Two more summaries of the controversy.
Scribners Monthly, Volume 9, April, 1975, Pages 743-754
The Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy
by E. O. Vaile (per table of contents)
Shakespeare: The Man and the Book, Part 1 (London: Truber, 1877), link
By Clement Mansfield Ingleby
Pages 38-73
The Authorship of the Plays of Shakespeare
-
A book about the "Northumberland manuscript", and a description from the Wyman bibliogrpahy.
A Conference of Pleasure Composed for Some Festive Occasion about the Year 1592 (London: Longmans, Green, 1870), link
by Francis Bacon, James Spedding
Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Controversy: With Notes and Extracts (Cincinnati: Samuel C. Cox, 1884)
by William Henry Wyman
Pages 32-33
This was edited by Mr. Spedding from a portion of the Northumberland MSS. referred to by Judge Holmes (see pages 657-682, edition of 1876). These MSS. were found in 1867, in a box of old papers, which had probably lain for nearly a century unopened, in the library of Northumberland House in London. With them was a MS. title-page, indicating that the paper book which it covered had once contained, in addition to the four speeches composing the Conference of Pleasure, several other of Bacon's orations and essays Also, Richard II, Richard III, Asmund and Cornelia, Thomas Nashe's Isle of Dogs, and papers by other authors. Of these, only a part remained when the document was discovered, the Shakespeare plays being amongst the missing. The MSS. were in bad condition, from fire and the ravages of time—the edges being badly burned, probably from a fire which occured in Northumberland House in 1780.
Accompanying Mr. Spedding's book is a fac-simile of this MS. title-page, and it is on this that the interest turns. It shows, in addition to the original table of contents, a mass of scribblings, written all over the sheet, containing a variety of names, phrases, quotations, idly and carelessly written, apparently by some copyist or clerk. Amongst these scribblings occurs the name of Frauncis Bacon several times, and that of William Shakespeare eight or nine times repeated. As to its date, Mr. Spedding says: "All I can say is that I find nothing, either in these later scribblings, or what remains of the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign of Elizabeth." Further, that he finds no traces of the handwriting of Bacon.
The reference to this question is to be found in the introduction, pages xxii-xxv.
Mr. Spedding discovers nothing in these MSS. to disturb his belief in the Shakespearian authorship, and regards it as a simple coincidence that the productions of Shakespeare and Bacon should be copied in the same book, and their names scribbled on the title-page. "At the present time," he says, "if the waste leaf on which a law-stationer's apprentice tries his pens were examined, I should expect to find on it the name of the poet, novelist, dramatic author, or actor of the day, mixed with snatches of the last new song," etc. * * * "And that is exactly the sort of thing we have here." Judge Holmes, however, ventures the suggestion that they may have been made in Bacon's own study, by his own amanuensis; that this fact wouid account for the two names being scribbled on the title-leaf by one in the secret; and that Bacon himself may have destroyed the missing Shakespeare plays before his death, by way of suppressing the evidence of his authorship.
----end
Wyman describes the following as a "noted article."
Fraser's Magazine, August, 1874, Pages 164-178
Who Wrote Shakespeare?
by J. V. P.Leave a comment:
-
Wyman published 9 addenda to his 1884 Bacon/Shakespeare bibliography, ending on a sour note in 1890.
Shakespeariana, Volume 3, March, 1886, Pages 118-126
Recent Bacon-Shakespeare Literature
Part I
by William Henry Wyman
Shakespeariana, Volume 3, April, 1886, Pages 163-167
Recent Bacon-Shakespeare Literature
Part II
by William Henry Wyman
Shakespeariana, Volume 3, July, 1886, Pages 302-311
Recent Bacon-Shakespeare Literature
Part III
by William Henry Wyman
Shakespeariana, Volume 4, April, 1887, Pages 160-165
Recent Bacon-Shakespeare Literature
Part IV [mislabeled in magazine as Part III]
by William Henry Wyman
Shakespeariana, Volume 4, December, 1887, Pages 552-559
Recent Bacon-Shakespeare Literature
Part V
by William Henry Wyman
Shakespeariana, Volume 5, May, 1888, Pages 205-211
Recent Bacon-Shakespeare Literature
Part VI
by William Henry Wyman
Shakespeariana, Volume 5, December, 1888, Pages 547-552
Recent Bacon-Shakespeare Literature
Part VII
by William Henry Wyman
Poet Lore, Volume 1, February, 1889, Pages 69-82
Recent Bacon-Shakespeare Literature
Part VIII
by William Henry Wyman
Poet Lore, Volume 2, 1890, Pages 613-616
Recent Bacon-Shakespeare Literature
Part IX
by William Henry Wyman
The Bacon-shakespeare discussion has practically come to an end. While there are numbers of Baconians, the theory has not made any lasting impression on the world at large. In taking leave of the subject, the compiler submits, for the information of those who have been interested in it, a list of thirty-six additional titles, making four hundred and sixty in all. The usual notes and comments are omitted, partly from want of time to prepare them, but mainly from the lack of general interest in the subject-matter.
[...]
----endLeave a comment:
-
The Shakespeare/Bacon bibliography lists a novel, Harrington, written by a Delia Bacon fanboy named William O'Connor. I couldn't find the novel but here are a review and a letter about the book.
The National Quarterly Review (New York), Volume 2, December, 1860, Pages 156-159
Notices and criticisms
Belles Lettres
Harrington; A Story of True Love. By the author of “What Cheer,” “The Ghost,” “A Christmas Story,” “A Tale of Lynn,” &c. 12mo, pp. 558. Boston: Thayer & Eldridge. 1860.
The Round Table (new York), Volume 4, Novemver 17, 1866, Pages 255-256
Letters to the Editor
The Authorship of Shakespeare
Richard J. Hinton
A book with a Stratfordian chapter.
The Biography and Bibliography of Shakespeare (1863), link
By Henry George Bohn
Pages 291-300
On the Identity of Shakespeare as a Writer of Plays
The first, second, third and fourth editions of a Baconian work by a Missouri judge.
The Authorship of Shakespeare (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1866)
By Nathaniel Holmes, link
The Authorship of Shakespeare (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1867, 2nd edition), link
by Nathaniel Holmes
The Authorship of Shakespeare (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1876, 3rd edition), link
By Nathaniel Holmes
The Authorship of Shakespeare, Volume 1 (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1887, 4th edition), link
by Nathaniel Holmes
The Authorship of Shakespeare, Volume 2 (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1887, 4th edition), link
by Nathaniel Holmes
Reviews of Holmes.
The Round Table, Volume 4, October 27, 1866, Pages 208-209
Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?
The North American Review, Volume 104, January, 1867, Pages 276-278
Holmes' Authorship of ShakespeareLeave a comment:
-
I found a link to a scan of a 1957 book on the various alleged Bacon ciphers.
The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined, link
1957
Author: William F. Friedman and Elizebeth S. Friedman
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
The first chapters lists some early works with passages on the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
This book says that Shakespeare consulted a historian, according to "one of his intimate acquaintances."
An Essay against Too Much Reading (London: A. Moore, 1728), link
Pages 12-15
This work accuses Shakespeare of using a "common place book" he stole from the allegorical character, Genius.
The Life and Adventures of Common Sense: An Historical Allegory (London: Montagu Lawrence, 1769), link
By Herbert Lawrence
Pages 145-149
The protagonist of this tale, a pig (at times in human form) claims to be the true author of Hamlet, Othello, As You Like It, The Tempest and A Midsummer Night's Dream.
The Story of the Learned Pig (London: R. Jameson, 1788), link
By An officer of the Royal Navy
Pages 35-39
The Friednam book also relates a claim that a James Wilmot was the first to suggest Bacon as the author, but this claim has now been called into question. See here.Last edited by TradeName; 02-05-2017, 08:36 PM.Leave a comment:
-
G U T: The six degrees of Francis Bacon?
This book proposing Edward de Vere seems to draw on earlier Baconian works.
"Shakespeare" Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (New York: stokes, 1920), link
by J. Thomas Looney
Some more links from the bibliography mentioned above.
