Pinkerton’s Great Detective

by Beau Riffenburgh

  28. AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, pp. 289–91.

  29. Howard T. Crown, personal communication, June 16, 2011; Crown and Major, A Guide to the Molly Maguires; Jaeger, “The Molly Maguires of Northumberland County.”

  30. BF (for JM), reports to FBG, Feb. 13, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  31. AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, p. 294.

  32. BF (for JM), reports to FBG, May 10, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  33. JM, in CAC, pp. 731–33; RJL, in CAC, pp. 745–47.

  34. For Linden’s story of the incident at the West Shenandoah colliery, see BF (for RJL), reports to FBG, June 2–4, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  35. AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, pp. 332–33.

  36. Ibid., p. 333.

  37. The New-York Times, June 4, 1875. According to a later report in The New-York Times (Aug. 17, 1875), the riot almost cost the life of one of Mahanoy City’s most notorious inhabitants. During the riot, “Bully Bill” Thomas was attacked, but he was rescued by the police. “Two officers escorted him home, and as he was about to enter his house a man stepped up, thrust a pistol in his face, and pulled the trigger; but Bill’s lucky star was, as usual, in the ascendant, and the pistol failed to explode.”

  38. FBG, letter to John F. Welsh, June 9, 1875, published in The Daily Miners’ Journal, June 10, 1875.

  39. Evans, History of United Mine Workers of America, vol. I, p. 36.

  40. BF (for JM), report to FBG, May 9, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  41. The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 28, 1975.

  42. McParlan’s daily reports for much of May and June 1875 are missing, so an account of the meeting and subsequent incidents can only be taken from his trial testimony. For his account, see RCK, pp. 27–28, 58, 63–64, 82, and JM, testimony in first trial of John Kehoe et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Aug. 9, 10, 1876.

  43. JM, in RCK, p. 26.

  44. Roarity’s name was also spelled Roarty, depending on the account.

  45. RCK, p. 28.

  46. Ibid., p. 29.

  47. Ibid., p. 28.

  48. JM, in CAC, pp. 575, 605.

  49. JM, in RCK, pp. 59, 82.

  50. JM, in CAC, p. 570,

  51. For example, the period from Jan. 29 through Feb. 4. See BF, reports to FBG, Jan. 29, Feb. 4, 1875, HML, box 1001. For McParlan’s testimony about his health, see CAC, pp. 579–80.

  52. AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, p. 317.

  53. JM, in RCK, p. 63.

  54. RCK, p. 38.

  Chapter 6: Three Dead Men

  1. Wallace, St. Clair, pp. 425–26.

  2. It has been argued that Gowen wanted to destroy the Molly Maguires, and particularly John Kehoe, because they had political influence that could have blocked Gowen’s personal political aspirations, in addition to his economic ambitions for the Reading (see, for example, Bimba, The Molly Maguires, p. 110; McCarthy, The Great Molly Maguire Hoax, p. 149). However, when the historical evidence is examined, this argument fails on several counts. First, there is no indication that Gowen had any personal political ambitions at that time. Second, as Aurand and Gudelunas clearly demonstrate, on the political front neither Kehoe nor any other alleged Molly Maguire was a key Irish Catholic leader at even the county level, so they posed no political threat. Third, again according to Aurand and Gudelunas, the theory that the power of Kehoe and the AOH was shown by their contributions to the reelection of Republican John Hartranft as governor of Pennsylvania does not stand up to scrutiny when the tally of votes is examined; rather, the actual data just show the lack of political significance of the AOH (“The Mythical Qualities of Molly Maguire,” pp. 99–100).

  3. For an overview of Gowen’s vision of industrial and social order in Schuylkill County, see Schlegel, Ruler of the Reading.

  4. FBG, Argument of Franklin B. Gowen, Esq, before the Joint Committee of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, pp. 76, 77. For the list he produced for the legislators, see FBG, “List of Outrages in Schuylkill and Shamokin Regions.”

