Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/celebratedtrialmOOpoll 
 
THE MOST CELEBRATED 
 
 breach of Promise Case 
 
 (N THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY. 
 
 vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 A YOUNG SCHOOL GIRL.—A MEMBER OF CONGRESS. 
 
MADELINE V. POLLARD. 
 
THE CELEBRATED TRIAL 
 
 MADELINE POLLARD 
 
 vs. 
 
 BRECKINRIDGE 
 
 THE MOST NOTED BREACH OF PROMISE SUIT IN 
 THE HISTORY OF COURT RECORDS. 
 
 OOKT AIDING 
 
 A GRAPHIC STORY OF THE SENSATIONAL INCIDENTS IN THE JOINT LIVES OF 
 THE NOW FAMOUS LITIGANTS, AS GIVEN IN THEIR OWN WORDS. 
 
 THE TWO STORIES DIFFER WIDELY AS TO THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THE CASE 
 —TESTIMONY OF THE KENTUCKY SCHOOL QTRL DIRECTLY OONTBA 
 DIOTB THE STORY OF THE SILVER-TONGUED ORATOR AND 
 STATESMAN — TESTIMONY OF PROMINENT WIT¬ 
 NESSES FROM VARIOUS STATES UNCOVER¬ 
 ING STARTLING INCIDENTS IN 
 THE LIVES OF PLAINTIFF 
 AND DEFENDANT. 
 
 THE SURPRISING DISCLOSURES AND DRAMATIC SCENES THAT FILLED THE 
 COURT ROOM WITH A THRONG OF EXCITED SPECTATORS FULLY 
 DESCRIBED—THE MOST SENSATIONAL TESTIMONY 
 EVER PRODUCED IN COURT. 
 
 ON* OF THE MOST DRAMATIC AND HOTLY CONTESTED LEGAL BATTLES OF 
 MODERN TIMES—AN ARRAY OF LEGAL TALENT RARELY EQUALED 
 IN COURT ANNALS IN POINT OF ABILITY AND ELOQUENCE 
 
 JUDGE BRADLEY’S CHARGE TO THE JURY. 
 
 SPEECHES OF COUNSEL AND DECISION OF THE JURY. 
 
 -TO WIBOB IB AKBXD- 
 
 V COMPLETE BIOGRAPHY OF CCL, BRECKINRIDGE AND MISS POLLARD—HIS 
 COLLEGE DAYS—WAR RECORB —PROMINENCE IN CONGRESS. 
 
 Wine MANY PORTRAITS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 PUBLISHED AND COPYRIGHTED, 1894, BY' 
 
 AMERICAN PRINTING AND BINDING COMPANY 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I N presenting this book to the public, it has not been our in¬ 
 tention to pander to the tastes of the depraved and vicious; 
 but rather to gratify a natural desire on the part of the intelli¬ 
 gent reading public for the details of a trial which, on account 
 of the prominence of one of the contestants, has become, per¬ 
 haps, the most celebrated breach of promise trial in the history 
 of this country. We also trust that this trial will be a warning 
 to the millions of boys and girls in our country whose charac¬ 
 ters are just being moulded, and who are at that age when they 
 begin to realize the duties and responsibilities of life. The book 
 can not help being of value to this class of persons, putting 
 them as it does on their guard by holding up to their view the 
 terrible consequences of the perfidy of man and the frailty of 
 woman; and we believe it will serve as a warning to our 
 women of maturer age, as well as a striking example to our 
 men, teaching the latter to respect the wives, daughters, and 
 sisters of other men, as they desire and hope that theirs should 
 be respected. It once more vividly illustrates the truism that 
 inevitably, in the long run, “ the way of the trangressor 
 is hard.” 
 
 When this book was announced, it was our intention to 
 give a verbatim report of tb' testimony in this celebrated trial, 
 but we early found it necessary to eliminate tedious technicali¬ 
 ties and such portions of the testimony as were unfit for publi¬ 
 cation. We do not claim originality; we have merely inter¬ 
 woven the main facts of the trial and the evidence and pleadings 
 of eminent counsel in a manner that, we hope, will be found 
 readable and instructive. 
 
 The Publishers. 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF MISS POLLARD. 
 
 Madeline Valuria Pollard, alias Madeline Vinton Pollard, 
 alias Madeline Vinton Breckinridge Pollard—which names, ac¬ 
 cording to the testimony adduced, she assumed at different 
 times in her career—was born, as near as can be got at, in 1866, 
 at Frankfort, Ky. Very little of her mother’s history is known, 
 only that she was a good woman and a good mother. Her 
 father, whose memory she seems to revere, was a man of little 
 education, as far as school education was concerned; but he was 
 evidently a man of considerable brain, and in a great measure a 
 self-educated man. Well read he must have been, from Miss 
 Pollard’s testimony in regard to him; and according to his 
 daughter, he took great delight in teaching his “ little guyrl ” all 
 he knew. Her home life while her father lived must have been 
 a pleasant one, for she said, in answer to a question of Mr. But- 
 terworth while 011 the stand: “ Why, Mr. Butterworth, I played 
 more than any little girl you ever knew.” Her father’s name 
 was J. B. Pollard, and he followed the occupation of “ a saddler.” I 
 He stood high in the ranks of the orders of both Masonry and j 
 Odd-Fellowship, and these facts alone are sufficient to put him j 
 on the higher plane, and mark him one of God’s noblemen. And ] 
 at his death both these orders showed their high appreciation of I 
 the man and brother by their attention to his obsequies J 
 After his death the family seemed to have been, in a measure j 
 broken up. He dying in 1876, leaving seven children, some of* 
 them being cared for at the Odd-Fellows’ Home and some re- fl 
 maining with her mother, Miss Pollard went to live with her* 
 aunt in Pittsburg, where she remained from June, 1876, until* 
 the last of August, 1882. While with her aunt in Pittsburg, she S 
 attended the Public Schools, and there received the rudiments of, 
 her education. From her aunt’s she returned to her mother at* 
 
Biographical Sketch of Miss Pollard. 
 
 Frankfort, and from there went to an aunt’s house near hex* 
 ington, where she remained until September, 1883. 
 
 Next we find her at Wesleyan College, in Cincinnati, one 
 of the oldest and best female institutions of Cincinnati. Her 
 course there, as far as her studies were concerned, was one of 
 pronounced success, and she was looked upon as one of the 
 brightest, if not the best essayist in her class and in the college. 
 Possibly a description of the impressions she made, both as to 
 her ability and as to her style, can best be given in the language 
 of one of her classmates: “ Ten years ago, when Madeline 
 
 Pollard attended the Wesleyan College, she seemed a girl of 
 about seventeen, or possibly eighteen, years of age. Exceed¬ 
 ingly quiet and modest—so much so, indeed, that a habit of 
 always looking downward, or covering her eyes with the lids 
 (for she always held her head up, although her eyes were cast 
 down), made the rumor that she had entered college after having 
 attended a convent easily believed; that, by the way, being the 
 general impression, that she had so far obtained her education 
 from the sisters. There seems to be no way of describing her 
 manner better than as 1 mouse-like,' so quiet and unobtru¬ 
 sive, and yet leaving one with the instinctive feeling that, al¬ 
 though her eyes were covered, she was ever watchful. She was 
 much given to study, and was considered the best essayist in the 
 school, and when her turn came to read her essays during morn¬ 
 ing exercises, each scholar gave special attention, for it was sure 
 to be interesting as well as well written. At one time there was 
 a contest between the two literary societies of the college, and 
 the contest on the essays was won by Miss Foilard. There were 
 three prominent and highly educated gentlemen of Cincinnati 
 as judges, and before an audience of five or six hundred people. 
 In appearance she was quite an ordinary girl, certainly net 
 remarkable for beauty. She spoke slowly and with a little lisp, 
 and had quite a stock of fun within her, which would show itself 
 in many ways, especially in repartee. She dressed as one in very 
 ordinary circumstances, and as compared to many others, she 
 might even be said to have dressed poorly. It was known in a 
 general sort of a way among the scholars that she was being 
 
Biographical Sketch of Miss Pollard. 
 
 educated at the expense of her guardian, a Mr. Rodes, and 
 when she finished school she was to marry him.’’ 
 
 From the Wesleyan College she went to the Sayre Institute 
 of Lexington, where she remained a year or more. Her pere¬ 
 grinations afterwards are so well known by the public that it is 
 hardly necessary to enter into further details. There is hardly 
 a question but that her aspirations in literature were high, nor 
 can there be much doubt that she had mental capacity sufficient 
 to raise her above the ordinary class; and she may yet, with all 
 her trials and tribulations, carve for herself a name in the liter¬ 
 ary world. 
 
 v 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 
 
 OF 
 
 COL. W. C. P. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 William Campbell Preston Breckinridge, defendant in the cel¬ 
 ebrated Pollard-Breckinridge breach of promise suit, was born in 
 Baltimore, Maryland, August 28, 1837. His father was Robert J. 
 Breckinridge, a pious Presbyterian divine, and his mother Sophonesba, 
 daughter of General Francis Preston, and granddaughter of William 
 Campbell. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge’s father lived between 1800 and 1871, Attor¬ 
 ney General Breckinridge between 17 Co and 1806. His greatgrand¬ 
 father, Colonel Robert Breckinridge, of Virginia, came to that State 
 from Pennsylvania with Alexander Breckinridge, his father, an Irish¬ 
 man, who reached America from the old country in 1728. 
 
 Staunton, Fincastle and Charlottesville, Virginia, and Lexington, 
 Kentucky, mark the various destinations of this race after they left 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 The emigrant’s wife in this country is said to have been named 
 Preston. His son’s wife was named Lettice Preston. The wife of 
 John, the Attorney General, was Mary Hopkins Cabell, of Virginia. 
 The father of the defendant in this trial was his mother’s second 
 cousin, Sophonesba Preston, and her mother was a daughter of Gen¬ 
 eral William Campbell, of King’s Mountain, and granddaughter of 
 Patrick Henry’s sister. The defendant’s maternal uncles were Hon. 
 William C. Preston and General John S. Preston, and his aunts were 
 Mrs. Governor McDowell, of Virginia, and Mrs. John N. Floyd. 
 The defendant had a brother in the Confederate Congress. His next 
 brother below is Inspector General Breckinridge. 
 
Biographical Sketch of Breckinridge. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge was favored with unusual educational advan¬ 
 tages, pursuing a thorough course of literary studies at Transylvania 
 University, Lexington, and Center College, Danville, Kentucky. In 
 these institutions there have been educated many men who have 
 attained prominence in the history of our country. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge, after graduating at Center College, Danville, 
 Kentucky, entered the University of Louisville, where he pursued a 
 complete course of law studies. He graduated in 1857 and soon 
 afterward began the practice of law in Lexington. 
 
 At the beginning of the war he enlisted in the Confederate army 
 and was made a Captain in General John H. Morgan’s cavalry; was 
 soon promoted to Colonel of the Ninth Kentucky cavalry, and in 
 1863 to the command of the Second brigade in Morgan’s division and 
 commanded the same at the battle of Saltville, and with the remnant 
 followed the retreat of President Davis into North Carolina and 
 Georgia, until his capture and the general surrender. Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge was an able commander and a gallant soldier. 
 
 Returning to Lexington at the close of the war, Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge at once resumed the practice of law. He served as attorney of 
 Fayette county and was for two years editor of the Lexington Observer 
 and Reporter. He was elected to the Chair of Equity and Jurispru- I 
 dence in the law department of Kentucky University, which position 
 he held for five years. He was elected to Congress in 1884 from the 
 Ashland district. He was re-elected in 1886 and has retained his 
 . -seat until the present time. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge is a natural orator, and his silvery eloquence 
 has graced and vivified the political hustings, the courtroom and the 
 legislative hall. 
 
 As a lawyer he has been a learned advocate, a profound expounder 
 of law principles in college and before the bench. As a soldier 
 none was more chivalric. A Captain under the famous John H. 
 Morgan, he was a worthy military companion of that dashing caval¬ 
 ryman. As a natural legislator he has been one of the most brilliant 
 representatives in the United States Congress. He has been a hard 
 worker in committee rooms, a valuable member cf the important 
 Committees of Ways and Means and Appropriations. He is a 
 ready, powerful and eloquent speaker in the conflicts on the floor of 
 the House. Mr. Breckinridge has been honored by the conferring 
 
 
Biographical Sketch of Breckenridge, 
 
 of the degree of LL. D. by three institutions of learning. Cumber¬ 
 land University, Lebanon, Tenn.; Central University, Richmond, 
 Ky., and Center College, Danville, Ky., have each thus honored 
 him. 
 
 Possessing a national reputation as an eloquent speaker, his serv¬ 
 ices as a lecturer before colleges and other institutions have been in 
 frequent demand. He was selected to deliver the opening address at 
 the Chicago World’s Fair, but finally declined the honor. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge has been married three times. His first wife 
 died in i860. He was married a second time to Miss Desha, in 
 Lexington, on September 19, 1863. His third marriage was to Mrs. 
 Louise Wing, a resident of Louisville, Kentucky. It is said that 
 Mrs. Wing belongs to one of the first familes of Kentucky, and is a 
 very estimable lady. 
 
 The breach of promise case in which Colonel Breckinridge re¬ 
 cently figured, jointly with Miss Madeline Pollard, was the most 
 sensational affair of the kind known to the court records of the 
 country. 
 
i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FRiss Pollard’s Petition. 
 
 The Plaintiff Avers that the Defendant , by Wiles and Arti¬ 
 fices , not only Won Her Affections , but Finally and Fully 
 Dominated and Controlled Her and Her Life. And 
 that the Defendant , About the Month of August , 1892, 
 Promised Plaintiff to Marry Her , and that the Plain¬ 
 tiff Confided in the Defendant' 1 s Promise and Remained 
 Single. 
 
 The plaintiff, Madeline V. Pollard, sues the defendant, Wil¬ 
 liam C. P. Breckinridge, for that, whereas, heretofore, on or 
 about the — day of August, 1892, in consideration that the 
 plaintiff being unmarried at the request of the defendant had then 
 undertaken and promised the defedent to marry him, and that he 
 undertook and then promised plaintiff to marry her. Plaintiff 
 avers that she confided in the defendant’s promise and has al¬ 
 ways remained and continued and is still unmarried, and was 
 until the defendant married another person, as hereinafter men¬ 
 tioned, ready and willing to marry the defendant, yet the defend¬ 
 ant disregarded his promise and afterward, on July 18, 1893, 
 wrongfully and injuriously married another person, to-wit, Louise 
 Wing, contrary to defendant’s promise to the plaintiff’s damage 
 in 
 
 THE SUM OF $50,000. 
 
 She says further that she also sues the defendant, William C. 
 P. Breckinridge, for that, whereas, heretofore, on the 17th day 
 of May, 1893, in consideration that the plaintiff being unmar¬ 
 ried, at the request of the defendant, had tnen undertaken and 
 promised the defendant to marry him, and that he, the defend¬ 
 ant, undertook and promised the plaintiff to marry her, and 
 plaintiff avers that she, confiding in defendant’s promise, has al- 
 
Miss Pollard’s Petition. 
 
 ways remained and is still single and unmarried, and was, until 
 defendant married another person, ready and willing to marry 
 the defendant, yet he disregarded his promise, and afterward, on 
 the 18th day of July, 1893, wrongfully and injuriously married 
 another person (Louise Wing) contrary to his promise, to plaint¬ 
 iff’s damage in the sum of $50,000. 
 
 For a third cause of action, Miss Pollard says the defendant, on 
 or about the 1st day of April, 1884, when she was a maiden of 
 the age of 17 5-ears and a student of the Wesie5’an Female Semi¬ 
 nar}-, in the cit}- of Cincinnati, and the defendant being then a 
 married man of 47 rears of age, and a distinguished lawyer and 
 orator, he, the defendant, made her acquaintance by accosting 
 her on a railway train in which she was traveling from school to 
 Frankfort, K}-., on account of the grave illness of her sister. She 
 says that Mr. Breckinridge stated that he knew her family, and 
 that she was flattered and fascinated by the attention and con¬ 
 versation of so distinguished a man, and thereafter, at or about 
 the 30th da}- of July, 1SS4, having occasion 
 
 FOR PROFESSIONAL ADVICE 
 
 With reference to a certain obligation assumed to defray the ex¬ 
 penses of her education, she wrote to the defendant asking if he 
 would advise her. Thereupon, she says, on or about the 3d day 
 of August, 1884, he came to the seminary to see her and secured 
 permission from the acting President to take her to dine with 
 him, on the grounds that she was the daughter of an old friend. 
 She says that then and there the defendant began by wiles and 
 artifices and protestations of affection to take advantage of the 
 youth and inexperience of the plaintiff, and not only to win her 
 affections, but to finally and fully dominate and and control her 
 and her life; that on or about the 5th day of Augus, 1884, she 
 says defendant completed his seduction of her, and while still at 
 school in Lexington, Ky., at Sayre Institute, and when 18 years 
 of age, she became pregnant, and was obliged to go to Cincin¬ 
 nati, where sne bore a chid begotten by the defendant. She says 
 that being deeply in love with him she was induced by his pro- 
 
Miss Pollahd’s Petition. 
 
 testations of affection to remain under his domination and con¬ 
 trol, and from Aagust, 1884. to July, 1892, she submitted herself 
 wholly to his will, having during said period borne a second child 
 begotten by him. 
 
 She says that during this period she, on several occasions, de¬ 
 sired and proposed to terminate her illicit relations with defend¬ 
 ant, and being 
 
 STUDIOUS AND AMBITIOUS, 
 
 Wished to make a career for herself, but defendant, by his bland¬ 
 ishments and persuasions, induced her to abandon each time her 
 desire and intentions; that during all this time the defendant was 
 a married man, but that on July 14, 1892, his late wife died, and 
 thereafter plaintiff, being an unmarried woman, and being with¬ 
 out sexual fault or infirmity otherwise than with the defendant, 
 as hereinbefore averred, and being a woman of good repute in 
 all respects, notwithstanding her relations to the defendant, he, 
 the defendant, urged and insisted that their relations should con¬ 
 tinue. She says that plaintiff having, on or about the month of 
 September, 1893, an opportunity offered to her to go abroad to 
 study, asked the consent of the defendant to take advantage of 
 it, and was then willing to wait two years for the fulfillment of 
 the promise of marriage, but defendant would not consent to her 
 leaving him, and, she says, induced her to continue and maintain 
 their relations; that in or about the month of March, 1893, plain¬ 
 tiff became pregnant for a third time by the defendant, and 
 plaintiff being then unmarried and the defendant being also at 
 time unmarried, he promised and agreed to marry her and she 
 agreed to marry him, which promise, she says, was made in the 
 consideration of the love and affection she bore to him of a similar 
 declaration on his part, and because of the relations that had 
 theretofore subsisted between them, and because of defendant’s 
 avowed desire to repair the injury that had beer done to her and 
 to place her under the protection of his influence, name and 
 family, the relations subsisting between being then unknown to 
 
Miss Pollard’s Petition. 
 
 OTHERS THAN THEMSELVES. 
 
 She says that he repeatedly made this promise to her and 
 averred at different times to others that she was his affianced 
 wife ; and had promised and agreed to marry her, and that it was 
 his purpose as soon as with propriety after the death of his wife 
 he could do so to execute the promise by uniting himself to her 
 in marriage ; that defendant proposed in view of the condition 
 of the plaintiff the solemnization of a secret marriage to take 
 place May 31, 1893, and that, in the presence of a witness, an¬ 
 nounced his purpose and intention to marry her on May 31. 
 Plaintiff further says that defendant, at this time, well knew and 
 so recognized the pregnancy of plaintiff by him and arranged 
 that she should goto New York and remain there until May 31st, 
 1893, when they would be married. She says that shortly there¬ 
 after, by reason of her condition, it was arranged and agreed be¬ 
 tween them that the marriage should be postponed until about 
 the following December or January, and after the birth of the 
 child, to which postponement the plaintiff assented because of 
 her condition and the love and affeetion she bore him, and with 
 a view to the protection of both of them against the possibility, 
 so far as it was in their mutual power, of revealing the relation 
 that had existed between them and of preventing the same from 
 ever becoming known. She says that thereafter, in the month of 
 May, 1893, she suffered a miscarriage, which was not brought 
 about designedly, and during which plaintiff was attended by a 
 reputable physician of Washington. After this, she says, defend- 
 continued to promise to marry her, and agreed so to do up to July 
 18th, 1S93,when he wrongfully and injuriously married Mrs. Louise 
 Wing, who was then a resident of Louisville, Ky., contrary to 
 his promise to the plaintiff', and to her damage in the sum uf 
 $50,000. 
 
Colonel Breckinridge’s Answer 
 
 TO MISS POLLARD’S PETITION. 
 
 Claims that She First Accosted Him on a Train, and In¬ 
 duced Him to Meet Her at Wesleyan College. She Told 
 Him Her Troubles 'with one James Rhodes , Her 
 Affianced. 
 
 On Saturday, September 23, 1893, Congressman Breckinridge 
 filed his answer to the declaration made by Miss Madeline Pol¬ 
 lard, in her suit for $50,000 for breach of promise. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge denies the first count of Miss Pollard’s decla¬ 
 ration, which states that he proposed marriage to her in August, 
 1892. 
 
 The second count, declaring that the Congressman made a 
 second proposition of marriage on May 17, 1893, is also denied- 
 The answer to the third count is given with emphasis, as follows : 
 
 For plea to third count of the declaration made by Miss Pol¬ 
 lard, the defendant says that he never promised, as alleged in the 
 said third count of said declaration; that in the spring of 1884, 
 the defendant being on the train from Lexington to Frankfort, 
 was accosted by a woman between twenty and twenty-two years 
 of age, who introduced herself as Madeline Breckinridge Pollard, 
 saying that her father was such an admirer of John C. Breckin¬ 
 ridge, that he named her after said Breckinridge ; that subse¬ 
 quently the defendant received a letter from the plaintiff saying 
 that she was in great distress and desired his legal advice, and 
 asked him to see her at Wesleyan College in Cincinnati, which 
 the defendant answered was inconvenient, upon which she noti¬ 
 fied him that the matter about which she was distressed was an 
 engagement to marry, which had assumed a condition worse 
 
Colonel Breckinridge’s Answer. 
 
 than a divorce suit, and reiterating her request to see him per¬ 
 sonally ; that the defendant did see the plaintiff at said college, 
 and she gave him a full recital of her relations with one James 
 Rhodes, and thereupon the defendant advised her to consummate 
 the contract between her and said Rhodes by marriage, and subse¬ 
 quently, after a full conversation with said Rodes, the defendant 
 renewed his advice, and the defendant denies that he then, or at 
 any other time or place, by wiles, artifices and protestations of 
 affection, or by any other means, attempted to take advantage of 
 the youth and inexperience of the plaintiff. 
 
 He denies that he then, or at any other time, seduced the said 
 plaintiff; and he denies that the plaintiff was at any time preg¬ 
 nant by the defendant, or that he at any time prevented her from 
 going abroad or from entering upon any career that the plaintiff 
 desired to enter upon, or that it was through any protestations, 
 influence or request of the defendant that the plaintiff failed 
 either to go abroad or enter upon any career she desired, and he 
 denies that there was at any time an agreement, contract or un¬ 
 derstanding of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, 
 and the plaintiff knew during her entire acquaintance with the 
 defendant that a marriage between the plaintiff and defendant 
 was impossible. 
 
OPENING OF THE GREAT TRIAL 
 
 To Which There Were So Many Preliminaries 
 
 Breckinridge, the famous Kentuckian, called to answer 
 the charge of Madeline Vinton Pollard. 
 
 A Formidable Array of Legal Talent Present. 
 
 Jere Wilson for Plaintiff, and Ben. Butterworth 
 for Defendant the Most Prominent. 
 
 Jury Selected, and Case Continued Until Next Day to 
 Allow Defendant’s Counsel to Examine 
 Late Testimony. 
 
 The celebrated case of Madeline Vinton Pollard, against Will¬ 
 iam C. P. Breckinridge, a Representative in Congress, from Ken¬ 
 tucky, for $50,000 damages, for alleged breach of promise, was 
 called for trial before Judge Andrew Bradley in the Circuit 
 Court, of Washington D. C., March the 8th, and after a prelimi¬ 
 nary skirmish which indicated that one of the greatest legal 
 battles of the age was about to commence, the forces retired to 
 renew their contest on the morrow. 
 
 THE COURT ITSELF. 
 
 Judge Andrew C. Bradley, who will try the case, is a member 
 of one of the oldest families of Washington ; a man in the prime 
 of life, of athletic figure, with a soldierly mustache and strong, 
 even features, and noted among the lawyers of the district bar 
 for his unhesitating firmness and independence. He is a leading 
 
 ( 3 ) 17 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 18 
 
 member of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, of which 
 Colonel Breckinridge has been a regular attendant during his 
 residence in Washington. 
 
 A few were allowed to enter the court-room right early, a 
 plain apartment, about 60 by 40, without any gallery or other 
 obstruction than the bench and an inside storm coop or door. It 
 has three large, round-topped windows on each of the two lateral 
 or long sides, windows eight by twelve or fifteen feet high. The 
 walls are tinted an olive above the blue base and the ceiling is a 
 soiled white. On the south is a good view down Four and a 
 Half street toward the Arsenal Point, where the old penitentiary 
 used to be and Lincoln’s doers-away were hanged. 
 
 THE COURT-ROOM. 
 
 The level floor of this court is divided by bars into three in¬ 
 closures the whole width of the hall; spectators have a poor 
 show, as the Judge rather revolts at cases of this mere notoriety 
 and is master of his court. Two rows of benches and cane 
 chairs, hardly capable of seating seventy people, are in the rear. 
 Three more rows make the middle, at one end of which were the 
 reporters, about a dozen in number. 
 
 The third or forward space is for the bar and is open, with a 
 bench along the back and a row of tables for the lawyers along 
 the front. Next above, one step, are the court clerks, etc., led 
 by the jovial and forcible Marshal, Alfred Wilson. Above is 
 the bench proper, one big, red leathered chair, under an arch 
 indentation in the wall. The jury chairs are to the Judge’s 
 right. Two lamps are in front of the bar, pulpit like. Nothing 
 is on the wall but a clock and a row of hat and clothes pegs 
 near the jury. It is all bare, old-fashioned, commodious and 
 plastery. The morning was cool and raw, and the functionaries 
 vigilant to make man of any kind know that this is a house ol 
 law and not of public craze or opinion. 
 
 THE ATTORNEYS ON HAND. 
 
 Jere Wilson and Calderon Carlisle, the lady’s lawyers, entered 
 early. Wilson is an Indiana ex-Congressman, a man of marvel- 
 
First Day of Trial. 
 
 *9 
 
 ous industry and wiry power. Carlisle is the son of a powerful 
 Kentucky-reared lawyer here in former times who left a good 
 law fortune, which his son has conserved and taken rank both 
 at the bar and as a merchant. 
 
 The defendant entered and accosted several of the reporters. 
 He said he felt first rate. He presently gets to the Judge’s left 
 near his lawyer, Mattingly, a lawyer of the district—large, well 
 dressed, slow, deliberate. He seems to be arguing for some delay 
 or charge from the Court, considering the straggling depositions 
 of Tom, Dick and Miss Eliza, taken all over Kentucky and the 
 planet. Wilson replies. It is all in the nature of monotone and 
 soliloquy. Kentucky would wonder at such still beginning. 
 
 BRECKINRIDGE UNCONCERNED. 
 
 Breckinridge looks fairly unconcerned and sticks his thumb 
 in his buttonhole under the armpit and wriggles his toe a little 
 crossed upon his knee. Ben Butterworth is here for something, 
 and advises Mattingly as if he were an associate counsel. Breck¬ 
 inridge continues to pick a string or something in his hand. In 
 spite of his venerable and plenteous hair, there is a boyish, care¬ 
 less, unripe look in his face. 
 
 Judge Bradley wore his habitual expression of being bored, 
 and as soon as the crier had waked the echoes with his “ Oyez i 
 Oyez! Oyez ”! he looked down at a slip in his hand, and after 
 the jury panel had been called, said : 
 
 “ The case of Pollard against Breckinridge, for breach of 
 promise, is the only one on the assignment for to-day, are you 
 ready for trial? ” 
 
 The spectators bent forward with intense interest. Now if 
 ever, the compromise that had been so freely rumored, would be 
 announced. Those who expected such a sensational denoument 
 were disappointed. The counsel on either side nodded acqui¬ 
 escence to Judge Bradley’s query, and Mr. William F. Mattingly 
 arose. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITIONS, 
 
 He said he did not appear generally for the defendant, but 
 represented him in some preliminary matters. He desired to 
 
20 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 say, before the trial proceeded, that certain depositions had been 
 taken by the plaintiff, and the witnesses withdrawn, before the 
 defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine them. He did 
 not know whether they had arrived or not, but he desired to 
 object to their introduction. He also said that he had been 
 informed that a certain deposition had been taken the day before 
 in Kentucky, without proper notice to the defendant, and also 
 objected to its admission as evidence. Messrs. Carlisle and 
 Wilson waived any right the plaintiff might have as to the time 
 the objections might be made, and Judge Wilson and Mr. 
 Mattingly discussed the propriety of determining the question, 
 the former saying that when the depositions arrived the plaintiff 
 could offer them, and present such a statement as would give the 
 Court an opportunity to decide upon their admissibility before 
 the jury. 
 
 Mr. Mattingly claimed the question should be settled before 
 the trial went further, when Judge Bradley cut matters short. 
 He said: “This whole question is a pure hypothesis. It has 
 not been shown that these depositions were taken by an officer of 
 this Court or by authority of any commission issuing from it. •' 
 They were probably taken under the Judiciary Act, and are not 
 before the Court at all. Many contingencies may arise that will 
 prevent their arriving at all. Therefore this objection of the 
 defendant can only serve as notice, that an objection will be 
 raised when the depositions are offered.” 
 
 Judge Wilson then indicated what the course of the plaintiff 
 would be. In a few words that were full of significance to the 
 assemblage he announced that at the proper time the plaintiff ; 
 would object to the admission of any deposition as evidence, 1 
 which related to events occurring prior to and having no connec¬ 
 tion with the issue in the present case. A large part of it was . 
 hearsay anyhow. In other words, he gave the opposition to 
 understand that any attempt on their part to introduce testimony ,1 
 relating to Miss Pollard’s past would be bitterly opposed in every j 
 legal manner possible. 
 
First Day of Trial. 
 
 21 
 
 PERSONNEL OF THE JURY. 
 
 The jurymen were then called and sworn. 
 
 The twelve men who will decide upon the important question 
 of Col. Breckinridge’s responsibility are all white men, and 
 occupy responsible positions in the community. 
 
 Sydney G. Hunt lives at Good Hope and is a carpenter; 
 Andrew M. Green resides in Anacostia, and is senior member of 
 the firm of A. M. Green & Co., bankers and.real estate agents in 
 that suburb; Joseph H. Whyland is a merchant of Georgetown ; 
 Allen A. Dale resides at Wesley Heights, and, like Mr. Hunt, is 
 a carpenter; Albert R. Caton lives in Anacostia and is a house 
 painter; James L. Carberry is the well-known farmer living on 
 the Ridge Road, above Georgetown ; Hugh Reilly deals in oils, 
 paints and glass, at 1911 Pennsylvania Avenue; Frederick A. 
 Heitmuller claims Bridge Wood as his home, and has a produce 
 stand at 443 Center Market; Lewis C. Denham and George B. 
 Sheriff are book keepers, residing respectively at 519 Nineteenth 
 Street, North West, and 1835 Eighth Street, North West; 
 William C. Gwynne follows steam fitting for a livelihood, and 
 his number is 1407 L Street, North West; Charles R. Cole 
 resides at 1746 New York Avenue. 
 
 Colonel Thompson, for Mr. Breckinridge, then asked the 
 Court to pass the case until to-morrow on account of the largo 
 mass of testimony which had just arrived and had not been 
 examined, and because Mr. Butterworth had only been called 
 into the case the night before. 
 
 Judge Bradley assented and the trial was continued until 
 to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock. 
 
 Miss Pollard was about to start for the Court House when the 
 trial was adjourned. She was accompanied by a lady friend who 
 has remained with her much of late, but her lawyers sent a 
 messenger to meet her with the announcement of the adjourn¬ 
 ment and she returned home. She will be present to-morrow 
 and throughout the trial. 
 
22 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 WILL BE A BITTER FIGHT. 
 
 The counsel on both sides make no secret of the fact, that the 
 case will be bitterly fought and will occupy a great deal of time. 
 An immense amount of testimony has been taken in the shape of 
 depositions, in both Kentucky and Ohio, and that of the defend¬ 
 ant ha? been almost wholly devoted to the early life of Miss 
 Pollard, with a view of showing its alleged bad character. 
 
 The plaintiff, on the other hand, while securing a great deal 
 of evidence to be used in rebuttal of the allegations mentioned, 
 have confined themselves largely to secure testimony covering 
 the main point in issue: that Col. Breckinridge promised to 
 marry Miss Pollard, and had announced such intention publicly 
 and frequently. 
 
 The fight will come, as Judge Wilson indicated, when the 
 attempt to blacken the character of the plaintiff, previous to her 
 meeting with Col. Breckinridge is made. 
 
 There will be no compromise, that can be stated absolutely ; 
 and it is expected that many sensational statements, which have 
 not been exploited in the press, will be brought out, when living 
 witnesses are put on the stand. 
 
 RESUME OF THE CASE. 
 
 Congressman Breckinridge stands charged by Miss Pollard 
 with having accomplished her ruin, when she was a school girl 
 of seventeen, and he, a distinguished public man nearing the half 
 century mark, with being the father of several children born to 
 her, and with making and breaking a promise to marry her. 
 The alleged contract of an engagement, is claimed by Miss Pol¬ 
 lard to have been made shortly after the death of defendant’s 
 'wife, and broken less than a year later, when he married Airs 
 Louise Wing, of St. Louis. 
 
 On the other hand Col. Breckinridge, in his answer to Miss 
 Pollard’s charges, denies that at any time or place, by wiles and 
 artifices and protestations of affection, or by any other means, 
 attempted to take advantage of the i outh and inexperience of 
 the plaintiff, or that he seduced her. He also denies that there 
 was at any time any engagement, contract, or understanding of 
 
First Day of Trial. 
 
 23 
 
 marriage between them. He claims, when he met her, she 
 was “a young woman between twenty and twenty-two years of 
 age.” This was in the spring of 1884, so that Miss Pollard’s age 
 now would be twenty-seven, according to her own statement, 
 and between thirty and thirty-two according to the estimate of 
 Col. Breckinridge. On this disputed question there will be evi¬ 
 dence given at the trial, and much interest is shown in its settle¬ 
 ment, as tending to establish whether the plaintiff was of 
 responsible age or not when the alleged offense was committed. 
 
 SECOND DAY OF TRIAD. 
 
 A woman s wrongs.—Dramatic scenes in court.—Breckinridge 
 smiles, while Miss Pollard faces him with an expression of 
 scorn and defiance.—She once drew from her bosom a pistol to 
 shoot him. — Mrs. Blackburn tells the story of the plaintiff's 
 solemn promise of marriage made in her presence, and of his 
 request that she take Miss Pollard under her protection as his 
 future wife . — Col. Moore , Chief of Police , creates a sensation. 
 He tells of several visits the prmcipals made to his office, at 
 which times Breckinridge disclosed his inte?ition to marry 
 Miss Pollard.—A day full of exciting incidents. 
 
 Those who came to the court room to-day in which the suit 
 against William C. P. Breckinridge, by Madeline Pollard for 
 breach of promise of marriage, is progressing, and came seeking 
 what is spoken of as a “ sensation,” found their desires not wholly 
 ungratified. There was a moment, even before the business of 
 the Court had been fully entered upon, when the depths of feel¬ 
 ing in the most sluggish natures were stirred, and normal or ab¬ 
 normal craving for unusual mental or emotional experience was 
 at least partially satisfied. 
 
 Just before the crier’s voice rang out with the famous old 
 court cry for silence and attention, “ oyez, oyez, oyez,” Miss Pol¬ 
 lard entered the room. 
 
 Yesterday the gloominess of the chamber was lessened by 
 the sunlight from the great southern windows, but this morning 
 
24 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 the clouds were low and heavy; and to keep out the damp, raw 
 atmosphere all the windows were closed. 
 
 The appearance of Miss Pollard added no feature of light¬ 
 ness or cheerfulness to the scene. Accompanied by two friends, 
 one a Sister of Charity at the Home where she lives, she entered 
 at the left of the bench and was shown to a seat before the bar, 
 directly in front of and facing the Judge. She was clad com¬ 
 pletely in black from head to feet, without one touch of white or 
 color to relieve the somberness of her attire. She looked thin and 
 careworn, and her rather plain features were set in a serious 
 way, and she hardly raised her eyes from the floor. Her jacket 
 was closely fitting, with a double row of buttons, puffed sleeves 
 and collar fastened high about the slender neck, with no appear¬ 
 ance of lace or linen. Her gloves were of black, undressed kid, 
 disappearing under the sleeves of her coat. Her hair was 
 dressed with nun-like severity of plainness, and in the same 
 style of that of the Sister who accompanied her. 
 
 It was brought over smoothly from the parting line to the 
 ears, braided and arranged in a coil low at the back, the size of 
 the mass showing the thickness and luxurious growth of her 
 tresses. She wore a small toque of velvet, without ornament, 
 except for a small bow 7 at the front from the rear, black ribbons 
 were drawn dowrn and tied under the chin. Her face was hardly 
 hidden at all by a thin dotted veil. 
 
 NOT A PRETTY WOMAN. 
 
 Miss Pollard, as said, is not what would be designated a 
 pretty woman. Her face is thin, her mouth too wide for beauty, 
 but with straightness of the line, the thinness of the lips, com¬ 
 bined with the squareness of her chin, suggesting freely the de¬ 
 termined character of the woman w 7 ho has instituted this struggle 
 against such powerful influences. Her nose is decidedly re¬ 
 trousse, her eyes darker than her hair, and the only beauty of 
 her face. Her forehead is low and fair, her complexion is clear 
 and healthy-looking, bearing no evidences of the little artificial 
 aids to beauty the Kentucky girls sometimes affect, so the 
 gossips say. . 
 
Second Day of Trial. 
 
 25 
 
 Her friends were also dressed in black, the Sister wearing a 
 bonnet with white border, and the three presented the appear¬ 
 ance of women not inattentive to the demands of the conven¬ 
 tionalities of to-day’s demands in dress. 
 
 Hardly had the ladies become fairly settled in their seats 
 when Mr. Breckinridge entered the door facing them. He wore 
 a soft hat, heavy overcoat, and carried a russet leather bag 
 marked in gilt letters “W. C. P. B.” He walked in swinging 
 stride, followed by his retinue of seven attorneys, his son, and a 
 secretary, and merely glanced at Miss Pollard, who did not look 
 up, and exchanged greetings in rather an effusive manner with 
 the other gentlemen. The Pollard party sat with their backs to 
 the long table before the bar, and the other party sat behind 
 them across the table. The defendant was seated back of and 
 one seat to the left of the plaintiff. 
 
 MR. CARLISLE PRESENTS CASE TO JURY. 
 
 Then Mr. Calderon Carlisle arose to present the case of the 
 plain tiff to the jury, and used the names of the plaintiff and de¬ 
 fendant in stating the case. At this moment Miss Pollard turned 
 sharply around in her chair and faced Mr. Breckinridge, with 
 only the narrow table between them. He returned the gaze, and 
 the two sat looking straight into each other’s eyes. 
 
 In an instant all eyes were centered upon them, and there 
 was perfect silence in the room. 
 
 It was an extraordinary scene. The gaze of the defendant 
 was one of scorn and defiance. No one could interpret the gaze 
 of the plaintiff. But suddenly she became decidedly pale, and 
 her lips began to work convulsively. She made a movement of 
 her hand toward him, and drew back. She uttered some words 
 which were not audible, and a sudden trembling seized her, and 
 she appeared about to collapse. The other ladies hastily un¬ 
 buttoned her jacket at the neck, and a bailiff hurried over with a 
 glass of ice-water. It was some moments before she became 
 even partly composed, and for some time she continued to trem¬ 
 ble violently. 
 
 As for the defendant, for the first time his incomparable 
 
26 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 nerve and apparent indifference appeared to desert him. His 
 ruddy countenance, always emphasized by the silvery whiteness 
 of his luxurious whiskers and hair, became scarlet, and then 
 every particle of blood appeared to desert his face, and his hand 
 trembled as he nervously swept his fingers through his beard 
 and hair alternately. 
 
 It was not until Mr. Carlisle had progressed far into his 
 presentation of the case to the jury that Mr. Breckinridge com¬ 
 pletely recovered his equanimity, or ceased those movements. 
 
 Right before him all the time was the back of the plaintiff, 
 and he could not know at what instant she might whirl about 
 again, fix those dark, accusing eyes upon him, and renew the 
 scene. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle spoke to the jury in a low, conversational tone, 
 leaning against a table behind him, upon which his hands rested, 
 and from which he never raised them. 
 
 MR. CARLISLE TELLS THE STORY. 
 
 He told the story in the surest way to reach the sympathies 
 of a jury. He had evidently studied the character of plain home 
 men, mostly of comparatively humble walks in life. To them, 
 as such, he recited the tale in the simplest language, devoid of 
 any figures of speech or attempts at rhetorical effect. He stood 
 immediately in front of the jury, and much of the time talked to 
 them in so low a tone of voice that his words were inaudible to 
 others sitting further away. 
 
 It was a fine exhibition of discrimination and skill on the 
 part of an advocate in addressing himself to a jury. The attor¬ 
 neys of the opposition recognized it as such. They declined to 
 make any statement to the jury, and the case proceeded with the 
 examination of the first witness for the prosecution, Mrs. Luke 
 Blackburn. 
 
 But as an interlude between the speech or confidential talk 
 of Mr. Carlisle and the evidence of the star witness for the pros¬ 
 ecution, a little scene occurred which was not of much consequence, 
 except as it seemed to arouse Miss Pollard and again betray the 
 nervous, high-strung nature of the girl, like that of a Kentucky 
 
Second Day op Triad. 
 
 27 
 
 thoroughbred. The episode occurred through a controversy 
 over some books, four volumes of Washington Irving’s works, 
 which the plaintiff’s counsel claimed the counsel for defense had 
 carried off and extracted from among the leaves a Christmas card 
 they had made use of in a deposition. 
 
 miss poulard aroused. 
 
 Miss Pollard interfered, saying she could identify the books. 
 She was evidently new to the ways of lawyers, and could not un¬ 
 derstand the dodging and whipsawing around a point that was 
 perfectly plain. Her counsel tried to stop her, but she would not 
 allow let or hindrance. 
 
 Carlisle and Johnson both jumped to her side, protesting 
 sternly and emphatically against her proceedings, Carlisle being 
 understood to say that she would ruin her case and lose her 
 counsel if she continued such a course. 
 
 “ But why do they ask such questions?” she exclaimed, 
 speaking with the fashionable society accent, and pronouncing 
 “ ask ” as though it were spelled “ awsk ” or “ osk.” Finally Mr. 
 Wilson fairly put his hand over her mouth, and after that she 
 sat very quiet, and made no further attempt tp interfere during 
 the morning session. 
 
 Mrs. Blackburn came to the stand, took the oath, kissed 
 the Bible, and took her seat in the witness box. She is a 
 large, fine-looking lady, and richly dressed. Mr. Carlisle 
 conducted her examination, and from beginning to end her 
 evidence was sensational. 
 
 She told of her first acquaintance with Miss Pollard, how 
 she had befriended her, as, she said, “a girl from my own State, 
 struggling to rise above the conditions of her life and make a 
 name for herself. Whatever I could do for her as a sister 
 woman, bright, ambitious, deserving and hopeful, I did, and I 
 do not, even under the clouds that have closed down upon her, 
 regret one act, and would do it again.” 
 
 She told the story of the visit of Colonel Breckinridge and 
 Miss Pollard to her, when the former declared that he intended 
 to marry her, and meanwhile requested her (Mrs. Blackburn) to 
 
28 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 take Miss Pollard under her care and protection as his future 
 wife. 
 
 THE HONOR AND WORD OF A KENTUCKY GENTLEMAN. 
 
 Relying upon the honor and word of such a distinguished 
 Kentucky gentleman, she had done so, even outside of her own 
 admiration and affection for Miss Pollard, whom, though she 
 had only recently met her, she had learned to regard as a woman 
 worthy of such friendship. 
 
 It must be remembered, and the point was made very plain 
 to the jury by Mr. Carlisle, that the prosecution is for breach of 
 promise of marriage. That and that only. Did the defendant 
 promise to marry the plaintiff and break his promise, or did he 
 not? No question as to her character or the blackening of it; 
 no question as to whether she bore children to him or not enters 
 into consideration. Unless Mrs. Blackburn’s evidence can be 
 impeached, the matter seemed to be settled by it. She swore 
 positively that Colonel Breckinridge recommended Miss Pollard 
 to her care and protection as his future wife, stating that he was 
 to marry her when a sufficient time had elapsed after the death 
 of his wife. 
 
 In all the details of her examination in chief Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn was wonderfully bright and interesting, and some of her 
 side reflections upon Colonel Breckinridge’s conduct as con¬ 
 trasted with the honor and chivalry of Kentucky gentlemen gen¬ 
 erally were very entertaining and illustrative. 
 
 Her cross-examination was conducted by Colonel Phil 
 Thompson. She became very restless, and over and over again 
 protested against the questions raised. It was a desperate en¬ 
 deavor of the defense to make some break in her testimony, 
 which was apparently strong enough to finally impress the jury 
 on the question at issue. 
 
 “ I have told all I know,” she exclaimed again and again. 
 
 You may question me for weeks, but I can add nothing to or 
 take back anything I have said.” 
 
Second Day of Trial. 
 
 29 
 
 MRS. BLACKBURN GETS ANGRY. 
 
 At one time Mrs. Blackburn became very angry at the per¬ 
 sistent questioning of Thompson, and used such expressions as, 
 “ I have answered that question at least six times,” and several 
 times she confused her questioner with her quick wit. At one 
 time she looked around to Judge Bradley and said so all could 
 hear, “ This is a terrible ordeal for a lady to endure. If my hus¬ 
 band was alive I would not be compelled to submit to this hu¬ 
 miliation.” In the end her evidence given in chief was not 
 shaken in the least. 
 
 A recess was taken for half an hour, and all hands, includ¬ 
 ing the correspondents and reporters of all the principal papers 
 of the country, hustled out for a bite of luncheon. 
 
 After recess the principal witness was Major Moore, the 
 Chief of Lie Police of Washington. His evidence was sensational 
 to the last extreme. Plis story of the scenes in his office between 
 himself and Colonel Breckinridge were proof enough of the old 
 adage that truth is stranger than fiction. 
 
 Now, leaving out, as we must, the dramatic accessories, the 
 Judge, with his stern, handsome face outlined against the leather- 
 padded, high back of his chair, the black-clad plaintiff, her slight 
 frame shaken with sobbing; the distinguished array of counsel, 
 the army of newspaper men, and hastening messengers, the uni¬ 
 formed police and bailiffs, the distinguished-looking defendant, 
 the silent throng that crowded the great, gloomy Court chamber, 
 the issue of the ruined life and reputation of a woman as against 
 that of a famous statesman and orator, is worthy of the touch of 
 the pen of a Moliere, a Maupassant, or a Zola, but to which they 
 could add nothing in fiction and imagination beyond the reali¬ 
 ties of the plodding present. 
 
 MAJOR MOORE TELLS HIS STORY. 
 
 Major Moore, a distinguished-looking gentleman, with heavy, 
 white mustache and imperial, looking for all the world like the 
 hero of Colonel John Cockerili’s story of “ The Major,” told his 
 story, made all the more dramatic for its directness and official 
 
30 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 unprejudice. He told how Colonel Breckinridge and Miss Pol¬ 
 lard came to his office together. How Colonel Breckinridge 
 stated that his life was threatened, and he wanted protection. 
 Miss Pollard had drawn from her bosom a pistol, which, she said, 
 unless Colonel Breckinridge marry her, she would use on him 
 and herself. 
 
 The pistol or “gun,” as Mr. Thompson called it, was after¬ 
 ward produced in Court, although Judge Bradley refused to 
 allow it to be exhibited or handled, saying that in a civil suit 
 such a matter would not be permitted. Major Moore said it was 
 a dangerous weapon of a new pattern, 34-caliber, and every 
 barrel loaded; and Phil. Thompson asked if it was not the “gun’’ 
 known as a “ swamp angel.” The “gun,” Major Moore testified, 
 was given to him by Miss Pollard, with the remark that he 
 might preserve it for a Christmas present, and Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge that he might keep it for her birthday, as they departed 
 from the office together. 
 
 The second visit was still more dramatic in character. In 
 the first visit to the Chief of Police, Colonel Breckinridge had 
 arted to tell the story of their trouble, but Miss Pollard had 
 prevented him doing so, appealing to him as “Willie,” to save 
 her the shame of discovery of the situation even to Major 
 Moore. 
 
 On the second visit Major Moore testified that Colonel 
 Breckinridge sat on the sofa in his office side by side with Miss 
 Pollard, her hand clasped in his, and said that she was pregnant 
 by him; was going to New York to prepare for the event, and 
 that after that they were to be married. 
 
 BRECKINRIDGE PETITIONS MAJOR MOORE. 
 
 Tetters and telegrams received by Major Moore from Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge were read, petitioning him to use his influence 
 to suppress publicity threatened by Miss Pollard, putting the 
 plea on the ground that such publicity would ruin her good 
 name uselessly. A letter to Major Moore from Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge asking him to meet a certain party was read, and from 
 that person a check for $100, payable to Miss Pollard, was re- 
 
Second Day of Trial¬ 
 
 'S i 
 
 ceived by Major Moore. He afterward returned the check to 
 Colonel Breckinridge. When in one of Colonel Breckinridge's 
 letters to Major Moore the passage was read requesting the 
 latter to use his influence to quiet Miss Pollard, but advising 
 him not to let her know the advice came from him, Miss Pollard 
 again turned and faced the defendant. 
 
 When the statement was made to the effect that Colonel 
 
 Miss Pollard cried out, “No, no,” 
 and broke down in hysterical sobbing. It was some time before 
 she could be quieted, and the examination of Major Moore 
 proceed. 
 
 After Major Moore came Dr. Lincoln as a witness. He testi¬ 
 fied that Colonel Breckinridge and Miss Pollard had come to¬ 
 gether to his office, and the former had recommended her to his 
 professional care, saying she -was unreasonably jealous and very 
 nervous. Dr. Lincoln said he had replied that there were two 
 other professions better calculated to deal with the condition of 
 Miss Pollard than his own, evidently meaning the law and the 
 clergy. 
 
 Mr. Stoll, who had succeeded Mr. Thompson in examina¬ 
 tion, endeavored to raise a question as to previous- visits of Miss 
 Pollard to the doctor, but the Judge ruled him out, as the ques¬ 
 tion was simply as to a breach of promise of marriage on the 
 part of the defendant, and such matters had nothing to do with 
 the point at issue. 
 
 COURT ADJOURNS. 
 
 At 3 P. M. the Court adjourned, after a very stormy ses¬ 
 sion worthy in its features of sensationalism of the great cases 
 that have been decided therein, including that of Mary Harris, 
 whose experience laid the foundation for the famous play of 
 “The Gilded Age;” and, by the way, the Bradley who tried 
 her case and afterward married her was the uncle of the Judge 
 who sits in the case of Miss Pollard. 
 
 Among those still alive who have been celebrated through 
 legal contest in this room are Surratt, one of the accused con¬ 
 spirators in the Lincoln assassination; Dorsey and Brady, the 
 
32 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Star Route “ conspirators,” so-called ; General Daniel E. Sickles, 
 and Judge Kincaid. 
 
 The now famous Pollard-Breckinridge trial was only 
 really commenced when Mr. Calderon Carlisle faced the 
 jury, leaning languidly against a table, and in deliberate conver¬ 
 sational tones outlined the matters which the plaintiff would en¬ 
 deavor to prove. He contrasted the positions of the two parties, 
 one a man of family, of political prominence, high in the coun¬ 
 cils of the Presbyterian Church, famous throughout the country 
 as an orator, the other a friendless young woman. Something 
 was said about the iegal aspects of the case. Then he began to 
 read the declaration which was published in full when the suit 
 was brought—how Colonel Breckinridge had taken advantage 
 of Miss Pollard’s youth, when she was a girl of seventeen at the 
 Wesleyan Female Seminary, and then further alleging that he 
 was the father of her three children; that he had, in the pres- 
 
 PROMISED TO MARRY HER. 
 
 ence of creditable witnesses, promised to marry her, having pre¬ 
 viously made the promise to become her husband when his wife 
 should die; that he had married instead a Mrs. Louise Wing, of 
 Louisville; that Miss Pollard had endeavored to leave him and 
 make a career for herself, but had been persuaded to continue as 
 mitsress, because of her love for him. 
 
 During this reading Miss Pollard flushed crimson. She 
 trembled violently and buried her face in a handkerchief. 
 Colonel Breckinridge chatted in a matter-of-fact way with his 
 lawyers. 
 
 “ That, gentlemen,” Mr. Carlisle said, “ is the story of my 
 client. She does not come here saying she is devoid of fault or 
 blame, but there is the promise of marriage and its breach, the 
 issue in this case.” 
 
 Next Mr. Carlisle read the defendant’s answer, denying all 
 the material allegations in the complaint. 
 
 Sketching briefly what would be proven in the case, Mr- 
 Carlisle spoke of Miss Pollard as the daughter of a saddler, bril- 
 

 COL. W. C. P. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
Second Day of Triad. 
 
 33 
 
 liant and always endeavoring to rise above her station. He said 
 that when she was a young girl John C. Rodes, a man of means, 
 but not of high position, was attracted by her charms, offered to 
 educate her if she would marry him, and she, a simple country 
 girl, had signed an agreement to that effect. ^Afterward, when 
 Miss Pollard was in trouble, because Rodes was pressing her to 
 fulfill her promise, and because she, a country girl, believed he 
 could invoke the law in his aid, she had written Mr. Breckinridge, 
 asking his advice, a letter which was answered in person. 
 
 NO DAMAGES FOR SEDUCTION. 
 
 Then, according to Mr. Carlisle, began a deliberately laid 
 scheme to work the ruin of the girl, under promise that when his 
 wife died he would make her his wife. He had introduced her 
 as his promised wife into the first families of the city. Under 
 the law of the District there could be no claim for damages on 
 account of seduction, but the remedy, or rather what reparation 
 could be made for a broken promise of marriage, the law guaran¬ 
 teed. 
 
 Attorney Phil Thompson announced that the defendant’s 
 opening statement would be reserved until the conclusion of the 
 plaintiff’s testimony. Then Attorney Wilson, for the plaintiff, 
 complained that certain books which had figured in the affidavits 
 and were important to the case had been taken by the defendant’s 
 counsel, and asked that they be returned to the plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth read a notice which had been served on the 
 defendant for the production of four volumes of Washington Irv¬ 
 ing given to Attorney Stoll at Cincinnati, and insisted that a more 
 definite description of the books should be given. 
 
 Just as Mr. Carlisle was rising to reply Miss Pollard broke 
 out hysterically to her counsel, sobbing and making inarticulate 
 exclamations, while the Sister of Charity and her attorneys en¬ 
 deavored to calm her. 
 
 “They know what these books are,” said Mr. Wilson em¬ 
 phatically, “and if they want closer description I will say that 
 they are the four volumes given them by Sister Augustine, from 
 3 
 
44 
 
 Pollard vs. Brkckinrid**. 
 
 one of which they took a Christmas card which the defendant 
 had placed in evidence.” 
 
 Judge Bradley declared that if only four volumes had been 
 taken from the Sisters, the demand for a closer identification 
 must be untenable. 
 
 MRS. BLACKBURN TESTIFIES. 
 
 Mrs. Julia C. Blackburn, widow of the late Governor L,uke 
 jSlackburn, of Kentucky, was the first witness called. She testi¬ 
 fied that on Good Friday, 1893, in the Portland Flats in Wash¬ 
 ington, Colonel Breckinridge and Miss Pollard had called on her, 
 and had persisted in sending for her three times when she had 
 pleaded weariness. She was induced to receive them. Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn spoke firmly, and continued: 
 
 “Colonel Breckinridge said: ‘ I have brought this young 
 iady to ask for her your kind care and protection, for I expect 
 that in the future she will be a great deal to me. As soon as a 
 sufficient time after the death of my wife has elapsed I intend to 
 marry her.’ He said: ‘ You may consider this foolish.’ I replied 
 that there was always risk in these things. He said: ‘ I am old 
 enough to be her father. She is thirty-one years younger than 
 I.’ On another occasion he said: ‘I saw that you were greatly 
 shocked at the announcement of my engagement.’ I replied: ‘It 
 seems to me a very poor return for all the devotion of your wife, 
 who has so recently died.’ He replied : ‘ I will tell you what I 
 never expected would pass my lips. I discovered recently what 
 Miss Pollard’s feelings toward me were, and as a man of honor I 
 considered it my duty to offer to marry her.’ I said: ‘You cer¬ 
 tainly take a very high view of these things.’ ” 
 
 Afterwards Colonel Breckinridge had come to her, asking 
 fter to allay Miss Pollard’s jealousy. 
 
 “I asked,” said Mrs. Blackburn, “have you given her any 
 reason? He replied : ‘On my honor as agentleman, I have not.’ ’’ 
 
 Then I told him that Miss Pollard had come to me the day 
 oefore, telling me of her fears. 
 
 Continuing, Mrs. Blackburn told how Mr. Breckinridge had 
 denied, when she told him that he had no right to pay devoted 
 
Second Day of Triad. 
 
 3* 
 
 attention to another woman, that he had any affection for Mr? 
 Wing, but thought it would be well for the report of his engage • 
 ment to reach his family, that they might become familiarized 
 with the thought of his becoming married. 
 
 URGED TO FIX THE DATE OF MARRIAGE. 
 
 Mrs. Blackburn related how Miss Pollard had once urged 
 Mr. Breckinridge to fix the day for the marriage; how he had 
 said that circumstances prevented it just then, but that he would 
 fix a date and communicate it to Mrs. Blackburn. Going to his 
 side, Miss Pollard had laid her arm affectionately on Colonel 
 Breckinridge’s shoulder, calling him “Willie;” that he had 
 stroked her hand and patted it affectionately. Mrs. Blackburn 
 told Miss Pollard to go away, and Colonel Breckinridge said- 
 “L,et us have no more demonstrations here.” 
 
 Colonel Thompson cross-examined Mrs. Blackburn. Mrs. 
 Blackburn said that the bearing of Miss Pollard upon social oc¬ 
 casions had been that of a lady. Mr. Thompson became more 
 pressing in his inquiries regarding the feeling of Mrs. Blackburn 
 for Miss Pollard, and the witness replied that she felt a sorrow 
 for any woman compelled to fight her own way in the world. 
 With flashing eyes, and facing the white-bearded Congressman, 
 she declared: “Just the sorrow I feel in being compelled to ap-. 
 pear here, when, if I had the defense of a husband, it would 
 have never been necessary.” 
 
 When Mr. Thompson asked for the dates of various calls th« 
 witness replied: “I had no occasion to charge my mind with 
 them. As Colonel Breckinridge came on his own business and 
 not on mine, I presume he can tell you.” 
 
 In 1892 Colonel Breckinridge had called upon witness, as he 
 said, at Miss Pollard’s request, to correct reports concerning Miss 
 Pollard, and had then asserted that there could be no scandal at¬ 
 tached to Miss Pollard’s name, since for a long time after com 
 ing to Washington she had remained in a convent. 
 
36 
 
 Pollard vs- Breckinridge. 
 
 
 Mrs. Fillettee, witness stated, had said that Miss Pollard was 
 forward, taking undue liberties in the houses of her friends, say¬ 
 ing that Miss Pollard had invited Charles Dudley Warner to her 
 (Mrs. Fillettee’s) house without permission. 
 
 Mr. Thompson proceeded to interrogate the witness as to 
 who had been present, according to Mrs. Fillettee’s story, during 
 the visits of Charles Dudley Warner, whereupon Mr. Carlisle 
 objected, and Judge Bradley said : 
 
 “I have been surprised that this examination has gone so far as 
 it has, because it is utterly immaterial.” 
 
 Mrs. Blackburn was not made to contradict her direct testi¬ 
 mony in any particular. To one of Col. Thompson’s cross-ques¬ 
 tions she retorted that he seemed to be trying to make her repeat 
 unpleasant episodes merely to annoy her, and declined to repeat 
 them, the tears springing to her eyes. 
 
 “ It is only ordinary cross-examination, Mrs. Blackburn,” said 
 the Judge. 
 
 “Mr. Thompson, if he is a gentleman, knows that I have told 
 the truth,” replied Mrs. Blackburn. “ I have nothing to add to 
 or take from what I have said.” 
 
 “Do you know what made him come on that occasion?” 
 queried Mr. Thompson, the reference being to the second visit 
 of Colonel Breckinridge. 
 
 “ Do I know what actuated Colonel Breckinridge ? No,” re¬ 
 plied the lady, most forcibly. 
 
 When Miss Pollard came to tell her of Colonel Breckinridge’s 
 attentions to Mrs. Wing, Mrs. Blaekburn had advised her, if she 
 had any self-respect, to drop him; that if he was determined to j 
 play the villain, nothing Miss Pollard could say would prevent j 
 him. On his next visit Colonel Breckinridge had declared, ■ 
 “sternly, emphatically and frequently,” that the stories of his ] 
 attentions to other women were the work of miserable gossips, 5 
 Mrs. Blackburn had extended to Miss Pollard more protection : 
 than she otherwise would, because Colonel Breckinridge had ’ 
 asked her to, and she “ believed him to be a gentleman.” 
 
Second Day of Trial. 
 
 37 
 
 WASHED HER HANDS OF HIM. 
 
 In jNew York, in May, 1893, Mrs. Blackburn had told Mr. 
 Breckinridge that she washed her hands of him, because he per¬ 
 mitted Miss Pollard to follow him about. Miss Pollard had 
 pleaded with her not to withdraw her protection, promising to 
 explain matters in Washington, but in Washington Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn had received no explanation, and had told them that she 
 was through with them. Previously she had protested against 
 the frequent visits of Colonel Breckinridge to Miss Pollard, 
 telling him that he should guard her as he would his own child, 
 and he had replied that she was too hard upon them, knowing 
 them to be engaged. 
 
 After a noon recess Miss Pollard seemed decidedly cheerful, 
 smiling as she talked with her lawyers. Mrs. Blackburn returned 
 to the witness stand and surveyed the audience through her 
 lorgnette. Two telegrams which she had identified on direct 
 examination were produced. They had been received by Mrs. 
 Blackburn in April and May, 1893, both informing her of 
 “Madeline’s” address in New York, No. 7 East Thirty-first 
 street, the other No. 7 West Fifty-first street, the second saying 
 that Madeline would meet her at the depot, and signed by Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge. 
 
 This finished Mrs. Blackburn’s testimony. 
 
 THE SECOND WITNESS 
 
 Was Miss Mary Desha, the sister of Colonel Breckinridge’s first 
 wife, who said that she first met Miss Pollard at Lexington, Ky., 
 in 1889, and next with Secretary and Mrs. Carlisle, during the 
 World’s Fair. 
 
 When questions were asked concerning the first wife of Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge, the defense objected, saying that the marriage 
 was not in dispute. A light wicker basket was handed the wit¬ 
 ness which she had presented to her sister, and on which were 
 initials in her sister’s handwriting. 
 
 “No cross-examination for her; she may stand aside,” said 
 Colonel Breckinridge, with a wave of his hand. 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 MAJOR MOORE, CHIEF OF POLICE 
 Of the District of Columbia, next took the stand. He was ac¬ 
 quainted with both parties to the suit; firs't met Miss Pollard, 
 accompanied by Colonel Breckinridge in his office May 13, 1893. 
 He said : “ The door was suddenly throvrn open, when Colonel 
 Breckinridge came in, closely followed by a lady. He said that 
 he might have to ask my protection, as the lady had threatened 
 his life. She demanded that he should promise to marry her; 
 seemed much excited; demanded that he should name a day. 
 He named May 31, 1893 ; said he would marry her then if Provi¬ 
 dence spared his life. When he started to tell the trouble 
 between them she put her hand on his shoulder and dissuaded 
 him. She was much excited. He was cool.” 
 
 The witness had warned Miss Pollard that she must not make 
 threats against Colonel Breckinridge’s life or the police would 
 have to deal with her. 
 
 In questioning Major Moore about Colonel Breckinridge’s 
 promise to marry Miss Pollard, Mr. Carlisle asked : “ Can you 
 reproduce his tone of voice?” 
 
 “ No, sir; I wish I could,” replied the Major, in a tone which 
 produced a burst of laughter and a reprimand from the Court. 
 
 THE LADY PREGNANT THROUGH MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 On May 17, in witness’ office, Colonel Breckinridge had told him 
 that the lady was pregnant through her relations with him ; that 
 she was going to New York to prepare for the event, and that 
 he intended to marry her. “ He asked me to witness his deter¬ 
 mination. We three clasped hands. It was an impressive 
 scene,” said the Major. 
 
 Miss Pollard had drawn from her bosom a revolver, declaring 
 that if she had occasion to do so she would use it upon herself 
 and him. The witness took it, Colonel Breckinridge suggesting 
 that he should return it to her as a Christmas present, she telling 
 him to give it to her on her birthday. 
 
 There was a stir of excitement through the room as Major 
 Moore, continuing, said “He told her that she could not accuse 
 him of having approached her with flowers, or seducing her; 
 
$»oon» Bay *f Trial. 
 
 3f 
 
 During this interview, which lasted half an hour, Miss Pollard 
 reclined on the sofa, and Colonel Breckinridge sat there. 
 
 Major Moore had received four communications from Colonel 
 Breckinridge and one telegram. The letters were handed to 
 Colonel Breckinridge for identification. “ Those are in my 
 hand-writing. That type-written one has my signature. I sent 
 that telegram,” were his comments, in a matter-of-fact way. 
 One dated Lexington, Ky., June 22, 1893, asked a particular 
 favor of the Major, stating that Miss Pollard was writing to 
 people in Kentucky, spreading news of her engagement. 
 
 The second one, dated July xo, 1893, stated that he paid the 
 penalty of public life by malicious notes in papers like Town 
 Topics, inspired by Miss Pollard, which created scandal. 
 “There is no reason why she should destroy herself,” said the 
 letter. 
 
 One of July 23d, dated at Harrington, Tenn., introduced 
 Major P. P. Johnson and W. S. McChesney as Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge’s friends, who would co-operate with Major Moore in pre¬ 
 venting scandal. It had been presented by them on July 26th. 
 Major Johnson had given him a check for $100, drawn by Colonel 
 Breckinridge on July 31st, to assist Miss Pollard, but witness 
 having no idea of her whereabouts, the check had been returned 
 to Colonel Breckinridge. 
 
 A letter dated Lexington, August 4th, announced Colonel 
 Breckinridge’s expected return to Washington for the special 
 session of Congress ; said that Major Moore knew the situation 
 better than Colonel Breckinridge did, and concluded : “ I do not 
 know whether to expect any trouble.” 
 
 Beginning the cross-examination, Mr. Thompson said, dropping 
 into the Kentucky vernacular, “Major, have you got that gun the 
 lady pulled from her bosom ?” 
 
 A messenger was dispatched to the Chief’s office for the 
 revolver. Mr. Thompson was inclined to be facetious, saying 
 in his questions, “ She threatened him with death, not with 
 marriage.” 
 
4 o 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 “She threw up her little white hands, saying those were her 
 only weapons.” 
 
 “Her lily-white hands,” repeated Colonel Breckinridge, sotto 
 voce. 
 
 asked Mr. 
 
 Thompson, whereupon Miss Pollard cried “No” shrilly, and her ' 
 lawyers and friends devoted themselves to quieting her, which j 
 they were able to do with some difficulty. 
 
 “Not at that time,” -was Major Moore’s answer to the question. i 
 
 One of the best-known physicians of the city, Dr. N. S. Lincoln, 
 then testified that Colonel Breckinridge had brought Miss Pollard 
 to him in May, 1893, representing that she needed attention, as 
 she was unreasonably jealous and exceedingly nervous. Her 
 delicate condition had been referred to, and Dr. Lincoln testified 
 that he had said that one or two other professions were required 
 in her case. 
 
 The examination of that witness was brief, and at its conclu* 
 6ion, 3 o’clock having arrived, the Court adjourned. 
 
 THIRD DAY OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 An exciting day, with both tragedy a?id comedy interspersed .— 
 Miss Pollard taken from the Court roo?n in a faint.—Bad 
 blood and blows between the opposing counsel.—Attorney 
 Shelby slaps fohnsofi's face , while Desha Breckinridge, the 
 dependant's son , strikes Attorney Carlisle from behind. — In¬ 
 dignant females ordered from the Court. 
 
 The supremely sensational character of last Friday’s devel¬ 
 opments in the Pollard-Breckinridge case had a tendency to in¬ 
 crease the size of the crowd which sought admission to the 
 Court-room. There was a solid mass of people packed around 
 the doors leading to the portion of the chamber within the 
 railing beyond which the general public are supposed to gather 
 at will. 
 
 
Third Day or Triad. 
 
 4i 
 
 It was evident that Marshal Wilson and the Judge had de¬ 
 termined to throw a great many difficulties in the way of those 
 desiring admittance on grounds of mere prurient curiosity. 
 Nobody could get past without a pass, written or verbal, from 
 the Judge or Marshal. The result was a general exclusion of 
 the public and every one outside of the profession not connected 
 with the case, and a great deal of disappointment and anger 
 among the throngs who found the way to the Court-room 
 barred, and were obliged to part after great expectations and 
 long and patient waiting. 
 
 It was only accidental that matters broke off just where 
 they did last Friday, but there was a close resemblance in the 
 character to that of a continued story, which leaves the reader 
 in a highly strained and expectant condition, and dismissed with 
 a curt “to be continued in our next.” 
 
 LOOKING FOR MISS POLLARD ON THE STAND. 
 
 While no more interesting or sensational developments and 
 scenes such as characterized the testimony of Mrs. Blackburn, 
 Major Moore and Dr. Ifincoln were expected, it was rumored 
 that Miss Pollard herself would be put on the stand, and curios¬ 
 ity was whetted to a high degree as to how such a high-strung, 
 nervous organization would endure such an ordeal. 
 
 The course of the Judge in his rulings during the first two 
 days of the trial was strongly indicative of a disposition to ex¬ 
 clude all the evidence and depositions prepared by the defense 
 in the endeavor to blacken the character of the plaintiff, and 
 rulings that would confine all evidence to the single point of a 
 breach of promise of marriage by the defendant into which no 
 question of the character of the plaintiff could enter except pos¬ 
 sibly in mitigation of sentence. 
 
 Under this aspect it was evident that the course of the de 
 fense would be to prove fear and duress as inducing the promise 
 of the defendant made in the presence of Mrs. Blackburn in her 
 parlor, and vowed to with hands clasped in those of the plaintiff 
 in the office of the Chief of Police. 
 
 In view of these points Court assembled this morning in a 
 
42 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 general impression that Miss Pollard was likely to be spared the 
 Court celebration and publication of such depositions as have 
 already made some feculent reading in the columns of the news¬ 
 papers of the country. These depositions were given out fcr 
 publication as fast as they were taken, and were calculated to 
 prejudice the cause of the plaintiff with the public, and in ad¬ 
 vance of trial. 
 
 Miss Pollard came into Court accompanied, as usual, by her 
 two friends, the Sister, Miss Ellis, from the House of the 
 Good Shepherd, where she (Miss Pollard) lives, and Mrs. Buch¬ 
 anan, who keeps very closely to her, and shows her devotion in 
 little cares and attentions and words of encouragement. 
 
 MRS. BUCHANAN AS A COMFORTER. 
 
 When on several occasions Miss Pollard has appeared to be 
 on the point of breaking down, or the verge of hysteria, Mrs. 
 Buchanan has soothed and calmed her, and several times it has 
 required this soft and womanly treatment on one hand and the 
 threatening warnings of her counsel to keep Miss Pollard quiet 
 and with an appearance of composure. But to-day all things 
 failed, when it was necessary to take the half-conscious plaintiff 
 from the room. 
 
 At the opening of Court the side seats to the left of the 
 bench and bar inclosure were crowded with ladies. The Judge 
 called a bailiff and told him to clear the Court-room of every 7 
 person not.connected with the case directly or indirectly, and a 
 large phalanx of handsomely dressed and very angry, as well as 
 embarrassed, ladies filed out of the room, to vent their opinions 
 of Judge Bradley and courts and men in general in the corri¬ 
 dors and upon the portico, as they departed for their homes. 
 
 This left the chamber, as usual, without a lady present ex¬ 
 cept the plaintiff and her two friends. Miss Pollard was dressed 
 exactly as heretofore, in unrelieved black, except that she wore 
 a small gold pin at her throat. She looked fresher and better, 
 and there was more appearance of color in her face. 
 
 There was a long season of discussion over legal points in 
 regard to depositions, a bad showing being made for the dc- 
 
Third Day of Triad 
 
 4S 
 
 fendant in the recital of the difficulties encountered by counsel 
 for the prosecution in securing some one to take depositions, 
 and that it was necessary at last to secure the appointment of a 
 notary who would do so, 
 
 CURIOSITY OF THE CROWDS. 
 
 Even during these proceedings the eager curiosity of the 
 barred-out crowds was shown. Along the north side of the 
 Court-room is a light well, ten or fifteen feet wide, and windows 
 from the main corridor of the Court-house look into this well 
 and give a restricted view into the Court where the Pollard- 
 Breckinridge case is being tried. Some idea of the desire to get 
 even a little peep at the parties to this famous suit is given 
 when it is said that these corridor windows were crowded all 
 the afternoon with men and women craning their necks to get 
 some idea of what was going on in Judge Bradley’s Court. As 
 fast as any one would go away, their places would be taken by 
 other anxiously curious spectators. 
 
 The legal scrap was quite lively, and, as said, the statements 
 made added to the bad impression made in every other instance 
 for the cause of the defense. It is plain Judge Bradley does not 
 fancy the demeanor of the Kentucky legal contingent, even the 
 conduct of the defendant himself. He is a tremendous stickler 
 for the preservation of the dignity of his Court and reverence 
 and respect toward it. In this respect the situation had become 
 bad enough for the too free-and-easy Kentuckians, who ought 
 to have kept in mind that they were in the Supreme Court of 
 the District, with a Judge very particular even for that high 
 Court. 
 
 After what happened to-day in general fisticuffs at the close 
 of Court, L,ord knows where they have landed in the estimation 
 of the Judge. It is rumored, however, that Ben Butterworth is 
 not altogether happy. 
 
 THE JUDGE APPEARED BORED. 
 
 A noticeable thing about the Judge, whenever sitting upon 
 the bench, is the appearance of a vast and unrelievable ennui 
 
44 
 
 POLLARD VS. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 under which he labors. His face wears such an acutely bored 
 expression that even looking at him, you are obliged to feel 
 bored in sympathy. Since this case began that habitual expres¬ 
 sion has become so intensified that it is actually painful. It is a 
 great relief to see the Judge brighten up after he leaves the 
 bench and allow his pleasant off-duty expression to illuminate 
 his handsome face. He has not said, “ These Kentuckians make 
 me tired;” at least he has not said so publicly. 
 
 The first witness called was Mr. Claude de la Roche Francis, 
 or, as he was particular to pronounce it, “ Frawncis.” The com¬ 
 ing into the case of Mr. Claude de la Roche “ Frawncis” was a 
 welcome incident. In fact, Mr. ‘Frawncis was a refreshing epi¬ 
 sode himself, giving a splash of color to the sombreness of the 
 surroundings and occasion, and letting a streak of fresh and per¬ 
 fumed air into the mephitic atmosphere. To some extent he 
 furnished the comedy element to complete the tragedy-drama of 
 life here being produced under Federal patronage and manage¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Francis wore his hair parted in the middle and pasted 
 down in the latest agony. He was something in a way of fash¬ 
 ionable cut and extreme modern male flub dub that was dream¬ 
 ful to the last degree, and his “ English” accent very soothing. 
 When the jury of commonplace people, artisans, shopmen, men 
 in humble walks and avocations, saw Mr. Francis come to the 
 stand, they eyed him curiously. 
 
 MR. FRAWNCIS—SO ENGLISH, YOU KNOW ! 
 
 When Mr. Francis attempted to step up to the side of the 
 Judge himself, and a horrified bailiff pulled him back, they 
 smiled. When Mr. Francis remarked, ‘‘It was in the neighbor¬ 
 hood of hawf-pawst 2, I fawncy,” and “when she awsked me the 
 question the lawst time,” they looked at one another curiously 
 with a “what is it? ” expression. 
 
 Mr. Francis deposed that he resided in New York, but spent 
 most of his time in Europe. When Butterworth asked him with 
 an irreverence that made a shudder run through the Court-room, 
 what business he was in, he replied that he was studying 
 
Third Day of Triai,. 
 
 45 
 
 law, which raised the first laugh since the trial began, which was 
 repeated with much emphasis when later on he recounted how 
 he endeavored to sooth Miss Pollard when she threatened to 
 shoot herself if Mr. Breckinridge did not keep his promise to 
 marry her. Miss Pollard had assured Mr. Francis that she never 
 could love any other man as she did Colonel Breckinridge; that 
 she loved him wildly and passionately; that she had a pistol in 
 a drawer near the head of her bed, and was determined to shoot 
 herself if he did not keep his promise. 
 
 Mr. Francis had soothed and encouraged her, and showed 
 her that life was not all a trackless and promiseless desert by 
 telling her to compose herself, as, though Colonel Breckinridge 
 was a great man, great orator and statesman, there were just as 
 good fish in the sea she could catch. 
 
 Mr. Francis said he was in the office of Coudert Bros., New 
 York, and it was developed (by him) that he is a nephew to the 
 Pope’s chamberlain, Marquis De Fa Roche, and cousin to Ward 
 McAllister, all of which was calculated to give very gilt four 
 hundred indorsement to the case of Miss Pollard, for which her 
 counsel ought to be very thankful. 
 
