will not be an obstacle to a new registration on the list, except it the commission will find after its decision that the expert has compromised his honorability.

ARTICLE 13. Except in cases of agreement between the parties provided in article 224 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, each court of first instance must choose the experts among those registered on its lists

May I read that again?—

ARTICLE 13. Except in cases of agreement between the parties provided in article 224 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, each court of first instance must choose the experts among those registered on its lists, unless for special reasons, mention of which will be made in the judgment. In this latter case, the experts shall be chosen as much as possible [from] among those admitted at the Court of Appeals.

I skip to article 16.

The expert must accomplish his mission and present his report within a reasonable period. This period should be fixed in the judgment ordering the expert's report. The fixation of the period will be of right, if one of the parties requires it.

ARTICLE 17. The expert will take cognizance of the necessary documents without withdrawing them, unless the parties have authorized him in writing to withdraw them.

Mr. President, I am going to reveal to you some most astonishing facts, some facts which are not readily apparent in the record without most intensive study.

Article 1 of this law, which I have just read, requires the keeping of a register of experts. When this trial took place, there were on the registers of Egypt 45 experts. Did this specially appointed prosecutor-judge-investigator find one of those 45 qualified to serve his purposes? No. Of all the 45 experts in Egypt, there was not one, singularly, who would serve the purposes desired by this special investigator. And so this special investigator had to appoint a special expert-naturally; he had special duties to perform.

I have a certified copy of the record of the experts in Egyptian courts during those years, the list as certified by the Ministry of Justice in Cairo. Mr. Seoudy, who

was appointed by the prosecutor-investigator-judge, was not on that list, and was not qualified, and did not qualify until 10 years later.

Mr. President, the important point in connection with that is, that in spite of the fact that Agent and Counsel for the Egyptian Government have said that forgery cannot be proven without the testimony of handwriting experts, no expert, not even Seoudy, was chosen until six months after the investigation began. Why? Because it was impossible to convict George Salem on the evidence that was before the prosecutor-investigator-judge without a handwriting expert's report. There was no basis for a commitment.

President SIMONS: We will take a little recess, of five minutes.

(At this point a brief informal recess was taken, at the conclusion of which the proceedings continued as follows:) President SIMONS: You may continue, Mr. Hunt.

Mr. HUNT: Mr. President, I had just finished saying that the expert chosen by Ibrashy Bey was not an expert and that, it being necessary to bring charges against George Salem for some particular reason and there being no evidence against him, after three or four months of waiting apparently they were deliberating as to what might be done next-the only solution of the difficulty which presented itself was the appointment of an expert. And so a man was appointed-not an expert, but a man, Mr. Seoudy, was appointed.

Before Mr. Nassif took the case of George Salem, and before he participated in the making of the deed of November 7, 1917, in order to know whether the deed to be embodied in that agreement was legal or not, he had submitted the deed to the investigation of two experts; and two experts had advised him that the deed was genuine. On page 806 of the Reply of the United States, at the fifth paragraph, will be found the testimony of Nassif. These are the records of the investigator:

And here we inquire from the counsel [Nassif] if he does consent to give us the names of the experts who were commissioned by him

and he said "I with my absolute certitude as to the statements of George Salem relative to the genuineness of the deed as made to me, I wanted primarily to satisfy my own conscience in a material way. To ascertain the genuineness of the signature and on the other hand because of the notoriety of the case and particularly in the Syrian circles, I wanted to consult some of those who have a knowledge of the science and I selected two, the first one, Sheik Hassan Shihab because he is an expert appointed and practicing before the Mansourah Court as far as I know. I selected him because he is my client and I have faith in his integrity. The second is Neguib Hawawini, because of his high scientific capacity as I believe, and I requested them to examine very carefully. My belief is that they did not consult other persons besides themselves, despite the fact that I requested them to do so, because Hassan Shihab's statements were emphatical that the signature was genuine and I had taken his opinion before November 7, 1917, and had submitted to him the photographic copy because the deed was then being recorded and he gave his opinion that the signature was genuine on the basis of the examination of the photographic picture."

