Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report

Mayerling · 11-06-2016, 12:32 AM

Additional tid-bits

This is a shorter set of remarks regarding the quoted discussion of the "Astor Place" Riots of 1849.

1) Who is Edwin Forrest? - Prior to 1863 the two leading actors in the U.S. (in terms of Shakespearean roles, for the most part) were Junius Brutus Booth Sr. and Edwin Forrest. Booth Sr. (born in England) was a bigamist - his family in the U.S. were illegitimate, until his English born wife and son came to the U.S., and the wife died, after which Junius had a second "legalizing" marriage. He also had a serious drinking problem. But, on his travels as an actor, Junius was accompanied by his son Edwin, who did his best to keep dad under control (mostly he did, but there were slipups, like Junius once arranging with a ship steward to get him alcohol which he sipped with a straw through the lock of his ship's locked door). Junius also showed "eccentricities", like when he jumped off a ship off the South Carolina coast to visit an old friend, who had committed suicide in that same area a year earlier. These eccentricities may have been part of a family mental history that would sadly end with John Wilkes' act of April 14, 1865, and with a grandson's murder and suicide (with his wife) in 1912.*

[*The grandson, an actor named Junius Brutus Booth III, tried to make a theatrical career as a producer but failed, and committed suicide with opium, after similarly drugging his unfortunate wife. By the way, interestingly John Wilkes was not the first Booth to somehow run afoul of a notable President. Junius Brutus was an avid supporter of Andrew Jackson, but in his cups, for some reason, he could get wild and say that if Jackson wasn't careful he'd cane him or beat him up. One of Jackson's advisors was concerned and asked "Old Hickory" about this. Jackson dismissed it, saying,"You know how Junius is...he'll forget the whole thing by tomorrow, and we'll be drinking next time I see him again."]

Forrest was an impressive figure, with commanding voice (in one of Don Marquis' "Archy and Mehitabel" poems, an old cat recalls how booming was Forrest's voice when he landed in Manhattan from a ferry boat!). He was also a moody son-of-a-bitch, and could be a mean drunk (usually Junius Booth wasn't). His antagonism towards Macready was due not only to his own unrealistic "territorial" rights, but to a badly timed season for the British actor's season of Shakespeare in New York City in 1849 (it clashed with Forrest's!). Nativism was a besetting sin in 1849. Normally it was directed against foreign Catholic of Irish ancestry, but the revolutions of 1848 in Europe sent many Germans and Italians to American shores, exacerbating the situation. On top of that, in our history, we had fought two wars with Britain (the Revolution and the War of 1812) and one with Catholic Mexico (recently: 1846-1848). Our victory over Mexico made us a bit bumptious, and that Polk had successfully steered us to an agreement with Britain over the Oregon Territory was considered further proof of our greatness. The mobs were as willing to spill British blood as they were to spill Irish blood or German blood.**

[**Curiously enough, not Jewish blood. Anti-Semitism existed in America, but it was socially snobbish and small. That's because there weren't more than may 300,000 Jews in the United States in the 1850s (this is a guess, but probably a correct one). There had never been a major Jewish immigration wave yet, like the "Potato Famine" wave with the Irish in the late 1840s or the 1848 Revolution wave for Germany and Italy. Most of the Jews were of Sephardic descent (Spanish, Mediterranean, some British and Dutch. German Jews would start coming in during the 1830s, but the bulk from Eastern Europe and Russia came after the American Civil War (from roughly 1876 to 1921). As a result, while there is an occasional sneering comment it is not pressing on the bigots to turn attention towards the Jews.

Put another way. This is the heyday of the so-called "blood libel" about Jews using Christian blood in making matzos and such. It causes a lot of problems in Eastern (and even Western) Europe up to 1911 with Russia's infamous Mendel Beilis' case. But in the U.S. it was Roman Catholic convents that were attacked and burned. Here the big best seller with bigots was the so-called memoirs or revelations of a prostitute, "Maria Monk" who claimed she was a former nun, and who said that there were abortions, satanic rituals, and baby skeletons (from the babies of priests and nuns) in the basements of convents. Nothing like that was published about Jews in the U.S. in 1849 (one would have to wait until the notorious "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" was published by Henry Ford in 1920 before something like that popped up to hit at the Jews).

Actually it was a period of great suspicions. The Mormons were pushed out of three states, their leader Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum murdered by a mob in Carthage, Illinois in 1844, and the rest fled to "Deseret" (Utah) under Brigham Young, where they finally settled and prospered. The Masons (of all things) were suspected of killing one William Morgan, who published a book revealing their "secrets" in 1826, was seized from a street by men in a carriage, and never seen again. There were plenty of crazy targets in those days.]

The riots were one of many that occurred in the history of New York City (then really only Manhattan Island) in the 19th Century up to 1871. It is mentioned that the next riot occurred in 1857. That was a shoot-out (for three days) between political gangs on the Bowery. In 1863 the worst of all our riots occurred, the infamous "Draft Riots" where gangs of the urban poor ran around the city, burning an orphan asylum housing African-American children, lynching African-Americans, beating to death white people (including a prominent police officer), and attacking Horace Greeley's "Tribune" Building. An early gatling gun saved the "Tribune" offices.
Soldiers from Gettysburg (the battle had ended a week earlier) restored order in the City. The Mayor (Opdyke) tried but failed to get order before that, and Governor Horatio Seymour did try to calm the mob (unfortunately beginning his words with the typical politician's easy speak words, "My friends", which Thomas Nast never let him forget). Interestingly, one of the most effective individuals (before the soldiers) in getting the rioters to break up was William Tweed, who recognized some of the mob leaders and convinced them people would be better off at home not getting hurt. It used to be said that 1,300 were lost, but in recent years the number of dead has been recalculated as between 150 to 300, still far too many, but not like a typical Civil War battlefield count.

In 1871 the last really major 19th Century riot occurred when the Irish Protestants declared (despite attempts by Tweed and Tammany to limit it) that they were going to celebrate "Orange Day" (the anniversary of the Protestant victory in the "battle of the Boyne" in 1690) with a large parade. The Irish Catholics were not to tolerate this, and confronted and fought them. There were deaths, and Tweed had to insist that the state militia and troops assist in putting down the Catholics - an act that may have done him more harm with his normal supporters than Thomas Nast's cartoons or the New York Times reporting.

Forrest, after the 1849 riots, continued his career into the 1860s, with diminished popularity (the public blamed him in large measure for the deaths in the riots). By 1863 his chief rival as best American Shakespearean was Edwin Booth, Junius having died in 1852. Two years later Forrest heard of the assassination and John Wilkes' commission of it. "Doesn't surprise me," he sneered", "it sounds crazy, but all those Booths are crazy!" Forrest died in 1873.

2) That same year Macready died in England. In his day William Macready was highly regarded (among his friends was Charles Dickens), and it was said he helped bring back a balance and thoughtfulness to Shakespeare's plays. In particular he created the "Macready pause" which he would use to effect - to suggest his character's mind was considering what to do or say next. However, Lord Laurence Olivier, in one of his books on acting, considered this accomplished this invention and felt it wasn't really that much. Macready's descendant General Neville Macready was (I believe) Superintendent of Scotland Yard. Another descendant was the famous movie "villain" actor, George Macready (the ambitious French General in "Paths of Glory", Rita Hayworth's husband "Balin" in [/B] "Gilda"[/B], and "Martin Peyton" on television's "Peyton Place".

The riots (oddly enough) never spurred any film - and one wonders why. There was an off-Broadway play about Forrest and Macready about fifteen years ago, but it only had a limited run. Oddly enough it missed being used in a classic "gothic" movie, "Dragonwyk". If you read the original novel by Anne Seton, the character of Nicholas (the last of the patroon family, played in the film by Vincent Price) is a real sociopath, determined that no-matter what, his family line will continue. That is the reason he gets rid of his first wife to marry the one played by Gene Tierney. But in the novel, he is so determined to cover tracks and avoid capture or revelation of his actions, that he is the one who fires the shot that sets off the militia's fusillade at Astor Place (so he is actually the murderer of the people killed there). He also is involved in a second tragedy, the 1852 burning of the steamer "Henry Clay" which costs many lives (including a former Mayor of New York, and one of Nathaniel Hawthorne's sisters). My guess is the film producers decided it was too expensive to include that.

3) Captain Rynders - More properly Captain Isaiah Rynders, who was a major "Tammany Hall" figure for at least three decades to the early 1860s. He was also a ranking member of New York City's police force. Buntline and company were lucky to have him on their side in this dispute. He was corrupt, but colorful. One of his last actions in his official police duties was in 1860, when Albert Hicks, a seaman who had slaughtered his fellow sailors and captain on a small ship before robbing it, was tried and convicted of these crimes and another - although this happened off Brooklyn it was determined looking at charts that the sloop was over three miles off the coast of Brooklyn. Hicks was tried for piracy (the last man I know of in the history of New York City - possibly of the U.S. - tried for piracy on the high seas!). This meant his execution was special: he could not be simply executed in Brooklyn or in Manhattan proper, but on an island visible from the harbor. That would be what was called "Bedloe's Island", which we now call "Liberty Island". But the Statue of Liberty was not given to us by France for another quarter century. So, aside from one or two farm houses, the island was empty. A large gallows was erected to hang Hicks from. But Rynders discovered, due to the novelty of the idiot's mistake of not killing his victims closer to land fall, everyone and their brother wanted to see the execution. Lucky people got seats on the island to watch it, but Rynders arranged to delay the hanging until hundreds of boats (including the world's largest ocean liner, the "Great Eastern") got close enough safely to see the end of Mr. Hicks. He must have been amazed at how much time and effort went into the last hours of his life - it probably almost made up for ending it.

4) Mike Walsh: Totally forgotten today, but called by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. one of the first political representatives of the urban proletariat in the U.S (in the book "The Age of Jackson"), Mike Walsh eventually was elected to one or two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives as a Congressman from Manhattan. He spoke out for the rights of labor (in the 1850s that is something), but his Tammany connections probably did not help him (nor did his vocal opposition to abolitionist sentiments, as Walsh's constituents did not favor a large number of free slaves becoming a rival work force to themselves). Walsh, being Irish, and being allied in the riots with Buntline, Forrest, and Rynders, suggests that part of the anti-English nature of the rioters was spurred by sentiments of long standing grudging by Irish Catholic immigrants, here temporarily allied with their normal nativist foes, against the British. Walsh left Congress in 1855. He died under odd circumstances two years later - apparently he was killed by a mugger on his way to his home.

5) Dr. Horace Wells: One of at least five or six gentlemen who laid claim to being the founder of anesthesia in the U.S. Normally the baton for the discovery is given to Dr. William Morton of Boston, a dentist, who actually used it successfully in an operation. Morton's story was the subject of the 1942 film directed by comedy director Preston Sturgis (his only serious film),
"The Great Moment", which starred Joel McCrae as Morton, and had William Demerest in it as well. Wells is a character in the films, as are some of the other claimants in what became a ridiculous kind of donnybrook regarding the claims of discovery. Most of these gentleman did not prosper by this mess.

Morton did (although not mentioned in the film) appear as a witness in a murder case of note: the 1850 trial of Dr. John White Webster for the murder of Dr. George Parkman in Boston. Parkman, Webster's demanding creditor, disappeared, and only reappeared as bones that were apparently left that way by Webster using his science lab at Harvard University. A jaw bone was found, and Morton (who had done work on Dr. Parkman) identified the jaw as Parkman from recognizing his work. Webster was convicted and hanged for the killing, although many still believe he did not plan the murder but struck Parkman in anger.

Interestingly while Morton, Wells, and the others fought and argued for credit, making each other's lives miserable (besides Morton dying penniless, Wells an accidental (?) suicide, another one died insane), in Georgia a gentleman doctor, Crawford W. Long, discovered the powers of ether and applied it to some of his more seriously ill patients. He found it worked, wrote about it in several journals, and concentrated on his practice and his farm. In 1940 a series of stamps called "The Great American" series included Doctors, and Dr. Long was one (for the discovery of anesthesia). I always marvel that this quiet country doctor shows up all these jokers from Boston and other cities as to proper etiquette and behavior over a wonderful discovery, and ends up with the credit. Congratulations Dr. Long!!

Jeff

Mayerling · 11-05-2016, 10:51 PM

Catching Up - Sorry

Where do I begin? First, believe it or not, when I attended New York Law School in the late 1970s there was a complete set of all the published editions (bound) of "The Green Bag". It was a magazine for lawyers, most of the articles being written about various doctrines of the law (such as "res judicata") but many dealing with prominent lawyers in America or the British Isles (mostly) many of whom had died. I probably saw that picture of Graham that you put up. It also had series of articles relating to famous trials - which at one point I Xeroxed and kept in a folder (but currently I do not know where it is).

In my personal library of criminal history and trial books is one regarding that 1869 McFarlane - Richardson tragedy that Graham handled for Daniel McFarlane. A book has been written about the shooting of reporter and war hero Albert Richardson by McFarlane, because of Richardson's love affair with Abby McFarlane, the defendant's wife (and mother of his children). It is, "Lost Love: A True Story of Passion, Murder, and Justice in Old New York by George Cooper (New York: Pantheon Books, 1994). The story is more complex than those Victorian (self-righteous) newspapers make it out to be. McFarlane was a scoundrel, a drunkard who depended on his wife Abby to support his drinking and spending habits while she worked as a reader (of plays and manuscripts), while also upraising their kids, and while taking of the house. Apparently he felt that women were slaves (don't forget the Civil War we just fought gave African-American men so-called equality, not their wives). The only smart thing he ever did was to join the Democratic Party, and more important "Tammany Hall". Thus he has a connection with good-old Graham.

Richardson was one of American's first really interesting newspaper reporters and war correspondents. He was also a Northern spy during the war, was caught, faced execution, but escaped. He wrote several books. When the Civil War began he was married, but his wife and child died of natural causes by 1866. THEN he met Abby, and rapidly the two fell into love with each other.

Did McFarlane show anger? Not really. He showed his normal mercenary side, and kept shaking down Richardson for money to keep quiet (McFarlane's behavior here is similar to his contemporary in Ireland, twenty years later, Captain O'Shea, who did not mind if Charles Parnell and Kitty had their affair as long as Parnell and the Liberal Party gave him good paying, unimportant jobs to shut up). When Richardson told him to go to hell, McFarlane suddenly discovered he was defending America's hearth and home!! Sort of like Harry K. Thaw regarding Evelyn Nesbit Thaw and Stanford White. This crap would be swallowed up in New York in 1869 as it was in New York in 1906. It did not help that Richardson worked for the New York Tribune (Horace Greeley's newspaper) which was the leading Republican newspaper in the U.S., and in New York City. But with Tammany Hall being a Democratic organization at the time, and the City normally run by the Democrats - well public opinion was to twist unfairly for McFarlane.

Richardson already had been attacked at one point by McFarlane, but wasn't injured. But at the tail end of 1869, while entering the Tribune Building to do his daily work (something McFarlane never thought of doing anywhere) Richardson was confronted and shot by McFarlane. The wounded man was taken home, and his wounds (in that period) were found to be mortal. Abby McFarlane had recently gotten divorced (a point that would be used against her, believe it or not) so before he died Richardson married Abby. Rev. Henry Ward Beecher performed the ceremony. One of the witnesses was newly elected Vice President (and former Speaker of the House) Schuyler Colfax of California. Note Beecher was an outspoken abolitionist (whose sister Harriet Stowe authored "Uncle Tom's Cabin", and Colfax had been a leading Congressional supporter of the late President Abraham Lincoln.
However, even these credential blew up in later years.

In the 1920s, racist historian Claude G. Bowers wrote "The Tragic Era", which condemned the Radical Republicans for their "criminal" activities against the defeated South regarding "Reconstruction". Bowers did not say much about this tragedy, but he noted it, and showed his own venom by approving the disapproval of "nice people" towards Beecher and Colfax, whom he felt were publicity seekers. It also did not help that Colfax was later one of the many Republican congressional leaders implicated in the 1872-73 "Credit Mobilier" scandal of accepting bribes to help pass laws to finance the building of the Transcontinental Railroad. When this came out in 1873, Colfax was no longer more than a lame-duck Vice President, having been replaced on the ticket for Grant's 1872 re-election by Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts. Colfax was never impeached or tried for anything. Beecher was later involved in a complex adultery scandal concerning several prominent figures in the social life of the then city of Brooklyn (4th largest city in the U.S. in the 1870s). Beecher won acquittal in his 1875 adultery trial. It has only been recently that a balance has been re-established regarding their later behavior and their support for their dying friend Richardson and his wife in 1869.

McFarlane was acquitted, apparently because of the manipulations of Tammany with the selection of the Jury and Judge, and the smearing of Richardson, and his employer Greeley and the "Tribune" (which had once discussed the doctrine of "Free Love" in it's newspaper, and that was supposed to suggest the atmosphere in the pressroom). I am sure Mr. Graham, that heartfeld defender of the doctrine of marriage (who could not bring himself to marry for some reason....one wonders what was the real reason) did a first rate cut-throat job for his pig of a client. Actually very few people outside of Tammany hacks and the idiot jurors were fooled. Mark Twain wrote several cutting humor pieces "supporting" the theory that McFarlane's sad loss of his beloved Abby to the scoundrel Richardson had unhinged him into belatedly attacking the monster. In one, the Tammany people actually are celebrating with McFarlane, when he has another attack, and kills about one hundred of them - and Twain saying how sad that he was still suffering this mental problem.

Of course it never reoccurred. Instead McFarlane went out west. In the 1930s the leading American criminal historian was Edmund L. Pearson, and in his last published book, "More Studies in Murder", he wrote an essay on the McFarlane-Richardson tragedy. Pearson normally was quite a moralist, but here he realized that the formal defenders of McFarlane as a defender of hearth and home by his actions were idiots or liars who refused to see what happened before them. Instead, McFarlane was a total scoundrel who spoiled the last chance for happiness his mistreated wife would get. Pearson noted that McFarlane went out west, and returned to drinking. He eventually drank himself to death.

Abby lived to 1900, raising her children. When Richardson was shot, there was witness: a young Jewish messenger boy named Daniel Frohman. The name means little today, but he was (with his older brother Charles and a younger brother Gustave) the 19th Century equivalents of the Schubert Brothers regarding Broadway productions. The Frohmans befriended Abby (as did many literary and theatrical people, like Mark Twain) and she helped make a career as a play reader and recommender to many theater owners. As Pearson would say, she only had the friendship of the intelligent to help her for the rest of her life.

I'm glad to add a personal note. In my autograph collection I have on letter signed by Daniel Frohman. Daniel's older brother Charles was responsible for the staging (in London and New York) of many of the plays of James Barrie, including "Peter Pan", and helped the early musical career of Jerome Kern. Charles died on May 7, 1915 in the sinking of the Lusitania.

Jeff

TradeName · 11-05-2016, 05:23 PM

In NYC in 1848, Horace Wells, a dentist, who came to be celebrated by Hartford, Connecticut, as a pioneer in the use of anesthetics, was arrested for throwing acid on the "frail sisters" of Broadway.

An account of Wells work with anesthetics.

The Discovery of Modern An�sthesia: By Whom was it Made? (New York: George W. Nevius, 1894), Pages 29-38
by Laird W. Nevius

Dr. Horace Wells was born in Hartford, Windsor County, Vermont, Jan. 21, 1815. He was the eldest of three children. Soon after the birth of Horace, his father bought a valuable farm at Westminster, Vt., where the early days of young Wells were spent. Wells' parents were intelligent, and, for that day and neighborhood, were considered wealthy. They gave their son every advantage for moral and mental culture. During the year 1834, young Wells began the study of dentistry at Boston. The College of Dentistry was not then established, but Wells acquired the best professional education possible at that time, and after completing his studies opened an office in Hartford, Conn. He early manifested great mechanical talent, and constructed and patented several machines. His ingenuity led him to invent and construct most of his dental instruments.

In August, 1840, L. P. Brockett, of Brooklyn, New York, then a medical student at Hartford, went to Dr. Wells to have a large molar tooth extracted. The operation was so difficult and so painful that Dr. Wells said there ought to be some method of mitigating such suffering.

The first operation ever performed without pain by the use of nitrous oxide gas (of which we have any record) was performed upon Dr. Horace Wells, and occurred as related below.

On the 10th of Dec, 1844, Dr. G. Q. Colton delivered a lecture in Hartford, taking for his subject nitrous oxide gas. In order to demonstrate to his audience the amusing effects of "laughing gas," (as it was then called) Dr. Colton invited a number of those present to come upon the platform to inhale the gas. Among those who inhaled it was Dr. Wells and a young man by the name of Cooley. Cooley, while under its influence, ran against some benches which were upon the stage, bruising his legs badly. After the effects of the gas had passed off, Dr. Wells asked young Cooley if he had not hurt himself. Cooley said "No." Dr. Wells replied, "you must have been hurt, for you struck your legs against the benches." Young Cooley pulled up his trousers, and was greatly surprised to find the blood running down his legs. He assured Dr. Wells he did not realize that he had wounded himself.