 But with all his extreme fin de siecle and fashionable foibles, 
 it began to crawl into the appreciation of all present that Mr. 
 Francis was making, in a seemingly inconsequential Way and 
 affected manner, some very telling cracks at the cause of the 
 defense. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINED BY BUTTERWORTH. 
 
 Ben Butterworth, who took him in hand for cross-examina¬ 
 tion, soon became painfully aware of the fact, and “ rawther ” 
 wished he had let him alone. The cross-examination brought 
 out the facts that in best society circles, where Miss Pollard 
 moved, her engagement was known; that there were similar 
 scenes to those enacted in Mrs. Blackburn’s drawing-room 
 enacted in other drawing-rooms; that Mrs. Thompson, who was 
 a particular friend of his, living at 1819 H Street* entertained 
 Miss Pollard as a guest; that Colonel Breckinridge was there 
 frequently; that the engagement of marriage was known; that 
 Miss Pollard, at the request of Colonel Breckinridge, had re- 
 
4 6 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 quested the witness not to inform any one of the engagement, 
 mentioning Madame Covarrubius, of the Mexican Legation, and 
 Mrs. Wing, the present Mrs. Breckinridge, he (the Colonel) 
 having seen the witness conversing with these two ladies. 
 
 The witness told of the frequent occasions he had seen the 
 Colonel and Miss Pollard at Mrs. Thompson’s; his manner was 
 very paternal, very kind; hers deferential, respectful, and affec¬ 
 tionate. The examination was rather a bad quarter of an hour 
 for the defense. 
 
 STRONG EVIDENCE AGAINST THE COLONEL. 
 
 Following him Dr. E. Tabor Johnson testified with the 
 plaintiff’s consent, spoken so that all in the vicinity could hear 
 plainly, that he attended her during a miscarriage, the 24th of 
 May last, and identified letters and telegrams from Colonel 
 Breckinridge to her, asking in regard to a sanitarium, cost, 
 comfort, etc., and assuriug her he intended to do everything for 
 her comfort and for her aid. The evidence was such as to 
 seemingly connect the defendant with the matter, and the name 
 of no other man was mentioned, though what the defense may 
 be able to show in that connection remains to be seen. It was 
 last Friday Dr. Lincoln testified to the Colonel visiting his office 
 in company with Miss Pollard, and his remark that “there were 
 two other professions better able to deal with her condition 
 than his.’’ 
 
 But the denouement in the line of medical evidence was 
 reached in the testimony of the next witness, Dr. Mary Par¬ 
 sons. She stated, to put it briefly, that she had attended Miss 
 Pollard professionally in the winter of 1888. February 3, 1888, 
 Miss Pollard gave birth to a fully developed male child, which 
 was taken to an asylum in this city, where it died in the follow¬ 
 ing April. Miss Pollard, in company with the witness, had 
 gone to the asylum several times to see the child. 
 
 Some months afterward she had called at the house of Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge, in N Street, and presented her bill for pro¬ 
 fessional services in the case of Miss Pollard. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge had assured her that he would see 
 
Third Day of Triad. 
 
 4> 
 
 that the bill was paid. She said that after the birth and death 
 of the child she had seen Miss Pollard and Colonel Breckin- 
 ridge together several times. 
 
 While Dr. Johnson was giving his evidence, the plaintiff 
 had retained her composure, and gave little or no evidence of 
 emotion. It was different when Dr. Parsons began to tell the 
 story of the baby that lived long enough to twine itself around 
 the mother’s affections, and then added its death to the crushing 
 weight of sorrows that were overwhelming her. As the witness 
 told the story of the birth and death of the child softly, simply, 
 and in a manner calculated to make it as easy as possible for the 
 mother, it was evident that Miss Pollard was making heroic 
 efforts to hear it with composure, and avoid any demonstration. 
 She kept up until in answer to the question, “ Did you and the 
 plaintiff see the child afterward?’’ she answered “Yes.” 
 
 “When?” 
 
 “At the undertaker’s.” 
 
 With a cry that was half a sob and half a scream, Miss Pol* 
 lard threw her face forward upon the table, her slender form 
 shaken with convulsive sobs that were audible in every part oi 
 the great silent Court room. 
 
 “God have mercy, God pity me,” she cried, while her coun¬ 
 sel and the ladies tried to quiet her. 
 
 It was useless, and in a half fainting, half hysterical con 
 dition she was assisted from the room, and just as she passed 
 from the door slipped in a dead faint from her attendant’s grasp 
 and fell heavily to the floor. The door was quickly closed and 
 the proceedings continued. 
 
 During this incident the Judge hardly looked up from the 
 notes he was making. His professional appearance of indiffer¬ 
 ence, however, was not, for apparent reason, as noticeable as 
 that of the defendant. He leaned back in his chair chewing a 
 toothpick, viewing the affair with an appearance of utter uncon¬ 
 cern, and immediately renewing his consultations with, and 
 promptings to counsel as actively as ever. 
 
 Mrs. Buchanan afterward reported that the plaintiff was is- 
 
48 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 such a condition it would be impossible to bring her back into 
 the Court room, and she was not seen again. 
 
 Meanwhile, the battle on legal points was recommenced, the 
 Kentucky counsel showing great shrewdness, and keeping their 
 heads together in consultation, the defendant frequently calling 
 out directions in a loud voice to one of his attorneys. Major 
 Butterworth did the main part of the talking for a while, with 
 his usual effectiveness of speech, but was a good deal hampered 
 by his unfamiliarity with all the particular jpoints of the case, 
 particularly “ Lexington, Cincinnati, and Hot Springs,” as the 
 papers read, he having come into the case at the last moment. 
 
 It had been evident for some time that there was a good 
 deal of feeling being developed between the counsel of the op¬ 
 posite sides, and occasionally some sharp sword thrusts came 
 from one side or the other, showing the growing bitterness be¬ 
 tween them. The dignified Washington counsel of the plaintiff 
 evidently were restless under the methods pursued and language 
 used by the other side. But it was not until after the adjourn¬ 
 ment that matters came to a head to add the feature of personal 
 violence to the sensationalism of the trial, and end up a day’s 
 session in one of the highest Federal Courts with a rough-and- 
 tumble fight worthy of a Court-house in Carter County. 
 
 Mr. Johnson, who is the partner of Mr. Calderon Carlisle, 
 made some remarks in which he was understood to use the word 
 “ chicanery ” in connection with the transactions cf the opposing 
 counsel, and Shelby, Breckinridge’s partner, endeavored to call 
 him down. 
 
 SHELBY CUT SHORT. 
 
 In the midst of his efforts the Judge declared the Court was 
 adjourned, and would not allow Shelby to proceed. Shelby then 
 muttered that he “had a recourse,” and was determined what to 
 do, and no Washington dude was going to insult him with im¬ 
 punity. He hastily ran over and stood guard by the door. 
 When Johnson, with the others, came along, he shouted at him : 
 “You have insulted me, and I demand satisfaction.” 
 
 The men offer a sharp contrast in appearance. Miss Pol¬ 
 lard’s counsel are in all respects dignified, handsome, and swell. 
 
Third Day of Trial. 
 
 49 
 
 Johnson is a particularly stalwart and fine-looking young man. 
 Shelby is a small, bald-headed, eye-glassed man, with a blonde 
 mustache, and was not present when personal pulchritude was 
 distributed. Johnson said “Well?” expectantly, and Shelby let 
 loose from the shoulder, hitting Johnson a glancing blow on the 
 cheek. Johnson made a lunge in return, and the men clinched. 
 
 In a second, Carlisle, a swell of the 400, a noted attorney, 
 and an athlete, interposed, and everybody seemed to jump in at 
 once in a misguided effort to preserve the peace. It was a regu¬ 
 lar rough-and-tumble Kilkenney fight, every one seeming to be 
 endeavoring to hit any head in sight. 
 
 Above the fray shone the white plumes of the defendant as 
 conspicuous as the helmet of Navarre, and his son feared not to 
 follow where it led. There was a confused exhibition of Thomp¬ 
 sons, Stolls, Carlisles, Johnsons, Butterworths, with several cor¬ 
 respondents taking a hand for fun, a sound of shouts and cuss 
 words, and Judge Jere Wilson’s silk hat smashed as the first 
 fatal casualty. 
 
 BALIFF LEONARD TO THE RESCUE. 
 
 The burly form of one of the Court men, Leonard, plunged 
 into the hullaballoo, and he grabbed the contestants and threw 
 them in all directions, and there was a general cessation of hos¬ 
 tilities, readjustment of clothing, and gathering up of debris. 
 Judge Wilson’s hat was evidently hors de combat. Johnson 
 wore a dark red spot on his cheek, and his immaculate get-up 
 was somewhat demoralized. Judge Bradley, who had departed, 
 came back in great heat and haste. He asked a few questions, 
 and was evidently terribly angry. 
 
 “Who was guilty of starting this outrage?” he demanded. 
 “I will not have such conduct in my Court, and to-morrow 
 morning I will see that those who caused it shall be punished.” 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge asserted to the Judge that he was not to 
 blame. He had not participated in the original assault, and was 
 only trying to separate the belligerents. It appeared that that 
 was what every man present had been engaged in except the de- 
 4 
 
5° 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 voted Shelby, and on his bald head the thunderbolts of the legal 
 Jehovah are likely to fall. 
 
 It is a question among attorneys to-night as to the power of 
 Judge Bradley to punish the offenders, as Court had adjourned. 
 
 The weight of opinion is that he has, as the row took place 
 in his Court room, its inception during session and all in connec¬ 
 tion with a case he is trying. A leading attorney says that if 
 this proves to be the case, Shelby is booked for a term in jail. 
 
 FOURTH DAY OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 Mrs. Logan's statement.—Miss Pollard under the name of Mrs. 
 
 Burgoyne.—Sister Cecilia , and the four books of IVashington 
 
 Irving .— The fighting lawyers deny the allegation of carry- 
 
 big concealed weapons. 
 
 The fourth day of the trial opened with a look of summer. 
 It was for the most part dry legal routine, the very enlivening 
 episodes coming at the beginning and end of the session. 
 The attractive evidence of Claude de la Roche Francis was lack¬ 
 ing. That hot-house flower was gone from the hardy atmosphere 
 of the court room. He had departed from the city, after leaving 
 his correctly spelled name at the various newspaper otSces. It 
 was written in a fine Italian hand that might have belonged to 
 his uncle, chamberlain to Pope Leo XIII. For only a time the 
 sanctums of the city shone with the fleeting sunlight of Mr. 
 Francis’ presence. 
 
 Brotherly love, however, and almost deferential politeness 
 was the spirit which prevailed in the intercourse of the oppos¬ 
 ing counsel all day. 
 
 Like a flash of lightning the blow from the hand of Col¬ 
 onel Shelby, of Kentucky, the night before had cleared the sur¬ 
 charged atmosphere of its anger. While there was much dis¬ 
 cussion among lawyers upon the point whether Attorney W. C. 
 Johnson’s words furnished provocation for the physical resent- 
 
Fourth Day of Trial. 
 
 5i 
 
 ment which Colonel Shelby offered, every one seemed glad to 
 have the trouble smoothed over, as it was by Judge Bradley’s 
 course in dismissing it with an expression of regret. 
 
 UNIFORMED POLICE THERE. 
 
 Another aspect of the affair which the Judge referred to 
 had caused much talk in the city over night—that was the prob¬ 
 ability of a continuation of hostilities with weapons other than 
 fists. So serious was the expectation of trouble that a detail of 
 eight uniformed policemen were sent to the Court-house by the 
 Chief of Police before the hour of the trial. The officers were 
 dismissed by Marshal Wilson, but two members of the regular 
 detective force, dressed in citizens’ clothes, sat in Court close be¬ 
 hind the lawyers all day, while the force of uniformed bailiffs 
 was increased and a policeman stood outside the door by which 
 Judge, jury and attorneys entered. Information had come to 
 Judge Bradley from sources so responsible that he felt justified 
 in acting upon it, that some of Colonel Breckinridge’s attorneys 
 had come to the Court armed, and after he had called their at¬ 
 tention to the local law against carrying concealed weapons, 
 there was an unusual courtroom scene, each lawyer rising to 
 formally purge his hip pockets of the suspicion, which popular 
 humor attaches to Kentucky gentlemen. 
 
 Miss Pollard failed to appear at the trial, being in a state of 
 great nervous excitement, her friends said. Her presence was 
 not essential, as most of the day was consumed in reading a long 
 deposition, after which Sister Cecilia, formerly of Cincinnati, 
 but at present of Pueblo, Colo., was called to identify the mys¬ 
 terious volumes of Irving by which it is expected to prove that 
 Miss Pollard gave birth to a child in the Norwood convent near 
 Cincinnati in 1884 or 1885. The first contested point of import¬ 
 ance—the motion of the defendant to exclude certain affidavits 
 —-was decided in his favor, at which he seemed greatly en¬ 
 couraged. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge, smiling as usual, was shaking hands 
 with his cousin, General Joseph Breckinridge, when Judge 
 Bradley took his seat on the bench. Impressive silence followed 
 
52 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridse. 
 
 the roll call of jurors, the Judge seeming to wait for explana¬ 
 tions from the lawyers. Then he said : 
 
 THE JUDGE WANTED A CHANCE- 
 
 “ I notice the papers have laid out a course of procedure for 
 me to follow regarding an occurrence just outside the courtroom 
 after the Court had adjourned yesterday evening, which the 
 Court did not see, and which the parties concerned in it probably 
 regret as much as the Court does. It is not a matter of which 
 the Court can take judicial notice. As it was past the hour for 
 adjournment when the plaintiff’s counsel had finished speaking 
 last night, and as I noticed some evidences of excitement on the 
 part of the defendant’s counsel, I thought it best to adjourn the 
 Court, thinking that after a night of thought over the connec¬ 
 tion in which certain words had been used the counsel might 
 look upon them differently. Had the trouble referred to taken 
 place in Court it would have been the duty of the Court to take 
 judicial notice of it, and he would have done so promptly.” 
 
 Then, after a brief pause, Judge Bradley proceeded : “ There 
 is another matter about which I deem it my duty to speak. The 
 Court has received information that some of the gentlemen re¬ 
 presenting the defendant have come into the courtroom armed. 
 There is a law for the punishment of the offense of carrying con¬ 
 cealed weapons, not as stringent as I wish it was. This is a law- 
 abiding community, the Courts are adequate to protect citizens, 
 and as such conduct is uncalled for, it is most reprehensible. If 
 the Court has information adequate, he will see that prosecution 
 is begun in the Police Court of the district.” .-i 
 
 Here Mr. Butterworth arose, stating that he had never car¬ 
 ried a weapon, and thought the counsel should be'given an op¬ 
 portunity to enter disclaimers, as he would regret the occurrence 
 of such a breach of order as much as the Court. 
 
 THE COLONEL HAS NO “WEEPIN.” 
 
 Mr. Shelby, Colonel Breckinridge’s partner, said he had 
 never carried a weapon in his life, Mr. McKenny followed with 
 a similar statement, Mr. Stoll declaring that he had never en- 
 
Fourth Day of Trial. 
 
 53 
 
 tered the presence of a Court armed, and then Mr. Thompson 
 remarked: 
 
 “As I am the only one left, I will enter a disclaimer also.” 
 
 Mr. Carlisle rose to say that he wished it understood that 
 the information had not come from any of the plaintiff’s counsel, 
 to which Judge Bradley assented, remarking that it had been 
 made to him by reputable parties. The belligerent episode hav¬ 
 ing thus been closed, Attorney Stoll, for the defense, was asking 
 to be permitted an argument in support of his motion to suppress 
 the depositions taken the day before the trial, when Judge Brad¬ 
 ley interposed: 
 
 “I hardly think it is necessary, as the Court was about to 
 decide in your favor.” 
 
 The Judge excluded the depositions on the ground that 
 they did not conform to the law, that they must either be 
 written by the deponent or by the notary before whom they are 
 taken, as they were written afterward by typewriter. An excep¬ 
 tion to the ruling was taken for the plaintiff. 
 
 Another deposition, that of Mrs. Mary Logan, taken before 
 Notary Lowrey Jackson, in Cincinnati, was offered for the plain¬ 
 tiff and objected to by the defendant. In the argument following 
 it developed that this testimony was concerning the birth of 
 Miss Pollard’s first child. Attorney Carlisle admitted that the 
 identification of Miss Pollard by the witness was not complete, 
 but complained of the manner and length of the cross-examina¬ 
 tion of Mrs. Logan, who had herself protested against it as per¬ 
 secution. 
 
 MRS. logan’s deposition. 
 
 Judge Bradley decided that since more than a day had been 
 consumed in cross-examination of Mrs. Logan the rights of the 
 defendant had been preserved, and admitted the deposition, the 
 defense noting an exception. 
 
 Mrs. Mary Logan, formerly a Cincinnati physician, had in 
 1884 treated a young girl about to be confined, who gave the 
 name of Monica Burgoyne, saying that her friends called her 
 “Mona,” and the witness said that Miss Pollard, who was then 
 
34 
 
 P«LtAR» VS. BRB«KrNRT»<*R. 
 
 in the notary’s office, bore some resemblance to her, although 
 she had doubtless changed. It was the young woman’s first 
 child, and she had represented that her husband had died or 
 there were family reasons for keeping the birth a secret. 
 
 At the suggestion of Dr. Logan, Miss Pollard had gone for 
 her confinement to the Catholic sisters on the Reading Road, 
 three or four miles from Cincinnati. There the physician had 
 made two or three calls, although the young woman was under 
 the charge of the physicians of the institution. Four or five 
 months afterward “Mrs. Burgoyne’’ had been taken to the house 
 of Drs. Perry and Buchanan, where she passed under another 
 name which the witness could not remember. 
 
 If Miss Pollard was the person, the doctor could not inden- 
 tify her certainly, saying, “She has changed greatly if it is she. 
 It has been several years since I saw her. This lady’s figure is 
 thinner, her hair is different, and she has changed in many ways. 
 I am positive that the young woman wore spectacles.” (Miss 
 Pollard is thin and does not wear spectacles.) 
 
 The cross-examination was read by Mr. Butterworth. The 
 witness was certain that the young woman had not passed under 
 the name of Louise Wilson. 
 
 The reading of the depositions was very tedious, taking 
 more than two hours, and served to empty the Court of a ma¬ 
 jority of spectators, and was not concluded until after the noon 
 recess. 
 
 During the morning there were no ladies in the Court, not 
 even Miss Pollard and her two friends appearing. Her attorneys 
 have not yet decided whether the plaintiff will be placed upon 
 the stand to testify, as she is in such a nervous state they fear 
 she would not be able to stand the ordeal. 
 
 SISTER CECILA CALEKD. 
 
 The people who had deserted the Court began to push 
 back at 2:30, when the plaintiff’s counsel varied the monotony 
 by calling a witness. The door between the jury box and the 
 Judge opened to admit two sisters of some Catholic society, at¬ 
 tired in the black bonnets and gowns of their order. One of 
 
Fourth Day of Trial. 
 
 55 
 
 them seated herself beside Mr. Carlisle, while the other took 
 the chair in the witness box, looking very pale and troubled at 
 her unusual position. Sister Cecila, of the Order of Sisters of 
 Charity of Cincinnati, was the name given. She said that in 
 1884 she had been Sister in charge of the Convent at Norwood, 
 Ohio, ten miles from Cincinnati by rail and five miles by road. 
 
 “ Do you recall that in 1885 there was a person there by 
 the name of Burgoyne? ” asked Mr. Carlisle. 
 
 “ I do not.” 
 
 “ Have you examined the records of the institution 
 lately ? ” 
 
 “ I have.” 
 
 Objection to the question of the result of the examination 
 was made. 
 
 “ Do you remember a female patient who was visited by a 
 female doctor from Cincinnati? ” 
 
 THE BOORS PRESENTED. 
 
 “ There was one who was visited twice by Dr. Mary Street.” 
 
 The four volumes of Irving, which had figured mysteri¬ 
 ously in the case, were placed before the Sister, and she said : 
 
 “ I was presented a set of books like those by a lady who 
 had been a patient in our asylum not long before I left the 
 asylum in August, 1885, but I can not say whether these are the 
 identical ones. I placed them in the book-case of the asylum 
 and left them there.’’ 
 
 “Are these the books?” Mr. Carlisle asked. 
 
 “I can not positively say that these are the same books, but 
 they look like them.’’ 
 
 “What is your best opinion on the question?” 
 
 “ That they are the same.” 
 
 “ Do you remember that it was brought to your attention 
 that one of your patients was corresponding with some one 
 through the Cincinnati Enquirer?” 
 
 “She told me so. I thought I persuaded her to desist. I 
 tried to.” 
 
 “ Do you know Miss Madeline Pollard? ” 
 
56 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “I have met her in Washington.” 
 
 “Would you know her if you should see her?” 
 
 “ I would now.” 
 
 “ Did you receive a letter from her? ’’ 
 
 “One. It came to me in Pueblo.” 
 
 “ Did she describe in conversation and by letter the institu¬ 
 tion and incidents connected with it in 1885, which would lead 
 you to identify it?” 
 
 “One moment,” interposed Attorney Butterworth, objecting 
 to recent descriptions of the convent as immaterial. 
 
 Judge Wilson replied to the objection, that after nine years 
 had elapsed ,it was necessary to depend sometimes on corrobo¬ 
 rating circumstances for identification. 
 
 Colonel Shelby counter-argued that the results of the con¬ 
 versations and letter after the institution of the suit, and when, 
 without making any charges in this instance, it would be easy to 
 fabricate testimony, were manifestly improper. 
 
 The hour for adjournment had arrived, and as Mr. Butter- 
 worth asked time to consult authorities, the Court adjourned, 
 leaving the testimony at the crucial question. 
 
 FIFTH DAY OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 Tilts over testimo?iy.—Dissecting Miss Pollard's testimony .— 
 Sister Cecilia testifies to the Norwood episode .— The plaintijf 
 in a private asylum. 
 
 Since his encounter of Monday evening with Attorney 
 Shelbj - , of Lexington, Mr. Johnson, of Miss Pollard’s counsel, 
 has appeared in Court but twice, not that be anticipates trouble, 
 but because he is engaged outside in working up the testimony. 
 Miss Pollard was in Court during the morning, but left when 
 her friend, Dr. Belle Buchanan, of Cincinnati, began to testify 
 concerning the birth of her first child. Colonel Breckinridge 
 was there also, and so were some of his Kentucky constituents, 
 one of whom secured admission to the Courtroom on the repre- 
 
Fifth Day of Trial. 
 
 57 
 
 sentation that he holds membership in the same Presbyterian 
 Church in which the Congressman is enrolled. Most of the day 
 was occupied by the reading of depositions from a Cincinnati 
 physician and one of Miss Pollard’s school friends, and there 
 was some conflicting testimon5 T regarding her age, which is a dis¬ 
 puted point, the plaintiff asserting that she was but 17 when 
 Colonel Breckinridge met her. Her identification by Sister 
 Cecilia was not complete, and remains to be fastened, if it can 
 be, by the writings found in the volumes of Irving said to have 
 been presented by Miss Pollard to the convent. 
 
 SISTER CECILIA ON THE STAND AGAIN. 
 
 The testimony of Sister Cecilia, of Pueblo, Colo., formerly 
 Superior of the Norwood Asylum, near Cincinnati, was resumed 
 when the trial commenced this morning. Miss Pollard was 
 again in the courtroom, sitting nearly in front of Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge, with only the austere-faced Sister from the House of 
 Refuge beside her, her other unknown friend being for the first 
 time absent. Sister Cecilia was on the witness stand. Replying 
 to Attorney Carlisle’s question she said that she had a good 
 memory for names, but a poor memory for faces. She could not 
 affirm positively that Miss Pollard had been an inmate of the 
 Norwood Convent, nor could she say that she had not. 
 
 A dispute arose between counsel over the question of ad¬ 
 mission as evidence of the witness’s opinion as to the identity of 
 the young woman. Judge Bradley said that if the question, as 
 propounded, was intended to elicit the opinion of witness as to 
 the identity of the plaintiff with a certain person who was at 
 the asylum ata certain time, it was competent; if it was intended 
 to show that the witness, from things she had subsequently 
 learned, had become convinced that the plaintiff had at some 
 time been an inmate of the asylum, it was incompetent. 
 
 GOING AFTER AN ANSWER. 
 
 The plaintiff’s counsel reserved an exception to the Court’s 
 ruling, and then framed a different question, asking : 
 
 “ What is your opinion as to the identity of the plaintiff 
 
5« 
 
 POLLARV VS. lR*CJCIN*r»«Mt. 
 
 with a patient in your asylum in May, June, and July, 1885?” 
 which was also overruled, another exception noted, and followed 
 by the question: 
 
 “ What is your belief as to whether the plaintiff was in your 
 asylum during those months?” 
 
 “ That is a question for the jury,’’ said Judge Bradley. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle inquired whether any patients in the asylum 
 had been in the habit of veiling themselves, to which the Sister 
 replied: 
 
 “There were two or three ladies who veiled their faces when 
 they thought there was danger of being recognized by visitors 
 from Cincinnati.” 
 
 Sister Cecilia remembered that three or four ladies had come 
 there from Cincinnati in the spring of 1885 in carriages, but 
 when asked if there had been a patient named Burgoyne, an¬ 
 swered : 
 
 “The name is not familiar to me.” 
 
 The cross-examination was brief, Sister Cecilia saying in 
 answer to Mr. Butterworth that she had held several conversa¬ 
 tions with Miss Pollard since her arrival in Washington. After 
 the two Sisters had retired the reading of a deposition by Dr. 
 Kate Perry Kane, of 62 Front street, Cincinnati, who had been 
 in the spring of 1885 a member of the firm of Drs. Buchanan & 
 Perry, was begun by Mr. Carlisle. Mrs. Kane remembered that 
 Miss Pollard had boarded in their house as Dr. Buchanan’s pa¬ 
 tient, under the name of Mrs. Louise Wilson, identifying the 
 plaintiff positively. 
 
 AN UNFORTUNATE KENTUCKY GIRU. 
 
 From the cross-examination in the deposition it appeared 
 that Miss Pollard had a miscarriage; that she was described by 
 Dr. Buchanan as “ an unfortunate girl from Kentucky.” The 
 boarder was understood to be an unmarried woman, and once 
 after she had been to meet a friend at a hotel about some finan¬ 
 cial matters, Dr. Kane asked why she did not marry the friend, 
 to which she replied that she could not; that he had ruined her 
 
Fifth Day of Trial. 
 
 59 
 
 and she loathed him; had steeled her heart against him, and 
 would not marry him, although he had offered to marry her. 
 
 From Miss Pollard’s ways, general actions, and knowledge 
 of things in 1885, the witness thought she must have been about 
 24 years old then. She was not at all frivolous or girlish, kept 
 her affairs to herself, and time seemed to have dealt gently with 
 her. 
 
 DR. BELLE BUCHANAN. 
 
 The identity of the friend who sat beside Miss Pollard 
 throughout the trial was divulged when Mr. Carlisle called Dr. 
 Belle Buchanan, and that lady walked around to the witness 
 stand and took the oath. As she was giving her name, occupa¬ 
 tion, and the usual preliminary answers, Mr. Thompson spoke 
 out familiarly: 
 
 “ Speak up a little louder, please, doctor; we can’t hear 
 you.” 
 
 Dr. Buchanan has an intelligent face. She stated that she 
 first made Miss Pollard’s acquaintance under the name of Louise 
 Wilson in June, 1885, when Miss Pollard came from the Found¬ 
 ling Asylum at Norwood in a carriage, her coming having been 
 arranged by Dr. Mary Street, now Mrs. Logan. 
 
 Miss Pollard had evidently given birth to a child. 
 
 “Are you married or single?” asked Mr. Stoll, beginning 
 the cross-examination. 
 
 “ I have been married,” responded the witness, with empha¬ 
 sis on the verb. “I married James S. Scherer in 1874, but 
 afterwards secured a divorce and resumed my maiden name.” 
 
 When Mr. Stoll went into the degree of intimacy between 
 Dr. Buchanan and her partner, Dr. Street, between 1881 and 
 1885, Judge Bradley interposed that he was carrying that too 
 far, whereupon Miss Pollard turned to flash upon the Kentucky 
 lawyer a significant smile. Dr. Buchanan was questioned 
 whether she was the same witness who had made a deposition 
 in Cincinnati in February, answering that she was, and identi¬ 
 fying her signature to the deposition. 
 
 The cross-examination of Dr. Buchanan was completed 
 
6o 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 after the noon recess, the doctor inclining occasionally toward 
 sarcasm in her replies to Mr. Stoll. 
 
 MRS. ROBERTSON’S AFFIDAVIT. 
 
 An affidavit by Mrs. Wesley Ann Robertson, wife of Will¬ 
 iam F. Robertson, of Cincinnati, and daughter of Dr. Brown, 
 the President of Wesleyan Seminary in 1883 and 1884, was read 
 by Mr. Carlisle. The deponent had been a student at the semi¬ 
 nary while Madeline Pollard was there; had been given by Miss 
 Pollard a letter to be opened on the night of her graduation in 
 June, 1885. She had last seen the letter when her husband 
 gave it to Colonel Breckinridge without her consent. Here Mr. 
 Stoll had said before the notary that he had the letter, wanted 
 the Court to protect him in the possession of it, and intended to 
 offer it to the witness for identification. 
 
 “ But you did not get it honestly,” the witness replied. 
 
 The letter was identified by her. In the correspondence the 
 witness had once, in August, 1884, addressed Miss Pollard as 
 ‘‘Madeline Lillian Breckinridge Pollard.” Miss Pollard had said 
 that her father was a great admirer of Mr. Breckinridge’s father, 
 and that she herself admired W. C. P. Breckinridge greatly, as he 
 was then “the star of Kentucky,” a statement which, even read 
 by Mr. Carlisle at second hand, stirred a laugh. In one letter 
 Miss Pollard had spoken of her deep debt of gratitude to Mr- 
 Rodes, and wrote: “ How can I ever marry the old wretch?” 
 The witness had understood that Rodes was Miss Pollard’s guar¬ 
 dian, and wanted to marry her. In the contested letter Miss 
 Pollard had.spoken of her love for a Prof. Overman. 
 
 According to the witness, Miss Pollard had been an excep¬ 
 tionally bright and lady-like girl, smart in her studies, though 
 her education in early life had been neglected. She had never 
 lived in a city apparently, and was very diffident in the presence 
 of gentlemen. Miss Pollard had told of her visit home on ac¬ 
 count of the death of her sister, and of meeting Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge on the train. 
 
 “ I remember very distinctly that she was very much elated 
 
Fifth Day of Trial. 
 
 6i 
 
 that a man of his standing should come to her and address her,” 
 said the witness. 
 
 “ We heard a great deal of this incident. I thought Miss 
 Pollard as pure-minded a girl as I ever met, with considerably 
 less experience of the ways of the world than the average young 
 woman who came to the college. My first impressions were that 
 she had been taken advantage of, and I always retained them. 
 She spoke of Mr. Breckinridge as a kind, fatherly old man.” 
 
 The time referred to in this testimoney was in the holidays 
 of 1883 and 1884. The witness was then 18 years old, and Miss 
 Pollard was younger. 
 
 There had been a controversy between counsel before the Com¬ 
 missioner over possession of the fetter, and the letter had been 
 attached to the deposition. Mr. Carlisle’s reading of it, since he 
 found borne difficulty in mastering the handwriting, did not add to 
 the impressiveness of the school-girl epistle. She told of the offer 
 of Rodes to her, asking how she could ever marry the old rake, 
 and announced her intention of telling Mrs. Brown, as she could 
 not lead a secret life. There were some verses closing the letter, 
 which Mr. Stoll read, though Mr. Stoll can not be truthfully 
 called a success in the role of elocutionist. 
 
 There was also a literary production, a prophecy entitled 
 “Destiny,” written by Miss Pollard in school, which Mr. Stoll 
 read while the spectators found entertainment in the attitude of 
 an elderly and honest-looking juror in the front row, who leaned 
 far forward, with open mouth and an expression of profound but 
 vacuous admiration. While there Was some literary merit to the 
 production, its relevancy to the case was not apparent, except as 
 an evidence that Miss Pollard had been an exceptionally bright 
 school girl. It was particularly sentimental in its strain. 
 
 After Miss Pollard’s attorneys had expressed a desire for 
 copies of the letter and prophecy for purposes of their own, the 
 Court adjourned. 
 
62 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 SIXTH DAY OF THE TRIAL- 
 
 Sarah Gess, an old slave , a witness.—Pointing to Miss Pollard she 
 
 tells her story to the jury.—The plaintiff as a school girl. 
 
 Court was a little late in opening. Attorneys Wilson and 
 Carlisle were the first arrivals, and both deposited aristocratic 
 tiles on the railing of the clerk’s bench. Miss Pollard was on 
 hand early, and Colonel Breckinridge took his seat directly be¬ 
 hind her. The five lawyers for the defense ranged themselves 
 along the table, two on each side of the defendant. 
 
 Mr. Farrell, the young attorney who took the deposition of 
 Sarah Gess in Lexington, assisted the prosecution in examining 
 her when she appeared as a witness yesterday. He is of a very 
 youthful appearance, but displayed considerable ability as an ex¬ 
 amining attorney. He is of short stature, has a clean shaven face, 
 and altogether leaves a good impression, as of one who will be 
 heard more of later on. 
 
 Sarah Gess, an old mulatto slave, who has lived at Lexing¬ 
 ton since the war, was the principal witness in the Pollard case 
 to-day. She wore mourning, and sat next to the plaintiff’s 
 lawyers in the Circuit Court-room this morning. She looked 
 curiously at Colonel Breckinridge and Miss Pollard as they 
 entered, and when called to the stand she answered questions 
 freely. Her examination was conducted by Mr. Farrell, the 
 young Lexington attorney who assisted Messrs. Carlisle and 
 Johnson in taking depositions in Kentucky. 
 
 According to Sarah Gess’ story she had been born a slave 
 in Alabama fifty-six years before, had lived in Lexington “sence 
 durin’ the wah ” for twenty-five or twenty-six years—a slight 
 discrepancy in the matter of time. She had “ knowed Curnel 
 Breckinridge since I was a little girl.” 
 
 When Mr. Farrell asked her if Mr. Breckinridge had ever 
 visited her house accompanied by any person, Attorney Shelby 
 objected that the question should connect Colonel Breckinridge’s 
 
Sixth Day of Trial- 63 
 
 companion with the plaintiff, a point which Judge Bradley said 
 was well taken. 
 
 “ Do you know Miss Pollard? ” inquired the attorney. 
 
 “I do.” 
 
 “ Do you see her here ? ” 
 
 Rising, the colored woman pointed out the plaintiff in black 
 and resumed her seat. 
 
 USED TO KISS MISS POLLARD. 
 
 Ten years ago, she continued, Colonel Breckinridge had 
 begun to visit her house on Broad Street, in Lexington, with 
 Miss Pollard. Before the first visit he had called on Thursday 
 in the summer time to ask that Miss Pollard be kept there Fri¬ 
 day to Monday, a request which was at first refused because the 
 witness had no room, but was finally agreed upon. Friday 
 night just at dark they came, and Colonel Breckinridge was in 
 the front room with Miss Pollard until 11 o’clock. Colonel 
 Breckinridge knocked on the middle door for the woman to let 
 him out when he was ready to go. 
 
 “ He kissed her and 
 
 bid her good-night, putting his arm around her.’’ 
 
 Saturday night and Sunday night Colonel Breckinridge 
 had repeated his visits, each night kissing Miss Pollard good-by 
 in the presence of the colored woman. 
 
 Sunday night 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge said that Miss Pollard must get down to 
 the depot early in the morning to take the first train, and the 
 witness had overheard him say that she was to meet Mr. Rodes 
 there. 
 
 SHE WORE A SCHOOL GIRL’S DRESS. 
 
 Mr. Farrell asked the opinion of Sarah Gess as to the age of 
 Miss Pollard at that time, a question objected to by the defense, 
 admitted by the Judge, an exception noted, and the answer 
 given as follows: 
 
 “ She had dresses up to the tops of her shoes—a school 
 
6 4 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 girl dress—and seemed to be about seventeen or eighteen. 
 Sometimes she wore her hair down her back in a plait.” 
 
 “ Had Miss Pollard ever visited your house before that 
 time she came with Colonel Breckinridge? ” asked the attorney. 
 
 “No, sir.” 
 
 “ Had Colonel Breckinridge ever visited there before? ” 
 
 This question raised a breeze. Attorney Shelby was on his 
 feet instantly, objecting. The spectators leaned forward eagerly 
 while Sarah spoke up clearly: 
 
 “Yes, sir.” 
 
 Judge Bradley sustained the objection, and the question and 
 answer were ordered stricken from the record. Colonel Thomp¬ 
 son offered the explanation that the witness said that Colonel 
 Breckinridge had visited her before to make arrangements for 
 bringing Miss Pollard there, but nevertheless the audience snick¬ 
 ered over the answer. 
 
 “ Did Miss Pollard ever come therewith any one but Colonel 
 Breckinridge ?,” asked the lawyer. 
 
 “No, sir,” was the answer. 
 
 The pair had visited her house about fifty times. A year- 
 ago last fall Colonel Breckinridge had come there asking to bring 
 Miss Pollard again, but the witness refused, declaring that she 
 was not taking people in any longer, although Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge insisted that witness was the only woman Miss Poilard 
 would trust herself with. 
 
 TRIED TO GET HER TO KEEP STILL. 
 
 Then the witness created a sensation by relating that Colo¬ 
 nel Breckinridge had visited her last summer after the suit had 
 been filed and told her he hoped she would have nothing to do 
 with the case. She had replied that she must tell the truth. 
 Colonel Breckinridge had inquired where Mary Scott and Mary - 
 Wilson were, saying that he wanted them to keep out of the way. j 
 lie had also asked if Miss Pollard ever came to the house with . 
 Colonel Swope and witness assured him that he was the only man 
 Miss Pollard had ever met there. The visits of Colonel Breckin- 
 
Sixth Day op Triad. 
 
 65 
 
 ridge and Miss Pollard to Sarah’s house, the witness testified, 
 had extended over a period of three or four years. 
 
 Colonel Shelby began the cross-examination by inquiring: 
 “ Sarah, how long have you been keeping an assignation house 
 in the City of Lexington ? ” Whereupon Sarah rolled her e3^es to 
 the ceiling and responded, “ Nineteen years,” in a matter of fact 
 way. 
 
 “Who brought you here? ” 
 
 “ Mr. Farrell telegraphed for me to come.” 
 
 “How long have you known Mr. Farrell ?'” was the next 
 question. 
 
 “Oh, ever since he was a young man,” answered the 
 witness—a reply which drew a visible blush to the cheeks of the 
 attorney, because the audience persisted in smiling. 
 
 The first visit of Colonel Breckinridge and Miss Pollard 
 had been in the latter part- of August, and Sarah understood 
 that the girl had been brought from school, as most schools 
 were closed from Friday to Monday. Colonel Breckinridge had 
 said that the girl came on a train. 
 
 BOARDING-HOUSE KEEPER ON THE STAND. 
 
 The next witness was a well-dressed lady, Lucretia Marie 
 Minear, of Washington, whose voice trembled as she announced 
 that she had lived at 25 Lafayette Square, the fashionable board¬ 
 ing-house between the Cosmas Club and Senator Don Cameron’s 
 residence, and but one door from the Blaine mansion, where 
 Miss Pollard had boarded in 1892 and 1893. Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge had often visited Miss Pollard at the house. The witness, 
 it appeared, was dhe landlady of the Lafayette Square House. 
 Mrs. Minear had last seen Miss Pollard walking in the park with 
 Colonel Breckinridge in April or May of 1893. On two occa¬ 
 sions Colonel Breckinridge had brought Miss Pollard home in 
 die evening at 9 cr 9:30 o’clock. 
 
 Mrs. Kate W. Burt, a stout, middle-aged lady, a clerk in the 
 and office, had boarded at Thirteenth and F streets. When Mr. 
 7 /ilson asked if Miss Pollard had lived there, and under what 
 5 
 
66 
 
 Poerard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 name, Mrs. Burt expressed a desire to see Miss Pollard. The j 
 plaintiff had just left the Court room with her companion, and , 
 Mr. Carlisle hastened after her, but did not return. Mr. Wilson - 
 explained that Miss Pollard was not feeling well, and he had 
 advised her to go to her room. So the witness was excused ■ 
 until 2 o’clock. Soon, however, Miss Pollard returned, and : 
 Judge Wilson went in search of the witness and Mr. Carlisle. 
 
 Mrs. Burt recognized Miss Pollard; said that she had lived > 
 at Thirteenth and F streets for ten days in October, 1887, under * 
 the name of Mrs. Foster. The witness had seen Colonel Breck- I 
 inridge at the door twice, and he had gone to Mrs. Foster’s room 
 on the third floor. 
 
 MRS. FOSTER ABOUT TO BECOME A MOTHER. 
 
 . 
 
 “Do you know what Mrs. Foster’s condition was—whether } 
 there were indications that she was about to become a mother? ” 1 
 asked Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “Yes,” was the almost inaudible reply. 
 
 “ Did Colonel Breckinridge ask if Sam Walter, of Ken>g 
 tucky, was living there?” asked Colonel Thompson on cross-* 
 examination, to which Mrs. Burt said that he had, but that Sam J 
 Walter was dead. 
 
 After this Mr. Carlisle partly emptied the Court room by I 
 beginning to read a deposition by Mrs. M. A. Ketchum, ofl 
 Lexington, with whom Miss Pollard had boarded in 1884,1 
 ’85 and ’86, during the time she attended the Sayre Insti- ! 
 tute. Colonel Breckinridge manifested impatience at the trivial 
 details of the deposition, urging the lawyers to skip them and| j 
 hurry up. 
 
 The deposition of Miss Mary F. Hoyt, 79 years of age, who 
 lived with her sister, Mrs. Ketchum, followed. To her Miss Pollard 
 had represented that she had left the Wesleyan Institute, and 
 had come to school in Lexington to be nearer her mother. Miss 
 Pollard had said that her expenses were paid by h$r aunt in 
 Pittsburg, and when she left, at the time the first child is said to 
 have been born, declared that she was going to the Mardi Gras 
 jyith an aunt from Frankfort, who was in delicate health. Rodes 
 
Seventh Day of Trial. 
 
 67 
 
 had visited Miss Pollard, and the girl had once said that he 
 offered to pay her school expenses if she would marry him, but 
 did not say whether she had agreed to the proposition. The old 
 lady had been asked if James Lane Alien or Colonel Swope had 
 visited Miss Pollard, and had answered in the negative. It would 
 have been possible for Colonel Swope to call without her know¬ 
 ledge, but not probable. Miss Pollard had occupied a room 
 downstairs, while the old ladies roomed upstairs. 
 
 AT SCHOOL IN LEXINGTON. 
 
 Another deposition by Major H. B. McClellan, who had 
 been principal of Sayre Institute in Lexington since 1870, was 
 read. The principal testified that Miss Pollard entered the 
 school in September, 1884, had always conducted herself well, 
 and had never been suspected of being other than a pure young 
 woman. Rodes had once told the principal of his contract to 
 marry Miss Pollard.’ 
 
 As Judge Wilson had a headache, and there were no more 
 depositions to be read, the Court adjourned earlier than usual 
 
 SEVENTH DAY OF THE TRIAL- 
 
 The sad, sad story, as told by the plaintiff herself .-—Miss Pollara 
 071 the stand.-~Not overawed by counsel, she tells her story 
 straight. 
 
 Miss Madeline Pollard was a witness to-day in the case 0' 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. Her testimony consumed the entire 
 day, and then the cross-examination was not finished. Mis,* 
 Pollard was cool and collected most of the time, and only once o? 
 twice were her tones and exclamations of an emotional char 
 acter. 
 
 It might almost be said that Mr. Butterworth was on th<? 
 stand during his examination of Miss Pollard for the prosecu¬ 
 tion. Not once did the learned lawyer get the better of th<§ 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 fed 
 
 woman oeiore him. Her dates seemed to be arranged like a 
 chronological tablet in her memory. Only once was she at a 
 loss to immediately respond to the questions asked her. Many 
 times she commenced her response before the question had been 
 completely asked, so perfectly at her command were the inci¬ 
 dents of her past life. 
 
 The historj 7 which she told has been gone over time and 
 time again by published statements and witnesses’ depositions 
 and testimony. To-day, however, there was added to that 
 chronicle the vivid spoken words and the almost piquant per¬ 
 sonality of the plaintiff. At times the wdtness seemed to lean 
 slightly to a stage delivery. Her vowels were very broad, al¬ 
 most as much so as those of Claude de la Roche Francis. It 
 would have gratified a professor of elocution to have heard her 
 denial of improper relations with any one other than the defend¬ 
 ant. The words “No; never, never!’’ came out with an aspi¬ 
 rated eloquence like the discharge of an air gun. 
 
 Mr. Wilson frequently smiled at the attempts of Mr. Butter- 
 v/orth to entangle the witness in any discrepancy of statement.. 
 
 MR. BTJTTERWGRTH WAS FATHERLY. 
 
 Miss Pollard seemed to have a lurking confidence in the 
 kind and fatherly appearance of her cross-examiner, although 
 she quickly corrected him when he asked a question that assumed 
 any doubtful thing as granted. Miss Pollard frequently called 
 Mr. Butterworth by name during the day, and several times told 
 him that he should know 7 better than to ask her certain ques¬ 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge was ill at ease during the examination, 
 and kept his eyes closely upon the witness. Mr. Stoll would 
 turn a sarcastic smile at the defendant during some parts of the 
 plaintiff’s testimony, but there was no response from the white- 
 haired Congressman at his side. Mr. Breckinridge had the air 
 of a man who has no time for mirth. His examination of the 
 letters produced by the prosecution was very cursory, and he 
 seemed to recognke them with little trouble. Mr. Butterworth 
 sat immediately at his left during the day, and many of the 
 
Seventh Day oe Trial. 69 
 
 lawyer’s questions appeared to be incited by some whispered 
 suggestion of the defendant. 
 
 Colonel Thompson sent Mr. Stoll one letter, and wore a sar¬ 
 castic smile during the entire session. He seemed to want the 
 prosecution’s evidence hurried to a close, that the defense might 
 prove how futile Miss Pollard’s testimony really was. The other 
 counsel for the defense were ranged along the table as before, 
 and took frequent notes of the testimony. 
 
 THE CROWD WAS LARGER. 
 
 The crowd in attendance was larger than on any previous 
 day. Men struggled with the bailiffs in the corridor and told of 
 their exalted government positions, their newspaper connections, 
 or their personal relations with the principals or counsels. It 
 soon got noised about town that the plaintiff was on the stand, 
 and the crowd was augumented by squads. Some of those who 
 could not gain admittance crowded to the windows of the hall¬ 
 way across the inner court of the building. From this vantage 
 point they could not see the witness, but watched the privileged 
 spectators’ faces for news of what was going on. 
 
 In the audience were several Congressmen, among them 
 Representative Cousins, of Iowa, and Senator McEaurin, of Mis¬ 
 sissippi. The legal profession was represented by a large dele¬ 
 gation of lawyers, and by Judges Cole and Miller. Col. Wilson, 
 ex-District Commissioner Douglass, and Rev. E. D. Bailey were 
 also present. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle began his direct examination with the day the 
 witness came into the world, and brought her life down to the 
 present time. Occasionally he would revert to some point that 
 had not been completely covered by the first statements. Miss 
 Pollard was calm and self-possessed during this part of the pro¬ 
 ceedings, and was far less nervous than the other women, who 
 have preceded her on the witness stand in this case. She seemed 
 to weigh every word, and often hesitated to get just the right 
 one. Her story of her life was the same, or nearly the same as 
 in her published statements, and in the testimony of the various 
 
70 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 witnesses, only it went into very minute and somewhat uninter 
 esting detail. 
 
 HAD COPIED THE LETTER. 
 
 At one stage of the direct examination Mr. Carlisle produced 
 a copy of a letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant in re¬ 
 gard to his promise to marry her, and threatening redress if he 
 did not do as he had promised. 
 
 “Do you object to the introduction of this letter?” asked 
 Mr. Carlisle of the defense. 
 
 “We do not object,” said Mr. Butterworth, “but we do not 
 admit the receipt of the letter.’’ 
 
 Miss Pollard stated that she had authorized the publication 
 of her engagement “in the Washington Post and other papers.” 
 She had done this only when she found that her own character - 
 was coming into question by the apparent denials of the de¬ 
 fendant of the engagement. 
 
 The cross-examination began at 1140 o’clock and lasted until 
 3:15, but into that hour and a half was compressed as much skill¬ 
 ful intellectual attack and parry as has ever been heard in a court' 
 room. The initial efforts of Mr. Butterworth were directed at 
 the plaintiff’s age. He got at this by questions about the re¬ 
 spective ages of Miss Pollard’s brothers and sisters, and the time 
 that her more important studies began. The only weak points 
 in the answers of the witness were when her age was questioned. 
 She stated, however, at the beginning of the testimony, that she 
 did not know her own age; that the records of it seemed to be 
 obscure, and that she had always supposed herself to be older 
 than it appeared she really was. 
 
 determining her age. 
 
 " Jr 
 
 The exact determination of her age probably plays an im¬ 
 portant part in the programme of the defense, for a large part of 
 yesterday’s examination bore upon this point. Mr. Butterworth 
 pursued his inquiries with such persistent insistence that Miss 
 Pollard many times begged him to cease, because she had really 
 told all that she knew. Once she exclaimed: 
 
Seventh Day of Trial. 
 
 7i 
 
 “I don’t know; I don’t remember. People don’t usually re¬ 
 member when they are babies.” 
 
 Mr. Butterworth questioned her closely about the date when 
 her first serious reading began. 
 
 “How were you regarded by others when you were young?” 
 he said. 
 
 “I was a bright child,” was the naive response, “and I did 
 more playing than any child you ever knew;” this last with an 
 inflection that suggested a pretty picture of her girlhood’s days. 
 
 Miss Pollard said she had read selections from Burns, Mrs. 
 Hemans, and Pope when at the Sayre Institute. She was very 
 fond of Pope’s “Essay on Man.” Here a noisy smile, starting 
 from the newspaper men, went around the court-room, and the 
 crier lustily exercised his gavel. 
 
 “Ever read Browning?” asked Mr. Butterworth. That 
 seemed to be the hardest thing he could think of. Miss Pollard 
 smiled at the question. 
 
 “Oh, no!” she exclaimed. “I can’t read him even now.” 
 She had never read Byron, either, and Mr. Butterworth twice 
 got around to this question. Possibly he wanted to bring out 
 that she had studied Don Juan. ■ But witness had never read 
 Byron, even in her later years. 
 
 Another funny colloquy occurred when Miss Pollard was 
 asked about her occupation while at her aunt’s, near Lexington. 
 “Why, anything a country girl does,” she said. “Don’t you 
 know what that is, Mr. Butterworth?” She went on to specify, in 
 detail, that she sewed, washed dishes, dusted, read, taught the 
 children, and rode horseback. 
 
 ONE BURST OF FEELING. 
 
 Perhaps Miss Pollard’s intensest feeling was displayed when 
 she burst out in addenda to a certain response with: 
 
 “ Until I was robbed of the power to become Mr. Rodes’ 
 wife by Mr. Breckinridge.” 
 
 The defendant’s face flushed at the words, which were ut¬ 
 tered slowly and with deliberate emphasis. Miss Pollard watched 
 him closely as she spoke. At another time she said: 
 
72 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “ You know that, Mr. Butterworth, and Mr. Breckinridge 
 knows it. I do not see how he can sit there and allow you to 
 ask me such questions.” 
 
 Summoning up Miss Pollard’s testimony, cold type can not 
 depict the rising and falling of her plaintive voice; the tone of 
 her demure little acknowledgments about her early life, and 
 the sharp yet courteous replies to inquiries of the defendant’s 
 attorney. Major Butterworth. She proved the most interesting 
 witness of the now noted trial, and every word she uttered was 
 listened to with attention. She told how she had lived as a little 
 girl; how James Rodes, an uncouth old man, had made a con¬ 
 tract with her to pay for her education on condition that she 
 would pay him back or marry him ; how Colonel Breckinridge 
 came into her life; how she passed for nine years as a pure, inno¬ 
 cent girl; of the alleged proposal of marriage after the death of 
 Mrs. Breckinridge, and of what followed defendant’s marriage to 
 Mrs. Wing. 
 
 OPENING OF COURT. 
 
 When the Court opened Mr. butterworth handed Mr. Car¬ 
 lisle a letter. Mr. Carlisle and Judge Wilson looked at it curi¬ 
 ously, and it was passed to Miss Pollard, who glanced at it and 
 passed it to Mrs. Ellis, her companion.- Mr. Butterworth held a 
 type-written copy in his hand. Mr. Carlisle seemed worried, 
 and summoned one of his clerks, to whom he gave some instruc¬ 
 tions. The clerk left the Court room very hastily. 
 
 Miss Pollard then took the stand, and Mrs. Ellis sat next 
 her, ready to lend aid if the strength of the witness failed. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle’s preliminary questions were about Miss Pol' 
 lard’s parentage. Her father was a saddler; when he died in 
 1886 all the Odd Fellows and Masonic lodges in Kentucky sent 
 delegates to Frankfort to attend the funeral. She told of spend¬ 
 ing some time with her Pittsburg aunt after her father’s death. 
 
 In answer to Mr. Carlisle, Miss Pollard said: “In the very 
 last daj^s of August, in 1892, Mr. Breckinridge met me at the 
 Baltimore and Ohio Railway Station.” 
 
 “ How did he greet you?” 
 
Seventh Day of Trial. 
 
 73 
 
 “ He drew me to him, kissed me, and put me in a carriage 
 and we were driven into the country.” 
 
 “What did he say in the carriage?” 
 
 - “He told me that he had something to tell me, and he said 
 he was vain enough to think I would be glad to hear it. He 
 said that the children were all grown up now, and that there 
 was no reason why he should not marry; he asked me if I would 
 marry him, and I told him I would.” 
 
 “ Where were you stopping during this stay in Washington ?” 
 
 “At 25 Lafayette Square.” 
 
 “During your few days’ stay at this time, was the subject of 
 marriage mentioned?” 
 
 “Yes, frequently.” 
 
 “Where did you go from Washington?” 
 
 MARRIAGE WAS MENTIONED. 
 
 “I went to New York, where Mr. Breckinridge joined me. 
 The subject of marriage was mentioned during those few days.” 
 
 “Did he say anything about when the marriage should take 
 place? ” 
 
 “Yes, he said he had waited fourteen months after the death 
 of his first wife before taking a second wife, and he thought a 
 year would be sufficient to wait for our marriage.” 
 
 “ Did you agree with him ? ” 
 
 “No, I said that more consideration was due his children; 
 that he should wait at least two years.” 
 
 “ Was there anything said further? ” 
 
 “Yes; I said that Mrs. Willard, who keeps a young ladies’ 
 school in Berlin, was going back to Europe with her two 
 daughters, and I thought if I went with them I could take 
 course of study there while the engagement lasted. It would 
 only cost a thousand dollars a year, and it would be better that 
 I should go there.” 
 
 “ Did you receive any note from Mrs. Willard about the 
 trip? ” 
 
 “ Miss Willard, who was stopping at Gray Gables, the sum- 
 
74 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 mer home of President Cleveland, at Buzzard’s Bay, wrote me 
 that she hoped I would go with them.” 
 
 This note was produced and read by Mr. Carlisle. 
 
 Miss Pollard was also questioned concerning her residence 
 at 25 Lafayette Square, where she said Mr. Breckinridge called 
 on her frequently, and said many times that a year after his 
 wife’s death was sufficient to wait. “ I saw him always once a 
 day, sometimes twice a day, and during the evening,” she said. 
 
 Miss Pollard said she had communicated the fact of her en¬ 
 gagement to Mrs. Thomas, who lived at 25 Lafayette Square, 
 and also to Claude de la Roche Francis. She told of the con¬ 
 versation with Colonel Breckinridge, which Mr. Francis said he 
 overheard, in which Colonel Breckinridge said he was sorry she 
 had told Mr. Francis of their engagement. Miss Pollard also 
 told the story of her presentation to Mrs. Luke Blackburn by 
 Colonel Breckinridge as his future wife, and of his placing her 
 in Mrs. Blackburn’s charge as “my future wife,” as testified to 
 by Mrs. Blackburn a few days ago. 
 
 SCENE AT MRS. BLACKBURN’S. 
 
 Miss Pollard went on to tell of the time when she and the 
 defendant went again to see M^s. Blackburn, and Miss Pollard 
 asked Colonel Breckinridge to tell Mrs. Blackburn when he in¬ 
 tended to marry her. “I knel down beside his chair,” she said, 
 “and asked him that, and Mrs. Blackburn, I think, objected to 
 this display of affection.” 
 
 Miss Pollard was asked concerning her visits to Dr. N. S. 
 Lincoln and to Major Moore, the superintendent of police, with 
 Colonel Breckinridge, on which occasions, according to the tes¬ 
 timony of Dr. Lincoln and Major Moore, Colonel Breckinridge 
 acknowledged his engagement to her. 
 
 “In 1884,” said Miss Pollard, “I was summoned from school 
 in Cincinnati to go to Frankfort, where my sister was very ill. 
 Mr. Rodes put me on the car. A gentleman was in the car aud 
 coming over to me he said: ‘Your face is familiar; don’t I know 
 you? ” I said: ‘No, but I know who you are. You are Colonel 
 Breckinridge.’ He sat down on the other side of the aisle and 
 
Seventh Day op Triae. 
 
 75 
 
 asked me if he might come to see me. I said my aunt and my 
 mother would be very glad to see him at Frankfort. That was 
 all that was said.” 
 
 Questions by Mr. Carlisle brought out the history of Miss 
 Pollard’s engagement to James C. Rodes. She had met him 
 and he asked her to marry him. She said she did not want to 
 marry then; she wanted to get an education first. He said if 
 she would marry him he would pay for her education. Miss 
 Pollard did not answer that she would marry him, but “I told 
 him that if he would pay for my education I would either marry 
 him or pay him back with interest.” He agreed, and a paper 
 containing the agreement was drawn up and signed in the pres¬ 
 ence of my mother.” 
 
 Miss Pollard said she did not keep the letters written her by 
 Rodes; she always destroyed his letters. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge and Mr. Stoll exchanged knowing smiles 
 at this answer. 
 
 RODES’ PERSISTENCE. 
 
 “ In one of these letters Mr.,Rodes said he could compel me 
 to marry him or pay him back. I could not pay him back, and 
 I did not want to marry him. I did not' know a. man, woman, 
 or a child to whom I could turn for advice until I thought—un¬ 
 til I thought of—Mr. Breckinridge. I wrote him asking if Mr. 
 Rodes could compel me to marry him. He answered that letter 
 in person, coming to see me at Weslyan College, in Cincinnati, 
 where I was a pupil. I saw him in the drawing-room of the 
 college, and he said that was not the place to have a confidential 
 conversation. He asked couldn’t we get up some sort of a rela¬ 
 tionship so that I could get permission to go out. I told him it 
 was not necessary to be related, and we could get permission. 
 He said, looking at a paper in his hand, that there was a concert 
 that evening, and we could go there. He obtained permission 
 to take me out from young Mr. Brown, the principal’s son. 
 
 “ That evening Mr. Breckinridge came back in a closed car¬ 
 riage to take me out. It was a warm, sultry June evening, and 
 I objected to going in a closed carriage, but he said he had a 
 throat affection, so we went out.” 
 
76 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “ When did you see him again?” 
 
 “ The next morning at the public library, by appointment. 
 He said he wanted to take me to Lexington. We went to Lex¬ 
 ington Friday.” 
 
 “Where did you go after reaching Lexington?” 
 
 “ To Sarah Gess’s.” 
 
 “What time was it that you arrived in Lexington?” 
 
 ** About dusk.” 
 
 “ How long did you stay there?” 
 
 “Until Monday morning.” 
 
 “ Who was with you at Sarah Gess’s from Friday night until 
 Monday morning?” 
 
 “ Mr. Breckinridge was there most of the time.” 
 
 “ What did Colonel Breckinridge say to you on the evening 
 of your arrival in Lexington about Mr. Rodes?” 
 
 “ Nothing.” 
 
 “ W T hat did he say about Mr. Rodes on the following Mon¬ 
 day morning? ” 
 
 “ Mr. Breckinridge came to Sarah Gess’s terribly frightened. . 
 He said that Mr. Rodes had been to Cincinnati and found out 
 that I had gone with him, and that I must catch a train and go 
 to Frankfort, where my mother lived, whichj did.” 
 
 “ Who suggested that you leave Cincinnati and go to Sayre 
 Jnstitute? ” 
 
 “ Mr. Breckinridge.” 
 
 THE CINCINNATI EXPERIENCE. 
 
 Miss Pollard told of going to see a female physician, Dr. 
 Mary Street, in Cincinnati, in 18S5, at the direction of Mr. 
 Breckinridge, to make arrangements for the birth of her first 
 child. She gave Dr. Street the name of Mrs. Burgoyne. She 
 took lodgings over a mattress factory, and stayed about a month; 
 then, after moving further up the street and remaining there for 
 awhile, she went to St. Joseph’s Asylum at Norwood, where she 
 registered as “ Mrs. Burgwynn.” Her baby was born on May 
 29, 1885, and two weeks later she went to the house of Drs. 
 Perry and Buchanan to recuperate. Miss Pollard identified th* 
 
Seventh Day of Trial. 
 
 77 
 
 four volumes of Washington Irving that have figured in the trial. 
 They were given her by Mr. Rodes at Christmas, 1884, and she 
 gave them to Sister Cecilia at the foundling asylum. 
 
 Miss Pollard had given her testimony without any notice¬ 
 able marks of nervousness, Except in a rising tendency of her 
 voice at times, and an inclination to talk too fait. She looked. 
 Col. Breckinridge squarely in the eyes while giving her testi¬ 
 mony without appearing to do so. 
 
 Taking up her life at Rexington after the birth of her baby, 
 Mr. Carlisle asked Miss Pollard who paid for her tuition and 
 board while she was at Sayre Institute. 
 
 “ Mr. Breckinridge, of course,” was the reply. 
 
 “ Miss Pollard,’’ was the next question, “ who was the father 
 of the child born on the 29th of May, 1885 ? ” 
 
 “ Mr. Breckinridge,” was the answer, long drawn out for the 
 sake of emphasis. 
 
 “ Miss Pollard, did you ever at any time or place, prior to 
 meeting Col. Breckinridge, have any sexual relations with any 
 man ? ” 
 
 “ No; never; never.” 
 
 “ Miss Pollard, have you at any time or place, after meeting 
 Col. Breckinridge, had sexual relations with an}'- other man? ” 
 
 “No; never; never.” 
 
 only there; with defendant. 
 
 “ Were you ever at the house of Sarah Gess with any other 
 person than Colonel Breckinridge?” 
 
 “Why, certainly not,” said Miss Pollard, with an inflection 
 of surprise.” 
 
 Miss Pollard said she came to Washington from Rexington 
 in September, 1887, at Mr. Breckinridge’s desire. “ I had to go 
 somewhere,” she said. Mr. Breckinridge took her to the board¬ 
 ing-house here that is now the Elsmere, and then, after a few 
 days, to a boarding-house at Thirteenth and F streets, where she 
 was known as Mrs. Charles Foster. Mr. Breckinridge stayed 
 there also, but they went away when it became known that “Mr. 
 Sam Walter,” a boarder at the house, was no other than Colonel 
 
7« 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Breckinridge. Then Miss Pollard went to St. Ann’s Foundling 
 Asylum in Washington, where she used to go out every night to 
 meet Mr. Breckinridge until the Sister in charge objected, when 
 Colonel Breckinridge took her away, saying if he couldn’t meet 
 her she couldn’t stay here. He took her to a little house in 
 South Washington, occupied by an old woman called “Aunt 
 Mary,” and she remained there until her second baby was born, 
 in February, 1888. After her confinement she went to live at 
 a convent on Massachusetts avenue, and remained there for two 
 years and six months. During part of this time she was em¬ 
 ployed in the government service, the rest in studying. She 
 saw the defendant three or four times each week during that 
 period. 
 
 After leaving the convent she went to live at Mrs. Fillette’s, 
 corner of Thirteenth and L streets; then to No. 1 B street, 
 Northwest; then to Jefferson Place. Miss Pollard told of other 
 frequent changes in residence while she resided in Washington. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle produced the little wicker sewing-work basket, 
 which the late Mrs. Breckinridge had given her sister, Miss 
 Desha, and asked Miss Pollard if she knew it. “Yes,” she said. 
 “ He brought it to me just after his wife died, saying, ‘Madeline, 
 she cared for this, and won’t you have it?’ I appreciated it very 
 much,” with a doleful little voice. 
 
 a paltering response. 
 
 “Now, Miss Pollard,” said Mr. Carlisle, “what was your 
 condition in May, 1893?” 
 
 “I—I wasn’t well”—falteringly. 
 
 “What was the matter with you?’’ 
 
 “I—I was—was pregnant again.” 
 
 “By Colonel Breckinridge?” 
 
 “Why, of course,” this with a sad voice. 
 
 “What was the result of that pregnancy?” 
 
 “A miscarriage.” 
 
 “When did it occur? ’’ 
 
 “On May 24th, I believe.” 
 
 “Where?” 
 
Seventh Day of Trial. 
 
 n 
 
 “At 1819 H Street.” 
 
 “Who attended you? ” 
 
 “Dr. Tabor Johnson.” 
 
 Such a case is not complete without the conventional pact 
 ages of love letters, and they were produced next for Miss Fob 
 lard’s examination. “Those are all Mr. Breckinridge’s letters/' 
 she said. She was also shown twelve telegrams, addressed to 
 her. “Yes, all Mr. Breckinridge’s telegrams,” was her comment, 
 
 In answer to Mr. Carlisle, Miss Pollard said Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge last left Washington on Wednesday night, May 17, 1893, 
 Then Mr. Carlisle read telegrams and letters from Colonel Breck- 
 inridge to Miss Pollard, written while he was away on this trip,, 
 from Bexington, Covington, and other places. Nearly every 
 day he telegraphed her asking if she were well, telling her to 
 make herself comfortable, and to occupy herself. The letters 
 were not at all of the amorous kind; they were friendly, but 
 not too much so. They were signed “Yours,” or “Yours truly 
 and sincerely,” and had no heading. Some of the letters were 
 read at the trial the other day. They referred to some sanita* 
 rium which Miss Pollard had mentioned, and advised her not to 
 go there; she was better where she was at 1819 H Street. This 
 period included the time when Miss Pollard suffered a miscar* 
 riage. Colonel Breckinridge, Miss Pollard said, was delivering 
 political speeches in Kentucky and Tennessee. 
 
 The next question came near bringing on a scene. 
 
 “Miss Pollard,” said Mr. Carlisle, “what were the conversa* 
 tions you had with Colonel Breckinridge about going to a sani¬ 
 tarium? ” 
 
 “ BEFORE SO MANY MEN.” 
 
 “ Oh, Mr. Carlisle, I hardly know how to say these things 
 before so many men! ” said Miss Pollard, plaintively, in a rather 
 high voice. “I can’t say them.” There was a suspicion of tears 
 in Miss Pollard’s eyes. 
 
 “Never mind—don’t say anything—don’t answer,” said 
 Judge Wilson. 
 
 Other letters from Colonel Breckinridge on the subject ot 
 
8o 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Miss Pollard’s health, and telling that he was going to Missouri, 
 Pennsylvania, and other places. Colonel Breckinridge made 
 reference to sending some papers, and Miss Pollard explained 
 that “ some papers ” meant money—they did not like to refer to 
 money in their letters. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle read, impressively, a letter from Lexington to 
 Miss Pollard, in which Colonel Breckinridge said: “I can not go 
 to Charlottesville, nor can you go to Washington. It will result 
 in an open scandal. As matters now are, your character and 
 reputation are safe. You owe it to yourself to remain away. It 
 is due to you to write that I will consider your coming to Lex¬ 
 ington as conclusive, and you must then take the responsibility 
 of all that might ensue. You ought to control yourself and 
 make yourself comfortable —restore your health, and not destroy 
 yourself. Do not make it impossible for me to do what is best. 
 
 “Yours, 
 
 “ William C. P. Breckinridge.” 
 
 Some of these letters and telegrams were addressed to Miss 
 Pollard at “ The Farms,” near Charlottesville, Virginia. A copy 
 of a letter to Miss Pollard from Colonel Breckinridge, referring 
 to the publication of the report that they were engaged, was pro¬ 
 duced and identified by Miss Pollard ; but, before it was read, the 
 recess hour (12:30) arrived, and a recess was ordered until 1:15 
 o’clock. _ 
 
 THE AFTERNOON SESSION. 
 
 After recess a letter was read from Miss Pollard to Colonel 
 Breckinridge acknowledging that she had published the an¬ 
 nouncement of their engagement, and that she was sorry for it. 
 This was evidently in answer to a letter from Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge, taking her to task for the publication. 
 
 This letter began, “ My Dear Willie,” and was signed, “ Your 
 Loving Madeline.” Miss Pollard resumed the stand as the Court 
 was rapped to order, with Mrs. Ellis sitting by her side; she was 
 directly in front of and about fifteen feet from Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge. During the morning session, while Miss Pollard was giv¬ 
 ing hertestimony, the defendant sat in a listless attitude, but not 
 
Seventh Day of the Trial. 8x 
 
 taking his eyes off his accuser. But in the afternoon he took 
 an active interest in the proceedings, and made suggestions to 
 his counsel. Miss.Poilard identified several letters and telegrams, 
 exchanged between Colonel Breckinridge and herself. One from 
 Miss Pollard inclosed “a very ugly paragraph,” as Miss Pollard 
 called it, that appeared in the Lexington Gazette, saying that 
 Colonel Breckinridge had said to a friend that there was no truth 
 in the published report of his engagement to Miss Pollard. In 
 this letter, which began formally, “ Colonel Breckinridge ” Miss 
 Pollard called attention to the paragraph, and demanded that he 
 make immediate acknowledgment of the engagament, not 
 through the newspapers, but in a written statement of the facts, 
 addressed to her, and signed with his own name. She told him 
 if he did not do this, she would take means to obtain justice. 
 This letter was sent registered to make sure of its delivery. No 
 answer was returned, Miss Pollard said. Miss Pollard went on 
 identifying letters and other papers, after acknowledging that 
 she was responsible for the publication of the announcement of 
 her engagement in the papers. A letter dated April 23, 1889, 
 was identified by Miss Pollard as a blind letter, one of several 
 that it had been necessarjr to write to conceal the relations of 
 Colonel Breckinridge and herself while Mrs. Breckinridge was 
 living. She had gone with Colonel Breckinridge to hear him 
 lecture on religious and quasi religious subjects, said the witness. 
 
 Reverting to the conversation of the plaintiff and defendant 
 in the office of the Chief of Police here, in which, according to 
 the Chief’s testimony, Colonel Breckinridge had promised to 
 marry Miss Pollard, the witness said that on that occasion Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge named May 31 following (1893) as the date- 
 Later Colonel Breckinridge had changed this date on account of 
 the nearness of the expected birth of her baby to that time, but 
 he said if she would be happier he would marry her on the date 
 named. 
 
 length of intimacy. 
 
 The last question asked by Mr. Carlisle was as to how long 
 the illicit relationship existed between Colonel Breckinridge and 
 6 
 
82 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 the plaintiff, and Miss Pollard answered loudly and distinctly, 
 emphasizing every syllable: “ From that night when he took me 
 to Sarah Gess’s in 1884, there never was any suggestion of the 
 discontinuance of that miserable sin until Colonel Breckinridge, 
 with all his protestations and promises and vows of affection, 
 left me on the 17th day of May, 1893.” Major Butterworth tried 
 to stop Miss Pollard, telling her to simply answer the question, 
 but he was plucked by the sleeve by Colonel Breckinridge and 
 Colonel Thompson, and desisted. But he could not have stopped 
 Miss Pollard; she went right on. 
 
 This concluded the direct examination, and Major Butter- 
 worth began the cross-examination. 
 
 Major Butterworth began by an examination into Miss Pol- 
 Tard’s age ; and she told him, as she had told Mr. Carlisle, that 
 she had believed, until this suit was filed, that she was born in 
 1864; but when the question of her age was raised, she remem¬ 
 bered something that her mother and her sister told her in 1876. 
 When her father died she had supposed, in 1876, that she was 
 twelve years old at that time; but her mother and her sister told 
 her that she was born November 30th, 1866; so she was ten 
 instead of twelve in 1876. Miss Pollard became excited over 
 some pertinent questions about her early life, which she said she 
 could not answ r er, because she could not remember. Her father 
 was not a scholarly man she said to Major Butterworth, but he 
 was a well-read man. He taught her what he could. He took 
 perfect delight in teaching his little “ gyrul,” who was not so high 
 as the table. Mr. Butterworth persisted in saying that Miss 
 Pollard was twelve when her father died, and Miss Pollard be- 
 came annoyed. She had said she was ten then. “ I wish you 
 wouldn’t repeat that, Mr. Butterw r orth,” she said; “it’s very 
 annoying.” Her father had told her fairy stories; he had read 
 her Shakspeare, history, and pretty little poems. She was fond 
 of all these things. 
 
 “W’hat else did he teach you?” asked Mr. Buttemorth. “Why, 
 Mr. Butterworth, wdiat would you teach your little girl?” was 
 the answer, and there w T as a laugh. “How were you employed 
 while living at Crab Orchard, Kentucky, with your parents?” 
 
Seventh Day of Triae. 
 
 83 
 
 “What was I doing from the time I was born until I was four years 
 old? Why, Mr. Butterworth, I did more playing than any little 
 girl you ever met.” “You say your father taught you history,” 
 said Mr. Butterworth. “ Did he teach you much history?” “ Not 
 so much as Colonel Breckinridge told me afterward,” was the 
 answer; and it took the crier nearly a minute to stop the 
 laughter. Miss Pollard became more annoyed as Major Butter¬ 
 worth asked her minutely as to her studies, what she had read, 
 what she knew, and how she studied. 
 
 “Now I told you that twice, Mr. Butterworth,” and she ran 
 on rapidly, telling how, whenever she heard anything that Major 
 Butterworth or some other statesman had said, she got Colonel 
 Breckinridge to get her books from the Congressional library to 
 look it up.” 
 
 “Did you read Browning?’’ was asked 
 
 “Oh, no; I was never that deep.” 
 
 “Did you read Burns? ” 
 
 “Oh, you know I did not; only some selections—Cotter’s 
 Saturday Night, and all that.” 
 
 “Byron? ” 
 
 “I never read Byron to this day.” 
 
 Miss Pollard’s answers were bright and sometimes witty, 
 and kept pace with the keen-minded Major Butterworth. Miss 
 Pollard sketched her life at Crab Orchard, how she had left it to 
 go to her aunt’s at Pittsburg, where she remained until August, 
 1880, when she returned to her mother’s in Frankfort. 
 
 JUST A COUNTRY GIRL. 
 
 What she did and how she did it at Frankfort, who she 
 knew there, what pleasures she had — all these things Mr. Butter¬ 
 worth wanted to know. Miss Pollard said she did what every 
 country girl did at home—sweep and dusted and such things. “I 
 was only a country girl,’’ she added, with the peculiar Southern 
 twist in the last word. She knew absolutely nobody in the 
 neighborhood; she had not even a bowing acquaintance with 
 anybody nearby. 
 
 It was while at Frankfort that James C. Rodes asked her to 
 
8 4 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 marry him, after having seen her three or four times, and Miss 
 Pollard told of the bargain through which her education was ob¬ 
 tained. He had asked her before her aunt and several others. 
 
 “Mr. Rodes,” she said, “was not a conventional man.” This 
 caused a laugh. 
 
 “Was this your first offer of marriage?” 
 
 “No, I had one the year before from a Mr. Woods, but I had 
 no more to do with that than you had, Mr. Butterworth. Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge joined in the laughter over this sally. 
 
 “Where is the paper you wrote Mr. Rodes telling him you 
 would marry him if he would pay for your education?” 
 
 “I don’t know; perhaps Mr. Breckinridge has it.” 
 
 “If Mr. Breckinridge has the paper, he should produce it,” 
 said Judge Wilson. 
 
 “He’s not Rodes’ executor,” said Colonel Thompson. The 
 demand of Judge Wilson was not pressed. 
 
 ENGAGED TO MR. ROZELL 
 
 Miss Pollard admitted shewas engaged to Mr. Rozell while 
 she was at the Wesleyan College, in Cincinnati, during the con¬ 
 tinuance of her contract with Mr. Rodes. Mr. Butterworth 
 spoke ot her contract with Rodes as “the engagement,” and Miss 
 Pollard objected to its being put that way. Mr. Rodes had 
 loaned her the money to get her education on the condition that 
 she should pay him back or marry him. 
 
 “Did 3’ou tell of this engagement to Rodes?” 
 
 “No, sir.” 
 
 “ Did you break off with Rozell?” 
 
 “Yes, while Mr. Breckinridge was concealed in a sitting 
 room adjoining and heard me break my engagement with Rozell. 
 I was pregnant at the time by Mr. Breckinridge.” 
 
 There was one sally that created a roar. Mr. Butterw’orth 
 asked Miss Pollard if Colonel Breckinridge had recognized her on 
 the train at their first meeting, and Miss Pollard said: “ He 
 
 crossed the aisle and asked me if he did not recognize me; and, 
 by the w ? ay, that is a common trick of his, recognizing people he 
 doesn’t know.” Miss Poliard in answer to other questions said, 
 
Eighth Day of Triae. 
 
 85 
 
 she had seen many things in Mr. Breckinridge during their nine 
 years’ association that she did not like, including this trick of re¬ 
 cognition, but she had not found him out then. Mr. Butter- 
 worth tried to make the witness say that on the first night Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge came to see her he had brought a carriage at 
 her suggestion, but Miss Pollard met him with: “Now, Mr. But- 
 terworth, you know I never said anything of the kind.” Some 
 more questions were met with earnest answers that made the 
 spectators laugh, and then at 3:15 o’clock the Court adjourned 
 until Monday. 
 