Between the appearance of Delia Bacon's magazine article and her book an English fellow published a letter proposing Francis Bacon as the author of Bacon's plays. He claimed to have heard nothing of Delia Bacon.
Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakespeare's Plays?: A Letter to Lord Ellesmere (London: William Skeffington, 1856), link
by William Henry Smith
The Athenaeum, September 13, 1856, Pages 1133-1134
Review
Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakespeare's Plays?
Notes and Queries, October 6, 1856, Page 267
Was Lord Shakespeare the Author of the Plays Attributed to Shakespeare?
CL Hopper
October 18, 1856, Page 320
Notes on Books
November 8, 1856, Page 369
Was Lord Shakespeare the Author of the Plays Attributed to Shakespeare?
Vox
Dec 27, 1856, Pages 503-504
Bacon And Shakespeare
W.H.S. [Smith]
Pages 504-505
Was Lord Shakespeare the Author of the Plays Attributed to Shakespeare?
R. Slocombe
Smith's pamphlet as published in a magazine.
Littell's Living Age, Volume 51, November 22, 1856, Pages 481-485
Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakespeare's Plays?: A Letter to Lord Ellesmere
by William Henry Smith
Littell's Living Age, Volume 51, November 22, 1856, Pages 481-485
Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakespeare's Plays?: A Letter to Lord Ellesmere
by William Henry Smith
Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Volume 80, November, 1856, Pages 613-628
The Art of Cavilling
"All is Humbug"
The Athenaeum, January 24, 1857, Page 122
Miscellanea
Bacon and Shakespeare
by William Henry Smith
A book replying to Smith
William Shakespeare Not an Impostor (London: Routledge, 1857), link
by George Henry Townsend
The Athenaeum, February 14, 1857, Page 213
Our Literary Table
William Shakespeare Not an Impostor
The Literary Gazette, February 21, 1857, Page 181
Publications Received
William Shakespeare Not an Impostor
The Athenaeum, April 11, 1857, Pages 461-462
Reviews
The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded
[review of Delia Bacon's book]
Longer work by Smith
Bacon and Shakespeare: An Inquiry Touching Players, Playhouses, and Play-Writers in the Days of Elizabeth (London: John Russell Smith, 1857), link
by William Henry Smith, Sir Tobie Matthew, William Chadwick Neligan
The Literary Gazette, May 9, 1857, Pages 437-438
[reviews of Delia Bacon and Smith]
The National Review (London), Volume 5, July, 1857, Pages 72-82
The Alleged Non-Existence of Shakespeare
[review of DB book]
The Athenæum, August 15, 1857, Page 1036, Column 1
Smith, Delia Bacon, HawthorneLeave a comment:
-
Now the Shakespeare controversy.
Ancestors of mine had dealings with pretty much ever suggested author, save I can find no connection to William himself.Leave a comment:
-
Thanks, Jeff.
George Wilkes of Police Gazette and "stool pigeon" fame decided to weigh in on the Stratfordian side of the Shakespeare/Bacon controversy in an 1877 book.
Shakespeare, from an American Point of View (London: Sampson Low, 1877), link
by George Wilkes
Page 423
Having finished my scrutiny of the Shakespearian dramas, with the view of exhibiting the writer's aristocratic inclinations, his contempt for the labouring classes, his religious predilections, and his defective knowledge of the law, in order to mark the width of distance, in the way of personality, between him and Bacon, I come now to the final test, whether the essays of the latter aud the plays of our poet could have been the productions of one and the same mind. This question I take to be susceptible of absolute demonstration, according to the laws of elocution and of musical sound. A writer's musical sense, or ear for music, governs the euphony and tread of his expression. This ear for sound, following the instincts of taste, and falling always toward one cadence and accord, insensibly forms what writers call a style. This style, when thoroughly fixed, enables us to distinguish the productions of one author from another, and is usually more reliable as a test of authorship even than handwriting, inasmuch as the latter may be counterfeited, while a style of thought, united with a form of expression consonant to that tone of thought being a gift, cannot be imitated as handwriting can. A fixed style, like that either of Bacon or of Shakespeare, is, therefore, undoubtedly, susceptible of analysis and measurement by the laws both of music and of elocution.
----end
Here's a handy annotated, chronological bibliography up to May, 1884, compiled by a Baconian.
Bibliography of the Bacon-Shakespeare Controversy: With Notes and Extracts (Cincinnati: Samuel C. Cox, 1884), link
by William Henry Wyman
A fair number of the works referenced by the bibliography are available online.
The first entry is for a chapter in this book which questions whether Shakespeare wrote the plays himself but does not name Bacon.
The Romance of Yachting: Voyage the First (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1848), link
By Joseph C. Hart
Another early article that doesn't name Bacon.
Chambers's Edinburgh Journal, August 7, 1852, Pages 87-89
Who Wrote Shakspeare?
The following relate to Delia Bacon, who was the first to suggest that Bacon was an author of the plays.
Putnam's Monthly, Volume 7, January, 1856, Pages 1-19
William Shakespeare and His Plays
An Inquiry Concerning Them
[by Delia Bacon]
The Athenæum, January 26, 1856, Page 108, Columns 2-3
[discussion of Putnam's article]
[also ad: Kahn's Anatomical Musuem]
Delia Bacon's book:
The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspere Unfolded (London: Groombridge, 1857), link
by Delia Salter Bacon, preface by Nathaniel Hawthorne
Recollections of Seventy Years (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1866), Pages 319-331
by Mrs. John Farrar
Chapter XL
Miss Delia Bacon
Our Old Home: A Series of English Sketches (Boston: james R. Osgood, 1871), Pages 122-137
by Nathaniel Hawthorne
Recollections of a Gifted Woman
These two are not in the bibliography.
Delia Bacon: A Biographical Sketch (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1888), link
edited by Theodore Bacon
The North American Review, Volume 148, March 1889, Page 307-318
Delia Bacon's Unhappy Story
by Hon. Ignatius DonellyLeave a comment:
-
Hi TradeName,
Just a little bit on Senator Gwin and Judge Terry.
William Gwin was one of the leading Democrats who came to the territory of California in the days after the Mexican War ended with the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, which turned over most of the territories of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and portions of Nevada, and Texas, to the U.S. Frankly we won this in a war, but we paid (conscience money?) the Mexican Government $15 million dollars (1850 dollars - actually far more today than we would think) for the land. Gwin was born in the South, and was pro-slavery, and the initial period of California's future was given a big boost by the discovery by John Marshall on the property of John Sutter (near his mill) of gold. The great gold rush literally spilled the entire world into California - normally it would have been twenty years before it entered the Union as a state, but the gold rush gave California it's population for statehood by 1850.
Gwin fought to get California into the Union as a slave state. Problem was that (if you look at a current map) it is one of the largest of the lower 48 states, taking up about 55 % of the west coast. Unless one was willing to cut the state in half, it could not be fit into the standing Compromise of 1820 resolution of evening the boarders for new states along a particular latitude that the state of Missouri sat upon. Missouri was above the latitude, but it came into the Union in 1820 with the state of Maine, which is further North (and east) in latitude. But after 1820 states were allowed to enter the Union only if they balanced (one slave state and one free state at the same time). The Californians, despite some discussion on the matter, did not want to cut their state in half. So it would have to be entering the Union intact, and would either be swinging the balance of the U.S. Senate for slavery interests or for abolitionist interests.
[A bit of bigotry was involved in this too. There was another western territory that could have come in with California as a balance: but it was the Mormon territory known as "Deseret", now known as Utah. Mormonism was not a popular religion in the 1850s, and Utah (despite a large and prosperous colony of settlers) would not enter the Union until 1896.]