  5. FBG, Argument of Franklin B. Gowen, Esq, before the Joint Committee of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, pp. 76–77. As ridiculous as this claim by Gowen might seem today, it was not uncommon for powerful industrialists a century ago to consider themselves champions of the worker and yet fierce opponents of unionism. One of the better explanations for this dichotomy came from Henry Ford, who voluntarily doubled the pay of many of his workers and yet was adamantly against unions (see Ford and Crowther, My Life and Work, pp. 253–66). Ford believed that union leaders—like Siney—who wanted to restrict production in order to keep wages high actually harmed the worker, because productivity was a requirement for economic success and prosperity. He also thought that strikes not only interferred with the legally binding contractual process, but that they were frequently promoted by leaders whose primary goal was perpetuating economic crisis as a means of maintaining personal power. And he believed that unions interferred with the individual freedoms that gave dignity to working men (see Wik, Henry Ford and Grass-Roots America).

  6. FBG, Argument of Franklin B. Gowen, Esq, before the Joint Committee of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, pp. 79, 81.

  7. Ibid., p. 80.

  8. BF (for JM), report to FBG, July 6, 1875: HML, box 1001.

  9. JM, report to BF, Sept. 2, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  10.BF (for JM), report to FBG, July 4–5, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  11. AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, p. 362.

  12. BF (for JM), reports to FBG, July 7–9, 1875, HML, box 1001; RJL, expense account, July 7–9, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  13. The story of McParlan’s fiasco in Pottsville comes from AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, pp. 354–56.

  14. JM, testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 8, 1875; BF, letter to Michael Beard, Aug. 5, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  15. BF (for JM), report to FBG, July 15, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A15; JM, expense account, July 15, 17, 1875, HML, box 1001; AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, p. 379.

  16. BF (for JM), report to FBG, July 15, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A15; JM, in CAC, pp. 508–9.

  17. Ibid., July 17, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1. The following account is based on multiple sources, including JM’s and Jimmy Kerrigan’s testimonies in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 8–15, 1876; the testimony of the same two in CAC; the testimony of both in CvC, Appendix, pp. 51–140, 182–305; JM’s testimony in DvD, pp. 320–21; and BF (for JM), reports to FBG, July 15–Aug. 2, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A15.

  18. As quoted by Jimmy Kerrigan, in CvC, Appendix, pp. 54–55.

  19. Jimmy Kerrigan, in CAC, p. 457.

  20. Among the Assassins!, p. 20; Jimmy Kerrigan, testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 13, 1875; JM, testimony in the second trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 18, 1875.

  21. Kerrigan testified that it was actually Duffy who led McGehan and Boyle to the cemetery before returning to Carroll’s, while Kerrigan had gone home (Kerrigan, testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 13, 1875; Among the Assassins!, p. 20). However, according to JM’s report, when Kerrigan first revealed details of the murder to McParlan, he stated that “he got his two men and placed them in position” (BF [for JM], report to FBG, July 27, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A15). Moreover, McParlan testified at least three times that McGehan told him on August 14, 1875, that it was Kerrigan who led them to the cemetery (testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 8, 1875; CvC, Appendix, p. 274; DvC, pp. 320, 324–25). McParlan’s testimony appears to be more accurate,
as it would seem that Kerrigan was shifting certain of his actions to Duffy, as he already had shifted the blame for planning the murder from himself to Duffy.

  22. Among the Assassins!, p. 6; JM, testimony in the first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 8, 1875; JM, testimony in the second trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 18, 1875.

  23. Dewees, The Molly Maguires, pp. 161–62.

  24. In fact, William Zehner, the general superintendent for the Lehigh and Wilkes-Barre Coal Company, testified that he, not Jones, “issued orders that those two men should not receive employment at any of our collieries” (CAC, p. 688). Originally the plan was for McGehan and Mulhall to kill Yost, but “because Mulhall had a large family, it was determined that he should not go” (Albright and Hughes, The Great Mollie Maguire Trials, p. 39).

  25. JM, in CAC, pp. 547–48.

  26. BF (for JM), report to FBG, July 17–18, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A15; BF, letter to Michael Beard, Aug. 5, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1; BF, in CAC, pp. 691–92.

  27. BF (for JM), report to FBG, July 18, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A15; The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 18, 1876.

  28. BF (for JM), report to FBG, July 25, 1875: Kaercher MSS, file A15.

  29. CAC, p. 511.

  30. BF (for JM), report to FBG, July 27, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A15. Although Kerrigan said this to McParlan, the latter subsequently attributed the comment to McGehan in his trial testimony, stating McGehan had said it at the August 14 opening of his saloon (JM, testimony in second trial of James Carroll et al., quoted in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 18, 1876; JM, in CvC, Appendix, pp. 192; noted in Albright and Hughes, The Great Mollie Maguire Trials, p. 33).

