Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report

[Mayerling]

It was not always safe to be a millionaire, as Gould and his banker-ally Sage learned. In 1892 there was a particularly bloody strike against the steel plants at Homestead, Pennsylvania, and the leader of the management forces was the younger partner of Andrew Carnegie, the very able and very forceful magnate Henry Clay Frick. It was Frick who hired Pinkerton men to be a private army against the Union workers at Homestead. The casualty rate was high (between 20 and 40 people on both sides). Then, while Frick was in his office giving his daily orders for the strike breaking (which eventually succeeded), a small man came into the office. He was Mr. Alexander Berkman, a anarcho-socialist, and boyfriend of the anarchist spokeswoman, Emma Goldman. Berkman attacked and injured Frick with a knife and gun. Frick was seriously wounded, and Berkman arrested. Berkman would have a heavy jail sentence for the attempted assassination. Frick would recover.

Whatever one thinks of Frick's anti-union feelings, one aspect of his career keeps his memory somewhat green - he was a major art collector, and his homes in his native Pittsburgh, Pa., and in New York City (on Central Park East facing 5th Avenue) remain two lovely art collection museums. I recommend then to you if you visit either city.

[Mayerling]

There was also a pair of attacks aimed at J. P. Morgan Jr., known as Jack Morgan (1867 to 1943). Like his father a prominent banker and art collector, during World War I he led most of the U.S. banks in supporting Britain and the allies with loans. In 1915 he was at home in Glen Cove, Long Island, when a man calling himself "Frank Holt" knocked at the door, and when he was admitted ran into the house and shot Morgan in the abdomen and groin. Holt was knocked out with a large lump of coal, and the police arrested him. Morgan was rushed to a hospital and recovered eventually.

Holt was a curious character. His real name was Frantz Muenter (he is listed in the Wikipedia), and had once taught German at Harvard, when in 1908 his wife died. It turned he poisoned her. He fled, but remained in the U.S for the next seven years. Muenter suddenly developed a type of terrorist style patriotism, committing acts of terror and sabotage in the U.S. A short time before shooting Morgan he also bombed the cloak room of the U.S. Senate in the Capitol Building (a lot of damage, but no fatalities or injuries) and it later turned out he set a time bomb off on a ship called the S.S. "Minniehaha" with a cargo of arms for the Allies (the bomb went off but not near the cargo hold, and the fire was snuffed out). Muenter, when arrested, said he was fighting the sale of arms from American manufacturers to the Allies. He was arraigned for attempted murder (and still had the 1908 homicide case against him as well), but he hanged himself in his prison cell. As a result we still are not sure why he poisoned his wife, nor on what led to the splurge of patriotism (for example, if he felt so patriotic why did he not return to Germany to fight for her in World War I?).

The second time Morgan was targeted was in 1920. This was the tragic Wall Street bombing in that year. Morgan was in England on a trip, and while there learned that a horse and wagon had been parked at the corner of Broad Street and Wall Street next to the headquarters of the Bank of Morgan and across from the New York Stock Exchange. It blew up at lunch hour, killing over twenty people, and mangling many others. Despite years of investigations the police never solved who was responsible for the outrage. Jack Morgan returned from his trip and saw there were scrapnel damage from the bomb on the outside wall of his bank. He was asked if he wanted it repaired. He told his staff not to - it should remain a permanent monument for the dead and injured in the outrage. As a result you can see the small holes in the outside wall to this day.

Jeff

[TradeName]

Thanks, Jeff.

The New York Sun's coverage of the Russell Sage bombing focused on the story that a dime museum cowboy gave to Byrnes that led to a socialist crank named Southworth. The Sun had some fun linking Southworth to a man who worked for the World.

I was also curious about the Sun's references to a George Francis Train, who seems to have convinced himself that the Sage bomber was a man, Klensch or Kleush, who served as Train's personal secretary on one of Train's around the world trips. The Sun's reporter wrote as if he expected Train to be known to the reader, and that he was not taken seriously.

New York Sun, December 05, 1891, Page 1, Column 5

With Nitro-Glycerine

A madman Blows Up Russell Sage's Office


New York Sun, December 06, 1891, Page 2, Column 1

The Dead Head Recognized

Inspector Byrnes Thinks He Has Struck the madman's Trail

[...]

Shortly before 10 o'clock George Francis
Train came to the Morgue and said that he
had given the bomb thrower "those black
socks." He took off his shoe to show that he
wore the same kind of foot wear. He had on
a pair of black socks. He looked at the
head in the bottle and said that he felt confident
that he could identify the man. But he
would not give any name. He said that he
could not make his identification certain until
he had seen Coroner Mesaemer, who, he said,
had a letter written in German by the dead
man.

[...]

----end

New York Sun, December 07, 1891, Page 2, Column 1

Mr. Sage Begins to Feel It

Very Tired Yesterday And Not Going Down To-Day

[...]

Oeorge Francis Train says that he gave the
bomb thrower the trousers he had on as well
as his black socks. "I bought those trousers
for $9 at Wanamaker in Chicago on March
8, 1890," said G. F. T "and I gave them to
him about six weeks ago. I have some
letters, whloh I think were written
bv Walsh, the man who wrote the
threatening letters to Russell Sage. The
letters I got from him were sensational;
he was going to do something to astonish
people. The man was a German. He was not
an Anarchist nor was he connected with them.
He was going to make a sensation and go
out in a blaze. The police have yet to come to
me if they want to find out who this man was."

[...]

----end

New York Sun, December 08, 1891, Page 5, Column 3

Russell Sage Pretty Deaf
--
Vrooman Knows Southworth


New York Sun, December 09, 1891, Page 1, Column 3

Russell sage Drives Out

Southworth Not Connected Yet With Any "Movement" to Dynamite Capitalists

[...]
.
"Prof." Denton has turned up. and says that
it isn't his head that's in the Morgue, G. F. T.
also admits that the dynamiter is not the man
he supposed. He thought it was Klensch, one
of the dime museum fasters, who is still in this
world.