The fight for California would occupy the conclusion of the Taylor Administration and the beginning of it's successor Fillmore Administration in 1850. Taylor, although a slave owner, was a vigorous nationalist, and hated the blackmail threats of secession from the extreme slave "fire eaters" led by Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, as well as the extreme anti-slavery Northern figures led by Senator William Seward of New York. He openly said that he would lead an army to fight either of the two sides if they dared to carry out their threats. But Taylor died in July 1850. Fillmore was more accommodating. When Senators Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas hammered out a new compromise, Fillmore signed it into law. California was kept intact and admitted into the Union by itself. Two Senators were elected (by the state legislature - as was the case until 1913 throughout the country): William Gwin, representing the pro-Southern forces, and the noted explorer and soldier John Charles Fremont representing the abolitionist forces. Like all new states one was considered to hold his term for less than six years (Fremont was chosen) but Gwin held it for six. Since the state was still split in terms of being pro-North or pro-South, it's admission had less effect than critics had imagined. However to placate the South and allow them to accept a potentially bad additional state's votes against it, the Compromise included the "Fugitive Slave Act" to enable slave owners to get back runaway slaves that were in all parts of the country, and there was a promise to build a transcontinental railroad through the south towards California (this eventually led to the Pierce Administration to purchase a further portion of Northern Mexico (the "Gadsden Purchase" of 1853) that completed the southern boarders of Arizona and New Mexico as they are today. Finally (this time as a symbolic bone for the North) the slave trade was finally banned in Washington, D.C.
In the long run the Compromise did prevent the Civil War by a decade, but it also aggravated both sections of the country because of the Fugitive Slave Act and the problem of California's votes in the U.S. Senate. Fremont would serve out his four years (basically doing nothing - in truth he was an inflated public figure who time and again would prove to be unworthy of any great offices or powers). But while the four years came Broderick, originally from New York City - and with a background in Tammany Hall politics - came West and became the political boss of San Francisco. Soon he and Gwin got into a seesawing political struggle (as both were Democrats) for control of the state. Gwin, with his courtly, polished manners, was a welcome social figure in the Pierce and Buchanan Administrations in Washington, and in Buchanan's would be one of the coterie of Senate figures who hoped to be most influential with the 15th President. But time and again his projects were put off by increasing regional tensions. Gwin wanted that transcontinental railroad in the Southern states and territories built, but the Congress kept putting it off. Broderick resented not being given the respect by the Presidents and social Washington given his rival. Finally, rather late in the day, Broderick switched to being a Republican - and an outspoken foe of the slavery power. This though was in 1858, and it did not cost him his seat in the Senate, but it certainly put Gwin's nose out of joint.
That duel with Terry has been suspicious to many historians since the 19th Century. Broderick was not a duelist, and he gets challenged by one of the leading shots in California. He was not killed outright, but lingered a day or so. Many still feel Terry was told to challenge Broderick to get rid of him.
But it did not help Gwin or Terry. The struggles of Broderick and Gwin were too well known, and many felt Gwin was behind the duel taking place. Further, after 1859 and the Harper's Ferry incident, war was just a matter of time. Gwin found his position in Washington falling with the fall of the Buchanan Administration's credibility with the public in both the North and South. When the war came, Gwin resigned from the Senate. He travelled to France and discussed business ideas with members of the government of Napoleon III. The Second Empire was openly pro-Confederate, as it was hoping to crack the power of the Monroe Doctrine. Soon Napoleon III was helping to establish the Austrian Archduke Maximillian on the throne of Mexico as Emperor - depending on the preoccupation of the U.S. with the Confederates to prevent them from bringing the Monroe Doctrine to bear on his Mexican policies. Gwin was persona gratia at Napoleon's Court, discussing vast mining and railroad plans for Mexico (and a friendly Confederacy) in the future.
Of course this proved as illusory as Gwin's hope's on the inept Buchanan Administration. When the North won the American Civil War, it began sending Phil Sheridan to the Texas-Mexican boarder to confront the French. But by this time the forces of Napoleon and Maximilian were being buffeted by the forces loyal to Mexico's last legally elected President Benito Juarez. Napoleon finally called his men home to France, the whole scheme an expensive fiasco. Maximilian tried to fight on, was captured and shot. Gwin's plans were in ruins. He would return to California, and while he still had friends most people thought of him as a traitor until his death in the 1880s.
Terry found his judicial career finished in California by his "murder" of Broderick. In particular were the attacks on him by fellow Californian jurist Stephen Field, brother of New York lawyer David Dudley Field, financier (and leader in the construction of the Atlantic Cable) Cyrus Field, and travel writer Rev. Henry Martyn Field (who married Helene Delussy-Desportes, the nanny in the ill-fated household of the Duc and Duchesse de Praslin in the 1847 murder case). Stephen Field would soon be in a larger courtroom - in 1863 he was appointed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court - the first jurist from California - by Lincoln. He would be one of the most vigorous figures in the Gilded Age Supreme Courts of the 1860s to 1890s (he would die in 1899).
In the 1860s the Comstock Lode in Nevada was found and soon made many fortunes. One was made by William Sharon, who eventually got himself made Senator Sharon of Nevada. Fine enough, but Sharon had an affair (long standing) with one Althea Rose, and she would claim they were married. When Sharon died, he left a fortune, and Althea laid claim to it as his widow. Her attorney was Judge Terry, and soon he and Althea also became man and wife.
At the time (this was in the 1880s) the U.S. Supreme Court Justices were given Federal districts that once a year they visited to hear (as trial judges) actual cases. Field had long held Terry in contempt, and Terry returned the favor. Field heard the case of Ms Rose-Terry about the Sharon estate, and made comments in it questioning the honesty of the lady and her attorney/husband.
A few days later, Field and a Federal peace officer assigned to him were waiting in a train station's restaurant. The Terrys came and after a few minutes at another table, Terry arose and walked over to Field. He then slapped Field in the face hard. the peace officer, Sheriff Nagle, jumped up and pulled his gun, and shot and killed Terry. This was in 1890.
The Supreme Court eventually decided in favor of the Sheriff in "In Re Nagle" in 1890, and laid the rule that a police officer sensing danger for his charge (here a U.S. Supreme Court Justice) has the right to use all physical force to protect that charge from the danger. Although Terry had no weapon in his hand, he was known to have killed a U.S. Senator, so Nagle was correct to assume he might plan to add a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
Althea Rose-Terry lost her suit. In later years she was insane.
Jeff
6Leave a comment:
-
George Wilkes, of the National Police Gazette, was accused of being involved in the forging of a will for a U.S. Senator who fell in a duel.
A bio of the Senator in question.
Biographies of Two Hundred and Fifty Distinguished National Men (New York: John T. Giles, 1871), Page 157
by Horatio Bateman
157. DAVID C. BRODERICK.
David C. Broderick was born in the District of Columbia, in December, 1818.
When a boy of five years of age, his father removed to New York City; and, in process of time, David was apprenticed to the trade of stone-cutter, which was his father's occupation. The son, like many New York boys, became a fireman, and was for many years Foreman of an Engine Company, and an active politician.
In 1849, Broderick, following the excitement of the day, went to California, and engaged in the business of smelting and assaying gold. He was a Member of the Convention which drafted the Constitution of that State, served two years in the California Senate, and was President of that body in 1851.
In 1856 he was elected a Senator to the Congress of the United States, for the long term.
He died in San Francisco, September 16, 1859, from a wound received in a duel with David S. Terry, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of that State, on the 13th of the same month.
He was the first member of the United States Senate ever killed in a duel, and it produced a great sensation all over the country, as it was thought that his political opponents had arranged the duel, in order to put him out of the way, on account of his political proclivities—-he being opposed to the extension of Slavery, and was using his influence against tho Southern wing of the Democracy. He, also, advocated the claims of Stephen A. Douglas as a candidate for the Presidency.
The duel grew out of language used by Broderick, in the political canvass for the State, that year. Broderick and the notorious Dr. Gwin were both in the habit of using the most vituperative language in their public declamations; and when they disagreed, the rhetoric of their diatribes is described as something stronger than even stump-oratory acknowledges in its ethics.
Gwin, who appears to have been a cautious sort of warrior, subsided, while the prominent figure of one D. W. Perley appears, charging Mr. Broderick with having insulted him, by using offensive language in regard to his friend, Judge Terry, an individual who had previously made himself obnoxious to the well-remembered Vigilance Committee of San Francisco. Perley challenged Broderick, who refused to fight him; but when, after the election, Judge Terry came forward, and demanded satisfaction, he accepted the challenge, and the result was that Broderick was killed by the first fire.
