The Late Tragedy, published March 17, 1859

We have omitted to comment upon the late horrid tragedy, and the circumstances which lead to it, from an aversion to enter into details which are revolting to modesty, and the exhibition of which in the columns of a newspaper only serve to minister to a depraved taste. We have also felt disinclined to pass judgment upon the living or the dead, until a legal investigation shall have cleared up all doubt as to the facts of the case. We cannot justify homicide except in self-defence; but, on the other hand, we have no inclination to join in the hue and cry against a man who, according to the published statements, had received the deepest provocation to bloodshed which it is possible to imagine. It is in vain to urge that he had time for reflection after learning his disgrace, and before meeting the destroyer of his peace. The few hours of exasperation which intervened would rather serve to madden with despair, and to drive him to blood retribution.

It has not been without surprise, mingled with disgust, that we have noticed the pharisaical comments of certain newspapers upon this bloody and disgraceful affair. They, good souls, are shocked and horrified beyond measure at the evidence which it affords of the unparalleled depravity of Washington society. They resolve to edify the pure and virtuous communities in which they flourish, and at the same time turn an honest penny, by furnishing the minutest details of Washington feculence, accompanied in several cases with pictorial illustrations. These pictures are in the highest degrees tempting, by the associations they awaken, to the prurient curiosity of their readers, and serve to diffuse still wider the taste for that species of literature which commands itself to the economical by its boasted quality of cheapness, and which possesses such a charm for the ignorant and vicious-the later especially.

We will not undertake to vindicate Washington society for all that is pure and praiseworthy. We have political corruption in abundance, and the tendency to social corruption needs to rebuke of the press and the pulpit; but we state the fact with pleasure that no newspaper in Washington lives and thrives by pandering to a depraved taste in the people for scandalous and criminal details.

It may be, and probably is, owning to the smallness of our population, that the corruption of Washington society is not yet so far advanced as to need such organs for its expression; or it may be that the superior skill and enterprise which are so conspicuously displayed at the commercial metropolis, in the art of portraying vice and crime in attractive colors, has a repressive effect upon the undeveloped genius of the political centre. But, at any rate, the fact is as we have stated it; and we trust that the day may be distant when a different state of things shall exist.

SOURCE: The National Era, Washington, D. C., March 17, 1859, p. 2

The Tragedy—Trial of Sickles, published March 31, 1859

The Washington correspondent of the Philadelphia Bulletin writes concerning the trial of Mr. Sickles, as follows:

“The plan of the prosecution will be for the District Attorney to first prove the killing of Mr. Key, and then rest the case. The defence will then be, most probably, to make the homicide justifiable, and to do this, evidence of character will be admitted, involving the circumstances of the illicit connection which will subject witnesses to a rigid cross-examination. It will them be incumbent on the prosecution to introduce evidence touching the character of the defendant. Should this be carried out there will be some startling details. Mr. Sickles father, quite a fine-looking old gentleman, is present in court every day.

“The grand jury two weeks ago made a presentment against Mr. Sickles for the murder of Mr. Key, and it then became the duty of the District Attorney to prepare an indictment, and place it before them for their final action. This he did on the 24^th instant, which it was returned by them as a true bill. The reason for the delay is understood to be, that they might, meantime, have opportunity to examine additional witnesses, more particularly relative to Butterworth, so that, if they discovered sufficient cause, they could indict him jointly with Mr. Sickles.

“Messrs. Stanton of Pittsburg, Magruder, and Ratcliffe, accompanied by the father of the accused, came into court and asked that Monday last be set for the trial; but after a conference with the Distract Attorney, Monday next was agreed upon for that purpose.”

SOURCE: The National Era, Washington, D. C., Thursday, March 31, 1859, p. 2

The Sickles Trial, published April 14, 1859

We noticed the fact last week, that the trial of Daniel E. Sickles, for the Murder of Philip Barton Key, was commenced in the Criminal Court of this city on the Monday preceding. The first three days were consumed in empanelling a jury. The regular panel, and two special panels of seventy-five men each, were exhausted before the jury was completed. The Judge ruled, at the instance of the district attorney, that none but property holders to the value of eight hundred dollars should sit on the jury. This is the letter of the law; but we understand that the practice has been to waive the question of property qualification. The exception made in this case is regarded as invidious, and has given rise to much comment. The interest felt in this case is intense. The court room is daily crowded to its utmost capacity, and hundreds, unable to get inside, hang about the doors and windows.

We present a list of the principal officers of the court, the counsel, and the jury, as follows.

His Honor Judge Crawford, on the bench; Robert M. Ould, Esq., United states District Attorney, prosecuting, assisted by J. M. Carlisle, Esq.; Messrs. Graham of New York, Brady of new York, Phillips of Alabama, Magruder of Virginia, Stanton of Pennsylvania, Radcliffe and Chilton of Washington city, appear as counsel for the prisoner.

The jury is constituted as follows:

1.      Rezin Arnold, farmer.

2.      James. L. Davis, farmer.

3.      John E. Neale, merchant.

4.      William M. Hopkins, furnishing store.

5.      William Bond, shoe maker.

6.      James Kelley, tinner.

7.      William C. Harper, grocer.

8.      Henry M. Knight, grocer.

9.      Jesse B. Wilson, grocer.

10.  John McDermott, coach-maker.

11.  William M. Moore, occupation unknown.

12.  O. S. Wright, furniture dealer.

Thursday.—Judge Crawford took his seat at ten minutes after ten, the jury having already taken their seats in the box.

At twenty-five minutes past ten, Mr. Sickles was brought in. His appearance was that of a man who had experienced much mental suffering since yesterday.

The indictment, which, in the unusual form, charges Daniel E. Sickles with the murder of Philip Barton Key, being read, the District Attorney rose, and opened the prosecution by stating briefly the facts which the United States expect to establish, and the law under which a verdict of guilty would be demanded.

