David Herlihy
Page 30
III. Epilogue
15. REPERCUSSIONS
IN JULY 1896, some months after Sachtleben's return to the United States, Mrs. Lenz asked the State Department to demand $40,000 from the Turkish government in recompense for the loss of her son. She asserted that Lenz had asked Turkish officials for protection while en route from Tabriz to Chilkani but was denied, even after showing his passport. Noting that he had earned between $1,200 and $1,400 a year as a bookkeeper, she affirmed: "My son had always taken care of and provided for me and would have done so in the future, as he well knew that I entirely depended on him." As proof of the "future prosperity" now denied her, she cited his "high grade of intelligence, splendid education, good behavior, and perfect health."
A month later, the State Department informed Terrell: "You are instructed to bring this matter at once to the attention of the Turkish Government and to demand in the name of the United States a suitable indemnity to the mother of the murdered man." In September, Terrell wrote the Turkish foreign minister to repeat Mrs. Lenz's claim that Turkish officials had denied her son's request for protection. He further faulted the Ottoman government for its lax investigation and its failure to apprehend the murderers. Affirmed Terrell: "I shall, if necessary, at a proper time insist on the payment of an indemnity to Mrs. Maria Anna Lenz. At present I desire only to call the attention of Your Excellency to this unfortunate matter in hope that the Ottoman Government will voluntarily express its willingness to pay some indemnity, the amount of which may hereafter be agreed between Your Excellency and myself."
Several weeks later, having received no response from the Turkish government, Terrell made a formal demand for an indemnity totaling 200,000 francs. At the close of the year, the Turkish foreign minister signaled to Terrell that the porte had no intention of paying such a sum:
Your Excellency cites the case of Lenz, who disappeared in a remote locality of the Empire. The Sublime Porte naturally decries any violation of law, and it desires to settle every incident in accordance with the precepts of justice. Facts of the kind in question, however, even those connected with the most horrible murders, are committed in every country in the world. Your Excellency is certainly not ignorant of the murder of Galeb Abdullah, an Ottoman subject, which was committed near Susanville, California. This murder was not committed recently but about the 15th of June, 1891, and notwithstanding the efforts of the American authorities, the murderer is still at large, and probably happy to have escaped with his life, unless he has since died a natural death.
Meanwhile, Bergholz pressed for a new trial to exonerate the convicted Armenians and preclude their return to captivity. At the same time, of course, he expected the court to find Moostoe and uphold his conviction.
Finally, that November, the consul informed Secretary of State William Woodville Rockhill that the appellate court had agreed to rehear the case, owing to various "irregularities." The five-man panel of judges consisted of the president of the court and four associate members, comprising two Christians and two Muslims. For a murder conviction, four votes would be required. In preparation for the trial, the authorities issued fresh warrants for the arrest of Moostoe and the three Armenian suspects known to have survived their captivity in Erzurum.
The trial finally opened in Constantinople, on March 17, 1897, though none of the accused men had been apprehended. In particular, Moostoe was rumored to have fled to Russia. Two days later, Bergholz sent Rockhill a report describing the trial and the verdict:
The clerk read all the proceedings in the case, including those of the Criminal Court of the First Instance. Afterwards, the Public Prosecutor addressed the Court and stated that there was not sufficient evidence to convict and demanded that the court enter a verdict of acquittal. The President and one Christian and one Moslem found all the accused guilty of the charge of murder, but the other two members voted for acquittal. As it required four votes to convict on a murder charge, a verdict of not guilty was entered.
In essence, the court ruled that the suspects' possession of Lenz's belongings, found scattered about the banks of the Hopuz River, was insufficient proof of their complicity in his death. It considered Der Arsen's damning claim that he had seen Moostoe wearing the dead man's clothes, but it found the testimony unreliable.
