When the publication of the following testimony on the
trial of ABNER TATE, JOHN GORDON and the negro GEORGE, in the "Athens Herald," was
closed, I determined to let the subject
of these murders pass into oblivion. But I am so frequently applied to for a pamphlet copy and to know
if one will be published that I have
concluded to yield to the importunities
and republish, in pamphlet form, all that I have ever published about these parties in the
"Herald." Another consideration
that induces the publication of this form, is
that the public may have a continuous, unbroken chain of the story, as furnished by the evidence, whereby
all the facts may be known, without
interruption as was not the case in the
weekly publication of testimony in a newspaper. Besides, I am informed
that these parties and their friends still persist in their lying, vituperation
and abuse of me, in palliation and excuse of their crimes. I have frequently
been asked what motive or inducement (none of the murdered men being any kin or
relationship to me), I had for prosecuting these parties, as if a man could
not, or should not perform a good act, without a pecuniary consideration. It is
unfortunate, perhaps, for the well being of society, that the state of moral
obligation should be at so low an ebb, as evinced by the conduct of many, very
many men, who are otherwise good citizens, and that they should shrink from
their duty to society and the laws of their country., by winking at crimes
which they have good reason to believe have been committed‑‑
especially if the parties accused, are surrounded by wealth and influence. But
these sentiments, or such conduct do not fulfill my ideas of duty to my fellow
men, my obligations to the laws of my country, to the welfare of society, or of
the moral courage which every man should possess.‑‑These are my
notions and these notions constituted the foundation to the incentive for my
action in the premises. Abner Tate and John Gordon are not the first men whom I
have had arrested for taking human life, who were tried‑‑but
who, with their friends, did not fall out with me, vilify and abuse me for
having the laws of the country enforced against them. I have, in the course of my life, made affidavit for the arrest
of two others‑‑whose wealth, one of them, was far greater than that
of Tate's‑‑With this exposition of the motive that influenced me, I
presume all moral men, honest men, and law abiding men will be satisfied. The motive, which they allege, in Tate's
pamphlet, as the incentive, is too ridiculous to merit a moment's notice. Why
did they not charge Mrs. Willis with having instigated me as well as Mrs.
Routt? She testified on the stand, that she gave me a power of attorney to
investigate the murder of her husband and "thought it very kind in me to
do it for her." But such a charge would not avail them any thing. Mrs. Willis stood before the
community, unprejudiced‑‑
Mrs. Routt did not, and to effect an escape from justice, they availed themselves of it, and it had its
influence, in procuring the enlargement
of the parties from custody and their
final escape from justice. Time, however, has contradicted all the lying
predictions in the pamphlet, as to the
particular reward I was to receive and a court of justice will no doubt show to the world that Mrs.
Routt has been, without cause most
outrageously scandalized, abused, vilified
and persecuted, swindled in purse and in reputation by Tate, whom she has sued and ought to have sued Jere.
Clemens, who wrote that infamous,
lying, pamphlet. The rumor is,
that Jere. however plead off, by
saying, he only wrote what Tate told
him, while Tate says, he wrote a great deal more than he told him.
I give the rumor, without vouching for the fact. The only fact or circumstance they had
to ground their charge upon, that I was
instigated by Mrs. Routt, was the fact,
that I stopped at her house, while hunting up
testimony‑‑which I had a perfect right to do, it being
a public house of entertainment.
DEFENCE
OF
ABNER
TATE
AGAINST
CHARGES OF
MURDER,
PREFERRED
BY D.H.BINGHAM,
I have received a pamphlet of 56 octavo
pages, purporting to be a defence in
the words of the above caption, embodying
perhaps the most fulsome, acrimonious, false, slanderous and unscrupulous invective and abuse, that ever
emanated from the brain of mortal man,
against myself, Mrs. Elizabeth E.
Routt and Mrs. Barbara Hazel, signed by
Abner Tate.
The
defence in the pamphlet is in keeping with his
defence on his trial, the facts of the murders are kept out
of view, and onus of his effort,
is aimed at me, for having prosecuted him, at Mrs. Routt, whom he charges, without the least grounds of evidence, with having
instigated the prosecution, and at Mrs.
Ha, for having testified against him:
in one breath that she is DERANGED,
a MONOMANIAC; in the next, that she is a perjured witness‑‑and
in another, that I concocted the whole
plan of conspiracy, using her as a tool,
for the most unholy and designing purposes‑‑leaving out
of view, the testimony of Col. Shied,
Mrs. Willis, Major McCrary, John
Mullican, and all the other witnesses
entirely; or when alluded to, presenting garbled portions of it; whose testimony, taken in connection
with Mrs. Hazle's, connects the parties
with the murder of Dwyer, criminally and voluntarily; also leaving their own conduct unexplained
in this respect, entirely. With the defence of Mrs. Routt, I have nothing to do; she has a son and other
friends, in Tennessee, who are
abundantly competent and able to
defend her‑‑but, when Abner
Tate says, I was to receive her hand in
marriage as a reward, for prosecuting him, he states that which is UNQUALIFIEDLY
FALSE; and when Wheelock, upon whom he
depends as a witness, says, I ever told him so, I pronounce him an‑‑UNMITIGATED, UNPRINCIPLED
LIAR. He has once been convicted of LARCENY in his county in Mississippi‑‑it is
a matter of record‑‑he is
known where he lives to be a man of no
character for veracity, and fortunately there is a gentleman here in Athens, who knows the same.‑‑The
pamphlet carries its own antidote with
it. It is rich in opprobrious epithets,
scurrility, falsehoods and artifice, all calculated and intended to incite prejudice, but entirely
barren, in proof, evidence, or
facts, to show the least pretension to innocence. But as an instance of dextrous parry, and one which is characteristic of the "low cunning and
subtlety" that pervade the entire
document, in rebutting, explaining and disposing of every charge made against him, I cite one paragraph: "Mr. Bingham says, that one of my
counsel spoke of Mrs. Hazels's mind as
"gigantic." My counsel remembered the remarks of Lord Mansfield in relation to the
subtlety and cunning of madmen and governed
himself accordingly.‑‑That the policy was wise and judicious, is evidenced by the fact, that Mr.
Bingham does not even now know how he
was defeated." Yes, I do, and
did know how I was to be defeated from the moment the court ordered (without effect, however) the manuscript testimony of Mrs. Ha to be
delivered into the custody of
defendant's counsel before even they would announce themselves ready for trial. The above allusion refers to a speech of one of his counsel, in which he
described the character and qualities
of Mrs. Hazle's mind and memory,
ascribing to her all the good qualities and powers almost, ever belonging to any mind, and closed by
saying, that "had it been
cultivated, it would have been more gigantic than that of any member of the Huntsville Bar." Just
before that, he had told the Court,
that unless they could do something to destroy
the force of her testimony, they were bound to commit the parties to jail. Now by way of destroying
the force of their own admissions, when
quoted upon them, he arrogantly replies,
"my counsel had Lord Mansfield in his mind!!" Such
consummate, hypocritical humbuggery!!
will pass with intelligent men for just
what it is worth. When the magistrates discharged the parties at Huntsville, last winter, I never intended to trouble myself any more about it, unless in
my own vindication. In my absence to
Mississippi, the qui tam of the
Huntsville Democrat, Sept. Cabaniss, gave
me the lambasting which appeared in that paper of the 10th of January.
The columns of that paper were closed against my reply, which was first very short, not half
a dozen squares in length,‑‑that
drove me to the columns of the Athens Herald,‑‑ and hearing this pamphlet was to be out,
finally, to the purchase of the Herald,
that I might be provided with the means
of defending myself. I prosecuted Abner Tate, because I believed him to be a MURDERER‑‑I have proved him a MURDERER, and if he keeps on stirring the matter, as he seems to be, somebody will yet hang him for his MURDERS. At the rate, which rumor
says, he is paying lawyers for writing his
scurrilous pamphlets, $500 a copy, and witnesses from Mississippi and Tennessee, for swearing for
him, $5 a day, and all expenses paid,
it will not take long to put him through
his ill‑got possessions.‑‑When that is done the
Goddess of Justice, who , like grief on
her pedestal, has stood weeping for
years, will wipe the tear from her eyes, and adjust the beam of her balances, without anything to
apprehend from the God of Moloch. I
shall take up this pamphlet, page by page,
and paragraph by paragraph, all that is not too loathsome and disgusting to publish, and review it, with
my comments and rebutting proof, in the
columns of the Herald; pledging myself never
to publish anything as fact, that I have not proved before a court of JUSTICES, or that cannot be proved. I can have no personal controversy with such a man
as Abner Tate‑‑I have no
malice to gratify ‑‑ no ill‑will to indulge ‑‑ no
rewards to expect, but an approving
conscience and the approbation of a
generous people‑‑no ends to achieve but the ends of justice, and no objects to accomplish but those that
are laudable. In the mean time, I shall
publish the testimony, all that is
relevant, as it fell from the lips of the witnesses on the stand, pledging myself likewise, to use no
unfairness‑‑present no
garbled statements, nor indulge any vituperation, abuse unfair inference or illegitimate comment,
involving the character or conduct of
any one. And when I have done with him,
he will be left to his community and to the world,
A‑bhor'd by God and man! still no
pious thought
B‑rings
repentance, for the ruin he has wrought:
N‑ot
once the pangs of conscience has guilty soul invade,
E‑ven
for the widows and orphans he has made.
R‑epine
in sorrow, for the "loved ones" slayed.
T‑hat
name! that odious name! to every virtuous eye;
A‑s
the beacon of all scorn, will hang on high;‑
T‑hat
body! down to the dust! and as it rots away,
E‑ven
worms will perish, o'er its poisonous clay.
D. H. BINGHAM.
-------------
Mrs. E. E. Willis' Letter
When Tate,
Gordon and the negro George were discharged
last January, Tate immediately called on Mrs. Willis at the tavern, who was the wife of Sawyer, one of
the men for whose murder he had just
been tried and discharged, and whose
testimony was material and important in the case, as showing that he and Gordon had voluntarily connected
themselves, criminally, with the
absence of her husband. Cabaniss called
likewise, and when I went for her to take her to the country, preparatory to starting the next morning
with her, to her home in Hillsboro,
Tenn., she told me, that she was afraid to go
with me, that Sammons had advised her not to do so, telling her there would be danger‑‑that
they had proposed to pay her board at
the tavern and send her home in the stage, if she would not go with me. Under the state of things, I could not do otherwise than yield to her inclinations,
telling her I had brought her down, and
I felt bound to see her home safely,
which I would do at the risk of my life, if she preferred going with me. But she declined, at the same
time telling me, that, in consequence
of their discharge, she apprehended my
life was in danger. Afterwards Cabaniss called again and proposed to take her to his house. They paid
her tavern bill and her stage fare.
Their attentions to her became known, and,
under the circumstances, it was a matter of surprise that they should thus take so much interest in her,
when she had testified against them and
her testimony was so important in
connecting Tate and Gordon with her husband Sawyer. A friend of mine asked Tate, or Cabaniss, or both,
why they had done it? Ever ready, with
an excuse for their conduct, they told
him in reply, "that immediately after the trial she sent for us, and claimed our protection against
Bingham‑‑telling us, he had
deceived her‑‑he had treated her rudely on the way down, had done this thing, that and the other to
her, and she was afraid of him, and did
not wish to go back with him‑‑and out of pure compassion for her, we paid her expenses and sent
her home in the stage." Upon going
to Madison County, in March, my friend
told me, and I took it down as above quoted, and immediately wrote Mrs. Willis and received the following letter in reply, from which the public will
see how nearly their statement to my
friend, corresponds with the truth, and
I hereby pledge myself, to show up as conclusively, the falsity of every other statement of theirs
against me, as I have in this, before I
have done with him. D. H. BINGHAM
Mrs. Willis'
Letter.
------ Hillsboro', March 17,
1856. Mr. Bingham.‑‑Sir:
Your letter of the 1st inst. was
received in due time, and the information you gave me concerning the falsehoods, that Tate and his
friends have been telling on me, was
not at all strange to me, as I had been
told of it some days before your note, by a gentleman from Grundy County, who was on his return from
the South, staid all night with some of
Tate's relations, who told him what Tate
had published in the papers‑‑also, that what Col. Shied
said on oath in Huntsville, was in
Gordon's favor; and after they were
discharged, that I sent for Tate, claimed his protection, telling him you had taken me there, and left
me without any way of getting
home. I intended writing to some person
down there, to let them know that they
were telling falsehoods on me, before
the receipt of your letter. Ten minutes
before I saw Tate, I had no idea of
ever seeing him, and to tell the truth,
I did not wish to see him.‑‑While I was sitting at dinner, General Hickman came to me and told
me Mr. Tate was in the parlor, and
wished to see me. When I finished my dinner, I
went in there‑‑the object of his visit seemed to be, to convince me he was clear of the murder of my
husband. He told me how kindly he had
treated Mrs. Ha while she lived near
him. He did not call your name, until he was leaving the room, when he said I might tell you that he said
you was a villain. I did not tell you,
because I thought, if he wanted you to
know it, he might tell you himself. There was not a word said about my going home. I think on the Thursday
before, (this day was Friday) Mrs.
Sammons delivered a message that Mr. Cabaniss
had sent me concerning Tate and Gordon's innocence, and said he would like to see me. I told him he could do so. In a short time after Tate left Mr. Sammons
informed me that Cabaniss was in the
parlor and would like to see me. I went in
there. I at that time did not know he was Tate and Gordon's lawyer.‑‑I do not think he
called your name. He said Mrs. Ha was a
very respectable woman till 1845, after that her friends had all forsaken her. He tried to make me believe
that Tate was innocent. Before that,
Mr. Sammons and myself had talked about
my traveling with you. I told him if Tate was
released I would be afraid to go back with you. He said there would be danger in it, that you might be
mobbed and myself killed in the affair.‑‑There
was nothing said about my fears before
Cabaniss. Sammons said he would pay for my board while I staid there, and Cabaniss said if I would
go home in the stage he would pay my
fare. I told him I could go home as well
without money as with it , as I was acquainted with both of the gentlemen who owned the line from there
home, and said to him, I was not able
to ride in the stage, as it was a night
route. He said he would send me
home in a buggy and it should not cost
me a cent. When they say I was afraid to travel with you, tell them, it was not you I was afraid of; it was Tate and his friends. I did not know until Tate was discharged, that Sammons was his friend. A short time
after you and Mrs. Ha left, Mr.
Sammons, Cabaniss and another gentleman came
to my room‑‑Cabaniss said a great deal about Mrs. Ha,
but did not seem to blame her. He said
he believed that she took notions and
things were so, and that they could not be
otherwise. He did not call your name only to ask me if Mrs. Ha had told me what exertions you used to
get her there. I answered in the
affirmative. He saw I had but little fire in
my room, and said if I did not fare as well as I wished, he would take me home with him, where I could
fare better. I thanked him and told him
I fared very well. After the
conversation between Sammons, Cabaniss and myself, there was nothing more said,
until Saturday, the day I left; Gen. Hickman came to me and said Mr. Cabaniss
had paid my stage fare and if I did not feel able to go then, to stay as long
as I wanted to and he would pay my board.
I told him I would go then, stepped to my room, and when the stage was
ready, left. When taking my leave of
General Hickman, I asked him if everything was settled, he said it was. I do no not know who paid my board, but
supposed it was Mr. Sammons, as he told me he would. If Mr. Cabaniss paid my stage fare, it was only to
Winchester. When anyone says I ever
said, or hinted, that I was badly
treated by you, they say that which is not so.
I had no cause to say it, nor would I wish to be treated better. I feel under great obligations to you and
always shall for your exertions in bringing to light the fate of my
husband. When they told the gentleman
from Grundy, that I applied to Tate for means to come home on, he said, he
asked them where Col. Sheid was, who had always befriended me in time of
need? They replied, that he had to go
to Nashville, as if that would have prevented him from letting me have money,
in case I needed it. But the
discharging of Tate does not make people here believe he is innocent of the
crime; more believe it now than before. I did not expect you to pay my
expenses. You know Esqr. Charles gave
me money in your presence for my expenses, but on my return home, when I told
him what was asked in court about my expenses, he told me you had told him, you
would pay my expenses, but I did not know it.
Yours Respectfully,
ELIZABETH E. WILLIS.
------------
Abner Tate says in his pamphlet, "To Mr.
Mullican and to several other witnesses, Bingham stated that he would get to
pay, unless he succeeded; which he afterwards repeated to Wm. D.
Hayes." This is an isolated paragraph
and can only be understood by what precedes and follows on the same page--and
is inferential only at that; that I was to receive my pay from Mrs. Routt, and
in the way he says. Wm. D. Hayes has
authorized me to say, that I never told him, nor did he ever tell any one that
I did tell him, what is stated in the above paragraph, as it is intended to be
understood. Hear him;--"Some time
last Summer, while in conversation with me in reference to the Tate affair, you
said some of your enemies, or Tate's friends, were telling that Mrs. Routt was
at the bottom of the prosecution and all such stuff--all of which you
positively denied--but remarked that it is true, in case of convicting him, I
expect to get paid for it." This
is what I have often said, and if I did not say it to Mr. Hays, I know I did to
John Mullican, and to many others, that I expected my pay by application to the
Legislature.--Here is another lie nailed to the counter. -----------------
REPORT OF
THE
TRIAL
EXAMINATION
Of
ABNER TATE,
JOHN GORDON
and GEORGE, a
Slave of TATE
For the murder of a man, whose name is
supposed to be Charles B. Sawyer, of Coffee County, Tennessee, killed in March,
1845, and also, of Abner Tate, and the slave, George, for the murder of a man, whose
name is supposed to be Jonathan
K. Rice, of Tuscaloosa, murdered
in November or December, 1812. The
trial commented on Monday, December 31st, and closed Friday, January 4th. Mr. Justice M. K. Taylor presiding,
assisted by Mr. Justice G. B. Strother and Z. P. Davis, Esq. Counsel for the defendants, Walker and Cabaniss, Robinson
and Jones and Nick Davis,
Jr. Esq. D. H. Bingham prosecutor. These men were arraigned and tried for the
murder of two men whose names were unknown.
The prosecution therefore only attempted to prove the corpus delicti
of the offence, leaving the proof of the identity of the men, to such
testimony, as the accused themselves had furnished voluntarily by connecting
their conduct with the absence of Rice and Sawyer. Upon the State announcing
itself ready for trial, the prosecutor Bingham was served with a subpoena ducus
tecum, to appear instanter and testify in behalf of the defendants and to
produce certain papers, embodying the testimony of Mrs. Barbara Hazel, the main
witness for the prosecution, used by him, in the committal of John Gordon to
the jail of Cannon County, Tennessee,--The defendants' counsel refused to
announce themselves ready for trial, till Bingham had responded to the
subpoena. Attorney Humphreys objected
to the response, on the ground that the defendants had no right to know this
proof against them, till it was detailed from the stand by the witness--the
papers in fact, being the evidence, which the State would produce against the
the parties, as the trial proceeded; and contended that the counsel for the defence, had as much right to ask the court to order
the witness into yonder room, to tell them all she would swear against them, as
to order the prosecutor to deliver over these papers to defendants' counsel. But defendants' counsel moved the court to
order the prosecutor to take the stand to answer questions--the court so ruled,
the prosecutor was sworn and took the stand.
"Had certain statements with him in Tennessee, embodying the
testimony of Mrs. Hazel, taken in the form of affidavits--not now in prosecutor's
possession--in the possession of Attorney Humphreys--placed them with him on
Saturday last--placed them there for professional purposes--cannot force them
out of his custody and would not if I could." Here process was served on Attorney Humphreys to produce the papers.
He refused, urging the same objections as before. Defendants' counsel moved the court to order
the papers to be produced in court and delivered over to defendants'
counsel. The court so ordered. The papers were sent for--handed to Attorney
Humphreys, who, holding them up, told the court, these are the papers--they are
now in court, in pursuance of your order, and into my pocket they go and no
power on earth can get them out.--(The audience here applauded, order was
restored.) The court repented its order to deliver the papers. Mr. Humphreys refused to obey it, and told
the court very respectfully, but very positively, that if they insisted upon
inforcing their mandate for the contempt, they had but one way to do it--and
that was, to commit him to jail for six hours and he was ready to follow the
Sheriff, the moment they made the order--but he admonished them to pause and
ponder well the consequences of such a step before they took it. The court consulted, and without announcing the
result of their consultation, adjourned for dinner. Here the prosecutor, to have secured the ends of justice, ought
to have entered a nolle prosequi in the case, discharged the parties and
retained the witnesses till the meeting of the Grand Jury of the County. Court convened--when Mr. Justice Taylor
announced, that they had in their order to deliver over the papers to
defendants' counsel, acted under a misapprehension; and without stating what
that misapprehension was, the court now, by way of compromise, would propose,
that the papers be placed in the custody of the court, to be handed over to
defendants' counsel when called for.
State's Attorney objected and refused to recognize the right of
defendants' counsel to the custody, or inspection of the papers at all. Mr. Walker then told the court, that the
defendants would be satisfied if the papers were placed in the custody of the
court, there to remain during the progress of the trial--the object being, to
have them out of the possession of the prosecution, during the examination of
the witness. To this proposition,
State's attorney acceded--and informed the gentlemen for the defense, in order
that they might see that the witness testified on the stand as she had
testified in these papers, that out of courtesy to them, when he turned the
witness over to them, after her examination in chief, he would call for these
papers and hand them over also, and passed the papers to the custody of the
court. The defendants' counsel
announced themselves ready for trial. Mrs.
ELIZABETH E. WILLIS SWORN.--Lives in Hillsboro, Coffee County, Tennessee--was the
wife of Charles B. Sawyer. Sawyer left
home on the 7th of December, 1839--left with a four horse wagon and team loaded
with produce for South Alabama--he carried considerable money with him--think
as much as a thousand dollars--it was in Mississippi money--never heard of him
since May, 1840. He then wrote from
Marion, Ala., that as soon as he could sell out, it was his intention to return
home. In August after, wrote the postmaster at Marion, inquiring after
him--received a letter in reply from a Mr. Hornbuckle saying, he had sold out
and left for home, on the 27th of June before, having between Twenty-five
hundred and three thousand dollars with him.
Wrote to Mr. Charles Lewen of Tuscaloosa, about a year after. Mr. Lewen wrote back that he had left his
house between the middle and last days of June, 1840--Went to Tuscaloosa in
pursuit of him, but could hear nothing of him--nor never did hear, till Col.
James M. Sheid received the letter, some five or six years ago, from Henderson
McGowen, of Memphis, Tenn., saying he was murdered at Abner Tate's.--the letter
said he called at Tate's to see John Gordon, who owed him some money. Some five
or six months after Col. Sheid received the letter, a man came to my house, who
said his name was John Gordon, and asked me if I had the letter--told me he was
the man mentioned in the letter. He
said he had been down about Winchester and had heard of the letter, and wanted
to see it; but he knew I did not have the letter, when he came to see me, for
he said he had been to Col. Sheid's and Mrs. Sheid had told him, she knew I did
not have it. He said a good deal about
Mr. Tate,told me what a fine man he was, and said, if I could only make it
convenient to go down and stay all night at his house and see what a fine man
he was, I could not believe he would be guilty of such a thing. He
asked me what I thought of the letter.
I told him I did not know what to think, asked him if he knew Mr.
Sawyer. He said he did not- and said he
never heard of the name of Sawyer, before in all his life. He seemed very anxious to lull my suspicions
about Mr. Tate murdering my husband--obtained the letter from Col. Sheid,
upon a promise to return it--but never did return it. Mr. Sawyer was thirty-one years old when he left--was about five
feet three or four inches high, and would weigh about one hundred and fifty
pounds. He was a low chunky man, rather
dark complexion--blue eyes and dark colored hair--don't recollect the
peculiarity of showing his front teeth when talking. Cross Examined. Came down with Captain Bingham, is not to pay me for coming--he
paid the expenses of coming down, we did not stay but one night where we were
charged, and he told me, that they did not charge me anything. Have got money to pay my own expenses. Never heard Captain Bingham say he was
prosecuting Tate for anything else. He
has always drove the same horse, every time I have seen him--the same horse we
came down with--a dark bay. DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED. Capt. Bingham told me he was hunting up the
murder of a Mr. Rice of Tuscaloosa, when he came to see me, and believed my
husband had been murdered there too. I
had spent all the means Mr. Sawyer had left me in trying to find him--gave
Capt. Bingham a power of attorney to investigate the murder of my husband and
thought it very kind in him to do it for me. COL. JAMES
M. SHEID SWORN. Knew Charles B.
Sawyer in his lifetime; Received a letter through the Post Office, some five or
six years ago, signed by Henderson McGowen, from Memphis, Tenn., giving an
account of Mr. Sawyer's murder at Abner Tate's. The letter Commenced by saying, "I have heard of the long
lost Sawyer; he called at the house of a man by the name of Tate, living on, or
near the road, leading from Huntsville to Fayette, to see John Gordon, who owed
him some money. He got there late in
the afternoon, and ate his dinner late, in consequence of which he did not go
to the supper table. In the night my
informant says, an old lady who was at Tate's, heard the cry of murder, murder,
and in the morning, went to an old kitchen on the premises, where she saw him
in the fire, his head split open, his feet resting against one jamb and his
shoulders against the other; with an old negro woman kindling a fire on him and
under him, in the act of burning him up--when she returned to the office, ink
had been rubbed on the wall to hide the blood there." McGowen said in his letter to me, that he
had sent a friend to Tate's, who reports ink on the wall of the office, as
described. Some five or six months
after receiving the letter, a man came to my house, in my absence, and remained
a day or two, till my return; upon my return he told me his name was Gordon,
and he understood I had received a letter charging Abner Tate with murder and
he wished to see it--got the letter and read it to him. I told him I could not give him the original
letter, as something might turn up perhaps, that would make it necessary for me
to have it; but I would give him a copy, and commenced writing a copy. While writing a copy, Gordon insisted on
having the original, said it would be more satisfactory to Tate; and finally,
upon promising to leave it, on his return, at my house, or to drop it in the
Post Office at Manchester, I stopped writing a copy and gave him the
original. I had copied three-fourths of
the letter, when I gave him the original.
Gordon took it, left immediately, and has never returned it--never saw
him till two years afterwards, saw him in Bradyville, when he told me that he
had left it with Tate. Saw Tate some
two or three months after Gordon got the letter, in Winchester, was introduced
to him by Logan. Tate said you are the
man who received a letter charging me with murder--went on to say that it was
written upon the authority of a crazy old woman who kept a continual fuss in
the neighborhood of Hazel Green, till the neighbor concluded to send her off to
her children in Mississippi, and when she got down there, she employed herself
in writing letters back, abusing everybody; among others he named, I recollect
Mrs. McDavid--that he had hauled her away in his wagon gratuitously, and this
was the thanks he got for his kindness to her--nobody, he said, pretended to
notice her, or to believe what she said.
I told Tate, that Gordon had promised to return me the letter, but had
not. Tate said he had the letter and I
could have it any time--but its authority was not to be believed. [Here the
counsel for the defence produced the letter and asked the witness to identify
it; witness looked at the letter and said it was the same one he had received;
when the counsel said, you permitted Capt. Tate then, to retain it in his
possession"--witness nodded assent]
Sawyer was a low, chunky man, heavy set, and would weigh one hundred and
fifty pounds or the rise--was five feet four or five inches high, very wide
cheek bones and face tapering to the chin, rather dark complexion, blue
eyes--they were considerably sunk under his forehead, dark colored hair and
showed his front teeth when talking--never could trace Sawyer from
Tuscaloosa. Went with his wife, now
Mrs. Willis, to Tuscaloosa to hunt him but could never hear of him this side of
there. On one occasion, when in
Tuscaloosa, in 1844, young Charles Lewen gave it as his opinion, that Sawyer
never got out of Tuscaloosa, that the last seen of him was at Forrest's livery
stable, afterwards Forrest left Tuscaloosa, under circumstances of suspicion,
and he had written Forrest several letters telling him of these suspicions,
which he had never answered. CROSS EXAMINED--Saw
Capt. Bingham first in Hillsboro last April or May, he introduced himself to me
and showed me a letter from Gov. Collier; said he was hunting up a friend of
his from Tuscaloosa by the name of Rice, said he was doing because he felt it a
moral duty. He has since told me he
tried to make a confidant of Mrs. Routt's overseer (Dedman) to get him to help
him to obtain some information he wanted, but he believed Dedman was treacherous
and he would have nothing to do with him.
Don't know what kind of horse Bingham drove in August. Gordon sustains the character of an honest,
industrious and peaceable citizen where he lives. MRS. BARBARA HAZEL was introduced, and upon coming to the book, Mr.
Attorney Walker, with great dignity of manner, and austerity of countenance,
rose slowly and majestically from his seat, uttering as he rose, in deep,
solemn, sepulchral tones, this witness! this witness!! must be sworn by
the court, and not by the clerk.
State's Attorney could see no reason for making Mrs. Hazel an exception
to the rule. The clerk had sworn the
other witnesses and it had been agreed by the court and counsel on both sides,
that he should administer the oath to all.
Mr. Attorney Walker insisted, assigning as a reason, that hereafter,
perhaps something might arise, that might call in question, the validity
of the oath of this witness, if administered by the clerk. The object of all this solemn parade was,
first, evidently to intimidate the witness, and next, to make upon the minds of
the court and by-standers, an unfavorable impression in regard to her
testimony. The chairman of the court
administered the oath, and the witness proceeded: "Have formerly lived in
this county--know ABNER TATE, JOHN
GORDON and the slave GEORGE, now on trial; was in the habit
of being at Tate's a good deal; was there in the capacity of nurse and midwife;
have a natural faculty for nursing and attending to the sick; Physicians loaned
me books and instructed me in the treatment of diseases, and I have since
followed it as a profession. Was in the
habit of taking whole families to attend upon by the year, when sick, the
master of the family to furnish medicine, and to call in a physician when I
thought it necessary. Took Tate's
family in the same way. Was at Abner
Tate's when an occurrence took place.
