Welcome to MAIWelcome to MAI

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

Who I Am
Contact Me


Publication information
view printer-friendly version
Source: American Journal of Insanity
Source type: journal
Document type: article
Document title: “The Mental Status of Czolgosz, the Assassin of President McKinley”
Author(s): Channing, Walter
Date of publication: October 1902
Volume number: 59
Issue number: 2
Pagination: 233-78

Channing, Walter. “The Mental Status of Czolgosz, the Assassin of President McKinley.” American Journal of Insanity Oct. 1902 v59n2: pp. 233-78.
full text
Leon Czolgosz (mental health); Leon Czolgosz (trial: personal response); McKinley assassination (investigation: Buffalo, NY: criticism); Leon Czolgosz (psychiatric examination: criticism); Leon Czolgosz (physiognomical examination); Leon Czolgosz (family background); Czolgosz family; Paul Czolgosz; Leon Czolgosz; Waldeck Czolgosz; Leon Czolgosz (medical condition); Leon Czolgosz (activities, whereabouts, etc.: Cleveland, OH); Jacob Czolgosz; Julia Czolgosz; Joseph Czolgosz; Katherine Metzfaltr Czolgosz; Victoria Czolgosz; Leon Czolgosz (friends, acquaintances, coworkers, etc.); Emilia Dreyer; Knights of the Golden Eagle; Leon Czolgosz (correspondence); Leon Czolgosz (connection with anarchists); Emil Schilling; Leon Czolgosz (activities, whereabouts, etc.: Chicago, IL); Abraham Isaak; Emma Goldman (public addresses); Leon Czolgosz (activities, whereabouts, etc.: Buffalo, NY); Leon Czolgosz (confession); Leon Czolgosz (incarceration: Buffalo, NY); McKinley assassination (investigation: Buffalo, NY); Leon Czolgosz (psychiatric examination); William S. Bull; Leon Czolgosz (incarceration: Auburn, NY); Leon Czolgosz (autopsy); assassins (mental health); Leon Czolgosz (as anarchist).
Named persons
Celia Czolgosz Bandowski [variant first name below]; Thomas Bandowski; Edward Bellamy; Henry J. Berkley; Gaetano Bresci [misspelled below]; L. Vernon Briggs [in notes]; William S. Bull; J. Sanderson Christison; George Coonish; George E. Corner; Floyd S. Crego; Frank Czolgosz; Jacob Czolgosz; Joseph Czolgosz; Leon Czolgosz; Michael Czolgosz (brother); Michael Czolgosz (uncle); Paul Czolgosz; Victoria Czolgosz; Waldeck Czolgosz; Albert Dreyer [misspelled below]; Emilia Dreyer [misspelled below]; Henry C. Eyman; Joseph Fowler; John Ginder [identified as Gunther and Gunder below]; Emma Goldman; Charles J. Guiteau; Humbert I; Abraham Isaak [first name wrong below]; David Jones; Cesare Lombroso; Carlos F. MacDonald [in notes]; William McKinley; Charles A. Mercier; Henry Molitor; John Nowak; James W. Putnam; Emmanuel Régis; Emil Schilling; Edward A. Spitzka; William Henry Vanderbilt; Augustin Weisbach.
Click here to view the article by Lombroso referred to below in footnote 8.

The identity of Hauser (below) cannot be determined.

The identity of Dr. Blumer (below) cannot be determined. Possibly it is G. Alder Blumer.

The article (below) includes ten footnotes. Click on the superscripted number preceding each footnote to navigate to its location in the text:
1 My thanks are due to Dr. L. Vernon Briggs, of Boston, who at my request has at the cost of great labor and pains collected evidence for me in various parts of the country. [p. 233]
2 Post-mortem Examination of Leon F. Czolgosz, by Edward Anthony Spitzka, Medical Record, January 4. 1902. [p. 236]
3 Official Report of the Experts for the People in the Case of the People vs. Leon F. Czolgosz. [p. 254]
4 This may possibly have been the anarchist Isaak. [p. 255]
5 “The Trial, Execution, Autopsy and Mental Status of Leon F. Czolgosz, alias Fred Nieman, Assassin of President McKinley,” by Carlos F. MacDonald, A. M., M. D., New York. [p. 256]
6 Op. cit. [p. 261]
7 A Treatise on Mental Disease, by Henry J. Berkley, M. D., p. 51. [p. 261]
8 “Anarchy; The Status of Anarchy to-day in Europe and the United States,” by Cesare Lombroso, published in Everybody’s Magazine. [p. 269]
9 Psychology, Normal and Morbid, by Charles A. Mercier, London, 1901. [p. 273]
10 “Epilepsy and Responsibility in the Czolgosz Case. Was the Assassin Sane or Insane?” [p. 275]
The originally published article includes the following seven plates:
  • Plate IV [between pages 234 and 235] — Two photographs, captioned “Leon F. Czolgosz, 1899” and “Leon F. Czolgosz, after Arrest, September, 1901.”
  • Plate V [between pages 236 and 237] — Two photographs, collectively captioned “Paul Czolgosz, Father, 1902.”
  • Plate VI [between pages 240 and 241] — One photograph, captioned “Jacob Czolgosz, Younger Brother, 1902.”
  • Plate VII [between pages 256 and 257] — Facsimile of Czolgosz letter to member of Knights of the Golden Eagle lodge, dated 11 August 1899.
  • Plate VIII [between pages 256 and 257] — Facsimile of Czolgosz letter to his family, dated 14 July 1901.
  • Plate IX [between pages 256 and 257] — First portion of facsimile of Czolgosz letter to member of Knights of the Golden Eagle lodge, dated 30 July 1901.
  • Plate X [between pages 256 and 257] — Second portion of facsimile letter begun on Plate IX.
“By Walter Channing, M. D.” (p. 233).


The Mental Status of Czolgosz, the Assassin of President McKinley

     Most of the matter presented in this paper bearing on the history of Czolgosz before the crime and his family is new, having been personally collected either by my assistant or myself in Cleveland and other places.1
     In offering it as a contribution to the subject I have no wish to prove either that Czolgosz was or was not insane, unless on the whole there are data enough to justify an opinion one way or the other.
     It would be a most comfortable position to take that the trial of Czolgosz had settled the matter once for all, but unfortunately as there was no defense, any evidence in his favor was not brought forward. In an ordinary trial what evidence there might be in the prisoner’s case would be considered with deliberation and thoroughness, but public opinion had indignantly condemned Czolgosz in advance, and no court and jury could be expected to stand up and oppose the will of the people, and hence in an eight and a half hours’ trial, with no defense, he was condemned unheard.
     From personal experience in the Guiteau trial I had some knowledge of the pressure, direct and indirect, exerted by the force of public opinion, and in that case became aware that in the very shadow of such a terrible tragedy as the assassination of the ruler of the country, a scientific investigation free from prejudice was hardly possible. At this date no doubt can be entertained by fair-minded alienists, that Guiteau was insane, and yet at the time of his trial a large number of experts who [233][234] had seen him day after day for weeks testified on the witness stand that he was sane. The fact that these men, who intended to give a fair opinion, were misled, shows that sometimes the nearer one may be to the scene of action, the less possible it is to be calm and judicial and unbiased in forming an opinion.
     It is well to remember here that there are two methods of conducting an investigation into the mental condition of a criminal. One is the scientific, which obtains all the evidence, not only at the time the crime was committed and afterward, but before and as far back as possible. Every alienist knows that it is of the first importance to determine what the normal make-up of the man has shown itself to be before we pass judgment on him as to what he was at the time he committed the crime. Delusions which may have dominated him are often subtle and difficult to detect, especially as the crime sometimes is in the nature of an explosion, which for the time being relieves mental tension and makes it more possible for the criminal to act temporarily in what appears to be a normal manner. It is possible that much sifting of data and much time may be required, before a conclusion can be arrived at. In a doubtful case haste is most fatal to a thorough scientific investigation.
     The second method to which I refer, we might call the popular or pseudo-scientific one. This perhaps starts with an assumption one way or the other and evidence in favor of this assumption is accepted, and to the contrary rejected. Such a procedure as this being prejudiced from the start, clews which might lead to valuable results are neglected. The whole investigation is in fact one-sided and unlike the scientific one, which starts with no assumption and comes to no conclusion, until all the facts obtainable have been carefully weighed.
     While it is far from my purpose to suggest that the medico-legal investigation of the Czolgosz case was conducted after the latter method, such reports as have appeared have been brief and lacking in details, and can hardly be regarded as furnishing a satisfactory scientific basis of an opinion. They apparently rest chiefly on what the man said and how he appeared after the crime. Whether or not he was in what for him was his normal condition, could not be told by anything published [234][235] except in as far as he stated himself. No apparent effort was made to trace his history back and see if the crime was an act rationally consistent with such a man as he was in health.
     I regret that the experts were forced to take such immediate action as they did and present an opinion based upon only a portion of the data available. For this reason I regard it as desirable to publish the facts embodied in this paper. No doubt others will obtain more, and by and by when we get at the whole history of Czolgosz from beginning to end, we may have enough data to give us the final verdict which will stand in the future as the correct one. It is a strange way that history has of slowly but surely getting at the truth of a matter and often reversing the conclusions arrived at in the heat of the battle.


     Looking at the photograph taken in 1899 (Plate IV), two years before the assassination, which has not been touched up by the photographer for effect, we see a well-modelled [sic] head as to the zygomatic arches and upper lip, the latter handsomely curved. The forehead looks a trifle narrow, but fairly high. The nose is straight and well proportioned. The ears look symmetrical. The eyes are somewhat wide apart and set a little deeper than usual. The prison officer spoke of the upper lids seeming heavy, giving the eyes a dreamy look. The left lid is a little more elevated than the right. The chin, while not square, is well shaped and firm. The mouth is well proportioned and firmly closed. There is a deep naso-labial fold on the right and a slight labial fold. These folds indicate a tendency to contract the muscles of the right side of the face, and constitute a slight asymmetry.
     The general expression is at first sight pleasant, but finally leaves an impression of introspection and cynicalness. This is increased by the cold and fixed expression of the eyes.
     The finely chiselled [sic] upper lip with its cupid bow lends a certain attractiveness to the face, and the whole effect is that we are looking at a good-tempered, straightforward, frank, honest young man, free from vice and depravity, perhaps a trifle effeminate, but refined and in intelligence above the average of his class. [235][236]
     The photographs taken after the crime (Plate IV) are not as good a piece of work, but the essential features are the same. There is in the front view the same serenity, reflectiveness and directness and not an indication that a ripple of excitement has disturbed the mental life beneath. “This must be the face of some inoffensive young man,” I am tempted to say. “This surely cannot be a murderer with blood still red on his hands.” The profile view is not pleasing and has the effect of a weak and womanish face. In this the Adam’s apple is prominent.
     Mr. Spitzka describes the features of the assassin as follows:2 “The nose is pointed, slightly retroussé and fairly straight, deviating a little at the point of the injury inflicted at the time of the assassination. The eyes are blue. The hair light brown and slightly curly. The face is oval and symmetrical. The ears are well formed and absolutely symmetrical. The mouth is well shaped. The lips full. The teeth are of normal shape, but in poor condition.
     “The head of Czolgosz is typical of the Poles and falls into the sub-brachycephalic class; according to Weisbach the cephalic index of 40 Poles was 82.9 (82.88 in Czolgosz).”