[...]

---end


New York Sun, December 13, 1891, Page 9, Column 1

Mr. Vrooman, Organizer

His Enemies Saying Hard Things of Southworth's Associate

[TradeName]

An article about Train's world tour that mentions Klensch.

New York Sun, July 09, 1891, Page 7, Column 3

Citizen Train Comes and Goes

His Trip Around the World--Everything but the World's Fair Going to Smash

Citizen George Francis Train arrived by the
Majestic yesterday. He is on his fifth trip
around the world. The first was made thirty-fIve
years ago, and it took him two years to
make it. This one began at New Whatcom,
Wash., on May 9 and he set out to complete it
in fifty-five days. He won't succeed, but it will
be the quickest trip he has made.

A SUN reporter found Citizen Train at the
Continental Motel surrounded by papers on
which were pasted newspaper clippings, letters,
telegrams photographs, and sketches, each
devoted to a day of tbe trip.

"Yes, just arrived," he said, "leave for
Chicago this afternoon. Take a walk around
the room and look at the pictures. We're on
the eve of a revolution--everything will go to
pieces in thirty days. Seen this tea I brought
over?--new crop of Moyune; left Shanghai
May Z8. By the Way ,just say I'll save the
Worlds Fair. Ever seen a new fishing rod I
bought for a sixpence? Pulls out like A telescope.
Met my secretary, Mr Klensch?
Great fellow; pays all his own expenses and
does all the work. Travels just lor the
experience he gets.

Then Citizen Train told about his Journey.
He reached Yokohama in 11 days; Kobi,
Japan, in 12; Shanghai China, 16; Hong Kong,
18; Singapore, 24, and Port Said in 42. From
Fort Said he went to Brindisi, took the fast
mail train for Paris, and arrived in England in
time to catch tbe Majestic.

Fourth of July was celebrated on the Majestic.
Citizen Train wrote impromptu sonnets
on the backs of the menu cards and sent them
to many of the voyagers. He also made an
oration He said that during the whole trip he
had not soon an American flag on land or
water, except the one be wore around his
helmet.

Decorated with a Turkish fez and red sash,
and wearing a huge bouquet in his lapel, he
left at 4:50 o'clock last evening for Chicago.
He expects to reach New Whatcom on July 11
or 12, completing his trip in sixty-two or sixty-three
days. His last trip took seventy-seven
and one-half days. The next one, he says will
be made five years hence and will take thirty
days, going by way of Vladivostock, on the
Japan Sea, and over the new railway to St.
Petersburg. He reckons nine days from New
Whatcom to Vladivostock, nine by rail to St.
Petersburg, two to London, five to New York,
and three to New Whatcom.

---end

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 19, 1891, Page 2, Column 2

Crank Klensch Goes to New York

TACOMA, Aug. 18.--[Special.]--John N.
Klensch, of Whatcom, was in the city yesterday
en route for New York city.
Klensch acted as private secretary to
George Francis Train during his last trip
around the world, and now shakes hands
with himself and imitates Train in many
other ways. He is a vegetarian, and just
before leaving for New York he informed
Manager Kelley, of the Grand Pacific hotel,
that he will in that city fulfill for a society
of physicians an engagement to fast fifty
days for $10,000. Judging from the small
amount eaten by him while at his hostelry,
Mr. Kelley is of the opinion that Klensch
will succeed.

----end

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 27, 1891, Page 4, Column 4

Psycho Train's Secretary Insane

Chicago Special, Sept 22.

In the insanity court yesterdav, before Judge
Sherwood, John N. Klensch. the friend and companion
of George Francis Train, was placed on
trial. Inspector Schaak, on behalf of several
prominent German citizens, agreed to take
charge of Mr. Klensch. He was accordingly
discharged. Mr. Klensch, who is looked upon
as a crank by his friends, says he accompanied
Mr. Train upon his last trip around the globe.
He parted from Train in this city and has
remained here at liberty until arrested by the
West chicago avenue police for wandering about
the streets. Klensch is a native of Cappellan,
in tbe duchy of Luxembourg, where his family
resides. He talks six languages fluently, and is
versed in many arts and sciences.

----end

The fast Klensch participated in was marked by the death of one of the fasters.

New York Sun, November 20, 1891, Page 7, Column 5

Stratton's Fast Kills Him

G. Henry Stratton, the faster, died In Bellevue
Hospital about 4 1/2 A. M. yesterday. He
was one of half a dozen fasters with records
who set out on Oct. 5 to fast fifty days at Huber's
Museum, The others were; Collins, weight
144 1/2 pounds: Sanabrah. weight 138 1/2: Kirby.
163 1/2: Manning, 146 1/2, and Klensch. 143 1/2.
Stratton weighed 270 1/2 pounds.

The announced terms on which the fast was
conducted were that the participants were
each to got a salary of $20 the first week and
$35 the second. After the first fortnight each
was to got 10 per cent. of the gate receipts, the
remalnder to go to the one who fasted the
longest even if the fifty day's' fast was not
accomplished. Sanabrah and Manning gave out
at the end of six days. Kirby lasted thirteen
days and Klensch a fortnight. Collins lasted
twonty days. All drank alkaline waters of
some sort except Klensch, who drank Croton.
Stratton drank Bethesda water. When Collins
dropped out Stratton directed that whatever
he made out ot the fast should be givon to his
mother, Mrs. James Leclerc of Brooklyn, who
is 80 years old.

Stratton is said to havo taken nothing but
water until last week, Thursday, when the
action of his heart became so weak and he
vomited so exhaustingly that Dr. Herold prescribed
champagne at the rate of three teaspoonfuls
a day. This virtually ended the fast,
as the conditions were that only water should
be taken, Stratton, however. whllo he continued
to take champagne in evidently far
more liberal doses than were prescribed, insisted
that the fast was still on. und that it
would not be ended until he took something
solid.