It was in November or December, 1842; it was before killing hogs, and on
Sunday night. Tate introduced a young
man to his wife at supper, which was the first I saw of him; did not hear his
name as I recollect. He was apparently
between twenty-five and thirty years of age; learned from the conversation at
supper, that Tate had met with him a few days previous, as he passed up North,
and had directed him how to find the way to his house, when he should
return. Tate had been out that day and
met with him near the State line on the Meridian road, and the man said he had
not thought of what he had told him about the way to his house, till just
before he saw him, and if he had not met with him, he would have found some
difficulty in finding it. I expressed
some surprise at his remark, as the way to Tate's from the Meridian road is a very plain one, when Tate said, we
came by way of Mrs. Lowery's old field.
(Those who know the localities in that neighborhood, know this to be an
unfrequented by-way, and not usually travelled.)--They had some conversation
about Fayetteville, and also of the town improvements, where this man lived; if
he named the place where, I don't recollect.
Tate spoke about working in his shop, when he said he did not work any
now, only when a good job or a particular job comes in, then he occasionally
assisted his partner in the business of the shop. He said no one knew he was going to leave home, where he was
going or what his business was, not even the young man who was with him, or in
the room with him the night before he did leave. Pointing to a waiting girl Sarah, he asked Tate if that girl
belonged to the family he was speaking of selling. Tate said no, I will show you them in the morning. He was five feet ten or eleven inches high
straight and erect, rather slim for his height, though well proportioned; high
forehead, fair skin, his complexion rather fresh and ruddy, though not red; dark
colored hair, the color of his eyes not recollected. He was very genteelly dressed, and wore an elegant gold watch and
a guard chain of dark metal, links with gold setts. Mrs. Tate asked him the time of night, while we were at the
supper table after eating; he drew his watch from his pocket, held it up to the
candle and informed her; she sent for her watch, wound it up and set it. After leaving the table, he and Tate went
out, and I suppose went to the office, a little house in the yard, where gentlemen
who staid at Tate's overnight usually slept.
After the went out, Mrs. Tate and myself walked out into the yard, when
I asked her who this man was, and where he lived? She said some where down about Tuscaloosa. I asked his name. She said, didn't you hear his name at the table? told her no, only when she asked him the
time of night; thought she called him Rice.
She said you didn't understand it--and immediately branched off, by
saying she expected he was after Tate for money, for salt, coffee, and other
things, that have been dragged about among these negroes here and those in
South Alabama.
Bewteen ten and eleven o'clock, Tate came into the
house, and said to Rs. Tate, Betsy, that man wants me to take care of his money
for him. Well. replied Mrs. Tate, can't
you do it; how much has he got? Tate told how much he had; and said he told him
it would all be safe.-- The amount he stated was very large; do not recollect
the amount he said, but it was so large that I remarked, high! what is he
trotting about the country with so much money for? and jokingly said let's kill
him. I took the candle and went to bed. In the latter part of the night, at a
late hour, I was awakened by a powerful tumbling and scuffling, like several
persons fighting, down in the office -- I jumped out of bed and started for the
window and looked out towards the office, but before reaching it, heard the cry
of murder! murder! and on reaching it, was just about to call Tate and tell him
they were killing some one in the office, when I heard him call out, God damn
you, stop that hallooing!" and immediately a severe blow was struck. I
heard a deep, heavy groan, and a sucking, drawing of the breath, like an animal
dying, when I heard some one say, he'll come to, or don't let him come to; some
one replied, no he won't; when another blow was struck, but lighter than the
first -- this blow sounded like striking an axe into the ribs of the back-bone
of a hog; heard nothing more, till Tate spoke and said: Well, Pleas, he held
you, or gave you a pretty good scuffle, -- While standing at the window, saw a
girl go in the direction of the office from the kitchen; the candle flared very
much, was nearly out, and did go out before she got to the office -- know it
was a girl by her clothes, but it was not light enough for me to see which one
it was. Very soon heard Tate say, go on out of the gate, and if you think you
can't get done, call Smart to help you; and George, take your axe along, lay it
in the ditch, and when you are done wash it clean and lay it away. Then went to
my bed. In the morning as soon as I could see, went to the window, and saw
Louisa with a broom and water washing the grassbetween the office and the gate;
saw a little negro toting water and pour into a tub -- she was washing in a line
from the office door to the gate; there was no path where she was washing;
there was a path leading from the office to the house and another from the
house to the gate; saw her engaged busily through the morning in scouring up
the office; she came out as many times as twice with a tub on her hip and
emptied it round the end of the office. Tate came along and cursed her for
having the door open while she was at work in there and people passing. Never
have seen the man since; he was not there in the morning; sometime in the day I
remarked to Mrs. Tate that something was to matter with that man down in the
office last night; she said there was no man in the office, that he went away
last night; inquired where he went; she said he might have went to Mr. Driscoll's
for all she knew. Saw Mrs. Driscoll and asked her if a strange man came to her
house on Sunday night; she said no, and asked why; turned it off and didn't
tell her my reason for asking. Never told any one of this murder till after I
moved to Mississippi. Moved to Miss. in July, 1843. -- Asked Rosa Conner once,
if she were at a place, and such and such things(naming them) were to take
place, what would she think? She said, she would think somebody was killed.
Never told of this murder, because I was afraid to tell it. I knew my safety
depended on my silence.
In the fall of 1844, came back to this county and
remained through the winter and spring till July, 1845. Made it my home at Mrs.
McDavid's; was frequently at Abner Tate's; was there the Saturday before Easter
Sunday in 1845; Easter Sunday comes sometimes earlier and sometimes later. [It
happened that year on the 2nd of March;] saw a man ride up to Tate's gate, late
in the afternoon, on a dark bay, or brown colored horse. Mrs. Tate remarked yonder
is a lost man; I said how do you know he is lost? and asked who is he? she said
he is a man from your country, Mississippi; when I asked her again who he was?
She replied aint it Henry Hazle. This attracted my attention more closely. By
this time, he had reached the porch and was invited to take a seat; I took a
seat on the porch with him and Mrs. Tate retired into the house; asked him if
he was from Mississippi; he said he was; then asked him, what part of
Mississippi he lived in; he said he did not live in Mississippi, he lived
in Coffee County; if he named the state, do not recollect it; did not at that
time know there was a Coffee County in Tennessee. I said to him you have been
looking at the country then; he said he had, and had been over a good deal of
the country, both in South Alabama and South Mississippi; he spoke of being in
Noxul__ and Lowndes Counties and in Cotton Gin, and from the run of his
conversation, I thought he had been a long time in that country and had
travelled over a good deal of it. By this time John Gordon who was living at
Tate's came up and spoke to him as an acquiantance and said as if surprised at
seeing him, "Have you got back?" The man said yes; they shook hands
-- Gordon asked him, where he staid last night and where he crossed the River.
He told, but do not recollect the place he named - and said it was a hard ride
and he was very tired. Gordon said it was and said let's go down to the office,
where you can sit and rest good. As they rose up to leave the porch, the man asked
Gordon when he heard from the old neighborhood; Gordon told him some few weeks
back and said they all think you are dead. He replied, I have not wrote in a
good while, when Gordon, who was
walking before, turned round and said, I believe the widow is about to marry.
Shortly after they got to the office, Gordon sent word to the house to have
something fixed for him to eat, they came up and eat and left the house
together, which is the last I ever saw of him, unless I saw his remains the
next morning on the fire in the old kitchen on the premises of Abner Tate.
There were two kitchens, one was called the house kitchen and the other the old
kitchen. Tate came home that night, eat his supper by candle-light and I think
by himself. After supper he went out and staid out till the usual bedtime, when
he came in. Upon coming in, he said he would not be surprised if that man and
Gordon did not have a fuss; asked him, what they would have a fuss about? He
said Gordon owed him some money and the man wanted Gordon to pay it to him that
night, but Gordon did not want to pay it to him till the morning. I asked, why
not pay it in the morning, as well as to-night? Tate said, because to-morrow
morning is Sunday morning; when I replied, he is very particular. We very soon
went to bed. Some short time before daylight, I heard a talking at the East end
of the house, some short distance from the cellar door; the cellar door is
midway the end of the house; raised myself upon my elbow and listened, but
could not distinguish the voices, nor what they said, except one voice said
"hold it up," another said "put it down, it is running
over;" thought at the time some of the negroes had been in the cellar; had
got something out and were carrying it off, as their voices indicated that they
were in a strain of lifting. Shortly after, heard a negro come into Mrs. Tate's
room and call to her several times before she awoke her. [Here State's Attorney
interrupted the witness and told her she need not tell this; but defendant's
counsel said "have it out." State's Attorney objected, because it
implicated Mrs. Tate and she was not on trial; when counsel for the defence
reiterated "have it out," and witness proceeded.] The girl told Mrs.
Tate, master Abner wants a candle. -- Mrs. Tate asked, where is your master
Abner? The girl said down at the old kitchen. Where is Gordon? He is down there
too. The girl stepped nearer to the bed and said something, but in so low a
tone of voice I could not distinguish what it was.; when Mrs. Tate replied you
are all a nice set. She told the girl to go to the store room and get a candle;
but before she reached the door, called her back and said, tell Tate to burn up
every paper and every thing. Mrs. Tate's room was on the lower
floor, opposite the one I was in; there was nothing but a lath partition
between the rooms; it was not plastered; the beds stood against the wall,
opposite to each other; anything said in one room, could be heard in the other,
as distinctly as if there had been no partition. Next morning arose and walked
round to the east end of the house and saw a strow of ashes, which started from
the place where the talking appeared to have been, leading to the old kitchen;
the ashes were not in a continuous strow, but appeared to have been dropped in
bunches, as if shook out of a basket. Walked to the place where they commenced,
and near to the first bunch, saw a splotch of blood about the size of a palm of
the hand, that appeared to have been dropped there while warm; it had trickled
down on the grass and spread out on the ground, and supposing the ashes had
been put there to cover something of the same sort, went back to the house. The
next thing that attracted my attention was at the breakfast table, when I smelt
meat burning and said to Mrs. Tate if you have anything cooking it is burning
up. She asked how I knew; told her I smelt it; she asked what it smelt like;
told her like fresh meat burning; when Tate spoke very abruptly and as if mad,
saying to the girl at the table, bring Mrs. Hazle a slice of that meat, maybe
it is better than this; told Tate I did not mean any harm by the remark; the
meat on the table was plenty good for me. Nothing was said further, till Mrs.
Tate spoke in a tantalizing manner to Tate, saying I think you and Gordon had
better take Mrs. Hazle into your game; Gordon, flaring his eyes about, said I
reckon she would make a pretty good hand. Tate left the table without saying
anything. I left the table, went out and took a seat on the porch; very soon
Gordon come out and took a seat also, on the porch; soon after smelt a powerful
stench of what was burning and perceiving it to come from the old kitchen, said
to Gordon, I wonder what they are burning down there that smells so bad. Gordon
asked what it smelt like; told him like hogs' guts aburning, and that
kitchen-door has been shut all the morning and I have a good mind to go down
there and see what they are doing.
Gordon said sit still; I will go and see and, immediately went down. He
first appeared to peep in at the crack, near the facing of the door; then
stepped up on the door step, when the door was opened and he stood sometime and
looked in. He then came back to the porch and told me Tate was having the
cellar cleaned out and all the old trash burnt up; told him I wished they would
make haste about it for it smelt very badly; he said go into Mrs. Tate's room
and you will not smell it; went into Mrs. Tate's room, but finding her in a
solitary mood left her and went and told Louisa to catch my horse; Louisa told
me her child was sick and asked me what she should do for it; told her to go
and catch my horse and I would go and see the child. She started for the horse
and I to see the child. I had passed the door of the old kitchen, on my way to
see the child, noticing the ashes as I passed and had arrived opposite the
chimney when I smelt such a powerful stench of what was burning that I stopped,
looked up to the top of the chimney and saw a powerful smoke pouring out;
turned and stepped back into the door and said as I entered are you all
broiling meat and burning it up? George and old Winney were in the kitchen
standing against the wall, one, on one side of the fire place and the other, on
the other side. I walked up in front of the fire place and discovered something
on the fire that looked singularly; said what have you got that old, snaggy,
sobby, chunk on there for? and immediately discovered it to be the body of a
man. The first thing I noticed was the foot, which with the leg was drawed up
considerably above the other. I traced from the foot along the leg to the fork,
noticing the knee-joint -- and along the body to the shoulder, looking at the
arm and elbow particularly, as it was drawn up and strutted out, with the hand
resting against the back of the fireplace. Immediately stepped round to look
for the head; saw it split and gaped open -- the juices of the body were
spewing out into the fire at the split. The kitchen stands east and west and
the fireplace is at the east end. The body lay with the back towards me; the
head was to my left hand. It had burnt black and the whole frame appeared to be
in a strut; the bowels seemed to be in a perfect boil; saw several bubbles
escape at the anus; the fire was a large one and the lower part of the body or
left side was concealed from view by a stick of wood which hid it nearly up to
the back bone; saw ashes and small fire coals in the split of the head; could
not be mistaken about its being a human body; organs of generation were
distinguishable; called it an old snaggy; sobby chunk because I did not know
what it was. It was not more than ten minutes after Gordon went to the old
kitchen from the porch before I went there. While looking at the head, , said
to Winney who did this? She made no reply. -- Who put this here? She said
Gordon and George. I asked does Tate know it? She said yes. George had sidled
round to the north door of the kitchen as I went in, and just then I heard him
ask where his axe was, when Winney said get out of here or George will hurt you
with his axe; told her no he wont. Stepped out of the kitchen and on my way to
the house, met Louisa with my horse and said to her what did you let me go down
there for; she said I called you but you did not hear me; asked who that was
down there; she don't you mind that man who was here last night; asked what was
his name; she said Saws or Sawyers, I replied he is sawed now, and said for
God's sake Louisa this once get my saddle on as quick as possible and let me
get away from here as soon as I can. Went the house, into Mrs. Tate's room,
found her sitting on the trundle bed crying; asked her what was the matter? She
said I reckon you know; got up and went to the window and asked where have you
been? told her down to the old kitchen. -- She said what did you go there for?
Did anybody send you there? told her no. I started down to see Louisa's child
and smelt meat burning; when she asked, did they have a big hog on the fire?
told her no, they had an old snaggy chunk on the fire. You know better than
that, she said. In this time had picked up my things and while standing in the
door she called a negro to go and tell Tate to send somebody there to clean up
those ashes before anybody else comes to see them; asked if any body was
coming. -- She said I reckon you will go off and try and have us all hung if
you can. Told her I did not meddle myself with that which did not concern me,
and if you are not hung till I have you hung it will be a good while
first. Well, we'll see, she said. I
left and went immediately over to Mrs. McDavid's.
He was a low chunky man; am not a good judge of men's
hight; not as tall a man as the Sherriff. (Sheriff is five feet six or seven
inches.) He was heavily set; would weigh one hundred and fifty or sixty pounds;
appeared to be about thirty five years old; his skin thick but smooth; dark
complexion; don't recollect the color of his eyes; they were considerably sunk
under his forehead; did not see him with his hat off only when eating and then
his back was towards me; can't speak positively about the color of his hair; but
should call it light colored. His cheek bones were very wide and face tapering
to the chin. He showed his front teeth when talking. When I got to Mrs.
McDavid's found Col. Taylor and his wife there; did not tell what happened; had
it in my mind to tell Col. Taylor of
it, but could not summon up courage to do so. Think I told Mrs. Taylor a part
of it in the grave-yard, but have understood since that she denies it. Told
Mrs. McDavid and Patsy Flint of it. After I went to Mississippi told Zimri
Rogers and Mason Young very soon after reaching home. In 1845 went to Jacinto
to see Benj. Rives, Esq., and told him about it; and after I found there would
be nothing done about it told it frequently, and to a good many. I was afraid
and thought if I was killed the world should know what it was for. On the
Wednesday after it happened, Louisa came to Mrs. McDavid's and sent for me to
come out to her in the yard.; went to her, when she said you had them all
mightily scared over at our house on Sunday. Asked her what about? She said
about what you see here; they thought you would send somebody there. -- Asked
her what they did with it; she said they took it off the fire mighty quick
after you left; put it in the gully till after night and then buried it with
rest of the old chunks. Tate and his wife came over sometime in the week and
tried to get me to go home with them. Not long before I returned home to
Mississippi was going to Samuel Pool's, when Gordon overtook me near the river,
commenced talking to me of how he had done and of his intention to try and do
better; , his conversation was upon religious subjects and the welfare of his
soul. He said he had done some very bad things in his life and he was afraid he
could not get forgiveness for them; that Tate had made him do some things that
were very bad; told him I do not think he had done so bad, he would not be
forgiven; did not know what Tate had made him do; but didn't he would do
anything very bad himself; when he said
Mrs. Hazle Tate tells me you know all about our business; told him I did not
know anything of their business; only knew they were wagoning together, which
was all I knew; when he said Tate thinks you have seen something you ought not
to have seen; told him I had seen nothing, and suspecting his object, waived
all further conversation on the subject, and commenced talking on something
else. Moved to Mississippi in July, 1843. Tate's wagon moved me down; Lige and
Braxton were the negroes who went down with the wagon; made the contract at
William Ashworth's, in the passage of his house; Tate was owing me for
attending upon his family; he was to move me down for what he owed me; I paying
the expenses on the road. -- When I applied to him to move me, he said he would
have to move me away or have me killed; asked him for what? He said I knew too
much.
MRS. HAZLE
CROSS EXAMINED. -- Mrs. Hazle's cross-examination was committed to
writing, only in part. She closed her examination in chief on Tuesday evening
about 9 o'clock, P.M., and State's Attorney moved the Court to adjourn;
defendants' counsel objected and proposed to interrogate the witness on a few
questions only. -- The Court told him to proceed. He commenced by enquiring
where her parents were born, and when? where she was married? when? who her
brides-maids were? who the bride's groom was? the number of books in the Old
Testament; in the new; the commandments; their several injunctions of moral
duty; the number of gospels; when a controversy ensued; she contending there
was but one gospel, that of our Lord Jesus Christ; he that there were four; but
upon being informed, that the one gospel was elucidated by the four Evangelists, he abandoned the
examination upon the Bible and catechised her upon the births, marriages and
deaths of her children; where, when, &c., even to the year, month and day
of the week; of the places she had lived at; the occurrences that had
transpired during her residence at them; the events of her life; of her habits
of life; whether she smoked; chewed tobacco; drank liquor; rubbed snuff; eat
opium; parched coffee; ginger, spice, or aromatics; and finally settled down
upon an inquiry into the early history and settlement of Hazle-Green; insisting
upon her telling who it was named after; who she had said it was named after.
The witness not knowing and not recollecting that she had ever said who Hazle
Green was named after, could not tell; when she was admonished of the necessity
of telling to the world that important incident in the history of Hazle Green;
and in true pedagoguical style, Mr. Attorney Walker charged her to be prepared
in the morning to tell him who Hazle
Green was named after! -- directed the Sheriff to keep the witness in
custody, when the Court adjourned.
Such is an approximate description in its more decent
details of the first hour's cross-examination of a worthy and respectable
witness, upon the subject of so grave a charge as that of murder. The
prosecution remonstrated against it, but the defendants' counsel said it was to
test the sanity of the witness' mind, and the Court, in conformity to the rule
they had adopted from the beginning,
said they would hear all, everything and anything that would throw light upon
the subject. Mrs. Hazle did did not reach her lodgings this night till 12
o'clock.
Wednesday.
-- Court Convened. -- Cross-Examination Continued. -- Witness took the stand; But Mr. Attorney Walker
did not deem it so essential,(or the subject had slipped his memory,) for the
great ends and aims of justice, as he did the night before, that the witness
should tell "who Hazle Green was named after," as he passed by the
subject entirely, and commenced his interrogatories to witness by taking her
through a history of the events of her life; the gossip of the neighborhood;
requiring her to detail with the utmost precision and minuteness all the
circumstances of these events as to time and place. The prosecution objected to
this mode of cross-examination, on the ground of irrelevancy, as well as
disrespect for all law, rules of evidence and precedent; said if the object was
to show the witness to be insane, as the defendants had alleged, there were
other and proper ways of ascertaining the fact; cited authorities and protested
against it, as subversive of dignity and self-respect, all law and precedent.
But defendants' counsel urged that to arrive at the fact of insanity, they must
conduct the examination in their own way, telling the Court that unless they
could show to them, by some means, that the witness was deluded, and destroy
the force of her testimony, they would be bound to commit the defendants to
jail. And the Court, as from the commencement of the trial, permitted the
defendants' counsel to have their own way. The examination proceeded.
The witness was taunted, insulted, and vexed by indecent and vulgar questions
till she could bear it no longer, and upon being directly and tauntingly asked,
"Mrs. Hazle, ain't you crazy, ain't you deranged?" she
replied, Yes, perfectly deranged," and in a fit of momentary passion left
her seat in the area of the Bar and went to the fire. The object of defendants'
counsel was now achieved. He came down before the judge's stand, with visage
lengthened, as steeped in bitterest sorrow and compassion, and in low, deep,
impressive and sepulchral tones did he tell the Court that the witness was certainly
deranged -- her conduct showed it -- her tongue had confessed it.
Mrs. Hazle after remaining at the fire until she had warmed returned to the
area of the Bar, and upon being told that she must not leave the presence of
the Court with leave, told them she was aware of the impropriety she had
committed, but she felt her ambition beginning to rise, and it was impossible
for human nature to bear every thing; that she was now perfectly at herself and
in future would endeaver to control her temper. The examination proceeded, and
the balance of the day and night was consumed in requiring her to tell the
story of several accusations of little, contemptible thefts, which had been
purposely alleged against her by Tate, when he heard she had told of these
murders. She was examined fully one hour and a half upon the story of the string and flannel, the
history of which is given in another place; upon the gloves, the
explanation of which is explained in Roswell's testimony; the subject of the
murders was not touched, except perhaps to inquire of her if she had not told
Jack Pool of them in the year 1845. She denied having told him, and gave her
reasons for not telling him, which were that she might as well have told Tate
himself of them as to have told Pool. The examination continued through the day
and until ten o'clock at night; the witness maintaining the equanimity of her
temper and answering all the interrogatories of the defendants' counsel with
promptitude and affability, notwithstanding the taunts and insults of the
examining counsel. No record of this day's proceedings was kept. Court
adjourned.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 3rd.
Court convened. Mrs. Hazle upon coming into Court
asked leave to say to the Court that she perceived from the drift of the examination
the object to be to show the insanity of her mind, and if permitted to state it
she would say in short that what she had stated she heard in the office, she certainly
heard; and what she had stated that she saw in the old kitchen, she had certainly
seen; and whatever impression they might attempt to make in reference to
the sanity of her mind, she was perfectly clear and positive as to the
truth and reality of her statements.
The witness was this day examined principally upon the habits of Felix
Cabaniss, (an idiot) who lived at Tate's; interrogating her in reference to his
habits of cleanliness, both in regard to his own person and in the yard;
whether he was not in the habit of hallooing in the night; of making strange
noises; frequently troubled with bowel complaints; discharged blood about the
yard; and whether ashes were not often used to hide it. She was also required
to repeat over her testimony, in her examination in chief, about these murders.
The counsel for the defence having her affadavits before him, in which the
facts of the murders had been written out in detail, jumped her back and forth
in her examination., through the documents, ad libitum, but could
produce no discrepancy. In the case of the man from Tuscaloosa, she had stated
in her affadavit that she had seen the watch he exibited at the supper table in
the hand of Mrs. Tate, in 1845. -- This fact the prosecution did not bring out
in her direct examination. The counsel for the defence did bring it out in her
cross-examination, and the following is the testimony they elicited: "Have
since seen the watch Rice had at the supper table the night he was killed; saw
the same, identical watch and chain I saw him have at supper, in the hand of
Mrs. Tate, in 1845. Tate had told his
wife to show Mrs. Hazle, Charley's fine watch. After some little time, we were
in her room, when she said, I reckon I must show you Charley's watch since Tate
is so anxious you should see it. She opened the drawer, took up the watch,
leaving the chain mostly in the drawer, and said you have seen this before. I
told her no. She then lifted the chain out and holding it up said you have seen
this before -- you know this, I reckon. Discovering her object was to see if I
would recognize it, I told her no, not that I knew of -- when she replied, you
have seen it; I asked her where? In yonder, she said, nodding to the dining
room.
The counsel here asked her if she would know the watch
now. She replied, she would, if it looked like it did then. He produced a
watch; presented it to her and asked if it was not the watch shown to her by
Mrs. Tate. She replied,(taking the watch in her hand,) no, that was a
gentleman's watch, a smooth cased gold watch, with a guard chain of dark
metal-links and gold sets. This is a lady's watch, with gold guard chain and
black ribbon wrapped around it to make it look black. [The guard chain of the
watch produced, had been fixed up, with a black ribbon or string, so that at a
little distance it looked like a dark colored chain.] After the exibition of
this scene and a few more unimportant questions the defence closed the
cross-examination, and the Court adjourned for dinner,
--------
NOTE. --
After the foregoing testimony was published the cross examination of Mrs. Hazle
was received, all that was taken down by the Clerk, and is as follows:
[MRS. HAZLE'S
CROSS-EXAMINATION AS REDUCED TO WRITING BY THE CLERK.]
THURSDAY morning, Jan. 3, 1856.
When Mrs. Hazle came into Court this morning, she
requested leave to make statement to the court -- and said, they appear by this
examination to be working on my mind to see if I am insane, or not. What I have
said, I heard in the office, I certainly heard, and what I have said I
saw in the old kitchen, I certainly saw. -- What I heard in the office,
was in the winter, in November or December, 1842; that was not of very much
weight on my mind, so as to trouble me much, and I could get along with it; but
what I saw in the old kitchen was a poerful weight on my mind and feelings, in
thinking I had no other way to be safe, than to try and keep it as still as I
possibly could; believing that they did not know from the way I called it, and
spoke of it, that I knew what it was. I mean Tate's family. I think I told Mrs.
McDavid and Patsey Flint, that they knew I was in there, but told them, that I
did not think they knew, I knew what it was; and the community must, consider
what a condition my mind and feelings would be in with such a weight on them,
and having to keep it to myself, as I considered my only safety depended on my
silence; and I never told it, till I felt so annoyed by my feelings, that I had
to tell it, and I have to say, that what I have said I saw in the yard, I
certainly did see.
[NOTE.
-- This is the statement made by Mrs. Hazle to the court on Thursday morning,
the 4th day of the trial, after she had been more than two days on an
examination, direct and cross, kept in constant exercise in answering questions
and having been kept from her lodgings for the two nights previous, one till
after 10 o'clock and the other till after 12 o'clock; wherein she sought
opportunity to give her own views, upon the subject of her sanity -- and let me
ask, does the language or sentiment in the above speech indicate that insanity
or monomaniaism, they ascribe to her -- far from it.]
Know Porter Walker -- he lived in Carrolsville, and
lives there yet if he has not moved; it is in Tishomingo County. Have known him for several years; first knew
him about Hazlegreen, in this county; he is the sheriff of Tishomingo County and
is one of my old acquaintances. -- Don't recollect whether or not, I told him
of these murders. Told him about the
occurrences at Mrs. McDavid's about which I have testified. Can't recollect that I told Rebecca Saunders
anything about the murders; Mrs. Saunders said something to me once about my
not being cheerful and lively, like I used to be; think I observed to her that
someting had passed, that I did not think I ever would be as cheerful again;
don't recollect well enough to say what our conversation was, after that
time. This conversation took place at
Wm. Roswell's in 1845, but don't recollect the day, the week or the month. Never told Porter Walker that Mrs. Saunders
knew anything about these murders. Had
a letter wrote to Wm. Roswell; Wm. Leonard wrote it. I first requested Wm. Leonard to go and see Wm. Roswell; the
letter was written in 1845, I think; but am not certain; the letter will
show. If anything was said in that
letter about my being examined by Charles McGhee or Terry Lowry about stealing
any money or any thing, it was put in without my knowledge. Don't recollect that Felix Cabaniss ever
scared me or that he shook a stick at me once. or that he ever alarmed me in
any way. Do not not know that Dr. Davie
was ever concerned with Tate in any of his bad deeds, or in these murders, or
that he was Tate's right hand man in all his rascalities. May have remarked and think I probably have
said, that Dr. Davie was Tate's right hand man in some things, but do not know
what I then alluded to. Never told Jack
Pool when he was in Mississippi any of these things about Tate, for I was very
careful and cautious about saying anything disrespectful of Tate to him. I might as well have told Tate himself as
told Jack Pool. Have not seen the
string since I gave it to Mrs. Pool.
Have not heard of it since Mrs. Pool wrote to me about it -- nor of the
piece of flannel, as I recollect.
The first time Bingham came to see me he had a brown
bay horse; the second time he came he had his own horse, a brown bay, and
brought Mr. Rodger's horse for me to ride home on; I did not go and he took the
horse back; expect the horse came through Mr. Rodger's directions. I did not see the horse the third time he
was there. Don't think I ever saw
Bingham have any other horse to his buggy than the one he drove here. It seems too, I heard Mr. Rodgers' folks say
something about another horse, but I am not certain. Remember the time the man rode up to Tate's gate; never heard his
name, saw the horse; it appeared to me it was a dark colored horse, but don't
know whether it was a black or a dark bay and don't know what become of the
horse; never saw him only at the gate, never heard what become of him. Bingham's first visit was sometime in April
last, his second visit was in May.