     The Family.—The family history of Czolgosz is as follows: His paternal grandfather died at 40 after a severe cold. Paternal grandmother died at 72, of old age. Maternal grandfather died of causes unknown. Maternal grandmother died at 30 of some blood disease. Maternal aunt insane; cause of death unknown. Leon’s mother died six weeks after birth of a child. His father, Paul, is 59 years of age, laborer, married twice. The brothers are Waldeck, 34 years of age, mill-hand, unmarried. Frank, 32, mill-hand, married. Jacob, 23, U. S. pensioner, married. Joseph, 22, beef-packer, unmarried. Michael, 21 years, farmer, unmarried. The sisters are Ceceli, age unknown, married, house-keeper. Victoria, 18, unmarried, waitress.
     Paul the father was born in Prussia. Arrived in this country [236][237] early in 1873 and the family soon followed. They lived in the following places in Michigan: Detroit City seven years, Rogers City six months, Alpena five years, Posen five years, Natrona near Pittsburg [sic], Pa., nearly two years. In 1892 they arrived at Cleveland and have lived there, or in a place called Warrensville not far off, since that time. The family have the reputation of being hard workers.
     The father is rather a rough looking man (Plate V). He has blue eyes, dark brown hair mixed with grey. Heavy ears standing out from the head. Defective lower jaw. The photograph of the front view of the father as far as the upper part of the face is concerned brings out no asymmetries and is even rather pleasant, but the profile view is different. In the latter, although the head is carried unusually far back, the forehead appears low. The upper part of the face is prominent in relation to the chin, which is not well developed. The lips protrude, the upper one covered with a heavy moustache. This combined with a nose fiat at the base and broad and prominent at the alae gives a deformed look to the face. The eyes are deeply set under thick eyebrows. The skin is leathery-looking, bagging under the chin and furrowed in every direction, even in the neck. This is largely explained by exposure to the air. The expression is dogged, somewhat sullen, sad and rather stupid. When we remember the strain that must have been on the father since the terrible crime committed by the son, we must ascribe some of his appearance to that, and we must remember also that he is an ignorant Pole who has had to fight his way for many years in a land of strangers, but making due allowance for these things the physiognomy is indifferent and stupid. Like the sons that I saw the father is emotional. He displayed much feeling in my interview with him and the foreman said he probably would not recover from it for several days.
     Attention should be called to the left hand posed by request to show its peculiar conformation and to the round medallion picture of the dead son mounted on a black rosette on the left coat lapel. He wears this only on his best clothes, but the son Waldeck wears a similar one constantly. I understand that it is customary with the Poles to wear this insignia of mourning.
     The father is unable to speak more than a few words of Eng- [237][238] lish. He has a weak memory and seems entirely unable to give any dates. He has worked at various kinds of labor. At one time he was in the lumber business; has owned several farms and has worked on the city sewers. He is now employed by the city of Cleveland in the Water Works Department. He worked at one time in Michigan with many others for a man named Molitor who tyrannized over them. Molitor was finally killed by his workmen. The newspapers have stated that Paul Czolgosz was one of them. The son Waldeck claims that the father was not in Rogers City when Molitor was killed. Of the mother little is known outside of the circumstances of her death as detailed by the father. She was 30 years old when Leon was born, a month after she arrived in this country.
     As a little child the father says Leon was quiet and retired. It was hard for him to get acquainted with other children; he cared to play with only a few. If he was angry he would not say anything but he had the appearance of thinking more than most children. He sometimes did not want to do what he was told, but perhaps not more so than other children. As far as the father can remember Leon never had any convulsions or fits or any children’s diseases. He minded his own mother better than the step-mother. As he grew older he was very bashful. This was always characteristic so that the father cannot understand how he could become so violent if he was not insane. He went to both English and Polish schools for about five years altogether, part of the time going to evening school. The father does not remember that he had any chum or intimate acquaintance of either sex and never saw him in company with any girl. He says Leon had not been a hard worker since 1898 because he was ill; that he liked to read, and the father did not oblige him to work because he thought him sick, and because the boys owned most of the farm.
     The Brother Waldeck.—Waldeck is rather undersized in height, strong and thick-set. Hair is brown, brown moustache, grey eyes, florid complexion, smooth skin, large mouth, short nose with the flattened bridge like the father’s, and undeveloped jaw.
     Waldeck says that Leon went to work in the wire mills where he worked continuously from 1892 to 1898. The days were long and they got pretty tired. He does not remem- [238][239] ber that Leon read very much. About ’93-’94, Leon with a great many others was laid off on a strike. At this time he “got quiet and not so happy.” He applied again for work at the same place and gave the name of Fred. C. Nieman, by which name he has been known more or less ever since. He describes Leon as cool, getting mad if plagued about drinking or the girls, and not inclined to talk. That he drank little and did not swear and did not associate with any girl.
     In ’98 he left work saying he was ill; he went to doctors who told him he ought to stop work at once. He gives the names of several doctors whom Leon went to for treatment. About ’93 or ’94, this being the time of the strike, Waldeck says he and his brother were strict attendants at the Catholic church. Up to this time they had believed what the priest told them, which was that if they got into any trouble or need, and prayed, their prayers would be answered. That they both prayed very hard but they were not answered. They went to the priests and said they wanted proof and were told again that they would be helped if they would pray, but they were not, so they bought a Polish Bible, and found after reading it several times that the priests “told it their own way and kept back most of what was in the book.” Waldeck remembers Leon saying once that he believed “the priest’s trade was the same as the shoemaker’s or any other.” Waldeck produced the Bible which they had used and which was much worn. They got other books and pamphlets about the Bible and on other subjects and studied them; then they “knew how it was.” They read these books together for about a year and a half, when Leon preferred to read alone and read a good deal. Some of the books Waldeck produced and I have them now in my possession. Among them is Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” in Polish. Another was one of the so-called “Peruna Almanacks” and Waldeck said Leon liked this because it always told him his lucky days.
     About three years ago Leon was so ill that Waldeck advised him to go to the hospital. He seemed “gone to pieces like” and looked pale. But Leon said, “there is no place in the hospital for poor people; if you have lots of money you get well taken care of.” While on the farm Leon did not do any heavy work unless obliged to, although he was not unwilling to take [239][240] a hand if he saw it was necessary. Most of his time was spent in repairing old machinery and wagons on the farm. He fussed around with small things. He sometimes traded horses and Waldeck remembers that he got badly left at least once. Leon once applied for a conductor’s job on the electric railroad but Waldeck knows of no other work he sought other than this since ’97. He liked to be away from the other men and by himself, doing little but jobbing around or reading or sleeping. He was a good hunter. He owned a breech-loading shot gun, and, beginning early in the fall and up to as late in the winter as he could track rabbits, he would go hunting every day. He usually went with a shot gun, revolver, stick and sometimes a bag. If the rabbit was some distance off he would shoot him with the shot gun, if he was near he would use the revolver with which he was quite skillful. He would take the sack and cover one end of the rabbit hole, then with a long stick or sometimes with a fire built at the other end, he would drive the rabbit into the bag when he would kill it.
     In March or April, 1901, Leon was quite restless and wanted to get his money out of the farm so he could leave the city. He kept up this talk about getting his money until July, sometimes getting quite put out that he could not realize on his share. From this time he commenced his trips to the city, or it was thought he went to the city. First he went one day a week; a little later he went for two or three days; then he would go one day one week and the next week two or three days. They asked him where he went; he said to attend meetings. They thought it was the meetings of the Golden Eagle or some insurance association that he was interested in or to solicit insurance, but as he was naturally secretive they did not question him very closely. The society mentioned is a benefit association of which there are several. Leon said to Waldeck, “if I cannot get my money now I want it in the summer.” In July he said the same thing again. Waldeck said, “what do you want the money for?” They were standing on the street near a tree that was dying, and Leon said, “look, it is just the same as a tree that commences dying; you can see it isn’t going to live long.” This referred to Leon’s not living long. Waldeck said that if Leon went West he could not stay long because he had so little [240][241] money. Leon said, “I can get a conductor’s job, or binding wheat, or fixing machines, or something.” Just before Leon went away he told Waldeck he “had got to go away and must have the money.” Waldeck said, “why you got to go so far; what is the matter with you?” Leon answered, “I can’t stand it any longer.”
     The Brother Jacob.—Jacob is above the average in height; hollow-chested and large-boned (Plate VI). Is a gawky looking fellow. Has the characteristic nose of the family. He is living on a pension he receives from the government, owing to slight injuries received during the Spanish war while he was doing government work in this country.
     The wife of Jacob is an intelligent young woman twenty-three years of age. She was married about the 23d of June, 1901, but had known the family for some time before that. She had thought Leon odd and not like other boys and that he acted queerly. He said he was sick but she could not see that he was, and “if you said anything to him about his sickness he would get mad.” He also told her he wanted to sell out and go West and she thought as he acted so queerly it would be a good thing for him to go West. She advanced him money so he could go away. For four years he had been living on the farm and not doing anything but catch rabbits, etc. He had a cough when she was out there, on the farm, and “would spit out great chunks.” He was lazy and would go out under a tree and sleep. His stepmother would try to get him to work, but he would not. She did not believe him sick either. Not long before he went away he said to his step-mother he was going to Kansas and she said it would be a good thing as he was always having a fuss with her. He would call her names such as “old woman,” etc. He would play with the children, of whom he seemed very fond, provided he knew them. He would talk childish talk with them, and the way he behaved with them made the sister-in-law say more than once that he must be crazy because he would do such childish things. He was always fixing up boxes, wheels, and tinkering around. He would take the milk from the barn to the cheese house and never wanted any one to go with him. Three or four months before he went away he would not eat anything at the table, and only took [241][242] bread and milk with sometimes a little cake. He would take this up to his room and eat it there. He took two quarts of milk a day and sometimes more. “He never talked much and did not like it if you talked to him too much.” He liked to be let alone and was always called “cranky” at home. He did not dress well on the farm but was “all ragged out.”
     The day the sister-in-law gave him the money, which was the day he left, he seemed quite happy. He went up-stairs and dressed in his best clothes, and went out, taking nothing with him except what he had on his back. He did not want his parents to know he was going. He told the sister-in-law he was going to Kansas, but said to his sister that he was going to California for his health.
     The Brother Joseph.—Joseph, the youngest brother but one of the family, has a markedly good reputation. He is of correct habits as far as is known, in every respect. He has worked in one place for eight years, where his employers have a high opinion of him. He says “Leon was a nice boy.” He lived by himself. He did not like strangers; that he never talked to girls and when he met or saw those he knew when they were coming from church or other times, he would cross the street rather than speak with them. That he “was always awful bashful.” That he slept well at night and slept a good deal otherwise. That he was very fond of hunting. That he was a good mechanic and always fixing up boxes and wagons. He took a sewing machine apart and put it together again. He said Leon was sick about five years ago; he had a cough, and while he did not look sick he was always taking medicine and sent a long way off for an inhaling machine which he used two months. The latter part of the time he was in the country he would “read and sleep all the time.” When asked what he meant by “all the time” he said “a great deal of the time; that it seemed all of the time.” When he got his paper he would sit in a chair and read it; that in a little time he would look at him and he would see the paper had fallen on his breast and Leon would be fast asleep. In a little while he would wake up again and be reading the paper.
     Last winter when the stepmother left the country for the city Leon stayed in the country and cooked for himself and [242][243] the family when they were there. When she returned about March, he would not eat with them or go into the house when she was there if he could help it. He used to take his milk each day from the cans after the cows were milked, about three quarts, and put it in the cellar. When he wanted it he would go down and get it and take it to his room or out under a tree and drink it by himself, taking a little cake and sometimes crackers with it. He seldom took anything else except when the stepmother was away from the house for a time when he would go into the pantry and eat something. There was a little pond near the house where he would fish for small fish and would keep them until his stepmother went out of the house for a time when he would run into the house and cook them and eat them by himself, but if she returned or strangers came in, he would let the fish burn or throw them away.
     Joseph said he did not believe at first that Leon killed the President; he never believed he could do such a thing and does not know now how to account for it. He did not know when he left the farm for two or three days at a time, where he went, but he does not believe he went with anarchists.
     The Sister Victoria.—The sister Victoria is a good looking girl with light hair, fair skin, hazel eyes, and generally well developed. Somewhat flattened nose. She described her brother as “rather lazy but a nice boy.” That he could not get along with his stepmother; they were always nagging each other, and while he never swore he came pretty near it in talking with her. He did not drink or smoke very much. He liked to be by himself. He would eat and sleep most of the time. Would not eat with the rest of the family. Was very fond of gunning but was unable to do heavy work on account of his health. Did not like to be around with other people.
     Uncle Michael and Aunt.—Leon’s uncle Michael and his aunt say they looked on him as an “old woman” or “grandmother” and that they called him so because of his habit of falling asleep and being at times rather stupid.
     His friends, Mr. and Mrs. Dryer.—Dryer bought out a saloon of Paul Czolgosz. He and his wife probably saw more of Leon than any one else before he moved into the country, because he made frequent visits to their place. They only knew [243][244] of his having one chum who worked in the same factory with him. Leon would go into the saloon after his work, wash up and sit down and read the paper which he was always anxious to get. Would sit by himself in the corner and watch the other people play cards. Would not play often himself and if he lost anything he would stop playing. Never heard him swear or use profane language. Never saw him lose his temper though he was plagued about the girls whom he never seemed to have the courage to speak to. He was very particular about his shoes, brushing them when he came in. He would often fall asleep, wake up and sit around and perhaps fall asleep again. Mrs. Dryer said it seemed so strange to her that he could do such a violent act. When he was in the saloon he would never even kill a fly; he would brush them off and perhaps catch them and let them go again, but never kill one. He was especially careful with his money, never spending any unless obliged to. He never would take more than one drink of liquor at a time. Sometimes they would make remarks to him about not spending his money, for instance, they would say, “Oh, come on, blow yourself off,” but he would answer, “No, I have use for my money.” He was never jolly. Mr. Dryer describes him as rather “stupid and dull-like.” Mrs. Dryer says “kind of broke-down like.”
     About four years ago he said he had left the wire works because he was sick, and certainly for several months to their knowledge he was always taking medicine, having a bottle in his pocket and a box of pills. He would never talk to strangers and never said much to any body. When he was not at work he would sometimes sit all day in the saloon “thinking-like,” reading the paper and sleeping.
     Leon was never in any row and he would not take sides with any one who was in a row. Mrs. Dryer said she had urged Leon many times to eat with them but only once had be consented after a great deal of persuasion; then he sat at the table and ate very little.


