.
Cross-int. 78. How many years since you were engaged in making patterns for calico-printing?
Ans. I never was engaged in designing for these. Engraving was my department. I abandoned it in 1835, after following it for nine years.
Cross-int. 79. The tracings you have done have been connected with this pursuit, have they not?
Ans. Not entirely, partially. Also in the painting of miniatures and portraits. Cross-int. 80. In making these tracings after they were collected, did you measure each part of them with care and nicety with the best instruments to determine how far they varied from the original pattern? (Objected to as immaterial.)
Ans. Never that I recollect have I had occasion to do so.
Cross-int. 81. You have never been a teacher of the art of penmanship, have you?
Ans. Never.
Cross-int. 82. Have you ever been called on to measure handwriting, or the pictures produced from negatives in photographs?
Ans. Never, until this case.
Cross-int. 83. You say you made a lens after the rule of making the Voigtlander lens for Mr. Whipple; was Mr. Black at the time his partner? (Objected to as examination upon matter already examined.)
Ans. I am not able to say,
Cross-int. 84. When were you first called upon to examine the photographs and documents in this case, and by whom?
Ans. I think on the 7th of this month; by Mr. Whipple.
Cross-int. 85. Was Mr. Southworth with him? (Objected to as immaterial.)
Ans. He was not.
Cross-int. 86. Have you gone over any part of your examination of these plates and documents with Mr. Southworth?
Ans. I looked them over in his presence and company.
Cross-int. 87. How many times has he been with you at the examination of them?
Ans. Three times.
Cross-int. 88. How long were you together each time, and has Mr. Southworth talked with you freely about the case? (Objected to, not as calling for conversations between Mr. South-(p. 683) worth and the witness, if any took place, but for his opinion of them. Respondents do not object to the conversations themselves.)
Ans. I should think we might have been together at first half an hour; next, perhaps, from an hour and a half to two hours, talking much of the time on various subjects, and looking over my grounds. garden, and house; the next morning, the third and last time, I called at his office by appointment; after stopping a short time we both came to this office; he left on some business in the course of the forenoon, and returned here and I went to dinner with him; that I find makes a fourth time that we were together. He has not talked freely with me about the case; he pointed out to me the course of investigation he desired me to make, stating that he wished to leave me to form an independent judgment.
Cross-int. 89. You do not mean to say, do you, that in no one of these four interviews, when you and Mr. Southworth were together, he did not intimate his own views or belief or testimony as to any part of the case.
Ans. I cannot say but that he did, but expressed a repeated desire that I should pursue an independent course and form an independent opinion.
Cross-int. 90. Did he tell you that his testimony had been assailed by the witnesses for the plaintiff, or anything to that effect?
Ans. He did.
Cross-int. 91. When Mr. Whipple called on you, did he say to you that the accuracy of the work done at his establishment had been assailed, and that Mr. Southworth would call upon you on the subject? (Objected to as immaterial.)
Ans. He did not so represent it. He did not say Mr. Southworth would call on me on the subject, but he proposed on the spot that I should take a seat in his vehicle and ride with him to his room. did so, where he left me, and after half an hour returned with Mr. Southworth.
Cross-int. 92. So that at all your several examinations of these photographs and documents, prior to your testimony in this case, Mr. Southworth was present, was he not? (Objected to as assuming a fact not proved.)
Ans. In a very small proportion of the time, he left with me a set of the photographs at my house at the second interview, pointing out to me which was the original and which the supposed forgeries, the enlarged photographs and the photographs of the numerous sig natures of Sylvia Ann Howland which have been shown here, desiring me to examine at my leisure, and make such comparisons as I might deem desirable to enable me to reach a true an correct view of the case.
Cross-int. 93. Did he leave with you the originals R. C. P., 1 to 51?
Ans. I think all I have are duplicates without marks or numbers.
Cross-int. 94. Did he state to you that there was a large sum of money involved in the controversy?
Ans. He did. (p. 684)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Saturday, May 18, 1867.
Deposition of Elizabeth Penney.
I, Elizabeth Penney, of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, aged thirty-seven years, on oath say: I am employed in the photographic establishment of J. A. Whipple, 297 Washington street. I have been so employed since October, 1862; though his establishment has not been in the same place all of that time.
(And being examined on interrogatories propounded in writing by T. M. Stetson, esq., of counsel for respondents, witness testifies as follows:)
Int. 1. State whether you know Alice Cornelia Driscoll by sight, and whether or not you remember her coming to Mr. Whipple’s photograph rooms with another lady at any time in the fall of 1866; and, if so, when, as near as you can remember.
Ans. I have seen a lady called Mrs. Driscoll. I do remember her coming with another lady. It was in August, 1866, I think; I am quite sure it was then.
Int. 2. Please to state all that occurred while the two ladies were there.
Ans. At the time the ladies were there I was getting an order ready for some pictures or copy of the Howland will. They were mounted in the side room next to the reception room.
I took them into the latter room to dry them in the sun for delivery. These ladies came along and looked at them; after they were dried a little I passed them to a finisher who sat in the room, to touch up some little imperfections which were in the background; some white spots which were imperfections in the paper. The ladies came again and looked. over the finisher’s shoulder to see what she was doing. Mrs. Driscoll made some remark to the other lady which I did not overhear. About that time Mr. Southworth came in and very angrily demanded to know why I was exposing those pictures to the public, and said they were private and should not have been out in the reception room exposed to view. I told him I did not know they were private. but was preparing them for delivery as usual. He said I ought to have known that they were private. He had them all taken up and taken away from there. I saw him soon after talking to the ladies, but did not hear what he said. That is all to that question.
Int. 3. Please explain what you mean by background.
Ans. What we should call a background in a picture would be what I suppose you would call a blank place on the paper. I mean the spaces between the letters or the writing would be the background.
Int. 4. What was the material the finisher was using?
Ans. India ink.
Int. 5. Whether any one, and, if so, who, pointed out the spot or spots to be retouched to the finisher?
Ans. No one but myself.
Int. 6. State whether the spot or spots retouched were or were not in the signatures?
(Objected to as leading.)
Ans. They were not in the signature itself.
Int. 7. State whether or not you had had directions from any one concerning this; if so, state what.
(Objected to as leading.)
Ans. I had none whatever,
Int. 8. Did you or not at any time have any directions from Mr. Southworth concerning the lot of photographs of the Howland signatures ordered by him; and, if so, was it before or after the interview with the said ladies?
(Objected to as leading and seeking to introduce impertinent testimony.)
Ans. I had never seen Mr. Southworth until that day. In October (p. 714) after, I had an order from him for a large number of copies of the will. I had no directions except to keep them in my room and not to let them go out except upon his order.
Int. 9. State whether or not any of the photographs of the Howland will or signatures that were delivered to Mr. Southworth had or not been made at the time of the interview with the two ladies as above.
(Objected to as above.)
Ans. They had not.
Int. 10. State whether or not Mr. Southworth gave you instructions. concerning his lot of photographs of the Howland will and signatures as to spotting or not spotting them; and, if so, what.
(Objected to as leading.)
Ans. He gave me no directions for spotting.
Int. 11. If a photograph has been touched with India ink how difficult is it to remove such ink, and how can it be done?
Ans. If a photograph on albumen paper has been touched with India ink, it comes off readily by the application of a wet sponge.
Int. 12. State whether these photographs that said ladies saw of the Howland will and signatures were or were not upon albumen paper.
Ans. They were.
Int. 13. State whether or not you saw that document-F. W. P., No. 1-now before you, being photographed about ten days ago.
Ans. I did.
Int. 14. State whether the paper now before you, marked R. C. P., Photograph 8, is the photograph then made from said paper F. W. P., No. 1.
Ans. It is.
Int. 15. How was it made in reference to the position of the rays of the sun?
Ans. The paper was placed in such a position that the rays of the sun shone through it.
The exhibit is here formally put in the case.
Cross-examination:
(The witness being cross-examined by S. Bartlett, esq., of counsel for complainant, testifies as follows.)
Cross-int. 1. I understand you that the photographs you handed to the finisher were photographs of the body of the Howland will with the signature, were they not?
Ans. They were.
Cross-int. 2. How many of them did you hand to the finisher?
Ans. I am not sure that I remember, but I think four of each.
Cross-int. 3. They were upon different scales or were of different sizes, were they not?
Ans. They were.
Cross-int. 4. Were the photographs given to the finisher the day before or on that day?…” (p. 715)]

“Extension Notices.” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 18:18 (May 2, 1868): 279. [“Albert S. Southworth, of Boston, … petitioned for the extension of a patent granted to him the 10th day of April, 1855, and reissued the 25th day of September, 1860, for an improvement in plate holder for cameras, for seven years …”]

“The Wing & Ormsbee Sliding Plateholder Patent.” HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 19:24 (Apr. 15, 1868): 381–82. [Announcement contesting this patent, signed by G. W. Pine, C. C. Schoonmaker, and William H. Bell, asking for united effort from the photographic community.]

1869

“The Boston Photographic Union.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:63 (Mar. 1869): 88. [“A meeting of the Photographers of Boston and vicinity, was held at the rooms of Mr. G. H. Loomis, 7 Fremont Row, Boston, on Friday evening February 12th, 1869. Mr. Albert S. Southworth was chairman of the meeting, and Mr. Fred. C. Low, Secretary. It was resolved that the formation of a Photographic Society be proceeded with. Mr. Loomis read a draft of a preamble and constitution, which, with slight amendments, was adopted, and at once signed by over twenty photographers. The following officers were then elected for the current year: President — G. H. Loomis. Vice-President — T. K. Burnham. Secretary — Frederick C. Low. Treasurer — Simon Wing. Executive Committee — J. W. Black, E. L. Allen, Augustus Marshall. The meetings of the Association are to be held on the first Tuesday of each month. The matter in reference to holding the next National Photographic Convention and Exhibition, in Boston, on the first Tuesday in June next, was then discussed, and a communication from Mr. David Bendann read in relation to the arrangements to be made. The matter was then referred to the Executive Committee, to report at the next meeting. The Association opens under the most favorable auspices. At its regular meetings it is the intention to vary the proceedings with experiments pertaining to the art. Adjourned to meet at the same place the first Tuesday in March. Frederick C. Low, Secretary.”]

“Boston Photographic Union.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:64 (Apr. 1869): 129-130. [“Meeting called to order by the President, G. H. Loomis. The records of the last meeting were read and approved. The President then read extracts from the preamble, constitution, and by-laws, explaining the objects for which we are organized, and requested all those wishing to join our Union to hand their names to the Treasurer. Quite a number of new members were enrolled. Mr. Black, Chairman of Executive Committee, reported progress on the subject submitted to that committee in relation to procuring halls for exhibition and meeting of the National Photographic Union. Several halls had been examined, but no final decision arrived at as yet. On motion of Mr. Southworth, it was voted, That a committee of five be raised to see each photographer in Boston and vicinity, and present the advantages of this organization, and solicit their co-operation. Mr. A. S. Southworth, F. J. Foss, Joseph Babb, G. W. Warren, and H. W. Tupper, were appointed as that committee. On motion of Mr. Joseph Babb, it was voted that the number of the committee be increased to nine. Mr. Critcherson, of Worcester, Mr. Davis, of Portsmouth, Mr. T. N. Phillips, of Lynn, and Mr. G. C. Gilchrist, of Lowell, were added to the committee. On motion of Mr. P. C. Low, it was voted, That a committee of three be appointed to see if arrangements cannot be made with Professor Cook, of Harvard University, to deliver us a lecture or lectures, on photography and photographic chemistry. Mr. J. W. Black, F. C. Low, and J. H. Dodge, were appointed that committee. On motion of Mr. Southworth, it was voted, That the Executive Committee cause to be printed a sufficient number of our Constitution and By-Laws for the use of the Union. Voted to adjourn. Fred. C. Low, Sec. Immediately after adjournment, Mr. Black gave us an exhibition of his stereopticon. An invitation had been extended to all photographers to bring transparencies from such negatives as they might possess of any interesting subjects. Messrs. G. H. Loomis and T. B. Burnham furnished a few interesting ones, and Mr. P. 1ST. Spear furnished a very large number of California and Western views. The rest were from Mr. Black’s own collection. All were very interesting and instructive.”]

Low, Frederick C. “Boston Photographic Association.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:65 (May 1869): 162. [“The second monthly meeting of this Association was held at Mr. J. W. Black’s studio, 173 Washington Street, on Tuesday evening, April 6th, at eight o’clock. After reading the records of the previous meeting and the transaction of preliminary business, Mr. Loomis, President of the Association, congratulated the members present upon the excellent commencement which had been made, and called the attention of those now present for the first time, to the Constitution and By-laws, which have been printed, and are now ready for distribution. Prof. O. W. Holmes had been invited to be present and address this meeting, but a communication, received at a late hour, announced his unavoidable absence. On motion of Mr. Black, it was voted that a committee of two be raised to solicit names of members to the National Photographic Association. Messrs. A. S. Southworth and E. L. Allen were chosen that committee. The President declared a recess of a few minutes for this committee to act. After the meeting had again been called to order, the committee reported twenty names obtained to the National Photographic Association, and a number additional to the Boston Association. The subject-matter of the National Photographic Convention was discussed, but nothing definite, as to arrangements, was announced, the committee not being in readiness to give particulars. Among other interesting statements, one from Mr. Black, announcing that to-day bromide was used for the first time for over six months in his gallery, and then only for experimental purposes, was received with marked demonstration of interest. Mr. D. P. Burrell, of Bridgewater, Massachusetts, stated that he had not used bromide for over a year and a half, and had been successful without it. After the business of the Association had been completed, another exhibition of transparencies was given through the courtesy of Mr. Black. Several gentlemen contributed to this exhibition, among whom were Mr. A. Marshall, who presented some very superior specimens. Mr. H. W. Tupper also exhibited some very creditable plates. Mr. Black introduced a number of new and highly artistic pictures of animals, etc., of the London Zoological Gardens. The exhibition was interesting, and Mr. Black received the thanks of the Association for his kindness and liberality. The meeting was the largest

“Editor’s Table.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:65 (May 1869): 167. [“A. S. Southworth’s Patent for a plate-holder for cameras (No. 12,700) was extended April 10th, for several years longer. This is a part of the sliding plate-holder patent, so odious to some of our readers, and better known as the Wing-Ormsbee patent.”]

“Official List of Patents Issued by the United Staes Patent Office. For the Week ending May 11, 1869.” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN n. s. 20:22 (May 29, 1869): 348-349.
[“Reissues.”
“Plate Holders for Cameras – A. S. Southworth, of Boston, Mass. – Letters Patent No. 12,700, dated April 10, 1855; reissue No. 1,049, dated September 25, 1869.” (p. 349)]

“Photographic Exhibition.” ZION’S HERALD 46:22 (June 3, 1869): 264. [“A novelty began in this city Tuesday and continues today. — a Convention of Photographers. Lectures, photographic material, and photographs are in the programme. The results this art has attained will be set forth in some of the finest attainments of photographic skill this country can boast. Every one should give the exhibition and Convention a visit. It will be found at Horticulture Hall. Messrs. Loomis and Southworth are among the chief managers of the movement. The Convention should denounce Mumler’s spiritualistic humbugs, which are the quackery and Buddhism of the profession.”]

“The Exhibition and Meetings of the National Photographic Association.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:67 (July 1869): 205-237. [(The first annual meeting of the National Photographic Association was held at the Horticultural Hall, in Boston, MA. The event, which had been heavily promoted by Edward Wilson, was reported on in great detail in the July issue of the Philadelphia Photographer. “Proceedings, pp. 206-210; Exhibition, pp. 218-221; John Towler’s “Concentration of Ways and Means,” pp. 222-234; Dr. Boynton’s “Sunlight and Moonlight,” p. 234; D. H. Willard’s “Lantern Exhibition,” p. 234; List of Members, pp. 234-237.) “The official report of the proceedings of our young and prosperous Association, are so lengthy and full, that our readers will tire, we fear, if we say much more. One fact has been fully and entirely demonstrated, i. e., that the whole affair, all things considered, was a grand, a glorious, a decided success. Our anticipations and our hopes were probably more exalted than those of any one else, but they were fully met and greatly exceeded. When we first visited Horticultural Hall, May 30th, with our efficient local secretary, Mr. Loomis, it was arranged for an evening entertainment. In the lower hall was a modest number of boxes of various sizes, from all directions, containing the pictures for exhibition. Monday morning early, a posse of carpenters was there, cleared the hall of seats, and, by noon, all the wings were erected, and the busiest set of photographers we ever saw, hard at work hanging the pictures. Under the superintendence of Mr. J. W. Black, the work progressed systematically, and bravely, and rapidly. The hall was so admirably fitted for the purpose, that there was scarcely any choice of light, so the pictures were all hung in good light. No conception can be had of the amount of work done, and done so cheerfully, as that done for the success of the Exhibition by the Boston Photographers. Monday, day and evening, and Tuesday, up to the hour of opening, 2 p.m., the noisy hammer was heard, but soon after was quieted, and the grandest Exhibition of Photographic Works ever seen in this country, was opened to the public. We never saw such a collection. No man ever saw such a one in America. When we consider that no premiums were offered, no incentive, except encouragement given, it was wonderful. Our only regret is, that the whole fraternity could not have been there to enjoy it and profit by it. Fine as it was, we are sure that the next one will be many times more brilliant. The general impression was, that “it would not amount to much, as there was not interest enough among the craft in their business to send their pictures.” That common error must now be forever eradicated. Nearly one hundred and fifty persons showed it to be an error, and next year there will be hundreds more. Let all our earnest men begin now to study and improve, and to prepare for their display in Cleveland, in 1870. The question arises: Why should I? What good are these annual exhibitions going to do me, and why should I make effort to have a display there? Allow us to answer. Many of you are complaining of dull times, low prices, and a non-appreciative public. The tendency of our art has, we fear, been downward. Let us lift it up, elevate it, show the public what it will do, make them respect it, tempt them with its beauties, and then elevate your prices. To do this we must have an annual exhibition of our work, and the best we can make. We must then invite the public to see what we can do. The public will become interested and surprised, as they were in Boston, and the result will be, more work for the photographer to do, at better prices. Another good may be derived from these exhibitions, even as important as the other, and one which we hope will not fail. Photographers should not only contribute their work, but they should attend the exhibitions themselves, and study the work of others. It will be a delight and a source of profit to them greater than they imagine, as all who attended the late Exhibition can testify. We were assured by such, that they would not have missed the privilege, for many times what it cost them. Each man went back to his work, cheered, encouraged, elevated, with new desires, and hopes, and aspirations; with renewed determination to do better work, and to strive harder for perfection. It was a grand thing to be able to study the work of so many co-laborers at once. It was an era in the history of American photography, which will have its effect during the coming year, be assured, and we shall see the result at Cleveland. But, as we expect to write on this subject every month for the next year, we will close now, only adding, that, small as it was, the exhibition of foreign photographs was charming. A great many pictures were sent from abroad that did not arrive in time. They were in the New York Custom-House in time, but the jealousy existing between that city and Boston (we cannot conceive any other cause), caused red tape to be knotted so tightly, that all our persuasive powers and begging could not get them out in time. The action of the custom-house officials was simply scandalous and uncalled for, for the time of our Exhibition was made known to them often enough. Next year we shall give our foreign brethren more time. Judging from their liberal response this time, with the short notice we gave them, we expect a grand display next year. As all the parcels sent have not yet been allowed to reach us, we shall defer, until our next, a general review of the foreign contributions, which are extremely fine. We must not close without a word for the Boston photographers. If we can secure the unanimity, the cooperativeness, the cordiality, and the good feeling toward one another, that exists among them, all over the country, the photographic year of jubilee will have arrived. They spared no pains to make the occasion a pleasurable one to all visitors, and they succeeded preeminently. They will never be forgotten, nor their stockdealers either. The business meetings of the Association were harmonious throughout, and plans laid for the future workings of the Association that must result in great good. The lectures will speak for themselves. The whole affair, from beginning to end, was a brilliant success, and no one regrets being there. Now for Cleveland!”
Proceedings of the National Photographic Association of the United States.
The first annual Meeting and Exhibition of the National Photographic Association of the United States, was held in Horticultural Hall, Boston, Massachusetts, beginning at 2 p. M., Tuesday, June 1st, 1869, as per arrangement of the Executive Committee.
The meeting was called to order by the President, Abram Bogardus, Esq., of New York, after which, G. H. Loomis, Esq., President of the Boston Photographic Society, and Local Secretary of the National Photographic Association, delivered the following Address of Welcome:
Mr. President and Gentlemen: The very pleasing and agreeable duty has been assigned me, of extending a cordial welcome to you at this early stage of your proceedings, and this I do in behalf of the Boston Photographic Association, with whom I have the honor to be officially connected, and also in behalf of the citizens generally, among whom, I trust, you will be received with that kindness and cordiality which usually characterizes their intercourse with visitors from abroad. I need not assure you, gentlemen, that we appreciate the compliment intended by selecting our city as the place for inaugurating this grand enterprise, and, if it shall fail of that success which you hope to achieve, we earnestly pray that it may not be because of its New England origin, or because it was a “Boston notion.” While the representatives of various other trades and professions have, within a few years past, resorted to organization and associated effort, to improve themselves in the several branches of industry they follow, it has remained, until the present, for the Knights of the Camera to confederate for like purposes, and yet, may we not hope that our somewhat tardy entrance into the brotherhood of the associations, will only serve to make us more diligent in the pursuit of those advantages which associated enterprise is more likely to afford. While we would not be unduly “puffed up” with the relative importance and utility of the profession we practise, and with all due deference to our sister arts and artists, we believe it is usually conceded that photography stands to-day ” master of the situation,” and from it, directly and indirectly, the chisel of the sculptor, the pencil of the painter, and, we may add, the pen of the poet, are deriving their greatest triumph. Altering Shakspeare slightly, we quote:
“The poet’s eye in a fine frenzy rolling, Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven, And as imagination bodies forth The form of things unknown, the Camera Obscura, Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name.”
A friend of mine, now travelling in Europe, justly observes that his collection of stereoscopic and photographic views, purchased and studied previous to his departure from home, provide him with the best guidance to all localities of interest, and, on his return, will possess a double value as a descriptive history of his travels. This, my brother artists, is but an item introduced to show the boundless field over which we are privileged to obtain conquest. I say boundless, for there are wonders celestial and terrestrial to be discovered, developed, and made intelligent and comprehensive to the people through the agency of this beautiful branch of the sciences. Already has its usefulness been tested and appreciated in the manner indicated, by gleaning from the world at large all its special points of interest and attraction, and placing them with marvelous accuracy and distinctness, within the means of the masses to possess and enjoy. Through the medium of the press, we read of a ” noisy world, its busy fluctuations, and its vast concerns,” but photography brings us face to face with persons, places, and things, making us almost oblivious to the fact that oceans, rivers, and mountains separate them and us from each other. But a few years since it would cost a small fortune and a year’s voyage around the world to see what is now provided us for the small outlay of twenty-five cents. The persevering artist has penetrated beyond the pale of civilization, and almost by magic has grouped its scenery, illustrated its astronomy, geography, topography, mineralogy, etc., returning only when the wonderful and curious in nature and art are covered by his focus-glass, and nothing is left to view. You see him on the ocean, catching views of fleets and armies, then in the North seas, portraying its icebergs, then at the North Pole, making views of the earth’s axis. Again, you find him at the Equator, defining the “equinoctial line;” next, you see him at the Straits of Gibraltar, and not unfrequently in other straits more difficult to pass; then, upon the snowy sides and summits of the Alps, the Apennines, and Himalayas. If you visit any or all of the islands of the sea, you will notice the bodily presence of the ubiquitous photographer, though his head is often obscured. Go up the Nile or down it, if you please, and on either side you will find cameras, like so many cannon, mounted to salute you in passing. If, at Cairo, you stop to view the wonderful sights and scenes of antiquity, you will find at the base, or at the summits of the highest of her everlasting domes, the Yankee artist, waving in triumph his head-cloth or light-exterminator, exclaiming “Eureka!” In the desert you can track him behind, beside, or in advance of every caravan; and though he “hunger and thirst,” he still lives, for the sunshine is his strength and support. In Palestine, Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives, at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in Bethlehem, in Nazareth, at Canaan and Capernaum, Sodom and Gomorrah, at the River Jordan, in the Wilderness of Judea, among the cedars of Lebanon, at Tiberias, Galilee, Philippi, Asia Minor, China, Japan, here, there, elsewhere, and everywhere, you will find the artist gleaner, and his rich trophies and treasures are, as I have before remarked, laid on our tables to be taken up and studied at pleasure. Great, glorious, beautiful, and useful discovery! Wonderful in its perfection, and yet, doubtless, in its infancy. I have thus far only alluded to this minor branch of the art, and have said nothing of those which pertain to portraiture. Here I might dwell, until your patience was weary, upon the splendid achievements of artists, both in our own country and Europe. One of the best points I can make, however, in this connection, is by pointing you, and the public you serve, to the pictorial adornments of Horticultural Hall. Each production will there speak its own praise, or, if caricatured, woe to the artist from whom the offence cometh! Gentlemen, though it may be that you have contributed but a tithe of the many meritorious works your several collections contain, yet we and you may well be proud of the display. It shows that you have studied to please, and, that you have succeeded, there is abundant evidence in proof. Your competition in this Exhibition is eminently friendly, is praiseworthy, and, if a comparison of the products of your skill and ingenuity shall serve to awaken in each of you a nobler ambition for higher attainments, then will this pleasant gathering culminate in mutual good to the profession, and advantage to the art you have so enthusiastically practised. Mr. President and Gentlemen, we invoke upon your proceedings and deliberations, that wisdom and foresight essential to your future success and prosperity, and we bespeak for the National Photographic Union, now holding its first session, a career of usefulness commensurate with its elevated aims and high resolves. Let us hope that nothing but the true artist and the true gentleman will animate its membership, and that we may have no other strife among us save that of striving to excel, and that our highest endeavor may be to ennoble and dignify our calling. Gentlemen from abroad, permit me again most heartily to welcome you to the city and surroundings of Boston, for, though passionately fond of the “Hub,” we are not unmindful of the spokesman and felloes that are round about us, and which contribute materially to our consequence as citizens and as a city. We welcome you to our walks and drives, and, though our ways are at present a little serpentine and angular, and, withal, narrow, you will see that the municipal cleaver is fast hewing them wider and straighter. Welcome, also, to our educational and benevolent institutions, to our halls of science, music, and to our galleries of art, which we hope you will find worthy of your attention and admiration. Observe the almost completed Coliseum, Temple of the Muses, where, in a few days, will resound the sublimest strains of music, in honor of the blessing of restored peace to a grateful country. Welcome to our beautiful harbor, the great American “teapot” of Revolutionary times, and, under its exhilarating influence, sail down among its picturesque islands, passing its somewhat diminutive but decidedly damaging fortifications, and if, on your return, you have time and appetite for other attractions, a new and not less interesting programme will be provided. Again, gentlemen, welcome.
Mr. Loomis was frequently applauded during the delivery of his address, which was followed by President Bogardus in the following response:
Address Of President Bogardus.
My Brother and Gentlemen of the Boston Photographic Association: It gives me pleasure to respond to your address of welcome, representing, as we do, the photographers of the United States, and many of us for the first time visitors to your busy city. We must feel gratified at your cordial words of welcome, expressing, as they do, feelings of friendship and kindness in every sentence. We come, as earnest men and for our mutual good, to consult for the advancement of our beautiful art, for which I will claim a high standing among the fine arts. Our Exhibition will show an amount of taste, skill, and ingenuity, well entitling it to such claim. When this Association was inaugurated at Philadelphia, it seemed the day of small things; but I had faith in the few noble originators of the movement, and we can to-day rejoice at its success. I have never seen (considering the shortness of the time we have been associated together, and the peaceful nature of our profession) a greater success. Let us push on to still higher triumphs. It has met opposition, but to a man or an association of nerve, opposition is but the incentive to greater achievement. You have alluded to the Boston tea-pot. Sir! everlasting honor to the men that inaugurated the liberty in Boston harbor, that was baptized in blood at Lexington. At that day every man that was a man, felt it his duty to join the movement that was to drive despotism from the land. And so may we at Boston give our infant, born at Philadelphia, to-day grown to manhood, such an impetus, that every photographer in the land, will needs join us for his own and the mutual good. Some of our fingers may be stained by the chemicals we use in manipulating, but I trust our hearts are not stained by one selfish or unworthy motive. Again accept our thanks for your cordial welcome, and wherever it may be our decision to hold the next annual meeting, may the photographers of Boston receive a welcome as noble.
The President was loudly applauded by the gentlemen present, and the business of the Association was proceeded with. The calling of the roll was laid over until later in the session. The Secretary read the minutes of the meetings held in Philadelphia in December, 1868; which were approved as read. The Treasurer, H. T. Anthony, Esq., reported a balance in the treasury of $569.37. His report was accepted and referred to an auditing committee, of which Messrs. James Cremer, A. J. Fox, and N. S. Howe, were appointed the members by the President. The report of the Committee on the Progress of Photography was called for, when the Secretary read the following letters from members of that committee:
To the Officers and Members of the National Photographic Association.
Gentlemen: At the last meeting of your Association, held in Philadelphia, a committee was appointed to report upon the Progress of Photography. Owing to the members of that committee being very much scattered, it has been impossible to have a meeting for the purpose of organizing. But at the suggestion of your Permanent Secretary, a number of letters have been written to a majority of the members, stating that a report would be desirable at the meeting to be held at Boston, in June next. But little attention has been paid to the communications; probably by reason of the short notice given (May 17). It is to be regretted that more time was not given, as the names upon the committee justify the hope of a very interesting report. The subject of the Progress of Photography is of the greatest importance to both professional and amateur photographers. And no doubt all are strong alike for its elevation and advancement. In regard to the quality of American work, there has been a steady improvement in all branches of photography, extending over a large portion of the United States. Much better portraits are made, and greater attention paid to lighting the sitter, and not the entire room, as was formerly done. As an example, the Rembrandt style of picture is rapidly gaining popularity, and is doing much to make photography recognized, artistically, as one of the fine arts. In landscape work, also, a marked improvement has been made. New lenses, and more perfect camera boxes, have added much to the success of out-door pictures. One improvement that may be mentioned in the chemical manipulation of both branches of photography, is less of the black and white picture, and more softness. This is fully proved by the cabinet, stereoscopic, and larger work prepared recently. The writer does not feel that he has any authority to enter into the details of any particular process, as the committee he represents has not organized; but, as one of that committee, he takes the liberty of making a very short report, to show to the National Photographic Association that they are not forgotten. Respectfully, John C. Browne. Philada., May 27th, 1869.
“I would suggest the following as being real progress, which is not always invention, but sometimes elimination or simplification. I consider, and have proved, that the preliminary coating with the albumen, which at last seems to be generally, and by successful operators used, is an improvement, as a row of unused bottles of rottenstone, and a very small alcohol bill, amusingly testify. The operator is no longer subject to a slovenly boy, or uncertainty in his plates, etc. The next I think is in developing the plate. How many text-books still instruct the operator to ‘ keep the plate constantly in motion!’ While, if it was more generally followed, as written out by G. Wharton Simpson, to keep the plate as still as may be, and preserve an even flow of the developer, more pictures, full of half tints, and seeming as though touched upon the whole surface like an engraving, would be produced. This I have proved daily, and the public taste is still gradually accepting it, and is a progress. “The only other one I have in my mind, is the toning bath, which I have in use daily, which I got from P. Powell, Boston. There can be nothing simpler. It never varies, and lasts continuously, as my own was thrown away from accident. A stock solution of gold (1 gr. to oz.) is poured upon bicarbonate of baryta. According to the average day’s work, for each sheet of paper, one grain of gold proves abundant. When ready for toning the prints, pour from a bottle containing a saturated solution of carbonate of magnesia (in water), as much as will be needed to cover the prints; add the gold, and proceed to tone. It never fails, never discolors, never ‘cuts up’ and ‘ acts bad.’ The baryta neutralizes only the acid, if any there be in the gold. The carbonate of magnesia is simple, and sufficient to keep the gold from falling. “Unless these are included in our progress, I hardly know what to make a report upon. The current journals are full of new things, to be tried; but real progress seems to be in relieving the art of much that is superfluous, or that tends to complication. I have tried, also, the McLachlan theory — have a bath and collodion using usual developer — and can report favorably upon, with negatives taken of an interior. Permanganate of potash, I think, cannot be called progress. It is good in my hands, but I think requires a little more skill than operators like to exercise; and, after all, is a complication to introduce into a bath. Carbon I do not favor. It is glue, and glue is treacherous. It is animal matter, and uncertain. I have worked it, and have a complete outfit for it, and have read nearly all that comes out upon it in the English Photographic News and Philadelphia Photographer, etc. Collodio-chloride I am testing, but as yet cannot report completely, as I am not successful in some points. Very respectfully, yours, Charles T. Miller. “Prov., R. I., May 21st, 1869.”
The communications were accepted and ordered to be filed.
From Mr. David Bendann, appointed as a committee of one, at the December meeting, to prepare by-laws for the Association, was read the following communication: The undersigned was directed to prepare a series of by-laws, to be laid before the present meeting, but upon a careful investigation, finds all the necessary rules embodied in the constitution. I desire, however, to present the following points for your consideration. 1st. The providing of a sinking fund, which shall be devoted to purposes of a beneficial character, in aid of the family of deceased members of the Association. 2d. A system of apprenticeship, to be determined upon and rigidly adhered to by members. 3d. The formation of a collection of photographic productions, to be added to by the voluntary contributions of members and others. All of which is respectfully submitted. David Bendann. London, England, May 19, 1869.
After the reading of these reports the President addressed the meeting in a few congratulatory remarks. After his address the President appointed the following gentlemen as a committee, to nominate officers for the coming year: G. H. Loomis, Walter C. North, E. T. Whitney, H. G. Fetter, J. F. Ryder, F. W. Hardy, and Andrew Simpson. As a committee on revising the constitution, Edward L. Wilson, J. K. Bundy, J. F. Ryder, James Cremer, and Walter C. North. The roll was then called by the Secretary, the members standing as they answered, in order that they might be known to each other; after which an intermission was given to enable those present, who were not members, to become such, and for members to pay their annual dues. A number became members. The meeting was then called to order, and after the President announced that he would deliver his annual address at the next session, adjourned until next day at 10 a.m. The members then repaired to the Exhibition Hall, to enjoy the grand collection there.
Wednesday, June 2d, 1869.
The Meeting assembled at 10, a.m., President Bogardus in the chair. The rough minutes of the previous meeting were read and adopted. The Committee on Revising the Constitution reported progress. The Committee on Nomination of Officers reported the following nominees for officers of the Association for the ensuing year:
President. — Abram Bogardus.
Vice-Presidents. — Samuel Holmes, New York City; G. H. Loomis, Mass.; William H. Bhoads, Pa.; Alexander Gardner, D. C.; Edgar Decker, O.; A. Simson, N. Y.; H. G. Fetter, Ind.; J. Cadwallader, Mich.; AJ. Fox, Mo.; P. B. Jones, Iowa; P. H. Wheeler, S. C.; F. W. Hardy, Me.; W. E. Bowman, 111.
Executive Committee. — David Bendann, Baltimore, Md.; J. F. Kyder, Cleveland, 0.; J. W. Black, Boston, Mass.; W. C. North, Utica, N. Y.; J. Cremer, Philadelphia, Pa.; Edward L. Wilson, Philadelphia, Pa.
Treasurer. — H. T. Anthony, N. Y.
Committee on Progress of Photography. — J. C. Browne, Philadelphia, Pa.; Charles Wager Hull, N. Y.; John Carbutt, Chicago, 111.; Charles T. Miller, Providence, K. I.; G. H. Fennemore, Philadelphia, Pa.
The report of the committee was accepted, and the committee discharged. On motion, there being no further nominations, an election of officers was held by acclamation, and all the nominees of the committee elected, in the order in which they stand, unanimously. The President responded in a very happy address, closing with his annual report. He thought the Exhibition in the upper hall, the number of photographers assembled at this meeting, the spirit of kindness and cordiality with which they treated each other, and with which the strangers were received by the Boston fraternity, were all proofs conclusive that we now had a real, live, working Association, that was a credit to our profession. He hoped that every member would make it his duty to interest others in the welfare of the Association. More strength was what we wanted — numbers — and then we could look forward to the consummation of great good. He did not believe there was a man present but what felt proud and overjoyed that he was a member of the National Photographic Association of the United States. He did, and he believed all were like him in that respect. (Applause.) Since the meeting in Philadelphia, the birth-place of the Association, in December, 230 members had been added to the roll. Ere the next meeting, he believed we would have 1000. Let all strive to this end, and photography would soon reach the prominence which all its earnest votaries desired that it should reach. The President was followed by Mr. Loomis, in a eulogy upon the Exhibition. He thought it an Exhibition which the photographers of the United States had great reason to be proud of. Almost every variety of work known to the profession was there represented. It predicated a bright and prosperous future for American photography, and proved that the fraternity was awake. A discussion then ensued on the propriety of creating a fund, to be placed in the hands of a committee, for the purpose of opposing fraudulent patents. A motion was made to appoint such a committee, when Mr. Wilson stated, that, as a body, we had no right to organize against any patent, as it would be a penal offence so to do. When an unjust or fraudulent patent comes to the notice of any member of the Association, he should report it to the Executive Committee, and they would manage for the best interests of the whole membership. A patent could be successfully and legally resisted by one person only. If matters of that nature were brought promptly to the notice of the Executive Committee, including processes offered for sale by travelling agents, they would as promptly report upon them as to whether they were worthy of credit or not, in the official organ of the Association. Then, if inventors studied their interests, it would be their wisest plan first to secure the approval of the Executive Committee, before pushing the sale of their inventions. This plan, vigorously followed, would soon cure the sale of worthless processes. The motion was then withdrawn, and the discussion ended. The Secretary, at the request of the Committee on Revising the Constitution, then distributed copies of the Constitution among the members, read the Constitution, article by article, and recorded suggestions for alterations, made by those present, for the guidance of the committee. The main discussion was on the best method of simplifying the form of admission of members, that form being rather complicated now. Several other suggestions were made, and noted by the secretary of the Committee. The Secretary then read the following communication:
New York, May 29th, 1869.
Mr. E. L. Wilson, Secretary National Photographic Association of the United States. Dear Sir: We are glad to learn that the Association of photographers are soon to meet again in council and fellowship. As such meetings are always attended with considerable expense, we beg herewith to inclose our check for $100, towards defraying the same. Trusting that the deliberations of the Association may result in much good to the fraternity at large, and with best wishes, we are, Yours, truly, Scovill Manufacturing Co. Samuel Holmes, Agent.
This was received with great applause, and a vote of thanks tendered the Scovill Manufacturing Company for their thoughtful and splendid donation.
On motion, adjourned to Thursday, ten o’clock, A.M. Before adjournment the members were invited, by Mr. J. W. Black, to assemble at the bridge in the public garden, to have a group taken at 9 a.m. to-morrow. They were also invited, in the name of the stockdealers of Boston, Messrs. G. S. Bryant & Co., B. French & Co, and Dodge, Collier & Perkins, to take a ride in the suburbs to-morrow afternoon at two o’clock. Both invitations were cheerfully accepted and applauded.
Thursday, June 3d, 1869.
This was a day of surprises and pleasure. The members of the Association, agreeable to previous arrangements, met at the bridge in the public garden, at 9 a.m., to have a photograph of them made in a body, by Mr. J. W. Black and his assistants, Messrs. Nickerson and Smith. Two successful negatives were made in a very short time, although the sun was shining full upon the group. After the pictures were taken, an examination was made of Mr. Black’s out-door dark-room. It consisted of a large box, with all the necessary appurtenances, made portable, so that it could be lifted into any wagon, and moved wherever needed.
The business meetings of the Association were continued at 10 a.m., at the Hall, President Bogardus in the chair. The records of the previous meeting were read and approved, after which the roll was called. A recess was then taken, to enable parties present to pay their annual dues to the Treasurer, and to become members.
Mr. Southworth, of Boston, addressed the members, upon the stereoscope, explaining the result of his experiments in making pictures for this instrument. He referred to the statement of Sir David Brewster, that no one could see anything perfectly unless he had a circle of eyes, and gave scientific reasons why this could not be true. He explained that the two pictures which unite to make a perfect stereoscopic picture should be taken at an angle of forty-five degrees, that being about the angle formed by the two eyes of the beholder of these pictures and the focus of vision.
Mr. E. L. Wilson, on behalf of the Committee on the Constitution, reported the following alterations, which were taken up singly and then adopted as a whole, as follows: …(Followed by a long list of minor alterations to the Constitution drawn up by W. C. North, Chairman. J. P. Ryder, J. K. Bundy, James Cremer, G. H. Loomis, Edward L. Wilson.)
The question of the time and place of the next annual meeting was discussed at length, and it was finally voted unanimously to hold it at Cleveland, Ohio, on the first Tuesday in June, and Mr. J. P. Ryder was chosen Local Secretary.
The death of Mr. J. B. Roberts, of Rochester, was announced, and a committee of three appointed to report suitable resolutions to the meeting to-morrow. The meeting then adjourned until 10 o’clock Friday morning.
Afternoon. The members of the Association assembled at Horticultural Hall at 2 p. m., and were called to order by President Bogardus. He said that his visit, in common with his brother photographers, to Boston, had been a continued round of pleasure, and now a very pleasant duty devolved upon him. At the last meeting of the Association a committee had been appointed to take into consideration the propriety of making Mr. Edward L. Wilson, Permanent Secretary, some suitable acknowledgment for his energy in furthering the cause of the Association since its conception, and in fighting for the rights of its members in the Bromide Case, and that committee had chosen this occasion as a fit opportunity to make their report. Mr. Wilson was then called to the platform, and received from the hands of Miss Nellie M. Whiting, on behalf of the committee, a magnificent solid silver ice pitcher and salver, manufactured by Messrs. Bigelow, Kennard & Co, silversmiths, Washington Street, Boston.* (*The committee having the affair in charge, thinking afterwards that some other article would prove of more practical utility to their Secretary, substituted for the silver a very handsome Steinway piano, from Messrs. C. D. Russell & Co., which was presented by the committee privately.) The recipient stated that he was so completely surprised that he could only tender the heartiest thanks to the members of the Association for their extreme kindness. Had their bright and beautiful testimonial been many times less weighty and valuable, it would have been quite as precious to him. When working for the Association he felt that the eyes of its members were rigidly upon him, watching if he were true to his trust or not. Success was what he worked for; success in accomplishing their hopes and wishes. Success had been his rich reward, and he felt amply repaid. But since he had been so handsomely remembered he would return his best thanks, promising to be ever ready to defend them in any just cause. He would hold this magnificent testimonial in trust for them to make it into nitrate crystals, in order to maintain and uphold the dignity and prominence of our blessed art should such an extremity arise. Again, very, very many thanks.
Mr. G. H. Loomis, Local Secretary of the Association, then informed the members present that Messrs. George S. Bryant & Co., Dodge, Collier & Perkins, and Benjamin French & Co., stockdealers of Boston, had generously provided barouches to give the strangers an opportunity to take a drive through the suburbs. The Association adjourned to Tremont Street, where twenty-five handsome barouches were in readiness, in which they embarked, and were driven to Brookline and around the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, through a portion of Brighton, Newton, and Watertown, to Cambridge, where a brief halt was made at the residence of Mr. J. W. Black. Notwithstanding the visit to his residence was an entirely impromptu affair, Mr. Black at once spread before his guests a bountiful collation, after partaking of which they were shown over the residence and studio of Mr. Sharpe, father-in-law of Mr. Black, in a building immediately opposite. Here a brief period was spent in inspecting a large number of very beautifully finished paintings and photographs. Before leaving Mr. Black’s hospitable residence, the company gave him three cheers and a “tiger,” and re-entering their carriages they were driven through Cambridge, past the Colleges, to East Cambridge, to the residence of Mr. Q. H. Loomis, who, determining not to be outdone in hospitality, prepared in a short time a very inviting collation, to which the guests were welcomed with true hospitality. Before leaving his roof, the company gave Mr. Loomis three hearty cheers for his kindness. Again embarking, the Association were driven over Charles River to Charlestown, passing around Bunker Hill to City Square. At the Waverley House they were again invited to accept the hospitality of Mr. Blaisdell, of the firm of French & Co., and ere they left, they extended to him the same recognition of his kindness as had been bestowed on his predecessors in hospitality. For the third time the party re-embarked, and reached Horticultural Hall at about 7.30. To every member of the party this trip gave an opportunity for the first time to see the beautiful suburbs of Boston, and the strangers were profuse in their expressions of gratification at the constant succession of beautiful scenes through which their drive had taken them, and also at the munificent treatment of their entertainers, which gave to the members of the Association from the West a taste of genuine Yankee hospitality. The whole day was one of unclouded enjoyment, and the gala day of the week. In the evening the Exhibition and Dr. Boynton’s lecture made up a brilliant programme, never to be forgotten by those privileged to enjoy it.
Friday, June 4th, 1869.
The meeting was opened at 10 a.m. Mr. G. H. Loomis, Vice-President, being in the chair. He announced that President Bogardus had been called home yesterday by unavoidable engagements. The reading of the minutes was dispensed with, and a number of resolutions read and adopted, viz.: Of thanks to Prof. Towler and Dr. Boynton for their admirable, instructive, and valued lectures; “denouncing the claims of the Shaw & Wilcox Company as fraudulent, unjust, and unworthy of credit by the profession;” of thanks to Messrs. B. French & Co., G. S. Bryant & Co., and Dodge, Collier & Perkins, stockdealers of Boston, for their delightful entertainment; of thanks to Messrs. Black, Loomis, Allen, Marshall, and others, for their sacrifices in behalf of the Association; of thanks to Messrs. C. D. Russell & Co., for the use of Steinway pianos; of thanks to Mr. J. W. Black and his assistants, Messrs. Nickerson and Smith, for making the group of the members; of thanks to Mr. G. H. Loomis, the efficient Local Secretary of the Association; and a resolution that every member who attends the next meeting at Cleveland, bring enough of his cartes with him to exchange with the others. Mr. Loomis responded to the resolutions in his behalf in a brief speech. Mr. Wilson moved that a committee be appointed to memorialize Congress in behalf of the Association, to charter the Association; for a just copyright law, and for the admission of photographs for our annual exhibitions free of duty and custom-house fees. We need to be chartered; there virtually existed no law for copyrighting photographs, and much delay and annoyance had been caused recently in receiving parcels from abroad for exhibition. They were held for appraisement at the custom-house, while for the encouragement and growth of art they should have been passed free and without delay. Messrs. Alexander Gardner, Daniel Bendann, and H. T. Anthony were appointed a committee for the purpose mentioned in the motion. Mr. Loomis said he hoped to have secured an arrangement with the Express Companies by which exhibitors could have their goods returned free, but he had not succeeded. Mr. Ryder moved that a committee be appointed to make arrangements for repacking the articles on exhibition. Messrs Whitney, Carbutt and Jones were appointed that committee. A discussion was opened on the expediency of starting a beneficial branch of the Association, for aiding disabled photographers and the families of deceased members. Many plans were offered by Messrs Albert, Jones, Bundy, Potter, and others.
The discussion was interrupted by the appearance of his honor Mayor Shurtleff, Mayor of Boston. The regular order of business was suspended, and his honor introduced to the members of the Association by the Secretary. He briefly addressed the Association in an informal and friendly manner. He thanked the Association for honoring Boston by holding in this city their first National Exhibition. Boston was a patron of the fine arts, and possessed the oldest Art Academy in the United States, the Athenaeum, which was established in 1780. They would find Bostonians a compact, social set of people; had many notions, but they were notions based on the cultivation of kindly and friendly relations with all the people of our country. He trusted that the members of the Association would be enabled to gratify their curiosity to see all that was worth seeing in our city. He complimented the art and the Exhibition in the highest terms. At the conclusion of his address he was warmly applauded, and a resolution of thanks immediately offered for his kindness in visiting the meeting; and his honor retired.
The regular order of business was then resumed and also the discussion. It was finally resolved that a committee be appointed to devise means for the establishment of a relief fund, to report at next meeting. It was resolved that a full list of the members of the Association and their addresses be published in the official organ, with the proceedings. Mr. H. T. Anthony, Treasurer of the Association, here arose and stated that it was his desire to cancel the debt of $500 due him by the Association, for money loaned to prosecute the opposition to the extension of the Bromide Patent. His generous offer was received with applause, and a vote of thanks, heartily given, followed.
Mr. Frederick C. Low, Chairman of the Committee to draft Resolutions on the decease of our fellow-member, Mr. J. B. Roberts, Rochester, N. Y., reported as follows: Whereas, By the will of Divine Providence, our brother and co-laborer, J. Bi Roberts, of Rochester, N. Y.,. has been removed from our midst, therefore Resolved, That we feel that our profession has sustained a grant loss in his death. Resolved,. That. we. deem it eminently proper to pay a fitting tribute to the memory of one who was known among us as a gentleman of undoubted worth and genial disposition, and one so earnestly devoted to our beautiful art. Resolved, That our warmest sympathies are extended to his bereaved family. Resolved, That these resolutions be placed on the records of this Association, and also published in the Philadelphia Photographer, and that a copy of them be forwarded to his family. Frederick C. Low, James S. Crawford, J. Marsden Fox.
On motion of Mr. Cremer, it was resolved, that a copy of the photo-group of the Association, taken by Mr. Black, be handsomely framed, and presented to His Honor, Mayor Shurtleff.
The meeting then adjourned to 3.30 p.m. After its close, Mr. William Morgan Brown, of Paris, practically demonstrated Johnson’s new carbon process, and explained Johnson’s pantoscopic camera, both of which were received with great interest and attention.
Afternoon.
Mr. J. F. Ryder in the Chair. A very brief session was held in the afternoon at 3.30 p. M. The committee appointed to arrange for repacking the articles on exhibition reported that they had made all necessary arrangements, exhibitors being requested to contribute each to pay for the same. Mr. Anthony moved that $60 in the treasury on Bromide Fund account, be paid to Mr. Bogardus on account of loan. Carried. The following were appointed as the Committee on the Relief Fund: W. Irving Adams, N. Y., Chairman; G. S. Bryant, Boston, A. F. Potter, Elyria, O., J. K. Bundy, New Haven, Conn., P. B. Jones, Davenport, Iowa. The Association then adjourned sine die.”]

