by Chris Enss
At first, Sanford and his immediate staff considered the possibility that the funds had been taken by a messenger. Each of a dozen messengers employed at the company were investigated, but all of them seemed to be trustworthy and didn’t appear to have done anything wrong. Although Nathan Maroney had an impeccable reputation and was well liked in the community, both Pinkerton and George Bangs believed he was the most likely suspect.
Nathan was from Texas originally, and had fought in the Mexican War alongside a company of Texas Rangers. Since moving to Montgomery in 1851, he had worked for a competing stage line known as Hampton and Company. He had also worked as a treasurer for a circus. The circus disbanded after going bankrupt. It was alleged but never proven that Nathan had embezzled money from the circus. A job as a conductor on a railroad had led to a position at Adams Express Company, the management of which decided to watch Nathan for a time to see if he might lead them to the money they suspected he’d stolen.28
In the fall of 1858, Nathan took a leave of absence from Adams Express Company and traveled to cities in the East and the Northwest. Unaware that he was being followed, detectives observed that he spent a great deal of money on “high living.” He purchased expensive clothes for himself and his wife, stayed in the finest hotels, and invested in racehorses. His actions prompted an arrest. Nathan was charged with stealing $40,000.29
The population of Montgomery was outraged. The ex–Adams Express Company employee was so revered that the townspeople criticized the company’s management for having him taken into custody. Pinkerton later wrote of the incident that the public claimed it was “another instance of the persecution of a poor man by a powerful corporation to cover the carelessness of those high in authority and thus turn the blame on some innocent person.” Prominent townspeople believed so firmly in Nathan’s innocence that they signed his bail bond.30
The case against Nathan was indeed weak. Without the assistance of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, not only would the suspect go free, but none of the stolen money would be recovered. Physical evidence linking Nathan to the crime was imperative.31
Pinkerton initially assigned six of his most capable operatives to get to the bottom of the case. Among those operatives were George Bangs, John White, Adam Roche, John Fox, and Kate Warne. White’s job was to establish himself in the community and learn all he could about Nathan Maroney. Roche was supposed to shadow Nathan’s wife. John Fox was to set up a watch shop near Nathan’s parents’ home in Pennsylvania, in case the accused visited and possibly tried to hide the money on the property. Kate Warne, who took on the identity of the wife of a wealthy forger, was to befriend Nathan’s wife. A background investigation on Mrs. Maroney revealed she was from a respectable family, and that prior to marrying Nathan, she was a widow with one child. As a young woman, she had run away from home and fallen in with fast crowds in New Orleans, Charleston, South Carolina, and Augusta, Georgia. She had met Nathan in Mobile, Alabama, and the two had been married shortly thereafter.32
Working in concert, the operatives assigned to the case uncovered Nathan’s fondness for gambling, primarily on horses. Pinkerton believed that the compulsive habit had left the suspect in dire straits financially, and that he’d stolen the money from Adams Express Company to cover his debts, or future gambling sprees. “It is impossible for the human mind to retain a secret,” Pinkerton wrote of the investigation years later. The plan was to supply Nathan and his wife with confidants in whom they would entrust their secrets.33
At Pinkerton’s suggestion, a decision was made by the attorneys for the Adams Express Company to have Nathan rearrested on a charge of conspiracy. A so-called forger was arrested along with Nathan; of course, he wasn’t really a forger at all, but operative John White. Pretending to be a courier, White was placed in a cell with Nathan. George Bangs posed as John White’s attorney.34
Nathan’s wife was not in town when he was placed into custody a second time, and subsequently moved to New York; she was in Pennsylvania, visiting family. While she was there, she made the acquaintance of a handsome young man named Mr. De Forest, who seemed quite taken with her. He was complimentary of her looks and manner of dress. Mrs. Maroney was flattered and accepted invitations to dine with the stranger. She was unaware that he, too, was a Pinkerton operative. Prior to Mrs. Maroney’s return to Montgomery, anonymous letters were sent to Nathan about his wife and the company she was keeping. He shared his dismay over the situation with John White. John listened sympathetically to his cellmate’s concerns about his marriage. When Mrs. Maroney came to visit her husband in jail, he asked her about the rumor. She admitted to keeping company with the flattering suitor, but assured her husband they were nothing more than friends.35