The funeral oration was delivered by Colonel E. D. Baker, afterward the hero of Ball's Bluff. Father Gallagher, the priest who officiated, passed a high eulogium on his personal character, but condemned the duel.
----end
Link to a book-length account of the Broderick/Gwin contest. Wilkes and Broderick had known each other in New York and reconnected when Wilkes moved to California.
Broderick and Gwin: The Most Extraordinary Contest for a Seat in the Senate of the United States Ever Known (San Francisco: Bacon & Company, 1881), link
By James O'Meara
An account of the controversy surrounding Broderick's will from a defendant in a libel suit filed by Wilkes.
The Answer of John F. Chamberlin to the Complaint of George Wilkes (New York: 1873)
by John F. Chamberlin, George Wilkes
Pages 4-6
his defendant further answering says, that as to the supposed defamatory words in the complaint set forth, to wit: "He (George Wilkes) forged Broderick's will (meaning the will of the late Senator Broderick, of California), and is now living on the proceeds of the forgery," the same are and were not false, malicious and defamatory, but, on the contrary, the same are true of the plaintiff, George Wilkes, as follows, viz: On the 16th day of September, 1859, David C. Broderick, a Senator of the United States, and the person intended by this defendant in said supposed defamatory words, died in San Francisco, California, under peculiar and well known circumstances, leaving a large fortune of more than three hundred thousand dollars, and, as was supposed, with no one to inherit it. That, from his declarations and the circumstances preceding his death, he was supposed to have died intestate, and his estate passed into the hands of an administrator; but, on the 20th day of February, 1860, the community were startled by the production of a curious and phenomenal document, purporting to be his last will and testament, and to have been executed in the City of New York, on Sunday, the 2d day of January, 1859. By said pretended will, purporting to have been made in the presence of A. A. Phillips and John J. Huff, the testator, in two brief paragraphs, after directing the payment of his debts and bequeathing a legacy of $10,000 to John A. McGlynn, devised and bequeathed all the rest and residue of his large fortune to George Wilkes, the plaintiff herein, and said Wilkes, McGlynn and another were named as executors, with the injunction that none of them should be required to give security. The will was probated, and a portion of the property advertised for sale, when the Attorney-General of California, on the 29th day of November, 1861, in behalf of the people of the State, filed an information to arrest the sale in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of California, sitting as a Court of Equity. The information alleged that the said Broderick had died without heirs, that the pretended will was a fabrication and a forgery, and that Broderick being thus intestate, the State of California was entitled to his property. The case came on for trial before that Court, an immense mass of evidence was offered, eminent counsel were employed on both sides, long and able arguments were heard, and the question exhaustively investigated; and the Court, in an elaborate opinion of more than thirty pages, after reviewing the evidence, decided the will to be a fabrication and a forgery, pronouncing it to be a "phenomenal and extraordinary document on its face," and stamping the transaction as "a fraud, wicked in the eye of the law; abhorrent to every principle of justice and morality, and destructive to the social and political ties that bind us together as citizens and men." The Chancellor granted the injunction prayed for by the Attorney General; but a technical question as to the jurisdiction of the Court and its power to collaterally annul the probate of a will allowed more than a year prior, having been raised on the trial, the case was taken to an appellate Court, and the latter, without reversing the decision of the Chancellor on the question of fact as to the forgery of the will, were constrained to dissolve the injunction, on the technical ground that the injunction was not within the equity powers of the Court. That, in consequence, the Court was compelled by a technical point of law to permit the probate of the will to stand, it having been allowed for more than a year before, and the large fortune of the said Senator Broderick, through the wicked device of said pretended will, fabricated by forgery and probated by perjury, passed into the hands of George "Wilkes, the plaintiff herein, who is now living on the fortune of the friend he thus defrauded in his grave.
And this defendant alleges, that, with regard to said pretended will, the fact is that the same was a fabrication and a forgery, procured and executed by the said plaintiff herein and his co-conspirators and associates; and that, at the very time and hour when the said testator, David C. Broderick, is alleged by the sworn testimony and allegations of the witnesses to said pretended will to have been lying sick and disabled at the Metropolitan Hotel, in the City of New York, and to have signed and executed said will in the presence of its witnesses, to wit, between eight and ten o'clock in the evening of January 2d, 1859, he was then, and for several hours afterwards, in fact, in good health, and away from said Metropolitan Hotel, being entertained in said City of New York, in company with several distinguished politicians, by the late Senator Stephen A. Douglas, then temporarily visiting this city. And this defendant will, on the trial of this action, produce several of said companions of said Senator Broderick on that' night, as witnesses in that behalf, to prove said allegations.
----endLeave a comment:
-
Thanks, Jeff.
John Graham assaulted Bennett, too.
Another anti-Graham editorial.
The New York Herald, October 16, 1850, Page 4, Column 3
Criminal Developments in the Sessions--Curious Scenes
We refer our readers to the
scene, discussion, and decision, which took place
yesterday in the Sessions, on the motion to go on
with the trial of Marcus Tullius Cicero Stanley.
John M'Keon, the District Attorney, and John
Graham, the counsel of Stanley and the great
stool-pigeon candidate for District Attorney--let
out some interesting matters of each other, and
threw some additional light on the rich administration
of justice in New York. The pro tem.
Attorney General, David Graham, figured elsewhere,
likely at the Astor House. The trial of
Stanley was put off till December--and in December
it may be put off till January, when John
Graham may be District Attorney, if he should be
elected, and then look out for further scenes, and
curious illustrations of the new code.
The richest placers and developments of
criminal affairs--of criminal lawyers--of
stool-pigeon evidence, are only in the bud as yet. The
robbing of the District Attorney's office, and the
plans to manufacture evidence against poor, old,
innocent, simple Drury, have all to come out in
spite of the two Grahams--John and David, and
all their joint influence over the courts, juries
and parties of New York, including both the democrats
and whigs. John Graham has got the democratic
nomination of District Attorney, by stool-pigeon
influence--and David may get the whig
nomination of Mayor, or something else; but we
doubt if they can manage both parties for a single
family, as certain politicians once did of late years
in New York. The truth in politics, rascality,
law, and stool-pigeoning, will all come out at the
proper time.
----end
Bennett's own account of the assault.
The New York Herald, November 10, 1850, Page 2, Column 1
To the Public of New York
Little did the undersigned imagine, when he
opposed the recent nomination of John Graham
as District Attorney, made at Tammany Hall, and,
also, when he opposed his election before the people
of this city, on the ground of his utter unfitness
both in temper and capacity, for the office--little
did the undersigned suppose that what he said
would so soon be justified and verified by events
and acts of a character equally in keeping with the
candidate, his capacity, and his subsequent defeat.
Yesterday morning, about ten o'clock, the ninth
inst, as I was walking down Broadway in company
with my wife, on reaching the corner of Broadway
and White street, I was assailed by a gang of
rowdies and ruffians, headed by the same John
Graham, late candidate for District Attorney, and
his brother, DeWitt Graham, an employee in the
Custom House, under Hugh Maxwell.and also
Charles K. Graham, another brother, with a ferocity
and a violence that seemed to justify the belief that
murder or manslaughter had been premeditated by
the assailants. Two police officers of the Sixth
ward--whose names I do not know--witnessed the
assault, but made no effort to preserve the peace of
the city from such a gang of ruffians
The avowed object of this gross violation of the
law was stated by De Witt Graham, on the spot, to
be the opposition which was recently made by the
New York Herald, to the nornmation and election
of John Grhkum as District Attorney. I replied
to him, on the spot--"I have done nothing but my
duty in opposing the election of John Graham.
Neither you nor all the ruffians you can assemble,
shall intimidate me from pursuing a course which I
believe to he right. In opposing John Graham, 1
was right; and so the people of New York have
decided " The assault and the assailants will soon
occupy the attention of the criminal authorities;
and probably one of the first cases that will be
brought before the new District Attorney, will be
this gross violation of the law, perpetrated by his
late antagonist at the polls.
