In mid- to late May 1909 a wave of counterfeit banknotes prompted heightened concern among merchants, bank clerks and local police in multiple towns and cities. Reports compiled from period newspapers and municipal records show a pattern: small- and medium-denomination notes passed in everyday transactions were increasingly identified as fraudulent, leading to refusals of payment, strained commerce, and formal complaints to law enforcement. Detection and spread Counterfeits were first noticed when shopkeepers and clerks, trained to examine paper quality, watermarking and ink, identified discrepancies in notes presented for change. Because many transactions involved cash and change for wages, a counterfeit passed in one town could quickly circulate in neighboring communities. Postal and railway workers also reported encountering suspect notes, which likely contributed to their geographical spread. Bank and police response Banks instituted more rigorous inspection routines at teller windows and advised customers on precautions. Some institutions temporarily refused large deposits of small notes without verification. Local police opened inquiries and coordinated with nearby jurisdictions to compare suspect specimens and trace where notes had been passed. Where possible, authorities compared serial numbers and physical characteristics of seized notes to establish links between incidents. Economic and social effects Though the face value of individual counterfeit notes was typically modest, their cumulative effect caused friction in everyday trade. Small merchants, especially those operating on thin margins, were wary of accepting larger bills; employers and payroll clerks took extra care when distributing wages. Panic in some neighborhoods led to temporary declines in cash-based commerce and increased reliance on checks or certified bank instruments where available. At the same time, public notices and press reports warned citizens against accepting suspicious currency, offering guidance on visual cues and advising victims to submit counterfeit notes to authorities rather than attempting to pass them on. This public education lessened some of the immediate harm but also amplified attention to the problem, widening awareness of how widely the fakes had circulated. Investigations and challenges Detecting the origin of counterfeit notes in 1909 posed challenges. Printing technology and paper supplies could be sourced locally or at a distance, and counterfeiters often targeted common denominations to maximize circulation. Law enforcement relied on manual comparison of specimens and informant testimony; forensic techniques available today were not in use. As a result, while some operations were disrupted through arrests in a few localities, comprehensive suppression of the counterfeit network proved difficult. Historical context Counterfeiting was a recurring issue in the early 20th century, occurring in periodic outbreaks tied to economic activity, availability of printing resources, and the mobility of populations. The May 1909 episode fits within that broader pattern: localized bursts of counterfeit activity that produced immediate commercial alarm and prompted institutional responses but seldom led to immediate nationwide solutions. Legacy and records Contemporary newspaper accounts and municipal records provide the primary documentation of the May 1909 panic. Those sources emphasize the practical disruptions to daily commerce and the nascent efforts by banks and police to coordinate responses. Because records vary by locality, exact totals for counterfeit notes circulated or seized remain incomplete in surviving sources. Conclusion The May 1909 counterfeit-note panic highlights the vulnerabilities of cash-dependent economies of the era and the limits of early policing and banking safeguards. It spurred local improvements in inspection practices and public advisories, even as the diffuse nature of the activity limited rapid, centralized resolution.