T H E G O L D S P RING T R A. G. E. D. Y.
TRIAL AND CON VICTION
Mrs. Nancy E. Clem
FoE THE MURDER Cº
JACOB YOUNG AND WIFE.
witH THE EIoquENTSPEECHES OF COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES AND HON, JUDGE
CHAPMAN'S CHARGE TO THE JURY IN FULL TO WIHICH IS ADDED THE
CONFESSION AND SU ICIDE OF
sII. As w H ARTMAN,
|
BROTHER OF MES CLEMAND HER ACCOMPLICE
IN THE MURDER,
INDIANAPOLIS, IND.
Pu Bºis Hºp BY A. C. R O A GH,
JOURNAL BUILDING.




Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1869, by
A. C. R. O. A C H .
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United Statas, for the
Distrist ºf Indiana.



RS. NANCY E. CLEM.
M




T TH TE
Cold Spring Tragedy.
SCENE OF THE MURDER.
ON the West bank of White
River, in almost a direct line west
of the northern extremity of the
city of Indianapolis, and about
three miles distant, is a crescent
shaped sand-bar, about a hundred
and fifty yards long, and a hundred
feet across the centre, projecting
from an elbow formed by a bend in
the stream, which, after running in
a southerly direction, at this point
bends to the southwest. A quarter
of a mile below it turns again to
the southeast, the opposite project-
ing point concealing the river be-
low, where the Crawfordsville road
crosses it by a ford. The ford is
about three-fourths of a mile, in
a direct line, south of the bar, but
nearly double that distance by the
crooked line of the west bank.
From the ford to the foot of the
bar that bank is high and steep,
except where it is cut by two ra-
vines, one deep and large, form-
ing a dark gorge full of brush and
trees, the other, nearer the bar,
smaller and furnishing an outlet to
the water of a large spring, well
known in the city as “Cold
Spring.” This plateau, or high
bank, is covered with turf and a
heavy growth of trees, and its pro-
pinquity to the river, as well as the
pleasantness of the shade and
grass, make it a frequent resort for
pleasure parties from the city.
Water opposite.
The celebrated Eleventh Indiana
Regiment was encamped here for
some weeks during the war. The
Lafayette road, leaving the Craw-
fordsville pike a quarter of a mile
or so west of the ford, runs north
on this plateau nearly parallel to
the river, passing a small log cabin
in an enclosure, on the right, about
a hundred yards from the river, and
near the head of the ravine of
“Cold Spring.” Two or three hun-
dred yards further on it descends
into a hollow through which a wind-
ing path, diverging to the right,
leads to the foot of the bar, about a
quarter of a mile in direct line from
the road. At this point, or a little
below it, the high bank recedes
from the river, and approaches the
road, leaving a low “bottom,” cov-
ered with sycamores, elms, and
other trees indigenous to low
grounds, and in the summer so
densely sown with “iron weeds” and
undergrowth of various kinds, as
to make it a very uninviting spot.
The bar forms a white fringe to this
dense mass of verdure, and the
swift river bends round it like a
hem of rippled silver lace.
As usual in Western streams,
where the high bank leaves the bed
on one side, the opposite high bank
approaches it, and forms a bluff
upon that side, thus alternating
“bluffs” and “bottoms,” bends with
projecting sand bars at their points,
and hollows with deep or swift
The east bank op-
posite this crescent-shaped sand bar

6 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
is abrupt and about fifteen feet
high. A corn field covers the up-
per part of the ground, and a woods
pasture the other, but the bend be-
low the bar, opposite the west bluff,
is a wild forest, like the “bottom”
behind the bar. From either the
field or pasture, or the point be-
low, the whole extent of the bar is
visible, and the lower half, round
the bend, is visible all along the
high western bank, till a spectator
would be concealed by the project-
ing point of the eastern bank. O
Last September, any one ap-
proaching the sand bar from the
west, would have had to pass
through the thicket of weeds and
brush on the “bottom” between it
and the bank along which the La-
fayette road runs. He would have
found the bar, on the land side,
bordered by a low bank, three or
four feet high, rank with weeds to
the very edge; and about halfway
down its length, near the bank,
would have seen a clump of willow
trees, with a small pile of drift that
had lodged against it in the last
freshet, standing on a sort of low
ridge, as if the current had been
split, at high water, and a small
stream had passed round to the
right, leaving an island where the
trees grew. About two hundred
yards below, on the same side of
the river, and in full sight, a long
log lay obliquely down the bank, at
the mouth of “Cold Spring”
ravine. This clump of willows was
the scene of the horrible, and now
widely known, “Cold Spring mur-
der,” which has recently added
another death to its fearful account,
and sent one of the murderers, red-
handed with his own blood, to his
last doom; which has condemned to
life long imprisonment a woman, a
wife and mother, and scorched, as
with some blasting fire from the
bottomless pit, the lives and hopes
of four families, and the horrors of
which may not yet have run their
COurse.
DISCOVERY OF THE MURDER.
On Saturday afternoon, the 12th
of September, two children of
Major Erie Locke, late Paymaster
in the army, while fishing from the
log alluded to above as lying down
the bank of the river at the mouth
of the spring, saw a man and two
women walking up the bar, the
man with an umbrella spread over
his head. The children left the log
to ask permission of their father,
who was fishing round the bend be-
low them, and out of sight of the
bar, to bathe in the river... While
with him they heard a loud report
of a gun near the spot they had just
left. Returning, they bathed near
the bar, and while in the water saw
a man and woman lying upon the
sand at the willows, a slight smoke
arising from the person of the
woman, which they supposed to
come from a pipe she was smoking.
The man was in his shirt sleeves,
with his arms over his head, and
the woman was lying a few feet
from him. This vicinity was a fre-
quent resort of lewd men and wo—
men of the town, and the supposi-
tion that the bodies were some of
these persons resting in the willow
shade was very reasonable, and an
equally reasonable explanation of
the fact that children felt no
curiosity to look at them more
closely. A little later in the after-
noon a colored man named Andrew
Locklear saw the bodies lying as the
children saw them; and still later a
lad by the name of Robert M. Bow-
man, whose father lived on the east
side of the river, three-fourths of a
mile below “Cold Spring,” saw
them, but neither he nor Locklear
thought it anything unusual enough
to speak about, and nothing was
known of the fearful crime that had
been committed between the time

The Cold Spring Tagº. 7
that Major Locke's children saw the
man and two women walking upon
the sand, and the time they return-
ed to see the man and one woman
lying quietly in the shade of the
willows.
On Sunday morning, the 13th,
the lad Robert M. Bowman, going
after his father's cows, a little after
daylight, saw the bodies still lying
on the bar, and a slight smoke
still ascending from that of the wo-
man. When he went home he
told his parents. The news spread
to the neighbors, and by eight
o'clock a half dozen persons had
crossed the river from the east side
to the sand bar, and made a full
discovery of the horrible truth.
They found a man and woman
dead. The man lay upon his back,
without coat or vest, his head to-
wards the river, his hands joined
above or upon his head, his vest
hanging on the willow tree about
twenty feet from him, his hat near
him, his umbrella opened at his
feet, and eight or ten feet from him,
towards the bank, a double barreled
shot-gun, of which one barrel had
been fired, and with so heavy a
load that the force of the explosion
through the “tube” or “nipple”
had blown the hammer back and
cocked it. The other barrel was
undischarged, but cocked. His
head had been nearly blown to
pieces, evidently by the enormous
charge that had cocked the hammer
of the empty barrel. The rightside
of the face and a portion of the head
had been torn off, and a bullet or
heavy shot had penetrated the skull
upon the left side. The shot had
been fired obliquely from behind, as
the appearance of the wound indi-
cated, and while the victim was
stooping or squatting down, pickin
up shells, as his hands were full of
shells, and the range of the shot was
downwards. The murderer had
fired from behind the clump of wil-
lows, or the little bank beside it, at
a distance of twenty feet or so, the
force of the concussion whirling his
victim partly round upon his back.
The woman lay upon her right
side, with one arm under her head,
six or eight feet further up the river,
obliquely to the body of the man,
with her head towards him, and her
hat and veillying near her. A bul-
let, entering the base of her skull at
the back, had passed through the
brain to the top of the forehead,
causing speedy death. But the
most horrible circumstance of the
discovery was the condition of her
body. The front of it from the
chest to the knees had been burned
with so fierce a heat that the intos-
tines were uncovered, the flesh had
been burned from the thighs, and
the bones partially calcined. Her
face was not disfigured. That of
the man was so mutilated that it
would have been difficult to identify
him. The range of the bullet that
killed the woman was upwards. It
must, therefore, have been fired by
some hand considerably lower than
her head, or even her shoulders,
and the flash of the pistol—for the
bullet was that of a cartridge re-
volver—set fire to her light cotton
dress. Falling partially on her
back, the upward tendency of all
burning processes would carry the
combustion to the front, and thence,
fanned by the breeze, it would ex-
tend lower, where, in her fall, her
hoop skirt had thrown up her cloth-
ing in a heap, which would make
material enough for the intense heat
that produced the fearful mutila-
tion. The man had fallen without
a struggle, dead before he could
have suspected danger. But about
the corpse of the woman were many
foot prints and indications of a con-
flict, in the sand. The upward di-
rection of the fatal ball would ind:-
cate that, alarmed by the fall of her
companion, and probably by her
own seizure at the same instant, she
had struggled hard, broken away

8 The Cºld Spring Tragedy.
from her assailants, and sprung up
the bank; but before reaching the
top had been shot from below by
somebody still lower than herself—
a woman, as no man could have
aimed at so high an angle to hit a
woman's head even on the top of
the little bank at the bar.
These circumstances tell the story
of the murder very plainly. The
murdered man, feeling the heat op-
pressive, takes off his coat and vest
and hangs them upon the willow.
Stooping on the shore he is idly
gathering up handfuls of sand to
ick out little white shells from.
he woman, standing near by,
watches him. The murderer, con-
cealed behind the clump of willows,
fires the terrific charge that Major
Locke's children thought made
so loud a noise, while his vic-
tim's back is partially turned to-
wards him. The force of the shot
whirls him round, as he rises con-
vulsively, and he falls dead on his
back, with his head away from the
gun, and towards the river, soakin
the dry sand with a deluge .#
blood. The woman screams, is in-
stantly grappled by the murderer,
from whom she tears herself loose,
and as she runs wildly up the low
bank the woman, who was seen with
her and the dead man, fires a pistol
bullet into the back of her head.
Staggering with the deadly shot,
she struggles towards the man's
corpse, and falls dead or dying close
to it, her dress burning about the
shoulders from the pistol flash, her
hat falling near her. So much of
the position of the parties and the
progress of the catastrophe could be
gathered from a glance by those
who first arrived.
In an hour or two a great crowd
had gathered on the bar, and the
bodies were recognized as those of
Mr. Jacob YouNg and his wife
NANCY J. YoUNG, well known
and highly respectable residents of
Indianapolis, living on East St.
Clair street. Mr. Young's horse
was found hitched to a pawpaw
bush in the woods about a hundred
and fiftyfeet northwest of the bodies,
with the double seated buggy, in
which the pair had driven to the
fatal spot, turned upon its side close
by. He had stood patiently all the
afternoon and night, waiting for the
master who was never to come
again. Further out in the woods,
deeply and sharply cut in the soft,
compressible loam of the river
“bottom,” was the print of a lady's
foot, small, elegantly shaped, and
covered with a neat and new gaiter.
The foot, subsequently tracked fur-
ther, led to the root of a large tree
where Mr. Young's coat was found,
and it was also traced to a point
where its line was crossed by the
track of a buggy, different from
Mr. Young's, and a print noticed
which appeared as if made by the
foot upon which the body rested
while the other was stepping into
the buggy. A woman must have
been one of the murderers, if not
the only murderer. She must have
fired the upward shot that killed
Mrs. Young and set fire to her
dress, and she must have left the
scene of her dreadful crime in an-
other than Mr. Young's carriage.
The tracks of the horse that drew
this carriage were noticed and found
to have been made by a “preventive
shoe”, used to keep a horse from
hurting himself in moving about.
This was the scene of the murder,
the condition of the bodies of the
victims, the appearance of the
ground in the vicinity, and the in-
dex to the perpetrators, so far as
any had then been detected.
EXCITEMENT IN THE CITY-SPEC-
ULATIONS.
The gun, the woman's foot, the
buggy wheels, the horse tracks, the
impossibility of a carriage going cut
or coming back along that road

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 9
without being seen by scores of peo-
ple, at first sight appeared to fur-
nish so many easily followed clues
to the murderers that an immediate
detection was anticipated. Be-
sides, the wide exposure of the
place, open to any eye upon the
west bank of the river within a half
mile, and hardly less exposed on
the other; the certainty of the gun
report being heard, and the proba-
bility of its attracting attention by
its unusual loudness; the road, con-
stantly traversed, within a quarter
of a mile; a house, with a family in
it, almost within eye sight; a com-
mon resort of fishermen and hun-
ters, and in the season when both
were busiest; frequented by prosti-
tutes and their followers; almost
sure of being seen every hour of the
day by somebody, and actually seen
immediately before and after the
murder by a half dozen people, all
formed a combination of circum-
stances so perilous that it would
seem they must either deter the
boldest villain from his purpose, or
insure his detection. The chances
were strong that somebody, in such
a place, actually saw the deed done;
they were overwhelming that some
feature of it would be noted that
would enable a shrewd officer to de-
tect the perpetrators. The expecta-
tion of a speedy discovery, and not
less the boldness of a crime which
dared so many chances of discovery,
combined with its atrocity, created
an intense excitement in the city,
which grew greater when the muti-
lated bodies were brought in and a
coroner's investigation commenced.
Mr. and Mrs. §. were harm-
less and respected people, and could
have given no provocation for such
an act. The murder was brutal
and unprovoked. The road to
“Cold Spring” was thronged be-
fore noon of Sunday with eager and
excited citizens. The street cor-
ners were crowded, and every new
comer had a new fact, or opinion,
or suspicion about the deed. If it
lent peculiar solemnity to the re-
ligious services of some, it utterly
spoiled those of many others, who
followed the excitement as eagerly
as a toper follows his stimulants.
Nothing in the history of the city
had ever excited so general and so
intense a feeling. And its intensity
was deepened by the mystery that
covered the crime, so boldly ob-
truded into the very face of discov-
ery, and yet escaping discovery. It
was the sole subject of conversation,
social discussion and public talk, for
a week.
The appalling nature of the crime
appeared to disturb men's judg-
ments, and to drive them as far
from the plain road of reasoning
from effect to cause, as the act was
beyond the limit of ordinary atroci-
ty. It was thought, at first, before
the victims had been identified, that
it was a case of jealousy, culminat-
ing in murder and suicide. The
man had shot the woman, and then
shot himself. Yet it was quite as
plain as the presence of the gun on
the sand, that the woman had not
died of a shot from it, for the
empty barrel had killed the man, as
his wound proved, and the other
had not been discharged; and
no other weapon was found. The
hand that killed the woman car-
ried away the weapon. Besides,
a man could not, without the ut-
most difficulty, even if he could
at all, hold the gun in such a posi-
tion as to strike the back of the
head, and fire it himself. A sui-
cide could have no motive to shoot
himself in the back of the head
more than in the front, or breast.
He would be likely to put the gun
where he could fire it most easily.
If fired by himself the charge must
have ranged strongly upward, as no
man could put the muzzle of a gun
behind his head without lowering
the breech considerably, and this
shot did not range upward, but

10 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
downward. A ball was found scat-
tered from the body of the charge
on the left of the skull. If fired as,
close as the muzzle must have been,
if held by a suicide, that ball could
not have been separated from the
rest. And if the man killed him-
self, how came his coat several hun-
dred feet from his vest, and his
body, and where was the weapon
that killed the woman 2 Did he
take the trouble to carry his coat
into the woods, and leave his vest on
the willows, after killing her and
before killing himself? Did he
hide the weapon that killed her, be-
fore killing himself? Why should
a man who meant to leave the
world in a few minutes take such
pains to destroy the evidence of a
crime? All these circumstances de-
rived double force from the identifi-
cation of the bodies. Mr. and Mrs.
Young had lived, so far as anybody
knew, an easy, common-place, com-
fortable life, with nothing to stir it
into such a wild commotion as this
event indicated. The theory of a
suicide was abandoned, and never
again suggested, except by the
counsel for the defence, who dam-
aged their case by it.
Another supposition was nearer
the mark. Mr. Young had been
connected with some illegal, but
very profitable business, counter-
feiting possibly, or dealing in coun-
terfeit money. He had ridden out
to “Cold Spring,” as his habit was,
and some of his confederates, fear-
ing exposure from him, or to obtain
the money they knew he had, and
aware of his favorite resort, had
concealed themselves at the bar and
killed him. This view was favored
by the fact, which all at once seem-
ed to be quite generally known, that
Mr. Young had come to the city
five or six years before poor, and
had grown rich, or at least dealt in
large sums of money, with well
known and highly esteemed busi-
ness men as endorsers. Counter-
feiting explained his rapid accumu-
lation of wealth. His recently de-
clared purpose to buy a farm and
remove to the country indicated a
purpose to abandon his business,
whatever it was, and furnished a
motive for his confederates to put
him out of the way. They could
not trust him when once discon.
nected from them.
Another, and not improbable,
suggestion was that Mr. Young had
been seen on Saturday mornnig with
money, by some of the villains who
constantly infest the city—and he
had incautiously, or rather boast-
fully, exhibited a very large sum of
money at several places—and had
been tracked to “Cold Spring” and
murdered for it.
The popular opinion ranged round
one or the other of the last two
theories, and neither was intrinsic-
ally absurd as was the theory of sui-
cide. In one or the other direction
the murderer would be found.
Money had been one object of the
murder, for Mr. Young's coat, in
which he would probably carry a
pocket book with any large sum of
money, was taken some hundreds
of feet away as if for safe search-
ing, and but ten dollars and a few
odd cents were found in his pockets.
TRACKING THE MURDERERS.
While popular suspicion was cir-
cling about in flights, like a carrier
pigeon, to discover the straight line
to its object, and the Coroner's in-
vestigation was fixing definitely the
facts already known, further dis-
coveries were made on the ground.
A man’s feet had left tracks near the
sand bar, as well as a woman's.
The woman's made steps of three
feet and a half, nearly, indicating a
rapid run; for no woman, and no
man, steps nearly so far in an or
dinary walk. A woman ran away
from the spot of the murder to:
wards where a carriage was stand

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 11
ing, or was in the act of passing;
on man had been with her; the
carriage she entered had been hitch-
ed, as marks showed, near the river
at another bar higher up. These
facts made it certain that the mur-
derer had driven down alone in this
carriage, left it hitched and joined
the woman who was seen on the bar
walking with Mr. and Mrs. Young,
committed the crime, hurried back
to his carriage, leaving the mur-
deress, who would, from this fact,
appear to have been the cooler and
more important personage of the
two, to rob the coat, which she did
while running to get into the car-
riage with the man, now on the
way back to the road. If the mur-
derers came from the city, and re-
turned to it, one carriage must have
come out with Mr. Young and two
women, the other with one man;
and one carriage only must have
gone back, and that had in it one
man and one woman. These were
indications that might be followed.
Had anybody seen a double seated
carriage driven by a man, with two
women, going out to “Cold Spring;”
and had anybody seen a carriage go-
ing back with a man and one of the
women seen going out? That road
on Saturday was likely to be thickly
traveled by farmers going home
about the hour that Major Locke's
children heard the heavy report of
a gun at the sand bar, and at all
hours it would be impossible for a
carriage to go out and back without
meeting or passing somebody. This
road to a discovery was open, and
the unusual shoes worn by the mur-
derer's horse opened another way to
the truth. But before either had
been followed any distance, the gun
pointed out another, short and
straight, that both the longer ones
ran into.
The police of the city began at
once a plan of inquiring at all places
where old and second hand guns
were likely to be sold, if that found
on the sand bar had been obtained
at the place of inquiry. The very
first establishment they applied at,
that of Messrs. Solomons, on South
Illinois street, next to the Palmer
House, proved to be the place where
the gun was sold, and the color-
ed clerk who sold it, as well as
one of the proprietors, remem-
bered the purchaser with distinct-
ness enough to give the officers
a hint of the man to look for.
They found him, and lured him
down to the Palmer House, where
he was seenby the Solomons and
their clerk, and identified, without
any suspicion on his part of what
was going on. He was arrested
on Wednesday, the 16th of Sep-
tember, four days after the murder.
This was WILLIAM J. ABRAMs,
a man of previously good repute,
though believed to have made money
by sharp “dodges” and with rather
more speed than honesty. He
denied having bought the gun, or
knowing anything of it. He gave
a detailed account of his movements
to the reporter of the Daily Jour-
mal, in which he accounted for every
quarter of an hour through the
whole day of Saturday. Investiga-
tion showed that he had been at
home, or at least where he could
not have joined in the actual per-
petration of the murder on Satur-
day afternoon, and he was held as
an accessory before the fact, while
search was made along the “roads”
marked by the buggies and horse
tracks, for the actual murderers.
The “preventive shoes” of the
mare that drew the buggy into which
mounted the woman who ran from
the sand bar with Mr. Young's coat
in her hand, were speedily traced;
the man who drove her was marked
down; and witnesses found who re-
membered seeing her on the road
that fatal afternoon, with one man
in the buggy, as the signs at the
scene of murder showed must have
been the case. This man was

12 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
SILAs HARTMAN, who was arrested
on the 22d of September, nearly a
week after Abrams and ten days
after the murder. Hartman after
his arrest gave Mr. S. M. Doug-
lass, one of the proprietors of the
Daily Journal, an account of his
whereabouts the day of the murder,
in which he claimed to have been
out upon a road in quite a contrary
direction all the afternoon, and had
not returned till long after the time
when the murder must have been
committed. This alibi was the
main reliance of the defence in the
trials which followed.
Two or three “roads” now led
the investigation towards a third
person, and probably the controlling
spirit of the conspiracy which was
thus partially uncovered. A wo-
man had been seen on the sand bar,
and tracked from there to the buggy
which Hartman drove. A woman,
it was found, had gone out in Mr.
Young's buggy with him and his
wife, and those who saw the party
thought they knew her. A woman
had been intimately but mysteriously
connected with Mr. Young and Mr.
Abrams in very large pecuniary
transactions of which her husband
knew nothing, (and which she has
never yet explained even to her
counsel.) An examination of her
bank accounts and those of Mr.
Young, Mr. Abrams, and Dr.
Duzan, another gentleman with
whom she had dealings, disclosed a
singular correspondence between the
loans obtained of one and the pay-
ments made to another, and an evi-
dent approach to some sort of a
crisis in the business at the time of
the next monthly settlement, which
was near the 12th always, when a
very large sum of money would be
needed to meet her obligations or to
protect those made on her account.
Though the business could not be,
is not now, and possibly may never
be, clearly understood by anybody
but the woman herself, it could be
seen that its condition made it im-
portant to her to have Mr. Young,
her creditor, out of the way. This
woman of the mysterious financial
business, was the same woman that
witnesses thought they recognized
in the buggy with Mr. and Mrs.
Young, and that others recognized
coming back with Hartman. And
the indications of the scene of mur-
der were, that one buggy went out
with a man and two women, another
went out with one man, and the
latter came back with the man and
one woman. The indications were
filled by discovered facts, and on
the 8th day of October, nearly a
month after the murder, Nancy E.
Clem, a sister of Silas Hartman,
and wife of William F. Clem, a
man of excellent character, a grocer
in a flourishing business on Massa-
chusetts Avenue, was arrested, after
having been under the surveillance
of the police from the time of
Hartman's arrest.
The Coroner's jury which had
continued its investigations, secretly,
till enough had been learned to
warrant the indictment of the three
persons above named, adjourned on
the 7th of October, after returning
a verdict that Jacob Young and his
wife had been murdered by William
Abrams, Silas Hartman and Nancy
E. Clem, and two other persons un-
known. Simultaneously with the
closing of the Coroner's investiga-
tion, that of the Grand Jury of the
Criminal Court of Marion county
began, and, on the 20th day of Oe-
tober, after a thorough examina-
tion of all accessible evidence,
found indictments for murder in the
first degree against all three of the
persons named. They were ar-
raigned on the 22d, and after some
futile attempts to quash the indict-
ment, they pleaded not guilty. The
counsel for the defence elected to
have Mrs. Clem tried first, and the
case was set for Tuesday, Decem-
ber 1st.

The Cold Spring Tragedy.
13
probabilities of proving it.
THE INTERVAL BEFORE THE TRIAL.
Although the excitement created
by the murder had disappeared, part-
ly through exhaustion, and partly
through the concentration of sus-
picion upon the prisoners under in-
dictment, and the removal, so far
as this suspicion extended, of the
mystery which lent so great an in-
terest to the case, there still remain-
ed a great deal of speculation upon
the guilt of the accused and *
t
would not be far from the truth to
say that a large majority of the
people had an impression—one
could hardly say a “belief.”
where so little was known to rest
an opinion upon–that the right
parties had been caught, but enough
evidence to convict them would not
be found. The women were agreed,
with remarkable unanimity, that
Mrs. Clem was guilty, but, with the
illogical disposition which an un-
gallant proverb attributes to them,
they could give no reason for the
conclusion. But women, like
wolves, when one of their kind falls,
always turn upon and tear it with
more relentless ferocity than they
do any other victim. The men dis-
trusted the character of the evi-
dence. It was entirely circumstan-
tial, and, though each circumstance
by itself might be trusted more im-
plicitly than positive evidence, the
difficulty of linking all of them to-
gether about the particular persons
accused, was likely to be too great
to compel a conviction. There was
much doubt felt, also, about getting
a jury in this county. The murder
had been so generally discussed, and
the statements of Abrams and
Hartman so widely read, that
twelve men without opinions touch-
ing the matter, it was thought, might
be as hard to find as ten righteous
men in Sodom.
The accused in the interval were
treated as leniently as the grave
nature of the charge against them
would allow. Mr. Clem was al-
lowed to visit his wife at his pleas-
ure, and passed no inconsiderable
part of his time, day and night,
with her. He brought, or had
brought, her meals, and various
little comforts were granted her
through his intervention, or out of
kindly consideration for his devotion
to her, and the suffering he must
naturally feel at her condition.
THE FIRST TRIAL–PUBLICATION
OF TESTIMONY.
The interest allayed by the lapse
of time, and the º,".
of the mystery that enveloped the
murder, was re-awakened by the
approach of the trial. As soon as
the Criminal Court room was open-
ed on the morning of Tuesday, the
1st of December, it was filled with
a crowd, about equally divided be-
tween anxiety to see Mrs. Clem,
and to hear the testimony, of which
little more than vague rumors had
reached the public. Contrary to
expectation a jury was obtained the
first day, and preparations made for
the examination of witnesses on the
next day.
Here arose an episode of consid-
erable interest, in a conflict between
the Court and the city press. The
defendant's counsel moved, as usual,
for a separation of the witnesses, so
that none might hear the testimony
of the others, and to give effect, as
they claimed, to this separation,
they asked that the publication of
testimony by the newspapers be
prohibited. The Judge, Hon.
George H. Chapman, intimated a
disposition to make the order, but
reserved a decision till he could see
the affidavits which the defence pro-
posed to offer in support of their mo-
tion. The next day, upon presen-
tation of the affidavit of Hon. John
Hanna, one of the counsel for the

14
The old Spring Tragedy.
defence, the Court ruled that the
testimony should not be published,
and had a notice to that effect
served on the proprietors and edi-
tors of the different city papers.
The morning dailies, the Journal
and Sentinel, disregarded the order,
and published a full report of the
evidence given on the first day of
the examination. The Court, the
next morning, called attention to
the fact, had the reporters and edi-
tors arrested, fined the former $25
each, and held the latter to bail to
answer for contempt, at the close
of the term. The order of prohibi-
tion, however, created a great deal
of feeling against the Court, and
developed a foolish suspicion that
there was some sort of scheme in
progress, to which the Court was
lending itself, to smother the truth
from the public, and “smuggle
through,” as the popular phrase
called it, an acquittal of the ac-
cused. The defence suffered from
this impression, and to remove it,
the counsel on the fourth day of the
trial withdrew the affidavit, and the
order was revoked. Subsequently
the editors were fined $50 each.
But the public got the testimony.
The Court, as all courts have had
to do, wherever the conflict has
arisen, gave way to the rightful de-
mand of the people to know the
proceedings of their legal tribunals.
The testimony was, except in one
or two important points, identical
with that of the subsequent and de-
cisive trial, and it is not necessary
here to notice it further. It is
enough to state that after more
than two weeks spent in the exami-
nation of witnesses, and just three
weeks in the entire trial, the jury
en Monday, December the 21st, an-
nounced that they were unable to
agree, and were discharged. It was
generally, and no doubt correctly
reported, that eleven were for ac-
uittal and one for conviction.
º failure surprised no body who
had given close attention to the
case. The prosecution, though
they established a chain of strong
circumstances about Mrs. Clem, left
a gap or two wide enough for a
“reasonable doubt” to enter. She
was remanded to jail to await a
second trial.
The prosecution, it should be re-
marked, was conducted by General
Benjamin Harrison, William P.
Fishback, Esq., (both of the firm
of Porter, Harrison & Fishback, )
John S. Dye, Esq., and John
Duncan, the County Prosecutor.
The work of investigation out of
court, and before the Grand Jury,
was mainly conducted by Mr. Dye
and Mr. Duncan, and the case was
opened by Mr. Dye in a masterly
statement of the circumstances re-
lied on to convict the accused. In
court Messrs. Harrison and Fish-
back shared the labor with Mr. Dye.
Mr. Fishback closed the prosecu-
tion with one of the most ingenious,
skillful and effective arguments ever
heard in the court, Mr. Duncan,
though without the riper experi-
ence of his associates, distinguished
himself by a very close, logical, and
well directed speech. The defence
was conducted by Hon. John Han-
na, late United States Attorney for
the District of Indiana, General
Fred. Kneffler, and Hon. W. W.
Leathers, late Prosecuting Attor-
ney.
THE SECOND TRIAL.
In anticipation of the extreme
difficulty of getting a jury for a
second trial of Mrs. Clem in this
county, an effort had been made to
obtain a law from the Legislature
(which met about two weeks after
the close of the first trial) permit-
ting jurors to be brought fºom ad-
joining counties, instead of putting
witnesses to the expense of accom-
panying a “change of venue” to
an adjoining county. As witnesses
º

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 15
in criminal cases get no fees, the
expenses and the loss of time, to
nearly three hundred persons, dur-
ing three weeks absence from home,
would be a very serious matter.
The law was so reasonable that its
sage was confidently expected,
utthe Legislature saw fit, for some
reason, or none to refuse it, and
Mr. Clem was left to take her
chance of a second jury in a county
almost as thoroughly pervaded by
opinions of her guilt or innocence,
and by a knowledge of the facts af.
fecting her, as any community ever
was by any prevalent opinion.
The second trial began on the
morning of Wednesday, February
10th, 1869. After the better part
of two days spent in examing jurors
as to their competency, and sum-
moning to the box of one hundred
and thirty-two persons, the panel
was completed, as follows:
Charles L. Hartman, of Warren
township. -
John P. Moore, of Washington
township.
Charles G. Wilson, Sr., of Cen-
ter township.
Benjamin Stokeley, of Center
township.
Daniel Fox, of Warren town-
ºup.
John S. Smith, of Franklin
township.
William Vance, of Washington
township.
Malcolm A. Lowes, of Franklin
township.
Isaac Golding, of Franklin town-
10.
º: Connell, of Warren town-
º
athaniel Smith, of Franklin
township.
Thomas J. McCollum, of Frank-
lin township.
The jury having been sworn, the
witnesses were called, and there
was an army of them. The State
had one hundred and thirty sum-
and fifteen.
moned, and the defence one hundred
All were not present
at the first call, but many were,
and they were sworn. The Court
charged them not to remain in the
court room until after they had
been examined; not to converse
among themselves, or with others,
in regard to the testimony of any
one; and not to read it, or allow it
read to them, if it should be pub-
lished in the papers. They were all
instructed to remain in attendance
from day to day, until discharged,
or unless the counsel agreed to ex-
cuse them.
The sittings were arranged so as
to give as much time as possible
through the day to the case. Court
met at nine o'clock, adjourned for a
half hour at noon, and met again
and sat till the close of the day.
The position of the various pas-
ties may not be uninteresting. The
court room occupies half the second
story of the new county building.
The Judge's bench is in the centre
of the north end. On the east side,
directly to the left of the Judge, is
the jury box. Between them, on
the slightly raised platform on
which the jury box stands, the wit-
nesses are placed. Above, on the
wall, behind the witness stand, was
a careful map of the scene of the
murder and vicinity. The defence
in the case occupied a table imme-
diately in front of the Judge's desk,
and parallel with it was a long table,
of which the end nearest the jury
was used by the counsel for the
State, and the other by reporters.
The bar sat around near the latter,
and the spectators, of whom the
room was always full—very many,
often a fourth, being women—occº.
pied ranges of benches outside of
the bar table. Mrs. Clem sat usu-
ally between the end of the table
occupied by her counsel, and the
Judge's desk, near Mr. Hanna.
Her husband, nearly always with
her, or only absent for a few min-

16 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
º
utes, sat at the end of the table.
She was dressed in a dark material,
plainly but neatly, with a small hat
and feather of a dark green color, a
lace collar fastened by a round pin
of jet about the size of a half dollar
with a small stick of gold across the
center, and small round ear rings,
her dark hair plainly combed back
from her face and rolled in a mass,
that spok its luxuriante growth, at
the back of her head. Her features
when full and round in youth, must
have been very pretty, but her nose
was a little too much depressed in
the middle, and curved upwards too
far, and with too long a slope, to fit
the ideal of a handsome feature.
Her mouth appeared somewhat
sunken, as one's does who has lost
teeth, and her lips, rather thin and
colorless, closed, not directly upon
each other, as do those of a full
mouth, but with a flexure outward,
as if the insides came together and
ve them the pouting appearance
frequently seen in old persons.
Her eyes were large, gray, and full
of intelligence, but surrounded with
a dark ring, and turning upwards so
as to reveal the white of the lower
part of the ball, and conceal a part
of the pupil, they gave her at times
a dangerous expression, which, aid-
ed by the square set of her jaw and
a prominent, though not dispropor-
tioned chin, might do something to
create or confirm a bad impression
of her nature. She appeared in no
degree embarrassed by her terrible
position. She paid close attention
to the testimony and the arguments,
frequently turning to whisper a
word to her husband, with a pleas-
ant smile, but oftener glancing
round at Mr. Hanna, with that up-
ward and sinister turn of her eye
that prepossessed one against her,
and speaking briefly .. She
usually spoke cheerfully to her
counsel, in coming into court in the
morning, and addressed herself at
qnce, and without any parade of
preparation, to the case. Her fore-
head, rather high, wide and square,
betokened the intellect which her
trial showed in several ways she
possessed, and the resolute set of
her jaws indicated the firmness
which made her, as was so plainly
shown by the evidence, a ruler of
all those men or women with whom
she was brought into contact.
Though utterly without education,
not even able to write her name,
she carried on extensive and singu-
larly complicated money transac-
tions, with secresy, adroitness, and
success, and made all she worked
with “plough in her furrow.”
Such a woman, properly trained
and furnished with a ſitting educa-
tion, would be a marked character
anywhere, a power for good as great
as perverted faculties and feelings
have made her terrible for evil.
The case was opened for the State
on the morning of Friday, the
12th, the third day of the trial, by
William P. Fishback. A summary
of his speech need not be given
here as it will be found in full in a
subsequent portion of this account.
He was followed by Mr. Hanna in
a statement of the defense, and the
examination of witnesses was bo-
gun.
THE TESTIMONY.
As the testimony elicited during
the examination is given fully in
another place, it is necessary to no-
tice here only the main facts in the
net that at last entangled the ac-
cused so fatally.
1st. The motive to put Mr.
Young out of the way was deduced
from a very full exhibition of Mrs.
Clem's money transactions. But as
full as it was, it was a puzzle of
which she only held the key. She
had º, of Mr. Young,
Dr. Duzan, Mr. Abrams, and the
banks, and had paid promptly, and
at rates of interest extravagantly

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 17
high, and the payments of one cor:
responded closely to the loans of
another, as if she paid with one
hand what she borrowed with the
other, but the object, the profit she
aimed at, could not be seen. It has
never been seen, except by herself,
and she has not revealed it even to
her counsel, who were, and are, as
much in the dark about the motive
and process of her pecuniary trans-
actions, as anybody. But the ar-
ray of loans and payments, let it be
seen clearly enough that on or near
the 12th of September—the 12th of
each month, appears from the ac-
count, to have been the day of
squaring things up—there would be
obligations to meet, in which Mr.
Young was concerned, which, if not
met, would expose the business to
Mr. Clem, who had been kept in
ignorance of it throughout, and up-
set all the arrangements previously
concerted. Mrs. Clem's anxiety to
conceal the affair from her husband
was frequently shown and clearly
proved. This was suspicious, as
money affairs are usually the last
things that women care to conceal
from their husbands. The magni-
tude of the transactions, rising to
fifteen, twenty and thirty thousand
dollars—payments of profits to one
man of nearly ten thousand dollars
for what was hardly more than a
thirty-day loan of thirty thousand
dollars—showed that the stakes
played for were large as well as that
the gain, whatever it was, was deep.
The attempt to construct a fictitious
bank account with Mr. Frank. Man-
sur (by mistake for Isaiah Mansur
of the Citizens' Bank,) showed a
purpose to practice a fraud of some
kind upon those she dealt with.
The mysterious transactions, their
concealment from her husband, the
magnitude of the sums involved,
her entire lack of ability to com-
mand such amounts from her own
resources, the false bank account
she made, the importance of dispos-
ing of Mr. Young in order to avoid
a collapse of the game and an ex:
posure to her husband, and above
all her refusal to explain this singu-
lar business, made what may be
deemed the first link in the chain
of circumstances.
2nd. With this motive, suft-
cient or insufficient, to suggest the
murder of Mr. Young, Mrs. Clem
is recognized, by two or three per
sons, in his buggy, with him and his
wife, on the way out to “Cold
Spring,” on the afternoon of the
murder, and but a short time be-
fore its occurrence. Her brother is
recognized as following her, a short
distance behind, alone in a buggy.
3rd. The woman’s track at the
sand bar was that of a new gaiter,
which Mrs. Clem had bought a few
days before, which disappeared the
day after, and which has never
been seen since. The track might
have been made by another foot
wearing the same “number” of
shoe, but one circumstance ex-
cluded almost every other possible
wearer, and fastened to her alone.
The gaiter was new ; she had
bought new gaiters. The heel
track was a quarter of an inch shal-
lower than would be made by the
full heel of the unworn shoe; she
had taken her gaiters to a shoema-
ker the day she got them and had
the “ tap” taken off, to lower it.
New gaiters were seen lying on her
bed a few days before the murder.
They were seen early the morning
after at her door. They disappear-
ed that day, and have not been seen
again. When arrested, Mrs. Clem
was wearing the shoes of her ser-
vant girl, and had been wearing
them for some time. Hero were
motives for murder, presence on
the road to the scene of murder
with the victims, presence of her
brother, also charged with the
crime, on the road, and her pres:
ence at the scene of murder. There
was wanting yet a fifth link in the

18 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
chain. At the first trial these main
links were all that could be estab-
lished, and the jury failed to con-
vict. At the second trial the fifth
was proved -
4th. The return of Mrs. Clem
to the city with Silas Hartman.
Mrs. Chenowith thinks it was her
she met beyond Fall creek, with a
man in a single seated buggy, driv-
ing not only rapidly, but recklessly,
towards the city. Mr. John C.
Pierson knows it was her he saw
crossing Illinois street on Walnut,
going east, some time after four
o'clock, the day of the murder. He
had known both for several years.
Now the chain of circumstances
is complete. Mrs. Clem's strange
business creates a reason to get Ja-
cob Young out of the way; she
es out with him and his wife to
e place of murder; she leaves her
foot steps there; she comes back
with her brother, charged as her ac-
complice, and seen following her.
The gaps between these links are
filled up, and the whole strenghten-
ed by many subordinate facts.
5th. The tracks of a peculiar
shoe worn by Hartman's horse are
seen near the fatal sand bar, and
Mrs. Clem's peculiar shoe track is
seen near the track of the buggy,
as if getting into it.
6th. Mrs. Clom comes home
Saturday evening pretty late, flush-
ed and excited. She destroys the
shoes which left the tell-tale mark
at the sand bar, on Sunday morn-
7th. On the day Abrams is ar-
rested she takes a large roll of
money to her sister-in-law's house,
(adjoining her own) and has it
hidden in an empty peach can, in a
hole in the chimney, in the cellar,
ºtending that she was afraid her
house would be searched,” though
no suspicion had at that time been
breathed against her.
8th. The day after the arrest of
Abrams, he sends his brother to
Mrs. Clem for five thousand dollars.
She goes into the cellar, gets a large
sum, and gives it to Captain Abrams
without taking any order, or ac-
knowledgment, and without count-
ing it, telling him there is between
four and five thousand dollars of it.
This carelessness of money in so
shrewd and cool a woman, was
queer, and suggests the question:
“Was this money, so quickly, and
in such alarm, hidden right after
Abrams' arrest, and so carelessl
sent to him on his verbal deman.
by a messenger, without receipt or
counting, part of the booty obtain-
ed from Young's coat which was
found near Mrs. Clem's peculiar
shoe track?”
9th. Abrams, to whom money
is thus lavishly furnished, is identi-
fied, by several, as the man who
wanted to buy a gun the morning
of the murder, and by two, as the
man who did buy, at Messrs. Solo-
mons' pawn-broking establishment,
the gun that was found on the sand
bar at Young's feet.
10th. Mrs. Clem tries to bribe
two women to swear that they (the
witnesses) saw her at home during
the afternoon of the day of murder.
She persuaded her sister-in-law, her
niece, and a servant, to state false-
hoods before the Grand Jury, in
regard to her absence from home
that afternoon, and in regard to her
conduct.
11th. An attempt to prove ºn
alibi, or her presence at home, at
the time of the murder, fails, though
made in two or three directions.
An alibi for her brother, which, if
established, would acquit her, fails.
She makes no attempt to bring to
her aid the evidence of her counsin,
Cravens Hartman, who, she and her
brother claim, was with him all that
eventful afternoon, and could prove
an alibi if it were possible, or his
evidence could be trusted. Nobody
sends for Cravens Hartman.
The chain is complete and irre-

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 19
ble now. Mrs. Clem has a mo-
tive for the deed; she is seen going
out with Young and his wife; is
tracked at the scene of the murder;
is followed by her brother, who is
tracked at the scene of the murder,
too; she returns hastily with her
brother; she destroys the shoes that
made the track; she hides a great
roll of bank bills, right away after
the arrest of the man with whom
she has long had dealings, and who
is proved to have bought the gun
found by Young's body; she sends
him without any order or receipt a
large sum of money, without count-
ing it; she procures false oaths as
to her absence from home at the fa-
tal hour; she tries to bribe wit-
nesses to swear she was at home; she
sets up false defences; she refuses
to explain her mysterious business;
she refuses to bring her cousin to
testify for her. All the way from
home to the place of murder, there
and back home again, she is track-
ed with fatal accuracy, and the
chain is not only unbroken, but
doubly strengthened, by false alibis,
by procurement of perjury, by con-
cealment of evidences of guilt, by
refusals to explain, what, if inno-
º explained, would assist her
ry greatly.
The defence rested mainly upon
an alibi for Hartman, the uncertain-
ty of identification of Mrs. Clem,
on disagreements as to the time of
the shooting and seeing the accused,
on the general feebleness of the
State's testimony, and upon an alibi
for Mrs. Clem. Every defence was
destroyed by rebutting testimony.
Pierson, who saw her returning
from the place of murder with her
brother, disclosed that he had been
hired to leave the city at the first
trial. Thus the last main link in
the chain of circumstances which
was wanting before, was supported
with the treble strength given it by
the fact that the accused had pur.
chased its suppression, thus admit-
ting both its truth and its fatal förce.
Hon. Jonathan W. Gordon, also
had been added to the counsel for
the defence since the first trial, at-
tempted to show a probability of
suicide in his argument, but the ab:
surdity of such an explanation of
the catastrophe, in view of the place
where Young's coat was found, no
weapon on the ground that could
have killed Mrs. Young, the impos-
sibility of a man shooting himself in
a downward direction from below,
with a shot gun, the improbability
that a suicide would take so much
trouble to do what could be very
easily and more certainly done an-
other way, as well as the impossi-
bility of the wounds on the back of
Young's head being inflicted with
a gun as close to the head as a man
must hold it if he fired it himself,
was so Judicrously evident that the
explanation only deepened the im-
pression of the jury that no sound
defence was possible where so weak
a one was relied upon.
The arguments of counsel were
longer than on the first trial, and
concluded on the part of the State
with a masterly array of the points
of evidence by General Harrison,
and on the part of the defence by a
strong and ingenious speech by Mr.
Hanna. The jury took the case,
with an exhaustive analysis of it by
the Judge, on Saturday night, the
29th. On Monday afternoon, the
2nd of March, they returned a ver-
dict of “guilty of murder in the sec-
ond degree as charged in the indict-
ment,” and a sentence of confine-
ment in the State's prison for life.
This ridiculous verdict of “murder
in the second degree” was, no doubt,
one of those compromises between
sense and stupidity which form so
large a portion of the verdicts of
petit juries, and so fully justify the
sarcasm of a celebrated lawyer, that
“if there was anything that Omnis:
cience itself could not foretell, it was

20
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
the verdict of a petitjury.” The sent-
ence, however, was doubtless what
it would have been if the verdict
had been “murder in the first de-
gree,” for an Indianajury will never
hang a woman.
Thus ended the Clem trial, and
the fearful mystery that had so long
enveloped the “Cold Spriug” trag-
edy. A motion for a new trial, on
the ground that some of the jury had
expressed opinions before their em-
º was made, but overruled.
The case goes to the Supreme Court
on some points of law, but if a re-
versal there gives a new trial, and
an acquittal should be secured, by
absence or death of witnesses, here-
after, none the less will the fatal ef.
fect of guilt once proved, hang over
the families involved in the crime.
The last catastrophe it has produced,
places beyond all human power to
remove, the certainty of the guilt of
one, and the connection of Mrs.
Clem with it. This catastrophe is
the
SUICIDE OF SILAS FIARTMAN.
A few days after the conviction
of Mrs. Clem, her brother Silas
Hartman, who had been examined
both before the Grand Jury that
found the indictments, and on both
trials of Mrs. Clem, was again
taken before the Grand Jury on the
communication of a purpose to con-
fess all he knew. His confession
amounted to little, except as it ab-
solutely identified him with the
murder, and that was pretty well
settled without his confession. The
Grand Jury gave little importance
to it. Its object was manifestly to
exculpate himself and his sister so
far as to make his punishment some-
thing less severe than death, and
her's lighter than life-long impris-
onment. The papers published the
details of it as soon as it was allow-
ed, which was on the evening of
Wednesday, the 10th. That night
Hartman read it with some severe
reflections upon it, in an evening
paper, and appeared to be very
much depressed. He sent his room-
mate, Abrams, out of the cell, and
hung a blanket before the door that
he might talk secretly to his sister
in an adjoining cell, through a crew-
ice in the party wall. She says she
had no idea that he contemplated
suicide, though he spoke of “pre-
paring to meet his God.” Late in
the night he was seen walking on
the corridor before the cells, evi-
dently much distressed. About
daylight Abrams, who had seen him
get up and return to bed, but had
fallen asleep, heard him moaning
like a person with the nightmare,
but thought nothing of it. Soon
after he discovered blood, gave the
alarm, and a light being procured,
it was found that Hartman had cut
his throat with an old razor belong-
ing to the turnkey who had let the
prisoners shave with it. He was
nearly dead when discovered, but
had strength and intelligence enough
left to look round at the faces gath-
ored about him. He died in a few
minutes, and by his death confessed
fully the guilt he had palliated or
denied before. An inquest found
that he had come to his death by his
own hand, and he was buried on
Thursday at his own old home, his
father's residence, near Augusta,
Pike township. A fearful crime
had been fearfully punished. The
ghosts of the murdered victims had
dragged one of the guilty to his
doom. The dreadful “Nemesis”
of mythology, the awful justice of
God, was following close upon the
bloody tracks that marked the
ground at that fatal sand bar.
_T
º
- --
JACOB YOUNG,







TRIAL OF MRS, NANOY F. CLEM
E O R T H E
MURDER OF NANCY JANE YOUNG.
POST MORTEM EXAMINATION.
Dr. L. D. Waterman and Dr.
Wands made the post mortem ex-
amination of the bodies of Jacob
Young and Nancy Jane Young. A
gun-shot wound had entered Mr.
Young's head on the right side be-
tween the eye and ear, and coursed
downward through the head, mak-
ing its exit behind and a little be-
low the left ear. There were no
powder marks on the face, nor
signs of powder in the brains
through which the missiles passed.
A piece of a bullet had lodged
against the inner table of the skull,
near the orifice of exit. This wound
was necessarily and instantly fatal.
We found a pistol ball wound on
Mrs. Young. The ball had entered
her head from behind, near the base
and center of the skull, and had
coursed upward, and had lodged
against the inner table of the skull,
near the center of the forehead. It
was a cartridge pistol ball. There
was also a wound as if given with a
blunt instrument, on the back of
the head, near the ear, which cut
through the scalp, and fractured the
skull. These wounds were suffi-
cient to produce death, though the
pistol ball alone may not have pro-
duced instant death.
DISCOVERY OF BODIES.
Robert Bowman, Wesley Kendler
and William Bowman–Discovered
the dead bodies on the sand-bar, at
Cold Spring, Sunday morning, Sep-
tember 13th, between seven and
eight o'clock A. M. Young's body
was lying on his back, his legs cross-
ed, one arm over his breast; he had
on his pants, boots and shirt; his
west was hanging in a willow tree
which stood within ten feet of his
body; a spread umbrella was lying
near; about six feet from him lay
a double barreled shot gun, one bar-
rel exploded, one loaded, both ham-
mers up, and no cap on the unex-
ploded barrel; the butt of the gun
was toward the head of Young's
body, and the gun was parallel with
his body. Horse and buggy of
Young was found in the woods
about thirty yards from where the
bodies were lying. The horse was
unhitched, or had broken loose, and
had upset the buggy. One of the
party went to Indianapolis for the
-

22 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
Coroner, and the others stayed with
the bodies. The body of the woman,
which was lying about six feet from
that of her husband, was burned
badly from the knees to the mouth.
The clothing had all been consumed
but a small portion between the
shoulders.
G. W. Allred, Coroner–Found
the bodies as described by the fore-
going witnesses, and had them re-
moved to Mr. Weaver's, the under-
taker, in Indianapolis, where the
post mortem examination was had.
This witness identified the clothing
of Mr. Young, the gun, and other
articles found near the bodies. We
had Mr. Eurich and Mr. Ballweg
draw and examine the load of the
unexploded barrel.
TIME OF MURDER.
Erie Locke–Was fishing at a
place near a half mile below where
the bodies were found. My chil-
dren, Millie and Seymour, were
fishing above me, nearer the scene
of the murder. About four P. M.,
the children asked permission to
bathe in the ripple opposite the
sand bar.
when they spoke to me to see if there
was time for them to bathe, and
while I had my watch in my hand,
I heard a very loud report in the
direction of the sand bar. It was
from four to fifteen minutes past
four P. M. when the shot was fired.
I kept correct time. The children
went bathing, and we then came
home.
Millie Lock and Seymour Locke,
children of Erie Locke–Before we
asked father to go bathing, we saw
a man and two women walking on
the sand bar near the river; the
man was carrying an umbrella; we
went and asked father's permission
to go in bathing, and came back to
the ripple. While we were bathing
we looked toward the willow tree
and saw a man and woman lying
-
I looked at my watch
down near the shade of the tree; a
smoke was rising from the woman
as if she was smoking a pipe; we
saw some clothing hanging in the
willow bush by the bodies. We sup-
posed they were sleeping. We
heard the gun go off when we were
asking father to let us go bathing.
It sounded very loud, and my
brother Seymour said it sounded
like a cannon. -
Milton Coleman and Julia Coſe-
man—We lived across the river,
and about one-half mile from where
the dead bodies were found. We
were getting ready to go out on the
afternoon of the murder, and about
half-past four P. M. heard a loud
report, then a scream, and then a
second sharp report, as if a rifle or
revolver. These sounds were in the
direction of the sand bar. Our
clock was set by the gun at the ar-
senal.
Robert Marvel and Joseph Mar-
vel—We were going from Indiana-
polis to our homes in Hendricks
county, and as we passed the road
above Cold Spring, about half a
mile from where the bodies were
found, we heard a loud report, and
then a quick sharp report like a re-
volver or rifle, immediately after.
This was near four o'clock.
Mrs. Lou Monroe–Was crossing
the river in a buggy at the ford,
three-quarters of a mile below where
the bodies were found, and as the
horse was drinking in the middle of
the river, she heard the two reports,
one so loud that it startled her, and
the other not so loud. She looked
at her watch just as she entered the
river, and it was then four o'clock.
LOAD OF GUN.
Ambrose Ballweg and John Eu-
rich–Drew the load from the unex-
ploded barrel of the gun; it was a
double charge of powder, and the
eight bullets were equal to two loads
of shot. Such a load fired from

The Cold Spring Tragedy. - 23
this gun (witness had the gun found
by the dead bodies) would produce
an unusually loud report, and in
the condition of the tubes would
throw the hammer back at a half-
cock. A man cannot hold this gun,
with his fingers on the triggers, and
discharge it into his head on the
right side. If fired close to one's
head it would make powder marks.
Have had a good deal of experience
with guns,
won AN's TRACKS AT SCENE OF
MURDER.
John Buser, Policeman—Went in
company with several others to
search for tracks at Cold Spring;
it was on Wednesday after the mur-
der. Some distance back in the
woods from where the bodies lay,
we found a woman’s track. I meas-
ured it, and this (producing a paw-
paw stick) is the measure. I took
it at the time. The track was eight
and one-half inches long, and was
two and five-eighths inches across
the widest part of the sole, or ball
of the foot. It was made by a new
gaiter, as the edges of the tracks
were sharply cut in the soil. By
this track we found a handkerchief
and coat which were identified as
those of Mr. Young. There was no
other track by this woman's track
where the coat and handkerchief
were found. We followed the track
to a point in the woods where a bug-
gy had passed out toward the road
leading to the city.
Oliver Squires—Was with Buser.
We measured the same track, and
made the length one-sixteenth of an
inch shorter than Buser's; other-
wise they agreed.
Dr. Waterman–Found a track
of a woman in the woods some dis-
tance up the river from the scene
of the murder, and going in that di-
rection. The track measured eight
and one-half inches in length, two
and five-eighths across the ball, one
inch across the narrowest part of the
sole or shank; the heel was three-
quarters of an inch high from the
sole, one and five-eighths in length,
one and one-quarter inches in
breadth, and the steps made by the
person were three feet five inches in
length.
HORSE AND BUGGY TRACK8.
Robert Barbee–Found a place in
the woods, near half a mile above
the scene of the murder, where a
horse and buggy stood by a syca-
more tree. The horse had evident-
ly been hitched there, and the bug-
gy had been backed out and driven
out through the woods over the
same track by which it had entered
the woods. The woods were thick,
and a dense growth of underbrush
and weeds covered the ground from
the hill to the river's edge. I fol-
lowed the track till I found one
place where the horse had passed
over a clay knoll where the impres-
sion of the horse shoe tracks were
clear and distinct. The hind tracks
were those of a horse wearing inter-
fering shoes. I saw one foreshoe
track which had the impression of a
cork. I went to the shop of Mr.
Smith, the blacksmith who had
taken a pair of shoes from the feet
of Drew and Sullivan's mare “Pet,”
the same Syke Hartman drove the
day of the murder, and asked for
the shoes the mare wore that day.
Mansfield, Mr. Smith's horse shoer,
searched in a pile of several bushels
of horse shoes, and finally handed
me these (exhibiting a pair of inter-
fering shoes). I took them to Cold
Spring and put them in the tracks
I had discovered, and they fitted
them exactly. I also measured the
buggy tracks, and they correspond-
ed, with the wheels of the bug
Syke Hartman had used the day §
the murder. I found another bug-
gy which made a similar track.
John G. Smith—Blacksmith for

24 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
-
thirty-eight years; made the shoes
which the mare “Pet” wore the
day of the murder; they were pe-
culiar; she had a broken hoof, and
wore interfering shoes; these were
unusually small for her, and were
different in shape and size from any
I have ever made for her; I have
shod her for the last two or three
years; these shoes (the same Bar-
bee exhibited) were on the mare
“Pet’s” feet the day of the mur-
der, and were taken off the Monday
after; the shoes she wore the day
of the murder, are smaller than
those put on her afterward; I have
tried to fit them to her feet since the
former trial, and nailed them on
without hurting her.
Thomas Mansfield — Worked in
Smith's shop; have shod the mare
“Pet; * she has a small hind foot,
straight on the inside, and wears in-
terfering shoes; I took shoes off of
the mare the Monday after the
murder (identified the shoes Barbee
had as the ones taken off by him);
when I took them off I threw them
in a pile of five or six bushels of old
shoes; I got them for Barbee from
the pile, when he called for the
shoes the mare wore the day of the
murder; we have no other mare in
our custom that wears such a sized
and shaped shoe as this; put on an-
other pair of shoes the Monday af.
ter the murder; I gave Barbee a
fore shoe, also, when he came for
the shoes; we shod the mare every
five or six weeks; the pile of shoes
where I threw these, had been ac-
cumulating a year or more; Mr.
Smith always fits the shoes on the
horses’ feet; I trim the feet; these
shoes are all made by hand; I do
not think I took a pair of shoes off
her hind feet the Monday after the
murder; I now recollect we did
take off the shoes I gave to Barbee;
there was nothing peculiar in the
shape of the fore shoe I gave to
Barbee; the hind shoes were inter-
fering shoes; the shoes we put on
the Monday after the murder are
wider than those the maro had been
wearing.
John Gates (for defense)—Black-
Smith for twenty-eight years; I ex-
amined the feet of the mare “Pet”
during the last trial; her feet were
in good order; she had shoes on;
her foot was the usual size for a
livery horse; I tried these shoes
(the pair Mansfield gave to Barbee)
on the mare's feet, and thought
they were too narrow; I would
have made them wider; they were
five-eighths to three-quarters of an
inch too narrow at the quarters,
that is, at the heel; the mare's feet
were natural in shape and size;
there is very little variation in the
size of a horse's hoof at each suc-
cessive shoeing; by dressing the
mare's hoof very close, I could nail
these shoes on her, but a man would
have to be very careful in driving
the nails or it might lame her; this
pair (those put on the mare the
Monday after the murder) are large
enough for her.
Matthew Walls (for defense)—
Works for Mr. Gates, and testified
in substance as Gates did; these
shoes (the pair Barbee got of Mans-
field) are between one-half and
three-quarters of an inch narrower
than these (the pair put on the
mare the Monday after the mur-
der).
SHOES WORN EY MIRS. CLEM ON
THE DAY OF THE MURDER.
John M. Patterson–Was boy in
Cady's shoe store in Odd Fellows'
Hall; know Mrs. Clem and Mrs.
Matthew Hartman; between the
1st and 9th of September, 1868, I
sold Mrs. Clem a pair of No. 3 last-
ing cloth gaiters, laced in front,
made on last C, from the manufac-
tory of Reynolds & Bro., of Utica,
New York; Mrs. Hartman was
with Mrs. Clem at the time, and
made some remark to me about my