He then proceeded to examine the witnesses for the United States, whose evidence simply goes to proving the fact and circumstances of the homicide. The testimony in chief of the United States was closed on Friday.

Saturday the defence was opened by Mr. Graham, of New York, who spoke for several hours with marked ability, and gave way at three o’clock, without coming to a close.

Mr. Graham resumed his remarks on Monday, and spoke for three hours with great effect. The counsel for the prisoner then proceeded to offer testimony in justification of the homicide. The fact was proven that Key was on friendly and intimate terms with Sickles, and that the latter had been instrumental in securing the reappointment of Key as District Attorney. Letters from Key to Sickles, showing that the most intimate relations of friendship existed between them, were offered to be read in evidence, but they were ruled out by the court. The court adjourned at the usual hour.

On Tuesday, the examination of witnesses for the prisoner proceeded. No fact was elicited with which the public is not already acquainted. The examination of Gov. Walker produced an overpowering effect upon Mr. Sickles, as the witness described the scene at the house of Mr. S. immediately after the homicide.

The written confession of Mrs. Sickles was offered in evidence, but the District Attorney objecting to its reception, the court took time to consider the point, and had not decided when the hour of adjournment arrived. The deepest sympathy for the prisoner prevails.

SOURCE: The National Era, Washington, D. C., Thursday, April 14, 1859, p. 2

A Distinguished Witness, published April 21, 1859

It is impossible to give a weekly newspaper the whole of the proceedings in the trial of Mr. Sickles, and, indeed, we have no disposition to fill our columns with such matter. But some of the evidence is quite interesting; and our readers will be pleased to read the testimony of so distinguished a witness as Governor R. J. Walker. He was examined on Tuesday of last week.

TESTIMONY OF R. J. WALKER.

Robert J. Walker examined. I have resided in this District many years; I was in the city on Sunday the 27^th of February; I had known Mr. Sickles several years, but had not seen him for six or eight months prior to that date; it was either three or twenty minutes after three  o’clock I saw him in his own house on the afternoon of that day, in the back room of the first story; as he came in, his manner appears excited; there was something strange and unusual about it; his voice was somewhat different from the manner in which I had usually heard him speak; he advanced and took me by the hand; I think he then said a thousand thanks for coming to see me under these circumstances; had had scarcely repeated these words, when I saw a great change in his appearance; he became very much convulsed indeed; he threw himself upon the sofa, and covered his face with his hands; he then broke into an agony of unnatural and unearthly sounds, the must remarkable I ever heard—something like a scream interrupted by violent sobbing. From his convulsed appearance, he was in the act of writhing His condition appeared to me very frightful, appalling me so much that I thought that if it lasted much longer he must become insane. He was indulging in exclamations about dishonor having been brought on his house, his wife, and child. He seemed particularly to dwell on the disgrace brought upon his child. Should think this continued ten minutes; endeavored to pacify him. I turned from him to go for a physician myself, but he seemed to stop a little these violent exclamations, and finally they broke down. The spasms became more violent till they ceased. I think I must have been there something over half an hour. I accompanied him from there to jail. Mayor Berret, Capt. Goddard, and perhaps Mr. Butterworth, were there. I was still alarmed at his condition, not knowing when the convulsions would recur. I believe I drove with him in Dr. Gwin’s carriage, with whom I came to Mr. Sickles’s.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

At first, I do not think any person was present but Mr. Butterworth; I was very much excited myself, but I will not be certain; I think Mr. Butterworth and Goddard came in; when these terrible convulsions occurred, I think no one was present but Butterworth besides myself.; I remained talking with Butterworth for of five minutes, when Sickles came alone and stayed with us some little time; I was, from a variety of causes, much excited; I never was more so than on that occasion; when the convulsions came on. I thought I would go for a physician.

THE PRISONER’S EMOTION.

A[t] this point, Mr. Stanton, who was near the prisoner, asked that the cross-examination be discontinued for the present, in order that the accused might retire for a few moments. Mr. Sickles, during the statement of this witness, was violently affected, breaking out into sobs and profusely shedding tears. E. B. Hart and Isaac Bell, one on each side, and Mr. Sickles senior, together with others, accompanied him from the court.

The witness particularly, and many of the spectators, were moved to tears. The scene was one of deep interest[.] In some few minutes Mr. Sickles was brought back into court, his countenance still indicating extreme mental suffering, and the desolateness of his whole appearance awakening strong sympathy in the breasts of all who saw him. His father was much affected by his condition.

CROSS EXAMINATION RESUMED.

The cross-examination of Mr. Walker was resumed by the District Attorney. I do not know who sent for Goddard, the Chief of Police; my impression was that it was Sickles, or some of his friends; after a time, Sickles became calmer but did not resume his satural appearance; he quitted sobbing and crying for some time.

To Mr. Carlisle. Could compare Sickles’s condition to nothing but an agony of despair; it was the most terrible thing I ever saw in my life; he was in a state of frenzy at the time, and I feared if it continued he would become permanently insane; his screams were of the most frightful character, there were unearthly and appalling, and were interrupted by something between a sob and a moan; sometimes he would start and scream in a very high key; he appeared in a state of perfect frenzy.

Ques. What do you mean by that? Do you mean a passion of grief?

Ans. It was much stronger than grief; it exhibited more alarming symptoms than any grief I had ever witnessed before; I had seen a man a long time ago, under similar circumstances, in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, but his grief was not so strong as this. Mr. Sickles’s exclamations of grief were more about his child than anything else. I remained there for a bout half an hour; had moved to the door to go for a physician, but there was some cessation in these paroxysms, and I did not go; he gradually grew calmer. My impression is, that it was Mr. Butterworth who went for the magistrate.

Ques. Do you recollect that Sickles grew calm, and said he was ready to go with the magistrate?

Ans. I do; when I say calm, I mean comparatively calm. I went with him to the jail, because I feared a recurrence of his paroxysms of grief and despair; I remained at the jail from one to two hours; no physicians saw him during that time, to my knowledge; there were few persons at the jail; none but the magistrate, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Butterworth, and one or two others; it could not have been more than four or five minutes between those paroxysms and the coming in of the magistrate; the first part of the scene was witnessed only by Butterworth and myself.