     For seven years or up to ’98 Czolgosz was employed in wire mills in Cleveland and we had an interesting interview with sev- [244][245] eral of the men with whom he had worked. He was known by the name of Nieman, which name he adopted for purposes of convenience as is the custom of many Poles. His fellow workmen saw him daily during this long period of time and the foreman testified that he was a very steady worker; never gave any trouble, never quarrelled [sic] or had any disputes with other workmen, but was quiet and cheerful. He carried his dinner to the mill as the other men did but never had much to say to them. He sat around and kept to himself though he showed no desire to avoid the other men. The foreman said that he was as good a boy as he ever had, and “he never could have done such a thing.” His occupation was that of wire winder which necessitated a fair amount of intelligence. The foreman pointed out to me on the time books that Czolgosz worked steadily without a break, and while the other men had a good many fines, he had very few and for such little things as letting the wire run slack, etc. He was engaged in ’91 and quit work in August, ’98, as the books show. When he left the foreman said he simply came up and said he was going to quit. That he was going into the country for his health; that he was not well, and it was a surprise to all of them.


     The only association which I have evidence that Czolgosz was a member of is called by the above name. It bears the best reputation. “The proclaimed purpose of its founders and the primary objects of the order are to promote the principles of true benevolence by associating its members together for the purpose of mutual relief against the trials and difficulties attending sickness, distress and death so far as they can be mitigated by sympathy and pecuniary assistance; to care for and protect the widows and orphans; to assist those out of employment and to encourage each other in business; to ameliorate the condition of humanity in every possible manner; to stimulate moral and mental culture and by wholesome precepts, fraternal counsel and social intercourse, to elevate and advance its membership toward a higher and nobler life; and for the inculcation and dissemination of the principles of charity and benevolence as taught by the order. Its foundation is the Bible and it has for its motto [245][246] fidelity, valor and humanity. Any person to become a member must be of good moral character and a law-abiding resident of the country in which he lives, a believer in a Supreme Being and the Christian faith.” It also states as its purpose, besides building up the highest type of character, that it is to stand as the “champion, advocate and auxiliary for the best interest of the church, the state and people.”
     It was into this organization with such high and patriotic aims that Czolgosz was elected while working in the wire mills. Among its prominent members were some of his fellow workmen and it was through his association with them that he was elected into it. The foreman thought it a little strange as he had been a Catholic and the members were above him socially, for him to desire to associate with them. However, his fellow workmen saw no reason why he should not belong to the order and he was therefore elected, which in the circumstances was something of an honor. The secretary told me that joining the society and taking the oath was the same as renouncing the authority of the Catholic church.
     The proof of the great interest that Czolgosz took in the Golden Eagle as well as his connection with it up to the time of his crime is shown by two of the three letters of which I present copies. In the one dated August 11, 1899, he speaks of not being able to work, and in the other he writes more fully as follows (Plate IX):

“Cleveland Ohio July 31st [sic] 1901     

Mr John Gunther
Dear Sir & Brother
inclosed you will find One Dollar to pay my Lodge dues in June I gave one Dollar to brother George coonish [sic] to pay my Assessed on the death of our late Brother David Jones and I was up the hall That night and i [sic] gave one Dollar to our brother at the first guard Room to pay my Lodge dues and I said to him that you have got my book

brother Gunder will you send my book to me at my cost and send me the Pass words [sic] if you can do so”

     At various times after he left the mill in ’98 he furnished to the secretary physician’s certificates that he was out of health and received for at least sixteen weeks sick benefits. He did not go often to the meetings, though he went once in a while, [246][247] and not only was a member in good standing but his fellow members that I saw expressed a very high opinion of him.


