Welcome to MAIWelcome to MAI


"Hello, I'm William McKinley."
partial cover image from "American Boys' Life of William McKinley"                                              
About MAI
Disclaimer
Help MAI


Who I Am
Contact Me



 


Publication information
view printer-friendly version
Source: not applicable
Source type: government document
Document type: trial transcript, state supreme court
Document title: “The People of the State of New York against Leon F. Czolgosz”
Author(s): State of New York, Supreme Court, Erie County
Date of publication: 23-24, 26 September 1901
Pagination: 136 pp.

 
Citation
“The People of the State of New York against Leon F. Czolgosz.” Unpublished trial transcript. 23-24, 26 Sept. 1901.
 
Transcription
full text
 
Keywords
Leon Czolgosz (trial: transcript: full text); McKinley assassination; Leon Czolgosz (arraignment); Leon Czolgosz (trial); McKinley assassination (crime scene); William McKinley (death, cause of); McKinley assassination (eyewitness accounts: Louis L. Babcock); McKinley assassination (eyewitnesses); McKinley assassination (eyewitness accounts: Edward R. Rice); McKinley assassination (eyewitness accounts: James L. Quackenbush); McKinley assassination (Albert Gallaher account); McKinley assassination (George F. Foster account); McKinley assassination (Francis P. O’Brien account); McKinley assassination (Louis Neff account); McKinley assassination (Louis Bertschey account); McKinley assassination (eyewitness accounts: Harry F. Henshaw); McKinley assassination (eyewitness accounts: John Branch); Leon Czolgosz (sentencing).
 
Named persons
Louis L. Babcock; Charles H. Bailey; Louis Bertschey [first name wrong below]; Harry A. Bliss; William C. Boller [identified as Bowler below]; John Branch; William S. Bull; Robert C. Chapin; George B. Cortelyou; Patrick V. Cusack; Leon Czolgosz; Michael Donovan; Samuel J. Fields; George F. Foster; William Freeman; Francis E. Fronczak; Albert Gallaher; Harvey R. Gaylord; John J. Geary; Emma Goldman; Frank T. Haggerty; Frederick Haller; Harry F. Henshaw; Frank Hess; Samuel R. Ireland; Abraham Isaak [misspelled below]; Edward G. Janeway; William W. Johnston [identified as Johnson below]; Carlton E. Ladd; Edward Wallace Lee; Loran L. Lewis; Matthew D. Mann; Herman G. Matzinger; Charles McBurney; William McKinley; John G. Milburn; Herman Mynter; Louis Neff; John Nowak; Walter Nowak; Francis P. O’Brien; Matthew J. O’Loughlin [misspelled below]; Roswell Park; James B. Parker; John Parmenter; Thomas Penney; James L. Quackenbush; Edward R. Rice; Presley M. Rixey; Alexander R. Robertson; William H. Seward; Albert Solomon; Charles G. Stockton; Horace E. Storey; Robert C. Titus; James F. Vallely; Peter W. Van Peyma; Eugene Wasdin; Truman C. White; John Wisser; Anton Zwolinski [identified as Zolosman below].
 
Notes

The transcript below is based on a PDF copy of the trial transcript provided to MAI by the Bar Association of Erie County. It is not known when or by whom this transcript was created. The original stenographic record has not been seen.

Numerous typographical errors in the PDF copy have been corrected in the version below. Minor alterations, too, have been made to adjust for occasional inconsistencies in capitalization and punctuation. Some statements below (especially those of District Attorney Penney) are followed, apparently erroneously, by question marks instead of periods. This is as the text appears in the PDF copy and has not been corrected below.

Some formatting changes have been implemented below—addition of boldfacing, indentation of Q & A sections, etc.—in order to facilitate the reading process.

Pages 2-3 of the original PDF document are blank.

Trial transcript navigation menu:

Day 1 (23 Sept. 1901):

Day 2 (24 Sept. 1901):

Day 3 (26 Sept. 1901):

 
Document

 

The People of the State of New York against Leon F. Czolgosz

 

SUPREME COURT, ERIE COUNTY

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

— against —

LEON F. CZOLGOSZ.

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

Tried before HON. TRUMAN C. WHITE, and a Jury, in Part III of the Supreme Court, in the City and County Hall, in the City of Buffalo, New York, commencing on the twenty-third day of September, 1901, at ten A.M.

APPEARANCES:

HON. THOMAS PENNEY, District Attorney of Erie County;
FREDERICK HALLER, Esq., Assistant District Attorney,

On behalf of The People.                     

HON. ROBERT C. TITUS,
HON. LORAN L. LEWIS,
CARLTON E. LADD, Esq.,

Counsel for the Defendant. [1][4]         

 

BY THE COURT: Mr. District Attorney, have you any business for the Court?

MR. PENNEY: I desire to arraign the prisoner Leon F. Czolgosz, your Honor. Mr. Czolgosz, you have been indicted on the charge of murder in the first degree, committed on the 6th day of September of this year, in that you unlawfully killed one William McKinley, contrary to law. How do you plead?

MR. LEWIS: If the Court please, we desire—

BY THE COURT: I think the prisoner was about to speak. Czolgosz, did you understand what the District Attorney said to you?

MR. CZOLGOSZ: I didn’t hear it.

MR. PENNEY: You are indicted and charged with having committed the crime of murder in the first degree. It is alleged that you on the 6th day of September of this year unlawfully shot and killed William McKinley contrary to law. How do you plead?

THE PRISONER: Guilty.

THE COURT: That plea can not be accepted in this Court. The Clerk will enter a plea of “not guilty” and we will proceed with the trial.

MR. PENNEY: This defendant appeared in the County Court last week, and at that time Judge Emery assigned as his counsel the Hon. Loran L. Lewis and the Hon. Robert C. Titus, and his associate, Mr. Carlton S. Ladd, to attend to the case and ascertain the rights that this man had and to put in such defense as to them they deemed best. They are here, I suppose, to attend to that in this Court this morning. I will ask your Honor to confirm that assignment.

MR. TITUS: If the Court please, it has been thought best by my distinguished associate and my- [4][5] self, and my young friend, that something should be said, not in the way of apology, but as a reason why we are here in defense of this defendant.

At the time we were assigned I was out of the city, and neither of my associates were consulted about the assignment. I at first declined absolutely to take part in the defense of the case, but subsequently it was made to appear to Judge Lewis and myself that it was a duty which we owed alike to our profession, to the public and to the Court that we accept this assignment, unpleasant though the task is for us, and we therefore appear in accordance with that assignment to see that this defendant, if he is guilty, is convicted only by such evidence as the law of the land requires in a case of this character, and that in the trial of this case the forms of law shall be observed in every particular and that no act or no bit of evidence shall be introduced here upon the trial of this case and accepted against this defendant unless it is such as would be introduced and accepted upon the trial of the meanest criminal in the smallest case.

THE COURT: It certainly accords with the views of this Court that gentlemen like yourselves should have been appointed by the County Court to defend this prisoner. It gives to the public and the Courts, and those engaged in the administration of the law, absolute assurance that the prisoner will receive fair treatment during the progress of this trial, and that he will meet with such justice as the law demands in his behalf as he is assured by the fundamental law of the land.

The plea of “guilty” which has been entered by the prisoner, indicates, as the Court looks upon it, that he himself anticipates no escape from the penalty which the law prescribes. Of course, that plea can not be accepted, and the progress of the trial should be the same, in my judgment, as though he himself had entered a plea of “not guilty.” I am [5][6] sure you gentlemen will protect him to the same extent that you would if you were retained for a munificent compensation to do the duty which you are undertaking to do now.

Some question has been raised,—discussed in the public print, at any rate,—as to the jurisdiction of the County Court to appoint you gentlemen. It is my pleasure to not only confirm, but, if it should be deemed necessary, appoint and designate you gentlemen to the task which you have set out to perform.

MR. PENNEY: I move the trial of the defendant Leon F. Czolgosz, your Honor.

THE CLERK: By direction of the Court, the defendant is informed that if he intends to challenge an individual juror, he must do so when the juror appears and before he is sworn, and that the following are duly called to try the case.

(Jury drawn, examined, sworn and accepted.)

THE COURT: Mr. Penney, the case is with you.

MR. PENNEY: Yes, sir. Mr. Haller will open the case to the Jury.

MR. HALLER: May it please the Court and Gentlemen of the Jury: This defendant is before you charged with having committed the crime of murder in the first degree in the City of Buffalo on the sixth day of September of this year. It is alleged in the indictment that upon that day in this city he committed an assault upon William McKinley and that with a revolver and firearm in his hands then had and held, he fired upon William McKinley, inflicting upon him a mortal wound; that the said William McKinley languished from the 6th day of September of this year until the 14th day of September, upon which last named day he died at the City of Buffalo from the mortal wound so inflicted by this defendant. [6][7] I shall but briefly indicate to you the trend of the evidence as it will be presented to you. The witnesses produced by the People will show to your minds, I believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this defendant for some days prior to the day on which he committed this crime, had premeditated and deliberated upon the commission of this crime; that he had been informed that the President of the United States would, upon the 6th day of September, be at the Temple of Music in the Exposition Grounds in the City of Buffalo, and that he would there receive the populace, that he would greet the people who came there to shake hands with him. The defendant, I say, had been informed of that—had received information of that—and upon this day named, the 6th day of September, he went to the Exposition Grounds, armed, prepared to commit this assault; that whilst there he learned that the President had entered the Temple of Music; that he entered the Temple of Music with the other people who entered at the time to shake hands with the President; that he got into line with the people who were passing before the President and awaited his opportunity, and approached the President; that as he approached the President he had this weapon concealed in his hand; that as the President extended his hand to shake the hand of this defendant, the defendant fired the fatal shot; that he fired two shots; that one shot so fired by him inflicted this wound that I have referred to; that he was immediately apprehended at the time and disarmed, and has been in custody ever since; that the President was taken in charge—in care of—immediately by persons there with him, and was attended to in the City of Buffalo and afforded all the care that could be afforded him; and upon the 14th day of September thereafter, he died from this mortal wound so inflicted by the defendant upon that day.

These are in brief the main facts in this case. They will be presented to you by eyewitnesses, by people who were there at the time and saw the commission of this crime by those who apprehended the defendant and who disarmed him at the time. You will be afford- [7][8] ed an opportunity of judging as to the position that the President occupied and the people approaching him at this time, and the position occupied by the defendant. This opportunity will be afforded you by a diagram of the Temple of Music, the building in which this crime was committed.

This is, in brief, Gentlemen, the case of the People, and I have no doubt that when the evidence is presented to you, you will not find much difficulty in arriving at a verdict in accordance with the evidence.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Fields, take the stand. [8][9]

SAMUEL J. FIELDS, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Fields, you are a civil engineer?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Of how many years’ experience?
A. Oh, it is something over 30.

Q. At one time you were City Engineer?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at the present time you occupy some position?
A. Yes, sir; with the Pan American.

Q. What position?
A. Chief Engineer.

Q. Chief Engineer for the Pan American?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. On the afternoon of the shooting of President McKinley, were you required to go to the Temple of Music?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you go?
A. I did.

Q. At what time?
A. Some time after five; between five and six.

Q. And when you arrived there, who did you find?
A. I found yourself and Mr. Quackenbush and several police and others that I do not recall.

Q. What did you do after you got there?
A. I took some measurements there to points that were mar(ked) out.

Q. And made a ground plan of the Temple of Music?
A. I took the necessary measurements then.

Q. And you subsequently made a ground plan?
A. Yes, sir. [9][10]

Q. Is this map the result of your measurements on that evening?
A. Yes, sir. Well, not entirely. The following morning, too, I might say.

Q. Well, you began it on that evening?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I wish you would generally describe to the Jury the outlines on that map there, particularly around the temporary aisle that is marked by the black lines towards the lower part of the map?
A. This outer line defines the exterior of the building. (Witness indicating on diagram). This is north, up this way. This is the general area of the inside. Here is the stage here, and the organ over here. Now, these black lines represent lines that were marked out in the building by green cotton, I think, or blue. Blue, I guess. It was laid over the seats. Here was the entrance here, and here; and this was marked off in this way. (Witness indicating on diagram.)

Q. Those dark lines that you have pointed out on the map represent a temporary aisle?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Formed by the chairs?
A. And draperies.

Q. What is that?
A. And draperies.

Q. A drapery that was over the chairs?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. There is an angle there in that temporary aisle?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Describe it.
A. This is filled up with plants. There were two bay trees; one there and one there, and this was surrounded by plants in pots. Back of that was a large flag, and in here were two small crossed flags. There were a few plants on seats marked here by round marks. (Witness indicating on diagram.)

Q. Near the point of entrance, Mr. Fields, what was found? What do these black lines represent down here near the point of entrance?
A. That is the line as marked out by drapery. [10][11]

Q. By drapery hung from the ceiling to the floor?
A. No, sir. From chairs—over the chairs.

Q. It was hung up so that you could not see from the door in back, could you? That is, standing in the doorway, you could not see this angle?
A. Well, you could from the door.

Q. I say, from this door? (Counsel indicating on map.)
A. No, sir; not from that door.

Q. What is this—?
A. Well, I would like to correct that. Yes, sir; you could see the trees in this angle because you could see over the tops of the chairs.

Q. What is the distance from the doorway near this end of the dotted line up to the angle where my pointer is now placed?
A. It is a trifle over 64 1/2 feet. 64.6 feet.

MR. TITUS: From what point was that?

MR. PENNEY: From a point at the door.

MR. TITUS: Of entrance?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. To the angle near the bay tree that is marked upon the map?
A. 64.6 feet.

Q. What is the width of that aisle formed by these dark lines?
A. Well, it varies. At this point it is 9 feet, and here it is 8.2 feet.

Q. What is the distance from the point of that angle to the line opposite forming the other side of the aisle?
A. It is not marked here, but it is about 23 1/2 feet.

Q. 23 1/2 feet?
A. Yes, sir; 23 1/2 feet.

Q. What is the distance from a point near the bay tree to [11][12] the other exit on the opposite side of the hall?
A. I will have to add that up for you. 101 1/2 feet.

Q. 101 1/2 feet?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. TITUS: Do you want to ask him anything further?

MR. PENNEY: No, sir.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. Was there anything to prevent one’s looking from the door in a direct line to where the President stood except the people?
A. Well, I couldn’t say that because I wasn’t there at the time.

Q. Where did this drapery over the chairs which you saw there extend? Was it high enough to prevent one looking over there?
A. No, sir.

Q. How high was that?
A. Well, I should say about—

Q. 3 feet?
A. No. About 2 1/2 feet.

Q. 2 1/2 feet high?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. From the floor?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there anything between that drapery and where the President is said to have stood to interfere with the view?
A. No, sir.

Q. When you were there?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you notice whether there was a flag across there to prevent seeing from the door?
A. The same drapery extended all the way around where that black line is. There are three archways at that point [12][13] where the columns are shown, and on the line of that drapery which you just pointed out here.

Q. Do you know whether this was covered with flags or not from the top? Festooned and dropped down?
A. I did not see any flags there.

Q. All you observed was the drapery around?
A. Around the chairs.

Q. And this line of chairs extended on?
A. Yes, sir; to the door.

Q. And is this the door of entrance here, or there? (Counsel indicating on diagram.)
A. Well, there were both entrance doors. Which were opened at the time I could not say. I was not there.

Q. Did you mark this spot there? (Counsel indicating on diagram.)
A. I did.

Q. And what does that indicate?
A. That is a spot where some blood was found on the floor.

Q. And this point here under the palm trees, did you mark that? (Counsel indicating on diagram.)
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was that to indicate?
A. Well, it was said at the time that that was where the President stood.

Q. What is the distance from where he stood to where this other blood spot was?
A. 14.15 feet. That would be 14 feet and 2 inches.

Q. What is this point directly in front of where the President stood?
A. That is said to be where the assassin was seen on the floor.

Q. What is that distance?
A. 8.3 feet. [13][14]

Q. And these measurements here were made by you from persons who indicated to you the different points which indicate on the map?
A. Yes, sir. I marked the points on the floor and measured them.

Q. And you have no personal knowledge, of course, of the location of these points?
A. No, sir.

MR. PENNEY: Anything else?

MR. TITUS: No.

MR. PENNEY: That is all, Mr. Fields. Mr. Bliss. [14][15]

HARRY A. BLISS, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. What is your business, Mr. Bliss?
A. Photographer.

Q. You have followed that business for some years?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have taken photographs and pictures for legal work many times?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you at my request take some pictures of the Temple of Music?
A. I did.

Q. When?
A. The 7th of September.

Q. What time?
A. About nine o’clock in the morning.

Q. Who was there?
A. Mr. Haller and Detective Geary and several others.

Q. I show you a picture and ask you if that is one of the photographs taken on that occasion? (Counsel hands photograph to witness.)
A. It was. It is; yes, sir.

Q. From what point was it taken?
A. The camera stood in the aisle about 60 feet east or towards the door or from the center of the palms.

Q. About 60 feet east and towards the door from where the palms and flags were?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. PENNEY: Let us have that marked for identification.

(Photograph referred to marked Exhibit “A” for identification.) [15][16]

Q. Does that correctly represent the condition and appearance of the portion of the Temple of Music shown on the picture?
A. It does; yes, sir.

Q. I show you another picture and ask you when that was taken? (Counsel hands photograph to witness.)
A. That was taken at the same time.

Q. Where were you standing when that was taken? Where was your camera?
A. The camera stood 57 feet about south-west of the center of the palms.

Q. That is, on the other side of the temporary aisle?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And looking towards what direction?
A. North, I should say.

Q. Looking to the point of entrance?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the other side of the Temple of Music?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does that correctly represent that portion of the building that is shown in the picture?
A. It does.

MR. PENNEY: Mark that, please.

(Photograph referred to marked Exhibit “B” for identification.)

Q. I show you another picture and ask you if that was taken by you? (Counsel hands photograph to witness.)
A. It was; yes, sir.

Q. When?
A. At the same time.

Q. Where was your camera at the time it was taken?
A. The camera was placed in the gallery looking down about north, I should say, from the palms and flags there— [16][17] looking towards the inside.

Q. Looking towards the door of exit?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does it correctly represent that portion of the building shown upon the picture?
A. It does; yes, sir.

MR. PENNEY: Mark that also.

(Photograph referred to marked Exhibit “C” for identification.)

Q. I show you another picture and ask you if you took that? (Counsel hands photograph to witness.)
A. I did, yes, sir.

Q. When?
A. At the same time.

Q. Where was your instrument?
A. The instrument—I stood my camera about opposite the flags and palms.

Q. In the gallery?
A. In the gallery; yes, sir.

Q. Does it correctly represent that portion of the building shown?
A. It does; yes, sir.

MR. PENNEY: Mark that.

(Photograph referred to marked Exhibit “D” for identification.)

Q. I show you still another picture and ask you if you took that? (Counsel hands photograph to witness.)
A. I did. At the same time. The camera stood in the gallery at about the same point as the last, opposite the palms.

Q. Does it correctly represent the interior of the building as it was at the time you took the picture?
A. It does; yes, sir.

MR. PENNEY: Mark that. [17][18]

(Photograph referred to marked Exhibit “E” for identification.)

MR. PENNEY: You may ask.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. These were taken by yourself?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. TITUS: I do not think we care to ask anything further.

THE COURT: How many of these are there?

MR. TITUS: Five.

MR. PENNEY: Five, I think there are, sir. I offer these pictures in evidence here.

THE COURT: How many are there?

MR. PENNEY: Five.

THE COURT: They are received.

(Photographs referred to received in evidence and marked Exhibits “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” and “E,” respectively.)

MR. PENNEY: That is all. [18][19]

HARVEY R. GAYLORD, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Doctor, you are a physician and surgeon?
A. I am.

Q. Did you perform the autopsy upon the body of the late President McKinley?
A. In conjunction with Dr. Matzinger, I did.

Q. When did you do that?
A. That was done on the morning of the preceding—or following his death. About eleven o’clock.

Q. The 15th day of September?
A. Yes, sir; the 15th day of September.

Q. About eleven o’clock in the forenoon?
A. About eleven o’clock in the forenoon, it began.

Q. Now, Doctor, I wish you would describe as briefly and as simply as you can what you did and what you found?
A. I found the body of the President prepared for the autopsy. Upon the wall of the thorax, just at the junction of the second and third rib, slightly to the right, was the evidence of a wound in the skin. The abdomen was covered with surgical dressings, which were removed, and underneath which was found a surgical wound somewhat to the left of the median line. In the wall of this wound was a notch, which we were informed was what remained of the point where a bullet had entered the abdominal cavity. The usual procedures were carried out, and it disclosed the fact that beginning with this notch or directly beneath it there was a wound in the wall of the stomach just above the margin—about in the middle tissues of the stomach, which was closed with silk sutures. Opposite that was a similar wound likewise closed with silk sutures. Beneath the stomach and behind it was a cavity filled with discolored fluid, and at the bottom of this cavity was a tract in which I could insert my fingers. On carefully preparing and removing the intestines, we found that this tract where the finger entered passed downward and posteriorly into the fat in the neighbor- [19][20] hood of the kidney, just slightly above it. On examining the kidney it was found that the portion of the kidney adjacent to this opening and tract showed changes which indicated that it had been injured during life. We made careful search for a missile—a bullet; but at the time did not find any; and later, as the cause of death was established, the search for the bullet was discontinued. The wall of this cavity was formed by the fat posteriorly, the attachment of the large intestines and the pancreas; and the pancreas was seriously involved.