Don't recollect the date of his third visit; his last visit was the last
of November or the first of December.
Don't know the day of the week of his first visit. I was not at
home. The first time I ever saw him was
on Wednesday probably, but when he come to Mr. Rodger's, where I lived, I do
not know. ‑‑ Was with him on his first visit an hour or an hour and
a half. He asked me about these
murders; he told me that was the object of his visit; there was no person in
the room when he spoke to me about them.
There was very little said the first time. First saw him at Mr. Lee's; Lee's wife had sent for me to come
over there.
Bingham told you a man from Tuscaloosa by the name of
Rice had been killed? He said a man by
the name of Rice had been missing and he was supposed to have been killed; said
the man went away in 1841 and had been missing since that time. Witness says she is tired and you are
wearing my mind down, and seems like I can't recollect near as well as I ought
to. ‑‑ What month did Bingham tell you he left Tuscaloosa? Don't think he mentioned the month. ‑‑,
He told me he lived in Tuscaloosa.
Bingham told you he was a carriage maker, didn't he? ‑‑
Don't recollect that he told me what Rice was.
Think Bingham told me, when Rice went off it was thought he was
deranged; think this was told me the second time I saw Bingham. He spoke about Rice's drawing money
somewhere before he started, but did not know how much. He said he understood he drew some money
before he started. Bingham told you he
was six feet high. No, he asked me his
hight, but I told him I was not a good judge of men's hight, and I never saw
him but once; he then asked mehow high he was compared with Burton Carooth, who
was there; and I told him he was about his height or may be a little
taller. Thinks Mr. Carooth said he was
about six feet. Bingham told you Rice
dressed Genteely? He first asked me to
describe Rice and his dress, and after that he spoke of his dress. Bingham did not describe Rice till after I
had described him. Bingham then said
the desription answered that of Rice; that Rice was about six feet high, and I
think he put it down so. Bingham told
you Rice had a spangled guard chain, did he not? No, he did not tell me anything about his guard chain. Bingham told you he had an elegant gold
watch, didn't he? No, he did not tell
me whether Rice had a watch or not.
Think Bingham said, that when he went to Tuscaloosa he would inquire of
a watchmaker he knew there, if Rice had such a watch or not, or whether he had
made such a one in his shop. The watch
looked like a very fine gold watch., with a dark colored guard chain, and had
bright specks or sets upon it, and I so described it to Bingham. Bingham told me he and Rice had been in some
company, where he had stood up by him; don't think I asked Bingham how long he
had known Rice; think this conversation was had on Bingham's first visit ‑‑
that is, the first time I saw Bingham before he went away. Had seen Bingham three times before I went
into a detail of matters. The first time I saw him, I told him I knew of such matters, or such
things; that it was an old thing and I
did not care about its being stirred
up, that I'd had a great deal of bad
feeling about it, but had got pretty well over it. I spoke of his being a stranger, and did not
know what side he might be on and did
not want to say anything about it. He told me he was not seeking after it for any advantage to Tate
against me, and showed me a letter of
recommendation. He insisted on my
giving him a statement of all I knew
about it and let him put it in writing.
I told him I would do so to the
best of recollection and asked time for the balance of that day and night to study on it. The next day I told it over to him to the
best of my recollection, and then gave a certificate that I had told it to the
best of my recollection. I mean by
certificate the affidavit. He said he
would take it and go to Tuscaloosa, and I understood he was to inquire about it
and see if he could not get other evidence.
Bingham did not tell me Rice was a tinner by trade, but has told me he
was a carriage maker. Bingham wrote
down my deposition and read it to me. I
think he read it over twice or three times, and the reason I required this was,
I could not read writing and he had the advantage of me, and I wanted to see if
he had written it as I had directed him to to do it. He wrote only one deposition for me about Rice, so far as I know. I remember that I said in that deposition I
had seen the same watch in the hands of Mrs. Tate in 1845 I had seen Rice
have. If the watch looked as it did
then, and was the same she had in her hand I should know it. Did not have the watch in my hand. It was a very fine plain gold watch, with a
dark looking or black guard chain, spangled with bright sets. I suppose they were gold. The watch was in Mrs. Tate's hand, right by
the drawer. It was in 1845 when I saw
it, she had it in her hand, do not know if it was her right or left or in both
hands; she asked me if I had ever seen it before., said it was Charley's watch.
-- This was in the day, just before we started to meeting: (watch and chain
shown to her) -- This is not the one.
There is a difference in the chains; can't tell so much about the watch
as the chains; chain was a dark chain, (by the court.) This might have been the chain but don't
think it is. Think the chain was
composed of metal. The above is the way
Mrs. Hazle's testimony is recorded by the clerk, the language employed on the
occasion was -- (Producing a watch.)
Mrs. Hazle, ain't this the watch shown you by Mrs. Tate? No; (taking the watch.) What's the difference? That was a gentleman's watch, a
smooth cased gold watch, with a dark colored chain and gold sets, this is a
ladies' watch, with gold guard chain.
Don't recollect so much about the watch as about the chain. (By the court.) Might not that have been the chain? It might, but don't think so; that chain was a dark metal
chain. The watch was taken out of the
drawer by Mrs. Tate, and she said, I reckon I must show you Charley's fine
watch, that Mr. Tate told her to show it.
One night I was at Tate's and he inquired of me when William McDavid was
going to start [to the Springs], (Here she was interrupted or she would have
detailed the conversation that led to the reason why she was shown the
watch.) Did not see any cross upon the
watch chain, never told anybody that the watch chain had a cross on it. Never
told Jack Pool so, never told any body that the man that was burnt had a watch
and chain. Have told the circumstances
of these murders to people and they would go and tell it entirely different
from what I had told it. Told it
particularly to Matilda Young, and heard Jo. Young undertake to tell it, and he
told it entirely different from the way I told it. Did not say Mrs. Tate called the gentleman by name. Told Jo. Young about Mrs. Tate's calling the
name of the man, (from Tuscaloosa,) Ice, as I thought; also told Mason Young,
who lives near where I do. Gordon and
myself were sitting on the porch the morning the man was being burnt. I was sitting against the post and Gordon
against the house, only one porch to Tate's house at that time. It was a front porch. Bingham read these depositions over to me
three times I think. He read the one
about Rice, at Burton Carooth's house. Read the other one twice or three times,
twice I know, this was at Mr. Rogers'.
Don't recollect that Bingham has read it to me since I signed it. I came from Mississippi with Mr. Bingham,
went to Mr. Humphrey's, he lives in this county, in the country. Davis Humphrey is the gentleman's name. Have staid there ever since, until I came to
town, except once I went to Esq. Taylor's.
Bingham went with me -- went in a Buggy. The same one we came up in from Mississipi. No person came with us from Mississippi. Were four days and a piece on the road; as
well as I recollect, stopped every night at a house. Bingham and myself did not talk about these cases as we came
along. If they were mentioned, it was
very little; we did not talk particularly nor generally about them. -- Bingham
did not on the way ask me to repeat anything about the case. Knew Bingham had my affidavits, the
affidavits have not been read to me since I came here, Bingham has told me
about the trial of a negro of Mrs. Routt's in Huntsville.
When Ben Pitts come down to Mississippi, (last Sept.) he
brought word that they said Bingham was engaged in this matter for the
benefit of Mrs. Routt. He told it the
day after he got home to Mr. Young, and Mrs. Young told me. Ben. Pitts said Tate sent for him twice, and
he went and staid all night at his house.
My son, Henry Hazle's wife, is named Lucinda. He has been married nine years this last summer. Henry's wife and myself have talked about
these murders. I never went into a
detail about them, though they have been talked about between us. Myself and
oldest daughter live together at home -- keep house together, don't live with
Mr. Rogers, but live in the yard at Mr. Rogers' -- live on his land. The reason I do not live with my son in-law,
Ben. Pitts, is that he has family
enough of his own. Henry Hazle has also
family enough of his own, and I prefer living to myself. Have never charged Ben. Pitts with
stealing. Don't know that I ever
charged him with any crime in particular, only that I gave up my house to him
and he was to build me another, and did not comply with it. I paid money to Col. Taylor for a debt that
Ben. Pitts owed him, and he would never pay it back. Don't recollect how much it was exectly, probably it was thirteen
dollars and something, possibly it might have been eighteen. Never saw William Saunders in Mississippi,
that I recollect; never told William Saunders that William McDavid had stole
anything from me. Knew William Saunders
when I lived up here, when he was a boy.
Have never been crazy that I know of.
Have never been deranged that I know of. Don't know that I felt that I would go deranged, and was not
deranged about the string, nor about the piece of flannel, and have never been
deranged, upon any subject in my life.
The man on the fire was naked, did not see any beard nor hair. The body was all black; never saw any
clothes afterwards, the limbs were burnt black -- all was burnt black all
over. The man's back was towards me as
I stood before the fire. No, there was
no big pot on the fire. They used to
cook in there for the negroes. On the
Wednesday evening after I went to Mrs. McDavid's, Louisa came there and said,
Miss Betsy wants you to go over there.
Louisa insisted that I should go, but I told her I would not go, she
then said, you had them all mighty scared Sunday, I asked her how did I scare
them -- she said they thought you would
send somebody there. I asked did
anybody come. Louisa said no. Asked what she thought I would send any body
there for. She then said, don't you
know what you seen in the old kitchen.
I then said, did anybody think I was going to send anybody there to see
that "old chunk." Louisa
said, they dragged it off mighty quick after you left. Asked herwhere did they drag it to. She said down in the gully till night, and
then throwed it with the rest of the old chunks. I told Mr. Bingham that I would tell no negro tales (to be put
in my deposition), or on oath that I
could help. Louisa didnot tell me
anything about a horse, but I inquired where Mr. Tate was, and she said he had
gonedown to the horse lot to see about the horse.-- Louisa did not tell me
where the rest of the "old chunks" were buried. I did not ask. No person said anything about the willow thicket by the Tan Yard,
except the negroes, they called it Texas.
Have heard Bingham say a Kentuckian had been killed there. Bingham said it was negro news, that some of
Tate's negroes had told some other negroes of it. Never said anythingabout any body being buried under an apple
tree, heard Bingham speak of it. Never
heard of any other murders there, except these two. Went in to Jane Dennis' house and saw a great pile of bones lying
in the corner and asked her what she was burning her bones for, asked her why
she did not make soap of them; she said they would not make soap. Did not know what sort of bones they were,
asked Jane and she said they were sheep bones.
Know A.J. Farris, of Tishomingo
County; Miss. First knew him in 1847 or
1848, or may be not so late, Told him about these murders. Don't recollect which one I told him about
-- he lived at Ben. Pitts'. -, Don't know that I told him that any body was
buried anywhere. Did not tell him where
they were buried. Don't remember of
telling him they were buried near the Tan Yard, or about the Tan Yard. Never told him about Dr. Davis's coming to
whip me for stealing money; never told him that Dr. Davie wanted to whip me. William McDavid spoke about he and myself
going in partnership in what money I made, or that William McDavid claimed a
partnership in what money I made, I did not not consider there was any contract
or agreement between William McDavid and myself. He said to me one day that I was making so much money he must go
in partnership with me, or words to that amount. I replied I was not making much.
Sometime after that, Dr. Davie was at Mr. McDavid's. Mrs. McDavid was in the lower room and I was
in the upper room at work. Mrs. McDavid
told me that Dr. Davie wanted to see me, asked where he was, and she said in
the lower room, went down and Dr. Davie asked me how long I expected to stay
there, told him I did not know, would have to wait till the roads got good
before I went home. He said his reason
for asking was, that he had three or four women that would need attention and
he wanted me to attend to them. I told
him I would if I could. He wanted me to
promise any how. He then remarked he
supposed William and myself were in partnership. Told him I did not know. William then asked me if I had forgot, told
him I did not know I had forgot, for I did not know that I ever knew. --
William then then said, why yes, don't you know what passed between us the
other day, and said, I will have your horse fed and of bad nights will have him
saddled. Told him I always preferred to
feed my own horse. Well, said he, I
will findthe feed -- when I said, as to saddling I always dothat myself any
how, and there is hardly any body comes for me of bad nights, but what can
catch a horse. Dr. Davie laughed and
said he did not know what kind of an establishment we had. I remarked that William could go and hold
and hand things while I was about my business. -- This is all the conversation
that occurred as I recollect. Dr. Davie
never said anything about itafterwards that I recollect, may be he did. That conversation occurred in 1845, and it
was about this contract that William claimed, I thought Dr. Davie came to Col.
Taylor's to whip me.
By the State. -- It was on the morning that I left Col.
Taylor's to go to Mississippi, that I thought Dr. Davie was there. I did not see him myself.
Here closed Mrs. Hazle's cross examination.
Hickory Plains, Miss. June 22, 1856.
cAPT. bINGHAM: -- Up to 1845 Mrs. McDavid, her family, her
connexion and myself were on good terms of friendship, which caused me to bear
with a great many impositions they imposed on me. I mean Mrs. McDavid and her son William. I was not disposed to have any interruption
with them for a trifle. They are now
dead and in eternity, there will be no more denying the truth. So I will let the dead rest. Col. Taylor is a brother-in-law of Mrs.
McDavid. Mrs. Rosanna Conner is a
sister-in-law; Mrs. Martha Flint another sister-in-law; Mrs. Martha Conner is a
daughter. Mr. William Conner is her
son-in-law and nephew of Col. Taylor.
Dr. G.S. Davie was then a son-in-law of Mrs. McDavid, and I understand
is a son-in-law of Mrs. Rosanna Conner.
So it is not reasonable to suppose, that such a train of connexion,
would come out and acknowlege to a thing that was not respectable; and they
never will acknowlege that I told them of the strange noise I heard at Abner
Tate's, or that I saw the man burning on the fire, of course it would not be
popular with them to let the public know that such a thing had rested so long
in their bosoms.
Moreover, Col. Taylor was a warm friend of Abner
Tate's in 1843, in securing his property from paying his just debts; for it is
publicly known that Col. Taylor took Tate's wagons and negroes to Mississippi
and held it (his property) till he swindled a great many of his creditors out
of their just rights, by making them believe there was not any thing to be had
-- paying on a debt of one thousand dollars with a cow brute, so stated in the
neighborhood; besides many other such swindling tricks. It is true Col. Taylor come home with
me. I rode in the Barouche with him and
his son. He come on businessof his own,
though I bore all expenses of the trip -- which was to collect money from
Ben. Pitts and Porter Walker, for
himself and Andrew Conner, and they will acknowlege the same. There is much said about Mr. Tate, Mrs.
McDavid, Dr. Davie andseveral others befriending me. Their friendship towards me, run precisely with their interest
and no further. I paid for all I ever
got of them. -- Mr. Ashworth states that Tate sent a negro boy to drive my
stock gratis. This is false, for I paid
for the hire of the boy in flour, which was at McDavid's mill, and Ben. Pitts
paid the money to Mrs. McDavid in 1845, when he went to collect money for
me. Ashworth has told several
falsehoodsbesides, saying I hailed him on the Huntsville road, which you and
Mrs. Willis both know to be false.
Amongst it all, the poor man was burnt and it was my
misfortune to see him and tell of it.
In reference to the letter they have published , I had
two letters written to Col. Taylor, one was in answer to his. In that letter I stated what I had seen and
heard at Abner Tate's. -- The letter they have published is composed of a part
of the words that was wrote in that letter. -- If Col. Taylor will produce the
original letter, that was wrote in answer to his., I should know it by a
particular mark on it, and there is a man here who read the letter before it
started, and who says he would know it too, he thinks.
BARBARA HAZLE.
---
During the trial of Tate, Mrs. Hazle was forced into
the custody of the Sheriff and not permitted to have any communication with
attorney or prosecutor; therefore all opportunity to put us in possession of
facts which would have enabled the prosecution to have brought to light many
things, and shown perhaps, that a knowlege of these murders had been
communicated to the parties who testified on that occasion, was cut off. Mrs. Hazle has always said that she wrote
Col. Taylor a letter, in which she informed him of the murder of the man who
was burnt up. -- That she wrote to another gentleman in 1846, then residing in
that neighborhood, telling him of these murders, is a fact within my own
knowlege , for he has told me she did; told me the contents of the letter, and
offered to show it to me. Now it is a little strange, that one gentleman should
receive a letter from her detailing the murder and the other should not, but it
is stranger still, that one letter should be preserved and produced in Court
and the other not, to which she alludes above.
Mrs. Hazle's letter above will speak for itself. It refers to too many, and is too well
written, in a plain straight-forward, comprehensive manner, to be fiction.
In the cross-examination of Mrs. Hazle, it will be
perceived, the main subject in issue on the trial is but slightly touched in
the case of Rice, and then mostly with a view by dogmatical
"dragooning," to endeavor to force her into a discrepancy with her
story in her examination in chief, or to bring out something that would imply
and make the impression upon the bystanders, that she had acted altogether
under my influence. -- Hence the questions were dogmatically put. --
"Bingham told you Rice was six feet high?" -- "Bingham told you
this" -- "and he told you that" -- which the reader will bear in
mind in order the more readily to understand her replies. In the case of Sawyer, they scarcely touched
upon his murder at all in her cross examination; a circumstance full of suspicion
as to the guilt of the parties, for if it be a delusion, as they allege, that
delusion could certainly have been discovered by something in her
cross-examination, irreconcilable with her statements in her examination in
chief. But the intention of the defence
from the beginning was to brow-beat, to bully, to intimidate to taunt and to
insult, especially this witness, as well as the prosecutor -- as if, because
Abner Tate was a man of wealth, he thereforeshould not be accountable for his
crimes. I am somewhat familiar with the
courtesy due to witnessess and all parties concerned before a legal tribunal,
but never before, did I ever witness such a total disrespect to all law and
precedent in management of a trial, nor did I ever see a worthy and respectable
witness, like Mrs. Hazle, subjected to such indignity and insult.
D.H.B.
---
COURT CONVENED AT 2 O'CLOCK -- MR. WILLIAM ECHOLS, SWORN. --
Have been called on to look at my books to see when I sold Tate a gold watch;
find him charged with a gold watch and chain, as having been sold in Sept.
1850. It is described as a gold
huntsman's watch, [the watch again produced] -- thinks this is the watch. Mr. Cabaniss called on me some ten days ago
and requested me to look at my books and see when I sold Tate a gold watch,
telling me I might be called on to testify about it. Not cross examined.
T.J. LEVERT,
SWORN. -- John Gordon owed me a small note and also an account when he
left in 1845. Have applied to Abner
Tate to know where he was, telling him my reason for the inquiry, and he has
told me he did not know where he could be found or where his residence was; he
told me as often as once; said he might be up in Tennessee, but where, he did
not know. When Gordon was brought down last Sept., had my claims ready and went
over to Cabaniss' office and presented them to him, when he paid them, saying
he had forgotten he owed me.
JUDGE
F.L. HAMMOND, SWORN. -- Saw the
attack on Bingham. It was on the first
day of last court [Aug.27] and on the pavement of the burnt square; saw Bingham
leave the Southern Hotel with a letter in his hand; he crossed the street and
had got some thirty or forty yards on the opposite pavement when I saw Tate
pursuing him very rapidly with an uplifted stick, and when within a short
distance of him, asked if his name was Bingham -- Bingham turned round, told
him it was and jumped in so close to Tate, as to break the force of the blow;
the second blow, Tate's stick fell out of his hand; they clinched; Tate threw
Bingham and they were separated. Tate
appeared very angry; said Bingham had been traducing his character up in
Tennessee. Bingham told the crowd, when
they heard what he had done, they would all approve his conduct. Bingham was considerably hurt. Tate's stick was a very large one, that is
the stick, [a hickory about an inch and a half at the big end.]
CROSS
EXAMINED.
WALKER.
-- Tate gave him a pretty good whipping, didn't he?
STATE'S
ATTORNEY. -- He was not
whipped.
WITNESS.
-- He was considerably hurt.
WALKER TO
STATE'S ATTORNEY. -- He was whipped.
STATE'S
ATTORNEY TO WALKER. -- We say, he was not
whipped.
Bingham took no part in this colloquy; but the
reporter will say in his behalf, that he didn't holler; and it is
generally considered, that a man is not whipped till he hollers. If, however, Mr. Attorney Walker insists
upon considering him whipped, all we have to say is, that he has not staid
whipped.
JAMES I.
DONEGAN, SWORN. -- Saw Tate on
the evening of his attack on Capt. Bingham.
He was very much excited; said Bingham had been abusing his family up in
Tennessee; said to him, Abner, you are excited now; go home till your passion
subsides.
The prosecution introduced the following copy of a
letter, as evidence of a fraud upon the Governor of Alabama, which had
been committed by the parties, of their friends, in their behalf.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
Montgomery,
Ala., Nov. 14th, 1855.
His Excellency, Andrew Johnson:
SIR: --
On the 10th of Sept. last, I made my requisition on your Excellency for the
extradition of one John Gordon, a fugitive from justice. It having been made to appear, that the
party at whose instance the requisition was made, has failed to establish the
charge against him, and that he Gordon has surrendered himself in open court, I
therefore revoke and annul the aforesaid requisition and demand.
Your Exc'l.
ob't Servant,
JOHN A. WINSTON.
A. JOHNSON.
GEORGE
W. CARMICHAEL, SWORN. -- Know
John Gordon; he did not surrender himself in open court at the last term. Was sheriff and in daily attendance upon the
court; did not see him in the courthouse; saw him town about the time of last
court. There has been no court in this
county since the 10th of Sept. last.
WILEY THOMPSON, SWORN. -- Know John Gordon;
saw him on Friday morning last, about 10 o'clock, about two miles and a half
northwest to Meridianville, between Wade's Tan Yard and Union Chapel, going in
the direction of Tennessee; he was traveling no public road, but apparently
avoiding observation.
CROSS EXAMINED, -- Walker -- He didn't
have a mask on?
DEPT. SHERIFF PHILLIPS, SWORN. -- Have had a warrant in my hands since
Saturday last, to arrest John Gordon; went for him on Sunday but could not find
him; heard where he was on Monday, went for him; found him on the Pike, just
this side of Tate Lowry's, he said he was coming to town -- young Mr. Robinson
was with him
ROBINSON, SWORN.
-- Was sent by my father, Mr. Robinson, to tell Gordon to come into town.
RONR.W.
COLTART -- Called John Gordon at
each of the windows of the courthouse, and also at the door, on Monday; he did
not answer.
Note by Reporter, -- John Gordon, who had been in the County since Thursday, 27th of
December, lurking about, (but who since the trial, the parties have said, come
down voluntarily to the trial and was arrested while on his way to the
courthouse,) was brought into court on Monday afternoon, by the Sheriff, just
before sun-down. The defendants'
counsel saw him before the Sheriff had time to reach the Bar to make his
return; when Mr. Attorney Walker sprung to his feet and announced to the Court,
with much apparent satisfaction as well as surprise at the efforts of Gordon to
reach the court house, "that Mr. Gordon has just arrived -- is in
court and wants to be put on trial."
MAJOR THOMAS MCCRARY, SWORN.
-- Was at Concord meeting-house last fall; a gentleman touched me and pointed
to Tate; left mt seat; went off with him; took a seat and he engaged me during
the whole time of the sermon in talking about these murders. He produced a letter, which he said was a
copy of one, addressed to Governor Clay and Mr. Acklen, in which he stipulated
some short time, from one to three months I think, to have these murder cases
investigated. He appeared very uneasy
and manifested much anxiety while talking about him. Saw him at Cabaniss' office the day he attacked Bingham. -- He
then told me, he had never heard he was charged with murder, till he heard
Gordon had been committed to jail in Tennessee. I told him that I sent Capt. Martin to him several years ago to
tell of it, and he came back and told me he did tell him and what he said in
reply. At Concord, Tate told me he
wanted to send some negroes off, but he was afraid to do so, because folks
would say he had run them off, and he also said, he wanted to leave home
himself, but he was afraid to do so, because as soon as he was gonethey would
be digging all over his premises. Told
him, I was not afraid of my neighbors' digging my premises over. (Here Mr. Walker interrupted the witness and
told the court, that when this thing first ccame out, Tate applied to him and
he had told him to stay at home and watch his premises, for if there was a
conspiracy against him, they would put dead bodies there, in order to bring
them up in judgement against him.) -- Know John Gordon; saw him last Sept. Understood Cabaniss and Dan'l B. Turner went
up to Tennessee after him; saw him in November. -- Met Tate and Cabaniss in
Huntsville; and they told me the Governor's requisition had been received in
Tennessee, and that Gordon had left Tennessee to avoid being arrested under the
warrant. Afterwards, at my house,
Cabaniss told me, that while Gordon was down, he came to Huntsville, and that
he had written to Governor Winston and fixed it up for him, and Gordon had gone
home. Saw Gordon last Monday, about two
miles out of Huntsville; it was about 1 o'clock in the day; asked him if he was
going to town, he said he was not, as he turned off at the lane, where he left
the pike. He stopped and requested me
not to tell any one in town, that I had seen him or where he was.
Tate and Cabaniss have always said, they wanted these
murders investigated; but at the same time said they did not believe Bingham
would ever show hinself in the county to prosecute them.
Not
cross-examined.
Judge F.L. Hammond, recalled, -- with County
Records.
Records introduced as evidence to show in assignment
by Tate to ____, Trustees, for the use and benefit of his creditors, bearing
date June 10th, 1843, In which a schedule of indebtedness is made and
exhibited, of debts amounting to over One Hundred Thousand Dollars.
JOSEPH
C. BRADLEY, SWORN. -- Is Tate's
Commission Merchant. He now owns One
Hundred and Thirty negroes and will make this year (1855) three hundred bales
of cotton, Is considerably behind; but all of his old indebtedness is
liquidated and he has his property all back.
=>The facts in reference to John Gordon and the
other parties are these: Tate and Cabaniss,
who pretendedly had held out the idea that they wanted an investigation
-- at the same time asserting that they did not believe Bingham would ever show
himself in the county to prosecute, as Major McCrary testifies, made very fair
and even pressing overtures, seemingly inviting and anxious for an
investigation. Through their friends,
they pledged themselves that they would go into it willingly and cheerfully;
that they would send for Gordon, who should come down immediately; no obstacles
should be thrown in the way, nobody should be hurt; and to hear Tate and
Cabaniss tell it, the investigation was to be "a feast of reason and flow
of soul," full of harmony, brotherly love and the kindest sort of feeling;
so conscious were they of innocence. So
much for appearances, when they thoughtthere was no probability of an
investigation. -- But when the reality of investigation presented itself, how
was it? Tate was arrested by the
Sheriff on Wednesday morning and it took three days nearly, or till
Friday eleven o'clock to get him before a magistrate. The first day he sent the sheriff off, some fifteen miles, to
tell the Magistrate to meet him the next day in Huntsville. The magistrate refused, and instructed the
sheriff to be governed by the process, that its injunctions would not be
departed from -- the sheriff left, determined to do his duty, and bring him the
next day as the process directed. But
when he got into the august presence of his prisoner he wilted down before him,
like a tallowed rag, stiffened by the absence of caloric, before the burning
coals, as, instead of bringing him before the magistrate, Tate sent his deputy
with a second message to the magistrate to meet him at Huntsville, and if he
did not, Tate would take his trial before another magistrate. But Mr. Taylor was not to be moved from his
position, and on Friday about eleven o'clock, the parties appeared at the
magistrate's office. This is the
alacrity with which Tate came up to the rack, of the investigation. Gordon was no doubt apprised of the arrest
of Tate and was instructed to come to the county, but it was never his
intention, nor the intention of Tate and Cabaniss, that he should go on trial,
if they could help it. He came to the
county on Thursday, was secreted on Thursday afternoon and night about two
miles out of town. Friday morning he
left crossed over the mountain, leaving the Meridian road, and travelling in
by-ways and lanes, till he was met as Thompson testifies. Went to Tate's and staid over night; next
day, Saturday, was seen in another part of the county dressed in a different
coat from the day before, one day wearing a blue blanket and the other a red
blanket coat. On Sunday Mr. Sheriff
Phillips was after him, but unsuccessfully.
Monday he slips down to the neighborhood of Huntsville, where he knew he
could and would be secreted, selecting a time of day, when he would be most
unlikely to meet any one, but unluckily for him he met with Major McCrary, by
overtaking him as he stopped to speak to an acquaintance. The Major recognized him and asked him if he
was going to town. He said he was
not. He rode ahead of the Major, till
he reached the lane that turns into Tate Lowry's, when he stopped, and waiting
for the Major to come up, requested him not to tell in town, that he had
seen him, or where he was. Take and
Cabaniss had given suchpositive assurances that Gordon would be there, ready,
anxious and more than willing to go into the trial, that with a view to
test the sincerity of their declaration, State's Attorney had him called at
each of the windows and twice at the door -- no Gordon answers; and Tate, the
negro and all the counsel sat up as whist as mice and grave as owls, as if
wrapped in the profoundest wonder and astonishment at his presumption in
calling a party to come into court, to answer a charge of murder when no
process had been returned against him; and seemed to say by their looks, and
the gravity they observed on the occasion, (at least the workings of their
countenances, betrayed that such were their thoughts) you are a fool, sir --
"John Gordon is where you will not see him during the progress of this
trial." Now they knew he was in
the county, they knew the pledges they had made to McCrary and others, that
Gordon should be there to stand the trial, and why, under the state of things,
did not Mr. Attorney Walker rise in his place and say, "Mr. Gordon is in
the county, has come down to attend his trial, we have pledged ourselves that
he will be here, he will come, you need not trouble yourself, Mr. Sheriff, to
call him." But then, it was
supposed by them, that Gordon was safe enough, nor did they know at that time,
how the court would lean, although they had tried the experiment to get
possession of the papers embodying Mrs. Hazle's testimony, and ought to have
known there was no danger to be apprehended, if the prosecution should prove by
fifty witnesses that they saw Tate and Gordon split the man's hand open with an
axe.