     Mr. Corner, Superintendent of Police in Cleveland, who has made a most careful investigation, stated positively to me that he had been unable to connect Czolgosz with anarchists or any society of anarchists. Great weight must be attached to what Mr. Corner says, not only because he is superintendent of police in the city where Czolgosz had lived for a long time, but also because he is one of the best detectives in the country and has looked into the matter very carefully.
     Having learned that Czolgosz had had interviews with Mr. Emil Schilling, a well-known anarchist of Cleveland, I had two long talks with him. He says that on May 19, 1901, Czolgosz or Nieman as he then called himself, came to him saying he was sent by his friend Hauser, of whom he asked where he could find an anarchist or anarchists. He then talked about his ideas. Said he had belonged to the Sila Club (?), but did not belong now to that or the Social Labor party because they quarrelled [sic] a year before. He talked about capitalists and laboring people in a way that Schilling called revolutionary.
     Schilling gave him a book to read about the “Chicago Martyrs” and some numbers of the Free Society, the organ of the anarchists; also took him home to dinner where he was like one of the family and sat down and ate the same as any one, but kept very quiet. “I thought he was all right this time when he called on me. He did not talk German but English. Talked about his farm and said he lived in Bedford on a farm with his brother. He came to see me again in about three weeks and said he had read of anarchists forming plots and of secret meetings. I said we do not do any plotting. He then asked if anarchists did not organize to act; that is if anybody do something against a king or officer and you was an anarchist, would you say you was an anarchist. I told him yes, for every one knew I was an anarchist. When I answered him he was always laughing at my answers as if he either felt superior or had formed a plan and was putting out a feeler.
     “I think that Nieman wanted to be smart enough to find out [247][248] something as a secret detective and I think he was not smart enough to do what he wanted. I think he was very ignorant. He asked his questions in a very quick way, such as, ‘say, have you any secret societies. I hear the anarchists are plotting something like Breschi; the man was selected by the comrades to do the deed that was done.’ I asked him, ‘where did you read that?’ he answered, ‘in some capitalist paper.’ ‘Well,’ I said, ‘you did not read it in any anarchist paper.’
     “During his second visit he came at a time I was eating my supper. I told him to sit down and wait till I was through eating supper. He then handed me the book I gave him to read the first time he called. I asked him how he liked it; he said he did not read it; did not have time. This made me mad and I was suspicious of him. After supper we went out. He refused beer when I invited him to drink but turned round and offered me a cigar. I told him to smoke it himself. He said he never smoked. On our way home I again asked him to have some beer and he said he did not care to drink. Finally he consented to take a glass of pop and he then went home. After his second visit I visited Hauser and asked him about Nieman. He told me he was a good and active member of the Polish Socialist Society of the labor party but that his name was not Fred. Nieman and he had forgotten his real name. I then told him my suspicions and Hauser said to watch out if I thought so.
     “Nieman came again about a week later and only remained with me about an hour. He talked with me and said he was tired of life. Referred to his own affairs and said his stepmother abused him. When asked if his father would not protect him he said no, his father had not his own will but was bound by the will of his stepmother. I did not tell him my suspicions; I wanted him to come once or twice more when I would have settled with him; when I would tell him what I think, and not to come again.
     “The first two times he called he had on his everyday clothes; the last two times he had on his Sunday clothes. He was awful particular about the care for his body; his clothes always nice and clean. He had a red complexion; was healthy looking; a round face. I see on his hands he did not work much.
     “The third time he call he ask me for a letter of introduc- [248][249] tion to Emma Goldman, and then told me he heard her speak in Cleveland in May. She was then in Chicago and I told him he could meet her himself, that I never introduce any one by letter. I told him he could say to her, I have heard you speak in Cleveland, etc. He said, ‘I go to Chicago.’ Said he would like to see her where she is. He had heard her talk; her speech had influence him; please him; he was taken in. Her speech took him; he talked much of her and wanted her acquaintance; wanted to meet her, but I could not introduce him. She was here only two days.
     “The fourth and last time he came was in August. I was just reading a letter from Isaak of Chicago asking about this man Nieman. He said he was a friend of mine, when a knock came on the door and in walked Nieman. I was then suspicious and thought the letter might have been opened in post. I put it in my pocket and told him to sit down. I asked him where he was all these two months. He said he was working in Akron in a cheese factory and then laughed. I thought as I had catched him in a lie I would give him a chance once or twice more. We took a walk with a neighbor, a good man and friend of mine. Three of us walked along the road and old man and me talked business and Nieman did not say anything at all. When we came back to the house he seemed tired and went home. I asked him where he was going. He said, ‘may-be Detroit, may-be Buffalo.’
     “In Chicago he ask Isaak the same questions he ask me and wanted money. Said he would remain in Chicago two or three weeks if he had money but that his family was poor and he could not remain without the money. They told him they had no money but could give him something to eat. He seemed to be disgusted and left right away.
     “Two comrades wanted to take him home for the night and turn his pockets taking any papers or information that they could get as to whether he was a spy or not. In Chicago he must have asked for Emma Goldman. He met her on the wharf as she was leaving on the boat. Isaak and some other comrades were there to bid her good-bye. He introduced himself to Emma as a socialist from Cleveland; he had heard her speak and was a friend of mine. Then Emma turned round and [249][250] introduced him to Isaak and asked him if he was an anarchist. He said no, he was a socialist. Then he said he had not read any anarchist literature but the Free Society. They then walked toward the hall and he asked his questions. All the comrades had their suspicions of him right away. Isaak wrote me asking about him, and he would then tell me more, saying to write him. I wrote him that I doubted Nieman’s honesty. Isaak then wrote me just what I thought and I wrote him back if you think so you ought to give it to the public in the Free Society and he did a week before McKinley was shot.
     “Czolgosz seemed to be normal and sound as the average man; he might be excused as ignorant, not educated, or as I had thought, a spy, a bad person. He was consistent in his tactics; he did not give himself away. He was not against the President but against the party as he said the last minutes, and we thought from his education he thought he could not leave the world without doing anything. After he done it I assume he plan to do it some months before he done it and only waited a good chance and hoped to get some help from friends.”
     Schilling says Nieman told him things were getting worse and worse; more strikes and they were getting more brutal against the strikers and that something must be done. “Then I did not think he had a plan; afterward I did.”
     Under date of August 19, 1902, Mr. Abram Isaak writes to me as follows: “I wish to state that Miss Goldman was simply introduced to Czolgosz without having any conversation with him. He accompanied her to the depot however, where she introduced him to me. After the train left he talk with me for about 40 minutes.
     “His first question was whether he could be introduced into our ‘secret meetings.’ He had addressed me as ‘comrade.’ But this question arose my suspicion. After having told him that anarchists had no secret meetings, I asked him whether he call himself an anarchist and whether he had read anarchist literature.
     “‘No,’ he replied, ‘I know nothing of anarchism excepting what I know from one speech delivered by Emma Goldman in Cleveland. I am a socialist. For seven years I was a mem- [250][251] ber of the socialist party in Cleveland. But since they split I became disgusted with them.’
     “Altho’ being suspicious I could not help thinking that his eyes and words expressed sincerity. He was rather quiet. But the ‘outrages committed by the American government in the Philippine Islands’ seemed to trouble his mind. ‘It does not harmonize with the teachings in our public schools about our flag,’ he said.”
     As a result of their suspicions Isaak published the following notice in Free Society, September 1, 1901:


     “The attention of the comrades is called to another spy. He is well dressed, of medium height, rather narrow shouldered, blond, and about twenty-five years of age. Up to the present he has made his appearance in Chicago & Cleveland. In the former place he remained but a short time, while in Cleveland he disappeared when the comrades had confirmed themselves of his identity, & were on the point of exposing him. His demeanor is of the usual sort, pretending to be greatly interested in the cause, asking for names, or soliciting aid for acts of contemplated violence. If this same individual makes his appearance elsewhere, the comrades are warned in advance, & can act accordingly.”

     A good deal has been said of the lectures by Emma Goldman that Czolgosz heard. Whether or not he heard more than one, I have no means of knowing at present. Isaak says he heard one. This was undoubtedly the one she gave in Cleveland, May 5, 1901. We know that she delivered two lectures in Cleveland on that date, one on “Anarchism” and the other on “The Cause and Effect of Vice.” The following is a synopsis of the first as given in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 6, 1901:

     “Men under the present state of society are mere products of circumstances,” she said. “Under the galling yoke of government, ecclesiasticism and the bonds of custom and prejudice it is impossible for the individual to work out his own career as he could wish. Anarchism aims at a new and complete freedom. It strives to bring about a freedom which is not only a freedom from within, but also a freedom from without, which will prevent any man having the desire to interfere in any way with the liberty of his neighbor. Vanderbilt says ‘I am a free man within myself but the others be damned.’ This is not the freedom that we are striving for. We merely desire complete individual liberty and this can never be obtained as long as there is an existing government. [251][252]
     “We do not favor the socialist idea of converting men and women into mere breeding machines under the eye of a paternal government. We go to the opposite extreme and demand the fullest and most complete liberty for each and every person to work out his own salvation and upon any line that he pleases so long as he does not interfere with the happiness of others. The degrading notion of men and women as breeding machines is far from our ideals of life.
     “Anarchism has nothing to do with future governments or economic arrangements. We do not favor any particular settlement in this line but merely seek to do away with the present evils. The future will provide for these arrangements after our work has been done. Anarchism deals merely with social arrangements, not with economic arrangements.
     “The speaker deprecated the idea that all anarchists were in favor of violence and bomb-throwing. She declared that nothing was further from the principles which they support. She then went on however into a detailed explanation of the different crimes committed by anarchists lately, declaring that the motive was good in each case, and that these actions were merely a matter of temperament. ‘Some men were so constituted,’ she said, ‘that they were unable to stand idly by and see the wrongs that were being endured by their fellow mortals.’ She herself did not believe in these methods but she did not think that they should be too severely condemned in view of the high and noble motives which prompted their perpetration. ‘We must have education before we can have power,’ declared Miss Goldman. ‘Some believe that we should first obtain the force and let the intelligence and education come afterwards. Nothing could be more fallacious. If we get the education and intelligence first among the people the power will come to us without a struggle.’”

     I have given the newspaper report of Emma Goldman’s remarks entire so that as far as possible we may know how incendiary her remarks were. So much weight has been attached to them as the chief means of creating the “sane” state of mind which led to the crime, that the reader should have a chance to judge for himself.
     Miss Goldman says in a letter just received from her:

     “. . . I do not know whether Czolgosz was an anarchist, nor have I the right to say he was not. I have not known him sufficiently to be acquainted with his political views.”


     It was not until the 11th of July that Czolgosz left Cleveland where he had been with his family, and he did not go to Chicago, as has been claimed, on July 1. On the 14th he wrote [252][253] from Fort Wayne, Indiana, to his family (Plate VIII). On the 16th he went to board with a family by the name of Kazmarek at West Seneca, N. Y., where, as nearly as can be ascertained, he remained until nearly the end of August. He told Chief of Police Bull of Buffalo that on the 30th of August he went to Cleveland. Sometime earlier in August he went to Chicago.
     At West Seneca he gave his name as Fred. C. Nieman and made his arrangements to have a room and his washing done for $3 a month. As was his custom when living with his own family he took his meals entirely alone. He lived on milk and crackers and sometimes cake, sending out a little boy for the milk, and going into a deserted store in the front of the house and eating entirely alone. He always refused to join the others when invited to do so. He rose usually before 7, washed and dressed himself carefully, then spent his days taking a little walk in the morning or sitting on the piazza reading pamphlets and papers, hiring a little boy to bring the paper in the afternoon which he read very carefully and retired about 10 o’clock each night. He never had any conversation with the family unless he had to, and kept by himself. Two or three times a week he left quite early for Buffalo returning about 10 or 10.30 at night. He said he went so often to attend meetings. He said he worked in the winter and then lived in the summer upon what he then earned. He always dressed up a little better when he went to Buffalo than when he stayed at the house, though he had only one suit and his underclothes were in a little canvas box or “telescope” as it is usually called. He never talked about himself except as just mentioned. He left there suddenly, hiring a little boy to carry his trunk. When asked where he was going he said, “May-be Detroit, Baltimore, Pittsburg [sic], Cleveland.” He seemed in fairly good spirits when he went away. He could not pay the last instalment [sic] of his bill but left a revolver, as security.
     August 31, he wanted a room with his washing done at Nowak’s in Buffalo. Nowak asked for a recommendation and he gave a satisfactory one. He said his name was Fred. Nieman. Nowak said he rarely drank, never swore, smoked in moderation and stayed in his room a good deal when people were about to talk to him. The Nowaks thought he must be [253][254] a visitor to the fair. He dressed so neatly they decided he must be a waiter or a barber. He left in the morning about 7 and returned about 10.30 each night, retiring immediately. They never knew where he got his meals. Only one time he came into the saloon and sat down. This was a Sunday evening when a good many people were about. He said all the priests talked about was money.