Q. What was the cause of death?
A. The cause of death was a gunshot wound leading to changes in the important viscera.

Q. What was the condition of the organs, aside from this wound?
A. The condition of the other organs which were not included in this area of the wound were those which a man of the President’s age should have had. They were not especially robust organs, so to speak, but they were perfectly satisfactory and in sufficient condition to support life.

Q. That is, they were normal, for a man of his condition and age?
A. They were certainly that.

MR. PENNEY: You may ask.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LEWIS:

Q. You are a physician here in Buffalo, Doctor?
A. I am, sir.

Q. Are you connected with any institution?
A. I am connected with the State Laboratory and with the University of Buffalo.

Q. Who was associated with you in this autopsy?
A. Dr. Herman G. Matzinger. [20][21]

Q. Speak a little louder, Doctor.
A. Dr. Matzinger.

Q. Now, this wound that you first described, did that enter the body?
A. No, sir. That perforated the skin and had destroyed or caused the destruction of a small amount of fat beneath it, but did not reach down to the muscles.

Q. That wound you dismissed as one of no great importance?
A. We described it and passed over it.

Q. The other was the wound that passed through the stomach?
A. The other was the wound that passed through the stomach,—

Q. Where the bullet passed through the stomach?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you found the two wounds in the stomach closed, I suppose?
A. They were closed by a surgical operation.

Q. By stitching?
A. They had been stitched up.

Q. Yes, sir. Stitched up?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you found them still closed?
A. They were in good condition from the standpoint of the operation.

Q. This autopsy was the 15th. It was eleven days after the wound?
A. After the wound; yes, sir.

Q. Had the—
A. Nine days.

Q. Nine days, was it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I am a little off in my figures. Nine days after the wound. Had the edges of the wound apparently healed? [21][22]
A. They were properly united; yes, sir,

Q. How?
A. They were properly united.

Q. They were properly united, but had the process of healing apparently gone on?
A. Yes, sir. The wounds in the stomach had healed.

Q. Had adhered?
A. Yes, sir; had adhered and were in a process of healing.

Q. They were in process of healing?
A. Yes, sir; they were in process of healing.

Q. You did not find the bullet?
A. We did not.

Q. You did not search for it very much?
A. Yes, sir. We searched until we were finally requested to desist.

Q. The parts near the wound, what change, if any, had occurred there?
A. They were in a condition of necrosis.

Q. Of what?
A. Of necrosis. They were dead.

Q. They were dead?
A. Yes, sir. They were dead.

Q. What color?
A. They were grayish in appearance.

Q. Grayish?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, a very pronounced gray, or simply an indication of gray?
A. No, sir. A well defined gray color.

Q. Well defined?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did that indicate to you? [22][23]
A. That indicated a necrosis of the tissues. That is, a process which had caused complete destruction of the tissues.

Q. Is that what is popularly known as gangrene?
A. That is, sir.

Q. Doctor, in your testimony will you be kind enough to use as plain language as you can, leaving out the scientific language. Now, you say that the kidney seemed to have been injured?
A. The kidney showed changes, injury, which could have only been produced during life, and came in contact with this tract which we traced down to its superior order.

Q. Had the ball passed through any part of the kidney?
A. No, sir. I can’t state that. A ball could have grazed it and caused injury, but there was no loss of continuity which would enable me to say it had been perforated.

Q. What was the color of the kidneys?
A. The kidneys were of a reddish color. They presented the appearance which a kidney of a man of that age usually presents. There was some fatty change.

Q. The natural color?
A. Yes, sir. There were only slightly changes.

Q. What discoloration or change had occurred where the kid—

(here the line of the stenographer’s minutes ran off the page and could not be read)

A. There was a large triangular area where a hemorrhage had occurred.

Q. Where some blood had—
A. Yes, sir; escaped.

Q. Did you find any evidence of blood lying in the vicinity of the kidney?
A. There was an evidence of the hemorrhage in the fat back of the kidney. That was in direct line with this tract.

Q. What do you call this part of the body that lies below the stomach? [23][24]
A. The peritoneum. You mean the peritoneal cavity?

Q. What lies immediately below the stomach?
A. The pancreas.

Q. Was that injured in any way?
A. That was involved. It showed very pronounced change.

Q. Not by any actual injury to it by the bullet?
A. I couldn’t state that because the amount of injury—the amount of involvement of the organ was too great. It possibly might have been injured, but it would be impossible to state so.

Q. Was it anywhere in the line of the direction of the bullet?
A. I should be inclined to think it was too far back to have been reached by the bullet.

Q. How far removed from the line of the bullet?
A. Well, a very short distance. Not over three-quarters of an inch.

Q. But the bullet passed above it?
A. The bullet passed below it.

Q. Below it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, I had got the erroneous idea that this pancreas laid below the stomach?
A. It does, but posteriorly and, below it.

Q. How could the bullet have gone through the stomach and not touched the pancreas?
A. Because the stomach extends further down. The stomach overhangs it.

Q. The wound passed through the stomach below the pancreas?
A. Yes, sir. The wound passed through the stomach below the pancreas.

Q. Was there any other organ that was involved or injured?
A. No, sir. The kidney and pancreas were the only—and stomach—were the only three organs. [24][25]

Q. You entertained the opinion and do still, that the wound through the stomach was the cause of the death of McKinley?
A. Not the wound through the stomach in itself. I consider the changes back of the stomach, which involved the pancreas, were the fundamental factors.

Q. Let me understand you. What organ was injured by the bullet coming in contact with it that caused the death of the President?
A. I don’t think that I could state specifically that the death of the President was due to injury in any organ made directly by the bullet. That is, I could not make that statement. The changes caused by the bullet, which resulted from the passage of the bullet through that space back of the stomach was what caused his death, and that was largely because of the fact that the pancreas was involved. It was caused by the absorption or breaking up of this material back of the peritoneal cavity.

Q. You think the injury to the stomach itself did not produce that death?
A. I do not.

Q. And you say the pancreas was not touched?
A. I couldn’t say that it was.

Q. Did you find any evidence that it was?
A. There was marked evidence that it had been seriously involved in this general breaking down of tissue, but I could not say it had been directly injured by the bullet.

Q. Won’t you describe, Doctor, the extent of this disintegration or breaking down, as you express it?
A. Of the disintegration? It was an area at least two and a half inches in diameter which extended well into the substance of the organ, just about its middle portion.

Q. Excuse me, Doctor. Answer again. [25][26]
A. I say it was an area of two and a half inches, possibly three inches in one direction and two and a half inches in another, which involved the surface of the pancreas about its center portion, midway between its head and back, and the pancreatic structure was gray colored and gangrenous, to use this term.

Q. At the present time in cases of these operations on wounds you use antiseptics?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And could that have been applied to the pancreas?
A. No, sir. That could not have produced these changes in the pancreas.

Q. How?
A. You mean could that have produced these changes in the pancreas?

Q. Could it have been applied to that organ and would it have a tendency to prevent this gangrene?
A. No. I do not believe that. I do not believe that an antiseptic in itself could have prevented this destruction of the tissue.

Q. What could? What is there known to medical science that would have probably arrested the progress of the wound?
A. I don’t know of anything.

Q. You do not know of anything?
A. No, sir.

Q. Well, the office of this remedy which you use—antiseptic—is to arrest the progress of such an injury?
A. No. It is to prevent the invasion of the tissues by micro-organisms.

Q. How is that?
A. It is to prevent the infection of the wound by micro-organisms—by bacteria.

Q. It is simply to eradicate this creature we hear so much about—the bacteria? [26][27]
A. Yes, sir.

Q. It is to arrest inflammation?
A. No, sir. Antiseptic is simply to prevent the invasion of the tissues by bacteria—to kill them.

Q. When a person is wounded the natural result is a fever, is it?
A. That is when the individual becomes infected by organisms.

Q. Such inflammation follows?
A. As a result of infection; yes, sir.

Q. Yes. And then you use this antiseptic to prevent inflammation?
A. It is used at the time of the interference or the operation to prevent it, and it is used afterwards to destroy organisms that were already there.

Q. Is it or is it not used, Doctor, to prevent inflammation?
A. No, sir. Antiseptics are not used to prevent inflammation as such.

Q. So that the popular notion that it is used to prevent the progress of inflammation is all an error?
A. Inflammation is not always due to bacteria.

Q. Leaving out bacteria entirely?
A. Yes, sir. That is an error. Antiseptics are not used to prevent inflammation.

Q. No. They have no relation to the inflammation?
A. They have, in that sense, no relation to inflammation.

Q. Well, in any sense?
A. Antiseptics are—

Q. Well, I say in any sense. The answer is yes or not to that.

MR. PENNEY: Let him explain, Judge, if he can.

MR. LEWIS: No, that he can answer directly and explain afterwards.

A. The question is too broad. [27][28]

MR. PENNEY: If you cannot answer it by yes or no, say so, Doctor.

Q. You cannot tell whether it does or does not?

MR. PENNEY: He says he cannot answer it by yes or no.

A. I cannot answer it by yes or no.

MR. LEWIS: No. Counsel will permit me to proceed with this examination.

Q. My question is whether it does in any way or is used for the purpose of preventing inflammation. I do not care what stage or process is passed through. It is ultimately, that the object of it, to prevent inflammation?
A. Yes, roughly put.

Q. Well, I wanted to know for my own information somewhat because I have been laboring under that impression. You had nothing to do with the operation upon the President immediately after the accident?
A. Nothing whatever.

Q. You say you found the body indicating general condition of health?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. With the exception of these parts involved?
A. With the exception of these injuries, yes, sir.

Q. Did I understand you to say that you found cancerous germs?
A. That I found what, sir?

Q. Cancerous germs?
A. No, sir.

MR. LEWIS: That is all, Doctor.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Just a minute, Doctor. Do you care to make any explanation as to the question asked you by the Judge as [28][29] to the relation between antiseptics and inflammation?
A. Well, inflammation is a popular term which is applied to a large group of changes and can be produced in other ways than by that which follows infection. That was the reason I was unable to answer the gentleman’s question. Antiseptics are applied to prevent that form—or not necessarily that form of inflammation but those changes in the tissue which are brought about by the entry of organisms into the tissue. There are other things besides inflammation which it is used to prevent also.

Q. I think you said to the Judge that the injury to the stomach or the injury to the kidney or the injury to the pancreas, you could not say that any one of them caused death?
A. No, I could not specifically state that any one.

Q. What is your conclusion as to the cause of death?
A. He died as the result of absorption of this breaking down material in this area back of the stomach.

Q. What was the cause of the breaking-down of the material?
A. The cause of the breaking-down of the material was, in the first place, injury to the tissues and was probably further facilitated by the escape of the secretion of the pancreas into this cavity.

Q. What was the cause of the injury to the tissues?
A. That I should attribute to the bullet.

Q. Well, getting back to primal causes then, the result—or cause of death, rather, was the bullet wound?
A. Was the bullet wound.

Q. That is, in plain, ordinary language?
A. That was the specific factor.

Q. Doctor, one thing more. Tell us the office of the pancreas?
A. The office of the pancreas is in digestion, intestinal digestion. It secretes certain ferments which act upon the fluid which passes out of the stomach into the intestinal tract.

MR. PENNEY: That is all, Doctor.

MR. LEWIS: That is all. [29][30]

DR. HERMAN MYNTER, being duly sworn for the People, examined by [Mr.] Penney, testified as follows:

Q. Doctor, you are a physician and surgeon?
A. I am.

Q. You are connected with some institutions in the city?
A. With the Buffalo Medical College.

Q. I do not hear you, sir?
A. The Buffalo Medical College.

Q. In what capacity?
A. Professor of operative surgery.

Q. With any other institution?
A. With the German Deaconesses Hospital and the German Hospital as surgeon, formerly with the General Hospital and the Sisters’ Hospital, too, as surgeon.

Q. How many years experience have you had as a surgeon?
A. 22.

Q. Were you called on the day of the shooting of the President to attend him?
A. I was.

Q. When did you arrive there?
A. I arrived there at 4:45.

Q. Where did you find him?
A. I found him on the table in the operating room.

Q. Will you tell us as briefly as you can, Doctor, what you found and what you did?
A. I examined the President shortly, found a bullet wound in the left hypochondriac region, below the ribs.

Q. Will you state that in simpler language, if you can, Doctor?
A. I found a bullet wound in the upper part and left part of the abdominal cavity. He was not temperate; he was slightly under the influence of opium. I told the President that an operation was indicated at once to save [30][31] his life and he acquiesced. I made preparations immediately, with the assistance of the other gentlemen present, for laperotomy.

Q. What is that, Doctor?
A. For operation of opening the abdominal cavity. The operation is called laperotomy. We agreed to wait for Dr. Mann when we were told that he was on his way, I being the only surgeon present at that time. When Dr. Mann arrived I told him that an operation was necessary at once and that the President, if he could help it, should have the same chance for his life as if he were a laborer on the Exposition Grounds. Dr. Mann turned around and asked the physicians whether they wanted him to operate. Dr. Van Peyma answered that they wanted Dr. Mann and me to do the operation. I acquiesced at once; told Dr. Mann that I would take half the responsibility. He examined the President, told him the same, and we proceeded at once with the operation. The abdomen was opened in the line of the incision. As soon as it was opened, air escaped, showing that there was a perforation of one of the hollow viscus or organs. We, with some difficulty, pulled that out and found a bullet hole in the anterior end of the stomach, which was sewed together with [two] rows of silk sutures.

Q. Who sewed that, Doctor?
A. Dr. Mann sewed that together while I kept the wound widely open to prevent the escape of the stomach contents into the abdominal cavity. On account of the stoutness of the President it was difficult to get at the posterior wound in the stomach which we judged to be present. We therefore loosened what is called the omentum, that covers the anterior part of the intestines, for four inches, threw the stomach upwards and with great difficulty found the posterior wound in the stomach; that was somewhat larger, infused—suffused, infused with blood; and we sutured that in the same way. After we had done that, Dr. Mann introduced his whole hand and tried to locate the forward course of the bullet. It showed itself to be impossible; the President’s condition showed at that time shock, his pulse was getting higher and it was time to close and to finish the operation. We therefore washed out the abdominal cavity with [31][32] sterilized salt solution, cleaned everything, put the omentum back. Previously we had examined somewhat for injuries of the intestines but found none. And at that time Dr. Park arrived from Niagara Falls. Dr. Mann asked him and the others present if they had any further suggestions to make in regard to the treatment of the President. We all declared ourselves satisfied. We closed the wound with sutures and applied the bandages. The President’s condition, after the operation was finished, was fair, his pulse being about 124 to 130. He was removed immediately, before he was out of the influence of ether, to Mr. Milburn’s house, where he died. There was a discussion whether he should be removed and it was decided by a majority that he ought to be removed to that house, as he partly was under the influence of ether now and would not know it and would not feel it and would not be injured, and as there was no preparation in the hospital made for patients to stay over night. Dr. Mann and I went with friends of ours to the house, Dr. Park and Dr. Wasdin accompanying the President. I helped to carry him up and put him in bed. That is the history of the operation.

Q. Then you continued as one of the associates in attendance upon him?
A. I continued as one of the associates and attending surgeons on the President. For the first two days it was a time of great anxiety for us all, as we imagined and feared that inflammation of the bowels might occur from the gunshot wound. Two days passed and the President instead of getting worse, held his own and was improving. For the next two days it was a period of great hope for us; we thought that the peritonitis, inflammation of the bowels, was not apt to occur; as two days already had passed and no complications occurred, we had strong hopes at that time that the President might recover. For the next two days again our hopes changed, I might say, to exultation and joy. The President was evidently getting better; he was eating some food, his pulse, although it kept high, was of good volume; he had absolutely no symptoms of peritonitis, no symptoms of sepsis or any other serious trouble, and as six days almost had passed, people—surgeons, who have often with abdominal operations to do, would say that in the majority of cases they would get well.— [32][33]

Q. Doctor, I do not care for all that detail. I want to know that you attended generally through the consultations?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who else was present?
A. We met three times a day, at which Dr. Mann and I and Dr. Park and Dr. Wasdin and Dr. McBurney from New York, later Dr. Stockton, were present, and two other gentlemen were called,—Dr. Janeway and Dr. Johnson, who arrived after the President was dead.

Q. Now, this treatment, during that period of his illness, was the result of your joint consultation of all you gentlemen?
A. Perfectly.

Q. He did sometime subsequently die?
A. He did die.

Q. Were you present at the autopsy?
A. I was.

Q. Will you describe briefly what the results of that autopsy disclosed?
A. The autopsy disclosed, first, that there was no peritonitis present, no inflammation of the bowels; second, that there was no injury to his heart, which we had thought there might be; third, that there was a gunshot wound of the anterior wall of the stomach and of the posterior wall of the stomach, leading through a cavity and through the mesentery of the transverse colon, perforating the posterior wall, hitting the tip of the kidney and losing itself; that around the two wounds in the stomach where the sutures could be seen, and which were tight, was an area of gangrene, or total death of the wall of the stomach, about as large as a silver dollar; that the whole line of the track was in the same gangrenous condition.

Q. What was the cause of death?
A. The cause of death was what we call toxemia, kind of blood poisoning from absorption of poisonous products from the gangrene, produced by the bullet wound.

Q. Well, in simple language it was the gunshot wound? [33][34]
A. It was the gunshot wound primarily.

Q. The cause of death of President McKinley was this gunshot wound that occurred on the 6th day of September of this year?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. PENNEY: That is all.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. You did not think it advisable when you performed the operation to pursue it further and locate the bullet?
A. We couldn’t have done that without taking all the intestines out. The President would have died on the table if we had gone further. We would have had to make a large incision, ten inches long, take all his intestines out. He was already under the influence of shock at that time. He would have died on the table if we had gone further.

Q. What was the object or what would have been the object in locating the bullet and removing it?
A. To get rid of it so that it might not raise any disturbance afterwards.

Q. If the bullet was left in the muscles was it in a position where it would not create any disturbance?
A. It was in a position where it might not create any disturbance.

Q. Was there any means by which this bullet could have been located at that time?
A. Only the X-rays.

Q. Were they used?
A. They were not used.

Q. Why not?
A. It was not considered necessary. And even if we had known where the bullet was, not one of us would have thought at the time of trying to remove it.

Q. Supposing the X-rays had disclosed that the bullet was [34][35] located in the muscles near the back or near the surface of the body, that could have been removed without very much physical disturbance, could it not?
A. Yes, but still you might have to use cocaine and with a weak heart that might injure him.

Q. Would it not have been desirable to have made an opening in a wound of that character in order to drain it and to wash it with antiseptics?
A. Not necessarily. He had no tenderness there behind.

Q. No; I say, would it not have been desirable if it could have been done?
A. Yes, if it could have been done it was desirable.

Q. If there had been an open drain and the passage of the bullet had been clearly diagnosed and determined, would there have been so much liability of his death as when the wound was closed and no access to it?
A. I do not suppose it would have made the slightest difference either one way or another. The gangrene of the stomach would have occurred anyway.

Q. Why should that have occurred in a healthy person?
A. Well, the President was not exactly what I would call [a] healthy person. He was a healthy person for his age, but with a rather low vitality.

Q. Does it necessarily follow, when a person receives a wound inside, that gangrene must set up?
A. No, it does not.

Q. It is not usual, is it?
A. It is not usual. I never saw it before.

Q. Well, to what do you attribute this?
A. To different things.

Q. Give us some of them?
A. I attribute it perhaps partly to what Dr. Gaylord said, to leakage of the pancreatic fluid, although to my idea the pancreas was not wounded by the bullet, but it might have got into a state of injury by simply the wave of the bullet striking it,—contrecoup, as we call it—and in that way injury to the pancreas occurred. That is one idea. Another idea is that the bullet—or, that [35][36] the injury was followed with bacterial growth. That we cannot say yet because the bacteriological examination is not finished. Another thing is that the proximity of the large solar plexus, the large ganglia near the heart, near the stomach wound, might have certain deleterious influence upon the nervous system which already was weakened, and in that way favor gangrenous processes.

Q. Is this bacteria that you speak of produced by the introduction of some foreign substance in the wound?
A. It may; it may be produced by the bacteria that are present in the intestines and in the stomach itself. It need not be brought in from outside. I have bacteria and so have you in your intestines, and if that gets pierced or your stomach get pierced, the bacteria may, alone, in that way, infect the tract.

Q. As I understand you, the intestines were not injured or pierced at all?
A. No, not the intestines; simply the stomach.

Q. Now, was this pancreas injured; I mean broken; at all, by the bullet?
A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. How could any of the substance of the pancreas escape then?
A. They can percolate through; they can get through the tissues of the pancreas; if those tissues die off—I think I would better say it so—they can get through. Another thing is that the pancreas perhaps itself may have become contused, although it was not strictly hurt by the bullet. In the same way, for instance, as when I get a blow on this part of the head (the right side) my skull might be fractured on that (the left side) without that part (the right side) is hurt at all. So a violent blow on the stomach may injure the pancreas.