 EIGHTH DAY OF THE TRIAD- 
 
 More about her life.—Madeline Pollard drawn out by Major But- 
 terworth. — Ironical , dramatic , pathetic .— Their relations con¬ 
 tinue after Breckinridge's second marriage. —-Si? declares Miss 
 Pollard testifying in her own behalf. 
 
 Madeline Pollard faced her opponents on the witness stand 
 to-day under a continuous fire of cross-questions, and the trial 
 was like a play in which one actor is starred to the exclusion 
 and belittlement of all accessories* Major Ben Butterworth, the 
 ex-Congressman from Ohio, played a minor part as the ques¬ 
 tioner, all the interest centering about the slender, black-robed 
 plaintiff in the case. 
 
 It was the most interesting day of the sensational trial, and 
 it was made more so by the masterly display of intellectual re¬ 
 sources, of quick perception and of telling replies which flashed 
 forth at every turn of the plot as the lawyers followed up every 
 possible trail which might lead to admissions casting any sort of 
 shadow on the life of the woman apart from those passages which 
 had been identified with 
 
 THE CAREER OP THE KENTUCKY CONGRESSMAN. 
 
 Miss Pollard has shown herself a wonderful woman. What¬ 
 ever other opinions may have been held regarding her, by the 
 men, most of them intelligent and of some standing in the com- 
 
86 
 
 Poulard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 munity, who sat listening all day as though to the revelation of 
 a fascinating story rather than a woman’s recital of sorrow and 
 disgrace, all of them were constrained to admit their admiration 
 of her intelligence, her quick perception, and her effective com¬ 
 mand of words. Seldom does a witness manage to give replies 
 so telling in support of her own case and keep within the limits 
 of the court-room regulations, and several times the plaintiff’s 
 attorneys admonished her to confine her statements to answers 
 to the questions which were put. 
 
 Pressure for admission to the Circuit Court was greater than 
 it has been at any time before, because of the expectation that 
 Miss Pollard would return to the witness stand for the continu¬ 
 ation of the cross-examination which was started last Friday. 
 Crowds pressed against the bailiffs at the doors, trying to pass 
 them by main force, and being repelled with the greatest difficulty. 
 
 First among the important arrivals was the defendant, Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge, and soon afterward came Miss Pollard without 
 the black cloak which she has worn before. She was dressed in 
 a black cloth gown. 
 
 Several questions w r ere asked by Mr. Carlisle in direct ex¬ 
 amination as soon as the plaintiff had taken the stand; the first 
 one whether she had ever been married, to which the answer was 
 
 “NO, MR. CARLISLE.” 
 
 *' Who was the father of your first child ? ” was the next 
 question, to which she replied, “Mr. Breckinridge.” Then, in 
 continuation, the plaintiff related in greater detail than she had 
 before the attempts of the Congressman to seduce her, averring 
 that he had told her that he would take her to the house of a 
 dear friend whom he had known in Louisville, before he took 
 her to the house of Mrs. Rose in Cincinnati. He had told her 
 that she had a wonderful intellect, that a brilliant future was 
 before her, “and I seemed to be completely under the influence 
 of his wonderful powers of persuasion,” she said. The first 
 night they had been together they had walked the streets of 
 Cincinnati, as they had done the next day after meeting in the 
 Public Library. Colonel Breckinridge had told her that he 
 
Eighth Day of Trial. 
 
 87 
 
 would oversee her education, that he would return the money 
 advanced for her schooling by Mr. Rodes. “He did not accom¬ 
 plish his purpose the first day 
 
 she continued, “and it was only late the second day when we 
 were in the house of assignation in Cincinnati.” 
 
 Before taking her to the house of Sarah Gess, at Lexing¬ 
 ton, Colonel Breckinridge had arranged that he should send to 
 the school a telegram purporting to come from her mother. 
 
 WHICH HE DID, 
 
 “ Did the sexual relations which you have testified to with 
 Colonel Breckinridge continue after the 29th of April, 1893? ” in- 
 quired Mr. Carlisle, that being the date of the secret marriage to 
 Mrs. Wing. “ They did up to and including the 17th day of May, 
 1893, which was the last time I saw Colonel Breckinridge,” she 
 said, and was about to make further explanations when the de¬ 
 fendant’s lawyers interposed objections. 
 
 After these passages the sparring between Mr. Butterworth 
 and the young woman was resumed where it had been dropped 
 Friday. Many detailed questions concerning her early life, her 
 studies, amusements, friends and ambitions were asked, to all of 
 which she returned replies which could have given no comfort 
 to her opponents. When it was asked whether she was a mem¬ 
 ber of the church she explained that she had been confirmed in 
 the Episcopal Church. 
 
 “ Are you a member now ? ” was asked. 
 
 “ Once a member of the Episcopal Church always a member,” 
 came the epigrammatic reply. 
 
 Her early ambition had been to write, Miss Pollard declared, 
 and Colonel Breckinridge had told her that she had wonderful 
 
 TALENT IN THAT LINE- 
 She had also desired to teach. 
 
 “Do you know the value of character for a teacher?” Mr. 
 Butterworth asked. 
 
 “ Most assuredly I do—never so much as to-day,” came the 
 prompt reply. “ But all this was swept away by one act.” 
 
88 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Further on she explained that she understood the require¬ 
 ments for good character in a woman were the same as in a man. 
 
 Several times Miss Pollard’s lawyers remonstrated with her 
 that she must confine her answers to the questions put to her, as 
 she manifested a disposition to overstep the limits in her eager¬ 
 ness to make her statements count against the other side. Her 
 voice was somewhat lower than it had been when she was last 
 before the Court, the pallor of her face had increased, except 
 when it flushed at times, but her words were as carefully chosen 
 as ever. There was some interesting sparring when Mr. Butter- 
 worth produced the high-flown school-girl letter to “ Wessie ” 
 Brown, daughter of the principal of the Wesleyan Seminary, and 
 used it as a basis of cross-examination. The plaintiff admitted 
 that it had been overdrawn, and was exaggerated in her pride at 
 that time. It contained references to a blind lover for whom 
 she had entertained the greatest affection, according to the al¬ 
 lusions, and 
 
 ALSO TO ROSELLE. 
 
 “Were yc i engaged to him?” inquired Mr. Butterworth, re¬ 
 ferring to the 1 tter individual. 
 
 “ Not at tha time,” said Miss Pollard- 
 
 There were i her references to the latter person, and to her 
 idea that it was her duty to break him of his habit of “ swilling 
 fire-water.” 
 
 “Have you corrected all the errors in this letter?” Mr. But- 
 terw r orth asked, as he finished its reading in his elocutionary 
 style, which, being somew'hat ponderous, hardly accorded with 
 the sentimental terms of the epistle. 
 
 “ Not all of them,” he replied, and then, lifting her veil, be¬ 
 gan to wipe her eyes with her handkerchief. 
 
 The next few replies were delivered in a tear-broken voice, 
 and she seemed to be on the point of breaking down. As he 
 w T ent on to press her for her reasons for leaving her aunt in 
 Pittsburg when a girl, the crying increased. She told Mr. But¬ 
 terworth that she wanted to answer him satisfactorily, but he 
 seemed “so exasperating.” It seemed that she had left this 
 
Eighth Day of Trial. 
 
 89 
 
 aunt for family reasons, because another aunt was anxious to 
 take her, and the purpose of the question was not made ap¬ 
 parent 
 
 AT THIS STAGE. 
 
 In the course of the inquiry about her early aspirations and 
 her reading, she said that the day she had met Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge at the seminary she had been reading “The Gates Ajar,” 
 by Elizabeth Stuart Phelps. 
 
 “ I understand you to say that you had read no literature 
 which could not be put in the hands of a modest girl?” the cross¬ 
 examiner asked. 
 
 “One moment,” interrupted Mr. Wilson, proceeding to 
 argue that this peculiar line of questioning had been pursued so 
 far, so continuous, and so repeatedly that it was becoming op¬ 
 pressive. 
 
 In his reply Mr. Butterworth said : “ The plaintiff has put 
 
 in her character here as the main point of issue. She has sur¬ 
 rounded herself so far with an atmosphere of perfect purity.” 
 
 He wants to learn whether she had carried on the line of 
 reading which would naturally suggest inquiry about certain 
 lines of life which would make for good or bad, strengthen her 
 to resist temptation or imbue a tendency to compromise with the 
 approaches of evil. “ There are three parties to this suit,” he 
 concluded, “the plaintiff, the defendant, and the public.” 
 
 “It was not the line of questioning, but the repetitions of 
 it to which he objected, Mr. Wilson here urged, and 
 
 THE COURT SUSTAINED HIM. 
 
 “ Were you old enough to take care of yourself at the Wes¬ 
 leyan Seminary?” was the next question. 
 
 “Yes, sir,” was the answer. But after it had been made 
 Mr. Wilson proceeded to object that it was not age or reading 
 upon which stress was made, but that it depended upon “who 
 approached with silvery tongue.” 
 
 This allusion to the well-known soubriquet of the Kentucky 
 orator provoked an audible laugh, which caused Judge Bradley 
 to rap on his desk with a sharp reprimand. 
 
90 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “I want the public to understand that this is not a show," 
 he said. “ I am sorry so many think it their duty to come here, 
 and if there is any demonstration of approval or snickering I 
 will order the room to be cleared." 
 
 The admonition had its effect. There was much question 
 ing as to whether she knew certain persons in Bridgeport, Ken¬ 
 tucky, where she had stopped in 1882 and 1883. Some of the 
 names she did not remember, others she recalled, among them 
 Alex. Julian, the blind man, with whom the defense will en« 
 deavor to prove Miss Pollard retired at a country house after a 
 mock marriage. 
 
 Then Miss Pollard proceeded to explain the circumstances 
 of the visit to Squire Kinsey’s house, on which the story of the 
 mock marriage with Julian was based, declaring that to the best 
 of her knowledge nothing like a mock marriage had taken place. 
 Her uncle George, who is still living, and with whom her mother 
 lives, was 
 
 WITH HER THAT DAY. 
 
 "Did Mr. Julian ever conduct himself toward you as a 
 lover—did he ever attempt to caress you?” was asked. 
 
 "No, indeed; he would not have dared to,” came the em¬ 
 phatic reply, supplemented by the explanation that her Uncle 
 George was very strict upon the girls, and would not have per¬ 
 mitted anything of the sort. 
 
 "How long did your friendship with Mr. Julian continue? ” 
 
 “I thought Mr. Julian was still my friend. I did not know 
 that he was not.” 
 
 “Did you know Owen Robinson?” 
 
 "I know Mr. Robinson.” 
 
 "Did you ever correspond with him?” 
 
 "I may have written to him. I do not remember.’' 
 
 Several letters were handed to Miss Pollard with an inquiry 
 whether she had written them. 
 
 She said that she could best tell by reading them to see 
 whether she recognized any expressions as those she was ac¬ 
 customed to use. After a long pause she handed back the first 
 one, saying, with a smile, "I did write that.” Of the others, she 
 
Eighth Day of Trial. 
 
 9i 
 
 said she might have written them. One of them contained a 
 lock of hair. 
 
 Attorneys Carlisle and Wilson occupied a quarter of an hour 
 in reading these school-girl letters, after which Mr. Butterworth 
 READ THEM TO THE JURY. 
 
 The first one dated in March, 1883, was begun, “Dear 
 Owen,” said that she had put his last letter under her pillow and 
 cried herself to sleep, expressed regret for a letter written on 
 Valentine’s Day as having been unmaidenly, said that he was 
 the most honorable boy she had ever known, and that he must 
 consider her “love-sick maiden all forlorn,” assured him that he 
 must not think her broken-hearted because Roche had married 
 the girl of his choice, as she had only talked with him that one 
 evening. 
 
 It also inquired “Who that George Reddish is that mamma 
 eulogizes to the skies,” expressed sorrow that he had not sent 
 his picture, as she would rather have it than anything else, in¬ 
 vited him to come up and stay over Sunday; said she understood 
 that when the gentle zephyrs came he and some one else were 
 to tie the knot with their tongues they could not untie with 
 their teeth, with the poetical quotation : 
 
 Is it best for me to know, love, best for you and best for me? 
 
 Another letter to Owen Robinson began “Friend Owen,” 
 was flowery with poetical quotations of the character patronized 
 by school girls, and closed: “Your dearest friend, Madeline 
 Vivian Pollard.” 
 
 The lock of hair was inclosed in this letter, but Mr. Butter- 
 worth commented that it was of a rather light shade, inquiring 
 whether her hair had gown darker. Miss Pollard said that it 
 might have been hers; that she probably wrote the letter, 
 although she 
 
 DID NOT REMEMBER IT. 
 
 Regarding the middle name she said she did not like her 
 own name of Valeria, so she had often signed Vivian. Owen 
 Robinson and another young man alluded to as “ Henry,” had 
 been students of the Kentucky Military Institute, and had often 
 visited her house. 
 
92 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “Was Owen Robinson a 6uitor of yours?’’ Mr. Butterwortk 
 asked. 
 
 “What do you mean by a suitor?” Miss Pollard inquired, in 
 return, explaining, “ I liked liim extremely well. There was no 
 love affair between us, nor talk of marriage, or anything of that 
 sort. We were very good friends. Owen was the sou of a 
 poor woman, but very ambitious, and his tuition was paid by a 
 rich friend.” 
 
 Mr. Butterworth again referred to the letter which Miss 
 Pollard had averred on Friday was not written by herself. She 
 asked him to show it to her again, saying, that while the express¬ 
 ions of some of them seemed familiar, the handwriting did not, 
 but she did not wish to disclaim any letter she had ever written. 
 
 There was a silence while the plaintiff read the letter. 
 
 “I did not write that letter; I never did. I pronounce it a 
 forged letter,” she exclaimed, -with emphasis. 
 
 “ Then you are sure you did not write it? ” 
 
 “ I never wrote such things as are in that, and no one knows 
 it better than the man who sits beside you. An expert might 
 have done it, and did.” 
 
 “Mr. Wilson reproved his client for her excitement, telling 
 her that she 
 
 MUST NOT FORGET HERSELF. 
 
 “I know, but they must not begin that,” she replied, ex¬ 
 citedly. Then she asked to be shown the envelope it came in, 
 but there was none in Court. 
 
 Returning to the circumstances of Colonel Breckinridge’s 
 first visit to her at the seminary, Mr. Butterworth asked if he 
 had told her that he was in town on some railroad business, 
 which the plaintiff denied, asserting “ he said he had come to 
 see me and he overshadowed me with a glance.” 
 
 She had known of Colonel Breckinridge, having often heard 
 her uncle, who had fought in Breckinridge’s brigade, speak of 
 him, and parenthetically she remarked after Mr. Butterworth had 
 asked whether she knew much about him : “ I don’t think any 
 
 body knew very much about Colonel Breckinridge until lately.” 
 
 Considerable time was spent in eliciting from Miss Pollard 
 
Eighth Dxtv of Trial. 
 
 93 
 
 the story of the beginning of the alleged illicit relations with 
 Colonel Breckinridge. When Mr. Butterworth asked her if, 
 when she first went there, she knew the character of the house 
 of Sarah Gess in Lexington, to which Colonel Breckinridge took 
 her, Miss Pollard responded almost in a shriek: 
 
 “No, sir! No, sir! No, sir!” 
 
 The trip to Lexington had been made under the pretense, 
 on the part of Colonel Breckinridge, that he wished to look over 
 the school to which 
 
 HE PROPOSED SENDING HER. 
 
 Regarding the deposition of Roselle, who is said to have 
 been Miss Pollard’s lover while she was at school, Miss Pollard 
 said, significantly, that statement would not have been made 
 “ except for internal revenue.” 
 
 “What do you mean by that?” asked Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 “ You know,” was Miss Pollard’s response. 
 
 “ Mr. Butterworth disavowed knowledge upon that point, 
 whereupon Miss Pollard said : “ Mr. Roselle is a candidate for 
 
 a Government office in Mr. Breckinridge’s district.” 
 
 Recurring to the incidents in the house of Sarah Gess, Miss 
 Pollard said: “It was during that half hour that I agreed to 
 give myself, soul and body and life, to that man, and he knows 
 
 _5) 
 
 Mr. Butterworth: “Hold on, that is argument,” and con¬ 
 tinuing, he asked: “You agreed then to give yourself to him?” 
 
 Miss Pollard: “I did. I promised, and up to the 17th of 
 May, 1893, I was faithful to him.” 
 
 “Up to that time your life had been pure?” 
 
 “ It had.” 
 
 “You knew Colonel Breckinridge was a married man?” 
 
 “ He told me so.” 
 
 “You knew he had a wife and children?’’ 
 
 “He told me so.” 
 
 “What relation did you propose to sustain to him in the 
 future?” 
 
 “ I thought nothing of it. I think under the circumstances 
 people ordinarily do not.” 
 
94 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “You concluded to give yourself up to liim entirely?” 
 
 Mr. Wilson—“That is metaphysical argument.” 
 
 Mr. Butterworth—“You knew that j r ou were losing your re¬ 
 spectability and standing?” 
 
 “ I did not then.” 
 
 “How soon did you realize it?” 
 
 A. (Weeping) “Not until it had made me an outcast. Un¬ 
 til he had made my life 
 
 TOO HARD TO BEAR. 
 
 He ruined me, but I loved him then. His slightest wish was 
 law to me then.” 
 
 “But you knew your course was ail wrong? ” 
 
 “Mr. Breckinridge was a man who could make anything 
 seem right with his arguments.” 
 
 During this passage, which seemed to affect Miss Pollard 
 deeply, and which visibly moved the audience of men before 
 her, Colonel Breckinridge sat facing her with his chin resting on 
 his hands and no trace of emotion appearing on his face. 
 
 Once Mr. Butterworth inquired how long they remained in 
 the assignation house at Cincinnati, Miss Pollard replied that she 
 could not remember, it must have been two or three hours, and 
 added: “How long was it, Mr. Breckinridge?” an interrogation 
 which provoked a laugh. 
 
 Miss Pollard’s expenses while at school in Lexington, it 
 was developed, had been partly paid by Colonel Breckinridge, but 
 he could not give her much, because it would have awakened 
 the suspicions of Mr. Rodes. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth: “You knew that if your relations be¬ 
 came known it would mean disgrace to both of you?’’ 
 
 “I knew it.” 
 
 “You concealed your relations with him, then?’’ 
 
 “I did my part and he did his.” 
 
 “Did Mr. Rodes pay your board? ” 
 
 “You don’t think even Mr. Breckinridge was as bad as that? 
 Mr. Rodes paid my tuition.” 
 
Bighth Day op Triae. 
 
 95 
 
 QUESTIONS WERE ASKED 
 
 jRegarding the location of Miss Pollard’s room at her boarding 
 place with two old ladies, while she attended the Sayre Insti¬ 
 tute, in Lexington, evidently with the intention of showing that 
 she might have received visitors at night unknown to the rest of 
 the household. 
 
 “Did Mr. Rodes know of your relations to Mr. Breckin¬ 
 ridge?” was asked.' 
 
 “Indeed he did not, or Mr. Breckinridge would not have 
 been living to-day.’’ 
 
 “Then you were under a sort of contract to marry Mr. 
 Rodes in return for the money for your schooling. Mr. Breck* 
 inridge was keeping you, and you were engaged to Mr. Rozell?” 
 
 (Deliberately) “Yes, Mr. Butterworth, it was as bad as it 
 sounds. And he knew it all.” (Referring to Mr. Breckinridge). 
 
 Speaking of her life in Cincinnati, when her first child was 
 born, Miss Pollard said that she had told all sorts of mysterious 
 stories to keep Dr. Street from 
 
 SUSPECTING HER IDENTITY. 
 
 “ I took the little room opposite the mattress factory because 
 it was inexpensive, and he could not afford to pay much money 
 for me,” she said. 
 
 “ Please remember the state of my mind when that article 
 was written. I was all but insane,” she said again, when a minor 
 discrepancy between her testimony and the article purporting to 
 be hers, recently published in the New York World, was noted. 
 At the Nomood Convent she had worn a veil, so that none but 
 Sister Cecilia had seen her face. During that time her letters to 
 Colonel Breckinridge had been addressed to “ Margaret Dillon, 
 Box 47, Lexington, Kentucky.” 
 
 When she had visited the convent, after the suit was filed, 
 Sister Agnes had not at first recognized her, but before she left 
 had said : “ She has undoubtedly been here.” 
 
 “ Did she not tell you that you were an immoral woman ? ” 
 asked Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 “ She did not, She attempted to give me a sort of lecture. 
 
96 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 i 
 
 She asked me why I wanted to ruin that old man in his old age. 
 I replied : ‘Why did he want to ruin me in my youth ? ’ She 
 said that I ought to think of his daughters, and I said that he 
 did not have pity on me when I was somebody’s daughter, nor 
 on my daughter and his, that he made me give away.’ ” [With 
 emotion.] 
 
 Mr. Butterworth—Did you not tell her that this suit was 
 brought for revenge? 
 
 Miss Pollard—That is as false as words can be framed. I 
 told her that I wanted him to bear his share of the respon¬ 
 sibility in this matter, and that I would go through the world 
 carrying my own share, but I would not bear all the burden he 
 had 
 
 PLACED UPON ME. 
 
 I believe that there is a principle behind this matter. I believe 
 that justice will be done, and I believe that these men (turning 
 to the jury) will help to see it done.” 
 
 When Mr. Butterworth asked some question about money 
 matters, Miss Pollard said her only effort at the time referred to, 
 as it always had been, was to conceal her relations with Mr. 
 Breckinridge. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth—You haven’t done anything as a free and 
 independent agent since you passed under his control. 
 
 Shaking her head with a faint smile the answer came: ‘‘I 
 don’t believe I ever have.” 
 
 Mr. Butterworth was asking Miss Pollard about her ambi¬ 
 tions for the future in those early years, when she said: 
 
 “ I knew I -was to always be in Mr. Breckinridge's life be¬ 
 cause the night before I left for the Norwood asylum he made 
 me promise to give my baby away. He said that if he was ever 
 able to marry me he would, and that if he could not marry me 
 he would keep me in his life always.” 
 
 ‘‘Did you have any woman before you as an ideal?” Mr. 
 Butterworth asked, and, as Miss Pollard was answering “ No, sir, 
 I hoped to make a name by writing,” her lawyers objected, and 
 the Judge sustained the objection. 
 
 For two years, when she was first in Washington, she had 
 
I 
 
HEADING KOOM RUBLIC LIBRARY, CINCINNATI, O. 
 
Bighth Day of Triae. 
 
 97 
 
 met Mr. Breckinridge three or four times a week in a house on 
 Fourth street. She had spent one summer at Bread Loaf Inn, 
 in Vermont, a semi-fashionable resort ten miles from Middlebury, 
 kept by Joseph Battell. 
 
 She denied having represented herself as an authoress of 
 reputation. She had met there a woman named Mrs. Bridges, 
 of Brooklyn—“ the one who wrote the article in the Standard 
 Union.” 
 
 “What article?” asked Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 “ The one you are leading up to.” [The article in question 
 was one which appeared Saturday.] 
 
 “ Was that article true?” was the next question. 
 
 “ It is mainly untrue. It is colored to suit events. It is 
 not true that I have ever taken opium, nor that I represented 
 myself as author of the poem, ‘ Love’s Power,’ written by Mrs. 
 Josephine Pollard.” 
 
 She had read the poem at Bread Loaf to a little audience. 
 Mr. Butterworth read extracts from the article, drawing 
 QUESTIONS FROM THEM. 
 
 Miss Pollard had not known James Russell Lor/ell, as Mrs. 
 Bridges said had been her boast, but had visited his grave, had 
 known his relatives well and had been entertained by his wife’s 
 sister, Mrs. Dr. Howe, in Cambridge. She had known William 
 Dean Howells, the author; had great respect for him, as he had 
 always been kind in answering her questions, and had received 
 letters from him, which her counsel had. 
 
 It was suggested by Judge Bradley that this questioning 
 was all collateral, whereupon Mr. Wilson said that he had per¬ 
 mitted it because he was very glad to have the article brought 
 into the case; that he would use it later. He reminded Mr. 
 Butterworth that the defense must be bound by the answers to 
 those questions, and with considerable sarcasm in his tone 
 trusted that Brother Butterworth would read the entire article. 
 
 Miss Pollard, to further questions, said that on her return 
 to Washington in the fall of 1892, when Breckinridge first for¬ 
 mally proposed to marry her, he had met her—” 
 
 7 
 
98 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “Was it in a proper place?” interrupted Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 “ It was not. It was in a house of assignation on A street. 
 He said to me, ‘ Madeline, this is no place for us to talk of these 
 things,’ so we went out on the street together. He told me 
 about his children, his prospects and his intentions.” 
 
 “ Did you ever talk of marriage while his wife was alive?” 
 
 “ Very rarely.” 
 
 “ But you did talk of it?” 
 
 “ We did.” 
 
 Here the Court adjourned, with the cross-examination still 
 unfinished. 
 
 NINTH DAY OF THE TRIAD. 
 
 ^An admission of the secret marriage , brought out by an abrupt 
 questioyi.—Madeline Pollard tells her story in detail.—Giving 
 further testimony against Colonel Breckinridge .— Now scorn¬ 
 ful, now pathetic, until reference to her children brings on a 
 ft of weeping.—Spectators deeply moved. 
 
 The closing scenes of the day’s proceedings in the Pollard- 
 Breckinridge trial consisted of a succession of tempestuous and 
 sensational incidents from the time the court reconvened after 
 the recess until it adjourned at 3 o’clock, with Miss Pollard weep¬ 
 ing for her children, her head bowed on the rail of the witness 
 box. Questions by Major Butterworth, as to her relations with 
 Colonel Breckinridge after his secret marriage brought out words 
 of scorn and accusation against the defendant. He was charged 
 with having maligned his present wife, Mrs. Wing; with swearing 
 love and devotion for Miss Pollard three weeks after the secret 
 marriage, wheu she w 7 as in ignorance of it, and with acting the 
 part of the deceiver in every possible way. 
 
 Incidently it came out that a tradgedy was narrowly averted 
 in the Hoffman House in New York, two days after Colonel 
 Breckinridge’s first marriage in that city to Mrs. Wing, and 
 while he was occupying communicating rooms in that hotel with 
 Miss Pollard, who was registered as his daughter. Another new 
 
Ninth uay of Trial. 
 
 99 
 
 and startling incident brought out in the cross-examination was 
 that Miss Pollard o .1 one occasion, after the marriage and before 
 she knew of it, went to the house in this city where Colonel 
 Breckinridge and his present wife (not then acknowledged) were 
 residing; that on seeing her they both crouched behind a cur¬ 
 tain ; whereupon she called out, “Willie, come out,” and he came 
 out and accompanied her to Dr. Lincoln’s. 
 
 These and other scenes entirely overshadowed the morning 
 examination, which was mainly devoted to reading the deceitful 
 letters addressed by the plaintiff to her aged dupe, Rodes. 
 
 MR. wieson startles the defense. 
 
 Perhaps the most unlooked for and remarkable event of the 
 day was a tilt between counsel over the secret marriage of de¬ 
 fendant to Mrs. Wing. Without a moment’s warning the oppos¬ 
 ing lawyers were let loose upon each other like hounds fresh 
 from the leash, and the battle royal since the inception of the 
 proceedings followed. Major Butterworth and his associates 
 were brought face to face with the secret marriage, a burning 
 question of the suit, as suddenly and abruptly as though it had 
 been a pitfall. Mr. Wilson could not have given them a greater 
 surprise. 
 
 Major Butterworth was forced to the admission of the mar¬ 
 riage, but he stood his ground before the unexpected attack like 
 a Trojan. He was questioning the plaintiff about her act in 
 New York city on the 1st of May, and about the alleged threat 
 to shoot the defendant, when Mr. Wilson rose to his feet. He 
 did not face the Court. He looked hard at Major Butterworth. 
 “ I want to know,” he said, “if your position is that Colonel 
 Breckinridge was secretly married the 29th of April, 1893, to 
 Mrs. Wing? ” He insisted that an answer was necessary to this 
 question before he could allow the cross-examination to proceed 
 upon the lines which were being followed. 
 
 Major Butterworth parried the thrust, apparently, until he 
 could satisfy himself of a discreet reply. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle exclaimed: “ I understand that it is admitted. 
 You say that they were secretly married.” 
 
iqo Poulard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Then Mr. Butterworth asked that they should forbear from 
 using the word “secretly.” He said he would advise the oppos- 
 ing counsel, for they were apparently walking in the darkness 
 and sought the light. “ Mr. Breckinridge,” he declared, “ was 
 married to Mrs. Wing April 29, 1893.” Then he asked Mr. 
 Wilson if that was the light he wanted. 
 
 Mr. Wilson retorted to the effect that he was not agitated 
 about walking in the darkness, and pressed .Major Butterworth 
 further about the records of that marriage. “ That cuts no figure 
 here,” the Major replied. “ I am not going to be betrayed into 
 talking about foreign matter at this stage. The question is one 
 of shooting.” ' 
 
 “I will show you,” said Judge Wilson in reply, “ that it 
 won’t make a particle of difference if she had cut his ears off.” 
 Then he turned to the Court, and with increasing eloquence, de¬ 
 clared that Colonel Breckinridge had violated that contract made 
 with Miss Pollard in his secret marriage, and it would make no 
 difference if she had slit his nose. Shooting could not be used j 
 as an excuse for a violation of the contract. He could not use 
 any specific act of hers, because he had not alleged it. 
 
 JUDGE BRADLEY OVERRULES OBJECTION. 
 
 Judge Bradley interposed at this point, when the excitement 
 had grown intense. He asked a few questions. He said that 
 according to his memory the direct examination had been allowed 
 up to the 13th of May, and that a cross examination would be 
 permissible up to the same point. He did not pass upon the ad¬ 
 mission of the evidence as a matter of defense. 
 
 The remainder of the afternoon’s proceedings, which dis¬ 
 closed several interesting facts in connection with the suit, cen¬ 
 tered in the testimony of the plaintiff. She grew intensely 
 eager to tell her story in full, and sometimes interfered with the 
 controversies between the lawyers. Judge Bradley, after her at¬ 
 torneys had restrained her several times, called a halt and in¬ 
 structed her in a few words how she should bear herself as a 
 witness. She had sat quietly in her arm chair in the witness box 
 most of the time, but her face grew flushed, and in her excite- 
 
Ninth Day op Triai,. 
 
 ioi 
 
 ment she sometimes pounded her fist upon the desk in front of 
 her to emphasize her statements. She kept her eyes fixed upon 
 Colonel Breckinridge throughout. She shook her ; head, and at 
 one time leaned her elbows upon the desk as though she would 
 come nearer to the counsel, who have harassed her for the last 
 three days with all manner of questions/ to enforce upon them 
 the facts which she was speaking. 
 
 Her language describing her affection and trust for the de¬ 
 fendant was very strong, and she freqiiently called him “Willie” 
 in telling about the love passages which had passed between 
 them. She repeated, in very pronounced terms, words which she 
 said he had uttered to her during the period of their meeting on 
 the ist of May, 1893, in New York, and subsequently in Wash¬ 
 ington before the 17th of that month, protesting his devotion to 
 her and his contempt for his present wife. She said they had 
 talked of their unborn child, what they should name it, and of 
 the home they hoped soon to occupy. 
 
 ACTS OP A DESPERATE WOMAN. 
 
 Her language was sharp as a lancet. She dwelt with full¬ 
 ness upon the stories which had awakened her suspicions with 
 regard to his fidelity, of the concealments, misrepresentations, 
 falsehoods, and deceits which she had practiced in conjunction 
 with him that their true lives might not be known. Her stories 
 of four revolvers which she had bought at different times during 
 their relations, and her testimony of resolutions to kill herself 
 and the defendant when he seemed to be untrue to her were not 
 far from thrilling, and bespoke the determination of a desperate 
 voman. Colonel Breckinridge colored to the roots of his hair 
 vhile she told of one of the revolvers she had bought because of 
 certain anonymous letters that had been forwarded her telling, 
 ls she expressed it, of his “ relations- with ‘nigger’ women.” 
 she said that her love for him at the time was so great she was 
 lecided to kill only herself, and that the resolve to take both lives 
 ame to her later, especially at the time of her sojourn with him 
 a New York. 
 
 The plaintiff trained her powers with great effect again upon 
 

 102 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge, and showed, as she has so many times, 
 that she is not inferior ;a certain ways to the learned counsel. 
 While Major Butterworui was questioning her about the conduct 
 of the defendant succeeding their return to Washington from 
 New York last May, she told of how, at a meeting the defend¬ 
 ant, who was aware of her delicate condition, had some show of 
 conscience, and that his face had given some proof of his peni¬ 
 tence. She lowered her voice and spoke in the tenderest and 
 most piteous tones. 
 
 THE TALK AT MAJOR MOORE’S. 
 
 Miss Pollard then gave her 'Version of their meeting at 
 Major Moore’s. It was full of interesting statements. She said 
 that in her desperation she had once given away her clothing in 
 preparation for a tragedy. Her story differed somewhat from 
 Major Moore’s, she declaring that he was in error about the talk 
 of presenting the pistol as a birthday present, but that it was 
 mentioned as a wedding present. Mr. Breckinridge had never 
 attempted to terminate their relations, although there had been 
 times when she washed to do so. He always vetoed it. She 
 also told how her positions in government employ had been pro¬ 
 cured, and stated that Commissioner Lyman had assisted Colo¬ 
 nel Breckinridge in getting her a position in the Agricultural 
 Department. 
 
 She declared that she had always tried to conceal her grief 
 from defendant, that she had not. allowed him to see her crying \ 
 over the burial of her little children. She shook wdth sobs w T hen 
 she said that she had given up her children for his sake, and 
 that a mother couldn’t give more. 
 
 The whole Court-room was affected at this scene, and Colo¬ 
 nel Breckinridge looked troubled. 
 
 LETTERS TO HER ELDERLY ADORER. 
 
 When Judge Bradley took his seat shortly after io o’clock 
 the only person connected with Colonel Breckinridge’s defense 
 present was Colonel Phil. Thompson. Miss Pollard and her 
 companion. Miss Ellis, with Judge Wilson and Mr. Carlisle, her 
 attorneys, had arrived early. There was little delay, however, 
 
 . I 
 
Ninth Day of Trial. 
 
 103 
 
 after the Court convened, for Major Butterworth entered a few 
 minutes afterward, and was followed almost immediately by Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge and the others of his attorneys. 
 
 Miss Pollard took the stand, and Major Butterworth began 
 to question her about her acquaintance with Mrs. Duke Black¬ 
 burn, of Kentucky, who had testified that Colonel Breckinridge 
 put Miss Pollard under her charge as his affianced wife. This 
 line of inquiry suggested to the spectators the claim of Colonel 
 Breckinridge that he will controvert Mrs. Blackburn’s testimony. 
 
 Miss Pollard said she met Mrs. Blackburn in the winter of 
 1890-91. She was handed a letter by Major Butterworth with 
 the request that she examine it. 
 
 “This is written to Mr. Rodes,” she said. “It is in my 
 handwriting,” and then, a minute later: “Why is the heading 
 torn off that letter, Mr. Butterworth?” 
 
 “I don’t know, Miss Pollard,” said Major Butterworth. 
 
 “Does Mr. Breckinridge know?” she asked. 
 
 “Now, Miss Pollard, you must not ask questions of Mr. 
 Butterworth,” said Mr. Carlisle, her attorney, and Miss Pollard 
 became quiet. 
 
 Major Butterworth than read the letter, which was dated 
 Bexington, Ky., November 20, 1884. It begged Rodes for $40 
 to pay her board bill, and called him “dear.” The letter was 
 read, as follows; 
 
 HE HAD DISAPPOINTED HER. 
 
 “Lexington, Ky., Nov. 20, 1884. 
 
 “Dear Mr. Rodes: I fully expected a letter from you this 
 morning. It annoys me when you don’t write. Miss Hoyt has 
 just asked me for the money for my board; mamma will be un¬ 
 able to furnish me any of this money, as she is building a new 
 porch and repairing her house so as to rent the place. Please, 
 dear, do let me have $40 by Saturday without fail, for Mrs. Hoyt 
 has asked me for it two or three times. I know you can, and I 
 know you will, for any one that has as many friends as you have 
 can always get it. Come Saturday evening about 7 o’clock and 
 you can stay until half past eight. Be careful how you talk, 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 104 
 
 and we can have a pleasant evening. Put the money in an en¬ 
 velope, and when I go to the door with you give it to me. Be 
 sure and bring it or I will not know what to do. It is turning 
 so cold, but I am so well I don’t mind cold, and like to go out. 
 I have not heard from mamma since I wrote you last. There is 
 a family of the name of Keighan living just across the way, 
 and I think they are the same family that I have often heard 
 you speak of. I don’t want you to mention my name there, and 
 I will tell you why when I see you. 
 
 “I will look for you Saturday night, and don’t disappoint 
 me, for I will be miserable if I dcn’t get that for Mrs. H. I will 
 look for the letter to-morrow saying you are coming. 
 
 “Yours, truly, Madelene.” - 
 
 Major Butterworth read another letter to Rodes, dated Lex¬ 
 ington, November 27, 1884, in which Miss Pollard repeated her 
 request for the money. In substance she said : 
 
 “Dear Mr. Rodes: I am so worried and disappointed I don’t 
 know what to do. I thought surely you would have brought it 
 to-night. Miss Hoyt's coal bill is due and she needs the money 
 for my board. I should think a man with so many rich friends 
 as you could get it. Besides, your pay-day is so near. * * * 
 Do try to get it by Saturday,’’—and more of the same kind, with 
 some little talk about a birth-day present. 
 
 A SUGGESTION TO COUNSEL. 
 
 “ Mr. Butterworth, there were a great many more letters," 
 said Miss Pollard, when Major Butterworth had sat down as if 
 lie had nothing more to read. 
 
 Taking the hint, Major Butterworth then read a letter from 
 Miss Pollard to Rodes, dated Bridgeport, Ky., December 30, 
 1884. It was merely of a friendly character, bright and chatty, 
 and signed, “Yours, with love, Madeline.” Another letter, 
 rather peremptorilj r asking for the $40, and wondering why 
 Rodes had not brought it, as “ Friday was pay-day.” “ Do not 
 come unless you bring what I ask for. (Signed) M.” was the 
 conclusion. 
 
 Still another letter from Miss Pollard, dated New Orleans, 
 
Ninth Day of Trial. 
 
 105 
 
 February 15, 1885, told Rodes that she would take “this—my 
 first opportunity—to write to you and mamma,” and informing 
 him that he should have every dollar of his money back, and 
 “if I am provoked again as I have been, I think it will only be 
 for once.” 
 
 Miss Pollard buried her face in her hands and laughed at 
 some of the advice in the letter to the old man—telling him to 
 go to church often and things of that sort, and also at the re¬ 
 mark, “ if you could see the pretty girls here, you would not 
 look at me.” The letter ended: “ With love and kisses, 
 Madeline.” 
 
 Miss Pollard seemed in better spirits than she had been at 
 any time since the trial began. Her face was placid, and she 
 smiled frequently. 
 
 Another letter dated New Orleans (where Miss Pollard said 
 she was attending the exposition), dated February 21, 1885, was 
 of a light, gossipy character, and signed, “ Lovingly, Madeline.” 
 This letter, like the other, although dated at New Orleans, was 
 postmarked “ Towlesboro, Ky.’’ So was the next letter read, 
 which was dated “Jacksonville.” Miss Pollard wanted to ex¬ 
 plain this mystery, but she was not allowed to do so. She ap¬ 
 peared much amused at her girlish expressions. “ Dearest Mr. 
 Rodes,’’ and “ With love and kisses” made her smile. 
 
 More letters were shown her by Major Butterworth. 
 
 “Yes, these are all mine,” she said, with a half-laugh. “Pm 
 so glad they are.” 
 
 “ So am I,” said Major Butterworth. 
 
 These letters were written at the time when Miss Pollard 
 testified she had gone to Cincinnati during her first pregnancy. 
 Her baby was born in May following. 
 
 Major Butterworth read the letters in the order of date, 
 ine next was dated “Cincinnati, Juty 1, 1885.” An explana¬ 
 tion of how the letters were sent to Miss Pollard in Cincinnati 
 and not to New Orleans and Jacksonville was given in one of 
 the letters, in which Miss Pollard said Rodes must send the let¬ 
 ters to her mother to be forwarded so that they could come with 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 her mother’s notes and keep her aunt, with whom she pretended 
 to be, from knowing of her affair with Rodes. 
 
 more begging letters. 
 
 In a letter to B.odes dated July n, 1885, Miss Pollard said 
 she “ must have $40 right away,” and she showed a familiarity 
 with his pay days. A letter dated July 14, begged for the money 
 mentioned in the last letter. “ Lovingly, Madeline,” was signed 
 to this. 
 
 Miss Pollard smiled brightly as Major Butterworth handed 
 her another letter for identification, and she appeared to think it 
 all very amusing as she said, ‘‘Yes, sir.” In a letter dated 
 August 20, 1885, Miss Pollard told Mr. Rodes of the races at the 
 Lexington fair, and said : “ I just know if I were a man horses 
 
 vsrould be the ruin of me.” 
 
 In a letter dated August 14, 1885, at Lexington, addressed 
 to Rev. Dr. Brown, the principal of the Wesleyan Seminary, 
 Miss Pollard said she had learned from Mr. Rodes that he was 
 $140 in Dr. Brown’s debt for her schooling. She asked the doc¬ 
 tor to destroy the promissory note given by Mr. Redes on the 
 promise that she would pay it heiself. A gossipy note to Rodes, 
 dated March 10, 1886, was signed “M.V.B.P.,” and the infer¬ 
 ence is that “ B ” stood for “ Breckinridge.” Mrs. Weslyana 
 Robinson testified in Cincinnati that she had written a letter to 
 Miss Pollard, addressed “Miss Madeline Vivian Breckinridge 
 Pollard.” A number of other friendly letters to Rodes at this 
 period, of no interest, were read. 
 
 A letter dated Septer rber 14, 1886, addressed to Rodes, and 
 evidently concerning money, said: “It is perfectly in your 
 power to comply with m; ’ request, and why you do not do it is 
 strange to me.” 
 
 WRITTEN TO DECEIVE THE OLD MAN. 
 
 When Major Butter .vorth had finished reading, he asked 
 Miss Pollard if she had rot said that these letters were for the 
 purpose of misleading Rodes, but Mr. Carlisle interfered, and 
 said Major Butterworth should specify “ what letters. ” Major 
 
Ninth Day of the Trial. 
 
 107 
 
 Butterwortii referred to a statement of Miss Pollard that she had 
 read Washington Irving at the school. 
 
 “I beg your pardon, Mr. Butterworth,” said Miss Pollard, 
 “the letter containing that statement was from New Orleans.’’ 
 
 “ Were you in New Orleans then ? ” 
 
 “ I was never in New Orleans in my life. Mr. Breckinridge 
 knows perfectly well why those letters were written—they were 
 written to deceive Mr, Rodes. They were sent to my mother 
 while I was in Cincinnati before and after my baby was born, 
 aind she mailed them to Mr. Rodes.” 
 
 “ Why did you ask for so much money ? ” 
 
 “ I did it to cover up suspicion. If I had not asked for it 
 he would have wondered how I lived. I did not want the money, 
 for Mr. Breckinridge would have supplied all I needed. Every 
 letter bears the mark of what I say.” 
 
 “ Did you get any money ? ” 
 
 “Yes, and used it, too. Why should I be obliged to say I 
 did not need it when I had asked for it ? ” 
 
 “Did Mr. Rodes pay you the $40, and the several sums you 
 asked for?” asked Major Butterworth. 
 
 “I really don’t remember, but I presume he did,” said Miss 
 Pollard. 
 
 To another question Miss Pollard exclaimed that she wrote 
 these letters to cover up her tracks from Rodes at Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge s suggestion. “ He knows all those little tricks of de¬ 
 ceit,” she added. Colonel Breckinridge had not supervised any 
 of these letters, she said, but he told her what to write in the 
 letters dated New Orleans, because she had never been there. 
 The letters, as she had said, had been forwarded to her mother 
 at Towlesboro. Her mother knew she was in Cincinnati, think¬ 
 ing Miss Pollard was employed there. Here Miss Pollard broke 
 in with — 
 
 “And I want to say that the main letters written to mamma 
 were dictated by Mr. Breckinridge, taken by him to postal cars, 
 to anywhere to cover up a postmark and deceive her. He some¬ 
 times wrote to mamma, and often filled in the notes of the letters 
 
 to Mr. Rodes.” 
 
108 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “Miss Pollard,” said Major Butterworth, “ Please answer my 
 questions and don’t try to envelop them in a fog of phrases.’’ 
 
 "I am using facts, not phrases,” was the answer. “ I have 
 fully explained these things to you, Mr. Butterworth. I have 
 told you all about them, so please don’t ask me anything more 
 about the matter.” 
 
 To a reference to her mother as “ the agency of deception ” 
 in the Rodes correspondence Miss Pollard objected. “Poor, 
 dear mamma,” she said, “should not be accused of that.’’ 
 
 Major Butterworth replied with spirit to an objection of Mr. 
 Carlisle to some of his questions. Major Butterworth said the 
 witness had made diverse statements—one on the stand, another 
 in the letters. She claimed that she had the letters to Rodes 
 sent from Towlesboro to deceive him, but she did not let him 
 know she was in Cincinnati because he might come to look her 
 up. This was absurd. It was easier to find her in a small town 
 that could be searched in an hour than in Cincinnati. And why 
 should he not go to Towlesboro, which was seventy-five miles 
 nearer his home? “ These letters were sent from Towlesboro,” 
 said Major Butterworth. 
 
 “ But they were not,” interjected Miss Pollard. 
 
 “Miss Pollard, you must keep out of this discussion,” said 
 Mr. Carlisle sternly. 
 
 “ Oh!” ejaculated Miss Pollard, setting back in her chair. 
 
 Here a recess was taken until 1:15 o’clock. 
 
 ASSISTANCE IN THE WORK OF DECEIT. 
 
 At the afternoon session, when Major Butterworth asked 
 Miss Pollard if her mother knew why she was staying in Cin¬ 
 cinnati, Miss Pollard answered that she had told her mother that 
 there was a very good reason why her presence in Cincinnati 
 should be kept secret. “There were two or three stories in¬ 
 volved,” she said, frankly. “I will tell what they were if you 
 wish.” 
 
 Miss Pollard said Colonel Breckinridge had written letters 
 on the typewriter to her mother while she was in the foundling 
 asylum, and Major Butterworth asked: 
 
Ninth Day of Trial. 
 
 109 
 
 "What was in those letters?” 
 
 “I don’t know, but I’m sure Mr. Breckinridge can tell you; 
 he wrote them and knows all about them.” The letters, said 
 Miss Pollard, were addressed “Care of Mrs, Burgwynn,” and 
 were handed to her as Mrs. Burgwynn to give to “Madeline 
 
 Pollard.” 
 
 Some questions to Miss Pollard about the written contract 
 with Rodes brought an objection from Judge Wilson, who said 
 the presumption was that the defense had this contract, and it 
 should be produced before questions about it were asked. 
 
 Major Butterworth denied that the defense had the con¬ 
 tract, and Mr. Stoll supported him with the assertion that the 
 presumption was that the plaintiff had it. These explanations 
 removed the objection to asking about the contract, and Major 
 Butterworth asked what did the understanding or contract with 
 Rodes embrace. 
 
 Miss Pollard said it was understood that Rodes should pay 
 about $450 a year for tuition and board, and she went to a con¬ 
 vent in September, 1883. “I did not ask him for any money 
 during the whole time I was in Cincinnati in 1885, from Feb¬ 
 ruary on, and you will not find a reference to' money in those 
 letters—not one. I was supposed to be working at the time.” 
 
 Major Butterworth started to read a copy of a letter, but 
 Miss Pollard insisted that the original be read, and Major Butter¬ 
 worth said he would take the matter up later on. Then he 
 asked how it was that Rodes did not know she was in Cincin¬ 
 nati, as she had said, when she had told him she had a position 
 there ? 
 
 “I did not say I told him that,” was the answer, “mamma knew 
 I was in Cincinnati; Mr. Rodes thought I was a traveling com¬ 
 panion.” 
 
 “When you were in Washington first, did you write for any 
 journals?” Major Butterworth asked. 
 
 “No; I never did. I said so though. Mr. Breckinridge 
 made up these stories for me to tell, and I told them so as to 
 make it appear right that I was here. I never did it by myself; 
 he planned and arranged and sustained it in every way possible.” 
 
I IO 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “ Did you ever say you were studying for the stage? ” 
 
 “ No—o—I never thought of such a thing. Plain women 
 never thiuk of it; only pretty girls do.” 
 
 “ Miss Pollard, were there never questions raised as to your 
 relations with Col. Breckinridge, and if so, what preparations did 
 you make to offset them?” 
 
 ‘‘ We made an arrangement by which I was to tell him if any 
 suspicions arose. There were questions asked me which I found 
 it hard to answer.” 
 
 “ Miss Pollard, you said yesterday that your relations with 
 the defendant continued after his marriage? ” 
 
 “After his secret marriage.” 
 
 “ Did you have any suspicions about that marriage? ” 
 
 “ No; but I knew he had been with Mrs. Wing in New York, 
 and I asked him about it. He answered by telling me that there was 
 nothing between them, and then he maligned her. He spoke of 
 her in language I can not repeat, and that it would be hard for 
 any one to believe, and said that she was engaged to be married 
 to Lieut. Chamberlain, of the army. And this was all after his 
 secret marriage.” 
 
 “ Did you believe there was nothing between Col. Breckin¬ 
 ridge and Mrs. Wing?” 
 
 “He told me that she was a very worldly woman, and I cer¬ 
 tainly became suspicious that he should spend twelve days with 
 a worldly woman.” 
 
 “ Miss Pollard, did not you and Col. Breckinridge have some 
 scenes about this time?” 
 
 “Oh, yes,” she cried, scornfully. “Life with that man 
 couldn’t be all happiness to everybody.” 
 
 “Did you go to New York about the time of this marriage?” 
 
 “Yes, sir; I went to New York on April 29th last, and saw 
 Col. Breckinridge on May 1st—two days after his marriage.” 
 
 “Did you register as his daughter at the Hoffman House?” 
 
 “Yes, sir, on May 17th.” 
 
 “Did you threaten to shoot him in his room there?” 
 
 “Yes, sir.” This reply was made quietly, and in a matter- 
 of-fact tone. 
 
Ninth Day of Triad. 
 
 x 11 
 
 Theu Judge Wilson asked if the defense admitted the mar¬ 
 riage on April 29th. 
 
 THE SECRET MARRIAGE ADMITTED. 
 
 Major Butterworth admitted it, and made the first formal 
 announcement of the ceremony. 
 
 Judge Wilson made the point that since the marriage of the 
 defendant on April 29th was admitted, anything that happened 
 subsequent to that date was not competent evidence. Judge 
 Wilson spoke in a voice charged v/ith a great deal of feeling, 
 and he hinted some things uncomplimentary to the defendant, 
 saying it did not matter whether Miss Pollard shot him or cut 
 off his ears—if that happened subsequent to April 29th. 
 
 Judge Bradley overruled Judge Wilson’s point on the 
 ground that the matter had been brought in on direct examina¬ 
 tion. 
 
 “ You went to the Hoffman House and registered as Miss 
 Breckinridge?” asked Major Butterworth, resuming the cross- 
 examination of the plaintiff. 
 
 “Yes, sir.” 
 
 “ You got a room, did you not, opening into that of Mr. 
 Breckinridge?” 
 
 “Yes, sir.” 
 
 “ And when he entered his room you advanced from your 
 room with a pistol in your hand, intending to shoot him? ’ 
 
 “No, sir; it wasn’t that way.” 
 
 “ Did he not prevent you from shooting him by shutting the 
 door?” 
 
 “Oh, no; I didn’t nave the pistol in my hand while he was 
 there. I had it in my hand before that. When he came I told 
 him that I had a pistol, and he took it out of my traveling bag.” 
 
 “ Did he not tell you to put the pistol down at the door and 
 he would ring for the bell boy, and when the bell boy came you 
 would-” 
 
 “ Why, no !” broke in Miss Pollard; “ it wasn’t that way at 
 all—not at all—it wasn’t that way—oh, no !”—rapidly. 
 
I 12 
 
 ==-- : ; 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 HER VERSION OF THE PISTOL EPISODE. 
 
 After some rapid interchange of remarks, in which Miss 
 Pollard made many interruptions trying to tell the story her own 
 way, she finally managed to tell it. Mr. Breckinridge, she said, 
 had joined her the Sunday night of his marriage at the Hoffman 
 House, and said he might have to go away. “He said a big 
 company had been formed, with Mr. Whitney, Mr. Fairchild, and 
 other rich men, with a capital of $30,000,000, and that they were 
 going to commission him to go abroad, and he wanted to know 
 if I would marry him and go abroad with him. I said: ‘Willie, 
 I will go with you at a minute’s notice.’ He went out, asking 
 me to put some of his clothes together, and I looked over his 
 telescope bag and found a revolver in it. I became suspicious at 
 this, for he had been acting very oddly. He said he gone out to 
 see Mr. Whitney and Mr. Fairchild. I telephoned them; they 
 had not seen him. He said he might have to go away that night 
 on a private car, but there was no private car for him to go on, 
 for I wrote to the general manager at the Grand Central Station, 
 and he said no private car was there. Then he came back and 
 acted very queerly. I told him I didn’t believe what he said. 
 He talked of going to Samoa, to Europe, to other places, and I 
 was suspicious. I asked him if he intended to keep his solemn 
 premise to marry me, and he said: ‘Madeline, I never loved 
 another woman as I love you, my darling; I have never thought 
 of another woman—never a thought but of you has been in my 
 mind.’” 
 
 Miss Pollard’s imitation of Col. Breckinridge’s tones of voice 
 was very good, and caused a laugh. 
 
 “ I told him if he did not marry me I would kill both him 
 and myself, and he swore he would marry me, and removed my 
 suspicions. I thought the man would do harm to himself, he 
 acted so queerly. When he went out that night he put the re¬ 
 volver in his pocket. 
 
 Miss Pollard went on rapidly to explain further scenes be¬ 
 tween the defendant and herself. Col. Breckinridge had sworn 
 eternal love by her, and maligned Mrs. Wing, his wife. One 
 
Ninth Day of Triad. 
 
 
 
 '■■h' 
 
 “3 
 
 niglit in Washington she had gone to the house on Jefferson 
 Place wherein Mrs. Wing lived, and Col. Breckinridge and Mrs. 
 Wing ran when she entered. She saw them crouching down be¬ 
 hind a curtain, and she said: “ Willie, come out of that—come 
 with me. And he came,” she added. “We walked to Dr. Lin¬ 
 coln’s, and on the way he maligned Mrs. Wing, who was then 
 his wife, although I did not suspect it, and said all sorts of horrid 
 things about her.” 
 
 MEDITATED MURDER AND SUICIDE. 
 
 Miss Pollard admitted frankly that she had bought a pistol 
 to kill the defendant and herself. She had also bought a pistol 
 in February, 1893, to kill herself alone. She had not believed 
 all he told her; she began to doubt him. She had begged him 
 to marry her, and he had said he would keep his solemn promise. 
 All this was after he was married to Mrs. Wing. She had re¬ 
 ceived anonymous letters about his relations with negro women 
 after their engagement was announced, but she paid no attention 
 to them. “ I never made a threat to him — never — until the time 
 he acted as though he did not want to keep the solemn promise 
 he made me.” 
 
 The scene during all this examination was tragic and excit¬ 
 ing, Miss Pollard leaning forward in the witness box, and looking 
 squarely at Col. Breckinridge as she delivered her charges against 
 ! him. 
 
 Miss Pollard told of the sensational call on Maj. Moore, the 
 chief of police, when she gave up a pistol to him. She told of 
 her wanting to go away after Mr. Breckinridge’s wife died to 
 f stay two years until he could marry her, but he begged her not 
 to go, and she yielded to him. “ I always yielded,” said Miss 
 Pollard. 
 
 Recurring to the scene in the Hoffman House the night Col. 
 
 | Breckinridge said he might have to go to Europe, Miss Pollard 
 ! said: 
 
 “He told me all sorts of unusual lies, for which there was no 
 reason, and when I found out that what he told me was untrue, 
 
H4 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 he denied that the stories were false. * * * I always half 
 believed what he said, because he had such a persuasive way and 
 a power over me. I told him that if he broke his promise to 
 marry me I would kill him and myself, and I said : ‘ I have the 
 pistol which I took out of your traveling bag in your bureau 
 drawer. Now, tell me,’ said I, ‘are you going to keep your 
 solemn pledge to marry me, or are you net?’ ” 
 
 REPEATED PROMISES OF MARRIAGE. 
 
 Miss Pollard’s voice rose and rose as she pronounced these 
 words, and her accusations rang out clear and strong. She 
 looked straight at the defendant, who sat apparently unmoved, 
 while men in the Court-room were visibly affected by the excite¬ 
 ment of the scene. 
 
 “He replied to me,” continued Miss Pollard, ‘“I am going 
 to marry you, Madeline, and it has never been in my mind or 
 heart to marry any one else, and I intend to do so the last of 
 May.’ I said, ‘What day of the month?’ He said it would be 
 on the last of the month. ‘ What time, Willie? ’ I asked. ‘On 
 the 31st of May I will marry you,’ and I believed him. While 
 he was in the room I never put my fingers on his pistol at all. 
 He took the revolver out of the drawer and put it in his trousers’ 
 pocket.’ ’’ 
 
 Major Butterworth tried to interrupt Miss Pollard, but Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge remarked softly : “ Butterworth, Butterworth, 
 don’t stop her,” and she was allowed to go on. If Colonel 
 Breckinridge was pleased with what she said, so was Miss Pol-j 
 lard’s attorneys, for Judge Wilson nodded approvingly, and Mr. j 
 Carlisle smiled. 
 
 Miss Pollard kept up her story in a flow of rapid, feeling- 
 words. “ He sent me a letter from the Hoffman House, in which 
 he spoke of his promise to marry me, and in which there was 
 not the slightest occasion to lie.” 
 
 “Have you that letter?” Major Butterw'orth managed to 
 get in. 
 
 “ No, he took it away from me wdth the vilest possible story,” 
 she answered. 
 
Ninth Day oe Triae. 
 
 115 
 
 Miss Pollard gave more details of her visit to New York 
 and her return. 
 
 “ On Tuesday he lunched with me at Mrs. Tomas’s. I think 
 his face showed that day more of genuine penitence than I ever 
 had seen before or since-—to this day—and I really think he had 
 a conscience that day.” 
 
 A SOLEMN MOMENT. 
 
 Miss Pollard’s voice dropped to a tender chord as she said 
 this, and the Court-room became absolutely still. Then some¬ 
 body laughed and broke the spell- “ He was a married man 
 then?” asked Major Butterworth. 
 
 “ Yes, and very much so now,” said Miss Pollard, scornfully, 
 and there was another laugh. 
 
 “Didn’t Colonel Breckinridge offer to send you to Berlin 
 and give you $ 1,000 and to give you $125 a month besides?” 
 
 “Indeed he did not. Indeed he did not.” 
 
 There was no doubting the emphasis. 
 
 “Didn’t he say he would let you study wherever you 
 wanted to? ” 
 
 “Indeed he did not.” 
 
 “Didn’t he tell you that it was in your power to ruin him?” 
 
 “I could have ruined him, of course, and I am glad you 
 have mentioned it. I did not use .that power and I absolutely 
 sacrificed my life to shield his— his crime and mine.” 
 
 “What did you expect him to do when his fifst wife lived?” 
 
 “I did not expect anything then; I only know I loved him.’’ 
 
 “Now, Miss Pollard, didn’t you use that power to continue 
 the relations between you, to prevent him from doing what he 
 proposed to do for you in pursuing .your studies and enabling 
 you to achieve success in whatever line your talents might fit 
 you?” 
 
 “There was no such talk on Mr. Breckinridge’s part. T 
 never made a threat to him until the time he could have kept 
 his promise to me and had violated his promise to marry me.” 
 
 “Whenever you told him to come to you he came, did he 
 not, during those nine years?” 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 116 
 
 “Yes,” with feeling. I■> 
 
 “Whenever he told me to come to him I went to him, and 
 whenever I told him to come to me he came in the same way.” 
 This was said in a way fully expressing the “hatred of a woman 
 scorned.” 
 
 “ How long did your friendly relations with Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge continue?’’ asked Major Butterworth. 
 
 Then occurred the most pathetic feature of the day. 
 
 “ The last day was on the evening of May 17th,” continued 
 Miss Pollard, “ in every way that he could he made me believe 
 him. He talked of our unborn child and how we should name 
 it. This was on the 17th of May, after the alleged secret mar¬ 
 riage with Mrs. Wing.-’’ 
 
 “You were willing then”—interrupted Mr. Butterworth— 
 “to continue these relations because Mr. Breckinridge wanted 
 
 you to?” 
 
 SHE WAS MORE THAN WITLING. 
 
 " I was more than willing,” the witness exclaimed, passion¬ 
 ately. “ I did as he said. I gave my babies away because he 
 asked me. He said that if I kept them it would be traced to him 
 and they would be known as his children. A woman can’t do 
 more than that—can’t do more than that,” with a voice trem¬ 
 bling with feeling. “ I saw my last child laid in the grave be¬ 
 cause it needed a mother’s care and because I could not give it.” 
 
 The spectators saw a woman’s head go down on her hands, 
 and there were tears in many eyes as she wept for her little ones. 
 
 “What,” Major Butterworth started to say,and then, “I beg 
 your pardon.” 
 
 Miss Pollard’s voice had dropped from a tone of intense ac¬ 
 cusation to a long-drawn sob, and she wept like one whose very 
 heart was breaking. 
 
 “ It was then just 3 o’clock. Major Butterworth whispered j 
 something to Mr. Carlisle, whereupon Mr. Carlisle rising asked 
 for an adjournment. Judge Bradley thereupon adjourned Court. 
 
Tenth Day of Trial. 
 
 117 
 
 TENTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 Miss Pollard's Strong Testimony Sufficient , and Her Counsel 
 Waive Further Examination—The Defense now Start in 
 with their Hard Work — Colonel Breckinridge Claims She 
 Led Him On , and Extorted a Marriage Promise — Mr. 
 Shelby States that His Client will Offer Testimony , which 
 will Place the Plaintiff in the Position of Being the Be¬ 
 trayer. 
 
 Two important stages were passed in the Pollard-Breckinridge 
 suit for breach of promise—the resting of the case for the prose¬ 
 cution and the opening statement of Colonel Shelby outlining 
 the policy of the defense. Miss Pollard was upon the witness 
 stand but a few minutes in the morning before Major Butter- 
 worth announced that he was finished. The brief cross-exam¬ 
 ination was devoid of incident. Miss Pollard told her questioner 
 that she was worn out and very tired, and unable to remember 
 plainly certain details in connection with her use of the name 
 of Breckinridge, except that it was discussed at the time between 
 herself and the defendant, and adopted at his suggestion and 
 with his consent. 
 
 It was 10:30 o’clock when Mr. Carlisle arose and stated that 
 the plaintiff rested her case at this point, a little over nine trial 
 days since the proceedings were instituted. 
 
 Every spectator in the court-room was on the tiptoe of expect¬ 
 ation to hear what the lawyer would have to say who should be 
 assigned to break the first lance for the defense. It was rumored 
 that Major Butterworth might be the first to speak, but he arose 
 to say that the counsel would like a few moments to confer, and 
 upon permission being given, Colonel Breckinridge and all his 
 defenders filed out. Almost half an hour elapsed before their 
 return, and it was 11 o’clock when Colonel Shelby began in his 
 quiet manner to address the jury. 
 
 The speaker is a man of medium stature without the bearing 
 of an orator. He is not possessed of that eloquence which many 
 of his hearers, mindful of the fame of Kentucky’s sons, were led, 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 i 18 
 
 perhaps, to expect. He looked earnestly but leisurely through 
 his gold-rimmed eye-glasses, and spoke in a calm unimpassioned 
 style. He gave a plain statement, in easy language, of the case 
 as he was authorized to present it, and asked that the jury give 
 the facts to be offered in evidence fair and impartial considera¬ 
 tion, remembering that he only wished the truth to be received. 
 He was unfolding the secret which for two weeks every man in 
 the court-room was trying to fathom, and from the first word to 
 the last he was listened to with closest attention. 
 
 NEVER MEANT TO MARRY MADELINE. 
 
 His argument was, in brief, that the defendant has nevei 
 promised in good faith to marry the plaintiff, that for many years . 
 her extortions have made his life an intolerable burden, of which 
 the breach of promise suit is the revengeful and desperate cul¬ 
 mination. He denied absolutely and in the strongest language 
 many of Miss Pollard’s statements upon the witness stand, and 
 assured the jury that testimony would be introduced to show 
 that they were not true -wholly or in part. 
 
 The defense, it was said, would also claim that Miss Pollard . 
 made three attempts to kill Colonel Breckinridge, and would 
 establish that he did not maintain illicit relations with her after 
 the time he became engaged to Mrs. Wing, and certainly not 
 after his marriage. 
 
 Probably the most important point in his statement was the 
 explanation of the promise as reiterated before Mrs. Blackburn 
 and Major Moore. He said that Colonel Breckinridge had long 
 desired that Miss Pollard should pass out of his life and that she 
 should choose for herself some honorable calling without the 
 shadow upon her history ever becoming known. He asserted 
 that after many difficulties an agreement had been made for her 
 to study in New York. She had told Mrs Blackburn of her en¬ 
 gagement to him, and to pacify her and to conceal the shame he 
 had affirmed the statement. Mr. Shelby assured the jury that it 
 was almost incredible that the defendant did not appreciate the 
 danger of this, but as a fact in a moment of weakness he pre¬ 
 tended to assume a relation which did not exist, and which he 
 
Tenth Day of Trial. 
 
 "9 
 
 knew did not exist. She had violated again the arrangement 
 for her departure to New York on the occasion of the visit to 
 Major Moore, and Colonel Breckinridge was about to tell the 
 whole story, when he was dissuaded by her tears and protesta¬ 
 tions. She was attempting to force him into a marriage. 
 
 CLAIMS SHE WAS THE BETRAYER. 
 
 Colonel Shelby went over the personal relations between the 
 two parties to the suit from their inception, maintaining that he 
 had never seduced her or participated in any way with her 
 attendance at Sayre Institute or with her coming to Washington. 
 The statement occupied the remainder of the forenoon session 
 and a part of that in the afternoon, little over two hours in all. 
 He closed with comments upon the character of the plaintiff, 
 saying that she had placed it in issue not alone by implication, 
 but expressly. On this account they were prepared to prove that 
 she had been seen at assignation houses before she met Colonel 
 Breckinridge. 
 
 Judge Wilson interrupted Colonel Shelby several times in the 
 course of his remarks to remind him that he was transgressing 
 and entering into an argument of the case rather than a statement 
 of the proof which his client was about to offer. Colonel Shelby 
 took shelter gracefully each time behind his ignorance of the 
 practice in the court of Washington and ventured modest state¬ 
 ments in support of his method. 
 
 It was announced in the course of his statement that several 
 depositions would be read, including those of Alexander Julian, 
 with whom a mock marriage is said to have been performed, 
 Mr. Rosell, Dr. Williams, and others. 
 
 Mr. Stoll began the reading of the depositions immediately 
 after Colonel Shelby had concluded, but Judge Wilson quickly 
 interposed and demanded to know what he was reading, for he 
 said he did not know but that there might be some objection. 
 
 Mr. Stoll said that he was going to read the deposition of Sister 
 Agnes Regina Brown, from the foundling asylum, whereupon 
 Judge Wilson took his seat around at the end of the table, with a 
 pencil and a note book in his hand, where he watched for the 
 
120 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 words of the reader with a fox-like sharpness. No striking 
 points apparently were brought out by this deposition, which 
 occurred all the time till adjournment at 3 : 15 o’clock. 
 
 It was stated at the close of the session that there remain four 
 or five depositions to be read to-day, after which Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge will probably take the stand. He will probably be called 
 this afternoon. 
 
 THE CONTRACT WITH RODES. 
 
 The court had been called to order yesterday morning when 
 Colonel Breckinridge and his son Desha entered. The defendant 
 was not as smiling and debonnair as he has been, and his features 
 had a trace of gravity strange to them. Major Butterworth and 
 Mr. Stoll were tardy and business was suspended until they 
 arrived. 
 
 At a word from Mr. Carlisle Miss Pollard took the stand. 
 She was cool but not so strong looking as on Tuesday morning 
 when she began the ordeal that ended with a series of sensational 
 scenes. Major Butterworth, Mr. Stoll and Major Shelby had a 
 conference for a few minutes, the result of which was that Major 
 Butterworth’s first question was whether Miss Pollard had the 
 contract with Rodes by which it was agreed to pay for her edu¬ 
 cation on condition that she should marry him or pay him back. 
 
 “No, I haven’t; I gave it to Mr. Rodes.” 
 
 “The contract was settled, then?” asked Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 “ Oh, no sir, it was never settled. Mr. Rodes did not pay 
 nearly so much money for me as he said he would pay, but what 
 he did pay, about $2,500, I was never able to pay back.” 
 
 “Did you pay him any of it?” 
 
 “No sir; I never did have any money to pay anybody any¬ 
 thing,” said Miss Pollard in a voice of plaintive dejection. 
 
 The meekness of the witness vanished with the next question, 
 and she showed some of her old-time vivacity in the answer. 
 
 “Mrs. Logan (formerly Dr. Mary .Street), of Cincinnati, did 
 not recognize you when her deposition was taken, did she, Miss 
 Pollard?” was the question. 
 
 “ Not when I was introduced to her,” said Miss Pollard, “ but 
 she would have done so if she had had an opportunity on the 
 
Tenth Day of Trial. 
 
 121 
 
 redirect examination, and she certainly was ready to say that the 
 picture of Colonel Breckinridge was the picture of the man who 
 called to see me in 1885 at her house and”— 
 
 “Hold on. Miss Pollard,” cried Major Butterworth and Judge 
 Wilson at once. “You must not tell anything but what I ask 
 you,” Major Butterworth added. 
 
 “ I truly beg your pardon, Mr. Butterworth,” said the witness, 
 “ but my mind is so full of things I want to tell you that I can’t 
 help breaking in.” 
 
 “ I want to be perfectly fair with you, Miss Pollard.” 
 
 “ I appreciate that, Mr. Butterworth, and I truly thank you.” 
 
 “Breckinridge” in her name. 
 
 Major Butterworth asked a few unimportant questions about 
 Miss Pollard’s visit to Mrs. Logan’s house, and then reverted to a 
 question asked the other day—-whether Miss Pollard had any 
 corrections to make in the newspaper publication of her state¬ 
 ment to her counsel, but both Judge Wilson and Mr. Carlisle 
 objected on the ground that the matter had been gone over 
 before, and Judge Bradley sustained them. Then Major Butter¬ 
 worth wanted to know what were the facts about her adoption 
 of the name of “ Breckinridge.” 
 
 “ I told you all about that in the statement you just mentioned.” 
 
 “ This statement is not true.” 
 
 “ But it is true—although there are some other things about it 
 that I can explain.” 
 
 “ Well how was it?” 
 
 “Mr. Breckinridge told me to adopt the name. We talked it 
 over together while I was at the convent here in the summer of 
 1888, and I had the cards engraved as he suggested—Madeline 
 Breckinridge Pollard.” 
 
 “ But you used the initials ‘ M. V. B. P.’ in writing to Rodes ?” 
 
 “ I told you about that ”—meaning that the girls at the college 
 gave her that name after her meeting with Colonel Breckinridge. 
 
 A few more insignificant questions were asked—one about an 
 accident to Miss Pollard in 1887, and then Major Butterworth 
 created surprise by saying abruptly : 
 
122 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “That’s all, Miss Pollard.” 
 
 Miss Pollard looked astonished. She started to leave the stand, 
 but was called back by Mr. Carlisle. He did not ask her any 
 questions, however, but caused another surprise by saying : 
 
 “ If you please, your honor, the plaintiff rests her case here.” 
 
 The sentence was hardly ended before Miss Pollard and M ss 
 Ellis had disappeared through the jurors’ door. 
 
 Major Butterworth asked for a few minutes to confer, and he, 
 Colonel Breckinridge, Major Shelby, Mr. Stoll and Colonel 
 Thompson filed out of the courtroom. 
 
 THE DEFENSE’S STATEMENT. 
 
 The conference lasted over twenty minutes, and when the de¬ 
 fendant and his attorney returned Maj. Shelby, Col. Breckin¬ 
 ridge’s law partner, began the opening sratement of the defense 
 to the jury, which had been reserved when the trial opened. 
 
 “ While this case technically rests,” said Maj. Shelby, “on the 
 charge of breach of promise of marriage, other considerations en¬ 
 ter into it and affect it strongly. Then he told of the complaint 
 and the defendant’s answer and said ; 
 
 “I am authorized by the defendant to say, and it will be sup¬ 
 ported by his testimony on the witness stand under solemn oath, 
 that he did not seduce her, and that he never knew, until it was 
 testified to by Dr. Parsons on the stand, that any living child had 
 been born to her; and, furthermore, that the plaintiff never did 
 have any idea that the defendant would marry her; that he ever 
 intended to make or carry out such a contract with her. The 
 defendant does not desire to condone any offense of which he 
 may be guilty, but he does wish to be j udged by the facts, and 
 not through other things.” 
 
 Maj. Shelby then told what he said was a true story of the 
 meeting between Miss Pollard and Colonel Breckinridge. The 
 defendant saw Miss Pollard on a train when he was looking for 
 his overcoat preparatory to leaving. “ Good morning, Colonel 
 Breckinridge,” she said. Cel. Breckinridge supposed it was some 
 person he had met, but he could not place her, so he said : “ I 
 suppose I ought to know you, but I do not.” Then she intro- 
 
Tenth Day of Trial. 
 
 123 
 
 duced herself, saying that her father was a great admirer of John 
 C. Breckinridge, and had put “Breckinridge” in her name. 
 After a few more words they separated. 
 
 “Several months later, in 1884, the defendant,” said Maj. 
 Shelby, “ received a letter from the plaintiff asking him to come 
 to Cincinnati and assist her by his advice, and we propose to 
 show by this letter—a second letter—in which she urged him to 
 come to the Wesleyan College to see her-” 
 
 “Hold on,” said Judge Wilson, “don’t read that letter.” 
 
 “I won’t read it,” said Maj. Shelby. Then he went on to 
 sketch the other points in the defense. In this second letter, he 
 said, Miss Pollard had told him the nature of her business with 
 him in reply to one from him saying he could not come at that 
 time. But about ten days later he had business in Covington 
 with Gov. Stevenson, and while there he thought of the request 
 of this young girl, and decided to go to Wesleyan College, and 
 did go over to Cincinnati for that purpose on August 1, 1884. 
 
 AS TO MISS pollard’s AGE. 
 
 Maj. Shelby then referred to Miss Pollard’s age at the time 
 Colonel Breckinridge met her, and he claimed that she was then 
 not seventeen, but between twenty and twenty-one years old, 
 and he said he would show the jury by the testimony of Dr. Wil¬ 
 liams that when her sister was born, in 1866, the plaintiff was a 
 little girl running about the house. She was born, he said, in 
 1863, instead of 1866. 
 
 Maj. Shelby told of the first conversation between Miss Pollard 
 and Colonel Breckinridge about the Rodes case, and he con¬ 
 tended that Miss Pollard admitted that she had submitted her 
 person to Mr. Rodes. Colonel Breckinridge advised carrying 
 out the arrangement with Rodes, and in the course of the con¬ 
 versation she, not he, suggested that they go out in a closed car¬ 
 riage that night, and he consented. 
 
 “ I am authorized to state,” said Maj. Shelby, “that there was 
 no such remark by the defendant about a weak throat, which 
 caused him to bring a closed carriage, nor about a headache, 
 which compelled him to forego the concert, and suggested that 
 
124 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 they ride instead. It was she who suggested that they ride in¬ 
 stead of going to the concert, and during the course of that ride 
 illicit arrangements were established between them without ob- 
 jections_but with willingness on her part. They did not drive 
 until 12 o’clock that night, but were back at the college at io 
 o’clock. There was no meeting at the public library next day to 
 arrange the Rodes case; no arrangement for going to Lexing¬ 
 ton ; no bogus telegram sent by the defendant as an excuse for 
 her request that she be allowed to go home. 
 
 “ When he took the train,” continued Maj. Shelby, “he found 
 the plaintiff on it. They traveled to Lexington together, and she, 
 not he, suggested that he take her to the assignation house of 
 Sarah Gess. He was surprised that she knew about such a 
 place, and she said she knew where it it was located. They 
 stayed there from Saturday until the following Monday, when 
 she returned to Cincinnati, their arrangement having been com¬ 
 pleted.” 
 
 WHAT HE DID NOT KNOW. 
 
 Major Shelby said he was also authorized to state that there 
 was no suggestion made by the defendant that the plaintiff go to 
 Lexington, but that she went there and entered Sayre Institute 
 without his knowleege, and he did not even know that she was 
 in Lexington until he met her one day on the street. The illicit 
 relations were continued for several months thereafter. The de¬ 
 fendant had never visited her at Miss Hoyt’s her boarding place; 
 but every meeting was at the house of Sarah Gess. The defend¬ 
 ant did not know when she went to Cincinnati, in February, 
 1885, to give birth to a child; he did not know she was in Cin¬ 
 cinnati, he did not try to trace her up ; and “ I am authorized to 
 deny absolutely,” counsel continued, “ and we will show that 
 there was no such arrangements made by the defendant to con¬ 
 ceal the plaintiff’s condition or that he knew anything about her 
 being in the city of Cincinnati.” 
 
 Major Shelby said the defense was ready to show, and would 
 show, that the claim of the plaintiff that she gave birth to a 
 child at the Norwood Foundling Asylum, in 1885, was false. 
 
 1 ■ - .... 
 
Tenth Day of Trial. 
 
 I3 5 
 
 The attempt of Miss Pollard to have herself identified as Mrs. 
 Bergwynn, or Mrs. Burgoyne, who had been delivered of a child 
 ot St. Joseph’s Fouldling Asylum, had failed absolutely, said 
 Major Shelby, and it would be shown that there was not the 
 shadow of a foundation for her claim. 
 
