Pinkerton’s Great Detective
Page 61
10. The Daily Miners’ Journal, Jan. 19–21, 1876; Broehl, The Molly Maguires, p. 272; Schlegel, Ruler of the Reading, p. 115.
11. See testimony in CMD.
12. Dewees, The Molly Maguires, pp. 247–48; Lavelle, The Hard Coal Docket, p. 323. Basing his statement on Dewees’s comment, Lavelle goes so far as to say it “is uncontroverted that James McParlan . . . sat in on defense counsel strategy sessions during the Doyle and Kelly cases and then reported the defense strategy to the prosecutors.” In fact, there is no evidence at all that McParlan was involved in such meetings, and the inaccuracy of the comment is certainly shown by the fact that the Kelly case did not go to trial until late March, and, needless to say, McParlan would not have been welcome in the defense attorneys’ meetings weeks after he had disappeared from the anthracite region due at least in part to having been accused by Ryon of being an undercover detective!
13. BF (for JM), reports to FBG, Oct. 12, 14, 19, 20, 1875, HML, box 1001; AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, p. 463.
14. The Daily Miners’ Journal, Feb. 2, 1876; Daily Herald, Feb. 1, 1876.
15. Allen Craig, as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Feb. 1, 1876.
16. Lin Bartholomew, as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Feb. 1, 1876.
17. Samuel S. Dreher, as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Feb. 2, 1876.
18. The Daily Miners’ Journal, Jan. 28, 1876.
19. Ibid., Feb. 2, 1876.
20. Ibid., Jan. 31, 1876.
21. Coleman, The Molly Maguire Riots, p. 114, n. 3.
22. The Daily Miners’ Journal, Feb. 23, 1876.
23. Ibid., Jan. 29, 1876.
24. Ibid.
25. Various details of the confession appeared in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Feb. 14, 1876, and Daily Herald, Feb. 14, 19, 1876. Bethlehem Daily Times published the confession on April 5, 1876, after it was leaked, and the next day it appeared in, among other newspapers, The Daily Miners’ Journal, Daily Herald, The Mauch Chunk Coal Gazette, The Mauch Chunk Democrat, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Tamaqua Courier, and The Times of Philadelphia.
26. For example, The Daily Miners’ Journal, Feb. 5, 1876; Daily Herald, Feb. 5, 1876.
27. Record of the habeas corpus hearing of James Carroll, Hugh McGehan, James Boyle, James Roarity, Thomas Duffy, Feb. 12, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A2.
28. BF, letter to George Kaercher, Feb. 19, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A16. All of the details of McParlan’s visit to the Higgins household, including the quotes, come from this letter, in which Franklin passed on the information from McParlan’s report.
29. Record of the hearing on habeas corpus in Commonwealth v. Charles McAllister and Thomas Munley, Feb. 23, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A9.
30. JM, in RCK, p. 92.
31. Dewees, The Molly Maguires, pp. 260–61.
32. One of the greatest mysteries related to the end of McParlan’s undercover assignment is the story of Father O’Connor, a passionate opponent of the Molly Maguires, telling Kehoe that there was a detective in their midst. Many theories have been developed as to how a priest should even know such a fact, as well as why a committed adversary of the AOH and the Molly Maguires would betray someone seemingly fighting against them. Did Gowen and Archbishop Wood intentionally let the information slip so that, having been exposed, McParlan would be willing to testify? Did it come out by accident? Did Gowen set up the situation knowing that McParlan would feel the need to testify to help avoid embarrassment to the Church for its role? Was the information leaked to a series of priests—O’Connor had told McParlan that if he wanted more information he could visit Father Reilly of Shenandoah or Father Ryon of Mahanoy City. Or, more alarmingly, had Father O’Connor broken the sacred silence of the confessional? If any of these happened, would Gowen or Wood have risked McParlan’s life by giving his name rather than just the fact that there was a detective working in the anthracite region? None of these possibilities are truly convincing, yet neither is the simplest notion: that despite his intense opposition to the Molly Maguires, O’Connor’s cultural background led him to find the presence of a detective—an informer—so totally unacceptable that he felt compelled to notify Kehoe about him. Of course, this might have been more likely if he did not believe Kehoe was involved in the criminal activities for which the Commonwealth later tried him. A letter from Gowen to Wood strongly indicates that the two of them were not working on this in conjunction (FBG, letter to James Frederic Wood, May 11, 1876, PAH). However, McParlan’s own testimony in the trials did not elucidate any causes behind the situation or clarify the events. And as Gowen, Wood, or O’Connor never later addressed the issue, it is unlikely there will ever be any certainty about exactly what happened.