In spite of the champngne Stratton was in so
bad case last Monday, forty-one days from the
beginning of the fast, that the doctors insisted
on his taking nourishment in the form of food.
It is alleged that he stuffed his handkerchief
into his mouth when thuy tried to make him
eat, saying that he would not take anything
solid until the fifty days had expired, as he
wanted to beat Succi's record. They persuaded
him to tako somo cocoa, however. but in
spite of the nourishment thus obtained he
continued to fail so rapidly that the doctors
had him taken to Bellevue Hospital.

He was at first put In one of the medical
wards, it being supposed that he was suffering
from debility due to his long fast but he speedily
showed so much strength, due apparently
to drink, that he was removed to the alcoholic
ward. When there he continued to exhibit a
vigor that seemed incompatible with the claim
that he had eaten nothing for forty odd days,
and he did not become quiet until threatened
with a straitjacket.

He was then able to take nourishment in a
liquid form, but his stomach became incapable
of retaining it. and he grew very weak.
Wednesday he passed in a sort of semi-stupor,
and toward evening he sank rapidly, in spite
of the peptonized food which was administered
in enemas. His pulse reached 140 before
it stopped.

Stratton lost flfty-three pounds in the course
of his fast. An autopsy made by Deputy Coroner
Donlln showed that the immediate cause
of death was alcoholic coma, due to cerebral
congestion, while a secondary cause was fatty
degeneration of the heart. There were two
and a half inches of fat on tho body. As. however,
there was no food in the stomaoh except
that administered at the hospital, Dr. Donlin
thought the fast might have been a real one,
and that the system had absorbed the muscular
tissue in place of the fat.

As to the alcoholism, it is acknnwlodged that
Stratton drank two quart bottles of champagne
in the four days following Thursday,
and it is also alleged that he got alcohol in
stronger form from an attendant at the
museum.

At the inquest, which will be held on Tuesday,
Coroner Hanly will endeavor to discover
who was responsible for Statton's [sic] death, and
whether thpse who aided and abetted him are
criminally liable.

Huber does not consider himself responsible
tor Stratton's doath. as he says the fasting
match was not initiated by him. J. M. Cousart
of Pittsburgh being the originator and manager.
There is $700. which will be paid to
Mrs. Leclerc.

Stratton's body was removed from the Morgue
soon after the autopsy and buried in Greenwood
in the afternoon by W. A. Stratton of
Brooklyn, the faster's brother. Stratton was
born in Brooklyn in 1851. He once fasted
thirty days at a public exhibition in Buffalo.
He was formerly a hotel clerk in Cortland and
was known as a teetotaler.

----end

In an odd twist, a sheriff publicly expressed his suspicions that a boy Stratton had adopted was actually Charley Ross, who was kidnapped in 1874. This was probably just one of many false identifications.

New York Sun, November 27, 1891, Page 7, Column 5

Another Charley Ross

The Sheriff of Cortland County Believes He is on the Track of the Long Lost Boy

Cortland, Nov. 26.--The death of G. Henry
Stratton in New York, after trying to break
Succi's fasting record, has brought to light a
strange story. It has been in the possession
of Sheriff Borthwick and the father of missing
Charley Ross of Philadelphia for two years.
These two men havo been working to identify,
in a boy adopted by Stratton, the missing
Charley Ross. Thiss morning Sheriff Borthwick
told this story:

"It is not generally known that Stratton was
a married man. He separated from his wife,
who is now in Minnesota, many years ago. The
separation was caused by Stratton introducing
into his family a boy whom he said he had
adopted. Mrs. Stratton did not want the boy in
the family, and when she gave her husband the
choice between herself and the boy he chose
the boy. This boy, I believe, was none other
than Charley Ross. 1 will not say now nor
until I have concluded my Investigation why I
believe this. When Stratton came to this village
he brought the boy with him. He was
known as Fred Stratton. although Stratton admitted
that he was not the boy's father. I
have been corresponding with Mr. Ross
in Philadelphia for some time. We have found
many little Incidents related by the boy that
have led Mr. Ross to believe that there may be
something in it. In some way Stratton learned
of what 1 know, and sent the boy to Denver. I
had many talks with him before he was sent
away, and what I learned I am not now at liberty
to say. As Stratton is dead. I believe much
more will come to light. Stratton was a very
peculiar man in many ways, but would
never tell where he got the boy. There are
many things about the boy that carry out
my belief. This boy has cut quite a figure in
Stratton's life. and. besides separating him
from his wife, prevented him from marrying a
Brooklyn lady of wealth. She frequently came
to this village to see Stratton. and would have
married him were it not for the fact that he
persisted in having this boy with him."

Sheriff Borthwick showed a large pile of
letters he had received from Mr. Ross. He
says he will continue his investigation until
his belief is either confirmed or knocked out.
Sheriff Borthwick is not a man to believe without
reason. and he says his reasons are formed
on good ground, which in time will be made
public.

---end

A book about the Ross kidnapping by the boy's father.

The Father's Story of Charley Ross, the Kidnapped Child (Philadelphia: John E. Potter, 1876), link
by Christian Kunkel Ross

Another book about the Ross case.

Life, Trial and Conviction of William H. Westervelt, for the Abduction of Little Charley Ross (Philadelphia: Barclay, 1875), link
By Erastus Elmer Barclay


The coroner's findings in Stratton's death.

New York Sun, December 09, 1891, Page 5, Column 5

The Faster's Death from Starvation

A Coroner's Jury Recommend that Such Fasts be Prohibited

Coroner Hanly and a jury containing nine
physicians held an inquest yesterday in the
case of George H. Stratton, who died at Bellevue
Hospital on Nov. 10 after going without
food for forty-one days in an effort to surpass
Succi's fast.

