Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report

[TradeName]

A longer account of Dr. Chilton's testimony at the John C. Colt trial.

New York Tribune, January 24, 1842, Page 1, Column 1

Colt's Trial
Fourth Day
Court of Oyer and Terminer

[...]

Dr. Chilton was called. Am a practical
chemist. I called at Colt's room Sept. 24th;
examined it particularly. My attention was first
directed to a spot on the floor which had been
oiled over. On the west wall I observed several
small spots an eighth of an inch in diameter. I
removed and preserved them for examination. I
saw none on the base. There were spots very
small on the folding doors--an immense number
of them, though very minute. I took a small
hatchet, the one now produced, and a piece
of the floor, where the oil had been. I applied
chemical tests, and so far as they went, the spots
were proved to be blood: those from the wall, and
that from the hammer end of the hatchet, and some
which I removed from the eye of the hatchet.

It had the appearance of being inked over, and
on holding it to the light a red appearance may
be observed where the handle joins the hatchet;
I made an examination of the dust settled in the
crease of the floor and it gave indications of blood.
I did not closely examine the parts where the oil
was, yet there was a red appearance under the
oil. I received a piece of newspaper from Justice
Taylor; which had stain on it, (it was here
exhibited to the Court and Jury; it was very much
stained and had holes through it.) The particles
proved to be blood; the paper is dated June 13th,
1841; is a piece of the N. Y. Herald. A piece of
floor is in my hand, (exhibited.) It is about a
foot long and five or six inches wide.

[One of the jurors wished to see the hatchet,
which was handed to him.]

I took also a key and a pen-knife from officer
Smith, which had nothing on them. I have no
doubt that blood was on the articles I have
mentioned.

Cross-examined by Mr [Dudley] Selden.--The largest
spots were taken from the west side of the room,
four or five feet from the floor; I took them off
carefully: and had there been lime in it I still
could have made the analysis. I was requested
by the Mayor to make this analysis. I examined
nothing else by request than what I have
mentioned, as I recollect. There were spots taken
from the wall which were evidently not blood.

The human blood is nearly the same in all men;
but there has been said to be a little difference in
the amount of fibrin in the blood of males and that
of females, but that would not have been disclosed
by my examination. In small quantities there is
no difference presented. It has been said that by
the action of sulphuric acid, different odors might
be perceived in the blood of different animals; but
I have never observed it. The quantity I
examined did not exceed two grains, and I could not
decide whether it was human blood or not.

[...]

----end


Summary of methods used to test for the presence of blood.

The New York Medical and Physical Journal, Volume 7, 1828, Page 309

Method of recognising the stains caused by blood on steel instruments.— [Journal des Progres des Sciences, I. iv. 1827.] Professor Orfila has recently made some experiments on this subject with the view of illustrating certain questions in Medical Jurisprudence,—-in which many doubts are entertained whether stains on steel instruments are caused by blood, by acid juices, or by rust; and the following are the criterion which he proposes. 1. When the instrument is heated to 80 or 90° F. the stain becomes brighter if it is caused by blood, but is not altered if it is caused by rust or lemon juice. 2. A drop of hydrochloric does not alter a blood stain, but dissolves rust or acid stains. 3. The blood-stain steeped in water parts with its colouring matter to that fluid, and the red colour is retained on nitration, while stains caused by rusting or by vegetable acids either do not tinge water at all, or, if they cause a reddish-brown muddiness, it is removed by filtration. 4. The colouring matter derived from the blood stain may likewise be recognised unequivocally by its chemical properties, and in particular by the effect of chlorine: A minute quantity of chlorine turns it green, a larger quantity decolorizes it altogether, and an infusion of galls added to the decolorized solution causes a dark-red precipitate, which is the colouring matter in union probably with tannin. 5. Strong nitric acid destroys the colour of the stain caused by blood; the diluted acid dissolves it, forming a red solution, which precipitates red with infusion of galls.

----end

Account of the sulphuric acid "smell tested" mentioned by Chilton during cross.

The New-York Medical and Physical Journal, Volume 9, January, 1830, Pages 427-429

On the Aromatic Principle of the Blood, and the differences it presents in different Animals and different Sexes.—-In the number of this Journal for January, 1828, some notice was taken of the mode of determining by chemical analysis whether stains on clothes, knives, or other objects suspected to have been produced by blood are really such, or proceed from other causes. The tests which were described on that occasion, and which were ascertained by professor Orfila, it now appears may be applied successfully after a lapse of months or even years. M. Barruel, however, advances a step farther, and maintains that, by means of an aromatic principle, which he conceives exists in the blood, the chemist may distinguish whether blood has proceeded from the human subject or from one of the lower animals, what the animal is, from which it has proceeded,—-and whether, in the case of human blood, it is that of a man or a woman. He says that some years ago, when he was assisting M. Wauquelin in some of his experiments, he remarked, that when sulphuric acid was poured on the crassamentum of ox's blood, a strong odor of a cow house was exhaled. More lately in analyzing the blood of a man who had poisoned himself with opium, he also remarked, that when sulphuric acid was heated in a matrass to ebullition with the blood, an odor of the sweat of the human male was discharged, of such strength, as to compel him to quit the apartment. This circumstance having brought the former fact to his recollection, he proceeded to make further experiments on the subject, and obtained the following results.

The blood of every animal contains a peculiar aromatic principle, which has the same odor with its sweat and pulmonary exhalation. This principle, while it exists in combination with the blood, has no odor; but when the state of combination is broken, it is volatilized, and then the species of animal may be recognized by the odor evolved. The principle has the most powerful odor in the male of each species. It may be developed either from the entire blood, or after the fibrine has been separated, or from the serosity. The best mode of developing the odor is to pour a few drops of blood into a glass, to add between a third part and the half of its volume of concentrated sulphuric acid, and to stir the mixture with a glass rod; upon which the odor will at once be disengaged. By this simple method M. Barruel detected in the blood of man the strong smell of the male human sweat, such as could be confounded with nothing else; in the blood of woman he found the same odor, but much more feeble; in that of the ox a strong odor of a cow stable or cow dung; in that of the horse a strong odor of horse's sweat or horse dung; in that of the ewe a distinct odor of wool impregnated with its oil; in that of the ram an analogous odor mixed with a strong odor of the goat; in that of the dog the odor of its transpiration; in that of the pig a disagreeable smell of a pig stye; and in the blood of the rat the disagreeable smell of that animal. Analogous results were obtained with the blood of fowls, turkeys, ducks, and pigeons; the blood of a frog gave out a distinct smell of marsh rushes; and that of the carp an odor resembling the smell of the slime which covers fresh water fishes. He farther found, that even after blood had dried on cloth, and remained there for fifteen days, the aromatic principle might be disengaged by moistening the stained portion of the cloth and subjecting it in a glass to the action of sulphuric acid.