33. RCK, p. 95.
34. Ibid., p. 96.
35. JM, in Ibid.
36. JM, testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 12, 1876.
37. RJL, letter to George Kaercher, March 4, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A14.
38. JM, testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 12, 1876; JM, in CAC, pp. 626–27.
39. JM, in RCK, p. 98.
40. JM, testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 12, 1876; JM, in RCK, p. 98.
41. It is not unlikely that McParlan warned McAndrew—to whom he owed his life—to leave the region before the arrests and trials started in earnest. In fact, allowing his friend to leave might well have been one of the conditions McParlan set for the authorities in order to testify. After a relatively brief stay in the Old Country, McAndrew returned to the United States in December 1876, after the majority of the trials had been completed, arriving in New York aboard the ship Algeria (see the passenger lists of vessels arriving at New York, New York, 1820–97, U.S. Customs Service, microfilm roll M237_406, line 48, list number 1139). Returning to work as a miner, he moved back to Shenandoah, where he was still living in 1880 with his wife and four children (see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1st Ward, Shenandoah, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, microfilm roll T9_1192, p. 494C).
42. See data held at: http://phillyclimate.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/1876-philadelphia-daily-weather-data.html.
43. CvC, Appendix, pp. 224–25. During the second trial for the murder of policeman Yost, defense attorney Ryon, hoping to show McParlan was a hypocrite, pointedly asked him about his relations with the Catholic Church after joining the AOH, which had been condemned by Archbishop Wood. McParlan made clear his feelings about the sanctity of the Church’s rites.
Q: You were a member of that church?
A: Yes, sir; I am a member of that church.
Q: Were you then?
A: I was when I joined that society, and am now.
Q: Did you go to communion and confessional after you joined that society?
A: I never did; it was sacrilegious—the idea of such a thing.
44. The Daily Miners’ Journal, March 30, 1876.
45. See testimony in CEK.
46. Robert Ramsey, in The Daily Miners’ Journal, June 11, 1875.
47. The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 1876. Unfortunately, Siney never truly regained his reputation during his lifetime. Widely considered a failure, he died in 1879 at the age of forty-eight of black lung disease.
48. The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 6, 1876.
49. Charles Albright, letter to George Kaercher, April 27, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A28.
50. RAP, letter to S. S. McClure, Oct. 31, 1894, RAP Correspondence, University of Virginia. Only the first and third pages of this letter exist, so it is uncertain how much further Pinkerton discussed McParlan’s decision.
51. Schlegel, Ruler of the Reading, pp. 119–20.
52. This eventually became
the prosecution team’s official motive for McParlan giving testimony, and it was stated regularly during the trials—for example, FBG, in AFG, pp. 29–30; F. W. Hughes, in The Great Mollie Maguire Trials, pp. 86–87; JM, testimony in the trial of Thomas Munley, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 4, 1876.
53. FBG, letter to James Frederic Wood, May 11, 1876, PAH.
Chapter 9: McParlan on the Witness Stand
1. The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 5, 1876.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., May 8, 1876.
4. Daily Herald, May 8, 1876.
5. The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 9, 1876. This constant linking of the AOH and the Molly Maguires was an important strategy for the prosecution, because it attributed the crimes to a large, well-organized society, supporting Gowen’s claims that it was the basis of a major conspiracy. Remarkably, by McParlan’s third day on the stand, even the defense had accepted this admission that the organizations were the same. At one point Bartholomew asked McParlan: “As I understand from your testimony, you were initiated into the Ancient Order of Hibernians or Mollie Maguires, on the 14th day of April, 1874?”
6. See, for example, The New-York Times, May 14, 1876; The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 19, 1876; The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 20, 1876.
7. For background to these trials, see Kauffman, American Brutus; Steers, Blood on the Moon; Steers and Holzer, The Lincoln Assassination Conspirators.
8. For example, Bingham, Trial of the Conspirators, for the Assassination of President Lincoln; Pittman, The Assassination of President Lincoln and the Trial of the Conspirators; Poore, The Conspiracy Trial for the Murder of the President; Trial of John H. Surratt in the Criminal Court for the District of Columbia.
9. Schlegel, Ruler of the Reading, p. 122.
10. Testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 9, 1876.
11. It is some of these reports and other related materials that form the Kaercher manuscripts held by the district attorney’s descendants. The parties were unable to consult the papers in the later trials due to legal wrangling. See, for example, testimony in the trial of Thomas Munley, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 4, 1876; CAC, pp. 597–98.
McParlan’s reports have long proven a highly contentious source, not only because some were rewritten by Franklin and are therefore not original, but because there is often little corroborating evidence. The reason for this, of course, is that McParlan was working alone in a task veiled in secrecy, and the only other individuals involved in many of the meetings and events were those he was investigating. This lack of any confirmation has allowed subsequent critics to question the honesty of his accounts.
However, although there are inconsistencies or inaccuracies to be found in the reports, this is not surprising, considering they cover more than two years’ worth of incidents. Viewed objectively, the reports seem factual, with occasional errors in accuracy and interpretation and undoubtedly some exaggeration. Yet it is easy to believe that such errors were genuine mistakes, as it would have been in McParlan’s best interests to tell his employers the truth, because he would never be certain if other operatives might be able to check or dispute his information. Although exaggeration has proven throughout history to be a frequent part of the reports of spies (see Marshall, Intelligence and Espionage, pp. 119–20), and in his stories throughout his life McParlan often trod a fine line between outright fabrication, embellishment, and the straight truth, there is nothing intrinsic about his reports suggesting they should not be believed.