Deputy Coroner Donlin. who made the autopsy
on the faster's body, said that while
death was directly due to alcoholism, alcohol
would not have produced such an effect had
he been properly nourished. A secondary
cause was fatty degeneration of the heart.

Dr. Justin Herold. who with Dr. B.J. Wimmer,
oversaw of the fasting match, said Stratton
drank only seventeen teaspoonsful of
champagne, which he had prescribed as a cure
for nausea. The rest he presumed, was consumed
by Stratton's visitors. The witness described
in detail Stratton's fast, and declared
that when the faster began to break
down he advised him to discontinue it, Stratton
persisted, and could only be persuaded to
take food in the shape ot cocoa on tho forty-first
day,

The testimony went to show that Stratton
was alone responsible for his fatal fast. The
following verdict was returned:

"We, the jury in the case of the late George
Henry Stratton, find that his death at Bellevue
Hospital on Nov. 10. 1891, was induced by
starvation, and we further respectfully state
our conviction that such exhibitions should be
regarded as demoralizing and criminal, and
that they should be prohibited by legal enactment."

----end

A book on forensic medicine by one of the doctors mentioned in the article above.

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


Returning to Klensch or Kleush.

New York Sun, December 17, 1891, Page 7, Column 2

A Faster's Insanity

Threatened to Pitch His Brother Out the Window--Once Citizen's Train's Secretary

At the Jefferson Market Court yesterday
Justice Kelly committed four persons to Bellevue
for examination by the city physicians.

John M. Kleush. 30 years old, who has been
living for the last week with his brother, at
702 Washington street, was one of the fasters
at Huber's Museum, but stayed in the contest
only five days. Prior to that he had been a
floor walker in a Fourteenth street store, and
before that had been private secretary to
George Francis Train, whom he accompanied
in his travels. Two years ago Kleush was injured
in an accident on the Staten Island
Rapid Transit Railroad, and got $2,400 damages.

When Kleush came to his brother's house a
week ago ho acted strangely, and on Tuesday
he told his brother that he was going to throw
him or one of the children out of the window.
The brother asked for time to reflect and make
a decision, and went to Justice Kelly for a
warrant. Court Officers Foley and Connolly
found the crazy man barricaded in his room
and had to climb into a window to arrest him.
He was lying on the bed nuked, having thrown
his clothes into the yard.

[...]

----end

[TradeName]

George Francis Train had crossed paths with Byrnes in 1873 when Train published a newspaper advertised as "obscene" to show solidarity with Victoria Woodhull and Tennie Claflin.

New York Sun, December 09, 1872, Page 4, Column 6




The New York Tombs: Its Secrets and Its Mysteries (San Francisco: A. Roman, 1874), The New York Tombs: Its Secrets and Its Mysteries (San Francisco: A. Roman, 1874), Pages 515-519
edited by James B. Mix, Samuel Anderson Mackeever

After the publication of the second number, [Anthony] Comstock, of obscene literature notoriety, went before the Grand Jury and complained of George Francis Train for editing what he styled an obscene journal, known as the Train Ligue. The Grand Jury found an indictment against Mr. Train, and Judge Ingraham ordered his arrest. On Thursday afternoon Mr. Comstock called on Captain Byrnes, of the Mercer-street police station, and placed the warrant in his hands. The Captain was informed that Train could be found at 735 Broadway. At that number John Wesley Nichols, the ostensible publisher of the Ligue, has a photograph gallery, and it was from his place and by him that the paper was supplied to newsdealers and others. Captain Byrnes went to the place, but Mr. Train was not there. Leaving officers Henderson and Young to watch the house, the Captain started on another clue in search of Train.

As he left the house a cart drove up. The Captain saw it and returned. In the meantime an indictment had been found against Nichols, and the warrant for his arrest had also been placed in the hands of Captain Byrnes. After the cart drove up to 735 Broadway it was loaded with about 1,500 copies of the Ligue, and then driven off. Nichols followed the cart. Captain Byrnes sent officer Carr with instructions to arrest Nichols and seize the papers. The driver turned down Fourth street, and thence drove down Mercer street, past the very door of the police station. Just there Nichols was arrested and the papers were seized. Captain Byrnes and officers Henderson and Young remained at 735 Broadway.

After the arrest Captain Byrnes saw a small boy hurriedly leave Nichols's apartments with a letter. Shrewdly surmising that this boy was the bearer of a letter to Mr. Train from Nichols's wife, informing Mr. Train of the arrest of her husband, the Captain sent officer Henderson to follow the boy. The messenger went direct to 313 West Twenty-second street, and entered the house. The officer, who was in civilian's clothes, followed. In the front parlor he found Mr. Train and arrested him. Mr. Train was at first indignant, but finally became calm, proclaimed himself a martyr, and wildly extending his arms, shouted, "Take me to the Bastile!"

Train was now in his element and equal to any emergency. He was never silent. He said to us,as we grasped his hand,"On the 2d of November I addressed 10,000 people in Broad street. A few days after that Woodhull and Claflin were arrested. I became satisfied that these innocent women were to be punished to satisfy the morbid sentiments of a cowardly community. I wrote two letters to the press in connection with their arrest. These letters created a furore, and the press, afraid of the public, refused to publish any more of my letters. I volunteered not only to become bail for these persecuted women, but started this paper to show the community that I had the courage to face public opinion, the same as I faced and defied 2,500 infuriated Californians, when I advocated in San Francisco the introduction of greenbacks. I issued two numbers of the Ligue. They claim that it is an obscene publication. This I do not deny; but if it is obscene the obscenity is culled from the Bible, for there is in the last number three columns of extracts from the Bible. I have been in thirteen prisons, but this is the only one that I have been in where there is nothing to cover myself with. Besides, sir, the indignity that has been thrust upon me. I am a gentleman of means and education, and they have placed me in the very cell in which a woman made three attempts to hang herself, and in which Bleakley, the murderer of poor Maud Merrill, over whose body six of your moral Christian ministers refused to perform Christian devotions, were confined."