  31. JM, quoted in CvC, Appendix, p. 294 and in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 19, 1876.

  32. For example, BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Aug. 22, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  33. Ibid., July 31, 1875; see also RJL, in CAC, p. 652.

  34. JM, in CAC, pp. 509–11.

  35. CvC; Albright and Hughes, The Great Mollie Maguire Trials, pp. 41.

  36. BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Aug. 5, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  37. BF, letter to Michael Beard, Aug. 5, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1; RJL, in CAC, p. 653; BF, in CAC, pp. 675–77.

  38. See testimony of Michael Beard, Daniel Shepp, Mrs. James, Charles Walton, T. C. Williams, and William Zehner, in CAC, CEK, CMD.

  39. BF, in CAC, p. 693; RJL, in CAC, pp. 660–61; JM, in CvC, Appendix, p. 247.

  40. JM, in CAC, pp. 517–18; RJL, in CAC, pp. 661–62.

  41. JM, in CAC, pp. 515–16. In fact, mine superintendent Zehner had already advised Jones against using this, his regular route, to go to the collieries at the upper end of the valley. Instead, he recommended that Jones “should come to Lansford every morning and go up on the locomotive; that would probably be the safest way” (CAC, p. 687). It was in the process of doing this that Jones was murdered.

  42. Quoted in Among the Assassins!, p. 6.

  43. CvC, Appendix, p. 191; DvC, pp. 318–19; Albright and Hughes, The Great Mollie Maguire Trials, pp. 43–44.

  44. The Weekly Miners’ Journal, Aug. 20, 1875.

  45. Evidence before coroner’s jury in the case of Thomas Gwyther (Girardville), Historical Society of Schuylkill County, Pottsville, Pennsylvania. According to Linden, after shooting Gwyther, Love went to the law office of Martin L’Velle, where he told the clerk “that he had shot a man and asked what he had better do. The clerk not supposing that he had [actually] killed any one said ‘you had better clear out’ which Love did” (BF [for RJL], report to FBG, Aug. 17, 1875, HML, box 1001). It was assumed by some that Kehoe intentionally arrested the wrong man to give one of his compatriots in the Molly Maguires a chance for escape (see, for example, AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, pp. 422–23).

  46. The preceding two paragraphs are based on accounts in The Weekly Miners’ Journal, Aug. 20, 1875.

  47. JM, testimony in first trial of James Carroll et al., as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 10, 1876; JM, reports to BF, Aug. 24–25, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  48. BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Aug. 19, 28, 1875, HML, box 1001; Michael Lawler, testimony in trial of James McAllister, as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Nov. 27, 1876.

  49. BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Aug. 23, 1875: HML, box 1001.

  50. JM, in CAC, pp. 513; JM, report to BF, Aug. 24, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  51. JM, report to BF, Aug. 25, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1; JM, testimony in trial of James Roarity et al., as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Aug. 19, 1876; Patrick Butler, in RCK, pp. 250–62.

  52. BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Aug. 23, 1875, HML, box 1001; Crown and Major, A Guide to the Molly Maguires, pp. 125.

  53. BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Aug. 27, 1875: HML, box 1001.

  54. JM, report to BF, Aug. 25, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1; BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Aug. 27, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  55. JM, report to BF, Aug. 26, 1875, Kaercher MSS, File B1; BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Aug. 28, 1875, HML, Box 1001.

  Chapter 7: Murder and Vigilante Vengeance

  1. JM, report to BF, Aug. 31, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  2. JM, testimony in trial of Thomas Munley, as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 4, 1876.

  3. JM, reports to BF, Aug. 29, 30, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  4. JM, in ECD, p. 143.

  5. JM, testimony in trial of Thomas Munley, as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 4, 1876.

  6. JM, report to BF, Aug. 31, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  7. Ibid.

  8. JM, in DDC, pp. 155, 175. Doubts have also been expressed about why McParlan was not able to escape from Hurley during the day. However, McParlan’s earlier reports show that the young killer seemed to be truly keen to keep the detective’s company. He showed up twice that previous week and remained with McParlan all day; “hence I found it impossible to make out any report” (JM, reports to BF, Aug. 26, 30, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1).