With respect to the cause of this attempt at
murder, by a band of ruffians headed by John
Graham and his two brothers--De Witt Graham
and Charles K. Graham--I have only to say, that,
in the course pursued by this journal in relation
to John Graham, from the time of his nomination
to the day of election, I was perfectly justified, in
every respect, for every statement I made, and,
moreover, had a perfect legal right to oppose his
election on the grounds as they were stated. Nothing
libelous, nothing personal, was published, but
his public aud his professional character was urged
on the voters of this city as a reason for withholding
from that man their suffrage at the recent election.
The course pursued by me, in this journal, has
been justified by the result of the recent election,
and sanctioned by the votes of the people of
New York. That result has now received even
a double sanction; and additional evidence has
been given of the truth of the statemente made
against the fitness of John Graham, by the perpetration
of the brutal event which took place yesterday morning.
As this matter will become the subject of criminal
investigation before the judicial authorities of
the city, I shall forbear making any further statements
or remarks at this time. This, however, I
shall content myself with declaring:-I know my
rights and duties as a citizen of the republic and a
member of this community; and all the assassins
and reffians that skulk from the Battery to
Highbridge [?] shall never intimidate me from the
daily performance of those duties, or the vindication
of every legal right that belongs to me.
J.G. BENNETT
----end
Graham's arrest.
The New York Herald, November 10, 1850, Page 2, Column 4
Police Intelligence
Arrest of John Graham for the Violent Assault on Mr. Bennett
Yesterday morning about 10 o clock. a violent
attack was made by John Graham the lawyer
aided and abetted by his brother DeWitt Graham,
Mike Murray, and others on the person of Mr. James
G. Bennett, while passing down Broadway with his
lady. The brutal assault was evidently premeditated.
Captain Turnbull. of the Eighth Ward police, who
interfered, in order to save Mr. Bennett from further
violence, was likewise violently assualted and knocked
down by Mike Murray.Justice Lethrop issued a warrant
for the arrest of Mike, who, subsequently, gave
bail to answer the charge. Justice Mountfort issued
a warrant for the arrest of John Graham, and during
the afternoon Captain Turnbull took him into
custody and conveyed him before the magistrate. Mr.
Graham requested a hearing in the matter, and on
Monday next, a day will be set down for that purpose.
----end
Bennett editorializes on the indictment of Graham and reviews the fates of the members of the "stool-pigeon gang."
The New York Herald, March 24, 1851, MORNING EDITION, Page 2, Column 2
Progress of Justice
Indictments of the Grand Jury
More about Wilkes & Co.
By a reference to our Sessions reports it will be
seen that the Grand Jury, last week, found several
important bills of indictment, viz.:--one against
John Graham, the late defeated candidate for the
office of District Attorney, of this city, and for years
past the counsel of George Wilkes, the recent
runaway convict; another against De Witt Graham, a
custom house officer under Hugh Maxwell; and a
third against Mike Murray, an associate of the
former two, and a well known pugilist. These indictments
have been found against those parties for
the outrage committed on the 9th of November,
last year, against the editor of this journal and
Captain Turnbull, one the [sic] captains of police. More
indictments against one of the same party are still
in progress, for an attempted outrage against Mr.
Galbraith, the counsel employed in these cases.
This was perpetrated also by De Witt Graham,
accompanied by an associate, whose name we forget.
The papers in this case have been for some time
past in the hands of Justice Osborn, and the case,
thus far, delayed from going before the Grand Jury;
but for what reason, good, bad, or indifferent, we
have not heard.
We have very little to say of those matters, now
that they are in the hands of competent conductors
of law and justice in this city. We may state simply,
that the ostensible cause for these outrages was
simply a fair and manly opposition to the nomination
of John Graham, for district attorney, by the
New York Herald--which opposition was sanctioned
and confirmed by the intelligent and respectable
people of the city, He had received the nomination
last November, through an improper influence
wielded in Tammany Hall, and set in motion by
certain disputable persons, of whom George
Wilkes and bis associates were some of the warmest
partisans. The respectable portion of the
democracy revolted at such an influence, and such a
candidate. They abandoned their own tickets, and
elected respectable men in the opposition. All these
facts will appear on the trials, as soon as they
shall have been set down for a calm hearing.
Of Wilkes and his associates, we have a word to say.
All the persons and parties connected with the recent
unjustifiable and atrocious stool-pigeon crusade
against innocent and respectable men for the last
two years, have been gradually brought to conviction
and punishment. We allude to the crusades against
Samuel Drury, Sen., and Samuel Drury, Jr., of
Astoria, and also against James Arlington Bennet,
of New Rochclle. The history of these nefarious
operations and stool-pigeon confederacies
would fill a volume of the deepest interest,
and would exhibit some of the vagaries which
existed in the administration of justice during
that period in this city. Wilkes, who has
just escaped, by taking to his heels, from a conviction
and sentence impending over him in Poughkeepsie,
has not been heard of up to this time. We
understand, however, that Mr. Bowyer, the very
excellent police officer--who has just been reinstated
by the Mayor--in conjunction with officers from
Pougbkeepsie is now on the trail of the runaway,
and may probably catch him before he gets out of
the country. The following is curious iist of some
of his agents associates, and Instruments, including
himself, with particulars of their fate aud destination:--
Britsol Bill, State prison, Yermont, ten years.
----- Meadows or Fields. do. do. do,
Joseph Ashley, State prison, five years.
Thomas Warner, runaway, now in England.
Levi Cole, escaped to partS unknown.
Tom Kanouse, eight years State prison, Rhode Island.
----- Dorsey, indicted for perjury, State prison, Rhode Island.
One-Eyed Thompson, committed suicide in prison.
George Wilkes, convicted and escaped.
Thus proceeds the power of justice and truth, with
a step as firm, as calm, and as determined as the
movements of nature under the untrammelled impress
of Omnipotent power. Verily, the administration
of justice is improving fast.
Page 4, Column 1
Indictments Against John Graham, DeWitt C. Graham, and Mike Murray
March 21--The Grand Jury yesterday brought in a
number of bills of indictment against various persons for
criminal offences to be tried at the Sessions. Amongst
them were indictments against John Graham and Dewit
C Graham, for an assault and battery upon JaMes Gordon
Bennett, and against Michael Murray fur assault
and battery on Charles Trumbull. Captain of the Eight
Ward Police; and another for a similar offence against
Stephen M. Burns.
----end
A mention that the trial was scheduled, but I can't find any reference to the actual trial.
The New York Herald, May 05, 1851, MORNING EDITION, Page 2, Column 3
May Term of the Court of Sessions
Grahams, Mike Murray
[...] The trial of John Graham and
Dewit C. Graham, for violently assaulting Mr. James G.
Bennett in Broadway, last November, is set down for the
second week of the term. Whether Mike Murray, the
accomplice of Graham. and the person who interfered
with the officer of police who arrested the assailants, will
be tried at the seme time we have not learned. [...]
----endLeave a comment:
-
Fascinating history TradeName about the conspiracy of Stool Pidgeons and the bomb plot. Bennett Sr. was quite a controversy magnate, and the first newspaper publisher in New York City to realize the value of sensational story reporting. In 1836 he led the way with his accounts of the murder of the prostitute Helen Jewitt (still officially unsolved) and the trial of her "lover" Richard Robertson, that ended with his acquittal under murky circumstances (two of the witnesses against Robertson died either suddenly or by violent means). Robertson was defended by one of New York City's best attorneys in the 1830s, Ogden Hoffman, whose sister Mathilda may have been the secret lover of young Washington Irving before her death as a young woman.
Bennett himself (because of his recklessness or fearlessness) was once horse-whipped in Manhattan on a street by his rival newspaper editor James Watson Webb.
JeffLeave a comment:
-
When John Graham ran for district attorney of NYC, James Gordon Bennett railed against him in the NY Herald, alleging that Graham was associated with a "stool-pigeon gang" run by George Wilkes of the National Police Gazette. This grew out of an incident of a bomb delivered to the home of Thomas Warner, a lawyer.