     On the part of the government this was made by Drs. Fowler, Crego and Putnam.3 The following is an extract from their examination:

     His height is 5 feet 75/8ths inches, age 28, weight when in Buffalo 136 pounds. General appearance that of a person in good health. Complexion fair. Pulse and temperature normal. Tongue clean, skin moist and in excellent condition. Pupils normal and react to light, reflexes normal, never had any serious illness. He had a common school education, reads and writes well. Does not drink to excess, although drinks beer about every day, uses tobacco moderately, eats well, bowels regular. Shape of his head normal as shown by the diagram obtained by General Bull, Superintendent of Police with a hatter’s impress.

     In the first interview on Sept. 7th, he said:

     “I don’t believe in the Republican form of government, and I don’t believe we should have any rulers. It is right to kill them. I had that idea when I shot the President, and that is why I was there. I planned killing the President 3 or 4 days ago after I came to Buffalo. Something I read in the Free Society suggested the idea. I thought it would be a good thing for the country to kill the President. When I got to the grounds I waited for the President to go into the Temple. I did not see him go in but some one told me he had gone in. My gun was in my right pocket with a handkerchief over it. I put my hand in my pocket after I got in the door; took out the gun, and wrapped the handkerchief over my hand. I carried it in that way in the row until I got to the President; no one saw me do it. I did not shake hands with him. When I shot him I fully intended to kill him. I shot twice. I don’t know if I would have shot again. I did not want to shoot him at the Falls; it was my plan from the beginning to shoot him at the Temple. I read in the paper that he would have a public reception. I know other men who believe what I do, that it would be a good thing to kill the President and to [254][255] have no rulers. I have heard that at the meetings in public halls. I heard quite a lot of people talk like that. Emma Goldman was the last one I heard. She said she did not believe in government or in rulers. She said a good deal more. I don’t remember all she said. My family does not believe as I do. I paid $4.50 for my gun. After I shot twice they knocked me down and trampled on me. Somebody hit me in the face. I said to the officer that brought me down, ‘I done my duty.’ I don’t believe in voting; it is against my principles. I am an anarchist. I don’t believe in marriage. I believe in free love. I fully understood what I was doing when I shot the President. I realized that I was sacrificing my life. I am willing to take the consequences. I have always been a good worker. I worked in a wire mill and could always do as much work as the next man. I saved three or four hundred dollars in five or six years. I know what will happen to me,—if the President dies I will be hung. I want to say to be published—‘I killed President McKinley because I done my duty. I don’t believe in one man having so much service, and another man should have none.’”
     At the Sept. 8th interview he said he had heard Emma Goldman lecture, and had also heard lectures on free love by an exponent of that doctrine. He had left the church 5 years ago because as he said, he “didn’t like their style.” He had attended a meeting of the anarchists about six weeks ago and also in July. Had met a man in Chicago about ten days ago who was an anarchist and talked with him.4
     The Friday before the commission of this crime he had spent in Cleveland, leaving Buffalo, where he had been for two or three weeks, and going to Cleveland. “Just went there to look around and buy a paper.” The circle he belonged to had no name. They called themselves Anarchists. . . . During this examination the prisoner was very indignant because his clothing was soiled at the time of arrest, and he had not had an opportunity to care for his clothing and person as he wished. . . . He said he would have slept well last night but for the noise of people walking about. He heard several drunken people brought into the station at night. Said he felt no remorse for the crime he had committed. Said he supposed he would be punished, but every man had a chance on trial; that perhaps he wouldn’t be so badly punished after all. His pulse on this occasion was 72—temperature normal; not nervous or excited.
     On Sept. 9th, we observed a marked change in his readiness to answer questions. Many of the questions he refused to answer. He denied that he had killed the President or meant to kill him. He seemed more on his guard. He persisted in this course until nearly to the end of the interview, then he said, “I am glad I did it.”

     At all subsequent interviews he declined to discuss the crime or any of its details with the experts but would talk about his [255][256] general condition, his meals and sleep and other subjects not relating to the crime. From the daily reports of his keepers at Buffalo they noted that he talked freely; that his appetite was good; that he enjoyed the walks he took in the corridor of the jail. He told his guards he would not talk with his lawyers because he did not believe in them and did not want them.
     The experts conclude that Czolgosz was sane as a result of frequent examinations, of the reports of his watchers in the jail, of his behavior in court during the trial and at the time he received his sentence, and then they say that they came to this conclusion from the history of his life as it came from him. He was sober, industrious and law-abiding and until he was 21 years of age he was as others in his class, a believer in the government of his country and the religion of his fathers. “After he cast his first vote he made the acquaintance of anarchist leaders who invited him to their meetings. He was a good listener and in a short time he adopted their theories. He was consistent in his adherence to anarchy. He did not believe in government, therefore refused to vote. He did not believe in marriage because he did not believe in law. He killed the President because he was a ruler. Czolgosz believed as he was taught that all rulers are tyrants and that to kill a ruler would benefit the people. He refused a lawyer because he did not believe in law, lawyers or courts.”
     If we may judge by the statement made in the report of one of the experts for the defense, the examination by the latter was necessarily somewhat hurried.5 This states: “It should be said that owing to the limited time, two days, at our disposal prior to the trial, and the fact that his family relatives resided in a distant State and were not accessible for interrogation, that we were unable to obtain the history of his heredity beyond what he himself gave us.” The following is stated in this report in addition to what has already been referred to in the official report, “There were no tremors or twitching of the facial muscles, tongue or hands. The pulse and temperature and skin were [256][257] normal as also were the special senses, knee reflexes, coördinating powers and the sensory and motor functions. Finally a careful inspection of the entire visible body failed to reveal the presence of any of the so-called ‘stigmata of degeneration.’ The almost perfect symmetrical development—especially of the head and face—is a noteworthy feature in Czolgosz’s case. Although had deviations been found the fact would have had little weight as tending to show mental disease or degeneracy as marked asymmetries, both cranial and facial, are frequently observed in persons who are quite sane and above the average in mental capacity.”
     To this expert he made similar statements apparently to those he made to the other experts. He said, “I planned to kill the President three or four days after I came to Buffalo. I do not believe in the Republican form of government and I do not believe we should have any rulers. I had that idea when I shot the President and that is why I was there.” This expert made another examination with the physician of Auburn prison on the evening before his execution and he then found nothing either in his mental or physical condition which tended to alter his opinion. At this time Czolgosz said in explanation of his abandonment of his religious faith and his rejection of the services of a priest, “I would like the American people to know that I have no use for priests. My family are all Catholics and used to go to church until the hard times of 1893. We had been taught by the priests that if we would pray God would help us along but it did no good and it did not help us, and we stopped going to church at that time.” He also said at this interview, “McKinley was going around the country shouting prosperity when there was no prosperity for the poor man. I am not afraid to die. We all have to die some time.”


     Czolgosz talked freely with Chief of Police Bull of Buffalo immediately after his arrest, but not until he had had some food given him to eat when he was pleasant and willing to talk. He said he killed the President and was glad he did so. Was asked if he knew the enormity of his crime and its results and he said [257][258] he did. That he knew people sometimes escaped being hanged and he might. He said he came to Buffalo on August 31. He was with the President at Niagara and had an opportunity to shoot him then. He was much disturbed by his clothing being so soiled and one of the first things he asked was that he be allowed to wash and change his clothing. This was denied him until later, when he was told one of the guards would give him clean linen, if he would furnish the money, which he did, giving all he had on him which was $1. When the guard returned with the articles of clothing he disputed the change, but when they told him the cost of each, he said, “Oh, that’s all right; let it go.”
     During the first interview and often at other times during his stay in Buffalo he would take his handkerchief from his pocket and wind it around his right hand just as he did when he shot the President. Also while walking in his cell sometimes the guards would see him apparently thinking deeply and at the same time wind his pocket handkerchief around his hand again and again. After he was arrested he was asked by the Chief of Police to illustrate how he had put the handkerchief about his hand with the revolver, but he would not do so until he had a clean handkerchief, when he dramatically showed them what he had evidently practised a long time.
     Chief Bull said that among other things Czolgosz said he had once been in love with a girl who had gone back on him, since which time he had had nothing to do with women; that he left his home because his step-mother was unkind to him. Chief Bull says he was immaculate about his person and dress, washing and fixing himself up a good deal of the time. He took a little beer and smoked three cigars a day. They were never able to obtain from him any information which would prove where he spent his time from July 1, except such as was given them in Buffalo, and they do not know what he did or where he spent his time when he went away from his boarding places in West Seneca and Buffalo, but at this time thousands of visitors were in the city on account of the fair and it was almost impossible to trace any one particular person.
     When he arrived at Auburn prison he was agitated, shook and shivered and trembled, which may have been due to the excite- [258][259] ment of arriving, there being a good many people about. After being placed in his cell he made a short statement of his life in which he said he was born in Alpena, Michigan, in 1873, where he stayed until he was five years of age, when he moved to Detroit, where he resided eleven years. Then he went to Natrona, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburg [sic], where he worked in the glass factory for a year and nine months, when he went to Warrensville, Ohio, where he invested his earnings with his family in a farm, and worked on it for a time. It has since been sold, and he resided in Cleveland until July, 1901, when he left there. He also spoke of being in Cleveland first, then going to Warrensville, and returning to Cleveland. He ended his statement by giving the names and ages of the different members of his family. Only on one other occasion would Czolgosz say anything which was of the nature of information about himself, other than declaring that he was an anarchist.
     The daily routine in the prison was to rise at seven in the morning and dress and take his breakfast. He had a large appetite. Then he smoked and took exercise. Ate a hearty dinner; smoked after that a pipe and laid down on his cot. After his supper he smoked and then retired. He invariably maintained a stolid silence. He talked with one of the other prisoners only once of the many times he was left alone, and then the remark was of no account. When asked questions he never would answer quickly, but would stop a long time and think carefully. He did this even when the question was of the simplest nature. To one interrogation about his family he waited at the cell door half an hour before he said anything.
     On one occasion the warden sent a priest to him and he said he would smash the priest’s head. The next day he apologized for making this statement. Once or twice he wanted to see a priest, but as he did not come at once, he later refused. It was thought he might have become suspicious. When asked why he took the name of Nieman, he said because it was his own mother’s name. Later he said his own mother’s name was Nebock, which in German was Nieman.
     The reason he said for taking the alias was that he once “struck” in his own name, and on account of the strike changed it so that he might get work again. He also said he could not [259][260] write and though various officials endeavored to get him to write his name he refused to do so. He once asked to have a letter written for him but after dictating a few lines seemed to be much affected and gave it up. On another occasion (not referred to above), he was going to see a priest in his cell but it is supposed he may have been prevented by his brother-in-law Bandowski, so when the priest came he waved him away when he approached, and said if any priest came to his execution he would swear at him, adding, “you see if I don’t.”
     As was stated at the time in the newspapers, Czolgosz wanted to make a speech in public at his execution. This he said to the warden the night before, when the latter went for some reason to his cell. The warden told him he would never have a better opportunity than then, but Czolgosz said he wanted to make his statement in public, before all the people when he was going to the chair. He was told that this would be impossible and he then resumed his sullen almost ugly mood, and refused to talk any more. Just as he reached the platform he started to make, the warden thought, a speech, but was hurried to the chair, the straps placed on his head, face and chin, while he was yet talking, the last sentence being rather mumbled than spoken. This was what he said: “I shot the President because I thought it would help the working people and for the sake of the common people. I am not sorry for my crime.” He was then seated in the chair and said, “that is all I have to say.” Just as the straps were being adjusted on his chin he mumbled, “I am awfully sorry because I did not see my father.” The prison officers were unanimous in their agreement that the nature of Czolgosz was secretive, and all were unable to draw him into conversation or get him to answer questions unless he so decided after mature deliberation.


