OFFICIAL REPORT
OF THE

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS,
INDICTEED FOE THE

MURDER OF ADONIRAM-J. BURROUGHS,
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
(SITTING AS A CRIMINAL COURT,)

•MONDAY,

JULY

3,

P R E P A R E D BY J A M E S O.

1865.

CLEPHANE,

OFFICIAL REPORTER.

WASHINGTON, D. C:

W. H . & O. H. M O R R I S O N .
1865.

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1865, by W. H. & 0. H.
MOBRISOM*, in the Clerk s Office of the Supreme Court of the United States for
the District of Columbia

TO T H E PUBLIC.
The great interest which this trial has excited, as presenting, in feal life,
scenes and incidents which are rarely equaled in story, would not have
induced me to prepare it for the press ; but gentlemen of the medical profession
equally with those of the law, have represented it to me as affording peculiarly
a case for study in each ; and I yield to what seems to be a public demand, in
producing it in pamphlet form.
. For the sake of condensation, I have omitted the interrogatories in the examination of the witnesses in chief, so far as that was practicable, and have presented the testimony in a narrative form.
give the words of the witnesses.

In doing so, I have endeavored to

The cross-examination, to a greater degree,

-'nvolves a report of both question and answer.
I have also condensed the discussions of questions arising on the admissibility
evidence, and given only the ruling of the Judge, without his reasons. And
, also, as to the arguments on the mqst material questions in the case-—those
elating to the defence of insanity. On the third prayer presented by the defence, relative to the burden of proof, as it is both novel and interesting, I have
given the points and the outline of the discussion; but it is only an outline.
The openings of the prosecution and defence, respectively, have also been
condensed as much as was possible to leave them clear and intelligible.
-My aim has been to present a true history of this remarkable case; that the
testimony of the medical witnesses especially may be understood and weighed
JAS. 0. CLEPHANE,
Reporter of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
3

Supreme CourtoftheDistrictofColombia.
(SITTING AS A CRIMINAL COURT.)

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS,
INDICTED FOR THE

MURDER OF ADONIRAM J. BURROUGHS.
BEFORE HON". A N D R E W W Y L I E , ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

Counsel for the Government—
E. C. CARRINGTON, Esq., District Attorney.
NATHANIEL WILSON, Assistant District Attorney.
Counsel for the Prisoner—
JOS. H. BRADLEY, Esq., of District of Columbia.
HON. DANIEL W. VOORHEES, of Indiana.
JUDGE JAMES HUGHES, of Indiana.
JUDGE MASON, of Iowa.
WILLIAM Y. FENDALL, of District of Columbia.

FIRST DAY—MONDAY, J U L Y 3, 1865.
The Court met at 10 o'clock.
. The Court asked if counsel were ready to proceed with the trial. Mr. Carrington said the Government was.
Mr. Bradley stated that interrogatories had been filed, and commissions sent
to Ohicago and Burlington on the 17th of June. The depositions had not yet
been returned, but were expected here to-day. If, however, they did not arrive
until Wednesday, the defence would be compelled to ask for a postponement.
The Court suggested that they could proceed with the selection of a jury,
when, without swearing them all, the Court would adjourn over until Wednesday. If at that time the depositions had not arrived, a further postponement
could be taken.
This was agreed to; and in the meantime the depositions from Burlington
were received.
The prisoner entered the court-room at 10 minutes past 11 o'clock, being
escorted by Mr. Bradley, Mr. Cornelius Wendell, and Mrs. Abbey, of New York,
and took a seat between Mr. Bradley and Mr. Mason.
The jurors selected were Moses T. Parker, Thomas H. Barron, Francis Bal~
longer, Michael R. Coombs, Alexander Lammond, Thomas A. Tolson, John
Scrivenner, Butler Baker, Donald McCathran, and Zach. B. Brooke.
After being cautioned by the Court to refrain from any conversation with
regard to the case, they were allowed to separate until Wednesday morning.
o

6

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

SECOND DAY—WEDNESDAY, J U L Y 5,

1865.

The Court met at 10 o'clock.
There was a much larger attendance than upon Monday.
At the opening of the Court. Mr. Bradley, counsel for defence, stated that
they had not yet received the depositions from Chicago, and he would therefore ask a postponement until Thursday morning.
The Court said that in view of the importance of the case, and in order to
insure the arrival of the depositions, he would postpone the case until Friday
morning.
Mr. Bradley stated that he would try the case then whether the depositions
were here or not.
THIRD D A Y — F R I D A Y , J U L Y 7,

1865

The Court met at 10 o'clock
The room was crowded to excess ; nearly all the legal fraternity of Washington occupying the bar, the space without being filled by citizens generally.
The jury was called, and^answered to their names. The panel was in a short
time completed.
*"
The indictment was then read. I t is in the common form of an indictment for
murder at common law. The prisoner had been arraigned some time prior to
this. The case for the prosecution was opened by the District Attorney, as
follows:
May it please the Court, and you, gentlemen of the Jury: This is an indictment
igainst Mary Harris, charging her, on or about the 30th of January, 1865, with
the murder of Adoniram J. Burroughs.
GENTLEMEN : You have been subjected to a very searching examination by the
Court, and in reply to the questions of his honor, you have stated that you haveno prejudice against the prisoner at the bar. (Turning toward the prisoner.) I
am sure of this. How could you have ? for she is a woman, and a woman in
distress; enough to commend her to the commiseration, if not to the sympathy,
of every generous and noble-hearted man. On the other hand, you have
sworn, with equal emphasis and solemnity, that you have no prejudice in her
favor, and no conscientious scruples in regard to the subject of capital punishment. In a word, you have sworn that your minds were like blank pieces of
paper, so far as the transaction of this case is concerned; ready, for the first
time, to receive impressions, and to discharge the high and awful duty which
devolves upon you in a spirit of perfect impartiality, both to the public and
the accused, and to execute the law as it is, without reference to your peculiar
views as to what it should be; and you have invoked the Almighty and this
cloud of witnesses to attest the sincerity of that solemn and impressive oath.
Be it said to the eternal honor of the American people, that a man in danger
is never, in this country, without a friend and a protector.
1 stand here to-day to plead the cause of woman—gentle, lovely, virtuous
woman—associated in our minds, from earliest infancy, with all that is good,
amiable, and attractive. Woman, more than man, is interested in the preservation of peace and order, and in the enforcement of the law. To consign an
innocent woman to a false doom would be horrible, indeed! To allow a great
crime to go unrebuked, because the guilty agent happened to be a woman, would
be an act of cowardice, a criminal imbecility. The prosecuting officer who, from
a feeling of sympathy, fails to state the law with perfect candor, is recreant to
his trust; the witness who, from sympathy, testifies untruly, stains his soul
with perjury ; and the juror who, from sympathy, renders a verdict inconsistent with the law and the evidence, commits the same awful crime,, in the sight
of God and his country. Obedience to law is the safeguard of us all. We must
bs cruel, only to be kind; we must punish the guilty, in order to protect the

TRIAL OP MARY HAKEIS.

7

innocent. Loyalty to law and government is obedience to Heaven. Crime
must be punished, because God commands it.
I t is my duty, at this stage of the case, briefly to state certain great principles
of law by which you are to be guided and controlled in this investigation.
Four questions are submitted to you for your consideration. 1st, Was the
homicide charged in this indictment committed within the jurisdiction of this
court; 2dly, If so, was it committed by the prisoner at the bar; 3dly, Is it
felonious, justifiable, or excusable; 4thly, And, if felonious, what is the quality
of the homicide? Is it murder, or is it manslaughter ?—there being no grades of
murder in the District of Columbia, as there are in many of the States of the
Union. Again, every homicide is presumed to be felonious murder until the
contrary appear from the evidence. Therefore, if I show this homicide was
committed by the prisoner, the burden of proof will be upon her, to show that
it was either excusable, or, if felonious, was committed under such circumstances as, in the judgment of law, would mitigate the offence from murder to
manslaughter.
I have said that every felonious homicide is presumed to be murder, and the
burden of proof rests upon the accused, to show those circumstances which will
mitigate a felonious homicide from murder to manslaughter. What circumstances will reduce a felonious murder from murder to manslaughter is a question of fact for the jury It is a vulgar error, that where a party takes life in
passion, it is manslaughter. There must be provocation, and a sufficient and
recent provocation, to justify that passion. Both passion and provocation must
concur. .& man may take the life of another in the tempest and whirlwind of
passion; but it is still murder, unless it result from provocation. And that
provocation must not only be sufficient, but recent; for if there is sufficient
time for passion to subside and reason to resume its sway, it is still murder.
What is sufficient cooling-time, is a question of law for the Court; whether
the facts show sufficient cooling-time, is a question for the jury.
I recognize before me many gentlemen who are not without experience in
the trial of criminal causes. I deem it unnecessary, therefore, gentlemen of the
jury, to define or to analyze the crime of murder. Justifiable homicide is where
an officer takes life, when it becomes necessary, in the discharge of his official
duty. Excusable homicide is, first, where a party takes life when it is necessary
to protect his own life or his person from great bodily harm, ox where the circumstances are such, in the opinion of the jury, as to justify the honest belief
that such necessity exists ; or to protect one standing in that intimate relation
which the law permits him to defend. For instance, a parent his child, a husband
his wife, a master his servant, a guardian his ward, vice versa. Again, where the
party's mind is so affected by disease, resulting either from moral or physical
causes, or both combined, as to render him an irresponsible being, this is called
excusable homicide by reason of insanity. It is a vulgar error that insanity renders a party irresponsible for his conduct. This is not so, gentlemen of the jury.
Every man who commits crime is at the time more or less insane. Passion is
temporary insanity. Reason is for the time dethroned, and passion holds the
sway; but in order to acquit a party upon the ground of insanity you must be
satisfied from the evidence that the mind was so affected as to render the party
incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong as to the act committed;
or that the will was so affected as to be entirely beyond his control; rendering
him a mere automaton, and his acts involuntary. Motive, therefore, you will
observe, is utterly incompatible with the idea of insanity. If it appear,
therefore, from the evidence, that this homicide was committed in a spirit of
revenge—to avenge some wrong—it is a death blow to the plea of insanity.
Again, it is my duty to remind you that if you acquit the party upon the
ground of insanity, you should find that verdict special: not guilty by reason
of insanity; in order that the Judge may certify the fact to the Secretary of the
Interior, and have the unfortunate accused confined within the walls of the
insane asylum. I shall say no more upon this point at present.
Of course it is not for me to anticipate the defence. I am merely stating

8

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

general principles. If this appears from the evidence to be a case neither of
justifiable nor excusable homicide, the next question to be considered by the
jury will be whether this be murder or manslaughter. You will observe from
the definition of these two grades of offence, that malice is the distinguishing
characteristic. Felonious homicide, with malice either expressed or implied, is
murder; felonious homicide, without malice expressed or implied, is man3laughter. Malice is a technical term and has a technical signification. It is
of two kinds: Implied malice, or malice in law, is where a party takes life
wantonly, that is to say, without sufficient excuse in law ; and it does not imply
either hatred, envy, or revenge. Hatred is a feeling of hostility against some
particular person. Envy is a feeling of chagrin and mortification at the real
or supposed superiority of another. Eevenge is that red and bloody demon
lurking in every depraved and malignant heart, prompting to those crimes that
shock and outrage human nature. Malice in law is that quality or feeling of
the human heart which permits a man to injure another whom he neither hates
nor envies, and against whom he has no grudge, and whom, perhaps, he has
never seen. Malice in fact is malice in the ordinary acceptation of the term,
and not unfrequently implies hatred, envy, and revenge, and is manifested by
lying in wait for the party injured, or by antecedent threats and menaces.
Having briefly stated these general principles, which I may have occasion hereafter more fully to illustrate and elaborate under the instructions of the Court,
I shall proceed to briefly recapitulate the facts in the case which you are sworn
to try. I know nothing of my own personal knowledge, but from information
received, I think I am warranted in saying you never tried a similar case
before. It is unprecedented in the annals of crime. We expect to show that
the prisoner at the bar armed herself with a deadly weapon in the city of
Chicago, that she came to Washington, repaired to the Treasury building, and
inquired of the doorkeeper for Mr. Burroughs. That she was received with that
kindness and courtesy characteiistic of the American people in any position of
life, whenever approached by a lady, or one bearing the appearance of a lady.
The door-keeper told her that there were two persons of that name employed in
the Treasury Department. She looked at the book where the names of the
employees were recorded, and turning to the name of Adoniram J. Burroughs,
said he was the gentleman whom she desired to see. She went to the room,
turned the bolt, when she saw the object of her search, standing at his desk in
the discharge of official duty. An old lady sitting by, attracted by the bright
lustre of her black eye, rose from her seat, and was about to ask her in.
Her envy was excited Good heavens! what was there to excite this unchristian and pitiable spirit? However, she measured him, she marked him,
she resolved upon his death; she retraced her steps down the hall, then turning to the left she took her stand behind a high clock, which reaches from the
floor almost to the ceiling. Here she sat awaiting the approach of her unsuspecting victim. Great God! what a position for a woman! Armed with a
deadly weapon, and with malice in her heart, in a public building in the
metropolis of a christian nation, stands an American woman contemplating the
crime of murder. She could hear the ticking of the clock; she could observe
the movements of the hands; there was time for passion to subside and for
reason to resume its sway. One would suppose that she could have seen with
the eye of fancy the wife pointing to her child, and hear her voice:
"Oh! thinkest thou not how wretched we should be,
A widow I, and helpless orphan he ?"

The clock strikes; the labors of the day are ended. The clerks are returning
to their respective places of abode. Young Burroughs, full of life, and joy, and
hope, is going to his home, where his faithful wife, an honest, true-hearted
woman, is anxiously expecting her husband's return, unconscious of the
slightest design upon his life or personal safety, Heu mens hominum nescia
futuri.
Alas! alas! how ignorant of the terrible fate that awaits him, for

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

9

almost at that very moment the instrument of death is pointed at his back by
the assassin's hand. He is walking down the hall in company with a friend,
engaged in conversation. As he passes the clock the prisoner draws her pistol,
and without a word of warning or of notice, aims and fires, inflicting a mortal
wound. He reels, exclaims " Oh," turns again, and endeavors to- make his
escape. Was not that enough to satisfy the assassin's revenge? No, gentlemen
of the jury; she steps into the centre of the hall, deliberately cocks her pistol,
and aims directly at his head, as will appear from the impression made upon
the wall, which will remain a lasting memorial of this cruel and bloody tragedy.
But this was a useless expenditure of ammunition. Her object was accomplished, her revenge was satisfied; the body of her victim lies bleeding at her
feet. You see the flash, you hear the report, and in a moment the poor
trembling spirit of Aploniram J. Burroughs stands affrighted and appalled
before the bar of eternal justice. Horrible, horrible, most horrible! Cutoff
in the very blossom of his sins, no reckoning made, unhouseled, and unannealed,
he goes to his long account with all his imperfections on his head.
She is arrested; still she is calm, cool, and collected ; showing no emotion,
until the mangled and bleeding corpse of her victim is brought into her presence.
Then she begins to cry and tear her hair. In the strong and expressive language of this indictment, "moved and seduced by the devil," she commits the
murder; but, vvhen the deed is done, the devil leaves her, and she hears the
voice of her God, "Thou shalt do no murder." She sounds the alarm, and'then
she suffers, in anticipation of the awful retribution of an outraged and violated law.
" Revenge, sweet at first, bitter ere long,
Back on itself recoils."

Is this some terrible dream ?
I have stated to you that I know nothing of my own personal knowledge. I
neyer saw the prisoner until she was brought into the presence of the Court.
But, if these facts appear in evidence, shall I insult your intelligence by arguing that this is a case of murder—wilful, deliberate, cold-blooded murder—aggravated by cruelty, barbarity, and a savage disregard of human life, unrelieved
by a single circumstance ? To call it by any other name would be a libel upon
the religion and the laws of that God we adore, and the country we love.
Why did the prisoner at the bar not kill him in Chicago, if she had suffered
any wrong, either real or imaginary, at his hands? Ah, gentlemen, did she suppose, as many others- do, that here crime could be committed with impunity ?
As a citizen of Washington, as an American lawyer, proud of my country and
her institutions, I hope this error will be corrected; for this is the metropolis
of the nation, the great radiating point, and strangers from abroad judge of the
habits, customs, and manners of our people from the citizens of the federal
metropolis.
Unfortunately for us, the city of Washington has acquired the reputation
abroad of being the city of licentiousness, violence, and crime. Now, as on
former occasions, I repudiate this slander upon the people of my adopted home,
where I have so long resided. The citizens of Washington are a law-loving,
law-abiding, religious people; and we are indebted to eminent criminals, who
come from a distance, for this unenviable reputation. It is the rendezvous for
thieves, garroters, murderers, and adventurers. The city swarms with wicked
men and women; and public safety depends upon'the firmness and integrity of
the judiciary.
We have no representation in Congress; we are to a great extent in the
' power and under the influence of the States. But I charge you, gentlemen of
the jury, maintain your dignity and your self-respect. Let it no longer be
considered that crime may be committed with impunity in the national metropolis, and that jurors will refuse to discharge their duty with firmness and
fidelity.

10

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Mr. Bradley, counsel for the accused, here asked that the jury be allowed to
bake a short recess, as the opening address on the part of the Government
would probably change his line of procedure,- and he wished to have a consultation with the other counsel.
M E . BEADLEY'S OPENING REMAEKS.

On the Court being again convened, Mr. Bradley addressed the jury as follows :
I have nothing to say to you, gentlemen of the jury, on behalf of the prisoner as a young lady, or even as a woman, nor have I any appeal to make to
you on the ground of chivalry or of manhood. Those are questions outside
of the present inquiry. I shall call upon you to decide this case upon the
facts as they shall be presented to you from the written and oral proof, and if
the accused, in your judgment, shall be possessed of one tithe of the guilt just
now attributed to her by the District Attorney, I shall join him and ask for
her condemnation, and that she shall sutler the severest penalty.
The prisoner is of Irish descent. She has had few advantages of early education and moral culture. When about nine years of age, she was a little girl
employed in a store kept by a lady in Burlington, Iowa—a millinery and
fancy store, where some gentlemen's belongings were kept, such as pocket
handkerchiefs, neck-ties, &c. WThile there she first attracted the attention of
the deceased. She was then a bright and beautiful child, he fondled her
as such, and she returned his caresses.
The lady with whom she was thus employed is represented as one of refinement and culture, mingling in the society of the place, and in every respect
admirably fitted for the training of such a child. Burroughs was at that time
sngaged in business, keeping a store not far from the one in which the accused
was thus employed, and passed by that store every day. He was frequently in
the store obtaining articles of gentlemen's wear and use, and was received by the
lady on the footing of a friend. This course of life continued some two or
three years, when he failed in business. He was then employed by this lady
to keep and post her books, and thus was thrown more closely into the society
and association of the accused. Time passed on. He left the city of
Burlington, where she resided, and on the 1st of November, 1858, wrote to the
accused the first letter which ever passed between them. That letter will be
offered in evidence. At this time she was about thirteen years of age; not
more. He was a man of education and knowledge of the world, her senior at
that time of more than double her years. He had during the acquaintance
between them, cultivated her intellect, and assisted in refining her manners,
and thus she became fitted for, and was admitted into, the best society of Burlington. From that time forth, so long as she continued to reside in Burlington, she was received as the friend of ladies of the highest character and repute,
well known in that town. Her associations were with the children of these
ladies, principally among married ladies, and of persons older than herself.
She went very little into general society. The correspondence thus begun was
continued for five years. So much of that will be laid before you as will enable you to see the character t)f the relations existing between the parties. I
have here ninety-two letters, taken from the correspondence, extending from
the year 1858, and including the year 1863. They will show how by degrees he
formed, shaped, and moulded her mind, feelings, habits, tastes, and her intellectual
and moral character. They will show how completely she was identified with
all his life ; that he took no grave step in life without first communicating to
her. All his hopes, fears, and disappointments, were found out in this correspondence, and in the interviews which from time to time were referred to in it.
His expectations and prospects were disappointed. He had a quarrel in Burlington, and was dismissed from his church. He poured out into her ear all
his grief and suffering, and although at first she did not even like him, yet by
degrees, as time passed, she began to believe that he was persecuted and trod-

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

11

den down. She believed him a good man in adversity. He was always good
to her. Her liking increased until at last she began to love ; and when she
gave her heart she gave her whole soul with it. She thought and acted as and
for him. She trusted with the whole trust of a woman's confidence when once
given. Her father disapproved ol this correspondence, disapproved of the
man; interfered, prohibited, and attempted to prevent. He did prevent his
visits at his house, and treated her with some severity. They then poured the
tale of their love and their difficulties into the ear of one of the most intelligent,
refined, and estimable ladies of that town, and she permitted them to visit at
her house. Her deposition will be read to you. He"persuaded the accused to
leave her father's house and go to Chicago in search of employment, in which
city he was residing, and where he was looking forward to the formation of a
military company to go into the service of the United States. She did so.
His attentions to her there were such that one of her employers, a gentleman
keeping the principal book-store in that city, remonstrated with the brother of
the deceased. Shortly afterwards, or about that time, she left Chicago and
returned to her father's house. She remained in Burlington for some time
afterwards, retaining all her former associations, becoming more and more
endeared to the ladies with whom she was thus associated, until again, in the
spring of 1863, he prevailed on her once more to go to Chicago, where he was
then residing, to seek employment there. Previous to that time he had in the most
distinct terms committed to a lady, whose testimony will be presented to you,
the fact of a marriage engagement existing between himself and the accused.
The day was fixed for the celebration of the marriage. His plan was, if he
succeeded in forming this company, and was mustered into the service, to marry
then; but as her parents were so much opposed to her marrying him, they being
Catholics and he a Baptist, he determined if he did not succeed in the formation of this company, thus obtaining a subsistence for*himself and wife, to go
to California, or some other place remote from the town of Burlington. All
this was communicated to this lady. He was disappointed by accident in hi&
expectation of going into the military service, &nd the marriage was postponed,
Subsequently the day was fixed, and when she returned from Chicago the firs!
time she was accompanied by him; and he then told this lady, as his excuse foi
his return to Burlington, that he did not wish his wife to be employed any longei
as a clerk. They were then to be married within three weeks. At a subsequent period, as is shown in one of his letters, the fact of her intended marriage out of the church was discovered by her priest, and in that letter he
inveighs in strong terms against the espionage upon the correspondence which
was then carried on between him and her. Subsequently to this, and after
her return to Chicago in the spring of 1863, the period of her marriage was
fixed in the month of June of that year. He came to Washington in search of
employment, and obtained it in one of the public offices, and then, instead of
writing to her to make her arrangements for marriage, he wrote to her, proposing, if she would come to Washington, to obtain employment for her in one of
the public departments. Not a word was said of marriage. This was the first
incident in the course of their long correspondence and intercourse which
startled her, and led her to entertain the first doubt of the character of the
professions he had made her. That letter was communicated to her friend in
Burlington. The last time they were seen before that visit to Washington
they were in such a position to each other as could only be. excused or justified
by the relations then subsisting between them of an actual engagement of
marriage within a short time. She sitting on his knee; he playing with her
curls; she a young girl, 17 years of age, pure and spotless; he a man well
known in society, with long experience in the ways of the world—a man of
education and refinement. The summer of 1863 passed, and in August she
received a letter from him dated the 7th of August, which will be read to the
jury, asking her for an interview, and. where he could meet her. I omitted to
state that shortly after her arrival in Chicago, in the spring of 1863, she formed
the acquaintance of the two Misses Devlin, who had gone from Baltimore

12

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

with means to establish themselves in the millinery and fancy goods business
in the city of Chicago. The accused at that time wrote rapidly and an excellent hand, and had had some experience under her former instructor in bookkeeping. She was taken into the employment of the Misses Devlin as clerk
and book-keeper, and occassionally assistant saleswoman. She was with them
when the deceased parted from her to come to Washington, and with them she
has lived until the 30th day of January last. She has occupied the same
chamber with both? and the same bed with Miss Louisa Devlin from that time
during the whole time she was with them. During that summer she received
few attentions; went out but little; in. fact her life was spent in her correspondence and looking forwTard to the fruits of that correspondence—a union
with the deceased. Her spirits were cheerful and happy—bird-like ; her manner full of life and animation. The live long clay was a day of happiness to
her. Not a cloud darkened her prospects, and she expected in June of that
year to be married and come to Washington to live _ The summer passed, until
the receipt of the letter in August, in the fond hope of their being married. She
was at that time in high health, fleshy beyond the ordinary degree of girls of her
age, of high, pure, healthy color, attractive, yet, as I have said, not seeking society, but living within herself, and with the two friends whom she had thus
made. On the receipt "of this letter of the 7th of August, she answered him,
and told him where she was residing with the Misses Devlin, and that he
could meet her at their store on the Sunday following. She and the Misses
Devlin were at the store. He did not come; but a day or two afterwards
he did come in the evening, and spent more than an hour in company with the
accused, during the greater part of which time he held her hand. They were
within the view of the two Misses Devlin all the time, and they spoke of the
interview as an interview between lovers. They parted as friends, with his
promise to see her the next day or the day after, and she with the expectation
of seeing him, and having an opportunity to hear from him more fully the
history of his prospects and his condition, and to have the period of that marriage finally fixed.
She heard no more from him until she received a letter dated the 24th oi
August, written in terms of warm friendship, and speaking of the long cor-,:
respondence which had passed between them, and of his failure to fulfil their *
engagements by reason of his want of means; speaking of the strength of his
friendship for her, and declaring that, but for the adverse fortunes which had pursued him, she should have shared in all his prosperity long before that. Still
she was not alarmed; but on the 8th of September she received from the post
office in Chicago a letter in a feigned handwriting, with a feigned signature,
but still exhibiting such marked traces of the genuine handwriting of the
deceased as to leave little doubt, upon investigation, that he was the author of
it, inviting her to meet him at a house, No. 94 Quincy street, Chicago, at the
same time declaring that he was an entire stranger to her, and professing
the warmest friendship for her. She exhibited that letter to her friends, the Misses
Devlin, and they were of opinion that it was written by the deceased. Up to
that time, if the suspicion had crossed the mind of the accused, she would have
rejected it, and did then reject it with indignation, because no passage in the
life of the deceased and herself had ever led her to suppose that he could be
guilty of such an offence as that letter implied. They made inquiries immediately as to the character of the house, and found it was an assignation house
of the worst character in town. Miss Louisa Devlin of her own accord said
she would reply to the letter, and did write the answer, signed the name of
Miss Harris, and deposited it in the post office herself. On the 14th of September a reply was received. In the meantime Miss Devlin had gone to the
post office and requested the delivery clerk to note particularly who should
call for the letter with that address, J. B Greenwood, telling him it was a
matter of some interest, and she asked him particularly to observe his hand, to
see if there was anything remarkable as to that. On the 14th of September,
as I have stated, they received a reply dated the 12th of September. Both of

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

13

these letters will be given in evidence to you. Miss Devlin went to the post
office and inquired whether the letter she had written had been taken out, and
on his replying that it had, asked the clerk to describe the man to her. Having received a description she returned to the store, took the accused to the
post office with her, and there let her hear the clerk's description. The clerk
gave the description minutely and accurately ; and being asked if he observed
any peculiarity about the hand, said " Yes; he wore a set ring, dark, but part
light colored, on the little finger of his left hand." Miss Harris immediately
exclaimed, " That is the very ring I gave him " In the testimony of one of the
ladies from Burlington, you will find a minute description of that ring, and the
fact sworn to that it was given by the accused to the deceased long before as a
pledge of her love. Still, not satisfied with the description of the person and
of the ring, they exhibited to him a full-length photograph of the deceased
in the military uniform of a captain, which will also be exhibited to you. The
clerk immediately, exclaimed " That is the same person, except that the man
who called for the-letter was dressed in citizen's clothes, and his whiskers and
beard were not quite so large as they appear to be in the picture."
Still, not satisfied with all this accumulative proof, Miss Jane Devlin and the
accused went in open day to the house 94 Quincy street, and there called for
the woman who kept it. They stood in the vestibule, without entering the
house. She met them there, and entered into conversation with them. They
asked her to describe the man who had made that appointment. She said " He
was here on such a day, (naming it,) and told me when the bell was pulled not to
answer it, for he would sit at the window by the side of the door, where he
could see the lady come up the steps, and he himself would answer the bell,
and, when she saw him, she would answer without hesitation; but, if she saw
any third person there, she might be repelled without entering; she
knew him so long a time and well, that she would enter without hesitation.
She stated he was there when they were coming, but, seeing two of them coming together, he had made his escape by a back way." They asked her to describe him, and she did so with such minute accuracy as to overcome the accused,
and put her in such a state of excitement, that Miss Devlin dared not take her
back through the open street through which they came, but by a back way got
her to the store. The next day the keeper of that house called at the store, and
they exhibited to her the photograph of the deceased, in military dress. She
immediately exclaimed, " That is the very man, except that he did not have on
military clothes." Thus convinced, and overwhelmed with the discovery, Miss
Louisa Devlin went out to see the brother of the deceased, to know whether his
brother was in town or not. She saw him, and he assured her that he was not
in town at that time, but had been a few days before. The next day, the
accused, taking with her all the mementoes of the affection which had so long
existed between herself and the deceased—the letters, photograph, &c,
—went with them to this brother, a reverend clergyman, presiding over
a college close to Chicago, and carrying with her these two letters, containing these infamous propositions, inquired if his brother was in town. He
told her he was not; yet she says she saw him as she was going out to that
reverend gentleman's, coming into town in one of the horse-cars, passing her on the road. That denial shocked and startled her. She was
sure it was not true; for she had seen him, as she believed, rise up in the
car, as they met and passed each other, and look out of the window to see her.
She could not be mistaken. She shewed him these last two letters, and he
denied that they were in his brother's handwriting. He had denied that the
brother was there; and he treated her with harshness and with severity. Fortunately for the truth and the cause of justice, she retained possession of all
the articles she thus carried with her to surrender ; and we have them here in
court, and will exhibit them to you.
On the day that she had this interview with this reverend brother, and within
an hour or two afterwards, he performed the marriage ceremony for the deceased
with the lady who now survives him, and who has been overwhelmed in the

14

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS,

distress caused, not by us, but by those who produced the causes which have led
to this unhappy result. A few days after this, she saw the notice of the marriage of the deceased in one of the public papers of Chicago, and immediately
afterwards was seized with an attack of physical disease with which she had
never before been disturbed, and which, at regular periodical intervals, has continued to visit her to this day. Erom that time forth her character and her
physical condition were all changed. The light of her existence had gone out.
She became moody, melancholy, depressed, and exceedingly quiet; and yet,
during the intervals of these attacks, she went about her business mechanically,
and to all external appearance, except to those who saw her intimately, and
except so far as the loss of flesh was concerned, she continued the same.
She was then visited by one of the most skilful physicians of Chicago, who
treated her solely for the physical disease ; he having had no intimation of the
moral causes which aggravated and produced it. On a recurrence of one of these
attacks in midwinter, in intensely-cold weather, she got up in the night,
with nothing on but her night-clothes, went into an adjoining chamber,
and lay upon the floor. She resisted all remonstrances, ana persisted
in lying there: and this she repeated at different times during that winter,
in the inclement climate of Chicago. On one other occasion, Miss Devlin, with
whom she slept, found her stealthily getting out of the bed, a.nd dressing herself,
in the early gray of the morning. She laid still, pretending to be asleep. At
that time, under the prescription of her physician, tbe accused was required to
lie in bed until after she had had her breakfast. Miss Devlin waited until the
accused was fully dressed, who then approached her bedside, and leaning over
her, supposing her to be asleep, said, in a low, gentle tone, " I would kiss you,
but I must leave you." Miss Devlin then threw her arms around her neck, and
restrained her forcibly with great difficulty. After a while, by gently persuading her, she got her to undress and to return to bed. She then asked her where
she was going so early in the morning, for it was not yet day ? She said she
was going to take a walk on the lake shore.
On another occasion, during one of these attacks of disease, she was sitting at
the table with the two Misses Devlin at dinner, in the afternoon, when she exhibited to Miss Jane Devlin some letters, or a letter, and asked her if she did
not wish to read a very fine letter ? Miss Devlin, who knew the history of the
accused, and was familiar with the handwriting of the deceased, looking at the
letter, and seeing it was in his handwriting, said, in substance: " No, I do not
want to read letters from any such contemptible fellow, and I hope I will never
hear the name of Burroughs mentioned again." Thereupon the accused instantly sprang up, seized a carving-knife, and attacked Miss Devlin, who made
her escape with difficulty out of the room, the accused persuing her with the
carving-knife to the door, and attempting to wound her. The other Miss Devlin then seized her, and with great difficulty, although she was a much stronger
and larger woman, succeeded in wresting from her the carving-knife. Immediately afterwards, on Jane Devlin's return, she said she would not stay in the
house, but would go into the street, and go somewhere else. The door being
locked, she attempted to leap out of the window. After a while Miss Devlin,
thinking that that would soothe her quicker than in any other way, said she
would let her go; but she must go out of the door, not out of the window. The
door was then opened, and the accused walked out. It was now late in the
afternoon, and the sun was nearly down. Miss Devlin told her sister to follow
her without letting her see her, and observe where she went, and what she did.
Miss Jane Devlin did so. She saw her first stop a street-car, go up to it as if
to get in, and then turn from it and walk down the street, and enter the Tremont House, the principal hotel in Chicago She then returned to Chicago, and
obtained the assistance of a Mr. Harris, who, while he was no relation to the
accused, was, with his wife, a warm personal friend, having known her in Burlington. They then went to the Tremont House, but were unsuccessful in their
efforts to induce her to return. After a while they returned to the house,

