DUKE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LAW LIBRARY 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/trialsofscottdunOOscot 
 
- — - — 
 
 An Astounding Record of Crime and its Exposure. 
 
 TRIALS OF SCOTT AND DUNLAP 
 
 FOR 
 
 Robbing the Northampton National Bank, 
 
 AND 
 
 Breaking and Entering the Cashier’s House. 
 
 Twelve JDctys in Covert. 
 
 YERBATIM REPORTS OF THE ADDRESSES TO THE JURY, BY 
 
 Hon. EDWARD B. GILLETT, of Westfield, 
 
 Hon. N. A. LEONARD, of Springfield, and 
 H. H. BOND, Esq, of Northampton. 
 
 Sketch of Bank Burglaries Planned and Executed by Edson, Scott, Dunlap, 
 Connors, and others.—Nearly $3,000,000 Stolen. 
 
 Published by The Gazette Printing Co., Northampton, Mass. 
 
n^rhm's 
 
 ALLAN PINKEBTON, Principal. GEO. H. BANGS. Gen. Sup’t. 
 
 Clarence A. Seward, Counsel and Attorney, 29 Nassau St., N. Y. 
 
 OFFICES. 
 
 -Y.EIF YOBK-Cti Exchange Place, Bob’t A. Pinkerton, Sup’t. 
 CHICAGO—191 & 193 Fifth Avenue, - F. Warner, Sup’t. 
 PHILADEBPHIA-45 S. Third St., Benj. Franklin, Sup’t. 
 
 1^“ This Ageucy does not operate tor contingent rewards ; is inde¬ 
 pendent of Government or Municipal control, and prepared to do all 
 legitimate Detective business entrusted to it by Express, Railroad or 
 Insuranee.Companies, and Banks or Individuals. 
 
Trial of 
 
 The Great Bank Burglary. 
 
 Scott and Dunlap for Robbing the Northampton 
 National Bank. 
 
 - — i i l 1^^ - 
 
 On the night of Tuesday, January 25, 1876, seven masked men entered, simultane¬ 
 ously, the house of John Whittelsey, cashier of the Northampton National Bank, cap¬ 
 tured the seven inmates of the house, bound and gagged them, and by force and torture 
 obtained from the cashier the combination to the lock on the door of the bank vault. 
 They also took from the cashier his gold watch. Then, repairing to the bank, they 
 entered the front door with the key taken from the cashier, and by means of the combi¬ 
 nations obtained from him, opened the vault, and took therefrom money, bonds, certifi¬ 
 cates, and other securities of the face value of about one and a quarter millions of dollars. 
 Of that amount, $111,250 was the property of the bank, and the balance was the prop¬ 
 erty of private depositors. The burglars locked the vault door when they left, and 
 wrenched off the dial. An expert locksmith from New York was sent for to unlock the 
 vault door, and it was not until about twenty hours after the robbery that the fact of the 
 robbery was definitely known. The robbery was committed between the hours of four 
 and six o’clock on the morning of the 26th, and the robbers left town immediately there¬ 
 after. 
 
 On February 14, 1877, Robert Scott and James Dunlap, well known to the police force 
 of New York as professional bank robbers, were arrested in Philadelphia, as the ring¬ 
 leaders in this robbery, and on the 17th of that month were brought to Northampton and 
 committed to the county jail. On the 22d and 23d of March, they were examined in the 
 Town Hall, before Trial Justice H. H. Chilson, and bound over for trial in the Superior 
 Court, in June, under bonds of $500,000 each. Since that time, they have remained in 
 jail here, under a constant special guard, both inside and outside of the jail premises. 
 
 At the session of the Grand Jury, June 12, Scott and Dunlap were indicted for break¬ 
 ing and entering Cashier Whittelsey’s house and stealing his gold watch, and also for 
 breaking and entering the bank, and stealing money and securities therefrom. When the 
 case was called, in the Superior Court, on the 19th of June, a postponement was secured 
 until Monday, July 9, at 2 o’clock P. M., when the trial was commenced before Judge 
 John W. Bacon, of Natick, one of the Justices of the Superior Court. 
 
 To both of the indictments, the prisoners, when arraigned on June 15, pleaded not 
 guilty. The government first took up the indictment charging the offence of breaking 
 and entering the bank and stealing therefrom. 
 
 The Indictment. 
 
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Hampshire ss. —At the Superior Court begun and holden at Northampton within and for the County of 
 
 Hampshire, on the 2d Monday of June, 1877. 
 
 The Jurors for said Commonwealth on their oath present, that Robert Scott and James Dunlap, both of 
 the State of New York, on the 26th day of January, 1876, at Northampton, in said county of Hampshire 
 and Commonwealth of Massachusetts aforesaid, with force and arms a certain building there situate, to 
 wit, the banking-house of the Northampton National Bank, of Northampton, a corporation there estab¬ 
 lished by law, in the night time of said day did break and enter with intent then and there the goods, 
 chattels and moneys of the Northampton National Bank, of Northampton aforesaid, feloniously to steal, 
 take and carry away, and sundry legal tender notes issued by the United States of America for the pay¬ 
 ment of moneys, together amounting to six thousand dollars, and of the value of six thousand dollars ; 
 sundry National Bank notes for the payment of moneys, together amounting to six thousand dollars, and 
 of the value of six thousand dpllars ; seventy-five mortgage bonds issued by the Ohio and Mississippi Rail¬ 
 road Company, each for the payment of one thousand dollars, and each of the value of one thousand 
 dollars ; five bonds issued by the State of Missouri, each for the payment of one thousand dollars, and 
 each of the value of one thousand dollars, of the goods, chattels and moneys of the Northampton National 
 Bank of Northampton aforesaid, then and there in the building aforesaid being found, feloniously did 
 steal, take and carry away, against the peace of said Commonwealth and contrary to the form of the 
 statute in such case made and provided. 
 
 A true bill. H. C. M. Howe, Foreman, 
 
 S. T. Field, District Attorney. 
 
 I 
 
 L76865 
 
 | ! r 
 
2 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 Opening of the Court. 
 
 Promptly on time, (2 o’clock Monday afternoon,) the Judge arrived and the court was 
 opened. A few minutes previous, the prisoners were brought in. Scott was handcuffed 
 to Deputy Sheriff Potter, and Dunlap was handcuffed to Deputy Sheriff Munyan. The 
 The prisoners looked in good physical condition. Dunlap especially seems to have im¬ 
 proved since he entered upon his confinement. The High Sheriff, H. A. Longley, and 
 ten deputies were in attendance. 
 
 Mr. Gillett Admitted to Assist the District Attorney. 
 
 District Attorney Field asked the court to be allowed to call to his assistance Edward 
 B. Gillett, of Westfield. Mr. S weetser, counsel for the defendants objected. The Judge 
 said he should allow Mr. Gillett to assist the District Attorney, if he (Gillett) should say 
 that he was not to be paid by any outside party. Mr. Gillett stated to the court that he 
 had not been retained by any party in this case for pay ; that he had uo expectation of 
 receiving pay, and that he was here without bias, and with no hope of compensation. In 
 reply to questions by Mr. Sweetser, Mr. Gillett said he was first invited to assist in this 
 case by Charles Delano, of Northampton, by letter, who wrote at the request of the Dist. 
 Attorney, and afterward by Dist. Attorney Field, in a letter. Mr. Sweetser asked if he 
 should assist, and shouldn’t receive some present from the bank, whether he would not 
 consider it a pretty mean bank. Mr. Gillett said he should not care to have his virtue 
 tested in that way, and would answer when he answered the letter containing the offer. 
 
 Mr. Sweetser inquired if Mr. Gillett was to be allowed to make the final argument, and 
 the Judge replied that he could do whatever the District Attorney asked him to do. 
 While the management and responsible control of the case was, and would continue to be, 
 in the hands of the District Attorney, he could direct what part of the duties of conducting 
 the case Mr. Gillett should perform. Mr. Sweetser desired to put in an exception to this 
 ruling. , 
 
 • ; The Counsel. 
 
 The prosecution, being a duty assumed by the government, was in the hands of the 
 District Attorney, who was the only prosecuting officer known to the law in the case. 
 He was assisted by Mr. Gillett, who made the final argument. Charles Delano and Geo. 
 M. Stearns sat near the prosecuting counsel, to make such suggestions as their familiarity 
 with the case dictated. The defense was conducted by Theo. H. Sweetser, of Boston, and 
 D. W. & H. H. Bond of this town. J. M. Moore, of New York, a friend of Scott, who 
 has been working up the case in New York, procuring evidence of alibies, &c., was 
 also present to aid in the defense, and Detective Pinkerton of N. Y. was present to aid the 
 prosecution. 
 
 The Jury. 
 
 About an hour was consumed in impanneling the jury. The government challenged 
 two jurors and the defense two, and four had formed an opinion. The jury having been 
 filled, the Judge stated that he should allow the jury to appoint their own foreman when 
 they retired to consider upon their verdict. 
 
 The Jury .—Calvin Pease, Belchertown ; A. D. Perry, Worthington ; Norman Preston, 
 South Hadley ; Horace Rhoades, Chesterfield ; E. Sheldon Searle, Southampton ; Fred¬ 
 erick C. Shaw, Easthampton; Geo. Tower, Westhampton ; Thomas W. Stratton, 
 Pelham ; Fred D. Billings, Hatfield ; Alfred H. Cook, Hadley ; Joshua Crosby, 
 Williamsburg ; Jesse L. Gale, Easthampton. 
 
 Opening the Case. 
 
 District Attorney Field opened the case for the prosecution, giving a summary of what 
 the government expected to prove. It would offer testimony to prove that this robbery 
 was committed, and that it was committed by these defendants. It would offer the 
 testimony of a man who was one of the parties concerned in the robbery prior to its com¬ 
 mission. It proposed to show that this witness (Edson) who was in collusion with 
 these defendants to rob the Northampton Bank, was also in collusion with them to rob 
 a batik in Elmira, N. Y. He had now turned state’s evidence, and was willing to testify 
 to what he knew, and having been with these defendants, aiding and abetting them, he 
 knew all about their operations. The law wisely availed itself of the evidence of one 
 guilty party to convict other guilty ones. 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 3 
 
 The Evidence. 
 
 rhe first witness called was Engineer E. C. Davis, of Northampton, who exhibited a 
 pi m of Cashier Whittelsey’s house on Elm street, made by him. The house is distant 
 from the bank 230-2- rods, or about two-thirds of a mile. 
 
 The next witness was John Whittelsey, Cashier of the Northampton Bank, who told 
 the story of the visit of the robbers to his house on the night of January 25, 1876. 
 T ey entered a little after midnight ; saw five of them, all wearing masks ; one went to 
 is bedside and handcuffed him; another to the other side of the bed and handcuffed his 
 wife. These two men he identified as the defendants Scott and Dunlap. All the inmates 
 yj nhe house, seven in number, were gathered in his bedroom, and afterward five of them 
 ere taken into other rooms, and confined by lashing them to the bedsteads. Mr. Whittelsey 
 vas ordered to dress, and was assisted in dressing by Scott, and soon was taken into the 
 hall adjoining his bedroom, where he was guarded in turn by both Scott and Dunlap. He told 
 them it was no use for them to attempt to get into the bank, as it was secured by locks 
 that were regarded as safe. One of them replied they knew more about locks than he 
 d. They said they were going to take him to the bank and make him open the vault, 
 a', if didn’t do it they would “make it hot for him.” He was then taken down stairs, 
 1 the bank keys demanded. One of the robbers took a key from his own pocket, and 
 ed if that was the key to the bank door. Whittelsey told them it was ; it was a key 
 ich one of the robbers had taken from his pantaloons pocket. The robber tried the 
 in the lock to the front door to the house which it fitted. He then accused Whittel¬ 
 sey of lying to him. This man was Scott. Dunlap asked me if I wanted some brandy— 
 v as not feeling well. Told him no ; I was better. When down stairs, Scott was behind 
 beside me, and Dunlap near. Scott asked if I was not at Watch Hill two years before, 
 he Summer. Told him I was there. Said he was there also. Asked Dunlap to close 
 1 kitchen door. He, replied it was well enough as it was. Scott called for the com- 
 ation of the lock on the vault. I gave him incorrect figues. He took them down and 
 ed for the combination on the inner door. That door was not locked. Scott said he 
 not believe it. Gave him figures. He asked for the combination on the inside safe. 
 Ten I hesitated, he struck me with a sharp pointed pencil. Asked me to repeat the 
 ires. Tried to do so, but couldn’t remember the figures I had given him. One of 
 ; m said it was no use for me to lie to them, and began pounding, choking and punch¬ 
 ing me. Dunlap was behind me, with a pistol, and Scott before me. Scott took the 
 nber. I watched him closely. They then blindfolded me. They were in the house 
 ■ 3e hours. Scott assisted me to dress—went with me to the closet—asked if I had but 
 o vest. Dunlap sat beside me at least two hours. They were there from soon after 12 
 1. After I gave them the correct combination, they were satisfied they had obtained 
 I was led to a bedroom, and there gagged and bound to the bed. Dunlap said bind 
 is man close, so he can’t get away. That was about 4. It was about half past 3 when 
 went down stairs. The first of the robbers to leave the house were Scott and Dunlap, 
 ras nearly 6 when the last two of them left. I was released between 6 and 7. Seven 
 ; sons in the house—myself and wife, Miss Mattie White (now Mrs. Page,) Mr. and Mrs. 
 B. Cutler, Miss Benton, and a servant girl. Mrs. Whittelsey appealed to one of the 
 bers to treat her husband kindly. Heard her ask him if he was a married man, to 
 ch he replied that he was. Robber said he would treat Mr. Whittelsey well, if he would 
 d as they wanted to have him. Reached the bank at 7—found the vault door locked, 
 ■I dial broken off. A man came from New York to unlock the vault. Opened 
 - he night after the robbery. There were stolen of the bank’s property, 812,000 in bank 
 ■ is, $6,000 in government notes, five $1,000 bonds of the State of Missouri, and $75,000 
 ' Ohio and Mississippi R. R. bonds, of the market value of $850 per $1,000 of face value, 
 a large number of notes, all the property of the bank. 
 
 At this point, it was five o’clock, and the Judge said he would adjourn the court until 
 isday morning, at 9. The hours of meeting during the trial were fixed at 9 A. M. 
 2.15 P. M., and of adjourning, 12.45 and 5.15 P. M. The Judge cautioned the 
 ‘ 7 against allowing any person to talk about the trial in their presence, or to them 
 ut it, or to talk among themselves about it, but to keep themselves free from bias, so 
 o render an unbiased and impartial verdict. 
 
 A about 4 o’clock, a heavy shower came on, and the noise of the pouring rain almost 
 wned the proceedings in the court room. Darkness prevailed to such an extent that 
 about half an hour it was necessary to light the gas. 
 
 i7R865 
 
4 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 Tuesday Morning. 
 
 Cashier Whittelsey, resumed. Aggregate amount taken from the bank estimated at 
 from $1,000,000 to $1,250,000. Much of it belonged to private parties, some of whom 
 lost their all. (Judge ruled that all the government was obliged to prove was the break¬ 
 ing and entering the bank.) I had one of the three keys necessary to open the vault. 
 These keys had been repaired ; in fall of 1875 were filed. District Attorney asked who 
 did the filing? Sweetser objected. Judge admitted the evidence. In fall of 1875, the 
 keys were placed in hands of Wm. D. Edson to be filed. He took them into the direct¬ 
 ors’ room and filed them. Had seen Edson before. Found three of the doors at house 
 broken morning after robbery; broken with sledge hammers—found five such hammers 
 in house. Also found other tools in house—gimlets, &c. My watch and chain were 
 taken by Scott. Scott had the watch down stairs. Asked him not to take it away; said 
 he would not. Watch and chain valued at $250. The robbers wore masks. The two 
 men with me in the house were Scott and Dunlap. “ I have no hesitation in saying they 
 were the two men on trial.” Identify them by their voice, size and shape. Their voices 
 impressed me more than anything else. The men were addressed by numbers. Taller 
 man was Scott; he was addressed as No. 1. Judged him to be the leader of the gang. 
 He demanded of me the combination. Can’t say who gave directions to the others. 
 Their voices impressed me. Suspected they might be arrested some time, and watched 
 them closely. First heard them speak since the robbery, February 27, 1877, and for 
 three days in succession. Noticed particularly Scott’s broad shoulders. 
 
 (Here the sledge hammers found in the house were shown. The doors bore marks of 
 blows with such hammers. Other articles were exhibited—dark lanterns, masks, hooks, 
 gimlets, straps, cords, rubbers, dusters.) 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Sweetser. Scott wore a long linen duster, buttoned, coming 
 nearly to his knees. Wore a mask. Could not see his faee. He wore gloves. Saw his 
 general form. Didn’t notice his feet. He wore rubbers. Dunlap wore darker clothes— 
 wore a jacket and overalls. Identified the mask he wore, but afterward said he could not 
 positively say that any particular man wore a particular one of these articles. Asked if 
 there was anything extraordinary about Scott. Said he was broad-shouldered. Here 
 Sweetser asked Scott to stand up, and he did so; also Dunlap. Is there anything about 
 these men extraordinary ? Witness said there was not, but he could readily distinguish 
 their forms. Was excited that night—frightened—for a time, but afterward got over it. 
 Was blindfolded when tied to the bed. Heard the doors close. Three men left the house 
 at about 4. Did not 6ee them when they left, but heard their steps. Did not see the 
 men on trial for more than a year. First saw them in the jail, in the chapel. Went there 
 to see the prisoners. Prior to going to the jail had heard something of the evidence 
 against these men. Heard it from the officers of the bank. Had not heard it from any 
 detective. Saw Pinkerton prior to going to the jail—at the bank, on Sunday morning. 
 Am in the habit of visiting the bank Sunday mornings. No talk at that time with 
 regard to the evidence against these men. Think there was talk at that time of my going 
 to the jail to see these men. Heard some of the evidence before the men were arrested. 
 Heard Scott say “yes” at the jail—heard Dunlap say the same. Did not tell anybody I 
 recognized their voices. Saw them the next day, at jail. Mrs. Whittelsey and Miss 
 White were there also. Conversed about the matter between these two days. Officers of 
 the bank wanted me to go there. Scott asked Pinkerton, “ Have you seen my wife 
 lately?” and said, “I would like what money was found on me;” also, “If I had my 
 own way.” Heard Dunlap say, “Will you see about mv trunk and have it left in Mrs. 
 Scott’s care ?” He asked, “How is Connors’ case getting on ?” Heard them the next 
 day, at the jail. Told officers of the bank thought I recognized these men. 
 
 Scott asked what he was to have for breakfast—said it was fish day. Said it was useless 
 to canonize saints, as some of them died of small pox. Recognize them by something 
 besides the voice. A peculiar shrug of the shoulders. Recognize Scott bv his shrug. 
 Saw it at the jail, where he exhibited the shrug several times. Sweetser asked, for the 
 purpose of testing witness’ mind as to his entire fairness, and wanted him to be cautious 
 in answering : If having no other evidence than the shrug of his shoulders, he could 
 swear that Scott was the man who broke into witness’ house ? Witness said no. Sweetser 
 then asked, if there was no other evidence than his recognition of the voice, he could 
 swear that this man was guilty ? Witness said yes, and repeated it two or three times. 
 Scott here stood up and, at Sweetser’s request, spoke several words. Witness said he sup- 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 5 
 
 pressed his voice. Mr. Gillett objected to Scott’s talking in this way for this purpose. 
 The Judge ruled out this mode of examination. Defense -noted the exception. Some 
 hair was taken out of one of the masks by Mr. Hussey, and has been carefully kept at 
 the bank. 
 
 The next witness was E. A. Hall, of the firm of Hall & Prew, Springfield, dealers in 
 clothing, who testified that a pair of the overalls found at Whittelsey’s house, and a pair 
 of drawers and socks, were purchased at his store in January, 1876, a day or two prior to 
 the robbery, but could not tell who bought them. His cross-examination postponed. 
 
 James 0. Mantor, a workman at the hoe factory, early in January, 1876, saw on two 
 different evenings, two men standing in front of Cashier Whittelsey’s house, talking and 
 making gestures. His impression was that Scott was one of those men, but he could not 
 say positively. 
 
 David W. Crafts saw on Elm street, in January, 1876, a man who inquired of him 
 where Whittelsey lived. Feel satisfied that the man I saw was Scott. Prior to Jan. 25, 
 1876, saw in front of Maynard & Brooks’ store, a man whom he called the same man he 
 saw on Elm street. Defense declined to cross-examine the witness. 
 
 Deputy Sheriff Ansel Wright testified to finding in the attic of the Bridge street school- 
 house, a day previous to the robbery, a lot of blankets, cold chicken and bread in a mouldy 
 state. Blankets were rolled up. A paper bag found there bore the printed card of the 
 N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Stamford Restaurant. No cross-examination. 
 
 Deputy Sheriff Henry M. Potter found the goods in the school-house attic. Found 
 there a copy of the N. Y. Sun, dated Dec. 22, 1875. 
 
 Deputy Sheriff Wright, recalled, testified to finding a flask of whiskey, in the school- 
 house attic, with the label of a N. Y. firm upon it. 
 
 Edson on the Stand. 
 
 At a quarter before twelve o’clock, Wm. D. Edson was called and sworn. Residence in 
 New York. Resided there since June, 1871. Knew Scott and Dunlap since September, 
 1873. My business was making sales of safes for Herring & Co. During fall of 1873, 
 met Scott and Dunlap four or five times previous to an attempted robbery. Met him at 
 Wm. Connors’ room on Houston street, N. Y., in 1873. Sweetser objected to witness 
 testifying as to a robbery in the fall of 1873, as it had nothing to do with the robbery of 
 the Northampton Bank. District Attorney Field claimed it as competent, as part of a 
 conspiracy, resulting in the robbery of this bank. Mr. Gillett claimed that, as early as 
 1873, a compact was entered into between Edson, Connors, Scott and Dunlap for robbing 
 banks—that each of the conspirators was to keep on the watch for banks that could be 
 successfully robbed, and that when such a bank was found, it was to be attacked ; and 
 that, in pursuance of that conspiracy, the Northampton bank was robbed. Mr. Sweetser 
 objected, because whatever was said about robbing banks at that time had nothing to do 
 with the robbery of the Northampton bank. The court allowed the evidence of conspir¬ 
 acy to be admitted, and counsel for defense gave notice of exception. 
 
 Edson’s Testimony. 
 
 Edson testified. Met Scott in Elmira, N. Y., in September, 1875. I was sitting at 
 the dinner table on Sunday, when a stranger came to me after all the guests had left, and 
 gave me a letter from a gentleman whom I met soon afterwards in my room, and who in¬ 
 troduced himself as Robert Scott. He was registered at the hotel as Fisher, of Illinois. 
 He gave me a letter from one Wm. Connors. There was an arrangement made to rob 
 banks by Scott, Dunlap and myself, at my house in 1873 ; there were present Scott, 
 Dunlap and Connors. Scott asked me for the use of an air pump which I had, and which 
 was used for the sole purpose of breaking into banks, and under the consideration that if 
 their arrangements should succeed they were to give me an equal share in any bank they 
 robbed. I asked them if such arrangements would be satisfactory in every way, and they 
 said they would. In pursuance of that conversation, I gave them an air pump with that 
 understanding. I did not see anything more of either of them for, probably, in the 
 neighborhood of a month. Then I think I saw Scott. He said he received a dispatch 
 from Dunlap asking him to make preparations to go west. At the time the arrangement 
 was made I was to give them all the information I could. I had an opportunity of going 
 where they could not. In pursuance of this agreement I was to receive an equal division 
 of the property. 
 
fi 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 I came to Northampton to look at their banks, and report to the defendants at Wilkes- 
 barre, Pa. I came in August, and had an arrangement in case I was detained. I could 
 telegraph them, Care of R. C. Hill, Wyoming House, Wilkesbarre, Pa. I came to North¬ 
 ampton on some work for the First National Bank and was detained, and telegraphed to 
 Wilkesbarre that I would meet them at R. L. Edwards’, 241 West Second street, N. Y. 
 After I finished my business I went to New York and from there to Wilkesbarre, in re¬ 
 sponse to a telegrem, and met Scott and Dunlap. I gave them the information I had 
 about the dial, and explained that the lock had a weakness in it which rendered it unfit 
 for use. I had with me a set of keys which Mr. Warriner had given me. I gave them 
 to Mr. Scott and we came to New York together. I also gave him keys to a sample dial. 
 He made a set of duplicates and came to my home, and returned the set belonging to the 
 bank. Mr. Dunlap was with him and they practiced working the dial. I think they 
 then agreed to go to Northampton in a day or two, which they did. That I know. They 
 told me they had been here, and found where Mr. Whitteisey lived, what part of the 
 house, how many were in his family, etc. Afterwards there was another meeting, when 
 Connors was also present and all three agreed to go, and afterwards I saw them again and 
 they said they had been to Northampton. They said they had watched Whittelsey’s 
 movements and those of the watchmen of the bank and of the town, and saw that in order 
 to be successful they must take care of all the watchmen in the town. I told Scott and 
 Dunlap that Locke, an employe of Herring & Co., had received a letter from the bank 
 in Northampton, stating that their dials were worthless, and told them they had better 
 drop the job. At their request I went on to Northampton and saw Mr. Edwards and 
 Mr. Warriner, and found that the dials were out of order, and went back and told them 
 that they had better stop work then, and nothing was done in September and until 
 November. They then went to Northampton and examined the First National Bank, 
 and came back and reported they had found obstructions which they wanted me to advise 
 them about. (This was objected to by Mr. Sweetser and ruled out by the court as referr¬ 
 ing to a bank other than the one robbed.) 
 
 Afterwards Scott, Dunlap and Connors wanted me to come on and see about the North¬ 
 ampton National Bank, and I did, on the 22d of November, and obtained impressions of 
 the keys at the bank, and told them I had obtained the impressions and gave them to him, 
 and that while fixing the lock on the second door of the safe, I suggested to Mr. Warriner 
 to look at the outer door, and did take off the lock, and also that of the safe door. I 
 suggested that it wasn’t safe for a young mau to know the combination, and it was 
 changed, and only Mr. Whitteisey and one other knew it. I did not find out the combi¬ 
 nation then, but did afterwards, and gave it to the defendants. I knew then that Mr. 
 Y hittelsey had it, and that he could also open the other doors, and if he could uot. I 
 could do a little. 
 
 Tuesday Afternoon. 
 
 I gave the impressions which I took here on the 24th of November to Scott and Dun¬ 
 lap : I met them about the 26th ; I think we were to see them again early in the follow¬ 
 ing week ; I think they came to my house then and showed the keys Scott had made, and 
 tried the dials of the locks. I had five or six interviews with them until January, when 
 the robbery occurred. At one of these they told me that after one of their visits here 
 they were out of funds, and wanted me to raise some money, and I told them I thought 
 1 could, provided the terms were satisfactory for its use ; five per cent, on the proceeds of 
 the robbery were the terms, but it was not satisfactory. Finally I got $1000 for them, 
 the) to pay $10,000 for the use of .it. They came here early in January, I think, with 
 the purpose of perpetrating the robbery, but came back without doing it. and without 
 money. I raised them $300 more and gave it to them. I met Dunlap on Broadway the 
 Sunday night preceding the robbery, and he told me they were going to Northampton the 
 next day. I lie Monday evening following the 26th of January, I saw Dunlap aud Scott. 
 1 was here at the opening of the vault; I was sent here from Bristol, Conn. I was in 
 New j ork on the morning of the robbery. Y hen I got here 1 found another Avorkman 
 from Herring & Co.’s was expected here. When he came he opened the vault by attach- 
 ing a dial to the 6pindle, which was exposed, with one hundred numbers, and of course 
 the combination would be struck with that number of numbers. When the safe was 
 opened, Messrs. Edwards and Warriner ivere present, and we found an emptv safe, a safe 
 not opened, and also a pocket-book which had not been taken. I next met Scott and 
 
TKIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 7 
 
 Dunlap in response to a personal in the New York Herald we had agreed upon if they 
 wanted to see me ; we met on the Monday following the robbery. (Copy of Herald shown 
 witness.) That is the Herald and the personal. The personal meant I was to meet Mr. 
 Connors at the corner of 34th street and Broadway at 8 o’clock Monday evening. I put 
 in a personal myself, but met Mr. Conners, and he took me to 60th street and 10th ave¬ 
 nue and met Scott, and afterwards Dunlap. Conners at this time handed me a portion 
 of the money taken from the safe; I think about 11200. I asked them who took that 
 watch ? I said it was a small piece of business. Scott said it was a mistake, and would 
 be returned. I asked them if they had any trouble, and Dunlap said “no.” I asked 
 them if they abused Mr. Whittelsey, and they said no ; they struck him once in the 
 breast. I had several interviews with them, and during one of them Dunlap spoke of 
 Mrs. Whittelsey being a very courageous woman, and of her stroking Dunlap’s hand when 
 they were tying her husband, and begging them not to hurt him. I met Dunlap about 
 the middle of the week, near 50th street and 5th avenue, and at that interview the sub¬ 
 ject of conversation was the search for the securities by detectives. I asked him if Scott 
 had returned them, and he said no. I told him there was a strong probability of the 
 securities being found, and they had better settle/ and they could do so safely. I also 
 tried Dunlap. I had put a personal in the Herald to recall Scott from coming here after 
 the securities. It read: “Knox, come home.” Conners told me he would know what it 
 meant, as he (Scott) formerly had a horse by that name. At one of these interviews I 
 asked Scott and Dunlap whether they hurt any of these parties, and they said they 
 frightened a servant girl. They complained that 1‘had not told them right in regard to 
 a key of the bank door. I explained how they were wrong, and they said they thought 
 Mr. Whittelsey was lying to them, because he insisted it was the key of the bank. I 
 made an arrangement to meet them Sunday night, the 13th of February, in New York, 
 and they came about 10 o’clock in a carriage. I proposed to them to allow the property 
 to be found at Northampton. They wanted to know the terms, and I told them I didn’t 
 know. I also explained to them how it could be done. I finally left them with an under¬ 
 standing that they were ready to negotiate. I asked Dunlap if Scott had returned, and 
 he said no. I know I afterwards met Scott, and he told me he had been in Springfield. 
 When I first saw them after the robbery, they said they had taken out $900 for the pur¬ 
 pose of buying a team to drive up here and get the securities. 
 
 At the interview, February 13, I talked with Scott about his journey to Springfield, and 
 he said they went up from New Haven in a sleigh, drove to Hartford where they ex¬ 
 changed their sleigh for a buggy. At Springfield they read an account of the search for 
 the bonds, and returned to New York. 
 
 My next interview with them was on the Wednesday evening following. I met only 
 Scott, on the corner of 34th street and Madison avenue, and walked to a beer saloon 
 between Third street and Lexington avenue. He asked if I had been to Northamp¬ 
 ton and I said yes; he asked me what they were willing to give for the return of the 
 securities and I told him about $60,000 ; he asked me to get from the bank a list of the 
 value of the securities, which I did, I think, from Mr. Williams. I showed it to him 
 afterwards and while doing so he seemed to be pre-occupied, and after looking a while he 
 gave me to understand that they were not willing to negotiate on the bank’s terms, and 
 told me Dunlap and another had gone up here to get them. He evidently was suspicious 
 of me. I met him Friday evening next at a lager beer saloon ; he placed himself where 
 he could see the entrance to the saloon. I asked him if Dunlap had returned and he said 
 “ yes,” but he was sick, having broke into Mill river when coming back. He said the 
 securities were in New York, and he wanted me to go down and see them. He made an 
 appointment two nights afterwards, which I kept, but never saw him then nor afterwards 
 until the following ISeptembex*, when I saw him in University Park, and asked him if he 
 was not going to settle the matter and give me a share of the securities, and he said “not 
 
 a d-d cent.” I asked him why, and he said that I had given the whole party away. 
 
 I denied it and tried to induce them to settle. During the interview, I asked him if he 
 was certain I had given the party away, and he said no, as I could not have been selling 
 them. I never saw him again until the 9th of November, when I met Mr. Scott, who 
 told me those men wanted to see me. I told him I wanted to speak to my family, and 
 he finally consented. We went finally on the outskirts of Prospect Park, where I met 
 both Scott and Dunlap. We talked over the division. I asked if all the party would be 
 satisfied with a division which would give each his fair portion, and Scott said thej would 
 
8 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 have to do so. I told them everything I knew, and Scott said I told them nothing they 
 
 did not know, while Dunlap said it was “alia d-d lie,” and he didn’t believe a word 
 
 of it. Dunlap wanted to know what the Northampton people would give to let him go. 
 
 I told him I didn’t know ; I thought $100,000, or, perhaps $150,000 ; he said if they 
 would do that they could have their securities. I told them they could arrange an inter¬ 
 view with the bank people, but they said the bank people knew where to find them if they 
 wanted them. I told them they had better settle very soon, as they were well known 
 by others, and were in danger, for up to that time, the 9th of November, I had not 
 opened my lips about them to a living man. The Sunday following I met Scott at 
 “ Red ” Leary’s, near Hamilton Ferry, in New York. I told them I had seen Mr. 
 Williams, and they could settle it. He threatened me at that time if there was trouble, 
 as I told him there would surely be. I left him with the promise from him that he 
 would see Mr. Williams. He said he was not afraid to get arrested and always carried a 
 thousand dollars to ventilate old Herring, if they were arrested. The name of the third 
 man at the Prospect Park interview was John Leary. ' Mr. Connors was to have the 
 negotiation of the division of the plunder and I took Mr. Williams to Connors at G16 
 Broadway ; (exceptions taken ;) I think it was Wednesday evening, November 15 ; (ex¬ 
 ceptions taken.) Have known Scott under the names of Robert Bush and Mitchell, and 
 Dunlap under the names of Horace C. Hill and Borden. 
 
 Edson Cross-examined by Mr. Sweetser. 
 
 Have been employed by Herring since .Tune, 1872, to January, 1877, when I resigned. 
 Was in the harness business in Minneapolis, Minnesota, three years prior ; was in N. Y T . 
 three months prior, and in Montreal, Canada ; previous to that in Philadelphia ; had 
 some trouble when I left Boston ; I was arrested in Boston at the instance of a woman, 
 who tried to black mail me ; the first bank I was concerned iu attempting to rob was the 
 First National Bank of Elmira ; the second was the bank in Quincy, Ill. ; the attempt at 
 Elmira was in 1873, and at Saratoga in 1874, and the Long Island National in the winter 
 of 1874 and 1875 ; the next was at Covington, Ky., in March, 1875, and the bank at 
 Rockville, Conn., in 1875, and at Pittston, Pa., November, 1875, and Northampton Na¬ 
 tional, Jan. 26, 1876. There was an attempt at Wilkesbarre, Pa., and at Nantucket, I 
 think, in the summer of 1873, and the Third National Bank of Syracuse in June, 1875. 
 I got out of the Bank of Illinois $7,600 ; out of the Pittston $850. Never had a quarrel 
 with Scott and Dunlap before the Northampton bank robbery. Had hard feelings against 
 them in April, 1874, when they robbed and beat me. 
 
 I superintended putting in the doors of the Northampton bank for Herring & Co., in 
 1874. I might have arranged it so that a visit to the Cashier would not have been necessary. 
 I told the story which I have, for self-interest and self-protection. Firstmentioned that I 
 was a party to the crime in November, 1876. I considered that the parties concerned in 
 the robbery had not treated me fairly, and I wanted to have them restore the money to 
 parties who needed it. I first had an intimation that it was knowu I was connected with 
 the Northampton bank robbery from John Kenney, a professional thief in New r York, 
 who said there was not an old knuck-moll in New York who didn’t know all about it. I 
 was offered from $10,000 to $25,000, by Mr. Edwards of the bank, to make a clean breast 
 of it. I was influenced to do so by the fact that I had given my word to Mr. Williams 
 that he should have the property back. 
 
 At an interview with Mr. Williams at the 5th Avenue Hotel, I told him that if he 
 would guarantee $100,000 and give me my own way, I would try and get the property 
 back. 
 
 Wednesday—Third Day. 
 
 EXCITING SCENE IN THE COURT ROOM—UR. SWEETSER ABRUPTLY WITHDRAWS FROM 
 
 THE CASE. 
 
 At the opening of the court on Wednesday morning, Mr. Gillett stated that the gov¬ 
 ernment desired to withdraw so much of the evidence of the witness Edson, given on 
 Tuesday, as related to what was said concerning the visit of Connors to Springfield. At 
 the time these statements were testified to, Mr. Sweetser objected and gave notice of 
 exceptions, whereupon the District Attorney withdrew them. Mr. Sweetser claimed at 
 the time that they could not be withdrawn after having been made in the presence of the 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANE ROBBERS. 
 
 9 
 
 jury, without leaving more or less of effect prejudicial to the defendants upon the minds 
 of the jurors. The Judge then ruled them all out, and stated that he should so instruct 
 the jury. 
 
 Immediately after Mr. Gillett had moved to have Connors’ statements ruled out, on 
 Wednesday morning, Mr. Sweetser said that if matters were to b.e placed before the jury, 
 which leave an impression upon the minds of the jury, which even the instructions of 
 the court could not remove, and which the defense could not remove by evidence, “ I 
 shall retire from this court house, for I can no longer benefit these defendants, if such a 
 course is pursued.” 
 
 The Judge said he remembered that his ruling was in accordance with what he had 
 stated, and he should now rule as he ruled then. “I shall rule all evidence out in regard 
 to Connors’ statements, when the defendants were not present.” 
 
 At this point, Mr. Sweetser picked up his hat and left the court-room, proceeding to 
 the Mansion House. Edson was then on the stand, awaiting the continuance of the 
 cross-examination. The court-room was crowded, every available place being occupied. 
 The scene was intensely exciting. It was dramatic. Everyone instinctively asked, What 
 does this mean ? Is it for effect P or, Is it an honest abandonment of the case for cause 
 deemed sufficient ? The Bond Brothers seemed to be as much surprised by the action of 
 Sweetser as any of the audience; and apparently the prisoners were surprised. They 
 appeared agitated, nervous. The Bond Brothers counseled together a few minutes, and. 
 conferred with the prisoners. Then they asked of the court a delay of a few minutes 
 that they might go out and consult Mr. Sweetser. 
 
 The Judge replied that he did not know that he was called upon to allow delay for con¬ 
 sultation with Mr. Sweetser. “He is out of the case by his own statement, and has 
 withdrawn from it, for effect, as I believe.” 
 
 Mr. Bond said be hardly thought His Honor was justified in making that statement. 
 
 The Judge replied—I know what I ruled yesterday, and Mr. Sweetser attempted to 
 have me rule otherwise to-day. When it is threatened that counsel will withdraw from the 
 case unless I hack down, then I don’t hack down. This announcement, given in a calm, 
 yet very firm and decided manner, was greeted with a rustle of suppressed applause, and 
 had it not been for the restraint of the court-room, the outburst of approval would have 
 been universal and uproarious. 
 
 The Judge again said he should instruct the jury to strike out all evidence of Connors 
 relating to the case. 
 
 Mr. Bond said he did not think the prisoners should suffer because Mr. Sweetser had 
 had a little misunderstanding with the court. Mr. Sweetser believed the court had done 
 wrong, and he (Bond) believed Sweetser was honest in saying what he had said. 
 
 The Judge decided to allow a reasonable time for consultation, and Mr. H. H. Bond 
 left the court-room and went to the Mansion House, where he found Mr. Sweetser and 
 had a conference with him ; after which he returned to the court-room, and announced 
 to the court that they would go on with the case. 
 
 Mr. D. W. Bond then took up the cross-examination of Edson, who testified as fol¬ 
 lows :—My wife is living. Have only one wife. Was married in 1865. Had nothing to 
 do with an attempt to rob the Sixth Avenue bank at New York, in the summer of 1876 
 —furnished no plans, pencil work, drawings or cards. Scott and Dunlap stated to me 
 that they entered the bank, alone. Here the cross-examination stopped. 
 
 The next witness was Albert Holt, paymaster of the Boston and Albany railroad com¬ 
 pany. On January 25, 1876, at about 8 A. M. he saw two men crossing Main street, 
 Springfield, from Cooley’s hotel. Was in front of them. Afterwards saw the same men 
 come out of the depot and pass down the street, where they met three other men, 
 with whom they talked a minute, and then separated. In the afternoon, saw the two 
 turn down Pynchon street, where they again met the three men, with whom they had a 
 conversation and separated. Saw the two men the next morning enter a store on Main 
 street. Have no doubt about either day. They were strangers. One was taller than the 
 other ; had a dark complexion and a small moustache. The other had light hair and a 
 moustache. Saw the same men at the examination of this case. I see them here, 
 (pointing to Scott and Dunlap.) Been paymaster of the B. and A. road 19 years. 
 
 Cross-examined. Saw the two men a few minutes on January 25. One wore his hair 
 long, and a silk hat. 
 
 Benjamin Franklin, one of Pinkerton’s detectives, saw the defendants February 11, 
 
10 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 1877, at the depot in Philadelphia. They were on the express train going South. Had 
 a warrant for their arrest. Took them off the train. They had a package with them. 
 District Attorney desired to prove that this package contained burglars’ tools like those 
 found in Whittelsey’s house, but court ruled that he could not. Their tickets were for 
 Richmond, Va. Witness identified the handwriting of Scott and Dunlap. Showed them 
 the warrant when they were arrested. Told them my name and business. They said I 
 was mistaken. Scott would not admit his identity and would not sign the order for the 
 return of his money. They made no admissions. Witness was not cross-examined. 
 
 Mrs. Whittelsey. The first thing I heard, a man came into the room, and I heard 
 screaming through the house, and then a tall man came into the room where we were, 
 and then Mr. Whittelsey and Mrs. Page and myself were requested to get up and dress, 
 which request we obeyed. I assisted Mr. Whittelsey to dress, and it seemed to annoy the 
 tall man who seemed to give the orders, and he requested me to go over to the other side 
 of the room, and I did so. By the light of a dark lantern which they carried, I could 
 well see their movements. They opened all the bureau drawers and scattered the con¬ 
 tents over the floor, and the tall man requested one attendant to look after them. My at¬ 
 tendant requested Mrs. Page and myself to be seated, and we were, and he seated himself 
 beside us. We sat there some time, about half an hour. I requested him to treat Mr. 
 Whittelsey kindly, and he said he would, if he did as they requested him. I asked him if 
 he had a wife. He replied that he had. I theu asked him if he had any children, and 
 he said yes. I asked him how old they were, and he said not very old, and then he told 
 me we could go into another room. One of the party had on a black cap, and they wore 
 masks. We were liberated about 6.30 A. M. I think we were in our room until 1 o’clock. 
 They spoke to each other. I counted five as the dark lanterns' light came together. They 
 addressed each other. I heard numbers called, and supposed they were known by num¬ 
 bers. The tall one gave the orders. He was very nervous in manner all the evening, aud 
 manifested it by shrugging his shoulders, and in other ways. The attendant with me 
 was far more self-possessed and gentlemanly. It took a long time to handcuff and bind 
 us. It may have been two hours. Mrs. Page’s right hand was fastened to my left hand. 
 Our ankles were fastened, and ropes fastened us to the bed. As I sat beside the attend¬ 
 ant, who had charge of me, I stroked his wrist. He remained with us until we were 
 taken into my room. I did not see him afterwards. I heard the conversation between 
 the man who had charge of Mr. Whittelsey and the ladies ; he asked him where his vest 
 was, and if he hadn’t got but one suit of clothes; they went to the closet and got a vest; 
 I told him it was no use taking Mr. Whittelsey to the bank, as he could not open it with¬ 
 out Mr. Warriner and Mr. Prince. He said he had both of them. 
 
 M rs. Whittelsey identified Scott and Dunlap as the men who were in her house. She 
 knew them by their size, voice, and peculiarity of manner; Scott’s nervous manner and 
 peculiarity of shoulders. Have seen him since, at the Town Hall and the jail. Once 
 since his arrest, while behind Scott, I noticed that peculiarity of the shoulders and the 
 shrug which I saw that night. Dunlap’s voice is like that of my attendant that night, 
 and his manner is like his, quiet and self-possessed. The next morning spoke of the 
 stroking of my attendant's hand. This evidence (as to the stroking of the hand) was 
 withdrawn by the prosecution, by leave of the court, to which Mr. Bond objected and 
 saved an exception. He said he wished to “ save whatever rights we have, but didn't 
 know as we had any. ” 
 
 Mrs. Whittelsey then testified to noticing the grass in the rear of the house, near some 
 bushes, in July or August, 1875, flattened, as if a person bad laid upon it. Saw it only 
 one time, and spoke to Mr. W hittelsey about it. 
 
 Cross-examined. My attendant wore a light mask; not a white one; think it was one 
 of the masks shown here. There was but little conversation between the men when in 
 the house. The tall man gave directions. As we passed through the hall we saw Mr. 
 \\ hittelsey sitting on the sofa with one or two attendants. This was about 3 o’clock. 
 The gags were applied between 3 and 4 o’clock. We were not gagged until long after we 
 were bound. The tall man seemed very nervous and impatient, and one time, when we 
 were talking with our guard, said “ hush.” He had a long linen duster and a white 
 mask fitting very smoothly over his head. They were very cautious about their lanterns. 
 
 1 hey were placed in position, and ordered to be careful about turning around with their 
 lanterns. Have seen two of these men since, in the chapel at the jail. Think the tall 
 one was the cue who came into my room and led me out. The other one I identified by 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 11 
 
 his general manner. The tall one I noticed by the shrug of the shoulders. The one 
 who had charge of ns was perfectly self-possessed, and much more gentlemanly than any 
 of the others. The tall man was very impatient and imperative in his tones. In the 
 morning, when we were released, we found the different costumes they had worn, their 
 masks, etc. They first came to the house between 12 and 1 o’clock. They were in the 
 house more than an hour, and Scott and Dunlap were in our presence all the time. I saw 
 the men in the chapel only a few minutes. I afterwards heard them talking in the jail 
 for a considerable time. I then recognized the voices of both. I think of nothing except 
 what I have stated which leads me to identify the prisoners. I don’t remember my lan¬ 
 guage at the examination; think I spoke of the shrug of the shoulders then. Am not 
 positive what I said about Dunlap’s voice. I only know it was a medium voice, and very 
 pleasant, and with his gentlemanly manner impressed me very much. I don’t remember 
 who wore the cambric mask. 
 
 Mrs. Page. This witness was formerly Miss Mattie C. White. She was an inmate of 
 Mr. Wbittelsey’s house at the time of the burglary. She testified as follows: I was awak¬ 
 ened between 12 and 1 in the morning, by some one coming into my room, and I screamed. 
 He told me to keep quiet, and requested me to get up. I begged of him to let me remain 
 where I was, but be said no. I then got up and went into the room where Mrs. Whittel- 
 sey was, and we were handcuffed together. Some one in the room asked where the young 
 lady went; he immediately replied, “ Here she is,” looking at me. Shortly after, Mr. 
 Whittelsey, Mrs. Whittelsey and myself were ordered to dress, and after we dressed we 
 were placed in chairs at the other side of the room. I asked him what time it was; he 
 took his watch out of his pocket, and remarked it was shortly after 12. Mrs. Page was 
 positive iu identifying Scott and Dunlap. Scott’s hight, general bearing, and shrug of 
 the shoulders made a strong impression on her mind that night, and she had never for¬ 
 gotten it. He was impulsive and not self-possessed, while Dunlap, when he had charge 
 of herself and Mrs. Whittelsey, was entirely cool and gentlemanly. On seeing them at 
 the jail chapel, she recognized them both by their appearance and their voices, and when 
 the examination took place before the magistrate, these impressions were confirmed. 
 
 Charles Shuler, clerk of the Wyoming Valley Hotel, at Wilkesbarre, Pa., exhibited the 
 hotel register for 1875,- and under date of August 5, was recorded the name, “ R. C. Hill, 
 Boston.” Thought he saw the party sign his name. Do not know Scott or Dunlap. The 
 name of Wm. D. Edson is also recorded in the registry, below Hill’s. Paid 40 cents for 
 a telegram sent to or by K. 0. Hill. 
 
 Edson, recalled. Identified his signature on the hotel register. Also identified the 
 signature of R. C. Hill as the signature of Dunlap. 
 
 R. E. Jamison, telegraph operator at Wilkesbarre, exhibited several original telegrams 
 sent from that place, August 5, 1875. Did not know who wrote them, or whether there 
 was any reply. 
 
 Edson , recalled. Shown one of the telegrams, and asked whose handwriting it was. 
 Said it was Dunlap’s. (Objected to and exceptions taken.) The District Attorney read 
 the telegram : 
 
 Wilkesbarre, Pa., Aug. 5, 1875. 
 
 To W. L. Edwards, 241 West Fifty-second street, New York. 
 
 Come to-morrow. R. C. Hill. 
 
 James L. Warriner, Vice President of the Northampton Bank, testified to seeing Edson 
 in the bank in the autumn of 1875. Gave him the keys of the vault to file. That was 
 in the latter part of November, 1875. Think it was the 22d. He took them into the 
 directors’ room, and kept them about ten minutes. This was before the new dials were 
 put on. Had a talk with Edson about the combination and who had it. He said it was 
 not safe for the young clerk to have it. Afterward there was a change made in the dis¬ 
 tribution of the combination, Mr. Whittelsey taking the whole of it. Edson knew of 
 this change. 
 
 Afternoon—Wednesday. 
 
 West Sexton, clerk of the Rockingham House, Springfield. Scott came there with 
 another man in February, 1876. They came with a pair of horses and wagon ; stopped 
 oyer night, arising between four and six o’clock and leaving the next morning ; did not 
 give any account of where they came from, or where they were going. They took supper. 
 I identify Scott by his countenance. Saw a Mr. Clark in the hotel about that time. 
 
12 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 Scott had a moustache, but no whiskers ; the moustache was not a heavy one. The day 
 after Scott left there was a heavy, thick-set man of medium height asked for him. I did 
 not know him. 
 
 Cross-examined. Did not see the men arrive. Saw them after they were in the 
 house. Saw them while there about an hour. That was all the time I saw them. 
 Looked the team over very carefully, perhaps more carefully than the men. 
 
 Capt. E. C. Clark . livery-stable keeper at Northampton. Was at the Rockingham 
 House, Springfield, February 9, 1876. Was there only once. 
 
 Thomas A. Gallagher, one of Pinkerton’s detectives. Have known Scott since 
 November, 1876 ; have watched him for days at a time ; have noticed a peculiar shrug of 
 his shoulders when he walked. It was a habit. He refused to give his name when 
 arrested and brought before a Philadelphia magistrate, February 14, 1877 ; was present 
 when he was arrested, and present when he was before the mgaistrate. 
 Was on the train when they were arrested. Scott and Dunlap were 
 on their way to Richmond, and were to go by different routes to Washing¬ 
 ton. There was a small hand-sack in the car when they were arrested, and Scott was 
 asked if it belonged to him, and he nodded his head, as if to say yes. Objection was 
 made to witness stating what was in the bag. 
 
 Cashier Whittelsey produced the records of the bank, to prove its legal organization. 
 
 L. B. Williams, one of the directors of the Northampton Bank, testified to going to 
 New York in-1876 to see about the stolen funds. Had a meeting with Connors, by ar¬ 
 rangement of Edson. 
 
 Oscar Edwards, President of the Bank, testified that he had noticed a peculiarity about 
 Scott’s shrugging his shoulders. Noticed it in the town hall, during the examination. 
 Sat behind him there, and within a few feet of him. 
 
 H. R. Hinckley, a director of the Bank, had also noticed the shrug of Scott’s 
 shoulders. Saw it at the town hall. 
 
 The Evidence All In. 
 
 At this point, the District Attorney announced that the government rested the case. 
 Mr. Bond then said that without proceeding with any evidence, he desired to file the 
 depositions, several of which he handed to the Clerk. He announced that the defense 
 would not offer any evidence, nor make any argument to the jury. The District 
 Attorney, Mr. Gillett, Mr. Delano and the bank officers then held a short consultation, 
 after which Mr. Gillett, in view of the anomalous position in which they had been placed 
 by the refusal of the defense to offer either evidence or argument, while having, as well 
 known, a large crowd of witnesses in attendance, asked the court for a few 
 minutes for consultation. The Judge granted the request, and announced a recess of 
 15 minutes. 
 
 The counsel for the prosecution, accompanied by the bank officers, then retired from 
 the court-room, and returned after an absence of 15 minutes, when Mr. Gillett at once 
 proceeded to address the court and the jury. 
 
 Argument of Mr. Gillett. 
 
 May it Please your Honor, Mr. Foreman, and Gentlemen of the Jury. 
 
 It has never been my misfortune to address a jury of my country, under circumstances 
 quite so embarrassing as at this present moment. We have an important case, begun on 
 Monday, with every probability of its extending through the week. I had supposed that, 
 by the request and courtesy of the learned District Attorney, who has asked me to render 
 such assistance as I could in the case, I should have an opportunity, fitly to the occasion, 
 to prepare some brief, and to present to you some considered thoughts. At all events, T 
 was sure, what the counsel so well understood, it devolving on the government to close 
 the case, that arguments and suggestions bearing upon it would be abundantly presented, 
 as an attempt was made to reply to the arguments of the defendants. But suddenly, un¬ 
 expectedly, we find that the defendants say they have nothing more to say. This array 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 13 
 
 of witnesses is silent; eloquent counsel are silent. Perhaps it might behoove the govern¬ 
 ment to be silent, too. I don’t think so, especially taking into account the dramatic 
 scene we witnessed here this morning. You will remember that the senior counsel in 
 this case, who came down here among us, from the eminences of the profession in Boston, 
 apparently, and I say apparently and speciously, assumed to desert the case, because, for¬ 
 sooth, he had been unfairly treated in the investigation of affairs. 
 
 Gentlemen, you believe that that was mere strategy aud pretense. The learned gentle¬ 
 man had followed his client through these mazes, till at last hope went out, and he saw 
 that the ship was sinking, and with prudent caution made some pretense by which he 
 could escape from the wreck. . There is no other construction to be placed upon it. Not 
 a young man, trying a case before a court for the first time and suddenly surprised ; but 
 an old veteran at the bar, trying his case before a learned court, with wisdom and ex¬ 
 perience, knowing too that the fact of any misruling or any fault of the court here, was 
 to be transferred to the Supreme Court, where everything could be revised, It was not 
 because he did not expect a fair trial. He knew that if it could be of any service, or if 
 he supposed it could be of any service to his clients to remain here, if he supposed their 
 case was not desperate and everything past surgery, it would be ignominious for him to 
 desert it, and he left the court house simply because it was the most wise and the most 
 prudent thing he could do in behalf of his clients. 
 
 And when the second act of this farce was attempted to be played off upon ns by a 
 second abandonment of the case, it didn’t seem to the counsel for the government that it 
 was quite fair to the large interests of the community, that they should leave the case, at 
 least without making some suggestions, in hope that they should be a guide or an 
 assistance in aiding the jury to come to some correct conclusion ; that the defendants 
 should not escape under the dust and smoke which their counsel has excited. And for 
 this reason, gentlemen, I propose, in a very plain way, and in a very brief way, to offer 
 some suggestions why you should find a verdict of guilty against these two defendants, 
 Scott and Dunlap. 
 
 I recognize the burden that is assumed by the commonwealth, and that is to prove that 
 the defendants are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. I assume that they are en¬ 
 titled, as every defendant is entitled, no matter what has been his past history of infamy, 
 and no matter how enormous have been his offences, he is entitled, they are entitled, to 
 every benefit which the law gives to any criminal ; that the assumption is that they are 
 innocent, that they come with that shield over their heads, turning every way to protect 
 them till it is thrust aside by the hand of testimony. But, gentlemen, assuming this 
 burden, assuming all that the law places upon us, we sav that the government has a case 
 here that is clear and indisputable. And when it is said that a defendant must be proved 
 to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, gentlemen, there is no mystery about that. 
 Sometimes the suggestion is made that jurors, when they leave their homes and come to 
 the court house, and assume the responsibilities of jurors, they are to lay aside, for the time 
 being, some of the attributes and faculties which are to control their judgments and their de¬ 
 cisions in the common pursuits of life. Not at all. You are selected to act here in order 
 that you may bring precisely that same wisdom and that same common sense that you 
 do apply to every-day affairs and circumstances. I have heard, perhaps you have heard, 
 sometimes, after some important trial, or some not important trial, a juryman say : “ I 
 
 hadn’t any doubt about the defendant’s guilt. I thought the defendant was guilty. The 
 evidence convinced me that he was guilty ; but then that ‘reasonable doubt! ’ It wan’t 
 proved to my mind beyond a reasonable doubt.” Gentlemen, when evidence is sufficient to 
 satisfy your reason and your judgment conclusively, in the same way that it would satisfy 
 your reason and your judgment in regard to any affairs of importance, it is sufficient to 
 satisfy your reason and judgment in a criminal case ; and no man, either of wisdom, or 
 sense, or first-rate nonsense, will presume that any different laws of evidence, any differ¬ 
 ent conviction of the mind and the judgment, are required in coming to any decision upon 
 any important subject which shall affect your own property or your own safety. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, you come to the consideration of the facts of the case. The evidence 
 seems to divide itself into two parts : first, the evidence of those persons who live in North¬ 
 ampton and in its immediate vicinity ; and second, the evidence of an accomplice in this 
 matter by the name of Edson ; and in considering this we propose in the first place to ask 
 you to give your attention to the consideration of the testimony of Edson. There are a 
 few facts in the case that are undisputed. It appears that on the 25th of January, 1876, 
 
14 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 the family of Mr. Whittelsey, residing in this quiet town, retired to their beds at night, 
 entitled to the tranquility which sleep brings to the honest labor, toil and fatigue of the 
 day. About midnight, a band of masked ruffians entered the dwelling house by means 
 of false keys. Finding themselves in the interior, they move quietly up the stairs 
 to where the family are sleeping, and suddenly a crash from heavy sledge hammers breaks 
 down the doors, and the occupants are confronted by these masked men. Yon know the 
 scene that followed. They are handcuffed, they are gagged, they are bound hand and 
 foot, they are threatened. One of the parties, Mr. Whittelsey, who had in his knowledge 
 facts essential to the breaking of the bank, has them extorted from him by brutality, by 
 the wringing of the ears, by the choking of the throat, by the application of torture to 
 the chest, and after remaining in the house for a while, a part of them depart, leaving 
 the house in sentinelship. The next morning the bank is found to have been entered, 
 and ultimately it appears that it has been plundered of a million dollars’ worth of prop¬ 
 erty. The question is, who did it ? If we need positive evidence on this point, we have 
 it. We have the confession of Scott and Dunlap, made over and over again to a man by 
 the name of Edson ; we have the coufession of these men made to this man. But I sup¬ 
 pose it will be claimed that it is not, has not been, believed, and that you are to put no 
 confidence in him, because he is an accomplice. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, the law provides that an accomplice not only may be a witness, but 
 the law provides also that the jury has the right to convict a man of murder, or of any 
 other crime, upon the evidence of an accomplice solely ; but I presume, and the books 
 recommend, that the court so advise the jury that it is not safe for them to convict a 
 citizen of crime upon the exclusive evidence of a party who was an accomplice with the 
 others, equal in guilt with them. And we accept that, and we say to you that unless 
 Edson shall have been, and has been, corroborated in various and important particulars, 
 we do not ask you to convict these men solely upon his testimony. But it is no reply to 
 evidence, and certainly it is no reply to truth, to say that it comes from the lips of a thief. 
 The object of a judicial investigation and a judicial trial is the discovery of the truth, 
 and nothing else, come from what source it may. Truth, Mr. Foreman, is not soiled by 
 the medium that it passes through, any more than a ray of sunlight is soiled because it 
 plays upon the hand of a murderer. Money is not counterfeit—I think the learned coun¬ 
 sel who took the cars this morning, will not say the *1500 which he received, if he did 
 receive it, is any the less genuine because it comes from the pockets that were lined with 
 the plunder of that bank. (Sensation.) Truth is truth, no matter what source it comes 
 from, and it is not necessary in judicial investigations—and the only way and the chief 
 way in which criminals and villains are detected, is in the fact that some one of them is 
 false ; and it is upon the bad passions and falsity of men that courts are obliged to rely. 
 There is nothing so sacred about a judicial tribunal that the evidence that is to control 
 investigations must be brought from the lips of vestal virgins. Why, even Divinity makes 
 the wrath of man to praise Him. (Profound sensation.) Now I pass no eulogy upon 
 Mr. Edson. I have nothing to say in his favor. I do not ask whether you shall heap 
 obloquy or compliments upon him for the part he has taken in this case ; but I do claim, 
 Mr. foreman and gentleman, that in the narrative that he gave us yesterday and to-day, 
 lie told the truth. What are some of the tests of truth ? What are some of the tests 
 that we apply when we want to ascertain whether a man is telling the truth or not ? One 
 test is perhaps his appearance on the stand. Was there anything in his appearance that 
 indicated that there was anything that he withheld, even though it smooched him with 
 infamy ? On the contrary, was not the fact during the whole of his testimony apparent 
 to you, that in all that he said lie was answering from his memory, and nothing else ? 
 No feeling afterwards, no hesitation about the facts, an immediate response to every ques¬ 
 tion that was given him, and that too, extending over a multiplicity of facts, comprising 
 the whole period since 1872, down to to-day, so that there was a complexity and a multi¬ 
 plicity of facts which made it impossible for him to have fabricated the story. If he had 
 fabricated the st-ory, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, he would have narrowed that story to 
 the immediate circle of the facts of this case; he would simply have told you that they 
 confessed to him certain facts, and he would have confined himself to a certain line of 
 lacts which were immediate and which were few, and which were incapable of a contra¬ 
 diction. On the contrary, he spread out to you the map of his life, and the whole history 
 of his acquaintance with these men. 
 
 Now wiiat is his story, according to the evidence ? First, what was his story ? Second, 
 
TRIAL OR THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 15 
 
 what are its corroborations ? I don’t propose to go back further than this to show that, 
 according to his statement, at some time before the robbery of the bank in Northampton, 
 there was a concerted plan between him and Scott and Dunlap and Connors, that they 
 should be equal actors and equal sharers of plunder in the robbery of any weak bank 
 which any or either of the parties should discover and report to the others. It was also 
 arranged that Connors, whom we have not seen, but of whom we have heard, was to be 
 the negotiator, rather, of the securities and of the plunder that should be obtained. Now 
 we find that in July, 1875, according to Edson, Scott and Dunlap requested him to go to 
 Bloomsburg and Plymouth and Wilkesbarre, in order to investigate the condition of cer¬ 
 tain banks, which they had pitched upon as suitable candidates for robbery. The week 
 after that Edson says he went to Northampton, to examine some vault doors. He went 
 directly from Northampton to Bloomsburg and Wilkesbarre and Plymouth, made exami¬ 
 nations of the banks there, and from thence went to New York. And when at New 
 York, he met Connors and Dunlap and Scott, and he reported to them the condition of 
 the bank at Northampton. They wanted him to go up again and examine the bank and 
 report to them at the Wyoming Valley House, at Wilkesbarre, Penn. ; and he says further, 
 the arrangement was, “ that if, for any reason, I could not return to confer with them 
 and to report to them at Wilkesbarre, during that week, I was to telegraph, and I was to 
 telegraph to Dunlap under the name of R. C. Hill.” He said that he went to North¬ 
 ampton, was detained longer than he expected, and that he telegraphed to R. C. Hill, at 
 the Wyoming Valley House, Wilkesbarre, Penn., that he had been detained, and, if 
 important, that he could go on Friday of the next week, and to telegraph to him, if they 
 wanted him on Friday, and that he subscribed his telegram with the name : “William 
 L. Edwards.” 
 
 What next ? August the 5th, he left Northampton and went to New York, and ou 
 arrival at his home he found a telegram from R. C. Hill, dated August 5, asking him to 
 come to Wilkesbarre. He says that on Friday, August 6, he left New York, went to 
 Wilkesbarre, went to the Wyoming Valley House, and there found upon the register of 
 the hotel the name of R. C. Hill, assigned to room number 27. That the next morning 
 he went to that room, and opened the door upon Dunlap, and that during the day Scott 
 met him there, and that there he recited to Scott and Dunlap the fact that the dials of 
 the bank at Northampton were such as to make it a possible field for their enterprise. 
 
 August the 7th—and that was Saturday, August the 7th—on Saturday, Scott and Dun¬ 
 lap and Edson leave Wilkesbarre and go to New York. Then he says that during the 
 next week Scott and Dunlap and Conners visit Northampton, and that their visits were 
 kept up from time to time through that week, beginning with August 9, for some days. 
 They were about ready for operation when, for some reason, a man by the name of Joseph 
 Locke reported to the officers of the bank that the dials were unsafe. Edson goes to 
 Northampton, sees the dials, examines them, goes back and reports to Scott and Dunlap 
 and Conners, and they conclude that, inasmuch as suspicion has been excited by the 
 report of Locke, they will not at that time make the attempt. But they also stated that, 
 while they were here, they noticed this fact, that the watchman of the Northampton 
 bank left his post of duty at 4 o’clock in the morning. And then, after that, I believe, 
 new dials were made, and Scott and Dunlap informed Edson that if he can secure for 
 them the keys to this Northampton bank, they can make an entrance. Accordingly, and 
 you remember the fact, Edson goes to Northampton. What does he do ? He examines 
 the lock and the keys, and, he says, that either Mr. Edwards or Mr. Whittelsey, I think 
 Mr. Edwards, asked him to cake those keys and reduce their size, so that they would 
 operate more easily. He says he took the keys and went to New York with them,—they 
 have two sets, of course,—he taking, first, one set, went to New York, put them into 
 the hands of Scott. Scott makes duplicates of them, and, having made duplicates of 
 them, brings them to him, and he and Scott, in Edson’s room, operate the keys upon 
 similar dials, and are of opinion that they have got the clue to the bank. We find that 
 fact. You are to notice how far any of these facts are corroborated. 
 
 I may have confounded the testimony a little, and if I do I hope I will be corrected, 
 for I have not looked at it since I took it down. It was November 22. I presume your 
 own infirmity of memory, in reference to some of these dates, will excuse me, if I am 
 incorrect in some of them. 
 
 But we find, according to Edson, that sometime in November he goes up there and 
 takes the keys from Warriner into a back room,—and there is where I was confounded,— 
 
16 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 takes the keys from Warriner into a back room, into the directors’ room of the bank, and 
 there, he says, he made impressions of these keys upon wax, which Dunlap furnished 
 him,—Scott or Dunlap,—which was furnished him by one of the defendants. And then 
 these impressions were taken to New \ ork, and new keys made; and these new keys that 
 were made were experimented with bv Scott and Dunlap and Edson. Ihen they went 
 on and commenced their operations. They were ready to break the bank a little earlier 
 than the actual burglary, but were interrupted. 
 
 On the Sunday night previous to the robbery, Edson says that he had a conversation 
 with Dunlap and that it was arranged, or about that time, at all events, it was arranged, 
 that they should go up there on the week in which the 26th occurred, and break open the 
 bank. They went, and the bank was broken open. The next day, in the afternoon of 
 the twenty-sixth, Edson was summoned by Herring & Co., to go to Northampton. He 
 went there, and found the condition of things as has been described; stayed there a 
 couple of days, went back to New York, there had an interview with Dunlap and Scott; 
 and the interview occurred in this way: You will find that Mr. Edson says that Saturday 
 uio-ht he put into a newspaper, the New York Herald, a notice of this sort: “ Idalia, 
 Monday eve ;” and he found in the personals of the New York Herald a notice of this 
 sort: “Idalia, Monday evening, eight sharp,” which meant: meet me at the corner of 
 Broadway and 54th street. He says he also put a personal himself into the New York 
 Herald, of this sort: “Idalia, F. N.: meet me on the avenue Sunday evening at eight 
 o’clock.’ If impossible, Monday evening.” The Herald newspapers have been presented 
 containing precisely these notices: “Idalia, F. N., Monday evening.” “Idalia, F. N., 
 meet me on the avenue Sunday evening at eight o’clock. If impossible, on Monday.” 
 The meeting was on Monday. He says at that time he met Conners, and afterwards met 
 Dunlap and Scott; talked with them about the transaction. Asked them how it was that 
 they took Whittelsey’s watch. They said it was a mistake. They told him the whole 
 history of the affair; told him they went to Northampton, how they broke in, that they 
 broke in with sledges, that Dunlap and Scott got from Whittelsey the numbers of the 
 combination, went to the bank, robbed it, went home ; that Mrs. Whittelsey was the 
 smartest and coolest of the lot, and described variously the incidents of the occasion. 
 And he on his part described to them what he had seen the next day. 
 
 After a while we find that Mr. Williams and Mr. Edwards, two of the officers of the 
 bank, go to New York. They go to Herring’s, and they have a meeting with Edson. 
 Edson not only has a meeting with them there, but he meets Williams at the Fifth Ave¬ 
 nue Hotel, meets him the uext morning, and, as the result of that interview, he sees one 
 of the parties and he tells him,—it is Dunlap, I think,—that he thought the parties 
 wished to have the whole affair compromised. This was February 9. Then he says that 
 about February 13 or 15, he saw Scott and Dunlap, and drove with them two hours, and 
 told them that he thought the matter could be compromised, and they said that they 
 wanted him to see an officer of the bank. He telegraphed to Williams and Edwards to 
 meet him, and they came down. In the meantime, however, he sees Connors, has a con¬ 
 versation with Connors, who says to him that Dunlap and Scott have already gone up to 
 Northampton in order to bring back the plunder. Connors tells him that Scott has 
 already gone to Northampton to bring back the plunder. Edson at once became alarmed 
 himseif, and he excites the alarm of Connors by telling him that the bank is upon the 
 alert, and that it is not safe for them to bring back the plunder at that time; and we find 
 that, as a result, a communication was put in the New York Herald, “Knox, come 
 home,” and that was explained to us. “ Knox came home.” And we find that in the 
 Herald, as he says it was. They did come home, aud after that he has further conversa¬ 
 tion with them, about the 16th, and then his conversation is with Scott. Scott told him 
 what had been done, and they had come back. Then he talked with them about com¬ 
 promising. Scott takes out his watch, and says, “I won’t string you any longer; they 
 are just about laying their hands on the stuff now.” From that time afterward we find 
 that there was, on the part of Edson, no advance in the way of negotiations. 
 
 Now, I ask you, if, taking this story together, it is not a true story, and if it does not 
 bear upon its face the stamp aud impress of truth ? Taken by itself alone, does 
 it not bear internal evidence of truth ? Would such a story as that have been fabri¬ 
 cated ? If it had been untrue, would such a story have been attempted to be fabricated, 
 if a false story was to be made ? Would there have been so many details ? Wouldn't it 
 have been simple ? Wouldn’t it have been something within his own reach ? Why 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANE ROBBERS. 
 
 17 
 
 should he'have stated that very first conversation;, in reference to this matter, as to the 
 condition of the Northampton Bank, and the interview at Wilkesbarre ? The important 
 question arises here, gentlemen, were Edson, Scott and Dunlap at Wilkesbarre, for any 
 purpose, about the 5th, 6th, or 7th of August ? Were they there ? Edson says they 
 were there, and that they discussed the question of the Northampton bank robbery there. 
 Were they there together ? If Edson is a scoundrel and a rascal, if he has had something 
 to do with this whole series of robberies for years, in and out, and we find him consorting 
 with anybody for any purpose, the probability is, and the presumption is, that it was for 
 a bad purpose, and for a wicked purpose ; and if we find him and Scott and Dunlap there 
 together by appointment, then we believe that it was for a wrong purpose ; and if we find 
 them there, by appointment, under fictitious names, and in suspicious ways and methods, 
 then, too, we say that their object was an unlawful one. 
 
 Were they there ? Were they there by appointment ? Was Edson there by appoint¬ 
 ment, and was he there by appointment with these men ? We go to the journal of the 
 Wyoming Valley House at Wilkesbarre, and we find upon the journal of that house, the 
 signature, “R. C. Hill.” And perhaps you will ask, “R. C. ?” The same letters that 
 one of the parties had for his initials. We also find upon the book, after the signature of 
 R. C. Hill, we find Edson’s name inscribed. Was he there in consequence of a telegram ? 
 We have called the telegraph operator, we have called the clerk of the hotel, and we find 
 this, that on the fifth day of August, 1875, the following telegram was sent : “ To W. 
 
 L. Edwards, 241 West 52d street, New York. Come to-morrow. R. C. Hill.” This is 
 the original telegram. We turn from the original telegram, and we find the name of R. 
 C. Hill upon the books, and if we find that both signatures are made by the same hand, 
 and we find, according to the testimony of Edson, and you can compare this and compare 
 the others, that that was a telegram sent by Dunlap. We find also that the other men 
 were there, that there was a person there, according to the testimony of the clerk of the 
 hotel, he does not recall the person, to say that he was there, but he does say that some¬ 
 where and on some occasion - he has seen one of the defendants. Is he corroborated in any 
 of these particulars in reference to this transaction ? We find, according to his own story, 
 that they told him, if he could get the keys to the Northampton bank, they could open 
 it, that they had discovered that the watchmen left at 4 o’clock, as he did. What was 
 done next ? We find that Edson went to Northampton, and according to Mr. Edwards 
 or Mr. Whittelsey, Mr. Whittelsey I believe, no matter which—Edson went there, took 
 the keys of the bank and made impressions of them in wax ; and carried these impressions 
 to New York. Mr. Warriner says he went into the directors’ room with the keys. Edson 
 says he took the keys from Warriner, that he went into the directors’ room, and that 
 there, he made impressions of the keys in wax, and that he took them to New York and 
 new keys were made. The wax furnished as he said by Scott. He took the keys, made 
 impressions, went to New York, made new keys, tried them, and found that they worked. 
 Now, is that story true ? Is it confirmed by anybody ? Confirmed by Warriner, who 
 said that he gave him the keys, and that he went into the other room. Confirmed 
 triumphantly by this fact, that when the bank was broken open, it was broken open by 
 somebody who had the keys from some source. None of them got any keys from Mr. 
 Warriner, none of them got them from Whittelsey, none of them got any keys from any 
 bank officer ; but they went to Whittelsey, got the combination, and then they were fur¬ 
 nished somehow, somewhere, and by somebody, with all that was necessary to break open 
 that bank. Now, I tell you, Mr. Foreman, and gentlemen, that fact alone, of itself and 
 in itself, without anything else, puts an end to this case forever. 
 
 But another thing. How happened they to know, bow happened they to take, the risk 
 of attempting to break into that bank after confining in his house only the cashier, if not 
 knowing that he was the sole depositary, or that he was the depositary, of all the com¬ 
 binations ? Because you all of you know enough about banks to know that generally 
 these facts as to the combinations are distributed between different officers or clerks of the 
 bank, so that no one person shall be able to surrender the whole. So it had been in this 
 bank. But Edson says, that when he was up there on one occasion, talking with 
 Warriner, he suggested to him that he had ascertained that one of the clerks of this bank 
 had some combinations of the vault, and that he ought not to be in possession of so im- 
 porant a secret. Mr. Warriner admitted the wisdom of this suggestion, and said to him : 
 we will change the combination, and we will put the combination of 
 the vault door,—Mr. Whittelsey having all the other combinations 
 
18 
 
 TRIAL OP THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 before that—we will put the combinations of the vault door into the hands 
 of Mr. Whittelsey and take them away from the clerk. Edson says he did that, and 
 Warrinersays that that was precisely what he did. Warriner says that when Edson was 
 there, he did tell him that the secret ought not to be in the possession of a young 
 clerk, and should be differently distributed, and in consequence of that, he distributed it, 
 and placed it in the hands of Whittelsey, and afterwards told Edson, at the supper table, 
 that he had done so. And Edson says, that thereupon he went to Scott and Dunlap, and 
 told them that Whittslsey had the secrets of the combination, and that all that was neces¬ 
 sary to be done was to go to Whittelsey. And whoever did go, and whoever did break 
 into that bank, somehow and by some means, had become possessed of the knowledge that 
 all that was necessary to be done was to secure the combinations from Whittelsey. 
 
 Another and very important corroboration ! Again ! Edson tells us that he ascer¬ 
 tained that these parties had gone to Springfield. He also tells us that they were sent for 
 to come home, and he tells us when it was. Were these parties at Springfield ? We go 
 to the Rockingham House and we find that Scott and another man with a pair of horses— 
 and in reference to horses, you will remember that Edson told you that they informed 
 him that they had expended about eight or nine hundred dollars of the money which was 
 stolen here at Northampton in buying a team in order to go to Northampton to bring 
 back the plunder—and we prove by a witness from the Rockingham House that Scott and 
 another party at that time came there for the night and left the next day, and that the 
 next day some other man, with broad shoulders, came there and inquired for these two 
 men. Is Edson confirmed in that ? 
 
 Now I say, take these, and simply these, corroborations of Edson, outside of anything 
 that occurred at Northampton, and there is but one conclusion as to the guilt of these 
 defendants. So far, taking Edson’s testimony alone, uncorroborated and unconfirmed by 
 anything that happened at Northampton upon the occasion of the robbery. 
 
 Now, let us look at another branch of the case and see if the evidence is not as perfect 
 and as conclusive from that point of the case. Were these the persons that broke into 
 that bank from evidence derived from other parties than Edson ? They were here, and 
 they were here for some purpose. They were in this vicinity. In the first place, we find 
 that on that very week, Mr. Holt, the paymaster of the Boston and Albany Railroad, saw 
 Scott and Dunlap iii Springfield. On the morning of Monday, he says he went to open 
 his office doors, and there he saw these men coming across the street from toward the 
 Cooley House. He says in a little while after that, about half an hour, he says then they 
 came within ten feet of him. In a little while after that he saw them again, coming out 
 from the depot building. A little while after that he saw them going down a street at 
 right angles with Main street, and there he saw them meet three men, and have conver¬ 
 sation with them. So there we have these five meu there together; and there were five 
 men in that house. We find that he meets them that day ; we find that he meets them 
 the next day. He tracks them from one point to another. He watches them. He calls 
 the attention of other parties to them, and he swears that these are the men that he saw 
 in Springfield Monday and Tuesday. And, gentlemen, this testimony of Mr. Holt is no 
 ordinary testimony. Mr. Holt’s business is that of paymaster, paymaster of the Boston 
 and Albany x-oad. He is the paymaster of that army of 5000 men "that are in the employ 
 of the Boston and Albany Railroad. He is the depositor and the distributor of their 
 money. He is obliged, as you will infer, as a matter of course, to take this money and 
 carry it from point to point over the road to pay it out. Just the candidate for thieves 
 and pickpockets. He has been in that business for eighteen years. His sensibilities have 
 become quick, his eye keen, all his senses alert. He knows how to mark a pickpocket. 
 He knows when a suspicious person comes across his vision, and when he saw these men 
 they attracted his attention, and he shadowed them from one point to another poiut, in 
 the city of Springfield, for two days. He daguerreotyped their faces and their figures on 
 the retina of his eye, and he tells you it is there now, and he looks upon them, and he 
 says, i'hese are the men.” (Sensation.) This is the Monday and the Tuesday before 
 the robbery. These were the men and in association with just the numerical clan that 
 broke into that house and became participators in that business. Have you any doubt 
 about that ? 
 
 Another thing. We called two witnesses from Northampton, both of whom testify 
 that along at different times, previous to the robbery, they had seen one or both of these 
 meu in the vicinity of Whittelsey’s house. Now, that these men had been prowling 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 19 
 
 around Northampton for weeks, at least, there can be no question. That they had made 
 their rendezvous up here in a secluded school-house, and that they were persons, burg¬ 
 lars —at least, they were no tramps. Tramps would never have left an unconsumed 
 chicken there, certainly. (Laughter.) We find that these burglars had been prowling 
 about this town for a long time—for a number of days, at the least. One witness, whose 
 name I don’t recall,—however, that is of no account,—one witness testifies that he saw 
 him up at Mr. Whittelsey’s house ; that he had conversation with him. He remembers 
 that he had conversation with him, and that he asked him where Mr. Whittelsey's house 
 was. To be sure, he knew where Whittelsey’s house was before, but he was caught there 
 in rather suspicious circumstances, and he made that as an excuse for his standing there ; 
 or it was for another purpose—for the additional information which he got. Yoxr will 
 believe that he not only asked him where Whittelsey’s house was, but what is more here, 
 because the witness testifies that—and of course it was in response to a question, though 
 I don’t think he was asked in regard to it—but the witness testifies that he told him what 
 Mr. Whittelsey’s family was, and told him also that there was another family in the 
 house; and you will believe that that was a part of the investigation that he was pursu¬ 
 ing at that time, and that was a part of the information that he wished to secure. 
 Another witness met him twice. But you will remember these circumstances. So we 
 find that the men were about here before the 26th, for some purpose. 
 
 Now, were these the men that went into that house ? We have the testimony of Mr. 
 Whittelsey, we have the testimony of Mrs. Whittelsey, we have the testimony of Mrs. 
 Page, that they were the men. I look upon the identity of these men, as secured by 
 these witnesses, with entire confidence. Mr. Whittelsey says that he identifies these men 
 by their voices,—Scott, certainly. He remembers what they said. He goes over with 
 the conversation. Mrs. Whittelsey identifies them by the voice, also, as well as in other 
 particulars. Mrs. Page recollects the voice. But the questions were asked : “ Wern’t 
 you very much excited ? Wexn’t you frightened ? Wern’t you intimidated ?” They say 
 that they were more or less excited, and, of course, they were ; and it is for just this rea¬ 
 son, Mr. Foreman, that they are confident. It is because the faculties were in a state of 
 intellectual excitement, that they were able, at this time, to remember the tones of the 
 voice. It is nothing unusual. Why, it is the way with all our senses—the sort of sense 
 which the trapper and the hunter gets by slow processes, so that the least sound of a 
 voice, the least trail in the grass, is to him an open volume. To a man or a woman, 
 whose mind is intensely excited, the same effects come in upon them as by intuition. It 
 is when we are under great excitement that effects of voice, of sound, of sight, are im¬ 
 printed upon us, as at no other time. In one of the law books, there is a case where a 
 woman, at night, at midnight, sees a man thrust his head out of a coach, and hears him 
 tell the driver to drive to such a number, and that is all. And a murder is committed 
 there, and out of fifty persons, at Newgate, she was able to identify that voice, simply 
 because her mind was excited, simply because it was intense. So it is in reference to the 
 vision. Why, the books have another case, where two Bow-street officers were in the post- 
 chaise, and they were attacked by two men on horseback, and, after there had been a 
 demand for money, a pistol was fired, and the party, out of seventy-five horses, was able 
 to distinguish the horse upon which that rider rode, simply by the flash of the light 
 from the powder. Frightened! Excited! Did you ever ride after a runaway horse? If 
 you did, you may recollect, I fancy, although it was not, perhaps, a very eligible post for 
 accurate observation, that there were one, two, or three, particular facts which flashed 
 themselves upon your mind, and you saw it forevermore, as if it had burned there through 
 a flash of lightning. It is because the mind is excited that it takes in facts. Gentlemen, 
 by and by, when you shall come in with your verdict, my impression is that, unless the 
 sensibilities of these men have been so deadened and obliterated by crime that there is 
 nothing left, there will be one word, and the intonation of one voice, that they never will 
 forget. So, in reference to your child; in reference to your friends. Can any of you 
 remember the last smile of a dying child? I hope you cannot. But, though it was as 
 evanescent as the vision, if you caught that picture, it hangs upon the walls of your mem¬ 
 ory as distinct to-day as though it was printed on the sky in sunbeams. The mind is 
 ready to receive impressions. And when these women and that man found themselves 
 surrounded by masked burglars,—women not knowing what was to become of the hus¬ 
 band, husband not knowing what was to become of the trust that was reposed in him,— 
 think you that there was any movement, or voice, or language, that did not sink and 
 
20 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 scintillate in their memories, and is not there now? And they went there in an instant. 
 Impressions don’t soak into the mind gradually, but they are imprinted there instantane¬ 
 ously. And that is the reason why, in an intense excitement of mind, Mr. Foreman, you 
 can learn more in five minutes,'and commit more to memory in five minutes, under 
 pressure, than you could at other times in as many hours. That is the secret of this con¬ 
 fidence on the part of these persons, and I trust in it. 
 
 But they are not without confirmation. There are a variety of confirmatory facts, 
 both for them and for Edson. And here, perhaps, I may allude to a little fact, only an 
 incidental fact, and that was that, on one occasion, at one time, Edson says that one of 
 the parties told him that, whilst they were out in Whittelsey’s yard, behind some shrub¬ 
 bery, in the dark, that, whilst there, some member of the family was out at the gate, 
 and suddenly the moon burst out of the clouds, and there they were, and they were 
 obliged to lie there, undergoing some disagreeable torture. Well, we find that fact. And 
 Mrs. Whittelsey tells you that, on one occasion, at about that time, in the same month, 
 she went out into the yard, and there she found prints of persons, who had been conceal¬ 
 ing themselves behind those bushes. You find that those persons in the house are cor¬ 
 roborated, as I have said, in various other ways ; and I cannot but refer, because it has 
 been suggested to me,—and I know that there are a great many things that yet remain, 
 and a great many more have occurred to me than I supposed there would. You will 
 remember that they found in the house some masks, and they also found some overalls. 
 Now, we find that Hall, of the firm of Hall & Prew, sold the identical drawers from 
 which the mask was made ; and, although Hall does not identify these men as being the 
 men that he recalls to have bought the articles, he does remember that he had seen these 
 persons in his store. And you recollect other things : that the defendants must have 
 come from New Ybrk, from the paper, from the flask, from the paper bag, and from all 
 and a great variety of facts and statements that have been made, little and large. 
 
 And, gentlemen, when you are looking for corroborating circumstances, you are not to 
 look for large facts. Minute facts tend as strongly as facts of more magnitude, to cor¬ 
 roborate all main and leading statements. Not in the single corroboration, but in the 
 variety of them, and in the multiplicity of them—coming from all sources. It is not one, 
 alone. To be sure, this matter of the drawers is a small thing, and the matter of the 
 paper-bag is a small thing. The mere fact that Crafts met these men, on one occasion, 
 in that vicinity, of itself is not conclusive. The mere fact that Mantor, if that is his 
 name, met these men, on two other occasions, is not conclusive. The mere fact that these 
 men were at Springfield, on one occasion, is not conclusive. The fact that Holt saw them 
 there, on one, two, or three occasions, is not conclusive, but it is the accumulation of 
 them. You have seen those minute wires, haven’t you, that compose the Atlantic cable ? 
 You could snap them like gossamer, but weave them together, and they make the cable 
 that resists the waves of the sea, and the storms of the ocean, and binds continents to¬ 
 gether that the ocean rolls between. It is the sum of them. As Carlyle says, some¬ 
 where : “ Only condense the electric fluid into a single peal, and it shakes the firmament ; 
 
 but spread it out into single tones, and it is a lullaby for children.” We ask you to 
 collect and combine, to give force to these facts, and see, if twisted and twilled 
 together, they do not make a coil which flings itself inextricably about these 
 defendants. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I have occupied more time, a great deal, than I intended, and perhaps 
 than you have had patience to listen to, and possibly with very little effect. At the same 
 time, as I said at the outset, I do not feel at liberty, nor does mv associate, the learned 
 district’attorney, feel at liberty, that I should dismiss this case, without something in the 
 way of comment upon the facts that have been presented before you. The question is, 
 whether these parties shall escape. It is a question between the Commonwealth—not the 
 Northampton bank, not the depositors in the Northampton bank, although these men 
 have strewed ruin in their pathway,—but it is not their case ; it is the case of the people 
 of the Commonwealth, on the one side, and the defendants, on the other. If they are 
 guilty, they certainly ought to be punished. Your safetv, and mine, requires it, and I 
 cannot, I think, close more fitly than by appropriating the sentiments of a great man, 
 whose first words I heard some thirty years ago, when he was standing in this court house, 
 near where I stand now, and although it was the first time I had ever listened to that 
 wondrous voice, those words of grand eloquence are as vivid in my memory this hour, as 
 if they had been spoken this morning. I appropriate his just sentiments, in adjuring you 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 21 
 
 that, “ When the guilty are not punished, the law has so far failed of its purpose, the 
 safety of the innocent is so far endangered. Every unpunished crime takes away some¬ 
 thing from every hian’s security in his property, and in his life, and whenever a jury, from 
 any ill-founded scruples, suffer the guilty to escape, they make themselves answerable for 
 the augmented danger of the innocent.” 
 
 At the close of Mr. Gillett’s argument, it was nearly half-past four o’clock, and the 
 Judge said he would give the case to the jury then, or wait until the next morning, as 
 the jury might feel disposed. The jurors consulted together, and expressed their wish to 
 postpone further proceedings until morning. 
 
 Thursday—Fourth Day. 
 
 TRIAL OF SCOTT AND DUNLAP ON THE SECOND INDICTMENT FIXED FOR MONDAY. 
 
 At the opening of the court, Thursday morning, the time for the trial of Scott and 
 Dunlap for breaking and entering Cashier Whittelsey’s house, and stealing his gold 
 watch therefrom, was fixed for Monday, July 16, at 2 P. M. The District Attorney 
 desired to begin the trial on Friday the i3th, but the defendants’ counsel wanted time to 
 look up other counsel to take the place of Mr. Sweetser, and asked for the postponement 
 to Monday. 
 
 Charge to the Jury. 
 
 Judge Bacon next proceeded to charge the jury, occupying about an hour. He stated 
 to the jury that, in order to find a verdict of guilty, they must be satisfied of the guilt of 
 the prisoners beyond a reasonable doubt. “ Not beyond a possible or imaginary doubt, 
 for if that were the case, crime would in every instance go unpunished ; but beyond all 
 reasonable doubts, doubts for which there is in your mind a reason or ground. All human 
 evidence contains certain elements of uncertainty. Nothing in this world can be proved 
 to an absolute certainty, and there have been men who have doubted their existence, but 
 a jury would not be likely to say that such doubts are reasonable doubts. If you have in 
 your minds an abiding conviction that the defendants are guilty, and have no doubts with 
 regard to their guilt which in their nature ^re -reasonable, if you have only unreason¬ 
 able, fanciful and imaginary doubts, you ought to convict. But if you have a reasonable 
 doubt, if your minds are not convinced, do not come up to a conviction that the defend¬ 
 ants are guilty with ease and readiness, and you are obstructed by doubts for which you 
 have a reason, then you ought not to convict. You should convict where it becomes 
 morally certain that the defendants are guilty, and you are morally certain in a case where 
 you have no reasonable doubts of the guilt of the parties.” 
 
 In regard to the evidence of Edson, the Judge told the jury they could convict, if they 
 saw fit, upon his uncorroborated testimony; but it would not be safe to do so, and they 
 ought not to convict upon it, unless it is corroborated in its relation to material matters. 
 “If he is corroborated in important and material respects in matters vital to the issue of 
 the case, by evidence which you believe, then you may believe him.” The Judge charged 
 the jury that the evidence relating to Connors, and what he said, except so far as it was 
 said or done in the presence of the defendants, or either of them, must be excluded from 
 their consideration. 
 
 The Jury Retire and Bring in a Yerdict of Guilty. 
 
 The jury retired at about 10 o’clock, and at ten minutes before 12 came in with their 
 verdict. Joshua Crosby, of Williamsburg, who had occupied the foreman’s chair during 
 the trial, was chosen foreman. The foreman announced that the jury had agreed upon a 
 verdict of guilty. The court-room was crowded, and a breathless stillness prevailed. 
 
 When the jury retired, they balloted at once, and stood seven for conviction, and five 
 for acquittal. After considerable discussion, another ballot was taken, which stood eleven 
 for conviction and one for acquittal ; and after a little more discussion, a verdict of guilty 
 was agreed upon unanimously. 
 
 Yarious Items. 
 
 During the trial, the court-room was constantly crowded, every available spot being 
 occupied. Nearly half the audience consisted of ladies, whose interest in the trial was 
 unabated to the end. The audience thus constituted was in marked contrast with the 
 
22 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 crowds which usually attend our criminal courts. Among the audience were the venera¬ 
 ble Rev. Dr. Leonard Bacon, of New Haven, Bishop Huntington, Mr. Gleason, president 
 of the Elmira bank, and several cashiers from Springfield and other places. There were 
 also present, Scott’s wife, her sister and a lady friend, from New \ork ; also, Dunlap’s 
 brother. 
 
 The prisoners did not seem to be much suqirised when Sweetser deserted them. Dun¬ 
 lap’s brother, however, who says he raised $1500 by mortgaging his house, to pay Sweetser, 
 and paid him that sum in advance, expressed surprise, and made serious complaint at the 
 desertion, saying he should attempt to recover a portion of the money. The prisoners 
 claim to be well satisfied with the result of the trial. They expected a verdict of guilty, 
 and that the case would go up on exceptions. 
 
 The exceptions taken will be argued before the Supreme Court at Greenfield, in Sep¬ 
 tember, and the decision returned to the Superior Court next December. If a new trial 
 shall be granted, it will then be held ; if a new trial shall not be granted, the prisoners 
 will be called up for sentence in December. The limit fixed by the law for this offence is 
 not more than twenty years in the state prison. 
 
 The local counsel for the defense say it was agreed upon, on the evening of Wednesday, 
 after Edson testified, that no evidence should be put in, and no argument made. They 
 sav that they did not know of Sweetser’s purpose to retire from the case, until he actually 
 withdrew, and that it was as much a surprise to them as it was to the court and jury. 
 Their conduct at the time was consistent with this representation. The Bond Brothers 
 are pretty straightforward men, and as lawyers are decidedly square-toed ; they are not at 
 all given to trickery or sensational action, and we can readily believe that this version of 
 the affair is correct. 
 
 During the trial, many amusing incidents occurred. One day, an elderly gentleman, 
 apparently a stranger, came in with fresh interest, to “ see the trial.” Taking a chair in 
 front of the prisoners, he sat for awhile, scanning the audience. Running his eyes back 
 and forth and round and round, over the multitude, he failed to detect the distinguished 
 characters who were the special objects of the gathering. Presently he leaned over toward 
 Scott, and asked : “ Where are the prisoners?” Scott smiled, and pointing to himself, 
 said, “ Here’s one of ’em!” Elderly gentleman then spoke of the weather, and it was 
 noticed that he didn’t take up the thread of the proceedings so readily as some others 
 present. 
 
 The first man to broach the theory that Edson was concerned in the robbery of the 
 bank, was Deputy Sheriff Ansel Wright, of this town. He adopted that theory on the 
 day of the robbery, and before the vault was opened. Within a day or two, young 
 Meekins, the bank clerk, from whom the combination was taken by advice of Edson, 
 advanced the same theory, and without knowing that it had been spoken of by Mr. Wright. 
 Meekins felt a little unfriendly toward Edson, because of that suggestion, and the more 
 readily believed him to be one of the guilty parties. Dr. Fisk also held the same opinion, 
 and expressed it on the night following the robbery and while the work of opening the 
 vault was going on. But the bank officers did not accept that theory until a number of 
 weeks afterward. 
 

24 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 wanted. Scott having the right to challenge 11 more, and the government 17, the Judge 
 ordered the Clerk to send out venires for forty more jurymen, to report in the court-room 
 at nine o’clock Tuesday morning. He first directed the Sheriff to summon from the 
 audience at his discretion persons residing within the county, to act as jurors, but that 
 order was revoked, and venires ordered to be sent out. 
 
 The jurors challenged by Dunlap were—S. W. Bangs, Samuel Smith, Daniel Converse 
 and Horace Cummings of Amherst, Chas. H. Adams of Ware, Lewis Hannum and 
 Flavel K. Sheldon of Southampton, Willard E. Johnson of Enfield, Harvey Judd of 
 South Hadley, Lemuel C. Graves of Williamsburg, James Porter and Luther Wells of 
 Hatfield, Frederick S. Billings of Goshen, T. C. Davenport of Westhampton, Francis W. 
 Joy of Plainfield, Ansel B. Lyman of Easthampton, Edward Mason and Edward Stebbins 
 of Hadley, Joseph P. Vaughan of Greenwich, Chauncey Witherell of Chesterfield, Geo. 
 Ames of Williamsburg, Lyman W. Baldwin of Easthampton. 
 
 Those challenged by Scott were—Chas. M. Combs of Middlefield, Elijah Hanson and 
 John Mack of Williamsburg, Joseph M. Harrington of Prescott, Wm. E. Lyman of West- 
 hampton, John A. Miller of Easthampton, Augustus Moody of Eufield, Washington I. 
 Rice of Chesterfield, Lucius Steele and Wm. Tower of Cummington, E. V. Tanner of 
 Northampton. 
 
 Those challenged by the government were, Burnett E. Cleaveland of Northampton, 
 Geo. S. Kendrick of Amherst, Joseph B. Bosworth of Easthampton, Lewis Dodge and 
 Mason Sanford of Belchertown. 
 
 Those set aside for having formed or expressed an opinion, or for other cause, were, 
 George D. Eamesof Northampton, Chas. E. Lamson of Hadley, Eleazer Howard of South 
 Hadley, Clarence E. Ware of Easthampton, Daniel S. White of Hadley, Geo. Clark of 
 Southampton, Rufus Cowles of Hatfield, Wm. R. Holliday of Northampton, Elisha S. 
 Kinney of Chesterfield, Wm. A. Nash of Williamsburg. 
 
 Leavitt Beals and C. Butler Smith of Northampton, summoned as jurors, failed to 
 appear. 
 
 The following were sworn as jurors.—Joseph W. Akers of Granby, Nathaniel Dwight 
 of Belchertown, Edward Ellis of Huntington, Francis W. Harwood of Ware, Amos 
 Kellogg of South Hadley, Henry M. Clifford of Amherst, Edwin H. Judd of 
 South Hadley, Byron Loomis of Williamsburg, Almon A. Spooner of Southampton. 
 
 Tuesday—Second Day. 
 
 The forty jurymen summoned to appear in the court room at nine o’clock, Tuesday 
 morning, were promptly on hand, and after a delay of about 20 minutes, the work of im- 
 panneling the jury was resumed. The following ten jurors were challenged by Scott : 
 Harvey Alvord of South Hadley, Wm. D. Boyd and George K. Edwards of Southampton, 
 Dorus B. Bradford and Samuel A. Clark of Williamsburg, Horace Clark and Horace L. 
 Clark of Easthampton, John Ii. Cook of Westhampton, and Almon E. Cowles and Moses 
 C. Cushman of Amherst. Francis Edwards of Westhampton, Heury A. Clapp of East¬ 
 hampton, and Horatio Bisbee of Chesterfield, were set aside by the court, for having 
 formed an opinion ; and Nathaniel E. Bangs of Amherst, A. Lawrence Clark of East¬ 
 hampton, and William F. Ellis of Amherst, were accepted and sworn. 
 
 Twelve jurors having been sworn, the jury was now supposed to be full, but the Dis¬ 
 trict Attorney claimed the right to further challenge, citing the law which says the chal¬ 
 lenging shall be done before the trial begins. He claimed that the trial was not begun 
 until the jury was organized, and the presentation of the case to the jury was com¬ 
 menced. The Judge admitted the right claimed, and the defense saved an exception on 
 the point. The District Attorney then challenged Henry M. Clifford of Amherst, and 
 he withdrew. Edwin W. Field, of Hatfield, w r as next called as a juror, and said he had 
 expressed an opinion. He was set aside. Seth A. Healey, of Chesterfield, was next 
 called, and sworn. The jury was now full, and retired to choose a foreman. As organ¬ 
 ized, the jury stands as follows :* 
 
 The Jury. —A. Lawrence Clark of Easthampton, foreman :—Joseph W. Akers, of 
 Granby, Nathaniel Dwight of Belchertown, Edward Ellis of Huntington, Francis W. Har¬ 
 wood of Ware, Amos Kellogg of South Hadley, Edwin H. Judd of South Hadley, Byron 
 Loomis of Williamsburg, Almon A. Spooner of Southampton, Nathaniel E. Bangs of 
 South Hadley, William F. Ellis of Amherst, Seth A. Healey of Chesterfield. 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 25 
 
 The Indictment. 
 
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Hampshire ss. —At the Superior Court begun and holden at Northampton, within and for the County 
 
 of Hampshire, on the 2d Monday of June, 1877. 
 
 The Jurors for said Commonwealth on their oath present, that Robert Scott and James Dunlap, both of 
 the State of New York, on the 26th day of January, 1876, at Northampton, in said county of Hampshire 
 and Commonwealth of Massachusetts aforesaid, with force and arms the dwelling house of one Laura B. 
 Whittelsey there situate, feloniously and burglariously did break and enter, with intent the goods and 
 chattels of one John Whittelsey in the said dwelling-house then and there being found, feloniously and 
 burglariously to steal, take and carry away ; she the said Laura B. Whittelsey, and he the said John 
 Whittelsey, and divers others of his family being then and there lawfully therein ; and that the said 
 Robert Scott and the said James Dunlap then and there, in and upon the said John Whittelsey, who was 
 then and there lawfully in the said dwelling house as aforesaid, and in the peace of said Common¬ 
 wealth, feloniously and burglariously an assault did make, and him the said John Whittelsey then and 
 there did beat, bruise, wound, and abuse, and one gold watch of the value of $200, of the goods and 
 chattels of the said John Whittelsey then and there in the dwelling-house aforesaid being found, felon¬ 
 iously and burglariously did steal, take and carry away, against the peace of said Commonwealth and 
 contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. 
 
 A true bill. H. C. M. Howe, Foreman. 
 
 S. T. Field, District Attorney. 
 
 After Engineer Davis had explained his plans of the Whittelsey house and its location, 
 Cashier Whittelsey told his story, and showed the relics of the burglary, being examined 
 more on minor details than whiie testifying at the previous trial. He mentioned that he 
 was at first dressed in his overcoat and hat ready to be taken down to the bank, which 
 plan was afterward given up, that his pocket-book with some $15 was taken from him, 
 that the front door-key bore the marks of having been turned with nippers, and that Dun¬ 
 lap stood by him with a pistol while Scott forced from him the combination. He could 
 not remember that any other bank officer knew the combinations at that time, but did 
 recollect that they had been changed within a few weeks. He was cross-examined closely 
 as to what was the color of the masks the prisoners wore, and how the other three men 
 who were with them were dressed and what they did. His answers were rather indefinite, 
 though he was pretty sure that Dunlap wore a dark mask, overalls and a blouse, and that 
 Scott had on a linen duster, but he could not say which one it was of those placed on the 
 table before him. Of the other three men he saw or heard little, but noticed them as bring¬ 
 ing clothing for the people to dress, and one of them guarded him on the hall sofa for a 
 long time. In describing one of his visits to the jail to hear what the prisoners might 
 say, he testified that he approached the cell by the “ back way,” using a ladder. 
 
 Mrs. Page and Mrs. Whittelsey testified very much as they did at the former trial. 
 They agreed with Mr. Whittelsey that the shortest man of the party wore a black cap 
 with holes cut in the front, making a mask of it, that Dunlap had on dark clothes and a 
 not very light mask, and Scott a long linen duster and a close-fitting mask, thought to be 
 white. The defense made a strong effort to gain further particulars about the clothing 
 worn, but with slight success. The whole discussion was somewhat embarrassed by the 
 appearance among the relics of an extra burglar cap, never before presented in court, of 
 which no one could give any account. Mrs. Whittelsey stated that at one time there were 
 five lanterns burning in her room, so that it was very light, also that the summer before 
 she noticed a small part of the grass back of the quince bushes in the garden was very much 
 beaten down, as though some tramp had slept there. 
 
 The testimony of Paymaster Holt excited considerable interest, because the government 
 insisted on knowing what is the average monthly pay-roll of the Boston and Albany Rail¬ 
 road. The defense took exception to the question, the superintendent of the River road 
 sitting by meanwhile awaiting the answer. The Judge ruled the question in, and the 
 reply was, “ Over 2500 men for every month in the year.” 
 
 E. A. Hall, clothing dealer of Springfield, was next called, and, though he could not 
 identify the prisoners as having bought certain articles of the clothing shown, which he 
 said was from his stock, he remembered selling such articles to two strangers just before 
 the robbery, and knew that he had seen Dunlap somewhere before his arrest. 
 
 David W. Crafts. This witness testified to seeing a man who resembled Scott, on Elm 
 street, in January, 1876, and afterward saw the same man on Main street, near Maynard 
 & Brooks’ store. Witness acknowledged to Mr. Bond that he told him in a conversation 
 awhile ago that he had doubts about its being Scott. 
 
26 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 Wednesday—Third Day. 
 
 James 0. Mantor. Live on Elm street. In winter of 1876, saw two men standing, 
 talking, near Whittelsey’s. They passed on as I came along; about 7| o’clock, in the 
 evening, early in January previous to robbery. One dressed in long overcoat, soft hat, 
 crushed in at top. One taller than the other. Men had no beard, except moustache. 
 Facing Whittelsey’s house, making gestures toward the house. My impression is that 
 Scott was the man I saw there. Shouldn’t want to swear to it, but that is my impres¬ 
 sion. 
 
 Cross-examined. Cannot describe one of the men at all. The other wore a soft, mili¬ 
 tary hat, and had no beard. 
 
 Benjamin Franklin. Superintendent of Pinkerton’s detective agency in Philadelphia. 
 Scott and Dunlap were on the train going South. Arrested them in the car, at Philadel¬ 
 phia depot. Had a warrant. They said they were not Scott and Dunlap; that there was 
 a mistake. I insisted on their getting out of the car. Witness was asked as to what he 
 found. Defense objected. Same evidence was offered at previous trial, and ruled out. 
 Judge said that if what they found there could be connected with the offense charged, he 
 should admit it, but he did not think it was enough that the articles found were similar 
 to those found at Whittelsey’s. Prosecution claimed that the implements found in the 
 bag in the possession of the prisoners when arrested, were the identical implements used 
 in breaking into the house. Judge admitted the evidence. Defense excepted. The bag 
 was opened by witness, and a pair of nippers found in it; also two skeleton keys. These 
 were found in the bag at the time of the arrest. The key found on Scott opened the bag. 
 Examined the bag within an hour after the arrest, and before it went out of my posses¬ 
 sion. Have seen Scott write. Shown a specimen of Scott’s handwriting—an order for 
 the money found in his possession. Saw Scott write the order, and Dunlap signed it. 
 
 Cross-examined. When arrested, bag was in the end of the forward car. Two other 
 bags were also found with them. The key found on Scott opened the bag containing the 
 nippers and skeleton keys. A key found on Dunlap opened one of the bags, and a key 
 found on Scott opened the other. Bags were opened at my office, a mile and a half to two 
 miles from the depot. Two or three officers with me as assistants. Had a warrant when 
 arrests were made. I made the complaint. Magistrate filled out the warrant. Dunlap 
 said nothing about his name—only Scott In the bag was a hotel receipt, from the Grand 
 Central ; also another from the Hot Springs. The two bags were sent to the New York 
 office. Evidence as to the contents of the two bags was ruled out. 
 
 Ansel Wright, Deputy Sheriff. Found a wrapper at the school-house bearing the 
 printed card of Hall & Prew, of Springfield. Found eight army blankets, a valise con¬ 
 taining bits, &c., chicken, bread, rope, pulley blocks, two railway guides; also a paper 
 bag containing cooked chicken; the bag bore the imprint of the Stamford (Ct.) restau- 1 
 rant, distant about forty miles from New York. 
 
 Thomas A. Gallagher. A Pinkerton detective. Was present at the time of the arrest. 
 Arrived in Philadelphia—found Pinkerton and others on the platform. Defendants were 
 ordered off the train. Either Scott or Dunlap said, “You must be mistaken, gentle¬ 
 men.” Saw the small bag or satchel under the seat where Scott sat in the car. Bag 
 taken out of the car by the porter. Asked, addressing Scott, “Does this bag belong to 
 you, Bob ?” and he nodded his head in assent. At the examination, Scott was asked his 
 name, and he refused to give it, saying it was part of his defense. Have seen defendants 
 frequently. Scott had a peculiar habit of shrugging his shoulders, as if his clothes didn’t 
 fit him. It was a regular habit. 
 
 Cross-examined. My age is 22 or 23. Been in New York three years. Lived in 
 Chicago previously. Sold dry goods. In October, 1872, went to New York; since then 
 in the detective business. Came from Glasgow, Scotland, in 1870. Sent to New York 
 by Detective Pinkerton of Chicago. Known the defendants since Oct. 16, 1876. Know 
 uothing about the bags. 
 
 Questioned by the District Attorney. First saw defendants corner of Washington and 
 McDougall streets. Came out of No. 3, North Washington square, a private boarding- 
 place. They were in company with “Wm. Connors, a New York thief.” 
 
 Henry M. Potter, Deputy Sheriff. Brought the sledges, overalls, masks, rubbers, &c., 
 found at \V hittelsey’s house, to my office, the morning after the robbery. Among the 
 articles, found a pair of gloves. Of the goods found, a lantern is missing. Found a 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 27 
 
 paper bag, now missing. At the Bridge-street school-house, found articles the day before 
 the robbery. School-house four to five rods from the main road, and considerably distant 
 from houses. Found there blankets, satchel, bits, ropes, pulleys, chicken, bread, and a 
 bottle of whisky. Whisky bottle produced, having label of a New York firm. Found 
 there a copy of the New York Sun, dated December 22, 1875. 
 
 Wm. D. Edson’s Testimony. 
 
 At 10 minutes before 11, Wm. D. Edson was called, and there was a rustle in the au¬ 
 dience. He testified as follows :— 
 
 My age is 52 years. Am a resident of New York. At present am in no business ; 
 formerly was employed by Herring & Co. in the safe business. Have known Scott and 
 Dunlap since September, 1873. First met Dunlap at Wm. Connors’, on Houston street, 
 N. Y. Saw Scott and Dunlap at my house. Saw Scott in March, 1874 ; think he came 
 where I was stabling, on a Sunday evening. Saw Scott and Dunlap at my house two or 
 three weeks later. Saw them again, on the Sunday week or the Sunday two weeks, at 
 my house, at my home, in the morning. Saw Dunlap the following Monday or Tuesday, 
 on 4th avenue, near 17th street. Have no recollection of seeing either of them again 
 until fall, when Dunlap came to my house, one Sunday afternoon. Saw him and Scott a 
 day or two later. Saw Scott the following Saturday, at University place. Saw both not 
 long afterward. Didn’t see them again until November. Scott then came to see me. 
 From that time, had frequent interviews with them almost every day or two. These in¬ 
 terviews continued until the latter part of January, 1875. Saw Scott in February. Saw 
 nothing more of either of them until April. Saw them in April and May, now and then, 
 at intervals of a week or ten days. Had interviews with both on Saturday, July 29, 1875, 
 at my house. Told them I was coming to Northampton on Monday. Spoke at that in¬ 
 terview of a trip that I made at their request to Wilkesbarre, and other places. They 
 wished me to meet them at Wilkesbarre, and wanted me to look at the Northampton 
 National Bank. Nothing was said about that bank prior to that time. Told them I 
 would do so, and would meet them at Wilkesbarre. Told them I was going to North¬ 
 ampton, to sell a safe to the First National Bank. Told them in case I could not meet 
 them at Wilkesbarre, I would telegraph them there, in the name of R. C. Hill. I 
 came to Northampton, saw the bank people, and was detained so that it was impossible 
 forme to go to Wilkesbarre. Consequently telegraphed them as arranged, at the Wyoming 
 Valley House. I left Northampton Thursday evening, and on reaching home found a 
 telegram from R. C. Hill. Went to Wilkesbarre, Friday afternoon. Found name of R. 
 C. Hill registered at the hotel. That was on the 6th of August. Witness was shown the 
 hotel register, and identified it. Saw name of R. C. Hill registered on the 5th. Regis¬ 
 tered my own name. That was August 5, 1875. The name of R. C. Hill was also regis¬ 
 tered on the 1st of August. I was there the week previous, on Thursday. Saw them at 
 room No. 27. Found Dunlap lying on the bed. Scott was in Pittston. Scott returned, 
 and met them both. Told them I had been to Northampton, and had found that a new 
 vault door had been put in by the Northampton Bank, with new dials. Described to 
 them the dials and their mode of operation ; also pointed out to them a defect in the lock. 
 The lock could be opened without the keys, by putting on a false dial. They were par¬ 
 ticularly anxious to know how much money there was in the vault. Said I didn’t know, 
 but it looked to me as if there was considerable. They wanted me to go to Pittston. Said 
 there was a bank there that looked favorable ; there was a good place to take the Cashier 
 across the river in a boat. Gave Scott a set of keys to a sample lock. He showed me 
 keys he had made from the keys given me by Mr. Warriner. Both Scott and Dunlap 
 practiced on the sample lock I gave him several hours. Had a previous conversation about 
 the Northampton bank in New York, with Scott and Dunlap. Geo. Miles had been to 
 Northampton the summer before, looking up the Northampton bank. First heard about 
 robbing the Northampton bank between my two visits to Wilkesbarre. Scott and Dunlap 
 told me they were coming up here to look it over. They told me a week later they had 
 been here. They described how Whittelsey’s house was located. I told them I thought 
 the key to the front door of the bank was a long, flat key. They asked me if I knew how 
 many watchmen there were. I told them the bank had one. Saw them in New York 
 on Sunday evening, the 15th, at Reservoir Park. They told me they were going up the 
 next day, and would take Billy (Connors) with them—would look it all over again, and 
 
28 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 look at the roads from Northampton to Springfield. I saw them afterward. They said 
 they had been there ; that they were in the alley-way near the Hampshire County Bank, 
 and being suddenly surprised, Connors ran and fell into a mudhole in the rear of the 
 bank. They said it would be necessary to put the watchmen in the lock-up. 
 One of them asked me where the lock-up was. One of them was near 
 the lock-up, at one time, to watch one of the watchmen, who lived near 
 there. They said they bad been here several times. The witness here related the inci¬ 
 dent about Scott and Dunlap lying on the grass under the bushes in the rear of Wittel- 
 sey’s bouse, one night in the summer of 1875, when the servant girl came out of the back 
 door and spent a considerable time there visiting with her beau. The musketoes were 
 very thick and Dunlap especially was badly bitten by them. They were in danger of 
 being detected, as the moon suddenly came out while they were lying there. 
 
 Saw Scott and Dunlap sometime afterward. Joseph Locke, a discharged workman of 
 Herring & Co. had written a letter about the lock in use on the vault of the Northampton 
 Bank, saying it was worthless, and in consequence of that letter, the lock was changed. 
 
 I did not think it best to go to Northampton, and gave up going, as the bank was using 
 extra precautions. Scott and Dunlap wanted me to go up. It was arranged that I should 
 write a letter about a horse. I wrote to Warriner about a horse at Florence, and then 
 came up. Saw Edwards and Warriner. Stated to Scott and Dunlap that I had been 
 here. 1 went to Florence and saw the horse. On returning, saw Scott and Dunlap ; told 
 them what I had found here ; told them I didn’t think it was safe to attempt to get into 
 the bank, and the matter was dropped. This was the latter part of August or 
 in September. 
 
 Wednesday Afternoon. 
 
 R. E. Jamison, telegraph operator at Wilkesbarre, Pa., testified to sending a dispatch 
 dated August 5, 1875, and signed R. C. Hill. Identified the original dispatch. 
 
 Oscar Edwards, President of the Northampton Bank. Identified four letters and their 
 contents, as the ones received by the bank. The letters have been shown to Detective 
 Bangs of New York, Mr. Delano, the counsel, and one or two others. Their contents are 
 the same now as when the letters were received. 
 
 An Expert In Handwriting. 
 
 Joseph E. Payne, for 13 years in the counting-room of A. A. Lowe & Co. of New 
 York, and for the past 10 years a professional expert in Handwritings, having made them 
 a study for 30 years, and testifying in various courts, gave his opinion of the order for 
 money, signed by Dunlap and given to Franklin at Philadelphia, the names on the hotel 
 register, and the telegraph receipt book, and the superscriptions on the four letters. He 
 had examined them for several hours, and gave it as his opinion that the writer of all of 
 them was one and the same person. When asked how confident he was in his opinion, he 
 said he had “ no doubt of it.” Witness gave the reasons for his opinion at great length, 
 and with tiresome minuteness. The superscriptions on the letters he thought were 
 disguised. 
 
 Letters Proposing a Negotiation for the Return of the Plunder. 
 
 The contents of the letters were put in, after having been further identified by J. L. 
 Warriner, another of the bank officers. The letters are dated February 28, 1876, and 
 October 13, 26, and 30, 1876, and all relate to a negotiation for the return of the stolen 
 securities. They are not written, but printed with a pen. each letter of a word being 
 distinct and separate from the others. The letters were read and put into the case. 
 They are as follows :— 
 
 New York, Feb. 27, 1876. 
 
 To Directors Northampton National Bank :— 
 
 Dear Sirs—When you are satisfied with detective skill you can make a proposition to us, the holders, 
 and if you are liberal we mav be able to do business with you. If you entertain any such ideas please 
 insert a personal in the New York Herald. Address to XXX, and sign “ Rufus,” to which due attention 
 will be paid. To satisfy you that we do hold papers, we send you a couple of pieces. [No signature.] 
 
 Accompanying this letter were two certificates of stock owned by private depositors, 
 which were among the stolen property. This was testified to by Mr. Warriner. 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 29 
 
 New York City, Friday, Oct. 13, 1876. 
 
 To Managers, &c .:— 
 
 Gentlemen—Doubtless you have been considerably annoyed by importunate brokers and others ; so 
 have we, and that this may cease we presume to address a few lines. Unknown parties have sent 
 agents to us at various times, during the last six months, to negotiate for the purchase of the securities 
 taken from your vault, last winter. Some of these agents have pretended to be acting for you and by 
 your authority, but from what little conversation they were permitted to have on the subject, we judge 
 that they were persons trying either to obtain a footing from which they might manipulate both ends, or 
 purchase the securities with their capital by way of speculation. 
 
 That you had authorized any parties to treat with us for you, and instructed that party to take such a 
 course as the above-mentioned parties did take, looked to us a little out of order, considering the fact 
 that in our letter to you, last winter, we told you how to reach us ; but at least different persons assured 
 us that you had objections against inserting that particular “ personal,” and they gave us very plausible 
 reasons for your objections. In view of these facts, we will alter the “word,” so that if you are really 
 desirous to open communication with us, you may do so by inserting in the New York Herald, instead of 
 the old one, the following: “ Hope after which you make any remarks which you may deem appro 
 priate and intelligible to us, or none at all, if you choose. But we will add that we will pay no atten¬ 
 tion to any proposition coming from any other source, but if the above “personal” appears, we will 
 send you such instructions as will enable you to communicate by a direct channel. You need refer us 
 to no lawyer nor agent, but allow us to make such arrangements as will suit our convenience, as we 
 have the greatest interest. Respectfully, &c., 
 
 Rufus. 
 
 New York, Oct. 20, 1876. 
 
 Gentlemen : Since you have seen fit to recognize the receipt of our letter, we will now send you our 
 price for the return of the goods. The United States coupon bonds and money taken cannot be re¬ 
 turned, but everything else—bonds, letters and papers to the smalles* document, will be returned for 
 $150,000. If these figures suit you, we will make arrangements according to our promise, and you may 
 have the goods as soon as preliminaries can be arranged for the safe conduct of the business. If you 
 agree to this price, insert in the New York Herald personal column the simple word, “Agatha.” 
 
 Respectfully, &c., Rufus. 
 
 New York, Oct. 30. 
 
 Gents : In response to the above, we will say that we do not propose to enter into an argument about 
 the value of the paper ; we know what it is worth to us, and we arranged our price accordingly. Those 
 figures we will not reduce. If you feel disposed to accept at that price, there will be no obstacle to a 
 hasty transaction of the business, but if you do not accept, the negotiations we will have to stop. You 
 will confer a favor by giving a decisive answer. In giving your answer in the Herald, please drop 
 words “ Hope ” and “Agatha,” and use instead the capitals “ S S S.” Rufus. 
 
 Edson Again. 
 
 The examination of Edson was resumed, it having been interrupted by the evidence 
 attending the introduction of the letters, so that the expert might return home as soon 
 as possible. 
 
 Scott asked me if I found at Northampton an account of their occupation of the school- 
 house. He said if he had known that their occupation of the school-house was known 
 here, he should have been afraid to come. They went into Whittelsey’s house by the 
 front door. Some time previous to the robbery he saw skeleton keys in the possession of 
 Scott. At the interview on Jan. 31st, Scott, Dunlap and Connors were present. Next 
 met Dunlap Feb. 8th, on 5th Avenue, and walked with him up and down the street. I 
 asked him if Scott had got back, (from Northampton,) and he said no. I told him there 
 was a strong probability of their finding the property here. He said he didn’t think there 
 was any probability of its being found. We talked about the return of the securities. 
 Dunlap spoke of the operations in Whittelsey’s house—said Mrs. Whittelsey was the 
 coolest of the lot. I asked if they had been rough with Whittelsey. He said no—they 
 had only punched him a little with a pencil. Dunlap told about their coming out of the 
 bank with the plunder—they took it away in two packages, one a bag and the other, 
 perhaps, a pillow-case, and went down the street. The next time I met Scott and Dun¬ 
 lap, we rode about in a carriage an hour and a half, talking about the property, of its 
 return, and the probability of its being found. Told them I was coming up to Northamp¬ 
 ton. They wished me to see Edwards and Williams, and see what they would pay. Met 
 Williams at Springfield. Next met Scott at a lager-beer saloon. He wanted me to get 
 from the bank a list of the market value of the securities, which I did, and read it to 
 him. The amount was much less than than they had estimated it. It was from $280,000 
 to $300,000. Talked in the saloon an hour. Scott appeared not to notice what I was 
 saying. Finally he took out his watch, looked at it, and said : “ I won’t string you any 
 longer. They are just about putting their hands on the stuff now.” This was the 15th 
 
30 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 or 16th of February, 1876. He said Whittelsey’s watch was buried somewhere near 
 Springfield, with other things. Said it was no use talking any further. If the bank 
 people wanted their property, they knew how to get it. 
 
 Thursday—Fourth Day. 
 
 edson’s testimony continued. 
 
 Edson said he had omitted to state some things. Immediately preceding my visit to 
 Northampton, on Nov. 22, 1875, Scott and Dunlap wished me to see particularly if War- 
 riner had the combinations of all the locks. I did not know whether he had them or not, 
 but I saw Warriner, and having seen the clerk open the vault, I suggested to him that it 
 was not safe to have the combination in the possession of a person so young, whereupon 
 he changed it and gave it to Whittelsey. 
 
 I met Scott on Feb. 11th. He told me about his going to Springfield on the way to 
 Northampton to get the securities ; said the sleighing was so poor aliove New Haven he 
 had to give up his sleigh and get a wagon. I told him I had recalled him by putting a 
 personal in the Herald to this effect : “Knox, come home.” He said he had not seen 
 it, but saw an account in the Springfield Union of the 7th, that the bank people were 
 making a vigorous search for the securities, and in consequence of that he returned. I 
 said to him he would know what the personal meant, as he once owned a horse by the 
 name of Knox. In the Herald of Feb. 7, appeared this personal : “ Idalia, G, Monday 
 evening, 6 sharp.” Met Scott the evening of the 18th, on Lexington avenue, and went 
 to a large garden east of the Grand Central depot. Scott said they had returned with 
 the securities. Said Dunlap fell into Mill river while crossing on the ice, got wet, and 
 took a bad cold ; that they went to an unoccupied cabin in the woods, built a fire aud 
 dried his clothes. He wished me to get a book containing the market value of securities, 
 and to help him sort the securities, as I might aid them in getting at their value. Scott 
 said they should send back certain pieces. Did not see him again until the following 
 September. Then saw him as I was riding in a street car, and got out and spoke to him. 
 Asked him what they were going to do about this matter. He replied that they were not 
 going to give me “a damn cent;” that I had given the entire party away. I told him 
 he was mistaken. He said he had thought the whole matter over and did not think he 
 was mistaken. I told him we had better have a talk over the matter, and we went to a 
 saloon, sat down, and took something to drink. I asked him who the parties were who 
 knew about my giving the party away. Asked him if he would believe them in prefer¬ 
 ence to me. He said he was not positive ; if he was, I “ would not be sitting there.” 
 
 Saw Scott next on Nov. 9th. Went with him to Hamilton ferry ; on the way, sent 
 back some theater tickets, which I had purchased, intending to use them that evening ; 
 went through unbuilt portions of the outskirts of Brooklyn, to Prospect Park ; found 
 Dunlap walking under some trees. I asked them what they proposed to do. They said 
 the other parties would have to be satisfied with what they said. I said I did not propose 
 to talk until it was fully understood what I came there for; that I had never betrayed 
 them to any man, woman or child ; and related to them all of my connection with 
 M illiams and Edwards. Scott replied that it was “all a damn lie. ” Scott said, “how 
 much will these people give and let you go?” I said, probably $100,000 to $150,000. 
 Scott said if they would give the latter sum, they could have the property. They said 
 “ these people wanted their property, but did not want to pay anything for it, and that 
 was all the trouble there was.” I told them they were known to all of Pinkerton’s force. 
 I hey said “ Pinkerton could swell my head, but he could not swell theirs.” 
 
 John Leary keeps a drinking house at Fort Hamilton, where I went on Sunday after¬ 
 noon ; found Connors there ; went up stairs, and Scott came up. I told him I had 
 telegraphed to Williams that if he would come to New York, I would put him in commu¬ 
 nication with the parties. Scott asked me what they were willing to give, and I reiterated 
 all I had said at Prospect Park. 1 said they were in danger of being arrested. He said 
 if they were, “there was one man who would be brought into it, and that I knew who 
 that man was. He said lie carried $1000 with him, and if he was arrested, he should 
 use that money to “ veutilate old Herring.” I met Williams at the Winasor Hotel, and 
 we took a carriage and drove to Eagan’s gambling house, 616 Broadway. This was the 
 week following the interview at Prospect Park. 
 
 W itness here gave an account of the commencement of the conspiracy. It was begun 
 in Septembar, 18id, and completed in December, 1874. In September, Dunlap came to 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANE ROBBERS. 
 
 31 
 
 my house.. I had an interview with him and Scott. They wished to know how to use 
 the air pump for the purpose of opening safes, and proposed to give me an equal distribu¬ 
 tion of the proceeds of any robberies. I have experimented with the air pump on several 
 safes, in the store of Herring & Co., and before bankers, to show its use, but personally 
 in no other way. The pump is used to exhaust the air in the safe, so that powder can be 
 drawn in through a hole, and the safe blown open by igniting the powder with a fuse. A 
 pound of powder can be run into a safe in this way in six minutes. Met in Connors’ 
 room with Scott and Dunlap, and showed them how to use the air pump. They were 
 pleased with it. Leary and another man were called in to see it. The arrangement of 
 1873, was incorporated in the arrangement of 1874. I was to look at banks, the interior, 
 &c., and report to them. They were to find the banks, watch the watchmen, &c., and 
 Connors was to negotiate the securities, if any were obtained ; that is, he was to nego¬ 
 tiate the securities obtained from the Northampton Bank, and which were not available 
 to other parties. Connors was to give each one his portion—certainly he was to give me 
 mine. 
 
 Saw Scott and Dunlap again in November. They told me they had been at North¬ 
 ampton, and discovered that the bank watchman went off duty at about 4 o’clock. They 
 thought if they had the keys, the job could be done without shutting up the watchmen, 
 as they had proposed. They said if I could get duplicates of the keys, they could get 
 along without interfering with the watchmen. Scott gave me some wax. I came, called 
 at the bank, and inquired of Warriner how the keys worked. He said they worked a 
 little tight. I took the keys into the directors’ room, filed them, and took impressions. 
 That was the day before Thanksgiving. Saw Scott and Dunlap on my return, and gave 
 them the impressions. Scott made a set of keys from the wax impressions, showed them 
 to me, and asked what I thought of them. They practiced on the sample lock with the 
 keys an hour or two. They told me they would come to Northampton that week. They 
 made three or four visits here in December. After that I met them on 8th Avenue, as 
 they suggested it was not safe for them to come to my house. Met them at different 
 points on 8th Avenue. They wanted money. I told them I would try to get them some. 
 They wanted $1000. The man to whom I applied wanted five per cent, of the sum 
 secured here. They agreed to give a certain amount. I asked them why they wanted so 
 much, and they said it was necessary to buy horses. Afterward I learned that they did 
 not buy any horses, They came twice to do the job, and returned without doing it. 
 They wanted more money, and I got them $300 more. They were here about a week 
 previous to the robbery. There was a meeting here that night, which prevented them 
 from making the attempt. They came to reconnoiter three or four times in December. 
 Saw Dunlap the Sunday night before the 26th ; he said they were coming to do the job 
 on Monday night. Met him on Broadway, and talked with him twenty minutes. Had 
 an arrangement with Scott, Dunlap and Connors a week or two previous, that in case they 
 should want to see me after the robbery, they should put a personal in the Herald, as fol¬ 
 lows : “Idalia, F. N.” 
 
 On the morning of the 26th, I left New York at 8 o’clock, by direction of Herring & 
 Co., and went to Bristol. On my arrival there, I was telegraphed to go to Northampton, 
 and came on the Canal road. Went to the bank. An hour afterward, a workman sent 
 by Herring & Co., arrived. Told him to go ahead and open the vault, which he did. 
 Warriner and many others were in the bank when the vault was opened. 
 
 I returned to New York the next day. Put a personal in the Herald, Saturday evening, 
 as follows : “Idalia, F. N., meet me on the Avenue Monday evening.” When the Herald 
 appeared Sunday morning, I found another personal, as follows : “Idalia, F. N., Monday 
 evening, 8 sharp.” I went in response to this personal, and found Connors. He took 
 me to Scott. Went to 10th Avenue, 65th street. Walked about. some time, and met 
 Dunlap. Scott said : “ Well, how did we do that job ? ” The reply was, “ Pretty well.” 
 I asked how he treated Whittelsey’s people, and he said they treated them well. The 
 taking of Whittelsey’s watch was spoken of; I said it was a small piece of business, and 
 they said it was a mistake and the watch would be returned. One of the men pointed a 
 big horse pistol at the servant girl, which nearly frightened her to death. They asked 
 how fhings stood here, and I told them what I had seen and heard. They spoke of a 
 meeting of all the parties concerned in the robbery, which had been held that afternoon. 
 Some of the parties didn’t talk reasonable. Some were in favor of giving a portion of 
 the money to a New York detective. Witness was asked to give the name of this detective, 
 
32 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 and he replied, “ Radford,” who had been seen at his house. Scott wanted me to see 
 Radford and find out what he would do. Connors spoke of a Boston detective named 
 Chapman, and said he was a good man. Radford is a member of Supt. Walling’s city 
 detective force. Chapman was formerly connected with the Boston police force, but is 
 now a private detective in that city. At this interview they gave Edson $1200, mostly 
 new fives on the Northampton Bank. 
 
 Under this arrangement, 1 put Williams in communication with Connors. I had a 
 talk with Connors about his going to Springfield. (Here the defense objected to any 
 evidence relating to Connors, but the court admitted such evidence, on the ground that it 
 was competent as showing a conspiracy between all the parties to rob banks, and that in 
 pursuance of that conspiracy, the Northampton Bank was robbed.) Connors came to 
 Springfield, Feb. 8th. Last saw him on the evening of the 7th, at N. W. corner of 32d 
 street and 6th avenue. Asked him if the men had gone for the securities. He said they 
 went on Saturday, by boat. 1 said they must be recalled. Went to find Dunlap. Connors 
 said Scott and another man had gone to Springfield. I put this personal in the Herald of 
 the 8th : “ Knox, come home.” They came home in the middle of the week. 
 
 Prior to the robbery, Edson said he saw false keys in the possession of the defendants, 
 in a room in the Knox building, on Fulton street ; also at Scott’s house. The ones he 
 saw them have were like the ones shown in court, and found in Scott’s bag when arrested. 
 Also, had seen them have skeleton keys, like the ones found on Scott. 
 
 After the arrangement of 1874, 1 gave to Dunlap drawings. (Here a lengthy discus¬ 
 sion ensued upon the admission of this evidence. The defense objected to it, because it 
 related to an act which was not charged in the indictment. The court allowed the papers 
 to be put in, to show an intimacy between Edson and the defendants at the time the al¬ 
 leged offense was planned or contemplated, and not that they committed any other of¬ 
 fense.) On July 5, 1875, I gave to Dunlap, at Scott’s house, two drawings. Witness 
 identified the papers containing the drawings. The contents of the papers were admitted. 
 The drawings were of the vault and safe of the Third National Bank of Syracuse. Wit¬ 
 ness here stated more fully the agreement made between Scott, Dunlap, Connors, and him¬ 
 self, in September 1874. 
 
 The Cross-Examination of Edson, 
 
 By Mr. Bond, was begun at ten minutes past 12, Thursday. The lock and dials of the 
 Northampton Bank were changed in October, 1875. I heard the change spoken of at the 
 store and at the bank. Came to Northampton November 22, and was here three days, 
 putting in vault doors for the First National Bank. Called at Northampton Bank each 
 morning. Took the vault lock off. Discovered the combination then. It was 6, 12, 24, 
 48. Saw the young man open the vault, and suggested to Warriner at the supper table 
 that the combination ought not to be left with so young a person. Afterward heard that 
 it had been changed and given to Whittelsey. Did not learn the combination of the inner 
 locks. Testified in New York, last March, that I had no knowledge of the locks on this 
 safe, or any thing connected with it ; and I had none. 
 
 Have lived in New York six years. Went to Minneapolis in the spring of ’67 or ’8, 
 from New York. Was there about three years ; in the harness business there two years ; 
 never there before ; shop on Washington Avenue; started the business; did not do a 
 large business ; first year there did not do anything ; named several persons with whom 
 he associated ; wife did not like the western country, and left in consequence. A woman 
 came there to blackmail me. I was arrested by the chief of police, at her instance, with¬ 
 out any warrant. The policeman suddenly left the town. Woman’s name was “Sue 
 McCoon. ” I was in Montreal a year and a half, in no business. Went there from Boston, 
 where I had been in the boot and shoe business with my cousin, under the firm name of 
 W. D. Edson & Co. Was in that business there ten months. My partner got me into 
 trouble, and I had to go to the wall or get out, and I got out. Lost $110,000. Did not 
 know that papers were made to have me arrested under the treaty—never heard of it be¬ 
 fore. 
 
 Thursday Afternoon. 
 
 Edson's cross-examination continued by Mr. Bond. After asking one or two questions, 
 Mr. Bond said that Edson was prompted to give his answers by a shake of the head from 
 some one sitting by. Detective Pinkerton, who sat near by, made a prompt denial, fol- 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 33 
 
 lowed by sharp words from both sides. Mr. Grillett took up the case, and there were more 
 sharp words. The Judge said he had not known or suspected that such a thing was going 
 on—Had you ever been married to any one besides the woman whom you call your wife ? 
 “There was a ceremony performed,” at Montreal. It was Sue McCoon. Lived with her 
 about a year and a half. I sent her off. The ceremony was performed by a clergyman. 
 Lived with her before I married her about 7 months, in Canada, and sent her off about 8 
 months after I married her. 
 
 The Elmira robbery was then referred to, and Edson said he never spoke a word with 
 Barry, (who was convicted of the attempted robbery and is now in prison.) Never saw 
 him more than 20 minutes altogether, and not at Elmira. Spoke with Northampton 
 Bank officers concerning the robbery on the night of January 26, ’76. Also on Tuesday of 
 the week following ; also the next day, Wednesday, and again on Saturday ; on the next 
 day, Sunday ; on Monday, and on Thursday of that week, and on Wednesday of the next 
 week. Again about two weeks after, about the middle of March. Next interview was in 
 November. At most of these times talked with Williams. As much of my testimony as 
 I could write down and tell in 4 or 5 hours has been printed. Last March, I wrote my 
 statement off in Pinkerton’s office. It has been taken by a short-hand reporter as I told, 
 it. Have talked with Pinkerton frequently about it. Have since enlarged upon it; en¬ 
 large upon it every time I tell it. 
 
 Mr. Bond—Will that process ever stop ? 
 
 Edson—Not until my memory gives out. (Laughter.) 
 
 The first that was said to me about paying me was in February, ’76, when Mr. Edwards 
 offered me from $10,000 to $25,000 if I would tell the names of the men who robbed the 
 bank. Had not told Edwards that I knew their names, but had told Williams at a pre¬ 
 vious interview, the day before, at Springfield. I never let them know that I knew their 
 names previous to that time. On the day of Connors’ hearing, told Williams I knew 
 their names. Talked with Edwards about telling the names and receiving the $10,000, 
 in January, ’77. Never since or before. It was never intimated to me, nor did I suspect, 
 that the bank officers considered me an accomplice in the affair. Was in directors’ room 
 when vault was opened. 
 
 Read article in Springfield Republican about a wish for a bank Cashier who would not 
 give up the combination. Went to the office in Springfield, and expostulated ; no high 
 words ; was not sent out of the office. 
 
 Before the spring of ’76, accused Scott and Dunlap of robbing and cheating me. That 
 was not all. I did more than accuse them of it. I do not say they put the personal in the 
 Herald, for I did not see them, bat I had an arrangement with them so to do. Scott’s 
 residence, the first time I knew of it, was 17th street, one door east of 4th Avenue. This 
 was during 1875. He then moved to 108, 24th street, where he remained until October ; 
 but the last time I actually saw him there was in August. First heard that Pinkerton 
 was connected with the robbery in February, ’76. Knew it positively in January, ’77, 
 when I was in New York. From December, ’75, to March, ’76, I did not see Scott with 
 a beard, only a light moustache. Last saw him February 18. Here the cross-examination 
 closed, and the prosecution questioned Edson. 
 
 In March, ’74, Scott and Dunlap handed me what was due me from the Quincy, Ill., 
 robbery, $7,600. I asked them if that was all. They came to my house with Connors, 
 and he said they had wronged me. Wauted me to tell the rest of the party that I had 
 got half the plunder, so that they (Connors, Scott and Dunlap) could get more from the 
 others. I agreed to do what was right. Afterward met Dunlap on 4th Avenue, 
 and he said they would give me what they pleased. I asked him what they would do, 
 provided I withdrew from it altogether. He said they would do as they pleased. 
 
 There is no ofEer now existing between me and Edwards for receiving $10,000 or 
 $25,000. It was made, but not accepted. Here ensued a long series of exceptions 
 and objections on the part of the defense. When Mr. Gillett attempted to show by 
 Edson that the quarrel between him and the defendants over the Quincy bank spoils 
 had all been settled, and that they must have been on good terms before another attempt 
 brought them together again. The defense said they were going to argue that it was re¬ 
 venge that prompted Edson to turn state’s evidence. The judge allowed the government 
 to question Edson. 
 
 After the Quincy robbery, Dunlap threatened me in terms which no one but myself 
 could understand. He said, suppose Barry was to go back on me, what would become of 
 
34 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 my wife and children ? Connors got part of that money, and Scott and Dunlap 
 the balance. Here Edson left the stand, a witness in calmness and shrewdness of 
 reply, provoking and putting to nought the leading and enticing questions of the 
 keenest lawyer. 
 
 Lucius Gleason. I live in Liverpool, N. Y. In ’75 was president of the Third 
 National Bank of Syracuse, N. Y. I saw Edson in July, '75, (Objection), about four 
 hours’ time. Witness being shown drawings, said they were of the vault and safe of his 
 bank. 
 
 West Sexton. Keep a livery stable in Springfield at the Rockingham House. Saw 
 
 Scott February, ’76. He came with another man, and stayed over night. E. C. Clark 
 
 of Northampton, was there ten days after. Saw Scott about two hours. He “ took 
 something” during the evening. He did not wear a beard. Talked with both of them. 
 Next saw Scott at preliminary examination. I picked him out from a crowd of over 20 
 persons who were on the opposite side of the street from me. A man came the next day 
 
 and inquired for the two persons who stayed at my house oyer night. 
 
 In cross-examination, the defense failed to shake the witness’ statements. Mr. Bond 
 asked Sexton if he had any bets on the trial. I have none. Didn’t you put up some 
 money on it at the hotel this noon ? No Sir ! (General laughter.) 
 
 William Sexton. Brother of West Sexton. Keep livery stable at Rockingham House. 
 Was in the barn when Scott and Dunlap came. I recognize Scott. In cross- 
 examination, said he would not swear to identifying Scott, but thought he was the man. 
 
 John Rathburn. Employed in Grand Central Hotel, N. Y., last February. Dunlap 
 left his trunk in my charge on the night of February 1st. I delivered it on presentation 
 of an order. Dunlap said he should leave it ten days. Witness identified a paper shown 
 him as the original order for the trunk. 
 
 Richard O'Connor. I am a police officer in New York. Only know Scott and Dunlap 
 since they got into this fix. I went to the Grand Central and searched Dunlap’s trunk, 
 in which I found wax and burglars’ tools. Witness said certain parcels handed him by 
 counsel for government contained wax and implements similar to those he found. I also 
 found two photographs. Photographs proved to be those of Connors and Mrs. Scott; 
 cabinet size and good likenesses. 
 
 Friday. 
 
 Capt. E. C. Clark was the first witness called. I live in Northampton. Went to 
 Spriugfield February 9, 1876, and the only time that month. Saw the Sextons. Was 
 taken to the Rockingham House by one Wellington, a liveryman. I spoke with the Sex¬ 
 tons. 
 
 Mrs. Olive Crafts. I live in Holyoke. Came to Northampton, by the 4 o’clock train, 
 on the afternoon of January 25. Saw Dunlap on the train. He was standing on the 
 platform when I first saw him. He entered the car and sat two seats ahead of me, facing 
 me. At Smith’s Ferry he got up, went to the platform, came back, and between that and 
 Northampton he changed his seat twice. Appeared uneasy. Wore a dark, tight-fitting 
 overcoat, and a silk hat. Fix date at January 25, because it was my mother's birthday. 
 In cross-examination it was endeavored to shake the testimony in relation to the kind of 
 coat, but failed to do so. Saw Dunlap on car platform at Holyoke for the first time, and 
 next, last week Thursday. 
 
 John Whittelsey. Key was in front door on the night of the robbery. Marks and in¬ 
 dentations on key first noticed morning after my house was broken into. Have examined 
 it with magnifying glass. There is also a night-lock which is self-acting, and requires a 
 key from the outside. There is none on the inside. Here Whittelsey pointed out the 
 two marks on opposite sides of the key, made by the nippers of the robbers. Cross-ex¬ 
 amined. Never saw marks on key before that time. Can’t say how long they had been 
 on. Key had been in use since 1865. Never previously examined it, with reference to 
 the marks. It occasionally dropped out upon the floor, and may have been stepped on. 
 
 Robert A. Pinkerton. A New York detective for ten years. Have known Dunlap 9 
 years, and Scott since the time of his arrest. Opened Dunlap’s trunk at Grand Central 
 Hotel, and found in it wax, screws, papers and burglars’ tools. It was February 15. The 
 hotel proprietor, janitor, and two policemen were with me at the time. Went to the 
 trunk when I heard of Dunlap’s arrest, in Philadelphia. Dunlap spoke to me about the 
 trunk ; said he sent an order for it, but they would not give it up, and that I was having 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 35 
 
 it detained. Asked me to go to hotel and tell janitor to give it up when another order 
 was presented. Found photographs in trunk. Took diagrams, first time, day after re¬ 
 turning from Northampton, March 29. I took a valise from Scott, coming from Phila¬ 
 delphia. Brought two other bags, taken from Scott and Dunlap, to Northampton, and 
 gave them to Sheriffs in this town. 
 
 At this point, Pinkerton said he would like to make a statement, with reference to a 
 charge made against him the day before. He denied having prompted Edson by a nod 
 of the head. I put the bags in the vault of the bank here, and took them out, myself. 
 
 Cross-examined. Four days after robbery was consulted by bank officers. Began 
 work on the case in a week, myself, alone. Others helped me at times—Gallagher princi¬ 
 pally. We worked at it during the summer, and in the fall had three men at it half the 
 time. I gave instructions ; 12 or 13 worked on it at times. Bangs is General Super¬ 
 intendent for New York and Philadelphia. Trunk was not given up till I left instruc¬ 
 tions at the hotel. I took the photographs, and then weut to Scott’s house. After I saw 
 Mrs. Scott knew who the photograph was. My compensation for professional services is 
 not contingent upon the result of this trial. If the defense were to make an argument 
 upon this point, the government wished to bring out the facts. The Judge said there 
 was no evidence one way or the other, and an argument could not be biased on nothing. 
 Have known Edson since 14th of February, 1877. First saw Connors on 12th street, near 
 Broadway. 
 
 L. B. Williams, Northampton Bank director. Weut to New York, and had an in¬ 
 terview with Connors, Nov. 1876, at 616 Broadway, under direction of Edson. It was 
 about the 15th of the month. Was alone. Had another interview next day, at Windsor 
 Hotel, at 4 P. M. It was by appointment. We walked up Fifth avenue to Central 
 Park, taking nearly three-fourths of an hour. Next day he had an interview of an hour 
 arid a half. Saw him next Saturday morning at the Windsor, only a few minutes. Saw 
 him again after his arrest iu New York. The interviews were for the negotiation of the 
 return of the stolen securities. 
 
 George Serena. Work in livery stable in New York, where Scott’s horse was kept. 
 Known Scott since 1874. I drive a private coach. Knew Scott’s horse. It was generally 
 called “ Knox.” Saw Scott nearly every day. 
 
 Cross-examination. I did not own the stable. The horse came there in September, 
 and went away late in the Fall. It was a road horse. He had another horse before this 
 one, which had no name. He bought it of stable owner. It had been a coach horse. 
 
 George W. Gates. Supt. of 4th district of Western Union Tel. Co., at White River 
 Junction. District includes 240 offices in Mass., N. H., Vt., and Ct. Do not know 
 what became of the dispatches sent in this district for 1875. 
 
 J. L. Warriner. Vice Prest. Northampton Bank. This (holding paper) is part of 
 the securities stolen from the bank, and afterwards sent back in letter. I handed keys of 
 safe to Edson. He took them, for a few minutes, into the directors’ room, and when he 
 gave them to me, they worked easier. Combination held by youngest clerk was taken 
 away from him on Edson’s advice. Given to Whittelsey. We had just received two 
 thousand $5 bills. They were new, stiff, and silk lined, with larger die stamp than usual. 
 Been in bank 16 years. Examining writing part of my business. I think these are in 
 the same hand (Shown letters sent to bank by Dunlap.) 
 
 Jesse H. Rankin, telegraph operator at Northampton for seven years. Dispatches for 
 1875 I sent to G. W. Gates, White River Junction. Do not know what became of them. 
 Not in my possession, now. 
 
 G. W. Gates. Ordered dispatches for 1875 to be destroyed. It is a part of my duty 
 to order their destruction. They have been destroyed. 
 
 Vol. Springfield Union. Paper, Feb. 6, 1876. The following article, which the de¬ 
 fendants told Edson frightened them from coming to Northampton after the hidden se¬ 
 curities, was admitted as evidence. They had reached Springfield, when they saw it and 
 turned back. “ Telegrams were received from New York detectives, Saturday, stating 
 positively that the securities recently stolen from the Northampton Bank were buried 
 somewhere iu the town, and that the burglars were coming for them. This news caused 
 great excitement. The sheriffs and a dozen specials patrolled the streets Saturday night.” 
 
 Edson then gave the substance of the telegram sent to him at the Wyoming Valley 
 House, from Northampton and signed R. C. Hill. 
 
 R. E. Jamison. I am telegraph operator at Wilkesbarre, Pa. I recollect seeing a tele- 
 
36 
 
 TRIAL OF THE • NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 gram from Northampton which said that the sender was detained by business, and could 
 not keep an appointment. Do not remember the telegram received just before this one, 
 or just after. Have had occasion to recall this particular telegram several times since, 
 and have once copied it. 
 
 Opening of the Defense. 
 
 Here the government concluded its testimony, and H. H. Bond, Esq., began the open¬ 
 ing for the defense. He spoke as follows:— 
 
 May it please your Honor, and you Gentlemen of the Jury : 
 
 The case for the government is closed. All the work of a year has culminated in the 
 evidence to which you have so patiently listened for the last three days. All that power, 
 no less than the Commonwealth, can command, all that money, as exhaustless as the 
 resources of the Old Bank, can procure, all that detectives, with facilities which belong 
 to the craft, can furnish, all that villainy, such as is unparalleled in this court, can sug¬ 
 gest, you have before you. It is a fitting time to pause for a little, and to recall to our 
 minds the exact nature of the case, our several duties with respect to it, the rules of law 
 applicable to it, the different phases of the evidence already introduced, and the manner 
 in which we propose to meet it. 
 
 We all agree in the importance of the case. No one born and bred in New England 
 but that desires to perpetuate the peace, quiet and safety of our New England towns, 
 and the security which is afforded property. To this end the government can say nothing 
 but what we endorse. Yet, after all, it is these defendants, and not public security, that 
 we are trying. To them the question comes home in its supremest importance. Right 
 here, upon these proceedings, their future depends. On the one side are liberty, home, 
 wife, friends—all the rich possibilities of life ; on the other are prison walls, a wretched 
 existence, perpetual ostracism from all that makes life desirable. And we, right here, 
 are to place them on the one sido or the other. 
 
 “ Trial by jury ” means something then, does it not, in a case like this ? Our fore¬ 
 fathers thought so. Lord Chatham termed it the bulwark of the English Constitution, 
 and they made it a fundamental feature of our own. Pardon me if I recall the provis¬ 
 ions of the United States Constitution, Art. 6, of the Amendments. It will serve as 
 the basis for some things which I wish to say. It reads as follows : “ In all criminal pros¬ 
 ecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial 
 jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed* and to be 
 informed of the nature and cause of the accusations ; to be confronted with the witnesses 
 against him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have 
 the assistance of counsel for his defense.” Judge Story says of this (Story on the Con¬ 
 stitution, § 1780): “The great object of the trial by jury in criminal cases is to guard 
 against a spirit of oppression and tyranny on the part of rulers, and against a spirit of 
 violence and vindictiveness on the part of the people. Indeed, it is often more important 
 to guard against the latter than the former. * * * The appeal for safety can, under 
 
 such circumstances, scarcely be made by innocence in any other manner than by the 
 severe control of courts of justice, and by the firm and impartial verdict of a jury sworn 
 to do right, and guided solely by legal evidence and the sense of duty. In such a course 
 there is double security against the prejudice of judges who may partake of the wishes 
 and opinions of the government, and against the passions of the multitude who may de¬ 
 mand their victim with a clamorous persistency. * * To give it real efficiency, it must 
 
 be preserved in its dignity and purity.” 
 
 The whole spirit of the proceeding is summed up in the words, “ an impartial verdict 
 of a jury sworn to do right, and guided solely by legal evidence and a sense of duty ; ” and 
 the whole theory of the trial is arranged to that end. The judge, to preside over and 
 conduct the trial, tempering and guiding it in an impartial and impersonal manner ; the 
 counsel on the respective sides to see that each is fairly and fully represented ; the jury 
 to calmly, deliberately and judicially investigate the charges, forgetting for the moment 
 the surrounding world of passion and prejudice, and know only that there are certain 
 rules of law and evidence of facts to be considered and passed upon. 
 
 Let us be frauk with each other. The right of these defendants is plain. But the one 
 thing some of us fear in the case is that they will not have the benefit of that right to a 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBER8. 
 
 37 
 
 trial free from prejudice. Do not misunderstand me. I believe you mean exactly what 
 you have said by your oaths, that you will try these men “upon the evidence given you 
 but it will be one of the most difficult things you will have to do in this trial—one of the 
 most difficult things you will have to do in your lives. The working of a man’s mind is 
 a mysterious process, and we can hardly ever feel certain as to what subtle influences we 
 may owe many of our judgments. Our whole lives and actions are tinctured with preju¬ 
 dice ; in a certain sense we are bundles of prejudice. Prejudice is of that insinuating 
 nature that, unwished for and unknown, it steals in on our minds and biases our judg¬ 
 ments, when we think we are most free from it. In this no class of persons is exempt. 
 Historians, biographers, scientists, men to whom we look as models in this respect, are 
 seldom if ever entirely free from it. Even our honored and honorable Supreme Court of 
 the United States have recently given us a sad illustration in their position as political 
 arbitrators. The bias of party affiliations made the dividing line in every instance, and 
 in questions and under circumstances that should have banished party from the mind. 
 Yet none of us, I think, would question their honest determination to decide impartially. 
 Take the illustrations which occur in our every-day lives, the bias, the mental leanings 
 arising from education, business, habit, sympathy, or social surroundings. Let different 
 persons, perhaps a farmer, an artist, a manufacturerer and an educator, come here to 
 make a little study of our valley, what would be most impressed on their minds ? The 
 artist would take away with him the beauty of the waving grain, the loveliness of our 
 mountain views, the picturesqueness of our mountain streams ; the farmer would have 
 mind the nature of the soil, the productiveness to the acre, the crops best cultivated, the 
 tobacco interest, and what is to take its place, and the like ; the manufacturer would be 
 able to tell you of the different manufacturing establishments, the adaptability of the 
 mills, the advantages and disadvantages of the water powers, the relative ability of our 
 manufacturers to compete with other localities, and so on ; the educator would see our 
 region as a remarkable educational center, would admire the plan and workings of our 
 Smith College, would become interested in our Clarke Institution, would study Amherst 
 College, Mt. Holyoke and Williston Seminaries, would revolve in his mind the various 
 educational facilities, and go away greatly impressed with our advantages in this respect. 
 All would have had the same facts spread out before them, and all would have gone away 
 with different impressions, owing to the different bent of their minds. Ask a woman 
 who devotes herself to fashion about any particular person whom she saw at a certain 
 time, and how immediately will come up to her mind that horrid bonnet, that lovely 
 dress, that ridiculous combination of colors, that unpardonable disregard of fashion, ele¬ 
 ments which to her made up the person, but which we in our unsophisticated innocence 
 had not realized. How ready, too, we are to see innocence in the actions of those we 
 love, and meanness in the doings of those we hate. Let me take another illustration, 
 which has a special pertinence to this case—for you will bear in mind that the case for 
 the prosecution has been engineered by detectives. And I cannot do better than to make 
 it in the language of an eminent writer on the law of evidence—Taylor. He says (vol. 1, 
 §49): “The testimony of policemen and others employed in the detection of crime, 
 should be watched with great care, not because they intentionally pervert the truth, but 
 because their professional zeal, fed as it is by a habitual intercourse with the vicious, and 
 by the frequent contemplation of human nature in its most revolting form, almost neces¬ 
 sarily leads them to ascribe actions to the worst motives, and to give a color of guilt to 
 facts and conversations, which are, perhaps, in themselves, consistent with perfect recti¬ 
 tude. That all men are guilty until they are proved to be innocent, is naturally a creed 
 of the police, but it is a creed which finds no sanction in a court of justice.” Again, he 
 says (§ 59): “Something occurs to raise a suspicion against a particular party. Police 
 officers are immediately upon the alert, and with professional zeal ransack every place and 
 paper, and examine into every circumstance which can tend to show, not his innocence, 
 but his guilt. Presuming him to be gnilty from the first, they are apt to consider his 
 acquittal as a tacit reflection on their discrimination or skill, and with something like 
 the feeling of a keen sportsman, they determine, if possible, to bag their game. Inno¬ 
 cent actions may thus be misinterpreted, innocent words be misunderstood, and as men 
 readily believe what they anxiously desire, facts the most harmless may be construed into 
 strong confirmation of preconceived notions.” 
 
 I have dwelt upon this feature of the case, because we have been told over and over 
 again that we could not get a jury to try this case that would not be prejudiced. And it 
 
38 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 is easy to see the foundation upon which this statement is made. One cannot soon forget 
 the excitement when it was announced that the Old Bank had been robbed. People gath¬ 
 ered on the street corners, in the stores and post-offices, eager to gather and discuss the 
 particulars. The bold attack upon the rishest and most powerful institution in our val¬ 
 ley, was the theme upon every tongue. Since that time the excitement has been con¬ 
 stantly fed by all sorts of stones and rumors, many false and absurd ; these defendants 
 have been constantly assumed so be guilty, and large sums of money have been expended 
 and powerful influences exerted to satisfy people that they are so. Seeing and knowing all 
 this, we have felt the force of the remarks that we could do nothing before a Hampshire 
 County jury. If that be so, it is but a farce to be here; this trial is but a mockery. But 
 I have faith otherwise. It has been with pleasure as well as with pride that I have as¬ 
 sured these defendants and strangers that right here in Hampshire County, within the 
 very shadow of the powerful institution that stands back of the prosecution, that right 
 here, they could find a jury who would set aside the inevitable mass of prejudice and the 
 almost irresistible demand which has been pressed into the case, and would deal with 
 them fairly and impartially upon the law and evidence presented, and upon that only. 
 Acting for them, that is ail we desire ; speaking for them, that is all they ask. Will you 
 not see to it that they have it ? 
 
 There are certain fundamental rules of law applicable to the evidence in the case to 
 which I wish to call your attention. The first of these is, that the law presume* every man 
 to be innocent until he is proved guilty. This is a good rule by which to test your feelings 
 in the case. Did you when you took your seats upon the pannel, can you now start with 
 that presumption fairly applied ? It means more than a glittering generality. It re¬ 
 quires you to take their case presuming them to be as innocent of this crime as you would 
 your own friend, or his Honor upon the bench, and that presumption stands as a 
 constant shield to protect them through the case. It is as evidence for them, aud is 
 stronger than some evidence against them. Take for instance the evidence of Edson— 
 and I shall explain it more fully with reference to his testimony ; if Edsou’s evidence 
 were placed by itself against this presumption, the presumption would outweigh it. 
 Figuratively speaking, Edson would be kicked from the witness stand—and I trust he 
 would land in the arms of the officers of the law where he belongs. 
 
 Following from this presumption of innocence is the second rule to which I wish to call 
 your attention, that the charges alleged by the government must be proved beyond a 
 reasonable doubt. Most of you have doubtless heard this question of burden of proof 
 talked about in civil cases, and may have formed your idea of what it means from that. 
 But there is a great difference between the two. In the civil case you cometo the con¬ 
 clusion that in the whole the preponderence of the evidence is a certain way,—as Lincoln 
 used to illustrate it, you feel like saying “ I'll bet you a sixpence that it is so ; ” but in a 
 criminal case burden of proof means somethiug much stronger. Roscoe, in his Criminal 
 Evidence (p. 14) says of the distinction : “The difference between rules as to presump¬ 
 tions in civil and criminal cases seems to arise from this ; that in civil cases it is always 
 necessary for the jury to decide the question at issue between the parties, and whatever 
 be their decision, the rights of the parties will accordingly be effected. However much, 
 therefore, they may be perplexed, they cannot escape from giving a verdict founded upon 
 one view or the other of the conflicting evidence before them. Presumptions, therefore, 
 are made in comparatively weak grounds. Butin criminal cases there is always a result - 
 open to the jury which is practically looked upon as a mere negative, namely, that which 
 declares the accused to be not guilty of the crime of which he is charged. In 
 cases of doubt it is to this view that the jury is taught to lean.” 
 
 Wherever there is a doubt then—not a mere impossible, imaginary doubt, but a reason¬ 
 able doubt, the prisoner is to have the benefit and is to be acquitted. That I may be 
 exact in this, let me use the language of two of the chief justices of our highest court. 
 
 In Commonwealth vs. Webster, 5 Cush. 295 p. 320, Chief Justice Shaw says : “ Reason- 
 
 aide doubt is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. 
 
 It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depend¬ 
 ing upon evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the 
 case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the 
 minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding convic¬ 
 tion, to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is on the 
 prosecutor. All the presumptions of law independent of evidence are in his favor, and 
 
TRIAL OR THE NORTHAMPTON BANE ROBBERS. 
 
 39 
 
 every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such proof 
 there is a reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by 
 acquital. For it is not sufficient to show a probability, though a strong one arising from 
 the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary ; 
 but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty, 
 a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and 
 judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it.” And our present 
 Chief Justice Gray in Commonwealth vs. Costley 118 Mass. 24, says : “ Proof beyond a 
 
 reasonable doubt is not beyond all possible or imaginary doubt, but such proof as pre¬ 
 cludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it tends to support. It is proof to a 
 moral certainty as distinguished from absolute certainty. As applied to a judicial trial 
 for crime, the two phrases are synonymous and equivalent ; each has been used by 
 eminent judges to explain the other ; and each signifies such proof as satisfies the judg¬ 
 ment and conscience of the jury, as reasonable men, applying their reason to the evidence 
 before them, that the crime charged has been committed by the defendant, and so satis¬ 
 fies them as to leave no other reasonable conclusion possible.” 
 
 I desire to call your attention more particularly to the rule expressed in this last 
 sentence, that you are to he so satisfied as to leave no other reasonable conclusion possible. 
 By that the duty is thrown upon you to examine all the evidence carefully, to study it to 
 see if in any way you can make it consistent with any other theory than that of guilt, and 
 if you can you are to acquit the defendants. It places your position and our own in 
 complete harmony. Our duties are the same : to insist upon rigid, exact and legal proof 
 at every step in the trial, to explain, modify and to make consistent with the defendants’ 
 side of the case such evidence as is before us, relying always upon the presumption of 
 innocence and the burden of proof. And if at any point we as counsel fail, you as guar¬ 
 dians of the defendants’ rights will supply our lack. 
 
 The evidence for the government is divided into two general classes : i. e., the testimony 
 of Edson, and the evidence as to identity. 
 
 It is upon the evidence of Edson that the government must in the main rest. He it is 
 that gives life to the whole case, and it is upon his word that the defendants will be con¬ 
 victed, if at all. Edson avows himself to be an accomplice, and I desire to say a word as 
 to accomplices in general, and then of Wm. D. Edson in particular : 
 
 The practice in our courts of justice is clear as to the evidence of accomplices. Again, 
 let me be exact, (for I wish to claim nothing but what we may all stand by,) and make 
 my language that of the authorities. Phillips, in his work on Evidence, (vol. I, page 111,) 
 says : “ Great injustice would result if it were the practice of juries to convict upon the 
 
 uncorroborated evidence of accomplices, whose testimony though admitted from necessity, 
 ought always to be received with great jealousy and caution. For upon their own con¬ 
 fession they stand contaminated with guilt; they admit the participation in the very crime 
 which they endeavor by their evidence to fix upon the prisoner ; they are sometimes en¬ 
 titled to a reward upon obtaining a conviction, and always expect to earn a pardon. Accom¬ 
 plices, therefore, are of a tainted character, giving their testimony under the strongest mo¬ 
 tives to deceive ; and a jury would not in general be justified in giving to such witnesses credit 
 for a conscientious regard to the obligation of an oath. Sometimes they may be tempted 
 to accuse a party wholly innocent in order to screen themselves or a guilty associate ; and 
 and if the prisoner has been their participator in crime, they may be disposed to color 
 and exaggerate their statements against him with a view to hide their own infamy, or by 
 obtaining his conviction to protect themselves from his vengeance and secure the expected 
 benefit. The doctrine, therefore, of a conviction being legal upon the uncorroborated 
 evidence of an accomplice has been greatly modified in practice ; and it has long beeu 
 considered, as a general rule of practice, that the testimony of an accomplice should re¬ 
 ceive confirmation ; and that unless it be corroborated in some material particular by un¬ 
 impeached evidence, the presiding judge ought to advise the jury to acquit the prisoner.” 
 And says Martin, J., (in Commonwealth vs. Bosworth, 22 Pick. 399,) “ The source of 
 this evidence is so corrupt, that it is always looked upon with suspicion and jealousy, and 
 is deemed unsafe to rely upon without confirmation. Hence the court ever consider it 
 their duty to advise the jury to acquit where there is no evidence other than the uncor¬ 
 roborated testimony of an accomplice.” Davis, in his Criminal Justice, (p. 125,) sums 
 it up in a few words: “The credibility of accomplices when made witnesses is always 
 doubtful, suspicious and liable to be impeached ; and their testimony, unless fully corrob- 
 
40 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 orated by other evidence, is of very little, and generally of no weight or value in the 
 
 prosecution.” 1 ^ S '"' S 
 
 If this is true of ordinary cases, what should be said of the accomplice Edson ? What 
 does he say for himself ? Take his history as he has given it—there is no time, there is 
 no place where you can touch him, but he is bad. 
 
 “His conscience hath a thousand several tongues, 
 
 And every tongue doth tell a several tale, 
 
 And every tale condemns him as a villain.” 
 
 There is no crime which he has hesitated to commit, there is no infamy but he has wil¬ 
 lingly sounded the depths—and do you think he would hesitate to lie ? We take this 
 issue squarely : that he is a villain and a liar, and independent of the law which would 
 sustain us, we shall ask you to say that he is unworthy of any belief. 
 
 But it will be said, he tells his story so well, it bears the stamp of truth, it is impossi¬ 
 ble that it shonld be made up. We have two suggestions to make in answer to that ; 
 first, Edson can lie better, probably, than any gentleman on your pannel can take the 
 stand and tell the truth, untruth is a part of his nature, has become a habit of his life. 
 Think of it for a moment, from the first he has been false to his family, false to his wife, 
 false to his creditors, false to his employers, false to those who have received him in places 
 of trust and confidence, false to every one with whom he has been connected. His whole 
 life has beeu one stupendous lie ; and do not think that he lacks any qualifications nec¬ 
 essary for him to carry out his lie here upon the stand. And in the second place we have 
 to suggest that it is not so difficult after all. We make no question that Edson knows 
 about the burglary, all the facts, all the persons. He has therefore simply to tell the 
 facts as they actually occurred using the names of the defendants instead of the names of 
 two of the real actors. He has every motive to do this. Suspected himself from the first 
 he found it necessary to tell of some one to save himself. It was the most natural thing 
 for him to plan to gain the reward, save his accomplices at the same time revenge himself 
 on two of his enemies. He had had trouble with these men in the spring of 1875, and he 
 now had an opportunity to clear off old scores, carry through another conspiracy equal to 
 that which he testifies to, again rob the bank in the guise of honesty, and take himself to 
 Europe or somewhere else to finish his career. He is just the man to plan and to execute 
 it, and he has done it well. 
 
 The suspicion against Edson, the offers of reward, the trouble previously with these 
 men are already in evidence. We shall also introduce as showing the truth of this hy¬ 
 pothesis, the deposition of one John Berry, now confined in the Auburn State’s Prison 
 for an attempt upon the Elmira Bank. Berry testifies in detail to the same conspiracy 
 which Edson has detailed, says that it was made with him, (Berry,) and not with the de¬ 
 fendants, that they then talked of the Northampton Bank, and that then Edson agreed to 
 swear the guilt of any sssociate upon some one else in case of discovery. It is significant 
 that at this trial for the first time Edson has mentioned Berry’s name, as if in anticipation 
 of the deposition which has been on file and undoubtedly seen by him. And he takes oc¬ 
 casion to anticipate and deny it. Berry’s testimony has certainly every stamp of truth 
 that accompanies Edson's statements, and the only difference between the two witnesses is 
 that Berry is in State’s Prison and Edson ought to be there. 
 
 The evidence as to the identity is divided into two classes, i. e., that of the family, and 
 the outside people from this and Hampden County. In considering the matter of the 
 identity as testified to by the family it is well to remember the caution which an eminent 
 writer upon evidence gives that “experience teaches the danger of relying implicitly on 
 the evidence of even the most conscientious witnesses respecting questions of identity.” 
 Some of you may recall the trial scene in Les Miserables. There was the crowded court 
 room like this, and there as here on the question of identity depended the future of the 
 prisoner at the bar. Jevert, that personification of official astuteness comes forward and 
 says he has known him for many years, and that there is no doubt of the identity ; three 
 former fellow convicts testify, after being cautioned by the Court, to the same effect. The 
 whole audience believe him to be the person, and just in time to save the sentence, the 
 true convict Jean Valjean steps forward and saves him from becoming a victim to a mis¬ 
 taken ideutity. Take a historical case nearer home. Some years ago a man by the 
 name of Sherman was tried in Middlesex County for an assault upon a girl in Medford on 
 Saturday, and in Newton on the following Monday. A week after a man made his appear-^ 
 ance in Newton, and was at once recognized as the culprit. The two girls selected him 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 41 
 
 from among a hundred others, and at the trial nineteen witnesses swore positively to his 
 identity. The presiding judge remarked that he had never seen a stronger case of identi¬ 
 ty proven, and yet in that case the government became satisfied that they had made a 
 mistake. “It is a mere matter of opinion, especially when seen in the night time,” say 
 our Supreme Court in a recent case ; and in an earlier case they add, “mistaken identity is 
 a matter of common experience.” You have found it so have you not ? How often have 
 you spoken to a person as one, to find out it was another ; how frequently we hear a voice 
 or step, or see the form of a person that we mistake for another. If you have attended a 
 masked ball ; or if you were present at any of the antiques and horribles recently you have 
 experienced how easy it was to mistake a person disguised, and you will bear in mind that 
 these persons were so disguised. “There is one little word” said my eloquent friend, 
 when speaking to this point a week ago, and addressing one sitting in your place Mr. 
 Foreman, “there is ©lie little word,” he said, “which when uttered these defendants 
 would carry in their recollections to their dying day.” It is only a week since that word 
 was uttered. It was said in the presence of counsel who felt the terrible responsibility 
 which accompanied it: in the presence of a crowded court room, breathless in its stillness 
 and with every ear strained to catch the slightest intonations of the voice. But I venture 
 to say that not one of these who heard it would dare now to identify the speaker by his 
 voice ; and I venture to say that not one upon your panned will venture to convict these 
 defendants upon any such identity. 
 
 But there are other witnesses they say who saw the defendants, as they think, at 
 various times here and in Springfield. We adopt that testimony as our own and if it is true 
 it is decisive of this case. You will recall that the defendant Scott according to the wit¬ 
 nesses was here at those times walking about freely, and that he had no beard. If there 
 are any two facts which can be proved in this case, they are that at, these times mentioned 
 Scott had a full beard and was lame. We shall introduce a number of witnesses to this 
 point, and shall we think satisfy you upon it. 
 
 There are two other incidental features of the government’s evidence to which perhaps 
 I ought to refer, that is, the evidence of the detectives as to the plan, and burglars’ tools, 
 and to the expert testimony upon the handwriting. 
 
 I have already referred to detective evidence, and to the fact that this is a detective 
 case. If I were talking to a Northampton jury I need only refer to what is known as the 
 incendiary trial. In that case it was said by one of the legal gentlemen who has until re¬ 
 cently sat with the Attorneys for the prosecution, “they have found rich pastures in 
 Northampton.” To continue in this suggestive strain, they are again turned loose into 
 the rich fields of our valley. They are paid to convict, and they are going to convict if 
 they can. And the tendency of a detective’s work is most always to throw mud. They 
 must get something bad about these men—as they think they must about the witnesses— 
 and so they put burglars’ tools into Scott’s satchel, and a plan into Dunlap’s trunk. We 
 deny it all. 
 
 You enjoyed, I have no doubt, as we enjoyed yesterday the testimony of Mr. Payne. He 
 is a positive man. He has been a witness before he tells us. One of his earliest cases was 
 the Howland will case. Thirty-two experts testified in that case. Mr. Payne was just as 
 positive there. “I have not the slightest doubt, he said,” that the signature was traced. 
 Eminent men, among them such names as Joseph Willard, an expert of long standing, 
 Lowell the eminent engraver P Agassis, who brought to the case his acute analytical skill, 
 with others, and they pronounced the signature as showing no signs of tracing. This 
 matter of handwriting isn’t a thing to be settled without doubt, even by Mr. Payne. So 
 uncertain is such testimony that many Courts including the Supreme Court of the United 
 State’s have refused to receive such testimony and although it is received in our own State 
 for what it is worth, yet in the leading case (Moody vs. Rowell, 17 Pick. 497.) Chief 
 Justice Shaw says : “It is agreed on all hands that such evidence is generally deserving of 
 very little consideration.” It is really a matter for your own good common sense. We 
 shall give you such aid as we can, and shall confidently ask you to say that the opinion 
 given isn’t true and that the writing is not that of the defendants, 
 j There is one other matter of defense of which you will probably expect me to speak. 
 
 You have heard it intimated doubtless of the efforts which would be made to show an 
 j alibi. Ever since Dickens’ wrote, this it has been a favorite subject of advice and com¬ 
 ment. An honest alibi is not always an easy thing to show. It would be very likely to 
 puzzle any member of your pannel to prove where he was on a particular day a year ago. 
 
42 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 It is not an easy thing to do. Of course it would be easy for us with detective assistance 
 perhaps to produce the testimony of scores of witnesses that these defendants were at a 
 ball, or at some public place. But we propose to bring forward no such testimony. We 
 have evidence as to the whereabouts of the defendants at the material times testified to, 
 but it is the natural and ordinary testimony which would be expected in an honest alibi. 
 The testimony of the family, of those who happened to be there at particular times, and it 
 is our good fortune to have the testimony of one witness who happened to be there on busi¬ 
 ness the very day this robbery occurred. And it is decisive. 
 
 As 1 have said before it is your duty to reconcile the evidences with the theory of inno¬ 
 cence if you can. And you will find I think when you come to see it all together, 
 that the only way you can reconcile it is in this way. The man who was up here un¬ 
 der those suspicious circumstances which point him out as one of the robbers, (whom Ed- 
 son says was one,) cannot have been Scott, for Scott had a full beard and was lame while 
 this man had a smooth face and no trouble with his walk ; that these men so seen about 
 here so much resembled the defendants, would easily account for the mistake of the Wliit- 
 telsey family under the circumstances of that night ; Edson’s position, his nature, his 
 hope of reward and desire for revenge easily reconcile his statements with the hypothesis 
 of innocence. We ask you to take the evidence as it comes in, then, weigh it fairly in 
 connection with the evidence for the prosecution, remembering the presumption of inuo- 
 cence which is a constant shield to the defendants and the burden of proof by which it 
 must be overcome, and above all things we ask you to bring to the consideration a fair 
 and impartial judgment. 
 
 Friday Afternoon. 
 
 The entire afternoon was spent in reading depositions, and discussing the objections 
 raised on either side. A great portion of the time was spent* in discussing. The court 
 room was. crowded as it had never been before, much the larger part of the audience being 
 ladies. There did not seem to be room for one more person. The weather was oppres¬ 
 sively warm, and much discomfort was endured, but all braved it through to the end. 
 
 The first deposition offered was that of John Berry, alias Meyers, now in the State 
 prison at Auburn, N. Y., serving out a sentence for attempting to rob the Second Na¬ 
 tional Bank of Elmira, N. Y., in 1873. After reading one or two questions and answers, 
 showing that Berry was giving evidence as to Edson’s connection with that attempted 
 robbery, the government objected to its introduction, and the objection was sustained, on 
 the ground that the proving of a conspiracy between Edson and Berry to rob banks, could 
 not disprove the charge of a conspiracy between Edson and Scott and Dunlap. It ap¬ 
 peared from so much of the deposition as was read, that Berry refused to give his full or 
 real name, and that he alleges that himself, Edson and three others were engaged in that 
 robbery. It also appeared, from remarks of defendants’ counsel, that they expected to 
 prove by this deposition a conspiracy between Edson, Berry and parties other than Scott 
 and Dunlap, in pursuance of which the attempt on the Elmira bank was made. In other 
 words, to show that Edson’s testimony that Scott and Dunlap were engaged in that con¬ 
 spiracy was false. 
 
 The second deposition was that of J. Jameson Raphael of New York, bookkeeper for, 
 and manager of the estate of Joseph Potter, deceased. The estate had houses to rent, 
 and rented one—No. 250 West 43d street—to a family by the name of Scott, from Sept. 
 15, 1875, to Feb. 10 or 12, 1876, when they moved out unexpectedly, although the rent 
 was paid in advance to April. He did not know the man Scott, and never saw him, but 
 had been informed that he was the party under arrest for a bank burglary. 
 
 The next deposition was that of Silas D. Herring, of the firm of Herring & Co., safe 
 manufacturers, of New York. The firm made two air pumps for opening safes, from a 
 patent taken in the name of John D. Tarrell, one of the firm, to prevent its use by other 
 parties. The pumps were kept in the basement of Herring & Co.’s store. Edson had 
 been employed by the firm as traveling salesman from 1872 to 1874, at a salary of #2,u00 
 a year, and from 1874 to December, 1876, at a salary of $2,400. He was discharged be¬ 
 cause it did not pay the firm to keep him. A telegram was sent to Edson at Bristol, Ct., 
 on the morning after the robbery, to go to Northampton, see the bank people, and get a 
 certificate from them attesting to the value of the lock. It was then believed by Herring 
 & Co., as it was by the bank officers, that the vault had not been opened, and they wanted 
 a certificate ub to the capacity of their lock to resist burglars. Edson was directed to go 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 43 
 
 to Bristol on Jan. 25, but he did not go until the 26th. On the 24th, he was charged 
 with $50 on the books. 
 
 The next deposition was that of Prof. Jules E. Pstrokonsky, a Russian music teacher, 
 52 years old. He deposed that he knew Mr. and Mrs. Scott. Gave Mrs. Scott lessons in 
 music in January and February, 1876 ; gave her two lessons a week, on Mondays and 
 Thursdays, at 12 M. Took dinner with them every time he gave a lesson in those 
 months. Scott was there at dinner every day I was there. He had a full beard all the 
 time ; “am convinced and almost certain I did not see him during that time without a 
 full beard.” Saw a young man there in January, 1876, apparently a boarder. Did not 
 know who he was. Saw Scott there just before they moved away. Commenced giving 
 lessons to Mrs. Scott June 5, 1875. Became acquainted with her at Hall’s music store. 
 Continued to give her lessons until May, 1876. After moving, she resided at 207 West 
 50th street. First knew Scott in December, 1875. Never knew Scott’s business. Visited 
 Mrs. Scott regularly on Mondays and Thursdays, from June, 1875, to May, 1876, except 
 one or two days, while they were moving. Scott was also present, to the best of my recol¬ 
 lection. when I dined there. It was an invariable rule for me to dine with the Scotts on 
 lesson days. Mrs. Scott spoke to me about going to Northampton as a witness, but after¬ 
 ward said it would not be necessary, as my deposition could be taken. My wife keeps a 
 cigar stand. Scott has always worn a full beard while I have known him. Deponent 
 slept for a while at a barber shop. 
 
 The next deposition was that of Mrs. Eliza Ballou, 65 years of age, a resident of New¬ 
 ark, N. J. In the winter of 1876, she lived on West 50th street, New York. Knew 
 Scott. First saw him in March, 1876. He boarded with us three months. It was “in 
 March or thereabouts” that I first saw him. Here the government objected to the evi¬ 
 dence as immaterial, the time mentioned being indefinite and remote from the time of 
 the robbery. The defense said that the date fixed by the deposition was wrong, and they 
 expected to correct it by a witness present. The Judge ruled that a deposition could not 
 be changed by evidence, and then used as evidence ; it must be admitted as taken and 
 sworn to, or not at all. 
 
 At this point there was considerable talk on the part of the counsel. The defense com¬ 
 plained that the court shut out much of the evidence which they regarded as material. 
 The Judge said, “The government wouldn’t get anything in, if I sustained all of your 
 objections.” 
 
 One of the jurors wanted to go home on Saturday—said it would be $25 loss to him 
 not to go. The Judge said he could not postpone the trial for that reason—he didn’t 
 know but he would give more than that sum to be gone himself. When he got hold of a 
 tough job, he wanted to finish it as soon as possible. He declined to postpone the trial 
 for a day, and decided to go on with it on Saturday. 
 
 Saturday—Sixth Day. 
 
 The reading of the deposition of Mrs. Ballou was resumed. She deposed that Scott 
 had a full beard while at her house in March, or at about that time—am positive of it. 
 He devoted his time to study while with us. Learned nothing as to what his business 
 was. My daughter is carrying on a millinery business at Newark, in my name. Mrs. 
 Scott has no interest in the business. There were several other boarders when Scott 
 boarded with us. 
 
 Patrick McHugh. This witness was a young man, who said he tended a dog and bird 
 bazar at No. 3 Green street. New York. Was there in the fall of ’75 and winter of ’76. 
 Saw Scott there two or three days before the Christmas of 1875. He came to buy a dog, 
 but made no purchase then. Came again December 31, when I saw and talked with him. 
 Saw him at his house the same evening. Went there to take a dog he had purchased. 
 He lived at 250 West 40th street, in a two-story house, with large pillars in front. I en¬ 
 tered the house and saw Scott there. Saw him a day or two over three weeks afterward, 
 at the store, when he brought the dog back. Did not see him after that. In ten or 
 twelve days, Mr. and Mrs. Scott came for the dog. Know this by the charge made for 
 the dog’s board. This was in February. Scott had a beard when I saw him at that time 
 (December, January and February), about as he has now (full, but stout). 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Gillett. Know a man by the name of More. First saw him 
 here. Do not know Butcher McCarty. Work for Mr. Dovey. Had not seen Scott before 
 the Christmas of 1875. Sold another dog that day, to go to Pittsburg. I took the dog 
 
44 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 to the house the same evening the sale was made. Have been in the bird and dog business 
 six years. Am confident that what I hare stated is fact. Mrs. Scott came to see me 
 about this evidence. 
 
 In answer to questions by Mr. Bond, witness said he carried, at the time he took the 
 dog to Scott’s, a bird and cage to another party, on 40th street, and that enables me to 
 fix this date. Think Scott lived on 43d street. Am not positive to whiclr street I took 
 the dog, nor to which street I took the bird and cage—may have got them mixed, but 
 took the dog to Scott’s. 
 
 Miss Amelia Wood. This witness is a good-looking little lady, of about 25 years, 
 sister of Mrs. Scott. She resides at Ellenville, N. Y., and lived with Mrs. Scott in 
 New York in the fall of 1875 and the winter of 1876. Went there in July, 1875. She 
 lived at 108 E. 24th street. I lived there with her until September, then moved to 250 
 W. 43d street, and lived there one month, until January 31st. When I left, they were 
 there. The family consisted of Mr. and Mrs. Scott, Dunlap, myself, and a servant, until 
 after Christmas. Dunlap was in poor health. I thought he had the consumption. 
 Sometimes he took his meals with the family, and sometimes they were sent to his room. 
 In January, 1876, Scott was not away from the house. He sprained his ankle a few days 
 after New Year’s, and was not able to be away. He was at home January 25 and 26. 
 Dunlap was there, and had his meals. Scott had a beard then—am positive of it. He 
 could not go out, if he had wanted to, on account of his sprained ankle. I remember that 
 a boy brought a dog to the house—a New Year’s present from Mrs. Scott. 
 
 Cross-examined. Went to Scott’s in July, 1875, and lived there until January 31, 
 1876. Left Grand Rapids, Mich., where I lived, July 12, and think I must have arrived 
 at Scott’s about the middle of July. Scott was not out of the house in January, 1876, 
 except for a short walk. He sprained his ankle two or three days after New Year's, and 
 did not go out, except to walk around the corner ; was not gone over an hour. Dunlap 
 was sick. He was there when I went there. I did not see him much at first—was not 
 acquainted with him. Knew he was not well. In October he was taking cod liver oil. 
 Had no talk with him about his health. Do not know that Scott and Dunlap had a phy¬ 
 sician, or consulted one. I was employed at upholstering by Kurtz & Bro., Broadway. I 
 am older than Mrs. Scott. 
 
 The next witness was Prof. William J. Ncevius, of New York, teacher of the academic 
 branches, history, arithmetic, geometry, and rhetoric, a man of 50 or 55 years, having a 
 marked individuality. He announced at the outset that his name Naevius was pronounced 
 the same as the Naevius spoken of in the Second Epistle of Horace. Mr. Gillett said to 
 the witness that he made a mistake in pronouncing the word Epistle ; it was not Epistel. 
 The Professor was somewhat disconcerted at this recognition of his literary acquirements. 
 Witness now resides in Brooklyn, but for twenty-five years lived in New York, and on 
 one street 13 years. I met Scott on the 22d of March, 1876. He took lessons of me, and 
 to my best recollection, had just such a bearft then as he has now. Saw Scott about five 
 times a week from that time until the middle of June. In the last of May, I noticed that 
 he had shaved. He manifested serious indications of lameness. When he came to take 
 lessons of me he would take off his shoe and rest his lame foot on a chair. 
 
 Cross-examined. After he had shaved, I think he wore a moustache. I was called 
 upon as to my being a witness, by Mrs. Scott, about three weeks ago. 
 
 Miss Rose Ballou, of Newark, N. J., daughter of the Mrs. Ballou who gave her de¬ 
 position. In the winter of 1876 I resided on 50th street. N. Y., with my mother. First 
 saw Scott February 12, 1876, when he called at my mother’s to procure board. Saw him 
 three times that day. I went to his house, 250 W. 43d street. There saw Mr. Potter, 
 the owner of the house. Scott came to our house to board ; saw him afterward every 
 day. He had a full beard, heavier than the one he wears now, and noticed his lameness, 
 and that he had shaved during the last of May or first of June. Remarked upon it at the 
 time. 
 
 Cross-examined. My age is 27 years. I took charge of the house. I first saw Scott 
 February 1, 1876, when my mother and myself were present. Then I went to his house. 
 Had friends living in that street at that time. We had 4 or 5 boarders. Mr. Schoff 
 boarded there; also, Mrs. Willis and her daughter. Talked with Mr. More about this 
 case. I boarded at his mother-in-law’s house one year, until last April. Am in the 
 millinery business now. Paid $10 a week for board of my mother and mv*elf. from 
 money raised by mortgaging my property. Mother paid the rent. Some of the bills are 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 45 
 
 unpaid—Butchers’, grocers’, and rent bills. Quit keeping house in March, and took a 
 room in 18th street, near 2d avenue, for three weeks—near house of Sec. Fish. Went 
 from there to 12th street, and lived there two weeks, and then went to 119 W. 23d 
 street. Do not know Connors. Went to Newark in April last. Raised some money 
 on property in Sterling, Ill., given me by my sister. Seen More several times in 
 Newark. At one time I took charge of a gentleman’s house for the board of my 
 mother and myself, for two weeks. Had some money left from keeping boarders. 
 
 Marcus A. Decker, of 136 E. 113th street, N. Y., am a piano-tuner for 12 years. 
 In the fall of 1875, was connected with Decker & Bro., piano dealers, the firm con¬ 
 sisting of my father and uncle. On December 14, 1875, we sold Mrs. Scott a piano 
 on installments. I was at Scott’s house in January, 1876, collecting the dues on the 
 piano ; was there on the 15th and on the 25th, as shown by receipts which I gave, 
 and which are now in the possession of Mrs. Scott. On the 25th, found in the bouse 
 Mr. and Mrs. Scott, and Dunlap. Was there at nine o’clock that evening. Was at 
 the house the next night. Saw Scott and Dunlap there then. I was playing on the 
 piano and broke a string, which Mrs. Scott seemed to feel very badly about, as she 
 was to take a lesson on Thursday. I was there the next night, and saw Scott and 
 Dunlap there. Called there on my way up from Bleeker street, and stopped for dinner. 
 Arrived there between 6 and 7, and repaired the string. Scott and Dunlap were there. 
 Scott had a beard on the 25th and 26th, a little longer than his beard is now. Have 
 never seen him without a beard. Have known him four years. Seen him in Winters. 
 Saw him January 15, in the morning. He had a beard then. He was lame on the 
 26th ; knew it, because when I repaired the piano-string he was in my way. Of this 
 I am positive. Took dinner with him on the 26th. 
 
 Cross-examined. The firm of Decker & Bro., has been out of existence a year. I am 
 working now for' my uncle ; do inside tuning. There was a lawsuit between Decker & 
 Bro. and Decker Bros, as to which should use the name. Saw Scott once or twice a 
 week about four years ago, at my house. Never saw Connors. Did not see Scott during 
 the summer. Next saw him in 1876, when he came to my store on Bleeker street. That 
 was January 14, 1876. Rented Mrs. Scott a piano, which she has now. Do not know 
 
 that it is paid for. The piano sold him in 1873 has been paid for. I frequently 
 
 run into Scott’s to dine and lunch. In 1873 I learned that Scott and his 
 
 wife were married. Saw Mrs. S. at my store just after May; also saw her a couple 
 
 of months afterward ; did not see her frequently previous to her marriage. Lunched 
 at Scott’s November half a dozen times, after the others were through. Scott was 
 lame on January 14. Mrs. Scott was a favorite in my mother’s family, and used to 
 call there frequently. 
 
 At this point, half past 12, the matter of adjournment was brought up. Mr. Gillett 
 stated that he had an engagement on Monday in a case that had already been postponed 
 once. Mr. Leonard said he was willing to assent to the wishes of Mr. Gillett, and the 
 Judge ordered an adjournment of the court to Tuesday, July 24 at 10 o’clock. 
 
 Tuesday—Seventh Day. 
 
 An hour before the assembling of the court, this morning, the crowd began to gather 
 in front of the court-house, and for an hour blocked up the walk for a distance of several 
 rods. When the court opened, at ten o’clock, the court-room was crowded to its greatest 
 capacity, about one-half the audience consisting of ladies, of whom a considerable portion 
 were young girls. Mrs. Scott and Miss Ballou, witnesses for the defense, were seated near 
 the witness stand. 
 
 Mr. Bond called upon the witness Decker to identify the contract msde between Decker 
 and Mrs. Scott in December, 1875, for the piano, and also the receipts given for the 
 payments made, including those given on Jan. 15th and 25th, and them offered them in 
 evidence. Mr. Gillett objected to the admission of the receipts, and the court ruled 
 them out. 
 
 Silas S. Packard. I have charge of a business college in New York, formerly Bryant 
 & Stratton’s. Have had charge of it for 18 years, and had more or less to do with hand¬ 
 writings for 30 years, Have published works on penmanship. Mr. Packard gave it as 
 his opinion that the order written by Scott to Detective Franklin when he was arrested. 
 
46 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 and the directions on the letters written to the bank respecting negotiations for the return 
 of the securities, were not written by the same person, as Payne the expert had testified 
 to, and gave his reasons for that opinion at considerable length. Witness also thought 
 the telegram sent from Wilkesbarre and signed by R. C. Hill, was not written by Dunlap, 
 judging by his signature to the order. On cross-examination, witness said the superscrip¬ 
 tions on the letters were in a disguised hand, but the body of the order (written by Scott) 
 and the signature of Dunlap to the order (written by Dunlap) were disguised. Mr. 
 Gillett pointed out certain letters in the different writings, and the witness admitted that 
 there was in them a similarity ; in some it was marked. I have been twice a witness in 
 cases involving handwritings, but testified only once. 
 
 Julius Davis, of 311 Broome street, New York, a Jew, was sworn with his hat on. 
 Been in this country 13 or 14 years. Have known Scott 3 or 4 years. Have done work 
 for him. In Jauuary, 1876, altered a dress coat to a swallow tail. Mrs. Scott came down 
 for me, and I went up to the house. Carried the coat back on Feb. 7th. Did some work 
 for another man at Scott’s. Took both garments back on Feb. 7th, my birthday. Mr. 
 Scott gave me a cane at that time. Mrs. Scott came for me on a Sunday, and I went on 
 the next Monday. Scott had a beard at that time—beard was a little bigger than it is 
 now. 
 
 Cross-examined. Have done work for Scott 3 or 4 years, and done business for him. 
 Made no clothing for him, only repairing. Been to his house on 43d street several times, 
 more than five times. It was in February that I carried the clothes back. The first time 
 I went to his house he lived in Brooklyn. Canuot tell the street. Do not know the 
 street. Went there only once while he lived in Brooklyn. The next time I went, he 
 lived in New Y r ork, at East 17th street. Went there four or five times. The next time 
 I went, he lived on 43d street. Scott never gave a present before. Mrs. Scott’s mother 
 and my wife are sisters. I have been intimate with Scott’s family, aivl know Mrs. Scott 
 since she was a girl. Saw Scott on Feb. 7th, on the second floor. When I took them from 
 him he was up stairs. Do not employ any hands. My room is in the basement. Do not 
 remember what day it was when I took the clothes back. It was half past seven in the 
 evening. Saw Mrs. Scott then. 
 
 In reply to Mr. Bond, witness said he could not tell whether Dunlap was the man he 
 saw there or not, but he thought he was. Questioned by Mr. Gillett : It was dark when 
 I took the clothes from the house, and I could not see who the man was. 
 
 Deputy Sheriffs Potter and Munyan testified that they had never noticed any shrug of 
 Scott's shoulders since they had been guarding the prisoners at the jail. Munyan has 
 been on guard there every day since soon after they were brought to the jail, and Potter 
 has been there more or less. 
 
 Close of the Defense. 
 
 At this point, 11.15 this A. M., the defense closed very unexpectedly. The multitude 
 had expected that Mrs. Scott would be put upon the stand, and great was their disap¬ 
 pointment. 
 
 Decker, recalled. Went to 43d street half a dozen times in January, to buy pianos of 
 Schaffer. Sold 50 to 75 pianos a year. Name of my firm Decker A B .other. That firm 
 continued 8 or 10 years. The old firm was Decker Brothers. The name of the firm was 
 put on the front of the piano. Did not manufacture the pianos. Had a right to put it 
 there. Witness referred to a book, which Mr. Gillett had, containing a letter written by 
 witness. Letter was written for him to sign, and he signed it. Witness was asked what 
 right he had to put the name of Decker Brothers on the pianos sold by Decker & Bro. 
 I said in the letter I had no right to put the name of Decker Bros, on the pianos I sold. 
 I was not arrested for that; never was arrested for any offense or any charge. I never 
 manufactured pianos. A part of the answer I put into that suit was true, and a part 
 untrue. Have been in attendance here two weeks. Mrs. Scott was here last week also, 
 and Mr. Moore. Miss Ballou here, too, and “that Professor, whose name is inscribed in 
 Horace.” Was here when the first case closed. Our firm gave no pianos to any one. 
 Gave none to any one. My name was on the pay-roll of the secret service. Was paid $3 
 a day. My father got my name there. Col. Whiteley and Mr. Nettleship had pianos, but 
 paid for them. They may have had some influence in getting my name on the pay-roll. 
 They were tried for the safe burglary in Washington. Never heard that these two men 
 were kicked out of office. 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 47 
 
 Stunning Evidence for the Prosecution. 
 
 Maggie Emerich. German servant girl. Live in Tremont Center, Sullivan County, 
 N. Y.; know Mr. and Mrs. Scott. Lived in their family February 7, 1876. Went there 
 February 7, and lived there six days, until February 12. I recognize Mr. Scott ; the man 
 who sits beside him (Dunlap) I also recognize; his name is Barton. Saw Scott the day 1 
 went there ; saw him at breakfast ; he came there the evening before. Saw him February 
 8, at about 9 P. M. Scott, Barton and Connors came to dinner together. -Saw Connors 
 Thursday morning. He rang the door-bell ; I went to the door and let him in. I knocked 
 on Scott’s door and told him Billy was there. Connors went into Scott’s room. There 
 was a sudden breaking up of the family. Scott was out this Friday evening. Barton was 
 at home. I saw both some part of the day in the morning ; they went out after zinc 
 trunks. Friday, Mrs. Scott came down and asked me to help her pack, as she had 
 trouble about the house and was going to move. I helped her pack to the last moment. 
 Barton was in the room while we were packing ; Barton and Scott packed on the floor 
 Barton slept on. Some zinc trunks were brought in ; I can’t say how many. Scott was 
 not lame that week. I noticed him frequently ; I never noticed him lame while I was 
 there. I don’t know what Billy did with them. Mrs. Scott engaged me for a month. 
 Mr. Scott had no beard while I was there, only a moustache. He was not there when I 
 went there, but came on Thursday. Connors was a stout man, tall, with a moustache 
 and a burned mark on his cheek ; he wore a tall hat, and had a yellow cane. Scott paid 
 the rent when they left, to a man in his room ; no lady was there at the time ; Miss Ballou 
 was not there ; I never saw her ; Barton was not sick ; I never heard anything of his being 
 sick. There was no cross-examination. 
 
 Mrs. Mary McKeever, another German servant girl. I worked for Mr. anc^ Mrs. Scott 
 in the latter part of January and beginning of February, 1876. I have seen Scott 
 and Barton before ; I saw Scott the first night I went there, in the dining-room ; 
 there was Mr. and Mrs. Scott, Mr. Barton, and Miss Wood. She was there half a day, 
 and went away the day I came, and I stayed there a month and five days. I saw 
 Maggie there the Sunday after I went there. I stayed four days after she came. I 
 didn’t stop there. I saw Scott and Barton almost every day. Scott was not lame and 
 Barton was not in ill health. A gentleman named Connors used to call. I used to 
 see him every morning ; I never was in the room to hear what they had to say. When 
 he first called he told me to tell Mr. Scott that Billy wanted to see him ; he went 
 into the back parlor where they slept; 'recognize this photograph ; that is Mr. 
 Connors ; this one is of Mrs. Scott ; Mr. Scott only had a moustache at that time. 
 While I was there Scott was home almost every day. I missed him from the house 
 from Saturday night until Wednesday evening, when I let him in. No cross-examina¬ 
 tion. 
 
 Edson, recalled Asked if he ever heard Scott explain why he left his house in 43d 
 street. Said Scott told him on the night of Tuesday following the visit to Springfield 
 with Connors, that had he known as much then as now, he would not have moved, as lie 
 was afraid they would find him through the gas office. When he came to pay his bill, 
 however, he found they had his name wrong, and there was no danger. 
 
 Detective Pinkerton , recalled. (Shown a letter.) Have you seen this letter before ; 
 got it from Mrs. Scott, at her house on Washington Place. She said it was her husband's. 
 (Letter excluded.) 
 
 L. B. Williams, recalled. I heard Maggie’s description of Connors. Was asked what 
 sort of a looking man Connors was, and the question was ruled out. 
 
 Tuesday Afternoon. 
 
 Mr. Gillett called attention to the fact that the account book of the Polish music- 
 teacher, who gave Mrs. Scott lessons, does not show that he was at Scott’s house at any 
 time in January 1876. Cashier Whittelsey, recalled, testified that at the preliminary 
 examination evidence was given as to Scott’s shrug. Serena, the New York coachman, 
 recalled, testified that Miss Rose Ballon rode out with Mr. Scott in the fall of 1874. This 
 was a square contradiction of Miss Ballou, who, being recalled by the defense, denied 
 Serena’s statement with groat indignation and scorn. 
 
 This closed the evidence on both sides, and at half past two Mr. Leonard commenced 
 his argument, speaking two hours and forty-five minutes. 
 
48 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 Argument of Hon. N. A. Leonard, of Springfield, for the Defense. 
 
 May it please your Honor, and you Gentlemen of the Jury : 
 
 None of you can appreciate the reluctance with which I entered into the defense of this 
 suit. I was applied to within twelve working hours of the time that the case was set 
 down for a hearing. I was almost entirely ignorant of the evidence upon the one side 
 and the other, and I confess I had so far imbibed the public prejudice against these un¬ 
 fortunate defendants as to disqualify me for a seat upon that panel. But I was appealed 
 to in behalf oftwo young men who had involved in the hazard of this trial all that was 
 precious for good and hopeful in their lives. They had been deserted by their senior 
 counsel ; they stood convicted at the bar of this court of another great crime, and they 
 were to be tried again by a jury drawn from a community where they thought every man’s 
 hand and every man’s face was against them. And I should have been false to my own 
 feelings, I should have dishonored the profession to which I belong, if I had not promised 
 that, as far as was in my power, they should have a fair trial and a patient hearing. I 
 thought I could promise in behalf of this court and His Honor who presides over it, and 
 of you who were to fill this panel, that, at least, they should have a fair and impartial 
 trial ; and that your judgment should be a shield, protecting them until, beyond a rea¬ 
 sonable doubt, their guilt was established by abundant and b} honest testimony. 
 
 There is no doubt, gentlemen, that Mr. Whittelsey’s house was broken into on the 
 night of the 25th of January, 1876. There is no doubt that the scene which he describes, 
 and which the others describe, as having taken place there, actually occurred. But the 
 government charges upon these two men that they w r ere present and participated in that 
 burglary. Of this they are to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt. The degree of 
 proof is to be measured something by the penalty which follows conviction. The penalty 
 is the severest known to our laws, for it is imprisonment for life. This terrible issue is 
 now upon your consciences for decision, and from your judgment there is no appeal. As 
 jurors, as citizens, as Christians, it is your right, it is your duty, to require of the govern¬ 
 ment that they shall prove the truth of their charges beyond a reasouable doubt by 
 adequate, by plain, by abundant testimony, so that there can be no doubt left upon your 
 minds now, or to vex your consciences in the future. Have the government done this ? 
 At the very threshold of the argument I put it to you, as to your first impressions, have 
 the government borne the burden and carried the conviction to your consciences and to 
 you hearts by which you may give a satisfactory verdict in its favor ? The govern¬ 
 ment, gentlemen, have produced here two classes of witnesses. One is the accomplice 
 Edson, and the other comes from the family of Mr. Whittelsey, and a few other stray wit¬ 
 nesses that have been pikced np iu this and the neighboring county. 
 
 I pass by, for the present, the worthless testimony of the worthless Edson, and I shall 
 ask you to consider, in the first place, the testimony that has been produced here by Mr. 
 Whittelsey and his family, by Mr. Holt, by Mr. and Mrs. Crafts, by Mr. Mantor, and one 
 or two others. This crime which we are trying was committed iu January, 1876. Thir¬ 
 teen months afterwards, these two prisoners, now at the bar, were arrested. Their arrest 
 was heralded all over the country, by every avenue that popular opinion is reached or pub¬ 
 lic prejudice is made ; and every effort made to fix that prejudice upon these men as the 
 guilty parties. They were brought here to Northampton. Every man, every woman, 
 and every child, of this town, whom curiosity or interest might provoke, were invited to 
 examine them. If they had ever been in this town, either in the day or in the night 
 time, they would have been in their ordinary dress, walking without fear through your 
 streets and entering your shops. Covering over a period of six months that has been 
 mentioned as the preparation for this burglary, and yet, gentlemen, in the whole town of 
 Northampton there was not a man or woman to be found who could say upon his or her 
 conscience that their eyes ever rested upon them before. If there was to be identification 
 from impartial and unconcerned witnesses, it was an entire failure. But it becomes es¬ 
 sential to their conviction, and to secure the large reward that was offered for their con¬ 
 viction, that identification should be complete. 
 
 It was then determined that Mr. Whittelsey should be brought forward. Mr. Whit¬ 
 telsey, is an honest man, and it was thought that he and his family could complete the 
 work which none other would undertake. Mr. W hittelsey, it was arranged, was to go to 
 the jail for the purpose of identifying these men. He and his family talked it over, and, 
 under the protection and the guide of the officers, they were to go to the jail to identify 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 49 
 
 these men'by their voices. They started with no other idea. Mr. and Mrs. Whittelsey, 
 Mrs. Page and Mr. and Mrs. Cutler and the servant, under the guidance of the ever pres¬ 
 ent and ever active Pinkerton, started to the jail with the purpose of identifying these 
 people by their voices. Mr. Whittelsey went with his paper and his pencil in hand, gen¬ 
 tlemen. It was pre-ordained that he should identify them. It was written out as his 
 purpose, when he stood with pencil and paper in his hand, that he was to identify them 
 by the words which he was to take down. Of course, they identified them. Why, the 
 whole attempt would have been a failure, the whole scheme would have fallen to the 
 ground, Mr. Whittelsey’s paper and Mr. Whittelsey’s pencil would have been useless, if 
 he did not recognize them by their voices, because every other plan of identification had 
 failed. But did he do it ? Did he do it, gentlemen ? He tells you he did. And, gen¬ 
 tlemen, Mr. Whittelsey is an upright and conscientious man, and he was not satisfied 
 then, nor do I believe he is satisfied now, that he identified them. He tells you that the 
 first time he did, but he went there again and again. He tells you that he went there the 
 next day and, I think, the day after ; and that he went finally for the purpose, as he says, 
 of strengthening his opinion and his statement, because he was not satisfied ; that he 
 might listen to them in order to make sure he had identified them, or to quiet the admo¬ 
 nitions of his own conscience that he was taking more upon himself than he ought to take. 
 How about Mrs. Whittelsey ? She claims to identify their voices. How about Mrs. 
 Page ? She comes to you with a woman’s reason and with a woman's prejudice, and she 
 says, “I thought and I felt that that was Scott’s voice.” You see her feelings ran ahead 
 of her judgment. Her judgment followed her feelings, and when she thought that that 
 was Scott’s voice, and went there with those feelings in her heart, she could hear no other 
 voice than the one she imagined she heard that night in her room. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, let us look a little at this. If Scott was there on the night of Janu¬ 
 ary 25th, or if any other man was there and talking to Mr. and Mrs. Whittelsey and Mrs. 
 Page, you may rest assured that they were not addressing them in their ordinary voices. 
 If they came there that night, they were under strong excitement and great passion, and 
 we know that passion and excitement engraft themselves upon, and express themselves in 
 the human voice. They were there with their voices covered up and smothered up under 
 the masks they wore, some of them had mouth-pieces cut in them, and some of them did 
 not. When they heard Scott, they did not know the man that addressed them in his 
 strong passion and in his might on that night of January 25. They heard a man confined 
 in your jail, appealing to the officers for a favor. Hope, if he was guilty, had gone out of 
 his heart. The firmness of his tones had disappeared from his voice, and I tell you, it is 
 preposterous for us to suppose that the strong, passionate voice of the night of January 
 25, 1876, smothered under the masks, could have been detected in the persuasive, in the 
 imploring, in the subdued, voice That was asking of the officers that held them in prison, 
 for a favor. 
 
 Now, how in fact did Mrs. Page feel about these men ? We know how Mr. Whittelsey 
 felt. We know that after he assures you that he recognized that voice he went there 
 again and again an unsatisfied man. How did Mrs. Whittelsey and Mrs. Page talk 
 about it in their private conversations at home P Mr. Whittelsey tells you that they were 
 not positive about it ; that they were not so positive, and yet Mrs. Page comes here 
 under the pressure and excitenrent of this trial and tells you that she thinks and feels that 
 is Scott’s voice, but in the privacy and confidence of their domestic life at home, they dis¬ 
 cussed it, and Mrs. Page expressed the doubts which she had. Now, gentlemen, how 
 much does this sort of testimony weigh in your minds ? How much weight, in view of the 
 importance which this case is to these two young men, are you going to give to the recollec¬ 
 tions of the voices spoken under those circumstances and carried in the minds or the fan¬ 
 cies of these people for more than a year ? And, too, as that voice was in its strong pas¬ 
 sion, and its smothered tones, repeated as they think it was in the imploring accents of 
 the prisoner in his cell. Try it by your own experience. Put to it the test that my broth¬ 
 er Bond gave you last week. Recollect, if you please, those men that came upon the 
 stand for jurymen and were challenged one after another, and tell me if you can remem¬ 
 ber and discriminate their voices. What sort of a voice has Scott now ? You heard him 
 the other day. What sort of a voice has Dunlap now ? That you surely remember and 
 carry in your recollection as he challenged the men or admitted them to the panel who 
 [ are to sit upon his life. Does one of you remember the tones of his voice ? Does one of 
 you remember the tones in which he announced his choice of men for this panel last 
 
50 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 week, and can you tell what they were, or would you be able to recognize them thirteen 
 months afterwards when he should be speaking in the calmness and quiet in which he has 
 a right to be able to speak ? Which of you, gentlemen, would know my natural voice, and 
 would recognize it ? You have heard me here in this court-room, speak under the excite¬ 
 ment which a trial always produces ? Which of you gentlemen knows my ordinary conver¬ 
 sational voice, and with what tones I should turn to a man asking from him a favor ? I 
 venture to say, gentlemen, that to-morrow morning, if I was locked in an adjoining room, 
 and you were asked to recognize my conversational tone of voice, not one of you from 
 hearing me here in the excitement of this trial, would recoguize my ordinary conversa¬ 
 tional tones ; and would you confirm and corroborate the testimony of Edson by the belief 
 that Whittelsey and Mrs. Page carried in their ears and their brains either the words that 
 were spoken or the tones of voice in which they were spoken on that fearful night to them? 
 But, gentlemen, where are the other witnesses to this identification ? Where are those 
 witnesses who had least to fear, aud were most calm on that terrible night ? Why is it that 
 the government seeking a fair trial has suppressed them ? Where are Mr. and Mrs. Cutler 
 and the servant who had no connection with that bank and no fear of it ? Why have the 
 government not summoned them here that you may have a real and true test of what voices 
 were spoken in their presence ? I have waited, and did wait in the early part of this trial, 
 for them to produce these witnesses, but not once has the government intimated that 
 there were other witnesses that they might have called, who would give evidence in regard 
 to the voices of these men. They had never admitted to you that there were other wit¬ 
 nesses who had no fear, whose bank was not to be robbed, who lives were not threatened ; 
 who never once recognized these men, or attempted to recollect their voices. I know, 
 gentlemen, I know it will be suggested that Mr. and Mrs. Whittelsey and Mrs. Page were 
 under intense excitement ; that their whole intellects were stimulated, that they were so 
 aroused as to be capable of taking hold of and retaining in their memories scenes and inci¬ 
 dents that took place on that night as they could not on any other occasion. Now, Mrs. 
 Page tells you that she was unusually calm ; this maiden lady into whose bed-chamber a 
 masked man entered at midnight, tells you she was frightened but for a moment, and 
 Whittelsey, who was there being pounded, aud punched, and threatened, and heard the 
 plaintive cries of his wife, tells you that he was specially on the alert. But, gentlemen, 
 how does their evidence prove their calmness, and alertness ? Take if you please, Mr. 
 Whittelsey, who tells you that he was so alert, and he cannot tell you how a man was dress¬ 
 ed. He cannot tell you what sort of a mask was upon any man’s face, nor the color of it, 
 nor the material, nor whether there were holes for the eyes, or nose, or mouth, or not at 
 all. Take Mrs. Page, and she cannot, though woman she is, describe the dress of any 
 of these people, except, she says, the taller man had on a duster. Gentlemen, which is 
 the taller man ? Her iden till cation, gentlemen, so completely fails, that she cannot de¬ 
 scribe the size and the higlit of this next smaller man, and in reply to Mr. Bond, she 
 says, there may have been a difference in the hight of the next to the shortest, and the | 
 tall man, that there was to the length of that paper, (holding a paper in his hands.) That 
 is all she knows. He was live or six feet high. And this is the woman whose intellect 
 was so aroused, who was so calm and dispassionate, that she cannot tell the difference of 
 the hight of people between five or six feet, how they were dressed, how masked, or 
 whether they wore brown or white masks, whether they had a space as broad as my hand 
 for the eyes to look through, or none at all, whether they had a place as broad as my hand 
 for the mouth to breathe through, or not at all. I submit to you, gentlemen, that the i 
 testimony of Mr. Whittelsey, and Mr. Whittelsey’s family, is utterly worthless ; that there 
 is no rule by which it is entitled to any weight here at all; for, if these people were so 
 paralyzed by fear, as 1 think they were, so paralyzed by fear that they could not recognize 
 the masks or dress of these people, or hight of them, they were far too paralyzed to catch 
 the tone of their voices and carry it in their recollections for a year. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, there is one other phase of this testimony that I think is worthy of 
 consideration. Mrs. Whittelsey says that she still looked with great interest upon these 
 men, and she marked.Scott by the peculiar shrug of his shoulders, and the peculiar round¬ 
 ness of his shoulders. Mark you, gentlemen, if you please, if the rest of their story is to ■ 
 be believed, Scott that night was dressed with a cap that came tight over his face and 
 eyes, and nose, with an open place for the mouth, of which they did not speak, but ac¬ 
 cording to their theory, he was dressed in a loose, brown sack, and they tell you that there 
 was a peculiar shrug of his shoulders and a peculiar form of his shoulders, that in the few 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 51 
 
 minutes that he was before Mrs. Whittelsey she saw it and recognized it as a nervous habit 
 by which she expected to identify him in a future time. Gentlemen, here is Scott before 
 you. He has been here a week, and I ask yon what is the peculiar roundness and form 
 about his shoulders that distinguishes him from any other six foot man. Then, she says, 
 there was a peculiar shrug to his shoulders that she saw that night. It was a habit, it 
 was a tiling that she marked him by that night. Gentlemen, when Scott was brought 
 into this bar and placed before you, he ran the risk that attaches to habit. He could no 
 more conceal it than I could conceal from you any habit that belongs to me. If it was a 
 nervous habit, he could no more control it than he could the winking of his eyes. He 
 took the risk, and I venture to say that upon this panel there is not a man who has seen 
 the habit shown in him once. I venture to say that the habit alleged has not been found. 
 Mrs. Whittelsey further, gentlemen, says that she not only recognized it on that night, 
 but as soon as he was brought to the bar of the magistrate. I dwell upon this, because it 
 is a test by which you may test them. Because you may apply to Mr. and Mrs. Whittel¬ 
 sey the test which they apply to Scott. It is the only test that is furnished us to test them 
 by ; and the evidence comes here from the lips of by no means willing witnesses, or friendly 
 to the unfortunate people who are before you, and they tell you that iu all the time they 
 have been with them and in the time they have guarded over them, in all their attendance 
 at this trial, in all their watching at the jail, they have never noticed that shrug of the 
 shoulders which both Mr. and Mrs. Whittelsey discovered that evening. I say the proba¬ 
 bilities are against Mr. and Mrs. Whittelsey’s testimony, and I say that when we bring 
 their test into court and look for the marks upon the prisoners which they say were there, 
 they are not to be found, and they never have been found, we then take this testimony to 
 ourselves, and it is ours. For I tell you, gentlemen, that the men that broke into that 
 house that night did have that peculiar roundness of the shoulders, and that peculiar 
 shrug of the shoulders. Where is that man with the nervous hitch which he could not 
 control ? Where is that man that this Edson called Scott, with the shrug that he could 
 not conceal when he wanted to conceal the habit ? Now, if this evidence does not make 
 for the prosecution, it makes for us. It goes further, and certifies that he was not there. 
 We claim it then as our own. We claim it as one of the trial proofs in the case, that the 
 man who was there is not the man who has been arraigned at this bar. I forgot to say, 
 and it is a pity for it that it should escape your recollection, that Mr. Edson says he has 
 a shrug. 1 do not doubt that Edson knows the man with the shrug of the shoulder. 
 Now, gentlemen, Mr. and Mrs. Whittelsey are very nice people, they are very conscien¬ 
 tious and upright people, and would not, for the world, I doubt not, harm these two 
 young men intentionally; but they have talked this matter over so much, they have sus¬ 
 tained and built up each other’s belief, they have fortified and concentrated each other’s 
 impressions for a fact, that while they mean to be honest and just, they have gone so far 
 as to swear to that which they believe existed, but which never existed. It is not per¬ 
 jury, it is not false swearing, but it is the result of a mental process that we see so often, 
 in which a man comes to believe what he wants to believe. I think, then, with safety we 
 may pass by the testimony of these people. I think we are all convinced that, however 
 good and honest the Whittelseys may be, they cannot furnish us any help against these 
 men. Whatever they have contributed towards the general deliverance, I thank them 
 for, and so far as they have identified the real culprits I am glad of it, but when they at¬ 
 tempt to put the stamp upon either of these men, we say they are mistaken, however 
 honest they are. 
 
 We come now, gentlemen, to some other outside and confirmatory testimony of Mr. 
 and Mrs. Whittelsey, since that is thought, on the part of the government, to point out 
 these men as the real culprits. There is the testimony of Mr. Holt, of Springfield. Any 
 °f yon, gentlemen, who know him as well as I know him, might naturally have expected 
 him here. He is a wonderful man to see things, and find things out, and if I was to des¬ 
 ignate who in this emergency should be summoned here to recognize these people, I should 
 think Holt, of all people, would be first. Mr. Holt sees them under the most peculiar 
 circumstances. Early in the morning they are wandering about Springfield in ulster coats 
 and silk hats, just where the people do most congregate, just in the depot where police 
 officers are most numerous, and just the spot that suspicious characters avoid, he finds 
 and he places these men. I hope you are all acquainted with the city of Springfield. Just 
 below the railroad depot is Hampden street, filled up with wholesale stores, and perhaps 
 next to the Main street, is the busiest street in Springfield, certainly one where the largest 
 
52 
 
 TBIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 wholesale business is done. I think it rather strange, I confess to my mind it appears 
 strange, that these two men, after wandering about the station, should pass down and 
 turn down Hampden street and meet three other strangers, in a great thoroughfare, and 
 hold their conference there about the burglary they were going to commit that night or 
 the next. Why didn’t they go to the City Hall ? Why didn’t they go where the bank 
 meetiugs are held ? If any man goes there, he is supposed to be a purchaser, and he is 
 followed like any other trader going into a wholesale street. I am sure in such a place 
 as that at nine or ten o’clock in the morning, rogues do not congregate for the purpose of 
 counselling over a bank robbery, that they propose to commit. And just see how this 
 thing works. The identification is complete. Mr. Holt sees them with ulster coats and 
 silk hats in the morning, and Mrs. Crafts comes to the stand and is equally positive that 
 it is Dunlap dressed in a tight fitting surtout, in the afternoon. Eighteen months after¬ 
 wards she comes upon the stand and her recollections are as we have learned. Why, gen¬ 
 tlemen, do you suppose that those gentlemen were travelling with a large amount of bag¬ 
 gage, so that they could make these changes in their clothing ? If Holt saw them in the 
 morning, Mrs. Crafts did not see them in the afternoon, and if Mrs. Crafts did in the after¬ 
 noon, Holt did not see them in the morning. And, then, I take it that these steady¬ 
 going, nerveless burglars who commit crime without conscience, and without fear, don’t 
 go bobbing from one seat to another in a railway car, making so much noise and fuss as 
 to attract the attention of every traveler. Then there is another identification. It is a ! 
 funny one. It is very much like the rest, to be sure, but it is a somewhat amusing one, | 
 about which the government itself has made some fun and expressed some doubt. Mr. 
 Crafts meets one of these men, and has scarcely any doubt about it, on the 14th day of 
 January, 1876, at nine o’clock in the morning. He met a man dressed in an ulBter coat, 
 as he says, near Mr. Whittelsey’s house. 
 
 How, if it was Scott or Dunlap, if Edson is an honest man, if Mr. Whittelsey is to be 
 believed, if these men knew anything about Northampton, they knew about the old bank 
 and where Mr. Whittelsey lived. And yet Mr. Crafts tells you that on January 14, at 
 nine o’clock in the morning, he meets a man whom he recognizes as Scott, and Scott asks 
 him where Mr. Whittelsey lives ; asks him what family lives with him ; talks with him 
 right opposite the house at that hour of the morning. I did not wonder that the District 
 Attorney turned to him with surprise, and inquired if it was a fair day, a light day. 
 Why, gentlemen, Mr. Field was surprised himself, out of his self-possession, that a 
 witness should come here and tell you that Scott met him at nine o’clock in the 
 morning, and asked him about Mr. Whittelsey’s family and who resided with him. 
 The thing was so preposterous that Mr. Field turned to him and says, was it a light 
 day ? Then, there comes a Mr. Mantor, about whom I know nothing, and about 
 whom it is not necessary that I should say much. All that he can swear to is that he 
 met a couple of men in the early part of February in front of Mr. Whittelsey’s house, 
 gesticulating about the house with great violence, “ with great movement of the body ” 
 as his peculiar and somewhat characteristic expression. Why, gentlemen, it seems that 
 while this man Mantor was approaching, these men did not hear him, and they stood 
 there in front of Mr. Whittelsey’s house, gesticulating with great violence and movement 
 of the body, and they waited until he came up and took a full view of them. He 
 thinks he recognizes Scott, he said, but he carried with him no recollection of the other 
 man. 
 
 Then we have one other witness, and we are done with that sort of identifiction, and 
 that is West Sexton, and perhaps his brother. Mr. West Sexton of Springfield, who is 
 clerk in a hotel in the upper part of the city, where two men came on Monday night, 
 leaving the next morning. He came upon the stand, a wonderfully wise young man. 
 He said he looked these people all over. He purposed to impress ns with the solemnity 
 and with the strength of his recollection. They had no register, and he looked them all 
 over, and what did he discover ? Not a thing, He said that he could not tell how they 
 were dressed, except he had on a business suit and a heavy overcoat. It was in the month 
 of February, and I wonld like to know who in that month, would not wear a heavy over¬ 
 coat, if he had one. That was his identification of the men. He looked them over. He 
 could not tell you the color of their eyes, nor the length of the hair; he could tell you nothing 
 about their persons, except one single thing, that single exception, that in the month of 
 February when there was sleighing, the sharpest month of the year, they wore heavy 
 overcoats. 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 53 
 
 Now, gentlemen, all of these witnesses say that^the man who came up here during the 
 month of February had no beard. Holt, Mr. Crafts, Mr. Mantor, Mr. Sexton, every one 
 of these persons, say that the man whom they saw here in the month of January and 
 February, who attracted their attention, when they were looking after bank robbers and 
 when they were not, had no beard, and it may be true that there was such a man here. 
 It may be true that there was a tall man with a heavy ulster and a beardless cheek 
 wandering about here in the month of January’or February, but that wasn’t Scott. It is 
 possibly true that such a man was here, with a shrug to his shoulders and a peculiar 
 roundness to it, with a moustache upon his face, and without a beard, but that was not 
 Scott. That is the other man, and those are the other men we are going to talk about 
 by and by ; and if it proves anything, if you believe Mr. and Mrs. Whittelsey, if you 
 believe Mr. Holt, if you believe Mr. Crafts, if you believe Mr. Mantor, if you believe Mr. 
 Sexton, then I tell you that they have got the wrong man, for the man whom they saw is 
 not the man arraigned at your bar. Believe as you please, they have put certain ear¬ 
 marks on him, they have stamped him with their stamp, they have endowed him with 
 habits, they have clothed him with dress, they have painted his picture at their will and 
 at their memory, and we bring forward our man, and we place him beside the photograph 
 they have prepared for you, and they are mistaken. Not one or the characteristics which 
 they give to these men have we here, and as I think I shall prove it before we have 
 finished, that the men whom they saw on the night of the 25th, whom they saw 
 in Springfield on the morning of the 25th, whom Mrs. Crafts saw in the cars on the 
 afternoon of the 25th, and who was seen on February 14th, have'not any of the signs that 
 they have seen fit to stamp upon them. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I say and I think I am justified in saying, that up to this point there 
 has been a complete failure on the part of the government; that so far as we have pro¬ 
 gressed in the review of this testimony there has been a woful failure, if these men are 
 guilty, in proving their guilt. Gentiemen, if anything has been done, there has been 
 great strength thrown forward to show the innocence of these men in the complete failure 
 of the government. The whole strength of the government case, of the government’s 
 testimony, as presented in this case, comes from the testimony of Edson. There is 
 nothing about it from beginning to end, unless Edson makes it. And Edson, at the 
 threshold disqualifies himself as a witness. He says that he was an accomplice, and every 
 honest and upright juror seeking to punish wrong and protect the innocent, demands as 
 every conscientious juryman should demand that a verdict should not be asked of him, 
 unless it was sustained by pure and honest testimony. I say Mr. Edson’s testimony is 
 worthless, and he himself is disqualified. The experience of all men and of all courts, is 
 that the liberties and lives of the citizens cannot be trusted to the keeping of criminals. 
 I repeat, the testimony and experience of all times and of alFmen is, that the lives and 
 liberties of the citizens cannot safely be trusted into the keeping of the criminals. 
 Hatred, desire for revenge, the love of reward, the fear of punishment, are motives which 
 bring out the confession and the testimony of the hardened criminal ; even of the best of 
 the criminals. Even of those who have fallen into temptation once, and in moments of 
 repentence seek to get back to paths of virtue, the courts tell you their lips are soiled and 
 their testimony worthless, unless it is substantiated and corroborated by honest testimony. 
 But of all the criminals that you and I ever saw, this Edson is the worst and the blackest. 
 Other men have committed great crimes in great passion and excitement, but Edson, in 
 the variety, in the number, in the hardness, in the meanness, in the treachery of his 
 crimes, has surpassed them all. From his own confession he is a thief, by his own 
 hardened confession he is a liar. Unblushingly, in the presence of this court 
 'and this jury, he acknowledges himself the bigamist, who takes on and puts 
 away a wife at his pleasure. He cheats his creditors at the rate of ten thousand 
 [dollars a month, and flees his country, that he might spend their spoils. He dis¬ 
 honors and betrays his employer, he is treacherous to his friends. Gentlemen, he is the 
 I monster of all the meaner vices. If he is the man he claims to be, if he is the confeder¬ 
 ate of these men, he is 50 years of age, and they are young men, and he lead them into 
 temptation. He it was that devised the scheme to rob this bank, and he it is that comes 
 upon the stand, and stood there testifying against these men. There was no pity in his 
 eyes, there was no tremor in his voice, as with remorseless revenge, he sought to crush 
 i and destroy them. I ask you, gentlemen, if from a man as treacherous and crafty, as 
 hardened and remorseless, as he is, you will receive the testimony that leads these young 
 
54 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 men down to destruction. I ask you as jurymen, if you can pronounce upon the testi¬ 
 mony of such a man, that fatal word, that sends these men to condign punishment 
 forever. 
 
 Gentlemen, what is the motive of Edson’s testimony ? what is the inducement that 
 brings him here ? He tells you that lie did not open his head until these men were ar¬ 
 rested. What does it signify ? He knew that he was suspected all through New York. 
 He says so, and when the detectives, for some reason or other, put their hands upon Scott 
 and Dunlap, and not until then, Edson steps forward, and says they are the men : under 
 their destruction he could escape punishment, and in their punishment he could have his 
 extended reward. Point to us the men, say the bank officers, tell us their names, and 
 we will give you $25,000. Why, gentlemen, did you ever know, in the court house, in 
 the old county of Hampshire, of a scene like this, that guilty culprit and criminal should 
 confess his crime, without a blush, and come here to escape the punishment which he de¬ 
 serves, and condemn these young men to lasting punishment, and should fill his pockets 
 with dollars and cents, with the hundreds and thousands of dollars that are to be rewarded 
 to the detector of the criminals. I am 6ure that no jury of Hampshire county ever lis¬ 
 tened to a like witness stimulated by like motives and like hopes. Now, gentlemen, there 
 is no doubt but that Edson knew what he was about. There is no doubt in my mind but 
 what Edson knows who are the men who entered Mr. Wldttelsey’s house. I have no 
 doubt that he might go upon this stand, if he had an honest feature in his whole system, 
 and tell you who was that beardless man that came up here and robbed this bank, although 
 I would not believe him, if he did tell us. I have no doubt that all he confesses, all the 
 details with regard to the burglary that he describes, may have been true, but I tell you 
 there is no difficulty in designating any two men that belong to that gang, as Scott and 
 Dunlap. He may call Tom Jones and John Smith, Scott and Dunlap. He may call 
 Green and Thompson, Dunlap and Scott, and every fact that did take place, every word 
 that was spoken, every telegram that was sent, every visit that was made, turns out to be 
 true. True of Green and Thompson, whom he has called Scott and Dunlap. His quick 
 and ready wit, his stony cheek, would carry the rest through. It was a splendid oppor¬ 
 tunity, that he wanted to escape punishment and obtain his reward, and fall upon his 
 enemies. But, gentlemen, in one thing he fails. In one most remarkable thing he fails ; 
 and when you consider the period of time over which these transactions extended, when 
 you consider that it was from somewhere early in August to January 26, in the accom¬ 
 plishment of this, extending even to February i8, from the discussion of the robbery and 
 the gathering of the securities, it is astonishing that there has not been found one honest, 
 disinterested witness, in the whole world, that has confirmed Edson in one single par¬ 
 ticular. I say this, gentlemen, inviting your criticism. I say it with deliberation, and I 
 ask you to follow me through the balance of my argument, that so far as corroboration of 
 a fact that fastens and attaches this crime to Scott and Dunlap, there is not an iota of 
 testimony that comes from disinterested witnesses, through the whole, trial, confirmatory 
 of Edson. Now, I do not care how far witnesses come forward to corroborate what Edson 
 says Edson did. If Mr. Edson came upon the stand here and said he borrowed keys of 
 Mr. Warriner, and Mr. Warriner said he did, that is no corroboration that affects these 
 defendants. If Edson says he made a plan of the vault of the Third National Bank of 
 Syracuse, and Mr. Gleason is shown the plan, and says it is true, that is no corroboration 
 that affects these defendants. If Edson says he was here examining this bank, and the 
 officers say it is true, if Edson says that he came here by receiving a telegram from Her¬ 
 ring & Co., and the bank officers say it is true, if Edson says that he introduced Mr. Wil¬ 
 liams to Connors, and Mr. Williams says that is true, they don’t affect these defendants. 
 Edson may corroborate himself as often as he pleases. He may be like the magician, who 
 turns a somerset and jumps down his own throat. It don’t make it true because Edson 
 comes forward and swears to certain facts about which there is no controversy, and Edson 
 is corroborated by the officers of the bank. A corroboration to corroborate Edson, must 
 connect these defendants with him, and with the crime with which they are charged, or 
 it all goes for nothing. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, let us take one or two, and I think I am going over all the corroborat¬ 
 ing circumstances. Certainly, I have not intentionally passed "by one, and if I have, I 
 ask my friends here to say so, because I do not want one to escape my observation. Let 
 us, then, begin with the leading one which looks like a corroboration, and that is this 
 Wilkesbarre affair. There is hardly a doubt, in my mind, that at Wilkesbarre, in the 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 55 
 
 State of Pennsylvania, one R. C. Hill did pass from Wednesday to Saturday ; and, I think, 
 it cannot be doubted that there was a telegraphic dispatch sent to W. L. Edwards, and 
 possibly there was a reply from Hill to Edwards. But, who is R. C. Hill ? Mr. Edson 
 tells us it is Dunlap, and without Edson to put his sanction upon it, the whole Wilkes- 
 barre matter goes for nothing. It may be true that this very man, who has been described 
 here as a smooth-faced man, with a shrug of his shoulders, was at Wilkesbarre. But the 
 whole Wilkesbarre matter is nothing, without Edson says it happened, and nobody in the 
 world, but Edson, sustains it. How, gentlemen, if you are to examine that testimony, 
 and the proof there is against these men, I call your attention to the proof that has been 
 left out, to what the government has concealed, as well as what the government has ex¬ 
 posed. From Wednesday until Saturday we know very well this Hill was at the Wyoming 
 Valley House. From Wednesday until Saturday R. C. Hill was at the Wyoming House, 
 and, according to Edson’s story, Scott was at some hotel at Pittston; and yet, from the 
 Wyoming Valley House, or from the hotel at Pittston, not a man can be found who iden¬ 
 tifies Dunlap or Scott as being there at that time. The hotel clerks and the hotel-keep¬ 
 ers, the men and women who are in the hotel. Strangers might have been brought here 
 from the Wyoming Valley Hotel, or from the Pittston Hotel, and from Wednesday, at 
 least, and possibly until Saturday night, these men, according to the testimony of Edson, 
 were there ; and not a man can be found from either of these hotels that will confirm one 
 word that Edson has said. Where is your corroboration of this ? And, gentlemen, I 
 call your attention to the absence of corroboration. They brought the telegraph man 
 here, this bank and these detectives. They have brought every man here in the United 
 States of America that they wanted here. There is no lack of money, there is no lack of 
 persistency, there is no tack of means, and if, for a whole week, these men had occupied 
 their room apparently for business in these two hotels, I tell you somebody would have 
 been found who would have recognized them. 
 
 We come, then, gentlemen, to the next corroborating circumstance, and that is the per¬ 
 sonals that were published in the newspapers. Edson tells you that he published certain 
 personals in the Hew York Herald, and he brings the Hew York Herald to confirm and 
 corroborate him. Gentlemen, who is Idalia, in the Hew York Herald ? As you go to your 
 room and you take these Hew York personals to read them over, you will find that, in 
 these papers, there are personals that he might have adopted as well as this. There is no¬ 
 body, but Edson, that puts a corroboration upon it, and Edson says he is a liar. “ Knox, 
 come home.” “Knox, come home.” Knox may have been one of the gang who gath¬ 
 ered at Knox building, at the corner of Broadway and Fulton street, as likely as the man 
 who owned the Knox horse. I believe the one as quick as the other. The gang that gath¬ 
 ered at the Knox House, at the corner of Broadway and Fulton street, was quite as likely 
 to be reached by an advertisement of that nature as the man who owned the Knox horse. 
 
 Then comes the trampling of the grass around the quince bush. Mrs. Whittelsey says 
 the grass has been tumbled, and Edson comes forward and says Scott did it—every time. 
 There is no testimony wanted, there is none to be supplied, but what Edson steps upon 
 the stand, with his martial stride, and says Scott. Why, it may be that this other gang- 
 gathered under the quince bush and told Edson the story,—this Green and Thompson, 
 this Smith and Jones, whom he has called Scott and Dunlap ; and Mrs Whittelsey cor¬ 
 roborates and sactions and sanctifies Edson’s story. Then there is another bit of corrob¬ 
 oration. After, I do not know how many months,—at least, ever since these poor, unfor¬ 
 tunate men have been arrested,—the government has had in its possession letters, or a 
 letter, and a piece of paper on which Scott and Dunlap wrote some directions. Ever 
 since the robbery they have had in their possession certain letters, with superscriptions 
 upon the envelopes, and the admitted piece of writing of Scott and Dunlap. They have 
 been seeking to find out if there was not a resemblance upon the envelopes and upon the 
 standard piece of paper. They have searched all Horthampton for experts. They have 
 been to Springfield, and have searched all Springfield over for experts, Sometime, I do 
 not know when, but some months ago, Mr. President Edwards took these letters down to 
 Hew York to find experts. He applied to Mr. Pinkerton to find experts who would ex¬ 
 amine this paper and try to discover some relation between the standard and the inscrip¬ 
 tion on the envelopes. Don’t charge them with negligence. Don’t believe that the offi¬ 
 cers of the bank have left anything undone. Don’t believe, gentlemen, they have not 
 been properly diligent. But I tell you that in all their efforts, in all their searches, in all 
 their inquiries, not a solitary man could be found until a week last Saturday, when Mr, 
 
66 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 Jacob (or Joseph) E. Paine turned up from somewhere. Why, gentlemen, he was over¬ 
 borne bv those absent witnesses before he went upon the stand. He was outweighed by 
 the witnesses they did not call. He was met by an array of witnesses, whom they did 
 not summon, from Northampton, from Springfield, I doubt not, from Boston and from 
 New York, and he was the only man among them that thought, or thought that he 
 thought, they furnished a resemblance. But, gentlemen, he told better than he knew. 
 He gave a true exposition of his philosophy when he said he came upon the stand, not to 
 enlighten the jury, not on the side of truth, but he came to the stand to point out the 
 similarities, and to pass by the dissimilarities, between the standard writing and the en¬ 
 velope writing. What sort of an expert is that that comes upon the stand as an advocate ? 
 What sort of an expert is he who is called here not to help the jury, but to convict the 
 prisoners? We will put these envelopes and the standard into your hands. We have 
 called here an honest man, born in this county, who has been distinguished by years of 
 study in New York, who comes here and tells that there are similarities, but that there 
 are great dissimilarities There are always similarities to be found where people write, 
 and particularly in a disguised hand, and he tells you that the best of his judgment and 
 honest conviction that lie has reached, after a careful examination, is that there is no 
 resemblance between the standard writing and the envelopes. But, gentlemen, you are 
 the judges. The first question is to be left to you. Take these envelopes and this stand¬ 
 ard to your jury room, search them plainly, search them impartially, and fearlessly, lean¬ 
 ing on the side of justice and of mercy, and tell me if you hud in the statements of Mr. 
 Paine, or in the examination of the letters, the slightest corroboration of his testimony. 
 And, gentlemen, did you know that Mr. Edson appears here again ? I am not looking 
 now at the bulk of his testimony, for I pass it by, but Mr. Edson is again brought upon 
 the stand and he says, I suggested to Scott that he should put those documents, those 
 bonds which were returned to the bank, into the letter. It was a fact which he forgot, at 
 first, to .mention. When there is a difficulty to prove these letters he supplies the testi¬ 
 mony, and says he suggested the thing. And the bank corroborate Mr. Edson by finding 
 the certificates in the bank. I would like to know who is doing it ? Is Edson corrob¬ 
 orating Warriner, or Warriner Edson ? Then, gentlemen, they find some corroboration, 
 or claim they did, because they traced an acquaintance between Scott and William Con¬ 
 nors. I know nothing of William Connors, except what appears here. I do not think it 
 is to the credit of these men that they happen to be his acquaintances, but, gentlemen, 
 there is not the slightest proof in the world, except from Edson, that Connors is a bank 
 breaker. He may be one, but I never heard before that the man who stole the money and 
 the securities "was the man who carried them back to the owner to sell them. I can easily 
 imagine a gang employing Connors to negotiate for them, but I do not believe that Con¬ 
 nors. if he broke into a bank, stood his part with the gang, would be the man who met 
 Mr. Williams and talked with him about selling the securities. 
 
 M e come now, gentlemen, to another piece of testimony. It is the only piece of testi¬ 
 mony upon which I comment with great reluctance. There is said to have been certain 
 keys found in the carpet-bag belonging to Scott, and certain plans found in the trunk be¬ 
 longing to Dunlap. Gentlemen, the first question that is raised, is, who found them ? 
 The detectives found them. In both cases, gentlemen, in the bag and in the trunk, the 
 detectives are at work. I know nothing about these detectives, personally, and therefore 
 I have no right to speak about them personally, but I know the detective in the abstract, 
 and I submit to yon, gentlemen, he is the nearest in blood to the criminal. From the very 
 necessity of the case, he is his advocate and his companion, and he adopts his mode of life. 
 He is so near, gentlemen, that he sometimes assumes both characters with ease. He be¬ 
 comes the criminal or the detective, as may best suit his purpose. To be successful, he 
 must adopt the old adage, and “set a rogue to catch a rogue.” Gentlemen, you have had 
 some experience about detectives in this county. You have seen how they build up a case ; 
 you saw how they found testimony among the dead or the living, and you saw how the 
 fabric which they built totters and tumbles when the truth is known. 
 
 (At this point the court took a recess of five minutes, after which Mr. Leonard con¬ 
 tinued his argument.) 
 
 1 say, gentlemen, these detectives were bound to produce a conviction. They say they 
 found the keys in Scott’s bag, and they claim that that connects him with a crime which 
 had been committed thirteen months before they found these keys, and having fixed and 
 established Scott’s character, as they think, they start to play the same game upon Dun- 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 57 
 
 lap. What is good for Scott, is good for Dunlap, and the trick that they had played upon 
 Scott, they play upon Dunlap. Why, they don’t exhibit their ordinary genius and inge¬ 
 nuity. After the arrest of Dunlap in Philadelphia, the trunk was opened in New York, 
 and when they do it they call in a New York policeman simply to corroborate and con¬ 
 firm their statement. A New York policeman is the highest indorsement that these de¬ 
 tectives could employ, at least they say, gentlemen, there were other gentlemen who were 
 unconnected with this kind of business, but not one of those five who were present have 
 they called here. They found, they say, the plan in Dunlap’s trunk. Why, gentlemen, 
 it is the old trick which has been played here over and over again. It is Sampson Brass 
 putting the stolen five-pound note into the lining of Christopher’s hat, and discovering it 
 when his friends are about ! Why, this is human nature, says Sampson, is it ? But I 
 must enforce the laws of this unhappy country ; forgive me my momentary weakness, it 
 is past, take hold of his other arm. So, gentlemen, these detectives, like Sampson, per¬ 
 haps it is probable, it is possible, it is a common trick, found in the trunk of Dunlap, 
 just the sort of evidence that they want here. I say, gentlemen, the trick is too old. It 
 has been too often repeated to carry conviction to your mind. But, gentlemen, wjiat does 
 it prove ? I want you to examine it entire, and all the circumstances about that plan 
 that we know, and it shows how perfectly useless it is for these men to attempt to 
 pervert the truth. It was a plan drawn a year previous. Does it prove that Dunlap and 
 Scott were in Mr. Whittelsey’s house that night of January 26 ? If it does not, it is use¬ 
 less here. Does it tend to prove, to confirm, the story of Edson, that one night later they 
 were there in disguise, breathing out threatening and slaughter to the Whittelsey family? 
 If it does not prove that, or tend to prove it, it is utterly worthless. It was a plan, gen¬ 
 tlemen, of a bank in Syracuse, that had been drawn months before. Now, how did it 
 get into Dunlap’s trunk ? Nobody knows, at least, nobody tells, and I ask you, gentle¬ 
 men, if it had been connected with a burglary really planned, do you suppose Dunlap 
 would have kept it where he kept his clothes, in his trunk ? That Dunlap would have 
 retained in his possession a useless plan, that was likely to bring him into trouble ? If it 
 was in the trunk, and Dunlap had put it there, Dunlap knew it, and Dunlap it was that 
 called Pinkerton’s attention to the fact that his trunk was at the Grand Central Hotel. 
 Yes, gentlemen, they would not have known where the trunk was, if Dunlap had not told 
 them, and I am sure Dunlap would not have told them if he knew there was in the trunk 
 the keys of a burglar, and the plan of a bank that had been robbed. Give the man credit 
 for some brains. What was his purpose in keeping this plan, if he had ever been con¬ 
 nected with this crime, and why should he ask the detective officers to get his trunk for 
 him, which was in the Grand Central Hotel, in the care of the porter ? And now, gen¬ 
 tlemen, finally, we have the significant fact, that when the trunk was rolled over, it was 
 found unlocked. Yes, it was found unlocked. When Mr. Rothwell turned that trunk 
 over, it was an unlocked trunk. Do you believe, gentlemen, that Dunlap knew there was 
 such a plan in the trunk, that he would not have known it if he had put it there, and 
 having put it there, do you suppose he would have called the attention of these detectives, 
 who were following him with remorseless fury, to his trunk ? Do you suppose he would 
 have told them where that trunk was, containing that hidden plan ? And it is strange 
 and mysterious, gentlemen, that they had not sufficient confidence in their own word, 
 that they did not believe they were to be believed by a jury of this county, unless they 
 were supported by somebody who didn’t have anything to gain, or any hope of the reward 
 which the bank areholding out. And so they called in a New York policeman, about this 
 one fact, and about nothing more. When the trunk was opened the first time, Pinkerton 
 says he found the plan, and then went there a second time and took out some wax, which 
 he says he saw there the first time, but did not take, and only took the plan. Wasn’t the 
 plan enough ? Wasn’t the evidence of the plan enough, that they must repeat the experi¬ 
 ment, and find the wax ? Do you suppose that this wax, which is so suggestive when 
 connected with this crime we are talking of, was found for the first time when they made 
 their search ? There were two things in the bag. There were these keys and the nip¬ 
 pers, according to the detectives’ theory. There had been but one thing taken from the 
 trunk, and that was the plan, but it gave them an idea, and when they took the wax, and 
 all at the invitation of Mr. Dunlap, I believe I should be very suspicious myself of the 
 corroborating circumstances that the government have relied upon. 
 
 But, gentlemen, we don’t stop there, and we call your attention to the testimony which 
 the government might have produced, but have not. I dwell upon this with particular 
 
68 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 satisfaction. I charge the government with keeping back testimony, and most important 
 testimony, that might have been produced in this case. Let me refer to it, gentlemen, as 
 briefly as I may. Edson says that Dunlap and Scott were so in the habit of coming to 
 his house on Sunday morning and night, that they finally refused to come there any more— 
 their habit had been so constant and frequent. Where are the servants of Edson that 
 opened the door to Scott and Dunlap ? Where are the persons that came forward to con¬ 
 firm them in their frequent visits ? 
 
 Not a solitary instance ! Neither Edson’s wife, nor Edson’s children, nor Edson’s ser¬ 
 vants, nor Edson's neighbors, nor the policeman whose beat is constantly in front, up and 
 down by his house. These men were there so often that he says they refused to come any 
 more, and yet not a confirmatory or corroborating witness has been found. It is easy 
 enough for Edson to swear that he met them at the corner of 50th street ; that he walked 
 up and down the avenue in the night time; that he rode in a carriage with them from 10 
 to 12 o’clock, and that these men came to his house so often that they finally refused to 
 go any more. Tell me, gentleman, where is the servant that opened that door, or the 
 policeman that trod the street, or the neighbor w T ho looked out of the window ? Not one 
 of them can be produced here. Where are the crowd on Broadway and Fulton street, 
 who were in the habit of seeing these men go into the Knox building to meet him almost 
 daily ? Not one, not a man. Where are the persons, gentlemen, from whom they got 
 the material that has been produced here ; the blankets, and iron work, and the tools ? 
 Not a solitary man is to be found. And, gentlemen, I go still farther, and I call your 
 attention to one piece of testimony that the government has produced here. Mr. Pinker¬ 
 ton tells you that within two or three days from the robbery, I think as early as that, he 
 was consulted and on the scent. Gentlemen, on the night of the 6th of February, two 
 men started from New York by the New Haven steamboat to go to Springfield and North¬ 
 ampton. Before the steamboat left the wharf at New York, before she had landed her 
 passengers at New Haven, the detectives knew that these men had gone with a pair of 
 horses and a wagon. Thus, gentlemen, as early as the 7th of February, the eye of the 
 detective was upon these horses and thi6 wagon, and these men. Before they reached 
 Springfield they knew who they were, and they did not reach Springfield before their eyes 
 fell upon the very dispatch which was published in the Springfield Union of Monday, 
 February 7 : 
 
 “ Telegrams were received from New York detectives, Saturday, February 5, stating 
 positively that the securities recently stolen from the Northampton National Bank, were 
 buried somewhere in the town, and that the burglars w r ere coming for them.” 
 
 You see they had only just started on Saturday, the detectives knew who they were, ; 
 and knew their mission so well that they described the conveyance they were taking to 
 Northampton and how they were going. “The news caused great excitement, etc.” 
 Now, on Saturday, February 5, the burglars, that entered that bank were so well known, 
 that their movements towards Northampton were understood, and they were known so 
 well that the avenues they were coming through to Northampton were well known to 
 them. Who were they ? They could trace them directly to Hartford, and from Hart¬ 
 ford to Springfield, but, gentlemen, not one single bit of testimony have the detectives or 
 Edson seen fit to place before us, which was known to them at that date. If they knew 
 as early as that, that these burglars were coming to Springfield, why don’t they tell us 
 who they were ? If they knew as early as that, why don’t they bring the steamer hands 
 here, and tell us who they were, and what sort of a team they drove ? Why don’t they 
 tell us where the horses were purchased ? And when they got to Hartford, and . 
 exchanged their horses from the sleigh, where is the honest hostler that made the ex¬ 
 change ? And who can identify these men ? Where are the men who could have 
 followed them from New York and met them at Springfield, knowing they were going by 
 slow stages with a team ? I tell you, gentlemen, there is something wrong right here ! 
 There is something concealed, or something false. The whole theory of the government 
 is, that two men did come here from New York on Eeb. 5th, and the detectives knew who 
 they were, and what they were to do, and that whole testimony has been concealed and 
 kept from you. I ask you if you think they could not tell w'ho these men were, j 
 Didn’t they know on the 5th day of February ? Couldn’t they have told, if they had i 
 chosen, when they found out they were coming for the securities ? Why did they wait | 
 eighteen months before they summoned that innocent West Sexton from the privacy of 
 his hotel to express the opinion that Mr. Scott was the man he looked over on a certain day P 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 59 
 
 I would like to hear the suppressed testimony. I want to know what these experts have 
 been about all these months. I want to know why they havn’t identified the men whose 
 movements they understood as early as the 5th day of February ? Why didn’t they prove 
 that Scott and Dunlap were the men, and not call upon West Sexton to come here and 
 swear to it ? Why didn’t they tell you who that beardless man was, with a shrug, and a 
 hitch, and a stoop in his shoulders ? The detectives have not told us all they know. 
 The government has not revealed the whole thing, the most important, the earliest testi¬ 
 mony that we have ever heard of, they have hidden from you, and they argue upon the 
 testimony of such men as William D. Edson to convict these men, and send them to per¬ 
 petual confinement. Do you blame me for not thinking anything of the detectives ? Do 
 you think I was startled here to-day, when I saw those two women come upon the stand, 
 when I knew from the public documents that are published in newspapers, that the most 
 important and conclusive testimony that this whole case has produced, was suppressed, 
 and crowded out, and trampled under foot and concealed, that you might make up an 
 unjust verdict ? These are not the men who came on that steamboat, these are not the 
 men that they telegraphed about ; that they watched at the wharves in New York and 
 New Haven, and warned the men against in Northampton • it was somebody else, and 
 where are they ? Not one word from the government, not one single bit of explanation 
 of the paragraph in the paper, that is fitted to the whole theory of the government, that 
 these men were known to them. No, gentlemen, the men that are meant are such men 
 as Sexton, as Holt, as Crafts, recognized. I tell you, gentlemen, yesterday the court re¬ 
 fused the evidence of a witness, because he would not tell his accomplices in a burglary. 
 I ask you what a Massachusetts jury are going to do with the testimony of detectives 
 who confess they are concealing from yon what they know is most important. I ask you 
 if you will put faith in such men, who will trifle, while the lives of men like these are in 
 danger. I ask you if I am to blame when I talk to you about persons actuated by bad 
 motives and the hope of reward, when such a startling piece of concealment of testimony 
 as this is discovered in the case. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I believe I have been over the whole testimony of Edson, and the 
 corroborating circumstances. The testimony of Edson is like a polished shaft. There 
 was no point about it. There is nothing that will attach itself to it, except what he sees 
 fit to attach. There are two points of contradiction. He keeps everything well in hand. 
 What he sees fit to corroborate, he fixes a corroboration, and then, gentlemen, you might 
 as well attempt to attach somethimg by mere adhesion to a piece of polished steel, as to 
 attach anything to Edson’s testimony. It stands out as solitary as a liberty pole ! 
 
 Review of the Testimony for the Defense. 
 
 Gentlemen, out of this arena of contradictions, of disputes, of falsehoods, away from 
 the presence of this arch conspirator, and the atmosphere that he breathes and defiles, 
 let us step upon firm ground, where we can breathe pure air and meet honest faces. 
 The testimony that is offered here by the defense, is the testimony to which we invite 
 your scrutiny, with confidence and with pleasure. It is not, gentlemen, what is termed 
 a professional or artificial alibi. It is not the ordinary manufactured article. It was not 
 prepared by contract in the city of New York. It was prepared, so far as we know, under 
 the direction, or rather it is the result of the examination which Mr. Bond gave to it in 
 New York. Into the corruption of the city, something of the simplicity, of the purity, 
 of our country life, went where this testimony was prepared. There is nothing, gentle¬ 
 men, there is no suggestion of corruption or fraud in the source of it, or in the elements 
 of it, or the purposes of it. It has, gentlemen, the sanction of honest investigation from 
 one of your best citizens, and one of whom you may be proud. Its very imperfection 
 aids its perfection. If it were more perfect, if it were more complete, more positive, we 
 might think that some other hand than Mr. Bond’s had guided and riveted it together, 
 and such as it is, gentlemen, imperfect in some details, perfect in others, such as it is, 
 gentlemen, such evidence as it is, coming from old men and young men, from old women 
 and young women, from every variety of classes in New York, which each of these wit¬ 
 nesses represents, it is yours—to be presented to you and to enter into your judgment and 
 your mind in making up your verdict. Bear, then, in mind, if you believe it, if you be¬ 
 lieve any single fact in it ; nay, if it leads you to doubt one single fact in the testimony 
 offered by the government, then the whole fabric which Edson has built up tumbles to the 
 ground. 
 
60 
 
 TBIAXi OF THE NOBTHAMPTON BANK EOBBEBS. 
 
 In this place, gentlemen, the evidence upon the one side or the other is all true or all 
 false. Mr. Scott cannot be in two places at one time. Mr. Scott did not have a shaven 
 and an unshaven face at the same time. It is all true, or it is all false. Believe one fact 
 in this alibi, one of the witnesses that are called here speaking the truth—believe any fact 
 that we have attempted to prove, and all this great structure which has been built up 
 here and sustained by the detectives, falls to the ground. The truth must be consistent 
 with itself, and believe that there is an honest witness that we have summoned here, and 
 the sanction of your verdict rests upon the defense. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we come to the testimony of these witnesses, and first that of the 
 young boy, the second was the young girl, and then Mrs. Ballou and Miss Ballou, and the 
 others that we have brought here. They were not witnesses, gentlemen, that were ex¬ 
 pected to stand the sharpest cross-examination, unless they came telling the truth. I 
 would never have ventured to put that ignorant McCue on the stand, unless he was forti¬ 
 fied with the truth, and could stand a cross-examination. We never could have put Miss 
 Amelia Wood on the stand, willing to tell all she knew, incapable of withholding any¬ 
 thing, unless she had about her, like a shield, the panoply of truth. We should never 
 have placed the honest Mr. Nasvius upon the stand, who came there recognizing the 
 scholarship of my Brother Gillett, bestowing upon him the compliment which those of 
 us who knew him, know was so well deserved ; we never should have placed him on the 
 stand, unless we knew that he was fortified with the consciousness that he was telling the 
 truth. 
 
 Now, what is it that these witnesses swear to ? They were there—and. there was the 
 Pole, whom I had forgotten. They saw Scott through the months of December, January 
 and February. Two things they swear to. They swear, all of them, that he wore a full 
 beard, and that he was lame. I need not stop to recite the details of their testimony, or 
 to repeat their names in detail. Every one of them—every one of them confirms this 
 fact, that could escape the notice of none of them that he was lame, and that he wore a 
 full beard. These two leading facts are the particular and peculiar facts that all the wit¬ 
 nesses swear to, because those were the things that were at all times open to observation 
 —the lameness and the full beard. The boy who came upon the stand, in the untrained 
 way that he did, and would have left it with an error upon his lips, if he had not been 
 corrected by Mr. Gillett; Amelia Wood, in her simple and almost flighty way ; the Pole, 
 Mr. Decker, Mr. Naevius, Mr. Davis, all of them recognized and saw Mr. Scott during the 
 months of December, January, February and March, and every one of them, as I say, 
 positively swears to two leading things of observation, the whole, full beard and the lame¬ 
 ness. Now, gentlemen, if he had a full beard, he was not the man that Holt 
 described and saw, that Mr. Crafts and Mr. Mantor saw, or the man that 
 Edson says came to Northampton. Admitting that fact, gentlemen, he 
 is not the man that came here, and when Edson says that he wore a shaven 
 face at that time, then Edson is not only lying about other matters, but is lying in your 
 face in the testimony that he produces, then in order to receive confirmation from these 
 other witnesses. Take the fact of his lameness, the matter of his lameness. Each one 
 of these witnesses remembers it, and Decker, by the little circumstance that he got in his 
 way when he was putting on the string on the piano ; and Davis has the cane which he 
 had been carrying. Now, gentlemen, I find some confirmation of this, in what was ap¬ 
 parently a bit of contradiction. This man was said to be lame, to be confined to his 
 house, and the fair argument was that if he was lame aud confined to his house, he could 
 not have been in Mr. Whittelsey’6 house on January 25. Now, what do we find ? Decker 
 says he was at his store on the 14th of January. He don’t say how he got there ; he 
 might have rode there in the cars, and he might have got there in some other way, but 
 we have got to deal with the fact that on the 14th of January Decker says he was at the store, 
 and some of these gentlemen sitting at this table thought there was a little bit of con¬ 
 fusion about that. But what does Miss Amelia Wood swear to ? That he was hurt on 
 the 2d day of January ; he was confined to his house a week, and at the end of the week 
 he began to go out a little at a time, from a half hour to an hour, and so on until he was 
 gone an hour and two hours at a time. You see the 14th day of January was more than 
 a week; it was two weeks, almost, from the time of the injury, and it follows right along 
 just as Miss Amelia Wood said it did. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we come to other and more confirming testimony. Through the 
 whole month of January Miss Amelia Wood was at the house of her sister. During all 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 61 
 
 that time she swears to you positively that Scott was at home and Dunlap was there also. 
 It covers the whole time, and so far as anything is known positively in this case, Miss 
 Amelia Wood was there during the month of January, and left on the 31st day of Jan¬ 
 uary. We have here the simple Pole who tells us he would have been here if he had the 
 money, and says it with significance, that there is not a great deal of money spent on the 
 part of this defense, and that they have not much money to spend in the preparation of 
 this case. We hear of Davis repairing their clothes, and turning the lappels and cutting 
 over garments, and of their practicing and exercising an economy that don’t fit very well 
 to Edson’s story that they were giving ten thousand dollars for the loan of a thousand. 
 These little domestic scenes, and this insight into their domestic life shows how they were 
 practicing economy in cutting over their clothing, and living with economy, paying for 
 their pianos on installments of ten or twenty dollars a month, don’t look like the people 
 who are rolling in wealth and breaking and cracking a bank a fortnight. Now I find that 
 this Pole was there through every month on Monday and Thursday. If there had been 
 an alibi prepared, if we had the genuine manufactured article made to order in the city 
 of New York, somehow or other those lessons in music would have been given on Tues¬ 
 days and Wednesdays, and covered the precise time that Scott was supposed to be here. 
 But this man, with great honesty, says he was there on Mondays and Thursdays, and 
 Scott was at home every Monday of that month, and that he dined there. It is only sig¬ 
 nificant, because if what this Polish musician says is ti-ue, Holt, who says he thinks he 
 saw them in Springfield on the same day is not true. Then we have the testimony of Mr. 
 Decker, who tells you he was there on the 25th of January ; that in playing on the piano 
 he broke a string, and he was obliged to mend it on the 26th, because Mrs. Scott took her 
 music lessons on Thursday, the 27th. Now, according to the testimony of Mr. Decker, 
 Mr. Scott was there. He remembers the conversations on the evenings of the 25th and 
 26th of January, and he remembers that Scott was lame and got in his way while he was 
 trying to mend the string. If this testimony is true, if Decker is to be believed, if he is 
 more trusty than this Edson, then it is the end of the case for the defense. One month 
 afterwards, a few weeks afterwards, he goes to Mrs. and Miss Ballou's, and there he is 
 lame ; and on the 18th day of March, on the 20th and 22d, he goes to Mr. Nsevius as a 
 student, and Mr. Naevius tells us that among the first things that Scott did when he took 
 his seat in a chair was to ask permission that he might rest his foot in another chair, be¬ 
 cause his foot was lame. I leave it to you, gentlemen, to say whether that was natural or 
 not ; I leave it to you to say whether you think Mr. Naevius was telling a false story to 
 you or not. Take all of these witnesses, gentlemen, who have testified here ; some of 
 them have been about here a week, and some of them two weeks. They all testified and 
 answered to their names Friday or Saturday. The detectives have followed them to Nerv 
 York ever since ; they have had Saturday and Sunday and Monday to investigate them. 
 The thirty employes of Pinkerton have been at hand, and if anything could be brought 
 against them, if anything could be suggested against them, it would have been produced 
 here. You see how indefatigable these men have been ; you see with what diligence they 
 have pushed their inquiries. If there could have been one word said against Amelia 
 Wood or Rosa Ballou ; if there could have been one word said against the Pole, whose 
 name I cannot pronounce, or against Decker, or against Nasvius, they would have brought 
 it out. Not a word, not a suggestion comes from anybody, unless it is the suggestion of 
 my Brother Gillett, which even the detectives don’t dare to confirm or sanction. I leave 
 it to you as gentlemen, I leave it to you as fathers and men, some of whom have daugh¬ 
 ters at home, whether it was a fair inquiry that my Brother Gillett put to these’ young 
 women as they came upon this stand and faced this audience ; if it was sanctioned by a 
 single bit of testimony that had been offered here or can be put up against them. Heave 
 it to you, gentlemen, if there was anything about them or their evidence that was calcu¬ 
 lated to carry a stain, and I was glad that the remark which was made was addressed in 
 the presence of jurors who have daughters at home as young, if not as handsome, as she 
 is. I think that some of the reporters who are here to-day, if they review their reports 
 about it, will find I have not suggested anything about Mr. Gillett’s cross-examination of 
 them that is not true. But against honesty, against truth, against virtue, the attacks of 
 these detectives utterly fail, and they have come back from New York to-day despairing 
 and powerless against the array of witnesses that we have brought here. Not disarmed, 
 out of the stables and the depths of New York, they have brought one man and two 
 women ; one man to impeach Rosa Ballou. He says he remembers seeing her with Scott 
 
62 
 
 TRIAL OF THU NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBER8. 
 
 at the stables some years ago, when Scott was keeping his horse there ; in 1874 he fixes it. 
 And that is all. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, weigh this testimony. It is the duty of jurors not simply to hear, but 
 to see the witness, and there they are now ; you see the witnesses before you. They have 
 been in this and the other trial from the beginning to the end, and I ask yon to decide the 
 question according to the law and the evidence, according to the preponderance of the 
 testimony, according as it has come before you, to convince you beyond a reasonable 
 doubt. Lay aside all bias and prejudice and weigh this testimony, and tell me the con¬ 
 clusion that it reaches. I say these detectives utterly failed to attack or impeach one of 
 these witnesses, and they have done another thing that confirms and strengthens what 
 my Brother Bond describes this to be, the detectives’ case. They came here with two 
 servant girls, with testimony that should have been put in chief of the testimony they 
 had. It was testimony that was intended to connect Scott and Dunlap immediately with 
 the crime. It was testimony calculated to prove that Scott and Dunlap were in league 
 with bank breakers. That they were not in New York, but somewhere else, when the 
 robbery took place. That belonged initially to the testimony in chief ; but when our 
 alibi became invincible ; when our witnesses were found to be honest and could not be 
 disturbed ; when they failed, gentlemen, as all in this court room know they had failed 
 to fix the crime upon these men, they produced two new witnesses, two women, and what 
 is peculiar about it, they simply cover the time from the 26th of January to the 15th of 
 February. Just the precise time ; not a day over and not a day under. From the 23d, 
 somewhere about there, until the 12th of February, these women were where they came 
 from. Who these women were, where they come from, in whose employ they are, and 
 whither they will return, I do not know. But I know it is very strange that two women 
 could be found ; because one was not sufficient, two must be had ; that they were to 
 work in that house, one a week and four days, and the other just ten days. It is pecu¬ 
 liar that they were not contented with one ; they had one to confirm the other. They 
 wanted two. What would Maggie do alone if it were not for the other ? You see how it 
 happened that there are two instead of one. Mark you, gentlemen, how quick and how 
 glib this second one swears. She is thinking of what took place over a year ago, two 
 years ago nearly, and as she tells over and over again that Scott was as home all the month 
 of January, over and again she tells that Scott was at home, until she finally remembers 
 that he went away on Saturday night and she opened the door for him on Wednesday 
 morning. How it helps Holt, and Crafts, and the rest of them 1 Exactly, she remembers 
 being at the house but a week and four days, how on Saturday she saw Scott go out and 
 on W ednesday come home. Why, gentlemen, if the government had had this testimony, 
 and they profess they had it, they certainly would have put it on the stand. 
 
 And so, gentlemen, I have been over all the testimony that I propose to review, and I 
 think I can imagine that you ask why Scott and Dunlap and Mrs. Scott are not put on 
 the stand ? Why are not Scott and Dunlap and Mrs. Scott upon the stand ? I ask you in 
 all seriousness, gentlemen, what good the testimony of these people would be in proving 
 their innocence ? If they are guilty, would they confess it ? If they are innocent, they are 
 to be proved innocent from other lips than theirs. I have been here through this trial, 
 gentlemen, and I knew nothing of it before I came here. I have seen the evidence unfold 
 itself, for the first time, as it has been unfolded to you. I have been reaching out for the 
 truth to know where it lay, endeavoring to discover the real facts in this case, and I have 
 never asked Dunlap and Scott or Mrs. Scott about it. I have never spoken to these men. 
 I never have heard their voices, except when they were challenging the jury. They could 
 add by their word nothing for me, either for or against them. If I am, in my heart to be¬ 
 lieve that these men are innocent, I should gather no truth of their innocence-by what 
 they might protest to me. Do you think I would ask Mrs. Scott if her husband was an 
 innocent or guilty man ? Do you think I would allow her to tell me that she thought they 
 were t Do you think if I had this conviction brought home to my mind, that I coulcl 
 stand here and look you in the face and charge you as honest men, administering the laws 
 of the Commonwealth, to acquit these people. I tell you, gentlemen, I never yet called a 
 prisoner to the stand. I never have been through the farce, and I could not be here to 
 ask that these men might have their shackles taken off and go upon the stand and declare 
 their innocence to you. Their testimony would be utterly worthless. When Prof. Web¬ 
 ster was tried for the murder of Dr. Parkman, his two daughters went upon the stand, 
 and there delivered important testimony. The lawyers for the government asked no 
 
TRIAL OR THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 63 
 
 questions.' They bowed them gracefully from the stand, because they knew that from the 
 lips of those daughters, pleading for the life of their father, no testimony could come that 
 would weigh with the jurors. And so, gentlemen, as I said before, I could not have these 
 men unshackled to protest their innocence to you. They are to be cleared by honest tes¬ 
 timony, or not at all. What for us, is of the most concern, is that they have a fair trial. 
 And if they went upon the stand, gentlemen,what could they do but deny the testimony 
 of Edson, that he met them on Lexington avenue and 50th street, or Madison avenue, at 
 Red Leary’s, and Fort Hamilton, that they came here ? The plea of not guilty covers the 
 whole, and the courts have settled, so great is this right of the prisoner, that a jury are 
 net to draw an inference, because the prisoners don’t go upon the stand. 
 
 Gentlemen, this has been a fearful fight. The odds of the controversy have been ter¬ 
 rible. On the one side, come three young men, confined in prison, without friends, and 
 possibly, I do not know, as their friends could have aided them, if they had called them. 
 On the other, come all the resources of the Commonwealth, that of the capital of the 
 bank, experienced and successful counsel who had been selected against them, with the 
 most diligent, possibly the most unscrupulous, detectives following in their wake. None 
 of us, gentlemen, envy you your position. Look into the faces of these young men. If 
 by your verdict they are never again to see the light of the sun, or the moon, or the stars; 
 if they are never again to look into the faces or hear the voices of those they love; if they 
 are to go into perpetual confinement, from which there is no escape, and where hope can¬ 
 not enter,—see to it, that your verdict is so free from bias, and prejudice, and doubt; so 
 sustained by the law, and the evidence, that when these men are wasting and dying in 
 gloom and in silence, you may recall it in the future years without fear and without 
 reproach. 
 
 At the conclusion of Mr. Leonard’s argument, which occupied two hours and forty-five 
 minutes in delivery, and was listened to throughout by a crowded court room with the 
 closest attention, the court adjourned to Wednesday morning, at 9 o’clock, at which time 
 the court room was again densely crowded, to listen to the closing argument by Mr. 
 Gillett. 
 
 Argument of Hon. E. B. Gillett, of Westfield, for the Prosecution. 
 
 May it please your Honor, and Gentlemen of the Jury: 
 
 I come to yon this morning in ill health, the result of about two weeks of pretty stren¬ 
 uous labor in these summer heats and in this suffocating room. It will have this advan¬ 
 tage to you that, instead of following the minute brief of facts and statistics which I had 
 prepared, I shall address you much more briefly, and I fear much more feebly, than I had 
 hoped to. My Brother Leonard, in his introduction to his very eloquent and consummate 
 argument, suggested to you with what misgivings and with what regrets he entered upon 
 the trial of this case. I am confident that he could not have entered upon his duties with 
 any more of misgivings than I myself did, or with any more of reluctance. But I did 
 not feel at liberty to decline the request that was made to me by the learned District At¬ 
 torney of this district. This being my native county ; this being the county where my 
 father and mother lived and are buried ; this being the town where I pursued my pro¬ 
 fessional studies with one of its most distinguished men, and whose name I partly bear, 
 and for myself I have no higher ambition than that I may bring no discredit upon his 
 honored memory. With these facts before me, I could not, in conscience, offer any ade¬ 
 quate excuse for declining to render such aid as I could in endeavoring to detect and bring 
 to discovery a gigantic felony, which had thrilled the whole country with alarm. Before 
 entering upon a discussion of the merits of this case, Mr. Foreman, let us clear-away a 
 little one or two of the delusions which my brother indulged himself with in his argu¬ 
 ment, and which seem to have been thrust into prominence before you during the whole of 
 this trial. You would infer from argument, and from testimony, and from endeavor of 
 counsel, not that these two defendants were here on trial, but that William D. Edson was 
 the man whom you are trying. And my learned brother seemed to think that, having- 
 denounced him, and having brought him into ignominy, and having announced that 
 “Edson is the whole of this case,” and having proved that he was infamous, there was 
 nothing else for the defendants to do. 
 
 Mr. Foreman, and gentlemen, I take no issue with the learned gentleman with regard 
 to Mr. Edson. He has said nothing, which, if I should draw his picture, has added one 
 
64 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 deepening line or damning shade to his photograph. I admit, Mr. Foreman, his villainy. 
 Admit, if you please, for the sake of this trial, that from his boyhood down to to-day his 
 life has been a systematic sinniug of the Decalogue through and through, and that he has 
 exhausted the criminal calendar. I admit it all; every word ; and if there is any “lower 
 deep” of infamy into which I could plunge him than my brother has placed him, I would 
 gladly offer mv aid to explore its depths. But, gentlemen, Edson is not on trial. There 
 are the men that we are to deal with. My learned friend, in his very graceful opening 
 argument of this case, stated to you certain principles of law by which you are to be guid¬ 
 ed in the investigation of this cause, and he grouped about the prisoners certain legal 
 principles, all of which are true, but stated in language disconnected from the context, 
 convey different rules of law from that which really exist. In the first place, my learned 
 friend suggested to you that yon could not convict these prisoners unless they were proved 
 to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and then went on to designate the difference be- 
 tween proofs required in civil and the criminal courts. I agree, gentlemen, that the de¬ 
 fendants are to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in every human tribu¬ 
 nal it is impossible to arrive at infallible results. In everything appertaining to judicial 
 proceedings we must content ourselves without the aid of demonstration. It is only in 
 the science appertaining to mathematics and physics that processes can be carried on 
 which the result shall be demonstrated beyond the possibility of a doubt. Your doubts, 
 if you have anv, must be reasonable doubts, and by that is meant doubts that are well 
 founded; not whimsical doubts; not doubts that any man can create about anything. 
 You remember that there was one of the Apostles who said that “unless I see in his 
 hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, I will not be¬ 
 lieve ;” and he thereby made his folly immortal, and from that day, and for nineteen hun¬ 
 dred years, he has been taunted as the “Doubting Apostle.” But it has been urged that 
 every man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty, and that this pano¬ 
 ply is around him. Agreed. But what is this presumption of innocence ? Simply, Mr. 
 Foreman, that it is more probable that a man may not commit a crime than that he will, 
 and that is the whole of it; and that is what this trite maxim of law means. Again, my 
 friend endeavored to impress upon you that these men came here with positively good 
 characters, and a character as good” as that of any gentleman upon the panel, or of any 
 counsel in this case. I take issue. I agree, Mr. Foreman, that the law presumes that 
 every man bears a good character ; that the law presumes that when criminals are arraign¬ 
 ed, charged with a criminal offense, they are innocent of this and every other crime. 
 Therefore the law says that they do stand before you with good characters. But when it 
 is alleged that they have a positive character as good as yours or mine, or my brother’s, 1 
 deny it. Suppose, Mr. Foreman, you were charged with a crime ; suppose circumstances 
 gathered around you pointing to your guilt ; suppose you were about to sink beneath the 
 waves of suspicion that were closing over you. What would be done ? Your friends and 
 your neighbors would come rallying around you with the testimony of a good and perfect 
 character, the product of a pure and upright life, and would send out this rope into the 
 waves and say to you, “grasp it, and we will bring you to the shore.” Any such charac¬ 
 ter here ? These, gentlemen, are the legal maxims which the learned counsel has thrown 
 about the prisoners, and which you would suppose furnished an impenetrable panoply, aud 
 that these prisoners stood before you like Achilles, with only a single point anywhere, that 
 is vulnerable, through which the shafts of truth could penetrate and touch them. Not at 
 all. The certainty which is necessary to decide that a man is guilty of a crime is the 
 same certainty which is necessary to determine every man in the important transactions of 
 life, and nothing more. You are not, because you are jurymen, in any other condition of 
 mind as to the reception of evidence and as to the reception of truth, than you would be 
 if you were out of the jury box. Y r ou bring no other apparatus of faculties to try this 
 case than such as you employ in the most important transactions of everyday life. The 
 rights of man, and the rights of property everywhere, and always, must be determined by 
 probabilities, and that evidence which should satisfy a man’s judgment and convictions, 
 when lie is at home, in affairs of great moment, touching his own liberty or property, are 
 sufficient for you in the performance of your grave duties here. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, with these preliminary suggestions let us proceed to the consideration 
 of some of the facts and features of the case. The evidence against the defendants is 
 two-fold, consisting in the first place of tire story of William D. Edson, and consisting, in 
 the second place, of the evidence outside of his story. A.s has been said by my learned 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 65 
 
 brother, and truly said, the evidence of Edson is to be received with great suspicion, and 
 with caution. Here and now I beg leave to say to you that we don’t ask you to touch a 
 hair of these prisoners’ heads unless it is by other evidence than the testimony of Edson ; 
 unless his story is confirmed and corroborated in many particulars, and important partic¬ 
 ulars, by corroborating and confirming testimony. And here, gentlemen, let me say that 
 this class of evidence is often indispensible in the investigation of crimes, from the very 
 nature of crime. The government cannot select the style of testimony that it will pre¬ 
 sent to a jury. The government is obliged to accept the best testimony that is presented 
 to it. It cannot choose its agents for the revelation of truth. Burglars and thieves and 
 robbers don’t take with them the judges of our courts and the ministers of the gospel, 
 nor the Selectmen of your towns, when they are about to commit some great crime against 
 the community, nor do they make them the recipients of their confidence. No, if they 
 did it would give us great pleasure to present to you a higher class of testimony than we 
 are obliged to employ. Mr. Foreman, suppose that it comes to your experience that five 
 men, not one of whose names or persons you know, should come to your farm or to your 
 home, or to yours, or yours, or yours, gentlemen, and they have stolen your cattle, and 
 mutilated your horses, burned your barns and your houses, and there is no trace of 
 the guilty agents. In the course of time it is developed to you that one of these, perhaps 
 the ringleader and the coward of them all, is ready, under pressure of suspicion or from 
 any other mean motive, to reveal to you who the other parties, his peers in the crime, 
 were ; the authors and perpetrators of the deeds, and whom you had sought for almost 
 hopelessly, and that they were still at large. Do you think, Mr. Foreman, that you 
 would not owe it to yourself, that you would not owe it to the public and to justice, 
 that you should make use of this material that had come to hand. You might 
 bring at least a portion of the men, of these dangerous men who were still preying 
 upon theYommunity, to condign punishment. The great object of judicial inquiry, Mr. 
 Foreman, like all other researches into knowledge, is the ascertaining of truth, 
 ascertainment of truth. And we must go after the truth wherever we can find it, even 
 if it be found “in the bor.tom of the well,” or further down toward perdition itself. And 
 here let me say that truth is not corrupted by the medium through which it passes, any 
 more than light is corrupted which shines upon the unjust as well as the just. The lilies 
 which brighten these inland lakes of ours, are no less immaculate because their roots are 
 in filth. Poison, the deadliest poison, Mr. Foreman, is often a specific remedy in desper¬ 
 ate diseases. I am aware that there is a certain sort of sentimentality, developed in oui 
 community, now and then, and perhaps in reference to this case, if rumor is to be cred¬ 
 ited, there have been some weak-minded, imbecile and misled people, who have said “it 
 is a thousand pities that such elegant gentlemen as these should be convicted by the tes¬ 
 timony of a scoundrel like Edson,” as if the conviction of a felon were not the para¬ 
 mount thing. Why, 1 infer that it is possible that there are some ladies in this town who 
 almost envy Mrs. Whittelsey the luxury of having enjoyed four hours of intimacy and 
 entertainment with these elegant ruffians ! Mr. Foreman, that sort of sentimentalism 
 is a shame to human nature. They seem to forget that the men who stole Mr. Whittel- 
 sey’s watch and rifled his pockets of $15, when he had just given them the clew to a mil¬ 
 lion of property, must have been mere “dunghill fowls” in the category of criminals. 
 
 Mr. Foreman, let us recur to the testimony of Edson and apply to it some of the ordinary 
 tests of truth, in order to come to a conclusion whether or not his story is true or false. 
 We want to take the whole story ; we want to take the whole fabric of his testimony. 
 And here let me suggest to you that the most wonderful thing about this story of Ed- 
 son’s is this, that it covers such extensive territory, extending from 1872 down to Febru¬ 
 ary, down to December, 1876, down to 1877, and during that time and in that story, he 
 has been ready to open to you the whole voluminous diary of his life, and he has chal¬ 
 lenged these gentlemen to turn it over leaf by leaf down to to-day. He is not endeavor¬ 
 ing to fasten a false charge upon these men. He has not selected a narrow and meager 
 circle of facts, and shaped his testimony in reference to that. He has not said, I will 
 pitch on a single occasion and make all surrounding circumstances conform to, and fit in 
 with, that, and upon a time when I know they cannot contradict me. 
 
 He has not said, I can put myself with Scott, and I can put myself with Connors, and I 
 can put myself with Dunlap, and name such times and places that contradiction will be 
 impossible. Has that been his policy ? Not at all. He does not entrench himself be¬ 
 hind a single narrow rampart, but he exposes the whole line of his movements, extending 
 
66 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 over a space of years, and invites you to attack him anywhere. Let us see. Let us look 
 and see. Why, gentlemen, I find, in scanning this testimony, that, in between thirty 
 and forty instances, he has named to you different places and different times, giving the 
 exact dates and localities, that he has met Dunlap and Scott and Connors, and Dunlap 
 alone, and Scott alone, and Connors alone, in connection with this conspiracy, which, he 
 says, these men formed with each other and with him, and he has invited them to attack 
 him anywhere, and I ask you with what success have they done it ? To run over some of 
 the more important points in his testimony, some of the most salient, we find that he 
 says, in the first place, that a man by the name of Ryan, a livery stable keeper, who lived 
 in New York then, and lives in New York now, giving his place of business then and 
 now, first brought the parties together. Then he goes on and describes what happened 
 then. He goes on and informs you, also, that not long after that he met Scott at Elmira, 
 and that Scott’s name was falsely entered upon the register of the hotel, under the pseudo¬ 
 nym of Bishop, and he gives the date, and the name of the hotel. He tells that in 1874, 
 Scott and Dunlap robbed the Quincy Bank, and that Connors came and paid over to him 
 what he claimed was his distributive share of the plan. He said that immediately after 
 that, he and Dunlap and Scott and Connors, together, had another interview in reference 
 to that transaction, giving dates and places. He testifies that on July 3, 1874, he was at 
 the National Bank of Syracuse, and at a certain hotel, and that there he made certain 
 plans and diagrams, and that these plans and diagrams he afterwards gave to Dunlap. 
 He testifies that after that, on the 4th day of August, by the request of these men, he 
 came to Northampton, and that, on the 5th day of August, he telegraphed to these par¬ 
 ties, at Wilkesbarre, stating that he would be there at a certain time, if he received a 
 request from them. He testified that afterwards he had a telegram from Dunlap, under 
 the name he had given him of R. C. Hill; and mark, while it occurs to me, I may say, 
 if R. C. Hill had no relations to these parties, and they are as ignorant of him as they 
 claim to -be, it is quite suggestive and signiOcant that some stranger should have unwit¬ 
 tingly employed the initials of Scott's name. “ R. C.” We find, according to his testi¬ 
 mony, that he went to Wilkesbarre, and remained there part of two days. Saw Dunlap. 
 Saw Scott. That they came home. That he gave to Scott the keys which he had 
 received from the Northampton Bank, that Scott might duplicate them for his own 
 use. And we find that after that, in pursuance of that, Scott and Dunlap and 
 Connors were at Northampton off and on during the rest of August, and during Sep¬ 
 tember. We find that in September, one Joseph Locke had indicated to Herring & Co. 
 that the lock which was upon the Northampton National Bank was an imperfect i 
 lock, and, in consequence of that information, that further proceedings at Northampton 
 were unsafe and suspended. We find that afterwards, at their request, he came to 
 Northampton, aad there obtained impressions upon a piece of wax, given to him 
 by Scott, of the keys of the Northampton Bank. We gnd that they imformed him 
 tnat they had watched Mr. Whittelsey’s house, and also watched the movements of 
 the bank, and discovered that the watchman was withdrawn as early as four o'clock in 
 the morning. We find that they made preparations to enter the bank, and that Dunlap ; 
 and Scott told him on Sunday that they were going to start that night for Northampton, ; 
 and expected to consummate the robbery on Monday night, but that it was, in some way, ' 
 interrupted, explaining to you just how it happened that these men were seen at | 
 Springfield on Monday and Tuesday. Then we find that on the 26th day of January 
 Edson was at Bristol, and that there he received a telegram from Herring. Herring’s 
 books confirm him, showing that he was not there the day before. Then you will remem¬ 
 ber that on the Sunday morning afterwards a “personal” was put into the New York I 
 Herald as Edson tells us : “ Idalia, G. Monday evening, 6 sharp ; very important.” He 
 
 says that in consequence of the “personal,” which had been agreed upon by him and 
 Connors and Dunlap and Scott, he met Connors, and Connors paid over to him some 
 $1200 of money of the Northampton Bank, in new fives and in precisely the same bills 
 which Mr. Warriner testified that they had just then, for the first time, begun the issue. 
 This was on the 30th. We find that afterwards, on the 7th day of February, and that 
 was Monday, Edson meets Connors and inquires of him with regard to Scott and Dunlap, 
 and Connors informs him that Scott and Dunlap have gone to Northampton after the 
 property. We find that on the very next day there is placed iu the Herald, and Edsou 
 says that he then admonished Connors that Northampton is on the alert, and that it is 
 not safe for these men to go on for the property. Then he tells us that, by Connors’ re-* 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 67 
 
 quest, he puts another “ personal ’’into the Herald, “ Knox, come home,” and that 
 Connors tells him that Scott will understand that, because “ Knox ” was the name of 
 a horse that he owned, and that Connors himself goes on to intercept him. We find 
 that a day or two after he meets Dunlap, at a place named, and inquires of him 
 whether Scott has returned, and he learns that he has not. The succeeding day he 
 meets Scott, and Scott informs him that he went to Springfield and returned without 
 going to Northampton, and that they did not return (a fact a little extraordinary if 
 untrue, and fabricated by Edson) in consequence of the advertisement, and that they 
 had not seen Connors. On Friday he informs us that he met Scott, who explained 
 to him why he returned. We find that after that, on a certain day and place named, 
 he is informed that the property is returned, and of the exact day it was brought 
 back. On Sunday the 13th, it was arranged between the parties that Edson should 
 confer with the bank officers and endeavor to negotiate profitable terms for the re¬ 
 turn of the property. On Feb. 18th he informs Scott and Dunlap of the result of the 
 negotiations, and urges them to close the arrangement at once. They then apprise 
 him that they have now got the property into their own possession and should ne¬ 
 gotiate the business in their own and usual way, and intimated to him that they can 
 dispense with his further services in the matter. He does not meet them again until 
 the following September. He demands explanation—is denounced as having 
 sold out the whole party, which he denies, and is told that they do not propose to 
 pay him a “ damned cent.” The witness then describes subsequent interviews, giving 
 particulars of dates, places and parties. Now, gentlemen, I confidently submit that 
 Edson could not have recited to you such a multiplicity of facts, stated so circum¬ 
 stantially, covering so much space, and time, involving so many details, and reckless¬ 
 ly exposing himself to contradictions, upon any other hypothesis than that he was 
 master of his facts and knew that his story was true. The story bears unmistakably 
 the internal evidence of verity. Isn’t it so? 
 
 But I have thus far, Mr. Foreman, only referred to the story itself as bearing in¬ 
 trinsic marks of truth. Now is introduced the other questions whether or not Edson 
 is corroborated and confirmed in important particulars in this amazing story. Per¬ 
 haps the first question you would ask, is this, however. What motive has Edson 
 and what motive has he had, at any time, in telling anything but the whole truth in 
 the case? We say that he could have had no other motive. That was his only 
 safety. The only ground he could stand upon, or tread upon securely, was that when 
 he confessed anything he should confess the whole and the exact truth. In the 
 famous case that has been referred to already, of the Commonwealth against Knapp, 
 Mr. Webster remarked :— 
 
 “ In our practice, the moment an accomplice is permitted by the Attorney General 
 to make a disclosure, he is safe; he is beyond hope or fear; his security is as com¬ 
 plete as if he had received a pardon. The only thing which can bring him into 
 jeopardy is a departure from the truth.” 
 
 Now, gentlemen, in this case it has been suggested that Mr. Edson is a bright and 
 intellectual man. His mind is a “polished column,” my brother tells us. He is a 
 man of clean, clear, acute insight and apprehension, he is a man who knows what he 
 is about, and he knew that the only safe thing for him to do was to tell the truth. If 
 he received any promise of pardon, any promise of relief, any promise of security, it 
 was based upon the condition of telling the whole truth. What possible motive could 
 he have to lie? My brother suggested, you know, in his opening that they expected 
 to show that he told the truth in the main, but that he substituted other parties for 
 Dunlap and Scott. What object was there for that? What was he to gain by leaving out 
 the parties to the fraud, when he must have known with this vigilant detective force, all 
 about him, that his falsehood must, at once, be revealed and he himself arrested ? Not 
 at all. Would he select two such men as Scott and Dunlap, as the subjects he was to 
 palm oft' upon the Northampton bank, as the perpetrators of this crime. Why, gen- 
 men, with these men, with their bevy of confederates about them, his life would not 
 have lasted an hour, and he knew it, and he knew that the only way for him to acquire 
 any power over these men, the only way in which he was safe, was to demonstrate to 
 them and their co-conspirators by his testimony that they were in his power, to show 
 that Scott was in his power, that Dunlap was in his power, and that Connors was in 
 his power. His life would not have been worth a farthing. How long would 
 
68 
 
 TBIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 his life have weighed in the balance against these men, and how much ? Not so much 
 as the weight of the feather of a humming-bird’s wing. No, he adopted the only wise 
 and safe course, the only possible course that was left open to him, to open his 
 bosom and make a clean and complete revelation; and therefore it was that he went 
 to that stand and challenged investigation and invited scrutiny ; and except upon that 
 theory you don’t believe that he could have dared to open his mouth, or certainly not 
 to have invited and challenged scrutiny. Therefore, I say to you, that the testimony 
 of Edson, alone, of itself, without any corroboration or confirmation from any party, 
 or from any source, bears upon itself the image and the superscription of the truth. 
 But, gentlemen, we go a great deal further. We say that he is confirmed and corrob¬ 
 orated in a great variety of important particulars. In the first place we say that he is 
 corroborated by what happened at Wilkesbarre. Edson says that when at Northamp¬ 
 ton he sent a telegram to Dunlap under the name of R. C. Hill. We have exhibited 
 it. You remember what that telegram was, and it is not necessary for me to refer to 
 it. We show to you that the telegram which he sent from Northampton to Wilkes¬ 
 barre, was received by somebody. We find by going to Wilkesbarre and examining 
 the hotel register, that the name of Edson and R. C. Hill are recorded. By compari¬ 
 son of these signatures with Dunlap’s handwriting, we find that R. C. Hill, both on 
 the register and on the pass-book of the telegraph company, were written by Dun¬ 
 lap. We-have exhibited the telegram he sent by previous arrangement to Edson, un- 
 son, under the assumed name of Edwards, and that also in his handwriting, containing 
 the words, “ come to-morrow.” The comparison of the handwriting is conclusive, 
 and it requires r.o expert to show you that Edson’s right hand wrote his name on the 
 hotel register, acknowledged the receipt of Edson’s telegraph, and wrote a telegram 
 in reply. In this history at Wilkesbarre, we have a most striking and significant cor¬ 
 roboration of Edson’s story. 
 
 There is another important corroboration to which I have already alluded. I refer 
 to the occasion vfrhen, after being informed by Connors that Scott was on his way to 
 Northampton, for the property, and that Connors, upon being informed that the en¬ 
 terprise was unsafe, himself offered to go to Springfield, and that he set out for that 
 place in order to warn Scott that it was unsafe to seize upon the spoils at that time. 
 And we found from the testimony of Sexton, that at the time when Edson says that he 
 sent Connors to Springfield, Scott himself was there, on that very occasion with a 
 team such as Connors described. That after Scott had departed, a man whom you 
 can have no doubt was Connors, came to Sexton and inquired of him for these two 
 men. And then, that upon inquiring of Scott ofter he returned, whether he saw Con¬ 
 nors there, Scott told him that he did not see him, and that he came away not in con¬ 
 sequence of the notice Connors gave him, or the “ personal ” in the Herald, but that 
 he came away from other causes, which Ishall explain to you by and by. Again, we 
 say, he is confirmed in this. 
 
 He testifies he was in Syracuse on the third day of July, and at that time he made 
 a craft of the Third National Bank of Syracuse, and that he gave that draft to Dun¬ 
 lap. Is he confirmed in that, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen? We have called the 
 president of the bank, and he says that on the third day of July, Edson was there. He 
 says that he was around the bank for five or six hours We showed him the diagram 
 which Edson says he gave to Dunlap as being the diagram whieh was a descrip¬ 
 tion of the bank, and he identifies it as an accurate description of the bank. In this 
 we go further, and this document which Edson says he gave to Dunlap, we 
 find in Dunlap’s trunk, under Dunlap’s lock and key. How do you account 
 for that? No confirmation? My Brother Leonard yesterday, with a degree 
 of plausibility that had a vast deal of fancy and a slight basis of fact in it, 
 endeavored to explain to you that fatal piece of testimony about the trunk ; that 
 trunk he claimed had been broken open before that document was taken from it. 
 Not at all. When was that trunk broken open ? My Brother Leonard has intimated 
 that Mr. Pinkerton had no key to that trunk until Dunlap gave him the key, and that 
 he did not examine the trunk until these suspicious articles had been placed in it by 
 his connivance. Not at all, not a bit of it. Mr. Pinkerton swears that Dunlap and 
 Scott were arrested in Philadelphia, with their burglar tools, on the 13th day of Feb¬ 
 ruary, and that by telegraph he heard of it, and on that same day he went to the 
 Grand Central Hotel and broke open the trunk himself, in the presence of the pro- 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANS ROBBERS. 
 
 69 
 
 prietor of the hotel, and of the porter, and then he took away from that trunk the dia¬ 
 gram. Afterwards, he says he took certain other articles, and left it then in the care 
 of the proprietor of the hotel, and afterwards, he says Dunlap sent down, as he states, 
 and tried to get away these evidences of his guilt, and the proprietor of the hotel 
 would not give them up, and Dunlap tells Pinkerton that the proprietor of the hotel 
 would not surrender them, and asks him to go and get them, and then he goes and 
 examines the trunk. Then it was he took away the photographs of Connors and Mrs. 
 Scott, and that piece of wax, precisely the same sort of a thing that Scott gave Edson 
 in order to make his quiet impression of the keys of Mr. Whittelsey’s bank. That is the 
 story. It has been intimated to you that these detectives are not men that you can trust. 
 Gentlemen, the house of Pinkerton is no stranger in this country. You have heard of it 
 over and over again, that when the commercial and the municipal detectives failed 
 and were foiled, these honest men were resorted to. An old house, which has been in 
 operation some forty years, founded by that man’s father, an honest Scotchman, who 
 carries on the business to-day. Do you remember the Mollie Maguire outrages in 
 the coal fields? Ask the honest citizens of Schuylkill, who had been shadowed for 
 years by murderers, and who lifted up their hands with benedictions on the Pinker¬ 
 tons, because at last they had brought the miscreants to light, and that, too, through 
 the aid of an accomplice. And from that time to this, through their instrumentality 
 largely, quiet and order has reigned there as before. These insinuations and asper¬ 
 sions are most unjust, and it is not safe to suggest to a jury that Mr. Pinkerton was 
 a party to a false and fraudulent placing of this piece of testimony in Dunlap’s trunk. 
 
 I say, therefore, that Edson is confirmed and corroborated most conclusively by the 
 testimony growing out of the diagram of the bank in Syracuse. 
 
 Again, there is another piece of testimony by which he is confirmed. It appears by 
 the testimony that here was a conspiracy in which Connors and Dunlap and Edson 
 and Scott were the parties. Connors, according to Edson’s story, was designated as 
 the man who should negotiate the securities, and Edson tells you that Connors did 
 not come to Northampton; the others did, and Connors was to stay behind and ne¬ 
 gotiate the plunder. Edson says that after that, along in the fall, he tried to make 
 arrangements by which these securities should be negotiated and placed again in the 
 hands of the bank, by means of the bank paying a certain sum for them, and that he 
 had an interview with Scott and Dunlap, and Leary was present on that occasion. 
 
 Here let us diverge a moment and allude to another fact, which I might mention 
 as among the reasons or motives that actuated Edson in what he did. We find, ac¬ 
 cording to Edson’s story, that early after the loss of the property by the bank, he had 
 an interview with Mr Williams, and the defendants confirm the fact, and that from 
 that time he endeavored to have the securities negotiated back to the bank before 
 they should be removed from Northampton. That was his object and interest, be¬ 
 cause you can see that if he could arrange to negotiate the securities with the direct¬ 
 ors of the bank at Northampton before they left Northampton, and a certain sum of 
 money should be arranged for, he would know precisely how much the sum was, and 
 thus he would be sure to have his fair share of the plunder, and then he would not be 
 defrauded as he was in the Quincy affair. And that is just the reason why Scott and 
 Dunlap would not negotiate them, and that is the reason why they insisted upon 
 the securities being brought from Northampton, in order that they could “ beat ” 
 Edson in the matter, just as he was beaten in the Quincy matter. Edson knew 
 that these men had gone on to Northampton, and he kne w that their purpose was 
 to bring back the securities, and he was determined to stop it, and sent Connors 
 on. He put in his notice of Idalia;” and the question will perhaps arise whether or 
 not he was not the means of sending on to Springfield or Northampton, the materials 
 out of which the notice should be made, which appeared in the Springfield Union 
 under date of Feb. 7th, 1876, viz: “Telegrams state that the securities are buried 
 somewhere in the town of Northampton, and that the burglars were coming for 
 them.” I say, you can see that Edson had a motive in all this matter, and you can see 
 perhaps another motive that is disclosed. We find that he tries to arrange for the 
 negotiation of the securities. He finds that he cannot do it. They thwart his efforts, 
 and conclude by finally telling him he shall not have a “ damned cent,” and is sold 
 out; and then it is, and not till they thus betrayed him, that he takes the matter into 
 his own hands, and at last makes a full disclosure. And now, gentlemen, let us recur 
 
70 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 again to the matters of corroboration growing out of that fact. I say, it was under¬ 
 stood between Connors, Dunlap, Edson and Scott, that Connors was to be the nego¬ 
 tiator. According to Edson's story, they had a conference together, and it was ar¬ 
 ranged between them that Edson should be the medium by which communication 
 should be made between the Northampton Bank and the burglars, through their 
 special negotiator, Connors. And what does he do? Edson says, that immediately 
 after that was agreed upon and arranged for, he telegraphed to Mr. Williams to come 
 on to New York, and in pursuance of the arrangement made tor that purpose: that 
 Williams came to New York, and that he agreed with him that he should have an 
 interview with Connors. Mr. Williams corroborates him entirely. Hecomestothe 
 stand and swears that in accordance with the arrangement made between him and 
 Edson, he went to Connors’ place, had an interview with him there of two or three 
 hours, in a vain endeavor to get back the securities, and that afterwards Connors 
 met him at the Windsor Hotel, and that after that he and Connors conferred together 
 for an hour in Central Park. Is that no confirmation of Edson? Is there any ex¬ 
 planation other than in the entire truth of Edson’s version of the facts, and that 
 Connors and Williams had that interview in consequence of and in pursuance of the 
 arrangement claimed by Edson to have been made between him and Connors and 
 the defendants? I submitted, a few moments since, that the testimony of Edson, 
 from its palpable, intrinsic truth, from its internal evidence, was such as to entitle it 
 to your credence. Now I ask you if, taking that evidence, reinforced as it is by these 
 corroborative facts and circumstances, not one of which can it be pretended that Ed- i 
 son created, the conclusion is not irresistible, and does not the testimony" seize upon 
 and grapple the defendants inextricably ? 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we come to another class of testimony which is independent of 
 Edson, and at the same time corroborative of his history of the case. And I refer 
 now to the chapter of events which occurred at the house of Mr. Whittelsey. It 
 seems that on the 26th of January, 1876, while Mr. Whittelsey and his family, shield¬ 
 ed by the law, as they supposed, were asleep beneath their own roof, their house was 
 entered by’ five men. The outer key was turned by these nippers. Having once 
 entered the house, they silently passed up the front stairway, and with huge sledge 
 hammers broke down the doors and entered the sleeping rooms of the inmates. We 
 say that two of the parties engaged in that enterprise were Scott and Dunlap. We 
 don’t assume to identify any of the others, but we do identify those as being the lead¬ 
 ers and the chief actors in that brutal midnight drama. We prove it by Mr. Whit¬ 
 telsey, by Mrs. Whittelsey, by Mrs. Page, three witnesses of large intelligence and 
 high character. They swear, according to their best knowledge and belief, these are 
 the men, and they are confident in their knowledge and belief. Mr. Whittelsey testi¬ 
 fies with confidence. He recognizes Scott chiefly by his voice. He states how much 
 conversation he had with him, and how frequently he heard his voice during those 
 long four hours, and his opportunities for accurate observation. He was at special 
 painstaking in listening to what was said, and in scrutinizing what was done, and even 
 their manner and bearing were marked with special reference to identification there¬ 
 after, and noticed the peculiar shrug of the shoulders w r hich we have proved was charac- 
 acteristic of his bodily motions. Mrs. Page testifies that she identifies them by the voice 
 and bearing and from a variety of characteristic facts. She says : “I thought, at the time, 
 if I should ever meet them again I should know them.” She has now met them and does 
 know them. Mrs. Whittelsey as positively’ and for like reasons recognizes them. 
 They all have no hesitation in declaring to you that these are the men. My Brother 
 Leonard scouts the theory that the voice furnishes any’ adequate test of identity, and 
 asks how many would recognize the tones of his voice it they should hear it to-mor¬ 
 row ? Very true. The breath of human eloquence passes away from the public 
 assembly and leaves no trace. That is not this case. You are to take the circum¬ 
 stances in which these persons were placed. Here I refer to the suggestions I sub¬ 
 mitted in a lormer investigation of these facts, as reasons why these persons should 
 remember. Iheir faculties were edged and sharpened by the excitement of the hour, 
 so that they are able to remember and recall precisely the tones of the voice. Here 
 they were in their own home, with five masked burglars surrounding them, conscious 
 that their purpose was the commission of a great felony, part of the time bound hand 
 and foot, part of the time sitting side by side with these men, marking every tone 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANE ROBBERS. 
 
 71 
 
 and movement, their minds were excited, their minds were on the alert, their 
 minds were quite like the plate in the camera-obscura which when it is ready to re¬ 
 ceive the impression and the image falls upon it, receives it in an instant and it is 
 made indelible; and is the human eye a clumsier invention than human contrivan¬ 
 ces? They say they remember the tones of the voice. So Mr. Whittelsey says, so 
 Mrs. Page says. And that is one of the methods in which the mind takes in impres¬ 
 sions, and these are made instruments of proof in legal investigations. In the case 
 of Halligan and Dailey, who were executed in Hampshire county, the voice was the 
 mode of identification. Why, even the old patriarch Isaac was deceived in his 
 sense of touch, but he recognized the voice of Jacob. So it is in many and many a 
 case cited from the books. 
 
 (Here Mr. Gillett referred to instances recorded in the State trials of England, 
 which he cited in his former argument.) 
 
 Do we not all know, Mr. Foreman, that our senses are quickened and intensified 
 under strong excitement ? It applies even to our grosser faculties. That mother 
 who lifted with ease the timber which imprisoned the body of her child, but which 
 required two strong men to replace, illustrates the theory. But my Brother Leon¬ 
 ard says Mrs. Page says she was never more composed in her life ; never more cool ! 
 Cool ! Cool as the engine is cool when under pressure it is ready to do its work. 
 Cool as Napoleon was cool when, sitting in his saddle in the midst of the smoke and 
 thunder of the fight, he could maneuver forty thousand troops, ranged over miles of 
 territory, so that he could summon division after division, column after column, and 
 concentrate them at a single point at the same instant, and thus perform, as he said, 
 mathematical problems by intuition, which, in the quiet of his tent, would have re¬ 
 quired hours of calculation. It is such a coolness and composure that these men and 
 women had on that fearful night, and the impressions were seared upon their eye¬ 
 balls, and they retain them at this hour. And when they stood there and confronted 
 these men, it was with absolute confidence that they exclaimed, These are the men ! 
 
 But, gentlemen, we don’t rest here. This striking testimony, so confirmatory of 
 Edson, is itself corroborative. Is there other evidence tending to show that these 
 defendants had been in Northampton about that time 5 My Brother Leonard made 
 himself merry, somewhat, over Mr. Crafts’ testimony. All that Mr. Crafts testified 
 to—I suppose he is a respectable citizen of this town—and he informs that on an 
 occasion, two or three days before the robbery, he saw a man near Mr. Whittelsey's 
 house, looking intently toward it. That he had Connors with him ; that he asked 
 him if that was Mr. Whittelsey’s house. Brother Leonard seems to think that was 
 very strange. Not at all. The man was probably looking at the house with an in¬ 
 tenseness that required an explanation, and so, in order to carelessly relieve sus¬ 
 picion, he did the most natural thing in the world, he asked where Mr. Whittelsey 
 lived, and if he did not do that Mr. Crafts gives a further clue to the conversation, 
 when he said in reply to something Scott asked him, he informed Scott that there 
 was another family in the house. This was important information to Scott. But 
 Mr. Crafts does not say, I saw a man there, and I recognize him to-day, but he testi¬ 
 fies that after, on the Saturday before the burglary, he was standing in a grocery 
 store in this town, and that then and there he saw the same man, and the mental pro¬ 
 cess passed through his mind that this is the same man that I met upon the street the 
 other day in front of Mr. Whittelsey’s house; and then he goes upon the stand and 
 says to the best of his belief that Scott is the man. Then there is the similar testi¬ 
 mony of Mr. Mantor, applying to two occasions, and it is of the same sort, confirma¬ 
 tory entirely. So much for Northampton. But, gentlemen, there is no testimony in 
 this vicinity that clusters about these defendants so clearly, and with such connecting 
 power, as the occurrences at Springfield. We find that on Monday morning before 
 the robbery, a well-known citizen of Springfield saw these men. Mr. Holt tells you 
 that he went to his office in the morning about eight o’clock, and he saw these two 
 men as they crossed the street opposite to him. He saw them go down to the depot ; 
 afterwards he saw them on a side street, which my Brother Leonard talks about as 
 being a wholesale street of business. Possibly a wholesale liquor-dealers’ street; a 
 place eminently fit for burglars and thieves to congregate upon, and there he sees 
 two men meet three other men coming from an opposite direction, and they have a 
 conference together. Then, afterwards, he says he saw them again that day, and saw 
 
72 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 the five men meet again and confer together. He saw them the next day, both sepa¬ 
 rate and grouped, and called the attention of another to them. Now, gentlemen, the 
 question was asked of him whether or not these were the men, and he said that he 
 was positive about it, and that he had no doubt that Scott and Conners were the 
 
 persons. • 
 
 My Brother Leonard made a remark with reference to Mr. Holt, which I do not 
 think he would make in his presence or the presence of his friends, indicating that 
 he should think Mr. Holt was just such a man as would see them, and as he should 
 expect to see them and identify them. If he said it ironically, and sarcastically, as 
 his tones indicated, then he conveyed a wrong impression ol Mr. Holt; for of all 
 men in the city of Springfield who would accurately and infallibly observe and mark 
 such men it would be Mr. Holt. His high character is unquestioned. He is a man 
 who has been recognized in the city government ot Springfield over and over again, 
 in positions of trust, and more than that, according to his own testimony, has been 
 for eighteen years paymaster of the Boston and Albany railroad, paying out thirty or 
 forty thousand dollars a month. Having had this business on his hands for years, he 
 would naturally sharpen his eyesight and faculty ot observation, so that he could 
 know his men, that when employes came in for their pay he should remember 
 whether they are men who have been there before, or whether they are attempting to 
 palm themselves off for employes, a trick formerly not unfrequent. Then the fact 
 of his carrying large sums of money from one point to another, has sharpened his 
 senses, and when he saw these suspicious persons, he stamped them, he branded them, 
 and he remembered them, and had pitched upon them when he first saw them in a 
 crowd, and he knows that these are the men, and so swears to you. Were they the 
 robbers? They were at Springfield, and you will infer, of course, that they would 
 not come into this town, which was to be the scene ot their plunder only the next 
 day. They would not come. They would naturally feel comparative safety in a city 
 against which they had no evil designs, and would be careless of exposure, and the 
 fact that they were there two days is explained by Edson, when he says that Dunlap 
 told him on Sunday that they intended to make the charge on the bank the next 
 night It seems that for some reason they were detained in Springfield a day longer 
 than they intended. But this is not all. There are certain other marks of identity, 
 which have been introduced into the case. We find at the house ol Mr. Whittelsey a 
 piece of wrapping paper bearing the name of Hall & Prew as clothing dealers in 
 Springfield. Mr. Hall is called upon the stand and identifies a pair of drawers as 
 being such drawers as he sold in Springfield, a day or two before the robbery, and 
 although he cannot identify these men as the men, he remembers that somewhere and 
 at some time, he has seen them. And then we find in Mr. Whittelsey’s house, this 
 garment, and we find it fitting like that, and we find from the testimony of these that 
 a portion of this garment was worn as a mask, in Mr. Whittelsey’s house, that night. 
 So we have all these facts of corroboration. And, gentlemen of the jury, in addition 
 to all this, we have introduced another piece of testimony which seems to me espec¬ 
 ially significant and worthy of your consideration, and that is certain letters. We 
 introduced to you a receipt, which is confessedly in the handwriting of Scott. Then 
 we introduce to you a gentleman from New York, of A. A. Low & Co., and if you 
 know anything of these gentlemen, you know that for wealth and magnitude of bus¬ 
 iness, and respectability of character, there is no superior in the country, in this de¬ 
 partment. Mr. Lyman, formerly of this town, and lie has a summer residence here 
 now, being a member of the firm. We called Mr. Joseph Paine, an expert. And 
 upon the pressure of counsel upon the other side, and if anybody knows about his 
 own capacity I suppose he does, and according to his best judgment he and Mr. South- 
 worth are probably the only competent and accomplished professional experts in 
 handwriting in this country. Now he has compared their writings and he has passed 
 his judgment upon them, and he gives you as his unqalified conviction under oath, 
 that the hand which wrote the receipt wrote these letters and superscribed these let¬ 
 ters, and when you look at their contents you will know, that whoever wrote these 
 letters are the buiglars of this bank. Perhaps it is of very little consequence, but 
 by reading them you will find that if Scott wrote those letters, any one of them, he 
 was making precisely the same complaint to the bank that he had been making to 
 Edson. He says that somebody is trying to negotiate with you who has no authority 
 
TRIAL OR THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 73 
 
 to negotiate, and he says somebody is trying to negotiate with you who is “standing 
 at both ends.” Do you recollect that ? “Somebody is trying to negotiate with you 
 who is standing at both ends.” Who was that somebody ? Who was the man that 
 was writing to them warning them not to negotiate with the man who was standing 
 at both ends? Edson was the man, as appears by Mr. Williams’ evidence, who was 
 standing at the bank end, and Edson was the man that the writer referred to when he 
 warned them that it .was idle for them to endeavor to negotiate with any other party, 
 and if they wanted to negotiate they might negotiate with the writer, and to prove 
 his genuineness, he enclosed in the letter two of the stolen certificates. Mr. Fore¬ 
 man, Scott wrote that letter, and nobody else could have written it. So much for 
 that testimony. 
 
 (At this point the court took a recess of five minutes, after which Mr. Gillett re¬ 
 sumed his argument.) 
 
 Gentlemen, I have at a great deal more length than I expected to, taxed your pa¬ 
 tience in considering the testimony claimed by the Government as conclusive of the 
 guilt of the defendants. Ve say that this testimony is not to be judged of as each 
 piece stands alone and fragmentary. It is not that unsupported single column, such 
 as my brother alluded to, with nothing to support it from beneath, and nothing to 
 grapple it from above, and nothing to lean upon on either side; but it is testimony 
 reinforced and stabilitated in most significant and manifold ways. Each piece is sur¬ 
 rounded by its corroborative and confirming facts. And you are not to take each 
 piece by itself. Of course you will examine the entire fabric of evidence. You will 
 examine it as you test the strength of a cable which holds fast the ship at anchor. 
 Take it strand by strand, and fibre by fibre, and you can snap it with your finger, but 
 braid them together and then try it! And I ask you to look at the remarkable com¬ 
 bination of testimony, in order that you may get the full force and effect of it. Tak¬ 
 ing it singly and standing alone, you may say that each piece of itself is not conclu¬ 
 sive. But that is not the way to look at it. You might just as well analyze a single 
 drop of water in this glass, in order to discover the power and majesty of the ocean, 
 as it comes breaking in thunders upon the shore. But take this testimony together, 
 in its aggregation and accumulation, and I submit there is no withstanding its force, 
 and that all the testimony which has been introduced on the part of the defense is as 
 tow before the fire. Now, gentlemen, let us inquire what has been the theory of the 
 defense? Its chief aim has been to prove an alibi, to prove that these parties were 
 not there. And, of course, if they were not there, and you are satisfied that they were 
 not, then that ends the government’s case." But, I suppose there is nothing more un¬ 
 satisfactory than the testimony which is denominated an alibi, as gotten up by the party 
 of the defense in a criminal case. Tonly Weller only voiced the sentiment which has 
 been going on for generations, when he asked of his hopeful son, after the trial was 
 over, " Oh, Sammy, Sammj, vy worn’t there a alliby ?” and that, too, in a breach 
 of promise case ! Gentlemen, that is the easy resort of persons who intend to manu¬ 
 facture a defense. My Brother Leonard alluded to the Webster trial, in the course 
 of his argument. They had five intelligent witnesses, men and women, who swore to 
 seeing Dr. Parkman in full health and moving in the streets of Boston, when by Prof. 
 Webster’s own confession, afterwards, the body of Dr. Parkman had already been muti¬ 
 lated into fragments, and at that very hour was hanging piecemeal on fish-hooks in 
 the vault of the Medical College, or was part decaying beneath the action of acids, or 
 consuming in the fires of his furnace. No. But let us look a little at the testimony 
 upon which they rely. And, in the first place, I refer to the testimony of Pstrokon- 
 sky, and let us see how untrustworthy that testimony is. What was their alibi? 
 What was its theory ? It was that in January and February Scott was elsewhere, and 
 Dunlap was elsewhere, and Scott, beyond that, Scott was lame; that he had sprained 
 his foot early in January, and continued lame certainly down to the 22d of March, 
 when he was receiving instruction from the Professor who was so fresh from his clas¬ 
 sics. And if he was not any more accurate in his facts than he was in his classics, I 
 do not wonder that my Brother Leonard smiled. I presume because he, always fresh 
 from the classics, discovered that the erudite professor misquoted the Latin and mis¬ 
 pronounced the English. But what do they attempt to prove by these persons? 
 They prove that he was absent and that he was lame. And the first piece of testi¬ 
 mony that they introduce here is from this music teacher, and the question that they 
 
74 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 ask him is this. Perhaps it is hardly worth while to go over the deposition, but they 
 inquire of him where he was in the month of January, in reference to Mrs. Scott’s family, 
 and he testified that during the month of January he gave lessons to Mrs. Scott in music 
 every Monday and every Thursday. Then, upon cross-examination, he was inquired 
 of as to his means of information, how he happened to be so accurate, and he referred 
 to his memorandum book as one of thespecial sources of his information. You will re¬ 
 member that. And then, gentlemen, we look at his memorandum book and we find, as 
 you will find upon referring to it, Mrs. Scott’s name mentioned in a sort of ledger ac¬ 
 count, the grouping of all his professional visits. And you will observe that the ac¬ 
 count commences the 5th day of January, goes on to July, August, September and 
 October, but December and January are nowhere mentioned. There is no entry and 
 nothing to indicate that he was there, in a single instance, in the month of January. 
 There is nothing to indicate that he was at Scott's house during the whole time. And 
 he further adds, that he took dinner there uniformly, when he gave lessons, and that 
 he gave his lessons at twelve o’clock, and yet, according to the German girls who 
 were servants there, they dined at three or four o’clock, invariably. So far as that I 
 testimony is concerned, we say it is worthless; it is not worth so much as a whiff of 
 smoke from the cigars peddled by his wife from her cigar stand. And, gentlemen, 
 you will mark that this testimony was taken on the 20th of last June. 
 
 You will find also that the deposition of Mrs. Ballou was also taken this last June, 1 
 and you will find that the testimony of Mr. Raphael, if that is his name, was taken 
 last June. And here is this music teacher, who was there twice a week, as he testi¬ 
 fied, during the whole of January, as also in February, and Mrs. Ballou, who had the 
 same means of information that her daughter had, and Mr. Raphael, who received the 
 rent, and not a single question is asked of Mrs. Ballou, or the music teacher, or 
 Raphael, whether they noticed that Scott was lame. That question of lameness had 
 then never occurred to them ; it was an after-thought ! My Brother Leonard tells you 
 that here is an alibi which is very imperfect, but very true, and true because it is im¬ 
 perfect and not gotten up by artifice—and intimates that it was prepared by our ex¬ 
 cellent Brother Bond, and who he suspects may have gone down to New York for 
 that purpose, and how refreshing it must have been to have seen these ingenuous 
 gentlemen in that great and wicked city ! You would infer that the appearance of 
 Brother Bond in New York was like a breath of fresh air from our mountains, like 
 the murmur of a country brook. Not much, Mr. Foreman! Besides, they had noth¬ 
 ing to do with the fabrication of this alibi. We discover that here is a New York 
 lawyer, More, who was here day aftey day during the first trial, and has been back 
 and forth between this town and New York during the present trial, evidently pre¬ 
 paring and supervising the alibi. Yet, from all these depositions and as recently as 
 June last, not a word or syllable about Scott’s lameness, but now by these witnesses 
 on the stand, they extend this lameness from the 2d of January down to the 22d of 
 March, when with the gentle professor as a student. And the professor’s ingenious 
 reply was very significant. “Did you notice his lameness then ?” my Brother Bond 
 inquires. “Why, yes, because Mr. Scott called my attention to it by asking permis¬ 
 sion to place his foot upon a chair, in order that he might rest it from his lameness.” 
 Undoubtedly so ! The good professor thought that he was training Scott in mathe¬ 
 matics and the languages, and the fine arts, but Scott knew that he was training the 
 professor for a witness! There is the story. Now Ido not propose to go through 
 with the various issues of testimony which they have introduced, because it is all 
 fresh in your memory, and you remember the witnesses and that they testified both 
 as to Scott’s lameness, all the witnesses that they had, all the witnesses that were 
 trained by More testify as to the lameness. We had a Miss Amelia Wood on the 
 stand, and we also had a young lady by the name of Mary or Rosa Ballou. I am 
 glad she is not here to hear me mispronounce her name ; it would not be safe, I think 
 you will imagine. Now, gentlemen, I agree that she was bright; I agree that she 
 was keen, but I don’t agree that she was truthful, and when my Brother Leonard, in 
 his argument in commenting upon that witness, alluded to her in connection with 
 your own daughters, I ask you if you were not mortified and ashamed. Bright she 
 was, ready at repartee, and when I asked her certain questions she was quick with 
 her witty retort, and when yesterday I asked her in regard to some matter, and she 
 gave me a flippant “none of your business,” and when I inquired what she said, re- 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 75 
 
 torted she did not choose to repeat. I agree she was self-assured and of ready wit, 
 but where did she get it ? She got it by chaffering with men ! This woman who had 
 been going around in one place a month, in another house three weeks, in another 
 house four weeks, keeping house for a man three weeks, and at last placed in the 
 arms of the mother-in-law of More, and stays there for a year, paying her and her 
 mother’s board, when her house rent is unpaid, her butchers’ bills are unpaid, and 
 her grocer’s bill is unpaid, and she here glittering with jewelry and bedizened with 
 elegant apparel ! Mr. Foreman, to modify Watts a little, let me say that “The paint¬ 
 ed courtezan is known through the disguise they wear.” 
 
 And then who was their champion, who was the witness who was their champion 
 man, and who remembered dates; who remembered the condition of his face, who 
 remembered whether or not he had a full beard or a moustache, who it was that re¬ 
 membered about his lameness, who was able to recollect the fact because he was in 
 his way when he was putting a new string in the piano? They called a man by the 
 name of Decker, who by his own confession upon the stand, is a cheat and a swindl¬ 
 er, and a knave, and that, too, in the meanest of all aspects. Cheating his own rela¬ 
 tions, and a perjurer by his own confession. Swearing here upon the stand that in 
 his answer in the courts of justice, when he had been arraigned for fraud, and had 
 sworn to facts, was inquired of whether he did not afterwards confess that the facts 
 that he had sworn to were false, said, “ only part of them.” And that is a sample of 
 their testimony. That shows the reservoir from which they draw, and which gives a 
 complexion to all this testimony about an alibi, and I am willing to leave it just 
 there. But, gentlemen, my learned Brother, in his remarks, suggested to us that, 
 the case of the government was more remarkable for its suppressions than for what 
 it had proved. I do not wonder that the thought occurred to my excellent friend, 
 but that he should have been unwise enough to suggest it to you, certainly excited 
 my surprise. They need never have had Decker. They need never have had Miss 
 Ballou According to their own testimony here was the wife of Scott, who knew 
 every fact, who knew all about the case, who knew where he was, what his 
 business was, knew not only where he was on the 26th of January, but who knew 
 where he was on the 7th of February, and where he was during all these times of 
 which Edson testifies with such circumstantiality, and yet—there she sits ! 
 
 Mr. Leonard—I don’t think, your Honor, that what Mr. Gillett is saying is 
 competent. 
 
 Judge Bacon—A wife, by law, is a competent witness; but if she refuses to be one, 
 the government cannot compel her to be one. 
 
 Mr. Leonard—That matter has not been discussed, vour Honor. 
 
 Mr. Gillett—Then I propose to discuss it. 
 
 My Brother Leonard opened the question. It has been opened that if the defend¬ 
 ants saw fit, they could go upon the stand and testify, and my Brother Leonard gave 
 the reasons fully to the jury why he did not place them in the witness box to testify 
 in their own behalf, and I propose to reply to him. The whole question has been 
 opened by the defense. In the last term of the court in Hampden County, Chief 
 Justice Brigham so ruled. There is nothing that the defense shall allege in his case 
 that the government cannot reply to legitimately. 
 
 Judge Bacon—I think the defense gave a leason why they did not call the defend¬ 
 ants, and it may be discussed. 
 
 Mr. Leonard—-The reason is simply a personal reason entirely. I only wish to 
 have my rights here. 
 
 Judge Bacon—The counsel in his argument discusses the reason why the defend¬ 
 ants and why the wife of one of the defendants is not called. I think the govern¬ 
 ment have a right to comment upon these reasons, and upon what reasons they 
 claim really exist. 
 
 Mr. Leonard—Your Honor will save me the point. 
 
 Mr. Gillett—My Brother Leonard says I cannot comment upon the wife’s not 
 testifying. As his Honor has just suggested, they cannot compel the wife to testify, 
 but if she shall incline to testify for her husband, she can. But pray tell me if there 
 is any such relationship, that she shall have any delicacy in testifying in behalf of 
 Dunlap. And yet there she sat. Two honest German girls came to the stand, w’ho 
 make an important point in this case. My Brother Leonard inquires if they were 
 
76 
 
 TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 called in reply to anything. One of them had been here two or three weeks, expect¬ 
 ing, of course, that they could not be so utterly desperate in their defense as to be 
 compelled to leave off Mrs. Scott, and the other only came here yesterday or the day 
 before for the purpose of rebutting that testimony, and here Mrs. Scott sits and hears 
 these two girls swear, one of them that she went there on the 31st day of January, fix¬ 
 ing the time by the day that Mrs. Scott’s sister left; she says further, that she 
 remained there a week and four days; that Scott was at home during the week until 
 Saturday, the 5th day of February, when Scott left home, was not lame, and did not 
 return until Wednesday night, the 9th. The 5th day of February was the day they 
 went to Springfield. He came home again on Wednesday night. He opens the door 
 before the pressure of that German girl’s hand. She swears to it, and then the other 
 girl swears that she went there on Monday, the 7th, and that Scott was not at home, 
 and she did not see him until Thursday morning; that the other girl let him into the 
 house, and that he was not lame; and suddenly, on Friday, unexpectedly, Mrs. Scott 
 and Mr. Scott packed up their things and left the house and went to Mrs Ballou's to 
 board, when, according to the testimony of Raphael, the agent of the house, 
 he had paid his . rent up to the first of May next, a month and a half and more 
 that he gave up the rent of this house with its marble pillars, and yet he was so poor, 
 as my Brother Leonard states, that in the little domestic arrangements he was 
 obliged to have his clothes mended by a tailor, to whom he presents a gold headed 
 cane ! I say these two German girls go to the stand with this testimony to it in the 
 presence of Mrs. Scott, and she is silent. But what is more significant, Mrs. Scott 
 there, Dunlap there, Scott there, and listening to this conclusive, damning testimony 
 and in consultation with their counsel, yet my skillful friends do not take the hazard 
 to ask those girls a question ! Not one question ! Didn’t dare, if they were not to 
 call Scott and Dunlap and Mrs. Scott to the stand; didn’t dare to apply to them the 
 common tests that apply to all witnesses who speak falsely. And both of these girls 
 not only swear that Scott wore a moustache, and in their ingenuous and unsophisti¬ 
 cated way tell you that Mr. “Barton” was in good health, and that that was Mr. 
 Barton. And my Brother Leonard tries to explain to you why the defendants were 
 not called upon the stand, and he says to you in explanation, that he never yet called 
 a defendant to the stand who was tried for a crime. Then, Mr. Foreman and gentle¬ 
 men, he never defended a man whom he believed to be innocent. And more than 
 that, if an innocent man were defended, not only my Brother Leonard could shrink 
 from the risk of putting an innocent man upon the stand, but could he keep an in¬ 
 nocent man off? If Scott and Dunlap were innocent, think you, in spite of advice of 
 counsel, they would not have seized that witness stand and have demanded the 
 privilege of telling you their truthful story? My Brother Leonard says you would 
 not believe them if they told their story. Why not? Why not? There is no other 
 reason for not believing them, except that they are guilty. If they are innocent, 
 could they not have told their story of innocence? Could not. at least, Mr. Fore¬ 
 man, could not Scott and Dunlap at least give us the history of one single day, or of 
 one single hour, in all their lifetime, down to the period they were thrust into that 
 jail, of any honest labor or employment anywhere or for anybody they ever did ? 
 Couldn’t they have given us a little biography that should have let in some light up¬ 
 on their mysterious lives ? But instead of giving us anything, they leave us to our 
 conjectures and to such facts as we can gather. And, gentlemen, the only evidence 
 of any labor that they have ever performed in their lifetime, and the only symbols of 
 any work that they ever did in their lifetime, or any implements of labor they ever 
 employed, are these burglars’ tools found in their possession when they were arrested ! 
 This is the first evidence that we have from anybody suggesting any work they ever 
 did, excepting such as comes from Edson. Couldn't they have explained something? 
 And then, having been found with these tools, they go before the magistrate, are ar¬ 
 raigned and asked for their names ; they withheld even their names, because they say 
 that silence is a part of their defence. 
 
 Gentlemen. I do not propose to detain you any longer. We have endeavored to 
 prove to you that these defendants are guilty. We have endeavored to prove it, in 
 the first place by the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; we have presented 
 to you his testimony, which we say is the most extraordinary piece ot testimony that 
 was ever given on a witness stand in the whole history of criminal jurisprudence, 
 
TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 77 
 
 and we ask you to believe it from its internal evidence, from its intrinsic probability 
 and the impossibility of the story being otherwise than true.. Then we introduce evi¬ 
 dence before you of certain corroborative facts, and we show to you that he is cor¬ 
 roborated in various points; we show to you that he was corroborated by the Wilkes- 
 barre affair, by the affair at Syracuse, that he was corroborated by the interview be¬ 
 tween Connors and Williams, made in accordance with the agreement previously 
 made between the parties; and also from the fact that Scott went to Springfield and 
 Connors went after him, and that he came back in consequence of what Edson him¬ 
 self had achieved in that direction. Then we went with you to the scene of the 
 burglary, the dwelling-house of Whittelsey, and I ask you to consider the evidence 
 derived from the witnesses there, Mr. Whittelsey, Mrs. Whittelsey and Mrs. Page; 
 and then we ask you to rely upon the testimony of Mr Crafts, Mr. Mantor, and Mrs. 
 Crafts ; then we ask you to go to Springfield, and to rely upon the testimony which 
 we gathered there, and we have grouped this testimony together, making out, as we 
 believe, conclusively and inextricably, the guilt of the defendants. In their endeav¬ 
 ors to explain the testimony which has been introduced by the defense, and we claim 
 that that testimony, instead of going one single step towards their acquittal, only in¬ 
 volves them more and more in the confusion of guilt. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I leave the further consideration of this important cause. The ques¬ 
 tion for you to decide is, are the defendants guilty, or are they innocent, upon the evi¬ 
 dence ? The eloquent appeal made by my learned friend to you, in regard to the practical 
 result that must follow a conviction, should not influence your honest minds. Whether 
 they are to see again the light of the sun, or the moon, or the stars, is not one of the con¬ 
 sequences that you can be made responsible for. Such appeals are not appropriate to this 
 tribunal ; they may be pertinent elsewhere. 
 
 The diversified functions of our government are wisely distributed, and the duties of its 
 various departments do not clash. The cloud of justice which settles down upon this tri¬ 
 bunal, is armed with executing thunders. Only as it encircles the brow of the executive 
 does it reveal its silver lining of mercy. Remember, gentlemen, that mercy to criminals 
 is cruelty to the innocent. I trust your verdict may not be such a one as shall create a 
 gala-day among the thirty-five thousand professional thieves of the city of New York, and 
 especially among the aristocracy in villainy, to which I claim that the defendants belong, 
 who make that city the base of their operations, and the whole country the theater of their 
 achievements ; and these banded miscreants shall not exult, that at last Massachusetts 
 has become a safe field for their professional experiments, and of all places, and the last 
 place, that the old County of Hampshire has at length opened her door of invitation to 
 masked burglars and midnight robbers. God forbid ! Rather let your verdict prove a 
 terror to evil doers, and a joy to those who do well. Let us reassure the people of this 
 Commonwealth, as to-day our ears are stunned by the echoes of lawless violence in other 
 States, that here, if nowhere else, her citizens shall be protected in their property, and 
 their lives, by night as well as by day, and especially in the sanctuary of their own homes, 
 the place “where we all live, or bear no life,” so that when the day of honest toil is done, 
 and the darkness comes on, and “God giveth his beloved sleep,” the solitary, even, whom 
 “He hath established in families,” may rest in their beds in peace, and in conscious secu¬ 
 rity, beneath the silent omnipresence of the law. 
 
 The Jury Return a Yerdict of Guilty. 
 
 Judge Bacon charged the jury, and at about three o’clock they retired to deliberate 
 upon their verdict. At about six, they reported to the court that they had agreed upon 
 a verdict of Gitilty. At first, the jury stood ten for conviction and two for acquittal, 
 and the two yielded after the points upon which they at first doubted had been dis¬ 
 cussed. They were at no time very strenuous, but were a little in doubt. The an¬ 
 nouncement of the verdict made a profound sensation in the court-room, but apparently 
 it made little impression upon the prisoners. 
 
 Exceptions Taken.—A New Trial Asked For. 
 
 The counsel for the defense took numerous exceptions to the rulings of the Judge during the two trials; 
 one of the chief of which is the exception to the displacement of a juror from the panel by a challenge 
 from the government after he had been accepted and sworn. The exceptions taken during the la t trial 
 will be filed with the Clerk of the Courts on or before August 2. Then they will be examined by the coun¬ 
 sel for the prosecution, and if they are found to be in accordance with the facts of 'he case, they will be 
 reported to the Supreme Court, in September. If they are not found to be correct, then the presiding 
 Judge will be called in to assist in shaping them. Arguments will be heard upon them pro and con in Sep¬ 
 tember, and if the exceptions are sustained, the c >se will be put on the list for trial again in December; if 
 they are overruled, the defendants will be called up in December for sentence. 
 
[From the New York Sunday Sun, July 29.—Written by E. J. Edwards, Special Reporter.] 
 
 Gigantic Bank Robberies. 
 
 A Remarkable Series of Crimes—Edson the Lock Expert—His 
 Connection with Connors, Scott, and Dunlap —Nearly 
 $3,000,000 taken from So-called Burglar 
 
 Proof Safes. 
 
 The old-time bank burglar went out of the busi¬ 
 ness when scientific men invented the combination 
 lock. Bank men and safe men imagined that at last 
 something had been found that was burglar-proof. 
 But in 1872 a robbery in Louisville opened their eyes, 
 and this was followed for a period of four years by 
 a series of robberies and attempts which not only 
 had never been equaled, so far as daring and suc¬ 
 cess were concerned, but which showed that burg¬ 
 lars of ability had got the best of combination 
 locks. 
 
 From the similarity of method in all these robber¬ 
 ies and attempts, it was plain that the same men 
 were doing them; but they covered their tracks so 
 skilfully, that, although some of them were suspect¬ 
 ed, no proof was ever obtained of their guilt, ex¬ 
 cepting in the case of one man, until the remarka¬ 
 ble developments which followed the arrest of Scott, 
 Dunlap and Connors for robbing the Northampton 
 National Bank. 
 
 Now, that Scott and Dunlap are convicted, and 
 will probably spend the rest of their days in State 
 
 S rison, the whole story of the organization of this 
 .ing, of their various attempts and of their suc¬ 
 cessful robbery of nearly three millions of money 
 and bonds in the four years that they operated to¬ 
 gether, may be told for the first time." 
 
 Robert C. Scott spent his boyhood in the town of 
 Warsaw, Ill. He had served one term in the Illinois 
 penitentiary for grand larceny, and was serving a 
 second for stabbing a man, when he met in the pen¬ 
 itentiary an old bank robber, Tom Riley, alias Tom 
 Scott, alias Scarfaced Tom. When both were re¬ 
 leased, Scott was introduced by Riley, who is now 
 in Auburn, to James Dunlap, who is either a Scotch¬ 
 man or of Scotch descent. Both Scott and Dunlap 
 were men of strength, health, nerve, patience, and 
 brains. How soon after they met Billy Connors, so 
 well known in New York was taken into the Ring, 
 is not known, but it is certain that within a few 
 months after their acquaintanceship, the Falls City 
 Bank of Louisville, Ky., was broken into and robbed 
 by the Ring, and some §200,000 stolen. This was in 
 1872, and was the first bank robbed by the Ring. 
 Less is known about the means employed in robbing 
 this bank than of those that followed. But soon 
 after this robbery, the partners began to scour 
 through the country, looking for weak banks. One 
 of them, probably Connors, “ spotted ” the Second 
 National Bank of Elmira, and, after a thorough in¬ 
 vestigation, found that the only way that they 
 could work was through the floor of the Young 
 Men’s Christian Association room, which was di 
 rectly over the vault of the bank. But a difficulty 
 presented itself. The door of the room was an iron 
 one, and locked with a Hall lock. It was necessary 
 to be able to open this lock in some way every night 
 in order to work at the vault, and they did not know 
 how a Hall lock could be opened, nor could they 
 learn. 
 
 LOCK SECRETS. 
 
 They decided that in some way they must get the 
 secret of the Hall lock. Connors spent a great deal 
 of time, and at last heard that a salesman of Her¬ 
 ring’s safes stabled a horse at Ryan’s, in Thirty- 
 fourth street. Ryan had been crooked years before, 
 and to him Connors went, and Ryan consented to 
 bring this salesman, Edson, and Connors, together. 
 Ryan began by hinting to Edson that he had splen¬ 
 did opportunities to make money easily and safely, 
 
 and so, gradually leading the way, he at last asked 
 Edson to be allowed to introduce a friend to him. 
 This friend was Billy Connors, and at the first inter¬ 
 view nothing more than very gentle hints passed. 
 Some six interviews were had, and at the last, which 
 took place in a saloon in Prince street, near Broad¬ 
 way, Edson consented for §50,000 to tell Connors 
 how a Hall lock could be opened. Connors went 
 away in great glee, and told the rest of the Ring 
 that he had got a man now who could open any lock 
 in the country for them. Then the plan was ar¬ 
 ranged. Connors got some one in Elmira to send a 
 letter to Herring & Co., inquiring about safes, and, 
 as was expected, Edson was sent to see about it. 
 He went to Elmira, stopping at the Rathbone House, 
 and on the Sunday after his arrival a man came iu 
 and sat opposite to him at dinner. This man asked 
 Edson whether his name was Edson, and being told 
 that it was, said he had a letter of introduction. 
 This man was Robert C. Scott. It was agreed that 
 Scott should put a paper wad into the Hall lock that 
 night, so that it would not work the next morning. 
 Meanwhile, Edson was to let it be known that he 
 was in town, and it was expected that, naturally, 
 he would be called on to repair the lock. It hap¬ 
 pened just as was expected, and while Edson re¬ 
 paired the lock he got an impression of the key, 
 which he gave Scott, and the difficulty of approach 
 to the bank vaults was then cleared away. 
 
 The burglars, before they found Edson, went so 
 far as to break into the house of the Secretary of 
 the T. M. C. A., and to feel in his pockets for the 
 keys, simply to get an impression of them. But the 
 Secretary had hidden the keys under the carpet, 
 and they were foiled. This Secretary was greatly 
 surprised the next morning to see traces of burg¬ 
 lary, and to find that nothing had been taken, and 
 he never understood it. 
 
 SHAM HOUSEKEEPING. 
 
 After the key was finally obtained, arrangements 
 were made. A woman who lived in Baltimore was 
 hired to go to Elmira and take a house somewhere 
 in the suburbs. She was represented as the wife of 
 a man who was away a great deal. This house was 
 simply furnished wit'll cooking utensils, a few blank¬ 
 ets, and a set of window curtains throughout. This 
 woman made a great display of keeping house, 
 sweeping the steps and yard every day with great 
 vigor. Here Scott, Dunlap, Red Leary, Billy Con¬ 
 nors and John Berry spent their days, going out at 
 night only, and they were never seen. They lived 
 there six weeks. Every night they went to the Y. 
 M. C. A. room, unlocked the door, took up the floor¬ 
 ing, and went to work. They removed ton after ton 
 of stones and carried them up to the top of the Op¬ 
 era House building in baskets. There were four feet 
 of solid masonry to be dug through, some of the 
 stones weighing a ton ; then a layer of railroad iron 
 and a plate of \]4 inch steel. They got through all 
 of this but the last plate ; but one night President 
 Pratt, of the bank, having occasion to go into the 
 vault, saw a layer of white dust on the floor. He 
 suspected something, and got an officer. An alarm 
 was given to the gang, and all got away but Berry. 
 He was arrested at the door, and is now serving a 
 sentence in Auburn prison, his time being up next 
 September, for this attempted burglary. After¬ 
 ward the air pump which they expected to use to 
 blow powder into the safe, was found in the lumber 
 yard, where they had hidden it. Connors the same 
 
SKETCH OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS 
 
 79 
 
 night was seized by a man at the depot, but he 
 wrenched himself away, and walked to Watkins, 
 N. Y., and from there took a boat to Geneva, and 
 met Scott and Dunlap on the New York Central 
 train, they having gone from Elmira to Buffalo, and 
 then taken the train to New York. They had ex¬ 
 pected to get some $200,000 in greenbacks and $6 - 
 000,000 in bonds. 
 
 After helping Berry on his trial and seeing that 
 his family was taken care of, they agreed to scout 
 again. Dunlap went West, and after some time in 
 February, 1874, sent to Scott to make up a party, 
 and bring the air pump, as he had “found something 
 to go to work at.” Scott made up the party, which 
 consisted of himself, Tom Draper, Dave Cummings, 
 alias Little Dave, Tom Bigelow, Billy Flynn, and 
 George Mason, and they, going by different ro utes, 
 met Dunlap in Quincy, Ill. Here the Baltimore 
 woman had hired a house, and in it the gang lived, 
 and from it went to work. Getting access to the 
 room over the vault, they took up the flooring ev¬ 
 ery night, and at last got down to the safes upon 
 which they expected to use the air pump. But, for 
 one reason or another, they had to wait two weeks 
 for a good night to consummate the job. At last 
 the night came, and Scott and Dunlap, after taking 
 off the brick top, went down into the vault. Then the 
 seams of the upper safe were all puttied up, except¬ 
 ing a little hole at the top and bottom. On a piece 
 of paper was placed fine powder, and held to the 
 little hole at the top of the vault, and the air pump 
 was applied to the lower hole ; and thus the powder 
 was sucked in. Then a little pistol was attached to 
 the upper hole, loaded only with powder, a string 
 attached to the trigger, and at a safe dis¬ 
 tance discharged ; but there was only a puff. 
 Another attempt was more successful, and $120,- 
 000 in money and some $700,000 in bonds were taken. 
 The bank acknowledged a loss of only $80,000. 
 Neither the money nor the bonds have been recov¬ 
 ered. 
 
 SUMPTUOUS LIVING. 
 
 The party returned to New York, and for a time 
 lived in great style. The choicest wines and cigars, 
 fast horses and women melted their money. It was 
 at this time that Scott bought the celebrated trotter 
 Knox which made a sensation on the Coney Island 
 road. Many persons will now learn with amaze¬ 
 ment that the dashing young man who cut such a 
 swath in the summer of 1874 speeding his splendid 
 horse down the Coney Island road, was Robert C. 
 Scott, the burglar, and that the blonde moustached 
 man with him, who seemed such a jolly good fellow, 
 was bis pal and companion now in Northampton 
 jail, James Dunlap. 
 
 In the fall of 1874 their money gave out again, and 
 they began to look around for a fresh job. Edson had 
 had nothing to do with the Quincy robbery, and the 
 Ring had not seen him for nearly a year. As the 
 air pump was Edson’s they paid him for its use in 
 the Quincy robbery, but only about half the amount 
 they had promised to pay. In the fall, how ever, 
 Dunlap went to see him. Edson then told Dunlap 
 that he wished to sever all connection with them, 
 but said Dunlap, “Berry, who is now 'n Auburn, 
 wants to squeal, and I am the only one who can stop 
 him. Would you want your family to know of the 
 disgrace and your employers ?” With this threat 
 held over him, Edson consented to go and examine 
 the Saratoga National Bank, which he did ; but he 
 reported to them that the attempt would not be 
 feasible. Then they “spotted” the Long Island 
 Savings Bank, and this appeared very “good 
 ground.” because they could hire the adjoining prem¬ 
 ises. But they had some difficulty in getting any 
 one to hire these premises. They had been piping 
 the Atlantic Bank in Brooklyn, but had given it up 
 for the Long Island. Connors was sent West to 
 find a man who would hire the premises, but he 
 could not get any one. Finally, Billy Maher, a part¬ 
 ner of Max Shinburn, the famous burglar, was 
 given $100 to hire the adjoining premises ; but he 
 “jumped away” with the money. Just at this 
 
 time, a Jew had come from the vicinity of Des 
 Moines, Iowa, to New York, to get some one to go 
 out there and rob the county treasury. Scott and 
 George Mason went out with this Jew, took the 
 joi', and this caused the first trouble in the Ring, 
 Dunlap feeling very hard toward Scott. The Des 
 Moines job failed, having been given away, and 
 Scott and Mason escaped arrest by jumping from a 
 railroad train, leaving all their tools. They walked 
 some twenty miles in a freezing ice storm, and their 
 legs were badly cut up and bruised by their fre¬ 
 quent falls on the ice. 
 
 BUSINESS AND PLEASURE. 
 
 Before the attempt upon the Long Island Bank, 
 they had intended to rob the bank on Nantucket 
 Island. Scott, Dunlap and “ Red ” Leary had visit¬ 
 ed the island while on a pleasure trip, and found 
 the bank an easy one to get at. They found an old 
 sea captain in New York who agreed to pilot them 
 to Nantucket and back for a share in the spoils. 
 They left New York in a sloop, and sailed through 
 the Sound. When off Block Island, a fearful storm 
 came up. Every man in the party, except the cap¬ 
 tain, was fearfully sea-sick, and none of them knew 
 one rope from another. They expected to go to the 
 bottom, but finally they reached Greenport, Long 
 Island, where they left the captain to take care of 
 himself and vessel. 
 
 Alter a while it was learned that the First National 
 Bank of Covington, Ky., had a great deal of money in 
 its vaults, and was a good one to “work.” Scott, Con¬ 
 nors, Red Leary, Jim Draper and others went to Cov¬ 
 ington, but Dunlap was not included in the party on 
 a count of his quarrel with Scott. The vault of this 
 bank is under the Opera House. Connors fitted a key 
 to the Opera House door. The gang went in every 
 night, removed the orchestra seals, took up the floor, 
 and easily took oft the top of the vault. When all was 
 ready Connors stayed outside to watch. Scott and 
 Leary went down into the vault, and charged the safe 
 with powdi r. The explosion was a terrific one, as a lit¬ 
 tle nitro-glycerine was used. The ceiling of the bank 
 fell, and there was a big shower of bricks, dust, and 
 mortar. The noise was so loud that Connors was lright- 
 ened. He gave an alarm, and the gang fled, leaving be¬ 
 hind $400,000 in greenbacks and $1,500,000 in good 
 bonds. The alarm was needless, as no one went to the 
 bank until 8 o’clock next day. Connors was blamed for 
 giving a false alarm and thus losing such a rich haul, 
 and it was said by all that had Dunlap been there he 
 would not have gone without the money. The first 
 thiug to do, they agreed, was to get Dunlap back into 
 the party. 
 
 The Rockville, Conn., Bank was next pitched upon. 
 Before deciding to try this bank, they examined banks 
 at Plymouth, Bloomsburg, and Wilkesbarre, Pa., and 
 at Syracuse, N. Y.; but some one told Dunlap that the 
 Rockville Bank was an easy one to get into. Scott 
 went to Rockville in his assumed character of horse 
 dealer, and Dunlap and Connors followed soon atter- 
 ward. They had no trouble in getting into the room 
 over the bank, and on the first night found that there 
 we>e only a few layers of brick between the top of the 
 vault and the inside. They worked upon this top about 
 a week, taking out a few bricks every night. One night 
 Dunlap warned Scott that they had got to work very 
 carefully ; if they did not, the top would give way. The 
 night before they expected to get access to the vault, 
 Scott was jamming at the bricks with a jimmy. By ac¬ 
 cident he forced it through the top of the vault, and it 
 fell inside. As there was no way to get it out, and as 
 its discovery would lead to a careful guarding of the 
 bank they gave up the job, and rode to Hartford, and 
 then to New York. 
 
 ENTERING A BANK THROUGH THE ROOF. 
 
 The Ring were now getting very short of money, and 
 decided to make another attempt on the easiest bank. 
 They at first thought of taking the bank at Blooms¬ 
 burg, Pa., but Connors, who had been to Pittston, came 
 back and reported that the Pittston Bank was “good 
 
80 
 
 SKETCH OF THE NORTHAMPTON BANK ROBBERS. 
 
 ground.” The party was made up, and abont the Jast 
 of October, 1875, they began operations. The First 
 National Bank of Pittston is, or was then, a one-story 
 building, covered with a tin roof. After 6ome consulta¬ 
 tion it was decided that work had better be begun on 
 the rool. Dunlap got some nd putty in New York; 
 some of the tin roofing was taken up, and then the 
 boards of the roof were removed. This work look one 
 night. The boards were carefully put back, the tin 
 put down and joined with red putty. So carefully was 
 this done that, although there was a hard rain and sleet 
 storm the next day, the roof did not leak a drop. The 
 next night the tin and boards were removed again, and 
 work was begun on the top of the vault. A layer of 
 bricks was removed and the roof put back. This work 
 was carried on uutil only one layer of bricks remained. 
 This was removed on the night of the burglary, Nov. 
 4. 1875. The top of the vault was taken oil in two 
 hours’ time, and then Scott and Dunlap let themselves 
 down into the vault. Connors piped outside and the 
 others were placed where they were needed. In the 
 vault were three Marvin spherical safes. There was 
 also a burglar alarm in the vault. This troubled Scott 
 and Dunlap. They at length decided to surround it 
 with boards. Then they culled for the air pump, the 
 dynamite aud the powder, which were let down to them. 
 Scott applied the air pump to one of the safes, but they 
 overchaiged it w ith powder and it blew half the door 
 ofl. Then they opened it by inserting dynamite and 
 exploding it. In the safe they found $5U0 in currency 
 anil $00,000 in good bonds. Next they attacked another 
 safe. They first broke ofl' the spindle, and, inserting a 
 little dynamite, blew ofT a plate. Then they inserted 
 another charge of dynamite, and another, blowing oil 
 plate alter plate. They had only one more plate to blow 
 off when they heard Connors giving the alarm. In this 
 safe was a very large sum of money. While they were 
 in the vault, Scotland Dunlap caused twelve explosions, 
 one of them a terrific one; but they did not dare waste 
 time by leaving the vault before an explosion and then 
 returning, 60 they remainel in tlfo vault throughout, 
 and trusted to the boards they had put around the 
 burglar alarm to protect them. Just alter the last ex¬ 
 plosion Connors saw a man looking out of a window of 
 a house near by, aud it was for this that he gave the 
 alarm. It appears that, of the twelve explosions, the 
 man heard the last two, and went out to 6ee what the 
 noise was caused by. 
 
 When Scott and Dunlap came out of this vault they 
 were almost exhausted. Their clothes were wringing 
 wet, although it was a cold night, and their lungs were 
 filled with the noxious aud disagreeable gas which an 
 explosion ol dynamite makes. They could hardly 
 walk at first, aud had to be stimulated. Then they 
 walked to Leigh, some thirty miles, and, takiugan early 
 train, were in New York the next afternoon. The bonds 
 were afterward “compromised” back to the bank 
 through the aid ol New York lawyers, but the amount 
 obtained was so small that it was decided to do another 
 job as soon as possible. 
 
 A TREMENDOUS JOB. 
 
 In the summer before these two last attempts, 
 George Miles, the Barre bank robber, told Scott 
 that there was a bank in Northampton, Mass., that 
 could be beaten. They had gone to Northampton 
 several times, and had sent Edson there before the 
 Pittston robbery. But they found difficulties, and 
 Connors was doubtful of their success. These were 
 the night watchmen, the four keys in different 
 hands, the combination, which was divided between 
 two persons. They decided that it would be use¬ 
 less to try to dig into the vault ; if Edson could get 
 impressions of the four keys, and could get the 
 combination into one person’s keeping, they could 
 do the rest. Edson did his part, as the reports 
 printed in the papers have shown. He got impres¬ 
 sions of the four keys, and by his advice the bank 
 gave the entire combination to Mr. YVhittelsey, the 
 Cashier. After talking over many plans, they de¬ 
 cided to take a bolder step than they had yet taken 
 —to force the combination from Mr. Whittelsey at 
 
 the point of the pistol, then jump suddenly upon 
 and overpower the night policemen, gag them, take 
 them to the lockup, and lock them in with the pris¬ 
 oners. But Dunlap accidentally learned that the 
 night watchman went off duty at 4 o’clock in the 
 morning, and as that would give them nearly three 
 hours of darkness at that time of the year, they 
 decided to spend the night between midnight and 4 
 o’clock at VVhittelsey’s house. How they did their 
 work is now well known. The bonds and papers 
 were taken away in pillowcases, and hidden in one 
 of the vaults in the Northampton burying-ground, 
 whence they were removed some time in February. 
 
 When the burglars found out that they had ob¬ 
 tained a million and a quarter of money and bonds, 
 they were almost beside themselves with joy. They 
 estimated that on a compromise they would clear be¬ 
 tween three and four hundred thousand dollars, and 
 they were certain that the bank and individual losers 
 would be so anxious to get the “ stuff ” back that the 
 burglars would be safe, even if it was suspected that 
 they did the job. Of this last they had little fear. 
 They had done so many jobs, and left no traces be¬ 
 hind, and were so confident that they had left none 
 in this case, that they felt no anxiety, and began 
 steps at once for a compromise. Then the quarrel 
 broke out. Edson began to negotiate with the 
 bank people, and saw very soon that they sus¬ 
 pected him of haring had something to do with the 
 burglary. Meanwhile, the bank had put the busi¬ 
 ness into the hands of Pinkerton’s agency, by which 
 all the operations of the gang were afterwards fer¬ 
 reted out. 
 
 EDSON REVEALS ALL. 
 
 Several interviews were had by Edson and the 
 bank officers, and, through Edson,"Connors and Mr. 
 Williams, one of the batik officers, were brought to¬ 
 gether. But these negotiations all failed, aud Edson 
 saw that he was falling between two stools. Mean¬ 
 while, Pinkerton’s men had suspected Scott and 
 Dunlap, and one of their detectives was constantly 
 shadowing them. At last Edson told Mr. Williams 
 in an interview ; “I am trying to effect a negotia¬ 
 tion, but I am left by these men in a very bad light 
 by their constant pla 3 - ing with you and me, after 
 you take the trouble to come to New York. Now, 
 sir, if you don’t reach a settlement, at the next 
 meeting, by G—d, 1 will tell you who the men are.” 
 
 The negotiation fell through, and Edson kept his 
 word. Going to Pinkerton’s office by request of the 
 bank, he gave a detailed history of the robbery, 
 which led to the arrest of Scott, Dunlap and 
 Connors and to the flight of Red Leary. When 
 Connors escaped from Ludlow street ja.il, the con¬ 
 trol of the securities was given to him, and he has 
 furnished some of the money for the defence of 
 these men. 
 
 Scott, who was a skilful organizer and planner, 
 was the leader of the Ring, but the execution of the 
 dangerous work was always put into Dunlap’s 
 hands. Dunlap has been often arrested, but has 
 invariably managed in one way or another to get 
 out of his difficulties, and he fancied that his luck 
 would not desert him now. Connors generally 
 “ piped ”—that is, watched outside—during a rob- 
 bery, and was expected to conduct negotiations for 
 the return of the securities. The rest of the gang 
 were simply assistants. It is known that some of 
 these last have long been dissatisfied with the 
 treatment received from Scott and Dunlap, and are 
 pleased that the leaders have got into trouble. 
 In fact, Edson, before he betrayed the gang, 
 received a letter from one of these dissatisfied 
 men, warning him to look out “ that he did not get 
 tarred with the same stick that he was at Quincy ” 
 —referring to the attempt of Scott, Dunlap, and 
 Connors to cheat him out of his fair proportion of 
 the spoils of the Quincy robbery. 
 
 The amount stolen by this gang in four years is 
 nearly three millions of dollars in money and secu¬ 
 rities, most of which has not been recovered. 
 
to* *o*™SFro,v «»'»«» 
 
 ,» .MU ( U.r' KM Bo«.l«- 1- 
 
 lions. 
 
 iriwc^ce 
 
 People who took any special interest in the 
 •neat .Northampton bank robbery have had 
 frequent occasion to note that on the return of 
 the anniversary of fthat event some fresh and 
 highly entertainins^Svelation was sure to be 
 brought out csacerning it. And some of them 
 who wCveJtrNhe bloom of youth on tli® morning 
 of .Wary 37,1876, when the startling truth 
 'that Cashier AYhittelsey and his toehold had 
 
 S-srr,w a t ,ss"Si 
 
 robbery 11 Not to review the'd iff event sensations 
 which the seven revolving years have bronght, 
 it seems that the recent suit against the hank 
 hv Mrs Fanny D. Wylie, to recover $10,000 in 
 1 bonds which‘she had deposited with them for 
 
 sa f e keeniim at the time of the robbery, tried m 
 the New Ym-k courts and won by the detend- 
 mt brought out considerable of the true in¬ 
 wardness of the whole affair, hitherto known 
 o.flv to those inside the directors’ ring. 
 
 For a year after the robbery the hank tried 
 to make negotiations for the jeturn of the 
 steal, but tbe burglars wanted at the 
 
 whole, and ’'S.er^sid^ouM ' ever q J 
 K 8 underitook Ah ar- 
 vest as many of the Iheives as they could, i bey 
 <rot Scott and Dunlap, as everybody knows, and 
 secured 20 years for them at Concord., They 
 iDo arrested “Red Leary, Mian., Dr a 
 
 opt and Lilly Connors, but they didn t 
 keep* them, as everybody knows. After 
 Scott and Dunlap bad been shut up 
 some little time they sent word to the 
 hank that they could cause the return ot all 
 f that had been stolen except the government 
 ! bonds and $100,000 in other secmities. AL 
 though they were confined apait from cacn 
 other they both told the hank men that Kuulap 
 1 controlled the funds, and that he •.would sur¬ 
 render them in return lor a pardon or ei 
 trial for each of them. It was aiso knowii that 
 the S40,000 in government bonds aud the •„ lo, 
 000 cash were divided immediatedly after the 
 robbery, mid that only a few days; before Scott 
 and Dunlap were arrested $100,000 in the 
 most available securities bad been set 
 aside to be turned into money lor the 
 help af any ot the gang who might be arrested. 
 The §25,000 in bonds which Director Hinckley 
 ' recovered by paying *0000 belonged to this lot, 
 as did the $10,000 for-which Mrs Wylie has; just 
 sued in vain. Knowing these things, the hank 
 men. according to state ments recently publLshed 
 
 in the New YorK sun, ^ 
 
 ; the different governors of Massachuse s c ■ J 
 
 something for Scott and Dunlap. It w., «<>»£>*• 
 lioweyer, Gov Long _ remarking tnat wbjth|* 
 
 aM tH i 
 
 tone to consider appeals for executive | 
 clcine’iev. Meanwhite boffii&ettGried-*©.|scgpe^ 
 
 onSme day, having probab V hcen ^le to 
 
 pnrmrmviicate with eacn other and then associ 
 TSSSS&&* tto-ougb the 
 
 gffijgSt 
 
 Fofr three years and a half they r stuck to e 
 story that Dunlap controlled the bulk ol the 
 steal. i 
 
 Then Scott was attacked with quick con¬ 
 sumption, and his mother, who came on; from j 
 
 Jf 
 
 Illinois to see him, urged him to make r^stiti - 
 firm He agreed to do it, and so did Dunlap, 
 who'confessed that ‘‘Red” Leary was the^ma 
 in charge of the funds, and tJiatHie latter mm 
 written him that theyshouldhe given up, so that 
 
 changed his mind. Leary, who had es 
 caned from Ludlow-street jail and been to 
 
 arrested near New York o“a clew ^v,m Jf 
 
 SglhcYhree hours they were together in 
 of what he held aelivered to the ^ u ^ a rs 
 
 S£SSSa®w4s‘ tSTSSEiWS 
 
 wmirnm 
 
 =Mi~SS§sM 
 
 safe deposit company m that c y a 
 
 inoarently been protected in then niuiu s 
 E P by oned y silk and other wrapping. ’ 
 
 The rest of the story is soon told. Scott and. 
 Dunlap (1 id lidt appear against Leary, and be. 
 was discharged, together with Draper and Con¬ 
 nors Scott died in prison soon alter, 
 
 isse:pc«5£g&5g 
 
 ' saassgsx* 
 
THE 
 
 The 
 
 - 
 
 YALE TIME LOCK. 
 
 Only Positively Automatic Time Lock. 
 
 IN THIS LOCK, THE ACT OF LOCKING IS PERFORMED BY THI 
 TIME MOVEMENTS, THUS AVOIDING THE DAILY MENTAL 
 CALCULATION AND SETTING BY HAND, NECES¬ 
 SARY IN ALL OTHER TIME LOCKS. 
 
 Is in Use by Over Eight Hundred Hanks 
 
 MADE ONLY BY THE 
 
 JtTctle _Cocfc JS£cLruzfCLctizr'izzg Co., 
 
 STAMFORD, CONN. 1 
 
 AGENTS FOR NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 Morris & Ireland, ..... GI Sudbury St., Boston, Mass. 
 
 AGENTS FOR THE OHIO VALLEY. 
 
 Macneale & T it ban, . Corner Pearl and Plum Sts., Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 AGENTS FOR THE NORTHWEST. 
 
 Covert & Greenhood,.40 State St., Chicago, Ill