Consumed with worry and frustrated that he was in jail and unable to intercede, Nathan prevailed upon George Bangs to help him. He believed that Bangs was an attorney, and had overheard him bragging to John White that the mind of the courts could always be changed provided an offender had enough money to do so. George promised to represent Nathan, but told him the price for taking care of the situation would be high. Nathan sent for his wife and instructed her to retrieve the stolen money to pay for the lawyer.36
Mrs. Maroney left the jail perplexed. She wasn’t sure if she should surrender the money or keep it for herself. She needed to discuss the matter with someone. Mrs. Maroney recalled a woman she had spent time with in Pennsylvania during her stay. She had met her at the Merchants’ Hotel, and the two had become fast friends. The woman was kind, thoughtful, and generous. It was as if the women had known each other for several years and were free to talk about anything without fear of reproach. The woman Mrs. Maroney felt she could consult called herself Madam Imbert. She portrayed herself as a polished, well-spoken lady of high-class society. In actuality, she was Kate Warne.37
Many have mistakenly identified the person leaning against the tent stake in the center as Kate Warne. The men in the photo are: (seated) R. William Moore and Allan Pinkerton; (standing) George H. Bangs, John C. Babcock, and Augustus K. Uttlefield. Courtesy of the Library of Congress
Pinkerton recalled in his case files the chain of events leading to the two women’s not-so-chance encounter. “Madam Imbert, along with another woman named Miss Johnson, drove out to Jenkintown [Pennsylvania] and passed a couple of days at the tavern,” Pinkerton noted. “They found that the rooms at the adjoining hotel, though plain, were very neatly kept and that the table was abundantly supplied with good, substantial food. Madam Imbert expressed herself well satisfied with the town, the purity of the air, and its beautiful drives and walks; and as her system had become rather debilitated by a long residence in the South, she thought she would spend the summer there, recuperating from her failing health. She made an arrangement with the landlord to spend the summer at his house, drove into Philadelphia, and reported to me. She had her baggage sent out, and the following day returned with Miss Johnson and they took up their abode in the tavern. It was here they made the acquaintance of Mrs. Maroney.”38
Mr. De Forest was visiting with Mrs. Maroney when Madam Imbert saw the woman for the first time. Madam Imbert was pleased to see how well Mr. De Forest had charmed his way into Mrs. Maroney’s good graces, and realized that Mrs. Maroney was struggling to keep her feelings for the handsome operative in check. Madam Imbert stealthily followed Mr. De Forest, Mrs. Maroney, and her daughter, Flora, as they strolled around the grounds of the hotel. Flora ran ahead of the couple, and when she turned to run back to her mother, the little girl tripped on a path near where Madam Imbert was standing. Madam Imbert helped the child to her feet and brushed the dirt and gravel from her knees and hands. Mrs. Maroney hurried to Flora and scooped her up into her arms. She introduced herself to Madam Imbert and expressed her sincere thanks for being kind to her daughter.39
The following day Mrs. Maroney and Madam Imbert had lunch together, then took a brisk walk and talked. Madam Imbert confided in her ne
w friend that she had been traveling through the South in hopes that a change from her usual routine would bring her out of the melancholy mood from which she was suffering. Mrs. Maroney felt sorry for Madam Imbert and determined to find out the reason for her being so sad. Mrs. Maroney noticed that Madam Imbert received many letters, and that each time they were delivered to the hotel, the woman broke into tears. The two quickly became good friends, and Madam Imbert eventually shared the reason for her unhappiness: She missed her husband.40
“Mrs. Maroney,” Madam Imbert sobbed, “I fear you find me poor company, indeed.” Pinkerton reported in the tale of “the Expressman and the Detective” that Kate played the part of a lady in distress perfectly. “You have a kind husband, a sweet child, everything that makes life enjoyable. While I am separated from my dear husband, far away, with no one to love me! No one to care for me! I have bitter trouble, rendered all the harder to bear by the fact that I have to brood over it alone. I have not one friend in this wide world to whom I can fly for consolation. No! Not one! My life is unspeakably lonely. You will forgive me for not being more gay. I cannot help it! I strive to be, but it is impossible. I often fear that my melancholy has a chilling effect on those around me, and that you think me cold and heartless!”41
“Madam Imbert—my dear madam,” Mrs. Maroney is noted to have said, “don’t you say that you are thought to be cold and heartless! Everyone feels that you are suffering some great sorrow, and all are drawn toward you. As for me, I have always tried to secure the sympathy of my lady friends, but I have only half succeeded. You are the first one in whom I have ever felt that I could confide, the first whom I wished to be my friend. If you are in trouble and feel the need of a friend, why not rely on me? Make me your confidante.”