     Of the post-mortem examination it may be said that it proves in no way that Czolgosz was not insane. Mr. Spitzka says at the end of his article, “of course it is far more difficult and it is impossible in some cases to establish sanity upon the results of an examination of the brain than it is to prove insanity. It [260][261] is well known that some forms of psychosis have little ascertainable anatomical basis, and the assumption has been made that these psychoses depend rather upon circulatory and chemical disturbances.”6 It is a well-known fact that in a large number of cases even after a most thorough microscopical examination such as Mr. Spitzka did not have an opportunity to make, no indications of insanity can be found in individuals who have been for a long period mentally disturbed.
     Berkley says very truly, “Even among the organic-degenerative types an absolute pathology—such as is found for example in pneumonia, in which definite clinical symptoms accompany certain pathological states existing in the lung—is very rare.”7 He also says further, “Our main difficulty in this connection lies in the fact that the nerve cell has but few ways of showing in its structures the presence of deteriorative processes.”
     There might have been a considerable degree of cell-degeneration in the brain of Czolgosz and yet Mr. Spitzka could not have discovered it at the time he made his examination. However well, therefore, the brain anatomy was described at post-mortem, as a matter of necessity it leads to no definite result in determining the question of insanity.


     Czolgosz was one of a family of six boys and two girls. A maternal aunt was insane. His father, now living, is a steady, good workman, employed by the city of Cleveland. He is ignorant and dull mentally, and though he has been in this country thirty years knows only a few words of English. He is emotional. His appearance is somewhat abnormal and suggestive of deficient mental development. Two of the brothers seen were somewhat emotional.
     The father says, Czolgosz as far as he remembers as a boy, was healthy. He was always quiet and retired and cared to play with few children. As he grew older he was very bashful, and always continued so. He never saw him in company with any girl. In ’98 he gave up work because he was ill. [261][262]
     The elder brother says that Czolgosz looked “so gone to pieces like and looked so pale” that he advised him to go to the hospital, but he refused and said there was no place in the hospital for poor people. He lived on the farm but he did not do any heavy work unless he was obliged to. He spent his time in doing various small jobs; some of the time hunting. He liked to be by himself doing little but jobbing around and reading or sleeping.
     In the spring of 1901 he became restless and wanted to get his money out of the farm. He kept on talking about it until finally he got it in July, and went away. He made frequent trips to Cleveland; why they did not know. When he was asked why he wanted to go away he said because he could not stand it any longer. After he made his arrangements he seemed brighter.
     The sister-in-law said that he acted queerly. He said he was sick but she could not see that he was, and “if you said anything to him about his sickness he got mad.” He had a cough. Was lazy and would go out under a tree to sleep. His step-mother would try to get him to work but he would not. She did not believe he was sick either. He was always fixing up boxes and wheels and tinkering around. The day he left he went out, taking nothing with him except what he had on his back. He did not want his parents to know he was going. He told the sister-in-law he was going to Kansas, but he told his sister he was going to California for his health.
     The brother Joseph said he was always “awful bashful.” He was a good mechanic. While he did not look sick he was always taking medicine. He slept well at night. The latter part of the time in the country he read and slept a great deal of the time; it seemed all the time. He did not know where he went when he left the farm for two or three days at a time.
     The sister Victoria said he liked to be by himself. He would read and sleep most of the time and was unable to do heavy work on account of his health. His uncle and aunt called him an “old woman” or “grandmother” because of his habit of falling asleep and being at times rather stupid. His friends the Dryers said he would sit by himself in their saloon in a corner watching the others. They never heard him use profane lan- [262][263] guage and never saw him lose his temper. He drank very little. Was careful of his money. He would often fall asleep, wake up and sit around and fall asleep again. He was never jolly; rather “stupid and dull-like.” He said he left the wire mills because he was sick, and to their knowledge he carried medicine around with him. They sometimes saw him when he was not at work, sit all day in the saloon “thinking-like and reading the paper and sleeping.”
     Up to August, ’98, as we have seen, Czolgosz worked steadily and industriously. He then gave up his work because of his poor health, and from that time he was never able to employ himself at anything steadily. There is a great deal of evidence that he was not well. He had for a long period a cough, took a variety of medicines, consulted several doctors, one of whom gave him certificates to get sick benefits with. He had frequent and peculiar periods of somnolence. What significance we should attach to these frequent periods of somnolence and in some cases stupor, I am hardly prepared to say. (It is possible that they may have been epileptic, and what appeared to be sleep was really an epileptic seizure.) He also spent much time in what was called “dreaming.”
     In a letter written to Professor H. C. Eyman, a copy of which was sent to me by Dr. Blumer, it is stated that he suffered from catarrh a great deal. His friends said he had spent over $200 in medicines. He used herb tea, castor oil and probably narcotics. He grew some kind of a plant and would dry the leaves in the oven and smoke them in his pipe. His parents said he was a great and deep thinker but he never spoke out what he thought. He spent a great deal of time reading the account of the murder of King Humbert at the time it occurred. The paper was very precious to him as he took it to bed every night.
     I wish here to call attention especially to the habit which he formed about his eating. First in this connection we must consider his relation to his step-mother. His feeling against her was very strong as he was constantly having trouble with her. She would ask him to do work which he would refuse and she would either scold him or call him lazy. She did not believe there was anything the matter with him and when he told her that he was going to Kansas she thought it would be a good [263][264] thing. Schilling also speaks about his having said he was abused by his step-mother and was tired of life, that his father would not protect him because he was bound by the will of his step-mother. After ’99 his feeling became so strong against her that he would not eat with her when she was in the house. Whether or not he was suspicious of her and thought she might do something to injure him by poisoning his food, it is impossible to say. When in the mill he had always taken his dinner with his fellow workmen, and at an earlier period he had taken his meals with the family and with his mother.
     He usually cooked his own food and he had the milk put directly in a tin pail after the cows were milked, and drank it alone. The sister-in-law mentions that especially three or four months before he went away he would not eat anything at the table and only took bread and milk; sometimes a little cake. He would take his food up to his room and eat it out of sight. The same thing was true at West Seneca where he stayed the last two weeks in July and most of August. He took his meals entirely by himself, living principally on milk and crackers as he had before. Even if he were invited he refused to join the others.
     This habit which Czolgosz formed of not only cooking his food but a large part of the time eating it by himself, often out of sight of others, I believe is of pathological significance which cannot be passed over. Such a habit I believe would be impossible in a healthy-minded young man, and it was not habitual with Czolgosz until sometime after his health broke down and he gave up his work in the mill. To some extent it may have been explained by his relations with his step-mother, but even then it would have been abnormal. His not only cooking but eating it alone was suggestive that he was afraid of contamination or poisoning and altogether in my opinion indicates that it was part of the change which had come about him as the result of his impaired health.
     The fact that he took a large amount of food when offered him not only immediately after the crime, but while residing in prison for the period before his execution, must not be forgotten. He still of course ate alone and under what might be called the moral compulsion of his surroundings, and the strain through which he had passed, and the probable relief from the [264][265] tension which the crime produced may have occasioned a feeling of exhaustion and a resulting need of increased nutrition.
     He was always shy and bashful and afraid of girls. Several of the family had never seen him speak to a girl and he often crossed the road to avoid speaking to them; this habit grew on him. After he broke down in health he was much by himself, not only in his own home but when he was at the saloon of the Dryers where he passed much of his time, and also in other places mentioned. He was not social during these years of illness, being inclined to talk little with others.
     There are indications that he was at times extremely restless. He never worked long at any one thing on the farm or elsewhere, though he tried to do light jobs on the place. He was constantly leaving the farm for varying periods from a few hours to several days, for what purpose is largely unexplained, though we can infer that he may on some of these occasions have gone to the meetings of his lodge, or on insurance business as suggested by the brother, and we have a record of his visits to the anarchist Schilling. But he got very restless during the last part of the time before leaving the farm on July 11, and was constantly clamoring for his money which he had put into it.
     The changes in disposition which he showed were striking when we contrast his life after he left the mill with that before. As we have seen there was a long period of years during which he worked steadily and practically without a break in a fairly responsible position, being fined for neglect of his work and other things less than the other men, and receiving the commendation not only of his fellow workmen but the foreman as well. These facts I ascertained from the mouths of these men myself in the mill. After his illness began, we find that he did not work steadily at any one thing. That he lost his accustomed activity and energy, grew more shy than he was before and became self-absorbed. Spent much time in dreaming, brooding and sleeping at various hours in the day, when in the ordinary course of events it would not be expected.
     With these changes in him came his habit of taking his food alone which was so perverted that it must be characterized at least as abnormal and indicative of a phobia or possible fear [265][266] either of contamination or poisoning. While I should at present be far from saying that Czolgosz was in the years referred to, the subject of any specific form of insanity, at the same time the description we get of him suggests to my mind the possibility that he may have been drifting in the direction of dementia precox of the hebephrenic form.