“The Exhibition and Meetings of the National Photographic Association. The Exhibition.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:67 (July 1869): 218–21. [First annual meeting, held in Boston. Exhibition checklist: “A. S. Southworth, Boston. A great variety of photo-autographs” (p. 220).]

“The Sliding Plate-Holder Patent.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:69 (Sept. 1869): 294-296.
[“Important Decision.”
“Our readers are doubtless all familiar with this patent, as it has been discussed in our pages from time to time, and many have been called upon by the patentees to “settle” for their presumptuous claims. It has not been made quite as offensive as the late Bromide Patent, yet every photographer who made more than one image on the same plate was subject to the insinuations of the patentee or his agents. His patent, as we have always held, was worth absolutely nothing. Before he even conceived the idea (according to his own testimony) of multiplying the image without changing the plate, many others were using it publicly and continually. What, then, gave him the right to levy tribute upon the profession for what they had a perfect right to use? Nothing but the assumption of the patentee and his agents. No one photographer seemed willing to fight the pretentious claims alone, and from year to year the thing was feebly pushed here and there until about the time the patent expired. Application was made for its extension. some months before the original patent expired, and during the time when the fraternity were busy fighting the Bromide Patent. Photographers being thus busied, the sliding plate-holder people pushed their case to a hearing uninterrupted, and made desperate effort to get the then acting Commissioner of Patents to give his decision in the case. The Examiner had made his report, stating that as no opposition had been made to the extension, and as he could find no printed record of previous discovery, etc., etc., he would recommend the extension of the patent. All looked serene for them sure; but, ah! a change was made in the commissionership just then, and, as we have before stated herein, the new incumbent very properly reserved his decision until the expiration of the patent, when he granted the extension. We were not dismayed, however. The extension was granted (p. 294) without one line of testimony being taken for the public, and we felt that the craft would yet be spared the infliction of such pretentious and illicit claims.
Some time before the patent expired, Mr. Simon Wing, of Boston, owner of a portion of the patent, sued Mr. C. C. Schoonmaker, of Troy, New York, for infringement. Mr. Schoonmaker, having more pluck than the most of the craft, stood the suit. He changed his business meanwhile, but did not give up the battle. He persistently, and almost or quite alone, pushed the matter, gathered testimony, employed counsel, and met the issue bravely in court. The testimony taken was voluminous, but for the defendant and the profession most satisfactory and promising. The case was argued last March, we think, before Judge Nelson, at Albany, Mr E. Cowen for the patentees, and H. Baldwin, Jr., Esq., of Philadelphia, for Mr. Schoonmaker. The case was then closed, and since then we have been awaiting the decision of his Honor Judge Nelson. The patentee had obtained his extension, and was mapping out his plans for future imposition. The whole trade was to be scathed, and every gallery closed, that would not listen to his claims (which were broadened and widened), if Judge Nelson decided in his favor. But, thanks to Judge Nelson, the tables are turned. The case has been decided in favor of Mr. Schoonmaker, and the fraternity need fear no further molestation from the owners of the so-called Sliding-Holder Patent. This is a matter quite as joyful as the defeat of the Bromide Patent. True, many have so far had no claim made upon them for the use of what is their common right, but they would have been so called upon had not the decision been as it is. We append We append Judge Nelson’s decision below, as follows: “The bill is filed in this case founded on a patent to A. S. Southworth, April 10th, 1855, for a new and useful Plate-holder for Cameras, and reissued September 25th, 1860.
“The claim in the reissued patent is bringing the different portions of a single plate or several plates successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.
“The patentee states in his specification that it had been customary to use a separate plate for each impression, the plate being removed from the camera and replaced by another when several impressions of the same object were to be taken, as in multiplying copies. This caused delay and trouble, to obviate which was the object of this invention, and which consisted in bringing successively different portions of the same plate, or several smaller plates secured in one plate-holder, into the field of the lens of the camera, and in carrying out the invention the patentee has made use of a peculiarly arranged frame, in which the plate-holder is permitted to slide, and in which the position of the plate-holder is definitely indicated to the operator, etc. “The only real question in the case, is whether or not the patentee was the first and original inventor of the above improvement.
“The burden of the proofs, both on the part of the complainant and defendant, bears upon this point It is insisted on the part of the complainant that the improvement was conceived and put into practical use as early as 1846, and if not, as early as the winter of 1847-8. The patent was not issued till 1855. I have looked with some care into the proofs, which are quite voluminous, and am satisfied this position is not sustained.
“On the contrary, the better opinion is the improvement was not perfected by the patentee till the year 1854. He went, according to his own account, to California in the winter of 1848-49, and remained there two years, and on his return he took up the subject of the stereoscope, and was engaged in considering new plans and new ideas on this subject, and taking out patents thereon, until he was taken sick and shut up in his room, when he applied himself to finish the idea of taking pictures rapidly in the centre of the lens, by adapting the movement in a frame, which would fit any ordinary camera. Again, he says, on his cross-examination, that it was three years after his return from California that he was sick, and which was in November, in the fall of 1854. He says, also, on his examination in chief, (p. 295) parts of his machine so as to carry out, his | append his note to the fraternity and hope ideas readily, when the California exciteit will be responded to. ment led him to go there. He further says that the instrument made by Coburn in the fall of 1846, was abandoned, and that he then contemplated a different improvement: this was by moving the lens over the plate. This idea was not in the first patent at all, and is only alluded to in the reissued.
“Now, the proofs are full that this idea of making the same impression on different parts of the same plate by the use of a sliding plate-holder, and carried into practical operation by working machines, existed us early as 1847-8, and in use by several practical photographers some seven or eight years before the date of the patent of Southworth, and before he had perfected his machine. “Entertaining these views, it follows that a decree must be entered for the defendant.”
This is a most satisfactory and just decision. One not hastily made, but made after a careful perusal of the evidence on both sides.
We rejoice with our fraternity over the result. We have no reproach to make against the patentee, Mr. South worth. He is a gentleman well known, and much respected in the profession, and has been of value to the art. No one has been more ardent, or more sincere in furthering the interests of the art, and we believe he was sincere in his belief that his patent claims were valid; but that was his great mistake. Although the decision is against him, it will not prevent his continuing to make the excellent boxes he has been furnishing to the trade, though he cannot rightly collect license fees for using them.
And now, one word for Mr. Schoonmaker. He left the profession some time ago, and is in an entirely different business. But as a matter of principle, and upon the promise of the craft that he should be repaid if he succeeded, he persisted in pushing the case to issue, and the result is in your favor, not his. It is now plainly the duty of every one to honestly contribute their full share to the expenses. We know well the labor he has had. Thousands could not repay him, but let him be promptly remunerated, fully for the amount he has expended at least. We
“A word to the photographers, and we are done. ‘We have met the enemy and they are ours.” The two great and leading impositions on the fraternity, the Bromide and Sliding Plate-holder, are no more. The Bromide was fought by the fraternity (myself included), the Plate-holder by myself alone. I simply add these few remarks to Judge Nelson’s decision, to remind the photographers of their promises, that if I would fight this through and kill the humbug, they would then contribute something to reimburse me for the money I have paid for witnesses, etc., and paid principally for their benefit. They have a chance now to redeem their promises Besides a little over two thousand dollars, I have spent eight months of valuable time, and taken nearly twice as much evidence as was taken in the Bromide case, and done a great deal of work, which, if done by attorneys, would have cost several thousand dollars. The collectable cost out of them does not amount to much. I have received, thus far, $58. Those who would have had to dance to the tune of many hundred dollars, (if Wing & Co., had succeeded,) and those who like to see justice done, and are willing to contribute their mite, can do so by addressing me, at Troy, N. Y. Very respectfully, C. C. Schoonmaker.” (p. 296)]

“The Boston Photographic Association.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:69 (Sept. 1869): 318-320.
[“The minutes of the closing meeting of the Boston Photographic Association were received from the secretary too late for our last issue.* As there were several little items of interest in his report, we shall condense it, for the benefit of our readers, hoping that hereafter all secretaries will give heed to our foot-note below:* [*It will not be out of place to say here, as Societies are now organizing all over the country, that to secure insertion, reports should be in our hands by the 18th of the month, and much earlier if possible. After our matter is all in type, several days are consumed in printing and binding. Matter received after the 18th is perfectly sure to be too late.-ED.]
A special meeting was held at the photograph studio of J. W. Black, Esq., 173 Washington Street, June 22d, 1869.
The meeting was called to order by the President, after which the records of the last meeting were read and accepted.
The President introduced Mr. George Lyman, who represents Mr. George W. Lovejoy, of Stepney Depot, Conn., who has been sued by the Shaw and Wilcox Company for supposed infringement of their patent rights in saving silver and gold from his solutions and wastes.
Mr. Lyman stated the case and explained what the Shaw and Wilcox Company claimed, among which was the saving of silver and gold from Photographic SoluTions, by whatever means employed. The patent dates in 1860.
Mr. Lyman wished information from any photographer who saved silver from his solutions previous to that year, and to know whether said artist did it openly or kept his method secret, as it will be necessary to prove that silver was saved from photographic solutions, in a public or open manner, previous to that date, to break the Shaw and Wilcox claim.
This company is a wealthy and powerful company, and Mr. Lovejoy needs all the assistance that he can obtain to defend himself from what we all consider an outrageous claim.
Mr. Southworth stated that he saved gold and silver from photographic solutions when he was in company with Mr. Hawes as long ago as 1854, but it was not done in a public manner.
The President, Mr. Loomis, gave his experience with the “Shaw” silver saving apparatus. Considered it more of a curse to him than a benefit.
Mr. T. R. Burnham also told his experience, which was very much like the last gentleman’s. He now flows all his washings, but hypo, through a hogshead buried in the ground, and finds that it pays.
To wind up with, Mr. B. thought our meetings were for the benefit of each and every member, and he did not know how he could better do his part than by calling the attention of this Society to a man by the name of Samuel S. Miles, who finishes pictures at No. 32 Winter Street, who is a swindler, having swindled him out of quite a little bill, and he had just heard that he had also done the same thing to his friend on his right (Mr. J. J. Hawes) out of a still larger amount.
He had no doubt but that this same party had swindled other photographers in this city, and would try to others.
He mentioned it, that such might be on their guard. (p. 318)
Mr. Loomis gave a very humorous account of how this same person had swindled him out of $21.
Mr. Wing said he had been swindled by him out of $20. On motion of Mr. Low it was voted that members of this Association or others wishing information upon any subject connected with photography, or wishing to present any questions for discussion in our meetings, may do so by transmitting them in writing to the secretary.
Mr. Black suggested for a subject for discussion at our next meeting, “How to treat the Negative Bath to produce the best results.”
Mr. Black announced that he had received from Mr. J. A. Whipple the sum of fifty dollars, which was given for the benefit of this Society.
On motion of Mr. Black it was voted that the thanks of this Society be extended to Mr. J. A. Whipple for his donation, and that the secretary transmit to him a copy of this vote.
Mr. L. J. Marcy, of Newport, R. I., gave us an interesting exhibition of his oil-burning magic lantern, and also his apparatus for making transparencies with an artificial light.
The regular monthly meeting of the Boston Photographic Association was held at the same place as our former meetings, on the evening of July 6th, 1869.
On motion of Mr. Black, it was voted that when we adjourn it be to the first Tuesday of September next. Mr. Black also announced that he had received from Mr. David Sears, Jr., an amateur photographer, the sum of $25, as a present to our Society.
And on motion it was voted that the thanks of this Association be tendered to Mr. Sears, through our President, for his gift, and that he be an Honorary Member of this Association.
The secretary stated that there seemed to be a misunderstanding as to what Mr. Southworth said, at our last meeting, about his saving gold and silver from his solutions as long ago as 1854.
He had understood from Mr. Lyman, who represented Mr. Lovejoy, of Stepney Depot, Conn., that he did not consider the information he had obtained, of any value in this lawsuit, as Mr. Southworth saved his gold and silver from his solutions and wastes in a private manner, or at least not publicly.
Mr. Southworth then stated that this was a mistake, as he never had had any secrets in his business. That whatever formula or methods used in his establishment, were open to all his employees and others.
Mr. Black stated that he had saved the silver and gold from his solutions ever since photographs had been made in his establishment.
The subject for discussion for this evening, “How to treat the Negative Bath, to produce the best results,” was then taken up.
Mr. H. W. Tupper read a short essay on the subject, which was quite interesting and instructive, followed by remarks by Mr. Wing on the Positive Bath.
Mr. Low said that sometimes he filled his bath dishes too full, so that they would run over on plunging a plate. He found a small glass tube, about 10 inches long, cut off square at the ends, and about ths or half inch bore, the handiest thing to take out the superabundant solution with. He plunged his tube into the solution, then placing his thumb tightly upon the end of it, took out all the solution he wished. He had never seen it used before. Some used a little syringe, others a syphon; this seemed the simplest.
He used glass baths without lips, and finds that by having a little tallow upon a shelf handy, where he can grease his forefinger and then run it around the outside end of the bath, where the solution usually follows down the end of the bath, that no solution will follow down and be spilled.
By taking this precaution a solution could be poured from a bath without a lip, into a 5-pound ether bottle, without spilling any of the solution; before adopting it, he used to place his bottles to hold the solution in porcelain pans, so as to catch the solution that would be spilled.
A letter was read from Mr. T. R. Burn. He had understood from Mr. Lymanham regretting his absence, but he (p. 319) sponding to an invitation to attend an excursion of photographers, at Portland, Maine. He gave his method of treating his negative bath, viz.:
“I work a 26 quart bath of plain water, and from 40 to 45 grains silver to the ounce. Boil one half of it down once a month; filter when necessary.
“I made this bath or its father in 1866, and was the first to boil down of any one that I knew of then. Did it at that time in an iron porcelain kettle. “When my bath gets sick, I give it silver, water, soda, acid, and sun, in quantities to fix it.”
Mr. Black suggested as a subject for discussion at next meeting, “Collodion.”
On motion of Mr. Foss, it was voted to adjourn.”
Frederick C. Low,
Secretary.” (p. 320)]

“Resolutions Concerning the Sliding Plate-Holder Patent.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:69 (Sept. 1869): 320.
[“Whereas, The Photographic fraternity has been deemed by sharpers and bogus patent vendors suitable subjects on which to practise their nefarious calling, and whereas, since the great Bromide swindle was imposed on them and thousands of dollars extorted from them under the threats of prosecutions for that base, worthless, and illegally obtained patent; and whereas, the owners of the Sliding Plate-holder Patent, stimulated by the success of that swindle, have been trying to imitate their example; and whereas, this Sliding Plate-holder Patent has just been declared invalid and worthless by the United States Circuit Court of New York; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Photographers in the United States owe a debt of gratitude to C. C. Schoonmaker, of Troy, New York, for the indefatigable perseverance and exertions with which he has fought and conquered this worthless humbug, and that we advise and recommend to the photographers throughout the country to get together and give suitable expression to their sentiments and condemnation to this imposition on the fraternity, and encouragement to those who, like Mr. Schoonmaker, shall have the manhood to stand up and battle these impositions until the fraternity is freed from their viperous forms.
Resolved, That we have entire confidence in the manner he has conducted this case; and as he has done it at his own expense, we feel that the photographers ought and will contribute something-no matter how little-to make good, in part, the expense, and that we will pay the amounts set opposite our names, and we urge others to do as much; and that L. C. Everett, of Troy, be appointed custodian of whatever funds the photographers may see fit to send him, and which he will duly acknowledge, and see that Mr. Schoonmaker gets the same. Resolved, That in urging this matter to the attention of the photographers, we can assure them that we know of the great amount of labor that has been done in collecting and arranging the evidence and engineering this case through to so successful a termination, and that the decision not only kills the old patent, but as effectually kills the extension, which has seven years yet to run.
Resolved, That these proceedings be attested by our President and Secretary, and published in the Philadelphia Photographer.
Arthur Caliden, $10 00
Charles Burgess, $10.00
George S. Fox, $5.00
W. O. Carpenter, $5.00
C. R. Clark,. $5.00
L. C. Everett, $10.00
L. C. Everett, President of Troy Photo. Asso.
W. O. Carpenter, Secretary. (p. 320)]

“The Sliding Plate-Holder Patent Decision: Simon Wing vs. C. C. Schoonmaker. HUMPHREY’S JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY, AND THE ALLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES 20:25 (Sept. 15, 1869): 387–388. [This patent not upheld.]

Low, Frederick C. “Boston Photographic Association.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 6:70 (Oct. 1869): 1850. [“The regular monthly meeting of this Association was held at Mr. Black’s studio, on Tuesday evening, September 7th, 1869. President Loomis called the meeting to order. Records of the last meeting were read and approved. Messrs. Southworth, Low, and Wing were appointed a committee to take charge of the procuring of certain affidavits, requested by Mr. Lovejey, of Stepney Depot, Connecticut, to be used in his case with the Shaw and Wilcox Company. Mr. Loomis presented a letter which he had received from the father of the Meade family (who were pioneers in the early Daguerreotype business in this country) asking aid. Requested any present, wishing to contribute to his relief, to hand their contributions to our Treasurer, Mr. S. Wing. The subject of discussion for the evening was “Collodion.” Remarks were made by Mr. Black, Mr. Tupper, Mr. Wing, Mr. Loomis, Mr. Marshall, and others. Incidentally, during the discussion on collodion, the use of albumenized glass in making negatives, was brought up, and it was highly recommended by very many present. About half of those present use it. On motion of Mr. Tupper, it was voted that we occupy these rooms for our future meetings, with the consent of Mr. Black, and that the Executive Committee approve the bills therefor. The question: The art of getting business. Who in Boston get it, and why? And how shall we all do it? was then discussed. The President asked Mr. Black what he thought was the best way to get business? His answer was: “Make good work.” He was followed by Mr. Loomis, who presented the subject in a variety of aspects. Remarks were also made by Mr. Southworth and others. The President reminded the members to bring specimens of their work at the next meeting. Mr. Black suggested that the pictures be brought unmounted, so that they may be placed in a book prepared for the purpose. On motion of Mr. Tupper, it was voted that a book be procured. On motion of Mr. Black, it was voted that Mr. H. W. Tupper be a committee to procure a book suitable for the purpose. On motion of Mr. Southworth it was voted to adjourn. Frederick C. Low, Secretary.
P. S. — Our meeting was very largely attended, and a number of new members joined the Association. Some very fine pictures were shown by some of the younger members, and great improvement is being made by members of the Association, who say that the incentive was their seeing the fine work at the National Exhibition.”]

“The Sliding Plate-Holder.” BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY 16:491 (Oct. 1, 1869): 473-474.
[“We have been aware that, for some months past, litigation was pending in America in connection with the taking of two pictures upon one plate by means of the sliding or repeating camera back so well known for some years in this country. This “invention” has, it appears, been patented in America, and disputed. It has been at length decided in a proper manner, and many interesting details will be gathered from the following decision of Chief Justice Nelson, which we extract from Humphrey’s Journal for September:—
The bill filed in this case is founded on a patent to A. S. Southworth, April 10th, 1855, for a new and useful plate-holder for cameras, and re-.issued September 25th, 1860. [sic 1869]
The claim in the re-issued patent is bringing the different portions of a single plate or several plates successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.
The patentee states in his specification that it had been customary to use a separate plate for each impression, the plate being removed from the camera and replaced by another when several impressions of the same object were to be taken, as in multiplying copies. This caused delay and trouble, to obviate which was the object of this invention, and which consisted in bringing, successively, different portions of the same plate or several smaller plates secured in one plate-holder into (p. 473) the field of the lens of the camera; and, in carrying out the invention, the patentee has made use of a peculiarly-arranged frame, in which the plate-holder is permitted to slide, and in which the position of the plate-holder is definitely indicated to the operator, &c.
The only real question in the case is whether or not the patentee was the first and original inventor of the above improvement.
The burden of the proofs, both on the part of the complainant and defendant, bears upon this point. It is insisted on the part of the complainant that the improvement was conceived and put into practical use as early as 1846, and, if not, as early as the winter of 1847-8. The patent was not issued till 1855. I have looked with some care into the proofs, which are quite voluminous, and am satisfied this position is not sustained.
On the contrary, the better opinion is the improvement was not perfected by the patentee till the year 1854. He went, according to his own account, to California in the winter of 1848-9, and remained there two years, and on his return he took up the subject of the stereoscope, and was engaged in considering new plans and new ideas on this subject, and taking out patents thereon until he was taken sick and shut up in his room, when he applied himself to finish up the idea of taking pictures rapidly in the centre of the lens, by adapting the movement in a frame which would fit any ordinary camera. Again: he says, on his cross-examination, that it was three years after his return from California that he was sick, and which was in November, in the fall of 1854. He says, also, on his examination in chief, that he had not perfected the mechanical parts of his machine so as to carry out his ideas readily when the California excitement led him to go there. He further says that the instrument made by Coburn, in the fall of 1846, was abandoned, and that he then contemplated a different improvement; this was by moving the lens over the plate. This idea was not in the first patent at all, and is only alluded to in the re-issued one.
Now, the proofs are full that this idea of making the same impression on different parts of the same plate by the use of a sliding plate-holder, and carried into practical operation by working machines, existed as early as 1846-8, and was in use by several practical photographers some seven or eight years before the date of the patent of Southworth, and before he had perfected his machine.
Entertaining these views, it follows that a decree must be entered for the defendant.” (p. 474)]

1870

Reports of Cases Determined in the Circuit Court of the United States for the First Circuit, from October Term, 1861, to October Term, 1867, By Hon. Nathan Clifford, Ll. D., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Assigned to Said Circuit. William Henry Clifford, Counsellor at Law, Reporter. Volume II. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1870. 717 p.
[ -“Simon Wing v. Charles F. Richardson.”
“The presumption that the person named in a patent as the patentee, is the original and first inventor of what is therein claimed, arises from the fact of the grant of the patent to the patentee, and does not therefore exist until the issue of such patent.
Issue of a patent affords no ground for a presumption in favor of the originality of the patentee’s invention, at any time earlier than the filing of the original application in the Patent Office.
If it be desired to show that an invention was really made prior to the filing of the application, it must be done by proper evidence adduced by the party asserting the fact, because no such presumption arises from the patent, or the application, or both together. Where the defence to a bill in equity charging infringement of certain letters-patent is, want of novelty, and a denial that the patentee was the original and first inventor of the thing claimed, the party using this defence must establish it to the satisfaction of the court, else the patentee will be presumed to be the rightful grantee of the patent.
The court will use care that inventors are protected from the unjust claims of persons asserting themselves to be the original inventors of what has been patented to another, with a view to destroy the validity of the patentee’s exclusive privilege; and on the other hand, the public must be protected from patents which, by means of reissues, have been so expanded as to embrace more than the real invention of the patentee.
BILL in equity for an infringement of certain reissued letters-patent on “a new and useful plate-holder for cameras.” The complainant was the assignee of the patent, the inventor being one A. S. Southworth; and the patent was dated April 10, 1855.
The bill charged infringement upon the respondent, and prayed for an account and for an injunction.
All the other facts necessary to an understanding of the case, and the invention as claimed by the patentee, are sufficiently explained in the opinion of the court. (p. 449)
B. R. Curtis, Chauncey Smith, and S. W. Bates, for complainant. J. F. Redfield and W. A. Herrick, for respondent.
Clifford, J. Several defences are set up in the answer, but the one principally relied on at the argument, consists in a denial that the patentee is the original and first inventor of the improvement described in the letters-patent. Letters-patent are granted by the government under authority of law, and, when regularly issued, and in the usual form, they are, if introduced in the case, prima facie evidence that the person named as such was the original and first inventor of what he has described therein as his improvement. Such presumption, however, in the absence of the application for the patent, extends back only to the date of the letters-patent, and in no case does it extend further back than to the time of the filing of the original application. Whenever a party desires to show that his invention was made prior to the date of his application for the patent, he must prove the fact by other sufficient evidence, because no such presumption arises from the letters-patent or the application or both combined. The specification of the reissued letters-patent describe the invention as certain improvements in taking photographic impressions as therein described. Separate plates, as the inventor represents, had previously been used for each impression, and consequently where several impressions were to be taken, as in multiplying copies, it became necessary that the plate should at each impression be removed and replaced by another. The effect of those changes was to cause delay and inconvenience. The object of this invention is to remedy that difficulty, and it consists, as the patentee states, in bringing successively different portions of the same plate, or several small plates in one plate-holder, into the field of the lens of the camera. The practical operation of the machine is, that it brings different portions of the same plate, or several smaller plates secured in one plate-holder, into the axis of the focus of the lens, so that several impressions may be made on the same plate with equal correctness. The claim of the reissued patent is, the “bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens (p.450) of the camera,” substantially in the manner and for the purpose set forth in the specification. The patentee states that in carrying out his invention, he makes use, as the preferred method, of a peculiarly arranged frame, in which the plate-holder is permitted to slide, but in which its position is so definitely indicated, that the operator can quickly and accurately adjust the plate or plates, to effect the described result. Decided preference is given. to that arrangement; but the patentee states that his improvement may be embodied, by causing the lens of the camera to be made adjustable in different positions with respect to the plate, so that different portions of the plate, although it remains stationary, may be successively brought into the field of the lens. One of the experts describes the invention embodied in the patent, as a mechanism so organized that a lens may be properly focussed with regard to different plates, or different parts of the same plate, without removing the plate from the mechanism, until as many impressions are made as may be desired; and it is not perceived that the description is too broad, if the definition be limited to the particular means set forth in the specification. Doubt cannot be entertained that the invention is one of merit, and it is equally clear that the patentee, whether the original and first inventor or not, was the actual inventor of his improvement, and that, in making it, he borrowed nothing from any of the devices set up in the defence. Nothing of that kind is pretended, but it is insisted that the evidence shows as matter of fact, that an apparatus substantially the same had been constructed and reduced to practice by one or more persons at a prior date, so that the patentee is not the original and first inventor of his alleged improvement. The patentee gave the directions for making his first model, or machine, in August, 1846, and it was made and sent to him at Boston in November following. The design of the camera then constructed was, that it should slide in the frame so as so make successive pictures in the axis of the focus of the lens, but a frame was never actually adapted to that machine. The statement of the patentee is explicit, that it was designed to operate in either of the modes pointed out in the specification of the reissued patent, but the frame was never made, (p. 451) and consequently was never so used. He also states that he constructed another machine for the same purpose, in the year following, which was used in taking pictures for seven or eight years. The principle was the same, but instead of moving the frame, the apparatus was so constructed that it moved the lens over the plate, being, in fact, the same arrangement suggested in the patent on which the suit was founded. The reasons given by the patentee, why he reduced the second form of his invention to practice, before he adapted a frame to the first machine was, that the first would be expensive, and that the second required fewer changes in the old apparatus, and could be perfected and put in operation at much less expense, as he could use his old camera and old frame. The belief of the witness is, that he completed that machine in 1847, but he states positively that he used it early in the spring of 1848, and that it was a completed machine. His recollection is distinct that he completed it here, in this city, before he went to California, and that he commenced preparations to go there in the winter of that year.
Suffice it to say, without reproducing more of the testimony, that the invention held by the complainant is shown not only to have been made as early as the latter part of 1847, or the first part of the year 1848, but that the same was reduced to practice, as an operative machine. Respondent does not controvert the position that the patent, if it be valid, covers the two methods described in the specification. Both undoubtedly were invented by the patentee, and they are clearly embraced in his claim. Such are the views of the experts, and such is the legal construction of the patent.

2. Infringement is clearly proved, and the allegation in that behalf is scarcely denied. Regarding the evidence as plenary upon that point, it does not seem to be necessary to say more upon the subject.
3. The reissued patent in this case is for the same invention as that described in the original patent, and therefore is not affected by the cases cited in that behalf by the respondent.
4. Abandonment is not proved. On the contrary, the reasons assigned for the delay which ensued before the application for (p. 452) the patent was presented, are satisfactory, and they show that there is no unexplained want of diligence in perfecting the invention.
5. The patent of the complainant is not for a principle or result, but for the means described for accomplishing the result, and consequently, is valid notwithstanding that objection.
6. The evidence offered by respondent to show that others had made similar machines, prior to the date of the invention in question, is not satisfactory. Recollections of Marcus A. Root, after the lapse of sixteen years, are quite too indistinct and uncertain to set up a lost machine to defeat a valuable improvement, and deprive a meritorious inventor of the fruits of his toil and labor. Care should be observed in investigations of this nature, to guard the public against a growing propensity on the part of patentees, to expand their patents beyond what they ever invented, and at the same time, to protect them against the equally unjust claims of pretentious persons who always stand ready to prove that they are the real inventors of what has been patented to another. Neither have any merit, and both should be discouraged. Dates are with difficulty retained by a good memory, even when the inquiry has respect to recent events; but after the lapse of sixteen years, under the circumstances of this case, I do not think it safe to rely upon the unsupported statements of this witness. They are too uncertain, inconsistent, and contradictory. The statements of Philip Haas are no better, but in fact are less reliable. He contradicts himself, is contradicted by the circumstances, and by the testimony of the other witnesses in the case. An attempt is made to support his statements by the testimony of Enos B. Foster, but it can hardly be said to have that effect. When he went into the employment of the other witness he was but fifteen years of age, and they both admit that the alleged machine is lost. They do not attempt to testify to but one picture now in existence, taken with that machine. Their statement is that it was lost in 1850, and they afford no reason to infer that any of its parts are in existence. The theory is, that it was made by one Saxton, in 1840, under the directions of Philip Haas, and that it was stolen from the owner’s (p. 454) place of business. But the proofs show that he never made another, and ever after used a machine constructed according to the old method. He gave a second deposition, and in that he states that he was mistaken; that it could not have been made as early as 1840, but thinks it was four years later. Complainant called a witness who worked for Philip Haas the latter part of 1846, and for the most part of 1847; and he states that he never saw any such machine in his shop, although he was an assistant operator and had the fullest opportunity to see all the models or machines in the apartments. He had for eleven months, as he states, the general charge of all apparatus and material, and everything that pertained to the business of his employer; and it is sufficient to say that his statements are utterly inconsistent with the testimony of the principal witnesses for the respondent. In view of the whole evidence, I am of opinion that the respondent has not proved, that the patentee in this case was not the original and first inventor of the improvement described in his reissued letters-patent. Having come to this conclusion upon the evidence, I do not find it necessary to determine the other questions of law discussed at the bar.
   Decree for an account and injunction. Cause referred to a master to ascertain the amount of the damages.” (p. 454)]

“Who Infringe the “Sliding Box Patent?” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:74 (Feb. 1870): 45-46.
[“We are frequently asked this question, and it is a very difficult one to answer. As the matter now stands, Mr. Simon Wing, of Boston, and others associated with him, we believe, have secured the renewal or extension of a patent for a certain kind of box used mainly for making ferrotypes. The principal feature of this box is, that one can, by moving the plate over the field of the lens or lenses, or by moving the lens or lenses over the plate, multiply pictures in greater or less numbers on one plate. Such a box is very useful to parties who make that kind of picture, and Mr. Wing furnishes a very excellent box for the purpose. Many more of his boxes could have been sold by him, and the profits thereon safely in his coffers, were it not that he raised the claim that all who make more than one picture on a plate by sliding the holder so as to bring the plate into different positions over the field of the lens, infringe his patent, and must stop. This absurd claim raised the ire of those who had used such means of multiplying pictures on one plate long before his patent was applied for, and every method has been used by the trade to avoid and evade his patent in every possible way.
The result was a wrangle here and there, and finally lawsuits. Mr. M. B. Ormsbee, being associated with Mr. Wing, the patent became familiarly known as the “Wing-Ormsbee” patent, and also as “the sliding-box patent.’
The last person sued by the patentees was Mr. C. C. Schoonmaker, Troy, N. Y., whose statement will be found in our last December issue. Mr. Schoonmaker fought bravely and alone, and produced such overwhelming proof that the patentee’s claims were invalid, that the case was decided against them, and Mr. Schoonmaker was victorious.* [* See decision of the court, Judge Nelson, in our last volume, page 294.] The patentees appealed, however, and the case was carried up to the Supreme Court, where it will be argued some time next month we understand. There is every hope that Mr. Schoonmaker will again have the decision in his favor. And, although appeal after appeal has been made to the fraternity to contribute of their means to help him, we are ashamed to hear from him that but a few have responded. He is out of the photograph business, and is pursuing this contest as a matter of principle, and he is not to be bought off, though the parties are ready to do it, we are told.
Who, then infringes the patent? answer, as the case now stands, no one infringes it, because the patentees have not substantiated their claims. Who infringes the patent if their claims are substantiated in the Supreme Court? We answer, all who use one or more lenses to make pictures by moving the lens over the plate, or who slide or move the holder over the field (p. 45) of the lens-those who use one lens to make two pictures on a plate-two lenses to make four or more pictures on a plate-four lenses to make more than four pictures on a plate, etc., etc.
Who ought justly to suffer unjust claims upon them? Every one willing to sit quietly and see another man struggling for them, without offering to help him.
We really believe that if Messrs. Wing & Co. had pushed the sale of their boxes, and dwelt upon their merits without adding the absurd claim we mention, they would have been wealthy to-day, and without lawsuits to worry them.” (p. 46)]

“Old Times.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:74 (Feb. 1870): 46-48. [“At the November meeting of the Boston Photographic Association, our friend Mr. E. L. Allen, read a little sketch of his past experiences, which teIls a story so interesting to all that we must multiply it…” (p. 46) “…I am proud to say I have been in the ranks of picture makers in the most palmy days of the business, when our friends Messrs. Southworth & Hawes were making the most beautiful daguerreotypes ever produced in the world. When the firm of Ormsbee & Silsbee were on the corner of Bromfield and Washington Streets, and with whom I commenced my career, at a salary of $4 per week, after paying $50 to learn the business, which occupied four weeks…. (p. 47)]

Low, Frederick C. “Boston Photographic Society.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:75 (Mar. 1870): 81-82. “…The subject chosen for discussion at the next meeting was, On Printing Photographic Pictures, and, on motion, adjourned.
February Meeting.
Vice-President Burnham in the chair. Minutes of last meeting were approved. The annual fee of members was fixed at $2.
The Committee on Nitrate of Silver asked for further time.
The subject of discussion for the evening was then taken up.
Mr. Southworth stated that in 1854 he printed photographs with thin substances, as mica, thin plate-glass, etc., between the negative and the paper, for the purpose of getting soft prints.
In 1855 Mr. Hawes and himself exhibited such pictures at the Exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association, and a description of this process of printing was given to the committee of that Association at that time. Mr. Southworth’s remarks were quite extended and very instructive and interesting. He favors soft pictures, without, as he calls it, an excess of sharpness. He was followed by Mr. Burnham, who favored sharp but soft pictures….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 81)

Low, Frederick C. “New England Photographic Society.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:76 (Apr. 1870): 112-113.
[“The regular monthly meeting of the Society was held at Mr. Black’s studio, No. 173 Washington Street, March 1st, 1870. The meeting was called to order by President Loomis.
Records of the last meeting were read, amended, and approved.
The committee appointed at our December meeting to procure the celebrated photograph published by Messrs. Robinson & Cherrill, of England, called “Kitte wakes,” reported that they had procured the picture through Mr. E. L. Wilson, of Philadelphia, and it was now ready for the inspection of the Society.
The election of officers for the ensuing year then followed.
Messrs. H. William Tupper, E. T. Smith, and C. H. Danforth were appointed as tellers, and reported the following officers elected: President, Mr. E. L. Allen; Vice-President, Mr. J. W. Black; Secretary, Mr. H. William Tupper; Treasurer, Mr. A. S. Southworth; Executive Committee, G. H. Loomis, E. L. Allen, and J. W. Black.
After the election of officers, Mr. Loomis, the retiring President, in some valedictory remarks, reviewed the year’s labor, and congratulated the fraternity on their auspicious beginning and promising future. He referred to the important results achieved by personal and associated effort, and hoped that every member would feel an individual interest in elevating the art. He regretted that ill health had prevented his presence at some of the meetings, but assured the members that his interest in the success of the association was unabated. He predicted a fine display at the Cleveland exhibition, in June next, and hoped that Boston would be well represented.
Mr. Southworth then offered the following resolution: That the thanks of this Association be tendered to the past officers thereof for the very able and faithful performance of their respective duties as officers of this Association during the past year; and it was unanimously adopted.
The following gentlemen were elected members: Messrs. D. C. Osborn, Assabet, Mass.; E. W. Johnson, Nashua, N. H; E. Day, Waltham, Mass.; T. N. Phillipps, West Lynn, Mass.; W. T. Bowers, Lynn, Mass. ; and D. S. Mitchell, Boston, Mass.
Mr. A. S. Southworth said he wished to call the attention of the Association to a personal matter which he hoped they would excuse.
He had seen it stated once or twice in the Photographer, that the case, Southworth & Wing v. Schoonmaker, would probably be (p. 112) tried the present month. Also, that the plaintiff had tried to postpone the case.* [*Mr. Southworth is in error here. We stated that we understood that the case would probably come up during March, and so we did, from Mr. Schoonmaker’s counsel. He is liable to err, however.
Mr. Southworth has never seen it stated in this Journal “that the plaintiff had tried to postpone the case,” for no such assertion has been made herein, and we have no doubt it will be quite as great relief to the plaintiff as to the photographers, to have the case decided one way or the other.-ED.]
The latter statement was not true, as Mr. Wing and himself were very anxious that the case should be tried at the very earliest time possible.
When it would be tried, they could not tell. They thought they should know as soon as any one, and had written to their lawyer in Washington, and asked him the question. He has just answered, that “he could not tell, as he did not know. The case is number 259 on the docket of the United States Supreme Court. Case 59 is now being tried.”
The Secretary stated that, since the last meeting, he had received a communication and a fine lot of pictures from the St. Louis Photographic Society for this Association. Unfortunately they had lain in the Boston post office for nearly two months, his post office being at East Cambridge, and he, not expecting mail matter to be sent to him thus, had neglected to inquire there.
The communication was then read, and, on motion, it was placed on file; and the thanks of the Association extended to the St. Louis Photographic Association for their valuable contribution to our album, and for their pleasant and friendly letter.
A committee of three was appointed by the Chair to collect photographs, to be sent to the St. Louis Society.
Messrs. W. T. Bowers, of Lynn; E. T. Smith and T. R. Burnham, of Boston; were appointed that committee.
There being so few pictures presented for competition, it was decided to defer the vote on them till the next meeting.
Adjourned.
Frederick C. Low, Secretary.” (p. 113)]

Low, Frederick C. “New England Photographic Society.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:77 (May 1870): 160–61. [Southworth offered an amendment to the organization’s constitution. Shaw & Wilcox patent matters discussed again.]