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF WALKER, CONTINUED.

The first part of this scene was witnessed only by Mr. Butterworth and myself. I never was so much excited as I was on that occasion. Should think that about ten minutes transpired, during which Butterworth, Sickles and myself, were in the room together. I first went into the front room, and afterwards into the back room. There were several persons in the front room, but could not name one of them. The rooms communicated by folding doors, and I think they were closed. I went through these doors into the back room. The persons in the front room could not witness this scene, as the doors were closed, at least during part of the time. My impression is, that the next person I saw in the back room was Mr. Berrett, the Mayor.

Ques. Where is Mr. Butterworth now?

Ans. I do not know.

Ques. When did you see him last?

Ans. Some day towards the close of last week.

Ques. In this city?

Ans. Yes.

SOURCE: The National Era, Washington, D. C., Thursday, April 21, 1859, p. 2

The Sickles Trial, published April 21, 1859

We brought our brief synopsis of this important trial down to Wednesday last. On that day the court ruled that the confession of Mrs. Sickles was inadmissible. Miss. O. M. Ridgely, who resides in Washington with her mother, was an intimate friend of Mrs. Sickles, and spent much of her time at the house, before and after the killing of Key. Her testimony, like that of Governor Walker, which we elsewhere publish in full, goes to show the extreme anguish of mind of Mr. Sickles. Bridget Duffy who lived in Mr. Sickles’s house as nurse and lady’s maid, testified, as did Miss Ridgely, that Mr. Sickles spent the Saturday night before the homicide in extreme anguish, weeping and sobbing aloud. The witness also testified that she saw Key twirling his handkerchief in a peculiar manner opposite the house of the day of his death.

William W. Mann of Buffalo, New York, met Key in Lafayette square, near the Jackson statue, the same morning—spoke to him—observed him twirl his handkerchief. A gentleman with him called his attention to it.

George B. Wooldridge was an assistant to the Clerk of the House [of] representatives. Saw Mr. Sickles at the Capitol ion Saturday, in great agony of mind. On Sunday, the day of the homicide, was at Mr. Sickles’s house. The testimony of this witness is interesting:

Ques. Did you see Mr. Key that Sunday.

Ans. I did; twice.

Ques. Where and when?

Ans. First between ten and eleven o’clock, going out of the gate of Lafayette square, on the corner of Seventeenth street and Pennsylvania avenue, near the War Office, on the street Mr. Sickles’s house was in.

Ques. In what direction did he go?

Ans. He crossed the street and went up the avenue, I presume; I did not observe in what direction he turned his glance; the second time I saw him was about a quarter to two o’clock, directly in front of the library window in Mr. Sickles’s house; there was a lady and gentleman with him then; he was on the side toward the curbstone; the lady was next the railing; and the three were in a direct line; Mr. Sickles was upstairs at the time; he had left the library and gone up stairs.

Ques. Did you observe Mr. Key do anything while passing?

Ans. I saw him tike his handkerchief out of his pocket and wave it three times; while doing so, his eyes where toward the upper window of Mr. Sickles house; he kept his eyes from the gentleman, as if he did not which him to see what he was doing; he parted with the lady and gentleman at the corner, entered the park, and proceeded in the direction of Madison Place; some five minutes before that Mr. Sickles had gone up stairs; saw him enter the library door two minutes after; heard some one coming down the stairs very rapidly, and come into the library; he said, “The villain has just passed my house.”

District Attorney. Do not state what he said.

Mr. Brady. What did he do?

Witness. He was very excited; he talked for a moment with Mr. Butterworth, who endeavored to calm him; he appeared to resist these attempts to calm him, and threw Mr. Butterworth off, and turned into the hall; he had not his hat on at the time.

This is the last I saw of him till he came into the house with the officers.

S. S. Parker sworn. I have seen Mr. Key in the vicinity of Mr. Sickles’s house; the last time was on the Sunday he was killed, near half past ten o’clock; He passed me near Fifteenth street and Pennsylvania avenue, above Willards; I slowly passed up Fifteenth street; he walked very rapidly; when near Nairn’s drug store, he was entering the middle gate of Lafayette square; I saw him the Sunday before the shooting; I saw Mrs. Sickles on the platform of her residence, he had over the shoulder of a little girl, apparently trying to keep her from falling from the steps; directly after, I saw Mr. Key at the southwest gate of Lafayette square; when he came out in full view, he took out his handkerchief, with his hat in hand; but his hat on his head, bowing to Mrs. S. and twice waived his handkerchief.

Thomas K. Brown, examined by Mr. Brady. I reside in the city of New York; in pursuance to instructions from you, (Mr. Brady,) I obtained a certain lock.

Mr. Brady hands the witness a sealed package, breaks the seal, opens the package, and produced a common door lock.

Mr. Carlisle did not see the point of examination.

Mr. Brady simply wanted to identify an article which he would offer in evidence hereafter.

The witness identified the lock, and says he procured it from Mr. Wagner, Pennsylvania avenue, opposite the Treasury Department, who took it from the door No. 383 Fifteenth street.

Not cross-examined.

Jacob Wagner, examined by Mr. Brady. I reside in Washington; I am a locksmith; I delivered this lock to Mr. Brown, the last witness; I took it off the house in Fifteenth street, No. 383; John Gray, the colored man’s house; there were three or four gentlemen there when I took it off; Mr. Pendleton was on of them; I saw him in the court yesterday; I believe he was a member of Congress; the colored boy came for me; this was about a week after Mr. Key’s death; have seen some of the gentlemen in court who were present; the colored man paid me for taking it off.

Question. What was said on that occasion?

Objected to.

Mr. Stanton proposed to show that  the lock was taken off for the purpose of destroying evidence.

Mr. Ould. If that was the view, I have not the slightest objection to have the question put.