 Miss Pollard, he continued, returned to Lexington in the fall 
 of 1885, and there fell in with the defendant again. He had just 
 been elected to Congress, and was arranging with the speaker 
 (Major Shelby) to take charge of all of his law business. Just 
 before he came to Washington he received a note from the plain¬ 
 tiff asking him to come and see her, and as a consequence their 
 relations were resumed in a measure. 
 
 Major Shelby claimed that during the visits of Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge to Lexington during his first term in Congress, he had 
 nothing to do with the plaintiff. After the session ended on 
 March 4, 1887, he returned to Lexington, and his family being 
 away and not liking hotel life, he took board at Miss Hoyt’s, 
 where the plaintiff was stopping, but there was no suggestion that 
 their relations be resumed, and it was not until after she had a 
 horse-back accident in 1887, that there was a resumption, and 
 then only after she had been to his office several times to see 
 him. 
 
 AGAINST HIS ADVICE. 
 
 That the defendant was responsible for Miss Pollard’s coming 
 to Washington, Major Shelby denied, and said that on the con¬ 
 trary the defendant advised her not to come. She told him that 
 she had talked to Senator Beck and the Senator had advised her 
 to come and get a position. “ I do not suggest even that there 
 was anything wrong between Senator Beck and herself, of 
 course,” said Major Shelby. 
 
 Major Shelby asked the jury to carefully consider the statement 
 he had made that the defendant and the plaintiff had maintained 
 no relations tor eighteen months prior to February, 1888, when 
 she claimed she had given birth to a child. Major Shelby 
 claimed that during Miss Pollard’s residence in Washington she 
 frequently came to Colonel Breckinridge for assistance, and that 
 in her statement that she had been pregnant by him and had 
 
126 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 suffered a miscarriage, he acceded to her demands. Major 
 Shelby did not condone or excuse the fault of the defendant, but 
 said that many men had done the same thing and been forgiven. 
 The plaintiff had it in her power to do him injury ; she knew she 
 had him more or less in her power—and she used that in getting 
 money from him and in continuing their relations. 
 
 Then Major Shelby went on to tell of the continuance of the 
 relations between Miss Pollard and his client until the winter of 
 1890-91, when, he contended, Miss Pollard, through her power 
 over him, tried to make him introduce her into the houses of 
 people she wanted to know and to give her money which he 
 could ill afford to give. He did not introduce her to private 
 houses. She made his life a burden for him, and he tried to get 
 her to go away, to take advantage of opportunities for the devel¬ 
 opment of her talents, and he offered to pay her expenses for 
 such education, as little as he could afford to do so. 
 
 This state of affairs continued until Mrs. Breckinridge died in 
 1892. The plaintiff in the fall of that year met the defendant 
 while he was on a business trip in New York and proposed to 
 him that she would go abroad to Berlin .with Mrs. Willard and 
 stay two years at Mrs. Willard's school on condition that she 
 went as his affianced wife. This proposition Breckinridge 
 refused. He would not listen to anything concerning marriage, 
 but through consideration for his family in the event of a scandal, 
 he proposed that she go abroad and that he would allow her $125 
 a month, which no man in Washington could less afford to do at 
 that time than Colonel Breckinridge. This offer, said Major 
 Shelby, was refused by the plaintiff because she could not go 
 with his permission to tell Mrs. Willard that she was Colonel 
 Breckinridge’s affianced wife. After this time the inproper rela¬ 
 tions were resumed. 
 
 THE ALLEGED ENGAGEMENT. 
 
 Major Shelby then told of what he contended were the cir¬ 
 cumstances in the case last spring when the alleged engagement 
 existed. He had previously denied Miss Pollard’s statement that 
 Colonel Breckinridge had asked her to be his wife in August, 
 
Tenth Day op Trial. 
 
 127 
 
 1892. Miss Pollard meanwhile had become acquainted with 
 Mrs. Blackburn, Gov. Blackburn’s widow ; had been to her house, 
 and had assisted at one of her receptions. Mrs. Blackburn began 
 to suspect something about the relations between Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge and Miss Pollard and had asked Miss Pollard about it. 
 Miss Pollard told Colonel Breckinridge that when Mrs. Blackburn 
 had questioned her about the matter she had herself told Mrs. 
 Blackburn that she and Colonel Breckinridge were engaged. 
 The defendant was angry and said he "would go to Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn and make a frank avowal of the illicit relations between 
 them and deny the engagement. 
 
 “The plaintiff begged him not to expose her,” said Major 
 Shelby. “ She begged him to give her another chance.” He 
 finally suggested as a way out of the difficulty that she should go 
 to New York or somewhere and gradually drop out of his life, he 
 paying her expenses, and that in time what she had told Mrs. 
 Blackburn would be forgotten. There was nothing done about 
 what Mrs. Blackburn had been told; he dallied with the matter. 
 
 Then Miss Pollard told him that Mrs. Blackburn wanted to see 
 him, and he went to see her. He told her that Miss Pollard was 
 a foolish girl, given to make foolish statements and to doing fool¬ 
 ish things. Soon after that Miss Pollard tried to shoot him in 
 Mrs. Thomas’ house, but being stronger he disarmed her. 
 
 Concerning the visit to Mrs. Blackburn in which the defendant 
 acknowledged that he was engaged to Miss Pollard, Mr. Shelby 
 said the plaintiff had induced him, by that influence which such 
 women have over men, to fall into her plan and to go to Mrs. 
 Blackburn and acknowledge that they were engaged. She held 
 a terrorizing influence over him. She had once attempted to kill 
 him, but, worse than that, she had it in her power to ruin him 
 completely by an exposition of their relations, and, like many 
 another good man, he was weak enough to full into the trap. 
 
 HIS MARRIAGE TO MRS. WING. 
 
 Between March 31st, when Miss Pollard and Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge called on Mrs. Blackburn together, and April 12, 1893, 
 when Colonel Breckinridge went to Kentucky, he saw Mrs. 
 
128 
 
 Polt-ard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Blackburn twice on private business, and not in connection with 
 Miss Pollard. He remained away until April 27, and during 
 that time Colonel Breckinridge became engaged to his cousin, 
 Mrs. Wing, for whom he had an admiration and an affection, 
 and whom he had known for many years. “And I want to say 
 here,” said Major Shelby, “ that the intimation that Colonel 
 Breckinridge sustained improper relations with the plaintiff after 
 the time he became engaged to Mrs. Wing is absolutely false and 
 is a piece of barbarity that should not be introduced here. It is 
 an unnecessary, a wanton attack on a pure and defenseless lady.” 
 
 Major Shelby told the reasons that induced Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge to marry Mrs. Wing on April 29th, the date of the secret 
 marriage in New York. She was going East; he was going 
 West; these were the reasons that induced them to wish to con¬ 
 summate their engagement in marriage at this time. She had 
 been ill and he wished to make her nearer to him before they 
 parted. It was a mistake to keep it secret, but Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge wanted his wife to gain the affections of his children before 
 they knew he had married her. They were married then by Dr. 
 Paxton, and the fact of the marriage was communicated to three 
 intimate friends of Mrs. Wing. 
 
 Here recess was ordered until 1 : 15 o’clock. 
 
 Resuming his argument after recess, Major Shelby denied that 
 Colonel Breckinridge, when he paid Dr. Parsons for attending 
 Miss Pollard, knew that the plaintiff had been delivered of a 
 child, but had supposed there was a miscarriage. The plaintiff', \ 
 he said, was in the habit of annoying Colonel Breckinridge ini 
 various ways, coming to his rooms when he was there and when ‘ 
 he was not there. She looked over his private papers and looked 
 into private receptacles and took things away that did not belong 
 to her. As to the little basket owned by the late Mrs. Breckin¬ 
 ridge, which Miss Pollard testified Colonel Breckinridge had 
 given her, Major Shelby said that basket was taken from his 
 rooms, and he had not seen it, nor did he know what had become 
 of it until it was produced in court. 
 
HON. BEN J._BUT TER WORTH, j 
 
Tenth Day of Trial. 
 
 129 
 
 EPISODES IN NEW YORK. 
 
 As to the visit to New York, during which Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge was married, Major Shelby said that Colonel Breckinridge 
 on the Monday two days after his marriage went to the Hoffman 
 House, where he had registered, to get some clothes. He found 
 on arriving there that Miss Pollard had registered at the hotel as 
 his daughter, and had secured a room communicating with his. 
 When he entered his room the plaintiff advanced from the 
 adjoining room with a pistol in her hand, pointed at him, and 
 attempted to shoot him. He saved his life by shutting the door 
 quickly, and Miss Pollard threatened to shoot through the door. 
 Colonel Breckinridge asked her to lay the pistol down in the 
 :ntry and go back into her room, or he would have her arrested, 
 ie heard her lay the pistol down, and he said he would ring for 
 ' bell boy to get it. She went back into her room, and he then 
 opened the door and secured the pistol. Major Shelby said he 
 vould show that this was the same pistol with which Miss Pol- 
 ird threatened his life in Washington. 
 
 After telling how penitent Miss Pollard was and her willing- 
 ess to agree to his proposition to go out of his life, and about a 
 onversation with Mrs. Blackburn in New York about Miss Pol- 
 ird, Major Shelby gave defendant’s version of the incident told 
 uesday on the stand by Miss Pollard—how she had gone to the 
 ouse of Mrs. Wing to see Colonel Breckinridge, and that Col- 
 ael and Mrs. Breckinridge had attempted to hide from her 
 jhind some curtains, when she said, “ Willie, come out of that— 
 >me with me.” 
 
 Major Shelby said Miss Pollard forced herself into Mrs. Wing’s 
 )use and demanded that Colonel Breckinridge come with her to 
 tend to some important business. Major Shelby admitted that 
 olonel Breckinridge obeyed. He referred to the visit to the 
 def of police and to the alleged attempt Miss Pollard made on 
 e defendant’s life at the house of Mrs. Thomas when Colonel 
 •eckinridge took the pistol from the frenzied young woman, 
 ajor Shelby acknowledged that Colonel Breckinridge went to 
 ■ :. Lincoln’s and asked him to do what he could to make Miss 
 
 9 
 
I 3 ° 
 
 Pollard vs. BrhcktS t r!dg*. 
 
 Pollard comfortable. He tried to do what he could for her com¬ 
 fort, under her claim that she was pregnant by him, and if she 
 had a child, he intended to provide for that child. She went to 
 New York, in accordance with her promise to go out of his life, 
 under the arrangement proposed, but she came back to Wash¬ 
 ington, and it was at this time that Colonel Breckinridge wrote 
 the letters about sending her to a sanitarium or to some place 
 where she might be comfortable for the summer. It was at this 
 time that the desperate woman, said Major Shelby, took further 
 means to force him to marry her by causing the publication of an 
 announcement of their engagement. 
 
 “Now, gentlemen of the jnry, I have shown you the relations 
 of this plaintiff and this defendant, without attempting to excuse 
 or condone,” said Major Shelby, “and I have been frank, and we 
 will be frank in all we have to do here and on the stand. We 
 wish to conceal nothing, and will not do so.” 
 
 THE PLAINTIFF'S CHARACTER. 
 
 There was another aspect of this case, said Major Shelby. Nc 
 matter what sort of action this plaintiff had instituted, the ques 
 tion of the plaintiff’s moral character should be taken into con 
 sideration. She claimed she had never been intimate with an} 
 one but the defendant, but it would be shown that such was no 
 the case. He sketched various events that would be testified to 
 The plaintiff had denied that she went through the form of i 
 mock marriage with Aleck Julian, and that she had ever wantei 
 to go to Chicago with Mr. Rosell. Depositions from these per 
 sons would be introduced to show the contrary. It would als 
 be shown that she had visited assignation houses with other pei 
 sons than the defendant, and that she maintained some sort c 
 intimate relations with Mr. Rodes, Mr. Rosell and Prof. Obei 
 meyer. It would be shown that she was not a young, innocei 
 school girl of seventeen, but an experienced woman of twent 
 or twenty-two. 
 
 Continuing, Major Shelby said this action had not been brougl 
 for any other reason but the plaintiff’s announced purpose < 
 breaking down this man, of destroying his character and infl 
 
Tenth ©ay ©f Trial. 
 
 J 3 1 
 
 ence, and of disgracing his family, and all because she had failed 
 to force him into compliance with her scheme to make him 
 marry her. 
 
 Major Shelby maintained that mere words did not constitute a 
 contract when the parties to it knew there was no compliance 
 with that contract, and this he claimed to be the case concerning 
 Colonel Breckinridge and Miss Pollard. There was, in point of 
 fact, no contract of marriage between them, but merely a sem¬ 
 blance of an engagement, so that Miss Pollard could go away 
 and in time allow Mrs. Blackburn to have diverted her suspicions 
 concerning the plaintiff and the defendant. On this state of 
 facts, said Major Shelby, the defendant submitted his case. 
 
 There was a buzz when Major Shelby sat down, and then, 
 after a consultation, Mr. Stoll, for the defense, offered as the first 
 evidence, the deposition of Sister Agnes Regina Brown, of St. 
 Joseph’s Foundling Asylum, at Norwood, near Cincinnati. 
 
 SISTER AGNES’ DEPOSITION. 
 
 Sister Agnes deposed that during April, May and June, 1885, 
 when Miss Pollard claims she was there, there were no patients 
 whom she did not know, and that none of the patients wore 
 veils all the time, as Miss Pollard testified that she did. There 
 was one woman there, she said, who veiled herself while in con¬ 
 finement, to keep from being recognized by the doctor, but she 
 was there in 1884. Sister Agnes deposed that Miss Pollard 
 came to the asylum last year with Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Johnson, 
 her attorneys, to get evidence. Sister Agnes did not identify 
 Miss Pollard, nor did Miss Pollard recognize her, nor could she 
 :ell the name of the superior at the time she claims to have been 
 here (Sister Cecilia), nor describe her appearance. ‘‘Miss Pol- 
 ard said : ‘Perhaps you do not know me because I have changed 
 ny hair and my dress,' and I said : ‘ I have not changed my dress 
 lor my hair, and you do not know me.’ I asked her what was 
 he name she went under at the asylum, and she said, ‘ Louise 
 Vilson.’ Then I said, ‘There was no Louise Wilson there at 
 he time.’ ‘Well,’ she said, ‘I went under so many names that I 
 annot remember them all.’ Then I asked if Miss Burgoyne 
 
132 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 wa9 one of her names, and she said, ‘ Oh, yes, that’s the name.’ 
 and clasped her hands over her breast.” 
 
 Continuing, sister Agnes said she went to look at the books to 
 see when Miss Burgoyne was there, and Miss Pollard wanted to 
 go with her, but the sister would not consent. “The records 
 showed that Mi6S Burgoyne’s baby had been born on May 29, 
 1885. -Yes,’ she said, ‘that is the date.’ She asked what be¬ 
 came of the baby, and I said it died in July following, and then 
 she took on hysterics and ran out into the hall.” 
 
 Sister Agnes told of further questions asked Miss Pollard 
 about incidents in the asylum in 1885, and Miss Pollard could 
 not give very good descriptions. Finally, Miss Pollard was told 
 by the sister: “You were never in this house at all. Miss Pol¬ 
 lard had told the sister that she had given some volumes of 
 Washington Irving’s works to the library. 
 
 WASHINGTON IRVING’S WORKS. 
 
 They went to the library and found three volumes of Wash¬ 
 ington Irving’s there. Miss Pollard said there was a fourth 
 volume, and that she had left a Christmas card in one of the vol¬ 
 umes. Mr. Carlisle said, “Oh, here is the fourth volume,” and 
 Miss Pollard said, “ Oh, here it is! ” and produced a Christmas 
 card. 
 
 There was much in this part of Sister Agnes’ testimony, 
 brought out by Mr. Stoll when he took her deposition, intended 
 to connect Mr. Carlisle, Mr. Johnson and Miss Pollard with hav' 
 ing placed the card in the book while they were in the library 
 .She said the card did not look like it had been in a book fo: 
 nine years. 
 
 Sister Agnes then described what Miss Pollard termed 
 little lecture” Sister Agnes had delivered to the plaintiff. Mis 
 Pollard, 6aid Sister Agnes, said she did not expect to get mone 
 from Colonel Breckinridge because he had none, but she did ex 
 pect to disgrace him. Sister Agnes then said : “ When this i 
 over he will still be Mr. Breckinridge and will hold up his hea 
 among his friends, while you will be disgraced forever.” Sh 
 
Tenth Day of Trial. 
 
 133 
 
 said: “Yes, but he will not address any more young ladies’ 
 seminaries, nor open any more prayer meetings.” 
 
 Sister Agnes also testified that Sister Augustine did not recog¬ 
 nize Miss Pollard as having been at the asylum. Miss Pollard 
 said she was in mourning while at the asylum; Sister Agnes 
 said Miss Burgoyne wore a long, light cloak. “Then Mr. Car¬ 
 lisle said,” testified Sister Agnes, “ I think you said something to 
 me about wearing a camel’s hair coat,” but Miss Pollard did not 
 answer. 
 
 Sister Agnes said Mr. Obermeyer also visited her about Miss 
 Pollard. She believed he was an attorney in Cincinnati. He 
 came to find out for Miss Pollard’s attorneys, he said, about 
 Louise Wilson who had-given birth to a baby there, and had 
 confessed at last that he could find nothing about Miss Pollard. 
 
 Mr. Stoll secured from Sister Agnes the letter of introduction 
 brought by Mr. Carlisle when he came with Miss Pollard, and 
 had it placed in evidence. This letter was read. It was from 
 the archbishop of Cincinnati, obtained through Bishop Keane, of 
 the Catholic University. 
 
 UNLIKE MISS BURGOYNE. 
 
 Continuing, Sister Agnes said she had never laid eyeg On Miss 
 Pollard until she came to the asylum December 28, 1893. Miss 
 Burgoyne was not nearly so tall as Miss Pollard—“Oh, no,” she 
 added, “they were not the same. I think I would know Miss 
 Burgoyne if I could see her.” Miss Burgoyne, said the sister, 
 was from Ohio. Miss Pollard told the sister that when she was 
 there, there was a grating to the door leading to the office of the 
 asylum, and the sister replied that she had never seen it. Miss Pol¬ 
 lard told the deponent that a simple-minded woman at the asylum 
 had brought a lamp with a clock in it to her room to amuse her when 
 she was confined. Sister Agnes had called in Eliza, a simple- 
 minded girl, who worked in the asylum, but Eliza did not recog¬ 
 nize Miss Pollard. Sister Agnes was examined further as to the 
 finding of the Christmas card and said Miss Pollard also held a 
 veil in her hand when she produced the card, and said, Oh, here 
 is my little invisible veil that I left here.” 
 
i34 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle read tht cross-examination of Sister Agnes made 
 bv Mr. Guy Mallon. 
 
 There was nothing additional of importance brought out in 
 the cross-examination except the matter of the rose. Mr. Stoll 
 read the re-direct examination. Miss Pollard had told of some 
 girl, a waiter at the institution, who died during her alleged 
 confinement there, and Sister Agnes said a girl did die at the in¬ 
 stitution during that time, but that she was a full-paying patient, 
 and not a servant. 
 
 This concluded the deposition, and the court adjourned. 
 
 ELEVENTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 Behind the Locked Doors of His Private Office Judge Bradley 
 Hears the Quarrel of Attorneys over Disputed Depositions■ 
 —A Day of Secrecy in the Notorious Breach of Promise 
 Suit—Even Representatives of the Press -were Barred — 
 Attempt of Defense tc drag in the Name of Dead Senator 
 Beck , of Kentucky—A Warning from the Dead Senator's 
 Friends not to do so—Plaintiff Objects to Depositions of 
 Alexander Julian , Miss Pollard's Alleged u Blind Bar - 
 nabasf W. W. Roselfjto whom Miss Pollard was Engaged 
 tc be Married in 188 j and Dr. Lewis, of Lexington. 
 
 Shall the memory of the dead be tarnished by testimony for 
 the defense in the Breckinridge-Pollard case? 
 
 The lawyers for the white-haired and silver-tongued Ken¬ 
 tuckian want to put in evidence certain testimony which will 
 reflect harshly on the character of Colonel A. M. Swope, as well 
 as on the character of Madeline Pollard. 
 
 To this not only the plaintiff’s lawyers object, but the family 
 and friends of Colonel Swope have shown indignation. The 
 
Eleventh Day of Trial. 
 
 *35 
 
 name of the late Senator Beck was also mentioned in a deposition 
 which is in despute, and intimations have been made that the 
 defense had best confine its testimony to the living, and not seek 
 to cast reflections upon men who are defenseless in their graves. 
 
 There was no open session of Judge Bradley’s Court to-day, as 
 was expected. The lawyers on both sides were invited to discuss 
 the admissibility of certain depositions before Justice Bradley in 
 his private office. The jury, the press and public were all 
 excluded, and the attorneys had a long and interesting legal fight 
 over the testimony which the 
 
 PLAINTIFF SEEKS TO SUPPRESS. 
 
 There are understood to be three depositions to which Miss 
 Pollard’s attorneys make their principal objections, the point 
 involved being the relevancy of testimony bearing upon Miss 
 Pollard’s character. One of these depositions was made by 
 Alexander Julian, the young blind man to whom Miss Pollard 
 alluded in her letter to Wessie Brown as her “blind Barnabas.” 
 He asserts in the affidavit taken in Kentucky that a mock mar¬ 
 riage was performed between Miss Pollard and himself at Squire 
 Tinsley’s, in Bridgeport, on Christmas Day, 1893; that after 
 drinking eggnog freely he suggested that married couples usually 
 went to bed, and that thereupon the two went upstairs and got 
 into bed together. 
 
 Miss Pollard testified on cross-examination that her uncle 
 accompanied her to Squire Tinsley’s on that day, and denied the 
 incident of the mock marriage. 
 
 The second deposition was made by W. W. Roselle, to whom 
 Miss Pollard was engaged to be married in 1884, when she was 
 a student at Wesleyan Seminary, and at which time she -was 
 intimate with Colonel Breckinridge. Roselle has deposed that 
 he took liberties with Miss Pollard in the library of Wesleyan 
 Seminary, and that when he left that town for Chicago Miss 
 Pollard begged him to take her with him. When asked about 
 this matter on cross-examination Miss Pollard denied that Roselle 
 had done more than kiss her, and denied that she had asked him 
 to take her to Chicago. In one of the most characteristically 
 
Poixard vs. Rreckinridoe. 
 
 i 36 
 
 spicy dialogues between herself and Attorney Butterworth she 
 attributed Roselle's motive in opposing her to the fact that he is 
 a candidate for the position of Collector of Internal Revenue in 
 
 REPRESENTATIVE BRECKINRIDGE’S DISTRICT. 
 
 The other deposition to which the plaintiff is particularly 
 opposed was made by Dr. Lewis, of Lexington, who affirms that 
 Colonel Swope once approached him with a request that he per¬ 
 form a criminal operation on a woman whom he called *‘Miss 
 Pollard.” The doctor did not see the woman, nor could he iden¬ 
 tify her with the plaintiff, so the objection was made that there is 
 nothing to connect the deposition with the principal in this case. 
 
 Colonel Swope was the Republican candidate for Congress 
 against Colonel Breckinridge in the Lexington District, and was 
 killed in a duel with Cash Goodloe, which resulted fatally to both 
 men. Parts of other depositions are also objected to. 
 
 If Justice Bradley should decide in favor of the plaintiff' some 
 stress may be laid upon the fact, although his decision will be 
 from a purely legal standpoint. The groat case will be in pro¬ 
 gress again at 10 o’clock Monday morning, and the greatest in¬ 
 terest is aroused by the statement that Miss Pollard’s lawyers 
 will call several new witnesses to testify in rebuttal and favor¬ 
 ably as regards her character. 
 
 While no surprises have been prophesied by the defense it is 
 now certain that the crafty lawyers who are working for the 
 plaintiff have some dangerous testimony held in abeyance, and 
 which they will use after Colonel Breckinridge has told his 
 story. 
 
 The reason for the secret hearing to-day regarding these depo¬ 
 sitions is to keep their contents from the jury in the case till the 
 Court decides upon excluding them. Although the jurors have 
 been cautioned not to talk with any one concerning the case, nor 
 to read the newspapers, the Judge probably thinks that the 
 headlines of newspapers would be too much for human curiosity 
 to resist if spread before them Sunday morning, and in the dis¬ 
 cussion of the affidavits their contents are naturally threshed 
 
 over. 
 
Twelfth Day of Trial. 
 
 *3 1 
 
 These underground proceedings are not an innovation in the 
 District Court, as some months ago a precedent was established 
 by Judge Bradley of keeping from the public the details of scan¬ 
 dalous divorce suits. 
 
 The arguments before Judge Bradley continued for five hours, 
 and he, took the questions submitted under consideration to de¬ 
 cide them Monday morning, when the Court meets again. Most 
 of the talking was done by Attorneys Johnson and Carlisle, for 
 the plaintiff, and Butterworth and Shelby, for the defendant. 
 
 Miss Pollard’s counsel surprised the defense by making a 
 sweeping objection to all their depositions, on the ground that 
 they had been taken in an irregular manner. Mr. Johnson made 
 this point, and argued that the mere notice given to opposing 
 counsel that depositions were to be taken at a certain time and 
 place did not constitute sufficient legal authority to give them 
 standing in the case. 
 
 This practice has always been followed by the Circuit Court, 
 and before the attorneys had finished their arguments Judge 
 Bradley told them that he did not care to hear more on the ques¬ 
 tion, so that his opinion upon it is evidently fixed. 
 
 Beside this ground of contention the depositions mentioned 
 were objected to, and specific objections were made to parts of 
 other depositions. The testimony of Dr. Lewis and of others, 
 who testified that they had seen or heard of a certain Miss 
 Pollard in houses of assignation, brought forth the objection 
 that they did not even prove that the person referred to was the 
 plaintiff in the case. 
 
 TWELFTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 A Disgusted Judge—He Rebukes Attorneys for Introducing 
 Unnecessarily Obscene Testimony — Atte77ipt to drag the 
 Nafne of A7iother Dead Ke7ituckian into the Scandal , De¬ 
 feated by the Decision of Judge Bradley , Excluding the 
 Depositioyi of Dr. Lewis , of Lexingtoit — How Witness 
 Julian Lost His Eyesight. 
 
 There was great interest to-day to learn the decision of Judge 
 Bradley upon the admissibility of depositions impeaching the 
 
138 
 
 PoLEARD VS. BRSCKIKRIDGE. 
 
 character of Madeline Pollard, which the Breckinridge forces 
 had offered, and to which the plaintiff opposed numerous ob¬ 
 jections. 
 
 Regarding the sweeping denial of the right to take any deposi¬ 
 tions de bene esse, under the act of Congress creating the Court, 
 the Judge said that the Judiciary Act of 1879 conferred the right 
 in broad terms upon any party to any civil act in any court of 
 the United States. 
 
 It could not be disputed that this was a Court of the United 
 States, and the fact that the Court had always maintained that 
 right would justify him in continuing to enforce it until a higher 
 Court overruled the practice. There were other grounds upon 
 which he sustained the regularity of the depositions as a whole. 
 
 Objection had been made to the deposition of one Brand, be¬ 
 cause he refused to answer certain questions concerning a woman 
 who had introduced him to Miss Pollard. He said that he did 
 not want to “give away” a married woman, and then persisted 
 that he did not know her name. The Judge said that it appeared 
 that instead of refusing to answer, the man did not know, or was 
 lying. He continued, saying that while the direct examination 
 of the witness had brought out nothing derogatory to the plaintiff, 
 he had refused to answer a question whether he had taken liber¬ 
 ties with her while riding. What object he could have had in 
 refusing to answer, if the answer would have injured the plaintiff, 
 the Judge could not see, since from his own testimony he was 
 utterly lacking in moral sense, admitting that although a married 
 man, he was accustomed to visit houses of ill-fame. The Judge 
 overruled this objection, remarking that there was nothing 
 reflecting upon Miss Pollard in the testimony unless it was that 
 she had consented to associate with such a disreputable character 
 as the witness admitted himself to be. 
 
 The deposition of one Kaufman was also admitted, but the 
 Judge spoke very sharply of these last two, saying that they 
 were utterly unfit to be read before the Court; that he would 
 gladly exclude them if he could, and expressed the hope that the 
 counsel would see fit to omit the disgracefully obscene matter in 
 them. 
 
Twelfth Day of Trial. 
 
 I 39 
 
 He sustained the objections which had been made to the depo¬ 
 sitions of John O’Toole, Dr. Green and Dr. Lewis, that they were 
 based on heresay. Dr. Lewis is the physician who testified that 
 Colonel Swope, the late Republican candidate for Congress in 
 the Lexington District, had asked him to perform a criminal 
 operation upon a Miss Pollard. 
 
 The depositions of a Mrs. Miller and of Rosell, who had been 
 engaged to Miss Pollard while she was in the Wesleyan Insti¬ 
 tute, were admitted, the Judge commenting that the plaintiff 
 had placed her character and her maturity in a measure in ques¬ 
 tion by that clause of the declaration which averred that she had 
 been seduced by the defendant, and that she was a mere girl 
 when Colonel Breckinridge first met her. Each side filed objec¬ 
 tions to the rulings against it. Then Judge Bradley made a few 
 remarks, in the interest of public morality, as he said. 
 
 “The Court has been deluged with anonymous letters in this 
 case,” he began. “ It is said that any one who would write an 
 anonymous letter should not expect to have any notice taken of 
 it, and would do almost anything mean. Some of these letters, 
 however, seem to come from females, and to be dictated by good 
 motives. 
 
 These preliminaries having been finished, Attorney Stoll pro¬ 
 ceeded to read the deposition of Joseph C. Bailey, Clerk of the 
 Woodford County Circuit Court at Versailles, Ky. From the 
 records of the Court the Clerk had testified that in 1884 there 
 were indictments for murder against Ollie D. and R. P. Brown, 
 and that Colonel Breckinridge had been one of the defending 
 attorneys. It appeared that the trial was in progress on August 
 5, the day upon which Miss Pollard had testified that the Colonel 
 took her to the house of Sarah Gess, in Lexington ; also on 
 August 12, 13 and 16. 
 
 The cross-examination of the Clerk, read by Attorney Farrell, 
 of Lexington, developed the further information that during this 
 trial Colonel Breckinridge had frequently driven over from Lex¬ 
 ington, returning at night, and sometimes bringing his wife. 
 He had attended the whole trial of Ollie Brown, although some 
 of the lawyers had not. 
 
140 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 One of the Lexington lawyers, Edward M. Wallace, who had 
 been associated with Colonel Breckinridge in the defense of 
 Ollie D. Brown, had deposed that the Colonel was present 
 throughout the trial, arguing the case and examining the wit¬ 
 nesses, and his statement was read. Next came the deposition of 
 Judge Roddey Hagart, who had been associated with Colonel 
 Breckinridge as counsel for the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad in 
 cases tried in August, 1884. 
 
 The deposition of Judge Jerry R. Morton, to prove that the 
 defendant was in Jessamine County, Kentucky, from August 27 
 to August 30, 1884, was read, and the cross-examination showed 
 that the town was an hour and a quarter by railroad from Lex¬ 
 ington. Judge Joseph D. Hunt’s affidavit corroborated that of 
 Mr. Hagart. Theodore Davis, Clerk of the Court, deposed that 
 Colonel Breckinridge had voted in Lexington, August 4, 1884, 
 and W. S. Marsh corroborated his testimony. Nat. L. Bronaugh, 
 a law'yer, added his testimony that Colonel Breckinridge had 
 been engaged in the Jessamine County Court from August 37 
 to 30, 18S4, but could not say where he (Colonel Breckinridge) 
 had passed his nights during that time. 
 
 Joseph Skain, proprietor of the Clarendon Hotel, in Lexing¬ 
 ton, deposed that Colonel Breckinridge and members of his fam¬ 
 ily had stopped at the Phoenix Hotel, as it was then called, in 
 1887. Incidentally the hotel man recalled an argument in which 
 Colonel Breckinridge had made the accusation that he was being 
 gouged out of four dollars, and the recollection of the contro¬ 
 versy caused the Congressman’s shoulders to shake with laughter. 
 
 After the noon recess, a deposition of James A. Ely, once 
 Clerk of the Circuit Conrt of Fayette County, was read. He 
 remembered that Colonel Breckinridge had been engaged in a 
 case on November 22, 23 and 24, 1887, and at the unveiling of a 
 statue of John C. Breckinridge, at Lexington, on September 16, 
 1887. 
 
 The deposition of Sister Marie Hyacinthe, who was seventy- 
 four years old, and said that her memory was very bad, showed 
 that she could not remember that Madeline Pollard had attended 
 
Twelfth Day of Trial. 
 
 r 4 x 
 
 the Notre Dame Convent, at Reading, O., of which she was the 
 Sister and had been Superior in 1883. 
 
 The deposition of Wm. G. Wood, a carpenter, of Lexington, 
 was read. Wood was engaged to Miss Pollard in 1882, but 
 when he told her he could not take her on a trip to Europe she 
 broke the engagement and threw at him the ring he had given 
 her. He did not know her age then, but considered her a young 
 woman. 
 
 Madeline Pollard, plaintiff, did not appear in Court to-day to 
 face William Breckinridge, defendant. 
 
 That she was not there was a tip to the early arrivals that the 
 day’s doings would be dry and devoid of dramatic situations. So 
 it was that in half an hour from the opening “ oyez, oyez,” of the 
 Bailiff a very small and apathetic audience remained, to the evi¬ 
 dent satisfaction of Justice Bradley, who deprecates the attend¬ 
 ance, which has been a marked feature of the proceedings. 
 
 It was evident by the absence of Miss Pollard tnat Colonel 
 Breckinridge would not go upon the stand to tell his own story. 
 Until he is called upon to kiss or grasp one of the several Bibles 
 which lie upon the witness desk no one expects any sensational 
 scenes. 
 
 He himself was 011 time to-day, even ahead of his lawyers. 
 
 Those who notice him closely (and who does not?) saw at a 
 glance that since Saturday his long, white locks hnd been 
 trimmed and that his white beard had been shorn somewhat. 
 He even looked a bit younger and not so weary, as if the respite 
 had done him good. He was more like the Breckinridge that 
 Washington people had known in Congress, and his manner was 
 gayer than at any time during the trial. 
 
 He took more interest in the newspapers than usual, though 
 there was little in any of them to encourage him. 
 
 He listened as a trained lawyer to the decision of Judge Brad- 
 ley regarding the disputed depositions, the admission of which 
 had been opposed by plaintiff’s counsel. All the lawyers listened 
 attentively to the decisions, and the audience listened in vain for 
 any words from the bench which would indicate a bit of bias or 
 any inclination to favor one side or the other. 
 
142 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Judge Bradley spoke slowly, measuring every word and sen¬ 
 tence, and aroused some interest even among laymen by sarcastic 
 reflections upon the testimony of a witness for the defense named 
 Brand. Judge Bradley scored Brand severely as a man with no 
 idea of morality who had unblushingly admitted his own licen¬ 
 tiousness with lewd women even while also admitting himself to 
 be a married man. Had Mr. Brand been in Court his sensations 
 would have been hard to describe after Judge Bradley’s remarks. 
 
 There was a generous exchange of looks all around among 
 lawyers and reporters, when the Judge ruled out the depositions 
 of Drs. Green and Lewis. The Lewis deposition is the one that 
 drags the name of A. M. Swope into the case in an effort to put 
 a stigma upon Miss Pollard’s reputation. The defense did not 
 seem sorry at this decision, but noted an exception in the usual 
 manner. 
 
 Justice Bradley is a Christian gentleman, and elder of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and a man who believes in 
 A HIGH CODE OF MORALS. 
 
 There was not much surprise, therefore, when he concluded 
 his decision with an appeal’to the press for the suppression of. 
 indecent and impure details of the case on trial. 
 
 He began by reference to the many anonymous letters which 
 had come to him since the trial began, and incidentally added 
 that a person who writes anonymous letters is generally consid¬ 
 ered capable of committing worse crimes. It was a nice little 
 speech, well put and kindly received by all the newspaper men. 
 
 Some of the venerable bald-headed and white-haired old men, 
 who have not missed a single session of the Court, wriggled in 
 their chairs as if the Judge’s speech was half way directed to 
 them for being so attentive to the “ disgusting details.” 
 
 Referring to some depositions the Judge declared that they 
 were too filthy and obscene to be read in a Court of Justice. 
 
 This remark caused a turning of heads toward the defendant 
 and his lawyers, who had brought such filthy and obscene testi¬ 
 mony into Court. 
 
 Then the reading of depositions was begun and continued 
 throughout the morning and afternoon sessions. The purport of 
 
Twelfth Bay *f Trial. 
 
 *43 
 
 all the testimony was to impress the jury with the inference that 
 Miss Pollard was a bad girl before she met Colonel Breckinridge. 
 
 The testimony of Alex. Julian, a blind man, regarding a mock 
 marriage was not so hurtful to the plaintiff, because he did not 
 specify that she had been guilty of any improper conduct, but 
 merely that she had used some indiscreet language. It was rather 
 ludicrous to hear the testimony of Julian, in which he spoke of 
 “seeing” Miss Pollard several times since 1884, although it is 
 alleged he has been 
 
 BLIND FOR OVER TEN YEARS. 
 
 Counsel for the plaintiff objected to the testimony of Julian 
 about the contents of a letter which he had received, as a blind 
 man could not swear to the contents of a letter which no power 
 on earth could enable him to see. 
 
 Julian’s story as to the cause of his blindness brought out a 
 view of Kentucky customs as regards the carrying of pistols. He 
 had arranged to go to the Shelbyville Fair. A friend had said to 
 him : “ Please carry my pistol for me. I’m going to take my 
 
 girl and the pistol will be in my way. You take it, and if I need 
 it I’ll ask you for it.” And so Julian carried not only the pistol, 
 but soon afterwards was carrying a full-sized “jag.” He detailed 
 that he bought and drank several bottles, had many drinks at 
 bars, and in a drunken condition had threatened to shoot a 
 colored man. The colored man objected, and Julian had said : 
 “ Then I’ll shoot myself.” 
 
 He thought the pistol empty, as the friend had said, and 
 thought to make a grand bluff by pretending to shoot himself. 
 Alas! it is always the unloaded pistol that goes off, and Julian 
 shot himself in the eyes, forever destroying his vision. 
 
 In telling this story Mr. Julian took pains to add that he had 
 reformed, and was a far different man since his drunken foolish¬ 
 ness cost him his eyesight. There was nothing in this story of 
 Kentucky life which affected the case on trial, but it was evi¬ 
 dently interesting to the jury and a diversion in the midst of dry 
 testimony. 
 
 The reading of Alex. Julian’s deposition and cross-examination 
 closed the day’s proceedings. Julian is the blind man whose 
 
144 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 adventure with Miss Pellard at she country frolic on Christmas 
 Eve, 1882, has been the subject of numerous publications since 
 the opening up «f this scandal. 
 
 THIRTEENTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 A Wee Disputed Letter , but it Kept the Lawyers Busy—Major 
 Moore Proves a Queer Sort of Witness—Expert Testi¬ 
 mony on the Question of Forgery—Miss Pollard's Letter 
 to Breckinridge. 
 
 The defense in the Pollard-Breckinridge trial took a new tack 
 to-day and ventured upon the troubled sea of expert testimony. 
 Two witnesses well known in Washington—Dr. E. M. Schaefer, 
 the Deputy Coroner of the District of Columbia, and Edwin B. 
 Hay, an Attorney who is something of a Chauncey Depew— 
 appeared for the Kentucky Congressman, and their statements 
 were directed to the support of the contention that the hand of 
 Madeline Pollard penned the black-bordered letter written in 
 1884, which she has most emphatically disavowed twice over on 
 the witness stand. 
 
 Great 6tress is laid by the defense upon the authenticity of this 
 letter, not because it runs counter to the testimony of the plaintiff 
 that Colonel Breckinridge first called upon her at the Wesleyan 
 Academy of his own volition, but because they think if she can 
 be proved false on one important detail, her whole statement will 
 be impeached. The signature to the letter also goes to support 
 the opening statement of the defense on a minor detail, viz., that 
 Miss Pollard had adopted at that time the middle name of Breck¬ 
 inridge. This letter, which has figured so conspicuously in the 
 case, and which the defense will fight to get before the jury, is 
 as follows : 
 
Thirteenth Day ®f Trial. 
 
 HS 
 
 HOME FACES ALWAYS WELCOME. 
 
 Wesleyan College, July 20, 1884. Dear Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge :—Your letter came to me Saturday. I am glad you 
 told me it would be inconvenient to come out here to the college, 
 for if you had gone even to such a little trouble to listen to what 
 sometimes overburdens a school girl’s mind you might be inclined 
 to be provoked with yourself. A preacher’s opinion of any little 
 affairs of mine would cause premature gray hairs where your 
 opinion might clear away all doubts and let me be quite free 
 hearted again. I think I have prepared for you a divorce case. 
 But listen, it is worse than that. If a certain person should 
 advance funds for my tuition here at school for three years under 
 the promise that I marry him at the expiration of the time, could 
 he do anything if I would not marry him but teach and refund all 
 he had advanced? I know you think, why the deception? But 
 on no other terms will he agree. When a girl wants nothing but 
 a good education and means to obtain such are denied her what 
 is she to do but take the only chance she is ever likely to have? 
 I like your face and I am sure I would like you, and if at any 
 future time you are in the city and would care to come around 
 remember that home faces are always welcome. I am respect¬ 
 fully yours, Madeline B. Pollard. 
 
 For the first time to-day the keen cross-examining of Judge 
 Jere Wilson, whose work has been awaited with interest by his 
 fellow lawyers, was brought into play. It was first exercised on 
 Major Moore, the chief of police, who was called back to dispute 
 some of Miss Pollard’s statements regarding the two interviews 
 in his office during which Colonel Breckinridge repeated his 
 promises to marry her, and afterward Mr. Wilson stirred up such 
 a cloud of verbal dust around the expert testimony of Dr. Schaefer 
 that the spectators hardly knew whether the letter purported to 
 have come from the plaintiff to the defendant or the reverse. 
 To-morrow promises to be the grand day of the trial, for unless 
 the cross-examination of two intervening witnesses is too long 
 drawn out, the silver-tongued defendant himself will mount a 
 rostrum of a kind in which he has not figured before and will 
 begin his version of the long intrigue. 
 
 10 
 
1 4 6 
 
 Pollard v$. Brkckinridm. 
 
 MAJOR MOORE RECALLS®. 
 
 The first witness to-day was Major Moore, in whose offices 
 there had been two promises made by Colonel Breckenridge to 
 marry Miss Pollard on May 13 and 17, 1893. It was proposed 
 to contradict some of Miss Pollard’s statements regarding those 
 interviews. 
 
 Major Moore denied that in either of the two interviews Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge had said : ‘‘This is one of life’s tragedies," or 
 that he had said anything about Miss Pollard’s bearing two chil¬ 
 dren. In neither interview had Colonel Breckinridge said: “She 
 knew I was a married man.” 
 
 “ How long did that interview last ?” asked Judge Wilson in 
 cross-examination. 
 
 “Fifteen or twenty minutes.” 
 
 “A great deal was said, then, that you don’t remember?” 
 
 “Yes, sir.” 
 
 Answering further questions, the Major said that he had only 
 made notes of what impressed his mind after the interview was 
 concluded; that Miss Pollard and Colonel Breckinridge had 
 talked all the time, Miss Pollard seeming excited and doing most 
 of the talking, while Colonel Breckinridge appeared cool. He 
 would not pretend that he recalled everything. Much had been 
 said which he could not remember, as that part of the conversa¬ 
 tion he had recorded in his notes would not have occupied more 
 than half a minute. His attention had not been called to the 
 conversation for three months afterward. 
 
 The second interview, it was developed under cross-examina¬ 
 tion, had lasted nearly an hour and had been less excited than the 
 first, Miss Pollard doing most of the talking. 
 
 PROMISED TO MARRY HER. 
 
 “This was the interview of the 17th of May, when Miss Pol¬ 
 lard narrated that she lay on the sofa. Colonel Breckinridge sat 
 beside her, and afterward he took her hand in his and your hand 
 and promised to marry her?” repeated Judge Wilson, aiming to 
 emphasize an old score. 
 
 “ Yes, sir.” 
 
Thirteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 Hi 
 
 There was a tilt between the attorneys over the latitude which 
 was permissible in the cross-examination, and Judge Bradley de¬ 
 cided that since the defense had made the chief its own witnsss 
 the cross-questioning could cover the whole field of the inter¬ 
 views. Thereupon, in response to Judge Wilson’s last question, 
 the witness said that Miss Pollard’s manner had indicated gratifi¬ 
 cation when the Colonel promised to marry her. 
 
 The direct question from Mr. Shelby whether if Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge had said that Miss Pollard had bore him two children he 
 would have made a note of it was overruled, as was a question 
 as to when he first became aware that the plaintiff claimed that 
 she had borne two children by the defendant. This ended the 
 second appearance of Major Moore, after some clever question¬ 
 ing by both sides and several exceptions on the part of the 
 defense. 
 
 MAJOR HAY FAILS TO RESPOND. 
 
 “Major” Hay was called, but no one recognized by that title 
 E. B. Hay, the chief officer of the National Order of Elks, and a 
 well-known local attorney and after-dinner speaker. 
 
 “Major” Hay failing to appear, Dr. E. M. Schaefer, deputy 
 coroner of the district, a tall, slender, bearded, spectacled man, 
 was called as an expert upon handwriting. After stating his 
 qualifications and his experience, Mr. Butterworth was about to 
 hand him the letter disclaimed by Miss Pollard when Mr. Wilson 
 coolly remarked: 
 
 “Well, I don’t think he is an expert at all,” which stirred a 
 laugh. 
 
 Mr. Wilson proceeded to put more questions to ascertain the 
 claims of the witness to expert knowledge. Microscopical and 
 chemical analysis had been made a study by the doctor for seven¬ 
 teen years in the government medical museum. He explained 
 that he haa been brought writings of various sorts by doctors, 
 several wills among them, to detect forgeries, to determine the 
 qualities and character of the ink, and the age of the writing. 
 
 The examination was protracted and at its close Judge Wilson 
 objected that Dr. Schaefer had not shown the qualifications of 
 
148 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 an expert on handwriting, but Mr. Butterworth retorted that he 
 could not conceive of any possible qualifications lacking. Judge 
 Bradley decided that the doctor had made good claims to expert 
 experience and the jury could decide what weight should be 
 given his testimony. Thereupon the bundle of letters admitted 
 to have been written by Miss Pollard were handed up to the ex¬ 
 pert, who asserted that he had studied them carefully the day 
 before. 
 
 IDENTIFIED THE LETTER. 
 
 The black bordered letter repudiated by Miss Pollard was 
 given him for comparison. He and Attorney Butterworth put 
 their heads together for a few minutes and finally, in answer to 
 a direct question, Dr. Schaefer said he felt certain the black 
 bordered letter had been written by the same person who had 
 penned the letters in evidence. 
 
 The Christmas card said to have been pressed for nine years 
 in the volume of Washington Irving found in the Norwood Con¬ 
 vent, and which bore the words, “ Compliments of W. S. D.,” 
 was examined by the expert, who averred that from the appear¬ 
 ance of the ink the inscription had not been on it more than three 
 or four years. 
 
 “ I assume in my answer,” he explained, “ that it has been sub¬ 
 ject to the conditions which have been described. Had it been 
 exposed to the air, I would say the inscription had been made 
 still more recently.” 
 
 He proceeded to describe the effect of exposure to the air and 
 of handling upon the condition and appearance of ink. The 
 quality of paper affected the ink. 
 
 EXPERTS COME HIGH. 
 
 “ What are your charges per day as an expert ?” was the first 
 question of Judge Wilson in cross-examination, a question which 
 the doctor was disposed to parry, stating that it depended upon 
 the character of the work. He remarked that he had never seen 
 a case like this, when asked what were his charges for such a 
 case, he asserted that he had charged $50 a day for similar 
 services. 
 
Thirteeti-i Day of Trial. 
 
 149 
 
 Colonel Phil. Thompsen and Major Butterworth proffered ob¬ 
 jections to the line of questioning, to which Judge Wilson replied 
 that it was a test of the value of expert testimony recognized by 
 the books, and in this he was sustained by the Court. Detailing 
 his past work, the doctor showed that his charges in different 
 cases had ranged from $5 to $75. The papers had been brought 
 to his house Sunday by Colonel Breckinridge, and he had kept 
 them over night, bringing them Monday to the attorney’s room 
 in the court house, where he had spent the day examining them. 
 He had made no examination of the Christmas card other than 
 an ocular one. His statement regarding the writing on the card 
 was a relative one, he assuming that the writing had been made 
 under ordinary circumstances with ordinary ink, and that no 
 chemists had made a special ink to deceive experts. There was 
 some fine fencing between the expert and the lawyer over minute 
 distinctions of terms, and particularly as to mathematical exact¬ 
 ness in handwriting. 
 
 COULD NOT SHAKE HIS BELIEF. 
 
 “I feel much more certain,” resumed the doctor, “ that Made¬ 
 line Pollard wrote that letter than I do concerning the date of 
 the handwriting on the Christmas card.” 
 
 “ Suppose,” began Mr. Wilson, “ that it turned out to be a 
 fact, so far as human testimony could fix it, that this card had 
 been shut up in the leaves of a book nine years ? ” 
 
 “Then I would say that some one had taken it out and three 
 or four years ago and written on it.” 
 
 “That fact, if established as a fact, would not shake your 
 belief?” 
 
 “Not unless some one could convince me that the writing had 
 come here by spiritual agencies.” 
 
 Dr. Schaefer’s cross-examination was protracted well into the 
 afternoon. Mr. Wilson obtained from him the admission that 
 sometimes forgeries were so skillfully done as to deceive experts. 
 While he had not been told what the defense wanted to prove 
 by him, Dr. Schaeffer concluded, he had inferred. He would 
 not have permitted anyone to tell him that they wanted him to 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 i 5° 
 
 
 testify to any particular thing. After a brief re-direct examina¬ 
 tion of Dr. Schaefer, Edwin S. Hav was put on the stand. He 
 had for twenty-five years made a special study of hand-writing 
 and had been a witness in a number of noted suits, among them 
 the one brought by Mrs. Oliver against the late Simon Cameron 
 for breach of promise. He was certain the letter exhibited am? 
 the one adressed to “Wessie” Brown were written by the sarru 
 person. After some sparring over Mr. Hays declaration that nc 
 person could successfully imitate a person’s handwriting through 
 a long letter, the court adjourned for the day. 
 
 FOURTEENTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 Faced Her Old Love) — Breckinridge's Side Springs its Spicy 
 Witness, Rankin Rosell—He is Received by His Hearers 
 with Contempt—Miss Pollard's Ire is Aroused by Leading 
 Questions as to their Conduct — Cross-Examination of Wit¬ 
 ness Rosell by fudge Wilson — Colonel Hay , the Expert 
 Penman, Subjected to a Rigid Cross-Fire. 
 
 The testimony to-day was of that character which draws a 
 crowd. It also provoked a demonstration, showing that the 
 sentiment of the court-room has already passed upon Mr. Breck¬ 
 inridge. 
 
 “Now, Rosell,” said one of the counsel for the defendant, 
 when the day was about half over. This was the first intima¬ 
 tion that the lawyers had decided to substitute a living witness 
 for a deposition. Rosell’s deposition was one against which 
 Miss Pollard’s counsel filed objection. The Court overruled the 
 objection. There was nothing to prevent the reading, but Mr. 
 Breckinridge’s lawyers decided that they would rather have the 
 witness present in person. It would have been better for the 
 defense if Mr. Rosell had been left in Kentucky. He did not 
 
Fourteenth Day of Trial, 
 
 ‘ 5 1 
 
 make a good impression. His disregard for grammar indicates 
 that somewhat liberal ideas prevail probably in Nicholas County 
 regarding the qualifications of a school superintendent. It is the 
 man and not the grammar they are looking for. This morning 
 it made some of his hearers who are sticklers for convention¬ 
 alities of grammar shudder to hear him talk of the engagement 
 “between she and I,” or the relations “between Mr. Rodes and 
 she.” He did not allege anything in his relations with Miss 
 Pollard that was improper. They became engaged, and he 
 claims to have ceased to love her because he lost confidence in 
 her because she permitted him to hug and kiss her. He brought 
 out all of their courting and love affairs before the court, and 
 even produced the inevitable tintype. According to Mr. Resell, 
 Miss Pollard claimed that she was born in 1863. 
 
 BAD FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 Mi86 Pollard walked into the room, accompanied by her friend, 
 before the witness had answered a dozen questions. Her arrival 
 did not phase him to any great extent, the only sign of recog¬ 
 nition being a faint tinging of his cheeks with a blush. Once 
 during his testimony before recess, when he was asked to describe 
 her conduct with him in the parlor of the school, she made a 
 show of rising from her seat, while her eyes snapped and her 
 lips settled into even firmer lines than usual. From this demon¬ 
 stration she recovered rapidly, and as Rosell told of her prepara¬ 
 tions to accompany him to Chicago, which he thought were real, 
 she even could not suppress a smile. 
 
 Considering the decidedly unconventional discussion by the 
 witness in reply to questions of relations usually regarded as 
 sacred and confidential, his bearing throughout the direct exam¬ 
 ination was remarkably careless, while his former fiancee exer¬ 
 cised equally remarkable self-control. When the question was 
 asked by Mr. Shelby about the character of Miss Pollard’s con¬ 
 duct when Rosell called upon her, some one among the spectators 
 made a demonstration, which called forth a sharp rebuke from 
 Justice Bradley. 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 ?53 
 
 “I shall exclude any one from the court-room, no matter who 
 he may be,” said the Justice, “if any demonstration whatever is 
 made.” 
 
 As the witness was questioned about letters which he had re¬ 
 ceived from Miss Pollard, she again smiled as she glanced toward 
 the jury, and when the Court sustained an objection to a question 
 about the breaking of an engagement, she turned to Mr. Carlisle 
 and her smile broadened as she whispered to him. 
 
 No sooner had the Circuit Court met for the Pollard-Breckin- 
 ridge case to-day than Judge Wilson, of the plaintiff’s counsel, 
 requested that the disputed letter, which has been in the hands 
 of the Breckinridge forces, be placed in the custody of the clerk 
 of the court. He also requested that “Colonel” E. B. Hay, the 
 expert on handwriting, be recalled for further cross-examination. 
 Mr. Wilson asked him some questions about his method of judg¬ 
 ing handwritings, whereat Mr. Hay gave a dissertation upon 
 “specific” characteristics, as he called them, illuminating his re¬ 
 marks by illustrations drawn off-hand on the blackboard. 
 
 When Mr. Wilson inquired upon what characteristics the 
 expert laid greatest stress, Mr. Hay replied with an impressive 
 genuflection, “ The tout ensemble.” The spectators snickered, 
 Judge Bradley smiled, some of the jurors looked puzzled, as 
 though they suspected there was impropriety lurking in the 
 words, and Mr. Wilson requested that the expression be rendered 
 into English. 
 
 From this point Mr. Wilson turned to inquire if Mr. Hay 
 remembered having testified as an expert before a congressional 
 committee upon a letter supposed to have been written to Con¬ 
 gressman Springer by one Findley, Mr. Hay recalled the case, and 
 Mr. Butterworth recollected also that he had been a member of 
 the committee. 
 
 “Yes, you wrote the report.” remarked Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “ No, but it was a good report,” Mr. Butterworth replied, “ and 
 I signed it.” 
 
 “So it was a good report,” Mr. Wilson repeated, and the object 
 of his reference to the case was shown when he proceeded to 
 read extracts from Mr. Hay’s testimoney at that investigation to 
 
Fourteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 i5S 
 
 show that lie had said at different times that he placed greatest 
 weight upon general characteristics and upon special character¬ 
 istics. Cool as a cucumber, expert Hay explained how he recon¬ 
 ciled his statements. Asked if he had not testified that Findley 
 did not write the Springer letter when it had been proven that 
 he did, Mr. Hay replied that his belief remained unchanged that 
 Findlay was not the writer. 
 
 THE EXPERT WORRIED. 
 
 “ Did you not testify in this court recently that a will was a 
 forgery when it was proved undoubtedly genuine?” Mr. Wilson 
 inquired. 
 
 Mr. Hay denied that this was the fact, and Mr. Butterworth 
 insisted that the case referred to should be named. 
 
 Mr. Hay, who is an expert penman, asserted that he could 
 imitate any individual letters in the disputed document, but 
 would not be able to combine them into a plausible imitation of 
 the handwriting. He did not remember a case involving the 
 genuineness of some naval vouchers in which the experts had 
 picked out the original vouchers as forgeries. He had never 
 known a case in which experts had differed so widely as over 
 the Findley letter, and incidentally remarked that Congress had 
 never paid him for the twenty-five days’ hard work upon the 
 case. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth added that the Government never paid any¬ 
 thing it could avoid paying, except in bonds, an observation 
 which would have pleased Gen. Coxey, of the commonweal. 
 
 After giving an explanation of the methods of tracing, the 
 expert averred that none of them could have been employed in 
 making the letter before him. 
 
 Laywers Wilson and Butterworth indulged in a dispute over 
 the reading of the report of the congressional committee on the 
 Findley letter. Mr. Butterworth explained that the Republicans 
 and Democrats of the committee had taken partisan positions 
 regarding the authorship of the Findley letter, and their conclu¬ 
 sions were not read. 
 
 When Mr. Hay was finally dismissed the whole field of expert 
 evidence had been threshed over to weariness. 
 
J 54 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 how thk letter was discovered. 
 
 He was followed by Colonel Breckinridge’s stenographer and 
 clerk, a young blonde-mustached man named Worthington, who, 
 until recently,, had been employed in the office of Breckinridge & 
 Shelby, in Lexington. Being requested to tell what he knew of 
 the questioned letter, he explained that last September Mr. Shelby 
 had received a request from Colonel Breckinridge, then in Wash¬ 
 ington, to make a search for letters from Miss Pollard to him. 
 The search had extended over three or four days, and finally this 
 letter was found on top of an old unused desk where a lot of cor¬ 
 respondence, part of it belonging to the firm, part Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge’s private correspondence, was stowed away in pasteboard 
 files. This was the only letter from Miss Pollard found. 
 
 On cross-examination he said that the office of Breckinridge & 
 Shelby had been moved in September, 1890. 
 
 “So that,” Mr. Wilson said, “of all the letters you found in 
 this office, this is the only one in Miss Pollard’s handwriting?” 
 
 The clerk assented, and Mr. Wilson asked if that package had 
 seemed to consist of private correspondence, to which the witness 
 replied that they had seemed to be mostly business letters. 
 Between the leaves of that pasteboard file, he explained, had been 
 only letters from persons whose names began with P. His recol¬ 
 lection was that “ 1884” was stamped upon the package. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF ROSELL. 
 
 As Mr. Worthington left the stand one of Mr. Breckinridge’s 
 lawyers said : 
 
 “Now, Rosell.” 
 
 The man who walked to the witness stand is a typical Ken¬ 
 tuckian from the mountain end of the State. Rankin R. Rozell 
 is of medium build, with sallow complexion, dark, nervous eyes 
 and black, shiny hair, parted far down on the right side of his 
 head. A sandy mustache covers his mouth, which was twisted 
 to the right at the conclusion of every sentence. As he talked he 
 held his right hand behind him and leaned against the Judge’s 
 desk upon his left arm. Colonel Shelby asked him : 
 
Fourteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 *55 
 
 “What is your age?” 
 
 “I am in my thirty-fourth year.” 
 
 He said he was a teacher in the common schools. Last Nov¬ 
 ember he was elected Superintendent of Public Schools in Nich¬ 
 olas County. He was a MasonTand a member of several local 
 lodges. He was also the Deputy Clerk of the County Clerk. In 
 the fall of 1883 he was employed by the John Shillito Co., of 
 Cincinnati. In the fall of 1884 he went to Chicago, and returned 
 to Cincinnati in 1885. 
 
 “ Do you know Madeline Pollard?” 
 
 “I do.” 
 
 “When did you become acquainted with her?” 
 
 “In the fall of 1884.” 
 
 “Under what circumstances?” 
 
 “A lady came to the store and asked for me. A messenger 
 came upstairs and told me that there was a lady who wanted to 
 see me. I went downstairs and saw Miss Pollard. She said she 
 had often heard of me and was very glad to meet me. She then 
 told me that she wanted to go to the Wesleyan College, and that 
 she wanted me to go there with her and introduce her. I told 
 her I would do so with pleasure, and I then went with her.” 
 
 MISS POLLARD CONFRONTS WITNESS. 
 
 A moment after the witness went on the stand Miss Pollard, 
 smiling and apparently in a very good humor, entered the room. 
 She wore the same blue gown, but had on a new and very unbe¬ 
 coming hat that made her even more homely than usual. She 
 was accompanied by Miss Ellis. The two women took seats 
 directly in front of the Clerk, where Miss Pollard had a good 
 view of the witness. 
 
 “Did she tell you how she happened to know of you?” 
 
 “She said she had heard her cousin, Miss Nellie Oliver, speak 
 of me often.” 
 
 “Did you know Miss Oliver?” 
 
 “I did.” 
 
 “Did you go with Miss Pollard to the Wesleyan College?” 
 
 “I did. We were received in the office adjoining the library. 
 I introduced myself to Dr. Brown and then presented Miss 
 
* 5 6 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Pollard. She said she had a guardian (Mr. Rodes) who would 
 come next day and complete the arrangements.” 
 
 “ Was anything said about you ?” 
 
 “Yes, she said I was a personal friend of hers, and asked that 
 I might be allowed to call whenever I wished to do so, and he 
 consented.” 
 
 “Was anything said about Miss Pollard?” 
 
 “ Nothing, as I recollect.” 
 
 “When did you next see Miss Pollard?” 
 
 “ Probably two or three times afterward at the college.” 
 
 “Did you go there for that purpose?” 
 
 “I did.” 
 
 “From that time on until you left Cincinnati, in the following 
 March, what was your habit about calling at the college?” 
 
 “ I called frequently, on an average of twice a week.” 
 
 “For what purpose did you go to the college?” 
 
 “ I visited Miss Pollard. I had no other acquaintances.” 
 
 “Would you see her alone?” 
 
 THE ENGAGEMENT. 
 
 “ Most frequently. Sometimes some of the young ladies would 
 come down with her. At first I had a great admiration for her. 
 It went to love and then to engagement.” 
 
 “When did you become engaged?” 
 
 “I think on December 23, 1883.” 
 
 “ What arrangement did she tell you she had with Mr. Rodes?” 
 
 “ She first said Mr. Rhodes was her guardian ; afterward that 
 he having proposed matrimony, she consented to become his wife, 
 if he educated her.” 
 
 “ Did she ever say that she intended to carry out that engage¬ 
 ment ? ” 
 
 “ She said she never intended to carry it out. She was simply 
 trying to get an education.” 
 
 “During your engagement did you see Miss Pollard frequently 
 or seldom ? ” 
 
 “ I saw her frequently, sometimes in the reception room adjoin¬ 
 ing the pai lor, sometimes in the parlor. My calls were usually 
 in the evenings.” 
 
Fourteenth Day of Trial. 157 
 
 “ What was her manner toward you after you became en¬ 
 gaged ? ” 
 
 “ Very affectionate.” 
 
 “ How was it indicated ? ” 
 
 *' I frequenily kissed her and caressed her.” 
 
 “ Where would Miss Pollard usually sit ? ” 
 
 “ When we first met she usually sat beside me—that is, in a 
 chair. As our friendship increased she became very intimate 
 and she would sit in my lap.” 
 
 Here Miss Pollard straightened herself in her chair and glared 
 at the witness with marks of indignation upon her face. He met 
 her gaze calmly, and as she, at the suggestion of Mr. Carlisle, re¬ 
 strained herself and subsided into quiet weeping, her shoulders 
 twitching with excitement, he continued his calm replies to the 
 questions of Mr. Shelby. 
 
 “ During that time when she was in the habit of sitting in your 
 lap, were there any demonstrations of affection between you ? ” 
 AFFECTIONATE CARESSES. 
 
 “ Oh , yes, sir. Naturally there would be. I would put my 
 arms around her and kiss her.” 
 
 “ Did you ever meet Mr. Rhodes at the college ? ” 
 
 “ Only on one occasion.” 
 
 “Was there any arrangements between you and Miss Pollard 
 as to what should be done if you met Mr. Rhodes at the college?” 
 
 “ There was.” 
 
 “ Who made the arrangement ? ” 
 
 “Miss Pollard.” 
 
 “ What was it ? ” 
 
 “We were to appear as strangers.” 
 
 “ Did you do this on the occasion you speak of ? ” 
 
 “We did. One of Miss Pollard’s friends came out and told 
 me that Mr. Rhodes was in the parlor. I went in ; pretended 
 that I did not know her. During the evening while she was sit¬ 
 ting across the room with Mr. Rhodes, she forgot herself and 
 shouted across the room, ‘ Oh, Rankin,’ calling me by my first 
 name. She made Mr. Rhodes believe that she was talking to 
 the girl with her.” 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 <5S 
 
 “When you went to Chicago, in March of 18S4, did Miss Pol¬ 
 lard offer to go with you ?” 
 
 “ She did. I went to the college after I had told her that I 
 was going out to Chicago. She offered to go with me. She 
 went up stairs, and came down after a little while with her coat 
 and hat on, saying she was ready to go. At first I thought she 
 was jesting. When I found she was in earnest I told her that it 
 would not be convenient to take her with me. and that she had 
 better wait until the end of the school year, which was in June. 
 She remained at the college and I went to Chicago.” 
 
 Witness said he had not believed she was in earnest about 
 going when she first proposed it. She said she had her trunk 
 packed. Miss Pollard represented herself to him as three years 
 his junior. He was born in i860 and she said she was born in 
 1863. 
 
 PRESENTED MADELAINE WITH TWO RINGS. 
 
 Witness said he had given Miss Pollard two rings, one set 
 with diamonds. The day before he went to Chicago he had some 
 pictures taken of her. Four tintypes were handed him. He iden¬ 
 tifier! one as the picture she had taken when he took her to the 
 gallery. Another was taken with Miss Burnett and still another 
 with a Miss Campbell, of Ohio. 
 
 “ One of those pictures has a ring on the finger. Do you 
 know it ?” 
 
 Witness looked at the picture very closely, and said he thought 
 the ring was one of the two which he had given Miss Pollard. 
 
 The pictures were offered in evidence and exhibited to the 
 jury. While the jury were examining them, Miss Pollard and 
 Mr. Wilson held a whispered conversation with each other. 
 
 “ Were you in the habit of swilling firewater when you knew 
 Miss Pollard ?” 
 
 “ No, sir; never.” 
 
 “ Did Miss Pollard ever see you under the influence of 
 liquor ? ” 
 
 “ Most assuredly I never was in her presence in that condi¬ 
 tion.” 
 
Fourteenth Day of Trial, 
 
 *59 
 
 Witness did not remember of Miss Pollard’s ever mentioning 
 Alexander Julian to him, but once. She was speaking of past 
 events in her life and mentioned a mock marriage ceremony 
 which had taken place between herself and Julian at some 
 Christmas gathering. She did not mention any of the details of 
 the ceremony. Miss Pollard gave the witness a ring. He had it 
 molded with another ring and gave it back to her. While he 
 was in Chicago he wrote to Miss Pollard and received one letter 
 in reply. The engagement between them was never consum¬ 
 mated by a marriage. 
 
 “ What were the reasons on your part that it was allowed to 
 drop ? ” asked Mr. Shelby. 
 
 “ I object,” said Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “Objection sustained,” said the court. 
 
 THE ENGAGEMENT BROKEN OFF. 
 
 The witness was asked why the engagement was not carried 
 out, and said he lost confidence in her because of the manner she 
 allowed him to kiss and hug her after they were engaged. 
 
 “ I lost confidence in the woman,” he said, “as the woman 
 whom I would desire to have as my wife, and my love ceased.” 
 
 He thought he next saw her in Lexington, in February or 
 March, 1885. He saw her at Mrs: Ketchums. Witness said he 
 asked her for the rings he had given her, and she said they were 
 at her mother’s and she would get them. He wrote her about a 
 month afterward for the rings, and in reply she wrote that her 
 mother’s property had been destroyed by fire, and the rings with 
 other of her treasures, had been destroyed. Witness said he saw 
 Miss Pollard in the sitting room of Mr. Ketchum’s house. There 
 was no one else in the sitting room. He did not know how any 
 one else could be concealed in the room at the time. He would 
 think it was not likely. 
 
 At this point the usual midday recess was taken. 
 
 During the recess Rosell strolled about the corridors of the 
 Court House in company with Desha Breckinridge, or 6at with 
 the defendant’s counsel in the eourt room. 
 
160 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 The fact that (he plaintiff would be again in court this after¬ 
 noon created a great pressure on Marshal Wilson and his depu¬ 
 ties for admission to the court room, and before the trial was re¬ 
 sumed after recess every seat in the room and about all the avail¬ 
 able standing room was occupied. As usual, Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge was the first of the interested parties to enter the court 
 room, and was not long after followed by Miss Pollard, escorted 
 by Mrs. Ellis from the House of Mercy, and her counsel. Both 
 the plaintiff and the defendant quietly took their customary 
 places and appeared wholly oblivious of the presence of the other 
 
 BEARING OF PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. 
 
 A9 during the morning session of the court, Miss Pollard paid 
 the closest attention to the testimony of Mr. Rosell, her former 
 admirerer, and frequently made notes of what he said, handing 
 them to Mr. Carlisle, who in turn handed them over to Mr. Wil¬ 
 son, who made use of them in the cross-examination of the wit¬ 
 ness. Although she gave him the closest attention, the plaintiff 
 seldom glanced at the witness, sitting with dawncast eyes and 
 hands folded when not making notes. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge also closely attended to what was said by 
 the witness, especially while Mr. Wilson was plying Mr. Rosell 
 with questions during the cross-exam.ination. Now and then, 
 however, the defendant turned his eyes toward the plaintiff, and 
 was seemingly much interested in the written suggestions to her 
 counsel. He was apparently not a little surprised at the brevity 
 of Mr. Wilson’s cross-examination of Mr. Rosell. 
 
 After recess Mr. Rosell resumed his place upon the witness 
 stand and took up his story at the point reached at adjournment. 
 
 “ During your engagement was Miss Pollard mentally and 
 physically a mature person ? ” 
 
 Mr. Wilson objected. 
 
 “It appears that embraces too much,” said Justice Bradley. 
 
 Mr. Shelby explained his question at length, saying that it was 
 a question of development. He reserved an exception to the 
 ruling of the Judge and asked : 
 
JOHN T. SHELBY, 
 
Fourteenth Day of Trial. 161 
 
 A WELL-MATURED WOMAN. 
 
 “Was the deportment ot the plaintiff that of a girlish person 
 or a mature person ? ” 
 
 This was also ruled out. At the suggestion of Mr. Stoll, Mr. 
 Shelby asked. 
 
 “At that time was her appearance that of a girl or a woman ?” 
 “ She was a woman.” 
 
 “Are you a married man ?” s 
 “ I have been married six years ” 
 
 “ While you were visiting Miss Pollard what were your rela- 
 :ions with Dr. Brown, principal of the college?” 
 
 “I never saw him but once. No unpleasant words ever passed 
 Detween us. 
 
 “What are the facts of your being an applicant for a position 
 n the revenue service?” 
 
 “ Last April I filed my application for a position. Last June 
 ny friends persuaded me to run for my present office, and I with- 
 Irew my former application.” 
 
 “At that time did you know Col. Breckinridge ? ” 
 
 “ I did not. I am not in his district. I did not seek or obtain 
 \is indorsement. I withdrew my application before I made my 
 leposition.” 
 
 Cross-examination by Mr. Wilson, taken up here, now devel 
 ped the fact that he withdrew his papers on the very day he 
 aade his deposition, and that he had the papers in his pocket 
 dien he was making his deposition. 
 
 As to the character of the Wesleyan College, the witness said 
 e knew it stood in the best repute in the community, but he did 
 ot know that the late Mrs. Hayes and Mrs. Wm. M. Springer 
 ere educated there. 
 
 At Mr. Wilson’s request, he described the parlor and reception 
 nom, and said that there were folding doors between the rooms, 
 nd these doors were always open when he was there. The 
 brary was on the right hand side of the hall. 
 
 PRACTICALLY ONE ROOM. 
 
 “Where did you meet Miss Pollard?” 
 
 .a 
 
162 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “ In the parlor or the next room.” 
 
 “Practically the same room?” 
 
 “Yes.” 
 
 “How large a room was that?” 
 
 “I don’t remember whether it was as large as the library or 
 not.” 
 
 “ Do you not know that in that institution no visitors were ad¬ 
 mitted but once a week ! ” 
 
 “ I did not know it.” 
 
 “You have said that she sat upon your lap? Did that occur 
 in the parlor and reception room?” 
 
 “ In both places.” 
 
 “Anybody else present?” 
 
 “No, sir.” 
 
 “You have said that she has 6at upon your lap for two hours 
 at a time ? ” 
 
 “ Yes; for an hopr and a half or two hours.” 
 
 “You would go there from 7 130 to 10 o’clock?” 
 
 “Yes.” 
 
 “ And an hour and a half of that time she would be sitting on 
 your lap? ” 
 
 “Yes, sir; that is positive.” 
 
 “When did you first tell any one of this?” 
 
 “Some time last fall.” 
 
 “ To whom ? ” 
 
 “To Dr. O’Mahoney, of Lexington. He came as a messengei ' 
 from Colonel Breckinridge.” 
 
 “Was that the first time?” 
 
 “ It was.” 
 
 “How did he find out about you?” 
 
 “I think through the Wessie Brown letter. My name was ■, 
 mentioned in that.” . J 
 
 “She told you that she had been married to Alex. Julien in ; ' 
 mock marriage ? ” 
 
 “Yes, sir? ” 
 
 “She did not say she was married to Owen Tinsley?” 
 
 “I never remembered that name. It was Alex. Julien.” 
 
Fourteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 163 
 
 “ How far do you live from Lexington ? ” 
 
 “About thirty-five miles.” 
 
 CALLED ON BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 “ Did you go to Lexington the day before your deposition was 
 taken ? ” 
 
 “I think not.” 
 
 “ After your interview witlf O’Mahoney did you meet Colonel 
 Breckinridge ? ” 
 
 “Yes; after I saw O’Mahoney I called on Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge at his office.” 
 
 “Did he show you a picture? ” 
 
 “Yes; it was one of Miss Pollard.” 
 
 “Did he say how he got possession of the picture? ” 
 
 “ The man that carries the mail from my town to Lexington 
 asked me if I had a picture of Miss Pollard. I told him I had, 
 and I gave it to him, and he gave it to Mrs. Todd, the Post¬ 
 mistress.” 
 
 “What relation is Mrs. Todd to Colonel Breckinridge? ” 
 
 “I cannot answer that question. I think there was some rela¬ 
 tion.” 
 
 “ How long was Miss Pollard absent when she went upstairs 
 at the college on the occasion when you went to Chicago and 
 you said she offered to go with you? ” 
 
 “My best recollection is about fifteen or twenty minutes.” 
 “She went upstairs to pack her trunk and get ready, did she 
 not?” 
 
 “Yes, sir.” 
 
 “And it only took her about fifteen or twenty minutes?” 
 “That is what she said.” 
 
 “You are the same Rosell that gave your deposition in this 
 case ? ” 
 
 “Yes, sir.” 
 
 “You withdrew your application for a public office when you 
 gave your deposition in the case, did you not? ” 
 
 “ I did, sir.” 
 
 “What is the standing of this institution—of the Wesleyan 
 College ? ” 
 
164 
 
 Pollarx vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 “ It is very good, I believe.” 
 
 “ Do you know that Mrs. President Hayes, then Lucy Webb, 
 was educated there ? ” 
 
 The question was objected to but the Court allowed it, and 
 the witness said he did not know that such was the case. 
 
 The witness was then asked about the situation of the recep¬ 
 tion room and parlor at the college. He explained that the 
 rooms were connected by folding doors. The witness did not 
 know whether the doors were always open. He could not recall 
 whether this was the case or not. Certainly the rooms were in 
 communication. The statement that Miss Pollard sat on his lap 
 was absolutely true. 
 
 BUTCHER KAUFFMANN’s STORY. 
 
 Rosell, after leaving the stand, moved to a seat among the 
 spectators. He had hardly gained it when, at the request of Mr. 
 Wilson, he was recalled, but was excused again, and Mr. Stoll 
 proceeded to read the deposition of Hiram Kauffmann. Miss i 
 Pollard at this point left the room. 
 
 Kauffman, who is thirty years old, and a butcher, of Lexing- , 
 ton, said that he knew the plaintiff. He had first met her at ; 
 Lena Singleton's, in Lexington, a house of shady character. Jim 
 Rodes had introduced him to Miss Pollard, whom he saw eleven ] 
 or twelve times within two weeks in 1S83, between June 15 and 
 July 20. As near as lie could get at it, Miss Poilard was there 
 just before going to Cincinnati. He had seen John Brand at >( 
 Lena Singleton’s, and also a light-coinplexioned person. He had j 
 seen Jim Rodes and Madeline Pollard there. She acted toward ; j 
 Rodes quite like any other woman of the character named bv d 
 the deponent. Rodes and deponent were both living at the j 
 time at the asylum. Pie said he had refused advances of thc8 
 plaintiff because of his friendship for Rodes. He was teachc-: , 
 and supervisor at the asylum. Rodes was gardener. 
 
 Mr. Farrel then read the cross-examination. Deponent sail I 
 he went from Frederick County, Md. to Lexington. When h ■ 
 first went to Lexington, in 1882, his brother was living there J 
 
Fourteenth Day of Trial. 165 
 
 lie went in business with his brother, but could not get along 
 with his wife, and then he secured the place at the asylum. He 
 had frequently met Rodes at his brother’s place, directly across 
 from the asylum. Rodes invited him some time in May or June, 
 in 1883, to go and see his girl. “His girl” was Madeline Pol¬ 
 lard. The first time he met Miss Pollard there was a woman 
 with her named Lena Singleton. The house where he met the 
 woman was a new frame on Upper street. He had frequently 
 heard “Ed” Glasscock and others speak of her as “Jim Rodes’ 
 girl.” Rodes frequently spoke of her in the same manner as his 
 girl, and introduced her to deponent as such. 
 
