Pinkerton’s Great Detective

by Beau Riffenburgh

  19. FBG, in RCK, p. 122.

  20. Samuel A. Garrett, in RCK, p. 134.

  21. Quote from State v Barrows, 74 Me 401, 409. This brief review is based upon the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 US 570, 215 Ga 117, 109 SE2d 44, which was delivered by Mr. Justice William Brennan.

  22. As would be seen in the later trials of the Molly Maguires, it was possible to waive the incompetency of a defendant to serve as a witness. If the prosecution and defense agreed that an incompetent witness could testify, and received the permission of the court for him to do so, the witness could give testimony. This was not a frequent occurrence, as both sides had to agree, and it was unlikely in a trial that both sides would consider the testimony to be a benefit to their cases. It appears, however, that this was the case in the subsequent trial for aiding and assisting to reward Hurley for the murder of Gomer James.

  23. Samuel A. Garrett, in RCK, p. 135.

  24. John Ryon, in RCK, pp. 216, 217.

  25. “It is impossible for two persons, listening to the same conversation and engaging in the same thing, after the absence of months, to remember exactly every word that was said,” Gowen declared, using as his “best illustration” the differences in the writings of “the four greatest witnesses of the greatest act ever committed in this world. I take the four Evangelists themselves, St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John.” See FBG, in RCK, pp. 177, 187.

  26. Ibid., p. 184.

  27. A more recent example of this same defense strategy is the murder trial of O. J. Simpson, in which the defense emphasized the character and alleged misconduct of police detective Mark Fuhrman as a means of focusing the jury’s need to punish on someone other than the defendant. See, for example, Cochran, Journey to Justice; Shapiro, The Search for Justice. For the argument having been followed by Molly Maguire apologists, see, for example, Bimba, The Molly Maguires; Campbell, A Molly Maguire Story; Coleman, The Molly Maguire Riots; Crown, A Molly Maguire on Trial.

  28. Kehoe, Canning, Donnelly, O’Brien, Gibbons, and Morris were each given seven years at labor with solitary confinement. Roarity was not sentenced due to already having been sentenced to hang. Donahue’s sentencing was delayed because he was facing a capital charge in Carbon County. McHugh was released after a short period in jail. See The Daily Miners’ Journal, Oct. 17, 1876.

  29. Kehoe and Canning received an additional seven years at labor with solitary confinement. Donnelly and O’Brien were each given five years. Once again, Donahue’s sentencing was delayed, and the judge did not bother to sentence Roarity. See The Daily Miners’ Journal, Oct. 17, 1876.

  30. Daily Herald, Aug. 21, 1876.

  31. Statement of Patt Butler on the AOH, Kaercher MSS; Schlegel, Ruler of the Reading, p. 138.

  32. Testimony of Patrick Butler, in RCK, pp. 256, 257–61.

  33. Daily Herald, Aug. 21, 1876.

  34. Donnelly, O’Brien, and O’Neil were each sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and Dolan to one. Butler, for whom the jury recommended mercy, saw his sentencing “continued until November” in order that he might be used as a witness in a subsequent trial. Yet again, Donahue’s sentencing was delayed, and the judge did not sentence Roarity, as he was already due to be hanged. See The Daily Miners’ Journal, Oct. 17, 1876.

  35. For Kerrigan’s complete testimony, see DvC.

  36. JM, in DvC, p. 293.

  37. DvC, p. 283.

  38. Daily Herald, Sept. 20, 1876.

  39. Duffy—“an old gray-haired man, old enough to have known better than to swear to a pack of lies”—was convicted of perjury for testifying that he had seen Kerrigan with Yost and McCarron around the time of Yost’s murder. He was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, as was Hyland, who had stated that she had seen Munley at home on the morning of September 1. This was the only one of the perjury trials in which McParlan testified, but Hyland was convicted mainly due to having told two other women several days later that she had not been at the Munley house in a fortnight. Kate and Barney Boyle were sentenced to two and a half and three years in prison, respectively, for providing false alibis for James Boyle. See The Daily Miners’ Journal, Oct. 17, 1876.

  40. The Daily Miners’ Journal, Sept. 22, 1876. On the same day, charges against James Bradley as an accessory before the fact in the murders of Sanger and Uren were dropped.