Mr. Stanton wanted to know whether it was the persons engaged in the prosecution who tried to destroy the evidence. There were two prosecutors here, a public prosecutor and a private prosecutor.

Mr. Carlisle wanted to know whether Mr. Stanton meant to be understood as intimating that he (Mr. Carlisle) had any knowledge of this attempt to destroy evidence.

Mr. Stanton. None in the world. God forbid that I should believe you would do it.

John Cuyler was sworn. Knew the late Mr. Key for three or four years; knew where Mr. Sickles resided; saw Mr. Key in the vicinity of the house a week before his death.

As I entered the corner gate of Lafayette square, I saw Mr. Key enter the corner gate; proceeding to the front of the Jackson statue, he took a seat on an iron bench, rested his head on his left hand, then pulled out his pocket handkerchief and waved it; I went behind the Statue and watched him; he waved his handkerchief this way, [illustrating,] and then looked at the house of Mr. Sickles. [Laughter.] There was no dog about at the time; this was between 12 and 1 o’clock; I left him in the square as I went out of the northeast gate to go home; I left him sitting there; when I returned that way, he was gone; I have often seen him loitering back and forth in the square; for two months, he had been attracting my attention; I never saw him waving his handkerchief but on one occasion.

By Mr. Stanton. Was that the hour when Members of Congress are at the Capitol?

Witness. Yes.

Mr. Carlisle. That is an argumentative question.

Mr. Stanton. That is all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ould. I saw Mr. Key waving his handkerchief, while I was going home to dinner; I work first one place an then another; I was then working on Seventeenth street, below the War Department; had been working there three or four days; I never took count of how many times I met Mr. Key in the square as I went through it; I have seen him in the square on the avenue, near the Club House; I cannot state the day; it must have been about the middle of the week, about a week before the killing.

To witness. What was said about the lock at this time, and who said it?

Ans. The colored man said it.

Ques. Were the other persons present at the time?

Ans. No, sir.

Ques. What time was it?

Ans. About 11 o’clock.

Ques. While you were taking off the lock?

Ans. Yes.

Mr. Carlisle. Were these other persons present at the time?

Ans. Not that I know of. I think they were upstairs.

Mr. Ould. I Understand that it was proposed to show that certain persons connected with the deceased had given orders that this lock should be secured and kept out of the way. I have no objection that that fact, if true, should be given in evidence; but the evidence must tend to that.

Judge. It must come through a regular channel.

Mr. Stanton to witness. I want to know whether these persons were in the house at the time?

Ans. There were.

Ques. How long were you engaged in taking it off?

Ans. Ten minutes.

Ques. What door was it taken off.

Ans. The front door.

Ques. Was there another lock put on that door?

Ans. There was.

It now being three o’clock, the court adjourned.

FRIDAY, APRIL 15.

Jacob Wagner was recalled. He wished to correct his testimony given yesterday; while taking off the lock, as he testified yesterday, no one spoke to witness that he remembered, but the colored man. Mr. Pendleton’s name was called; saw another man there, who is now in court. [Col. Jones.]

Cross-examined by Mr. Ould. These persons were there when witness went to the house; the front door was locked; entered the house by the back way, which was unlocked; the lock taken off was on the front door of the house; tried to unlock the back door, and found it was already unlocked; the lock was not broken; this was about a week after Key’s death; three other gentlemen were up stairs at the time; did not come down while witness was there; saw them in the yard, and saw them go up stairs; have witness no directions about the matter; witness did not go up stairs at all.

By Mr. Brady. Put a different lock on the door afterwards.

By Mr. Carlisle. The colored boy who came to witness was not the proprietor of the house; knows John Gray; he was there, and asked witness to take off the lock; witness saw Mr. Pendleton and Col. Jones examine the lower part of the house, and afterwards go up stairs.

John Seeley called and examined. Resides in Washington; is a painter; lives in L street, about thirty yards below the corner of Fifteenth street, not far from the house of John Gray, in Fifteenth street; was present when the lock was taken off; thinks it was between the 5^th and the 8^th of March; was there by mere accident, and heard the order given to take off the lock; saw Mr. Charles Jones there, and was informed that the other was Mr. Pendleton; one of these gentleman gave the order for the lock to be taken off; don’t know which one; was present a part of the time when the lock was taken off; Mr. Poole was there also when the locksmith went to work; they went up stairs; heard nothing said about the character of the new lock to be put on.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ould. The time was between the 5^th and 8^th of March; that was the only time witness was there after the death of Key; this might have been Tuesday; am not sure as to the day of the week; the locksmith came through the adjoining lot, occupied by a yellow woman; do not know whether any one else had been to that house previously, since Key’s death; these gentlemen were standing in the yard when the witness reached the spot, and went into the house just before witness reached the spot, and went into the house just before witness; one of them said it would be better to take off that lock and put on a new one; they were in the house some time, in the passage and parlor, perhaps twenty or twenty-five minutes; thinks the lock was not entirely off when they went up stairs; heard no order given as to the disposition to be made of the lock; the remark was, the lock had better be taken off, and replaced with another.

Lewis Poole called. Boards with Mr. Seeley, who has just testified; knows the house No. 383 Fifteenth street, owned by John Gary; have noticed it freque3ntlyu; was there when the lock was taken off; thinks it was on Monday or Tuesday, a week after Key’s death; Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Jones, Seeley and witness, and Gray were present; Mr. Pendleton ordered the lock to be taken off, and another one put on; saw the lock taken off; did not see the other one put on.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ould. We all went into the house together; after giving the order, Mr. Pendletons and Mr. Jones immediately went up stairs to examine the upper portion of the house; thinks it was a command and not a suggestion to the locksmith, for he went to work and did it; can’t give Mr. Pendleton’s exact language; these gentleman staid up stairs teen or fifteen minutes; while the lock was being removed, these gentlemen were up states the whole time; had never been in the house previously, since Key’s death; does not know that anybody else did; I know that Mr. Hey went there. [Laughter.]