 Once deponent saw Rodes give her $35. Miss Pollard was sit¬ 
 ting on his lap and Rodes was fondling her. Deponent also had 
 a girl on his lap. After a while he went into a room with his 
 girl. The girl deponent was with was called “ Little Lena.” 
 He went to the same house on a pay day in the June following. 
 Shindelbower did not go with him. Shindelbower had gotten in 
 a scrape with a girl and had to leave town. 
 
 MADELINE AND BRAND. 
 
 Deponent saw Madeline Pollard come out of a room with 
 “ Jim ” Brand. Madeline had on a mother hubbard made of some 
 gauze stuff. She staid at the house until 10 130 p. m. He would 
 go over to the place two or three times a week. On one evening 
 Miss Pollard was not there. He met her on the road driving 
 with Bfand. That was the second time he had seen the trvo to¬ 
 gether. Once two of the college boys went with him to the house 
 One of them was from Texas ; the other, he thought, was old 
 man Thompson’s son. They all went from the ball ground, and 
 all got pretty full. They used to play ball near the Singleton’s 
 and on this occasion the girls got to fighting with them. That 
 evening everybody behaved pretty well at the house. 
 
 He knew that other men visited the house beside the men he 
 had mentioned. He generally went there in the daytime. Fre¬ 
 quently Rodes gave him his letters from Miss Pollard, and in this 
 way he learned that she was at school in Cincinnati. Miss Pol¬ 
 lard was generally known as “Jim Rodes’ girl,” and he lent 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 i 66 
 
 Rodes money to give her. He thought Miss Pollard was about 
 18 years old, but she looked younger. When they went to the 
 house Jim Rodes said to him : “Mr. Kauffman, let me introduce 
 you to my girl, Miss Pollard.” 
 
 It was evident to deponent, then, that there were improper re¬ 
 lations existing between Rodes and this young woman. 
 
 Kauffman said he did not know how the defense came to know 
 about his connection with Miss Pollard. The first said to him 
 was by old man “ Billy.” 
 
 VOLUNTEERED TO TESTIFY. 
 
 “ Old man Billy who ? ” 
 
 “Old man Breckinridge.” 
 
 Continuing, the deponent said : “ I met the old hi an one day, 
 
 it was just after Mrs. Blackburn had told her story, and I said to 
 him, ‘ It looks pretty bad for you, Colonel.’ 
 
 “He told me to wait until the truth was out and then I would 
 see that Mrs. Blackburn knew the girl three years before he did. 
 I told him that I had a letter that would help his case if I could 
 find it, but I thought it had been burned up. Then I spoke to 
 Desha about it, and afterward to Doc. O’Mahoney. One day 
 Colonel Breckinridge came to me and said he heard that I knew 
 a good deal about Rodes, and I said I did, and in that way I 
 came to be connected with the case.” 
 
 The deponent was asked why he left the asylum, but he ob¬ 
 jected, and the Commissioner did not require him to answer. 
 The deponent described the Singleton woman as one about 40 
 years old, large and fleshy. He stated that after he had seen 
 Miss Pollard and Brand out driving, he received a warm recep¬ 
 tion when he visited the house. She, he said, was very angry 
 with him, and, with an indecent remark, told him that if he ever 
 came around there again she would kick him out. He stated 
 that he had heard her use profane language toward him, and had 
 seen her in the Singleton house so drunk that she could not stand 
 or sit up. 
 
 A TOUGH LOT. 
 
 The deposition of John A. Brand, a school janitor of Lexing¬ 
 ton, followed. Brand said he had first met Miss Pollard in 1883, at 
 
Fourteenth Day of Trial 
 
 167 
 
 a house kept by Lena Singleton, who was reputed to be a mistress 
 of James Rodes. The plaintiff had seemed then about seventeen 
 years old. Brand had often taken Miss Pollard riding, according 
 to his story; had often picked her up and dropped her some¬ 
 where in the street, as he was a married man. 
 
 When asked for what purpose he had visited Lena Singleton, 
 Brand said that the law did not compel a man to answer such 
 questions. The Commissioner had urged him, saying that it was 
 so long ago it would do no harm to answer, and then with the 
 observation that he supposed they had all been there, Brand told 
 that he went for immoral purposes. Brand also employed lan¬ 
 guage which would not bear repetition. He described Miss 
 Pollard as a “spare-made woman,” with dark hair, and said she 
 was then going to school. Brand’s testimony was somewhat con¬ 
 tradictory as to when he first met Miss Pollard, saying once that 
 he first met her in 1881, and again in 1883. He was introduced 
 to Miss Pollard in Lena Singleton’s house by a woman he had 
 met in a house of ill-fame in Cincinnati, but could not remember 
 the name of the woman nor the location of the house. In ex¬ 
 plaining one of his lapses of memory, the witness said : 
 
 “That time I must have been pretty drunk, as I generally was.” 
 
 He could not remember whether he was drunk on the occa¬ 
 sion the alleged meeting with Madeline Pollard at Lena Single¬ 
 ton’s occurred. Deponent expected that he had made improper 
 remarks to Miss Pollard, but declined to say whether he had 
 taken liberties with her. 
 
 The deposition of Letcher Lusby, Chief of Police of Lexing¬ 
 ton for six years past, revealed that he had known Lena Single- 
 ton ; that she kept a sporting house, as he characterized it, al¬ 
 though he was careful to explain that he had never been there. 
 
 Mr. Wilson objected to a question as to Lena Singleton’s- reputa¬ 
 tion for chastity, but Judge Bradley remarked that, considering 
 what the witness had said of her house, her character might be 
 inferred. 
 
 With this the court adjourned. 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 i 68 
 
 FIFTEENTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 Breckinridge on the -witness stand — Tells how he fell from grace — Made¬ 
 line Pollard in the roll of Eve—How the man of fifty fell a victim to 
 the charms of the girl of seventeen- -He escorted her to a mythical con- ; 
 cert on Vine street , Cincinnati — Yielded to the tender influences of the 
 moment and fell. The Colonel indeed told his story with a silver tongue. - 
 
 “The woman tempted me and I did eat,” said Adam some centu¬ 
 ries ago. 
 
 “I was a man of passion. She was a woman of passion, 
 
 said Colonel Breckinridge to-day, as 
 he described his lapse from virtuous ways with Madeline Pollard. 
 
 His appearance upon the stand was the sensation of the day. 
 
 It has been talked about in advance. 
 
 The audience has swelled each day when there was hope of hearing 
 his story, and has dwindled away when dry depositions took the place 
 of oral testimony. 
 
 There was a remarkable increase in attendance to-day. The dingy • 
 little courtroom was crowded, and there was not even the traditional 
 standing room. The chief curiosity was not to see the leading stars 
 of this remarkable drama, but to hear the silver tongue of a man who 
 stands accused of a great wrong. 
 
 The weather outside was sultry, and the close room had an un¬ 
 wholesome smell, which made Justice Bradley frown every time he 
 saw a fresh accession to the audience. Expectancy was in the air all 
 morning. No one who has watched the trial could imagine any cause 
 for delay, and knew that it was time for 
 
 THE WHITE-HAIRED COLONEL 
 
 To arise in refutation of the many grave charges which have been 
 hurled at him for weeks, and to which, as yet, he has made no answer 
 until to-day. 
 
 Prior to the appearance of the defendant on the witness stand the 
 proceedings had been dull. It seemed that the defense was gather¬ 
 ing up all the fragments—sweeping up the bits of incidental testi¬ 
 mony—to t« in readiness for the grand and impressive scenes which 
 
Fifteenth Day Tof rial. 
 
 
 169 
 
 attend the finale of the drama. Nor were the lawyers for Madeline 
 idle. 
 
 They, too, brought in witnesses who had come from Kentucky to 
 deny the statements of Brand and others made yesterday. 
 
 The sickening stories about a house kept by Lena Singleton were 
 denied to-day by J hn Beuckert and Stephen Dunn, two reputable citi- 
 izens of Lexington. 
 
 Both men swore that no such woman as Lena Singleton had ever 
 kept a house of ill-repute in Lexington. 
 
 The very plain inferen sought tr. be shown by Judge Wilson was 
 that the stories told by Brand were concoctions of a drunken, immoral 
 wretch, whose own admissions injured his credibility. 
 
 There was nothing sensational about the examination of either 
 Beuckert or Dunn. 
 
 There was a good deal of tiresome talk about Lexington matters 
 which was of no importance or interest to anybody but the Lexington 
 lawyers, and Lexington witnesses seemed to enjoy a series of remin¬ 
 iscences concerning 
 
 THEIR OLD KENTUCKY HOME. 
 
 The afternoon session began with the deposition of a Mrs. Miller, 
 who was once Mollie Schindelbauer. She is now married. The 
 most gained from her testimony was that Jim Rodes had a mistress of 
 the name of Lena Singleton, but no mistress named Madeline Pol¬ 
 lard. 
 
 Every one in Court seemed in a state of subdued excitement when 
 the last words of the Miller deposition were read, and Lawyer Stoll 
 gave a long, long sigh of relief. 
 
 Ben. Butterworth, chief counsel for the defense, relieved the audi- 
 dience of all suspense by abrubtly remarking: ‘ ‘ Colonel Breckin¬ 
 
 ridge, you may take the stand.” 
 
 That was the signal for a great stir and subdued confusion, which 
 was not confined to spectators alone. The jurymen seemed to awaken 
 out of a state of lethargy. Every “peer” of the white-haired Colonel 
 straightened up in the jury-box, and were alert as scared rabbits. 
 Every ear, every eye in the courtroom was on a strain until the wit¬ 
 ness had briskly drawn himself from the table and was standing with 
 
170 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinrjdce. 
 
 
 a fresh, new Bible in his hand waiting to be sworn. As the clerk 
 pronounced the words of the oath Colonel Breckinridge gripped the 
 Holy Book tightly with both hands and looked very, very solemn. 
 
 Once the murmuring audience had seen him and realized that the 
 sensational features of the case were to be resumed, there were 
 anxious looks for the plaintiff. 
 
 “Where is she?” was the constant query. 
 
 Everyone knew that she wanted to be present and to face the man 
 whose testimony was to blast her reputation even as she claimed he 
 had blasted her life. 
 
 The distinguished witness, distinguished in appearance, distinguish¬ 
 ed in name and in station, remained standing after he had taken the 
 oath, and kept one hand on the Word of God. He had no hesita¬ 
 tion in his manner nor in his voice. It was as calm and silvery as if 
 he had arose in the halls of Congress to deliver an eulogy upon a de¬ 
 parted colleague, instead of arising to unmask the secrets 
 
 OF AN ILLICIT PASSION. 
 
 To most men it would be an ordeal. But it did not seem an ordeal 
 nor an unpleasant task for W. C. P. Breckinridge. He even smiled as 
 he proceeded with his story. His manner was easy, his words came 
 in silvery precision, and he did not hesitate for soft and pleasing sen¬ 
 tences. 
 
 It was all easy, so easy that he anticipated the questions of counsel 
 and went on with profuse explanations and off-hand observations, 
 making, in fact, a short speech in reply to every question which Major 
 Butterworth proposed. 
 
 He had not gone far in his nonchalant discourse before he observed 
 that the audience was looking away from him. All eyes had turned 
 from him toward the door. 
 
 He knew the cause of the murmur and the sudden turning of 
 heads. 
 
 He too turned his head in the same direction and met the gaze of 
 Madeline Pollard. He gave but one short, quick, comprehensive 
 look and then calmly resumed his story. Madeline sat down directly 
 in front of the witness. She watched him closely for a time with a 
 subdued, soft look, as of one in distress or in despair. But she did not 
 
Fifteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 171 
 
 look discouraged. Her manner was no less composed than his, and 
 she did not seem inclined to criticise his statements or to offer any 
 public demonstration even when he should absolutely deny what she 
 had claimed in her story of two weeks ago. Finally, after a few min¬ 
 utes of watching, she let her head rest in her hand and seemed ab¬ 
 sorbed in her own thoughts. 
 
 After telling the brief biography of his life, with a reference to his 
 service in the Confederate cavalry, Colonel Breckinridge drifted 
 easily into the events which had made up the thrilling story of this 
 case. 
 
 As professed by Joe Shelby in his statement to the jury, the defend¬ 
 ant denied that he had forced his acquaintance upon the plaintiff. In 
 short, in reply to the questions, the Colonel made a long series of 
 denials, so long in fact that for several moments all of his sentences 
 began with “No” or “ Not.” 
 
 When it came to the story of the first carriage ride in Cincinnati, 
 the denials to Madeline’s story came thick and fast. It was “No, 
 no, no. Never, never, never,” until the audience was aghast at the 
 thought that somebody had been doing some very 
 
 TALL AND VIGOROUS LYING. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge seemed ready to deny everything save Made¬ 
 line Pollard’s existence. 
 
 Throughout his denials, explanations and sweet little speeches to 
 the jury, he would occasionally turn and almost bow to Madeline, as 
 if to use her presence as an emphasis to his statement. In fact, he 
 would look at her as if to ask for a confirmation of his story, and she, 
 poor, modest, humble-looking little woman, would look straight up at 
 him until he would turn his head away. 
 
 When asked if he had mentioned the name of his first wife during 
 his first meeting with the plaintiff, Colonel Breckinridge assumed an 
 injured air, almost an air of indignation, and then protested in 
 pathetic tones that he had in no way spoken of his sorrows, nor re¬ 
 ferred to his dead wife or his dead baby boy. 
 
 “Did you make love to the plaintiff?” was a direct question which 
 was first answered by a negative shaking of the head, and then the 
 .Colonel proceeded to explain and to infer that love-making was not 
 
172 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 necessary. He could not tell just all that was said in the carriage. 
 He had not forgotten what she had told him during the day—her 
 admission that she had already been ruined by Rodes. In an easy 
 manner the Colonel led his listeners to believe that from the start 
 Madeline Pollard had lured him on. that she had written for him to 
 come, that she had proposed a carriage ride, that she had suggested 
 a ride rather chan a concert, that she had first spoken to him of im- ^ 
 moral things—it was always the woman who had made the first sug¬ 
 gestions, according to the testimony of Colonel Breckinridge. 
 
 He was, to hear him talk to-day, a passive slave in her hands: he 
 a man of 47, she a girl of 17. 
 
 It would appear from his story that she had planned the carriage 
 drive and had 
 
 ENSNARED HIM WITH HER WILES. 
 
 It did not take long to tell the story of sin and shame. Colonel 
 Breckinridge did not tell it with any confusion or blushes. There 
 was no sorrow or shame on his face as he told his version of that 
 carriage ride in Cincinnati, which was the turning point in two lives. 
 She took off her hat— 
 
 I put my arm around her— 
 
 I drew her to me— 
 
 She said nothing— 
 
 There was no protestation on my part— 
 
 There was no objection by her— 
 
 No offer of love by me— 
 
 I was a man of passion— 
 
 She was a woman of passion— 
 
 Such was the brief story, the story told without a tremor, without a 
 moment’s hesitation and without a bit of emotion. 
 
 Then the witness went on to explain in one of the silvery little 
 speeches which promise to be many before his trial is done: “ There 
 was no seduction,” he continued. 
 
 “No seduction on either side. It was simply a case of human 
 passion,” and the defendant appealed to the men, the human beings 
 on the jury, as if to tell them how “human” he was, and then he 
 added : “She made no objections, made no outcry.” 
 
Fifteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 *73 
 
 Such was the story. 
 
 It was all told when the word “ complacent” had been uttered. 
 
 Summed up in these few sentences was the defense. Every one 
 knew that the defendant had justified his position by claiming that 
 Medeline Pollard was not an innocent woman. 
 
 WHEN FIRST THEY MET. 
 
 The witness then went on to tell how he had thrust money into her 
 hand, how she had declined it; how he had insisted, and how as she 
 left the carriage he had himself tightened her fingers over a ten-dollar 
 
 bill. 
 
 Such in brief was the closing scene of the day. 
 
 There was a long argument over the disputed letter and it was 
 finally shown to the jury after Judge Bradley pronounced it a 
 “shadow” and discounted its value in the case. 
 
 There was a dense mass of humanity at all the courtroom doors 
 when the defendant walked out alone, and looked around for some of 
 his friends. “That’s the Colonel,” was said rather loudly, and the 
 crowd moved back to let him pass. 
 
 Madeline waited with her lawyers until the courtroom was nearly 
 empty. She did not look sad or disturbed after the ordeal of accusa¬ 
 tion. She remained wonderfully composed and went out disdaining 
 to look up as the curious spectators silently stared at her long after 
 she had left the room. 
 
 THE SILVER-TONGUED ON THE STAND-INTERESTING COURT SCENES. 
 
 The attorneys for Madeline Pollard began the proceedings in the 
 great trial to-day with the request that the regular order of proceed¬ 
 ings might be varied by permitting two witnesses for the plaintiff, 
 who had been waiting in the city for a week and whose private busi¬ 
 ness demanded their attention at home, to testify at once. The 
 lawyers retired for a conference, and on their return announced that 
 the request had been agreed to. 
 
 The first of these witnesses was a round-faced young man, John 
 Beuckhart, of Lexington, Ky. Attorney Farrell, of the same city, 
 conducted the examination. It developed that in 1882 the witness 
 had lived at the northeast cornet of Third and Upper streets, in that 
 
174 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 town. Witness described in detail the houses on that block fronting 
 on Third and Upper streets, and identified a diagram of that locality. 
 This is the block in which Lena Singleton is said to have lived, but 
 the witness testified that at no time between April, 1882, and 1887 
 had such a person lived there. 
 
 Attorney Stoll wanted to know what this had to do with the case, 
 and Attorney Farrell reminded him of the testimony of “your friend 
 Brandt.” 
 
 From cross-questioning it appeared that the neighborhood was a 
 rather shady one, there being two or three houses which John termed 
 “ sporting ” houses in the block. Some of them he had never visited, 
 tfhile to the others he had been 
 
 AN OCCASIONAL VISITOR. 
 
 “Have you been indicted down there?” 
 
 “ No sir.” 
 
 “You need not answer that,” interposed Judge Bradley. 
 
 When Attorney Stoll dropped into the Kentucky vernacular, asking 
 about a “ nigger grocery ” kept by a Mrs. Ellis, who had summoned 
 the witness to Washington for Mr. Farrell, Judge Bradley eyed him 
 askance. Then when Mr. Stoll proceeded to ask how many conferences 
 the witness had held with the attorneys since he came to Washington, 
 Judge Bradley said that it was entirely inconsequential, and that a law¬ 
 yer who did not confer with his witnesses would be neglecting his duty. 
 
 Mr. Stoll remarked that it would depend upon how many confer¬ 
 ences were held, but let the line of questioning drop. 
 
 The second witness was a tall, bewhiskered colored man, Stephen 
 Dunn by name, who deals in furniture and lives at 162 North Upper 
 street, between Third and Fourth, in Lexington. He gave the same 
 line of testimony regarding the people, and had dwelt in the vicinity 
 since 1879, when he moved there. He was confident that Lena 
 Singleton had never lived there, if she had, that he would have 
 known it. 
 
 The deposition of Mrs. William J. Miller, of Memphis, Tenn., 
 who claimed that she and Miss Pollard had been inmates of Lena 
 Singleton’s establishment in Lexington, occupied the Court until after 
 the recess. Then Mr. Butterworth arose and said: “Colonel Breck- 
 
Fifteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 i 75 
 
 inridge, will you take the stand?” and the commotion which ensued 
 required all the efforts of the Bailiff 
 
 TO QUIET THE NOISE. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge declared that he was born near Baltimore, in 
 1837; that his father Robert J. Breckinridge, soon afterward moved 
 to Jefferson, Penn., to accept the Presidency of the college, and in 
 1847 to Lexingtan to take the pastorate of the Presbyterian Church. 
 He had taken his diploma at Center College. He had practiced law 
 only at Lexington, after studying in the office of Madison C. Johnson, 
 and in Louisville, at the law school, a diploma from which was a license 
 to practice. 
 
 11 When were you married ? ” 
 
 “On St. Patrick’s Day, 1859.” 
 
 “ How long did your wife live ? ” 
 
 “She died in April, i860, after the birth of her first child.” 
 
 “Were you in the late war ? ” 
 
 “ I was.” 
 
 He told of his various services in the Confederate army under Kirby 
 Smith; how he had risen to the rank of Colonel, and surrendered his 
 regiment of Kentuky cavalry at the close of the war. He was married 
 the second time the night the Federals occupied Lexington, to Miss 
 Desha, September 19, 1864. He had five children, four living. One 
 son and one daughter were with him here. 
 
 Here Miss Pollard and Sister Ellis entered, taking seats before the 
 bar to the right of the defendant, amid a subdued rustling in the court¬ 
 room, 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge continuing, said that he had practiced law 
 with Attorney B. F. Butler from 1874 to the time of the appointment 
 of the latter to the bench. As a matter of duty he had served on the 
 local school board, afterward been County Prosecutor, was a member 
 of Board of Trustees of several educational institutions, among them 
 Center College, but had never been a teacher except in a law school 
 to which he lectured. 
 
 44 Do you know the plaintiff? ” 
 
 “ I do.” * 
 
 • 4 When did you firs* meet her r ” 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 176 
 
 ‘■' In the spring of 1884. It was a cool morning on a train between 
 Lexington and Frankfort. I had an overcoat on the back seat of the 
 car, and, as I passed down the aisle to get it, she accosted me in a 
 
 PERFECTLY PROPER WAY. 
 
 I said: * I suppose I ought to know you, but young persons grow up 
 so on us we forget their faces.’ She said: ‘I am Madeline Breckin¬ 
 ridge Pollard; ’ that her father admired my father ; that if she had been 
 a boy he would have named her John B. As it was, he gave her the 
 middle name of Breckinridge. She said she was going to a sister who 
 was dying of consumption. I expressed my sympathy and passed on. 
 
 Q. When did you next meet her? A. I do not remember exactly. 
 I received a letter from her. I have lost that letter, but the substance 
 of it was a request that I would call on her at the college on some 
 business of great importance to her. The substance of my reply was 
 that it would be inconvenient for me to call at the college, but if I 
 could give her any advice I would be glad to do so, and if she was in 
 Lexingtan she might call. 
 
 Q. Did you receive another letter? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Is this the letter? asked Mr. Butterworth, handing up the 
 black-bordered epistle. A. It would be affectation for me to examine 
 that. I am familiar with it 
 
 This provoked a tilt over the letter, Mr. Wilson contending that it 
 had not been proved to have come from the plaintiff ahd Mr. Butter- 
 worth asserting that unless the Supreme Court was in error it was on 
 several grounds 
 
 COMPETENT EVIDENCE. 
 
 Apart from the letter, Colonel Breckinridge continued, he could 
 not relate the conversation concerning it which he had with the plain¬ 
 tiff when he called at the school a few days afterward. He could not 
 well give the purport of the conversation concerning the letter apart 
 from the rest of their talk. 
 
 “The plaintiff,” he began, referring always to Miss Pollard by the 
 legal term, “the plaintiff said, ‘I suppose you were surprised to re¬ 
 ceive such a letter from a school girl. 1 Laughingly I responded that 
 perhaps she over-exaggerated the importance of the matter. Then 
 
Fifteenth Day ot Trial. 
 
 177 
 
 she said, * But all this time you are standing ; ’ and invited me to take 
 a seat.” 
 
 “Now we propose,” said Mr. Butterworth, “to offer this letter to 
 the jury, that it may examine it and compare it with the admitted 
 specimens of the plaintiff’s handwriting in evidence. Even if we had 
 produced no expert testimony on the point under the ruling of the 
 Supreme Court it would be admissible.” 
 
 Singularly enough, the ruling which the attorney proceeded to 
 quote was by the great namesake of the presiding Judge, Justice 
 Bradley, of the United States Supreme Court. As the argument was 
 taken up, Colonel Breckinridge sank back into a chair, apparently 
 glad of an opportunity to rest. His face was flushed, and, while tes¬ 
 tifying, his eyes frequently had roved over toward Madeline Pollard, 
 or swept beyond her to the background of eager, gaping men, but for 
 the most part he kept his face turned toward the jury. He had 
 leaned forward, with right hand resting on the witness, box and left 
 elbow on Judge Bradley’s desk, a foot above the level of the worn 
 wooden box. His tones were melodious and silvery, but noticeably 
 tremulous as he detailed the incidents of his early life. A great wave 
 of snowy hair swept carelessly 
 
 HIS FLUSHED FOREHEAD. 
 
 His beard beneath was carefully trimmed, a small black clerical tie 
 surmounted his expansive shirt front of glittering white, and the lapels 
 of his black cut-away coat were flung open. When permitted to take 
 the chair he shaded his eyes for a moment with his hand, smoothed 
 his forehead wearily, and leaned back with his head on one side 
 listening to the argument meditatively. 
 
 Ex-Judge Jere Wilson, who replied to Major Butterworth’s argu¬ 
 ment as to the admissibility of the letter, began by explaining that he 
 was confronted by an unexpected situation, since it had been his ex¬ 
 pectation that the letter would have been offered in evidence at the 
 close of the expert testimony. His argument was that this case dif¬ 
 fered radically from one in which the authenticity of some paper or 
 legal document was attacked by a plaintiff. Here was a defendant 
 endeavoring to introduce in evidence a letter alleged to be from the 
 plaintiff, which she absolutely denied. Until the Court had passed 
 
JPoi-LARD vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 iy8 
 
 upon the question whether it was competent evidence, the letter could 
 not go to the jury. 
 
 It was a question, according to the attorneys, between the testimony 
 of the two experts, based merely upon their opinions, and the flat 
 denial of one who knew, and the only one who could know, whether 
 she had written it. This train of thought led up to the discussion of 
 the value of expert testimony, against which Mr. Wilson opened the 
 batteries of his eloquence, fortified by an opinion from the late Chief ; 
 Justice Carter, of the District Supreme Court. Meantime, upon Mr. 
 Calderon Carlisle devolved the duty of keeping an eye upon his client 
 beside him, whose breast was heaving, whose cheeks were flushed, 
 and whose manner betokened agitation. 
 
 One of the opinions quoted by Judge Wilson dealt with the testi¬ 
 mony of expert Edwin B. Hay, of whom the Court had said that he 
 gave himself a specious introduction. 
 
 “ Now we are coming to our friend,” Mr. Wilson remarked, and 
 Colonel Breckinridge broke into a quiet smile, while the rest of the 
 courtroom laughed; “and now we come to that Washburn-Springer 
 report which you wrote,” said Mr. Wilson, turning to Mr. Butter- 
 worth, 
 
 “That was a good report, but I did not write it,” retorted Mr. 
 Butterworth. 
 
 “My dear friend, that is in your own handwriting; I am expert 
 enough to know that,” Mr. Wilson replied. 
 
 Messrs. Butterworth and Wilson, it may be remarked paren¬ 
 thetically, 
 
 WERE IN CONGRESS TOGETHER. 
 
 The substance of the opinions quoted by Mr. Wilson was that ex- ' 
 pert evidence was the most unsatisfactory sort with which courts had 
 to deal, and that experts were prone to be warped in their opinions by 
 their fees. After the argument Judge Bradley said that the testimony 
 of the experts tended to show the authorship of the letter, and in¬ 
 quired what there would be for the Court to do if there had been no 
 expert testimony, in view of defendant's testimony that he had re¬ 
 ceived in due course of the correspondence, and had afterward held 
 a conversation with the plaintiff based on its contents. 
 
 Either die testimony of the defendant, or that of the experts, he 
 
Fifteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 *79 
 
 thought, would justify the admission of the letter to the sight of the 
 jurors, allowing them to judge of the evidence for and against its 
 authenticity for themselves, aided by their own powers of observation 
 and comparison with the admitted specimens of the plaintiffs hand¬ 
 writing. 
 
 Recontinued: “ It appears that this is largely a dispute over a sha¬ 
 dow, as the contents of this letter have been published by the press, 
 and the jury are probably intelligent men and readers. Newspaper 
 enterprise is a good thing, but in this instance it was enterprise with 
 a vengeance. It was contempt of Court, and was a gross impro¬ 
 priety to publish it before it was given to the jury. I presume the 
 reporters were not aware of the impropriety of their act, which must 
 have been committed within the precincts of the Courts. The letter 
 would have been admitted any way, but suppose it had not been, and 
 the jury had read it ? Great harm might have been done by the 
 action.” 
 
 After these admonitions, Mr. Butterworth read the letter, which has 
 already been published. 
 
 This finished, Colonel Breckinridge rose again, and described what 
 had become of the letters. He had kept three files—one at his house, 
 one at his office, and one partnership file. It was his recollection that 
 the two had been placed in the file at his office. Returning to his 
 visit to the Wesleyan Seminary, the defendant explained that it had 
 been made while on a business trip to Covington, on Friday, the ist 
 of August. There being no hotel accommodations in Covington, he 
 had gone to Cincinnati to stay over night. After dinner, remember¬ 
 ing the letter of Miss Pollard, he strolled up to the college. 
 
 “ I sent my name up,” he said, “was invited into a room, and in a 
 few moments the plaintiff came down. We shook hands. She said 
 she supposed she had astonished me by the substance of her letter; 
 that it was worse than a divorce case. We took seats, she on a divan, 
 
 1 on a chair, in the rear of the room. She narrated the circumstances 
 .inder which she had made 
 
 V ' 
 
 THE AGREEMENT WITH MR. RHODES. 
 
 Until then I had not known who her mother was. I had known 
 ler father, but not who he married. As soon as she told me she was 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 i 80 
 
 living with her aunt, Mrs. York Keene, I knew who her mother was, 
 because her uncle, York Keene, had been in my brother’s regiment. 
 Because her lather had died in straitened circumstances, and her life 
 with her aunt had not been pleasant, she wanted to leave. Mr. 
 Rhodes had fallen in love with her, but she had respected him as an 
 older man, but had not loved him. She wanted to know whether he 
 could compel her to marry him. I treated the matter with some 
 levity; said I knew of no law in this day by which she could be com¬ 
 pelled to the specific performance of a marriage contract She grew 
 grave, looked as though she felt like crying, took out her handker¬ 
 chief, put it to her face and I got up and walked the room. I asked 
 her if her mother was alive. I had not seen her mother; I never 
 have, in fact, but she said her mother had not approved of the con¬ 
 tract, and it.had' made unpleasantness in the family. I spoke of her 
 grandfather. I knew her grandfather and her uncles. We had ceased 
 to walk the room; she was sitting or. the divan, and I was standing 
 beside her. I started to leave, after some expressions of sympathy, 
 but she detained me. She said (the plaintiff did) : ‘ It’s much worse ( 
 than that; it’s much worse than that. He insisted on marrying me. 
 
 I did not want to be like Aunt Lou, with a houseful of children and 
 unable to educate them.’ She put her handkerchief to her face.” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge spoke very slowly, and reproduced the 
 mournful tones which a young woman might use in making such a 
 confession. ‘ ‘ She said : * I gave him a higher proof than that con¬ 
 tract.’ Then I said she ought to marry him anyway. She said: ‘I 
 can’t: I have grown away from him. I know what other men are, 
 and his very presence is offensive to me. I replied: ‘ \ ou can t 
 afford not to marry him, a young girl as you are.’ Then the comer- ► 
 sation drifted away. There was nothing more that I could say. She I 
 seemed to have said all that she cared to.” 
 
 There was an exquisite minor key of retrospective pathos as the 
 Colonel sunk his voice 
 
 THROUGH THESE PASSAGES. 
 
 “The conversation drifted away,” he repeated reflectively, finger-, 
 ing the Bible at hand. “As I stood there with my hat in my hand 
 she said: ‘I have set my heart on becoming an authoress.’ 1 said: 
 
 
Fifteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 181 
 
 ‘I don't see why you can’t do that; but you must remember that this 
 double life—’ ” Here he assumed the stern tone of a moralist, a man 
 stainless, above reproach, reproducing the paternal, advisory manner 
 of the counsel he said he gave to the young woman. 
 
 “‘This double life,’ I said, ‘may come up against you any time. 
 He has you in his power. A young girl can’t afford that. You 
 should marry him as soon as you can.’ 
 
 “She said : ‘ I won’t do that now, anyway; no danger of his giving 
 me up.’ 
 
 ‘ ‘ Then she spoke of an entertainment on Vine street. She said a cor- 
 netist was to play. I have been going to Cincinnati ever since I was a 
 boy, but I never knew which one of the hills vine street was on. She 
 said, in an entirely proper way—perfectly proper (Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge seemed anxious to make assurance doubly sure on this point)— 
 that we might ride. I asked if they would let her go. She said she 
 was a summer boarder, and she knew of no rule against it. Then a 
 youdg man came into the room whom I recognized as Mr. Brown, for 
 although I did not know he was connected with the school, he had 
 represented Jessamine County in the Legislature. We shook hands, 
 and he said it would be perfectly proper for us to go. Then I took 
 dinner at the Burnet house. After dinner I walked up to a stable 
 and selected a carriage without any particular thought about what 
 kind it was. It was a warm August evening. There was quite a 
 little group on the portico. Nothing was said about a closed carriage 
 or about my having a sore throat, no allusion whatever, no excuse, 
 nor any reason for any excuse.” 
 
 In the mild, deprecatory gesture with which the Colonel brushed 
 away the breath of a suspicion of impropriety from his action at that 
 time, he knocked a tumbler from the stand with a crash which startled 
 the room, and men looked around apprehensively as though they 
 thought of Kentucky shooting irons. 
 
 “ We started in an en-tire-ly proper way,” he resumed. “Any ex* 
 cuse would have been wholly out of place, nor was any reason 
 asked.” 
 
 For the first time the flow of silver deprecation was harshly torn by 
 the matter-of-fact query of Major Butterworth: “How long were 
 you at the college that afternoon ?” 
 
l8 2 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 ‘'Oh, about an hour or an hour and a half. There was a light 
 conversation which deepened into a tense, grave conversation, and 
 afterward became light again.” 
 
 “ Did you speak of going to Lexington the next day?” 
 
 “Nothing was said about going to Lexington that day, and the 
 next day when I started for Lexington I was surprised to find her on 
 the train.” 
 
 “What do you know about any bogus telegrams?”' 
 
 “ I never heard of any such telegram until after this suit was brought. 
 There was no way I could have sent any bogus telegram. This is 
 entirely new to me.” 
 
 “ W T hat do you know about her going to Sayre Institute in Lex¬ 
 ington ? ” 
 
 “I knew nothing of it whatever until afterward. Nothing what¬ 
 ever in any way.” 
 
 “ How long were you driving that evening?” 
 
 “I can’t say, Butterworth. We got back before tne school was 
 closed. Just about ten o’clock.” 
 
 “ Did you have any conversation 
 
 “ABOUT YOUR FIRST WIFE?” 
 
 “ None whatever. My first wife was not alluded to. My dead 
 little boy was not mentioned. There was no allusion to my family 
 surroundings in any way.” 
 
 ‘ ‘ Did you make protestations of love to this woman ? ” 
 
 “ I did not.” 
 
 “ Did you go to any concert that night?” 
 
 “We did not.” 
 
 “What was there in the conversation, bearing, dress or appear¬ 
 ance of the plaintiff to indicate that she was not a girl of mature 
 years?” 
 
 “She seemed to be a young woman of 20 or 22. She might have 
 been 19. She was a fully grown woman, of perfectly proper manner,” 
 (glancing for the first time at the plaintiff), “very deferential: very.” 
 
 “ Anything to indicate that she was not a proper woman ? ” asked 
 Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 Colonel Breckenridge wanted none of his hearers to cherish a sus¬ 
 picion that he would have ventured forth with an improper person. 
 
Fifteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 183 
 
 His disclaimers were repeated, and in his softest tones, “not the 
 slightest,” he replied, “not the slightest. Her conduct was entirely 
 correct. Nothing was said about her peculiar relations to Mr. 
 Rhodes.” 
 
 There was a marked inflection upon the word “peculiar” as if 
 Mr. Breckenridge did not wish to speak outright of such things as 
 those relations. Returning to the drive, he continued: “We took 
 the left hand road at the top of the hill because she said the right 
 hand road through the park was made uncomfortably hot by the gas 
 lights. So I told the driver to turn to the left.” 
 
 “Were the windows of the carriage open or shut ?” 
 
 “ They were open,” replied the Colonel, and then, without prompt¬ 
 ing, he came to the heart of his narrative. 
 
 “After we had driven some distance,” ne said, “'and she was 
 talking at some length about her desire to go into journalism, to be an 
 authoress, and we had spoken of George Eliot, she took off her hat 
 and put it on the front seat. I put my arm around her. There were 
 no protestations on my part, no offer of love. What occurred, 
 occurred in the natural way. I put my arm around her and drew her 
 to me* I was a man with passion. She was a woman with passion. 
 
 “Just a case of illi.it love ?” broke in Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 “That was it, Butterworth. I am a man, she a woman: human, 
 both of us.” 
 
 Continuing: “That was going out. Coming back there was hardly 
 a word spoken until we got close to the city. Under the gas-light I 
 took out of my pocket a stamped envelope. She was on my left 
 hand side. I put my hand in my pocket and put something into the 
 envelope. She refused to accept it. I said: ‘There are a great many 
 little things you need.’ 
 
 “What was in the envelope?” Mr. Butterworth inquired, but the 
 Congressman ignored the interruption, continuing: 
 
 “ As we got out I put it into her hand, closed her hand on it and 
 bid her good night.” 
 
 “What was it?” repeated Attorney Butterworth. 
 
 “ ft wam a bill. I think a ten-dolkr bill.” 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 i 34 
 
 “Adjourn the Court,” shouted Judge Bradley, who had sat through 
 the narrative with his head averted and eyes closed, and the Court 
 adjourned. 
 
 SIXTEENTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 Second day of Colonel Breckinridge's testimony — The silver tongued gives 
 his version of the engagement with Miss Pollard—Claims he admitted it 
 to protect Miss Pollard's name—Denies Miss Pollarets story in every 
 detail — When he seeks to blacken ihe girl’s character she breaks down 
 with indignation — Oh! make him tell the truth , she sobs — Highly 
 dramatic scenes and incidents. 
 
 COLONEL BRECKINRIDGE CONTINUES HIS ATTACK UPON 
 MISS POLLARD. 
 
 There was an audience awaiting the second appearance of Colonel 
 Breckinridge on the witness stand to-day, whose interest in him and 
 what he would have to say was more intense than that of any audi¬ 
 ence he had ever faced before. Foremost in it sat the plaintiff and 1 
 her elderly companion, Mrs. Ellis; back of them, in double rows, 
 the lawyers in the case, and also Desha Breckinridge, the son to 
 whom the defendant had referred in affectionate terms while detailing , 
 the members of his family yesterday. 
 
 Further beyond were two long rows of newspaper men and sketch- < 
 ers waiting to transfer to paper the different attitudes of the Congress- 1 
 man-witness and then the ranks of spectators, most of them members 
 of the bar. No time was lost in sending the witness to the stand, 
 and then Mr. Butterworth handed up the work-basket which had ) 
 belonged to his second wife and which Miss Pollard said he had given 
 her with affectionate words. He recognized it. 
 
 “ My wife was a Miss Desha. She died in July, 1892,” he said. 
 “I last saw the basket in my rooms on H street. I have no recol¬ 
 lection when. The statement made by the plaintiff was that when I • 
 left Washington after the session of Congress, I went with her to the 
 train, that I gave her the basket then with affectionate words. I did 
 not go to Miss Pollard’s house that night. I did not ride with her in 
 the herdic to the depot. I did not give her the basket 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 185 
 
 UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 The voice of Colonel Breckinridge, as he made this denial, was 
 soft, cool, and measured as carefully as it had been throughout his 
 testimony the day before. Miss Pollard was sitting very straight in 
 her chair with her eyes fixed sharply on him, but he directed his re¬ 
 plies entirely to his questioner, who sat between Miss Pollard and the 
 jury. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth then asked : “ When did you first learn that the 
 basket was in the possession of the plaintiff?” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge—“ I learned a day dr two before the trial that 
 a basket was in her possession. What basket it was I did not know, 
 nor did I have any knowledge where the basket was until it was pro¬ 
 duced at the trial.” 
 
 “Have you any knowledge how this basket got into her posses¬ 
 sion ? ” 
 
 “ I cannot say from personal knowledge how the basket came into 
 her possession, nor did she receive it with any knowledge or consent 
 or connivance on my part.” 
 
 Mr. Butterworth then left the question of the basket and directed 
 his questions to the details of the meeting between the witness and 
 Miss Pollard and the circumstances of the visit to the house of Sarah 
 Gess. 
 
 “ I wish you would give an account, Colonel,” said Mr. Butter¬ 
 worth, “of your trip to Lexington on the afternoon of August 2, of 
 which you spoke yesterday, when the plaintiff was in the train.” 
 
 “ I found the plaintiff in the car when I got into it. I found the 
 car was crowded and I found the plaintiff sitting near the door 
 
 AT WHICH I ENTERED. 
 
 I spoke to her and the conversation resulted in an arrangement by 
 which we were to meet that evening in Lexington.” 
 
 “In answer to a further question,” he stated, “an arrangement 
 was made that we should meet at the house of Sarah Gess. The 
 arrangement was carried out by going in the street car.” 
 
 Q. State what took place between you and the plaintiff then. A. 
 r, We knocked at the door several times. When no one responded a 
 1 little talk took place between the plaintiff and myself as to what to do. 
 
186 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 1 
 
 One suggestion was that she should go to the door of a friend, where 
 she expected to spend the night. Another suggestion was that she 
 should wait a little while, it being Saturday night, and it being the 
 custom to do a little marketing that night. The conclusion was that 
 she should wait and I should go to my home, and if Sarah Gess re¬ 
 turned in a reasonable time, I would find her there. 
 
 “ I had supper with my family that night. There was a torchlight 
 procession and some speeches, but I did not make a speech myself. 
 
 I walked back to Sarah Gess’s, and found the plaintiff there. There 
 was to be an election the next Monday, and there was some feeling on 
 both sides.” 
 
 “ Had you made an arrangement to go to Sarah Gess’s, as the 
 plaintiff said ? ” 
 
 “None, whatever.” 
 
 “ Was there any conversation about her schooling, and inducements 
 of help held out by you ? ” 
 
 “None, whatever.” 
 
 “Was there any resistance or protestation on her part against what 
 was done there?” 
 
 “ None, whatever. We merely carried out the arrangement made 
 on the train. She preferred to remain in the house and avoid any risk 
 or questions which it might be inconvenient to answer. I returned the 
 next night, Sunday, with some uncertainty whether I would find her 
 there, as she had said 
 
 IF SHE COULD SLIP AWAY 
 
 Without risk, to the house of her grandfather or uncle, she would do 
 so. I found her there, however, as she said she had dared to take the 
 risk of going away by daylight. I remained until about io o’lock 
 that night.” 
 
 “Was there any reference to Rodes?” 
 
 “I cannot recall any. Possibly there was in those two evenings.” 
 “ Did you see her Monday morning ? ” 
 
 “ I did not.” 
 
 “ What was there in her conduct or appearance to indicate that she 
 was not a matured young woman?” 
 
 “ Nothing whatever. She was a fully developed young woman, with 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial. 187 
 
 nothing to indicate that she was not experienced in the relations of 
 the sexes.” 
 
 “Was anything ever said about her being seduced by you, or, as it 
 has been said here, that she seduced you? ” 
 
 This question stirred a laugh, at which Judge Bradley looked up 
 from his writing and rapped sharply. 
 
 “As to the first,” said Colonel Breckinridge, smiling in an embar¬ 
 rassed way, “of course nothing was said. Nor until the filing of this 
 suit was anything ever said ro the effect that I had seduced her phys¬ 
 ically or otherwise.” 
 
 The witness said that from that time until he met her with other 
 schoolgirls of the Sayre Institute in Lexington, the next October, he 
 had not seen nor heard of Miss Pollard. 
 
 “The two old ladies with whom she boarded there were perfectly 
 proper, most estimable and respected persons. If the plaintiff re¬ 
 ceived any one in her room there at nights, as she had said, I know 
 nothing of it. It was not I.” 
 
 While Miss Pollard was absent from Lexington during the spring of 
 1885, when she said that her first child was born, witness declared 
 that he had no knowledge of her whereabouts and no communication 
 with her. If she had written him under the nom de plume of Mar¬ 
 garet Dillon he had not received the letters nor any Box Number 47. 
 
 “Did you pay the plaintiff anything when you parted from her at 
 Sarah Gess’s ? ” 
 
 “I cannot use the word pay,” replied the Colonel, considerately. 
 “ I paid the expenses at Sarah Gess’s and presented her a sum, not 
 very large, but enough to pay 
 
 HER TRAVELING EXPENSES.” 
 
 Continuing, he denied all knowledge of the correspondence to 
 Rodes alleged to have been written, dated from New Orleans and other 
 places in the South by Miss Pollard under his direction, nor had he 
 ever written a letter purporting to be from her to her mother or any 
 other person. Their handwritings were so dissimilar that it would 
 have been out of the question. 
 
 The letters from Miss Pollard to Rodes, which were read in Court, 
 he had procured from the sister of Rodes through Attorney Tenny, of 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 i 88 
 
 Lexington. He had never seen Dr. Mary Street, of Cincinnati, now 
 Mrs. Logan, and, referring to her description of him as a small man, 
 he said: “I was no more of a pigmy then than I am now.” 
 
 He described in a general way his movements in the year 1885 un¬ 
 til he meet Miss Pollard in August or September, asserting that he had 
 no knowledge of where she had been or the reason for her absence. 
 
 In his boyhood he had been acquainted with Mr. Rodes. Instead 
 of being in Cincinnati on Saturday, August 17, 1884, when Miss ' 
 Pollard had testified they met at the public library and afterward vis¬ 
 ited an assignation house, he had been engaged in Court at Winchester 
 in the trial of Ollie Brown, for murder. The next week and all that 
 month he had been greatly engaged. 
 
 “ Did you meet Miss Pollard after that first meeting, in the fall of 
 1884? I mean improperly—an assignation?” asked Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 “ On the nth of October I meet her in a house in Cincinnati. She 
 came from the western part of the state and I from the East. I met 
 her at the Grand Central Depot in the morning and we went to Mrs. 
 Rose’s house, where we were some time. I went out on business, and 
 returning after supper remained several hours. I returned to Lexing¬ 
 ton in the morning and she went there by another train.” 
 
 “Did.you present her any money?” 
 
 “ I paid the expenses, whatever they were.” 
 
 The Congressman was able to fix that date because there was a 
 great Republican meeting at which John A. Logan spoke. 
 
 “You did not have the advantage of attending the Republican 
 meeting?” said Mr. Butterworth. 
 
 “It might have been an advantage to me to attend a Republican | 
 meeting. I saw the plaintiff occasionally, but not frequently,” con- | 
 tinued the Colonel. “ During the months of November .and De- i 
 cember, 1884, and January, 1885, I saw her in both senses, on the 
 street and in the house I have spoken of. After the 4th of March I 1 
 was in Washington several days to intorduce to the President some 
 gentlemen who were 
 
 WILLING TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY. 
 
 My wife’s mother was in poor health, and I returned on her ac¬ 
 count. She died on the 24th of March. 
 
 “The first time I ever had any information from the plaintiff that 
 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 189 
 
 she had been pregnant was in the summer of 1887. The first time I 
 ever heard that her pregnancy had carried her to Cincinnati was in 
 the fall of 1892, when she desired me to obtain an office for a lady 
 on the ground that her brother had been her physician on that occa¬ 
 sion.” 
 
 “When did you learn that she was pregnant on that occasion by 
 you?” 
 
 “Tnat was in the summer of 1887, when she first told me of her 
 pregnancy.” 
 
 “ Did she tell you the result of it?” 
 
 “ Her information to me was that it had been a legitimate miscar¬ 
 riage—not an improper miscariage; that it had occurred with her 
 mother’s knowledge, under her mother’s supervision; that it was 
 through her mother that loss of character had been avoided and 
 secresy secured.” 
 
 During this passage Miss Pollard’s friends had great trouble in pre¬ 
 venting her from making an outcry. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth continued: “How often did you see the plaintiff 
 in the fall of 1885 ? ” 
 
 “ Occasionally, but not often. How often I can not say.” 
 
 Describing his movements in 1885, Colonel Breckinridge spoke of 
 his connection with the Morrison bill in Congress, a barbecue given 
 him by his constituents and his attendance upon Confederate reunions. 
 
 “I am unable to recall a single instance when I saw the plaintiff in 
 the year of 1886,” he continued, and then, telling how he had hap¬ 
 pened to stop at Miss Hoyt’s, in Lexington, where Miss Pollard 
 boarded, he said that the noise at the Phoenix Hotel kept him awake 
 at night,.and that a friend had recommended the boarding house to 
 him as a quiet place. 
 
 The fact that Miss Pollard was stopping there had nothing whatever 
 to do with the change. He was receiving a large mail of daily pa¬ 
 pers, with some books, a part of which he turned over to the estimable 
 old ladies, to Miss Pollard and to another young lady there. He did 
 not advise her concerning her reading. 
 
 ‘ ‘ During that time were there any improper relations between 
 you ? ” 
 
 “ None whatever. We met just as I met the other ladies. There 
 
i 90 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 was no suggestion by word or syllable that improper relations had 
 ever 
 
 EXISTED BETWEEN US.” 
 
 “The plaintiff has said that it was on account of your importunities 
 she came to Washington. How was that?” 
 
 “I did everything I could to prevent her,” said the Colonel im¬ 
 pressively, “and to prevent an open breach and scandal.” 
 
 “Where did you first learn of her purpose of coming to Washing¬ 
 ton ? ” Mr. Butterworth inquired. v 
 
 “In Lexington,” replied the witness. 
 
 “ From whom?” 
 
 “ From the plaintiff.” 
 
 “When was that?” 
 
 “About the third or fourth week in August.” 
 
 “Up to this time there had been a resumption of your improper 
 relations ? ” 
 
 “None whatever,” was the reply, and in answer to a question as to 
 whether they met frequently, he said that he had seen her occasion¬ 
 ally in the sense of meeting her on the street. Continuing, Breckin¬ 
 ridge said: “After my return to Lexington from Nicholasville our re¬ 
 lations were resumed, and I met her at the same house as before in 
 the latter part of July, 1887. It was after the accident in which she 
 was thrown from her horse. Soon afterward she came to me and said 
 she had made up her mind to leave Lexington because she could get 
 no employment there and because she was pursued by gossip about 
 her relations with Rodes. She said she had consulted Senator Beck 
 about coming to Washington, and that he had said it was not a good 
 plan for her to come to Washington; that it was the worst place for a. 
 young woman to come. I protested against her coming. She said 
 one morning that it was absolutely necessary for me to see her, and 
 I met her that night, when she said she feared she was pregnant; that 
 it was not at all a matter of certainty, but that if she was so, there was 
 nothing else left for her to do but go somewhere.” 
 
 “Stop there,” interrupted Mr. Butterworth. “Did she say the 
 pregnancy was by you ? ” 
 
 “ Of course. The conversation was excessively unpleasant. I re¬ 
 fused to furnish the money. It was a matter of doubt. Only two 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 191 
 
 months had passed since our relations had been resumed. I told her 
 that for her to come to Washington might be disastrous to herself 
 and to me. Afterward I repaid the money which she borrowed to 
 come to Washington. The conversations were excessively unpleas¬ 
 ant. It was some tijne in the month of September, 1887, that she 
 came. 
 
 “ I reached here on the evening of November 8th, and returned to 
 Lexington the next day. I saw the plaintiff on the street near Wash¬ 
 ington circle. She informed me that she was in a Catholic institution 
 at that end of the town, and said there was no doubt of her condition. 
 I returned to Washington the first Sunday in December, but did not 
 see the plaintiff for three months. The plaintiff had moved to the 
 Academy of the Visitation, on Massachusetts avenue, but I 
 
 SAW HER AT THE CAPITOL. 
 
 “Were these changes made in pursuance of your suggestions?” 
 
 “ They were not. I received several letters from the plaintiff say¬ 
 ing that her health was very bad. I sent her money at the general 
 delivery—whatever she wanted. She controlled that.” 
 
 “The plaintiff has said that on two occasions, after protestations 
 of love, you said you would marry her if it was possible. 
 
 “There is not a scintilla of truth in that statement—not a shred. 
 Under the circumstances, at no time was there such a statement. The 
 plaintiff never alluded to the possibility of it. Before the death of my 
 wife there was not a solitary word that could be distorted into such a 
 thing.” 
 
 The Colonel was very deliberate and emphatic, and continuing, 
 declared that she had never told him she gave birth to a living child, 
 nor did he believe it until he heard the testimony of Mr. Parsons, 
 saying: 
 
 “She said that that second time she had a miscarriage resulting 
 from her poor health. If she had told me she had borne a living 
 child it would have given me an excuse to break off my relations with 
 her, for considering the time of these relations, it was impossible that 
 the child could have been my child.” 
 
 In paying the expenses of the second confinement, Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge said at first he had been represented as Miss Pollard’s guardian. 
 
192 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 When the physician, Dr. Parsons, sent an additional bill, he had said 
 that she better come directly to him, for if she was a reputable physi¬ 
 cian a professional secret would be safe in her hands, and if she was 
 attempting blackmail, it would be best to face her at once. 
 
 Miss Pollard had informed him that at the Academy of the Visita¬ 
 tion she had arranged with the good Sisters to teach in return for her 
 board, and she also would receive instruction in some of the higher 
 classics. That seemed an eminently desirable arrangement, for it 
 afforded her protection and quiet. 
 
 “During the two years that she was there, were there any improper 
 relations between you and the plaintiff? ” 
 
 “There were.” 
 
 “The plaintiff has said that there was never any suggestion on your 
 part that your relations should be broken off.” 
 
 “ From November, 1885, to July, 1887, there were no improper 
 relationsibetween us, although I was supporting her. The entangle¬ 
 ment really began when she came to Washington against my will. I 
 frequently said to her, as earnestly as I knew how, that the relations 
 between us could only result in public scandal and perhaps destruction 
 of us both: that her character, her lack of self-control, her temper, 
 were such that some day there must 
 
 COME AN EXPOSURE. 
 
 I urged her to go anywhere where she could study, offering to pay 
 hei expenses and saying the burden could be no greater on me than it 
 was. Several times I thought she had agreed to go, once to Cam¬ 
 bridge. She was there some time and left against my will. Then 
 she told me she had arranged to go on the paper of the proprietor 
 of Bread Loaf, Joseph Battell, in Vermont. Some of our interviews 
 were more excessively unpleasant than any words can describe. She 
 would come to me at the Capitol in my committee room, declaring 
 that she was not going to leave, that she was going to have the support 
 I owed her. I suppose at times I became excessively angry and said 
 things that were hard and bitter. I knew that the only alternative 
 was submission or the destruction of the lives of those who depended 
 upon me, and let it go on, hoping that to-morrow would bring a solu¬ 
 tion of the problem. I would tell her in every way, from gentle to 
 
PUBLIC LIBRARY, CINCINNATI, 
 
 0. 
 

 
 READING ROOM PUBLIC LIBRARY, CINCINNATI, O, 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 i 93 
 
 the most severe, that she was Becoming more and more disinclined 
 and unable to care for herself. Her manner was oftentimes extremely 
 disagreeable.” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge testified that he had never gone to but one 
 lecture with Miss Pollard, had never submitted manuscript of his 
 speeches, lectures, or magazine articles to her, or advised with her on 
 the tenor of them. 
 
 “There never was but one human being who ever advised with me 
 in any way concerning my lectures from the time I began to speak 
 and lecture down to eighteen months ago, and that person was not 
 Miss Pollard.” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge was referring to his wife and his manner 
 WAS MOST IMPRESSIVE. 
 
 All the persons of the drama were back in their seats, after the noon 
 recess, when Mr. Butterworth quoted the testimony of Miss Pollard 
 that Colonel Breckinridge was concealed in the room when she broke 
 her engagement with Rosselle. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge denied this, explaining that he had never been 
 in Miss Hoyt’s house during the Spring in question, nor had he known 
 the existence of Rosselle until he saw the Wessie Brown letter. Much 
 of the testimony regarding the visit to Sarah Guess’s house, he de¬ 
 clared, was an absolute fabrication, and the person who had fabricated 
 the conversation between Sarah Guess and witness in September last, 
 trying to dissuade Sarah Guess from testifying in the case, was proba¬ 
 bly unaware that he was then in Washington in the discharge of his 
 official duties. 
 
 The applications of Miss Pollard for positions in the Civil Service 
 were identified by the defendant. The first one, for the examination 
 taken in Cincinnati in 1887, did not bear his indorsement, and he 
 said it was a surprise to him. There was another application in De¬ 
 cember, 1888, and a third in November, 1890, both indorsed by him. 
 The second indorsement said that he had been well acquainted with 
 the applicant for seven years, that she was of good moral character 
 and reputation and that she had been a resident of Fayette County 
 since he knew her. 
 
 Her birth war given in the papers as 1866, but- Colonel Breckinridge 
 said that entry had made “no particular impression upon him.” He 
 *3 
 
194 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 continued: “ My judgment was that if she could pass the examina¬ 
 tion it would be of great benefit to her. If she could not, as I ap¬ 
 prehended, it would impress upon her her deficiency in certain rudi¬ 
 mentary branches and spur her to study, as I had advised her to do.” 
 
 Mr. Butterworth next referred to a conversation between the de¬ 
 fendant and Mr. Rhodes in regard to the plaintiff, and asked the wit¬ 
 ness to relate the facts and circumstances of the conversation.” 
 
 “I met Mr. Rhodes at an election booth,” said Mr. Breckinridge, 
 
 ‘ ‘ and Mr. Rhodes alluded to the plaintiff and said he would like to 
 talk to me about her, and we walked to my office. I did not go to 
 Sarah Guess’s, where the plaintiff was. I did not notify the plaintiff 
 that I had seen Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes had been to Cincinnati on 
 the Saturday afternoon, going down on the train corresponding to the 
 south-bound train on which we were going to Lexington, so that the 
 trains passed each other. 
 
 “ When he reached Cincinnati he was informed that the plaintiff 
 had left Cincinnati, and that I had been to see her the day before. 
 He said to me that he was interested in the plaintiff, that he was en¬ 
 gaged to be married to her, and that he had gone down to Cincinnati 
 to consult her in regard to whether she should remain in Cincinnati. 
 
 “Rhodes said he had an agreement with her by which he was to 
 educate her—to support her during this time—and then she was to 
 marry him; that in accordance with that agreement he had spent a 
 great deal of money on her—more money than he could afford to 
 spend—but that he had become very anxious as to whether she in¬ 
 tended to marry him, and that he had to make some arrangements 
 about taking her away from Cincinnati, because he was very much 
 behind and w r as 
 
 being very much dunned. 
 
 He said he was getting old, and that if he was going to have a mar¬ 
 ried life it was time for him to see about it. I told him that I had 
 seen her and that she had told me substantially of the same agree¬ 
 ment, and that she had not expressed any particular desire to marry 
 him, but had spoken of her gratitude for what he had done and of her 
 respect for him. He said he wanted to marry her, and intended to 
 marry her, for he was very much in love with her. 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 *95 
 
 “During the course of conversation, which was quite long, he said 
 he ought to marry her—not only that he wanted to marry her, but 
 that he ought to do so—that things had happened which made it neces¬ 
 sary for him to marry her and that he intended to do so, but that she 
 seemed to have taken a dislike to him. He wanted me to tell him 
 what he should do to bring about that marriage.” 
 
 In answer to a question from his counsel, the witness denied that he 
 had related this conversation to Miss Pollard at the time, but said that 
 he subsequently did so. 
 
 “ Did Mr. Rhodes say what it was that made it necessary for him 
 to marry her ? ” 
 
 Mr. Wilson objected that it had not been shown that the conversa¬ 
 tion had been repeated, ending that if he could tell with such par¬ 
 ticularity what Rhodes said to him he must tell what he repeated to 
 the plaintiff. 
 
 Much of his former statement was repeated by the defendant, and 
 before he had finished Miss Pollard broke forth, sobbing, and ex¬ 
 claimed : “ That is not true! Why can’t he tell the truth about some¬ 
 thing?” 
 
 Judge Bradley admonished her : “If you can’t control yourself you 
 will have to leave the room.” 
 
 No attention was paid by Colonel Breckinridge to this interruption, 
 but he continued: “I told her in the spring of 1893 that after what 
 Rodes had told me of the relations between them it would be impos¬ 
 sible that any other relation could ever exist between us.” 
 
 Then Colonel Breckinridge passed on to the spring before the 
 opening of the Columbian Exposition, when he had declined to de¬ 
 liver the opening address and when, at her request, he had sent her 
 tickets to view the parade in New York. His attention being called 
 to^the statement of Miss Pollard that she had returned to Washington 
 from New York at his requst in August, 1893; that he had met her 
 at the depot, taken her riding and proposed marriage, he said: 
 
 “The plaintiff was not here in August, so for as I know. I reached 
 here on the 29th from Lexington, where I had opened the campaign 
 with a speech. I did not see the plaintiff; she was not here. No 
 !such occurrence happened. Going to New York on the 20th of 
 September, I saw her at the Hoffman House for the first time that 
 
196 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 summer. I did not meet her at the depot; did not put my arms 
 around her and kiss her; did not say that I had a communication to 
 make that I was vain enough to believe she would be pleased with.” 
 
 He did not recollect ever having seen the letter regarding her pro¬ 
 posed trip to Germany until it was shown on the witness stand by 
 the plaintiff, although he remembered others signed by a lady pur¬ 
 porting to be the secretary of Miss Willard. There had been corre¬ 
 spondence between himself and Miss Pollard 
 
 REGARDING THE TRIP. 
 
 “We want the witness to produce these letters,” said Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “ We have given notice to have them produced.” 
 
 “I received them and destroyed them,” replied Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge. “She met meat the Hoffman House,” he continued, ‘‘and 
 told me she had an opportunity to go abroad and study with young 
 ladies of good family, and could go if I would represent that she was 
 engaged to be married to me in two years. This was the first time 
 the subject of marriage had been broached. I said I had not enough 
 money, but would not let that stand in the way; that under no cir- . 
 cumstances would I consent to any representations of - a marriage en¬ 
 gagement. She said that she could go abroad, study the modern 
 languages and come back in two years fitted to be my wife. I said 
 that could never be, that I was not open to negotiations of that sort.” 
 
 Witness and Miss Pollard had looked over his offers to deliver 
 lectures. She had figured that the cost would be $100 a month, but 
 he had expressed his willingness to give her $125 and her traveling 
 expenses. The witness added: 
 
 “ Her final answer at our next meeting at the same house was that 
 she would never go except as my affianced; she would go back to 
 Washington and be there when I arrived. We parted with consider¬ 
 able ascerbity eventually. At our next meeting she said she did not 
 want to part in that way, that I must not think her a devil or a fiend. 
 
 1 put her into a cab, saying: ‘You know there can be no such thing 
 as marriage between us, and this affair, if you persist, can only end 
 in public scandal that will destroy us both.’ ” 
 
 “ When did you first hear that the plaintiff claimed you had engaged 
 yourself to marry her ? ” 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial, 
 
 197 
 
 “In a communication to that effect in the Washington Post, which 
 I understood was inspired by her, and thereafter I received several 
 letters from her to the same effect.” 
 
 “ Now,” interposed Mr. Wilson, rising, “We want those letters.” 
 
 “I have destroyed them,” retorted the defendant. “I have pro¬ 
 cured all the letters I have from her to my knowledge. These were 
 replies to those that she may have.” 
 
 The testimony then drifted into the circumstances and conversa¬ 
 tions concerning the efforts of the defendant to induce the plaintiff to 
 leave the city to prevent the scandal, which would certainly come 
 sooner or later, if Miss Pollard remained in the city. Then he related 
 a conversation when Miss Pollard had 
 
 COME TO HIM IN DISTRESS, 
 
 Because Mrs. Fillette and another lady had been talking about her, 
 the witness saying: “I told her that this was what I had always ex- 
 pected; that such affairs always must come to an end, and urged her 
 to go away, as she had promised so many times, and to let the scan¬ 
 dal blow over. My name was not coupled with that, but I said 
 it would be if the thing went on. 
 
 “Mrs. Fillette had not mentioned my name; it was other parties. 
 She said that she could not have such scandal against her name; that 
 she had a revolver with which she had intended to shoot herself if 
 such stories ever came out. I made light of that. She told me 
 afterward that she had gone to Mrs. Blackburn, that Mrs. Blackburn 
 had talked with Mrs. Fillette and found that the charges did not 
 affect the chastity of the plaintiff, that she was charged with being an 
 adventuress; that it was said she lived by her wits, had no known 
 means of support and did not pay her debts. She insisted that I 
 must go to Mrs. Blackburn and tell Mrs. Blackburn that the relations 
 between us were such that Mrs. Blackburn must stand by her.” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge said that he had refused at this time to do so. 
 He denied also that he had ever sent a message to Mrs. Blackburn 
 by the plaintiff, and asserted that on this occasion he had positively 
 refused to have anything to say to Mrs. Blackburn in the matter. 
 
 On several occasions, the witness said, the plaintiff had declared 
 her intention to commit suicide, saying that she had destroyed all her 
 
198 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 manuscripts (including the manuscript of a novel she was writing), 
 and that she had given away her clothes. She had once said to the 
 witness that if he did not help her out in the matter she did not intend 
 to let him live; that she did not intend to bear the disgrace alone. 
 He had told her there would be no difficulty about it if she would 
 leave Washington as she had so often promised, and that he would 
 pay her expenses wherever she went. In one of these conversation?, 
 when she had apparently consented, she got up and went into the 
 library and came back shortly and pointed a pistol at him, threaten¬ 
 ing to kill him. By strategy he had been enabled to take it away 
 from her before she could do any harm. She kept the pistol, and it 
 was the same weapon she had taken from his traveling bag, with 
 which she attempted his life in New York City. That scene, he 
 said, was followed by an almost immediate revulsion on the part of 
 the plaintiff. She broke into a flood of hysterical tears and declared 
 that she had not really meant to kill him. He had taken the revol¬ 
 ver away from Miss Pollard and that night she had come to his 
 house with a young man and left a note expressing her regret at what 
 had occurred. 
 
 When he next saw her, two or three days afterward, she had pro¬ 
 posed again to leave the city, and he again offered to pay her ex¬ 
 penses. Referring to his interview with Mrs. Blackburn, regarding 
 the scandal against Miss Pollard, he said it differed from Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn’s. He thought she had opened the interview by saying he did 
 not know what Miss Pollard had wanted him to call for Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn to 
 
 URGE HER TO GO AWAY, 
 
 Which that lady had promised to do, and he had spoken kindly of 
 the young woman. He supposed when he left Washington March 13, 
 1893, that their relations had ended; that Miss Pollard was going 
 away to study and lead an honorable life while he provided for her. 
 Later in March he had met her in Cincinnati in response to a tele¬ 
 gram from her. She then had told him that she had been obliged, 
 under Mrs. Blackburn’s cross-examination, to represent that she was 
 engaged to him. He told her he would go right back to Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn and say that it was not true, but under her importunities prom¬ 
 ised to keep his mouth shut if she would leave the city. Returning 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 199 
 
 to Washington on March 31, he had received a call from Miss Pol¬ 
 lard before breakfast. 
 
 He said: “ I agreed then that if she would go away I would put 
 myself in the power of the plaintiff and Mrs. Blackburn and pretend 
 there was an engagement. I said: ‘ You have put me where there is 
 no alternative but to put myself in your power and trust you or to 
 submit to a scene in the hotel office or street, perhaps have an at¬ 
 tempt made on my life on the street.’ ” 
 
 “May I interprose at this point?” suggested Mr. Wilson, and he 
 went on to say that there had been no plea of coercion put in by the 
 defense. The reply by Mr. Butterworth was that there had been no 
 agreement, but only the' semblance of one, to preserve what was of 
 more value than life under a compulsion as effectual as a loaded pis¬ 
 tol. He did not care what the duress or coercion was called. The 
 legal sparring became very warm, Mr. Wilson declaring they might 
 show if they could that an agreement was made under duress. 
 
 “I said that there must be no misunderstanding between us,” con¬ 
 tinued the Colonel, when the lawyers had subsided; “reminded her 
 that from the first I had said there could be no marriage, but any¬ 
 thing short of that which I could do to save those who loved me I 
 would do; that she could not trust me, because, knowing the rela¬ 
 tions I had had with her while I had had such a happy family, she 
 would always suspect me of having similar relations with other 
 women. I reminded her that she had not come to me a maiden; 
 that I had ndt seduced her.” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge gave his version of the visit to Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn, which occurred on Good Friday, according to Mrs. Blackburn, 
 and several days later, according to the witness. With the plaintiff 
 he had gone to Mrs. Blackburn’s hotel (the Portland), but Mrs. 
 Blackburn refused to see them. Leaving him in the parlor, Miss 
 Pollard had gone up to Mrs. Blackburn’s apartments, and in a short 
 time he received a message from the elevator boy saying that Mrs. 
 Blackburn had consented to see him. 
 
 He found Miss Pollard waiting on the landing outside Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn’s room, and she said that Mrs. BHckbnrn wanted witness to con¬ 
 firm what she (Miss Pollard) had just told her. Witness said to Mrs. 
 Blackburn that she had been extremely kind, and that so long as 
 
200 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 the plaintiff had her as a friend she needed nothing else, but in her 
 distress he had offered the protection of his name, and that with Mrs. 
 Blackburn’s friendship and the protection of his name, the plaintiff 
 could well afford to despise what Mrs. Fillette might do, and that he 
 was grateful to Mrt. Blackburn for what she had done. 
 
 Mrs. Blackburn said that what she had done had been done out of 
 a spirit of friendship for an 
 
 UNPROTECTED KENTUCKY GIRL. 
 
 Mrs. Blackburn said that this had been a great surprise to her, and 
 she could scarcely credit it, and did not know whether she should 
 congratulate him or not. 
 
 To this he had responded nothing, simply acknowledging it with a 
 bow, and in a few minutes he arose, and he and the plaintiff had left 
 the house together and walked with her to her house without a word. 
 
 “ I put the key into the door and said: ‘ You must leave Washing¬ 
 ton before I do or I will notify Mrs. Blackburn of the relations be¬ 
 tween us.’ She said: ‘I can’t go as soon as that.’ (I was going to 
 Boston the next day to speak at a banquet.) She said: * I will keep 
 my promise and go as soon as I can.’ On account of a misunder¬ 
 standing regarding the banquet I did not go. There was no misun¬ 
 derstanding between us the next ten days; we both knew the char¬ 
 acter of the representations to Mrs. Blackburn, and left Washington 
 the 12th of April with the same confidence in her I had held when I 
 left on the 18th of March. I had at least two more interviews with 
 Mrs. Blackburn before I left for Kentucky. Several ladies were 
 stopping with her, and she asked me to arrange for Mrs. Cleveland to 
 receive them. I did call with them upon Mrs. Cleveland. In an in¬ 
 terview I urged Mrs. Blackburn to unite with me in urging the plain¬ 
 tiff to leave town. She promised to and agreed with me, and said 
 that unless one or the other of us went there would be a scandal and 
 her friendship must cease. Afterward she told me she had spoken to 
 the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff said so also. Mrs. Blackburn said 
 the plaintiff had spoken of going abroad, said she was going herself, 
 and the conversation drifted toward the plaintiff going with Mrs. 
 Blackburn. 
 
 “ I told her the plaintiff’s temper was such that she ought not travel 
 with people whom she could not be controlled by; that she ought to 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 201 
 
 go away and study. Mrs. Blackburn said one or the other should 
 leave or there would be a scandal. I said I knew that the plaintiff 
 would come to my rooms when I was away; that it was perfectly 
 proper; .that there was nothing wrong about it, but there were Ken¬ 
 tuckians around and they would talk about it.” 
 
 After speaking of visiting Philadelphia as.the guest of George W, 
 Childs, the secret marriage to Mrs. Wing in New York was skipped, 
 and Colonel Breckinridge went on to tell of his meeting with Miss 
 Pollard at the Hoffman house, May ist. He was surprised on enter¬ 
 ing his room to find the door to the adjoining room open, and, walk¬ 
 ing in, found Miss Pollard there, and but partly dressed. He said: 
 
 “She demanded to know where I had been the past two clays; 
 said she had been looking all over New York for me. I responded 
 probably with a little more rudeness than I should, ‘ that it was nothing 
 to her.’ 
 
 “Then I went back to my room through the short entry between 
 the two. I heard a noise, and, when I turned around, she stood in 
 the door with a pistol pointed at me. I shut the door quickly, turned 
 down the catch, and touched the electric button. 
 
 “ I said I had sent for the police and was going to have her put in 
 the Tombs. She said she was going to shoot through the door. I 
 said: ‘ Shoot away, and you will only give me more justification for 
 having you put in the Tombs.’ She was rattling the door and beg¬ 
 ging me not to have her put in the Tombs, I said: ‘ You put the 
 pistol down, go in and fasten your door and I will see what I ought 
 to do.’ 
 
 “When the bell boy knocked, I opened the door. Whether he saw 
 that I was excited I don’t know, but I said to him to bring a pitcher 
 of icewater. I don’t know whether I was as cool as I might have 
 been.” This was said so curiously that everybody laughed. 
 
 In answer to a question as to the circumstances attending his last 
 marriage, Colonel Breckinridge said he had been married at No. 7x1 
 West Forty-fifth street, about 7 o’clock in the evening of Saturday, 
 April 29, by Rev. John R. Paxton,, and the marriage was witnessed by 
 Mrs. Paxton and Mrs. Collier of Pittsburg. Pie had married, he said, 
 his kins woman, the daughter of R. W. Scott, of Kentucky, widow of 
 Chauncey Wing, of Kentucky, who died abroad some time ago. 
 
202 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridgk. 
 
 The Colonel then took up the Blackburn thread of the story. He 
 went into a long story about some difficulty Mrs. Blackburn had with 
 a tailor over some dresses, in which the tailor had been arrested and 
 had threatened to sue her 
 
 FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT. 
 
 He had said the tailor was bluffing and they had better call his bluff. 
 Then Mrs. Blackburn had said that there was another matter of greater 
 importance; that he had told her that he was engaged to Miss Pollard, 
 and asked her to keep the secret, and that witness and plaintiff had 
 been together in a hotel in New York. He had replied that he could 
 not give her a full explanation then, but would later on in Washington. 
 Mrs. Blackburn had said that unless he could reply satisfactorily their 
 friendship must end. He had said that he supposed he must submit 
 to her decision, whatever it was. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge then related the circumstances attending the 
 visit to Major Moore, the Chief of Police, giving the following nar¬ 
 rative : 
 
 “ I and my wife (formerly Mrs. Wing) were in the dining room of 
 the house when the plaintiff walked in and said: 
 
 “ ‘Excuse me, Mrs. Wing, I want to see Mr. Breckinridge alone 
 on a matter of great importance.’ I turned to my wife and said that 
 I thought I had better go with her. 
 
 “ As I walked out by Lafayette Park she said : ‘ I intend to end this 
 matter; I intend to kill you.’ I said, ‘All right,’ and she went on: 
 ‘Mr. Brekinridge, this is your last chance.’ /The statement that 1 
 said anything derogatory to my wife is an absolute fabrication, with¬ 
 out a shadow of truth on which to hang it. Not a word was said 
 about my wife. 
 
 “She said she intended to end this thing by killing me, and, as we 
 w r alked along she said it would be a good thing to end it by that kind 
 of a scandal, and she was going to kill herself, too. She did most of 
 the talking. There had been no effort on my part to calm her fear: 
 no protestation of love; nothing about her being a nervous, excitable 
 child. 
 
 “When we got to Major Moore’s office I asked if he w f as in, and 
 being told he was, I went in and the plaintiff followed me. I said to 
 
Sixteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 203 
 
 Major Moore: ‘ I need the protection of the law. This lady threatens 
 to kill me. I will tell you how I came to be in this position, and I 
 want you to put her or me under arrest.’ 
 
 “ He said he hoped it was not as bad as that. He went over to her, 
 and she held up her hands and said: 
 
 “ ‘ I have no weapons but these : ’ and then I said to Major Moore 
 that I wanted to relate all the circumstances, so that he might decide 
 whether to arrest her or me. Then she broke out into a flood of 
 hysterical tears and said : ‘ Oh, don’t tell him : is it necessary ? ” 
 
 “l said I intended to tell him everything, when she put her hand 
 on my shoulder and begged me not to tell him. I took her hand off 
 and turned to her and said: ‘ Will you do exactly what I demand if I 
 do not tell him?’ She said she would, and I turned to Major Moore 
 and said, ‘I think we can settle this ourselves.’ ” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge said of his side refnark in the scene before 
 Major Moore that he thought he had said it loud enough for Major 
 Moore to hear: that he certainly intended him to hear it, but it ap¬ 
 peared, from the Major’s testimony, that he had not heard what he 
 (Breckinridge) had said. After leaving the office with Miss Pollard, 
 he then told her that there could be no more terms between them: 
 that she would have to look for some one else for support, and that 
 he did not intend to give her another dollar. 
 
 They had talked together of the child that was to be born. She 
 said she wanted to get rid of the child, but I said ‘ No, if it is my 
 child I have the greatest interest in it, and when it is born I can tell 
 whether it is mine or whether it is not.’ ” 
 
 Then the witness told of Miss Pollard’s last attempt to shoot him. 
 He had been to see her at the house of Mrs. Thomas, in Lafayette 
 Square, a few days after the scene in the office of the Chief of Police. 
 He had suspected her intentions, and as he stepped into the room he 
 threw both arms around her, clasping her tightly around the shoulders, 
 slipped his arms down until he could grasp her hands, and caught the 
 weapon. 
 
 This episode the Colonel narrated graphically, stopping to remark 
 jocosely, “ and I have the pistol in my possession now; one of the 
 mementoes of my engagement to marry the plaintiff.” 
 
 When he loosened his arms, he continued, she had fainted, or pre- 
 
204 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 tended to faint, so he laid her on a divan, put the pistol in his pocket, 
 closed the door and walked out. 
 
 This seemed a good climax to end the chapter, and so Court ad¬ 
 journed until Monday. 
 
 SEVENTEENTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 A living hell, such Breckinridge declares to have been the life led with 
 Miss Pollard—For his transgressions then he has since faced the awful 
 penalty—The Colonel repeats his oft-told talc of how he was led astray by 
 a school-girl — Words could not be phrased to condemn the sin he had com¬ 
 mitted—No man could have had less excuse than he—For ten years he 
 suffered tortuous agony—Judge Wilson opens cross-examination for 
 plaintiff—Breckinridge a Mason—Paid by mental torture — Colonel 
 Breckinridge declares the hell he has suffered was fully deserved—Says 
 there is but one punishment he has not deserved and that is to marry 
 the woman who was concerned with me in the act. 
 
 The carriage ride of August, 1892, when Miss Pollard had said Col. 
 Breckinridge had made the first formal proposal of marriage to her, 
 was the first subject to which Col. Breckinridge addressed himself 
 when he took the stand in the Circuit Court to-day. He denied, with 
 his customary reiteration, that any such ride had taken place, or that 
 he had made any proposal, or that he had talked over family matters. 
 Then, continuing, he said : 
 
 “I never asked the plaintiff to give up any child. I never knew 
 plaintiff had any living child. I never at any time spoke of marriage 
 to the plaintiff before the death of my late wife.” 
 
 Mr. Buttsrworth asked the witness what interviews he had with 
 Miss Pollard prior to the interview of the 17th with Maj. Moore. 
 
 The witness then stated in detail the interviews that occurred, and 
 the substance of the conversations, as he remembered them. These 
 included the interview with Mrs. Thomas the afternoon of the 13th of 
 May, when he left Miss Pollard in a real or simulated fainting con¬ 
 dition. 
 
Seventeenth Day of Trial. 
 
 205 
 
 THE SECRET MARRIAGE. 
 
 “Did you,” asked Mr. Butterworth, “have criminal relations with 
 the plaintiff after the 29th of April, 1893 ?” 
 
 This is the day on which the defendant was secretly married to 
 Mrs. Wing. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge. I did not. After the 29th of April, 1893, I did 
 not have any criminal relations with the plaintiff whatever. It is ab¬ 
 solutely false. I never had criminal relations with the plaintiff after I 
 returned to Washington—after the 21st of March, at any time or 
 place. I returned on the 31st of March and had the conversation 
 with Mrs. Blackburn. Plaintiff and I had no criminal relations on that 
 day, nor ever after that day. The arrangement made prior to my going 
 to Mrs. Blackburn’s, as a condition to my going to Mrs. Blackburn’s, 
 as the only reason I would go to Mrs. Blackburn’s was that our rela¬ 
 tions should terminate, that she should leave the City of Washington, 
 and that the relations between herself and Mrs. Blackburn should be 
 allowed to die out gradually, and I should support her until she could 
 find some honorable vocation.” 
 
 Speaking of the plaintiff’s employment in the Census Office, Col. 
 Breckinridge said she had lost it during his absence. When she 
 thought she was badly treated. Miss Pollord made a remark express¬ 
 ing gratification at the death of Gen. Sherman, as was published at 
 the time, although Mr. Breckinridge did not mention it. He had 
 done everything in his power to assist her in obtaining reading matter, 
 but had never advised her about her studies except to make her take 
 up rudimentary studies, in which she was peculiarly deficient for a 
 woman of her reading. He had assisted her in getting books from 
 the Congressional Library, sending a list by the page, and never fur¬ 
 nished her with a translation of the Odyssey. 
 
 THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
 
 It was 11:50 o’clock when Mr. Butterworth announced that the di¬ 
 rect examination had finished, although there~might be a few more 
 questions, and asked for recess to enable him to look over his notes, 
 so the recess was announced earlier than usual until 12:45. 
 
 “Take the witness,” said Mr. Butterworth at the beginning of 
 the afternoon, and Mr. Wilson, reminding Col. Breckinridge of his 
 
206 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 early educational advantages, asked him what preparatory schools he 
 had attended, and then asked: “You had unusual educational ad¬ 
 vantages ? ” 
 
 “ Very unusual,” was the reply. 
 
 “And unusual social advantages?” 
 
 “Yes, sir.” 
 
 “You began the practice of law when ?” 
 
 “In 1857.” 
 
 “Your practice was interrupted by the war?” 
 
 “Yes, sir, and I returned in 1865.” 
 
 “ Was your professional career interrupted by difficulties with your 
 clients ?” 
 
 “It was not.” 
 
 “ Were your friends not obliged to raise money to help you out of 
 trouble ? ” 
 
 “ I befcame greacly involved in trying to save some friends from 
 bankruptcy, but did not have trouble with clients.” 
 
 “Your friends were not obliged to return money you had misap¬ 
 propriated ? ” 
 
 “ They were not.” 
 
 In relating his connection with educational institutions, Col. Brckin- 
 ridge said that he had been a lecturer for several years; had been 
 nominally a trustee of Sayre Institute, the female seminary attended 
 by the plaintiff. 
 
 “ Have you lectured before young ladies’ seminaries?” asked Mr. 
 Wilson. 
 
 “ Oh, I have addressed schools, lectured and delivered diplomas at 
 times.” 
 
 “You were given a public reception at the Norwood institution in 
 this city ? ” 
 
 “ Oh, yes.” 
 
 SARAH GESS AN OLD ACQUAINTANCE. 
 
 Thereupon Mr. Wilson handed up to the Colonel, and requested 
 him to read, an invitation which he had sent to Miss Pollard in Feb¬ 
 ruary, 1893, requesting the pleasure of her company at a reception 
 to the Hon. W. C. P. Breckinridge at the Norwood Institute, which 
 he read. By questions concerning the Colonel’s residence in Lex- 
 
Seventeenth Day of Trial. 
 
 207 
 
 ington, in 1884, Mr. Wilson elicited the information that his home 
 was on the same street with the house of Sarah Gess, four blocks 
 away. 
 
 Then he asked: “How long had you known Sarah Gess?” to 
 which Colonel Breckinridge answered: 
 
 “Oh, I can’t tell; perhaps twenty years.” 
 
 “Did you know the character of her house?” 
 
 “I did.” 
 
 “Had you ever been there before you went with the plaintiff?” 
 
 “I was.” 
 
 “Then I understand that before you met the plaintiff you had for 
 years known Sarah Gess, known the character of the house, known 
 the location of the house, and had been there before you went there 
 with the plaintiff?” 
 
 “Each of these statements are true.” 
 
 Mr. Wilson requested a specific account of all Miss Pollard had said 
 during the first visit of Colonel Breckinridge to the Wesleyan Semi¬ 
 nary, and that interview was again dissected, the Colonel denying that 
 Miss Pollard had said it was part of her agreement with Rodes to 
 repay the money he had advanced for her schooling if she did not 
 marry him, but explained that she had asked if it would not be all 
 right if she repaid the money. 
 
 Iir his most pathetic tones the Colonel repeated all the details of 
 the interview; how she had insisted on telling him all, and he had 
 remonstrated that there were things she probably did not want to say 
 to a stranger, advising her to go to her grandfather, mother or 
 uncles. 
 
 “There is an impression on my memory, although I can not re¬ 
 member her language after ten years, that she said she had given 
 him even a higher proof of her intention to marry him. Then I 
 told her that she could not afford not to marry him.” 
 
 TWO CODES OF MORALS. 
 
 
 “And that same rule would apply to a man under the same cir¬ 
 cumstances ? ” 
 
 “ Well, that is a question of casuistry or sociology I would not care 
 to answer. If you ask me whether I would advise a young woman 
 
2o8 
 
 Bollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 who had criminal intercourse with a man to marry him, I would say 
 yes, but with a man it would be different, for the knowledge of it by 
 the public would destroy the woman and would only injure the man.” 
 
 “ Would it not hurt the man ? ” 
 
 “ Oh, it would not injure him so much as the woman. Society looks 
 upon these things differently. If a young man should come up to me 
 under certain circumstances, I would advise him to marry a woman ’ 
 under other circumstances I would say to him better death or hell. I 
 am not talking of the justice of—” 
 
 “Oh, no,” interrupted Mr. Wilson with a contemptuous air, “I 
 was not asking you about justice.” 
 
 THE CARRIAGE RIDE. 
 
 After Colonel Breckenridge had admitted that he was in good health 
 on the night of his first ride with Miss Pollard, and had no throat trouble 
 nor chills, as Mr. Wilson asked, he was asked whether it was not a 
 rather unusual proceeding to select a closed carriage for a drive of a 
 hot summer evening, to which the Colonel replied: “Oh, no; I don’t 
 think it was,” and the audience laughed. 
 
 Of the conversation of the ride he could only remember that Miss 
 Pollard did most of the talking. 
 
 “You were inclined to talk?” Mr. Wilson continued. 
 
 “Oh, that depends upon the company I am in,” replied the 
 Colonel. 
 
 Continuing, he described how Miss Pollard had talked of her aspira¬ 
 tions to be an authoress, and how he had encouraged her, telling her 
 that other women had been authoresses, but that was a matter of work, 
 like any other vocation. 
 
 “ When you put your arm around her, had there been anything of 
 a suggestive nature ? ” 
 
 “Well, I can not answer that definitely. There was no particular 
 word or act that I could lay my hand on. There was just something 
 internally that moved me to. If she had reproved me I could not have 
 said you have encouraged me, and yet I would have been surprised 
 if she had resented it.” 
 
 “Well, then, you drew her to you; and how long were you in that 
 position ? ” 
 
Seventeenth Day of Trial. 
 
 209 
 
 “Oh, I can not say.” 
 
 “ And what was talked about?” 
 
 “ Nothing was said.” [Laughter and rebuke from the Judge.] 
 
 “I want to know how long you held her in your arms?” 
 
 “The transaction could not be stated as to time.” 
 
 “Did you give her any friendly advice on that occasion?” 
 
 “I did not.” 
 
 “You were a man of 47, and she a girl of 17 to 21 ?” 
 
 “ That was all true, and much more. No man in America had less 
 excuse for such an action than I, with the domestic surroundings I 
 then had. I have attempted to make no excuse for it; it just 
 happened so.” 
 
 “ And the fact that she was a young girl in school makes it all the 
 worse ? ” 
 
 “ You can not frame words too strong to characterize it. I have 
 not attempted to justify it, or even defend it, and all the hell I have 
 suffered since then I have deserved.” 
 
 “Then I understand you to say that the enormity of the act can 
 not be overestimated ? ” 
 
 “There is but one punishment which I have not deserved, and 
 that is to marry the woman who was concerned with me in the act.” 
 
 THE CINCINNATI MEETING. 
 
 After going over again the visit to to the house of Sarah Gess on 
 Sunday night, when he was uncertain whether he would find the 
 plaintiff there, his payment of money to her at the close of the even¬ 
 ing before his departure, the conversation with Rodes on election 
 day, Monday, was touched upon, and he declared that he had not 
 considered that he was acting in the capacity of attorney in that 
 talk. 
 
 Afterward the lawyer asked if Breckinridge had taken Miss Pollard 
 to the house of Mrs. Rose in Cincinnati when they went there. He 
 replied: 
 
 “I want to be candid, and I will say frankly that I did not take 
 her in the sense of going on the same train, but we had made the 
 arrangements to go in Lexington.” 
 
 This was in October. The Colonel had known Mrs. Rose in 
 Louisville, when she kept a cigar store, but not “in an improper 
 
 14 
 
210 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 way,” and under circumstances involving another person, in his 
 capacity as attorney. 
 
 “ I had met her on the street; we had shaken hands, and she knew 
 that I knew certain things about her which I had obtained profession¬ 
 ally, and she gave me her card.” 
 
 “When was that?” Mr. Wilson inquired. 
 
 “ About eighteen months before.” 
 
 “And you kept her card all that time?” 
 
 “No, I knew her name and looked it up in the directory.” 
 
 “ How long were you there on that day?” 
 
 “ Perhaps half an hour, may be an hour.” 
 
 “Was that the only time you were there?” 
 
 “ Guess not.” 
 
 “ How many times ?” 
 
 “Perhaps four or six times during the two years.” 
 
 Later, in speaking of the visits to Sarah Gess’s, he said: “Every 
 arrangement, as I remember it, for us to meet was accidentally made. 
 When we went to Sarah Gess’s there was never any agreement to 
 meet there at any future time, but we would meet on the street, and 
 from these accidental meetings would come arrangements to visit 
 Sarah Gess’s.” 
 
 “From whom would the solicitations to meet there come?” Mr. 
 Wilson asked. “ From you or the plaintiff?” 
 
 “There were no solicitations. We would meet, walk along the 
 street together and the matter would be arranged.” 
 
 THE COLONEL LOSES HIS TEMPER. 
 
 “Did you have a sister in Lexington by the name of Louise?” 
 asked Mr. Wilson, after Mr. Breckinridge had declared that he had 
 not corresponded with Miss Pollard in 1886. 
 
 “ I never had a sister by the name of Louise,” was the reply. 
 
 “Do you know a woman in Washington by the name of Louise 
 Lowell?” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge looked puzzled and declared that he knew no 
 such person. Then to Mr. Wilson’s inquiry whether he remembered 
 a typewriter whose machine was in the corridor of the Capitol, be¬ 
 tween the rooms cf the House Committee on Post Offices and the 
 Committee on Printing, he said that there had always been a type- 
 
Seventeenth Dav of Trial. 
 
 2IT 
 
 writer and stenographer there, but he could not remember her name. 
 If she was produced he might recognize her. 
 
 “You have said you wrote letters to her in 1886?” continued Mr. 
 Wilson. “Now, did you not take to that lady in February of 1886 
 a manuscript letter beginning ‘My Dear Sister Louise,’ and ask her to 
 render it into typewriting ? ” 
 
 “I decline to answer that unless you show me the paper you are 
 asking the question from. I have given you notice to produce all the 
 letters you have from me, and you have said you had none.” 
 
 The Colonel was for the first time getting somewhat excited. It 
 will be remembered that he had denied the statement of Miss Pollard 
 that he had addressed letters to her under the name of Louise Wilson. 
 
 His attorneys, Maj. Butterworth and Col. Phil Thompson), backed 
 him up in his refusal, but Judge Bradley decided that the question 
 was a fair one. 
 
 “Since I have no recollection of a woman named Louise Lowell, I 
 can not remember having sent any letter to her,” was the reply. 
 “ Of course, I have a very large correspondence. I have a sister-in- 
 law named Louise, the wife of Gen. Breckinridge, but since she is 
 called Lou in the family I don’t think I could have written in that 
 way.” 
 
 VISIBLY NETTLED. 
 
 “ Well, now, you need not make such statement, for I don’t care 
 about it either way,” interposed Colonel Breckinridge, visibly nettled. 
 
 “And to further refresh your memory,” continued Mr. Wilson, 
 “ did you not say how anxious you were to get back and meet your 
 dear sister once more?” 
 
 “I never, under any circumstances, wrote any such letter,” re¬ 
 plied the Colonel, and then he tapped the witness box sharply as he 
 asserted, ‘ ‘ if any such letter is in existence it is a forgery, and if notes 
 of any such, they are a perjury.” 
 
 “ I can only say if you bring the lady here I can tell you whether 
 she ever did any work for me. Several women or females have done 
 typewriting in Washington, but I do not remember this particular 
 one,” he said. 
 
 “ I will ask you whether you did not bring to her in the spring of 
 1886 a package of a dozen envelopes, somewhat yellowed by age and of 
 
212 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 different dates, and have her address them to Miss Madeline Pollard, 
 No. 76 Upper street, Lexington, Ky. ?” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge was very strenuous in his denial. “I never, 
 under any circumstances, had any such envelopes addressed, and I 
 do not care who the woman is who says so,” he asserted, positively. 
 
 The Court here nodded for an adjournment. 
 
 The trap that was set last night just before adjournment was sprung 
 to-day. It caught Mr. Breckinridge badly. Before he realized his 
 danger the defendant stood contradicted before the jury by two wit¬ 
 nesses. One, to be sure, was the plaintiff. But the other was a per¬ 
 son wholly disinterested. The point was not only a material one, but 
 the contradiction was important because it tended to throw discredit 
 on other portions of Mr. Breckinridge’s'story. Even after he had 
 been caught the defendant stuck to his contradiction, which was, per¬ 
 haps, the best thing he could do from the legal standpoint. Just be¬ 
 fore the plaintiff arrived this morning two other ladies entered the 
 court room and took seats at the long table occupied by the defense. 
 It was at once surmised that one of the ladies was Miss Louise Lowell, 
 the typewriter, to whom reference was made by Mr. Wilson in his 
 cross-examination yesterday afternoon. She had come, it was soon- 
 discovered, to confront the witness on the stand. 
 
 The testimony of Miss Lowell was in effect what Mr. Wilson had 
 indicated last night that it would be; that she had in February, 1886, 
 copied on a typewriter for Mr. Breckinridge letters addressed to “My 
 dear Sister Louise,” and had also about the same time addressed for 
 him several batches of envelopes to “Miss Pollard, No. 56 North 
 Upper street, Lexington, Ky.” 
 
 The defense fought hard against the introduction of this testimony 
 as being a part of the plaintiff’s case in chief, but Judge Bradley ad¬ 
 mitted it, although he refused to permit the plaintiff’s attorneys to al¬ 
 low Miss Lowell to be questioned as to the contents of the letter she 
 claimed to have written. 
 
 The appearance of Miss Lowell on the stand, with the atmosphere 
 of mystery that surrounded her testimony, formed one of the most 
 dramatic incidents of the trial. She produced a memorandum book, 
 on which she had, as she stated, at the time written the address given 
 to her by Mr. Breckinridge. 
 
Seventeenth Day of Trial. 
 
 213 
 
 Judge Bradley inquired whether the letter was in existence, and 
 Colonel Breckinridge denied it. 
 
 Mr. Shelby responded that even under these circumstances it could 
 not be produced, since it would be an attempt, under the guise of 
 rebuttal, to prove the case in chief. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE TYPEWRITER. 
 
 Half an hour had been consumed by this argument when Judge 
 Bradley decided the point, saying that there could be no doubt about 
 the admissibility of the letter itself if it was in existence as a basis of 
 icross-examination. Although a novel case confronted the Court, the 
 authorities seemed to be that where a paper had been destroyed or 
 lost, proof of its previous existence could be interjected. It seemed 
 to be proper, since the cross-examining counsel said the paper was 
 not in his possession, and the witness denied knowledge of it, to in¬ 
 terject proof of its existence as a basis of examination. 
 
 Thereupon Mrs. Louise Lowell took a seat in the witness box. She 
 said that she had known Col. Breckinridge since February, 1886, 
 having become acquainted with him at the House of Representatives, 
 where she had an office to carry on business as a stenographer and 
 typewriter in the corridor by the Committee on Post Offices. 
 
 “Did you work for Col. Breckinridge ?” Mr. Wilson asked. 
 
 “I did.” 
 
 “Did he bring manuscript of a letter to you?” 
 
 “He did, and I copied it in typewriter.” 
 
 “How was that letter addressed ?” 
 
 “I object,” interrupted two or three of the Breckinridge attorneys, 
 [who protested that there was no proof of the letter having been 
 jmailed, but Judge Bradley said to sustain the objection would be to 
 nullify the purpose of admitting the witness. 
 
 The manuscript and copy had been returned to the Colonel, Mrs. 
 Lowell continued. From 1886 to 1890 she had copied manuscript, 
 addressed envelopes, and done Col. Breckinridge’s private correspond¬ 
 ence and congressional work, always returning the manuscript. 
 “Now, what was on those envelopes?” continued Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “ Miss Pollard, 76 Upper street, Lexington, Ky.” 
 
 “ And how do you remember that?” 
 
214 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “I kept a memorandum book in which I noted the address.” 
 
 “Have you the book?” 
 
 “ I have,” she said, and the book was passed around for inspec 
 tion of the lawyers. 
 
 “ Feeling sure that sooner or later I would hear more of Mis; 
 Pollard, and not wishing to trust my memory, I made that memoran 
 dum,” she explained, and, continuing, said: 
 
 “ He (Breckinride) brought me two or three envelopes separately 
 then a package of a dozen small ones yellow with age, and not sucl 
 envelopes as a business man would use.” 
 
 The question of the substance of those letters was objected to, ant i 
 the objection sustained for the present. The first communication , 
 said the witness, was addressed to “ My Dear Sister Louise,” ant 
 when Mr. Wilson urged that testimony of its contents should be ad * 
 mitted, Mr. Butterworth retorted that there was no proof that it hac| 
 ever been mailed or received, reminding Mr. Wilson that was thil 
 ground taken by him regarding the alleged forged letters of Miss Pol 
 lard’s. 
 
 “ I now give you notice if you have that letter to produce it,” saic j 
 Mr. Wilson to the defense. 
 
 “How can I produce the letter if I sent it to the plaintiff?” Col 
 Breckinridge said in reply, whereupon Mr. Wilson remarked, in hi: 
 inimitable way: 
 
 “You and I will have a little conversation after awhile.” 
 
 The witness, continuing, recollected that she had copied the let 
 ters for Col. Breckinridge nearly every week, but said she coulc 
 only prove having done fifteen or sixteen. 
 
 The Judge having ruled out examination concerning the content: 
 of the letter, Mr. Butterworth made a brief cross-examination, ask 
 ing Mrs. Lowell where she had worked, and for how long. Shehac 
 kept a record of the works he did for Congressmen, with the amount i 
 received, in an account book. She had an independent recollectioi 
 of the address of Miss Pollard, since the latter had made a very dee] 
 impression on her mind. 
 
 “Are you acquainted with Miss Pollard?” was asked. 
 
 “ I never saw Miss Pollard until this morning.” 
 
 In her book she had merely entered the amounts of work done 
 
Seventeenth Day of Trial. 
 
 215 
 
 len the name of the party, then the amounts charged, so that no 
 ,'ongressman need waste worry for fear that the ledger will rise up to 
 et them into trouble. 
 
 Mrs. Lowell said she had not volunteered her evidence; did not 
 now how the lawyers learned the facts. 
 
 Col. Breckinridge was recalled and gave emphatic denial to the 
 revious witness’ statement that he had carried to her the manuscript 
 ddressed to “ My Dear Sister Louise.” Mrs. Lowell had done type- 
 'riting for him. He would not swear he had not given her manu- 
 :ript letters to copy. Col. Breckinridge made other emphatic denials 
 overing many of the statements of Mrs. Lowell. 
 
 MISS POLLARD AGAIN ON THE STAND. 
 
 After recess Miss Pollard was placed on the stand to prove that the 
 :tters in question had been received by her and destroyed. The de- 
 ;nse objected to this line of testimony at this stage, but it was 
 dmitted by the Court, exception being noted. 
 
 Miss Pollard described these letters as beginning: “ My dear sister 
 Louise,” and “ My little Spitfire,” and addressed by a typewriter and 
 ill signed in lead pencil. 
 
 Then Col. Breckinridge was back on the stand making flat denials 
 Concerning these letters. Having finished this branch of the subject, 
 re defendant told of the events of the fall of 1887, when he and the 
 laintiff met in Washington near the Catholic Institution, “as a 
 mman in her condition and a man supposing himself to be the author 
 f her condition would meet.” 
 
 Referring to five notes of $100 drawn by the plaintiff and indorsed 
 •y the defendant late in 1892, to pay Miss Pollard’s expenses at the 
 chool of the Holy Cross, Col. Breckinridge stated that he did not 
 now what had become of the notes: did not know whether they had 
 [■een protested; was sure that he had never received notice that two 
 f them went to protest. 
 
 ! “Now, to refresh your memory,” began Mr. Wilson, this testimony 
 javing been elicited by a succession of questions, “do you not know 
 aat notice of the protest was sent to you both in Lexington and Washi¬ 
 ng ton?” 
 
 j! He did not, and the attorney asked: 
 
2i6 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “ Do you know the particular object for which those last notes were 
 drawn ? ” 
 
 “I do, very well.” 
 
 “ Was it not to enable her to purchase her wedding trousseau?” 
 
 “ Nothing like that. There is not a scintilla of truth in it,” was the 
 Colonel’s impressive answer, and he wanted to tell about the deal, but 
 Mr. Wilson choked him off with a reminder that his council would 
 examine him later. 
 
 issa’s basket. 
 
 During March and April, 1893, Representative Breckinridge said, 
 when his attention was called to another phase of the case, he had 
 seen Miss Pollard two or three times a day and one day seven times. 
 He remembered a time when he took lunch with her and they had 
 had strawberries, but was certain that this was before the 12th of ! 
 April and not the 10th of May, after the secret marriage, as Mr. 
 Wilson would have it. 
 
 He had frequently met the plaintiff in the house of Mrs. Thomas 
 on H street, tut had never seen her sewing in his life. 
 
 ‘ ‘ Did you not meet her once there when she was using this basket 
 that had belonged to your wife ? ” Mr. Wilson inquired. 
 
 “Never; never under heaven,” answered the Colonel, striking the 
 witness-box. 
 
 “ Did not a servant come in while you were with her and she was 
 using that basket ? ” 
 
 “ No servant ever did, for I never knew for a moment until it was 
 brought in here that she had that basket.” 
 
 He had met Miss Pollard in New York in September, 1892, but 
 not “improperly,” and met her “improperly” there in February, 
 1893. 
 
 “Where did you go then?” Mr. Wilson inquired. 
 
 “ I can’t tell the place. I simply hired a coupe; she got in and I 
 told the driver to take us to some safe place. He took us close to the ij 
 elevated road, up toward Fifty-second or Fifty-third street. It was a n 
 large building that looked like a hotel.” 
 
 Here Mr. Wilson suggested that as it was near the hour for adjourn <\ 
 ment and he desired to take up an entirely different line of examina- 
 
Eighteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 217 
 
 ion, it was hardly worth while to proceed further, and the court 
 idjourned. 
 
 EIGHTEENTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 ‘Dear sister Louise ” and ‘ ‘Dear Spitfire ”— The terms used according to 
 Miss Lowells testimony — Willie denies the soft impeachment of asperity 
 —His word against that of two women—A type writer's memorandum — 
 Feeling sure something would drop, woman-like she made a memoran¬ 
 dum of it—She tells Congressman their little affairs are strickly sub-rosa 
 —fere Wilson leads the defendant a merry dance. 
 
 The contest of legal wits in the Pollard-Breckinridge suit, on the 
 xoss-examination of the defendant, was superseded for a considerable 
 >art of the session yesterday with a controversy over newly-discovered 
 evidence. Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson was true to his promise of the 
 previous day, and the mysterious letter addressed to “My dear sister 
 jOuise ” figured prominently in the proceedings. Col. Breckinridge 
 vas relieved frequently by the wrangles of the opposing counsel, and 
 vas probably surprised at being called to alternate in his testimony 
 vith the plaintiff and an unexpected witness. 
 
 The courtroom atmosphere seemed to be full of fight from the be- 
 ;inning of the day, Mr. Wilson had a twinkle of triumph in his eye 
 vhich lighted up his thin and scholarly countenance and was in itself 
 ufficient assurance that some one must face lively music. There were 
 wo additional women seated at his table, and one of these, a mild 
 ittle woman with black eyes, gray hair, and prominent features, was 
 muise Lowell, whose name in connection with the writing of certain 
 etters stirred up so much legal strife the day before. 
 
 The outcome of the arguments, which were taken up with a great 
 leal of fervor by Maj. Butterworth and M. Wilson, with Mr. Carlisle, 
 dr. Shelby, and Mr. Phil Thompson actively participating, was the 
 ntroduction of Mrs. Lowell. It was the purpose of the plaintiff’s 
 counsel to call her because the rules of cross-examination did not al¬ 
 ow Col. Breckinridge to be fully interrogated about the letter. It 
 lad not been introduced in the examination-in-chief. It was contended 
 
2l8 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 that there existed a right to do so either by reopening the case or by al¬ 
 lowing examination for the purposes of cross-examination. Mr. 
 Shelby made an argument, quoting authorities, against the proposi¬ 
 tions, but Judge Bradley consulted some legal books, which he ordered 
 brought, and read therefrom to show that examination for the purposes 
 of cross-examination was permissible. 
 
 Mrs. Lowell then testified that she had written the letter, beginning 
 with the heading referred to, but she was not allowed to state any¬ 
 thing of its contents. She was followed by Col. Breckinridge, who 
 denied in toto that he had written any communication such as she de¬ 
 scribed or that he had engaged her at different times during the year 
 1886 to address envelopes to Miss Pollard, at 76 North Upper street, 
 Lexington, Ky. When questioned about the contents of the letter 
 Col. Breckinridge’s counsel not only interposed with a chorus of ob¬ 
 jections, but they fought against the admission of such evidence be¬ 
 cause, said they, proof was wanting that this letter had ever been 
 mailed or that it had been received. 
 
 When the court convened after the noon recess Mr. Carlisle wanted 
 permission to allow Miss Pollard to take the stand again for the same 
 reason that Mrs. Lowell had been allowed to do so, and it was 
 granted. She testified to the receipt of the letters and added that he 
 had sent her others of a kindred nature during the same year, among 
 which she mentioned one with the heading; “My dear Miss Spitfire,’ 1 
 then the obstruction was completely cleared away, so that Mr. Wilson j 
 was free to question Col. Breckinridge about the letter and its con¬ 
 tents. 
 
 THE MYSTERY UNFOLDED. 
 
 Mrs. Lowell made a good witness and told her story in a straight 
 forward manner. She is a little woman, and when she took her sea: 
 in the witness box she was largely hidden from the view of the specta ' 
 tors. She spoke with a gentle voice and emphasized her statement 
 by tosses of the head at frequent intervals. She is apparently r 
 woman of education, and told the story of her employment as a type 
 writer and stenographer with reluctance, declaring with some feeling 
 that she had not been compelled to work for anyone before she camt 
 to Washington. Having recovered from her timidity after the counse 
 had put to her a few questions, she answered coolly, and when ji 
 
Eighteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 219 
 
 torm of objections was raised at words she was about to speak, she 
 miled at the eagerness of the lawyers and signaled mischievously to 
 ier companion, a lady who came to the courtroom with her. She said 
 he had copied the letter in question a few weeks after coming to the 
 lapitol, in 1886, and that it was some time in the month of February, 
 he showed a memorandum in which she had noted items of work done 
 or Colonel Breckinridge and others, saying of this particular instance 
 aat she felt sure she should hear more of Miss Pollard, and therefore 
 id not hast her memory. When Major Butter worth, asked her if she 
 ■as a widow she answered him sharply that she was not. 
 
 LETTERS TO “MY DEAR SISTER LOUISE.” 
 
 Major Butterworth asked Judge Bradley to decide whether evidence 
 bout the Sister Louise letter was competent. 
 
 Mr. Wilson, in answer, said he proposed to put the witness, Louise 
 iOwell, on the stand, on the_ ground that the plaintiff was not in 
 possession of the knowledge she now had at the time of her testi- 
 lony-in-chief. It was not the purpose of the plaintiff, he said, to 
 lay any trick or to take the defense by surprise, and the defendant 
 ould be given ample opportunity to make any explanation he chose 
 oncerning the letter. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle said he did not learn the name of the witness and did 
 jot see her until Sunday morning. 
 
 Major Butterworth said he was not criticising counsel, but he thought 
 iie alleged contents of an alleged letter should not be placed in evi- 
 |ence until it was known what the plaintiff expected to prove by it. 
 
 ; Judge Bradley, in rendering his decision, referred to the question 
 (5 a “novel situation,” and said he had found authority for the inter- 
 ction of proof concerning the existence of a document that might 
 jg lost or destroyed. He therefore decided that proof tending to 
 rove that such a letter as that beginning “ My dear Sister Louise” 
 light be introduced. 
 
 Mr. Wilson*called Mrs. Lowell to the stand. She said she had 
 aown Colonel Breckinridge since February, 1886, when she had a 
 nail office on the House side of the Capitol, where she did stenogra- 
 ly and typewriting. She had done work for Colonel Breckinridge 
 id was acquainted with his handwriting. In answer to Mr. Wilson, 
 
2 20 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Mrs. Lowell said the defendant had brought to her at the time indi. 
 cated a letter to be copied. The manuscript was in the defendant's 
 handwriting. The witness said she returned to Colonel Breckinridge 
 the manuscript and the copy of the letter in question. She also did 
 other work for the defendant, such as addressing envelopes. 
 
 “Ah!” said Judge Wilson. “What did you put on those envel¬ 
 opes?” 
 
 Major Shelby objected, but the question was allowed. 
 
 “Miss Pollard, 76 North Upper street, Lexington, Ky.,” was the 
 answer, a direct contradiction of the testimony given by the defend¬ 
 ant. 
 
 Miss Pollard smiled, and there was a buzz of interest throughout 
 the room. Colonel Breckinridge busied himself writing. 
 
 THE TYPEWRITER’S MEMORANDUM. 
 
 “Now,” said Judge Wilson, “state whether you made a mem¬ 
 orandum of work done by you for Colonel Breckinridge.” 
 
 “ I did,” said Mrs. Lowell, and she produced a little blank book 
 and read out of it the address given. 
 
 “Why did you put that name down?” said Judge Wilson. 
 
 “ Feeling sure that I should hear more of Miss Pollard and not 
 being willing to trust to my memory, I put it down.” 
 
 “Now tell me what these envelopes looked like.” 
 
 “They were small envelopes, not such that a business man would 
 use, and yellow with age.” 
 
 “ How was the first communication he brought to you addressed?” 
 
 “We object to that,” said Maj. Shelby. 
 
 “ Objection overruled,” said Judge Bradley. 
 
 “My dear sister Louise,” said the wutness. 
 
 Maj. Butterworth and Maj. Shelby made strenuous objection to the 
 admission of testimony concerning the contents of the letter. Maj. 
 Shelby contended that the letter should be produced. 
 
 “We haven’t it—it was given to the defendant to be mailed to the 
 plaintiff,” said Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “If I mailed the letter to the plaintiff how can I produce the 
 letter ? ” said Col. Breckinridge. 
 
Eighteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 221 
 
 “You and I will have a little conversation about that after awhile,” 
 retorted Judge Wilson. 
 
 Judge Bradley ruled out testimony as to the contents of the letter. 
 
 Mr. Wilson then asked the witness to tell by her memorandum 
 book how many times she had done typewriting work for the defend¬ 
 ant, and she said that her record showed that she had done work for 
 Col. Breckinridge fifteen or sixteen times, but that did not really 
 represent the whole number of times she had written letters for him. 
 
 On cross-examination, Mrs. Lowell said she had written Miss Pol¬ 
 lard’s name and address on the fly-leaf of her little memorandum 
 book because she thought that she might have to write the name 
 again in her work and she wanted to remember it for that reason. 
 Mrs. Lowell said she kept no record of Miss Pollard’s name and 
 address in her regular accounts; nor did she keep a record that she 
 had written a letter for Col. Breckinridge, beginning, “My dear 
 sister Louise.” There was nothing in her regular account book to 
 show whether the work done for Col. Breckinridge was a lecture, or a 
 letter, or a speech. The number of envelopes addressed to Miss 
 Pollard was about twelve at one time, and a few scattering ones 
 before that. There was nothing in her record, she said, to indicate 
 the character of the work. 
 
 “Were you in the habit of making memoranda of your work like 
 this address of Miss Pollard?” 
 
 “No, I was not.” 
 
 ‘ Why did you put down Miss Pollard’s name and address?” 
 
 “Because of the unusual character of the work,” evidently refer¬ 
 ring to the time-stained envelopes which Col. Breckinridge brought 
 her to address.” 
 
 Maj. Butterworth endeavored to find out how it was that she became 
 known as the writer of the “ Sister Louise” letter, but the witness was 
 unable to tell him. She had mentioned the fact to friends that she 
 had written letters for Col. Breckinridge. 
 
 DATES IN HER LITTLE NOTEBOOK. 
 
 Mrs. Lowell examined her notebook again, and said, in answer to 
 Maj. Butterworth, that its earliest date was January, 1887, nearly a 
 year after the “Sister Louise” letter is said to have been written. 
 
222 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 The witness said she did not know how it came that she had put Miss 
 Pollard’s name and address on the fly-leaf of this book early in 1886, 
 when she did not begin to enter memoranda in it until the next year. 
 
 To Mr. Wilson the witness said the first paper that Col. Breckin¬ 
 ridge had brought her was the letter beginning “My dear sister Lou¬ 
 ise.” This was in March or April, 1886. Two or three weeks later 
 the witness indorsed several envelopes addressed to Miss Pollard for 
 the defendant, and it was then that the entry was made. The first 
 charge made against Col. Breckinridge was March 16, 1886, but prior 
 to that the witness had done work for him, but had no entry, because 
 she did not know his name. 
 
 This concluded Mrs. Lowell’s examination, and Col. Breckinridge 
 resumed the stand for another ordeal of cross-examination. 
 
 Col. Breckinridge, in answer to the first question, said he recog¬ 
 nized Mrs. Lowell as a person whom he had seen in a type-writing 
 office in the Capitol. She had done some work, but comparatively 
 very little work for him. He could not recall having taken manuscript 
 to Mrs. Lowell for copying. 
 
 “ Will you deny that you did?” 
 
 “I will not.” 
 
 “Do you know where the manuscript is that you have taken to 
 her?” 
 
 “ I don’t know—it was years ago and it has probably been de¬ 
 stroyed. It certainly was never preserved after being copied.” 
 
 “I will ask if in 1886 you delivered to her manuscript to be cop¬ 
 ied addressed “My dear sister Louise?” 
 
 “ I did not.” 
 
 Col. Breckinridge denied that he delivered such manuscript in his 
 own handwriting to Mrs. Lowell. When he was asked if he had 
 mentioned to the type-writer that there was a great disparity in his 
 age and that of the lady to whom he was writing, Maj. Butterworth 
 objected to the question, and after some sparring, Mr. Wilson aban¬ 
 doned this line of questioning, and asked Col. Breckinridge if he had 
 not sent Miss Pollard letters addressed 76 North Upper street, Lex¬ 
 ington, Ky.” 
 
 “Certainly not in 1886,” said the witness. “I believe I did send 
 
Eighteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 a 23 
 
 some civil service papers to her in 1887, but that is an indistinct 
 memory.” 
 
 “ Did you not write Miss Pollard in 1886, asking her to write you a 
 letter asking for some agricultural or civil service report and to sign 
 the name Mary Smith to it? ” 
 
 “ I did not —I never did,” said the witness. 
 
 Col. Breckinridge denied that he had at any time carried to Mrs. 
 Lowell a package of envelopes to be addressed separately from the 
 letters. “I deny entirely what the witness said on the subject,” 
 
 he said. 
 
 MISS POLLARD ON THE STAND. 
 
 A 
 
 When the court assembled for the afternoon session, Mr. Carlisle 
 asked permission to put Miss Pollard on the stand to more fully iden¬ 
 tify times she had received letters from Col. Breckinridge during their 
 separations and to show that she had received and destroyed letters in 
 1886. The plaintiff, he said, had testified that during all their sepa¬ 
 rations she and the defendant had corresponded; the defendant de¬ 
 nied this. 
 
 Maj. Butterworth objected, but Judge Bradley agreed with Mr. 
 Carlisle, and Miss Pollard took the stand, and Mr. Carlisle asked: 
 
 “Miss Pollard, did you or did you not correspond with the defend¬ 
 ant during the session of ’85-6 ? 
 
 “Now, Mr. Carlisle, I was never sep-” 
 
 “Hold on, answer the question,” said Maj. Butterworth. 
 
 “Yes,” said Miss Pollard. 
 
 “Were the letters you received from him typewritten or in manu¬ 
 script?” 
 
 “They were all typewritten.” 
 
 “How were they addressed?” 
 
 “Miss Pollard, 76 North Upper street, Lexington, Ky.” 
 
 “ Can you identify any of these letters by the heading or address?” 
 “Yes, Mr. Carlisle.” 
 
 “Identify one, then.” 
 
 “Well, I remember that he used “ My dear sister Louise.” 
 
 “No, no,” broke in Maj. Butterworth, that won’t do.” 
 
 “Well, I must explain—I have to explain.” 
 
S 24 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “No,” said Mr. Carlisle. “Can you identify any letter by thc- 
 address ? ” 
 
 “Yes; one, I remember, was addressed, “ My dear Spitfire.” 
 
 “Any other letter? ” 
 
 “Yes, some times it was “My dear Sweetheart,’ or ‘Dear Made¬ 
 line,’ or—Oh ! I wish you would let me tell in my own way! ” she said, 
 when Maj. Butterworth interrupted. 
 
 “ You must stick to the question, Miss Pollard,” said Mr. Carlisle. 
 
 “But I’m so hampered, Mr. Carlisle—I cant’ know what I’m say¬ 
 ing if you don’t let me answer in my own way.” 
 
 Finally, Miss Pollard was made to answer the question directly, and 
 in answer to Mr. Carlisle, she said: 
 
 “ They were all destroyed—every one—as soon as I had read them. 
 He always asked me to.” 
 
 Maj. Butterworth asked if Miss Pollard had received other letters 
 during the time named from Washington. 
 
 “ I dont’t know exactly,” she said; “but I have a recollection that 
 he addressed me letters from Massachusetts at the time.” 
 
 “ When you were examined on the stand you did not refer to these 
 letters—why ?” 
 
 “I did not refer to the heading of my letters because you did not 
 ask me.” 
 
 “ Were these letters signed?” 
 
 “Yes—with a lead pencil. That was the only thing in his own 
 handwriting that he did put on them.” 
 
 Miss Pollard was excused, and Colonel Breckinridge, taking the 
 stand, was again examined about the alleged letter beginning “My 
 dear Sister Louise.” Major Butterworth asked if, in the “Sister 
 Louise ” letter written by him, he did not refer to the great disparity 
 in the ages of “Sister Louise and himself?” 
 
 ‘ ‘ I made no such reference, for the reason that there was no such 
 letter dictated by me,” was the answer. 
 
 “I did not say dictated—I said written.” 
 
 “ I did not write such a letter.” 
 
 “Did you not in this correspondence express the hope of seeing 
 the recipient soon again and speak of your impatience in not being 
 able to see her?” 
 

 JUDGE JERE WILSON, 
 
Eighteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 225 
 
 “I did not,” said the Colonel; and he returned the same answers 
 to questions whether he did not direct “ Sister Louise” to be careful 
 to destroy the letters, as people were apt to find them in bureau draw¬ 
 ers ; whether he had not had the answers sent to the Capitol instead 
 of his own home; whether he did not write her a letter in which he 
 stated that he feared she had not received his letters, and told her if 
 she had not to send him a postal card, asking him to send her a civil 
 service or an agricultural report and sign it “ Mary Smith.” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge also denied that he sent her a letter addressed 
 “ My dear Spitfire,” in which there was an allusion to some misunder¬ 
 standing, and in which he told her to “ stand before the glass and scold 
 herself.” 
 
 “I ask you,” said Judge Wilson, “if you did not in the letter be¬ 
 ginning ‘ My dear Sister Louise,’ and in other letters, speak of your 
 love and affection for the plaintiff?” 
 
 “I did not,” said Colonel Breckinridge, “for the reason that there 
 were no such letters written.” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge went on to tell that the immoral relations be¬ 
 tween the plaintiff and himself were resumed in Lexington, at Sarah 
 Gess’ in 1887, just after she had a rib broken. “Half a dozen times 
 would cover it,” he said, referring to their meetings there. 
 
 Questioned as to his residence at Miss Hoyt’s, in Lexington, while 
 Miss Pollard was there, Colonel Breckinridge Said he was there in 
 March, 1887, f° r a little less than three weeks. 
 
 The witness was questioned at great length about a meeting he had 
 with the plaintiff on a brief visit to Washington in October 1887, 
 while she was living at a lying-in asylum, and he said it was arranged 
 at the meeting as to how he was to send her money and other things 
 for her coming confinement. These letters were always signed 
 “B’dge,” but this was not meant for a subterfuge. An ordinary per¬ 
 son, however, would hardly identify the writer from the signature. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge said that part of the time Miss Pollard was 
 in government employ and teaching at the Holy Cross Academy he 
 was supporting her. 
 
 “Do you mean to say,” said Judge Wilson, “that you supported 
 her while she was at the Holy Cross?” 
 
226 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “ I don’t mean to say anything about it if I can get out of it,” said 
 Colonel Breckinridge, grimly, “but if you ask me the question—” 
 
 “'I do ask you the question.” 
 
 “ Then I would say that I did pay her money while she was 
 there.” 
 
 Judge Wilson wanted to know how it was, then, that Miss Pollard 
 got in debt at the Holy Cross for her board, and Colonel Breckinridge 
 said he did not know of this until last spring. 
 
 A LITTLE SPECULATION. 
 
 In answer to another question, Colonel Breckinridge said Miss Poh 
 lard told him that she could make some money by speculating through 
 a gentleman and a lady who lived on Capitol Hill, and the defendant 
 had indorsed ten notes of $100 each for her. Shortly after this, Miss 
 Pollard told him that the ten notes had been returned to her with a 
 draft for $500, and had also shown him the receipts for two bills 
 which Mrs. Fillette had told people so much about. Later he had in¬ 
 dorsed five notes of $100 each for her, but he had never received no¬ 
 tice that they were paid or protested. 
 
 Mr. Wilson asked if the witness did not know that notice of pro¬ 
 test on two of these notes had been sent him, but he denied having 
 ever heard of these notices. 
 
 “Do you know why this last venture was made?” asked Mr. 
 Wilson. 
 
 “I do.” 
 
 “Don’t you know the money was to be used in getting her wed¬ 
 ding trousseau ?” 
 
 “It was not. There is not a scintilla of truth in that statement.” 
 
 “ We’ll go back to that after awhile,” said Mr. Wilson. 
 
 During Miss Pollard’s stay at the Holy Cross Academy, said Col. 
 Breckinridge, the relations between Miss Pollard and himself had been 
 resumed, and he met her at assignation houses on Indiana avenue 
 and on H street. This period was two years and a half from some 
 time in 1889. 
 
 “Of course there was a mutual feeling that these relations should 
 be kept secret?” said Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “I know I was—extremely so,” said Col. Breckinridge, smiling. 
 
 
Eighteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 227 
 
 “ I don’t know about her—sometimes I thought she was—at other 
 times I thought she was extremely anxious to have them known.” 
 
 The- defendant told of many experiments to avoid detection in his 
 guilty relations with the plaintiff. Once they secured a private room 
 in an obscure street, but, he said, “ After a month or six weeks we 
 found that whenever I came down the street toward the house where 
 that room was, eyes were glued to every window for three or four 
 blocks around, so we concluded that the experiment was rather too 
 risky.” Suppressed laughter followed this humorously told experi¬ 
 ence. 
 
 Guided by Mr. Wilson, the witness traced the various changes of 
 abode made by Miss Pollard in Washington, to the Elsmere, to Mrs. 
 Ricketts’, to Mrs Minear’s, and to other places. 
 
 Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Breckinridge if he blamed Miss Pollard for 
 telling Mrs. Minear that she had been to dine at Col. Breckinridge’s 
 house, and the witness said he did blame her for trying to produce a 
 false impression about their relations to conceal the real relations 
 when onother denial not involving him would have done as well. 
 
 “Well, can you conceive of a more reasonable story to tell?” asked 
 Judge Wilson; and Col. Breckinridge took him up with—“Nor can 
 I conceive of a more acute story to be used subsequently in the pros¬ 
 ecution of an improper purpose.” 
 
 HER CIVIL SERVICE INDORSEMENT. 
 
 Judge Wilson made Col. Breckinridge read his indorsements of the 
 civil service applications filed by Miss Pollard, in which he pro¬ 
 nounced her a person of good moral character, and of good repute, 
 and stated that he would “unhesitatingly” recommend her for em¬ 
 ployment to his friends. These statements were made under oath. 
 
 Col. Breckinridge denied vigorously that he had given Miss Pol¬ 
 lard the little decorative basket which had belonged to his late wife, 
 and which was produced at the trial. He denied, too, that he had 
 seen this basket in Miss Pollard’s possession at Mrs. Thomas’ house 
 on H street. While Miss Pollard was at Mrs. Thomas’ the plain¬ 
 tiff went with the witness to an assignation house on Seventeenth 
 street. He denied meeting Miss Pollard out at night by appoint¬ 
 ment, except once. “We went there to have a conversation,” 
 
23 ° 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 got the benefit of, to the enjoyment of the newspaper men and the 
 attorneys, who had been the objects of the previous buffets. Who 
 will be the next to get thumped is a matter of curiosity. The mar¬ 
 shals and bailiffs, it must be said, are the only ones left unassailed, 
 or, it may be, the little old colored janitress in beribboned and be- 
 flowed white cap, who peeps in occasionally at the plaintiff. 
 
 The truth is, that a large number of the people present were mem¬ 
 bers of the District Bar, and to say they are hot is to put the condi¬ 
 tion mildly. 
 
 The course of the prosecution to-day was in the line pursued yes¬ 
 terday, of bringing general reproach upon the defendant, turning the 
 search-lights on his nine years of illicit life and “ living lie,” as Wilson 
 calls it, and bringing out of the shadows the partly concealed or palli¬ 
 ated details ifi all their unveiled hideousness. This is the expression, 
 not of the writer, but of one of the attorneys for the prosecution. 
 
 In some respects it was successful. In others it was distinctly not, 
 and the defendant in some important points bettered his case before 
 the jury and public. And especially is this true of the jury and those 
 bodily present to observe and listen to the defendant. 
 
 The change in his manner and expressions has been noted and the 
 impression made by it has been unmistakably favorable to him with 
 the jury, if a close study of that body indicates anything to those who 
 have watched and studied its members for nearly a month. 
 
 Either the defendant saw a great light through his own wisdom, or 
 he had for once at least in this matter a good friend to suggest some¬ 
 thing to him. It is shrewdly surmised that the latter is the case, 
 joined with the former, and that the good friend is the public press 
 and the continual comments upon his oily gammon, silver tongue, in¬ 
 jured innocence and tears-in-the-voice style. 
 
 During the last two days all that has disappeared in the most aston¬ 
 ishing way. No witness was ever more outspoken, apparently frank, 
 willing and anxious to tell all, hiding nothing, extenuating nothing, 
 sometimes aggressive, oftentimes sarcastic in resenting insinuating 
 “questions ” of Wilson’s, and occasionlly approaching pretty near the 
 line of bluffness in demeanor. 
 
 It was a case of “presto change;” one was disposed to ask the 
 same question about the disappearance of the former Breckinridge on 
 
 i 
 
Nineteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 23 1 
 
 the stand that was asked concerning Hans Breitman’s party, “Where 
 is that party now ? ” 
 
 If there has been a difference noticeable in the defendant, there has 
 also been one in judge Wilson—-that is, a difference from what was 
 expected of him. That he has been something of a disappointment is 
 certainly true, if there had been less thundering in the index, perhaps 
 this would not be so. It may be due to the great advance advertising 
 of Judge Wilson as the coming holy terror that this disappointment is 
 felt. But for this it might have been that opinion would be more 
 eulogistic of Wilson’s conduct of the cross-examination. 
 
 It has been all that could be expected reasonably, and upon the 
 whole has greatly strengthened the cause of the prosecution undoubt¬ 
 edly. But there were no tiger’s claws and scalping-knives and blood¬ 
 letting, as was prophesied. No doubt Wilson was wise in his course. 
 Certainly he left no point untouched or undeveloped that would make 
 to the advantage of his client, and, taken altogether, her case up 
 to the present has been conducted with extraordinary ability and 
 shrewdness. 
 
 The part of the evidence to-day which was listened to with much 
 interest was that in regard to the Mrs. Blackburn interview. The de¬ 
 fendant made many statements directly contradictory of what Mrs. 
 Blackburn had testified, but he repeatedly declared that he had no in¬ 
 tention of impugning her veracity. He simply claimed that her mem¬ 
 ory and his were at fault, and, furthermore, that she had got the 
 several conversations or expressions made in them confused. 
 
 Another point attracting some comment is that persistently main¬ 
 tained by him that he never, from beginning to end of their relations, 
 made any demonstrations of love and affection to the plaintiff. He 
 acknowledged that there might be some differences of opinion as to 
 what constitutes a demonstration of affection, but he stuck to it that 
 he had never on any occasion showed her any evidences of love. 
 
 He described the occasion when she came to his house and de¬ 
 manded that he marry her, or she would kill him or herself. They 
 went together to the house on H street, in which they had been in the 
 habit of visiting, and there after a long talk they got into a quarrel, 
 and were finally warned by the landlady that there were other Con¬ 
 gressmen in the house, who would surely recognize his peculiar voice, 
 
232 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 and cautioned them to be quiet. After he had sworn he would die 
 before he would marry her, she threw up the window and threatened 
 to arouse the whole neighborhood with her screams. He was despe¬ 
 rate, and told her to go ahead. As long as there was to be an out¬ 
 break, it might as well be as bad as possible. She finally compromised 
 on a proposition to remain in her condition as a mistress, drop from 
 society, in which she was getting slighted and cut, so long as he would 
 marry no other woman. 
 
 That was the only thing she would ever consent to short of an ab¬ 
 solute marriage, and that was only to calm him after one of her out¬ 
 breaks, threats of exposure or threats against his life. 
 
 Wilson developed some peculiar points in regard to the momentous 
 9th of April, 1893, in New York, and put them together. He had 
 signed the marriage certificate, and written in it that it was his second 
 marriage, when Dr. Paxton, his wife and all present knew it was his 
 third. He made no explanation of his act except that Dr. Paxton 
 told him to put it down that way. When asked, he said: “ It was 
 my third marriage, and that was known to all there. I called atten¬ 
 tion to it. Dr. Paxton asked me to fill out the certificate, as he had a 
 headache.” 
 
 “ The putting in of ‘ second’ was not an inadvertence ?” 
 
 “ No. We talked about it.” 
 
 “You knew that was to be a record?” 
 
 “ Oh, yes.” 
 
 After the secret marriage he went to a hotel and registered as Wil¬ 
 liam Cabell and wife. “ It is one of my middle names,” said he. At 
 the same hour he was registered at the Hoffman, and Miss Pollard 
 was there in a communicating room registered as his daughter, “ Miss 
 Breckinridge.” It was when he went there from the other hotel, the 
 Loyerot, that she made the alleged attempt upon his life. 
 
 The situation was certainly in the condition of a proverbial “tangled 
 web ” at that time. His only explanation of the secrecy of the mar¬ 
 riage was persisted in, namely, that it was to give his wife an oppor¬ 
 tunity to go out and win the affections of his children after getting ac¬ 
 quainted with them.' The relations with Miss Pollard had not an 
 earthly thing to do with the secresy of the marriage. Wilson tried to 
 find out why she could not have won their affection without being se- 
 
Nineteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 23S 
 
 cretly married, and whether it was not practicing deceit on the chil¬ 
 dren, &c., but the defendant stuck to it that he had given the whole 
 and only reason. 
 
 The several conversations between the plaintiff and defendant on 
 the matter of suicide of the former, her gruesome preparations for the 
 act, &c., were detailed even to the distribution of her belongings to 
 friends and relatives, and sending to the express office a large box of 
 clothing, which she claims he went with her to reclaim. 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge looked extremely pale as he stepped to the 
 witness-stand this morning. The first question which Judge Wilson 
 asked him was whether he had ever been in Goldsborough, to which 
 he replied that he had been in the little hamlet once to make a speech 
 at a barbecue, which he thought was in 1886 or in 1888. He did not 
 remember the colored woman who opened the door at 1819 H street, 
 the day after he took luncheon there in April (as heretofore testified 
 to), nor having complimented her on the luncheon. 
 
 “Did you not say to her that when you and Madeline went to 
 keeping house you wanted her to come and cook for you ? ” 
 
 “That is entirely fanciful. I never said anything of the sort to any 
 colored woman.” 
 
 “ Did she not say that she had been in service in that family a long 
 time, and did not want to leave ? ” 
 
 “No such conversation could have occurred.” 
 
 Referring to the Colonel’s statement that he had made no protesta¬ 
 tions of love to Miss Pollard on the occasion of that momentous car¬ 
 riage ride, when seduction is alleged to have occurred, Mr. Wilson 
 asked him when he had first begun to talk to her affectionately. 
 
 “I never did make protestations of love. I talked to her kindly, 
 encouragingly, when she was depressed; endeavored to get her to do 
 something to make a place in the world for herself. I spoke solicit¬ 
 ously to her, particularly when I first learned that she was pregnant 
 by me, having the interest in her which a man might for a young un¬ 
 married woman who had such circumstances in her life, for which he 
 felt that he was in a measure responsible, since their lives had become 
 interwoven.” 
 
 “There were no expressions of affection?” 
 
 “ There were expressions of affectionate interest, but not such as 
 
234 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 • could be construed into an intimation that our relations could be on a 
 different basis than they were.” 
 
 “Then it was a sort of business interest for her welfare?” 
 
 “ Expressions of kindly interest.” 
 
 “Were there expressions which might be understood by her to be 
 expressions of love ? ” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge wished to draw the distinction carefully be¬ 
 tween expressions and demonstrations. He said there was nothing 
 but perfeet understanding on their part of their relations; that they 
 went to houses of a certain character for a certain well understood 
 purpbse; they stayed there such a time as their pleasures or necessi¬ 
 ties demanded. “I took her in my arms and kissed her. There 
 were all the accompaniments of such a relation, which was carried 
 out not coldly or brutally.” 
 
 “There were no expressions of love on her part?” 
 
 ‘ ‘ I would not say that. She was at times very demonstrative, at 
 times otherwise.” 
 
 “Your relations were those of lust rather than love?” 
 
 “I would not say that, for we often met at times when physical 
 intercourse was impossible. She was a young woman of colloquial 
 talents, sprightly and interesting.” 
 
 Again Mr. Wilson led the Colonel to repeat the distinction he drew , 
 between the injury to the young man and the destruction of a young 
 woman from illicit relations. 
 
 “And do you think,” he asked, “that a man is under obligations ■ 
 to prevent the destruction of a young woman?” 
 
 “ Most assuredly I do, and if he does not he should be punished. : 
 I have had my punishment, and am trying to take it without com¬ 
 plaint.” 
 
 Mr. Wilson asked when the subject of marriage had been first men- • 
 tioned between them, to which the Colonel replied that it was in ■ 
 September of 1892, when she first spoke of going to Berlin. He had .• 
 told her that for many reasons, among them the disparity of their 
 ages; that since he knew what he did of her relations to Rodes, and 
 that as she had bled him for three years and thrown him away like a 
 sucked orange, marriage between them was impossible. 
 
 “You had a contract as binding as hers to Rodes?” 
 
Nineteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 235 
 
 “Much more binding,” replied the Colonel, referring to his mar¬ 
 riage. 
 
 Then Mr. Wilson got his affirmative answers to the questions that 
 Miss Pollard had associated with the best families of Kentucky in the 
 city, had lived in houses of the highest respectability and was a brill¬ 
 iant young woman. 
 
 “ Your relations were carefully concealed,” asked the attorney, “so 
 that there were no impediments in that direction?” 
 
 “We had endeavored to conceal them, but they were known to 
 several people.” 
 
 “There was never from you any proposal of marriage?” 
 
 “Never under any circumstances,” most emphatically. 
 
 “Then it was understood that you were to carry out the semblance 
 of a marriage contract which you both understood was never to be 
 fulfilled?” 
 
 “There was the semblance of a contract to be carried out before 
 only one living person, and that person Mrs. Governor Blackburn.” 
 
 After more fencing, the Colonel stated that the contract before Mrs. 
 Blackburn had been made to enable Miss Pollard to die out of his 
 life and separate from Mrs. Blackburn. 
 
 “And with a view of enabling her to die out of your life and Mrs. 
 Blackburn’s, you took her to Mrs. Blackburn and said you would 
 place her under Mrs, Blackburn’s care ? ” 
 
 “I did not. My recollection and the recollection of Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn upon that point differ as to the meaning of my words.” 
 
 “And you went to see Mrs. Blackburn again, alone?” 
 
 “I went to see her several times afterwards.” 
 
 “And you caressed the plaintiff in her presence, as apart of that 
 deception ? ” 
 
 “ I did not caress the plaintiff. I will explain that.” 
 
 “But what passed there was for the purpose of carrying out the 
 deception ? ” 
 
 “ Indubitably.” 
 
 In further cross-examination Mr. Wilson brought out the fact that 
 in filling out the certificate of marriage of Mrs. Wing to Colonel 
 Breckinridge, it was made to appear that that marriage was the 
 Colonel's second, whereas it was really his third; that he had asked 
 
Pollard vs. BreckinridgS. 
 
 236 
 
 Dr. Paxton not to make that marriage public, and that after his mar¬ 
 riage with Mrs. Wing he stopped with her at the Hotel Logerean, in 
 New York, registering as Wm. J. Cabell and wife. Colonel Breckin¬ 
 ridge could not recall that at that time he had sent certain telegrams 
 to Mrs. Blackburn. 
 
 Mr. Wilson persisted. 
 
 “ I deny that I have any recollection of it having happened in 
 that way.” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge’s verson of the conversations between him¬ 
 self and Mrs. Blackburn regarding the trip to Europe differed radi¬ 
 cally from that lady’s, as did his memory of what she had said about 
 being obliged to withdraw her protection from Miss Pollard unless 
 they were more discreet in their conduct. “That did not happen in 
 that form and in that connection,” he said, and his answer was sub¬ 
 stantially the same regarding his (Breckinridge’s) requests that Mrs. 
 Blackburn should go to New York with the plaintiff until they were 
 married. 
 
 “I was urging her, so far as I could without exciting her suspi¬ 
 cion, to get the young woman out of town. I endeavored to leave 
 the impression on her mind always that we were engaged. If I may 
 use such a word, I was honestly endeavoring to carry out the con¬ 
 tract with Miss Pollard to deceive her, and I do not blame Mrs. 
 Blackburn for feeling a little acerbity.” 
 
 “Do you deny that?” Mr. Wilson demanded, after reading Mrs. 
 Blackburn’s testimony regarding his description of the interest he 
 felt in Miss Pollard and of the standing of her family. 
 
 “ I have no recollection of that, and my recollection is that it hap¬ 
 pened in a different way,” was the final answer, and later the witness 
 said: “Mrs. Blackburn puts her own construction on my words,” 
 in commenting on this part of her testimony. 
 
 Regarding the testimony of Mrs. Blackburn that he had told her 
 that he had never paid the slightest attention to Mrs. Wing, but to 
 have it repeated that he was engaged to her would familiarize 
 his family with the idea of his re-marriage, and when Congress ad¬ 
 journed he was going borne to make arrangements for his mar¬ 
 riage, Mr. Wilson asked for the witness’ recollection on that point. 
 
 ‘ ‘ Part of that was never said by me, according to my recollection, 
 
Nineteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 237 
 
 and part of it was never said at all,” was the answer “Congress 
 was already adjourned, so that shows that Mrs. Blackburn confuses 
 these conversations, although she honestly endeavors to repeat them.” 
 
 “Do you deny that you told Mrs. Blackburn you were not to marry 
 Mrs. Wing?” 
 
 “I do not emphatically deny that I ever said that. Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn gets the different conversations commingled. I can not myself 
 remember the exact words of conversations after a few weeks.” 
 
 Mr. Wilson then read the direct testimony of the Colonel regard^ 
 ing the first interview with Mrs. Blackburn, upon which the Colonel 
 commented that he had told the whole truth about it. Then Mrs. 
 Blackburn’s testimony was read, and Mr. Wilson asked him if it had 
 occurred, to which the Colonel replied that she had recollected it 
 differently from the way he had said it; that she had construed his 
 expressions of gratitude for what she had done in the past into re¬ 
 quests for her protection in the future. 
 
 “Do you deny this?” asked Mr. Wilson, “ that you said to Mrs. 
 Blackburn, ‘ I intend to marry this young woman when a sufficient 
 time has elapsed after the death of my wife.’ ” 
 
 '“ My recollection is that nothing was said about my wife at that 
 interview. Mrs. Blackburn seems to have confused that with a sub¬ 
 sequent interview.” 
 
 All of Mrs. Blackburn’s statements being read to him categori¬ 
 cally, the Colonel said that Mrs. Blackburn’s recollection differed on 
 all these points from his own. He denied that he had said that he 
 was thirty-one years older than the plaintiff, and was sure that he had 
 not said that she supposed he was foolish to marry a woman so much 
 younger than himself. He was sure that Mrs. Blackburn must have 
 confused things said by the plaintiff about the matter with what he 
 said, and must have put into her own language her understanding of 
 his statements. 
 
 “I have no recollection of that,” he said of Mrs. Blackburn’s re* 
 cital that on his second visit he had said that he noticed she was 
 much shocked by the snnouncement of his engagement. 
 
 “Iam sure I have no recollection of that, he said when confronted 
 with Mrs. Blackburn’s statement that he was giving a poor return for 
 all the devotion of his wife. 
 
238 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “ I deny that that occurred in that way, and in that connection,” 
 was his answer when Mr. Wilson pinned him down to a direct state¬ 
 ment regarding his story to Mrs. Blackburn that, being a man of 
 honor, he had been obliged to propose marriage to Miss Pollard on 
 discovering her feelings toward him. 
 
 “Now, Mrs. Blackburn says that she told you you had an unusu¬ 
 ally high sense of honor in that connection. Do you deny that?” 
 
 The Colonel was sure that Mrs. Blackburn had not told him that 
 she had told Miss Pollard that if his attentions to Mrs. Wing were as 
 she had represented, he was a villain. “I am sure Mrs. Blackburn 
 did not use such an offensive word in her own parlor to a visitor. Mrs. 
 Blackburn was a lady I have known for years, and as a hostess she 
 would not have said such a thing.” 
 
 Mr. Wilson endeavored to pin down the Colonel to a denial of the 
 statement that he had told Mrs. Blackburn that he had no love for any 
 other woman than Miss Pollard, and finally secured the answer: “I 
 am sure that no such conversation occurred.” 
 
 “You do not remember it?” said Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “Well, I will say that I do not recollect that such a conversation 
 happened.” 
 
 Regarding the scene when Miss Pollard had asked him to name the 
 day, called him Willie, and he had stroked her hand affectionately, 
 and he said: “No demonstrations before Mrs. Blackburn,” he said. 
 “ Such a scene did happen, and it was a superb piece of acting.” 
 
 Much more of the same kind of colloquy between counsel and de¬ 
 fendant took place, on the one hand an effort to elicit the admission 
 that there had been a promise of marriage, and on the .other a vehe¬ 
 ment denial that any such promise had been made, and a reiteration 
 of the oft-repeated statement that Mrs. Blackburn’s evidence was 
 based upon a commingling of conversations held with the defendant 
 and plaintiff at different times. 
 
 Further on in the cross-examination Mr. Wilson asked: “Don’t 
 you remember that she spoke to you regarding your relations with 
 colored women?” 
 
 “ I never heard of that until she spoke of it on the stand.” 
 
 “Did you on any occasion visit the plaintiff at Mary McKondle’s 
 on Second street, in this city?” 
 
Nineteenth Day of Trial. 
 
 239 
 
 “No, I did not. I never did,” with great emphasis. 
 
 “In January, February or March, 1888?” 
 
 “I never did. I know that that is the place the plaintiff and Dr. 
 Parsons have located as the house where the child was born. I know 
 there is a woman of that name, who will be called upon to swear that 
 I was there. I know that certain persons have been sent there to 
 train her as to what she will testify. I never was there. It is false.” 
 
 “You say certain persons have been there to train her. Has any¬ 
 one been there on your behalf?” 
 
 “I sent my son there because I had heard she was to be called to 
 testify, and that she had been seen by another witness in this case, 
 regarding her testimony.” 
 
 “Did you communicate with the plaintiff there by advertisements 
 in the Evening Star, and did you arrange to have typewritten letters 
 prepared for your communication with her, with some person in this 
 city?” 
 
 The Colonel was strenuous in his denials. No suclv arrangement 
 had been made by him or for him to his knowledge, and such adver¬ 
 tisement, if published, would not convey any information to his mind. 
 
 With this reply Judge Wilson quietly returned the defendant to his 
 own attorneys for redirect examination. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth drew out the Colonel on the conversations between 
 himself and Miss Pollard regarding their marriage. She had told 
 him, he said, that she had no friends; that her only intimate girl 
 friend had gone insane, his wife was dead, and there was nothing to 
 prevent him from marrying her. He replied to this with some anger, 
 and she had said that if he would change his tone she would retire 
 from society, give up trying to go into society, and be his mistress, 
 take care of his room and do his typewriting. He had told her that 
 under the circumstances she was the best person who could do his 
 typewriting. 
 
 She had insisted that she would not leave him, but would go 
 wherever he went. Then they had walked together to a house on 
 H street, which they had been accustomed to visit. His anger had 
 cooled. He sat down. She sat on the floor with her arm on his 
 knee, and they talked far into the night, she saying that she did not 
 care if there was a scene there. He had told her that after their 
 
240 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 1 
 
 relations he could not marry her, that no man could be expected to 
 marry a woman with whom he had had intercourse unless he had 
 seduced her. 
 
 “You know I have not seduced you,” and Colonel Breckinridge 
 continued: “She urged me to marry her on account of those very 
 relations. I said ‘ I can’t afford to put Jim Rodes’ mistress at the 
 head of my table.’ She threw up the window and said she would 
 scream. Just then some one rapped at the door, said we were making 
 a great deal of noise; that my voice was peculiar, and there was 
 another member of Congress in the house who might recognize it.” 
 (Laughter.) Colonel Breckinridge smiled and continued, “I did not 
 care to know' who he w'as.” 
 
 This narrative was objected to by Mr. Wilson, and Judge Bradley 
 said he knew' no reason for repeating it. The defense contended that 
 the particular talk had not been given before, and Judge Bradley re¬ 
 marked that the substance of it had been; that several of the ex¬ 
 pressions were very familiar to him. Mr. Butterworth acknowledged 
 that the matter w'as not good for the public, but that Mr. Wilson had. 
 endeavored to prove that the defendant’s course had been brutal 
 toward the young woman, and it was due that he should be allowed to 
 make explanations, but the matter was not pressed. 
 
 The attorneys had no more witnesses on hand, the cross-examina¬ 
 tion having ended, as Mr. Shelby said, somewhat unexpectedly, so they 
 asked for an adjournment an hour earlier than usual. Mr. Wilson 
 offered to occupy the time wdth some of his witnesses for rebuttal, but 
 the defense declined the offer, and the Judge said that he would con¬ 
 cede the request not to continue the case to-day, although it had 
 already consumed more time than it should have done. 
 
 “If the parties to this case w-ould like to go out first they may do 
 so, and I will keep the crowd back,” said Judge Bradley, as the 
 people began to stir from their seats. 
 
 Accordingly, Miss Pollard, with her attorneys, followed by the 
 silvery-haired Kentuckian and his legal forces, filed through the little 
 door between the Judge and jury. Several men made a rush from 
 their seats after them. Judge Bradley’s cheeks flushed and he rapped 
 the desk fiercely. 
 
Twentieth Day of Trial. 
 
 241 
 
 # 
 
 “Court has not adjourned,” he shouted above the rustling: “take 
 your seats there.” 
 
 Then, pointing to one conspicuous offender, who was half way 
 across the room, with his hat on, he said sternly : “Take off your hat 
 there and go back where you came from. Take your seats.” 
 
 Turning to the crier, he demanded: “Adjourn the Court,” and 
 strode out, pushing his way through the halls and across the street in 
 a crowd of several hundred men and women waiting to catch a 
 glimpse of Madeline Pollard and Congressman Breckinridge. 
 
 — 
 
 TWENTIETH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 Dietz Carlyle the baby's name when Madeline consigned it to the found¬ 
 ling asylum — Mr. Ananias' record is smashed all to smithereens by 
 witnesses in the Pollard-Breckinridge case — Roselle’s story of courtship 
 at Wesleyan College clearly contradicted by the testimony of Mrs. 
 McClellan Brown—Judge Bradley's short speech of the preceding day of 
 trial , likening visitors to turkey buzzards, keeps the crowd away — Shift¬ 
 ing scenes and new faces. 
 
 There was a constant shifting of scenes and introduction of new 
 faces in the Pollard-Breckinridge drama to-day. 
 
 The efforts of the plaintiff to rebut and con try diet the testimony of 
 Colonel Breckinridge brought in several new witnesses, some of them 
 from a distance. Yet their names were all familiar from depositions 
 or references made by others during the progress of the case. While 
 there was a constant variety in the scenes presented to-day, and the 
 greatest of interest in the witnesses and their stories, the audience was 
 very slim. 
 
 Not for several days has there been such a small array of listeners 
 and spectators. 
 
 The sharp speech of Judge Bradley, likening visitors to turkey buz¬ 
 zards watching a sick horse die, undoubtedly kept many people from 
 attending to-day. 
 
 The “regulars,” however, were there in their accustomed seats, and 
 several old men, with faces like those of church elders, have not 
 16 
 
242 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 missed a single session of Court since the celebrated case began. It 
 was at these steady patrons that Judge Bradley had hurled his speech, 
 but they all came up smiling and 
 
 ATTENTIVE THIS MORNING. 
 
 They were not disappointed in the proceedings, which were kept 
 full of dramatic interest by the unsuspected presence of new witnesses. 
 As half promised yesterday, Col. Breckinridge was through with his 
 story, and the defense was almost ready to announce the case closed. 
 The white-haired defendant sat between his many lawyers again 
 to-day, and was more than usually active in directing the line of exami¬ 
 nation and giving instructions as to legal objections which should be 
 made. Once or twice he was on the point of getting up as his own 
 lawyer, but generally put Colonel Shelby forward to make the technical 
 legal opposition whenever the plaintiff’s lawyers asked a very pertinent 
 question. These objections were many on both sides during the day, 
 and there was continued interruption of witnesses, some of whom 
 seemed very anxious to tell even more than the question required of 
 them. ■'aiS 
 
 The defense began the battle of the day with Mrs. Leidy, Matron 
 of the Foundling Asylum, to which Miss Pollard claimed to have sent 
 the child born in February, 1888. The defense tried to break down 
 Miss Pollard’s story with the statement by Mrs. Leidy that no child f 
 such as described by Miss Pollard had been received; that Miss Pollard 
 had not visited the asylum, and that the name pinned on the infant’s 
 clothes did not agree with the name mentioned by Miss Pollard in her 
 original story, and which she told again to-day 
 
 WITHOUT A VARIATION. 
 
 The defense attempted to show that the story of a second child was 
 a fabrication, even as they had attempted to prove that she had never 
 given birth to the first child at the Norwood Asylum. There was a 
 lively and pretty legal fight all morning over the admission of Mrs. 
 Leidy’s testimony, and several objections made by Judge Wilson on 
 behalf of the plaintiff were promptly sustained by Judge Bradley. 
 There was a little surprise when the defense called for Dr. Mary Par¬ 
 sons, who had been a valuable witness for the plaintiff. 
 
Twentieth Day of Trial. 
 
 «43 
 
 That the defense should call her in at this juncture was a.a unusual 
 proceeding, and the plaintiff’s lawyers objected. “You have no right 
 to call her for cross-examination,” said Judge Bradley, and the 
 defendant’s lawyers were for a moment nonplussed. 
 
 There was an evident blunder somewhere, and they had their heads 
 together in hurried consultation. Mrs. Parsons had taken a seat and 
 had bowed very pleasantly to Miss Pollard, who smiled back her rec¬ 
 ognition and evident satisfaction at the Court’s ruling. 
 
 It did not take long for the defendant’s lawyers to decide that-they 
 didn’t want Mrs. Parsons, and she was dismissed. 
 
 In coming in Mrs. Parsons had passed Mrs. Leidy. They met 
 again as Mrs. Parsons went out. The defense called Mrs. Leidy up 
 again to identify Mrs. Parsons. 
 
 “ I never saw her at the as; lum,” said Mrs. Leidy. 
 
 “But she may have been there,? ” interjected Judge Wilson. 
 
 “Oh, Yes.” 
 
 “That’s all.” 
 
 In a few moments following another consultation with his associates 
 Major Butterworth announced, evidently with great relief: “Your 
 Honor, we rest our case here.” 
 
 The interesting features of the day were introduced this afternoon 
 when testimony in rebuttal was brought forward by the plaintiff’s 
 lawyers. 
 
 The unusual spectacle of several fashionably dressed women in 
 attendance was presented and promised an unusual contribution 
 of new facts. Hitherto Miss Pollard and the Sister of Mercy 
 have been the only females in the room. To-day there were eight 
 women in the room at one time, but the testimony was not of the 
 kind to shock the most fastidious. By the side of Miss Pollard sat 
 Louise Lowell, and two of her lady friends who came merely as com¬ 
 panions. Their presence, however, increased expectations, as it was 
 thought new revelations had made the recall of Miss Lowell neces¬ 
 sary. 
 
 Dr. Cowan, of Pittsburg, John H. Sawyer, of Louisville, and 
 George H. Keene, of Fayette county, Kentucky, all cousins of the 
 plaintiff, were examined mainly to prove the whereabouts of Madeline 
 Pollard in certain years. Then came the most interesting witness of 
 
244 
 
 Pollard vs . Breckinridge. 
 
 the day, Mrs. Brown, of Cincinnati. She was Vice-President of the 
 Wesleyan College when Madeline Pollard was a student there, and 
 there was much expectant interest in Court as to what Mrs. Brown 
 would say about Rankin Rosselle. Mrs. Brown was attended by 
 Mrs. La Fetra, of Washington, and took the witness stand as coolly 
 as if about to deliver a temperance address. She removed her veil, 
 handed it to Mrs. La Fetra, and disclosed a remarkably intelligent 
 face, and one quite well known in Cincinnati. 
 
 Mrs. Brown told how the register, containing the record of Miss 
 Pollard’s entrance, had been found in an old sideboard, and then read 
 the entry regarding the plaintiff, omitting the age, by order of the 
 Court. 
 
 It has already been published, however, that the book gives the 
 pupil’s age as 16, in 1883. Mrs. Brown had also a tintype made in 
 1884, which represents her daughter and Madeline as quite young 
 girls. Mrs. Brown proceeded to demolish the story of Rankin Ros¬ 
 selle, declaring that it would have been impossible for any visitor to 
 have held 
 
 A STUDENT ON HIS LAP 
 
 In the parlors of the school. On this point Judge Bradley seemed in¬ 
 terested, for he asked several questions on his own account, which 
 enabled Mrs. Brown to express a poor opinion of Rankin Rosselle 
 and to deny his stories. Mrs. Brown proved to be one of the clever¬ 
 est and most pleasing witnesses of any who have been called, and she 
 declared of James Rodes: “He was an honest man, surrounded by 
 an atmosphere of purity, and with a manner most reverential toward 
 women.” 
 