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 25
mother coming to see her; after
Mrs. Clem bought the gaiters, she
asked if we had a shoemaker about
the store, and I told her we had
not; I next saw Mrs. Clem in the
cars between Indianapolis and Rich-
mond, Indiana, on the 9th of Sep-
tember, and it was between the 1st
and 9th that she bought the shoes
(a pair of No. 3 gaiters, from Rey-
molds & Bro.'s manufactory, were
handed the witness); the pair I
sold Mrs. Clem were like these in
every particular, except that these
are Congress and those were laced
gaiters. -
George Knodle–Am a shoe deal-
er; Mrs. Clem has been a customer
at our store for some years; she
usually wears No. 3's, though when
shoes are made for her, she has
them made smaller than 3's ; some-
time last summer or fall, Mrs. Clem
brought a pair of new shoes or gai-
ters to me to have them altered; I
did something to the heel; I think
I took the tap off the heel to make
it lower; this would make the shoe
easier to wear; Mrs. Clem's foot is
pretty high in the instep, and pret-
ty broad (the pair of No. 3 Con-
gress gaiters were handed to the
witness); I took the tap off one of
these; I think that is what I did to
the shoe Mrs. Clem brought to the
store, but am not certain; I did
something to it.
Abram Bond–Am employed in
Knodle's establishment; "I meas-
ured Mrs. Clem's foot in jail at the
instance of her counsel, and in this
court room during the former trial;
her foot, with stocking on, is eight
and one-halfinches long; she wears
a No. 3 shoe, but can wear a smal-
ler size.
Joseph Wert (for defense)—I
measured Mrs. Clem's foot during
the former trial, and it was nine
inches long; her foot measures No.
2}, and she could wear No. 3's; I
#. an accurate measurement of her
bot; I always press the big toe
down on the measure, and this
lengthens the foot slightly; some
shoemakers do not do this.
Jane Sizemore (colored) – Was
the servant of Mrs. Clem in Sep-
tember last; Tuesday before the
murder, I saw a pair of new laced
gaiters at Mrs. Clem's house, lying
on my bed; they were not mine; I
supposed they were Mrs. Clem's, as
there were no women about the
house but Mrs. Clem, Grandma
Hartman (Mrs. Clem's mother),
and I; Sunday morning after the
murder, I saw what I supposed to
be the same pair of gaiters lying out
doors by the back kitchen door;
they looked as if they had been
worn; they were in my way as I
was scrubbing, and I threw them
aside; Mrs. Clem passed out that
way soon after, and when I next
went out, the gaiters were gone, and
I have never seen them since; Mrs.
Clem borrowed my gaiters, No. 4's,
and has worn them ever since the
murder; she paid me for them sev-
eral weeks after she was in jail;
when at home, before her arrest,
she wore a pair of Albert's (her
son) carpet slippers about the
house; she wore my gaiters when
she went before the Coroner's Jury
and the grand Jury; when Mr.
Henry C. Adams came to Mrs.
Clem's house for shoes, after Mrs.
Clem's arrest, I searched the house
for shoes, and could find nothing
but a pair of worn-out gaiters, No.
4; they are not the ones I saw on
the bed and at the kitchen door.
Albert Patton (for defence)—Am
son of defendant; my mother went
with me to Richmond, Indiana,
Wednesday, September 9th; she
then wore a pair of laced gaiters
that had the appearance of having
been worn sometime; they were not
new.
Nancy Hartman (for defense)—
Am mother of defendant; I lived
with defendant, and did not see any
new gaiters about the house during

26 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
last summer; I am seventy-nine
years of age.
Rebecca Hartman (for defense)—
Ann wife of Matthew Hartman and
sister-in-law of defendant; some-
time during last summer I pur-
chased a pair of No. 3 laced gaiters
for Julia McCarty, who lives in our
family; a cousin of mine, from Il-
linois, was with me at the time; I
cannot say what shoe store I
bought them at; do not know where
my cousin lives in Illinois; but
they go home by way of Gales-
burgh. -
Julia McCarty (for defense)—
Have been living in Matthew Hart-
man's family for six years; last
summer Mrs. Hartman bought me
a pair of No. 3 laced gaiters, which
I wore till two or three weeks ago,
when I threw them in the alley.
William Armstrong—Am a shoe
dealer; am familiar with Reynolds
& Bro.'s make of gaiters; the soles
are cut with steel dies, and all No.
3's of last C, are of the same size;
No. 3's is a popular size here.
David K. Cady–Am a shoe deal-
er; the sizes most worn here are
from Nos. 2% to 3}.
*IRs. CLEM's RELATIONS TO YOUNG
AND ABRAMS.
Mary M. Server–Am a sister of
Mr. Young; I was at my brother's
ome evening, when Mrs. Clem and
another lady came there; the lady
stayed in the room with Mrs. Young
while Mr. Young and Mrs. Clem
went into an adjoining room where
they remained some minutes; when
Mr. Young went in he took paper,
pen and ink with him.
Mary Belle Young–Am a niece
of Mr. Young's, and lived with
him; I saw Mrs. Clem ride in un-
ele's buggy once; and one time I
was in the buggy with uncle and
aunt, aud we drove up by Mrs.
Clem's house, and she came out on
the sidewalk and talked to them; I
have seen her at my uncle's house
of evenings; I saw Mrs. Hartman
there with her.
Rebecca Hartman–I went with
Mrs. Clem to Young's house four
or five times, in the evening; when
we would go, Mrs. Clem would go
into the next room with Mr. Young,
and I would stay with Mrs. Young;
I never told my husband of these
visits, and do not think Mr. Clem
knew of them ; I do not know what
business Mrs. Clem had with Mr.
Young; we made similar visits to
Mr. William J. Abrams' house, and
Mrs. Clem would act there as she
did at Mr. Young's house.
Pet Hartman—Mr. Young was
at our house the morning of the
murder, and saw Mr. Clem; Mrs.
Clem is my aunt.
Miss Agnes Taylor—I am N. B.
Taylor's daughter; our house is
across the street from Mrs. Clem's;
her house is on the lot next to Mr.
Matthew Hartman's; on the morn-
ing of the murder, about eight
o'clock, I was reading the morning
paper at our house, and saw Mr.
Young come out of Mr. Hartman's
gate, and walk north toward North
street; after he had passed Mrs.
Clem's gate, I saw her come out
and look in the direction he was
º -
ºrs. Emma Ludlum — I live
nearly opposite Mr. Young's house;
either the morning of the murder or
the morning previous, I was at my
home and saw Mrs. Clem coming
away from Mr. Young's gate; this
was soon after breakfast, about
eight o'clock; Mrs. Young was
standing in her door, and Mrs.
Clem had just started away; did
not see her in the house, nor did I
see her come out of the gate.
Alfred J. Rooker—Was engaged
painting at the houses of Matthew
Hartman and Mrs. Clem, in August
and September. Mr. Young visit-
ed Mrs. Clem's house two or three
times a week; he would come in

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 27
the forenoons and afternoons, after
Mr. Clem would be gone to his
store; he never came while Mr.
Clem was at home; I saw Abrams
there also ; once Abrams drove up
in front, and his wife got out at
Hartman's; he then drove down
street in his buggy, and Mrs. Clem
went out through Hartman's back
lot; in the course of an hour Abrams
came back in his buggy, and Mrs.
Clem came in again from the back
way; I did not see where he went,
nor do I know where Mrs. Clem
went; Abrams was at Hartman's
and Clem's houses very often while
I was working there.
TELE DAY BEFORE THE MURDER.
Elijah Cooper—Know Abrams
and Syke Hartman; on Friday, as
Mr. Enos Gill, John Culp and my-
self, were coming to Indianapolis
from Hendricks county, we met
Abrams and Syke Hartman on the
road near Cold Spring; they were
driving a sorrel horse with a star in
his forehead; this was about four
o'clock P. M.; Culp spoke to Hart-
man as we met; I have known
Abrams intimately for some years.
John Culp—Was with Gill and
Cooper, and saw Hartman and
Abrams, and spoke to Hartman; I
said at the former trial that I did
not know who was with Hartman;
I gave Mr. Leathers a statement
which he wrote out, but I did not
sign it; I may have told him I did
not recognize the man with Hart-
Inlan.
Anthony Einaiz (for defense—On
Friday or Saturday, September
11th or 12th, Syke Hartman came
through the toll gate kept by me on
the Lafayette road, about a mile
below Cold Spring, on the west side
of White River; a stranger was
with him in the buggy; it was in
the afternoon when they passed
through (Mr. Abrams stood up); I
cannot say whether this is the man
T-
who was with Hartman or not;
this may have been Saturday, but
I think it was Friday, the day be-
fore the murder.
Florence Ellhart (for defense)—
Was working at Mr. Abrams' house
in September; on Friday afternoon
Mr. Abrams was at home till late
in the evening, when he went away
to Mr. Ludlow's to bring home his
wife, who was out there; Mr.
Abrams was painting his house.
Enoch G. Sanders—I was paint-
ing at Mr. Abrams' house on Fri-
day, September 11th ; in the fore-
noon he was at home, but he was
absent during the afternoon for sev-
eral hours; he did no painting in
the afternoon while I was there, and
I was there from one to six P. M.
Silas W. Hartman–Am one of
the defendants; Abrams was not
with me in the buggy when we met
Gill, Cooper and Culp; it was my
cousin, Cravens Hartman, from
Missouri; the horse and buggy used
by me that day were hired at Gates
& Pray's livery stable; was not at
Cold Spring on Friday.
WHEREABOUTS, ETC., OF YOUNG
ON DAY OF MIURDER.
Mary Belle Young—About noon
of the day of the murder, I saw my
uncle, Mr. Young, have a pretty
large pile of money; I do not know
how much he had; he and my aunt
went away from home in the buggy
after dinner, and I never saw thern
again alive; uncle was getting
ready to go, and aunt asked if she
might go along, and he said “yes–
get ready.” As soon as she got
ready, they started; I had not
heard of her going with him until
she asked if she might go along;
they went out the back way to the
stable, and got in the buggy there;
we usually had dinner at noon; my
uncle, my aunt, the hired girl and
I, comprised the family; I took the

28 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
umbrella out to them as they were
going away.
William J. Kercheval–Clerk at
Layman & Co.'s hardware store; on
the day of the murder, about noon,
Mr. Young came into Dorsey &
Layman's store, and remained,
probably, half an hour; I con-
versed with him; he exhibited some
money wrapped in a newspaper; he
had it in one of his side-pockets, I
believe; the roll was between three
and four inches thick; he showed
me the ends of the bills, and some
of them were one thousand dollar
bills; he has left money with me
frequently, to keep over night for
him; I never knew how much he
had ; he never left money there
longer than from one day to the
next; he had once been employed
in the store, and he spent a good
deal of his time there; I do not
know what business he was engaged
in, in 1868; he had a small account
at our store; I never saw him have
any indorsed or canceled notes at
the store; there was no account be-
tween Young and Dorsey, on the
books at the store; he never exhib-
ited money to me before; I asked
him how he was, that day, and he
said he was getting along fine; I
did not see him have any buggy,
nor did I see his wife that day; he
did not take the package of money
out of his pocket; he opened the
end of it.
George Thudium–Am employed
in the Indianapolis National Bank;
saw Young in the bank the day be-
fore the murder; he had a package
of money, in which there was be-
tween six and seven thousand dol-
lars; I exchanged some money for
him, and gave him a one thousand
dollar bill for two five hundred dol-
lar bills; I saw two one thousand
dollar bills in the package he had:
I mean one besides the one I gave
him; he had the money done up in
a flat package in a newspaper, and
carried it in the pistol pocket of his
pantaloons; I never saw him again.
David Ross and Mr. Nicholson–
Were on Washington street be-
tween twelve and two P. M., on the
day of the murder, and saw Mr.
Young pass west on Washington
street and go north on Tennessee
street; there was one lady in the
buggy with him then.
William W. Burns–Saw Young
and wife in a buggy coming south
on Pennsylvania street, about one
o'clock, the day of the murder.
Davis Yount–Saw a man with a
lady in a buggy with him, stop on
the corner of Tennessee street and
Market street; I saw the horse to-
day, and it was the same I saw
hitched to that buggy; it is the
horse formerly owned by Mr. Jacob
Young; another lady, with a sun-
down hat, came through the State
House yard from Washington to
Market streets, and got in the bug-
gy at the point where it stopped; it
was about a quarter past one o'clock;
the woman stood on the sidewalk,
and talked to the man and woman
in the buggy before she got in ; I
do not remember what kind of a
dress she wore; I had seen the same
man in that buggy before, but did
not know him; I am not in any bu-
siness now; at the time I speak of,
September 12th, I was canvassing
the Fourth Ward for the Republi-
can committee; I was in business
in Wisconsin last year, buying wool
part of the time; I was doing noth-
ing from April to September; I
had some engravings of generals
which I had been selling in the
south of the State; I cannot tell
when I left my boarding house on
Mississippi street and commenced
boarding on Pennsylvania street; I
remember the date I saw the man
with the horse and buggy, because
I began to poll the Ninth Ward on
that day; the horse was peculiar
and attracted my attention; I never
saw one marked like him; I heard

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 29
the horse described after the mur-
der, and knew it was the one I had
seen; I was subpoened as a witness
on the former trial, but was not ex-
amined; I am acquainted with Pe-
ter Wilkins; I told him what I had
seen, and he told me Mr. Hanna,
Mrs. Clem's attorney, wished to see
me; I met witness at Wright &
Davis' auction room; I have been
to witness' house three or four
times; I know Charles E. Donne-
lan; I met him the first time three
or four years ago; I have no par-
ticular place to stay, except at the
Macy House; I stay at the auction
rooms more than any other place;
I have been expecting a situation at
an auction room.
Mary Brown and Mrs. MeKibben
—Wore at the house of Mr. Mo-
Kibben, corner of East and St.
Clair streets, about one square west
of Mr. Young's and Mr. Abrams'
houses, on September 12th, P. M.;
about one o'clock Mr. Young and
wife passed west on St. Clair street
in their buggy, going in the direc-
tion of the road to Cold Spring;
soon after, Mr. Abrams, with some
gentleman we did not know, drove
by in a buggy east on St. Clair
street toward his own house; in a
little while, about long enough for
them to go to Mr. Abrams' house
and back; they returned and pass-
ed west on St. Clair street, driving
so rapidly that it attracted our at-
tention; we had seen Mr. Abrams
frequently, and knew him as he
passed that day.
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.
Dr. Duzan–Have known Mrs.
Clem for thirty years, since she was
a child; did not know Young or
Abrams, but have seen Young at
my office once or twice several years
ago; have not seen him within the
last four or five years, and have had
no dealings with him. [Defense
- to the question whether
admissible;
witness had financial transactions
with the defendant, as immaterial
and foreign to the subject at issue.
Mr. Hanna said that the defendant
should not be compelled to reveal
her private business transactions.
Unless the testimony bears its per-
tinence upon its face, it should be
excluded, although it was admitted
at the former trial on a pretense
that it would be connected with the
matters at issue. To this Mr. Har-
rison answered that this testimony
would be connected positively with
the transactions of Mr. Young and
the defendant, although Young and
Duzan were not acquainted with
each other. Mr. Gordon insisted
that this testimony did not bear
upon the issue between the State
and Clem. If the conspiracy was
fully proven the evidence might be
not before. The ob-
jection was overruled.] During
the year 1868 I had business deal-
ings with Mrs. Clem, commencing
in January of that year; can’t re-
member the first deal, but the sec-
ond was a loan of $500 in Febru-
ary; April 2d, Iloaned her $2,000,
April 22d, $1,300, May 5th, $1,-
500, July 11th, $5,000, August 1st,
$8,000, August 10th, $6,000; add-
ed to these sums were two notes,
one $3,500 and another $15,000,
which were discounted at Fletcher
& Churchman's bank; July 11th I
loaned her $20,000 for fourteen
days; in less than seven days she
paid me $14,000; don't remember
all the circumstances connected with
the smaller loans; she made no ex-
planations, and I did not ask her
what she wanted the money for un-
til the amount became larger; af.
terward she told me she was using
the money in buying up claims, but
did not explain her business fully to
me, and I never knew just what she
did with the money; after paying
the $14,000 on my note for $15.
000, Ireceived $10,000 more from
Mrs. Clem, and paid the balance

30 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
ºf my note, depositing the balance;
at the time she got the $20,000 she
represented herself as being engaged
in business transactions with a body
of responsible gentlemen, by which
she made large profits; our ar-
rangements were to furnish equal
amounts, and divide the profits, she
retaining ten per cent of the prof-
its; I urged her to tell me the na-
ture of the business, but she made
no answer; afterward she said the
men interested with her were hon-
orable and reliable, that I knew
them, but that her word was pledg-
ed not to reveal their names or bu-
siness; she asked me not to men-
tion to Mr. Clem anything about
Gur transactions; my share of the
profits at the summing up, after the
ten per cent. had been deducted,
was $8,000; she remarked several
times that she would have a pretty
sum of money at the close of the
speculation—fifty or one hundred
thousand dollars at least; I took no
security for my loans, but she was
prompt to repay them, and the
profits on each loan was guaranteed
when the loan was made; the profit
was large—more than I could make
in any other way; the gross amount
of money I let her have is $42,300;
a day or two before August 1st she
applied for $22,000, and said it
would be profitable; I could not
raise the money, and reported the
fact to her at her house; she said
that she had promised to raise the
money, and would do it; she was
dressed to go out, and said she was
going out to get the money; I told
her she had done wrong to promise
money from me, for I had promised
not to give her any more money un-
less she had explained what was be-
ing done with the money; I gave
her $8,000, and a few days after-
ward she gave it back to me, saying
she had not used it, and referred to
the fact that I had said her note
was not worth anything; I had not
said so, but she had mistaken a re-
mark I had made; her manner was
depressed when she handed me the
$8,000 back, and she shed tears;
subsequently I let her have $6,000,
which has not yet been repaid, al-
though she offered it to me before
she went to Richmond; I told her
she could use it until I wanted it,
she said that in October she would
explain her business transactions to
me; she offered me collateral secu-
rity for one of the smaller sums, but
I did not take it then or at any
other time; after the death of Ja-
cob Young I thought, from the rt-
mors regarding his money affairs,
that Mrs. Clem was in some way in-
terested with him, and, on the Mon-
day week after his death, while at
her house, asked her if such was
the case; she replied that she did
not know Mr. Young in business
transactions.
Cross-examined—Have been fan-
ily physician for Mrs. Clem about
six years; she offered me the six
thousand dollars a few days before
she went to Richmond; did not see
the money; called on her after-
ward, before she went to Richmond,
to give her a letter of introduction
to Dr. Clarke; think this was same
week of the murder; had entire
confidence in her honesty and integ-
rity; she had confided her history
and fully explained her circum-
stances to me previous to any busi-
ness dealings with her; she repeat-
edly affirmed that she managed her
own affairs.
Recalled—She represented the
money she had was the result of
what was left her by her first hus:
band, together with the portion of
her son; her first husband's name
was Patton; do not know the sums
she gained in these transactions.
S. K. Fletcher—Knew Young,
but not Mrs. Clem; indorsed a note
for Young on the 7th day of April
for $5,000, and afterward indorsed
on the 30th of April for the same
amount; my transactions with

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 31
Young commenced March 3d, and
at various times afterward for sums
ranging from $1,000 to $5,000;
May 11th I indorsed for $15,000,
and August 6th for $3,000, and
also $12,000, at different banks; I
renewed a note afterward, August
10th, for $15,000 for thirty days;
the $12,000 note was renewed Sep-
tember 6th for thirty days, neither
of which were paid before Young's
death; have no knowledge of how
the money was used, but he paid
me $2,500 for the use of my name;
did not know with whom Young
was dealing, nor any person con-
nected with him in business; had
no transactions with Mrs. Clem,
Abrams or Dr. Duzan; had known
. Young since 1865, when he was
clerking for Dorsey & Layman.
By Defense—Dorsey's name was
upon the first note for $1,000 in-
dorsed by me, and my brother's
name was on the $12,000 note;
with these exceptions I was the only
indorser; no collaterals were fur-
mished me.
F. M. Churchman–Fletcher’s
Bank; know Mrs. Clem, and have
done business with her in 1868,
[defense objected, objection over-
ruled]; on the 7th of April she
paid us $1,405 on two loans then
due, and the same day she paid a
note for Abrams of $1,000; on the
same day Dr. Duzan deposited
$1,500; we had no more transac-
tions with Mrs. Clem; [witness de-
tailed Dr. Duzan's transactions with
the bank, in confirmation of the
doctor's testimony yesterday.] Mrs.
Clem and Abrams came to the bank
together with the $1,000 note, and |
the money was paid to Abrams, but
Mrs. Clem was alone when she paid
the note; she desired me not to
send notices through the post office;
said that she was loaning money,
and named Levi Pierson as one of
her creditors. -
By Defense—Don’t recollect that
she said Abrams owed her $1,000;
Abrams got the money when the
note was discounted; she has been
a customer at our bank, but was not
indebted to us at this time; she did
not say that other parties would get
the notices; think she said her hus-
band would get them.
Recalled – Her former transac-
tions were small, never larger than
$800, nor for more than thirty days;
they were all paid.
Arthur L. Wright–Treasurer of
Marion county. I loaned Young
money at various times during 1868,
in small sums and for a short period
of time; part of my loans have
been repaid, but two notes of $1,000
each remain unpaid; he paid two
per cent. a month for the $2,000,
and always settled on the 11th or
12th of each month; for $800 for
eleven days he paid me $50; don’t
know what business he was engaged
in, or whether he was engaged in
any since he acted as deputy con-
stable in 1867; don’t know Mrs.
Clem, nor Abrams, nor Duzan, ºn
business transactions; L defense ob-
jected to a question as to the amount
of property defendant returned for
taxation; objection sustained.]
By Defense—My security was R.
S. Dorsey, and upon one or two
loans collateral security was left me;
the interest was fixed by Mr. Young;
he had shown me at one time $24,-
000 in bills in his possession at his
house, folded in a newspaper; did
not count the money, but it looked
like that amount; this was three or
four weeks before his death; have
seen him have large sums when he
came to pay the interest.
Recalled—He would have large
sums of money on the 11th or 12th
of each month. -
R. S. Dorsey–Hardware mer-
chant; knew Young, but never met
with, or heard of, Mrs. Clem until
after the murder; Young was em-
ployed by our firm until 1867; he
then acted as deputy constable until
1868, when he gave up regular
32
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
business and commenced speculat-
ing; January 1st, 1868, Young had
my indorsements to the amount of
$10,500, on various notes; he was
paying me two and a half per cent.
per month, on the 11th or 12th of
each month; did not know what he
was doing with the money, but found
out that he was operating with W.
J. Abrams; when I went to Georgia,
in January, 1868, the notes were
remitted to me as they fell due, and
were paid by Young; my security
was his father-in-law, Jonas Case,
and two houses and lots, which were
deeded to me; once he gave me
some stock in the White River Iron
Company, as collateral; the inter-
est always was paid on the 11th or
12th ; June 11th Young, by power
of attorney from me, collected $2,-
600 from W. J. Abrams, on which
Abrams had paid me $150 per
month, on the 12th of each month.
Returned from Georgia in August;
during my absence I left some blank
notes with Young to renew existing
obligations, and he made use of one
of them; I saw Young immediately
after my return, but he did not pay
me the money he had collected from
Abrams, $3,300; August 18th I
settled with him ; he owed me $3,-
448; I afterward loaned him more
money; I settled with him at his
house, one night, when I staid all
night with him, my family being
absent from the city; have been at
his house several times; the money
I loaned Young after my return
from Georgia was got by me from
bank on collateral security; he said
he would pay me well for the use
of the money, but there was no con-
tract between us; he paid me $150
the day before his death, in my
office, from a roll which looked like
it contained $3,000; knew of no one
being connected with him save Mr.
Abrams, and did not see him after
he paid me the $150; at his death
he owed me $14,543 02; he paid
me $2,900 interest; heard of his
death Sunday noon, and went to his
house Monday evening or Tuesday
morning, with several gentlemen,
and we examined the papers of the
deceased, but found nothing of im-
portance; the papers were brought
to Haughey's bank by that gentle-
man and S. A. Fletcher, Jr.; there
was no property of any value, except
the house, lot and household goods;
I was appointed special administra-
tor of the estate, and afterward J.
M. W. Langsdale was appointed;
do not know of any other property
than I have mentioned belonging to
the estate; never knew Mrs. Clem
or Dr. Duzan.
By Defense—My books show the
payment by Young of the money
Abrams owed me; I have the mort-
gage yet, but Young may have sat-
isfied it on the record; know of no
other transactions between Young
and Abrams, or Mrs. Clem, or Mr.
Hartman; the notes I left him were
indorsed in bank, and they were to
be used only for renewals; I left
some stock with him to be used as
collateral for the same purpose; do
not know that a note was found upon
his person, after his death, indorsed
by me; when I got the bonds at
reencastle for Young, I may have
said that the party for whom I
wanted them was perfectly respon-
sible, but did not say he was worth
$300,000; did not mention his name
to anyone in Greencastle when I got
the bonds for him; said that the
speculation was a sure thing; did
not know how much Young was
really worth at any time; when I
went into business with Layman &
Fletcher I received the right to in-
dorse for Young, and also for the
Mining Company.
Asa Dollarhide–Gre on castle;
have known R. S. Dorsey several
years; and loaned him some certiſi-
cates of registered stock a few days
before the Young murder; don't
recollect whether he gave me the
name of the person for whom he



The Cold Spring Tragedy. 33
wanted the bonds, but said he was the testimony of the bank officers
worth $300,000. m and employes, by Mr. Dye, and
By State—Don’t think I asked shows all the bank transactions of
him who the person was, but may Mrs. Clem, Dr. Duzan, William J.
have done so; believe I did. Abrams and Jacob Young, during
The following table, arranged the period covered by the dates of
chronologically, was collated from the several transactions:
SECRET FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF MRS. NANCY E. CLEM, AND DIR.
W. N. DUZAN.
1868 -
April 2, Mrs. Clem borrows of Dr. Duzan......... $2,000 00
April 7, Mrs. Clem returns to Dr. Duzan........... 2,000 00
April 22, Mrs. Clem borrows.............................. 1,300 00
May 5, Mrs. Clem borrows................................. 1,500 00
– 2,800 00
June 3, Mrs. Clem returns................................. 1,000 00
June 3, balance due Duzan............... ................. 1,800 00
June 11, Mrs. Clem borrows .............................. 3,500 00
June 11, ........................................................ 5,300 00
June 19, interest on the above sums at 1 per cent..... 56 50
June 19, am't of principal and am’t due Duzan ...... 5,356 50
June 19, Mrs. Clem returns................................ 10,000 00
June 19, Dr. Duzan's net profit........................... 4,643 50
July 11, Mrs. Clem borrows.............................. 20,000 00
July 17, Mrs. Clem returns.................. 14,000 00
July 25, Mrs. Clem returns.................. 1,000 00
July 25, Mrs. Clem returns.................. 3,000 00
July 29, Mrs. Clem returns.................. 6,500 00
- –24,500 00
July 29, Duzan's profit in July........................... 4,500 00
July 29, deduct interest and stamp..................... 75 00
4,425 00
July 29, Dr. Duzan's net profits.......................... 9,068 50
FINANCES OF MRS. NANCY E. C.L.E.M.
Thursday April 2.
April 2, Mrs. Clem borrowed of Duzan................. 2,000 00
April 2, Jacob Young paid Arthur Wright............ 500 00
April 3, Jacob Young deposited at Haughey's........ 1,500 00
- — 2,000 00
84 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
Friday April 3.
April 3, Abrams borrowed of Harrison................. 1,500 00
April 3, Abrams deposited at Citizens’.................. 1,430 00
April 4, Abrams checked from Citizens’................. 1,430 00
April 4, Young deposited at Haughey's................. 1,450 00
Saturday April 4.
April 4, Young checked from Haughey's............... 1,800 00
April 4, Young paid Malott................................ 1,000 00
April 4, Young paid Arthur Wright.................... 800 00
Monday April 6.
April 6, Mrs. Clem borrowed of Ann Hottle......... 925 00
April 6, Young checked from Haughey's............... 1,200.00
April 6, Young borrowed of Haughey.................. 2,000 00
April 6, Young borrowed of Wright.................... 1,000 00
April 6, Abrams deposited at Harrison's............... 5,000 00
Tuesday, April 7.
April 7, Abrams checked from Harrison's.............. 5,000 00
April 7, Young borrowed of English.................... 5,000 00
April 7, Mrs. Clem paid Duzan........................... 2,000 00
April 7, Mrs. Clem paid Abrams' note at Fletchers. 1,000 00
April 7, Mrs. Clem paid her own notes at Fletchers. 1,500 00
April 8, Abrams deposited at Citizens’.................. 3,000 00
April 18, Abrams deposited at Citizens’................. 1,960 00
Not deposited ..........................................
April 18.-Result of two weeks' business.
April 2, Abrams had no money............................
April 3, he had borrowed only............................. 1,430 00
April 18, he had on deposit................................ 4,960 00
Where did the profits come from *.................
April 2, Mrs. Clem was in debt to the bank...........
April 2, she borrowed of Duzan.......................... 2,000 00
April 7, she borrowed of Ann Hottle.................... 925 00
— 10,000 00
1,800 00
1,800 00
9,460 00
540 00



-
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
35
April 7, she paid Duzan.................................... 2,000 00
April 7, she paid Fletcher................................. 2,500 00
Where did the balance come from ?.................
Mrs. Clem's and Abrams' profits in two weeks...
April 6, Young borrowed of Haughey.................. 2,000 00
April 6, Young borrowed of Wright.................... 1,000 00
April 7, Young borrowed of English.................... 5,000 00
Total borrowed by Young ........................... 8,000 00
April 2, Young paid Wright.................. 500 00
April 4, Young paid Wright.................. 800 00
April 4, Young paid Malott.................... ! %
April 7, Young paid Haughey................. -
P g p gney – 2,700 00
Excess of Young's loans.............................. 5,300 00
Deduct to pay interest and bonus to indorser..... 19500
April 18-Business resumed.
April 18, Abrams had on deposit........................
April 20, he checked out................................... 2,000 00
April 21, he checked out................................... 2,650 00
April 27, he checked out................................... 310 00
April 30–Young borrows more.
April 30, Young borrows of Haughey..................
*" 30, Abrams deposits at Citizens’..................
ay 1, he checks out....................................... -
May-Monthly settlement day.
May 11, Young borrows of English....................
May 11, deduct interest and bonus......................
May 11, proceeds of loan.................................
May 11, Young pays Malott.......... ------------------- 1,000 00
May 11, Young pays English........................... 5,000 00
May 11, Abrams deposits at Citizens’................. 4,500 00
May 11, Abrams deposits at Harrison's............... 4,000 00
May 11, Abrams borrowed of Citizens’............... 3,874 00
May 11, and deposited this also........................ 3,874 00
4,500 00
1,575 00
5,10500
5,10500
4,960 00
4,960 00
5,000 00
4,500 00
4,500.00
15,000 00
500 00
14,500 00
14,500 00

36 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
-->
May 11, total borrowed by Young..................... 14,500 00
May 11, total borrowed by Abrams.................... 3,874 00
May 11, total paid by Young........................... 6,000 00
May 11, deposited by Abrams.......................... 12,37400
May 12–What became of the $12,374 Abrams
- had on deposit?
May 12, Abrams checked from Citizens.............. 4,37400
May 14, Mrs. Clem deposited in the name of W.
F. Clem, at Fletcher & Sharpe's.................. 2,000 00
May 25, Abrams checked from Harrisons’............ 4,000 00
May 24, Abrams checked from Citizens’.............. 2,000 00
May 26, Young pays Haughey.............. 5,000 00
May 29, Abrams deposits at Citizens’........1,000 00
Saturday, May 30.-Young borrows more, and Mrs.
Clem deposits proceeds. -
Saturday, May 30, Young borrows of Haughey.....
Monday, June 1, Mrs. Clem deposited in the name
of her husband, W. F. Clem, at Fletcher &
Sharpe's bank.......................................
June 11–Monthly settlement day.
June 11, Mrs. Clém draws from Fletcher & Sharpe's
bank, on two certificates of deposit, indorsed
by W. F. Clem.......................................
June 12, Mrs. Clem borrows of Dr. Duzan...........
June 11, Young paid Haughey.............. 2,500 00
June 13, Young paid Haughey............... 4,200 00
June 17, Young paid Haughey............... 1,000 00
June 17, balance not paid out...........................
June 18, Young borrows of Haughey......9,000 00
June 18, deduct interest, stamps............ 200 00
18,37400
18,37400
6,000 00
6,000 00
4,000 00
5,585 00
3,500 00
9,085 00
7,700 00
1,385 00
8,800 00
10,185.00

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 37
June 19, Duzan pays note at Fletcher's...3,500 00
June 19, and deposits........................... 6,500 00
- 10,000 00
July 11.-Monthly settlement day.
Saturday, July 11, Mrs. Clem borrows of Duzan..... 20,000 00
Monday, July 13, Young pays Haughey................9,000 00
Monday, July 13, and deposits........................... 5,500 00
14,500 00
Monday, July 13, balance in Mrs. Clem's hands... 5,500 00
July 13, Young same day checked from Haughey's. 4,000 00
July 13, and same day borrowed from Haughey's. 7,000 00 -
- 11,000 00
Which he probably paid to Mrs. Clem, making the
amount of............................................... 16,500 00
Suly 17, Duzan paid Fletcher........................... 14,000 00
July 25, Duzan deposited................................. 4,000 00
July 29, Duzan deposited................................. 6,500 00
10,500 00
July 29. Of this, Mrs. Clem told Duzan his share
of the profits of the business was.................. 8,000 00
Transactions in August.—Dr. Duzan tries to raise
more money, and fails.
August 10. There was coming due to English..... 15,000 00
August 12. There was coming due to Haughey... 7,000 00
22,000 00
About August 1, Mrs. Clem called on Dr. Duzan
to get him to raise for some new transaction... 22,000 00
Dr. Duzan could not succeed, but lent to her the -
sum of........................."........................... 6,000 00
August 5, Young borrowed of Tousey................. 12,000 00
August 5, Young borrowed of Malott.................. 3,000 00
August 5, Abrams borrowed of Mansur............... 2,000 00
- — 23,000 00
After paying the note to English on the 10th, Aug-
ust 12, Young borrowed another................. 15,000 00
Transactions in September.
September 7, there was coming due by Jaco
Young, at the Indiana National Bank........... 12,000 00
September 14, there was coming due at the First
National Bank......................................... 15,000 00
27,000 00

38 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
In addition to this, Young owed Dorsey............... 14,543 00
And Arthur Wright....................................... 2,000 00
— 16,543 00
Total..................................................... 43,543 00
BUYING OF THE GUN.
W. J. Abrams was brought into
court.
Mrs. Rebecca Marott—My place
of business is on East Washington
street, on south side, between Dela-
ware and Pennsylvania streets. I
keep a second-hand furniture store.
(Mr. Abrams stood up.) A man
called at my store about eight o'clock
on the morning of the murder, and
inquired for a shotgun; I recognize
Mr. Abrams as the man; I told
him we had none, and in answer to
his inquiry, I told him he might get
one on Illinois street; my husband
came in as the man was leaving.
Cross-examined—I think he was
dressed in drab clothes, but am not
sure, and think he had on a low
crowned drab hat; fix the time from
the fact that the boy had just got
through sweeping the store, and was
dusting; Mr. Marott opened the
store; do not recollect the boy's
name; the boy was near the back
door at the time the man was there;
sometimes keep guns for sale; know
that it was Saturday from the fact
of the murder; remembered the
circumstance the day after Abrams
was arrested; the man went west
after passing out; saw Abrams in
prison on Wednesday afternoon after
his arrest, in jail; went with Louis
Marott; cannot say if the man came
to the store on foot or in a buggy;
was a witness on the former trial,
and then said that I thought Mr.
Abrams was the man.
[The Court remarked that that
was not all the witness had said in
that connection, and it was not fair
to the witness to leave an impression
on the minds of the jury by select-
ing only a portion of the evidence
she gave on that examination. The
counsel (Mr. Hanna) denied an in-
tention of any unfair dealing toward
the witness. The full testimony of
Mrs. Marott on the former trial was
then read].
Direct—I have no doubts and
have had none since I first saw him
but what Abrams was the man.
H. W. Hildebrand–Lumber
dealer; know W. J. Abrams, and
employed him to work for me two
years ago; Saturday morning, Sep-
tember 14th, I saw him on Wash-
ington street, near Charles Mayer's,
between eight and nine o'clock; he
was walking fast and passed me.
By Defense—Think he had dark
clothes on; know the collar of his
coat was black, and think he had
on a light hat.
Recalled—Am not positive that
he had on a light hat; saw his face
and looked at him within a distance
of two or three feet.
AETERNOON SESSION.
H. W. Hildebrand recalled—Know
it was Saturday morning by trans-
actions at bank that day.
Cross-examined—Deposited $100
with the Indiana Banking Company
that day.
John R. Marott–Keep a second
hand store at No. 87 East Washing-
ton street, just east of Hunt's auc-
tion room; one morning a man was
in my store inquiring for a gun;
cannot fix the date.
Cross-examined – Think it was
near eight o'clock, nearer eight than
nine; took no notice of the man or
how he was dressed, and could not
recognize him; he was in the door-
way as I passed in. .
Aaron L. Hunt—In September

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 39
last I kept an auction room at 85
East Washington street; on the day
of the murder, between half-past
seven and nine o'clock, a man came
to my room and inquired for a gun;
think Mr. Abrams there was the
man; he came in and asked if I had
any shotguns; told him I had, and
walked about half way down the
room with him, when I remarked
that my shot guns were muskets;
he replied that a musket would not
answer his purpose, that he wanted
a double barreled shotgun; he then
went out; he called me by name;
his face was familiar to me; I went
to the jail to see the man, on, Ithink,
Wednesday after the murder, and
my decided impression is that Mr.
Abrams was the man who called at
the store for the gun.
Cross-examined—Do not recollect
of having any transactions, by way
of sales, with Abrams; did not know
the name of W. J. Abrams before
the murder; have no recollection of
how he was dressed; first saw him
in front part of the store, and can
not say if he came or went away in
a buggy or on foot; think my clerk
and other persons were present, but
can not cali to mind the names of
them.
Isaac Sweede (colored)—On Sat-
urday, September 12th, I was work-
ing for J. M. Solomons, on South
Illinois street, nearly opposite Du-
vall's, and directly opposite Mrs.
Stevens' store; Mr. Solomons keeps
a pawn shop; I was standing at the
front counter, and noticed a man
pass by: Mr. Joseph Solomons was
standing at a desk at back of store;
the man picked up a gun and asked
the price of it; Mr. Solomons said
ten dollars; this attracted my atten-
tion, as it was more than he over
had asked for the gun, and I looked
around the screen and saw the man;
Mr. Abrams is the only man I have
seen that looked like the man; I
went out of the store, and when I
got back the man had bought the
gun and passed out; (witness ex-
amined the gun in court); this is
the same gun that was sold that
morning, and that the man had in
his hands.
Cross-cºamined—At quarter-past
eight took a double barreled gun to
a gentleman in an office opposite the
post office; it was about five or ten
minutes after my return that the
gentleman came in; the man had
the gun in his hand when I looked
around the screen; think Solomons
was making a check out for some
lady who was present; two men were
at the front counter; the man had
on a black hat with round crown
and stiff brim; only saw the side
of his face; do not know which way
he went; did not see him buy the
gun, but know no one else went in
and bought it, as they would not
have had time before my return.
Joseph Solomons—My place of bu-
siness is at 25 South Illinois street,
where I keep a pawnbroking estab-
lishment; recollect selling a shot
gun on the 12th day of last Septem-
ber; the witness was shown a gun
and identified it as being the one he
sold; it was sold about nine o'clock
A. M., to a man who came in to
buy; my impressions are that it
was Abrams who bought the gun;
saw him on the Tuesday following,
on the corner of Washington and
Illinois streets; there were several
parties in the store at the time; he
walked in and went straight to the
gun rack and picked up the gun,
and asked the price; told him ten
dollars; he paid me the ten dollars:
took it and went out.
Cross-examined — Don’t recollect
how he was dressed; I got a fair
view of the man's face; he was in
the room five minutes—no one with
him; never had any acquaintance
with W. J. Abrams; my store is
frequented by transient customers,
as well as regular; Sheriff Parker
pointed out Abrams to me, on

40 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
Washington street, a few days af.
terward.
Direct—My impression was, on
seeing him, that he looked very
much like the man buying the gun;
Frees' hardwaro store is on Wash-
ington street, about a half square
from my store.
Josephine Stevens–Live at No. 32
South Illinois street, right opposite
Solomons'; on Saturday, 12th of
September, about nine o'clock in
the morning, a man came in and
wanted to see a double barreled
shotgun; showed him one and told
him the price was twenty dollars;
he said it was rather rusty; I then
showed him a rifle, and he said that
would not do; I directed him to
Mr. Solomons', and I saw him go
across the street and into Solo-
mons’; I heard of the murder on
the Monday following; Mr. Abrams
there is the man.
Cross-examined—Heard that the
murder was on Sunday; the man
had on a dark coat, and speckled
ants, and dark hat; his beard was
onger than that now worn by Mr.
Abrams; my mother was in the
back room; did not notice his eyes;
recognized him by the hair and
whiskers; am near-sighted and quit
school on that account; my eyes
were worse then than they are now;
he had on a round-crown, black
hat, with stiff brim; saw Abrams
at the jail; was taken there by Mr.
Wilson, Chief of Police.
Direct–Saw him at the jail four
or five days after the murder; at
the jail, Mr. Wilson first brought
out two men, and I told him that
neither of them were the one; then
looked in the cells, and pointed out
Abrams as the man.
Flora Eilhart—I lived, on Sep-
tember 12th, with W. J. Abrams,
on North East street; he left the
house between seven and eight
o'clock, A. M., in a one-horse buggy;
he had on light pants, dark brown
coat, and a white straw hat; he re-
turned between nine and ten o’clock,
brought back some peaches, pota-
toes, etc.; after that he went after
vinegar; he was gone about an hour;
he went out to the stable and un-
hitched his horse; he then com-
menced washing the buggy, and fin-
ished it after dinner; after washing
the buggy he took a bath and
changed his clothes, then went down
street; he left home between two
and three o'clock; Mr. Sanders was
working there that afternoon, paint-
ing the house; there were no men
called there that afternoon; he did
not return until six o'clock.
Cross-examined—That afternoon I
was canning peaches until four
o'clock; we breakfasted soon after
six o'clock; ten or fifteen minutes
after breakfast he hitched up his
horse; it was only a little after seven
o'clock, A. M., when he left the
house in the buggy; the peaches
were in a basket; I could not de-
scribe the kind of clothes he had on
the following day; my attention was
first called to the kind of clothes he
had on September 12th just before
the last trial; he had a black hat on
in the afternoon; sometimes he wore
one kind of a hat, and then another;
I have not talked with Mrs. Abrams
about this matter.
E. G. Sanders—Painter; have
known Mr. Abrams about eighteen
months, and saw him on the morn-
ing of September 12th at Clem's
grocery; he bought some peaches,
which were placed in his buggy, and
I conversed with him; he paid me
a dollar on account; he was there
about three-quarters of an hour, and
went away toward his house; this
was about 8:30 or 8:45; he wore a
straw hat; saw him again at one
o'clock, when I went to work at his
house; he left the house on foot
about two o'clock; saw no man
about the house; never saw Silas
A. Hartman before to-day.
By State—Mr. Abrams had been
wearing the same hat for sometime;

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 41
did not think how he was dressed
until after reading Solomons' testi-
mony in the last trial; saw Hanna
& Knefler before the trial, and told
them about the hat; I was mistaken
in the preceding statement; after
Abrams' arrest it took me several
days to study out the time I saw
him at Clems' grocery; Abrams had
about five dollars when he paid me
the dollar bill; I wanted to buy
some butter beans with the money;
the peaches were in a basket, but I
did not see in the jug; I have
changed my mind about Enoch
Reed's being in the buggy from con-
versing with him and Captain Ben
Abrams about it.
Recalled—First saw Enoch Reed
on the sidewalk, and did not know
whether he came in the buggy or
not. -
Aaron Clem–Am a brother to
Frank Clem; do business on the
corner of Delaware and Massachu-
setts avenue; on September 12th, I
got to my store between seven and
eight o'clock in the morning; Wil-
liam J. Abrams came to the store
that morning about half-past seven
or eight o'clock, in a buggy, and
bought some peaches; he was in
the store from fifteen to thirty min-
utes; I carried the box of peaches
out to the buggy; saw nothing else
in there; my brother was at the
grocery all that day, except when at
his meals; so far as I know, Frank
Clem got his letters from the post-
office in September, at the general
delivery.
Cross-examined—If my brother
went to the post office on that day,
I don't know it.
James Thompson, David Lanis and
Benjamin Wert–Employes in the
grocery of Clem & Brother, were
next examined, in the order of
naming; their testimony corrob-
orated that of Aaron Clem in re-
§. to Abrams being at the store,
eptember 12th, placing the time
from half-past seven to half-past
eight o'clock A. M.
Frank Price—I clerked for Clem
& Brother last September; I know
William J. Abrams; I saw him,
September 12th, on Ohio street, be-
tween Mississippi street and the ca-
mal, one square from the fruit
house; I was in a wagon, and pass-
ed near him; it was between nine
and ten o’clock A. M.
Cross-examined—It was not until
after I heard he was arrested that I
spoke of seeing him that morning;
can’t tell within an hour of the
time that I met him on Ohio
street.
John Jackson–Fruit House Gro-
cery, West Ohio street; was at the
grocery, September 12th ; on that
morning or afternoon, some man
came there in a buggy and bought
some vinegar; he came and went
on Ohio street, east; would not
know the man if I should see him.
By the State–Never have seen
the man before or since; he only
bought cider vinegar; don't know
the time of day.
John Ludlow – No. 34 North
Pennsylvania street; Abrams was
at my meat store on the afternoon
of the murder, at about four o'clock
or half-past.
George Bennett (policeman)–
Saw Abrams near his residence on
the afternoon of the murder about
five oclock.
ALIBI EVIDENCE.
Albert Patton—I am the son of
Mrs. Clem; am eighteen years old;
went to Richmond on the 9th day
of September to go to Earlham Col-
lege; I did not see any lace gaiters
about the house before I left home;
my mother wore gaiter shoes to
Richmond; I saw them in the om-
nibus at the depot; the first letter
I wrote home was on the 10th.
[Witness was shown a letter, and
recognized it as the one he wrote on

42 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
that day]. I directed the letter to
W. F. Clem, my stepfather.
Cross-examined — Don’t recollect
what kind of dress or hat she had
on that day.
Charles Donnalon–Reside at 92
East New York street; I boarded
at Madam Resue's on September
12th, on that afternoon I left my
room, near the Bates House, at two
o'clock; I went up to see Mr. Pear-
son, on Alabama street, next door
to Mrs. Clem's house; 'I was at
Pearson's gate about a minute;
came back on the avenue; in pass-
ing Hartman's house heard a lady
calling Pearson from the window; I
looked around and saw she was not
calling me and passed on; this was
about two and a halfo’clock; I went
to my room and stayed there an
hour, and then went to the postoffice;
in going around the corner leading
to the ladies' general delivery, I ac-
cidentally ran against a lady and
apologized; saw her face; this was
near three and a half o'clock; I
first saw her in the window and
then at the postoffice; I again saw
the same woman with her husband
coming down North street the Sun-
day after the murder.
Cross-examined – In September
last I was working out an invention
of an improvement on a reaper;
this was the only business I have
been in for two years; I went up to
borrow a vest of Pearson on the Sat-
urday of the murder to wear to
church the next day; Mr. Pearson
was in the “policy business; ” I
have been at his place of operations
a good many times; had no business
connection with Pearson; I saw men
in there playing, putting their money
on certain numbers and trusting to
luck; I put ten cents on once my-
self; Henry Reed boarded at our
house on September 16th; Pearson
came there to board the last Satur-
day in October; after Mrs. Clem's
arrest Pearson and I talked about
seeing Mrs. Clem; I cannot see out
of my left eye; Mrs. Clem passed
me in the postoffice on the left side;
the murder fixed the circumstance
of Saturday, September 12th, in
my mind; on Sunday evening I
heard of the murder, and thought
over all where I had been that day;
when I run against her in the post-
office I was much confused; my im-
ression is I stepped on her dress;
don’t know whether her dress was
short or trailed; I could step on a
short dress if she stooped much in
bowing; a few days after the mur-
der I visited Cold Spring and saw
Mr. Dye out there with a sickly
looking man; I don’t know whether
it was Mr. Fishback or not; I was
at the postoffice three times on Sat-
urday, September 12th ; the woman
calling Pearson was at the north
window of Hartman's house.
George W. Koontz—I was clerk-
ing in the postoffice last September.
[Witness was shown a letter written
by Albert Patton, and explained as
to the several stamps appearing on
it]. I don't think Frank Clem had
a box last September, and conse-
quently received his letters at the
general delivery; on September 12th
we received mails from Richmond
at nine o'clock in the evening, and
letters coming in that mail for the
general delivery would be stamped
and put in the alphabetical boxes
by eight or half-past eight o'clock.
William Brown—I left home on
Saturday morning, the 12th day of
September, at eight o'clock; I went
to Mrs. Clem's house, and from
there to Roll's paper store; I met
Mrs. Clem coming toward home
about a square this side, at about
eight o'clock; Mrs. Clem was attend-
ing to her usual duties that morn-
Ingº.
º, Pierson—On the day of the
murder I was living next door to
Mrs. Clem's house; Isaw Mrs. Clem
in her house that afternoon about
four o'clock; she was standing in

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 43
the hall and had a broom in her
hand.
Cross-examined—I was twelve
years old the 20th day of last Sep-
tember; [her appearance indicated
eight or nine]; I saw Mr. Abrams
there at the same time,
Chris. Loucks—I reside six miles
north-east of the city; I am a bro-
ther-in-law to Mrs. Clem; I was in
the city the 12th day of September
last; was at Mrs. Clem's house in
the afternoon; I took sixty-five
pounds of flour there, and carried
it upstairs; was in the house about
ten minutes; Mrs. Clem was in the
hall as I went in ; I left about fif-
teen minutes past four; looked at
her clock as I was leaving; I did
not see any appearance of wall pa-
pering in the hall.
Cross-examined—On the following
Monday or Tuesday I took some
grapes to Mrs. Clem; took some
grapes to Clem's grocery September
12th, about one o'clock; I went to
T. E. Johnson's law office along with
Mr. Chrisman; I was there about
twenty minutes; this was on Satur-
day, the same day I took the flour
to Clem’s house.
Mrs. C. E. Bright—I resided last
September on the corner of Third
and Tennessee streets; on the af.
ternoon of September 12th, I left
home with my mother at three
o'clock, and went to the New York
Store; I got there about half-past
three; there was a slight shower of
rain before we started; I saw Mrs.
Clem at the store, looking at some
hosiery; I spoke to her; we pur-
chased twenty-four yards of mus-
lin; when I left the New York
Store she was still standing near the
hosiery department; it was nearly
five o'cloock when I got home; we
moved on the 21st of September,
which makes me remember the
date; I was employed at the Trade
Palace at the time I heard of Mrs.
Clem's arrest, and immediately re-
membered seeing her on that after-
noon; I talked to my mother con-
cerning it, and wrote a note to her
counsel regarding the fact.
º, ºf wººed down
street; my mother is sixty years
old, and was quite weak; she had
just recovered from a spell of sick-
ness; the distance from our house
to the New York Store is seventoon
and a half squares; we started ten
minutes after three, and got to the
New York Store about half-past
three; left the store about ten min-
utes before four o'clock, and return-
ed by way of the postoffice, taking
the º street cars at the Macy
House; got home ten minutes be-
fore five o'clock; we went home in
half the time we came down; in the
summer of 1865 I did sewing for
Levi W. Pierson's family; my mo-
ther lived there as housekeeper for
Mr. Pierson; I have never visited
there since; I have seen Mrs. Clem
at Pierson's house five or six times;
I was employed at the Trade Pal-
ace eight weeks.
Mrs. Frederica. Gºinther – Was
next examined, and corroborated
the principal points in the statement
of her daughter, Mrs. C. E. Bright,
in regard to meeting Mrs. Clem at
the New York Store at three o’clock
on September 12th ; on the cross-
examination she said: At the other
trial I said the way I remembered
the occurrences of the 12th of Sep-
tember, was by my daughter writ-
ing a letter; I have not talked to
any one else but my daughter about
my testimony; I was tolerably weak
on that day; did not meet any one
going or coming that I knew, ex-
cept Mrs. Clem.
W. J. O'Flaherty—I live in Cin-
cinnati, and deliver books for a New
York publishing house; on the 12th
day of September last I was deliv-
ering books on Alabama, Delaware,
Massachusetts avenue, St. Joseph
and Pratt streets; after being sub-
poenied on this trial I went to see a
house, No. 266 North Alabama

44 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
street, where Mrs. Clem lives, and
believe I called at this house on that
afternoon; I asked the lady who ap-
peared at the door if she would sub-
scribe for the books; she did not
subscribe. [The prisoner stood up
for identification, and witness said
he would like to see her with her
hat off. The prisoner took her hat
off. He then thought the woman
he saw at No. 266 was larger]. I
could not describe the color of the
hair or complexion of the woman I
met there; I think it was about
half-past four o'clock when I was at
this house.
Cross-examined—One of the coun-
sel for the defense asked me in the
hall a few minutes since if I thought
it was not earlier than half-past four
o'clock; I left some books at Ingram
Fletcher's house the same day and
was paid two days afterwards in
money and not by check; I called
at Mrs. Harris', on North street,
the same day; I have no memoranda
to show the date of calling at Mrs.
Clem's, but rely solely on my mem-
Ory.
º Hartman (grandmother)—
I am the mother of Nancy E. Clem;
I am seventy-nine years old; on the
12th day of September last, I re-
sided with Mrs. Clem; my son,
Silas, came home about five o'clock
that evening, and brought a beef-
steak with him; Mrs. Clem came to
her own home a few minutes after
four o'clock; I heard her laughing
and talking over at Matthew Hart-
man's; the colored girl, Ann Tal-
bott, said it was five o'clock; I
looked at the clock, and it was only
four; she (Mrs. Clem) had on a
calico dress, and a hat; Abrams was
at Hartman's house in theaſternoon;
I was peeling peaches; Viola Pier-
son came over after Mrs. Clem got
back; the week before the murder
Mrs. Clem gave me a package of
money to keep for her; it was about
an inch and a half thick; Some one
came to her house since Mrs. Clem’s
arrest and took away a calico dress;
don't know whether it was an officer
or not; I have been living at Mrs.
Clem's since her arrest; have never
seen a pair of new gaiter shoes about
the house before or since the mur-
der. [Mr. Hanna read to the wit.
ness Albert Patton's letter to his
stepfather for the purpose of identi-
fying it as the same read to her the
evening of the murder; the witness
said it was the same T.
Cross-examined—Mr. Leathers
read this letter over to me since,
and I heard it read on the last trial;
I saw Mr. Young at Hartman's
house on the morning of the mur-
der; Mrs. Clem was in the habit of
giving me money to keep for her;
the carpets were up in the sitting
room, parlor and hall; we left the
cuttings of paper on the floor.
The counsel for the defense offered
in evidence the envelope enclosing
Albert Patton's letter. -
Martin Crissman–I live in Dear-
born county, Indiana; on the 12th
day of September last, I came to
town with Christian Loucks; first
heard of the murder on the Tues-
day following.
Cross-examined—Dearborn count
is where my father lives; I ".
for Charles Loucks, brother to
Christian; I have not lived in
Dearborn county for near two years;
after dinner, on Saturday, we went
to lawyer Johnson's office; did not
see him ; I went there to leave a
message for a man named Snyder;
stayed there but a few minutes; I
came to town with Christian Loucks
sometime in August; don't know
the day of the week or month; the
next Tuesday or Wednesday after
the murder, I talked with Loucks
about coming to town with him.
Mary Serbert–On Saturday, 12th
of September, I was at Mr. Arnhal-
ter's, on South New Jersey street;
on the afternoon of that day Chris-
tian Loucks called to see me; I
heard of the murder the following
The Cold Spring Tragedy. 45
8th day of September at her house,
with a roll of money two inches in
diameter; the money was in pack-
ages; she gave this money to her
mother, and we then started down
street together.
Cross-examined—I was sick two
weeks at Mr. Arnhalter's; I saw
Mr. Loucks several times during
that time.
Nancy Loucks—On the 12th day
of September last, my husband
started from home, toward the city,
at ten o'clock in the morning.
Julia McCarty–On Saturday,
September 12th, Mrs. Clem was in
Matthew Hartman's house, at four
o'clock; I was scrubbing in the
kitchen and looked at the clock; it
was then five minutes of four, and
Mrs. Clem came in soon after;
Mrs. Hartman got me a pair of No.
3 lace gaiter shoes the Saturday be-
fore the murder; I showed the
shoes to Mrs. Clena the next Tues-
day.
Cross-examined—It was near two
o'clock when she went out at the
back part of the lot; she had to
climb over the fence in going out
that way; when I was first exam-
ined before the Grand Jury, I swore
that Mrs. Clem was at home all that
afternoon; I afterwards corrected
º testimony; I knew when I tes-
tified she had left the house; my
reason for swearing in that way was
that Mrs. Clem requested me to; I
stated to the Grand Jury, in my
first examination, that I did not
look at the clock when Mrs. Clem
came back; Mrs. Clem told me to
say it was between three and four
o'clock at the time she returned;
the shoes Mrs. Hartman bought me
are worn out and thrown away; I
had the shoes at the time of the last
trial; was not examined in reſer-
ence to them; in my second exami-
nation before the Grand Jury, I
stated that I could not tell whether
it was twenty minutes or five min-
Tuesday; I saw Mrs. Clem on the
utes of four o'clock; this was not
the truth; I also stated that I had
no idea or opinion as to how long
it was after looking at the clock that
Mrs. Clem came in ; this was not
true; on that examination I stated
that I did not know of Mr. Young
being there; this was not true; I
made this statement under oath and
of my own volition; when Mrs.
Clem came back at four o'clock, she
had on a hat and a dark calico
dress; it was a long dress; have not
seen the dress since; Mrs. Hartman
was in the house when Mrs. Clem
came in ; Mrs. Clem stayed there
ten to ſifteen minutes; Abrams was
not there; I saw him afterwards in
the kitchen, about five oclock; he
was in Mrs. Hartman's dining
room with Mrs. Clem; he followed
her home in a few minutes after she
left.
Direct—I was before the Grand
Jury five times; I recollect of see-
ing Pet Hartman; she was playing
the piano; Abrams, at this time,
was in the house; the day Mrs.
Hartman bought me the shoes I
went to a Democratic ball the same
evening; the time I now speak of
seeing her is true; she had on a
black silk sacque over her dress.
By the State—I can't state the ex-
act time Mrs. Clem left; Abrams
came there just after Mrs. Clem
went away.
Rebecca Hartman—Mr. Sandford
Hartman's wife came down street
with me on the Saturday before the
murder; I got Julia McCarty and
Pet a pair of shoes; Julia's were
No. 3, lace gaiters; Mrs. Clem was
not with me at Cady's shoe store
within several weeks prior to the
murder; I think I made the pur-
chases at Cadys; on the afternoon
of the murder I saw Mrs. Clem at
our house at five minutes after four
o'clock; I looked at the clock; she
had on a dark calico dress, with a
sack over it, and a hat.
Cross-examined—I am a sister-in-