John Gordon never intended to show himself in that
Court House, nor did the others so intend, till they saw how the case was going
with Tate and George. About half after
2 o'clock, Bingham was informed (no matter how, or by whom,) where Gordon was
secreted. Mr. Phillips was called to
the bar, and he and his attorney were seen to whisper something to him by the
opposite parties. John Robinson, Esq.
was called up on the other side, as he testified he was requested to send for
Gordon, who immediately dispatched his son to Tate Lowry's to tell Gordon to
come into Town. It was a Gilpin race
perhaps between young Robinson and the Sheriff. Robinson won -- and Mr. Sheriff testifies he met Gordon
"just this side of Tate Lowry's, he said he was coming to town." The Sheriff brought him to the Court House,
came round on the side of the bar where the attorneys for the prosecution sat,
Gordon slipped round the otherside.
Mrs. Willis was giving in her testimony, a deathless silence pervaded
the house -- from the anxiety to hear, which was interrupted by Mr. Attorney
Walker's stentorian lungs, choking almost with joy at the sudden surprise,
occasioned by Gordon's arrival, who announced -- "MR. GORDON HAS JUST
ARRIVED IN COURT AND WANTS TO BE PUT ON TRIAL!" State's attorney replied, "Yes, the
Sheriff has just brought him in."
Mr. Attorney Walker was apparently thunder struck! and, for a moment,
seemed disposed to contest the truth of the assertion. The production of the warrant, however,
assured him of the fact, which he signed, agreeing to waive all informality in
consequence of the trial having been commenced.
The above are the facts, and this is the way John
Gordon "voluntarily" got into that court house. But read and see how Tate's amanuensis tells
it, and then refer to the testimony and see who tells the truth. "When I was arrested in December,
Gordon at once came down and brought some of his witnesses with him. He desired to get other testimony in the
county, and knowing Bingham would have him arrested and throw as many
difficulties in his way as possible, he requested Mr. McCrary not to say
anything of his arrival, (lengthy period of time between 1 o'clock and about 5
o'clock, P.M., and most propitious opportunity to hunt witnesses where he was
secreted,) but the counsel of Bingham were assured that Gordon would appear as
soon as the trial was begun."
Trial was begun about 10 o'clock -- about 2 o'clock John Gordon was
called at the windows and door by the Sheriff, and is there a man in Madison
County who knows D.C. Humphreys, Esq, who can be made to believe that he would
have been guilty of such unprofessional courtesy towards defendants' counsel,
as to have had Gordon called, if he had been assured he "would appear as soon
as the trial was begun.] "As soon
as my trial was commenced he did come at once to town -- he was met by the
deputy Sheriff on the turnpike road, in less than a mile of the court house,
coming directly to town. Came in with
the deputy Shff., announced himself ready for trial, and in 10 minutes was on
trial. If there is anything in conduct
like this to indicate guilt, I shall be gratified in having it pointed
out." This is the version of
Gordon's conduct as given by Tate's amanuensis. But if Gordon had come directly to the Sheriff the day he arrived
in the county, which was nearly five days before he was brought into court and
before he told the Major not to tell, so as to give him opportunity to hunt up
witnesses, he would not have been restrained in his liberty at all by the
Sheriff. Tate had his liberty after he
was committed by the Magistrate, the law requiring and the mitimus directing
that he should be confined in jail. He
went where he pleased, talked with whom he pleased, planned his defence, kept
his jug of good brandy in a room in the court house, treated and electioneered
with his friends, and had his important, essential and truth-telling witness, JOSEPHUS WHEELOCK, to amuse his friends and sympathizers with his
Munchausen tales, to read homilies to them upon the beauty of locality and the
great commercial advantages of Eastport -- he being, according to his own
representation, the most extensive landed proprietor and important man in the
place -- though he swore on the stand, with an assurance and gusto that almost
shook the dome off of the Court House, that he "lived in Chickasaw,
Franklin County, Ala., Sir," -- and to delight them also with his
antics about his employer, Tate, which, more nearly than anything else they can
be compared to, resembled
The Moth, that with many a caper,
Flies around the flaming taper --
Now receeding, now returning --
Delighted with its brilliant burning --
Never once of danger dreaming,
From a thing so brightly beaming:
Thoughtless, reckless, wildly whizzing
Falls of a
sudden, singed and Fiz-z-zing,
as he left the stand, having relieved his bosom of the
burthensome load which had been there pent up for ten long days, anxious to
escape, that the price of "storage" -- $5 per day, might be
realized Would the Sheriff have
deprived Gordon of an equal participation in those liberties, enjoyments and
liberties with his accomplice, Tate?
Certainly not. He is too good a
man -- and as an evidence of the "milk of human kindness" that
pervades his soul, in returning "good for evil," he assigned to
Bingham, on the Saturday before the trial, in D.C. Humphreys' office, as a
reason why he did not turn the jail key upon Tate and put him in close
confinement, he was afraid the people would say he had done it for revenge --
because Tate had destroyed the New-Market polls some years previously, which
cut his father out of his election of Sheriff.
Under this state of things, Gordon would have had nothing to fear from
being restrained in his liberty, had he not told Major McCrary about four
hours before he was apprehended, and after the trial had commenced "not to
tell any one in town he had seen him, or where he was," so as to
enable him, as Tate tells it, "to hunt up witnesses in the county."
D.H.B.
----
TESTIMONY
ON THE PART OF THE DEFENCE.
ABRAHAM
BERGHER, SWORN. Lives in Woodbury, Cannon County, Tennessee,
is a practicing lawyer, has been some twelve or fourteen years. Defended John Gordon before the court of
committing Magistrates; moved the court to quash the warrant on the ground that
it was contrary to law, the law of Tennessee requiring the Governor's
requisition as preliminary to the arrest of fugitives from justice.
Bingham, in his argument before the court, stated he
was hunting up the murder of a nephew of his by the name of Rice -- and in
doing so, had found out the murder of Sawyer, for which Gordon was
arrested. In that speech he told the
court, Tate had made a "slaughter pen" of his premises, that he had
found he had killed a man by the name of Rice, of Tuscaloosa, who was buried
under an apple tree. Another from
Tennessee by the name of Sawyer, whom they attempted to burn up, and another
from Kentucky, a negro trader; that the two last were buried down by the Tan
Yard. Bingham stated to the court that
he was worth Fifty Thousand Dollars, [when this witness subscribed to his
testimony, he changed the word "worth" (when the clerk read it
to him) into the phrase, "backed by" so his testimony now
reads, "Backed by Fifty Thousand Dollars""] Gordon was committed
upon affidavits, which Bingham produced before the court. He has lived in Cannon County some eight or
nine years, and sustains the character of an honest, industrious, peaceable
citizen. Gordon was taken out of Jail
by a writ of habeas corpus, carried before Judge Davidson at
Shelbyville, and discharged under the writ.
Bingham drove a sorrel horse, with a white strip in his face, when he
was up in that county.
CROSS-EXAMINED. Bingham said he derived his information about the burial of the
men from negroes -- that some of Tate's negroes had told it to other
negroes. Beive there was some promise
on the part of Gordon to go with Bingham to Miss., but the time had not run
out, and Bingham was only afraid that he would not go go, and had him
re-arrested, or that Gordon would forfeit his contract to go with him. Bingham did tell the court that Gordon had
asked him to tell him upon his honor, if there was any danger that Tate and his
wife would appear against him in case he went down there or something of that sort,
but Gordon denied it, and I got up forthwith, and announced his denial to the
court. Mr. Cabaniss and Daniel B.
Turner were up there, but don't think Gordon came down with them, think he came
down by himself, or started by himself from Shelbyville, on horse back.
ELLEGE SWORN. The testimony of this witness was not taken
down by the clerk. The amount of it
was, that Bingham stated before the court in Tennessee, that he was backed by
Fifty Thousand Dollars and could be by one hundred and fifty, if necessary, and
that Bingham requested him to try and get Gordon to confess by telling him that
Tate and his wife would appear against him,
In his cross-examination, however, he modified his statement by saying,
the proposition to get Gordon to confess, and to tell that Tate and wife would
appear against him, might have come from himself, but he could not
distinctly recollect. (Now, it is
disagreeable to contradict a gentleman of the bar and the Sheriff of a Sovereign
County -- but both of these men know, that what they state about Bingham
stating he was worth or was backed by Fifty Thousand Dollars has not the
least foundation in truth. -- Isaac B. Young, Esq., who aided in the arrest
of Gordon, who was a witness at Woodbury, who was present during the whole of
the time of Gordon's trial, and whose word will go as far in Cannon County as
either Mr. Bergher's or Mr. Ellege's, writes to Bingham thus: "As for your telling you was worth
Fifty Thousand Dollars, I heard nothing of the kind; nor did I ever hear any
person say that you said you were worth anything. Thompson, in making that speech to the court stated he supposed
you were worth something, which was all I heard. I never heard of your saying to any one, anything about what you
were worth." Nor did Gordon deny,
or Bergher announce to the court that he asked Bingham, "if there was any
danger that Tate and his wife would appear against him.")
COL. JOSEPH TAYLOR, SWORN. The
testimony of this witness was not reduced to writing, He was examined
exclusively upon matters wholly irrelevant to the subject at issue and which
had been brought out on Mrs. Hazle's cross-examination -- some of which he
recollected and others he did not. He
remembered the story of the string so far as it was spoken of in a letter, produced
in court; but other statements of hers, where she referred to him as knowing
the facts, he did not recollect. Upon
her story of the murders he was not examined at all. This is the gentleman referred to in the Democrat, whose
testimony furnished "clear proofs" of Mrs. Hazle's delusion. If any "clear proof" was furnished
by him to the court, as establishing that fact, it was furnished by the magic
of his want of recollection; not by the import and meaning of his words. In his cross-examination, which is stated in
writing, he stated, " he had known Mrs. Hazle thirty years; that she had
always borne a good character; her word was indisputable. And that Dr. Davie had great confidence in
her skill and capacity, as a nurse and midwife."
A.J. FARRIS, SWORN.
-- Lives in Jacinto, in Miss.; knows Mrs. Hazle, and has known her from a boy;
she has told me of these murders, told me of them first, in the latter part of
1846 or the commencement of 1847. Can't
recollect all she did tell me about them; has told me more than I could tell in
an hour, if I could recollect it.
Remember she told me, she heard the cry of murder, murder, in the
office, and that she went to the old kitchen and saw a man on the fire; there
was more that she told me, but don't recollect it so as to tell it; recollect
this part distinctly.
CROSS-EXAMINED. -- O yes, she has told me,
there was more than one man murdered there; and that they were murdered at
different times, but can't separate them; don't recollect which man hollered
murder, murder, in the office; nor which one, she said, she saw on the fire in
the old kitchen. She lives sixteen
miles from me; her character is very good in Miss., and her word is
indisputable. Physicians have great
confidence in her; always send for her to attend in my family, in preference to
sending for others who are nearer to me.
She is the best female anatomist and physician I know.
WILLIAMROSWELL, SWORN. -- The testimony of this
witness was not committed to writing, but his examination related principally
to some gloves which Mrs. Hazle had been accused of stealing after it was known
that she had told of these murders. The
history of which is, that a couple of pair of old gloves had been left at Col.
Jo. Taylor's, by some of the ladies in the neighborhood. Mrs. Hazle was going to Roswell's and some
of the inmates of Col. Taylor's family told her to take them over to Mrs.
Roswell, as they might be hers. Roswell testified that Mrs. Hazle brought the
gloves to his house, and upon finding out they did not belong there, she left
them; after she had got on her horse to go over to Mrs. McDavid's, at the
suggestion of his wife, he carried the gloves out and gave them to her, telling
her they might belong to some of them at Mrs. McDavid's -- that Mrs. Hazle took
the gloves from him and carried them away with her; that he never heard
anything more about the gloves, till he received a letter from her, from Miss.,
telling him she had carried the gloves to Mrs. McDavid's and had left them
there -- and requested him to go over to Mrs. McDavid's and inquire of her, if
she had not done so. He carried the
letter over to Mrs. McDavid's and read it to her; but she never made any reply,
and did not say whether she had left them there or not; when he remarked, that
he wondered what Mrs. Hazle was troubling herself about such little, trifling
things for; that she certainly must be deranged. (But Mr. Roswell did not know the plan on foot, nor the object,
nor of the annoyances to Mrs. Hazle in being accused with stealing these little,
trifling things; if he had, he would not have wondered at her concern, to
explain how she came by those gloves and what she did with them.) Mr. Roswell was examined one word about the
murders.
CROSS-EXAMINED. -- Has known Mrs. Hazle for
twenty-five years; she has always borne a good character, and her word is
indisputable.
WILLIAM
ASHWORTH, SWORN. -- The testimony
of this witness is not committed to writing.
It is substantially: Don't think a person on the porch of Tate's house
can see the old kitchen without peeping round the end of the house; was present
when Tate and Mrs. Hazle made the contract to move her to Miss. Didn't hear Tate tell her, he would have to
move her away or have her killed. They
made the contract in the passage of my house. Lige drove the wagon and Braxton went alone with the wagon; went
myself with them to the Cross Roads.
CROSS-EXAMINED. -- Don't think I left the
passage while they were in there talking.
Went with Tate to the house, from my shop, and returned with him. I might have left the passage while he and
Mrs. Hazle were talking -- would not be positive I did not leave it -- but
don't think I did. If I did, don't
recollect it.
THATCHER, SWORN.
-- Testimony not put down. But, the
substance of his story was, Bingham had told him there was a Murrell gang from
Tennessee clear through to Little Rock.
CROSS-EXAMINED. -- Had heard others speak of
Murrell gangs besides Bingham.
FRANCIS
D. DEDMAN, SWORN, -- Testimony
was not put down. Substance of it was
that Bingham had told him he wanted to hang six men, and tried to hire him to
help him, offered him money and wanted him to go into a bond to keep it a
secret, but never told him, who the six men were he wanted to hang; nor what he
wanted to hang them for. He became
indignant at the proposal and was going to fight -- and left him. Afterwards told Mrs. Routt what Bingham had
tried to get him to do, who told him he was mistaken about it being six men
that Bingham wanted to hang; it was only one man. Mrs. Routt owned a sorrel horse with a white strip in his face.
CROSS-EXAMINED -- Saw Mr. Tate, first, at
Sept. Court, a year ago -- did not speak to him, nor he to me -- next time, I
saw Capt. Tate, was at last March Court; we did not speak then -- but might
have nodded; next time I saw Capt. Tate was last August, in Mr. Cabaniss'
office, on the day he attacked Capt. Bingham, when we shook hands, and he said:
How-do-you-do, Mr. Dedman.
JOHN MULLICAN, SWORN. -- Lives near
Winchester, Tennessee,; saw Capt. Bingham last August at my house; he told me
he was going up to arrest John Gordon and wanted me to go up with him. Told him I could not go myself, but I knew
of a Mr. Patty who I thought would go, and enquired to know what it would pay. Told Bingham Patty would go, but he was a
paying man and would expect pay.
Bingham said he could not afford to pay anything, as he did not expect
anything himself, if he did not succeed in convicting.
CROSS-EXAMINED -- Knows Capt. Bingham and have
known him for twenty years; he used to be State Engineer. Know Rice in Tuscaloosa; he disappeared from
there in 1841. He was five feet ten or
eleven inches high, used to dress very genteelly; don't remember about his watch
guard; watches were so common down there in those days, they were hardly noticed. He was very straight and good looking, with
prominent features, he was a carriage maker -- the firm was very well off. Knew Sawyer in Marion; he was there in May
1840, with a drove of horses of some fifteen or twenty head; he went down into
Marengo, where he sold them; don't know who he sold his wagon and team to; have
seen John Gordon in Marion; don't know that he was there when Sawyer was. Sawyer was a low, chunky man, wide cheek
bones, and think he showed his front teeth when talking.
JOHN POOL,
SWORN. -- Testimony not put down.
Substance of it was, that he is own Cousin to Mrs. Tate, was at Mrs.
Hazle's home in Mississippi in the fall of 1845; she then told him of these
murders; she said she was sleeping with Mrs. Jones and smelt meat burning in the
night; in the morning got up and went to the old kitchen where she saw the man
on fire.
CROSS-EXAMINED -- Don't recollect that he told
Tate of what she told him after he got home; don't recollect how long after he
got home, before he saw Tate.
JOSEPHUS
WHEELOCK, SWORN. -- The testimony
of this witness is not put down; but he swore with so much assurance, and to
such a positive, point blank falsehood, that it is not difficult to copy him in
all, but his clerical bombast of tone.
Live in Chickasaw, Franklin County, Alabama, Sir. Have known Capt. Bingham since 1827. --
Known him down about Tuscaloosa. He was
an Engineer -- State Engineer, Sir. Saw
him next, in Eastport -- it was last December a year ago. -- He stopped at my
house and had an Astronomical Panorama along.
He said he was going out into Mississippi to hunt up a witness to
prove a murder, that had been committed in Madison County, ten years ago. What I said I, Murder committed in the
enlightened and moral community of Madison, ten years ago, and lain till now,
before it's attended to! Tut, tut, said
I, that'll never do -- never can make me believe that! Yes, it would, he said. -- Next time he come
along, he was a little down hearted and didn't seem so sanguine about it; said
he couldn't get the old woman to swear 'gzactly, as he wanted her
to swear; but the next time he come along, he said he had got it all fixed to
his notion now; the old woman would swear now just as he wanted her to;
he could hang Abner Tate now; his fortune was made -- he had a great
enterprise on hand -- a fine, accomplished woman, with two plantations;
house elegantly furnished and lots o' niggers.
But some man from Huntsville came to my house and we was axin' him about
it; and he said, folks thought her nigger had been very unjustly hung;
and when Bingham come along agin, my wife treated him a little coldly; he
didn't like it, I spose; he got up and went off and I haven't seen him
since. Who was this fine accomplished
woman? -- Mrs. Routt.
CROSS-EXAMINED -- Believe my wife did say
something about my receiving a pair of turtle doves from a widow, while I was a
widower; but that was another time.
When I went to Tuscaloosa, boarded with Mrs. ____, but didn't court her. Know Rice very well, very well, Sir
-- He was a partner of Briggs. He was 'zactly
an inch and a half taller'n me. He left
Tuscaloosa in 1841, and they never could trace him beyond eight miles below
Tuscaloosa; never saw him dressed up; only saw him on week days. In 1852 his partner Briggs, told me he left
Tuscaloosa to go up into Tennessee to see some of his relations, and had never
been heard of since, and wanted me to enquire about Eastport for him.
(Note. -- The testimony of this witness, was a
matter of much astonishment to the prosecutor, knowing as he did its barefaced
falsity. His first statement is
foolishly false, for there was no necessity for him to perjure himself by
swearing he lived in Chickasaw, when it was notorious that he and his family
lived in Eastport, Miss. -- The second and third statements are false. --
Bingham did not come to the State till 1833 and was never in Eastport till
March, 1855. His whole story about
hunting up the witness is a tissue of falsehood from beginning to end. In explanation of his character and his
standing, it is only necessary to state that he stands recorded among the
minutes of the Circuit Court of his County, convicted of Larceny, at the
Sept. term, 1850, by a jury of twelve "good and lawful" men of his
county. So says the record and those
who heard the testimony in the case, say it was a just and righteous
verdict. His reputation among honest,
law abiding men, where he lives, is, that he is not to be believed on his
oath.)
=> When Gordon was discharged on Habeas Corpus,
Cabaniss and D.B. Turner, Esq. started with him to Ala.; they in the stage, and
he on horseback, till they got to Fayetteville, Tenn., where they procured
private conveyance, and all went on together to Huntsville. Here they arranged and fixed the thing up,
as they thought, securely. Their
indignation burst out in violent spasms of rage, and to keep up the show of
appearance Gordon was taken before the judge -- took out an attachment against
me for false imprisonment, and was sent home, with instructions to sue the
three Magistrates who committed him, and G.W. Thompson, Esq., who had about as
much to do with the committal of Gordon as the man on the moon, except to give
his opinion upon a point of law before the court and accopanied his opinion by
giving Gordon some good advice, leaving smith and Young, who first arrested
him, and Ellege his Deputy, who arrested him the second time, unsued. In the meantime a watch was set upon the
executive office of Tennessee, and the secrets of the office not only obtained
-- but some remarkable influence was brought to bear from some quarter -- that
inspired His Excellency Gov. Johnson with an anxious desire ( he having
received Gov. Winston's requisition about the 15th of Sept., as it was dated
the 10th) to be informed of the probable results of the case; what was thought
of it, and what would probably be done with it in Alabama, before he could act
in the premises, as the following copy of a letter from E.J. Wood, Esq.,
representative from Cannon County, will show -- it having been evidently written,
as it's face indicates, "by authority:"
"SIR: -- The Governor of Alabama has made
his requisition upon the Governor of Tennessee commanding him to surrender up
the body of one John Gordon to the authorities of the former State. The authorities of this State do not
consider the character of the affidavit upon which the requisition is founded,
as sufficient to justify them in the rendition of the said Gordon. Such being the state of things, the
authorities are anxious to be informed how the case is progressing in Alabama;
and what is thought will be done with it.
Any information given concerning the case any way, will be thankfully
received by the authorities." Signed,
E.J. WOOD.
It was never expected or intended that I should ever
see the above letter. But it so
happened that it came to my possession in a very few days after it was written,
as the report had been put afloat through the country that I had left it, absconded,
as Tate's amenuensis expresses it, with peculiar emphasis, notwithstanding I
was in Madison County the very day that letter was written. I wrote Gov. Johnson a very respectful
letter referring him to the act of Congress of 1793, and drawing his attention
particularly to the clause, which said, "upon the requisition of the
Governor of any State or Territory, accompanied by a bill of indictment or
affadavit, it shall be the duty &c." telling him quite as
respectfully, that since the act left him no discretion in obeying it's
mandate, that I thought he was traveling out of the line of his official duty
and assuming functions, which he could not reconcile with his doctrine of State
sovereighnty, to scrutinize an act of an inferior tribunal in Alabama, and
determine upon that act as insuffient to justify his action under the requisition,
when the Governor of Alabama, whose ligitimate province it was, to determine
the sufficiency of the acts of any of the State officers, forming the basis of
his own official action, had done so, otherwise he would not have made his
requisition. Whether these views had
any influence in changing the Governor's views as to the insuffiency of
the affidavit, I am unable to say; probably not, as I had no doubt been held up
to him in a most unenviable light; but he must have learned from them, this
fact, that I was in the land of the living and knew what I was about. What were the character of the influences
which operated to delay his action is not known; a friend who stands high in
Gov. Johnson's confidence, has told me, that letters had been written to the Gov.
from Alabama; and he could have found out all about it had he enquired last
fall when in Nashville. But it was
evidently misrepresentation backed by the influence of wealth. But this is strange and inconsistent with
all of Gov. Johnson's professions, through life. No man, to hear him on the stump, entertains a more deep seated,
sympathy for the masses -- the poor men of the country; or has a more holy
horror, or a more settled, hostile antipathy to the rich; the aristocracy, as
he denominates them, than he has; and to hear him, we would suppose there would
be no more chance for a rich man to obtain any clemency, or favor at his hands
-- than for a cat without claws to dig through the Cumberland mountains. But how will his Excellency under these
incinsistencies explain his conduct, should he ever again be an applicant for
favor before the dear people?
How, with his sympathies for the masses, screwed up to
a tension, that is ready to snap almost his heart strings -- one lobe of his
liver yielding honey for the poor, the other dispensing gall and wormwood for
the rich aristocrat, would he feel, while honeying the free voters, from the
stump, if some one should happen to call out, "Tate!!"
"Tate!!" as they did "Canoe," in the midst of a
distinguished gentleman's speech a few years ago, upon Duck River? It must be borne in mind, that Gordon,
although the subject of the excitement, did not constitute the great incentive
to the solicitude felt, only as a satellite, or secondary of Tate. It was not for him, that the letters were
written; and had he not been particeps criminis with Tate, he probably
would have been either hung or in jail at this time. About the 8th of Nov., Gordon was advised from Nashville, by a
friend, that the Governor would issue his warrant under the requisition. He forthwith left for Alabama. On the 14th of Nov. the warrant was received
at Woodbury, just two months and four days after the date of the requisition at
Montgomery, Ala. -- About the 12th of Nov. Tate and Cabaniss met Major McCrary
in Huntsville, (at the time of holding Chancery Court,) told him "the
Gov.'s requisition [warrant] had been received, and Gordon had left to avoid
the service of the warrant."
"Afterwards, Cabaniss told me at my house, says the Major on the
stand, that while Gordon was down he came to Huntsville, and that he had
written to Gov. Winston and fixed it up for him, and Gordon had gone home. --
How did Cabaniss fix it up? By the
basest fraud ever perpetrated upon an executive of a sovereign State. By writing two distinct positive
falsehoods, as appears from the face of Gov. Winston's letter of revocation;
first that "Gordon had surrendered himself in open court." This was false, and so proved by Mr. Sheriff
Carmichael; and next, that I, "as the party at whose instance, &c.,
had failed to establish the charge. But
herein consists not the legal and moral turpitude and the enormity of the
fraud. -- Cabaniss is a lawyer; Governor Winston is not; Cabaniss knew the
malfeasance in office he was inducing the Governor to commit, the Governor did
not; and hence the enormity of the offence is greatly enhanced, and the
moral turpitude of it falls upon Cabaniss' shoulders with ten fold more weight
because of its villainous design.
Cabaniss knew that he was inducing Gov. Winston to do an act in
violation of his oath of office. -- The Governor did not stop perhaps to look
at it in that light. But the end
justified the means, and so that it could be accomplished, no matter what
resorts should be employed. The requisition
of the Governor for a fugitive from justice, is one of the initial proceedings
authorized by law for the apprehension and trial of a felon; the foundation for
this proceeding is "a bill of indictment or an affidavit,
made before a magistrate, this as a pre-requisite of the law had been complied
with. His Excellency, Gov. Winston, in
pursuance of his duty, as required under the law, had made his requisition; had
passed it from his hands, had sent it to the Governor of Tennessee.
Upon the issuance of this requisition, there was a
judicial action for murder commenced against John Gordon in the State of
Alabama, according to the mode prescribed by the statute, he being a fugitive
from justice. No statute bars, nor no
power on earth known to the laws of Alabama, can acquit of the crime of murder,
when the charge is once legally preferred and the action commenced, but a jury
of the country. Gov. Winston, in
assuming the prerogative to revoke his requisition, acted in defiance of law,
and undid a legal official act, not authorized by law and therefore in
violation of his oath of office. Has
the Governor of a State any more right to revoke his requisition when issued
according to law, than the foreman of a Grand Jury has to annul and destroy a
bill of indictment, when it has been passed upon by his fellow Jurors, signed
by him and passed to the custody of the Clerk of the Court? Both are elementary judicial proceedings and
preliminary requisites, pointed out by the statute as the basis of actions
against felons, Instituted to protect the public morality, promote the ends of
justice, and secure society against the further inroads and encroachments of
their crimes and injuries upon individuals , I do not mean to charge Gov.
Winston with a wilful and intentional violation of his oath of office, by
revoking illegally, one of his official acts: -- far from it.
Cabaniss went down upon him in a whirlwind, and
stormed the citadel of his moral independence; which, for the moment, gave way
under the pressure of its fury, and he acted through inadvertence. What the details of his misrepesentations
were, I am not able to give -- as Gov. Winston informs me he did not preserve
Cabaniss' letter, and after assigning his reason for not preserving it, and
giving me some other particulars, says, "he was hard down upon you in
every respect." But I will let
Cabaniss tell it, as he did before the court at Huntsville first -- and then
show up the falsity of the statement there made by producing the Gov's letter
of revocation and his statements to Major McCrary. Cabaniss was much embarassed before the Court at the unexpected
introduction of the letter, and stumbled mightily in his explanation before the
Court. Here it is: when Major McCrary
had told what Cabaniss had told him at his house about "fixing it up"
for Gordon, Cabaniss rose and told the court, (having a letter copy in his hand
as if ready to show the court that what he stated was written down in that
book,) "that he had written to Gov. Winston, that Gordon was anxious for a
trial and would come to the State at anytime, but did not want to be brought
here in custody; that he came here last Sept.; saw Mr. Adams the solicitor, who
was then in Montgomery, and he referred the Governor to him and also to other
gentlemen, Mr. Acklen and others from Huntsville, and requested the Governor to
revoke his requisition in duplicate, send one copy to the Governor of Tennessee
and the other to him, and he had done so." This is Cabaniss' statement to the court, of what he wrote to
Gov. Winston, and every word of it. No
surrendering himself in open Court -- nothing about the party having failed to
establish the charge against Gordon -- only he came here last Sept., saw Mr.
Adams the solicitor, &c., who was then in Montgomery, &c. Is there any man in his senses, in Alabama,
who can be made believe, the Governor of Alabama would have revoked one of his
official acts, would have proved himself recreant to his oath of office, upon
such a showing, as the above statement contains. Not one.
But mark how easily he slips and slides over to Mr.
Adams, and to Mr. Acklen, as if their statements constituted the showing upon
which the Governor based his action.
Else why refer the Governor to them when his showing was so lame and
deficient. But who will for a moment
suppose, that they would make any statement to call forth the following
letter. Not one.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
Montgomery,
Ala., Nov. 14th, 1855.