Edgefield Advertiser (S.C.), May 16, 1849, Page 2, Column 5
Diabolical Attempt to Destroy a Family
About 10 o'clock on Thursday
night, a man disguised as a negro, called
at the house of lawyer Warner, and handed
a package to the servant, at same time
stating that it was for Massa Warner, addressed
to T. Warner, Esq. (confidenial.)
Mr. W. being absent from the City at the
time, the package remained untouched
by the members of the family until yesterday
when Mr. Warner returned from
Philadelphia, and while the family were
at dinner in the basement, he ordered his
son to bring the package to him. Mrs.
Warner having described the appearance
of the man and his manner, to her husband,
led Mr. Warner to open the package,
which was wrapped in a copy of the
N. York Herald of March 29, with some
care. The newspaper contained a strong
mahogany box with a slide lid. Mr.
Warner proceeded to draw off the lid with
great caution and very slowly and
discovered a faint blue light and immediately
warned his family to fly for their lives. All
instantly left the room and closed the door,
and they had but just passed into the hall
leading into the rear yard when a tremendous
explosion took place, after which they
passed around the house and discovered
the front basement to be on fire and the
window shattered to pieces and blown out
of place. Mr. Warner with some persons
who had stopped at the house, then entered
the room and extinguished the flames,
and as soon as the smoke had subsided it
was discovered that the basement door
was completely shattered, the partition
wall broken and very much displaced, the
dining-table at which they were a few
minutes before sitting very much broken,
and a picture of Gen. Washington and the
door perforated with slug-shots. The box
in question was about the size of a small
cigar-box, and contained a cannister filled
with powder and slugs, and several bundles
of friction matches, which were so
placed that on withdrawing the lid, on the
inside of which a piece of sand paper was
glued, they would instantly take fire and
cause an immediate explosion. Mr. Warner's
caution in withdrawing the lid is the
cause of the wonderful escape he and his
famIly experienced.--N. Y. Tribune, of
Saturday.
---end
This article is the closest thing to a summary of the alleged attempt to frame a Samuel Drury and his son for sending the bomb to Warner's home. Drury was a client of Warner's who was involved in a dispute over fees charged by Warner. One-Eyed Thompson was employed by Warner to help suppress counterfeit labels for a medicine made by a Dr. Moffatt.
The New York Herald, July 16, 1850, Page 1, Column 5
Biography of Bristol Bill and Christian Meadows
Christian Meadows, alias Fields, is an Englishman by
birth and has served out a term of years in the
Massachusetts State Prison for a crime committed in that
State; but before going to prison he understood a little
of copperplate engraving, and while in prison he was
placed at the same business and there became quite
an expert bank note engraver: which, on his liberation
from prison. made him a very formidable and dangerous
manufacturer of counterfeit bank plates, as well as
an utterer of the bank bills, themselves, to a large
denomination.
After his release from prison. we understand he was
engaged by an engraver in Boston. with whom he
worked for some time, until an opportunity offered to
rob his employer, which be did, taking with him a lot
of very valuable dies.
In Boston Meadows became acquainted with Bill
Warburton alias Darlington, or more commonly known
as Bristol Bill. This man Darlington. is an Englishman,
and we understand has been in this country between
eight aud nine years; he is a genteel looking
man of good address. about forty years of age, and of a
very determined and resolute cast of countenance.
The first time Bill was suspected in this city of crime,
was in connection with Jack Sullivan. about seven
years ago in the burglary of Mr. Scott's lace store,
situated in Broadway, from which many thousand
dollars of property was stolen. The chief of police,
Mr Matsell, who was then a police magistrate, succeeded
in capturing Sullivan and one of his accomplices,
but Bristol Bill escaped by leaving the city.
Sullivan was sentenced to Sing Sing State Prison for
fifteen years, and the accomplice for a shorter period.
Subsequently, on one of the visits of Henry Clay to
this city, Bill was, on his return, arrested by officer
Bowyer, taken before the chief of police, and was
committed to prison on charges of several burglaries; but
on looking into the case, the district attorney discovered
that the statute of limitation had expired in those
cases, and Bill was again unavoidably let loose on the
community.
Bill soon after, with others, made a desperate attempt
on the Seventh Ward Bank, by cutting through the
wall from the adjoining store, thus nearly obtaining
access to the money vault. Here, it seems, they must
have been disturbed and frightened off by the chief of
police, and some of his officers, who were about in that
vicinity on that night, as their work which was
nearly accomplished, was evidently abandoned in great
haste. Some months then passed over, and we next
hear of Currier & Trott's jewelry store in Boston
being robbed. Bill was, undoubtedly, one of the robbers,
although the evidence against him was not enough
to convict. Nevertheless, Charley Cooper, William
Anderson. alias, Black Bill, and another rogue were
arrested in Boston, on the charge of burglary, and, as will
be recollected, were tried and acquitted.
Bristol Bill returned to this city, and the chief's
officers succeeded in catching Charley Wheeler, who,
at that time, was called the "Old Man of the Cross."
(meaning the old man of the rogues) together with
Bristol Bill and Joe Murray. All three were arrested, on
a charge of burglariously entering the store of Mr.
Nanry, No. 1 Pine street, stealing from the iron
safe about $100 in money. This money was traced to
the possession of Wheeler, who was tried, convicted.
ana sentenced to the State Prison; the other two demanded
separate trials, aud were acquitted.
A few months more passed on, when we flnd Meadows
and Bristol Bill in this city, busily engaged together
in the business of altering bank bills,
and, at the same time, intimately associated with
One-Eyed Thompson, visiting and locating themselves
occasionally at Thompson's residence, then situated at
New Utrecht. on Long Island. The bank bills were
altered by Bristol Bill and Meadows, (although it is
well understood that Meadows was the artist and
executor of all these counterfeits, his associates aiding
and abetting, and when ready would dispose of the
spurious commodity to the best advantage.) These bills
were from ones to tens, and from tens to five hundreds;
and some three thousand dollars of this kind of money,
altered, on the Broadway Bank of this city, was conveyed
to Boston by Bristol Bill, and then sold to a
man by the name of Foster, for a little over $2000,
which good money was appropriated by Bristol Bill,
by the aid and assistance of other parties, for the relief
of Margaret O'Connor, his mistress, from prison,
who was then under conviction for passing oouuterfeit
money. The amount of bail required was $1000;
the money was posted up. and Margaret O'Connor was
brought to this city under the especial care of that
universal genius called One-Eyed Thompson, assisted
by Mr Warner. for the purpose as alleged, to be used
as a witness on the trial of Samuel Drury, on the
"torpedo" charge.
The torpedo explosion in Warner's house created
considerable noise in the community, at that time and
$1000 was offered for the conviction of the maker and
sender of said box. George Wlikes, editor ot the Police
Gazette, devised a plan for bringing the supposed
guilty parties to justice. and with a view to effect that
object, associated himself With Bristol Bill, One-Eyed
Thompson, and others. Here was an association
formed of remarkable ideas and extraordinary genius,
huddled together, acting under the direction
of George Wilkes, who, it seems, was the
charge d'affaires of the coterie of "stool pigeons," or decoy
ducks, organized for the purpose of entrapping old
Samuel Drury into some nominal or pretended confessions.
In this instance Bristol Bill was induced to
divert himself from his legitimate business of bank
robberies. burglaries, and other high crimes, to act the
part of a "stool pigeon," in the fond hope, from
inducements held out to him by Wilkes, of ultimately
obtaining the liberation of his mistress. Margaret
O'Connor. In this astounding mysterious "stool
pigeon" affair, George Wilkes, of the Police Gazette. hit
upon a plan of interesting Darlington, and sent
One-Eyed Thompson to Boston as the bearer of his views.