46 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
law to Mrs. Clem; I made visits
with her to Young's house; the
facts were concealed from our hus-
bands; I sent for Mrs. Napoleon B.
Taylor after the murder, and told
her not to say anything about seeing
Mr. Young at our house, on the
morning of the murder; before the
Grand Jury I think I said I did not
hear any one say they saw Young
at our house; when I was first ex-
amined before the Grand Jury I
expect I said Mrs. Clem was at our
house all the afternoon of the mur-
der; this was not true; I testified
to an untruth because Mrs. Clem
requested it; she did not make any
threats to me directly, but heard
she did to others; she told me not
to say anything about her absence
that afternoon; she was in our house
between one and two o'clock on that
day; I don’t know the store at which
I bought the shoes on Saturday, the
week before the murder; I think I
saw Johnny Patterson in Cady’s shoe
store, where I bought Julia Mc-
Carty's shoes; the shoes I bought
Pet were lace gaiters, No. two's and
a half; I said before the Grand
Jury that I never was at Young's
house with Mrs. Clem; this was not
true; Mrs. Clem told me never to
say anything about it; Abrams was
at our house, or came in when Mrs.
Clem was there; he staid in until
near five o'clock that afternoon;
Mr. Abrams and I went over to
Clem's to look at the wall paper;
when Mrs. Clem came back, at four
o'clock, Abrams was in the sitting-
room, and when she went home
Abrams followed her.
GOING TO AND THENCE FROM
COLD SPRING.
John B. Sullivan–I keep livery
stable at No. 10 Pearl street; Silas
Hartman has been at the stable sev-
eral times, but do not know him;
on Saturday, September 12th, about
two P. M., as I was coming from the
Fair Ground, I met on Massachu-
setts avenue, near the corner of
Delaware street, one of our livery
“turnouts;” the vehicle was a top-
buggy with red running gears, drawn
by a sorrel mare, bobtailed, blazed-
faced, with white hind legs; the top
of the buggy was clear down when
I saw it; the mare is a fine roadster,
and can easily be driven eight or
nine miles an hour, or trot a mile
in four minutes; the mare came
home after seven o’clock that even-
ing; my partner, Mr. Drew, was
there at the time; Hartman brought
her back; he got out on the side op-
posite from me; the top was up;
the mare was very warm, seemed to
be jaded, and was so tired she could
hardly walk, caused by being over-
driven, and she has never recovered
from that drive.
Cross-examined—After dinner I
went to the Fair Grounds and re-
mained there a few minutes; as I
returned I came down Delaware
street; when I saw Hartman on the
avenue he was not going over five
miles an hour; this avenue leads to
the Pendleton road. [Mr. Sullivan
gave a description of the buggy-bed,
its length, shape, etc. He thought
the shot gun could not be placed
out of sight by putting it under the
seat]. Hartman did not go in the
stable for a drink of water after get-
ting out of the buggy; it was quite
warm that day, and I think it rained
about three P. M.
Direct—The gun barrel can be
easily separated from the stock;
there was a rug in the buggy; it
covered all the bottom of the buggy
from the seat to the dash; the shoes
were removed from the mare the
Monday following the murder, by
J. G. Smith.
By Defense—The mare is usually
shod every six weeks; all four of
her shoes were on the morning I
took her to the shop; this mare's
foot is smaller than others of her
size; did not stay there and see

The Cold Spring Tragedy.
47
them taken off; don’t know that he
put on new shoes on the fore feet;
the reason why I had the shoes taken
off, was, that the hoof had grown
over the edge of the shoes, which
were, owing to growth of hoof, be-
coming too small.
John A. Drew – keep a livery
stable on Pearl street; know S. A.
Hartman; I hired him a horse and
buggy to go three miles in the coun-
try on the afternoon of the murder.
[This witness, who is a partner of
Mr. Sullivan's, corroborated him in
regard to the time Hartman brought
the horse and buggy home, the con-
dition of mare, shoeing, &c.]
Howard Todd–Livenear the city,
on the Lafayette pike; came with
my father to the city on the after-
noon of the murder, and met Mr.
Young and his wife, and another
lady, in a buggy, near Wood's gro-
cery; knew Mr. and Mrs. Young;
they were all chatting lively, and
seemed to be out pleasure-riding;
did not know Mrs. Clem, and did
not recognize the woman with Mrs.
Young.
Henry Perry Todd–Forty years
in Marion county; live on the La-
fayette pike; on the afternoon of
the murder, I came to the city on
the Crawfordsville road, and met
Mr. Young, whom I knew, near
Woods' grocery, on Indiana avenue;
he was driving a two-seated buggy,
sitting on the front seat; I was in
an open wagon, and spoke to him;
there were a couple of ladies in the
buggy with him, but I did not
know either of them at the time;
think Mrs. Clem was one of the
two ladies, but am not sure of it.
John T. Wiley–Live fourteen
miles northwest of the city; don't
know Jacob Young, his wife, or
Mrs. Clem; know Syke Hartman;
have known him a long time; came
to Indianapolis on the Lafayette
road, and met Jacob Young and
two ladies between the ford and
Fall creek bridge; my father was
with me; they were talking and
laughing; noticed the women as I
passed; I think the prisoner is the
same woman I saw in the carriage;
she has the general appearance, and
I believe it is the same woman; she
had on dark clothes; I met Silas
Hartman about sixty rods behind
Young's carriage, going in the same
direction; know him very well; saw
him in the face; on coming up he
turned his back to us; he gave
more of the road than is usual; his
manner attracted my attention; he
was about four rods from us when
he turned his face from us; Syke
Hartman was driving a short tailed
chestnut sorrel horse; I went this
morning to the stable and picked
out the horse; when we met these
people it was about half-past two
two o'clock.
Cross-examined—Hartman was in
a dark buggy, top up; Young had
on a reddish coat and a dark hat;
one lady was dressed in dark clothes,
the other in light; I was taken be-
fore the Coroner's Jury; saw Mrs.
Clem there; she looks just like the
woman I saw in the buggy; Hart-
man had on black clothing and hat;
the last time I saw Hartman before
that, was on the 18th of August, at
a celebration.
Direct—Under some circumstan-
ces I could not be positive as to
identification, but in this case I can
be positive
John H. Wiley–Reside in Pike
township; am a farmer; have been
intimately acquainted with Silas A.
Hartman for sixteen years; he
worked for me three years ago; I
have known Nancy E. Clem fifteen
years; I know Jacob Young and
his wife; got acquainted with him
eight or ten years ago; the 12th day
of September last, I left home to
come to Indianapolis; traveled the
Lafayette road on that day, crossing
the river at Garner's ford; I looked
at my watch at the river, and it was
twenty minutes after two o'clock;

48 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
I met Jacob Young between White
River and fall Creek; he was riding
in a top buggy; two women were in
the buggy with him; Mrs. Young,
and I think Mrs. Clem; I had a
chance to see them fair in the face;
I spoke to Young and his wife, and
they spoke to me; after passing
Young's buggy—about seventy rods
behind, going in the same direction
—I met Silas Hartman; he was in
a buggy, driving a sorrel horse, me-
dium size, with a bald face; when I
first recognized Hartman, he was
about twelve rods distant; my son
and Italked about his manner; on
coming closer, he changed his posi-
tion in the buggy, having his back
to us; Hartman was driving in a
fast trot; I next met Mrs. Clem at
the Coroner's Jury room; I recog-
nized her there as the same woman
I saw in the buggy; yesterday I saw
the horse Syke Hartman was driv-
ing, and recognized it as being the
one; on seeing Mrs. Clem in the
buggy, it occurred to me as being a
rson I had met before; the name
did not recollect, but was certain
I had seen her at another time.
Cross-examined—I think Young
was dressed in grayish clothes;
never visited Mrs. Clem in this city;
I saw her before the day of the mur-
der, four or five years before, at
James Patton's house; at that time
I talked to her; I think I saw her
since that time in church at Pleas-
ant Hill; Hartman was dressed in
dark clothes, and had on a dark hat;
the buggy top was up, and the back
open; I was in the city a week after
the murder, and went before the
Coroner's Jury; I saw Mrs. Clem
twice before the jury; did not sign
the statement taken down by the
Coroner; I have known James
Combs for fifteen years; after the
murder I had a conversation with
him about it; I did not tell him
that I could not swear to Mrs. Clem
being the woman I saw in the buggy
September 12th, I was at a school
meeting in our neighborhood, and
saw Mr. Wright and others present;
did not state to them that I met
Young and wife and another wo.
man—that she had a veil over her
face, and I could not say who she
was; this school meeting took place
Thursday after the murder; Mrs.
Clem's name was not mentioned
there; I had not then heard that
she was suspicioned; I stated to
them about meeting Young and his
wife; Combs and Italked about the
matter; I told him to tell Hart-
man's folks not to be uneasy, that
if no one else knew no more than I
did about the murder, it would not
hang any one; I had been cautioned
by friends to be careful, as I was an
important witness, and they were
afraid I might be assassinated; I
was examined on the former trial,
and made the statement then that
my impression was Mrs. Clem's ap-
pearance “filled the bill.”
Direct–Saw Syke Hartman half
a dozen times during the year pre-
vious to the murder; the man before
me (Hartman) is the same I saw
in the buggy. -
Charles Chenowetº-Have lived in
this city since last March; on the
afternoon of Saturday, September
12th, I went to Clermont; crossed
the river at Garner's Ford; started
between three and four o'clock; I
met two persons, a man and woman,
between Fall Creek and the river,
coming this way in a buggy; they
were driving recklessly and fast, and
came near running into my vehicle;
the woman looked me full in the
face; my wife was with me; I am
not acquainted with Mrs. Clem or
Mr. Syke Hartman; after crossing
White river, we met a man and two
children in a buggy with fishing
tackle.
Cross-examined—It was near four
o'clock when I left the city; looked
at my watch at the Bec-Hive, and
it was three and a halfo’clock; from
the Bee-Hive we went to the Journal

The Cold Spring Tragedy.
49
-
office, and then started out Indiana
avenue; when I met the first buggy
beyond Fall Creek, it was between
four and four and a half o'clock;
my watch is not a reliable time-
keeper; arrived at Clermont about
6 o'clock; the distance is nine miles.
Nancy Chenoweth–She fully cor-
roborated her husband in his state-
ments. This witness described the
horse these persons were driving,
which answered the description of
the mare Pet. She further stated:
I saw the horse yesterday at the sta-
ble on Pearl street, and believe it is
the same one I have just spoken of;
think I have seen this woman since;
my impression is I saw her in the
court room last Tuesday [Mrs.
Clem]; I was sitting by that (point-
ing) window, and she looked at me,
and then spoke to her husband, and
looked again; her face seemed
flushed.
Cross-examined—Have relatives at
Clermont, whom we were going to
see; started from hotel, stopped at
Bee Hive five or ten minutes, from
there went to Dowling's office, re-
mained there but a short time, and
then started for the country; we
drove fast; I think the woman had
on a dark dress and a light hat,
with wail thrown back; I did not
communicate this information until
after the last trial; I talked with
my husband about it; did not at-
tend the last trial; I was sent for to
attend trial; my husband came for
me; he brought me here to see Mrs.
Clem; the Sheriff or his deputy
gave me the seat near the window;
it was a half hour before she noticed
me, and then she seemed embarrass-
ed; I have not watched Mrs. Clem
coming to and from the trial; never
saw her before; when she came in,
I asked my husband if that was not
her; I think the curtain behind
their buggy was up.
John S. Pierson—Reside on Sec-
and street between Tennessee and
Mississippi, near the corporation
line. Have lived in Indianapolis
nine or ten years; have been ac-
quainted with Nancy E. Clem for
eight years. Ilived with my uncle,
next door to her house, for three
years; have seen her frequently
since I left there. I am acquainted
with Syke Hartman. [The witness
here identified Hartman, who was
present.] I was not examined in
the former trial. In the afternoon
of September 12th, I was trying to
collect money. I started home from
the Palmer House corner about four
o'clock. I know the time by agree-
ing to meet some hands for the pur-
pose of paying them. I also told
my wife I would be home at four
o'clock, and lookod at the Palmer
House clock, it was then about that
time. At the intersection of Wal-
nut and Illinois streets, I met two
persons in a buggy, going east on
Walnut street. It was Mrs. Clem
and Syke Hartman. I was twenty-
five or thirty feet from them, in
front of their horse. They were
driving in a good trot. The horse
was sweating some, and seemed to
be warm. It took me fifteen or
twenty minutes to walk from the
Palmer House to the place of meet-
ing. She was dressed in dark
clothes. Hartman was driving a
sorrel horse with a blace face.
Cross-examined—I came down into
the city after dinner. It was about
four o'clock when I loſt the Palmer
House. From the corner of Wash-
ington and Illinois streets to the
point of meeting, it is seven or eight
squares. I walked at a moderate
ait. I knew it was Mrs. Clem and
Syke Hartman, because I was well
acquainted with them, and did not
need to look at their clothes to iden-
tify. I had an engagement with
my wife at four o'clock, to go into
the country.
John C. Pierson (by defense)—
Yesterday, at the request of Mr.
Hanna, I walked from the Palmer

50
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
House to the corner of Illinois and
Walnut streets, the point of meet-
ing Syke Hartman and Mrs. Clem,
ºn September 12th. I accomplished
the distance in twelve and a half
minutes, walking at an ordinary
gait, and in ten minutes in a very
fast walk.
Cross-examined—During the last
trial I was in the city up to the sixth
day's proceedings. Before I went
away, I made known my testimony
to Mr. Trick, Mr. Davis, and others.
I may have told Levi W. Pierson
of what I testified to before the
Grand Jury. I was at my mother's
at Acton, and in Pennsylvania, sub-
sequent to the sixth day's proceed-
ings. I made the acquaintance of
Mr. Wilkins just after I was before
the Grand Jury. I was in bed
asleep between nine and ten o'clock
at night, when Wilkins came to my
father's house in Acton; I had an
interview with him in the room; no
one else present, He brought a
communication to me. I burnt the
note the next morning; never show-
ed it to any one. I got $25 from
him; he was not owing me any-
thing. I started the next day at
eleven o'clock for Pennsylvania, via
Cincinnati. The trial was in pro-
gress at the time I left Indianapolis.
I was gone two weeks; the defense
had about closed. On returning
from Pennsylvania I was subpoened
by the State at my stepfather's, in
Acton, a week after I got back.
Direct—I don't know whether the
defense was through or not when I
eame back; I never had any com-
munication with Messrs. Hanna,
Leathers or Knefler, either directly
or indirectly, concerning any with-
drawal from the State.
Matthew Hartman—I reside at
252 North Alabama street, next
door to Mrs. Clem's house. I am a
brother of Silas Hartman. Septem-
ber 12th I had some men at work
qn New Jersey street; I paid them
sºme money about fifteen minutes
before five o'clock, and then went
home. I saw Silas Hartman there
as soon as I got home, which was
about five o'clock; he took supper
at my house.
Thomas McCune and John Her-
rington, employes of Matthew Hart-
man, corroborated him in regard to
the time of quitting work Saturday
evening, September 12th, and also
as to the time of receiving their pay.
Wm. L. Dowden—i reside six
miles northeast of the city, on the
Pendleton road. I was in the city
September 12th ; on going home I
met Silas Hartman near the first
toll gate, with some other person;
I spoke to him and he nodded his
head; have known him six or seven
years. I did not know the other
In all.
Cross-examined—The toll gate is
in the edge of the city. It was near
six o'clock when I met Hartman.
Aaron Fee—I keep a tollgate on
the Pendleton road, five and a half
miles from the city. On September
12th, in the afternoon, I recollect
of seeing Mr. Silas Hartman pass
through the gate, between one and
two o'clock. Hartman got out of
the buggy, went to the well and got
a drink, and lit a pipe or cigar. He
talked to me about five minutes. I
don’t know the man that was with
him. Hartman had on a light hat,
black coat and light pants. They
returned and passed through the
gate about half-past four o'clock.
They were driving a sorrel horse
sº *
bald-faced, with three white feet.
Mr. Frank Clem brought the same
horse up to my house about a week
afterward, and I recognized it as
being the same horse. I saw Silas
Hartman at the jail; I recognized
him as being the same man who
assed my house on the 12th day of
September. -
Cross-catamined—All three of the
toll gates on this turnpike are on the
south side of the road; my impres-
sion is the horse had four white feet,

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 51
and white spots on both its sides; I
noticed the spots as they went up
and as they came down; they were
driving tolerably fast; could not
describe any other horse that passed
the gate that day. I would not have
been able to describe the horse if
Mr. Clem had not called my atten-
tion to it when he was there. I
can't give the day of the week Mr.
Clem was there; don’t recollect that
anybody was with him. I examined
the horse closely when Mr. Clem
brought her out. The spokes of the
buggy were painted red, striped with
black, three stripes on a spoke; the
top of the buggy was up when they
went, and down when they came
back. I know John Baughman;
he lives near me. I don’t recollect
whether he passed that day or not.
I could not describe anybody or any
horse that passed through my gate.
last Saturday.
By consent of the counsel, Mrs.
Clem retired to her quarters in the
jail, Mr. Hanna, one of her attor-
neys, stating that she was afflicted
with a severe headache.
Mary Ann Fee–Wife of the for-
mer witness, corroborated her hus-
band as to seeing Hartman at their
toll gate on September 12th, and
the minor details of his testimony.
She places the time of their return
(driving west) at five and a half
o'clock. On the cross-examination,
she said: Hartman had on a light
brown vest and pants; my impres-
sion is he did not wear a moustache
on that afternoon. Don't think I
could remember who else passed
through the gate that day. Mr.
Clem was at our house three times.
When Mr. Clem brought the horse
out, my husband did not recognize
the horse at first. -
James M. Combs—I live in Pike
township. Am very well acquainted
with John H. Wiley. On the even-
ing that Governor Seymour was in
the city, I rode home with him; we
had a conversation about the mur-
der. (Here followed a lengthy at-
tempt to show by this witness that
Wiley made contradictory state-
ments). I can't remember that Mr.
Wiley said he did not know the
woman in the buggy with Youngs,
or that he could not swear she was
the woman. The defense withdrew
the witness and decided to have Mr.
Wiley recalled, putting the ques-
tions to him separately.
Silas White—I have known John
H. Wiley for fifteen years; Thurs-
day night after the murder I met
Mr. Wiley at a school meeting in
our neighborhood. [The Judge told
the witness to answer yes or no to
the questions].
By Attorney–Did John Wiley say
to you, in the conversation referred
to, that when he met Young and
his wife on September 12th, the
second woman had a veil over her
face, and he could not recognize
her? (Witness answered yes).
Cross-examined—Mr. Jno. Walker
was present at the examination; my
first wife was a sister of Mrs. Clem;
am very intimate with Nancy Clem
and the Hartman family; I have
taken my meals at Hartman's during
the present trial.
John Walker—I reside in Pike
township; am acquainted with John
H. Wiley; was present at the school
meeting when Mr. Wiley and others
were talking about the murder. He
told us the circumstance of meeting
the persons in the buggy. I asked
him if it was Mr. Abrams' wife he
saw with Mrs. Young; he replied
she had a veil over her face, and he
could not tell.
CONDUCT AND LANGUAGE OF DE-
FENDANTS AFTER THE MURDER.
Mrs. Brouse—Reside two doors
north of Mrs. Clem's house. I saw
Mrs. Clem sitting on the verandah
of her house about six o'clock, Sat-
urday evening, September 12th.
Her brother, Syke Hartman, was

52 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
with her. They were talking. I
spoke to her as I was passing the
house. Her face was much flush-
ed, and she said she had been can-
ning grapes.
Ann Blythe-Reside on the cor-
nor of St. Clair street and Alabama
street. I am acquainted with Wil-
liam J. Abrams. Saw him on the
Monday previous to the death of
Jacob Young. He came to my
house on that day. I held a note
with Young and Abrams' names on
it, in favor of James W. Miller; It
was executed six months previous
to September 1st, 1868. The note
was paid on Saturday, September
12th, near six o'clock, by William
J. Abrams. He gave me a five
hundred dollar bill. The amount
of the note was five hundred and
six dollars and sixty-two cents. He
allowed me twenty-five per cent. in-
terest. Young was security on the
note.
Cross-eramined – Abrams called
on the previous Monday and want-
ed to pay the interest and renew the
note.
George F. Burroughs—On Sun-
day, September 13th, I was at Mr.
William J. Abrams' house. I saw
Mrs. Clem there. She left in a few
minutes after my arrival. Her hus-
band was with her.
Nºttie Brown–Live on the corner
of Delaware and Walnut streets. I
am acquainted with Mrs. Clem; I
saw Mrs. Clem at her gate on the
morning of the funeral; she was
waiting for the funeral cortege to
pass by; she told me of the arrest
of Abrams, and spoke of his inno-
conce. She said “we” all knew he
was at her house that afternoon, and
could swear to it.
Cross-cºamined—Mrs. Clem was
standing at the gate when the bodies
assed within a half square of her
F.
Ann Hottle–Am a dressmaker,
and I have worked for Mrs. Clem;
(witness identified a note given her
by Mrs. Clem for money loaned her
by witness; ) I loaned her nine
hundred and twenty-five dollars, at
twenty per cent. per annum, and re-
ceived this note, signed by William
J. Abrams and Nancy E. Clem.
Mrs. Clem offered to give me a deed
to her house and lot as further so-
curity; neither principal nor inter-
est has been paid me, and, when I
asked her for the money, shortly aſ
ter the murder, saying I was uneasy
about it, she said she could’nt let me
have it; she said that if I told about
Abrams having signed the note, I
would be killed by a company; this
startled me so that I said no more
about the money. When the note
was given she cautioned me not to
tell Mr. Clem, or any one else,
about it; that Mr. Clem would be
angry if he knew it.
By Defense—Have lived at Mrs.
Clem's, and was at her house when
I loaned her the money. Do not
know that it was borrowed for Mr.
Abrams, Mrs. Clem having refused
to let me know who it was for. I
did`nt tell her that she was the only
friend I had, and that I wanted her
to take my money and loan it.
Mrs. Adeline Everson—ſ reside at
158 East Michigan street, half a
square from Mrs. Clem's house. I
have known her for eighteen years;
quite intimate of late years. I saw
Mrs. Clem on the morning of the
funeral of Jacob Young and his
wife. She was standing at the gate,
and the funeral was then taking
place at the church. I stopped and
talked to her. She kept the writing
I did for her last June; it was dong
in a note book of hers. I have not
seen the book since. We went in
her parlor, and she told me to write,
“Mrs. Nancy E. Clem's account
with Frank Mansur;” she told me
to set down as due her $43,000, and
other large and smaller amounts.
She said she had a good deal of
money, and did not want Frank
Clem to know it. She said she had

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 53
mºther ston,000. I promised
not to tell. She threatened, in a
laughing way, to cut my throat, if
I did. Last July, Levi Wright
wanted to borrow money from her,
and sho told me she would not lend
it to him, as his tongue was too
long. The church at which the ſu-
neral took place, is within a half
square of her house.
want her name used in connection
with Abrams'. I told her that I
read in the daily papers that it
would astonish everybody when the
arties suspected were arrested.
he said, in an excited way: “My
God! I don't know anything about
the murder.” I also alluded to the
report of suicide. She said it was
very probable that Young had kill-
ed himself.
Cross-examined—Several days after
the murder, I saw her with a roll of
money as large as a good-sized ink-
stand. She said there was $5,000
in the roll.
James W. Hill–Reside one and a
half miles south of the city; I have
been acquainted with Mrs. Clem
since 1856. On September last, I
was on her bond as guardian of her
son, and on another bond as admin-
istratrix of her husband's (Patton's)
estate; don't think she had any
“estate money” in her hands in
September, 1868; at that time she
had house and lot where she lived,
and one on Pennsylvania street;
she rented the one on Pennsylvania
street for about $200 per annum;
don't know of any other sources of
income she had. I saw her a few
days after the murder, at her house;
heard she was implicated in this
murder, and I wanted her to release
me from her bond, or secure me
with a lien on her house. She said
there was no danger; she was as
clear of the crime as any person
could be; she said she could prove
herself at home (in her own house)
all that day.
Charles E. Harris—I am ac-
She did not
quainted with Nancy E. Clem; had
a conversation with her at her front
gate a few days after the murder;
she said she was not acquainted
with Young or his wife.
John L. Hanna—I am Deputy
Shoriff. I had two or three conver-
sations with Mrs. Clem. She do-
nied having any business transac-
tions with Young or Abrams. I
told her that her name with that of
Abrams was on a note in bank; she
said if her name appeared on any
note it was a forgery.
John Scantlin–Live in the city;
am a member of the Merchants' po-
lice. I wont with Mr. Carson to
summon Mrs. Clem to appear be-
fore the Coroner's Jury. She ask-
ed me what they wanted with her
there, and desired to know if Mr.
Wiley would be there; she said she
was formerly acquainted with him.
subsequENT CONDUCT.
Mrs. Clem was examined as a
witness before the Coroner's Jury
during the inquest on the bodies of
Young and wife. The following is
her statement as reduced to writing
and signed by her at the time:
I was at my own house or at my
brother’s next door all afternoon on
Saturday, September 12th, 1868.
Abrams came to my brother's house
about half-past one. He came to
my house about half-past two, or
may be three o'clock P. M. He left
our house near five o’clock. I saw
my brother pass our house about
four o'clock; a man was with him;
they were riding together. He was
driving south on Alabama street;
don’t know who the man was. Mr.
Brown, a paper-hanger, and his son,
mycolored girl Jane, and my mother
were there at the same time. No
other persons were about the house.
I cannot give a description of the
man; did not have a fair view of
him on account of the shrubbery.
I heard nothing of my cousin Crav-

54 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
ens Hartman being in town; have
not seen him for several years.
N. E. C.L.E.M.
Mary A. Hartman–I am a niece
of Mrs. Clem; I had a conversation
with her before going to the Grand
Jury; she told me to swear that she
was at home all the afternoon of the
murder. Mr. Young was at our
house on the Saturday morning he
was killed. Mrs. Clem was in the
hall with him. This was about ten
o'clock.
Lou. Merchant—I live three
squares from Mrs. Clem's house; I
am quite well acquainted with her;
on the 26th of September, I was at
Mrs. Clom's house to see about some
tidys I had knit for her. She asked
me if I would swear she was at home
on the day of the murder. She of
fered me $500 to swear I saw her at
the window. I told her I would not
so swear, and I had not seen her
that afternoon. She then said if I
told any person about this she would
ruin me; otherfolks, she said, would
swear to it, and wanted to know why
I could not. This was on the 26th
of last September.
Cross-examined – Pet Hartman
came after me and said Mrs. Clem
wanted to see me. She said she had
something to tell me, and wanted it
kept a secret. I told it first to my
mother, and afterwards to Mr.
Dye.
Christena Kellemeyer—I used to
work for Mrs. Clem. Soon after
the murder Mrs. Clem sent for me
and offered me $100 if I would
swear I was at her house and saw
her there the afternoon of the mur-
der. She said I could say I came
to her house to get money she owed
me. I now live at Col. Wheat-
ley's.
Jane Sizemore (recalled)—Mrs.
Clem was not at home on the after-
noon of the murder; she went away
about two o'clock and was gone some
time; the evening of the day Mr.
Abrams was arrested Mrs. Clem
said he was an innocent man, and
we all could swear he was here and
º Hartman's the day of the mur-
Cr.
By Defense—The shoes I let Mrs.
Clem have were too small for me,
and hurt my feet; Mrs. Clem came
home some time after four o'clock,
and came in through Hartman's; I
looked at the clock at half-past
three, and think it was an hour be-
fore Mrs. Clem came; saw Pet
Hartman and Julia McCarty wear-
ing laced gaiters about that time;
have never seen them bring new
shoes into Mrs. Clem's house to
show them; we were peeling peaches
the afternoon of the murder, but
Mrs. Clem did not help us after she
came home; she was cleaning out
the front part of the house; we had
supper at the regular time, and no
one was present but the family;
when Mr. Leathers took down my
statement, I did not tell him that it
was not more than ten minutes af.
ter four when I heard Mrs. Clem’s
laugh in at Hartman's; told him
that I did`nt know what time it
was, but that it was after four
o'clock; had no conversation, as to
money, with any of the attorneys
for the State.
Julla McCarty–Have lived with
Matthew Hartman for six years
past, as a servant. Mr. and Mrs.
Hartman, Pet Hartman, and Re-
becca Hartman, compose the fami-
ly; Mrs. Clem's and Hartman's
houses adjoin; the cellar under Mr.
Hartman's house is large and light.
On Saturday of the murder, about
nine o'clock, I saw Jacob Young
and Mrs. Clem at Hartman's house.
Mrs. Clem and Mr. Young were in
the front room; don't know of any
one else being with them. Mrs.
Clem had a package of money two
inches thick after she came out; she
said Mr. Young gave her the mon-
ey, $21,000. I recollect of going
into the cellar with Mrs. Hartman
on the afternoon Abrams was ar-

The Cºld Spring Tragedy. 55
rested. I saw Mrs. Clem a short
time before. She came down in
the cellar after we had put the mon-
ey in the arch. We did nothing
more after she came down. The
arch where the money was put is
near the center of the cellar. I saw
Captain Ben. Abrams at Hartman's
house at noon the day after Mr.
William J. Abrams was arrested.
Mrs. Clem was there and in the
room with him. Captain Abrams
called again a few days afterwards.
The second time he was there Mrs.
Clem was sent for, and came in soon
after. She told Mrs. Hartman she
wanted the money that was left
with her. She said Ben. Abrams
would give it to William Abrams.
We went to the cellar and got the
money out of the stove pipe hole in
the arch; it was in a half gallon
peach can ; I could not reach the
can with my arm, so I got it out
with a stick; I handed the peach
can to Mrs. Clem; Mrs. Clem took
the money out; it was wrapped in
a piece of newspaper; I saw her un-
roll the money; she told me to say
nothing concerning this money, or
her being away on the afternoon of
the murder; I told her I would not
tell unless I could not help it; when
Mrs. Clem unrolled the money I
thought I saw some $1,000 bills;
have since thought I was mistaken,
as I did not pay much attention to
the matter; Mrs. Clem gave Mrs.
Hartman $500 out of the roll; she
said she wanted the money for Mr.
Abrams; she told me in the cellar
not to say anything about her hav-
ing the money; Mrs. Clem took the
money up stairs, and went into the
frºnt part of the house; Benjamin
Abrams was in that part of the
house; I have seen Mrs. Clem sev-
eral times at the jail since the last
trial.
Cross-examined—I took Mrs.
Clem's dinner to her when I went
to the jail; Mrs. Clem never direct-
ed me to conceal the money; don't
know whether Mrs. Clem said there
was $2,100 or $21,000 in the pack-
age Young gave her; the reasºn
she gave why Mrs. Hartman should
keep the money was, she was afraid
of her house being searched; Mrs.
Clem took away all the balance f
the money put in the peach can, ex-
cept the $500; in a week after, she
asked for that amount, and I think
she got it; never saw that package
or part of it after Mrs. Clem took
it; Mrs. Clem never gave me any
money to swear falsely for her.
Direct–It was the next day after
the money was hid, that she told
me about being afraid of having her
house searched.
Rebecca Hartman–My husband's
name is Matthew Hartman. I was
before the Grand Jury four or five
times. Our house adjoins Mrs.
Clem's on the south; there is a si
entrance between our houses. I was
examined on the other trial. The
cellar under my house is quite light.
I knew Jacob Young slightly; was
at his house four or five times; was
there last summer; could not stata
the time more definitely. Mrs. Clem
accompanied me; she told me she
had business with Mr. Young. I
understood the business was about
money matters; she told me not to
say anything about going there.
When we got there Isat in the front
room with Mrs. Young. Mrs. Clem
and Mr. Young were in the adjoin-
ing room, with the door closed;
they stayed in there about ten min-
utes. Have known Abrams a good
many years; went to his house last
summer with Mrs. Clem; they were
sometimes in a room by themselves;
Mrs. Clem told me to say nothing
about going to Young's house, or
her money affairs before the Grand
Jury. Mrs. Clem requested me to
deny, before the Grand Jury, that
Jacob Young had been at our house
on the morning of September 12th;
Mrs. Clem met Mr. Young every
time he came to our house; she has

56 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
had a number of interviews at my
house with Mr. Abrams; Mrs. Clem
brought the package of money to
me in a boot; it was hid a few days
after Abrams' arrest; took it out of
the boot and carried it to the cellar;
Julia McCarty put it in the chim-
ney arch.
Benjamin F. Abrams—I am bro-
ther to William J. Abrams; reside
in Pike township. The first time I
was ever in the house of Matthew
Hartman, was a few days after my
brother's arrest. He sent me there
on business. I had an interview
with Mrs. Clem; told her that Wil-
liam had sent me there for $5,000;
she told me to come back in half an
hour. Informed her that he want-
edit to pay off the Pollard note. I
went back at the expiration of the
time. Came in at the back door,
according to their direction; my
brother requested me to tell her to
ive him two $1,000 bills; Mrs.
lem took the money out of her bo-
som and handed it to me; she told
me there was $4,000 or $5,000; she
said the two $1,000 bills were there,
for me to count it; told me “never
to tell it under high heavens; ”
there was no receipt or note given
for this money; she requested me
to come to the back door so as to
avoid suspicion; it was counted
over, in Hanna & Knefler's office,
and amounted to $4,900; it did not
contain the two $1,000 bills; took
it to Mansur's (Citizens') Bank and
paid off the Pollard note. I subse-
quently told her there was but one
$1,000 bill; she said my brother
(William J. Abrams) must have
got the other bill to pay off the
Blythe note; a few days after this,
I went to Hartman's for more mon-
ey; Mrs. Clem was sent for; I told
her I wanted $2,000, that my bro-
ther sent me for the money, and I
must have it; she said she could
not get any more for him, and not
to send there again as it would cre-
ate suspicion.
Dr. P. H. Jameson–Reside diag-
onally opposite Mrs. Clem's. No-
ticed policemen watching her house
from two to three days after the
murder until her arrest.
By State—There was an unusual
number of policemen.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Flora Eilhart (recalled)–On the
Friday before the murder, Mrs.
Abrams started away about eight
o'clock, and returned at six o'clock.
Mr. Abrams went after her in a
one-horse carriage. He was at
home all that afternoon, on Friday,
painting. -
Cross-examined—Mr. Sanders was
painting there with Abrams; don’t
know that Sanders was there all the
afternoon; Abrams was painting
the lattice-work in the side yard.
Mr. Abrams left the house about
five o'clock, and was gone until six
o'clock. I have not thought of him
going after Mrs. Abrams on that af.
ternoon until this morning.
James Brown (recalled)—Mrs.
Clem came to my house to get me
to do some papering for her Satur-
day, September 12th. A young
man employed in Mr. Roll's store
brought the paper to her house af.
ter I arrived there; Mrs. Clem
went to Roll's paper store on Satur-
day morning, at my instance, to se-
lect wall paper; she returned in
about half an hour after I got to
the house.
Mary Brown—I am the wife of
James Brown; I saw Mrs. Clem at
my house about seven o’clock, Sat-
urday morning, September 12th ;
Mr. Brown left the house at eight
o'clock. I called his attention to
the time.
Josiah Ludlow–On Friday after-
noon, before the murder, Mrs.
Abrams spent the afternoon with
my family; Abrams came for her
in a carriage, just before dark; he
remained there an hour, and took
The Cold Spring Tragedy. 57
supper with us; I got home between
six and seven o'clock.
Cross-examined—Don’t know that
she spent the afternoon there; I
found her there when I went home.
D. Z. Duval–No. 38 South Illi-
nois street; Roll's carpet store; I
have sold goods to Mrs. Clem, and
saw her at the store on the morning
of the murder, for a few minutes;
she bought some goods; it was be-
tween eight and nine o'clock.
By Defense—Sold her some ceil-
ing paper, border, etc.; she looked
at some other goods, but did not
buy any more; she had been a reg-
ular customer, and I noticed noth-
ing unusual in her appearance that
morning.
Michael Murphy–Saw where the
horse was hitched, near the scene
of murder, to a sycamore tree; fol-
lowed the track for some distance;
the fore foot seemed to have been
muffled, and the tracks were indis-
tinct; saw some tracks of a female
foot near the upper sand-bar.
By State—The soil was sandy
where the horse's track was indis-
tinct; I made an incorrect state-
ment on the first trial.
Willis Petit—I am engaged as tel-
ler in the Citizens' National Bank;
am acquainted with William J.
Abrams; on the morning of Sep-
tember 9th, I changed money for
him; gave him large bills for small;
he deposited the same money in the
evening, after banking hour; the
bills I gave him were a $1,000 bill,
and, I think, two $500 bills; the
whole amount of his deposit on that
evening was $2,418.
Cross-examined—He checked out
on September 11th, $2,568.
Frank Mansur—I am not ac-
quainted with Nancy E. Clem; do
not know of any other Frank Man-
sur in the United States. Never
had any dealings with Nancy E.
Clem; never owed her a cent.
James D. Brown–Paper hang-
er; was at work for Mrs. Clem on
the day of the murder, papering
the parlor and hall; Mrs. Clem was
about the house; she was in a hur-
ry about the papering; I went home
at twelve and returned about one;
did not see Mrs. Clem any more on
that day; waited half an hour after
finishing the parlor for further in-
structions, and asked the colored
girl where she was; left about three
o'clock, without having seen her;
Monday morning she asked me º
I did not finish on Saturday, and I
told her she was not there to give
me directions; she said she thought
I was tired and did`nt want to fin-
ish it; but I told her that if she had
been there I would have finished
the job.
By Defense—Syke Hartman was
helping to remove the paper from
the sitting room; think Mrs. Clem
was helping him.
Robert Barbee–On the day I was
at the scene of the murder, I noticed
human tracks seventy-five yards up
the river, near the edge of the wa-
ter, in the sand. I followed them
to the bank, and then they became
invisible. Near the ravine I saw
what I thought was the same track,
and followed it to where the buggy
had been standing. At the second
sand bar above where the bodies
lay, I saw tracks of a man and wo-
man; also discovered buggy tracks
near the same point. These tracks
looked to be the same as those I saw
lower down the river. (Witness
described various tracks about the
locality running in several direc-
tions.) The track of the woman
looked like it was made with a dou-
ble-soled shoe, between seven and
eight inches in length.
Cross-examined—The length of
the track is only my opinion. I did
not measure it.
W. F. Christian–Carpenter and
builder; reside on East Michigan
street; the back of my lot runs to
the rear of Mrs. Clem's lot; have
seen Abrams hitch his horse to my



58 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
stable, and go into Hartman's and
lem's lots, as many as six or seven
times; saw him there a week or
two before the murder.
B. Défense—Never watched him,
and do not know how long he stay-
ed, or how often he came; I never
spoke to him but once at such
times.
Clem A. Ferguson–Jeweler; keep
the correct time within ten seconds,
and don’t think my chronometer
has been ten seconds out of the way
for three years; the railroad time
at this point does not vary from
mine more than a minute.
Jºff. K. Scott–Chief clerk at the
Palmer House; the clock in our of:
fice, I think, was from three to five
minutes faster than railroad time,
on September 12th.
By State—I have no distinct im-
pression on the subject, and did not
wind or set the clock myself, nor
did I compare it with railroad time.
James W. Brown—Was called
and examined as to the correctness
of the map of Cold Spring and vi-
cinity, used at this trial; also, as
to the length of the squares, etc.;
he said the distance from Clem's
house to Cold Spring was about
four or four and a half miles.
&TATEMENT OF SILAS. W. HARTMAN
ONE OF THE DEFEND ANTS.
Silas W. Hartman—I am thirty
ears old. My correct name is Si-
as W. Hartman. I am a brother
to Mrs. Clem, and jointly indicted
with her. Have known Mr. Jacob
Young for ten years. I knew Mr.
J. W. Abrams when I was a small
boy. We were raised in the same
neighborhood. On Friday after-
noon, September 11th, I got a horse
and buggy of Gates & Pray, and
took my cousin several miles out in
the country, on the Crawfordsville
road. We crossed the river at the
bridge, and returned to the city in
the same way, getting back about
sun-down. Cravens Hartman was
with me all the time we were gone.
Did not see Abrams that day. I
met John Culp, Enos Gill and Eli-
jah Cooper, on the Crawfordsville
road, about four o'clock. On Sat-
urday morning I went down street;
stopped in Hawks' store, on Wash-
ington street, near Meridian; after-
ward went to the Spencer House
and saw my cousin; stayed there
an hour, and then took the street
cars to go home; got there about
ten o’clock; from that time until
dinner I helped tear off wall paper;
saw the paper-hanger Brown there;
we took dinner about twelve o'clock;
after dinner I went down street and
stopped at Meyer's tobacco store and
got a cigar; I met my cousin at the
Palmer House; we went up street
as far as Blackford's Block; I went
to Drew's stable, on Pearl street,
and got a horse and buggy; the
horse was a sorrel; left the stable
at two o'clock; drove up to the cor-
ner of Delaware and Washington
streets; Cravens Hartman got in, -
and we went out the Pendleton
road; I am not acquainted with the
streets, and it is very hard for me to
recollect; went out this road cleven
or twelve miles; I stopped at the
second tollgate; lighted my pipe and
got a drink of water; stopped there
only a few minutes; I paid fourteen
cents toll at the second gate; saw
two persons there, an old man and
lady; passed another toll gate; we
turned around two or three miles
beyond the third gate. I met Mr.
Dowden at the first toll gate. In
returning I came in the city on the
street near the Government Stables,
as far as Alabama street, came
down Alabama street to Market
street, and from there to the post-
office, where Cravens Hartman got
out, and I drove to the stable; af.
ter getting out of the buggy I went
into the stable, got a drink at the
pump, and then started home. I
stopped at Selking's saloon, and also

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 59
at a meat shop on Massachusetts
avenue, got a beefsteak there, and
took it to Mrs. Clem's ; it was near
five o'clock when I got to Clem's.
I eat supper at Matthew Hartman's
house; went down street after sup-
per and stopped at Meyer's cigar
store. I drove out the Pendleton
road a year before this; I was not
west of Illinois street at any time
during that day; at no time on that
day did I see Jacob Young, his
wife, or Abrams; I saw Abrams
two or three days before that; did
not have a shot gun in my posses-
sion that day, nor I did not see one;
I was arrested on September 21st,
on Pennsylvania street; September
12th, I had on a dark coat, light
pants, and straw hat; the hat was
destroyed in jail, by a drunken man.
I have been acquainted with Mr.
John H. Wiley a long time. I did
not see him nor his sºn on Satur-
day, September 12th. I first heard
of Mr. Young's death on Sunday.
I was at Cold Spring at a celebra-
tion and pic-nic last summer; ex-
cept on these two occasions, I was
never there before or since. I was
not engaged, either directly or indi-
rectly, in the killing of Jacob Young
or Nancy J. Young. At no time
on September 12th, was Mrs. Clem
in a buggy with me.
Cross-examined—On the former
trial I said my name was Silas W.
and not Silas A. Hartman. The
past year I have not been engaged
in any business. My cousin, Cra-
vens Hartman, is in Missouri; I do
not know of him being here since
September 12th. His postoffice ad-
dress is Iron Mountain, Missouri.
On Thursday, September 10th, I
met Cravens Hartman at the Union
Depot; he was also here during the
war; I don’t know which year of
the war it was. He was not at
Matthew Hartman's or Mrs. Clem's
houses; we passed Mrs. Clem's
house, but he did not get out to see
them. Cravens Hartman and I
were in the Crystal Palace saloon,
Thursday and Friday nights. Me-
Leonard saw us in there. I think
he would know him. I did not in-
troduce Cravens to any one. At
the jail, after my arrest, was the
first time I told any one that Crº-
vens Hartman was in the city. He
was at Inwall's Garden, on Vir-
ginia avenue, with me on Friday
forenoon, September 11th ; did not
meet any one there or on the way
that I knew. Aside from º
don’t know of anybody in the city
that knew Cravens Hartman was
here. We started on Friday's trip
a little after twelve o’clock, and re-
turned about dark. We came up
behind Enos Gill, John Culp and
Elijah Cooper, and passed them;
Friday night Cravens and I went to
the Court Street and Exchange Wa-
rieties. I did not see William J.
Abrams at or near Meyer's cigar
store, Saturday morning, nor at
Solomons' shop. On going out the
Pendleton pike, we crossed a rail-
road. At the first toll gate it was
two o'clock. We paid a woman
fourteen cents. Saw no one else
there. I made a statement to Mr.
Douglass and Mr. Turner in jail,
just after my arrest; I may have
said to them it was four o’clock
when I passed Mrs. Clem's house,
in coming back to the city, [At
the request of Mr. Harrison, the
witness took up the shot gun used
in the murder, and, looking at it,
said he had never seen it before.
After having it some minutes, he
asked if he should hold it any long-
er, saying, if necessary, he thought
he could hold it half a day.] In my
statement at the jail, I did not say
I drove over the city for an hour
after coming back. I don’t reco-
lect of saying that I met no one on
the trip that I knew; I don't think
I told Mr. Douglass I was at Mil-
lersville that day, nor that the town
was on a turnpike; we stopped at
the road fifteen or twenty minutes

60
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
that leads up to Lanesville; I don’t
recollect of telling Sheriff Parker
the day I was arrested that I was
not out of town all day, September
12th, though I may have done so
under excitement; I think I told
him I was not out of town in that
direction; I did not fell Douglass
and Turner I had not heard until
Monday that the persons murdered
were Jacob Young and wife; don't
think the statement was read over
to me. I heard the names of the
murdered persons on Sunday.
Direct-1 was in jail about twen-
ty minutes when they came to take
the statement: I was laboring un-
* considerable excitement at the
Inne.
Argument of Counsel.
Hon. W. W. Leathers opened the argument
for the defense, as follows:
“It now becomes my duty to speak in defense
of a woman, who is struggling between an hon-
orable life and an ignominious doom. The duty
assigned to me is one requiring greater legal
attainments and higher abilities than I can lay
claim to. It is the impulse of society to quickly
find a victim to offer as an atonement for so
great a crime as that with which my client is
charged. It is true that this was not only an
atrocious crime, but it remains a mysterious
one. The victim of it, about three years ago,
was a carpenter, a porter in a hardware store,
a driver of a delivery wagon, but all at once wo
lose sight of his legitimate business, and after
his death, learn of his having been engaged in
money transactions on a gigantic scale. The
evidence fails to tell us with whom he carried
out these business transactions, or the direct
nature of them; and it shows they were carried
on long before it has shown him to have been
connected in any way with Mrs. Clem. No such
relation was shown during the year 1807. The
law presumes her guiltless of this crime until it
shall have been fully proven against her; and it
provides that any or all evidence of guilt against
her must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is not a matter of mercy that a crime must
be established beyond a reasonable doubt, but
it is a requirement of the law in order to protect
the innocent.
This case of the State is made up by circum-
stantial evidence. Presumptive evidence is
greatly inferior to direct evidence, and is more
likely to lead to great injury, even to the taking
of an innocent life. In circumstantial evidence
there was the additional liability to err through
reason of the probable presumptive opinions of
the different witnesses.
The State must have some settled hypothesis
as to her guilt, and unless they establishit fully
and beyond a reasonable doubt, you are bound
to find her innocent of the crime of which she
stands accused.
It is the theory of the State that Silas Hart-
man and Abrams went out on Friday, the day
before the murder, to select a convenient place
for the deed; that on the morning of the mur-
der Abrams bought the gun; that Mrs. Clem
acted as a decoy to entice Jacob Young and his
wife to the selected spot; that Silas Hartman
followed out with the gun, and after the deed
was committed, assisted Mrs. Clem to return to
town.
Connected with this theory was the one of
money as the inducement, alleging that these
parties were carrying on a large conſidence game
of a secret nature. They tell you in one sen-
tence that her object was to obtain money, and
in the next that she was prompted to the act in
order to defend her reputation and prevent dis-
closures. These theories are contradictory, and
the State had utterly failed to prove them, as
they had also failed in proving a conspiracy.
They had proved no collusion between Mrs.
Clem, Silas Hartman, and W. J. Abrams; they
had failed to prove the presence of either Abrams
and IIartman at the scene of the murder. The
State claimed that the murder was decided upon,
because the credit of the alleged conspirators
was gone, when it stood in evidence that the
defendant had, but a few weeks prior to the
murder, paid back to Dr. Duzan, and had only
a few days before borrowed from him a large
sum of money. They claimed that those per-
sons would negotiate one loan to pay the prin-
cipal and interest on another, and the amount
of each successive loan was increased in propor-
tion to the sums necessary for such purpose;

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 61
now it was shown in evidence that Young's in-
debtedness, at the time of his death, amounted
to only some $43,000, while it was proved that
the amounts of interest paid out, would amount
to double that sum. The testimony entirely
reversed the notion that Mrs. Clem was in Jacob
Young's debt, or had ever borrowed one dollar
of his money. It rather inferred that she was
the lender and he the borrower, and she could
have no object in procuring his death, but rather
an interest in having him live. There is no
correspondence in loans or payments as to the
amounts or dates, as to warrant a conclusion
that there was a conspiracy of the kind named
by the State, and their inferences on that sub-
ject were matters of imagination. If there were
any business transactions between Young and
the defendant, Mrs. Young must have been fully
aware of the fact, and it would have been a mat-
ter of necessity, on the part of the alleged con-
spirators, to have removed her at the same time
by some previous arrangement, yet it is shown
by the State's own witness that the presence of
Mrs. Young, and necessarily her death, was the
result of accident. This fact itself, that Mrs.
Young did not go with her husband that after-
noon by reason of any previous arrangement
and that she was in possession of the knowledge
of her husband's business relations, was sum-
cient proof against the theory of a conspiracy,
having for its purpose the putting of Young out
of the way, in order to cover up those transac-
tions.
The counsel cites the business relations exist-
ing between Young and Mrs. Clem as a motive
for the commission of the murder. Havn't
scores of persons in this city who had business
with Mr. Young in the past year or so, or before
that if you please, the same motive? Why not
charge some of them with the murder. If hav-
ing business relations with Young establishes a
motive for his murder, these scores of persons
are as worthy of accusation as the defendant,
and more so, for men are more given to deeds
of violence for the acquisition of money than
women. Why not accuse them IIer business
relations with him, disclosing the employment
of large sums of money is easily and satisfac-
torily accounted for, in the simple fact that
Young was using money that she controlled,
and making thereby for her, more money than
she could make out of it herself. Is there any-
thing strange in that? Isn't that explanation
sufficiently plain and satisfactory on the face
of it ! Mr. Dye asks what was done with the
money Mrs. Clem got of Dr. Duzan, and why
ask this question? May I not ask, with equal
propriety, what Dorsey did with the 500,000 he
borrowed at different times, and used in connec-
tion with Jacob Young, from which he acknowl-
edges having made about $6,000?
Do the gentlemen claim that a single cent of
this money ever came to the defendant? Where
did the six thousand dollars profits realized by
Dorsey come from ? He says he don't know
where it came from. He was engaged with
Young in using large sums of money in some
manner not explained. That was the first con-
spiracy entered into, was it not? Is it unrea-
sonable to suppose that the persons cngaged in
the first conspiracy were the persons who plotted
against the life of Young, and finally consum-
mated the murder? Mr. Dye says that the
result of the workings of this conspiracy has
been to bankrupt Dorsey, and seriously impair
his reputation. Why, what has Mr. Dorsey
lost? IIe was endorser on a note of $10,000.
He had made out of his transactions with Young
$3,000—and if he lost the $10,000 he is loser to
the extent of only $4,000. I do not say that the
parties with whom Mr. Dorsey was connected
had anything to do with the murder of Mr.
Young, but I do say that if their business mat-
ters with Young constitutes a motive for his
murder, the motive is as strong in the cases of
these other persons as of the defendants.
Young had been borrowing money for over a
year when he became acquainted with Mrs.
Clem in business. IIe was connected with Dor-
sey in large speculations, requiring large sums
of money. Why ask the defendant to show
how the money was employed she furnished,
and make no inquiry concerning the manner in
which the money used by Dorsey and Young,
and the first conspiracy was employed? Does
it not appear that Dorsey was anxious to borrow
$20,000 for Young but a few days before this
murder? What complication begot such anx-
iety on the part of Dorsey, as to induce him to
go to Greencastle, and make so many extraor-
dinary offers of collateral and such pressing
solicitations for assistance? What developments
were threatened in case that money was not
obtained 2 Was it obtained 2 No. Who knows
what were the needs of this conspiracy No. 1, at
that time, who compose the conspirators, and
that the rosult of those noods was not the mur-
der of Young and his wife?
Dorsey, it appears, was the first man to repose
confidence in Young, takes him into his employ,
goes off down South and leaves blank notes in
the possession of Young, which he permits him
to use for raising money to carry on the business
in which Young was engaged. IIe also leaves
with Young, such is their intimacy, a power of
attorney authorizing Young to act for him
(Dorsey) in his absence. When Dorsey returns,
Young is the first man he sees in reference to his
business affairs, although he has partners here,
men of integrity, good standing and worth.
What does he do next. We next see him going
to Greencastle to borrow money to relieve him-
self and Young from some complication. He
finds things not all right. What can be the
difficulty 2 What is the secret of their business?
Dorsey implores assistance of friends, and makes
extravagant offers for the use of money. He fails
to get the money, and returns. This is but a

62 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
short time before the murder, remember. Who
knows what connection that financial strait had
with the bloody sequel 2 Who knows that it is
aot an important link in the true solution that
may yet come?
This is the man who made the $6,000 out of
Young's investment of funds he had placed in
his hands, who owned $30,000 worth of gold
mining stocks—who owned a large amount of
Rolling Mill stock, bank stocks, and a third in-
terest in a large iron and hardwarc establish-
ment; who is now reported by the counsel for
the State as bankrupt in character and finances.
Why is not he an accused party in place of this
weak and innocent woman 2 Is there no mys-
tery hanging about these transactions between
him and Young which, if threaded, might shed
light on the conspiracy that took the lives of
Young and his wife. Are his dealings, his con-
duct so plain as not to excite a suspicion? Is
there any attempt made to clear up this mystery
hanging about his operations with Young 2–
Does he offer any explanation? Ah I under-
stand why the defendant is made the victim,
why she is hunted down and prosecuted in place
of others. Gentlemen, there are parties in the
background who hold the thread to this mystery,
and who do not intend to part with it; men who
are backing up this prosecution, men not known
to me nor to the counsel for the State, who are
supporting this prosecution, that the public
clamor may be satisfied, and that suspicion
may be turned away from themselves, the real
culprits.
Mr. Leathers then discussed the question of a
conspiracy between Mrs. Clem, Abrams and
Hartman, and upon that point he continued:
The evidence, if it shows anything, shows the
murder to have been committed a little after
four o’clock in the afternoon. The testimony
of Locke's children and of Miss Monroe, Dr.
Wand’s sister, fixes that time beyond contro-
versy. Erie Locke looked at his watch when
his children came to ask permission to go in
bathing, and Miss Monroe looked at her watch
just as her brother drove his buggy into the
edge of the river. The horse was stopped and
given a drink, and while the horse was drinking
the reports of the gun and the pistol were heard.
The only variation in time is the evidence of
Mrs. Colman, who thinks the time somewhere
between three and a half or four—probably a
quarter before four o'clock, but it was proven
that she set her clock by the arsenal gun, at five
o'clock, and the time of firing that gun is proved
by the corporal who was called for the State.
Miss Monroe’s watch and Locke's watch were
get by the standard time of the city, and were
undoubtedly nearer correct than the clock set
by a gun which is fired at an hour indicated to
a soldier by the position of the sun. I suppose
there will be no controversy between counsel as
to the hour of the commission of the murder;
that it was somewhere between four o'clock and
fifteen minutes past four. Now to come back to
the whereabouts of Hartman, which is done for
tho purpose of seeing if there is any evidence
whatever showing his connection with the con-
spiracy to murder Jacob Young. When you
scrutinize the evidence, when the testimony is
carefully weighed and considered, there is abso-
lutely nothing to connect Syke Hartman with
a conspiracy, much less with the actual murder.
Mr. Drew testifies that he got the horse and
buggy somewhere between one o'clock and half-
past two o'clock. Where did Hartman go and
what did he do? We have his own testimony
upon this point and notwithstanding his pecu-
liar position, notwithstanding he stands indict-
ed as one of the parties to the murder, notwith-
standing his embarrassing situation and the
searching and rigid cross-examination of the
counsel for the State, we are justified in assert-
ing that he acquitted himself on this stand as
creditably as any witness who was produced
before the court and jury. The defense is will-
ing to submit the question to a jury of candid
men whether that man was not corroborated ºn
every material point. It is true he can not tell
just what time he left the city; none of us can
tell just exactly the time we do a certain thing
upon a given day, unless there be a spocial rea-
son for remembering the time, and we fix it by
looking at a time piece. But he says he got
dinner about twelve o’clock and afterward went
down town, where he met his cousin, with whom
he had a few minutes conversation, and that
then he went to the livery stable to get the
horse and buggy; that he met his cousin at the
Court House corner, and there took him in and
started out on his ride toward Lanesville. It
is reasonably certain that it was somewhere
near two o'clock when he started from the city.
Mr. Sullivan must be mistaken as to the hotºr
when he says he saw the mare and buggy on
Massachusetts avenue, near Delaware street.
He must put the time a few minutes too late. If
there is anything in this whole case that can be
relied upon as positively certain; if there has
been anything proved beyond a reasonable
doubt, it is that Syke Hartman took that trºp
to Lanesville on the afternoon of the murder.
That point is settled beyond controversy. We
know that the State proved that on Friday
afternoon Syke Hartman was over the river,
west of the city, on the way to Cold Springs,
and yet to destroy the force of the Lanesville
trip, they try to prove by Pray that he hired a
horse of a similar description to that of Drew’s
mare “Pet,” and was driving fifteen miles away
in a different direction 1 Syke tells where he
was, and where he met his cousin, and before
old man Fee and his wife came on the stand he
tells about going through that toll gate and
paying fourteen cents toll; getting out of his
buggy and lighting his pipe and getting a drink
of water, and that the top of the buggy was
down just as when Drew sent the buggy out of
The Cold Spring Twº.
63
the stable. The old man and woman corrobor-
ate him fully in all these statements. Can there
be any doubt that the man Hartman was out
there and did just what he said he did? The
gentlemen for the State say he was there some
other day, but the evidence of Drew and Sulli-
van both show that Syke Hartman had not had
the mare from their stable for fully a month
previous, so that we know if these people saw
that horse and buggy out at that tollgate, it was
on Saturday the 12th day of September, and
not another day. And why should these old
people be mistaken IIere is the fact of the
murder to fasten the impression on their minds
as regards the horse and buggy; their attention
is called to it a few days afterwards, and their
memories refreshed; and there can be no rea-
sonable doubt that they did see that horse and
buggy on that day, and no other. We know
that it is in the earlier part of the afternoon;
some time after the one o'clock train had passed
up the old man testifies, and the old lady locates
the time by the fact that she was just finishing
up her dinner dishes. Perhaps these old people
are in error a little as to the time, for they don't
attempt to fix it by any watch or clock, but it
is not reasonable to suppose that they mistook
five or six o'clock tor two o'clock. It could not
have been so late as four o'clock when they saw
the buggy pass east, because that would place
the return after sundown. Then by the evi-
dence it is fair to say that Hartman drove by
that gate in the early part of the afternoon of
Saturday. We know that at the time when old
man Wiley and son testify to seeing Syke Hart-
man west of the river following behind Jacob
Young and his wife in the direction of Cold
Spring, he was at least seven miles away in a
diametrically opposite direction. Why should
these good people be mistaken? They testified
candidly; there was nothing in their conduct
to show that they had been tampered with or
been placed under improper influences. If any
witnesses on this stand testified to the truth
they did, according to their best judgment and
belief.
The counsel for the State say that Mr. Clem
drove that horse and buggy out to Fee's toll
gate to see if they would identify it as the one
that had passed through on the Saturday of the
murder, and from this fact alone we are to ar-
gue that they came upon the stand here to
blacken their souls with perjury I Have the
jurors in this case so poor an opinion of human
nature as to suppose that these old people, with-
out motive or object, were corrupted by Mr.
Clem 7
When did Silas Hartman return to the city ?
According to the statement of Mr. Drew it was
after seven, and he gives as a reason that he
generally goes to supper at six o'clock, and it
was after he returned from supper that Silas
Hartman drove up to the stable. The counsel
|
desire to treat Mr. Drew fairly, but notice how
definite he is at one time, and how indefinite at
others. He says the buggy was obtained in the
afternoon between one and two and a half
o'clock, giving himself an hour and a half mar-
gin; but when he comes to the return of the
buggy, he speaks without any such a margin,
Mr. Drew mixes his testimony up so badly in
places that we must, at least, conclude that his
memory is defective, for there are several mat-
ters that he does not state correctly. IIe says
the mare was in a very bad condition, and yet
there were no questions asked That is the
first time I ever heard of a horse being returned
to a livery stable in this city in a bad condition,
returned to the proprietor, and yet not a single
question asked, not a word of censure; no in-
quiry made, net a syllable of reproof!
Now, after weighing these facts, and sifting
the evidence of the witnesses alluded to, is it
not clear that the statement of Hartman is cor-
roborated Upon no question of importance,
entering into the merits of this case, is he com-
tradicted. It is said that when he was arrested
he made statements to the effect that he was nºt
out of the city that afternoon; but, certainly,
this jury will take into account the circum-
stances under which that statement is said to
have been made; certainly some allowance wiłł
be made for his condition. IIe had just been
arrested, and that arrest was the first intima-
tion he had of his supposed complicity in, or of
any suspicion being directed against him, for
such a crime, and the defense submits whether
any one on this jury, under a similar excite-
ment, would not be apt to make incoherent and
inconsistent statements? It was one minute at-
ter his arrest, while he was on his way to the
jail in company with the Sheriff of the county,
who led in the arrest. He might have made
such statements, but if so, they were made at a
time when he was overburdened and overwhelma-
ed by the calamity that had fallen upon hiºn.
What he said to the reporters is also brought
up to contradict hina now. What he said to
them within ten minutes after his arrest, when
he was beset by them and plied with questions,
instead of contradicting him, are corroborative
of his statements to the jury under oath. Its
inconsistencies are true in regard to the towns
of Lanesville and Millersville, but while true,
he said then, and he says now, that he was not
acquainted in that locality, while the direction
he says he was traveling in will take him right
out to Lanesville, where it is proven he actual-
ly did go, Could not the reporters possibly be
mistaken 2 At least the jury will have the kind-
ness, the charity and the mercy, to allow for
these apparent incongruities, in consideration
of the excitement he was laboring under when
the statements were made.
The only material contradiction of the state-
ment given to the reporters is as to the time ºf