His Excellency, Andrew Johnson:
Sir: -- On the 10th of Sept. last, I made my
requisition on your Excellency for the extradition of one John Gordon, a
fugitive from justice. It having been
made to appear, that the party at whose instance the requisition was made, has
failed to establish the charge against him, and that he Gordon has surrendered
himself in open court, I therefore revoke and annul the aforesaid requisition
and demand.
Your Exc'l.
ob't servant,
JOHN A. WINSTON.
A. JOHNSON.
From the showing Cabaniss admits he made, the reader
will be led to enquire how Gov. Winston ever came to write the foregoing
revocation based upon such showing. The
matter, however, is easily explained by showing Cabaniss never wrote such a
statement as he said he did before the Court -- but an entirely different one.
-- Major McCrary testifies that afterwards, at his house, &c., he said he
had written the Gov. and "fixed it up," &c., and now it devolves
on me to tell how he said he "fixed it up." In that conversation and in connection with that conversation,
about "fixing it up" and writing to the Governor, he indulged, in the
presence of the Major, his son and young Richard Jones, very freely invective
and abuse against me and W.D. Humphrey, Esq.; charged Mr. H. with having sent
negroes to Tate's to pump his negroes, and charged me with being crazy, &c. These parties have a wonderful proclivity of
charging insanity to all who happen to be in possession of facts, to prove
their crimes upon them. I have been
told, in different parts of the country, that it was current that I was insane;
and all the reply I shall make to it is, that I have sanity enough left to know
my rights; as well as intellect and physical courage enough left, to defend
myself against the efforts of Abner Tate, his brothers-in-law and his AMANUENSIS, to immolate me upon the
altar of public opinion, by the basest frauds and falsehoods that ever
emanated from the mind of man. I regret
the loss of that letter, that I am deprived of the opportunity of publishing it
pari pasu with Cabaniss' statement above, that the public might see the
concord, harmony and agreement between the two documents. From all I can learn of its character, a
sheet of paper never before, perhaps, was covered over with more falsehood,
invective and abuse against Mrs. Routt as the instigator, Mrs. Hazle and myself
as the crazy, insane witness and prosecutor, than we contained in that
letter. -- And what did it do? It
induced his Excellency to commit a malfeasance in office by violating his
official oath "to see the laws faithfully executed" -- an act not intentional
in him; but inadvertant, and therefore a crime involving no moral
turpitude. But in Cabaniss, it is a
crime involving turpitude to all intents and purposes, committed with a full
knowledge of all the facts and with evil intent, an ingredient which
constitutes the corpus of crime.
But there is another aspect which this fraud
presents, that fastens the guilt of the charge of Sawyer's murder upon them so
positively and indubitably, that a Circuit Court Judge would not hesitate to
charge a jury before whom the case should be tried, to find a verdict,
"guilty of murder." This
aspect is the crowning point in the case; a feature which gives confirmation to
all the other testimony. It is good
common sense and therefore good law -- "that an innocent party charged
with infamous crime, will lose no time in seeking a legal investigation of the
charge but if he delay, if he deny, upon being charged a second time, that he
ever before heard he had been charged with the offence, if he flee the country
to avoid arrest; if he do any act to divert suspicion from himself and fix it
upon another -- or if he commit any FRAUD,
whereby he may obtain any advantage, or obstruct or defeat the ends of justice,
it is prima facia evidence of guilt.
Look at the testimony in this case and see if Tate and Gordon, and their
agent and lawyer, have not one or the other, or all of them, been guilty of
every one of the above enumerated points; and upon their being proven in
connection with other testimony in the case before a jury, no impartial Judge in
the State of Alabama would hesitate to give them in charge to a jury, as
evidences of guilt, and instruct the jury to find a verdict of guilty
accordingly.
The foregoing statements are the facts as they have
transpired in the progress of the developments of this case, and my comments
are the fair and legitimate inferences, deducible therefrom; and I defy
contradiction based upon the foundation of truth and evidence; nevertheless, I
am ready to admit, that in the hands of the Hon. Jere. the giant lever of his
mind could turn, twist and screw them up,
Wiring in and wiring out,
Till none could tell what he's about; --
mixing them up with "MY LORD MANSFIELD and LORD CHIEF JUSTICE HALE," and tempering them so profusely with fustian,
sophistry and falsehood, that he would produce a most gorgeous exparte
"WAX FIGURE," of the
apparent innocence of the parties. But
in their naked character, do they not say, most emphatically, why, if
these parties are innocent men, have they perpetrated this FRAUD on the Governor of Alabama, and
exerted this espionage upon the executive office in Tennessee? Let them explain, if they can, in plain,
direct language.
----
Here closed the testimony for the defence, when the
defendant's counsel, in accordance with a way they have when they have led a
court or jury into a perfect fog of bewilderment, refused to argue the case,
urging as a reason the great necessity of them leaving immediately, for the
seat of government, at Montgomery, to attend on the Supreme Court, and proposed
that the Court take the case as it stood, and make their decision. The Court, after a few moments'
consultation, announced through their chairman, who, by way of apologizing to
the parties for the part he had acted in the matter, said, that when applied to
to issue the warrant, he declined, and suggested to the prosecutor to go to
some other magistrate -- but he demanded of him peremptorily the warrant, and,
under the law, he was left no other alternative but to issue it -- and now,
after a patient and impartial (Heaven save the mark!) investigation, the Court
are unanimous in the opinion that the parties be discharged, and that they
stand honorably acquitted of all suspicion of guilt of the charges which have
been preferred against them.
Hear Tate tell it.
"Tate said he had some idea of sending off some negroes South, and
that he was now afraid to send them, for fear people would say that he had run
them off. He remarked, also, that he
was afraid to leave home, for fear people would come digging about his premises. There is not a word here of apprehension
about finding human skeletons, or bones of any descriptions. The apprehension under which I did labor,
was of an entirely different character.
Knowing the utter baseness of D.H. Bingham and ____ ____, I had
apprehension that if I absented myself from home, they would have holes in the
shape of graves dug upon my land: that they would then summon witnesses to
prove that such holes had been dug, and try to make the impression that I had
dug them, for the purpose of removing the bones of the murdered
men. Gen. Walker made this statement to
the Court in the presence of Mr. Bingham, and added, that I acted under his
advice." But Genr. Walker tells it
entirely different. "When this
thing first come out, Tate applied to me, and I told him to stay at home and
watch his premises, for if there was a conspiracy against him, they would put
dead bodies there to bring them up in judgement against him." What beautiful harmony and agreement between
the three stories.
Major McCrary was not asked what he understood at the
time, from Tate's conversation and manner, his apprehensions were based upon;
but he has been since the trial, and his reply was that he understood that Tate
was afraid they would find dead bodies there.
The Major's reply to him shows what his notions of Tate's apprehensions
were.
Why did John Gordon request me to tell him, upon
honor, if there was any danger. Tate
and his wife would appear against him?
Why did he tell Cabanis he would suffer himself unjointed before
he would tell it on Tate? Why did he
leave the State of Tennessee and come to Alabama to avoid the service of the
warrant? Why did Cabaniss perpetrate
the basest fraud that ever characterized the conduct of a man, upon the
Governor of Alabama, to induce him to undo a legal official act, the annulment
of which involved malfeasance in office, which he all the time knew? Why, and under what influences did Gov.
Johnson, of Tennessee, hold up the warrant from about the 15th of September to
the 14th of November, when it was received in Woodbury? That the public may understand why Gov.
Winston's revocation was executed in duplicate, one copy sent to Governor
Johnson and the other sent to Cabaniss, as he stated to the court, this fact
will explain: upon its receipt at Huntsville, it was forthwith placed in
Gordon's hands, who immediately started for home. On his way and after his arrival, with the GOVERNOR'S RECEIPT," as he called it, in his pocket, he no longer
dodged about like a guilty culpret, but was bold and fearless in communicating
the fact of his persecutions and establishing his innocence, beyond a doubt, by
producing "the receipt of the Governor" of Alabama, in full, for the
crime of murder, to individuals, to crowds, and to the community, who were not
backward in expressing their indignation against me, as well as their
congratulations to Gordon, at the certain and inevitable prospect
of spending the balance of his days in ease and affluence from the means to be
derived as damages from the magistrates and G.W. Thompson, Esq., whom he had
sued in Tennessee for false imprisonment, laying his damages at ten thousand
dollars. Reader, imagine for a moment
what would have been my condition and fate if I had about that time happened in
Cannon county, anywhere in the neighborhood of "Dug Hollow" or
"Devil's Den." Neither
entreaty protestation, nor the strong arm of the law would have saved me! There was Gov. Winston's "receipt,"
under the great SEAL of the State
of Alabama, to establish my guilt in outraging the rights of an innocent,
injured, sovereign, citizen of Tennessee, that would state me right in the
face. Who would -- who could have
doubted my authority?
A gentleman from this county, who was in Cannon county
about the time of the great rejoicings of Gordon and his friends and who knew
all the facts of the testimony, lost no time on his return home to tell me that
Gordon had been to Alabama and had returned with a paper that they called up
there the "Governor's receipt," which had set him at liberty: I wrote
Governor Johnson, upon other matters concerning the case, when the Secretary of
State sent me a copy of Governor Winston's revocation in reply. This is the way I came in possession of the
fact and details of this stupendous FRAUD.
This fraud, its design, the end it was intended
to effect, and the circumstances of its imposition up on the Governor, is the
climax of all depravity on the part of the perpetrator, Septimus D. Cabaniss,
and presents the strongest feature of the guilt of the parties. Its design was not to relieve John Gordon's
feelings about being brought to Alabama in custody, who pretendedly, "was
perfectly willing to come and, anxious for a trial," but whose conduct on
his arrival in December, as proved by Mr. Thompson and Major McCrary, showed
the very reverse; out to give him first the opportunity to escape in case of
emergency, and next, as there was little or no probability, as they thought,
that any thing would ever be done with it, they knowing little or nothing of my
movements and whereabouts -- rumor said I had left the country -- they hoped it
was true, and "did not believe I would ever show myself in the county to
prosecute" -- consequently they would provide Gordon with this evidence of
his innocence, this "receipt" in full from Governor Winston, to
operate upon public opinion, and thereby contribute to fan the prejudices,
arouse the indignation of the community and prepare the public mind to sustain
a jury in assessing damages to the full amount claimed against the magistrate,
in the suit he had brought for false imprisonment, which might come to trial in
February, and thus strengthen the chances of making the public believe they
were all innocent. This evidently was the
true object in view in perpetrating the fraud.
With these acts of conduct committed by Tate and Gordon, above
enumerated, and proved by reliable and responsible witnesses, coupled with the
fact that Tate denied to Mr. Levert that he knew where Gordon lived; the
attentions of Tate and Cabaniss towards Mrs. Willis, paying her bills and stage
fare after the acquittal of Tate, which was nothing less than an attempted
bribe to induce her to change her opinion and circulate her belief in their
innocence, thereby, in the event of further prosecution, to enable them to
discredit her testimony by proving her declarations, could they get her to make
any disavowal of her belief in their guilt, what conclusion, with all these
evidences, can an unprejudiced mind come to, discarding, if you please, Mrs. Hazle's
testimony, blotting it out of the record -- suppose her to be insane, a
monomaniac, a perjured witness -- and that there is no evidence for the
foundation of the charge but McGowan's letter and the absence of Sawyer,
otherwise than that these parties have murdered somebody, and all their efforts
at concealment leads to the inevitable conclusion that it was Sawyer? They have not furnished one solitary
explanation by any evidence, or by any reasonable statement of their own, that
destroys the force of this conclusion.
Why, if they are innocent men, has all this conduct on their part,
implying guilt, been necessary to show their innocence? They have never explained, nor never can
assign any good, substantial, plausible reason, founded in truth and common
sense, for all their conduct in this respect.
This brings me to comment upon the testimony adduced on the part of the
defence. Col. Taylor, the first witness
for defendants, proved nothing in their behalf -- he never discredited Mrs.
Hazle in a single particular -- there were some things, which she stated in her
cross examination, upon matters entirely irrelevant to the case in issue, as
within his knowledge, which he did not recollect -- but suppose he had
contradicted her, which he did not, however, pointedly, openly and flatly in
his direct examination, he unsaid in his cross-examination all that he would
have said in his direct examination, for he swore positively, directly
and to the point, that he had known her for thirty years, and "she
had always borne a GOOD CHARACTER,
AND HER WORD WAS IN DISPUTABLE."
When are we to believe Col. Taylor in his direct or his
cross-examination? Is it not most
remarkable that they refer to Col. Taylor as establishing the "clear proof"
of Mrs. Hazle's insanity, an expression he did not use in his testimony, in one
breath, as contradicting her flatly and pointedly, and establishing her perjury
in the next, when in his cross-examination (when he testified for the
prosecution) he said, without qualification, she bore a "GOOD character, and her word is INDISPUTABLE." This is Col. Taylor's language, as it fell
from his lips at the time. What does
this mean if not that she is to be believed?
The next witness who had anything to say about the murders is A.J.
Farris, Esq. He corroborates her. He swore that she told him of these murders
in 1846 or the beginning of 1847 as she herself had stated -- "told him
more than he could tell in an hour, if he could recollect it." In his direct examination he stated
"she told him she heard the cry of murder, murder, in the office, and went
to the old kitchen, where she saw the man on the fire." This is the way defendants' counsel wanted
him to testify, with a view of showing a discrepancy in her testimony by
blending the two murders together. But
upon his cross-examination, he explained by testifying that she had told him
two murders were committed, but he could not separate them by telling which man
hallooed murdered, in the office, or which she saw on the fire in the old
kitchen. He swore positively and
directly to good character and that "her word is indisputable". Such was the language he used on the stand.
William Roswell's testimony was confined to a couple
of pair of old gloves, the value of which was not proven before the court. He corroborated her own statement in regard
to these gloves, as brought out by defendant's counsel. He testified as she did about the
disposition she made of these gloves -- in this: that he received a letter from
her, saying to him that she had carried and left the gloves at Mrs. McDavid's,
and requested him to go over and ask Mrs. McDavid if she had not done so; that
he took the letter to Mrs. McDavid, read it to her, and she made no reply one
way or the other, and he remarked [in consequence of Mrs. McDavid's silence, as
inferred from his manner of deposing] that he "wandered what Mrs. Hazle
was troubling herself about such little trifling things for. -- that she must
be deranged." This is the only
direct and tangible proof that fell from the lips of a single witness before
the court, which went to establish her insanity, except her own ironical
admission; when she was vexed to that degree that she could bear it no longer,
she left her seat, and in reply to an insulting question from the counsel, exclaimed
in a fit of passion, "Yes, perfectly deranged." In Mr. Roswell's cross-examination, he
testified that he had known her twenty-five years -- that "she had always
borne a good character, and that her word was indisputable" -- this
is his language. Here is the testimony
of three of the defendants' own witness', all men of good standing and
character, testifying positively, directly, unequivocally, and without any
qualification whatever, that the witness is of good character, and that her
word is indisputable. They don't say
that she has been of good character, or that up to such or such a period of
time, her word was indisputable, but it is now, on the day and at the
time she testified in Huntsville, whom these parties now allege to be perjured
witness, in direct contradiction of the testimony of their own witnesses. What are the public to think when a party
discredits the testimony of his own witnesses?
The only conclusion that can he come to is, that the case is a desperate
one. Why did not Tate, Cabaniss &
Co. give some reason that would explain away these circumstances, instead of
alleging perjury against her in the face of the testimony of their own
witnesses, in establishing for her a good character, not only for morality but
for veracity? I can tell the reason
why. When Tate's pamphlet was written
it was supposed it would never be answered -- that it never could be
answered. It was regarded and
pronounced, long in advance of its appearance, as the ultimus thule of
professional invulnerability, and aided by the momentum which the weight of
character, derived from the position and talents of the Hon. writer would give
to it, it was to sweep over the country like a destructive tornado bearing
everything down by its fury and blast in the way of all replies to it; and
imparting a withering blight to all who had dared to "beard the lion in
his lair," deadly as the poisoned sirocco that sweeps over the deserts of
Africa -- never once dreaming that some little David, with a sling of goose
quills and type might have the hardihood to hurl the missiles of truth and
evidence, and prostrate the Goliah of Madison County. Hence, many assailable points were left unguarded.
WILLIAM
ASHWORTH is the next witness: he
testifies in a way that was intended to contradict Mrs. Hazle's statement; she
had said that she saw John Gordon go to the door of the old kitchen where he
stood some time and looked in. Ashworth
swore on the stand that the door of the old kitchen could not be seen by a
person on the porch without peeping round the end of the house". But the testimony of the witness to be taken
with many grains of allowance; He was subpoenaed on the part of the State, but
upon interrogating him in reference to the particular subject we expected to
prove by him, I found he had come there prepared to swear the horns off of a
billy goat, if necessary, in favor of the defence, and therefore did not have
him called.
JOHN POOLE, in his testimony, contradicted
Mrs. Hazle in this -- she, in her cross-examination had stated that she did not
tell Poole of these murders in 1845, and gave her reasons, that she might as
well have told it to Tate himself.
Poole swore she did tell him, and with a view to give as much
improbability to the tale as possible, and show up a discrepancy, and that she
had told it differently to him from what she had told it to anybody else,
lugged in the name of Mrs. Jones, and made her say that "she was sleeping
with Mrs. Jones and smelt meat burning in the night, and in the morning got up
and went to the old kitchen and saw the man on the fire." But on his cross-examination he could not
recollect whether he ever told Tate of what she told him; nor did he recollect
how long, after he got home, it was before he saw Tate; whether a day, week,
month or year. A most remarkable
forgetfulness, as well as indifference, on the part of Poole, considering he
was own cousin to Mrs. Tate. Most men,
upon hearing that their kin were charged with an infamous offence would hasten
to them to apprise them, and the impression made on their minds would be so
indelible that they would be very apt to recollect what was said. But it was not so with Mr. Poole, from his
own account before the court. He was so
indifferent that he could not recollect whether he ever told Tate, or where he
saw him first, after his return from Mississippi, but his recollection was
perfectly vivid as to what Mrs. H told him, where it was, how it was,
and when it was.
MR. MULLICAN'S testimony in his direct
examination, amounted to nothing more than that I was going to arrest Gordon -
wanted him to go with me - he could not do it but, referred me to Patty,
telling me Patty, would go, but would expect pay -- that I told him I could not
afford to pay anything, as, unless I convicted, I did not expect any pay
myself. This is all a fact -- I did tell him I expected no pay unless I
convicted, and told him, also the source from whence I expected it, should I
ever get anything -- and that was, from the Legislature of Alabama. Till Mr.
Mullican was introduced upon the stand
I did not know he was in Huntsville, and knowing him to be such an important
witness for the State --I directed my attorney to examine him upon facts
relating both to Rice and Suwyer, and never thought to bring out this fact,
from whence I told him I would derive my pay, if any: Mr Mullican corroborates
Mrs. Hazle in her description of Rice and Sawyer both, especially in that of
Sawyer, his person and make , "The wide cheek bones and showing his front
teeth when talking."
The testimony of DEDMAN
and WHEELOCK, BERGUER and ELLEGE, I shall not comment upon till I review he pamphlet. To
add to the manuificence of their stutements, certain documents are necessary to
illumine their characters and show the brilliancy of their veracity, which have
not yet reached me .
The testimony on the part of the defence amounts to no
defence at all - not a word of contradiction that may be relied upon -not a
syllable of explanation that does away the force of the testimony on the part
of the State - but, on the contrary, one of the witnesses, Mr. Mullican,
materially corroborated, in his cross examination, the main witness in her
description of the murdered men. But put her testimony entirely aside, as has
been before observed, regard her as insane, deluded, a monomaniac in reference
to these particular cases, the balance of the testimony, proving the acts and
conduct of Tate and Gordon forces the conviction upon the mind that they have
murdered somebody. For are there two other men in the State of Alabama and Tennessee,
not entirely bereft of their senses, who would have made as much exertion at
concealment, and manifested as much guilt by their conduct, as has been proved
upon them when charged with an infamous crime, if they were innocont - conduct,
too, which they never have, not never can explain by furniching any fair
reasonable grounds of satisfactory proof.
D. H. B.
From the Athens
Herald, May 30 1856.
I publish today the testimony on the trial of Tate,
Gordon and George, including the evidence of Mrs. Willis, Col. Shied and Mrs.
Hazle, to the conclusion of her examination in chief in the case of Rice,
observing the order in publication, observed in the delivery of the testimony
from the stand before the court. It wil be seen that Mrs. Willis' testimony as
also Col. Shied's relates to the subject of a letter charging Tate and
implicating Gordon, with the murder of Sawyer, written by McGowan, from
Memphis. Mrs. Hazle never saw McGowan and it is supposed he derived the
information, on which he based his letter, from an acquaintance of Sawyer's, to
whom Mrs. H. had related the main facts in the case. This will account for any
discrepancies between Col. Shied's testimony, in describing the contents of the
letter, and Mrs. H.'s testimony, in relation to the main facts of the murder.
When John Gordon was arrested last summer his first story was he was going down
to Tate's, and at Winchester, Logan told him that Col. Shied had received a
letter charging Tate with murder and implicating himself, that he went down and
told Tate of it, who sent him right back for the letter; that he went
back to Hillsboro' and staid two days before Col. Shied returned, and upon his
return told him that he was on his way down to Tate's; and having heard he had
received a letter charging Tate with murder he had called to see it and get a
copy of it to take down to him; that Col. Shied looked and finding he had no
paper to make a copy, gave him the original letter, which he carried down and
left with Tate. But upon being informed of what Col. S. would testify against
him, he said Shied was right. - When asked why he put himself to the trouble of
going for the letter, (traveling in all over two hundred miles,) he said Tate
was owing him and he thought by doing this favor he would pay him sooner. When
asked why he did not take a copy, as tendered him by Col. S. but insisted upon
the original, he said Tate told him to get the original letter, as he
was going to Memphis to see MacGowan, and if he took a copy McGowan might deny
the hand writing, and if he had the original letter along he could prove it on
him. When asked why he did not return the letter to Col. Shied, as he promised,
he said because Tate wanted it himself; but he took a copy, intending to give
that to Col. Shied, and when asked why he did not return the copy he said Tate
gave him notes for what he was owing him and he had to go through Fayetteville
and get them shaved, and he went through Shelbyville to Bradyville and did not
go through Manchester. When asked why he did not give the copy of the letter to
Col. Shied, when he did see him, he said he did not see him for two years
afterwards, and when Shied come to Bradyville, he told him he had not done as
he promised. - Shied replied that he had seen Tate and the matter had all died
away, and he did not think it worth while then to give him a copy. When asked
why he went to see Mrs. Willis, knowing as he did, that she did not have the
letter, he said it was curiosity to see her that prompted him. This is the
explanation John Gordon makes in reference to his conduct in connecting himself
with the letter of McGowan, to Col. Shied, charging Tate with the murder and
implicating himself. Tate has never made any statement whereby to explain his
conduct. Gordon's statement was made in the presence of B. L. McFarren, I. B.
Young, Thos H. Smith, Esqrs. and myself. Tate in his pamphlet, page 17, gives
what purports to be letter of McGowan to Col. Shied. I shall make no further
remark here, than to say the letter there given, differs widely in its
details and language from the one which Col. Shied has twice testified to,
under oath, so much so and knowing Col. Shied to be a man whose memory is not
so treacherous as to cause him to give almost an entirely different version of
the letter, from the one in the pamphlet, that I suspect the genuineness of the
printed copy, except as garbled statements, selected and put together to suit
the exigences of the case. I saw the
McGowan letter in court but it was at a distance and did not read it. Col.Shied
has informed me that it covered over three sides of a sheet of foolscap paper,
the printed letter would not cover more than one. But more upon this subject
hereafter, when I come to rereview the pamphlet. Gordon's arrest in Tennessee
was kept private, there was so much against him that it was believed he would
confess, and in offering him the clemency of the law, in case he would confess,
I acted under the advice and written instructions, now in my possession, of one
of the prosecuting attorneys in this State, and had I resorted to the means
there in suggested, as justifiable, I might probably have extorted a confession
from him. Gordon manifested trepidation and signs of guilt from the moment he
was take into custody. His guilt was apparent to all. He made no complaint
against Mrs. Hazle, did not appear indignant at her, said she was a woman of
good character; a truthful woman; he did not believe she would swear falsely,
but she was mistaken; this is all we could get out of him. He took Mr. McFarren
out to talk with him by themselves. In the conversation McFarren told him it
was evident he was guilty and advised him to confess. Gordon's reply was,
that,"he did not believe there was testimony enough to convict him."
About ten o'clock, (the day being Sunday) the officer, Smith, told him he would
have to commit him to jail until next morning. Then it was that he set up his
appeals to me not to bring it out on him there, to spare the disgrace of his
wife and children, to take him with me to Alabama; to go with him to Mississipi
to see Mrs. Hazle; that could he see her he could convince her she was
mistaken. He offered me a horse to ride, to obviate the necessity, of my return
to Alabama, where I had left mine to recruit; offered to pay my expenses;
wanted the officer, Smith, to go down home with him to get some money; and
pledged himself by all that was secred that he would not entrap me but would
carry out in good faith all his pledges. At length I consented to go with him,
the other gentlemen believing he would do it. I knew if he was innocent, as he
said was, he would go; if not, he would not, and that his conduct in this
respect, would be a test of his guilt or innocence. He was released on
condition that he would be back in the morning rendy to start with me to Mississipi.
After he got his horse he told me it would occasion him thirty miles more
travel to return, than there was any necessity for, and he proposed to meet me
at Manchester mext evening. To this I agreed, telling him I would wait till
Tuesday. As he was about to leave the gate, he called back and said his child
was sick aud in case it was not well enough for him to leave home, he would
send a messenger to inform me. Interposing this condition, without any
necessity, induced me to doubt the integrity of his intentions. Next day,
instead of going to Manchester, I went to Gordon's house; he was gone from
home, but it was apparent, from the manner of his family towards me, that he
would not go with me. I left word, however, to tell him to meet me at Bradyville
next morning. That night, Dr. Armstrong came to me, sometime after midnight, to
apprise me of the danger he apprehended I was in, telling me he had just come
from Gordon's neighborhood, and from movements going on it was evident Gordon
did not intend going with me; that he would come up in the morning, but it
would be for delay in starting, till he could perfect his arrangements for
leaving the country permanently, when he would start with me pretendingly to to
go with me to Mississipi, and when he got me into the mountains he and his
friends would dispatch me and put me and the murder, where neither would ever
trouble Gordon again. Gordon met me next morning on my way to Bradyville, and
verified by his conduct what Dr.Armstrong had told me the night before. I
waited on him three days, and finding he did not intend to go, had him
re-arrested, and he was commited to jail. In one of his interviews with me,
during the time he was released, he took me one side and asked me to tell him,
upon my honor, saying, "If I go down yonder, is there any danger that Tate
and his wife will appear agains me?" I told him no and asked why if
innocent, he entertained such an apprehension? He replied, "Tate is such a
managing man, I didn't know what he might do". This is the only time and
the only conversation I had with Gordon about Mrs. Tate's appearing against
him; notwithstanding Tate unblushingly asserts that I told Gordon "his
wife had left him and would turn State's evidence that she would certainly hang
him and me (Tate), and his only method of escaping the gallows was to be
beforhand with her, and turn State's evidence himself."
B.L. McFarren, Issac B. Young and Thos. H. Smith heard all the
conversation between me and Gordon in reference to his turning State's
evidence, except the above enquiry of Gordon, and I appeal to them in
verification of my statement, it was Gordon's guilt, as manifested by his
conduct, that committed him to jail in Tennessee.
Never could I, or any other man, have gone into a
community, as intelligent and as jealous of their rights, as the people about
Woodbury are, a stranger alone, without any references, and apprehended and
committed an innocent man to prison for murder, especially in the absence of
all law, as was the case in this instance.
After Gordon was arrested a second time, he then
assumed a different position - before, he was all humility. He
immediately dispatched a runner to Alabama, "to tell Tate all about
it," and long before I reached Alabama Tate and his friends did know all
about it. I was met and attacked in Huntsvelle with a view to ran me out of the
country. Sept. Cabaniss, the brother-in-law of Tate, and Daniel B. Turner,
Esq., were dispatched to Tennessee. Cabaniss went into the jail to see Gordon,
and supposing no one was in hearing,
told Gordon "never to confess a thing". Gordon replied in an
animated tone that he would suffer himself "unjointed before he would
tell it on Tate." This
conversation was overheard by William Phillips, the son of the jailor. [I have
it from one of the magistiate who committed Gordon, and also from Peter
Phillps, a resident of this county and an uncle of William, who visited
Woodbury about the first of April, and confirms the statement. Now,
fellow-citizens, what does this mean? What would Gordon suffer himself "unjointed"
for before he "would tell it on Tate," if there was nothing to
tell? Why did Gordon shrink from his own proposition to go with me to
Mississippi if he was an innocent man? and why did they put themselves to so
much trouble to get the original letter of Mcgowan to Col. Shied if they
did not know Sawyer, and were innocent?. These are questions involving
criminality in their conduct - showing motive, guilt and intention, which they
leave unexplained, untouched, and Tate's amanuensis slides over them by heaping
abuse in violent and unmeasured terms upon me, thereby keeping the facts
of their conduct out of view in the mist and fog which his professional
legerdemain throws around the transaction.