Q. You opened the wound, after a number of days, did you?
A. We only opened the outer wound.

Q. You opened it sufficiently to look into the first wound?
A. No; oh, my, no.

Q. To the stomach? [36][37]
A. Oh, my, no. Only sufficient to open the incision in the skin, in the subcutaneous tissue, down to the muscles of the abdominal wall.

Q. Was this gangrenous condition manifest there?
A. It was not exactly a gangrenous condition but it probably would have become one if we had not opened the wound.

Q. How? To allow—
A. It was an infected wound and by opening it and letting the fluids escape and disinfecting it we probably checked the whole processes there.

Q. What caused the infection?
A. I wish you could tell me.

Q. Well, I ask you?
A. Well, I don’t know. The bacteriological examination perhaps may show you, but that is not finished.

Q. But you are being asked questions here, Doctor, as an expert?
A. Yes, but they are things I don’t know.

Q. Well, then, you will very kindly say so. I am not criticizing you.
A. I beg pardon. I do not mean so.

Q. I am not criticizing you, sir. I just want you to answer my questions.
A. Yes.

Q. Now I want to know, if you will be good enough to tell me,—you say there was a spot indicating an inch or more around this wound, that was dead?
A. Yes.

Q. In a healthy body, without the introduction of any foreign substance, should tissue die in that way, or ordinarily?
A. They should not.

Q. That is what I supposed. Now can you give any reason, or have you any theory of the cause of the infection of this tissue?
A. I have mentioned three theories already,—the leakage of the pancreatic juice, as one; the injury to the [37][38] solar plexus as another; and a possible infection from somewhere of bacteria as the third.

Q. Either of those, you think, would be sufficient?
A. Sufficient.

Q. But this fluid from the pancreas would not involve all of the wounds of the stomach?
A. It would not.

Q. The anterior and posterior wounds both in the same manner?
A. I should not think it would.

Q. So far as you traced the line of this bullet, did this same gangrenous condition exist?
A. Existed along the whole track, as far as I could make out.

Q. Why did you not continue it and locate the bullet?
A. When?

Q. When you made the autopsy?
A. I did not make the autopsy.

Q. Were you present?
A. I was present, yes.

Q. Were you advising in reference to the matter?
A. I suppose I was.

Q. Well, may I ask you why it was not done, if you know?
A. Well, they tried their level best for four hours and could not find it and at last they were told to desist. The family of the President would not have allowed them to go on any longer and would not permit them to injure the corpse any longer. Therefore they desisted.

Q. You were four hours making this autopsy?
A. Yes, they were four hours trying to find it. In the same way, they would not permit anything to be removed for pathological examinations of the body.

Q. Now, Doctor, one other question: Would this X-ray have shown you the injuries or the path of the wound? [38][39]
A. Not at all. It would simply have shown where the bullet was.

Q. It would not have shown you this dead tissue, or anything of that kind?
A. Not the slightest.

Q. Nothing to indicate the line of the bullet at all, the direction of it?
A. Nothing whatever; nothing to indicate that there was gangrene there.

MR. TITUS: I think that is all, Doctor.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. The X-ray would have disclosed the location of the bullet if it had been near the surface, Doctor?
A. Yes, or deeper, too, for that matter.

MR. PENNEY: That is all, Doctor. [39][40]

DR. MATTHEW D. MANN, being duly sworn for the People, examined by Mr. Penney, testified as follows:

Q. Doctor, you are a physician and surgeon?
A. Yes.

Q. You are connected with some of the institutions of Buffalo, are you?
A. I am professor in the Medical Department of the University of Buffalo and am also connected with the University of Buffalo and the German Deaconesses Home, German Hospital, the Almshouse Hospital.

Q. In what capacity, sir?
A. In some as attending and some as consulting gynecologist.

Q. Well, state that in plainer language to the jury; what do you mean by gynecologist?
A. A gynecologist is one who has to do particularly with the diseases of women and especially with the abdominal work—abdominal operations connected with them.

Q. Were you called on the day of the injury to the President to attend him?
A. I was.

Q. Where did you first see him and at what time?
A. I saw him on the operating table in the operating room of the Emergency Hospital on the Pan American Grounds, a little after five o’clock, I think. I have forgotten the exact hour.

Q. Will you tell, Doctor, as briefly as you can, what was done there?
A. What was done after I arrived?

Q. Yes, sir.
A. I, after some conversation which it is not necessary to repeat—

Q. No; just tell what you did.
A. I examined the patient and held a consultation with Dr. Mynter and some others of the surgeons and we decided an operation should be undertaken at once. The President was told of this and gave his consent. After all [40][41] the preparations were made, Dr. Mynter, acting as my associate, and Dr. Parmenter and Dr. Lee as assistants, we proceeded to do the operation. We opened the abdomen with a knife, making an incision some three inches in length, beginning just at the edge of the ribs and cutting downward toward the navel, the incision being about three inches long at first. The opening was made down to the stomach. I introduced my finger and felt of the front wall of the stomach and found an opening in it. I then enlarged the opening in the abdominal wall somewhat and pulled the stomach up so that I could get at this opening; then with a needle and thread I sewed up the hole according to the usual methods. The parts were washed off and returned. I then cut away some of the fatty tissue which is between the bowel and the stomach and got at the back wall of the stomach and there we found another opening, a little larger than the one in front, the edges rather more frayed and bloody, and with great difficulty we got that up and closed that in the same way. The parts were then washed off with the salt and water, warm, hot salt-and-water, and the parts returned. After this, the surgeons present expressing themselves as being satisfied that everything had been done, I introduced my hand well down into the abdominal cavity to try and find the track of the bullet. This was entirely impossible. There were no evidences of blood or abdominal contents, intestinal contents there on my hand as I withdrew it. I therefore thought there was no serious injury, no large vessels, blood vessels injured, and I desisted, especially as the manipulation with my hand in the abdomen was making the President very weak, had a very bad effect on his pulse, as it always does. To find the track of the bullet we should have had to have taken the entire intestines out of the abdomen, which would have increased the shock very much; probably would have killed him on the table; and it is doubtful whether we could have found the track of the bullet even then. In fact there is not any doubt, as the autopsy showed, that we could not. After this we closed the abdominal wound with stitches, in the usual way, put on a dressing, bandages, and the President was then removed to the ambulance and taken to Mr. Milburn’s.

Q. After that, Doctor, were there a number of surgeons and physicians who united in the treatment of the President, [41][42] consulting?
A. Yes.

Q. Who were they?
A. They were: Dr. Rixey, who was the President’s family physician—he is a surgeon of the navy; he assumed the charge of the President and selected the staff who were to attend him; he chose myself and Dr. Mynter as the surgeons, and Dr. Wasdin as physician, and later, Dr. McBurney was called, also chosen by Dr. Rixey, and later on Dr. Stockton, and two other physicians came later too late.

Q. Dr. Park was in the consultation?
A. Oh, Dr. Park; yes; Dr. Park was in consultation from the first.

Q. All you gentlemen consulted together and treated the President as the result of your whole consultation?
A. We did so. We made a point that two of us should stay each night with the President and the rest of us met three times a day.

Q. What I want to get at, Doctor, is that the treatment of the President was the result of the joint consultation of all you gentlemen?
A. The joint consultation.

Q. From the time of the injury until his death?
A. Yes. We were never left with a single man; always two present.

Q. The President did later die?
A. He did.

Q. Were you present at the autopsy?
A. I was.

Q. Will you tell us, briefly as you can, in as simple language as you can, what was found?
A. We found, in the first place, that the abdominal cavity, intestines were all in a perfectly healthy condition; no evidence of inflammation of the bowels. There was a point in the front wall of the stomach which had been closed by the store [sic] and around that was a spot as large as a [42][43] silver dollar which was entirely—where the tissue was entirely dead, the walls of the stomach were entirely dead. Raising up the stomach we found a similar condition on the back wall, around the other bullet hole. Below this there was a cavity or opening which contained a lot of fluid and which showed the evidence of gangrene. In this cavity was a portion of the pancreas, as was also the fat which surrounds the kidney, and the upper end of the kidney was very near this cavity, whether it was in it or not I could not say.—

THE COURT: We will suspend here.

MR. PENNEY: Just one other question, your Honor.

THE COURT: I will permit another question.

MR. PENNEY: I think he is about to answer the question what the cause of death was.

A. The cause of death was the bullet wound in the stomach and in the parts behind it.

Q. The cause of death of the late President was this bullet wound that you operated for at the Pan American Grounds?
A. Without any doubt.

THE COURT: We will suspend here.

MR. PENNEY: You will have to be present to-morrow morning again, Doctor, at ten o’clock.

(The Court here instructed the jury as to refraining from discussing the case among themselves, etc.)

(Adjourned until tomorrow morning, Sept. 24, 1901, at 10 o’clock.) [43][44]

 

PROCEEDINGS OF SEPTEMBER 24th, 1901 A.M.

SAME APPEARANCES.

CLERK CALLS JURY ALL ANSWERING TO THEIR NAMES: ALSO THE DEFENDANT WHO DOES NOT ANSWER, THE CLERK SAYING HE IS PRESENT.

 

MR. PENNEY: Samuel J. Fields.

THE COURT: You want to finish with Dr. Mann, do you not?

MR. PENNEY: I want to ask Mr. Fields a question with the consent of the Counsel.

SAMUEL J. FIELDS, recalled.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Fields, I want to ask you what this rectangular figure on the map just outside of the aisle represents?
A. That represents a particular chair which was to [be] identified. There is a line there—

Q. What does the line in the aisle, at right angles with the aisle, some distance from the point of entrance, represent?
A. That chair is ten feet from that line.

Q. What does the line at right angles with the aisle, towards the entrance, represent?
A. This dotted line here, that represents where the single file began.

Q. That is the point where the people arranged themselves into single file approaching the President?
A. Yes, sir. [44][45]

Q. What is the distance from that line to the point where the President was standing?
A. 16.6 feet.

MR. PENNEY: I would like to have the map marked for identification.

(Map marked Exhibit “A” for identification.)

MATTHEW D. MANN, recalled.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LEWIS:

Q. Doctor, a very few questions. Believing, as seems to be universally understood, that the very highest skill was exerted in the operation upon the President, I do not care to ask any questions about that branch of the testimony. You were present, you told us, at the autopsy?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have described the breaking down of the tissues, as you express it, and the condition of the body as you found it. Were these symptoms or those indications to be expected from the nature of the wound the President received?
A. They were not to be expected, and that was an unusual, unexpected condition.

Q. Did you ever know of such results in your experience?
A. I have never seen anything exactly like it.

Q. To what, then, do you attribute these symptoms or indications that you have described?
A. You mean the gangrenous condition of the parts?

Q. The gangrenous condition of the wound?
A. It is very difficult to explain that; it might be due to one or several causes, I think it would be necessary for [45][46] further investigation to be made before any adequate explanation can be made.

Q. I would like to have you make it?
A. That would be the duty of the pathologists, those that made the autopsy. I was merely a spectator at the autopsy.

Q. You have no opinion on that subject?
A. I have no positive opinion.

Q. I conclude, therefore, that the optimistic bulletins that were issued from time to time by the physicians, were without any knowledge, or any sufficient knowledge of those symptoms that were finally discovered?
A. The bulletins which were issued were not optimistic, in that they gave no idea of what was to come, they expressed no opinion, they merely stated facts, but the opinions that were held by the staff seemed to be fully warranted by the condition of the President. We had no reason to suspect the existence of any such state of affairs, within the abdomen.

Q. Whether they appeared in the bulletins or not, they certainly appeared in the press extensively, that the physicians were quite confident, in fact almost certain that the President would recover?
A. Yes, that was so, in the press; but a good deal was attributed to the physicians by the press which was not always quite correct.

Q. That is quite usually so. Now, Doctor, you said that it was due to several causes. Can you give us any of them?
A. Invasion of the parts by germs, the entrance of germs into the parts, might have been one cause; a very low state of vitality might have been a cause; the action of the pancreatic juice—

Q. What is that?
A. The pancreatic juice, the secretion from the pancreas, that might have been a cause, undoubtedly contributed.

Q. These germs that you speak of are present, if I understand, in all our bodies?
A. Yes, sir. [46][47]

Q. And make their work prominent when the body is in any way injured, that is, very likely to?
A. That is true.

Q. Well, that you expected, of course, in this case?
A. If the operation is carefully and properly done, we can to a certain extent guard against the entrance of these germs; we cannot guard against it entirely.

Q. How do you guard against it?
A. By having everything absolutely clean which is used in the operation, the hands of the operator, instruments, the ligatures and material with which we sew, everything has to be rigidly clean and free from germs. Nature can take care of a certain number of germs, overcome their bad effect. We try not to introduce any more than we can help, so as to tax nature as little as possible.

Q. Are there any remedies known to the profession to be used to prevent the action of these germs?
A. There are remedies which will kill the germs, but it is very difficult to apply them deep down in the tissues of the body, and impossible, once they get a lodgment [in] the tissues, impossible to dislodge them and kill them.

Q. There is nothing, then, that could be administered through the stomach to prevent it?
A. Nothing at all.

Q. You spoke of the debilitated condition,—I don’t remember the word—of the President’s body. Do you mean that there were indications that his body was in that condition before he was assaulted?
A. The President probably was not in a very good physical condition; he was somewhat weakened by hard work, want of exercise and conditions of that kind.

Q. You think that had something to do with the result?
A. I think undoubtedly that had something to do with the result.

Q. That was the third reason you gave—will the reporter read it to me?

(STENOGRAPHER READS DOCTOR’S ANSWER ON THIS SUBJECT.)

Q. This organ has been described here; it is not necessary [47][48] to repeat it. You agree with the other physicians that that organ was not actually mutilated or struck by the ball?
A. As well as could be determined, the ball did not enter it. It is impossible to say positively, but it was injured in some way.

Q. By concussion?
A. Very possibly by concussion. Once the organ is injured, then the pancreatic juice, the secretion of the gland, will pass through the gland and can enter other parts. One portion of it being healthy, another part diseased, the healthy part would secrete while the diseased portion will allow the secretion to pass through it and attack other parts. Food cannot be digested, if it does not secrete.

Q. The only duty of that organ is to aid digestion?
A. That is the only duty, yes, sir.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Every known method of the latest surgical and medical science was applied in the treatment of the President?
A. I think that is true.

Q. From your knowledge of the autopsy and the history of the case, was there anything that would have saved the life of the President known to medical or surgical science?
A. There was not. [48][49]

LOUIS L. BABCOCK, sworn in behalf of the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Babcock, you are an attorney and counselor at law?
A. I am.

Q. On the occasion of the President’s visit here to Buffalo and the Pan American, were you the grand marshall of the ceremonies at the Pan American?
A. I was.

Q. Were you present in the Temple of Music on the occasion of the shooting?
A. I was.

Q. About where were you standing at the time of the shooting?
A. At the time the shots were fired—

Q. Point out on the map, if you desire.
A. The President was standing right about there (indicating).

MR. TITUS: I think you can do it better by describing it to us, we cannot hear.

(Witness resuming):—The President was standing almost in front of the east bay tree, as I remember it.

Q. Point to the east bay tree on the map so that the jury can get the idea.
A. Right there. (Indicating).

Q. That is the nearest one to the point of entrance?
A. That is the nearest one to the point of entrance. I should say two or three seconds before the shooting I had left a point directly opposite the President and was walking, when the shooting occurred, was walking towards the easterly entrance of the Temple of Music, having taken about five or six steps.

Q. Point of entrance or point of exit?
A. Point of entrance. [49][50]

Q. That is the one on the right of the map?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Go ahead. Indicate the point where you were standing.
A. I was possibly—I don’t know what scale this map is drawn to, I was possibly ten feet away from where the President was standing, towards the east, towards the east entrance of the Temple of Music.

Q. That is on a scale of four feet to the inch.
A. I was right about at that point (indicating on map), about twelve feet from that easterly bay tree, on the southerly side of the aisle, towards the east.

Q. Were the people that were approaching the President all ready [sic] arranged in single files where you were standing?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Go on and tell what you saw from that point?
A. I heard the two shots, which came very close together, and I immediately turned around towards the left and, glanced and saw the President standing—he was standing perfectly still and he was deathly pale. Right in the range of my vision was a group closing in upon and bearing down to the floor the prisoner, the defendant here.

Q. Did you recognize some of that group?
A. The only man [sic] that I saw in the group were the artillerists, the men in the regular army, in the regular army uniform. If there was any one else that were on the other side they were cut off from my view.

Q. You subsequently learned who some of the artillerymen were?
A. Yes, sir, I knew before that whom some of them were.

Q. The corporal?
A. Yes, the corporal.

Q. Who did you recognize?
A. I recognized Corporal Bertschey, and I recognized Mr. Neff and O’Brien, whom I afterwards knew the names of, and knew them before by sight. [50][51]

Q. Describe what else you saw?
A. These artillerymen from the regular army centered upon the prisoner from all sides, and almost quicker than I can describe it, bore him down to the ground, down to the floor, had him on the floor. They had hold of his coat, his arms and his legs. I should say there was eight or ten men on top of him. Almost immediately I saw one man whom I do not know, grab a revolver as he was going down, appeared to take it away from him. Just as soon as the prisoner was down on the ground I ran towards the east and motioned to the guards like that (indicating), everybody out. Cried everybody out, and the guards immediately cleared the Temple of Music towards the east.

Q. This man that was borne to the floor was taken where from that point?
A. Just as soon as—I came back from the easterly entrance of the Temple of Music, he was then on his feet surrounded by the artillerymen and Secret Service men, officers Foster and Ireland, and one or two Exposition Guards, and I think some of the Buffalo City Detectives. They were there in the Temple. There was a controversy immediately arose as to who was entitled to the custody of the prisoner. That was very soon settled and then the prisoner was taken by three or four of the officers in plain clothes, in citizen’s clothes, towards Mr. Henshaw’s office in the Temple of Music, which is right where I indicate on this diagram. (Witness indicating on map.) Right here.

Q. The man that you saw taken in there was the same man that was under the soldiers, that did the shooting?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it this defendant?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You remained there until the engineer arrived, Mr. Babcock, that is Mr. Fields?
A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. You were there until I came?
A. I remained there until the District Attorney arrived there.

Q. Weren’t you there when Mr. Fields came there?
A. No, sir.

MR. LEWIS: No questions. [51][52]

EDWARD R. RICE, sworn in behalf of the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Rice, you were chairman of this committee on ceremonies to arrange for the details of the entertainment of the President?
A. Yes, sir, I was chairman as to President’s Day.

Q. Were you in the Temple of Music on the occasion of the shooting?
A. I was.

Q. Where were you at the time of the shooting?
A. I stood directly opposite the President, just over the line of chairs.

Q. Take that pointer and locate about where it was.
A. I stood at about this point here (indicating on map).

Q. Near that rectangular mark?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were not in the aisle where the people were passing through?
A. I was just over the line of chairs that mark the barrier, that formed the line, made the line.

Q. I show you exhibit three; whereabouts on the picture were you standing, do you think?
A. I should say I stood about here (indicating).

Q. Just outside of the row of chairs that forms the aisle.
A. Just over the chairs.

Q. Mr. Rice, go on and tell what you saw in reference to the shooting?
A. I stood at the point indicated, having charge of the ceremonies it was my duty to decide when the ceremonies should conclude. I stood at the point indicated to get a signal from Secretary Cortelyou as to when he thought the ceremonies should close. The line had been passing perhaps a trifle more than ten minutes. I took my watch [52][53] out of my hand, indicating to Secretary Cortelyou—

Q. A little louder.
A. I took my watch out of my hand, indicating to Secretary Cortelyou that the time we had agreed upon was about up, and as I remember he took his watch from his hand, indicating that he understood. Almost immediately after this, looking closely as I was at Secretary Cortelyou, I noticed the President’s hand go forward towards the next person in line. I noticed a line of white pushed towards the President from the person that was about to shake hands with him—

Q. I didn’t quite get that, repeat it please.
A. As I was looking towards Secretary Cortelyou watching for this signal, I noticed the President’s hand go forward to shake hands with the next person in line. I immediately noticed a line of white pushed towards the President, and one or two quick reports, so quick you could hardly distinguish one from the other.

Q. When you say you saw a line of white, you mean some white upon something?
A. Something white drew my attention toward the President. Immediately afterwards I noticed this white on a line something like that (indicating) and it looked black and white. The thought in my mind was that some one had concealed a revolver in a newspaper. Immediately after that the whole thing went down on the floor.

Q. What do you mean by the whole thing?
A. This black and white and the people about there all fell in a mass. I immediately ran towards the east door. The chairs were removed on this side of the line (indicating), the space was cleared there. I moved towards the east entrance where the people were coming in, calling out, “close the door and clear the aisle.” Then I immediately ran towards the south entrance and asked if an ambulance call had been sent in, and found out that it had, and came back almost to the point I started from, and noticed the President had been removed to the chair in the aisle leading towards the stage, the second chair from the end.

Q. This man that was jumped upon and went down with this white object, was he the same man that fired the shots?
A. Yes, sir. [53][54]

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. Were there officers in front of you, or rather between you and where the President stood?
A. No, sir.