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

15

leaving Mr, Harris with her to watch her. As night approached, she came back
alone, quiet, composed, and "clothed in her right mind."
In the month of July, 1864, the Misses Devlin removed from Chicago to
Janesville, Wisconsin. The accused went with them. They there opened a
store and she assisted them.
On one occasion, either at Janesville or Chicago, (and this was the only occasion on which she ever exhibited any violence to any person not of the family
of the Devlins, which has come to our knowledge,) while they were all three
eugaged in the conversation with a lady customer in the store, she seized a
large pin cushion, with a piece of brick in it to keep it steady, and struck this
customer without any provocation at all. Repeatedly on other occasions she
attacked Jane Devlin violently. Miss Jane Devlin and the accused being
nearer of an age, in an early stage of their acquaintance were thrown into
more familiar intercourse with each other, and soon became warmly attached
friends, and have ever remained so.
Thus, some months would pass without any extraordinary excitement. In
July, 1864, before they left Chicago, the accused had employed counsel to bring
suit against the deceased for breach of promise of marriage. The testimony
of that counsel will be read in the cause, and you will see the condition of her
mind at that time, the' object of her instituting that suit, and the skill with
which the deceased evaded an arrest to respond to that suit, while in Chicago
on a visit of three weeks or more. The writ was placed in the hands of an
astute detective officer, and yet he tailed to serve it. After that she endeavored to persuade her lawyer to accompany her to Washington for the purpose of
having the suit brought here. He dissuaded her from this course, and refused to
come; yet, when she found it was impossible to serve the writ in Chicago, she,
alone, unbefriended, the little, quiet, frail being you see before you, prevailed upon
Miss Devlin to furnish her with money to come to Washington, that she might
sue him here; and the Misses Devlin believing that that would bring more
quiet to her mind than anything else, as it would lead to a thorough exposition
of his conduct, and purify her character from every shadow of doubt or suspicion which might be cast "upon it by the circumstances of his desertion,
these being the things which were preying npon her mind, furnished
her with the means to come. She visited Washington, and on her arrival
here found that he had gone, as she understood it, back to Chicago on
that same day. She took the return train without stopping, and went back to
Chicago.
Time passed on without anything remarkable occurring until the latter part
December, 1864, when^ in one of her periodical attacks of physical disease,
while a sister of the Misses Devlin, (who was then on a visit to them,) was
exhibiting a most elegant and costly piece of silk patchwork or bedspread, the
accused, without any ostensible cause for it, seized upon and attempted to cut,
hack, and destroy it; and when with difficulty she was restrained, and
locked up in a room, she attempted to force the door and to deface and
spoil the Misses Devlins' carpet. After this, the Misses Devlin believing that
there was no remedy except the institution of a suit against the deceased,
again consented to furnish her with the means to visit Washington for that
purpose.
Long before that, and almost a year ago, she had purchased a toy pistol—a
Sharpe's four-barrelled revolver—which lay in her open trunk, and which Miss
Devlin saw; and when she remonstrated with her to know why she spent her
money so foolishly, she answered that many ladies went armed, and she was
afraid every day that Dr. Burroughs and his brother would snatch her up on
the street and carry her off to some place where she would never be heard of
again, and she had bought it for her defence. On the first occasion of her
leaving Janesville to come to Washington, which was about the 1st of January,
she put into her trunk a pile of the letters she had received from the deceased,
and, with them, threw into the trunk that pistol, which will be exhibited to
you, and which, you will see, has never been used. When and under what

16

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

circumstances she loaded it, or it was loaded, does not appear in the progress
of the case.
She reached Baltimore, consigned to the parents of the Misses Devlin in that
city. {She was there taken sick, and remained three weeks, when she was
visited with this periodical attack of physical disease. Recovering from that,
she made an arrangement with the lady at whose house she was staying, to
purchase for her a return ticket to Washington, for the 30th of January. A lady who occupied the chamber with her will state to you the
facts and circumstances, exhibiting the condition of the accused at that time.
You will find that on Saturday she communicated to this lady the whole
history of her life, read to her the letters which she had received from the
deceased, and commented upon them; and she read until past two o'clock on
Saturday night, when this lady fell asleep, leaving her still awake reading and
commenting upon those letters. The next day, (Sunday,) she told her story to
the lady of the house where she lived ; told her that she was coming here ; told
her of her love for the deceased, and of the agony she had suffered, without
uttering one word' of reproach against him. She believed her character
had been stained, and she was coming here to vindicate in our courts that
character. She said he was poor and she did not seek compensation in
damages. All she desired was to have her character .vindicated. That lady
procured for her a return ticket, and agreed to go down to the cars with her
and see her off.
Sunday night was passed as was Saturday night, in reading and arranging
these letters to be submitted to counsel in Washington. She had a card with
the name on it of some professional gentleman she was to visit here. Her
companion again went to sleep, leaving her sitting up engaged in thus arranging the letters. They had agreed to pass that Monday evening in attending a
lecture of Henry Ward Beecher in Baltimore, and her companion cautioned her
not to take a train on her return later than four o'clock, or she would not be on
in time. When she awoke she found the accused was still at work, preparing
to come to Washington with a pile of letters tied up, and the pistol lying on
the bureau. She left her thus engaged. Shortly afterwards, for it was then
late, the lady at whose house she was stoping, called to her from the foot of
the stairs, and told her to make haste, or she would be too late; and in her
hurry she threw her bundle of letters into the trunk, put the pistol in her
pocket, and thus started for Washington. Arriving here she went to the
Treasury Department, and opening the door of the room, saw the deceased
sitting at his table. She did not stealthily open the door and peep in, but
opened it wide enough to present her whole form to view to any one in the
room who might be looking in that direction; Und stood there long
enough to have a lady who was employed in the room see her, and
be able to recognize her as the same lady she had seen there last fall,
and who was about to invite her in when she closed the door and walked
away. Her appearance struck the lady at the time—especially the character
and expression of the eye. An hour subsequent to this, while standing in the
hall, the deceased passed by her, and under an impulse which she could not
resist, she drew her pistol and fired. He turned, looked at her, and exclaimed,
"Oh, my God," and fled. Just before he fell, as he turned the angle of the
hall, to pass down stairs, she fired a second time. She then calmly walked down
the steps without anybody molesting her, and walked, as she supposed, out of
the door of the building she had entered. She was then arreslecl and carried
back. She was calm, moving, as it were, mechanically, without shedding a
tear. She was taken into a room, and immediately afterwards Mr. Handy, a
justice of the peace, came in. On his telling her that he was a justice of the
peace, she immediately surrendered the pistol. -She then for the first time
began to yield to the paroxyism of despair, which continued for days afterwards. She tore her hair, threw herself upon the floor, and on her knees, and
was raised repeatedly by Mr. Handy, or Mr. McGullough, or both, To both
she exclaimed, when they asked why she did it, "Why did I do it? Oh God,

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

17

how I loved him. I loved him better than life itself." A policeman was
present during all this time, and in the course of that interview Mr. McOullough
asked her—"If he had wronged her in any other way than by desertion." She
said "No," and .immediately relapsed into this terrible state of excitement.
Upon Mr.' McOullough again fixing her attention and asking her if she was a
virtuous woman, she exclaimed, " As God is my judge, I am pure," and
instantly again relapsed into a frenzied state of excitement. It is &aid that on
the way to the jail, she communicated to the officer having her in charge, a
story diametrically opposed to the one she had told to Mr. McOullough; and
upon that, we understand-, the prosecution will rely. I was applied to shortly
afterwards by her friends, to undertake her defence, and I positively declined.
Two or three days elapsed, and for reasons which were satisfactory to my own
mind, finding that it was necessary that some known and responsible man
should take charge of her case, I visited her, and took charge of it to the
extent and to the extent only that I would see that she was properly defended.
I had then no suspicion of the dreadful malady with'which she was afflicted.
Late in the month of February, Mr. Phelps, of Burlington, a lawyer of
eminence and distinction, and well-known in the profession, was here to attend
to a case in the Supreme Court, and his wife was with him I saw them in her
cell. I went with Mr. Phelps, was introduced to his wife, and I know that
during the week that they were here, instead of mixing in the gaities of the
season, which was just preceding the inauguration, she passed the greater part
of her time with this disheartened and afflicted woman in her cell. That fixed
my attention. Still, as I had not known her, nothing passed which led me to
,.suppose that she was laboring under any species of insanity. A month elapsed,
and in the latter part of March, I saw her again under such circumstances as
raised a strong impression on my mind that she was at that time suffering
under some mental disease. I found her hand cold, and her pulse over 110.
She persisted in sitting in a draft of air so cold that I could not endure it, although
well wrapped up. She spoke to me of a meeting of biologists, in which the
spirit of the deceased had been evojpd, and of which some one had sent her an
account, and asked me if I believed in it as a science, or had faith in it, all of
which was in such a manner as strongly to attract my attention. From that
time forth I began to examine her case more as a physiologist and a lawyer,
than from any interest I took in it. Twenty years ago my attention was
strongly drawn to the subject of moral insanity, '''paroxysmal" insanity, and
from that time, as occasion has afforded, my attention has been directed to the
inquiry into "paroxysmal insanity from moral causes." This was the first
opportunity offered me of studying that subject under my own observation
Shortly after that, she had an attack of erysipelas in the head, with the treatment for which I had become familiar. I observed, and carefully noted the
progress of that disease; had opportunities of administering to her such relief
as would be afforded by medical men, and then for the first time had her confidence. From that time forth I have carefully noted the exhibitions of these
paroxysms, and her condition during the intervals. On the 25th of April, a
variety of incidents occurred which I shall state in my testimony, for I shall be
examined as a witness in this case; and then, after the court shall have laid
down the principles of law applicable to this case, my connection with it is
over; I have no hesitation in saying from my own observation and experience,
that during that period of time, from the 25th of April \to the 20th of June,
which was the last day of my observations, there have been three occasions in
which she was undoubtedly insane. She was insane from moral causes,
aggravated by disease of the body. This is our defence. A pure, virtuous,
chaste, delicate little girl, not more than twenty years of age at this time,
whose frame is wasting and whose spirits are gone, whose heart is broken, in a
paroxysm of insanity has slain the man who has brought upon her all this
suffering. That is our defence, and we will expect to show this by the facts in the
case, and the opinion of medical witnesses of the highest character. During
her confinement, Dr. Nichols has visited her. He will be present in court, and
2

18

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

hear all the testimony in the case. The physician who attended her in Chicago
will be here and examined as a witness, and from the testimony of these gentle
men, and the facts of this case, I have no doubt you will have the satisfaction
of leaving that box with the conviction in your minds that the prisoner at the
bar is not guilty of any crime towards Clod or man, although she has been the
instrument of taking the life of another.
At the close of Mr. Bradley's remarks the examination of the witnesses on
the part of the prosecution was entered upon.
Dr. JOHN C RILEY sworn.

By Mr. Wilson. I am a physician About 7 o'clock in the evening of the
30th of January, I was summoned by the Coroner to the Treasury Department,
and, on going there, found a dead body, which I was told was the body of Mr.
A J. Burroughs. I examined it, and found a wound about two inches to the
left of the spine, between the fourth and fifth ribs, just immediately above the
fifth rib. The wound had evidently been made by a bullet. I cannot tell exactly how long he had been dead. The body was cold when I examined it. 1
gave it as my opinion, before the coroner's jury, that a wound of that kind was
sufficient to cause death. There was no post-mortem examination held, and of
course 1 could not tell the track of the bullet. I could not tell exactly what
organs were injured, but judge, from the appearance of the body, that the ball
had either wounded the heart, or descending arteries, and that the man died
from loss of blood—internal hemorrhage.
Cross-examination waived.
Coroner WOODWARD sworn.
By Mr. Wilson. I am Coroner of the county. I was, on the 30th of January, called upon to make an examination of the body of A. J. Burroughs. I t
was dark, or very nearly dark, when I got to the Treasury building I examined the body, and observed that a ball had entered the back, about two inches
from the spine, near the fifth rib. I tiied to discover the course of the ball, but
it was so very small, and having no instruments, I could not succeed. I then
sent for a physician.
Cross-examination waived.
ALFRED EVERETT sworn.

By Mr. Wilson. I am a clerk in the Treasury Department, and was so employed on the 30th of January last. I was acquainted with A. J. Burroughs,
and occupied the very next desk to that occupied by him. We left our room in
the Treasury building at 10 minutes after 4 o'clock on the 30th of January,
Mr. Burroughs leaving by one door and I by the other. I will state that there
are two entrances to our room, which is on the north wing of the west front of
the Treasury building, being the second room from the centre hall. The hall
into which the room opens runs north and south. What I call the centre hall
runs from east to west. There are two doors from the centre hall, or the north
wing of the west front. This was on the west side of the hall, second story. On
leaving our room, at 10 minutes past 4, I was hastening to overtake Mr. Burroughs, he having left the room by the door nearest to the centre hall. I overtook him just as he was turning into the hall leading from the west side of the
building to the east. As we were passing the clock, I, having just overtaken
him, was in the act of laying hold of his arm.
Q. Describe the size of that hall? A. I suppose it must be ten feet high.
The length I do not know. There is a case, containing a number of documents/
just by the side of the clock. The clock is on the south side of the centre hall,
against the third door. There are seven doors on that side of the hall, and the
clock stands against the third door from the west end of the building. The clock
is something larger than that one, (pointing to the clock in the court house,)
but not quite, so long. I t is not exactly that shape either. I t is a large-sized
clock, such as would generally be hung in a public building ; but it is suspended, I believe, on the end of the presses I have spoken of containing documents,

TRIAL OP MART HARRIS.

19

I think it hangs there, and the recess formed by the end of the case and the
slight recess of "the door would form quite a hiding-place for a person if she
--ere there. We were just passing the door when the first piatol-shot was fired.
I t came from our right side. Whether the person firing the pistol was secreted
behmd the door, being in wait there, or whether she came that moment from the
opposite direction, I could not say. I was, at the time the shot was fired, in
tn'e act of laving my left hand on Burroughs^ right arm. I was on the right
side of the clockln relation to Burroughs. I think that myself and Burroughs,
with one gentleman, who was a stranger to me, were the only three persons in
the hall at the time. I feel confident there was no other person present. As
we were passing the door-way in which the clock hangs, there was a sudd§n
report and flash of a pistol close to my chest, aimed at I could not tell, who; it
might have been myself or Burroughs. Burroughs instantly sprang forwards,
anS I backwards.
Q. Then the person who fired the pistol was between you and Burroughs ?
A, No, sir ; but apparently in the door-way, and fired between us—across us,
as* it were. Burroughs, as*I have said, started forward, making a bound, as it
• were, and I .started hastily backward; but it was nothing more than just a sudden rebound, for we were, startled. He turned round instantly, threw up his
hands, and exclaimed, " O b ! " arid ran in a direction from the person who fired
the pistol, whose back was then towards me. I stood still,' as if transfixed,
neither moving one way or the other. This person who had fired the pistol immediately stepped out into the centre of the hall, deliberately took aim at Burroughs, as he was running, and fired a second shot. Simultaneously with that
he fell, She then turned, and walked deliberately past me. Burroughs was
just, about burning the corner at the head of the stairs of the east end of the
ialKwheruthe second shot was fired. He " clutched" the corner as he fell, but
a f i l i # e i l l y m : t h e centre of the hall. Scarcely a second elapsed between the
£i|lii^, ;pfiithe' first' and second shot—just the time required to bring one into
:
' ^i&>h to fire a second time. He ran as a man running for his life after the
ral shot, had passed the fourth door, and was in the act of turning round the
iend of the hall when the second shot was fired. She was at this time nearly
across the hall, in a direct line from the door, just taking about three steps.
-.:<Q. Will you state whether or not you have examined the wall, partition, and
idobrs in the vicinity of the line drawn from where she stood, passing by the
j>laee where Mr. Burroughs stood ?
^yr:JMr. Bradley objected to the form of the question, but afterwards waived the
objection, and witness was directed to answer.
A. I have made the examination you speak of. The second ball struck a
.pane of glass by the side of the door-way, at the end of'the hall; rather on the
left side of the hall than on the right. .Burroughs fell on the right; Thexposition of the person who fired the shot was nearer the left side than the centre.
Q, How far was the shot from the floor ? A. Just about the height of a man.
Q. What was the height of Mr. Burroughs ? A. About five feet ten, perhaps. Her arm was extended quite rigidly towards Burroughs as he was running ; but just as she fired the shot, he fell over to the left, and the ball passed
straight on, so that, in relation to the spot where he fell, the ball passed to the
left of him considerably.
Q. At what part of the body, as you stood and observed the direction ?• A.
The first shot was underhand; the secondMr. Bradley. Can you describe her position at the first shot?
The IVitness. No, sir.
Mr. Bradley. Then I submit, may it please your honor, that the last answer
is not evidence.
The Court It is not; as the witness says he cannot describe her position
when she first shot. >
„f • \ s ^ v h e r a f t e r t h e first shot was fired move two or three steps to the left
oi the hall, pass immediately in front of me, draw herself up to full height, and
fire the second shot. The thing was so quickly done, that one had scarcely

f

20

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

opportunity to observe details. As to her dress, I noticed that she had a drab
cloth cloak on, and I believe a black hat, with a white woolen scarf, or something of the kind, tied round her hat, and a blue veil over it. At the firing of
the second shot, I think the veil was raised; but of that I am not sure. I saw
her face on the stairway as she was returning from the basement. She turned
and passed me, and went down the stairs at the west end of the building. Just
at that moment I met Dr. Herbert on the stairs, and requested him to follow
her, telling him what had transpired. I then ran to Mr. McCullough's room
to tell him, and to get assistance to carry Burroughs down stairs. Before doing
that, Dr. Herbert, I believe, took her by the arm, and led her down one flight
of stairs. I just saw that the person had gone into the basement floor, going
down one flight of stairs. I afterwards went down stairs to the basement, and
met her on the stairs while returning. I searched to see if the pistol was thrown
over the rails; when, finding it was not, I came up. She had disappeared, and
there was no trace of any body around. I went to Mr. McCullough's room,
told him what had happened, and took him down stairs to the front door,
where Burroughs lay. I observed her face as I was going down the stairs tc
the basement; but I do not think I did when she was in the act of shooting. I
would be impossible for me to swear to the identity of the person.
The prisoner being requested to raise her veil,
Mr. Bradley said: If the Court please, we think it proper at once to sa}
that we do not dispute the fact that this is the party.
Q. Will you describe the appearance of her face and her manner as si
went down stairs after the second shot was fired ? A. She appeared to me t>
be perfectly cool and self-possessed. Her gait was not rapid by any mean?
She walked coolly and deliberately down the hall and down the staits. Whe
I saw her upon the stairs her face was perfectly colorless and pale, and he
features appeared to me to be set. I remember, too, that she wore he
hair in curls. I believe around the whole of her head ; certainly aroun
her face. She lifted h # veil as she discovered her mistake in the basemen
and turned and came up the stairway. I lost sight of her as she turned th
head of the stairs and went along the lower hall of the centre building towarc
the door.
Q. When did you next see Mr. Burroughs? A. Within five minutes. II
was lying on the mat, just inside of the front door. He was then alive. H
continued to breath in all about fifteen minutes. I believe it was twenty-fr:
minutes after four when he died.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley. I was very much agitated, and started back at the shot
CHARLES A. SENGSTAOK sworn.

By Mr. Wilson. I was employed as watchman in the Treasury Departmen
in January last; I do not recollect the exact date; but I remember of arrest
ing a lady on the front portico of the Treasury on the day of the shooting o
A. J. Burroughs. She was going towards the south steps. I think she we
just in the act of stepping off the steps of the east portico on Fifteenth stree
I was a little excited, and I did not pay much attention to her movemerj
further than just to see her on the porch, when I walked up to her, put r
han,d on her shoulder, and told her she would have to return with me, and i
mediately turned around and walked back again. We walked into the hall aga
I pointed to a chair at the front door, and asked her if she would take a se
She asked me if I could not put her into the room. I went to the door of \
watchroom, but found it locked. I had not seen her face up to that time
all. She had her veil down. I discovered no evidence of emotion or exc
ment while she stopped at the door. When I got to the' door I founc
locked, and I turned to a colored man belonging to the office who was stand
there, and asked him to go to the other watchman, my partner, and ask him
the key. He brought me the wrong key, and on my sending him back witl
%

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

21

she said, " For God's sake get me into the room," or " get me in as cpiick as
you can," I cannot say which, was her language. I told her I was doing all I
could. As soon as the proper key was brought I unlocked the door, put her
in the room, and sent for Squire Handy. She made use of the expression I
have referred to when the man came with the wrong key. The body of Mr.
Burroughs was then lying, I judge, about fifteen or twenty feet from her, having
just been brought down.
Q. Did she see him ? A. That I cannot say. She could have seen it. I did.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley. When this body was brought down she had her veil down ?
'A. Yes, sir. When we went to the door she turned and faced me, and made
use of the expression to which I have referred. I saw her face in the room.
She seemed to labor under a great deal of excitement—-was throwing up her
hands, and going on in a tragical manner, and saying something, but what it
was I could not tell. I was not paying a great deal of attention.
Q. Were you close to her ? A. Yes, sir; very close. I think her complexion
was rather flushed at this time. I did not pay any particular attention to the
brow more than to the other part of her face, and cannot say whether it was
flushed or not. I was in the room probably five minutes. Mr. McCullough
was in the room with me at the time to which I have referred.
WILLIAM SCHELLEY sworn.

By Mr. Wilson. I was doorkeeper of the main entrance of the Treasury
Department in January last. I saw a person at the Treasury Department,
answering the description of Miss Harris, on the 30th of that month. She
came there about a quarter past three o'clock. She asked me if she could not
come in. I told her " no ;" that it was after hours. She said that she would
like to come in, that she wanted to wait for a gentleman friend, and a lady
friend also. I told her that it was my positive orders to let no one in after
three o'clock; but she being a stranger I would take her in, and give her a
chair. I did so, and she took the chair, but did not remain there very long;
I missed her after a little' while. I do not know in what direction she
disappeared.
— Q. She did not go out of the door? A. She could not have done so without my knowing it.
Q. Did you see her again that afternoon ? A. No, sir. No inquiries were
made for any particular persons by her, only for a gentleman and lady friend.
I do not think I could recognize the prisoner in clothes she at present has on.
I think she wore a kind of brown cloak and a black hat, a green veil, and
something over her head. I do not know what they call it.
Q. A nubia ? 'A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you observe whether she had curls or not ? A. Yes, sir; I could not
tell exactly, though, the color of her hair. I think she was of the same height
that this lady (the prisoner) is. I do not remember any other peculiarities of
her dress. I have seen her come in with Mr. Bradley.
SAMUEL STEARNS sworn.

By Mr. Wilson. A. I was a door-keeper at the Treasury building in January last. I n the latter part of that month—I could not say what day, except
that it was the day A. J. Burroughs was shot—a lady came there, between two
and three o'clock in the afternoon. I think I have seen this lady (the prisoner)
before; but I cannot say as this is the one who inquired for Mr. Burroughs,
because there are so many of them coming in there, that I do not take particular notice of them. She inquired in a very lady-like manner if there was a
gentleman employed in the Department by the name of Burroughs ? I told
her I could not say, but would refer to my directory. 1 opened my book, and
there happened to be two Burroughes together. She came up to the book, and
pointed out A. J. Burroughs. She asked me what bureau he was in; and I told
her in that of the Comptroller of the Currency. She asked me then if she could

22

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

not wait at the door until he came out? I told her I had no objection, but it
would be a very difficult matter for her to see him when he came out, as there
were four entrances, and he was employed in the farther part of the building,
and it was not very often he came out that way. She then asked me if I would
not direct her which way the office of the Comptroller of the Currency was. I
told her I would; and went as far as the door with her, when I told her to go
up stairs; that there were plenty of messengers there to show her in which
room he was. I offered then to go up with her; she thanked me very kindly,
but told me she guessed she could find it. That is the last I saw of the lady. I
am at the south door, on Fifteenth street, and she came up there.
Q How long after that was it that you heard of the death of Mr. Burroughs?
A. About, I should say, 15 minutes past 4.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Bradley, you admit the prisoner at the bar was the person
who had this conversation ?
Mr. Bradley. If it is absolutely necessary, he must come and look at her, and
see if it is the same person.
Witness. I do not think I could identify the lady by looking at her. • I did
not make any close inspection of her appearance and her dress at the time, and
it is very seldom I do. I cannot tell what clothes she had on, or any thing of
the kind.
Q. Do you recollect her size ? A. I do not.
EDWIN G. HANDY sworn.

By Mr. Wilson. I was a justice of the peace, and had charge of the watchmen at the Treasury Department in January last. On the 30th of that month,
a few minutes after four o'clock, while down in the basement, or cellar, of the
Treasury building, I was sent for to come up, being told that there was some
one murdered in the building. I went up to the front door, and found Miss
Harris in the room, and Mr. Sengstack at the door, holding it. I was out of
breath when I entered the room, having run up two flights of stairs; but as
soon as I could speak to her, I a s k e d - —
Mr. Wilson. We don't care about any conversation you had with her.
Q. State whether you received from her a pistol? A. Yes, sir; (producing
it)
Q. State if you identify that pistol, and where you got it? A. It was given
to me by Miss Harris, on the 30th of January, in the Treasury Department.
"When it was handed to me it was loaded; two shots had been fired, and two had
not.
Q. Did they appear to have been freshly discharged ? A. It looked so to me,
though I could not state positively in regard to that. It is a Sharpe's pistol,
with the date of 1859 on it.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. Bradley. You went in and found her there. What did you say to
her?
The District Attorney. We object.
The Court. Let the question be modified as follows:
Q. " What did she say in regard to that pistol ?" A. When I first went into
the room, as soon as I could speak, I told her that I was a justice of the peace.
That was my first statement to her. As soon as I told her that, she put her
hand in her pocket, and took the pistol out and handed it to me. I do not
know that the pistol itself was mentioned after that.
Q. Did she give you any reason for surrendering it? A. Some conversation
occurred about the whole matter in controversy.
Q. Not about the instrument ? A. No, sir. I do not think any thing about
that directly, was said.
Q. Describe to the jury as well as you can her manner and actions at the
time she gave you the pistol.
Objected to by the District Attorney. Objection overruled.
A. She was very much excited.

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

23

Q. Was she sitting or standing ? A. She was at the time throwing her arms
about, walking backward and forward, pulling her hair, getting down oh ^her
knees to me, and so on. When she handed me the pistol, I asked her what sKe
did it for? or " what she shot the man for?" I think the last were the words
I used. I didn't know at that time who was shot. She was very much excited, and never did tell me, but replied, " Why did I do it? I would give my
life to save him," and all such expressions as those
By Mr. Wilson. Did that immediately follow your question? A. Yes, sir,
or pretty soon after. There were some other words that I was trying to think
of. Then she asked me if the man wras dead.
Q State whether, when she was making these explanations, she was on her
knees, or moving about the room in an excited manner ? A. I had to lift her
from her knees several times
The usual hour of adjournment (3 o'clock, p. m ) having arrived, the court
adjourned until to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock.
FOURTH DAY—SATURDAY, July 8, 1865.
The Court met at 10 o'clock.
There was a much larger crowd in attendance than upon any previous day,
and during the progress of the trial four ladies, witnesses for the defence, entered
the room, and took seats immediately in the rear of the accused
The prisoner was brought into court at 25 minutes after 10 o'clock. She was
dressed as heretofore described, and was accompanied by Mrs. Abbey, the Misses
Devlin, and all of her counsel.
GEOEGE II. WALKEE sworn.

I am a member of the metropolitan police.
Q. State to the jury whether you recognize the prisoner, Miss Harris. A. I
can't say that I recognize the prisoner as she is now. She looks to me the same
lady, but does not look as fleshy as at the time the deed was committed—not as
full in the face.
On the 30th of January last I was called upon to go to the Treasury Department by a gentleman who was engaged there. When I went up into the building, Mr Handy met me, and took me to a small room on the east side of the
building, running along Fifteenth street He requested me to take a lady in custody. At the time there was no one in the room but himself and Mr. McCullough. The commitment was made out, and I started with the prisoner for the
jail. I saw a pistol that evening; the same, I presume, as I saw here yesterday. I have never seen the prisoner since, till I saw her here. The room where
she was, on the 30th of January, at the Treasury building, is eighteen or twenty
feet in length, by eight or nine feet in width I entered from the west. The
lady was traversing the room to and fro. She looked wild, had her hands in
her hair, and seemed in great agony. She asked me where I intended to take
her. I told her Mr. Handy was making out a commitment, and I would have
to take her to jail. A hack was ordered by Mr. McCullough, who took her to
it, and we started. Nothing was said till I asked her if she had no friends in
Washington? The answer she made was, " None at all " I asked her if she
had ever been in Washington before. She said only on one occasion, last summer. She had come in the morning; but, not seeing Mr Burroughs, she left
the same day. There was nothing more said about the case. The hackman
didn't go the way I told him, but by F street. As we turned the corner of F
into Fifteenth street, she remarked : " I will tell you all about it." I told her
I didn't wish to hear any thing about it.
I would like to state, that at the room the lady asked me to telegraph to a
lady in Wisconsin. I have her own directions here, written with her own hand,
in pencil, in my book. [Witness here produced and showed a book, in which,
on one leaf, was written "Louisa A. Devlin, Janesville, Wisconsin."] I told

24

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

her I could not recollect the address, and she wrote that in the book herself. I
asked her what I should telegraph? She said, " You know just as well as I
do." I said, shall I telegraph as if it were yourself? She said "Yes." The
words I sent were these: " I have arrived in Washington, and shot Burroughs.
Come on immediately " I dated it the 30th of -January
By the Court. Did she tell you to telegraph those words?
A. No, sir; I don't think she ever knew till now what was said I think
there is a copy of it in the Superintendent's office She didn't see the telegraph.
As we left F street to go down, she said she didn't ask sympathy of the people
for herself, it was in regard to her family ; that this man had ruined her; had
caused her to be driven from her home and her friends, had seduced her and
taken her to a bad house in Chicago—those were the words she used—bad
house; and that she had told him that if he didn't comply with his promises
she would have revenge on him at the risk of her life. She stated further, that
she had procured a pistol in Chicago, and had come on here with that determination ; that she had arrived here that morning, and had accomplished her object.
By that time we had arrived at the gate of the jail. She seemed in great
distress and very weak. We had to support her into the jail. As I was about
to leave, she requested me to send the telegraph.
Q. Did she speak of the time at which these wrongs were done to her by the
deceased? A No, sir. She was crying violently all the way to the jail. She
seemed prostrated and in great distress.
Cross-examination:
I have given the language of the prisoner, almost word for word, as near as
possible. She volunteered these statements, and when I was leaving she said :
"If you will remain, I will explain all to you; " but I told her I did not want
to hear it; that she might say something that would hurt her. I advised her
to select her counsel and make her statement to him. We drove down E street
to Tenth, turned down to the Superintendent's office, and I told Ladd to telegraph to the coroner to go down to the Treasury building. All the conversation
was between the Methodist church and the jail gate. I think she told me
what she was stating occurred about one year ago ; I am not positive about that.
She was crying all the way. She did not say anything as to what time she
procured the pistol. She only said she had procured it in Chicago, and had
arrived here that morning. It was on Monday, I think. As it was communicated to me, I supposed she had procured the pistol and then came on here.
I am not certain that I told anybody about this conversation till I was
examined before the coroner at the inquest.
HUGH MCCULLOUGH sworn.

