Neat Improper Usage I Found

Found this one in a little local auction.

This document is overpaid by a penny. And why the two different types of cancels?

I seem to recall seeing this document on ebay a year or two back.

Is it really correct to call the use of postage stamps for revenue purposes an "improper usage"? Seems to me that was acceptable so long as revenues were not available. Money all went to the treasury. Also - is there any evidence that the postage stamps were added later?

It's definitely an illegal or improper usage. In the U.S., the money from postage stamps at the time went to the Post Office Department, not the treasury. Postage and revenue monies were always kept separate, unlike the GB and colonies concept of "postage or revenue". The postage stamps are on top of the revenues in a few places on this document, so they were added after, but was it one minute after, or much later? And although the 3 #68's were cancelled at the same time, I am not convinced that it was done by the same person who wrote the document or with the same pen. Overpayment was very rarely done, a penny was real money at the time. I have not physically examined this document, but it is sending up red flags to me. It did when I saw it before as well; I did not bid on it for that reason.

I thought it was ok due to the handwritten cancels on the Scott 68's with the matching dates to the document. I've rarely seen cancels on a 68 like these but I'm an amateur on these at best.

I thought this document might have been related to the Jas. Swaim and Wm. Swaim of the RS231-RS235 medicine stamps, but the dates don't seem to fit. According to Henry Holcombe (Patent Medicine Tax Stamps), James died in 1870 and William in 1879.

Anyone can copy dates, but the ink does not seem to match (I'm not sure about the handwriting from these scans). Also, at least 2 of the 68's are damaged and all are badly centered. This means that many decades ago they would not have been worth much (especially if they had no gum, which is always possible). On the other hand, if a 25 cent revenue had been removed from the left space with 2 #68, and a 4 cent from the space with the right #68, then originally the tax would have been correct. Just no way to be sure from the scan. Be fun to put it under a UV.

I've been looking at it under magnification and the writing more or less matches up.

The second 8 has tail at finish.







The side with the stamps was signed by Will? Swainn? so the initials on the 68's W S seem like they are similar and people do write letters differently in signatures and just initialing something.






Could it be plausible that they only had those 3 tax stamps and needed .29¢ so 3 - 10¢ stamps might have been the closest they had?

It's easy to make a tail, that is not the problem here. Look at how fine the writing is on the document itself. The letters and the initials are thin and at least somewhat graceful. Then look at how thick and clumpy they are on the stamps. Look at how fancy the F of February is on the document, and how much different it looks on the stamps. Look at the slant of the dates on the document, then look at the dates on the stamps. Very different. I am not at all convinced that the person who signed the document wrote those cancels; in fact I am reasonably sure he did not.

And the three #68 do not appear to be dated the same day, two are dated Feb 22, and one is dated Feb 28. How exactly did that happen??????