And on page 804-two pages back-the testimony of George Salem is being taken before the investigating committee, investigating prosecutor, and at about the center of the page you will find this question:

Could you tell us who were the experts and what their opinion was?

A. As to their names, I do not know them, but as to their opinion, it was that the signature was genuine.

And that opinion was obtained by Mr. Nassif before he made the deed of November 7, 1917, and the prosecuting investigator in this case knew that this signature had been submitted to two real experts long ago and that they had found the signature genuine. He had that evidence, in addition to the testimony-corroborating testimony-of all the witnesses to the deed. That may or may not be an explanation for his going outside the official list of experts to obtain the man who was to bring in a report of forgery.

Mr. President, there has been much discussion in this case of judicial determinations with respect to the evidence of experts. I have here, and I should like to read just at this point from decisions by courts in the United

States-not because they have any particular bearing on this case, but to show you what the experience has been in the United States with respect to expert testimony.

I read first from a decision rendered by the courts of New York in 1902, recorded in the case of Card v. Moore, 68 N.Y. App. Dec. 327. I can supply the papers if the Tribunal would like to check them, or they will appear in the notes.

In the question of whether an agreement was forged or genuine, two witnesses to the agreement testified to its execution, and four other witnesses gave strong corroborative testimony of its execution.

Four in that case; seven here.

A famous expert testified on the trial that the date had been tampered with.

The court said: "If the evidence given by those witnesses be false, then six of them are perjurers, and three of them are forgers The testimony of an expert, however eminent, based upon the appearance of a paper of some age, when that appearance might be due to other causes than those inferred from visual examination and microscopic scrutiny, should not prevail with us against positive testimony of the witnesses in this case . .

Another case, reported in the New Jersey Equity Reports in 1880 (32 N.J., p. 809):

... The opinions of experts, however skillful they may be, are weaker in degree of certainty than the direct evidence of the subscribing witness, who has sworn to the genuineness of both signatures.

In 33 Iowa, at page 130, the court stated that the opinion of handwriting experts

is of the lowest order of evidence, and of the most unsatisfactory character. It cannot be claimed that it ought to overthrow positive and direct evidence of credible witnesses who testify from their personal knowledge.

A case reported in 32 Fed. Rep. 198, a case decided by the Federal courts of the United States:

The testimony of expert witnesses to handwriting is not entitled to the same weight as the testimony of persons who speak concerning

matters within their personal observation; and as these witnesses simply express opinions which they entertain, the jury should give those opinions only such weight as they think they deserve.

Best, a noted writer on the law of evidence, says (Law of Evidence, sec. 247, p. 254):

Whatever may be the relative values of the several modes of proving handwriting . . . it is certain that all such proof is even in its best form precarious, and often extremely dangerous. "The handwriting of the same person varies at different periods of life; it is affected by age, by infirmity, by habit".

A decision of the court in Michigan, reported in 34 Mich., at page 21:

Everyone knows how unsafe it is to rely upon anyone's opinion concerning the niceties of penmanship. The introduction of professional experts has only added to the mischief instead of palliating it, and the results of litigation have shown that these are often the merest pretenders to knowledge whose notions are pure speculations.

And this judge is speaking of experts, not of individuals who cannot qualify as experts.

Opinions are necessarily received and may be valuable, but at best this kind of testimony is a necessary evil.

In Colbert v. State, reported in 125 Wis., at page 423:

Any one of a number of different causes, such as excitement or intentional disguising of the writing, or the guiding of the hand by another

or the guiding of the hand by another

might produce the abnormal effect; and it is not easy to see what satisfactory means an expert has of differentiating between these possible causes.

In another case reported in New Jersey Equity Reports (69 N.J. 753), the court says:

. . The attack upon the instrument, and upon the credibility of the witnesses, is grounded upon indications upon the face of the