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

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, March 3, 1866

The week as usual has been busy. The faction in Congress holds possession of the majority in both houses, yet there are signs of restiveness, of misgiving, on the part of many. Baldwin, from the Worcester District, Massachusetts, who is on the Directory, or Reconstruction, Committee, assures me that Stevens has in a great measure lost his influence in that committee. I have no doubt that Baldwin and others so believe when away from Stevens and perhaps when with him, but without intending it or even being fully aware of the extent to which it is carried, they are subjected, controlled, and directed by him. They may, by appeals, modify, but not to great extent, Stevens's plans. Baldwin intimates that action will be taken in behalf of the Tennessee Members, admitting them to the seats to which they are elected, early next week. The same thing has been repeated to me to-day by others. There is a manifest feeling of the gross wrong committed by their exclusion, not only to the State but to the Federal Union.

They have made the necessity of action in this case felt, and Stevens has had to yield, but he will, I presume, make the proceeding odious and unjust. Baldwin asks, Why not pass a law admitting those States? I told him Tennessee had been admitted seventy years ago. He said he did not strictly mean admission, but a law authorizing them to resume their relations with the Government. I said I could not see the necessity, or even the expediency of such a law, for, the Rebellion being suppressed, Tennessee and each of the States resumed their position as States, and if they sent loyal men here, I thought they should be admitted; if disloyal or unpardoned Rebels, such could be rejected. He was, however, very tenacious on this point, and I doubt not is committed to it. What harm, inquired he, can come from passing such a law, preliminary to receiving the Members. I told him it was, as a general rule, harmful to over-legislate, it is harmful to pass laws without authority, to assume powers or to concede them; that Congress, as a body, had no business with the election of Members, but the Constitution directs each house shall decide for itself in regard to the members of the respective bodies. The two houses could not legally or by any constitutional authority exclude a State or deny it representation. It was, however, unpleasant for the President and Congress to be in antagonism, and if it was mere form which he had in view without objectionable points or ulterior purpose, possibly such a bill might not be vetoed, yet I thought it very questionable, for it would be centralizing and magnifying federal power here and dwarfing the State.

I therefore anticipate that Stevens, finding the Committee and Congress are determined to admit the Tennessee Members to their seats, will set to work to frame an offensive bill such as the President cannot sign, or which, if he does sign, will discredit himself and violate his, and all correct, principles. This, however, I am satisfied he will not do. Then on him is to be thrown the responsibility of excluding the Tennessee Members.

I intimated to the President my conjectures, and he remarked he was prepared for such an alternative whenever it was presented. He had, from some quarter, been previously admonished in regard to the doings of the Committee.

Stevens is determined to have an issue between the Executive and Congress, and, notwithstanding a majority of Congress and of the country deprecate such an issue, and Members to me and others express their dislike of and opposition to Stevens, I incline to the opinion that he will, by the working of his Directory machinery, be successful in raising that issue. Should he, the result will be likely to rend the party, unless the minority are subservient and tamely submissive. The Administration must be supported or opposed. The positive and violent will oppose; the mild and passive will yield. Congress must be with the Administration or against it. Double-dealing cannot continue. I am apprehensive that there is treachery to the President in quarters which he will ultimately keenly feel. Sometimes I think he suspects the mischief, but is unwilling to have a breach just at this time and listens to those who advise temporizing and expediency.

Sherman (Senator), after speaking against the concurrent resolution, finally voted for it in the face of his own delivered opinion, argument, and conviction. This is a specimen of the influence of party discipline at this time in Congress. It is all-powerful.

Governor Dennison tells me this evening that he has written a letter to Patterson of New Hampshire, stating that he has removed no man and intends to remove none on account of differences between Congress and the President, provided they belong to the Union party. I am afraid he has gone farther than is wise in this matter, for if Stevens gets up the issue between the President and Congress, it may be necessary for the President to relieve himself of troublesome and officious electioneers in post-offices. I suspect Dennison has been entrapped by fair words.