Smith, E. F. “New England Photographic Association.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:78 (June 1870): 214.
[“The regular monthly meeting of the Association was held on Tuesday evening at Mr. Black’s studio, Boston, May 3d, 1870, the President, E. L. Allen, in the chair. The minutes of last meeting were read and approved.
The Secretary read a letter from Mr. G. W. Lovejoy, containing a description (and photographs) of his arrangements for saving silver waste, both before and at the time the Shaw & Wilcox Co. commenced suit against him.
In the absence of the chairman of the committee appointed to procure an official copy of the Shaw & Wilcox patent, Mr. Southworth said that while in New York he called upon Mr. E. Y. Bell, counsel for defendant in the Shaw & Wilcox suit, and learned that the case had been argued before Judge Blatchford, pro and con, and that we must now wait the decision of the judge. Stated that he had a copy in pamphlet form of the evidence, which he would leave with the Secretary, that all members could examine it who wished.
Mr. Southworth read Shaw’s claims, which seemed to cover all means of saving silver by precipitation, and the judge stated that if it covered what Shaw claimed it was a terrible one. He could not say too much in favor of Mr. Bell; thought he was the right man in the right place, and had done his duty faithfully, and, if the suit went against Lovejoy (as he did not think it would) they might have the privilege of trying Mr. Black, or Mr. Wing, or some other photographer. He understood that the judge had said that it was unlawful to combine to put down a patent, but that individuals could contribute what they saw fit towards paying the cost of the suit. The President read a letter from Mr. E. L. Wilson, stating that he felt sure of success against Shaw.
Mr. Allen, in a few remarks, said that he thought Mr. Wilson was working for the good of photographers, and we should give him all the assistance possible.
Mr. E. S. Dunshee was proposed, name referred to Executive Committee, approved, and declared elected.
On motion voted that Sec. 6, Article II of our Constitution be abolished.
The President read a letter from Mr. Loomis, stating his desire but inability to be present to-night; regretting, also, that he could not go to Cleveland an account of his European trip for which he was now preparing.
Voted that when we adjourn it be to the last Tuesday in May. Adjourned.
E. F. Smith, Secretary.
In my last report I neglected to state that there were some fine specimens on exhibition, of photo-crayons made by Messrs. Allen and Marshall. Mr. Crompton has been selling the process and crayon sheets for the agent, Mr. Alden. E. F. S.” (p. 214)]

“Proceedings of the National Photographic Association of the United States.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:79 (July 1870): 228-253.
[“…Mr. Wilson said: “I was requested to make an explanation this morning. I desire to bring no personal matters before the Association, but this is rather of that nature. Yesterday, in the report of the Executive Committee, some remarks were made in reference to the sliding-box patent case as pending in the Supreme Court, and Mr. Southworth seems to have taken a little umbrage at what was intimated. I desire to say personally, and as one of the Executive Committee, that when Mr. Southworth’s patent is decided to be just and valid, there will be no member more ready than myself to take it up. I have stated in my Journal, time and again, that he made a good box, which was worthy of being purchased, but I merely said I did not think his broad claims could be established.”
Mr. Southworth said: “Yesterday I felt that I exercised much patience to have my name mentioned among the bogus patent men. I am satisfied with the explanation that has been made, and will only say in reply, that we first had a trial in the court of the United States in Boston, which was decided in our favor. The case was again brought before Judge Nelson, who decided against us. We carry it to Washington next fall, and we mean and are willing to leave it to fair and candid men. I am satisfied with that, but I am not satisfied with any imputation that I ever was willing to take one dollar unjustly.”…” (p. 242)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Mr. Bell then addressed the Association as follows:
Mr. President And Gentlemen: I am happy, and yet I regret to speak the parting word. It was only a few days ago that I entered this beautiful city as a stranger to this honorable body, and I return to New York to-night bearing with me the precious memories of my visit hither, and laden with the warm and personal congratulations of those whom I have here met….” (p. 250)
“…If time permitted, I could also speak of the names of Holmes, and Anthony and other great lights hailing from the State of New York, among whom there is none brighter than Baker, of Buffalo; and coming further to the West-to this beautiful city of Cleveland-I could mention with pride the names of Ryder, Johnson and the enterprising Sweeny. (Applause.) And going still further, I cannot forget the names of Carbutt, of Illinois, and Bingham, of Michigan, and Black and Southworth, of Massachusetts, and many others, who have made photography their life study.
I trust that at some day not far distant this Association will visit the golden gates of the Pacific, and partake of that bountiful feast offered by the distinguished member from California, Mr. Rulofson. (Applause.) And if this organization ever crosses the Plains and assembles in San Francisco, that city of such unbounded growth and intelligence, you can look up and say, “God bless the founders of this Association!” (Applause.)…” (p. 251)]

“Proceedings of the National Photographic Association of the United States.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:79 (July 1870): 228-253.
[“…Mr. Wilson said: “I was requested to make an explanation this morning. I desire to bring no personal matters before the Association, but this is rather of that nature. Yesterday, in the report of the Executive Committee, some remarks were made in reference to the sliding-box patent case as pending in the Supreme Court, and Mr. Southworth seems to have taken a little umbrage at what was intimated. I desire to say personally, and as one of the Executive Committee, that when Mr. Southworth’s patent is decided to be just and valid, there will be no member more ready than myself to take it up. I have stated in my Journal, time and again, that he made a good box, which was worthy of being purchased, but I merely said I did not think his broad claims could be established.”
Mr. Southworth said: “Yesterday I felt that I exercised much patience to have my name mentioned among the bogus patent men. I am satisfied with the explanation that has been made, and will only say in reply, that we first had a trial in the court of the United States in Boston, which was decided in our favor. The case was again brought before Judge Nelson, who decided against us. We carry it to Washington next fall, and we mean and are willing to leave it to fair and candid men. I am satisfied with that, but I am not satisfied with any imputation that I ever was willing to take one dollar unjustly.”…” (p. 242)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Mr. Bell then addressed the Association as follows:
Mr. President And Gentlemen: I am happy, and yet I regret to speak the parting word. It was only a few days ago that I entered this beautiful city as a stranger to this honorable body, and I return to New York to-night bearing with me the precious memories of my visit hither, and laden with the warm and personal congratulations of those whom I have here met….” (p. 250)
“…If time permitted, I could also speak of the names of Holmes, and Anthony and other great lights hailing from the State of New York, among whom there is none brighter than Baker, of Buffalo; and coming further to the West-to this beautiful city of Cleveland-I could mention with pride the names of Ryder, Johnson and the enterprising Sweeny. (Applause.) And going still further, I cannot forget the names of Carbutt, of Illinois, and Bingham, of Michigan, and Black and Southworth, of Massachusetts, and many others, who have made photography their life study.
I trust that at some day not far distant this Association will visit the golden gates of the Pacific, and partake of that bountiful feast offered by the distinguished member from California, Mr. Rulofson. (Applause.) And if this organization ever crosses the Plains and assembles in San Francisco, that city of such unbounded growth and intelligence, you can look up and say, “God bless the founders of this Association!” (Applause.)…” (p. 251)]

Smith, E. F. “New England Photographic Association.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 7:82 (Oct. 1870): 350-351. [“…July 5th, we met as usual at Black’s studio, No. 172 Washington Street. The President being absent, the meeting was called to order by Mr. Southworth.
Records read and approved.
Mr. Southworth spoke of the National Exhibition at Cleveland as being a success, and gave the names of many present. For one, he was glad he went; said that at present he was not making pictures of faces, but felt as much interested in photography as ever; wanted photographers to improve as much in one year as he had in ten, and saw no reason why they should not, because (p. 350) of the better advantages, and he thought the common class had improved very much in the last year, judging from pictures he saw on exhibition at Cleveland; but he was of the opinion that the best pictures in the country now, would always be the best, or, at least for a long time.
He saw the Albert and the Woodbury processes, and thought that each had their beauties and advantages, but they would not take the place of silver printing. In regard to prices, he thought that should be a secondary consideration. Every photographer should ask himself, What shall I do for art? rather than, What shall I do to get business?
The National Association last year numbered 200 members; this year it had increased to over 600. He hoped next year to see a larger increase, as every photographer must be affected by it. He, for one, had come home with enlarged ideas, besides meeting pleasant company; spoke of the Rembrandt effect as being the prevailing style of picture, and proposed at our next meeting to read a paper upon Light and Shade; stated that Dr. Vogel might come to Boston, and if so, hoped there might be a meeting called to give him a greeting. It was moved that when we adjourn it be to the first Tuesday in October. On motion carried….” (p. 351)]

1871

Fisher, Samuel S. Reports of Cases Arising upon Letters Patent for Inventions, Determined in the Circuit Courts of the United States. “2nd Edition.” Vol. II. Cincinnati, R. Clarke & Co., printers, 1871. ix, 723 p.; 24 cm.
[“May, 1865.”
“Simon Wing vs. Charles F. Richardson. In Equity.”
The presumption, arising from the letters patent, that the patentee was the original and first inventor, in the absence of the application for the patent, extends back only to the date of the letters patent, and in no case does it extend further back than to the time of the filing of the original application.
Whenever a party desires to show that his invention was made prior to the date of his application for the patent, he must prove the fact by other sufficient evidence, because no such presumption arises from the letters patent, or the application, or both combined.
Letters patent to Albert S. Southworth, dated April 10, 1855, and reissued September 25, 1860, for a plate holder for cameras, examined and sustained. The reissued patent is for the same invention as that described in the original patent. The date of the patentee’s invention was the latter part of 1847 or the spring of 1848, when the improvement was reduced to practice as an operative machine.
The patent is not for a principle or a result, but for the means described for accomplishing the result.
(Before Clifford, J., District of Massachusetts, May, 1865.)
THIS was a bill in equity, filed to restrain the defendant from infringing letters patent for a “plate holder for cameras,” granted to Albert S. Southworth, April 10, 1855, reissued September 25, 1860, and assigned to plaintiff.
The plate holder, as described in substance by the patentee, consists of a stationary casing, containing a zinc plate in front of the daguerreotype plate, provided with a square opening C equal to one-fourth of the latter plate. The hollow square space within the casing is of proper dimensions, so that when the (p. 535) frame holding the daguerreotype plate is successively slid into the four corners of said hollow space, the parts 1, 2, 3, 4, of the plate will be successively exhibited opposite the opening, ready to receive the picture. The plate holder is brought into said four positions by moving a square knob into the four corners of an opening in the rear part of the casing. This motion can be made so quickly that the four pictures can be taken without covering the aperture of the camera from first to last. The object of this arrangement is to obtain rapidly a succession of pictures, timing them differently in order to select the best, and also to take
stereoscopic pictures with one camera.
The claim was as follows:
“The within-described plate holder, in combination with the frame in which it moves, constructed and operating in the manner and for the purpose substantially as herein set forth.”
The claim of the reissue was as follows:
“I claim bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.”
Chauncey Smith and B. R. Curtis for complainant.
W. A. Herrick and J. F. Redfield for defendant.
Clifford, J.
This is a bill in equity for the alleged infringement of certain letters patent. Complainant is the assignee of the letters patent. Invention in question was made by Albert S. Southworth, and letters patent were duly granted to him for the same April 10, 1855. Description of the invention as therein set forth was, that it was a new and useful plate holder for cameras; but it is alleged that the description was defective, and on that account the patentee was allowed to surrender the original letters patent, and new letters patent were issued to him September 25, 1860, on an amended specification for the same invention. Present suit is founded upon the reissued letters patent, and the complainant, as the assignee of the same under certain mesne conveyances, alleges that the respondent, at North Bridgewater, in this district, (p. 536) on December 18, 1863, infringed the same. Wherefore he prays for an account and for an injunction.
Several defenses are set up in the answer, but the one principally relied on at the argument consists in a denial that the patentee is the original and first inventor of the improvement described in the letters patent. Letters patent are granted by the government under authority of law; and when regularly issued, and in the usual form, they are, if introduced in the case, prima facie evidence that the person named as such was the original and first inventor of what he has described therein as his improvement. Such presumption, however, in the absence of the application for the patent, extends back only to the date of the letters patent, and in no case does it extend further back than to the time of the filing of the original application. Whenever a party desires to show that his invention was made prior to the date of his application for the patent, he must prove the fact by other sufficient evidence, because no such presumption arises from the letters patent, or the application, or both combined. Specification of the reissued letters patent describes the invention as certain improvements in taking photographic impressions as therein described. Separate plates, as the inventor represents, had previously been used for each impression, and, consequently, where several impressions were to be taken, as in multiplying copies, it became necessary that the plate should, at each impression, be removed and replaced by another. Effect of those changes was to cause delay and inconvenience. Object of this invention is to remedy that difficulty, and it consists, as the patentee states, in bringing successively different portions of the same plate, or several small plates in one plate holder into the field of the lens of the camera. Practical operation of the machine is that it brings different portions of the same plate or several smaller plates secured in one plate holder into the axis of the focus of the lens, so that several impressions may be made on the same plate with equal correctness. Claim of the reissued patent is the “bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera,” substantially in the manner and for the purpose set forth in the specification. Patentee states that in carrying (p. 537) out his invention he makes use, as the preferred method, of a peculiarly-arranged frame, in which the plate holder is permitted to slide, but in which its position is so definitely indicated that the operator can quickly and accurately adjust the plate or plates to effect the described result. Decided preference is given to that arrangement, but the patentee states that his improvement may be embodied by causing the lens of the camera to be made adjustable in different positions with respect to the plate, so that different portions of the plate, although it remains stationary, may be successively brought into the field of the lens. One of the experts describes the invention embodied in the patent as a mechanism so organized that a lens may be properly focussed with regard to different plates, or different parts of the same plate, without removing the plate from the mechanism until as many impressions are made as may be desired, and it is not perceived that the description is too broad if the definition be limited to the particular means set forth in the specification. Doubt can not be entertained that the invention is one of merit, and it is equally clear that the patentee, whether the first inventor or not, was the actual inventor of his improvement, and that, in making it, he borrowed nothing from any of the devices set up in the defense. Nothing of that kind is pretended; but it is insisted that the evidence shows as matter of fact that an apparatus substantially the same had been constructed and reduced to practice by one or more persons at a prior date, so that the patentee is not the original and first inventor of his alleged improvement. Patentee gave the directions for making his first model, or machine, in August, 1846, and it was made and sent to him at Boston in November following. Design of the camera then constructed was that it should slide in the frame so as to make successive pictures in the axis of the focus of the lens, but a frame was never actually adapted to that machine. Statement of the patentee is explicit that it was designed to operate in either of the modes pointed out in the specification of the reissued patent, but the frame was never made, and consequently was never so used. He also states that he constructed another machine for the same purpose, in the year following, which was used in taking pictures for seven or eight years. Principle (p. 538) was the same, but instead of moving the frame, the apparatus was so constructed that it moved the lens over the plate, being, in fact, the same arrangement suggested in the patent on which the suit was founded. The reasons given by the patentee, why he reduced the second form of his invention to practice, before he adapted a frame to the first machine, was that the first would be expensive, and that the second required fewer changes in the old apparatus, and could be perfected and put in operation at much less expense, as he could use his old camera and old frame. Belief of the witness is that he completed that machine in 1847, but he states positively that he used it early in the spring of 1848, and that it was a completed machine. His recollection is distinct that he completed it here, in this city, before he went to California, and that he commenced preparations to go there in the winter of that year.
Suffice it to say, without reproducing more of the testimony, that the invention held by the complainant is shown not only to have been made as early as the latter part of 1848, or the first part of the year 1848, but that the same was reduced to practice, as an operative machine. Respondent does not controvert the position that the patent, if it be valid, covers the two methods described in the specification. Both undoubtedly were invented by the patentee, and they are clearly embraced in his claim. Such are the views of the experts, and such is the legal construction of the patent.

2. Infringement is clearly proved, and the allegation in that behalf is scarcely denied. Regarding the evidence as plenary upon that point, it does not seem to be necessary to say more upon the subject.
3. Reissued patent in this case is for the same invention as that described in the original patent, and therefore is not affected by the cases cited in that behalf by the respondent.
4. Abandonment is not proved. On the contrary, the reasons assigned for the delay which ensued before the application for the patent was presented are satisfactory, and they show that there is no unexplained want of diligence in perfecting the invention.
5. Patent of the complainant is not for a principle or result (p. 539) but for the means described for accomplishing the result, and, consequently, is valid notwithstanding that objection.
6. Evidence offered by respondent to show that others had made similar machines prior to the date of the invention in question is not satisfactory. Recollections of Marcus A. Root, after the laspe of sixteen years, are quite too indistinct and uncertain to set up a lost machine to defeat a valuable improvement and deprive a meritorious inventor of the fruits of his toil and labor. Care should be observed in investigations of this nature to guard the public against a growing propensity on the part of patentees to expand their patents beyond what they ever invented, and at the same time to protect them against the equally unjust claims of pretentious persons who always stand ready to prove that they are the real inventors of what has been patented to another. Neither have any merit, and both should be discouraged. Dates stagger a good memory, even when the inquiry has respect to recent events: but, after the lapse of sixteen years, under the circumstances of this case, I do not think it safe to rely upon the unsupported statements of this witness. They are too uncertain, inconsistent, and contradictory. Statements of Philip Haas are no better, but in fact are less reliable. He contradicts himself, is contradicted by the circumstances, and by the testimony of the other witnesses in the case. Attempt is made to support his statements by the testimony of Enos B. Foster, but it can hardly be said to have that effect. When he went into the employment of the other witness he was but fifteen years of age, and they both admit that the alleged machine is lost. They do not attempt to testify to but one picture now in existence taken with that machine. Their statement is that it was lost in 1850, and they afford no reason to infer that any of its parts are in existence. Theory is that it was made by one Saxton, in 1840, under the directions of Philip Haas, and that it was stolen from the owner’s place of business. But the proofs show that he never made another, and ever after used a machine constructed according to the old method. He gave a second deposition, and in that he states that he was mistaken; that it could not have been made as early as 1840, but thinks it was four years later. Complainant called a (p. 540) witness who worked for Philip Haas the latter part of 1846 and for the most part of 1847, and he states that he never saw any such machine in his shop, although he was an assistant operator, and had the fullest opportunity to see all the models or machines in the apartments. He had for eleven months, as he states, the general charge of all apparatus and material, and everything that pertained to the business of his employer, and it is sufficient to state that his statements are utterly inconsistent with the testimony of the principal witnesses for the respondent. In view of the whole evidence, I am of opinion that the respondent has not proved that the patentee in this case was not the original and first inventor of the improvement described in his reissued letters patent. Having come to this conclusion upon the evidence, I do not find it necessary to determine the other questions of law discussed at the bar.
   Decree for an account and injunction. Cause referred to a master to ascertain the amount of damages.” (p. 541)
   “Index.”
   “Southworth-Camera.”
7. Letters patent to Albert S. Southworth, dated April 10, 1855, and reissued September 25, 1860, for a plate holder for cameras, examined and sustained. Wing v. Richardson. 535
8. The reissued patent is for the same invention as that described in the original patent. Ibid. 535
9. The date of the patentee’s invention was the latter part of 1847 or the spring of 1848, when the improvement was reduced to practice as an operative machine. Ibid. 535” (p. 707)]

Fisher, Samuel S., Counselor at Law. Reports of Cases Arising under Letters Patent for Inventions Determined in the Circuit Courts of the United States. Second Edition. Volume III. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., printers, 1871. 701 p.; 24 cm.
[ “Marcus Ormsbee vs. John Wood. In Equity.
The invention described in the letters patent granted to Albert S. Southworth, April 10, 1855, reissued September 25, 1860, consists in bringing successfully into the field the lens of a camera, the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates.
(Before Blatchford, J., Southern District of New York, January, 1868.)
This was a bill in equity filed to restrain the defendant from infringing letters patent for a “plate holder for cameras,” granted to Albert S. Southworth, April 10, 1855, reissued September 25, 1860, assigned to Simon Wing and complainant, December 8, 1860. On the same day, the exclusive right for the State of New York was conveyed by Wing to complainant. The invention is fully described in the case of Wing v. Richardson (Vol. II, p. 535). W. J. A. Fuller, for complainant. N. Appleton, for defendant. (p. 372)
Blatchford, J.
This is a final hearing on pleadings and proofs on a bill filed upon letters patent reissued to Albert S. Southworth, of Boston, Massachusetts, September 25, 1860, for a “plate holder for cameras.” The original patent was issued to Southworth as inventor, April 10, 1855. The reissued patent was assigned by Southworth to Simon Wing and the plaintiff, December 8, 1860, and on the same day Wing conveyed to the plaintiff the exclusive right under the same for the city of New York. The alleged infringement took place in the city of New York. The invention covers what is commonly known in the photographic art as the multiplying camera or plate holder. Before this invention, it was customary to use a separate plate for each impression; the plate being removed from the camera and replaced by another when several impressions of the same objects were to be taken. This invention consists in bringing successively into the field of the lens of the camera the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates. This is done by a peculiar arrangement of a frame in which the plate holder is permitted to slide, the position of the plate holder being definitely indicated to the operator so that he can quickly and accurately adjust the palet or plates. The claim of the reissued patent is: “Bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.”
Various defenses are set up in the answer of the defendant, but no testimony has been taken to sustain them; they are substantially the same defenses that were set up in the suit in equity of Wing v. Richardson, decided in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, in June, 1865, by Mr. Justice Clifford (Vol. II, p. 535), which was a bill founded on the same reissued patent. In that case it was decided: 1. That the patentee invented the improvement claimed. 2. That the reissued patent was for the same invention as that described in the original patent. 3. That the defense of abandonment was not proved. 4. That the patent was not open to objections as patenting a principle or result. 5. That the patentee was the first inventor of the improvement.” (p. 373)
The infringement in the present case is proved.
There must be A Decree for a perpetual injunction in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and for a reference to a master to take and state an account of the profits derived by the defendant from the infringement.” (p. 374)
(Etc., etc.)
“July, 1869.
Wing v. Schoonmaker.
Simon Wing
vs.
Christopher C. Schoonmaker. In Equity.
The plate holder for cameras patented by Albert L. Southworth, April 10, 1855, existed, and was carried into practical operation by working machines, and was in use by practical photographers seven or eight years before the date of his patent, and before he had perfected his machine. The patent is therefore void.
(Before Nelson, J., Northern District of New York, July, 1869.)
This was a bill in equity filed to restrain the defendant from infringing letters patent for a “plate holder for cameras,” granted to Albert S. Southworth, April 10, 1855, reissued September 25, 1860, and assigned to complainant.
The nature of the invention and the claims are stated in the report of the case of Wing v. Richardson, Vol. II., p. 535.
E. Cowen, for complainant.
Townsends Browne and Henry Baldwin, jr., for defendant.
Nelson, J.
The bill is filed in this case, founded on a patent to A. S. Southworth, April 10, 1855, for a new and useful plate holder for cameras, and reissued September 25, 1860.
The claim in the reissued patent is, “bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.”
The patentee states in his specification that it had been customary to use a separate plate for each impression, the plate being removed from the camera and replaced by another, when several impressions of the same object were to be taken, as in (p. 607) multiplying copies. This caused delay and trouble, to obviate which was the object of this invention, and which consisted in bringing successively different portions of the same plate or several smaller plates, secured by one plate holder, into the field of the lens of the camera; and in carrying out the invention the patentee has made use of a peculiarly arranged frame, in which the plate holder is permitted to slide, and in which the position of the plate holder is definitely indicated to the operator, etc.
The only real question in the case is, whether or not the patentee was the first and original inventor of the above improvement. The burden of the proofs, both on the part of the complainant and defendant, bears upon this point.
It is insisted, on the part of the complainant, that the improvement was conceived and put into practical use as early as 1846, and, if not, as early as the winter of 1847-48. The patent was not issued till 1855. I have looked, with some care, into the proofs, which are quite voluminous, and am satisfied this position is not sustained.
On the contrary, the better opinion is the improvement was not perfected by the patentee till the year 1854. He went, according to his own account, to California, in the winter of 1848-49, and remained there two years; and on his return, he took up the subject of the stereoscope, and was engaged in considering new plans and new ideas on this subject, and taking out patents thereon, until he was taken sick and shut up in his room, when he applied himself to finish the idea of taking pictures rapidly in the center of the lens, by adapting the movement in a frame which would fit any ordinary camera. Again, he says, on his cross-examination, that it was three years after his return from California that he was sick, and which was in November, in the fall of 1854. He says, also, on his examination-in-chief, that he had not perfected the mechanical parts of his machine, so as to carry out his idea readily, when the California excitement led him to go there. He further says that the instrument made by Coburn in the fall of 1846 was abandoned, and that he then contemplated a different improvement. This was by moving the lens over the (p. 608) plate. This idea was not in the first patent at all, and is only alluded to in the reissue. Now the proofs are full that this idea of making the same impression on different parts of the same plate, by the use of a sliding plate holder, existed and was carried into practical operation by working machines as early as 1847-48, and was in use by several practical photographers some seven or eight years before the date of the patent of Southworth, and before he had perfected his machine.
Entertaining these views, it follows that a decree must be entered for the defendant.” (p. 609)]
(Etc., etc.)
“Index. Particular Patents.”
“…Southworth;-Plate Holder for Cameras.

71. The invention described in the letters patent granted to Albert S. Southworth April 10, 1855, reissued September 25, 1860, consists in bringing successively into the field of the lens of a camera, the different portions of a single plate or several smaller plates. Ormsbee v. Wood 372 (p. 688)
    “The plate holder for cameras patented by Albert S. Southworth;, April 10, 1855, existed, and was carried into practical operation by working machines, and was in use by practical photographers seven or eight years before the date of his patent and before he had perfected his machine. The patent is therefore void.” (p. 689)]

C. S. M. “Twenty Years Ago.” THE PHOTOGRAPHER’S FRIEND: A PRACTICAL, INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE, DEVOTED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHIC ART 1:1 (Jan. 1871): 22-23.
[“An Indian sits, a-la-tailor, in his tent; before him is spread the prepared hide of the buffalo, or the skin of the wolf, upon which “Lo” is industriously-it may be artistically-spreading his pictures-his picture writing, his mode of communicating to other tribes or parties what course he took on the deer hunt, or how many scalps he took on the war path, or when and where the next great council of his tribe shall meet. From these hieroglyphic characters of the Indian, up to the ten-cylinder rotary printing press of Hoe, throwing off its more than three million words per minute, is a long way; and my fellow Photographers, is it not also a long way from the pictures—the shadows—the faint mercurial shadows of twenty years ago—the shadows which we remember so well; which we had to turn and twist and attitudinise to see at all, up to the magnificent Photographic productions of Vogel, Albert, Salomon, Mayall, Black, Notman, Sarony, Kurtz, and many, many others on this and the other side of the great waters. Very well do I remember, however, that even at that date, Southworth, Whipple and others, were producing beautiful exceptions to the shadows above referred to. But what strides—what Hiawathian strides—our beautiful art has made in twenty years….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 22)]

“The Defeat of the Sliding-Box Patent.” PHOTOGRAPHIC WORLD 1:2 (Feb. 1871): 60–62. [“The bill … founded on a patent to A. S. Southworth, April 10th, 1855, for a new and useful plateholder for cameras, and reissued September 25th, 1860.” Excerpts from Southworth’s trial testimony, which included a summary of his own professional history from ca. 1848 through 1855, are summarized by the judge in his written decision. The claim was rejected.]

“Defeat of the Sliding-Box Patent.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 8:87 (Mar. 1871): 78–81. [States that the Wing/Southworth claim against Schoonmaker was overturned. Quotes Schoonmaker.]

Smith, E. F. “Boston Photographic Association.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 8:89 (May 1871): 139–40. [“President A. S. Southworth in the chair.” Southworth claimed that an earlier report published in the Philadelphia Photographer on the “Wing and Schoonmaker suit not wholly true, the Judges of the Supreme Court standing four for and four against the patent and he did not consider that any decision at all …”]

Smith, E. F., Secretary. “Boston Photographic Association. Minutes of regular monthly [May] meeting.” PHOTOGRAPHIC WORLD 1:6 (June 1871): 175. [James W. Black, A. S. Southworth mentioned.]

“Proceedings of the National Photographic Association of the United States. Meeting in Philadelphia, 1871.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 2:7 (July 1871): 193–242. [Report on third annual meeting. (Southworth active throughout, see next reference for details.) The editor acknowledged thanks for early advance sheets of meeting reports from E. L. Wilson, NPA secretary (p. 193), but corrected these reports where he thought them to be in error—specifically, “We particularly desire to say that the remarks of the writer on the subject of making an investigation into the Southworth Patent seem to have been almost entirely misunderstood. We have made the necessary correction in our own rendering of the Report” (p. 193). The C. C. Schoonmaker letter was read (pp. 195, 196), eliciting a response from Southworth that he would reply before the conference adjourned (p. 196). Brief comment on portraiture (p. 216). Southworth defended his position on the Wing/Schoonmaker patent fight (p. 217), eliciting remarks from Henry T. Anthony (p. 218). President Bogardus began a later session by displaying some early photographic memorabilia to the audience, including “A picture taken on silk, by Mr. Southworth, of Boston, which had been presented to the speaker in 1854 or 1855. Mr. Southworth said he had forgotten the circumstances. The picture represented his wife and sister, the latter of whom had worked in his studio ten years” (p. 226). Southworth active in association business (p. 234), tells anecdotes of his early experiences, meeting Professor Morse, etc. (pp. 238–39). Resolutions made (p. 240).]

“The Exhibition and Meeting of the National Photographic Association.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 8:91 (July 1871): 194–240. [Southworth, in audience, commented on presentation (p. 215). A Mr. Webster, of Louisville, then demanded that Southworth respond to the “Wing Patent Slide” issue being debated at the conference. Southworth defended his position vs. Schoonmaker (pp. 215–16); Anthony made a statement in Southworth’s defense (p. 216). Southworth, “the chairman of the Committee on location for the next meeting,” brought a report, suggesting St. Louis, to the organization (p. 232). Five-person Executive Committee, in order to “insure peace and harmony,” offered to resign (p. 233). Southworth immediately moved to reject the offer, attempting to restore calm (p. 233). President Bogardus offered a resolution for the NPA to honor Samuel F. B. Morse (p. 237). Southworth seconded the motion, providing an anecdote describing his visit to meet Morse in New York in 1840 (p. 237). Additional Southworth comments (p. 239).]

“Proceedings of the National Photographic Association Held at Horticultural Hall, Philadelphia, Commencing June 7th, 1871.” THE PHOTOGRAPHER’S FRIEND: A PRACTICAL, INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE, DEVOTED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHIC ART 1:3 (July 1871): 121-136.
[(Etc., etc.)
“Afternoon Session.”
Committee on Location.
“Mr. Bogardus presented his appointments as the Committee on Location, as follows:
Messrs. Southworth of Boston, Trask of Philadelphia, Cady of Cincinnati, Baker of Buffalo, Brown of Baltimore, Fitzgibbon of St. Louis, Hesler of Chicago, Gardner of Washington, Hawkins of Alabama, Knight of Kansas, Whitney of Connecticut, Webster of Louisville, and W. H. Moysher of Memphis, Tenn.”
(Etc., etc.)
Third Day’s Session,
Friday, June 9, 1871.
The convention re-assembled at 10 o’clock,-
President Bogardus in the chair.
Prior to that time the members had been photographed by Gutekunst, in front of the Academy.
President Bogardus exhibited a camera thirty years old, which had been used when Daguerre first gave the process to the French government,. It had been sent to the convention by Dr. Dickinson, of Philadelphia.
Mr. M. A. Root was introduced, and exhibited the first daguerreotype ever taken in Pennsylvania.
Numerous old Daguerreotypes were exhibited, and a picture taken by Mr. Southworth of Boston, on silk and presented to Mr. Root in 1854 or 1855.
Mr. Southworth said he had forgotten the circumstances. The picture represented his wife and sister, the latter of whom had worked in his studio ten years.
Mr. A. Bogardus, of N. Y., the President of the National Photographic Association, then delivered his annual address….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 128)
Afternoon Session.
The association re-assembled at three o’clock P. M. and at once proceeded to business, the president, Abraham Bogardus, in the chair.
The Committee on Time and Place of Holding the next Meeting, Mr. Southworth chairman, reported as follows:-Your committee met last evening after the general meeting and at once proceeded to vote for a locality. There were put in the box ten ballots for St. Louis and two for Chicago, Mr. Baker, not being present. The president felt it his duty to conform to the will of the ten.
The joint resolution fixes St. Louis as the place of meeting….” (p. 130)
(Etc., etc.)
“Mr. Southworth suggested that at the next meeting half-hour art lectures be introduced.”
(Etc., etc.) (p. 131)

“Note.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 2:8 (Aug. 1871): 275. [“We are indebted to Mr. J. W. Black, of Boston, for portraits of Mr. Thos. Gaffield, Mr. A. S. Southworth, and Mr. D. T. Burrell of Boston.”]

Southworth, Albert S. “To Clean Glass for Collodion and Silvering.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 8:92 (Aug. 1871): 264.

Mason, O. G. “The Use of Potash for Cleaning Plates.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 8:94 (Oct. 1871): 325. [Mason responds to Southworth’s August article, claiming that to do as he suggests would lead to trouble.]

Southworth, A. S. “An Address to the National Photographic Association of the United States. Delivered at Cleveland, Ohio, June 1870 by Albert S. Southworth.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 8:94 (Oct. 1871): 315–23. [Text of speech delivered at the second NPA conference in Cleveland the previous year, just made available to the press. Includes anecdotes of early photography in Boston and New York, discussing Gouraud, Morse, Wolcott & Johnson, and others. Southworth makes observations on the subsequent technical and aesthetic growth of the medium, exhorts the profession to continue to strive to excel.]

“A Voice from New York.” THE PHOTOGRAPHER’S FRIEND: A PRACTICAL, INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE, DEVOTED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHIC ART 1:4 (Oct. 1871): Supplement p. lx-lxi. [“New York, June 20th, 1871.
The whole photographic fraternity ought to feel greatly indebted to Messrs. Fennemore & Fay for the introduction of their article, “that all the reports and proceedings of the N. P. A. be furnished to all the Photographic Journals (for the benefit of the fraternity,) for publication.” There are countless numbers who have listened long enough to the music of the “organ,” the notes from which, in their numerous great discords, are not pleasant to honest men’s ears. The resolution, in spite of all the “ring’s” concentrated efforts, was passed, and received amid thunders of applause, which greatly astonished a “small few,” and made them “shaky in their boots” when they saw the great outburst of popular feeling in favor of the “Photographer’s Friend” and Anthony’s Bulletin. The faces of some of the notable “ringists” assumed an expression of blank astonishment, as without further debate the (p. lx) vote was ordered, which proved unanimous in favor of the resolution, without amendment. A member devoted to the clique suggested that they could copy from the “official organ,” but the indefatigable Mr. Bendann of your city, thought as the “organ” was copyrighted, no one cared to borrow articles from it, thought the other journals were entitled to a copy from first hands, and be thus freed from this copyright credit business. Bendann means business, no setting on the fence with him, looking for the best side to fall to. A gentleman of the old school, but up to the advanced improvement of the age, was Mr. Southworth, of Boston, who in self defence, politely denounced as unworthy and disgusting, the attacks made on his personal character by the author of numerous articles which had appeared in the organ, emanating from the chief “blowist.” Some thought the remarks of Mr. S. as out of place, but the majority insisted on giving him a chance to thus publicly defend himself. Numerous transactions occurred which shows whither we are drifting. The mutterings of the strong under-current indicated that the stock holders were not always to be allowed to get the cream and distribute the skim milk to “outsiders.” Another such a milking and the cow will be dry forever. But we must prevent this draw back movement, and manage things hereafter to promote the advancement of the photographers, instead of a few interested stock dealers.
Yours, for the right, N. P. A.” (p. lxi) ]

Southworth, Albert S. “An Address to the National Photographic Association of the United States.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 2:11 (Nov. 1871): 343–51. [Discusses the early history of photography in the U.S., including his own beginnings.]

Southworth, Albert S. “The Early History of Photography in the United States.” BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY 18 (Nov. 10, 1871): 530–32. [“… extract the following observations … from the address delivered by Mr. Albert L. [sic] Southworth at the Cleveland meeting of the National Photographic Association.”]

Southworth, Albert S. “The Early History of Photography in the United States. Conclusion.” BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY 18 (Dec. 8, 1871): 582–83. [“… extract the following observations … from the address delivered by Mr. Albert L. [sic] Southworth at the Cleveland meeting of the National Photographic Association.”]

1872

Reports of Practice Cases, determined in the Courts of the State of New York: with a Digest of All Points of Practice Embraced in the Standard New York Reports Issued During The Period Covered by this Volume,.by Abbott Brothers. n. s.10 New York: Diossy & Co., 1872. 552 p.
[“Abbott’s Practice Reports.”
“Taylor Will Case.”
‘… comprehensive view of any of the signatures in question which is so apparent to a practical man. It appears to me that the intuitive generalization made by any one of the witnesses speaking from personal knowledge of the handwriting of Mr. Taylor, either on the part of the proponent or contestant, is of more valuable assistance in the investigation as to the genuineness of the signature to the document here propounded, than either of the two experts called for the contestant, or of the expert called on the part of the proponent. One of the experts called by the contestant, Albert S. Southworth, stated that his business was the examination of disputed handwriting; and that his business had been also photography, and that he used that art in his examinations. This witness was asked to look at an exhibit which was marked for “identification,” and to say whether the name “James B. Taylor” was a correct photographic copy of the signature of the alleged will. The answer to this question was excluded by the court for the following reasons, as expressed on the trial: “The original signature to the alleged will has been presented to the witness, and he has examined it and compared it with the exhibits properly in evidence. That is the best evidence to be had, and he can speak from that. I shall exclude all testimony drawn from photographs, as being inadmissible, upon the question of handwriting. Such evidence would raise many collateral issues, as, for instance, the correctness of the lens, the state of the weather, the skill of the operator, the color of the impression, purity of the chemicals, and other issues, which I think clearly require me to exclude such photographic evidence upon this question of genuineness of signature. It is, at best, secondary evidence.” I shall consider the value of testimony based on photographic copies hereafter, in the consideration of the tes-(p. 316) timony of those witnesses, on the part of the contestant, whose opinions, given on the trial, were assisted, even if not positively formed, by photographic copies of different specimens of decedent’s handwriting, including signatures of different sizes. [The learned surrogate then reviewed the conflicting testimony as to the genuineness of the signature to the will, an equal number of witnesses being examined on the side of contestant and of proponent. He then proceeded to consider the admissibility and value of photographs in evidence, in the following language.] This is a summary of all the testimony of the witnesses on both sides who speak from personal knowledge of the handwriting and signature of the decedent, being thirteen in number for the contestant and the same number for proponents; but I notice particularly that all the former expressed opinions which were founded, more or less, on a previous examination of what purported to be photographs of the signature to the will, and of other assumed signatures of the decedent, and so photographed in different sizes. It is, therefore, important to consider the use of these purported photographic reproductions of the signatures of Mr. Taylor, though excluded so far as they were offered to assist the expert, Southworth, in his examination, as they were used as a means of comparison by all of the witnesses but one on the part of the contestant, who testified from personal knowledge of the handwriting and signature of the decedent that the signature to the propounded will was not, in their opinion, genuine. From the accurate study of them it must be evident from the testimony that two of the witnesses, Mr. Marsh and Mr. Van Vechten, changed their opinion as to the genuineness of the signature to the will. It is also evident from the testimony that from the study or examination of these photographs, as presented to them. (p. 317)]

Trask, A. K. P. Trask’s Practical Ferrotyper. Philadelphia: Benerman & Wilson, 1872. 91 p. [Advertisement.] “Photographic Publications.”
“If you expect meritorious success, ‘study.’ By the study of books you are experiencing the observations of others to add to your own stock and acquirements.” A. S. SOUTHWORTH, Esq., before the N. P. A., at St. Louis.
“We are apt to look with too much complacency and satisfaction upon the results we have been able to accomplish; too apt to think, ‘Now we certainly have almost arrived at the end, and the stage must put up somewhere.'” J. H. KENT, before the N. P. A.
“I am certain that what we all require is more study of art rules and principles, so that there shall be more intelligent working, and less dependence upon chance for success. This faculty of seeing is only acquired by close observation and careful study. . . . This guessing it will come out all right is a delusion, and almost inevitably results in failure.” R. J. CHUTE, before the N. P. A.
“The field for study in your art is boundless.” E. Y. BELL, at St. Louis.
(Followed by list of magazines and books issued by this publisher. WSJ) (unnumbered p. 78.)]

“The St. Louis Exhibition. Editorial Correspondence.” PHOTOGRAPHIC WORLD 2:3 (May 1872): 156-157.[(Etc., etc.) “…The first meeting of the Association was opened promptly at 10 A.M., Wednesday, by President Bogardus, with a large attendance of photographers, including nearly one hundred and fifty new members. The usual address of welcome by the Local Secretary and response by the President being over, the Permanent Secretary read the minutes and called the roll. Letters of regret, &c., were then read, and followed by practical instructions in various matters of manipulation by Messrs. J. W. Black, of Boston, and W. H. Sherman, of Milwaukee. Other routine business followed, and then the President made the presentation of the Scovill and Holmes Medals awarded last year; the former to Mr. L. G. Bigelow, and the latter to Mr. H. T. Anthony. The committee to award the Scovill and Holmes Medals for this session reported that the former had been awarded to Mr. John R. Clemons for his process for using glycerin in the printing bath, and the latter to Messrs. Bendann Bros. for their method of printing in backgrounds. After the appointment of the committee to nominate new officers adjournment was made until afternoon. In the afternoon the President read his annual report, and was followed in a practical address by Mr. A. S. Southworth, of Boston. The rest of the session was occupied by routine work, and by Mr. Clemons in explaining several useful processes In the evening the grand reception was held, when the following programme was fully carried out:
Seppe. 1. Overture-Pique Dame.

2. Grand March-Entrance into Paris. Pief ke.
3. Introductory, J. H. Fitzgibbon, Local Secretary N. P. A.
4. Address of Welcome, Hon. Judge Primm.
5. Music-Potpourri Trovatore. Verdi.
6. Address, Abraham Bogardus, Esq., of New York, President of the N. P. A.
7. Music-Waltz, German Hearts. Strauss.
8. Photographic Art, its Progress and Glory, by E. Y. Bell, of N. Y., Counsellor of the Association.
9. Music-Selections from Tanhauser. R. A. Wagner.
10. Grand Stereopticon Exhibition, by J. W. Black, Esq.. of Boston.
11. Grand Finale-Polka, The Chimes, Parlow….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 157)]

Southworth, A. S. “Fourth Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the N.P.A. in St. Louis, Mo., May 1872: An Address.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 9:102 (June 1872): 178–81. [Extols the profession to broaden its knowledge, study other arts and humanities.]

Wilson, Edward L. “The Exhibition.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 9:102 (June 1872): 228–31. [Southworth one of seventy-nine exhibitors listed.]

The Exhibition [of the NPA].” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 3:7 (July 1872): 610–12. [“A. S. Southworth, Charleston, Mass. Fine large photograph of the Madonna and Child.”]