Dr. Wells then said to a friend near by, and who had been an eye witness to all that had happened, "I believe a person, by inhaling a sufficient quantity of that gas, could have a tooth extracted, or a leg amputated, and not feel pain." On their way home from the lecture that evening, Dr. Wells told his wife that he was so thoroughly convinced of the fact that a tooth could be extracted without pain while under the influence of laughing gas, that he was going to take the gas the following day and have a tooth extracted.

Upon arriving home and before retiring, he went to see his friend and former student, Dr. Riggs, who was a neighboring dentist, to tell him of his intention to take the gas and have a troublesome tooth extracted the following morning

Dr. Riggs tried to dissuade him from taking the gas. Wells' mind was made up. He determined to test the anaesthetic effects of the gas upon his own person. Early next morning, Dec. 11, 1844, Dr. Wells called upon Dr. Colton and engaged him to go to his office at 10 o'clock A.M. and give him the gas. He also called upon Dr. Riggs, and requested him to be present to extract the tooth and be a witness to the operation. At the appointed hour all were at Wells' office. Dr. Wells seated himself in his own operating chair and Dr. Colton proceeded to administer the gas. At the proper moment Riggs extracted a large upper molar tooth.

Dr. Wells showed no evidence of having suffered any pain. He remained unconscious for a few moments, and on coming to he exclaimed, "A new era in tooth pulling! It did not hurt me as much as the prick of a pin ; it is the greatest discovery ever made."

[...]

On January 12, 1848, just twelve days after the death of Dr. Wells, the Paris Medical Society, still ignorant of the fact of his death, voted "that to Dr. Horace Wells, of Hartford, Conn., United States of America, is due all the honor of having first discovered and successfully applied the use of vapors or gases whereby surgical operations could be performed without pain," and also elected him an honorary member of their society. In 1847, the General Assembly of Connecticut passed resolutions in favor of Dr. Wells as the discoverer of modern anaesthesia; resolutions to the same effect were passed by the Court of Common Council, of the city of Hartford. All the physicians, surgeons and dentists of the city of Hartford united in a testimonial that it was their belief that to Dr. Horace Wells belonged the honor of having discovered anaesthesia. On Bushnell Park, in Hartford, there stands a monument erected by the State of Connecticut and the city of Hartford, upon which is a portrait statue of Dr. Wells and the following inscription:

HORACE WELLS
WHO DISCOVERED
ANESTHESIA
NOVEMBER, 1844.

Page 39

An account of Wells's arrest.

The New York Herald, January 23, 1848, Page 2, Column 6

Police Intelligence

Outrageous Assault on Females with Vitriol

The police office at the Tombs was thrown into quite a state
of excitement yesterday by the appearance of some ten
or twelve good looking, well dressed females, some
accompanied with black servants, carrying hat boxes and
bundles containing elegant wearing apparel, burnt into
large holes from the effects of vitriol. It appears that
on last Thursday night, and every night since, complaints
have been made by the different well-dressed
girls who promenade Broadway in the evening,
to the police of the third ward, setting forth
that some malicious individuals were in the habit
of throwing vitriol upon their cloaks, shawls,
dresses, and hats, as they passed along the street,
destroying clothing valued at many hundred dollars--
Upon this information, a close watch was kept in order
to detect the malicious scoundrel who would be guilty
of an act so base. Consequently, on Friday night,
between 9 and 10 o'clock, as Jane White and Louisa Mariad,
of No. 102 Church street, were passing Broadway,
near the Museum, Jane was attracted by the noise of, as
she thought, some liquid being thrown from a bottle, and
on turning around she saw a man in a cloak close by her,
and at that moment she received a spot of vitriol
on her neck which gave her pain--when she exclaimed:
"there, that's the man that burns the girls
with vitriol." The man in the cloak walked quickly
off, and the aid of officer Beard, of the 3d ward,
was procured, who took the accused into custody, and
near the place where he threw the vitriol a glass vial
was found broken on the pavement, the cork of which
was slit on one side, so that by a jerk of the bottle the
vitriol could be sprinkled out at plessure. The cloak
that the accused wore was much burnt with vitriol, near
the pocket where it is supposed the bottle was kept. On
being questioned at the station house the reason for
such outrageous conduct and cruelty, he replied to
officers Beard and Noe that there were three others
concerned with him, and that they had been injured by the
girls but that last night was the first attempt he
made, and that through the temptation of the devil, or
the effects of a drug which he had been taking, called
chloroform or ether, and while under that influence
sallied forth into the street, as he said, to sprinkle the
girls; and upon the evaporation of this drug at the
station house, he acknowledged his guilt, and gave his
name as Jonathan Smith, but whose real name is Horace
Wells, a dentist, located at No. 120 Chambers street. The
story related by the accused, about his accomplices, is
not credited, as it is generaly believed that the crime has
been perpetrated by him alone. A young girl now lies in
the city hospital, dangerously ill from the effects of vitriol
supposed to have been thrown on her face and neck
by this monster in human shape. The following list of
females have been burnt by vitriol, and their clothing
destroyed, between Monday and Friday nights:--Jane
Montgomery, No. 104 Church street, burnt in Broadway
on Tuesday night; Julia Meadows, No 60 Reade street,
burnt on Tuesday night likewise; Louise Johnson, No.
72 Deane street, burnt on Tuesday and Friday nights;
Maria Taylor, No. 19 Thomas street, burnt ou Tuesday
and Friday nights; Jane Forrest, No. 102 Church street,
burnt on Tuesday night, and Mary Pierce, No. 71 West
Broadway, likewise. All of these young women made
their affidavits as to iho fact of haviug beeu burnt with
vitriol; and as this man was caught in the act, it goes
far to show that he is the guilty party. We never heard
before of such a wholesale distribution of vitriol. It is
frequently the case that where one party owes the other
a grudge, that vitriol is applied for that especial
purpose; but we never before heard of such a wilful,
malicious and outrageous attack on innocent parties. The
man we think must be crazy. Justice Osborne held the
accused to bail in the sum of $2000; and on the charge
of injuring the girl, now in the hospital, he was committed
without bail, in order to await the result of the injuries.

----end

The New York Herald, January 25, 1848, Page 1, Column 4

The Suicide of Horace Wells

Quite an excitement was created yesterday morning at the Tombs in
consequence of the self-destruction of Dr. Horace Wells,
dentist, No. 120 Chambers street. It appears that
Mr. Wells was detected on Friday night last, in the
act of throwing vitriol upon the dress of a young
woman, in Broadway, near the Astor House, when he
was arrested and conveyed to the 3d Ward station
house, and the next day conducted to the Police-office;
and, after the testimony in his oase had been
taken before Justice Osborne, he was committed to
prison. No suspicion was entertained by the keepers,
of any intention of self-destruction, as Mr. Wells
appeared to be rather cheerful on Sunday, conversing
freely, and, while out of his cell, on the corridor,
appeared to pay particular attention to the sermon
delivered by the Reverend gentleman who preaches
every Sunday to the unfortunate and abandoned creatures
confined in the Tombs. The principal subject of the
discourse related to the ill effects arising from the early
and constant association with disreputable females, and
seemed to throw Mr. Wells into a deep meditation, and
when it was concluded, he retired to his cell and requested
the keeper to bring him some letter paper and a candle,
which was done. Between six and seven o'clock
that evening, the last time that Mr. Wells was seen alive,
the keeper locked the cell door, and he was then occupied
in writing. On the following morning, (Monday,)
Mr. Jackson, one of the deputy keepers, opened the
cell door, between 8 and 9 o'clock, and was astonished
to find Mr. Wells, in a sitting position on his bunk, with
his head resting in one corner of the cell, his right leg
hanging over the side of the bunk, and the left lying
straight on the straw mattress. Between his legs, on the
mattress, lay an empty vial, labelled " Pure Chloroform,"
a razor, and a penknife. The razor was fixed
with a slip of wood running from the back of the
blade along the handle, made fast with a piece
of wire, and some threads drawn from the sacking
of his mattrsss. The left leg of this unfortunate man
exhibited a most horrible sight, from a desperate gash,
evidently inflicted by the razor. This wound was made
about the center of the thigh, severing the femoral
artery, penetrating nearly to the bone, and seme six
inches in length from the effects of which he bled to
death. On his mouth he had placed a silk handkerchief,
bunched up, and another passing on the outside
and tied on the top of his head, on which he
had placed his hat. This handkerchief was supposed
to have contained the chloroform, which he inhaled
just before he inflicted the fatal wound. In one corner
of the cell laid his gold watch. together with the
annexed letters, and a small piece of candle, about three
inches in length, which he had evidently extinguished
before perpetrating the awful deed.

Sir:--I wish through the medium of your journal, to
make a plain statement respecting the unhappy
circumstances in whioh I am at present placed. My real name
is now before the public as a miscreant, guilty of a most
despicable act, that of wantonly destroying the property
of those girls of the town who nightly promenade
Broadway. The facts, so far as I am concerned, are briefly
these. On Tuesday evening last, a young man with
whom I had recently formed an acquaintance, went with
me to my office in Chambers street; while there he said
that a woman of bad character had spoiled a garment
for him while walking in the streets, by thowing
something like vitriol upon him; that he knew who
it was, and would pay her back in the same coin. As I
had some sulphuric acid in my office, which I was using
in some chemical experiments, he requested the liberty
of taking some of it for this purpose; he accordingly
cut a groove in the cork of a phial, so that a small quantity
only might escape when it was suddenly thrust forward.
He then said that he might get it upon his own
clothes. I told him that I had an old cloak, which could
not be much injured by the acid, as it was good for nothing.
By his request, I walked into the street with him,
he wearing my old cloak, and I having on my ordinary
overcoat. We proceeded up Broadway, and when about
opposite the theatre he said that he saw the girl he
was in pursuit of, and he soon gave her shawl a
sprinkling; we then turned down Broadway, when my
friend proposed to sprinkle some of the other girls. I
immediately objected, and told him that what he had
already done waa not in accordance with my own feelings
although it was done in revenge; and when we arrived
at Chambers street, I took my phial and my cloak--at the
same time two of his friends came up--and I left him,
supposing that I had dissuaded him from doing the mischief
he proposed, which is as foreign to my nature as light
is opposed to darkness. I then regretted exceedingly
that I had countenanced, in any manner, the first
act. On getting home, I found that my cloak had
apparently received the principal part of the acid which
had escaped from my phial, as the wind was blowing
towards us when the act was done. On meeting with my
acquaintance the next day, he said that himself and his
two friends, whom I met the previous evening, had
resolved to drive all the bad girls out of Broadway, by
sprinkling them with acid. I in vain reasoned with him
against committing so much injury, where he had not
been harmed. This was the last interview which I have
had with him to the present time. I wish now to state,
as well as I am able, what influenced me to do this act,
on Friday evening, which I confess was done with my
own hands; and this was the only one of which I am
guilty, and which resulted in my arrest. I had, during
the week, been in the constant practice of inhaling chloroform,
for the exhilarating effect produced by it; and on
Friday evening last, I lost all consciousness before I
removed the inhaler from my month; how long it
remained there I do not know, but on coming out of the
stupor I was exhilirated beyond measure, exceeding any
thing which I had ever before experienced; and seeing
the phial of acid (which had been used a few evenings
previous as, before described) standing on the mantel,
in my delirium I seized it and rushed into the street and
threw it at two females--I may have thrust it at others;
but I have no recollection further than this.
The effects of this inhalation continued very
much longer than ever before, and did not
entirely pass off until some time after my arrest. I do not
make this statement expecting to free myself from all
blame in this matter; yet I have been induced to make
a minute statement of facts, that the public may better
judge of this misdemeanor, so far as I am concerned. I
state unhesitatingly that I would no sooner deliberately,
in cold blood, go into the street and commit the gross
acts of wantonness which have been committed for the
last few evenings, than I would cut my right hand from
my body. No; I am not prone to do mischief, as
all can testify who have ever known me. But now I
am placed in circumstances where I am obliged to
bear the reproaches of the world for the most
comtemptible acts, in which I have not participated.
Because I did this one act in a moment of delirium. I
must bear the brunt of the whole. Some of the papers
disbelieve my statement about others being concerned
in this business; but I am informed to-day that while I
was in close confinement last evening, the same acts
were being committed in Broadway--several were sprinkled
with acid. However, my character, which I have
ever prized above every thing elae, is gone, irrevocably
gone, and I am now in the most miserable condition in
which it is possible for man to be placed. One of those
abandoned females who were examined yesterday,
stated that I had often addressed her in Broadway.
Now I do most solemnly assert that the statement
of this girl is utterly false; I have never on
any occasion, had anything to say to these miserable
creatures. If myself alone were the only one
who is to suffer by all the false statements which
may or have been made respecting me, it would
be nothing compared to the injury to my dear, dear
wife and child. Oh, may God protect them! I cannot
proceed; my hand is too unsteady, and my whole frame
is convulsed in agony. My brain is on fire.

Sunday evening, 7 o'clock--I again take up my pen, to
finish what I have to say. Great God! has it come
to this? Is it not all a dream ? Before twelve
o'clock this night I am to pay the debt of
nature. Yea, if I were to go free to-morrow, I could not
live and be called a villain. God knows I am not one.
0, my dear mother, brother, and sister, wbat can I say
to you? My anguish will only allow me to bid you farewell.
I die this night, believing that God, who knoweth
all hearts, will forgive the dreadful act. I shall spend
my remaining time in prayer. Oh, what misery I shall
bring on all my near relations; and, what still more
distresses me, is the fact that my name is familiar
to the whole scientific world, as being connected
with an important discovery; and now, while
I am scarcely able to hold my pen. i must bid
all farewell. May God forgive me. Oh my dear
wife and child, whom 1 leave destitute of the means of
support. I would still live and work for you, but I cannot
for were I to live on, I should become a maniac. I
feel that I am but little better than one already. The
instrument of my destruction was obtained wben the
officer who had me in charge kindly permitted me to go
to my room yesterday. HORACE WELLS.

To Editors:--
My last request to Editors is, that they will, while
commenting on this unhappy affair, think of my poor
wife and child. also my mother, brother and sister, all
of whom are numbered among the most respectable
members of society. H. WELLS.

To My Dear Wife:--
I feel that I am fast becoming a deranged man, or I
would desist from this act I cannot live aad keep my
reason, and on this account God will forgive the deed. I
can say no more. Farewell. H.

To Mr. Dwyer:
Dear Sir--When your receive this, I shall be no more.
I wish you would take my watch, and present it to my
dear wife, together with the trifle I have already given
you. Please to see to my burial--let me be interred here
in the most secret manner possible. I wish you or Mr.
Barber would go immediately to Hartford, and reveal
this misfortune to my wife in the most unobjectionable
manner possible, and attend to the business which we
spoke of this morning, when you little thought of this
occurrence. Yours, H. WELLS.

Messrs. Dwyer and Barber, Western Hotel
N.B.-- .Please tell Mr James to write to Mr.T.W. Storrow,
No. 19 Rue du Faubourg, Piossonniere [sic: Rue du Faubourg Poissonni�re], Paris, and
tell him of my death.

The prison was visited during the day by many of our
eminent doctors and dentists, and from remarks made
by Drs. Hosack and Smith, founded on interviews with
Mr. Wells, prior to his arrest, they were decidedly of
opinion that the deceased was perfectly insane on the
chloroform practice. We are informed that this
chloroform is nothing more than an extract from alcohol and
chloride of lime, which, upon application, is inhaled
from a sponge. Dr. Walters, the coroner, was called to
hold an inquest. and the jury rendered a verdict. "that
the deceased came to his death by suicide, by inflicting
a wound in the left thigh with a razor, while laboring
under an aberration of mind."

The effects of this unfortunate man were placed in the
hands of Mr. Dwyer. of the Western Hotel, and the body,
after the inquest, was deposited in a handsome coffin,
placed in a pine box, and la�t night conveyed on board
the Hartford steamboat, for that city, where the
deceased has a wife and child awaiting the dreadful news.

We received a telegraphic dispatch last evening from
Hartford, sent by three highly respectable medical men,
Drs.. John M. Riggs, E. E. Mersey and H. W. Ellsworth,
setting forth that Mr. Welle, the deceased, was a man of
irreproachable character, and a member in good standing
in Dr. Hawe's Church.

----end

In an editorial, the elder James Gordon Bennett mentions that he met Wells in Paris.

The New York Herald, January 25, 1848, Page 2, Column 2

Singular Suicide--Horace Wells, the Discoverer of Ether

We give, in our "City Intelligence,"
an account of the most singular suicide
which probably ever took place in this city
--that of Dr. Horace Wells, formerly of
Hartford, Connecticut--the same individual who
made the original discovery of ether, or chloroform,
and of its successful application in surgery
or dentistry. The history of this singular
affair, as given in our columns, with the particulars
heretofore related, will strike everybody as
being more strange even than fiction, while, at
the same time, it will strike every one with and
astonishment and sorrow. The whole affair is
almost incomprehensible.

The ingenious discoverer of the powers of this
extraordinary substance, in its application to
surgery, has himself fallen a victim to his
own discovery, [t]he only rational conclusion,
after reading the account of this suicide, and
of the steps which led to it, seems to be that Dr.
Wells has been in [t]he habit of producing intoxication
in himself by the habitual use of ether, or
chloroform. Under one of the paroxyms
produced by the intemperate use of this powerful
agent, it seems he sallied forth into Broadway
where he committed the pranks upon some
unfortunate females at night, which led to his
arrest by the police, causing a great noise to be
made in the public prints. For the purpose of
drowning the consequences of this exposure, and
not being able to meet the issue of his strange
acts, Dr. Wells deliberately goes to work and
commits suicide, using his own medicine to
destroy the sensation of pain in the act.

What a melancholy termination to a singularly
eventful and interesting life! Last winter we
saw Dr. Wells in Paris, in high spirits, full of
gaiety and delight, and in the midst of gay society.
He went there in order to prosecute his
claims before the French Institute for the
reward publicly offered to the discoverer of any
new and important fact or agent in medical practice.
Mr. or Dr. Wells, as he was indifferently
called, was a native of Hartford, Conn , or
its neighborhood, where he has left a wife
and child, to mourn his loss and sympathise
over his misfortune. Accident led him to
the discovery of the virtues of this liquid, when
applied to surgical cases: and it is said he first
made the discovery on his own person. Proceeding
to Boston, he made the revelation there
of his discovery to individuals who repudiated
and laughed at his mystery, of a thing of no
moment. In about a year afterwards, however, the
persons who had received the first intimation of
the mysterious power of ether, happened to change
their opinions; and bringing it out as a great and
valuable agent in surgery, they sent missions to
Europe, for the purpose of claiming the rewards
given by certain scientific bodies there to such
discoveries. The publicity of these steps led Dr.
Wells to visit Paris and London last winter, for
the purpose of establishing his claim to the
original discovery. It seems he was not very
sccessful in his pursuit, owing to the superior
influence of those persons who had taken the discovery
out of his hands, and had arrived in Paris
before him. Foiled in his object in Europe, he
returned to this city, and pursued here his
ordinary avocations, until this unhappy event occurred,
which caused him to figure in our police reports,
and now to be the subject of the melancholy
history related in our paper this day.

Thus has he fallen a victim to his own medicine,
like Phalaris of old, who perished in the way
he had invented for others to die, and like Dr.
Guillotin, the inventor of an instrument of death
which put a period to his own life. This singular
tragedy will make the public pause in relation
to the virtues and utility of these dangerous
substances, in their application to the human
system.

----end

The New York Herald, January 27, 1848, Page 3, Column 4

Link to a pamphlet by Wells on his work that seems incomplete.

A History of the Discovery of the Application of Nitrous Oxide Gas, Ether and Other Vapors in Surgical Operations (Hartford: J. Gaylord Wells, 1847), link
By Horace Wells

A pamphlet by friends of Wells,

Discovery by the Late Dr. Horace Wells: of the Applicability of Nitrous Oxyd Gas, Ether and Other Vapors in Medical Operations (Hartford: Elihu Geer, 1852), link
By J. Wales

Link to a 1945 article about Wells.

Ludington Daily News (Michigan), January 3, 1945, Page 4

A Painless Process

TradeName · 10-15-2016, 04:33 PM

An account of the Astor Place Riot contains mentions of a Marcus Cicero Stanley, who seems to have been a worthy associate of the young Ned Buntline (Judson).