I saw Miss Harris in one of the rooms of the Treasury building, upon the
floor where the body of Mr. Burroughs was lying. I think it is the first room
on the left as you enter the eastern entrance. I think a police officer was in
there at the time. It is possible he might have left the room, but my impression
is that he remained all the time. He was certainly there most of the time.
The conversation on the part of Miss Harris was chiefly in exclamations. I
put but few questions to her. I listened to her rather than carried on the conversation. I think the first question she put to me was, "Is he dead." At
that time, my impression is, that Mr Burroughs was still breathing. I went
out, and returned to her soon after with the information that he was dead.
Miss Harris was much excited, and uttered such exclamations as—"Why did I
do it? Why did I do i t ? " I put some questions to her in regard to her
acquaintance with Mr. Burroughs. In the course of the conversation, she
informed me that she had known him for many years ; had been engaged to
him. I asked her if Mr. Burroughs had done her any other injury than the
violation of his engagement. She exclaimed, with a great deal of emphasis,
that he had not. I put the question to her, " Are you a virtuous girl ? " "Yes,
as God is my witness," was her answer. That is about the amount of the con-

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

25

versation that took place. She also said to me that she had come up to Washington for the purpose of prosecuting Mr. Burroughs for a breach of promise of
marriage. I saw the pistol. It was not more than fifteen minutes from the
time I first saw her in that office till she left with the officer. Perhaps eight or
ten minutes after Mr. Burroughs died, I thought it was best she should leave,
and she herself seemed desirous to do so. I accompanied her to the carriage,
and she was taken by the police officer to prison. I engaged the carriage for
the purpose of having her taken to the prison.
Cross-examination :
I had never known or heard anything of her before. I knew Mr. Burroughs
after he came to Washington. He came to my bureau—I was then Comptroller
of the Currency—in the spring of 1863, and applied for a clerkship. I don't
recollect when he became a clerk, but I think it was in the latter part of that
year. Had no particular personal social relations with him, though I knew
him very well, but my relations with him were not more intimate than with
the balance of the clerks. Miss Harris, while making the ejaculations I have
referred to, answering the questions I put to her, &c, was deeply excited, and
seemed to be in despair—in a frenzy. I think, as I came in, she dropped on
her knees. I know she put her hands upon my coat with great energy as she
asked the question regarding Mr. Burroughs. I do not recollect the character
of the expression of her face, except that she was deeply moved. I don't think
she shed any tears. It seemed to me her agony was too great for tears. I
don't think she was flushed, but pale, or rather, pallid. I did not take notice
of her eye, but her whole manner was striking and impressive in the extreme.
I recollect I fixed her attention for a moment, and put questions to her ; she
answered as if she comprehended them—answering clearly and coherently—
but immediately after giving the answer she would return to exclamations,
pacing the room, and exhibited every indication of being perfectly overwhelmed.
Q. Describe to the jury her manner when she said she was a virtuous girl.
A. That is rather difficult, as I am not an actor. I recollect I told my wife I
could now realize the difference between real grief and honor, and what we had
been in the habit of seeing upon the stage. I cannot exactly describe her
manner. She was much moved, ejaculating, " Why did I doit?—oh, how I
loved him; why did I do it?" and such like. I never witnessed an instance
of greater excitement from moral or mental affection of the mind. This was
a new case to me, and a particularly interesting one. The next morning, I
think it was, I took Mrs. McCullough down to the jail with me, and with Mr.
Beale, the warden, went to her cell to see if she needed any aid. Mrs. McCullough felt interested in her. We found a gentleman from her own State
had taken charge of her wants, and we therefore felt that there was no further
necessity for interference on our part, or for any proffer of assistance to her. I
found Miss Harris much in the same condition in which she was at the interview of the afternoon before. She was pacing the room as upon that occasion,
and her exclamations were much of the same character.
Q. You never saw her after that tension of mind had passed off? A. She
was still excited at my second interview with her, but not so much so.
Q,. State whether from what you have stated you were able to form any
judgment as to the condition of her mind, and whether she was then capable
of acting as a reasonable and responsible being ?
Objected to by the counsel for prosecution. Counsel desiring a few moments
to look up certain authorities on the subj ect, the argument was deferred until
after the examination of the next witness.
Mrs. WOODBEIDGE was then sworn, and testified as follows:
I am employed in the Treasury Department. Was acquainted with the
deceased, Adoniram Burroughs. My desk was adjoining his. Have seen the
prisoner this morning, and I think it is the same person who, on the afternoon
of the 30th of January, came to the room occupied by Burroughs and myself,

26

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

opened the door arid looked in, and then left while I was thinking whether I
had not better get up and speak to her. Burroughs at that time was sitting
down writing at his desk. I could not see at whom she was looking particularly. We were both in a line with the door, and she apparently looked in
our direction. ;
Cross-examination:
I was struck with the idea that she was much excited. She appeared as if
she wanted some one. She gave me the feeling of getting up to see whom she
wanted. Did not notice her eye particularly. "She had the apperance of being
much excited* I t appears to me at this moment that it was a little after the
noon of the day. After one o'clock. I do not exactly remember the time.
Mr. Wilson, Assistant District Attorney, proceeded to state the objection to
the question of Mr. Bradley. The main objection was that the question called
for an expression of opinion by the witness, formed as the result of his own
observation. It is a well settled principle that the opinions of witnesses are
inadmissible. Where facts are in issue it is incompetent for the witness to
express an opinion. This question is a mixed one of law and fact, and it is for
the jury to find the condition of the prisoner's mind. If the jury are to
determine, it is certainly incompetent for the witness to express an opinion.
Being for the jury, the expression of opinion must not be that of an ordinary
witness. Exception is taken as to experts • and as this opinion goes to show
the condition of the prisoner's mind, physicians would be the proper experts in
this case, or persons who have observed actual cases may give conclusions to
which they have arrived. The jury has a right to know all facts and occurrences, and they are certainly as competent to make up an opinion as the
witness. The mere statement of the witness, that he had observed certain facts,
is no reason why his opinion should be taken. Experts are qualified by study
and experience in bodily and mental diseases, and that experience severs them
from the rest of mankind, as to expression of opinion of the condition of a
person.
The Court said even experts were not allowed, though, to usurp the place of
the jury. The witness was not examined as an expert, but as one who had
observed the prisoner's conduct.
Mr. Wilson continued, and in support of his argument quoted from 5tl?i
gelden, page >375, case of Dewitt vs. Bailey; 21 Allen, (Massachusetts reports,)
page 511, case of Commonwealth vs. Fairbanks, and from page 111 of the first
volume of Leading Criminal Cases. He said another objection was the peculiar
wording of the question, which goes to the whole question of law and fact.
None of the authorities go to the length of admitting an expression of opinion
on the mixed question of law and fact. The question is too general in its terms.
Judge Hughes said they were not examining the witness as an expert, and
did not intend to ask him as to the insanity of the prisoner; but he having
heard .the exclamations of the prisoner, they proposed to ask him to state what
he believed to be the condition of her mind. There are exceptions to the
general rule as laid down by t'he counsel for the Government. No witness could
adequately describe the condition ©f a female laboring under such intense
excitement as the prisoner was. The witness had seen her manner, but he cannot photograph it to the Court and the jury. Mr. Hughes quoted from page
377 of 5th Selden to show the exceptions. The inquiry here was, what is the
rule under the laws of Maryland ? At the trial of Daniel E. Sickles in this
District, one of the witnesses, Eobert J. Walker, after stating facts, was allowed
to give his opinion as to the sanity of the accused; and he believed that was
the practice und,er the law of Maryland.
Mr, Bradley said the objection was in direct opposition to the settled practice
in this District.for forty years past. .In Maryland the practice prevails, and it
is adopted; by almost all the States of the Union. There is a distinction always
made between calling a professional person to give evidence as to the mental
condition of a person, and an unprofessional one, who is asked to give an

TRIAL OP MABY HARRIS.

27

• : n formed from facts which have come under his observation. To exclude
M? 1D ^ional conclusions of such a man was contrarv to all rule. Besides^ the
Qi-ion had been settled at this very term of court, in the case of Hypolitjg,
^The Court ruled as follows :
77>o Court is of opinion that evidence of this kind is admissible as a general
fhta^" Parties who have had opportunities oi forming an opinion as to the
i'fc or insanity of the prisoner, although not experts at all, are"* yet competent
sani: an opinion as to that sanity or insanity, and I think I so decided in the
ffive
to five an 3opii Hypol"'
~
„
of
recent case of Hypolite; but in this case, the evidence is that the witness had
L this lady 1
never seen this lady before in his life. He had already spoken of the frenzy of
he r manner and the extreme excitement under which she labored; of her
falling upon the ground and placing her hands upon his coat. Ail these facts
can <*o to the jury, but upon the ground of the witness having had no previous
acquaintance ox opportunity of forming a general opinion as to the sanity or
insanity of the prisoner. .:-.
!
To this ruling the defence reserve an exception.
Mr. Carrington announced that the prosecution here closed the case on the
part of the Government; and, thereupon, the Court took a recess for half an
~ Upon reassembling, the examination of witnesses for the defence was entered
upon.
WILLIAM W. DANENHOWEB sworn.

By Mr. Bradley. I reside in this city, on the northeast corner of Twelfth
and G streets. In the spring of. 1863, was employed in the Fourth Auditor's
office of the Treasury. I knew the deceased in his lifetime. Became acquainted
with him early in the spring of 1863, in this city, when he first came here.
Q. Had you any opportunities; and, if so, what, of becoming familiar with
his handwriting? A. Yes, sir. He acted as assistant to me for five months—
during 1863—in conducting the correspondence of the Auditor's office; I was at
that time chief clerk. Every day he wrote letters under my Control.
Q. State if you please, whether you have to-day examined this pile of letters,
(referring to the package of letters addressed by Mr. Burroughs to the prisoner,)
and whether or not they are, in your judgment, in the handwriting of the
deceased ? A. I have examined them, and .with the exception of one which
purports to ,have been written with his left hand, recognize them as his handwriting.
Mr. Bradley here proposed to read some of the letters and offer them in
evidence.
• The Court For what purpose ?
; Mr. Bradley. To show the relation in which the parties stood to each other
and the effect it had on the mind of the prisoner, causing insanity when the
relations were severed. The first letter is dated November 1st, 1858, and is a
very kind letter from a gentleman to a little girl.
The letter was of too remote a date, and was simply
s Mr. Carrington ojected.
signed "Incog." He had not read the letter, but he could see very well for
what purpose it was offered. It was offered to show the relation existing
between the parties in 1858, and the defence proposed to trace the facts down
and show how the mind of the prisoner was affected by Burroughs breaking off the engagement.
Mr. Bradley. He did not break off the engagement, but married another
woman without notice to the prisoner. :
Mr. Carrington continued, a n d argued t h a t t h e letters were n o t admissible as
evidence to snow insanity on t h e p a r t of t h e accused.. The defence proposed to
show the insanity of the prisoner first by showing an engagement .between her
and the deceased.
»- •
.
:
•
; ; Judge Hughes.
If the prosecutor will permit me I will state one proposition.
It; is this: We now propose to offer in evidence this bundle, containing some
ninety-two letters, extending from November, 1858, to August, 1863, part of a n

28

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

unbroken series of correspondence, establishing the most intimate relations—-the
relations of betrothal; that intimate correspondence usual to such relations
between parties. These letters show upon their face that the deceased first
became interested in this young lady when she was about ten years old;
took charge of her, as it were ; he being a man of some thirty-two years,
a merchant in the city, and she quite a little girl; that he trained her up with
the understanding that as soon as she wras sufficiently advanced in years he
would make her his wife. We expect to show that he was married to another
person, and that the announcement of his marriage was the first notice that
she had of any disposition on his part to terminate these relations, excepting
certain anonymous letters, which are part of the documentary evidence we
propose to offer, and which we expect to prove to have proceeded from him,
proposing to her to meet him at a house of assignation, for what purpose is
to be a matter of inference, or of argument. We offer these letters expecting
to establish the connecting evidences, and with a view to show that the
result of this injury, shock, or disappointment, shame and mortification, upon
the mind of this young lady, was such as to unsettle her reason upon all subjects connected with the deceased, and that such was her state of mind at the
time of the homicide for which she is now held to answer.
The Court. This evidence is offered, not for the purpose of proving the insanity of the prisoner, but for the purpose of showing that some causes existed
years ago which might lead to a certain result.
Mr. Voorhees. May it please your Plonor, we propose to commence years
ago, and to bring it down to within three days of the time that he left her,
and married this other woman.
The Court. When did that marriage take place ?
Mr. Voorhees. On the 15th of September, 1863.
The Court. That is over a year ago.
Mr. Voorhees. We propose to show that on the subject of Burroughs she
never was what she had been before she became temporarily deranged.
The Courz. I understand the proposition. If the plea of insanity were
not in this case at all, or the defence of insanity had not been set up, it is
apparent that this evidence would at once be excluded by the Court. It would
in that event scarcely have been offered by the counsel for the prisoner, because
provocation, however great, arising from the use of language, or letters written so long anterior to the occurrence of the murder, is not competent evidence
to show the provocation under which the party acted in committing the deed.
Mr. Voorhees. We do not offer it for the purpose of showing provocation.
The Court. If, I say, the defence of insanity had not been set up, the Court
would not permit this evidence now offered, for the purpose of showing a mitigation of the defence from the crime of murder to any lower degree of homicide; but such defence having been set up here it is a perfect defence in itself,
with or without cause, if made out to the satisfaction of the jury. If you show
that the prisoner at the bar was not a reasonable being, accountable for her
conduct in regard to this transaction, she is entitled to an acquittal by the jury,
whether she acted with cause, or under a mere delusion.
The Court, therefore, thinks that you ought to be confined in your evidence
to any occurrences, any acts on tlie part of the prisoner, showing insanity
or want of accountability in regard to questions connected with the deceased,
who was afterwards slain by her. If she had never been engaged to be married to him, if she had never before known him, but accidentally seeing or
hearing of this marriage, to the lady whom he afterwards did marry, she
became insane or frenzied, under a delusion from that subject, and afterwards
slew him, the insanity would be a sufficient defence. This being the case, the
Court holds that whether this insanity, which is to be made the defence in this
case, be with or without cause, it is a defence, and to go back to the past history
of the lives of these two parties, and read in evidence the letters from one to
the other would not bo proper.
Mr. Bradley said there was one view of the case which had not yet been

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

29

- o-cfpsted and which they did not at present desire to refer to, under which he
f^^o-ht the letters woulfl be admissible. . It was sufficient for the present to
-o VU§' we shall give proof of insanity, it may become a question whether it
? 5 real or feigned, and then evidence of the cause will clearly be admissible
'to '<?how it was real.
The Court stated that with it there was no pride of;opinioii whatever; that
i r uDon'further reflection, or a change of the aspect of the case in the. future
m-o^ress of the trial, the Court should be of opinion that this evidence
should"be admitted, he would frankly say so, and admit it.
"~24?\ Carrington. said he was prepared to prove that deceased had never
v/ron^ed this woman—that he died without a stain upon his character.
'Mr*. Bradley- I won't take any man's word for that, when I have the evidence'of the man's guilt in his own handwriting.
Mr. Bradley here proposed to read certain depositions taken in Burlington,
Iowa.
.
- Mr, Carrington objected,.but the Court overruled the objection, and the depositions were read as follows:
.
. o:
#Mr. Charles II. Phelps deposes and says he is a lawyer of Burlington, Iowa.
He had known the accused from the time she was eight or ten years of age
to the present time. She was of slender frame, of good temper, of a happy
and active turn ; had a brilliant eye, but was nervous. Though unschooled,
she was naturally intelligent. Saw her in jail, in Washington, in February,
several times. Her eye wore a wild look: she was incoherent, and in relating
anything she would in a few minutes contradict herself;. was haggard in her
appearance; would not have known her by her voice. Knew Burroughs in
Burlington, Iowa. Saw Burroughs with the accused' frequently. The defendant was about twenty-one years of age; was much liked by her associates,
on account of her good disposition.
Mrs. Eunice Phelps. Knew Mary Harris nearly ten years •—to 1862 or
'63, when she moved to Chicago. Saw her in jail in this city; so changed that
she would not have known her. Had her hand in hers, but she was restless.
Freqrfentry saw Burroughs with her in Iowa. He called at the house. often.
Mary read her letters at her house. Her friends were strongly attached to her.
Her sole motive and desire in life was to please Burroughs. He controlled her
in all respects.
•
>
Mrs. Mary Jane Winters. Knew the accused about ten years. She was
at her house nearly every day; came to her for advice in all matters;- was
quite reserved, except in company of friends ; she never desired to increase her
acquaintance; suppose it was because she was engaged from youth to
Burroughs; Miss Harris seemed to have no other motive or aim in life than to
please Burroughs, and to fulfil her engagement with him; witness knew
Burroughs by sight for several years. In the spring of 1861 he spent an
evening at her house, in company1 with'Mary, and again in the spring of 1862.
Witness had some knowledge as to the engagement between Burroughs and
Miss Harris. Mary was then in the store of Mrs..Alexander, in Burlington,
Iowa. Burroughs usually accompanied her home by the house of witness.
When he visited the House in May, 1861, he apologized for coming by saying
that he and Ma*y were engaged to be married, and he dared not go to the house
of her parents to see her, as they were opposed to him.. Shortly after this,
Mary went to Chicago arid clerked in a store. Burroughs afterward took
her Back to Burlington, when he informed witness that they would be married
in three weeks, and that he did not wish the woman he was to marry to act as
clerk any longer in Chicago. He said he was drying-to ;raise a company of men
for t h e w a r ; if he did not succeed in that, he would marry Mary and they
would go to California. He had a ring on his finger, arid, when asked to
remove it, said he;could not, as it had been j>ut on with a wish. Some time
afterward, Mary received a letter from 4him, in which he stated that he could
not. then get married, as he haid a leg broken. Witness said Burroughs
was: master of -Mary's heart and ; affections.
S

30

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Mrs Louisa Hall testified that Mary Harris wras a frequent visitor at her
house. When quite young she went into the store of Mrs. Alexander, in
Burlington. She wrent regularly to church. Her temper was good, but she had
seen her vexed; never saw her exhibit a violent temper. In the spring of
1863 she went to Chicago. Witness saw Mr. Burroughs on two or three
occasions. A short time before Miss Harris left for Chicago. Mr. Burroughs
called to see her. Witness knew nothing of the relations between them but
what Miss Harris told her. Miss Harris was very reserved, and generally
associated with married ladies. Mr. Burroughs had complete control of her
affections, and swayed her as he wished.
Mr. Carrington again objected to the depositions, arguing that the facts were
not admissible, and that the mode of proof was objectionable. He did not think
evidence showing an engagement in 1863 was admissible when the homicide
was committed in 1865. The question was not how the deceased treated the
prisoner, but how was she affected when the homicide was committed? If the
insanity is established, the cause is immaterial. The relations of the parties may
be shown to rebut the legal presumption of malice.
The Court said, that if the insanity were shown at some time anterior to the
homicide, the evidence might be important, as tending to show whether the insanity was real or feigned at the time the homicide was committed.
Mr. Carrington said, before going into that question, there should be some
evidence adduced to show insanity.
Judge Hughes. Your witnesses have proved insanity.
The Court. If you had not called your two last witnesses, there would be no
insanity yet in the case.
Mr. Carrington. The evidence of these witnesses, I think, proves her sanity.
The Court. Still there is something there which the jury can lay hold of and
consider. Whether it can be relied on or not is another question. I t is, at all
events, something.
Mr. Carrington said it seemed to him that if a young lady engages herself to
a gentleman in 1856 or 1858, and in 1865, seven years after, creeps up behind him
and shoots him in the back for fancied wrongs, it does not show that degree of
insanity which makes the party an irresponsible agent. If she had done the
act in a month, or even a year, there might be some excuse. Will it be allowed
to give in evidence an injury inflicted five or six< years before the homicide, in
justification of the crime? It is conceded that the declarations of the deceased
might be offered to show an effect upon the mind of the prisoner ; but these
declarations are not offered to show insanity, but the cause thereof. Are we
now to go into the question, whether a marriage-agreement existed in 1861,
three years prior to the homicide? This is a collateral issue entirely ; and, if
it is admitted, the prosecution will produce rebutting testimony, to show that,
in point of fact, no marriage-agreement existed.
The Court reserved its decision until this morning, to which time the court
adjourned.
FIFTH DAY—MONDAY,

July 10, 1865.

The court met at 10 o'clock.
The crowd in attendance seems to increase each day, and yesterday, for the
first time, we noticed some lady spectators outside the railing.
Miss Harris was brought into court at half-past 10 o'clock, leaning upon the
arm of Mr. Bradley, and accompanied by her lady friends, as heretofore. The
case was resumed where it was broken off on Saturday, viz: at the discussion
of the objection to the admission of the depositions from Burlington.
Mr. Wilson said the objections were to several passages in the depositions.
They objected, for instance, to that portion of the answer to the third interrogatory as states the opinion of the witnesses as to their observation in 1861.
That portion of the deposition which describes the organization and physical

TRIAL OF MART HARRIS.

81

health of the prisoner is a proper description. All that counsel objected to were
the clauses where the opinion was expressed that the mind of the prisoner was
broken. They did not object to any thing but the conclusions to which the witnesses arrived. They also objected to that part of the testimony of Mrs. Winters where she speaks of her knowledge of the engagement existing between the
accused and deceased Objection was made to the mode of proof by the declaration of the deceased himself
Mr. Carrington argued that, as this evidence was offered to prove a marriage
engagement which existed three or four years before the homicide was committed, it was not admissible, except to maintain the plea of insanity. He would
concede, for the sake of argument, that if any of the declarations of the deceased, brought home to the knowledge of the prisoner, may have excited hopes
which became lasting: if they tended to produce insanity, they might be admitted. But Mr. C. denied that the declarations of deceased were admissible to
prove a cause of insanity. The defence show, or attempt to show, an engagement between the parties, not for the purpose of showing insanity, but to show
the original cause of the insanity. This is not a suit brought by the prisoner
for a breach of marriage promise, but a criminal prosecution, wherein the United States is one party, and the prisoner at the bar the other; and now they
undertake to prove a fact by the declarations of the deceased, who is a third
party, and has no interest in the suit. It is an attempt to prove a fact by hearsay evidence—a fact material to the defence. Burroughs is a third party ; and
in a suit for a violation of law, a material fact cannot be proven by the declaration of a third party. Declarations of a deceased party are never admitted
in evidence, as a general rule; but there are exceptions ; as, for instance, as to
dying declarations, where the evidence goes to the res gestae, and where the
declarations to the prisoner tend to show insanity. If these declarations were
made to the prisoner herself they might be evidence, if tending to show insanity. But how can the condition of the prisoner's mind be shown from facts not
told to her, but to a thiid party? The defence must prove the engagement by
facts and circumstances, but not by hearsay evidence. But this evidence is not
offered to show the insanity, but the cause of the insanity.
The Court. Not for the purpose of showing the cause of the insanity, but the
cause of insanity.
Mr. Carrington. Now, what is the cause they propose to show ?
The Court. They offer to show that a well-known, recognized cause of insanity existed in this case.
Mr. Carrington. But how are they to show it ? Certainly not by hearsay.
First, what was the cause; and, second, what was the state of her mind? The
marriage contract must be proven by facts and circumstances.
Mr. Bradley read the answer to the question objected to, and the Court decided that the evidence was admissible.
Mr. Bradley offered in evidence the letter referred to in Mrs. Winters's testimony.
Mr. Wihon objected. He said the paper was a mere mutilated part of a letter, and it showed no connection with the prisoner. It was but a half-sheet,
had no signature, and was simply headed " Dear Little Mollie."
Mr. Bradley said it had been shown that the letter was in Burroughs's handwriting, and it was in the possession of the accused.
The letter was admitted as evidence. It is dated Chicago, August 18, 1862,
and is headed " Dear little Mollie." It acknowledges the receipt of a letter,
and the writer says he raised a company for the three-months' service, but declined to take command of it, and raised another company for the three-years'
service. Before starting, however, he broke his leg, and consequently he was
obliged to abandon the project of entering the army.
Mr. Bradley here read the following depositions, taken in Chicago:
Mrs. Eliza- J. Harris, being sworn, deposed and testified that she resided
in Chicago, and has resided there for three years. Knew the accused, and
also Adoniram J. Burroughs. Had known both of them in Burlington

32

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS,

and Chicago, and has been acquainted with the defendant since 1857. Met
Burroughs for the first time in I860. Mr. Burroughs called frequently at witness's house in Chicago, ,and spent nearly every evening there with Mary Harris, and often stayed very late. He never told witness of an engagement, but
she always understood they were engaged, because they acted in all respects as
lovers, and in all his letters he called her his darling Mollie and his only Mollie. Witness does not. know wThy he did not marry her. Witness noticed a
change in the defendant about the time of Mr. Burroughs's marriage. She came
to witness's room two or three times a day, and told her all her troubles. She
then expressed the belief that Burroughs had all along been false to her, and
said he wanted to take her to an assignation house, and offered to read to witness the letter he had written her. When referring to the subject of the proposed meeting at the assignation house, Mary would become much excited, and
would walk to and fro about the room. Witness advised her not to take it so
much to heart. Her troubles seemed to prey upon her mind, and she brooded
over them day and night. Witness noticed a change in her health, and she
grew thin and poor. Her troubles seemed to be wearing her out.
Lewis H. Davis, a witness, being sworn, deposes and says, that he resides in
Chicago, and is an attorney-at-law. Has known the accused, Mary Harris, since June 5, 1864. At that time she came to employ witness to commence a suit against Adoniram J. Burroughs for breach of promise of marriage. Witness commenced the suit on the 5th day of July, 1864, and filed an
affidavit for a writ of capias. The writ was never served. Witness understood
the motive that prompted Miss Harris in bringing suit to be to vindicate
her character, and honor, she being impressed with the idea that the course of
Burroughs had cast disgrace and dishonor upon her in the estimation of her
friends. Defendant showed witness a letter, purporting to be written by Burroughs, when he invited her to an assignation house ; and after she became satisfied that Burroughs had written the letter, her love for him appeared to turn
to hate. Witness requested permission to see Burroughs's friends, thinking he
might settle the matter. The accused would not permit the conference with
Burroughs's friends. She said she did not wish any money, but simply to vindicate her character. When the question of the invitation to the house of illfame was mentioned, the accused became very much excited. Witness does not
know whether accused ever visited Washington prior to the time when Burroughs was shot. She asked witness once to accompany her to Washington, to
institute proceedings against Burroughs. Miss Harris insisted that witness
should not see Burroughs's friends. Whenever the question of the house of ill
fame invitation was brought up, she spoke of the matter in a tone of virtuous
indignation. Witness was convinced that her feelings were such towards Burroughs, that it would not be safe for her to meet him alone. After these interviews relative to bringing suit, witness knew no more of the accused until the
fatal shot was fired.
Mr. Qarrington objected to the reception of the depositions. The facts connected with the prisoner were at a date anterior to the homicide, and at a time
when she was about to institute a suit against the deceased. He argued that
these facts, instead of tending to show insanity, indicated the sanity of the
accused. She understood her remedy, and knew, like a discreet and intelligent
person, that her proper course was (if she had been wronged) to institute a suit
for a breach of a marriage contract. If this independent collateral act was
offered to show the condition of the mind of the accused and to prove her
insanity, it was certainly not admissible. But the depositions were obnoxious
to another objection. This Chicago attorney had not contented himself with
stating facts, biit went on to say what his opinion was as to the motive that
induced the prisoner to enter suit for a breach of the marriage contract alleged
to have been entered into between the parties. He also went on to state her
mental condition, in answer to a question relative to a question of law. If this
testimony were admitted, the witness would be transferred from the witnessstand to the jury-box. Mr. Carrington argued that it was for the jury to foim

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

33

the opinion and not for the witness, and argued that the opinion of witness,
unless he was. an expert, was not-admissible to show insanity. That was the
general rule, and every departure from that course was a departure from the
general rule v In ordinary cases, witnesses were not allowed to express an
opinion. Why, then, should they be permitted to do so on one of the most
delicate of questions ? It is tantamont to saying that the witness is the best
judge, and that the jury should have no opinion of their own. This course
would, however, inaugurate a new system and transfer the witness from the
stand to the jury-box. Mr. Carrington argued that all the English authorities
were against this course, and appealed to Mr. Bradley to know if that was not so.
Mr. Bradley said he would take issue with the counsel for the prosecution.
The English authorities indicated much in favor of the arguments of the counsel
for defence.
Mr. Carrington said if all the authorities were not against the admission of
such testimony, their whole weight was. The American authorities were conflicting upon the point. Mr. Carrington adduced the following authorities to
sustain his position, viz : Vol. 1st Leading Criminal Cases, page 111; 1st Gray,
page 337; 5th Pickering, page 570; 9th New York Reports, page 371; Best's
Evidence, page 386; 3d Massachusetts Reports, page 330; 7th Gray, page 7 1 ;
14th Gray, page 335, and 2d Allen, page 511.
The Court said: When an expert is called in a case he is supposed to be
familiar with the laws affecting the human mind, and also with the physical
condition. He is not inquired of as to his acquaintance with the prisoner, for
perhaps he has never seen the party He takes his seat and hears the evidence.
If it is proposed to ask the expert, after hearing the testimony, to state his
opinion as to whether the prisoner was at the time of the commission of the
act sane or insane solely from information thus obtained, the question would be
manifestly improper, and the Court would not allow it, for he cannot answer it
without passing upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of this
testimony, which is a matter for the jury to determine. The proper form of
the question to be put to him would be as follows: "Assuming such and such
facts to.be proved, do they establish the insanity of the prisoner?" That is
proper, for the expert does not then decide upon the weight of testimony or the
credibility of the witness, and his opinion is of weight Other witnesses, not
experts, may be called and examined in regard to their previous acquaintance
with the prisoner, their opportunities of judging of the mental and moral
affections of the , accused. Grounded on this previous acquaintance of the
witness with the prisoner, the law gives the prisoner the privilege of obtaining
from the witness his or her opinion as to the sanity or insanity of the party at
the time or previous to the commission of the offence. It is impossible, I think,
on this principle, to exclude the evidence of witnesses who have possessed these
opportunities of forming an opinion in regard to the sanity of the party accused,
and I think the weight of authorities, at least in this country, is clearly in
favor of the admission of witnesses so situated. The Court referred to Wharton's
Criminal Law., book 1st, paragraph 48, of these views. As this question seems
to be constantly coming up, I will, before closing with these observations, refer
to another point. This question of insanity is, of all questions in the criminal
jurisdiction of the court, one of the most difficult to comprehend and to manage.
There are so many degrees of it, so many species of it, the human mind is so
easily affected, so subject of being influenced, to becoming diseased, that the
ablest writers of the law have acknowledged their inability to draw satisfactory
lines by which to test whether a party under given circumstances acted under
an insaiie impulse, insanity of mind, or otherwise. But Lord Coke, whose
mind; seemed to master everything that it touched, and seemed to go to the
bottom of every subject he undertook to investigate, says, in regard to the
expression of non compos, mentis, " many times (as here) the Latin word
expresses the true sense, and calleth him not amens, demens, furiosus, lunaticus,
fatups, stultos, or the like, for non compos mentis is the most sure and legal
term." I refer to that just now, because the form of the question here,
3

34

TRl!AL OF MARY HARRIS.

whether, in the opinion of the witness, having these opportunities of being
acquainted with the prisoner, the prisoner at that time was a reasonable being,
capable of deciding properly upon any subject broeight before him. Having
expressed these views, I admit the evidence, arid it can go to the jury.
Mr. Bradley offered to read the letters ruled out on Saturday, and the Court
decided they were now proper testimony. Mr. Fendall therefore proceeded to
read extracts from the following letters, which are not signed by deceased, (Mr.
Burroughs,) but which are proven to be in his handwriting.
The first letter is dated Ottumwa, November 1, 1858, and is signed " Incog."
It commences, " Dear little Mollie." This is an ordinary letter from a grown
man to a little girl. He advises her not to show the letter to Mrs. Alexander,
by whom she was employed, for she might injure him. He says he proposes
to keep trace of her through the medium of the post office, and that she must
not think it strange if he manifests that fatherly care he has assumed. She
may not thank him for the assumption, but still he will exercise it. He says
he would like to talk with her, and uses most endearing terms.
Letter dated Ottumwa, November 9, 1858, headed "Dear Mollie," and also
signed " Incog." In this letter the writer acknowledges the receipt of a letter
from Mary Harris. He advises her to be careful, and treat her employer with
proper consideration, He says she may rely upon his friendship and confidence. He says he will not flatter her, but tells her she has more than common
qualifications.
Letter dated Sunday, February 27, 1859, addressed " Do^ir Mollie," and ending "-Yours, affectionately," but with no signature. From this it appears that
Miss Harris had written to him, and addressed him as her dearest friend. He
asks, " And am I really so ?" and says he wishes to be considered her dearest
friend and her truest. Her regard for him, he says, is felt with true appreciation. He goes on then to speak of a number of enemies he has had in Burlington, and says, despite the enemies, he wants soon to go there, see little Mollie,
and get the kisses she promised him on his advent
Letter dated Eddyville, April 9, 1859, addressed to " My dearest Mollie,"
and ending, " Most affectionately, yours, A. J. B." Writer acknowledges
receipt of. a letter, and a "sweet little forget-me-not" enclosed. He promises
to grant her request and never forget her. He reminds her how he used to
scold her, and excuses himself by reason of his affection for her, and says he is
her senior and almost old enough to be her father, and says if he were near her
he would give her some of the sweetest kisses and fondle her in his arms.
Letter dated Des Moines, April 18, 1859 and addressed to " Dear little
Mollie." In this the writer says that the object that fills his mind is the fact
that Mollie loves him in spite of all opposition, and he assures her,, as his " dear
girl," that he will not soon become unmindful of the fact. He closes with his
most affectionate regard, but the letter has no signature.
Letter dated Eddyville, April 28, 1859, addressed to " My dear Mollie," and
unsigned, but concluding with the words, " Good-by, my little darling." In
this letter Miss Harris is taken to task for writing what her correspondent calls
a " suspicious letter." He advises her to remain with " fSue," (supposed to be
Mrs. Alexander, with whom Miss Harris was employed.) He says, " for my
sake, dear, dear Mollie, stop with her." He speaks of going to Pike's Peak,
but says he wants some of her kisses before he goes.
Letter dated Eddyville, May 11, 1859, addressed to " My dear little Mollie,"
and ending with the words, " Yours, affectionately," but no signature. The
writer complains that Miss Harris does not write, but he hopes Mollie has
affection for him yet. He hopes to let her yet hop on his knee, and to get
some of her sweet kisses. He speaks of going to Pike's Peak, and says Mary's
request, "don't go, dear," will be granted yet. He says he wants her to be
happy and good, and refined in manner.
Letter dated Eddyville, May 22, 1859, and addressed to " Dear little Mollie."
No signature, and letter simply ends with the words, " Good-by." The writer
says: " There is a warm place for you way down deep in my heart."