Q. There was nothing to obstruct your view of the line passing in front of the President?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you notice the marines there or artillerymen?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Soldiers?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where were they stationed?
A. They were stationed some to the right and some to the left from the position where I stood in the aisle.

Q. Did you know any of those Secret Service men that were there, had you known them?
A. I knew two of them.

Q. Did you see them there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see the defendant as he passed up the line at all?
A. Not so that I would recognize him, only in a general way.

Q. You did not notice him particularly?
A. No, sir.

Q. Were there officers standing on the opposite side of the line, the same side the President was, as this line passed up?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. People passing by the President had also to pass in review before those officers?
A. Yes, sir. [54][55]

JAMES L. QUACKENBUSH, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Quackenbush, you are an attorney and counselor at law?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you a member of this committee of which Mr. Rice was chairman?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you also present on this occasion of the shooting of the President?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you describe briefly what you saw and heard on that occasion?
A. I was standing to Mr. Rice’s right and directly opposite the President, south of the line of chairs forming the aisle, and resting my left foot on one of those chairs. Just before the shots were fired my attention was attracted to the east along the line. I heard two shots fired very close together. I immediately looked towards the President and saw him straighten up. I was standing directly before him and facing him, the defendant. Immediately after the artillerymen who had been stationed on the left of the President lunged forward towards the defendant, and at the same instant of time Mr. Gallaher, the Secret Service operator who had been standing at the right of the President, a little to his rear, plunged forward in an easterly direction, and practically about the same time these men caught the defendant. I saw for an instant just a glimpse of something white as Gallaher lunged towards him. The artillerymen who were stationed directly opposite the President and Foster and Ireland of the Secret Service, at the same time lunged towards those who were struggling and swaying. The defendant went to the floor, and on top of him went a number of the artillerymen. At the time the shot was fired the President was standing at the point indicated by the round circle on the map. Directly in front of him and facing him were standing Foster and Ireland, and immediately back of them, and standing in a line along the line facing the President [55][56] were artillerymen and their corporal. To the left of the President was standing Mr. Milburn, and to his left two artillerymen, privates O’Brien and Neff. Right directly behind the President was Mr. Geary of the Buffalo headquarters detective force. Immediately to the President’s right was his secretary, Mr. Cortelyou and a little back of him or near him stood Mr. Gallaher and Mr. Solomon of the Buffalo headquarters, and to their right were two other artillerymen, arranged just a few feet from each other. It seemed to me as though this entire mass went down in a heap on the defendant. They moved in the direction towards—struggling—so that they stood for a time at the point marked there with a circle (on the map). Below the point where the President stood and about eight feet distant from there, there was a mass of six or eight men or more, struggling. I was standing just outside of the aisle, and I couldn’t get over the aisle without stepping on them. To get over the aisle I moved a little to the left. Then the defendant came up standing in the grasp of several of these men. He was then struck a blow by Mr. Foster which sent him to the floor again and he went down at the point indicated by the chair, the circle there, and he bled somewhat from the face. He was then taken to the room of Mr. Henshaw. In the meantime the President had been assisted by Mr. Geary and Mr. Milburn to the point indicated on the map, by the cross. That was done by removing at this point a chair, or four of the chairs and placing them at right angles to the aisle which they had formed. The President was seated there and some gentlemen fanned him until an ambulance came and took him away.

Q. That condition you speak of is shown in Exhibit “E” which I show you?
A. Yes, this picture shows the situation, immediately following the shooting, and the chair in which the President was seated has a white card in it.

Q. Have you finished?
A. Do you want me to tell what followed?

Q. State what occurred?
A. The ambulance belonging to the Emergency Hospital at the Exposition Grounds came to the south door of the Temple, [56][57] a litter was brought in, the President was placed upon the litter and moved to the ambulance.

MR. TITUS:

Q. The south door, that is the one leading out to the Esplanade?
A. That is the one that had been used as the exit. The President was seated at this point (indicating), the ambulance came to the door that had been used for an exit. They brought the litter in, the President was placed upon it and taken out the south, or southerly doorway, which had been used as an exit for the people. During this time the defendant was in the room used by the superintendent of the building, Mr. Henshaw, in charge of the men who had taken him there.

MR. PENNEY:

Q. I want to ask you, when you were standing outside of the aisle there, were these artillerymen stationed inside?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. They were at intervals apart so that you could see through them?
A. Yes, I could see through them, and that is how my feet happened to be on the chair, I had lifted myself up so as to be able to see over and between those artillerymen, to watch the progress of the people.

Q. Did you remain there after the shooting until the engineer came to the building?
A. Yes, remained until the District Attorney came.

Q. The engineer also came while you were there?
A. The engineer came.

Q. The conditions remained the same until he came as they were at the time of the shooting and immediately afterwards?
A. Yes, the same, everything.

Q. You were there also the next morning when Photographer Bliss was there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were the conditions the same then as they had been at the time of the shooting? [57][58]
A. They were, with this exception, that for the purpose of getting the photographs to show the situation as it was exactly at the time of the shooting, the chair which had been displaced for the convenience of the President was replaced under my directions in its original position and a photograph taken showing that.

Q. That is shown by Exhibit “3.” The bunting was re-arranged, and everything about the picture is as the condition[s] were just immediately preceding the shooting?
A. Yes.

Q. Then the other picture was taken showing the conditions immediately after the shooting?
A. Yes, sir. This picture, Exhibit “E” was taken before anything had been changed. That shows everything just as it was at the time the President was removed from the building. The other picture which you show me (Exhibit three) that was taken after the aisle was re-arranged, and shows the conditions existing at the time of the shooting, save for the absence of the people. Mr. Babcock and I were in the Temple during the two or three hours preceding the shooting and made those arrangements ourselves, so that I knew what they were.

Q. After the prisoner had been taken away, and some time after the statements had been taken from the artillerymen, did you accompany me to Headquarters?
A. I did.

Q. Did you there see the prisoner?
A. I did.

Q. Did he there make any statement in your presence with reference to his part in this crime?
A. He did.

Q. Were there any threats or inducements there made or offered to him, so far as you know?
A. None.

Q. Whatever he said appeared to be voluntary?
A. Entirely so.

Q. Will you tell what he said with reference to his part in this transaction? [58][59]

MR. LEWIS: The witness has stated there were no threats made, but I suggest if he is to tell what occurred there that he commence and tell everything that preceded the statement.

BY THE COURT: Yes, he better describe the occurrence fully.

MR. PENNEY: Go on in that way.

A. I accompanied District Attorney Penney from the Temple of Music to Police Headquarters. We arrived at Police Headquarters between ten and eleven o’clock, the time before that had been consumed in the Temple of Music in taking the measurements, photographs and statements of witnesses.

Q. That night?
A. The night of the shooting, yes, sir. Upon reaching Police Headquarters the District Attorney and I went to the office of Superintendent of Police Bull. The defendant was seated at the table in his inner office. There were present Detective Sergeant Geary, Detective Sergeant Solomon, Inspector of Police Donovan, Superintendent of Police Bull, Assistant District Attorney Haller, the stenographer to the District Attorney, Mr. Storey, the stenographer to the County Court, Frank Haggerty, and at intervals Mr. Ireland of the Secret Service, the District Attorney himself and Assistant Superintendent of Police Cusack. When we entered the room Mr. Haller handed to the District Attorney some memoranda which he had, and Mr. Penney proceeded to talk with the defendant about what he had done. I know nothing of what took place before this time.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Tell what you saw and heard yourself?
A. Then the defendant replied to questions by the District Attorney, stated that he had killed the President because he believed that it was his duty. He stated that he understood the consequences and was willing to take his chances. He described in detail in a conversation over about two hours, his movements during the day of the shooting and for some time previous. He himself, with a handkerchief which he had, showed how he concealed his revolver and how he fired the shots. He stated that he had gone to Niagara Falls on the morning of the day of [59][60] the shooting with the intention of shooting the President at the Falls; but that he was unable to carry out his purpose there, not being able to get near enough to the President. That he took a street car from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, transferred to a car going to the Exposition Grounds, and went to the Temple of Music with the purpose of shooting the President. He said he waited outside in the line, that he had placed his revolver in his right hand, covered it with his handkerchief, placed his hand covered with the handkerchief and holding the revolver in his right hand pocket, and stood that way while in the crowd outside of the entrance to the Temple, and as he entered the Temple, but that when he got to the point where the people were singled out in single file, he took his right hand from his pocket and held the hand covered with the handkerchief across his stomach until he reached the President, when he fired. He said had he not been stopped he would have fired other shots. He said a great many other things about his previous history and condition in life, general conversation.

Q. Can you recall what he said on the subject or how long he had been thinking about this?
A. He said he had been thinking about killing the President for three or four days prior to the time of the shooting, that he fully determined that he would kill the President the day before the shooting. He also made another statement that he had determined it at an earlier period.

Q. Can you recall anything he said on the subject of why he killed the President?
A. He said he did not believe in government, that he thought the President was a tyrant and should be removed. He said that the day before the shooting when he saw the President in the grounds that he thought that no one man should receive such services and all the others regard it as a privilege to stand by and render services. That is the substance, I think, not the words, although he used the word “services.” He said he had for several years been studying the doctrines of anarchy, that he believed in no government, no marriage relation, and that he attended church for some time but they talked nonsense and he discontinued that.

Q. He said, did he, that he did not believe in church or state?
A. Yes, and that he did not believe in the marriage relation, [60][61] that he believed in free love. He gave the names of several papers which he had read. Polish names which I cannot recall, four of them, and he mentioned one known as Free Society.

Q. He mentioned some places that he had been to where he had heard these subjects discussed, didn’t he?
A. Yes, places in Cleveland, Ohio. He stated before he came to Buffalo he had been in Chicago. He said he had been influenced by the teaching of Emma Goldman and another woman living near Cleveland, whose name I do not recall at this moment.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. Was this talk that you had with the defendant conversational, in the sense that he went on and volunteered statements, or was it in response to questions put by the District Attorney?
A. At first it was in response to questions put by the District Attorney, upon our first arrival there. Later on—

Q. For instance, the District Attorney would ask him where he had been; he would tell him?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when he said he went to the Falls he asked him what time he went and he told him; and that is the way his statement was drawn out?
A. For the first—

Q. Up to what time?
A. Oh, for the first half hour; he was answering questions that were put to him and in a brief manner.

Q. In monosyllables?
A. Oh, no. No, he talked just as I talk now.

Q. You mean at first?
A. Yes, sir; when he did answer he answered not in monosyllables but gave direct, positive answers.

Q. Did he appear to be in a state of mental excitement?
A. Did not so impress me.

Q. Seemed to be cool and not excited or disturbed in any way, [61][62] as it appeared to you?
A. He seemed to be disturbed by—

Q. Well, that is the question I ask you.
A. —but not mentally. He seemed to be suffering some pain and constantly applied a handkerchief to the side of his face where he was struck in the Temple of Music, and complained that his eyes hurt him.

Q. Did he have any marks on his face?
A. There were not any visible marks at that time. There were in the Temple of Music. But he had been washed, apparently.

Q. What became of this weapon, pistol that he used? Do you know about that?
A. Well, I only know from hearsay.

MR. PENNEY: I have it here, Judge Titus.

Q. The handkerchief, do you know what became of that, of your own knowledge?
A. No. I last saw it at the time of the struggle.

Q. How long were you there at the Police Headquarters?
A. Just about two hours.

Q. Did he during this time become excited in any way?
A. Not at all.

Q. Stirred up?
A. Not at all.

Q. Was he upbraided or condemned by anybody there in your presence?
A. Not by anybody.

Q. More than one person question him?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who?
A. I asked him a few questions myself and later in the evening when the District Attorney was engaged in consultation with Mr. Haller, Inspector Donovan and another detective sergeant, whose name I did not state, Matt O’Laughlin, sat by him and they had what you might call a visit, in which he told them about his place of birth, his bringing-up in Alpena, talked about the lumber [62][63] camps in Alpena and about his movements from that time until the time he got to Cleveland and went to work in the wire-mill there, about his father’s farm, and in a perfectly easy and conversational way. Without replying to questions at times he volunteered information.

Q. This was the conversation had with the officers?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he hesitate about answering questions at all, in any respect?
A. He did at first. He did at first, and from time to time someone said, “Speak up!”

Q. Well, you say he did at first. Do you mean that he declined to answer or answered after some deliberation?
A. Answered after some deliberation. He never declined to answer any question.

Q. What was his appearance there? Did he hold his head up any different from what he does now, or was his head bowed?
A. When the District Attorney and I first entered he sat at the table with his head somewhat bowed and resting it on his right arm, right hand, in which he held the handkerchief, and rubbed the right side of his face, and at first he did not look up promptly but after a little he looked up and soon took a lively interest in what was going on.

Q. Did he become animated at all in this talk, in his own conversation?
A. No, not—

Q. His talk was suppressed, all the time?
A. It was not suppressed. I was hesitating about the word “animated.” It was natural. And during one period of the talk I asked him to make a brief statement for publication, as to his reasons.

Q. What did he say to that?
A. He said he would do it. I asked him to write it and he started to write it but his hand shook some (indicating) and he said he would dictate it to the reporter, pointing to Mr. Storey who sat at my left, and he did. [63][64]

Q. Are you using his exact language now?
A. I do not know that he used the word “dictate,” but I recall this; he said—he used the word “reporter,” and it was either “let the reporter take what I say,” or, “the reporter can write it down”—something to that effect.

Q. Did he tell the reporter what to write down?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you repeat that? Was this a voluntary statement by him, without questioning at all?
A. I asked him to make a statement for publication. I told him that we couldn’t hold the newspapers all night to wait for his statement. He thought, evidently, that I was a newspaper man. And he then dictated a statement.

Q. Without—
A. Yes, sir.

Q. —interrogatories?
A. Yes, sir. I would prefer to refresh my recollection about that, if I could be permitted.

Q. Well, you may have an opportunity that you have here to do so.
A. (To the District Attorney.) Have you the—?

(District Attorney Penney hands a paper to the witness which he examines.)

Q. You recollect that that is the statement, independent of what you see there, I suppose?
A. By looking at this statement it refreshes my recollection so that I am able to state what it was.

Q. Go on.
A. “I killed President McKinley because I done my duty. I didn’t believe one man should have so much service and another man should have none.” This statement he signed.

Q. Was there anything else that he said to the reporter?
A. Not at the time.

Q. That is all of his voluntary statement?
A. Oh, no. This is the statement that he made for publication. He made, in addition to that a statement of two hours duration. [64][65]

Q. I am speaking now of the statement that you asked him to make. That is the statement, is it?
A. I asked him to make a brief statement which could be given out to the people so that they might know what were the motives that actuated him. That was the result of it.

Q. And this is the statement that you have just testified to?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And nothing further?
A. Nothing further in response to my request.

Q. Then so far as you know, the only voluntary statement that has been made by him without being interrogated by some official, is that “I killed President McKinley. I done my duty. I didn’t believe one man should have so much service and another man should have none.” Is that correct?
A. No. I think his other statement was voluntary, and some portions of another statement which he made were also—

Q. Well, did I use the term “voluntary”?
A. Yes. —also dictated by him. But that statement which you have in your hand—

Q. Well, I will change the word “voluntary,”—one that was made without interrogation, continuous statement?
A. I think that is not correct, because at [?] time he volunteered, in the true sense; he went beyond giving responsive answers. In response to questions he stated more than the question called for.

Q. What did he say about where he was born?
A. He said he was born in Detroit, Michigan

Q. And did he tell you how old he was?
A. Said he was 28 years old.

Q. Did he tell you about his early life?
A. Yes.

Q. If so, what?
A. He said that when he was quite young his parents removed to Alpena, Michigan; that he went there to school, both in the public schools and in the parochial schools; in substance, that his boyhood was passed there. [65][66]

Q. Did he call it “parochial school” or “church school”?
A. I do not recall whether he used the word “parochial” or “church.” One or the other—gave me that idea.

Q. Go on.
A. That afterward, when he was young, his mother died, that his father married again; that they removed to Cleveland; that he worked at one time as a blacksmith’s helper; that subsequently he worked in the wire works in or near Cleveland; that his father lived on a farm near Warrensville, Ohio, some distance out of Cleveland; that he lived on his father’s farm for some time but that he, as he put it, didn’t like the style of his father and step-mother and left them; said that he didn’t have any quarrel but that he didn’t get along and that he left there. He was asked what he had been doing for the last two or three years. He said that he had saved up $400 from his earnings in the wire works, $100 of which he had given to his father, that he had supported himself out of the remaining $300 and had been working from time to time; that he had been to Chicago just before coming to Buffalo, came directly from Chicago to Buffalo, arriving here on Saturday previous to the day of the shooting of the President.

Q. What day of the week was that?
A. The President was shot on—

Q. —Wednesday?
A. No. He came here Wednesday. —Wednesday, Thursday, Friday; Friday afternoon, a little after four o’clock. The President arrived in the city on Wednesday evening, was at the Exposition Grounds on Thursday, went to Niagara Falls Friday morning. He said that he was at the Grounds at the time of the arrival of the President, during the ceremonies on the day before the shooting, and with the intent of shooting the President but that he got no good opportunity.

Q. That you have gone over.
A. Well, you wanted more about his history.

Q. Yes.
A. Well, that is in brief what I recall of it. He told about having attended a lecture in Cleveland at which Emma Goldman spoke. [66][67]

Q. Did he say anything about his family, his brothers and sisters?
A. Yes, he gave the number of the family, saying, as I recall it, that he had seven brothers; I do not remember whether he said he had a sister or not.

Q. Give the names?
A. I don’t recall.

Q. Don’t recall any names of his brothers?
A. None now occur to me.

Q. Did he tell you where they were living?
A. Said that they were living in and about Cleveland.

Q. Did he say anything about their domestic affairs in other respects, whether they were married, whether his brothers and sisters were married, or anything of that kind?
A. I don’t recall that.

Q. Do you know whether he went into details upon that subject?
A. I know that he was asked in detail about the number and extent of his family.

Q. Now, as I gather from your statement, the defendant was absolutely willing to answer any question which you asked him, without hesitation, after the first?
A. Along toward the last, without any hesitation whatever. At first he did hesitate.

Q. Told you freely?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Not only of the crime but of all his relations and persons connected with him in any way, so far as you inquired?
A. Yes, sir. I do not recall his refusing to answer any question that was asked him.

Q. Do you know whether anything was found on his person or not?
A. No. I was not there at the time he arrived at Headquarters.

Q. You do not know then whether that is true or not?
A. No. I am— [67][68]

Q. What is that?
A. I now recall that in addition to those who were present during the time of this conversation there was present Dr. Bowler, a surgeon to the police, who was there all of the time, seated next to Mr. Storey and at the right hand of the defendant; and that later in the evening Dr. Fronczak, a physician of this city, and I think also a lawyer—at least he was in the Law School,—and who speaks the Polish language, came in and had a conversation with the defendant in the Polish tongue, which he repeated, in substance, to those present, in English.

MR. TITUS: That is all.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Quackenbush, was he interrogated on the question as to whether or not he was alone in this matter?
A. Yes.

Q. What did he say on that subject?
A. He said that he was entirely alone; that nobody assisted him in any way; that he conceived the idea, planned the method and manner of carrying it out, upon his own responsibility; said that he understood the consequences of such an act and was willing to take his chances, and that he wanted a fair trial.

Q. Were you present when anything was said as to the opportunities for escape upon a trial?
A. I do not recall that now.

MR. PENNEY: That is all.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. I want to ask you one other question. You said that he made the statement that he was an anarchist; was that it?
A. I don’t think I made quite that statement.

Q. Well, he believed in anarchy?
A. I don’t— [68][69]

Q. Well, won’t you repeat what you did say?
A. What he did say was that he didn’t believe in any government, that he didn’t believe in rulers; he thought that all rulers were tyrants and should be removed and that he had done his duty in removing the President.

Q. Then he said nothing about anarchy;—you have used the expression in your evidence?
A. Yes,—well, the District Attorney, on several occasions, used the word “anarchy” and talked with him about anarchists of note, mentioning them by name to him; asking him if he knew them. Whether he himself used that precise term or not I would not state positively.

Q. Did he say anything upon the subject as to whether it was his duty, belonging or owing allegiance or believing in that society, to slay the heads of governments; did he say anything upon that subject?
A. He did not put it on any ground of allegiance: he put it on the ground of belief, and he claimed that was the result of his own individual theorizing and reflection on the subject; not that he used those terms but that is the substance of it.

Q. And that was his belief then?
A. That was it.

MR. TITUS: That is all.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Theorizing on what subject?
A. On the subject of government and forms of government.

Q. In connection with that did he speak of the lectures and speakers that he had heard?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. The things that he had heard at these places, that he was meditating upon?
A. Yes.

MR. PENNEY: That is all. [69][70]

ALBERT L. GALLAHER, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Gallaher?
A. Chicago, Ill.

Q. What is your address?
A. The Rand-McNally Building is my address.

Q. What is your business?
A. U. S. Secret Service Agent, Treasury Department.

Q. Were you with the President’s party when he came to Buffalo last?
A. I was.

Q. Were you in the Temple of Music at the time of the shooting?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where were you at the time the shooting occurred?
A. Standing about eight or ten feet to the President’s right, right-hand, along the line.