The experiments of M. Barruel have been repeated by various chemists in France, some of whom were unable to procure the results at which he arrived, while others procured analogous results as to many points, though not in every department of the subject. It appears, for example, that the odor exhaled by the blood of men is sometimes not distinguishable from that of women; for it is always strongest in people who have dark hair, so that the aromatic principle in the blood of a dark haired female, and that of a light haired inale, do not differ materially. M. Soubeiran, who makes this correction on M. Barruel's conclusions, adds, that he could not always satisfy himself that the smell of the aromatic principle of the blood of different animals was specific and characteristic of the animal. M. Raspail denies the accuracy of M. Barruel's statements altogether. M. Villermé was equally unsuccessful with M. Raspail. M. Leuret goes along with M. Barruel in almost all his propositions, and M. Chevallier seems to have obtained results equally concordant. A remarkable fact is stated by M. Leuret. He sent to M. Barruel the blood of a man, of a woman, of a horse, and of an ox, contained in numbered phials; and M. Barruel distinguished among the blood of the two last, and pronounced that both the two first were human blood; but he inferred, from his experiments, that the male blood was that of a woman, and the female blood that of a man. This error was afterwards easily explained: The woman from whom the blood was taken was dark and of a strong frame, while the man was of a lymphatic temperament, with delicate skin, and no hair on the face. These criticisms on M. Barruel's discovery are contained in the Annales d'Hygiene, &c., for October last, and in the Revue Medicale for September. It is added, in explanation of the success of M. Barruel, and the failure of others, that this gentleman has a peculiarly delicate sense of smell. The whole subject is well worthy of farther investigation, as promising to supply the medical jurist with a very useful instrument af research in judicial cases.—-Annales d'Hygiene Publique et de Médecine Légale, Avril, 1829.

----end

Link to an 1836 forensic medicine text with a section on blood spots. Only one volume was published.

Elements of Medical Jurisprudence, Volume I (London: Deacon, 1836), link
By Alfred Swaine Taylor

Pages 376-389

Identification of Spots of Blood


A later edition.

Elements of Medical Jurisprudence (London: John Churchill, 1844), link
By Alfred Swaine TAYLOR

Pages 332-338

Chemical Examination of Blood Stains


An abridged, American translation of Orfila's text on toxicology.

A General System of Toxicology: or, A Treatise on Poisons (Philadelphia: M. Carey & Son, 1817), link
by Matthieu Joseph Bonaventure Orfila, translated by John Augustine Waller


Orfila was known for his involvement in the case of Madame Lafarge, accused of poisoning her husband. A link to an account of her trial.

The Lancet, Volume 1, December 26, 1840, Pages 479-482

Trial of Madame Lafarge

[Mayerling]

I have had some health problems regarding my legs this past year, so I have not been very busy on this site as I usually have been. Not much to add (like the details about M. Orfila from the Marie LaFarge Case), but I just to add these pieces of information.

Harold Schechter has written a book entitled The Colt-Adams Affair (I believe) about the 1841 murder of printer Samuel Adams (I don't know if he's a relative of Sam Adams of Boston), by John C. Colt. Colt (who was convicted) never hanged. He apparently committed suicide in his prison cell in the old Tombs in lower Manhattan, during a bad fire that occurred that day. It was also the day that Colt married his girl friend mistress. John Howard Payne ("Home Sweet Home") was one of the witnesses. Colt's brother was the gun inventor Samuel Colt, and some wonder if the fire and "suicide" were staged by the inventor to allow his brother to cheat the hangman. Rumors drifted that Sam fled with his new wife to live out his days in Texas. If the murder of "seegar girl" Mary Rogers created the background of "The Mystery of Marie Roget" by Poe (who may have known Mary when buying Mr. Anderson's "seegars") the murder of Adams by Colt influenced one of the few writers in the U.S. in that day on Poe's level - Herman Melville. In "Bartleby, the Scrivener", the murder of Adams by Colt is mentioned. And in Melville's unsung novel, "Pierre, or the Ambiguities", the conclusion of suicides in a prison cell may bave been based on Colt's murder. Melville seemed to be up on this stuff. "Billy Budd" was apparently based on Melville's discussions of the controversial 1842 "USS Somers Mutiny" which led to the hanging of three "mutineers" including the son of the Secretary of the Treasury, Philip Spencer. Melville's cousin was on the court martial board that tried (and acquitted) the Captain of the ship.

Mary Rogers has been the subject of more that one book. John Evangelist Walsh made a name for himself as a literary scholar in his first (best known?) book, "Poe the Detective", where he studied the writing of the short story - the second of the three "C. Auguste Dupin" detective tales. It is not the first piece of American fiction based on a crime (Charles Brockden Brown's 1785 novel "Wieland" was based on a story about an insane farmer who killed his family believing God ordered him to do so. Brown used this as a jumping off place for a serious novel questioning the nature of God and good and evil.). Walsh showed that the original story was rewritten several times, because Poe was basing it on newspaper reports of the latest developments in the case. Many of these turned out to be red herrings, but Poe had to include them to show his mastery of the case - unfortunately it makes the narrative boring because Dupin (so quick and sure in "Murders in the Rue Morgue" and "The Purloined Letter") had to keep offering alternatives to his usual concentrated final version. Indeed, in 1843 the story (so far a sad one of possible rape and murder or rape and suicide) became more sordid to the public when a Mrs. Loss and her sons, who ran an abortion house in Staten Island (quite isolated at that time) were suspected of guilty knowledge of the fate of poor Mary, and Mrs. Loss was accidentally killed by one of the boys.


Another book ("The Murder of Mary Rogers" by Raymond Paul) took a close look at the whole story, putting it in context of the rise of newspapers and the reading public in the 1830s and 1840s. In particular he notes Benjamin Day of the New York Sun (who hired Poe to write "The Balloon Hoax" in 1837 about the first non-stop flight by balloon from England (novelist Harrison Ainsworth is one of the passengers on Mr. Monck Mason's Flying Machine) to South Carolina). But special note is given to the real founder of modern Yellow Journalism, James Gordon Bennett Sr., who discovered that all the news that's "unfit to print" was actually worth it's weight in gold in the public's attention to what was written. Gordon Bennett picked up on murder cases, first with the also unsolved case of a prostitute in 1837 (I think her name was Townsend) in her bed in a bordello, and then with Mary's odd death in 1841. Raymond Paul did come up with a curious solution, but I leave that for you to find if you read his book. I warn you, you may not accept it.



Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Ive seen this thread pop up from time to time, and I just havnt had time to read through it all to find out what its all about. Im assuming its about a suspect whose a dr?


whats it all about in nutshell gents?

[Scott Nelson]

It starts with Dr. Benjamin Howard, a UK MD living in the U.S. In 1895 he was falsely described by the Chicago Sunday Times Herald as having told a member of the San Francisco Bohemian Club that the psychic Robert James Lee captured JtR. Untrue. Dr. Howard threatened legal action.

From there, the thread contains many interesting tangential stories and research into peripheral subjects.

[Abby Normal]

It starts with Dr. Benjamin Howard, a UK MD living in the U.S. In 1895 he was falsely described by the Chicago Sunday Times Herald as having told a member of the San Francisco Bohemian Club that the psychic Robert James Lee captured JtR. Untrue. Dr. Howard threatened legal action.

From there, the thread contains many interesting tangential stories and research into peripheral subjects.

Thanks scott!

[TradeName]

I think it's possible that Dr. Benjamin Howard was the source for the original article in the San Francisco Call (second article in this post), which doesn't mention Lees or state that Howard was personally involved in the events described., but I can't establish Howard's whereabouts at the time.

[TradeName]

A section from a biography of New York Governor (and later US Secretary of State) William H. Seward dealing with his refusal to halt the execution of John C. Colt.

William H. Seward: 1831-1846 (New York: Derby and Miller, 1891), Pages 628-635
by William Henry Seward, Frederick William Seward

[...]