If I mistake not, the Union League organization has contributed largely to present difficulties. It is controlled by extreme Radicals and rules many Members of Congress. An irresponsible faction, organized for mischief.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 441-4

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, March 5, 1866

The Reconstruction Committee have reported a resolution for admitting Tennessee Members. It is, in its phraseology and conditions, in character with the dissimulating management and narrow, unpatriotic partisanship of those who control the action of Congress. Tennessee is pronounced to be in a condition to exercise all the functions of a State, therefore she shall not send Representatives until she complies with certain conditions which Congress exacts but has no authority to impose, and which the people of that State cannot comply with and preserve their independence, self-respect, and the right guaranteed to them by the Constitution. How intelligent and sensible men, not opposed to our government and the Constitution itself can commit themselves to such stuff I am unable to comprehend, but the madness of party, the weakness of men who are under the discipline of an organization which chafes, stimulates, threatens, and coaxes, is most astonishing.

In conversation with Senator Grimes, Chairman of the Naval Committee, I regret to see he still retains his rancor towards the South, though I hope somewhat modified. He is unwilling to make needful appropriations for the navy yards at Norfolk and Pensacola because they are in the Rebel States. Yet a navy yard at Pensacola is important, it may be said necessary, to the protection of the Gulf Coast and the Mississippi in time of war. A foreign power can blockade that region, the whole valley of the Mississippi be locked up; and Western Members would permit this rather than expend a small sum for necessary purposes in a navy yard at the South. But Grimes is not so intensely wrong as others living in the Mississippi Valley. He will not, however, avail of the opportunity of procuring a magnificent site at Hampton Roads for the Naval School, because it is in Virginia.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 444-5

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, March 6, 1866

The Secretary of the Treasury is embarrassed by the test oath. He finds it difficult to procure good officers for collectors and assessors in the Rebel States and still more difficult to get good subordinates. When he attempts to reason with Members of Congress, they insist that their object is to exclude the very men required and say they want Northern men sent into those States to collect taxes. As if such a proceeding would not excite enmities and the foreign tax-gatherer be slain!

I advised McCulloch to address a strong and emphatic letter to the President, stating the difficulties, which letter the President could communicate to Congress. A direct issue would then be made, and the country could see and appreciate the difficulties of the Administration. Dennison took the same view, and stated some of his difficulties, and I suggested that he should also present them to the President. Seward was not prepared to act. Harlan was apprehensive that a confession of the fact that it was not possible to procure men of integrity who could take the test oath, would operate injudiciously just at this time. There is, he thinks, a growing feeling for conciliation in Congress, and such a confession would check this feeling. The suggestion was adroitly if not ingenuously put. Stanton half-responded to Harlan; doubted the expediency of a letter from McCulloch; said it was unnecessary; that he paid officers who could not take the oath; thought the Secretary of the Treasury might also; but concluded by saying he had not examined the question. Finally the subject was postponed to Friday. Stanton said it had presented itself to him in a new form during the discussion, and he required a little time for examination and reflection before submitting his views.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 445

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, March 7, 1866

I have addressed a letter concerning League Island, communicating the report of Mr. Fox, the Assistant Secretary, who visited Philadelphia with the Naval Committee. The improvidence and neglect of Congress on this subject shows how unreliable all legislation is for the public interest in high party times. By an intrigue Brandegee of New London was placed on the Naval Committee. Colfax purchased his support by that appointment, and the displacement of English, an act of dissimulation and discourtesy to me personally as well as a sacrifice of the public interest. Brandegee wants the navy yard at New London because he lives there and it is his home, not for the public interest and the national welfare, and for that narrow, selfish, low object the Navy and the country are sacrificed.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 445-6

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, March 8, 1866

Myers of Philadelphia had a long conversation with me in regard to the "admission" of Tennessee. I told him, as I have others, that Tennessee had been admitted more than seventy years ago. Well, he said, he did not mean admission, but to permit her to send Representatives. I told him he did mean admission and nothing else, and that permission to send Representatives was quite as offensive as his first position. The Constitution secured her that right when the State was admitted and made part of the Union, and Congress could neither deprive nor grant her the privilege of representation. Much more of like tendency passed between us—pleasantly. He expects to make a speech on the subject.