In addition, there were few sources from the time conflicting with McParlan’s reports, although this is in part because “the Molly Maguires themselves left virtually no evidence of their existence, let alone their aims and motivation” (Kenny, Making Sense of the Molly Maguires, p. 5). Some authors have taken this point a step further and claimed that the lack of any internal records documenting the Molly Maguires as an organization is proof that such an association never existed in any formal sense. However, it is not reasonable to expect that a group of men—a significant proportion of whom were illiterate—who held secret meetings at night on untamed mountainsides to determine plans for carrying out murder and other “outrages,” would prepare and maintain records of their intentions or deeds or, even if they did, not do so in such a way as to hide their true actions in order to avoid being caught and punished. Even Kenny has acknowledged that the Molly Maguires “did indeed exist as an organized conspiracy” and “as a group of Irish immigrants who assassinated their enemies” (pp. 285–86).
12. Testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 10, 1876.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. JM, testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 11, 1876.
16. The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 11, 1876.
17. FBG, letter to James Frederic Wood, May 14, 1876, PAH.
18. Letters from Bishop J. F. Shanahan, April 19, 1876 (MS 51.869Tu) and Bishop John Tuigg, April 19, 1876 (MS 51.866Tu) to Archbishop James Frederic Wood, papers of Archbishop James Wood; Kenny, “The Molly Maguires and the Catholic Church,” p. 357.
19. FBG, letter to James Frederic Wood, May 16, 1876, PAH.
20. The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 18, 1876.
21. FBG, in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 17, 1876.
22. BF, letter to FBG, June 13, 1876: Kaercher MSS, file A3.
23. Ibid., June 5, 1876, HSP, folder 2.
24. BF, letter to George Kaercher, April 9, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A16; H. C. Boyer, letter to George Kaercher, April 8, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A23.
25. BF (for RJL), reports to FBG, May 27, June 5, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A3.
26. Ibid., May 22, 1875.
27. Ibid., May 26, 1875.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., June 9, 1875.
30. BF, letter to FBG, June 13, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A3.
31. BF (for RJL), report to FBG, June 3, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A3.
32. See, for example, Connell, Son of the Morning Star; Donovan, A Terrible Glory.
33. Dewees, The Molly Maguires, p. 303.
34. Lavelle, The Hard Coal Docket, p. 290.
35. Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant in Error.
36. JM, in CAC, pp. 509, 548.
37. Ibid., pp. 509–10.
38. Ibid., pp. 509–11, 548, 591.
39. Ibid., pp. 517–18.
40. Ibid., pp. 515–16.
41. Ibid., pp. 512–13, 548–49, 590.
42. Ibid., p. 520.
43. Ibid., pp. 524–26, 528–30, 550.
44. Ibid., pp. 507, 546.
45. Daniel Kalbfus, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, June 23, 1876.
46. Daily Herald, July 1, 2, 1876.
47. Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant in Error, p. 193.
48. Campbell v. The Commonwealth, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, p. 114.
49. BF, letter to George Kaercher, June 25, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A16.
50. Robert Heaton, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 30, 1876.
51. FBG, in AFG, p. 5.
52. Ibid., pp. 6–7,
53. JM, testimony in the trial of Thomas Munley, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 4, 1876.
54. Ibid.
55. Martin M. L’Velle, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 6, 1876.
56. FBG, in AFG, pp. 11–12.
57. Ibid., pp. 15–16.
58. Ibid., p. 19.
59. Ibid., pp. 24–25.
60. Ibid., p. 36.
Chapter 10: One After Another
1. The reasons for her change are uncertain—it might have been fear of being charged with perjury or it could have been an unexpected renewal of a sense of loyalty to him—but the couple did reconcile after the trials and lived together for many years in Virginia. See Crown and Major, A Guide to the Molly Maguires, pp. 123–24.
2. CvC, Appendix, pp. 287–88.
3. Ibid., pp. 224–25.
4. For example, JM, in CvC, Appendix, pp. 188–89, 190–91, 193, 195–96, 197.
5. Ibid., p. 186.
6. John Ryon, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 20, 1876.
7. Ibid.
8. FBG, in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 17, 1876.
9. CvC. Appendix, p. 223.
10. Charles Albright, in The Great Mollie Maguire Trials, pp. 35–36.
11. Francis W. Hughes, in The Great Mollie Maguire Trials, pp. 85–86.
12. JM, in RCK, pp. 13–105.
13. Ibid., p 26.
14. Ibid., pp. 122–26.
15. Frank McHugh, in RCK, p. 117.
16. Ibid., p. 113.
17. George Beyerle, in RCK, p. 121.
18. Coincidentally, Hartranft was familiar with major conspiracy trials. A brevet major general in the U.S. Army—he had won the Medal of Honor at the First Battle of Bull Run—Hartranft was placed in command of the Old Capitol Prison and was appointed a special provost marshal during the trial of the conspirators in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. As such, he first read the official charges to the conspirators and led the four condemned prisoners to the gallows on July 7, 1865. He served as the seventeenth governor of Pennsylvania, from 1873 to 1879. See Steers, The Lincoln Assassination Conspirators.