"I am a British Subject."

[mklhawley]

Letter From Sir Edward Thornton to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs


Washington, 17 March 1873


Sir,

...I have the honor to inform you that Dr. Tumblety, under the advice of his Counsel, failed to offer any testimony with regard to his first arrest, on account of which he had submitted a claim to the Mixed Commission now sitting at Washington, and the claim was consequently disallowed by the Commission.


I have now been requested by Mr. Alvin Burt, acting for Dr. Tumblety, to submit to the Government of the United States, his claim on account of the second arrest and imprisonment by the United States authorities, which happened subsequently to April 9th 1865, -- and cannot therefore be taken into consideration by the Commission. But I have informed him that since Dr. Tumblety has failed to offer any evidence before the Commission with regard to the first arrrest, I must await your information before I present the second claim. I have therefore the honor to request that Instructions may be forwarded to me upon the subject.

[Mayerling]

Letter From Sir Edward Thornton to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs


Washington, 17 March 1873


Sir,

...I have the honor to inform you that Dr. Tumblety, under the advice of his Counsel, failed to offer any testimony with regard to his first arrest, on account of which he had submitted a claim to the Mixed Commission now sitting at Washington, and the claim was consequently disallowed by the Commission.


I have now been requested by Mr. Alvin Burt, acting for Dr. Tumblety, to submit to the Government of the United States, his claim on account of the second arrest and imprisonment by the United States authorities, which happened subsequently to April 9th 1865, -- and cannot therefore be taken into consideration by the Commission. But I have informed him that since Dr. Tumblety has failed to offer any evidence before the Commission with regard to the first arrrest, I must await your information before I present the second claim. I have therefore the honor to request that Instructions may be forwarded to me upon the subject.

Isn't it interesting that "on the advice of counsel" Doc. T. did not offer any evidence in regards to the first arrest. Possibly there was a good prima facie case against the Doctor regarding wearing that phony uniform. Still, if he could have shown some grounds for him to wear such a uniform he'd have done so - but keep in mind the seizing of the gold coin was a separate matter.
And would have been more important.

Thank you also for the comment on the two Bakers. Unfortunately it is a common last name.

Jeff

[jmenges]

Isn't it interesting that "on the advice of counsel" Doc. T. did not offer any evidence in regards to the first arrest. Possibly there was a good prima facie case against the Doctor regarding wearing that phony uniform. Still, if he could have shown some grounds for him to wear such a uniform he'd have done so

It's likely that he was breaking a law or subject to a general order when arrested. Wearing a fake or stolen Union uniform in Missouri was the first indication that you were a guerrilla. Just about 6 months prior to Tumblety's arrest, 23 Union soldiers were led off a train, executed and scalped by Bill Anderson's men (including Jesse James) in Centralia, and many of the murderers were wearing stolen uniforms. The practice of Confederate guerrilla's donning stolen or fake Union uniforms (or clothing that could have been mistaken for one) was so common, that for Tumblety to be doing it either shows his complete and utter cluelessness of the reality of his surroundings, or something more sinister. I tend to lean towards the later.

JM

[Mayerling]

It's likely that he was breaking a law or subject to a general order when arrested. Wearing a fake or stolen Union uniform in Missouri was the first indication that you were a guerrilla. Just about 6 months prior to Tumblety's arrest, 23 Union soldiers were led off a train, executed and scalped by Bill Anderson's men (including Jesse James) in Centralia, and many of the murderers were wearing stolen uniforms. The practice of Confederate guerrilla's donning stolen or fake Union uniforms (or clothing that could have been mistaken for one) was so common, that for Tumblety to be doing it either shows his complete and utter cluelessness of the reality of his surroundings, or something more sinister. I tend to lean towards the later.

JM

Hi jmenges,

You are referring to the "Centralia" massacre on September 26, 1864, led by Anderson. I was aware of it, but I was considering how outlandish the uniforms used by Tumblety were as compared to normal military uniforms.
That sort of made me wonder what the problem was. But you did bring up a very valid point.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Isn't it interesting that "on the advice of counsel" Doc. T. did not offer any evidence in regards to the first arrest.

Hi Jeff - Sir Edward Thornton had no idea what Tumblety's lawyers were telling him and thus did not actually know why he failed to offer any evidence in regards to the first arrest. You will note that he actually says "under the advice of counsel" not "on the advice of". His point was that Tumblety was being advised by counsel yet did not offer any evidence. One might naturally conclude that Dr T must have been acting on legal advice but that wasn't quite the point Thornton was making.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff - Sir Edward Thornton had no idea what Tumblety's lawyers were telling him and thus did not actually know why he failed to offer any evidence in regards to the first arrest. You will note that he actually says "under the advice of counsel" not "on the advice of". His point was that Tumblety was being advised by counsel yet did not offer any evidence. One might naturally conclude that Dr T must have been acting on legal advice but that wasn't quite the point Thornton was making.