Rev. C. H. A. Buckley called. Resides in Westminster, Conn.; have known Sickles since 1838; was associated with him in New York University, and was in one class with him; since then, have had a casual acquaintance with him.

Mr. Brady asked whether witness had an opportunity in former years to know whether Sickles had an excitable temperament.

Witness. Yes, sir.

Mr. Brady proposed to prove that Mr. Sickles once, under the loss of a friend, became positively insane, so as to have to be placed under restraint.

Mr. Ould said, if previous insanity could be proved they would withdraw the objection.

[The witness testified that on the occasion of the death of Professor Da Ponte, in 1840, in New York, who was the patron of Mr. Sickles, immediately after his body was lowered into the ground, Sickles broke out into frantic and passionate grief, shrieking and yelling; it was impossible for his friends to pacify him, and they were obliged to use friendly force to remove him from the spot; witness thinks he did tear his clothes and his hair, but was not sure. This testimony is voluntary on witness’s part, and wholly unsought by the prisoner, or by this counsel. He had offered it, as he thought it might be of service to him.]

Cross-examined by Mr. Ould. Do not know how old Sickles was then, because I do not know his age now; was about the same age as witness, apparently; witness is forty years of age; this manifestation of violent grief lasted ten minutes perhaps, or five minutes at any rate; saw no traces of it on the following day; did not see him every day at that  time; saw him two or three days afterwards, but saw nothing singular in his appearance; he appeared to be rather more light-hearted than could be expected under the circumstances, forming an unnatural contrast to his previous conduct; it was a casual manifestation ; the first demonstration was the most remarkable witness ever saw in his life; do not remember the circumstances in his life; do not remember the circumstances of the second interview, or who was present; it was somewhere about the University; was then a student of the Theological Seminary.

Major Hopkins called. Is a coachman for Col. Freeman; have been such for five or six years; lives on H street, between Fifteenth and Sixteenth; saw Mr. Key. On the Sunday he was shot, about half past one o’clock; he was about the middle of the square, walking up and down; he was doing nothing in particular; saw him either on Monday or Wednesday, the week previous; he went into the square and waved his handkerchief; Mrs. Sickles came out and joined him, and they walked away together; about an hour after, saw them go up Fifteenth street; lost sight of them on the steps of John Gray’s house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Carlisle. Is Major your name or your title? [Laughter.]

Witness. It is my name, Sir.

Mr. Carlisle. Then you don’t belong to either or the regular army or the militia? [Laughter.]

Witness. No, sir.

[This witness was rigidly cross-examined, and seemed to get very much puzzled in giving his answers. When he saw Mrs. Sickles on Fifteenth street, her back was turned towards him, but he judged it was her by her dress, which he had observed when she first joined Mr. Key.]

But one witness was examined on Saturday. His evidence was not important. On Monday, Mrs. Brown, a witness formerly examined, testified that she had seen Key and Mrs. Sickles enter the house several times. John M. Seeley and his wife, who reside in the immediate vicinity of the house on Fifteenth street, also testified to seeing the parties enter the house frequently. Their testimony was minute and clear.

Tuesday, Mr. Thompson sworn. Was formerly Mr. Sickles’s coachman. Mrs. Sickles was in the habit of driving out during the hours when Congress in session, and generally met Key. He usually got into the carriage, by never rode home with her except once, when Mr. Sickles was in New York. During the absence of Sickles, Key was in the habit of visiting Mrs. Sickles nearly every night, and remained late with her alone in the library—one night until one o’clock. They also were in the habit of visiting the cemetery at Georgetown, and, alighting at the gate, walking down the hill out of his sight.

John Cooney, the coachman of Mr. Sickles at the time of Key’s death, gave similar testimony.

Mr. Wooldridge was recalled and cross-examined by the prosecution.

SOURCE: The National Era, Washington, D. C., Thursday, April 21, 1859, p. 2-3

Sickles Trial, published April 28, 1859

 We continue our brief synopsis of the evidence in this trial.

On Wednesday, April 20^th, Mr. Wooldridge was examined by the prosecution. No fact of interest was elicited.

“Albert A. Megaffey examined by Mr. Brady. I reside in the city of Washington; I knew the late Mr. Key; was acquainted with him from January or February, 1858; was tolerable intimate with him; I was a member of the club up to the time of its dissolution, and met Mr. Key there.

“Ques. Did you at any time have a conversation with Mr. Key in reference to Mrs. Sickles?”

“Witness. I did.

“Mr. Carlisle. Stop a moment.

“Mr. Brady.  We don’t ask the witness to state the conversation. When did the conversation take place?”

“Witness. In June, 1858; I had a subsequent conversation on that subject the day or two immediately preceding the Napier ball, which was on the 17^th of February; recollect it from something that occurred at the ball between Mr. Key and myself; never had a regular set conversation with him about the matter but these two; but I have referred to it three or four times when I met him.

“Mr. Brady. I desire you to state this conversation.

“District Attorney. We object.

“Mr. Brady. We propose to prove by this witness:

“First. That shortly before the decease of Mr. Key, the witness had noticed certain conduct on his part towards Mrs. Sickles, which led him to suggest to Mr. Key that the latter was observed to be over-attentive to her, in answer to which Mr. Key remarked that he had a great friendship for her, that he considered her a child, and hat paternal feelings towards her, and he repelled indignantly the idea of having any but kind and fatherly feeling towards her.

“Second. That at a subsequent conversation in relation to the same subject, the witness suggested to Mr. Key that he might get into danger or difficulty about the matter; Mr. Key laid his hand on the left breast of his coat, and said, ‘I am prepared for any emergency.’

“Mr. Ould argued that evidence of these conversations was inadmissible.