Q. Along the line of the people that were in line of the President?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. About eight or ten feet from him, on his right?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You describe, as briefly as you can, what you saw in connection with this shooting, and what you did, too?
A. Well, my duties were there to keep the crowd moving along, after they would shake hands with the President, to see that no one would turn back or stop or blockade the procession, keep them moving so that they wouldn’t turn back. The reception had been going on only a few moments until I heard two shots, fired in very rapid succession. I looked, I saw smoke coming up from something white in a man’s hand. At that instant I shot past, jumped on this fellow, crushed him down and I made— [70][71]

Q. Just a minute, Mr. Gallaher. Where was that man that you saw the white and the smoke coming from?
A. Standing right directly in front of the President and close to him.

Q. Tight up, the nearest person to the President except the men who were on each side of him?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Go on.
A. I immediately sprang forward; it seemed like I struck the floor before I got to him.

Q. I do not believe these men can hear. A little louder.
A. I say, I sprang forward and I think I struck the floor before I reached the crowd; I bruised myself considerably on the knees in going in. He was laying on his right side. I heard Foster’s voice say to me, “Get the gun, Al! Get the gun!” Laying out at his right-hand was a handkerchief, blazing.

Q. Whose right hand?
A. The defendant’s.

Q. This defendant here?
A. That man sitting there (indicating the defendant).

Q. Now, describe that hand?
A. It was laying that way on the floor (indicating).

Q. What was around it?
A. A handkerchief and a gun. I grabbed both. Some one at that instant took the gun from me, knocked it either from my hand or grabbed it, I don’t know which, it was done so quick.

Q. Did you get the handkerchief?
A. I held onto the handkerchief and burned my hand with it.

Q. Have you got the handkerchief now?
A. I have.

Q. Take it out and show it to us.

(Witness produces from his pocket-book the handkerchief and hands it to the District Attorney.) [71][72]

Q. Is that the handkerchief that was around the gun in the hand of this defendant?
A. It is.

MR. PENNEY: I would like to have this marked in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: It may be received.

(Handkerchief referred to received in evidence and marked “Exhibit AA,” September 24, 1901, C. H. Bailey, Sten.)

Q. Go on, Mr. Gallaher.
A. At that instant some one—who I don’t know—got his arm under my throat, held me up this way (indicating), choked me and held me back, and when I got through with that tussle I looked around; I saw nothing of the defendant, but I saw the President sitting a little to the left of where he was standing. Just then Mr. Cortelyou, the Secretary to the President, came to me and asked me for the gun. I told him I didn’t have it but I located it in the possession of Corporal Lewis Bertschey. I told him that Mr. Cortelyou was the Secretary of the President and he wanted to see the gun to know the calibre.

Q. Well, the fact is the gun was in the possession of one of the artillerymen?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And subsequently preserved?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What else was done about the prisoner that you saw?
A. The next I saw of him, I saw him in this little ante-room, as I recall it, off here to the left (pointing to map); his nose was bleeding. I made the remark before they took him out, they had better wash the blood off his face. I staid [sic] there until he was removed.

Q. This handkerchief that you have presented here in court has been in your possession ever since you took it from the prisoner, has it?
A. It has.

Q. It is in the same condition now that it was when you took it from the hand of the defendant? [72][73]
A. With the exception of my identification mark on it.

Q. It has not left your possession?
A. No, sir, it has not been out of my possession.

MR. PENNEY: That is all.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LEWIS:

Q. What day did you come here to Buffalo?
A. I arrived here at 4:55 on the evening of the 4th. I came from the President’s home on the train. I came from Canton, Ohio, on the train.

Q. From Canton?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You are in the service of the government?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many were there of you?
A. From Canton to Buffalo?

Q. Yes, sir. How many holding the same position that you hold?
A. How many are there?

Q. Yes, sir.
A. I can’t answer. I don’t know.

Q. How many accompanied you?
A. Only myself from Canton. Two more gentlemen met me here, Mr. Foster and Mr. Ireland.

Q. Your duty was simply to see that the persons passed along after shaking hands with the President?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So as to prevent any disorder?
A. I didn’t want anybody to turn back or stop the crowd.

Q. Do you know the material of this handkerchief? (Counsel shows handkerchief to witness.)
A. I think it is just common cotton. [73][74]

Q. Common?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Not silk? Common?
A. I don’t think it is.

Q. It is a common cotton handkerchief?
A. I can’t say what it was. I hadn’t examined it closely.

BY MR. TITUS:

Q. It does not look like a lady’s handkerchief?
A. Not to me.

Q. No. It is rather a small gentleman’s handkerchief?
A. That is what I should say it was.

MR. LEWIS: That is all.

MR. PENNEY: That is all. [74][75]

GEORGE F. FOSTER, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Foster?
A. I live in Washington, D. C.

Q. What is your business?
A. I am connected with the Treasury Department.

Q. Secret Service?
A. Secret Service Division.

Q. Were you with the President when he was in Buffalo on September 6th?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you in the Temple of Music at the time of the shooting?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where were you at the time?
A. Well, Mr. Milburn stood directly to the left of the President and I stood almost in front of Mr. Milburn.

Q. That is, you were facing the President?—
A. I was facing Mr. Milburn.

Q. —and Mr. Milburn?
A. Yes, sir. The President was to the right then of Mr. Milburn.

Q. Tell us what you saw about this shooting?
A. Well, the guards were all lined up on the right side to the door, and I thought it was my place then to get on the inside of the circle and keep them in line and to size up every person as they came along, which I generally did; and this man came along. They were as close together almost as my fingers passing here, and shuffling along and looking about to see when they were going to get up to shake hands with the President. This man came along and I looked him right in the face. [75][76]

Q. You looked him right in the face?
A. I did, and he looked at me. He went right along. I paid no attention. I thought he was a mechanic out for the day to do the Exposition and wanted to shake hands with the President. I had noticed Mr. Cortelyou [a] few minutes before with his watch out, and that was a sign to me that the thing was going to be shut off very quickly. I turned slightly, kind of looked around to see Mr. Cortelyou, and as I looked around I saw the fellow put his hand that way. (Witness indicating.)

Q. What fellow?
A. This man (indicating the prisoner); and he put his hand that way, his hand like that, and it went “bang”—“bang.” Almost as quiet as that.

Q. From the hand of this man?
A. From the hand of this man. I saw the hand go that way as I looked at the President. There was an instant’s pause, and I grabbed him.

Q. Grabbed the defendant?
A. Grabbed the defendant; and somebody pushed him from the other side.

Q. Somebody on the other side?
A. Somebody on the other side of him pushed him, and as I twisted him another person came from the right of me and we fell on him together on the floor. I tried to strike him as I was going down, but I don’t think I hit him very heavy. But he got in a twist then looking back this way at the President. As he fell he was twisting from the President, and he had his hand on the floor looking back like as if he was trying to see what effect it had had on the President. Just then I saw Gallaher sliding underneath. I said to Gallaher to get the gun, and he puts his hand down that way over the gun and handkerchief. I looked around and I saw we had him secured and I gave the order to let him up. When he got up I said, “We will search him.” I just started to put my hand in his pocket and just then he looked over his shoulder to see what he had done to the President, and it made me so mad I smashed him right in the jaw.

Q. Well, he was subsequently taken away from the building? [76][77]
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you go to the hospital where the President was?
A. Yes, sir. I went all the way through. I rode in the Emergency wagon with the President.

Q. You went with the President in the ambulance?
A. Yes, sir; right in the wagon.

Q. And you were there when he was undressed?
A. Yes, sir. I was.

Q. Was there a bullet found in his clothing?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you it?
A. Yes, sir.

(Witness produces bullet and hands it to Mr. Penney.)

Q. This is the bullet that was taken from the President’s clothing after the shooting and in the hospital?
A. Yes, sir. That is the bullet which was in his clothing. The President called my attention to it when he was in the wagon. He said, “I believe that is a bullet,” and he reached around in his shirt; and I said, “Yes, that is a bullet, Mr. President”; and it fell out when they were undressing him.

MR. PENNEY: I would like to offer this in evidence.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Bullet received in evidence and marked Exhibit “BB.” Robert C. Chapin, Sten., September 24, 1901.)

MR. PENNEY: You may ask.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. As I understand you, you were at the right of the President?
A. No, sir. Mr. Milburn stood to the left of the President, and I was in front of Mr. Milburn. [77][78]

Q. You stood facing both Mr. Milburn and the President?
A. I was facing Mr. Milburn.

Q. You were on the other side of the line?
A. Yes, sir. The guards were along that way. I was the only one on the left hand side. (Witness indicating.)

Q. You were south—
A. My back was faced to the south.

Q. And the people were passing between you and the President?
A. Yes, sir; between me and Mr. Milburn. Mr. Ireland was in front of the President.

Q. [You] mean on the President’s side?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you on the side of the President from which the people were coming in or passing out?
A. They were passing by me to get to the President. I was trying to keep a line on each person as they came along.

Q. There was a single line there?
A. Yes, sir. There was a single line there.

Q. Were you observing the people as they passed to see whether they were armed or anything of the kind?
A. I was trying to; yes, sir—and their general appearance and looks.

Q. What?
A. I tried to keep a line on them to see who they were.

Q. Didn’t you notice that this man had his arm up at his breast?
A. They were pressed to each other’s backs right along there. They were coming along as thick as you could place them. I couldn’t see the right hand side of the person at all. I depended on the man on the other side.

Q. Pay attention to my question, please. I only want to ask you a few. The line passed in front of you?
A. The left hand side.

Q. The left hand side?
A. Yes, sir. [78][79]

Q. This man passed in?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he passed in with his revolver?
A. I don’t know. I didn’t see it.

Q. I am assuming it. You were on the left hand side, were you?
A. I was on the left hand side; yes, sir; as he came towards me.

Q. Assuming he had a white handkerchief around this, you could not see it from your side of the line?
A. I didn’t see it.

Q. —if you had been looking?
A. I didn’t see it, and I was looking.

Q. Do you know anybody that was in front of this man?
A. No, sir. I couldn’t say positive who was in front of him.

Q. Or anybody behind him?
A. No, sir. I can’t tell who was behind him.

Q. Did you notice a little girl or a woman in front of this man?
A. No, sir. I did not. I noticed a little girl in the line, and several little girls, but I can’t tell exactly whether they were in front of him or not. But I noticed there were little girls in line.

Q. Did you notice a dark complexioned man with a black mustache in line?
A. Yes, sir. I noticed him.

Q. Was he near this man here?
A. No, sir. I don’t think he was. I think he was ten feet in front of him. In fact, I put my hand on his shoulder and passed him past the President.

Q. Why did you do that?
A. I didn’t like his general appearance. And I motioned to Gallaher to take care of him after I left him.

Q. Did you see this colored man?
A. What colored man? [79][80]

Q. Parker?
A. I noticed a colored man in the line, but it seems to me he was in front of this man.

Q. Instead of behind him?
A. Instead of behind him. I never saw no colored man in the whole fracas.

Q. Then you were the man instead of those artillerymen that crushed this defendant to the floor?

A. No, sir. When we settled down, I noticed a man by the name of O’Brien—Sergeant O’Brien of the Artillery—lying right alongside of me.

Q. On the floor?
A. On the floor. That is the only artilleryman that was seen though.

MR. TITUS: That is all.

MR. PENNEY: That is all. [80][81]

FRANCIS P. O’BRIEN, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. O’Brien, you are a member of the United States Army, are you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. With what Department or what Corps are you?
A. Seacoast Artillery, sir.

Q. What Company?
A. 73d Company.

Q. Are you detailed to any special place this summer?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where?
A. Detailed to the Pan American Exposition.

Q. Were you detailed on the day that the President held the reception in the Temple of Music?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you detailed to special duty?
A. Yes, sir. I was one of ten men.

Q. To do what?
A. Escort duty, sir.

Q. Were you in the Temple of Music at the time of the shooting?
A. Yes, sir. I was.

Q. Tell us where you stood.
A. I stood right to the left of Mr. Milburn, and he was on the left of the President.

Q. That is, Mr. Milburn stood between you and the President?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were on the left?
A. Left; yes, sir. [81][82]

Q. Tell us as briefly as you can just what you saw of this shooting?
A. Well, I was standing there; everybody was coming in; they were—

Q. Coming to your left?
A. Coming towards me.

Q. On your left?
A. On my left; yes, sir. They were coming right along and I was keeping them in line. I went out to Mr. Foster and he was putting them in line, single file. They were not coming straight. I went out there, and so he told me to go back. I went back to my place, and I was not in there two minutes until those people came in. I told them to get in line and go quicker. They were making an opening or space.

Q. What is that?
A. They were making a space. They were not closing up, and there was such a crowd coming that we had to keep them moving. So I kept looking down at the President. I could hear him passing a remark to each and every one that passed by him. I could hear him distinctly, and they were coming along there. It wasn’t two seconds that I got in the line until I heard the shot or report. I was looking directly that way.

Q. You were looking at the President?
A. Yes, sir. Right at him. I heard the report, and I was kind of dumbfounded. I couldn’t understand it, and then I heard another bang. I could see the smoke. There was an opening there, and I jumped at the man.

Q. Jumped at what man?
A. At the defendant.

Q. Where was he at the time you jumped at him?
A. He was just right in front of the President.

Q. What was he doing?
A. What was he doing just after firing the shot, sir? I heard the report. I saw the smoke and heard the report.

Q. Saw the smoke coming from where?
A. Right from his hand. I jumped at him and knocked him [82][83] over against somebody. I didn’t know who I knocked him against at the time. When I knocked him he didn’t go down until I made a grab for his arm and took the revolver.

Q. What did you do with it?
A. I went to get up and I was tackled by a lot of civilians.

Q. You gave the revolver to somebody after?
A. Yes, sir. I turned it over to the Corporal of my detail.

Q. And it was then given to somebody else?
A. It was then by him turned over to the commanding officer—to the Captain of our command.

Q. And did you subsequently see it transferred to somebody else?
A. Yes, sir. Superintendent Bull.

Q. Did you put a mark on it at that time?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What?
A. My initials.

Q. See if that is the one. (Mr. Penney hands revolver to witness.)
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is the revolver you took from the hands of this defendant?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. At the time of the shooting?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you observe the condition of the cylinder?
A. I did not, sir.

Q. Did you notice whether it was loaded or not?
A. I didn’t take any special notice of anything.

MR. PENNEY: I would like to have this introduced in evidence, your Honor.

BY THE COURT: Did he say that he took the revolver from [83][84] the hands of the defendant?

MR. PENNEY: Yes, sir.

Q. You said that, didn’t you, O’Brien?
A. Yes, sir.

BY THE COURT: Before he fell, did he?

A. Yes, sir. Just as he was falling I knocked him up against another soldier.

BY THE COURT: Before he was down?

A. Yes, sir. I struck him and I got the revolver. I was tackled, and they tried to get the revolver away from me. I don’t know who they were.

THE COURT: It may be received.

MR. PENNEY: You may ask.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. Were you on the side of the President from which the people were coming in?
A. Yes, sir; on the same side.

Q. And how far away?
A. Well, there was just Mr. Milburn between me—we were right close up together, sir.

Q. And the line of people were single filing before you?
A. Yes, sir. Coming right along.

Q. Coming right along?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And right close to you?
A. Yes, sir; right close to me. I could touch every one of them.

Q. Did you have any instructions to observe people as they were coming in?
A. No, sir. I did not. [84][85]

Q. You did not pay attention to them?
A. No particular attention.

Q. Were there any detectives or Secret Service men that were on next to you there?
A. No, sir. But Mr. Foster was on the other side of the line.

Q. He was over on the other side of the line?
A. Yes, sir. Up farther.

Q. But there was nobody on that side of the line that you now recall in the Secret Service?
A. No, sir.

Q. Or in the detective service?
A. No, sir.

Q. That you know anything about?
A. No, sir; not that I can recall.

Q. How far were you from the President when this firing occurred?
A. Why, I was not any more than three or four feet, I don’t believe.

Q. How many persons were between you and the President in line?
A. On the line?

Q. Yes.
A. In the same line with me?

Q. No; in the same line with the people who were passing in review?
A. How many persons?

Q. Yes, sir.
A. I can’t say.

Q. Three or four?
A. You mean the crowd coming in?

Q. No.
A. You mean on the other side?

Q. No. Between where you stood and where the defendant was, [85][86] at the time, how many persons were in the rear of him and between him and you?
A. I couldn’t state. Might have been two or three. I couldn’t tell exactly. I didn’t take particular notice.

Q. About how many feet were you from him?
A. About four or five feet.

Q. When you saw the second shot fired you jumped on him?
A. I jumped right on him. There was an opening made and I jumped right at it.

Q. Were you the first one that made a rush for him?
A. Yes, sir. I knocked him.

Q. Took hold of him?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who came next?
A. I saw Private Neff. He had grabbed hold of his arm, too, when I wrenched the revolver out of it.

Q. Did you try to bear him down to get the revolver away?
A. I tried to get the revolver, and that is all I tried to get.

Q. And you did get it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was he lying on the floor when you took it away from him?
A. No, sir. He was not.

Q. Still standing?
A. No, sir. He was bearing down against Neff—against Private Neff.

Q. Then he hadn’t fallen down on his back?
A. No, sir. I was caught myself by a lot of men telling me to turn it over to them. I couldn’t swear whether he was down or not. I was not [knocked?—RP] down myself. I didn’t have a chance. They were all at me trying to get me to turn the revolver over to them, telling me they were Secret Service men.

Q. Was the handkerchief there? [86][87]
A. I didn’t notice no handkerchief.

Q. You didn’t see it at all?
A. No, sir. I did not.

MR. TITUS: I guess that is all.

MR. PENNEY: That is all, sir.

LOUIS NEFF, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Neff, what Company do you belong to?
A. I belong to the 84th Company.

Q. You are detailed with the 73d Company here?
A. Yes, sir; a detachment sent here from Ft. Hamilton.

Q. Were you detailed to attend the President at the reception on the 6th of September last?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. At the Temple of Music?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where were you stationed at the time of the shooting?
A. Well, I was stationed on the opposite side of the President about four yards, something similar to four yards, I guess, on the opposite side.

Q. What do you mean?
A. As the people were coming in, on the opposite side.

Q. You were on the President’s right?
A. No.

Q. You were on the President’s right?
A. No, sir; on the President’s left; on the opposite side of the aisle. [87][88]

Q. You were towards the door the people were coming in?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I see.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tell us what you saw about it.
A. Well, I was falling them in line to keep them moving on as fast as possible, children and men, falling the men in the back and the women in the front, and two shots were fired, one right after another, and I looked right across into the line and here was the pistol. It was up this way (indicating); and I put my one hand this way and tried to get hold of it myself. I seen I couldn’t do any good, and I thought I would break the hold. I saw one of our men had a good grasp right over what you call the—now, wait a minute—the chambers.

Q. Over the chambers of the revolver?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What do you mean? Which part of it? (Mr. Penney hands revolver to witness.)
A. This one here, sir. He had a grasp right here and I had both fingers this way—this hand, sir, and there was a hand here. (Witness indicating with revolver.)

Q. You saw another artilleryman?
A. I saw that another artilleryman had it. I saw I couldn’t get it, and I beared down on the man’s hand here, grasping his hand close up this way, and I fell on my knee. I paid no more attention. I thought if we got the revolver they could take care of the prisoner.

Q. And the revolver was in the position—
A. This way. (Witness indicating.)

Q. Do you know whose hand it was?
A. I will swear it was in his right hand.

Q. I know, but do you know whose hand it was in?
A. No, sir.

Q. Were you looking in the direction of the President when [88][89] the shots were fired?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see the man at all until he was in the crowd going down?
A. I didn’t see him at all. I saw him after. I recognized the man afterwards, but I couldn’t recognize him in the crowd.

Q. You only saw somebody’s hand with a revolver in it and you tried to get it?
A. I only saw somebody’s hand with a revolver in it and I tried to get it; yes, sir.

MR. PENNEY: That is all.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LEWIS:

Q. As I understand you, there were officers on each side of an open space where the people were passing along to shake hands with the President?
A. I was on the opposite side; yes, sir.

Q. And you were on which side of that line of officers?
A. I was on the side where they were falling them in. They were going in the door—about four yards and a half, I should say, or four yards; something like that. O’Brien was on the opposite side.

Q. Putting them in line?
A. Yes, sir; putting them in if they wouldn’t go; jerked them out and put them in.

Q. They were going along in single file?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was that the only thing you were trying to do, to keep them in single file?
A. And keeping them moving along.

Q. You were not looking to see whether any person had any weapon in his hand?
A. I paid no attention to that. [89][90]

Q. That was no part of your duty?
A. Only keeping them going along.

Q. You were keeping them moving along?
A. Yes, sir; keeping them in line.

Q. You did not see the defendant pass you?
A. I didn’t notice it. Some of the women would get stubborn, and I didn’t notice it.

MR. LEWIS: That is all.

LOUIS BERTSCHEY, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Bertschey, you are a Corporal in the 73d Coast Artillery?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Stationed at the Pan American Exposition this summer?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you detailed to take command of some men to go to the President’s reception?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many men did you have?
A. Ten privates and myself.