64 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
his return. When did he return ? Drew says
not until after seven o'clock; but we will show
by the very witnesses introduced by the State,
that Drew is mistaken. Matthew Hartman
says he saw him before five o'clock in Mrs.
Clem's house. But we are told that Matthew
Hartman is a brother of Syke, and, therefore,
his testimony is not to be believed. Because of
the relationship with Syke and Mrs. Clem he is
necessarily a perjured witness. Yet Matthew
Liartman has resided in this city for seventeen
years, and never a broath raised against his
character. He is an honest mechanic, so hard
working, as to hardly be in his own house suf-
ficient time for his meals, whose reputation is
without spot or blemish. He told his story sim-
ply and artlessly, in an honest and straightfor-
ward manner. The jury saw him and are able
to know the weight his testimony is entitled to.
We know the time Matthew went home, after
paying off his hands, and that time is corrobo-
rated by two witnesses, and that proves what
time Syke got home. Matthew Hartman is
either true, or else he stands before this com-
munity a perjured witness. He cannot be mis-
taken, for he adduces such facts and circum-
stances in connection with his knowledge of the
time which precludes the possibility of error.
Mr. Hartman says that he saw nothing uninsual
in Syke's manner; and if his testimony is to be
believed at all, this fact is established beyond a
reasonable doubt; that Syke Hartman drove
out beyond Lanesville and back, in all, twenty
miles, walked up home from the livery stable,
and was at Mrs. Clem's by five o'clock. If he
was at the scene of the murder, he must have
driven twenty-five miles within an hour, as the
murder was committed after four o'clock. This
is a physical impossibility.
But beyond this, is the testimony introduced
for the State, of Mrs. Brouse. We thank the
gentlemen representing the State, for that evi-
dence. Mrs. Brouse came before you, an hon-
est, truthful, Christian woman, and told her
simple story; that a little before six o'clock,
she saw Mrs. Clem sitting on her own porch
with her brother Syke; that her face was
mushed, and that in answer to a remark of the
witness, she explained it by saying that she had
been putting up grapes over a hot stove. This
testimony (and there can be no mistake in the
time), proves that before six o'clock this de-
fendant was sitting on her own porch talking to
her brother Syke. Now, is not Mr. Drew mis-
taken, that Syke Hartman did not return until
after seven o'clock? Mrs. Brouse cannot be
mistaken, for she is corroborated. If Syke
Hartman had not returned until after seven
o'clock, it would have been after dark, and
Mrs. Brouse could not have noticed what she
did of the flushed appearance of Mrs. Clem's
face from the pavement to the porch. We sub-
mit the question again: “Are not Drew and
Sullivan mistaken f * Can the State reconcile
their own testimony? The testimony of Mrs.
Brouse is a full and complete corroboration of
that of Matthew and Silas IIartman, and we
are much obliged to the gentlemen representing
the State for it.
Mr. Leathers then adverted to the inconsis-
tency of the statement of Mrs. Clem that she
had been putting up grapes, showing the ease
with which such an error might have been
made. That flush could not have been the re-
sult of the ride to Cold Spring, for it was two
hours after the commission of the murder. It
was not excitement, for the State's own wit-
nesses prove that her conduct and appearance
was in no wiso different from what it had gen-
erally been. Mrs. Clem had been doing her
general housework, helping to get supper, and
if there was any ſlush it can easily be accounted
for.
At this point Mr. Leathers passed to an argu-
ment based upon the tracks found at Cold
Spring, and the horse shoes produced in court,
that Silas Iſartman could not have been at the
place of the murder on the day it was commit-
ted, alluding to the fact that there was no evi-
dence at all that the horse “Pet' had been at
Cold Spring that day at all, or that the tracks
supposed to be those made by that horse had in
reality been made upon that occasion. It is
only by on inference und conclusion that we ar-
rive at the supposition that the horse was there
on that day. To support this position tho testi-
mony of Robert Barbee that the shoe taken off
the front foot would not ſit the track, and that
of Michael Murphy that the tracks looked as if
the hind feet of the horse had been wrapped in
carpet.
Upon such testimony as this is hºrs. Clem to
be hanged, or at least deprived of her liberty
for the term of her natural life . This is, in-
deed, circumstantial evidence! This is conclu-
sive evidence, indeed! This is evidence satisfy-
ing the minds of a jury of the guilt of this wo:
man beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Leathers
pursued this branch of the case much further,
but we have not the space or time to follow him.
From the examination of these tracks and a
caaeful weighing of the evidence, we come to
the irresistible conclusion that Silas IIartman
had no connection, directly or indirectly, with
the murder. By the preponderence of testimo-
my, beyond cavil or doubt, or question, it is
shown that Syke Hartman had no connection
with the murder of Jacob Young and his wife
Nancy Jane Young.
The counsel for the State ask: why has Cra-
vens Hartman not been brought into court to
corroborate the statement of Syke Iartman?
It is a sufficient reply to that inquiry to say,
that if old Mr. Fee and wife, witnesses of un-
impeachable character, whose testimony fully
corroborates the statements of Syke IIartman,
are not regarded as sufficient, of what avail
would be the testimony of Cravens Dartman?
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
65
-
If º, is no reliance to be placed in the stories
of these persons; no reliance to be placed in
the testimony concerning the tracks made and
the shoes worn by the defendant, of what con-
sequence would be the testimony of Cravens
Iſartman? If this testimony stands for noth-
ing, Cravens Hartman's would be valueless.
We have Syke Hartman's statement fully cor-
roborated by all the physical facts bearing upon
the case—by the testimony of five or six credi-
ble witnesses, and by one of the State's own
witnesses; and if this testimony is not sufficient
to establish the innocence of the defendant,
what would be the use of bringing forward Cra-
vens Hartman from Missouri’ If we could
have had the testimony of a half dozen witnesses
of unimpeachable character, to testify to hav-
ing gone out themselves with Syke Hartman on
that day, the testimony could not have been
more conclusive than that already adduced,
which establishes beyond controversy—beyond
the shadow of a doubt—that Hartman had no
connection with the murder of Jacob Young and
wife.
The gentlemen have had the grounds where
this murder was committed, and the roads lead-
ing there, carefully mapped, and have calcu-
lated with great accºracy the distance by the
Crawfordsville road upon which they profess to
believe Syke Hartman drove to town after the
murder. If IIartman drove along that road
that day, it cannot be denied that by the evi-
dence here adduced, he added over seven miles
to the number necessary to reach the city by
way of Lanesville, on which road we have the
most indubitabl evidence he returned to the
city that day, after riding out with his cousin,
Cravens Hartman. Remember the testimony
of these gentlemen who met him on that day is,
that he was coming toward the city on the
Lanesville road at about the hour that, on the
theory of the counsel, for the State, he is sup-
posed to be on this other road. Here are men
whose characters are unimpeachable, testifying
that they met him on the Lanesville road, and
you are asked to believe that about the same
hour he was approaching the city on this other
road, fleeing from the scene of the murder.
Mr. Dye, counsel for the State, claims that
the objects and purposes of the conspiracy, ne-
cessarily included Mrs. Young as one of its vic-
tims, and yet, what is the evidence on this
point * Little Belle Young testifies that Mr.
Young put on his coat, went out and hitched
up, and then came back into the house, and that
when he returned, Mrs. Young asked him if she
might go out riding with him. Isn’t it clear
that she accompanied her husband that after-
noon by the merest accident? Had the pur-
poses of the conspiracy included Mrs. Young,
would the conspirators have relied upon an ac-
cident of this character to carry out their de-
signs ‘. If there had been any business relations
between Young and the prisoner, is it not rea-
sonable to suppose that Mrs. Young would have
known of them 2 Knowing them as she must
have known, would Mrs. Clem have engaged in
a plot against the life of Young, and left behind
in the person of his wife, a witness against her,
whose evidence would have been as convincing
as though the murdered man had returned from
the grave to appear at the bar against her?
There could then have been no previous plot for
the taking of the lives of Young and his wife,
for the evidence of one of the State's own wit-
nesses, a relation of the murdered man is, that
the going of Mrs. Young with her husband on
that fatal afternoon, was the merest accident.
What then are the facts that justify the theory
that Jacob Young and his wife were murdered
by parties in no way connected with these
charged with the crime, and not at all known
to them. Young had been seen on Washington
street that afternoon, as it appears in evidence,
and had been seen to exhibit money in public
places, whenever an opportunity was presented
of attracting thre gaze, and exciting the cupidi-
ty of men, among whom it is not unfair to pre-
sume there were men who would undertake the
work of murder to acquire wealth. This fact
seems only the stronger, when we reflect that it
has already been seen, that it is inconsistent
that Young was decoyed away from home by
the defendant. Let us look at this again. It is
proven that Young and wife came from Pike
township; the defendant was born and raised
in the same township. Both the parties are
well known, and have large circles of friends
and acquaintances in that township. Is it rea-
sonable to presume for a moment that Mrs.
Clem, contemplating the murder of the two
persons that afternoon, got into Young's buggy
with him and his wife, undisguised, and drove
out in a direction in which she was well known,
and on a road upon which she would in all
probability meet numbers who knew her? It
is simply ridiculous to suppose that any person
of ordinary ability would think of doing any
such thing.
Now, in relation to the tracks found near the
scene of this murder. Dr. Waterman, who
measured the tracks, says that about one quar-
ter or third of a mile above where the buggy
stood, he found the tracks of a woman leading
in the direction of the scene of the murder, and
followed the line of the tracks some distance.
It is also shown that some distance from this
there appeared tracks of a woman coming from
tho scene of the murder, and apparently meet-
ing those of a man. These tracks are found near
where the coat was found.
The theory advanced is, that the tracks re-
turning from the scene of the murder, are made
by the woman who returned to the murdered
body to get the coat. The supposition is not a
reasonable one. History gives no instances of



66
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
murderers returning to their victims, when the
work of death is done. No man has ever done
it. No woman over did it. Well, as to the
measurement of the tracks. Dr. Waterman’s
measurement makes the length of the crack 8%
inches. There were several persons who meas-
ured the tracks, and there appears to be dis-
crepancies in the results, amounting to 34 to 3%
of an inch. It is in evidence, that the shoe
claimed to have been purchased by Mrs. Clem,
at Cady's, was of a number much called for.
Perhaps there is no number of shoe so much
called for as the No. 3, the number she is said
to have purchased. A shoe of this number is
procured, and the stick with which some of the
parties measured the tracks is applied, and the
shce is ſound to be much longer than the stick.
The length of the shoe on the inside is found to
be about the same as the length of the sole.
Mr. Wirt, who measured the foot of Mrs Clem
in court three separate times, says that her
naked foot is shorter than the shoe. The State
attempts to prove that Mrs. Clem is the person
who purchased a pair of new shoes at Cady’s a
short time before the murder. The boy at Ca-
dy’s says that he thinks he sold a pair of shoes
a short time before the murder; but is this the
sort of evidence upon which the State hopes to
convict the defendant? There is no satisfactory
evidence adduced, remember, that the defendant
purchased, at any time just previous to this
murder, a pair of shoes, or that she was even
possessed of a pair of new shoes about this
time. -
Jane Sizemore says that a short time before
Mrs. Clem started with her boy Albert to Rich-
mond, to put him to school, she thinks she saw
a new pair of gaiters in her (Mrs. Clem’s)
room. On her first examination she says she
last saw the shoes the Tuesday after the mur-
der, and then, on being questioned again, said
that she had"nt seen them since the Sunday fol-
lowing the murder. When asked who she had
been talking with, in the time elapsing between
the giving of her first testimony and the second,
she refused to answer. The State propounds
the question as though it had not been answer-
ed triumphantly by the evidence, “Where was
Mrs. Clem that afternoon 2 " If she went out
to the scene of the murder, she certainly could
not have left there sooner than ten minutes
past four o'clock. Some time must have been
consumed to get to the buggy, hitched in the
background at the brow of the hill. It took
some time to get out of the woods. Then the
distance from this place to the defendant's
house is nearly four and a half miles. The the
ory that Syke Hartman brought her home is
utterly destroyed by the evidence of several re-
liable gentlemen, who testify to having met him
about this time on the Lanesville road. They
have no other theory to advance. The destruc-
tion of the first is the death blow to the whole
accusation that Mrs. Clem was there at all. But
we have addional facts that go to show that
Mrs. Clem could not have been the woman that
was engaged in the murder at Cold Spring.
Had the defendant been there, and been brought
home, according to the theory of the counsel
for the State, by Hartman, she could not have
reached home much before five ocłock, whereas
it is proven beyond all question, that the de-
fendant was seen at home at four o'clock, the
hour at which the murder is supposed to have
been committed. Besides, the State has utterly
failed to establish a motive or purpose on the
part of the defendant for taking the life of
Young.
Mr. Leathers then came to John Pierson’s
testimony. He stated, that according to Erie
Locke's time, the gun must have been fired soma
five minutes after Pierson left the Palmer House
corner, that the woman’s tracks showed that
the person making them had over a half mile to
go to reach the buggy at the sycamore tree, and
that at the best, only twelve minutes and a half
had elapsed, from the time the gun was fired,
until Pierson met the persons in the buggy at
the corner of Illinois and Walnut streets, a dis-
tance of over four miles from the place where
the bodies were found.
The fact is cetablished that Mrs. Cloºn lºad no
connection with the actual commission of the
crime. Take her away from the scene of the
murder, and the evidence utterly fails to make
any conspiracy in which she had any part. It
is necessary, on the part of the State, before
they ask a verdict of conviction, that they
clothe the prisoner at the bar with a web of
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. -
was she out there at Cold Spring at the mur-
der? By the testimony of Donnellan it is shown
that at the very hour when old man Wiley and
son thought they saw her in the carriage with
the deceased, she was at her brother's house,
and Pierson spoke to her from the verandah. If
Donnellan is not a witness entitled to confº-
dence, why is he not impeached 2 If he is an
untruthful man, certainly the State, with all
the facilities at her command, could have gotten
the witnesses to contradict him. Not only does
he swear to seeing Mrs. Clem that afternoon at
half past two o'clock, but he saw the same wo.
man in the postoffice, after he had walked down
from his room in Blake's Row, and was on his
way to his boarding house. He saw that woman
speak to Pierson, and he saw her the next day
with her husband walking on Alabama street.
Mr. Leathers then made a lengthy examina-
tion of the Richmond letter question, with the
intent to show that Mrs. Clem must have re-
ceives it at about the hour that Donnellan and
Reed say they saw her in the postoffice. By the
testimony of the postoffice clerks as to the gen-
eral rule for the distribution of the Richmond
mail, it was impossible for her to have received
it in the morning when she came downtown to
Roll's paper house, as she got back home before

The Cold Spring Tragedy.
67
the hour when the letters were placed in the de-
livery. She must have got it later in the day,
and the evidence all proves that it must have
been about the hour testified to by Donnel-
lan.
The testimony of Eva Bright and Mrs. Gun-
ther, to the effect that they saw Mrs. Clem at
the New York Store the afternoon of the mur-
der, was then reviewed, also the statement of
Viola Pierson that she saw Mrs. Clem at about
four o'clock, -
The evidence given by Chris. Loucks that
Mrs. Clem was at home at a quarter after four,
when he left the sack of flour at her house, and
the statement of Jane Sizemore, drawn out with
reluctance, that she had heard the defendant
laugh over at Hartman's, about four o'clock,
were brought before the jury, and for a short
time Mr. Leathers dwelt upon the impossibility
of the corruption of such witnesses. Here are
nine witnesses who swear to where the defend-
ant was on that afternoon, and it is out of the
range of possibility that such a wholesale sys-
tem of corruption could be sustained as would
corrupt all these witnesses, brought from the
various walks of life, living miles apart, and
embracing in ago the old woman of four score
years, and the guileless child of less than twelve.
We are told that each party to the conspiracy
had his work to do, and they performed their
parts. That the trip of Hartman on Saturday
afternoon was to survey the ground. Do you
believe from the testimony that Abrams was
with Iſartman, and that Cravens Hartman was
a myth 2 Culp's contradictory statements re-
garding seeing Abrams with Iſartman, are not
to be believed. Is the life of my client to be
taken on the evidence of such perjured witnesses
as Culp? Cooper's testimony is no better,
coming from a suspicious and corrupted source.
Abrams did not leave his premises for an hour
after the time that Hartman left the stable of
Gates & Prey. Einatz swears that the man with
Hartman had whiskers darker than Abrams.
The evidence fails to show Abram's presence
with Hartman, or any reason why Hartman
should perpetrate this murder.
We are also to believe that Abrams, who is
well known in this city, went stalking about
the auction-rooms and pawn-broking shops,
inquiring for a gun with which to commit a
double murder. Do persons intending crime
act in this manner. Mr. Leathers reviewed the
testimony of Hunt, Mrs. Marot, Josephine
Stephenson, and the pawn-brokers, attempting
to show the unreasonable and uncertain char.
acter of the evidence offered to identify the per-
son purchasing the gun. He dwelt upon the
discrepancy among witnesses as to the kind of
hat worn by Abrams on that morning. He
claimed that if Abrams had contemplated this
horrible murder on that day, the sting of con-
seience would have produced perceptible agita-
tion and excitement; that, if Abrams had been
a co-conspirator in this murder, he would not
go to the house of his client within an hour
after the murder, and got a portion of the mon-
ey obtained from Young, and put it in circula-
tion. Such a supposition is unnatural, and
contrary to reason.
Mr. Leathers further commented on the tos-
timony relating to the trip to Cold Springs,
claiming that the testimony of Yount pointed
to a strange woman getting in the buggy with
Young and his wife near the State IIouse. It
could not have been the defendant, because she
is proven to be at home during that hour.
After alluding to other circumstances con-
nected with that side, Mr. Leathers spoke as
follows concerning the testimony of John Wiley:
I grant Mr. Wiley an honest man, but for
some reason I can not explain, his evidence in
this case discloses some unkind feeling for some
members of the defendant's family. His oppor-
tunities of seeing this strange woman were
unfavorable, and it is very likely a case of mis-
taken identity. Why is it that for two weeks
he gave no publicity to his impressions? He is
brought before the Coroner's Jury, and con-
fronts the defendant. Why does he go back the
second time, if he knew this was the woman he
saw with Young? Mr. Wiley's statements
made to his neighbors and those made on this
trial conflict. He concedes that he told Combs
to tell the Hartman family “that what he know
would not hang anybody.” I believe he does
not intend any harm, but his evidence indicates
prejudices against one of the defendants.
With a resurne of these points of evidence,
Mr. Leathers submitted the case to the jury, so
far as he was concerned, closing with quite an
effective peroration, in which he charged the
jury to be true to their solemn duty, and, if
consistent with their oaths and their best judg-
ment, invoking a verdict from them which
would restore to her husband his wife, to her
aged mother her only daughter, and to her son
his sole remaining parent and protector.
Mr. Leathers' argument occupied nearly
seven hours in delivery, and was listened to
with studied attention by the jury and the very
large audience which crowded the Court room.
The foregoing speech of Mr. Leathers, it will
be seen, is in reply to Mr. Dye, who opened the
argument for the State, and which has been
omitted, as it related chiefly to the financial
operations of Mr. Young, Mrs. Clem and Ab-
rams, and is given in substance in another part
of this work. Following Mr. Leathers, Hon.
John S. Duncan, Prosecuting Attorney, made
the next speech for the State, and was followed
by Hon. Jonathan W. Gordon, for defendant.
Mr. Gordon's remarks were mainly directed in
an effort to show that Jacob Young killed his
wife, and afterwards committed suicide.
The closing speeches were made by Gen. Benj.
Harrison an; Hon. John Hanna. Gen. Har-
rison's speech occupied about eight hours in
68
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
delivery, and we regret our space will not permit
us giving it in full. The following abstract of
his argument, will be found however, to cover
the material part of the ground.
ARGUMENT OF GEN. ISBN HARRIson.
May it please the Court–Gentlemen of the Jury:
The first fact which it is necessary for the
State to prove, is that Nancy Jane Young came
to her death in this county about the 12th of
September last, by violence at the hands of some
person other than herself. This has been made
so abvious by the evidence, that it is conceded
by the counsel for the defense.
The next step in the chain of evidence, is to
show that the person by whom this violence was
inflicted, was not Jacob Young, the husband,
whose dead body was found beside the murdered
woman. When on that quiet Sabbath morning
the news of this fearful tragedy broke in upon
our contemplations of Gods goodness, and turn-
ed our minds to thoughts of mans cruelty, there
were not wanting, perhaps, suspicions and ru-
mors pointing to Jacob Young as the murderer
of his wife. But these had their origin in im-
perfect information. When the medical gentle-
men who were called upon to make a post mor-
ten examination had reported. When it was
shown by the examination that Nancy Jane
Young had been killed by a pistol shot, and that
no such weapon was found on the ground, that
Jacob Young had been killed by the double-bar-
reled shot gun which was found a few feet from
the body, one barrel undischarged, and that
there were no stains or traces of powder about.
or in the wound, and when it became known
that a large sum of money had been taken from
his person, all thought of suicide was at an end.
The dead husband speaking through that gaping
wound, declared the deed, and the charred
corpse of the wife, helpfull even in death, said
he is innocent. I had hoped that we should
have heard nothing from the defendants counsel
of suicide and wife murder. It is cruel thus to
stab the character of the dead. Let us look at
some of the uncontroverted facts of the case,
and in the light of them judge of the matter.
The gun was purchased on the morning of the
murder, and not by Young. How came it into
Young's possession? Where is the man who
purchased it, and why has he not came forward
tº tell us that he bought the gun at Young's re-
quest? And more incredible still, Young, con-
templating wife murder and suicide, invites a
female friend to ride with them to Cold Springs
and witness the bloody scene. She was a cheer-
ful friend. Her giddy laugh was heard by every
one who met them, and her winsome talk won
smiles from her friend who was so soon to die
by his own hand. Where is that woman, gen-
tlemen? Did she come forward to tell the story
of this crime? An innocent woman would have
done so. I might add many equally conclusive
reasons against this theory of suicide, but I will
not so far discredit your intelligence as to think
that you have any doubt that Nancy Jane
Young came to her death by the hand of some
person other than her husband.
We are then to look for the murderer of Nancy
Jane Young among the living, not among the
dead. In investigating such a crime, it seems
to me the first inquiry is, what was the motive
to its commission? In this case it is very clear
that it was money. There are no traces of re-
venge or jealousy. The rifled coat proclaims a
search for money, and the seven or eight thous-
and dollars upon Young's person was, perhaps,
motive sufficient. But was there any person
who would derive any additional profit from his
death? I claim that there was a person who
would profit largely by his death, and that per-
son is the defendant now on trial. Jacob Young
had borrowed over $40,000 from the banks and
from individuals, and was owing this money at
the time of his death. He had not spent it, and
the entire value of the assets found by his ad-
ministrator will not reach $5,000. We come
now to a consideration of the business relations
between Jacob Young and the defendant, and
at the threshold of the inquiry we are met by
the suggestion that these transactions are full
of startling mystery, and only mysterious be-
cause the defendants “lips are sealed,” and she
cant explain them.
She told Dr. Duzan she had the notes of some
of the best men in this town, when she came to
him to borrow twenty thousand dollars. She
can not say she was alarmed then; she can not
say that the hue and cry had then gone forth,
and a “woman-hunt º' had been instituted.
She was talking with one of her own chosen
friends—one who had been her friend from child-
hood—one who had been her father's family
physician, and her own family physician up to
the time of this murder. If she had such notes
why does she not show them? Why does she
not satisfy this jury that she had money to lend?
I do not wish to delay here, I think it is obvious
at a single glance to everybody, that if this
woman had legitimate business transactions
with anybody she could show it, that if she lent
anybody money she could show it.
But they tell us there are other persons con-
nected with this financial scheme, who would
find it equally as hard to explain as she, if they
were placed under similar circumstances. Let
us see whether that is true or not. Take the
case of Kise Fletcher. What was there in con-
nection with his transactions with Jacob Young
that he could not show if necessary, by the tes-
timony of third persons—persons competent as
witnesses? Could he not show that he had
endorsed Young’s notes in bank? Could he not
show by the records of the banks of this city,
exactly the number, the dates, the amount, and
everything connected with those notes?
I do not know what the counsel for the defense
will argue now, in the conclusion of this case.























The Cold Spring Tragedy. 69
Those who preceded me did not deny that she
had business relations of some sort or other with
Jacob Young. One witness at least has sworn
that Mrs. Clem said she had money transac-
tions with him – a witness who has never,
whether here or in the grand jury room, sworn
to anything"prejudicial to the interests of Mrs.
Clem, if she could possibly help it. I refer to
Mrs. Rebecca Hartman. She says there were
usiness relations existing between Mrs. Clem
and Jacob Young, and that that was the cause
of those frequent and mysterious visits paid to
him by Mrs. Clem. It is to be hoped, for the
sake of the accused herself, as well as for that
of her husband, that that was the true explan-
ation. Upon what other grounds could you
explain those visits? She, a married woman-
without the knowledge of her husband, and not
only without his knowledge, but carefully con-
cealing from him the fact—is found frequently
visiting the house of Jacob Young, and going
into a room with him privately and apart from
others. What does this mean?
But from another member of that same house-
hold—the household of Matthew Hartman—we
have the declaration that on the morning of the
very day of the murder, Young gave Mrs. Clem
the sum of twenty-one thousand dollars. Was
this money that she had loaned to Jacob Young.
If so, she might have shown where she got the
money. If she got it otherwise than from
Young, the person from whom she got it is
living and can come here and speak. But, say
the gentlemen, would she have ever shown that
large sum of money to Julia McCarty if it had
had anything to do with this murder? This
woman had such an influence—and knew she
had it—not only over the members of her own
household, but over her brother’s household, as
made it perfectly safe to commit to them any
secret whatever, she was not mistaken in her
estimate of her fatal power over Julia McCarty.
That horrid spectacle of confessed perjury,
which has been presented before this jury, shows
her terrible power over the members of her
brother's household, I do not know which of
the two was the sadder scene, that horrid scene
on the sand bar at Cold Springs, or that which
our eyes have witnessed during the progress of
this case. We have seen little “Pet,” a child
just budding into womanhood, led through the
fatal power of this woman over her, go before
the grand jury and testify on oath to what she
knew to be untrue! I do not know which is the
worse criminal, the one who takes the life of his
fellow-man, or he who saps the foundations of
childish innocence and truth.
She had no fears that any of them would tell
tales. She had already enticed Mrs. Hartman
into some degree of complicity to these secret
visits, and her mysterious transactions with
Young; and such was her influence over Rebec-
ca. Hartman, that she sealed her lips and made
-
no mention of the matter either to her own
husband or to Mr. Clem. -
Mrs. Clem appears all through this case, from
the evidence, as a borrower; where in a single
instance has she shown herself a lender 2 What
witness testified that Mrs. Clem evor lont him
any money?. She borrowed of Dr. Duzan, bor-
rowed of Ann Hottle, borrowed of Jacob Young,
borrowed from the banks; but where is the per-
son to whom she ever lent money? Gentlemen,
just how the details of these financial operations
were managed, who can tell? Not Jacob Young,
for he is dead. No witness that has been upon
the stand could explain it. William J. Abrams
and Mrs. Clem are the only two persons in the
world, so far as the evidence shows, who were
connected with those financial transactions,
and who have not spoken. But Abrams, bo-
tween whom and the defendant the evidence
shows there were financial transactions, just as
there were between the defendant and Jacob
Young, has been in the Court Ilouse several
times during the progress of the trial; but he
was not put upon the stand.
Gentlemen, did you ever read in fiction such a
story as that which Duzan told here 2. A cau-
tious old man, apparently, well on in years, so
powerfully influenced—so absolutely controlled
and wielded by this woman, that he loans her
twenty thousand dollars at one time, without
security It seems to me that Dr. Duzan told
a true story; the defense, I apprehend. will not
attack it—it would be unkind in them to do
it . -
What is his story A woman comes to him
and tells him she has some gigantic financial
schemes on hands that make immense profits;
and she appears to have such a wonderful power
over men, that she wields Dr. Duzan with per-
fect case, and brings him to her purpose. Even
twenty thousand dollars is not too large a sum
for her to ask or for him to lend. He strains
his credit at the banks, gets all the money he
can borrow, and lets her have it without any
security in the world. She tells him about some
vast financial operation she is engaged in-tell-
ing him that to the sums obtained from him,
she is to add an equal amount of her own.
Where did Mrs. Clem ever have or get any such
sum of money to lend ?
She pays him back, for the use of this money,
a profit amounting to nearly nine thousand
dollars; and yet, as I remember the amounts
of the loans, and the times for which they ran,
the whole of the loans would not amount to a
loan of twenty thousand dollars for thirty
days. -
This, gentlemen, is the story of the only man
whom we have been able to bring as a witness
into direct contact with this woman, so far as
these financial transactions are concerned.
What her relations to Young were, except that
she used to get money from him, the evidence

70 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
does not disclose. Gentlemen, it seems to me,
that it is altogether probable, that if you should
take the story of Dr. Duzan, and insert the
name of Jacob Young, you would have the story
of his connection with this woman. Obla plain,
innocent, simple-hearted woman, unskilled in
business matters, she is described to you by her
counsell Gentlemen, these are not the linea-
ments we read in these transactions. Where
cise is the woman but here, who can go out in
this community, with no more property than
she has, and borrow, without security, twenty
thousand dollars?
Mrs. Clem is the central figure in these finan-
cial transactions. Jacob Young, Abrams and
Duzan, all converge toward her. As to her
ability to manage such transactions—as to her
wonderful power to get the mastery of strong
men, I ask you simply to look at her relations
to Dr. Duzan, as shown by the evidence.
Iſave we not ſound a person who, outside of,
and in addition to the money found upon the
person of Jacob Young, would profit by his
death? Is not that person the defendant? And
is there anybody else of whom the same can be
said 2
What has Dorsºy made by the death of Jacob
Young IIe has fourteen thousand dollars of
notes to pay? What has Kise Fletcher made
by the death of Jacob Young 2 He is left to pay
off twenty-seven thousand dollars of indorse-
ments! What has Arthur Wright made by the
death of Jacob Young: He is left the loser of
two thousand dollars that Young owed him. Is
there any one else connected with these trans-
actions other than the accused, would profit by
his death 2 If there is any such person in ex-
istence, all the efforts of the prosecution and of
the defense have failed to find him. Gentlemen
have talked to you about a “woman hunt.” I
do not know against whom these insinuations
are thrown out; but I do know, that if they are
thrown out against the counsel for the State,
they are insulting and unfounded.
There never was a motive stronger to commit
murder, for the sake of money, than that which
the accused had to take the life of Jacob
Young.
The next position we take, is, that the person
by whom the murder was committed, knew
that Young and his wife were going out of the
city to some secluded spot that day. The
weapon provided for the killing shows that to
have been the case. It was not intended to
shoot him down here in the street; that is not
the kind of a weapon that would have been
chosen for that purpose.
I think another thing is equally clear—and
that is, that the route and the place were deter-
mined by the woman who accompanied them.
The gun was bought in the city; it was loaded
here; it was loaded for murder; it was loaded
for the murder of Jacob Young. Whoever pur-
chased that gun and loaded it, knew that morn-
ing that Jacob Young was going to be on that
day in some place where that sort of a wºn
could be used.
Now, who was there beside the defendant that
seems to have been the keeper of Young's sº-
crets? Does the evidence point to any one so
likely to be able to draw him out.'there to the
fatal spot? Does the evidence disclose any one
having the power to do it so readily as she?
But the gentlemen say, How improbable that
she would go out there at such a time in that
open and public manner, at that time of day,
and where so many people would see her, if she
was going to commit murder? How strange
that any woman should do the like. Well, gen-
tlemen, this is all very well, but some woman did
it. The gentlemen may talk about its being un-
reasonable, but the fact is, that some woman or
other did, on that very day, do that thing.
Now, that the woman who rode out to Cold
Spring with Young and his wife on that day,
was connected with the murder, there can be
no doubt at all.
I now come to look at the more direct evi-
dence in this case, and speak first of the visit of
Syke and Abrams to Cold Spring on Friday—
the day before the murder. They were out there
that day. There can be no doubt about that.
Culp saw them; Gill saw them; Cooper saw
them. All three of these witnesses saw Syke
and knew him—all three say it was Syke. An-
thony Einatz, the toll gate keeper on the La-
fayette road, saw them. They were out there
then on Friday. The story Syke tells about that
trip out the Lafayette road, is proved to be un-
true by every witness that has been called on
that subject.
Of all the miserable frauds that ever was at-
tempted to be perpetrated in a court of justice,
it does seem to me that this whole story of Cra-
vens Iſartman, is the most pitiable. Cravens
Hartman, the cousin of the accused and of her
brother; and yet she is upon trial for her life,
and that cousin is not here to speak! She does
not even take his deposition Gentlemen, if the
counsel for the defense believe this story them-
selves; if they believed that Cravens Hartman
was in a buggy with Syke on that Friday; if
they believed he rode with him up the Pendle-
ton road on that fatal Saturday, and if they did
not take his deposition, I say they would be re-
creant to the high trust committed to them in
the defense of the accused. Iſe, a disinterested
man, a competent witness, who knows the truth
of this story Syke tells, and they do not bring
him here to speak, nor take his deposition I
do not know what kind of stuff this family is
made of, but I do know that if the news of this
trial has reached Cravens Hartman, if he is a
true man, not land nor ocean would have kept
him from coming here and speaking in behalf
of his accused cousin.
The defendant has the right to take the depo-
sition of Cravens Hartman, but it was not done.


The Cold Spring Tragedy. 71
I ask you, gentlemen, whether, in view of these
facts, I am not justified in saying that the bold-
est fraud that ever was attempted to be imposed
upon a jury by a witness, is this story told by
Syke about his cousin Cravens Hartman being
here.
The gentlemen talk about our not showing
that his name was not on the hotel register
along about that time. If you are not satisfied
from all these facts, that he was not there, and
that this whole story is a fabrication, the pro-
duction of the hotel register would be of little
service. He was not here, gentlemen ; he was
not with Syke on Friday or Saturday afternoon
—if he had been, they would not have failed to
secure his deposition, or to have him here as a
witness for Mrs. Clem.
This attempt to impose upon you by means
of this phantom, is only a sample of other
things of the like character. They talk about
the witness Culp, and attack him with a good
deal of force. Culp was not the only man upon
whose testimony the identification of Hartman
rested. The other witnesses who were with him
were strongly corroborated, as I understand it,
by the testimony of Daniel Hartman. Mr.
Gordon read a good many eloquent extracts
from authors to show that testimony as to
what anybody said in the course of conversation
was the most unreliable of all testimony, and
he asked you, when you went out of the court
room into your private room, to try and call to
mind some things he had said, to compare your
recollection of his language, and see how differ-
ently you would all get it. Yet he says to you
that John Culp is impeached, because Daniel
Hartman, the brother of the accused and of Si-
las Hartman, said he had said something else.
I asked Hartman, “Did you go to see Cooper
and Gill before you went to Mr. Leathers of:
fice?” “Yes, sir.” “Did you ask them to go
to Mr Leathers' office?” “No, sir.” He did
ask Culp to go there, but when he talked to
Cooper and Gill, he did not conclude the inter-
view, as he did in Culp's case, by asking them
to go and see Mrs. Clem's counsel. I think that
is pretty good evidence that Cup told him that
Iſartman and Abrams were the men that were
in the buggy. So, that upon the whole, I think
the testimony of Culp is strengthened rather
than impaired by the testimony of Daniel Hart-
ºn a n. -
But, leaving Culp entirely out of the ques-
tion; we have the testimony of Cooper and Gill
united as to its being Syke, and the testimony
of Elijah Cooper, without any hesitation or
equivocation, that it was Abrams. Can there
be any doubt as to which should receive greater
credit the testimony of Syke Hartman, situated
as he is, and that of Elijah Cooper? Certainly
not.
They were there, then–Syke Hartman and
Abrams, at Cold Spring, on Friday, the day be:
fore the murder.
It has always seemed to me, from the positiºn
in which that buggy was hitched, that the
place of rendezvous—the spot where the murder
was intended to be committed—was up there,
rather than down at the lower sand bar.
I now come to the purchase of the gun by
Abrams, on the morning of Saturday, the day
of the murder.
Mrs. Marott, a lady whose manner upon the
witness stand, has won compliments from Mr.
Gordon, testifies that she recognizes Abrams;
that she has no doubt of his being the man who
inquired at her husband's store for a shot gun,
on the morning of that day. She told him there
were none on hand, and directed him to Illinois
street. Aaron L. Hunt says somewhere between
half after seven and nine o'clock, on that same
morning, he saw this man—it was a face that
was familiar to him—“My decided impression
was, when I saw him in the jail, that he was
the man, and I have had no occasion to change
it.” He saw the man in his auction room, one
door west of Marott's. He entered the store
and called for a shot gun.
Josephine Stevens—that little girl who testi-
fied with so much sincerity and simplicity—also
recognized Abrams as soon as she saw him at
the jail, as the man who called for a shot gun
at her mother's store, on Illinois street, the
same morning. She was not taken to the very
man who was said to be Abrams; she went to
the jail, and two men were brought out to her.
“Which one is it *** **Neither of them.” That
That was a pretty strong test of the power of
identification in that child. Then she sees Mr.
Abrams at the door, and at once says, “That is
the man.”
Solomons identifies the shotgun found on the
sand bar by the side of the dead bodies, and tells
you that he sold that gun about ten o’clock on
Saturday morning—the day of the murder. The
testimony of Swede, the colored man employed
in the establishment, coincides with that of Sol-
on-ons.
There is no chaffering about prices. It was
an old gun, defective in some of its parts, yet it
was purchased in an instant almost, at an as-
tonishing price, and taken off. Solomons says,
“My best impression is that it was Abrams; ”
Isaac Swede says, “I think Abrams was the
man.”
Mr. Hildebrand, for whom he had worked,
and who knew him well, tells you that he pass-
ed Abrams going right in the direction in which
these witnesses trace him in the pursuit of that
gun, and just about that time.
Now, I ask you, does your minds hesitate for
one moment, to come to a conclusion as to who
bought that gun? There is another circum-
stance of peculiar significance bearing upon
this point: Abrams was right here in the court

72 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
room; he was a competent witness, and if he
did not buy a gun on that morning, he might
have said so. He is not put on the stand to
make any declarations about this matter.
The gentlemen tell us it is improbable that
Abrams would have bought a gun so openly for
such a purpose. Gentlemen, somebody did buy
that gun, right there, that day, before Solo-
mons’ face. And that they bought it to use in
this murder, there can be no doubt—not a
shadow of doubt. There is no use in talking
about improbabilities, when we have facts.
You are not going to be influenced by this argu-
ment that it is improbable that a man should do
it, when I have shown you that a man did do it.
I do not suppose Abrams thought that gun
would be left lying on the sand bar; I suppose
he thought it would be brought off, or be
thrown into the river, so that it would not con-
nect him with the murder. But in the hurry
of that horrid scene, when the ghastly victims
lay at their feet, there was no time for delibera-
tion, and the gun was left there, and it comes
now to speak as a witness against the guilty.
It is well for society and for the ends of jus-
tice, that people cannot always be deliberate
and judicious after the commission of a crime;
their very attempts at concealment often speak
against them.
This alibi is a failure, because it leaves a time
unoccupied—unaccounted for — within which
the purchase of the gun might have been made.
Again, I ask you, why does not Abrams come
here and tell us himself where he was that Fri-
day afternoon He knows, if anybody does.
He has been in the court house repeatedly dur-
ing the progress of the case; but his lips are
sealed; they do not put him on the witness
stand.
Now I come to speak for a little while of the
presence and participation of Silas Hartman at
the scene of the murder. He hired a buggy
somewhere about two o'clock on Saturday after-
noon, from Sullivan & Drew, and a very swift
animal—a-mare that he knew, and that he had
driven before. This is not controverted by the
defense. Iſe drove up Massachusetts avenue,
and was seen by Mr. Sullivan a few minutes af-
ter two o'clock—not so late as half-past two.
Soon after Hartman went out the avenue,
somebody is seen in a buggy with Abrams on
St. Clair street, going east; then, after being
gone about long enough to drive to Abrams’
house, they were seen returning—going west on
St. Clair street, driving rapidly. It was an easy
thing to get the gun into that buggy, gentle-
men; nothing could be easier than that.
Abrams had bought it that morning. Doubt-
less it was at his house, and might easily be
placed in the buggy without being seen.
The fact that Abrams denies that he was in
the buggy, and the fact that Hartman denies
driving up that way, gives additional force to
this evidence.
Syke Hartman was seen by Wiley and his son
about sixty rods behind Young's buggy, beyond
Fall creek and between that and white river.
There has been no attempt made to impeach the
testimony of Wiley as to what he said about
seeing Syke; nor has there been any attempt
to impeach his son in regard to that matter.
Syke had worked for Wiley; he knºw him well;
had known him sixteen years, and if his state-
ment as to the identity of Syke is not to be
belived, then how can identification be made at
all. If the statement of Wiley and his son can
not be relied on, when they saw him coming to-
wards them in broad daylight, and when their
attention was attracted to him particularly by
a remark made between themselves at the time,
and by his singular conduct, then how is any
certain proof of identity to be made 2
In addition to the testimony of these witness-
es who say they saw Syke on his way to Cold
Springs, we have the testimony of John C.
Pierson, who saw him and Mrs. Clem on their
return to the city, at the corner of Illinois and
Walnut streets. Pierson knew them both, and
knew Syke particularly well.
Now, if Mrs. Clem and Syke Iſartman were
in that buggy at the time when Pierson says
they were, then they were beyond doubt coming
from a participation in that murder. Else, why
not admit it? Else, why deny it? Why add
perjury to the crime already committed 2 But
in addition to this positive evidence of his pres-
ence there, we have the evidence of tracks, we
have the testimony of John G. Smith, one of
the old citizens of this place, a man who has all
his life long earned his livelihood by that hard
and laborious, yet honorable, pursuit of black-
smithing. He tells you these shoes came off the
hind feet of the mare “Pet” on the Monday
following the murder, and Mansfield, his jour-
neyman, told you on cross-examination, the
same thing. These two shoes fit the track found
at Cold Springs. Now, it is harder to believe
that these shoes are not the shoes that came off
the mare “Pet,” than that they are. Let us
see. Barbee goes to that blacksmith shop, and
calls for the shoes that were taken off the feet
of the mare “Pet,” and out of two barrels of
cast-off shoes, Mansfield selects these as the
shoes, and gives them to Barbee. Barbee then
takes them to Cold Springs and they ſit the
track exactly. Now they ask you to believe
that by mere accident that man picked out a
pair of shoes that would fit that track out at
Cold Springs. You might have hunted that
whole pile of shoes over and you would not have
found another pair just like these. We have
then, in addition to the positive testimony bear-
ing upon this branch of the case, these shoes.
I come in the next place to the human tracks
found at the scene of the murder. This evi-
dence, therefore, can only be a harmonius fact
so far as relates to the number and character of
the shoe. But there was another mark, a pecu-

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 73
liarity in the track—the deficiency in the hight
of the heel. We accounted for that by the evi-
dence of George Knodle, and the gentlemen
were not willing to go into the question whether
any other shoes could be found like those which
made the track. In that view the presence of
these tracks at the scene of the murder, ceases
to be merely harmonius with the other evidence
for the State, and becomes something more;
has some positive weight in it.
But the gentlemen say, “Will you hang the
accused on the evidence of these shoes? Will
you suspend the bridge across Niagara upon a
single wire?” We do not propose to condemn
anybody on the evidence of any single fact; this
is only one of the threads that go to make up
the wire on which we may safely hang the
bridge.
The evidence shows in the next place, that
the track of the buggy, found near the scene of
the murder, corresponds with the buggy Syke
drove.
We come now to Syke's account of his Satur-
day transactions. In the first place he is flatly
contradicted by his own statement to Col. Park-
er, the Sheriff, at the time of his arrest, when
he told him he had not been out of town at all
on the day of the murder. “He was excited,”
the gentlemen say. I do not believe this is a
very excitable family. I do not think from the
indications we had on the witness stand here-
from what we saw of Syke himself–I do not
think there is much excitability about him.
Then Syke, in his account of what occurred
that day, got every thing turned wrong side up.
It was a most marvelous route he took to get
out of town If I remember the topography
of that part of the city correctly, he would have
landed in Pogues’ Run, in the vicinity of the
Starch Factory, and if he had gone on further,
he would have brought up somewhere in the
Arsenal grounds. He tells you he got to the
Pendleton road; he could not tell how he got
there; all he knows is he got there ! Then, he
left all the toll gates on his left hand in going
out the Pendleton road, while it is in proof by
a witness who knows the facts, that they are all
on the right hand.
So much for Sykes' story. Now we come to
see how it is corroborated by the testimony of
cther witnesses: We have now the testimony
of old Mr. Fee. He comes here and testifies
very pointedly. Mr. Gordon did not think of
Fee, when he told you how hard – how extreme-
ly hard it was to identify such articles of prop-
erty as live stock. Why, he even got down all
the spots on the horse! He is a remarkably
observing man! Here was John Drew, who
had owned that mare three years, and yet on
the former trial he told you her mane and tail
were darker than her body, while this time he
tells you that on examination he found he was
mistaken, that they were lighter. Yet here
comes old Mr. Fee and his wife, who had prob-
ably neverseen the mare in their lives, and they
tell you almost every spot there is on her Then
the story that there were just three stripes on
each side of each spoke of each of the wheels of
that buggy'ſ Is it at all credible—is it at all
possible—that this accuracy of description is
the result of any impression Fee received on the
day when according to his story he saw there
two men there? It can not be. The only rea-
sonable conclusion is that it was from a subse-
quent examination, that he got all that he
knows about that buggy or that horse.
On the other hand you have Wiley and his
son who saw him going toward Cold Springs;
Pierson, who saw him returning, and in addition
to their testimony, you have these horse shoes
fitting the tracks found at Cold Springs, and
removed from the feet of the mare he drove, on
the Monday following the murder. And yet
they ask you, upon the feeble reccollection of
these two old people, inconsistant and unreason-
able and improbable in itself, to believe that he
was up the Pendleton road
Then, if the gentlemen in arguing this case
are going to enter into a nice computation of
time; I wonder what they are going to make
out of the time of the Fees". They saw Syke
at their toll gate going out before he left the
livery stable, and saw him coming in long after
Matthew Hartman had him at his house eating
supper!
But the strongest of all the witnesses to the
fact of Syke's presence at the scene of the mur-
der, is this false alibi. Nobody resorts to a false
alibi when the truth would be as good a defense.
It bears the stamp of falsehood all over it.—
There never was a piece of spurious coin palmed
off upon the ignorant and unsuspecting, so base
and counterfeit as is this story about “Cravens
Hartman.” And if that part of the story is
untrue, then the whole alibi is a fabrication.
I now come to the evidence in regard to the
presence of Mrs. Clem at the scene of the mur-
der. Some woman was there; some woman
went out to Cold Springs with Young and his
wife in the buggy that afternoon. Who, in the
absence of all direct evidence would be the prob-
able woman? If you knew only the antecedent
relation this defendant sustained to William J.
Abrams, and to Jacob Young, and her relation-
ship to Syke Hartman; if you knew that Syke
had had something to do with the matter, and
that Abrams bought that gun, who, of all the
women in the world, would be the woman to:
ward whom the mind would naturally turn?
Would it not be the sister of Hartman; the
secret co-operator with Abrams; the secret
friend of Young? But let us look at some of
the more positive evidence of the fact that she
is the woman who went out there with Young
that afternoon. . -
She went away from her house, going through
Hartman's back yard, and climbing over the
back fence just about the right time to join
74
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
Young and his wife on their way to Cold Springs.
That was a curious way of getting out of that
house, if she was going to the Post Office, or to
the New York Store. You may well imagine
that it was when her errand was secret that she
went that way. The scheme manifestly was,
that nobody but those connected with the house-
hold of Matthew Hartman, should know of the
fact of her being out at all that afternoon. But
for an accident Brown, the paper hanger, would
have been an alibi witness for Mrs. Clem, as it
was intended he should be. Carefully conceal-
ing all the indications that she was going out,
she leaves Brown at work in the house, and this
servant girl and Grandmother Hartman there,
and steps over into her neighbors' kitchen. If
Brown had gone on papering until half past
four o'clock, and had had no occasion to call for
Mrs. Clem, “he would have been a very good
alibi witness in this case. If he had not had
occasion to call for some instructions in regard
to his work, he would not have known of her
being out at all that afternoon.
They talk a great deal about the naturalness
of her conduct, stripping off the old paper from
the walls, going down to Roll's to select the
paper, eating her breakfast and going about her
household duties as though nothing unusual
was on hand—so little indicative of a murder-
ous purpose. They seem to imagine that a man
who has murder in his thoughts would go
raving about the streets with phrenzy in his
eye and a knife in his hand! That is not the
way people act before the murder. They are
generally able to plan and execute beforehand
with a good deal of clearness. Before the actual
commission of the crime the mind acts clearly,
and it is often only when the sense of guilt –
the horrid memory of the crime – has come
upon the soul, that these outward indications
of guilt are seen. It is only when the full sense
of guilt sweeps over the soul that men become
unnatural in their conduct.
After leaving her house in this clandestine
manner, we soon find Mrs. Clem on the way to
Cold Springs. Perry Todd, after stating that
he met Young and his wife and another woman
in their buggy, says “That lady resembles her
to my mind, though I am not sure it was her;
she has made the impression on my mind that
she was one of the ladies in the carriage.” She
made that impression on his mind at the coro-
mer's jury, and that impression is there now.
John II. Wiley swears he has been acquainted
with her by sight, for some fifteen or sixteen
years; although he had not seen her to his
knowledge, for the last four or five years. His
testimony is this: “I recognized Mrs. Clem at
the coroner’s jury as the same woman I saw in
the carriage, and when I met her in the car-
riage I knew it was some person I had seen.”
I leave that witness confidently in your hands.
I know the efforts they make to destroy him —
to discredit his testimony—I know with what
-
malignity he has been regarded by the defense,
solely because in the providence of God he was
possessed of that knowledge. He did not seek
it himself; he did not go out of his way to find
it out; but just coming to town that day upon
an ordinary errand, he happened to meet that
woman; and now because he comes before you
as an honest quiet man and tells what he knows
in a plain straight forward manner, he is to be
assaulted and attacked.
It was in this connection that Mr. Gordon
made use of that celebrated figure of his, that
because a photographer with his instrument in
one carriage could not have taken an impression
of the persons passing in the other, that there-
fore Wiley could not have made any reliable
recognition of the persons whom he met. Gen-
tlemen, just in so far as God’s works always
excel in delicacy and perfection the works of
man, just so far does this eye, this window of
the soul, this wondrous instrument by which
we look out upon objects in the world around
us, excel anything that man has ever invented.
In a single glance we take in the form and
features of an acquaintance, of any one we
know. Mr. Gordon says Wiley did not know
her name, and therefore the argument is, he
could not be certain in his identification 1 A
strange position, as it seems to me. Cannot a
criminal bo identified unless some man saw him
who knew his name? I speak of a matter that
is common to the experience of all, when I say
that there are many persons whose faces are
perfectly familiar to us and whom we would
recognize by sight any where, whose names we
can not call.
I come now to speak of the testimony of John
P. Wiley, the son. Mr. Gordon thinks that he
knows nothing about the case, but that he got
it all from his father. You saw that boy on the
witness stand; have you ever seen a boy of his
years who had clearer views of his own than he
had He knew that he was testifying in a case
of life and death; he evidently realized the im-
portance of every word he uttered; he was not
swift, but testified with deliberation. And yet,
simply because he happens to be the son of John
H. Wiley, Mr. Gordon asks you to cast his tes-
timony out of the case! He says “She looks
like the woman. I think in this case I can be
positive.” -
In connection with the testimony of the
Wiley’s it is well enough for you to remember,
that when Scantlin was at Mrs. Clem’s house
to summon her before the coroner's jury, she
asked him “Is that John Wiley going to be
down there?” “Do you know John Wiley?”
says Scantlin. “Yes, I would know him any
where.” What was it that was cropping out
there, but the consciousness upon her part that
she had met that man that day 2
But these gentlemen tell you that Wiley could
not tell how high Syke's hat was. He did not








The Cold Spring Tragedy. 75
speak of his dress praticularly. Too great a
degree of particularity in the account a witness
gives of the dress and description of a person or
of an animal, so far from being evidence of ac-
curacy, is rather evidence the other way, it is
rather a circumstance impairing the force of
their testimony.
I come now to the testimony of John C. Pier-
son. He knew Syke and Mrs. Clem, knew
them well; he had lived right next door to her
house for a considerable length of time; had
seen her every day while he was living there,
IIe met her that afternoon he says, at the cor-
ner of Walnut and Illinois streets, in the buggy
with Syke. Pierson was not a willing witness
for the State; he was not running swiftly to us
to tell what he knew, And what he tells you
comes with all the more force, just as the facts
forced from Rebecca Hartman, and Pet, and
Julia McCarty, come with all the more strength
because they come alongside of evidence of per-
juries committed by them in the interests of the
defendant. I suppose no attack will be made
by this defense upon John Pierson. But, say
the gentlemen, it was too early for them to be
there. The murder occurred at four o’clock or
five minutes after four, and they could not have
reached the corner of Walnut and Illinois by
fifteen or twenty minutes after four, the time it
was when Pierson reached that point in his
walk from the Palmer House. But Pierson
does not fix the time accurately. You may be
sure it did not take those people long to get out
of there after their bloody work was done. The
tracks they made indicate something about
that. The exact time is of little importance.
If she was there any time between four and five
o'clock that afternoon, coming in the direction
Pierson says she was, she was then coming from
the scene of the murder, and the whole course
of the defense admits it,
There are some physical indications of the
presence of the defendant found at the scene of
the murder; the track of a number three gaiter
was made there. That track was measured by
a competent and careful man.
across the ball of the foot was two inches and
five eighths; across the shank one inch. With
this measurement the shoe before you exactly
corresponds; you may take the rule and meas-
ure it for your own satisfaction. If the upper
layer of the heel had not been taken off by
Knodle, it would not correspond in the hight
of the heel with the measurement of the track;
the impression would not have been as deep as
this; but with that top piece removed—the
same operation that Knodle thinks he perform-
ed on a shoe for Mrs. Clem – the shoe corres-
ponds exactly with the track measured by Dr.
Waterman.
Now, did the have such a shoe They tellins
Johnny Patterson is not certain whether he
It measured.
- eight and a half inches in length; the width
sold her a pair of shoes or not. He thinks he
did, and that that was the kind he sold her;
and Mr. Knodle says she came to his shop with
a pair of shoes to have something done to them,
and his recollection is that he did to the shoes
just what he has done to this one, the effect ºf
which would be as he tells you, her foot being
rather large and full, to make the shoe easier
on the foot. Jane Sizemore says Mrs. Clem
had a pair of lasting gaiters, that she saw a
pair of lasting gaiters, new ones, lying on the
bed a short time before the murder, in her room
where Mrs. Clem kept her shoes. She says
also, that she saw those shoes on Sunday morn-
ing, the day following the murder, lying by the
kitchen door, and that they had been worn and
were soiled.
I must hurry toward the close of this discus-
sion. I come now to an examination of hor al-
ibi. The evidence offered in support of it,
strengthens the case for the prosecution. I
think I cannot be mistaken when I say that her
case would have been stronger if she had closed
right where the State closed. It would have
been better for her if she had not introduced
these statements of Mrs. Hartman, Pot and Ju-
lia, which went to pieces so terribly under the
cross-examination, when brought into contact
with anything that was true.
A false alibi is always evidence of guilt. At
the same time, it is the commonest defence by
which a guilty person seeks to escape punish-
ment. A “reasonable doubt” is sometimes the
only refuge of a man who is wrongfully accu-
sed; sometimes it is the dark den of thieves,
murderers, robbers and all criminals. So it is
with an alibi. As the books say, it admits at
once the force of the criminative facts alleged,
and attempts to escape from them by showing
the impossibility of the criminal's connection
with them.
How shall this matter be explained? To say
that she was at home all the aſternoon of the
murder, when she was not? What could prompt
a woman to tell such a story for any other pur-
pose than to hide her guilt If she was down
at the postoffice; if she was at the New York
Store, it would as certainly acquit her of the
murder, as to say she was at home all day. But
she fixed up her alibi there; she had Julia and
all the members of her brother's household,
swear that she was at home all the afternoon.
It made a pretty good start toward success at
first. They swore positively that she was not
out at all. Now she says that was not true :
She swore to it in her testimony before the
Grand Jury: “I was at my house and my bro-
ther's all the afternoon.” That was her state-
ment under oath. When the gentlemen talk
about “perfecution” and about the excitement
she was under at the time she made such state-
ments as she did, I would like to ask you
whether your own observation and the knowl-
edge you have of her character, and of the his-
76
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
tory of her connection with the various persons
with whom she has been associated, leads you to
believe that she was so frightened that she could
not tell the truth about a thing of this kind?
Again, if she was so frightened and excited
under examination that she could not speak the
truth, why did she, deliberately, in her own
house, where there was nothing to excite or dis-
turb her, suborn witnesses to swear to the
same thing? Talk to me about this thing being
done in the heat of excitement! It was done at
home, where there was nothing to terrify her
but her own conscience.
Now, gentlemen, have you any reasonable
doubt as to the motive of this thing? She did
not simply become an accessory to the crime af-
ter it was committed; on the contrary, I think
the evidence shows that she was the central fig-
ure in this whole transaction—the presiding
genius of the whole conspiracy, who both pro-
cured and directed all the other actors in this
tragedy. I have already made an allusion to
the remarkable spectacle which is presented
here in the family of Matthew Hartman—the
wonderful control this defendant has been seen
to exercise over the members of that household.
It is a sad spectacle. I do not know whether
they feel it as I felt it or not, and as I think
you felt it, but I do say, in all sincerity, that if
that little girl who testified here, were a child
of mine, I would rather have walked behind her
coffin and laid her in the grave, than to have
seen her sit upon that stand and tell the story
she has told. I would rather have laid her in
the dust; for then I might have cherished the
memory of a pure angel with her God. But
when, by the wiles of this woman she had been
corrupted, that she comes before this jury and
says, “At the bidding of this woman I told a
deliberate falsehood under oath; * when she
confesses herself, even at her tender age, a
felon, my God 1 how shameful—how mournful a
scene! - -
Not only did she lead this little girl to com-
mit perjury, but Julia—the servant girl—the
dependant, in the household of her brother.
That was a shame! How cruel and how shame-
ful it was in Mrs. Clem to take advantage of the
dependant position of that unfortunate girl, to
suborn her to swear to that which was not true!
I have no words of denunciation for these per-
sons who have thus spoken; but I will say that
I could wish there had seemed to be in tho heart
of that misled girl and of the others who had
been guilty of the same fault with her, a deeper
consciousness of the guilt of the thing—a more
apparent consciousness of the awful sin against
God and before man into which they had been
betrayed by the wiles of this crafty and wicked
woman.
What motive could there have been strong
enough to induce this woman to make felons of
her sister-in-law, Pet and Julia McCarty, if
there was the slightest instinct of womanhood
in her heart, except to escape from the punish-
ment to which she was liable for this murder:
What motive could there be in them, strong
cnough to lead them to do this thing, if there
had not been, decº down in their own hearts, a
consciousness that it was necessary in order to
save her life? I think too well of them to be.
lieve that any other motive than that could
have induced them to do it.
The Court win instruct you (and I prefer that
you should take the law wholly from his IIonor)
that this perjury, proved and admitted, throws
discredit upon the defendant’s whole case. It
discredits the entire defense. It throws suspi-
cion over everybody that is called to support the
alili; because we are compelled to know from
what has transpired, that if they are not swear.
ing to that which is not true, it is not because
she has not been offering inducements to them
to do so.
They talk of “persecution.” Ah, gentlemen,
it is the same old cry of persecution which ey-
ery criminal sets up when the machinery of the
law is brought to bear for his conviction.
After having sworn to one alibi and procured
other persons to swear falsely to it, she aban-
dons it and takes another. She changes her set
of alibi witnesses, and brings forward Donelan,
Mrs. Bright and Mrs. Ginther. I now come to
discuss their testimony. Every one of these wit.
nesses is called to swear to prove that what she
swore to, and procured others to swear to, was
untrue! And yet she asks you to believe it! Is
it not a strange attitude in which the stands in
this case, and before this jury 2 Her counsel ar-
gue that you are to believe Mrs. Bright, Mrs.
Cinther and Donelan, and yet she has deliber-
ately sworn that there is not one word of truth
in what they say :
The first of them whose testimony I notice, is
Donelan. It is a curious story the man tells
about himself all around; and, taken in connec-
tion with the fact that, when he speaks about
seeing the woman at IIartman’s window, Pier-
son was close by, and the woman was actually
speaking to Pierson, and yet the defense do not
call Pierson, who knew Mrs. Clem well, and
could have stated positively whether it was she
or not, I am inclined to think that the jury will
not place much conſidence in that story. IIe
just caught a glimpse of her face as she passed
by him. And now, if we are to believe Major
Gordon's photographic argument is correct,
how much faith is to be put in Donelan's recog-
nition of this woman, whom he did not know?
If"Wiley, with good eye-sight, is to be tried by
that rule, what shall we say of Donelan who is
tolerably blind in the eye that was next to the
woman? Applying Mr. Gordon's argument
here, what a feeble and indistinct impression
would Donelan have as to who the woman
was 2