Governor Dennison called this evening to see whether he, McCulloch, and myself had not best consult with the President in regard to the welfare of the Republican Party and endeavor to bring about a reconciliation with the factious majority in Congress. I told him I could see no benefit that would result from such an effort; that the President's policy was well defined; that when Congress assembled, the Members well understood that policy, and that they, the Radicals, had promptly organized to oppose and defeat it; that this hostility or antagonism had gone forward for three months, Congress doing nothing, accomplishing nothing towards a restoration of the Union, but on the contrary had devoted its time and energies to prevent it. What, I asked him, could the President do under these circumstances? He cannot abandon his honest, rightful convictions, and to approach or attempt to approach these Radical leaders in their present state of mind would be misconstrued and retard rather than promote the work. The Republican Party had evidently about accomplished its mission. Slavery was abolished and the Rebellion suppressed. Perhaps it would result beneficially to take a new departure. He appeared to acquiesce in my suggestions.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 446-7

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, March 9, 1866

Senator Grimes, after an interview this A.M. on naval matters, got on to the subject of our public affairs generally, and particularly the differences between the President and the party in Congress. He disclaims Stevens and Sumner, and spoke of each in severe and denunciatory terms, the former as a pretty unscrupulous old fellow, unfit to lead any party, Sumner as a cold-blooded, selfish, dangerous man. When I spoke of him as honest but theoretical and yet, I believe, truthful, Grimes was disinclined to award him these traits, and I perceive has a strong prejudice—perhaps I should better define it by saying hate of the Massachusetts Senator, who, though a student learned in books, Grimes asserts is not a statesman or wise legislator.

With very respectable talents, Grimes is of a suspicious and somewhat jealous nature, inclining to be misanthropic. He must be classed as of the Radical school, but recognizes no Radical leader, has no respect for them; abhors Stevens as a debauchee in morals and politics. He is intimate with Fessenden, who is dyspeptic and has similar traits, and the two hunt in couples. They were both former admirers of Seward, but now and for some time past they dislike him, think his influence on Johnson pernicious.

When I saw during the fall that the extremists were gathering up their strength against the President, it was a question with me how these two Senators would go. Their natural tendency would, I knew, incline them to the opposition. They are both intense on the negro. But neither of them liked Sumner or Stevens, who were in the extreme advance. The President was originally of a different school of politics, and there is not, therefore, that intimacy between them which begets zeal, but during the War they have been bound by a common interest. They had no personal opposition to the President and, I think, no feeling against him except that which minds like theirs would have against the elevation above them of an old associate Senator whom they had regarded as an equal rather than a superior. Though differing with him in fundamental principles of our government, they respected his honesty.

Grimes says he came here at the commencement of the present session kindly disposed to the President and not very hostile to his policy. But he soon found that certain obnoxious Democrats had free access to the White House, and that pardoned Rebels hung around there. He was not satisfied with this state of things, and spoke of it, and was asked why he and others remained away. Soon after he was invited to breakfast with the President, and spent two hours with him discussing all subjects in full and most satisfactorily. Allusion was made to Fessenden, and he expressed a wish that the two should come together and interchange opinions. The President requested him to speak to Fessenden and invite an interview. As the next day was Sunday, Grimes inquired if it would be agreeable for the President to see him on the Sabbath. The President assented, and F. spent several hours most satisfactorily at the White House and went over general measures now prominent.

On the following day appeared the celebrated letter of "a conversation of the President with a distinguished Senator." Grimes says on reading it he asked Fessenden if that was his conversation. F. after reading the letter said he had had no such conversation, and they soon ascertained that Dixon was the Senator. The two, finding that they were not the only confidants of the President, thereupon left him, and allied themselves to the Radicals. They had ascertained that the President conversed freely with others, was not likely to commit himself to their keeping exclusively, and therefore should have their opposition or at all events could not rely on their support.

I inquired of Grimes what there was offensive in the letter, or the President's policy, or wherein he was inconsistent; said that doubtless many, who, like him and Fessenden, had peculiar views of their own, had called on the President and he had frankly conversed with each of them, notwithstanding their different shades of opinion, and each, perhaps, had construed the friendly courtesy and kindly greeting as favoring his tenet, while the aim had been to commit himself to none, but to be friendly and conciliatory with all.