Abner Tate's pamphlet, which, so far as the charges
against me and others are concerned, is nothing but a bold, impudent assertion,
dogmatically arranged in unblushing mendacity, without the least sshadow of
evidence to sustain them, is evidently the production of an amanuensis. - It is
known that he is illiterate, and scarcely able to put together ten consecutive
lines in the English language; while the pamphlet exhibits in its arrangement
and details professional skill and tact aud is an anomaly, involving all the
ingenuity of intellectual acumen to pervert the facts twist and turn truth into
coils of error and delusion, to suit the exigencies of a desperate cause. If it
is written by the one, to whom rumor attributes it, he is a man of intellect,
genius and talent, naturally towering, lofty and noble, capable of wielding the
sceptre of an Empire, mentally; and were his mental qualifications backed and
sustained by a moral courage and integrity of purpose, sufficient to resist
those inebriating excitants that debase his lofly genius and bring it down to
the grovelling level of those who bow and cringe for hire, at the shrine of
mammon, he would be morally worthy of wearing the proudest diadem within the
gift of the enlightened people of this fair Republic - But under the potent
influence of the intoxicating cup, stimulated by the mercenary motive which
prompts intellect to hire itself and prostitute his energies for pay, and
shielded by the broad helmet which wealth is supposed to furnish in combatting
truth, he suffers his diseased imagination, surrounded by all the horrid,
grimaced spectres, peeping through the blighted vistas of a distempered brain,
as if in the last stages of mania-a-potu, to plunge, hyena-like, into the
grave, disturb the repose of its sacred relics, violate its holy sanctities and
drag forth to view from its wonted sepulchre, the objects of conjugal relations
and hold them up to the admiring gaze of vulgar, vitiated, and corrupt
prejudice thus pandering to the most damnable passion of the mind, that ever
yielded to the depraved nature of the human heart. And for what? To shield
crimes of the darkest hue behind misfortunes, brought about by the affictions
of Divine Providence, that could not be foreseen and provided against by human
prescience, and hide the blood-stained garments of his employer behind the
prejudices of a community, whom he expects to make indignant through the
intervention of the afflicting dispensations of the Great Jehovah.
The sentiments, though
caustic, are the offspring of that feeling, inherent in the breast of every
man, except a demon, which revolts at the idea of disturbing the manes of the
dead, for base and unholy purposes. D. H.
B.
--------
From the
Athens Herald, June 6, 1856.
I published, to-day, Mrs. Hazle's testimony in the
case\of the State vs. Tate, and others; all that is relevant to the case in
issue, except some immaterial statements of which I took no note at the time of
trial. In her cross examination I have
aimed at giving only some of the heads of the subjects on which she was cross-examined,
falling far below, in my description, a just representation as it actually
occurred, as no report on paper could give an adequate idea of it as it did
occur. Those however, who heard it,
will recognize a faithful delineation, so far as it goes, Mrs. Hazle was the
material witness; her testimony was the pivot on which the destinies of the
case and the fate of the parties was to turn.
It was, therefore, necessary to destroy her testimony and to furnish an
excuse, a pretext, to be laid before the community for setting it aside.
-- To raise the question of insanity,
of monomania, hallucination and delusion, might be successful in this, as it
had been in other cases; and to furnish a pretext, she was cross-examined upon
subjects entirely irrelevant to the question before the court -- Subjects which
had no connection whatever with the murders -- subjects which no other court
under heaven would have entertained for a moment -- for what motive, I know
not; that is a matter between them and their own consciences. With the motives of the court I have nothing
to do; when I state the facts of their conduct, I have discharged my duty, and
it is no libel on them by doing so. Mrs.
Hazle's testimony is published as it fell from her lips, and intelligent, sensible
men, can judge from her own story whether she is laboring under that delusion which is ascribed to her. Tate's amenuensis, in his pamphlet, makes
labored effort in citing authorities, parades the opinions of Chief Justice
Hale, Lord, Mansfield and others, who make the broad assertion that "there
are persons who are insane upon particular subjects that will reason correctly
upon ordinary and trivial points, provided, (I italicize the condition,)
they do not become associated with the prevailing notions which constitute
their insanity," and cites the case of Hoxton, who had foiled all attempts
to discover his insanity, till Dr. Simms suggested that he believed himself the
Lord and Savior of mankind, whereupon the counsel appealed to his christian feeling,
and the monomania instantly ejaculated in the face of the whole court, "I
am the Christ." The law is founded
in common sense, and the lawyers tell us it is the perfection of human reason. Is there any reason, , any analogy in this
case with that of Mrs. Hazle? None in
the least. Mr. Attorney Walker, with
this case no doubt in his mind's eye, attempted to make Mrs. Hazle expose the
infirmity he had alleged against her by an appeal to her religious feelings, by
examining her on the bible and the gospels; asking how many there were. She modestly and respectfully replied,
"I never heard of but one, that of our Lord Jesus Christ." "You
never heard of but one! Don't you know there are four gospels?(!!)" "No Sir, -- perhaps you mean the one
Gospel as elucidated by the four Evangelists." The burst of laughter that proceeded from the by‑standers
admonished Mr. Attorney Walker that he had better, for the reputation of his
own biblical knowledge, not catechise her any more upon the subject of
theology. Again, Lord Mansfield is
cited, and the case of Woods instances, wherein he is said to have baffled
every attempt of the counsel to expose his infirmity, till Dr. Beattle took a
seat beside the Judge and told to enquire what had become of the cherry juice correspondence
and the Princess -- when he emmediately showed what he was by telling he was
imprisoned in a high tower, &c., and had no other means of corresponding
with the princess only in cherry juice, &c." Is there any analogy between this case and Mrs. Hazle? Not in the least. The counsel for the defence exhausted not only the resources of
his own mind, that of Cabaniss and also Tate's in asking her questions upon
every event, incident and transaction of her life; but she broke into no rant,
no long yarn, no wild visionary tale; but she sat, though physically exhausted
herself, from the rapidity with which she was asked and compelled to answer all
their questions, and replied to all with affability and a woman's modesty;
thinking she was obliged to do it. And
here is where I, as the prosecutor, and my attorney, Humphreys, were to blame in not rising in our places
and telling her what her rights were, and that she was not obliged to answer
those irrelevant, foolish questions.
But the counsel for the defence had alleged insanity; and desiring to
test the powers and capacity of her mind in their own way, and we being
satisfied that the powers of her mind were adequate to withstand the pressure
of any test which the joint calibre of mind embodied in all of defendants'
counsel could apply, we forebore any such suggestion to her, not discovering
the trick intended by the opposing counsel, which was to mix the case up with
irrelevant matter, till they had led the court, by‑standers and
themselves into such a dense fog of bewilderment that they themselves could not
find their way out by process of any reasonable or sane argument, and therefore
they refused to argue the case for fear that the prosecution would blow the
mist away, and show to the court, the audience and the world that their defence
was like the Irishman's standing when he was hung "so high that his feet
couldn't touch the ground" ‑‑ that it was sophistical,
untenable, and destitute of the least foundation in fact or evidence. Tate's amanuensis rests his defence upon
Mrs. Hazle's delusion in one breath - in another, he charges her with perjury,
saying "I alleged and proved she was perjured." If he did it was not
before the court, nor is it to be found by any evidence between the lids of his
pamphlet. He says, page 19, notwithstanding, "he (Bingham) with an
affectation of virtuous confidence says, 'I challenge the publication of the
testimony.' He knew this was impossible, as only parts of it were taken
down." It was taken down, all that was relevant to the case at issue;
I have got it as it fell from the lips of the witnesses and intend to publish
it; nor am I afraid "to see it in print", while only two lines below
where he asserts that "he alleged and proved her perjured", mark
what he says: "In charity I was willing to give her the benefit that
she was crazy rather than insist on the blacker view, that she had been hired
to swear away the life of a fellow being." How kind, how charitable, how much of the "milk of human
kindness" of sympathy, seizes all of one upon his soul?. It is a wonder he
or Cabaniss had not paid her expenses and sent her home on the railroad and
stage, as they did Mrs. Willis. "One or the other," he says, is
certain - as certain as the sun shines o" snow falls - That she has sworn
falsely does not admit of a doubt. The unprincipled man who prompted the
perjury, and probably paid for it, knows better than I do how much is to be
forgiven to a diseased imagination and how much is to be ascribed to a native
depravity." Here is an assemblage of words most curiously and ingeniously
put together, charging me with prompting the perjury, and then making me the
umpire to judge of the quantity of "forgiveness" to be extended to
Mrs. H.'s "diseased imagination," and also to be likewise extended to
her "native depravity". Look
at Mrs. H'.s testimony, where she says she told Zimri Rogers and Mason Young
immediately after going home, which was
in July, 1845 - These gentlemen will both testify that she did tell them, as
she states, they have certified it and it has been published to the world, also
that she told B. Rives, Esq., in 1845; and A.J. Farris testifies ( which will
appear next week) that she told him of these murders in the latter part of
1846, or the beginning of 1847. With
this testimony right before them, I am charged unblushingly, with prompting her
to commit perjury ten years after she has told all the facts connected with
these murders, and been to a lawyer to get him to have something done about
them. Now, since, under this state of
facts, she has not committed perjury, but only done what she sought opportunity
to do ten years before I ever saw or heard of her; and since Col. Shied and
Mrs, Willis show by their testimony that she tells the truth, not only by
giving the same description of Sawyer that she does, but by showing that the
parties have voluntarily connected themselves, criminally, with the absence of
Sawyer, in obtaining possession, by false promises of the letter, &c, for
the purpose of suppressing it, I shall assign but a very small degree of
forgiveness to her "diseased imagination," or to her "native
depravity," but on the contrary will say to Mr. Tate's amanuensis, that he
must weave his webs of defence thicker than this, as the guilt of his employer
stands out in too bold relief to be hid behind such gossamer veils, as this
net-work affords.
The great effort on the part of the writer of the
pamphlet is to inculcate the belief in the mind of the reader that Mrs. Hazle
is insane; but read her testimony; let her story speak for itself; look at its
consistency; the relations of all its incidents and details; see how one
incident in the story is fortified by another and ask your self if this story
is the offspring of a deluded imagination, or the effusion of a corrupt,
depraved heart; if so, where is the motive; what incentive has operated to
produce it? and again, if so,
why have Tate and Gordon given such strong confirmation to the alleged
delusion, by connecting themselves with the absence of a man in whose description
Mrs. Hazle, Col. Shied and Mrs. Willis all agree in the main characteristics of
his person, appearance and two of them in his peculiarity of showing his front
teeth when talking. Let this be
explained and then, but not till then, will an enligthtened and impartial
public be induced to believe, that she is a monomaniac and that I am the
villain the pamphlet tries to make me out.
But the pamphlet says, page 8, "Bingham goes to Coffee county, sees
Mrs. Sawyer. (now Mrs. Willis,) gets an accurate description of her former
husband, returns to Mississippi, writes it out and takes the deposition of Mrs.
Hazle, inserting the description at the end." - But where is Col. Shied's
description? They forgot his description. The facts are these: Mrs. Hazle had described
Sawyer to me before before I ever saw Mrs. Willis, and Mrs. Hazle never saw
Mrs. Willis' description of her husband, till after she had given her statement
of Sawyer's murder, and had sworn to it.
I was on a ticklish business, and before I would assume the
responsibility of bringing crime out upon a man, surrounded by the wealth and
family influence of Abner Tate, I was determined to satisfy myself that I had
sufficient grounds to justify the act and sustain the charge. This support and justification was not to be
obtained by fraud nor collusion. It
therefore was not policy in me to give to any of the parties to be used as
witnesses any hints whereby they might manufacture testimony to sustain and
corroborate cach other. At Zimri Rogers', where Mrs. Hazle lived -- where her
deposition was taken -- on the day it was taken, and before she ever saw or
heard Mrs. Willis' deposition, there was a log-rolling and several of Mr. R's
neighbors had collected. There was a
man in the humber by the name of McClure, who very nearly resembled
Sawyer in the make and size of his person, as Mrs.
Willis described him. The men were at the well. I asked Mrs. Hazle if there was a man in the
crowd who resembled Sawyer in make and
size of person. She immediately
pointed out McClure, remarking that he is a heavier and perhaps a little taller
man that Sawyer was. I called Mr. McClure up and asked him his weight, and he
informed me it was one hundred and seventy pounds. I subsequently measured him, and his height was five feet five
and a half inches; the fact of measuring him is known to Zimri Rogers and the
men who were present; but the object of doing it was not at the time known to
them. This is a statement of facts, and
if this can be tortured into collusion between Mrs. Hazle and myself, to
victimize Abner Tate, then have I erred in satisfying myself of the identity of
the description of the man slain at Tate's.
Now for the collusion between Col. Shied and myself -- though they do
not charge it; yet if I would collude with one I would with another
witness. On the 2nd day of last August
on my way from Athens to Madison county, I learned Col. S. was at his
father-in-law's, Mr. Rice's. Turned up to the house -- called Col. Shied out --
and read to him Mrs. Hazle's statement, and when I came to the description of
Sawyer, he said, "it is a better description of him that his wife can
give," he remembered and remarked of his own accord the "wide check
bones;" the tapering of the chin;" "the sunk eyes under the
forehead" and "the peculiarity of showing his front teeth when
talking" -- all of which Mrs. Willis omits in her description and did not
recollect the peculiarity of showing the front teeth at all -- but, in August
last, when talking of Sawyer's appearance -- the contour of his face, &c.
-- told me her daughter was the image of her father, when I called her
attention to the same peculiarity in her, of showing her front teeth, as
described by Mrs. Hazle and confirmed by Col. Sheid, in the father, which she
said she never before had noticed. In
December last, Col. Shied will recollect, that at his father's in Coffee Co.,
in the presence of John Charles, Esq., he remarked that the strongest evidence
which induced him to believe that Sawyer was the man slain at Tate's was Mrs.
Hazle's description of him -- when he again, of his own accord, spoke of the
"wide check bones," the tapering chin and the peculiarity of showing
the front teeth. This was on Monday the
24th of December last, and on Tuesday, the first day of January, he testified
to it on the stand at Huntsville. Now,
fellow-citizens, is this collusion? if it is I am a man whose sagacity is as
wonderful in preparing a case of imaginary murder -- and drilling witnesses to
corroborate and sustain each other, as Mrs. Hazle is remarkable, in locating
her delusions of imaginary murders, as the parties now allege, at places where
missing men turn up, answering her description and confirming her story in
point of fact.
We have received a pamphlet of some sixly pages, from Abner
Tate, of Huntsville, Ala, being a defence of himself against the charge of a
double murder, commited by him several years ago, which charges were preferred
by one D. H. Bingham. Mr. Tate, when
these charge were preferred, was arrested, and an investigation had before the
Mayor of Huntsville and two Magistrates. -- There was no evidence adduced going
to show the guilt of Mr. Tate, and consequently he was discharged. The pamphlet contains many strange things, and,
altogether, it is the most strange case we have ever heard of -- one in which
great mystery is certainly involved.
The above paragraph was sent to us, by a friend from
Franklin County, who clipped it from the Selma Sentinel. When we took the Herald, the sentinel was on
our exchange list. We have sent our
paper regularly, but have received only one copy in return. If the reputation of the editor of the
Sentinel for writing his own editorials, and some very sensible ones, too, did
not dispel our doubts, we might be suspicious of its paternity, as it smacks
considerably of "qui tam" origin: As we have always believed,
the pamphlet has been gotten up more for foreign than home consumption -- to
make an impression abroad that could not be made among a community conversant
with the facts of the case. That the
pamphlet "contains many strange things," is a fact -- but before we
have done with it we shall tear from it the veil of mistery, with which the
enormity of the crimes of this man are attempted to be concealed. If the testimony of a witness of "good
character and indisputable veracity," as proven on their cross-examination
by three of the defendants' own witnesses, who testified positively and
unequivocally that she saw the man dead on the fire, (where they were attempting to burn up his remains,) on the
premises of Abner Tate corroborated and sustained by several other witnesses,
all testifying to acts and conduct of Tate and his accomplice, Gordon, whereby
they voluntarily connected themselves with the
absence of the man they were charged with murdering, is no proof,
there was no evidence to show the guilt of the parties. The testimony in the case is now in course
of publication in our columns and you will oblige us Mr. Sentinel, if you will
disabuse the minds of your readers by making the correction, and take us from
the false position in which you have placed us.
D. H. B.
---
I publish today the letter of W. A. Jeffries,
Esq. As soon as I receive some
documents, which I am waiting for, I shall place Mrs. Routt right before the community,
by showing all the participation she had in the prosecution of Tate -- which
was none at all. What I did was done on
my own responsibility. I sought to
divide the responsibility with no one, nor shall I ever seek to share the
consequences with any one. There is a
motive, a deep, dark, hidden motive,
which prompts the connection of Mrs. Routt with his prosecution, and I hope her
son will show it up. In justice to Mrs. Routt, to truth and humanity, I take it
upon myself to say, without the fear of ever being contradicted, that, outside
of the naked, isolated statement of the negro, unsupported and uncorroborated,
there is not one iota of evidence to sustain the charges Tate makes against
her, neither in motive, circumstance or act of her conduct, as connecting her
with the instigation of the shooting of Tate.
D. H. B.
COLUMBIA, Tenn. June 4,
1856,
Capt. D. H.
Bingham -- Dear Sir: A pamphlet, signed by Abner Tate, making most vile,
false and libelous charges against my mother, has been circulated in this
community, in order to injure her character and affect her reputation here
among her relatives and friends. In that pamphlete he charges her with having
employed you to prosecute him for murder, and says it was done to gratify her
malice against him. This, as you know is a base and false accusation, made from
the most foul, corrupt and diabolical motives. I cannot now notice all his acts
of villainy towards my dear mother but, hereafter I will show that she has been
most inhumanly and barbarously treated by Tate - vilely and maliciously
swindled and slandered by him; and as her only child, I am now determined to
defend her by all the means in my power. It is important, as an act of justice
to her, that all the facts in relation to this matter should be made public. I
understand you are publishing a statement of all the facts, and I instruct you
to send your paper, the Herald, to the following named persons:
Your
ob't. serv't.
W. A. JEFFRIES.
----
From the Athens Herald, July 25th.
A b n e r T a t e' s P a m p h l e t.
He
sent them strong delusions that they might believe a lie. - Bible.
When this
scandalous and libellous production made its appearance in this community, it
was so full in denunciation, so bold, reckless and impudent in unblushing
epithets, and so ingeniously interwoven with falsehood, in what purported to be
a detail of testimony, which had been mitilated garbled and falsified, that, in
absence of the true facts and the circumstances which surrounded them a very
fair ex parte case had been made out, and very many looked upon the
parties accused, as having been wrongfully arraigned, and without any further
evidence before them than the unblushing assertions, coupled with certificates
of persons, some of whom were witnesses on the trial but whose statements in
their certificates differ widely from their statements under oath on the stand,
(two, Ashworth and Dedman, enlarging greatly upon their testimony on the trial)
- many pronounced the parties innocent. In this respect, the pamphlet, for the
time being, had the effect for which it was intended. But the publication of
the facts involved in the testimony in reference to the killing - the efforts
of the parties to concial the crime, the glaring fraud upon the Governor of Alabama, and the espionage over the executive office in Tennessee,
has put an entirely different complexion upon the case, and the tide of public
opinion has been rolled back upon the parties with more energy than its
accumulated wave had at first loomed up in their favor. Upon an inspection of
all the letters accompanying that pamphlet, the identity of thought, language,
and minuteness, of detail, presents a most wonderful coincidence, insomuch that
the general opinion of intelligent, discerning men is, that they are the
offspring of the same brain, probably written out by the same hand.
The facts
disclosed by the testimony establish:-
1st. That a man
was seen dead on the premises of Abner Tate, under circunstances that left no
doubt he had been murdered.
2nd. That Tate
and Gordon subsequently connected themselves voluntarily whit the absence of a
man by the name of Charles B. Sawyer, whose description as referred to by the
witness who saw the man dead at Tate's, corresponds with the description of his
wife, (Mrs. Willis,) Col. James M. Shied and John Mullican--by procuring under
false pretences a letter purporting to give an account of Sawyer's absence, and
charging Abner Tate and John Gordon with his murder, with a view to suppress it
and various other acts and conduct on their part, involving efforts at
concealment, which innocent men would not have resorted to.
3d. And when
prosecution had been instituted against John Gordon, and the forms of law had
been complied with, tho parties, instead of meeting the charge in a legitimate
way and tangible shape, resorted to fraud, subornation of witnesses,
collusion, management and trickery, in order to defeat the ends of justice and
avert the penalties due to their crimes under the statute, and did not before
the examining Court, furnish one solitary tittle of proof to disprove the
charge or contradict the testimony, as deposed to by the principal witness or
those witnesses who corroboratedd her, or explain the acts and conduct of the
parties, which connected them criminally, whith the absence of the man Sawyer.
Having
succeeded in obtaining an acquital, they were not satisfied in letting the
matter rest- but in the excess of their joy made a publication, in which the
facts of the case were grossly perverted, falsified and misrepresented - the
character of witness and prosecutor grossly vilified, traduced and
scandalized--and their motives held up to the graze of public ridicule and
reproach. Still not satisfied, Abner Tate, in order to force the public mood
into a compliance with his wishes, that he was innocent, long after the trial
was over procured the services of Jere. Clemens, Esq., to
compile and write out a defence for him, which defence embodies a series of
false and wilful charges, gross perversions of facts, mutilated and garbled
extracts of testimony, unnecessary and unjust association of another
transaction having no connection in detail or result--couched in bitter
denunciaticn, acrimonious invective, bilingsgute epithet and low flung slang,
insidious in its design and shameful in its import. Such is the character of
the defence of the parties charged with and proven to be murderers, emanating
from the distempered brain of Jero. Clemens. Esq,--a man who has been elected
to the highest dignity known to the laws of Alabama, by her Legislature; who
has been the official assosiate of Clay, Webster, Calhoun and Cass, but who,
upon his retiring from the high political station he had once occupied, soils
the ermine of the Senatorial toga by descending into the perlieus and
cess-pools of filthy debauch and scurrilous invective; prostitutes his talents
for hire at the shrine of mammon, exhausts the vocabulary of his mother tougue
in search of opprobrious and scurrilous epithets, and probably grieves in agony
over its barreness and sterllity in not furnishing terms degrading and damnable
enough to satisfy the vindictive spirit of his employer, whose hands are
reeking with the blood of his fellow man--but not satisfied with this
exhibition of his supercilious surveillance and servility at his master's
bidding, plunges at his nod hyena-like
into the grave, and with all the ferocious vengeance of the prowling jackal,
drags forth the relics and manes of the dead from the tomb and holds them up to
the gaze of vulgar prejudice, attired in all the horrld grimaces of spectred
vision. Such is a faint picture of the defence of a man drawn by his politico‑limmer
in showing the pretended innocence of his employer, upon whom the crime of
murder had been proven in all the horrid barbarity of savage ferocity, and who,
in building up the story of that defence, lays its foundation in falsehood and
error, and erects the superstructure out of materials that violate all the
finer, social feelings of humanity and panders in its embellishments and
draperies to all the damnable, depraved passions of the human heart; worse
even, than the savage barbarian, whose soul sickens and recoils at the idea of
disturbing the repose of the dead--much less in civilized life, where all
acknowledge that the sanctities of sepulchral repose should not be disturbed,
no matter what may have been the foibles, faults, vices or crimes of the
occupant. If such things are to go unrebuked, what man is safe in his
posthumous memory? What woman is secure in her domestic
relations! Who knows but when he dies his widow may be the victim of the venal
lust of gain of some wicked fiendish demon who, to glut his mendacious rapacity
and cover up perhaps his crimes, will immolate that wife of his bosom upon the
altar of an unholy prejudice, engendered by the busy tongue of scandul, till
repetition makes it as familiar as household words--and when exposure and disgrace
are about to ensue, some hireling tool will prostitute his talents in dragging
forth memories that had long since mingled with kindred dust, for the base and
unholy purpose of holding them up to public gaze, under the hope of shielding a
wicked employer from just and merited indignation. That Col. Clements is the
writer of this infamous production, has been acknowledged by Tate himself to
Gen. Hickman, and he informed him he gave $500 for it, as I am informed; that
Col, Clemens wrote here to Athens for certain numbers of the Herald, which he
could have had no other use for only to aid him in his compilation, is a fact
he will not deny.--Besides, in a letter to me he says, "I do not recognize
the right of any man to question me whether I did or did not prepare a paper
for a client whose name is attached to it and who alone is responsible for its
contents"--neither denying nor acknowledging the authorship, but evading a
reply altogether, and current report ascribes the authorship to him. But Col.
Clemens mistakes his man, when he supposes that I will submit, under such
wholesale abuse, invective and ephithets us that pamphlet contains--nor can he
ensconce himself behind the responsibility "that it was prepared for a
client," for no lawyer has any right whatever to travel out of the
legitimate pale of the courtesies of the profession in the discharge of his
professional duties. He has
performed the legal and moral requirements of duty when he has made out his
case, by throwing around it all the arguments and inferences which the premises
justify. But when he, to gratify a malevolent purpose in behalf of his employer
draws a picture in derision of misiortunes inflicted by the dispensations of
Heaven alone, and makes me figure as ‘the grave worm wrapped in the bridal
garment,’ Col. Clemens will be exposed in terms of merited rebuke so long as I
control a press or can wield a pen, not withstanding all his vaunted boast of
personal chivalry or physical bravery. I happen to be a man who knew my rights,
privileges and immunities--and knowing them, they will be defended at all
hazards,not in the spirit of that fiendish blackguardism that characterises the
pamphlet, but in the plain,incontestable array of facts,
couched in terms which, while they may be forcible and significant in their
meaning, shall not outrage public decency by the use and application of
scurrilous epithets. D. H. B.
--
E x t r a c t s F r o m T a t e's
P a m p h l e t.
Page 10.
"And good God! what a reward! The hand of one whom he knew to be a
murderess in intention--Whose bridal chamber was a charnel house, and around
whose marriage couch six grinning skeletons were already hung."
Page 11.
"She had not been particulary fortunate in that respect heretofere, and in
Bingham's opinion, was entitled to all the consolation an industrious, sober
man can bring to the bed around which nightly assembles a conclave of ghosts to
witness the endearments that once were theirs, and shudder through their
fleshless forms, at the frendish spirit which wraps the grave‑worm in the
bridal garment, and infuses a lingering death with the conjugal kiss. The clasp of her arm around his neck would
call up dreadful shapes to sit upon his dreaming pillow, and make his nights as
fearful.
‘As if the dead
could feel
The ley worm
around them steal,
And shudder as
the reptilos crawl,
To revel o'er
their rotting sleep’"
These are some
of the "elegant extracts" from that document, written out by Jere.
Clemens, and purporting to be a defence of Abnor Tate, for the crime of
murder--wherein "to send them strong delusions that the public may believe
a lie," he outrages public decency by deriding misfortunes and
afflictions, which no human foresight could provide against or avert;--but
viciates, without any foundation in truth, all the fine, sacred feelings of the
human breast--and for what? To divert
the public mind from the realities of the crimes, he is endeavoring to defend,
by all the tact and legerdemain of his professional dishonesty. Citizens of Limestone, do you know that one
of these "six grinning skeletons," thus alluded to, in tones of
frendish, derision, is the memory of your fellow citizen, Robert A. High, Esq,
a man who, while living was repeatedly honored by your suffrages and with your
confidence, as your Representative in the Legislature of Alabama--who
discharged his dutles faithfully---who observed all those social amenities and
courtesies in life that gave him the confidence of his fellow citizens and
endeared him to his friends and associates--who was a successful merchant, an
able financier, a useful and enterprising citizen, and an honest man? Do you
know, also, that this same Jere. Clemens the reviler of his memory, the
desecrater of his manes, is placed at the head of his party-- is a candidate for your suffrage--and
will, probably, ere long, come among you, and, in honeyed tones, present his
pretensions to your notice for your suffrage?
Has Robert A. High any children? Any old friends to whom his memory is
still dear?--If he has, let them speak out by their votes, and teach Col.
Clemens a lesson that he has never been taught before. Let the Democratic press of Alabama denounce
such conduct, that the people may consign him to that oblivion, and heap upon
him that obloquy, this fiendish outrage upon public decencey, upon morals, and
upon the sanctities of the grave, demands.
It is no excuse for Col. Clemens, that he did it for a client and for
hire. It was always a maxim of Gen.
Jackson, “that he that can wantonly outrage the feelings of another--can
inflict an intended wrong, when there is no cause, and when none is due, is
capable of any crime, however detestable in its nature.”
What cause had Robert A. High given for this outrageous desecration of his memory? What hasd his wife done that her feelings should be lacerated and torn to pieces, by such false, hideous pictures of her domestic afflictions? Since they have forced it upon me, by association, I shall tell before I get through with that pamphlet. If Jere. Clemens can be hired to desecrate the memory of Robert A. High, he can be hired to defame yours or any other man’s after you are dead and gone. Therefore, down with him at the ballotbox., and let all honest men shun him. But where Jere. Clemens is known,
He can hurt no man’s fame by his word;
And his pen as little dreaded as his sword.”
We always thought Col. Clemens’ forte was in romance:--Spirit
of the South.
If you would read “Tate’s pamphlet”
you would think “his forte” lay in and about grave yards, from the familiarity
he displays in resurrecting and desecrating the memories of the dead. But, if you had seen him last year in the
drunken spree in Huntsville, when the raw irishman “in a tussle,”
threw him and broke his leg, you would have thought “his forte” had been in a
brandy bottle--he was so o-b-l-i-v-i-o-u-s!!!
Jere.’s genius fortifies itself in different “forts”; but unfortunately
they have so many “salient angles,” they are easily reduced. No wonder he gives the Pope and the Irish
such hot “ginger.” That leg!!!.
From the Athens Herald, October 10, 1856.
Tate’s Pamphlet.
“He sent them strong delusions, that they might
believe a lie.”--Bible.
A FORGERY.
