"I am a British Subject."

[Scott Nelson]

This is from Joe.



The two affidavits that will appear in the Dec 2015 issue of the Whitechapel Society Journal were 'sworn to' by a police detective and his supervisor. Both men were involved in Tumblety's 1865 arrest. There were three other affidavits which were recently found by David Barrat, and here is one of them. It was made before a U.S. Commissioner "in and for the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri."




My name is John J. Outley, age fifty-two years, occupation merchant, residence Miami Street, corner Jefferson, St. Louis. I have resided in St. Louis during the last twenty-eight years. I formed the acquaintance of Dr. Francis Tumblety in the latter part of the month of January year 1865.






He had arrived in St. Louis a few weeks prior to the time I had become acquainted with him, and commenced practicing as a physician...I was at the doctor's office every two or three days, and had excellent opportunities of observing the extent of his practice.






There seemed to be a continuous throng of patients to his office. Every time that I called at his office there would be a number of patients in waiting. Curiosity led me to inquire into the extent of his practice, and from persons in his employ, his secretary, Mr. Wilson, and others, I learnt that he was making over two hundred dollars a day.






His business appeared to increase up to the time of his arrest. During a residence of twenty-eight years in St. Louis, I don't remember of ever having seen or heard of any physician in St. Louis who had met with such extraordinary success as Dr. Tumblety. His arrest in the month of May following a great deal of excitement in the city, the general impression being that he had committed some terrible crime.






My business calling me to New York some three weeks afterwards, I stopped on the way at Washington, and there met Dr. Tumblety. He looked emaciated, pale, and careworn. He looked to be a wreck of his former self. He complained to me of the treatment he had received and asked me what the people of St. Louis thought of it. I informed him of the general suspicion created in their minds by the arrest.






I have never seen Dr. Tumblety since, until with the last week, when I learned of his return to St. Louis and called to see him.






JOHN J. OUTLEY






30 May 1873





Outley spoke of Tumblety's employee, Mr. Wilson. This most likely was Oregon Wilson, the same man who was mentioned in an 1865 report to the Assistant Secretary of War, Charles Dana. The report identified Oregon Wilson as both an "artist" and one of Tumblety's principal associates in St. Louis.

[Robert]

I believe Outley was this fellow :

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=filLCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=john+j+outley+photographer&source=bl&ots=Fe2ZqpdFuV&sig=gh0XByvub0SQoVMNzmUN_QYNovY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAWoVChMI4KSBvaTtyAIVircUCh1AIQmc#v=onepage&q=john%20j%20outley%20photographer&f=false

[Scott Nelson]

From Joe Chetcuti:

I think you've found him, Robert. Good job. Outley's Photographic Palace of Art was on N. Fourth Street in St. Louis during 1865. According to Tim Riordan's book, Tumblety's medical office in St. Louis was located "between Third and Fourth" streets. So it appears that Tumblety and Outley were conducting business in the same general neighborhood in the spring of 1865. Outley was a daguerreotypist, and Tumblety wrote in his autobiography that he had a daguerreotype done of himself. He eventually mailed it to Europe because he wanted to show his relatives that he was not killed during the Civil War. Tumblety may have gone to Outley's office to get the photograph taken. Both men were Irish immigrants.

Ok, here is another affidavit that was found by David Barrat. It was "sworn to" by a politician named John J. O'Neill. It was dated June 3, 1873 and it has O'Neill declaring that he went into Tumblety's office in St. Louis just a short time prior to the May 1865 arrest. Tumblety opened his safe door to O'Neill, and the politician declared that he saw "between two and three thousand dollars in gold." O'Neill said he was at Tumblety's office for about an hour and during that time "...fifteen to twenty persons called to see (Tumblety) on professional business. I frequently inquired of him the extent of his practice, and learned that it was paying him from two or three hundred dollars a day."

An interesting note about O'Neill is that he continued corresponding with Tumblety for many decades. When Tumblety was arrested in Washington D. C. in Nov 1890, in his possession was a personal letter from O'Neill (who by then had become a U.S. Congressman.)

How about one more affidavit. James S. Hicks, a St. Louis cop, swore to an affidavit on May 30, 1873. He spoke of Tumblety's 1865 medical business: "While patrolling my beat as a policeman, I have had four to five persons every day request me to show them Dr. Tumblety's office, desiring to place themselves under his treatment. I don't know the extent of his receipts, but judge them to have been enormous. I have been in St. Louis nineteen years, and never before saw a furore created by a physician that ever came to St. Louis."

Tumblety was irate about having his lucrative medical practice ruined when he got dragged off to the Old Capitol Prison. He was equally upset when he percieved that the English authorities weren't doing much to help a British Subject who was seeking financial retribution.

[ChrisGeorge]

Was Tumblety really a British subject, or was it some of his con-man talk?

In this time period, Irish-born people were British subjects. That was one of the bones of contention during the War of 1812, the last war between Great Britain and the United States, when any Irishman fighting for the Americans was captured by the British.

Howard,

You and I (Jonathan, Chris, and anyone else) will be enjoying a few fine lagers in Baltimore discussing this!

Mike

Cheers, Mike. Looking forward to it.

Best regards

Chris

[Mayerling]

From Joe Chetcuti:

Tumblety was irate about having his lucrative medical practice ruined when he got dragged off to the Old Capitol Prison. He was equally upset when he percieved that the English authorities weren't doing much to help a British Subject who was seeking financial retribution.

I wonder if the largely negative reaction of Sir Frederick Bruce to Tumblety's demands were due to the latter's reputation as an argumentative and untrustworthy quack or to his being of Irish ancestry (and one who fled Ireland as a child to the U.S. during the "Famine". Bruce may have felt he had gone as far as he had to regarding Tumblety when he helped free him from the prison.

Jeff

[mklhawley]

I wonder if the largely negative reaction of Sir Frederick Bruce to Tumblety's demands were due to the latter's reputation as an argumentative and untrustworthy quack or to his being of Irish ancestry (and one who fled Ireland as a child to the U.S. during the "Famine". Bruce may have felt he had gone as far as he had to regarding Tumblety when he helped free him from the prison.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Maybe also because it was against the US government (as opposed to city or state governments), a time at which we just lost a president.


Hi Chris, I will be asking about Baltimore's finest craft beers!

Mike

[Scott Nelson]

This is from Joe.



Hello Jeff. Yes, after he was released from prison, Tumblety perceived he was getting brushed off by Sir Frederic. But during the 1860s, those English diplomats really couldn't do much for a British subject who had a claim against the U.S. Government due to losses sustained during the Civil War. It wasn't until after the 1871 Treaty of Washington when these claims started to get processed. But I think you're probably correct about Sir Frederic's personal attitude toward a guy like Tumblety.

It's time for another letter. Here are excerpts from Tumblety's letter to Sir Edward Thornton, the British Minister in Washington.


30 April 1868

Honor'd Sir,


"I am a British subject." With my father I came from Ireland to America while still a youth. I have never sought to detach myself by American Naturalization from the govt. whose jurisdiction I was born...I was arrested, conveyed to Washington by order of Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, thrust into the Old Capitol Prison, and incarcerated there several weeks...I do not expect ever to regain my former condition of health. In fact it is a measure owing to my feebleness that I have not long since made application for redress through you...I had made application to your distinguished predecessor and my case was, by his agency, making favorable progress at the time of his lamentable decease.

(In) Ancient Rome it was only necessary to say "I am a Roman Citizen" to call the whole power of that Empire to maintain the potency of the motto, so as to be able to say "I am a British subject" commands the services of (Her Majesty's Ministers?) in every land, (and) that is not merely their duty but their prerogative and most exalted distinction to guard & assert with keenest vigilance & unflinching resolution the liberties, rights & principles of those whose interests they are especially sent to supervise.

And believe me,

Honor'd sir,

Yr very profound obedt servt,

Francis Tumblety M.D.
18 Exchange Place
Jersey City


Geez, Tumblety was always on his high horse about something. But it was a total lie when he wrote that his case was making "favorable progress" with Sir Frederic Bruce.

[Mayerling]

This is from Joe.



Hello Jeff. Yes, after he was released from prison, Tumblety perceived he was getting brushed off by Sir Frederic. But during the 1860s, those English diplomats really couldn't do much for a British subject who had a claim against the U.S. Government due to losses sustained during the Civil War. It wasn't until after the 1871 Treaty of Washington when these claims started to get processed. But I think you're probably correct about Sir Frederic's personal attitude toward a guy like Tumblety.

It's time for another letter. Here are excerpts from Tumblety's letter to Sir Edward Thornton, the British Minister in Washington.


30 April 1868

Honor'd Sir,


"I am a British subject." With my father I came from Ireland to America while still a youth. I have never sought to detach myself by American Naturalization from the govt. whose jurisdiction I was born...I was arrested, conveyed to Washington by order of Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, thrust into the Old Capitol Prison, and incarcerated there several weeks...I do not expect ever to regain my former condition of health. In fact it is a measure owing to my feebleness that I have not long since made application for redress through you...I had made application to your distinguished predecessor and my case was, by his agency, making favorable progress at the time of his lamentable decease.

(In) Ancient Rome it was only necessary to say "I am a Roman Citizen" to call the whole power of that Empire to maintain the potency of the motto, so as to be able to say "I am a British subject" commands the services of (Her Majesty's Ministers?) in every land, (and) that is not merely their duty but their prerogative and most exalted distinction to guard & assert with keenest vigilance & unflinching resolution the liberties, rights & principles of those whose interests they are especially sent to supervise.

And believe me,

Honor'd sir,

Yr very profound obedt servt,

Francis Tumblety M.D.
18 Exchange Place
Jersey City


Geez, Tumblety was always on his high horse about something. But it was a total lie when he wrote that his case was making "favorable progress" with Sir Frederic Bruce.

Hello Scott,

Relations between Britain and the U.S. were quiet but prickly through most of the period, with rough spots involving the British Minister Cranston's recruitment scheme for American "volunteers" to the Crimea in 1855, the "Trent Affair" in 1861, and the pro-Southern views of the British upper classes in the Civil War (culminating in the British allowing the construction of the "C.S.S. Florida" and C.S.S. Alabama" in the British owned "Laird ship yards". So even under the best of conditions Tumblety's personal loss claim would have met with a chilly consideration by the U.S. government.

I was sort of admiring the brazenness of Doc claiming that Sir Frederick was beginning to turn around around about Tumblety's claims, and (of course) Sir Frederick is no longer alive to back this claim up!

Jeff

[Robert]

More from Joe :

Here is Sir Edward Thornton's response to Tumblety:



Washington

3 May 1868

Sir,

In reply to yr. letter of the 30th ulto I have to state that during the present political crisis I conceive that I should only be prejudicing the interests of Brit. Claimants by urging their claims upon the attention of the U.S. Govt. Nor do I believe that they would take a single claim such as yours into consideration until a general arrangement be come to for a reciprocal settlement of all claims between the two countries.


(As you can imagine, this letter did not set too well with Tumblety. After receiving it, he immediately wrote a lengthy letter to Lord Stanley in London, England. Over the weekend, we'll post the main segments of that letter on this thread. - Joe)

[Robert]

From Joe :


Here are some segments from Tumblety's letter to Lord Stanley, who at that time was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in London.




6 May 1868

My Lord,

Enclosed please find copies respectively of two letters -- the first from myself to the British Minister, at Washington, and his reply thereto, -- also a pamphlet containing an outline, in brief, of my life:

The letters explain themselves:

I respectfully request your examination of the pamphlet.

I did not make the application to Minister Thornton with a view of having my claim pressed into settlement, but that it might be on file if pursued in such manner, as it might seem proper, under the circumstances:

Mr. Thornton's letter defers the matter to an indefinite period: With all due respect to all parties, allow me with proper deference to suggest:--

First. -- That I do not comprehend the connection, or that there is, really, any between the affairs of a humble individual wronged by the U.S. Government as I was and the international matters between the two governments.

Second. -- That negotiations between the two governments are likely to experience the usual delay incident to international negotiations and I am thereby to be kept in waiting so long as to virtually nullify the whole purpose of my application:-

Third. -- That the comparatively trifling amount of my claim would be likely to be swallowed up and lost sight of, by reason of force of magnitude of the general questions:

I think I may safely (assume that) I may feel justified, under the circumstances, in appealing directly to the home government for its interposition on my behalf, in some form, and accordingly most respectfully and as a "British subject," confidently ask that I be not subjected to the delay intimated in Minister Thornton's letter, and that my case receive from the proper authorities such speedy and efficient attention...

...Pardon me for saying that self-respect as well as duty requires action on my part, -- that acquiescence is no longer excusable.

I place my claim at what I think would be considered upon the proofs a moderate amount - One Hundred thousand dollars - $100,000.

Allow me to subscribe myself My Lord, your Lordship's very humble obedient servant,

Francis Tumblety M.D.



(Lord Stanley's private secretary sent the following brief reply to Tumblety.)


Foreign Office

4 June 1868


Sir,

I am directed by Lord Stanley to acknowledge the receipt of yr letter of the 6th ulto, relative to your claim against the U.S. Govt. & I am to express to you H.L.'s regret that he can only refer you in reply to the answer which you have rec'd from Mr. Thornton to the communication which you addressed to him on the same subject.

(signed)

To Dr. Tumblety
18 Exchange Place
Jersey City
New Jersey
U.S.

[Scott Nelson]

This is from Joe.

All of the letters of correspondence were discovered by David Barrat in the Foreign Office files at the National Archives. They were indexed as follows:


FO 5/1286 (1 letter found)

FO 5/1366 (2 letters found)

FO 5/1382 (2)

FO 5/1449 (1)

FO 5/1451 (7)

FO 5/1503 (5)

FO 5/1527 (2)

FO 5/1551 (2)

FO 5/1611 (3)

FO 5/1614 (5)

FO 5/1615 (20)

FO 5/1619 (1)


Now back to the saga. About one year later, Tumblety decided to bug Sir Edward Thornton again. He mailed a letter to Thornton from the National Hotel in New York on May 5, 1869. (That date was on the fourth anniversary of his arrest in St. Louis.) Tumblety reminded Thornton of his previous complaints by declaring that he could not "perceive any real connection between international questions and the individual claim of a private person" and he went on to say that "years of diplomacy might defer justice for me, and perhaps the effect be tantamount to an actual denial of justice." Tumblety ended his letter by telling Thornton that the home government has made the phrase "I am a British subject" the beacon of "English glory all over the earth."


Thornton's written response to Tumblety was predictable.


Washington

10 May 1869




Sir,


In reply to your letter of the 5th inst. I expect to say that I fear there is at the present no chance of a representation with regard to your claim being taken into favourable consideration by the U.S. Govt. I am convinced that until an agreement can be come to between the two Govts as to a general settlement of all claims no single claim will be attended to. Indeed, to present them individually would only tend to keep up a constant irritation which could not fail to be prejudicial to the general interests of the Claimants.

[Mayerling]

Slightly off the subject, and nearly a decade before Gilbert wrote it down, can't you just hear "He Is An Englishman!" sung in chorus behind Doc. T's breast beating letters??

Jeff

[Robert]

Maybe Tumblety thought he could get Thornton to do a Paraguy on the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Thornton_(diplomat)

[Mayerling]

Maybe Tumblety thought he could get Thornton to do a Paraguy on the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Thornton_(diplomat)

Gee Robert, that's a little unfair. While Andrew Johnson has some claims to being the most inept and bigoted President of the U.S., he was not in the same class as Solano Lopez. In terms of percentages of population, Paraguay suffered greater losses in a war fought in the Western Hemisphere in the 19th Century than any country including the United States in the American Civil War (both sides). Something like 90% losses in dead of the total male population. All because President Lopez thought he could dominate Latin America.

Jeff

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

I wonder if those male losses prompted the Germanic colonisation programme which ended in failure.