Hi David,

An interesting subtlety there. It makes me even more curious about the conversation between Tumblety and his attorney. Probably nothing left about that anywhere.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

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.

I just remembered that Major - General Grenville Dodge was the engineer in charge of building the Transcontinental Railroad. I thought the name was familiar.

Jeff

[jmenges]

I just remembered that Major - General Grenville Dodge was the engineer in charge of building the Transcontinental Railroad. I thought the name was familiar.

Jeff

He was also a successful spymaster for the Union Army. Being in charge of General Grant's intelligence operations in the West, he employed (paid) around 120 spies to infiltrate and report on confederates and confederate sympathizers. His spies were very successful in the field of battle (especially at Vicksburg) and, after receiving a head wound he was sent to Missouri specifically tasked to bringing the local rebellion there under control.

Grenville Dodge personally signing off on the arrest of Tumblety for only wearing a "semi-military uniform" and hat on the street? Then releasing him? That sounds pretty petty, like simple harassment. Something is missing here.

JM

[Mayerling]

He was also a successful spymaster for the Union Army. Being in charge of General Grant's intelligence operations in the West, he employed (paid) around 120 spies to infiltrate and report on confederates and confederate sympathizers. His spies were very successful in the field of battle (especially at Vicksburg) and, after receiving a head wound he was sent to Missouri specifically tasked to bringing the local rebellion there under control.

Grenville Dodge personally signing off on the arrest of Tumblety for only wearing a "semi-military uniform" and hat on the street? Then releasing him? That sounds pretty petty, like simple harassment. Something is missing here.

JM

It certainly sounds like something is missing. Again I wonder if there was a link somewhere between Tumblety and maybe Quantrill.

Jeff

[GUT]

He was also a successful spymaster for the Union Army. Being in charge of General Grant's intelligence operations in the West, he employed (paid) around 120 spies to infiltrate and report on confederates and confederate sympathizers. His spies were very successful in the field of battle (especially at Vicksburg) and, after receiving a head wound he was sent to Missouri specifically tasked to bringing the local rebellion there under control.

Grenville Dodge personally signing off on the arrest of Tumblety for only wearing a "semi-military uniform" and hat on the street? Then releasing him? That sounds pretty petty, like simple harassment. Something is missing here.

JM

They can/could be strict about uniform.

[mklhawley]

This is from Joe.


Hi Jonathan. Have a good time in Baltimore next spring. Just to clarify...Major-General Dodge signed the order to have Tumblety arrested in May 1865. That was for the Lincoln assassination. As for the March 1865 arrest (for wearing a fake military uniform) that order was issued by Colonel Baker.


It's time now to return to our soap opera. In my last post, we had Sir Edward Thornton sending a letter to the Foreign Office on 17 March 1873 requesting instructions on how to proceed with Tumblety's claim against the U.S. Government for his May 1865 arrest. Thornton also informed the F.O. that Tumblety's claim for his March 1865 arrest had been disallowed mainly due to the fact that no evidence was submitted.


Lord Granville instructed the F.O. to answer Thornton's letter on 25 April 1873. Lord Granville seemed annoyed that Tumblety failed to present any evidence to the Claims Commission for his initial arrest. This was understandable because he had sent a letter to Tumblety back on 9 January 1873 specifically advising him 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 of the first arrest, and have determined the claim arising out of it." (See Post 36 on this thread.)


Lord Granville noticed that his advice was completely ignored by Tumblety. So on April 25th, Thornton was told, "...you should ascertain from (Tumblety) his reason for not offering any evidence."


On 9 May 1873, Thornton wrote to Tumblety and asked him why he didn't submit evidence to the Claims Commission when he had the chance. He also told Tumblety that the answer will be conveyed back to Lord Granville in England. Tumblety received Thornton's letter, and on the next post we will see Tumblety's written response.

[mklhawley]

Letter From Tumblety To Sir Edward Thornton


30 May 1873

St. Louis


My Lord,

I did not offer any evidence of my arrest not knowing what kind was needed. I now enclose you the sworn testimony of the U.S. officers at the time of my arrest. If this evidence is not sufficient will your Lordship please instruct me what further evidence he wishes as I can procure more of the same kind.

(Signed Francis Tumblety M.D.)


The affidavits of Captain Peter Tallon and Henry W. Huthsing were sent in this same envelope to Thornton.



*****************************


Letter from Thornton to Tumblety


British Legation
Washington

6 June 1873


Sir,

I beg to inform you that I have received this morning your letter enclosing copies of two affidavits relative to your arrest in 1865. It will be necessary for me to communicate with Lord Granville before I take any further steps.