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Common Pleas, Volume 11 (New York: Banks and Brothers, 1885)
By Charles Patrick Daly

Astor Place Riot Case

The People against Edward Z. C. Judson [Ned Buntline] et al

(New York General Sessions

(September Term, 1849)

Page 53

[Prosecutor] James R. Whiting's Speech

There is evidence enough to convict him, even without the testimony of young Bennett; but of that testimony let me say a word. You saw him on the stand: his evidence was simply given, and goes to prove the cunning and adroitness of the accused; you heard of Mr. Marcus Cicero Stanley, his friend and coadjutor in the newspaper, who was present to relieve him of his pistols, which, if found upon his person, would have been damning evidence of his guilt. But where was Marcus Cicero Stanley when we wanted him and said we could not find him? Judson's counsel replied that we need not trouble ourselves, that he intended to introduce him himself. Where is he? (Mr. Smith�Me has not yet returned.)

Pages 71-72

The District Attorney then referred to the testimony of the witnesses as to Judson's conduct in exciting the mob and directing their movements, and to the testimony of Mrs. Bennett, that Judson's pistols were brought back to the house by Stanley, Judson's partner. He referred to the cunning of Judson, after his arrest, in having Stanley take the pistols from his pockets, and then Judson insisting on being searched, when he knew nothing could be found on him.

----end

An account of Stanley's earlier life in Texas and London.

The Camden Journal (South Carolina), March 10, 1841, Page 1, Column 4

An Unmitigated Scoundrel

[from the New Orleans Picayune]

Marcus Cicero Stanley, the young man
who was recently sent to the House of
Correction in London for robbing Mr.
Catlin at his Indian Portrait Gallery, is
one of the blackest-hearted wretches we
have ever heard of. The circumstances
of his arrest in London are as follows:

He had been on intimate terms with
Mr. Catlin, having, by his gentlemanly
address, ingratiated himself into his favor.
For some time Mr. C. had been losing
money from his pantaloons pockets while
they were lying in his dressing room
attacned to the hall where his curiosities
were. The night on which Stanley was
arrested, Mr. Catlin, previous to changing
his dress, marked four sovereigns and
four shilling pieces which he left in his
pockets, and then secreted a police man
in the room to watch. But a few minutes
lapsed when Stanley came into the room,
took up the pantaloons; abstracted a part
of the money from the pockets and transferred
it to his own, and then left the
room and joined the audience. The
policeman followed him, and, after telling
him he was a peace officer, asked what
money he had in his pocket. Stanley
pretended to be very much affronted at
being accused of doing wrong and refused
to tell. The Constable, however,
persisted in his duty, and searching him
found five sovereigns and a half in gold
and silver upon him. Two of the
sovereigns and 6s. formed part of the marked
money. He was then taken into custody.

On the trial Stanley said he did not
intend to appropriate the money to his own
use--he only intended to show it to Mr.
Catlin after the exhibition, to convince
him how carelessly he left his property
exposed--said that had he intended robbing
him he would have taken his gold
watch which was in the same garment.--
Mr.Catlin denied this, as since he had
suspected himself of being robbed he
had taken the precaution of secreting his
watch.

On the deposition being read over
Stanley complained that the chief clerk
had not used sufficiently expressive
language in taking down his defence. He
also appealed to the reporters to suppress
the case for the sake of his family in this
country [USA], which was highly respectable.--
He was sentenced to six months hard labor
in the House of Correction.

But the offence for which he is now
suffering in England is nothing in comparison
to his rascalities in this country and
Texas. Some two or three years since
he was in this city [New orleans] and cut even a greater
dash than the notorious Stith. We next
hear of him in Texas, concerned in the
fatal duel in which the lamented Laurens
was killed by Goodrich, in 1837. It may
be recollected that some or five or six
young men slept in a room together at
Houston, among whom were Goodrich,
Stanley and Laurens. During the night
a $1000 bill was stolen from Goodrich,
who, instigated by Stanley, charged Laurens
with the theft. Highminded and
honorable and at the same time innocent,
the latter could not brook this charge and
immediately sent Goodrich a challenge.
They fought with rifles and Laurens was
killed--Stanley acting as his second.--
Subsequently it was proved that Stanley
himself stole the money, when Goodrich,
conscience-stricken at what he had done
became dissipated and finally blew his
own brains out.

Since then Stanley has figured extensively
in this city, and in fact all over the
country. In 1839 he again visited Texas,
where he stole a $600 bill from a
companion. He afterwards passed the bill, it
was identified, and Stanley was arrested.
He found means to procure bail, when,
thinking he was too well known in this
country and Texas, He immediately left
for England, where he has since been
living by his rascalities.

We recollect Stanley here, a small but
well made and genteel young man, wearing
his hair long, after the present fashion
some year or two before it was introduced
by any one else. His high family connections,
education and prepossessing manners,
gave him access to the best society,
and his expulsion from it was always on
account of some theft or swindling
transaction. His family have long since.
discarded him, and he is now in a situation
where he can commit no rascalities at
least for a season. Our only regret is,
that instead of six months imprisonment,
the English authorities did not sentence
him to six score years and ten.--N. O.
Picayune.

----end

A two-volume work by the "Indian Gallery" guy mentioned above.

The Manners, Customs, and Condition of the North-American Indians, Volume 1 (London: 1841), link
By George Catlin

The Manners, Customs, and Condition of the North-American Indians, Volume 2 (London: 1841), link
By George Catlin

A sample of Catlin's work.

The New York Herald, July 20, 1842, Page 2, Column 2

Severely Cowhided

Marcus Cicero Stanley,
the brother [sic] of the celebrated Stanley, the whig
member of Congress, was most severely cowhided
last night in the Park, by a gentleman, who
considered that Stanley had grossly injured him. This
is the same Stanley who was arrested in London
for robbing Mr. Catlin. He is still in the city

----end

Libel case involving a pamphlet about Stanley.

The New York Herald, February 22, 1845, Page 2, Column 4

Police Office

Curious Case of Libel

One of the most curious libel cases that has ever come up
in any court of justice, will probably be tried at the next
term of the Court of Sessions, or as soon after as practicable.
The accused is Herman Atwell, a custom house
officer, and the complainant, Marcus Cicero Stanley, is an
individual not altogether unknown in this city. The
complainant makes affidavit that a certain pamphlet under
the title of "Autobiography of Marcus Cicero Stanley,
of infamous notoriety, containing an account of his frauds
and villanies, in Texas, London, Paris and New York;
detailing his robbery in Texas, and murder of Levy
Lazarus of New York, and his robbery of George Catlin in
London, also, an account of his 'pigeoning' the
'policy dealers' of New York and other cities. Dated New
York, January, 1846. Probono publico," was published
by John McLaughlin, of No. 11 Bowery, from an original
manuscript, written by Atwell, and corrected by Dr
Thiers. He sets forth that "it makes him (Stanley)
appear a monster of iniquity, which the deponent believes
he is not." The affidavit concludes in these words--
"That the said Atwell has written a number of letters to
a certain lady, whose name, from a personal, regard for
her, deponent is unwilling to mention, in which he
avows the most tender and ardent love for the said lady,
coupled with a determination to sink deponent and
injure him both in his character and person. That the said
A. is married, and has two children, and is a clerk in the
Custom House at this city, and in the receipt of a large
salary, and is able to give good and heavy bail." Upon
this affidavit A. was arrested. He has also been arrested
and held to bail in a civil suit for damages. When the
trial comes up, some of the funniest and most peculiar
developments will oome out. The letters spoken of are
peculiarly rich.

----end

The New York Herald, August 21, 1845, Page 2, Column 5

Marcus Cicero Stanley

This individual was yesterday
arrested on complaint of Herman H. Atwill [sic] and N. H.
Carpenter, charged with having stolen some promissory
notes, &c., in October last, from the rooms occupied by
Mr. Carpenter at that time, located at No. 97 Wall
street.

---end

The New York Herald, September 18, 1845, Page 1, Column 5

Marcus Cicero Stanley

It will doubtless be recollected
that a few weeks ago, this individual was arrested on
complaint of Herman Atwell, who charged him
with having stolen about $60 worth of property from Mr.
Nuthaniel H. Carpenter, some time in June 1844. Since
the arrest of Stanley, the matter has been under
investigation before Justice Osborne, who dismissed the case
this morning without requiring the accused to otter any
defence. Counsel for the delendant, Thomas Warner,
Esq.; for Mr. Atwell, Messrs. Boyd and Hastings.

---end

A favorable obituary for Stanley, if you can overlook a bit of blackmail.

New-York Tribune, July 10, 1885, Page 5, Column 5

Marcus Cicero Stanley

The Close of a Singular Career

Death of a Man Who Was the Bitter Foe of Faro Banks and Policy Shops

Marcus Cicero Stanley, one of the most
widely known men of New-York,died at 4:17 p.m. yesterday
at his home in the Gramercy Park Apartment House.
He bad been an invalid for years, but possessing rare
courage and spirit, he never succumbed to his
indisposition until the last week in June. [...]

Mr. Stanley had a singular career. He
never told his age and was strangely
sensitive upon that subject. His birthday was
August 2, and it is believed that had he lived a few weeks
longer he would have been sixty-five years old. He was
born in Newbern [sic], N. C. His father was John Stanley,
distinguished in the early politics of that State--a man
of fine family, rare culture, learning and ability.
Edward Stanley, his oldest brother, was
appointed military governor of North carolina
by President Lincoln. Another brother was
Admiral Fabius Stanley, well known as a naval officer.
He died a few years ago. When Marcus Cicero Stanley
was about fifteen years old, his father died, and his
mother went to live with her daughter, Mrs. General
Armstrong, of Ben Lomond, West Virginia. Marcus
came to the this city and lived with the Rev. Dr.
Hawks, then rector of St. Thomas's Episcopal
Church, which was at Houston-st. and Broadway.
Dr. Hawks had studied law with John Stanley, and consented
to be Marcus's guardian. He placed the boy in a
drug-store, where he remained as clerk for some
time. Tiring of that prosaic life, he began the
study of law, and showed much fondness and
ability for criminal cases. His mind was
active and penetrating and it dwelt on the sinister and
evil phases of life. He was a born detective, and after
a little following his natural inclination he became a
reporter for the early issues of The Police Gazette. In
this capacity he saw much of the undercurrents of
human life, of its miseries and criminalities. He became
connected with the Herald later, working still among
the classes of people in whom he found such a strange
fascination.

With his keen penetration, his ever active mind, his
watchful suspicion and his naturally subtle mental
temperament, ever alive for the discovery of motive,
far-seeing in his views of purpose and marvellous
in his intuitive judgment of character,
Stanley soon obtained an unparalleled
knowledge of the criminals of New-York, their
habits, faces, deeds and haunts. This knowledge
extended to all classes of people, from the most
depraved of brutal knaves to the polished scoundrel, and
even to those whom accident, revenge and passion had
involved in sudden and unwonted crime. He traced mystery
to its most secret and impenetrable sources, and
held in his mental possession the proof of many an
unpunished sin. Speaking of death to his wife a few days
before the end came, he said: "There's many a man
who will be happier when I am gone."

Stanley was one of the original incorporators of the
Louisiana State Lottery Company, in which he held
a large interest until its reorganization
some years ago. He had interests in other lotteries, and
was supposed to be associated with a complex system of
policy-dealing and lottery prizes. His nature was
devoted in its friendships and wholly uncompromising in its
enmities. He waged a terrible warfare on some varieties
of gamblers, and was of frequent and inculculable service
both to the police and to the press
in the discovery and punishment of many
notorious criminals. He possessed great courage,
which was required in many an emergency. He was
accused of wholesale blackmailing, of gambling, and of
other serious offenses, and his enemies took the pains to
publish a pamphlet detailing a long variety of wicked
acts attributed to him. But none of these accusations
clung to him.

In his domestic life Mr. Stanley was a
model of tenderness and consideration. He
married Miss Grivet, of this city, twenty-eight
years ago, and she was his constant
companion upon his rambles over the world. She
survives him. They have two children living. One is married
to a German merchant and lives abroad. The other,
William Edward Stanley, is a lad of fifteen
and has lived with his parents. Mr. Stanley
was a man of fine mental attainments
and noteworthy appearance. He was a scholar
and facile writer. He was associated with George
Wilkes when The Spirit of the Times was founded. He
leaves a handsome fortune.

----end

According to this article, Stanley played a part in introducing parimutuel betting to the U.S.

Evening Star (Washington, DC), October 24, 1885, Page 6, Column 5

George Wilkes Fear

The Importation of Paris Mutuals Intended for Wall Street

George Wilkes died the other day, and the
reputation that he left was not such as to give
the idea that he cared much for what people
thought of him. Nevertheless, he was sensitive
on one point. He was afraid that he would be
remembered as a professional gambler instead
of a sportsman of the creditable sort. One of
the few injunctions that he impressed on his
visitors just before his death was a charge to
deny, on every possible occasion and as publicly
as possible, that he had brought the Paris mutual
system of betting to America intending to
devote it to gaming on sports. The facts are
curious. Wilkes was in France in 1862, and
there he saw one of the now familiar
machines for registering bets. He conceived
the idea that it could be used in Wall street for
facilitating speculation in stocks, and for that
purpose alone he bought one to bring home.
On arriving in New York he showed it to several
big operators, endeavoring to form a company
to purchase the American franchise, but
consultation with lawyers convinced him that
the contrivance would surely come under the
law against gambling. Discouraged with the
venture, he let the late Marcus Cicero Stanley
take it off his hands, though he retained a passive
interest. Stanley had no compunctions
such as Wilkes claimed to feel, and the betting
machine was at once introduced on the turf, to
the speedy enrichment of its managers.
Wilkes' conscience was not so tender as to prevent
him from taking his full share of the proceeds,
and it was astonishing to his acquaintances
after his decease to learn that he was ashamed.

----end

TradeName · 09-13-2016, 06:55 PM

John Graham was one of the defense attorneys at the trial for New York Congressman Daniel Sickles for gunning down the son of Francis Scott Key in Washington, D.C., after learning that Key was having an affair with his wife.

Trial of the Hon. Donald E. Sickles for Shooting Philip Barton Key, Esq. (New York: R. M. Dewitt, 1859), link
By Felix Gregory De Fontaine

Pages 25-36

Speech of John Graham, Esq.

Graham later defended a jealous husband who gunned down a New York Tribune reporter in the Tribune office.

The Richardson-McFarland Tragedy (Philadelphia: Barclay, 1870), link

Modern Jury Trials and Advocates: Containing Condensed Cases (New York: Banks & Brothers, 1882)
By John Wesley Donovan

Pages 314-353

McFarland-Richardson Case

The NY Times obit mentions the Polly Bodine case, but this seems to have been handled by Graham's brother, David.

The Era Magazine: An Illustrated Monthly, Volume 14, October, 1904, Pages 324-333

The Staten Island Mystery of 1843

Polly Bodine, the veiled Woman, and Her Three Trials for the Housman Murder

by Will M. Clemens

TradeName · 09-13-2016, 06:37 PM

The New York Times obit for John Graham seems to imply that Graham represented Edward Z. C. Judson ("Ned Buntline") at the trial for the Astor Place Riot, but an account of the trial identifies Judson's lawyer as James M. Smith. An anti-Graham editorial in the New York Herald did link Graham to the "Buntline gang"

A summary of the riot.

Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events (New York: D. Appleton, 1870), Pages 658-659

In May, 1849, occurred the Astor Place Riots, which were effectually put down by Recorder Tallmadge's decision and energy. The history of these riots was briefly this: Edwin Forrest, the tragic actor, had become a leader in the Native American movement, and was attempting to obtain a nomination and election to Congress through it. He was at the same time vaunting himself as the great American tragedian. William C. Macready. a well-known and able English tragedian, had, at the time, an engagement at the Astor Place Opera-House. Certain partisans of Forrest, led by E. Z. C. Judson (Ned Buntline), and secretly supported, it was said, by Captain Rynders, Mike Walsh, and others, determined to mob Macready, and assaulted the Opera House. during his performance, with a shower of paving-stones. The Seventh Regiment were called out to preserve the peace, but were assailed by the rioters and thrown into disorder. The Sheriff (Westervelt) was urged by prominent citizens to order the military to clear the streets, but he had not the nerve to do it. They then appealed to the Mayor (C. S. Woodhull), but he was even more timid than the sheriff. Meantime the riot was increasing, the police were useless, and the military powerless for want of orders. At this juncture, Recorder Tallmadge came upon the ground, and, having commanded the mob to disperse, ordered the military to fire over their heads. They did so. but, as no one was hurt, the rioters rushed upon them, hurling paving-stones and other missiles at them with great violence. The soldiers held their lines without wavering though a number of their men were injured. Recorder Tallmadge immediately gave his second order to fire, and aim low, and within thrwe minutes nearly twenty of the rioters were killed, more than thirty seriously wounded, and the remainder in full flight. His action received the approval of all pood citizens. It was eight years before another riot was attempted in New York.

----end

A link to an account of the trial of the rioters. (No mention of Graham)

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Common Pleas, Volume 11 (New York: Banks and Brothers, 1885), Pages 1-91
By Charles Patrick Daly

Astor Place Riot Case

The People against Edward Z. C. Judson et al

(New York General Sessions

(September Term, 1849)

A link to an account focusing on the Forrest/MacReady dispute.

A Rejoinder to The Replies from England, etc. (New York: Stringer & Townsend, 1849), link
By An American Citizen

The anti-Graham editorial by James Gordon Bennett, Sr. which accuses Graham of being linked to Ned Buntline and George Wilkes, publisher of the National Police Gazette.

The New York Herald, October 13, 1850, Page 2, Column 1

The Tammany Hall Nominations--The Mayoralty, and the District Attorneyship

The nominating conclave af Tammany Hall,
representing the big-fisted democracy of this city,
have nominated candidates for some of the principal
offices to be voted for at the next election, On
Friday night Fernando Wood got the nomination
for Mayor of this city,and John Graham succeeded
in procuring the nomination for District Attorney.

[...]

In regard to the other candidate--John Graham
--we have also something of a mixed character to
say in relation to his capacity and his fitness for
the office to which he aspires, and for which he
has been nominated. We know a good deal of the
career of John Graham; and although he has some
qualities that are creditable in several points of
view, we are sorry to say that, as District Attorney,
he is entirely unsuited and unfit; and we are
confident that his elevation to that office would be
a very deplorable event for the administration of
criminal justice in this city. We are sorry in being
compelled, from the duty we owe to truth, justice,
the community, and the correct administration of
criminal jurisprudence, to say this of John Graham;
for he is a son of one of our oldest friends--
a man of the highest character for truth, and
veraeity, and honor--we mean.the late David Graham,,
who waa our former counsel in many cases of difficulty.
No man ever entertained a opinion,
in point of learning and purity of character,
for any one, than we did of the late David Graham,
father of John Graham. We are sorry,
however, to say, that the feelings of reapect,
Yeneration and confidence, which we entertained for
the father, have by no means descended in strict
hereditary succession to the sons; hut more especially
may this be declared of John Graham,
now a candidate for the office of District Attorney.
From his associations, his reputation, his talents,
and a variety of other circumstances, we are
perfectly satisfied that he is totally unfit and
incompetent to occupy the office of District Attorney, or
to manage the criminal juriaprudence of thia city.
He haa been connected, as counsel, as adviser, as
agent, with certain criminal gangs, and certain
criminal affairs, daring the laat two years, which
augur any thing else but respect and eateem for
him, or any probability that he would ever be
able to manage the criminal affairs of this city
with any degree of justice to the community, or to
the satisfaction of the public. The Warner stool-pigeon
gang, the Wilkes stool-pigeon gang, the
Ned Buntline gang, and various other gangs, have
alwaya looked upon him as one of their principal
pupils, agents and advisers; and his connections in
a legal and other points of view, have been with
persons and characters of such a description as to
entirely unfit him for the post of District Attorney.

----end

Shortly before the riot, Buntline had been assaulted by a woman he had written about unfavorably in his weekly paper.

The New York Herald, April 05, 1849, Page 1, Column 4

Flare Up in Broadway--An Editor Cowhided by a Woman

A most exciting and extraordinary scene
occurred in Broadway, at tbe corner of Duane street,
about one o'clock yesterday afternoon, the particlars
of which, as we have gathered them from responsible
sources. are as follows:--Edward Z. C Judson,
editor of a paper in this city. known as Ned Buntline's
Own, was walking down Broadway, accompanied by
two friends. As the three reached the corner of
Duane street, a dashing-looking and fashionably
dressed female rushed upon Mr. Judson, and, with a
cowhide in ber hand demanded of the editor why he had
published her in his paper. To this demand he had
scarcely time to make a reply before he received
several severe blows on the head and shoulders
from the woman,who plied her weapon of revenge most
dexterously. He then ran across the street, and she
followed, giving him a blow tor every step, until satified
that she had avenged the insult she had received,
A large crowd of persons gathered around immediately,
and tbe belligerent parties separated--the woman
walking up Broadway. During tbe affray, it is alleged
that the editor drew a pistol and threatened the life of
of his fair assailant; but we believe no shots were fired.
The woman, we learn, is Miss Kate Hastings, keeper
of a boarding house in Leonard street. The occurrance,
taking place as it did, at an hour of tbe day,
when Broadway is most thronged with spectators,
caused an unusual excitement. Mr. Judson, immediately
after the affray, proceeded before the Mayor,
and made an affidavit respecting the assault, but his
Honor, up to a late hour last night, had not issued any
warrant or process for the arrest of Miss Kate. It is
possible, however, that his Honor will send for this
bold creature this forenoon, as there appears to be
some curiosity to see this "female lion," who would
dare to horsewhip an editor.