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

35

Letter dated Sunday, June 11, 1859. No place named and no signature.
Letter addressed to " My dear, dear Mollie." He advises her to be more careful
of her health, and gives her a full history of his pecuniary matters and some
pecuniary difficulties.
Letter dated Monday, June 26, 1859, 9 p. m. No place mentioned and no
signature, but ending with, " Dearest girl, good-by." The letter is addressed
to " Dear,, dear Mollie." He intimates iri this letter that she did not wish to
be addressed as "little Mollie," for she now wore long dresses. But he says
he cannot divest himself of the thought that she is still the " little Mollie " who
sat upon his knee and twined her arms about his neck, or who sat beside him,
and about whom, he twined his arms and lifted her up, and could have carried
the precious burden to Paris. He only expressed the fear that she would feel
too pig to sit again upon his knee and kiss him.
Letters dated Thursday, June 30, 1859, (no place,) and addressed "Dearest
girl;*' Sunday, July 2, 1859, and addressed, " My dear little Mollie;" Tuesday,
August 2, 1859, and addressed to " My darling little Mollie;" Tuesday, August
14, and addressed to " My dear, dear Mollie." In all of these letters the writer
speaks to the prisoner in the most endearing terms. He expresses his love for
her, and gives her very good advice. He speaks of going to Pike's Peak, and
also of his pecuniary matters. In one of the letters he invites her to meet him
in a sort of surreptitious manner at Mount Pleasant.
The following letter was read in full, and is published as giving a fair indication of the letters subsequently written to Miss Harris by Burroughs:
MONDAY, August 22, 1859.

0 ! MY DEAE LITTLE BOSEBUD : Is it afther making me crazy that you are,
or is for making me heart jump clear up into the throat of me till I'm kilt
intirely, that you're saking afther, that you sind all the way from Burlington
such a picture as would make the howley Virgin Mary blush again? 0,
howley St. Pater! what am I to do ? My head grows giddy, and divil a bit
can I sa. My hands fly up above the head of me; me fingirs stick right out
sidewise; me hair stands on eend; me eyes steck out so far ahead of me, I can
only touch them wid me hand, and I go runnin up the strate an' back again
like mad! 0, howley Virgin Mary, intercede for me ! for divil a bit of rason
have I got left, an' I'm mad intirely. You know, darling, when a person is
bitten by a venomous snake, his skin assumes the color of the snake. If an
abominable snake has such an effect on a man, is it strange that when bewitched
by the sweetest-looking Irish girl that»ever lived, he should become an Irishman ? Who wouldn't be anything to be the recipient of such a favor as was I
on Saturday evening? How am I to thank you for such a favor? 0, joyous
surprise! Glad source of delirious joy!
Many times I had longed for your picture, and let my imagination dwell upon
the receipt of it, but durst not ask you for it, for reasons I will give you if we
ever meet—not now; but it is the more grateful, coming as a surprise of inexpressible delight. Beally, Mollie, as I returned from the post office after receiving it, I felt so light I could with difficulty keep the ground; I could scarcely
avoid flying. I wanted to button everybody I met, and show them what I had
got; and it required all the sense of propriety I could command to keep myself
from doing so.
0 ! that beautiful picture! beautiful! beautiful! beautiful! And my beautiful ! beautiful Mollie! What can I now say for her ? I cannot say—words
fail me. Could I see her, I might, perhaps, express faintly what are my feelings, as reawakened by such visible testimony of her loveliness.
0, Mollie, Mollie! you have turned my dry, sterile, old bachelor's heart into
a gushing fountain of glad emotion, and warm, genial affection; and Mollie—
dear, darling Mollie—is the source and end of all. Would I had a hundred
Pike's Peak's fortunes to lay at her feet, and the affection of a hundred hearts
to lavish upon her. If <l another Mollie" were to contest the claim to my love,
she would stand but a poor chance now, if not before. When you were remark-

m

TEML OF MARY HARRIS;

ing concerning the change (improvement) that had taken place in your personal
appearance, were you trying to make me understand that you had added to
your already redundant stock of beauty ? I did not fully take the hint then;
I understand now. Nature has surpassed herself in bestowing new charms
when the measure was already full, running over, and Mollie herself is taken
by surprise at her own new excellencies. I understand it all now, and a mos£
effective way have you adopted to bring the fact to my comprehension, and as
modest and winning as effective. Your beautiful picture! I have to look at
it the last thing before I put out the light at bed-time, and the first thing in the
morning, before even I put myself in a condition to have any one (unless it were
some one to whom I sustained a different relation than I ever* yet sustained) to
look atme, unless by accident, as occurred once in B , at my boarding-house,
when, from my long white robe, I was mistaken for a Catholic priest Had my
back been turned, they (the women who saw me) would have taken me for one
of their own number, unless they had carried their scenting-box far in, in which
case I presume they would have discovered their mistake.
And many times during the day do I look again and again at this beautiful
shadow of a more beautiful substance, and each time draws forth some fresh exclamation of swelling admiration.
Do not,1 my dear Mollie, let that accursed blotch on your neck be left to mar
such a beautiful person as yours. You have neglected it already too long. Do
so no more.
Perhaps, dear girl, you will think me extravagant and excessive at my expressions of delight at the receipt of your picture; perhaps I am fulsome, nauseating even. But remember the circumstances. A man would justly be thought
a fool, who; going to the town pump, would clap his hands and dance with wild
exclamations of delight at the sight of water; but on the desert, where water
had not been seen for many long, weary days, he would be thought perfectly
sound, and all would rejoice with him. Were I with you, enjoying the richer
favor of your presence, though I would receive your picture as a precious treasure, yet I would not go quite crazy over it, but would seek to exhibit good common sense. As it is, away off in the wilderness, among Arabs, hideous to behold, and worse to mingle with, I am like the man in the desert at the sight of
water. So,- under the circumstances, I hope you will excuse me, dearest, if I
do plaster it 'on rather thick. I would not resort to gross flattery of your pergonal appearance, though your charms were those of Venus, (and I do not think
them short of it,) for I possess too much of sincere regard for your best interests
to turn flatterer, and injure you with extravagant praise. I would rather tell
you of your faults, and show forth my regard and appreciation of you by the
unmistakable evidence of duty faithfully performed.
" Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but kisses of an enemy are deceitful."
If I speak warmly in your praise, it is but the free gushing forth of uncontrolled feelings, and you know by experience may ring the din of hated chiding
in your ears, and make you wish—0 ! so much !—it might but cease. But when
I chide you, Mollie, I would rather take you in my arms, and soften the harsh
accents by the soothing caresses of true, kind, and warm affection; for I am not
a tyrant nor a bear in disposition; neither would I be the fitful cat, that utters
her fondness in tones of winning tenderness at one moment, and plants her
claws to the quick into her darling pets the next. But I would be as I have
professed, your true friend; in advance asking pardon for his many failings
Will you believe me, Mollie? and will you understand me, as I make my imperfect efforts to express my sentiments ; while I protest I could tell you a dam
sight better if I could see you! And, my dear, dear Mollie, shall I not see you
at Ottumwa the firs* of the month ? Dear girl, I want, to urge you to come, if
at all practicable, and don't let small considerations prevent you, and come in
such a way as not to be tied up to somebody else, so to prevent our being together most of 'the time, mind you.
I- broke my promise, and did not write " Sunday," but it was not because I
had not intended to ; but because I could not get a minute to myself. To-day

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

37

v.". • 1 een rather dull, and I have snatched the odd moments to write you this
Kvtl^n letter. Will you accept it, darling, as the -honest * though, poor" exp'res° ^of the warm sentiments of my heart, while I thank you again and again
for'vour beautiful, picture. <
'
GOOD-BYE.
The following was written across the top of the letter. The names are
suppressed at the request of the counsel:
"Miss H—— w a s U P • e r e -° v l s l t -°-r
about four weeks since, and H
ill Wt-o B——in about two weeks. If you see her, she will tell you all
abou? me. I call at their.house quite frequently. You know she married ——,
who used to live in B
. Perhaps she will make you believe I hare found
another " Mollie" up here. There are one or two respectable girls here that I
;
o-o with tp pass away the dreary hours; but compared with my dear little
Jtosebad, they are—111 notsay what.
With a cartload of kisses, I bid you adieu.
."
Letter dated Sunday, September 11, 1859, addressed to : "My dear Mollie."
Also a letter dated April'25, 1860; and a letter dated June 8, I860, wherein
the subject of going to Pike's Peak is still mentioned, and the most endearing
terms are used.
Another letter is produced dated June 18, 1860, wherein the writer says he
cannot but appreciate Miss Harris's enduring affection. The letter is not'completed, but is continued August 1st, and apologizes for not finishing it. August
22d, he writes upon the same paper, and again makes apology, giving as a
reason for apparent negligence his absence from town, tie asks Mary
Harris to forgive him, and calls her his " dear, noble-hearted girl," and promises to send her his picture.
After the reading of this letter the Court adjourned until to-morrow at ten
o'clock.
SIXTH DAY—TUESDAY,

July 11,1865.

The Court met at 10 o'clock.
Miss Harris was brought into court shortly after ten o'clock, and was escorted
to the seat heretofore occupied by her.
As the trial progresses the interest in it seems to be increasing, andyto-day
there was a very large crowd in attendance. Ladies appear to be taking an
interest in the matter, and to-day a number of-them were seated inside the
bar.
Mr. Bradley proceeded to read additional letters from A. J. Burroughs to the
accused. , The first was dated September 5, i860, and was addressed, " My
dearest Mollie." The writer, excuses himself for not writing before • says he is
chagrined at :his folly, and is sorry he has compelled his correspondent to suffer
too much anxiety on his account/ He regrets that some one has found out the
engagement between them, and says he would rather the devil had got his nose,
in the matter than that Mrs. H. should have done.so, He expresses anxiety as
to her intention of changing her business, and expresses the hope she. would' go
to school during the winter.
*
Letter dated "Sunday, September 23, 1860, and addressed, " My dear, dear
Mollie." The writer speaks of a proposed meeting, and says the desire to write
is not lessened by the prospect of an early meeting; of clasping her to his bosom,
and of feasting himself with her presence. He says he has had evidence of the
fulness of her affection.
/
Letter dated Friday, October 5, 1860, and addressed, " Dearest little Mollie."
The receipt of two letters acknowledged. Disappointment is expressed that a
proposecl meeting did not take place. Business matters are again referred to,
and thejwriter says an expected meeting must be postponed for three months
longer^.JIe expects, however, to meet her while on his way to Chicago, wherehe expects to spend the winter, after which he will go somewhere, and prepare
for apifferent life. He says: " P am tired of a life of single blessedness, or

38

TBIAL OF MABY BTAKRIS.

rather single cussedness, and could live very happily with a pretty little blackeyed', curly-headed lady, 'whose name-1 will not mention." Thin letter was not •
finished until October 10, at which time the writer excuses himself by alleging
eoutimVed'confinement at business, He uses the most endearing expressions in
this letter, and says that those who in religious faith worship1 another Mary do
not do so more earnestly than he does the Mary he adores; lie asks her why
she can't come to liim, and says if he had money they would not long be separated. He hopes theymxry' meet before three months, and ends the letter with
the words, " Yours, lovingly."
, Letter dated October 12, 1860, and addressed; " My dearest Mollie." The
recipieht of the letter is' invited to visit Fairfield on the ensuing Wednesday.
He suggests to her to come, and not to go to a friend's, but to meet h t o .at the:hotel. If it is not agreeable for her to meet him at Fairfield, he suggests a
meeting at Mount.Pleasant, and suggests she should5 be at the hotel there also.
ITe alinost Begs for the interview. :
'...'.>'
Letter dated Chicago, February 11th, 1861. This letter is addressed " M y \
dear Mollie," arid is signed A. J. Burroughs, the. only letter thus far produced'
which, is signed by .his full name. He speaks of having, not yet seen an opportunity of making $10,000 a year, and Has the blues since he left : Burlington.
.'Letter dated Thursday, November 29th, I860, and; addressed'" My dear'
Mollie." The; writer complains that he does not hear from her, and says .he*,
fe&rs their"letters have been intercepted^ and that Mrs. H-—— has a knowledge
of the relations : they sustain to each other. The letter is followed by a fragk
merit, in which the writer expresses the fear that theircorrespondence has beerr,
intercepted and inspected by the Postmaster, and hy the priest. He was'
startled'at the discovery, arid" gives as a reason for'the inspection that it was
discovered Miss Harris contemplated marrying some one out of the church.
Letter dated Tuesday, August 27th, 1861, and addressed "My dear little
Mollie." The writer denies any indication' oi coldness towards his correspondent) and says there is a strong genuine attachment between them-, and one
which cannot be suppressed.
Letter dated Tuesday, September 10th, 1861, and addressed " M y dear little^
Mollie." The writer- speaks of the interest hebas taken in their correspondence^
for three yeags past; and he speaks of stolen kisses iri a back room of a fancy
goods store, where he was employed as a book-keeper ;; and that her'black eyes
always1 interfered with his book-keeping. This letter.was not ; finished'until;
Friday, wherein he says he may go to war.
/Letter dated Tuesday, October TO, 1861, and addressed "My dear little \
Mollie." He warns her against the-machinations'of ; some one, and says1 he
soon expects to go to Washington to get a major's1 commission; after which his5
business"' will require him to be in Iowa, and" he expects to be more with her.
Letter dated January 5; 1862, and addressed' "My dear little Mollie,"wherein he says that in the lowest chamber of his heart there burns a fire for
tlirice dear little Mollie. He longs for tho; time when he. can meet her and :
Have.a long interview with lier';
Letter dated January 19th, 1862, and addressed" "Dear Mollie." This letter
indicates that there had : been a misunderstanding between the correspondents,
and he says her requests shall all be complied with,, and he'will return'what- ;: •}
ever articles h& niay have of hers. "He- says she can burn his. letters if she;'
chooses to do so. Headds; in a postscript:.. "And must this be-the finale of our
enjoyment? Oh! my ©od, how bitter!''..
Letter dated Sunday, March 2; 1862, and addressed "Dear little Mollie,"
wherehi the ^riter refers to an interview in Burlington', and says he feels much:
happier after/it, and longs to-have it, repeated. He"doubts not she also feek
better satisfied.
'
"*'. .
'
./"„•':
Letters dated Sunday, April 13", 1862, and addressed " My dear girl," arid7December 28, 1862,;and addressed " M y dearest Mollie," were also read:. In,
one-of these the writer speaks of his early intimacy ; with his correspondent^

TB'IAfc OV MARY HARRIS.
:

39

'irr^i ^!ie was but twelve years old. andjiow that.intimacy ripened into love;
^ ^ j f t h e other be gives her advice.das to her course of conduct.
an ,
T- *A last letter read was a short one, dated- Washington, April 20, 1863,
il^sed"to "Pear little MoUie,"'and in which the writer says he does.not
u n?vefc what his prospects.:for.a position are, and he cannot suppress a feeling
^flnxiety as to those: prospects.
tfr Bradley announced that .there were two other letters, but he would not:
read them until a further stage of: the case,
.LOUISA. DEVLIN sworn,
;

-*j5i/ Mr. Bradley.

Q,, State where you were residing in the spring of 1863.

0 Were you engaged in business there, and if so, in what business:? A. I
was en.aa^ed\in the m.iilmery and fancy; business there.
\ n State if you removed from .Chicago : at any time, and where you went?
1 I moved from Chicago in July, 1864, to : Janesville,. Wisconsin.
Q State if at. any time you became acquainted:with the defendant, and if
so when-and where? A. I became acquainted with the defendant in March:
or April, 1863 in.Chicago.
.
Q, State if she ever came to reside with you, and the circumstances undejr
which she came? A. She told me : she had come to, Chicago to look out for. a
situation.
Q. Did she obtain one, and if so with whom? A. She did. I employed,
her from the 1st of May, 1863, as .a: clerk.
Q. State whether she has.or not resided with you. ever since, until.her,present
visir. to Washington? A. Yes, sir; and she resided with me until she came on,
to Washington.
Q. It is necessary, Miss Devlin,,for the jury to understand the relations.,
which subsisted between you. I wilt ask, yo.u whether she occupied; the same:
chamber and tke;sam.e. bed with you ? A, Yes, sir; until she. came here.
Q. What was her position under you? A. She was a clerk.
Q, State what was the condition of the health of Miss Harris during the
first five :Or: six months; and after- she came to live with you. A. Her health;
was good.
• 0/State what was. her temper and disposition during, that time. A. Her
temper was good, andJier disposition also,.
, Q. How as to; her spirits?- State whether she was. lively or melancholy?
A. She was very lively in disposition.
; Q. What did; you observe in regard to her going into society? A. She went
into no society whatever, except that that I was in. There wer.e very few that
we. associated with.
,
,,
Q Did you at any time, during the period that Miss Harris was. living, with
you, see the deceased, Mr. Burroughs?, A. I ; did. I s a w the deceased twice,at
our boarding house, in March, 1863, where she boarded.
Q Was• she boarding at the same house with you? A. Yes, sir. I saw
him, als.0; twice at my store, during that summer^
Q; State whom, he came to visit at that boarding house, and to whom he paid
his attentions ?- A. The first .time: I: heard him inthe hall at the boarding house
heasked for MisS: Mary Harris.; and .when, he came to my stote he asked me
for her. '
'.- Q. Did you see them at any time; during the interview, between them. A.
Yes, sir ;. I saw them;both during the.interview at the. boarding house, and m
;
my store,
: .
Q. Did you= learn, from him or. her, when, both were together at that time,
whether he. was paying his- attentions to her or not? A. I never had any
conversation with them;
>
.
>
^ vQs Did you at any time become aware of the fact that she received letters
%
from him ? ; A;. Yes, sir.
'
'
Q. Did;you ever see them? A. Yes, sir.

40 ,

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Q. Did you have an opportunity fco read the letters, so as>, to become acquainted with his handwriting? A. Yes, sir. ^
Q. State whether, after she had been residing with you some time, you
observed any change in Miss Harris,; and state about the time when you"observed such, change. A. Well,, the change was "after the marriage of Burroughs, in September, 1863 Previous to that time the cheerfulness of character which I have described, and kindly disposition continued.'
Q. You observed no change.in character before the time of which you speak ?
:1
A. No, sir.
,
''
' - -JT '•]
Q. State as accurately as you can how that change established itself? . A.
J
After the receipt oi'these anonymous letters, and feeling 'satisfied that-it was
Burroughs who. wrote them, she became -almostr frantic, and at such times she
would not know what she was doing or saying. • During that night she commenced .to cry, ,and continued crying almost incessantly for two-or three days,
Q. How long did she remain in that condition ? A. For many weeks. T£at
is, continued so almost incessantly for two or three days, and" then at intervals
for two or three ^weeks; sometimes. QYevj night, and sometimes two or three
nights in a week.
«
'
" '.
^
.
Q. Did she, during that time, continue to occupy the same bed with yourself? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do- you recollect whether you called in the aid of any ^physician at that
time, and if so, who ? A. I did about a month after that time—Dr. Fitch, of
Chicago.
Q. Up to the'time you thus called in Dr. Fitch, had you noticed anything in
regard to her sleep—whether she slept soundly or not ? A. She slept but very
little. • ' : ' ;
'
'
> • # . .
Q. State whether, after Dr. Fitch.Had been called in, and during the winter
of '63-64, you remember any remarkable incidents in her conduct; and if so,,
repeat them as far as you can? A. When Dr. Fitch prescribed for her, one of
his prescriptions was, that she was to sleep long in the morning,
Q. Before or after breakfast ? A. After.
Q. She was to have her breakfast in bed ? A. Yes, sir. One morning, -when
I had scarcely perceived it was daylight, I saw her dressing. I said nothing ;
and supposing me to be asleep, after she was dressed /she came to the bed, and
leaning over me,.said: " I have to leave you, but I am sorry to have to leave
you." I put out my hands and caught her around the neck, and asked her
what she was.going to do.* She would not tell me. I insisting on knowing,
she then said she was! going/to have a walk on the lake shore.
Q. Was she quiet in her manner at that time ? A. She was rather insensible.
She looked to me as if she did not know what she was doing or saying. Wheri
I caught her around the neck, I Ihought she was going to run out of the room.
I then got h e r to undress herself and get into Bed.
Q. Do. you now recollect what period of the year- that was ? A. It was in
November.,
••
?Q. After that, do you recollect anything remarkable in her conduct that
happened during the same winter ? A. Shortly after, she. went into the yard
one day with a large window brush, and struck my sister two or three times
over the head, without any provocation whatever from her.. " ••
•
Q,. Do y6u ; remember any other incident during that, winter ? A. Yes, sir.
She was, not feeling very well one' evening, and' she called me to the bedside,
and held me/by the wrists. I begged her several times to let me go; but no ;
she; held",me tighter, seeming to have more strength than usual. i She held ; me
for about a quarter of an hour. That she did several times.
'<$. 'Bo f ou remember any,other incident during that ye^r, and before you.
went to Jan'esville ? A. I remember of many instances where she commenced
to tear up books,/;clothing, and anything that she could lay her hands on. At
another time she ran at my sister with a carving-knife/ to stick hevi That wa's;
the second Sunday in January, d864. v
'^
";)
Q>. Do you know what had passed between them just before then, and what

41

TfiUL OP MARY HARRIS.

v tl e subject of conversation ? A. No, sir. We were at dinner; and with^> S nvthing being said that could at all offend her, she got up and ran at her
°Y'h a knife, to stick her.
W1
d You did not hear your sister make any remark to her yourself, before this
>t ck with the carving-knife? A, No, sir. My sister often told me that she
W

*Q How did you manage,to prevent her striking your sister with the carv"n<7-knife? A. I held her by the shoulders. Then she tried to leap out of the
window into the street. I had to open the door and let her go, but sent my
sister out to watch where she went. She at first ran around the street, not
antsarently knowing where to go, but at last went into the Tremont House. I
went and tried to get her home, but she would not come,: It was then near
dark • and when it got dark she came home by herself.
Q 'Was that the evening you got Mr. 0. H. Harris to go after her. ? A. Yes,
Q He is no relation of hers, as 1 understand ? A. No, sir.
Q Do you know of any subsequent-instances of excitement before you went
to Janesville? A. Yes, sir; many. One. little instance that happened/at
Janesville,, some eight or ten days befor.e she came down to Washington, I
remember particularly.
Q That was last December, then ? A. Yes, sir. My sister, (not Jane, but
another sister,) having opened a handsome silk quilt that she was piecing, to
show it to us, Miss Harris looked down at it, then took hold of it, and commenced tearing it.
: Q. Describe what kind of a quilt this was? A. I t was a fancy silk quilt,
pieced.
1

'

t

•

,

Q, What did she say when she took hold of, it ? A. She did not say anythm<7. She seldom ever spoke when she was in those excited ways.
Q.GHow was she prevented from tearing that quilt to pieces? A. I took itfrom her, and then succeeded in getting her into her room, when she hallooed
repeatedly,/' Let me out, until I spread all the preserves in the house over the
carpets."
Q State whether, on such occasions, you required any assistance in holding
her, or whether her strength was the same as usual, or not? A. Yes, sir; when
in these spells, I had oftentimes to have assistance. Her strength was much
greater on such occasions.
Q. Now, we will go back to 1863. You say you have seen Mr. Burroughs's
handwriting often enough to be able to distinguish it? A. Yes, sir.
Q, Were you in court yesterday when the letters from Burroughs to Miss
arris were read? A. I was."
• ' ' . '
Q. Do you recognize them as any of the letters you heard read ? A. I recognized them all.
Q, State whether this letter,, dated Chicago, August 7, 1865, (handing witness the same,) is in the handwriting of Mr. A. J. Burroughs ? A. It is.
The letter was admitted, and read by Mr. Bradley, as follows •
• >
• .
, . CHICAGO, Aitgust 7,1863.
DEAR MOLLIE : I am again in town for a few days, and wish to see yon.
Drop me a note to box 6982,,stating where I can see you.
'Very t r u l y /
: A.-J. BURROUGHS.
Q. State whether you saw, that letter at or about the time it was received by
Miss Harris, and where you saw it? A. I do not recollect where I saw that
letter, but she, read me the letter, though at the time I did not see the handwriting. '
.
Q. Now, look at this envelope and the letter therein enclosed, (handing witness the same,) and state whether you saw it. at or about the time of its date ?
A. 1 saw this on the day she received it.
. Q, In whose handwriting, in your judgment, is that letter ? A. In my judgment it is in the same handwriting, as the others—Burroughs's.
.
Q In the meanwhile, or immediately or shortly after the date of that .first

?

42

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

letter, of 7tk of August, had you seen, Mr. Burroughs, and where did you,see
him? A. I saw him about five or six weeks before:he was married.; the date
I do not know He called at my store to see Miss Harris.
Q. State whether or not he had any interview with Miss Harris at that time,?
A. Yes, sir. He remained in my store then with her.for about an hour, or an
hour and^a half. -Q. Did you see him at the store at any other time? A, Yes, sir; I had seen
him at the store ohce before.
Q„ Are you able to say Miss Harris never saw him after this interview of
which I speak ? A, Never that I know of.
Q. State whether or not she was constantly in the store for months before the
receipt of. this-letter. She was. '
•. •
^
Q>, Gould she have left, so as to have had an interview with him anywhere ?
A. No, sir. She coiild not have been gone an hour without my knowing where
she was. .She and I went and returned from the store, and also remained and;
slept together.
•
• •
Q. State, as well as you can" recollect, all .-in regard tpthis last letter I showed
you—fchisYletter of September 12; where you saw it,,and"all the circumstances
connected'with it. A. This letter I saw= when it came in the house. Miss Harris brought it from the post office. She read it, and then. remarked, c'1 Who .in
the world could have written the like of this ; to.me.f She read/it first to me,
and then I looked oyer it. I went and; inquired what kind- of a house it was ;
and, when I found out what ; sort ; of ; a place it was^ I : proposed, to answer the ;
letter, and find out who had written it.
Q. Bid she,- or you, or any one that you know.of, write-any answer to that
letter ? A. I wrote such answer, and signed her name.
Q. Just state, in regard to that letter, whether that is,.or? not, in.the-handwriting;of Mr. Burroughs?^ A. ,Yes, sir:; Lthink it,is. '" : .
[Witness was handed letter dated^ 12th of.Septemherj 1.863, the.handwriting
of which she identified1 as: that of* Burroughs,]
.
' ' {'
Q. State'when- and1 where:you firsts saw that letter?: A, This Miss Harris,
also brought in from the post office.
Q. JDid:you see her open it-/ and see the contents of the. letter? A, Yes, sir.
Mr. .Wilson. What is the:date of thafe? A. 12th.of September.
The letters referred to were then read, and.offered. in : evidence. They are, fs
followsC^ioAGPi September 8th, 1861.
Miss MOLLY HAHEIS, CHICAGO—Z)ear Molly: I am aware that it is, stepping,
somewhat beyond the bounds of { true: propriety for- a ; comparative r stranger t l j
address a note, to a ; young lady requesting her to meet him, but my hope is that 3
you will excuse the presumption and : accede to my; request/. Lhaye : had,the
pleasure of seeing you several times, but never-have, had- the.horior : of an
introduction. Now,' my dear Molly•,£ have * some. things i to say, to you which
I know you will be glad' to hear, and I know of no better way to say them
than- for you to meet me, say on Friday, September 11th, at 9.4,Q,uincy street,,
at otie'and-arhalf o'clock in the afternoon. I: am perfectly, well.- acquainted
with the lady who keeps the house, and I know-that we can talk there without
interruption.' You will, perhaps,^ have some hesitancy in coming* hut?you need
notjiave s: as-P can assure you my sole motive in requesting thelnterview is that
we may-become acquainted; and; that mutual friendship.;may result from it. I
am confident I can convince you with a few words of conversation, that my sole
desire- is .to be your friend; anoV I/think a; meeting would;, do us. both good. Will
you come T Bo;
' '
' .
If you would rather I would see you at some; other place, write-where, and. I
will come. If you, think: it improper to, meet mef Thope: you : will at least
answer this note and : state your objections;
'"' •
Your friend; }
J. B. aREENWOOD.

TRIAL OP HABY HARRIS.

43

CHICAGO, September 12, J 863.

TIFAB Miss MOLLY: Your favor of Thursday was duly received, and I was
••••',' to lead that you could not come ; at the hour I appointed
Unfortunately,
T^fad previous business engagement at half-past three o'clock, which is= m y
-u^e for not coming. My engagement was of such=a nature that it was almost
^o^sibTe for me to neglect it; I should have been most happy to have seen
ia
-in a " l have been absent from t h e city since Friday night; have just returned
Ki<! evening, and I now embrace the first leisure moment to say to you that I
vd^ see you on Tuesday, at half-past two o'clock, at the place formerly
I
(UQianated. (94 Quincy street,) provided it is perfectly satisfactory to you.
<urt very anxious to cultivate your acquaintance, which I think will result to
our mutual good, and 1 hope you will grant me the privilege of proving to you
that I desire only to be your friend.
I will here say I have had the pleasure of seeing you several times, but
aever have-had an introduction.
If V:Ou cannot come at the time I have appointed, please say by note when
you can come; or, if you prefer seeing me at some other place than 94. Quincy,
if vouwill be kind enough to state the time and place, Twill, if possible, see
y0U

*

Your friend,

J. P . GREENWOOD.

Q. I understand you to say t h a t you wrote the- answer to that, and signed
the name-: 0 f Miss Harris. A. Yes, sir.
" Q What did you do with the answer to the ; letter of the 8th? A. I mailed
it mvself.
Q," Can you recollect whether or not you gave any instructions to tli& postmaster in regard to that letter of September' 12; 1863? A. I showed the
envelope and the address to the clerk in the- post office, and told him to look
particularly at the person who called for that letter, and describe him to me
when I called. H e said lie would do. so. I told him to look particularly-at
bis. hand.
Q. For what purpose did you give that instruction to the clerk ? x^:. For-the
purpose of identifying the person who wrote 1 -the letter.
;
Q. Did you call at the post office at anytime; and; if so, how soon after you
had deposited that second letter? A. T deposited-the letter on the 12th, the
day it was written.
'•' Q. When did you call for the answer?: A. I- called1 for the answer-on Monday, the 14th.
Q. Was that the next day ? A. I deposited the letter on Saturday the 12th,
ihd; on Monday the 14th, called for the answer-.
:
: Q. Who,- if anybody^ went with you when you called-for that answer-? A.
Fwvent first-myself.
- Q,-. Did you afterwards go again the same day?' A. Yes; sir.
••'-Q. Did anybody then go with you? At. Yes; sir.;; Miss Harris.
Q. State what passed; between you in her presence in regard to the person
who got that letter? A. He described the man to us. He said he was a man
who weighed about 170 pounds; that he had black hair, a heavy black beard,
L rather pretty hand for a man of his size:, was of*medium height; and: on his
V
;
finger wore a set ring!
'
_
•
(J. Did he describe the-ring? : A. He did; I-do not remember the description, however, but. Miss Harris turned^ round and said,. " That is the ring- I
gave Mr. Burroughs "
Q. Do you know whether or not; after this description was given, a photograph was exhibited to him ? A. Miss Harris handed the clerk the photograph.
i;: Q,. Isj or is not, that the^ photograph ? (handing witness a carte-de-visite.)
A. That is it.
'
_; Q. What did he say when that was exhibited to him?'- A. After looking at
=
ifc; he said, " Well, yes;" and then hesitated1; but afterwards1 added, " T do not

44

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

know, as the beard on this is higher than he wore it." I asked him how much
higher. He said, "Well, I guess something about an inch." ^
Q. Did he say "any thing about the dress ? A. He said that it might be the
same person; that he could tell more accurately if this person was in the clothes
he appeared in when he came to the post office, He said the person who called
for the letter was in citizen's dress, with a heavy outside coat on.
Q. Miss Devlin, you have seen him often enough to know whether that is his
photograph or not? A. Yes, sir, it is. I saw him in his military
uniform.
Q. Where did you and Miss Harris go after the interview at the post office ?
A. We went home.
Q. Describe to the jury, as well as you can, what effect was produced upon
Miss Harris by this information ? A. She got very much excited, and said she
never thought he would turn out to be such a rascal.
Q. Do you know, of your own knowledge, whether or not that same day she
started to go out to the place where she supposed Mr. Burroughs to be? A. I
went out on that same day myself (Monday, the 14th) to call upon the Rev. Dr.
Burroughs, to know from him if his brother was in town.
Q. After making- this inquiry, what was done.with Miss Harris that you
know of? A. Miss Harris, when she learned that he had been in town, was.
more confident that it was him.
Q: Do you know whether sjie went herself to Dr. Burroughs and took letters;
and if so, what letters ? A. She said she would go the next day and return his
likeness, and all the letters she had of his, to Dr. Burroughs, and would let him
know what a great rascal his brother was,
Q. Did she leave your house ? A- She did.
Q. Did she take, anything with her? A. She did; all the letters.
Q. Did she take the two anonymous letters also? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long was she gone ? A. I could not say exactly, but she might have
been gone over two hours.
Q. when she returned did she bring back all the letters, or not? A. She
brought them all back. She said she showed the anonymous letters to Dr.
Burroughs, and he tried to persuade her to think that it was hot his brother
who had written them. She then said he acted in such a strange manner
towards her, his hand trembled, and she thought there was some plot between
him and his brother about the affair. She did not tell him she had these other
letters, but concluded to bring them'back again. -It was on the 15th of September she went there. She also told me that she saw A. J. Burroughs coming
in in the cars as she was going out; that he poked his head out of the cars and
looked at her.
Q. You mean the horse-cars running out to the University? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether she went with any one else; and if any one,;who,
to make further inquiries before she had gone to Dr. Burroughs, as to the
identity of the person who Wrote these letters? A. Yes, sir; my sister and
Miss Harris went to the assignation house on Quincy street.
, Q. Was that before or after she had been to Dr..Burroughs? A. Before. It
was the day that I went out.
Q. State whether, when she gave you an account of her interview with Dr.
Burroughs, she stated that she had learned from him that his brother, A. J.
Burroughs, was in Chicago. A. She said he said his brother was in Chicago
for sometime, but that he was not in Chicago at the time the first letter was
written. He was not in Chicago on the 8th of September, and that he had
left the second day before that for Washington.
*
Q. Do you recollect ever having seen a pistol in the possession of Miss
Harris? A. Yes, sir.
Q. State about what time—as early a day as you, can recollect—when you
saw that pistol in her possession. A. I t was sometime last fall; I cannot telL
as to the day or the month.
Q, State where and under what circumstances you saw it. A. I asked her

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

45

"hat ibe had done with some money that I knew she had had. She did not
V Ll
'
had bought
A
tell mi but said shetold me thatsomething. she few days afterwards she showed
pistol and
was what
had done with the money. I
id. jher what she had bought it for. She said she was hot the only lady who
asked
'ied a pistol. Shortly afterwards she said to me that she believed Pr. Burcarri«
roughs! and his brother had some plot against her. Whether she said it in
referentce to the pistol or not, I do not know. It was during that same day she
^Q. State what she said about that. A. I asked her what plot they had?
She sa:id it was to pick her up on the street and run away with her where she
.,«*«
<
^
would never be seen.
(T i)id you ever see any loose cartridges or powder in her trunk ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Xt what time was that ? A. About the same time that I saw the pistol.
She
x ^aid [to her, you do not know how to use it, what did you buy it for?
I said
admitted she did not know how to use it • and then showed me these cartridges
as belc-nging to it.
Q Bid you ever hear of her practicing with it in any way at all? A. No,
sir.* if do not think she knew how to charge it.
Q. between what streets is No. 94 Quincy street? A. I think it is between
Monrob street and Adams. It is a small, very narrow street—a kind of alley.
Q. Did you or not make inquiries as to the reputation of that house ? A.
I did. I
Q. "What is its general reputation ? A. Bad.
Objected to by the District Attorney, and objection overruled.
Q. Jid you communicate to Miss Harris, or aid she with you ascertain what
the character of that house was? A. I ascertained'and told her. I told her
that I (was informed it was one of the worst assignation houses in Chicago.
js-examination:
Tilson. Where did you reside before you went to Chicago ? A. In
riore. I resided there nine years.
Vhere did you reside prior to that time ? A. In Ireland.
7hen did you go to Chicago ? A. In March, 1863.
Vhat members of your family went with you ? A. One sister—Jane,
inhere was your place of business in Chicago ? A. No. 186 Clark street.
* Q. Inhere was your residence ? A. I boarded on Monroe street. I forget
the number. It was the fourth house from Clark street.
Q v About what time precisely did you make the acquaintance of Mary Harris, and under what circumstances ? A. I met her in that boarding-house about
a week after I went to it; and I went to' it in the latter part of March, 18 63.
Q. Who introduced you to her? A. The lady of the boarding-house.
Q,. Had you ever known or seen her before that time ? A. No, sir.
Q. jVhat was the name of the lady who kept the boarding-house ? A. Mrs.
Laceyj
Q. J[ow far from your boarding-house was the store ? A. Not more than a
block.!
Q Who were her friends there ? A. She did not have any friends that I
knowjof, other than the few acquaintances she formed in the boarding-house.
Q. What books and newspapers was she in the habit of reading ? A. She
did not read much, except newspapers; Q. What newspapers particularly ? A. Well, I do not know that she read
any iii particular. She read any she got, I guess.
Q. What were her habits as to attending church? A. She attended her
church regularly.
•
•
Q. Did you attend the same church? A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. How often during the week ? A. Every Sunday.
Q. How often during the day? A. Once or twice a day ; sometimgs three
:
times.l
•
'
•
'^
Q. pid you ever attend on week days ? A. Not usually.