The officials tried the freezing process, but Train laughed at them. His hot blood was more than a match for the cold devices of his keepers. Wrapped in his travelling rug, he paced his noisome cell like an angry tiger waiting for his rations. That winter was a season of uproar in Murderers' Row.

He made the Tombs his home despite the authorities. They consigned him to Murderers' Row in that prison, in the vain hope that the rigors of the place might terrify him into a flight from the city—-for the Grand Jury which indicted him had made itself a butt of ridicule, and his case threatened to give the Courts a deal of trouble. But Train, on crossing the threshold of the Tombs, said, "I'll raise hell in this Egyptian Sepulchre," and he stuck to his cell, persistently rejecting the Warden's invitations to a seat at his private tea-table, and absolutely refusing to go out occasionally and spend a night with his family in their palace on Murray Hill, saying: "If you once get me out you will lock me out, and I intend to stay here until I fulfil my mission." What his notion of that mission was passes human understanding; but to ordinary mortals it seemed only to be to keep his name before the public. This he contrived to do by organizing the Murderers' Club, with himself as President. The business of that Club, which was transacted in the hours set apart for the common herd of prisoners to spend in exercise in the corridors, was to make the place so much of a hell on earth as to invite the attention of the newspapers, and thus keep Train's name before the people. Train, however, did something for his fellow-prisoners in creating a fraternity in Murderers' Row, and there is little doubt that, under the fraternal feeling which he created, some of the money which paved the way for Wm. J. Sharkey's escape from the prison was paid in checks signed within the prison cells.

Finally his case came before the Courts, and never before was such a ludicrous farce enacted in a Court of Justice. Dignity, amid the scenes that daily occurred there, could not even be assumed by either Judge, Jury, or Counsel. It was one continual roar of laughter. Train outwitted counsel, and even the experts on insanity felt the keen shafts of his satire. On returning to the Tombs, after the adjournment of the Court on the first day, Train managed to elude the vigilance of the Deputy Sheriff, and actually walked to the jail, where to his astonishment he found that the Warden had, during his absence, removed all his traps to another part of the building, where the accommodations were much more cheerful. This Train denounced as tyranny, to be denied access to his cell. He struck an attitude, and said to the Warden:

"'Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage.' Away! away with me to the Bastile!"

Solitude, Train was not prepared for. The Warden found the weak joint in his mental armor, and he was forced to remain isolated from the Murderers' Club. After deciding in his own mind that the American people were a nation of dogs, he shook the American soil from his soles, mounted the poop-deck of an English steamer, and left the country in disgust. But since then he has crossed and recrossed the broad Atlantic, and now is with us again, ready to become Dictator of an Empire, and thereby fulfil his destiny.

---end

A sardonic review of Train's vita.

The Saturday Review, July 13, 1878, Pages 50-51

An American Prophet

MR. GEORGE FRANCIS TRAIN is a nrophet who is chiefly honoured in his own country. He is the most American of Americans, and has discovered a number of specifics for the moral, intellectual, and physical maladies of his countrymen. He it is who proposes that all Americans should do as a thing of conscience what most Americans do at present without knowing it—-namely, "wear American clothes, develop American ideas, and use the American language." Mr. Train is being "run" at present by Mr. Leon H. Lempert (late manager Rochester Opera House), who finds that "the dramatic business is paralyized everywhere," and that the oratorical business pays better. The peculiar spelling of the word "paralyized" shows that Mr. Lempert has the courage of Mr. Train's ideas. It may be worth while, before briefly considering the events of Mr. Train's career and the theories which he promulgates, to notice the mode in which he offers his distinguished services to the American people.

Mr. Lempert sends to managers of Athenaeums, Parthenons, Literary Societies, and so forth, a document in which he sets forth that George Francis Train is "once more at the front." These words supply matter for profound thought. One seems to see the vast movement of the Anglo-Saxon race in the States passing across the stage of history in the direction of repudiation, paper money, general massacres of Chinese, and other reforms. Once more in the front, Mr. Train capers at the head of a cultivated people, and waves the banner of "Absolute Dictatorship and the Organization of Property." Perhaps these words mean that Mr. Train, or some one whom he can conscientiously recommend, ought to be made Dictator in America, and satisfy the working-men who have no work to do and the Western gentlemen who disapprove of hard money. At present the lecturer is content to accept fees of twenty-five cents a head from intelligent listeners. Managers of Athenreunis are assured that "selling tickets beforehand hedges against the storm "—-a figurative American expression, in which "the storm " probably means the lack of public interest. Meantime Mr. Lempert does his part in a munificent way. "I furnish the Lecturer, Three Sheet Posters, 'Hangers,' 'Dodgers,' Blackboard (which Mr. Train requires for the Stage), Tickets, and Ticket takers." Surely it must be well worth while to accept the offer of Mr. Train's services, hangers, dodgers, and three sheet posters! The manager who doubts has only to read the record of Mr. Train's life, and he must inevitably come to the conclusion that to engage Train is to "strike oil, Train oil."