And now began to come appeals to the Governor for his [Colt's] pardon, or the commutation of his sentence. In answer to one of them, Seward observed:

The sympathy for convicted persons is not unnatural, and those who indulge it forget the danger to which it leads. When blood has been shed the whole community is alarmed; every citizen rushes forward to apprehend the fugitive, and bring him to justice. The vindicatory spirit continues its work until the offender is convicted and sentenced, and then that spirit reposes and is satisfied.

The opposite or antagonist spirit rises then, and, at first, timidly and apprehensively, approaches the Executive power, but, gaining confidence, becomes more and more importunate, until it happens in most cases that the Governor who conscientiously declines to pardon murder judicially established, and perhaps unrepented of, comes to be regarded as himself the only manslayer in the transaction.

My table groans with letters from gentlemen and ladies of acknowledged respectability and influence; among the former are gentlemen of the press, and of every profession, recommending, urging, and soliciting the pardon of John C. Colt.

Colt had been sentenced to be hanged on the 18th of November. As soon as the sentence was made known, the letters and petitions began to pour in upon the Governor. Nearly every morning's boat from New York brought visitors who had come to urge the same request. The pressure increased as it became manifest that the Governor was indisposed to interfere with the due course of law.

Alluding to the case in one of his letters home, Seward said:

Albany, Saturday Afternoon.

This has been a day of consuming anxiety. It seems that the fates have combined against Colt to pervert his own mind and those of his counsel. His confession, which it appears he prepared immediately after his arrest, and which was evasive and unsatisfactory, was suppressed until the proofs were closed, and then read to the jury.

His counsel have been first before the Circuit Judge, then before all the judges of the Supreme Court at Rochester, and, defeated there, they applied to the Chancellor. Refused by him, they applied to me thirteen days only before the day of his execution, and the papers he submits show him a depraved man. His friends have been before me most of the day, and the rest has been spent in examining the papers submitted.

A week later he wrote:

Albany, Saturday.

You can have no idea of the fatiguing weariness of the week spent in hearing every form of application for pardon to Colt, and in studying the voluminous papers submitted. It is over now, and I have just time to give you a hasty note before the mail closes.

You will find the decision in Colt's case in the Journal.

In this decision the Governor said:

The proof on the trial left no doubt that Adams suffered death at about three o'clock in the afternoon, on the 17th of September, by the hands of the accused in his apartments, in the second story of a spacious granite edifice on the corner of Broadway and Chambers Street, no other person being then present. It was rendered quite certain that the meeting of the parties on that occasion was neither preconcerted by them, nor anticipated by the accused. It was equally clear that he had made no preparation for so dreadful a deed; and that until that time the parties had maintained amicable relations, and the accused had manifested no malice nor even unkindness toward the deceased. These circumstances bore strongly in favor of the accused. But, on the contrary, the deceased was a meek and inoffensive man. He was unarmed, and visited the prisoner, although under some excitement, yet without any hostile purpose; and when the remains of the deceased were found, the head, fractured, with certainly five, and probably more, wounds, no longer retained the human form. . . . These wounds were manifestly the result of blows inflicted with a hatchet.

A hatchet, which was one of the usual form, and in weight exceeded seventeen ounces, was found in the apartment, and identified as belonging to the accused. Each of the wounds would have been mortal, and whichever of them was first inflicted must have instantly deprived the deceased of consciousness and all power of resistance. Such a homicide could not have been accidental, or necessary for self-defense. It was committed with a deadly weapon in a cruel and inhuman manner, upon a defenseless and powerless man. Reason and law agree that the homicide could not have been innocent, justifiable, or excusable. Society could never exist if human life could be destroyed in such a manner with impunity. It was, then, a felonious homicide, and the jury had only to ascertain the degree of crime which had been perpetrated.

By a presumption of law, that crime was murder, and it remained for the manslayer to show that the deed would bear a milder designation.

The accused could show this only by proving that Adams was perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a crime or misdemeanor, or that the wounds were inflicted without a design to effect death, in a heat of passion, in an attempt to resist murder, or self-defense against some great personal injury, of which the accused was in immediate danger. No such proof was given or offered. But since no other human eye witnessed the deed, nor human ear heard anything but a confused sound and a heavy fall, the jury were required to suppose it possible that Adams had assailed the accused, and that the crime was committed in self-defense. Even if this could have been assumed, it must also have been assumed, not only that there were an assault and an affray, but that the accused was in imminent danger, and in the heat of passion, suddenly excited, intense, uncontrollable, and allowing no time for reflection, and that he did not design to produce death, and was unconscious that such a consequence might follow his violence.

But Adams was unarmed. He had never been known to menace the accused or assail any other person. In strength, Adams at most did not excel the accused. If there was an affray, there would probably have been an outcry by one of the parties, unless the first blow terminated the strife by rendering one of them speechless as well as defenseless. If the accused had been in imminent danger, he could possibly have shown wounds or marks of an assault; but he exhibited none. On the contrary, he carefully concealed a small and unimportant discoloration of the skin, accidentally discovered by Caroline M. Henshaw on his neck on the merning after the deed was committed. And even if an affray had been proved, could it be supposed that the passion of the accused had no time to abate, and his mind no time to relent, when the first blow had relieved him from the assailant, and each subsequent blow fell upon an unconscious and unresisting victim?

Whatever was the degree of crime, it was complete when life was extinguished, and could not be changed by the subsequent conduct of the accused. Yet his subsequent conduct was legitimately opened to the jury, for the light it might reflect on the deed he had consummated. The house was filled with tenants from the base to the roof. The narrow room of the accused was separated only by thin folding-doors from an occupied apartment, and looked out on the corner of the streets. Even without leaving the presence of the dying or dead man, the accused could have instantly summoned a multitude; but he invoked no witnesses. On the contrary, according to his own acknowledgment, he closed the only aperture through which he might be observed, stripped the deceased of the clothing by which the person might be identified, and without aid, and almost with superhuman efforts, wrapped the body in canvas, contracted it with a rope, and deposited it in a box three and a half feet in length, and, standing upon the protruding knees, pressed them down by dislocating the limbs, until the box could be closed. After this was done, and night had come, the accused, with hands unaccustomed to such labor, washed the floor, and carefully stained it with oil, and ink, and tobacco, to conceal blood which had been shed. He clandestinely cast the clothing and articles of property found on the person of the deceased, except his watch, into a sink, repaired to a bathing-house and washed the stains from his own dress, and then retired to his lodgings. Early next morning, before the usual hour for going abroad, he returned to the apartment and resumed his efforts to remove the evidences of the fatal transaction. He carefully fastened the box, labeled it with the address of an imaginary person in St. Louis, to the care of imaginary persons in New Orleans, and carefully removed it from his apartment, and caused it to be conveyed to the ship which was expected to depart immediately to that port, and delivered it to the master, and took a receipt for it as for a parcel of merchandise. He had many associates in this city. To none of these persons did he reveal what had happened or what he had done. On the contrary, upon mature reflection, as he says, he avoided his brother, and took counsel only with himself. He gave Caroline M. Henshaw a false explanation of the reasons of his late return on the night succeeding the crime, and of his early absence on the next morning. To the persons who occupied the adjoining rooms he at first denied, and afterward falsely explained, circumstances which had excited snspicions, and day after day, while the friends of the deceased and his fellow-citizens were engaged in anxious inquiries concerning his fate, the accused visited the place where the deceased was accustomed to transact business, and remarked on his mysterious absence like a sympathizing friend.