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 77
Then comes the story told by Mrs. Bright and
Mrs. Ginther. Both acknowledged that when
they were examined before, they fixed the date
entirely and exclusively by a letter that was
written by Mrs. Bright to somebody in the
East. They then put it wholly upon that
ground. Now, however, they do not say any-
thing about fixing it in that way, but tell you
they know it was such a date, because they
moved at a certain time. I will not delay upon
this story. Mrs. Ginther was Levi Pierson's
housekeeper for sometime, and Mrs. Bright has
visited there. This whole alibi story seems to
circle about Levi Pierson, and yet Pierson is not
called.
Remember, that whenever they ask you to be-
lieve the testimony of Mrs. Ginther and Mrs.
Bright, they are asking you to believe what
their own client has denied under oath.
A few words only, in regard to this letter from
Albert. Here is another attempt, on the part of
the defendant, to mislead and deceive you. She
has laboriously attempted to make the jury be-
lieve she got that letter out of the postoffice on
the afternoon of the murder–the time that Don-
elan says he saw her there. We have proved
that she was at the postoffice in the morning,
and not in the afternoon. Then, after her stren-
uous efforts to prove that she got the letter in
the afternoon, we produce a witness who swears
that she showed it to him, in her own house, on
the morning of that day. This is alºn to the
other testimony she offered to support this false
alibi—a deliberate attempt to impose upon the
jury a story that is not true. When once shown
to be false, it militates against her just the
same as the fact of her having set up and at-
tempted to maintain a false alibi.
I now come to speak of the ºntº
of the accused. Defore the commission of a
great crime, the criminal often acts naturally,
and sometimes afterward to a certain extent;
but there are times when the consciousness of
guilt has come upon the soul, that it will speak
out in words or actions. I have already alluded
to the fact that after this murder was commit-
ted, the accused did what nobody else did, so far
as we know—she tried to get persons to swear
falsely as to where she was that afternoon. No
person would have procured witnesses to swear
falsely as to her whereabouts at the time of the
murder, but one of the guilty parties. It comes
home to the experience and observation of every
man, that any woman who would thus endan-
ger her relatives—put them in danger of the
penitentiary–could do it only from one motive
—to save herself. She concealed carefully from
the world the fact of Young's presence at her
house on the morning of that day, and the fact
that she got money from him. Every innocent
person in this town, who knew Jacob Young,
when they heard of his death, told when and
where they last saw him. If it was Wiley, he
said “I saw him on the road that day.” If it
was Kercheval, he said, “He was in our store.”
Every innocent person who saw Young that
day spoke of it; the guilty, and only the guilty
person, would keep it to herself. It startled
the innocent to think of one whom they saw
only a few hours before, now cold and dead, and
in their innocence, following the natural im-
pulse that we all feel under such circumstances,
they spoke of it to the first person they met.
But you might be sure the guilty person would
not say anything about having seen him that
morning. Who was the person who saw Jacob
Young on the day of his death at her own house
and kept the whole story of his presence there a
profound secret? It was the accused, Nancy B.
Clem. She not only kept it to herself, but she
procured Rebecca and Pet Hartman and Julia
McCarty to swear that he had not been there at
an. What motive could she have for that 2. She
not only keeps it to herself, but induces Mrs.
Hartman to send for one of her neighbors, and
try to suppress any evidence there may be of his
having been there. Such conduct as this can
indicate but one thing, and that is the guilt of
this woman.
she met Mrs. Brouse that afternoon. There
was no “persecution” on foot then. She had
just got in from that fatal ride, Mrs. Brouse,
an acquaintance, noticing the unusual appear-
pearance of her face, says to her, “Somebody
has been over the hot stove this afternoon.”
That was a surprise. She was talking to Syke
Hartman, who was sitting by her side—the
horse was probably hitched outside of the gate
then—and he was probably waiting for money
to pay his livery bill and to spend in revelry
that night. Startled suddenly by the voice of
this neighbor woman, before she had time to re-
flect, what is it that comes to her lips? The
truth? That is what would have come to the
lips of an innocent woman. No; not the truth,
but an untruth; – “Yes, I have been canning
grapes all the afternoon.” There was not a
word of truth in that; they do not pretend to
say there was. It was a falsehood. What does
that mean? On that Saturday afternoon there
were no bloodhounds of the law on her track;
there were no policemen watching her house and
dogging her footsteps then. Sitting there upon
her own porch, no one present but her brother
and her neighbor woman, with nothing to alarm
or disturb her, if she was innocent, she betrays
a guilty conscience by the falsehood that rises
unbidden to her lips.
I now call your attention briefly to the false
statement she made to Mr. Hill. Mr. James
IIill, her friend and bondsman—one would have
thought that if innocent, she could certainly
have told him the truth. One would have
thought that even if when examined without
any counsel or friend to advise her slie was so
terribly frightened that she could not tell the
truth, she could have told the truth in the pres-
ence of her husband—and to Mr. Hill. She told


78 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
him also that she had not been out of the houes
at all that afternoon. Is it not singular that
falsehood and untruth should always come from
her lips whenever the transactions of that day
are mentioned 2 If she is innocent, it is strange;
if she is guilty, it is very natural that it should
be so.
Then, her false statements to Charles E. Har-
ris, another neighbor—talking to him about di-
vers things—about the loss of his buggy, when
the subject of the murder was mentioned; “No:
I was not acquainted with Mr. Young and his
wife.” Was not that a cruel story for this wo—
man to tell? That is the attitude she put her-
self in at the very time that those mangled bo-
dies, after being exposed to the curious gaze of
the public at the undertaker's, were being taken
to the house which had been their home. Then,
and afterward–at different times, she said, “I
did not know Young, or his wife.” Oh, no!
This woman who had gone to his house and held
frequent interviews with him in a private room
apart from others, during all these months,
when the mourners are gathering there at the
little church only half a square from her house,
instead of joining them, to show a kind, friend-
ly regard for the unfortunate people—instead of
that, she is denying that she ever knew them 1
Then, from the very beginning, she utterly
denied having any business transactions with
either Abrams or Young. She told John L.
Hanna she had none. This was false. Why was
that? Why did she make this denial, if it was
not because this guilty secret was in her soul,
and she wanted to fight against the exposure of
any connection between her and her co-conspir-
ators 2
She destroyed the shoes she was wearing at
the time of the murder, because she knew they
would fit the track found at Cold Spring. Jane
Sizemore swears that she saw a pair of shoes—
gaiters—soiled, at her house the Sunday morn-
ing after the murder. Since her arrest she has
been wearing the shoes of her colored servant
girl—pretending, in spite of the large sums of
money she was constantly handling, that she
had no other shoes to wear—these being at the
same time a size and a half too large for her.
Mrs. Clem tried to hire Louisa Merchant to
swear she was there that Saturday afternoon,
and saw her at heme, between three and four
o'clock. What was that for 2 What sort of a
woman must the accused be, if for any other
motive than to save herself from the conse-
quences of a known connection with this mur-
der she would go about to hire people to commit
perjury What fear of God, or of the law, can
there be before the eyes of one who thus at-
tempts to lead others, and who so swiftly walks
herself in the paths of perjury and falsehood”
She cannot persuade Lou Merchant to tell a
falsehood for her; “No, I was not there, and I
cannot swear to it.” She offered to give her
five hundred dollars—a tempting offer to that
poor girl—but the love of truth and the fear of
God deterred her from accepting any such of
fer.
Then she made another such attempt with
Christina Kellermeyer. The defense makes no
attack upon her. She says the defendant offer.
ed her one hundred dollars if she would swear to
a false alib; for her.
I woulk ask you, gentlemen, in the name of
all that is good and true, what possible explai
nation can be given to this conduct, other than
the guilt of the accused?
Then, the hiding of this money.
evening of Abrams’ arrest, she goes with that
large amount of money concealed in an old boot
—we do not know how much it was—over to
Mrs. Hartman's, and gets her sister-in-law to
keep it for her. Where else was there an inno-
cent woman in the city, about that time, put-
ting money into an old boot, and carrying it to
a neighbor to hide? She hid it, because she
knew that her confederate, Abrams, had been
already arrested, and because the strong arm of
the law was reaching out after the guilty perpe-
trators of this great outrage upon society. She
hid it, because it was blood money—because its
very presence terrified her—because she knew
that if a search of her house was instituted, and
this money was found there, she could give no
account of it. She knew she could not prove
that it came from anywhere else than from Ja-
cob Young. See her, then, going trembling
with the money in an old boot, to her neigh-
bor's house to have it hid away, somewhere-
anywhere that the police may not get it. The
money, after being carried over to Mrs. Hart-
man's, is taken down into the cellar and hid
away in the stove-pipe hole in the arch. And
there it remained until it came forth at the call
of one of her co-conspirators who has been ar-
rested, and needs money. He sends his brother
to get it. He tells the messenger, “Now, don't
you go to Clem's house, but to Hartman's, and
have Mrs. Clem sent for, and when she comes
over, tell her I want four or five thousand dol-
lars.” Mark the fact that it is an undefinite sum
he sends for. Is not that a little strange? We
speak in that indefinite way when we speak of
small sums of money; we sometimes say, “four
er five doxars,” but here thousands are spoken
of in that way. He goes to Mrs. Hartman's,
and Mrs. Clem is sent for. He delivers his mes-
sage, and she tells him he can have the money.
Is not this a singular transaction? Is there any
receipt given No. Any note? No. There is
no proposition to borrow the money. Does she
say to him, “What security will he give me, if
I lot him have the money?” Not a word of it.
Yet there is no hesitation about letting him
have it. She brings it forth just as one conspir-
ator would bring forth the fruit of the unlawful
enterprise at the demand of a co-conspirtor.
On the very

The Cold Spring Tragedy.
79
Now, if this woman was not really guilty,
does not this cvidence show that she occupid a
queer relation to Abrams? She was ready, at
once, upon his arrest, to swear to his alibi, and
now delivers over, at his command, four or five
thousand dollars without counting. Where did
she get that money? If it was not blood money
she could show where she got it.
Gentlemen of the Jury, remember that in
arriving at this verdict sympathy has no place
at all. The pardoning power is with the Exec-
utive. If this is a woman who has not led others
into crime, but who has herself been enticed
into it by others, and if there are palliating cir-
cumstances connected with the crime she has
committed, the jury do not take that into
account when they come to look into the ques-
tion of guilty or not guilty. To ask you to do
that would be to ask you to do for Mrs. Clem
what IRebecca Hºrtman and Pet and Julia Mc-
Carty have done—to commit, under oath, an
untruth. You are to speak the simple truth
upon the question of her guilt or innocence of
this crime, and it does not matter at all whether
she has a husband, a son, an aged mother, or
whether she be the merest outcast in the world;
whether she be homeless, friendless, and house-
less, or whether she have friends and family and
home. You are to follow just the same rule in
determining the question that is submitted to
you, in either case. Here, before juries there
are no peerages—no high, no low. The veriest
outcast that ever was arraigned before a jury is
entitled to the same presumption of innocence,
and the same certainty of guilt before convic-
tion, as are the right of the accused in this case.
You may feel, as men—it would be strange, in-
deed, if you did not—we all feel sympathy with
those who are to be smitten with this terrible
blow, but while you may feel it, and when the
case is over, may express what you feel; yet
that juror who allows his sympathy to suggest
a reasonable doubt is not acting according to
his oath. The Governor has the pardoning
power, and not the jury. The gentlemen talk
to you about the charity of Jesus when he said
to the erring woman, “Go, and sin no more.”
Gentlemen, mercy is with God; but the blessed
Master did not say the woman was not guilty.
It was, “Go and sin no more; ” it was not that
she had never sinned. Yet these gentlemen ask
you to say in your verdict, not “Go, and sin no
more,” but, “Thou hast never sinned—thou
art innocent.”
I know how in the close of this case anthese
circumstances will be appealed to. I make no
complaint of the defendant's counsel for that;
but it is my duty to caution you that in this
case you are to exercise your judgment and
mind. It is not a question of husband or child
or mother that is presented to you, but simply
Mrs. Nancy E. Clem, one of the guilty persons
who brought about the death of Nancy Jano
Young
I have at my house an old engraving that
represents the first trial by a jury—an English
picture. The twelve men are gathered in the
open field. No house encloses them. It is a
murder trial that is represented, but it is very
unlike this murder trial. We see here the ac-
cused and her family gathered about her weep-
ing and appealing to the jury for symaptly.
Not so there. The jury have assembled upon
the commission of the crime, and the body of
the dead lies at their feet, upon a bier. A weep-
ing female relative of the deceased bends over
the dead form, and her locks drop upon his face,
as her tears fall in her agony of grief. Another
young relative of the dead man, stooping over
the lifeless form, points with one hand to the
criminal, and with the other to the gaping
wound by which the life tide went out. This
was an old trial for murder. I only ask you
now, as this group gather around you, to re-
member the dead that are buried away out of
sight; to remember the hearthstone whose fire
has gone out forever. I ask you to remember
that orphan child who is wandering fatherless
and motherless to-day. If any appeal shall be
made to your sympathies, I ask you to think of
the grief that has come upon another household.
I ask you to think of that horrid scene at Cold
Springs, when the charred and blackened re-
mains of that woman lay on the bar, and that
man, with his head all torn, and his teeth bent
out as if grinning in horrid mirth. I ask you,
also, in her behalf, to consider these questions
that have been presented to you, carefully, hon-
estly and deliberately. If she is guilty, speak
the word; if she is not, then lºt her go free;
and may the God of all wisdom lead you to the
right discharge of this duty that remains to
you, and bring you to a right verdict.
ARGUMENT OF JOHN ºn Axx A.
Hon. John Hanna . the argument in the
csse as follows:
Gentlemen of the Jury:
Although you have patiently sat in those
chairs for three weeks, and attentively listened
to the testimony adduced, and arguments of
counsel, I hope you will hear me to the close.
I have no fine spun theories to offer in this case.
My theory is, “Not guilty.” I shall at once
go to the heart of this case. I come before yon
simply to ask that you will try my client by the
law and the evidence. Counsel have told you
this is no case for sympathy. If I thought I
stood in the presence of men having no sympa-
thy for humanity, I would take my seat. The
large audience of ladies present every day since
the trial eommenced, show that they have sym-
pathy for the accused.
I shall not read to you long extracts from the

80
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
law, but will submit the following as the basis
on which I shall ask an acquittal:
If the jury “ have a rational doubt as to the
existence of any one of the material circum-
stances attempted to be proved, that circum-
stance ought not to have any influence with
them in forming their opinion respecting the
guilt or innocence of the defendant.”–5 Blackf.
580. -
“Every circumstance material in this case
must be proved beyond a rational doubt, or it
is the duty of the jury to discard such circum-
stance in making up their verdict.”–5 Blackf.
“It is essential to circumstantial proof that
each circumstance from which the conclusion is
drawn, should be established beyond a reasona-
ble doubt.”–5 Blackf. 580.
“And if the jury have a reasonable doubt
about the existence of any necessary link in
the chain of evidence, then they must acquit.”
–12 Ind. 674.
I think the above will cover the whole of the
case. All I ask you is to apply the law in this
case, and I shall be satisfied. If you have a ra-
tional doubt as to the strength of the “strands”
of evidence Mr. Harrison speaks of, you must
discard them, as we want no flawed strands in
this cable of circumstances.
Whether Jacob Young committed suicide or
not, I don’t know. I shall argue this case as
though some one had killed him.
I hold in my hand Mr. Dye's printed state-
ment. No one will ever rob him of his copy-
right.
her credit and escape financial ruin; that she
had a motive to kill in these money transac-
tions. Gentlemen assume she was interested in
the payment of certain joint notes. Take the
statement, and see where she borrows money,
and it is proved by the testimony that she has
paid back every cent. They ask you to make it
appear that she took the life of one who was
making money for her; counsel want you to be-
lieve the preposterous story that on the day of
the murder she got from Young $21,000, and of-
fer this as a motive why she should kill Young;
you are asked to believe such absurd conjec-
tures, so you can think she has a motive. I will
not take up your time in arguing so proposter-
ous a proposition. So far as a motive to kill is
concerned, it is groundless. They say her money
transactions with Young were secret. How,
then, is it with Dorsey Does he not go to
Greencastle and misstate to Dollahide that he
wanted the money for a man whose name he re-
fused to tell, but said he was worth $300,000?
Will you try this woman by one rule and Dor-
sey by another? The secret transactions will
apply to Dorsey. Is it a crime in her to loan
money to Young, if others do it? They say she
don’t explain these things. What is the issue
in this case? Is it not a charge of murder?
Oh, we would like to have her explain, say the
It says Mrs. Clem killed Young to save
gentlemen. Well, if Dorsey, who is so familiar
with Young's affairs, comes here on this witness
stand and says he cannot give you any light on
the subject, how can you expect this woman to
do it? You are to conjecture a motive from
such stuff as that? The evidence shows she was
the lender, not the borrower. Young had been
the borrower of the money from the beginning.
This pamphlet is of no account so far as the mo.
tive is concerned.
Do they introduce a single note or memoranda
bearing the names of Jacob Young and Nancy
E. Clem? She says to Mr. Hanna, the Deputy
Sheriff, “if they have a note with my name on
it, it is a forgery.” Talk about there being a
settlement in blood! Who swears she has a
note in the First National Bank? Not a wit.
ness. Yet counsel say, I guess you had better
hang her. Some fools, to gratify an idle curios.
ity, also demand that you had better hang her.
To handle money successfully, to be prompt, to
have credit in bank, is that an evidence of
crime? There is no motive whatever to kill Ja-
cob Young. -
So far as the motive is concerned in the secret
business transactions, they make Dorsey,
Fletcher and Wright, equally guilty with the
defendant. Don't the witnesses swear they saw
more money in her possession before the mur-
der than afterward? I grant that if she had no
money before the murder, and did have after-
ward, it would be a circumstance of guilt. But
such is not the case. Then all this talk about
blood-money is simply for effect. I have said
all I wish to on this subject of motive.
They say that Mrs. Clem, Silas Iſartman and
W. J. Abrams, formed a conspiracy to kill Ja-
cob Young; that each had his part to perform
and performed his part. Lºt us see from the
testimony if such was the fact.
William J. Abrams is well acquainted in this
city, having lived here for years, and yet you
are asked to believe that, with a design to mur-
der, he would walk into a store and ask for a
shotgun. Is this conduct not more consistent
with that of a stranger ? It is not consistent
with human actions. Well, they say, he goes
into Hunt's auction room and inquires for a
gun. Hunt thinks Abrams is the man, but he
can't describe the dress. Josephino Stephens
says she recognizes him by the whiskers being
all over the face, and wearing a black round
crowned hat; although he is proved to have had
on a straw hat, and his whiskers were shaved
far down on the check bone. Will counsel prº-
tend to tell us that Swede, who only saw the
side of the face, and Solomons, who says hº is
not positive that Abrams was the man, is an
identification? Swede speaks of the round
crowned hat. That is the testimony for the
State, and is it not of a satisfactory character.
When you apply the descriptiºn given by these
witnesses, it don't describe Abrams. None of
them had an acquaintance with Abrams. Ma-

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 81
rott, Swede, Solomons and Stephens, never saw
him before. If the proof shows anything, it
shows that Abrams was in another part of the
city at this time. Did the same man at Clem's
store buy the gun at Solomons' You are ask-
ed to believe that the man with full whiskers
was Abrams, who is proved to be a mile away.
They say he was there in pursuance of a conspi-
racy. There is no proof that Abrams had seen
Young that week. They ask you to believe that
Hartman and Abrams met on that day, and
Syke got the shot gun; that that shot gun was
taken to the sand bar by Hartman, and he fired
the fatal shot; that he was seen coming back.
They further say the tracks of the horse shoes
point to him as the man.
Was Silas Hartman out there that day If
he was not, it is a triumphant windication. If
there is a blacksmith on this jury, can you say
these horse shoes I hold in my hand, were ever
on the same horse? The only witness the State
introduces concerning the tracks (Barbee) says
the foreshoes never made the tracks. If those
shoes made the tracks at Cold Spring measured
by Barbee, then a different horse from Pet made
the tracks. Their own witness utterly damns
their whole theory of tracks, and becomes testi-
mony for the defense. The law says that cir-
cumstances failing must be discarded, and, so
far as the tracks are concerned, they are out of
the case.
They say Pierson saw this man Hartman
crossing Illinois street a short time after four
o'clock. He fixes the time himself, leaving the
Palmer House five minutes before or five min-
utes after four o'clock. Erie Locke says that
when the gun was fired, it was about five min-
utes after four o'clock. Mrs. Munroe swore she
heard the report of the gun about four o'clock.
If the gun they heard done the fatal work, it
was fired about five minutes after four o’clock.
This man Pierson started from the Palmer
House five minutes before the shot was fired.
You are asked to believe that Silas Hartman
and Mis. Clem left the sand bar—drove about
four miles, part of the way over logs, brush
heaps and ravines, in from five to ten minutes.
Is this not a material circumstance to prove be-
yond a reasonable doubt 7 Could Mr. Pierson
be mistaken in the day? Was Silas Hartman
out there on the day of the murder?
We brought Silas Hartman on the witness
stand. Was he not corroborated by every ma-
terial fact he swore to? I don't care whether
the toll gates were on the one side or on the
other. If there can be anything in human tes-
timony, Silas Hartman is an innocent man. He
swears he was not there; that he did not see
Young out there, and the State don't prove he
was there. How does he corroborate himself!
Eſe was arrested in the afternoon, and soon af-
ter he tells his brother-in-law, Frank Clem, to
º º get the same horse and buggy he drove
that Saturday, and go up the Pendleton road,
and see if the old toll gate keeper and his wife
won't recollect he passed through their gate on
that Saturday. Ask them if they don’t recol-
lect one of the men got out of the buggy, went
into the house, lit his pipe, got a drink of water
at the pump, and paid him fourteen cents toll.
This one fact establishes the innocence of Hart-
man. Could old man Fee's testimony be manu-
factured 2 This is a circumstance that Hart-
man was not across the river that day. Was
Hartman in old man Fee's house that after-
noon? Is it likely that Silas Hartman would
manufacture such a story There was no con-
cert of action between them—no pretense that
there was an alibi to be manufactured. Dow-
den sees him, and corroborates old man Fee's
statement. Can you disregard the testimony of
Hartman when he corroborates himself? Coun-
sel say Ilartman contradicts himself, and they
talk about what he said at the jail. Because
everything did not occur to him at the moment,
because there may be contradictions in minor
statements of fact made under excitement, they
say he has falsified. What has that to do with
the material questions that old man Fee and
wife settles beyond a doubt? The manner in
which he is corroborated by the witnesses shows
the absolute truth of every material fact which
he swears to. If he was out upon that road,
then he did not kill Jacob Young—then Pierson
did not see him.
Mr. Harrison says it is all a pretense that
Cravens Hartman was here. He should not
have said so. If Cravens Hartman was not
here, why did they not produce the Spencer
House register to convince you of it. They
dared not to do it. Then, I say, Silas Hartman
is lifted out of the conspiracy by this testimo-
my. All the material facts which he stated at
the jail are consistent with his innocence, and
inconsistent with his guilt. He said he was not
in the direction of the scene of the murder on
Saturday. Dowden, Fee and his wife, have
most positively sworn corroborating his testi-
mony, showing it to have been a physical im-
possibility for him to have been there. The de-
fense of Hartman becomes the defense of Mrs.
Clem. Every witness for him is a witness for
her. If he did go out the Pendleton road, then
the blood of Jacob Young does not rest on his
soul. I want my client tried by the law in this
case, and not by suspicions. You are said to
believe that he was trying to confuse and mysti-
fy people as to his whereabouts by getting a
sorrel horse each time he went out. Is there
any testimony given to show that he asked for
such a colored horse? Why did General Harri.
son ask Hartman to pick up that gun? It was
done to manufacture testimony, thinking that
the quivering lips and trembling hands would
speak to you of his guilt. But it failed. I ad-
mit the motive is strong for him to swear so as

82 "
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
tô shield himself and sister, but I not only ask
you to believe him, but those also who sustain
him. I shall dismiss this part of the case.
Nancy E. Clem was not at Cold Spring on Sat-
urday, September 12th. Did she suddenly,
within an hour, plunge into an abyss of crime?
Human experience forbids such a conclusion.
The theory of the State is that Mrs. Clem came
down on Illinois street that morning by pre-
arrangement. Brown tells you she went there
st his instance, to select wall paper. Was not
her purpose there an innocent purpose? In-
stead of having her heart fixed upon the murder
of her neighbor, it was fixed upon the adorn-
ment of her home. Duvall tells you he saw
nothing unusual in her manner. Can you be-
lieve her purpose there was a criminal one?
You are asked to believe so.
I want you to try her by the law and testi-
mony. She gºes home, and follows her habits
of industry. She is at home at two o'clock—no
question of this. Jacob Young and his wife are
seen going north on Tennessee street long be-
fore she left the house. In point of fact, Wiley
and son met Young and wife while this woman
was yet at home. It was not possible to be with
them there at that time. Can you tell me where
Mrs. Clem got into Young's buggy? Did any-
body see her ? Where is the proof? Are you
gºing to guess the life of the prisoner away ?
The only woman, as shown by the evidence to
have been seen getting into Young's buggy, is
that woman met at the corner of Tenaessee and
Ohio streets by the witness Yount.
Was Mrs. Clem in the Post Office that after-
ºngon? One witness, Donnelan, swears that he
saw her there. If he had not been a truthful
witness the prosecution would certainly have
attacked his character, but they did not. Is he
a-man of bad character, and yet no effort at
impeachment? He then stands before you un-
impeachable. He swears he saw her there. She
wºuld not then be at Cold Springs. There were
two other witnesses, Mrs. Bright and Mrs. Gin-
ther, who saw her at the New York store. They
shook hands with Mrs. Clem and talked with
har. She could not have been at Cold Springs
because she was at the New York store at 3%
oºlook. If these witnesses are not truthful,
and of good character, why were they not at-
tacked by the counsel for the State. Is this
manufactured tastimony? From what source
will you draw a suspicion that it is untruthful?
When they heard of her arrest they came for-
ward and told the fact like any good women
should. Here are twe witnesses who knew her
well who swear that at 3% o'clock Mrs. Clem
wgs at a place which utterly forbids the idea
that she was at Cold Springs a few minutes after.
Will you guess away the life of this woman
when such testimony as this stands in your
pathway? Who do they bring to tell you that
Mrs. Clem was at Cold Springs. Perry Todd
ºn not say it was the woman. Oldman Todd
says he sometimes thought she looked like the
woman. Would you hang a woman on that
testimony? No! Cast that out of the case then.
Who's next? Mr. John Wiley, who said to his
neighbor that he did not know her because she
had a veil over her face. Did he tell the truth
then? Yet he swore here and says she was the
woman. I ask your attention to the manner of
meeting-passing on the road hurriedly—and
also that they are brought before the coroner's
jury and that poor woman is compelled to meet
them three times. If Mr. Wiley told his neigh-
bor he did not know who they were this jury will
pause long before they find a verdict of guilty
on such evidence as that.
They want you to guess that she went to
Cady's shoe store a number of days before the
murder and bought a pair of shoes and took
them to Knodle's to have the heels Iowered;
that she afterwards wore them to Cold Springs
and made the tracks there discovered. There
are two sets of woman's tracks found there, and
the track theory is irreconcilable—the more you
think about it the less you'll know about it.
They measure the tracks in the mud with a
green paw paw stick, which comes within a
half inch of the length of her foot. I would
ask if the two shoemakers introduced here for
measuring the defendant's foot make a differ-
ence of half an inch, what would an unpracticed
man do with his paw paw stick? I'll dismiss
this track question.
How stands the proof against her? Grand-
mother Iſartman says it was four o'clock when
her daughter came back. The murder was comi-
mitted five minutes after four o'clock. They
don't attempt to impeach her. Chris. Loucks
tells you he saw her there at four o'clock, and
Chrisman, who same to the city with Loucks,
fixes the day (Saturday), notwithstanding they
attempt to prove it was Thursday, Loucks was
at Clem's house. Then remember Bright, Gin-
ther, and Donnellan swear they see her in the
city about the hour she is supposed to be at Cold
Spring. And yet they say she was there, when
physical circumstances render it impossible.
Will you take human Iife on such testimony as
that?
Take out of the case the foolish conduct of
the defendant in keeping secret her meney
transactions, and there is not a thing in it.
What has these transactions to do with this
charge of murder? You are not trying her of
Duzan's or Young's money transactions. Be-
cause she has handled large sums of money, and
kept the fact to herself, you are asked to hang
this wenan. I believe you will be loth to con-
vict a woman on such enaff as this thrown in by
the State to make a case.
Mr, Hanna, by way of summary, said the
jury were asked to guess that Abrams bought
the gun, in disregard of the proof that the man
who did buy it was dressed entirely different
from him, and who were a hat of another kind.

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 83
You are asked to guess that Abrams bought the
gun, although the proof shows that the man
who did buy it had full whiskers, while Abrams,
on that day, had shaved his face far down on
his cheek bone.
You are asked to guess that Abrams, in some
way, transferred that gun to Hartman in the
absence of all proof to that effect, and in deſi-
ance of the proof that they did not see each
other that day.
You are asked to guess that either Abrams or
Hartman purchased powder and lead and some-
where and somehow moulded the balls with
which the gun was loaded, although there is no
proof whatever that either ever bought an ounce
of powder or owned a pair of bullet molds.
You are asked to guess that Abrams and Hart-
man, after the purchase of the gun met and
planned the murder.
You are asked to guess that Hartman knew
where Young and wife were going that after-
noon, although the proof shows that the wife
of Young accompanied him by the merest acci-
dent, as she asked him if she might accompany
him a few minutes before he started.
You are asked to guess that Abrams knew be-
fore nine o'clock that morning that Young
would be out of the city that afternoon, at a
place where his life might be taken, although
there is no proof whatever that Abrams had
seen Young that week, or that he had seen either
of his co-conspirators at any time that day
prior to the murder.
You are asked to guess that a pistol was used
by the defendant, although there is no proof
that she ever had er ever saw a pistol, or that
either Hartman or Abrams ever had a pistol of
the kind alleged to have been used in the shoot-
ing of Mrs. Young.
You are asked to guess that the defendant was
the woman who rode out of the city with Young
and wife, although there is an overwhelming
preponderance of proof to the contrary.
You are asked to guess that Hartman followed
her alone, although the proof is beyond question
that he was not out in that direction on Satur-
day.
You are asked to guess that the shoes worn
by the mare he drove that day made certain
tracks near the scene of the murder, althongh
the only witness introduced by the State on
that subject solemnly swears that the shoes did
not, and could not, and never did make the
tracks.
You are asked to guess that the defendant,
weeks before the murder, bought a pair ef shoes,
for the purpose of wearing them on that Satur-
day afternoon, and then you are asked to guess
that she had the heels of those shoes changed,
aad that the shoes thus changed were worn by
her and made eertain tracks, although there is
no proof whatever of that fact, and although
there are, perhaps, three thousand women in
Indianapolis that wear No. 3 shoes,
You are asked to guess that the shoes worn
by her made the tracks, which are said to be
eight and a half inches in length, when the
proef by one witness is that her naked foot is
eight and a half inches, and by another nine
inches in length.
You are asked to guess that she was at the
scene of the murder seven minutes after four
o, clock, although eight witnesses swear that she
was at that moment four miles distant. Her
brother and three other witnesses swear posi-
tively that she could not by any possibility have
been there, this making twelve witnesses whose
testimony you must recklessly and criminally
disregard in order that you may guess she was
there.
You are asked to guess that the money which,
since the murder, has been traced to her posses-
sion was blood money, although the proof shows
that she had in her possession a day or two
before the murder more money than has been
shown to be in her possession since the murder.
In short, you are asked to guess she is a mur-
deress; that contrary to all human experienee,
to all history, contrary to all the laws which
regulate and govern human conduct, she, in an
hour, without motive, without cause, plunged
into an abyss of crime from which the most
hardened, life-leng criminal would shrink with
horror.
In order to gratify a morbid suspicion on the
part of the idle and curious as to what Jacob
Young was doing with his money; because he is
dead and can’t tell you; because my client don't
know, or if she did know, can’t take that wit-
ness stand as Dorsey, Fletcher and Wright have
done, and tell her simple tale of truth, therefore
you are asked as jurors to commit a judicial
murder.
For three weeks you have faced this woman
while going through an ordeal more terrible
than tongue can express, and I ask you if her
soul had been crimsoned with the blood of Nan-
cy Jane Young, if that awful crime, like a
mountain of lead, had been weighing upon her
conscience, do you believe that it is in human
nature to have born up, day after day, and
maintain her innocent expression of manner?
No woman yet created, if guilty, could have so
done.
I trust to God there is not a human being in
this commonwealth that wants to wrongfully
take the life of this woman. The State, instead
of taking life unjustly, throws the protection
of law around all her citizens, until proved
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet you
are asked to guess she is a murderess. I ask
you, in behalf of the accused, to do her the jus-
tice to grant a fair hearing. I am here, to-day,
to defend the wife of one of my former play-
mates. Gentlemen, take her case; henceforth
her cause is with you. My responsibility ends
and yours begins. I implore you do not imbrue
84 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
your hands in the blood of that innocent wo—
man. Do not forge the chains that are to bind
her in all the years to come within the cheerless
prison walls of a loathsome penitentiary. Its
no reason why two graves have been dug that
you should dig another. So far as I am con-
cerned, take this case, be just to the State, be
just to that woman.
CHARGE OF JUDGE CHAPMAN.
Gentlemen of the Jury:
Nearly three weeks have elapsed since you
were impanneled to try this case. Many wit-
nesses have been examined, many facts intro-
duced in evidence, and counsel have argued the
case on either side at great length and with
much care and ability, to all of which you have
seemingly given that patient attention which
your duty required of you. You did not seek
the position in which you find yourselves, but
the position sought you. The duty devolving
upon you is not a pleasant one, but it is an im-
perative one, and one to the discharge of which
you must bring your best capabilities and most
conscientious purpose. You must be fully im-
pressed with the importance of the case, both
as it affects the public and the prisoner at the
bar. On the one hand, the peace and security
of society are involved, and, on the other, the
individual rights of the prisoner.
As members of the body politic you have a
common interest with all good citizens in main-
taining and enforcing the laws, and thus pre-
serving the peace and security of society, and
contributing to the public welfare. So also you
have a vital interest in securing to every indi-
vidual the personal rights which the Constitu-
tion and laws guarantee. By reason of the very
importance of the interests affected by this case
it is particularly your duty to render a decision
upon the issue involved, if the evidence, prop-
erly considered and applied, will enable you to
reach a verdict. Neither outside pressure, nor
individual sympathy, should swerve you to the
right or left. Looking to the evidence, and the
law bearing upon it, and regarding nothing else,
you should determine the question of the guilt
or innocence of the prisoner. You are consti-
tuted the judges of the law and the facts, but it
is made the duty of the Court to charge you
upon the law of the case, so that you may be
informed in regard thereto. No allusion, even
of a general character, will be made to the facts
in evidence, except as it may become necessary
to do so in order to give application to the law,
and then it will be done with no desire to influ-
ance your judgment in regard to the facts in
any way, except to charge you to disregard
facts afa certain character if deemed irrelevant.
I desire your earnest attention in order, at least,
that there may be no misapprehension of what
I shall say to you. By misapprehension you
may reach a conclusion foreign to that which
the Court desires to convey as to the law of the
Case. -
Second-Felonious or criminal homicide is the
“highest crime against the laws of nature that
man is capable of committing.” It is divided
by the laws of this State into three degrees, to-
wit: Murder in the first degree; murder in the
second degree, and manslaughter.
Third–Murder in the first degree is defined as
follows:
SECTION 2. If any person of sound mind shall
purposely and with premeditated malice, or in
the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any
rape, arson, robbery or burglary, or by admin-
istering poison, or causing the same to be done,
kill any human being, such person shall be
deemed guilty of murder in the first degree, and
upon conviction thereof, shall suffer death.
The only portion of the section applicable to
the case now under consideration is embraced
in the following words, to-wit:
“If any person of sound mind shall purpose-
ly, and with premeditated malice, kill any
human being, such person shall be deemed
guilty of murder in the first degree, etc. The
ingredients which constitue a homicide murder
in the first degree are: 1st purpose; 2d, premed-
itated malice. A homicide is perpetrated pur-
posely when it is done intentionally, or design-
edly and voluntarily. When the slayer, not
being under restraint, but acting of his own
accord, intentionally does the act which causes
death, or mortal injury. Malice is defined as a
formal design of doing mischief to another.”
In its legal signification it may be more cor-
rectly defined as that “general malignity and
recklessness of the lives and personal safety of
others, which proceed from a heart void of a
just sense of social duty, and fatally bent on
mischief.’”.
Premeditation is the act of meditating, re-
volving in the mind, or contemplating before-
hand. An act done with premeditated malice,
is one done with malice which has found lodg-
ment in the mind, and been meditated before-
hand. There can be no fixed rule as to the
length of time which must elapse between the
formation of the malicious intent, and the act
done in pursuance of such intent, in order to
make the malice what the law deems premed-
itated malice.
Fourth—When one person kills another, it is
to be presumed that the killing was purposely
done, if the circumstances of the homicide do
not, of themselves, show it was not intended,
but accidental. Whenever the fatal act is com"
mitted deliberately, or without adequate prov-
ocation, it is further to be presumed the slayer
was moved by malice. Because every one is
presumed to contemplate the ordinary and
natural consequences of his own acts, the law
infers purpose and malice where a person uses
a deadly weapon in a manner calculated to pro-
duce death, and death ensues. Premeditation


The Cold Spring Tragedy. 85
may be indirectly proved by showing the form-
ation of a malicious purpose to kill some time
prior to carrying it into effect, or it may be
inferred from the character of the transaction,
its surroundings, and the precedent circum-
stances.
Fifth–Murder in the second degree is defined
as follows:
Sec. 7. If any person shall purposely and
maliciously, but without premeditation, kill
any human being, every such person shall be
deemed guilty of murder in the second degree,
and on conviction thereof shall be imprisoned
in the State prison during life.
It only differs from murder in the first degree
in the absence of the element of premeditation.
If the act follows the formation of the malicious
purpose immediately, or so soon as that the
time and circumstances are not such as to allow
of deliberate thought, the homicide is reduced
to murder in the second degree.
Sixth-Manslaughter is defined as follows:
Sec. 8. If any person shall unlawfully kill
any human being without malice expressed or
implied, either voluntarily upon a sudden heat,
or involuntarily, but in the commission of some
unlawful act, such person shall be deemed guilty
of manslaughter, and upon conviction thereof
shall be imprisoned in the State prison not
more than twenty-one years, nor less than two
years. -
If the killing is voluntarily or purposely done,
it must be under such circumstances as to pre-
clude the inference of malice; the mind so
heated by the raging fire of anger, and this
passion finding such hasty expression in act, as
to negative any presumption of malice. Invol-
wntary mauslaughter does not seem to be in-
wolved in the case now under trial, upon any
possible hypothesis; and the Court fails to dis-
cover any evidence tending to reduce the homi-
cide, if felonious, to the grade of voluntary man-
slaughter, and only furnishes you the definition
of manslaughter because of an indictment for
murder in the first degree, a jury may, where
the evidence warrants it, find a person charged
with a higher grade, guilty of a lesser. It is
for the jury, however, to determine these points
for themselves.
Seventh-The perpetrators of a crime may be
either principals of the first degree or second de-
gree. Principals in the first degree are those
who are the immediate perpetrators of the act.
Principals in the second degree are those who
did not with their own hands commit the act,
but were present, aiding and abetting it. “If
several persons set out in concert, whether to-
gether or apart, upon a common design which
is unlawful, each taking the part assigned to
him -some to commit the act, and others to
watch at a proper distance to prevent a surprise
or to favor the escape of the immediate actors;
here, if the act be committed, all are, in the eye
of the law, present and principals; the imme-
diate perpetrators in the first degree and the
others in the second.” The law recognizes no
difference in the guilt of the principals in any
felonious act, whether of the first or second
degree.
Eighth—If two or more persons, combining
and agreeing together, both in act and intent,
commit a crime jointly, each is guilty the same
as though he had done the whole alone; and so
likewise, if each has his particular part to do,
the whole contributing to one result. If two
or more combine to do an unlawful thing, and
the act of one, proceeding according to the com-
mon plan, terminates in a criminal result,
though not the particular result intended, all
are liable. A combination or conspiraey be-
tween two or more persons to commit a crime
may be proved by direct evidence; but in most
instances it must necessarily be established by
circumstantial evidence. A conspiracy may be
established by proving disconnected overt acts
of the alleged conspirators, bearing upon the
crime charged against them, or upon the object
to accomplish which the crime was committed,
and showing that they dwelt or associated inti-
mately together, and had a common interest in
promoting the object of the conspiracy.
Ninth—The jury should be satisfied from the
evidence, in regard to the following points
before coming to the determination of the main
question involved in the case: 1. Is Nancy
Jane Young dead? 2. Was the body of the
female person to which the evidence alludes,
the body of said Nancy Jane Young? 3. Did
Nancy Jane Young come to her death by un-
lawful violence, inflicted upon her by some other
person? 4. Was it done in the county of Marion
and State of Indiana 2 Being satisfied of the
affirmative of all these propositions, you will
proceed to determine, from the evidence, wheth-
er the prisoner is the person who inflicted the
violence, or aided therein, and if so, the crime
of which she is guilty. Finally, if you shall
adjudge her guilty, you will fix the punishment
she shall be sentenced to undergo.
Tenth–To aid you in the decision of this ques-
tion you must take into consideration only such
evidence as is legally applicable. If the evidence
satisfies you that there was a combination or
agreement by and between the prisoner and
William J. Abrams and Silas Hartman, the
two persons jointly indicted with her, or by and
between the prisoner and either of them, in-
cluding or not including other unknown per-
sons, to kill Nancy Jane Young and Jacob
Young, or for any other object, towards the
accomplishment of which the killing of Nancy
Jane Young and Jacob Young, or of Nancy
Jane Young alone, was a means or became nee-
essary to its fulfillment, then, in determining
the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, you will
be warranted in taking into consideration evi-
dence as to the acts, conduct, and declarations,
prior to the alleged murder, of said Abrams and
86 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
Hartman; if you-shall be satisfied the combi-
nation included both, or of such one as you
shall be satisfied was a party to the combinatiou,
so far as such acts, conduct and declarations
are connected with, or throw light upon, the
object or purpose of the combination, and the
time, place, motive, means and manner of its
accomplishment. If the evidence fails to satisfy
you of the existence of such a combination,
then, in coming to a conclusion as to her guilt,
you should put entirely away from you the evi-
dence of such acts, conduct and declarations of
Abrams and Hartman, one or both, according
as the evidence shall fail to satisfy you of their
being in any such combination with the pris-
Other- -
Eleventh—The evidence which may tend to
show a conspiracy, combination or agreement,
having for its object that which has already
been indicated in the preceding charge, is to be
found in the testimony of Aaron Hunt, Mr. and
Mrs. Marot, Josephine Stephens, Isaac Swede,
Joseph Solomon, H. W. Hildebrand, Mr. Culp,
Mr. Cooper, Mary A. Brown, Louisa B. Mc-
Kibben, and perhaps other witnesses, so far as
it relates to the acts, conduct, declarations and
whereabouts of Abrams prior to the alleged
murder, that of Duval, Brown, the two Wileys,
the two Todds, Chenowith and his wife, Pier-
son, Scantlin, and perhaps other witnesses, so
far as it relates to the acts, conduct and where-
abouts of the prisoner; that of Pray, Drew,
Sullivan, Barbee, Mansfield, the two Wileys,
Smith, Culp, Gill, Cooper, Chenowith and his
wife, Pierson, and perhaps other witnesses, so
far as it relates to the acts, conduct and where-
abouts of IIartman prior to the alleged murder;
that of Julia McCarty, Rooker, Rebecca Hart-
man, Christian, Ann Hottle, F. M. Church-
man, Benjamin Abrams, Emma Ludlum, Bur-
rows, Nettie Dunn, and perhaps some others,
on either side, as tending to show the intimacy,
association, and business and money relations
between the prisoner and Abrams, prior to and
at the time of the alleged murder, and the char-
acter of the same; in the testimony of a number
of the witnesses named, J. R. Haugh, Hart-
man himself, and perhaps other witnesses on
either side, as tending to show the intimacy,
association, and business or money relations
existing between the prisoner and Hartman,
and Hartman and Abrams, prior to and at the
time of the alleged murder; in the testimony
of a number of the witnesses named so far as it
may tend to show the presence of the prisoner
and Hartman at the scene of the alleged murder
at the time of the commission thereof; and in
the testimony of such of the witnesses named,
and of any others, as may tend to show a com-
mon motive on the part of the prisoner, Abrams
and Hartman, or on the part of the prisoner
and either Abrams and Hartman for the per-
petration of the alleged murder. It is for the
Jury to determine, after having carefully inves-
tigated and weighed all the evidence indicated,
together with the contradictory evidence au-
duced on behalf of the prisoner, whether a com-
bination or agreement between the prisoner and
Abrams and Hartman, or between the prisoner
and either of them, having for its object the
killing of Nancy Jane Young and Jacob Young,
or Nancy Jane Young only, or a combination
or agreement having an object toward the ac-
complishment or full security of which the kill-
ing of Nancy Jane Young was a means, have
been proved.
Twelfth-"The word evidence, in legal accep-
tation, includes all the means by which any al-
leged matter of fact, the truth of which is sub-
mitted to investigation, is established or dis-
proved.” Evidence is the medium of proof,
which is its result or effect. There are two
kinds of evidence—direct and indirect or cir-
cumstantial. “Direct evidence is that which is
applied to the fact to be proved directly and im-
mediately, without the aid of an intervening
fact or process. Indirect or circumstantial ev-
idence is that which is applied to the principal
fact indirectly, or through the medium of other
facts by establishing certain circumstances or
minor facts, from which the principal fact is
extracted and gathered by a process of special
inference.” While direct evidence unquestion-
ably ranks as the superior species of evidence,
and, where it is attainable, makes circumstantial
evidence of a secondary character, yet circum-
stantial evidence is, beyond doubt, a most val-
nable and necessary instrument of justice.
Without resorting to this species of evidence,
tribunals of justice would be unable to inquire
into the majority of crimes and bring to light
the guilty parties, because of the impossibility
of procuring direct evidence. If circumstantial
evidence, being carefully scrutinized and weigh-
ed, produces in the minds of a jury, in any case,
the requisite degree of proof, the jury should no
more hesitate to rely upon it than they would
upon direct evidence. A chain of circumstances,
each proved by eye or ear witnesses, and each
capable of being contradicted or explained, if
untrue or subject to explanation, all submitted
to the common sense of a jury of intelligent
men, is as certain a means of arriving at the
truth as can be afforded, or should be demand-
ed, in many cases. In the case now under con-
sideration, all the evidence is circumstantial,
that for the State on one hand, and that for the
defense on the other.
Thirteenth—Counsel, in the argument, have
made such loose and unwarrantable use of the
word “guess,” making it answer for, and sy-
nonymous in meaning with the word “infor,”
as might be calculated to mislead you. As or-
dinarily used, and as the word “infer” is em-
ployed in the law books, it has quite a different
meaning from the word “guess.” The defini-
tion of the word “guess,” as most commonly


The Cold Spring Tragedy. 87
used, is, “to conjecture, to form dº opinion without
certain principles or means of knowledge; to judge
at random, either of a present unknown fact, or of a
future fact.” “Infer” means ** to deduce; to
draw orderive as a fact or consequence. We INFER
one proposition or truth from another, where we per-
ceive that if one is true, the other must be true also.”
An “inference” is “a truth or proposition drawn
from another which is established; a conclusion.
Inferences result from reasoning, as where the mind
perceives such a connection between facts, as that, if
certain propositions are true, the conclusions or pro-
positions deduced from them, must be true also.”
An “inference,” therefore, is not a “guess,”
but something more reliable, founded upon fact
and builded with reason.
Fourteenth–To sustain a conviction upon cir-
cumstantial evidence, the facts proved must be
susceptible of explanation upon no reasonable
hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the
person charged. Although the mysterious crime
eannot be solved from the evidence, except upon
the supposition of the defendant's guilt, still a
conviction cannot follow, unless the facts prov-
ed lead to the conclusion of the guilt of the per-
son charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. The
same degree of certainty is required in cases
resting upon direct testimony.
Fifteenth–If all the circumstances of a crimi-
native character which have been proved are
subject to explanation, upon any reasonable hy-
pothesis consistent with the innocence of the
prisoner, she is entitled to the benefit of such
explanation. So, that, if it should be that you
should have no reasonable doubt, from the evi-
dence, that, Silas Hartman, either by himself or
in connection with others, not including the
prisoner, perpetrated the murder, and should
have a reasonable doubt whether the only con-
nection the prisoner had with the transaction
was to harbor, conceal, or assist Silas Hartman,
her brother, after the perpetration of the deed, with
intent that he should escape detection or pun-
ishment, she would not be guilty of any crime
under the law. But if she was present at the
time and place of the murder, in any way as-
sisting, aiding, encouraging, or contributing
toward the murder, she would be guilty as a
principal in the crime. So, if the murder was
perpetrated with her knowledge and consent, or
connivance, she is a principal. -
Sixteenth—Among the circumstances which
may indicate that a homicide was the result of
criminal agency, are: The position of the body;
the wounds, and their position and direction;
the instrument by which the fatal result was
produced, and the signs of its having been re-
cently used; the absence of the instrument
from the scene of murder; the scene of the kill-
ing; footmarks other than those of the deceas-
ed; reports of fire-arms; articles of dress be-
longing to deceased found at a distance from the
body, and near the footmarks made by third
_
persons; pockets rifled ºf contents, and §e
like.
Seventeenth–Among the physical facts or *}-
pearances and moral indications which mºy
tend to prove the guilt of a party accused ºf
murder, or connect him or her with it, are the
following:
1. Foot-prints at, or near the scene of the
murder, such as the foot-prints of a man or wb-
man, or of a horse supposed to have been useº
by the perpetrators of the crime, to convey thºn
to and from the scene of the murder.
2. Peculiarities of objects in possession of flºe
accused, or a supposed confederate, such as a
horse coming in soon after the time of the mug-
der, showing evident signs of hard driving.
3. A motive for the perpetration of the
crime, such as the desire of unlawful gain
pecuniary benefit coming to the accused as º
result of the murder; to prevent the disclosuº
of unlawful or disreputable practices which tºe
accused had been engaged in, and of which the
deceased was aware, and the like. There may
be a single motive, or a combination of motivº.
There is, however, no necessity of accountfºg
for a murder which has been clearly proved arºd
fixed upon the accused, however strange and
inexplicable such act may in itself appear.
4. Preparations for the crime, either by the
accused, or a confederate, such as the procurº-
ment of the instrument of death, taking notiće
of localities about the scene of crime, etc.
5. Auxiliary preparations, either by accused
or a confederate, such as the removal of persons
out of the way who might witness preparations
or arrangements for the act; acts intended to
avert suspicion of an evil design; proceedings
intended actually to create, in advance, evi-
dence of an exculpatory character, such as alſº
evidence, and the like.
6. An opportunity to do the act.
7. Proximity or vicinity of the accused to the
scene or subject of the crime, about the time of,
or very shortly previous to, its commission, de-
pending for its criminating effect upon the dis-
tance from where the parties were observed to
the place where the bodies were found, and the
length of time which may have intervened, and
the circumstances under which they were seen
together. -
8. Absence of accused from his or her house,
the interval of absence corresponding with the
time, at or during which the crime is known to
have been committed, from which a presence at
the scene of murder may be inferred by aid of
other facts proved.
9. Indications of haste and secresy charac-
terizing such absence from home by the accu-
sed.
10. Destruction, suppression and removal of
evidence, such as articles of clothing belonging
to accused, by which an identification might be
made.
88 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
11. The fabricatiºn of evidence, either indi-
rectly, by intentionally producing on the sense
of observers impressions which shall lead them
to wrong ideas and conclusions; or directly, by
prevailing upon individuals to misstate one or
more of the facts of the case, or to state as
facts what they know to be absolute falsehoods.
So, also, the failure to produce the best evidence
which it is manifest could be brought as to any
fact in evidence if it be a true fact.
12. Suborning, or attempting to suborn, wit-
nesses to swear falsely in behalf of the accu-
sed.
13. The possession of articles of criminative
evidence, such as money, or other fruits of
crime, and the secreting of such fruits upon the
person or premises of the accused, or other hid-
ing place, with the knowledge of the accused,
and manifestations or expressions of fear that
such articles would be discovered by the police
officers.
14. Sudden change of life or circumstances,
showing the receipt of a large amount of money
from some quarter, and unaccounted for.
15. Conduct and language of accused before
and after arrest, including demeanor, denials or
admissions of guilt, false statements as to
whereabouts of accused at the time of the crime,
or as to social, business or other relations with
deceased, or with other suspected parties, so as
to other facts bearing upon the case, and mani-
festations of fear or alarm before arrest, and be-
fore being charged with the crime, and confu-
sion exhibited upon mention being made to the
accused of the fact of the murder and of the ar-
rest of another person with whom the accused
had intimate and mysterious relations. These,
and circumstances of a like character, if any
such are in evidence, may tend to show the guilt
of the prisoner; but it is for the jury to deter-
mine whether any such circumstances have
been proved, and the weight which shall attach
to each separately, and to all in the aggre-
gate.
Eighteenth—Facts or circumstances which tend
toward sustaining the presumption of innocence
with which the law clothes a defendant, and
which are available by way of defense against a
criminal charge, may be of the following char-
acter: - -
1. That the facts relied on by the prosecu-
tion, and contended to have been proved by his
witnesses, have not, in reality, been provided;
as by showing, to the satisfaction of the jury,
that the witnesses testifying to any fact had but
imperfect means of knowing the fact, or indis-
tinct impressions in regard to it, or defective or
indistinct general capacity for accurate obser-
vation. These considerations are of great im-
portance where the identity of the prisoner comes
in question.
2. Absence of any motive, or any adequate
motive, on the part of the accused.
3. Any single fact leading to the necessary ºn-
ference that the crime charged could not possibly
have been committed by accused.
4. An alibi. That at the time at or during
which the offense is proved to have been com.
mitted, the accused was in another place, as
distant as to render it impossible for the accu-
sed to have been at the scene of the murder.
5. Any particular physical facts, facts of
conduct, leading to probable inferences antago-
mistic to the presumptions derived from the evi-
dence for the prosecution.
6. Favorable interpretation of particular
facts, tending to raise a presumption of guilt;
this favorable interpretation is allowed a wider
or narrower scope, depending upon the number
of facts proved indicating guilt; a wider range
when very few facts are proved, and narrowing
as the number increases, and not availing much,
if anything, against a convincing body of proved
facts.
7. The failure on the part of the prosecution
to produce the best evidence which it is mani-
fest could be brought as to any fact in evidence,
and other similar circumstances and inferences
which the evidence may furnish.
Nineteenth—Evidence of business or money
transactions of Jacob Young, deceased, who,
the evidence tends to show, was killed at the
same time and place as Nancy Jane Young, his
wife; of business or money transactions of Wii-
liam J. Abrams; of business or money transac-
tions of the prisoner; of business or money
transactions in which both Abrams and Young
were known; of similar transactions in which
both Young and the prisoner were known; and
of similar transactions in which both Abrams
and the defendant were known, has been intro-
duced upon the statement that an analysis of
these transactions would tend to show a myste-
rious, secret and disreputable partnership or
combination between Jacob Young and the pris-
oner, including, perhaps, also Abrams and
Hartman, or one of them, in pursuance of
which combination or partnership large sums
of money were periodically borrowed, and pass-
ed from one to another of the parties to such
combination or partnership, and that by the
homicide a large sum of money which Young, as
party to such combination or partnership, had
borrowed, and for which he and his indorsers
were alone liable, came into or was left in pos-
session of the prisoner, and perhaps others of
this combination or partnership, without the
defendant, or such other parties being in any
way known to the lenders, indorsers, or to any
other persons who would likely betray their se-
cret, thereby furnishing, or tending to furnish,
a motive for the killing of Jacob Young, and also,
as a necessary consequence thereof, for the kill-
ing of Nancy Jane Young. The evidence of this
character is furnished in the testimony of R. S.
Dorsey, S. K. Fletcher, A. L. Wright, George