If one glorious hour of crowded life be really worth an age without a name, what is the precise value of Mr. Train's career of fifty years? This is a question in the rule of three which may be left to American moralists and arithmeticians. Mr. Train was born in 1829 (as we learn from a brief abstract and chronicle of his adventures), and never, surely, were hours more "crowded" than his! "Just for a moment look at this index of a live life," says the compiler, and we do look, with feelings of awe and of gratitude to Providence, which has set the Atlantic between this small One Horse Island and the glorious energy of George Francis Train. "God bless the (comparatively) narrow seas that keep him off!" Mr. Train's earliest recorded exploit is to have been the grandson of the Rev. Geo. Pickering, who emancipated his slaves, and, like a sensible person, "declined a Methodist bishoprick." Mr. Train, too, has made great refusals in his day, and at the age of twenty-four "declined Presidency of Australian Republic, tendered by Ballarat Revolutionists." The discretion which refused the presidency of a Republic which does not exist was quite worthy of Mr. Train's maternal ancestor, the Rev. George Pickering. As to education, the new Dictator enjoyed "two years' college life in Holmes's Grocery Store." He retains a strong contempt for any college except that in which he and Dr. Schliemann are the most distinguished modern pupils. With the scorn of the truly practical épicier he asserts that "for two centuries no American University has produced a man intellectually six feet high." Greek and Latin education is "exploded," he holds, "except to manufacture apothecaries and botanists." "Living linguists cannot understand the dead" is another of his aphorisms which must have some hidden meaning. He also declares that "college students should be taught something more practical and nobler than law, medicine, and theology." These ideas are commonly held by people who have been educated behind the counter, and they not only win applause in America, but are very popular in serious and commercial circles in England.

The chapter of Mr. Train's schooling is soon closed. Having exhausted the lessons to be gathered from figs and the sweet influences of moist sugar, Mr. Train, at the age of twenty, "organized prepaid passenger business and small bills of exchange throughout Europe and America." This sounds very imposing; but, thanks to the wretched character of British education, we admit that it conveys no idea to our mind. Whatever Mr. Train may have done, he founded a house of business; and the adventures of 1850 are compressed into the eloquent sentence, "Income ten thousand a year." "Ten thousand a year! it is the romance of real life. Two summers followed on two winters' snows, and Mr. Train's income was reckoned at fifteen thousand. An English boy would possibly, at the age which Mr. Train had attained, have secured a paltry Fellowship. Tired of America and of Liverpool, Mr. Train, in 1853, introduced stage coaches, railways, Fourth of July celebrations, and telegraphs to Australia. Grateful revolutionists offered him the Presidency, as we have seen; but, observing that no White House was yet erected, Mr. Train put the honour aside. Mr. Train's later exploits, including the birth of a daughter and the publication of a book, are not of much interest till we reach the date 1859. Then this restless spirit introduced tramways to Europe, and built the first street railway. We cannot pretend to be grateful, though it may please Mr. Train to learn that the seed sown has fallen on fruitful ground. We are threatened with street railways drawn by steam engines, and a new horror and a fresh danger and eyesore will soon be added, no doubt, to the American improvements adopted in England. When a railway passes screeching on the level of the bed-room windows, London will rival New York in the plenitude of its mechanical abominations.

In 1862 Mr. Train was tried for manslaughter, and "entertained distinguished men at Sunday breakfasts." To give Sunday breakfasts was quite worthy of this restless person who, in July, was " knocked down in Faneuil Hall," and "escaped assassination at Alton." If an opponent of tramways, maddened by the noise of the bells and the wheels, so far forgot himself as to knock down and try to slay Mr. Train, he has our respectful sympathy though nothing, of course, can really justify murder. The distinguished men whom Mr. Train entertained at breakfast may regret to hear that their host has "one thousand personal notes in auto-books," whatever auto-books may be. In 1865 our hero "addressed the first Fenian Convention in Philadelphia," and in 1868 (after building an hotel in sixty days) "gave Susan B. Anthony fifteen thousand dollars to start the Revolution." A man who owns fifteen thousand dollars seldom wishes to start the Revolution; but we do not learn from history that Miss Anthony proved the Cleopatra of any "epoch-making" change in American or European society. [Actually Train and Anthony started "The Revolution," a newpaper.] In prison often, like other enthusiasts, Mr. Train now "passed ten months in European jails," and employed his leisure in "developing epigrams." In 1869 he ran himself as "Greenback candidate for President"; but the time was not yet ripe. Disappointed at home, Mr. Train in 1870 "organized the Commune" in Paris, and we fear it must be said that he did not organize it well. Perhaps he had the contract for petroleum, and he may have done a good stroke of business in that mineral oil. He was imprisoned at Lyons "by Ganibetta" and at Chicago by some other person, and he thinks that "gaol reforms" are among the most pressing wants of the age. Chicago could not be burnt without an accusation against Mr. Train, who was supposed to have set fire to the place to serve his private ends. In 1873 he became, so the document before us declares, "President of the Murderers' Club." He was imprisoned in "the Tombs" and the officers used to leave the door open in the fond hope that Train would run away "and release the Government of a White Elephant." Mr. Train at this time turned his energies to the confutation of the Christian religion, which his biographer calls X. "X was collared in the Tombs," says the popular biography, just as some people might say that Mr. Spofforth was "collared" by Mr. Thornton at the match between the Australians and the Orleans Club. After "collaring X," the intrepid Train "made the London Times back down "; but really the London Times backs down so often that Mr. Train need not boast of the feat. In 1834 he was converted to the doctrines which he now preaches from every friendly platform that is supported bv an adequate number of tickets at twenty-five cents. What are those doctrines? They are (some of them) already dear to the more feeble-minded friends of advancement in England. Mr. Train became a vegetarian. "Commenced taking two Turkish baths a day. Stopped animal food, and Butter condiments. . . Commenced diet of boiled rice and baked apple twice a day." In addition to these practices, Mr. Train renounced "the filthy habit of handshaking," and so far he is on the side of the Turks. He "permitted no grown person to speak with him but two minutes." This was his substitute for Comte's hygiéne cérébrale. In 1876 he "abolished anno domini, and adopted his own age, forty-seven, as new departure date of Psychologic Era." Mr. Train's last recorded exploit was a miracle. He "made a five years' cripple walk in Madison Square."