“The Court did not perceive how this evidence tended to the establishment of any point involved in the controversy in this case. It seemed that some of the declarations of the deceased were made in last June, and that the last we made on the 17^th of February last. How that tended to prove that the deceased was armed on the 27^th of February, some ten days later, did not strike the court. Another ground on which it was not admissible was, that it was offered to excuse the conduct of the accused, on the ground that he had a right to suppose the deceased was armed. The court did not think the question of his being armed on the particular day when this witness conversed with him had anything to do with that either, as it was not proposed to show, nor was there any evidence to show that the conversation between this witness and Mr. Key had ever been communicated to Mr. Sickles by this witness or any other Party.

“The court could not look upon this evidence as admissible.

“John McDonald was called, and answered substantially as follows: I was footman for Mr. Sickles. On the Thursday preceding Mr. Key’s death, while Mrs. Sickles was driving in the carriage, we met Mr. Key at the houses of Secretary Brown and Secretary Thompson, and at the flower house on the avenue. At the latter place, Mr. Key leaned into the carriage, and, looking into Mrs. Sickles’s face, asked her if she was going to the hop at Willard’s. Mrs. Sickles said, ‘I am going if Dan will let me.” He got in, and we rode round awhile. I let Mr. Key out in Fifteenth street. I then drove Mrs. Sickles home.

“To Mr. Ould. It was on Thursday, at about four o’clock, that I let Mr. Key out at the corner of Fifteenth street.

“This closed the evidence on the part of the defence.

“Mr. Ould, the District Attorney, said, that inasmuch as the evidence of adulterous intercourse has been admitted, he was prepared to admit the truth of the confession of Mrs. Sickles, and allow it to go before the jury as evidence.

“Considerable discussion here ensued between counsel for the prosecution, disclaiming that they had anything to do with the publication of the confession, and Mr. Brady regretting that it had been published.

“Hon. George H. Pendleton, member of Congress from Ohio, was called by the prosecution in rebuttal. He testified that he, in company with Charles Jones, had visited the house in Fifteenth street after the death of Key, but he had never had any participation in the removal of the lock from the house.

“Several cards, letters, &c., were produced and identified, but at the request of the prisoner, the names of the persons on the cards were not made public.

“Before leaving the stand, Mr. Pendleton addressed the Court, and said that any statement that had been made, of his having attempted to defeat the ends of Justice in this case was infamously false.

“Charles Lee Jones, Esq., testified to accompanying Mr. Pendleton to the house, but he knew nothing at all of the lock having been taken off. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Brady and an exciting scene ensued on his being asked if he had not been assisting the prosecution. He said Mr. Key was one of his dearest friends, and he should always revere his memory.”

Thursday, Mr. Doyle, and other witnesses testified as to the disposition of the papers found on the person of Mr. Key at the time of his death, and particularly as to a letter written in cipher. The evidence seemed not to be very material, and we shall therefore pass it over.

The defence complained that these papers had been in possession of Mr. Carlisle, who assisted the prosecution, when they should have been furnished the prisoner’s counsel.

Several witnesses testified as to the condition of Mr. Sickles at the time of and immediately subsequent to the homicide. They differed among themselves; but, for the most part, their evidence tended to show that Mr. S. was perfectly cool and self-possessed. This account differed entirely from that of Governor Walker, Bridget Duffy, Wooldridge, and others, called by the defence.

Mayor Berret was at Sickles’s immediately after the homicide. He testifies that “Sickles and Walker went into the parlor, and witness followed, thinking it proper to be present. They remained there some five or ten minutes, and then returned to the library, and, after some conversation, left for the jail. While in the parlor, Sickles discovered Walker, and said, “A thousand thanks to you, my friend, for calling,” and spoke of his child and his house being dishonored. He then sat on the sofa, and wept heartily; witness recommended to him to compose himself, and he did so, and we soon after left. This burst of grief lasted four or five minutes—perhaps more. He made a noise indicative of deep grief; can best describe it as a hearty cry, accompanied by sobbing, which could have been heard all over this room. There were no other indications than those that ordinarily accompany a hearty burst of grief. Witness left with them for the jail. No such manifestations were made on the way to jail. He seemed to be restive and excited on account of the crowd, and witness remarked to him that he had better not observe the crowd. He once or twice passed salutations with persons on the street by the usual gesture. Don’t know to whom these salutations were particularly addressed. Left shortly after the examination at the jail, which was brief. During this examination, Sickles was composed; witness did not see any exhibition of grief at the jail such as he has described.

“To Mr. Brady. He certainly made a strong effort to become tranquil when witness suggested the importance of it, in view of the crowd through which he had to pass.”

In the morning of this day, Judge Crawford stated that he had received a letter direct to Mr. Wilson, one of the jurors, and that, if there was no objection, he would hand it to him. This was assented to on both sides, and the juror was permitted to open and read it. The juror immediately returned the letter to the court, remarking that he had no knowledge of the author, and that it was not proper for him to receive it. The judge then read the letter, and found that it related to the trial going on before the court. He thought that the author should be detected and punished, and proposed to place the letter in the hands of the District Attorney, which was agreed to.

The reporters for the Associated Press say of the letter in cipher, that it has been translated by Mr. Charles Howard, of Baltimore, a brother-in-law of Mr. Key, and that it purports to be a love letter from Mrs. Sickles to Mr. Key. This, however, is a surmise.

Friday, Messrs. John L. Dubrow and Edward Delafield testified that they saw Sickles about the time of the homicide, and thought him rather cool than otherwise, under the circumstances.

“Charles F. Lewis testified: is connected with the office of the Congressional Globe: has with him the manuscript of the speeches made in the House of Representatives on Friday and Saturday previous to the killing of Key; the reporters were Messrs. Hays, Hinks, now in court, and Messrs. Andrews, and McElhone, who are not here. [Mr. Smith, one of the reporters, was here requested to examine the bundles of copy, and select that of the speeches made by Mr. Sickles on the days named.] Mr. Brady remarked that the defence were here perfectly willing to admit that Mr. S. did make five-minutes speeches on the days named, but at the time these speeches were made he was under the impression that the charges against his wife were untrue.”