Nature suggests a mode of proceeding in every exigency, but not the same mode in exigencies so entirely dissimilar as those of guilt of murder, and consciousness of having committed other forms of homicide. Guilt seeks concealment, misfortune sympathy, and innocence vindication. If the homicide had not been felonious, the first impulse of the accused, when he discovered the fatal consequences of his violence, would have been to invoke aid to the sufferer if living, or at least advice or sympathy for himself. If the blood which had been spilled did not accuse the prisoner, he would not have endeavored to remove the stains it left. It seems impossible to suppose that an individual guilty of only such a crime, and exposed to only such hazards, would go on for hours and days accumulating for his own destruction such a mass of the peculiar evidences of murder. . . .

Society has been deeply shocked and justly alarmed for the security of life in the metropolis. A deliverance of the prisoner by Executive clemency would be an encouragement to atrocious crime.

He wrote to Mrs. Seward:

Albany, November 17, 1842.

Now that the last act is done, and only the event remains to be contemplated, I find myself suddenly sinking from a state of excitement. It will never be known, and cannot be conceived, how much I have heard, read, thought, and felt, on that painful subject; and yet how unjust and blind are human sympathies! In the jail at Lockport there is lying a condemned malefactor waiting his death, yet incapable of distinguishing day from night, and thus counting the hours as they carry him along toward an inevitable doom, and no one thinks of him. He is poor, a stranger, and an outcast. Colt has connections, relations, and associations, with the educated class.

I believe you know the substance of his application to me. When the judges refused him a new trial, his friends came with Willis Hall and delivered me several letters. I detained Hall, and spoke freely with him as a friend and former counselor. The next day I learned that he was acting as an advocate. Then Judge Spencer came into town, and called to inform me that Colt was unjustly condemned. Dudley Selden and others met here Lewis Gaylord Clark, and three surgeons from New York, who brought a head and a hatchet, and demonstrated preparatively before the medical faculty of Albany; after which rehearsal they demonstrated to me how Adams might have deserved to be murdered. The next day Robert Emmet, David Graham, Willis Hall, and Samuel Stevens, appeared with witnesses newly discovered. The decision was promulgated on Friday. On Sunday I heard and denied an application for a respite. On Monday I listened to appeals from wandering philanthropists without knowledge; and with especial attention to a phrenological professor who demonstrated that Colt wa» a murderer, but he was so because society had cultivated the wrong bumps; and therefore society ought to be hanged, not he! Yesterday came the application from a seditious meeting of the bar in New York, which was decided and of course overruled. This morning it appears that Colt's counsel have endeavored to intimidate the sheriff, and that all manner of inflammatory appeals have been made to the populace. I think the sheriff will perform his duty; but he has long since entered his protest with me against the execution of the sentence on the ground of the injustice of the verdict. If he refuses, I shall have further and painful duty.

Among the mass of letters appealing in Colt's behalf were many anonymous and some threatening ones. One ran as follows:

You have time to grant a pardon to him whom your prejudices are about to deprive of a life as dear to him as yours is to you. Yes, you have full time, but not the disposition; you thirst for the blood of a fellow-being, and you may drink it to the last drop; but, by the Almighty God, into whose presence you usher a poor soul with a load of sin upon his head, by the hopes I entertain of immortality hereafter, I swear that one who has lived for him, and will at any time die for him, holds you responsible to the very tittle for what may happen to him! Should he suffer an ignominious death, his corpse shall not be interred before your life pays the forfeit, and you follow him to an eternal hell!

You may disbelieve me now, but too soon, perhaps, will death cause you to regret the past. As for Kent, his fate is sealed, provided John C. Colt is hanged. I say Beware!

[Seward:] November 19th.

I must still continue the tragic story that ran through my last. The day after I had refused to depart from the course of the law, an application was made to the Chancellor to reconsider. He denied the same. Colt spent that day (Thursday) in writing, some say a review of my opinion; others say a paper to remain sealed until his child arrives at age. He was particularly disappointed in my second decision. The counsel had procured, strangely enough, the insertion of their protest in the Tribune of Thursday morning; but when it was discovered that public feeling was excited by this dangerous attempt to overawe the sheriff, they suppressed the paper in their city edition, and sent it only into the country. It came back upon them from the country yesterday morning, and roused a very hostile feeling against the Tribune. The warrant directed the execution to take place "between sunrise and sunset." Colt asked that it might be postponed until four o'clock, and the request was acceded to. At twelve o'clock Caroline M. Henshaw visited him, and they were married. A few minutes before four, he asked to be left alone fifteen minutes, and—-

Saturday Night.

I was interrupted in my narrative, which I wrote from verbal intelligence. My letter is delayed, and the newspapers will now tell you the whole. It is a wild and fearful tragedy calculated to disgust us with humanity.

The morning boat had brought the sequel of the tale. Up to eight o'clock on Friday morning, Colt and his friends had been confident that the respite would be obtained; but the sheriff, notwithstanding the protest of Colt's counsel, was reluctantly proceeding with the preparations for the execution. During the morning, Colt's brother and his counsel had passed some time in his cell. In accordance with his request, the execution had been deferred until the last moment; and at noon he was married to Caroline M. Henshaw, by the Rev. Mr. Anthon, who remained with him till two o'clock. Colt, having taken leave of his friends, then requested to be left alone. Just before four o'olock, the sheriff, with his deputy and the clergyman, went to the cell. They found Colt on his bed, with a dirk thrust between his ribs into his heart.

The doctors pronounced him dead. At that moment the cupola of the prison was discovered to be on fire. The cry went out, "Colt has committed suicide, and the Tombs are on fire!" Speedily thousands were added to the thousands already surrounding the prison, whose dome was in flames. Soon the fire was extinguished, and a coroner's inquest was held over the body. The fire was believed to be designed to create such alarm and confusion, at the hour appointed for the execution, as would allow the prisoner's rescue or escape. There was great excitement throughout the city, many theories and stories, that an attempt had been made to bribe the keepers to let Colt escape in female attire; that he had so escaped, and that the body found was one of a dead convict substituted for his own. Great suspicion was, not unreasonably, created by the conduct of the keepers in leaving him alone for an hour and a half.

A day or two later came additional details. When the volume of smoke and flame burst from the cupola, there was a tremendous rush of those inside to get out, and of those outside to get in. The City Hall bell struck the alarm at precisely the hour of execution. The engines were on the ground, but could not reach the cupola, and it burned until the whole was consumed down to the roof. There seemed no good ground for believing it the work of an incendiary. The watchman was in the habit of keeping a fire there, and, on that day, had made a large one, and then went out to see the execution; the stovepipe had become red-hot and set fire to the roof.

The coroner's inquest elicited nothing as to how Colt obtained the knife with which he killed himself. At the inquest, the clergymen, doctors, turnkeys, and the brother and wife of the deceased, were examined; but there was no clew to the knife. The jury rendered a verdict accordingly. The body was given to the friends for interment, and the tragedy closed.