----end

The New York Herald, April 18, 1849, Page 2, Column 4

Court of Special Sessions

[...]

Catharine Hastings, the above named defendant,
being duly sworn, deposes and says, that, in a paper
called Ned Buntline's Own, of a recent date, and prior
to the assault complained of in this case, the following
scurrilous attack was published of and concerning
this deponent, as follows:--

(Here was inserted the obnoxious article referred to
above.)

That the complainant in this case, Edward Z. C.
Judson, is notoriously the editor of the said paper,
and that he has for a considerable period published
similar gross attacks upon deponent, all of which have
been calculated to and did arouse the anger of this deponent
against him. Deponent further says, that the
documents marked A and B, which are hereto annexed,
(These letters contain expressions too gross and indecent
to meet the public gaze in a newspaper, and
hence we cannot give them. They were mere blackguard
missives couched in the plaiest and most indecent
terms.) were sent to this deponent, as deponent
verifly believs by the said E. Z. C. Judson, as his name
is subscribed to the one marked A; and portions of the
one marked B. are similar to the writing of the one to
which his name is signed. Deponent further says, that
the chastisement she indicted upon the said Judson
was induced solely by these attacks upon her, and by
no other cause. Deponent further says, that she is informed
and verily believes the fact so to be, that this
case has been presented to the Grand Jury, as appears
by an endorsement upon the back of the complaints;
and as deponent is informed and believes,
in consequence of there not being a sufficient
number of votes to find a bill against this
deponent; and this deponent further saith. that
it has not been her intention to deny that she inflicted
personal chastisement upon the said Judson and
as the Grand Jury are unable to pronounce upon her
guilt, she freely admits chastising him. thus saving the
county the expense of a trial, under the full impression
and belief that the said Judson fully merited even severer
punishment than he has received at her hands,
in consequence of these scurrilous attacks upon this
deponent. CATHARINE HASTINGS.

Sworn before me this 17th day of April, 1849.
HENRY VANDERVOORT, Clerk

The Recorder said the court had perused the papers
in the case, and had come to the conclusion to impose
a fine of six cents on Miss Hastings, and he trusted she
would never attack this man again.

When the sentence had been pronounced, Kate very
deliberately opened an elegant purse which she held in
her hand, and was about to pay the sixpence down at
once, but her counsel interposed, saying to her that the
amount was merely nominal, and that she might leave
it to him to arrange. When the affair was ended,
voices were beard all round the room, expressing approbation
at the decision of the court. As the prisoner
was about leaving the court, she remarked, audibly,
that if Judson did not leave her alone in future, if she
got at him again, he would not be able to come to court
to make a complaint. When she had left, the crowd
gradually dispersed,

----end

Link to a novel by Buntline from the period of the riot.

The Mysteries and Miseries of New York: A Story of Real Life (New York: W. F. Burgess, 1849), link
By Ned Buntline (Edward Z. C. Judson)

Link to a later article about the riot.

Pearson's Magazine, Volume 29, April, 1913, Pages 452-462

The Bloodshed in Astor Place

by Alfred Henry Lewis

Link to a friendly biography of Buntline.

Life and Adventures of "Ned Buntline" (New York: Cadmus Books Shop, 1919), link
By Frederick Eugene Pond

TradeName · 09-13-2016, 06:06 PM

I looked a bit into the background of John Graham, Alderman Jaehne's defense lawyer who cross-examined Inspector Byrnes.

Albany Law Journal, Volume 49, April 14, 1894, Pages 260-261

JOHN GRAHAM--HIS DEATH AND A BRIEF SKETCH OF HIS CAREER AS A CRIMINAL LAWYER.

IOHN GRAHAM, the famous lawyer, whose leg was amputated on Sunday April 8, died the next morning at four o'clock in his apartments at the Metropolitan Hotel. He had been suffering from gout and a gangrenous affection in the right leg. Before the operation, which lasted eight minutes, the patient was very courageous and cool. He smiled and said, looking at the crowd in the room: �Gentlemen, are we about to hold a political convention?� Those were his last words. John Graham was born in Beekman street, New York, September 14, 1821. At eleven he entered Columbia College upon a special examination, and was graduated before he was fifteen. He was valedictorian of his class. He began the study of the law in his father's office, but his father dying in 1839, he entered his brother's office to finish his studies. He got his license in 1842. Both his father and brother, David Graham and David Graham, Jr., were noted as lawyers for the defense in criminal cases. His father died while trying the case of Ezra White, accused of murder, and David Graham, Jr., defended Amelia Norman, who stabbed to death [sic] her lover on the steps of the Astor House, and Polly Bodine, accused of killing her sister-inlaw and the latter's child on Staten Island, getting the latter acquitted and saving the life of the former by getting a verdict of manslaughter. David Graham was the author of �Graham on New Trials,� and David, Jr., of �Graham's Practice,� both standard works. One of the earliest cases of note in which John Graham appeared was with his brother in the defense of John S. Austin, a member of the Empire Club, for the murder of Shea. He also defended Donaldson. The first case however in which he appeared, that attracted the attention of the whole country, was the defense of Daniel E. Sickles for the killing of Francis [sic; Philip] Barton Key, in Washington, on Feb. 27, 1859. Sickles had studied law with David Graham, Jr., and other students there at that time were Enoch L. Fancher, Henry L. Clinton and Nathaniel Jarvis, Jr. James T. Brady, Stanton Bradley [sic; E. M. Stanton] and Peter Cagger [?] were the other lawyers for Sickles. Eleven years later, while defending Daniel McFarland for killing A. D. Richardson, whom McFarland shot in the Tribune office on Nov. 25, 1869, Mr. Guaham said: �This is the third occasion within twelve years on which, although a single man myself, I have had the distinguished honor conferred upon me of upholding and defending the marriage relation. Within that period the three most exciting trials have occurred in this country which have ever occurred, and it has been my privilege to appear in every one of these.� The intervening trial to which he referred was that of the action brought for divorce by �Handsome� Peter Strong against his wife, a daughter of John Austin Stevens, in which she was accused of undue intimacy with Strong's brother. Mr. Graham appeared for Mrs. Strong, and established her innocence. In that trial he was assisted by Elbridge T. Gerry, as he was in the McFarland trial. But Mr. Graham had been successful even before the Sickles case, for one day, before he was forty years old, he told his mother he had made and spent $100,000 in the ten years before that time. That he got big fees may be inferred from the fact that he returned a $10,000 retainer to help defend Edward S. Stokes for killing Jim Fisk, because he could not agree with Stokes's family about the conduct of the case. Among the other famous cases in which he acted were the Arnold Case, the celebrated Hunt divorce case, the first trial of Twwe, the defense of General Alex. Shaler, and of Jaehne, the boodle alderman.

He occupied the place of presecutor in a capital case but once. He argued the case of Rogers before the Court of Appeals, carried to that court on the question whether intoxication is an absolution for the crime of murder, and secured Rogers a conviction and hanging. He never ceased to be sorry for this. �I have defended many a man for nothing,� he said afterward, �to clear my conscience of the burden of sending Rogers to the gallows."

He might have prosecuted many another man, perhaps, but for James Gordon Bennett, the elder, who bitterly opposed him when he was a candidate for the place of district attorney against N. Bowditch Blunt in 1850. The upshot of that campaign was that Graham attacked Bennett on the street, was defeated in the election, and determined never again to be a candidate for any public office.

He was a member of the Law Institute, but would never join any of the bar associations or social clubs, and he never married. Perhaps his reason for not marrying was best expressed by himself in that same speech in the McFarland case, where he spoke of his having been selected many times to defend and uphold the marriage relation.

�Why is it," he asked, � when practically I could not enter into the sympathies of such a relation, I have been selected for this distinguished oflice? I cannot divine, unless it is that I regard marriage as a sacrament, and if I thought less of it, I might probably have contracted it before now."

Mr. Graham's great strength lay-in the logic of his defenses. �He assumed,� said one who knew him well, �that no person of ordinary good standing in society would take life by violence, who was not so goaded by the surrounding circumstances as to make it seem to him that he had no redress left except such as lay in his own hand. To bring out in the examination of witnesses every one of these points, and then to put them together in his address to the jury in such a way as to make every man of the twelve believe that he would have acted just as the prisoner had acted, was the secret of his success. Added to this was great courage. �This is murder,� he cried in the McFarland case, �or it is nothing. We want no disagreement of this jury; we want no verdict of a crime in less degree. It is murder or it is nothing.��

For many years Mr. Graham lived at 11 East Forty-seventh street, but since 1885 he had lived at the Metropolitan Hotel. He was in active practice up to the time of his death, with an ofiice at 231 Broadway.

John Graham was a striking person, as distinct in the individuality of his person as he was in the place he held because of his mental powers in his profession. Short and stout, with broad shoulders, with no neck to speak of, and a massive head, he added to this resemblance to a gnome of the mountains by wearing a wig of Scotch-red hair, which curled down upon his shoulders. Few men remember him when he did not wear this wig. In early manhood he became bald on top of his head, and he was very sensitive about it. His choice of a peculiar style of wig, and his sticking to that style all through his life, was indicative of a conservatism which was indicated in the styles of all his garments and in many of the customs of his life. His hats, his shirts, his outer clothing and his shoes were always of one style and from one set of makers. His low-cut shirts with Byron collars were said to cost him $25 apiece, and his shoes, always squaretoed, of patent leather. with pearl buttons and brown cloth tops, cost $17 a pair. His feet were small and his hands were very soft and white. Over his wig he wore brown derby hats. He wore box coats of extra length, with a flower in his buttonhole, and his fancy ran to snuff color for summer and blue for winter. His trousers were always made with a stripe down the outside seam.

Under his wig was a head as big as General Benjamin F. Bulter�s, with a broad, full forehead, and large, strong features, which lit up in conversation with a kindly child-like smile. He was five feet six inches tall, with a chest measuring nearly fifty inches, and was of great strength. He was one of the old members of Five Hose, and upon one occasion, backing up to the hind end of the hose cart, he lifted it with his hands and carried it sidewise some distance, holding up a weight of one thousand two hundred pounds in doing so. In later years he could hold out at arm's length a fifty-six pound dumb-bell and with a pencil held in the same hand write his name on a wall.

He came of North of Ireland stock. His father, David Graham, was originally a Cameronian preacher, and was born at Coleraine. The father came here in 1808, and had a church for some time at Pittsburgh. He left preaching for the bar and studied law in this city with Thomas Addis Emmet, and was practising in this city as early as 1820. David Graham, Jr., his eldest son, was also a lawyer and a prominent Whig politician. The elder Graham was eloquent, and John Graham never got over his admiration of his father.�-New York Sun.

---end

A link to a somewhat different version of the above.

New York Sun, April 10, 1894, Page 2, Column 1

Famous John Graham Dead

Survived Only Eleven Hours the Amputation of His Leg

A link to another obituary.

New York Times, April 10, 1894, Abstract link, PDF link

Lawyer John Graham Dead

Passed Away While Under the Effects of an Anesthetic

A sketch of Graham and his father and brother.

The Green Bag, Volume 6, August, 1894, Pages 354-360

The Legal Graham Family
by A. Oakey Hall

TradeName · 09-06-2016, 06:26 PM

When Gertrude Hamilton was trying to recover her stolen property, she had a brush with a con artist.

New York Sun, March 07, 1885, Page 1, Column 7

Entrapping a Swindler

The Man Who Has Pawn Tockets for Sale after a Burglary

The residence in Newark of Charles Dawson
of the Pennsylvania Railroad was robbed
by burglars, in the Christmas holidays, of $6,000
worth of jewelry and other property. Mr Dawson
offered a reward for the return of the property.
The following day brought him an
answer. In the letter, the writer of which called
himself "Hard Times," Mr. Dawson was told
that if he was willing to pay a small sum for
the pawn tickets representing his jewelry, the
writer would meet him and give him the tickets.
Mr. Dawson advertised again, making an
appointment with "Hard Times," and got a
bunch of tickets apparently representing his
jewelry. At the pawnshop he found that the
tickets were bogus and that he had been swindled
as well as robbed.

The residence of Mrs. Schuyler Hamilton of
43 West Thirty-eighth street was entered by
sneak thieves on Jan. 17, and a number of
valuable trinkets and several heirlooms were
stolen. Mrs. Hamilton offered $200 reward for
the return of her property and called in
Detective James K. Price to help her recover it. A
badly-written, misspelled letter signed "Square
Deal" was received by Mrs. Hamilton on the
day after the advertisement had been printed.
Square Deal wrote that if she would publish an
advertisement over her initials "saying so help
you God you will act in good faith" he would
answer her. Price answered by another personal,
and "Square Deal" sent another letter
saying that if she would pay $75 for the
pawn tickets and send a man to meet the
writer outside this State she could get all the
tickets. Price in his answer objected to pawn
tickets, and Square Deal did not answer again.

About this time Mr. Dawson visited Mrs.
Hamilton and heard of her loss and experience
with "Square Deal." This reminded Mr. Dawson
of his experience with "Hard Times," and
he told Price and Mr. Hamilton how he had
been swindled. Dawson was also able to give
the detective a meagre description of "Hard
Times," and told him than the first and second
fingers of his right hand were crippled. Price
hunted diligently for a crook with two maimed
fingers, but did not find one.

A few days later a Broadway dry goods merchant
went to Price and showed him a long letter
he had received from a swindler. "Grand
S[t]reet," the writer of this letter told the
merchant that within six months his store had
been robbed of $1,000 worth of silks by one of
his employees. The goods had been pawned,
the writer said, and if he was sure he could
trust the merchant he would meet him
and hand over the tickets for $75--the
expenses of pawning. He would ask nothing
for his trouble, as he and a woman, who had
been wronged by the thief, were anxious to get
square with the thief. "Grand Street" concluded
by asking the merchant to advertise
and appoint a meeting. Price compared the
different letters and found that "Hard Times,"
"Square Deal," and "Grand Street" were identical.
He answered the advertisement making
an appointment for Thursday night at the Windsor
flat at Broadway and Fifty-fourth street.
The merchant waited in the parlor of the flat,
and, sharp on time, a fairly well dressed man
came in and introduced himself with a smile
as Mr. Grand Street. The merchant invited
Grand Street to be seated and while they discussed
the bargain he noticed that the two
first fingers of the cool stranger's right hand
Were disabled.

"I can't agree to your terms," the merchant
finally said.

"Suit yourself," was the unconcerned answer.
"I thought that perhaps you would like
to get your goods back, and catch the thief
through the pawnbroker; but of course it is
none of my business. Good day."

"Grand Street" was walking to the door
when the merchant rose and said: "I can't
deal with you. Your price is too high." This
was the signal agreed on with Detective Price
who was in the adjoining room, and he followed
"Grand Street" to the sidewalk and arrested him.

At the West Thirtieth street station the
prisoner said that he was Thomas O'Donnell,
45 years old, but he would not say where he
lived. He had a long list of jewelry in his
pocket, and alongside a memorandum about a
lady's gold watch he had written "C.D.C. on
outside, Cornelia on inside." He was taken
to Jefferson Market yesterday and turned
over to a Jersey officer and Was taken to Jersey
last night to be tried for robbing Mr Dawson's
house. The swindler apparently consuited
the advertised lists of stolen property
and made out his pawn tickets to suit.

TradeName · 08-31-2016, 05:31 PM

Links to some New York Times articles about the Hamilton/Jaehne/Byrnes situation with some editorializing critical of Byrnes and his relationship with Jaehne.

New York Times, March 14, 1886, abstract link, PDF link

Crime and Politics

New York Times, March 19, 1886, abstract link, PDF link

An Alderman Arrested

New York Times, March 22, 1886, abstract link, PDF link

Mr. Jaehne's Confession

New York Times, March 26, 1886, abstract link, PDF link

Jaehne and the Inspector

Why Did Mr. Byrnes Work So Hard to Secure the Alderman's Election?

TradeName · 08-24-2016, 08:10 PM

Thanks, Jeff.

During a hearing of a New York State Senate committee investigating the granting of a franchise for a horse-powered railroad on Broadway by the NYC Board of Aldermen an affidavit by Gertrude Hamilton was read into evidence. Hamilton had obtained from one of the Aldermen, Henry W. Jaehne, restitution for stolen silverware that had been bought and melted down by a jewelry store owned by Jaehne. During her quest Hamilton had met with Inspector Byrnes and and felt that Byrnes had tried to put her off the trail of Jaehne. Shortly, after this hearing, Byrnes arrested Jaehne, saying that Jaehne had confessed to accepting money for his vote for the Broadway franchise during a meeting at Byrnes' home and in earshot of two of Byrnes' detectives who were concealed in another room.

New York Sun, March 13, 1886, Page 1, Column 3

Jaehne Bought the Silver

mrs. Schuyler hamilton heard the Alderman Was a Fence

[...]

Alderman Jaehne and Detectives Price and
Stephen O'Brien were called and sworn. Mr.
Seward read to them a sworn statement of
Mrs. Gertrude Van C. Hamilton, wife of Schuyler
Hamilton of this city. It Was to this effect:

My house wae robbed of silverware on Jan. 17, 1885.
Detective O'Brien arrested Thomas Taylor and Horace
Lyons. Both were sent to prison. O'Brien told me that
Lyons had taken the silver straight from my house in a
cab to Henry W. Jaehne's jewelry store in Broome
street, and that Tavlor met him there, and that they
sold the silver there. O'Brien said it was melted. He told
me that he was told by a saloon keeeper that one evening
two men--giving a description of the thieves--went in
there, and one of them (Taylor) threw some money on
the counter in gold, and remarked, "The Alderman paid
me in gold to-night," and that afterward there was a
quarrel between the two men about dropping sqmething
out of a bag, which they were afraid would make
trouble. That was the cover of my sugar bowl, and that
I recovered. That Was what led to their detection.

Detective O'Brien also told me that Taylor was at the
head of a gang of thieves, some seven in all, who had
robbed a number of houses in the upper part of the city,
mine being the first. He also showed me a ball ticket of
the Thomas Taylor Association. Thomas Taylor was
the President, and Horace Lyons was the Treasurer.
This gang robbed the houses of Mr. Theron G. strong, the
late Mr. George Hoffman in West Fifty-seventh street,
Dr. Darby of 3 East Fortieth street, and the house of a
Mrs. Webster, who, I understand, was a friend of Mr.
Peter Mitchell, Horace Lyons's counsel.

Detective O'Brien informed me that Jaehne took all of
the stuff from this gang. of which Taylor waa the President,
and of these thieves five out of seven were caught
and sentenced. He told me that he could put a man on
the stand who could prove that Jaehne received all this
stuff so stolen, but that the man was a thief himself,
from whom he got a good deal of information, and he
would rather not do it. He told me that George Alter
was Jaehne's clerk, and attended to the store for him.

Detective O'Brien went on to say that he had given
me all these particulars for my own private information,
as he would like me to get the value of my property,
but that he knew the silver itself had been melted.
He said if I could get some of my influential friends, to
speak to Jaehne he would probably pay me for my
property.

I went to Capt. Wllliams. He seemed astonished, and
said he did not think it could be possible, but he would
go down town himself that evening and would find out
what he could, and see me the next day. The day following
I saw Capt. Wllllams. and he said. "Mrs. Hamilton,
you are right; Jaehne is a fence."

A day or two afterward Capt. Williams sent Detective
Price to see Jaehne. This was either just before or just
after the 4th of March, 1885, for Detective Price told
me that Jaehne had either gone or was about to go to
the inauguration at Washington in charge of a New
York delegation. He saw Jaehne and then told me:
"Mrs. Hamilton, Jaehne has your silver; he confessed
to having it, but said he would have to see George Alter
about it, as the rule of the office was to melt everything
as fast as it came in." Price said that in order to
get anything out of Jaehne he had to tell him a lie--
that Taylor had squealed. Tne day following Price told
me that he had seen Jaehne again, and that he was very
high and lofty--would make no allowances or confessions--and
said significantly, "Jemmie Taylor has not
squealed."