******************************


Letter from Thornton to Lord Granville


Washington,

7 June 1873


My Lord,

With reference to your Lordship's Dispatch No. 138 of the 25th of April last, I have the honor to inform you that I addressed a letter to Dr. Tumblety, copy of which is enclosed, inquiring why he had not thought fit to offer any evidence in support of his first claim, which had been submitted to the Mixed Commission now sitting under the Treaty of May 8 1871.

In Dr. Tumblety's reply, copy of which is enclosed, he states that he did not offer any evidence, because he did not know what kind was needed. The excuse is most weak, for he alone could be the best judge of the evidence which would prove the facts he had submitted. It must also be untrue for his case was in the hands of a lawyer, Mr. Alvin Burt of New York, who could doubtless have given him good advice as to the evidence which he should furnish.


Two weeks later, Thornton sent Lord Granville three additional affidavits that he received from Tumblety. Those affidavits were from Outley, Hicks, and the politician O'Neill.

[David Orsam]

This is from Joe.

The last few correspondences between Thornton and Lord Granville gave an impression that they were starting to get fed up with Tumblety. The Foreign Office sent the following message to Thornton on 5 July 1873. It sounded like both parties wanted to get to the bottom of this.

"...I approve of your suggestion that you should address a note to the U.S. Govt stating that Dr. Tumblety has presented a claim in account of his arrest, and enquiring on what ground the arrest was ordered, and I (instruct you) to address such a note to Mr. Fish, taking care in wording not to commit H.M. Govt to the support of (Tumblety's) claim, that it might also be advisable that you should communicate confidentially with the Vice Consul at St. Louis in order to ascertain as far as may be what the true facts connected with Dr. Tumblety's arrest were..."

**************************
Thornton complied, and he sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. Here is the reply Fish gave to Thornton. As you will see, it appeared that Fish didn't respect Tumblety's words, especially his use of the title "Doctor".

Department of State, Washington

9 August 1873

Sir,

Referring to your note of the 23rd Ult. in which information is sought concerning the arrest at St. Louis in May 1865 of Mr. Francis Tumblety, alleged to be a British subject, I have the honour to enclose a copy of a letter of 6th Instant upon the subject from the Secretary of War.

[David Orsam]

FO 5/1615

Secretary of War, War Department, to British Secretary of State

6, August 1873

Sir,

"...I have to say that it is shown by the records of this Department that Dr. Francis Tumblety known as "the Indian Herb Doctor", and passing in St. Louis, Missouri under the alias of Blackburn, was arrested in St. Louis, on the 6th of May 1865, on suspicion of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln; that he was committed to the Old Capitol Prison on the 10th of May 1865, and that he was released on the 31st of May of that year."

(signed William W. Belknap, Secretary of War)

Belknap acknowledged that Tumblety was using the name Blackburn as an alias, but he wasn't arrested for anything in connection with the name Dr. Luke Blackburn or his alleged "yellow fever plot". Instead, Belknap said that Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of complicity in the assassination. - Joe

[Mayerling]

FO 5/1615

Secretary of War, War Department, to British Secretary of State

6, August 1873

Sir,

"...I have to say that it is shown by the records of this Department that Dr. Francis Tumblety known as "the Indian Herb Doctor", and passing in St. Louis, Missouri under the alias of Blackburn, was arrested in St. Louis, on the 6th of May 1865, on suspicion of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln; that he was committed to the Old Capitol Prison on the 10th of May 1865, and that he was released on the 31st of May of that year."

(signed William W. Belknap, Secretary of War)

Belknap acknowledged that Tumblety was using the name Blackburn as an alias, but he wasn't arrested for anything in connection with the name Dr. Luke Blackburn or his alleged "yellow fever plot". Instead, Belknap said that Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of complicity in the assassination. - Joe

Which again leads us to the issue - which assignation plot. Yes, it says "on suspicion of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln", but while that suggests Booth, it could be that scheme of Quantrill's, which originated in Missouri - where Doc. T. was when arrested for illegally wearing a military uniform before the assassination.

And why did he use the alias of "Blackburn". While Luke Blackburn is associated with that "yellow fever plot", he was an actual physician. He was also a Confederate operative in their enclave of agents in Toronto.

Footnote: Belknap would serve as Secretary of War through most of Grant's two terms (he replaced John Rawlins, who died in 1869; Belknap had distinguished himself attached to Sherman on the latter's invasion of Georgia, fall of Atlanta, and "March to the Sea", so Sherman - Grant's friend and replacement as "General-in-Chief" may have recommended him). However, due to a second marriage to a very attractive but social climbing wife, Belknap got involved in a major scandal selling Indian trading posts for personal profit instead of doing normal government contract auctions. Facing impeachment, Belknap resigned in 1876, but Congress decided to hold impeachment proceedings anyway. This action of Congress turned out to be not only pointless, but illegal.

Jeff