46

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

;Q.. Bid she have any attendants—any beaux, any admirers? A. No, sir,
Q. Did you ev§r know of her going out into society—to parties ? A. She
has been to the t h e a t r e s few times ; that is all.
Q. Who did she. go with? A. Some of her friends from Barling ton.
Q. Young gentlemen ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who were they ? A. I have heard their names—been introduced to them;
but real J y I have forgotten.
Q. How many times do you suppose she went to the theatre ? A. Only five
or six times a year.
Q,. Did you go with her? A. Sometimes I went with her.
Q. Did you .'ever, during that time, see any exhibitions of ill-temper ? A.
None at all.
^
Q,. Did you ever hear any impatient or hasty remarks during that time? A.
No, sir.
'
Q. Did you ever know of her being particularly unwell during that time?
A. No, sir ; only once she had a sore throat.
Q. Have you heard her make any complaints in regard to her health during
that time ? A. Y'es, sir, a little.
. Q. Was there any difference in her behaviour at such times ? A. No, sir.
Q. Any change in her ^spirits? A. No, sir.
Q. Had you during that time heard her.mention the name of Mr. Burroughs?
A. Yes, sir. She told me she was going to be married to him in July.
Q. When did she first tell you that? A. I could not say exactly; but a few
weeks after I became acquainted with her.
,Q. How often did: she repeat it? A. I do not know how often ; bat a great
many times.
'
'
Q. What else did she say to you about him? A. Well, T cannot recall all
she said; but she said a great deal;
Q Express regard for him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How frequently was he mentioned? Every day ? A. That I could not
say; but perhaps sometimes every day, and sometimes two or three times a
week; very often, anyhow.
Q. And you read all his letters that she received ? A. I read a great many
of them. Whether I read them all or not I do not know.
Q. When did you see Mr. Burroughs ? A. I saw him a few days after he
came to the boarding-house and called on her.
Q. For how long a,time did you see him? A. He remained about an hour.
;Q. Were you present during the whole time ? A. I was only present five or
ten minutes.
'Q. When did you see him again? A. At the boarding-house, in March or
April. V
Q, When again? . A. In my store.
Q. When was that? A. I could not say what month it was when I first saw
him at my store, or what day of the month. It was sometime during the summer.
Q,. Y/ho did he call to see ? A. Miss Harris.
Q,. Did he see her ? A. No,'sir. She was not in.
.Q, When did you next see him ? A. In my store, about five or six weeks
before, he was married; that is, before I saw the marriage published.
Q. When did you see the notice of his marriage? A. A few days after it
was published.
Q. Did he see Miss Harris this last time when, he called ? A. Yes, sir.
.Q. WThere ? A. In my store.
= Q. Were you present during the whole interview ? A. No, sir; but I was in
view all the time
Q. Did she go out with him? A. No, sir.
Q..JI0W long was he there ? A. From an hour to an hour and a half.
Q.^Ih the front part of the store ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you see him again ? A. I did not see him again.

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

47

0 On which of these occasions was it that he wore his uniform? A. On the
.rasions of his coming to the boarding-house both times.
visions
°°0 l~Do vou know what was his rank? A. No, sir. Miss Harris told me he
Vr

*0 '"Who else lived with you, of your family, in the house, at that time, who
ere en^a^ed in the store ? A. I had other parties engaged; none but my
sister of m? family lived with me.
0. How many persons did you employ m your store? A. That is my businL

0,' Vhen did you see this first letter ? A. I could not say exactly. It was
a few davs after, but I do not know how many.
'' 0. State the conversation that occurred between you and Miss Harris when
she^showed it to you ? A She asked me where she should see him, or where
she could see him, for she*would like to see him. I told her she could see him
at the boarding-house, or at my store. That is all the conversation that
•passed.
_.
0 -Bo vou know whether or not she did see him? A.. No, sir,; he didn't
call then." The next time she saw bum, which was at my store, but I cannot
tell the date, she told me that he apologized to her for not seeing her before,
as he proposed in his letter; that lie liaa called and knocked at the door, but
couldn't get in.
Q What door ? A. My door.
Q, How long after this letter, dated September 8,1863, was received by Miss
Han is. was it before it was shown to you? A. On the morning of the 8th,
when she brought it from the post office.
Q, Who was present when it was brought from the post office ? A. Nobody
buiTmy sister and myself.
Q. Who brought it ? A. Miss Harris herself.
Q Then she had been out of your sight? A. Yes, sir; she had been down
to the post office for not more than two or three minutes.
Q. How far is the post office from your stoie ? A. .About half a block.
Q. You looked at that letter carefully, and have now no hesitation in saying
that it is in his handwriting? A. No, sir.
Q,. You are positive it is his handwriting? A. I am.
Q. What resemblance do you see between this letter and the other letters that
were shown you? A. I see a general resemblance, and particularly the " Chicago " That looks precisely the same
Q. Here is one dated February 11; you observe the " Chicago" there. Will
you state any points of resemblance in these two letters?
Beience object to this course of examination. Objection sustained.
Q. When did you answer this first letter, of September 8 ? A. On the same
day—in the morning.
Q. Bid you show the answer to Miss Harris ? A. Yes, sir,
Q. Bo you remember the day of the week when the second letter was
received ? A. Yes, sir ; Saturday, the 12th of September. I know it was Saturday, because I marked it down in a small pocket-book., I do not know where
the book is now. I made a memorandum of the fact that Miss Harris received
a certain anonymous letter on the 12th.
Q Why did you make that entry in the book ? A. Because 1 wanted to find
out who had written that letter, and when.
Q. You did not make an entry of the receipt of t i e first letter ? A. No, sir.
Q. Who showed this second letter to you? A. Miss Harris, in my store. She
went and got other letters, and compared them with this, and then said, "Look
here, these are in the same handwriting!"
Q How long after this letter was received was it that this comparison was
made, and tins conclusion arrived at? A. Right at the time.
Q, AVas your sister present at the time ? A. Yes, sir.
*
Q. Bid she say she thought it was Burroughs's writing ? A. Yes, sir.
Q - You say on Monday, the 14th, you went to Br. Burroughs's, for the pur>

48

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

pose of inquiring if his brotlier was in town ? A. Yes, sir. When I asked hira
the question, he crossed the floor before answering me* then returned, and said:
" No,, my brother is not in town. He left last evening for Washington." Then
he asked me if I was from Iowa.
Q. What time in the day was it you made this call? A. In the afternoon;
somewhere between two and four o'clock.
Q. Was any thing else, but what you have repeated, said by Miss Harris at
the time when this letter was first read, except what you have stated ? A. She
said he was a great rascal for—after having corresponded with her for so long,'
been engaged to be married to her, thinking as much of him as she did, and he
thinking as much of her as he had led her to believe he-did—trying to bring
her to an assignation house. This she said quite often. .
Q. What would be her manner when so talking? A. She would be very
much excited.
Q. What time on Monday was it that you called on this clerk at the post
office ? A. About noon.
Q;' Do you know who that clerk was ? A. I do not.
Q. Had you ever seen him before? A. No, sir,
Q. Do you know his name ? A. I have heard i t ; but I have since -forgotten it.
Q. What kind of a looking man was he? A. I could not exactly say.
Q. Did he wear whiskers ? A. Yes, sir.
• Q. Do you see him in this court room? A. I do not know as I would be
able to recognize the man now, it has been so long ago. I think he was a middle-aged man. He stood at the gentlemen's general delivery.
Q. What did he say about the ring ? A. That he wore a set ring on his little finger.
Q. Was any thing said about there being a number of persons in Chicago
who looked like that picture? A. No, sir.
Q. I understood you to say that you made inquiries as to the reputation of
this house. Of .whom did you make those inquiries? A. Of a house opposite,
where there was a washerwoman's sign up, and afterwards of a detective, whose
name I forget.
Mr. Bradley. Lambert was the name, I believe.
Q. Was the doctor attending Miss Harris at the time she struck your sister
with the window brush ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were the relations existing between your sister and Miss Harris at
that time ? A. They had never had any difficulty, whatever, before.
Q. How many times did she strike your sister ? A. Some three or four times
before I succeeded in taking the brush from her.
Q. Were the blows violent ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did your,struggle for the brush continue? A. Some ten or fifteen minutes.
Q. What was her manner while she held the brush in her hand? A. She
did not speak, but she looked very much excited and wild.
Mr. 'Carrington. What were the peculiar duties of Miss Harris while in your
employ ?' A. She kept my books.
Q. And had general supervision of the store ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. She was the only one you had employed at that time as clerk ? A. That
is my business.
Q. After you observed* these little irregularities of which you have spoken,
did you continue her in your employment? A. Yes, sir.
Q,. Put as much confidence in her, as before ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And allowed .her the same privileges ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. "Did you have occasion to mention these peculiarities to any of her friends?
:
A. Yes, .sir, to one.
,
Q. Who was that? Mrs. Harris, in Chicago.
Q. Why did you mention it to her? ,A. Because she was an intimate acquaintance of hers, having known her in Burlington.

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

49

o Ls this Mrs- Harris at all connected with the family of the prisoner ? A.
0 " Had the prisoner a father at that time ? A. She has a father still.
Q Did you mention these facts to him ? A. I never was acquainted with
0 Did you ever consult the superintendent of the Insane Asylup, or express
-iv"desire to any one to havener confined? A. No, sir.
6 iid y oa e v e r ^ a v e o c c a s ^ o n ^° restrain her liberty in any way? A. No,

3,1

SU

Q Did you observe at that time that she had an appreciation of her duties,
and "the moral qualities of any act that she committed—was capable of deciding
what was right and wrong, as well as at other times ? A. Yes; sir; I observed
X

Q' At this time, after you had observed these irregularities to wbich you
have testified, did you observe any change in the state of her mind or morals ?
A Yes, sir.
n State what change in her morals you observed? A. When she would bein these excited fits she would try to get out on the street. She acted entirely
different from what she did at other times.
Q. Was she at such times incapable of judging between right and wrong?
A Yes, sir.
Q. How long would these attacks last? A. Sometimes they would last five
or six hoars.
Q. Then they would pass off? A. Yes, sir.
Q,. Then it was only during this temporary illness that you observed these
exhibitions to which you have testified? A. Sometimes she would not be ill at
all when she would take them.
Q. Did you ever see her guilty of any violence to any of your customers ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever see frer attempt to make an attack upon any person who
came into the store, or upon any one except members of the family ? A. Yes,
sir: upon one lady.
Q. who was that? A. AJady in Chicago.
Q,. Where did that occur ? A. In my store. She took up a very heavy pin cushion, that bad a brick in it to make it lay flat, that was lying on the table
and threw it atber.
Q. Had this lady been saying anything to her? A. She was speaking to us
all.
Q,. What were you talking about ? A. I do not remember.
Q. Had she ever seen this lady before ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she hurt the lady ? A. The lady said she did.
Q,. Nothing serious ? A. No, sir.
Q. She never did any serious injury to any one? A. No, sir.
*Q. I will ask you if she was not a quick-tempered girl ? A. Yes, sir. When
she would become nervous she would be quick tempered; but she was not so at
other times.
Q. When you and Miss Harris were consulting about these anonymous
letters, and suspicion came into your minds that they were from Burroughs,
why did you not advise Miss Harris to write to Burroughs on the subject,
knowing the intimacy that existed between them ? A. Because I thought she
would not get a direct answer from him if she did write. He was not going to
tell her that he had written these letters.
'
Q. Hadn't you known Mr. Burroughs to be a man of high character previous
to that? A. I did not know what his character was. .
Q. About this pistol. She was in your employment at that time,,and a friend
of yours. Did you not suggest to her the impropriety of her carrying a pistol ?
A. I did not.
...
Q. Did you threaten to discharge her from your employment if she did not
abandon the habit of carrying this pistol ? I did not.

50

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Q. Bid you inform her father about it. by letter or otherwise ? A. I did not
Q. In referring to this engagement of marriage, did the prisoner ever speak
of being engaged to any one else ? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you recollect the last time you saw the prisoner before she started for
Washington? A. I think it was the last day in December.
Q. Do you know where she went? A. She said she was going to Washington, to sue ^Burroughs for a bread) of promise of mairiage.
Q. Did she toll you she was going through Baltimore? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she have a'pistol at that time? A. I do not know whether she had
or not. I forgot to ask her about that.
Q. Did she ever tell you that the reason of her engagement being broken"off
with Burroughs was owing to her being engaged to some one else? A. No, sir.
She never told me she was engaged to any person but him.
By Mr. Bradley. Did she ever tell you that the engagement between herself
and Burroughs was broken off? A. No, sir.
Q. And up to the time of the receipt of these letters, have you any knowledge of her receiving attentions from anybody else except Burroughs ? A. No,
sir.
Q. Did you ever know of Miss Harris being in the habit of carrying a pistol ?
A. No, sir. I never saw her carrying it.
Q. You were asked as to the last time you saw Burroughs. You stated that
Miss Harris wrote to him, telling him where he could see her. Do you recollect
whether you told him he could see her at your store on Sunday? A. Yes, sir:
I did. "
"
Q. lie did not come on that Sunday ? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you there with her ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long afterwards was it that he came and bad this interview?
A. Very soon afterwards. I do not know whether it was two or three days.
Q. You were asked how long you resided in Baltimore before you went to
Chicago. 1 ask you who you knew in Baltimore. If you knew Armstrong &
Go. ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are they not friends of yours ? A. Yes. sir. Also Mr. Sam Shoemaker,
who keeps Adams' Express, and his wife.
Q You have one or two acquaintances in this city, T believe? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were asked why you did not communicate these peculiarities to her
father. State whether the relations between herself and father at that time
were friendly or not? A. She told me they were not
Q. Did she tell you the reason? A. Yes, sir. She said it was because she
corresponded with Mr. Burroughs ; that hei father did not consider his reputation to be a very good one
Q. State whether or not, in consequence of that, she had left her father's
house to go to Chicago, to seek employment? A. Yes, sir. She told me she
could not live with her father, and had to leave.
Dr. CALVIN M. FITCH sworn.

By Mr Bradley. What is your business? A. I am a physician in Chicago.
Q. State if you know the accused. A. I do.
Q. How long have you known her? A. I think somewhat more than two
years—two years and a half perhaps.
Q, Where did you become acquainted with her ? A. In Chicago.
Q. Have you attended her as a physician. A. I have.
Q. State, as well as you can recollect, when you were called in to see her.
A. 1 think I prescribed for her in the course of the spring or summer for some
trifling disturbance of the liver or something of the kind, but the first serious
difficulty I remember to have seen her laboring under was in the fall, I think,
of 1863..
Q. Where was she then? A. I think at that time with the Misses Devlin.
Q. From that time, state if you visited her again, and how often ? A. It is
exceedingly difficult for me to "tell how often I visited her for the reason of the

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

51

fact that the character of the entries in my book are such that I cannot very
well tell whether the calls charged to the Misses Devlin were made to them or
to Miss Harris.
Q. All the charges were made out in the Misses Devlin's name ? A. Yes, sir.
I looked at my books just before I came away to see if I could determine this
point. I think I can remember that there were consecutive calls made about
the 22d, 23d, 24th, 25th of September, and I think they were for her.
Q. Have you any recollection of how long after that you continued to visit
her ? A. I think I saw her at intervals of three or four weeks, f6r some two or
three months.
Q. During these visits, state whether or not the nervous system was much
affected. A. Very seriously indeed.
Q. State to the court* as a physician, how she was affected, and the effect of
that disease upon her mind. A. At the time to which I allude, I found her
suffering under severe congestive dysmenorrhcea, arising for the most part as a
consequence of the irritability of the uterus; and such uterine irritation always
affects the nervous system; in some subjects much more so than in others. In
some instances it developes into insanity; and, indeed, a disturbance of the
uterus—uterine irritability—is with females one of the most frequent causes of
insanity.
Q. Do you remember anything about her sleeplessness or nervousness. A.
Well, she generally alluded to that, as it is very generally an attendant
symptom; and I used to give her anodyne to quiet the nervous system and
induce sleep.
Q,. Can you describe to the jury any circumstance tending to show the
influence of this nervous affection upon ner mind, will, temper, or disposition ?
A. My intercourse with the whole family was entirely professional. I do not
remember ever to have been there except when I was called professionally, and
I knew nothing whatever of her social or private relations. I had not even
heard Mr. Burroughs' name mentioned at the time to which I allude. All that
I knew of her at that time was what I saw of her physical condition. I saw
that her nervous system was very much excited ; and she was suffering at the
same time a great deal of pain. Her eye was wild. On the occasion of the
first severe attack to which I allude, I think they had sent for me the day
before, but for some cause I did not get there until the following morning, if I
remember right. They told me she had been suffering a great deal. I think I
was told she had not slept during the night.
(j. Can you speak of any peculiar characteristic marking the eye? A.
Nothing especial, for the simple reason that I had no knowledge of any moral
cause that would affect the nervous system, and I attributed the wildness of the
eye merely to the pain and irritation consequent upon her physical condition,
believing that just as soon as the uterus was allayed the whole thing would
pass off. I paid no attention to it, but merely treated it as I supposed the
circumstances required.
Q. I ask you now, as an expert, " What is the effect, looked at from the
position of a physician, in such a case as you have described, of a moral cause
of disappointed affection, connected with the subject? A. We know that
among the moral causes of insanity, disappointed affection is one of the most
frequent; and we know that among physical causes, uterine irritation is one of
the most frequent. The combination of these two causes we should naturally
expect to produce a very much greater effect than either would induce alone.
Q. In a case in which there was not only disappointed affection, but where
the party believed, whether truly or falsely, that the relations which had subsisted between them had been broken off by insult and injury, what effect would
that have upon such a case ? A. Such an impression as that, whether correctly
or falsely produced, would naturally affect almost any person, even if such
person were not of a peculiarly nervous temperament. Such impression would
of course affect a nervous person much more; and it would affect with especial
force a person laboring under the peculiar physical disability to which I have

52

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

alluded; and combining the three causes together, you can see that the effect
produced upon the nervous system would be much more intense than any one
of them would produce singly.
Q In the medical history and treatment of such cases, what is the effect of
the sudden appearance, whether unexpected or not, of this moral affection?
A Always to excite, and generally to induce unwonted excitement on the part
of the patient.
The evidence of Policeman Walker and Secretary McCullough was here read
over to the witness, when the following question was propounded:
Q. Assuming that Miss Harris was contracted in marriage with the deceased,
that she had an ardent affection for him, and she believed, whether correctly or
falsely, that he had thus broken off the engagement and endeavored to inveigle
her into a house of ill fame, her physical condition being such as you have
described, what would be the effect of her meeting suddenly with the party
against whom she thought she had causes of accusation ? A. The effect most
necessarily and obviously would be the most intense nervous excitement; and
it might be that that excitement would be entirely uncontrollable Circumstances less than those have in many instances produced entirely uncontrollable
excitement—an irresponsible condition of the patient or subject Whether or
not in this case it did so, I am, of course, not able to say.
Q. Is there not a marked distinction between general insanity and paroxysmal insanity ? A. There is. There are many cases on record of paroxsymal
insanity. One case given by " Marque" corresponds with this very closely. A
young woman, a cook, in good health, and of good temper, but suffering from
dysmenorrhea, was, whenever she was laboring under these paroxysms of pain,
very violent, making murderous attacks with a knife upon all who offended
her. As the pain passed off, she would seem to recognize the nature of her acts,
and become as quiet and kind in her disposition as ever. There are other illustrations which I might cite of the effect of this physical disease upon the
nervous system and the mind, when the patient becomes the subject of what is
termed "emotional insanity," or a "homicidal impulse."
Q.# State whether or not, under such circumstances, the patient does not often
know exactly what he is doing, and yet find himself unable to control his
actions ? A Yes, sir. The case of Henrietta Cordier, who killed the child of
a neighbor, Madame Boline, against neither of whom she had any malice, is in
point. Instead of being influenced by malice, she had apparently courted the
good-will of the child for weeks, until finally succeeding one day in inducing
Madame B. to let her take the child to her chamber, cut off its head as soon as
she got it there. She remained in the room with the dead body for about two
hours, until the mother came and called for the child. Henrietta told her the
child was dead ; and when the mother came into the room, she threw its head
out into the street.
The witness cited another case of similar import coming under his own
observation
Q, You have heard the testimony of Mr. McCullough and Policeman Walker
read, and have been present in court to-day and heard the testimony given by
Miss Devlin. If the symptoms and indications to which you have testified, and
which you have heard from the lips of other witnesses, be proved—and if the
jury are satisfied of the truth of them—state whether, in your opinion, the party
was insane, and what was the nature and character of that insanity ? A. I
could not very well give a general answer to that. I would have to analyze it,
in order to give a correct idea of the matter. Assuming that all these moral
influences, of which we have spoken, as true, that she had been very much attached to him, and that, under such circumstances, she had encountered him in
the Treasury building and taken his life, I should at least be led to believe that
there was a strong probability of her laboring under mental alienation. I should
not be willing to swear positively that such was the case, because all these
causes might operate upon some patients, without inducing insanity—absolute insanity. Any person would naturally be much excited under such

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

53

circumstance*, and I think that that is nothing peculiar; but the contradictory statements that she makes to Mr McCullough and to the officer, who had
her in charge, are matters of a different character, and would look a great deal
more like a serious disturbance of the intellect. She would not be likely, under
euch circumstances, wilfully to tell a falsehood. Mr. McCullough evidently
thought she was telling the truth to him, and the officer seemed to think that
she was telling the truth to him from her manner; but there is direct contradiction there; and, if the witness is usually credible, such contradiction, under
such circumstances, would argue very strongly for a serious mental disturbance—mental alienation. And we know that all the causes had previously
existed, moral and physical, which might lead to such a mental alienation.
Q. Let me add another question in regard to a fact which I have not yet
p/oved, but shall shortly—that is, as to her just recovering from this trouble ?
A. That would increase the probability of mental alienation very greatly.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Wilson. Do you consider yourself an expert on the subject of insanity ?
A. I have the same acquaintance with it that any educated physician is expected to have.
Q. What experience have you had in the treatment of insane persons? A.
I have had no special experience, for the simple reason that insane persons are
generally carried up to the Insane Asylum, and placed under care there.
Q. You never have given the subject any special attention ? A. I have seen
quite a number of cases of that description. Few physicians make it a subject
of special study for the reason I have stated ; but every physician, if he be an
educated man, is expected to have a certain amount of knowledge on the subject. Many cases of insanity, arising as they do simply from some physical
cause, may not be carried to an asylum; and the physical cause upon which
such mental disturbances may have rested, would be treated by the physician,
and the patient perhaps remain at home. That is, in trivial cases.
Q. What was the degree of Miss Harris's health at the time you last saw her,
and what improvement had there been ? A. I think that the last time I prescribed for her the attack was not quite so severe as at the time I saw her in
September; but still she was suffering under a great deal of nervous excitement—
a great deal of pain. She seemed to be very despondent and melancholy about
this time. I think I had been in the family several times to prescribe for the
other ladies, and was then introduced to her. I think I saw her for the last
time during August or September, 1864.
Q. Why did you discontinue your visits ? Had a cure been effected? A. I
made no regular visits; simply went when called for.
Q, Will you describe, if you please, in what respect the symptoms described
on your visit were different from ordinary cases of difficult menstruation. A.
All cases of difficult menstruation are attended with more or less disturbance
of the nervous system. The difference is simply in the intensity—the degree,
Q. State whether there was in this case, while you attended her, any thing
peculiar—any symptom that was peculiar to the case, and that you had not
observed in other cases ?<^S?A. I am not aware that there was, except that it was
a very severe case. I t differed in intensity rather than in character. There
was a great deal of nervous excitement. I correct myself so far as to say, that
the disturbance seemed to be rather out of proportion to the amount of pain
which the patient seemed to have endured. That is the only modification I
should make. I have sometimes seen a patient suffer intense pain without
nearly so much disturbance of the nervous system as I have in others, where
the degree of pain was not so great. Hysteria may result from uterine irritation, and nearly always does.
Q. Were the symptomsin this case of such a character, that you considered
it a case of hysteria? A. We do not look for so much actual suffering in hysteria. We may have, and often do have, cases of hysteria without any great
amount of suffering on the part of the patient, or any great amount of previous

54

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

irritation. In cases of hysteria, too, it is sometimes difficult to determine
just how far the nervous symptoms are due to disease*and how far to habit.
Q. Will you state some of the most ordinary symptoms of hysteria. Is it
accompanied by insensibility ? A. Sometimes. I remember of once seeing a
case of what is called hysterical tetanus, where the patient appeared to be utterly insensible to any objects around her. Her eyes rolled up in her head, and
altogether she looked and acted wildly ; but in two or three hours resumed her
usual look and composure of manner.
Q. In hysteria is not there often exhibited a disposition to do violence ? A
There may be, but it is not often the case.
Q. Where such an exhibition is made is it not known to physicians generally that the disorder merely caused the desire, and the desire is never carried
into effect? A. The dividing line between actual insanity, caused by a disturbance of the uterus and hysteria, might be sometimes as difficult to draw as the line
between mental disturbance, arising from any strong emotion, and insanity as
a consequence of such emotion—as difficult as it is to tell when a chicken
ceases to be a chicken and becomes a hen.
Q. While you were attending Miss Harris did you find it necessary to resort to any unusual remedy ? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you resort to any extraordinary remedies for the purpose of preventing this strange conduct on her part ? A. I mentioned before, I think, that I
had no acquaintance with her except professionally. All that I knew of the
case was what I saw. I merely judged that the nervous excitement that she
exhibited arose from the physical cause, the existence of which I was aware of,
and prescribed for her on those grounds, knowing just as soon as that uterine
irritation was allayed this nervous condition would undoubtedly pass away.
Q. Did you see anything to lead you to suppose that there was any injury
to her capacity to control herself in regard to her acts ? A, As I named to the
counsel I merely saw her professionally, perhaps for five minutes at a time,
and, of course, I could have no opportunity whatever to form an opinion on
that point.
Q. During your visit did you have occasion to observe whether her power of
discrimination between right and wrong had been affected at all ? A. I do not
think any of my visits extended beyond fifteen minutes ; and no ethical question would be likely to come up in that time.
Q. After having heard that testimony read, and the alleged indications of
insanity exhibited, would you judge her to have been insane when she committed this act? A. What I said in regard to that was this : that the nervous
excitement that Miss Harris exhibited at that time might perhaps have been
nothing more than would have been exhibited by any person who suddenly
found herself under like circumstances. What looks to me most suspicious in
this case, and most like evidence of insanity, is the entirely contradictory
statement made by her to Messrs. McCullough and Walter.
Mr. Bradley. But you added to that, I understood, that if it were shown
that at that time she was just recovering from one of these attacks to which
reference has been had, that you should naturally expect, on any great cause of
excitement being brought to bear upon her at that time, a very much greater
impression would be produced upon her than at any other time ? A. Yes, sir;
it would naturally and necessarily be so.
SEVENTH DAY—WEDNESDAY,

July 12, 1865.