Those viewa were deliberated upon by Bristol Bill; and
after the lapse of a few days, Bill and his counsel came
to this city. and agreed to Wilkes' wishes. In brief. Margaret
O'Connor, the wife or mistress of Bristol Bill, was
under conviction for passing counterfeit money, there
Wilkes showed Bill and his counsel that if she could
be instrumental in convicting the villain who furnished her
with the notes, the authoritles would. doubtless,
remit her penalty. Actuated by this hope, the only
one that would have operated to his conversion, Bill
put himself in the harness of justice.and went to work
with all the ardor of an old man In love. Finding now
the matter to thicken too fast. Wilkes called in the
assistance of officer A. M. C. Smith, and also availed
himself of an ex-officer to aid in some collateral matters of
importance. It being now evident Wilkes would soon
require some formal authority to aid him. and not being
able to consult with the county District Attorney,
Wilkes went to Albany to procure the Attorney General
as the legal representative of the case. He saw the
Governor, and explained the whole matter to him and
told him the reason for desiring the substitution of
the Attorney Oeneral; that the secrets of the County
District Attorney's offlee were often accessible to that
portIon of the police which had failed in developing
the "Torpedo" business. Wilkes had a fear, therefore,
that envy might frustrate him and his secret fall
within the knowledge ef the wealthy enemy. The
Governor acceded to his views, and made the substitution.
In the meantime. Thompson returned from Bo«ton
and showed himself to Drury; also exhibiting some
medallions (borrowed from Rawdon, Wright, Hatch &
Co ) as the work of a new counterfeiter. While these
maneuverings were going on, the robbery of the safe of
the Union Wharf Company at Princetown, Mass, turned
up; and after a moment's observation, Wllkes
considered it to be a good opportunity for the
introduction of Bristol Bill into the case. Thompson
was sent to see Drury, and an engagement
made to meet Bill on Brooklyn Heights with
Thompson. In this Wilkes found it necessary to
get Drury Into a house, and to prepare for its
accomplishment, Wikes, on Monday, the 12th November,
1849, had a room secured for Bristol Bill, at No. 27
Fulton street. Brooklyn; and on the same evening
Wilkes wrote an item for the Morning Star, about the
officers being in search of Bill for a large amount of
property--that would excuse Bill from not coming out,
and at the same time decoy Drury to him. Wilkes
then selected two intelligent officers, Wm. O. Jenkins
and Dominick Crassous. and told tbem that Mr. A. M.
c. Smith would take them to a place in Brooklyn on
the next day, to assist Smith and Wilkes in making
some arrests. That to accomplish these arrests Jenkins
and Crassous must be secreted in a closet adjoining
a bedroom, and be apparently fastened up by
nails, run in loose holes for their reception; that they
would see through small holes, bored through the door,
three of the greatest criminals in the United States;
that those criminals would converse. doubtless. on great
crimes recently committed; they must carefully hear
all that was said, as on the correctness of of their
information would depend Wilkes & Co.'s authority for future
action. The conversation might be long, but their
attention must not flag as the most important subject
of all might come the last. The officers. Jenkins and
Crassous. were directed to put on India-rubber shoes,
that their feet could not be heard in the closet. and to
hold handkerchiefs in their hands in case they wanted
to cough or sneeze, to stifle the sounds. Finally, the
officers were informed by Wilkes, that, at the end of an
hour, or thereabouts. a fourth man would enter the
room, who would be followed by A. M. C.Smith and
Wilkes; that then the arrest would commence. and if
resistence were made, the obstruction to the closet
door would be removed and let them in with their
clubs to Wllkes' and smith's assistance. The object of
this deception, practiced by Wilkes on the officers, was
to sharpen their sight and hearing. that on the activity
of those organs was to depend the warrant of Wilkes
and company for all they would be called on to do.--
Between 11 and 12 o'clock of that day the officers were
concealed in the closet, the bed allotted to Bristol Bill
was tumbled, his boots sprinkled with dust, and the
room otherwise disordered, to give the appearance of
occupation. Here Bristol Bill was seated by the side
of a bottle of brandy, in his shirt sleeves, smoking a
cigar, and ready to appear writing a letter to Margaret
0'connor, which lay already commenced before him.==
While things were in this condition, Thompson met
Drury on Brooklyn Heights. Thompson then proposed
to go to Bristol Bill's room. This Drury consented to
do. The conversation in the room then opened
exactly as it had been laid out by Wilkes & Co.; and
when Darlington communicated his pretended intentions
against Warner, the countenance of Drury exhibited
an expression of delight. The conversation
between Bristol Bill, One-Eyed Thompson, and Samuel
Drury, and the acknowledgements, or pretended
acknowledgements said to have been made by Drury on
that occasion, have been published heretofore, and are
not necessary for us to go into at present. Shortly
after this the party rose and adjourned, after a sitting
of nearly two hours, and the officers were let out of
the closet. They were pale with excitement and ready
for action, but on looking around found no persons to
arrest. The officers saw, however, or pretended to
see the object for which they had been brought, and
communicated the horrible revelations they said they had
heard. On the following evening the officers were
taken before Justice Lothrop, at his private room, with
the witnesses to the other branches of the case, and
on the joint testimony warrants were issued against
both Samuel Drury and his son. On the Friday following
the arrests were to be made, and to bring Drury
easily to the hands of Wilkes & Co., a meeting was
projected between Drury and Thompson at 9 o'clock in
the morning of that day on the heights. At 8 o'clock
Wilkes crossed the Catharine Ferry accompanied by
officers A. M. C. Smith, Jenkins and Crassous. Wilkes
"did not intend originally, it was alleged, to take any
action personally; but now that matters were drawing
to a close, Wilkes wished to see the climax of his work."
At 9 o'clock, Thompson and Drury met at Fulton
Ferry, and walked up the Heights together. Officer
Crassous followed in sight. Jenkins trailed Crassous,
and A. M. C. Smith and Wilkes held a post of observation
in the extreme rear. Thompson turned into an
open lot on the Heights, and Drury followed him; and
in the space of twenty minutes came out and separated;
officers Jenkins and Crassous closed on Drury,
who was taken into custody and conveyed to the
Tombs, in New York.
This "stool pigeon" confederacy, in which Bristol
Bill forms such a conspicuous part, as the associate of
George Wilkes, editor of the Police Gazette, One-Eyed
Thompson, and others, forms no ordinary history of
his career in this country.
However, before the trial of the Drurys took place,
Bristol Bill and his mistress left the city, together
with Meadows, for the quiet State of vermont, where
they settled down and entered into the extensive manufacture
of counterfeit money; and aided by the
valuable bank dies stolen in Boston, their business
was comparatively easy. But a few months only
elapsed, notwithstanding their extreme cunning, before
their nefarious Operations were known to the public
authorities of Danville, who caused the whole party
to be arrested. Immediately on tba arrival of the
news In this city of Bristol Bill's arrest, Marcus Tullius
Cicero Stanley and Thomas Warner posted off in
great haste, for Danville, Vermont. knowing full well
that Margaret O'Connor would be with Bill. On arriving
there. Mr Warner took Margaret O'Connor into
custody on the copy of the bail bond, which had been
duly made over to him. Thereupon Margaret was
brought back to this city by Warner and Staniey, and
placed in the Tombs for safety, until called upon to
testify on the trial to come. Since which time Bristol
and Meadows have been tried and convicted, and the
Court, on Friday last, pronounced judgment by giving
each 10 years imprisonment at hard labor in the State
prison. Bristol Bill, on the judgment rendered, felt
indignant at the energy exhibited by Mr. Davis, the State
Attorney, sprang upon him in court, and endeavored to
take his life on the spot, by thrusting a knife into the
neck of Mr. Davis. This last act of this desperado will
consign him to the State prison tor life, should Mr.
Davis recover [he did]; and if not, Bristol Bill will terminate
his career of crime on the gallows--unledd he shoul4
prefer self-destruction, which will probably be ihe
result.
----end
At the second trial of Drury, Margaret O'Connor recanted an earlier affidavit implicating Drury, and Drury was acquitted.
A biography of Bennett praises him of his opposition to the stool-pigoens.