“Proceedings of the National Photographic Association of the United States.” THE PHOTOGRAPHER’S FRIEND: A PRACTICAL, INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE, DEVOTED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHIC ART 2:3 (July 1872): 70-95.
[“The fourth Annual convention of the Natiuonal Photographic Association of the United States was held in Polytechnic Hall, St. Louis, Mo., opening on the 8th of May, 1872, at ten o’clock, A. M., and was called to order by President Abraham Bogardus in the following language:…: (p. 70)
(Etc., etc.)
“…The association then listened to an essay by A. S. Southworth of Boston, who gave some excellent advice to young photographers, exhorting them to excellence in the profession.” (p. 79)
(Etc., etc.)
“Fourth Session.”
“Friday, June 10th, 1872.
Convention met at 10 A. M.
Mr. Southworth gave notice that he intended to offer an amendment to the constitution, making it read that the annual election shall be by ballot, unless otherwise ordered.” (p. 86)
(Etc., etc.)
“List of Exhibitors.” (pp. 94-95)
(Etc., etc.)
“Southworth, A. S. Photo. Madonna.” (p. 95)
(Etc., etc.) ]

Hallenbeck, J. H. “Boston Correspondence.” PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMES 2:19 (July 1872): 101–102. [“Those old veterans—Messrs. Southworth, Smith and Black—gave a good account of their trip” (to the National Photographic Association convention in St. Louis). “Mr. Southworth gave a glowing account of the wonderful specimens of art he saw at St. Louis, and the remarks, from one who for years has battled with all the trials and difficulties which stood in the path of the early followers of Daguerre, were received with great attention; and as Mr. Southworth is without doubt the most able expounder of the mysteries of photography, those present gained most valuable information from his ex tempore address. Mr. Southworth stated that the benefits to be gathered from gatherings were beyond conception. … It is impossible at this time to connect all of Mr. Southworth’s remarks; but at some future day we may gather all the pearls in one long communication, for from such a man we cannot hear too much.”]

Southworth, Albert S. “An Address by Albert S. Southworth: Proceedings at the N.P.A. of the U.S. (4th Annual Convention, May 1872, St. Louis).” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 3:9 (Sept. 1872): 677–680.

1873

N. Y. Court of Appeals. Kate B. Howland, Appellant, Against Laura S. Taylor and Others, Respondents.
Points of Appellant Henry L. Clinton, of Council. New York: Baker & Godwin, Printers, 1873. 235 p.
[“…Mr. Southworth testifies (fols. 1833-1835), that the blot was made and dry before either Witherell or Jackson signed the alleged will…..” (p. 40) “…This evidence of Southworth is undisputed and uncontradicted. If the blot was made, as Witherell and Jackson say it was made, it could not have dried while they were signing….” (p. 41) “…Witherell and Jackson Impeached as to Order of Signing Jackson Admits the Forgery. 2d. The testimony of the subscribing witnesses is impeached in regard to the order of signing. Southworth on this subject, testifies as follows: 6 ” The comma over the same letter [“J” of ” Jas.” in “in the signature James Jackson’] is on the top of the “letter; the comma between the E.’ and the W.’ was “made after the lower letter was made; after the ‘J.’ in “Jas’…..” (p. 42) “…Although Witherell testifies that he signed first (fol. 15), it is proved by the testimony of Southworth that part of the signature of Witherell is over that of Jackson, and therefore Jackson must have signed first.…” (p. 42) “……Peculiarities And Characteristics Existing Between the Signature “James B. Taylor” and Handwriting of Body of Pretended Will. On behalf of appellant, it is proved by Joseph E. Paine and Albert S. Southworth the best experts in the United States-experts who, in point of ability, are second to none in the world-that there are some two hundred coincidences between the signature of “James B….” (p. 77) “…Mr. Southworth in his evidence (fols. 1799 to 1833) points out innumerable coincidences between the pretended signature of Taylor and the body of the pretended will. There is no evidence in the case in any way contradicting or conflicting with the above evidence of Paine and Southworth as to these coincidences. That these coincidences between the alleged signature of Taylor and the body of the pretended will do exist, is an undisputed fact….” (p. 79) “…The Body of Pretended Will, were Written by the Same Person—Law as to Circumstantial Evidence Cited and Applied. It appears conclusively by the evidence of Paine and Southworth that the signature and body of the instrument were written by the same person. On this subject, Southworth testified as follows: “Q. I will ask whether, in your judgment, these characteristics which you have described, between the signature and the writing of the will, could occur unless “written by the same person?”….” (p. 79) “…Appellant’s counsel proposed to prove by the expert, Albert S. Southworth that all of these entries, “J. B. Taylor, per George H. Duryee,” were “in the same handwriting as the body and the signature of the will.” “…..That the signature of the alleged will is a forgery, is clearly and conclusively demonstrated by the testimony of the experts, Joseph E. Paine and Albert S. Southworth introduced on behalf of appellant, and by the witness, George Stimpson, Jr., called for respondent. Experts, by their peculiar skill in handwriting, can detect forgeries. The extraordinary skill of these experts will soon render forgery a dangerous amusement. The following extract is from the evidence of Mr. Southworth the distinguished expert, showing the manner in which he analyzes handwriting, is important in this connection: “I make as thorough and systematic an analysis as I “can make, and judge of handwriting, not by the general effect, mechanical effect, but by the combination of characteristics which the writer himself does not usually “observe, and which, perhaps, he does not know; the “hand being a machine not subject to the will, because “a person may have a will to write a very handsome “hand, and yet not be able to do it.” * * * “The hand, when set going, makes involuntarily the “marks, while the eye is looking upon the paper; an ef “fort to make a single letter would be a very unnatural “movement of an ordinary writer, while his off-hand “movement when he is not thinking about it, will be the “natural movement of the hand, and will contain the “natural characteristics of the hand.”…” (p. 151) “…No matter how great may be the variations, signatures written by the same person will have the same characteristics. This is clearly shown by Mr. Paine and Mr. Southworth;…” (p. 155) “…Southworth Proves that Will Signature Does Not Contain a Single Characteristic of Any of the Genuine Signatures of Taylor. Albert S. Southworth agrees with Mr. Paine….” “…Southworth although he does not go as much into detail as Paine, points out a great number of characteristics which the signature and the handwriting of the body of the will possess in common….” (p. 156) “…Southworth Lays Will Signature Over Certain Words in Body of Will, and Proves That Letters in the Former Have Same Characteristics As Corresponding Letters in the Latter, and Must Have Been Written by the Same Person. Mr. Southworth testified that the signature to the will could be placed over words in the body of the will, so that it could be seen that the letters in the signature were exactly the same in every characteristic as the corresponding letters in the body of the will. He said: “This can be proved by placing the will against the sunlight, against the window; the paper is so transparent that the lines in the bottom of the word ‘James [of signature to will] can be run against the bottom of a great many words up and down the page opposite.” (Fol. 1816.) This experiment Mr. Southworth made in court before the Surrogate, and it amounted to a demonstration that the handwriting of the body of the alleged will and the signature James B…” (p. 157) “….The testimony of Southworth and of Paine shows that…” (p. 158) “…As the various characteristics of the will signature specified in the evidence of Paine and Southworth were pointed out to Stimpson, he admitted their existence. …” (p. 159) “…Stimpson very reluctantly admitted the existence of all the appearances, peculiarities and characteristics of the will signature, unmistakably indicating forgery, according to the evidence of Paine and Southworth;….” (p. 160) “…he testimony of Mr. Stimpson, taken altogether, is strong corroboration of the evidence of Mr. Southworth and Mr. Paine. His opinion, it is true, could not be of the value of theirs, if only for the reason that they gave the will signature and the signatures of the Exhibits the most thorough examination. (Testimony of Paine, fols. 1770 to 1772 and 1778; Southworth fols. 1797, 1798.) His examination, compared with theirs, was very slight. …” (p. 164) “…The testimony of the experts, Southworth and Paine, the best in this country, and probably in the world, establishes the forgery beyond all peradventure. This evidence amounts to a scientific and almost a mathematical demonstration of the forgery….” (p. 165) “…That the signature to the alleged will is a forgery, is clearly and conclusively demonstrated by the experts, Joseph E. Paine and Albert S. Southworth introduced on behalf of appellant, and George Stimpson, Jr., on behalf of respondent.…” (p. 219.)]

“History of Photography in America.” THE PHOTOGRAPHER’S FRIEND: A PRACTICAL, INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE, DEVOTED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHIC ART 3:2 (Mar. 1873): 44-46.
[(This essay was copied from the Phrenological Journal and published in several parts over several months of the Photographer’s Friend. The portion relating to Southworth & Hawes was published in the March issue. WSJ)
“Albert S. Southworth and Josiah J. Hawes.”
These gentlemen formed a co-partnership in 1843 for the practice of photography. This union was productive of many valuable fruits. Among the more important may be mentioned the invention of the “swing-polishing-plate-holder.” In the spring of 1846 they daguerreotyped the sun in the course of an eclipse, using the object-glass of a telescope as an aid; the pictures were pronounced of surpassing excellence. They also made some fine daguerreotypes of the moon. Another important contrivance invented by them was an arrangement of triple lenses by which straight lines could be copied, and which was of considerable service to engravers. In1846-7 they, together, invented a camera by means of which several different pictures could be produced on the axis of the lens successively at different periods. In 1852 they discovered a method of making stereoscopic views so as to avoid all distortion. In 1853 they perfected a grand parlor stereo scope presenting pictures of the dimensions of life. In 1854 they secured a patent for a movable plate-holder which they invented. They also devised a method for softening prints to any degree of mellowness. In 1857 Mr. Southworth originated a plan of photographing disputed handwriting so as to assist in its identification. The legal profession had frequent occasion to avail itself of Mr. Southworth’s ingenuity in the settlement of vexed questions involving disputed, obscure, or partially obliterated handwriting. And in Massachusetts the efficacy of photography in dispelling doubts in such cases has been so fully demonstrated, that for several years past Mr. Southworth has devoted his almost exclusive attention in this direction. It is seldom that industry and ingenuity are so fruitful as to yield so many important results in a brief lifetime as it is our pleasure to record in this sketch.” (p. 44)]

“Fifth Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the National Photographic Association of the United States.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 4:8 (Aug. 1873): 251–256.
[“…Mr. Southworth: I do not want to make a motion; I want to take a few minutes.
The President: You can have whatever time you desire.
Mr. Southworth: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Association-I have been asked to interest myself to have our meetings once in every two or three years. I have told these gentlemen, No! we will go to this place, and that, and then we will go to a new place; and if not more than a dozen or two meet here, we will have new members, together with the few old ones that may be with us.
So, I hope, Mr. President and members of the Association, that although we may not have too great a multitude here, still we have a great many new ones; and we shall be like a camp-meeting, moving around here and there, until the whole photographic community throughout the United States will join us. I want, therefore, to throw my whole influence in favor of having a meeting next year.
The President: There will be a good many more here at our next session. There are a great many more on their way, and will be here to-night or to-morrow morning. I hope to see not less than seven or eight hundred.
Mr. Southworth: I did not make that remark feeling that there were few here, but it was in reference to having our yearly meetings continued.
The President: I, too, have been spoken to with regard to that point, and it is the universal feeling that we cannot, from the nature of our work, adjourn over for a greater time than one year, with advantage to ourselves. I would say we are constantly bringing out new things every year, and we must get together and disseminate.” (p. 255)]

Southworth, Albert S. “Fifth Annual Meeting and Exhibit of the National Photographic Association of the U.S., held in Buffalo, NY, beginning July 5, 1873.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 10:117 (Sept. 1873): 257–467. [Extensive report on conference. Southworth defended practice of annual conference (p. 264). During a panel discussion by Bigelow, Hesler, Jewell, and others on “Skylights, how to build and use them,” Southworth described in detail his practical and aesthetic approach to portraiture (pp. 279–281, 285). J. Shaw submitted a proposal that the NPA form a company to purchase his patent “for recovery of gold and silver.” Southworth immediately moved to table the motion, claiming it an issue “of individual interest” and won a vote of unanimous approval (pp. 298–299); Southworth discussed NPA issues intermittently throughout (pp. 300–303), defended the NPA constitution, argued to maintain the chosen officers (p. 355), inquired into the NPA’s debts (pp. 407–413, 459, 460). Southworth presented a formal paper, “The Use of the Camera” (pp. 433–440). Suggested that each affiliated local organization establish a library, and that the conference meetings offer practical demonstrations to make the convention meetings “a school of photographic art” (pp. 462–65).)]

“Proceedings of the National Photographic Association of the United States.” THE PHOTOGRAPHER’S FRIEND: A PRACTICAL, INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE, DEVOTED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHIC ART 3:5 (Sept. 1873): 135-153..
[“Third Day’s Proceedings.”
The Hall was well filled during the session, which was one of considerable importance.
A communication from P. C. Roche upon Landscape and Architectural Photography was read. A full report of which is published in this number. Mr. Southworth considered it one of the best papers that had been before the association, and upon his motion a vote of thanks was tendered to the author…” (p. 144)
(Etc., etc.)
“Afternoon Session.”
“Mr. Southworth of Boston, next spoke of the “ Use of the Camera.” He denied altogether the action of the actinic rays in photography; previously advanced by Mr. Lockwood of Wisconsin. At the conclusion of his address the President spoke briefly, endorsing Mr. Southworth’s views….” (p. 149)
(Etc., etc.)
“Fifth Day’s Proceedings.”
“Mr. Southworth addressed the convention briefly upon topics of general interest to photographers….”
(p. 149)]

“Fifth Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the National Photographic Association of the United States.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 4:10 (Oct. 1873): 297–99, 305–20. (Southworth spoke from the floor (p. 315), opposed altering the NPA’s constitution (pp. 316–17, 318–20. WSJ)
[“Mr. Hesler: I move that it be laid on the table; I do not see but that this is an individual interest. It seems to be a private matter; I do not see that the Society has anything to do with it. If Mr. Shaw wants to raise stock he can go to individual photographers and raise it; I do not think that this is the place for it.
Mr. Southworth: If, Mr. President, and ladies and gentlemen of the Convention, an association vote would be proper, on a question that comes up in this way, it is well to present it to the Association. If the vote of the Association would not be proper, or if good for nothing, then it is not proper to bring it here. I say that it is an individual matter, and in Philadelphia I supposed it was understood that individual matters should not be brought up. With all due respect to the other members who apply for a patent (and patents and inventions have done as much, and are now doing as much as anything in the United States for the good of the country) with all due respect, it is not considerate, and it is not legal for associations to take hold of patents by voting to oppose them in any way. It is not legal for the State to vote money away for special private interests, and clearly if it is not legal for the state to do it it is not legal for us to do it. The courts have said that the agreements of associations are void, and are made void for want of individual acts.
One thing now I say for the purpose of having this Society move along in the prog ress of photography; I say, I wish these purely individual matters might be entirely and wholly kept out of it. I would treat with the most respect Mr. Shaw and everybody else.
I wish the same spirit of mind would follow in this case that followed in Philadelphia, and that we should still live up to that same feeling, devoting our time and attention to the individual interests of the society, improving our work, improving our minds, enlarging our minds, and learning to study that which is really required of us to do, before we as individuals can take any great high stand, as we cannot without it.
It will not be disrespectful to anybody. I move that the paper be laid on the table.
(The motion was seconded by several members.)
The President: Is that your pleasure? Are you ready for the question?
(Cries of “Question! Question!”)
The President: All who are in favor of laying Mr. Shaw’s communication on the table will signify it by saying Aye.
(A tremendous aye.)…” (p. 315)
(Etc., etc.)
Mr. Thorp: I merely make that as a suggestion, and would like to hear from some other gentlemen.
The President: There does not seem to be another gentleman inclined to speak on it.
Mr. Southworth: Mr. President, there are a great many ways of doing everything well. This last gentleman’s way is a first rate one, but why is it better than the way that was taken last year, under the present circumstances of this meeting, or under the circumstances of the meeting two years ago? Why is it better? Our officers, elected as they were, have served us well. A perfectly new set, if nominated and elected, would serve us well; some of them would serve us just as well as the old ones have done, and with as much zeal, and some of them would not be as well qualified, because they would want experience.
I have lived away one side from the general centre, and have regarded that this Society has been most wonderfully favored with men who have been found in the centre, and who would act as secretary and treasurer of this Association, and thus help it live and move along. The president and the other officers have helped it move along just as well as it could move, growing stronger and stronger each year. If anybody feels disposed to nominate new officers this year, I have no objection to new ones, but I say the parties could not be improved upon.
Let us not then take up the time of the Association in alterations of the constitution just yet, and farming this Society out into States. I have no objection to State societies, and State committees, and State executives. What difference is there between the executive committee formed by the members from the State and an executive committee as we have? Any one of them would resign (p. 116) if a third part of the Association were dissatisfied with them, or a quarter part of them, or if any great dissatisfaction were expressed they would resign.
Gentlemen, let us move along just as we did last year, and see if it will not do just as well for us, and save our time.
Mr. Thorp: Allow me to say that the gentleman has probably misunderstood the nature of my proposition. I do not propose to do away with the executive committee that we have now; experience has proved that it is necessary to have an executive committee residing in one part of the country, so that they could meet….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 317)
Mr. Southworth: I wish we could all realize what this Association is. We belong to all the United States. We are not a State association; nor we are not a National association, made up of State associations. We are The National Photographic Association of the United States.
Why localize anything, when it is not a political association? I will suppose for a moment that we compare it with the Royal Art Association of England. The members of that association are very much scattered abroad, and here we are members of the National Photographic Association. And our meetings are held here and there, first perhaps in New York, then in Boston; and going around to the different cities all over the States. Perhaps next year in New Orleans, Louisville, or in any good place we choose to go to, and we belong there. We belong all over the country. Let us not localize or sectionalize at all. Let us be the National Photographic Association.
The President: The subject is now before you, of appointing a Nominating Committee….”
(Etc., etc.)
Mr. Clark: I move that the committee to be appointed consist of one from each State, so far as the States are represented.
The President: To do that the Association will have to help me. The names of the States were then called over, and a committee selected, with Mr. G. M. Carlisle. of Providence, R. I., as chairman.
Mr. Allen: You have not mentioned one from Ontario. There are several members present from Canada.
The President: I am obliged to appoint the members from the United States. We would be very glad to honor these gentlemen were it in our power.
Mr. Southworth: Before you read that committee I would say that as to New England, there are two or three States omitted. It would be well to have one or two from each State. Likewise Delaware is not represented. You might put in two from New York and two from California and Oregon, and take two or three, perhaps, from Massachusetts, so as to have as large an expression of feeling about it as we can get. (p. 318)
The President: I have got twenty-three.
Mr. Southworth: I am satisfied, if the rest are.
Mr. Fitzgibbon: I think it superfluous to put so many on the committee; I don’t think that they will half come. I withdraw the motion….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 320)]

“Fifth Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the National Photographic Association of the United States.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 4:11 (Nov. 1873): 337–352.
[The President: “I will now appoint the committee in regard to the duties of Vice-Presidents, and I want to appoint some gentlemen here whose names I cannot call. As Chairman, A. S. Southworth, Boston, and Messrs. Bingham, Folsom, Harris, Rawlins, and Whitney.
Mr. Hesler: Could you add the District of Columbia?
Mr. Southworth: I think Mr. Whitney has duties on another committee that would prevent us all getting together until another day….” (p. 344)]

“Fifth Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the National Photographic Association of the United States.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 4:12 (Dec. 1873): 377-414.
[“Third Day-Morning Session.
Thursday, July 17th, 1873.
(Etc., etc.)
“The President: I have Mr. Roche’s process here, and as he is well known as one of the best out-door workers among us, it strikes me that we should appreciate his kindness in giving it to all. I believe he has given it to every member present.
Mr. Southworth: I think that is one of the most important communications that has been presented to us. The gentleman is one of the most hard-working men we have among us. I propose that we give him a vote of thanks.
(Agreed to.)
(Etc., etc.)
“Mr. Southworth then invited the Association to examine the photographic specimens of his enlarged handwritings, signatures, etc., used in cases of forgery. (Etc., etc.) (p. 400)]

1874

Dwight, Benjamin W. The History of the Descendants of John Dwight, of Dedham, Mass. Volume II Printed for the Author. New York: John F. Trow & Son, Printers and Bookbinders, 1874. 2 vols. Illus. ports. 24 cm.
[“Descendants of Henry Dwight of Hatfield, Mass.,
(Etc., etc.)
[Seventh Generation.] Children:

6517. i. Jeanette Dwight, b. Sept. 29, 1811, m. Aug. 15, 1839, Josiah Coburn, a harness and trunk manufacturer at Thetford, Vt. They have had one child.
6518. 1. Arthur Coburn, b. Sept. 1843.
6519. ii. Mary Anna Dwight, b. Aug. 20, 1816, m. Dec. 2, 1841, Erastus Morton, a resident of Chelsea, Vt. No issue.
6520. iii. Louise Roxana Dwight, b. March 31, 1818, m. Nov. 2, 1842, Albert S. Southworth, a resident of Boston, Mass. No children.
6521. iv. Henry Cutler Dwight, b. Jan. 25, 1820.
6522. v. Amelia Maria Dwight, b. April 30, 1822, m. March 2, 1843, William F. Goodwin, a speculator residing in New York. She d. Dec. 2, 1847. One child:
      (Etc., etc.) (p. 926)
      “Odds and Ends.”
6523. To the record of the descendants of Pliny Dwight of Vershire, Vt., on p. 926, may be added the following facts: –
      (Etc., etc.)
      ii. Mary Ann Dwight (No. 6519. ii.), d. at Chelsea, Mass., Oct 11. 1868.
      iii. Henry Cutler Dwight (No. 6521. iv.) was for several years engaged in the boot and shoe trade in Boston, Mass. Died. Oct. 15, 1872. His first wife, Eunice Colton (dau. of Solomon Colton of Vershire, Vt., and Eunice Titus), was b. Aug. 16, 1822. Mrs. Fanny M. Dwight, his widow, resides now (1874) at Cambridgeport.
      iv. Albert Sands Southworth (No. 6520. iii.) is an examiner, an analyzer, and illustrator of questioned handwritings and signatures.
      v. Silas Briggs Hahn resides now (1874) in Central City, Colorado.
      (Etc., etc.) (p. 1116)]

Fisher, Samuel S., Counselor at Law. Reports of Cases Arising under Letters Patent for Inventions Determined in the Circuit Courts of the United States. Second Edition. Volume III. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., printers, 1867-1874. 6 vol.; 24 cm.
[ “Marcus Ormsbee vs. John Wood. In Equity.
The invention described in the letters patent granted to Albert S. Southworth, April 10, 1855, reissued September 25, 1860, consists in bringing successfully into the field the lens of a camera, the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates.
(Before Blatchford, J., Southern District of New York, January, 1868.)
This was a bill in equity filed to restrain the defendant from infringing letters patent for a “plate holder for cameras,” granted to Albert S. Southworth, April 10, 1855, reissued September 25, 1860, assigned to Simon Wing and complainant, December 8, 1860. On the same day, the exclusive right for the State of New York was conveyed by Wing to complainant. The invention is fully described in the case of Wing v. Richardson (Vol. II, p. 535). W. J. A. Fuller, for complainant. N. Appleton, for defendant. (p. 372)
Blatchford, J.
This is a final hearing on pleadings and proofs on a bill filed upon letters patent reissued to Albert S. Southworth, of Boston, Massachusetts, September 25, 1860, for a “plate holder for cameras.” The original patent was issued to Southworth as inventor, April 10, 1855. The reissued patent was assigned by Southworth to Simon Wing and the plaintiff, December 8, 1860, and on the same day Wing conveyed to the plaintiff the exclusive right under the same for the city of New York. The alleged infringement took place in the city of New York. The invention covers what is commonly known in the photographic art as the multiplying camera or plate holder. Before this invention, it was customary to use a separate plate for each impression; the plate being removed from the camera and replaced by another when several impressions of the same objects were to be taken. This invention consists in bringing successively into the field of the lens of the camera the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates. This is done by a peculiar arrangement of a frame in which the plate holder is permitted to slide, the position of the plate holder being definitely indicated to the operator so that he can quickly and accurately adjust the palet or plates. The claim of the reissued patent is: “Bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.”
Various defenses are set up in the answer of the defendant, but no testimony has been taken to sustain them; they are substantially the same defenses that were set up in the suit in equity of Wing v. Richardson, decided in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, in June, 1865, by Mr. Justice Clifford (Vol. II, p. 535), which was a bill founded on the same reissued patent. In that case it was decided: 1. That the patentee invented the improvement claimed. 2. That the reissued patent was for the same invention as that described in the original patent. 3. That the defense of abandonment was not proved. 4. That the patent was not open to objections as patenting a principle or result. 5. That the patentee was the first inventor of the improvement.” (p. 373)
The infringement in the present case is proved.
There must be A Decree for a perpetual injunction in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and for a reference to a master to take and state an account of the profits derived by the defendant from the infringement.” (p. 374)
(Etc., etc.)
“July, 1869.
Wing v. Schoonmaker.
Simon Wing
vs.
Christopher C. Schoonmaker. In Equity.
The plate holder for cameras patented by Albert L. Southworth, April 10, 1855, existed, and was carried into practical operation by working machines, and was in use by practical photographers seven or eight years before the date of his patent, and before he had perfected his machine. The patent is therefore void.
(Before Nelson, J., Northern District of New York, July, 1869.)
This was a bill in equity filed to restrain the defendant from infringing letters patent for a “plate holder for cameras,” granted to Albert S. Southworth, April 10, 1855, reissued September 25, 1860, and assigned to complainant.
The nature of the invention and the claims are stated in the report of the case of Wing v. Richardson, Vol. II., p. 535.
E. Cowen, for complainant.
Townsends Browne and Henry Baldwin, jr., for defendant.
Nelson, J.
The bill is filed in this case, founded on a patent to A. S. Southworth, April 10, 1855, for a new and useful plate holder for cameras, and reissued September 25, 1860.
The claim in the reissued patent is, “bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.”
The patentee states in his specification that it had been customary to use a separate plate for each impression, the plate being removed from the camera and replaced by another, when several impressions of the same object were to be taken, as in (p. 607) multiplying copies. This caused delay and trouble, to obviate which was the object of this invention, and which consisted in bringing successively different portions of the same plate or several smaller plates, secured by one plate holder, into the field of the lens of the camera; and in carrying out the invention the patentee has made use of a peculiarly arranged frame, in which the plate holder is permitted to slide, and in which the position of the plate holder is definitely indicated to the operator, etc.
The only real question in the case is, whether or not the patentee was the first and original inventor of the above improvement. The burden of the proofs, both on the part of the complainant and defendant, bears upon this point.
It is insisted, on the part of the complainant, that the improvement was conceived and put into practical use as early as 1846, and, if not, as early as the winter of 1847-48. The patent was not issued till 1855. I have looked, with some care, into the proofs, which are quite voluminous, and am satisfied this position is not sustained.
On the contrary, the better opinion is the improvement was not perfected by the patentee till the year 1854. He went, according to his own account, to California, in the winter of 1848-49, and remained there two years; and on his return, he took up the subject of the stereoscope, and was engaged in considering new plans and new ideas on this subject, and taking out patents thereon, until he was taken sick and shut up in his room, when he applied himself to finish the idea of taking pictures rapidly in the center of the lens, by adapting the movement in a frame which would fit any ordinary camera. Again, he says, on his cross-examination, that it was three years after his return from California that he was sick, and which was in November, in the fall of 1854. He says, also, on his examination-in-chief, that he had not perfected the mechanical parts of his machine, so as to carry out his idea readily, when the California excitement led him to go there. He further says that the instrument made by Coburn in the fall of 1846 was abandoned, and that he then contemplated a different improvement. This was by moving the lens over the (p. 608) plate. This idea was not in the first patent at all, and is only alluded to in the reissue. Now the proofs are full that this idea of making the same impression on different parts of the same plate, by the use of a sliding plate holder, existed and was carried into practical operation by working machines as early as 1847-48, and was in use by several practical photographers some seven or eight years before the date of the patent of Southworth, and before he had perfected his machine.
Entertaining these views, it follows that a decree must be entered for the defendant.” (p. 609)]
(Etc., etc.)
“Index. Particular Patents.”
“…Southworth;-Plate Holder for Cameras.

71. The invention described in the letters patent granted to Albert S. Southworth April 10, 1855, reissued September 25, 1860, consists in bringing successively into the field of the lens of a camera, the different portions of a single plate or several smaller plates. Ormsbee v. Wood 372 (p. 688)
    “The plate holder for cameras patented by Albert S. Southworth;, April 10, 1855, existed, and was carried into practical operation by working machines, and was in use by practical photographers seven or eight years before the date of his patent and before he had perfected his machine. The patent is therefore void.” (p. 689)]

“Fifth Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the National Photographic Association of the United States.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 5:1 (Jan. 1874): 33–65. [Southworth discussed the NPA’s debt, suggested that the association pay E. L. Wilson for his expenses in providing extensive reports on its annual meetings, offered suggestions about the NPA building a library, a school, etc. (pp. 63, 64).]

Southworth, A. S. “On the Use of the Camera.” PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS 18:809 (Mar. 6, 1874): 109-111. [(Condensed from a paper read before the N.P.A., U.S.)
“I heard a gentleman speak of receiving a card of the name of the sitter. When my sitters come into the room I want to be acquainted with them. A card with their names on it would not suit me at all. I would take them by the hand, and relieve them of their drapery that they wish to lay off; make them comfortable; point them to the room where they can take care of and dress themselves as appropriately as they please; then I ask them into the light-room. I do not always leave them in the dark. I bring them into the light-room that their eyes may be accustomed to the light in which they are going to sit. You go around into the room, and show them the objects of interest; view their faces in the different lights, and get familiar with their countenances, and endeavour to call out their ideas.
Remember that expression is everything in a photograph. All else-the hair, jewelry, lace-work, drapery of dress, and attitude-are only aids to expression. It must at least be sensible, spirited, and dignified, and usually, with care be comfortable, and ought to be amiable. It ought also to (p. 109) and patience, may be so. A little practice, with a friend to prompt, before a mirror, will save time, and very likely be the means of much increasing the satisfaction of those for whom the likeness is made.
The hair in its arrangement should assist the proportions of the head. If the head is too long and the face thin, the hair should widen and round the features. If the cheekbones are too high and too broad, the breadth of the head should fall lower down, so as not to exaggerate features already too large. The hair may be smooth or lay evenly, but should never be sleeked or matted down; and the practice of shaving the forehead or pulling out the hair is altogether too barefaced for a lady. It should be arranged in curves, waves, or curls, avoiding angles and hornshaped protuberances. Caps, turbans, lace, and jewelery, should conform to the same rules in aiding the general contour towards good proportions.
All lace-work should be light and thin, never massy, though it may be white or black to suit the occasion. Flowing curls, for misses, over a low-necked dress, or for young ladies with handsome outlines of neck and shoulders, are picturesque and pleasing, but thin necks and projecting collar-bones require high dresses with lace, whether in fashion or not. The same remarks apply to arms and hands. If not filled well, with good outlines, let them be appropriately covered in a picture. Simple jewellery may be taken, but if heavy or massy it is not admissible, except for fancy pictures. If the figure is good, the fashion of the dress should show all handsome lines or curves, and hide all that are not so. If the figure is not well proportioned, the fashion of the dress should make it appear so as nearly as possible. It is ridiculously absurd for all females to adopt the same fashion; one exact size and pattern for all would hardly be more so. Whatever the fabric selected, avoid large figures or broad stripes. Figures of the same material and colour-as watered, striped, or figured dark silks, or very narrow-striped light silks-are well suited to the photograph.
Dark colours are generally more appropriate than light. Fair complexions may, if the figure is represented on a small scale. Remember that positive red, orange, yellow, or green, are the same as black, or nearly so; and violet, purple, and blue are nearly the same as white, and arrange your costume accordingly. Rich figured shawls or scarves and dresses usually show well in a picture. Full promenade, carriage, or riding dresses look well as such, although not suited for a simple likeness.
Infants too young to sit upright should be taken in their long frocks, but when a little older their feet need not be covered; but the whole figure may be prettily taken if they can be kept quiet four or five seconds. As a good rule, let the frock be very low in the neck, with short waist, not tight, yet fitting the form, reaching to the foot; the sleeves very short and loose, ornamented with narrow lace. The skirt should be of woolen fabric, not too full, reaching about half-way from the knee to the ankle, and worked, figured, or scalloped around the bottom. No other underclothing should be worn, except of the thinnest and most pliable material.
If the child is taken half-reclining, the bottom of the dress can easily be arranged to show parts of the bottom of the skirts, and the feet and ankles, and all be in good keeping and taste. The colour of the frock may be pink, drab, blue, or any colour which will show light in the picture.
Especially should it be permanently impressed upon the “sitter” for a photograph that the artist has in reality no control over the actual expression of the subject, which is the important part of a photographic likeness. Having disciplined the features of the face until controllable, select an hour for sitting when you may be in your best mental, as well as physical, condition. Arrange dress and drapery in your most tasteful and graceful manner, so that it shall be at least to your own satisfaction.
A figure laced to suffocation, a foot aching under the pressure of a too diminutive shoe, or the hair drawn and twisted so tightly as almost to lift its wearer from the floor, thus imparting stiffness and awkwardness to expression, even in repose, are but a few of the obstacles with which it will be useless for an artist, however patient or earnest he may be, to contend.
The hour of departure on a tour or travel, a few hasty moments snatched from a shopping excursion in town, or between hurried morning calls and dinner, will not be likely to find one in a sufficiently fresh and quiet mood to yield to the hints the artist may desire to throw out expressly for the sitter’s benefit. It has been said that “the most terrible enemy the photographer has to contend with is human vanity.” This is in a great degree true. The repeated trials which the artist finds it necessary to make to avoid time’s rude finger-marks, to overcome the rigidity, languor, or sadness of expression which diseases or affliction may have produced, are among his difficulties and discouragements. Let not these be increased by the infelicities of time or condition above referred to. On your own account, as well as for the sake of those who will value a correct portrait of yourself, choose the most favourable opportunity, as already suggested, and afford the artist ample time, without haste or nervousness, for his labour.
Next, select the artist in whom you have confidence, and whose efforts are to merit and sustain a high reputation; attend to his suggestions, and feel at home in his rooms, that you may relieve him from all embarrassment, and put him equally at ease in your presence. If you have ideas of your own as to the light and shade of view of the face, suggest freely, and then submit all to him. If qualified for his business he will soon be able to transfer your likeness so as to render prominent the best features, and at the same time conceal or diminish those having least beauty. Aid cheerfully his exertions; and if, with the best efforts of both artist and subject, the result is a failure, charge it not upon his demerits, nor be discouraged, but try again, and you will thus eventually be successful.
Again, have confidence in art itself. There is far more danger of undervaluing than over-rating it. It may not, like painting and sculpture, be susceptible of the expression of feelings and emotions which have been awakened in the mind of the artist, and more nearly realized in his own conceptions. Though it be not to his inner fancy in the creation of scenes, and characters, and forms, which might have existed in a state of higher perfection and rarer intellectual refinement, yet the genius and spirit of poetry must possess the artist, so that he can ever elevate his characters in portraiture far above common nature. He must have power to embody the beauties and perfections of his subjects, and at the same time make clear resemblance and identity. He must keep ideality uppermost, and thus infuse it into the mind of the beholder, so that he be not degraded to a servile copyist, and his art to a mere resemblance. And although, as has been already hinted, he who in painting and sculpture can work to his own ideal has a wider range in portraiture, and can bring colours as well as forma of nature to his aid, yet in the nice production of light and shade, which is the perfection of modelling, the photograph will be found to surpass the artist’s best efforts; being capable of representing independently action, expression, and character, to a great extent; and in some instances it approaches very nearly, if it does not equal, these higher branches; thus developing beauty in grace of motion, and in repose, which is the first object and the supreme law of all art. [Mr. Southworth then proceeded to pose the President, with a running comment on various effects, and then proceeded] :
Now I want to go twenty-four feet from the sitter, and I want to lower the instrument one foot. I do not (p. 110) lens that you can ‘possibly give me, or that I can get, to take his picture twenty-four feet off; that is, to make it the size of common cartes. I do not want to be any nearer. I mean those large heads on the common cartes, called John Bull cartes, common cartes, common carte size, large heads. Now I do not want to be less than twenty-four feet off. I want the largest lens that I can get to properly focus for that size. Your lens should be at least no less than five inches in diameter. Now my friend Fitzgibbon, of St. Louis, suggested a very nice way of shortening the time, but now I want to make it just a little bit shorter. Instead of using your instrument diaphragmed at all, use it entirely open without any stop, and that will shorten your time, and where it takes thirty seconds the old way, it will now take sixteen. I will make the same in ten, and have the eyes as well defined as you can ask. If there are spots or blotches, you have to touch them out on the negative. You will thus have a softer picture than you can make by retouching, for to save your lives you cannot touch it without hurting it, and men who are making good pictures do the same thing. I do not say if there is any defect that I would not put a piece of soft prepared chalk on, but I say, let it alone. As to the shadows, you cannot touch a shadow without injury. You must place your picture so as to have a good light upon it without shadow and without retouching.
Before I begin to raise my camera, I have said to my sitter, Now there are some things I would like to have you not think of. I cannot help it when they are sitting for a picture, and after I think I am ready for it, I will direct them as to the line of vision. You will please to look at that point if you want the picture to be looking at you, and I must make it, so that it falls directly on that line on the edge of the tube or over it, and I want you to look as though you were looking ten miles out at sea. open and shut the eyes with the most perfect freedom. You must give a light in which they will not blink. I make it as comfortable as I can, and pay attention to that point while I am taking the picture. The eye must be used at its longest range. You must tell them to look just as far as they can, and let them practise on that look, and you will have it right in the picture. You will not get it cross-eyed. One half the pictures are thus made. The eyes are this way and that way. They are just cross-eyed. Now, if a person is cross-eyed, he never should be drawn so to to that extent. In some of those larger pictures, the eyes are looking at you as if you were only eight feet distant. Now, what is that for expression? It is dead. You cannot wake any life in it. The expression is not good for anything; the eye is not good for anything. I say, then, with regard to the direction of the eye and the opening and shutting of it, it should be perfectly natural. Now I have arranged the light. I have a skylight that is pretty high. I cannot have too much room. I have just enough light, so that the sitter can open and shut his eyes easily without blinking.
So much for the arrangement of the light. A single word now should be said with regard to reflected light. Having arranged the light so as to give the shadows the diffused light and shadows as I want them, then I want to look out for this little point, and that is, to the light in the eye; and if you get two points, it will be bad, but if you get one, and this reflects the light, why it looks like one of those that has a film growing over it. The eye is dead. The first thing is to get a good eye, and more than that, the eye must be so made in addition that it will look like a little star, but one light.
I repeat, then, have your lenses as large as your tubes can be; make your pictures as far off as you can get the camera, twenty-four feet distant; with the smaller cartes, get a little nearer, or go further off, and you will find that you will make your picture soft. You will not need to retouch. You will have a good effect where you have this softness; you will have light where you have black, or the kind of blacks you have now. Nearly all of the so-called Rembrandts-I speak of them so as to call your attention to that class-certainly one-third of all there are-indeed, nine-tenths of those made in the Rembrandt style-are not looking as I have described. Take it while the light is run into the shade; on that side of the face there is not one bit of that black or hardness on the face. It is warmed up with reflected light and with colour. This is terrible; it is terrible to the artist; it is not true; it has simply been quackery from beginning to end, and the worst kind of quackery, to take a person’s face with the shadow next to you; it is all proper; the warmth and the shadow are there, so when you look at it you will understand it. You want to make the picture so that every time you take it up you will see new beauties in it, and so you will love to turn over an album of such pictures, every single day to examine the effect of fine photographing, and I tell you it is done a great many times, by a great many artists constantly, and by some constantly, but it is not done by true artists at all. You will excuse me, I am only talking for the very highest reach of our art, but you will tell me that I have aimed a little above it. I did not, but never mind the aim; you must aim high, and you will not be down there long; you will be coming up, and if you never get to the top, you will have a feeling that you are making the very best effort, and perhaps, if you live long enough, you will reach it.” (p. 111)]

Chute, B. J. “Hints Under the Skylight.” PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS 18:814 (Apr. 10, 1874): 173. [( Philadelphia Photographer)
“The Eyes.”
“The most important feature of the face is the eyes. In them are expressed life, love, joy, animation, goodness, and all that makes the human face attractive, and often bewitching. They also express the opposites of these, and may become equally repulsive. They are the windows of the soul. To them we always look when we would read the workings of the mind. To them the artist looks when he would measure the qualities of his sitter, and decide upon the light, attitude, and representation of character to be given him.
Among photographers the eye receives a variety of treatment. Mr. Southworth, at the convention at Buffalo, explained his method or rule of lighting the sitter to be that of screening the light till it became easy to the eyes….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 173)]

Tompkins, J. H. “The Southworth-Wing Patent.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 11:125 (May 1874): 132. [Letter from Tompkins.]

Tompkins, J. H. “Further about the Southworth–Wing Patent.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 11:127 (July 1874): 222. [Letter from Tompkins.]

“The Craft at Chicago.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 5:7 (Aug. 1874): 261–266. [Summary of the Sixth National Photographic Association meeting. Southworth elected to the Committee on the Progress of Photography (p. 264).]

“The Sixth Annual Convention and Exhibition of the National Photographic Association [Chicago].” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 11:128 (Aug. 1874): 241–245. [Much briefer description of the annual convention than usual as members of the NPA had voted to publish a separate official report (which never happened). New officers were elected and Southworth was elected to chair the six-person Committee on the Progress of Photography (p. 243).]

“American Correspondence. The National Photographic Association and Its Convention in Chicago.” PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS 18:814 (Aug. 14, 1874): 387-388.
[“The National Photographic Association and its Convention in Chicago.–The convention and exhibition of the National Photographic Association for the year 1874, being the sixth of that useful institution, is now among the things of the past. All things considered, it was a grand success, and much good will result from it. I give you a synopsis of all that transpired, without waiting for details. The Association will issue a full report presently only to subscribers….” “…The report of the nominating committee followed. Tellers and judges were then appointed for the election fixed for the evening session, and the tellers were instructed to prepare tickets and distribute them. All this preparation was made, instead of the election being held as heretofore, in order to prevent the insinuations so prevalent that the elections were not conducted fairly….” “…For the first time in its existence, the National Photographic Association held its election by ballot. The result was nearly the same as heretofore, and it is hoped that all croakings about “unfairness,” manipulation,” &c., will for ever cease, and that all good members will accept and support the officers who have been elected. The result of the election was as follows:-
President William H. Rulofson.
Permanent Secretary — Edward L. Wilson.
Treasurer Albert Moore.
Executive Committee W. Irving Adams, A. Bogardus, A. Hesler, V. W. Wilcox, I. B. Webster, J. W. Black, W. H. Rhoads.
Committee on Progress of Photography A. S. Southworth, W. H. Sherman, J. Landy, A. Gardner, Dr. H. Vogel, G. Wharton Simpson, M.A.
And one Vice-president from each state and territory….” (p. 387)
(Etc., etc.)
‘Mr. J. H. Tomkins, Grand Rapids, Mich., addressed the convention at length upon the status of the sliding-box patent, and was followed by Messrs. Southworth, Bell, etc.” (p. 388)]

“The Exhibition in Chicago.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 11:129 (Sept. 1874): 277–278. [Southworth one of 202 exhibitors listed.]

Southworth, Albert Sands. “Letter.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 11:132 (Dec. 1874): 384. [Letter from Southworth promising that if the forthcoming annual NPA meeting was held in Boston, those attending would not be served warrants by Southworth for their ignoring the Wing & Southworth patent, which was in litigation in the Boston courts.]

“Editor’s Table.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 11:132 (Dec. 1874): 382–884. [Albert S. Southworth, others mentioned.]

Spear, Ellis, Acting Commissioner. “Non-Extension of the Wing Patent.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 5:12 (Dec. 1874): 407–408.

1875

Spear, Ellis, Acting Commissioner. “The Wing Patent Extension Case.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 12:133 (Jan. 1875): 20–23.

“The Wing Patent Extension Case.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 12:133 (Jan. 1875): 20–23. [Simon Wing’s 1860 patent challenged.]

1876

“Society Gossip: Boston Photographic Association.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 13:147 (Mar. 1876): 91. [Southworth attended meeting, commented on issues, displayed pictures to the group.]

“Good News for the Back Sliders: The Circuit Court of the United States—Western District of Michigan—In Equity: Simon Wing, Albert S. Southworth and Marcus Ormsbee vs. Joseph H. Tompkins, Heard January 25, 1876. Decision April 5, 1876; Withey, Judge.” WESTERN PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS 2:10 (Apr. 1876): 233–36.