The court met at 10 o'clock.
There was again a large attendance, and a number of ladies occupied seats
inside the railing.
Miss LOUISA DEVLIN, recalled:

By Mr. Bradley. State whether, after the receipt of those letters in Septem-

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

55

you observed any change in the flesh—the physical condition of Miss
H*''-vU-~and if you did, state what it was ? A. 'Her flesh had fallen away.
0 Pievious to that time had she an ordinary amount of flesh, or more than
ordinary? A. Ordinary.
JAS-B DEVLIN sworn:

Bu Mr Bradley. You are the sister of Miss Louisa Devlin, and the one of
vhom Viie spoke as going to Chicago with her ? A. Yes, sir.
'•' Q Have you resided with'her there ever since? .A. Yes, sir.
Q Are you acquainted with Miss Mary Harris ? A. Yes, sir
Q State when and where you became acquainted with her ? A. On the 28th
of March, in Chicago, at my .boarding-house. I got an introduction to her from
the lady of the boarding-house.
Q. State whether or not since that introduction she has been with you, or
under "your eye, until she started for Washington? A. Yes, sir She has been
with me nearly all the time since, except when I go to the country in the summer time, which I usually do for two or three weeks
*
0 Do'voa recollect at or about what time she went into the employment of
your sisJLer ? A. On May 1, 1863,
* Q. What was the condition of her health at that time ? A. When I met with
hcAiie had good health, was very cheerful, and of good disposition
Q. Did you ever-see Mr. Burroughs, the deceased, in 1863? A. I have seen
Mr- Burroughs at the boarding-house two or three times The first time I saw
him was on the Monday after she came there. -She came on Saturday, and I
saw him on. the Monday following I met him at the door. He asked me if
Miss Harris was in, I told him she was not, and he wrote his name on a card,
and save it to me to give to her, which I did
Q^When did you see him again? A. The next evening, on a sofa, in the
parlor at'the boarding-house. Miss Harris was sitting on his lap, and he was
twisting her curls around his finger.
Q. When did you see him next ? A. I saw him a few evenings afterwards.
He was then at the door speaking to her, as I came into the passage. She had
a cold, and lie proceeded to muffle around her a shawl which she had on, and
told her to take good care of herself; keep in her bedrooni until she got rid of
the cold.
Q. After that,' when did you next see him ? A. Not until some time during
the summer, at our store.
.Q. State whether or not this good health, cheerful disposition, and good
temper continued with Miss Harris during that summer ? A- It continued
until the fall.
Q. You say you saw him some time in the summer at the store. Can you
recollect whether or not you had seen any letter from him written just before
that visit? A. I do not remember of seeing any letter. She showed me none.
Q. Was,there more than one visit at that time in the summer that you recollect? A. I remember seeing him again in the store a second time.
Q How long was the interval between the last time you saw him in the store
before these letters were received?. A. It was about five weeks, T think, after
this, that I saw the two letters referred to. I am not positive.
Q. Have you ever seen in her possession any letters purporting to have been
written by him? A. Yes, sir. 1 have seen several letters.
Q Hacl you seen them before the receipt of those two letters signed J. B.
•Greenwood? A. Yes, sir; some of them.
Q. You heard the letters read on day before yesterday. Did you recognize
any of those as the ones you saw ? A. Yes, sir.
- Q. Have you seen a sufficient number of those letters to enable >you to form
and express any opinion as to riis handwriting ? A. Yes, sir. I thought they
were in the same handwriting.
Q. When these letters signed " J . B. Greenwood" were produced, state
whether they were or were not, in your judgment, in the handwriting of the

56

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

deceased? A-. I thought them to be in the same handwriting as the letter she
had shown me, and which I had read—the letter of 7th August, 1863.
Q. Please look at this letter of September 8, and state when, where, and
under what circumstances, you first saw it ? A. I saw that letter with Miss
Harris the first time I saw it. I cannot state the day.
Q. Where wore you ? A. In our store.
Q State whether your sister wras or was not present? A. My sister was
present, and'took the letter from her, read it, and said she would answer it in
her name.
Q Was anything said that first time, as well as you can recollect, as to who
was the author of;that letter? A. There was nothing said as to who was the
author. None of us could guess. We had no suspicion regarding it.
•Q. State whether you ever saw this letter dated September 12, A. I also
saw that letter with Miss Harris.
Q. Do you remember where and when ? A. At our store, on Monday. I do
not know the day of the month.
A. State what passed at that time between yourself, your sister, and Miss
Harris in reference to that letter. A. My sister asked Miss Harris to go with
her to the post office to ascertain from the clerk who came for the answer to
the former letter.
Q. Did she go ? A. I do not know.
Q. Did they leave for the purpose of going-there ? A. Yes, sir
Q. State what passed on their return ? A. I do not remember what passed
on their return, more than Miss Harris told me a few days afterwards that she
had found out it was Mr Burroughs who wrote those letters, by the description
the post office clerk had given them, and that he wore a ring, which she had
given him, on his finger.
Q. State if you went with Miss Harris to make any inquiries as to who was
the author of that letter, and what you did in that respect. A. I went to the
house where Miss Harris was asked to go in those two letters—No. 94 Quincy
street.
Q. State what passed in Miss Harris' presence at that house? A. We rung
the bell and asked for the lady of the house. She came. Either I or Miss
Harris, I do not remember which, asked if the gentleman had called on the
Friday before to meet a lady there. She said "Yes, he had called at noon and
remained several hours, but that the lady did not come." She also said that
the gentleman had told her that the lady lived on Clark street; that her name
was Miss Harris; and told her he would take his seat by the window, that she
need not wait on the door, that he would go to the door himself when he saw:
the lady coming. I asked her to describe the person who called there. She
said that he was a man of medium size, rather round shouldered, and had black
hair and beard, with bright eyes.
Q. Did anything further^nass ? A. I asked if he belonged to Chicago. She
said he used to belong to Chicago, but was now engaged in Government employ
at Washington.
Q,. What further passed ? A. I asked her if she would not, if it was not too
much trouble, call at our store and we would show her a picture, to see
whether or not she would recognize it as the picture of the one who called at
her house. She said she would. She did call on a Saturday afternoon about
four o'clock, some two or three evenings after our visit; Miss Harris showed her
the picture of Mr. Burroughs.
Q. State whether or not that is the picture ? (Handing a carte d& visite to
witness.) A. It is.
Q,. State the effect produced upon Miss Harris when at the door of that house,
and after she had received this information from that woman ? A When we
first went to the house, she was perfectly cool, and asked the woman some questions, but soon got very much excited, and stopped asking any questions, but
stood silent, and trembled.
Q. State what you did in consequence of her excitement ? A. She got very

TRIAL OF MARY HAKKIS.
mU

57

j . iXGited;.and made two or three exclamations, saying "Oh that was Bur^h^! that 'he had wronged her, cruelly wronged her, and taken her from her

0 T's this street a frequented thoroughfare, or a rather out-of-the-way place ?
V It H rather a private street.
0 In order to get back to the store, if you had returned the same way, would
ou have been obliged to go into some public thoroughfare ? A, I would have
v'°(| l0V£0 oil Clark street, which is thronged with people from morning until
"VQI °1 did n 0 ^ S° *kat way, because she was too much excited to go on a
^uolic street, and so went by a back street, and up Monroe.
^ Q Please state, if Burroughs's picture was examined by this woman at the
stoic what she said? A- She took the picture, looked at it for perhaps a
minute or two—-and then said that was certainly the person that called at her
cCcaii you state whether or not Mr. Burroughs was in Chicago at the time
of the receipt of that second letter, or about that time? A. It was some day
about that time—I cannot say what day precisely—I saw Mr. Burroughs get
in a car going out to Cottage Grove. He got in on the corner of State and
Monroe streets. He appeared to be coming from the post office.
O. 'Slate whether that was before the receipt of that letter of the 12th of September, or afterward ? A. I think it was before. I told no person that I had
seen himQ. When the letter was received, and you had seen it, do you recollect whether or riot, in the course of the conversation, you told Miss Harris you had seen
Mr. Burroughs in town? A. Sometime afterward, when she was positive that
it was liiin who wrote the letters, I told Miss Harris.
Q What effect did the receipt of these letters have upon her health ? A. They
rendered her very thin and pale; and she was after that in very poor health,
Cj; State as to her complexion and color before the receipt of these letters?
A. She had a good complexion and a very good color. After the receipt of
these; letters she became very pale and yellow-looking.
Q. State whether, within a short period, you observed any fact showing a
great degree of excitement about her; and if so, what that fact was ? A. The
first time I remember of seeing her excited was about the latter part of September, 1863. She came out into the yard with a window-brush, and struck me
several times with it. I asked her why she did it, but she: gave no reply.
Q. Do you recollect whether that was or not. at the time Dr. Fitch was visiting her? A,„ It was before.
Q. Do you recollect of any accident after that? A. I remember of her getting greatly excited several times, and tearing up books, clothing, and such
things ; bat I do not remember the days or dates.
Q. State whether you occupied the' same chamber with your sister and Miss
Harris? A. I did.
Q Have you any knowledge of her sleeping, or not ? A. I know she slept
very little of nights; often crying all the night, and keeping me awake. Many
times of nights, when I wouid say I would not put up with her crying, which
kept me awake, she would get up and go into the next room, and lie on the
floor until morning, without any clothing except her night clothes.
Q. State the condition of the weather at that time ? A. It was in January,
and the weather was intensely cold.
Q. \Vas there fire in the room ? A. No, sir.
Q. State if she ever made any other attack upon you, and under what circumstances, if she did? A. The second Sunday in January, 1864, she ran at
mo with a carving-knife, without any provocation whatever. '
Q. State what immediately preceded this attack unon yon, A. She had a
letter, or letters, in her hand, and she asked, " Did I wish to lead a fine letter ?"
1 looked at it, and, seeing it"was from Mr. Burroughs, I told her I did not want
to hear any thing more about such a mean, contemptible fellow like him, and
not to mention his name in my presence.

58

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Q. What followed immediately after you made this remark ? A. She made
at me with the carving-knife, and I ran out the door.
Q. How long were you absent from the room ? A. About half an hour.
Q. Ori your return, did any thing remarkable pass ; and if so, state it? A.
She wanted to go out of the window into the street. My sister prevented her
from doing so ; but she insisted on going out into the street. My sister finally
opened the door, rather than let her go out through the window. She went
out, and my sister told me to follow her, and see where she went I did so.
She went, round two or three blocks, and then stopped a car on Madison street,'
and started to get in, but did not.
Q. What time of the'day was this? A. About three o'clock in the afternoonQ: Was that in the'winter of 1864? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What next followed? A. She then went down Clark street, and into the
Tremont house.
Q. Is Clark street .one of the principal streets? A. Yes, sir.
Qj. What is the Tremont House? A. The best hotel in Chicago.
Q. What was then done by you? A. I went and told my sister what had
occurred, aiid she went after her.
Q. Did you or your sister go after Mr. Harris ? A, We both went after him.
Q. Who was he? A. A friend of hers, who knew her in Burlington. We
went after her at the Tremont House, but she refused to come. About dark,
however, she came home of her own accord.
Q* Were these matters you have mentioned all before, or did any of them
occur after you left Chicago for Janesville ? A. Those I have mentioned were
all in Chicago.
Q. State whether, after you went to Janesville, there were any incidents of
the same character? A. I have seen her several times very much excited. I
do not remember exactly what she said or did. When in those spells, she very
seldom, said any thing-.
Q. Did you or not ever observe any thing remarkable about the face or eye
when she was in this condition of excitement ? A. She always sat looking on
one object for nearly an hour.
Q. Did she fix lier eye on any particular object, or simply on vacancy? A.
I do not know Her eye was apparently fixed on something.
Q, Do you remember of any incident that occurred shortly before she came
to Washington? A. About a week before she left for Washington we had a
sister who came to visit us. She was exhibiting to us a very handsome piecequilt of silk which she had made. Miss Harris got it from her, and commenced
to tear it to pieces.: It was with great difficulty that it was taken from her.
Q. I believe the nex't time you saw her was when you visited her here in
Washington? A. Yes, sir
Cross-examination:
-By Mr. Wilson. How old was Miss Harris when you first saw her? A. I
do hot know. I have heard that she is. now twenty-one.
Q. Who was present when Burroughs was seeh by you caressing her in the
parlor of his boarding-house? A. No one. They were alone.
1Q. What time: of day was it that you saw Burroughs getting into the car on
the corner of State and Monroe streets ? A. It was in the afternoon I saw Mr.
Burroughs getting into the cars on Monroe street; he passed me.
Q. How near were you to him ? A. He passed me oh the street.
Q,. Did you speak to him or lie to you? A. No, sir. I never had an introduction to Burroughs and never spoke to him but on the one occasion when he
gave me a card for Miss Harris.
Q.. Bo^you.remember the day of the week or month that you saw him on the,
street ? A- No, sir. It was about the time of the receipt of the letters of the
8th ahd 12th of September. I t might have beeii before or after.
Q. Please state wheir you told Miss Harris about having seen Burroughs? A.
I t was sometime after I heard of his marriage.

TRIAL OP MAET HARRIS.

59

Q. How long? A. It might have been a day or two afterwards, or on the
aay I heard it.
Q. When did you hear of his marriage ? A. A few days after the 15th of
September; when it occurred.
*Q. Did you express any opinion to Miss Harris as to the authorship of
these letters ? A. I did not until after we had been to this house on Quiney
street
Q. Was your sister present when the subject of the authorship of the letters
was discussed—when you were talking together? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who first mentioned Mr. Burroughs s name in connection with them ? A.
I do not recollect. I remember myself saying that the writing looked much
like his.
Q. You do not know whether his name had been mentioned at that time by
anybody else or not? A. I do not think it had.
Q You, then, were the first one that suggested his name in connection with
the letters ? A. I might not have been. The letters were looked over before.
Q. But so far as you know, you were the first one? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What day was it you went to this house on Quiney street ? A. Either
Wednesday or Thursday of the week after-those letters were received. It was,
I judge, about the 16th or 17th of September.
Q. What time in the day was it that you went there ? A. In the afternoon.
Q. Had you any suspicion as to the character of that house when you went
there ?' A. Yes, sir ; I had heard its character mentioned.
Q. By whom? * A. From a detective officer who came into our store.
Q. When did you hear it from him? A. I cannot say when. I also
heard it from several others of whom I made inquiry.
Q. How many persons did you inquire of ? A. I do not know* It did not
require a great deal of information to find out what sort of a house this was.
Q. What first suggested it to you to make this inquiry ? A. I was not the
first to' make the inquiry ; my sister was.
Q. Who first spoke in the hearing of Miss Harris of the character of the
house ? A. We knew it could not be a very good house, being on the street it
was.

;

.<•-•

Q. How long had you lived in Chicago up to that time ? A. About seven or
eight months.
Q. How far was Quiney street from where you lived?! A. One block.
Q. I will ask you again to remember if you possibly can, who, in Miss
Harris's hearing, spoke as to the character of the house or as to the character of
Quiney street ? A. On that subject I do not know who spoke first.
Q. Did any gentleman friend accompany you to the house? A. No, sir..
Q. Had you a brother in Chicago at that time? A. No, sir ; not at that or
any other time.
Q. How large a house was this ? A. Tolerably large house; I think two or
three stories.
Q. A brick or frame ? A. I am not positive whether it was a brick or frame.
Q. Did you see any other person there except the keeper of the house ? A.
I saw several girls there in the back department.
Q. How many ?, A. I do not know how many. .
Q. Did you see any gentlemen there ? A. No, sir.
Q. Who first made the inquries of this woman as to the person who had engaged a .room there? A. Miss Harris first made the inquiries,/and then she
stopped, seeming to get excited, and then I made all the other inquiries.
Q. What opinion did you express at this time ? A. Of course, I expressed
no opinion at the house, but after we came home I said it was certainly Burroughs ; that I had everything to convince me it was him.
Q. But you did not tell her at the time of expressing this opinion that Mr.
Burroughs was in town? A. No, sir; I do not think I did. It was after that.
Q. Will you state whether or not you, at any time, had any misunderstandings or quarrels with Miss Harris ? A. No quarrels whatever—only when she

60

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

would be in these tempers of which I have spoken. We have been gotod friends
otherwise, without interruption.
\
Q. During these excitable moments did you have any exchange/of words
with her? A. We had no quarrels. I always said to my sister she Was crazy,
and that I could forgive her for anything she did.
\
Q, What prevented her from injuring you with that carving knifed A. I
got out of the door before she overtook me.
Q,. Did she attempt to follow you ? A. She attempted to get out of the door,
and I locked it.
Q. How long did these fits that you speak of continue ? A. Sometimes two
or three days ; sometimes only a few hours.
Q. What was the longest time you know her to have been affected in that
way ? A. I think about three days.
Q. What was her condition at other times ? A. At other times she was sad ;
didn't care for society, and kept in the house a great deal.
Q. What expressions did you hear her-make use of in regard to Mr. Burroughs at that time ? A. I have never heard her talk very much about Mr.
Burroughs.
Q. Have you heard her talk at all about him during that time ? A. Yes,
sir • several times.
Q. What would she say_ ? A. She has often told me that he deceived her,
and told me all about their engagements, &c.
Q. And what about her future purpose in regard to Burroughs ? A. I have
often heard her say she would sue him for a breach of promise of marriage,
Q. What reply did you make to that ? A. I often told her I would not let
on I ever heard he was living, and would drop him.
Q. While in Chicago, do you know of her receiving attentions from a young
gentlemen of your own name? A. I have known her to receive attentions
from no gentleman other than Burroughs, either of mine, or any other name.
Q. Do you know of her receiving letters from any other person ? A. No, sir.
Q. When was it she left Janesville ? A. The last of December, 1864
Q. Where did she start for ? A She told me she was going to Washington
for the purpose of sueing for a breach of promise of marriage.
Q. What did you say to her ? A. I do not remember.
Q. Did you say anything to her on the subject? A. I do not know as I did.
Q. Knowing of her laboring under these difficulties did you feel no apprehension at permitting her to go away from you ? A. I had no control over
the girl. She was at liberty to go where she pleased.
Q Did she take leave of you finally ? A. She told me she would return
very soon.
Q Was she to be permitted to resume her duties in your store when she returned? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did she expect to be absent ? A. She did not tell me how long.
Q. Did you ever hear any one in your presence advise her in regard to this
j;uit for a breach of promise ? A. I have heard my sister advise her to drop
the matter altogether, and to have nothing to do with him.
Q. Were any steps taken to put her under medical treatment of any kind,
except consultation with Dr. Mtch ? A. None that I know of.
Q. Did you ever make complaint of her conduct to any person except Mr.
and Mrs. Harris ? A. Not that I know of.
Q. She was entirely capable of attending to all the business you required of
her ? A. Yes, sir.
Re-examination:
By Mr. Bradley. You were asked particularly about that house in Quincy
street. I understand that you and your sister were carrying on the millinery
and fancy business near by Quincy street ? A, Yes, sir.
Q. That gave you, then, an opportunity of knowing the character of the
streets in the neighborhood ? A. Yes, sir.

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

61

Q. You were asked whether any gentleman friend went with you to this
house. Did yon go into that house at all ? A. No, sir. "We stood at the door.
The lady of the house invited us into the parlor, but we declined.
Q. State if you had any male friends in Chicago at that time upon whom you
could properly have called to go with you ? A. No, sir; I had not.
Q. Had you ever seen this woman before ? A. No, sir.
Q. Or after she called at your store about the picture ? A. No, sir.
Q. State whether Miss Harris was not, except at these intervals, fully capable
of managing her own or anybody else's affairs ? A. Yes, sir, she was, except
at these intervals.
CHARLES A. SEEGSTACK recalled by defence:

By Mr. Bradley. The clock in the hall in which this affair occurred is situated against the case, about central way of the hall, near the western end. The
Gfase projects from the wall, probably, about eighteen inches. I did not see
Burroughs fall, but saw him coming down the steps, when a Mr. Callender
caught hold of him. This gentleman passed him on the steps, and then returned
and took hold of him. l i e came down the left-hand stairway, on the north
side. The room in which I carried Miss Harris is on the south side of the hall,
and tc the left hand as you enter the main door. As I entered the hall they
were bringing the body of Mr. Burroughs down the stairway. He was not
then laying down on the mat.
Q. State whether, from the position in which she was placed as you entered
the door, and turned to go into the room from that door, she looked toward his
body ? A. I could not say whether she looked toward the body. I was not
paying particular attention to her view at all. She might very easily have seen
him if she had been disposed to. She seemed to be perfectly calm, and went
along with me with her veil down. I was on her left hand. I think she had
a hat on. I do not think she was in the room over five minutes, if so long,
when Mr. Handy reached her. I did not pay enough attention to her at that
time to say whether she was pale or flushed The first words she uttered were
to urge me to take her into that room. I was then looking south, and she was
looking north, toward me. There are four large pillars in that hall I think.
I should judge they were two feet through. They came in direct conflict with
her face, in the direction of the body; but if she had been disposed to step one
side, she could have looked one way or the other. Persons were beginning to
gather down stairs in large numbers.
By Mr. Wilson. When you first came in the door from the portico with Miss
Harris, what did you then see of the body of Mr. Burroughs ? A. I saw them
bringing it down the stairway.
JOSEPH H. BEADLEY sworn:

By Judge Hughes. Please state to the jury how long you have known Miss
Harris, and whether your acquaintance since you have known her has been
intimate or not. A. I saw Miss Harris, I think, the third day after her
imprisonment. I was applied to to take charge of her case, and declined on
the day after her arrest, and persisted in that declination until I saw her; and
then I undertook her case to the extent only that I should see proper preparation made for a defence, although I would not undertake to try the case in court.
Subsequently I became her counsel. For the first month or six weeks I saw
her very seldom, and until the latter part of February, when I went with Mr.
Phelps to see her and found Mrs. Phelps there. I thus became acquainted with
her. I do not think that up to the latter part of February I had been to see
her but two or three times. I have made one species of insanity particularly a
matter of study, and that induced me to attend more especially to the condition of Miss Plarris; yet I did not see her until the lat£jr part of March, for I
was very much engaged in court. Between the 20th and 30th, circumstances
occurring at that time, called my attention more particularly to her, and after
that time I did not see her frequently until the 25th of April, if my memory

m

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

serves me right. In the meantime I had made several visits, and she had had
a very violent attack of erysipelas in the head. During this attack, I having
myself suffered more than I knew any one else to suffer from the same cause,
saw her repeatedly-,: I think I saw her three days in succession during that
attack. On the 25th of April there were such developments as directed my
attention especially to her; and from that time forth until the- commencement
of this trial I have made notes from to time of the facts occurring under my
owrr observation*
Q, Please proceed now and state any facts tending to illustrate the condition
of Miss Harris's mind bearing upon the question of insanity ; and if you have
kept any notes just give the whole account in a narrative form.
Mr. Bradley then read from his notes as follows :
My attention was directed to observations of the facts indicating the condition
of the mind of Miss Harris at my first interview with her, when she was under
such excitement as to attract the attention of every one who saw her. And
after that, and*looking to the preparation of her defence, I saw her with Dr.
Nichols, and made repeated visits to her, mainly to see whether she recollected
the incidents of her life, and talked rationally about them. Various things
occurred sufficient only to keep my attention aroused until some time in the
last part of March,; after the 25th, and before the 1st of April, when on calling
I found her in some excitement, which was exhibited more in her evident desire
to talk about Burroughs than I had observed before. Some one had sent to her
a newspaper, or piece of a newspaper, containing an account of a seance or session of Biologists, in which it was reported that the spirit of Burroughs had
been evoked and appeared, and the conversation between the medium and that
spirit was given, She showed it to me; commented upon i t ; asked me if I had
faith in or even doubts about that science.
She was nervous and excited. I felt her pulse. I t was over 110. The top
of her head was so warm as to be unpleasant, and yet her hands were cold.
The pupil of the eye dilated so as to cover the iris very nearly, leaving only a
band, as it were, surrounding it. She talked of Burroughs or his family—his
brother, I should say, rather—and his (Burroughs's) wife, during the greater
part of this interview, and that with a manner showing no consciousness of
having done wrong to any one but his wife.
Mr. and Mrs. Phelps, of Iowa, who knew her well, were here in the latter
part of February or first of March. He was attending to, or rather waiting
for, some case in the Supreme Court, and I visited her with him, and found
Mrs. Phelps there. Of course, we—Mr. Phelps and I—talked freely of the
matter; and perhaps what he said caused me to notice more accurately her
manner, appearance, and conversation.
I remember but one thing of any particular note. While we, all four of us,
were talking quite pleasantly about some incident, Miss Harris suddenly broke in
on what we were talking about with some matter wholly irrelevant, and began
after a moment to relate something to us, or rather to Mrs. Phelps in particular,
when the latter said, " Yes, Mary, you told me about that a little while ago."
This made no particular impression on my mind then, but I afterwards recollected it, for the same thing has occurred with myself. I made no note of that
intej^view in March; but now this 25th April I begin, and shall from time to
time rn^ke notes to preserve the incidents, as they seem to be worth recording.
In the meanwhile she has had a sharp attack of erysipelas in the head, during
which I saw^ her almost daily, once with Dr. Nichols. To-day I was told she
was quite uiiwell, and went to see her. I found her bathing her head with a
handkerchief aXd cold water. She received me with almost the coldness of a
stranger. The wra<l was blowing in through the open window. It was so cold
that, although I was, wrapped up, I could not sit in the draught. She sat near
the window, with her back to it, and the full stream of air directly on the back
of her head. I had observed this repeatedly before, and now I'remonstrated
with her on her imprudence, but without effect. I felt her pulse; it was nearly
J20. The top of her head was hot, notwithstanding the cold air. She was

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

63

listless and inert. At first her features were fixed as wax, her eye resting on
vacancy, or as though she saw beyond the walls of the prison, and she did not
wink The pupil was widely dilated as before. I asked what had happened.
Had she been alarmed ? Had she been treated with discourtesy or rudeness ?
Her answers were monosyllables I asked her if she was thinking over the
last two years of her life. She then aroused, nodded her head, and in return
said: '• Mi. Bradley, do you think me a very bad girl? They say I killed
Burroughs, and have locked me up, and it must be so ; but I can't realize it I
liked Burroughs. I can see him now. I have seen hirn here in this very chamber
since I have been here. It can't be so." And then she twisted her handkerchief and looked up with beseeching eyes, and said: "Tell me the truth. I
know you will tell me the truth." I did tell her. I talked with her till the
tears began to flow, and then she calmed down, and rapidly became blythe and
cheerful.
In a short time the paroxysm, if I may so call it, returned. She spoke of
the suffering she had had to endure all her life; that she had never had any
friends; that she had been scourged and beaten without cause; that she
never had intentionally wronged any human being; that she spent her
nights waking trying to remember if she had given any one cause to
hate her; that she loved dearly those who loved or were kind to her, and
would do anything in the world for them, but that none of them loved
her; that her church had persecuted her, and without cause; that she
prayed long and earnestly, and knew God would forgive her, though all the
people in the world should turn against her. During the greater pari: of this
time her face had assumed its rigidity, and the eye the peculiar character which
I have noticed. She rarely looked me in the face except by a glance, but occasionally her eye would meet mine fully, and then I was struck with its
great clearness. Her pulse, if it had fallen, rose again to near one hundred
and twenty; her hands were cold ; the top of her head almost seemed to send
off steam, and the bathing which she applied rapidly evaporated under the
heat of the head and the current of air. I stayed there nearly two hours,
and left her calm and gentle as I ever saw any one, and, as I thought, in full
posession of her faculties. The paroxysm went off as before with a flow of
tears.
MAY.— I have continued to visit Miss Harris frequently, sometimes two
days in succession, and I believe generally as often as three times a week.
Since the 25th of April I have not observed anything so remarkable as to be
worthy of note. During this time at intervals I have obtained a complete
history of her life, as far as any gentleman not a medical man could with propriety inquire into it. She seems to be free from any disguise or romance, and
witli apparently entire frankness and candor has told me everything of herself and much of her family from her earliest recollection. She has no bitter
feelings toward any human being; never speaks with severity of any one but
Dr, Burroughs, the brother of the deceased; and if her recollection of her
interview with him, and his conduct towards her is true, it is surprising that she
exhibits so little asperity in speaking of him. Her first acquaintance with
deceased was when she was a little girl, an assistant in a fancy millinery store,
in which were kept .some belongings for gentlemen, such as gloves, neck-ties,
cravats, shirts, stockings, &c.
The deceased was in business near Mrs. Alexander's, the lady with whom
she lived and of whom she always speaks with affectionate regard. She spoke'
of his coming there after he failed in business to post Mrs. Alexander's books ;
his observance of herself, by degrees advancing into that of familiarity with a
man almost old enough to be her father; the influence he gradually acquired
over her, directing her reading, stimulating her ambition, modulating her
tastes and habits and manners; the progressive shaping of her character and
the developement of her mtide of thought and feeling under his* guidance ; the
first time that he spoke to her of marrying at some future day, she being then a
child in short clothes and paddies; her childish glee at such a suggestion, and

64

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

his chagrin, have all been told me with a perfectness of simplicity and apparent truthfulness that show the integrity of her character," The pranks she
played on him when he sought to conceal from Mrs. Alexander those attentions
and familiarities to which, by degrees, he had led her to submit-—such as his
catching and kissing her, and drawing her to his knee—her light laughter and
girlish fun when Mrs. Alexander discovered this; how afterwards he would
treat her in the same way in the presence of Mrs. A., and how she would never
dream there was any harm in this; how she felt no love, or, to use her own
expression, "did not like him," till, broken down in fortune and assailed by
enemies, he began to lose cast, and made her believe it was all because he had
failed in business and was persecuted and reviled; how he talked of this with
Mrs. A., and told her (Miss H.;) and how, little by little, her heart warmed
towards him ; and she looked up to him as a good man, always good to her,
"his dear little Mollie;" he always being cheered and becoming nerved and
strong when with her, and tracing himself to treat the violence of enemies as one who had been overthrown, not beaten ; and how, as he continued
to show day by day, a more earnest interest and regard for her. and, as she
was changing to woman, loved, and began to look to the future; and he was
inevitably associated in that thought
Her heart began to warm towards him first in deep sympathy and respect for
a good man fallen by adverse fortune, till she began to like him, and how afterwards that liking warmed into an absorbing love; how in all the endearments
which their relation tolerated he treated her with the utmost regard and respect,
and how, as she looks back, she cannot recollect an act or tlie utterance of a
sentiment Which was not proper and fitting to prepare her for a true, faithful,
and loving wife. All this, by degrees, has been laid open to me by her with
the most guileless simplicity and freedom. And now comes this 22d of May—
another of these incidents to be carefully noted. I saw her yesterday for a
brief time, and noijd the cornea of her eye was clouded a little, as though it
were injected, but not sufficiently so to be marked; it amounted to this, that
the eye was not clear. To-day Maggie, the girl who attends upon her, came to
my office and told me something was the matter with Miss Mary, and asked me
to go and see her. I think she said, " Miss Mary wants to see you, and I do
wish you would go. for no one else seems to do her so much good when she is
in this way," I interrogated her as to what was the matter, and finally went
over. I do not note what Maggie told me, because I saw for myself as much
and more than she described.
As I entered the room Miss Harris came towards me from the corner where
the wash basin stood. She had a wet handkerchief in her hand, with which
she had apparently been bathing her head with bay rum and water. She had
lost a large portion of her hair under the attack of erysipelas. I had mentioned and 1 had given her a preparation to stop its coming out, and the bay
rum to cleanse it after; and that called my attention to the handkerchief she
was twisting or wringing as she advanced. The day before I had brought her
some article of apparel which my daughter had purchased for her, and I made
those two things the first subject of talk. After shaking hands with her I
said, " Miss Mary, I see you are putting the bay rum to a good use, and how
do these things suit which Mrs. S. got for you ?" She had not smiled, or, so far
as I observed, changed a muscle of her face, which was as rigid and almost as
colorless as white marble. She then looked up for an instant, and an instant
only met my eye. I cannot describe the peculiarity of that look ; had never
seen such in any face before, yet I have seen, often, the expression of deep
anguish, mental and bodily. It was not that of anger and alarm; it was
neither of them, but it seemed to me a combination of the two; and yet it was
all unsettled. I sat down, leaving her standing. She advanced rapidly towards
me, wringing and twisting her handkerchief, and saying, almost fiercely, " l a m
not going to stay here any longer, Mr. Bradley. I am going out—I am. I '
won't stay. I want you to take me out, Mr. Bradley."