     The picture of him during these years, when he committed the crime, and after, fits in, in many particulars, to the description of the mad regicides or magnicides of Régis. He says “they are always restless and dissatisfied and searching for a change. One thing especially distinguishing them is a proneness to mysticism. By that is meant an instinctive tendency to become over-excited in matters of politics or religion. Persons with this tendency often have visions or hear voices. Perhaps the latter in the form of a command from the Almighty. They are given to cogitation and solitude, and spend much time in searching for evidence of unseen agencies which they believe to be influencing their surroundings and actions.
     “If this tendency just referred to does not find favorable circumstances it may remain dormant; but if it finds a sufficient element for excitation in the events of the epoch; war; revolutions; dissensions of parties; ultra theories of sects; preaching or inflamed publications in books or journals, it may become dangerous fanaticism.
     “Some idea, good or bad, falling on prepared soil soon germinates in an exaggerated manner and whatever sane reason the subject may have possessed up to that date gives way to a sickly ideation which grows to the delusional conviction that he is called on to deal a great blow; sacrifice his life to a just cause, to kill a monarch or dignitary in the name of God, the Fatherland, Liberty, Anarchy, or some analogous principle.”
     Régis calls attention also to one or two other points which are well illustrated by the Czolgosz case; one is that the typical regicide acts almost always alone in conceiving, preparing and accomplishing his deed. He is what Régis calls a “solitaire” by his very nature. Being naturally vain and full of egotism he feels wholly confident that he can unaided accomplish his purpose. Régis also lays stress on the fact that the crime of the regicide is not a sudden or blind act, but on the contrary well [266][267] considered and premeditated. “When the act has been decided on the regicide hesitates no more, but goes straight to the end thenceforward with the assurance of a convicted person; proud of his mission and his part, he strikes at his victim in broad daylight, in public in an ostentatious and theatrical manner. Hence he rarely makes use of poison. Frequently he resorts to the use of the dagger, to fire-arms, and, far from fleeing after the crime, he puts himself in evidence as if he had performed some great deed.”
     By a peculiar coincidence, some of the characteristics of the anarchists as described by the expert for the defense are found by Régis in the typical regicide, which indicates that they have much in common, and this also bears out my own opinion that there was nothing in the conduct of Czolgosz from the time of the crime down to his execution, that was inconsistent with insanity.
     I believe that what Régis calls “a proneness to mysticism” existed in Czolgosz. This is partly shown by his brother’s testimony in regard to the priests and reading the Bible. Also later by his political views. After his sickness began in ’98 he was much given to cogitation and solitude. He found undoubtedly in the events of the epoch, also no doubt in inflamed publications, in books and newspapers, the necessary elements for excitation which resulted in a dangerous fanaticism, and I believe as suggested by Régis in similar instances, that the time came when the sane reason which controlled Czolgosz had given way to sickly ideation and was succeeded by the delusional conviction that he was called on to deal a great blow.
     All of the experts who examined Czolgosz said he was a product of anarchy, sane and responsible, and one of them said, he was “in all respects a sane man both legally and medically.” As his belief in anarchism was supposed to be the motive for the murderous deed, it is important to consider whether or not this contention is justified by such facts as I have been able to ascertain myself, coupled with those mentioned by the experts in their reports. They admit that he had false beliefs. One of them says a “political delusion,” but that being an anarchist this delusion was consistent with the belief of the sect to which he belonged and therefore he was sane. I believe myself, how- [267][268] ever, that his statement that he was an anarchist cannot be relied on. In the first place as we know, the Superintendent of Police in Cleveland states definitely that he was not connected with any anarchist organization.
     He went to a well-known anarchist in Cleveland to find out what anarchism was, but his behavior was so strange that he not only would not accept him as a “comrade” but he was viewed with suspicion as a spy. In his interviews also with the anarchist in Chicago and in his statement to Emma Goldman, he said that he was a socialist and not an anarchist, and again behaved so strangely that they were not only suspicious of him, but went so far as to warn anarchists against him as a dangerous man. Why he went to these anarchists appears evident; that was to find out if they had made secret plots with the probable purpose of getting assistance from them in some plot of his own.
     The inference is almost justifiable that the act which he contemplated, instead of being the result of anarchist teachings led him to turn to anarchism as a convenient means of accomplishing and explaining an end; the germ of the idea that he had a duty to perform, which was to kill the President, being already in his mind.
     The only positive evidence existing that Czolgosz was in reality an anarchist depends upon his statements to some of those with whom he was brought in contact after the crime, and the finding of anarchist literature on his person. Books of this nature were found in the room which he had occupied, several of which I have in my possession and have examined. How much these books had influenced him, I cannot say, and in any estimate of him the fact of their existence should have due weight given them, but it does not seem to me to invalidate the position that he was not in the whole sense of the word what could be called an anarchist. He was trying to find out apparently, something about the subject, but as far as going to the anarchists mentioned was concerned it indicated that his purpose was to find out about plots and secret meetings, rather than the theories of anarchism. Even Emma Goldman herself writes me that she was not well enough acquainted with his political views to know whether he was an anarchist or not. [268][269]
     We have reason to suppose that Czolgosz heard at least one lecture of Emma Goldman, and from what Schilling says she must have made an impression on him. We also know that he referred to her after his arrest, but we also know that he had only one brief interview with her, and as far as any direct teaching was concerned there is evidence to the contrary. I have already presented a synopsis of one lecture of hers that Czolgosz possibly heard. We see that she gave very good advice on the one hand and justified deeds of violence that had already been done by anarchists on the other. Still her leading idea was that society was to be reformed by education and not by violence. She is said to have much magnetism and it may be fairly inferred from what Czolgosz said to Chief of Police Bull of Buffalo and to Schilling about her, that it was her person, quite as much as her words, that inspired him.
     Lombroso in an interesting paper on “Anarchy” refers to this woman, and says: “Czolgosz in the rare instances in which he departed from silence confessed to having been incited to crime by the speeches of Emma Goldman against the United States form of government.”8 Lombroso undoubtedly got his information from the newspapers and, as we know, much of what appeared in them could not be relied on; for that reason I have not quoted from them at all in anything I have said in this paper. Lombroso further says: “The speeches of Emma Goldman may well have carried away a man hereditarily predisposed, a fanatic at the same time and given to dark views on the misfortunes of his country.” The reason that this writer speaks of the hereditary predisposition of Czolgosz is that “his father had been concerned in the murder or lynching of a contractor who ill-treated his workmen,” hence he inherited morbid tendencies. This undoubtedly also was taken from the newspapers. Though in speaking of the father I referred to the matter, I have also said it was contradicted by the son. I believe at present it must be left out of consideration as not being proved.
     Lombroso thinks that some of the anarchists are “under the spell of a kind of monomania, or the absolute obsession by a [269][270] single idea which produces hyper-sensitiveness and makes them excessively susceptible to the influence of others who second their idea to the exclusion of all contrary arguments. Czolgosz was one of these.”
     If however on the one hand we find little evidence of Czolgosz being an anarchist, we do get important evidence on the other hand that he belonged to a philanthropic organization of standing and character, the order of the Golden Eagle. This was composed of good, hard working American citizens, and the fact that he belonged to it was owing to his being a fellow workman of several of the members. Though he was a Pole and had been a Catholic, and the society was composed of Protestants, such a good opinion was entertained of him that he was duly elected, and continued a member in good standing up to the time of the assassination. He received sick benefits several times on physicians’ certificates, and the letter he wrote to the secretary, dated July 31, 1901, shows his connection at that time with the Golden Eagle. In this he says that they will find enclosed one dollar for his lodge dues. That he had given one dollar to pay up the assessment on the death of a late brother, and that he was in the hall in June before and gave another dollar to pay his lodge dues.
     His long period of industrious service at the wire mill; his steady and continuous connection with the Golden Eagle; and the years that he was broken down in health are facts which so far have received little attention, but they are salient points in the case as they represent the young man as he actually was. His interest in anarchism appears to have been something of late growth and foreign to the ordinary current of his life, and as far as I have been able to discover played but a small part in it until after the crime, when he said he was an anarchist, and his statements were accepted as a satisfactory explanation. Certainly it was a most extraordinary state of affairs that the man who committed the crime on September 6, and was at once branded as an anarchist, should have been publicly denounced in the leading anarchist publication of the country but five days before as a spy and dangerous character, and not to be trusted by anarchists! Was this a part of a prearranged plot? Were [270][271] Schilling and Isaak in league with Czolgosz? I believe there is not a particle of evidence of it.
     The letter of July 31 already referred to is important not only for the reason that it shows the connection of Czolgosz with the Golden Eagle, but also that he is quite willing to have his residence known, as he gives his full address. Had he been the anarchist we are told he was, and deeply engaged in anarchist plottings, or had he intended to conceal himself to accomplish his crime, he certainly would not have been so willing to betray his residence.