“An Important Patent Decision. The Circuit Court of the United States. Western District of Michigan—In Equity.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 13:149 (May 1876): 149–52. [Simon Wing, A. S. Southworth, and Marcus Ormsbee vs. Joseph H. Tompkins. Decision, with a letter from Tompkins, the defendant, who won the case.]

“Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Convention of the National Photographic Association Held in the Judge’s Hall, Centennial Grounds, Phila., Commencing Tuesday, August 15, 1876.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 13:153 (Sept. 1876): 272–84. [Report on the annual progress in American photography by A. S. Southworth (pp. 277–78). Southworth was tasked to deliver this annual summation for the first time in 1874, but the NPA did not hold a conference in 1875.]

“Convention of the N. P. A. at Philadelphia.” PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMES 6:69 (Sept. 1876): 201-202.
[(Etc., etc.)
“Last Day.”
“The convention reassembled in Judge’s Hall yesterday, the President, Mr. William H. Rulofson, of San Francisco, in the chair…..” “…Mr. Southworth moved a vote of thanks to the President for his great sacrifice of time and expense in crossing this Continent, simply for the purpose of being at the convention. He had stood by them in a gallant way, and had done as much as any six members. The vote was carried enthusiastically, and the President departed. Mr. Southworth took the chair, and the question being raised as to publishing the minutes of proceedings, Mr. Wilson, editor of the Philadelphia Photographer, offered to publish them, provided he had the exclusive right to do so. On motion it was resolved that the Association give the copy-(p. 201) right of the official proceedings of the session to the Philadelphia Photographer.
In the afternoon a few technical points were discussed, and the Convention adjourned sine die..” (p. 202,]

“Photography and Truth.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 13:155 (Nov. 1876): 323. [About photos being used in law courts; discusses A. S. Southworth’s description of some of these activities.]

“Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Convention of the National Photographic Association Held in the Judge’s Hall, Centennial Grounds, Phila., Commencing Tuesday, August 15, 1876.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 13:155 (Nov. 1876): 325–39. [Southworth defended concept of local societies, argued that the NPA must get out of debt (p. 326). Southworth elected one of five vice-presidents to the organization (p. 327). Praised by Adams: “I have asked him to criticize the pictures [of the last seven exhibitions] and in every instance I could get more information in five minutes than from any books that I have ever seen …” (pp. 327–28).]

Hardy, A. N. “Society Gossip: Boston Photographic Society.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 13:156 (Dec. 1876): 368–69. [“It was a cheering sign to note the presence of some of our older members, whom we have missed from our meetings of late, and among them Messrs. Southworth and Loomis …”]

1877

The Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw – In Chancery. The Regents of the University of Michigan, vs. Rose, Douglas, et al. Argument for Dr. Rose, by Hon. Emery A. Storrs, of Chicago. Delivered August 9, 10 and 11, 1877, before Judge G.M. Huntington at Ann Arbor, Michigan. Trial commenced July 5th, and ended August 11th. Ann Arbor, Courier steam printing house, 1877. [3] 95 p. 3 cm. [..After this lapse of time, we have on this trial, for the first time, direct proof upon the point, which consists First. In the testimony of Douglas; and Second. In the testimony of the expert, Southworth. What Douglas says on the subject is short. I will read it: Question. “Have you examined these D’s, and your name on the stubbooks?” Answer. “I have, somewhat.”… (p. 32)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Opinions are necessarily received and may be valuable, yet at best this kind of testimony is a necessary evil. Those who have had personal acquaintance with the handwriting of a person, are not always reliable in their views; and single signatures, apart from some known surroundings, are not always recognized by the one who made them. Every degree of removal beyond personal knowledge into the domain of what is sometimes called, with great liberality, scientific opinion, is a step towards greater uncertainty, and the science which is so generally diffused is of very moderate value.”
That sounds, if your Honor please, remarkably like the speech I have been addressing to your Honor before I read from the book. Just one more, I cite, without reading, the First American Law Review, page 55; and I desire to read very briefly from a very remarkable case, commented upon in the First American Law Review, page 78. The one I first quoted was written by Emory Washburn, but the second quotation is a review and commentary, in the famous case of Ryves vs. The Attorney General, a case planted in the British courts by as unmitigated an impostor as was ever known-an old maiden lady, who claimed that she was a lineal descendant of George the Third, and was entitled to succession to the throne. She produced a great amount of bastard letters, agreements, and other documents pretended to be signed by George the Third, and of two others, distinguished members of the English cabinet and English aristocracy; and, what is more remarkable and marvelous than all, she succeeded in procuring the testimony of the great Southworth, of London, to the effect that, on the most diligent comparison, analysis and scientific treatment of these bastard letters and documents, they were genuine. It was science run utterly wild and crazy-gone all to pieces. I read:
“Mr. Netherclift, who is said to be the most skillful expert in England, pronounced Dr. Wilmot’s signature to be genuine. He was of the opinion that the signature of Lord Chatham, compared with that attached to his will, was written by the same hand; and thought the signature of George the Third to be the same as others, undoubted. Yet he admitted that he had already given evidence of the genuineness of a document which the jury found to be a forgery, and was much shaken in cross examination by both the Attorney General and the court. The moral probability,” he said (how natural this sounds), “of such men as George the Third and Dunning putting their names to documents, did not enter into his consideration in forming his judgment.”
And when we go back only a few days, and bring to ourselves the picture presented when Southworth was on the stand, when he was asked the question whether the fact that this name was incorrectly spelled, had any sort of effect upon his judgment, he said he renounced it altogether, and treated the subject precisely as Netherclift did, who testified in his opinion to the genuineness of these bastard documents. It is unnecessary for me to read any further law, generally, on this subject.
Who is Southworth?
Now, Who is Southworth? He is a resident of Boston, a good enough man I presume, a pretentious expert, and he thus states his business: My business is the examination, analysis, illustration, and demonstration of questioned writings.’ Now, what is his theory? I cannot undertake to describe it. Nobody can perfectly-let me read it:
“I should say here, in making the analysis of the letter, and in placing it upon another letter to compare, to superpose upon it that of a natural handwriting, any natural handwriting, if served in the same way and written by the same hand, will superpose in its general forms and characteristics, very perfectly indeed, so that parallel lines will be parallel, curves will be parallel, if larger, one curve will be within the other, and so on, as may be shown by any handwriting whatever, I should like” he says “the privilege of placing my photograph now upon photographs, which can very easily be done by placing it against the window for his Honor to see what I mean, so as tʊ understand what I mean.”
And again, at page 358, he says: (p. 35)
“The hand is a machine trained by habit from childhood, directed by the mind in formation, either its own mind or otherwise “
Without stopping here to analyze this theory, I prefer at once to have the whole subject before us, and permit Southworth to tell us how these theories are applied. I have his testimony on this point. It is lengthy, and I will not read it. All it amounts to is the theory of superposing. Now let us analyze that. This theory rests upon pure assumption to begin with. We possess no proof whatever, save the unsupported testimony of the witness, that the same handwriting will invariably superpose. I utterly deny it, and unless the rule is one that admits of no exceptions, as a process of demonstration, it falls utterly.
Second, The entire theory presupposes an absolute, never-failing uniformity in the handwriting of the same man. A thing which never occurred since the world was made. The slantings, heights, curvatures and shades of which he speaks, vary in the steadiest handwritings, and are almost infinite, as I will show in the handwriting of Douglas. And, of course, with every change of this, the spacing is changed, the matching of which, he claims to be a demonstration. It is very clear that, as the slope of the mark increases or decreases, the spacings correspondingly extend or contract, for, if any of these things change, there must be a counter change in something else to preserve the same spacings, and this change must exactly fit, which simply calls for a miracle. It is the old experiment of taking two boats on a bounding, tempestuous sea, and trying to make those two boats equally balance and equally move with the wave in exact harmony, making them equally superpose upon a variable sea. Unless these changes are so exactly harmonized, one with the other, unless this exact equilibrium of accidents is exactly preserved, there would be no superposing, and the high-sounding theory dies at its very birth.
The next theory is “that the human hand is a machine.” I admit it. The human hand is a machine; but, as it acts under the influence of the mind, it would vary with moods, and hence that branch of the theory uttely upsets and explodes the whole claim of superposition. It is not peculiar to the human hand that it is a machine, and that it acts under the influence of the mind. Every limb, every portion of the human anatomy is a machine, acting under the influence of the mind. The eye is a machine. It acts under the influence of the mind. It sees as the mind sees. The hand moves as the mind moves and directs it. When the mind is depressed, it exhibits itself in the hand. When it is exultant and joyful, it exhibits itself in the hand; the writing shows it. The human legs are a machine. They act under the influence of the mind, just precisely as the hand does. That mind that thus influences their movements is affected by the same things that would affect its movement over the hand. You take a man whose ordinary movements of the legs are movements of an exact perpendicularity; but yet, should that mind lose control, their movements be somewhat depressed or affected by the action of alcoholic stimulants, there is at once a course of variable movements and uncertain steps, that would superpose on nothing under heaven, if your Honor pleases. Now, he says parallel lines will be parallel, if the base is the same. Precisely. How are you going to make the base the same? Curved lines will be parallel, if a smaller curve is placed precisely within the center of the greater curve; but how is it possible to make a harmony of curvature among a lot of Ds, which have a thousand irregularities as is the character of Dr. Douglas’ Ds. The test of superposing these Ds upon the genuine ones of Rose is utterly fallacious. The experimenter selects his Ds, and among the numbers (p. 36) which he had selected, it would be marvelous indeed if some lines could not be found which would not superpose; and that, as I will show you by and by, is the conclusive reason given by the courts why this kind of superposing testimony should be discarded. The question propounded by the experimenter in the case is this, will the letter D in Dougled” superpose upon any D that Rose has ever written. That is not the question. That is his question. It is not the question for your Honor to determine. The inquiry is not, will it superpose on any D that Rose ever made; but will it superpose on the Ds that Rose generally makes? And now backwards and forwards, through countless thousands almost of specimens of Douglas and Rose handwritings, goes the experimenter, and he comes into Court, and proves what? Not a prevailing superposition, but an accidental and exceptional superposition. I don’t deny but that Douglas’ Ds may be found upon which some of the lines of Rose’s Ds will superpose. It would simply be a crazy pretense to claim that, if a sufficient number of specimens were examined, such a result might not be achieved-that is within the range of natural accidents. But the difficulty and the fallacy, the danger with all this kind of testimony is: that the tests are misleading and delusive; and the experimenter comes, not proving a general fact, but establishing, in his own manner, an exceptional instance, from which he reaches a demonstration, which he seeks to apply as a universal rule. It is logic gone all too pieces. It is reason all dethroned. It is common sense absolutely unseated. It a disturbance and dislocation of every legitimate function of a Court.
The witness himself now uses his own theory in a double sense. He seems to be the inventor of the superposing theory, and is generally called to prove a forgery. If you track him through, you will find generally that Southworth is called, not to prove the genuineness of an instrument, but to prove that it is forged. In just that way, medical witnesses as to the question of insanity range themselves, We have the witnesses who all swear to sanity, and we have the doctors who always swear to insanity. Prof. McFarlane, of the Insane Asylum at Jacksonville, Ill., having seen so many crazy men, is himself crazy on the subject of craziness; and you cannot bring a human being before the Court, and place him upon trial, but that Prof. McFarlane will find that that man, on certain subjects is helplessly and hopelessly insane. Here is a witness to prove a forgery. Where the forgery is sought to be proved, if the alleged forgery does exactly superpose with the genuine, then forth comes Southworth, and swears that they are forgeries because they do superpose. Is that mere talk? I will show you in a moment. And when, as in this case, the forgery is to be proved, and he is the witness to prove it, he swears that they are forgeries because they do NOT superpose. He achieved his greatest distinction in the Howland will case, of which there is a very elaborate and exceedingly entertaining report in the 4th American Law Review, 641 to 646; and there never was a more instructive case than this case, on the utter worthlessness and grave danger of this kind of testimony. The subject is so important I cannot do better than read it; and we may as well in this case, as in any other, put an end to this question. There the question was as to the “genuineness of the handwriting of Silvia Ann Howland to certain codicils. There is the genuine one and here are the codicils (showing fac-similes of the signatures to the Court). The most extraordinary expert case ever tried in this or any other country, in which upwards of $150,000 was spent in counsel fees and costs. Now see what they say about it. These two last signatures were challenged.
Judge Douglas.-Is it an opinion? (p. 37)
Mr. Storrs. It is an article, and I will read from Southworth’s testimony. The writer says:
“Thus, wherever a discrepancy could be discovered or an improbability be pointed out the defendants have done so, but after all their main reliance, and the chief struggle was over the genuineness of the signatures to the duplicate, second page, exhibits 10 and 15; and it is for the extraordinary conflict of expert testimony, demonstrating how completely scientific opinion may differ, that this case, after the interest awakened by the magnitude of the struggle has died away, will be most famous in the annals of the law. Here were three signatures of Silvia Ann Howland, one to her will of 1862, exhibit 1; one to each duplicate second page, exhibits 10 and 15, that to the will was confessedly genuine. But it appeared upon superposing the other two over this, that the covering was so exact, letter for letter, stroke for stroke-’10’ (the duplicate second page’ given to the niece) somewhat closer than ’15’ (that kept by the aunt and found in the trunk)-and that not merely this covering existed together with identity of all the spaces between the letters and the words, but that the locality on the paper and the distance from the margins of the signatures so nearly coincides that the defendants, supported by the opinion of some of the best experts of the country were led to bring forward the theory that this extraordinary coincidence was not the result of chance, but of design.”
Now, these two last signatures superpose so well and so completely that it formed the basis of charging that they were forged, and it is to-day because they do not superpose so well and so exactly in this case that the testimony of the witness charges they are forged.
“It was a priori beyond the bounds of probability, they argued, that this coincidence of precise covering could occur, in short, practically an impossibility; but infinitely incredible that just the signature the plaintiff wanted should match the only one she had They claimed that the signatures 10 and 15 bore in themselves marks of tracing, and producing a large number of bills of lading signed by the deceased, none of which, they claimed. bore the characteristics of the disputed signatures. This issue was fully and squarely met by complainant’s counsel. They answered that the idea that no two signatures could cover, was false in theory and in fact, and they produce signatures of many well-known persons, which, they claimed, covered better than the signatures of the deceased lady. They met expert by expert Wall street and State street furnished their most eminent judges of handwriting to the one side or the other, The rival commercial colleges sent Presidents and representatives, each equally positive, and ready to support by oath the truth of their several opinions. The Coast Survey sent on from Washington one of its most eminent members, the science of photography was exhausted in the variety and number of pictures of the disputed signatures. Recourse was had to the magnifying glass. Numberless exaggerated images of the words Silvia Ann Howland’ were manufactured, and appear upon the files of the Court, in immense books of exhibits; and not merely of these signatures, but of the many which are claimed to cover, as well as the disputed signatures; and of other signatures of the testatrix. of the will itself. of the papers 10 and 15. Learned chemists were called, who gave their judgment of the ink. Skilled engravers, habituated in the art of tracing, pored over the strokes and curves in the letters. Harvard University contributed to the list of witnesses three of its most distinguished names. The most celebrated mathematician” (it was not Prof Olney, but Prof. Pierce) “who states the doctrine of chances with a precision and solemnity which astounds the uneducated understanding. The learned physician so famed both in poetry and science applied his microscope, and gives his opinion,”
(Were there ever two cases that superposed like the Howland will case and this?)
The naturalist whose name on both continents is second only to Humboldt’s, began natural history as a child, and is to-day a student, gives his analysis with characteristic zeal and earnestness. The testimony of witnesses develops weeks of laborious preparation. Before they had come on the stand many of these witnesses had passed months in the closet, working sometimes ten hours a day, comparing, analyzing, photographing, magnifying, doing everything that science and experience could suggest to fit themselves to give a correct opinion. Who, then, shall decide when such doctors disagree, or do more than review their testimony, and wonder, on the one hand, at its ingenuity, its research and its elaboration; on the other hand, at its curious dis-(p. 38) crepancies, its multifold and manifold contradictions. Take first that of the defendants, for with them the discussion originates.
At the head of their experts marches Albert S. Southworth, one of the earliest photographers in the country, for twenty-five years engaged in this business, once a teacher of penmanship, and for six or seven years much devoted to questions of handwriting-a frequent expert in courts of law. The study of these signatures and these enlarged photographs has occupied him for weeks. “The two signatures,” he says, number ten and fifteen, “are simulated of the hand in the standards, and number one, and are made up, traced and copied by another hand from number one, as an original, and are not genuine.” He produces magnified riders of transparent paper, superposing the supposedly spurious upon the admittedly genuine signature, to show the exactitude of the covering. He came to this opinion, he says, by being shown the papers in the clerk’s office by a perfect stranger, who afterwards proved to be one of the defendant’s counsel. He goes over the writings, letter by letter, curve by curve, with enormous detail; and in comparing the disputed signatures with the filling of the paper in the niece’s hand, adds the following curious commentary. This is so curious I want to read it. This is his testimony:
“Indeed,” he says, “it is more difficult to find forms and characteristics, unlike and not presenting characteristics in ten and fifteen, than it is to see those that are natural and a habit of the hand; and the whole answer to the question may be that there is scarcely a point or a place where the hand is not distinctly traced. Not that one of these points or places, or two, or ten, constitutes sufficient ground for an opinion, but in their mathematical arrangement and absolute harmony in every respect, disconnected from the simulation of the signature in ten and fifteen, they are like the footsteps of an individual under different circumstances.”
So, your Honor sees, I was not original in quoting the case of the legs-“sometimes slow and sometimes rapid; sometimes on a hard path and sometimes in the sand; sometimes with the measured tread on the floor, or on tip toe on the muddy flagstone; sometimes in the slipper, in the boot or in the rubber, or barefoot; sometimes in the jostling crowd, the measured step to the drum, the whirl of the giddy dance, and in every other position in which the step or mark could be seen-measured, compared, and recognized mathematically. So many combinations of characteristics are circumstantial truths to the mind, making it “—in the language which he employed here-“an absolute demonstration.” I am so sorry I did not see this case before Southworth testified. I never would have dreamed of objecting when he set out on his essay that the human hand was a machine. That, doubtless, would have been something like this, and the equal of that cannot be found, I take it, in the annals of human testimony. Go a little further. It demonstrates the utter worthlessness of the testimony, because the greatest minds of the country were pitted against each other. The great mathematician, Prof. Pierce, says:
“In the case of Silvia Ann Howland, therefore, this phenomenon could occur only once in the number of times expressed by the 30th power of 5; or, more exactly it is once in 2,666 millions of millions of millions of times, or 2 666,000,000,000,000,000,000.”
On the other hand comes Prof. Agassiz, who says that the whole theory that those signatures were traced is an utter delusion, humbug, hoax and a snare.
On the same side comes Oliver Wendell Holmes, who shows that the photographic lens was all wrong, and after ream upon ream, boxful after boxful of the testimony of experts had been taken, it broke up the case, and court, and nobody to-day is as able to know or guess whether the signatures to the codicils are genuine, as they were before any of the host of experts took the stand.
Mr. Kinne.-What was the result of the case? (p. 39)
Mr. Storrs.-Busted clean out,
Judge Douglas.-They were held forged, weren’t they?
Mr. Storrs.-No, sir; it was not held at all. The whole thing broke down-went off on a side track-and everybody was glad to get it there after Southworth was sworn. Now I desire to take a few Tests and Apply Them to Southworth. He says Dr. Douglas’ hand is cramped, uneven and constrained. This is his language:
Question. “How do the two hands compare?” Answer. “There is no comparison, except that they are both hands. Dr. Douglas’ hand is stiff, wavering, uneven, and the letters he makes, when put together, are characteristic of his hands. The other hand the pen pressure is even, smooth and very much superior, and had a capability of pen handling to a great extent. Dr. Douglas has none at all. He can’t imitate with a pen.
Now, if your Honor please, we are not experts, but we have eyes, and let us see for ourselves. I undertake to say that an examination of the D’s, respectively made by Douglas and by Rose, shows us conclusively that the free, flowing, easy, unconstrained hand is the hand of Dr. Douglas; and that the stiff, constrained, podgy hand, which has no capacity of expression, is the hand of Rose. I do not prove it by argument; I prove it by calling your attention to the documents themselves. And this reminds me of how much ingenuity we have had, by the way of argument. A great many years ago Daniel Webster argued a patent case against a man almost as ingenious as my brother Pond-wonderfully astute, and he demonstrated that two wheels were entirely unlike. Webster gets up, confused and worried with the argument. He says: “If the court please, I can’t answer the argument. It is unanswerable, it is so ingenious; but there are the poor wheels. They look to me alike. Look at them.” I take the D’s and show them to your Honor. I ask you to say which of the D’s are constrained and which are flowing. Now give me stub book number seven. I think I will convince your Honor that there is not a single thing to which this man has sworn that he is not wrong. Stub 263, stub book number seven.
Judge Douglas here makes a remark.
Mr. Storrs.-I am not undertaking to satisfy you, you know. Stub book number four (showing the book to the court,) there is a D.
Court. These are unquestioned D’s?
Mr. Storrs.-Yes, sir; give me stub-book number five, stub one, three, five and six.
Court. These are referred to as a free, bold, easy-
Mr. Storrs.-Yes, sir; unconstrained hand.
Court.-Why do you refer to these particular ones? Mr. Storrs. Because they are free, bold, unconstrained.
Court.-Distinguished from others? Mr. Storrs.-It shows that the testimony of the witness is unreliable. He says he cannot make a free, unrestrained—
Mr. Kinne. These we do not admit are genuine.
Mr. Storrs.-I think by the next trial you won’t admit Dr. Douglas is genuine. I will give you tests by and by, and if there is anything in the world that is genuine, it is that “scratch book.” Never mind, I won’t stop on that; but when you get some indexes and pass in to the court, your Honor will see in what condition the affair is. I will say, no claim can be made on the question of the size of the D’s. When your Honor’s attention was first called to the matter, it was to the fact that the D’s from forty-four forward were much larger; but Southworth explodes that.
Question. “Does the difference in size have any effect upon the opinion which you have expressed here?” Answer. “Size, merely, does not, because there are a great many reasons which induce persons to vary the size of their hand, and they vary a great many times without knowing why.” (p. 40)
Now, your Honor, I undertake to say, with regard to these questioned D’s, that I can show the fellow, the mate, the exact counterpart, among the D’s of Dr. Douglas, that are unquestioned and unchallenged. If your Honor will take a few memoranda, I will not pause to make a comparison, because it is too long and tedious. (The data for comparisons was here given.) I will furnish to your Honor the mate, fellow. counterpart, of every single questioned D taken from Dr. Douglas’ unquestioned D’s, not merely from the stub books, but from the ledgers, indexes, letters, and the other exhibits that have been offered in evidence in the case, before your Honor leaves. Next, as to the peculiarities of Rose’s genuine D’s. Now we consult our expert on this subject. It don’t need any expert to observe it, however, when the fact is once pointed out. Now let me have the index of ’69–70, and let me show by just that peculiarity-it can be illustrated in just a moment the prevailing peculiarity. I do not undertake to say that there is in any hand which is universal, which is at all times the same, but the peculiarity-the prevailing peculiarity-is the tendency of this curve, either a straight line or a curve from the left; and while there may be instances of a different state of things found, they are very rare and exceptional. Now this illustrates it: There in that direction, there straight, there in that direction, that straight, there the same again the same direction of the stem. Here is one which Prof. Pond-excuse me-referred to yesterday, where if you start from the junction at the top of the D, it has that straight or left curve, and the only thing that characterizes it differently is a very obscure cross clinging on the top, which your honor can see with the application of an ordinary glass. There may be in a thousand instances which your Honor can find of Rose’s D’s, perhaps five D’s where that peculiarity may not be found, and the peculiarity of Dr. Douglas’ handwriting is directly the reverse. That is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of absolute fact. I do not say that Dr. Douglas universally began his D’s with a curve opposite to that which Dr. Rose used, but I say that in ninety-nine times out of a hundred he did; and I say that in taking 1 000 of Dr. Douglas’ D’s and comparing them with 1,000 of Dr. Rose’s D’s, not five will be found to compare in the peculiarity and in the particularity which I have named; and if your Honor wants to take the time on this case, while this case is under consideration by your Honor, the experiment would perhaps be a tedious but a very useful one to perform, and results, as nearly as we can come, to a demonstration. It does bring us to a point of the highest and strongest probability. Now there is of these questioned D’s but one single D that bears the peculiarity of Rose stem but one, and that in a very slight and in an almost imperceptible degree. I test, therefore, not by any mere theory. This is not a theory, this is a fact which the unassisted vision can determine, and to perceive which the testimony of no expert is necessary. I take the fact that, running through the whole range of Dr. Douglas’ D’s, there is one peculiarity about the stem which prevails through every one of these questioned D’s; and then with size, formation of loop at the bottom, structure of the curve at the side-for every one of them we can find a mate, a fellow and a counterpart. I pass, therefore, these questions of comparison.
Mr. Sawyer.-Here are ninety-six of his signatures in which there can’t be one single one found with the top stroke commencing from the left.
Mr. Storrs.-Now, there is another curious illustration which I wish to make. Southworth, in testifying upon the subject of the forgeries of the D’s, said that the D in stub 175, stub-book number 8, was a forgery. That is very free, easy and unconstrained. We, as I will show you, tracked this into a wrapper. They undertook to evade (p. 41) that by saying that the wrapper contained $10 more than the amount embraced within the settlement; but now I present your Honor a D on a check to compare with the one which he pronounced forged and fraudulent from the expressive and flowing manner at the top. Now, if these are not mates and twins, mates and twins were never born in this world. There they are, and a comparison of the tops of those two D’s furnish us a conclusive and irrefutable answer to the pretense of the experimenter
So far as this test of superposing is concerned, let me ask one or two questions: From what were those photographs taken? I have the authorities to show that they are utterly incompetent as evidence here; but passing that point, I do not care to make any discussion concerning them.
See Foster will case, 34 Mich., 21.
From what were they taken? Were they taken from the stub-book, from the originals, or were they taken from the tracings made by Southworth? On these points, and that point is a most vital and important one, the witness has remained silent and has not said to us a word. If from the tracings, then every possible opportunity was presented for a fraud; for it would require but the slightest variation of the hand in making those tracings; this hand a mere machine; this hand could, under the influence of the mind; this mind strongly wrought to accomplish a particular purpose, and that is to make or prevent a superposing as the case might be. If, your Honor, these photographs were taken from the tracings, and the strong probability of the case is, that they were, the whole business falls utterly and wretchedly to pieces; and it is not worthy of an instant’s consideration. Who can tell us? Who has told us? What opportunities have we had for testing the accuracy of these curious cuttings and fittings? Who knows and can assure us that the photograph has not itself been made to play fantastic tricks. From how large a number of the infinite numbers of specimens which he has had in his hands and under his observation, have these specimens been taken on which the experiments have been made here before the eyes of the Court. If your Honor please, in view of the general law upon this subject, in view of the tests applied to Southworth himself, in view of the wide door open for the perpetration of fraud, in view of the necessary uncertainties that may attend all such investigations; to call these tricks the results of science, is an abuse of the word; to call them demonstrations is a cheat; it is the shallowest empiricism veneered. It is jugglery and nothing more. I go now to stub 37, and the proofs begin to multiply. It is now for the first time in the history of all these investigations claimed that the initials ” S. H. D.,” on stub No. 37, stub-book number 2, are forged. We answer: First, There can be no such thing as a forgery within settlements, if therefore 37 is forged, 36 must have been the end of the settlement, and 38 the beginning of the next, for 38 is unquestioned. Second, The date of stub 36 is Sept. 24th, and of stub 37 is Sept. 25th. It is conceded that all the stubs are genuine down to, and including 43, the date of which is Sept. 26. Here are two settlements in two days, on the theory that 37 and 44 are forged, a condition of things which never occurred in the history of that University, which is an utter impossibility and absurdity.
To these conclusions do we come at last. This is not the result of any administration of justice in a good old-fashioned way. No such consequences flowed from pursuing truth in the ordinary and usual manner; but we upset all human probabilities only when we seek to reach something more than probability by the arts of a juggler’s science, and are compelled, by this absurd fustian, to reach the conclusion that on the 24th day of September, Rose and Douglas settled, on the (p. 42) 25th day of September Rose and Douglas settled again, and on the 26th of September they settled again. If they were not settlements, when did Dr. Douglas affix his initials to these stubs?
Southworth testifies also that stub 175, stub-book 8, is forged. This date is included in wrapper number 3, for the year ’71 and ’72, running from Nov. 2d to Dec. 2d. The wrapper takes in every dollar, every dollar of deposit between those times, and ten dollars more. It shows to a demonstration that the ticket represented by this stub, which the Boston juggler says is forged, passed into a settlement between Rose and Douglas, and that the money was actually paid over to Douglas by Rose, and the wrapper is its receipt. This wrapper is in Douglas’s handwriting, and there are fourteen other wrappers similar to this. (See Exhibit.) Can human demonstration go farther than that?
Judge Douglas.-Will you show us the wrappers?
Mr. Storrs.-I am through hunting for wrappers. I am not doing any express messenger’s business.
I come to solid ground; I am going now to facts; I am going to leave theories. How pleasant it seems, too, when we leave the pretensions of this bastard science, these assumptions and dishonest theories; these juggler’s tricks; these realms of wild guess-work and spurious demonstrations and turn our attention to the enquiry
What are the Facts?
In the first place I say this pretense is made suspicious by the curious manner in which the discovery was in the first instance made. Made at a time when no other method of escape from an exposed defalcation could be found. The mutilation of the stub-books and carrying these stub-books all round the country, exhibiting them here, there and everywhere; and yet, with these long months of anxious, tireless preparation, not a single man can be found with power of face sufficient to stand up here and testify that in his opinion a single D on these books is not the genuine signature of Prof. Douglas. More than all that, pursuing the serious charge with this vigilant and ceaseless investigation, a pursuit that never ended, and a vigilance that never tired, from the men in this community who have known for years the signature of Prof. Douglas and of Dr. Rose, not a single one has been called to testify that his opinion is, that there is a spurious signature upon one of these books. I appeal from the imported expert; I appeal from the pretended conclusions of this fraudulent and reversible science; I appeal to this tremendously overwhelming evidence of silence.
I go still further: Dr. Douglas, not long ago, said that forgery had been abandoned as a defense. Failing everywhere else he sends to Boston, brings his witness here, a paid and a purchased witness, so characterized by the books which I have read, so characterized by his own testimony. Understand me, or rather, do not misunderstand me. I do not undertake to say that Mr. Southworth has sworn here deliberately false. For the purposes of this case it is entirely inconsequential whether he has or not. It is enough for me that he is a hired partisan, paid for his testimony, as he says: Question. “You came here for the purpose of testifying as an expert?” A. “Čame on purpose.” Q. “How much do you receive a day?” A. “I don’t know.” Q. “What are your rates?” A. “It depends upon the time employed and perhaps upon other circumstances.” Q. “Are you generally paid by the day or by the result?” A. “Never by the result.” Q. “Always by the day?” A. “Always have set some price when I get through, and sometimes when I am obliged, I do as counsel do, I suppose.”
Now mark the superiority of this scientific gentleman to counsel. Mark the superiority of this man who sits enthroned on the glittering eminence of science, as he looks down upon us, poor creatures, that (p. 43) are traveling round in the shadows of that mount on the top of which he sits in kingly pride. But, he says, I cannot be retained as counsel, because I can go only on the right side.” Virtuous Mr. Southworth! modest Mr. Southworth! He maintains this show of judicial fairness in describing the manner in which the investigations began. He is the same witness who in the Howland will case says that he went into a room. hardly knowing what he was going there for, discovered it all right out of his own head; the books were pointed out to him by a stranger, but curiously enough it turned out to be that the stranger was the counsel who employed him I say to him: 66 When did you come to the city of Ann Arbor?” A “I think it is four weeks ago to-day. Q. “How came you to come here?” A. “On account of a letter received.” Q. “State what you did when you came here; what you were called upon to do?” A. “I was taken to the University, into the Secretary’s room, and a pile of books were laid out before me, and I was asked to look them over.” Q. What were you told with reference to the object of looking them over?” A. “To determine whether the signatures to the books were genuine or not.”
Now, if the Court please, that is not the whole story; we know better. We know that this expert was never taken blindfolded into that room by Mr. Douglas, saying here is the box, there it is, open it, and what we want you to do, is to find the forged signatures in that box. It is absurd; it is a foolish little invention, foolish, because no one can be expected to believe it.
Even after Southworth had arrived, I want your Honor to mark another thing, there seems to be a great difficulty in designating these forged D’s, your Honor will see the reason by and by, we required them to particularize; day after day passed away, and they finally particularized from 44 through the book; but they said they would like to give us notice of some more if they found them. There is precisely the rub-if they find them! Very great care must be exercised in the location; and I will tell your Honor why, by and by. Give us time,” they say, “to locate them so that we won’t run foul of any stubborn fact, and we will hunt you some more. We think you have committed a murder, give us time to find out who is killed and where and when; so that we can skip battles and sieges, and railroad accidents, and storms and tempests, and if we find anything that falls outside of those lines, we will charge it to you.’ This is evidenced by these considerations; Southworth adjusts himself to the necessities of the situation. It was absolutely necessary to steer clear of the years covered by these tell-tale wrappers; and your Honor remembers when we went outside of a particular book to which he had been testifying and called his attention to other stub-books, at once Mr. Pond would interpose the inquiry, “What is the year?” “What is the year?” for Southworth knew as well (for he was on his guard), as Mr. Pond knew, the years in which there were wrappers and the years in which there were not. Southworth did pretty well, but fatally blundered when he struck book number 8. There, in among the sands, and the shoals, and the reefs of the wrappers was he wrecked, and the little cockle boat of Southworth is lifted away up with a rock clean through the bottom, split on stub.
To-day it is discovered Stub Number 45 is a Forgery; that is one of the most significant facts in this case. It is an absolute necessity to prove it, and I will show your Honor why. Up to this time number 45 had never been questioned, and a fairer stub and a more genuine initial than stub 45 cannot be found. Testifying both before the June and the Legislative Committee that these initials were genuine, Douglas was confronted with the inquiry, “How happens it then, that you did not discover that the signature “Dougled,” written right “above it was misspelled and was a forgery?” The dilemma in which (p. 44) he was placed was very clearly shown by his testimony before the Legislative Committee. Before the June Committee he had sworn that these initials were genuine. Before the Legislative Committee, as I will show you, he had sworn again and again that they were genuine. Then somebody on the Legislative Committee says, Why, Dr. Douglas, if the signature ‘S. H. D.’ on stub 45 is genuine, and was written by yourself, how on earth happens it that you missed the discovery of the forged Dougled,’ made above it and on the same page?” There was trouble, there was no method of escape; for that Chancellor and that jury do not live that would treat 45 as a genuine signature and believe for an instant that ” Dougled,” immediately above it, was forged? The discovery, 45 being genuine, was as inevitable as that the sparks fly upward. Thus driven from one extremity to another, this miserable pretense is now invented for the first time by the convenient testimony of the expert. To extricate Dr. Douglas from the toils in which he had involved himself. He says, speaking about this:
“It is the full name ‘Dougles,’ and I hardly think that can be genuine. My impression is that stub 45 is genuine; stub 44 is not.” Q. “The initial on 45, you have no reason to doubt its genuineness, etc.?” A. “I think they are genuine.” Q. You had to look at that and see whether it was signed before you signed the other?” A. “I had to look at it, of course. I would be likely to look at it, and I presume I did. Q. “Once more I want to know how you could write that signature which you claim to be genuine without noticing this one which you claim was a forgery?” then he says, “I don’t know, I’m sure.’
There for the first time was this emergency created. Mark, the forgery was located in a year when there were no tell-tale wrappers to convict him. The forgery was conveniently located on a misspelled name, jumping at the delusive theory that no man could be presumed to misspell his own name. Everything conveniently selected; not seeing the results which he reached again and again, before the June and the Legislative Committees, did he declare the genuineness of the initials on stub 45.
But the most marvelous feature of this case, it runs through it all, it stains it all, as the waters of the Missouri, as they pour into the Mississippi, color it even to the Gulf, that, wherever there is an emergency, there is a change of proof. I will pile the evidences, before we are through with this case, mountain high, that will demonstrate, that there has not been, from the beginning of this wretched case down to to-day, a single instance where Dr. Douglas was involved in an emergency, that another falsehood has not been immediately concocted to meet it. Guided on his way by the light of Southworth’s science, with that rock right in his path, the existence of which, the investigation before the Legislative Committee disclosed. Now, Dr. Douglas says, throwing to the clouds his testimony of the last years, utterly and coolly ignoring it, he says now number 45 is a forgery. To-day we say to him
Question. “Please look at stub 45, and see if those are not your genuine initials?” Answer. Well, I have pretty good reason for supposing they are not.” Q. “What reason? Haven’t you repeatedly testified that in your opinion it was?” A. “I have, sir.” Q. “Subsequent investigation, however, has changed your mind on that point?” A. I have no reason to believe, from the present light I have, that those are my initials?”
Southworth unhesitatingly pronounces it a forgery; that is the light under which Dr. Douglas treads. It is the shifting, uncertain light, more tricky and dangerous than the flashes of the lightning as they gleam through the clouds. It is by these lights that he places the brand of perjury upon the testimony of the past years, and seeks to lay the foundation of this charge against Dr. Rose. Now, this signature, on stub 44, has become historical; my brother Pond says that it is spelled all right. I can’t discuss that; it is not susceptible of discus-(p. 45) sion. If your Honor please, that is an E, and there is no mistake about it. This is pronounced a forgery, without the slightest hesitation. Curves and base lines, superposings and parallelisms, hair strokes and pen pressure, Greek E’s and spacings, according to Southworth, all conspired to pronounce that signature a forgery. Let us see if it is. It is simply impossible that it is a forgery. I undertake to say that your Honor cannot find it a forgery. Everything in the case rises up and rebels against any such conclusion. Southworth, himself, upon all basis of human reasoning, shows that it is not a forgery. He declares, however, that Douglas could not have written it. I will show you that he could. He declares it to be totally unlike the genuine. He says, and this is his testimony upon that point:
Question. “We will now see if we can arrive at any understanding of what is common sense. The word Dougled,’ that occurs in stub-book number 2, we will examine. I wish to ask you whether, in the course of your large and varied experience in the examination of writings, you found it to be usually the case that the forger undertakes to imitate, that is, the forger of a signature, or of a single word?” Answer. “It is generally necessary for him to do that. It is not always necessary; sometimes he does not.” QIs it not the case, in a very large majority of instances, where one man undertakes to forge the signature of another, and particularly where the forged signature is liable to be under the immediate inspection and every day examination of the party whose signature is thus forged, is it not in those cases almost universally the rule that an attempt at imitation is made?” A. ‘I should think it would be, sir.” Q. “Don’t you regard it, laying science aside for a few minutes, as a very extraordinary performance, if a forgery of that kind is attempted, and no effort whatever made to imitate the original?’ A. “Perhaps I should” Q. Whether you should or not, now, don’t you regard it as very extraordinary?” A. No. sir, I see the attempt at imitation; I see where there is a slight.” Q. “You would regard the attempt at imitation as a very conspicuous failure would you not?” A. “An utter failure.” Q. “Utter, complete, and total failure?” A. “Almost total.”
Thus we start out, Southworth concedes-not concedes, but he asserts, in the testimony which I have already read, Rose’s capacity to imitate, for, with reference to “S. H. D.” on stub 45, he says, that the imitation is, in many respects, a very good one. He also says that Rose is proficient with the pen. See what the condition of affairs is. If this wretched theory is true, Dr. Preston B. Rose starts out on a scheme of forgery at stub 37, forges the initials, “S. H. D.,” tolerably well, and quits. He then, on stub 44, undertakes “Douglas,” makes an utter failure, spells it wrong, tries his hand again on the next stub, “S. H. D.,” makes a perfect success, something that will superpose upon all created things; then, your Honor, invents a new signature, the signature of the initial D, the first time that it was ever employed, and keeps that up all through the book. Has your Honor any more patience with that theory? This is not the case of a forgery, if your Honor please, made to deceive the outside world. Stop and think of it. Who was that signature made to deceive? Was Rose going to a banker to get money on it? No, but it was made to deceive the very man whose name, they say, was thus forged, and it could only deceive him by presenting it to him within four weeks after the forgery was committed; and thus we are driven to this dire extremity, that Preston B. Rose undertakes to forge the signature of Douglas, makes a wretched failure of it, leaves off two letters, one altered, changes two, spells it all wrong, makes that wretched botch for the purpose of presenting it to Douglas, himself, within four weeks, and getting an allowance of $10 on it. Was ever justice in such manner wooed? Was ever justice in such manner won?
Still more wonderful-wonders never cease with this-the name is not correctly spelt. Rose was not only intimately familiar with the handwriting of Douglas, but also knew, perfectly, how his name was spelled, and always spelled it correctly. This, then, if your Honor please, is the extraordinary condition of things which we are compelled (p. 46) to meet, if we believe the testimony of Southworth: First. Rose, for the purpose of deceiving Douglas, forges his name to a paper, of which it would be, in the course of their business, utterly impossible to escape examination longer than a month. Second. Perfectly familiar with the handwriting of Douglas, he does not even make an attempt to imitate it. Southworth characterizes it as no imitation-total and utter failure. Third. Perfectly familiar with his manner of spelling his name, he misspells it in two particulars, glaringly and blunderingly misspells it. Finally. This attempt succeeds. Was there ever such a miracle? Douglas is deceived by this miserable scheme, looks upon his name thus travestied, thus misspelled, adopts it as his own, pays to the University $10 on the strength of his own belief in its genuineness, never discovers that it is otherwise than genuine until ten years thereafter, when discovered to be a defaulter, the University which he has plundered calls him to an account, when the repudiation of the signature is necessary to his escape, and a Boston expert shoulders the responsibility of superposing his theory upon reason and human experience, to the utter crushing out and obliteration of both. There is not a miracle recorded in History, Sacred or Profane, that carries within its limits such a gross, utter absurdity, as is involved in this pretense, when we consider all the facts, that the signature is forged, misspelled, without an effort at an imitation, forged to deceive a man whose name was forged, placed right before his very eyes, before the ink was hardly dry; and the man whose name has been thus distorted and wrenched out of all shape, if Southworth is to be believed, meekly acquiesces in the scheme of swindling, adopts that signature, and pays $10 to the University of Michigan.
Southworth explains.-Confronted with these circumstances, so utterly destructive to his wretched theory, the expert, himself, hastens to proclaim a new theory, evidently concocted before he came on the stand, for he endeavors to force it upon the Court during his direct examination. No description can do justice to the subject. I give him the benefit of his exact language:
Question. “You say some of these letters were not and could not have been made by him? They could not, in the strong fashion in which you placed it, I suppose is the result of what you call the demonstration of what you call your method here; it is your opinion?” Answer. “It is beyond opinion, it comes to superposing curve and square, &c., so that it is beyond opinion.”
Now, a little of practical tests. (A comparison was here made between the “D” and the “G” in the signature on stub 44, and various “D’s” and “G’s” in the scratch book, admitted to be in the genuine handwriting of Prof. Douglas, and it was admitted that such comparison exhibited a striking similarity between those letters in the questioned signature and the same letters as found among those admitted to be genuine on the scratch book.) Southworth’s attention was called to the fact of the misspelling. He thus treats it:
Question.” You would regard it as a complete failure, not only in its efforts at imitating shape and structure of letters, but also a failure in orthography?” Answer. “I have nothing to do with the orthography of it at all.” Q. I have a little something to do with it, and will you please answer the question?” A. “I will tell you as I answered it in the direct, that that did not affect my opinion.”
(Standing precisely, you see, as Neithercliff did in that old fraudulent case, where the maiden lady undertook to palm herself off with fraudulent papers as a successor of the Hanovarian House.)
Question. “It is not very important to me what affects you, if it seems to affect me?” Answer. “I will try and relieve you if you will put your questions in the proper way.” Q. “Relieve me, if possible; it is really bothering me. Have you observed, and have you examined, those stub books with sufficient care to observe that there is a very wide and obvious distinc-(p. 47) tion in the orthography between the signature on stub book 44 and the other names of Douglas that occur in that same book.” A. “There is.” Q.” Would you consider it to be good judgment for a forger to have before him the signature that he was intending to forge if it was possible for him to do so?”
A. “I can’t tell you about that at all.”
Hence, so far as this expert is concerned, wherever his science is involved, he has nothing to do with the facts; they don’t disturb him; they don’t affect his judgment; he has a theory, and, although there is no conceivable semblance between the two signatures, as he says, although it is misspelt, as he says, that never enters into his calculations. If the facts are one way, and the theory the other, “so much the worse for the facts, poor things.” The expert finally meets the issue between his theory and the facts, squarely, and in a manner which, by a display of cheap cunning, preposterous folly, and sublime confidence in the general gullibility of Courts, discounts anything Courts have ever seen; and here it is, when he ceases to be scientific, and turns to moralizing, that he musses himself and us in this fashion on the conscience question. Did your Honor ever see anything like the display made by that witness on that point? Here were the troublesome facts; there they stood in the way, absolutely, of the truth of his theory. There they confronted, whichever way this charge might take, the charge itself, and said it was false. And how does Southworth meet it? By an explanation which he undertook to foist upon the Court, upon direct examination, before it was called for, and which, without using any language at all too severe, ought utterly to pulverize the entire testimony of that witness. Now, let us read it:
Question. “Has it ever occurred to you, or did it enter into your calculations upon determining whether Rose forged this signature that there was this wide difference between the confessedly genuine names in this book and the one which you claimed to be forged?” Answer. That is what I say; there is no similarity.” Q. Did it occur to you that it was a little extraordinary that there should be no similarity, and that the names should be spelt unlike?” A. “It might first, but I looked upon it as a pretty cute trick at last.” Q. Will you explain-perhaps it is not a part of your science, but will you endeavor to explain why that complicated trick was played?” A. “The hand was not accustomed to Dr. Douglas’ signature very much.” Q. “How do you know it was not accustomed to practicing it?” A. “Because it is a bad imitation. See it in the S. H. D previous, although the His pretty well done, taking the fact that the hand had not become accustomed to the signature, and the fact of an excitement which a person would feel in doing wrong that had any conscience, the fashion of spelling it with a Greek E, or spelling it with one S, or leaving off the first part of the G, as Rose is in the habit, in his writing, of doing.” Q. “Then you think he spelled this wrong from the effects of the qualms of conscience?” A. “His attention could not have been called exactly to the spelling or he would have spelled it right.” Q. “Are you familiar with the effects the qualms of conscience have upon the human hand?” A. “In some degree perhaps I am, and some descriptions which I have heard, others may likewise sympathize with me.” Q. Do you think that the S. H. D. was affected at all by conscience, number 37?” A. “I don’t think it is a very good imitation; the His better.”
It is difficult, it seems to me, to find language to fittingly characterize this kind of testimony. The soul absolutely wearies and sickens at it; but, nevertheless, we must pursue it. An uneasy conscience, Southworth tells us, accounts for all these peculiarities, and, inasmuch as the human hand is a machine, one would suppose that this wicked conscience would affect the nerves, and exhibit itself in a trembling, hesitating handwriting. Conscience, it is said, makes cowards of us all; and the fear which it inspires should, it seems, have exhibited itself in this handwriting. But Rose seemed to spurn conscience, and defy it. He seizes it boldly by the throat with the left hand, while he strikes out with the right with a bold, dignified, free capital letter D, in a style so easy, so flowing, so large and so commanding, that, for that very reason, and possessing those peculiarities, Prof. Southworth denounces it as a forgery. It don’t seem as if conscience affected him much when he made the D. He proceeds with the O, the U, the G and (p. 48) L, so far as freedom of action is concerned, with magnificent success. They are all free, bold, unconstrained and easily written. Conscience would seem to cramp the hand, but it never shows itself in that marvelous signature. When he has made a majority of the letters, he finally entirely looses his grip, drops his hold, is overtaken by the gnawings of his conscience, substitutes an E in place of an A, a D in place of a final S, and leaves an S off altogether. This sudden and awful fall from an easy freedom of start, until the dreadful collapse at the close, is, as we are told, the result of a disturbed conscience. This stuff is called testimony, and the pretender who seeks to palm it
off on the Court, is called an expert.
The Proofs Multiply.
We search in vain for any other instance in which Rose ever wrote or spelled the name Douglas as it is written and spelled upon stub 44. We have almost numberless instances in which he has written that name; and never, in all this world, I am justified in saying from the evidence in this case, was there a single other instance in which Douglas was written in that way by Rose; so that, if it is a forgery, it is the only instance on earth in which Rose ever spelled the name in that way. We have the checks; they are all right….” (p. 49)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Isn’t that a long postponement? The question is not whether the books balance now; and I wish your Honor to bear that in mind. The significance of the inquiry is precisely here; if the story that Douglas tells is true, if he paid over in ’66-7 $500 or $600 more than he received, didn’t he know it? And if he knew it, wasn’t he put upon inquiry, and would he not of a very necessity have examined the sources from which so serious an error could have sprung. But he tells us again and again and again that his cash account did not show any disarrangement; and, driven from one extremity to another, he undertakes to explain it by the wretched pretense set up in this answer, when the fact of the matter is, it is not of the slightest earthly consequence for us to know whether he has made that balance now or not. Did they balance then is the inquiry? And if his cash books balanced in ’66-7, the pretense that these D’s are forged is a wicked and malicious lie. And that they do balance. I prove by the long lines of testimony which this man has delivered upon that very question, and by the statement which he has deliberately made in writing, and deliberately signed, and deliberately sworn to, and placed upon the files of this Court, challenging the attention of the Court to it, and demanding for it belief.
Now, then, before the advent of Southworth, the books balanced; since then they do not. The balancing of the books, therefore, depends, not upon the books, but upon Southworth’s testimony as to whether the D’s are forged. I am in no sense an expert, in no sense an accountant, I have some little knowledge of business affairs, and I had supposed, until this wonderful case began and was tried, that the question as to whether books balanced or not, was determined by the books. Hasn’t your Honor always supposed so? How much we have learned! Before an expert arrives, they all balance; and he comes, and with the magical wand of his science, balances are upset, figures are dislocated, settlements are wrenched violently out of place, and all business nature convulsed.
If the books did not balance for that year, why not, if your Honor pleases, show it by the books themselves? They have not been produced. In an inquiry so vital, it is vital? For if they balance, this whole pretense is a wicked lie. In an inquiry so vital and essential, what right has this defendant making a charge, so grave in its character, to omit to determine the question by the only evidence on earth by which that question could be satisfactorily determined. Not a single accountant among the swarms of accountants that have filled this Court-room, has been called upon the stand to testify that he has examined that man’s cash account for that year, or another, and find that for either of those years it exhibited the slightest indications of a disarrangement. Finally, if the books balance, then the D’s are genuine. If they did not balance, then all his previous testimony, his answer, and the wretched explanation which it contains, are deliberately false. If no one can tell whether these books balance or not, then it is utterly worthless as proof or for any other purpose. The trouble, if your Honor pleases-and it is wisely and divinely ordained that it should be so-the trouble all comes out of the impossibility of making a falsehood fit anywhere.
But the charge that these initials and signatures are forged, is false for still another reason. Douglas was in the habit of closely examining the stub books, and he would have been certain to have discovered the forgeries. Now, that turns entirely upon the correctness of my statement as to whether he was continually in the habit of examining these stub books. I am not unmindful of what he has sworn to here….” (p.53)
(Etc., etc.)]