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 89
Thudium, John C. New, W. T. Malott, D. M.
Taylor, and, perhaps, other witnesses, as to bu-
siness or money transactions of Jacob Young;
the testimony of J. C. I. Harrison, W. Pettit,
R. S. Dorsey, J. R. Haugh, and, perhaps, other
witnesses, as to business or money transactions
of W. J. Abrams; the testimony of Dr. Duzan,
Ann Hottle, O. A. Hinckley, Madeline Everson,
Frank Mansur, and, perhaps, other witnesses,
as to business or money transactions of the pris-
oner; the testimony of R. S. Dorsey, Ann E.
Blythe, and, perhaps, other witnesses, as to
money or business transactions in which Young
and Abrams bore a part; in the testimony of
Julia McCarty, Rebecca Hartman, and, per-
haps, other witnesses, as to business or money
transactions, in which Young and the prisoner
bore a part; and in the testimony of F. M.
Churchman, Benjamin Abrams, Ann Hottle,
and, perhaps, other witnesses, as to money or
business transactions, in which Abrams and the
prisoner bore a part. The jury should carefully
scrutinize the evidence of this character, and
ascertain whether it discloses any such combi-
nation or partnership. In the same connection,
and with the view of determining this fact, you
should take into consideration the evidences of
such witnesses as testify to private interviews
taking place between the prisoner and Young,
and the prisoner and Abrams, and to the inti-
macy existing between these parties, including,
also, Hartman.
If the evidence satisfies you of the existence
of such a combination or partnership, you
should then further consider its character, as
disclosed by the evidence, and determine wheth-
er it furnished any motive on the part of the
prisoner for the commission of the crime charg-
ed against her, or any such motive on the part
of Abrams and Hartman, or either of them; if
you shall find them, or the one upon whom the
motive would operate, to have combined with
the prisoner to kill Nancy Jane Young, in eith-
er manner as heretofore pointed out; if you
shall conclude this evidence as to money or bu-
siness transactions does not tend to show such
motive, you must not consider it in determining
the question of the guilt or innocence of the
prisoner, except such portion of it as may tend
to show a large sum of money in the possession
of Jacob Young a very short time prior to the
homicide. The prisoner should not be preju-
diced by any acts or conduct of her own or oth-
ers, not connected with or bearing upon the
crime charged against her, whether clear or
mysterious, reputable or disreputable.
Twentieth-The evidence of Madeline Everson,
in regard to statements made to her by the pris-
oner concerning Frank Mansur, and of Mansur
himself, has been admitted for the consideration
of the jury as proper for their consideration, in
so far as it may tend toward establishing the al-
leged secret and mysterious combination or part-
nership, or to throw a light upon its character,
if otherwise established; and in so far as it may
negative the conclusion that she received the
large sums of money, or any portion of them,
which the evidence shows in her possession, from
Mansur. The evidence has no relevancy to the
case, except in the manner indicated, and must
not be considered for any other purpose by the
jury.
Twenty-first—When it is proved that a party
accused of crime has procured, or attempted to
procure, witnesses to swear falsely in his or her
behalf, by the advancement or offer of corrup-
tion money, or other inducement, such fact
throws a suspicion over all testimony which
may be offered in support of the matters toward
the establishment of which the subornation was
perfected or attempted, and should induce a
most rigid scrutiny of all testimony whatever,
offered in behalf of the accused. While innocent
persons, acting under such strange impulses as
may be produced by an accusation of crime,
have been known to resort to the suppression or
fabrication of evidence, and while, therefore,
the resort to such practices should not be deem-
ed conclusive of the guilt of the party, yet the
proof a deliberate attempt to corrupt the integ-
rity of witnesses is a circumstance which has a
strong tendency to exclude the application or
interposition of almost any infirmative or weak-
ening supposition whatever in favor of the ac-
cused.
Twenty-second–-If the evidence satisfies you
beyond a reasonable doubt that, soon after the
death of Nancy Jane Young, the defendant con-
cealed or destroyed articles of clothing worn by
her on the day of the alleged murder, with a
view of preventing the discovery or inspection
thereof, by the officers of the law; that she at-
tempted to bribe persons to swear falsely as to
her whereabouts on the day of the murder. that
she procured ignorant or corrupt persons to
swear falsely before the Grand Jury to prevent
her being indicted for said alleged murder; and
that on this trial she has been guilty of fraudia
some material parts of the evidence by procur-
ing ignorant or corrupt persons to swear falsely
as to material circumstances, such a course of
conduct on the part of the defendant, if proved
a reasonable doubt, would afford a presumption
against her, of the strength of which you are to
judge in determining the question of her guilt
or innocence, upon all the facts proved.
Twenty-third-In the proof of an alibi, to ren-
der it conclusive of the innocence of the accused,
the time must correspond closely with the time
at or during which the crime is proved to have
been committed, and cover the whole of that period,
or so much of it as to render it impossible the accused
could have been present at the scene of the murder
at the time it was committed. If there be an
interval unaccounted for, and it is found the ac-
cused might have committed the crime during
that interval, the characteristic efficacy of this

90 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
defense is impaired. The defense of an alibi,
though in itself most reasonable and just, it be-
ing the only defense which an innocent person
cºn make against an unfounded charge, is view-
ed with suspicion and distrust, owing to the
ease with which it may be fabricated and sus-
tained by false testimony, and the difficulty
with which such fraud and perjury may be de-
tected. Witnesses, for the sake of hire, or un-
righteous friendship, may swear to that which
they know to be false, and others may be hon-
estly mistaken as to the time when they saw the
accused, as to day or hour, either by reason of
a natural want of precision as to time, which is
cºmmon to many, or perhaps most men, or by
reason of having received suggestions from in-
terested parties as to the time when it was prob-
able they saw the accused at a certain place.
The credibility of an alibi is strengthened, if it
be set up at the time the accusation is first
made, and consistently maintained throughout.
It is impaired if not resorted to until sometime
after the charge has been made, or if the accu-
sed has not been consistent in statements of
whereabouts at or during the time the crime
was committed. The evidence, therefore, of an
alibi “should be rigorously sifted and cautious-
ly confided in; but when subjected to severe
scrutiny, it is ascertained to have been honestly
and truthfully given, it should have equal
weight and influence with the same weight of
evidence upon any other subject.”
Twenty-fourth—When the circumstances are
proved which induce a strong suspicion of the
guilt of a person charged with crime, but which,
if untrue, it is manifest he can disprove, or if re-
concilable with his innocence, he can explain,
and he fails to disprove or explain them, the
failure is a circumstance which, like any other
circumstantial evidence, the jury are to weigh,
and of the weight and tendency of which they
are the sole judges. The failure to disprove or
explain circumstances proved against the pris-
ener, gives no additional weight to such circum-
stances, unless the jury are satisfied, from the
evidence in the case, the prisoner has the means
ºf disproving them at her command, if they are
fºſse, in which case the failure of the prisoner
to produce such evidence is a circumstance
which the jury should take into consideration
and attach such weight to as they may think it
should receive, and judge of its tendency, as to
whether it is inculpatory or not, taking into
consideration, in determining such weight and
tendency, the surroundings of the prisoner, the
otharacter of the fact to which such evidences
would be directed, if produced, and the like.
Twenty-fifth–Evidence has been introduced of
statements made by the prisoner, both before
and after her arrest, as to her whereabouts on
the afternoon of the murder. Suspicion may
have attached to her, and she may have been
aware of it before she made any of the state-
ments. You are to take into consideration the
circumstances under which these statements
were made in determining the weight to which
they are entitled. If the mind of the prisoner
was disturbed and agitated at the time, the
statements would be entitled to less weight
than if they were made under different circum-
stances, with her mind undisturbed by her sur-
roundings. If, however, the same statement,
or substantially the same, was repeated at dif-
ferent times and on different days, it would tend
to show it was deliberately or understandingly
made, and additional weight should attach to
it, because of such repetition.
Twenty-sixth–That the jury may properly sift
and weigh the evidence, so as to enable you to
arrive at the truth; you are to judge of the
credibility of witnesses, and determine the reli-
ance you will place upon their testimony. The
credit of a witness may be impeached by the
improbabilities of his testimony, as shown in
the character of the story itself, or made mani-
fest by the cross-examination; by disproving
the facts stated by him, by other witnesses; by
general evidence affecting his credit for veracity;
by statements made out of court contrary to
what he has testified at the trial; by his man-
ner on the witness stand, showing a disposition
to volunteer testimony on the one hand, or a
manifest reluctance to disclose it on the other,
contradictory or inconsistent answers, confu-
sion, stubbornness, stupidity, infirmity of ree-
ollection by reason of age or other physical
disability, and the like; by his relationship to
the prisoner or other parties specially interested
in the result of the trial on either side; by
evidence of corruption or collusion, directly
proved, or to be inferred from facts proved; by
expectation of benefit to follow from a certain
result of the trial, and other facts of a similar
character. Where you are satisfied a witness
has sworn wilfully or corruptly false as to one
important and material fact, you would be war-
ranted in concluding that he swore falsely as to
all other facts to which he testified, unless he
should be corroborated by some witness entitled
to credit. And where you are satisfied a witness
has been corrupted, you would be warranted in
disregarding his evidence entirely. The pre-
sumption that a witness will declare the truth
is at an end as soon as it appears clearly that
such witness is capable of perjury. On the con-
trary, a witness may, under an honest mistake
or misapprehension, swear not truly as to one
fact or more, and yet be entitled to credit as to
others. Neither does the principle apply to
testimony wrung from a reluctant witness,
against the interest, favor or prejudice of the
witness, and divulged because it was not within
the power of the corrupt witness to withhold it.
Twenty-seventh—A wide range in the examin-
ation of witnesses has been permitted, because
the Court believed this case to be one demand-
ing the exercise of such discretion, in order that
the present status of the witnesses and the influ-


The Cold Spring Tragedy.
91
ences which had been brought to bear upon
them, if any, might be ascertained, and the
jury enabled the more certainly to reach the
truth in their deliberation. Cross-examination
is considered one of the most efficacious tests to
which witnesses can be subjected, in order to
arrive at the truth or credibility of their testi-
mony. By means of cross-examination the
situation of the witness with reference to the
parties, his motives, his inclination, his preju-
dices, his means of obtaining certain knowledge
of the matters concerning which he testifies,
his use of such means, his memory, and the
collusion among witnesses, if there is any, may
be fully brought to light. For such purpose–
to show the influences, if any, brought to bear
upon John C. Pierson, and under which his
testimony might be presumed to be given–Pier-
son and Wilkens were allowed to be examined
in regard to the interview which took place be-
tween them, and what occurred. The prisoner
can not be held responsible for the acts and con-
duct of others, not authorized by her so far as
it appears in evidence, nor in any way effected
by such acts and conduct, except indirectly as
it may affect the reliability or credibility of the
testimony given by witnesses.
Twenty-eighth—If you shall believe, from the
evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
prisoner, in the county of Marion and State of
Indiana, at the time to which the evidence
points, did kill Nancy Jane Young, by shoot-
ing her with gun or pistol, loaded with powder
and ball; that she did it purposely; that she
did it maliciously, and that the malice was pre-
meditated, you would be warranted in finding
her guilty of murder in the first degree, as is
charged in the indictment. If the killing was
done purposely and maliciously, but without
premeditation, you would be warranted in find-
ing her guilty of murder in the second degree,
as charged in the indictment.
Twenty-ninth—If you shall believe from the
evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
prisoner, in the county of Marion and State
of Indiana, at the time to which the evidence
points, was present, aiding and abetting another
person to kill Nancy Jane Young, by shooting
her with gun or pistol, loaded with powder and
ball; that the killing was done purposely; that
it was done maliciously; and that the malice
was premeditated, you would be warranted in
finding her guilty of murder in the first degree,
as charged in the indictment. If the killing
was done purposely and maliciously, but with-
out premeditation, you would be warranted in
finding her guilty of murder in the second
degree.
Thirtieth—If you shall believe, from the evi-
dence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, in the
county of Marion and State of Indiana, at the
time to which the evidence points, there was a
conspiracy, combination, or agreement by and
between the prisoner and William J. Abrams
and Silas Hartman, or by and between the
prisoner and either of them, including or not
including other unknown persons, to kill Nancy
Jane Young and Jacob Young, and that one of
the parties to such conspiracy, combination or
agreement, in pursuance thereof, did, in said
county and State, kill Nancy Jane Young by
shooting her, you would be warranted in find-
ing the prisoner guilty of murder in the firºt
degree, as charged in the indictment; so, also,
if the conspiracy, combination, or agreement
had, for its object, a result toward the accom-
plishment or security of which the killing of
Nancy Jane Young was a means agreed upon.
Thirty-first–Should the jury find the prisoner
guilty of murder in the first degree, you are ºn-
vested by law with a discretion as to the punish-
ment you shall impose. Section four, of the
felony statute, provides that “any person con-
victed of treason, or murder of the first degree,
may, instead of being sentenced to suffer death,
in the discretion of the jury, be imprisoned in
the State prison during life.” It is a discretion
for the exercise of which the jury are alone
responsible—responsible to society and to the
legal obligations resting upon you.
Thirty-second-In determining whether any
circumstance in evidence is proved, as, for ºn-
stance, that of identity, you should take into
consideration the testimony of each witness
who swears in relation thereto, giving to that
coming from each witness its properweight, and
then determine whether all such evidence, so
considered, establishes the circumstance, taking
into consideration the contradictory evidense.
You should not take up the testimony of each
witness testifying to any circumstance separ-
ately, if there be more than one testifying to
such circumstance, and because such testimony
taken alone and unsupported does not satisfy
you of the truth of the circumstance, to the
requisite degree of certainty, throw it aside
entirely (unless you believe the witness unwor-
thy of credit), and so on with each witness
seriatim. By such a process you could not judge
of the weight of the testimony of all of the
witnesses as to any circumstance taken in the
aggregate.
Thirty-third–The defendant is presumed to be
innocent until the contrary is proved. She is
entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt
which the evidence may leave as to each ma-
terial ingredient of the offense. She is also
entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt
as to each material circumstance in evidense.
If the direct evidence as to any circumstante,
together with such corroboration as may be
furnished by other evidence in the case, fails to
satisfy you of that circumstance beyond a rea-
sonable doubt, you should give the defendant
the benefit of such reasonable doubt, and discard
such circumstance in arriving at a determiſh-
ation of the question of guilt or innocence.

92 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
While it may not be necessary that the evi-
dence should convince you, beyond a reasonable
doubt, of the truth of every fact in evidence,
tending toward the establishment of the guilt
of the prisoner, it is necessary that each fact
upon which you rely to establish her guilt, or
which you consider in determining that ques-
tion, should be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt, and that all the facts so proved should
bring you to the conclusion of her guilt, beyond
a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt exists
where the evidence is not sufficient to satisfy
the mind of the truth of a fact or proposition
to such a degree of certainty that a prudent
man would feel safe in acting upon it in matters
of the highest concern and importance to his
own interest. Unreasonable or captious doubts
might be suggested by an ingenious mind as to
the sufficiency of the evidence in almost any
case. The defendant is not entitled to any ben-
efit from doubts of this class, for you are not to
expect infallibility or absolute certainty from any
human testimony. You are not to expect such
a degree of certainty from the evidence in this
case as to render it absolutely impossible that
any other person than the prisoner, or one of
her alleged confederates, committed the crime
charged against her, but it should be so certain
as to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis
or inference than that of the guilt of the prison-
er. “To acquit upon light, trivial, and fanciful
suppositions and remote conjectures, is a virtual
violation of the juror's oath, and an offense of
great magnitude against the interests of society,
directly tending to the disregard of a judicial
oath, the hindrance and disparagement of jus-
tice, and the encouragement of malefactors.”
Gentlemen, this case is with you for a just
determination of the issue involved, and upon
you alone rests the responsibility.
After the charge had been delivered the court
adjourned, to meet at the call of the jury.
AEGUMENT OF W. P. FISHBACK, ESQ., DELIVE RED
on Mrs. clem's Fiest TRIAL.
The following is the masterly argument of W.
P. Fishback, Esq., one of the counsel assisting
in the prosecution during Mrs. Clem's first trial.
As it refers to much of the testimony, and very
nearly all the circumstances connected with
the whole case, it will be read with as much in-
terest, probably, as any other part of this cele-
brated case of circumstantial evidence. It is
therefore given in full.
Gentlemen of the Jury:
In the course of your lives you may have been
called upon to perform solemn and important
duties, but none so solemn and important as
that which now devolves upon you. You may
have been in trying situations when you were
closely watched by others, when your conduct
and motives were severely scrutinized, but to-
day you stand in full view of an interested and
attentive public that looks upon you as the un-
biased and incorruptible triers of the most im-
portant case ever submitted to an Indiana
jury.
Each minister of justice, whether he be the
Judge upon the bench, the advocate, or the ju-
ror, acts here under the sanction of a solemn
oath. Each of us has called God to witness his
conduct, and to Him must each give an account
of his work. .
The question you try to-day is not whether
this plaintiff or that defendant shall be enrich-
ed or impoverished by your verdict. The con-
troversy which God and the outraged and bro-
ken law has with this defendant, involves inter-
ests of much greater moment. A human life
has been taken, and, if taken murderously, the
law of God and the law of man alike demand
the punishment of the murderer. Life being
the direct gift of God, and its security being
the chief aim of society and government, the
strongest guards which human wisdom can de-
vise have been provided for its protection. And
this protection of the law over this mysterious
gift, begins with the first pulsations of foetal
life, and follows its possessor through all the
stages of his existence from the cradle to the
grave; more than this—our inanimate dust, the
deserted temple of the soul, is protected by se-
were penalties inflicted on those who violate the
sanctity of the grave. The life of the innocent
babe, of the besotted victim of lust or intemper-
ance, of the rich man, of the beggar, of the vir-
tuous matron, of the abandoned outcast, of the
youth in the springtime and vigor of life, and of
the old man trembling on the verge of the grave
—the life of each and all of these, and of every
human being, is equally sacred before the law.
Such being the important interests here in-
volved, we should bring to the investigation,
discussion and decision of the cause, all the par
tience, candor and fairness, we can command.
He, who, in this solemn hour would wilfully
seek, by any indirection, to pervert judgment,
or turn the facts or law from their true and
fair intent, is unworthy to minister in this tem-
ple of justice. And whatever may have been or
may be the deportment of counsel, biased, often
unconsciously, as we are by the pressure of a
difficult case, by professional pride, or by that
habit of thought and action which lead us to es-
pouse with zeal the cause committed to our
hands, no such considerations as these can
swerve you or his IIonor one hair's breadth from
that path of rectitude which you have sworn to
follow, until your solemn tasks are done. The
words of the oath you have taken are not words
of idle form. And however lightly they may be
regarded, he who utters or thoughtlessly adopts

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 93
them, uses them profanely. How solemn is
their import -
“You, and each of you, solemnly swear that
you will well and truly try the issue in this
case, wherein the State of Indiana is plaintiff,
and Nancy E. Clem is defendant, on an indict-
ment for murder, and a true verdict render ac-
cording to the law and the evidence, so help
you, God!” And may God, the righteous
Judge, whose divine commands we should fol-
low this day, give to Kou, to me and to all who
bear a part in this day's business, that clearness
of mind, that freedom from passion, that hon-
esty and firmness of purpose, which we all need
for the proper discharge of our duties.
It is a matter of congratulation that we live
in a country where such grave issues are tried
with so much impartiality and decorum. But
a few hundred years ago, our ancestors tried
such cases by compelling the prisoner to walk
barefoot upon red hot plowshares, believing that
God would miraculously preserve the feet of the
innocent from harm; or they compelled him to
swallow a morsel of bread, accompanying the
act with an imprecation, and it was believed if
innocent it would nourish, and if guilty that
God would cause it to kill him; or the nearest
male relative of the accused was compelled to
meet the nearest male relative of the deceased
in bloody combat, and it was believed that God
would give victory to the right. But supersti-
tion has been dispelled, and the interests of so-
ciety and the prisoner are now committed to
the conscientious judgment of twelve men, who,
without bias or motive to pervert the truth to
stand between society and the accused, and de-
cide the issue made.
And we, of Marion county, should to-day
take pride in the spectacle of this grave and dig-
nified prodedure. It has come to our ears since
you were empaneled as jurers in this cause, that
on the borders of our State a mob at New Alba-
ny has outraged the law by attacking the
jail, seizing and murdering four prisoners there
confined on a charge of robbery. May the in-
corruptible integrity of Marion county jurors
always shield us from the possibility of such
dreadful and disgraceful scenes!
Gentlemen, as the interests involved in this
case are more important than those which are
the ordinary subjects of litigation, you have
noticed a peculiarity in the manner of yourse-
lection, and you will also find that the sphere
of your duty as jurors is correspondingly en-
larged.
The law is merciful; and when one is arraign-
ed on a charge of murder, the prisoner is allow-
ed twenty peremptory challenges of jurors, so
that, as you have seen in this case, you are in a
large measure selected by the prisoner herself.
In a civil case a juror is bound to obey the in-
structions of the Court as to matters of law,
while in cases like this the law of Indiana re-
quires you to decide the law as well as the
questions of fact submitted to you. But for our
part, and, I doubt not, the gentlemen who rep-
resent the prisoner, agree with us, we would
prefer that you should be guided by the impar-
tial instructions of his Honor who, during the
progress of this cause, has presided with so
much dignity and impartiality. It is a rare
case in which a jury will take their own opin-
ions of the law, or the partial statements of in-
terested counsel, in preference to the calm, de-
liberate instruction of an impartial judge.
Again: In a civil case the jury weighs the
evidence, and the verdict is given for the party
that has a preponderance of evidence in his fa-
vor. But here, the evidence must satisfy you
beyond a reasonable doubt of the prisoner's
guiſt, or you should acquit. Absolute, demon-
strative certainty is not required. No array of
evidence in a case of secret crime can go so far
as that. But the law mercifully provides that,
when the life or liberty of the prisoner is in-
volved in the decision, he should have the bene-
fit of every reasonable doubt of his guilt that
may arise upon an examination of the charge
against him—the humane maxim of the law be-
ing that “it is better that ninety-nine guilty
persons escape than that one innocent person
should suffer.” But it should not be a captious
doubt; it should not be sought after; it is not
a doubt which might strike the mind while scan-
ning critically a few detached facts of the case,
ignoring the remainder. In a case of this kind
there are many classes of facts and circum-
stances, each shedding light upon the other.
From some we catch but a feeble ray—a bare
glimmering of some little truth, while others
pour a flood of radiance upon the point in ques-
tion. It is your duty to gather these rays and
glimmerings of light, feeble and strong, as they
appear—to concentrate them upon the main
point—and if, to your understandings, they re-
veal guilt clearly and unmistakably, the truth
requires you to pronounce the prisoner guilty.
But if, upon the whole case, you are in doubt,
in honest doubt of her guilt, it is your duty to
acquit without hesitation.
In another respect the ordinary sphere of
your duty as jurors is enlarged. In almost ev-
ery other State, and in the national courts, the
measure of punishment for crimes is either fixed
by positive statute, or is left within certain lim-
its to the discretion of the judge before whom
the case is tried, while the verdict of the jury is
simply guilty or not guilty. Here, you not only
determine the question of guilt or innocence,
but in case of conviction you go further, and
decide whether the crime calls for the extreme
penalty of the law, which is death; or whether
there are circumstances of extenuation or palli-
ation, which justify the infliction of the lesser
punishment—imprisonment for life. Our law,
in effect, contemplates two grades of murder in
the first degree. And while passion, malice and

94 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
premeditation are its essential elements, there
may be something in the circumstances attend-
ing the crime which, while not reducing its
grade below murder in the first degree, may call
for as much lenity of punishment as the safety
of society will permit.
Before I conclude, I shall institute an inquiry
into the conduct of the prisoner as exhibited in
the planning and perpetration of this crime. I
will ask you to scan her actions, beginning with
her introduction to the deceased—through her
hypocritical profession of friendship-down to
the bloody day when, with well poised pistol,
she sent the bullet through her victim’s brain;
and if, in all this, you can find any relief to the
dark background of hypocrisy, malice and cru-
elty, I shall ask you to give it due weight in
your estimation of her crime.
But again: The law in its jealous care of the
rights of the prisoner, clothes her with the pre-
sumption of innocence. However your minds
may have been influenced by what you have
heard said, at the moment you assumed the ob-
Higation of the juror's oath, the prisoner stoed
in your view spotless and innocent and free
from all taint and suspicion of crime. This is
the presumption of the law. It was unfair in
the gentleman who preceded me, and who rep-
resents with so much ability the interests of the
prisoner, to taunt the prosecution with a failure
on our part to cast reproach on the general
character of his client. He knows that the
prisoner had a right to rest with the presump-
tion of the law in her favor, or to fortify that
presumption by evidence strengthening her
character. Not having resorted to such evi-
dence, the law precluded the State from attack-
ing her reputation by evidence against it, and
if we have produced no such evidence it is be-
cause the prisoner has not opened the door for
its admission.
I may take occasion here, gentlemen, to make
my acknowledgments to my colleagues, Mr.
Duncan, the Prosecuting Attorney, (by whose
cºurtesy I occupy my present position in this
esse), and Mr. Dye, who have both brought to
the discussion of the case so much fairness, can-
dor and ability; and while my labors must be
great, they have been much lightened by these -
gentlemen who have preceded me in this discus-
sion.
I proceed now to the formal discussion of the
points made by the State:
That Jacob Young and his wife, Nancy Jane
Young, were murdered in Marion county, Indi-
ana, on the 12th day of September, 1868, is clear.
There were, as appears in evidence, some whis-
pers of suicide, before the post mortem examina-
tion, but the discovery of the facts that Mrs.
Young had been killed with a cartridge pistol
ball; that her husband had been killed by a dis-
charge from the shot gun found near his body;
that the wound on his head was so located as to
than five minutes.
preclude the possibility of his having slain him-
self; the absence of the pistol from the place
where the dead bodies were found; the absence
of Mr. Young's coat from the scene of the mur-
der; the discovery of footsteps as if in hasty
flight from the bodies, and along which the dead
man's coat and handkerchief were found; the
fact testified to by Major Locke's little children
that Young and wife wewe seen in company with
a woman on the river bank within a few steps
of where the bodies were discovered, and only a
few minutes before the report of the firearms
was heard; these, and other unmistakable facts
prove, beyond controversy, that Young and his
wife were murdered,
It was a murder characterized by a degree of
boldness which would be incredible if we did
not know how and where it was committed.
The character of the wound on Mr. Young, en-
tering near the right cheekbone and coursing
- through the lower part of the head and making
its exit behind and on a line with the left ear;
and the wound on Mrs. Young's head, the ball
entering behind and near the top of the verte-
brae, and coursing upwards through the brain
until it fractured and lodged against the inner
table of the frontal bone; the reports of the gun
and pistol heard by those who were near, clear-
ly distinguishable, and yet almost simultaneous,
show that the attack was deliberate, concerted,
sudden, and without warning to the victims.
Whoever killed Mr. Young was in ambush in the
drift by the willow tree, in the shade of which
the dead bodies were found. Whoever killed
Mrs. Young must have held the pistol almost
against her head, and so close together must the
murderers have been that, at a given signal,
the fingers of the murderers pressed the triggers
at about the same instant. The physicians who
made the post mortem examination, state that
the wound upon Mr. Young's head was necessa-
rily and instantly fatal. The pistol wound in
Mrs. Young's head, though mortal, did not,
probably, kill her instantly, and the discovery
of a wound and fractura of the skull on the left
side of her head, and some marks near her feet
in the gravel, indicate some struggling, and
that the murderer who slew her, struck her a
blow on the side of the head after she fell to the
ground. The shells found in Mr. Young's
hands show that he had been engaged in gath-
ering them on the gravel bar, when in company
with his wife and another woman he was seen a
few moments before the reports of firearms were
heard.
As the defense in this case rests in part on an
attempt to establish an alibi, the exact time of
the murder should be arrived at if possible, and
on this point we are fortunate in having evi-
dence which enables us to determine the exaet
time within a possible variation of not more
Mr. Balweg who drew the
load from the undischarged barrel of the gun
found by the dead bodies, says the charge of
The Cold Spring Tragedy. 95
powder was double as large as was safe for such
a gun, while the bullets weighed nearly two
ounce. Mr. Eurich and Mr. Balweg both testi-
fy that such a charge fired from such a gun
would make a report so much louder than ordi-
nary, as to excite attention in all who heard it.
Mr. Marvel and his son, who were passing along
the road, in their wagon, within a quarter of a
mile of the fatal spot, heard the loud roar of the
shot gun, and the sharp report of a re-
volver or rifle, immediately after. These wit-
nesses had no time-piece, but it is their impres-
sion that the shots were fired from half-past
two to half-past three o'clock. Mr. and Mrs.
Coleman, who were at their house across the
river from the scene of the murder, had looked
at their clock a few minutes before the reports
were heard, and state that the time was from
half-past three to four o'clock. Both of them
were startled by the loud report. Major Locke
was fishing at a point half a mile below the spot,
and had his watch in his hand when he heard
the report. He swears that it was from three
to five minutes after four. Miss Lou Monroe
was in Dr. Wands' buggy, at the ford in the
river, three-quarters of a mile below. She look-
ed at her watch as the buggy was driven into
the water, when it was exactly four o'clock.
The horse had got to the center of the river,
when she was startled by the reports—one loud
and heavy, and the other sharp–and so near to-
gether as to be barely distinguishable. One of
Locke's children remarked that the gun sound-
ed like a cannon. Coleman remarked to his
wife that the man who fired that gun would
burst it if he loaded that way again. The Mar-
vels also were startled by the unusual loudness
of the report. All these witnesses evidently
heard the same reports, and those who had time-
pieces do not vary materially as to the time
when they heard them. It is clearly proved,
then, that the deceased was killed within five
minutes of four o'clock P. M., and, as the time
of sunset on that day, in this longitude, was six-
teen minutes after six, it was at least two hours
and fifteen minutes before sun-down. I trust
you will bear this in mind, as the evidence of
sonne witnesses as to the subsequent wherea-
bºuts of the prisoner and her confederates, re-
fers to the time of day by clocks and watches,
while others speak of the time as being so long
before or after sun-down.
We have, then, gentlemen, established the
fact of the murder, the time, four o'clock P. M.,
of Saturday, September 12th, 1868.
Had the defendant, Nancy E. Clem, any crim-
inal agency in the murder? To convict her un-
der this indictment, you should be satisfied by
the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she
either actually participated in the perpetration
of this horrid crime, or that she was a party to
the conspiracy, in pursuance of which the mur-
§er was committed. “In law, as in morals, where
several persons unite to accomplish a particular
object, whether they collectively put each his
individual hand to the work, or one doing it,
the others lend the aid of their wills—not in the
way of mere passive desire, but of active stºp-
port-the persons thus uniting are all and sev-
erally responsible for what is done. This mat-
ter may be illustrated as follows: In the first
place, if several, combining both in intent and -
act, commit a crime jointly, each is guilty the
same as if he had done the whole alone; and be
it is, if each has his particular part to do, the
whole contributing to one result. In the next
place, since what a man does by his agent, he
does by himself; if one employs another to do a
criminal thing for him, he is guilty the same as
though he had done the thing himself.” Bish-
op's Criminal Law, 482-433.
This law simply applies to criminal undertak-
ings the same rule of joint liability which ob-
tains in commercial and other business partner-
ships. Each partner can bind the firm, and all
are liable for the acts of each within the scope of
the joint undertaking. It is not enough that a
man should know that others are meditating a
crime; it is not enough that he should have
formed a design to embark with others in a crim-
inal enterprise; but when once he steps within
the circle of conspirators and does one act, or
speaks one word in furtherence of the design,
he adopts all that has been resolved upon before,
and is responsible for all which follows after-
ward.
This law coneerning conspiracy is one of ab-
solute necessity. If we were called, in the ad-
ministration of criminal law, to correctly weigh
and determine the exact measure of the guilt of
each conspirator, we could never arrive as a
conclusion. To discourage unlawful combina-
nations, it is necessary to deter men from enter-
ing into them by giving them to understand that
each one places his own life and liberty in the
hands of any villain who joins the conspiracy.
And as all conspiracies are secret, or intended
to be so, it happens almost always that their ex-
istence can only be proved by circumstantial ev-
idence.
“In prosecutions for criminal conspiracies,”
says Judge King in Commonwealth v. McClean, 2
Parsons, 368-’9, “the proof of combination
charged must always be extracted from the cir-
cumstances connected with the transactions
which forms the subject of the accusation. In
the history of criminal administration the case
is scarcely found in which direct and positive
evidence of criminal combination exists, se
hold that nothing short of such proof is sum-
cient to establish a conspiracy, would be to give
immunity to one of the most dangerous crimes
which infest society. Hence, in order to dis-
°over conspirators, we are forced to follow them
through all the devious windings in which the
*tural anxiety of avoiding detection teaches


96 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
men so circumstanced, to envelop themselves,
and to trace their movements from the slight,
but often unerring marks of progress which the
most adroit cunning cannot so effectually oblit-
erate, as to render them unappreciable to the
eye of a sagacious investigator. It is from the
circumstances attending a criminal, or a series
of criminal acts, that we are able to become sat-
isfied that they have been the results, not mere-
ly of individual, but the products of concerted
and associated action, which, if considered sep-
arately, might seem to proceed exclusively from
the immediate agents to them; may be so link-
ed together by circumstances, in themselves
slight, as to leave the mind fully satisfied that
these apparently isolated acts are truly parts of
a common whole, that they have sprung from
a common object, and have in view a common
end. The adequacy of the evidence in a prose-
cution for a criminal conspiracy, to prove the
existence of such a conspiracy, like other ques-
tions of the weight of evidence is a question for
the jury.” -
I might read from other law writers on this
same subject, but will not take your time in
doing so. I apprehend that counsel on both
sides concur that the law is correctly stated in
the citations I have made.
We advance then to the position which we
claim the evidence fully establishes, that this
double murder of Jacob Young and his wife
Nancy Jane Young, was perpetrated in pur-
snance of a conspiracy. Two persons at least
were actually present, participating in the
bloody work; two weapons were used; two re-
ports were heard, yet so nearly simultaneous as
to preclude the posibility of one murderer dis-
charging the gun which killed Young, and re-
sorting to the use of the pistol which killed his
wife. The victims were both shot without
warning. They fell on the ground within six
feet of each other, and were both shot by per-
sons who must have been stationed behind, and
very close to them. The footsteps of the mur-
derer were discovered in the woods nearby, mov-
ing away from the scene of the murder towards
a point where a buggy and horse had been
stationed in a ravine not far away. The track
of one person is lost at or near where the buggy
was, while the track of the other murderer is
traced through the woods and lost at a point
where it intersected the track made by the buggy
as it was driven out of the woods toward the
county road.
One of the murderers, and most probably the
one who shot Mrs. Young, was a woman A
woman was seen in the buggy with Young and
his wife, before they passed beyond the corpor-
ate limits of the city. This is the evidence of
Mr. Todd and his son. At half past two o'clock,
and about a mile from the scene of the murder,
but going in that direction, Mr. Wiley and son
met Young and his wife and another woman in
the buggy, the woman was laughing and talking
with Mrs. Young. Beyond White River, and
within half a mile of where the bodies were
found, William Bowman saw the same persons
still going towards the place. Ten minutes be-
fore the report of firearms were heard, the little
children Seymour Locke and Millie Locke, saw
Young and his wife and another woman walk-
ing together within one hundred feet of where
the bodies were discovered. The last person
who was seen with Young and wife before they
were murdered was a woman. One of the
tracks leading from the scene of the murder to
the buggy which was driven out of the woods,
was a woman's track, making steps three feet
five inches in length, the foot print being that
of a lady's gaiter. Along the line of this track
the dead man’s hankerchief and coat were
found. It is established then, that some woman
bore an active part in this bloody work.
Dr. Duzan, you will remember, as he left the
stand, made a remark about the prisoner which
he evidently thought would damage the pros-
ecution; the shaft aimed at us struck the pris-
oner. The Dr. said: “she,” the prisoner, “ie
a wonderful woman, strong-minded, self-reliant and
inflexible in the pursuit of her purposes.” Ah!
how strong-minded and self-reliant, how inflex-
ible in the pursuit of her purpose must have
been that woman who rode out with Young and
his wife that Saturday afternoon; who laughed
so hypocritically as she lured her victims to
their doom; who joined them in their rambles
along the river brink; who decoyed them to the
shade of the willow tree, where her accomplice
lay in ambush; who caught the eye of her con-
federate as he lay concealed, taking his deadly
aim; who aimed and fired her pistol with such
fatal precision; who advanced over the pros-
trate form of her struggling victim and dealt
her a finishing blow with her weapon; who,
after a hasty flight returned to the dead bodies
and bore away the coveted plunder; who brought
off her artillery from the field, while her cow-
ardly blundering male accomplice fled, leaving
his gun lying on the ground. Ah! here was
strong-mindedness, self-reliance and inflexibil-
ity of purpose, indeed.
It is hard to say that any woman could do
this; and yet it is as clear as the sunlight that
some woman did it, incredible as it may seem.
For the credit of woman be it said that such in-
stances are rare. A woman by the practice of
virtue, and a life of gentleness, purity and be:
neficence, may rise until she becomes almost
angelic; so, by a course of vice, cruelty and
crime, she may descend where the most hard-
ened villain among men shall shrink from
following—until her feet take hold on holl.
woman could be last at the cross and first at
the sepulchre; so could she with infernal cruelty
demand John the Baptists' head on a charger.
Florence Nightingale could brave the exposure
of tented life in the Crimea, and wear out her
delicate frame in her ministrations of love and

The Cold Spring Tragedy. 97
mercy; and the beautiful but cruel Borgia
sould smile on her victims while they drank the
poison which her own delicate hand had pre-
pared. It was Jael, a woman, who could hold
the nail and with steady hand drive it into the
brain of Sisera, who was within the tent. -
Shakspeare represents the bloody Maebeth as
coming from the murder of Duncan with the
dagger in his hand dripping with blood. It was
his beautiful wife who could return to the scene,
place the dagger where she wished it, smear the
face of the sleeping guard with blood, and
return with smiles to her husband, who dare
not look upon his bloody work. So here, while
the man who skulked in ambush and took the
riſe of Mr. Young fled like a coward, the woman
could return to the victims and carry away the
dead man's money.
A woman, then, was one of the conspirators;
was one of the murderers. Is the prisoner at
the bar that woman? In the discussion of this
question, I shall be compelled to ask your par
tience while I shall attempt to show you that
all the facts detailed to you by more than one
hundred witnesses, point to the prisoner as the
guilty woman, and point to no other woman.
These facts we claim are all consistent with
sach other, and the only hypothesis which rec-
cºnciles them all is that of the prisoners guilt.
It would doubtless be more satisfactory to you,
i; we could have produced before you some wit-
ness or witnesses who saw the murderers at
their horrid work. But there being no such
evidence attainable, we resort in this case to
circumstantial evidence. It is usual for counsel
who appear in defense of criminals to decry
this kind of evidence, as being inherently weak
and unreliable. But its use in the investigation
of such transactions as this is indispensible.
It is the only kind of evidence by which secret
guilt and the worst crimes can be exposed and
punished. “Visible proof must not be expect-
ed in works of darkness,” said Justice Buller in
Bez v. Donnelan. The very name given by the
old common law to the highest crime in its cata-
logue, implied concealment (murdrum). And
the earliest writers on English law have graph-
ically described the offence as a homicide where
no one is present, which no one knows, which
no one hears, which no one sees but the perpe-
trators. The victims alone are with their cow-
ardly and hypocritical murderers, who strike
them suddenly, and at a time, and in a manner
which gives them no chance of defense or escape.
Murder works in secret and unnoticed in the
poisoned cup, it lurks in the concealed dagger
of the assassin, it lays in wait for its victim, or
it may be carried by one whose simulated friend-
ship enables her to decoy her victims to the
ambuscade.
For the detection of such murders circum-
stantial evidence is the only means society has
at its command, and to reject it, is to give ab-
solute immunity to the vilest malefactors. Ac-
cording to the best law writers this kind of
evidence is regarded as of the most satisfactory
nature. Mr. Starkie says, “Where direct evi-
dence of the fact in dispute is wanting, the more
the jury can see of the surrounding facts and
circumstances, the more correct their judgment
is likely to be. It is possible that some circum-
stances may be misrepresented or acted with a
view to deceive; but the whole context of cir-
cumstances cannot be fabricated; the false in-
vention must have its boundaries, where it can
be compared with truth, and therefore the moré
extensive the view of the jury is of all the
minute circumstances of the transaction, the
more likely will they be to arrive at a true con-
clusion. Truth is necessarily consistent with
itself; in other words, all facts which really
did happen, did actually consist and agree with
each other. * * * Hence it has frequently
been said that a well supported and consistent
body of circumstantial evidence, is sometimes
stronger than even direct evidence of a fact;
that is, the degree of uncertainty which arises
from a doubt as to the credibility of direct wit.
nesses, may exceed that which arises upon the
question whether a proper inference has been
made from facts well ascertained. A witness
may have been suborned to give a false account
of a transaction to which he alone was privy,
and the whole rests upon the degree of credit tº
be attached to the veracity of the individual;
but where a great number of independent facts
conspire to the same conclusion, and are sup-
ported by many unconnected witnesses, the
degree of credibility to be attached to the evi-
dence increases in very high proportion, arising
from the improbability that all these witnesses
should be mistaken or perjured, and that all
the circumstances should have happened con-
trary to the usual and ordinary course of human
affairs.” 1 Starkie's Evidence, 39.
The same author says “It is essential to the
well being, at least, if not to the very existence
of civil society, that it should be understood
that the secresy with which crimes are commit”
ted will not insure impunity to the offender.
At the same time it is to be emphatically re-
marked that in no case, and upon no principle,
can the policy of preventing crimes and pro-
tecting society, warrant any inference which is
not founded on the most full and certain con-
viction of the truth of the fact, independently
of the nature of the offense. Circumstantial
evidence is allowed to prevail to the conviction
of an offender, not because it is necessary and
politic that it should be resorted to, but because
it is in its very nature capable of producing the
highest degree of moral certainty in its appli:
cation. Fortunately for the interests of society,
crimes, especially those of great enormity and
violence, can rarely be committed without
affording restiges by which the offender may be
traced and ascertained. The very means which

98 The Cold Spring Tragedy.
he adopts for his security, not unfrequently
turn out to be the most cogent arguments of
guilt. Ib. 432.
Again, the same writer says, “What circum-
stances will amount to proof can never be mat-
ter of general definition; the legal test is the
sufficiency of the evidence to satisfy the under-
standing and conscience of the jury. On the
other hand, absolute, metaphysical and demon-
strative certainty, is not essential to proof by
ºrcumstances. It is sufficient if they produce
ºnoral certainty to the exclusion of every rea-
sonable doubt; even direct and pointed testi-
ºnomy does not afford grounds of belief of a
higher and superior nature. To acquit upon
iight, trivial and fanciful suppositions, and re-
mote conjectures, is a virtual violation of the
juror's oath, and an offence of great magnitude
against the interests of society, directly tending
to the disregard of the obligations of a judicial
sath, the hindrance and disparagement of jus-
tice, and the encouragement of malefactors.
Pº. 447.
I read from another author: “Crime itself is
a fact which in comparatively few instances
becomes the subject of full and absolute knowl-
edge through the medium of positive proof.
Indeed a principal aim of criminal action in
some of its most atrocious forms, and one to
which its most earnest dedeavors are constantly
addressed, is to cut off in advance this very source
of knowledge. The exclusion of human obser-
vation is generally to him who meditates a
crime, especially one of magnitude, a matter of
equal importance with its actual commission.
Hence secresy is found to be a characteristic of
his movements in all their stages; those of plan,
ºf execution, and of after action; sometimes
cºrried to the length of destroying all traces of
the crime, but always directed to the effectual
concealment of the criminal. It is to baffle
these endeavors, to penetrate this veil, to track
&gt the guilty agent by means of circumstances,
which, by a providential arrangement are often
beyond his power to suppress or destroy, that
cºurts of justice in the absence of positive evi-
gence resort to a process indicated and dictated
by nature herself, -that of presumption founded
on facts. Cut off, by the criminal's own contri-
vance, from the power of pursuit in the direct
course, their action necessarily assumes the in-
direct form; which, though it may in some
cases lead them by circuitous paths and over dif-
floult ground, frequently proves competent to
bring them ultimately to the point desired.”
Barrill on Circumstantial Evidence, 68.
“Until it pleases Providence” said Mr. jus-
ºc Best, in Rez v. Burdett, 4 B. & Ald. 101,
ºte give us means beyond those our present fa-
cºſities afford of knowing things done in secret,
we must act on presumptive proof, or leave the
worst crimes unpunished.”
Gounsel for the prisoner have been pleased to
resort in argument to the very disingenuous
method of picking out this or that circum.
stance, and asking you with an air of triumh it
you are willing to convict the prisoner upon
that. It is not upon one circumstance, one class
of facts, that you are to base your decision.
You will look at all the facts collectively. A
body of circumstances tending to prove one
fact, has been compared to a cable composed of
many strands and filaments, no single strand
or filament strong, but when bound and wound
together, strong enough to bear an immense
weight. A babe can break a single filament,
but take them all until you have a cable, and it
will hold a mighty vessel to her anchor. By
the gentleman's logic, you may take a complete
skeleton of a man to pieces bone by bone, and
ask as you exhibit each one, “Is this a skel-
eton?” Put each bone in its place, properly
adjust the dismembered fragments, and the
complete skeleton stands before you. The au-
thor from whom I last read, says on this sub-
ject, “This method of argument is indeed often
resorted to in practice, with a view to destroy
the effect of a mass of criminative evidence
otherwise unassailable. But to attempt to test
the force of a body of evidence by this means,
would be as rational as to test the strength of
an arch by taking it to pieces and passing on
the force of each individual stone.” Burrell
180.
Circumstantial evidence is recognized as a
safe and reliable means of arriving at truth.
And the experience of all who have had a part
in the administration of criminal law, is to the
effect that at least one half of the crimes pun-
ished, are proved by such evidence. The honor-
able gentleman who will follow me and close
this case for the prisoner, held the office of U.
S. District Attorney for this district, for six
years, and all persons convicted during his term
of office, of passing counterfeit money, were
convicted upon circumstantial evidence; be-
cause the criminal knowledge and intent, which
are the gist of that crime, can be proved in nº
other way. I appeal to the experience of the
gentleman who preceded me, and who for four
years prosecuted the pleas of the State in this
court; I appeal to the experience of tho tal-
ented gentlemaa, my colleague, who now holds
the office of Prosecuting Attorney; and I refer
to my own experience for six years in the same
office, to confirm me when I say that most of
the higher crimes punished by law are proved
by circumstantial evidence.
I claim that in this case the facts proved aro
of such charactor and cogeney as to shut yon
up to the conclusion of the prisoners guilt, and
to a consideration of these facts I shall now
address myself. It is a recognized principle of
human coniuct, that we perform no act withºut
a motive. Upon this point my first proposition
is, that the murder of Young and wife was
prompted in a great measure, if not altogether,
by avarice. It is in evidence that within twº
The Cold Spring Tragedy. 99
hours of Mr. Young's departure from his house,
on the day of the murder, he had upon his per-
son nearly $7,000. It is also proved by the wit-
ness Julia McCarty, that on the morning of the
murder the prisoner exhibited a package of
money to the witness, at the house of Mr. Hart-
man, and said that Mr. Young had given her
$21,000. The witness Miss Taylor, from her
father's house across the street, saw Mr. Young
going away from Hartman's house about eight
o'clock A. M., and saw the prisoner come to her
own front gate, next door, and look after Mr.
Young as he went away. Mr. Young, as is
proved by those who came into possession of his
personal effects, upon his death, had no notes or
memoranda of his business transactions with
the prisoner. The money given to the prisoner
by Young on the day of the murder, with what
she took from his body, put her in possession of
nearly $30,000. But there was a stronger mo-
tive for the murder than this. The evideuce
shows that the prisoner and Mr. Young had
been engaged for months in some secret, mys-
terious, financial transactions. The prisoner
with her sister-in-law, Mrs. Hartman, had
made a number of nocturnal visits to the house
of Mr. Young. These visits were kept secret
from the prisoner's husband, and the husband
of Mrs. Hartman. When they were made, Mrs.
Hartman swears that she would engage the at-
tention of Mrs. Young, while Mr. Young and
the prisoner would retire to an adjoining room
and remain for half an hour at a time. On one
occasion Mr. Young took pen ink and paper
into the room. For two months prior to the
murder, Mr. Young visited the prisoner as often
as three times a week, and always at times
when the prisoner's husband was away at his
store. These visits were known to the work-
men employed in painting and repairing the
house, but were unknown to the husbaud and
mother of the prisoner who lived with her.
Her transactions with Dr. Duzan, of whom she
borrowed money at high rates of interest, were
equally strange. The Doctor testifies that he
has known her from infancy; that last spring
she represented to him that she was engaged in
a very profitable business, with some men of
high finanoial standing in the city of Indian-
apolis; that the business required the use of
large sums of money, and that the profits were
so large that she could afford to pay at the rate
of twenty, thirty, or fifty per cent per annum,
for the use of money. The Doctor asked her
the names of those who were engaged with her,
but she declined to give them. He began by
lending her sums of $1,000, and $1,500 at a
time; these loans were promptly paid, and often
before they were due. The aggregate of his
loans to her, amounted at one time to $20,000,
and once she gave him $8,000 as his share ef the
profits up to that time. What was she doing
with the money she received from Duzanº
While engaged in these transactions with
tion of the prisoner with Dr. Duzan 2
Duzan, Young was a frequent visitor at her
house, and she was visiting him. It is also
proved that during the same time, Young was
borrowing large sums of money from the city
banks, and from individuals. On the money he
borrowed at bank he paid the usual bank inter-
est, and besides this, a bonus to his indorser in
bank of twenty to thirty per cent. Duzan
knew the prisoner, but was unacquainted with
Young. Young knew the prisoner, but did not
know Duzan. Did the bank transactions of
Young bear any relation to the financial rela-
Duzan
swears he does not know, and that he never
knew what the prisoner did with the money ob-
tained from him, and that she refused to give
him any information on the subject, beyond
saying that she was engaged with reputable
moneyed men in profitable speculation, and ex-
pected to have as her share of the profits, by
the 18th day of October, from $50,000 to $100,-
000. Young's indorsers swear that they never
knew what business he was engaged in. We
have produced ln evidence, the bank account of
Dr. Duzan at Fletcher's Bank, and the account
of loans and discounts of Young at other banks;
from these we ascertain the significant fact,
that whenever Duzan loaned the prisoner a
large sum of money, Young on the same day
paid off some note in bank of equal amount.
So when Young borrowed a large sum, the bank
balance of Duzan would show an increase of a
like amount. Duzan swears that the money he
thus deposited came from the prisoner. These
coincidences are numerous, and are not the re-
sult of chance; they are found in the bank
transactions of these parties during the entire
symmer, and up to the time of the murder.
The solution of them is clear. It is this.
When Young borrowed money it went to Duzan
through the prisoner, and when she borrowed
money of Duzan, it went to Young. She was
the go-between. Like a skilful performer she
struck the key, Young, and the response is
found in Duzan's bank account; and when she
struck Duzan, Young's bank account respond-
ed. These loans were always for short periods;
were always promptly paid, This encouraged
those who were lending their money, and their
names as indorsers, to continue and extend their
accommodations. While these loans by Duzan
to the prisoner, and by Young's friends and in-
dorsers to him continued, there was an increase
of Young's indebtedness, and of the amounts
which came to the prisoners hands in transit to.
and from Duzan and Young. On the 12th of
August $22,000 of Young's paper in bank ma-
tured; tho prisoner applied to Duzan for a loan
of $22,000; he tried to raise the money but
could get only $6,000, and he then stated to the
prisoner his inability to accommodate her fur-
ther. Thus, one source of supply was cut off;
for the future she could not look to Duzan to
help her meet her engagements with Young.