Mr. Train's doctrines, which he calls psychological, are the result of the experience of an active life. We do not say that had he not been educated in a grocery he would have arrived at his psychological opinions. That all men should borrow in gold and pay in paper; that none should shake hands (and among American politicians the habit may perhaps have its drawbacks); that all should take two Turkish baths every day; that "Japan should be our model for polite conversation," are among the stouter "planks" of Mr. Train's "platform." He also avers that "funerals when friends gather round the casket spread disease." When Mr. Train publishes his American Dictionary and Grammar we may learn that " casket" is American for coffin. "That vaccination is deadly poison" we have heard before from Mr. Train's English teachers or disciples. For the Millennium of Uncle Tom, and of Evangelical America, Mr. Train has substituted what he calls "the Evolution." "Evolution comes," says the Prophet, " when 60,000 churches are turned into Turkish Baths." Can the Prophet possibly have a pecuniary interest in Turkish Baths? If not, there seems little method in the gospel of Mr. George Francis Train. It is good enough for his audience, no doubt, and we can easily believe that Mr. Train is welcome in places where "the drama is paralyzed." The real fun must be after the lecture, when the audience is permitted to discuss the doctrines of Mr. Train while he, like Napoleon III., "answers for order." We do not know whether Mr. Train or an admirer is responsible for the "development" of this "epigram," which seems to put the matter in a nutshell:—-

The Present Evolutionized.

Working men! Pay no taxes!
Start the battle! Grind your Axes!
The only way to save the nation
Is immediate Repudiation!

----end

[Mayerling]

A lot of material here - and again just a few minor points to make.

1) George Francis Train was a one time highly successful corporation promoters, who made a fortune in the building of railroads - especially the Union Pacific. But he was an eccentric. One of the articles points out he made five trips around the globe up to the 1890s (when his cushion of money finally ran out). His second one was in 1872, and caught the attention of novelist Jules Verne, who used it as the model for Phileas Fogg's similar trip in "Around the World in 80 Days". As a railroad promoter Train's trip was an advertising bonanza for his interests. He also set a model for real people, most notably newspaper reporter for the New York World, Nelly By, who did the tour around the world in 72 days in 1890 (and was met by Verne at Amiens, his home town, with the enquiry, "But where is Madam Aouda?" (Aouda is the heroine in the novel). Train also was a candidate for the Presidency in 1872 (one of about six minor candidates against President Grant running for re-election, and New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley). One of the other minor candidates was Victoria Woodhull, thus becoming the first well known woman candidate for the Presidency.

2) Victoria Woodhull and her sister Tennessee ("Tennie") Claffin remain two controvertial people in the history of the U.S. to this day. They got the notice of New York's very rich railroad and steamship king "Commodore" Cornelius Vanderbilt in the late 1860s, due to their claims ov being spiritualists. As such they supposedly gave him advice on stock manipulations and purchases, so that he eventually set them up as stock brokers. Whether he was smitten by the two ladies is anyone's guess. Vanderbilt's first wife died in the early 1860s, and he remarried a really young and pretty second wife. Frankie Vanderbilt signed one of the first versions of a pre-nuptial agreement, but the "Commodore" would show in his will his gratitude leaving her the then enormous sum of $500,000.00. So beauty had an effect on the old man (the Commodore was born in 1794 so he was entereing his 70s - by the way he was compis mentis up to his own demise in 1877).

The fact that Vanderbilt supported the Claffin sisters brought many customers, and apparently they were good at picking stocks (though one wonders if Vanderbilt tipped them off). But both were budding feminists, and believed in two "no-nos" of that period: 1) that women should have complete equality in the U.S, including the right to vote and to hold office; 2) that marriage was a dated convention, and if two people wish to have sex "free love" should be allowed. The latter was not exactly a point of view people would ignore. The leaders of the woman's suffrage movement in that period (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott) did not like being pushed into a set in the eyes of their critics with such colorful characters as the Claffin girls. They kept at arm's length to make sure their campaign for woman's suffrage was not compromised by any contact with Victoria and Tennessee. The Free Love business did not meet with approval with people like the anti-Vice crusader Anthony Comstock (as mentioned above). Only a few people like George Francis Train supported the two young women, and these supporters were considered eccentric or nuts.

Then came the explosion that shook New York City and Brooklyn. The girls also published a newspaper which told the news and also gave them a soapbox for their viewpoints. In 1874 they heard rumors about the misbehavior of a leading figure in the social and religious worlds of both Brooklyn and New York City (both still independent of each other). They traced them, and exposed them in their papers (as did their friend Train). It seemed that for a number of years Ms Libby Tilton, the wife of abolitionist speaker and writer (and editor of the nation's largest read religious paper) Theodore Tilton, was having too close a relationship with the head of the famious "Plymouth Church of the Fathers" in Brooklyn Heights, Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. Beecher was wildly heralded for his work at spreading the work of abolitionism in the 1850s (as did his sister Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of "Uncle Tom's Cabin") , and had even gone to England in 1863 on a speaking tour to express what the Lincoln Administration was trying to do in seeking victory in the American Civil War). He was America's highest paid Protestant clergyman of the day, and packed his church with congregants and visitors so that special ferry boats took them between Manhattan Island and Brooklyn on Sundays to hear Beecher - the boats were called "Beecher's boats".

Although he did support woman's suffage, Beecher had spoken out against Victorian and Tennessee, He openly felt they disgraced their sex with the Free Love argument. The revelations of his own sexual transgressions with Mrs. Tilton was just too good a story to ignore (and it was fun to get back at the hypocrite). So they published it, not giving his name at first, but leaving enough details in the story to make the reader realize it had to be Beecher and the Tiltons. Comstock got a court order that the sale of the newspaper was akin to selling illegal pornography, and had the paper closed - but the papers had been sold. Comstock also went after Train. But the damage was done, and Theodore Tilton resigned from his editorial job and left his wife. Soon Beecher was sued for alienation of affections of Mrs. Tilton by her husband. And the social order was rocked.

It would be the first of several dirty revelations. It turned out Beecher had also had an affair with the wife of the man who founded Plymouth Church. The wife was now dead, but before she died she confessed her sinning with Beecher to her husband. When he confronted Beecher with this, the man was thrown out of his position of being President of the Church's Board of Trustees. Another supporter, Frank Moulton, discovered that Rev. Beecher had also had an affair with his wife. Moulton soon was bringing suit against Beecher.