Circuit Court of the United States, Southern District of New York. In Equity: Simon Wing, et al., vs. Edward Anthony, et als. Abbott Brothers, solicitors for complainant, John S. Abbott, council for complainants; Charles F. Blake, counsel for defendants. Boston: Tolman & White, 1877–78. [Original photos are of the defendants’ exhibits in Simon Wing et al. (including A. S. Southworth) vs. Edward Anthony, on the invention of the “multi-frame” daguerreotype frame in the 1840s. (New York Public Library collection.)]

Documents of the Assembly of the State of New York. No. 57. Reply of the Attorney-General to a Resolution of the Assembly Transmitting a Statement of Payments Made from the Treasury of the State during the Two Years Ending December 31, 1876, and which are Charged in the Comptroller’s Accounts as Against the Attorney-General’s Office. State of New York: Office of the Attorney-General, Albany, February 19, 1877, 19 p.
“Statement of Expenses Transmitted with Attorney-General’s Report, Feb. 19, 1877.” (pp. 3-19)
“May 1.”
“Albert S. Southworth, of Boston, for services as an expert in handwriting…..$350.00.” (p. 11)]

Wilson, Edward L. “Photographic Societies.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 14:157 (Jan. 1877): 17. [“Mr. A. S. Southworth, in one of his characteristic addresses before the Convention … said ‘The National Association must rest upon local societies. If there are no local societies in the country, we shall have no general society.’”]

Hardy, A. N. “Society Gossip: Boston Photographic Society.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 14:158 (Feb. 1877): 48–49. [Southworth complemented Mr. C. F. Richardson’s sensitized photographic paper, which had been demonstrated at the meeting, and moved to vote a plan to further test the paper.]

Hardy, A. N. “Society Gossip: Boston Photographic Society.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 14:159 (Mar. 1877): 84–85. [New officers elected. Southworth offered a resolution to thank past officers, complimented the spirit of the members working in harmony for the past eight years. Southworth appointed to address a resolution to commemorate long-time member T. R. Burnham, retired and moving away.]

Ritz, Ernest R. “Society Gossip: Boston Photographic Society.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 14:162 (June 1877): 179–80. [Extracts from a speech given by Albert S. Southworth to the Boston Photographic Society on May 4, 1877. “There are two indispensable elements required by the artist, viz., light and vision.”]

1878

Best, W. M. The Principles of the Law of Evidence, With Elementary Rules for Conducting the Examination and Cross-Examination of Witnesses. New York: Cockcroft, 1878. 2 v. 24 cm.
[“In Howland v. Taylor, known as the Taylor Will Case, a question as to the forgery of the alleged testator’s signature was very fully tried, and experts testified as follows: Mr. Southworth, an expert, “I make as thorough and systematic an analysis as I can make, and judge of handwriting, not bv the genera] effect, mechanical effect, but by the combination of characteristics which the writer himself does not usually observe, and which, perhaps, he does not know; the hand being a machine not subject to the will, because a person may have a will to write a very handsome hand, and not yet be able to do it.
“The hand, when-set going, makes involuntarily the marks, while the eye is looking upon the paper; an effort to make a (p. 442) single letter would be a very unnatural movement of an ordinary writer, while his off-hand movement when he is not thinking about it, will be the natural movement of the hand, and will contain the natural characteristics of the hand.
“The hand when put on and making two or three letters in succession, without taking it up, in ordinary writing, will measure off from parts of letters to the next parts of letters, until it is taken up; a sort of a gauge running like a machine sometimes larger, sometimes smaller, but having the general angles and curves; that is, a line hand placed inside of a coarser hand, the lines will seem to be parallel; enlarge a very line hand tip to a very coarse hand, and i! there is a right angle, it will remain a right angle; if there is a circle, it will still remain a circle, and everything will maintain the same parallelisms. So that take any person’s ordinary writing and split through it, and lay one half under the other half, and there will be movements like parallel movements, all straight, like railroad tracks, but parallel, so that when one curves the other will curve; that is taking the same previous and following joinings.” (p. 443)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Albert S. Southworth, an expert, agreed with Mr. Paine in the particulars above set forth. His analysis of the live exhibits written and signed by Taylor will be found;it folios 1837 to 1851. After giving the characteristics of the signatures to the exhibits, he testified as follows: “Q. Do any of the characteristics you have spoken of in the signatures to the exhibit; you have last testified about, appeal in the signature to the will? “A. Not one.” Mi-. Southworth’s analysis of the handwriting of the pretended will and the signature, ‘James B. Taylor,’ will be found at folios 1798 to 1834. He, as well as Mr. Paine, demonstrated that the hand writing of the body of the will and the signature, ‘James B. Taylor,’ are one and the same, and must have been written by one and the same person. Mr. Paine, as already shown, pointed out some two hundred peculiarities, coincidences, and characteristic between the handwriting of the body of the will and the signature James B. Taylor. Southworth pointed out a great number of characteristics which the signature and (p. 445) the handwriting of the body of the will possess in common. This, which he said, could not be, unless they were written by the same person. Mr. Southworth testified that the signature to the will could be placed over words in the body of the will, so that it could be seen that the letters in the signature were exactly tire same in every characteristic as the corresponding letters in the body of the will. He said: “This can be proved by placing the will against the sunlight, against the window; the paper is so transparent that the lines in the bottom of the word ‘James’ [of signature to will] can be run against the bottom of a great many words up and down the page opposite.” This experiment Mr. Southworth made in court before the surrogate, and it amounted to a demonstration that the handwriting of the body of the alleged will and the signature James B. Taylor were the same. The letters in the signature which lay over corresponding letters in the body of the alleged will were the same in respect to curves, they being “parallel with each other, like two rails curved — the curve of a railroad.” They were the same in respect to “all of the movements;” the witness said “the outside movements are all parallel,” . . . ” the strokes are all parallel.”
Witness, while he had the will against the window, pointed out the coincidences and characteristics in common between various letters in the signature ” James B. Taylor,” and corresponding letters in the body of the alleged will. The witness testified that if each of the signatures of James B. Taylor to the exhibits was laid over the will signature, it could be seen that they would not correspond in movements, curves and characteristics. The witness testified, that if the same experiment were performed with reference to any two of the signatures to the exhibits, it could be seen that they corresponded in their characteristics and were written by the same person. The witness said, “If this experiment were performed with the genuine signatures, they would exhibit successive curves, characteristic curves, curves belonging to that hand, connected successively, making a combination of characteristics, that they would present the same angles.
“Q. Showing that they were written by the same hand? (p. 446)
“A. Showing that the same machine made them.”
The witness testified, that if any of the genuine signatures to the exhibits were laid over the will signature, it would appear that the letters in the one had no characteristics in common with the letters of the other; that they had ” no resemblance whatever, no characteristics [in common] not the slightest.” That they had not ” the same turn at all,” and would not go together; that the characteristics which mark identity of handwriting were totally different.
The testimony of Southworth and of Paine shows that the genuine signatures of Taylor to exhibits in evidence have not so much as a single characteristic in common with the alleged will signature. Their testimony also shows that every one of the characteristics of the will signature appear over and over again in the body of the alleged will. The coincidences, the characteristics in common, between the handwriting in the body of the alleged will and the signature ” James B. Taylor,” are counted by hundreds….” (p. 447)
(Etc., etc.) (p. 447)]

Wing et. al. vs. Tompkins.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 9:9 (Sept. 1878): 276. [Court decision, against Wing, Southworth, and Ormsbee.]

“Decision of U.S. Circuit Court, Southern District of New York. Simon Wing, Albert S. Southworth and Marcus Ormsbee vs. Edward Anthony, Henry T. Anthony and Vincent M. Wilcox” and “The Wing Suit.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 9:11 (Nov. 1878): 324–27, 343. [Text of decision, plus list of witnesses and statement (p. 343).]

1879

“What a Father in Photography Thinks.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 16:190 (Oct. 1879): 300–301. [Letter from Southworth advocating reorganizing the defunct National Photographic Association, stating that ill health will not allow him to do more himself.]

1881

Wilson, Edward L. Wilson’s Photographics: A Series of Lessons, Accompanied by Notes, on All the Processes Which Are Needful in the Art of Photography. Philadelphia: Edward L. Wilson, 1881. [Lists Southworth among “Authorities Quoted in This Volume” (pp. xi–xiii); quotes Southworth (pp. 58, 61, 63).]

“Photographers’ Association of America: Second Annual Convention.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 12:8 (Aug. 1881): 225–53. [Communication from Southworth (p. 227). “Report of Committee of Mr. Southworth’s Application” (p. 238).]

“Photographers’ Association of America: Second Annual Convention Held in New York City, August 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th, 1881.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 18:213 (Sept. 1881): 257–81. [Southworth submitted a letter stating that he wished to make a presentation, in which he “desired to submit certain photographic specimens showing mechanical expressions of idea not discoverable upon the original made in the ordinary way …” and asking for a committee to be formed to evaluate the work (p. 259); a favorable report from the committee published (p. 276).]

“Photographers’ Association of America: Second Annual Convention Held in New York City, August 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th, 1881.” PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER 18:214 (Oct. 1881): 289–311. [Southworth discussed his method of “photographing for law cases and expert work, which was very interesting and accompanied by specimens … His work has often been published to the world in the daily newspapers. He is without a peer in such expert work” (p. 309).]

1882

Dunton, Alvin R. The True Story of the Hart-Meservey Murder Trial, in which Light is thrown upon Dark Deeds, Incompetency, and Perfidy; and Crime fastened upon Those Whose Position, If Not Manhood, Should have Commanded Honest Dealing. By Alvin R. Dunton, Camden, Maine; Author of the Duntonian System of Penmanship; and the oldest Expert on Hand-Writing in the United States. Ye who love the ways of Justice, Who delight in noble actions, Who believe that Truth should conquer, And that Right should rule forever, Read this story of oppression, Read this story true and faithful. Boston: Published by the Author, 1882. 309 p.
[“…Testimony was then taken as to the authenticity of the photographs of the letters. Albert S. Southworth;, an expert in hand-writing, testified in substance that he believed the prisoner wrote the anonymous letter. George A. Sawyer, another expert, testified to the same. “…” (p. 34)
“…Fairbanks, Esq., upon the stand,—an expert brought to Rockland for the purpose of swearing against Hart, but who was too intelligent to be hoodwinked by Southworth and Sawyer, or purchased by Staples against his honest convictions. …” (p. 98)
“…I challenge any expert to point out any word or letter in the anonymous letters made like Hart’s. I had a good expert undertake it, but after many trials he gave it up. I am credibly informed that Southworth had not studied the case any to speak of until he came to Rockland. I went into a room where I found Southworth;, Fairbanks, and Sawyer studying over the writing….” “……I made an agreement with Sawyer and Fairbanks that they should receive $25 for examining, and $20 per day for attending court and testifying. Sawyer and Southworth testified that Hart wrote the anonymous letters, and Staples paid them from the county treasury $100 per day! Fairbanks could not swear to that state-…” (p. 112)
“…A. S. Southworth, Experts In Hand-Writing. The Montreal Legal News discourses on the question of expert testimony on hand-writing, and says: “The Albany Law Journal notes the fact that the indictment against Philps and others for forging and uttering the Morey letter is to be quashed, the prosecution being satisfied that the defendants were not the authors of the letter, but were imposed upon by the real forger; yet four ‘experts’ testified that Philps wrote the letter!..” “…On the other hand, the defence have now introduced a Boston lawyer who swears, according to our contemporary, to several very bad blunders made by Mr. Southworth;, one of the experts, in cases with which this witness had a professional connection; and that, while Mr. Southworth is a man of veracity, he has become a monomaniac on the subject of hand-writing, who can see things about it that no one else can see, and can tell things about it that no one else can tell.’ This Mr. Southworth is the same gentleman, we believe, who was so positive as to the address of the Macdonald-Pope letter being in the hand-writing of Mr. Palmer, of the Montreal post-office; nay, he is said to hold that opinion still, although the mystery has been fully cleared up by the acknowledgment of the real actor….” (p. 174)
“…The Macdonald-Pope letter, said to have been written by Palmer, was submitted to me by Mr. Southworth for examination; and never did mortal man exert himself more earnestly than he to have me decide as himself and Paine, of New York, had,— that Palmer wrote the letter and superscription. During an entire day Mr. Southworth labored presenting his strongest arguments to induce me to decide in accordance with them, but all to no purpose. I told Southworth that it was utterly impossible for Palmer to write them. But I detected the author in Boice, and told him so. At this interview Southworth said to me: “If you do not agree with Paine and myself in this matter, I shall say that there is nothing in the science of expert testimony.” Subsequent events proved Southworth to be wrong and myself correct, for this same Boice confessed the crime….” “…Paine, of New York, went to Canada, and, after making examinations, decided that the letter was written by one Palmer, and received the $500. Palmer was removed, and reinstated again before Paine left. Messrs. Paine and Southworth put their heads together to prove that Palmer wrote the letter, notwithstanding Boice had confessed to writing it, in consequence of which he was obliged to flee his country….” (p. 175)
“…having a good command of language, he is likely to impress court and jury with the correctness of his decisions upon disputed paper. But he is not infallible, and, as Mrs. Southworth said to me when I was examining the Macdonald-Pope letter: “Mr. Dunton, Paine and Southworth have got their foot in it.” “Yes,” said I, “they certainly have.”… …King states that he has positive proof that Boice was the writer of it. I will now call the reader’s attention to another mistake of Southworth’s. I once called upon Mr. Southworth;, at his request. He showed me some forged checks, and requested that I examine them while he dined. I did so, and soon discovered who wrote them. While there, I saw a letter from Paine to Southworth;, stating that some one had come into possession of the clerk’s writing, and had imitated it, in consequence of which the bank was out to the tune of a number of thousands of dollars. I also saw a letter of Southworth’s to Paine saying he was right in his conclusions. But I convinced Southworth in a few minutes that the clerk was the writer of the checks, and had made an attempt to disguise his own hand, but failed to do so. Southworth immediately wrote to Paine, claiming that the clerk was the guilty party, but forgot to give me credit, as is usual with him, for the discovery. I will detail another instance, a very important and yet plain case, in which Mr. Southworth made a shocking blunder. I set him right, which he admitted to the district-attorney and lawyers who employed us. The case is this: Mr. Southworth was sent for to go to Canton, N….” (p. 176)
“…he following is Mr. Southworth’s decision, made at the time and given to the district-attorney. I have the papers drawn by Southworth, but omit details. There were ten notes, amounting in the aggregate to about $29,000; and his decision was that they were all either written, signed, or indorsed by Adams, when, in fact, he had not made the scratch of a pen on one of them. One of the lawyers turned to the district-attorney and remarked: “What did I tell you?” They then said: “Mr. Dunton, you have decided the same?” I replied: “Not if I understand myself.” They left the room at once, when Southworth said to me: “This is a pretty scrape you have got me into. I engaged you to come here, and you have decided against me.’ “Well,” I said, “I came to tell the truth, did I not?”… …He replied: “No, but you have this time, and you had better go To which I said: “I am willing, and will do So. The next morning he told me again that I had better go home. I had come to the conclusion that Lamb wrote all the notes, and labored to convince Southworth that he did, but failed in the attempt, and he again told me that I had better go home on the first train. I told him that I was willing, but should not until I had explained why I was right. After a time Mr. Southworth became convinced and confessed his blunder, and said he should go home with me. But to confess to the district-attorney and law directly home.”…” (p. 177)
“……Hart of murder it would insure for him a seat in Congress, but, if he failed, it would be the ruination of him. On our way home from Ogdensburg I said to Southworth: “There is another case in which you are going to testify against me, but in that you are just as certainly laboring under a mistake as you were in this case.”… …Somerby, of Boston, one of the ablest lawyers of that city, and pronounced the signatures genuine, and so testified before the police court, although Mr. Saunders swore he never wrote them. Mr. Southworth also examined the signatures, and very positively pronounced them genuine, charging $40, as I was told, for his opinion. Shortly after, Mr. Somerby requested Southworth to photograph them. Southworth then said to Mr. Somerby: “I don’t think I can help you any in that case, as I have changed my mind.”…” (p. 178)
“…surprised, as well he might be, at so sudden a change of opinion, and remarked: “You are either dishonest, or your brain is turned.” Mr. Somerby never had any confidence in him after that, as he has frequently told me and others. Mr. Southworth gave me his reasons for this change of base, as follows. He said: “Mr. Nichols had failed in business, and had had a civil case in court, and a brother-in-law of mine was one of the jurymen in the trial. This brother-in-law told me that Nichols was such a man as would be likely to commit a forgery.” Further, Mr. Southworth said: “The note has too many figure nines in it to be genuine.” I said to him: If those are your reasons for changing your mind, your mode of getting at the facts are very different from mine.” 66 Now, in regard to Mr…. …Before the case came to trial, Saunders paid to Nichols the amount of the note with interest, thereby acknowledging the genuineness of the signature, as I had decided and Southworth had denied. And this is the man who testified that Nathan F. Hart wrote the three anonymous letters used in the Hart murder trial. The long letter known as the Providence letter, containing about 3350 words, he swore was written with a short pencil…. …He might with the same propriety, and with the same degree of certainty, have sworn that the writer of that letter had short legs and a glass eye. I presume he thought, because the writing was small, he must have had a small piece of pencil. first and last part of the letter, Mr. Southworth? his pencil to write the large, open hand? Southworth’s whole testimony in that trial was false and cruel beyond description. My blood boils with indignation every time I think of it….” (p. 179)
“…check was once submitted to me for examination, and, after a long and careful study of the signature as compared with genuine signatures, I decided that this one was a forgery traced from a genuine one. Southworth stoutly claimed it to be genuine, but, after tedious labor, I convinced him of his error. The forger subsequently acknowledged it was traced, and explained his manner of doing it….” “……A promissory note was in dispute, the question being whether it was witnessed at the same time it was executed, and whether in witnessing the note the same ink was used as in executing the note. Mr. Southworth was employed by the defense, and gave it as his opinion that the note was not witnessed at the time it was executed, nor with the same ink. Charles Nutter, Esq., was counsel for plaintiff, and submitted the note to me for examination. The ink had the appearance of having been frozen, it having a yellowish tinge. I became satisfied that it was witnessed and executed with the same ink. Mr. Southworth, seeing me in the court-room, inquired how I was going to testify. Being informed, he examined the note with me, then left the court-room, much to the disappointment of counsel for the defense…. …In the Wilson and Jackson case, I was with him a whole day before he was convinced of his mistake. In the Ann Arbor protracted case, in which Mr. Southworth;, I was told, charged $1000, his testimony for some reason was thrown aside, and no use made of it. His testimony in a patent case, in which Causten Brown was counsel for plaintiff, I am positive was wrong. He pronounced the Winslow note genuine and charged $40. I pronounced it a forgery, and so did Paine, of New York, after which Southworth changed his opinion, but dared not testify in the case through fear of exposure. Not so in the Whittaker case, for in the first place he swore point blank that cadet No. 27 wrote the letter of warning, and afterwards swore as positively that Whittaker wrote it….” (p. 180)
.We concluded that two experts besides myself would be sufficient. I accordingly went to Boston and saw Mr. Sawyer, and to New Boston, N. H., and saw Mr. Fairbanks. I did not call on Southworth;, for I was told he was not at home; and besides I knew his unreasonable charges, and the unreliableness of his testimony as an expert. He has a theory of splitting two words or lines lengthwise, and then matching the upper and lower parts of the two words supposed to be written by the same hand…. …Southworth bewildered and mislead judge and jury in the Hart mock trial; and that the reader may judge of its merits, I will recite a case. At one time myself, Mr. Southworth;, and Mr. Sawyer were in the latter’s school-room in Boston. Southworth was extolling the merits of the splitting theory. I told him that I had no confidence in it and did not know of an expert who had…. …So, taking up a paper on which was writing, which he supposed to be in one man’s hand, he split a line lengthwise through the small letters, and then matched the top of one with the bottom of the other, and, knowing as we did (Sawyer and myself) that he was matching the writing of two different persons, we told him we failed to see where it matched. Southworth became excited, and said with forced emphasis: “The writing of no two persons could be so exactly alike as to match like that.” Said he: ” It matches like two railroad tracks, one laid over the other.” But we claimed not to be able to see it, which vexed and excited him very much, and he repeated with renewed emphasis his first statements that no two persons could write so nearly alike as to have the lines of their letters match like that. We were cruel enough to tease him a little, when I at last said to him: “Mr. Southworth;, you have exploded your own…” (p. 181)
“…knocked it to the devil.” ‘Why so?” said he. “Because you have used Mr. Sawyer’s writing and measured it with the writing of another man, one of his pupils.” Southworth denied it, but Mr. Sawyer confirmed my statement. These facts were known to the Hart counsel during the trial, and might have been used to weaken Southworth’s testimony very much. The attorney-general confessed he did not understand anything about this theory, and I think the court and jury were of the same opinion, but, not knowing Southworth as I do, they thought there must be something in it, as it was so mysterious. The truth is Mr. Southworth has become a monomaniac on his splitting theory as well as many other mysterious discoveries he professes to find in disputed papers. Where writing has been traced, and we have the original from which it was traced, the theory is a good one, as every lawyer and expert knows and makes use of. But for the purpose for which Southworth uses it, it is worse than worthless, it being only calculated to mislead judge and jury, who are not supposed to be versed in all the accredited modes of examining disputed papers. The theory is not adopted by any expert of my acquaintance. Mr. Southworth never testified against me before the Hart trial, and had often said he never would. He had the effrontery to tell me in Rockland that I had not treated him right in not consulting him in so important a case, and in not employing him to do the photographing, and, further, that he would not have testified in the case had he known that I had testified before the grand jury. Wonderfully strange he did not know it when the fact was so well known by others in Boston with whom he is in almost daily converse. While in Boston last summer, I met Mr. Southworth;, and he proposed to have the suit of A. K. Meservey against me for slander settled. I had as many as half a dozen conversations with him about it….” (p. 182)
“…And he further said that I ought not to have said anything after the conviction of Hart. I told him that I would not even do that. He pretended that his friendship for me prompted him to make this offer. Now, Mr. Southworth;, was that your real reason? or were you fearful that I was about to expose your many blunders in expert testimony which had come under my personal observation, and among them the awful crime of being instrumental in sentencing an innocent man to State’s prison for life. No, Mr. Southworth;, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, and my right hand become paralyzed, if I relax my efforts to right a wrong so wickedly and unjustly done to an innocent man, in part by false testimony of witnesses of which you, Mr. Southworth;, are among the chief. I write not in a spirit of revenge, but fully comprehending the enormity of the crime. I utter the words of earnest truth. I will say to you, Mr. Southworth;, and to all other experts in this or any other country, that there is only one man on this side of the Hereafter who could have written the three anonymous letters, and that man is Albion K….” (p. 183)
“…my way to visit friends in Maine. I met Mr. Southworth on the street in Boston. He said: “You are just the man I want to see.’ We called together on Mr. Sweetser, one of the clearest headed, far sighted, and profound lawyers in Massachusetts, who requested me to examine two notes said to be forged…. …That is to touch his pen to the paper before commencing to write his name, leaving in this way a small ink dot or mark. We examined a large number of his signatures, and found it to be a universal habit with him. The counsel, Mr. Southworth;, and other experts all admitted this to be a very important clement, if not conclusive evidence. The jury were perfectly satisfied of the genuineness of the signatures, and rendered a verdict accordingly. But now for the sequel. Mr. Southworth and Mr. Paine, of New York, work together in all cases where they can. After this occurrence Mr. Paine told me some things he had discovered in his examinations of disputed paper, viz., that there were certain habits of the writer which, if present, might be considered as conclusive evidence of the genuineness of disputed paper. He then related to me what Mr. Southworth had told him of having found out about the habits of the man who made the dots or small marks with his pen before signing his name, claiming it as his own smartness, when in fact he had learned it from me. I told Mr. Paine so; I told him also of some other mistakes Southworth had made. The matter caused Southworth some uneasiness, and he wished that I would not say anything about his mistakes, as he depended upon his expert business for a living, and I did not, as he supposed I had ample means without….” (p. 184)
“…I will close this article on Mr. Southworth by asking him a few questions. Mr. Southworth, are you not aware that you treated me in an abrupt and discourteous manner when I called at your room and endeavored to point out to you that you were on the eve of committing one of the greatest mistakes of your life?…” (p. 185)
“…Five experts were employed by the Government in the trial of Nathan F. Hart. Only two of the five, Messrs. Southworth and Sawyer, could see matters in the light in which Mr. Staples desired them to be seen. They swore that Nathan F. Hart wrote the anonymous letters, and that testimony was used to convict an innocent man….” (p. 186)
“……Hart wrote. I said it was written in a disguised hand; but the one that wrote it had a hand in writing the three anonymous letters. One thing more. A. S. Southworth, the splitter expert, whose theory has long since been exploded by himself, as I shall prove soon, has repeatedly said I was honest, and he never knew me mistaken; but did say in Rockland, and elsewhere, that I was…” (p. 254)
“……They arrived in Rockland Tuesday morning, leaving Boston Monday evening, and got through with their testimony Thursday, if I mistake not. Sawyer put in a bill of $300. Fairbanks did as he agreed with me. I did not call on Southworth as an expert; I had my reasons for not doing so, which will be given in my next. I have not learned what he charged the county, but will do so, and let the public know…” (p. 259)
“……And did you not finally say you had written it so you could understand it yourself, and you did not care whether anybody else could or not? You recollect, do you not, of telling me that you had been writing up a log-book for Mr. Southworth, with purple ink, at his request? Do you recollect my asking you to let Mr. Fairbanks and myself see it? Did you produce it? If not, why not? Did not your wife request you, with much earnestness, to show it to us?….” (p. 284)]

Palmer, Edwin F. Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Vermont. Vol 54. n. s. vol. 2. Montpelier: Watchman and Journal Press, 1882. xii, 769 p. 25 cm.
[“Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court at the General Term held at Montpelier, October, 1881.”
“Homer D. Camp v. N.F. Averill.” pp. 319-325
“…The opinion of the court was delivered by Ross, J. I. The deposition of Albert S. Southworth was properly admitted. The law allows the taking of the deposition of a witness called as an expert, for the same causes and under the same circumstances, that it allows the taking of the deposition of any other witness. The statute in this respect, makes no distinction between witnesses called to testify as experts and other witnesses. R. L. s. 1019.
II. No exception was taken to granting leave to the plaintiff to omit reading a part of the deposition. Hence, whatever the right of a party against whom a deposition is read, to have the whole deposition read, if any of it is, there was no error in the action of the court in this respect. It is not true that either party has the right to have immaterial, or inadmissible, matter read, because it has been inserted into a deposition at the instance of the other party. The omitted part of Southworth’s deposition related to matter immaterial to, and outside the issue on trial, and for that reason, if admitted, and read, at the solicitation of the defendant, would not have laid the foundation for contradicting or impeaching the witness. No rule is better established, than that a witness can only be contradicted, or impeached, upon a subject-matter material to the issue on trial.
III. The court properly excluded evidence offered to show that the signatures of C. C. Leonard, J. S. Collins and H. C. Leonard upon the note were forgeries. The genuineness of these signatures was not involved in the issue on trial. That issue involved only the genuineness of the signature of the defendant upon the note. There was no offer to connect the former signatures with the latter, as by showing that they were written by the same hand, or at the same time, or with the same pen and ink, by, at, or with which the signature of the defendant was written. (p. 323) connected with, nor a part of, the issue on trial, and was properly rejected. This holding rendered the reserved portion of Southworth’s deposition inadmissible also, if offered by the plaintiff in rebuttal.
IV. After the inadmissible portion of Southworth’s deposition was effectually obliterated, there could be no more objection to allowing it to go to the jury, than to allowing any deposition to go to the jury. It has been the almost universal practice, unless there was some rule of court prohibiting it, to allow the jury to take the depositions used on the trial, with the other papers in the case, when they retire to make up their verdict. There was no error in the action of the County Court in this respect. V. The parties were at issue in their evidence as to what took place between them March 7th, or shortly. thereafter….” (p. 324)]

Piper, R. U. “Expert Testimony-Scientific Testimony in the Examination of Written Documents, Illustrated by the Whittaker Case, &c.” THE AMERICAN LAW REGISTER. 30:54 (July-Aug. 1882): 425-507. [“Expert (in law) is “one who is expert or experienced; a person having skill, experience or special knowledge on certain subjects or professions, a scientific witness.” One of the definitions of the word science is, “Knowledge; that which one knows.” One definition given by Webster is, “Any branch or species of knowledge.” Webster’s definition of the word “expert” is, “An expert, skilful or practiced person; one who has skill, experience or peculiar knowledge upon certain subjects of inquiry in science, art, trade, or the like; a scientific witness.” This definition. would include every person who is skilled in any business, art or trade whatever; and in law, any such person, when called as a witness in a court of justice, might be entitled to be classified under the head of an expert or a scientific witness in that particular department of human pursuit in which he could claim to be skilled….” (p. 425)
(Etc., etc.)
“…In the case mentioned at the head of this paper, one of the government experts, Hagen, sought to make this distinction between a natural and feigned hand, and Mr. Southworth, another of the government witnesses, uses the term “natural hand.”…” (p. 477)
“…I proceed next to notice the testimony of Expert Southworth. While attending the court in this case, there was put in my hands some fourteen photographic copies of writings, which were designated as No. 27, as I have before noted and stated, to be the production of some one of the cadets at West Point. These are the same writings with which comparisons have already been made. On page 162, Criminal Law Magazine, Mr. Southworth says: “I have no doubt, in my own mind, that the question note” (meaning the “note of warning “)” was by the hand that wrote No. 27.” If this is the same No. 27 from which I bave taken so many of the letters in my plates, it will be seen that for some reason Mr. Southworth subsequently testified quite differently upon this point, for he says, page 152, Id., that he “had been obliged to abandon the ground taken in his former report.” change was brought about by the means of some new papers being brought to his notice. The report goes on further to say: “Without going again into an analysis of the anonymous note, Mr. Southworth pointed out the cross of both the capital’ A’s’ and the two ‘f’s’ in the questioned note as being natural and belonging to the character, &c., when fully made out by the same hand.” If we look at these letters on plates 2 and 3, we shall see that the method of crossing these letters is common to all these cases. Why then should it be used to connect the “note of warning” with No. 8, rather than with No. 27? Perhaps the author of the paper in The Criminal Law Magazine may be able to tell us also what he means by the following, on page 170: “While it is the commonest thing in the world to attempt to disguise one’s own hand by writing worse than he is able, no writer can follow models that are unknown to him, or write better than he is able.” This is a truism which no one will be so rash as to dispute. The second capital “S,” on plate 3, is made on the same principles as that of the first from the “note of warning;” the next two are Whittaker’s. These, with the other letters on the first line of this plate, have been commented on before. The first letter ‘B” on the second line is from the “note of warning;” the second two (p. 492) are from No. 27, the third two from No. 8. The second two are exactly like the first in principle, and only differ as respects the bending of the first limb of the letter. The last two differ from the others in being much more angular, in having no open loops in the central portion of the last limb, and in being comparatively of an awkward form. The “Y” has been fully discussed elsewhere. The “F” is given to show the corresponding form of the bottom loop with that of the “Y.” The two last capitals in this group show a contrast as to the top loop and the bottom terminal finish. There are seven specimens of this letter “Y” on plate 3, line 5, one from the “note of warning,” and three each from No. 27 and No. 8. I call especial attention to these last in reference to the terminal end. This club shaped end is very common with No. 27 in this letter and other analogous letters-“g” for illustration; while in Whittaker’s writing I have never found it; and when he ends off his letters in this manner, i. e., with the shaft bent at a right angle, the end is pointed, as seen in the plate. This seems an important point, for while it connects No. 27 with the “note of warning,” it as surely separates No. 8 from it. They are fully The small letters “u” and “un” are to be designated as they are marked, those with a * from the “note of warning,” with “J” from No. 27, with “I” from No. 8. The bottom curves of the last limb of the “u” in the first two are remarkably characteristic, while no such broadening or elongation of this curve is seen any where in No. 8. The “n” also in the first two are curiously alike. Nothing of the kind can be found in Whittaker’s writing. The next line is made up of the letter “a.” Their origin is indicated by the characters placed over them. described in another part of this paper. By a comparison of these letters on this plate (3) we shall again arrive, I think, at a full confirmation of what was said in my first notice of this letter. The letter “d” I have given as it occurs twice in this form in the note of warning.” The first two groups are certainly alike, each to each, as are those in the last group to those in the second. The “r” is a characteristic form of No. 27. I have never found it in No. 8. The “wo” and “wi” are given as they are found with the two letters connected in this manner in No. 27. It was stated on the trial that such a connection of these letters could be nowhere found in his writings. This was also said of “ou” which is seen in the last line of plate 2. The group marked “J” is (p. 493) from the word “compounds” in one of the photographs of No. 27, numbered 13. It is from a paper on colors and, “The Solar Spectrum.” The last line in this plate (3) is from a genuine address on a letter (not from the Whittaker papers) and an imitation of the same in smaller characters. It is given to illustrate to some slight extent what has been called the “rhythm of pressure” in handwriting. It will be noticed in the first or genuine signature that the down strokes for the most part swell at the bottom, while in the other this fact has been evidently overlooked. This constitutes the main difference between the two signatures. It might not be deemed of much value as testimony in the absence of all other facts, but if under this condition we could obtain a good number of different specimens of the same hand and should find this habit to be constant in the down strokes of the letters, I think we should be warranted in placing considerable confidence in our conclusions. There are some other points which might be noticed, such as the difference in the middle loops of the “B,” which point in a different direction in the two cases. In this illustration the expert could point out the facts in the case as I have noticed in another connection, and leave the jury to draw their own conclusions without any guidance from him. Under such conditions the idea of the expert favoring either side of a question would of course be incorrect. He would simply give the facts in the case, as would the surveyor in the measurement of a field, or the architect in stating the number and size of the rooms in a building. And even better than these, for he would verify his facts by an actual exhibition of them before the jury. A part of the The first line, “note of warnI next proceed to the examination of plate 2. letters on this plate have already been described. “Cadet Whittaker,” is from the envelope of the ing.” The second is made up from the papers of No. 27. The syllable “ade” is from the word “cadet” in one of these papers. The “hi” and “tt” with the single letters were taken from the writing of No. 27. They were drawn, as were all the others, under the microscope, and reduced by means of the photographic process to their present size and copied at the same time on the wooden block, thus giving an almost perfect representation of the originals. If we compare the two “C’s” in the first and second signatures, and the first four capital “C’s” in the third line, and the first five small letters “c” in the fifth line we can hardly escape the (p. 494) conclusion, I think, that they all belong to the same family, that of No. 27…” (p. 495)
(Etc., etc.)
..Or shall we conclude that there is “form blindness” as well as color blindness, and that the experts thus far incur no responsibility for their opinions? This I proceed next to notice the testimony of Expert Southworth;. While attending the court in this case, there was put in my hands some fourteen photographic copies of writings, which were designated as No. 27, as I have before noted and stated, to be the production of some one of the cadets at West Point. These are the same writings with which comparisons have already been made. On page 162, Criminal Law Magazine, Mr. Southworth says: “I have no doubt, in my own mind, that the question note” (meaning the “note of warning “)” was by the hand that wrote No. 27.” If this is the same No. 27 from which I have taken so many of the letters in my plates, it will be seen that for some reason Mr. Southworth subsequently testified quite differently upon this point, for he says, page 152, Id., that he “had been obliged to abandon the ground taken in his former report.” change was brought about by the means of some new papers being brought to his notice….” (p. 492)
(Etc., etc.) “..It is, therefore, at least as fair to say of it that it goes as far in this direction as does Mr. Southworth’s testimony, which was based upon the relation of facts which it professes in part to set forth. Expert Southworth says (Criminal Law Magazine, pages 165-6): “I have a sheet of paper from which the paper on which the anonymous note is written was torn. The fact is easily discernible to ordinary vision with the naked eye.”… (p. 498)
The question then only remains: did the “torn edges of the paper fit” so as to be “easily discernible by the ordinary vision,” or, indeed, was there any proof whatever in this respect, that they fitted at all. On the contrary, did not the facts in this connection all tend to show that no such union as is here alleged ever existed? I certainly examined the originals with great care, both with the unaided eye and with magnifiers, and came to this last conclusion. Further, there were placed in my hands, at the trial, photographs of the pieces of paper in juxta (p. 498)
[p. 499 is plate 6, showing the photograph of the torn paper edges. WSJ]
position as described by Expert Southworth, and these viewed by the unaided eye and also by the help of the microscope, fully confirmed this conclusion. The photographs alluded to were “Southworth’s, Diagram C, No. 3.” I made careful drawings of the torn edges of the paper, as shown by these photographs, under the microscope, and testified on them at the trial. Since then I have gone over the whole ground again, and hereby exhibit the results in plate 6. The first, second, third and fourth diagrams of plate 6 are from the papers described, showing the value of Mr. Southworth’s statement, where he says: “An inserted spot (indentation) on one edge has its corresponding tooth opposite.’ The magnifying power in these cases is about seven diameters, hence, one of these strips represent the length of half an inch of the edges of the original documents. The lower diagram (No. 8) is from the “note of warning” (and the piece of paper from which it was divided, as testified by Mr. Southworth. It was copied from the photographs, as described above.) It is magnified some five diameters, and shows about three-fourths of an inch of the torn edges of the paper. The remaining three diagrams (5, 6, 7) are from actual experiments on two kinds of paper, No. 5, legal cap, Nos. 6, 7, linen paper torn in two directions. These specimens were torn under precisely the same conditions by the side of a metallic plate; the magnifying power was the same as in the first four specimens. It will be seen by this, I think, that some evidence of the fitting of the torn edges of paper should be shown, in order to render such testimony of any value in the courts. There is a method by which paper can be torn so that different kinds may be made to fit as well as in the genuine experiments shown in diagrams 5, 6, 7. Hence, in the absence of other testimony corresponding with it, such fitting of edges could be deemed of but little value. What should be said in this case then where it can be shown to a demonstration that the edges of the specimens in question could not, so far as anything can be deduced from the appearance, have ever been united? There is one other fact which I proceed to mention in this connection, as it relates to my general subject, I have given a plate (plate 7) illustrating this subject, as far as this can be done by means of an engraving. It consists, in the main, in the results obtained by exposing, at the same time and under the same conditions of arrangement, certain substances regarded or seen as (p. 500)
(Etc., etc.)
..Its character may be inferred, perhaps, from the fact that it is the production of the last witness whose testimony I have examined, viz., Expert Southworth;. It was not produced on the first trial. Plate 8, embodies as far as may be, perhaps, the ideas which go to make up this piece of testimony. This plate consists of a fac-simile copy of the “note of warning,” and the address on the envelope,…(p. 502) together with other writings on the same papers, professed to be as brought out by Mr. Southworth on enlarged photographs of these papers. On the original “note of warning” and the envelope, no such writing could be seen either by the unaided eye, or by means of the microscope. Neither could it be seen on photographs of these papers which were made of the same size, or nearly the same size as the originals; but when magnified three diameters, that is, nine areas, according to Expert Southworth, this underwriting is (p. 503) plainly visible. Now, on these enlarged photographs, the original writing on the note and envelope appears nine times as large as on these papers themselves, while this underwriting is mainly of the same size on these enlarged photographs as that on the original papers in their normal size. Thus, the original letters, as seen on these photographs, appear of gigantic size by the side of the underwriting which is of normal size, so, that when Mr. Southworth’s tracing is reduced to its original size, as it was when both the underwriting and overwriting was made, we find that a good deal. of the underwriting is microscopic in its character. Mr. Southworth’s theory is that Whittaker practised this underwriting as a preparatory exercise previous to producing the note and envelope; that this underwriting was in pencil, as was the note; and that it was rubbed out, and afterwards the note itself written on the same paper. Had so foolish a scheme as this been put into execution, the note being written as it was on ruled paper, it will be at once inferred that in the operation of rubbing out the pencil-marks, the ruling would have been as surely obliterated. This was found to be the fact by repeated experiments, once in the presence of the court and under their direction. In this case some of the “West Point paper” (ruled) was taken and penciled over with a soft pencil, to the extent and in the manner directed by the court. Next, the pencil-marks were removed by means of India rubber, when it was found that the ruled lines had also disappeared. These lines were intact on the original note, and also show as I have before stated on the photographs made from this note….” (p. 504)
(Etc., etc.)]