Although the verdict cleared the Armenians, it was an obvious setback for the indemnity demand, given that no Turkish subject stood convicted of the crime. Moreover, the exoneration of Moostoe and his men left the American public deeply dissatisfied. "Turkish Justice a Farce," ran one headline in the American Wheelman. It pronounced the verdict "rather surprising," given that the evidence Sachtleben had spent months gathering implicating the Kurds was "almost conclusive of their guilt."
In April 1897, facing intense pressure from the American public, Terrell pressed for an appeal. Confirmed the State Department in a letter to the American Wheelman: "Our Minister to Turkey has taken steps to obtain a rehearing of the case at Constantinople." Terrell, however, would not see the process through. Earlier that year, he had indicated his intention to resign his post. On July 15, he left Constantinople for the last time, bound for Austin. The matter of the appeal thus fell to his successor, James Burrill Angell, formerly a professor of languages at Brown University.
That September, Angell wrote to Secretary of State John Sherman to confirm that a new trial had been granted: "I take pleasure in reporting to you that the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case against the supposed murderers of Mr. Lenz, which was originally tried at Erzeroum, and appealed to the Court of Cassation at Constantinople on March 17, has been annulled, and that instructions will be transmitted through the Public Prosecutor to the proper Court at Erzeroum for a new trial." Once again, the Justice Department issued warrants for the arrest of Moostoe and the Armenian suspects. It also summoned nine witnesses who had previously testified in the case.
As the December trial date loomed, however, some began to question the wisdom of pursuing an appeal. Bergholz was especially critical of Sachtleben and his handling of the accused Armenians. The consul feared that a new trial would only reopen old wounds, as he explained to Angell:
When examined privately by Mr. Chambers and Mr. Sachtleben, the Armenians frankly admitted having certain articles of Lenz in their possession and just as frankly explained how they had come into their hands. They felt, however, that if they should admit to having these things to the Commission they would be accused of the murder. Under the verbal promise of Mr. Sachtleben, I am told, that he would see to it that no harm should befall them, they were induced to give their testimony freely. I fear that Mr. Sachtleben gave these poor fellows the impression that he represented the United States in the examination, and that when he promised them protection they firmly believed that he was speaking as an official of the government.
Chambers was equally convinced that a new trial would only lead to more misery for the accused Armenians and their families. He wrote Angell requesting that the minister withdraw the demand for an appeal. "I was much impressed by Mr. Chambers's statements," Angell conceded in his reply to Bergholz. "Possibly if his views and the facts he presents had been known to the government at the close of the first trial, no steps would have been taken to secure a review. But as that review has been taken at our instance, we are unable to take any steps to prevent a new trial." Angell nonetheless expressed his hope that the local authorities, following the verdict, would "refrain from punishing the innocent."
The trial took place on December 27. The next day Bergholz summarized the proceedings to Sherman. The witnesses "gave practically the same testimony as they gave in Chilkani before the Commission of Shakir Pasha." This time four of the five judges ruled against the defendants. Consequently, "the men were found guilty, and a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment was imposed."
The verdict, coming nearly four years after Lenz's disappearance, gave little consolation to either Sachtleben or the Lenz family. Although it reaffirmed Moostoe's guilt, the Kur
d was seemingly nowhere to be found; he was "probably hiding in the mountains," in Angell's estimation. Moreover, although the accused Armenians were likewise absent, having fled to Russia, they were once again fugitives in the eyes of the law.
Nor did the decision do much to enhance Mrs. Lenz's demands for an indemnity. True, the court affirmed that "the heirs of Lenz have the right to appeal to the Religious Court for blood money." Angell, however, dismissed this avenue: "Since the only persons from whom this 'blood money' could be obtained are the condemned criminals, all of whom are absent, and none of whom, it is safe to say, are possessed of property of much value, the privilege of applying to the Religious Court would be of little consequence." Edwin Pears, a prominent British barrister and Mrs. Lenz's representative in Constantinople, concurred. He noted that even if Mrs. Lenz managed to extract a reward from the culprits, it would not even cover her legal costs.
The only hope left for Mrs. Lenz was to collect an indemnity from the Turkish government through diplomatic channels, a painfully slow process that had yet to show any promise. Angell believed that even that route was a long shot. As he explained to Secretary John Hay in July 1898: "That there was culpable delay, according to our ideas, in bringing the real criminals to trial, and that there was great reluctance to deal rigorously with Musteniseh, the Kurdish culprit, there can be no doubt. But a regular trial has now been had, and the Ottoman government will undoubtedly point to that as a sufficient reason to decline payment of damages."
In February 1899, Angell's successor, Oscar'S. Strauss, reiterated to Hay that Mrs. Lenz stood little chance of collecting an indemnity from the Turks: "In view of his taking so hazardous a journey, in such an exceptional manner, through provinces far distant from the central government, where disorders are chronic, and where travelling even with the best of safeguards is surrounded with danger; and in view of the criminal procedure instituted by the authorities, I seriously doubt whether a good ground for a claim for indemnity exists."
Strauss nevertheless hatched an elaborate plan that, if successful, would at least net some payment for Mrs. Lenz. Noting that numerous American citizens had lodged similar claims against the Ottoman government, he suggested that the State Department press the Turks for a lump settlement—"a round sum, say, from twenty to twenty five thousand pounds Turkish." Upon receipt, the State Department could "apportion the amount among the claimants as it may seem equitable and just." He stressed that it would be "easier and more practical to come to an arrangement on this basis than to press these individual claims."
Although Strauss would leave his post before his scheme could be implemented, his successors saw it through successfully. In mid-1901, after a personal appeal from President William McKinley, the sultan finally agreed to pay a lump sum to settle all outstanding claims, without any formal admission of guilt. The monarch discreetly attached the sum to a scheduled payment on a warship under construction in Philadelphia, and the settlement money was then turned over to the State Department for distribution. Mrs. Lenz's share, paid early the next year, amounted to $7,500. Though only a fraction of her original demand, it was a sizable sum nonetheless.
By all accounts, she desperately needed the money. For the past several years, following a work accident, her husband had been a virtual cripple, leaving the couple devoid of any income. Her own health had deteriorated markedly, not to mention her morale. Reportedly, though she knew better, she still expected her son to appear one day at her doorstep with his loaded bicycle.
Even after Mrs. Lenz received the payment, her husband's deteriorating health prevented her from acting on a long-cherished dream: to travel to Turkey herself to find her son's bones and return them for burial in Pittsburgh. On January 7, 1902, the Dispatch explained her sad predicament:
Mrs. Lenz will not be able, as she had hoped, to use the $7,500 indemnity just received to go or send a representative to Turkey to find the body of her boy. Only a few days ago her husband was stricken with paralysis and physicians say there is little hope of his recovery, although he may be a hopeless invalid for years to come. Efforts yesterday to secure his admission to a hospital failed on account of the case being pronounced incurable. If Mrs. Lenz was not able to go to Turkey she expected to send Charles Petticord, a close friend of her dead son. But the increased expenses occasioned by her husband's illness will prevent that, and Frank Lenz will rest in his unmarked grave in the Orient until his body crumbles to dust.
Charlie, in fact, was not doing so well himself. After Lenz's departure, he had thoroughly immersed himself in cycling. He finished the 1892 season with a staggering 6,300 miles, the second-highest total among the Allegheny Cyclers. The following year, while Lenz made his way across Asia, Petticord registered an incredible 10,000 miles. Along the way, he smashed Lenz's twenty-four-hour regional record, logging 216 miles in one day. That fall he somehow found time to pedal to Chicago, with his sister Amelia, to take in the Columbian Exposition. His troubles began, however, the following spring. Announced the Dispatch in April 1894: "Petticord has been very ill for several days." In fact, cycling had become so painful that he was forced to desist.
Petticord tried gamely to shrug off his mysterious ailment. He diligently prepared for his rendezvous with Frank that fall, confident that by then he would be fully recovered. That June, Bicycling World affirmed his plans: "Sometime in October, Mr. Lenz expects to reach Germany. Petticord has conceived the idea of meeting Lenz on the German frontier and will accompany him home." Charlie had even gone so far as to order a gold-plated bicycle for the festive occasion.
Alas, Charlie was heading nowhere. By fall, when news of Lenz's disappearance broke, he was a virtual shut-in. Reported the Washington Post: "The lower end of Petticord's spine has become diseased from his incessant riding, and a sympathetic nerve in his left limb has been injured. As a result, the leg has been drawn up, and is much shorter than the other." Charlie even traveled by train to Chicago to consult mystified medical experts.
With millions actively riding, cycling's health risks and benefits had become a hot topic. Petticord quickly became something of a symbol of excess. Declared one paper: "The results of over exercise are no more clearly shown than in the case of Charles Petticord, champion long distance bicycle rider of Pennsylvania. The man has wasted away to a skeleton. Being a bicycle crack has its drawbacks, and the athlete is foolish who fails to take warning from such examples."
William Sachtleben, too, had slowed down considerably by the start of the new century. Following his return to Alton, he did not go to Cuba after all. After enjoying a few months of much-needed rest, he embarked on a lecture tour focusing on the Armenian massacres. But it failed to gain much traction. When 1897 opened, he resolved to settle down to his still-thriving bicycle business. He even assumed the editorship of a local cycle magazine called The Pedal and occasionally entered local bicycle races. But before long, he became restless once again.
In June 1897, Sachtleben's famous temper flared again. A local paper reported:
Martie Duddy, aged 17, employed as a driver applied for a police summons yesterday against William L. Sachtleben, a bicycle dealer. Duddy alleged that he delivered goods to Sachtleben in the morning. There was a money transaction and Sachtleben accused the boy of giving him a counterfeit dollar. Martie denied the charge, and the bicycle man, it is alleged, then assaulted him. "He punched me in the face and kicked me out of the shop," said the boy. "I didn't pass any counterfeit money on him and he had no reason for beating me."
That fall, as business began to fade, Sachtleben exempted himself once again from his shop duties. He spent a relaxing four months touring Germany and England with a friend from Alton. By the time he returned, the boom had gone bust, and his chief supplier, the Overman Wheel Company, was bankrupt. Sachtleben briefly toyed with the idea of promoting professional cycle racing, but soon decided to bail out of the moribund business altogether.
After languishing for a year, Sachtleben decided to revive his lecture to
ur in 1899. Once again, however, he enjoyed only modest success. He himself was tiring of the topic. "He says he deserves a new subject," the Telegraph affirmed in the spring of 1900. It outlined his plans for a new adventure. He would travel to Cape Nome, Alaska, the site of the "richest finds" during the recent Klondike Gold Rush, which had attracted thousands of prospectors. Sachtleben explained that he would go in the interest of Outing, which was no longer in Worman's hands. In Alaska, he would "secure materials and a series of pictures for a new lecture."
In the spring of 1901, Sachtleben prepared for yet another journey, one worthy of his old self. Reported the Telegraph:
Will Sachtleben is seriously considering a proposition to join the Baldwin-Ziegler expedition to the North Pole. Because of the valuable experience Will has gained in roughing it in his two trips to Asia, and on his last trip to the Cape Nome gold fields, he has been sought by Mr. Baldwin to join the expedition. But so far the two have not been able to come to terms. Will is holding out for a good salary, as he would not be allowed to write or lecture on his trip on his return, all rights being reserved by Baldwin.
For Sachtleben, the idea of being among the first men to set foot on the North Pole was simply irresistible. He soon reached a verbal agreement with the leader, Evelyn B. Baldwin. A short while later, however, Sachtleben wrote Baldwin to convey a stunning reversal. "I presume that you will not entertain any hard feelings against me, if I tender my resignation. I do so with the deepest regret, because my mind was set on going. I must candidly tell you that the only reason is the determined opposition of a certain young lady whom I have known for several years. I cannot overcome this opposition without causing her great suffering."