100
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
Young's notes were outstanding to the amount
of $42,000. One for $15,000 would mature Sep-
tember 14th. The prisoner had doubtless de-
ceived Young, as she had Duzan, as to her hav.
ing large transactions with leading business
men of Indianapolis. Her supply being cut off
by Duzan’s failure to raise money, she could
*o longer continue the deceptien, and was about
to be exposed. When Young's paper matured
he would ask her for money to protect his credit,
as he had done before; she was powerless to aid
him further; the scheme had culminated. She
now resolved to cut the Gordian knot by killing
Young, and from this bloody expedient she did
not shrink–her will was too strong, her pur-
pose too “inflexible.” Young in his grave, she
comes into possession of what was left of the
funds they had been using.
It is also proved that Abrams, the prisoner's
co-defendant, had secret business transactions
with her, and his bank accounts show a relation
between his finances and those of Duzan and
Young.
at the time of the murder, nor since 1867. That
she procured and controlled large sums of mon-
ey last summer, is shown beyond question; and
yet if she were engaged in any business with
any one besides Young, Abrams, and Duzan,
that person could and would have been produced
as a witness. If Abrams’ business relations
with the prisoner were unconnected with this
murder, why was he not called to explain them?
We could not call for the explanation, the pris-
oner who could have done so, dared not. A ref-
erence to the statement of Mr. Dye, collated
from the evidence of the bankers and their
clerks, will verify my statements concerning
the finances of the parties to whom I have al-
Inded.
Is it credible that these things are mere
chance happenings? The hypothesis that the
prisoner was the medium by which Young's
money went to Duzan and Abrams, and that
by this means Duzan’s money went to Young
and Abrams, and Abrams' money went to
Young and Duzan, reconciles all these facts
and the conduct of the parties, and they are
irreconcilable with any other hypothesis.
The prisoner had a stronger motive than any
other human being, to kill Young; and the kill-
ing of him made it necessary to kill bis wife, so
that she could not testify against his murderers.
The prisoner is shown to be an avaricious, se-
cretive, cold-hearted and hypocritical woman.
Such a woman was well qualified to act a part
in this tragedy. Upon her marriage with her
present husband, she by arrangement with him,
took control of and managed her own business
affairs. After a while she embarked in large
financial ventures with persons who were stran-
gers to her family, and who have testified that
she enjoined secrecy, and threatened vengeance
upon any who should give information that
would apprise her husband of what she was
She had no bank account in this city .
doing. To Dr. Duzan she gave her entire con-
fidence, with the exception of her refusal to
disclose to him the names of her pretended
partners in business. But her husband, whom
she professed to love so tenderly, never knew
until you did, that his wife had been secretly
using money in amounts which almost forbid
belief: Avarice, a haste to become rich, char-
acterized all her conduct, crept between her and
her husband, absorbed her betternature, and at
last Ied her to conceive and to commit this great
crime.
Counsel for the prisoner misstate what my
colleague said, when they tell you he denounced
their client because of her industry and frugal-
ity during her widowhood. He said it was un-
explained, why the prisoner quit those menial
employments in which she had labored for a
support, and suddenly became possessed of large
sums of money, that the prisoner could furnish
an explanation if her business was lawful, and
that the failure to furnish such explanation
warranted the presumption that her business
was unlawful.
| Such a murder was too great an undertaking
for one woman, however “self-reliant and in-
flexible of purpose.” It having been resolved
upon, we find in the conduct of the guilty par-
ties the signs of preparation. The woman, who
is the prime mover and the controlling spirit,
looks about her for existence. Her brother and
co-defendant, Silas Hartman, is a member of
her household. Formerly a carpenter, for a
year past he has been loafing about the city,
eating the bread of idleness, if not of crime.
According to his own testimony, the nine hun-
dred dollars which he had saved of his earnings,
had been reduced to two hundred and fifty dot-
Iars, which was in his sister's hands. There is
some testimony that his health was not very
good, and that he had “had a kind of a cough,”
but no medical gentleman has been consulted
about his case, and he has been able to be regn-
lar and late in his attendance at the dance hou-
ses, beer gardens and saloons of the city. This
impecunious gentleman of leisure, loafing at the
prisoner's house, was a fit instrument, and at
the prisoner's command. But the undertaking
required additional aid, and the circle of con-
spirators was enlarged by the accession of Wil-
liam J. Abrams, the other defendant. Both of
these gentlemen have been on exhibition before
you. Hartman made his appearance as a wit:
ness, and no juror can tell the color of his eyes.
Abrams was announced as a witness for the de-
fense during the early part of the trial, and was
brought here and exhibited with the different
hats he is supposed to have worn on the day of
the murder. We would have been more instruct-
ed, gentlemen, if counsel had put him in the
witness box, and requested him to explain the
mysterious visits of the prisoner to his house,
and the large financial transactions in which he
was concerned with the prisoner and Mr. Jacobº
The cold Spring Tragedy. 101
Young. We may suppose, that for prudential
reasons, Mr. Abrams was not called as a witness.
He was, as is testified to by Mr. Matthew Hart-
man, a life-long acquaintance of his co-defend-
ants. He and Syke Hartman “attended the
same school,” worked at the carpenters' trade
in the same neighborhood for years, and have
been loafing together in Indianapolis for more
than a year. Abrams, according to the testimo-
my of the mechanics who worked at the prison-
er's house, was intimate with the prisoner, vis-
iting her as often as once a day, while the pris-
oner was in the habit of visiting him at his
house. Besides, Abrams was connected with
the financial juggling, shown by the bank
transactions of Young and Duzan, and either as
the dupe or the confederate of the prisoner, was
persuaded to assist in her bold undertaking.
The instruments selected, preparation must be
made; weapons must be procured; means pro-
vided for rapid and successful escape; false al-
ibis prepared, and evidence fabricated in ad-
vance to confuse and deceive persons as to their
testimony, in case the guilty parties should be
apprehended. To accomplish these ends it was ne-
cessary to make a division of labor. In commer-
cial enterprizes we find proprietors, book-keep-
ers, salesmen and porters. So, in this criminal
enterprize, we find confederates, and each one
playing an appropriate part. Accordingly this
invalid gentleman, Mr. Syke Hartman, finds it
convenient to take a buggy ride for his health,
doubtless, and, it chanced, as gentlemen will
have you believe, that when last seen on that
day, he was driving in the direction of Cold
Spring, and was not more than half a mile from
where Young and wife were killed the following
day. Whether this preliminary survey of the
field enabled him to plan the surprise and select
the line of retreat, is subject of conjecture; but
in view of the other facts, it is very probable
that this Friday afternoon’s ride bore relation
to the next day's business.
It is also in evidence that the Friday after-
noon before the murder, Syke Hartman hired a
horse and buggy, as near like the one he used
on Saturday, as he could find, and spent the af-
ternoon in exhibiting himself on the different
roads about the city, and now he endeavors to
establish a false alibi, by calling witnesses who
saw him on Friday, to swear that it was Satur-
day. This is not unusual in the conduct of those
who meditate a crime. The witnesses called to
prove a false alibi may swear to the exact truth
as to seeing a person, as to the time of day, and
many other circumstances, while, by assigning
those facts to a wrong day, their evidence may
enable a guilty party to deceive jurors and es-
cape punishment. But as I shall discuss this
point more fully when I come to consider the
evidence offered to prove an alibi for these de-
fendants, I shall only say now, that it is clear-
ly shown, there was an attempt to prepare a
false alibi for Syke Hartman, in advance of the
commission of the crime.
It was known to some of the parties, the pris-
oner, certainly, that Young was in the habit of
carrying large amounts of money on his person,
and it is in evidence that Young had bills of
large denoºmination – $1,000 bills; Abrams, it
seems, had some strange transactions at the
Citizens' Bank and Harrisons' Bank, the day
preceding the murder. He procured two $1,000
bills at the Citizens' Bank, and deposited them
at Harrisons' Bank. He then drew them from
Harrisons' Bank and returned them the same
day to the Citizens' Bank. Upon the teller sug-
gesting to him that they were the same bills he
had taken from the bank, he said he thought
not. When these facts are considered, with the
circumstance that, after the murder, and after
he was arrested, he sent a demand to the pris-
oner for two $1,000 bills, and it being proved
that in the cellar of Matthew Hartman, the
prisoner had several $1,000 bills hid away, it
impresses one with the belief that an effort was
here made to explain away in advance the fact
of the possession of $1,000 bills by the murder-
ers, after Young should be killed.
Young lived in the city, and the ambush was
three or four miles away. How shall the victims
be brought to the place prepared? That was
easy work for the prisoner. Mr. Young had a
horse and carriage. The prisoner had frequent-
ly accompanied Mr. and Mrs. Young in their
evening rides. Early Saturday morning, the
prisoner started in the direction of Young's
house, stopped a moment at the house of Mr.
Brown, the paper hanger, who was doing some
work for her, and was soon after seen coming
from the house of Young, while Mrs. Young was
standing in the door. In an hour after, Young
was at Hartman's house, and, as he left thers,
going north, the prisoner was seen at her own
front gate looking toward him after he had pass-
ed her house. The deceased and the prisoner
had an interview that morning, for you will re-
member that it was that morning that Julia
McCarty heard Mrs. Clem say Young had given
her $21,000. Of course, gentlemen, we do not
pretend to say that we have proved by positive
evidence that any one heard the arrangement
made for the afternoon’s ride. But Mrs. Clem’s
early visit to Young's house, Young's visit to
her house that morning, which was at least one
hour earlier than he had ever been known to
visit her before, gave her ample opportunity to
make such arrangement. But up to Saturday
morning, it seems that no weapon had been pro-
cured. Here Mr. Abrams stepped on the field of
active operations. The work of procuring and
loading the gun was assigned to him. His ser-
vant, Florence Ellhart, testifies that he left
home in his buggy between seven and eight
o'clock A. M., and returned with some groceries
and fruit; that he drove into the alley by the
house, and passed the articles he had purchased


102
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
into the kitchen window, without getting out
of his buggy. He went away again and did not
return till ten o’clock. While he was away
from home the gun was purchased. Mr. Hunt,
the auctioneer, says that from seven to nine
o'clock A. M. , a man called at his store and in-
quired for a gun. Upon being told that the only
guns in the store were muskets, he said that “a
musket would not answer his purpose, he want-
ed a double barrelled shot gun.” The witness
did not know the man who inquired for the gun,
but says he had seen him before on the street
and in his store, and believes he was Abrams.
This witness has been an auctioneer for more
than twenty years, and with him the recogni-
tion of familiar faces, and the detection of
strange ones, has been a constant study and
practice.
Soon after this call at Mr. Hunt’s, a man in-
quired for a gun at the second-hand store of
Mr. Marot, a few doors east of Mr. Hunt's es-
tablishment. Upon being told there that they
had no guns, he asked where he would likely
find one in the city. He was told to go to Illi-
nois street, and he left and went in that direc-
tion. Mrs. Marot swears that if this were a less
important case, she would swear positively that
the defendant, Abrams, is the man who was at
their store—as it is, she believes him to be the
man. This person, in such hot pursuit of a gun,
next appeared on Illinois street, and found Jo-
sie Stephens, a bright little girl twelve years
old, at her mother's store. He inquired of her
if they had a double barrelled shot gun for sale.
She showed him one, and told him the price was
twenty dollars. He said the gun was too rusty,
and asked where he would be likely to find an-
other. She directed him across the way to Mr.
Solomons' pawn broker establishment, and
stood in the door of her mother’s store until she
saw him enter Solomons' door. Josie Stephens
is a witness who testified with a candor and
fairness which many adult witnesses have not
shown on this trial. I do not suppose that the
rigid cross-examination concerning the kind of
a hat and the length of the beard Mr. Abrams
wore that morning, shook your confidence in
the truth of her story. Her recollection of the
transaction was put to a severe test before she
was called as a witness against the defend-
ants.
Shortly after the arrest of Abrams, the Chief
"of Police took her to the jail, where some forty
ºr fifty prisoners were confined. Two persons
were brought out to her, and she was asked
which one had inquired for the gun. She an-
sounced, “Neither one of those, sir; ” and
looking away to a distant part of the jail, she
said, “Yonder is the man, sir,” pointing to .
Abrams. This little girl was not doubtful, and
testified pointedly, because she knew whereof
she spoke. Here I call your attention to the
difference in the manner the witnesses on ques-
tions of identity have been treated. When the
defense brought Mr. Fee and his wife to estab-
lish the fact that Syke Hartman was the man
they saw five miles north of the city on the af.
ternoon of the murder, the unsophisticated old
people were taken to jail, and in the presence of
the prisoner's counsel were told that the man
who was brought from a cell was the person
who drove through the toll gate at a given
time, and they acquiesced in the statement, the
more readily, it is possible, because Mr. Clem,
the husband of the prisoner, had told them if
they could identify the person, a clue would be
furnished to clear some parties suspected of the
murder. Contrast that leading examination of
witnesses with the severe test the memory and
perception of Josie Stephens underwent. Efforts
were made to confuse and deceive her, but she
baffled them all, and her calm, clear, unfalter-
ing testimony becomes doubly reliable in view
of the severity of the test to which it was sub-
jected.
After Abrams passed from the sight of Josie
Stephens, Mr. Solomons and his colored man,
Swede, say: “He walked straight to the gun-
rack and examined the old guns.” Notice, that
in this, there was the conduct of a man fatally
bent on some object. He, a customer in a strage
establishment, entered the door, passed the pro-
prietor, clerk and salesman, and went straight
to the guns which stood in the rear of the room.
He asked the price of a double barrelled gun,
which had been pawned and forfeited, and when
told that it was ten dollars, he called attention
to a broken thimble on the upper part of the
barrel, but paid the price and took the gun
away. The colored man, Swede, who was en-
gaged at some work, raised his head and looked
at the man, when Mr. Solomons named the
price, because, as he says, it was double the
price ever asked before. Both these witnesses,
without being positive, state it is their opinion,
that Abrams is the man, and both of them, a
day or two after the murder, picked him out on
the street as the purchaser of the gun. The gun
found by the dead bodies is positively identified
by Solomons and Swede as the gun sold on the
morning of the murder to the man whom they,
Josie Stephens, Mr. Hunt and Mrs. Marot, re-
cognize as the defendant, Abrams. The pur-
chase was made near nine o'clock, at a time
when Abrams was away from his house, and at
a time when the prisoner and her co-defendant,
Hartman, were down in the city not more than
half a square from the place where the gun was
bought. It is further shown, that as Abrams
came down town that morning, his painter, Mr.
Sanders, asked him for some money, and re-
ceived only one dollar, Abrams having at that
time, as the witness states, less than five dollars
in his pocket book. In a few minutes after, he
he paid ten dollars for this gun. His confeder-
ates, the prisoner and Syke Hartman, were down
town at the same time, and it is probable that
he was supplied with money by his partners in
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
103
guilt. Besides, Abrams seems to have had much
to attend to that morning. He drove to the
grocery for peaches and molasses, and after tak-
ing these home, went two miles to a grocery he
never visited before or since, for a jug of vine-
gar 1
Counsel for the prisoner say that because the
witnesses who identify Abrams as the man who
inquired for, and bought the gun, saw no buggy,
while Abrams left homein his buggy, that there-
fore the witnesses are mistaken in the man.
There were plenty of hitching posts along the
street, and it is usual for persons engaged in
trading in our city, to leave their wagons or
buggies at some convenient place on the street,
while they are engaged in making purchases at
various points.
When Mr. Abrams reached home with his
buggy, he drove to the area in the alley, where
he was concealed from view by the stable and
carriage house, which covered the rear of his
lot. Here he was engaged until noon, washing
his buggy, as his servant Florence Elkhart tes-
tifies. After dinner he took a bath and changed
his clothing, putting on a different hat, coat
and pantaloons.
Seven hours after this gun was purchased. it
had been loaded, carried to Cold Springs–had
done its fatal work, and lay on the gravel bar
by the dead bodies. That gun was purchased
on that morning to be used for the murder of
Mr. Young. If not, why are the lips of Wil-
liam J. Abrams sealed by the prisoner's counsel,
who have not dared to put him on the witness
stand? If he is not the man who inquired for
a gun at Marot's, at Hunt's and at Mrs. Steph-
ens'; if he did not buy this gun which was found
by the side of the murdered man, why does he
not come into court and tell you so? If he
bought the gun for a legitimate purpose, and
the murderer obtained possession of it without
his knowledge, how easy for him to say so. This
silence in this matter is confession. Counsel
say, “How foolish it would have been in him,
to go so publicly and buy a gun if he had in-
tended it for criminal use.” Mr. Abrams was
not exempt from the operation of God’s law,
which stamps folly on the conduct of all men
who commit crime. He never supposed that the
gun after being used, would be brought into
court to bear witness against him. Doubtless
it was intended that the gun should go to the
bottom of the river, or where the prisoner's
pistol went, or where her missing gaiters are.
She did not blunder; it was her male accomplice
who left his artillery on the field, to be brought
here and silently re-affirm that the guilty shall
not go unpunished.
The purchase of the gun finished the work of
the morning. After dinner all things were
ready, and the victims and murderer were mov-
ing towards the fatal spot. Syke Hartman im-
mediately after dinner, hired a horse and buggy
at Sullivan & Drew's livery stable, and started
away alone. The animal he selected was a four
minute mare, that could make ten miles an hour
at her ordinary gait, and fifteen miles an hour
at the top of her speed. Mr. Sullivan, one of
the owners of the mare, saw him between one
and two o'clock going alone in the buggy north-
east on Massachusetts Avenue, in the direction
of Abrams’ house. Just about this time Abrams-
left his house on foot, going towards Massachu-
setts Avenue. Just about this time Young and
wife left their house in their carriage, going to-
wards the prisoner's house. Just about this
time the prisoner left her house, and went out:
the backway towards the alley. A few moments
after. Young and wife passed west along St.
Clair Street. Miss Brown and Mrs. McKibben
saw Abrams and some other man (Mrs. McKib-
ben says,) with a darker moustache than Ab-
rams wore, drive east in a buggy towards Ab-
rams' house. In a few minutes, just long enough
for them to go to Abrams' house and back, the
same ladies saw the same persons drive rapidly
back and in the direction Young and wife had
gone. Was the gun then transferred from the
possession of Abrams to Hartman? Abrams
then went to the prisoner's house, where he re-
mained until the prisoner came home in the
evening.
If he purchased the gun to be used for rob-
bery and murder, he would probably be at a
place where he would get the earliest news as tº
the result of the enterprise. Where did he go?
He went to the prisoner's house, and remained
there and at Hartman's, next door, the entire
afternoon. He had an interview with the pris-
oner immediately upon her return in the eve-
ning, and in a half an hour afterward he paid
out over six hundred dollars. You will remem-
ber, gentlemen, that he had but five dollars fa
the morning. In the evening he not only paid
the amount I have named, but the witness, Mrs.
Bligh, says that at half past five or six o'clock,
when he handed her a $500 bill, she saw a roº
of bills in his possession, and that he went to a
neighboring grocery to get some change so that
he could pay her ten dollars more than the five
hundred. Where, when, and from whom did
Mr. Abrams get this money? He knows, and
if innocent he could and would have told you.
But, say counsel, “Where did Abrams load
the gun? Where did he mould the bullets?” It
would be equally profitable and to the purpose,
to inquire what mine the lead came from. I
am reminded by this style of argument, if it
deserves the name, of an occurrence in Ohio. A
man had a grudge against a neighbor. He loaded
a gun with slugs, went to the house, called him
out and deliberately shot him dead, the entire
charge entering the breast of the murdered man.
Several members of the family witnessed the
transaction, and testified to the facts. The in-
dictment, using the common law form, charged
the prisoner with shooting the deceased with s
gun loaded with powder and leaden balls. The



104
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
jury after being out all night, came into court
and inquired of the judge where the lead was,
and the lead not being produced, they acquitted
the defendant on the ground that the averments
of the indictment were not proved. I think
counsel must have heard of this, when they de-
manded of you to show who moulded the bullets
which killed Young.
An effort was made by the defence to prove
that the witness, Andrew Miller, who went to
Crown Hill with Abrams the Monday after the
murder, was the person whom Mrs. McKibben
and Miss Brown testify they saw riding on St.
Clair street Saturday afternoon, and that they
were mistaken as to the day. But Miller-states
that he and Abrams went directly north from
Abrams' house on Monday morning, and were
not on St. Clair street at all. It is not claimed
by the State that Abrams did more to aid the
murderers than to procuro and prepare the gun,
and deliver it to Hartman. He may have
thought that if his connection with the enter-
prise stopped here, and the victims were slain
five miles away, that he would be no murderer.
His counsel may have instructed him differently.
Before he is done with this business, he will
learn that the purchase of that gun for the pur-
pose of taking the life of Young, made him as
much a murderer as if he had lain in wait and
fired the fatal shot, and that no ablutions nor
changing of clothes, nor personal absence from
the dreadful scene, can palliate his guilt.
Leaving Abrams in the eity, let us trace the
progress of the victims and the murderers to
Cold Springs. Young and wife left home in
their buggy about one o'clock. Between twelve
and two o'clock the witnesses, Nicholson and
Ross, saw them on Washington street, turning
north into Tonnessee street. A mile further
north, Mr. Perry Todd and his son, who were
coming into the city, met Young and wife with
a second lady in the buggy. The elder Mr.
Todd says he knew Young, but not his wife,
that he saw the faces and eyes of both ladies,
and that he believes the prisoner is one of the ladies.
This was near two o'clock. Howard Todd says
nothing more than that the prisoneris the same
size of the woman who was with Young and
wife. At half past two o'clock Mr. John H.
Wiley and his son, met the same parties still
going in the direction of Cold Springs, and a
mile nearer that point than the place at which
the Todd's met them. Mr. Wiley was ac-
quainted with all three of the persons in the
buggy. He spoke to them as he met them, he
recognized the prisoner as a person with whom
he was acquainted, but did not recall her name
at the time. He says that the prisoner was the
woman in the buggy with Young and wife, and
that when he saw her two weeks afterwards at
the coroner's inquest, he recognized her as the
same person. His son, who was in the wagon
with him, says that he believes her to be the
same woman, and that the women were laugh-
ing and talking at the time they met them. Mr.
William Bowman saw the same parties within
half a mile of Cold Springs. He was not ae-
quainted with either of them, but his descrip-
tion of the horse and buggy, and the dresses of
the women, show beyond doubt that they were
the same persons mentioned by the Todd's and
Wiley's. This is the last time the parties were
seen together in the buggy of Young.
All these witnesses state that Mrs. Young
had on a light colored dress, and the other lady
a dark colored dress. Miss Hartman, the
neice of the prisoner, testified that when her
aunt left home, between one and two o'clock P.
M., she wore a dark brown calico dress, and a
dark sacque. The lady with Young and wife
was on friendly and intimate terms with them,
she was laughing and talking with Mrs. Young,
says young Mr. Wiley. Besides, yon will re-
member the prisoner was the only woman living
in the city who was in the habit of riding with
Young and wife in their carriage.
I cannot pass from this branch of the case
without referring to the dishonest, if not crimi-
nal attempt, which was made in the interest of
the prisoner, to confuse these witnesses, and to
involve them in contradictory statements. It
appears that soon after the arrest of the prison-
er, Michael Scudder and Colonel Robinson, to-
gether with some of the counsel for the prison-
er, made an effort to procure a substitute for the
prisoner. Col. Robinson's house became an
extemporized jail, in which three “suspected
women,” as Scudder swears, were confined for
several days and nights. Two of these women
were prostitutes. Robinson, Scudder, and the
prisoner's counsel had repeated interviews at
Robinson's house. Scudder's measure of the
murderer's track—of which I shall speak more
fully hereafter—was applied again and again, tº
the feet of these “suspected women.” These
interviews, and this measuring of feet at Rob-
inson's house, were combined with visits to the
prisoner at the jail, where her feet were alsº
measured, as Scudder swears, in the presence of
Col. Robinson and one of prisoner's counsel.
And note, gentlemen, the singularity of the en-
try made by Scudder, at the time of his visit to
the jail, in his diary. “Oct. 8, 1808, Mem.–
measured my measure of the track at Cold
Springs, and it measured eight and a quarter
inches in length, and two and eleven sixteenths
across the ball, also measured Mrs. Clem's foot
.” Failing in their measurements to find
a foot outside of the jail which would corres-
pond with the track at the scene of the murder,
these redoubtable gentlemen took one of the
“suspected women,” Miss or Mrs. Cal. Bowen,
to Mr. Todd's and Mr. Wiley's to persuade
those witnesses, who had seen the prisoner in
the carriage of Young, to say that Cal. Bowen
was the woman. See with what modesty and
discretion they proceed. Mr. Todd says that
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
105
Col. Robinson brought this strange woman to
him in a buggy, and said “Todd I know that
the woman I have here in the buggy, is the wo—
man who was in the carriage with Young and
wife the day of the murder.” Mr. Todd an-
swered “I think not, it is possible, but I think
not, this woman is too tall, looks too young,
and her face is not the right shape.” Nothing
daunted by this, the Wiley's are approached in
the same manner. The game has become des-
perate now, and these witnesses are to be taken
by strategy and assault. Scudder remains in the
buggy with the “suspected woman,” Robinson
advances upon Wiley and son, and commences
talking about the election, etc., at length he
says to the elder Mr. Wiley, “John, this is the
woman who was in the buggy with Young and
wife the day of the murder, I have tracked her,
we will put her in jail to-night, she has con-
fessed in part and will confess all before morn-
ing. Mrs. Clem can prove that she was at home
all that day,” and then addressing the younger
Wiley, he said, “If you swear positively to
either woman, swear that this woman in the
buggy was the one you saw in Young's car-
riage.” Is it not a little strange, gentlemen,
that Col. Robinson, who knows so much, and
who was sworn as a witness for the defense, is
not put upon the stand to enlighten us about
this matter? If he knew “Cal. Bowen’’ was
the woman when he was at Todd's, he knows it
now. If he had “tracked her,” as he said at
Wiley's, where are the tracks? No, gentlemen,
he knew nothing tending to prove the guilt of
Cal. Bowen. If he did, how can he reconcile
that fact with his failure to speak what he
knows, that his friend the prisoner may be
cleared of this guilt. Gentlemen, the whole
proceeding was a desperate attempt in the in-
terest of the prisoner, to pervert the truth, and
it has reacted upon her and all who were con-
cerned in it, and strengthened the evidence it
was intended to destroy.
But where was Syke Hartman? He left the
livery stable of Sullivan & Drew between one
and two o'clock, with a buggy and the fast mare
“Pet,” and was seen going towards Abrams’
house, by Sullivan, on Massachusetts Avenue,
about two o'clock, and just a few minutes before
Miss Brown and Mrs. McKibben saw Abrams
and another man driving rapidly west on St.
Clair street, in the direction of Cold Springs.
Mr. Wiley and his son have known Syke Hart-
man for many years; they both state positively,
that about sixty rods behind the carriage con-
taining Young and wife, and the prisoner, they
met Syke driving in the direction Young's car-
riage was going. They had a full view of his
face, and were about to speak to him when he
turned his back upon them, held his head down
as if looking between the buggy wheels on the
opposite side of the buggy, and kept that posi-
tion uutil he had gone past them. They did not
speak to him because he turned his head away,
and his strange conduct was the subject of re-
mark at the time, as he was an old acquaint-
ance of both the Wileys, and they could not ac-
count for his singular behavior. For some
reason he did not wish them to recognize him at
that time and place. We now know why; he
was then tracking his victim to the place where
death awaited him.
Up to this point we have the prisoner away
from home; Syke away from home, and in Sul-
livan & Drew's buggy driving the mare “Pet;”
while Abrams is at the prisoner's house awaiting
her return. There was something strange in
the prisoner's absence from her home that after-
noon. She had been repairing her house, and
was having her rooms papered. As early as
seven o’clock that morning she made a hasty
visit to Mr. Brown, the paper hanger, and
urged him to hurry with the work at her house,
as she was anxious to have it completed. Mr.
Brown and his son worked until noon, and ro-
turned after dinner, at one o'clock P. M., to re-
sume their work: wishing some directions about
the work, they inquired for the prisoner, and
were told by her servant and her mother, that
she had gone away. Mr. Brown waited for her
until fifteen minutes before three o’clock, and
left because he could not go on with the work
in her absence. Some business of greater ur-
gency than house papering had her attention
that Saturday afternoon.
We lose sight of the parties just before they
enter the woods which skirt the river near Cold
Springs. When Young and wife were next and
last seen alive, they were strolling near the
river's edge, Mr. Young walking with an um-
brella raised, his wife on one side, and another
woman on the other. This was not more than
ten minutes before the reports of firearms were
heard.
The indications on the ground at and near the
scene of the murder, all point to the prisoner
and her brother Syke as the murderers. It se
happened, or it was so ordered, that the buggy
and horse used and driven by Syke Hartman
on that day, made tracks unlike the tracks of
any other vehicle or animal in the city. Syka
swears that that horse and buggy were not out
of his possession that day. Then he had them
at Cold Springs.
Some distance above where the dead bodies
were found, a place where. a horse and buggy
had been stopped and turned round, was dis-
covered. It was where there were no other
horse or buggy tracks visible. The buggy had
been driven into the woods by an unusual route
and had returned in the same way to the county
road leading to the city. The track of the wo.
man who carried away the dead man's coat,
was traced through the woods until it intersect-
ed the buggy track, where it was lost. The
woman who assisted in the murder, and carried
away the booty, made her escape in that buggy.
What buggy was it? Barbee measured the


106
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
track made by the buggy, in several places, and
finds no buggy wheels in the city corresponding
with the track, except the wheels of the buggy
driven by Syke Hartman that afternoon. And
more than this, the feet of the mare driven to
the buggy, were very peculiar; they were un-
usually small, and she wore “interfering
shoes.” The hoofs of her hind feet had been
broken, and the shoes had been made to suit
then in their broken condition. You noticed
the peculiarity of these shoes when they were
produced upon this trial. Mr. Smith swears
that he made these shoes for the animal driven
by Syke Hartman on the day of the murder.
Thomas Mansfield swears that he put them up-
on her feet, and that he took them off two days
after the murder. Drew swears she wore them
the day Hartman hired her.
When the tracks in the woods were discovered,
it was some time before a clear impression of
the horse shoes could be found. In some places
the soil was sandy, and in other places the grass
and vegetation had prevented a distinct impres-
sion. But in one place, the buggy was driven
ever a bare clay knoll where clearly defined
tracks were found. Barbee and Hitchcock then
went to Smith's blacksmith shop, and asked
Mansfield for the shoes which he had taken from
the hind feet of the mare Syke Hartman had
driven the Saturday before. The shoes when
taken off were thrown upon a pile of worn out
shoes, that had been accumulating for months,
until there were one thousand in the lot. Mans-
field looked for some time, and the first he se-
lected were the two shoes you have seen, which
he gave to Barbee and IIitchcock. Those shoes
were taken to Cold Springs, and the two wit-
aesses who applied them to the tracks there, say
they fit them precisely. More than this, these
shoes have been compared with other shoes worn
by the same animal since then, and they are
different in size, though corresponding in their
general make. We have shown you impressions
of the shoes in plaster, and have proved to you
that over four thousand horse shoes have been
applied to them without finding one which
would correspond. Gentlemen it is beyond the
range of probability that any other animal
made the tracks at Cold Springs, than the one
driven by Syke Hartman that day. Mr. Hedges
who had been in the habit of driving the same
animal, states that on the afternoon of the mur-
der, near five o'clock, while he was sitting on
his front porch, he saw that mare in a buggy
being driven at extraordinary speed down In-
diana Avenue, and away from the scene of the
murder. He did not see how many persons were
in the buggy nor who they were, but is positive
as to the animal driven to the buggy.
An effort was made to meet and overthrow
this evidence by proving an alibi for Syke. We
had first his own statement that he hired the
horse of Sullivan & Drew, drove to the corner
of the Court House Square, took his cousin
Cravens Hartman into the buggy, and with him
drove out on the Pendleton road eight or nine
miles, turned around and came back to the city
by the same way; let his cousin out at the Post
Office, took the horse and buggy to the stable,
walked home to the house of the prisoner, where
he arrived about six o'clock. Cravens Hart-
man, his cousin, lives at Iron Mountain, on the
railroad about ninety miles south of St. Louis.
Syke Hartman told none of his relations that
cousin Cravens was here, on account of a “cool-
ness,” as he says, between his brother and sister
and Cravens; he stated however, that the last
time Cravens was in Indianapolis before this,
he stayed all night with him at his sister's (the
prisoner's) house. Matthew Hartman, his
brother, testified that none of the family knew
of Cravens Hartman being in Indianapolis un-
til after Syke's arrest. To support this attempt-
ed alibi, the old gentleman and lady, Mr. and
Mrs. Fee, who keep the toll gate five miles from
the city on the Pendleton road, were called.
They stated that on the 12th of September, Syke
Hartman and another man drove through their
gate going east, at near two o'clock P.M., and
returned coming towards the city between four
and six o'clock P. M.; that the horse they had
was similar to the one the witnesses had since
seen in the possession of Mr. Clem, the husband
of the prisoner, at the tollgate. The description
the old gentleman gave of the animal and buggy
was very minute; he said “she was a sorrel mare,
bob-tailed, with a blaze on her face two and a
half inches wide in the narrowest part, and
wider at both ends, with four white feet, and
some small white spots on her side; the spokes
of the buggy were striped with black and red
stripes, three red and two black stripes; the
top of the buggy rose and fell something similar
to a bellows, and was up when they drove up,
and down when they drove down.”
This mare and buggy were taken to Mr. Fee
by Mr. Clem, after Hartman's arrest, and he
was told by Mr. Clem that they were the same
driven by Hartman through that gate the after-
noon of the 12th of September. Mr. Clem also
told the witnesses that if they could swear pos-
itively to the fact it would furnish a clue to
clear some suspected parties; or, as Mrs. Fee
said, if they would go to the Grand Jury and
swear this, the Grand Jury would throw the
matter out and go no further. Syke Hartman
and Abrams were then in jail, and the prisoner
had not yet been arrested. You saw those old
people. The old gentleman, tremulous with
age and partial paralysis, while his wife is far
advanced in years. Neither of them ever saw
Syke Hartman before. Neither was able to give
the name of another person who passed through
the toll gate that Saturday, though they know
all the neighbors who use the road. Neither of
them could tell the day of the week or month
that Mr. Clem came to their house. They were
brought to town by a neighbor in his wagon,
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
107
and were taken by the prisoner's counsel to the
jail to see the man who drove through the toll
gate, and when Hartman was presented as the
person, they said he was. Neither of them could
tell the day they came to the city, nor the name
of the neighbor in whose wagon they came. And
yet it is insisted that the testimony of these wit-
nesses who were never acquainted with Syke
Hartman, and who afforded unmistakable evi-
dence of failing memory, is to outweigh the pos-
itive evidence of Mr. Wiley and his son who
have known Hartman for eighteen years, and
who swear positively that they saw him thir-
teen miles in an opposite direction at the time
these good old people say they saw him at their
toll gate.
I make no attack upon these witnesses. I
shall not follow the example of counsel who pre-
ceded me, and insist that when witnesses disa-
gree, that one or the other has committed per-
jury. It is too common a practice for lawyers
to assail honest witnesses in this manner. Some
years ago, while trying a case with Judge Mc-
Donald, now of the United States District Court,
I was betrayed into some such extravagance,
and I remember how I felt rebuked when he
stated in his closing speech to the jury that at-
tornies and juries should endeavor to reconcile
the conflicting statements of witnesses, and re-
for, apparently contradictory evidence, to the
natural infirmity of the human memory, rather
than to corrupt and criminal motives. While
most of the witnesses in this cause have shown
themselves to be honest and disinterested, some
have tried to pervert the faets, pollute the chan-
nels of truth, deceive you by false evidence, and
to thwart justice by deliberate perjury. Con-
demn such testimony as theirs, and send then
from this Court house branded with dishonor.
But, to return to the testimony of Mr. Fee
and his wife. In addition to its inherent weak-
ness, there was a palpable effort made to bolster
up the failing memory of those old people. Mr.
Clem visited them twice, exhibited to them the
same horse and buggy, until the spots on the
horse and stripes on the buggy wheels were
carefully noted. Added to this, was the persua-
sive appeal of Mr. Clem, that if they could only
be positive, suspected parties would escape ap-
prehended trouble. But their statements can-
not be reconciled with other established facts.
Matthew Hartman swears that within five min-
utes of five o'clock, by his watch, Saturday
evening, he saw Syke Hartman standing in the
prisoner's hall door. and that at half-past five,
he and Syke ate supper together. This could
not have been the same day that the Fees saw
Syke, for it was between five and six o'clock
when they testify to seeing him eight miles
away from the livery stable, and Syke swears
he took the horse and buggy to the livery stable
and walked nearly a mile, stopping at a saloon
and a butcher's shop on the way, before he
went to Matthew Hartman's house and ate sup-
per.
But Marshall is also called to establish Syke's
alibi. He swears that he saw a sorrel mare with
blazed face and two white hind feet, in a buggy,
going east on the Pendleton road, and requrn-
ing in the direction of the city, when the sun
was half an hour high, which would be a quar-
ter before six o'clock. Upon cross-examination
he said he never saw the blaze in the horse's
face nor noticed her white feet until weeks af-
terward, when Mr. Clem brought the mare tº
his house when he was looking up witnesses to
prove this alibi.This witness naively remarked
that when he told Mr. Clem how late it was
when the buggy went back, the latter told him
it must have been earlier. You will notice, gen-
tlemen, that the alibi proved by Marshall, it at
cross-purposes with Matthew Hartman's evi-
dence. Syke must have had a swift horse, in-
deed, to have been twelve miles in the country
at fifteen minutes before six o'clock, when, by
Matthew Hartman's evidence, he was supping
with him in the city at half-past five o’clochº-
the same afternoon.
Noah Mock saw two men drive a 3orrel mare
in a striped wheeled buggy, past his house, to-
ward the city, between four and five o’clock
P. M. He did not identify horse nor man, but
said Syke looks like the person he saw. This
also conflicts with Matthew Hartman’s evi-
dence.
William Dowden, who knows Syke, said as he
walked home that evening, he met Syke with
another man in the buggy, six rods beyond the
corporation line, driving into town at a brisk
trot. The prisoner, in her examination before
the Coroner's Jury, swore that Syke passed
her house in a buggy going south on Alabama
street, about four o'clock that afternoon, and
that another man was with him.
All the witnesses brought to testify to Syke
being out on the Pendleton road that day, at
and near the time of the murder, are unge-
quainted with him. He swears his cousin, Cra-
vens Hartman, was with him in that buggy the
entire afternoon : Why does he rely upon such
imdefinite and weak testimony as Marshall's
and Mock's and the Fees, when that cousin
could be brought here in twenty hours? These
parties have been under arrest nearly three
months; they were indicted two months ago;
this trial has been in progress nearly three
weeks, and no effort has been made to procure
the testimony of Cravens Hartman, whose evi-
dence would establish an invulnerable defense
for his two cousins, charged with a capital
crime? This cannot be believed. Why, gentle-
men, if one of you had a suit pending with a
neighbor involving $500, would you try the cete
without the deposition or appearance of a mate-
rial witness living as near as Cravens Hartman
lives to this court house?
Our law allows defendants charged with


108
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
crimes to take depositions of non-resident wit-
nesses, but no effort has been made to procure
the deposition of this cousin. This prisoner can
offer an honest woman $500 to commit perjury
and to swear to a false alibi; she can suborn
her beautiful little niece, and send her to the
Grand Jury room to swear to another false alt-
bi; she can sit in her cell at the jail and direct
her minions to arrest, imprison and measure
the feet of “suspected” parties, and yet it has
not occurred to her, or her counsel, that Cra-
vens Hartman, who, as Syke swears, was with
him in the buggy the whole of that afternoon,
would be an important witness. The effort of
the defense to establish an alibi for Syke has re-
sulted in failure. The evidence is self-contra-
dictory. Honest witnesses, who think they saw
him that day on the Pendleton road, are mista-
ken as to the person, or the day. And as Syke,
the day before, had a sorrel animal and buggy
hired from Pray's stable, resembling those hired
by him on Saturday, it is likely that he drove
up the Pendleton road, the day before the mur-
der, to lay the foundation for a false alibi, if he
should need one for the next day.
It is also in evidence, that soon after his ar-
rest, Syke told the Sheriff that he was not out
of the city the day of the murder. Shortly af-
ward he told Mr. Douglass and Mr. Turner,
that he had been to Millersville, and had got
back to the city about five o’clock that after-
noon.
Improbability, falsehood and contradictions,
abound in the evidence offered to prove an alibi
for Hartman. And, besides, you have the posi-
tive statements of Mr. Wiley and his son, who
have known him eighteen years, that they saw
him that afternoon when, following the carriage
containing Young and wife and the prisoner,
he hung his guilty head and turned his back
upon his old acquaintances. Corroborating
them is the testimony of Hedges, who saw the
horse Hartman had that afternoon coming away
from the scene of murder at high speed, and the
further fact established beyond doubt, that the
horse shoe tracks at Cold Spring were made that
afternoon by the mare Hartman had in his pos-
session from two till seven o’clock.
But there were other tracks at Cold Spring.
The clear, well-defined tracks of a pair of neat,
new gaiters were found near the dead bodies.
Beside them lay the coat and handkerchief of
the murdered man. Those tracks, making steps
three feet five inches in length, over and
through the brush and weeds, were traced to
where the buggy track passed through and out
of the woods. They were made by one of the
murderers, and they were made with the gaiter
shoes the prisoner wore that day.
The witnesses Douglass, Unversaw, Grooms
and Murphy, saw but did not measure the
tracks. Douglass thought they were made by a
No. 3 ladies' gaiter; Murphy thought No. 2%
or a 3. Dr. Waterman measured the track with
the care and exactness of a scientific man, and
entered the measure in his diary at the time.
Here it is: Length of sole, 5% inches; across
the ball at the widest part, 2% inches; across
the shank 1 inch; length of heel, 1% inches;
width of heel, 1% inches; depth of heel, %
inches; sole, near point of rounded toe, 134 in-
ches. All of these witnesses said the track was
sharply and well defined, as if the gaiters were
comparatively new.
Mr. Buser measured the track with a pawpaw.
stick, which you saw, and by that the track
was 8% inches long, and 2% inches across the
ball of the foot. Mr. Squires' measure, taken
at the same time, was 87-16 inches in length,
and corresponded with Dr. Waterman's and Bu-
ser's as to the width of the foot. Scudder's
measure was 834 inches long, and 211-16 inches
across the ball of the foot. All the shoe dealers
and shoemakers who have testified, say that
there are three sizes to the inch, that is, a No.
3 is five and one-third sixteenth of an inch lon-
ger than a No. 2. The half sizes, which are the
only subdivisions of sizes, are two four sixths
of a sixteenth longer or shorter than full sizes.
The witnesses who examined and measured the
tracks, said that in some pleces the center of the
track was higher than the heel and toe, and that
the sole was flexible and yielded readily to the
pressure of the ground where it was firm. Mr.
Winnedge illustrated to you how the treading
upon a hard substance in the center of the foot,
would shorten the ordinary track of the same
gaiter, from 1-16 to 3% of an inch. You will ob-
serve that the slight differences in the measures
of Dr. Waterman, Buser and Squires, are con-
fined to-the length of the track, and do not
amount to enough to show a half-size difference
in the shoe, and that all the tracks measured by
them could have been made by the same shoe.
Squires said he compared his measure with Dr.
Waterman's, and that his was 1-16 shorter.
Buser, Squires and Scudder, all measured the
same tracks together, and their measures were
compared at the time, and were all alike. How
does it happen that now Michael Scudder's
measure is so much shorter than it was at the
time he cut it and fitted it to the track? It was
taken from a green pawpaw bush, you may say.
Mr. Buser's also was taken from the same kind
of a bush, at the same time, and it has not
shrunk as Scudder's has. Buser has kept his
measure in his own possession. Scudder's meas-
ure has had an eventful history. It has been to
the county jail several times, where, in the pre-
sence of the prisoner's counsel and Col. Robin-
son, it was applied to the prisoner's foot. At
one of these visits, on the 8th of October, when
Scudder's pawpaw stick had reached its mini-
mum length, he took the precaution to enter
the measure upon a leaf of his diary. Scudder
had, doubtless, discovered that the wood of the
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
109
pawpaw bush was not reliable, and to keep it
from lengthening in the future, he fixed it for
all time, by the entry in his diary. We are not
advised whether the entry was made at the sug-
gestion of the prisoner's counsel, or Col. Robin-
son, or the prisoner herself. Be that as it may,
I will here call your attention to a peculiarity
of the pawpaw wood as shown by Scudder's
measure. When it measures the length of a
track it contracts from two to four-sixteenths
of an inch; when it measures the breadth, it
expands, and makes the ball of the foot one-
sixteenth of an inch wider than any other mea-
sure. It is also noticeable, that at the time
Scudder entered in his diary, in the jail, “Octo-
ber 8, measured my measure, and it is 8% in-
ches long, and 2 11-16 inches across the ball,”
he also made this entry, “Measured Mrs. Clem's
foot — — — — From delicacy,
perhaps, or some other motive not disclosed,
but likely known to the witness, or Col. Robin-
son, or the prisoner's counsel, or the prisoner
herself, the sensitive Scudder omitted (?) to en-
ter in his diary the length of the prisoner's
foot. The stick having reduced itself to the re-
quired length when it was applied to the pris-
oner's foot in jail, the measure was instantly
entered upon the diary, a precaution which had
never before suggested itself to the witness,
though he had carried his stick with him for
nearly a month.
The foot of the prisoner, however, was left to
grow, and no limit was placed upon its flexi-
bility by an entry of its dimensions on Soud-
der's diary. You will remember, gentlemen,
that when, in the progress of this trial, I pro-
posed that the prisoner should retire to an ad-
joining and private room with her own shoema-
ker, in order to have her foot measured, her
counsel insisted that the measurement should
be in your presence in open court. Two meas-
urements were so made, and while her own shoe-
maker, Mr. Bond, said her foot was 8% inches
long, so easily contracted and expanded, is it,
that when Mr. Wert, a nervous old gentleman,
measured it a few minutes afterward, it meas-
ured nine inckest You saw her conduct while
Mr. Wert was measuring her foot, and whether
she deceived him, and tried to impose upon you,
also, I leave for you to determiue.
But there is another method of approximat-
ing the length of this foot. You will remember
that when the prisoner's counsel were cross.
examining the shoe dealers as to the length of
feet which would require a No. 3 shoe, the ques-
tion was put: “Will a foot 811-16 inches long
go in a No. 3 gaiter?” It is not uncharitable
to suppose that counsel had in mind somebody's
foot which measured 8 11-16 inches. Mr. Wort
said a foot wine inches long requires a No. 3 shoe,
so, if she did stretch her foot half an inch, it
was not enough.
But to return to Scudder and his measure.
He says it has not been shortened any to his
knowledge. It has, however, been in the posses-
sion of one of the prisoner's counsel, and in the
possession of Col. Robinson. It was at Col. Rob-
inson’s extemporized jail, where it was applied
again and again in the presence of Robinson
and one of the prisoner's counsel to the feet
of, the lewd woman who were imprisoned
there as “suspected persons,” as Scudder naive-
ly calls them. Scudder had it on his trip with
Robinson and the “suspected” Cal Bowen to
Mr. Wiley's and Mr. Todd's, when Robinson as-
serted his knowledge of Cal Bowen's guilt, and
urged Wiley's son to swear positively that she
was the woman in the buggy with Young and
wife the day of the murder. Of course, gentle-
men, you would not expect a delicate, green
pawpaw stick to maintain its integrity through
all these journeys and measurements, and you
are not surprised to find it broken in two, and
its length diminished from 2 to 4-16 of an inch,
Mr. Scudder's behavior, as a witness, was not
such as to inspire those who saw and heard him
testify, with confidence in the accuracy of his
perceptions or memory. A humane man, per-
haps, his repeated interviews with Col. Robin-
son, the prisoner's counsel, and the prisoner, -
and Col. Robinson's intuitive knowledge of Cal
Bowen's guilt, operating upon his sensitive and
delicate mind, may have—“not to his knowl-
edge”—as he expresses it, stimulated and en-
larged his sympathies, and broke and shortened
his pawpaw stick. Gentlemen, can you rely on
Scudder's measurements, and reject those of Dr.
Waterman, Mr. Buser and Mr. Squires, which
all indicate a No. 3 gaiter as making the mur-
derer's track º
What kind of shoes did the prisoner wear on
that day? Mr. Knodle, who has been her shoe-
maker for years, said she always bought No. 3's,
but that when her shoes were made to order,
they were less than that. Mr. Wert, who meas-
ured her foot in your presence, said No. 3's
would fit her. But we are not left to inference.
John Patterson swore that within ten days of
the murder, he sold the prisoner a pair of No. 3
single soled laced gaiters, last “C.” of the man-
ufacture of Reynolds & Bro., of Utica, New
York. Mr. Winnedge, who has dealt in this
kind of shoes ever since they were in market,
has visited the manufactory, and he swore that
the soles of all the No. 3 gaiters, last “C,” are
cut by dies, and are, consequently, of the same
size, John Patterson also swore that the pris-
oner's sister-in-law, Mrs. Hartman, was with
her when she made the purchase, and, Mrs.
Hartman, though sworn as a witness for the
prisoner, has not been interrogated on that
point. Patterson testified further, that after
the prisoner purchased the gaiters, she inquire
ed if they had a shoemaker in the store, and,
upon being answered in the negative, she left
the store, Mr. Knodle swore that the prisoner


110
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
brought to him a pair of new No. 3 gaiters, some
days before the murder, and desired him to do
something to them—either to put some nails in
the heel, or to lower the heels by removing some
of the sole leather from the bottoms of them.
A new, unaltered No. 3 gaiter, of the kind pro-
duced by the prisoner, has a heel one inch high.
By lowering the heel as Kºnodle, doubtless, did,
the hight of the heel corresponds eractly with the
depth of the heel ºf the mºrderer's track?
But more than this. Jane Sizemore, the pris-
ener's servant, who still remains at the prison-
er's house, said that on the Tuesday preceding
the murder, she saw a pair of new laced gaiters
lying on a bed in the prisoner's house; that on
the morning after the murder, while she was
scrubbing, at the back door of the kitchen, she
found the same gaiters, as she thinks, lying in
her way, soiled and dirty, as if they had been
worn; that she kicked them to one side; that
the prisoner passed out soon afterward into the
back yard, and that she has never seen the gai-
ters since. She further testified that ever since
the murder, the prisoner has been wearing her
(Jane's) shoes, which are No. 4% in size, being
a size and a half larger than the prisoner ever
purchased for herself.
When we sent the Deputy Sheriff to the pris-
oner's house to search for shoes, the prisoner
was wearing a pair of old carpet slippers, and
she has not worn a pair of her own shoes since
the murder. Under a bureau a worn-out pair
of No. 4% laced gaiters were found, but the
bursting of the heels indicated that they had
been worn upon feet too largo for them. They
were nearly one inch too long for the prisoner's
foot. No shoe of the prisoner's, old or new, could
be found in her house! What does this mean?
Here I will refer to some well settled principles
of law which bear upon this branch of the case.
Speaking of presumptions of law and fact, Bur-
rell, on page 49, says:
“Thus to take the same presumptions of in-
nocence in a similar case of homicide, if proof
be made, on the part of the prosecutor, that the
accused suppressed or destroyed certain evi-
dence, which would have tended to fix the
charge upon him, or fabricated evidence to pro-
duce a false show of innocence, a contrary pre-
sumption of guilt is at once raised against
him.”
Tried by this law, what shall we say of the
prisoner's conduct, and the conduct of her
agents, by which it would appear that the
length of her foot cannot be ascertained by any
standard of measurement, and that as far as the
evidence shows she is not the owner of a single
pair of shoes, except those borrowed of Jane
Sizemore? Why are not the shoes she wore on
the 12th of September produced? Is it because
they would fit the murderer's track at Cold
Spring? If she did not buy a pair of new No. 3
gaiters of John Patterson, a few days before the
murder, when Mrs. Hartman was with her,
why was not Mrs. Hartman called as a witness?
Ah, say the gentlemen, why does not the state
call Mrs. Hartman?' Mrs. Hartman is the sis-
ter-in-law of the prisoner, and her house was
the rendezvous of these conspirators. Mrs.
Hartman's house is where Abrams went, after
the purchase of the gun, to await the arrival of
his confederates in guilt, and divide the boºty
after the bloody work was done. Mrs. Hartman
accompanied the prisoner upon her nocturnal
and clandestinevisits to the house of Mr. Young.
She is the person to whom the prisoner gave five
hundred dollars, in the cellar, a few days after
the murder. She accompanied the prisoner and
Julia McCarty into her own cellar, and assisted
in hiding the large package of money. She di-
rected the brother of Abrams to come around
the back way when he visited the prisoner, for
fear that suspicions might be excited. It is ex-
ceedingly ingenuous in the gentlemen, with
these facts proved, to ask us to give currency to
such a witness, by calling her to the stand.
On this same point I read again from the same
author: -
“According to the universal rule of evidence,
proof must be made, in the first instance, on the
part of the prosecution, of facts sufficient be
raise a presumption of guilt, before the prison-
er can be called on to make his defense. This
proof being made, the latter is always entitled
to meet it by producing evidence in denial or ex-
planation of the charge; and, in fact, is bound
to this course, the burden of proof being nºw
thrown upon him. If no such counter evidenes
be produced, then, according to the strict apprº-
cation of a leading maxim the presumption
which, before, was only contingent and condº-
tional, beeomes, from that very circumstance,
absolute and conclusive.” Bunell, page 165.
In 4 B. & Ald., pages 161–62, the Lord Chief
Justice of England, said:
“In drawing an inference or conclusion from
facts proved, regard must always be had to the
nature of the particular case, and the faciliº
that appears to be afforded, either of explans-
tion or contradiction. No person is to be re-
quired to explain or contradict, until enough
has been proved to warrant a reasonable and
just conclusion against him in the absence of
explanation or contradiction; but when such
proof has been given, and the nature of the case
is such as to admit of explanation or contradiº-
tion, if the conclusion to which the proof tends
be untrue, and the accused offers no explanation
or contradiction, can human reason do othº-
wise than adopt the conclusion to which the
proof tends?”
In the same case, Mr. Justice Holroyd, said:
* It is established as a general rule of erº-
dence, that in every case the burden of proof
lies on the person who wishes to support his
case by a particular fact which lies more pecº-

The Cold Spring Tragedy.
111
liarly within his own knowledge, or of which
he is supposed to be cognizant. This, indeed, is
not allowed to supply the want of necessary
proof, whether direct or presumptive, against a
defendant, of the crime of which he is charged;
but when such proof has been given, it is a rule
to be applied in considering the weight of the
evidence against him, whether direct or pre-
sumptive, when it is unopposed, unrebutted, or
not weakened by contrary evidence, which it
would be in the defendant's power to produce,
if the fact directly or presumptively proved,
were not true.”
Mr. Starkie's language upon the same subject
is, if possible, more forcible:
“If, on the supposition that a charge or claim
is unfounded, the party against whom it is
made, has evidence within his reach"—the
shoes worn by the prisoner on the day of the
murder, for instance—“by which he may repel
that which is offered to his prejudice, his omis-
sion to do so, supplies a strong presumption
that the charge or claim is well founded; it
would be contrary to every principle of reason,
and to all experience of human conduct, to
form any other conclusion. This consideration
in criminal cases frequently gives a conclusive
character to circumstances which would other-
wise be of an imperfect and inconclusive na-
ture * * * * The same principle
applies where a party, having more certain and
satisfactory evidence in his power, relies upon
that which is of a weaker and inferior na-
ture.”
See where the prisoner stands by this law.
We have traced to her possession, a few days be-
fore the murder, a pair of gaiters the soles of
which would make a track corresponding in the
minutest particulars with the tracks made by
the murderer near the dead bodies. If the shoes
worn by her that day would not fit those tracks,
they would have been produced in evidence. The
non-production of them, her effort to deceive
you by wearing her colored girl’s shoes, and the
fact that not a single pair of her own shoes have
been seen or found in her house since the mur-
der, make the conclusion inevitable that the
shoes worn by her on that day, if here, would
strengthen the proof of her guilt.
To meet this evidence Mrs. Seibert was call-
od, who testified that in June or July—two or
three months before the murder—she went with the
prisoner to some shoe store when she purchased
for herself a pair of No. 2% gaiters. Why call
Mrs. Seibert, when John Patterson swore that
Mrs. Hartman was with the prisoner, within ten
days of the murder, when the prisoner purchased
for herself a pair of No. 3 gaiters? Why is not
Mrs. Hartman called as a witness?
Mrs. Nancy Hartman, the mother of the pris-
oner, a lady seventy-nine years of age, said she
did not see any new gaiters in the house of the
prisoner during the summer. The son of the
prisoner, said that when his mother got off the
cars at Richmond, a few days before the mur-
der, he noticed that the gaiters sho then wors
were not new. This is a resort to weak evi-
dence, when it is in the power of the prisoner to
produce stronger, if she be innocent.
I come now to consider the various attempts
to prove an alibi for the prisoner. But, before
discussing the testimony of the witnesses, I
shall call your attention to soºne well settled
principles of law applicable to this kind of a do-
fense.
Mr. Wills, says:
“The credibility of an alibi, is greatly
strengthened, if it be set up at the moment
when the accusation is first made, and consist-
ently maintained throughout the subsequent
proceedings. On the other hand, it is a material
circumstance to lessen the weight of a defense
of this kind, if it be not resorted to, until some
time after the charge has been made; or if, hav-
ing been once resorted to, a different and incon-
sistent defense is set up.”
The same author, says:
“An unsuccessful attempt to establish an al-
ibi, is always a circumstance of great weight
against a prisoner, because the resort to that
kind of defense implies an admission of the truth
and relevancy of the facts alleged, and the cor-
rectness of the inference drawn from them, if
they remain uncontradicted.”
Mr. Burrell, observes: .
“In consequence of this liability to perver-
sion, mistake and abuse, it has come to be gºn-
erally conceded that alibi evidence is to be re-
ceived with uncommon caution. It is, indeed,
hardly questionable that a defense, which, when
it is allowed to prevail, is so summary and over-
whelming in its effect—operating by means of a
single fact, sometimes sworn to by a single wie-
ness, to destroy the effect of a combination of
facts testified to by a number of witnesses, and
constituting (but for such alibi) a remarkably
convincing body of evidence—should be required
to be established in the clearest manner, and by wit-
messes of unimpeachable character.”
To have been present and participated in the
murder, the prisoner must have been away from
home two hours and a half, or from two to half-
past four o’clock P. M. The Wileys and Todd's
saw Young and wife and the prisoner in Young's
carriage going toward Cold Spring at from twº
to half-past two o'clock—the murder was com-
mitted at four o'clock, or within five minutes
of that time—and Mr. Drew, the owner of the
horse driven by Syke Hartman that day, has
driven the same animal in a trot from the scene
of the murder to the alley in the rear of the
prisoner's house in thirty-three minutes.
Now for the proof of her alibi. The prisoner
was examined as a witness before the Corenor's
Jury, after the arrest of her brother Syke and
Abrams, and her sworn statement was taken
down in writing by the Deputy Coroner, and

112
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
subscribed by her at the time, I read her en-
tire statement:
* I was at my own house, or my brother's,
(Matthew Hartman’s), next door, all afternoon
on Saturday, September 12th, 1868. Abrams
came to my brother's house about half-past one.
He came to my house about half-past two or
three o'clock P. ni. IIe left our house near five
o'clock. I saw my brother (Syke) pass our
house about four o'clock; a man was with him;
they were riding together. He was coming
south on Alabama street. Don’t know who the
man was. Mr. Brown, a paper hanger, and his
son, my colored girl Jane, and my mother, were
there at the same time. No other persons were
about the house, I can’t give a description of
the man; did not have a fair view of him on ac-
count of the shrubbery. I heard nothing of my
cousin Cravens Hartman being in town. Have
not seen him for several years.
“[Signed] N. E. C.L.Ex.”
I again call your attention to the fact, that
when this statement was made before the Coro-
ner's Jury, the prisoner's cobfederates, Abrams
and IHartman, were in jail, charged with this
murder, and no charge had then been preferred
against her. The object of the statement was
evidently to establish alibis for her brother and
Abrams, and she seemed to have no thought
then, that she might fabricate one for herself
which would not exactly accord with what she
was then saying.
Another fact is noteworthy in this statement.
Lhe hour of four o'clock P. M., of that day, seems
to stick in her thoughts. She saw Hartman
about four o’clock driving past her house. She
and Abrams were at her house from three to
nearly five o'clock, thus covering the fatal hour
of four o'clock. Her poor old mother, also, is
put on thºstand to say she thinks it was about
four o'clock when her daughter came home that
afternoon; and little Viola Pierson spoke, par-
rot-like, and said, “it might have been before
four o’clock” when she saw the prisoner and
Abrams at the prisoner's house. As long as the
prisoner lives that fatal hour of four o'clock will
have an ominous sound to her.
But let us compare this sworn statement of
hers with the testimony of some of the witnes-
ses for the defense. If the prisoner saw Hart-
man pass her house going south about four
o'clock, what becomes of the testimony of old
Mr. Fee and his wife who said they saw IIart-
man at least six miles away from the prisoner's
house, and nearly east of the city, at that time?
The statement about Syke is inconsistent and
irreconcilable with the evidence of all the wit-
nesses who have been called to establish Syke's
glºbe on the Pendleton road.
Mr. Brown and his son, both stated that they
went to the prisoner's house at one o'clock P.
M., and stayed there until a quarter before three
a'clock, when they left, because the prisoner was
ºn at home. She swore, in her statement, that
Mr. Brown and his son were at her house when
she saw her brother pass down street at about
four o'clock. Her anxiety then was to establish
alibis for her confederates.
An innocent person can have, and always has,
but one alibi. The attempt, by the accused, to
shift her defense from one alibi to another, is
recognized, by the authorities I have read, as
one of the surest indications of guilt. What do
we find here? She first claims that she was at
her own house, and her brother's house, next
door, the entire afternoon. And yet she does
not call a single member of her own or her bro-
ther's family to prove the truth of this alibi. we
called her little niece, who said her aunt left
home, dressed in a dark dress, between one and
two o'clock that afternoon. And although all
the members of the two households have been
sworn as witnesses for the prisoner, not one of
them has been called.
But counsel say she was excited when before
the coroner's jury, and may have unintention-
ally mistated the facts as to her whereabouts
that afternoon. This might have been, but she
was not excited when, the day after Abrams
arrest, in the presence of his attorney and Dr.
Munhall, she made substantially the same
statement. Mrs. Pope says she did not seem to
be excited, when she told her she had been at
home tacking down carpets all the afternoon of
the murder; the fact was, as hor old mother
and her colored girl state, that no carpets were
put down that day. She also told Mrs. Brouse
the same evetting, that she had been at home
canning grapes that afternoon; while no
grapes were canned in her house until the week
after the murder. Do innocent people involve
themselves in such inconsistencies? -
But further, Julia McCarty, the servant of
Mrs. Hartman, swore that after Abrams' ar-
rest, the prisoner told her in Matthew Hart-
man's cellar, never to say a word about her (the
prisoner's) absence from home the afternoon of
the murder. If she was not absent, as she
swore before the coroner's jury, why did she tell
Julia to eay nothing about her absence?
But she did not stop here. While the Grand
Jury were in session investigating this murder,
she persuaded her little neice to go before the
Craud Jury and swear that she (the prisoner)
was not away from home that afternoon. . The
little girl was before you and said she did it,
that the testimonn was false, and that she gave
it because her aunt asked her to do it.
But more yet. Soon after the murder she sent
for Mrs. Marchant to come to her house. She
said to her, “You were down to my house on
Saturday, September 12th,” the witness said
“No.” “Yes you were, and you must swearyot.
were. I can prove you were, and if you will swear
you saw me at Mrs. Hartman's window between three
and four o'clock the afternoon of the murder, I will
give you five hundred dollars.”
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
113
Here then, we have the prisoner guilty of
perjury—subornation of perjury- and an at-
tempted bribery of a witness. What is the effect
ef such conduct upon this case, and the defense
of the accused ? Mr. Starkie says that when
there is reason to suppose that the perjury or
provarication of a witness “is the result of sub-
ornation, it affords a reasonable ground, in a
doubtful case, for suspecting the testimony of
other witnesses adduced by the same party.”
Mr. Phillips states the law to be, that “When
it appears that on one side there has been for-
gery or fraud in some material parts of the evi-
dence, and they are discovered to be the con-
trivance of a party to the proceeding, it affords
a presumption against the whole of the evidence
on that side of the question, and has the effect
of gaining a more ready admission to the evi-
dence of the other party.”
I desire you to keep these principles of law in
view, while I now call your attention to the
other alibi evidence introduced by the prisoner.
Having sworn herself to have been at home all
the afternoon of September 12th, having sub-
orned her little neice to swear falsely to the
same thing, and having failed in her attempt to
bribe Mrs. Marchant, she brought witnesses
into Court to swear before you that she was
down in the city, shopping at the New York
Store, and getting a letter at the Post Office, at
the time of the murder, and at the time when
she and her neice had sworn she was at home.
Two witnesses, Mrs. Bright and her mother,
Mrs. Guenther, swore that between three and
four o'clock P.M., on the day of the murder,
they were shopping at the New York Store, on
Washington street, and met and spoke to the
prisoner at that time and place. These ladies
were both accustomed to shopping on Washing-
ton street, and the only means by which they
pretend to fix the date, is the fact, as stated by
them both, that on that day, September 12th,
Mrs. Bright wrote and mailed a letter to a Miss
Wallace living in another State. Neither of
them has ever seen the letter since, It was
written, addressed and mailed the same day.
Other letters have been written by Mrs. Bright,
indeed Mrs. Guenther stated that her daughter
wrote frequently. These ladies have often
changed their place of residence, and in cross-
examination they admit that they could not tell
the day upon which any other letter had ever
boen written in their house, nor could they tell
the day upon which they had moved from one
house to another. Mrs. Bright, when asked in
cross-examination, to explain the singular fact
that she now remembered the date of this letter
written on the 12th of September, and could not
tell the date of any other letter written by her,
answered, that “The other letters had nothing to
do with this caseſ IIer mother, when interro-
ºated in a similar manner, answered, while
making some mystic signs, “Yon go too much
into my business, M. Lawyer, you go too much ºnto
my business.” This is the kind of alibi evidence
which the authorities tell you to scan closely
and suspiciously. The effect of this evidence
depends upon your confidence in the memory
and credibility of these witnesses. Why will
you trust their memory as to the date, when
they themselves base it upon so flimsy a found
ation. These witnesses now, by a mere effort
of memory, pretend to recall the date of a lette:
written three months ago, while the dates of all
other letters written before and since, and in-
deed of all their other transactions, have faded
from their memory. How many of you, gentle-
men, can now give, with any confidence in the
accuracy of your recollection, the date of a let-
ter written by you three months ago? And let
me again remind you, that if these ladies were
not mistaken, the prisoner herself swore falsely
before the coroner's jury, when she said she was
at home and at her brother's next door, all the
afternoon of Saturday September 12th. And it
is this effort to change her ground, to substitute
one alibi for another, which casts suspicion up
on, and impeaches the evidence, of all the wit-
nesses she calls to prove her defense. Another
circumstance you will not forget, these witness-
es, Mrs. Bright and Mrs. Guenther, have both
been inmates or visitors at Pierson's house, next
door to the prisoner's, and Pierson's handiwork
is manifest in all the alibi's attempted to be
proved in this case. But of him more here-
after.
Mr. Christian Louts, a relative of the Hart-
man family, is called to prove that he saw the
prisoner at her home not later than fifteen min-
utes after four o'clock, the afternoon of the
murder. He stated that he was in Indianapolis
that day, and that he is able to fix the date by
the fact that he went with a Mr. Chrisman to
the law office of Mr. Johnson, in Blackford's
building, to see about some business for a Mr.
Snyder, who lived at Sunmanville, in this State.
IIo remembers, he says, that when they called
at Mr. Johnson's office he was not in, but that
an elderly gentleman who was there told them
that Mr. Johnson was absent. Now it so hap-
pened gentlemen, that we were able to show be-
yond controversy, that this took place on Fri-
day the 11th of September, instead of Saturday
the 12th, the day of the murder. The death of
a relative had called Mr. Johnson away from
the city, and he did not return till the night of
the 11th of September. When he came home,
his father-in-law Dr. Griffith, an elderly gentle-
man who had been in the office all day, informed
him that two men had been in the office that
afternoon, to inquire about the business of Mr.
Snyder of Sunmanville. Mr. Johnson stated
that he was in his office the entire afternoon of
Saturday, September 12th, and that neither
Louts nor any one else came that day to see
about Snyder's business. This illustrates the
necessity of scanning such evidence with sus.