I asked Grimes where all this was to end; what we were to expect when Members of Congress made it a point to disagree, organized a joint committee of the two houses to get round constitutional difficulty, which committee was to establish a policy for Congress and the country, arrogated to itself and stimulated Congress to arrogate or usurp executive powers, were passing declaratory resolutions which had no force, but were designed to irritate and be offensive, with other extraordinary proceedings. I told him the country had a present and a future before it, and its fate was to some extent in the hands of men in responsible positions and for which they were accountable. The country, I said, appeared to me to be in peril; that we must either reunite or diverge still farther soon. We cannot remain inactive, must either advance or recede.

I could perceive he was disturbed, but soon remarked that the Southern people were a damned set of traitors, as bad now as at any time during the Rebellion, and he had no confidence in them.

I admitted they were bad, malignant, foolish to a great extent, but asked when they would be better, and if no better, were we to be forever a disunited country. Their indebtedness in various forms under their sham organization could not be less than twenty-five hundred millions; the property in slaves which was extinguished by emancipation could not be less than twenty-five hundred millions more; other individual losses were immense. To all this they were compelled to submit, and besides this they were to pay their proportion of our debt incurred in whipping them. Now was it strange that they were sore and complaining, and were we doing right in excluding them from all participation in the government, to which they were entitled under the Constitution? We must adopt conciliatory measures or national calamities would soon be upon us, and we ought not to shut our eyes to the facts.

He admitted something must be done, but said that he had confidence that all would come right. He guessed we were nearer now than some apprehended. This he said with a smile and manner that impressed me as coming from one who thinks he and his associates have the reins in their hands and intend to guide the government car safely. But the subject should not be trifled with.

McCulloch inquired of Stanton if he had reached a solution of the difficulty in regard to the oath. Stanton replied that he had given it considerable thought and come to the conclusion that it would be best for McCulloch to prepare a letter setting forth the difficulties of the case. This letter, I remarked, had better be addressed to the President. Stanton did not respond favorably to this suggestion. He thought it would do as well to send it to one of the committee. This was also Harlan's view. Dennison took very decided ground with me.

The rumors that the Fenians had seized Navy Island and that ten thousand volunteers had been called out by the Canadian authorities were current this morning. Seward was unwell and not at the Cabinet-meeting. The British and Canadian Governments were each much excited. The last arrival brings information that the habeas corpus is suspended in Ireland and the propriety of some governmental action here was discussed.

Stanton thought a proclamation should be issued and decisive measures taken, as was done by Van Buren in his day. Regretted Seward was not present, for we knew not what appeals had been made by the British Government. The propriety of taking some action was generally concurred in, and Stanton rather pressed it. I proposed that General Grant should be consulted, sent to the frontiers, and perhaps it would be well to address a communication on the subject which would form the basis of government action. Stanton could see no necessity for bringing Grant out; a proclamation from the President to put down these Fenian organizations was what was required. I assented, but stated that the occasion and condition of the country and of our public affairs were such that I thought it would be wise to have the public authorities fully heard, and all of them. The Irish element, I stated, was a strong one and clannish, and if a movement against an organization of theirs was to be made, I wished to see others besides the President moving, and especially did I desire, under existing circumstances, when the militia might be called to act, that General Grant should be consulted. Harlan thought a circular from the Attorney-General exhorting vigilance on the part of attorneys and marshals would be sufficient; the circular could be got into print. While I did not object to that process, I expressed my conviction that it would be wise to have General Grant identified with the Administration in these movements. Dennison and McCulloch concurred with me.