I published below, in review of this pamphlet as I
have promised, the letter, as published in the pamphlet, purporting to be the
letter from Henderson McGowan to Col. James M. Shied, giving an account of the
murder of Sawyer; as also the testimony of Col. Shied, in which he details the
contents of the letter, from which it will be seen that there is a wide
difference in the contents of the two.
When the pamphlet made its appearance, I ventured to the suggestion that
the letter of McGowan, as it appeared in the pamphlet, was a bogus
letter--mutilated, altered, parts suppressed, and fixed up and forged for the occasion. In support of
this suggestion, I publish and extract of a letter from from John Charles,
Esq., of Coffee County, in which he states such to be the fact. If further evidence were necessary, Maj. Thomas
McCrary, to whom the McGowan letter was shown, by Tate, says the letter as
published is not the one shown to
him. Now, the question arises, why
these parties and their agents committed this forgery! They were arraigned on a charge of
murder--were examined, and the charge proven upon them, but were discharged
from custody by the Court in the very face of the testimony, for reasons known
only to the Court--the public having never been put in possession of any
reasons--and in exculpation of that charge, they put forth a slanderous and lying
pamphlet, full of misrepresentations, falsehoods, and forgeries, as evidence of
their innocence, assailing my
character and motives; holding me up to the scorn and contempt of the
community, because I prosecuted them, by all the brazen-faced impudence that a hireling
tool, like the writer, Jere. Clemens, could throw into it. If these men, Tate and Gordon, are innocent
men, why has it been necessary thus to supress the truth by the alteration, and
suppression of parts of this letter?
And who has done it? But the
forgery of this letter is not the only falsehood in the pamphlet. I trust, that having shown that they
resorted to forgery of the very letter, the procuring of which, under false
pretences and pledges which they never redeemed, which is strong evidence of
their guilt, and which connects them criminally with the murder of Sawyer, that
the public will have little confidence in the veracity of the balance.
|
Near Hillsboro’, Coffee Co., |
|
August
24, 1856. |
}
Capt. Bingham, Sir: Yours of July is before me, in
which you request me to see Col. Shied and talk with him about
the McGowan letter. I performed that
duty, and he says that the letter which Tate has published is not the McGowan
letter in full--that it is altered and parts left out--especially where
McGowan’s friend went to Tate’s office and “saw the ink on the wall,” as was
described in the letter, and perhaps some more.
Signed, J. CHARLES.
----
MCGOWAN’S LETTER
“One evening a gentleman called in, whom they called
Saw, or Sawyers, she had forgotten which.
Mr. Tate recognized him as soon as he came in, and made inquiry about
his success below. Sawyer remarked that
he had done very well, sold out everything, and collected very well. A conversation was kept up, she not paying
particular attention. Dinner was
prepared for Sawyers, as the family had been to dinner.--After he eat, Mr. Tate
invited him to a small house, or office, as it was called. Supper time came on; Sawyers was not at
supper, as he ate so late he did not want supper. Some time in the night she heard the cry of murder in the office,
she being close by attending to some of the negroes. Mr. Tate said to some of the negroes, to stop that noise--then
she heard a blow, and afterwards a man weltering in his blood, or dying. Next morning she passed by the office, and
saw blood on the floor and the side of the wall; she also saw blood with ashes
strewed along some distance leading towards an old out house. She made it convenient to go in the old
house, and behold there was a man on the fire, with his head up in the corner,
split open, and one leg sticking out on the other side, and an old negro woman
attending to burning him up. She made
some inquiry of the negro about it; The negro told her that she had better
leave here, and that she had already seen too much, and that her life had been
threatened. The old lady, though, took
time to ask the old negro what they did with the horse. She say (said) there is a first-rate place
over yonder, in the old field; haven’t you seen the buzzards flying over
there? Well, what do they do with the
saddle? The is a first-rate place to
bury them over by the tan yard. She
made it convenient to pass by the office. The second time, and the blood was
covered by ink. She smelt something
like meat burning at several times during the day, remarked to Mrs. Tate
several times that it was a disagreeable smell. Mrs. Tate would send out some of the servants and pretend to have
it removed. She learned from the family
that Sawyer was from Coffee County, Tenn., and had come by to collect a
debt. Tate or his wagoner owed him.
(Gordon was his name.”)
The letter from McGowan to Col. Sheid, giing the
foregoing particulars, was dated on the 22nd of October, 1850.
“Col. Jas. M.
Shied, Sworn.--Knew Charles B. Sawyer in his life time--received a
letter, through the post office, some five or six years ago, signed by
Henderson McGowan, from Memphis, Tennessee, giving an account of Sawyer’s
murder at Abner Tate’s. The letter commenced
by saying, ‘I have heard of the long-lost Sawyer; he called at
the house of a man by the name of Tate, living near the road leading from
Huntsville to Fayetteville, to see John Gordon, who owed him some money. He got there late in the afternoon, and eat
his dinner late, in consequence of which he did not go to the supper
table. In the night, my informant says,
and old lady, who was at Tate’s, heard the cry of murder, murder, and in the
morning went to an old kitchen on the premises, where she saw him on the fire,
his head split open--his feet resting against one jamb and his shoulders
against the other--with an old negro woman kindling kindling a fire on him and
under him, in the act of burning him up.
When she returned to the office, ink had been rubbed on the wall to hide
the blood, and ashes scattered in the yard to cover the blood there.’
McGowan said in his letter to me, that he had sent a
friend to Tate’s, who reports ink on the wall of the office, as described. Some five or six months after receiving this
letter, a man came to my house, in my absence, and remaining a day or two, till
my return; upon my return he told me his name was Gordon, and he understood I
had received a letter charging Abner Tate with murder, and he wished to see it;
got the letter and read it to him; he said he was on his way down to Tate’s,
and he would like to get the letter and take it to him. I told him I could not give him the original
letter, as something might turn up, perhaps, that would make it necessary to have
it; but I would give him a copy, and commence writing a copy. While writing a copy, Gordon insisted on
having the original--said it would be more satisfactory to Tate; and, finally,
upon promising to leave it, on his return, at my house, or to drop it in the
post office at Manchester, I stopped writing a copy and gave him the
original. I had copied three fourths of
the letter when I gave him the original.
Gordon took it, left immediately, and has never returned it.--never saw
him till two years afterwards--saw him in Bradyville, when he told me he had
left it with Tate. Saw Tate some two or
three months after Gordon got the letter, in Winchester; was introduced to him
by Logan. Tate said, you are the man
who received a letter charging me with murder; went on to say it was written
upon the authority of a crazy old woman, who kept a continual fuss in the
neighborhood about Hazel Green, till the neighbors concluded to send her off to
her children in Mississippi, and when she got down there, she employed herself
in writing letters back abusing everybody; among others he named, I recollect,
Mrs. McDavid; that he had hauled her away in his wagon gratuitously, and this
was the thanks he got for his kindness to her; nobody pretended, he said, to
notice her, or to believe what she said. I told Tate that Gordon promised to
return me the letter, but had not. Tate
said he had the letter and I could have it any time, but its authority was not
to be believed. Here the counsel for
the defence produced the letter and asked the witness to identify it; witness
looked at the letter and said it was the same one he had received, when the
counsel said, “you permitted Capt. Tate, then, to retain it in his
possession?”--witness nodded assent.
Sawyer was a low, chunky man, heavy set, and would weigh one hundred and fifty pounds or the rise--was five feet four or five inches
high, very wide cheek bones, and face tapering to his chin, rather dark
complexion, blue eyes--they were considerably sunk under his
forehead--dark-colored hair, and showed his front teeth when talking; never
could trace Sawyer from Tuscaloosa.
Went with his wife, now Mrs. Willis, to Tuscaloosa to hunt him; could
never hear of him this side of there.
On one occasion, when in Tuscaloosa, in 1844, young Charles Lewen gave
it as his opinion that Sawyer never got out of Tuscaloosa--that the last seen
of him was at Forrest’s livery stable; afterwards Forrest left Tuscaloosa under
circumstances of suspicion; and he had written Forrest several letters, telling
him of these suspicions, which he had never answered.”
In Tate’s pamphlet he arrays a mass of certificates to
contradict the testimony of Mrs. Hazle, and also to prejudice the public
against me. These certificates are
evidently the offspring of the same brain and were no doubt all written by the
same person; only two of which I shall notice, as none of the others relate to
me. Francis D. Dedman is one who figures as a witness in the trial, but who, in
the certificate, enlarges and elaborates extensively upon his testimony as it
fell from his lips on the stand.
Dedman’s story is devoid of truth in its import and application. He is a man of no veracity; and a letter
dated 22nd July, and post marked “Hays’ Store,” says: “I see you
wish the character of Francis Dedman.
He has none that is good for veracity; nor will he pay his debts. I have never heard any one that is
acquainted with his character say they would believe him in any way whatever
and if you have any interview with him have some respectable person
present.” This letter is from as respectable
a man as there is in Madison
county. But I withhold his name,
because I will not involve any one living near these parties in a way that
would subject them to any private or malicious injury. If Dedman, however, wants to know who he is,
he can be privately informed, as well as of others who have told me they would
not believe him. The circumstances and
the facts on which Dedman built his story are these; I had in my investigations
proceeded as far as I could without assistance. I knew little at the time of Dedman, but concluded that I would
ascertain his sense of moral obligation, from which I could tell her how far it
would do to trust him with the secret of these murders, or whether it would do
to confide in him at all. Accordingly I
took him up in my room, and asked him whether he would consider it incumbent on
him, in case he should be convinced that crimes had been
committed, to assist in ferreting them out; he replied it would depend upon who
it was, and enquired to know what crimes had been committed? I, without that reflection which I ought to
have observed, told him crimes had been committed, and that there was evidence
enough to hang half a dozen; when he immediately replied, if you attempt to
bring out any scandal, upon any one about here, you will get hurt. I told him that he would not do to trust;
that I had told him no names, facts or circumstances, and to keep what I had
told him to himself; not even to tell his wife. He promised me he would do so.
Not a word was said about binding him to secrecy; not a word about
written obligations; not a word about depositions; nor that he should never
“lack for anything as long as he lived,”--nor did he become offended or
threaten to strike; nor did I apologize to him but simply told him he would not
do to trust; that he knew nothing of what I intended to tell him and to say
nothing, not even to his wife, of what I had said; got up and left the room,
and never had any farther conversation with him.--This is all that Dedman had
to found his story upon, which was written out for him and which is very
different from his testimony before the court.
That Dedman was used as a watch upon my movements I have no doubt. He may deny not seeing Tate; I don’t believe
it. Facts and circumstances have come
to my knowledge since, that convince me, that Tate suspected me as early as the
middle of May, of being engaged in hunting up the testimony of these murders
against him, as this man Dedman did say, that it was suspected I was hunting
proof for some purpose, and it was supposed to be against Abner Tate; and told
what Tate should have said, that “he would let me run the length of my rope
&c.” These are the facts as relates
to my communications with Dedman upon this subject. He is a man of no veracity, and has given different versions of
this same story to different persons.
Mr. J.W. Clem of this county is one of them. I here leave him.
The next personage who figures in the certificates is
William Ashworth. I did go Ashworth’s,
as he says. I went there to see his
Bible, but he did not know what I went for.
Mrs. Hazle had told me that the only circumstances by which she could
fix the date of the murder of the man from Tennessee (that it occurred on the
Saturday night before Easter Sunday, in 1845, though she could not tell what
day Easter Sunday came on in that year, but it was near the
first of April)--was that a few days after the murder, she was at Ashworth’s
and told him she wished him, to make a memorandum of the date of “last
Saturday,” so that he might recollect it if called on years afterwards--that
Ashworth told he would recollect it, as he had bought a new bible on the
Saturday previous; that the of the purchase of the bible she said might be
recorded in it; and if I found it to be about the first of April, it would
correspond with her recollection and would be corroborative of her
statement. I accordingly went to
Ashworth’s, found him at home, and remained, as he says, probably a couple of
hours. Our conversation was upon
various subjects. Espying his bible in
the book case, with some patent office reports, I directed my conversation to
the subject of these reports; and stepped to the shelf and took one down;
looked over it awhile, when I took down his bible, remarking that here was a
book which I liked to read, when he asked me if I was a preacher, told him I
was not, and commenced looking through it; but soon found no date of its
purchase recorded in it, when I remarked to him that he had kept his bible
remarkably well, and asked him how long he had had it? He replied eight or nine years; “yes, said
he, longer than that; I bought it in the spring after I moved to this place,
and I moved in January, 1845.” I
asked him what time in the spring, when he replied about the first of
April. His statement of the purchase of
the bible corresponding with with Mrs. Hazle’s, satisfied me she was correct as
to her statement of the circumstances to which she referred. All his statements about Mrs. Routt, her negro
and her husbands is false--no such conversation occurred. Ashworth says in his certificate, “A few
days before the trial of Mr. Tate, I met Mrs. Hazle about a mile above
Huntsville, on her way to the trial, as she said. She hailed me, and after the ordinary salutations she spoke thus:
‘Ashworth, I want you to recollect that on a certain day I came to your house
from Abner Tate’s and told you that I wanted you to make an entry in your bible
of the day of the month and date of the year, for that you might be called on
some years after, when I went back to Mississippi..’ She also said that I replied to her that it was not necessary to
enter it in the bible, for I had it down in my day book. No such conversation ever took place and it
could not, without its having been remembered by me.” So far as Mrs. Hazle “hailing him,” it is
false. He hailed me and said he had
been down to the trial under a subpoena at my insistance, and seeing a lady in
the buggy with me, asked if it was Mrs. Hazle; I told him no, it was Mrs.
Willis; that Mrs. Hazle was in the other buggy and commenced a conversation
with Mrs. Hazle. Mrs. Willis, in a
letter to me dated 10th of July last, says, “I recollect meeting Mr.
Ashworth this side of Huntsville, a few miles, and of his stopping us and
saying something about being subpoened to attend court and asking if I was Mrs.
Hazle; you told him no, she was in the
other buggy,” when he went to it.” Thus
much for the truth of his statement about Mrs. Hazle “hailing him,” and this
being false the balance of his story is just as likely to be equally so, which
so far as it relates to me I know to be false, except as I have stated.
I shall notice but one or two more of the charges in
the pamphlet. One is charging me with
writing an anonymous letter, and mailing it at Tullahoma, to aid in the defence
of Mrs. Routt’s negro. Though he says
“I do not know that Bingham wrote it, but it is like him.” I have only to say the charge is false; that
altho in Tullahoma in November, I left there on the 27th of
November, staid at Jefferson Estill’s this side of Winchester that night and
was at the Brick School House in Madison county on the 8th of
December, having come by the way of Fayetteville, Tennessee, which I could not
have done if I had left Tullahoma on the 6th of December, as he
charges. It is only necessary to remark
that all my conduct in this matter forbids the idea, that I would be guilty of
an act so simply foolish, and perpetrated in so clandestine a manner. Those who know me know that I am not
backward in avowing and assuming the responibility of all my acts. I did however write a letter communicating
the name of a witness and what he would testify to, in behalf in behalf of that
negro, which was placed in the possession of the attorneys who defended him,
with my name attached to it. This
testimony came to my knowledge some six or eight miles east of Athens. I believed it would be important to the
defence.--I communicated it to Wm. H. Robertson, Esq., at whose house I staid
over night; reduced it to writing in his presence; read the letter to him and
next day mailed the letter at Athens, and thought I was doing
no more than every man ought to do, who had accidently come into possession of
the knowledge of a fact which would benefit a party in trouble. The testimony alluded to was nothing less
than the dying declaration of Fed, one of the negroes charged with
shooting Abner Tate, who a short time before he died addressed the witness and
said, that he had but a short time to live, left some messages to his wife, and
further said, “God knows I had nothing to do with shooting Mr. Tate.” This witness referred to another witness
present, who upon being interrogated as to the dying declaration of Fed,
corroborated it in every particular, both as to the identity of language and
fact, except one says, “the Lord knows,” and the other that Fed said
“God knows, &c.” These witnesses
were present in court; one was introduced upon the stand, but the judge ruled,
upon being informed he would prove the dying declaration of Fed, that because
the defendant Jake was not present, at the time, his testimony was
inadmissable, and it was rejected; and the attorneys for the defence had too
much respect for their professional character to tell what the facts were which
the witness would depose to, as the opposite counsel did on several ocasions;
and consequently the dying declaration of Fed, which contradicted all
his previous confessions, was not got before the jury, otherwise it perhaps
would have put a diiferent complexion upon the case. That witness, if he had been interrogated, could have told who Fed
said did shoot Abner Tate. But the
negro was convicted and hung, and so was Cotton, another of Tate’s
victims. But, many, very many, believe
that both were unjustly hung, and the only additional comment I have to
make, is, that the instincts of the dogs, which were brought next
morning after Tate was shot, to track up the perpetrator of the deed, did
not lie; nor did they track Fed to Mrs. Routt’s, where the human
testimony adduced on the trial, said he went.
The next charge, of the Hon. Jere:, in the pamphlet
is, that I was traveling the country with a show, and here I will
remark, that I hold Jere: Clemens responsible for all extraneous, irrelevant
matter introduced into that pamphlet.
If he had confined himself within the legitimate pale of his
professional duties and in writing what reports to be a defence of the parties,
had not traveled outside of the record of the facts as developed by the
testimony, I never should have said a word.
But when he hires himself to vilify, abuse and scandalize persons, which
he has no right to do, he must bear in mind that he is
accountable to the parties who will adopt such modes of redress as they think
proper, and hence I republish in this pamphlet all I have said about Jere. No one doubts Jere’s right to hire
himself to commit murder, if he is disposed, but the law would doubt the
policy, and probably punish him, even in Madison. I did, during a period of bad health, for about a year, deliver
lectures upon astronomical, physical and mechanical science, and frequently
addressed large audiences upon the subject the Pacific Rail Road. I had an astronomical apparatus, for the
purpose of illustrating the phenomena of a science which is the parent of all
other sciences, and whose laws and motions constitute the principles which
regulate and govern all mechanical operations in one respect or another. My education has been a scientific one, and
I have some little reputation as a practically scientific man, and I lectured
before schools and colleges and intelligent communities, and accompanied my
lectures with practical illustrations.
Now I ask, which is the most reputable occupation, imparting useful
instruction for the youth of the country, as I did with my “show”, as
Jere calls it, or lounging about Rail Road hotels, scraping acquaintance with
strangers, who out of respect to the office he once held as U.S. Senator,
invite him to breakfast and sup with them, by which he secures his food; or
about grog shops, singing bacchanalian songs and reciting passages from
Shakespeare and other scraps of poetry and making a buffoon of himself, as I am
informed, before an admiring auditory, who frequent, such places, by which he
gets his liquor. Dignified
exhibition that!! for the former associate and political compeer, (but by no
means intellectual,) of Clay, Cass, Calhoun and Webster. In the “show” business, Jere: takes the
lead, for he frequently “shows” himself devoid of all sense of self
respect, and prostitutes the talents God gave him, to be a useful man, at the
shrine of Bacchus, for the amusement of “pot house” companions.
From the Athens Herald, May
9, 1856
From a perusal of the foregoing testimony, and a comparison of that on the part of the State, with that of the defence, the moral man, the law-abiding man—the man who entertains a just appreciation of the moral condition and welfare of society—will be led to inquire what influences operated to produce the discharge of the parties. The answer is money—not that it is intended thereby to charge bribery and corruption upon the court—far from it.
The God of Moloch, at the present period of society, bears a prominent part in controlling the actions and conduct of men, and the strong influence of wealth holds a powerful sway over their councils. Who will say this is not right for all legitimate purposes? The possession of wealth implies the possession of power and the holding and exercise of power is necessary for the progress and advancement of society. It is the abuse of power that furnishes grounds of complaint and the prostitution of means, in the hands of wicked men, to unjust and unholy purposes, that is reprehensible—the apprehension that this power and these means will be employed to undermine and destroy individual interests, that is dreaded. Hence; most men now-a-days, whether in official station or private, secular life, graduate their moral independence, and shape the rule of their conduct, by the probable amount of injury that may be done to their individual interests. And it is these very considerations that exercise their peculiar influences in determining the courses and conduct of men. The spirit of the age is singular in this respect. The acquisition and love of money, for its own sake, amounts, now-a-days, almost to a crime, and the rule of wealth over intelligence, virtue and morality, deserves our obloquy. Look abroad, and see how every talent is bartered away, how every energy is expended, every privation endured, and every happiness sacrificed in the accumulation of gold, or for the patronage of wealth. Honesty is sold for a price, virtue is an article of commerce, justice bows and cringes for a consideration, morality is exchanged for an equivalent, and religion, even, has become a matter of pecuniary speculation among men. When, in any other period of time, has man been so obsequious to gilded matter, or intellect truckled, with such supercilious surveillance, to dollars and cents; or energy so ready to sell itself; or honesty so willing to be knocked off to the highest bidder? When has professional acquirement been so prone to hire itself to the wealthy wicked, morality to wink at the sins of the rich, or conscience to quiet itself with the emoluments of favor?
We may admire the progress of improvement. We may praise the magnitude and splendor of useful enterprise—trumpet the number of utilitarian inventions and discoveries—love the self-sacrificing heroism of a few devotees to religion, morality, the improvements in science and the arts; still it stands out before us, as a bold, undeniable fact, that most men in the present generation are governed by a base, selfish sordidness that leads to the commission of acts too heartless and too soulless to admit of patient contemplation. Nevertheless, it is a part of the constitution of the human mind naturally to love the noble and the good, and all men, whatever contradiction their conduct may give to the principle, instinctive recognize and acknowledge what is just, pure and right. The most besotted man on earth knows and acknowledges the force and power of temperance; the man whose hands are stained with blood trembles in awe of the peace-maker, before the throne of justice; the proud are envious of the modest and humble; and none are so glad to do homage at the altar of snow-clad virtue as the unscrupulous libertine and debauchee. Even the robber of the estates of widows and orphans, the swindler of illiterate, unsuspecting men; the counterfeiter, who traffics off a base coin or a spurious note, for a valuable consideration,--all shrink in the presence of the just, and cower before the rebukes of honest men. Do not the most hardened appreciate the value of the purer influences of virtue and morality, and professedly acknowledge the authority of goodness?
The villain apes the virtuous, and the violent puts on the semblance of peace. He who robs right and justice, according to law, hurries to acquire fame for honesty and benevolence by joining the church, contributing to Missionary Societies, and then makes proclamation of his charities at the corners of streets. He who would evade the penalties of violated law, cultivates a sanctimonious face, visits the evening chapel and pours forth his veneration for virtue and morality in hypocritical prayers.
He who has imbued his hands in blood for spoils wears a glossy coat of meekness, robes himself in the habiliments of mock piety, boldly and ostentatiously seats himself at the common table, where he eats the bread and quaffs the cup with as much deliberation as he shed the blood and seized the purse from the mangled corpse of his confiding victim. And he, who has outraged virtue and innocence, sent the unhappy victim of his lust and licentiousness, “upon the pave,” to seek the means of a precarious subsistence by professional prostitution, is the first to give dissertations and read homilies upon the beauties of chastity. These reflections are painful to contemplate, and the soul sickens as it looks upon the picture of human depravity.
If the human mind thus instinctively acknowledges the power and obligations of morality, why is there so much iniquity among men? Here is the answer: money and morality, gold and goodness, pearls and piety, are placed in the scales of human conduct, against each other, and most unfortunately for the rectitude of the human heart, the former weighs down the latter.
From the Athens
Herald, Sept. 5, 1856.
Our Trip to
Huntsville.
On Tuesday morning, the 26th ult., we took our seat in the hack for the Depot, on our way to Huntsville, to defend a suit instituted against us for causing one John Gordon to be arrested about a year ago, brought before a legal tribunal in Cannon County, Tennessee, who committed him to ail[JWC1] for the crime of murder, with which he was charged in Madison County, in connection with Abner Tate. The history of the case is so well known to most of our readers that we shall pass it by.
While seated in the cars, we could not help but contrast the condition of the country, under the present facilities which the improvements of Rail Road transportation confer, with what it was two, or even one year ago: and the mind naturally looked forward to the transpiring of that great event, which, when consummated, will be co-equal and co-extensive in its benefits and blessings upon mankind with the discovery of this continent, the art of printing, or the German reformation. We even saw, in the mind’s eye, some twenty years hence, might trains of cars, freighted down with the spices, the dainties, the rich products of the Indies and of China, wheeling right along over the same grades, and possibly over the same rails, in its transit from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and contemplated the vast revolution that would be produced in the commerce of the world by the opening of this channel of communication. Our reverie was cut short, however, by the arrival of the cars at Huntsville. Huntsville has been often described as the gem of North Alabama, the queen of the Tennessee valley, where the mountain melts away into green carpeted valley, and water gushes from the rock in a mighty fountain, around which are streets decorated with roses and shrubbery, and houses filled with intelligence gracefulness, beauty and hospitality. Seminaries of learning, too, whose influence imparts a luster to the human mind, and science sheds her lucid ray upon the rising generation, in all the exuberance of manly vigor and exalted worth. Her rail road, her high-toned, honorable merchants, her talented lawyers, skillful physicians and pious divines. But, with all these, Huntsville is lacking The[JWC2] brawny of the mechanic, the intelligence and energy of the practically scientific man, to direct and set in motion the labor of the country to industrial mechanical pursuits, with machine shops, foundries, cabinet warehouses, and in fine, a community of intelligent, practical fabricators, who, with the aid of capital and skill combined, work up the raw material and productions of the country into the various articles of consumption, and send them wheeling off upon her Railroad, East and West, North and South, in pursuit of a market, is not there. Until this state of things shall exist, Huntsville will never advance beyond her present magnitude, in extent of area, or number of population.
We met and were met by several of our friends and acquaintances, who, from the hearty shake of the hand, indicated the cordiality of their feelings owards [JWC3]us, but who took occasion, some of them, to whisper in our ear, “to be on our guard.” We called upon our friend, the editor of the “Advocate,” who gave us a cordial welcome, and seemed “right glad” to see us. Our call was for the purpose of paying our respects to the able and worthy editor, as well as to gratify our own curiosity by personal observation, to see how two lean, lank-sided skeleton whigs, like Figures and ourselves, have been, would look, standing side by side in the Temple Democracy. Were it possible to been the constituent elements of our atures[JWC4], habits, talents, and qualifications, and re-incorporate us, as we respectively are, without modification, into one personage, Democracy, in North Alabama, would be furnished with a “wheel horse,” and morality and virtue with an unflinching, fearless advocate. As it is, we constitute no mean pillars in the Democratic Church. We shall neither totter, bend, break, nor crumble into dust in our support of the constitution, or in the defence individual rights. And here ends the first chapter upon our trip to Huntsville.
SECOND CHAPTER OF
OUR TRIP.
We went to Huntsville, expecting to be assault, and went prepared to repel it. We went “solitary and alone,” as Col. Benton “put the ball in motion,” in 1840—and after we reached there, we stood aloof from our friends, determined, if assaulted, to involve no one—and we were assaulted, but it was such a weak, effeminate, cowardly, dastardly affair, that we blush for the pusillanimous conduct of our assailant, as we detail the facts, for it was far below a genteel, respectable, woman adventure. During Wednesday morning, we went to those places in town where our business called us. About dinner time we saw Abner Tate at our hotel: prudence suggested that we should enquire of our landlord if he was in the habit of of stopping there; we were informed he was; upon which we only remarked that we had been threatened with an attack, and if we were, we were prepared and should act on the defensive. After dinner our landlord came to our room and told us Abner Tate requested him to say that he was afraid we would think by his coming there, it was with a view of an assault; that he did not wish us to feel any uneasiness; that he should not molest us, nor should his friends, if he could help it; that he did not know we were stopping at the house, &c. We simply replied, as we had before, if assaulted, we should act on the defensive. As court adjourned, about five o’clock, we went again to the office of Mr. Humphrey, As we passed the corner of the square, opposite the Court House, we saw Tate, about midway of the street, opposite the gate, and his brother-in-law, Cabaniss, near McCalley’s corner, coming towards us, each armed with a cudgel. We now expected “Turk would meet Turk,” and our only wonder was, which would give the pavement. But our wonder was relieved by seeing Cabaniss leave the pavement and go in the direction of Tate, who reached him about the time we passed them, both standing about the middle of the street, opposite the gate. We went on about our business, and so did they, we suppose. Thursday morning, before breakfast, we were at the Southern Hotel, we saw an unusually large crowd at the corner—We then saw, as we thought, “cat in the meal tub,” but as we never have turned to the right or to the left, to avoid the suspicion of danger, we did not on this occasion, and kept our course. There was quite a narrow avenue, (only some three feet.) through the crowd—as we entered it, some four or five feet, the first thing we saw was Sept. D. Cabaniss, who had till then been obscured from our sight, not three feet off, in the act of striking; we received his blow on the right arm, and at the same time disarmed him: When seeing us in the act of drawing a pistol, he caught and pulled us down, and while down struck us one blow with his fist, and as soon as he saw the repeater he took himself out of our way. As we rose, he was some ten feet off, when Gen. Hickman, who is always on hand, seized our pistol and held it till Cabaniss got out of our sight. The whole affray did not last five seconds. Not a word was spoken by either party to each other. And thus ended the baby attack of Sept. D. Cabaniss. We were entirely uninjured, and in twenty minutes passed along by the same corner, and went to the office of Mr. H. From thence we went to the Court House; as we neared the steps, Abner Tate was standing on the portico with a cudgel; we put our eye upon him, and as we ascended the steps he retired into the door of the lower passage, while we turned to the court room. We were twice in the Court room, afterwards, when our case was continued by consent of parties—they probably being as glad to get rid of us as we were of them.