For months afterward, perhaps even for years, there were many who were incredulous of the suicide, and believed Colt to be still living in some foreign land. The Rev. Dr. Anthon published a statement of his interview with Colt; and said he had left him impressed, by his language and behavior, that he was repentant, was prepared for death, and would submit to the sentence. He had believed him when he said that "he wished to be left alone in order that he might pray." Sheriff Hart submitted to the Board of Aldermen an anonymous letter received by him on the 17th, signed W. W. W., inclosing ten one-hundred-dollar bills, asking him to refuse to hang Colt, and saying that an equal amount would be sent to him afterward.

Dr. Hosack, who conducted the post-mortem examination, found that the suicide had been premeditated and arranged with mathematical accuracy. A circle two inches in diameter had been cut out through his clothing, so that nothing might interfere with the knife, and its point penetrated the heart in its centre.

[Seward:] Albany, November 25, 1842.

You need have no concern about the right in Colt's case. Had he died after the manner of a Christian, he could not have raised the least distrust on my part of his being a murderer. After all my efforts to study the case thoroughly, I did not fully realize the size and depth of the wounds. Five mortal wounds with such an instrument, when the first must have deprived his victim of the power to defend or supplicate! Yet I think that, with some reservations, he made himself believe that he was not a murderer, making a definition of murder to suit himself, and in no respect conforming to the law. So he said that he inflicted the death in self-defense; but he was unable to show any form of attack which rendered such a defense necessary. Read his statement to Mr. Anthon; you will see that he spoke only in general terms. He has never given any history of the affray in detail, as an innocent man might.

It is horrible, but not more so for me than to resist the importunities of a poor, forsaken wretch with whom none sympathized, and for whom no efforts were made. But, thank Heaven, I am through with those painful duties!

[...]

----end

Links to the other two volumes of the biography.

William H. Seward: 1846-1861 (New York: Derby and Miller, 1891), link
By William Henry Seward


William H. Seward: 1861-1872 (New York: Derby and Miller, 1891), link
By William Henry Seward


The Seward bio mentions mentions an attempt to bribe Sheriff Hart to not hang Colt. Here is a link to a report of an investigation.

Documents of the Board of Aldermen of the City of New York Volume 9, Nos. 1-120 (1843), Pages 517-532

Document No. 57
Board of Aldermen
December 19, 1842

Report of the Police Committee on the Communication of the Sheriff, Respecting the Bribe of $1000, in the Matter of John C. Colt

[TradeName]

A 1913 article with claims about Colt's literary ambitions and an alleged Colt sighting in California.

Pearson's Magazine, Volume 29, January, 1913, Pages 40-50

The Broadway-Chambers Street Murder
by Alfred Henry Lewis

Page 43

Colt was not without his ambitions, which were all literary. He had tried sketches and short stories; but such magazines as the Mirror, the Knickerbockers [sic], and Graham's, over in Philadelphia, had refused most consistently to accept, pay for and print them. The Colt literary output lacked quality, atmosphere, interest--so said the editors--and could lay claim to be pulselessly nothing beyond fairly good English. Also, for a long story which he wrote, Colt could find neither publisher nor encouragement.

Page 50

Ten years; and the time was 1852. Samuel M. Everett had been an acquaintance, almost a friend, of murderer Colt. The lure of gold had taken Everett to California. It was in the Santa Clara Valley. The low sun was going down behind Coast Range, as Everett drew bridle before an opulent ranch house in hope of finding night quarters for himself and horse. As he swung from the stirrup, a lean, small, gray-eyed man, skin tanned to the color of a saddle, stepped from the wide verandah, huge spur clanking, a cigarette delicately between his white, even teeth.

The tanned, lean, gray personage was appareled in the dress of a California rico, with brocaded Spanish jacket, silk scarf, silver spurs, trousers slashed to the knee and garnished along the seams with a fringe of little silver bells. On the verandah lay the rico's bullion-freighted sombrero. His horse, a well-knit handsome bay, half hidden beneath a great Chihuahua saddle, stood patiently near. Plainly the rico had but just returned from a canter about his wide belongings. As the lean, tanned, gray-eyed one approached, a golden-haired woman, placid, plump and beautiful, came and stood in the door, while two children peered shyly from behind her skirts like a brace of doubt-ridden rabbits, unable to make up their minds.

Everett stared at the lean, tanned slight figure as one planet-struck.

"Mr. Colt?—-Mr. John C. Colt?" he faltered.

"No, senior," returned the other with steady emphasis, while the gray eyes took on an ophidian glitter which was like a menace-—"No, senor. I have the honor to be Don Carlos Juan Brewster, and greatly at your service. Were you looking for—-whom did you say?—-a Mr. Colt?"

"No," said Everett, on instant guard; "I was but thinking you might give me a bed for the night. I am Mr. Everett of New York. If, however, it would be an inconvenience----"

The lean, tanned rico interrupted by waving a bestowing hand toward the verandah, where the golden-haired woman stood smiling.

"The Senor Everett will be a welcome guest at my house, which is now his house, for a day, or a year, or what space he wills."

----end

Link to substantially the same article as a chapter in a book.

Nation-famous New York Murders (Chicago: M.A. Donohue, 1914), Pages 209-241
By Alfred Henry Lewis

The Chambers Street Bloodshed

[Scott Nelson]

I think it's possible that Dr. Benjamin Howard was the source for the original article in the San Francisco Call (second article in this post), which doesn't mention Lees or state that Howard was personally involved in the events described., but I can't establish Howard's whereabouts at the time.

Jennifer Pegg in the Ripperologist no. 96 (October 2008) provides quite a bit of detail about Robert Lee James and the Chicago/San Francisco Crime Club - Dr. Howard connection.

[Busy Beaver]

Lees offered his "Clairvoyant" services to the Police to help find the Ripper and he was declined. Politely or not I do not know. His fifteen minutes of fame were dashed in 15 seconds. He was supposed to be a Journalist as well- did he write one of the many hoax letters pretending to be the Ripper to get his own back?

[Scott Nelson]

Sorry I screwed up the name, Robert James Lees (too much holiday cheer). Did Dr. Howard have anything to do with bringing up Lees or did somebody else make a fictitious conclusion about Lees and Howard?

[TradeName]

In Jeff's (Mayerling's) post above, he refers to a woman murdered in a brothel. I think he is referring to the Murder of Helen (or Ellen) Jewett.

This is a retrospective view of the case from 1878.


Connecticut Western News, August 29, 1878, Page 4, Column 2

A Tragedy Recalled

Helen Jewett's Murder Forty Years Ago in New York City

Many New Yorkers are still living who
remember the stirring scenes attending
the tragic death of Helen Jewett, who
was murdered on the night of April 9,
1836, while sleeping in her boudoir, No.
41 Thomas street. Perhaps there never
was a crime in any country that exceeded
in interest, in the mystery and romance
of its details, that which compassed
the death of the fair Helen Jewett, and
still remains as much a mystery as ever.

The police court records furnish but
meager notes of the affair, but
cotemporary [sic] newspapers were alive to the
dramatic interest of the case, so that
extra editions were issued during the
trial of young Robinson, the girl's
alleged murderer, finding ready buyers,
and indeed inaugurating that feature of
newspaper enterprise.