  41. JM, testimony in trial of Muff Lawler, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Sept. 22, 1876.

  42. Slattery and Michael Doolin were both found guilty, and Mulhearn had pleaded guilty before the trial. Slattery and Mulhearn had their sentencing continued until November, because they were scheduled to be witnesses in subsequent trials in Pottsville. Doolin’s sentence was postponed so that he could testify for the defense in an upcoming trial in Mauch Chunk. See The Daily Miners’ Journal, Oct. 17, 1876.

  43. Monaghan was sentenced to seven years at labor with solitary confinement. Donahue was sentenced to two years at labor. See The Daily Miners’ Journal, Sept. 27, 28, Oct. 17, 1876.

  44. Ibid., Sept. 28, 1876.

  45. The arrival and role of Charles and Edward has been the subject of heated debate. Patrick Campbell indicated that they had been in the anthracite fields with their brother throughout much of his time there, but this seems highly unlikely (see Campbell, A Molly Maguire Story, p. 88). Campbell’s argument was based on his conversations with Kittie Schick, Charles McParland’s youngest daughter, who told him: “[H]e [Charles] and Edward went down there at the same time uncle Jim went down. . . . [A]ll three were in the Pinkertons together. Edward and my father also had assumed names—they went under the maiden name of their mother—Loughrin—and their job was to keep close to Jim and warn him if he was in danger of being found out.”

  Campbell used this to support his notion that McParlan lied about his inability to warn Jones as well as his theory of a massive conspiracy against Alexander Campbell and other AOH leaders by a broad range of individuals; see pp. 111, 119. However, an octogenarian repeating unconfirmed tales told her when she was a youngster—particularly if they were from someone as much of a storyteller as James McParlan—is not necessarily the most accurate source of data. This is proven by the fact that certain things she told Campbell that have been checked have proven inaccurate (such as the name her father went by when he was in Pennsylvania and when her parents “met” for a second time).

  On the other hand, Charles and Edward both claimed for many years thereafter that they had come into the United States in 1876, and there is no reason to disbelieve them; this would mean they arrived no earlier than at the end of McParlan’s undercover operation, and most likely later. By the middle of August they both were on Pinkerton’s payroll, and each received fifteen dollars every other week (with one exception) until late March 1877. This amount indicates that they were not considered the level of operative that McParlan had been when he started his investigation. For Edward’s claims of when he entered the United States, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, Precinct 37, Victor, Teller County, Colorado, Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, microfilm roll T623_130, p. 11A; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Precinct 1, Manitou, El Paso County, Colorado, Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910, microfilm roll T624_118, p. 5A; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manitou, El Paso County, Colorado, Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, microfilm roll T625_163, p. 9B. For Charles’s claims, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, Thirty-third Ward, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, microfilm roll T625_352, p, 13B. For their payments, see statements of cash advanced Charles and Edward McParlan, December 1, 1876, and March 15, 1877, HML, box 1001.

  46. JM, in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. John Donahue, Oct. 23, 1876.

  47. JM, in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Alexander Campbell, for the Murder of Morgan Powell, part 3, p. 57. For his testimony in the joint trial of Fisher and McKenna, se
e JM, in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Thomas P. Fisher and Patrick McKenna, Dec. 13, 1876.

  48. Francis W. Hughes, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Oct. 25, 1876.

  49. The Daily Miners’ Journal, Nov. 14, 1876.

  50. Ibid., Nov. 15, 1876. Lawler was never sentenced, because he agreed to testify against Bucky Donnelly, and he was released shortly thereafter.

  51. Kehoe, John Kehoe, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant in Error.

  52. RJL, expense account, Aug. 22–28, 1876, HML, box 1001.

  53. Quote from Hughes, Commonwealth versus Patrick Hester, Patrick Tully, and Peter McHugh, p. 73. For a full account of the trial, see Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Patrick Hester, Peter McHugh, and Patrick Tully, for the Murder of Alexander Rea; McParlan’s testimony is found on pp. 704–11.

  54. The letter appeared in The New-York Times, Feb. 12, 1877; Daily Herald, Feb. 13, 1877; Catholic Standard, Feb. 17, 1877; The Catholic, Feb. 24, 1877.

  55. Quoted in Irish World, April 21, 1877.

  56. Quote: JM, in ECD, pp. 151–52; for the main body of McParlan’s testimony, see ECD, pp. 119–57.

  57. DDC.

  58. There were still five Molly Maguire trials to come, however: James McDonnell and Charles Sharp for the murder of George K. Smith in 1863; Martin Bergin for the murder of Patrick Burns in 1870; and Peter McManus and John O’Neil for the murder of Frederick Hesser in 1874. All were found guilty, and the first four were eventually hanged, with O’Neil’s death penalty being commuted to life in prison. See Appendix B for the dates and locations of the trials.

  Chapter 11: An Ending and a Beginning

  1. Quoted in The Mauch Chunk Democrat, June 21, 1877.

  2. Tully’s confession to George E. Elwell, reported in The New-York Times, March 26, 1878.

  3. On Oct. 1, 1877, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court in Kehoe’s case (Kehoe vs. The Commonwealth, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania). An appeal was then made to the Pardon Board, and in April 1878 Kehoe presented sworn statements from John Campbell and Neil Dougherty—the other men convicted of the murder—admitting their roles but denying he was involved (see Statements of John Campbell and Neil Dougherty, John Kehoe Clemency File). The Pardon Board failed to issue a decision at that time, but in September it met again and voted 2–2 for clemency, the tied vote meaning the conviction was upheld. A chance for a pardon still looked possible, as Governor Hartranft had stated: “All agree that he deserves the same punishment as that administered to his numerous guilty companions; however, he should not be hung for a crime that he was not clearly proven guilty of merely because he has been implicated in other dark deeds that, according to the law, would consign him to the gallows” (Daily Herald, July 10, 1878). However, with the election approaching, Hartranft procrastinated signing the death warrant, and it was not until November 21, having been defeated by Henry M. Hoyt, that he finally did so. Kehoe continued to protest his innocence until the end.

  In the 1970s, Kehoe’s granddaughter, Alice Wayne, and great-grandson, Joseph Wayne, led an effort to obtain him a posthumous pardon. After considerable pressure—and a good deal of support that showed a lack of understanding of legal history and practice, as well as of the labor history of the anthracite region—in 1979 the Board of Pardons recommended a posthumous pardon, which was signed by outgoing governor Milton Shapp. This has since been trumpeted as a “full pardon,” exonerating Kehoe of guilt. However, the Board of Pardons itself points out that it “does not decide innocence or guilt. The Judicial System has that function . . . The important point to remember is that the applicant has already been found guilty and sentenced through the judicial process. The Board of Pardons determines whether there are sufficient reasons to recommend mercy” (Pennsylvania Board of Pardons Web site). The pardon itself did not indicate that Kehoe was innocent or exonerated of guilt. Further, it referred only to his murder conviction and not to those convictions in the Thomas and Major cases, which stand as before.

  4. James McDonnell and Charles Sharp were executed in Mauch Chunk for their role in the murder of George K. Smith in 1863, Martin Bergin was hanged in Pottsville for murdering mine foreman Patrick Burns in 1870, and Peter McManus went to the gallows in Sunbury, Northumberland County, for his involvement in the murder of Frederick Hesser in 1874.

  5. See, for example, The Irish World, June 16, 1877; The Labor Standard, June 23, July 7, 1877; The New York Herald, June 19, 20, 1877.

  6. For example, Dewees, The Molly Maguires; AP, The Mollie Maguires and the Detectives; and a work of fiction, Edwards, Twice Defeated.

  7. For example, Bimba, The Molly Maguires; McCarthy, The Great Molly Maguire Hoax.

  8. For example, for Kerrigan, see his testimony in Record of the Habeas Corpus Hearing of James Carroll, Hugh McGehan, James Boyle, James Roarity, Thomas Duffy, Feb. 12, 1876, Kaercher MSS, file A2; in DvC, p. 299; and in RCK, pp. 239–51. For Butler, see his testimony in ECD, pp. 250–69. For Mulhearn, see his testimony in the trial of John Slattery et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, Sept. 23, 1876.