1883

Supreme Court Reporter. Vol. 1. Cases Argued and Determined in the United States Supreme Court. October Term, 1882. October, 1882-February, 1883. Robert Desty, Editor. Saint Paul: West Publishing Company. 1883. xx, 639 p.
[“Wing v. Anthony.”
Wing and others v. Anthony and others.
(November 13, 1882.)
Patents for Inventions-Mechanism and Process Distinguished.
Where the original patent covers a mechanism to accomplish a specific result, and the reissued patent covers the process by which that result is attained, without regard to the mechanism used to accomplish it, the reissue is broader than the original patent, and covers every mechanism which can be contrived to carry on the process.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This was a bill in equity to restrain the infringement by the defendants of reissued letters patent, dated September 25, 1860, granted to Albert S. Southworth, for certain improvements in taking photo(p. 93) graphic impressions. The original letters patent were dated April 10, 1855; the reissue, September 25, 1860. The answer of the defendants denied the novelty and the utility of the invention, denied infringement, and alleged that the invention described in the reissued patent was not the same invention described in the original patent. The circuit court, upon final hearing, dismissed the bill. To obtain a review of this decree the complainants have appealed to this court.
It appears from the evidence in this case, and is a matter of general knowledge, that a camera is the principal instrument used in taking photographic pictures. This is a rectangular, oblong box, in one end of which is inserted a tube containing a double convex lens, while at the other end is a plate-holder, immediately in front of which is a sliding shield. A plate of glass receives in a dark room a chemical preparation which renders it sensitive to the action of light. The plate is then put into the plate-holder at the end of the camera opposite the lens, the shield in front of the plate is withdrawn, and the rays of light passing through the lens from an object suitably placed in front of it fall upon the plate and produce there an image of the object. This is then perfected by certain other chemical processes, and is called a negative, and from it many copies may be printed. Thus photographic pictures are produced. The camera should be so arranged with relation to the object to be pictured that a right line drawn from the center of the object will pass directly through the axis of the lens and fall upon the plate at right angles. In this manner the best pictures are obtained. If this method is not followed the picture will be distorted and otherwise imperfect. It is conceded that prior to the date of Southworth’s invention this object was accomplished by tilting the camera itself into different positions with respect to the object to be pictured, and in this manner bringing the center of the field of the lens upon different parts of the plate. Complainants contend that prior to Southworth’s invention only one correct picture could be taken on the same plate, except in the manner just stated. The object of the invention covered by his original patent was to provide efficient means by which several correct pictures could be taken on different parts of the same plate. In the specification of his original patent he declares his invention to be “a new and useful plate-holder for cameras for taking photographic impressions,” and says:
“The object of my invention is to bring in rapid succession different portions of the same plate, or different plates of whatsoever material prepared for photographic purposes, into the center of the field of the lens, for the pur (p. 94) pose of either tinning them differently, that the most perfect may be selected, or of taking different views of the same object with the least delay possible, or of taking stereoscopic pictures upon the same or different plates with one camera.”
He then declares:
“My invention consists of a peculiarly-arranged frame, in which the plateholder is permitted to slide, by which means I am enabled to take four daguerreotypes on one plate at one sitting, different portions of the plate being brought successively opposite an opening in the frame, the opening remaining stationary in the axis of the camera while the plate-holder and plate are moved.”
The specification here proceeds to describe minutely the frame-holder by which the object of the invention is accomplished. The claim of the original patent is as follows:
“What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters patent, is the within-described plate-holder in combination with the frame in which it moves, constructed and operated in the manner and for the purpose substantially as herein set forth.”
The specification of the reissued patent contains the following passages, which do not appear in the original specification:
“I have invented certain improvements in taking photographic impressions. *

• In taking daguerreotypes, photographs, etc., it has been customary to use a separate plate for each impression, the plate being removed from the camera and replaced by another when several impressions of the same object were to be taken, as in multiplying copies or for the purpose of selecting the best-timed pictures. This caused considerable delay and trouble, to obviate which is the object of my present invention, which consists in bringing successively different portions of the same plate or several smaller plates secured in one plate-holder into the field of the lens of the camera.” “In carrying out my invention I have made use of a peculiarly-arranged frame, in which the plate-holder is permitted to slide, and in which the position of the plate-holder is definitely indicated to the operator, so that he can quickly and accurately adjust the plate or plates; the accompanying drawings and description so explaining the same that others skilled in the art may understand and use my invention.”
  Then follows a description of the plate-holder which is identical with the description contained in the original specification, and is illustrated by the same drawings.
  The reissue specification further declares:
  “In this case, however,” that is, when it is desired to take more than four impressions on the same plate, “I use suitable grooves, stops, or indices, by which the operator adjusts the positions of the plate substantially on the same principle that he uses the corners of the opening, k, in the above-described (p. 95) apparatus. It is evident that my improvement may be embodied by causing the lens of the camera to be made adjustable in different positions with respect to the plate, while the plate remains stationary, so that different portions of the plate may be brought into the field of the lens. This I have tried, but do not consider it practically to be so good a plan as the foregoing, as it necessitates a change of position of the camera itself or of the objects.”
  *The claim of the reissued patent was then stated as follows:
  “What I claim as my invention and desire to secure by letters patent is bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the same manner and for the purpose specified.”
  A. A. Abbott, for appellants. Edmund Wetmore, for appellees.
  Woods, J. It is manifest that the reissued patent was taken out for the purpose of embracing under its monopoly what was not included by the original patent. The original patent was not, in the language of the statute, “inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming as his own invention or discovery more than he had a right to claim as new.” The original claim was for a mechanism, namely, “a plate-holder in combination with the frame in which it moves, constructed and operating in the manner and for the purpose” set forth in the specification. The claim of the reissued patent is plainly for a process, namely, “the bringing of the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.” This claim would cover any mechanism by which the different parts of the plate could be brought into the field of the lens. In fact, the specification of the reissued patent suggests a different contrivance, namely, the causing of the lens of the camera to be made adjustable in different positions with respect to the plate, while the plate remains stationary, so that different portions of the plate may be brought into the field of the lens. It is quite clear that the original patent covers a mechanism to accomplish a specific result, and that the reissued patent covers the process by which that result is attained, without regard to the mechanism used to accomplish it. The reissue is, therefore, much broader than the original patent, and covers every mechanism which can be contrived to carry on the process.
  In the case of Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126, it was held by this court that when original letters patent were taken out (p. 96) for a process, the reissued patent would not cover a composition unless it were the result of the process, and that the invention of one involved the invention of the other.
  The converse of this proposition was decided by this court in the case of James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356. In that case the court said that a patent for a process and a patent for an implement or a machine are very different things, and decided, in substance, that letters patent for a machine or implement cannot be reissued for the purpose of claiming the process of operating that class of machines, because if the claim for the process is anything more than for the use of the particular machine patented, it is for a different invention. To the same effect precisely is the case of Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737. The present case falls within the rule laid down in the authorities cited.
  Southworth’s invention, as described in his original patent, must be limited to what is there set forth, namely, a mechanism for bringing sucessively different portions of the plate within the field of the lens. He did not discover the law that to get the best effect in taking pictures the plate, or part of the plate, on which the picture was to be taken should be brought into the field of the lens, nor did he invent the method of doing this by tilting the camera itself into different positions with respect to the object to be pictured. This law was known, and the practice mentioned was followed, long before Southworth’s invention. His device was simply a new and specific means to take advantage of a well-known law of nature. In his reissue, by claiming as his invention the process of bringing different parts of the plate successively into the field of the lens, he seeks to put himself in as good a position as if he had been the first to discover the law referred to, and the first to invent the method of taking advantage of the law by tilting his camera into different positions. In claiming the process, he excludes all other mechanisms contrived to accomplish the same object. This he could not rightfully do.
  We are of opinion that the claim of the reissued patent is for different invention from that described in the original patent, and that the reissue is therefore void. Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1; The Wood-paper Patent, 23 Wall. 566; Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126; Ball v. Langley, Id. 128; Miller v. Brass Co. 104 U. S. 350; Janes v. Canbell, Id. 356; Heald v. Rice, Id. 737; Johnson v. Flushing & North Side R. Co. 105 U. S. 539; Bantz v. Frantz, Id. 160. The decree of the circuit court must be affirmed. (p. 97)]

United States Reports, Supreme Court: cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States. October Term, 1882. Reported by William T. Otto. “Vol. xvi.” Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1883. 747 p. 23 cm.
[“[Oct. 1882] [Sup. Ct.]”
Wing v. Anthony.
Reissued letters-patent No. 1049, bearing date Sept. 25, 1860, granted to Albert S. Southworth for certain improvements in taking photographic impressions, and subsequently extended for seven years from April 10, 1869, are void, the claim therein made being for a different invention from that described in the original letters.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This was a bill in equity brought by Wing and others, to restrain Anthony and the other defendants from infringing reissued letters-patent No. 1049, granted Sept. 25, 1860, to Albert S. Southworth, for certain improvements in taking photographic impressions, and subsequently extended for seven years from April 10, 1869. The original letters-patent are dated April 10, 1855.
The answer denies as well the novelty and the utility of the invention, as the alleged infringement, and sets up that the invention described in the reissue is not the same as that for which the original letters were granted.
The Circuit Court upon final hearing dismissed the bill, and the complainants appealed to this court.
It appears from the evidence, and is a matter of general knowledge, that a camera is the principal instrument used in taking photographic pictures. It is a rectangular, oblong box, in one end of which is inserted a tube containing a double convex lens, while at the other end is a plate-holder, immediately in front of which is a sliding shield. A plate of glass receives in a dark room a chemical preparation which renders it sensitive to the action of light. It is then put into the plate-holder at the end of the camera opposite the lens, the shield in front of it withdrawn, and the rays of light passing through the lens from an object suitably placed in front of it fall upon the plate and produce there an image of the object. This is then perfected by certain other chemical processes, and is called a negative, and from it many copies may be printed. Thus photographic pictures are produced.
The camera should be so arranged with relation to the (p. 142) object to be pictured that a right line drawn from the centre of the object will pass directly through the axis of the lens and fall upon the plate at right angles. In this manner the best pictures are obtained. If this method is not followed, the picture will be distorted and otherwise imperfect.
It is conceded that prior to the date of Southworth’s invention this object was accomplished by tilting the camera itself into different positions with respect to the object to be pictured, and in this manner bringing the centre of the field of the lens upon different parts of the plate.
Complainants contend that prior to Southworth’s invention only one correct picture could be taken on the same plate, except in the manner just stated. The object of the invention covered by his original letters was to provide efficient means by which several correct pictures could be taken on different parts of the same plate.
In the specification of his original letters he declares his invention to be “a new and useful plate-holder for cameras for taking photographic impressions,” and adds: “The object of my invention is to bring in rapid succession different portions of the same plate, or different plates of whatsoever material prepared for photographic purposes, into the centre of the field of the lens, for the purpose of either timing them differently, that the most perfect may be selected, or of taking different views of the same object with the least delay possible, or of taking stereoscopic pictures upon the same or different plates with one camera.” He then states: “My invention consists of a peculiarly arranged frame in which the plate-holder is permitted to slide, by which means I am enabled to take four daguerreotypes on one plate and at one sitting, different portions of the plate being brought successively opposite an opening in the frame, the opening remaining stationary in the axis of the camera while the plate-holder and plate are moved.” The specification describes minutely the frame-holder by
which the object of the invention is accomplished. The claim is as follows:-
“What I claim as my invention and desire to secure by letters-patent is the within-described plate-holder in combination with the frame in which it moves, constructed and operated in (p. 143) the manner and for the purpose substantially as herein set forth.”
The specification of the reissued letters contains the following passages which do not appear in the original specification: “I have invented certain improvements in taking photographic impressions.” “In taking daguerreotypes, photographs, &c., it has been customary to use a separate plate for each impression, the plate being removed from the camera and replaced by another when several impressions of the same object were to be taken, as in multiplying copies, or for the purpose of selecting the best-timed pictures. This caused considerable delay and trouble, to obviate which is the object of my present invention, which consists in bringing successively different portions of the same plate, or several smaller plates secured in one plate-holder, into the field of the lens of the camera. “In carrying out my invention I have made use of a peculiarly arranged frame, in which the plate-holder is permitted to slide, and in which the position of the plate-holder is definitely indicated to the operator, so that he can quickly and accurately adjust the plate or plates, the accompanying drawings and description so explaining the same that others skilled in the art may understand and use my invention.” Then follows a description of the plate-holder, which is identical with the description contained in the original specification, and is illustrated by the same drawings. The specification further declares: “In this case, however,” that is, when it is desired to take more than four impressions on the same plate, “I use suitable grooves, stops, or indices, by which the operator adjusts the positions of the plate substantially on the same principle that he uses the corners of the opening K in the above-described apparatus. It is evident that my improvement may be embodied by causing the lens of the camera to be made adjustable in different positions with respect to the plate, while the plate remains stationary, so that different portions of the plate may be brought into the field of the lens. This I have tried, but do not consider it, practically, to be so good a plan as the foregoing, as it necessitates a change. of position of the camera itself, or of the objects.” (p. 144) The claim of the reissue is then stated as follows:-
“What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters-patent, is bringing the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.”
Mr. Albert A. Abbott for the appellants.
Mr. Edmund Wetmore for the appellees.
Mr. Justice Woods, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is manifest that the reissued patent was taken out for the purpose of embracing under its monopoly what was not included by the original patent. The original patent was not, in the language of the statute,” inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming as his own invention or discovery more than he had a right to claim as new.”
The original claim was for a mechanism; namely, “a plateholder in combination with the frame in which it moves, constructed and operating in the manner and for the purpose” set forth in the specification. The claim of the reissued patent is plainly for a process; namely, “the bringing of the different portions of a single plate, or several smaller plates, successively into the field of the lens of the camera, substantially in the manner and for the purpose specified.”
This claim would cover any mechanism by which the different parts of the plate could be brought into the field of the lens. In fact, the specification of the reissued patent suggests a different contrivance; namely, the causing of the lens of the camera to be made adjustable in different positions with respect to the plate, while the plate remains stationary, so that different portions of the plate may be brought into the field of the lens.
It is quite clear that the original patent covers a mechanism to accomplish a specific result, and that the reissued patent covers the process by which that result is attained, without regard to the mechanism used to accomplish it. The reissue is, therefore, much broader than the original patent, and covers VOL. XVI. 10 (p. 145) every mechanism which can be contrived to carry on the process.
In the case of Powder Company v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126, it was held by this court that when original letters-patent were taken out for a process, the reissued patent would not cover a composition unless it were the result of the process, and the invention of one involved the invention of the other.
The converse of this proposition was decided by this court in James v. Campbell, 104 id. 356. In that case the court said that a patent for a process and a patent for an implement or a machine are very different things, and decided, in substance, that letters-patent for a machine or implement cannot be reissued for the purpose of claiming the process of operating that class of machines, because, if the claim for the process is anything more than for the use of the particular machine patented, it is for a different invention.
To the same effect precisely is the case of Heald v. Rice, id. 737. The present case falls within the rule laid down. in the authorities cited.
Southworth’s invention as described in his original patent must be limited to what is there set forth, namely, a mechanism for bringing successively different portions of the plate within the field of the lens. He did not discover the law that to get the best effect in taking pictures the plate, or part of the plate, on which the picture is to be taken, should be brought into the field of the lens, nor did he invent the method of doing this by tilting the camera itself into different positions with respect to the object to be pictured.
This law was known, and the practice mentioned was followed, long before Southworth’s invention. His device was simply a new and specific means to take advantage of a wellknown law of nature. In his reissue, by claiming as his invention the process of bringing different parts of the plate successively into the field of the lens, he seeks to put himself in as good a position as if he had been the first to discover the law referred to, and the first to invent the method of taking advantage of the law by tilting his camera into different positions. In claiming the process he excludes all other mech(p. 146) anisms contrived to accomplish the same object. This he could not rightfully do.
We are of opinion that the claim of the reissued patent is for a different invention from that described in the original patent, and that the reissue is therefore void. Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1; The Wood-Paper Patent, 23 id. 566; Powder Company v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126; Ball v. Langles, 102 id. 128; Miller v. Brass Company, 104 id. 350; James v. Campbell, id. 356; Heald v. Rice, id. 737; Johnson v. Railroad Company, 105 id. 539; Bantz v. Frantz, id. 160.
Decree affirmed.” (p. 147)
“Index.”
“Letters-Patent.”
(Etc., etc.)
“7. Reissued letters-patent No. 1049, bearing date Sept. 25, 1860, granted to Albert S. Southworth for certain improvements in taking photographic impressions and subsequently extended for seven years from April 10, 1869, are void, the claim therein made being for a different invention from that described in the original letters. Wing v.Anthony, 142.” (p. 730)]

1884

Davenport, John I. History of the Forged “Morey Letter:” A Narrative of the Discovered Facts Respecting This Great Political Forgery, Its Inception, Growth, Authorship, Publication, Endorsement and Support, With Copies and Fac-Similes of Original Telegrams, Letters, Orders and Receipts Connected Therewith. Its Fraudulent Character Exposed, and the False Swearing, Perjuries, and Additional Forgeries, Perpetrated in the effort to Sustain the Original Forgery, Made Clear. Published by the Author. New York: 1884. 146 p.: facsims.; 5 cm.
[“…Such consultation was had, and resulted in an unanimous decision that the question of the identity of the handwriting of the “Morey letter” with that of General Garfield and of Mr. Philp, should be submitted to the best living experts in handwriting. In accordance with this conclusion, Mr. Joseph E. Payne, of New York, Mr. Albert S. Southworth, of Boston. and, subsequently, Mr. William E. Hagan, of Troy, New York, who were universally conceded to be at the head of their profession as experts in handwriting and photographic and microscopic examinations thereof, were summoned to New York. Mr. Daniel T. Ames, of New York, was also called upon, as an expert, for an opinion in the matter. (p. 12)
On October 26th Mr. Payne and Mr. Southworth arrived in the city, and, with Mr. Ames, were speedily furnished with genuine letters of General Garfield, the fac-simile of the ” Morey letter ” as published in 7th, photographs of the letter, the manuscript “copy ” of Truth of October 22d, furnished by Lonergan, and some letters and other writings of Philp, which had been obtained. The only questions submitted to them were these: First. — Is the ” Morey letter,” in your opinion — either body or signature — in the handwriting of General Garfield? Second. — Is the ” Morey letter,” in your opinion— either body or signature — in the same handwriting as the manuscript “copy” and other papers furnished you?
Late that night each of them submitted, in writing, his conclusions and the grounds of his belief. An examination of the several reports disclosed the fact that the three gentlemen were a unit in the expression of their views, although each had reached his own conclusion by a different process, and without consultation, or conference, with either of his associates. The decision of the experts, stripped of technical expressions, was that they were prepared to say, affirmatively and positively, that the “Morey letter” was not — either body or signature — in the handwriting of General Garfield, while they were of the belief that the writer of the editorial in Truth of October 22d, entitled “Lying and Sticking to it,” was the writer of the “Morey letter.” After consultation, it was decided that Colonel George Bliss should act as complainant in a proceeding charging Kenward Philp with criminal libel in writing the editorial mentioned. The formal complaint was at once prepared, and to it were attached affidavits of the experts and the manuscript “copy ” of the editorial libel written by Philp, which had been obtained. (p. 13)]

“Anonymous letter to Hon. William M. Springer: Report of the Select Committee on Alleged Corruption in the Contested-Election Case of Donnelly vs. Washburn.” 46th Congress. 3rd Session. House of Representatives. Report No. 395.” Washington: Government Printing Office, 1881. 281 p., 26 folded leaves: facsimiles; 23 cm.
[“…Cross-examination not only failed to shake or impair the value of his testimony, but demonstrated more clearly the correct. ness of his views and methods. The committee, without dissent, and with the full knowledge of all parties, asked, by mail, the written opinion of Mr. Southworth, of Massachusetts, Mr. Sharkey, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Gayler, of New York, all of whom are experts of wide reputation and approved skill. Moreover, their opinions were unknown to all…. (p. iv)
(Etc., etc.)
“…In addition to the foregoing testimony, the committee took the written opinions of three other experts, who made their comparisons not in the presence of the committee, and not upon the original papers, but upon photolithographic copies. These opinions were not subject to cross-examination; they are not printed with the testimony. These unsworn experts were Mr. Southworth, of Boston, Mr. Gayler, of New York, and Mr. Sharkey, of Philadelphia. Two of them gave their opinions that the anonymous letter was written by Mr…. (p. xi)
“…The gentlemen selected by the committee were Mr. B. Sharkey, of Philadelphia; Mr. James Gayler, superintendent of the post-office of the city of New York, and Mr. Albert S. Southworth, of Boston. Mr. Sharkey, in his written opinion, testifies as follows: “While I hold the opinion that one or the other (Mr. Finley or Mr. King) wrote the anonymous letter; with a fine pen both, in my judgment, have the capacity”; but he concludes with the opinion, after a very prolonged examination and comparison of the writings, that the anonymous note is in the hand writing of William S. Sharkey was in much doubt on the subject, and his expressed consciousness of the possibility of his being mistaken taken in connection with his positive assertion that one or the other wrote the letter is evidence to my mind that the weight of his opinion will have but little effect in determining this question. I now pass to the elaborate opinions furnished by Messrs. Gayler and Southworth;. It will be remembered by the committee that these gentlemen were two of the experts who testified in the Whittaker case recently investigated at West Point, and the commission charged with that investigation were mainly led to their conclusion in that case by the able opinions furnished by Messrs. Gayler and Southworth. Mr. Southworth is believed to be the oldest expert in handwriting in the United States. He was the principal witness in the celebrated Howland will case, involving millions of dollars, which was tried in Boston ten years ago, and is more frequently consulted by the bar and courts of Massachusetts than any other expert in handwriting….(p. 253) “…His conclusion is expressed without hesitation or doubt, and the reasons given for it are such as to convince all unprejudiced minds that the similarities between the anonymous note and the Finley writings are not accidental, but are only to be accounted for upon the theory that they were both written by the same hand. I next call attention to the opinion of Mr. Gayler. It is a remarkable and at the same time an almost conclusive fact, that Mr. Gayler and Mr. Southworth have cited many of the same similarities in these handwritings and give the same reasons for their conclusion that the anonymous note and the Finley letters are in the same handwriting….” (p. 254)
“..King wrote it, and Mr. Sharkey expressed, but with a great deal of doubt, the same judgment. The other five experts, namely, Messrs. MacLennan, Rauch, Gayler, Southworth;, and Ames (whose opinion I have submitted as part of my argument), are clearly of the opinion that the anonymous letter was written by Mr. Finley….” (p. 256)
“…MacLennan, who testifies that he is no expert in the comparison of hand writing, has never made it a study, but who is however a very beautiful penman with great command of the pen, says he thinks Finley did write it, and with him Mr. Rauch agrees; and so the sworn experts stand equally divided. Besides them you have asked and received the opinions of Gaylor, Southworth;, and Sharkey; two think Finley wrote it; one thinks he did not. The experts are divided then as four to three, and the question may be fairly stated thus: Shall the evidence of one single expert be held sufficient to justify the committee in deciding that a man otherwise wholly unimpeached and wholly without motive, has perjured himself, and that every man familiar with his hand writing has been deceived?…” (p. 263)
“…In reply to this the witnesses, cum una voce, answer it is not a simulation. Again, is it a disguised handwriting? Jones, Hay, MacLennan, Rauch, and Sharkey all declare it is not disguised. Gayler and Southworth express the opinion that it may be a very little disguised. This is substantial unanimity. But stay for a moment to consider the facts on which they say their opinion is founded, and the committee will have no difficulty in concluding that it is totally a non sequitur….
…Now, in the absence of all knowledge as to the authorship of a given writing, the writing itself furnishes the whole field of observation. And yet a careful reading of the reports of Gayler and Southworth leads me to the conviction that, in considering the question of disguise or no disguise, they are all the while holding the Finley letters in the mind’s eye as a standard of comparison….
“…He then adds: “The efforts at disguise are, first, in the pressure of the pen lighter than customary; second, the adoption of a more graceful, less angular style than usual; third, in the exaggerated forward curve in the capital W. ” Southworth cites in support of his opinion the first point, and then a new one which may be designated as the fourth, namely, an unevenness of pen movement, notable in the words “Respectfully” and “Washington.”… (p. 265)
..Every circumstance or detail is strained into support of a preconceived theory. I make these remarks as introductory to a criticism upon the reports of Messrs. Sharkey, Southworth;, and Gaylor, to whom the photolithographs have been submitted for examination. The substantial question submitted to them was, Is Finley the author of the anonymous writing?… (p. 271)
Hon. J. G. Carlisle, Chairman:
Your letter of instructions, with package of specimens of handwritings, came to my hands last Friday afternoon, May 28, and I proceed to answer the questions therein contained in order.
Question 1st. Whether the anonymous letter was written in the ordinary hand of the writer or in a fictitious hand, and, if fictitious, was it an attempt to imitate the handwriting of another?
Answer. The hand both of the filling and of the address upon the envelope is too light in pen-pressure to be quite natural, and also too uneven as to pen-movement, being in some words quickly carried forward, in others slowly moved from letter to letter, as in “Respectfully” and “Washington.” The habit of carrying the pen without lifting from word to word or from initial capital to the next capital as in ” WmMS,” “Ify,” “of the,” shows the hand to be naturally a rapid one. The word “Respectfully” ought to be judged of by the original rather than the photolithograph copy. Loops of the long letters above and below the line are fine, and either open or clearly indicated though blind. There are many points of pen-pressure in small letters, as last part of “k” in “keep,” “h” in “Washburn,” and in “we,” &c., showing power and ordinary habit of pen-pressure. The want of stops generally is hardly in harmony with the style, or with the rest of the line after ” Mrs.,” and there are extra down-strokes in the last word “Respectfully.” The hand is not quite natural, yet but little disguised and cannot be said to be to any great extent fictitious. Neither is there sufficient ground for supposing that it is an imitation of the hand of another. It may be in general effect as to lightness and legibility, but substantial ground for such supposition seems wanting, certainly when compared with writings signed King” or “Lighter,” sent me in the same lot of papers.
Question 2d. Was the anonymous letter written by any one of the persons who wrote the other papers herewith submitted to you; and, if so, by which one?
Answer. There are two letters addressed to Hon. Wm. M. Springer and signed Henry H. Finley and H. H. Finley, respectively, and dated March 6 and March 10, by one and the same hand. The anonymous letter was, in my best judgment, written by the same hand. On Saturday last I had settled the question in my own mind, and I telegraphed to the Hon. J. G. Carlisle for a duplicate of anonymous and of Finley’s. I desired to make up some diagrams for the purpose of illustrating my opinion. The duplicates I received on Tuesday, June 1, by mail as I requested. I shall now proceed to finish my instructions by answering further.
Question 3d. Please state as concisely as you can the reasons for any conclusions at which you may arrive.
Answer. Having settled the question in my own mind that the hand that wrote the Finley letters wrote the anonymous, I state as some of the reasons influencing me to form such a conclusion, as follows:
Characteristics as to the habits of hand are the same in joining or connecting words or initials or words and letters.
As to variety in formation of same letters, as “p” “p”; in capital “S” as “S” “S”; in small letters, as “r” in March in anonymous, in “Springer” twice, in “Washburn,” “Democrats,” &c. Also as to the various forms of “t,” as “t” in “spite” in anonymous, in “the,” “thing,” “at,” and “Respectfully,” &c. Also “c” in “March,” in “Democrats,” and in “once”; also in “Respectfully.”
” Other examples exist, but none more marked than in “t.” These examples are prominent in the Finley letters. Besides harmony in variety, in general effect, in weight of hand, in base line of writing, there is a finer class of characteristics seen when the anonymous is (p. 278) same machine movements of small letters, as in the word “seat,” or a part of it, the movement in the letters “eep” in keep, over the word, and same movements in ” except,” found in the Finley letters; so of the letters “,” the words “the,” “at,” “once”; parts of “Washburn,” “Democratic,” “Springer,” &c. The involuntary motions, which form turns on the base in making letters, whether circles, ovals, or angles, and which constitute the machine movement, as if the writer had commenced the word “unguarded,” had got as far as ung,” and, some one opening the door, he looks up at the intruder, yet finishes out the “uarded” without looking upon or near the point of the pen.
Any pen movement, the result of habit of the machinery of the hand and arm, or of the combined effort of the machinery with the direction of the eye and mind, is to be taken into the account.
Desiring to forward to the committee my opinion this afternoon, I can only arrange a few examples. These show for themselves their design. They can be indefinitely extended and multiplied. In the questions before me as to the anonymous and Finley letters, there are no unharmonious elements or discrepancies. The superposition of movements upon a window as a transparency shows unmistakably the parallelisms of movements and turns, of letters and parts of letters, and parts of words, upon the regular level or base. The same movement pertaining to different letters will conform to these general experiments.
The anonymous letter is found to answer in this respect to the Finley letters, and will not answer in the same way to any great extent to any other hand. If in some points an agreement should be found, there will also be found irreconcilable discrepancies.
I trust my manuscript may contain all the committee desired as far as answers to the questions are concerned. I should have liked to have spent another day upon illustrations, and will do so with more system and definiteness if desired. Very respectfully submitted. Albert S. Southworth.” (p. 279)]

1887

New York State Bar Association. Reports.-Vol. X. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Association, Held at the City of Albany Tuesday and Wednesday 18th And 19th Days January, 1887. Constitution, By-Laws, List of Officers, Members, Etc. Albany: Weed, Parsons And Company, Printers. 1887.
[“First Day.”
Moak, Nathaniel C., of Albany. “Thesis. Value of Expert Testimony, on Authority, as to Handwriting.” pp. 98-123.
(Etc., etc.)
“…(b) Use of Photographs. In the Taylor Will Case the learned surrogate (10 Abb. [N. S.] 316-21), thus speaks of photography as an alleged aid in detecting forgery: “One of the experts called by the contestant, Albert S. Southworth, stated that his business was the examination of disputed handwriting; and that his business had been also photography, and that he used that art in his examinations. This witness was asked to look at an exhibit which was marked for ‘identification,’ and to say whether the name ‘James B. Taylor’ was a correct photographic copy of the signature of the alleged will. The answer to this question was excluded by the court for the following reasons, as expressed on the trial: “The original signature to the alleged will has been presented to the witness, and he has examined it, and compared it with the exhibits properly in evidence. That is the best evidence to be had, and he can speak from that. I shall exclude all testimony drawn from photographs, as being inadmissible upon the question of handwriting. Such evidence (p. 117) would raise many collateral issues, as, for instance, the correctness of the lens, the state of the weather, the skill of the operator, the color of the impression, purity of the chemicals, and other issues, which I think clearly require me to exclude such photographic evidence upon this question of genuineness of signature. It is, at best, secondary evidence. I shall consider the value of testimony based on photographic copies hereafter, in the consideration of the testimony of those witnesses, on the part of the contestant, whose opinions, given on the trial, were assisted, even if not positively formed, by photographic copies of different specimens of decedent’s handwriting, including signatures of different sizes. (The learned surrogate then reviewed the conflicting testimony as to the genuineness of the signature to the will, an equal number of witnesses being examined on the side of contestant and of proponent. He then proceeded to consider the admissibility and value of photographs in evidence in the following language): “This is a summary of all the testimony of the witnesses on both sides who speak from personal knowledge of the handwriting and signature of the decedent, being thirteen in number for the contestant and the same number for proponents; but I noticed particularly that all the former expressed opinions which were founded, more or less, on a previous examination of what purported to be photographs of the signature to the will, and of other assumed signatures of the decedent, and so photographed in different sizes. It is, therefore, important to consider the use of these purported photographic reproductions of the signatures of Mr. Taylor, though excluded so far as they were offered to assist the expert, Southworth, in his examination, as they were used as a means of comparison by all of the witnesses but one on the part of the contestant, who testified from personal knowledge of the handwriting and signature of the decedent that the signature to the propounded will was not, in their opinion, genuine. From the accurate study of them it must be evident from the testimony that two of the witnesses, Mr. Marsh and Mr. Van Vechten, changed their opinion as to the genuineness of the signature to the will. It is also evident from the testimony that from the study or examination of these photographs, as presented to them by the counsel for the contestant, the data were furnished from which their opinions were prepared. The lines and loops, the strokes and angles that they dwelt upon were observed, measured, magnified, and noted in the photographic copy submitted to them by the counsel for the contestant. The same objections which may be urged against the admission of these photographs in evidence hold good against the value of the opinion and deductions formed from their study. Too many collateral issues are involved to render them reliable testimonies. Those who are familiar with the details of photography are aware of the many circumstances that would have to be made subjects of (p. 118) affirmative proof, and will readily appreciate this statement. The refractive power of the lens, the angle at which the original to be copied was inclined to the sensitive plate, the accuracy of the focusing, and the skill of the operator, and the method of procedure, would have to be investigated to insure the evidence as certain. The court would be obliged to suspend its examination as to the question of the genuineness of the signature, which is before it, and which is the primary evidence, to listen to conflicting testimony of the proponent and contestant as to who exhibits the most skill and perfectness in their photographic reproductions, and in fact to inquire into the whole science of photography. When we reflect that by placing the original to be copied obliquely to the sensitive plate, the portion nearest to the plate may be distorted by being enlarged, and that portion farthest from the plate must be correspondingly decreased, while the slightest bulging of the paper upon which the signature is printed may make a part blurred, and not sharply defined, we can form some idea of the fallacies to which this subject is liable. Moreover, I cannot see, even if there be no possibility of variations in the photographic reproduction from the original, what material assistance photography can be in this case. It is not claimed that the signature is traced over another signature, but that it differs. If it differs from the signatures which are exhibits in the case, it speaks for itself. It is not claimed that any man always writes exactly the same, but, on the contrary, the experts admit that a man varies in his signature in minute points, though the characteristics are always the If the characteristics are the same, they should be apparent to the ordinary observation — otherwise they can hardly be called practical characteristics. I cannot, therefore, see why photography should have been brought into this case. Its tendency is rather to mislead than to help the witnesses who take these photographs as an assistance; for the reason that they start on the major premise, which is a fallacy, that the photograph of the signature which is alleged to be a forgery must correspond in its minute details with the signatures admitted to be genuine. Upon this premise they build up the differences and deduce the conclusion that the disputed signature does not correspond with the other signatures; a moment’s reflection, showing them that no two signatures of the same person are likely to correspond exactly, would convince them of the absurdity of the use of these photographs, as being merely means (provided they are correct) of magnifying the little differences which they could see, primarily, by examining the signatures themselves. This sort of examination, though it may be useful, provided it be honestly and skillfully applied, to determine the genuineness of a bank note, is of no avail when applied to hand writing. A forgery cannot be discovered by the same means as a counterfeit. the latter case, where all the lines and impressions are produced by same….” (Etc., etc.)] (p. 119)

Wilson, Edward L. Wilson’s Quarter Century in Photography. A Collection of Hints on Practical Photography Which Form a Complete Text-Book of the Art. New York: E. L. Wilson, 1887. xv, 17-528 p. illus., diagrs. 22 cm.
[“Chapter XIV. Negative-Making-Wet.” (pp. 287-310)
“To clean glass for collodion and silvering, rasp off the edges and corners with a wet sand-stone (a scythe whetstone is just the thing), drawing it at an angle and diagonally from the face of the glass, to avoid chipping the surface. Whether new or old glass, varnished or unvarnished valueless negatives, wash thoroughly in clean hot water and immerse in a very strong solution of boiling potash, from three to five minutes, or longer if old hard varnished glasses. Scrub with a fine broom brush upon a padded board, covered with tightly drawn flannel, in clean hot water, rinsing thoroughly, and then rinse off in clean cold water, and coat before dripping with thinned albumen, two or three ounces to the pint of water, from newly laid eggs, with four or five drops of aqua ammonia. Dry and keep from dust, moisture, and light, chemically clean. Use at pleasure; time will not deteriorate.
Remarks: Glasses having upon their surfaces pure metals as silver, copper, gold, or any other metal, must have the same removed with the proper acid, or aqua regia, before using the potash: but all glasses prepared according to the foregoing recipe, can have no free pure metal in contact with their surfaces. The albumen should be freshly made and very thin. Stock solution: Whites of six eggs, water six ounces, aqua ammonia one ounce. Dilute for use. A common sheet-iron bake pan will answer to boil the potash in, on an ordinary cook-stove. Scatter a layer of edge cuttings of various lengths from common glass, of the size of (p. 288) of pure albumen. When dried and freed from dust or adhering particles it is quite ready to receive the collodion film. 133. In the pages devoted to Theory and Chemistry the offices of collodion have been stated. In short, to obtain a combination with nitrate of silver in solution that is sensitive to light and will hold a developable image, certain salts must be introduced. Collodion serves as the vehicle which carries these an oat straw, on the bottom of the pan, and between each layer of glass, to prevent contact of surfaces. Keep the hands clear of any caustic by using wooden tongs, and a little skilful manipulation, and do not scratch the glass in the least. Never pack glasses together flatwise, nor lift them so that one rests upon another, but let each support only itself. My method of cleaning glass may not be all new, and may not be the best known. It is the best I know; the simplest, and always avoids dirty, foggy, or stained glasses, or peeling off of the film.-Albert S. Southworth.” (p. 289)]

1889

“Daguerreotypy.” PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMES AND AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHER 19:403 (June 7, 1889): 279–81. [Brief historical overview of invention and spread of the daguerreotype. Mentions Southworth (p. 279). “Some of the earliest workers in this field were Doctor Chilton, Professor J. J. Mapes, Prof. Morse, Dr. Goddard, Mr. Cornelius, and Southworth, Professor Plumbe, Alexander S. Wolcott, and John Johnson.”]