The trial was one of the biggest events of 1875. It's highpoint was when Beecher took the stand and kept denying every fact that had been brought out against him. However, astute courtroom experts noted that while others had been sworn in by placing their hand on the Bible and holding up their other hand, Beecher argued he could not be sworn in that way as it cheapened the value of the reveared word of God, so he was sworn in by the unusual method of one hand over his heart and the other one in the air. The experts pointed out this made (from the start) all of Beecher's testimony not only questionable, but unprosecutable as perjury as he was not sworn in properly!! The jury found for Beecher, probably due to his reputation as a religious man (prior to all this adulterous behavior being revealled) and he returned to his post at Plymouth Church. One of the onlookers, Henry "Marse Henry" Watterson, the Kentucky newspaper owner and editor, said that to him, Beecher's performance on the stand reminded him of a "dung hill covered in flowers".

Poor Libby Tilton, who had to testify, was abandoned by husband Theodore, who left the U.S. and spent the rest of his life living in Paris (he died in 1907). The Moultons split up as well. Apparently Beecher's local position in society was somewhat dented, but worse his wife always was aware of what he did behind her back and never allowed him to forget it. Comstock made sure that Victoria and Tennessee ceased publishing, but both met husbands who were English, and lived out the rest of their lives in Britain.

As mentioned earlier, after the Panic of 1893, Train's financial situation made for a smaller amount to support his life - so there were no more trips around the world. He died in 1904.

3. The kidnapping of Charles Ross in Germantown, Pa., on July 4, 1874.

The case is as interesting in it's way as the Ripper Case. Instead of a number of prostitutes being murdered gruesomely we have a boy of about 4 being kidnapped by two men in a buggy near his home, and in front of his two year old brother Walter. Christian Ross was a hard working, successful businessman, and he had just bought and paid for this lovely large mansion in Germantown. Possibly it was a mistake, as it advertised his wealth. The kidnappers may have noticed this, and earmarked him for a likely victim of extortion at it's cruelist.

Charley and Walter were playing in front of their home when the buggy or gig drove up with two men in it. They managed to lure Charley into the buggy and took off. The police investigation traced the gig, but found the men and Charley were seen headed out of Pennsylvania. Subsequent extortion notes were sent to Ross that suggested that Charley might be in New York City.

Ross was prepared to meet the demands of the kidnappers but was pressured (no other way of putting it) not to by the police and the rich men in his community - the latter fearing that if Ross paid off the ransom their own kids would be next). After a month of delays ordered by the police, the kidnappers warned Ross that he obviously was putting money above his son's life, and whatever happened afterwards was on his head. Then communication stopped.

In September 1874 a break occurred but it would be bungled by tragedy. The borough of Brooklyn was a whole city, and many sections that are now urban center were rural. One night a farmhouse was being broken into, and the owner, tipped off by noise, confronted two burglars with his shotgun and shot both. One (a man named Mosher) died on the spot, but his companion (a man named Douglas) managed to tell the farmer that the two of them had been the kidnappers of Charlie Ross. The farmer and the police on the scene tried to find out what happened to Charlie, but Douglas died before saying more than only Mosher and his brother-in-law knew.

Mosher's brother-in-law was a former policeman named William Westervelt. He was arrested and eventually tried as an accomplice in the kidnapping. He was found guilty and would serve a seven year term in prison. But he never admitted being in the crime, nor did he reveal if Charlie was dead or alive (and if alive, where he was).

Christian Ross would live for several decades more, spending every available moment tracind down "tips" and "clues" about where his son Charlie might be.
They all proved false. Sadly he died never seeing his son again. His surviving son Walter would live into the 1930s and also always wonder what happened to his older brother.

The most likely scenario is that Mosher and Westervelt probably killed Charlie at some point - maybe disposing his body in the East River of New York City.

This, by the way, was the first real kidnapping in American history - in that it was a plot to extort a ransom for the return of a person. Prior to this incidents occurred where people were kidnapped in public and never seen again (like the unknown fate of William Morgan in upstate New York, after he served a brief jail sentence, possibly due to Morgan revealing secrets of the Masons in a published book). After 1874 there were two variants on this case:

a) 1876 - the stealing of the body of dead multi-millionaire department store tycoon Alexander T. Stewart's body from it's temporary grave in St. Mark's of the Bouwerie Churchyard. Stewart's wife paid $100,000.00 for the return of the body within two years (in 1878). She got a bag of bones and the reassurance (as such) it was her husband's remains. Stewart's "remains" and his wife's are now somewhere in the area of the Garden City Episcopal Cathedral in Nassau County, New York (Stewart used his money to buy the land that became Garden City, New York).

b) 1876 - in a weird case a gang of counterfeiters attempted to steal the body of 16th President Abraham Lincoln from his tomb in Springfield, Illinois. Their purpse was to get some cash but also to spring the man who was their engraver, whom the authorities arrested and locked up a number of months earlier. This kidnapping was timed to occur during election night 1876, an night of singularly active voting activity in the soon to be controversial Tilden/Hayes Presidential contest. However the gang behind the scheme had a spy from the police among them, and the scheme fell apart on the night they were trying to get Old Abe's corpse. Eventually there was a trial, but oddly enough there was no law in Illinois about stealing a dead man's body. Robert Lincoln insisted on a prosecution - so the counterfeiters were tried for attempting to steal a coffin. The inciden actually was made into a movie in the 1950s with Victor Maglaglen.

Jeff

[TradeName]

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 Müller, 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 Müller 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 Müller 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 Müller 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 Müller), 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 Müller, 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, Müller, 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, Müller'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."

[TradeName]

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?

[Mayerling]

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]

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]

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]

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

[TradeName]

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]

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]

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