  9. Kenny, Making Sense of the Molly Maguires, pp. 285, 286.

  10. For example, Lens, The Labor Wars; McCarthy, The Great Molly Maguire Hoax; Young, Harp Song for a Radical.

  11. For more in-depth discussion of this point, see Kenny, Making Sense of the Molly Maguires, pp. 111–13, 117–20, 139–40, 145–47, 239–40.

  12. See, for example, Bimba, The Molly Maguires; Campbell, A Molly Maguire Story; McCarthy, The Great Molly Maguire Hoax.

  13. Schlegel, Ruler of the Reading; Yearley, Enterprise and Anthracite.

  14. For a full discussion of these points, see Aurand and Gudelunas, “The Mythical Qualities of Molly Maguire.”

  15. That the lack of Irish on the juries was not considered legally significant at the time is indicated by the appeals to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania not including any efforts to achieve a new trial based on such discrimination (see Campbell v. The Commonwealth; Carroll et al. v. The Commonwealth; Duffy v. The Commonwealth; Kehoe v. The Commonwealth; Hester et al. v. The Commonwealth; Donnelly v. The Commonwealth, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania). It was not until 1985 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Batson v. Kentucky (476 US 79) that racial discrimination (and by extension nationalist discrimination of the kind more recently charged occurred in the Molly Maguire trials) in the selection or disqualification of jurors, by means of peremptory challenges, deprives the accused of important rights.

  16. FBG, in AFG, pp. 15–16.

  17. Aurand, From the Molly Maguires to the United Mine Workers, p. 25.

  18. BF (for JM), report to FBG, April 30, 1874, HSP, folder 3.

  19. Crown and Major, A Guide to the Molly Maguires, pp. 215–18.

  20. Dennis Canning, testimony in ECD, pp. 344, 349–50.

  21. See Campbell, A Molly Maguire Story.

  22. Patrick Campbell, personal communication, June 10, 2011; quote from Sigal, Going Away, p. 169.

  23. Crown, A Molly Maguire on Trial, pp. 108–17. Perjury is currently defined under Pennsylvania Consolidated Statute 18 (Crimes and Offenses), Part II (Definition of Specific Offenses), Article E (Offenses Against the Public), Chapter 49 (Falsification and Intimidation), Section 4902: “A person is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.”

  24. RCK, p. 70.

  25. ECD, p. 154.

  26. Crown, A Molly Maguire on Trial, p. 116.

  27. JM, testimony in first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 10, 1876.

  28. Testimony in first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Da
ily Miners’ Journal, May 9, 1876.

  29. JM, testimony in trial of Thomas Munley, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 3, 1876.

  30. John Ryon, in second trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 20, 1876.

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

  32. First trial of James Carroll et al., quoted in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 11, 1876.

  33. JM, testimony in the trial of Thomas Munley, as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, July 4, 1876.

  34. JM, in ECD, pp. 174–75.

  35. For example, JM, testimony in first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 11, 1876; JM, in CAC, pp. 587–88, 600–2.

  36. JM, testimony in first trial of James Carroll et al., as recorded in The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 11, 1876; JM, in RCK, pp. 63–64.

  37. Marshall, Intelligence and Espionage, p. 120.

  38. Broehl conducted a study of the Pinkerton’s expense statements in the Reading Railroad files (see The Molly Maguires, pp. 351–52). He found that for the first half of 1875, the Reading was billed for McParlan’s salary and expenses and was also sent a composite bill for Linden and nine other agents. Although it has been speculated that this meant the Western Middle Field was crawling with Pinkerton’s agents, and that therefore McParlan should have been able to find someone to whom to give a warning about Sanger or Jones, the other operatives were not his brothers or other agents deep into the workings of the Molly Maguires. Rather, they were Linden’s men, who had been sworn into the Coal and Iron Police, and those such as P. M. Cummings, William McCowan, and “WRH,” whose duties had taken them into the ranks of the WBA.

  39. For example, Campbell, A Molly Maguire Story; Crown, A Molly Maguire on Trial; Lens, The Labor Wars; McCarthy, The Great Molly Maguire Hoax; Young, Harp Song for a Radical.