“The Semi-Centennial and After.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 20:16 (Aug. 24, 1889): 481-483. [“…Another interesting feature of the Boston meetings was the opportunity of seeing some of the veteran photographers of daguerreotype days. Among those present were Southworth, of Boston; Bogardus, of New York; Faris, of New York; Long, of Quincy, Ill., and G. H. Loomis, of Boston. They were called on to address the Association, and the remarks of each were listened to with great attention. It is really remarkable to think that these men are still with us, who first heard the wonder of 1839—that “sun pictures” could be made.
We cannot close this too brief review without acknowledging the kindness and courtesy of the New England photographers to the visiting brethren….” (p. 482)]

“Photographer’s Association of America.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 20:19 (Oct. 12, 1889): 602-606.
[“Seventh Session, Boston, August 9, 1889. 4 p. m.
The President: “…While we are waiting for the announcement of awards, I think we shall be glad to hear from two or three of our friends. Here is Mr. Long, sitting in the front seat. We would like to have him stand up, so that we can look at him. I believe he has been in the business ever since the time when there wasn’t any business.
Mr. Ranger—I also see Mr. Southworth, who made daguerreotypes with Professor Morse in 1839 and 1840. I wish the President of the Association would present him as the pioneer of photography.
Mr. Long—As you asked me how long I have been in the business, I would say I commenced in July, 1842. Then we had nothing but daguerreotypes, of course, and only one size—the one-sixth size ; and only one kind of a case—a silk lined case. And the only question to ask a man was how much of him you wanted to show. (Laughter.)
The President — Ladies and Gentlemen, Allow me to present to you Mr. Southworth, one of the old veteran photographers. (Great applause.)
Mr. Southworth Some old orator said that it was easier to begin than to leave off, and I am afraid it is easier for me to begin than it will be to leave off; but I will try to overcome that. In the winter of 1839 and 1840, immediately after Professor Morse arrived in New York, I went on to New York, at the request of Mr. Joseph Pennell, who was then doing some work in Professor Morse’s rooms. He was an old school-mate of mine, and I commenced making daguerreotypes; and we did the best we could. He stayed with me three or four years, and then came to Boston, in 1841, and I kept on until 1861. I will simply say now that I was called to go out to Wilburham in the summer of 1840, just to tell them how it was done. I went there, and as I stood before the students, just on my right hand there was a sofa with six or eight persons sitting on it. And I said: “The time is coming when we will make as many likenesses upon a plate as there are people on that Sofa, and the time is coming when every hair of a race horse going at 2.40 can be taken.” (Applause.) My anticipations, my imaginations, could not come up to what I see here in this hall. I should not take up your time. You will find some of my experience in the books, and you will find in Mr. Wilson’s book a short address of mine which is as good as any that I could make now. I am glad to meet you, glad to see the progress you are making in our art, in the art to which we have devoted our lives and our best exertions. And it does not seem, when we stop to think of it, it does not seem as if we could get much farther. I wish you all a pleasant remaining time here, a happy journey to your homes, success in your business, and a happy hereafter. (Applause.)
The President — Ladies and Gentlemen-Here is Mr. G. H. Loomis, of Boston. I take great pleasure in introducing him….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 605)]

1890

“Loomis, G. H., Newtonville, Mass. “Monumenting Daguerre.” THE INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL OF ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 1890 (1880): 229-230.
[“”Better late than never,” that some suitable memorial should be erected to this one of the world’s grand discoverers. We were (p. 229) born a sufficient time before this invention to remember well how it amazed the people. It was for a while regarded as pure magic, almost witchcraft, and to be fully convinced otherwise, was to go and sit and see for yourself….” “…The picture, if not the subjects, has stood the test of time wonderfully, and as we often pick up these daguerreian productions and study their fine artistic points, we feel almost tempted to go in and boom them anew, as superior to any of the later so styled improvements in portraiture. We remember the fine specimen work of Root, Mead, Southworth & Hawes, Hale, Whipple and many others, produced in the early days of this discovery, and though by reason of the highly polished surface it was not always an easy matter to “view them in the right light,” they were true to nature and the perfection of art….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 230)]

“Daguerre Memorial Fund.” ANTHONY’S PHOTOGRAPHIC BULLETIN 21:9 (May 10, 1890): 281.
[“To the Editors of Anthony’s Bulletin.
I send you a copy of the list of names of those who contributed one dollar to the Daguerre Memorial Fund at the Boston Convention. It has just been sent me by Mr. O. P. Scott, of 2220 Indiana avenue, Chicago, 111. Mr. Scott says if he had the address of each one he would send him a receipt.
H. McMichael.
In view of the statement of Mr. Scott we gladly acknowledge the amounts through our columns. — Eds. of Bulletin. J. F. Rvder, George H. Hastings, H. McMichael, J. M. Appleton, O. S. Scott, G. H. Fowler, J. H. Plecker, J. Henry Doerr, E. Long, M. Ames, J. P. Dixon, E. P. Park, George Barker, E. J. Pullman, W. A. Webster, George H. Van Norman, William H. Mowry, Seth C. Jones, E. B. King, E. Dicker, J. B. Pelgriff, W. Irving Adams, George Ayres, Sweet, Wallach & Co., Frank A. Stinly, George Knowlton, H. G. Peabody, E. B. Conait, G. Cramer Dry Plate Works, E. C. Dana, J. E. Rosch, S. P. Wells, F. W. Geurin, J. C. Somerville, J. W. Bryant, George Murphy, H. S. Wier, C. Bolnell, Jr., George Hein, M. A. Seed & Co., D. H. Barker, J. S. Schindler, C. O. Lovell, F. Scheidel, Elmer Chickering, A. S. Southworth, William Shakespeare, G. W. Law, S. L. Schultze, C. S. Stuart, G. Cramer, George H. Chace, Charles A. Wright, Eldridge Stanton, W. H. Burbank, for American Amateur Photographer; Arthur A. Glines, Alfred A. French, Colonel Wilcox, Irving Saunders, E. A. Gilbert, Dr. A. H. Elliott, P. S. Rider, A. B. Costello, G. Gennert, W. I. Lincoln Adams, Aim Bros., Hyatt, W. S. Davis, G. W. Histed, W. Stuber & Bra, J. Carbutt, E. B. Ives, Mrs. Fitzgibbon Clark, Rungton Bros. (2), Ginnelli, W. H. Allen, Alfred Hall, Mr. Benjamin French, Mrs. Benjamin French, Wilford French, A. C. Austin, Alfred M. Costello, Albert H. Pitkin, E. C. Fisher, G. H. Norton, Hetherington, W. E. Edmonds, John Ban , of Philadelphia (name blurred).” (p. 281)]

1894

“Died.” BOSTON SUNDAY HERALD, Sunday, March 4, 1894, p. 7, col. 7. [“Southworth—At Charlestown, March 3, Albert S. Southworth, 82 yrs 11 mos 19 ds Funeral from his late residence. No 36 Soley street, Monday, March 5, at 2 PM. Relatives and friends invited to attend without further notice.”]

1895

A Condensed Report of the Trial of James Albert Trefethen and William H. Smith: for the Murder of Deltena J. Davis, in the Superior Court of Massachusetts. Published by the Attorney General. Boston: Wright & Potter Printing Co., State Printers, 1895. [4], 398 p., [3] leaves of plates; facsims.; 24 cm.
[“Testimony of Albert S. Southworth.”
Albert S. Southworth.
(To the District Attorney.) I am by trade a photographer, but since 1864 I have given a great deal of time to the examination of handwritings, and for some years almost exclusively so. [The witness was shown exhibits 1 and 2,— the anonymous letter and envelope. He had, as standards, two documents called the letter to the sheriff and a memorandum of contract.] In my opinion all were written by the same person.
My reasons are the similarity of characteristics of the hand in each, the similarity of characteristics in the two standards compared with the address upon the letter and the letter itself. What I mean by characteristics, are points not similar, perhaps, in some respects, but the machinery movement of the hand and arm in making those marks that make up the letter, and in the arrangement, those which are individual and which do not pertain to handwriting generally, (p. 81) and which are distinguished as characteristics rather than habits of hand; because I consider a habit one that can be changed, perhaps. A habit of making letters, or of joining letters, or of commencing a word, initial letters, etc., are points that are habits, which can usually be found in hands that are different; points that can be found that cannot be found anywhere else, or that cannot be found in combination, may be found nearly the same, but taken in combination they cannot be found, and those distinguish the characteristics of the hand from the habits of hand. For instance, you may know your own habits, but you may not know the characteristics of your handwriting; that is, you may not know what the hand and the arm and the mind has done to make out certain letters, or how much it has assisted in making out those letters; and a habit, if I were as skilful as persons I have known, I might imitate.
Taking the anonymous communication, the paper itself shows that it has been worked upon and erasures made. At the end of the fourth line there is a blank space, and the line ends with the word 66 of.” At the commencement of the fifth line there is a considerable blank space after the word “of,” and in some of the photographs may be seen a rubbed-out outline of the word “it.” At the commencement of the fifth line on some of the other photographs there is the word “it” partially and almost entirely rubbed out, but not quite; and after that the word “ is,” making it read “ think is guilty of.” Near the top there was a line written of some kind, and that has been rubbed out, as may be seen by holding it up to the light and looking through it. The letter “M” in Mother was fully made by the hand that first made it, and afterwards the first part of the “M,” the turn, is spliced. I enlarged, from these two standards, the letters that are similar in turn to the ” M.” This shows to the naked eye the splicing. [Photographs were handed to the court, counsel and jury.] The “M” as first made is peculiarly characteristic of the hand; for instance, just the top turn of the “M” is nearly in a straight line, with a little hook at the commencement. It has been changed, was changed afterwards. There is another characteristic in this “M” which is in the second part, and that may be found in the letter to the sheriff, in the small “r” in “certain.” These letters, the letters in Mother, the “h,” for instance, have been decidedly changed. The long stroke of the “h” in ” when” and the long stroke of the wh” in “Mother,” the double-over of the lines in the word “when,” in “h,” both indicate that there was a mental effort or mental exercise.
The letter “s” in “this” and the capital “I,” having the same slope at the bottom, carry out, so that both of these words are not exactly in the natural hand. This capital “I” is unnatural, though (p. 82) there are similar movements. The “s” in “shall” has the same insloping, — the same general machine movement at the bottom, although they are differently made. The “k” in “think” is doubled over at the last part; one part is as plain as the her. The letter “y” in “ you” in the first line, in “you” in the third line and ” bye ” in the close, at the terminal, are three distinct fashions of “ y,” which would not happen in a natural writing, so near together and so unlike. The first “y” ” when you get” — the “y” is quite natural, the next one is very unnatural and the next one is different from either. The “y” is made different; it is a different skeleton of a letter, although we know what it is, and it is not so unlike, but it is characteristic of the hand.
There are two fashions of “g’s;” the “g” in the word “guilty” being first made as we usually make a “q,” and the “g” in the word “good” is very extravagantly badly made, and, by taking that with the other letters, I should say made worse than it need to be, and I think that it was purposely made so
The figure 6 in 162 Ferry street has been changed from the natural hand, the “0” part of the figure being carried up considerably above.
Of Tena Davis’s writing I had two laundry bills and a receipt. In my opinion, the writer of those could not have written the anonymous letter or the envelope. That some of the writing was with a pencil and some with a pen would make no difference. I think the letter and envelope were written to simulate her handwriting. Cross-examination.
(To Mr. Long.) I am to be paid by the government, but how much I do not know. My opinion was given after I had studied the standards, and has no connection with my employment by the government. Experts do sometimes disagree as to the authorship of disputed writings. I have testified before in opposition to Mr. French and Mr. Fairbanks, who have testified here for the government. I have read a book by Dunton, an alleged expert, in which he pretended to expose the fallacy of expert testimony of this sort.
The erasures of which I spoke are not visible to the naked eye, nor even with a glass, but are apparent in a photograph.
A girl contemplating suicide might write a trembling and unusual hand, but it would not change the skeletons of her letters, nor the characteristics of her hand writing.
There are some resemblances in the natural writings of Tena Davis and Trefethen; they are of the same school of writing.
The “T” in “ J. A. Trefethen,” written by Trefethen himself, and that in one written by Tena Davis are somewhat alike. They are made with a down stroke curving to the left, the hand then taken off (p. 83) and the upper part of the letter added. The capital “A” is of the same style in both their hands,an enlarged small “a.” The crossing of “t” in Tena Davis’s writing and in the anonymous letter is similar, in so far as the crossing is put well up. In Trefethen’s ordinary writing the “t’s” are crossed lower down. Trefethen made a long “I,” extending below the line like “J.” The “I” of the anonymous letter is short, with a heavy curve. I consider the latter to be unlike the natural hand of the writer. Tena Davis’s “I’s,” though short like that of the anonymous letter, are unlike it in skeleton.
The initial “E” in Everett on the envelope is begun without a loop, while all those made by Trefethen in the memorandum of December 8 begin with a loop.
The “D” on the envelope is somewhat unlike Trefethen’s ordinary writing; the up stroke does not cross. The “D’s” in Trefethen’s memorandum do cross and connect with the succeeding letters of the word. The words “think” and “is” in the anonymous letter are quite similar to the same words in genuine writings of Tena Davis. Re-direct Examination.
(To the District Attorney.) The capital “I” in the anonymous letter and in the genuine writing of Tena Davis are similar, in that they are made in two parts, beginning at the top; but they are unlike in other particulars, as in the top, the finish and the blank space at the top. And so of the word “think” in the letter and in genuine writing of Tena Davis. There is a similarity in some respects, and dissimilarity in others. The “t’s” are not made alike; they are both crossed, but they are not made alike; the effect of the 6th ” is not the same when we look at them together; the connecting after the “h,” with the next letter “i,” does not stand in the same relation; the “i” is carried up higher; the “i’s ” have the same base; in the anonymous letter, from the “n” to the “k” there is a long hair stroke, and the loop is very small and as fine as a pencil could make, and very different from the genuine one; the stem is very slight and small, and that on the anonymous letter is double. The last part of the “k is written twice over without any necessity.
Charles French. (To the District Attorney.) I am principal of a business college in Boston and am an expert in handwriting. [Photographs of the anonymous letter and envelope were shown to the witness.] I have examined the letter for the purpose of determining by whom it was written….” (p. 84)
(Etc., etc.)
“Closing Argument of the Attorney-General.”
(Etc., etc.)
‘…I don’t know what you may think of experts in handwriting. But I know this. While I have the highest respect for them, and believe that their testimony is sometimes entitled to the highest respect, I would put the testimony of that mother on the question whether that letter was from her daughter against the testimony of all the experts in the world; and so, if I am not mistaken, would you. Bring it home to yourselves. Do you think such a fraud as that could be practised on you? If not on you, then not on her. The mother’s instinct, deeper and quicker and surer than human reason, went straight to its mark.
Let us see what is to be said about the testimony of the experts. We believe it is entitled to credit and will receive it. But I would not have you suppose, gentlemen, for a moment, that it is upon the testimony of the experts alone that I ask you to find that Trefethen wrote those letters. I have far different, and, to my mind, more conclusive, reasons. We have brought here Messrs. Southworth, French and Fairbanks; admittedly, I suppose, three men of highest reputation and most accomplishments in their line in this vicinity. We do not present them here as infallible. They are here only to assist the jury, and not to control your decision of any question. If they can assist you, if experts in handwriting can ever assist a jury, it is because they have made a special study of the subject, and know some things about it that ordinary people do not know, just as physicians know some things about the human anatomy and about disease that ordinary people do not know….” (p. 199)
(Etc., etc.)
“Mr. Long’s Argument.”
(Etc., etc.)
“…Experts are called. Fortunately this time, instead of having only one such witness for the defence, perhaps less experienced than others, we have two additional experts, the best that can be procured. There are three on each side. The testimony of experts in handwriting is to be taken with the utmost caution. It is nothing but an opinion, which they back up with the best reasons they can give. I do not suppose any honest man would dare to hang James A. Trefethen on the ground that Trefethen wrote that letter; and no honest man would dare to say that Tena Davis did not write that letter. All they can do is to give an opinion, and you have the opinions on one side and the other.
On the government side you have Mr. Southworth, who is so advanced in extreme old age that his evidence is practically worthless; and Mr. Charles French, whose eyesight is somewhat impaired; and Mr. Fairbanks, whom perhaps some of you know. French dwells on various matters of form. He admits that there are strong resemblances between Tena’s handwriting and Trefethen’s. He admits that there are likenesses between this anonymous letter and Tena Davis’s writing. He admits that there are dissimilarities in this letter from Trefethen’s writing, but on the whole he is of the opinion, only an opinion, that Trefethen wrote it….”(Etc., etc.) (p. 333)]

1897

Southworth, G. S. [sic. A. S.? ] “A Miniature – What Does It Express? .” PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMES 29:10 (Oct. 1897): 471. [“In the wide range of art what does miniature-painting represent? There is one word minutia, multiform as it may seem; yet in getting down to detail, no form of portraiture has called for higher effort or more subtle artistic skill than this difficult, delicate and wonderful branch of portraiture. And as to authorities we may mention J. Staples Rowe, and I. A. Josephi. Mr. Rowe as a high authority on this-one of the reviving arts of long ago-said recently miniature-painting wears out the optic nerve. “Do you find that the camera does you any good?” “No! I refuse to use the camera!” Spoken to again, Mr. Rowe said, “I prepare my ivory in my own way”-and seemingly possessed of an elaborate secret retired into reticence. Mr. Josephi was a little more candid. He said, during the passages of a studio conversation, that he did not owe anything to photography. This in brief and measured terms was what he said
“Ninety per cent. of those who paint miniature use photographs. Artists high in our profession do not. We consider the mere realism of the photograph degrading to the imagination which is essential to an artistic conception. It is needless to say that eminent artists, whose artistic skill and feeling have made them prominent in the world of Art, are a little off on the relation of high lights to low shadows.
Photography does not deprive the human mind of any gift or intellectual propensity; on the contrary it is of vast assistance. Nor should it be treated lightly by those who employ the length and breadth of what as a discovery, all considered, has been the greatest boon to the modern world; and the future of which no one can foresee.
Miniatures are what?
The art consists of Reduction. That is all there is to it; and there is no more powerful agent than photography to accomplish this result whether for the Living or the Dead. Photography has, will, and always must continue to have a potent influence on art-whatever branch may be considered. The feeblings may wake up to another conclusion; but those with Argus-eyes see beyond.”]

Southworth, A. S. “Photography, Painting and Sculpture.” PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMES 29:11 (Nov. 1897): 510–11. [“Confining ourselves to this side of the Atlantic, American painters and sculptors, until a very recent date, were wont to sneer at and actually deride photography as an important adjunct of their professional work in the formative processes in their studios. This applied to the most distinguished masters of our native art. The late George Inney or A. H. Wyant at the head of landscapists would show their teeth in the wildest kind of wrath should one suggest there were artistic expression, tone, perspective or power in the finest examples produced by the camera. The same was true of our leading portrait painters and sculptors, and it was not until the very highest class of magazines and art journals in the United States and Europe put aside wood and other engraving for halftones after the camera, that the true art value of the latest development of the invention of Daguerre began to dawn upon and influence their professional workmanship. Such a phase of the innovation was made more emphatic by the deadly blow which this revolution in art methods dealt to the professional illustrators in black and white. There are also many other significant and collateral facts which tell on the potent influence which photography in its artistic treatment is bearing on the painting and sculpture of the present time. For example what educated artist of our generation goes afield to wrestle with his summer day “studies” in color in land or waterscape, in forest glen, in the varying phases of sky, sun, or moon, neglects to take with him a camera, finding on his return a new mystery and refinement in composition, before beyond his ken, by the product of his negatives. Many, of course, are not willing to allow this soft impeachment, but that makes the situation all the more interesting, for it only hastens the day when in its true relations to the higher arts, photography will assume without doubt or denial a positive position.
Another important feature but little known to connoisseurs who believe they have reached the acme of knowledge in portraiture, either in pigments, water color, pastels, or plastic art, is interesting. Artists in any one of those branches, who formerly affected to despise those who would work from photographs, when a living subject was available, now not only employ one negative made under their own. eyes in the studio by a series embracing many views of the face and head, posed in a dozen different ways with photographic reproduction of draperies, differing arrangements of the hair, and so on. A celebrated sculptor in this city has been known to take as many as twenty-five negatives of a splendid subject, and then with his head and shoulder measurements with the callipers, say to her “I will only require one more sitting, and my work is done.” A propos of the subject above treated English technical and artistic writers on photography are pointing out a line of argument in harmony (p. 510) with our position. They claim that the misuse or misunderstanding of the word imitation and the true value that the representation of “things as they are” cannot result in artistic composition are even more plainly illustrated in the consideration of the conditions of portraiture than in landscape where so much has been achieved. In essence artistic composition is the same in one class of work as in the other, but this is often disputed or misunderstood.
Portraiture must concern itself chiefly with imitation, in the sense of personal pictorial expression. In a likeness, the person must be depicted as he is, that is, as he seems to us in the way we think the character best, shown or the aspect of the figure most natural, and cannot such a result be artistic in composition? Surely the limitations here for the photographer are very few indeed of an absolute nature. If the photographer have the necessary sympathetic influence over the sitter such as the painter-portraitist himself should possess, with the proper power of perception, and the ready and complete mastery of technique as to light and tone rendering, it is difficult to understand what is lacking for the particular purpose, save color.
That any artist should put into the portrait of a face more than ever could be expressed by that face at any one time is plainly absurd. Such a procedure implies a new face and character, and is not portraiture.” (p. 511)]

1900

Wilson, Edward L. “Letters to Jack – And Things Old and New.” WILSON’S PHOTOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE 37:517 (Jan. 1900): 17-18. [“In 1895 and 1896, thereabouts, I held correspondence in these pages with a young worker in our art whose persistent queries gave me subject for a series of replies to him, which I termed “Letters to Jack,” trying to make the pointers I gave him useful to my readers. Since then Jack has been “trying to grow” in Boston, where he has gained some reputation as an artist; and now he “wants to be resuscitated in these pages” and place himself” under instruction again.”
He promptly pays his subscription for A.D. 1900, and I hope all who can remember him will join me in welcoming him back.
He asks, among other things, “How can a young fellow get along best with old people?”
Let me now address my correspondent: My Dear Jack: I imagine, from what you say, that your feelings are somewhat perturbed by some of your older patrons who seem to think you do not (cannot) know your business because you are “so young.” This reminds me of some experiences I used to have in the early days of this Magazine as its editor. Some of these experiences were advantageous and some were much against me, but I lived through all and overcame them. I will narrate a variety. About 1864 or 1865 one cold Monday morning I stood at the street door of my office waiting for the fire to warm things up. Looking out I saw two middle-aged men cross the street diagonally and come to my door. I was “young,’ and they seemed like well-matured giants. They came in, and I politely greeted them, daring to regard them even then as prospective subscribers. The darkest one said, “We want to see Mr. Wilson.” I answered: “I am he!” “Well, we don’t want to see you. We want to see the old manthe editor of PHILADELPHIA PHOTOGRAPHER.” I had to claim again and establish my identity, when I was informed that my visitors were Messrs. J. W. Black and “Jack” Heywood, who had come down from Boston to explain the carbon process which they were then working. They were very evidently chagrined at the youngness of their audience, but they went on heroically and secured my promise to visit Boston “to see carbon printing in practice.” I often found it as I did then, a disadvantage to be “so young;” but sometimes it was the other way. Later on I visited Boston to be present at a meeting of the New England Photo. Society. It was during the time when the famous “Sliding Plate Holder” patent was being opposed by our craft. I made myself odious to the patentees by joining the opposition, and when I visited Boston they planned to arrest me and shut me up. Mr. Simon Wing, “Father” Southworth and their detectives were at the meeting with their warrant for my arrest. I was “a younger man than they expected to see,” and so Mr. J. W. Black had no trouble in putting me out of the meeting right under their noses as soon as he learned their purpose; and I took the night train back to New York to write another editorial against the patent. (p. 117) So, dear Jack, don’t be disturbed when you are called “too young.” You will recognize the fact that some of the best subjects presented to the camera are “old” people and should draw forth your best efforts to make good pictures of them. Do your best through them to secure some of the finest photographic delineations of character possible. I have a series of pictures of old people that were made twenty-five years ago or more in Germany, which I often turn over for pointers for study and enjoyment.
I am going to have one of them engraved and put just here to show you. Here is a case where the character of the old man is brought out by the presence of the little child. What a lovely home picture it is. The little one has probably asked a conundrum and the puzzled face of the old man indicates that he is striving to find an answer in the book before them. The finger of the boy suggests that he has found the solution, but the old man still looks stupid enough.
Take courage, then, Jack. Your experiences are world-wide and as common as Hypo. I won’t pursue the subject further now. I have got you reintroduced for the New Year, and next month we will try a better topic.
Let me hear from you.
Keep on doing your best. I will answer your other questions next month.
“Every man stamps his value on himself; the price we challenge for ourselves is given us.”-Schiller.
“Turner could put infinite space into a square inch of sky.”-Ruskin.
“I am never a real sufferer but by my own fault.”
-St. Bernard.
Truly your well wisher, Edward L. Wilson.” (p. 18)]

“Letters to Jack-and Things Old and New. VI.” WILSON’S PHOTOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE 37:522 (June 1900): 248-249. [“My Dear Jack: I duly received your letter and your “new portrait, to show me whether or not you had deteriorated (as intimated in my last letter) as a photographic model.”
All right, Jack. You cannot “rile” me, but you do set me to reminiscing. The fact is, a good deal of my private reading of late has been from “reminiscences,’ particularly in two volumes by that noted Irish patriot, Justin McCarthy and in a single large volume of “Reminiscences by a Very Old Man,” which “very old man” was my good, beloved, old friend, John Sartain, Esq., the well-known engraver and artist, of Philadelphia, and father of Samuel Sartain, one of Philadelphia’s first and oldest amateur photographers, as well as an engraver of portraits on steel. But your picture causes me to “reminisce” more than these books. It carries me back to the year wherein you were born, “near Boston,” where your voice could be heard at Bunker Hill when your ma tried to pacify you, somewhere on the Boston side of the Charles River. You had voluminous lungs, which are now all turned to art, happily. It was in 1869, if I am not mistaken-the year the first exhibition of the National Photographic Association was held in Horticultural Hall, also in Boston. That was an eventful occasion for the American photographer-the exhibition, I mean-not your birthday. Boston then was a very different Boston from Boston now. Then Whipple and Black were the leaders in our art, practical professional men of the very earliest plate-buffers, while now the principal business of photography in Boston is conducted by a man who probably never exposed a plate or made a print. Dear old Black and honest John A. Whipple! What famous men they were. I could fill my letter telling you stories about them. Then there were Loomis and Heywood, and the two Rowells and Burnham, and honest John Sawyer,” the pioneer stock dealer, with “father Southworth,” and Wing, and “old collodion” Briggs, as he was called -all these could have stood at your christening had there been no pa-tent against it.
Instead of that, on the Sunday before our exhibition opened the most of them went with me to Horticultural Hall “to see if any exhibits had really arrived in answer to our call to the craft.” It was in June, 1869, that we went. You can imagine how we felt when we entered the exhibition hall and found it so full of the cases of exhibits that we could hardly get the door open! We were both delighted and overcome. Jack, it was a solemn moment. But even then we did not realize how much it meant to our fraternity. At that time we considered ourselves in great tribulation-our galleries were being constantly waylaid by constantly waylaid by “process mongers,” who had “secrets to sell,” and by “patent sharks,” who insisted on examining our apparatus, tanks, etc., to “see if we infringed,” etc. These troubles bound us fraternally together, and we formed a society that must have been somewhat like the one McCarthy describes as the “Fitzroy Square Bohemia.” It was “charming, social, literary, and artistic,” and-much more, and was made up of us all. It did not mean, as McCarthy writes, “for the most part late hours and conviviality, much beer, much brandy and soda, many cigars, unlimited tobacco,” and so on; but it planned for self-protection and the advancement of our art. Boston then was a rough place in which to get any “brandy and soda or much beer.” Prohibition was preached, and the “Maine Liquor Law” was then at its most earnest. I remember one occasion in particular (I think it was Black who lost the bet on the number of exhibits we should have), when we were invited to “beer” or more. We filed into a gentleman’s furnishing store, where we saw only an array of shirts and neckties. It was not promising to the thirsty, but we had won the bet, and we confidently followed our leader. He approached the attendant and said, “Fit all these gentlemen with collar-buttons.” Then a great white shirt hanging at the rear end of the store began to recede and an “open door” appeared. Beyond this, lo! there was a finely accoutered saloon, where the “beer” was found. Now it (p. 248) is different in Boston, I guess. I do not know.
The exhibition was a great success and the convention was attended by photographers from all parts of the country. No premiums were given. Dr. Towler and Dr. Boynton each occupied an evening with a lecture, and Mr. O. H. Willard, of Philadelphia, assisted by Black, gave a fine lantern exhibition. The public was admitted to the exhibition free, and fine audiences attended every day. At the meetings topics of a practical nature were debated and much interest shown. More than forty pages of this Magazine in the July issue of 1869 were devoted to a full report of this happy affair.
This report says that “after the lantern exhibition was over the members of the Association lingered about and clung to each other (until admonished to go by the lights becoming very dim) and were loath to leave. All thought the time too short, and all wished that it might be longer. Every member of the Association seemed delighted, and all went home feeling glad that they had come and sorry that the whole craft could not be there to enjoy what they had enjoyed, to see what they had seen, to be profited by what had profited them so much; and all left with renewed hopes and aspirations and a determination to do better work.”.
Those were, indeed, great days, Jack. Boston had no Copley then. “Back Bay” was a reality, instead. Dry plates were very unpopular, and to many unknown. Collodion kicked when there was no bromide in it, and others kicked when there was. The bromide patent had been “dead” for more than a year then, and new topics came up constantly for discussion and new processes for practice. Here are some specimens of “wisdom” followed then which seem “Dutch” to you moderns. Listen: “Use nitric acid in your bath.” “In cool weather give your best attention to your draperies.” “Prepare your toning bath at least four (for) hours before using.” “Watch for new books.” “Read all you can when it rains.” “In head and bust pictures, let the chin occupy the centre of the mount.” “Look out for your heads. Let your head turn toward the higher shoulder.” “Albumenize your glass always,” and so on ad infinitum.
How wonderfully we have grown since then! Who can doubt but what that first convention started great growth and improvement. May the coming one in Milwaukee do still more for advancement, and may the day never come when “old” and “new” shall so clash that any of our wisest ones will feel it in their hearts to write as Mr. Sartain tells us the great artist Gérôme wrote to our old friend Ferris, the artist, in Philadelphia, about “modern art,” in 1897, as follows: “You say a few bitter words about modern art, so-called, and I agree with you. Things are seen that make reason and art shudder, for it was here that the movement began which is spreading further and further. It might be thought that we are in an insane asylum, for it is evident to me that a breeze of insanity is blowing upon us, and works that cannot be named find admirers. The more stupid a thing is the more welcome it appears. It is hard to believe. But there is no cause to be uneasy about such productions, as they will soon pass away, for only works founded on reason are lasting.” These are hard lines for an artist eighty-nine years old to have to put in his “Reminiscences,” are they not, Jack? Always remember that art cannot be put on like a garment. Don’t try to be a wonder! Heaven save photography, and you, and also, as ever,
Truly yours, Edward L. Wilson.” (p. 249)]

1922

“Boston’s First Photographer.” PHOTO-ERA MAGAZINE 49:2 (Aug. 1922): 104. [“The erudite editor of the Boston Herald’s daily column, “As the World Wags”, has shown a marked interest in the early days of practical photography and, particularly, in the pioneers who first practised photography, professionally, in Boston. As none of the old-timers seemed disposed to come forward with the desired information, a member of the Photo-Era editorial staff volunteered his services in the cause of our beloved art, and his letter, which appeared in the Boston Herald of June 19, is reprinted herewith:
“As a boy, I used to meet in the store of my father, who was a dealer in photographic supplies, Albert S. Southworth, associated with Josiah Hawes, in Tremont Row, as a photographer. The firm of Southworth & Hawes had gained a national reputation as first-class daguerreotypists. Mr. Southworth died about fifty years ago, followed by his partner in 1901, aged ninety-three.
In 1841, two years after the invention of photography by Daguerre and one year after John William Draper made the first portrait photograph from life in the world, Mr. Southworth was making daguerreotype-portraits probably in the more common size (3¼ by 4¼ inches) at 60½ Court street. One year later we find him doing business as a daguerreotypist at 5½ Tremont Row.
In 1844 Mr. Hawes became associated with Mr. Southworth. The firm appears to have continued uninterruptedly and prosperously until the death of the senior partner. During the very early days of daguerreotype-photography this firm did not seem to have had any serious competition in Boston.
Indeed, the daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes -which, in later years, were made in sizes up to 63/8 x 8½ inches and even larger-were generally recognized as the finest produced in America.
Among the firm’s patrons were the most distinguished persons in this country. When I visited the old time studio, at 60½ Tremont Row, in the eighties, I was privileged to examine superb daguerreotype portraits (63/8 x 8½ plates) of Daniel Webster, Rufus Choate, Henry W. Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Lloyd Garrison, Thomas Starr King, Charles Sumner, Edward Everett, Ralph Waldo Emerson, yes, even Louis Kossuth and Jenny Lind.
Of John Whipple, who afterwards became the senior partner in the firm of Whipple & Metcalf in Temple Place, there is no available record until 1848, when he entered the ranks of daguerreotypists at 96 Washington street. As to John Black-mentioned by your correspondent, Mr. S. R. Smith, he entered the field of photography in the early fifties. The pioneers in portrait-photography in Boston, were first, Albert S. Southworth and then Southworth & Hawes.
Wilfred A. French.” (p. 104)]

“Early Daguerreotypy in Boston.” PHOTO-ERA MAGAZINE 49:6 (Dec. 1922): 316-317.
[“To the Editor of Photo-Era In regard to the earliest photographs made in Boston the following notice, which appeared in the Daily Advertiser, March 28, 1840, may be of interest:
The Daguerreotype.—M. Gouraud gave his first lecture at the Temple yesterday. He made a beautiful view of Park street, with the intervening trees, and part of the Common, covered with snow. The view was made, after placing the plate, in precisely ten minutes. His second lecture will be given on Tuesday. The third will be on Friday instead of Thursday, on account of the public Fast. (p. 316)
Two days earlier the same paper printed nearly a column on the “Manner of Making Portraits by the Daguerreotype.” “We are indebted to M. Gouraud,” the editor wrote, “for the following communication, which has been in our hands from the 16th inst., the publication having been deferred for lack of room.” Here are some of the interesting things M. Gouraud wrote:
Within fifteen days after the publication of the process of M. Daguerre, in Paris, people in every quarter were making portraits. At first, they were all made with the eyes (of the sitter) shut. M. Susse was one of the first amateurs who succeeded in most satisfactory manner… Everyone began to look about for some means to shorten the period of from fifteen to twenty-five minutes which M. Susse.. had employed in making his pretty portraits—with the eyes shut….
M. Abel Rendu adopted an idea which seemed new and produced portraits with eyes open….I immediately made a trial of this method. .. The portraits I obtained were formed in from one minute to two minutes twenty-seven seconds. I render it thus public … in order that they may know I am able to make the portrait of any person who wishes it. . .A man should be dressed in clear gray coat, pantaloons of a little deeper hue, vest of fancy ground, yellow, orange if possible.
By way of postscript M. Gouraud adds:
By adopting a confidential communication from M. D. G., the French Professor at Cambridge . . . I think it is very probable that we shall succeed in obtaining a Daguerreotype portrait in much less time than by the process above described.
F. Gouraud appeared in the 1840 directory of Boston only. He boarded at 137 Tremont Street. His occupation was not given.
Feb. 3, 1841, the following advertisement appeared in the Advertiser:
Daguerreotype. Mr. Plumbe, Prof. Photography, having at length succeeded in so far improving his apparatus, as to be enabled to produce a perfect Photographic Miniature, in any weather, and consequently, without using the direct rays of the sun, proposes to instruct a limited number of gentlemen in this beautiful and valuable art, who will be furnished with complete sets of the Improved Patent Apparatus, by means of which any one may be enabled to produce a likeness in any ordinary room without opening a window, or requiring any peculiar adjustment of the light. Hitherto, it has been generally supposed that sunshine and an open window were indispensable to the production of Daguerreotype miniatures; but the important improvement just perfected proves that this is a mistake. The new apparatus costs only about one half the price of the other, and furnishes the ability to its possessor of securing an independence in a profession as honorable, interesting and agreeable as any other, by the expenditure of a mere trifle, and a few weeks of application. Can any other pursuit life present the same advantages furnishing the means of gentlemanly support, not to say fortune?
Miniatures made in beautiful style: terms $3.
Daguerreotype Rooms, Harrington’s Museum, 76 Court Street.
This advertisement, with some changes, appeared from time to time throughout the year. In May, he moved to the spacious hall over the Whig Reading Room, Pemberton Square, and called his place the Photographic Institute. At the same time he changed his appeal so that ladies also might share in the chance to make a fortune. In February, 1843, his advertisement read, Plumbe daguerreian Gallery of Patent Colored Photographs, 75 Court and 123 Washington Streets, Boston, Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, and Broadway, Saratoga Springs, constituting the oldest and most extensive establishment of the kind in the world and containing nearly a thousand pictures.
Likenesses made every day at three dollars each.
May 15, 1843, Albert S. Southworth & Co. advertised Premium Daguerreotype taking at 5½ Tremont Row. Mr. Southworth says that he was the first to color daguerreotypes and that he received a premium last October at the Fair of the American Institute in New York for the best Daguerreotype and also at the Mechanics Fair in Boston in 1841. The advertisement has a strange wood-cut representing the sun, the sitter, and the portrait on an easel.
Allen H. Bent.
August 13, 1922.
[Having access to the Boston City Directories issued since their beginning, about one hundred years ago, and being greatly interested in the practice of photography in Boston during the early daguerreotype days, the Editor, personally, investigated the somewhat brief activities, in Boston, of M. Gouraud and finds that Mr. Bent is correct. It is not clear, however, whether M. Gouraud came to America from France for the purpose of teaching people how to make daguerreotypes, or whether he sought to make a living as a daguerreotypist. In any event, Albert Southworth is listed in the Boston City Directory of 1841, and of succeeding years, as a maker of Daguerreotype Miniatures. It is barely possible that he learned the art from M. Gouraud in 1840, although as early as 1839 Professor Draper made his famous daguerreotype-portrait of Dorothy Catherine Draper, on the roof of the New York University building. It would be interesting to know what degree of success attended the efforts of M. Gouraud as an instructor in Daguerreotypy. Editor.]

1928

Pearson, Emund. Five murders, with a Final Note on the Borden Case. Garden City, N.Y., Pub. for the Crime club, inc. by Doubleday, Doran & company, inc., 1928. 7 p. 1., 299 p. plates, ports., facsims. 22 cm.
[“II. The Mystery of Tenants Harbour.” (pp. 53-132) [“…Nelson Hall, customs officer at Tenants Harbour, testified that there were no strange vessels in the harbour about December 22d. He identified examples of the prisoner’s handwriting, made in course (p.92) of business at the custom house. They were acknowledged by the prisoner.
Then came the letters and the testimony by handwriting experts. Albert S. Southworth, of Boston, had examined two log books and six papers identified as in the prisoner’s hand. With these he had compared the note found in the house, the Philadelphia letter, and the long letter from Providence. His testimony, which like most expert evidence was long and undoubtedly bored the jury to death, was that all were in the same handwriting. George A. Sawyer, also of Boston, testified to the same effect….” (p. 93)
(Etc., etc.)
“…In all that class of books and pamphlets provoked by notorious crime, there is probably nothing more curious than this. The incident of the log book determined Mr. Dunton’s view of the entire case, and thereafter he accused all who disagreed with him either of corruption or folly. It is not unusual for persons whose hearts are set on reversing a verdict upon condemned men to get into this state of mind: the whole machinery of government seems black and malicious; and it is engineered by demons.
Ignoring the people to whom merely an unfavourable allusion is made in The True Story, the list of those pilloried as really vicious includes the County Attorney, Mr. Staples; Clara Wall, the witness; Mr. Montgomery, leading counsel for the defense; a juror unnamed, whom he calls “a stoolpigeon, a courthouse bummer, a priest, quack and pettifogger all combined in one”; Merrill C. Hart, mate of the Irene Meservey; Deacon Long of Tenants Harbour; Captain Albion Meservey-his nominee as the murderer, but, on the whole, a far more public-spirited person in his view than the lawyer, Mr. Staples; Mrs. Albion Meservey; Mr. Southworth, opposing expert in handwriting; Vinal Wall, a witness; and finally the murdered woman, Sarah Meservey, about whom he repeats an old story touching upon her personal honesty….” (p. 122)]

1941

Holbrook, Stewart H. Murder Out Yonder; An Informal Study of Certain Classic Crimes in Back-Country America. New York, The Macmillan company, 1941. 5 p.l., 255 p. 24 cm.
[“Chapter Ten.”
“Who Called on Sarah Meservey?”
Very few of the thousands of tourists who motor north along the Maine coast every summer visit Tenants Harbor. Few ever heard of it; for it is more than sixty years since the sleepy little hamlet roused itself to produce one of the Pine Tree State’s greatest mysteries and then relapsed happily into the quiet it had known since 1814, when a British man-of-war landed men to capture near-by Fort St. George’s” (p. 191)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Prosecution now sought to make a good deal of Nathan Hart’s dream prior to discovery of the murder. He had spoken of the dream to a number of persons-including Mrs. Nelson Hall, who testified at length as to exactly when she heard about the dream. Other witnesses were put on the stand to show that Nathan Hart “knew about the cloud being tied around Mrs. Meservey’s neck” before arrival of the coroner. Among these latter witnesses was one Vinal Wall, whom defense counsel impeached by hauling forth a bit of Wall’s past in connection with theft of money. Next witness was Captain Albion Meservey, related by marriage to both prisoner and victim, who returned from a voyage in the schooner Irene E. Meservey about a month before the murder. On past voyages the prisoner had been mate on this ship, said Captain Albion, and a very good and faithful mate. The present mate was Merrill C. Hart, a distant relative of the prisoner. Most damning evidence in the eyes of many was that given by Warren Allen, who was in charge of the Meservey house from sunset to midnight on the day the body was found. Allen said the prisoner had come to him that evening and asked permission to enter the house. It had been refused. Prisoner had then asked, Allen testified, if he could come early in the morning “before anyone was stirring.” Allen had told him no. Prosecution now brought forth two handwriting experts in the forms of Albert S. Southworth and George A. Sawyer, both of Boston, the latter of whom had been visited by Professor Dunton. Dunton had believed that Sawyer was in agreement with his own findings, but now both Sawyer and Southworth gave opinion that all of the notes and certain portions of two logbooks, said to be entries made by Captain Hart, were in the same hand….” (p. 208)]

1961

Snow, Edward Rowe. Mysterious Tales of the New England Coast. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1961. 310 p. illus. 21 cm.
[“12.” An Unsolved Maine Coast Mystery.”
“One of the unsolved mysteries of the Maine coast is the death of a sea captain’s wife in the village of Tenants Harbor, a shoreside hamlet located eleven miles to the southwest of Rockland. A man was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment for the woman’s murder, but many of those who heard the verdict were certain that he was innocent, and most of them never changed their minds. Although several different theories are recorded in this chapter, I still am in doubt in my own mind as to who the murderer was and why the woman was killed…” (p. 149)
(Etc., etc.)
“…Warren Allen, who had been put on guard at the Meservey house the same night the body had been found, explained that he had been approached by the prisoner during the evening, for permission to enter the murder home. “I said no. Then he asked me if he came again, early in the morning, before anyone was stirring, could he go in then. I told him, no, not if he was my father.” Handwriting experts were now brought into the limelight. They were Albert S. Southworth of Boston, Professor Alvin Dunton of Camden, Maine, and George A. Sawyer of Boston. Mr. Southworth had examined the two log books which had contained the handwriting of the prisoner, and also six papers which the accused had written. He had compared the known handwriting of Hart with the note found in the house, the Philadelphia letter and the extremely long letter from Providence. All the writing was done by the same man Nathan Hart-Southworth stated, and in this he was seconded by handwriting expert Sawyer of Boston. The next to testify was Warren F. Hart, who said that six months before the murder the general discussion at a mixed gathering in town was about women….” (Etc., etc.) (p. 164)]

1980

Newhall, Beaumont, ed. Photography, Essays & Images: Illustrated Readings in the History of Photography. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1980. [Four b & w by Southworth & Hawes. Reprints Albert Sands Southworth, “The Early History of Photography in the United States” (pp. 36–43), originally published in the British Journal of Photography 18 (Nov. 1871): 530–32.]

1 b & w (“Portrait of A. S. Southworth”) in vol. 28, facing p. 421 in: The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. New York: James T. White, 1940. [Entry: “Southworth, Albert Sands” (vol. 28, pp. 420–21).]

Allen, William. “The Spirit of Fact in Court: Southworth’s Testimony in Marcy v. Barnes and Bacon v. Williams.” HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY 6:4 (Oct. 1982): 327–32. [Southworth testified in several law cases on the issue of forged documents. Author provides several legal citations of these cases.]

“The American Daguerre Association: Constitution and Bye-Laws as of October 15, 1851.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 1992. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 1992, pp. 53–57. [Reprinted from The Daguerreian Journal (Oct. 15, 1851). “A. Southworth, Boston” is listed as one of the vice-presidents (p. 53).]

1 b & w (Portrait of A. S. Southworth on p. 41 in: Waters, Dennis A. “Dating American Daguerreotypes.” In THE DAGUERREIAN ANNUAL 2000. Eureka, Calif.: The Daguerreian Society, 2000, pp. 33–57.
[Mentions Southworth (p. 34) and discusses his early career with first partner Joseph Pennell (pp. 41–43).]

Trachtenberg, Alan. “Lincoln’s Smile: Ambiguities of the Face in Photography.” SOCIAL RESEARCH 67:1 (Spring 2000): 1–23. [A. S. Southworth quoted, discussed in this article on portrait photography; 1851 portrait of Daniel Webster by Southworth & Hawes among the photos reproduced.]

%%JOSIAH JOHNSON HAWES (1808–1901)

Note that many references from ca. 1880s through ca. 1930s cite only Hawes as the artist, even when these refer clearly to work made during the partnership. Many of these references are located under “Southworth & Hawes.”

1843

“Daguerreotype Printing.” THE COURIER (Lowell, Mass.), Thursday, July 13, 1843, p. 2, col. 5. [“This art seems to have approximated of late, almost to perfection.—We are led to make this remark from witnessing several splendid, and we might say perfect specimens, executed by Messrs. Hawes & Somerby, in their rooms in Corburn’s block, Central street, where they are ready to wait upon applicants. … not surpassed in Boston or any other place in this country.”]

1850

“Chronicle of Facts and Opinions. American Art and Artists. Improvements in Daguerreotyping.” BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN ART-UNION 3:7 (Oct. 1850): 117. [“It is stated that a Mr. Howes [sic Hawes] of Boston, has discovered a process by which a daguerreotype of miniature size, may be magnified to the size of life, or larger, and reflected upon a canvas, or any other flat prepared substance, so that an artist may seat himself before it, and paint it as it appears.”

1863

“Photographs & Daguerreotypes” [advertisement]. In The Boston Directory 1863–4. Boston: Adams, Sampson & Co. 1863, p. 66. [“J. J. Hawes, of the old firm Southworth & Hawes, Continues the business of Photographing and Daguerreoty