     I believe that he was dominated by a delusion as was stated by the expert for the defense, but it was the delusion of a man of unsound mind and this was much broader than simply his belief that the President was an enemy of the good working people. Not only that but the President was going around the country deceiving the people and shouting prosperity when there was no prosperity for the poor man. Then as he also told Schilling things were getting worse and worse and something must be done; he did not believe in the republican form of government; and there should not be any rulers. For all these reasons he himself was called on to do something or to perform his duty. This was the essence of the delusion, that he had a duty to perform which was to kill the President because he was the enemy of the good working people, and things were getting worse and worse. In going to the anarchists for help he acted under the control of this delusion. He committeed [sic] the crime under it, and to the day of his death was absolutely consistent to it.
     Speaking from the standpoint of the medical expert, it is to me very difficult to believe that any American citizen of sound mind could plan and execute such a deed as the assasination [sic] of the President, and remain impervious to all influences after his arrest, and up to the time of the execution. Human nature, as I look at it, is not constituted to bear the strain of such a situation without weakening at some point. Such conduct is however consistent with insanity. If we take the case of Czolgosz [271][272] I find it hard to believe that any other explanation is tenable. We must remember that he was, as far as we can learn, a young man of average health and capacity, who had worked hard for a number of years in one place and was well known to his fellow workmen. That he was peaceful and law-abiding and made in every way such a favorable impression on those associated with him that they made him a member of an association of their own, of high aims from their point of view. Down to the day of the crime his relations with these men, as far as their respect for him was concerned, remained undisturbed. Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that this young man could in his right mind have performed so stupendous a crime. We see, however, that three years before its occurrence he broke down in health so that he was forced to give up his work and was never again able to work continuously for any length of time. He became moody and introspective, passing long periods of time in the days, dreaming and sleeping and cogitating. His habits as far as his daily occupation was concerned were entirely changed; from being active and energetic he became lazy and listless, though at times restless and especially so a few weeks before the crime. We must also remember that he developed a state of antagonism toward a member of the family which became so decided that it was one cause probably of his refusing to eat at the table with her, or even to take food cooked at her hands. That after a while he would only eat food cooked by himself. Much of the time both at his own home and in other places he took it in solitude.
     While in this state of impaired health and what appeared to be an abnormal mental condition, the idea that he had a duty to perform developed in his mind, finally becoming so dominating that it culminated in the assassination. If he had said that he was “inspired” or had a “mission” to perform it would not have been any more indicative of insanity than what he did say. The form of words in which a man expresses a delusion is of significance only as indicating what is in the mind. We must remember that this man was an ignorant Pole, who spoke his own language most of the time, and it would have been quite impossible for him to have made use of words that a man like Guiteau, who had a great facility of speech, might have used. [272][273] It is said that he evinced no appearance of morbid mental exaltation or of mental weakness or loss of mind, etc. But whether he did or not, of course would be first a question of judgment on the part of the examiner, and secondly a question as to what might be expected under the circumstances.
     The real question is whether he was the subject of a delusion which led him to commit the crime and if after having committed it his behavior was consistent with that delusion. Suppose we consider whether or not we have data enough for the establishment of an “insane” delusion or an insane false belief. No better recent study has been made of delusions than that by Mercier.9 “Delusions,” he says, “are beliefs which may or may not have some foundation in experience, in authority or in ordinary testimony, but which however formed are entirely indestructible by any or all of these agents.” Mercier points out that in the normal individual a concept is transferred from one category of belief to another and by a logical mode of procedure. “There are, for instance, five degrees or categories that can be distinguished in the cohesion of mental states, viz., the Inconceivable; the Conceivable; the Credible; the Relatively Certain or Fact; the Absolutely Certain or True. The concepts with which we deal may belong to any of these categories and under the influence of experience direct or indirect, our concepts are constantly being transferred from one of these categories to another and up and down the middle category through the most various degrees of likelihood and doubt. In the rational mind transference must be effected by the influence of experience or testimony or authority, but no transference of belief from category to category can normally be effected by the mere interior operation of the mind unaided by commerce with circumstances. . . . It is the transference of a concept from one category of belief to another by the unaided operation of the mind itself that often occurs in delusions and constitutes delusion.”
     In the first place we must enquire if the beliefs expressed by Czolgosz and already mentioned as evidences of delusion had any real foundation in experience or authority or ordinary testi- [273][274] mony. On the contrary, they were, I believe opposed to these things, yet in Czolgosz’s mind they appeared not only rational but so imperative that to him they were a coherent belief on which his conduct was based, and were so indestructible that they not only gave him the hardihood to commit the crime, but continued to dominate him down to the moment of his death. There is no question I believe that if he had been allowed to make an ante-mortem statement as he wished, but was unfortunately refused, we should have had still further evidence of the controlling and indestructible nature of the delusion which influenced him from the beginning to the end.
     His very last remarks are rather striking and wholly in keeping with what he had said and done from the beginning. “I shot the President because I thought it would help the working people and for the sake of the common people. I am not sorry for my crime.” These I am told were his exact words. It is one of the remarkable phenomena of his case that he should have been able under the circumstances when he was sitting in the electric chair about to be executed to so exactly formulate the essence of the delusion which had dominated him. He had done his duty. He had killed the President because he thought it would be a help to the working people and for the sake of the common people, and he was not sorry.
     In weighing the state of mind of Czolgosz and determining how far what he said and did give evidence of delusion as defined by Mercier, we must consider his relations not only to the anarchists but also to the Golden Eagle Society. He wanted to be an anarchist and thought he was an anarchist but in a final analysis, in spite of the evidence of the literature found on him and the literature also that was in his room, some of which was of an anarchistic character, his visits to the anarchists and his having been to hear Emma Goldman lecture, he did not really know much about what anarchism was. It was probably a part of his false belief that he thought he was such a thorough-going anarchist, but all of the testimony taken together which must be accepted removes him from the category of genuine anarchists. Then on the other hand his proved connection with the order of the Golden Eagle places him in the category of respectable citizens with avowed aims of the highest kind, and [274][275] brings out pretty forcibly his inconsistent mental attitude that at one and the same time he was a law-abiding citizen and an anarchist. We are led to believe that what he thought was contrary to testimony; the outgrowth of beliefs in his own mind and delusional in character.
     The more we analyze his history both before and after the crime the more strongly it appears to me that he must have acted under the influence of a colossal delusion, having all the attributes assigned to it by Mercier. I cannot help thinking that this explanation must appeal to thoughtful students of all the evidence on sober reflection, more forcibly than the theory that he was a sane man and his actions consistent with sanity.
     The direct circumstances of the crime as committed are always of great significance and it is important for the purpose of this paper to pay brief consideration to this point. I have seen no recent statement on this point which is stronger than that by Dr. Sanderson Christison.10 He says in reference to the act: “It may first be observed that acts themselves indicate the mental condition of the actors when all the circumstances are known. Up to the age of 28, and after a long record of an exceptionally (abnormally) retiring, peaceful disposition he (Czolgosz) suddenly appears as a great criminal. Had he been sane this act would imply an infraction of the law of normal growth which is logically inconceivable. Such a monstrous conception and impulse as the wanton murder of the President of the United States arising in the mind of so insignificant a citizen without his being either insane or degenerate, could be nothing short of a miracle for the reason that we require like causes to produce like results. To assume that he was sane is to assume that he did a sane act, i. e. one based upon facts and having a rational purpose.”
     There could be no better statement of the relation of Czolgosz to the crime than this. The more reasonable assumption would be that the act was not a sane act because it could not have any reasonable purpose and there could be no facts to justify it. We can, therefore, hardly conceive any conditions which would allow us to assume a priori that the crime could be the crime of [275][276] a sane man. Here again we can see clearly a good illustration of the correctness of the definition by Mercier. Such an act and for such a purpose as that assigned, because McKinley was the enemy of the working people and the common people, was contrary to experience, authority and testimony, the real facts being quite the other way. The definition would apply equally well to the consequences of the act. As a means of accomplishing the desired end, there was everything against it logically and nothing in its favor, for instead of in any way helping the common people it would do them an injury. It will be seen, therefore, that the difficulties which arise to explain why a sane man could have killed McKinley are almost insurmountable, and in the case of Czolgosz, if he was sane, it appears to me, absolutely so. I believe it highly important to make a very careful study of the crime itself, and by doing this we must become more impressed with the insane reasoning which could have made it possible. In speaking of the circumstances of a crime we must also consider the method. In the case of Czolgosz we have seen that this corresponded well with that of the typical magnicide as described by Régis.
     The experts in the official report on Czolgosz say that “he was not a case of paranoia because he did not have systematized delusions reverting to self, because he was in exceptionally good condition and had an unbroken record of good health. His capacity for labor had always been good and equal to that of his fellows.” And they think “he was not a degenerate because his skull was symmetrical and his ears did not protrude, nor were they of abnormal size. His palate was not highly arched and psychically he did not have a history of cruelty or perverted tastes and habits.” The expert for the defense also says “there was absolutely no evidence of insane delusion, hallucination or illusion. There was none of the morbid mental exaltation or expansiveness of ideas that would suggest mania in any form. None of the morbid mental gloom and despondency of melancholia. None of the weakness of dementia. None of the general mental or motor symptoms that are characteristic of paresis, nor was there anything in his manner, conduct or declarations that would suggest the great vanity or egotism or persecutory ideas or the transformation of personality which is usually characteristic of paranoia, or symptoms of delusional insanity.” [276][277]
     That some of these statements do not seem to be in my opinion justified, is apparent from what I have already said, but I wish here to call especial attention to the well-known fact that there are many cases even in hospitals for the insane in which there can be no question of the mental disease, but notwithstanding this, they cannot be assigned with definiteness to any particular category. In the first place there is a great diversity of classifications, so that by different experts different groups of symptoms receive different names; and in the second place, supposing we have well-defined ideas as to what special varieties, groups of well-marked symptoms should be assigned. The case in point may be of such a nature that there is doubt how it should be classified. While it is a convenience to be able to classify cases of insanity, it is not of the importance that we sometimes ascribe to it. The point is to ascertain whether or not the individual has undergone such a change mentally that he presents unmistakable evidences of unsoundness of mind. We can often be sure of that, when no one can say under just what form of disease these evidences should be placed. So in the case of Czolgosz; if it can be proved that he was the subject of delusion and acting under the domination of that delusion committed the crime, while it would be convenient to say he had some specific form of disease, it is not essential in leading us to a decision as to his mental condition.
     Another point also is to be mentioned in this connection and this is that the time has come when in my opinion we should give up using the expression, “insane delusion.” A so-called “sane delusion” is not in the full sense of the word the same thing as the delusion defined by Mercier. The “sane delusion” or false belief may be the result of superstition, tradition, religious teaching and so on. It is at any rate not opposed fundamentally to the experience of its possessor, or such authority, or evidence as appeal to his judgment. It has developed along lines essentially similar to those described by Mercier and is usually capable of correction or modification by the same method. Such a delusion would be best described by some other term, and the word “delusion” should have the full significance of Mercier’s definition.
     Where a man is dominated and acts under the control of a [277][278] true delusion, he is necessarily as far as that delusion and the resulting acts are concerned, a man of unsound mind, and the qualifying word “insane” I believe had better be dropped, as inaccurate and unscientific.
     It will be apparent from a careful perusal of what has already been said what conclusions I think I am justified in arriving at:
     1st. I feel that from fuller information than that possessed by those experts who examined Czolgosz after his crime, the opinion then expressed by them cannot be accepted as the final one.
     2d. Owing to lack of time it was impossible in the examination referred to, to investigate the early history of Czolgosz. Had this been done some of his statements would have been found to be inaccurate.
     3d. He was not in my opinion an anarchist in the true sense of the word, and while anarchist doctrines may have inflamed his mind and been a factor in the crime, it was not the true cause or an adequate explanation.
     4th. He had been in ill health for several years, changing from an industrious and apparently fairly normal young man into a sickly, unhealthy and abnormal one.
     5th. While in this physical and mental condition of sickliness and abnormality, it is probable that he conceived the idea of performing some great act for the benefit of the common and working people.
     6th. This finally developed into a true delusion that it was his duty to kill the President, because he was an enemy of the people, and resulted in the assassination.
     7th. His conduct after the crime was not inconsistent with insanity.
     8th. His history for some years before the deed; the way in which it was committed and his actions afterward furnish a good illustration of the typical regicide or magnicide as described by Régis.
     9th. The post-mortem examination threw no light on his mental condition and would not invalidate the opinion that the existing delusion was the result of disturbed brain action.
     10th. Finally, from a study of all the facts that have come to my attention, insanity appears to me the most reasonable and logical explanation of the crime.



top of page