Mr. Carlisle for the prosecution stated that the evidence on that side was now closed, except two witnesses, who had been called to testify on the point of insanity.

“Judge Crawford decided to wait till to-morrow morning for the missing witnesses, and informed the District Attorney that the Court could not possibly wait longer for them.” Mr. Brady stated that the counsel on both sides had agreed to furnish each other with their instructions this afternoon. They could thus be examined at leisure, and both parties come into court to-morrow, fully prepared to make very brief arguments. By this mode time would be gained instead of being lost, and the trial brought to a close much sooner than otherwise.”

The following are the instructions to the jury prepared by the prosecution:

“If the jury believe, from the whole evidence in this cause, that the prisoner, on the day named in the indictment, and in the County of Washington aforesaid, killed the said Philip Barton Key, by discharging at, against and into the body of him, the said Philip Barton Key, a pistol or pistols loaded with gunpowder and ball, thereby giving him a mortal wound or wounds, and that such killing was the wilful [sic]and intentional act of the prisoner; and that said act was induced by the belief that the said deceased had seduced his, the prisoner’s wife, and on some day or days, or for any period, definite or indefinite, prior to the day of such killing, had adulterous intercourse with the said wife; and that the prisoner was not provoked to such killing by any assault or offer of violence, then and there made by the deceased upon or against him, then such wilful and intentional killing, if found by the jury upon all the facts and circumstances given in evidence, is murder. But such killing cannot be found to have been wilful and intentional, in the sense of this instruction, if it shall have been proven to the satisfaction of the jury, upon the whole evidence aforesaid, that the prisoner was in fact insane at the time of such killing.”

Saturday, Ex-Senator Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, was called as a witness by the prosecution. He testified that he was at Judge Black’s when Mr. Sickles arrived there, immediately after killing Key. Sickles was introduced to Mr. Haldeman, who entered into a conversation with him upon Pennsylvania and New York politics. Nothing was said by Sickles in reference to the shooting affair at the time, until the police arrived, when he inquired if the case were bailable; and said that, if the facts were known, “God knows I would be justified,” or “I could not help it.”

This closed the evidence on the part of the prosecution.

The Following are the instructions to the jury prepared by the prisoner’s counsel:

“First. There is no presumption of malice in this case, if any proof of “alleviation, excuse, or justification, arise out of the evidence for the prosecution. [State vs. Johnson, vol. 3, Jones, page 266; McDaniel vs. State, vol. 8, Smead’s and Marshall’s page 401; Day’s Case 17 of pamphlet.]

“Second. The existence of malice is not presumable in this case, if, on any rational theory consistent with all the evidence the homicide was either justifiable, excusable, or an act of manslaughter. [Same cases as above cited; United States vs. Mingo, Vol. 2, Curtis C. C. R. I., Commonwealth vs. New York; Vol. 2, Bennett and Heard, Leading Criminal Cases, page 505.]

“Third. If, on the whole evidence presented by the prosecution, there is any rational hypothesis consistent with the conclusion that the homicide was justifiable or excusable, the defendant cannot be convicted.

“Fourth. If the jury believe that Mr. Sickles, when the homicide occurred, intended to kill Mr. Key, he cannot be convicted of manslaughter.

“Fifth. It is for the jury to determine, under all circumstances of the case, whether the act charged upon Mr. Sickles is murder of justifiable homicide. [Ryan’s Case, 2; Wheeler’s Criminal Cases, 54.]

“Fifth. It is for the jury to determine, under all the circumstances of the case, whether the act charged upon Mr. Sickles is murder or justifiable homicide. [Ryan’s Case, 2; Wheeler’s Criminal Cases, 54.]

“Sixth. If the jury find that Mr. Sickles killed Mr. Key while the latter was in criminal intercourse with the wife of the former, Mr. Sickles cannot be convicted of either murder or manslaughter.

“Seventh. If, from the whole evidence, the jury believe that Mr. Sickles committed the act, but, at the time of doing so, was under the influence of a diseased mind, and was really unconscious that he was committing a crime, he is not in law guilty of murder. [Day’s Case, pamphlet, page 9.]

“Eighth. If the jury believe that, from any predisposing cause, the prisoner’s mind was impaired, and at the time of killing Mr. Key he became or was mentally incapable of governing himself in reference to Mr. Key, as the debauchee of his wife, and at the time of his committing said act was, by reason of such cause, unconscious that he was committing a crime as to said Mr. Key, he is not guilty of any offence whatever. [Day’s Case, pamphlet, page 17.]

“Ninth. It is for the jury to say what the state of the prisoner’s mind as to the capacity to decide upon the criminality of the particular act in question—the homicide—at the moment it occurred, and what was the condition of the parties, respectively, as to being armed or not, at the same moment.

“These are open questions for the jury, as are any other questions that may arise upon the consideration of the evidence, the whole of which is to be taken in view by the jury. [Jarboe’s Case, pamphlet, page 20.]

“Tenth. The law does not require that the insanity which absolves from crime should exist for any definite period, but only that it exist at the moment when the act occurred with which the accused stands charged.

“Eleventh. If the jury have any doubt as to the case, either in reference to the homicide or the question of sanity, Mr. Sickles should be acquitted.”

Mondy—occupied in argument by counsel.

_______________

Mr. Sickles Acquitted.—We are gratified to announce that Mr. Sickles has been acquitted. The jury remained out but half an hour, and when the verdict was announced, the sympathies of the large audience burst forth in shouts of applause. Mr. Sickles came out accompanied by his friends, and was received but the dense throng with renewed applause. He immediately got into his carriage and drove to his house, followed by the excited crowd.

SOURCE: The National Era, Washington, D. C., Thursday, April 28, 1859, p. 2

Citizens of New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond & Westchester Counties to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, May 20, 1850

INVITATION TO ACCEPT A COMPLIMENTARY PUBLIC DINNER.

TO THE HON. DANIEL S. DICKINSON.

