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.

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