114
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
picion. Here is a witness who narrates his
movements with great particularity, but when
he fixes upon a fact which gave us the oppor-
tunity to explain or to contradict his story, his
esidence is destroyed by our showing that the
time he says he saw the prisoner at her house,
was the day before the murder. His story was
true in every particular but the date, and the
date was the only part of the story that was
material. This is a peculiarity of evidence pro-
duced to support a fabricated alibi. A witness
may give a circumstantial and true narration
ºf actual occurrences, and by assigning to them
a false or a mistaken date, mislead a jury. The
mistake or purpose, in this instance, has been
detected and thwarted. So the at home at
fifteen minutes after four o'clock alibi, fails
sºso.
The mother of the prisoner, a lady 70 years
of age, says that when her daughter got home
that aſternoon, it was only a few minutes after
fºr o’clock. Oh! how that fatal hour, four
ałclock, haunts these witnesses! The old lady
swears by the prisoner's clock, which, I may
be pardoned for suggesting, may not have been
exactly right that afternoon. She also stated,
that just before her daughter came home, she
heard her laughing and talking at Matthew
Hartman's, with Abrams and Mr. Hartman's
family. Could Abrams, or Mrs. Matthew Hart-
man, or Julia McCarty, or Miss Pet Hartman,
who were all at Hartman's house, tell what
tºme in the afternoon the prisoner came in 7
When Miss Pet Hartman was on the stand as
as witness for the State, his Honor informed the
prisoner's counsel that they might ask her when
her aunt came home that afternoon, and they
&clined to put the question. And neither of
the other persons named was called as a witness
qu this point. Would they have sworn that
it was more than a few minutes after four
cºock, when the prisoner came in 2 Did the
cºock at Matthew Hartman's indicate a later
hour than the prisoner's clock? However this
may have been, for some reason the prisoner did
not see fit to call as witnesses, those who greeted
her on her arrival, but trusted rather to the
frail memory of her old mother. Jane Sizo-
more, her colored girl, said it was after four
ºlock when the prisoner came home, and that
it was about two hours after Mr. Brown, the
paper hanger, left the house. Mr. Brownlooked
at his watch when he left, and states that it was
fifteen minutes before three o’elock. According
tº Jane's evidence then, the prisoner got hoºve
about fifteen minutes before five o'clock, which
is about the time she would arrive, if she laſt
Gºld Springs about four o'clock and came with
fºke in the buggy he had that day.
But we are not done with alibis yet. Marion
3. another relative of the Hartman
ily, was summaned here from Illinois, by
telegraph, to prove an alibi. He swears that on
tº afternoon of the murder, he went into the
New York Store and met the prisoner coming
out, about half past three o'clock. His evidence
is in direct conflict with the prisoner's sworn
statement before the coroner's jury, and is like
that of Mrs. Bright and Mrs. Guenther, IIIs
memory of this single isolated date, September
12th, is clear, while it is dim and shadowy as to
every other fact in his history. He is a bank-
rupt. He failed in business this Fall. He filed
a petition in bankruptcy within three months
past, ard yet he could not tell the date of his
suspension of business, nor when he filed his
petition in bankruptcy. We also proved by Mr.
Turpin, his neighbor, that when the prisoner's
relatives had been to see him about his testi-
mony, he told Mr. Turpin he could not swear
whether he had seen the prisoner the day of the
murder or not. But is it not strange that such
a witness can be summoned from Illinois, to
swear to uncertainties and vague impressions,
when the click of the telegraph would bring
Cravens Hartman, who occupied the buggy with
Syke the entire afternoon of September 12th'?
Oh, what “a coolness” there must be, when a
cousin cannot be called to give evidence upon a
vital point, for a relative whose life or liberty is
in jeopardy! Syke Hartman testifying that
“a coolness existed between his cousin Cravens
and the prisoner,” is hardly sufficient to ex-
plain the absence of such an important witness,
and the failure to take his deposition.
But I now come to consider another alibi,
known as the Reed, Pierson, and Donnelah
alibi. This is attempted to be proved by a rafe
combination of witnesses. Mr. Donnelan, an
apparently respectable and honest man, is sand-
wiched between the two arrant scoundrels,
Pierson and Reed, and with the small leaven of
truth which possibly exists in Donnelan's evi-
dence, an effort is made to leaven the whole
lump of Reed's and Pierson’s wholesale fabri-
cations. Reed and Pierson are proved to have
boasted out of the court house, of their inteſt-
tion to commit perjury in this case, and we
have caught them here in the very act. We are
compelled to abate sºmewhat of our confidence
in Mr. Donnelan, after hearing that he is ah
intimate friend of both these scoundrels. What
is this evidence? Donnelan swears that he atº
his dinner at Madam Reese's about twelve or
one o'clock, that he walked to his room opposite
the Bates House, a distance of half a mile, that
he smoked a cigar, read the Scientific Americaid,
walked to Pierson's, one door north of the pris-
oner's house, a distance of more than a mile,
negotiated with Pierson at his front gate a few.
moments for the purpose of borrowing a vest,
started down Alabama street, and when oppé-
site Matthew Hartman's he heard some one ºf
an up-stairs window in Hartman's house, halloº
to pierson, he turned partly round and looked
over his light shoulder up at the window and
saw the side of a ladys face, and passed on. He
did pot knew the lady at the time. By guessing
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
115
at the time he ate his dinner, and the time con-
sumed in going to his room and reading the
Scientific American, and the time it took him to
walk to Pierson's house, this witness arrives,
argumentatively, at the conclusion that it must
have been about half past two o'clock, when he
saw the lady at the window. Pierson says the
lady called to him, that he dont remember what
she said, that he answered, “You are up high
and dry,” and that this ended the colloquy.
The lady put her head in the window immedi-
ately, and Pierson says it was the prisoner. He
also states, that he thinks some other lady was
at the window with the prisoner at the time.
Pierson says this was about half past two
o'clock. You will observe, gentlemen, that this
was the time Mr. Wiley and his son saw the
prisoner with Young and wife in their carriage,
on their way to Cold Springs, about one mile
from that spot. The prisoner had offered a re-
spectable lady, Mrs. Marchant, $500 if she
would swear to seeing her at Mr. Hartman's
window, and the rejection of the offered bribe,
created the necessity for hiring some one else to
do the swearing. Pierson was her next door
neighbor, and in him she found the right man
for her business. The description of his occu-
pation, was one of the humorous episodes of
this protracted trial. He says he keeps a policy
shop, where he receives telegraphic dispatches
from Covington Ky., twice a day, and that his
customers bet their money on the “hits,” and
when they hit, the money is theirs, and when
they miss, the money is his. This is the game,
as he explains it, and if you can make anything
out of it but very low gambling, your under-
standing of the process is different from amine.
But he is not only a low flung gambler, but he
is an arrant perjurer, as we have proved him
to be. What was the language of this polite
and refined gentleman, of the policy shop, to
Mr. Robertson, the proprietor of the Boston
Store? Mr. Robertson says, that the morning
after Mr. Wiley had testifled, Pierson was com-
ing to the court house, and when within a
square of this place he delivered himself thus,
“This beats hell: Old man Wiley swore to a
G-d d-d lie in this case, or I will, one.”
But more than this. Pierson was a witness
before the Grand Jury that returned this in-
dictment. when examined as a witness before
you, he was asked if he did not upon his exam-
ination before the Grand Jury, swear that he
did not see the prisoner on the day of the mur-
&er until in the evening about sundown, and he
swore he made no such statement to the Grand
Jury. The foreman of the Grand Jury, Mr.
Willis W. Wright, and another Grand Juror,
Mr. Hiram Lindley, both swore that he did make
that statement on oath when in the Grand Jury
room, and that he was particularly interrogated
on this point, and that he repeated the state-
ment several times. And when you come to
consider his testimony, if you should regard it
as worthy of any thought, I imagine you will
not long be in doubt as to whether Mr. Wiley
or Pierson has sworn falsely. It is with such
worthless and rotten stuff as this, that the pris-
oner seeks to fabricate her alibist
But this attempted alibi does not stop at
Hartman's window The prisoner, having
sworn that she was at home and at Hartman’s
all the afternoon, and not content with callins
Mrs. Bright and Mrs. Guenther, and Mr. Wil-
son, to swear that her statement was false, calls
Donnelan and Reed to swear that she was at the
Post Office that afternoon, at or near half past
three o'clock. Donnelan says that about half
past three o'clock, as he was passing north from
the gentleman's general delivery in the Post
Office, he ran against a lady who was coming.
from the direction of the ladies general delivery,
trod upon her dress, begged her pardon, and im-
mediately passed on, merely catching a glimpse
of the left side of the lady's face, and that he
thought it was the same lady he and Pierson
had seen at Hartman’s window the same after-
noon. To sustain this Post Office alibi, the
prisoner has produced in evidence a letter writ-
ten by her son to Mr. Clem, dated Earlhama
College, September 10th, mailed at Richmond,
Ind., September 11th, stamped at the Indian-
apolis Post Office, and placed in the gentleman's
delivery September 12th, the day of the murder.
Mr. Donnelan swears that ho was at the Post
Office three times that day, at about ten o'clock,
at noon, and about half past three o'clock. The
Post Office elerks all swear that a letter post-
marked as this was, would, in the usual courss
of business, arrive at the Indianapolis Post
Office about eight o'clock P. M., of the 11th ºf
September, that it would be stamped and put in
the box for delivery, by eight o'clock A. M., bf
September 12th, and if called for between eight
and ten A. M., of that day would be delivered.
The prisoner was down in the city in the morn-
ing. Mr. Elliott, the Post Office clerk, who
had charge of the ladies' department, says he
knows her well, that she called for letters at the
ladies' delivery, in the morning, and passed
around towards the gentleman's delivery, where
the letter was then ready to be delivered. Mr.
Elliott also says he was at his post during the
entire afternoon, and that the prisoner did not
call again that day. Now this makes it clear
that if Donnelan saw her at all, it was in the
morning, and not in the afternoon. She was ºt
, the Post Office in the morning, and so was Don-
melan. If he met her there at all that day, he
met her them.
But poor Donnean, while contaminated by
companionship with Pierson in the beginning
of his story, is bolstered up by Reed, who comes
in to supplement his statement. By a fortitious
circumstance, Reed says he was at the gentle-
man's delivery in the Post Office, just after
Donnelan left. He saw the prisoner approach,


116
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
and stepped aside while she asked for a letter.
Beed had never spoken to the prisoner in his
life, but he swears that the first time he heard
of the murder, September 14th, and some time
before any suspicion attached to the prisoner,
it occurred to his mind that he had seen her
September 12th, at half past three o'clock P.M.,
in the Post Office. IIe heard of the prisoner's
arrest and imprisonment, but he never imparted
his valuable information to any one until three
weeks ago, when he called at the office of one of
the prisoner's counsel, and told them what he
knew, and what had been concealed so long in
his virtuous bosom. He was then very poor.
In a week afterwards he was negotiating for the
purchase of the White Fawn Saloon, and stat-
ing to the proprietor that a young lawyer was
to furnish the purchase money, and that the
young lawyer did not wish his name known in
the matter. In the same conversation he stated
that when Mrs. Clem was tried, he was going
to swear that he saw her at the Post Office the
afternoon of the murder, at five o'clock precisely,
and when asked if he was sure about the time,
he said yes, it was at five o'clock precisely. He
now swears it was half past three o'clock when
he saw her there. Gentlemen, he did not see
her at all. The grocer, Mr. Beem, in whose
employ Reed was that day, says that Reed was
at his grocery during the afternoon, when not
out delivering goods, and Mrs. White, who fixes
the date by the fact of her servant's leaving her
that day, swears that Reed was delivering gro-
ceries at her house at the time he says he was at
the Post Office. But we not only contradict
him, we have called several reputable witnesses
who have testified that his general reputation
for truth is bad. It is further proved that he
boarded where Donnelan did, and that Donne-
lan visited him frequently at Beem's grocery.
This last alibi is a patchwork affair, and I do
not suppose you will credit it. If Donnelan is
honest and tried to tell the truth, my advice to
him is, to quit borrowing vests of Pierson, and
to cut his acquaintance with Reed. These two
latter gentlemen have evidently set their faces
toward the penitentiary, and as parting advice
to Donnelan, I would remind him of the fate of
poor old Tray. And you, gentlemen, are asked
to believe such carrion as Pierson and Reed,
and to disbelieve Mr. Wiley and his son. Go
home to your firesides and tell your children
that a sun browned old farmer, and his honest
baight-eyed boy came down from their country
bºome, and told a plain, straight-forward story,
and that gamblers and perjurers like Reed and
Pierson, swore against them, and that you dis-
believed the honest farmer and his son, and gave
credit to the gambler's and the perjurer's. Do
this if you like, and it will not be long till the
Beeds and Piersons who now hunt in couples, ta-
king confidence from your indorsement of them,
will march by platoons, and your jails will be
full of honest men convicted of perjury, upon
the testimony of such graceless scoundrels.
I now dismiss the alibi evidence, with the re-
mark that it is all uncertain and contradictory,
that much of it is false, and evidently fabricated
for the purpose of deceiving, and regarding it
with that suspicion which the law casts upon
it, when it is resorted to in such a case as this,
it can claim no share of your confidence or
belief.
But there is another chapter in the history of
this crime and its results, full of startling reve.
lations of the prisoner's guilt. If all that has
been proved as to her motive to murder Young
and his wife; as to her secret financial transac-
tions, around which she threw such a veil of
mystery, that her husband who shared her pil-
low, never dreamed of their existence; as to her
close intimacy with Young—all unknown to
members of her household; as to her being seen
"in company with the victims shortly before they
were murdered; as to her mysterious absence
from home that fatal afternoon—an absence
which she has utterly failed to account for; if
all this were dismissed from our minds, there is
in her conduct and language, after the mnrder,
the most conclusive and overwhelming proofs of
her guilty participation in this dreadful homi-
cide.
History, philosophy and revelation, teach us
that man cannot violate the laws of his moral
nature with impunity. As a breach of the laws
governing our physical being invariably brings
physical suffering and an impairment of our
physical powers, so that gratified lust and ex-
cessive indulgence, ineffaceably mark the man
who thus abuses his body; so does the conscious-
ness of guilt mark the character and conduct of
him who commits a great crime. “Even a child
is known by his doings, whether his work be
pure, and whether it be right,” saith the wise
man. God has so made us that our outward
conduct shall always give some indication of the
condition of our minds. This law is so power-
ful that the hypocrisy of guilt is never such
that it can at all times deceive mankind and es-
cape detection.
A man who meditates a crime may plan with
skill, pursue and execute his purpose with cool-
ness, inflexibility and determination; he may
destroy or hide all visible traces of his crime;
but when he has done the deed; when he has
dethroned innocence and enthroned guilt, his
faithful conscience, stung to madness, lashes
him with a whip of scorpions until, in the very
agony of his soul, he is compelled to give some
outward sign of the terrible conflict which rages
in his bosom. When he conceived and executed
his crime, he may have determined and suppos-
ed that he would be the sole possessor and dé-
positary of his dreadful secret. But, instead of
this, he is possessed by his secret, which, with
demoniacal fary, drives and leads him whither-
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
117
soever it will. So, God, by his laws, works his
will in the human heart. He is the great De-
tective who “disappointeth the devices of the
crafty and taketh the wise in their own crafti-
ness.” Oh! that guilty men would read and
ponder the lessons of the Bible, and learn how
vain and futile are all efforts to ovade God's law.
There is no peace unto the wicked. To those
who “lay wait for blood and lurk privily for
the innocent without a cause—whose foet run to
evil and who make haste to shed blood, he says,
“surely they lay wait for their own blood, they
lurk privily for their own lives.” Know, guilty
man, wherever you are, that the ever watchful
and never tiring eye of God is on you. You may
break his law; you may, for a time, elude the
vigilance of human agencies and tribunals, but
you cannot trammel up the consequences of
your crime.
“So wills the fierce avenging sprite,
Till blood for blood atones;
Aye, though he's buried in a cave,
And trodden down with stones,
And years have rotted off his flesh,
The world shall see his bones.”
Dr. Webster was a man of strong mind and
eminent scientific attainments. After he had
murdered Dr. Parkman he attempted to escape
detection by destroying the body of his victim,
using for this purpose those chemical agents
with which his profession made him familiar.
He had heard of that principle of criminal law
which demands the discovery of the body of the
murdered person before the murderer can be
convicted. He had well nigh succeeded. He
had dissected his victim's body, and had con-
cealed its various parts while he was destroying
it little by little. He was arrested and impris-
oned. Extraordinary efforts were made to dis-
cover the body of the missing man. He had
been seen to enter Dr. Webster's room, and had
not been seen again. One day some persons in
the jail where Dr. Webster was confined, were
conversing about the mysterious disappearance
of Dr. Parkman, when someone stated that that
his body had been discovered. The remark was
overheard by Webster, who almost involuntar-
ily asked: “Have they found it all º' Who
but the man who knew how that body had been
cut to pieces, would have asked such a question?
He could not keep his guilty secret. You may
give a man the mind of a Bacon, or a Newton,
until he shall be able to explore the material
universe; he may have the genius and imagina-
tion of a Milton, or a Shakespeare, and dazzle
the world with his wonderful works; but let
him once lift his hand to break God’s law, and
all his strength becomes weakness. Nothing
can cleanse the guilty bosom of the perilous
stuff which weighs upon the heart. One of the
greatest English writers and speakers (Burke)
has said:
“Thank God, guilt was never a rational
thing, it distorts all the faculties of the mind,
it perverts them, it leaves a man no longer in
the free use of his reason, it puts him to confu-
sion. He has recourse to such miserable and
absurd expedients for covering his guilt, as all
those who are used to sit in the seat of judgment
know, have been the cause of detection of half
of the villainies in the world -: º º
God forbid that guilt should ever leave a man
the free, undisturbed use of his faculties. For
as guilt never rose from a true use of our ra-
tional faculties, so it is very frequently subver-
sive of them. God forbid that prudence, the
first of all the virtues, as well as the supreme
director of them all, should ever be employed in
the service of the vices ºx º º Man
that are greatly guilty are never wise. * * *
“So full of others' jealousy is guilt,
“It spills itself in fearing to be spilt.”
We always revise our conduct, and in the
court of our conscience sit in judgment upon
ourselves. When we have done right, we court
the most jealous scrutiny of our fellows, and
with conscious innocence may look up into the
calm face of our Creator, and say, “Thou, God
seast me.”
Not so with the guilty man. Remorse—appre-
hension of discovery—fear of punishment—are
the inhabitants of his unquiet breast. The evil
one says to him, “You have done wrong; you
must do more.” He must renounce his guilt, be
honest, and confess—or play a hypocritical part
and run the risk of discovery. If he adopts the
latter course, his whole life will be a lie. If he
speaks, he will utter falsehood—and yet he is
forced to speak, for his silence will excite suspi-
cion. He must act, and by his actions, he will
endeavor to divert suspicion from himself. He
will try to provide means of escape, and will
blunder in the selection and use of his means.
The ingenuity and skill which enabled him to
plan and execute with foresight and dexterity,
will not avail him now. By forsaking inno-
cence and truth, he has thrown away his wont-
ed strength, and is now at the mercy of the rude
waves upon which he is tossed to and fro, until
he is engulfed beneath them.
The prisoner, by committing this great crime,
became subject to these inexorable laws. The
falsehoods she told, the perjuries she commit-
ted, the apprehension and fear of detection fre-
quently manifested in her words and actions,
her bribery of witnesses, her subornations of
perjury, her injunctions of secresy upon those
who knew of her absence that day—all these
things are characteristic of guilt, and are abso-
lutely inconsistent with her innocence. But let
us look to the evidence on this point, and see


118
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
how weak and foolish the “inflexible” woman
became, when, with the dreadful crime of mur-
der weighing on her soul, she assumed the role
of innocence.
when she came home, after the murder,
Abrams, the purchaser of the gun, was there
waiting to learn the result. After a brief inter-
view with him, he left, and was next seen in the
possession of a large roll of money. Soon after,
a neighbor, Mrs. Pope, passed her house, and,
in the course of a brief conversation, the pris-
oner told her that she had been at home all the af-
ternoon putting down carpets. This was a gratuit-
ous falsehood. Her mother and colored girl
swear that no carpets were put down that day.
A few minutes after this, another neighbor,
Mrs. Brouse, went by, and saw the prisoner and
her brother Syke, sitting in the portico of her
house. This lady says that she observed that
the prisoner's face was so flushed and red, that
she told her that somebody must have been over
the fire that afternoon. The explanation was
prompt and as truthful as that given to Mrs.
Pope: “Yes, Mrs. Brouse, I have been canning
grapes this afternoon.” Not a grape had been
canned at her house during that week, as the
members of her family state.
But, say the counsel for the prisoner, it is
proved that Ann Talbot and Jane Sizemore, the
colored women, were canning peaches for the
prisoner that day. This is true. But that does
not satisfactorily account for the remarkable
Jºsh which Mrs. Brouse saw in her face, unless
we charitably suppose that she flushed vicari-
ously for her colored servants who could not
“flush” for themselves. Ann Talbott and Jane
Sizemore, working over the hot fire, canning
peaches, does not prove that the prisoner had
been over the fire canning grapes. That re-
markable flush may have resulted from the unu-
sual exercise of the little woman who made such
long and rapid steps at Cold Spring with the
dead man’s coat in her hand; or it may have
been the rushing of the crimson current from
her heart which was even yet appalled at the
bloody work her hands had wrought an hour or
two before. -
We next hear of her on the following morn-
ing, when she passed where her new, but soiled
gaiters, were lying, and they disappeared mys-
teriously and forever. A lady as economical as
her counsel have proved her to be, would not
throw away a pair of new gaiters without some
rºotive. And yet, the prisoner, on Sunday morn-
ing, before the dead bodies had been discovered,
sº a whisper of the horrible crime had reached
the public ear, threw away, or hid, or destroyed
a pair of new gaiters, purchased at Mr. Cady's,
only a few days before. Were innocent women
in Indianaporis thus disposing of their gaiters?
Or did it occur to the prisoner that a track
might be found at Cold Spring which would cor-
respond with the shoes she wore that day? And
no explanation of this is attempted. We prove
that Mrs. Hartman was with her when she
bought a pair of gaiters the soles of which would
fit the murderer's track, and this is not denied
or contradicted.
But more than this. She was restless; her
shoes might be destroyed, but the fatal mistake
of leaving the gun on the ground might lead to
discovery. Accordingly we find her on Sunday
or Monday at Mr. Abrams’ house, where the
theory of suicide was suggested as explanatory
of the deaths at Cold Spring. Tuesday the gun
had told its tale, and Abrams had been recog-
nized and arrested as the man who bought it a
few hours before the murder. Now, matters
were assuming a serious shape. See how the
innocent woman acted now. She took a large
package of money to Mrs. Hartman's house,
and with Julia McCarty and Mrs. Hartman,
went into the cellar, where the money was
placed in a fruit can and hid away in a hole in
the chimney arch, so deep that it required the
combined lengths of Julia's arm and a stick two
feet long to reach it. This was at night, and
the night Abrams was arrested. She said she
was afraid her house would be searched, and
begged Julia McCarty, who hid the money for
her, never to say anything about it, nor to say
anything about her being away from home the
afternoon of the murder. But while this might
lessen the chances of her detection, it brought
no relief to her confederate, Abrams, who was
in jail. The time was set for his preliminary
examination. A cry for proof of an alibi camo
from the imprisoned Abrams. He knew one
woman upon whom he could rely for proof. Ac-
cordingly he sent his counsel to the prisoner,
who stated to him, in Dr. Munhall's presence,
that she could swear that Abrams came to her
house a little after two o'clock P. M., and re-
mained there till five o’clock, and that her mo-
ther, and other members of the family, could
swear to the same thing. She was not thinking
then that she would need an alibi for herself be-
fore long, or that Reed and Pierson and Donne-
lan and Wilson and Mrs. Bright and Mrs. Guen-
ther, would swear that she was away from home,
at the postoffice, and at the New York Store,
that afternoon. In her anxiety for poor Abrams
she quite forgot herself. But an alibi was not
enough for Abrams. Mr. Pollard, the indorser
of his note in bank, became anxious about his
security, and was pressing him for money.
Abrams knew a woman who had money that he
could get. Let us see by what power and means
the imprisoned and helpless Abrams transfered
the money from its hiding place, in the cellar,
to the credit of his bank account. He sent for
his brother, Captain Ben Abrams, and had an
interview with him in jail. He directed this
brother to go to Mrs. Hartman's, to have the
prisoner called from her own house, and to tell
her to give him $4,000, and to tell her further,
that the money must come. Captain Abrams tes-
tifies that he delivered the message, and that the
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
1f9
prisoner told him to return in half an hour and
get the money. Before leaving, however, he
was cautioned by Mrs. Hartman, in the pres-
ence of the prisoner, not to come in again the front
way, but to come in by the back kitchen door, that if
he came in the front way it would excite suspicion,
as they were watched. He returnod according to
the prisoner's directions, when she delivered to
him a package of money which she took from
her bosom, saying that she had not connted it,
but that there were $4,000 or $5,000 in the pack-
age. The package contained $1,915. In the in-
terval between his two visits the prisoner, Julia
McCarty and Mrs. Hartman, went into the cel-
lar together, where the money was concealed,
and Julia, by tee aid of a stick, drew it from its
hiding place. The prisoner, while in the cellar,
gave Mrs. Hartman $500, telling her to keep it
till she called for it, and took the remainder up
stairs with her. Julia never saw it afterward,
and there is no doubt a portion of it, at least,
was the money given by the prisoner to Captain
Abrams. When the money was delivered to
him, she told him there were two $1,000 bills in
the package, and never to mention her name under
the high heaven. No note, or receipt, or memoran-
dum, of this transaction, was given or asked for by
the prisoner. Nothing was said about lending
or borrowing money. The request of Abrams
game in no questionable shape. It was emphatic
and effective: “Tell her the money must come,”
was the message, and the money came.
It seems, gentlemen, that this economical,
thrifty little woman, had become very lax in
the management of her finances, when, without
a murmur, she delivered nearly $5,000 to a man
imprisoned on a charge of murder, upon an im-
pudent demand, or a threat, as you may choose
to regard it. The conduct of the parties, to this
transaction, is rather inconsistent with the idea
of prisoner's counsel that this was a mere loan
to accommodate a friend in distress. Abrams”
request was not couched in the terms usually
employed by the borrower of money. This con-
duct is only consistent with the other facts in
this case, which show that Abrams and the pris-
oner were partnders in guilt.
But this was not all. Abrams wanted more
money. In a few days he sent another demand
to her for $2,000 more. The answer was, “Tell
Bill Abrams if he don't quit sending here for
money it will create a suspicion; and tell him
he must have got a $1,000 bill changed when he
paid off the Bly note.” You will remember,
gentlemen, the Bly note was paid by Abrams
with a $500 bill the evening of the murder, and
within an hour after Abrams left the prisoner
at ner own house. She knew she had given him
money that evening, and she here evidently re-
fers to that fact.
Another circumstance. The prisoner had
borrowed from Miss Ann Hottle $925, for
which she had given her note, with Abrams as
security, saying at the time the money was for
Abrams. Miss Hottle, whose entire worldºy
means were represented by this note, was fear-
ful that she would lose her money, when she
heard of Abrams' arrest, and called upon t
prisoner to see about it. The prisoner told her
that Abrams was innocent, that he had been ºt
her house and Hartman’s the whole afternoon
of the murder, and that if she (the witness) ever
said anything about the borrowing of the money,
and the prisoner's connection with it, there was
a company in the city that would kill ker. Miss
Hottle is a seamstress, and it was unkind in the
counsel for the prisoner, to badger her so merci-
lessly on the witness stand, when it is shown
that the prisoner has defrauded her out of the
entire earnings of her laborious life. This lady,
it seems, had written a letter to a Mr. Thorpe
about the prisoner's owing her money, in which
letter there were some playful remarks about a
“Mr. G. W.,” to whom she sent some word.
The counsel asked her who “G. W.,” was. She
blushingly declined to answer at the time, and
you well reccollect with what an air of mystery
and triumph the gentleman dismissed her. He
imagined that another “suspected person" had
been found in the mysterious “G. W.” Bnt
the mystery was all dispelled when that lady,
with some reluctance, explained that the initials
were those of a gentleman in this city, with
whom she had had some correspondence. The
prisoner can lend money to Abrams by the
thousand without note or security, and yet she
can defraud poor Ann Hottle out of all her
means, and threaten her with death at the
hands of a murderous gang, if she makes knowa
her grievances.
I have already mentioned her offer of $500 to
Mrs. Marchant, to swear to a false alibi in her
behalf, and her subornation of her little neice,
who at her instance went to the Grand Jury
room and swore to a lie to screen her aunt,
It is also in evidence that on Wednesday fol-
lowing the murder, the day of the funeral, she
told Mr. Harris, an acquaintance, that she dº
not know Young or his wife. She said in the pres-
ence of Dorsey and Powell, that she had never
had any business transactions with Young th
her life. And yet counsel would have you be-
lieve that all this tissue of unblushing and im-
pudent falsehoods, and that all this strange
conduct of hers, is corsistent with her inno-
cence. The gentlemen ask you to task your
credulity, when they wish you to believe this.
I had almost forgotten another circumstance,
which I now recall. A neighbor, Mrs. Everson,
had been the prisoner's confidant in many
things, aud had often written letters for her.
This lady says, that soon after Abrams' arrest,
the prisoner sent for her to come to her house,
while there she asked her, “What is the publis
opinion about this murder?” The witness told her
that from what she had heard, their was a gen-
eral impression that there were a gang of per-



120
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
sons connected with the murder, and that when
the matter was exposed, they would all be sur-
prised. At this the prisoner ejaculated, “My
God! I do not know anything about the murder.”
Were innocent women talking thus? Was it an
involuntary denial, springing to her lips in an-
swer to something within that told her she was
the murderer? Her conduct finds an exact
parallel in Macbeth, when, imagining that he
sees the form of the murdered Banquo, he cries
out: -
“Thou canst not say I did it; never shake
Thy gory locks at me.
This meeting and denial of as accusation which
no one has made; this rushing to ones defence
before an attack is threatened; is characteristic
of the guilty mind, and to refer such conduct
to the innocent, is to disregard all our experi-
ence of human conduct.
It remains for me to allude to one other
branch of this case, which may possibly be re-
ferred to by the prisoner's counsel, who will
close this case. I refer to the lame and impotent
attempt to prove something which should cast
suspicion on other parties than these defend-
ants. Counsel, at one stage of this investiga-
tion, boasted in your hearing, of their purpose
and ability to show that Mr. Young was in the
habit of consorting with notoriously lewd wo—
men, riding with them in his carriage, and that
he probably came to his death at the hands of
such persons. Gentlemen, it was no woman of
known disreputable character that accompanied
Mr. Young and his wife on that afternoon. But
what do they prove in support of their state-
ment. Captain Ritter swears, that as he came
down into the city, the afternoon of the murder,
he saw Young in his carriage with some lady,
and as they were riding by he saw the lady
laughing and talking with Young, and finally,
saw her tap him on the shoulder 1 Counsel asked
the Captain what opinion he then had as to the
character of that lady! IIis IIonor very prop-
ly refused to allow an answer to the question.
º'he lady in the carriage was Mrs. Young, as
we have shown you, and yet this innocent
familiarity between a man and his wife, at high
goon, in the public streets of our city, is tor-
tured into a reflection upon their good names.
This attempt to blacken the character of Mr.
Young, is akin to the barbarity of those savages
who mutilate the bodies of their murdered
victims.
But another witness, Mr. Hampton Clark,
was called to support the theory that other par-
ties than these defendants committed this mur-
der. He says, that on the same afternoon he
was driving his horse on Indiana avenue, about
half past three o'clock, when he saw a man and
a womau in a buggy duiving rapidly towards
Cold Springs; that the man whipped up his
horse as he passed him, and that the woman
held a gun in her left hand between herself and
the man who was driving. The gun was in
plain view, and the witness thinks, as the buggy
went swiftly by, he noticed that there was a
little rust on the gun barrel, though he could not
tell whether it was a rifle or a shot gun. Ile
says his own horse had run away recently ba-
fore, and that his attention was not specially
directed to the persons in the passing buggy.
You will also remember that he said, that the
butt of the gun stood on the bottom of the
buggy bed, that it was held perpendicularly,
and that the muzzle did not reach as high as
the lady's shoulder, as she sat in the buggy.
You will notice, gentlemen, that as I sit in this
chair, which is higher than an ordinary buggy
seat, that this gun, which is the one found by
the dead bodies, reaches from the floor six inch-
es above the top of my head. So the rusty gºtia
theory wii not answer.
The Cal. Bowen theory is also exploded. This
“suspected" woman, as Scudder calls her, was
kept imprisoned at Cof. Robinson's house, and
carted over the county to confuse our witnesses.
Her foot was measured and re-measured by
Scudder, until the ends of his measure began to
wear off. And yet, though Robinson told the
witnesses in the country he had tracked her,
and knew she was the guilty woman, not one
syllable of testimony has been given which even
casts a suspicion upon her. Oh! how cruel in
Mr. Robinson to deprive this prisoner, in whose
behalf he has shown so much zeal, of the ben-
efits of his knowledge. Iſe was sworn as a wit-
ness for the prisoner, but his lips have been
sealed by her counsel, who have not ventured te
put him on the witness stand.
Unable to produce evidence tending to crim-
inate other parties, counsel have seen fit in ad-
dressing you to state that within their own
knowledge, there are scores of persons in this
community against whom there exists strong
suspicions. If this be true, how faithless have
they been to their client : If there are other
parties resting under suspicion, to whom any
facts point as being probably concerned in this
murder, such facts were relevant and import-
ant in the prisoner's defence, and yet counsel
would have you believe they know much to the
advantage of their client, which they have de-
liberately withheld from your consideration.
You will depart widely from your path of duty
as jurors, if you suffer yourselves to be led away
from the facts of this case by any such wild
assertions as these. -
But counsel are more extravagant yet. The
gentleman who precedeº me, interlarded his
speech with protestations of his belief in his
client’s innocence. What I may believe, or
what the counsel of the prisoner may believe in
this case, will not controlyou. I know the des:
perate strait into which these gentlemen are
driven, by the array of insurmountable facts
which confronts them. Failing in their evi-
dence, they substitute as a last resort that

The Cold Spring Tragedy.
121
declamatory style of speech, and boldness of
assertion, which rarely accompany the advocacy
of a just cause. I shall not follow their exam-
ple. I have endeavored to discuss this whole
body of evidence, in such a way as to enable
you to arrive at the truth, and I do not feel
that my duty to the State requiree me to go
further,
Here then, we have an array of facts, which
shows beyond a reasonable doubt, that the de-
fendant was one of the guilty actors in this
tragedy. These facts are numerous, independ-
ent, consistent and cogent, and all of them
point with unerring accuracy to the prisoner.
They derive great additional weight from the
circumstance that they are gathered from the
different, indepeudent, and unconcerted state-
ments of nearly two hundred disinterested and
impartial witnesses, drawn from all the useful
avocations of life. Their criminative weight is
increased also, by the failure of the prisoner to
produce exculpatory ovidence in explanation, or
denial of them. This consideration is strength-
ened by the persistent and repeated efforts of
the prisoner to destroy and fabricate evidence,
by bribery, perjury, and subornation of per-
jury.
“In a criminal case,” says Mr. Starkie,
** where all the circumstances of time, place,
motive, means, opportunity and conduct, con-
cur in pointing out the accused as the perpetra-
tor of an act of violence, the force of such
circumstantial evidence is materially strength-
ened by the total absence of rny trace or vestige
of any other agent; although, had any other
existed, he must havs been connected with the
perpetration of the crime, by motive, means and
opportunity, and by circumstances necessarily
accompanying such acts, which usually leave
manifest traces behind them.”
You may look through this mass of evidence,
and you cannot find a single fact pointing to
any one as the murderer, outside of the circle of
conspirators named in this indictment. It is
morally impossible that this multitude of inde-
pendent facts should concur in poinling to these
parties, and no other, and they be innocent.
No one has testified to a single fact for the
prosecution, who has ovinced a disposition to
equivocate, or to pervert the truth. Whether
such has been the disposition and conduct of the
defendant's witnesses, is for you to determine.
God knows what influences of love, affection,
fear, solicitude, threats and bribery, have been
brought to bear upon them. This unfortunaie
and guilty woman, in her desperate but fruitless
attempts to evade the eye of justice, finds her-
self deluged and overwhelmed with indications
of guilt, and, like a drowning wretch, clings to
the friends who are too weak to rescue her, and
drags them down with her. Almost as cruel as
the bloody act which laid her victim dead at her
feet, was that other cruelty by which she in-
duced her neice, that little girl, to forsake the
path of truth, and stain her soul with perjury.
Gentlemen, it is not strange that she who could
plan such a murder, and go to its execution with
laughter on her lips, and could with steady
nerve direct the fatal ball, and after sudden
flight return and secure the plunder from the
body of her victim — it is no wonder, I say, that
the wiles of such a woman should enable her to
ensnare a whole household in her deceitful toils-
This conduct of hers—this attempt to manu-
facture evidence, to forge evidence—this sub-
ornation of perjury, which she has committed
over and over again – is recognized as one of
the strongest indications of guilt. And what
good end has it served her? It has resulted in
utter, total, disastrous failure. But in this her
fate is not peculiar. The guilty man or woman
who attempts to pollute the channels of truth,
or divert its direct rays, will find that truth
will be avenged, and in a way unlooked for wiłł
flash her royal light along his pathway until
all the world shall read his guilt. Truth, which
is God's, can not be overcome by any false sug-
gestion from the father of lies. Truth is mighty
and shall prevail, though all the ingenuity and
strength of man shall be arrryed against it.
Never was a murder more skillfully planned,
more successfully executed than this. It com-
bines the audacity of genius, with the most
patient and painstaking study of details. The
selection of the place, so public, and yet so sol-
italy that for a whole night and parts of two
days, the dead bodies and the neglected horse
and buggy are undiscovered ; the success with
which she decoyed the victims into a convenient
ambush where her accomplice could slay his
victim without being discovered; the cold-
hearted hypocrisy which enabled her to win the
confidence of Young and wife; the dexterity
with which she handled, and the precision with
which she aimed her pistol, which exploded
almost simultaneously with the gun in her
brother's hands; the sudden retreat; the steal-
thy, cautious return to give the finishing strokes
to her struggling victim, and to secure the
booty, the successful escape to the buggy, the
hasty drive to the city, the rapid walk home—
this is the work of a master mind.
She could comfort herself with the murderer's
adage and consolation, “Dead men tell no
tales.” She had made sure work of it—her
triumph was complete. And it did seem so,
indeed. The melody of the Sabbath bells, borne
on the sweet south wind of that beautiful morn-
ing, could not waken the man and his wife from
their last slumber. The neighing of the horse
could not reach the ear of his kind master. The
faithful domestic and the little niece at the
cottage, looked and waited in vain for the re-
turn of those who went away so joyously.
She had not only slain her victims, but pros-
trate with their lifeless forms lay the violated
and broken law, to which this prisoner now

122
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
defiantly throws down the gauntlet. It was a
bºd murder, but it was more and worse than
that. It was malevolent, and cruel in the
extreme.
The Thugs of India were a sect who worship-
ped Kalee, their Goddess of murder. They
*urdered travellers, as they claimed, in obedi-
ence to the decree of their Deity. They would
disguise themselves as pilgrims, and ingratiate
themselves into favor with travellers, and when
their victiºns were off their guard would stran-
gie them. It is said that while a portion of a
bºnd of Thugs would be partaking of the hos-
pitalities of their intended victims within their
tent, others of the party would be digging their
graves, and at a given signal the hosts would all
be murdered by their guests. This approaches
the enormity of the great guilt of these defend-
cºrts. And yet, even here, the comparison is
favorable to the Thugs. They were hypocriti-
cº, it is true—they were avaricious – but the
lºdieſ that they were doing the will of their
Deity, made the act a superstitious one, and is
certainly some palliation, when we reflect that
the Thugs practiced their bloody creed where
the light of Christianity had not reached them.
But thirty years ago, the Bible and the British
army exterminated the sect.
But what have we here? Here in Marion
county—in Indianapolis—the Capitol and pride
of a noble Christian State. Here under the very
shadow of the church spires, which on every
corner point the sinner to his God – we have a
murder which in its cold-blooded atrocity, its
avarice and cruelty, in its hypocrisy, puts
Thuggery to the blush.
While such has been the guilt of this prison-
er; while she was so merciless to her victims;
I here echo the humane teachings of the law,
when I ask you to deal with her in no spirit of
vindictiveness. Deal with her mercifully if you
choose, but with that measure of justice also,
that bloody-minded men shall pause, and for-
sake their guilty purposes.
I now take my leave of this case, but I cannot
do so without expressing a regret that I have
not been able to deal with this momentous issue,
with an ability commensurate with its great
importance. For the distinguished gentleman
who will follow me, and close the argument for
the prisoner, I bespeak that same kind atten-
tion with which you have favored me. And
when you shall have heard all, and shall be
alone, with the public interests and the fate of
this prisoner committed to your hands, may you
so decide that in after life you can recur to the
solemn scenes of this day, with a serene con-
sciousness of having done your whole duty.
*Has the jury been heard from ?” was the
question heard in all places, and at all times,
during the whole of Sunday, the case having
been given to them the previous day. In the
churches, drug stores, saloons, at the postoffice,
and on the streets, it was the one absorbing
theme with rich and poor, business men, loaf-
ers, church-goers, all were alike anxious to
hear the result of the trial.
The excitement ran very high, and crowd af-
ter-crowd could be seen wending its way to the
court-house, with the vain hope that something
might be heard there. Dame Rumor, of course,
was not idle, for to tell one-half of the stories
cºined and circulated, would fill this book half
a dozen times over. The state of affairs was
much the same Monday morning, and when the
doors of the court room were opened, at half-
pºst nine, a frantic public was there waiting
and clamoring for admission. People were des-
tined to disappointment, however, unless they
cºuld take interest in the usual proceedings of
the court, which, on this occasion, happened to
be the delivery of a charge to the Grand Jury.
But whether interested or not, the public crowd-
ed the room, until, at eleven o’clock, the excite-
ment suddenly jumped to fever heat, as the Bai-
liff appeared, followed by the jury. At once all
was quiet; the crowd stood in breathless expec-
tation, waiting to hear the verdict, but the si-
lence was broken by the Judge's announcement
that the jury wished to have his charge read a
second time, there being some points upon
which some jurors were not clear. The charge
was accordingly read again, the prisoner having
been brought into the room. After the reading
of the charge, which occupied an hour, the room
was cieared of spectators, and left for the occu-
pancy of the jury.
At half-past two the court was again opened,
the jury being in the box. In a few minutes
Mrs. Clem, accompanied as usual by her hus-
band, came in. Major J. W. Gordon was the
only one of her counsel present.
After the call of the jury, Judge Chapman in-
quired if the other attorneys for the defendant
had been sent for. Major Gordon responded that
they had, but as it might take some minutes for
them to appear, he would ask, as a favor, as the
Conviction of Mrs.
Clenn.
only great favor he had asked cf the Court, dur-
ing the trial, that the verdict be received and
read, and his client relieved of her great sus-
pense.
The Judge then asked: “Gentlemen of the
jury, have you agreed upon your verdict 2"
The jury responded in the affirmative by éach
member slightly bowing his head, and Mr. Wil-
liam Vance, of Washington township, handed in
the following written verdict, which was read
by the Judge:
“We, the jury, find the defendant guity of
murder in rhe second degree, as charged in the
indictment, and sentence her to imprisonment
in the penitentiary for life.”
Major Gordon called for a poll of the jūryºnd
as each juryman's name was called, he stood up
and responded in the affirmative, to the Court's
interrogation, “Is this your verdict?”
Major Gordon then announced that the de-
fense would file a motion for a new trial, but
would not be prepared with the necessary affi-
davits before Saturday. He then turned to Mrs.
Clem and asked her if she desired to stay in the
conrt room. She replied quickly, “’No, no, cer-
tainly not.” The Court remanded her to jail,
and then addressed the jury in substance, as fºl-
lows:
“Gentlemen, for the past three weeks you
have occupied a position, which, on your part,
was unsought and undesired. Your conduct, so
far as within the knowledge of the Court, i.
been unexceptionable. In the faithful discharge
of your duty, the Court believes you have given
a faithful attention to the evidence, the argu-
ments of counsel and the charge of the Const,
and that you have arrived at your result eonsei-
entiously. You are entitled to this commenda-
tion. Hoping that on your return home, you
may greet your families in good health, and find
your affairs have not suffered during your ab-
sence, I now discharge you from any further
consideration of this case.”
The jury then left their seats, and were at
once surrounded by a greeting, hand-shakiºg
crowd of friends and inquisitive persons.


124
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
When Mrs. Clem came into court in the morn-
ing, she looked worse than at any time during
the trial, appearing as though she had passed a
sleepless night. In the afternoon, when first
brought in, she showed signs of anxiety, and to
judge from the perceptible palpitation of her
heart, terror. But after taking her seat she re-
gained her composure, and when the Judge read
the verdict, gave a sigh of evident relief, at the
same time turning to her husband with that sil-
ly, unconcerned smile she wore upon all occa-
sions. It was a strange contrast, to see her sit-
ting there so calmly, so stoically, as if she was
the person least concerned, and to see one or two
of the jurors with tears streaming down their
faces, so much were they affected. Even the
crowd, and what is there more unpitying than
a crowd, was inexpressibly shocked by her con-
duct; and yet her manner of receiving the sen-
tence was but of a piece with all her actions
hitherto-stolid and indifferent. A great deal
has been said about her iron will, her “nerve.”
She may have “nerve,” but the power which
enabled her to bear up so wonderfully is not the
force of will, or “nerve;" it is simply a want
of feeling—a lack of heart, assisted by powerful
stimulants. The woman must and will show it.
self at some time or other, even if it be ever so
little, and, upon leaving the court room, Mrs.
Clem shed a tear or two, but quickly brushing
them away, remarked, as she reached the foot of
the stairs, that she hoped they—probably mean-
ing the spectators who lined the halls – “were
satisfied now.”
Confession of Silas W. Hartman.
The prisoners having been remanded to jail,
after the verdict given by the jury, the city was
quietly settling down on the subject of the mur-
der; when, on the 8th of March, rumors began
to be current that Sike Hartman had made a
confession. This proved to be true, and we
here with present the substance of the confess-
ion. It opens out by stating that the conspiracy
was formed by Abrams, Fiscus and Dorsey,
more than a month before the tragedy; that he
was approached by Fiscus and Abrams to take
a prominent part in it, but refused; and that
finally he consented to take the part which he
He then
proceeds to state how the murder was com-
relates further on in his confession.
mitted, as follows:
“Frank Clark decoyed Young to Cold Spring.
It was not intended to kill Mrs. Young. Fiscus
killed Young. Abrams bought the gun and
gave it to Fiscus near the fruit-house, on Sat-
urday. Fiscus went out the Lafayette railroad,
crossed on the railroad bridge, and hid in the
bottoms waiting for him. I went out by agree-
ment to meet the woman, and bring her in. In
fifteen minutes after the gun fired she came to
me, and I brought her in by way of the Insane
Asylum and White river bridge. I let her out
on Walnut street, east of Illinois. She went
back to Illinois, and went back on the street
cars. I then went to Camp Morton, and out
the Pendleton road, driving slow to let the mare
cool. I went up the road to the second toll
gate. Coming in met Dowden; came in by way
of St. Clair and Alabama streets, past home,
but did not stop. Took the mare home to the
stable. I think it was about 5:30 o'clock p. m.
The murder was about three o’clock p. m. I
went home from the stable, but saw none of the
parties until Monday, when Abrams asked me
to come to his stable that night, on particular
business. Just after dark, when I got there,
he introduced me to Dorsey. They said the
work was done, and we must keep our mouths
sealed, as the penalty for the first one who
blowed, would be death. Dorsey said he had
the money; that he and Fiscus went through
the house of Young, and got all the paperson
Saturday night. He said he got from Young's
house $75,000, and that on Saturday he got
from Young $15,000 or $20,000 on loan. He
said he would pay me when the excitement died
away, and $5,000 more. He had not paid me
anything before nor on that night, but was to
have paid me part. He had been at his store all
day, and could prove an alibi.
Dorsey went to Mrs. Clem's on Thursday,
and got from her $15,000 in notes made by
Young and endorsed by Dorsey, and told her to
keep her mouth shut, and he would pay her the
money, but if she did not keep still she would
be driven into the murder. She at first declined,
and he said her possession of them would get her
into trouble, but if given to him, he was admin-
istrator, and would seo them settled. I stood at
the top of the stairs and heard them talk. I
neversaw Dorsey until after the murder. Frank
Clark took the money from Young's coat pock-
et. She shot Mrs. Young, but did not kill her.
and Fiscus hit her on the head and killed her.
| tººlſ
|
sius wºrmºn NTHE Act of committing suicide.



















The Cold Spring Tragedy.
12?
She said that she took from Young's pocket a
Hong black pocket-book, with a great deal of
money in it. The reason Fiscus did not shoot
Mrs. Young was, the caps flew off. I think
they saw some one near, and ran and left the
gun. He shot Young, and hallooed to her to
shoot Mrs. Young, the cap was off his gun.
Fiscus came up to where they were gathering
shells, and spoke, when Young raised up, and
Fiscus shot him ; so Frank Clark said. Fiscus
never told me any of the particulars of the mur-
der. I got all my information from her. There
was no one with me when I went up the Pen-
deton road; did not stop at Fee's gate, only tº
pay toll. Abrams and I went out that road-on
Friday, and did stop and light my pipe, tºnd
then came back and went to Cold Springs to
look at the ground. Went up the Pendleton
road for the purpose but thought it would not
do. I never had Cravens Hartman out riding
with me. Abrams told me on the Monday after
the murder that he bought the gun at Solom-
on's. I was detained by my counsel from
making this statement sooner. I never told
them the whole story until just before the lºst
time I was put on the witness stand. I told
them I did not want to go on the witness stºnd,
that I knew something about the matter.
Suicide of Silas W. Hartman.
The city was thoroughly aroused on the 10th
of March, by a report that Sike Hartman had
cºmmitted suicide in his cell, and the jail was
besieged with an anxious crowd. We were at
first unable to gain admission, but when the
cºroner came and a jury was impanneled, we
made our way into the office, and thence into
the interior of the jail. Abrams was the first
person we met inside the jail. He was coming
down the stairs from the cell where Hartman
lay, and seemed much depressed, although quite
cºlm.
Ascending the stone steps which lead to the
second tier of cells, we entered the first door
ºpening on the range, and there our eyes met a
scene of horror which will not soon be forgotten.
Hartman was lying on a mattress which rested
ºn the floor of the cell, on the west side, and
having his feet nearest the door, so that on en-
tering, the ghastly spectacle was at once reveal-
ed in all its horror. Blood was everywhere; oa
the body, bed, pillow, hands, and even upon the
wall behind the bed, but the wound was con-
cealed by the long whiskers of the deceased.
The face was bloodless and blanched with the
terror and agony of the fearful moment when
he found himself struggling with his own life.
The physicians examined the body and found
that the wounds were five in number, three ex-
tanding across the throat, and two more upon
the right side. The jugular vein and the carotid
artery were each severed, and two or more of
the wounds had penetrated the trachea. Death
had resulted ahmost immediately. The first
wounds must have been made while in a sitting
posture, as the blood oa the wall ean not be
accounted for otherwise.
Hartman had for some time been depress& in
spirits, and had stated to some of the other prºs-
oners in jail, that he would cut his throat befºe
he would allow the Court a chance at him. The
evening before, a newspaper was handed be
him which contained his confession, and the re-
marks relative to public opinion concerning ºbs
truthfulness. After reading the paper he asked
the men to go out, as he wanted to talk to Nºs.
Clem, through the wall of their cells.
He hung a blanket before the door of his cººl,
and spoke to Mrs. Clem for some time, but what
was said between them cannot be found tºat,
Mrs. Clem having refused to testify before the
Coroner's Jury. After Hartman concluded £he
conversation he came out into the jail, and was
walking about singing hymns with another
prisoner, but in low spirits. He was up through
the night, and was seen walking around but a
short time before his death.
Abrams slept in the cell with him, on another
bed, and first heard him groaning as if oppress-
ed with the nightmare. He called him, but got
no answer, then shook him, then got up and
raised the bed clothes from his face, saw blood,
and then called the jailor, who passed the achi
, keys inside, with which Abrams unlocked the
other cells, and let the prisoners out. Daven-
port, under arrest for shooting Berlin, was the
first one to enter the cell, and found the razor
lying beside the body. Hartman turned his
head and looked straight at Davenport, but
made no sign, and died in a few minutes.
THE CORONPR's JURY,
Was composed of Messrs. M. L. Johnson, fºre-



128
The Cold Spring Tragedy.
ºn,
man, Erie Locke, Dr. W. P. Parr, Wm. M. Gra-
ham, Curran E. McDonald, and T. B. Stapp,
After viewing the body they repaired to the of:
fice of the jail, and examined several witnesses,
whose testimony corroborated the facts as stat-
ea above. -
Pending the examination of the witnesses, the
body had been removed by Mr. Matthew Long,
undertaker, to the residence of Matthew Hart-
man, brother of the deceased, on North Ala-
bama street, where it was carefully washed and
the wound sewed up.
The family was plunged into the deepest af-
fliction, and Mrs. Clem was almost hysterical.
She said that Sike gave no intimation to her
of his purpose to commit suicide, and she was
loth to believe that he had done so. Deputy
Sheriff Hanna removed from her cell a knife and
a pair of scissors with which she might have
done herself violence, and sent immediately for
her husband, who came and remained some time
with her in the prison.
vrraldict or triº ºr.
The verdict of the jury was that the deceased
came to his death by his own hand, by cutting
his throat with a razor.
Trial of Winn. J. A branns.
We have now finished our history of the
“Cold Spring Tragedy,” so far as Mrs. Clem and
her brother were concerned. The murder of
Jacob Young and wife, has, we trust, in the
foregoing pages been clearly deseribed, and the
trial of Mrs. Clem fully and accurately detailed.
Mrs. Clem is now in the Southern Indiana
Prison, at Jeffersonville, were, according to the
verdict and sentence of the jury, she will prob-
^^*. w. º º.
º -
C/
ably remain for life. Hartman acknowledged
his guilt, by suicide. Abrams, who is indicted
for the murder of Young, still remains in the
Marion county jail, not having yet been tried,
hence our history is complete as far as it is at
present possible to make it. This trial will,
however, appear in a subsequent edition of this
book, which will no doubt add many new and
interesting developments.
- - -
- -
-
ºº
SUBSCRIPTION
A M º
GENERAL PUBLISHER
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.
* Largest Commissions paid to Agents and
Canvassers. Send for Circular and terms.
H. C. CHANDLER & CO.,
ENGRAVIERS On WOOD
STEAM JOB PRINTERS.
Nos. 25, 27 and 29 South Meridian Street.
INDIAN A POLIS, - - - - - - - I N D. L. A. N. A.
89 NQRTH IILM,INOIS STAR EET,
(ACADEMY OF MUSIC)
* The special attention of §§ Merchants and Shippers is called to our
facilities for Purchasing all kinds of Produce.


THE FAVORITE PAPER OF THE WEST. Is
Benham's Musical Review,
º
: A SIXTEEN PAGE MONTHLY, Dºvotrºp To
MUSIC, ART, AND THITERATURE,
º
f NE4TLY STITCHED, BOUND AND TRIMMED,
FOR ONLY ONE DOLLAR PER ANNUM :
In addition to Eight Pages ºf Choice Reading matter, every Month the Review
º - contains, during the year,
OVER ONE HUNDRED PAGES OF MUSIC,
º *Y sucrº Atſºn on- A-
* J. R. Thomas, annison p. wyvan. H. Mºritann, cºrest.
º BRINLEY RICHARDS, WM. T. Rog & RS, CHAS. KINKEL, DEXTER SMITH,
And many others, among whom are most of the standard and Popular writers of the day. º
Terms:-81 per Annum. Subscriptions can commence with any number, sample copies,
containing $2 worth of music, mailed on receipt of ten cents. Agents wanted in every town and
county in the West. Liberal commission paid to agents.
Address all communications to
H. L. BENEIAM & Co., Indianapolis, Ind.
-
º -
Jacob Young insºrs his life August 27th, 1837, for the benefit of
º his wife. His insurance was taken on the Ten Year Life Plan, in
the NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPA-
Nº. of Wisconsin, and was for $5,000, on which he had paid two
annual premiums amounting, altogether, to $462.80. The Company
paid this loss as soon as the mystery connected with this double
murder of Mr. and Mrs. Young was sufficiently cleared up to a low
the Guardian of the sole surviving heir, an invalid boy, to properly
receipt for the money; and it is prºper to state in connection with
the above that this Policy of Life Insurance has been almost the
sole means of preventing the child from becoming a public charge.
The NORTH WESTERN is acknowledged to be the leading Life .
Insurance ompany west of the seaboard, having in ten years ac-
cumulated over 85.000 000 of capital, and has a membership ex-
ceeding $30,000 ºf ARTIN & HoPKINs are the State Agents for º
Indi ºna, with office at Indianapolis. Persons who are not insured,
should sena for circulars containing information regarding this
company.
-