We must confess we have been disappointed—not that we are a fighting man—but we did expect that, if attacked, the assault, at least, would have been proportionate to the magnitude and atrocity of the crimes and fraud we have proved upon these parties. If Cabaniss had intended to attack us, why did he not do it on Wednesday evening, when he saw us coming right towards him, and when Tate was within fifty yards of us, where both parties would have had plenty of room to display their prowess? Why did he leave the pavement and let us pass unmolested on that occasion, and wait till next morning, to station himself where he knew we would pass, surrounded and concealed from our sight by a crowd of fifty men, many of whom were his friends? It would have looked a little more like the act of a brave man if he had stationed himself at some point on the way alone and waited our arrival, and then pitched into us. We shall not answer these questions: they are too plain to require it. We can only liken the effect of his assault upon us to that thing which is
“Fatherless
and motherless,
Born
without skin;
Come
into the world—
Speaks
one word, but never speaks again.”
From the Athens Herald,
September 19, 1856.
In every thing we have said or written, of a personal nature, we have never used a scurrilous or opprobrious epithet; we have applied no terms, to any one, but what were legitimate, and justified by the character of the proof. But the time has arrived when we must depart from the rule we have laid down. There are points in the conduct of men beyond which forbearance ceases to be a virtue; when their own villainy and scoundrelism can be represented only in terms synonymous with the baseness of their infamous designs and purposes; and to make them understood their acts must be called by their right names. On Monday evening, the 8th inst., an attorney came to Athens, from Woodbury, Tennessee, bringing a commission addressed to our Mr. J------, as commissioner to take our deposition to be used on the trial of the case in the Circuit Court of Cannon County, wherein John Gordon is plaintiff, against R. H. Mason, J. Webb, A.N. Fisher and G.W. Thompson, Esqrs., (the Magistrates and Attorney) who committed him to jail, upon a charge of murder, last August twelve months ago, as defendants; which commission was to be executed on Saturday last. On Saturday morning the commissioner was informed by a gentleman in town that he had been requested by plaintiff’s counsel, and had been furnished with interrogatories to be used in the cross-examination. Of course it was their right, and the cross-examination was cheerfully and respectfully entered upon. The gentleman, who of course was acting only out of courtesy prevailing among the profession, asked the 1st and 2nd interrogatories, and while we were answering and reducing them to writing, proposed, as he had business elsewhere, to leave them to be propounded by the commissioner, and retired.—Discovering they made a large document, (covering over some half a dozen sheets of fools-cap paper,) we asked to peruse them, when perhaps a more irrelevant , insulting mass of matter, containing the most low, base and unfounded insinuations against our own and the character of a third party, no ways connected with the matter at issue, were never embodied in the English language. We perused them through and took up our pen and closed our deposition in the following language: “And this deponent further states at this point of his examination, that he has been permitted to peruse the interrogatories presented by the plaintiff’s counsel, from which he discovers not one single question is relevant to the points at issue in the case, but are insulting in their purport, unfounded in their insinuations, and intended as a personal indignity, worthy only of the infamous scoundrel, whose head could conceive and whose hand would pen them. This deponent, therefore, in view of his rights as a man, and an attorney, will not answer such infamous questions; an further this deponent saith not.”
And with this ending our deposition has been forwarded to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cannon county.
The English language is too barren and sterile to furnish forms that will convey a just idea of the baseness and degeneracy of character of the low, cowardly poltron of a jack-leg lawyer, who would thrust an innocent, unsuspecting gentleman between himself and the inevitable chastisement, which would certainly attend his own effort to have propounded these interrogatories. We exonerate the gentleman of Athens from any blame, because he never intended any harm. Nor will we involve him in the matter so far as to require him to tell us who the infamous scoundrel is that penned them; but we say to the author, whoever he may be, we dare him to own the authorship, supported by evidence of the fact. If he will, we pledge ourself to strip his hide from his polluted and cowardly carcass, even below the epidermis, and waft the infamy of his character to the four winds of heaven. A scoundrel who would do an act so infamous and base—so low and cowardly—will steal, rob and murder. But, whoever he may be, the ends and aims he had in view are defeated; as with his knavery and scoundrelism he has united the most consummate folly. Instead of getting before the C`ourt his own his own black hearted, villainous and unfounded insinuations, he will get only his effort at villainy denounced in terms that will meet the approval of all honest men, and show the desperation of the cause of his client in his intention to cumber the case with irrelevant matter, foreign to the facts in issue between the parties, as they did last winter, at Huntsville.
The morality, as well as the sentiment of the community, has been greatly mistaken, by these murderers and villains, when their attorney shall presume, in the very face of all law, precedent, and in violation of individual right, to turn the bloody, and atrocious crime of his client into scenes of ridiculous, harlequin amusement, by proposing a mass of irrelevant, illegal and libelous matter, embodied in a long series of false insinuations against a party in no wise connected with the case; as unfounded as their own black hearts are wicked, vile and corrupt; and endeavor to make the courts of justice the forum for perpetrating the most foul and libelous slander, with a view to cumber the case with improbability as to the reality of these crimes—lead the jury into a perfect mist of doubt and delusion, and thereby increase the chances of a verdict in his favor. But, thank God, from what we understand of public sentiment in Cannon county, and from the number of eminent attorneys, who are engaged on the side of the defence, the plaintiff has at last got into hands, where there is moral courage enough to stand up against the influence of wealth and villainy.—We say, again, to the cowardly, miscreant scoundrel, who is the author of these questions, come out and avow them; and if he is in anywise aggrieved of what we have here written, he shall find us here in Athens, unsurrounded by a party to protect us, ready to receive him.
D.H.B.
From the Athens Herald, August 8th, 1856.
Hon. Jere. Clemens.
Contrary to the expectation of the Democracy of Limestone County, as well, we presume, as of many of the friends of his own party, the Hon. Jere. Made his appearance at Athens, on Saturday last, and made the speech which had been announced—and what is still more remarkable, he came perfectly sober. We were not at home ourself, and there are compelled to speak of his effort from the intuition and the representation of those who heard him. And so it would have been, had we been at home—for we will never see the altars of liberty desecrated by unholy political ministrations—no more than we would the altars of God and religion by fanatics and blasphemers. We, however, divest ourself, (notwithstanding we have abundant cause not to do so,) of all prejudice, so far, as to give that impartial representation, that the captandum arguments he adduced on the occasion, would seem to justify. Stripped of its verbiage and false coloring, the speech, we are told, was a lame thing, addressed to those, who, not being posted in the events of the day; in the politics and historical antecedents of the prominent men before the country; and withal, dressed up in the fanciful delusions—sophistry and hypocritical cant, so peculiar to the organization of the mind, and perversity of disposition of the speaker, it was calculated to convey a false impression, and as an ex parte effort, would, to many, present the semblance of truth. Jere,’s mind was moulded in a great crucible, but it is unfortunate; that the ingredients were so disproportionately compounded, and so unequally balanced; that the animal propensities should predominate so largely over the moral and intellectual faculties—that, so to speak phrenologically, the organ’s secretiveness, marvellousness and hope, with a superabundance of ideality and language, should enter so largely into his mental composition and organization, while consciousness and reverence should be so extremely small and deficient. He led off with that hackneyed aphorism in the political creed of his party, that “Americans should rule America,” which has given such a glowing charm to the cause, and which has constituted the main ligament, aided by the oath-bound ties, by which the incongruous factions have been held, sustained and bound together; and, with that ranting eloquence which addresses itself to the passions of men instead of their reason and senses, he endeavored to array the prejudices, and inspire an enthusiasm, adverse to the genius of our political, civil or religious liberties, by engendering animosities against those, whose accident of birth constitutes the only disqualification to American citizenship. Disposing of this point, like the eagle from his eyry[JWC5], he condescended to pitch down upon that “vacillating thing” which occupies the Presidential chair at Washington in the personage of Franklin Pierce, and whose qualifications as a statesman are to those of the Hon. Ex-Senator from Alabama, in his own estimation, what the corporeal dimensions of Tom Thumb would be to the physical stature of Goliah[JWC6], and fastens his gory talons into his diminutive carcass—tears from his bones the flesh which hides his political sins, and sends him in a fleshless skeleton, wheeling like a phizzing, scorching meteor to his desolate and disconsolate home on the 4th of March next—-there, among his granite hills, to rusticate, heal his lacerated wounds and undergo the process of political incarnation as best he could. And for what?—Because, while, in the spring of 1853, the Hon. Jere., who, it was announced throughout the country, was detained in the Federal city, to attend to some important law business before the Supreme Court of the United States, but, whose daily practice was more particularly confined to the bars in the basement story of the capitol, and the various bowling saloons in the city of Washington, meanwhile took his Excellency, the President, under his especial care and supervision, and his interviews, mostly offered his valuable services to fill any post, from that of Minister Plenipotentiary, down to the berth of recording clerk, predicating his claims on Mexican services, acquaintance and fraternity, but who, it was understood, was unceremoniously “cut” in his acquaintance and attentions by the said “liliputian executive”—by consequence of which, his valuable services have been lost to the country—and since, “no rosebud” has put forth its leaves to bedeck the memory, or form a wreath of garlands to crown the brow of that “vacillating thing,” in the presidential chair, “whose lips on the 4th of March, 1853,” amid “the snow and sleet that came down from the dun colored clouds above”—where whistling winds mournfully and wistfully sung the requiem of Democracy to the craped[JWC7] columns of the capitol, and its death knell was foretold by the incongruous materials of heterogeneous materials of all hues, shades and complexions, brought around the executive chair—kissed the Holy Evangelists, and seized the baton of office, which the hand of Washington had made hallowed, and Jackson had rendered immortal.” Gloomy day, that—and its memory is enshrined in direful woe, because of the loss and unappreciation of the valuable services of the ex-Senator from Alabama, the cause of the Democracy of the nation by executive ingratitude. Disposing of President Pierce, ex-Senator now slips and slides with the dexterity of a cavalier, upon detached and isolated fragments of his own mutilation, to the platform of the Cincinnati Convention, and in tones of bitterest anguish and deepest sorrow, deplores the agitation of the slavery question and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise—and in plaintive tones, quotes from the poet, the language used by his principal fugleman at Albany, when he asked—
“Is there not some secret curse—
Some hidden thunder, red with immortal wrath—
To blast the wretch, who owns his greatness
To his country’s ruin?”
“In the language of the lamented, immortal Clay, I had rather be right, than be president.”
Oh! L-o-r-d-y! never once remembering to tell his hearers, that he, in 1850, contributed, in his Senatorial action, in part, to the present agitation and distraction of the country, by the practical abrogation of the Missouri Compromise in the enactment of the fugitive slave law.—Harmless as the dove, innocent as the lamb, and grave as the owl, Jere. Now comes before the people here, in Athens, under the scorching rays of an August sun, in tones of holy horror, and eyes transfixed on heaven, deplores the very act he himself helped to fasten upon the country, and charges, long and loud, all the iniquities of the slave agitation upon the Democratic party, as producing the distraction in the country he so piously deprecates. But, how stand the facts of the case. The Democracy of the North have no quarrel with the Democracy of the South. The Democracy of Massachusetts and the Democracy of South Carolina both said aye, to the resolution of the Cincinnati platform, a fragment of which only, Jere. arrays before his audience with so much hypocritical cant in his speech on Saturday. Now the only agitation and distraction in the country, has been produced by the secret, revolutionary party to which he belongs openly, and with which he affiliates and fraternizes secretly. Never in the history of this country, has there been such violent, ferocious agitation as his party and its adjunct, the Black republicans, have produced: They have turned our elections into mobs—suppressed votes by lawless violence—burned ballot boxes—slaughtered our people by wholesale—burned and roasted men, and women in their own houses—(but Jere. is used to defending such crimes in his own county with the most indifferent sang-froid and careless nonchalance,) and this cursed feud has brought a deeper and more indelible disgrace upon popular suffrage than any thing that has ever occurred in American history. With all these acts of violence right before him, Jere. Clemens had the unblushing effrontery, on Saturday last, to stand up here in Athens, before an audience of intelligent voters, and tell them, that all the horrors of slavery agitation are due and ascribable to the acts of the Democratic party. What are the facts? The Democratic party North and South, promised to resist the re-agitation of the Slavery question, and thus far, they have faithfully kept their promise. But they did not promise that others over whom they had no control, should not agitate it—or that they would stand by in silence, and see the Constitutional rights of the South assailed upon the slavery question, without interposing a manly resistance. The Democratic party are acting only on the defensive. If our opponents, the coalition of Know-Nothings and Black Republicans, want the agitation stopped, they have it in their power to do it. They and their leaders are the aggressors; but the plain truth is, they are secretly against the extension of slavery—they want office and power; to obtain it they want Southern votes to aid them. They hate the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and by provoking the agitation of the slavery question they hope to gull the South under false pretenses. The party, however, to which Jere. belongs, is more shy and crafty than its coadjutor, the Black Republicans, and keep their real object concealed; but both have the same ends in view—and like the old woman in the contest between her husband and the bear, they “don’t care which whips,” so that one of them can overcome the Democratic party—they will divide the spoils between them.
In Indiana they are running the same ticket and are nominating the same men for Congress. In Pennsylvania they have agreed to meet for the purpose of forming a united ticket (see our fourth page) to oppose the Democratic party, and it is understood that this union of agitators will be consolidated into one united opposition to the Democratic party in all the free States. Now, what does this all mean, if it does not mean that these two parties have the same ends in view in the free States, and if they can find parasites, like Jere. Clemens, to pervert, conceal, turn, twist, and screw their real designs into a delusion, whereby they can gull the South into the act of casting a respectable vote for Mr. Fillmore, it will be a passport to the table where on the crumbs and fragments of the “five loaves and two fishes” are scattered, which they will be allowed to pick up and devour in consideration of the aid they have rendered in overriding the Constitution and down-trodden rights of the South. These men are reckless. They have made war upon the constitutional rights of the South, as protected and defended by the Democracy of the Union, and they are now not only drifting on to a whirlwind of agitation, but of revolution. They are not satisfied with one agitation of fearful magnitude, but they stir up another, not less wicked and atrocious. They have gotten up a fanaticism, not only against slavery, but a crusade against religion, and have bound themselves together in secret, and swear profane oaths. They pursue their purposes by bloodshed. They have disturbed and distracted themselves and others by their unconstitutional and fanatical “delusions,” propagated by means worthy of the ends to be accomplished, under the fanatical creed installed into their parasites, tools and instruments who are to carry these ends into effect. Even Jere. himself had to go North this spring to get the party cue and receive instructions before he could be prepared to enter upon the canvass.
The next point in his speech which we have time to notice is his attack upon the Pacific Rail Road, wherein he again indulges the perverseness and equivocal character of his nature for falsifying and misrepresenting the truth. If Jere. Clemens knows anything, he knows that it has always been conceded that the General Government has the constitutional right and authority to construct roads in the Territories of the United States. This has always been held as Democratic doctrine, from Jefferson, down through every administration, to the present time. But the Hon. Jere. cannot tell the truth, when any selfish object is to be accomplished.
Hear him: “And thus this wild scheme of building a Railroad to the Pacific, over mountains and impassable snows, at an expense of hundreds of millions of dollars, was recognized as a cardinal principle in the Democratic creed.” This statement is unblushingly made in the face of the fact that Congress has the right to make appropriations for the construction of roads in the Territories of the United States—the policy of making such appropriations having been adopted as far back 1802, by selling apart a portion of the proceeds of the sales of the public land, and, also, that the only feasible, practical route that can be adopted, as the line of railroad connection between the Atlantic and Pacific, has neither snows nor mountains to encounter—and its whole cost of construction will not exceed eighty-five millions—besides also, in the face of the fact that when that road is built, it will connect directly with the line of the Memphis and Charleston Rail Road, now running by the very doors of many to whom he held it up as a frightful measure of Democratic policy. But the Hon. Jere. is not nicely posted in the modus operandi of fixing up Railroad delusions—consequently he blundered and stumbled a little on the Railroad, and did not make a clean breast of it, as upon other delusions.
We have not time, now, to comment further upon Jere.’s effort on Saturday, than to say that unless the American party brings some more substantial aid, to support their cause, than Jere. furnished here in Athens, Mr. Fillmore stands no chance of making a respectable show in Limestone County, in the contest. The whole prospects of the party hang upon magnificent delusions, and they trust to these and their own wild imagination for success, and not to facts, reason and argument. They are waiting for a miracle, and they hope to produce it by going about, “like a corrupt and wicked generation, seeking a sign when no sign shall be given them.” If any man can dress up a delusion, so as to make it resemble a reality, it is Jere. Clemens; and we contemplate witnessing some rich scenes, one of these days, in the “spirit land,” when, from our seat in Paradise, we are permitted to approach the brink of that awful precipice, which overlooks that yawning gulf that constitutes the regions of the damned, where looking down, we shall see the Hon. Ex-Senator from Alabama, loose and surrounded by scores of the Imps of Darkness, armed with harpoons, lassoos[JWC8], and grappling arms, and shall witness his artful dodges, the dextrous sleights, the eel-like slips—steeple chases and nimble agility, in warding off and evading the combined efforts of the whole group to catch and secure him—till, at length, worried out with fatigue, exhausted and panting, the “Head Devil,” in tones of despair, commands a cessation of hostilities and grants a parley—when the Hon. Jere. in the most bland and fascinating manner, by his sophistry, fustian and fallacy, enforced, in tones of sublimest, grandeurizing elegance, convinces him that all that ever transpired on earth, either in politics, law or ethics, in which he had any hand, was one grand, magnificent, stupendous, delusion.
From the Athens Herald, March 27, 1857.
Executed.
Thomas Liles Nix hung at Bellefonte 11th inst., for the murder of James Rose, committed in Madison County, some two years ago.
The Huntsville papers say he feigned insanity twice, and the last time so well, that many persons, up to the day previous to his execution, believed him to be really insane. Well, who blames him, when the farce of falsely alleging “insanity, monomania, and delusion,” right in the face of as clear and palpable testimony as was ever given in their Court House, procured the enlargement from their custody of Abner Tate, John Gordon, and Negro George, only about a year before, who were arraigned on a charge of murder. If Nix had only had a “thousand dollars” to have given Jere. to write a book for him, Jere. would have shown his insanity, “as clear as mud,” if he had been compelled to ransack every grave yard in the county for adipocres[JWC9], “skeleton ghosts,” “grave worms,” and other elements of the tomb, with which to embellish his delusion; and Nix never would have consumed a fibre of the “staple production” of Kentucky.
Nix was convicted on circumstantial testimony. The main point to establish his guilt was selling in Florence a wagon and team which once belonged to Rose. A man was found dead in Madison county, but was not mutilated, we believe, he was never identified. The testimony against Tate, Gordon and George, was circumstantial, likewise, but much stronger: a man was seen dead on the premises of Tate: Gordon went to the house not ten minutes before witness went there, where she found him dead, with the negro in the same room, in the act of burning him up. Collateral to this, Gordon, at Tate’s direction, travels two hundred miles, obtains a letter, under false pretenses, charging them with murder, and they suppress it. Nix is no doubt hung justly—but it is outrageous to hang a poor devil and let a rich one escape—even let his nigger escape, when there was proof positive against him. Ah, consistency, thou art a jewel!!!
From the Huntsville Democrat.
We have rarely witnessed a trial that more deeply enlisted the attention of our citizens than one which occurred at the court last week and which lasted for nearly five days. We refer to the trial of Abner Tate and his old man servant George, who were charged with having murdered in November or December, 1842, a man whose name was supposed to be J.K. Rice; and that of Abner Tate, his man George and John Gordon, who were charged with the murder of a man in the spring of 1845, whose name was supposed to have been Charles B. Sawyers. Mr. Tate is an old and highly respectable citizen of the county, having resided here for about forty years and always borne the character of an industrious, peaceable man, and a good neighbor. Mr. Gordon is a citizen of Cannon county, Tennessee, where he has been residing for nine years—for about ten or eleven years prior to that time, he lived with Mr. Tate, in this county, and was engaged in driving a wagon. His character both here and in Tennessee was that of an honest, upright quiet, peaceable, industrious man. Having heard that a prosecution was commenced against Mr. Tate, and that he was involved in the charge, he voluntarily came down to the trial. After his arrival a warrant of arrest was issued for him and he was arrested when on his way to the Court House. He went in and asked to be tried with Tate., and all parties were tried at the same term upon both charges.
Green B. Strother, Morris K. Taylor, and our mayor Z.P. Davis, were the presiding Magistrates; D.C. Humphreys, Esq., and R.M. Vannoy, appeared on behalf of the prosecution. L.P. Walker, Esq., Nich. Davis, Jr., and Robinson & Jones, appeared for the defendants.
We have rarely seen a Justice’s court of equal ability. The cause was duly conducted by the counsel on both sides.
There was proof that a man named Rice, who was a coach-maker and resided in Tuscaloosa about the year 1840 or 1841, a member of the firm of Briggs & Rice, disappeared from Tuscaloosa in 1841—that he was supposed to be deranged when he left, and was traced eight miles South of Tuscaloosa, and was not afterwards heard of.
It was also proved that one Charles B. Sayers, of Coffee County, Tennessee, left his home in December, 1839, for South Alabama, with a load of apples, leaving behind a wife and child. That after disposing of his apples he started home and sold his wagon and team and bought a drove of horses and again returned to Perry and Marengo counties, and after selling his horses started home and reached Tuscaloosa on the 26th June, 1840, on his route home, and where he spoke to some of his friends of his great desire to get home. He did not, however, reach home—his wife went in search of him, but was unable to trace him beyond Tuscaloosa, where he was on the 27th June, 1840—and not hearing any further account of him, and believing him to be dead, she intermarried in January, 1844, with a Mr. Willis.
The prosecution was commenced upon the complaint of D.H. Bingham, who it seems now claims to be a resident citizen of Lauderdale county—but who, as the testimony declared, lived many years ago about Tuscaloosa, has been sometimes traveling with and exhibiting an astronomical panorama, and who, according to his own account, as proved, has at one time been engaged in building a bridge across the Arkansas river at Little Rock.
The warrant of arrest was issued upon the affidavit of a Mrs. Barbara Hazel, now of Tishomingo county, Miss., where she has resided since July, 1845—but who was recently brought to this county by the prosecutor. For many years prior to her removal to Tishomingo county, she resided in this county, in the immediate neighborhood of Abner Tate. About the year 1835 she was abandoned by her husband, John Hazel, who settled in Tishomingo county,. Miss. After being abandoned by her husband, she became a midwife and nurse for the sick, and was employed in that capacity by Abner Tate and his neighbors. After her removal to Mississippi, and about the latter part of the year 1845, she seems to have conjured up singular delusions about those who had been her most generous patrons in this county, and for whom she had previously manifested a strong attachment.
She imagined that some of them had accused her of stealing various things—that some had pursued how to cowhide her for stealing, and among other things that a young gentleman was claiming to have been her partner in her professional business of midwifery—and it was about the same time that she seems to have ascertained that her friends Tate and Gordon were murderers, and that George had been trying to murder her with an axe. More than ten years had elapsed since the old woman was in the county, and it was said that a number of persons who had seen her thought her to be sane, and the court house was thronged during her examination. She is about sixty-five years of age, and though uneducated, seems to have a vigorous intellect and a very strong will of her own. Her account of the supposed murders was very marvelous and calculated to stagger the credulity of the most credulous, even if told of a company of highwaymen—but it was narrated with a particularity and minuteness of detail that seemed to arrest attention and to impress persons unacquainted with the parties accused or with the true state of her mind, with the idea that it might be true.
The cross examination however of the witness, and the clear proof of the other delusions of the witness, soon satisfied the court and intelligent bystanders who listened to the examination, that she was a monomaniac and still laboring under the insane delusions which took possession of her mind ten years ago. It was not shown that Rice, who was alleged by the prosecutor to have been one of the murdered men, had ever been seen North of Tuscaloosa, nor was any account given of Sawyers between the 27th of June, 1840, when he was seen at Tuscaloosa on his way home, and the spring of 1845, about five years after, when he was alleged to have been murdered in this county, or that either of the men supposed to have been murdered, was ever known to either Tate or Gordon.
The case was submitted without argument, and the Court, after a few moments consultation, discharged the accused and announced that no one of them had even had the shadow of a doubt as to the entire innocence of the parties charged.
It was a matter of surprise to many that a man who was a stranger in our midst, should have undertaken the prosecution, and at so late a period.
The testimony disclosed that he had asserted to several persons in Tennessee that Rice was his nephew, to another that Rice was his cousin, and to another that he and rice had been particular friends and at one time members of the same corpse, and to others that he was prompted by a sense of moral duty to his country. But there was other testimony, being proof of his own declarations, tending strongly to show, that he was instigated by the mistress of a slave named Jacob, executed in this county last spring for an attempt to assassinate Tate, and that his reward was to be, in the event of success, the high distinction of being her seventh husband.
From the
Athens Herald, Feb. 22nd, 1856.
Advertisement.
Mr. Woodson: When the Magistrates discharged Abner Tate, John Gordon, and the slave, George, recently examined at Huntsville, on a charge of murder, I determined never to concern myself any more with the matter, unless in my own vindication; but your editorial of the 10th of January last makes it necessary for me to depart from such determination. That article bears down so heavily and unjustly upon me and Mrs. Hazel, (the main witness in the case)—presents so many false promises and unreasonable conclusions—so many garbled statements and false assertions, in reference to the facts disclosed by the testimony on the trial, that, in justice to her and myself, I ask the use of your columns to vindicate the part we bore in the transaction. For myself, I expected nothing else, when I determined to bring these parties to justice, but to incur their resentment, and bring down upon me all the vituperation and abuse they could invent. It is always the case that those whose crimes are about to be exposed to the world, resort to calumny and defamation of the character of their accusers. But I thank God, trusting to the integrity of my intentions, the rectitude of my motives, and the justice of my cause, my physical courage has not quailed under operation of brute force, nor my moral courage quivered under the influence of dollars and cents, the terrors of assassination, or the menaces of family influence.
I was first led by idle curiosity to see Mrs. Hazel, with no intention, motive or expectation, should I find the rumor I had heard, (as many others had heard it for several years past,) to be true, of ever prosecuting it. I had heard of the killing of the Tennessee man only—nothing was known to me of the Tuscaloosa man, till some two days before seeing her. A gentleman, with whom I was conversing on the subject, told me to ask her to tell me about the Tuscaloosa man, at the same time enquiring if I knew a man by the name of Rice, or Nice, a merchant, who lived there about 1835. I told him no, never once thinking of Rice, the carriage maker, owing, I presume, to the difference of type and occupation. At first, Mrs. Hazel, upon learning my business, was distrustful of me, but upon being assured I was not an emissary of Abner Tate, she told me of the murder of the man from Tennessee. When she was through I asked her to tell me of the murder of the Tuscaloosa man, without even suspecting I knew him or had ever heard of him. She commenced, and told me till she came to the conversation at the supper table, about working in his shop, when I exclaimed, Good God! Madam, it is Rice—I knew him; asked her to describe him, and recognized the man in her description; heard the balance of her story and asked her why these murders had been suffered to lie so long without being attended to? She said that she had caused letters to be written to Madison County, to Tuscaloosa, and she had once (in 1846, I think,) been to see Benjamin Rives, Esq., of Jacinto, who told her, if they had been attended to at the time, something might have been done with them—but she was a woman, was poor, and all she could do was to tell it—that Tate was wealthy, and, at that time, influential, and everybody was afraid of him, and therefore nobody was willing to undertake it. I asked her if she was unfriendly to Tate, or had any malice toward him. She said, not; but she had been afraid of her life for the past ten years; that she never told but one person of the murder of the Tuscaloosa man before she left the county, and then not all of it, in consequence of her fears for her personal safety; but after the murder of the man from Tennessee, she could get no rest to her feelings day nor night, till she disclosed it—that Tate and his friends, upon hearing it, had reported her crazy, and that she had been satisfied to let the report go uncontradicted[JWC10], believing it had contributed to her personal safety. Such was the mystery that hung over the fate of Rice, having been murdered there, I at once determined to hunt the matter up, and told her, if I found corroborating evidence enough to sustain her statement in regard to these murders, I would show to her and the world there was one man who was not afraid of Abner Tate. This is a concise history of the way I became connected with the investigation of these murders. The rest is known to the public. It has been the practice of late years—has become professionally fashionable—where murders have been committed by the wealthy and influential, and the proof pretty strong against them, to interpose the plea of insanity, and very many have escaped the penalty of the law under this plan. But this is, probably, the first case in the wide history of criminal jurisprudence, ever tried by a court of sensible men, who decided the charge against the accused to be an ideal murder, and discharged the parties on the ground of insanity, delusion, monomania, and hallucination of mind, (you ascribe all these defects to her,) of the witness—when that witness swore positively and unequivocally that she saw the man dead, on the fire in the old kitchen on the premises of Abner Tate; she saw the foot, the leg, the knee-joint, the arm, the elbow, the hand, the shoulder, the head split open,; that she could not be mistaken about it being a man; that she saw John Gordon go to the door of this kitchen, it was opened to him, where he stood some time and looked in, not ten minutes before she went there, where, she found the slave, George, in the same hour; when her whole story was consistent throughout; when she was corroborated by several other witnesses, all testifying to the acts and conduct of Tate and Gordon, subsequently connecting themselves with the murder, and when, also, she was not only not impeached or contradicted by a single particle of proof introduced by the defendants, but, on the contrary, three of the defendants’ witnesses testified that she bore a good character, and her word was indisputable. Let us examine the facts of the case, as they were disclosed from the stand, compare them with the grounds assumed, and see how far this court were justified in discharging the defendants and announcing to the world their “entire innocence.”
In justice to