Helen Jewett was an inmate of a noted
resort of the fast men of Gotham at that
period. Scarcely out of her teens, with
a beauty of form and feature seldom met
with, and possessing a gifted, even
brilliant, mind, this remarkable girl was
petted and courted by a host of men who
might have improved her station. But
all such offers Helen steadfastly refused,
To a few admirers she was all
encouragement; the others were peremptorily
rejected. Richard P. Robinson, a young
man nineteen years of age, of
prepossessing appearance, and with a turn for
literary acquirements, was one of the
favored few. He was a native of
Durham, Conn., but made the city his
permanent home, his place of business
being No. 101 Maiden lane, with the
house of Joseph Hoxie & Co., hardware
dealers.

On Saturday night, April 9, so the first
story ran, Robinson left his boarding
house at No. 42 Dey street, to visit his
inamorata. He was in a jealous mood,
and evidently meditated some terrible
crime, for he "carried a small hatched
concealed beneath his coat." Reaching
the house, as Rosina Townsend afterward
declared, at 9 :30 o'clock, he ascended
to Helen's apartments, and ordered up
some champaigne an hour later.
Midnight had scarcely passed when the girl
Townsend thought she smelt the odor of
burning clothes, whereupon she rushed
to the door of Helen's room, threw it
open, and to her horror saw the bed was
in flames, with the mangled body of
Miss Jewett upon it. Her screams
brought a street-watchman to the spot,
and before the fire had gained much
headway the body was dragged off and
the flames extinguished. Three sharp
gashes across poor Helen's scalp showed
where the fatal blows had been struck.
She must have died without & struggle,
for an occupant of an adjoining room
heard no sounds whatever. Robinson's
cloak was found in the yard. The hatchet
was discovered at daylight in a
neighbor's yard, with a piece of twine attached
to the handle exactly corresponding to
another piece of twine tied to a button
on the cloak. Helen's youthful lover
was at once suspected of the dark deed.
Assistant Captain Niblo [sic; Noble] of the "Watch,"
or local police, repaired with officers to
No. 42 Dey street, and Robinson was
found in bed fast asleep. On seeing the
corpse, he shuddered, but exhibited no
other emotion. A coroner's jury was
convened at eight o'clock Sunday morning,
and Robinson was held on their
verdict to answer for the death of the
fair victim, after which he was hurried
away in a carriage to Old Bridewell
prison.

The scene of the tragedy in Thomas
street that Sunday morning disclosed an
excited populace, which had not then
become hardened to deeds of violence
of daily occurrence, surging about the
house.

James Gordon Bennett thus describes
a visit in person to the chamber of death:

"The house is elegantly furnished
with mirrors, costly paintings, sofas,
ottomons [sic] and other household goods, of
almost imperial style. Entering Helen
Jewett s room, my guide and I halted.
There stood the mahogany bed, all
covered with burnt pieces of linen, blankets
and pillows, black as cinders. Stretched
on the carpet I saw a sheet covering
something carelessly, as if flung over it.
My attendant half uncovered the ghastly,
white corpse. It was a darkened room,
but I began slowly to discover
lineaments, as one would the beauties of
marble statuary. It was the most
remarkable sight I ever beheld. Not a
vein was to 'be seen ; the body was as
white, as full, as polished as the purest
Parian marble. The perfect figure,
exquisite limbs, fine face and arms, and
beautiful bust, all surpassed the
traditional Venus de Medicis, according to
the casts generally given of her."

Outside the building the crowd grew
almost to the proportion of a mob, so
fierce was the demand for a sight of the
place and the dead body. The authorities
were compelled to look to the safety
of the building by surrounding it with
armed police, sheriffs and watchmen. A
morbid excitement pervaded the city,
and everybody looked forward to the
approaching trial of Robinson with such
interest as only a case of this kind could
generate. Several prominent citizens
were surprised in the house when the
cry of fire was raised, and when the
murder became known it was loudly asserted
that a threatened exposure of Robinson
and others led to the commission of the
deed. The dead girl was buried in St.
John's burying ground on Monday,
April 11, at 11 a. m.

Ogden Hoffman, Esq., at that day the
leading criminal lawyer in town, defended
the accused. At the preliminary
examination Robinson denied all knowledge
of the affair, denied that he was in
the building, and that the hatchet had
ever been in his possession. Hoxie's
storekeeper of No. 101 Maiden Lane
identified the latter article as one
belonging to the store. Bridewell prison
was surrounded for three days in succession
by anxious crowds, who tried to
obtain a glimpse of the prisoner on his
way to court.

On April 20, a true bill of indictment
was found against the trembling youth
in Bridewell. The very same day Rosina
Townsend auctioned off her household
goods, an immense throng being present
to obtain, if possible, something from
the room of the dead Helen, or to witness
the spot where the most sensational
murder of the age had taken place.

On Saturday, June 4, so great was the
popular excitement that law, order and
government gave way to it. A strong
faction, who believed Robinson innocent,
were gathered about the Court of Oyer
and Terminer on that day, at 10 o'clock,
angrily discussing his chances of escape.
Before noon a yelling mob broke into
the courtroom, where Robinson stood
pale and trembling, but hopeful, before
the bar. They drove the Judges and
court officers out of the hall, seized the
prisoner, and carried him away upon
their shoulders. The Mayor issued a
proclamation, calling upon all good
citizens to help quell the disturbance, and
the police, sheriffs and all available
limbs of the law were called out. The
press called upon the Governor for the
militia, and this would doubtless have
been granted had not Robinson at the
next sitting of the court, on Monday
morning, proved an alibi. This was
obtained upon the testimony of Robert
Furlong, Jr., a grocer, of Nassau and
Cedar streets, who swore that "Dick"
Robinson, was one of his customers in
the cigar line, and that they sat smoking
chatting together upon two boxes in
front of the store from 9 to 10:15 o'clock
the night the murder was committed.

Sufficient proof was brought in
support of this testimony to sustain the
alibi, and additional strong points were
raised in the young man's behalf before
the case was given to the jury that night.
Within eight minutes after retiring the
entire body came back with a unanimous
verdict of acquittal. Then there was
raised such a shout as never before shook
the somber wall of a New York court of
justice. A tremendous outburst of
popular enthusiasm followed, but died away
in a few weeks. The real murder was
not discovered. It was supposed that
the inmates of the house committed the
foul deed, but no evidence was ever
obtained to hold any of the demi-monde
upon such a terrible charge. Robinson
left the city for Texas, served, it is said,
in the frontier skirmishes against Mexican
raiders, just prior to the Mexican
war, and shortly afterward died.

Miss Jewett's real name was Dorcas
Dorrance, and she was born in Augusta,
Me., where she was in infancy let an
orphan. Her remarkable beauty of
person, and witty, talented mind, made her
many friends as she grew to womanhood.
Judge Western adopted her and sent her
to a female academy at Coney, on the
Kennebec river. While spending the
summer of 1829 at a friend's house in
Norridgewoc, Me., being then sixteen
years old, and a truly charming girl,
Dorcas was ruined by a bank clerk, whose
name was never made known. Her downward
career then began, which ended so
tragically in New York.

---end

[TradeName]

This book has a long chapter on the Jewett case. I have quoted an interesting assertion about Robinson.

The New York Tombs: Its Secrets and Its Mysteries (San Francisco: A. Roman & Co., 1874), Pages 97-136
by Charles Sutton, edited by James B. Mix, Samuel Anderson Mackeever

Page 108

[...] Helen became possessed of the information that Robinson had poisoned, or attempted to poison a young girl whom he had first ruined, and who then stood in the way of his marriage with the daughter of his employer, to whom he was paying court At any rate the girl died under suspicious circumstances. Helen taunted Robinson with this crime, and his rage and fear can easily be imagined. [...]