Kate would later tell Pinkerton that she was pleased Mrs. Maroney was moved by her act.
“My story is a sad one,” Madam Imbert sobbed. “I already value our friendship too highly to risk losing it. If you were to know my history, I fear you would turn from me in disgust.”42
Madam Imbert’s tears flowed freely, and she leaned on Mrs. Maroney for support. Mrs. Maroney turned into one of the side paths and they took a seat on a bench. After much persuasion, Kate knew it was time for Madam Imbert to disclose her secret. She told Mrs. Maroney that her husband was a forger convicted for his crimes and sentenced to ten years in prison. She wept aloud while explaining that she had been barred from seeing him by the courts. Mrs. Maroney was understanding and tried her best to comfort her distressed friend.43
Madam Imbert thanked Mrs. Maroney for her kindness, and Mrs. Maroney shared that she, too, had a husband who was persecuted and “in the throws [sic] of severe trouble.” Unaware of what had transpired, Mr. De Forest arrived on the tender scene to escort Mrs. Maroney on their daily constitutional. He asked the women if they were all right and inquired about what was the matter, but neither offered an explanation. Before the party separated, Madam Imbert assured Mrs. Maroney they would see one another soon. She was right; less than twenty-four hours after their last meeting, Mrs. Maroney visited Madam Imbert at her hotel room. Mrs. Maroney informed her that she was going south for a visit but would return shortly. She did not mention anything about going back to Montgomery, but Madam Imbert felt certain that was where she was headed.44
Pinkerton operatives in Montgomery spotted Mrs. Maroney when she came to town and followed her and her daughter to the Exchange Hotel, where they registered to stay. She called on friends of her husband’s, but none were as cordial to her as they had been before. The townspeople who once believed Nathan was a fine, upstanding citizen had changed their minds about him and his wife. Pinkerton agents never let Mrs. Maroney out of their sight. They hoped she would lead them to the stolen money. Instead, Mrs. Maroney made her way back to Pennsylvania and to Madam Imbert at the Merchants’ Hotel.45
According to Pinkerton’s detailed account of the case, Mrs. Maroney finally broke down and confessed to Madam Imbert that her husband was a prisoner being held in New York at the instigation of the Adams Express Company, who had charged him with having robbed them of some $50,000. Mrs. Maroney told Madam Imbert that the only friend she had was the abundance of money her husband had left her. Madam Imbert tried to coax the conversation along. She believed the longer Mrs. Maroney talked, the more likely she would be to reveal the location of the abundance of funds she had mentioned. Mrs. Maroney could not be persuaded to keep talking; she wanted to write a letter to her husband, explaining where she was and what had transpired.46
When Mrs. Maroney left to write her letter, Madam Imbert snuck out of the hotel to tell the other Pinkerton operatives in town to intercept Mrs. Maroney’s correspondence. The letter was quite telling. In it, Mrs. Maroney assured her husband that she had retrieved the money from the hiding place and stored it in a safe place, somewhere else.47
The two women continued to meet and talk. Mrs. Maroney grew to trust Madam Imbert more and more. Mrs. Maroney eventually asked Madam Imbert to travel to New York with her to meet her husband in prison. Madam Imbert was more than happy to oblige. Nathan Maroney was as impressed with Madam Imbert as his wife; after their visit with him, Nathan told Mrs. Maroney that Madam Imbert was a trustworthy individual, and that she should feel free to solicit help from her.48
Not long after their visit with Nathan, Mrs. Maroney confessed all to Madam Imbert (Kate), who later reported Mrs. Maroney’s words to Pinkerton: “My husband took the $40,000 from the Express Company, and also $10,000 previously. Now all is out!” Mrs. Maroney continued: “When he was thrown into prison in New York, he sent me for the money, which he had concealed in Montgomery, and I brought it here and have hidden it in a cellar. Nathan wants me to turn it over to a friend and his attorney. But if I do that I’ll never see it again. In fact, I’m sure I never shall.”49
“You’re mistaken,” Madam Imbert assured her. “Have confidence.”