 Mrs. Brown was limited in what she said by the exactions of the 
 lawyers, but she managed to give the impression that Madeline Pol¬ 
 lard was very young, very bright for one of her years, and an exem¬ 
 plary pupil in the Wesleyan College. 
 
 Miss Lowell took the stand again and proceeded to tell what was in 
 the letters which she copied for Colonel Breckinridge in 1886. 
 
 There were strenuous objections by the defendant’s lawyers, but the 
 best they could do was to “note an exception.” Judge Bradley ruled 
 in favor of the plaintiff, and Miss Lowell told a very straightforward 
 
Twentieth Day of Trial. 
 
 245 
 
 story, which seemed to interest the defendant and cause him to suggest 
 several questions on cross-examination. 
 
 Miss Lowell said the letters had made a deep impression on her 
 mind at the time, because of the endearing terms, the protestations of 
 love, the injunctions of secresy, and the general tenor of the letters, 
 which seemed unusual, coming from an old man. 
 
 Mary Yancey, a fat, cheerful-looking colored woman, was ushered 
 in by Lawyer Carlisle. 
 
 Mary proved to be a very good-natured witness, and even her ap- 
 pearence caused a general smile in the courtroom. She was the col¬ 
 ored cook at Mrs. Thomas’s house, who had cooked a lunch for Colo¬ 
 nel Breckinridge and Miss Pollard last May. The defendant had de¬ 
 nied several things which the plaintiff claimed had trrnspired during 
 her stay at the Thomas home, and the servant was brought in to-day 
 to prove the truth of Miss Pollard’s story. 
 
 Among other things, Colonel Breckinridge only yesterday denied 
 having complimented the cook on the lunch, and denied that he had 
 asked her to become cook for himself and Madeline when they were 
 married. 
 
 Mary, the cook, declared to-day that the Colonel did say such 
 things, and told a very straight story, bringing several little details 
 which Miss Pollard had overlooked. 
 
 In short, Mary fully confirmed what Miss Pollard told on the stand, 
 and flatly contradicted the statements made by Colonel Breckinridge. 
 Mary did even more. She told how affectionate the Colonel was to¬ 
 ward the plaintiff, and how he would hug and kiss Miss Pollard every 
 time he could at the house. 
 
 “ How often did he come?” asked Mr. Carlisle. 
 
 “Oh, very often,” answered Mary. “Sometimes twice a day; 
 sometimes three times a day. He came so often I could not keep ac¬ 
 count. When he was away Miss Pollard was getting many tele¬ 
 grams.” 
 
 Mary told a very interesting and amusing story of the defendant’s 
 iffectionate manner toward Miss Pollard at a time when the defend¬ 
 ing in his testimony, claims that the plaintiff was “ persecuting” him 
 ind making life “ intolerable.” 
 
 In speaking of Mary Yancey’s testimony, Lawyer Carlisle said, sar- 
 
246 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 * * 
 
 castically, that it was his purpose to show just how much the plaintiff 
 was “persecuting” the defendant. The witness seemed willing to tell 
 all about the kissing and embracing in which Colonel Breckinridge 
 and Miss Pollard indulged, and added : “I thought the match was al¬ 
 ready made and thought nothing of their actions.” 
 
 Cross-examination did not shake Mary’s story and she was soon ex¬ 
 cused. 
 
 The defense made an unexpected move by calling Miss Pollard to 
 the stand and questioning her about the birth of her second child, 
 which she said was born at noon on February 3, 1888. 
 
 “I only held it in my arms two hours, according to my promise to 
 him,” she began. 
 
 “Now, now, Miss Pollard,” Mr. Butterworth began nervously, 
 warning Miss Pollard with great solicitude to confine herself to an¬ 
 swering his questions. 
 
 Mr. Wilson also admonished her. 
 
 The child had been taken to the Protestant Foundling Asylum, on 
 Fourteenth street, in Washington, where she had visited it with Dr. 
 Mary Parsons once. She continued: “I gave it a little German 
 name. I pinned a note on its clothing so they could name it. I was 
 reading Carlyle and I named it from a character of his, Dietz Carlyle, | 
 a name as far as possible from that of Colonel Breckinridge or my 
 own.” 
 
 The second time she saw the child was on the 3d of May, at 
 Wright’s undertaking establishment, before it was buried. 
 
 When Mr. Butterworth asked how the 
 
 FUNERAL EXPENSES HAD BEEN PAID, 
 
 She said that Mrs. Parsons had looked after that. She supposed 
 Colonel Breckinridge paid them, but when Mrs. Parsons was recalled 
 to the stand they could ask her. .,'J 
 
 “That’s all, Miss Pollard,” said Mr. Butterworth, dismissing her, 
 and then he called for Dr. Mary Parsons, who was not forthcoming, 
 however. 
 
 Miss Pollard had been perfectly self-possessed while she was being 
 questioned about her child, and had spoken in a low, almost plaintive 
 tone. “I don’t know much about those things, you know, Mr. But- 
 
Twentieth Day of Trial. 
 
 24? 
 
 terworth,” she had said when he was asking her about the regulations 
 of the foundling asylum. 
 
 Some time was passed waiting for Dr. Parsons, and when the Judge 
 inquired the cause of the delay he was told by Mr. Shelby that the de¬ 
 fense wished to further cross-examine her about matters she had testified 
 upon for the plaintiff, and which they had omitted to ask her about. 
 The plaintiff’s lawyers thought this was a rather unusual procedure, 
 but were not disposed to press objections. Pending the arrival of Dr. 
 Parsons, a middle-aged lady with spectacles, who had been sitting in 
 Court, was called. She announced her name as Mrs. Leidy; said she 
 was employed in the Census Bureau, and in 1888 had been Matron of 
 the Washington Foundling Asylum on Fourteenth street. 
 
 The record of the asylum for that year being shown her, she identi¬ 
 fied the record of a child brought there by a large colored woman, 
 with a paper pinned on its clothing. A slip of paper which she 
 thought had come on the clothing 
 
 WAS PASTED IN THE BOOK. 
 
 The objection to the introduction of the book was sustained with¬ 
 out explanation. Exception was taken. Attorney Shelby endeavored 
 in other ways to bring out the point he had aimed at, but in each in¬ 
 stance was defeated by objections of counsel for the plaintiff and sus¬ 
 tained by the court. 
 
 Finally, after a prolonged wrangling, the Matron was permitted to 
 testify that the child had been christened “ Downing.” At this Miss 
 Pollard began to shed tears, and received the attentions of her 
 counsel. 
 
 The slip pasted on "the asylum record was penned in a feminine, 
 delicate hand, with the words: “Please name my baby ‘ Dietz Down¬ 
 ing,’” and beneath it in red ink, “ Died April 18, 1888.” 
 
 A question from Mr. Shelby as to whether any other child had died 
 in April of 1888, brought the reply: “They die so fast and so rapidly 
 that I cannot keep track of them.” 
 
 The records, however, would show, the witness said. -When Mr. 
 Shelby offered to place the record in evidence it was ruled out. 
 
 The defense attempted to put Dr. Mary Parsons upon the stand, 
 but upon Judge Bradley insisting that counsel for Colonel Breckinridge 
 
248 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 must understand that she was their own witness called for cross-exami¬ 
 nation, the plan was abandoned and the witness dismissed. Win. B. 
 Moore, of the Cincinnati Health Office, testified that no return of a 
 birth attended by Dr. Mary Parsons in February of 1888 had been 
 made. He testified and was not cross-examined. Here the defense 
 abruptly rested its case. 
 
 The first witness called by the plaintiff’s attorneys in rebuttal was 
 Dr. Wm. A. Cowan, a young man who is Superintendent of the 
 Western Asylum in Pittsburg. He announced himself as the first 
 cousin of Miss Pollard on the mother’s side. As soon as Mr. Carlisle 
 asked whether the plaintiff had been a member of his family from 1876 
 to 1880, Mr. Shelby objected, arguing that such testimony was not 
 properly rebuttal. He was reminded by Mr. Carlisle of the deposition 
 of Mrs. Miller, nee Shinglebower, a woman admittedly of ill fame, 
 who had testified that Miss Pollard had lived in Kentucky in the year 
 1877 and 1878, and had committed certain 
 
 IMPROPER ACTS IN HER SIGHT. 
 
 Mr. Wilson also cast reflections upon the character of Mrs. Miller, 
 declaring her deposition to be an infamous lie. In overruling the 
 objection Judge Bradley remarked that “the defendant put on the 
 stand an infamous woman, I say infamous advisedly, from her own 
 testimony.” Continuing, the Judge referred to the testimony of Mrs. 
 Miller as disgusting: referred to the fact that Mrs. Miller had testified 
 that she had become a woman of the town at the age of 14, and said 
 the plaintiff should be allowed to purge herself of the contamination 
 which would inevitably come from association with such a woman. 
 He also spoke of the contention of the defense that Miss Pollard could 
 not disprove the affidavit by the surest means by showing that she was 
 not at the place where the specific acts of immorality were said to 
 have been committed. 
 
 Dr. Cowan testified that Miss Pollard had been a member of his 
 family continuously from August, 1876, to 1880, and had attended 
 school with his sisters most of the time. The cross-examination 
 showed that he had made a trip West in 1876, and another in 1878, 
 but he was certain that the plaintiff had not been away from Pittsburg 
 at those times. The testimony of Millie Shinglebower had been that 
 
Twentieth Day of Trial. 
 
 249 
 
 Miss Pollard was living in 1877 and 1878 five miles from Lexington, 
 
 £y. 
 
 During the legal arguments which had preceded the testimony, Miss 
 Pollard, who had been engaged for an hour in taking notes, left the 
 courtroom. Another relative of the plaintiff, Charles Sawyer, testified 
 that he had lived in the same house (Aunt Keene’s, near Lexington) 
 with Miss Pollard from 1880 to 1883, and that in all that time the 
 plaintiff had not been from home over night except for a period of 10 
 days in 1882, when she was visiting at an uncle’s in Guttenburg. 
 
 George H. Keene, another cousin, gave evidence of a like char¬ 
 acter. 
 
 Mrs. McClellan Brown, wife of the former Principal of the Wesleyan 
 Seminary, bearing a large book, took the stand, and was about to 
 refer to this volume, stating that it was the school record, when the 
 defense objected, but Judge Bradley admitted the book, but finally 
 Mrs. Brown’s examination was limited to rebuttal of Roselle’s testi¬ 
 mony. Mrs. Brown then detailed the rules of the seminary as to 
 gentleman callers. She had seen Roselle at the seminary. Mr. Car¬ 
 lisle asked: “ Was it possible for a young man to hold a young lady 
 in his lap there for an hour and a half in the evening?” 
 
 Mr. Shelby shouted an objection, and it was sustained. Mrs. 
 Brown went on to state that young ladies were not permitted to see 
 young men alone at all, and never to 
 
 SEE THEM BUT ONCE A WEEK. 
 
 “We had two young ladies that year who were engaged, but they 
 were allowed to receive callers but once a week. The young ladies 
 received their visitors in public in the public rooms.” 
 
 When asked to tell what manner of man Mr. Rodes was, she said, 
 impressively, as though delivering an oration: “A country gentleman 
 of honest face, of decent habit and manner, of a pure atmosphere 
 and language, and reverential toward ladies. He was an admirer of 
 Miss Pollard’s intellectual attainments, anxious for her best develop¬ 
 ment.” 
 
 “ Bright, but not deep,” was the description she gave of Miss Pol¬ 
 lard’s mind, on cross-examination. 
 
 “You would hardly expect a school girl of that age to be deep. 
 
250 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 The victory she won was not able,” the witness continued, “ because 
 of her youth. Her opponents were much older.” 
 
 “Judging her youth from her representations,” interposed Colonel 
 Philip Thompson. 
 
 “No; from her appearance,” declared Mrs. Brown. 
 
 Judge Bradley took a hand in the questioning, eliciting the inform¬ 
 ation that on Friday nights there usually had been from fifteen to 
 twenty-five callers in the parlors of the school. 
 
 Mrs. Louise Lowell was recalled, and over the objections of the 
 defense, permitted to tell the substance of the letter to ‘ ‘ My dear 
 Sister Louise.” 
 
 There was much difficulty in getting the statement in proper 
 form. 
 
 Mrs. Lowell began: “I thought from the beginning of ‘My dear 
 Sister Louise ’ that—” but was halted by a storm of objections, being 
 informed that her thoughts were not wanted. 
 
 Starting on a new tack, she said: “Naturally from the tenor of the 
 letters,” to again be waylaid by the protests of the defense. Finally, 
 when pinned down to telling the substance of the letters, she re¬ 
 lated: “He spoke of the great disparity between their ages, of his 
 great love for her, and, I think, used the expression that he never 
 knew two of the same family of such different ages who loved each 
 other so well. That was the tenor of the whole letter and of other 
 similar ones which followed it. In one he spoke highly of some man¬ 
 uscript which had been sent him for criticism, and told how proud he 
 was of the person to whom the letter was addressed. He told how 
 impatient he was to get away from the duties which kept him from 
 her, and described in glowing terms the meeting they would have 
 when he returned. 
 
 Enter a plump colored woman of exceeding dusky hue, with a 
 wealth of flaming scarlet flowers in her bonnet. 
 
 Mary Yancey, as her name was, had cooked in the house of Mrs. 
 Thomas, at 1190 H street, last May. Mary did not know the mean¬ 
 ing of the word plaintiff, but did know Miss Pollard; she also knew 
 Colonel Breckinridge, who “visited Miss Pollard there.” 
 
 “Did you ever see that basket, Mary?” Mr. Carlisle inquired, 
 
Twentieth Day of Trial. 
 
 251 
 
 handing up the work-basket, once the property of the late Mrs. Breck¬ 
 inridge. 
 
 “Oh, yes,” was the unctuous answer, “seen it thousands of times. 
 
 “that’s miss pollard’s work-basket.” 
 
 Objections, but overruled, and Mary proceeded to tell how on a 
 day in May Colonel Breckinridge had lunched with Miss Pollard, 
 how she had seen Colonel Breckinridge “a-sittin’ on the sofa with 
 Miss Pollard, and she a-sewin’ from the basket. It had a blue bow 
 on it and a blue silk linin’.” 
 
 “ Now, Mary, what, if anything, did Colonel Breckinridge say 
 about that lunch to you?” was the next question of Mr. Carlisle. 
 
 More objections on grounds of materiality, and others that this was 
 purely direct testimony. Another ruling adverse to the defendant, 
 more protests from Mr. Shelby, based on authority, and Mary con¬ 
 tinues: “Well, the next day he walked into the parlor. He said to 
 me, ‘ Mary, that was an excellent lunch, one of the nicest lunches I 
 has et in all the days of my life. Miss Pollard said to me that 
 you cooks like that way all the time, and I would like to have you 
 come and cook for us when we goes to housekeeping next fall.’ Says 
 I, * I have been living with my people sixteen years, and I has no 
 cause to leave them.’ ” 
 
 All this was said very slowly and with great impressiveness, the 
 colored woman evidently realizing that she was taking part in a drama 
 of importance. 
 
 “Did you see Colonel Breckinridge call on Miss Pollard at the 
 house, and what was the manner of their greeting, in April and May ?” 
 was the next admitted over objections. 
 
 “He would often throw his arms around her when she would 
 come,” said Mary, “after I had taken up his card, and he would 
 always bring a bunch of flowers to her.” 
 
 “Did Colonel Breckinridge call often?” 
 
 “Often, very often.” 
 
 “ How often ?” 
 
 “Sometimes every day, sometimes twice a day, sometimes three 
 times a day. Mr. Breckinridge called to see Miss Pollard two or 
 three days exceptin’ when he was out of the city. He was absent 
 
252 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 from the city two or three times, and them times telegrams would 
 come.” 
 
 Colonel Breckinridge had said they were going housekeeping in the 
 early fall. He had kissed Miss Pollard and put his arms around her 
 when he called during the month of May. (After his marriage to 
 Mrs. Wing secretly in New York.) 
 
 Mrs. Minear, who had appeared before, the landlady of the La¬ 
 fayette Square House, was called and asked if Miss Pollard had been 
 there during the month of August, 1892, and the question was objected 
 to. Mr. Carlisle explained that Colonel Breckinridge had testified 
 that Miss Pollard was not in town that month, but Mr. Shelby re¬ 
 turned that he had only testified that he did not see her in that month. 
 
 The question being admitted Mrs. Minear asserted that from her 
 books she learned that Miss Pollard was there on the 31st day of 
 August, staying for a few days. This was the time when Miss Pollard 
 asserts Colonel Breckinridge met her at the depot on her arrival in 
 the city and proposed to marry her formally for the first time. 
 
 Heie the Court adjourned. 
 
 TWENTY-FIRST DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 Miss Pollard's turn at denials—Miss Pollard says “No” with theatrical 
 emphasis—Lawyers take the case to-day. 
 
 Continual contradictions and denials were the striking features in 
 the closing hours of the Pollard-Breckinridge case to-day. The testi¬ 
 mony is all in. No more witnesses will be called, both sides have 
 rested and the oratorical display will begin on Monday. 
 
 All of to-day was given to a series of denials and rebuttals of a 
 sweeping character on both sides. The defense with witnesses, and 
 the defendant himself, gave the lie to many statements which had been 
 made foi the plaintiff. 
 
 The plaintiff herself, and witnesses called by her lawyers, gave the 
 lie direct to many statements made by the defendant and those called 
 to support his cause. 
 
Twenty-First Day of Trial. 
 
 2 53 
 
 It was generally understood that to-day’s session would witness the 
 close of the case as regards testimony. There was a languid air of 
 indifference in the room. The audience was slight, and even some of 
 the regular patrons were 
 
 MISSED FOR THE FIRST TIME. 
 
 One person alone was not languid or indifferent. That person was 
 Madeline Pollard. She was alert and busy, giving short whispers to 
 her counsel and watching every move made by the opposing lawyers. 
 She displayed more spirit than she has since the days of her soft- 
 voiced testimony of two weeks ago. Nor was she altogether soft- 
 voiced to-day when recalled to the stand to refute some recent testi¬ 
 mony given by her foes. Several times she raised her voice to its 
 highest pitch, and it penetrated every corner of the room. She was 
 earnest and defiant, almost impatient at times in her answers, so much 
 so that there was some surprise at her sudden show of a resentful 
 spirit. 
 
 In denying acquaintance with John Brand, Mollie Shinglebower 
 and others, who had traduced her in the vilest terms, Miss Pollard be¬ 
 came very indignant, and her tone was not alone emphatic but vehe¬ 
 ment in denial of their charges of immorality. Likewise when ques¬ 
 tioned as to her relations with James Rodes, she became half excited 
 in answering: “There were never circumstances which warranted 
 the telling of such a lie on that 
 
 “poor old dead farmer.” 
 
 She denied the defendant’s story of the carriage drive; denied that 
 she fell an easy victim; denied that he gave her $10. 
 
 Spectators in Court could not help turning to look at Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge every time the plain featured but excited woman would deny 
 point blank the damaging statements he had made in his story, but he 
 did not seem to be disturbed. His manner during such scenes and all 
 day was that of a man who was tired out and who would be glad 
 when the case was ended. At times he would appear bored, and 
 then again he would laugh and chat with his counsel and pass a joke 
 with his son. 
 
 The plaintiff’s pent-up indignation, which had made her so nervous 
 for several days, had at last a vent, and she made the best use of her 
 
254 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 last opportunity. She paid her respects to Alex. Julian, who had 
 told the story of a mock marriage with such unpleasant insinuations. 
 Madeline denied the story in toto, and regretted ever to have called 
 Alex. Julian a friend, as he had proved himself unworthy of such 
 relation. 
 
 In his story Colonel Breckinridge had denied that there were any 
 improper relations between himself and plaintiff while both were 
 rooming at Mrs. Hoyt’s, in Lexington. 
 
 Miss Pollard promptly declared to-day, with more detail than be¬ 
 fore, that she had been in the room of Colonel Breckinridge almost 
 every night when other inmates of the household were asleep. She 
 told a signal 
 
 HAD BEEN AGREED UPON, 
 
 How he would slam his door and she would silently glide from her 
 room to his. It was with this story and a few minor details of denial 
 that Madeline Pollard closed her own testimony in a famous case and 
 and ended her interesting career on the witness stand. When she 
 stepped down and had taken her seat Judge Wilson announced that 
 the plaintiff’s case was closed. 
 
 For a few minutes Colonel Breckinridge was on the stand, this time 
 to make a few more final denials. , 
 
 Some of them were trivial and technical, but he was not allowed 
 to make a detailed denial of the plaintiff’s story about their relations 
 at the home of Mrs. Hoyt. Judge Bradley ruled that this had al¬ 
 ready been denied by the defendant, and that it was not competent. 
 
 He closed his story and his case by denying that he ever wrote a 
 letter referring to a manuscript as 
 
 MISS LOUISE LOWELL HAD TESTIFED. 
 
 His last -word was to deny a woman’s story and then he stepped 
 down, rejoined his lawyers and looked immensely relieved when 
 Colonel Shelby remarked : “ This closes the case for the defense.” 
 
 The prosecution had nothing more to offer. For 29 days the case 
 has been before the court, and great volumes of testimony have been 
 taken and will be piled up before the jury when the arguments begin. 
 The lawyers promised to have their prayers on the subject of testi- 
 
 
Twenty-First Day of Trial. 
 
 2 55 
 
 mony by to-morrow morning, and the court will decide on the admis¬ 
 sion of the testimony in dispute. 
 
 By Monday all will be ready for oratorical efforts. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle will open for the plaintiff. Mr. Shelby or Mr. Thomp¬ 
 son will open for the defense. 
 
 Mr. Butterworth will make the last appeal for Colonel Breckinridge 
 and Judge Wilson will close the case. 
 
 Judge Bradley will charge the jury, and by Wednesday night the 
 famous Pollard-Breckinridge case will have passed into history. 
 
 Madeline Pollard’s friend, Dr. Mary Parsons, appeared before & 
 slim house to-day, the attendance of elderly men with prurient fancies 
 having fallen off greatly with the conclusion of Colonel Breckinridge’s 
 cross-examination in Judge Bradley’s Court. Dr. Parson’s was called 
 in rebuttal, the desire being to establish the identity of the handwrit¬ 
 ing upon the slip of paper alleged to have been attached to the cloth¬ 
 ing of Miss Pollard’s child. 
 
 The defense did not care to have this evidense, but Judge Bradley 
 overruled objections and Dr. Parsons testified that the slip shown was 
 the identical one which had been pinned to the child’s clothing, and 
 that the words “Please name my baby Dietz Downing,” were in her 
 handwriting. 
 
 Mary McKenzie, a middle-aged colored woman, was next put upon 
 the stand. 
 
 “ Do you know where this baby that has been spoken of was 
 born?” asked Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “In my house on Seventh street,” was the answer. 
 
 “What was its mother’s name?” 
 
 “She was called Mrs. Hall.” 
 
 “Who attended her?” 
 
 “Dr. Parsons.” 
 
 Mary McKenzie had gone with Dr. Parsons to the asylum and 
 ;iven the child into the 
 
 KEEPING OF THE PEOPLE THERE. 
 
 “Did Mr. Hall ever come to visit Mrs. Hall?” 
 
 “So she claimed.”- 
 
 (( 
 
 Did you ever see him ?” 
 
256 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 ‘‘Not till to-day. I recognize him by the child,” responded the 
 colored woman, looking directly at the gray-haired Congressman, who 
 sat before her. 
 
 The defense did not care to cross-examine Aunt Mary. 
 
 Mrs. Lucretia Marie Minear, the landlady of the fashionable board¬ 
 ing house at Lafayette Square, brought to the stand her account 
 book, which showed that Miss Pollard had arrived at her house on 
 August 31, 1892, the day on which the plaintiff claims Colonel 
 Breckinridge first broached the subject of marriage after the death 
 of his wife. 
 
 The four mysterious volumes of Irving, which had figured in that 
 part of the case centering about the Norwood Convent, and in which 
 the disputed Christmas card had been found, were placed on the wit¬ 
 ness stand. Then Attorney Calderon Carlisle walked to the stand 
 and took the oath. Attorneys on the other side objected, but Judge 
 Bradley ruled that, as the evidence of Sisters Agnes and Augustine 
 might have suggested to the minds of the jurymen the possibility that 
 the card had been put in the book by Mr. Carlisle, it was entirely : 
 proper that the latter should be heard upon the subject. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle proceeded: “ I am able to swear that from the time I 
 took that book from the bookcase until I discovered in it the Christ- r 
 mas card no other hand but mine and that of Sister Agnes touched . 
 it. I was looking for handwriting in the book or some other marks 
 of identification. While I was handling it I found between the 
 leaves this Christmas card, which did not have its edges turned up j 
 or curled, and had on it the handw'riting which you have seen, j 
 ‘Compliments of W. S. D.’ There was also the invisible net anc I 
 the pressed rose leaves. When I found them my client was sitting j 
 in the opposite corner of the room, and my colleague, Mr. Johnson J 
 was some distance away. No one but myself could have put thesi j 
 things between the leaves of the book when our party was there, anc I 
 I say to you, gentlemen, on my oath, 
 
 “that 1 didn’t do it.” 
 
 Mr. Carlisle’s evidence was fortified by the testimony of Attorne ij 
 Johnson, who had accompanied him to the convent. Then Miss Po j 
 lard once more took the witness stand and made denial that she ha 1 
 
R. J. Q. MAHONY 
 
.Twenty-First Day of Trial. -51 
 
 re r known Mollie Shinglebower, Lena Singleton, John Brandt or 
 dram Kauffman, all of whom had deposed that she had been an in- 
 ate of a house of ill-repute in Lexington. She had never heard of 
 trah Gess until taken to her house by Colonel Breckinridge; had 
 iver sustained improper relations with Rodes nor told Breckinridge 
 hat such relations had existed. She had not accepted money from 
 e defendant at the time of her alleged seduction. 
 
 Miss Pollard also denied, in all its details, the story of the mock 
 arriage between her and Owen Tinsley on Christmas Day, 1883. 
 iss Pollard said: “I never was separated from Mr. Breckinridge a 
 ly during the nine years that I was-in his life, but—” when she 
 as stopped by objections from the defense. She received his letters 
 [dressed “My dear Sister Louise,” and was in his room every night 
 was under Mrs. Hoyt’s roof. She had never at any time presented 
 pistol at his head. There was no understanding that she should 
 ! ceive Mrs. Blackburn or that she should falsely represent to Major 
 oore that she was to be married. Colonel Breckinridge saw her 
 e the work basket many times, and said he was glad to see her 
 e it. 
 
 With Miss Pollard’s retirement from the stand, the plaintiff’s rebuttal 
 >sed. Then came in surrebuttal Mrs. Liddie, the Matron of the 
 ashington Foundling Asylum, who made a relatively unimportant 
 nial as to the colored woman who brought the child to the asylum. 
 Then Colonel Breckinridge reappeared as a witness and denied 
 it he had told the colored woman, Mary Yancey, that he wanted 
 r to cook for them when they got to housekeeping; that Miss Pol- 
 d was ever, to his knowledge, in his room at Mrs. Hoyt’s. 
 
 This ended the testimony, to the relief of everybody, for it had 
 ■in drawn out'in a tiresome way for several days. 
 
 The attorneys arranged to submit their requests for instructions by 
 Court to the jury on the legal aspects of the case to-morrow, and 
 n the jury was excused until Monday. 
 
 I 7 
 
258 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF TRIAL- 
 
 Instructions asked for by plaintiff and defendant. Prayers 
 the argument.—Reasons why a verdict should be given Miss 
 Pollard—And reasons why the Colonel should win. 
 
 The lawyers in the Pollard-Breckinridge suit for breach oi 
 promise were engaged in presenting arguments before Judgt 
 Bradley. It was an occasion of importance in the history of the 
 case. Upon the instructions which are given to the jury by the 
 Court, after the pleas are concluded, depend to a considerable 
 extent the character of the verdict. The prayers of the parties 
 to the suit, asking each a particular set of instructions were-J 
 fered. and both law and arguments were urged at some lengj|- 
 in their support. 
 
 The proceedings were not interesting to spectators, who wen 
 allowed for the first time during the trial to enter the court-rooD 
 without permission from the marshal. A large number gatb®| 
 in the morning, but after the arguments began they sooi 
 dwindled away to a handful. Miss Pollard was absent and^H 
 onel Breckinridge did not appear until late in the forenoor 
 Major Butterworth was away, having gone to Cincinnati tomak 
 a political speech. Mr. Stoll was also absent during the whol 
 of the day. The arguments for Colonel Breckinridge 
 made by Mr. Shelby, and those for the plaintiff by Mr. Johnso 
 and Mr. Wilson. The hour for the hearing was fixed at halMl 
 10 o’clock, but there were numerous lawyers waiting to dispaft 
 business for their clients, and it w'as some past 11 o’clock befoi 
 the hearing began. 
 
 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 
 
 The arguments covered many matters of legal interpret 
 tion involved in the case, and the authorities bearing 
 breach of promise suits wdiich have been decided in many SW?I 
 were brought into the court-room and liberally quoted froj 
 They centered for the most part, however, around the 
 of the counsel for each side to shift the burden of proof to the: 
 
Twenty-second Day of Triad, 
 
 259 
 
 opponents. It was maintained by Mr. Shelby that the plaintiff 
 must prove the existence of the , contract of marriage be¬ 
 fore she was entitled to recover. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Wilson 
 contended that Colonel Breckinridge had acknowledged the 
 promise in his testimony, and had set up as an excuse for it an 
 agreement previously entered into by himself and Miss Pollard. 
 Having acknowledged the charge, he must prove the existence 
 of the agreement. 
 
 The matter of the secret marriage was also in issue, and on 
 this point the tenor of the arguments were almost directly op¬ 
 posite. It was contended that if Colonel Breckinridge was mar¬ 
 ried to Mrs. Wing, as he acknowledged, he could not be held re¬ 
 sponsible for any promise of marriage, or for any repetition of 
 a promise to marry her after that date, as it was impossible for 
 him to enter into such an engagement. Any repetition or 
 avowal after that time, the plaintiff’s counsel asserted, on the 
 other hand, was but an aggravation of the injury, and it could 
 not,be set up in any why in defense. 
 
 There was much debate over the character of Miss Pollard 
 as affecting the verdict and the amount of damages. Mr. Shel¬ 
 by maintained that if her life, prior to her acquaintance with 
 dolonei Breckinridge, was improper, and in this respect unknown 
 :o him, it would warrant him in refusing to carry out a contract, 
 f one existed. Imprudent conduct with any other man than 
 fames C. Rodes was cited as an instance which seemed warrant 
 or such a refusal. This was denied by the other side. 
 
 DIM IT FOR THE ARGUMENTS. 
 
 Judge Bradley reserved his decision on the instructions. Be- 
 ore the adjournment of the Court, he asked for some under- 
 landing about the time the counsel would require for their ar¬ 
 guments before the jury, and stated that it seemed to him that 
 ive hours for each side would be sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Wilson maintained that this would be hardly enough to 
 eview the testimony. 
 
 Judge Bradley said in reply that he thought a large part of 
 f: could be classified in presentation to the jury, but stated that 
 
26 o 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 he would fix the minimum time at five hours. He added that 
 he thought it should also be the maximum. He made no comment 
 upon the instructions except that he could see no reason why 
 the existing marriage should be any defense. 
 
 PRAYERS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle first addressed the Court, when the case -was 
 called, and read at length the prayers which his client desired. 
 They were: 
 
 “ I. The jury are instructed that this is an act for a breach of 
 a contract for marriage. If the jury find from the evidence that 
 there was a mutual promise of marriage, as claimed in the declar¬ 
 ation, that would constitute a breach of contract. And the jury 
 are further instructed that if, after such contract was made, the 
 defendant married another person, that would be a breach of the 
 contract, and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover; and it 
 would be no defense to this action that he had carnally known 
 the plaintiff before or after such contract; nor would it be a 
 defense that she had illicit intercourse with another ^person be¬ 
 fore she had such intercourse with him, if he knew the fact at 
 the time of making the contract. 
 
 “ II. The defendant denies that there was a contract of mar¬ 
 riage. His contention is that there was a mutual agreement be¬ 
 tween the plaintiff and the defendant that the promises of mar¬ 
 riage were not real and were not intended to be kept, but were 
 made to deceive. The burden of proving such agreement, or 
 agreements, is upon him, and he must prove by a preponderance 
 of evidence that there was such a mutual agreement. He must | 
 prove that the plaintiff understood and assented thereto. If he 
 made the promise intending not to keep it, while she accepted 
 the promise as made in good faith, it is binding upon| him, and 
 the verdict must be for the plaintiff. 
 
 “III. The jury are instructed upon the whole in this case 
 their verdict must be for the plaintiff, unless they find from the 
 evidence that the plaintiff agreed with the defendant, before mak¬ 
 ing any promise of marriage, that the same should not be bvnd- 
 
26i 
 
 Twenty-second Day of Trial. 
 
 lag; and to establish this fact, the burden is upon the defendant, 
 and he must establish it by a preponderance of evidence. 
 
 “ IV. The jury are instructed that if they believe from the 
 evidence that when the defendant promised to marry the plain¬ 
 tiff, as he admits that he did, whether he did so in good faith or 
 not, that the plaintiff in good faith accepted said promise and 
 agreed to marry the defendant, then there is no evidence of any 
 legal justification, or excuse, for not marrying the plaintiff, and 
 their verdict must be for the plaintiff. 
 
 “V. The jury are instructed that they are bound to render 
 a verdict for the plaintiff in this case, unless they find by a pre¬ 
 ponderance of evidence that the plaintiff did accept the defend¬ 
 ant’s promise of marriage, but agreed with him that the same 
 should not be binding; and they are further instructed that the 
 defendant, having made the promise and acknowledgment of 
 the engagement to marry, the burden is upon him to show by a 
 preponderance of evidence that such promise and acknowedg- 
 ment were agreed by the plaintiff not to be binding upon him.” 
 
 BAD FAITH NO DEFENSE. 
 
 “ VI. The jury are instructed that if they believe from the 
 evidence that the defendant made any of the alleged promises of 
 marriage in bad faith, not intending to keep the same, and 
 further find that the plaintiff accepted such promises in good 
 faith and agreed to marry the defendant, that the bad faith of 
 he defendant is no defense in this action, and their verdict in 
 his action should be for the plaintiff. 
 
 “ VII. In determining whether the plaintiff in good faith 
 mderstood and believed the defendant to be sincere in his 
 iromises to marry her, or whether she understood and agreed 
 hat the said promises were not to be kept by the defendant, the 
 ary are to consider the condition of the plaintiff at the time and 
 ince, and also the conduct of the defendant at or about and 
 fter such promise, and if they are not satisfied by a preponder- 
 ace of the evidence that the plaintiff did so agree with the de- 
 mdant, their verdict must be for the plaintiff, 
 
 15 VIII. If the jury find from the evidence that the defend- 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 2<3a 
 
 ant made any of the promises of marriage to the plaintiff as 
 claimed by her and testified toby Mrs. Julia C. Blackburn, Major 
 William G. Moore, or other witnesses, or that he acknowledged 
 himself as engaged to marry the plaintiff, which promises were 
 accepted by the plaintiff, then the burden of the proof is upon 
 the defendant to establish by a preponderance of evidence, anj 
 defense to or release from any such promise, and it would not be 
 a defense if he had had illicit relations with her before or aftei 
 such promise, or that he had been informed by her prior to said , 
 promise that she had had illicit relations with another. 
 
 “ IX. The defendant having asserted that he had had carna! 
 knowledge of the plaintiff before the making of the alleged prom 
 ise to marry, and having asserted that he knew she was not £ ■ 
 virgin and free from sexual fault at the time of his first inter 
 course with her, the jury are instructed that, even if they believt 
 from the evidence that the plaintiff was not chaste before sucl 
 intercourse with the defendant, and that he knew of such pre 
 vious unchastity, that such facts would not justify a verdict fo; 
 the defendant if the jury believe that the contract of marriagi | 
 was therefore made. _ 
 
 “X, If the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff di< i 
 tell the defendant, as he states, that she had been impruden . 
 with James C. Rodes, and thereafter, and when he was an tin • 
 married man he promised to marry the plaintiff, and she him 
 the fact thatshe hadinformed him that she had had illicit relation . 
 with the said Rodes would not effect the validity of his contrac 
 of marriage or further justify his refusal to keep said promisi i 
 and their verdict must be for the plaintiff. 
 
 “XI. The jury are instructed that the fact, which the d< x 
 fendant admits, that he was secretly married without the knov 
 ledge of the plaintiff, on or about the 29th day of April, 189. j 
 after some of the alleged promises to marry her, the plaintii \ 
 does not constitute a defense to this action, and is no bar or iD 
 pediment to the right of the plaintiff to recover, but the fa< i 
 should be considered by the jury in aggravation of the dsmage 
 if they find for the plaintiff. 
 
 “XII. If the jury find from the evidence that the defenda: 1 
 
Twenty-sbcqnd Day of Triae. 
 
 263 
 
 was married on the 29th day of April, 1893, that he kept, and 
 caused to be kept, that marriage a secret thereafter, and that 
 without disclosing the fact of that marriage he promised to marry 
 the plaintiff, or repeated or avowed a previously made engage¬ 
 ment of marriage with her, such secret marriage would be no de¬ 
 fense to this action, but the fact should be considered by the jury 
 in aggravation of the damages if they find for the plaintiff. 
 
 “ XIII. — The jury are instructed that if they find for the 
 plaintiff in estimating the damages they are to consider all the 
 facts in evidence as to the relations between the parties up to 
 the breaking of the promise, the prospective pecuniary and so¬ 
 cial advantages to the plaintiff from such marriage, the injury to 
 the plaintiff’s feelings and reputation by its violation, the manner 
 and circumstances of its violation, and the suffering of the plain¬ 
 tiff caused thereby, and its effect upon her means of earning a 
 livelihood in the future; and the jury are also to take into con¬ 
 sideration the wrong committed by the defendant and may award 
 exemplary damages as well. 
 
 “XIV. If the jury find for^the plaintiff, and further find that 
 :he defendant to a third party announced his promise to marry 
 ;he plaintiff, and he did so after he had violated that promise by 
 secretly marrying another and concealed such marriage, they are 
 0 consider each of such circumstances in aggravation of the dam- 
 iges; andthe ability or inability of the defendant to pay damages 
 loes not affect the plaintiff’s right to a verdict. 
 
 I “ XV. If the jury find from the evidence for the plaintiff, and 
 Hi 1 they further find that the plaintiff was chaste and pure from 
 exual fault, save with the defendant; or if they further believe 
 lat the defendant knew this, and that the attempt to impeach 
 le plaintiff’s chastity and character was. not made in good faith 
 y him, but merely as a means of defense, or to injure the plain- 
 ff, then they may consider those facts in assessing the damages, 
 ut the jury cannot award more than the amount charged in the 
 cclaration, to wit, $50,000.” 
 
 PRAYERS OF THE DEFENSE. 
 
 Mr. Shelby then read the instructions desired by Colonel 
 •eckinridge, as follows: 
 
264 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “ I. Before the plaintiff can recover in this action, the jury 
 must believe from all the evidence that the contract was entered 
 into between the plaintiff and the defendant by which they 
 agreed with each other to become husband and wife. 
 
 « n. if there was an actual agreement to marry, entered 
 into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant, then no 
 statements made in the presence of other persons would consti- *j 
 tute of themselves a contract of marriage. If, therefore, thgl 
 parties did in the presence of others say or admit that they were 
 to be married, such statements are not to be taken as constitut-ij 
 ing or evidencing the existence of a contract between them if'] 
 they were made pursuant to a mutual understanding for a difier- j 
 ent purpose. 
 
 “ III. The jury are instructed that the burden of proof i£ j 
 upon the plaintiff, and that they should find for the defendant , 
 unless they believe from all the evidence in the case that it ralfl 
 mutually agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant tha 1 
 they were in fact to be married. 
 
 MARRIED MAN CAN NOT PROMISE. t 
 
 “ IV. The jury are instructed that a married man can no 
 enter into a binding contract of marriage with another persoM 
 even although the fact of his having married be not at the tim J 
 known to such person. If, therefore, the jury should find fron i 
 the evidence that no contract of marriage was entered into be j 
 tween the plaintiff and the defendant, but that at such timejfflB 
 defendant was a married man, they should find for the defendant! 
 
 “V. It being admitted that improper relations existed be 
 tween the parties anterior to any of the alleged promises, tern* 
 of affection and intimacy between them, and support furnishe. I 
 by the defendant to the plaintiff are to be considered pnnj 
 facie as growing out of, and due to such relations, and not as e\; H 
 
 dence of an engagement to marry. 
 
 “ VI. The defendant having been married to his prese»M 
 wife on the 29th day of April, 1893, any engagement betwee 
 the plaintiff and the defendant to get married after that date 
 void and of no effect. 
 
Twenty-second Day of ‘Trxax,. 
 
 265 
 
 “VII. Even if the jury should find from the evidence that 
 a contract of marriage was entered into between the plaintiff and 
 the defendant, yet, if they further believe from the evidence that, 
 prior to that time, the plaintiff had been guilty of lewd and las¬ 
 civious conduct with other men, and that such fact was unknown 
 to the defendant, then the defendant was not bound by such con¬ 
 tract, but was by said fact of prior lewd and lascivious conduct, 
 if it had existed, released from any obligation to marry the 
 plaintiff, and had the right to refuse to perform such contract; 
 and this is so, whether at the time of his refusal or not, he then 
 knew of such prior lewd and lascivious conduct or not. 
 
 “VIII. If the jury shall find from the evidence that the 
 plaintiff had been guilty of lewd and lascivious conduct with a 
 man, named or called James C. Rodes, and that the defendant 
 had condoned such acts with said Rodes, yet, if it shall appear 
 from the evidence that the plaintiff had been guilty of lewd and 
 lascivious conduct with some other man, the verdict must be for 
 the defendant, even if the knowledge of such conduct did not 
 come to the defendant until after his refusal to marry the 
 plaintiff. 
 
 THREATS WOULD EXCUSE THE DEFENDANT. 
 
 " IX. If the jury find a contract to marry existing between 
 he plaintiff and the defendant, and afterward, during such en¬ 
 gagement, the plaintiff, by threats of bodily harm or other acts 
 ^ave the defendant reasonable cause to believe his life or person 
 vas endangered by her presence, such acts excuse the defendant 
 rom failure to marry thereafter. 
 
 “ X. Even if the jury should believe that a contract of mar- 
 iage was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, yet, if 
 bey further find that, at the time it was made, the plaintiff was 
 ot without sexual fault with other men, but had sexual inter- 
 ourse with other men, then the verdict should be for the de- 
 mdant upon the third count of the declaration, even though he 
 lay have known of such sexual fault. 
 
 | “XI. If the jury find that there was a contract of marriage 
 itween the plaintiff and the defendant, and also fail to find that 
 
266 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 the defendant has been relieved therefrom upon any of the 
 grounds hereinbefore set forth, they may, in mitigation of the 
 damages, consider the plaintiff’s general conduct, if the same 
 were imprudent, or bad, or if the same were violent or improper; 
 and they may also consider, for the said purpose, the plaintiff’s 
 admitted want of virtue, unless they believe that she was se¬ 
 duced by the defendant.” 
 
 MR. JOHNSON OPENS THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 Mr. Johnson opened the argument at 11:25 o’clock. He said 
 there were probably some matters that required no comment, 
 among which were the secret marriage as a defense, and the 
 statement that Colonel Breckinridge could not urge as an excuse 
 for the violation of a contract that Miss Pollard was unchaste. 
 Judge Bradley declared that he did not wish to hear any argu¬ 
 ment on these points. 
 
 Mr. Johnson said also that it would probably be admitted that 
 there was no evidence of unchastity subsequent to the promise 
 to marry on which the defense would rely, and went op to state 
 that the prayers were intended to present every possible aspect 
 of the case as it should be given to the jury, from their point of 
 View. Misconduct, whether unchastity or violence or any¬ 
 thing else, he contended, was only^ an excuse for breaking a 
 promise. Colonel Breckinridge’s own statements on these 
 points were sufficient to prevent him from setting up such an 
 excuse. 
 
 Touching upon the matter of the burden of proof, he urged 
 that the presumption of the law is that there is a burden of 
 proof upon him to establish the indecent falsehood of the agree¬ 
 ment that the promise was only to deceive. This was the only 
 issue of fact as to the promise. He further reviewed briefly the 
 several prayers and cited authorities to show that the defendant 
 in such an action was as liable for a promise made in bad faith 
 as in good faith. He added quotations from authorities about the 
 establishment of a contract, and that the conduct and language 
 of the woman after the alleged promise could be properly con¬ 
 sidered. If a promise was made, it was not affected by the fact 
 
Twenty-second Day of Triad. 
 
 267 
 
 of another made under duress. He also read from the law hooks 
 that the defendant had a right to set up the bad character of the 
 plaintiff in mitigation of the damages, but that she could reply 
 that it had arisen from his own conduct. 
 
 MR. SHERBY BORROWS HIM. 
 
 Mr. Shelby began argumentshortly after noon and continued 
 till 2 o’clock, allowing for the intermission of a half hour. He 
 also reviewed the prayers for each side. He defined the mean» 
 ing of promise, and declared that he believed the plaintiff’s 
 counsel had used it loosely for contract. A contract was a 
 promise to do something, and the action was breach of contract 
 in marriage. A contract implied conditions, and to prove the 
 liability of the defendant in this case the conditions of the con¬ 
 tract must be established. The statements to Mrs. Blackburn 
 and to Major Moore did not constitute the contract. Miss Pol¬ 
 lard must show whether it was a contract at all. She must carry 
 that burden through the whole of the case. 
 
 “ The jury must believe in the existence of the contract.” 
 Mr. Shelby continued, “ and if there was none, then there 
 was no breach.” He criticised the prayers of the defendant 
 as assuming that a contract existed, while this was a mat¬ 
 ter for the jury to determine. He quoted several authori¬ 
 ties, contending that the plaintiff’s admitted want of virtue 
 must be allowed in considering her veracity. 
 
 MR. WIRSON CONCRUDES. 
 
 Mr. Wilson concluded the arguments, speaking briefly about 
 the argument that the burden pf proof was upon the plaintiff. 
 He denied this strongly, saying that Colonel Breckinridge set 
 this up merely as a bar to the agreement. Mr. Wilson believed 
 that this was shuffling on his part. 
 
 He added that the defendant could not urge the secret mar¬ 
 riage, as that would be taking advantage of his own wrong, and 
 that the fact that he had entered into a contract with a lewd and 
 lascivious woman was not any reason for breaking it. This last 
 matter should not be left to the jury to determine, as it would 
 
268 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 be misleading to them. They would have to draw upon theii 
 imagination and their observation, he declared, to determine it. 
 The instructions should be tangible. He objected to any in¬ 
 struction that would leave this question to their determination, 
 and asserted also that the matter of threats, made by the plain¬ 
 tiff, should not be included in the instructions, as affecting the 
 verdict, unless the instructions carefully qualified them. If 
 threats were made before the secret marriage, and Colonel Breck-' 
 inridge did not repeal the contract, he maintained that they 
 were of no consequence. 
 
 TWENTY-THIRD DAY OF TRIAD. 
 
 ► 
 
 No limit to argument.—Several days of talk in the breach of promise 
 case■—Codder on Carlisle argues for the plaintiff. 
 
 The last stage in the trial of the Pollard-Breckinridge suit 
 for breach of promise was begun in the presentation of arguments 
 to the jury. The arguments before the court,' bearing 
 on the instructions to the twelve men who are to give the ver¬ 
 dict, were passed upon in the morning by Judge Bradley, five 
 prayers being refused which were asked by the plaintiff, and the 
 same number which were asked by the defendant. Others were 
 amended. There are sixteen separate instructions. 
 
 Mr. Calderon Carlisle occupied the larger part of the day in 
 opening for the plaintiff, and he had not concluded when the 
 court adjourned. The arguments now promise to occupy nearly 
 all the week, Judge Bradley having removed the time limit of 
 five hours. 
 
 There were few persons present when the court convened, 
 but the plaintiff was among the spectators, much to most persons' 
 surprise. It was supposed she would not care to hear her 
 character publicly discussed with the freedom that counsel use 
 in such matters. Miss Pollard looked well, and she appeared to 
 be in the best of spirits, chatting with Miss Eilis, of the House of 
 Mercy, who sat beside her. Col. Breckinridge and all his lawyers 
 
Twenty-third Day of Triad. 
 
 269 
 
 were prompt, including Maj. Butterworth, who delivered a speech 
 in Cincinnati Saturday night, and left that city immediately for 
 Washington. 
 
 The court was occupied for a part of the first hour in select¬ 
 ing the jurors for the April term. Judge Bradley then took up 
 the instructions, and read those which he had decided to allow. 
 Both the defense and the prosecution noted exceptions to 
 those of their own which were refused. The instructions offered 
 by the plaintiff and granted are as follows : 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PLAINTIFF. 
 
 I. The jury are instructed that this is an action for a breach 
 of contract of marriage. If the jury find from the evidence that 
 there were mutual promises of marriage as claimed in the declara¬ 
 tion, that would constitute a binding contract. And the jury are 
 further instructed that if, after such contract was made, the de¬ 
 fendant married another person, that would be a breach of the 
 contract, and the plaintiff would be entitled to sue. And it would 
 be no defense to this action that he had carnally known plaintiff 
 before or after such contract; nor would it be a defense that she 
 had had illicit intercourse with another, if such was the fact be¬ 
 fore she had had such intercourse with him, if he knew that fact, 
 at the time of making the contract. 
 
 II. The jury are instructed that if they believe from the 
 evidence that the defendant made any of the alleged promises of 
 marriage in bad faith, and not intending to keep the same, and 
 further find that the plaintiff accepted such promise or promises 
 in good faith, and agreed to marry the defendant, that the bad 
 faith or intention of the defendant is no defense in this action. 
 
 III. In determining whether the plaintiff, in good faith, un¬ 
 derstood and believed the defendant to be sincere in his promises 
 to marry her, or whether she understood and agreed that the said 
 promises were not to be kept by the defendant, the jury are to 
 consider the conduct of the plaintiff at the time and since, and 
 also the conduct of the defendant at about and after the time of 
 such promises. 
 
 IV. If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant 
 
270 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 promised the plaintiff to marry her, and that plaintiff in good faith 
 believed and accepted such promise, or that he acknowledged 
 himself as engaged to marry the plaintiff, which promises were 
 accepted by the plaintiff, then the burden is upon the defendant 
 to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any defense to or 
 release from any such promise, and it would not be a defense that 
 he had had illicit relations with her before or after such promise, 
 or that he had been informed by her prior to said promise that 1 
 she had had illicit relations with another. 
 
 V. The defendant having asserted that he had had carnal 
 knowledge of the plaintiff before the making of the alleged 
 promise to marry, and having asserted that he knew she was not 
 a virgin and free from sexual fault at the time of his first inter* 
 course with her, the jury are instructed that, even if they believe j 
 from the evidence that the plaintiff w f as not chaste before such I 
 intercourse with the defendant, and that he knew of such pre¬ 
 vious unchastity, that such facts would not justify a verdict for 
 the defendant if the jury believe that the contract of marriage 
 was thereafter made. 
 
 VI. If the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff 
 did tell the defendant, as he states, that she had been impure 
 with Rodes, and thereafter the defendant had illicit relations 
 with her, as he admits, and thereafter, after the death of his wife, ;i 
 he promised to marry the plaintiff, and she him, the fact that she 
 had informed him, if she did so inform him, that she had had 
 illicit relations with the said Rodes would not affect the validity 
 of his contract of marriage, or furnish justification for his re¬ 
 fusal to keep said promise. 
 
 VII. The jury are iustructed that the fact which defendant 
 admits that he was secretly married without the knowledge of 
 plaintiff on or about the 29th of April, 1893, after some of the 
 promises alleged and before the remaining promises to marry 
 her, the plaintiff, does not constitute a defense to this action, 
 and is no bar or impediment to the right of the plaintiff to re¬ 
 cover. 
 
 VIII. If the jury find from the evidence that the defend¬ 
 ant was married on the 29th of April, 1893, and he kept and 
 
Twenty-third Day of Triad. 
 
 271 
 
 caused to be kept that marriage a secret, and thereafter, and 
 without disclosing the fact of that marriage, he promised to 
 marry the plaintiff, or repeated or avowed a previously made 
 engagement of, marriage with her, such secret marriage would 
 be no defense to this action. 
 
 IX. The jury are instructed that, if they find for the plain¬ 
 tiff, in estimating damages they are to consider all the facts in 
 evidence as to the relations between the parties up to the break- 
 of the promise; the prospective pecuniary and social advantage 
 to the plaintiff from such marriage; the injury to the plaintiff’s 
 feelings and reputation by its violation; the manner and cir¬ 
 cumstances of its violation, and the suffering of the plaintiff 
 caused thereby and its effects upon her means of earning a live¬ 
 lihood in the future. And the jury are also to take into consid¬ 
 eration the wrong submitted by the defendant, and may award 
 exemplary damages as well. 
 
 X. If the jury find for the plaintiff, and they further find 
 that the plaintiff was chaste and pure from sexual fault save 
 with the defendant; and if they further believe that the defend¬ 
 ant knew this and that the attempt to impeach the plaintiff’s 
 chastity and character was not made in good faith by him, but 
 merely as a means of defense or to injure the plaintiff, then they 
 may consider those facts in assessing the damages, but the jury 
 can not award more than the amount claimed in the declaration, 
 to-wit— $50,000. 
 
 FOR THE DEFENDANT. 
 
 Those offered by the defendant and granted are: 
 
 I. Before the?plaintiff can recover in this action, the jury 
 N must believe from all the evidence that a contract was entered 
 
 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant by which they 
 agreed with each other to become husband and wife. 
 
 II. If the jury find from the evidence that statements 
 were made by the plaintiff and defendant in the presence of, or 
 to third persons, that they were engaged to be married to each 
 other, or that they intended to marry each other, that such 
 statements were made pursuant to a prior understanding and 
 
272 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, for the purpose 
 of deceiving such third persons, and were not made in good 
 faith, such statements are not to be taken as constituting or evi¬ 
 dencing the existence of a contract to marry. 
 
 III. The jury are instructed that the burden of proof to 
 establish the contract sued on is upon the plaintiff, and that they 
 should find for the defendant unless they believe from all the 
 evidence in the case that it was mutually agreed between the 
 plaintiff and the defendant that they were in fact to be married. 
 
 IV. Even if the jury should find from the evidence that a 
 contract of marriage was entered into between the plaintiff and 
 the defendant, yet, if they further find from the evidence that 
 prior to that time the plaintiff had been guilty of lewd, unchaste, 
 or lascivious conduct with other men, and that such fact was 
 unknown to defendant, then the defendant was not bound by 
 such contract, but by reason of said fact, if it had existed, he 
 had the right to refuse to perform such contract; and he may 
 avail himself of such defense whether, at the time of his refusal, 
 he knew of such prior lewd, unchaste, or lascivious conduct or 
 not. 
 
 V. If the jury shall find from the evidence that the plain¬ 
 tiff had been guilty of lewd or lascivious conduct with a man 
 named or called Rodes, and that the defendant had condoned 
 such acts with said Rodes, yet if they find from the evidence 
 that the plaintiff had been guilty of lewd, unchaste, and las¬ 
 civious conduct with some other man or men, which said con¬ 
 duct was unknown to the defendant, the verdict must be for the 
 defendant even if the knowledge of such conduct did not come 
 to the defendant until after his refusal to marry the plaintiff. 
 
 VI. If the jury find that there was a contract of marriage 
 between plaintiff and defendant, and also fail to find that plain¬ 
 tiff has been relieved therefrom by any of the defenses urged, 
 they may in mitigation of damages consider the plaintiff’s charac¬ 
 ter and conduct, if the same were bad; and if the plaintiff was 
 not seduced by defendant they may also consider her admitted 
 want of virtue for said purpose. 
 
 
 
 
Twenty-third Day of Triad. 
 
 273 
 
 After making his decision, Judge Bradley said that while the 
 burden of proof rested on the plaintiff to show that a contract to 
 marry was entered into, as the defendant had set up the defense 
 that the contract was not made in good faith, the burden of proof 
 would rest upon him to show that there was an agreement that 
 the contract was not to be carried out, and that statements made 
 in the presence of other parties were made with this understand. 
 ing by both parties. 
 
 Major Butterworth and Judge Wilson each made an appeal to 
 the court not to set a limit of time on the argument, and Judge 
 Bradley granted the requests, with the understanding that coun¬ 
 sel would not take up too much time. Mr. Calderon Carlisle 
 then began the opening argument for the plaintiff. 
 
 MR. CARRISEE’S ARGUMENT. 
 
 When Mr. Carlisle began his argument he spoke in an ordi¬ 
 nary tone of voice, and was-listened to intently. Phil Thompson, 
 who was to follow him, sat near where he could catch fully the 
 words of his opponent. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle, leaning easily against the witness-box, and 
 without any attempt at oratory, told the jury that in his opening 
 statement a month ago he had been exceedingly temperate, but 
 he could now say that all his statements and more than these 
 had been proved. He agreed with Major Butterworth that there 
 were three parties to the suit—the plaintiff, the defendant, and 
 the community, and he pointed out the full accounts in the news¬ 
 papers of the progress of the trial as evidence that the community 
 was deeply interested. He asked the jury to consider its duty 
 to the community, and promised to point out later on what the 
 community had a right to expect. 
 
 Before going into the legal aspects of the case, Mr. Carlisle 
 'eminded the jury of the distinguished career of the defendant, 
 md the advantages at his command in preparing his defense* 
 vlr. Carlisle said the defendant had known the father of the 
 daintiff, who, though a humble saddler, was yet a prominent 
 dason and Odd Fellow. He sketched briefly the life of the 
 jjdaintiff up to the filing of the suit, a period ranging from 1876, 
 18 
 
274 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 when her father died, until 1893, and incidental to this he paid 
 his compliments to Mrs. Miller, alias Mollie Shinglebauer. It 
 had been shown by reputable witnesses on the stand, Mr. Carlisle j 
 said, that during the period covered by Mollie Shinglebauer 
 1877-1878—the plaintiff was in Pittsburg, Pa., and not in or near j 
 Frankfort, Ky., as the Shinglebauer woman testified. 
 
 As to Brant and Kaufman, who swore they knew the plain¬ 
 tiff as an inmate of Lena Singleton’s disreputable house in Lex- J 
 ington, Ky., Mr. Carlisle said it was shown by reputable witnesses 
 that the plaintiff had not spent a single night in Lexington dur. 
 ing the period fixed by “these two constituents of a Congres- j 
 sional district,” as Mr. Carlisle called them, and, further than 
 that, it had been shown that the house fixed upon by one of 
 these young men “in the exuberance of his imagination,” as the 
 place where Madeline Pollard lived with Lena Singleton, was 
 not built until 1886. “I asked you, gentlemen,” Mr. Carlisle | 
 said, “not to believe the story of two such disreputable characters 
 as John Brant and Hiram Kaufman.” 
 
 HIS IMPRESSION OF ROSELL. 
 
 Then he took up the attack on the plaintiff’s character con¬ 
 tained in the testimony of Mr. Rankin Rosell, who said he broke 
 his engagement with Miss Pollard because “ he did not like the 
 way she allowed him to caress her.” “I think every one here 
 has formed an impression of Mr. Rosell in the beginning whet 
 he testified here. I got one, and I think you got the same one.” • 
 He told how Rosell had kept the tintypes of Miss Pollard and , 
 himself for all these years, and then turned them over to the de¬ 
 fendant, and had come on to Washington to say he had sat in the 
 open reception rooms of Wesleyan College two, three, or four 
 times a -week for an hour and a half to two hours with Miss Pol¬ 
 lard in his lap. 
 
 He placed against the testimony of Rosell that given by 
 Mrs. Brown, the vice-president of Wesleyan College, which was 
 that visitors were allowed to come to the college one night a 
 week only, and that Rosell was no exception to this rule. To 
 more fully show the character of Rosell, reference was made to 
 the fact that he had been forbidden to visit the college. 
 
Twenty-third Day cf -Trial. 
 
 275 
 
 “Now,” said Mr. Carlisle, “ we get to 1884, and from that 
 time forth there isn’t even an attempt to attack the character of 
 the plaintiff except so far as it relates to the defendant himself. 
 I am not forgetting the slurs that he has cast out concerning 
 this plaintiff and old man Rodes; I am not forgetting the slurs 
 he has thrown out concerning the children she has borne; I am 
 not forgetting the slurs concerning her presence with him at 
 disreputable places—I am bearing them all in mind, and I shall 
 refer to them when the time comes, but I want you to remember 
 ;hat there has'not been a claim that she was guilty of any bad 
 conduct with any other man than the defendant from 1884 until 
 this suit was filed. 
 
 Mr. Aleck Julian, Miss Pollard’s “blind Barnabas,’’ was 
 hauled over the coals by Mr. Carlisle at length. 
 
 Brief reference was made to the story of Wood, the old car¬ 
 penter, who swore that the plaintiff had broken her engagement 
 to him because he refused to take her to Europe, and Mr. Car¬ 
 lisle asked the jury to believe the statement of Miss Pollard 
 with regard to the story of Wood. 
 
 HER ACQUAINTANCE WITH DEFENDANT. 
 
 “ This brings us up to 1884, when the defendant met her,” he 
 said. “ For nine years the defendant was intimately acquainted 
 with this plaintiff, and yet with all the knowledge gained by that 
 intimacy, and with all his influence as a member of Congress at 
 his command, all he is able to produce are the depositions of 
 such disreputable characters as Brant and Kaufman and Moliie 
 Shinglebauer and Aleck Julian and Rankin Rosell and old man 
 Wood.” 
 
 The defense, said Mr. Carlisle, had taken the depositions of 
 Orrin Brown and his sister, Mr. Robertson, the children of the 
 ^resident of Wesleyan College, but they spoke so well and so 
 fighly of the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s counsel had read the 
 lepositions as part of their evidence. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle handed to the jury several tintypes of the plain- 
 iff taken just before she met the defendant, where Miss Pollard 
 s represented in short dresses and the other marks of school- 
 ;irlishness. 
 
276 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 “ Look at fhose pictures,” he said, with a ring in his voice, 
 “and see if she appears to be the woman of experience on 3 
 whom this defendant wants to place more than half the burden ^ 
 of their intimacy. Look at that picture and then look at the 
 defendant, and remember what little difference there was in his 
 
 appearance then from now.” _ _ 
 
 Then Mr. Carlisle told of the meeting between the plaintiff 
 and the defendant on the train in 1884. He passed over this 
 quickly, saying both parties said it was a mere trivial conversa¬ 
 tion, the only point of difference being that she said he accosted 
 
 her; he said she accosted him. 
 
 “And now, before we go further,” said Mr. Carlisle, let ns 
 see what manner of man this was who had to go through the | 
 train to get his overcoat, and who found a school-girl in hisj« 
 
 path.” 
 
 The history of the Kentucky orator was sketched in compli¬ 
 mentary language. It was told how he hadaclassical education and,* 
 every advantage, social and mental ; how he had gone to the war 
 and had married twice. “And on this stand,” he said, “ this de¬ 
 fendant has paid a tribute in his voice and in his manner to his 
 deceased wife and the mother of his seven children. 
 
 “ He confesses here on the witness stand that no man had 
 less excuse for what he did than he had; that no words could 
 magnify the advantages which he had; that no words could 
 paint the depths into which he fell in this instance, Mr. Carlisle 
 said with feeling. “And this is the manner of man who met 
 this school-girl on that train.” 
 
 THE ALLEGED FORGED LETTER. 
 
 The contract with Rodes -was taken up and fully reviewed 
 as a preface to the call of Colonel Breckinridge at Wesleyan 
 College, when Miss Pollard wanted his advice and assistance 
 concerning the threat of Rodes that he would compel her by 
 law to marry him or pay him back the money he had paid for 
 her education. Mr. Carlisle, in defending the plaintiff for writ¬ 
 ing to Colonel Breckinridge after she had met him but once, 
 said that the defendant had told her that he had known her 
 
Twenty-third Day op Triad. 
 
 277 
 
 father, and she had said she knew him by reputation. This 
 brought up the subject of the letter produced by Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge, in which Miss Pollard is represented as saying that she 
 wanted Colonel Breckinridge to call on her at the college, and 
 Mr. Carlisle had just quoted Miss Pollard’s statement that the 
 etter was a forgery, when recess was ordered until 1:15 o’clock. 
 
 Resuming his argument Mr. Carlisle said that the knowl¬ 
 edge of the expert witnesses called by the defense to testify 
 about the letter was nof an exact science. 
 
 “We did not bring expert witnesses,” he said, “ for you gen¬ 
 tlemen are our experts.” 
 
 Handing the jury a fac-simile copy of the marriage certifi¬ 
 cate of Colonel Breckinridge and Mrs. Wing, he asked them 
 to look at this copy which looked so much like the original and 
 see how easy it was to produce it. “ But I did not intend to take 
 your time with this matter,” he said. “ Just compare the letters 
 I hand you the letter of July 20th—and note the points of 
 difference between it and these other letters which Miss Pollard 
 admits she wrote, and your opinion will be as good as a barrel 
 of expert testimony.” 
 
 Mr. Carlisle read the letter of July 20th, in which the writer 
 tells Colonel Breckinridge that what she has to say to him is 
 worse than a divorce case, and that she likes his face and thinks 
 she will like him. He said there was but little difference in 
 that letter and what the plaintiff had stated, but the plaintiff 
 had examined the letter and pronounced it a forgery, and out of 
 all the many letters that had been written to the defendant by 
 the plaintiff', this and a little note written in 1887 were all that 
 he could produce. 
 
 Speaking of the celebrated carriage ride, Mr. Carlisle said 
 the fact that on that hot August evening the defendant brought 
 a closed carriage to take the plaintiff to a concert hall demanded, 
 explanation, but the defendant had not attempted to explain it. 
 He had merely contented himself with saying that he had picked 
 out the carriage without looking at what sort of a carriage it 
 was. Reviewing the events of that night from the statements of 
 the plaintiff and the defendant, and what happened the next day, 
 
278 
 
 Poixard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 1 
 
 Mr. Carlisle said: “ And from that time on until May, 1893, she 
 obeyed his every behest and was faithful to him in every way.” 
 
 MRS- BLACKBURN’S TESTIMONY. 
 
 Finally, reaching the time of the alleged promise of mar¬ 
 riage, Mr. Carlisle laid great stress on the testimony of Mrs. 
 Blackburn, which, he said, the defendant had refused to deny. 
 He had left himself two modes of escape, and either one would 
 bring him face to face with a dilemma on one horn of which he 
 must impale himself. 
 
 He referred to the cross-examination of two days and a half 
 to which Miss Pollard had been subjected, and said it was one 
 of the most difficult tests to which the human mind could be 
 out. There were only two things that -would enable a person to 
 stand the test of such a protracted cross-examination. One was 
 a trained mind, a wonderful ability to think, a knowledge of 
 lawyers and their w T ays—in fact, all that was possessed by a 
 clever lawyer; the other was—the truth. His client had*stood 
 that test without any of the qualifications of the first instance, 
 and the fact that she had not been made to change her direct 
 statements on any subject showed that she must have stood the 
 test through the second qualification. 
 
 Concerning the claim of the plaintiff that she had given 
 birth to a child at St. Joseph’s Foundling Asylum, at Norwood, 
 near Cincinnati, Mr. Carlisle quoted the testimony of Dr. Street, 
 who said that she had sent “ Mrs. Bergwynn” to St. Joseph’s, and 
 had visited her there, and of Dr. Belle Buchanan, who recog¬ 
 nized Miss Pollard as “ Louise Wilson,” and Dr. Street said that 
 “ Louise Wilson ” and “Mrs. Bergwynn” were the same. “There 
 was nothing in the testimony,” he said, “ to show that anybody 
 but this defendant was the father of [that child, and he was its 
 father.” 
 
 The future relations of the plaintiff and the defendant were 
 reviewed from the standpoint of each, and Mr. Carlisle contended 
 that it had been shown that the guilty relations of the pair were 
 continuous, despite the testimony of the defendant that there bad 
 been long intervals in those relations. Then Mr. Carlisle took 
 
Twenty-fourth Day of Trial. 279 
 
 up the alleged promise of marriage which Miss Pollard says was 
 made in Washington on August 31, 1892. Colonel Breckinridge 
 had testified that Miss Pollard was not in town at that time, but 
 it had been proved by an entry in Mrs. Minear’s boarding house 
 ledger that Miss Pollard returned on the date named. As to the 
 defense of Colonel Breckinridge that he and Miss Pollard had 
 merely pretended to be engaged, Mr. Carlisle referred to the 
 very important testimony of Claude de la Roche Francis, who 
 told of his accidental eavesdropping in Mrs. Thomas’s when Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge said to Miss Pollard that he was sorry she had 
 mentioned their engagement to the witness. 
 
 At this point Mr. Carlisle asked Judge Bradley’s permission 
 to continue his address to-morrow, and as-it was then within 
 half an hour of adjournment the Court adjourned. 
 
 TWENTY-FOURTH DAY, OF THE TRIAD. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle\concludes his argument.—Madeline under fire .— Col¬ 
 onel Phil. Thompson depends Colonel Breckinridge.— The 
 plaintiff's character °and motives impugned' in plain speech 
 by Colonel Thompson.—Colonel Thompson called dow?i by the 
 Court. 
 
 Resuming his argument, Mr. Carlisle took up that portion 
 of the defense of Colonel Breckinridge, in which he claimed that 
 he had not been intimate with the plaintiff for long periods, while 
 Miss Pollard testified'that their relations were continuous. He 
 said that the defendant admitted that he had met the plaintiff 
 one night in November, 1887, in this city, after separation for a 
 long time, and that he took a drive with her. This, said Mr. 
 Carlisle, coincided with the testimony of Miss Pollard that the 
 defendant had met. her at the time named and took her to the 
 house of Aunt Mary McKenzie, wherein the February following 
 she gave birth to the babe which Colonel Breckinridge denied 
 knowledge of. 
 
 He next discussed the contradictory testimony of the plaia= 
 
280 
 
 Pol,lard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 tiff ana the defendant about what happened when Colonel Breck¬ 
 inridge resided for three weeks at Miss Hoyt’s house in Lexing¬ 
 ton, where Miss Pollard was a boarder, and contended that it had 
 been shown that the guilty relations between the pair were con¬ 
 tinued there. 
 
 Finally, in his narrative, for it was more of a narrative than 
 an argument, Mr. Carlisle came to the promises of marriage 
 made before Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Carlisle quoted Mrs. Black¬ 
 burn’s account of the first interview on Good Friday night, 1893, 
 when, according to the witness, Colonel Breckinridge asker her 
 to take charge of Miss Pollard as his future wife. “ He has not 
 spoken one word in contradiction of Mrs. Blackburn’s state¬ 
 ment,” said Mr. Carlisle. “ He tells you her testimony is true.” 
 Mr. Carlisle also referred to the letters that had been written by 
 the parties in the case. Colonel Breckinridge swore that no 
 letters had been exchanged between Miss Pollard and himself in 
 1886, and yet a typewriter testified that she had addressed en¬ 
 velopes to Miss Pollard for the defendant during that year, and 
 the plaintiff had said that she received many letters from him. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle laid great stress on the little decorative basket 
 which belonged to the late Mrs. Breckinridge. Miss Pollard 
 testified that it had been given to her by the defendant with the 
 remark, “Madeline, this was poor Issa’s, and I want you to have 
 it.” Colonel Breckinridge denied this, and hinted that it had 
 been stolen from his apartments by Miss Pollard. “ Sometimes 
 a little thing like this proves to be the most important item in a 
 case,” said Mr. Carlisle. “ A witness has told you that it was on 
 Miss Pollard’s lap while Colonel Breckinridge was sitting by her 
 side, and it has been shown that he saw it many times, and thal 
 fact proves that there was a degree of affectionate intimacy 
 between the defendant and the plaintiff that presaged marriage.” 
 
 THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. 
 
 Rapidly reviewing the testimony about the outward appear¬ 
 ance of au engagement, Mr. Carlisle summed up the features by 
 saying that there was a contract of marriage between the plain¬ 
 tiff and the defendant was shown by the production of an invi- 
 
 1 r Ti fr 1 iiwm it ?r i n nii rn'iii 
 
Twenty-fourth Day of Trial, 
 
 281 
 
 tation he addressed to her to attend a reception in his honor at 
 a young ladies’ seminary; it had been further shown by his visits 
 to 1819 H Street, where Miss Pollard was • staying, by what 
 Claude de la Roche Francis overheard between the two; and by 
 the positiye, clear, and explicit statement of Mrs. Blackburn. It 
 was further confirmed by visits in May, 1893, to the plaintiff, 
 and by two visits to the Chief of Police. 
 
 “The history of this form of action,” said Mr. Carlisle, with 
 emphasis, “will not prevent a more complete chain of evidence 
 than has been presented here of a breach of contract of 
 marriage.” 
 
 Mr. Carlisle proceeded to score the defendant for hypocrisy. 
 Pie had been a man of great standing in the church, said the 
 lawyer; had been a leader in the Sunday school, and had ad¬ 
 dressed religious gatherings— and yet he came into Court and 
 admitted that in telling Mrs. Blackburn and Major Moore of his 
 engagement to the plaintiff he had lied, and that both he and 
 the plaintiff had agreed to lie about the whole matter. “ He 
 came here, gentlemen,” said Mr. Carlisle, “asking you to believe 
 his unsupported word that there was no contract of marriage 
 between them—his unsupported word against that of reputable 
 witnesses, and of the plaintiff; he asks you to believe his word 
 after he has confessed that he arranged and acted lies concerning 
 that engagement.” 
 
 In conclusion Mr. Carlisle said: “It has been shown that 
 this man of power and influence and distinction, social and po¬ 
 litical, did acquire power and influence over this plaintiff; that 
 he did have an influence over her life, and did promise to 
 repair the injury he had done. If you think this, gentlemen, 
 you are authorized as the Court tells you in its instructions, not 
 only to give compensating damages, taking into consideration 
 the previous relations of the parties, what the social advance¬ 
 ment of such a marriage would have been to this plaintiff, but 
 you are also authorized to give exemplary damages; you are al¬ 
 lowed to give punitive damages, to punish the defendant as an 
 offender against the rights of man, and in doing this there is 
 only one limit to your action, and that is the full amount claimed 
 
282 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 f 
 
 in the declaration—$50,000. This I ask you to give, gentle¬ 
 men, in the name of right and justice, reason and purity—in the 
 name of our mothers, of our sisters, and our brothers, and if 
 the whole amount should be given, you will have done your part 
 to put a stigma on such conduct and to effect the only repara¬ 
 tion that can be asked for by this injured plaintiff.” 
 
 Miss Pollard was present only during the argument of Mr. 
 Carlisle, and Mrs. Ellis, who has come to be regarded as her 
 vade mecum during the trial, was also at her side. It could 
 hardly be expected that she would care to sit under the remarks 
 that the defendant’s counsel were sure to make about her, and 
 when Mr. Thompson began at 11:15 o’clock she departed. 
 
 COLONEL THOMPSON’S ARGUMENT. 
 
 When Mr. Carlisle sat down, Colonel Phil. Thompson began 
 bis opening for the defense. He was impassioned from the be¬ 
 ginning, and spoke in a manner entirely different from the col¬ 
 loquial, matter-of-fact way in which Mr. Carlisle addresses the 
 jury. Just before he began to speak Miss Pollard and Miss Ellis, 
 left the court-room. 
 
 Colonel Thompson said he did not extenuate the fault of any 
 man who had been guilty of seducing a young girl, but ke did 
 not think that a man should be held responsible in a suit of this 
 kind for having been intimate with a woman who was of ill re¬ 
 pute. Speaking in his high, keen voice, with his pronounced 
 Southern accent, he appealed to the jury to regard the plaintiff 
 as a lewd and wanton woman, and not to' encourage such to 
 bring their suits in here and make a stench in the nostrils of de¬ 
 cent people. 
 
 After referring to Miss Pollard as a “self-acknowledged pros¬ 
 titute,” and saying that “every decent man knew the defendant 
 was right in refusing to put her at the head of his table with his 
 daughters,” Colonel Thompson took up the testimony of Mollie 
 Shinglebauer, Brant, and Kaufman, and contended that it was 
 not shown that the plaintiff had not gone to Lexington at 
 night during the whole of the time, she was living near that 
 town. 
 
Twenty-fourth Day of Trial. 
 
 283 
 
 He next referred to the testimony of William Wood, the 
 Lexington carpenter, who said Miss Pollard had broken her en¬ 
 gagement to him because he would not take her to Europe, and 
 he made this the text for these remarks: “She is a money hun¬ 
 ter and a money getter. Talk about love and affection—why, 
 she was shown in every feature of this case to be on a wild hunt 
 after this defendant’s money—that’s what she wants. She is not 
 after love and affection. What she wants is the money, and that’s 
 what these eminent counsel are assisting her to get—and she 
 seems to have hypnotized somebody into giving her money to 
 carry on this case.” 
 
 After further assailing the plaintiff’s character in terms of 
 unmitigated vituperation, Colonel Thompson brought up the 
 subject of the letter dated July 20, 1884, which the plaintiff said 
 she did not write to Colonel Breckinridge. “If she wrote that 
 letter,” he said, “her case is gone> and she can have no credit 
 before an intelligent jury. She says in this letter: ‘What I have 
 to tell you is worse than a divorce case.’ That’s self-accusation 
 of guilt with Rodes—that’s why she tried to keep out this 
 letter—that’s why she said she didn’t write it. She did write 
 it, and I’ll stake this whole case on that letter.’’ 
 
 “Here she was,” said Colonel Thompson, a little later on, 
 “robbing and deceiving old man Rodes. She admitted on the 
 l stand—‘I am engaged to Rosell; I’m Colonel Breckinridge’s 
 mistress, and I’m milking Rodes for my tuition and my school¬ 
 ing at one and the same time.’ She was deceiving right and 
 left, and bleeding an old, hard-working, industrious man. Talk 
 about Mollie Shinglebauer after that. Why, Mollie Shingle- 
 bauer never painted herself as black as that. Now, this woman, 
 this adventuress, this money hunter, wanton and bawd, comes 
 here with the plea of being an innocent girl before she met Col¬ 
 onel Breckinridge.” 
 
 CALLED DOWN BY THE COURT. 
 
 Here Col. Thompson, working himself up to a pitch of even 
 'greater excitement than had marked his impassioned address 
 [hitherto, exclaimed: “ My God, what a spectacle!” 
 
284 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 Judge Bradley promptly interposed, saying: “Now, Mr. 
 Thompson, you must not make such expressions as that.” 
 
 “ What’s that ? ” asked Col. Thompson. 
 
 On the court repeating the irreverent remark which had 
 just fallen from his lips, Col. Thompson apologized and promised 
 to keep within the bounds of decorum in future. 
 
 Shortly afterward the court took a recess. 
 
 Col. Thompson started his argument at the afternoon ses- 
 sion with the promise that he would show that there was no con¬ 
 tract of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, and 
 that even if there had been a contract the defendant had the right 
 to break it on account of the conduct of the plaintiff. To give 
 the case to Miss Pollard, he said, it would be necessary for the 
 jury to convict Mollie Shinglebauer, John Brant, Hiram Kauf¬ 
 man, Aleck Julian, Rankin Rosell, and the defendant himself of 
 willful and deliberate perjury. 
 
 It had been shown, he said, that Colonel Breckinridge was 
 attending court at Versailles -when Miss Pollard says she was 
 carrying on her liaison with him in Lexington in 1884, and this 
 proof of no improper relations at that time was also proof that 
 the child which she alleges was born in Cincinnati in May, 1885, 
 was not the child of the defendant. The letters to Rodes written 
 in 1885 asking him and begging him for money, “which you 
 know,” she said, “ I need so badly.” “ For what purpose did she 
 need that money ?” asked Colonel Thompson, turning to Mr. 
 Carlisle. “ She says the defendant was most generous, most 
 kind, and she knew that if she needed money to prepare for the 
 birth of his child she could have got it from him. But it was 
 Rodes that she asked for the money. She did not turn to this 
 noble, generous man whom she loved (Colonel Breckinridge), 
 who w r ould have been willing to funrish all the money she need¬ 
 ed if he were responsible for her condition, but to poor, old Jim 
 Rodes on his $40 a month salary, and who would not and could 
 not have paid if there had not been some great reason for caus¬ 
 ing him to do so. Was ever a man in the power of an unscrupu¬ 
 lous woman ridden so roughshod as Breckinridge has been by 
 this woman? ” 
 
Twenty-fourth Day of Triau. 
 
 285 
 
 The discrepancies between the testimony of the plaintiff and 
 the Sisters of Charity at Norwood Foundling Asylum were told 
 of by Colonel Thompson, who said he would be willing to rest 
 this case on the testimony of these Sisters against that of the wo¬ 
 man who said she had dedicated her life to the defendant. Un¬ 
 less the jury believed these noble women who had dedicated 
 their lives to God—“Ah, that was a dedication!”—then they 
 must place Sister Agnes Regina and Sister Augustine in the 
 same category of perjury in which the plaintiff had placed Ro- 
 sell and Julian and Brant and the rest. So, too, Sister Cecilia, 
 who had been brought all the way from Pueblo, Col., by the 
 defense, said she did not recognize the plaintiff as a woman who 
 had been at Norwood. “ And there is Dr. Belle Buchanan and 
 that crowd,” said Colonel Thompson, referring to the witness 
 who said she had attended Miss Pollard after confinement in 1885. 
 “I haven’t got a very good opinion of these female doctors.” 
 
 Speaking further in regard to the-female doctors’ evidence, 
 Colonel Thompson said witnesses had testified that Louise Wil¬ 
 son, for there was such a girl, he said, asserted thafithe man who 
 betrayed her was an unmarried man. “Do you admit that?” 
 turningto Judge Wilson and Mr. Carlisle. “ Do you admit that? 
 If you do, I have nothing further to say. Will you answer me in 
 your argument? ” asked Colonel Thompson. 
 
 “ I will,” replied Judge Wilson. 
 
 “And this woman says she gave birth to a child in 1885, and 
 last she goes to the place where she says it was born, and did not 
 know whether it was dead or not when the child that had been 
 born to ' Mrs. Burgoyne ’ had died soon after she left. Do you 
 mean to tell me that a woman would be so ignorant of her child 
 as that? She left that child, she says, and did not think to inquire 
 about it for nine long years. And the babe born in 1888, if it 
 was born—she says she saw its dead body at the undertaker’s, 
 and yet it was laid in a grave she had pever seen. Just think of 
 it,” he said, “her little ones lying in graves that she has never 
 seen. Oh, inhuman wbman; inhuman woman and monster. To 
 hide her own shame she lays it at the feet of this man, and says 
 he told her to give them away. And yet we are appealed to by 
 

 286 Poulard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 this woman, with her stage acting, in the most sacred name of 
 mother.” 
 
 The Christmas card incident was pooh-poohed by Colonel 
 Thompson, who said it was very probable that the card had 
 been slipped in the volume of Irving at the Norwood Asylum to 
 more fully identify the plaintiff with that place. “ And when 
 the card was taken out,” he said, “ she cried, ‘ and there’s the 
 little veil I wore when I was there.’ Remarkable woman, whose 
 memory for little things came back so suddenly—who remem¬ 
 bered the little veil she wore, but forgot her own name at the 
 asylum.” 
 
 THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION. 
 
 Colonel Thompson said he had looked up the meaning of 
 the word “ pollard ’’tin the dictionary, and he found that it meant 
 “a small' counterfeit coin,” another definition was a “petty 
 thief.” “ Well,” he added, “ I didn’t know how in the world 
 names should run so close in connection with character.” 
 
 Colonel Thompson embellished his speech with numerous 
 Kentucky anecdotes, and did not mince words or phrases in his 
 unsparing denunciation of the plaintiffs character, “prostitute" 
 being one of the terms most frequently applied. 
 
 After making some ironical references to Miss Pollard as 
 this “ beautiful, amiable, and gentle plaintiff,” Colonel Thomp¬ 
 son came to the testimony of Mrs. Blackburn, in which he said 
 she had confused several conversations, a natural thing in aa 
 old lady. 
 
 “ I like Mrs. Blackburn,’’ he said. “I have known the old 
 lady a long time. She’s a lovely old character, but she’s getting 
 along in years. Joe Blackburn, my friend, was the youngest of 
 the Blackburn brothers, and old Governor Luke (Blackburn), 
 he’s been dead many years, and this old lady is his widow. 
 She’s no longer a maiden gay. But she’s got lots of spirit. I 
 tell you I was a little bit afraid when I came to examine ber 
 that she’d jump down my throat, frizzes and all.” 
 
 Then followed references to King Solomon and his many 
 wives, King David and Uriah’s wife, Antony and Cleopatra, and 
 
Twbnty-fifth Day of Trial,. 287 
 
 the first Napoleon, and George Washington and their love 
 affairs. 
 
 Miss Pollard had been raised, not lowered, by her affair with 
 Colonel Breckinridge, contended Colonel Thompson. She had 
 said she would rather be his mistress than, the wife of Rodes; 
 rather go with the plaintiff into society, where she could have 
 intellectual enjoyment, than to be the wife of Rodes, tending 
 children and milking cows and doing farm work. “ And,” said 
 Colonel Thompson, “barring the sin, I don’t blame her for feel¬ 
 ing that way.” 
 
 At 3:45 o’clock, fifteen minutes before adjournment, Colonel 
 Thompson took up the alleged intention of Miss^Pollard to com¬ 
 pel the defendant to marry her, and as this was a new line of 
 argument he asked an adjournment until the next day, which 
 the Court granted. 
 
 TWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF THE TRIAD- 
 
 Colonel Thompson's closing argument.—Butterworth caps his 
 oratorical climax , and eloquently pleads for the defendant .— 
 Miss Bollard held up as a woman unworthy of belief.—Judge 
 Bradley orders the court room cleared.—Stirring scenes in 
 
 : T court. 
 
 COFONFF THOMPSON’S CLOSING. 
 
 When Colonel Thompson resumed his argument for Colonel 
 Breckinridge, he took up the alleged breach of promise, and 
 asked if it were not a remarkable thing that a man who had 
 been living in adultery with a woman for nine years, with the 
 distinct understanding, so she said, that he would marry her if 
 he were ever free, should tell that woman that he had some¬ 
 thing surprising to say to her, and then propose. Everything 
 in the conduct of the plaintiff last spring, he said—her attempt 
 on the defendant’s life, her threats to disgrace him, her promise 
 to commit suicide and leave a written story of their relations for 
 publication—all these showed a character the reverse of that 
 
288 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 claimed by the plaintiff. This woman had laid her plans to 
 bring a breach of promise suit—had she not told Claude de 
 la Roche Francis of the pretended engagement and asked him 
 to remember it, sashing she might need his help by and by? “A 
 courtship with pistols ! ” cried Colonel Thompson. “Talk about 
 your Kentucky colonels and having them come into court 
 throwing up their coat tails to see whether they had pistols 
 underneath them ! I suspect there was one coat-tail that wasn’t 
 turned up, that had a weapon beneath it. Did you see the 
 vicious look on that woman’s face the day this case started ? I 
 was afraid, sitting there beside the Colonel, that a bullet would 
 come straight at us from that woman’s pistol. Oh, what a court¬ 
 ship, with its onl3 r memento, a pistol! ”' 
 
 Colonel Thompson concluded at 10:50 o’clock, having 
 spoken a day, with some brief intervals. 
 
 Major Butterworth emphasized his power before a jury in the 
 Pollard-Breckinridge suit in an argument, occupying the most of 
 the day. He talked to the jury as though they were his brothers, 
 and commanded their undivided attention. 
 
 He began his argument with a review of the evidence which 
 he undertook the day before. 1 
 
 Major Butterworth’s broad, soldierly form was clad in a black 
 Prince Albert coat; the gray hair which covers his well-shaped 
 head, and appears to be several years younger than his white 
 Burnside whiskers and mustache, betrayed glimpses of baldness. 
 He spoke in a mild voice, and his pleasant expression seemed to 
 enlist confidence. As he proceeded, however, his words became 
 more intense, and every expression and gesture of his face and 
 body was engaged in the interpretation of his thoughts. The 
 number of spectators has not been larger probably at any day of 
 the trial. 
 
 There was an incident in the morning in which an example' 
 was made of over-enthusiastic individuals. Major Butterworth, in 
 the course of his remarks, declared dramatically, after reciting 
 his early friendship for Col. Breckinridge, that it never should be 
 said that Ben Butterworth had turned his back upon a friend in , 
 
Twe;nty-fjfth Day of Triae, 
 
 289 
 
 1 : 
 
 me of adversity. Immediately there was a burst of applause, 
 hicli had not before appeared during the trial. It was the sig- 
 .1 for Judge Bradley to carry out the threat which he had made 
 leral times in the last two or three weeks to clear the court 
 om. The bailiffs followed their instructions, and all those who 
 ue not members of the bar or of the press were excluded. 
 
 Major Butterworth, in the midst of a climax, was once inter- 
 pted by the court to be reminded that he was talking on topics 
 •eign to the case. 
 
 Major Butterworth protested his honesty in presenting the 
 ;e before the jury, but lie declared from time to time bis opin- 
 i of his client, if he had accomplished certain things charged, 
 lecially the forgery of the letter which has been so much in 
 itroversy. He maintained, however, his belief that such deeds 
 the part of his client, considering his station and the gain 
 it would be had by them, would be impossible. There is a 
 ice in front of the jury where he paced up and down as he 
 •;ued, and as he addressed any particular member of the jury 
 frequently touched him, sometimes with a violent slap upon 
 : knee, to emphasize his meaning. 
 
 Miss Pollard was not present during the day. Major Buiter- 
 rtli will probably occupy about half of the time to-day, and 
 1 be followed by Mr. Wilson. The court adjourned for a few 
 antes before the appointed hour, the speaker having reached 
 istural division in his argument, and stating that he was very 
 id. Major Butterworth received many congratulations from 
 • friends and from members of the bar when he had concluded, 
 ter the adjournment photographs of the jury and the counsel 
 both sides were taken by J. N. Carbery, a member of the jury. 
 
 Major Butterworth began somewhat diffidently, but be soon 
 rmed up to his work, characterizing the suit as a far-reaching 
 itilence that should never have been brought to trial. Major 
 tterworth said that he had known Colonel Breckinridge for¬ 
 ay years—as a lawyer, friend, neighbor, colleague brother, 
 id,” he seid, “you may speed it ou the lightnings, gentlemen, 
 *9 
 
 i ; 
 
290 
 
 Pollard vs, Breckinridge, 
 
 that the man to whom Ben Butterworth w'as a friend in his pros¬ 
 perity does not turn his back on him in his adversity,” 
 
 VERDANCY AND INNOCENCE. 
 
 It was a most remarkable thing, said Major Butterworth, re¬ 
 suming, how innocent this little schoolgirl had been. They 
 didn’t raise girls like that on the Miami when he was a boy. He 
 offered nothing in extenuation of the defendant; his friend, Mr. 
 Wilson, could not be more severe on him than he had been on 
 himself. But as to the plaintiff, she had said: “I was only a 
 simple country girl, Mr. Carlisle, and what could a simple country 
 girl know* about men? ” “If that be your theory,” cried Maj. But¬ 
 terworth, “I denounce it as a vile slander on every country girl iu 
 the world. A country girl knows the difference between right and 
 wrong. My mother was a country girl, playing with your 
 mother, her neighbor, my good friend (turning to Mr. Wilson), 
 on the banks of the Miami. My sister was a country girl; sc 
 was yours. They needed no one to tell them the difference be¬ 
 tween right and wrong; they needed no watchful duenna to pro 
 tect them from bad men. Don’t you know chat?” to Mr. Wilson 
 
 “Yes, and I’ll speak of it again,” said Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “But people say could country girls resist the silver tongue: 
 I am sick of that, it has been worked threadbare.” 
 
 Major Butterworth went on to tell how he had heard anc 
 read comments on the defendant’s demeanor in court—“if hi 
 laughed, unfeeling wretch; if he was grave, ah, he feels hi 
 shame; if he smiled, he was trivial. 
 
 “But if the plaintiff smiled—ah, she was smiling through 
 vale of tears—” 
 
 “Now, Major Butterworth,” said Judge Bradley, “please cor 
 fine yourself to the case. The matters of which you spea 
 have been picked up through the newspapers, or rumor, or sonn 
 thing else, and have nothing to do with the evidence. Youai 
 losing time.” 
 
 Major Butterworth, after a little debate with the Court, a 
 quiesced in the suggestion of Judge Bradley, and resumed h 
 argument- 
 
Twenty-fifth Day of Tiuat. 
 
 291 
 
 Major Butterworth picked Miss Pollard’s character to pieces, 
 beginning with the letters she wrote to Owen Robinson, in 1880. 
 Even then, he said, she knew about love and marriage, and cor¬ 
 responded with young men—this innocent girl who says she 
 never knew a person, did not have single friend, not even a bow¬ 
 ing acquaintance—"this innocent little school-gyurl.” He said 
 he did not believe her stories about her age, how she did not 
 know until she was twelve years old about the year she was 
 born, and all that. Major Butterworth continued on this line 
 until 12:30, when recess was ordered until 1:15. 
 
 THE WESSIE BROWN TETTER. 
 
 Taking up after recess the Wessie Brown letter, which he 
 read, Major Butterworth said that that writing told of experi¬ 
 ence in love rather remarkable in an innocent little girl who 
 knew nobody. This led Major Butterworth to inquire why it 
 was that while other girls in America went without chaperones, 
 Miss Pollard was never trusted to walk alone with the boys. 
 Why was Uncle George, or Aunt Lou, or Mrs. Kean always 
 with her? Why was it that this girl w r as so watched? She had 
 been engaged to Rodes, she had been engaged to Rosell, and 
 she confessed a love for Aleck Julian and Prof. Obermeyer. 
 ‘Did she not have experience?” he asked. 
 
 Taking up the letter dated July 20, 1884, inviting Colonel 
 Ireckinridge to call on Miss Pollard at Wesleyan College, which 
 re plaintiff pronounced a forgery, Major Butterworth criticised 
 ie counsel for the plaintiff for trying to hold up the defendant 
 >a blackleg, a peijurer, a forger, in the face of all the evidence 
 :at she wrote the letter. Shaking his fist at Colonel Breckin- 
 3 ge and rushing at him with a well-simulated ferocity ofcoun- 
 nance and manner, he almost shouted: " It’s either the letter 
 
 Madeline Pollard or you’re guilty of forgery; you’ve dis- 
 tced your family, your traditions, and your boy who sits by 
 ir side, or else that woman lied.” 
 
 Contrasting the claim of Miss Pollard that she was an inno- 
 t girl when she met Colonel Breckinridge with her own testi- 
 ay, and the letters she had written, Major Butterworth said 
 
292 
 
 POIXARD VS. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 that if she were all she said she was then, there was some excuse 
 for bringing the suit. “If wliat she says is true,” he said, with 
 eyes turned upward and hands high above his head, “ then I 
 am in favor of Congress offering a premium to every woman lor 
 pulling down a glittering star in the political or any other firma¬ 
 ment.” 
 
 HER CONDUCT UNDER TEMPTATION. 
 
 With ho attempt to disguise his irony, he pictured Miss Pol¬ 
 lard as she had made herself appear at the meeting with the de¬ 
 fendant at Wesleyan College—a poor, fluttering little creature, 
 who tried and tried to tell this man of her trouble with Rodes, 
 and was laughingly diverted and made to tell of herself and to 
 listen to flatteries. Major Lutterworth maintained that if Miss 
 Pollard had been all she claimed, and if Colonel Breckinridge had 
 made wrongful advances, he w ? ould have been repulsed in a way 
 that would have kept him from further conduct of that sort. 
 “There is that about the virtuous woman,” he cried, “which chiils 
 every germ cl' lascivious approach. As for the carriage ride that 
 night, if she were a virtuous woman, at the first approach of las¬ 
 civiousness on his part shew r ould have cried” (and Major Butter- 
 worth made a rush at the white-haired defendant and shook his 
 fist in his face, shouting his w’ords in tones that could have becu 
 heard a block): “‘Take me back, you leper;’ you wouldn’t 
 have gone twenty feet with her,” he shouted, addressing the de 
 fendant. “ I don’t care anything about your blandishments—sh( 
 would have run away from you—gone to her mother—to some 
 body—for protection—and so would every virtuous woman re 
 pulse such lecherous advances.” 
 
 Then Major Lutterworth pictured the little pricking pin o 
 conscience that we nay forget in a moment of temptation, bu 
 which comes back after we have had a good night’s sleep, wit) 
 terrible force, and keeps us straight. Miss Pollard had said tha $ 
 after the defendant had attempted to take advantage of her ou 
 night and she had resisted, she went innocently to him the nex 
 day. And if she were virtuous, he asked, could she have dou 
 that without the pulling back of conscience? 
 
Twenty-fifth Day of Trial 
 
 293 
 
 In the course of his further argument Major Butterworth 
 compared the plaintiff to Delilah, and Colonel Breckinridge to 
 Sampson; she got him in her power and led him by a single 
 hair, and when she had shorn him of his locks she cried, “ Samp¬ 
 son, the Philistines are upon you,” and then he pulled down the 
 temple of his fame and accomplished his ruin. In all the years 
 of the liaison, he said, there had not been a memento, a ring, 
 anything given her as a mark of affection, save and except the 
 little willow basket which had been the dead wife’s. “And she 
 comes here for no other purpose than to make his crime more 
 horrible, saying he brought it to her with these words: “Mad¬ 
 eline, this was Issa’s; she cared for it, and I want you to 
 have it.” 
 
 “My God ! Can it be that this man can be monster enough 
 to drag in the name of his dead wife, to bring a message from 
 her grave to this woman—his mistress? Whatever William C. 
 P. Breckinridge may be guilty of—whatever his shortcomings— 
 he could not be guilty of insulting the memory of that dead 
 wife, with her grave clcthes still clinging to her dead form. And 
 this woman tells how, in that carriage ride, when he v/as trying 
 to seduce her, he spoke of his dead wife (his first wife) and his 
 dead little boy, and she hauls them like a ghoul from the grave 
 to parade them before the world, and every decent woman cries: 
 ‘ My God, that can’t be so ! ’ I do not condone the short-comings 
 of this gray-haired man; I do not seek to extenuate his fault, 
 but is he the monster she has painted him ? She tells us that 
 she gave up her child after holding it in her arms two hours. 
 Did ever woman live who would do that? Never ! No woman 
 would let her child be taken from her breast, but would pull 
 back her child as if from the gates of hell! ” 
 
 The fervor and intensity displayed by Major Butterworth at 
 this point were felt by the jurors and spectators. Tire Ohio 
 lawyer marched back and forth shouting and gesticulating and 
 illustrating every idea by appropriate gestures. Major Butter¬ 
 worth contended thar the description given by “Louise Wilson” 
 (Miss Pollard) of the man who seduced her fitted old man B odes, 
 and that he was the father of her child. He had just reached 
 
294 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 this point at 3:40, when he asked Judge Bradley to adjourn the 
 Court. He was exhausted, he said, and Judge Bradley readily 
 granted him the courtesy he had extended to Messrs. Carlisle 
 and Thompson. 
 
 TWENTY-SIXTH DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 Butterworth closes his superb effort with a comprehensive view of 
 the case.—An endeavor to break down sympathy for Miss Pol¬ 
 lard .— Says it is a surrender of womanly qualities, a base be¬ 
 trayal of womanly courage, to say he did it .— Butterworth 
 pleads eloquently for the silver-tongued Kentuckian. 
 
 The last word to the jury for the defense in the Pollard- 
 Breckinridge suit for breach of promise was spoken by Major 
 Butterworth and the case turned over to Mr. Wilson for final 
 argument. For almost five hours Major Butterworth pleaded 
 with the men who arc to be sovereigns in the field of facts con¬ 
 cerned with this action, wh'ch lie said where like the sands of 
 the sea, and almost as difficult to arrange and classify. 
 
 It was expected that Mr. Wilson would begin his argument 
 before the adjournment of the Court. Major Butterworth seems 
 to ha% r e occupied more time than lie had calculated upon, and it 
 was a few minutes past 3 o’clock when lie concluded. Mr. Wil¬ 
 son was loath to begin at that hour, when so little time remained 
 for that day. He also stated that he was suffering from some 
 hoarseness and bis speech was postponed until morning. 
 
 The court room was crowded with lawyers and spectators, 
 who sat intent under Major Butterworth’s eloquence. The 
 members of the local bar and the old friends cf the speaker in 
 Congress, who sought admission, would have been more than 
 enough to fill the allotted space. As it was, the area outside the 
 railing, which has been kept clear hitherto, was crowded with 
 men two or three deep, who were willing to stand all day to wit¬ 
 ness the masterly effort. 
 
 Major Butterworth became weary before the closing of his 
 Speech, and Mr. Stoll and Colonel Breckinridge assisted him at 
 
Twenty-sixth Day of Trial. r 295 
 
 times during the day in reading telegrams and letters as well as 
 excerpts from the testimony which he wished to comment upon. 
 The argument proceeded along the same lines in which it be¬ 
 gan, offering no extenuation or condonation for the defendant, 
 but maintaining that a verdict for the plaintiff would not be a 
 vindication of American womanhood. 
 
 THE DUMMY LETTERS. 
 
 Major Butterworth began a few minutes after the court was 
 called to order. He held up to view the character of Madeline 
 Pollard, described from his standpoint, and dissected it. The 
 relations of Miss Pollard with James C. Rodes -were the subject 
 to which Major Butterworth first devoted himself. He read the 
 letters from the plaintiff to Rodes, begging and demanding 
 money from him. Then he read the letters which Miss Pollard 
 called wooden or dummy letters. These letters were dated from 
 New Orleans, Jacksonville, and other places in the South, and 
 Miss Pollard said they were written in Cincinnati during her 
 first pregnancy, some of them at the dictation of the defendant, 
 and sent to Rodes through her mother, at Towlesboro, Ky., to 
 divert suspicion. Miss Pollard testified that her mother knew 
 nothing about her trouble, and taking up this point Major 
 Butterworth said: 
 
 “ There is only one person in the world who can tell whether 
 these letters are genuine or not; there is but one person living 
 who can clear up this mystery. That person is the mother of 
 Madeline Pollard, and she has not been called. Why has she 
 not been called? People may say: ‘ Why don’t you call her?’ 
 and I will say to that that -we are not going into the camp of the 
 enemy for our provisions or our powder either.” 
 
 He laid great stress on the statement of Miss Pollard that 
 Rodes had been told that she had a position in Cincinnati when 
 she was sent away to prepare for her first confinement, and her 
 second statement that Rodes thought she -was a traveling com¬ 
 panion at that time. These utterly inconsistent statements, said 
 Major Butterworth, were the result cf the attempt of Miss Pollard 
 to square her story. 
 
296 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 Major Butterworth dwelt on the testimony of Sister Agnes 
 and Sister Augustine, of St. Joseph’s Foundling Asylum, near 
 Cincinnati. These sisters, he said, were emphatic in their de¬ 
 claration that Madeline Pollard had never been at the asylum as 
 she claimed; and more positive that she w r as not “ Mrs. Burgoyne.” 
 “Either these holy women are guilty of deep falsehood,” cried 
 Major Butterworth, “or Madeline Pollard never gave birth to a 
 baby at St. Joseph’s Asylum.” 
 
 MR. WILSON INTERPOSES A QUERY. 
 
 A little tiff between Major Butterworth and Miss Pollard’s 
 chief counsel, Mr. Wilson, furnished diversion for the spectators- 
 Major Butterworth taunted the plaintiff’s counsel with reference 
 to the four volumes of Washington Irving which a patient pre¬ 
 sented to the foundling asylum library, and through which Miss 
 Pollard seeks to identify herself with the institution. Mr. Wil¬ 
 son interrupted to ask why the defense had not shown these 
 volumes to Miss Hoyt and Mrs. Ketcham, of Lexington, who had 
 seen the volumes of Irving which Miss Pollard owned, and which 
 the latter says are identical with those taken from the asylum 
 library. “What?” cried Major Butterworth; “show them to peo¬ 
 ple, and get them to identify things they had never seen? Not 
 much ! ” 
 
 There was a further exchange of words, and the spectators 
 laughed. Judge Bradley immediately told Major Butterworth to 
 stop, and then threatened, to clear the room as he had previously 
 done. Major Butterworth laid considerable emphasis on the fre¬ 
 quent use of the expression in Miss Pollard’s letters to Rodcs, 
 “Come early, and we will go to see mamma.” “‘We will go to 
 see mamma,’when mamma wasn’t there. What docs it mean? 
 I don’t know—perhaps Mr. Wilson dees,” said Major Butterworth. 
 But if he did not know, he conveyed a very clear impression to 
 the minds of his hearers that he meant that the expression used 
 so frequently was merely a code phrase for going out for some 
 wrongful or secret purpose. Ke referred sarcastically to Miss 
 Pollard as “a pawn on an immoral chessboard, moved whether 
 the player was near it or not,” 
 

 Twenty-sixth Day of Triae. 29; 
 
 This was apropos of Miss Pollard’s statement that she wanted 
 to take her baby and go away out of the defendant’s life, and 
 the defendant would not let her. In this connection Major But- 
 terworth told a little story. “ I met an old friend the other day, 
 and he said: ‘ Ben, why didn’t Breckinridge break off with this 
 woman ? ’ I said to him: ‘Do you remember about twenty years 
 ago when a brave, stalwart man, ripe in years and experience, 
 with a loving family about him, got a woman’s hand tangled in 
 his hair ? ’ ‘ My God ! I do ! ’ he cried. ‘Oh, yes,’ said I, ‘ I re¬ 
 
 member how he sweated blood before the world.’ ‘ But why dip 
 he get in it?’ somebody asks. Oh, yes, that’s all right, but that 
 is not the question when I am to be offered up for a vicarious 
 atonement for a crime I never committed. We know that a man 
 who v/ill court death, who goes bravely into the very front of 
 battle, trembles like an aspen leaf in the presence of such a 
 situation as this.” 
 
 “ This plaintiff,” said Major Butterworth, “ has been careful 
 not to lose sight of the defendant during the whole period of 
 their relations. She tells us that not for the briefest space of 
 time were they separated. And why? Because she knows that 
 each member of the jury will ask himself, ‘ Woman, did you 
 never sit down a minute and contemplate the happy home you 
 were likely to destroy ? ’ and she wants to say to that ‘ our relations 
 were not discontinued long enough to enable me to think such 
 things—he would not let me go.’ ” 
 
 Major Butterworth said he did not seek to extenuate the 
 fault of his client; but, he said, “the men who have framed 
 your financial systems, the men who have made your laws, your 
 great generals, strong as they were, have trembled and given 
 way to this temptation to which this man was subjected. * * * 
 She knew she held this man’s destiny in her hand. She could 
 command, not demand. And yet she never contemplated a 
 better life. She kept him there, crawling at her feet.’’ 
 
 THE ARREGED MARRIAGE PROPOSAR. 
 
 Taking up the alleged promise of marriage on August 31, 
 1892, Major Butterworth drew a picture of what depravity was 
 
2 §S 
 
 POIXA&D VS. BRfiCKINRlDGS. 
 
 shown if her story were true. He had met her at the railroad 
 station and told her he had something to tell her that evening 
 which he was vain enough to think would please her. “And 
 what did he do? She says he took her to a house of ill fame, to 
 ask her with tender affection to be his wife.” 
 
 “ That’s what makes it all the worse,” said Judge Wilson. ■ 
 
 “And that’s what makes your manly manhood know it isn’t 
 true,” retorted Major Butterworth, shaking both clenched fists j 
 in the opposing lawyer’s face. “ Before the mould had gathered * 
 on the shroud of his dead wife, he asks her tenderly, with lov¬ 
 ing kindness, to marry him. Asked her to marry him and con¬ 
 summate their years of debauchery by placing her at the head 
 of his table, to preside over his pure and loving daughters, to 
 rule his home—and she says that when he wanted to ask her 
 that, he took her to a house of ill fame. It isn’t true,” said 
 Major Butterworth. 
 
 “ Madeline Pollard might have been a good woman in the 
 eyes of the world to day,” said Major Butterworth, “ if she had 
 carried out her part of the contract with the defendant to leave 
 Washington and die out of his life. She did go to Broad Loaf 
 Inn, Vt., to work on the paper of Mr. Battell. But, through 
 some mysterious power, the obstacle which prevented her from 
 breaking that contract was removed in the death of the defend¬ 
 ant’s wife. And then she laid her plan to trap him. She de¬ 
 cided to go to him and say, ‘You shall marry me, or else I’ll 
 drag you down in disgrace before the world.” She returned to 
 Washington, and now she claimed that on the very day she re 
 turned, alter not having seen the defendant for a long time, and 
 when not a line had been exchanged between them, the de¬ 
 fendant asked her to marry him, and this on the very day she 
 returned from the North, when the sound of his dead wife’s 
 footsteps had not died away from his hearthstone. It was ridic¬ 
 ulous,” said Major Butterworth. “And then she said she wanted 
 to go to Europe for two years, and the defendant admitted that. 
 But at what price did she want to go ?—she would not sail for 
 Europe without going as his acknowledged fiance.” 
 
 Major Butterworth took up the calls on Mrs. Blackburn by 
 
■ ;;V >■ ■ U - ■ », : . J 
 
 Twenty-sixth Day of Trial, 
 
 299 
 
 the defendant and the plaintiff to tell her they were engaged, 
 merely for the purpose of setting right in Mrs. Blackburn’s 
 mind the statement of Miss Pollard that Colonel Breckinridge 
 had promised to marry her. He took occasion to picture Miss 
 Pollard as the adventuress, laying her plans to entrap into mar¬ 
 riage a man whom she had in her power through their guilty 
 relations. The plaintiff came to the defendant and said : “I’ve 
 told Mrs. Blackburn that we’re engaged. Now what can I do to 
 set myself right with her? ” And then the two decided to go to 
 Mrs. Blackburn, and he, to beep this woman from being con¬ 
 demned, agreed to say they were to be married. They were 
 obliged to lie to get out of it. “ There was no way to light, 
 except by plunging through the darkness,” said Major Butter- 
 worth. Colonel Breckinridge had done a noble act. He had 
 gone to Mrs. Blackburn to save a woman’s honor, to keep her 
 from being disgraced as an adventuress, and when she could not 
 force him into marriage through that means, she had spread this 
 terrible pestilence broadcast throughout the land. In telling of 
 the interviews with the chief of police, and of the “ pistol prac¬ 
 tice,” as he called the little scenes between the defendant and 
 the plaintiff, Major Butterworth was interrupted a number of 
 times by Colonel Breckinridge, who set him straight in some of 
 his statements. 
 
 READ BY THE DEFENDANT. 
 
 Major Butterworth taunted the plaintiff’s attorneys again 
 for not calling as witnesses the persons who knew all about cer¬ 
 tain things brought forward by the defense, and denied by Miss 
 Pollard. Major Butterworth tried to read a letter from the de¬ 
 fendant to Miss Pollard, but gave it up, saying, “A man ought to 
 be punished for writing so bad a hand.” Then Mr. Stoll tried 
 to read it. but he, too, failed even with the assistance of Colonel 
 Breckinridge. A type-written copy of the letter was produced, 
 but this, too, proved objectionable, and the matter was finally 
 settled by Colonel Breckinridge reading the original. He also 
 1 read all the other letters and telegrams produced, which were 
 those sent by him to the plaintiff in May, June, and July of last 
 year. 
 
3oc Poulard vs. Breckinridge. * 
 
 Stating that it was utterly impossible to go into all the little 
 details cf the case, Major Butterworth continued: “Thia case 
 rests with you, gentlemen of the jury. The Court has authority 
 over the law in it; you determine the facts. William C. P. 
 Breckinridge is not here for violating a moral or any other law; 
 that is not the question. He is here for you to determine the 
 question: Did he promise to marry this plaintiff; and if so, did 
 he break that promise? He has been accused of debauching a 
 little school girl of seventeen years, and in dragging her down. 
 You are to determine whether he is guilty of violating law in 
 his relations with the experienced woman of twenty years, as she 
 has been shown to be. She says she comes here to redress a 
 great wrong. I deny it. I deny it. She could redress no great 
 wrong by bringing suit in this way. She wanted either money 
 as a balm for her feelings or else she wanted what does not rise 
 to the dignity of revenge; she wanted to scatter abroad a leaven 
 of pestilence throughout the country, sending it to every hearth¬ 
 stone. She deliberately turned from every pathway of oppor¬ 
 tunity ; she turned her back upon every good purpose, and pro¬ 
 claimed to the world her shame. She has scattered pestilence 
 throughout the land on the mere pretense of wanting reparation. 
 
 MAJOR BUTTERWORTH’S PERORATION. 
 
 - ■ *w 
 
 Call her motive vengeance, call it fury, call it what you will; 
 when a woman turns her back on the pathway of opportunity, 
 of decency, it proves that she was not fit to be the wife of a 
 decent man ; that her early life was not what she would have us 
 believe. I am not saying anything in extenuation of his sin. I 
 am defending the virtue of my countrymen; I am defending the 
 virtue of country girls, and any man that says that seduction 
 could be accomplished under the circumstances told of by this 
 woman knows nothing of the subject, and I denounce that indi¬ 
 vidual, in the name of the country girl and the city girl, as a 
 measureless prevaricator. * * * Nobody knows through 
 
 what a mire that man (Breckinridge) has been dragged ; ■well, it’s 
 the penalty of a departure from duty. Don’t think, gentlemen, 
 that a verdict for the defendant is a ratification of his sin. We 
 
Twenty-seventh Day oe Trial 
 
 301 
 
 - ask not his exaltation; we ask not the exaltation of any one who 
 has violated the commands of the Decalogue. We ask for only 
 what is just. 
 
 “I heartily join withjmy brother (Mr. Carlisle) in asking you 
 for a verdict in defense of American womanhood, but according 
 to the standard up to which our wives and mothers must be 
 held.” 
 
 Major Butterworth concluded at 3:10 o’clock. 
 
 TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY OF TRIAD. 
 
 Judge Wilson addresses the jury in behalf of plaintiff.—Rankin 
 Rosell roundly scored .— Colonel Breckinridge fearfully ex¬ 
 coriated. — Mr, Wilson declares that the defendant had lived a 
 lie for ten years.—Breckinridge falsified his marriage certi¬ 
 ficate. — Madeline's reputation.—Every distorted muscle and 
 every broken bone in her character comes from defendant. 
 
 The closing speech of counsel in the Pollard-Breckinridge 
 suit for breach of promise by Mr. Wilson, gave the jury an op¬ 
 portunity to see in a vivid verbal presentation the character of 
 the defendant and his case from the plaintiff’s point of view. 
 The acquirements of his jmars of legal experience and practice 
 before the bar were concentrated in his effort to discountenance 
 the plea made by Major Butterworth, and to secure a favorable 
 verdict. 
 
 His argument was compact. Pie avoided flights of eloquence 
 and spoke for the most part in a conversational and explanatory 
 manner, maintaining that the case was, after all, a simple one 
 when it was stripped, as he termed it, of all noise and confusion. 
 There v/ere passages, however, when all the powers of invective 
 and impassioned utterance were brought into play, as the char¬ 
 acter of the defendant or his witnesses were passing under his 
 fire of speech. When he grew violent in denunciation, his tall, 
 slender form, which is in such contrast to that of Major Butter¬ 
 worth, emphasized his words with active gestures He stood the 
 
302 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 greater portion of the day near the witness box, expounding 
 carefully point after point, as he tried to fix it in the minds of 
 every one of the twelve men who are soon to sit in judgment on 
 his client and pass upon the w r orlh of her cause. 
 
 Miss Pollard was absent, contrary to the general expecta¬ 
 tion. The crowd in the Court-room equaled that of the day be¬ 
 fore, and once the passages near the doer were so banked with 
 men, anxious to hear the last words in the case, that an order 
 was given for them to be partly cleared. 
 
 In the afternoon Mr. Wilson’s scathing words stirred up 
 temporary strife with the opposing counsel as he proceeded to 
 take up the glove which he said Major Butterworth had thrown 
 down to him. It appeared for a few moments as if the spectators 
 might have a view behind the scenes, and some insight into the 
 tricks which the great lawyers have played upon each other in 
 the wrestle for evidence. Mr. Wilson grew very bold, and put 
 seemingly perplexing questions to Mr. Stoll about the taking of 
 depositions, which he evaded, when Major Butterworth took the 
 floor and appealed for fair play. 
 
 Mr. Wilson began his argument as soon as the Court con¬ 
 vened at io o’clock. 
 
 He is a tall, spare man, with narrow shoulders, a very thin 
 face, accentuated by a prominent Roman nose, and hardly looks 
 the power he possesses in making an argument before a jury. 
 Starting quietly in tones so low they could scarcely be heard, 
 Judge Wilson gradually allowed his powerful voice full sway, 
 hurling accusation after accusation at the white-haired Ken¬ 
 tuckian. Major Butterworth was not present at the opening, 
 but he came in with Desha Breckinridge just as Judge Wilson 
 w r as regretting his absence that he could not ask him what he 
 would do with the fallen woman and the man who injured her. 
 “I suppose,” said Mr. Wilson, “he would say, ‘I would turn the 
 woman out and I’d send the man to Congress.’” 
 
 equality - before the social law. 
 
 “ I stand here for womanhood,’’ Mr. Wilson said. “ This 
 defendant proclaimed from the stand that while affairs of this 
 kind only injured a man they destroyed a woman. I am here to 
 
 
303 
 
 Twenty-seventh Day of Trial. 
 
 insist that social law should be equally distributed; I stand here 
 to protest against .allowing this man to enter my parlor and your 
 parlor, while the basement door and the gate in the back alley 
 are bolted against the woman. I condemn him ! Condemn him, 
 if I could, so that the condemnation would ring round the world.’’ 
 
 The defense of the country girl by Major Butterworth was 
 criticised severely by Mr. Wilson, who also took up Col. Thomp¬ 
 son’s remarkable speech, and gave to each of the historical and 
 Biblical incidents referred to by that speaker a turn hostile to 
 the defendant. Col. Thompson’s sheer about female doctors was 
 made the cue for a defense of the advancement of the higher 
 education of women. Col. Thompson had told the jury that the 
 plaintiff was a wanton woman, “but,’’ said Judge Wilson, “call 
 her what you will, I will show you that whatever she is, that 
 defendant (and he pointed an accusing finger at Col. Breckin¬ 
 ridge) is responsible for her condition. What is the argument 
 of Col. Thompson and Major Butterworth ? It is not that this 
 seventeen-year-old girl was not seduced by this forty-seven-year 
 old man, but that she seduced him. That’s their argument. If it 
 were not so serious it would be ludicrous. How could that de¬ 
 fendant sit there and allow the utterance of such sentiments if he 
 were not a craven and a coward? He sa]. T s ‘the woman did it.’ 
 That’s his defense. It is the old story of the Garden of Eden. 
 That’s what Adam said when brought before the King of Men, 
 ‘She did it.’ And, gentlemen, Adam has not been in good grace 
 from that time to this.” 
 
 Major Butterworth had told the jury nothing whatever about 
 the case, said Mr. Wilson. When he started in to do so, he found 
 that he was getting into muddy water, so he said, “ I’ll just stand 
 on the bank and shoot off fireworks.” 
 
 Mr. Wilson’s remarks caused occasional laughter and some 
 shuffles of approval, which Judge Bradley rebuked. 
 
 QUESTIONS OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. 
 
 “There is one thing which I expect to show, and if I show 
 it I shall be satisfied,’’ said Judge Wilson. “It is that this 
 woman, friendless, alone, barred out of society—that this woman’s 
 
3°4 
 
 POLLARD VS. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 condition is traceable to the crime of that man. * * * Th 
 is the simplest case in the world, and if you will get out of yot 
 heads the clamor and'shouting of the defendant’s counsel, ye 
 will see how simple it is.’’ Three defenses had been made, tb 
 principal one of which wms that there was an agreement betwee 
 the plaintiff and the defendant to pretend that they were er 
 gaged. Mr. Wilson, in speaking of the intimacy of the defendan 
 and plaintiff as showing that Col. Breckinridge considered Mis 
 Pollard his equal, and therefore good enough to be his wife, sait 
 that Col. Breckinridge had taken her to the Ebbitt House to sei 
 his Kentucky friends. 
 
 Col. Breckinridge shook his head at this, and Mr. Stoll tolc 
 Mr. Wilson that there was no testimony to that effect. 
 
 Mr. Wilson insisted that Claude Francis had so testified, 
 “and,” added the lawyer, “when I asked the defendant about 
 this on the stand he didn’t deny it.” 
 
 “ But that is not so,” said Col. Breckinridge in a low voice. 
 
 “I can’t have these interruptions by outside parties,” Judge 
 Bradley said. 
 
 “ To what do you refer, your honor? ” asked Mr. Wilson. 
 
 “ I mean these interjections by the defendant.” 
 
 “ Does your honor mean that I have no right to represent 
 myself here?” asked Col. Breckinridge in a surprised voice. 
 
 “ I mean you are represented by counsel, who will speak 
 for you,” Judge Bradley said impatiently. 
 
 “But I have a constitutional right to represent myself, too,” 
 Colonel Breckinridge replied. “If you honor so decides it, I'd 
 like you to say so.” But Judge Bradley did not answer, and 
 Mr. Wilson continued. 
 
 MRS- BLACKBURN’S TESTIMONY. 
 
 Taking up the alleged promise of marriage, Mr. Wilson 
 spoke of the intimate social relations between Col. Breckinridge 
 and Miss Pollard, laying great stress on Mrs. Blackburn’s testi¬ 
 mony that the defendant had repeatedly told her he loved no one 
 but Madeline —“Madeline, mind you,” said Judge Wilson, “not 
 ‘Miss Pollard’ ”—and that he had not the slightest intention of 
 
T'Wi$Ni'¥-S4V4KT£t DAY OP TmaU 30$ 
 
 marrying Mrs. Wing. The promises of marriage before Major 
 Moore were made after the defendants’ secret marriage, and the 
 defense had sprung this secret marriage upon the plaintiff's 
 counsel, thinking that would overwhelm them. But they didn’t 
 know the law, and their defense fell to the ground. Their sur¬ 
 prise was sprung too scon, for the omniscient pencil-pushers had 
 found.it out, and it came into the possession of the plaintiff’s 
 counsel and spoiled the game. 
 
 Impressively, Judge Wilson told of the scene in Major 
 Moore’s office when the plaintiff and the defendant clasped 
 hands, and despite the fact that the defendant had been married 
 thirteen or fourteen days before, he swore before high Heaven 
 that on the last day of that month he would make her his wife. 
 
 “He should be by her side to-day,” cried Mr. Wilson. “In¬ 
 stead of being her defamer, he ought to be her guardian and 
 srotector to day. If that promise had been made in the State of 
 flew York, it would have been a binding contract, a marriage; 
 md if he had made it while he was already married, it would 
 lave put him behind barred doors.’’ 
 
 MADELINE’S REPUTATION. 
 
 The defense in this action was, said Mr. Wilson, quoting 
 Jajor Shelby, that the plaintiff’s general character was bad. 
 ffie atmosphere about her was bad, they said, and this bright, 
 cintillating, glittering, effervescing defendant couldn’t afford 
 3 marry a woman like that. In that beautiful Blue Grass re¬ 
 ion, where some of the bravest, best, and noblest men and 
 'omen came from, nobody in that region could say that this 
 eneral character of the plaintiff had ever been found bad; and 
 l that school where she had been intimately associated with the 
 est and purest, she had past as being as good as any of them, 
 /herever a man or woman lived—in the slums or elsewhere— 
 a or she was judged by his or her associations, and there had 
 sen nothing to show that the associations of this plaintiff were 
 ot of the best. The defense had attempted to show that she 
 id had wrongful relations with other men, and had turned their 
 20 
 
306 
 
 Poi.I.ARE VS. BrECKXNRIDGS. 
 
 calcium light into all tbs highways and byways of her life, from 
 the time she was an infant until now. They had tried to prove 
 her guilt of immorality with Rodes, but, said Mr. Wilson, "these 
 imputations against Pvodes are as valueless as the sighing of the 
 south wind.” 
 
 At 12:30 a recess until 1:15 was ordered. 
 
 At the beginning of the afternoon .session Mr. Wilson apol 
 ogized for a remark he had made before recess about Owen Rob 
 inson, a youthful correspondent of the plaintiff. Letters fron 
 Miss Pollard to him had been produced by the defense, and Mr 
 Wilson had said: ‘‘If he gave up those L.ters, I say he is : 
 whelp.” In apologizing for this remark, Mr. Wilson explaine< 
 that Robinson’s deposition showed that he was not deserving 0 
 of that stigma, but regarding the letters he proceeded to say:* 
 
 ‘‘There has been no hesitation whatever to use perjury t< 
 tarnish the reputation of this plaintiff, and what has been don 
 is putrid and offensive to the nostrils of all. The accusatio; 
 made by this Shinglebauer woman lies at the very bottom of thi 
 defense. They want to prove that the plaintiff was a mature* 
 woman before she met this defendant.” 
 
 Mr. Wilson he’d up to scorn the attempt of Major Buttej . 
 worth to show vicious habits through Miss Pollard’s school-gii 
 letters. “ Madeline Pollard had not met James C. Rodes un 
 the summer of 1S33, and j-et during the months of May, Jum 
 and July of that year,” said Mr. Wilson, “ the defense sought t ■ 
 prove that she was then living in a house of prostitution in Ler • 
 ington. In all the letters to James C. Rodes from the plaintii , 
 there wasn't a suggestion of any improper relations. If the) , 
 had been such relations, it would have cropped out somewhere 
 
 Mr. Wilson, continuing, handled without sparing the wi 
 nesses the testimony of Brand and Kaufman and the other wi 
 nesses who made oath to the plaintiff having visited the lion: , 
 of Lena Singleton when that house, at the time spoken of, h£ $ 
 no existence, and said he knew of nothing more worthy of repr 
 bation than the putting before a jury every perjured stateme: 
 that could be hunted up in the back alleys and slop-barrels 
 Lexington to blacken the character of this unfortunate girl. 
 
Twenty-seventh Day of Trial. 
 
 307 
 
 He took up the testimony of Rankin Resell, who was at 
 one time engaged to the plaintiff, and said that Resell had fur¬ 
 nished a loop which the defense had tried to place around the 
 neck of his client’s character. “ I wish,” said Mr. Wilson, “that 
 I might say of him, as Tom Corwin once said of a notorious 
 character named Van Zandt, ‘May God have mercy on your 
 soul,’ and stop there.” He referred to Rcsell’s statement that 
 he had broken his engagement with Miss Pollard because she 
 let him fondle and caress her. “ That’s another lie,” he said, “ a 
 black lie—a damnable lie.’’ 
 
 Then he took up the statement of Colonel Breckinridge 
 that on the day he called on Miss Pollard at Wesleyan College 
 she told him she bad had wrongful relations with Eodes. This 
 Miss Pollard had denied. “Her word is as good as his,” said 
 Mr. Wilson. “ Her word in this case is as good as his, and this 
 loctrine of improbability comes here with crushing force against 
 his defendant,” he continued. “Was it probable that Rodes 
 lad also told the defendant of wrongful relations with the plain- 
 iff? The defendant was sharp enough to say that Rodes had 
 old him this, not as an attorney, because he knew if he said it 
 /as told him as an attorney, the Court Yvould not have allowed 
 im to speak of it. Oh, he’s the most agile man on the witness 
 land that I ever saw,” said Mr. Wilson. “ You might fling him 
 at of the window, but he will alight on his feet.” 
 
 ARRAIGNING THE DEFENDANT. 
 
 | Then, with dramatic manner and deep voice of accusation, 
 'r. Wilson made a severe arraignment of Col. Breckinridge. 
 
 |! “It pains me to say it, gentlemen,” he said, “but I must 
 
 ;y it— be has lived a lie. For ten years his life has been that 
 < faithlessness to the most sacred obligation of life. He has 
 bed a life of hypocrisy, such a life as he himself has said, ‘You 
 ( n’t find words to coin into phrases to define the height and 
 ligth and depth of my fault. I am so filled wdth pity for this 
 t meless, friendless woman, that I can find it in my heart to say 
 Bings that I would not otherwise have said. After he has told 
 yn he has lived a lie for ten years, I do not believe I could find 
 a ian so foolish as to believe him now. What has he not done? 
 
3°8 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge, 
 
 He lias even falsified his marriage certificate. Can you believe 
 the story he tells with all its improbabilities, and which he asks 
 you to believe in th; same breath in which he tells you of all 
 these deceptions of other people? How can ycu know that he 
 is not practicing these things on you? It is simply impossible 
 for ycu to find that Madeline Pollaid told him any such storj 
 about Rodes, cr that Rodes told this story about himself. * 51 
 Whatever there is of slime upon her comes from this de 
 fendant. Every distorted muscle and every broken bone in he 
 character comes from this defendant. It is the trail of a serpen 
 that is over her life.” 
 
 He painted a picture of the plaintiff - , kept out of the societ; 
 of her sisters, but taken in by the House of Mercy, and he pah 
 a high compliment to Miss Ellis, the elderly lady from the IIous 
 of Mercy here, who has accompanied Miss Pollard to the court 
 house every day. 
 
 When liehad concluded on this line, it was half-past 3 o'clock 
 and he asked Judge Bradley to adjourn. In assenting, Judg' 
 Bradley said the Couit would sit Saturday, and the case would b | 
 finished then. 
 
 TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 Verclici for Miss Pollard.—Fifteen thousand dollars the atrtoui 1 
 of damages awarded the plaintiff . — The famous trial em% 
 with a verdict for plaintiff.—Colonel Breckinridge giv 
 notice of motion for a new trial . — Miss Pollard prostrated, si t 
 gives zoay under the strain , and is sent to Providence Hospit 
 suffering from extreme nervousness . — fudge Wilson's closii \ 
 words provoke an exciting scene between the counsel. 
 
 The last day of the Breckinridge suit began under circui 
 stances no different from those on other days. Madeline Polls 
 was not present. But Colonel Breckinridge was there, seemin' 
 !y indifferent to the further arraignment he was to receive frc. 
 Mr. Jere Wilson. The court-room w r as not crowded when A 
 Wilson rose to complete his speech shortly after 10 o’clock, b. 
 
Twenty-Eighth Day of Triae. 
 
 309 
 
 it soon filled up. Mr. Wilson said that lie would show tliat there 
 was nothing whatever in the claims of the defense. It had 
 never been claimed that she had had illicit relations with any 
 nan, living or dead, save the defendant and James C. Rodes, 
 md he believed he had shown the charge against the old dead 
 ariner was untrue. 
 
 Mr. Wilson said the defendant not only denied that he had 
 educed the plaintiff at the house of Sarah Gess, but he admitted 
 hat he himself had been seduced before that time at the same 
 dace. This caused a titter from the spectators, and before it 
 lad died away Colonel Breckinridge half arose in his chair and 
 aid, “Now, it your honor please, that is a misstatement—I testi- 
 iedthat I never was at the house of Sarah Gess but once.” 
 
 “Oh, don’t try to change it now,” cried Judge Wilson. 
 You have finished your testimony.” 
 
 “I am not testifying, please your honor, but this is not the 
 ruth and I simply desire to make this last statement,’’ Colonel 
 Ireckinridge said with some warmth. 
 
 “Your statement was, Mr. Breckinridge,” said Judge Brad- 
 :y, “that you were at the house of Sarah Gess before you went 
 iere with the plaintiff.’’ 
 
 “Yes, but that was all,” Colonel Breckinridge replied. 
 
 ! The defendant had testified, said Mr. Wilson, that he and 
 |ie plaintifl had agreed to die out of each other’s lives, and they 
 id gone around telling people they were engaged. Was that 
 le way people died out of each other’s lives? “No witness,” 
 1 said, “had been summoned to supporr that bald-headed, mis- 
 Kjable, stupid, idiotic pretense of the defense in this case.” It 
 lay have been so that the defendant had never intended to 
 . urry the plaintiff, but it bad to be a mutual agreement between 
 t e parties that there should be only a pretense of an engage- 
 *-nt to be any defense. “Here was a girl accepting his prom¬ 
 ts before Major Moore under an agreement that there should 
 1 no marriage. Can you believe it? Unless you trample our 
 eidence under foot be hasn’t proved a thing.” 
 
 Mr. Wilson agreed with Major Butterworth that the plain- 
 t: with her talents might have gone out in the world and made 
 
Poleard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 
 310 
 
 
 her way like that noble woman of her State, Mary Anderso . 
 “It is all true,” he said, “and the fact that it is true makes tl 
 guilt of the defendant deeper, blacker, and more criminal.” I 
 
 MR. STOLL TAKES EXCEPTION. 
 
 A sensational scene was narrowly averted ■when Mr. Wilsil 
 said that the alleged forged letter was based on the letter wlii ft 
 Madeline Pollard had written to Wessie Brown, her sckoolmaiB 
 
 “The evidence in this case shov/s,’’ he said, “that they gfl 
 the letter from the husband of Wessie Brown, Mr. Robinsc « 
 The evidence shows that Mr. Stoll carried that Wessie Brovf 
 letter around in his pocket.” 
 
 At this Mr. Stoll, his face very white, asked Judge Wils Jjj 
 in a calm voice: “Do you mean to insinuate, Judge Wilsc. jj 
 that I committed that forgery?” 
 
 “I mean to say that you had that Wessie Brown letter 
 your pocket, and on that letter this forgery ivas based,” repli.a 
 Mr. Wilson. “You had it in your pocket, did you not?” 
 
 “Yes, sir.” 
 
 “ Well, that’s all I say; and I w T ant to say this, too, tit J 
 these gentlemen are not going to take me away from the d~* 
 charge of my duty by their interruptions in refuting these charj; j 
 against my client. That’s what I mean.” 
 
 “ You’ll hear from this later on,” broke out the slow It | 
 penetrating voice of Mr. Stoll in the stillness of the big ckamfc'. X 
 “ There is another court in which that vile insinuation shall e 
 settled.” 
 
 “What do you mean,” sternly asked Mr. Wilson, “by e | 
 other court?” There was defiance in his voice and manner. 
 
 “I mean,” said Mr. Stoll, quietly as before, “that you 1- j 
 sinuated that I had something to do with a forgery which I 
 nounce as vile and infamous.” 
 
 “What do you mean by the other court; what do you in-o | 
 by the ether court?” persisted Judge Wilson. 
 
 Mr. Stoll shifted in liis chair, but made no attempt at ex]i- j 
 nation, and just tkeu Judge Bradley, looking somew’hat astonisti. £ 
 stopped the embryo quarrel. 
 
EBp" 
 
 Twenty-eighth Day op Tkxai,. 3ti 
 
 . “ Now, gentlemen, enough of this,” he said. ‘‘Such conduct 
 
 5 unseemly.” 
 
 Judge Wilson bowed, and went on speaking about the letter, 
 outending that even admitting that Madeline Pollard wrote it, 
 Ibere was nothing improper contained in it. 
 
 ® During the recess Major Butterworth and Mr. Stoll went off 
 jDgether. There was much bad feeling displayed on the part of 
 Ijhese gentlemen over the incident. Major Butterworth did what 
 e could to patch matters up, and just before the court met he 
 ad a talk with Judge Wilson, the result of which was shown 
 when Judge Wilson arose again to address the jury. 
 
 “Gentlemen of the jury,” he said, “in the heat of discussion, 
 
 1 the presentation of facts, a man sometimes says things which 
 . tobably convey the impression that he did not intend to con- 
 zy. I had no thought of insinuating that Mr. Stoll forged that 
 tter, or was a party to that forgery. I had it in my mind to 
 low you how easily these things could be done, and to show 
 du how easily handwriting can be imitated.” 
 
 Mr. Stoll sat quietly listening to this explanation, but he 
 d not offer to make a reply when Mr. Wilson had finished. 
 
 The volumes of Washington Irving, which were in the asy- 
 m library, and which Miss Pollard says she presented to Sister 
 t-acilia, were held up by Mr. Wilson as evidence that Miss Pol- 
 Jrd had been at the asylum. He mentioned Miss Hoyt, with 
 hom Miss Pollard boarded in Texington, as saying that the 
 aintiff had a set;of Irving’s v/orks, which she had taken away 
 , 1885, and had not brought back. 
 
 ANOTHER TIFF BETWEEN COUNSEL. 
 
 Mr. Stoll here made some remark that was not audible. Mr. 
 Urlisle, Judge Wilson’s associate, whirled on him in an instant, 
 
 (manding, “What was that?” and every one expected a renewal 
 (the trouble of the morning. Mr. Wilson, too, made a demand 
 t know what Mr. Stoll meant, and the latter said there was no 
 fitimony in the case like that stated by counsel. This was ex- 
 I lined by Mr. Carlisle, who said that Miss Hoyt could not say 
 isitively that the books bad not been brought back, and Mr. 
 Wilson continued, but only to meet with another interruption 
 
 > 
 
Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 ;12 
 
 from Mr. Stoll a few minutes later, when he said that the atto \ 
 r.eys for the defense had sought to make it appear that hj 
 brothers, Carlisle and Johnson, had slipped a Christmas card in 
 cue of the Irving volumes to more fully identify Miss Pollai ■ 
 with the asylum. 
 
 “Judge Wilson,” said Mr. Stoll, “haven’t counsel for tl 
 defense expressly disclaimed any such purpose?” 
 
 “I know you have disclaimed it,” answered Judge Wilso ! 
 “ but the inference was put in such a way that it would not 1: 
 misunderstood, and Judge Bradley himself said when Mr. Ca. 
 lisle took the stand that the inference of the defense was he hr 
 connived at wrong-doing concerning the card, and should 1 
 permitted to deny it. 
 
 Mr. Stoll made no reply to this, and Judge Wilson ther 
 upon proceeded to take Colonel Breckinridge severely to ta: 
 for various acts of deception, and he did not mince words i 
 dealing with the matter. “ He had taken this young girl out < j 
 school, and kept her near him all these years, and I claim th 
 the obligation was a thousand times greater on his part that 1 . 
 should make her his wife.” 
 
 Mr. Wilson, in conclusion, asked the jury to impale the d < 
 fendant with the javelin of justice, and hold him aloft on it as s ; 
 example to others disposed to wrong-doing, and justice wou 
 cry out “Amen.” 
 
 CHARGE TO THE JURY. 
 
 JUDGE BRADLEY CONSTRUES THE LAW FOR TEE GUIDANCE 
 
 OF THE TWELVE. 
 
 Judge Wilson finished at 2:28 o’clock, and the Court imm 
 diately began his charge to the jury, reading from manuscrip 
 Judge Bradley said: 
 
 h “ Gentlemen of the jury: It is a subject for great congra 
 b ulation that this long and in many respects tedious case has : 
 last reached that point where the evidence having all been give 
 and the arguments of counsel delivered, it becomes the duty < 
 the Court to commit the outcome to your hands. It is a math 
 
Twfnty-sighth Day of Trial. 
 
 313 
 
 i congratulation to the community that a case which has at- 
 ■acted so much general attention and notice, and which, in the 
 ( tails of its evidence and in its circumstances has been so ex- 
 umely pernicious in its influences, and which has colored and 
 plluted the stream of daily news for so many weeks, has run its 
 nary length, and it is a matter of congratulation to you that, 
 lving served many days beyond the required term of service, 
 uich the law ordinarily would have demanded of you, you may 
 t w, upon the rendering of your verdict at least, be free from 
 tis labor, and be permitted to return to your daily avocations. 
 
 “Considered with reference to the legal questions involved 
 i the trial, this case has been one of very small consequences, 
 h the lawyer or student of jurisprudence it has presented very 
 fv points of interest. The parties concerned come here from 
 aother State, and the litigation between them being purely a 
 jrsonal matter, the case is one that would not ordinarily have 
 e cited any local interest. Had both the parties been obscure 
 c unknown, it probably would not have excited sufficient in¬ 
 fest to have provoked notice or comment even in the local 
 pess. 
 
 “ Owing, however, to the fact that one of the parties is a 
 e n of national prominence, attention has been largely attracted 
 t the case; and because, I fear, of the fact that the details of 
 §; case in many of its circumstances w r ere of such a character 
 ato attract the attention of the curious and vulgar, this court- 
 base has been besieged by applicants for admission in numbers 
 s Hcient ordinarily to crowxl the Court-room to its utmost ca- 
 p city. This has been a source of serious inconvenience in the 
 r o .\ministration of justice, and a matter of deep and sincere regret 
 tall those who are interested in preserving and cultivating the 
 nral sense of this community. 
 
 ITS remarkable; features. 
 
 Ij “The case has been remarkable not so much for its elements 
 a.Tor some of its incidents. In its elements it is nothing but 
 a , ordinary, plain, common, simple action for the breach of a 
 ci tract of marriage; an action that is extraordinary only by 
 lftou of its infrequency, for which infrequency the public is 
 
314 * Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 largely to be congratulated. It lias been remarkable for tt 
 peculiarity and the number of the incidents that have attende 
 it, due to the fact that so much notoriety has been given to it b 
 the press of the country. The Court has been deluged wit 
 anonymous letters and with clippings frcm the newspapers, an 
 has been treated to a few letters to which the authors had tl 
 decency to put their names, many if not all of which have bee 
 filled with suggestions as to the proper conduct of the trial. • 
 
 “Even the jury, as I have been informed by some of then 
 have not been exempt from the efforts of unknown parties fc I 
 telegram, or by letter, cr by oral remarks, to drop some sugge ■ 
 tion as to the outcome of the case. In the early part of the tri; \ 
 you were advised by the Court not to discuss this case amon 
 yourselves as the trial progressed, and not to permit others t j 
 discuss it wuth yon. This injunction, I trust and believe. In 
 been faithfully observed. Whatever you may have inadvertent! 
 heard, or read, or seen, outside cf the evidence in this case ths 
 has been delivered to you by the witnesses who have been a . 
 amined in your presence, or outside of the depositions that hav J 
 been read in your healing, that have had no bearing upon or r< . 
 lation to this ease, you should, and I know you will, discard an 
 utterly disregard. 
 
 “ While it is not ray purpose to travel over the evidence i 
 this case, or to present it to you in any form, there have bee • 
 some suggestions given out during the course of the argumei 
 of such a nature that I consider it proper to refer to them. Ne< 
 essarily, this case is of paramount importance to the plainti 
 and the defendant, not only because of the pecuniary interest 
 involved, and the possibility of loss to one or the other of tliei 
 by reason of the verdict you may render, but because of the effe< 
 that the result may have upon the integrity of their claims, j 
 is, however, not correct or accurate to claim that there is an 
 third party who possesses any interest in the outcome of th: • 
 cause. It has been said that there are three parties to this eas i 
 —the plaintiff and defendant, and the community, or the com 
 try, or the world at large, for foreign countries have bee 
 brought within the limits of this third party. 
 
Twenty-eighth Day of Triat. 315 
 
 “ The community has no interest in any cause between pri- 
 .te individuals save such interest in the public welfare as to 
 e that justice is duly administered. With the outcome of this 
 use, whether that outcome be for the plaintiff or the defendant, 
 is community, nor the country, nor humanity in general, have 
 ;y concern; and it should not matter one feather’s weight with 
 ;u as to the direction in which you should render your verdict 
 nat the community or the world at large may think of it. You 
 sould not concern yourselves about the vindication of Ameri¬ 
 ca womanhood, or the vindication of the family, or the vindi- 
 Dtion of the country girl in the abstract. . Your province in this 
 case is to vindicate the truth, aud your duty is to render such a 
 vrdict as the law and the evidence require. You are to deter- 
 r ne the rights of these parties in this controversy, and not to 
 s.tle any abstract principles of morality, however important 
 s;h principles may be. The question in this case, and the ulti- 
 E.te question for the enlightenment of which alone all of these 
 r.ny circumstances have been put and received in evidence, in¬ 
 ching the stories of the lives of both the plaintiff and defend- 
 a;, is whether a contract of marriage was entered into between 
 f;:se parties; and that question you are to determine upon the 
 e dence. 
 
 “ Whatever your personal feelings or wish might be with 
 nerence to the relations that the evidence shows to have sub- 
 sued between these parties, that must be laid aside, and your 
 v diet must be controlled entirely and exclusively by the evi- 
 dice. It is DGt a question with you, in reaching a conclusion 
 if Ms case, if you find from the evidence that a contract of mar- 
 rige existed between these parties, whether the defendant, as a 
 rcre matter of sentiment, ought to have married the plaintiff. 
 T 2 question is whether you find in the evidence any legal ex- 
 c; eor justification for the breach of such a contract, if it ex¬ 
 it'd. 
 
 ■fiT You have been told that this action has been brought and 
 tl verdict against the defendant is sought solely for the pur- 
 p< e of punishing him. No consideration of that kind should be 
 p< tnitted to in any wise affect or control tbe direction of your 
 
3*6 
 
 Poedard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 verdict. You have been told that a verdict Is sought in this cas 
 for the purpose of repairing the character of the plaintiff. You; 
 verdict must be controlled by the evidence, no matter whos 
 character may suffer by it. It is not your province, by your vei 
 diet, to repair the character of either party. 
 
 “ This case has been prolific of details, in evidence, many (I 
 which it has been almost impossible to clothe in language the 
 would express the facts and at the same time be clean euoug 1 
 for use in a court of justice. To the credit of the parties to thil 
 cause, when examined as witnesses, be it said, that throughot j 
 the trying ordeals of their examination and cross-examinatio 1 
 these repulsive facts were, as far as possible, clothed in as clea ■ 
 language as the circumstances would admit; and, in many ii | 
 stances, when that could be done, the fact was suggested, an \ 
 the bold statement was omitted. To the credit of most of tl { 
 counsel in the case it should be said that they have likervis f 
 haudied indecent circumstances, situations, and facts in as decer $ 
 a manner as justice to the cause and to the subject matter iH 
 volved would allow. I regret, however, that every one of tfc 
 counsel cannot be placed in the same category, and that th 
 same restraint was not universal. 
 
 “ Should any inordinate baseness of expression, or any chu 
 acterization of mankind in general against which jmur nnnhoo j 
 may have revolted, linger in your recollection, do not permit i j 
 in any wise to color your view of the evidence, or to obscure thl 
 real opinion, or to operate to the detriment of the rights of eitbc ; 
 party. 
 
 THE MAIN QUESTION. 
 
 “ In the vast maze of facts that have been brought into tin 4 
 case, in traversing the lives of the plaintiff and of the defen | 
 ant, not only since their first meeting, but for years pricj 
 thereto, there is danger that the mere incidentals of evu’cccj 
 may obscure the main question. Do net forget that the question ? 
 in this case is whether the defendant entered into a contract c 
 marriage with the plaintiff, and that their previous history aiEf 
 the circumstances of their lives and association are of const 
 queuce, as I have stated, only as enlightening that main ques 
 
TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY OF TlUAI,, 
 
 317 
 
 ion, and possibly, also, as may be seen by an inst ruction that 
 las been granted upon the subject, as bearing upon the subject 
 if the amount of damages, if a verdict should be rendered for 
 he plaintiff, or as indicating independent defenses on the part 
 f the defendant, and reasons why he should be excused from 
 omplying with this contract, if one were made. 
 
 “These circumstances are of use in enabling you to put 
 ourselves in the place of the parties to this action, and being 
 0 placed to enable you to judge them by your fellow-man, and 
 bus to estimate the inherent probabilities of their several sto¬ 
 res and their several claims. By their lives, by their characters 
 s indicated by their lives, and the incidents that are detailed in 
 videuce, you are to judge of the credit that either of the par¬ 
 ies to this cause are entitled to, when their statements are at 
 ariance with each other, and are uncorroborated by other evi- 
 ence.” 
 
 Judge Bradley then gave the jury his ruling on the respec- 
 ve prayers of the parties. 
 
 In conclusion, Judge Bradley said : 
 
 “To sum it all up, if you fail to find that a contract was 
 lade or that the defendant was excused from the performance 
 f it, your "verdict should be for the defendant. If, however, 
 oufind that such a contract did exist, and that the defendant 
 jras not released therefrom, you are to find for the plaintiff. 
 
 The closing scenes of the trial were very impressive. Mr. 
 /ilson closed his argument at’2:30 o’clock. Judge Bradley oc- 
 lpied a little more than half an hour in delivering his charge, 
 lie jury retired at seven minutes past 3. 
 
 Judge Bradiey remained in his chair for a few minutes after 
 lejury went out, and then he v/alked around to the attorneys’ 
 iom, where he waited news from the jury. The court-room 
 pidly cleared. Colonel Breckinridge and his counsel started 
 !'r the office of Mr. McKinney, the junior counsel, just across 
 e street, and as he was coming down the courthouse steps an 
 >en barouche with two ladies in it drove up and he waited on 
 B e curbstone to receive them. The ladies were Colonel Breck- 
 ridge’s wife and one of his daughters by bis second marriage. 
 
3X3 
 
 Pollard vs. Breckinridge. 
 
 The three chatted for awhile, and then the ladles drove »wai 
 
 leaving Colonel Breckinridge standing on the pavement. Hi 
 face was smiling and he laughed heartily as he joined hiscounse 
 
 Judge Wilson and Mr. Carlisle, Miss Pollard’s eour.se 
 waited for the verdict at Mr. Carlisle’s office, opposite the cour 
 house, with their client, who remained remarkably cool for 
 woman under such a strain and of so excitable a temperameu 
 She had been at Mr. Carlisle’s office nearly all day. Miss Elli: 
 the motherly lady from the House of Mercy, was also then 
 The brother of the plaintiff, who has not appeared in ccnnectio 
 with the case, formed another of the party. 
 
 RETURN CF THE JURY. 
 
 At half-past 4 the jurymen informed the bailiffs who ha 
 them in charge, that they had agreed. Judge Bradley was ac 
 vised immediately, and in that mysterious manner in which new 
 flies about a court house a hundred people knew it as quickly a 
 the Judge and flocked into the court-room in his wake. A mir 
 ute later, at 4:35, the jury filed slowly in, flanked by tbe bailiff: \ 
 Almost immediately behind them came Colonel Breckinridge ‘ 
 easy and debonnair, as usual, with Colonel Phil. Thompscr^ 
 Desha Breckinridge, and Mr. McKinney, of his counsel, wh 
 has not appeared in the case except to disclaim on the day site 
 Lawyer Shelby slapped Lawyer Johnson’s face that he carried 1 
 gun. They sat down in their usual places and looked straigh 1 
 ahead. There was a quick subsidence of the noise made by thtl 
 spectators in taking their seats, and while Judge Bradley waiteil 
 for Miss Pollard’s counsel to appear the bigroom was as quie . 
 and still as a church during a funeral service. 
 
 At 4:40 Calderon Carlisle, Miss Pollard’s attorney, enteruv 
 hastily, looking somewhat surprised at the jurymen sittinjl 
 quietly in their seats. He had hardly sat down when Clerl > 
 Hodges called the roll of the jury. Then lie put the usua ; 
 question : 
 
 “Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon a verdict? ’ j 
 
 Foreman Cole, the oldest man of tbe twelve, rose slowbJ 
 and answered: “We have agreed upon a verdict and find fo: | 
 the plaintiff.’’ 
 
Twenty-eighth Day of Trial. 
 
 3i9 
 
 “In what amount of damages?” asked the clerk. 
 
 “ $15,000,” was the answer. 
 
 There was not a sound in the room. Judge Bradley had 
 ken occasion to warn the spectators just before the verdict was 
 ndered that demonstrations of approval or disapproval from 
 e spectators would not be tolerated, and every man there 
 :eded the warning. 
 
 | Colonel Breckinridge had sat leaning forward during the 
 illoquy between the foreman and the clerk, and w'hen the ver- 
 ct was announced he did not change color or manifest any 
 ISs of nervousness. When Foreman Cole announced the 
 rount of damages Colonel Breckinridge turned to Colonel 
 loinpson and asked: 
 
 “How much?” 
 
 MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. 
 
 | ' When the foreman had sat down, Colonel Breckinridge rose 
 uckly to his feet and asked in his musical voice: 
 
 “ If your honor please, within what time can a notice for a 
 c w trial be filed?” 
 
 .-“Within four days,” said Judge Bradley. 
 
 “Your honor,” said Mr. McKinney, who had started to ad- 
 1 ss the Court when Colonel Breckinridge asked his question, 
 
 ' Te give notice of an intention to file a motion for a new trial.” 
 
 Judge Bradley bowed and then turned to the jury, thanking 
 dm for their faithful services, and discharged them for the 
 :en. The crowd filed out slowly, followed a few minutes later 
 r die defendant and his friends. They walked across the Court- 
 ittse square to Mr. McKinney’s office, where Mrs. Breckinridge 
 « in waiting, and fifteen minutes later husband and wife entered 
 Lh waiting open carriage and were driven along F Street, one of 
 ; h principal business streets in Washington, where department 
 ckksaud shoppers were eagerly buying papers containing the 
 e'.ict. The barouche stopped at a big grocery store, where 
 Breckinridge gave some orders. Colonel Breckinridge 
 dcd in the doorway calmly surveying the crowds of pass¬ 
 es y, and laughed as a little newsboy pushed an “extra” in his 
 rac He bought the paper and re-entering the carriage with 
 tisvifedrove to their home. 
 
 Across the street, in Calderon Carlisle’s office, Miss Fcllard 
 ^holding an ovation. Mr. Carlisle had skipped nimbly out of 
 thelourt-roora and gone to tell bis client the verdict. Che did 
 ootbreak down and cry, but expressed her joy in repeated 
 kaf shakes with her friends. Her brother closed the door of the 
 keep out the rush. 
 
320 
 
 POEEARD VS. BRECKINRIDGE- 
 
 Later Miss Pollard was overcome with, nervous prostratic 
 and she went to the Providence Hospital, on the corner of Si 
 ond and D streets, southeast, where she refused to see visitc 
 that evening. When a reporter from the Post called she w 
 said to be asleep, exhausted from the excitement of the trial. 
 
 Mr. Calderon Carlisle and Mr. Wilson, her counsel, both e 
 pressed themselves as satisfied with the verdict, in that it h 
 vindicated their client and established the principle for whi 
 they have contended. Mr. Carlisle declared that he would ha 
 liked to see the verdict for the full amount, but he had no fat 
 to find. 
 
 Mr. Wilson received a beautiful token of American Beau 
 and La France roses from several prominent ladies in the ci 
 as an appreciation of his efforts in the trial. Among these we 
 Miss Mary Desha, sister-in-law of Colonel Breckinridge. T. 
 flowers were in Mr. Wilson’s parlor, and he was showing the 
 proudly to the numerous friends who called to express the 
 congratulations. 
 
 Mr. Wilson said that he believed the verdict would me 
 with the public approval, aud with the moral sentiment of tl 
 country. The interest in the case has been very widespres 
 Letters have been forwarded to the counsel from nearly eve 
 State in the Union. Mr. Wilson said that people have e 
 pressed their opinions to him in thousands. He has had infc 
 mation in prose, poetry, and caricature. Plis desk has been 4 
 uged with communications and with newspaper clippings. Or 
 a day or tw r o ago he had received some European papers in whi 
 a half column was devoted to the trial, printed in French a 
 German. There were a number of these communications up 
 his desk last evening, and they are still coming. From Ok 
 homa the re had been sent him a caricature, such as might be post 
 up on trees or fences in the country. Mr. Wilson received ma 
 congratulations for his speech. 
 
 HOW THE VERDICT WAS REACHED. 
 
 It v;as said that there was a -wide divergence in the mat 
 of damages. A preliminary ballot was taken, which determii 
 that many were in favor of damages to the amount of $30,1 
 -; 1 and more, and the sums ranged from this down to much sina 
 ones. A number of the menibers voted for $25,000. Attenr 
 were made to average the amount to be assessed by dividing 1 
 ; aggregate by twelve, but this proved unsatisfactory, aud five: 
 six ballots were takcu. These gradually developed that$i5d 
 V v an about the sum which would satisfy the majority, and i 
 
 hially agreed upon. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 Trials. 
 
 
 
 L98778 
 
 Vol.20 
 
 
 DATE 
 
 ISSUED TO 
 
 
 
 , -_ 
 
 
 
gaaa a