  9. JM, testimony in first trial of James Carroll et al., as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 11, 1876; JM, testimony in trial of Thomas Munley, as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 4, 1876; DDC, pp. 142–44, 150; quote from ECD, pp. 174–75.

  10. JM, in ECD, p. 169; see also JM, reports to BF, Sept. 1, 2, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  11. Statement of Mark Jeffry, in BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Sept. 2, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  12. JM, testimony in trial of Thomas Munley, as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 4, 1876; see also JM, reports to BF, Sept. 1, 2, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1; statement of D. R. Newell, in BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Sept. 2, 1875, HML, box 1001; report of postmortem examinations of the bodies of Thomas Sanger and William Uren, Sept. 1, 2, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A35.

  13. Report of postmortem examinations of the bodies of Thomas Sanger and William Uren, Sept. 1, 2, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file A35.

  14. AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives, pp. 436–37.

  15. BF (for RJL), report to FBG, Sept. 2, 1875, HML, box 1001.

  16. JM, report to BF, Sept. 1, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  17. RJL, in CAC, p. 655.

  18. JM, report to BF, Sept. 2, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1; JM, testimony in first trial of James Carroll et al., as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 10, 1876.

  19. JM, testimony in first trial of James Carroll et al., as reported in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 10, 1876; JM, in CAC, pp. 602–3.

  20. JM, in Among the Assassins!, p. 11; JM, in DvC, p. 323.

  21. JM, in CAC, pp. 587–88.

  22. The account of the events surrounding the murder of Jones is based on testimony in CAC, CEK, and CMD, and in JM, r
eports to BF, Aug. 25–Sept. 2, 1875, Kaercher MSS, file B1.

  23. Jimmy Kerrigan, in CAC, p. 351.

  24. The Mauch Chunk Democrat, Sept. 4, 1876.

  25. Jimmy Kerrigan, in CAC, p. 356.

  26. Evening Chronicle, Sept. 4, 1875.

  27. Kenny, Making Sense of the Molly Maguires, p. 200; see also Broehl, The Molly Maguires, pp. 235–36; Campbell, A Molly Maguire Story, pp. 20, 114, 119; Crown, A Molly Maguire on Trial, pp. 132–33.

  28. The Kaercher MSS include McParlan’s reports of August 24 to September 2, 1875. Despite these reports giving a more in-depth accounting of McParlan’s inner thoughts and reasoning than any other source, Kenny, Campbell, Crown, or, in fact, any other authors writing about the Molly Maguires, with the exception of Broehl, did not consult them.

  29. See testimony in CAC, CEK, and CMD. In A Molly Maguire Story Campbell questioned why the Coal and Iron Police took so long to begin guarding Jones after the details about the assassination plot had been discovered, why they were not guarding him the night before he was killed, and why he was allowed to go out on his own the morning of his death. His conclusion was that these actions were part of a wide-ranging conspiracy—one that included Gowen, Parrish, Asa Packer (head of the Lehigh Valley Railroad), the borough council committee on which Shepp and Beard served, Zehner, the Coal and Iron Police, Pinkerton’s, and McParlan. All of these essentially agreed, according to Campbell, to allow Jones’s murder in order to charge some of the alleged Molly Maguires, particularly Alec Campbell, with capital offenses. However, a simpler and more reasonable answer exists. The first indication that it was known Jones was the target came on August 5, the same date that Linden noted that any attempt had been postponed until after the county convention on the twenty-fifth. Therefore, there was no need for protection prior to when Williams assigned two officers to the duty several days before the convention. Thereafter, according to Franklin, Williams “had a man sleeping in Mr. Jones house, and guarded him all the time after Jones was notified” (CAC, p. 677). In reality, however, much of that time Jones was sleeping at Zehner’s house—he was also considered under threat (and his position was considerably more powerful)—where they were both guarded. Despite all of the warnings, including from his family and friends, Jones, according to his sister, “would not at all acknowledge . . . that he was in danger” (CAC, pp. 695–96) until a week before his murder, when his family moved in with her. On his last night he unexpectedly stayed in his own home for the first time in weeks—apparently without protection—and then went by himself to the Lansford depot. Thus it may be asked whether the police even knew where he was that last night. Further, like Sanger—who had also been warned about being a target—Jones refused to let the threat interfere with his routine, arguably making him at least in part responsible for that fatal lack of protection.