Memoirs of James Gordon Bennett and his Times: By a Journalist (New York: Stringer & Townsend, 1855), Pages 431-432
By Isaac Clarke Pray
In moral fearlessness, perhaps Mr. Bennett never distinguished himself more than in the pains taken by him to break up one of the most dangerous organizations of wicked men known to New York. In unwinding the plots and counterplots of the One-eyed Thompson gang, at the hazard of his life, he persisted for many months to exert his influence for the annihilation of a power which seemed superior to the law. The Drury Trials were scrutinized by a severity never known to Journalism on this continent, and the ends of justice were secured by the bold character of Mr. Bennett in ferreting the secret intrigues which were connected with the Warner torpedo, and the other machinery connected with the diabolical plans of those who were engaged in the series of criminal acts which came under the examination of the courts of justice. In a similar case, the London Times was presented with a testimonial by the commercial men of Great Britain for its zeal in behalf of the public; but the only testimonial which Mr. Bennett received for the peril of life itself, was the approbation of his conscience in the discharge of a great, yet self-imposed, public duty. No threats intimidated him; no fears deterred him from following out the determination he made to break up a conspiracy which defied the police and even justice itself.
The importance of the investigations made by Mr. Bennett, may be estimated by the fact, that not less than a dozen of the most successful malefactors ever known in the city of New York, were forced to retire from a community where they had pillaged society and plotted against each other, and against innocent persons, without fear and with impunity. Some became tenants of state prisons, one attempted to commit murder even in an open court, and others fled to parts unknown. One terminated his own life by suicide, after having led a life of singular misdemeanors and crimes. The fear of the Herald paralysed the efforts of these criminals. It has been suspected that a loaded box, intended for explosion, which was sent to Mr. Bennett a year or two ago, was devised by one of these culprits. Luckily it was opened with great caution, and its deadly design was frustrated.
----end
Excerpt from an article about the bomb delivered to Bennett
The New York Herald, November 08, 1852, MORNING EDITION, Page 2, Column 2
Atrocious Attempt to Murder the Editor of the Herald
It is now three weeks since a most diabolical
attempt was made to destroy the life of Mr. Bennett,
the proprietor and editor of the New York Herald,
by means of a torpedo, or infernal machine. Most
providentially, however, the character of the instrument
was discovered in time to guard against an
explosion, and the villainy meditated proved abortive.
Since then we have, for several reasons refrained
from giving any publicity to the circumstance, but
kept it as private as possible. One of our reasons
for adopting this course was, that we might not,
frustrate the efforts of the officers of justice to
trace out this affair to its authors and concocters.
Up to the present time, however, their exertions
have not been wholly successful, and as there is no
longer any motive for concealing the facts in the case,
and as no injury can result from their publication, we
proceed to lay them before our readers in detail, so
that they may see how premeditated and deeply
planned was this cowardly atrocity.
About half-past 8 o'clock on Monday evening, the
18th ult , Mr Bennett, came from his hotel, the
Irving House, to the office. A few minutes after his
arrival, a parcel was brought to him by one of the
clerks of the publication office, who had just then
received it from a hackman, with the simple explanation
that a gentlemen in his coach, then opposite
the door, had desired him to leave it In the office.
The parcel was of a cylindrical form, about six inches
in length, wrapped in common brown piper, tied
with green ribbon, and securely sealed with red
wax, bearing the impression of a cent. It bore the
direction:--
FOR
JAMES GORDON BENNETT,
PROPRIETOR AND EDITOR.
OFFICE N. W. CORNER OF FULTON AND NASSAU STS.
PRIVATE AND WITH CARE
This address had been clipped from a copy of the
Herald, and pasted on a piece of white paper,
which was secured to the outer envelope by sealing
wax, impressed with an American half dime. The
"private and with care," was badly printed with a
pen. Just over the direction, and also printed with
a pen, on the brown paper, were the words
NATIVE SILVER AND COPPER ORE
FROM THE CUBA MOUNTAINS
WITH LETTER INSIDE THE BOX
Under the ribbon which tied the parcel was a
finely glazed or enamelled card, directed as follows,
in the same manuscript print:
Senor V ALCAZOR
OF CUBA
For MR BENNETT
WHO WILL CALL ON HIS
RETURN TO THE CITY
When this outside wrapper was taken off by Mr.
Bennett's hands, it disclosed a small pasteboard
box, resembling those used by shirt dealers for
putting up collars. The print with which :he top of the
box was ornamented, appeared to be the representation
of a scene in an ale house in one of the English
seaports. Six figures are enjoying themselves
in the tap room with long pipes and tankards of
ale, two of them wear three-cornered hats, and
seem to be invalid tars--one of them having a
bandage over his eye. The scene is a lively one; but
its title being somewhat cut away, we can only
make out what looks like "The Webber, (weaver)
or Golden Dream." On the side of the box was
affixed, by means ef red scaling wax, a strip of
foolscap paper, on which was printed, in the same
handwriting, but in red ink, these words
SPECIMENS AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
FROM THE INTERIOR OF HAVANNA
for MR BENNETT (ONLY)
SHOULD HE BE OUT OF TOWN KEEP
FOR HIM. ISLAND OF CUBA SEPR 1852
Mr. Bennett considered there was something
queer and extraordinary in this affair, but,
nevertheless, he made one or two attempts to take
the lid off the box; not succeeding, he gave
it to Mr. Hudson, who, with his penknife. made
an incision in the rim of the lid, when a
substance fell out which appeared to be a species of
black sand. Suspicion being thereby further
aroused, Mr. Hudson took a pinch of the sand and
threw it into the fire, when it exploded, and then
this suspicion as to the nature of the box was confirmed.
It was, therefore, carefully locked up till
it might be better examined next morning.
Mr. Baker, of the Herald office, having had it
placed in his hands for examination, took the
precaution of soaking it in water for a few hours, and
then, with two detective officers, explored its
construction. They found that it was a most
ingeniously contrived torpedo, or infernal machine,
and that it contained such a quantity of powder
that its explosion would have been certain death to
all who might happen to be near it. A circular
piece of pine wood, half inch thick, was supported
bv four light pegs, fastened in the bottom of the box,
and about the height of an inch and three quarters
over it. About three quarters of an inch above this
piece of wood was another similar one, but some what
less in circumference. This was fastened to the
bottom of the box by two pieces of strong cord, running
through holes in the lower wood, and was supported
by a bunch of detonating matches, resting on a
groove in the upper surface of the lower wheel, and
forming a sort of column in the centre. This groove
was covered with sandpaper, and the lid of the box
was fastened to the upper piece of wood, so that in
attempting to screw off the cover, the friction should
ignite the matches. This being all so ingeniously
constructed, the box was filled with fine rifle
powder by means of a hole made in the centre of the
bottom, the powder passing through holes and niches
cut in the lower piece of wood until the box was
entirely filled with it. About a dozen hard paper
pellets were found among the powder, which were
designed have to acted as bullets. Then the hole was
covered with a circular piece of tin, and entirely
concealed and secured by a quantity of black sealing
wax, impressed with an American cent. Altogether
it was a most diabolically constructed affair, and had
it exploded in Mr. Bennett's hands, would have
not only killed him, but Mr. Hudson and probably
another gentleman then in the office. But instead
of twisting round the cover as designed, Mr.
Bennett endeavored to pull it up and thus raised the
matches off the sand paper The escape, however,
was a most miraculous aud providential one.
[...]
----end
The article above mentions a print on the box containing the bomb. The print had a partially legible title that was like "The Webber, (weaver)
or Golden Dream."
There's a Washington Irving story, "Wolfert Webber. or Golden Dreams" which includes a scene at an inn which features a one-eyed "British half-pay officer" and a mysterious sailor.
Tales of a Traveller, Volume 2 (London: John Murray, 1824), Pages 282-394
By Washington IrvingLeave a comment:
-
There is a similarity between Wells' fate and that of Karloff's character.
Many scientists have died due to their curiosity and experimentation. Sir Francis Bacon died of a very serious cold he caught while experimenting with snow as a refrigerant!
JeffLeave a comment:
-
Thanks, Jeff.
Horace Wells' story reminds me a bit of a 1958 Boris Karloff film, Corridors of Blood. A trailer.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: