Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New York. 1891

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Thanks. Then it must have been the top floor.
    Last edited by sdreid; 01-24-2011, 02:42 AM.
    This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

    Stan Reid

    Comment


    • #17
      First off. Roy, I’ll send you a message a little bit later if you don’t mind.

      Roy is probably correct that the building marked on the print of the Catharine Market is, most likely, the East River Hotel. Probably. I can’t say definitely because of several factors.

      The East River Hotel, which began its life as the Fourth Ward Hotel, was built around the year 1850 so this could be a view of the brand new hotel. From the print it appears that the five story building, the hotel was five stories, is in the right location, at the southeast corner of Catharine Slip and Water Street and the hotel did have four windows per floor running along Catharine Slip. However the print shows no windows at all on the Water Street side of the building while, at least by 1891, the hotel had six windows per floor facing Water Street, which was the actual front of the hotel. The cornice at the top of the building was also different in 1891 and ran along all four sides of the building rather than just along Catharine Slip. Also, by 1891 there were balconies and fire escapes which ran down the building fronts on both Water Street and Catharine Slip. Most of this could be explained as (fairly simple) improvements to the hotel’s exterior. Adding some twenty-four windows to one side, however, would be an expensive prospect but it’s possible that the print is wrong. Who can say?

      The murder of Carrie Brown, who didn’t actually live in the hotel (neither did Ameer Ben Ali who lived in Brooklyn, the hotel wasn’t a lodging house after all), did occur in room 31 on the top floor of the hotel. In my article, The New York Affair part 1, I originally placed this room at the back of the hotel (the first room on the right seen in the print) but further research (those wondering, yes, I’m still working on my book on the Brown murder) showed that this was incorrect. The murder occurred in the first room on the left.

      Wolf.

      Comment


      • #18
        Roy, I tried to send you a message but it kept saying that it was too long so I have decided to answer you here if that's okay.

        I went through the over 1300 pages of newspaper reports that I have on the Brown murder and related topics and looked at several other sources looking to answer this question.

        The majority of reports say that the hotel was on the south-east corner of Water Street and Catharine Slip. Some newspapers say that the hotel was on the south-west corner but these seem to be out of state newspapers who, therefore, would have got their information from a newsagency where one mistake would have been passed around the US. All the New York papers that I consulted who mentioned exactly where the hotel stood say south-east corner.

        Also, Charles W. Gardner, who wrote about his corruption busting efforts with Dr. Charles H. Parkhurst in his book The Doctor and the Devil, or Midnight Adventures of Dr. Parkhurst (Gardener & Co., 1894) wrote about the East River Hotel. Gardener, Parkhurst and another man actually visited the hotel and Gardener gives a fascinating description of the place. He states that the hotel was on the south-east corner of Water Street and Catharine Slip.

        However, those papers, New York and otherwise, that give an actual address state that the hotel was either #14 or #16 Catherine Slip. This would suggest that the hotel was actually on the west side of the street.

        Finally, all the illustrations that I have that show the hotel show it to be on the south-east corner.

        You wrote

        “If the signage is on Catharine Slip, then that building can't be on the southeast corner, it would have to be southwest because of how it is placed. And it seems the signage would be on Catharine Slip, that's the main drag coming up from the river.”
        Signage giving the name of the hotel was on both the Water Street and Catharine Slip sides of the building. The actual entrance to the hotel was on Water Street, which was the front of the building since Water was a major street, not Catharine Slip, which was a minor street going down to the Catharine Ferry docks. Some views show the hotel looking north from Catharine Slip and prove that the hotel was on the south-east corner.

        A pattern develops here. All the New York sources that actually went down to the hotel, entered it, wrote about it and even sketched it say that it was on the south-east corner. This first-hand observation about its location must be accepted. It’s easier to look at a building and say which corner it’s on than to come up with an actual address, which means that someone has to search for a street number, and some of the sources which gave an address actually gave the wrong address (#16 Catharine Slip) according to your map.

        The south-east corner seems to be correct.

        Wolf.

        Comment


        • #19
          Hello Wolf,

          While that was directed to Roy, I truly appriciate it.

          Many thanks!
          Washington Irving:

          "To a homeless man, who has no spot on this wide world which he can truly call his own, there is a momentary feeling of something like independence and territorial consequence, when, after a weary day's travel, he kicks off his boots, thrusts his feet into slippers, and stretches himself before an inn fire. Let the world without go as it may; let kingdoms rise and fall, so long as he has the wherewithal to pay his bills, he is, for the time being, the very monarch of all he surveys. The arm chair in his throne; the poker his sceptre, and the little parlour of some twelve feet square, his undisputed empire. "

          Stratford-on-Avon

          Comment


          • #20
            If it is true, as the address might indicate, that the building was on the west side of the street then could they have been speaking of the south-east corner of the block rather than the south-east corner of the intersection? I see that the numbers don't fit that however. The south-east corner of the block looks like #10. No. 14 would actually be on the north-east corner of the block and the south-west corner of the intersection and #16 wouldn't even be on a corner. For whatever reason, #12 seems to be absent. No number is skipped on the other side of Catharine.
            Last edited by sdreid; 01-26-2011, 12:06 AM.
            This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

            Stan Reid

            Comment


            • #21
              I wondered that too, Stan. But I think southeast corner really meant the intersection.

              Originally posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post
              Finally, all the illustrations that I have that show the hotel show it to be on the south-east corner.
              Here is the illustration from page 45 of your Ripper Notes article from 2004, Wolf. (google books) Excellent article, by the way.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	RN19Wolf2004pg45.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	21.4 KB
ID:	661608

              The actual entrance to the hotel was on Water Street, which was the front of the building...
              The illustration makes perfect sense, then.
              Some views show the hotel looking north from Catharine Slip and prove that the hotel was on the south-east corner.
              That fairly nails it.
              The south-east corner seems to be correct.
              I agree Wolf, the only cavaet being the address could not be 14 or 16 Catharine Slip. Because certainly the even numbers are on the west side, the odd numbers on the east. The hotel would be #13. That's from the 1891 map. Here is the link again. (click)

              Again, Wolf, can't thank you enough,

              Roy

              ps
              Gardner gives a fascinating description of the place
              That's on google books, too. Proves truth can be stranger than fiction.
              Sink the Bismark

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi Roy.

                I was giving this little problem a lot of thought last night because I came to the conclusion that the alignment of the hotel shown in the various illustrations I have do not prove exactly where the hotel was situated. I realized that we are both wrong and both right at the same time.

                Most maps are aligned so that north is at the top of the page, south at the bottom, east on the right and west on the left. I have always taken this for granted when looking at maps of the Lower East Side of New York. Of the four or five historical maps I’ve looked at, including the one you posted, Water Street is always shown running east and west while Catharine/Catharine Slip is shown running north and south. This is wrong, as looking at a larger map of Manhattan easily shows.

                In fact Water Street runs north and south (or north-east to south-west-ish) and Catharine/Catharine Slip runs east west (ish). Keeping this in mind everything now makes sense.

                The East River Hotel WAS on the south-east corner of Water Street and Catharine Slip but this is the building that you thought was the south-west corner (so the arrow on the map is wrong). Its address WAS #14 Catharine Slip and it WAS, therefore, just within the boundary of the Fourth Ward, not across the street where I thought it was. I found some extra corroboration when I discovered that the hotel’s address, because it fronted on Water, was given as #387 Water Street, while its next door neighbour was given as #385. Looking at your map this also pinpoints the hotel as the building you thought was on the south-west corner.

                In the end, you are also right that the print of the Catharine Market does not show the East River Hotel but the building across the street on the north-east corner. Since the hotel was built “around” 1850, and it doesn’t appear in the 1850 print, then the hotel must have been built either later in 1850 or, more likely, in 1851.

                Thanks for bringing this question up to me. Good work!

                Wolf.

                Comment


                • #23
                  One other thing.

                  The illustration you have posted of the East River Hotel is from my private copy of the New York World. In order for it to be printed with my article I had to fix a slight tear in the picture (which can still be seen) make a copy and then go over it with whiteout (I didn't have a scanner at the time). The pictures for the article were supposed to be headed with the information that they were from my collection but Dan chose not to do tihs for some reason.

                  I'm not an expert on copyright but I believe that I own the copyright on the image you have posted due to the fact that its from my own copy of the newspaper and I had to do work on it in order to clean it up.

                  Wolf.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Ah, then just leave the arrow where it is and rotate the map under it a quarter turn anticlockwise?
                    This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                    Stan Reid

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      To a New Yorker it is the Southeast Corner. Because they are walking up and down Water Street. Catharine goes sideways to the East River. Actually the East River turns there at little Bowery, and according to the compass, Water street is amost straight west to east, and Catharine north and south. But if you live there, it's different.

                      Yes this is what I wondering about in our PM's. The ward boundary, the number 14. But I never thought of it how you just did. Very good. I will re-do the map and post it back with a new improved arrow. !!!

                      Wolf, if you want your sketch removed from this site, I'm OK with that. Just say the word and I will hit the report key and tell admin. Whatever you like.

                      Roy
                      Sink the Bismark

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hi Roy.

                        I don't think it's a problem. I just wanted it known in case someone wanted to download it and use it somewhere else. If it were to turn up in either Ripperologist or Casebook Examiner then there would be a problem.

                        Recently I discovered that a new book published in late 2010, which acknowledged part of my Carrie Brown article as a source, basically plagarised large sections of my writing. I talked to a book editor who knows about these types of things and I was told that the guy had just changed enough of my words (in most cases but not all) so that it would take a court to decide if I was ripper off or not. I'm kind of pissed right now.

                        Wolf.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I wrote a brief account of the Brown murder for America's Most Wanted News Magazine for April of 2002. When you are describing actual events it is easy to get some sentences that look a lot alike. The first full sentence in this part of the article entitled The World's Ten Most Wanted 1880-1899 was, "Ms. Brown, a middle-aged prostitute who earned her colorful nickname from her practice of quoting the bard while in a somewhat intemperate state, was found murdered and mutilated in her New York City residence on April 24." I'd think any account of the case would start off something like that and I wouldn't consider it plagiarism.
                          This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                          Stan Reid

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'd have a couple of things to correct in that article if I wrote it today but it was as I understood things when I wrote it in 2001.
                            This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                            Stan Reid

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Okay. On sober second thought I have to agree with Roy. The East River Hotel, #14 Catharine Slip, WAS NOT on the south-east side of Catharine Slip but, as Roy has stated, the south-west corner. The out of town newspapers were correct.

                              Stan.

                              This went beyond vague similarities and the author obviously and blatantly took my work and research, changed only some words or moved sentences around and then presented it as his own. At one point he even attributed my words to another author. Was this illegal? I was told not, well, not without a judge's say so, but that it is considered slimey (and this guy teaches English at the University of Massachusetts).

                              The funny thing is I'm not supposed to reproduce or transmit "in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, except as may be permitted in writing from the publisher." And large chunks of the book are from my work.

                              After the many years of research into the Brown murder I, too, would have to extensively re-write my Ripper Notes article. It's almost impossible to understand exactly what was going on in the police investigation without police files and the newspaper reports are conflicting.

                              Corey.

                              Any clue as to what I'm helping you with?

                              Wolf.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Wolf, I certainly understand how you feel if he presented your research as his rather than with attribution to you.
                                This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                                Stan Reid

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X