The National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Effect of Chemicals on Internal Revenue Stamps, 1870

[The following narrative is taken from Frederick W. True’s Semi-centennial history of the National Academy of Sciences, A History of the First Half-Century of the National Academy of Sciences 1863-1913, pp. 254-255.]

Prior to 1870 it was the practice of the Government to print internal revenue stamps on ordinary paper in ink of a single color. It resulted from this that by skilful manipulation the cancellation marks could be removed and the stamps used a second time to avoid the payment of revenue. The Government thus suffered serious loss, and was under the necessity of devising means of preventing the continuance of the nefarious practice. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, therefore, introduced radical changes as regards the kind of paper used for the stamps and the ink with which they were printed. Instead of employing ordinary paper, a special kind of paper was adopted, which was manufactured under the supervision of the Government. At the same time it was made unlawful, as in the case of paper for bank-notes, to make any of it, to sell it or to have it in one’s possession. Instead of printing with one kind and color of ink, the stamps were printed in two or more colors, and the printing was divided between private contractors and the Government, the former printing certain tints on them, and delivering them to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing which completed them and delivered them to the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to be issued.

In order to ascertain whether these changes were likely to be effective, the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue on April 13, 1870, sent some specimens of the stamps to the Academy with the request that they be examined by it, with regard to their sensitiveness to the action of chemicals. This request was contained in the following letter [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., vol. I, p. 76.] addressed to Joseph Henry, President of the Academy:

A committee consisting of Wolcott Gibbs, Samuel W. Johnson and John Torrey was at once appointed to consider the subject. The records of the Academy do not contain the report of the committee but we may infer that it was to the effect that the changes introduced would prevent fraud, as the Commissioner remarked in the following year: