"I am a British Subject."

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff

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

It would not have surprised me Robert. But there was a large amount of emigration from Germany to the Latin American states in the later 19th Century. Argentina and Chile had large German immigrant numbers. And while Paraguay's new emptiness beckoned, so did Bolivia. In fact, during the Grand Chaco War between Paraguay and Bolivia Ernst Roehm (future head of the Nazi S.A. (Storm Troopers), and victim of the 1934 "Night of the Long Knives") was a military advisor to the Bolivians.

Jeff

[mklhawley]

This is from Joe.

Jeff brought up President Andrew Johnson a few posts ago, so let me share this brief paragraph that Tumblety wrote to Thornton in the May 5, 1869 letter. Good luck trying to follow along with it.


"One year of delay has rapidly gone, Mr. Johnson has closed his distinguished diplomatic career, and the Alabama claims seem to recede, as you approach (me), like the gorgeous hues of the rainbow -- like a bubble on the mighty diplomatic stream. What distance I am from the (tide) to which that stream tends I have so far to determine. Must I give myself up and yield unresisting to the current? And is it (useless) on my part to (submit) my application for satisfaction?"


Whew boy. I get the feeling that Jeff gave up on that paragraph above as soon as he read the part about Johnson's distinguished diplomatic career.


Here is a little something for those of you who will receive the Dec 2015 issue of the Whitechapel Society Journal. In that issue you'll find an article entitled Two Affidavits. We will learn about the U.S. detective who took Tumblety by train from St. Louis to Washington D.C. in May 1865. We will also get a first-hand report of Tumblety's arrest in St. Louis on May 5, 1865. That report came from the arresting officer who was on the scene. And we will find out how close that cop's testimony actually came to the famous illustration that Tumblety circulated. That picture displayed four policemen converging on Tumblety all at once.

[David Orsam]

This is from Joe.

In the previous post, Tumblety briefly spoke of the "Alabama claims". That was in reference to the warship Alabama. That Confederate vessel was built in secrecy in England. The U.S. Government wanted the British to pay for the damages that ship caused during the Civil War. In turn, the British citizens living in America wanted the U.S. Government to pay for the monetary losses that they sustained during the war.

The Treaty of Washington was approved by the U.S. Senate in May 1871. That treaty established a claims commission to handle these types of disputes between the two nations. In Feb 1871, Tumblety heard the news about how this claims commission will be formulated, so he wrote another letter to Thornton. Here is an excerpt of that letter along with Thornton's reply.

New York

24 February 1871

Dear Sir,

...I wish to ascertain how I may have my claim brought before the Commission. It may be in your power & within the scope of your authority to make timely suggestions to me as to the mode and the time.

Perhaps I am somewhat premature in seeking your attention now as it may be one of the first duties of the Commission to regulate & publish the order & rules of proceeding.

Washington

February 1871

Sir,

...I have to inform you that I hope the Commission which is about to meet at Washington will agree upon some general mode of settlement of all claims between the two countries; but until that be done, I cannot give you any information as to the proceedings which individual Claimants will have to take.

You may however rest assured that due notice of the forms to be observed will be given, and in good time.

[David Orsam]

The following year, Tumblety took up his complaint with Lord Granville.

Fifth Avenue Hotel

New York

30 August 1872

Your Lordship,

...I lay my case before your Lordship, for I cannot conceive that so great an outrage as that perpetuated upon me will be ignored by my government...It has hitherto been my (contention) and my boast that no British subject, however insignificant, could be (so) outraged as I was -- without his government claiming full satisfaction. I shall grieve to learn that I had been labouring under a (hallucination.) Insisting that my communication will elicit a few words of reply I subscribe myself, with profound respect

Your Lordships,

Humble and Obedient,

Francis Tumblety M.D.

Lord Granville's secretary sent the following reply to Tumblety.

16 September 1872

Sir,

I am directed by Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th Ult respecting your claim against the U.S. Govt and in reply I am to acquaint you that a copy of that letter will be forwarded to the Minister at Washington with (a request for him to) inquire into the matter & furnish Lord Granville with a report.

On the same day, the Foreign Office sent the following message to Thornton. It was a dispatch from Lord Granville.

Sir,

I transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter from Dr. Tumblety respecting his claim against the U.S. Govt. & I am to request that you will furnish me with a report therefrom.

[Robert]

Joe will now share the report that Sir Edward Thornton sent to Lord Granville.






Washington




12 October 1872




My Lord,




With reference to Your Lordship's dispatch No. 247 of the 16th Ultimo, I have the honour to inclose a copy of the Memorial which was presented by Dr. Francis Tumblety to the Mixed Commission now sitting at Washington under the Treaty of May 8, 1871.




In this Memorial, it is stated that Dr. Tumblety was first arrested in March 1865 at St. Louis, Missouri, and was detained in custody for more than half a day. He was then released without trial or enquiry and without being informed why he had been arrested. For this imprisonment he claims damages, and this part of his claim was put on file by Mr. Howard, and will be taken into consideration by the Commission.




Dr. Tumblety further asserts that he was again arrested at St. Louis on May 6th 1865, was kept in prison there for some days, was then brought to Washington and was put into the Old Capitol Prison where he was kept in close confinement until the 31st of May 1865. During his imprisonment no charges were preferred against him, and he was finally released on the day abovementioned without hearing or trial, and without any explanation of the cause of his arrest.




He states that during the imprisonment his rooms at St. Louis were broken into, his safe forced open, and valuable property abstracted therefrom, but he does not say by whom these acts were committed.




For the second arrest Dr. Tumblety claims large damages, but as the act (complained) of was committed out of the term limited by the Treaty, Her Majesty's Agent could not, of course, submit this part of the claim for the consideration of the Commission.




There seems to be no doubt that Dr. Tumblety actually was arrested and imprisoned on the two occasions which he mentions, but he alleges that he is ignorant of the motives of the arrests. Nor do I find from the archives of this Legation that the Government of the United States has ever given any explanation of the reasons upon which the authorities founded their action in this matter. Sir Frederic Bruce was Her Majesty's Minister at the time, but I do not find that he made any representation upon the subject to Mr. Seward, in writing at least; if he did so verbally no record has been kept of any such step on his part. It is, however, certain that Dr. Tumblety during his imprisonment applied to Sir Frederic Bruce for assistance in obtaining his release.




It appears to me that Her Majesty's Government would be justified in calling upon that of the United States for an explanation of the reasons which gave rise to the arrest and imprisonment of Dr. Tumblety, and that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation it would be further entitled to ask compensation for the claimant.




But as Dr. Tumblety's claim on account of his first arrest is now before the Mixed Commission and as some evidence may be brought forward in considering the claim, which may bear a relation to the second arrest, it may be well to defer a representation to the United States Government with regard to the latter until the Mixed Commission shall have given its decision on the former. I understand that as yet Dr. Tumblety has not produced any evidence in support of his claim before the Commission, and it is possible that as it is of minor importance, he may abstain from doing so, with the intention of reserving himself for the claim for which he now asks the support of her Majesty's Government.

[Robert]

Lord Granville read Thornton's report and then he had his secretary write the following letter to Tumblety.






9 January 1873




Sir,




...I am directed by Lord Granville to inform you that having received from H.M. Minister at Washington a report respecting your claim against the United States Gov. for your arrest & imprisonment on two occasions in the year 1865, he has considered it in conjunction with the Law Officers of the Crown.




His Lordship will be prepared at the proper time to bring your case to the consideration of the United States Gov. (and) that he is advised that it will probably be better to defer any representation on the subject of the second arrest till the Claims Commission have heard the evidence upon the first arrest, and have determined the claim arising out of it.







(Two weeks later the ruling was handed down as follows.)







FO 5/1619




RULING OF THE CLAIMS COMMISSION




Washington D.C. January 23, 1873




No. 347 -- Francis Tumblety v United States




The claim is disallowed.




(signed)




L. CORTI

RUSSELL GURNEY

JAS. S. FRAZER




Commissioners

[Mayerling]

On Johnsonian Diplomacy and those two arrests in Missouri

I hope Joe hears about my response.

As President (only one or two others were worse - and Harding and Grant are not those two), Johnson spent his nearly 47 months of office fighting against domestic policies connected to Reconstruction - rarely did he say anything about foreign affairs, leaving those in the highly capable hands of the recovering Secretary of State William Seward. The results were quite good under Seward's stewardship:

1) American military might forced Napoleon III to abandon his puppet Emperor Maximilian in Mexico. Sadly for that tragic figure he refused to leave as well and ended in front of one of Benito Juarez's firing squads in June 1867.

2) Building on the friendly relations between the United States and the Russian Empire during the Civil War, including the visit of the Russian fleet to New York City in November 1863, Seward negotiated the purchase of the whole Alaskan territory from Russia for $7.2 million dollars in 1867. Although dismissed by many as "Seward's Folly" or "Icebergia", this purchase passed through Congress, and eventually proved Seward quite far-sited.

3) Midway Island was also acquired by the U.S. Navy in 1867, and as a result was a base of operations at the time of World War II, and, of course, the site of the major turning-point naval defeat of Japan in the Pacific War.

4) Seward's one apparent failure in his expansion plans was to purchase the Danish West Indies in 1867. Having just bought Alaska, Congress was not in the mood for further purchases of territory, even though the example of the blockade runners from Southern ports to Europe, frequently through the Danish West Indies as well as Bermuda, and other islands, demonstrated a need to control in the future. Ironically, forty years later, Woodrow Wilson and Robert Lansing got the islands (now the American Virgin Islands) from Denmark by purchasing them - this time Congress rapidly agreeing to the purchase as the German Empire wanted to take the islands as a base of operations against the East Coast of the U.S. for their U-boat fleet.

5) Although not actually pushed by Johnson or Seward, during 1866 there were two attacks by Fenian troops from the North (but including Irish veterans of the Southern armies as well) into Canada. Canada managed to beat back both Fenian attacks. There were protests, which the U.S. government just ignored for the most part - reminding the Canadians of how in the recent American Civil War the provinces of British North America (especially in Toronto in Ontario) winked at the activities of Confederate raiders into the North (such as the attack on St. Albans, Vermont in October 1864, the scheme to release southern prisoners from Johnson Island Prison near Chicago - culminating in the seizing of the Great Lake steamer "Philo Parson", the wrecking of northern train tracks in New York State, and the attempt at burning down much of downtown New York City in November 1864. This was not totally fair to the Canadians (they did imprison, for awhile, some of the St. Alban raiders as bank robbers), but there was some grounds to it. Secretary of War Stanton reputedly smiled at the protests and said the government was not involved but would follow the results (had they succeeded) with interest. As a result of these attacks and the cynical reaction from Washington, Canadian provincial leaders began discussing creating a national government for self-protection. In 1867 the Confederation of Canada was created at a meeting at Prince Edward Island, and Sir John MacDonald became the first Prime Minister of Canada.

Really only the situation between the United States and Canada was the only one that would have concerned the British Government during the Johnson Administration - although they resented the purchase of Alaska as it put the United States in the way of British colonial advancement further west (had they been able to convince the Russians to sell Alaska to them). The Alabama Claims was involved in the background of the Fenian/Canadian Invasions, as many citizens of the North and West felt the U.S. should either back the Fenians or advance and seize Canada ourselves as "payment" for the depredations of the CSS Alabama, CSS Florida, CSS Shenandoah, during the war. But we did not go to war.

The Alabama Claims Arbitration was set up during the Grant Administration, a high point for his excellent Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. In the end the British did pay a high (in 1871 money) penalty for the damage to our merchant marine. They did not really discuss anything at these arbitration hearings but the loss of ships and cargos. By the way, the U.S. delegation was led by Morrison Waite, who in 1873 became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (a post he held until his death in 1888). The British delegation was led by Sir Alexander Cockburn, soon to Lord Chief Justice of Britain. Cockburn was not happy at the result, and stormed out after hearing it.

Now, about those arrests:

I did not stop to think about where Doc. T. was when he was arrested. I only noticed he was imprisoned in the old Capitol Prison in Washington, where others involved in the assassination had been taken. So I assumed he was in the east, near Washington or New York City or Baltimore. It turned out that it was St. Louis, Missouri.

And he arrested in March (before the assassination) and in May (after the assassination). And his rooms were searched (and he claimed valuable property damaged - maybe, but with Doc T. I tend to doubt him even when he says the sky is blue!). Why?

Particularly as the first is prior to Booth's shooting Lincoln on April 14, 1865?

Well I wonder if it was for another connection, and one not dealing with John Wilkes Booth or his companions.

I know that newspapers printed stories that David Herold had worked in Brooklyn or New York City with Doc. T in 1863 and 1864. But newspapers (as several of the scholars on this website will point out) make lies or mistakes in what they tell the public. Knowing what a slightly retarded type David Herold was, I find it odd he'd have been going up to the New York metropolitan region at all as he was more at home in Washington, D.C., and the Maryland woods and swamps (as a hunter).

But there are one or two facts about St. Louis that crop up in my mind.

First, the General in charge of St. Louis after 1864 (and of Missouri in general) was Thomas Ewing, half-brother of General William Tecumseh Sherman and Congressman John Sherman of Ohio, both extremely important figures in the spring of 1865. Ewing was either a thoroughly competent military governor of that state in wartime, or (depending on your point of view) a thoroughly evil man who created a law that forced those citizens who aided or were supposedly aiding the Confederacy to be removed from their land and become stateless individuals. There is a painting of Ewing initiating this policy. He was rather disliked by a majority of Missouri citizens, and many were pro-Northern.

This Ewing would have been very quick to act if he suspected a pro-Confederate person operating in such a way as to threaten Union interests.

Now sometime in March 1865 Ewing's attention must have been drawn to Doc. T. Why? It can't be Booth's schemes (then still just about kidnapping Lincoln, although after Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address Booth might have begun thinking more darkly about the President). Then what else?

How about another possible Presidential assassin? Well, there was one - and his operations were usually in the area including Missouri.

His name was William Clark Quantrell.

Quantrell's name was already hated and feared in pro-Union areas due to his achieving being the bloodiest man of the 19th Century in his raid on Lawrence, Kansas in May 1863, causing the deaths of 150 men and boys in that town. There had been other attacks by his guerilla forces, and though he claimed to be a Confederate soldier, the official Confederate army under Generals Edmund Kirby-Smith and Richard Taylor despised him as a murderer and brigand. Moreover, by 1864 he had been on a decline. His lieutenant George Todd had faced him down in front of his men and took away leadership and half the force. The rest of the men followed "Bloody Bill" Anderson. Both Todd and Anderson were killed within weeks of each other in October 1864. But Quantrell was laying low, with a mistress and a few loyal followers.

He was as egomaniacal in his way as Booth was, and as months passed, and the Confederacy slowly died, Quantrell decided on a final throw of the dice. He'd head east across the Mississippi River, into Kentucky, then Ohio, then West Virginia and Maryland, and reach Washington, D.C. to kill Lincoln. He actually did start to do this.

I think Ewing probably heard of Quantrell's intentions, and somehow zeroed in on Doc. T. as somebody who knew what was going on. This would explain the first arrest in March before Booth was suspected. After the assassination, in the vast confusion following the pursuit of Booth and whomever assisted him, Ewing may have suspected that there was a connection between Booth's successful assassination plot and Quantrell's scheme. Since there was now a murder involved (as well as the attack on Seward), Ewing not only rearrests Tumblety, but sends him east to be put in Old Capitol Prison.

After a few days or weeks Tumblety is released, as he can't be connected with Booth's schemes. As for Quantrell, after a series of robberies and murders in Kentucky he hears of the assassination, turns his men around, and tries to return to Missouri. But they are caught by Federal troops, Quantrell is shot in the back trying to flee, and dies a few days later in June 1865.

Any possibility this scenario is the correct one?

Jeff

[Robert]

Jeff, I think Joe monitors this thread pretty closely, but I'll send him an alert anyway.

[Robert]

This is from Joe.




Ten years ago, Jeff and I did some research together on Colonel Hughes-Hallett, the George Yard investigator. I still have our email exchanges from 2005. Back then, I knew right away that I was communicating with a man who knows a lot about world history. And Jeff is still sharp as ever.




As for the first half of Jeff's post, I can respond today with some additional tidbits. But as for the second half of his post (in regards to Tumblety's two arrests in Missouri) it would be best if I wait until after next weekend before I reply. The reason being is that my response will be very much in accord with the material that will appear in the Whitechapel Society Journal next Saturday. It's only fair that the journal's readers see the material first. Ok, here are the tidbits:







* Jeff mentioned that there were one or two U.S. Presidents worse than the impeached Andrew Johnson, so I predict that President Franklin Pierce heads the top of Jeff's list as having been the worst President. I win a free chicken dinner if I'm correct.




* William Seward's career was outstanding. Alaska is the only U.S. State that has an official holiday for a former Secretary of State. The last Monday in March is officially "Seward's Day" in Alaska.




* On April 5, 1881 a Rochester newspaper reported of Tumblety riding a fine Arabian horse during the Civil War. And when he was asked where he got it, he'd say, "My friend Billy Seward gave it to me."




* I didn't know it was Seward who obtained Midway Island for the U.S. Four Japanese aircraft carriers along with most of the Japanese pilots and planes that had bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941 went down to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean at the Battle of Midway. As a kid, I used to play the Avalon Hill Company's war game "Midway" all the time.




* Jeff spoke of the Fenian raids into Canada. 1866 and 1870 were the two most prominent years when these raids occurred. A long time ago, I remember reading a book series entitled The Last Invasion of Canada. I think 1870 was the final time the Fenians or anybody tried to invade Canada.




* Jeff made a good point about the Fenian raids, the Alabama Claims, and the Alaskan Purchase. They were all contributing causes to the cold attitude that the U.S. and Great Britain had toward each other during this period.




* And finally, I'm glad Secretary of State William Fish was brought up by Jeff because among the paperwork David Barrat found at Kew were letters involving Fish. Those letters will be shared on this thread in the upcoming weeks.

[Mayerling]

Hi Robert,

Thank Joe for his communications to me. I don't get the "Whitechapel Journal", so I am looking forward to his additional information after it is formally published for the journal's readership.

Franklin Pierce is one of the two worst Presidents (the worst I feel was James Buchanan, who proved totally inept at preventing the secession of the southern states in 1860-61). However it is a close thing with many feeling Pierce was worse (he was an alcoholic). But in Pierce's defense, his Presidency got off to a horrible start because his son Benjamin ("Benji") Pierce was crushed to death in front of Pierce and his wife Jane, in a train wreck when they were headed for Washington, D.C. Jane became an embittered woman, refusing to act as First Lady, and blaming their tragedy on her husband during most of his term (which worsened his dependence on the bottle). Whatever happened of interest in his term in office (the "Gadsden Purchase" in Arizona and New Mexico, of land belonging to Mexico; the leasing of Pearl Harbor from the Kingdom of Hawaii, the experiment of using camels in the U.S. Cavalry in the desert regions) were really due to Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, and to Secretary of State William Marcy. Marcy was also good in confronting Great Britain over the antics of her diplomatic corps here (led by Sir John Crampton, the Minister to the United States) dealing with the opening recruitment offices in several states for volunteers from the U.S. to fight in the Crimean War. However, all this (you will be aware) was like side-show issues in comparison to the two main blunders of Pierce's administration: the idiocy about the support of the questionable "Lecompton" pro-slavery state constitution for Kansas leading to the notorious Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the equally idiotic and embarrassing "Ostend Manifesto" involving a veiled threat to the Kingdom of Spain that if they did not accept our generous offer to buy the island of Cuba from them, we would seize it by military force. Oddly enough James Buchanan was involved in this stupid move (he was our Minister to Great Britain at the time), but it did not derail his Presidential hopes, and he was able to get nominated by the Democrats in 1856 and win (horrible as it turned out*).

Oh, I forgot - Pierce's four years in office is recalled too as the only totally four year period of an administration that had the same set of department heads in the cabinet for all four years, without any changes [Together now: BIG DEAL!!!] He also was arrested once in Washington, D.C., when (while drunk of course) he ran down a woman. He paid a fine.

Can't wait to see your further information Joe.

Jeff

[*The 1856 election may go down as the lowest depth our country ever came in terms of candidates. There were three leading candidates. Besides Democrat Candidate Buchanan, the newly created Republican Party nominated the so-called "Pathfinder" of the West, General/Senator (from California) John Charles Fremont. A third party was the American or "Know - Nothing" Party, which believed the slavery issue was splitting up the country, but that we would stay together if we concentrated on shutting our doors and borders to those pesky "furriners" from Europe, especially the Irish and the Germans (particularly if they were Catholics). Both were disliked for affecting the so-called homogeneity as a Protestant country (except, of course, for those who came who were Protestants, mostly from Scandanavia and England or Scotland). Those Germans were suspect (as were the Irish) as they frequently were having revolutions (like in 1846-48). And many were Catholic, so that was terrible (to the "

[Mayerling]

"Know - Nothings"). But this party of bigots actually won many state legislatures and governorships, and one of them became "Speaker of the House of Representatives" (Nathaniel P. Banks). So they made a serious attempt to win the White House in 1856, nominating former Whig President Millard Fillmore.

None of these men were worthy of their nomination. Buchanan had served in both houses of Congress, and as Minister to Russia, and to England, and had been James Polk's vacillating and weak Secretary of State (Polk really ran the foreign policy, relying on Buchanan's knowledge of diplomatic terminology to assist him). But Buchanan spent nearly twenty years trying to become the Democratic Party nominee before achieving it in 1856.

Fremont was known for his explorations of the West and for several books on his travels. But "the Pathfinder" had stolen most of his credit from his assistant and guide Kit Carson. And the books were by his wife Jesse Benton Fremont (who was the daughter of the former powerful Senator from Missouri, Thomas Hart Benton - who despised his son-in-law as a fake). During the Mexican War, Polk had sent Fremont to California to assist the U.S. Army in laying the groundwork for their successful takeover of the Mexican territory there. Instead he assisted the "Bear Flag Republic" which briefly ruled California for two months. Polk never authorized that. Was it any wonder that Fremont was court-martialed afterwards, barely keeping his rank. However Californians thought of him fondly and made him their Senator. He was one of the first two Senators from California, but he barely did anything of note in the U.S. Senate. However, as he was a national celebrity it was fairly easy for him to get the nomination. In later years he would prove a worthless Civil War commander, sacked by Lincoln from running the Department of Missouri in 1861 for corruption (not that he was corrupt, just stupid), and later out-generaled by Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1862. In the 1870s President Rutherford Hayes made Fremont territorial governor of Arizona. The wisdom of this move (done out of sympathy to an old national hero) was shown when Fremont spent nearly three years in Europe on personal business instead of being in the territory. In 1881 President Chester Arthur fired him.

Fillmore had made himself unpopular for his signing the Fugitive Slave Act portion of the Compromise of 1850, and heavily implementing it. This was not popular in the North. However, historians while deploring a definite lack of sympathy by Fillmore towards African-Americans (one that is documented, sad to say), point out that his support for the Compromise put off the Civil War by a decade, possibly the most constructive executive action between the Polk and Lincoln administrations. Fillmore failed to get the 1852 nomination for the Presidency from the Whig Party that he belonged to at the time. The nomination by the "Know - Nothings" was a kind of twisted vindication for him (he is the only sitting President between 1844 and 1860 who served part of a term in office and got a major party nomination for a second term. Horrible as it may sound, due to his unattractive anti-African American point of view, and his willingness to accept membership and support from a bigot's party, Fillmore may have been the most competent of the three candidates in 1856 due to actual experience running the executive branch. As it was he actually got 8 electoral votes in the 1856 election, coming in third, but carrying the state of Maryland.

[Scott Nelson]

This is from Joe.

On Post 37, Jeff pointed out that when Tumblety talks, he should be doubted, even if he should say the sky is blue. Well, that usually is pretty good advice. But in this particular instance, Tumblety was actually talking truthfully when he claimed that his valuable items were confiscated while he was being arrested for the Lincoln assassination. He was taken into custody inside his St. Louis medical office. The arrest was made by Henry W. Huthsing, who was a U.S. Detective for the Department of Missouri.

Huthsing swore out an affidavit in a U.S. District Court on 28 May, 1873. Huthsing declared that he went into Tumblety's medical office and "I arrested him and seized all his papers and property. The property I seized consisted of gold coin amounting to between twenty-two and twenty-five hundred dollars, several gold medals, and two gold-headed canes. I took him and the property I had seized to the office of the Provost Marshal General, Colonel Baker. I there searched (Tumblety), and took from him whatever property I found on his person. I then turned him over to the Provost Marshal General, Colonel Baker, to whom at the same time, I turned over the personal property and money seized at the (medical) office and upon the person of Dr. Tumblety."

Everything in this affidavit pointed to Huthsing working alone when he arrested Tumblety. He confiscated the valuables and brought in his prisoner. It appeared to have been an ordinary arrest by a U.S. Detective working alone, and it was nothing like the illustration that Tumblety circulated in regards to this arrest. That illustration had four policemen converging on a defiant Tumblety.

The monetary amount of gold confiscated by Huthsing was similar to the monetary figure that was seen in Tumblety's safe by the politician John J. O'Neill.

"I saw in his safe a few days prior to his arrest in May, between two and three thousand dollars in gold." - John J. O'Neill's affidavit.

Huthsing declared that he received the order "to arrest Dr. Francis Tumblety and seize all his papers and property" from "Captain Peter Tallon, Chief of the United States Detectives."

Tumblety said that his home apartment also was "searched, ransacked and plundered of every article of portable value, including a considerable amount of money." This probably was true. Tim Riordan discovered Special Order III from Colonel James Baker dated on the same day of Tumblety's arrest. The order was given to Captain Peter Tallon. The order instructed Tallon to have Tumblety's premises searched and to seize all his paperwork. Tim Riordan pointed out that a note which was jotted under Colonel Baker's written command showed that two of Tallon's men executed the order. They were officers Converse and Hutchins. Those two officers must have been the ones who got into Tumblety's home apartment. Henry Huthsing was the one who arrested Tumblety at his medical office, and it looks like Huthsing was the detective who opened up Tumblety's safe.

In just a moment, we'll take a look at the key points of Peter Tallon's sworn affidavit.

[Scott Nelson]

Taken from Captain Peter Tallon's affidavit:

"(In January 1862) I was commissioned as Chief of United States Police, (Department) of Missouri, which position I occupied until the close of the rebellion. I became acquainted with Doctor Francis Tumblety, in the beginning of the year 1865. He was engaged here in the practice of medicine as a physician. During (March 1865), I received an order from Colonel Baker, Provost Marshal of this department, to arrest Doctor Tumblety. I gave the order to one of my subordinates who arrested him, and brought him to my office.