After the conviction of Horace Lyons I saw Lyons in
the Tombs at the request of Mr. Mitchell. Lyons put a
piece of paper in my hands and said: "There is the
name and the place where your stuff went " I read the
name "John Allan. No.---- Broadway." I went to
Inspector Byrnes, and he made an appointment for next
day. Then he said:

"Well, I have seen those two men. I sent for Allan
and had him brought down here laat night, cursed him,
and told him he must give up the stuff or I would make
trouble for him--that Allan said he didn't have it, but
had tried to recover it for you; as to Mr. Jaehne. I have
seen him. He knows nothing of the affair. He does not
own the store in Broome street, He sold out to Alter."
But I said:

"If you will question Mr. O'Brien he will tell you that
he knows it went to Jaehne's store, and that Alter is
only a figurehead--can you not see Mr. O'Brien and find
out what proof he has, and not take Jaehne'a word for it?"

Inspector Byrnes jumped up from his chair, and,
though It was bitterly cold, threw open the window,
became very red in the face, and said :

"I take my own way in attending my own business,
and I can do nothing further for you in this matter."

I said, "Mr. Byrnes, good morning," and then went to
see Capt. Williams, and told him of my interview with
Byrnes. and he advised me to write to Mr, Martine, to
have the matter go before the Grand Jury. Prlce said
that Jaehne had offered him a $100 bill. and said to him,
"Take that and keep that woman's mouth shut."

I was impressed when Byrnes made his statement
that he was not telling the truth, and that be was trying
to shield Jaehne and throw the blame on a man who
waa perfectly innocent of this offence. I went home
and wrote to Mr. Martine. Mr. Martine replied that if I
would acquaint him with the facta he would do what
he considered best to help me.

A day or two afterward I received a letter from Mr.
Peter Mitchell, asking to see me on behalf of Mr. Jaehne,
his client. He came to my house that evening or the
next and said he would like to settle with me on behalf
of Mr. Jaehne, and would like to know what I considered
the silver was worth. I told him I had written to
Mr. Martine about it, but I would be glad to be rid of
trials, and, if he would pay me the value of the silver, I
wouldn't prosecute him. I had an estimate made as to
what it would cost to replace the silver, and the estimate
amounted to $1,100. After some haggling Mr. Mitchell
paid me $1,100 in bills in the presence of my husband,
and I signed the receipt presented to me by Mr.
Mitchell.

"Received from Henry. W. Jaehne. $l,100. and in
consideration thereof Mrs. Gertrude Van C. Hamilton
hereby releases and discharges the said Henry W. Jaehne
from a claim against him for the value of certain silverware
belonging to her. But this instrument is in no
manner to be taken as a release, settlement, or compromise
of any matter or matters excepting such claim as
she may have for such ware or the value thereof in a
civil action. Gertrude Van C. Hamilton.

"March 31, 1885."

[...]

----end

Link to coverage of the beginning of Jaehne's trial.

New York Sun, May 14, 1886, Page 1, Column 1

Jaehne's Jury Sworn In

Coverage of Byrnes' testimony. During cross, one of Jaehne's lawyers brought past controversies involving district attorneys bringing in the Pinkertons to raid a notorious fence, Mother Mandelbaum, and lottery shops.

New York Sun, May 15, 1886, Page 3, Column 1

The Trap Set for Jaehne

Inspector Byrnes's Sworn Story of a Full Confession

[...]

INSPECTOR BYRNES HAD MORE

It had got to be past 3 o'clock, Col. Clark of
the Seventh Regiment and Max Freeman, the
actor arrived in court just in time to hear Mr.
Nicoll call for Inspector Byrnes. Somethlng
interesting was expected from Mr. Byrnes, Mr.
Graham asked hlm to speak right up, so that
ne could be heard.

The Inspector spoke up, but before he had
gone far Mr. Graham asked that the two detectives
who had overheard the confession made by
Jaehne to Byrnes be excluded from the
the room. Mr. Nicoll then called to Detectives Cosgrove
and Rogers and requested them to step
out into the hall.

Mr.Byrnes said he first met Jaehne in the
summer of 1883.

Q.--Where did you meet him? A.--In front of my
house in Ninth street.

Q.--Under what circumstances? A.--He was brought
there by two officers about 9 o'clock in the evening.

All this was stricken out as being about a
year ahead of time. The theft of Mrs. Schuyler
Hamilton's silver was the subject of the
conversation in 1883. "But only one case can
be tried at a time," said Judge Barrett.

Q.--Between that time and Januray, 1885, did you see
the defendant? Q.-- Many times.

Q.--Had your acquaintance with him improved?

Mr. Graham--That will never do. You want to cross-examine
the witness, too. If you want me to rip up the
witness now, I'll do it.

Mr. Nicoll--WHen did you next see the defendent in
1885? A.--In June, at the City Hall.

0.-- What conversation did you have with him then?

Mr. Newcombe--I object.

Mr. Graham--The papers have announced---

Judge Barrett (sternly)--That will do. The jurors are
not allowed to read the papers, and must know nothing
ebout what is in them.

Mr. Nicoll--Did the conversation you had with the defendant
relate to the passage of the franchise in the
Broadway Surface Railway Company? A.--It was about
railroads in general.

JAEHNE WAS CONFIDENTIAL

Mr, Byrnes said that Jaehne was very much
elated over his selectlon to the Vice-Presidency
of the Board, and said that the board was a
good one, and that it was "too bad that the two
Jews in it made so much trouble,"

I said to Jaehne that if report was true he had made
a good deal of money, and he replied that if he could do
as well that year he did not intend to run for Alderman
next year. The next time I met the defendant was in
Washington during the Inauguration. I was standing
with him outside the Arlington House when Moloney
passed. I asked Jaehne if it was true that Moloney had
made as much out of his place as $100,000 or $150,000.

Q.--Did you have anything to do with the District
Attorney of this county in relation to the Broadway
franchise in May, 1885? A.--I had. After that I had a
series of interviews with Jaehne from then until the day
he was arrested.

MOLONEY BRAGGED OF HIS WEALTH

Q.--Was he at your house during the summer? A.--
He was. I sent for him twice to talk about the Broadway
Railroad. I never succeeded in learning whether
he had got any money or whether anybody else did.
There were all kinds of insinuations. I talked with him
in October, at the corner of Broadway and Houston
street. Jaehne said that Moloney hsd been telling how
much he (Moloney) had made. He said Moloney had
been in hotels showing large sums of money,
and that when he got drunk nobody could control
him. He told me some of the Aldermen
had bought real estate, and that nobody could
do this on $2,000 a year. Jaehne said he wouldn't be
such a fool as to invest in real estate. The next conversation
I had with Jaehne was on the night following
election day at Police Headquarters. I met him in the
corridor and shook hands with him. He told me he had
been reelected by the largest majority he had ever had.
I reminded him of his statement that he did not intend
to run again. He replied that there were two syndicates,
one here and one in Philadelphia, that were trying to
monopolize the railroads in this city, and that he
expected a lot of business and wanted to be a member of
the Board.

THE TRAP JAEHNE FELL INTO

Q.--Did you have any conversation with the defendant
a day or two before he was called as a witness before
the Senate committee? A.--I think he was called on a
Friday, and a day or two before that I talked with him.
He told me things were getting in a bad state because of
the investigation. I told him that all connected with it
would be likely to get into trouble, for Moloney had gone
around talking about how much he had. I offered to
help him in any way I could. He seemed grateful, and
said that if I would find out what Martine was doing,
and whether he had any evldsnce sufficient to indict
anybody, he would tell me something that I would be
glad to know. I promised to find out if I could, and at
7 1/4 o'clock that evening Jaehne called at my house, and
I told him that the District Attorney had informed me
that Fullgraff, Waite, and Miller ware going to give all
the railroad business of 1884a way [sic]. He got up and
walked up and down the room, I asked him why he
should care, and he replied that he never
did any business with them, but that they
knew he had done business with Moloney. He said
some of the members of the Board used to meet at Alderman
McLaughlin's house and talk matters over, and
that a few nights before the franchise was granted
Moloney told him that he had twenty-two votes that were
pledged to pass the franchise over the Mayor's veto, and
that it would be worth $20,000 to each of the twenty-two
men.

LOOKED IN HIS BOX AND FOUND $20,000

He said that Moloney told him just before the
franchise was granted that it was going to be put through,
and that he then told Moloney he wanted to use some
money, and asked him if he couldn't help
him out. He said Moloney told him to look
in his (Jaehne'e) box for it after the meeting
was over, and he would find what he wanted. Jaehne
told me he did so, and found an envelope with $20,000 in
it. He said it contained one $10,000 bill and ten $1,000
bills. He said that he was really in no hurry for the
money, but that he didn't want Moloney carrying so
much of his money around.

I told Jaehne if we could get some testimony against
Fullraff, Waite, and Miller, and have them indicted by
the Grand Jury, it would weaken their stetements
against him. Jaehne seemed to be very grateful for the
interest I had taken in him, and thanked me.

I asked him if granting the Broadway franchise was
all the business done in Ihe Board in '84, and he replied
that Moloney transacted all the business, He said that
Moloney came to his store in Broome street the day
after the franchise was granted, with a large package
of money, and that he took charge of it, and locked it
up in his safe because Moloney was full.

Q.--After that conversation with Jaehne did you see
the District Attorney? A.--I did, the following Sunday.

DETECTIVES LISTENING TO TnE STORY

Q.--Did you have any conversation with the defendant?
A.--Yes, sir. Jaehne came to my office at Police
HeadqUarters the following Wednesday afternoon. I
told him to call at my house at 7 o'clock that evening.
I prepared for his arrival by having five detectives in
the house. Three of them were down stairs in the
dining room, and the other two were in the back parlor,
five or six feet from where we sat.

The Inspector produced a diagram of the
room, and explained how he had placed a chair
for Jaehne near the folding doors opening into
the back parlor.

Jaehne came around about 8 o'clock, and after I saw
him in the chair intended for him with his back to the
folding doors. I told him that I heard he was going
away. He asked me who told me that, and then went
on to say that it was very funny, for he did have a conversation
about leaving town with Harney (a liquor
dealer In Jaehne's district). I told htm that I had forgotten
some of ihe amounts he said the members of the
Board had received, and he repeated the statement that
each of the twenty-two men got $20,000. Then he went
over tha whole story again. Finally he pulled out his
watch and said he had an engegement at 8 1/2 o'clock to
meet some men who would make Martine stop the prosecution.
I arrested him the next day about 11 o'clock.

JOHN GRAHAM PITCHES IN

This closed the direct examination, and Mr.
Graham struggled slowly to his feet to begin
the ripplng-up process.

"You were examined as a witness before the
Grand Jury?" he asked, shaking his finger
threateningly at the Inspector.

"I was."

Q.--It was on your testimony that Mr. Jaehne was indicted?
A.--Yes.

Q. Now give the Jury your testimony literally as you
gave it before the Grand Jury? A.--I was directed to go
before the Grand Jury by the District Attorney, and I
did so, telling all I knew about it. I did not think it
would be wise to give the names of all the persons connected
with the matter, and the Grand Jury thought
so too.

Q. (very threateningly)--We can get the members of
the Grand Jury here and we mean to have those minutes.
Now, repeat each conversation you repeated to the
Grand Jury, and just how you stated them. A.--I have
told the story already.

Q.--Do vou mean to say that is all you stated to the
Grand Jury? A.--All 1 can recollect.

Mr. Graham (sarcastically)--You have been explicit
and I have been surprised at the accuracy of your memory.
Now, have you stated all? A.--There may be
soemthing left out.

BYRNES DIDN'T KISS JAEHNE

Q.--Now, state what is left out. Do you remember on
election night when Jaehne told you he had been reelected
that you spread wine out for him aud hugged and
kissed him?. A.--(indignantly)--I did not.

Q.--Did you not send people to his district to help elect
him, and send word to ihe police Captain that he must
not interfere? A.--I did not.

Q.--Did you send word to anybody that if they interferred
with Jaehne a large side-door business would be
broken up? A.--No, sir.

Q.--You knew Mr. John McKeon (late District Attorney)?
A--I did.

Q.--Well. I suspect that you are like every other man,
inasmuch that you can't say a word against him, for a
more upright man never held office---

Judge Barrett--Ask your questions, but don't make a
speech.

Mr Graham (in an injured tone)--T am asking questions.
You are castigating me for nothing.

ATTACKING BYRNES'S RECORD

Mr. Graham then took the Inspector back to
Mother Mandelbaum's halcyon days, and asked
him if Mr. McKeon had not employed Pinkerton's
detectives to punish her. Mr. Byrnes
said he didn't know anything about it, nor did
he know anything about Pinkerton's detectives
and Mollle Hoy, the wife of a thief. Mr. Graham
asked if it was not true that Pinkerton's
men had been employed in the summer of '82
to make lottery raids. The Inspector replied
that District Attorney McKeon took this step
because he had been imposed upon by a man
in his office.

Q.--Who was the man? A.--Assitant District Attorney
Allen.

The Inspector admitted that Pinkerton's men
had been employed at large expense, but denied
that this work belonged to his department.
Judge Barrett felt called upon to instruct
the Inspector to answer the questions
directly, and Mr. Graham showed he appreciated
the order by shaking his finger at the witness
and saying grimly: "Now, you bear that
in mind."

Q.--Do you know that District Attorney Olney stated
that Mother Mandelbaum had not been brought to justice
in twenty years, and that he finally employed Pinkerton's
detectives, which resulted in her flight? A.--It
is true he did hire outside detectives.

Q.--Don't you know that Mr. Olney represented you on
Aug. 5, 1885, as telling falsehoods in connection with his
office? A.--If he did he stated what is not true.

Q.--Don't you know that Mr. Olney has charged you
with having brought on Mollie Hoy in behalf of merchants
from whom a quantity of silk had been stolen?

Col. Follows--I object.

Judge Barrett--Granted. It Is not necessary to state
the grounds. I have no right to interfere, but it is clear
this is not a proper method of examining a witness.

Mr. Graham (plaintively)--Haven't I a right to show
what he is?

Judge Barrett--It does not affect the case in the least.

Mr. Graham--But I want to ask questions. (To witness):
Do you know that you came to Mr. Olney in a
state of fear and begged him to see that you were not
brought before the Grand Jury? (Objected to aud excluded.)

Q.--Did you not do so to Mr. Olney for ths nominal
purpose of saving your detectives?

Judge Barrett--I think you can put that question
clearer.

Mr. Graham (peevishly)--I am not a child, sir. I do
not think I should be talked to in that way.

Judge Barrett--I did not intend to be severe, and if
you think I did you do me all injustice. I only intend to
preserve order.

Mr. Graham (eagerly)--That's correct.

MORE BOTHER FOR BYRNES

A recess for dinner was ordered. young men
who thought it too early to go to sleep on the
Park benches, and were gratified at the chance
of a free show, crowded the court room at night.
Judge Ingraham sat beside Judge Barrett on
the bench. Sherman Evarts and Mr, and Mrs.
Perkins, the Senator's son-in-law and daughter,
had seats in a corner. Lawyer Graham ran
his fingers through his wig and resumed business
by asking Inspector Byrnes if he was the
police official referred to in an Assembly report
of 1B76 who had denied that he
knew a person in his precinct (the Fifteenth)
who was as well known as Grace
Church. This question, and a lot of others
put by Mr. Grahnam to affect Mr. Byrnes's
credibility were ruled out. Mr. Byrnes testified,
in ansWer to a hot fire of questions, that
he had suspected Jaehne long before be was
examined by the Senate committee in March.
He didn't give the names of Moloney, Cleary,
and De Lacy to the Grand Jury because he
did not consider it good judgment, and the
foreman had told him that be did not want the
names at that time.

"Then you kept back the name of Moloney,
the bribe giver, and allowed the jury to present
a lie, when they said that the name was
unknown?" thundered Mr. Graham.

Q.--Did Jaatine go to you as the chief of detectives
to tell this story? What motive had he, what inducement
did you offer him? A.--He understood that I was
to tell him of the District Attorney's doings so that he
could run away in case of indictmenL He made the
proposition to talk to me.

Mr. Byrnes denied that Bondsman Joe O'Donnell
had been threatened with arrest if he did
not surrender Jaehne, or that threats had been
used to secure the surrender.

Q.--Do you know John Davis, the juror who was rejected
because George Elder, the ex-detective, has desk
room in his office? A.--I do.

Q.--Is not Elder your broker? A. (angrily)--No, sir. I
haven't been to Davis's place in two or three months.

MOLONEY TOO SMART TO BE PUMPED.

Q.--Why didn't you pump Moloney instead of Jaehne?
A.-- I tried hlm, but could get nothing out of him on the
subject. He was too smart, but Jaehne was easier to
work.

Jaehne had once told him that he had got
$5,000 in money and $5,000 in bonds from the
Forty-second Street Railroad, and that after a
first session in Alderman Fullgraff's store early
in 1884, the Aldermen used to meet in Alderman
McLaughlin's house, when terms were
arranged.

Redirect examination--Had you any conversations
with Mr.Moloney with reference to the Broadway road?
A.--Yes, many such conversations. He said that Sharp
had been trying for two or three years to get a railroad
on Broadway, and Sharp was a d----d good fellow, and
he was willing Sharp should have his railroad.

[...]

COSGROVE LAY ON HIS STOMACH TO LISTEN

Finally Police Dctective Sergeant William F.
Cosgrove, who was with Detective Rogers in a
room adjoining that in which Inspector Byrnes
and Jaehne had their famous conversation, was
called. He said:

I knew Jaehne before the conversation took place at
Inspector Byrnes's home. The Inspector asked me to go
to his house the night before Jaehne was arrested. I
got there about 7 P. M. The Inspector, Detective Rogers,
and I sat smoking nearly an hour in the room where
Jaehne afterward talked with the Inspector. We were
smoking when Jaehne rang the door bell. The Inspector
went toward the door and Rogers and I Jumped for the
back parlor. It was dark. The extension room at the
end of the hall where we had been sitting was lighted
with gas. When we went into the back parlor we partly
shut the door, but left it open far enough to see any
one in the hall who should pass the door.

Q.-- Did you see Jaehne when he passed your door?
A.--Yes, I saw him. The gaslight shone on him. After
they had passed into the extension the Inspector came
back into the hall and opened our door wider. Then I
got on my stomsoh on the floor and Rogers flattened
himself out beside me.

Q.--Did yon hear what the Inspector and Jaehne said?
A.--Quite plainly.

Q.--Who spoke first? A.--The Inspector, I think, began
by saying: "Things are getting pretty hot. I hear
you think of running away."

"Who told you?" Jaehne said.

"Martine," Inspector Byrnes replied.

Then Jaehne said: "I don't see now you can say that,
for I've only told one man about it"

Q.--What else did you hear said? A. The Inspector
said: "Jaehne, you know how much they got." Jaehne
replied: "Yes, every man who voted for the road got
$20,000."

Q.--What else did you hear? A.--Jaehne said he had
an engagement with a man who waa going to stop
Martine--choke off the prosecution. The Inspector
asked him when he would see him again, and Jaehne
replied: "Tomorrow, some time between 11 A.M. and 4
P.M."

Q.--How long did the conversation continue? A.--
About fifteen minutes.

Q.--It seemed a longer time to you? A.--Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr. Newcombe, Detective
Cosgrove said that he understood when he
went to Inspector Byrnes's residence that he
was to listen to a conversation between Jaehne
and the Inspector, and also that he would be
called as a witness. He conversed with the
Inspector after Jaehne went away, and immediately
made a memorandum of what he had
heard. This he last saw four days ago. Since
then he had not conversed on the subject with
either Mr. Martine or Mr. Nicoll.

Mr. Newcombe sharply questioned the detective
as to the possibility of his seeing Jaehne
or the Inspector at any time in their conversation.
Mr. Nicoll jumped to his feet and asked
the witness:

"Have you said anything by which you could
be understood to testify that you could see
them?"

"No. I could not see them."

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE TRAP.

Then Inspector Byrnes was recalled and
questioned on the position he and Jaehne were
in with reference to the detectives in the adjoining
room, "When Jaehne and I entered
the extension," he said, "I pulled out the
table from the wall about three feet, and we sat
down at the table. We were about six feet from
the detectives."

By a Juror--Could you see either of them? A. No:
their room was dark. But neither Jaehne nor I could
have seen them from where we sat. They were not in
the line of vision.

[...]

----end

Links to coverage of the jury's verdict.