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

65

I replied: "Yes, Miss Mary, that's all right; T don't wonder at it. You
have had a long and hard time of it, and I would like to get you out."
"". Then take me out—take me out now. i won't stay here a minute."
(<
Well, wait a minute, till we pack up your things."
14
1 don't care about the things ; I am going now."
1 said: " But look at those bars, and " —
(• Bars—bars, (she said,) what do I care for bars ? Do you think they could
keep me? Haven't I a will, and what are bars then?"
^ But, T said. " I could not squeeze you through them ; and the only way will
be to put you in my pocket, and so pass through the guards. We must wait,
and make no noise to arouse their suspicion. Sit down quietly for a little while,
and tell me all about it." During this whole time (and more passed between us,
much of which I have not noted, and do not now recall) she moved rapidly or
stopped suddenly for an instant, yet all the time nervously twisting her handkerchief. She now took a seat by me. I felt her pulse; it was about one hundred and twenty. I tried to catch a look into her eyes ; the pupils were dilated
as before-; her hair was deranged. I arose after a minute, and said, " Let me
apply that bay rum and water." Took her handkerchief, wet it with the mixture, applied to the temples. Her forehead was as cold as marble. The top of
her 'head, back of the main suture, was so hot as to be uncomfortable to the
hand. I wet the handkerchief, and laid it on that part of her head. She sat
as still and motionless from the time I arose till I had done this as though she
were a statue.
I then sat down by her, took her hand, and spoke gently to her. I said,
"Now, tell us all about it; what has happened." Her eyes were fixed, as f
had observed them before. She glanced at me and around the room rapidly,
and said in a low tone, (she had previously spoken with great excitement,) u Mr.
Bradley, I can't stay here; I can't sleep ; I have not slept for two weeks; as
soon as I begin to close my eyes, I am .roused u p ; the cry of murder is ringing
in my earsVit comes from the passage; it is in the room, with most horrid
shrieks of pain, cursing, and dreadful language; and overhead a crowd of men
are stamping and shouting and yelling; and all around me are the most dreadful noises. I can't stay here; I won't stay another night Let them take me
out and hang me; that's all they can do. Let them do it now." By this time
she had become greatly excited. Her pulse, which had fallen considerably, had
risen again. She attempted to rise, but I restrained her, and said, "Sit still;
wait a moment; you havn't told me all yet; I must know all, Mary, before I
can advise you. You know and believe I am your friend; that I intend to
take you out." She sat still, looked at me for a moment, and in a most plaintive voice said, "Mr. Bradley, do you think I am a very bad girl? I have
prayed to God to forgive me. I do believe he has forgiven me; but indeed I
never meant to do any human being any harm. Do you think Mrs. Burroughs
:
hates me?"
~
I tried to soothe her; and, falling into her own vein, by degrees the excitement subsided, a tear welled up and filled her eye, and hung on the lid. I
wiped it off with my own handkerchief. She started immediately, and said,
" No, no! not so; let me get another handkerchief " That was followed by a
choking sob, the tears began to flow freely, and she was relieved for the time.
We talked some time about indifferent matters, when again her face became
clouded and gradually fixed, and her eyes settled with a firm and fixed look
into vacancy; the. pupils dilated as before; her figure as rigid as her face. I
spoke to her, but had no reply. Presently she said, " Yes, I loved him; oh!
how I loved him! and how she must hate me. I don't like to be hated; I
never harmed anybody; it's me that was hurt, and they told lies about me."
Amd then she shuddered and sighed again. I said, " She does not hate you."
%
She turned to me the saddest face I ever looked on, and said, " How do yon
know; you do not know her; you did not know him. I knew him for seven
years, and he loved me; I know he did; and he loves me now. He don't love
5

66

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

her as he did me. lie has loved me ever since 1 was a little child. He used to
scold me so, and tell me of-my faults.
I tried in various ways to arouse her attention, until at last I said, with as
much quiet decision as I could, "Well, Miss Mary, you will not listen- to the
advice of a friend who has had some experience in the world, but you must do
as I say while I am here." " -Must t must f
" Yes, must" I said, " for I am
hero as yourjcounsel and friend." " Friend!" she said; " have I ariy friends ?'*
I replied, " Yes, many ; you can have no better friend than Miss Devlin ; and
I have seen Mrs. Phelps here, who, instead of spending her time in seeing the
sights of the city, locked herself up here with you and her husband—warm
friends, who have known you from childhood; and Mis. Fales, who has looked
after you as a mother." ' " Yes," she said, u yes, Mrs. Fales ; she is a good soul,
aint she? and she does come-to see me and brings me such comfort;" and a
bright smile passed over her face as she added, "when she can get time from
the soldiers." (Mrs. Fales spends her time in visiting the hospitals, and administering to the wants of the sick and wounded.)
It was over, I thought, for that time, and a short time after I left her. Still,
I was so far uneasy that I tried to see Mrs.,Fales that afternoon, but without
success, but saw her the next morning, and told her in part what I had witnessed. " La! yes," she said ; " she has one of her spells. It will pass off soon ;
but I will go and sec her to-day."
In the course of the morning of the 23d of May I went to the jaik Mrs.
Fates had not yet come. It was about 11 o'clock, and I went in to see Miss
Harris, yhe was very pale, looked restless, yet met me with a pleasant smile.
In answer to my inquiries, she said she had not slept at all; her pulse was then
about 110, yet the temperature of her hands was below the orclinary degree.
She was nervous; yet very quiet; not disposed to talk till I made some observation about her trial; that led to a conversation about the visit made to her
shortly after her imprisonment by some newspaper writer or reporter, accompanied by Milburn, the jailor.
.1 had never seen the article written,by that reporter, purporting to contain
an account of that visit, and had heard it contained a statement, as coming from
her, tainting the purity of her life, and I referred to it in that aspect. She did
not at first understand me, and I said • " I never read the article, because it
.
-contained so gross a falsehood about you in respect to Burroughs's success in his
attempt." I suppose that the nerve had been touched by the previous conversation, but this operated as the match, and the mine exploded. For an instant
her face fairly blazed; her eye flashed into the same enlargement of the pupil
and fixedness. She half arose; leaned towards me; her brow was corrugated
and crimson, her hand clenched, as she said, " Mr. Bradley, what do you mean '?
Did that man say that of me and Burroughs-, and that I told him so ?" and then
stopped, absolutely fixed in a rigid condition, looking into vacancy.
I was alarmed; took her hands and chafed them; spoke soothingly to her;
her pulse had mounted to about 120; and after a few minutes I said, in a very
cheerful tone, " Why, Miss Mary, you could not have slept very well, for you
have .actually been dreaming while I was talking to you; wake up 1" The
strain of the nerves was over. She looked toward me and said, "Did I dream
aloud?" I made no further reference to that matter, but after a little while
she said: " There was something I wanted to tell you, as it may be of some
use, but I can't think what it was. Oh ! it was about the article that man who
came to see me wrote in the Qhronicle. I have it in my trunk, and will show
it to you." I did not choose to revive the scene, and made some evasive reply,
so as to put it off for the present. But the disturbance of her mind had not
passed, and she began to talk of Mrs. Burroughs; said if she knew she did not
hate her, it would take a terrible load from her mind; lamented that she had
not quietly submitted to her fate, although people pointed at her and said such
dreadful things of her; wished she had died when she knew of his desertion,
&c. In the midst of this Mrs. Fales entered, loaded with flowers and parcels;

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

67

and if sunlight had suddenly been let into a darkened room, the change could
yxoi have been greater than it was in her.
I had now seen her very frequently for at least two months. I thought I
had seen her natural temperament. It was not so. It now appeared for the
fiist time—bird-like, full of animation ; full of fun, which danced in her eyes
and filled every movement. As she received from Mrs. Fales, first a boquet of
beautiful flowers from her own garden, then strawberries, then another and
another parcel, her whole being seemed to come out in joyousness, and I could
see what she had been.
I left tlfem together, satisfied " she had got over the spell." That was on
Satmday. On Tuesday her maid came to me again, and told me of her then
condition. I went over immediately to see her. This was towards evening.
Almost immediately after I had entered the room she said: "Did you say
the trial was fixed for the first Monday of July ? Will it certainly be then?"
« y e s " « Well, will that man be a witness ?" " What man'?" " The one that
came with Milburn, and wrote that article in the Chronicle, I do not know
why ? What did you say was in that paper?" I told her what I understood
'was in it, and for that reason I had never read it, for I knew it was false.
11
Would you like to see it?" " Yes."
She went to her trunk, took out a slip of printed paper, and said, " There it
is ; there are falsehoods in it, but not of that kind." I saw she was becoming
excited; took it, and said, " Well, I'll read it some other time; what's the
matter with you to-day ? You do not seem well; you are pale, and your eyes
are heavy, and I do not like those red spots on your cheeks." " Oh," she
replied, " nothing; but I can't sleep; I do not know that I have closed my
eyes since you were here two weeks ago." " Why." said I, " I was here only
on Saturday last; don't you remember Mrs. Fales coming in and giving you those
flowers and other things, and about her bonnet ?" To this time I do not think
she smiled once. Now she became gleeful, and laughed for some time as I had
never seen her except on that Saturday and in the afternoon of Saturday, for I
saw her then also,
She told me of pranks which she had played on Burroughs, how she used to
plague Mrs. A., where she lived, and a dozen things, showing how full of life
she had been, and said: " You ought to have seen me then, Mr. Bradley; I
weighed 116 pounds. I was a fat dowdy. I loved to laugh and dance and
play, arid I was as full of mischief as I could be. Oh, how happy, how happy
I was !" and suddenly she stopped, looked me full in the face, and said: Mr. Bradley, do you think me a very bad girl f Do you not believe God will forgive me ? I
know I have done wrong, but I have prayed to be forgiven. I pray daily for
it I have been wicked, but indeed I did not mean it. I did not mean to hurt
anybody. I would not have hurt Burroughs for the world. I did like Burroughs. I did love bim, and I was so happy—so happy. How did I do it ? I
know it must have been me, and they are right to shut me up ;" and much
more of the same kind.. I rather encouraged her to talk thus, until an opportunity should arise to divert her attention. It came, and touched some cord
which brought tears, and she calmed down. The next morning I tried to get
Dr Nichols to see her, but failed. I then went myself, and found her still very
pale, with marks of exhaustion in her face, walking her room.
After a while I recurred to the subject of the article in the Chronicle, and prevailed on her to read it to me. She did so, and, except at that portion of it
which is a personal description of herself, which she tried to pass over and read
with great embarrassment, she read it through and commented on it with as
clear and accurate manner and observation as any very intelligent reader could
have done; and a stranger, but for her remarks, would not have known that
it applied to herself. I was struck, as I had been more than once before, at the
quickness of \her apprehension and the singular aptness with which she remarked
on its contents as bearing on her case.
No one could have suspected any latent mental disturbance, for her mind
was evidently clear and full of energy; 'her perceptions keen and her memory

68

TRIAL OF MAEY HARRIS,

very distinct. On the whole, it was the most satisfactory interview I had ever
had" with her, and threw more light on her case than any other, and yet at that
time she had been without sleep for more than a week." 1 had started to come
away, when she stopped me and said, " Don't go yet; there is something else 1
want to tell you. It has flitted across my mind several times while we were
talking, but I can't think of it now. Sit down, please, and wait a minute "
I did so. After a little while she said: "Mrs. Abbey has been here, and she
says Mrs-. Burroughs is in Chicago, and she thinks she does not hate me. She
says she has a little child—Burroughs's child. I want you to go with me and
see it. Oh ! how I would love it. That would not be wrong, would it Mr.
Bradley? His child! Oh! if the mother would only not hate me, and would
let me see that little child and give it one kiss I would be so happy. I would
not hart it. It would not be wrong, would it Mr. Bradley ?"
In that brief time her whole aspect had changed. I cannot describe the
change. Her face, during parts of what she said, was fairly illuminated
There was the most wonderful expression in the eyes; a softness and delieacy
and tenderness, such I had never seen, and thai followed and mingled with a
deep and hopeless sorrow that I had never witnessed before. Just at this time
there came floating into the room fragments of the music of some oi the bands
in the grand review then in progress. She stopped, listened, looked at me, and
said, with perfect quietness of manner, " I forgot, everybody is out to-day but
me; you want to go and see the review. I am sorry I detained you." I said.
"No, I saw one yesterday." "Yes," she said, "but our ivestem men are to
pass to-day, and I'll tell you at another time what I wanted to say. 1 wish
you would see our western men." She was perfectly composed, and I presently
left her.
I saw her again three days afterwards, and almost the first thing she said
was, " I know it now. I wanted to tell you those things Mrs. B. got for me
are just right. How good she is, and your daughter; to take so much trouble
for me, and I can do nothing in return."
Nothing occurred further worthy pf note until the morning of the 20th of
June, although I had seen her repeatedly in the meanwhile. She then told me
she could not sleep ; that Dr. Young had prescribed porter for her, and that put
her to sleep, or rather quieted her. But when she slept she had such frightful
dreams, that her sleep was not refreshing. She was just as self-possessed, apparently, as she ever was. Of her own accord she introduced the subject of her
approaching trial, and gave me some information which I had not received
before. She spoke of the unwavering regard of some of her friends, corrected
some errors into which I had fallen, and in all respects exhibited a clear, quick,
apprehensive mind. I had, at her request, carried with me a pile of letters
from Burroughs to her, which she had at an early day placed in my hands, as
she said there might be some of them she would not like to hear read in open
court, although there was not one that all the world, knowing her relations to
him, might not see.
We were both looking over these letters, when she suddenly exclaimed, looking at one of them, " Yes, that's the way you led me to believe you were perfect, and trained my mind so as to make me think and feel as I thought you
did!" The letters were lying scattered about on the bed. She went to and
got on the bed, and sat there, hurriedly gathering them up and looking at them,
until she either picked up or I handed her a portion of a letter, in which he
speaks of the hostility pf the Catholics towards him, because they had discovered
she was about to marry out of the Church. " Yes," she said, " and I believed
him, and believed he would marry me; and I would have married him at all
risks, persecuted as he was on all hands. But it is too late now ; he has married another woman." I made no comment on this, but went on looking over
the letters, until, very shortly after this, Mr. Fendall entered -the room,
bringing a box for her, and then her whole manner changed. She became
perfectly natural, and laughed and talked with us as though nothing had occur
red to disturb her.

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

69

Alter he had gone we resumed the examination of the letters in a calm, bnsimanner. In the early part of our examination, and until I was aroused
bv her exclamation about how he had trained her, nothing had occurred out of
•he 01 dinar/ course From that time until Mr. Fendall entered the room she
was abstracted and gloomy, or nervous and excited—the moods changing very
vjjpidlv. I observed the same dilation of the pupil of the eye that 1 had notir*ed before, and she made very few comments on what she read.
*Q. Will you now state whether, from your acquaintance with Miss Harris,
and the facts you have just recounted to the jury, she is in your opinion of
^ound rnind, either generally or partially ? A Applying the facts which have
rome under my own observation to the experience I have heretofore had in similar
cases, and to what I have read on the subject, I have no hesitation in saying
that Miss Harris is not only of sound mind, but has an uncommonly good mind,
I have no hesitation in saying, indeed I am perfectly confident, that in ceitain
conditions of the system her mind is so far affected, not by nervous irritation
alone, but by moral causes, that when a fact or substance is suddenly presented
to her mind, connected with these moral causes, or during this state of excitement of her rnind, that she is incapable of thinking and acting in regard to
that subject with reason or discretion; and that she is subject to certain
impulses which control her will in reference to the same matter; and that is
what I understand to be paroxysmal insanity from moral causes. I am not
an expert, but have seen and had some experience in cases of violent hysteria
and oi insanity, and as far back as twenty years ago I began to study this
subject. Her case is not a case of hysteria; but the affection, whatever it may
be, 'proceeds from physical and mental cause combined.
Q If there was any special subject that seemed to disturb her intellect more
than another, I wish you would state it? A. There was but one subject in
any of the interviews I had with her which seemed at all to disturb the balance
of 'her mind.
Q. What was that ? A. That was her relations to Burroughs in his lifetime,
and whenever any reference was made to his widow or family. I think it
proper to state, if my judgment be evidence, that I did not communicate to
Miss Harris, nor do I have any reason to suppose anybody else did, either
the character of the offence with which she was charged, its criminal nature,
ui the nature oi the defence until the Wednesday or Thursday after the jury
was sworn in this cause. I then did communicate fully to her what the charge
and offence was, and the nature of the defence; and that is the first time I
have ever known her give way since she has been imprisoned. The criminal
character of the offence she did not seem to understand or appreciate before—
that is she did not seem to realize the consequence of it. When the nature of
the defence was made known to her, it completely overwhelmed her. Her
modesty and sensibility were shocked, and she said she would rather have died
than set up such a defence. That was a week ago this day, or to-morrow, I
do not-know which. I deemed it necessary before the defence should be stated
in open court, and for that reason caught an opportunity to speak to her privately about it. She was far more overcome by the announcement than 1 had
ever seen her before, and said to me, " Do you think I am insane, Mr. Bradley ?" i said, " No, except under certain circumstances."
Q, I will ask you what, in your opinion, from your knowledge of Miss Harris
and her condition, would be the effect of her unexpectedly meeting with Mr.
Bunoughs ? A. I have already stated that he was the subject of this moral
affection of Miss Harris. I know from her what her impressions and what her
belief were in regard to him. Whether delusion or actual fact, the effect upon
mind would be the same. Assuming that to be so, it would be very difficult to
say what would be the immediate effect. , I think that no human being, unless
it may be what is sometimes called a "mad doctor," who has great experience
in such things, can form any conjecture as to the effect which would be produced upon her mind if she were laboring under the trouble of a deranged system. But, whatever that effect might be, in my judgment it would be utterly
nes$-like

70

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS,

uncontrollable by herself, and arise from an impulse. It might be that she
would have mot him in tenderness I have seen her in such mood. It would,
in ray judgment, depend entirely upon the direction which this moral disturbance should take. I mean to say, in fine, that it would be an impulse altogether, and not a mode of action governed by sound reason.
Ci oss-examination :
By Mr. Carrington, You have had a great deal of experience in these matters
in the course of your professional life, and you have often had occasion to put
in this defence of insanity ? A. Yes, sir; four times, I think, in criminal
cases.
Q. Have you seen any striking features of dissimilarity between the indications of insanity in this particular case and the others ? A. Well, sir, taking
the case of John Day, for example ; that is the only one that I think bore any
similarity to this. I know nothing of the facts of that case, except as developed
by the witnesses from the stand. If the facts, as stated by the witnesses, were
true, it bears some analogy to this case. There was there no physical disturbance, no derangement of the physical condition. It was purely moral.
Q. You speak of her distress at the announcement of the character of the
offence and the nature of the defence 1 will ask you if you observed at any
other time, when the name of Burroughs was mentioned, or the letters were
read, any such indications of suffering ? A. I have never noticed any more
excitement than we would naturally associate with a distressing subject. I
have never noticed any degree of excitement except at the periods I have mentioned ; and, what is more remarkable still, I have never but once heard lier
speak with harshness and severity of Burroughs.
Q. How long would these spells continue ? A. Sometimes five minutes ; on
one occasion they continued as long as two hours. I never knew them to be
exhibited more than one day at a time, except on the evening of the 22d oi
May, the morning of the 23d, and the noon of the 26th of May. I do not mean
to say that she was not under great excitement before I saw her, but that it
was not developed to me.
Q. She was at other times entirely capable of directing hcr_ conduct ? A.
Yes, sir. Not only that, but she showed a remarkably clear comprehension in
the preparation of her case, independent of this matter of insanity; which was
never broached to her until the time I have mentioned.
Q. I was going to ask you whether, during the progress o! the trial, the reading of the letters, or the testimony, have produced upon her any extraordinary
effect? A. Br. Nichols will answer that, perhaps, better than I can, I think
he has been observing her. It was impossible for me, under the circumstances,
to do so. I can say, however, that, directly after reading ne ol the letters, I
noticed some nervous agitation; and, feeling her pulse, found it had gone up to
one hundred. I have omitted to state what struck me as among the peculiar
marks of her character—the amiability of her disposition and her open cheerness.
ROBERT BEALE sworn:

By Mr. Bradley. State your position. A. I am warden at the jail.
Q. State whether you saw Miss Harris the morning after she was first
imprisoned there ? A. Yes, sir
Q,, State whether she knew, in the first place, that you were there ? A. She
did not. The door of her room was open, and when I got there I heard a
voice. She was walking with her back to me, and, therefore, did not observe I
was by. She had her hands clasped, and was walking up and clown exclaiming, " I would not have killed bim for the world. 1 loved him better than I
do my life." ..Then she stopped for a moment, and then added, "OhI I would
have died for him, but he would^have ruined me."
Q. State if at any time and when you observed any marked peculiarity
about the appearance of her eye ? A. Yes, sir. It was on the 20th of June,
(I made a note of it at the time,) when going into her room, and taking a seat

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

71

opposite her, she looked at me very intensely for awhile, her eye seeming to be
entirely suffused. m he pupil of her eye was so completely covered up that you
could not see it at all. In fact, it did not look Hke an eye at all. After
sitting by her for a few moments, looking directly at me, she said, " Well, I
am very glad you have come." I then asked her how she felt.
Gross-examination:
By Mr. Wilson. What facilities for going about the jail were allowed Miss
Harris ? A. She was confined pretty closely until her physician wrote a letter,
which I brought to the Court, stating that it was necessary, from the condition
of her health, to have her taken out of the room. I then gave her the privilege
of the passage, and let her come down when I was there.
ANNA MCWILLIAMS sworn:

By Mr. Bradley.
I reside in Baltimore and am employed as a clerk in the
Treasury Department. Was residing, on the 30th of January last, at No. 14
Lexington street, Baltimore. Three weeks previous to the 30th of January, I
became acquainted with Miss Harris. I had frequent opportunities of seeing
her ; she occupied the same chamber with me part of the time.
Q. Was she sick whilst there, and just before she came to Washington ? A.
Yes, sir.
"< Q. Did you see her on the Saturday night before she came to Washington ?
A. I did.
Q. During that Saturday night do you recollect whether she slept or was
awake ? A. I left her awake at two o'clock.
Q. Had you at that time had any conversation with her in regard to her
purpose in coming to Baltimore ? A. Yes, sir. She mentioned her affairs to
me on this last Saturday, though I had often heard her mention them during
her stay in Baltimore. On this Saturday night she said she anticipated visiting
Washington, but could get through her business in the course of an hour or
two, and would return on the same day.
Q. Had she given you any portion of her history ? A. Yes, sir. On the
Saturday previous she gave me her history at length.
Q. State how she was employed on Sunday night? A. We remained in the
parlor together until ten o'clock. I retired first. She came up to the room in
about an hour after. I went to sleep and left her awake until a very late hour,
probably between one and two o'clock, assorting some letters.
Q. Did she state what she was going to do with those letters ? A. She said
she merely wanted to arrange them for the purpose of taking them to Washington the next morning if she felt" well enough to go. She said she intended
instituting a suit in Washington against Mr. Burroughs for a breach of promise,
and was going to put the letters into a lawyer's hands.
Q. State whether she was to return the same day or not.. A. Yes, sir. She
said she would positively return in the three o'clock train. If by any accident
she was not able to get off in that train, she would leave in the four-and-a-half
train. I charged her, if in the upper part of the city, to be sure and give herself ample time in getting to the depot, as I had been disappointed quite often
in getting to the depot too late for the train. She said she would give herself
at least three-quarters of an hour to get to the depot.
Q. Had you any engagement with her for the evening of Monday ? A. Yes,
sir. We were going together that evening to the colored people's school.
Henry Ward Beecher was to review the colored scholars.
Q. Did you see her when she was starting in the morning ? A. I saw her a
short time before she started. I left the house before she got off, however, but
she was ready to start when I left. She left in the 40 minutes past nine train.
Q. Do you know whether she brought those letters with her or not ? A. I
lid not know at the time; but I understood
The District Attorney. Never mind what you understood.

T2

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Q,. Do you know whether Miss Harris did or did not leave any letters on her
pillow ? A. Yes, sir. She left two.
Q. Did she have a return ticket ? A. Yes, sir. She got it from Miss Flemming.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Wilson. Please state the whole of the conversation of which you have
given us a part? A. Well, on Saturday morning she came into my room, and
brought Mr Burroughs's letters. We spent that day together. She told me
that she intended going to Washington on Monday, if she was well enough.
She had had an idea of starting the week previous, but was prevented by being
taken sick. She said she had no other intention than to enter suit against
Mr. Burroughs; that she did not wish to recover anything from him, but
merely wanted to let the public know that she was not the creature they supposed her to be. She said her character had been spoken of in rather an unsatisfactory manner in consequence of the long intimacy which had existed
between Burroughs and herself, and she was determined to let people see that
she was not what they supposed. She stated, furMier, that she had left her
home and gone to Chicago, which she never would have done except on his
(Mr. Burroughs's) account; and that he had since deceived her by marrying
another woman.
Q, Did she mention the name of the person whom she proposed to employ ?
A. No, sir. She said she had seen a lawyer in Chicago, and had made some
arrangement with him; but thought she had better come to Washington to
carry out her plans in sueing Mr B. Her object in visiting Washington at
that time, she said, was to know whether he was in the city, for she had previously visited Washington for the purpose, but found he had left the city the
evening before her arrival. She purposed visiting Washington-again to discover
whether he was here, and then intended placing the letters in the hands of a
lawyer during the coming week.
Q. How many conversations did you have from first to last with Miss Harris
in regard to Mr. Burroughs ? A. She never mentioned his name to me until
the Saturday previous.
Q. Who else was at this house at the time you and Miss Harris were there ?
A. Several boarders. I do not exactly remember the number. Among the
ladies there was Miss Stewart and Miss Shasto. Among the gentlemen, Mr.
Price, Rev. Mr. Dudley, and Mr. Keller. I think those are all.
Q. Was there a Mr. Shaw there ? A. No, sir. He boarded there for a short
time, but he did not happen to be there at the time Miss Harris was. His wife
was there. Mr. Shaw was in New York, I think.
By Mr. Bradley. Did Miss Harris read you any of Mr. Burroughs's letters ?
A. Yes, sir. She read me extracts from five or six of them.
WILLIAM H. BROWN sworn:

By Mr. Bradley. I was employed in the Treasury Department on the 30th
January last, and was present at the time the first shot was fired at Mr. Burroughs ; was about five feet in front of him, and about thirty feet off from the
person who fired the shot. I measured the distance the next day. I did not
see the person who fired before the first shot was fired, but very suddenly after
the first shot was fired—just as suddenly as I could turn round. I was then
standing in the centre of the hall, and she also stood very near the centre of
the hall, just opposite the clock.
Cross-examination :
By Mr. Wilson. After the first shot was fired I turned suddenly around,
looked to see where the shot came from, and saw a lady standing in the centre
of the hall, in the act of cocking the pistol a second time. I looked to see if it
was any one I knew, for I did not comprehend the case at all. I had an impression that, perhaps, it was some sport; but seeing her raise her hand to fire

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

73

again, and no one in front of me but Burroughs, who had seen her and gone
past me, I started towards the stairs. I did not know but what she was insane,
as she had a sort of a wild look, and was firing at random. Therefore I thought,
if that was the case, she was as likely to hit me as any one else, or, if shooting
at Bui roughs, still as liable to hit me as him; so I accordingly started on after
Bui roughs When I reached the stairs, glancing around and seeing that he was
foing t° t' a k e the left-hand stairs, I went down on the right hand.
° Q. Slowly or rapidly ? A. I don't think I went very slowly. [Laughter.]
Q Where next did you go ? A. I stopped and asked' some gentlemen in the
hall what that shooting was up stairs. They replied that they thought it was
nothing. I thought if that was the case I would not make any fuss about it,
and so went home to my own room, on the corner of 12th and G.
Q. Were you much excited ? A. No, sir I think I was perfectly calm.
Q. Did you feel much alarmed ? A I did not feel so much alarmed then as
I did after I got home. [Laughter.] I did not at the time think it was anything
serious, but after I got home I thought it must be; that it was a strange place
to have that kind of fun.
Dr. CHARLES IT. NICHOLS sworn:

By Mr. Voorhees. Where do you reside ? A. In this District
Q. State your profession ? A. I am a doctor of medicine.
Q. State what position you occupy here now ? A. I am Superintendent of
what is known as the Government Hospital for the Insane.
Q, How long have you occupied that situation ? A. Nearly thirteen years.
Q. How long have you practised medicine ? A Twenty-two years.
Q. State whether you have made the subject of the mind a study; and if so,
how long ? How long has it been a specialty with you ? A. It has been a
specialty with me for eighteen years.
Q. State whether you know Miss Harris, where you first saw her, how often
you have seen her, and then state, in your own way, the conclusions at which
you have arrived of her physical and mental condition ? I will simply recall
your attention to the facts that have been testified to in your hearing; and
then from these facts, if true, and from your own personal examination of the
defendant, ask you to give us your opinion as to her mental condition ? A. At
the request of two gentlemen interested in Mrs. Harris, neither of whom has
been present during this trial, nor in any way connected with it, so far as I
know, I visited Miss Harris in jail first near the latter part of February, or
about the 1st of March. It certainly was not long before the adjournment of
Congress. I saw her, I think, in all, about five times, the last time on the
evening of the day of the President's funeral.
Q. Now, Doctor, be kind enough tto give us the result of your investigations
and your opinion as to her physical and mental condition. A. I have prepared
a skeleton of my views, thinking it would save the time of the Court, and I
will read them if there be no objection.
Counsel. Proceed, sir.
Witness read as follows :
At the request of two gentlemen, neither of whom has been present during
the trial, nor so far as 1 know, in any way connected with it, I visited Miss
Harris in her room in the jail four or five times, and conversed with her with
a view to ascertain her mental and physical condition. I believe I have heard
all the evidence bearing upon her mental and bodily health which has been
given before this court since Saturday morning. From my personal observation of Miss Harris, made as stated, and assuming the testimony under oath,
relating to the state of her mind, to which I have listened, to be true, I am led
to the following conclusions :
Miss Mary Harris's brain and nervous system are large and active. The
nervous temperament largely predominates over the other temperaments of
physiologists. It appears that she has been affected with painful dysmenorrhea
irom the autumn of 1.863 .to :ne.ar the present time. Her mental faculties are

74

TKIAL OF MAKY HAREIS.

stronger and more active than the average of women. Her temper is highlysensitive and sphitecl, but kind and placable. She has not enjoyed the advantages of much moral or mental training. Her character was that of an
uncommonly sprightly and engaging girl, who had attracted the notice and
regard of highly respectable gentlemen and ladies in Burlington, Iowa, who
esteemed her for her intelligence, honorable ambition, and virtue. Both her
physical constitution and health, and her mental and moral constitution are
such as to render her unusually susceptible to either a physical or moral cause
of insanity. She has been exposed at the same time to the physical and
moral agencies which frequently cause mental derangement, and those to whose
effects she was peculiarly susceptible.
1. Painful dysmenorrhoza.
2. Disappointment in love—the sudden and unexpected breaking off a long
continued engagement of marriage, in a manner most calculated to deeply
wound the sensibilities of a nervous, proud, and virtuous young woman, and to
disturb her reason. From the moment of this disappointment in love—this
great shock to her delicate moral sensibilities—there was a material change in
her spirits and health, and she at times exhibited acts of insane violence. She was
unquestionably insane at times daring the period between the disappointment
and the homicide. The circumstances attending the homicide by her, are
better explained by the assumption that it was an act of insanity, than that it
was an act of malice or revenge. The state of her body and mind since the
homicide is calculated to corroborate the theory that there is a continuous
morbid susceptibility to mental disturbance, and that the homicide was an act
of insane violence.
Q. Doctor, in your interviews with Miss Harris as a physician, were you
apprised of the condition of her health. In other words, from your consultation with her after seeing her in the jail, can you fix what her mental
condition was most probably on the 30th of January. A. To give the
weight which my knowledge upon that point has upon my own mind,
I will mention that at the first interview I had with her, as well as
at subsequent interviews, she impressed me with the conviction that she was a
person not only of virtue and cheerfulness, but of uncommon candor. I may
say that during the first and second interviews, I was inclined to doubt her
insanity. It does not occur to me how I came possessed with the idea that her
mental disturbance was connected with her menstrual periods. At any rate, I
did get that idea in some way, and at one of my interviews, I think it was the
third, I asked her whether she was unwell at the time of the commission of the
homicide She replied tliat she was. I may mention that I was so much
impressed with her womanly delicacy and sensibility that I put the question by
writing it upon a card, to make it as inoffensive to her as possible, and she
returned her reply in writing. She stated to me in this reply that she had been
"unwell for three days before she came to Washington, and. that was the cause
in part of her deferring the visit to Washington.
Q. Doctor, in your experience and knowledge of this subject, assuming that
fact to be true, how is it regarded by men of your profession' as a cause of
mental disturbance? A. I t is a frequent cause of mental disturbance.
Q. On even a specific subject, with a mind comparatively sane on all but one
subject, and even'upon that exhibiting only occasional evidences of mental derangement—have you had cases of that kind under yoar observation? A. Yes,
sir. I have frequently seen that form of morbid mental manifestation which is
occasional. Gentlemen of my profession are in the habit of calling it paroxysimal insanity, and in certain cases express its character more specifically by
calling it paroxysimal mania.
Q. State whether a knowledge of right and wrong is any longer considered
as a test of insanity? A. I do not consider a knowledge of right and wrong,
in the abstract, as a test of insanity; nor even a knowledge of right and wrong
in respect to any criminal act that may be committed by an insane person. I,
perhaps, in justice to my profession, should say, that that view has never been

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

75

taken by it, though the views of your profession have never been as clearly
defined upon that point as have those of mine. I am aware that a knowledge
of right and wrong has been, by certain jurists, particularly in England, held
to be evidence of responsibility in criminal cases.
Q. Describe to the jury what is understood in your profession by the term
"insane impulse?" A. By "insane impulse" I understand that an individual
is impelled, in consequence of disease of the brain, suddenly to commit an act
that he is unable to restrain himself from committing. In some instances there
is, probably, a consciousness of the nature of the act; but in most instances I
think there is not.
Mr. Bradley. Do you mean physical disease, or one created by the causes to
which you have referred, when you speak of a diseased brain? A. Perhaps it
will be a sufficiently categorical answer for me to say, that I believe that the
brain is always diseased, either in substance or functions, in every case of insanity.
Q. Now, doctor, what is the effect—recognized effect, by men of science—
upon the human mind of continuous and protracted thought upon any one subject, and especially if accompanied by violent emotions of disappointment-, or
even of exciting joy ? A. Such mental habits are frequently the exciting cause
of insanity.
Q. State if it is so in one case more than in the other ? A. I am under the
impression that disappointment in love is a more frequent cause of insanity
among women than men.
Q. State whether this protracted thought upon the subject of disappointment
is, or not, calculated to give rise to this character of the mental disease that you
speak of as " insane impulse" upon the subject of the bereavement. A. I should
think it was; though every species of insanity may be produced by a single
cause; and, vice versa, every known cause of insanity may give rise to one form
of that disease.
Adjourned.
E I G H T H DAY—THURSDAY, July 13,1865.
The Court met at ten o'clock.
The interest in the case seems to be on the increase, and there were many
more present to-day than upon any preceding day. The ladies, of whom
there were a large number in attendance, occupied seats inside the railing, and
appeared to manifest much interest in the proceedings. The prisoner was
escorted into court shortly after ten o'clock, and occupied the seat she has occupied during the progress of the trial.
DR. CHARLES H. NICHOLS.

Cross-examination:
By Mr. Carrington. Will you be kind enough to state to the jury the facts
upon which you base your opinion? A. I base my opinion upon the facts and
occurrences testified to by the Misses Devlin and Dr. Fitch; and my belief that
she was insane between the disappointment and the homicide is corroborated by
what I observed myself of her condition, and by the facts and circumstances to
which Mr. Bradley testified. In fact, by my entire knowledge of the case, obtained in the manner stated yesterday.
Q State in detail, if you please, any remarkable incidents that occurred within
your own personal observation which induces this opinion ? A. No very remarkable incident, bearing upon the state of her mind, occurred within my
personal observation; no incident that, in itself, would convince me that she
was insane. During the first interview I had with her, and at the close of the
second, I* think, I was under the impression that she was not insane—at least
entertained strong doubts of her insanity. I was very much impressed at this
interview with the predominance and susceptibility of her nervous system; with

76

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

her apparent candor, and the probable truthfulness of her statements in regard
to herself. At the time of my last interview with her she was suffering from erysipelas in the face a,nd head. When I called the second time at the jail, and sent
up my name, perhaps my card, she declined to see me; and my recollection is,
that she declined a second time. It was only on the occasion of the fourth call
that I saw her a second time. I was told, when I called the second and
third times, that she was not well—in bad health—and had suffered from
fever and restlessness. This information I derived from the guard—not from
the physician. At my second interview, perhaps in reply to some question
relating to that matter, she told me that she was very much indisposed at the
time I had called, and also, upon further inquiry, that it was at her monthly
period. At the last interview I had with her, she was suffering from the
erysipelas, described by Mr. Bradley, and she then exhibited more nervous
agitation than I had observed at the previous interviews. It was the evening
of the day of the funeral of the late President; and she expressed great apprehension lest further violence might be committed by his assassins, and particularly to herself.
Q; Will you repeat those expressions as near as you can recollect them ?
A. I cannot be positive in respect to her words, but I think she said she was
afraid they might get in here, (referring to her own room,) and do violence to
her. I think she said murder her; but it is the general character of her expression rather than the words that I remember distinctly. I am sure that is
the nature of the apprehension she expressed. I would like to make an explanation just here. I was unable to recollect on yesterday how I obtained the
idea that she suffered from dysmenorrhcea. Upon reflection, I remember well
that I learned from the prisoner herself that Dr. Fitch, who testified in her
ca3e on Tuesday, had visited her in Chicago, and I wrote to him; and, in reply,
he informed' me that he attended her for congestive dysmenorrhcea.
Q. Doctor, will you be kind enough to state the technical name of the insanity with which she was affected ? A. I should denominate it a case of periodical or paroxysmal mania.
Q. Will you state its nature and character, and its effect upon the person?
A. The term, mania, is applied to that kind of insanity in which the excitement
is great and general. The term paroxysmal, or periodical mania, is applied to
that form of mania, the active symptoms of which recur sometimes pretty regularly, and at other times at irregular periods; and between them there is a
greater or less remission in the activity of the disease.
Q. State what is the effect that that insanity has upon the mind and will of
a person when laboring under it ? A. As I have indicated in general terms—
the mind is excited, and the understanding more or less deranged. The will is
more cr less affected—either impaired or misdirected. Sometimes the energy of
the will is greatly increased, beyond what is natural to the individual
Q. That being the character of the insanity which in your opinion, from
what you saw of the prisoner, and the evidence on that point which you have
heard the witnesses give, I wish to know to what extent she was affected by
this insanity, the degree of the insanity under which she was laboring, and how
far it affected her mind and her will while under the influence of it ? A. While
under the influence of these 'paroxysms of mania that I suppose existed, and
still exist, I presume her mind was so far affected as to cause her to have violent impulses, and to be unable to restrain them: and also to entertain either
unfounded views and feelings, or entertain those that had a foundation, with a
morbid energy, so as to make them appear to her much more important than
they would in health.
Q,. Do you think that while under the influence of this mania she was incapable of giving a rational answer as to the moral quality of her acts, or determining or estimating the moral qualities or criminal nature of her acts ? A. My
impression is, that Miss Harris, if her attention had been arrested so as to give
a direct or categorical answer to any question of that kind, would probably
have given a correct one.