“Confidence?” she is noted to have said. “It would be best to run away myself!”50
Madam Imbert managed to talk Mrs. Maroney out of the idea of running away, and implored her to surrender the funds to the people her husband had indicated. Finally, Mrs. Maroney escorted Madam Imbert to a home with a cellar where the money was buried.51
Madam Imbert helped her to dig the treasure out of the ground. It was eighteen inches under the level of the cellar floor, wrapped in a piece of oilskin. The money was then turned over to the Pinkerton operative acting as a courier for Nathan’s lawyer, George Bangs. The stolen money was transferred back to the Adams Express Company. With the exception of $485.00, which had already been spent by Nathan Maroney, all the funds were recovered.52
Nathan Maroney was returned to Montgomery to stand trial for the theft of the Adams Express Company funds. Just prior to the money being retrieved, Nathan confessed the robbery to his cellmate. The cellmate, who was also a Pinkerton operative, testified against the former express agent. In June 1860, Nathan was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in the Alabama penitentiary. No charges were filed against Mrs. Maroney, who decided to move to Chicago with her daughter.53
Madam Imbert returned to Chicago as well. She and Mrs. Maroney drifted apart, and eventually Madam Imbert faded away. Kate Warne had proven herself to be a valuable asset to the Pinkerton Detective Agency, and would continue her good work for years to come.
Notes
1. Stashower, The Hour of Peril, pp. 252–56; Horan, The Pinkertons: The Detective Dynasty that Made History, pp. 52–57; Moran, The Eye That Never Sleeps, 38–42; Fayetteville Semi-Weekly Observer, February 28, 1861.
2. “Introducing Charles Rawn, His Journals, and Their Editors,” The Rawn Journals 1830–1865 (dauphincountyhistory.org/backups/rawn/about/).
3. San Antonio Light, February 11, 1951.
4. Stashower, The Hour of Peril, pp. 252–56; Horan, The Pinkertons, pp. 52–57; Moran, The Eye That Never Sleeps, pp. 38–42; Fayetteville Semi-Weekly
Observer, February 28, 1861.
5. Fayetteville Semi-Weekly Observer, February 28, 1861.
6. Ibid.
7. Horan, The Pinkertons, pp. 25–27.
8. Journal News, December 14, 1975.
9. Horan, The Pinkertons, pp. 25–27; The Times, November 8, 1883.
10. Columbus Herald, November 23, 1883; Horan, The Pinkertons, pp. 26–27.
11. Horan, The Pinkertons, pp. 26–27; The Morning News, November 24, 1883.
12. Horan, The Pinkertons, pp. 52–61; Moran, The Eye That Never Sleeps, pp. 54–55.
13. Elyria Chronicle Telegram, January 3, 1982.
14. Philadelphia Press, March 21, 1868.
15. McArthur Enquirer, March 19, 1868.
16. Horan, The Pinkertons, pp. 31–36.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Janesville Daily Gazette, September 6, 1856.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Horan, The Pinkertons, pp. 29–33.
25. Pinkerton, The Expressman and the Detective, pp. 3–7; “The Express Companies,” Midcontinent.org (www.midcontinent.org/rollingstock/dictionary/express_companies.htm).
26. “The Express Companies.”
27. Pinkerton, The Expressman and the Detective, pp. 7–8.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid., pp. 8–11.