----end

Alfred Henry Lewis wrote an article about the Jewett case, He includes some items that are also in the above book (a description of Jewett, letters to and from Jewett), but represents them differently.

Pearson's Magazine, Volume 28, Issue 2, December, 1912, Pages 43-52

How Robinson Killed Helen Jewett and Why
by Alfred Henry Lewis



Book version of the above article.

Nation-famous New York Murders (Chicago: M. A. Donohue & Company, 1914), Pages 7-36
by Alfred Henry Lewis

The Girl in Green



Another book with a chapter on the Jewett case.

History, Romance and Philosophy of Great American Crimes and Criminals (New York: N. D. Thompson, 1885), Pages 360-398
By Frank Triplett

The Murder of Helen Jewett

[TradeName]

Another book with a section on the Robinson trial. I have quoted a bit of the testimony.

American State Trials, Volume 12 (St Louis: F. H. Thomas Law Book Company, 1919), Pages 429-487
edited by John Davison Lawson

The Trial of Richard P. Robinson for the Murder of Helen Jewett
New York City, 1836

Page 439

Dr. David L. Rodgers. Examined the body of Helen Jewett; the wounds on her head were the cause of death; the principal wound fractured the skull, compressing the bones upon the brain; the body bore every appearance of its having made no movement after the fatal blow, and that death consequently must have been instantaneous.

The hatchet found in the rear of Mrs. Townsend's was shown the witness, and he said it was such a weapon as he had supposed had been used by the murderer, and that he doubted not that that it had been the instrument of death.


Pages 461-462

Frederick W. Gourgous. Am a clerk in the employ of Dr. Chabert, the Fire King. He keeps an apothecary's store. Was in the store of Dr. Chabert on the Saturday evening preceding the murder of Helen Jewett.

Mr. Phenix. Did you know the prisoner at the bar-—Robinson? Not by that name, sir. Knew him by the name of Douglas.

Mr. Phenix. Are you certain that he is the person. Am not very positive, but think he is. It is some time since I saw him before that day. I believe the prisoner at the bar, to the best of my knowledge, is the same person who called himself by name Douglas; have seen him four or five times in Mr. Chabert's store, in the back room of the store. On one occasion he called at the store and wished to procure of me some poison; believe this was a day or two before I heard of the murder. There was another person in the store at the time, Francis Meyers. The poison that he asked for was arsenic. He said that he wanted it for the purpose of killing rats. We did not sell any to him. We are not in the habit of selling it to anybody.

Cross-examined. Have been in the employ of the Fire King four years. The store is 324 Broadway. We do a great deal of business, and a number of persons are frequently in the store. Had seen the prisoner several times in the house before the murder. The last time that I saw him there was on the Saturday night before the murder. We are always in the habit of refusing to sell arsenic to strangers and others. It was after dark when he called to buy the arsenic. We have frequent applications in the course of a year for arsenic for killing rats. It is a very common thing; mentioned this circumstance to Mr. Lowndes about two weeks after the young man came to purchase the arsenic; did not go to Mr. Lowndes to tell him, he came to me; did not mention it to any one except to Mr. Chabert; did not mention to Mr. Lowndes after Robinson was arrested for the murder that a person of the name of Douglas had been to our store to buy some poison. The first time that I saw Mr. Robinson, the prisoner, knowing him to be Mr. Robinson, was in this court; knew him before as Mr. Douglas. One or two persons in the court pointed him out to be as Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Maxwell required the witness to point out to him any gentleman who informed him that the prisoner was Mr. Robinson, and he pointed out two persons from among the spectators-—a Mr. Rockway and a Mr. Trowbridge.

Mr. Gourgous. Did not know the prisoner at the bar as Mr. Robinson, until he was pointed out to me in the court. Mr. Brink did not point him out to me. We have frequently had prostitutes in our store and office, the same as I expect every other apothecary in this city has, There is a private office attached to the store, and I have seen females there frequently; have not seen more there since the murder of Helen Jewett than before.

To Mr. Phenix. This paper is in my handwriting. It was given by me to the prisoner. It is a receipt for money paid by him to Dr. Chabert. The person to whom I gave that paper is the same person who called to buy the arsenic.

To Mr. Maxwell. When I said I did not know the prisoner and asked persons where he was, I meant that I did not know where he was seated.

To Mr. Phenix. I mind just now that the first time I knew the prisoner by the name of Robinson was in the court; but I know the person I knew as Douglas is Robinson. Knew this from Mr. Chabert.

To Mr. Maxwell. There were no persons but Mr. Meyers and myself in Doctor Ohaberts's when the arsenic was called for.

----end

[TradeName]

An account from Nathaniel Hawthorne's notebooks about his visit to an exhibition of wax figures which included Jewett and Robinson.

Passages from the American Note-books, Volume 1 (Boston: Houghton, Miflin, 1884), Pages 122-124
by Nathaniel Hawthorne

July 13th [1838].—-A show of wax-figures, consisting almost wholly of murderers and their victims,—- Gibbs and Hansley, the pirates, and the Dutch girl whom Gibbs murdered. Gibbs and Hansley [sic; Wansley] were admirably done, as natural as life; and many people who had known Gibbs would not, according to the showman, be convinced that this wax-figure was not his skin stuffed. The two pirates were represented with halters round their necks, just ready to be turned off; and the sheriff stood behind them, with his watch, waiting for the moment. The clothes, halter, and Gibbs’s hair were authentic. E. K. Avery and Cornell,—-the former a figure in black, leaning on the back of a chair, in the attitude of a clergyman about to pray; an ugly devil, said to be a good likeness. Ellen Jewett and R. P. Robinson, she dressed richly, in extreme fashion, and very pretty; he awkward and stiff, it being difficult to stuff a figure to look like a gentleman. The showman seemed very proud of Ellen Jewett, and spoke of her somewhat as if this wax-figure were a real creation. Strong and Mrs. Whipple, who together murdered the husband of the latter. Lastly the Siamese twins. The showman is careful to call his exhibition the “Statuary.” He walks to and fro before the figures, talking of the history of the persons, the moral lessons to be drawn therefrom, and especially of the excellence of the wax-work. He has for sale printed histories of the personages. He is a friendly, easy-mannered sort of a half-genteel character, whose talk has been moulded by the persons who most frequent such a show; an air of superiority of information, a moral instructor, with a great deal of real knowledge of the world. He invites his departing guests to call again and bring their friends, desiring to know whether they are pleased; telling that he had a thousand people on the 4th of July, and that they were all perfectly satisfied. He talks with the female visitors, remarking on Ellen Jewett’s person and dress to them, he having “spared no expense in dressing her; and all the ladies say that a dress never set better, and he thinks he never knew a handsomer female.” He goes to and fro, snuffing the candles, and now and then holding one to the face of a favorite figure. Ever and anon, hearing steps upon the staircase, he goes to admit a new visitor. The visitors,-— a half-bumpkin, half country-squire-like man, who has something of a knowing air, and yet looks and listens with a good deal of simplicity and faith, smiling between whiles; a mechanic of the town; several decent-looking girls and women, who eye Ellen herself with more interest than the other figures,-—women having much curiosity about such ladies; a gentlemanly sort of person, who looks somewhat ashamed of himself for being there, and glances at me knowingly, as if to intimate that he was conscious of being out of place; a boy or two, and myself, who examine wax faces and faces of flesh with equal interest. A political or other satire might be made by describing a show of wax-figures of the prominent public men; and by the remarks of the showman and the spectators, their characters and public standing might be expressed. And the incident of Judge Tyler as related by E----- might be introduced.