After the others left, the President expressed his satisfaction with the direction I had indicated and the bearing it seemed to have on others.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 447-51

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, March 10, 1866

Thad Stevens has to-day made a blackguard and disreputable speech in the House. Beginning with the false assertion that the speech was prepared two months ago, and continuing with the equally false assurance that an interlude, or byplay, which was introduced was unpremeditated, this wretched old man displayed more strongly than in his speech those bad traits of dissimulation, insincerity, falsehood, scandal-loving, and defamation that have characterized his long life. The Radical managers and leaders were cognizant of his speech, and had generally encouraged it, but I shall be disappointed if they do not wish the vain old man had been silent before many months. Such disgraceful exhibitions can do the author and his associates no good, nor those whom he assails enduring harm. The people may not in the first excitement and under the discipline of party be enabled to judge of the conspirators correctly who are striving to divide the Union, not by secession but by exclusion. It is clearly a conspiracy, though not avowed.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 451-2

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, March 13, 1866

Had a call this evening from Mr. English, the Democratic candidate for Governor in Connecticut. He is very decidedly, and I think sincerely, in favor of the President's policy. With General Hawley, who is the Administration candidate, I am more intimate, and for him I personally feel special regard, yet such is the strange mixture of parties that his election would be hailed as a triumph by the opponents of the Administration. I am much embarrassed by this state of things. I believe Hawley intends to support the President, yet, tainted by party, he also aims to support Congress in its differences with the Executive. He will find it difficult to reconcile the two, and if compelled to make an election he would be more likely at the present moment to go wrong, I fear, than right.

Mr. English desired an introduction to the President, whom he wishes to see concerning some person who is imprisoned in Tennessee, and is acting in concert with a Mr. Fleming, whom, with his beautiful wife, I met this evening at the President's house.

Seward was not at the Cabinet to-day. I brought forward the subject of the test oath, and McCulloch says he has prepared a letter which he will show me. Dennison is to prepare one also.

On the subject of the Fenians there was less inclination to converse, but the subject was referred to the Attorney-General to send circulars to the District Attorneys, etc. I suggested that the Administration should show a solid front, and, therefore, General Grant should send a communication. To this Stanton demurred. It would necessarily come through his Department, and he would be openly committed.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 452-3

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, March 14, 1866

Secretary McCulloch sent me his letter this morning on the subject of the test oath, to read and criticize. It is in the main very well done. I would have proposed some alterations, but, on making one or two suggestions as feelers, I perceived he had the usual sensitiveness in regard to his own production and, therefore, desisted. My course differs from his in this respect, for in public communications I want criticism from friends until the document is signed and has gone from me.

I called upon him with the paper, and we had a talk on subjects generally. The communication of Clarke, Comptroller of the Currency, was printed this A.M. in the Intelligencer. It is a piece of impertinence and insubordination which deserves rebuke, prompt and summary. I advised McCulloch to have his scalp off before sundown. He is more forbearing; says that is what Clarke wishes.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 453

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, March 16, 1866

A quiet Cabinet-meeting with nothing of interest discussed. Dennison read his communication on the test oath. It is less vigorous and pertinent than McCulloch's, but will do as a backer. McCulloch showed me a letter from Henry Ward Beecher to Defrees in which it is said that the postmaster at Brooklyn (Lincoln) informed him (Beecher) that Senator Pomeroy had authorized and requested him (L.) to inform B. that he (P.) called at the White House a week since, and found the President, his son, and son-in-law all drunk and unfit for business, that the President kept a mistress at the White House, etc. I advised that these slanders should be told the President in order that he might be aware of the character of the scandals circulated.

By appointment McCulloch, Dennison, and myself agreed to meet the President this evening at seven. At that hour McCulloch and I came together near Dennison's door and went in. Soon after Speed and his wife were announced. D. went in to them with an understanding that he would join us at the White House. But he failed to do so.

Mr. English of Connecticut was with the President when we went in, but left almost immediately. The President expressed himself pleased with English, and dissatisfied with something which Hawley had said, some answers to inquiries, as I understood. McCulloch remarked that it would not do for us to disconnect ourselves from the War Party, even if some had got astray, for every loyal household had its representative in the army, and the feeling was strong in their favor.

The letter on the test oath McC. read to us. I suggested a single alteration which I mentioned before, calling the Southerners "our rebellious countrymen" instead of a "hostile people." The President approved the suggestion, and McCulloch came into it. Some other alterations, chiefly verbal, suggested themselves, but, witnessing the sensitiveness of McC., I did not mention them.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 453-4  

Rutherford B. Hayes to Sardis Birchard, August 17, 1867

SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, August 17, 1867.