MR. LEWIS: How many?

MR. PENNEY: Ten.

A. Ten.

Q. And you were directed by somebody there as to what disposition you should make of your men?
A. We were ordered to report to Major Babcock. [90][91]

Q. And he told you how to station your men, did he?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where were you at the time of the shooting?
A. I was in front, about eight or ten feet to the left of the President.

Q. Tell us what you saw, Corporal.
A. Well, I was ordered to report to Major Babcock, and he ordered me to put two men on the right of the President, two on the left, and six men directly in front of the President. I myself took a station directly in front of the President. He faced me. After the crowd commenced to come in we closed up to make the aisle narrowed and keep the people in single file. In about five minutes, I should think, after the reception had begun, I heard—I had occasion to move over a little further to the left of the President. As I arrived there I heard two shots fired out in rapid succession. I turns around and see the defendant with a revolver in his hand and his hand up in that direction (indicating). It was smoking— Something white covered partly over the revolver. I rushed over to the President— I grabbed the defendant by the shoulders and pulled him backwards.

Q. You got him from behind?
A. Yes, sir. But previous to this O’Brien and Neff had ahold of his arm. As I pulled him over backwards, O’Brien wrenched the pistol from his hand and we all fell to the floor. I put my right knee on his throat and started to search.

BY MR. LEWIS:

Q. What?
A. Started to search him; put my hand underneath his coat. And the crowd rushed in. I hollered to the crowd to stand back as he was my prisoner. There was some gentleman with a stiff hat—silk hat—grabbed hold of me from the rear and carried me over and forced me over to the opposite side of the railing. He let go of me. I saw the President standing there—he was very pale—looking down at the struggling mass on the floor.

Q. You saw the President looking below?
A. The President; yes, sir. He was looking at the mass on [91][92] the floor. I saw O’Brien. He was backed off with one or two, possibly three, Secret Service men demanding the pistol from him. I goes over to where he was and told him not to give up the pistol. He said then he would give it up to me, and some of the Secret Service men demanded the pistol from me. I would not give it up, stating that I would turn it over to my commanding officer, which I did as soon as he arrived.

Q. That was Captain Wisser?
A. That was Captain Wisser. I sent a messenger to notify him. He arrived in about fifteen minutes and I turned the revolver over to him.

Q. That same pistol you saw Captain Wisser turn over to somebody else?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is, the next morning?
A. Yes, sir. I was ordered to proceed with Captain Wisser to the Chief of Police’s office and he turned over the pistol in my presence.

Q. Before turning it over did you put any marks on the pistol?
A. I put my initials on it.

Q. Look at that. (Mr. Penney hands revolver to witness.)
A. Yes, sir. That is my initials.

Q. Is that the same revolver that Private O’Brien turned over to you?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. PENNEY: You may mark that now.

(Revolver referred to received in evidence and marked Exhibit “CC,” Robert C. Chapin, Sten., September 24, 1901.)

MR. PENNEY: You may ask.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LEWIS:

Q. When you were nearest to the President did you hear any [92][93] remark made by anybody?
A. No, sir.

Q. You did not hear anybody speak?
A. They might have spoke, but it was done so quickly that I did not notice. I didn’t hear anybody make any remark.

Q. You did not notice this defendant as he passed by your side of the line?
A. Sir?

Q. You did not notice this defendant as he passed by your side of the line and along towards the President?
A. No, sir.

MR. LEWIS: That is all.

HARRY F. HENSHAW, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Henshaw, what is your business?
A. What is that, sir?

Q. What is your business?
A. Superintendent of Music of the Pan American Exposition.

Q. What?
A. Superintendent of Music of the Pan American Exposition.

Q. You have charge of the Temple of Music?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you present in that building at the time the President was holding his reception?
A. I was.

Q. On September 6th?
A. Yes, sir. [93][94]

Q. You were there at the time of the shooting?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where were you standing at that time?
A. To the right of the President.

Q. How far distant?
A. Well, about five feet. It may have been more.

Q. Were you inside or outside of the aisle?
A. Inside—well, on the inside, just here. (Witness indicating.)

Q. Just outside of the aisle? Look on the map and point it out.
A. Right in back of the first row of seats that formed part of the aisle. The people passed here. (Witness indicating on diagram.)

Q. You were right near that first potted plant?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Towards the exit entrance?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. About five feet away from the President?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, as you stood there were you looking towards the people as they approached the President?
A. I could see very clearly; yes, sir.

Q. You were looking in that direction?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that you had in view the line of people as they came up towards the President?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Your view was unobstructed?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tell us what you saw.
A. Well, as I was standing there watching the people, I could get a very good view of those approaching him. [94][95]

MR. TITUS: What?

A. Of those approaching the President.

THE COURT: I would like to have you let your voice go out a little more, if you can.

A. I could also see the President very well. I noticed this man, the defendant,—

Q. What man? The prisoner here?
A. Yes, sir,—in the line approaching the President. I noticed he carried his hand in this position. (Witness indicating.)

Q. Which hand?
A. His right hand.

Q. You say “in this position.” Describe it so that we can get it on the record.
A. Right above the abdomen.

Q. His arm was bent?
A. No, sir; close to the body.

Q. Well, it was bent?
A. Yes, sir; bent at the elbow.

Q. Bent up at the elbow with the hand close to the body?
A. Yes, sir; close to the body.

BY MR. TITUS:

Q. And in front?
A. I noticed the hand was bandaged, but did not pay any more attention to it.

BY MR. PENNEY (Resuming):

Q. That is, there was something around his hand?
A. There was something around his hand; yes, sir.

Q. Go on.
A. Then I noticed as he drew near the President he extended his left hand to the President.

Q. Who did?
A. The defendant. I saw the President extend his hand as if to shake hands with him, when like a flash I saw this [95][96] man push the President’s hand aside.

Q. He pushed the President’s right hand aside with which hand?
A. With his left hand—and kind of pushed forward. At the same instant two shots rang out in quick succession. I did not see any flash from the gun, but I saw the handkerchief or bandage smoking. I then jumped over the rail and, as I was getting over, I noticed two artillerymen or two soldiers had grabbed this man and were bearing him down. At the same instant there was a dozen or more who crowded around and struggled to get at the man also. When I got to the bunch I could see nothing of the defendant. So I turned around. I saw Mr. Milburn and some other gentleman escorting the President to a seat. I followed and I saw the President seated. I saw him put his hand in his vest, and at that instant there was a noise of shuffling feet in back of me. I turned round and I saw some guards and other men carrying the defendant to my office.

Q. Your office is in the building?
A. Yes, sir; right in here. (Witness indicating on diagram.)

Q. That is the upper left hand corner of the map?
A. Yes, sir. I then saw him laid on this table, and he was searched; but I did not stay in there very long. I went out again, and I was over by the President when the ambulance arrived to take him away.

Q. That is all you saw of the transaction up to that point?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you there when the prisoner was taken away?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You saw who took him away, did you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who took him away?
A. Two detectives.

Q. Do you know who they are?
A. One was that gentleman there, Mr. Geary. (Witness indicating.) [96][97]

Q. These two men sitting on either side of him here?
A. Well, I did not recognize the other man.

MR. PENNEY: You may ask.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LEWIS:

Q. You were there close by the President when the shots were fired?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you hear anybody make any remark?
A. No, sir. I did not.

Q. Say anything?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you hear the President say anything?
A. No, sir.

Q. There was some great confusion there, I suppose?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when you saw him approaching there with his hand up at his breast or abdomen, you thought that the hand was simply sore, and it was bandaged?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You did not see the pistol?
A. No, sir.

Q. Were you looking directly at his hand?
A. Well, I noticed the hand.

Q. Yes.
A. That is all.

Q. Did it excite your suspicion?
A. No, sir; not at all.

Q. Had you seen any other person approaching with their hands bandaged?
A. Well, no, sir; not bandaged. But I saw people with handkerchiefs in their hands; capes over their arms. [97][98]

MR. LEWIS: That is all, I think.

MR. PENNEY: That is all.

JOHN BRANCH, sworn for the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. Mr. Branch, you are employed at the Pan American Exposition, are you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the Temple of Music?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You had charge of the toilet rooms there, had you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you there on this occasion when the shooting occurred?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where were you at the time?
A. About eight feet left of the President.

Q. What is that?
A. About eight feet left of the President.

Q. Inside or outside of the aisle?
A. Outside of the aisle.

Q. Do you understand that map, Mr. Branch? (Counsel indicating diagram on blackboard.)
A. Well, I don’t know as I do.

Q. Stand where you are. These black lines are supposed to represent the outside of the temporary aisles. These circles are supposed to represent the potted plants. The President is supposed to stand here. This is the aisle. [98][99] Where did you stand? Out here somewhere? (Mr. Penney indicating on diagram.)
A. Out here.

Q. Just point on the map where you stood?
A. I stood about out here, about eight feet. (Witness indicating.)

Q. You stood outside and towards the point of entrance?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tell us what you saw of the shooting?
A. Well, I was there and I saw him—

MR. LEWIS: We can’t hear it.

MR. PENNEY: We can’t hear you, sir.

A. I saw this man when he got near me.

Q. What man do you mean, sir?
A. The defendant.

Q. The defendant?
A. Yes, sir. The defendant, he got near me, and I noticed a handkerchief in his hand. I seen him when he put his hand like this in his pocket (indicating), and it came out and his hand was in like that.

MR. PENNEY: I don’t believe they can hear you.

A. He had his hand like that on his waist.

Q. His other was over his abdomen?
A. He was going on towards the President.

BY MR. TITUS:

Q. His right hand?
A. His right hand. And when he got near the President it seemed as though he meant to shake hands with the President, and somehow—how he done it I don’t know exactly, but anyhow he looked as if he meant to shake hands with the President; but I saw a report and the fire, and then I saw the second report and the fire, and I saw the handkerchief on fire; and then after that I saw the man when they began to get this man. I heard some one say, “Oh, they have shot the President”—like that. [99][100]

Q. You saw somebody grab this man just after he fired?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who did you see grab him?
A. I saw one of the Exposition guards grab after this man, and at this time this artilleryman got near the man first.

Q. You saw an artilleryman get near him?
A. Yes, sir. He got near him first, and at that time, the man was almost going down in the crowd, and one of the artillerymen grabbed him by the leg. At that time the man was on the ground. Then I turned to see the President.

Q. That is all you saw of the shooting?
A. That is all I saw of the shooting.

MR. PENNEY: That is all. You may ask.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. Did you hear the President make any remark or say anything?
A. Well, not only just when he jumped.

MR. LEWIS: What is that?

Q. When who jumped?
A. When the President jumped himself, after the shot.

Q. What do you mean?
A. The second fire. He jumped, you know, from one of them—what do you call those things there?

Q. You mean he started back?
A. No, sir. He jumped from one of those big tubs the trees were in.

Q. Flower pots?
A. Yes, sir. He jumped from one and staggered over to the second one, and then stood up.

Q. That is, he staggered over to the right?
A. He staggered over to the right. [100][101]

Q. And then braced up again?
A. Yes, sir; and then he braced up again on the second one.

Q. What did you hear him say?
A. He didn’t say anything only just “Be easy with him, boys.” That is all I heard him say.

Q. What is that?
A. “Be easy with him, boys.”

Q. “Be easy with him, boys”?
A. Yes, sir. “Be easy with him, boys.” That is all I heard him say.

Q. Were you inside of the aisle that had been made of these chairs and the covering over them?
A. No , sir.

Q. You were outside of that?
A. Yes, sir. I was outside of that.

Q. You were standing back behind the President and to his right?
A. Standing to the left.

Q. To his left?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How far do you think you were from him?
A. About eight feet.

Q. And you saw this man from where you stood coming up with this handkerchief around his hand?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. TITUS: That is all.

MR. PENNEY: That is all, sir.

(The Court here again admonished the jury in regard to not talking about or discussing the case.)

CRIER HESS: This Court takes a recess until two o’clock.

Recess until two o’clock. [101][102]

 

AFTERNOON SESSION, 2:10 P.M.

THE CLERK CALLS JURY, ALL ANSWERING TO THEIR NAMES. ALSO THE DEFENDANT, WHO DOES NOT ANSWER, BUT THE CLERK SAYS HE IS PRESENT.

 

JAMES F. VALLELY, sworn in behalf of the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. What is your business, Captain?
A. Sergeant of detectives, New York City.

Q. You have some local position now here?
A. Charge of the detective bureau at the Pan American Exposition.

Q. Did you accompany the defendant from the Pan American Exposition to Police Headquarters?
A. I did.

Q. Did you have some talk with him after he arrived there?
A. I did, sir.

Q. Give us that talk?
A. I took him up to the cell at Police Headquarters in Buffalo,—

MR. TITUS: Just a moment, Captain.

THE COURT: Just a moment, Captain.

MR. TITUS: I think he should be required to give preliminary proof here.

MR. PENNEY: I will do so.

Q. Were there any threats or offers of immunity to this man?
A. There wasn’t anything said to him up to that time.

Q. Did you threaten him in any manner? [102][103]
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you offer him any immunity up to that time?
A. No, sir. I sat alongside of him in the cell on the cot where the prisoners sleep. I said to him, “Do you smoke?” He said, “Yes, sir.” So handed him a cigar. I handed him a cigar and lit it for him and lit one myself. I asked him for his name. He said, “My name is Fred Nieman.” I asked him to spell it. He spelled it “N-I-E-M-A-N.” I then asked him how old he was. He said, “28.” I said, “Where were you born?” He said, “Detroit, Michigan.” I said, “Where were your parents born?” He said, “I am a Polish German.” I said, “What do you do for a living?” He said, “I am a blacksmith.” I said, “How long have you been in Buffalo?” He said, “Since last Saturday.” I said, “Where do you live?” He said, “1025 Broadway.” I said, “What is the number of the room?” He said, “The room I think is No. 8.” I said, “Why did you shoot the President?” He said, “I only done my duty.” I said, “Why?” and he and I were sitting together on the bench where the prisoners lay, and he turned his head and looked at me and he hesitated. I said, “Are you an anarchist?” He said, “Yes, sir.”

Q. Was that all, Captain?
A. That is all the conversation I had with him.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. You have told us everything that was said to him prior to his speaking?
A. Yes, sir, everything.

Q. And you have now told us everything he said?
A. To me, yes, sir, everything he said to me.

Q. In your hearing?
A. Yes, sir, that was all.

Q. No one present in the cell with you?
A. Yes, there was Detective Solomon and the assistant commandant at the Exposition, Major Robertson. [103][104]

WILLIAM S. BULL, sworn in behalf of the People.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. You are superintendent of the Buffalo Police Department, are you, sir?
A. I am.

Q. Were you present on the night of September 6th when this defendant was at Headquarters?
A. I was.

Q. Did you hear him make certain statements in reference to the shooting of the President?
A. I did.

Q. Were there any threats made to him?
A. No, sir.

Q. No offers of immunity of any kind?
A. No, sir.

Q. State what he said in reference to that?

MR. TITUS: No inducement held out to him?

A. No, sir.

Q. Go ahead and state briefly what he said in reference to the shooting, the other details I do not care so much about?
A. He said that he knew Mr. McKinley, the President, that when he shot him he knew who he was shooting, that he shot him because he believed it was his duty to shoot him.

Q. Go on and tell generally what he said about his planning to do it and so forth?
A. He said that he had been to the Pan American Grounds on several occasions prior to the President’s visit to Buffalo; that he was on the Exposition Grounds the day the President delivered his speech, and stood near the speaker’s stand; that he went there with the determination to kill the President. He did not intend to kill [104][105] him the day that he made the oration, delivered his oration. He knew the President was to visit Buffalo and be at the Exposition. He knew that the President was going to the Falls and that he went to the Falls the same day the President was there. He did not intend to kill the President at the Falls. He knew the President was to hold a reception in the Temple of Music, and he intended to be present at the reception, and he was there; that he took his place in line with the other people who were attending the reception, took his place in this line for the purpose of killing the President. He carried his gun, revolver, in his right hand pocket, and over the gun was his pocket handkerchief, and in describing it he illustrated it in this way (indicating). The gun was in the pocket, the pocket handkerchief over it, and he did not remove the gun from his pocket until he was within the Temple of Music; he then took the gun and handkerchief together from his pocket, the gun being concealed, and as he went into the door arranged his handkerchief so that the gun could not be seen, carried his hand in this position (indicating) with the forefinger of his hand upon the trigger.

He passed along with the other people until he reached the President and the President was about to extend his hand to him, when he fired twice. He was asked why he didn’t shoot more, he said because he didn’t have the opportunity, they fell upon him so suddenly, so quickly, and bore him to the ground that he had no opportunity to fire again. This statement he repeated upon several different occasions, and practically the same as the statement he made the first time that I talked with him.

Q. Did he say anything about how long he had been contemplating this act?
A. He said that he had had it in contemplation for some time. That he had planned the shooting, knew what he was going to do, had firmly made up his mind to kill the President, and went to the Exposition Grounds for that purpose.

Q. Did he say why he did it?
A. He said he did it because he thought it was right, it was his duty. He was asked if he was an anarchist, he said that he was, that he believed he was doing right in killing the President. [105][106]

Q. Did he say anything about where he had gotten his anarchistic teachings, or where he had studied those subjects?
A. He said that he had taken up the subject of anarchy about seven years ago. He said that he was 28 years old, and when he was 21 he began to take up the subject of anarchy. The papers that he had read had been principally anarchistic papers, socialist papers, and books relating to the subject of anarchy. He had also attended meetings in different places, heard various people talk upon the subject of anarchy, and he believed what he had heard and what he had been told, and believed that he was right.

Q. Did he say where, in what city, he had been to meetings?
A. He said he had attended meetings in Cleveland, I think the most of the meetings he attended was in Cleveland, at 170 Superior Street, if I recollect right, but sometimes he used the word “Ontario Street” and sometimes “Superior,” but I think the number was 170 Superior Street.

Q. Did he say who he had heard lecture at those places?
A. He had heard Emma Goldman talk, he had heard—well there was some names—I think a man by the name, something like Zolosman, a Polish man, a man who edited a paper in Cleveland; and a number of other speakers. Those names were the ones I remember best. He also knew a man in Chicago by the name of Izaak, who published a paper called “The Free Society.” He had talked with this man upon the subject and had read his paper. He told me that he made a special trip to Cleveland at one time to buy a paper that was published there, as he wished to read it.

Q. What did he say, if anything, upon the subject of government?
A. He did not believe in our form of government, he believed only in the government as taught by the anarchists. He did not believe in government.

Q. Believe in the church?
A. He had no belief in church. He had been a Roman Catholic, but had had nothing to do with the church in some time because he did not believe their teaching.

Q. Did he believe in marriage?
A. He did not believe in marriage, he was a free lover. And the Free Love Society, as I understand it, this was a Free Love Society. [106][107]

Q. Do you think of anything else he said, General?
A. The different conversations I had with him were upon the same lines, and usually about the same language. Always.

Q. He told you about his personal history, did he not?
A. He told me of his father and mother, his father had been married a second time; that they lived near Cleveland at a place I think called Warrensville. His father had a small farm there, a small piece of ground that he used to farm. He had several brothers and sisters, that he had worked in the wire works near Cleveland; had also worked as a laborer and as blacksmith helper at different times.

Q. Did he say that when he shot the President he intended to kill him?
A. Yes, he said that he went to the Exposition Grounds for the express purpose of killing McKinley, the President. That he knew him, that he had seen him before, and that when he shot he knew he shot the President, he intended to kill him. That was in response to a question that was asked why he had not discharged the other cartridges in his revolver, that he did not have the opportunity.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. TITUS:

Q. General, did you search the defendant when he was brought to you?
A. No, sir.

Q. Had he been prior to that time searched, that you know of?
A. I don’t know, I presume that he had been.

Q. Has anything been handed to you that he had on his person?
A. There was some scraps of paper and a memorandum book and a $1.50—51 cents, that was handed to me. Of the $1.51 there was a shirt and some handkerchiefs, and I think a collar bought out of it.

Q. Did you show him these articles?
A. He saw all the articles.

Q. Did you ask him if they belonged to him?
A. Yes. [107][108]

Q. What did he say?
A. He said they did.

Q. What was this paper?
A. One paper was a sort of an orange colored paper that had a memorandum on it, that I think was an address, and there was a memorandum book, and I think also a letter from the secretary of some society that he belonged to, I think the Golden Eagle, a sort of a letter of identification.

Q. Have you got those papers and books with you?
A. No, sir.

Q. Where are they?
A. They were turned over to the District Attorney.

Q. When you had this interview with him did you ask him questions and he respond?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is the way you got out of him the replies which you have given here?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. In other words, you asked him if he was an anarchist and he said he was?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he speak or bow his head?
A. He spoke.

Q. What was his conduct on these various occasions, I mean now as to whether he hung his head and was quiet and his language almost unintelligible?
A. His head was erect and he looked me in the eye and his language was intelligible. He spoke with a very slight accent and sometimes without any accent at all, and used comparatively good language.

Q. Did he volunteer any answers to your questions?
A. He did not volunteer any answers, he answered the questions that were put to him, and sometimes after he answered a question he would correct it.