New York Sun, May 16, 1886, Page 1, Column 7, Page 2, Column 1

Jaehne Found Guilty

Mayerling · 08-09-2016, 11:11 PM

During the close of the 19th Century issues on the lack of barbarity or cruelty in various methods of execution were discussed in most of the western European and U.S. jurisdictions. The general choices involved were hanging, firing squad (as in Utah), guilloutine, garrot, and (after 1890) the electric chair. The last was developed during a serious dispute and contest for public acceptance of Nicola Tesla's newly created "alternating current" which he and the Westinghouse organization insisted was safer than Thomas Edison's "Direct Current" system. Edison basically demonstrated the dangers (as he insisted there were) in A.C. by electicuting various animals in public demonstrations. Indeed there is a classic early film (no doubt shot with his own motion picture equiptment) called "Electocuting an Elephant" that is still available for viewing on "You Tube" - it involved the 1900 execution by "A.C." of an elephant named "Topsy" at Coney Island, after the poor elephant went beserk and killed a keeper. The film is hardly edifying. Edison created the actual electric chair using Tesla's "A.C." generator and machinery to show how human beings could be killed by them.

The first execution was of William Kemmler at Auburn Prison in 1890, and it was botched badly because it was the first exectuion. Nobody knew how to do it properly, and sparks came out of Kemmler's head at the points that electrodes were attached. Also a horrid odor of burning flesh was noted. However, the method was refined and used in New York State until the 1960s.

But the other methods were studied as well. A series of mishaps that caused men to be decapitated while being hanged in the 19th Century, notably in 1885 when one Robert Goodale was given too long a hangman's rope by James Berry. Berry repeated this error in 1891 when he hanged a man who had cut his throat the day before and whose throat was sewed lightly over the gash. The man, John Conroy, was given the wrong size rope again, and his throat wounds opened up causing massive amounts of blood to pour into the scaffold's pit. Also the head was held only by part of the skin on the back.

An alternative to properly measured ropes (first worked out by weight by Berry's predecessor William Marwood) was to attach heavy weights to the legs of the condemned man and pull him up by his head (supposedly breaking his spinal column). It was tried by Berry in 1889 on one Ebenezer Jenkins, with less than full success. This method was not tried again.

A debate regarding guilloutining continued into the 20th Century, as to whether the criminal survived (and for how long) after the head was cut off. This appears to have been based on an incident in 1793 when Jean Paul Marat's assassin, Charlotte Corday, was executed. The public executioner (Samson?) was aware that while many admired the fortitude of Mme. Corday in the face of her awful fate, Marat was very popular with the poorer classes of Paris - many of whom came to the public executions in the Reign of Terror. When Mme Corday was beheaded, her head was lifted out of the basket of the guilloutine, and slapped in front of the crowd - and appeared to have blushed in the cheek. Many insisted this was proof the head of a guilloutined criminal did have some surviving feelings after the blade fell. But nothing was ever actually established on the point.

The fact is, any method of execution is going to cause a violent death - the purpose of a death penalty is exactly that. The examination of the death methods and the string of questions as to whether of not they were cruel methods (eventually also directed towards the use of gas chambers in some juisdictions as well) and the issue of executing people who may have been innocent eventually did lead to the universal drive to abolish the death penalty. However, the opponents of the penalty, for all the arguments against the uses of the means due to the possibility of pain or error, have managed to consistantly ignore one argument for the death penalty: that it's removal as a possible punishment is unfair to the families of the victims of homicides who feel the law is failing to satisfy their loss. A secondary point to this is why is it necessary to keep the likes of some criminals alive (such as Charles Manson) at public expense decades after they committed acts of horror. Opponents of capital punishment tend to ignore these matters.

Jeff

TradeName · 08-09-2016, 05:29 PM

Thanks, Jeff.

William J. O'Sullivan witnessed the execution and autopsy of his former client Robert Buchanan. This seems to have been done more in his role as a doctor and may have been related to a controversy over whether electrocution resulted in death.

New York Sun, July 02, 1895, Page 2, Column 1

Buchanan Put to Death

Attorney-General Hancock's Decision Settled His Fate

[...]

As the party stepped into the room where the
witnesses were sitting, Buchanan still wearing
his eyelasses looked up at the sunight and
glanced once around the room. One of the
most conspicuous figures there was Dr. O'Sulllivan,
who it will he remembered, was one of
Buchanan's counsel when he was tried, but who
dropped out of the case soon after the conviction.
Buchanan was very angry with both Mr.
Brooke and Dr. O'sulllvan for a long time. As
he came into the room yesterday Dr. O'Sullivan,
who was there to write a newspaper article,
stood directly facing the death chair. The sight
affected him, seemingly, as little at any one in
the room despite the confidential relations he
had held with the man whom he was to see killed.
It is doubtful whether Buchanan recognized
him.

[...]

----end

The longest version of O'Sullivan's article I could find.

American Druggist and Pharmaceutical Record, Volume 27, Pages 40-41

Death by Electricity. (From the New York Herald)

By D. W. J. O'Sullivan.

It would be extremely difficult to conceive of a scene better calculated to inspire awe or horror, according to the temperament of the observer, than the killing by electricity of those condemned by our criminal courts to pay the death penalty. The courtesy of the official, their whispered orders and consultations, seem to enhance rather than diminish the uncanny feeling in those who come as witnesses to the tragic denouement at the invitation of the State.

In the waiting room everybody seems so subdued in speech and action, and so dominated by an unseen influence manifest in a very decided and apparent restlessness and other nervous phenomena, that it is difficult to picture to the mind the mise en scene unless one has had this weird and uncomfortable experience.

After the visitors who are to witness the electrocution are ushered into the death chamber the silence is profound and very impressive, as evidenced by the changing hues in the faces of some and the dilated staring eyes of others, these symptoms of disturbance being exaggerated by the few minutes' delay prior to the entrance of the condemned. During this short pause in the proceedings the assembled visitors have ample time to note the strange furniture of the room�-the unusual construction of the chair, with its suspended connections to the switchboard that will later liberate that terribly potent something called electricity, which shall later transform a healthy man with full use of his faculties into an inert mass.

As the victim is led into the death chamber a most peculiar yet indefinable feeling seems to pervade the onlookers, and the consciousness becomes contagious that the tragedy has now reached the beginning of the end.

APPARENTLY CALM.

In the case of Dr. Robert Buchanan, who was electrocuted recently, every one present was surprised on his entrance. Without the least evidence of fear or bravado he came leaning on the arm of a clergyman, walked to the death chair without the slightest indication of hesitancy, and, after seating himself, followed with his eyes the process of strapping his legs and arms. There was no tremor of the lips nor nervous twitchings of the hands. To all outer seeming he was calm, and was undoubtedly courageous.

After the strapping was completed and the leather mask and cap arranged one of the electrodes was strapped below the knee, the other being in the cap put on the head. At a sign from one of the officials the electrician turned on the electric current, a sudden powerful and intense tonic contraction of the entire muscular system was seen, the body straightened, the legs and arms contracted vigorously, the leather binding straps creaked loudly, the entire surface of the body below the base of the neck blanched, the arms and legs became apparently and were actually bloodless, and Dr. Buchanan was dead.

As much confusion seems to exist relative to the lethal effect of the electric current as employed in the electrocutions in this State, it may be of interest to describe the mode of employing the electric force at these executions.

HOW IT WAS DONE.

In Dr. Buchanan's case the first shook was given by a current of 1,760 volts and 8 1/2 amperes. This lasted for 7 seconds, and the current was lowered to 800 volts for 80 seconds, then raised to 1,740 volts for 3 seconds and again lowered to 300 volts for 17 seconds, when the current was cut off, the whole time during which the current was employed beng 57 seconds.

After this current had been shut off the prison physician, Dr. Irwin, and a very experienced physician, Dr. E. F. Sheehan of Sing Sing, who has attended nearly all the electrocutions, examined the neck to discover if the carotid arteries gave any indications of pulsating. The body of the unfortunate man emitted two gurgling sounds, with an interval between them. The electrician was instructed to again pass the current through the body, which ne did, sending 1,760 volts of 8 1/2 amperes for three seconds, and lowering the current to 200 volts for 20 seconds, when the current was shut off entirely.

The body was then examined by nearly all the physicians present, to determine if the faintest heart beat could be detected, and the consensus of opinion was that life was extinct�-as the writer verily believes it was. After this examination the body was placed on the autopsy table.

To many the terms volts and amperes convey but an indistinct idea of the potency of the agent used to induce death, and the haziness of this idea has been materially increased by horror mongers who have exploited themselves recently through the press, the most notable feature of their lucubrations being the absence of the elements�-knowledge or disinterestedness.

THE POWER THAT KILLS.

If the reader will regard the voltage as the speed or velocity of the current and the amperage as the mass or volume of this same current, he will glean through this imperfect parallel some idea of what is meant. It is strange that those who have discussed this matter in the daily papers either willingly or unwillingly avoid mention of the amperage, without which no estimate can be formed of the potency of the current or its energy. A locomotive and a bee may travel at the same rate of speed, say 20 miles an hour. That speed would, in the case of electricity, be the voltage. Should a person come in collision with the bee little damage would ensue, though the obverse would be the fact in the case of the locomotive.

Therein lies the difference, both having the same speed or voltage? It lies in the volume of the mass or body of each. This would be the amperage in the case of electricity, and if we multiply the speed or velocity by the weight or volume of the mass or body we get the striking force, or what is termed in the case of electricity a watt, which is defined as the unit of energy or working power.

Fearing the foregoing very simple facsimile may not be sufficiently lucid, we can measure this energy by a better and more accurate method. Taking the current employed on Dr. Buchanan, 1,760 volts, 8 1/2 amperes. If we multiply the former by the latter we have 1,760 x 8 1/2, equal 14,960 watts. Now, it has been demonstrated by electricians that 746 watts equal 1 horse-power. If we divide 14,960 watts by 746 watts we get the potency of the current employed to kill Dr. Buchanan as equal to 20 norse-power. Such power suddenly liberated in a human body can have but one result�-to kill. It did kill, the death being sudden and painless.

In relation to the two gurgling sounds emitted, and which have been and will be magnified and exaggerated by caterers to the morbid and grewsome, it will only be necessary to recall to the reader's mind the fact that death by electricity is by asphyxiation, or, as it is more popularly known, by suffocation, a death similar in this respect to one from drowning or strangulation, etc.

THOSE GURGLING SOUNDS.

Deaths from electric shock, either accidental or otherwise, were, until a short time since, little understood as to their form or mode, and it was not until the celebrated French scientist, D'Arsonval, advanced the theory that death was induced by paralyzing the respiratory center in the brain and by thus suspending respiration, causing death, that the mode of death was comprehended. He verified his theory by restoring to life those who were apparently dead through electric shock, by employing artificial respiration, using the old Sylvester method for this purpose, such as is used in almost every case where death or suspended animation is the result of drowning.

When the body of Dr. Buchanan emitted the two gurgling sounds the cerebrum and cerebellum were paralyzed. The respiratory center in the brain lying in the medulla oblongata, or upper end of the spinal cord, was not so completely overcome by the shock as to obviate this last expiring effort of one of the centers of organic life to lodge this faint protest. As the medulla oblongata is the junction between the spinal cord and brain, and may be regarded as only the upper portion of the cord, the functions it controls are not dependent on consciousness or other brain phenomena.

The man was practically dead when these sounds were emitted. That the reader may the better understand this he can recall instances where toads, frogs, snakes, etc., when decapitated exhibited in the headless bodies evidences of life many hours after.

The autopsy revealed a normal and healthy set of organs, and with the exception of some old pleuritic adhesions of the left lung no lesions or other indications of any disease were found on microscopic examination.

The value of an autopsy on a body so soon after life is extinct and where the organs are normal in color and structure can hardly be overestimated by the studious physician or pathologist. It gives him through his memory a series of mental pictures of healthy organs still retaining the appearances characteristic of life, and thus valuable as standards to measure deterioration by in diseased organs of either the living when undergoing operations or the dead on whom autopsies are held.

THE LAST METHOD.

As long as our law makers in this State deem it necessary to adhere to the barbarous method of taking life in expiation for the crime of murder in its first degree they cannot find any method of killing human beings (that is known at present) any more humane, painless or rapid than that now employed�-electric shock.

It has been stated in extenuation for our adherence to mediaeval methods of punishing those convicted of murder in its first degree that by employing some ignominious mode of killing them others contemplating crime of like character will be inhibited. This is a fallacy�-pernicious as it is false. Those who in cold blood contemplate murder carefully plan, arrange details and take every precaution to obviate detection. When they put their nefarious design into operation they do so with the fullest belief and firmest confidence that detection is an impossibility, and they never think of the consequences of detection. When they are finally charged with the crime they are simply surprised or dumfounded. The other group, who commit the crime of murder in its first degree while "in the heat of passion," never consider the consequences while so enraged. In either group the death penalty does not inhibit.

----end

A section from Dr. Herold's attributed to O'Sullivan.

A Manual of Legal Medicine (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1902)
by Justin Herold

Pages 409-410

". . . The possibility that the wretched victim could retain any degree of consciousness after passing from the electric chair to the dissecting table, and to any, even the least, degree cognize the progress of the autopsy, is horrifying, if true. Many reputable physicians believe that death is not produced by electrocution, and that the real executioners are those who hold the autopsy; and to sustain those who take this view, electricians of eminence boldly aver that the electrical current does not induce death, and that the New York Commission 'has added the autopsy clause to the law so as to make it certain that the man was dead.' To render this view feasible many well-authenticated instances of simulated death are recited where competent physicians had furnished death certificates and the supposed corpses regained consciousness on the very eve of interment. To add to the awe of the situation comes the well-authenticated fact that men who have been shocked by a higher voltage than that used in our electrocutions have been restored to life after every indication of death, such as our victims present, was fully manifest. Now, lest this outlined condition should lack in any feature of a revolting character, it need only be added that a physician in good standing, practising in this State, emphatically declares that he 'partially resuscitated murderer John Johnson after his electrocution at Auburn, when he was peremptorily ordered by the warden to desist.' He further declares that 'neither Johnson nor Taylor, both of whom were electrocuted at Auburn, was killed by the electric current, but that death was caused by the autopsy.' These facts certainly indicate that this subject ought not to be brushed lightly aside by the mere expression of contrary opinions. Conflict of this kind�-which would be largely speculative on assumptions-�could only be disposed of by direct experimentation on one who has been electrocuted as prescribed by law. ... A little more than a year ago I was present at an electrocution in Sing Sing, and assisted at the autopsy. The strength of the current for the first shock was seventeen hundred volts and five amperes, that for the second shock twelve hundred volts, and later a continuous shock of one hundred and fifty volts. I believed then, and do now, that death in that case was instantaneous. The seventeen hundred volts multiplied by five amperes would give eight thousand watts. Now, as seven hundred and forty-five watts is the equivalent of one horse-power, the first shock this man experienced equalled more than eleven horse-power divulsion in every direction ; and remembering the sudden, loud, straining sound emitted by the leather straps and the wood-work of the chair, it is easy for me to appreciate the very great force that must have expended itself in that instance, and implanted in my mind the accepted fact that death was almost instantaneous and painless from its very suddenness and the victim's feeble physical resisting capacity. ... In the case I witnessed the alternating current was used, and the autopsy failed to reveal any microscopic appearances that could be attributed to the electric current's capacity to induce destructive tissue-changes. ... In view of the many perplexing problems embodied in this subject, where speculation is so free as to results of a given manifestation of the presence of a force of whose entity we know practically nothing, and when we consider the benefit any material fact must necessarily be relative to so potent an agent now in general use, whether that fact adds to its present usefulness or diminishes the risks daily incurred by those who are employed in harnessing this new and little-understood adjunct to our civilization, I see but one way to take the present discussion from the realm of horrors in which it now abides and place it on a firm basis of true knowledge, and that is by intelligent experimentation." (William J. O'Sullivan, M.D.).

---end

An account of a different execution by another doctor.

The Electrical World, Volume 25, Fenruary 16, 1895, Page 197

Does Execution by Electricity, as Practiced in New York State, Produce Instantaneous, Painless and Absolute Death?-�Observations Made at the Execution of David Hampton, at Sing Sing, Jan. 28, 1895.

BY A. E. KENNELLY AND AUGUSTIN H. GOELET, M. D.

Some observations by D'Arsonval, of Paris, having led him to the unwarranted conclusion that in electrical executions as practiced in New York State the death of the criminal was not produced by the passage of the current, but by the knife of the surgeon during the subsequent autopsy, considerable discussion has lately arisen as to the correctness of D'Arsonval's opinion.

On the 28th of last November, The Electrical World, in the desire to definitely settle this question, directed a letter to Governor Flower, of New York State, requesting that at the next electrical execution scientific witnesses should be selected whose duty should be to make such observations as would throw light upon the matter. This recommendation was favorably received and the writers were appointed to perform this very unpleasant duty on the occasion of the twenty-fourth electrical execution in New York State.

The following observations were made:

An alternating current was used in the execution, which was supplied from an alternator having a frequency of approximately 102.3 cycles, or 204.6 alternations or reversals per second, with an armature specially wound for a maximum E. M. F. of 2,500 volts effective. The field excitation of this alternator was controlled by means of a rheostat inserted in the exciter circuit and situated in the execution chamber.

The electrodes consisted of flexible brass gauze sheets firmly attached to sponges which were saturated with an aqueous solution of common salt. The upper electrode was fitted into a cap, shaped to conform with the top of the criminal's head, and provided with a chin-strap which held it firmly in position. The lower electrode consisted of a similar flexible brass gauze plate about 8" x 3" and its moistened sponge, attached by a strap to the calf of the right leg. The criminal was placed in a sitting position in a stout chair to which he was confined by straps. The criminal was a negro, short, but young and of robust physique.

Preparatory to the execution, in order to test the circuit, a bank of 20 incandescent lamps in series was placed in circuit in the chair, when a pressure of 1,740 volts effective was observed on both Weston and Cardew voltmeters, and this pressure was then maintained.

The following are the detailed observations made:

11.18.45 Criminal entered room.

11.18.50 Seated in chair. Straps applied.

11.19.58 Electrodes adjusted and connections made with same.

11.20.13 Current applied at pressure of 1,740 volts. Ammeter nearly dead beat, indicating approximately 8 amperes steady through body of criminal.

11.20.17 Pressure intentionally slowly reduced, and current falling slowly to 1.8 amperes.

11.20.42 Pressure intentionally increased to a maximum not observed, the current increasing to 4 amperes.

11.20.50 Pressure again reduced to about 150 volts, the current falling to 1.3 amperes.

11.21.10 Circuit broken, current off. Period of application 57 seconds in all.

11.21.20 Chest was examined and no action of the heart could be detected. At this time a marked hyperemia or redness of the skin covering the chest, especially the upper part, was observed. This paled on pressure, the color returning slowly. There was marked pallor of the face, slight froth in the mouth, and pupils of the eyes were dilated.

11.25.00 The criminal was officially pronounced dead.

The moment the current was turned on, the whole body was thrown into a condition of intense tetanic rigidity, the hands were contracted or closed tightly, and the extremities straightened as much as the straps would permit. While the current was on, there was some frothing at the mouth, but there was no audible sound, and no evidence of sensation or suffering. Death was evidently instantaneous and painless.

At 11.33 a. m. the body was placed on the table for examination. At this time the rectal temperature was 100.8 degrees F., and the sphincter was relaxed. The superficial veins of the extremities, especially those of the arms, were empty and collapsed. Incision of the scalp and through the skin of the chest-wall showed that all, or nearly all, of the blood in the body had been driven into the head and upper part of the chest and neck, and that rupture of the over distended vessels had allowed extravasation of blood to take place into the cellular tissues of the scalp and under the skin covering the upper part of the chest, especially near the neck. Here the extravasated blood appeared to be congealed. In marked contrast with the condition of affairs in this location, incision through the abdominal wall showed the tissues to be almost bloodless. Incision iuto the tissues under the location of the leg electrode showed the same bloodless condition. On removal of the skull-cap, and puncture of the dura mater (membrane lining the interior of the skull and enclosing the brain) a great quantity of dark blood escaped, showing that there had been an extravasation into the cranial cavity. This was found to be due to the rupture of the blood vessels. This blood coagulated, but not firmly. A specimen preserved remained fluid and unchanged for days, except that the color became brighter. It was estimated that at least two quarts escaped from the scalp and cranium in removing the brain. On removing the dura mater the vessels on the surface of the brain were seen to be distended and there was evidence of rupture in many places. The same condition prevailed throughout its interior, and congealed blood was found at the base of the brain, a condition incompatible with either consciousness or life.

On opening the chest cavity the lungs appeared normal, but extravasation of blood had taken place into the lung tissues at the upper part.

The heart-walls were thin and flabby; the blood retained in the cavity was dark.

On opening the abdominal cavity, the vessels of the intestines, especially those of the small intestines, were distended with blood. The liver was normal but engorged with blood. The kidneys and spleen were normal. The abdominal aorta was empty.

From observations made at the time of the application of the current, which were abuudantly substantiated by the result of the autopsy, we conclude that death was instantaneous and painless.