DEAR UNCLE:—I write from here not knowing if I shall have time to do so at home. I go home to spend Sunday today. Thus far all goes pleasantly. Luckily my best speech was to my best audience, and where I would have preferred it, at Dayton. Nobody with me yet. I expect Buck [land] next week.

Yours,

R. B. HAYES.

S. BIRCHARD.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 47

Rutherford B. Hayes to Lucy Webb Hayes, Sunday, August 25, 1867

PORTSMOUTH, August 25, 1867, Sunday.

MY DARLING:—I could not get to Chillicothe today. Had a great crowd yesterday. In the middle of my speech a terrific rain-storm broke us up. At night we had a fine meeting. "Old Ben" [Wade] made a glorious negro suffrage [speech], frequently rough, but great.

Mrs. Buckland is with Buck. We all enjoy it. Spoke at night three times the last week as well as daily. Am quite hoarse but it [the hoarseness] wears off entirely as I warm up. Love to Rud. Oceans to yourself.

Affectionately,

R.

MRS. HAYES.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 47

Rutherford B. Hayes to Lucy Webb Hayes, September 29, 1867

COLUMBUS, September 29, 1867.

MY DARLING:—I am writing from Laura's pleasant home—the next place to my wife's in homelikeness and comfort.

I did hope to see you at 383 this morning but to do so would give me two night rides, one to go and another to get back to the Reserve. So, tired as I was, I gave it up.

A pleasant week, this last. I enjoyed Delaware particularly. I made only a so-so speech there not a failure, but not one of the good ones. Sorry for that, but couldn't help it. At Tiffin and Bucyrus, three hours each had used me up a trifle. I am better than ever.

Affectionately,

R.

MRS. HAYES.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 47-8

Rutherford B. Hayes to Sardis Birchard, October 6, 1867

CINCINNATI, October 6, 1867.

DEAR UNCLE:—We are all very well at our old home on Sixth Street. My last speech of any consequence was made Friday night. One of the best I have made, and particularly with the best voice. It was rather queer. Governor Morton made a noble speech but [he] could not be heard by half his audience. I reached them all more easily than ever before.

It looks well here. We shall elect our county ticket and do well for the amendment. But the Cary affair* is very much mixed. I shall not be surprised at any result. It has been badly managed very.

I hope to be with you next Sunday.

I sent my card to Judge Thurman [the opposing candidate] when he was here. He was not in his room. He afterwards sent me a note which I prize. He says: "Whatever the result, it is a great satisfaction to know that you and I have behaved like gentlemen and friends."

Love to the boys and Sarah.

Sincerely,

R. B. HAYES.

S. BIRCHARD.

_______________

*Samuel F. Cary was the Democratic candidate for Congress in the Second District to fill Mr. Hayes's unexpired term, opposing Richard Smith, editor of the Gazette. As Mr. Hayes apprehended, Cary was elected.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 48

Rutherford B. Hayes to Sardis Birchard, October 9, 1867

CINCINNATI, October 9, 1867.

MY DEAR UNCLE:—You need not be told how much the result of the election disappoints me. You know I will bear it cheerfully and with philosophy. It is however a puzzling thing to decide now what is next to be done. Assuming that I am beaten, which I do not doubt, I must choose my path anew. I will see you and talk it all over soon. No man in my place would probably have done differently, but the thing is over, and now for a sensible future. I feel sorry for the boys — especially Birch.

I hope your health is good, and that you will borrow no trouble on account of this.

Sincerely,

R. B. HAYES.

S. BIRCHARD.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 49

Rutherford B. Hayes to William Henry Smith, October 11, 1867

CINCINNATI, October 11, 1867.

DEAR SMITH:—I am obliged for your letter of yesterday. It is to be hoped that the corrections will not upset the apple-cart. I am going to Fremont tomorrow. Please send a dispatch about noon Saturday, stating the majority for me as it then stands, addressed to S. Birchard, Fremont, Ohio.

Sincerely,

R. B. HAYES.

P. S.—If it holds out I shall be at Columbus next week.

WILLIAM HENRY SMITH,
        SECRETARY OF STATE.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 49