DEAR SIR—The undersigned, your Democratic Republican fellow-citizens of the city and county of New York and neighboring counties, sincerely desire to express in person our high appreciation of your services in the councils of the confederacy. For that purpose, we beg you to name an early day when your high duties will permit you to meet us at a public dinner, when we may have the opportunity of giving full utterance to the sentiments of respect and confidence with which your distinguished political services to our common country have inspired us.

From the commencement of our national existence, the intelligent observer has discovered but one element in our circumstances or condition, from which to apprehend incurable discord among our citizens, or serious peril to the duration of the Republic. So to regulate the action of government in respect to that element as to preserve harmony and to avert the consequent peril, has been the constant effort of the American sage and patriot. For the success of such efforts the prayers of the wise and virtuous in every clime have been enlisted; for it has not escaped notice how deeply our fate as a nation involves the fortunes of mankind. That the great experiment commenced here, and hitherto triumphantly carried forward, may not be checked in its career, must be desired by the philanthropist, wherever found. But to accomplish this purpose enjoins upon the patriotic statesman the exercise of the same prudence, forbearance and generosity which characterized the course of the original framers of the constitution; and it has fallen to your lot and ours, during the deeply—interesting period of your term as representative of this State in the Senate of the Union, to witness the necessity of the constant exercise of a spirit of forbearance to preserve our Union from the severest trial of its strength.

In the trying crisis through which our country, and, we may add, the cause of the world's freedom and of republicanism, is now passing, the State of New York is most fortunate in being represented in the Senate of the Union by one whose patriotism soars above the level of time-serving purposes, and whose eminent talents and moral worth command respect, both in the State he represents and in the Councils of the Nation

NEW YORK, May 20, 1850.

With sentiments of great respect, yours, &c.,

Charles O’Conor, George Douglass, Leroy M. Wiley, Francis B. Cutting, Royal Phelps, Schuyler Livingston, Felix Ingoldsby, James Lee, Joel Wolfe, Edward K. Collins, Henry Shaw, Benjamin Poulteney, Francis W. Edmonds, William M’Murray, Wm. C. H. Waddell, Campbell P. White, Robert H. Winslow, Joseph Kernochan, John J. Cisco, Wm. A. Gasquet, Charles A. Clinton, Reuben Withers, Wm. E. Lawrence, John H. Lee, James T. Brady, John Addison Thomas, Edward Sandford, Nathl. Jarvis, D. C. Eaton, Edward C. West, James C. Stoneall, Joseph A. Drivver, John Ewen, Florence M’Carthy, John H. Brower, Francis Secor, George P. Morris, James B. Murray, Anthony L. Robertson, Thomas W. Clarke, Wm. A. Walker, B. S. Hart, Michael Burke, Philo T. Ruggles, Richard Compton, Fernando Wood, Thomas C. Fields, John M’Mennomy, Hugh Kelley, Daniel Dodge, Edward Strahan, Daniel B. Taylor, Thomas Jeremiah, John A. Stemmler, Thomas Harrison, George Montgomery, Henry Hilton, W. C. Freeman, Edmund J. Porter, James R. Whiting, Henry W. Dolsen, Andrew H. Mickle, John M. Bradhurst, Robert H. Morris, Myndert Van Shaick, Cornelius W. Lawrence, John D. Van Buren, Theodore Sedgwick, Jacob Aims, Thomas Seffern, George Law, John H. L. M’Cracken, John M’Keon, Gideon Ostrander, Robert J. Dillon, Wm S. Wetmore, Emanuel B. Hart, Wm A. Mead, Daniel E. Sickles, Henry G. Stebbins, Tarrant Putnam, Henry Erben, Augustus Schell, A. B. Davis, R. T. Woodward, Wm. B. Maclay, Elijah F. Burdy, Robert Kelley, William Beach Lawrence, John W. Mersereatt, Lorenzo B. Shepard, Garrit H. Striker Jr., Thoe. Romeyn, J. Sherman Brownell, Cyrus Lawton, J. Romeyn Brodhead, Alex F. Vache, Elijah Ward, Solomon Townsend, Thos. S. Henry, Freeman Campbell, Chessenden Ellis, Edward R. Carpentier, John Foote, Nathaniel S. Jarvis, U. D. French, Nathaniel Pearce, Benjamin H. Field, Henry M. Western, W. Beach Lawrence Jr., Frederick R. Lee, David R. Floyd Jones, James S. Libby, Joseph W. Bouck, Franklin S Kinney, Henry Storms, Andrew Clark, John Collins Jr., John S. Gilbert Philip Reynolds, Gideon J. Tucker, Richard Schell.

QUEENS COUNTY.

William Horace Brown, John W. Lawrence.

RICHMOND COUNTY.

John Yates Cebra, D. Denyse, James E. Cooley, Jesse O. Dissosway, Israel O. Dissosway, Richard D. Littell, Lovel Purdy, Joshua Mesereau.

KINGS COUNTY.

John A. Lott, Nathl. F. Waring, Henry C. Murphy, Tunis G. Bergen, John Vanderbilt, Thomas I. Gerald, L. B. Hawkhurst, E. C. Litchfield, Samuel Smith, Thomas G. Talmadge, E. A. Lambert, R. V. W. Thorne, Samuel Sloan, James M. Seabury, Abraham Verplanck, Edmund Driggs, Philip Hamilton Gabriel W. Cuit, H. C. Boswell, John I. Runsie, Daniel H. Feeks, Daniel Eagan, Abm. I. Berry, Daniel Reilly, George Thompson, Cornelius S. Bogardus, John Rice, Joseph Wilson, John B. Bergen, Daniel Van Vorhes.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

Aaron Ward, Abm. Hyatt, John M. Stevens, Charles A. Purdy, John T. Yoe, A. K. Hoffman, Jesse Lynn, George B. Butler, Benjamin Brandreth, Benj. M. Brown, S. Marshall, Samuel F. Reynolds, John T. Hoffman, J. M. Scribner, John B. Haskin, Robert H. Ludlow.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 431-4