The evidence is, therefore, that a current of 8 amperes, applied through the body at a pressure of 1,740 volts, and representing a power of (1,740 X 8 =) 13,920 watts, or about 18 2/3 electrical horsepower, will produce instantaneous, painless, and absolute death; and that the evidence presented by an examination of the brain alone was sufficient to demonstrate the absolute impossibility of resuscitation.

Although in our opinion there is no hope of resuscitation in cases where, as in this electrical execution, an alternating current of sufficient E. M. F. is deliberately sent through the body of the criminal, yet in all cases of accidental contact with high pressure circuits, in our opinion, efforts for resuscitation should be made, since in most cases of accidents from electricity, either from the imperfection of the contact, or its short duration, the current strength passing through the body and the electrical energy expended thereby, might only be sufficient to produce a loss of consciousness.

----end

Mayerling · 07-24-2016, 09:47 PM

William T. Jerome was the cousin of Jennie Jerome and her son Sir Winston Churchill. He actually was a very fine attorney, and in the 1900s was New York City's District Attorney, prosecuting (but losing) the case against Harry Thaw for the murder of Stanford White in June 1906 over Evelyn Nesbit Thaw.

There were two trials of Carlyle Harris, with Jerome initially being his attorney, and losing, and being replaced by William Howe of the firm of Howe and Hummel (Abe Hummel being his partner). The latter were a notorious pair of lawyers, considered being willing to bend or destroy the law to win cases, however, I have read Howe's brilliant (no other terms for it) cross-examination of Ms Augusta Nack in 1897 in the trial of her former lover and partner Martin Thorne for the murder of Willie Guldensuppe. It did not work to save Thorne (a juryman's problem caused the case to end in a mistrial, and in the second trial Mrs. Nack was not used by the prosecution as a witness again). However, reading the clever and devilish way Howe punched holes into the attempt by the prosecution to protect Nack's reputation (a very spotty one at best) is a real joy to behold. Had there been no mistrial, Thorne might have gotten only a manslaughter or life sentence, not death.

The Buchanan Case was interesting because Dr. Robert Buchanan tried to avoid the error of Carlyle Harris in his poisoning case. Harris had poisoned Helen Potts with morphine, and the tell tale sign of morphine poisoning was that the pupils got dilated. Buchanan used atrophine to counter-act this activity, and the result was the eyes of Mrs. Buchanan looked normal. But Buchanan had behaved short-sightedly and hastily (such as remarrying his first wife soon after burying the second), and he was somewhat gabby and he kept making comments like, "Carlyle Harris was stupid, and there was a simple way to hide the morphine poisoning!" The police got interested and soon the success of Buchanan's experiement with doing his victim one better than Carlyle Harris did was undone - and Buchanan was electrocuted like Harris was.

By the way, both men had appeals, and Harris was executed in 1893, while Buchanan was executed in 1895.

Harris came from a prominent family - his mother being a then noted writer (on child raising, among other matters) named "Hope Ledyard". She frequently while lecturing on how to bring up children presented her own, especially her heart's favorite "Carl". She fought to the end to save her son, but Governor Roswell Flower of New York would not reduce the sentence. So on Carl's coffin was a metal plate, giving Harris' name, date of birth, date of death, and the words, "murdererd by Governor Flower!" The Governor had the plate taken off the coffin.

Jeff

TradeName · 07-24-2016, 08:49 PM

I can't find any conclusive indication that William J. O'Sullivan was involved in the defense of Carlyle Harris, but he was involved in the Meyer and Buchanan cases. So I must subtract one electrocution from O'Sullivan's tally.

A link to a transcript of the Carlyle Harris trial.

The Trial of Carlyle W. Harris (New York: 1892), link

Perhaps someone confused O'Sullivan with one of Harris' attorneys, William T. Jerome?

TradeName · 07-24-2016, 06:43 PM

Thanks, Jeff.

I not sure if this article about a New York attorney/doctor who decorated his digs with the skeletal remains of "noted criminals" is 100% true.

Hopkinsville Kentuckian, January 22, 1895, Page 6, Column 2

A Grewsome Place

Is the Home of a New York Poison Lawyer

Skeletons of Noted Criminals for Companions

The queerest domicile in New
York is that of Dr. William J.
O'Sullivan the brilliant young lawyer
scientist who defended Carlyle Harris,
Dr. Meyer and Dr. Buchanan and will
defend Mrs. Dr. Meyer. He
abides on Washington place. A big
old fashioned mansion it is, once upon
a time the town residence of a notable
family. Few visitors enter his
picturesque "den." The doctor prefers
to live his social life on the outside of
these heavy oaken doors which give
access to his veritable "chambers of
mystery." Dr. O'Sulllvan ought to
have been born a pasha or a bey. His
leanings in the matter of house furniture
are entirely oriental. Indeed,
while at home, he even assumes the
dress of the Mohammedan. When I
visited him it was to find his stalwart
figure becomingly clad in loose linen
breeches and braided jacket, while on
his head reposed a gorgeous turban
which would not have disgraced a
Bosphorous palace or a mosque at
Stambou. His feet were incased in
costly Persian slippers, the gift of Mir
Aulad Ali, a Teheran dignitary who
met the doctor on one of his eastern
tours, and who shares with him a deep
interest in the science of toxicology.
On a lacquered table at his side--the
table came from Alexandria--stood a
beautifully ornamented narghill or
Turkish pipe, which he was in the act
of puffing when I entered. The pipe is
nearly two feet in height. Its long
tube ends in an amber mouthpiece.
"I don't smoke tobacco with my narghill,"
explained the doctor; "in fact,
owing to the water in the pipe, an
enjoyable smoke could hardly be obtained
with the Virginia leaf. The
Arabian tawbaki is my 'Arcadia mixture.'
Tawbaki is a sort of first cousin
of tobacco The Arabs smoked it
many centuries before Sir Walter
Raleigh brought tobacco from the
Americas."

It must not be supposed that the only
adornments of Dr. O'Sullivan's apartments
are eastern. He can boast of
the most interesting and grewsome
collection of skulls and skeletons I
have ever seen. The entrance door is
flanked by two grinning specimens of
the latter. Those hideous twins have,
each of them, a history. Indeed all
the doctors relics of this kind have
histories.

"I can not tell you whose cadavers
these are ," said the doctor with a sly
smile. "If I did the authorities might
not like it. But I will own that the
skeleton on the right is that of a
notorious murderer; while its companion
once formed the framework of a bloodthirsty
western desperado who paid
the penalty of his hundred crimes on
the gallows. See this dinge on his
frontal bone? That was made by a
bullet fired as he swung from the fatal
tree."

If anyone enters the doctors dressing
room he will be startled to find
peering over the mirror there a hideous
skull, while two fleshless hands
clasp candlesticks on either side. The
natural grewsomeness of these relics
of mortality is, however, greatly
dispelled by the fact that the skull wears
a Turkish fez perched rakishly over its
forehead, while a cigaret is thrust
between the lank digits of one hand.
The skull is that of a celebrated burglar;
and the hands were once quite
pretty and covered with jewels, since
they belonged to a French actress who
poisoned one of her lovers. Another
skeleton--that of a second prisoner--
stands sentry at the bedroom door,
and, oddly enough, this specimen has
a wooden leg. A skeleton with a
wooden leg has the comic side which
the doctors keen sense of humor is not
slow to grasp. A miniature catacombs
of skull and skeleton is the study
and in the corridor is a skeleton
in armour--very fine Milanese armour
at that.

"I must decline to unravel the
identity of any members of my collection,"
Said the doctor, "not because I
have no legal right to their possession,
but simply because I promised the
donors or vendors to preserve silence
upon the subject. If I were to tell
you their identity you would own that
my rooms would be worth big money
to Mme Tussaud's representatives in
their brick palace on the Marylebone
road."

"I should fancy," observed the
writer, "that living among cadavers
can hardly be agreeable."

"Nonsense," replied the doctor,
"they are the best people in the world.
They are full of tact and never bore
one. I lie awake at night
and fancy I hear thom talking. What
stories they do tell--stories of murder
and robbery and other deviltries that
thrill me more than any novel I ever
read. That little French actress
whose skull is on the mantle piece and
whose hands stretch from behind the
mirror, is a most vivacious person.
You should hear her chatter about the
Quartier Latin and the Moulin Rouge
and the brave old life in the 'Boul
Mich.' It is very entertaining. One
of my murderers too is a capital story
teller. I think he could give Dr. Conan
Doyle abundant points for a second
edition of Sherlock Holmes."

Besides skeletons and eastern knickknacks,
Dr. O'Sullivan's rooms are
filled with books. Great books, small
books, fat books, thin books--books
new and books old, books wise and
books witty--law books, medical
books, volumes of poetry and novels
of the day, lie piled in picturesque order
here, there and everywhere. The
doctor is an omnivorous reader and
believes in a variety of mental pabulum.
Bookshelves he eschews, preferring
as he quaintly puts it, "to give
the books their liberty and not shut
them up in a dungeon behind glass
doors."

Altogether a very interesting evening
may be spent in Dr. O'Sullivan's
quarters, particularly when the doctor
himself is at leisure to play the host
in his easy way, and to explain in that
rich Munster brogue of which he is so
proud, the many strange and the many
beautiful treasures which those cozy
rooms contain.

---end

Summaries of the poisoning cases mentioned in the above article from the book by the doctor who oversaw the dime museum fasting contest mentioned earlier. Two of O'Sullivan's clients were electrocuted.

A Manual of Legal Medicine (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1902)
by Justin Herold

Pages 628-633

The Harris Case.�Carlyle W. Harris, a medical student at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, had in the summer of 1889 made the acquaintance of Mary Helen Neilson Potts at Ocean Grove, N. J., where her family were living.

"When they moved to the city of New York for the winter the acquaintance continued, and on February 8, 1890, obtaining permission from her mother to take her to see the Stock Exchange, he went with her before an alderman, and they were married under the assumed names of Charles Harris and Helen Neilson. He was at the time pursuing his studies as a medical student in that city, and he continued to visit the deceased until her family returned, in May following, to Ocean Grove. He followed them there soon afterwards. Mrs. Potts, the mother of the deceased, testified that there was a falling off in his attentions to the deceased, and a marked change appeared in his manner toward her, which seemed to worry her. A young friend of the deceased, Miss Schofield, coming to visit her in June, upon the occasion of a walk, the defendant informed her, because, as he said, the deceased had insisted upon it, that they were secretly married. Upon Miss Schofield's saying that she would beg the deceased to tell her mother, the defendant became very angry and said she should not do so; that his prospects would be utterly ruined; and that he would rather kill her (the deceased) and himself than have the marriage made public, and expressed the wish that 'she' (the deceased) 'were dead and he were out of it.' Later in the day he went out with the deceased, was absent for several hours, and upon their return to the house she appeared pale and ill, and went directly to her room. Shortly after this, in the latter part of June, she went to Scranton, Pa., and visited an uncle, Dr. Treverton. While there Dr. Treverton discovered that she was with child, and treated her accordingly, but subsequently was obliged to remove from her a foetus of five months' formation, which had been dead for some time. After the operation she recovered her health completely, and returned in the first part of September to Ocean Grove. While she was at Dr. Treverton's, and about the end of July, the defendant came, upon a telegram from the deceased and a letter from Dr. Treverton, and remained a few days. The operation for the removal of the foetus was made while he was there. Dr. Treverton testified to conversations with the defendant upon the occasion of his visit, in which the defendant said he had performed two operations upon the deceased, and had thought everything was removed. He boasted of his previous intrigues with other women, and in his success in not having had any trouble before. Among other things, he said he had been 'secretly married to at least two other young ladies, and by one had a fine child.' During the same visit he had conversations with the witness Oliver, then visiting the Trevertons, in which he spoke boastingly of his experience with women, and of the facility with which he could gain sensual control of them. He said that in two instances he had overcome their scruples by a secret marriage ceremony, but was ready to stand by them. Upon witness asking him how he could stand by both, he answered, in substance, that there would be no trouble, as the first one was glad to get rid of him; and he went on to tell the circumstances of their relations, and of the final result that, after a child was born, the woman expressed her disgust with him and wanted to see no more of him. To neither Treverton nor Oliver does it appear that he admitted a contract of marriage with the deceased. While the deceased was at Treverton's her mother joined her, and then learned of the recent marriage and what had happened. In the first week of September the defendant was in the hotel in Canandaigua, N. Y., under an assumed name, with a young woman named Drew. His conduct toward het was demonstrative in its affection, and her friends there, discovering their illicit relations, compelled him to leave. During his stay witness Latham overheard a conversation between him and the Drew woman, in which he advised her to marry some old gentleman with lots of money; and upon her asking, 'What if she did?' he is said to have replied, 'Oh, we can put him out of the way ;' and upon her inquiring how, he further said, 'You find the old gentleman, and we will give him a pill, and I can fix him.' After the return of the deceased and her mother from Scranton, they met the defendant in New York City and lunched together. They talked about the secret marriage, of which the mother had been informed at Scranton. He offered to satisfy Mrs. Potts of its legality, and took her to the office of his lawyer, Mr. Davidson. The defendant told her he had burned the original marriage certificate, but sent for and obtained a copy from the records, and, upon Mr. Davidson's suggestion, attached it to an affidavit made by him, stating his marriage with the deceased under assumed names before an alderman. During a conversation at the office he asked if Mr. Potts knew of the marriage. Mrs. Potts said it was no time to tell him then, and asked him if he had told his mother. He said, 'No; he would not have his family know of it for half a million dollars.' He suggested to Mrs. Potts that if she was unhappy about the marriage it could easily be broken, and no one would be the wiser. Upon her expressing herself in indignant refusal of the suggestion and insisting upon a 'ministerial' marriage, he objected to it at the time, alleging as an excuse that it would connect her name with certain club scandals in which he was involved at Asbury Park. He promised, however, to have the ministerial marriage at any time in the future that Mrs. Potts should say. He expressed his gratification at her not pushing the matter of marriage at that time; that if she had he would have been obliged to 'leave everything and go West.'

"Upon that occasion he suggested putting the deceased at Miss Comstock's school, to fit her, as he said, for the society in which they were to move, to which suggestion Mrs. Potts acceded. At his request she promised to write to Dr. Treverton and express her satisfaction with the marriage, and to prevent the doctor from making any trouble for him at the medical college, as he had all he could do, he said, to meet the charge of keeping a disorderly house. Upon leaving the lawyer's office they joined the deceased at the ferry, he crossing with them. The deceased learned of her mother's being satisfied about the marriage, and she seemed to be made very happy in consequence.

"In December the deceased was placed at school, and, as a friend of the family, the defendant received permission to visit her. During her visit to her home in the holidays he wrote the deceased, asking that no announcement should be made of their engagement at this time. In reply to a letter from Mrs. Potts, in the first week of January, he wrote suggesting that there should be no further question of marriage for two years longer, and that her daughter should take a collegiate course. About January 18 or 19, Mrs. Potts wrote to the defendant, expressing herself strongly upon the hardship of her daughter's position, with a delay of three years as an unacknowledged wife, and for no apparent reason; that her daughter's illness at Scranton had been commented upon; that if he should die it would be humiliating to publish a marriage under the circumstances of its contracting; that her husband might meet Dr. Treverton and be told of the illness at Scranton and of the doctor's doubts about a marriage. She concluded by asking him to keep his word and to do as he had promised her, and demanded of him to go upon the anniversary of the first marriage, February 8, and be married before a minister of the gospel, and give her the certificate to hold, which she would make public at such time as she chose. To this he replied that he would do all she asked of him, if no other means of satisfying her scruples could be found. On Tuesday, January 20, a day after he received Mrs. Potts's letter, the defendant went to the shop of Mclntyre & Sons, druggists, in New York City, and at first ordered some capsules of sandal-wood to be put up. Upon the clerk mentioning that it would take some time, he said he could not wait. He then handed the clerk a prescription, asking if it would take long to prepare, and, upon learning that it would take a few minutes, waited for it. It called for twenty-five grains of quinine and one grain of sulphate of morphine, mixed in six capsules, with the direction to take one before retiring. The prescription was put up by the clerk with minute care, he being aided by another clerk, who checked the amount and weight of the morphine, according to a custom adopted where poisons are put up. The box, properly labelled, containing six capsules, each capsule containing one-sixth of a grain of morphine and four grains and a fraction of quinine, was taken by Harris. He never called for the sandal-wood capsules. The following day, being Wednesday, January 21, he was at the school reception and saw the deceased.

"The testimony in the case shows that the defendant stated to both coroner and deputy coroner, when shown and asked about the pill-box taken from the room of the deceased, that it was the one that he had given to her on Wednesday, January 21, and he described the prescription as above, stating that he had given it to her for headaches, and that he had given her only four of the capsules. It was also shown by the testimony of several witnesses from the medical college that in the latter part of December and the first part of January lectures were given upon opium and its effects when used feloniously. The sulphate of morphine, contained in wide-mouthed bottles, had been passed around among the students, of whom the defendant was one, and they were allowed to take it out and to handle it when they chose.

"After meeting the deceased at the reception on Wednesday, January 21, the defendant left for Old Point Comfort, Va., and did not return until a week later. While there it appears that the deceased wrote to him that the medicine had not relieved headache, but rather made it worse; to which he replied, advising her to continue taking it. On January 31 the deceased, her mother, and the defendant met at the school and walked together. The deceased seemed perfectly well, and very bright and happy. Mother and daughter returned to the school, and when in the bedroom of the deceased she showed her mother the pill-box, with one capsule left in it, and remarked that she had been taking some capsules that Carl (the defendant) had brought her. She complained of their making her feel ill, and of her dislike to take them. She said she was tempted to toss it out of the window, and then to tell Miss Day, the principal, that she had taken it. Her mother advised her to take it, remarking that quinine was apt to make one feel wretched, and that she might have been malarious. Her mother left, and then occurred the scenes of illness and death of that night. The defendant was sent for toward daylight by Dr. Fowler, who, stating that he believed it to be a case of pronounced opium-poisoning, wished to learn what had been contained in the pill-box in her room, and which not only was the only evidence of anything like medicine about the room, but which, according to her room-mates, was the only medicine in the room that day. The defendant told him what had been its contents, and of his having prescribed the capsules for headache, insomnia, and the like. Dr. Fowler said one-sixth of a grain could not produce the condition, and advised him to go at once to the druggist and ascertain if the proportions of the drug^s had been reversed. He pretended to go immediately, and, when he shortly after returned, stated to Dr. Fowler that the medicines had been prepared exactly according to his prescription. The evidence shows that he did not go to the druggist's that morning, as supposed by Dr. Fowler, nor until eleven o'clock, and after the death, when Dr. Kerr told him to go and try and get the original prescription, if he could. During the time he was in the room where the deceased lay he surprised the physicians by his composure and general lack of interest or affection, except when, upon her death-bed, he exclaimed, 'My God! what will become of me?' He spoke to the physicians of being 'somewhat interested in the girl,' and mentioned a possible future engagement to her. He asked them repeatedly if they thought he could be held responsible for the death. To them and to the coroner he said that he was merely a friend to the deceased, and pretended hesitation as to her correct given name.

"On the evening of the Sunday he met Mrs. Potts at the ferry-house and stated to her that her daughter had died of morphine-poisoning, and represented it as 'the druggist's awful mistake.' Mrs. Potts says that when she told him that, as the deceased was the mother of his child, she must be buried under his name, his terror was frightful, and he said it could not be; that he would do anything, but that the knowledge of the marriage coming at this time would destroy him; that he would answer just the same if it was Queen Victoria's daughter, 'She cannot be buried under my name,' and he urged as a pretext consideration for the school.

"The coroner met him at the school in the evening. The defendant said he had one of the capsules prescribed for the deceased, and gave it to the coroner, telling him to analyze it and it would be found all right. Subsequent chemical analysis of it proved the correctness in preparing the prescription. The mother, in order, as she says, to get a permit to take the body as soon as possible out of the house and to New Jersey, represented falsely, as she also admitted, that her daughter had heart-trouble. She left the next day with the body. Some days later the defendant stated to Dr. Hayden, in conversation about the occurrence, and when rebuked for writing prescriptions, that 'These capsules would not hurt any one, and no jury would convict me, because I have two capsules which can be analyzed and be found to contain the correct dose.'