----end

Hawthorne mentions that the exhibitor sold "printed histories of the personages." This appears to be one of them, judging by the last pages of the booklet.

Life and Conversations of R. P. Robinson, the Supposed Murderer of Ellen Jewett (Boston: 1837), link

Pages 2-3

PREFACE

In the annals of modern crime there is not recorded a murder committed under circumstances more calculated to arouse curiosity than the one in question. It awakens more than the thrilling interest of romance. It is a real tragedy which truth alone can embellish; and if rightly improved will do more to guard the footsteps of the young than all the fictions of the stage, or the homilies of the pulpit. It is not an affair of another age or country, relying upon the credit of historians for its veracity; but an event of but yesterday, passing before our sight in the midst of a thronged metropolis. The victim of the murder was a person who, however unworthy, filled no small space in the public eye. Thousands who w[ere] ignorant, both of her name and character, have done homage to her charms. Such was the beauty of her person, that many who have seen her but once, will remember her forever. She was beautiful, witty, accomplished-—all, but chaste, that woman can be-—an Eve perverted to a Milwood. In another age or country, and under different circumstances, she might have figured as a Helen or Cleopatra. How little did she in childhood anticipate-—how little did those fond friends who hursed her infancy in the retirement of a New England village, anticipate her future career of guilt, and the tragic end that awaited her And the heartless villain who betrayed her to infamy-—where is he? Why sleeps the vengeance of law? Where are the national morals? Why does not the voice of public sentiment shake down those altars upon which female virtue is daily sacrificed? How long shall the crime of seduction be tolerated? If it be countenanced by existing laws, and the existing code of morals, is it not time to frame new laws and a new code of morals? Surely it is the duty of all men of real honor to unite and speak out their true sentiments on this subject. For God's sake let us dare speak out manfully and say whether or not he shall be regarded as a gentleman, who, by the seduction of a gifted woman like Ellen Jewett, as it were, rolls an avalanche upon society. If woman was to show. a disposition and ability to inflict upon our sex as great an amount of wretchedness as her own sex suffers from the art and perfidy of man, we should call public meetings and make resolves and enactments for the protection of our persons and privileges. But as woman has no direct political influence she must look for protection to the honor and generosity of man. Let us not abuse her confidence; for she has been ever faithful, from that hour when Adam went forth from the garden into the wilderness of thorns, leaning upon the arm of his devoted spouse. If woman has erred, she has erred in loving man too deeply, and in confiding in him too much. The conversations contained in the following pages, are published by the consent of Richard P. Robinson, who is now in Texas. They may be relied on as strictly true. The dialogue is almost verbatim as spoken. The author is sure that it will be read with avidity, since little is known here of Robinson, except through such portions of his journal as have become public. The writer having spent several days with him, after his acquittal, availed himself of the opportunity afforded of studying his character and actions, and carefully noting down his words.

Pages 4-5

CONVERSATIONS, ETC.

I. Have you as much pride as ever, Robinson?

R. No. I have run my career. I have nothing more to hope from the patronage of this hypocritical world. I have no desire to flatter it. Mankind! I love ye not. I will no longer pretend to see you as you would seem to others. I know your disguise; I have worn it—-I know your arts; I have practised them-—I know the trickery of the stage; I have myself been behind the curtains-—examined the scenes, scrutinized the tinselled wardrobes-—sneered at the elements of a thunderstorm, and convivialized in the green-room. I can unmask one half of New York and uncloak the other. I know that city, web and woof, male and female, from the East river to the North, and from Castle Garden to Washington Place. I have not only surveyed its length and breadth, but sounded, also, its depth, even from La Fayette Place down to Corlear's Hook. I am familiar with the pollution of the Five Points, and the unwritten rascalities of the upper circles.

[...]

Pages 6-7

[...]

I. You probably owe your life to Mr. Robert Furlong.

R. Mr. Furlong has an excellent memory, much better than mine. “That sight is very sharp, I ween,” &c. Mr. Furlong is a very worthy man. You see the benefit of smoking. Had I not been at Furlong's to purchase cigars, I might have been sworn to death. Smoking may kill other folks, but it keeps me alive. Will you take a good cigar. I am something of an epicure in the matter of cigars. These are from the Champaign fountain. I observe you bite off the twist. That is wrong. Take your knife and make an incision, thus. All luxuries lose their zest if taken out of time or manner-—whether women, wine, or cigars. I like to see things done exactly right-—for example, the tying of a cravat or the folding of a letter. Ellen could finish a letter genteelly. She has cost me no little sum in the item of sealing wax.

I. What has become of all your letters from Ellen? Were they all delivered up?

R. No, indeed, I have them locked up in a trunk within a trunk. You shall see some of them.

I. Do you think Ellen loved you?

R. How could she help it? Half the women in New York were in love with me. Somehow I pass for “a marvellous proper man.” I can go back to Gotham and marry an heiress. But out upon matrimony, say I. I am not fond of cold ham.

I. Perhaps not. But how do you like living here at home? Are you contented?

R. No. I sigh for the Manhattan fleshpots. Country life is very “stale and unprofitable.” Come-—take a ride with me to New Haven. I must have action or ennui. Connecticut is a very stupid little state. I wish I were swimming in Broadway again. I love “life in Lunnun.” Hoxie says 't will never do to go back. I suppose I am rather unpopular with the whiskered portion of New York. The envious vulgar are always ready to drag down a man of distinction to their own level. Why, the Duke of Wellington was once attacked by the mob, in his own carriage. No doubt, if I should be caught at the Five Points, I should be in danger of tar and feathers. Speaking of the Five Points, I will show you a description of that delightful place, which I once gave a friend. Here is a copy of the letter containing it. It may interest one who is a stranger to New York.

I. How did you manage to support your extravagant way of living in New York?

R. Why, I hardly know, myself. Have you never observed that some folks always seem to have a plenty of money, without income or economy? “Behold the lillies of the valley.”—There are hundreds of young fellows in New York who live in this way. The thing is easier in practice than in theory. It is only requisite, the moment you get five dollars, to convert it into clothing. I have always found this the truest economy; and when you need five dollars, why beg it, or borrow it, or , get it in any of forty ways.

I. Yes, I understand. But what is the end of this way of living?

R. The end? There is only one end to be examined. Before you reach the other end, there are chances enough of marrying a fortune-—or drawing a prize in a lottery—-or at the worst, of being converted.

I. Did you find many interesting girls amongst the courtezans in New York?

R. Yes. Some of them surpass all other women I have ever known, in beauty; but above all, in eloquence. They can tell piteous tales of their wrongs and sufferings, tricks of the trade though, tricks of the trade, I do assure you.

I. What kind of a woman is Rosina Townsend?

R. Rosina! She is the very devil,--rather plausible,-- as mild sometimes, as a cat with five kittens purring in the ashes. But I tell you she is the devil. “I could a tale unfold"-—but live and let live is my motto. Let her go back into her old business—-open house and make her living by her trade, like an honest woman. Justice can better spare her than New York can.

[...]

----end