Q. His answers were practically monosyllables, yes and no, were they not?
A. No, sir, they were at length at times. [108][109]

Q. What do you mean by that? You asked him, I suppose, if he intended to kill the President, and he said yes?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there any different mode of procedure adopted in any of your communications with him than that?
A. None whatever, the usual procedure that is taken with any prisoner that is brought in.

Q. So that practically the answers he gave were in response to the propositions which you propounded?
A. Yes, sir, only that he explained at length about his visits to the Exposition, about his going around through the different buildings.

Q. What did he say about that?
A. He said he had visited the Exposition, been into the different buildings, was there the day the President had his reception—

Q. Did you ask him what buildings he had gone into?
A. I don’t think he specified any buildings.

Q. Did you ask him if he had visited the different buildings?
A. He volunteered that.

Q. Did you ask him if he was in the crowd on the day the President was there, the first day?
A. He said he was in the crowd and stood near the speaker’s stand.

Q. Was that in response to an inquiry from him?
A. I think that was in his general talk about his being to the Exposition, in response to a question how many times he had been to the Exposition, if he was there the day the President was received and what he did.

Q. You asked him why he did [the] thing, I suppose, did you not?
A. I asked him why he shot the President, yes, sir.

Q. He told you he did it because he thought it was his duty?
A. He said, “because it is my duty.”

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PENNEY:

Q. I want to ask you a thing I forgot. On Saturday morning, [109][110] the day after the shooting, were you present at Police Headquarters?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did there come to Police Headquarters a man by the name of Nowak?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he have an interview with this defendant in your presence?
A. He did.

Q. At that time were there any offers of immunity or threats made to this man?
A. Not at that time or any other.

Q. Or any inducements to lead him to speak?
A. Not at all.

Q. I wish you would relate to the jury the conversation that occurred between the defendant and Nowak?
A. On Saturday morning a man came to Police Headquarters and met the Assistant Superintendent Mr. Cusack, said that he would like to see this man, he thought he knew him.

MR. TITUS:

Q. Were you present?
A. Not during that conversation.

MR. TITUS: Then I wouldn’t give it.

THE WITNESS: I was going to lead up to his being brought up to me, that is all.

MR. PENNEY:

Q. Were you present when Nowak saw the defendant?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tell what you saw and heard at that time?
A. Nowak was brought into the private office of the Superintendent of Police and immediately recognized Czolgosz, and said he knew him in Cleveland.

MR. TITUS:

Q. Who said so?
A. Nowak, Walter Nowak. He said he was employed in a printing office in Cleveland, that Czolgosz was there and they got [110][111] quite friendly, and that he knew his family.

MR. TITUS:

Q. Who was this addressed to, this talk?
A. This was spoken in my office to whoever was present there.

MR. PENNEY:

Q. He was talking there to who?
A. He was talking there principally to Czolgosz. He said to him, “You know me well, Czolgosz, I have always been a friend of yours. Why did you do this? Why did you commit this crime? Why have you committed an act that is going to bring disgrace upon the Polish race? Why have you committed this crime that brings disgrace on your father and mother and entire family?” The conversation was in that strain for some time, to which the defendant made no response but simply smiled. Nowak asked him if he hadn’t always been his friend. He said, “I don’t know whether you have been a particular friend of mine or not.”

Q. That is what the defendant said?
A. That is what the defendant said. Nowak said then, “Haven’t I taken you to the theatre frequently?” “Oh, yes, you have taken me to the theatre on several occasions, I don’t know as that is any particular act of friendship.” He said, “You and I belonged to the same society, attended the meetings together, but it became so radical, the talk was so radical I gave it up, I couldn’t stand it, I wouldn’t listen to it.”

Q. Who said that?
A. Nowak, talking to the prisoner. He says, “I am a Republican. I am not a socialist or anarchist, I am a Republican.” The prisoner says, “Oh, yes, you are a Republican for this, (indicating with his fingers).” Mr. Penney asked him, “What do you mean by that?”

Q. That was addressed to the defendant?
A. That was addressed to the defendant. He said I mean by that that Nowak is a Republican for what there is in it, the money he can get out of it.

Q. Do you remember, General, whether the defendant was asked at any time whether he desired to see a lawyer? [111][112]
A. He was asked if he wished to see a lawyer, he was asked if he had any friends he would like to see, if he wished to see his father or his mother.

Q. What did he say on the question of the lawyer?
A. He said he didn’t wish to see a lawyer, didn’t need a lawyer, that he had no friends and did not care to see his father or mother.

MR. PENNEY: The People rest.

MR. LEWIS: If your Honor please, the defendant has no witnesses that he will call, so that the testimony is closed at the close of the testimony of the People. We are somewhat embarrassed, disappointed, in the People’s testimony closing at this point. My associate and myself have not had very much consultation as to the course to be pursued, but from the slight conversation that we have had we are inclined to ask your Honor to permit each of us, both of us, to make some remarks to the jury in summing up this case. They will be on my part very brief, and I presume so on the part of my associate.

MR. LEWIS then addressed the Jury as follows:

If your Honor please and Gentlemen of the Jury:

This being the first time in over twenty years that I have had occasion to address a jury as counsel in a case, you may imagine that I feel somewhat in a strange position, especially in a case of the importance of this. A great calamity has befallen our nation. The President of the country has been stricken down and dies in our city. It is shown beyond any peradventure of doubt that it was at the defendant’s hand that he was stricken down, and the only question that can be discussed or considered in this case is the question whether that act was that of a sane person. If it was, then the defendant is guilty of the murder and must suffer the penalty. If it was the act of an insane man, then he is not guilty of murder but should be acquitted of that charge and would then be confined in a lunatic asylum.

Much discussion and much talk has occurred in our midst and has been called to my attention as to the propriety of any defense interposed in this case. Many letters [112][113] have been received by me since I was assigned with my associates to defend this man, questioning the propriety of a defense being attempted. You gentlemen know perhaps how Judge Titus and myself came into this case. The position was not sought by us but we appear here in performance of a duty which we think devolved upon us notwithstanding it was an exceedingly unpleasant one. His Honor the Judge who presides upon this trial as a Justice of the Supreme Court, sits here because the law makes it his duty to sit and preside over this trial; our very efficient and able District Attorney is prosecuting this action because the law makes it his duty to prosecute the action; you gentlemen are sitting here as jurors because you were commanded to appear here, and under our system of jurisprudence it was your duty to sit here and hear the testimony in this case and perform the unpleasant duty of determining whether this man is to be executed or whether he is to be acquitted. The defendant’s counsel appear here because under our system of jurisprudence no man can be placed upon trial for the high crime of murder, the penalty of which under our system is death, without he had the assistance of counsel. The court has the power to designate, and it is the duty of the counsel thus designated, to appear in the case unless they can make some reasonable excuse and succeed in being relieved of the duty. Gentlemen when they become members of the legal profession become members of the court. They are compelled, if assigned to defend one who is charged with committing a crime, they are compelled to respond and accept the duty unless they can present some reasonable excuse why they should be excused, and, as I understand, if they arbitrarily refuse to perform the duty which the court imposes upon them, they are guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to be punished by the court.

So that you see, gentlemen, if any simple-minded, thoughtless person should entertain the notion for a moment that the counsel who appear in this case are doing something they ought not to do, that person is laboring under a very serious misapprehension as to the duties devolving upon a lawyer.

A defendant, no matter how enormous the crime that he may have committed, is, under our laws, entitled to the benefit of a trial. In a case of murder in the first degree he must have a trial. You sat here and listened to the defendant’s plea of guilty when he was arraigned by the [113][114] learned District Attorney, but the law of our state will not permit a man to plead guilty of such a crime as this. The law is so merciful of the rights of its citizens that it will not permit a man to plead guilty of the high crime of murder, so that even after he had conceded his guilt in this case, it was incumbent upon the court to insist that the trial should proceed and that the People should establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged against him. There are, in our community, individuals probably—not, I hope, in very large numbers, but we know they are scattered all over our country, who think that in a case like this, or even in charges of much less enormity, that it is entirely proper that the case should be disposed of by lynch law, by mob law, and we can hardly take up a paper without we learn that in some part of this free and independent country, a country where law prevails or should prevail, we scarcely take up a paper that we do not see some account of a man having been mobbed upon the suspicion or belief that he was guilty of some crime. This state of things does not exist in our community but it does in some parts of our country, as every reading, intelligent man knows.

It is charged here that our client is an anarchist, a man who does not believe in any law or in any form of government, and there are, as we are told, individuals who entertain that opinion, societies which entertain that opinion. We all feel that such doctrines are dangerous, are criminal, are the doctrines that will subvert our government in time if they are allowed to prevail. But, Gentlemen of the Jury, while I firmly believe in that, I do not believe that it amounts in danger to this country equal to the belief that is becoming so common that men who are charged with crime shall not be permitted to go through the form of a trial in a court of justice but that lynch law should take the place of the calm and dignified administration of law in our courts of justice. When that doctrine becomes sufficiently prevalent in this country, if it ever does, our institutions will be set aside and overthrown, and if we are not misinformed as to the state of the mind of the public in some parts of our country, the time is fast approaching when men charged with crime will not be permitted to come into the court and submit to a calm and dignified trial but will be strung up upon a tree, upon the bare suspicion sometimes of the fact that they may have committed some crime. Why, it is not long since I read in a paper that a colored man in the South was mobbed and his life taken because he had insulted a white man. What [114][115] the insult was the newspaper did not say, but he had insulted a white man and his life was taken because of that insult to the white man. Now I suggest, gentlemen, that that class of community who are crying out in our streets and who are sending letters suggesting that a man charged with the crime that this defendant is, should not be permitted to have a trial before a court of justice, I submit that they are a more dangerous class of community than the anarchists about [which] we read so much. No, it is the duty of every American citizen, of every good man, to stand firmly by the law, to put his face against any idea that a man should be punished for any crime until he is proven guilty in a court, beyond any reasonable doubt.

My associates and myself are here to uphold the law. Some weak-minded, foolish people entertain the notion that a lawyer, when he appears in defense of a criminal, is in court to obstruct the due administration of law, is in court to raise every technicality that he can to prolong the trial and to reverse any verdict which a jury may render but no man who understands and knows the better class of the members of the bar entertains any such notion. My associates and myself are here for the same purpose that the learned District Attorney is here,—to see that this trial progresses in a legal, orderly and proper manner, and, as I suggest, we must, in every way be disposed of without the intervention of courts of justice.

I remember, gentlemen, when I was a young man living in the city of Auburn, studying my profession, that the news came that a colored man had gone up upon the shore of the Owasco Lake and there had murdered practically an entire family by the name of Van Ess. The news came into the town where I was at the time and it created an intense excitement. The people gathered upon the street to hear the news. In the course of the afternoon, after the commission of the crime, it was understood that the colored man, Freeman, had been arrested and was being brought to the city to be incarcerated in the jail. The people upon the street became more and more excited. They began to tell about mobbing the colored man when he should arrive,—that he was not entitled to a trial.

Mr. William H. Seward, who was then a resident of the city of Auburn, appeared upon the street and counseled moderation, counseled the people to wait and see whether the man was guilty of the crime, to permit him to have a legal, lawful trial. But the people protested—“He is guilty beyond any doubt; he must be disposed of at once.” [115][116] Mr. Seward still insisted and they succeeded in incarcerating Freeman in the jail. It soon became known that Mr. Seward had volunteered, without any designation of the court, had volunteered to defend the negro when he was put upon trial, and then the indignation arose again that he should interpose a defense in such a case as that, and that far-seeing man, that statesman, who saw that there was an opportunity to give an object lesson to the world as to the proper disposition of such a case, stubbornly insisted that he would defend the negro. He was put upon trial and for two long months that trial proceeded; as I remember, it occupied some three weeks in obtaining a jury, and the trial consumed at least two months, and I sat by during almost the entire length of that trial and listened to the defense that Mr. Seward interposed,—not that he cared anything for the negro but he wanted to teach the people of the country the sacredness of the law; he wanted to impress upon them the importance of maintaining the law and putting down mob violence. And this trial is a great object lesson to the world in that regard. Here is a case where a man has stricken down the beloved President of this country in broad daylight, in the presence of hundreds and thousands of spectators. If there ever was a case that would excite the anger, the wrath, of those who saw it, this was one, and yet, under the advice of the President, “Let no man hurt him,” he was taken, confined in our prison, indicted, put upon trial here, and the case is soon to be submitted to you whether he is guilty of the crime charged against him.

That, gentlemen, speaks volumes in favor of the orderly conduct of the people of the City of Buffalo. Here was a man occupying the exalted position of President of this great republic, a man of irreproachable character, a man against whose character not the least stain was ever known, who had come to our city to assist us in promoting the prosperity of our great exposition. He submitted to being met by the people who desired to see him, in order to help on this great enterprise in which we have been interested, and he was stricken down and died from the effects of the wounds. It has touched every heart in this community and in the world, and yet we sit here today in this room quietly considering the question whether this man is responsible for the act which he committed, and that question, gentlemen, is one that you are called upon to decide. [116][117]

The law presumes that this man is innocent of the crime and we start, in investigating this case, with the assumption that for some reason or other he is not responsible for the act which he performed on that day. That is one of the merciful provisions of the law of this civilized state and it is a provision of law which you must consider and which you must permit to influence your minds until you are satisfied by the evidence in the case that that doubt has been removed.

Now, gentlemen, we have not been able to present any evidence upon our part. The defendant has even refused on almost every occasion to even talk with his counsel; he has not aided us; so that we have come here under, as I said to you, the designation of the court, to do what we can to determine this important question which is to be submitted to you.

All that I can say, to aid you, is that every human being—yes, nearly, certainly, every human being—has a strong desire to live. Death is a spectre that we all dislike to meet, and here this defendant, without having any animosity against our President, without any motive, so far as we can see, personal motive, we find him going into this building, in the presence of these hundreds of people, and committing an act which, if he was sane, must cause his death.

How, could a man, with some mind, perform such an act? Of course, the rabble in the street would say, “No matter whether he is insane or sane, he deserves to be killed at once;” but the law says, no; the law says, consider all the circumstances and see whether the man was in his right mind or not. But one may say, “Why, it is better that he should be convicted, as a terror to others.” That may be so in some regard, but, Gentlemen of the Jury, if it could be; if it can be that you find that this defendant was not responsible for the crime, for this act, you would aid in uplifting a great cloud off from the hearts and minds of the people of this country and of the world. If our beloved President had met with a railroad accident coming here to our city and had been killed, we should all regret very much, we should mourn over the loss of such a just man, but our grief would not begin to compare with the grief that we have now, that he should be stricken down by an assassin, if such were the case. That adds poignancy to our grief—it does in my case, to a very large extent. But if you could find that he met [117][118] his fate by the act of an insane man, it would amount to the same as though he met it accidentally, by some accident, and passed away under such circumstances.

Now, gentlemen, I have said about all I care to say about this case. The President of the United States was a man for whom I had the very profoundest respect. I have watched his career from the time he entered Congress,—it must be twenty or more years ago,—until his last breath here in the City of Buffalo, and every act of the man, so far as I could judge, had been the act of one of the noblest men that God ever made. His policy—we care nothing about that so far as we may differ as to his policy, but his policy has always met with my profoundest admiration in every respect. I have known him not only as a statesman, but I have known him, through the public press and otherwise, as a citizen, a man of irreproachable character, a loving husband, a grand man in every aspect that you could conceive of, and his death has been the saddest blow to me that has occurred in many years.

MR. TITUS: If the Court please, the remarks of my distinguished associate have so fully and completely covered the ground and so largely anticipated what I intended to present to the jury myself, that it seems entirely unnecessary for me to reiterate what has already been said upon this subject, and we, therefore, rest with the remarks made by Judge Lewis. [118][119]

ADDRESS OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY PENNEY:

If the Court please, Gentlemen of the Jury.

It is hardly possible for any man to stand before his fellow-men and talk without the deepest emotion concerning the awful tragedy that has come upon the entire world. A remarkable exhibition of feelings has just been made to you by the distinguished jurist who was forced by his duty as a citizen, as a lawyer and as a judge to carry out the absolute mandates of our law and to stand here before you and present the formal rights of this defendant. He says to you that there is no question, no question, that it has been proved beyond any peradventure that this man was the instrument that caused the death of our beloved President, and he simply leaves you with the statement that if this man was mentally responsible, then he is fully and absolutely guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree. Gentlemen, we have been expeditious in the presentation of this case to you, still we have endeavored to present it to you with no indecent haste. We have endeavored to present to you all the essentials, all the material elements that go to make up the crime of murder in the first degree. We have shown you that our beloved President was shot on the 6th day of September; we have shown you the history of that wound and that he came to his death as the result of it. We have shown you that this defendant stood there in the Temple of Music on that Friday afternoon and with this weapon, that we have exhibited here, fired off the fatal bullet. We have shown you, by witnesses who have been called to the stand, the admissions of this defendant concerning his premeditation and deliberation, for how long a period he had thought about this awful crime, where he was born and educated and where he got the seeds of this terrible deed in his heart. We have shown that he had gone to these anarchistic or socialistic meetings and that there had been embedded in his diseased heart the seeds of this awful crime which resulted in that terrible shot on Friday afternoon. He retailed and detailed to the different people the history of himself and of his cogitations, how he was led up to do this act, and the counsel says to you gentlemen that if—IF—the man was sane, then he is responsible. He says to you that this man must be presumed to be innocent, that that is a presumption of our law. But it is also a presumption of our law that every man is sane until proven insane. In other words, the prosecution has the right to come in here and rely on the presumption that every man who [119][120] is charged with crime is sane and mentally and morally responsible for his acts unless he himself introduces evidence showing the contrary. Therefore, gentlemen, the question seems simple to me. What evidence is there in this case that this man is not sane? Under the presumption of the law that he is sane and under the admissions that have been made here that he is the agent that caused the death, with all the elements that go to make up the crime absolutely proven, how brief ought to be your meditation, how brief ought to be your consultation about the responsibility and criminality of this individual?

Gentlemen of the Jury, this is not a case for oratorical flights or for vivid imagination. Both the counsel for the defense and the counsel for the prosecution have endeavored to eliminate everything of a sensational character from everything concerning this case, and I intend in this address to you to continue that line of procedure. I do not intend to make any attempt at oratorical flights; I do not intend to work upon my imagination or try to sway you under my expressions here of the enormity of this offense. It is unnecessary. You, as well as I, and as well as every citizen of the civilized world, understand the enormous responsibility that is now about to devolve upon you. The counsel wisely and well said to you that no man should be put out of existence by lynch law. The counsel as well said to you that the people of Buffalo are to be committed [sic] for the orderly and law-abiding spirit and treatment that they have given this case. But at the same time, gentlemen, the law must be vindicated. Enough has been said, enough has been shown, enough has been demonstrated to forcibly convince me—and I know it has convinced you—that a terrible thing has happened and it has happened because there is a certain class of people in this country that unless they feel the strong arm of justice, the strong arm of the laws that it is irresistible and will force down everything that is against law and order, that unless they feel that with the irresistible force that I know that you will bring to this case, that something terrible will happen to our beloved country. Gentlemen, it is an awful, an awe-inspiring and a great truth that has been taught in this case. When I think, gentlemen, of that grand man who stood but a few days ago in the Temple of Music, the man who had come from the lowly walks of life, has made his own way by his own unaided strength and courage where he became a lawyer, a Congressman, a governor and then a president, and, [120][121] more than all else, a loving husband, the man who cherished his sick wife through all the terrible weeks of her illness, notwithstanding the great responsibilities upon him as President of our country, a man who was so great that on his dying bed the last words that he said were “It is God’s way, not ours; His will be done, good-bye, good-bye,”—that man who was still so great and yet who could stand and take the hand of this man, his assassin, even the worst man that you could imagine, who offered to take into his hand that creature and shake him by the hand upon the same floor, upon the same level, without taking unto himself any of the things that he could and perhaps ought to have taken by reason of his great achievements,—think of it, gentlemen think of the great spectacle, the great lesson that it has taught, the great things that our country produces; a man so great, can stoop so low; a man so great that he can forgive his own assassin; so great that he does not hold against him one word, one thought of ill-will;—the noblest man, I believe, that God created upon the soil of the United States was taken from our midst,—and yet withal, with all that terrible calamity, and, as a man said to me who stood right beside our beloved President when he was shot, he said to me only two or three days ago: “I have traveled all over our broad land and since that awful calamity, I have seen thousands and thousands of people collect along the railroad even to get a glimpse at the train; I have seen people stand for hours in the rain to look upon the outside of this casket; I have seen people mourn and shed tears for hour after hour who never saw that great man,” and I am convinced, if I never was before, that there is such a thing as a national heart and that that great national heart has been weeping as it never wept before, that great heart is broken and it will take God’s own time and God’s own way to heal it, such a great calamity has been brought about. Brought by what? By this instrument (pointing to defendant) of an awful class of people that have come to our shores, a class of people that must be taught, that should be taught and shall be taught that it is entirely foreign to our laws, to our institutions and to the laws and institutions that evolved such a man as William McKinley that they have no place upon our shores, that if they cannot conform to our laws and our institutions, then they must go hence and keep forever from us; that they will not be permitted to come here, to stay here to educate themselves into the notion that they can take the life of any individual irrespective of consequences and come into a court—think [121][122] again, gentlemen; think of the grand spectacle that is illustrated here: Here is a man who professes that he does not want a lawyer, that he does not believe in law, that he does not believe in God, that he does not believe in the marriage relation, that he believes in the destruction of life by individuals, and yet, notwithstanding those beliefs, those theories, those ideas, our laws and our institutions insist that he should be represented by two of the ablest and most respected jurists in our city, that he should go through all the legal formalities just the same as if he were the most respected and highly-thought-of man heretofore, that all the laws and forms of law must be complied with, and even though he comes into court and tells you prior to trial that he is guilty of the crime charged, yet notwithstanding, gentlemen, under our constitution you must sit here and listen to the formal proof on the part of the people, so that our law must be vindicated, our institutions must be lived up to, the greatest thought of our people must be demonstrated to be correct notwithstanding the fact that this man himself says he does not want it.