My best recollection is that he was arrested for wearing a semi-military uniform in the street. I took off him a semi-military jacket and hat, and released him.

In the early part of the month of May following, Doctor Tumblety was again arrested. The order for his arrest was given to me and directed that he should be arrested and his papers and property seized, my best recollection is that the order was signed by Major-General Dodge, commanding this department, and directed to Colonel Baker, Provost Marshal of this department. I placed the order in the hands of one of my subordinates, Henry W. Huthsing, by whom it was executed, by arresting Francis Tumblety and seizing his papers and personal property. The property was turned over to Colonel Baker...(Tumblety) remained in my custody for several days, when I was ordered by Major-General Dodge to forward him to Washington, D.C., in charge of one of my subordinates."

From Peter Tallon's affidavit, we learned that Major-General Dodge signed for Tumblety's arrest. This would have been Major-General Grenville Mellon Dodge (1831-1916). He was in command of the Department of Missouri which was a command echelon of the United States Army. It sounded like both Dodge and Colonel James Baker were both in agreement to have Tumblety arrested.

Jeff brought up the possibility that Thomas Ewing Jr. was the man who initiated Tumblety's arrest orders. Ewing was given the command of the "District of the Border" which included Kansas and parts of Missouri.

A potential problem with this is that there are internet reports that say Ewing tendered his resignation to President Abraham Lincoln on 23 February 1865, thus enabling him to return to civilian life. If that is true, then Ewing may not have been in a position to dictate arrest orders to Dodge and Baker in May 1865. We obviously need to confirm Ewing's Feb 1865 resignation.

Later this week, we'll return to the Tumblety story. We'll pick it up from the January 1873 ruling which disallowed Tumblety's claim.

[Mayerling]

Fascinating in filling in some details. Is it possible that the Provost Marshal General, Col. James Baker, was related to the head of the Secret Service General Lafayette Baker? General Baker was a very sinister figure who used the police powers he had to enrich himself. Although wearing a military outfit you are not entitled to wear is a crime, the seizing of such a large sum of gold coin and property suggests that it could have been a set-up by members of the Baker family to grab some more loot from one of their suspect victims.

Another Baker, who was a relative of Lafayette Baker, was in the military detail that cornered and killed John Wilkes Booth.

Jeff

[mklhawley]

This is from Joe.


Jeff, I haven't come across anything yet that suggests there was a kinship between James H. Baker and Lafayette C. Baker. James made things tough for Tumblety in St. Louis. Lafayette knew Tumblety too. The NARA stores some paperwork under Lafayette Baker's name. Eleven years ago, I looked into that NARA file. There was a testimony in there written by a Union Army soldier who complained about the antics of Dr. Tumblety. So Tumblety found a way to become an annoyance to both James Baker in St. Louis and Lafayette Baker in Washington.


In my previous post, it was mentioned that an officer by the name of Converse went into Tumblety's apartment. This was Albert Belknap Converse (1827-1873). He was also the officer who took Tumblety by train from St. Louis to the Old Capitol Prison in Washington.


Well, let's get back to the story. The Claims Commission was not authorized to rule on complaints that occurred after the Civil War ended in April 1865. This meant that Tumblety was out of luck, since his Old Captiol Prison troubles started in May 1865. The Claims Commission did briefly hear "Case 347, Tumblety v United States." That case involved the March 1865 arrest where Captain Peter Tallon took away Tumblety's phony military jacket and hat. But for whatever reason, Tumblety didn't present any evidence during this case, so the decision to disallow the claim became easy.


In the next post, we'll see a letter that was sent from Thornton to Great Britain. Tumblety and his lawyer weren't quite through with this yet.