"Of the druggist's clerk, witness Powers, at the interview at the store on February 7, when obtaining some medicine, he asked if he had seen the account of the death in the papers, and whether he believed it; and upon the witness expressing his belief that the girl died of heart-disease, said, 'So do I.' They talked about the putting up of the prescription, and the defendant said there was no doubt that it was all right. To Dr. Peabody, whom he went to see with an introductory letter from his medical preceptor, a day or two after the death, to whom he stated the circumstances attending it, he described the prescription and for what given, and alleged as an excuse for keeping out two of the capsules that it was injudicious to put as much as a grain of morphine in a girls' school. Later in February, in a conversation with Dr. White, he said he did not know whether the druggist had made a mistake, or whether there was a brain tumor, which would account for the fact that the morphine in the capsules had been the cause of death. A few days before the coroner's inquest, which was held on February 27, the defendant met Mrs. Potts and said that the coroner's inquest would exonerate him, and that he was innocent; and upon her remarking, 'If innocent, how did she die?' he replied that 'It was the druggist's mistake.' She asked how that could be, when he had said the capsules, upon being analyzed, would prove it to be all right, and said the statements conflicted. He ascertained from her that neither Mr. Potts nor Dr. Treverton knew of her fears. He then endeavored to obtain from her the affidavit of the marriage, saying that he must have it; that it was more valuable than he dare tell her. She said she would not give it. 'It is not here.'"

The body of the deceased was exhumed, and morphine was discovered in the girl's stomach and intestines. The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and electrocuted. The case was tried before Recorder Smyth, New York City, January, 1892.

Pages 621-623

The Dr. Henry C. F. Meyer Case.�-Dr. Meyer was found guilty of murder in the second degree, for having poisoned one Ludwig Brandt. The case was tried before Recorder Smyth, in the city of New York, May, 1894. The case, briefly, is as follows. "Ludwig Brandt was poisoned in order to obtain the insurance on his life. Dr. Meyer had been engaged in several insurance swindles, one of which landed him in jail in Chicago. While there, he met Carl M�ller, Brandt, Gustav Hinrich, Joseph Baum, and 'Jack' Gardner, alias Adkins. All these readily entered into a plot by which Meyer assured them of a quick and generous fortune. Baum was released before the others. Shortly afterwards he was imprisoned in Cincinnati for forgery. When Dr. Meyer was released from the Cook County jail he hunted up M�ller and Brandt and outlined his plot. Brandt was to impersonate Baum, have his life insured, and then pretend death. Meyer's purpose was to murder Brandt under the name of Baum, and then, if charged with the murder, produce the original Baum alive. Mrs. Meyer was to help them carry out the plot. The conspirators came to New York and hired a flat at No. 320 East Thirteenth Street. Meyer and M�ller convinced the unfortunate Brandt that he was to be an equal sharer in the proceeds of the swindle. He was to feign sickness or take drugs enough to produce an illness so realistic as to deceive an experienced doctor, and a corpse should be procured and palmed off on the doctor, and Mrs. Brandt should pass for Mrs. Baum and collect the money. In New York Meyer and M�ller found that it was impossible to find a corpse to be surreptitiously substituted for the pretended Baum. They next tried, but failed to get a sick man obliging enough to come and die in their flat. The plotters were about to give up in despair, when Mrs. Meyer, with hysterical tears, declared that the swindle must not be abandoned; that too much money had been spent on it. Thereupon the silly Brandt, who had an infatuation for Mrs. Meyer, consented to make himself ill by taking medicines which would produce a realistic simulation of dysentery, and of his own will he took heroic doses of salts and croton oil; but without his knowledge (confiding, however, in Mrs. Meyer and M�ller), Dr. Meyer 'salted' Brandt's food first with antimony and then with arsenic, and the deluded youth�-he was only twenty-six�-died in agony, believing almost to his last moment that he was helping along a first-rate scheme which would make him rich. When the investigations of the insurance company had revealed these facts the grand jury indicted Dr. and Mrs. Meyer for murder in the first degree. They were captured in Detroit, Michigan, in July, 1893, on the information of M�ller, who turned State's evidence."

The prosecution's case was this. "There was a conspiracy to cheat the life insurance companies. For this purpose Brandt was insured under the name of Baum, and he became ill and died. The only evidence that Brandt was made sick by any one comes from the accomplice, M�ller, and his only direct testimony was that the dead man took croton oil, and that against the advice of Dr. Meyer. As to the administration of antimony and arsenic, M�ller's testimony was all surmise and guesswork, based on seeing some stuff bearing those names in the doctor's possession, and the man who gave this testimony also by his own testimony admitted himself to be a consummate liar and a criminal of the lowest order, utterly unworthy of belief. The defence expected the evidence of the other to weigh so heavily and accord so finely with MUller's testimony that it would carry it through. Nobody else connected Meyer with the case; and although the expert evidence that antimony and arsenic were found in the body in sufficient quantities to kill was not shaken, yet the expert's qualifications were so badly riddled in parts that the defence was clearly of the opinion that the jury would not place much faith in it."

The. hypothetical question advanced by the prosecution was: "Assume the following facts. A man, twenty-six years of age, died in this city, March 30, 1892. During the month of August, 1891, he had been carefully examined by three physicians in the city of Chicago for insurance on his life, and after a thorough examination he was found to be in perfect health, and was accepted by four different companies. He was temperate in his habits, both as to eating and drinking, and used tobacco in moderation. When he came to New York, in the latter part of February, 1892, he was in the enjoyment of good health. About March 9, 1892, he took two doses of salts. On the same day he visited a physician, to whom he complained of intermittent diarrhoea with slight pains in the abdomen. The physician prescribed powders containing opium and bismuth, but there is no evidence that the prescription was ever put up or taken. On the 11th of that month he took a large dose of croton oil. He complained of pain in his stomach and took to his bed. On the night of the same day he was attended by the same physician, to whom he complained of nausea but no vomiting, excessive thirst, and colicky, griping pains. On examination the doctor found his temperature under the tongue about 102� F., pulse 100, tongue furred and moist, abdomen rigid. He was visited by the same physician every day thereafter until the day of his death, and on two occasions by another physician in company with the first. The symptoms described above continued, and gradually became more accentuated. About the 19th or 20th of March, a white powder, said by the man who gave it to be brechweinstein, or tartar emetic, was frequently seen to be put into his food, and during the last week of his life arsenic, in unknown quantities, was administered to him in the same way. During the last ten days of his life the emaciation of the patient, which had been gradual before, became very marked. He had cold perspirations, his voice became feeble, he complained of pains in the calves of his legs, in his back and head, and burning pains in the eyes. His tongue was red and glazed, his pulse was small and weak, and a day or two before his death he had a temperature of 103�F. As he approached his death he showed extreme emaciation and prostration. The attending physician had at different times prescribed various remedies, which were purchased but not administered. The body was not embalmed, and was buried in a cloth-covered wooden casket, surrounded with an outer box, in Evergreen Cemetery, April 2, 1892. It was disinterred July 6, 1892, and brought to New York City, where an autopsy was performed. The body was very emaciated, but externally in a fair state of preservation. An examination was made of the organs, but no gross lesions sufficient to account for death were found. The spleen was natural in size, and there was no cirrhosis of the liver. A special examination was made of the intestines for dysenteric ulcerations and lesions of typhoid fever, but with negative results. The heart was normal in size and in general appearance, and the valves of the heart were normal. The kidneys were normal in size and showed no naked-eye lesions, and their capsules were not adherent. The bladder was empty. The organs were too far decomposed to permit of any microscopic examination. The stomach and its contents, the intestines and their contents, the liver and spleen, together with some fluid from the abdomen and thorax, the kidneys, heart, calf of the right leg, were each separately analyzed. Antimony and arsenic were found in each, though in varying proportions to each other. The chemical analysis, as a whole, disclosed the presence of about six to ten grains of antimony, calculated as tartar emetic, and of three to five grains of arsenic, calculated as arsenous oxide. The greater portion of these was found in the alimentary tract and liver, and only a trace of antimony was found in the kidneys and muscle, very little more in the brain, but a larger portion in the heart."

Many expert witnesses for and against the defendant were closely examined by counsel on both sides. The writer testified as an expert for the defence on the questions of acute and chronic arsenical poisoning, acute and chronic antimonial poisoning, croton oil poisoning, identification of the dead body, and decomposition.

Pages 623-628

The Buchanan Case.�-"Robert W. Buchanan began life in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He spent several years of his life in a drug-store, where he learned the art of compounding medicines and drugs. From that he easily passed into the study of medicine, prosecuted his studies with success in Nova Scotia, and from there went to Chicago, where he graduated at the College of Physicians and Surgeons. He then returned to Nova Scotia. This was about the year 1883. He stayed there until 1885, when he married his first wife, Miss Annie Brice Patterson, a young woman whose parents were respectable and quite prominent people. In 1885 ne continued his studies in Edinburgh and took his wife with him. There he remained about a year and returned to America in 1887. He settled in New York City, where he began the practice of medicine, but, like most young practitioners, he met with the greatest difficulty. He was poor. He hadn't been in New York long when he obtained a divorce from his first wife. That was about November 12, 1890. About the same time he became acquainted with Mrs. Anna B. Sutherland, who lived at No. 371 Halsey Street, Newark. She was fifteen or twenty years older than the defendant, and by economy and hard work in her line of business (she kept a house of ill-fame) had accumulated a considerable fortune. The defendant began to pay her successful attention. He boasted to his friends that this old woman had fallen in love with him. Before his marriage to her, November 29, 1890, he induced her to make a will in his behalf. It left him all her property. That will was drawn by a friend of Buchanan in Newark. He took two other friends over to Newark to witness its making. Two days later he married the woman. The couple came to New York and set up housekeeping at No. 267 West Eleventh Street. The house in Newark was rented; but the same furniture used at No. 371 Halsey Street was used in fitting up the house in New York. The life of the woman whom the defendant married was perfectly upright and beyond reproach during her married life. She was hard-working and industrious, attentive to business, and earnestly anxious for her husband's welfare. She died at No. 267 West Eleventh Street, on April 23, 1892, very suddenly.

"The defendant had been married but a short time to this woman when his friends began to hear rumors. To the majority of his friends in NewYork Dr. Buchanan said that he was not married; that the woman was his housekeeper. To but one person did he confess his marriage. After a time his friends began to hear of disagreements between him and his 'housekeeper.' He said, early in the middle of the year 1891, to one witness, 'I am getting tired of that old woman; I wish I had never married her. I wish I had never had anything to do with her at all.' Again, toward the latter part of 1891, he was heard to say, 'That old housekeeper of mine will drive me crazy. I am going to dump her. I am going to get rid of her.' Again, early in 1892, he told other friends that his housekeeper was continually quarrelling with him; that he was going to get rid of her without trouble; that she had given him money, but, nevertheless, he intended to break up his house and dispose of her in some way or another. Agajn, he said to a friend of his, in speaking of his wife, 'Her face is enough to drive a man crazy or to drink. Scandal or not, I am going to get rid of that old chromo.' Mrs. Buchanan had in the mean time planned a return to her old life, when, Buchanan, referring to this, said, 'Damn her, she shall never return to Halsey Street and open up her house there again. I'll fix her. She ruined my professional reputation. Imagine a man of my standing married to such a woman as that.' All this was early in April, 1892.

"Very soon after the union the defendant began running around with fresher and younger women. One was called Blanche, one Sadie, one Maggie, and one Hazel. Long before his second wife died, Dr. Buchanan made all his preparations to get rid of her and come into her money, and to do this so adroitly that he never would be found out. To forestall any possible suspicion, Buchanan went to some of his acquaintances and began throwing out hints that the 'old woman' had Bright's disease of the kidneys. To one he said, 'She can't live long. She is sure to die. She is sick now and can never get better.' Another expression he used was this, 'Go and see her once in a while, and keep her in good humor. She is sure to peg out in less than six months.' In order to prepare the way for certain other results which might follow upon his acts, he stated to one of his friends, 'That old woman threatens to poison herself if I insist upon breaking up.' Now, what do you suppose he told her? He said, 'I wish to God you would. You know where my poisons are kept. You could not please me better than by taking morphine. It would be the best thing for yourself and for me.' He saw to it that his mother, who had been living with him, was removed to another place. He sent his child by his first wife away. He was putting his house in order so that he might carry out his fell purposes. So one Friday morning, a year ago next month, Dr. Buchanan's, wife was taken sick. A doctor was sent for. She was found to be in a. highly nervous state, and she kept in that condition until two o'clock, when, she was seen by Dr. Mclntyre, who prescribed for her for hysterics. The dose which he prescribed was a small nervine, eight grains of chloral, with eight grains of bromide of sodium, a teaspoonful of which was to be taken every two hours, and he prescribed a two-ounce bottle, so that an ordinary person could have taken the whole bottle without danger. Dr. Mclntyre, a. reputable family physician of many years' standing, saw the patient in this, excited, hypernervous state at two o'clock. At three o'clock Mrs. Childs, a nurse who had been called in, and Mrs. Brockway, wife of a dentist who was going to take the house from the Buchanans, happened to enter the sick woman's chamber, and they saw Dr. Buchanan giving his wife a dose of something with a spoon. And he attempted to follow it up with another after the first had been swallowed. Dr. Buchanan himself afterwards acknowledged that the medicine he gave his wife was that prescribed by Dr. Mclntyre, who had advised but one teaspoonful of the medicine every two hours.

"Mrs. Brockway had sat down by the side of the bed and talked with the sick woman, and just after taking the dose from her husband's hand she reached out for an orange and tore a piece of it with her teeth to counteract, a bitter taste in her mouth. The impression made upon the nurse at the time was that the medicine which had been taken by Mrs. Buchanan was bitter, whereas, the medicine prescribed by Dr. Mclntyre at that time was not bitter, but slightly sweet. Immediately after taking that medicine given by the defendant�-in about ten or fifteen minutes�-the woman sank into a profound sleep. From sleep she went into stupor, and from stupor she went into a profound coma, from which she never awoke. Dr. Watson was called in. He asked Dr. Buchanan the history of the case. Dr. Buchanan said, 'She is suffering from kidney-trouble.' Dr. Watson at once came to the conclusion that the woman was suffering from coma produced by uraemic poisoning, and prescribed for her accordingly. He gave her a hypodermatic injection of digitalis, the antidote. In a few minutes Dr. Mclntyre, the old family physician, came in and made a diagnosis of the case. In order to assure themselves of the fact that the woman was suffering from uraemic poisoning, they drew urine and tested it with nitric acid. They found that the urine did not contain any albumen, and came to the conclusion that she was not suffering from uraemic poisoning. What is the next step? The doctors came to the conclusion that the woman, from some peculiarity of her constitution, was suffering from a coma produced by the chloral Dr. Mclntyre had prescribed. They asked the defendant what he had given her, and, turning to Dr. Mclntyre, he said he had given her 'one dose of your medicine.' Dr. Mclntyre thereupon began to treat the patient as though she was suffering from coma produced by chloral; and he treated her thus for two hours by having her rubbed and irritated and using every means to bring her back to consciousness. At nine o'clock the doctors reassembled, having left at seven, and then Buchanan stepped up and said to them, 'Gentlemen, I want to disabuse your minds of the idea that this woman is suffering from chloral. Dr. Janeway has been prescribing much larger doses than that for her, and she has become used to it, and cannot be idiosyncratic to its influences.' Now, those doctors wavering, as all doctors must under the circumstances, not knowing with certainty from what the woman was suffering, were led by this defendant in the treatment of the patient. To their minds there were three things from which this woman could be suffering. She might have had from those symptoms either uraemia or coma produced by a narcotic, or she might have had coma produced by a third cause. Just as they were wavering in the balance, just as they were in doubt, what does Buchanan do? He said, 'Gentlemen, this woman's father died of cerebral apoplexy or cerebral hemorrhage.' That is also a disease of the brain, and presents almost similar symptoms to the other two things mentioned. In some cases like this it is impossible for any doctor to tell before an autopsy just what is the matter with the patient, the symptoms are so identical. When he stated that this woman's father died of cerebral apoplexy it turned the scales, and they came to the conclusion that the woman had cerebral hemorrhage, and prescribed accordingly. We find that the woman was treated first for kidney-disease on the statement of the defendant; second, that when she was treated for narcotism the defendant stepped in and prevented the continuance of the treatment, as we claim, for fear his labor might be lost; and, lastly, he impelled them to find in their diagnosis that she had cerebral hemorrhage by the statement that her father died of cerebral hemorrhage. Her father did not die of cerebral apoplexy. His death was caused by gangrene of the foot.

"After the death of Mrs. Buchanan, Dr. Buchanan acted most strangely. No funeral notice was published, except one insignificant notice in an afternoon paper. When asked by his friends why he had kept so reticent over his wife's death, his answer was, 'Why, I left all that to Benedict, the undertaker.' What was Benedict's answer when questioned? 'Buchanan said he would see to all that himself.' When asked why none of Mrs. Buchanan's relatives were present, Buchanan said Mrs. Willard, her sister, was dead, and that her brother was dying in Philadelphia. The facts are that Mrs. Willard is alive, and the brother has not been heard from in years.

"Mrs. Buchanan died at three o'clock in the afternoon. What did Buchanan do? He visited the neighboring saloons, after saying he was going to Philadelphia to see his dying brother-in-law, and began to drink. To a friend whom he met he said, 'My God, I can't stay in the house with that dead body. I'm going to a hotel.' He got possession of the woman's jewels and displayed them to acquaintances. The funeral was held on the following Tuesday, April 26. Immediately after the funeral he is found in Newark going from one bad house to another. Between the woman's death and her burial he went to the Presbyterian minister, who preached the sermon over her, and told him that his wife was a pious Christian, and that when she was dying he thought that he heard her whisper the name of the Saviour.

"Twenty-one days after he buried his second wife he remarried his first wife in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In the marriage, in answer to the usual questions, he said that he was a bachelor. He comes back to New York and takes her, under the assumed name of Frazer, to the Hotel Hamilton, at One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street and Eighth Avenue.

"Buchanan, when cognizant of the fact that people were asking curious questions relative to him, denied that he had remarried his first wife, and also said that his dead wife had never been mistress of an immoral house in Newark, nor had she been a morphine eater. These maladroit statements drew more attention to his case. After the newspapers began printing stories about the affair, the doctor went into hiding in Dostch's saloon up town, and disguised himself every day in a different make-up, with green goggles, etc. One night, when he suspected that a long story was to be printed the next day in a newspaper, he came down town and waited till it appeared in the early morning. If the story was printed he was to flee at once. Then there was the watching of his wife's grave. The moment the district attorney touched the mound he was to leave town and hide. A telegraph code was even arranged. Buchanan was to push West. If the matter blew over and the body was not dug up, a telegram was to be sent to him under an assumed name, to read in this way, 'Will ship goods immediately.' If the grave was turned, the despatch was to run, 'Can't ship goods,' and the doctor was to make haste and get farther out of the way.

"After consulting with Herbert W. Knight, his Newark lawyer, Buchanan wasn't satisfied. He was then advised to go and see one of the counsel in the Harris case. He went to see Charles E. Davidson, now one of his own lawyers. While going back to Newark, a friend said to him, 'Doctor, you are in no danger. The physicians have certified that she died of cerebral hemorrhage.' 'Ah,' he answered, 'but you know that symptoms vary and doctors frequently make mistakes.' 'Yes; but, doctor, you stated that this woman's eyes�-the pupils of the eyes�-were dilated, which is inconsistent with the theory that she died of morphine.' 'Don't you know that drugs can be so compounded as to destroy the effects of morphine on the eye?' was his response. 'Don't you know that if you take belladonna its effect is to dilate the pupil of the eye and make it come back to its normal shape? I tell you that if they dig that woman up they will find her full of morphine, and morphine lasts in the body a great length of time.' Buchanan had previously told his lawyers that his wife was a morphine eater; but it is the first time that such an accusation was ever made against her.

"During the trial of the Harris case, Buchanan was greatly interested in it. Dr. Buchanan was a skilled compounder of drugs, a skilled physician. In canvassing the Harris case he said Harris was a young fool; that if he had known his business he would never have left any trace behind him."-�Extract from Assistant District Attorney Osborne's history of the case.

Morphine and traces of atropine were found in the woman's body by the State's experts, and light was thrown upon all the facts of the symptoms attending the death of the woman. Furthermore, the defendant's wife was shown to have been poisoned by morphine, which was the cause of her death. The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and finally electrocuted. The case was tried before Recorder Smyth, New York City.

The hypothetical question framed by the prosecution was: "Suppose that a woman, healthy for her years and healthy the morning of her subsesequent illness, was attending to her usual household duties, ate a hearty breakfast, as though nothing�-no sickness�-was impending. Subsequently�-a few hours�-she was taken ill; was filled with great apprehension of a serious sickness; complained of a choking sensation, a constriction of the throat that made it difficult for her to breathe. Six hours later she was found in the same state, and at 3.30 P.M., after taking something, she sank into a deep sleep that became a coma, then a profound coma, from which she died; that in this coma the slowness of respiration, with the quickness of pulse, are out of proportion; that brisk external slapping aroused her from her coma, so that she opened her eyes; the examination, which showed no secretion of albuminoids, thus might indicate kidney-disease; the high temperature and flushed skin,�-all these indicate narcotic poisoning of themselves, and the presence of them all together indicate two poisons, narcotic poisoning."

Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment:

Leave a comment: