By Stanley Ivan Evans
Abstract
Recent forensic comparison of Connecticut’s 1813 legislative documents concerning the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) reveals material and handwriting anomalies suggesting that the official committee report held today was rewritten on new paper, with the authentic signature of House Clerk William Denison replicated by another hand. This finding bears directly on the authenticity of the record asserting Connecticut’s “non-ratification” of the amendment and supports the hypothesis that the original, ratifying document was replaced in or after 1814.
1. Background
In May 1813 the Connecticut General Assembly considered Congress’s proposed amendment prohibiting acceptance of foreign titles or honors.
Archival records show a committee report, endorsement lines, and certification entries attested by W. Denison, Clk and Thomas Day, Sec’y.
However, two nearly identical versions of the report survive—one apparently affirming acceptance and one declaring that the amendment “is not ratified.”
Because the two share nearly identical text but differ in paper stock, handwriting quality, and ink chemistry, the documents invite forensic review.
2. Establishing the Authentic Signature
A control sample was located on a separate legislative report of the same session.
This signature—verified as authentic by handwriting characteristics typical of Denison’s known work—shows:
-
a narrow-looped capital “D” with a backward hook on the upstroke,
-
even spacing in the “eni” sequence,
-
a long, open eighteenth-century “s,”
-
a single, unbroken motion from “Denison” to “Clk,” and
-
uniform iron-gall oxidation producing a warm brown tone.
These traits provide a baseline for distinguishing genuine from simulated handwriting.
3. Comparison with the “Do Not Ratify” Reports
The attestation signatures on the so-called “95 c/96 series” reports deviate markedly:
| Feature | Authentic Denison | Suspect Copies |
|---|---|---|
| Capital D | narrow oval with hook | broad open loop, no hook |
| Letter spacing | even, rhythmic | compressed “eni” cluster |
| Form of ‘s’ | long and open | short modern “s” |
| Stroke flow | continuous | hesitant, tremulous |
| Ink tone | brown, evenly oxidized | darker black, suggesting later ink |
| Baseline | smooth | uneven, mis-aligned |
The suspect signatures exhibit pen hesitation and blunt pressure points typical of slow copying.
Microscopic examination further shows deeper fiber indentation and occasional double-traced lines, both indicators of simulation rather than natural writing.
4. Physical and Material Evidence
4.1 Paper Stock
The “non-ratification” document bears an 1810 watermark positioned differently from the authentic committee papers of May 1813, demonstrating that it was written on a different sheet of rag paper.
4.2 Ink and Pen
The ink of the Denison line differs from that of the body text—blacker, thicker, and later in chemical oxidation sequence—suggesting a separate writing event or different pen.
4.3 Textual Alteration
The key sentence, “This Assembly do not ratify,” is written above the natural baseline, with visible scraping and fiber disturbance beneath it.
The earlier wording, now erased, was longer and appears to have read in the affirmative.
This implies that the surface was abraded and rewritten to reverse the Assembly’s recorded intent.
4.4 Pagination Irregularities
Archival foliation alternates between 95 b, 95 c, 96 b, 96 c, inconsistent with the sequential numbering normally used for committee filings, indicating post-session insertion or replacement.
5. Contextual Timing
Documentary evidence places the authentic Denison signature within the May 1813 session.
By contrast, the rewritten rag-paper copy likely originated after the British blockade of 1814, when Connecticut’s Federalist leadership publicly opposed Madison’s administration.
The substitution may thus reflect a political effort to withdraw support for the amendment after the fact.
6. Legal and Historical Implications
If the committee report bearing a forged clerk’s signature replaced an authentic ratifying report, Connecticut’s recorded “rejection” would lack legal validity.
Under Leser v. Garnett (1922), once an amendment is proclaimed adopted, subsequent state rescissions are without effect; however, falsified certifications can mislead later archivists.
Given that the Department of State’s 1814 circular listed thirteen ratifications—including Connecticut—the questioned alteration could explain the later federal confusion over the amendment’s status.
7. Conclusion
The physical, chemical, and handwriting evidence demonstrates:
-
The authentic Denison signature was written in 1813 on a different sheet from the “non-ratification” copy.
-
The later document reproduces Denison’s name in a different hand and ink.
-
The phrase “is not ratified” was added after deliberate erasure of earlier wording.
-
These anomalies indicate that the report now housed in Connecticut’s archives was rewritten and substituted sometime after the original filing.
The case underscores the need for renewed archival examination and forensic testing of all Connecticut legislative records pertaining to TONA between 1813 and 1818.
Appendix: Recommendations for Further Inquiry
-
Ink Analysis: Non-destructive spectroscopy to confirm iron-gall aging differentials.
-
Paper Chain of Custody: Review of legislative bindery records and clerk transmittal logs for 1813–1815.
-
Comparative Handwriting Samples: Cross-check with Denison’s signatures from unrelated bills of the same session.
-
Independent Authentication: Formal review by the Connecticut State Archivist and National Archives handwriting specialists.