Gentlemen, I have said all that I care to say; I have said perhaps more than I ought to say. It is not necessary for me or any one else to say anything to you. You know your duty. You have sworn to give this man a fair trial upon the evidence. And what is the evidence? The evidence has been adduced on the part of the people, as I claim, fully and absolutely demonstrating every element of the crime charged, and that is all there is of this case.

Gentlemen, this has been an orderly procedure, without indecent haste, but still it has been with every idea, with the irresistible impulse to insist and to carry out the strict law applicable to this terrible crime. The duty of the counsel on both sides is now ended; the Court will charge you briefly and then it is your duty to take up the case. I have the greatest confidence in each one of you and I have no doubt that the same thought, the same idea, the same object is in all your minds, that our beloved country, even though we have lost one of the greatest men, shall still retain the respect of the whole world and everybody shall be taught, by your treatment of the case, that no man, no matter who he is or where he hails from, can come here and commit such a dastardly act, not only against such an individual but against our laws and institutions, and not receive the full penalty of the law.

THE COURT: Gentlemen, you may rise.

Gentlemen of the Jury:—The defendant in this [122][123] case is charged by the People of the State of New York with the crime of murder in the first degree. The law requires that he shall in the first place be brought into court and allowed an opportunity to plead to the charge. In this case the defendant has so appeared, and he has acknowledged his guilt. Such an acknowledgment, such a plea, under such circumstances, is not conclusive upon the Jury or the Court, and the law requires that notwithstanding such a plea, a formal and orderly and a lawful trial shall be accorded to the defendant. The question of the guilt or innocence of this defendant, Gentlemen of the Jury, is, at this moment, an original one with you. It will be submitted to you for your determination as to whether or not the defendant is guilty; and the presumption is, and it must be observed by you, that up to this time, and until you shall otherwise decide, that he is an innocent man. The law guarantees, as I have said, that he shall be fairly tried, and that he shall be tried by twelve men who are impartial, who are intelligent, who are capable of sifting the testimony and the evidence as it is given upon the trial, and determine from such an examination as that where the truth of the matter lies. While it is conceded by the defendant, and by his counsel, that this defendant fired the shot that caused the death of William McKinley it does not follow, Gentlemen of the Jury, that he is guilty of or that he should be found by you guilty of the crime of murder, or of any crime. The question as to whether he is or is not guilty is an original one up to this time with you.

It is incumbent upon the People in order to satisfy you that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged against him to produce such evidence as convinces your minds beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. If the People fail to do that, if in this case they have failed to do it, notwithstanding any impression that you may have received, any option which you individually may have formed concerning the case, if on a careful and full comparison and examination of all the evidence and all the circumstances in the case there exists in your minds a reasonable doubt of the man’s guilt and responsibility under the law, it is your duty to acquit him.

In order to satisfy you, gentlemen, that the defendant is guilty, the People have produced a line of testimony tending to show that on the day of the shooting, to wit, the sixth day of September, 1901, that this defendant did shoot and kill the President of the United States. They have given evidence tending to show that the defendant pre- [123][124] meditated and deliberated upon the commission of this alleged crime before he committed it.

If you are satisfied, Gentlemen of the Jury, from the evidence in those respects that there was a predetermined design on the part of this defendant to effect the death of William McKinley and in pursuance of that design these shots were fired and his life was sacrificed, he is guilty of murder in the first degree. Unless you are satisfied of that fact, it is your duty, as I have already said to you, to acquit the defendant.

Something has been said, and very properly, too, concerning the person who was killed—the President of the United States. The President of the United States stood on the occasion of this shooting, as counsel upon both sides of this case have told you, as the representative of the majesty and dignity of the Nation, and the attack upon him for which the defendant was arrested if he was responsible for the act is indeed a high crime.

It was an assault upon the dignity and the majesty of the law. But you, Gentlemen of the Jury, should not be permitted, nor should thoughts of that kind be permitted under any circumstances to sway you from the line of your duty as you may see it. In other words, the oath which you took when you entered the panel here to try this man was that you would give a true verdict according to the evidence in this case. What that evidence proves, Gentlemen of the Jury, is for you to say. You are not bound to find criminal responsibility from any or all of the evidence which has been given upon this case. In other words, it is for you to say whether it is true—what the fact is. In the language of the books, you are the sole judges of all the questions of fact involved in the case. The fact, Gentlemen of the Jury, that a verdict of guilty might necessitate the death of the defendant should not be permitted to sway you from the discharge of your duty as you see it. I have said that you are bound to find the defendant guilty and criminally responsible for his act beyond a reasonable doubt before you can convict.

Now, it may be when you come to retire and deliberate upon this case that you may ask yourselves “What is a reasonable doubt,” I think it is sufficient upon that subject to say to you that while a great deal has been written and a great deal has been said in defining what a reasonable doubt is, that it means so far as your application of the principle here is concerned, that you are bound to sift, compare and examine all of the evidence and all of the circumstances which you have developed upon this trial; and [124][125] if, when you have done that, there exists in your mind a doubt as to the criminal responsibility of this man, you are bound to acquit him. If you are satisfied after such an examination and such a comparison that there is no question about the man’s guilt, you are bound to convict.

Gentlemen of the Jury, there are, in a homicide, which is the killing of one human being by another, such as the circumstances of this case has developed, provisions of law that a Jury may find the defendant guilty, if they believe him guilty of any crime at all, of any one of four degrees of the crime. The first is murder in the first degree. The second is murder in the second degree. The third is manslaughter in the first degree. The fourth is manslaughter in the second degree. Your attention will be called further on specifically to what the three first of these provisions of the law relate.

I want to say this at this time: That up to this time, up to this point in the progress of this lamentable affair, that so far as the Court, so far as the jurors in the presence of the Court, so far as other people in the presence of the Court is concerned, there has been that decorum and that respect which, it seems to me, ought to furnish an object lesson to the people of our country as perhaps, it will to the people of other countries. There has been up to this time no attempt to unfairly influence you or unfairly secure a verdict one way or the other at your hands either by the defense or by the People. Counsel have discussed the facts and circumstances of this occurrence from their respective points of view as it was their duty to do; and you have had the privilege of listening to counsel experienced in the law concerning the rights of the defendant, concerning the enormity of the crime and all that, if he is criminally responsible at all. The fact that the man who was killed was the President of the United States, as I have already said to you, in and of itself is not of much significance. The crime is against the majesty and the dignity of the law, and I believe, Gentlemen of the Jury, that we can pay no higher tribute to the man who is dead then to observe that exalted opinion and reverence for the law which he would ask if he were here. As it seems to me, it has been well said that a disposition to incite others to the commission of crime, is certainly reprehensible, except possibly in degree, in the minds of some of us as the alleged crime which we are trying here today. Incitement to unlawful violence, to lynching and to commit offences against the law evidences at any rate anarchists in embryo. The man [125][126] who is ready to go out on the street today and commit a crime because some other man has committed a crime is as guilty in his heart as the man who has already committed the act; and it is for that reason if I can do anything in this case to impress upon the community, to impress upon the people of this state, the necessity for the observance of the law and its due and orderly administration, I will accomplish certainly a good purpose.

Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, to be more specific, let me say to you this, and this which I am about to say to you should be your guide in the conduct and consideration of this case when it is placed in your hands. If you will listen carefully, I think your duties will be plain; and, in this connection, it is but fair to say that so far as the legal aspects of this case are concerned, it is your duty and your oath compels you to observe the principles by which you are to be guided as laid down to you by the Court. So let me say in closing that if on the sixth day of September, 1901, the defendant did wrongfully without justifiable cause or excuse assault shoot and wound William McKinley at the place, in the manner and by the means alleged in the indictment upon which he is being tried, and such assault, shooting and wounding were committed from a deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of the said William McKinley, or of another, and if the said William McKinley thereafter died from the effects of such assault, shooting and wounding, and such assault, shooting and wounding were the sole and proximate cause of his death, and if at the time of such assault, shooting and wounding the defendant was not laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or that it was wrong, he is guilty of murder in the first degree. If you in your deliberations find that the defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment, you will render your verdict in that form. When you are asked by the Clerk as to how you find, your verdict will be, if you find him guilty of murder in the first degree, “Guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment.”

If, however, you gentlemen are not satisfied that this defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree from all the evidence and facts and circumstances in the case, then you will proceed to determine whether he is guilty of murder in the second degree. In that regard it is sufficient for me to say to you that if on the sixth day of September, 1901, the defendant did wrongfully, without justifiable [126][127] cause or excuse, assault, shoot and wound William McKinley at the place, in the manner and by the means alleged in the indictment upon which he is being tried, and such assault, shooting and wounding were committed with a design to effect the death of said William McKinley, or of another, but without premeditation and deliberation, and if the said William McKinley died thereafter from the effects of such assault, shooting and wounding, and such assault, shooting and wounding were the sole and proximate cause of his death, and if at the time of such assault, shooting and wounding the defendant was not laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or that it was wrong, he is guilty of murder in the second degree.

The second proposition, as I have given it to you, eliminates premeditation and deliberation.

If you should not find him guilty of murder in the first degree, therefore, and you find under the evidence in the case that he is guilty in the manner and to the extent that I have already called your attention to, then the form of your verdict will be, when asked by the Clerk how you find, “Guilty of murder in the second degree.”

If, however, you find there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to his guilt upon both of those propositions, you will pass to the consideration of the question whether he is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. In that regard, if on September sixth, 1901, the defendant assaulted, shot and wounded William McKinley at the place, in the manner and by the means as alleged in the indictment, with a dangerous weapon—and in this case the evidence is that the weapon used was a revolver loaded with powder and balls—without justification or excuse and without a design to effect the death of said William McKinley, or of another, and the said William McKinley thereafter died solely in consequence of the effects of such assault, shooting and wounding by means of a dangerous weapon, and the defendant was not at the time of such assault, shooting and wounding laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or that it was wrong, then, Gentlemen of the Jury, he is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree.

I do not think the evidence in this case calls upon me to say anything concerning the crime of manslaughter in the second degree.

You see the test of responsibility is made by law and is whether or not the defendant was laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature or quality of [127][128] the act that he was doing or that it was wrong. In other words if he was laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and the quality of the act that he was doing or that it was wrong, it is your duty, Gentlemen of the Jury, to acquit him in this case. That is the test so far as the plea or claim of irresponsibility is concerned. If he premeditated and deliberated upon the commission of this shooting, and if it was done with a design to effect the death of William McKinley, and if at that time he was not laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act that he was doing or that it was wrong, he is responsible. That is the test so far as responsibility is concerned under the laws of this state.

Gentlemen of the Jury, I commend the patience and the care which I have observed on your part as the evidence was being given in this case, to its smallest detail. You have been patient, as I say, and apparently you have been attentive to the case as presented by the People and the time has now come when it is to be left in your hands for a final determination.

It is very desirable, Gentlemen of the Jury, that this proceeding, as it has been characterized from the beginning, shall continue to the end; that there shall be no unseemly demonstrations; that there shall be no conduct which would bring the blush of shame to the cheeks of any one, either on your part or on the part of the people who listen to the proceedings in this case; and in that behalf, Gentlemen of the Jury, I ask that when you have determined this case that your conduct shall have been such as to elicit the approval, not only of your fellow citizens in this community, but the people of all communities who have kept watch upon the progress of this trial, that your conduct may be evidence of a genuine, a tender and a reverent solicitude for the dignity and the majesty of the law.

You may be seated.

Mr. Penney, have you any requests?

MR. PENNEY: I ask your Honor to charge the Jury that the law presumes every individual sane.

THE COURT: Just a moment.

MR. PENNEY: I ask your Honor to charge the Jury that the law presumes every person sane. [128][129]

THE COURT: The law in this case presumes that the defendant was sane.

MR. PENNEY: I ask your Honor to charge the Jury that the burden of overthrowing the presumption of sanity and of showing insanity is upon the person who alleges it.

THE COURT: The burden of showing insanity is upon the person who alleges it. Is that all?

MR. TITUS: You do not want that charged in that way?

MR. PENNEY: I concede that that last part be stricken out. The counsel objects to it.

THE COURT: The burden in the first place, Gentlemen of the Jury, upon that proposition is with the defendant to give some evidence tending to show insanity on his part, or irresponsibility; but in that connection, when evidence of that kind is given, if it is given at all, it is incumbent upon the People to rebut or meet it with other evidence and remove all doubt in your minds—all reasonable doubt in your minds upon the subject.

MR. TITUS: I did not intend to ask your Honor to charge anything before the counsel got up to request your Honor to charge, but I now ask your Honor to charge that if the Jury are satisfied from all the evidence in the case that at the time of the committing of this assault he was laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the quality of the act he was doing or not to know the act was wrong, that then he is not responsible and they must acquit him.

THE COURT: I so charge. I intended to make it very plain to the Jury in the first place. Is that all, Judge Titus?

MR. TITUS: That is all, sir. [129][130]

THE COURT: You gentlemen may now retire with the officers.

(The Jury retire in charge of sworn officers.)

(The Jury return into court at 4:25 P.M.)

The Clerk called the Jury.

THE CLERK: Gentlemen of the Jury, have you agreed upon a verdict?

THE FOREMAN: We have.

THE CLERK: How do you find?

THE FOREMAN: Guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment.

THE CLERK: Gentlemen, listen to your verdict as the Court has recorded it. You say you find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment. So say you all?

THE JURY (In chorus): We do.

THE COURT: That ends your services, Gentlemen of the Jury, in connection with this case. You are excused until tomorrow morning at eleven o’clock.

MR. PENNEY: Will the Court fix the time of sentence?

THE COURT: The Statute gives the defense two days if they desire it, or they can waive it.

MR. PENNEY: I understand they do not desire to waive it.

THE COURT: They do not?

MR. PENNEY: No, sir. On speaking with Judge Titus, he said Thursday morning would be agreeable to him. [130][131]

THE COURT: Say Thursday at two o’clock, if that is satisfactory.

MR. PENNEY: Yes, sir. Is that satisfactory to you, Judge?

MR. TITUS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Crier, you may adjourn the court until tomorrow morning at eleven o’clock.

CRIER HESS: This Court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o’clock.

 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1901.

 

CRIER HESS: Pursuant to a reason this trial term of the Supreme Court is now open for the transaction of business.

THE COURT: Mr. Penney, the Court is at your service.

MR. PENNEY: I move sentence in the case of the People against Leon F. Czolgosz, your Honor. Stand up, Czolgosz, please.

(Defendant stands up.)

CRIER HESS: Put your right hand on the Book.

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that you will true answers make to such questions as shall be put to you touching your name, your place of birth and occupation and such other questions as shall be asked you, so help you God?

Mr. Penney then examined the defendant as follows:

Q. Leon, how old are you?
A. 28.

Q. 28? Where were you born?
A. Detroit.

Q. Detroit?
A. Yes, sir. [131][132]

Q. Where did you live last?
A. Buffalo.

Q. Do you know what place—the street and the number?
A. Broadway.

Q. At Nowak’s?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you any trade or are you a laborer?
A. Laborer.

Q. Are you married?
A. Single.

Q. What schools have you attended?
A. Small—common school.

Q. Been to the church school, too?
A. Yes.

Q. Catholic church?
A. Yes.

Q. What church were you educated in? Did you use to go to the Catholic church?
A. I did.

Q. Are your father and mother alive?
A. No, sir.

Q. Which is dead?
A. My mother is dead.

Q. Your father is living?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you temperate? Do you know what that means?
A. No, sir.

Q. Do you drink much? Drink intoxicating liquors much?
A. No, sir, don’t drink too much.

Q. You never get drunk? Have you been in the habit of getting drunk? You are not, are you? [132][133]

THE COURT: Pass to something else, Mr. Penney.

Q. Have you been convicted of any crime before this?
A. No, sir.

THE CLERK: Have you any legal cause to show why sentence of the court should not now be pronounced against you?

THE DEFENDANT: Can’t hear that.

THE COURT: People in the room should remain absolutely quiet and those who are unwilling to do that until the proceeding here is terminated should retire from the room at this time.

THE CLERK: Have you any legal cause to show why sentence of the Court should not now be pronounced against you?

THE DEFENDANT: I would rather have this gentleman speak, over here. (Referring to Mr. Penney.)

MR. PENNEY: The Clerk asks you if you have any legal cause to show why sentence should not now be pronounced against you. Do you understand?

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

MR. PENNEY: He wants to know if you have any reason to tell the Court why you should not now be sentenced—say anything to the Judge. Have you anything to say to the Judge before sentence? Say yes or no, if you have.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

MR. PENNEY: Make your statement then.

THE COURT: Does he answer?

MR. PENNEY: He says Yes, he has something to say.

THE COURT: In that behalf, Czolgosz, what you have a right to say— [133][134]

THE DEFENDANT: I want to say this much—

THE COURT: Wait a moment.

MR. PENNEY: Listen to the Judge.

THE COURT: (Resuming) —relates explicitly to the subject in hand here at this time, and the legal causes which the law provides that you may claim in exempting you from having judgment pronounced against you at this time are defined by statute. The first is, that you may claim that you were insane; the next is, that you have good cause to offer either in arrest of the judgment about to be pronounced against you or for a new trial. Those are the grounds specified by statute upon which you have the right to speak at this time, and you are at perfect liberty to do so freely.

THE DEFENDANT: I have nothing to say about that.

MR. PENNEY: He says, “I have nothing to say about that.”

THE COURT: Are you ready?

MR. PENNEY: I am through, sir.

THE COURT: Nothing to say?

THE DEFENDANT: What is it?

MR. PENNEY: What is your answer, Leon?

THE DEFENDANT: What is it?—in regard—?

(Mr. Titus talks with Defendant inaudibly.)

MR. TITUS: If the Court please, I think he ought to be permitted—

THE COURT: Have you anything to say in behalf of the prisoner, Judge Titus?

MR. TITUS: I think he ought to be permitted to make a statement in exculpation of his family, if the Court will permit it? (To the Defendant:) Go on. [134][135]

THE COURT: Well, Judge Titus that depends, of course.

MR. TITUS: What does your Honor say?

THE COURT: It will depend upon what the statement is.

MR. TITUS: Well, so far as the commission—

THE COURT: Have you anything to say in behalf of the defendant at this time?

MR. TITUS: Well, I have nothing to say within the definition your Honor has read, as to what we can say, but it seemed to me that in order that innocent people should not suffer by this defendant’s crime, that the Court should permit him to exculpate, at least his father and brothers and sisters.

THE COURT: Certainly, if that is the object of any statement that he will make.

MR. TITUS: That is what he tells me.

THE COURT: Yes. Proceed, Czolgosz.

THE DEFENDANT: I would like to say this much; that the crime was committed by no one else but me; no one told me to do it and I never told anybody to do it.

MR. TITUS: Your father and mother had nothing to do with it?

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir; not only my father and mother, but there hasn’t anybody else had nothing to do with this.

THE COURT: What does he say?

MR. TITUS: He says no one had anything to do with the commission of this crime but himself; that his father or mother or no one else had anything to do with it. [135][136]

MR. TITUS: Did they know anything about it?

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir, they didn’t know about it.

THE COURT: Does he desire to say anything further?

MR. TITUS: And knew nothing about it. (To the defendant:) Anything further you want to say?

THE DEFENDANT: I never told anything to nobody; I never told anything of that kind, I never thought of that until a couple of days before I committed the crime.

MR. TITUS: He never told anybody that he intended to commit the crime, nor did not intend to until a couple of days before its commission.

THE COURT: Anything further, Czolgosz?

THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

THE COURT: Czolgosz, in taking the life of our beloved President you committed a crime which shocked and outraged the moral sense of the civilized world. You have confessed your guilt, and, after learning all that can at this time be learned of the facts and circumstances of the case, twelve good men have pronounced your confession true and have found you guilty of murder in the first degree. You declare, according to the testimony of credible witnesses that no other person aided or abetted you in the commission of this terrible act. God grant it may be so. The penalty for the crime of which you stand convicted is fixed by statute, and it now becomes my duty to pronounce its judgment against you. The sentence of the court is that in the week beginning October 28, 1901, at the place, in the manner and by the means prescribed by law, you suffer the punishment of death.

Remove the prisoner.

 

 


top of page