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

77

Do I understand you to say, Doctor, that while under the influence of
.
, ^ i'lii-al mania, that her will was so far impaired as to render her unable
1
H** Kcoutiol, and render her acts involuntary ? A. I think so.
0ii
^ 1 low loiW does a person generally remain in this condition ? A. Gener" - 1 would *say that nothing in the sphere of human knowledge is more
aii
^ , join than the duration of one of these paroxysms
uncei ^-^ ^YQ t o determine by circumstances whether she was in that condition
V.t•'? A Each case of disease is, to a certain extent, a law to itself; and if
°-! "-'iVe is" oi some standing, you would infer that its future would correspond
W1

«V Doctor, I will put a hypothetical case, so as to test the principle to which
c
v T v e ^verted. Assuming it to be true that a woman armed herself with a
'v^ol" saving that she would have revenge at the risk of her life ; that she went
F^tVe Treasury, or some other building in this city, inquired for a particular
>tv and. after seeing him in his room, then concealed herself, and as he was
F ^ i n ^ bv shot him, and then fired a second time at him ; would you say, from
^'ur personal observation of the prisoner, and from the evidence of insanity
that vou have heard, that her mind was so far affected, or she was so insane, as
not to know she was doing wrong, and violating the law ?
Ob;i*cted to, but objection subsequently withdrawn.
\ " I will say, in reply to that question, that no amount of premeditation and
preparation to commit a homicide, in my judgment, precludes the idea that that
homicide was an insane act I, however, deem it equally due to the truth of
science to say, that if there is evidence of premeditation and preparation, a much
closer scrutiny should be made in respect to the existence or non-existence of
insanity, if insanity is supposed to exist. That, in other words, such premeditation "and preparation are calculated to throw more or less suspicion or doubt
upon the existence of insanity, or that the act was an insane act. If the
facts cited in the first part of your question were proved to my satisfaction, it
would not alter my convictions in this case, that the act of homicide was an
insane act
Q. My object is to get at the degree of insanity. I want to know whether a
paity so affected as you describe would be capable, under such circumstances,
of understanding the moral character and quality of the act ? A. I can answer
that directly or categorically, by saying " Y e s ; " but by saying that in my
"udgment it was an insane act, I cover, it seems to me, the question of responsiilifcy.
Q.* Assuming the same facts to be true, would you express the opinion that
the will of the party was so affected that acts which I have assumed were
involuntaiy and beyond the control of the party ? A. I would.
Q I will ask you if a person in the condition you have described is apt to
select some particular person, and pursue him, or are his acts of violence
genenilly directed against different persons irrespective of the relations between
the parties—whether friends or enemies. A. It strikes me that the cases are
about equally divided in that respect. In some instances the homicidal
impulse is blind, and irrespective of the individual killed, but 1 think it quite
as often has reference to some individual or class of individuals.
Q Do persons laboring under this peculiar species of mania generally act
with any well defined motive?- A. They frequently act with a motive that in
their own minds is a well defined one.
Q How is it with regard to the spirit with which they are prompted. Is it
more the spirit of revenge and hatred against the person injured? A. I should
say that the spirit in which insane persons commit homicides is as various as ih.e
cases. As a general rule,- it arises from some delusion, or the morbid exaggeration of some real fact,
Q What I wish to know is in determining, as a scientific gentlemen, whether
a person is insane or not, laboring under the species of insanity to which you
have testified, what effect would it have upon your judgment in determining
that question, if it appeared that the party was prompted by a spirit of revenge

U

78

TRIAL OP MARY HARRTS.

or hatred against any particular person. A. To that question I would inake
the same reply that t made to the question in relation to the effect upon rav
judgment of premeditation and preparation, substituting the words revenge anu
hatred.
Q Are they not as a general rule inconsistent with the idea of that insanity
to which you have testified? A. I can hardly say that, as a general rule, they
are. If those motives do not appear to exist I should the more readily conclude
that it was a case of homicide by an insane person—an insane act.
Q. I will ask you, Doctor, whether in the case of a person laboring under
the species of insanity to which you have testified, these manifestations aie
general and frequent, or confined to a few instances ? A. I have no opinion on
that subject in addition to what I have expressed, because I could not tell
beforehand whether such a patient would have a paroxysm of insanity once a
month, once a week, or every day.
Q. What, in your judgment, is the present condition of the prisoner's mind ?
A. I will repeat what 1 said the other day in regard to that, i t is this : " The
state of her body and mind since the homicide, is calculated to corroborate the
truth of the theory that there is a continuous morbid susceptibility to mental
disturbance, and that it, (the homicide for which she is on trial,) was an act of
insane violence."
Q. Do you mean to apply that to the condition of the prisoner at this
moment? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Wilson. Q. I have already understood you to say, Doctor, that
from the facts alone that came under your observation while you were in
attendance on the accused, you could express no opinion as to the sanity or
insanity of the party ? A. No, sir; I believe I have not said that. I will say
now tliat I do not think I could express a positive opinion, from my own
observation alone, in respect to her sanity or insanity at the time of the
homicide.
Q. Your opinion, then, is formed as well from your observation as from the
testimony of the witnesses who have testified as to her condition prior to this
homicide, and also her demeanor after the homicide ? A. It is.
Q. Now, doctor, be good enough to state, with as much minuteness as possible, what facts are in the testimony of the other witnesses as to her condition
arid conduct prior to the time of the homicide, that, in connection with your
own observation, enable you to form an opinion ?
Objected to. Objection overruled.
A. The Misses Devlin testify to a material change in her physical and mental
condition immediately following a disappointment. That change, in itself, is
a morbid one—is disease.
The character of the change was such, immediately
upon its occurrence, as to indicate either mental disease or a susceptibility to
it. She then exhibited, from time to time, what appeared to be symptoms of
actual mental disease. The symptoms to which I refer were the nervousness
and excitability, the loss of sleep, the loss of appetite, the loss of flesh, and
the change in her spirits—her mental depression. Those, I believe, are all the
principal features of the change first noticed.
Dr. Fitch testifies to her suffering under a painful and severe form of dysmenorrhea, shortly subsequent to the disappointment. It seems to me impossible to do justice to science and speak of the symptoms simply without
connecting them with the cause and showing how they harmonize,under your
question.
In the first stage of the case I perceive a constitutional susceptibility to
mental disturbances from certain causes. I find from the testimony, as I
think, that those causes existed, or occurred.. I then find that her moral and
womanly sensibilities were deeply wounded; that she suffered from a painful
dysmenorrhoea. These were exciting causes of insanity and occurred independently of the constitutional tendency to mental disease. Then it seems to mcf
that the manifestations of a particular form of insanity, continued from time
to time in the continued emaciation, irregular and insufficient sleep, the de-

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

79

pression of spirits, and an occasional outbreak of insane violence, of a character which harmonizes with the form of disease that I suppose to have
existed. Those instances are the attack upon Miss Jane Devlin, upon a customer in the store, the cutting up the quilt, (which was, so to speak, a very
natural insane act,) her effort to leave the house at such an unseasonable hoar
at that season of the year (the winter) and in her state of life, connected with
the remark which indicates—I do not think it proves—some indefinite purpose
in regard to her own life. The remark itself, in connection with her depression of spirits and state of mind generally, gave rise to the suspicion in my
mind that I have indicated.
Q. Then these symptoms that you have indicated are the basis of your
judgment as to the condition of her mind ? A. No, sir; they are not by any
means. They are all that occur to me of the evidences of insanity that existed, or were evinced between the disappointment and the homicide.
Q. Now, Doctor, you have heard all the circumstances of the homicide, will
you be good enongh to indicate what symptoms of insanity you are able to
mention that have been adduced here in evidence on that subject? A. I t is
due to science to say that, so far as I understand the circumstances connected
with the homicide, as testified to in my hearing, that they do not of themselves prove the existence of insanity ; though I think they were in harmony, in the main, with what usually occurs when an insane person commits
a homicide. There appears to have been no effort to commit the act secretly.
The best opportunity of committing the act was not embraced, as I think a
sane person would have done. There were no efforts to escape; no attempt to
palliate the crime by alleging provocation. On the contrary, she expressed her
sorrow that she had done it; and her great distress in consequence.
I base my statement upon the testimony of Policeman Walker, Secretary McCullough, and Mrs. Woodbridge.
Q. Will you please state all the facts adduced in the testimony to which you
have listened, which, outside of your own observation, you predicate any connection with these other facts—the opinion of insanity ? A. My view that
this is a continuous disease, or a susceptibility to disease, aside from what I
saw of Miss Harris myself, is based mainly upon the testimony of Mr. Bradley. He testifies to so many incidents that I find myself unable to mention
them all; but I recollect his mention of the frequency of her pulse, the manifestation of great nervous and mental disturbance in the expression of unfounded apprehensions, if not positive delusions; loss of sleep, and insensibility to cold.
Q. Will you please give us some idea of the difference between the condition
of the mind when in a state of actual disease, and in a state of extreme susceptibility to diseases of which you have spoken; and whether the condition
of extreme susceptibility is not actually a condition of disease ? A. The
words I used were, I think, susceptibility to mental disturbance; and by those
terms I mean, if you please, actual disease
Q. Then you would regard the prisoner as actually diseased in mind from
the date of her disappointment to the day of the homicide ? A. Yes, sir;
Q. You speak of the time continuous, the whole period ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Be good enough to speak of the condition of her mind from the date of
her disappointment to the date of the homicide, with reference to the sanity or
insanity of the party, and to the responsibility or irresponsibility of the party
daring that period ? A. I think that during the period referred to Miss Harris
may have committed, and probably did commit, a great many acts for which
she should be held to legal and moral responsibility ; but that she was liable,
at times during the period referred to, to commit acts arising from mental
disease ; in other words, that were associated with an active manifestation of
mental disease, for which she should not have been held, or be held, legally
and morally responsible, is also true. I am quite indisposed to go into a disquisition voluntarily on this or any other branch of insanity; but perhaps it
is due to myself and to truth to say that, in my view, for an insane person

80

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

to be responsible for an act, the act must grow out of insanity; that comparatively few persons are so insane as not to do many acts for which they are
responsible, and for which they should be held responsible.
Q. Doctor, from what you know of Miss Harris's mental condition can you
not state as to the probability, during the term of eighteen months, of more
frequent exhibitions of insane impulse ? A. I have really no opinion on that
point. I have cases under my care of persons who have paroxymal outbreaks
of insanity once in six months, once in three months, once in a year; and, as
I have endeavored to intimate, there is no law,so far as I know,in relation to
that matter.
Q. You have spoken, doctor, of two causes that produced the general state
of disease, or of a diseased mind, I now wish to ask you if, in reviewing the
testimony, you can account for these exhibitions of paroxysmal insanity—these
instances that have occurred upon the supposition that there was only one
exciting cause that could produce those exhibitions, or whatever there was
more than one exciting cause ? A. Under the testimony I suppose that there
were two exciting causes, as I have testified: I can conceive that there might
have been twenty.
Q. For instance, Doctor, there is testimony that upon one occasion a carvingknife was used in an attack on Miss Devlin, Now, of course, there was a
generally diseased mind which produced the attack, but I want to know what
the immediate cause of that manifestation was ? A. I do not know. I have
based my judgment that insanity existed, and of the cause of it, on the
testimony; and if, for example, a quarrel was shown to have existed at the
moment of using this carving-knife, my inference in this particular case would
be that she used the carving-knife in consequence of her state of mind, when
she would not have done it if she had been in a sound state of mind; but as I
recollect no reference to such quarrel in the testimony, of course I do not suppose that such a quarrel took place.
Q. Then, Doctor, I will ask you if these paroxysms of insanity, in your
theory of the case, were liable to occur at any time, irrespective of the appearance or non-appearance of any one individual? A. My belief is—at least my
strong impression is, and I do not feel so certain upon that point as I might do
under a different state of facts—but my belief is that paroxysms were more
likely to appear at the monthly periods; but I think she was liable to have
them at other times, that they were likely to occur independent wholly of any
immediate exciting causes, and that they might appear at any time. A little
indisposition arising from cold, a bilious condition, fatigue, or anything of that
kind might produce a paroxysm of excitement.
By Mr. Mughes- I understood you to say in your cross-examination, that in
cases of this kind the act proceeded from insanity f A. Yes, sir.
Q. I desire you to give your opinion from what you know of this case,
whether the act here proceeded from an insane impulse ? A. I am of opinion
that it did.
Q. A great deal was said in regard to the causes of the manifestations of this
disturbance of mind and mental disease. I am desirous to hear your opinion upon
the point that I suppose was intended to be reached by that question. I will
ask you myself upon what occasions, from all the circumstances of the case,
those manifestations were most likely to be exhibited—upon seeing what person
or things ? A. I think those manifestations of insanity were most likely to
occur upon seeing the person that had disappointed her, or that she thought, at
least, had disappointed and greatly wronged her.
THURSDAY, J U L Y

13th.

JAMES A. CONNER sworn:

By Mr. Bradley. I was employed in the Treasury Department on the 30th
of January last. I was on the fourth floor, and was down stairs on the third
floor at the time Mr. Burroughs was shot. Before I landed on the floor the

TRIAL OP MA.RY HARRIS.

81

fust shot was fired. I saw the person when she fired the last time, but did not
on the hist occasion. When the second shot was fired she turned and passed
jicjht by me and went down the west front steps She walked down at a pretty
smait rate, and seemed to be under great excitement. I think, if I may judge
of females, that she was very pale. Her eyes looked wild to me, as far as I
could see.
Mr. Bradley announced that the defence here rested their case, and the
prosecution proceeded to offer rebutting evidence.
WM. W. DANESHOWEB, recalled by prosecution :
By Mr. Wilson, You have already stated that you knew Mr. Burroughs.
Please state what opportunities you have had of becoming acquainted with his
handwriting? A. In July, 1863, Mr. Burroughs came into the Fourth Auditor's office, and worked at a desk alongside of me until the middle of December.
1863, when he left, and went into the office of the Comptroller of the CurrencyDuring that space of time he copied and wrote letters under my direcion, which
I examined critically, and therefore became familiar with his handwriting.
(>. Will you examine these two letters, dated Chicago, September 8, and
Chicago, September 12, and envelopes, (handing same to witness,) and state if
you liave seen them before, and if so, where? A. I saw these letters last Saturday morning, and examined them. There was also another letter with them
in' this envelope, dated August 7, signed A J. Burroughs.
Q. You testified as tc the handwriting of a number of letters that were shown
you the other day. Will you be good enough to state whether you believe
these two letters to be in the handwriting of Mr. Burroughs ? A. I do not.
Q. State the degree of confidence that you can express in your own experience ? A. I have examined them very critically. Mr. Burroughs had a very
peculiar way of making a capital " I ; " and if you will examine the letters that
I saw on last Saturday you will find that those capital " I V are very similar,
and nearly exactly alike in every instance, whether made large or small. He
generally wrote a large, bold hand ; but when he would write upon a small
sheet of paper, he would not write so large.
Q. State whether this pile of letters was shown you, and if so, whether you
at that time separated these two from the others, and expressed any opinion as
to the handwriting ? A. They were all in one package, and handed to me by
Mr. Bradley. After examining the package, I remarked to him, " These two
are not in his handwriting." He then took these out, and tied up the package
of letters. Three he took out. There is no letter—no capital letter particularly, in these letters—that resembles in the slightest degree Burroughs's writing.
His'" W's" and " H's" are different.
Q. Will you state your recollection as to the time when Mr. Burroughs left
the city of Washington in September, 1863 ? A. The records in the Fourth
Auditor's office show that his leave of absence was from the 7th of September,
for the space of twenty days. I recollect distinctly that for some two or threeweeks prior to his leaving he was in search of a house. I believe that he left
here on the morning of the 10th of September.
By Mr. Bradley. Do you know when he left? A. I am as positive that was
the time as I am of almost anything in regard to dates. I know it was two or
three days after he got his leave; and I know for what reasons he was detainee!
here, the circumstances of which I can state, if allowed.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley. Had Mr. Burroughs left the city before that? A. A month
oi so before, and was gone, I think, something like ten days, I do not know the
time he left nor the date of his return, but it was some time in August. My
iccollection is that he^was only back some two or three weeks from that trip
before he obtained the leave of which I have spoken. He made a short trip to
Chicago and back—at least that is where he intended to go, and I suppose he
did.
6

82

TRIAL OF MAEY HARRIS,

Q. Look at this letter, dated August 7, (handing witness same.) is that in
Mr. Burroughs's handwriting ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you to look at the signature to this letter, (August 7,) and
this, (8th or 3 2th of September,) and state whether or not you perceive a resemblance in the letter " I " or " J " in those two, though very roughly done, to
the " I " and " J" : in the other letters ? A. There is a similarity between them,
but it is not sufficient for me to say they are alike. This " J " in the Greenwood letter doesn't come down below the line, as Mr. Burroughs always made
his " J . " The only similarity that I see is in the dates. The figure " 3 ; ! i s
something similar I do not see any resemblance about the " 6" or August 7
One of these "6's" might have been made by the pen going up, and stopping
abruptly, and the other might have been made by coming up around.
Q. Look at the "Chicago" in these three letters? A. Well, sir, these two
letters are very much alike They look to me as if they were wiitten in a natural hand There is a difference here of four days in the date, and unless ho
kept a far, simile he could not have copied the " Chicago" so as to form such a
close resemblance.
Q. I understood you to say that this letter of February 11, 1861, was a genuine one, (handing same to witness ?) A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bradley handed the letters to the jury, and asked them to compare the
letters and form their own opinion.
Mr Wilson said he did not think that the proper course to pursue.
*
Mr. Bradley said he called the attention of the jury to the fact simply that
they might, by comparison, form their own opinion with regard to the letters.*
The defence did not doubt that the letters were written in a disguised and
fictitious hand, but they wanted the jury to make the comparison themselves.
JOHN N. GOODE sworn.

By Mr. Wilson. I reside in Chicago. Was introduced to the prisoner in
the fall of 1863. Saw her during the fall of 1863 nearly every week. Saw her
last in Chicago. I think on the 2d or 3d of January was the last time I :;a\v
her in company, I was then at a friend's house where she was
Q. What was the occasion ? A. The last time 1 saw her was, I think, an
hour or two before she started for Baltimore. I do not see much difference in
her manner. She is not qElite so cheerful, of course, as she was then. She has
not so much hair on her head as she had at that time, and looks paler than
what she then did; perhaps, too, she is not so fleshy, but I see no mateiial
change.
Q. What were the amusements on the evening of which you speak. A.
There-was some little card-playing and one thing and another. She seemed
very cheerful that evening—seemed to enjoy herself very much. I played
cards with her there for a little while. Her manner, when I last saw her in
Chicago, was about the same as it was during that night She was living at
the time I first saw her at Mrs. Lacey's, on Monroe street.
By Mr. Carrington. 1 did not at that time observe any indication of illhealth, either mentally or bodily; observed nothing at all remarkable in her
conduct. During the whole time I was acquainted with her I observed no
remarkable incident that attracted my particular attention. She told me she
was going to Baltimore, and stated that she expected to be back in the course
of ten days, or two weeks at the farthest. She did not state anything further.
She did not state in whose company she was going, nor did she ever in any
conversation allude to Mr Burroughs.
Cross-examination waived
Eev. Br. Jons C. BURROUGHS sworn:
By Mr. Wilson. State your profession, and how you are at present engaged.,
A. 1 am a clergyman; at present acting as President of a University.
•
Q What University ? A. The University of Chicago.
j
Q. How long have you been President of that University ? A. Since 1858. j

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

83

Q. State the relation which you sustained to the deceased, A. J. Burroughs.
A. The deceased was my brother.
Q. Where did your brother reside immediately prior to coming to Washington ? A. In Chicago.
Q. How long had he resided there ? A. My impression is he came to Chicago
in the early spring of 1860.
Q, State whether or not you are acquainted, and what knowledge you have,
of the accused—whether you have seen her before ? A. I suppose I have seen
the accused before. I have not seen the face of the party here since I have
been in court, and therefore cannot identify her.
The prisoner was requested to raise her veil. She did so partially.
Q. Do you know the prisoner ? A. I caught a glimpse of her features.
Mr. Bradley. If the witness states that a lady called to see him in September, 1863, under the name of Miss Harris, we admit that the prisoner is the
person.
Q. State whether or not, in September, 1863, a person called to see you in
Chicago relative to two anonymous letters. State what occurred at that interview, and whether or not these letters, dated September 8th and 12th, were the
subject of conversation. A. I do not think I would be able to identify the
person from that glimpse of her features. I will state, however, that in "September, 1863, two ladies called on me in Chicago, one of whom introduced
herself to me as Miss Ha ris. Miss Harris then introduced to me the other
lady.
Q. Do you remember the name by which the other lady was introduced ?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you recognize any person present as the one ? A. I do not remember
the name by which she introduced her, nor do I recognize any person here, or
have I since seen any person whom I recognize as that lady for the reason that
I have no distinct recollection of the features of the other lady. I did not
regard her sufficiently at the time to fix her features in my mind at all.
Q. What time in September was this ? A. It was either the 16th of September or within one or two days of that. After the introduction, Miss Harris put
to me the question, " Whether my brother were in town or not?" My reply
was that he was not; that he^had been in town, but had left for Washington.
She then produced one, or two letters^—I am unable to say which—stating to me
that she had reason to believe that'they or it was written by my brother. I
asked her if I might see the letter or letters. She handed it to me, and I read
it or them.
Q. Just refer to the letters you have there, and state whether they are the
ones which were shown you? A. They are, (after carefully reading the same.)
After reading the letters, I said to Miss Harris, " Those letters were not written
by my brother. The handwriting is not only not his, but he could not counterfeit such a handwriting as that." I then continued: "Miss Harris, you
have known my brother a good while, and you are acquainted with his handwriting." I said further, that at the date of that first letter, September 8, my
brother was in Washington, while this was a drop letter—dropped in the Chicago post office at that time, as shown by the stamp upon it. I said, " I know
that that is so, and can swear to it." I gave the reason why I knew it: that
I had correspondence from him, and knew when he left Washington and arrived
in Chicago. I then turned to her, and said: " Miss Harris, I wish to know
whether, in the long time that my brother has been acquainted with you, he
has ever said anything to you, or made any dishonorable proposition, (that
was the language I used,) that justifies you in entertaining such a suspicion of
him?" To which she replied he had not; and continued—with considerable
feeling, as I observed—to say that he had always been her truest friend, and
had never said a word or done an act which was not in the highest honor; that
she regretted that she had entertained the suspicion, and that it never would
have entered her mind, but that it had been suggested by others, and that she
could not think who else could have written them ; and then added, that neither

84

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

the handwriting nor the circumstances justified lier in the suspicion. That is
the substance, but not the language she used; however, it is the exact substance.
She then reiterated her regret that she had called on this errand, and requested
me never to mention the circumstance to my brother. I told her I would not,
with the understanding that the subject there dropped. I have omitted a circumstance which occurs to me at this moment. After asking her, as I have
stated, whether he had ever done anything that justified her in the suspicion, I
asked her further, whether he had violated any engagement to her ? She disclaimed any such violation of engagement; and as 1 understood what she said,
she disclaimed the existence of an engagement; but added that there was a long
correspondence, and that she had letters, or a letter, of his with her then. I
asked her if I might see any she had; and she thereupon produced one, and
handed it to me. I read it, and then said to her, " That is Judson's letter."
After expressing to her my regret that she should have had any pain or trouble
on the account, she retired. I have not seen her from that day to this, to my
knowledge.
Q. Will you state what opportunities you had of becoming acquainted with
the handwriting of your brother ? A I taught him writing ; and have seen
him write a great deal. I have written with him on trial to see which could
form the best letters, and to indicate to each other our modes of forming them.
I criticised his handwriting a great deal shortly before his death, pointing out
to him faults and errors in his mode of forming letters; particularly found
fault with him because he did not write plainly. He has kept books for me,
made out bills, copied papers of various kinds and descriptions for me, and, of
course, has corresponded with me very largely, from all of which I have
obtained a knowledge of his handwriting and his mode of forming letters.
Q. Be good enough to look at these two letters, dated respectively the 8th
and 12th of September, and state whether, in your opinion, they are or are not
in the handwriting of your brother. A. As I said at that time I say now,
that they are not in the handwriting of my brother.
Q. Will you state at what time in September, 1863, your brother arrived in
the city of Chicago. A. To the best of my knowledge, on Friday morning,
September 11th.
Q. Lest there should be any misunderstanding will you be good enough to
state how long it takes a person leaving here on the morning of one day
to arrive at Chicago by the ordinary course of travel ? A. It takes thirty-six
hours, I think, to go from Washington to Chicago.
Q. State when he left Chicago, how long he remained during that visit, and
where he stopped at? A. He stopped at different places, and at Mr. Bobbs's,
at my own boarding place, at the Lake-View House, some four or five miles
out of town.
Q. When did he leave Chicago? A. On the evening of the 15th of September, at, I think, six o'clock, p. m.
Q. Will you state whether, on the 14th of September, any inquiry was made
of you as to your brother by a lady? A. None, to my recollection.
Q. What was the age of your brother at the time of his death ? A. He would
have been either 33 or 34 years old had he lived until the spring of the present
year.
Mr. Wilson made an application to the Court with regard to the package of
ninety-two letters. He said he understood they were all in evidence, and he
had asked Mr. Bradley for them, and had been refused. He desired to know if
he could not examine them under the eye of the Court or of the clerk.
Mr. Bradley said he had given the gentleman such of the letters as had been
read before the Court and jury, but he did not think Mr. Wilson should be
allowed to overlook all in the bundle. It was only such as had been read that
were in evidence
The Court decided that the prosecution could only make use of such letters as
had been read in the hearing of the Court.
Mr. Bradley then said that he should, in the morning, ask the Court to allow

TRIAL OP MARY HARRTS.

85

them to reserve the cross-examination of the witness, Rev. Dr. Burroughs, until
all the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined. He said this was a
subject within the discretion of the Court, and had been frequently done.
Judge Wylie said he would decide that point upon the reopening of the court
in the morning.
Dr. Burroughs here desired to make an explanation, and stated that on the
occasion that Miss Harris called upon him, he had said she introduced herself.
He recognized the introduction as unnecessary, as he knew who Miss Harris
was, having seen her before once or twice.
Thp- court then adjourned until to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock.
EIGHTH DAY—FRIDAY,

July 14, 1865.

The court met at ten o'clock.
The attendance to-day was larger than upon any previous day, and a greater
number of ladies occupied seats inside the railing. Miss Harris was brought
into court attended as usual, and the proceedings were at once commenced.
Mr. Bradley stated that, prior to the adjournment of the court on Thursday,
he had given notice that he would ask to be allowed to postpone the cross-examination of Rev. Mr. Burroughs until all the testimony for the prosecution
had been given. He would now make that request.
Judge Wylie declined to grant the request, on the ground that such a proceeding would be an unusual one, but he said the defence could recall Mr. Burroughs at a subsequent time.
Dr. BUEEOUGHS sworn.

Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley. Witness said he wished to correct his answer in regard to
the time of his brother's arrival in Chicago. It was 1861 instead of 1860.
Q. You said yesterday that you could not identify the prisoner from the
slight glimpse you had of her face. I will now ask Miss Harris to raise her
veil. [Miss Harris did as requested, exposing her features to view.] Look at her
now, and see if you recognize her ? A. I think I do.
Q. What raises any hesitation in your mind as to recognition ? A. I never
saw Miss Harris more than two or three times, I should think.
Q. Did she or not spend an evening at your house with your brother, previous to that time ? A. Not at my house.
Q. When I said at your house I mean at the University, the place where you
resided, and which was under your control, as I understand ? A. It was not
under my control.
Q. You lived there ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there any company there by your invitation ? A. No, sir.
Q. No persons there upon your invitation ? A. It would be impossible for
me to say-whether on that occasion
1 cannot remember distinctly whether
Miss Harris was there or not, it being a public occasion, of which public notices
were issued. I may or may not have invited some persons.
Q. Did she not spend the evening at that place on a private occasion ?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Who came with her at the time to which you have referred, and who was
with her ? A. I do not know who came with her.
Q. Who did you see in company with her there ? A. I have only an impression,
sir, that she was introduced—probably to myself, more certainly to members of
my family, by niy brother.
Q. Did you or not mo her repeatedly alier that time, and before September,
1863? A. The instances were repeated after that, one, two, or three times. I
could not say definitely how many.
Q. Were they or not sufficiently frequent lor you to know her when you saw
her—to recognize her at once? A. Not at once, sir The occasion I alluded to

86

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

on the 16th, or one, two, or three following days in September, I did not recognize her at first view, but before the introduction of herself was through I
did recognize her.
Q. After you saw her at the University, and when, as your impression is, she
was introduced to your family, or to yourself, and probably by your brother,
and after seeing her several times after September, 1863, did you'not recognize
her as you met her in the street ? A. I never recollect to have met her in the
street.
Q. Where did you meet her ? A. Only on the occasions to which I have
referred, as far as I can remember.
Q. Can you fix the date you saw her at the University ? A. To the best of
my knowledge it was in the month of June, 1861. I cannot be perfectly positive
as to the month.
Q. Can you fix, with any degree of certainty, the subsequent periods when
she called at the University, and you saw her ? A. I do not think I could
even tell the years.
Q. But it was subsequent to that ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know where she was living at the time she spent that evening at
the University? A I do not; but I think I heard.
Q. Was she or not living at Sheldon & Co's, booksellers there ? A. Not to
my knowledge.
Q. You never saw her there ? A. Not to my knowledge. It is a place where
I did not go very frequently—not once in three or four years before.
Q. Had you any conversation with Mr. S. Sheldon in relation to Miss Harris ? A. Yes, sir; one that was introduced by himself.
Q. Was she at the University before or after the conversation ? A. I believe I have already stated that I had not seen Miss Harris, to my knowledge,
previous to the time she was at the University, at the sociable alluded to, and
I do not now know that I ever heard her name mentioned. It is possible I
may have, but I do not now remember of it.
Q,. Having seen her on the occasions alluded to, state to the jury what was
your difficulty in failing to recognize her here ? A. The difficulty arose from the
fact that I had never noticed the features of Miss Harris particularly. I, for
instance, would the more have thought that Miss Harris had light hair—that
her curls were light; at the same time I have a sort of general idea of her
features, and, without positiveness, think I identify the person here as the one.
Q. Do you find any difference in the degree of flesh and color ? A. Some in
flesh that I observe. Miss Harris is paler than the impression I have of that
person, which is a very faint one.
Q. Were you aware at the time you saw her at that social meeting that a
long correspondence had been going on between her and your brother ? A. I
had not the slightest idea of any correspondence between them.
Q. Wrhen did you first learn it ? A. In this court.
Q. Then what did you mean when you said to Miss Harris, " Miss Harris
you have known my brother a good while, and you are acquainted with his
handwriting." How did you know she had known your brother for a long
time, and was acquainted with his handwriting ? A. My answer to that is
that' I did not know. I do not remember the particular expressions used as I
stated yesterday, but I had understood from my brother in general terms that
from the time he introduced her there, in 1861, she was an acquaintance of
his, and had been for some considerable time past, and presumed that letters
had passed between them. I also knew it from the fact that she alluded to it
at the time;- the letter, perhaps, being more particularly the basis of any
knowledge I had in regard to correspondence.
Mr. Bradley here read from page 51 of Thursday's proceedings.
By the testimony I have read it appears it was after this remark of yours
that she spoke of the correspondence between your brother and herself, and not
until afterwards, so it could not have been from what she said. A. She at the
outset, or nearly at the outset, of the conversation, it will be remembered, pre-

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

87

sented to me two letters, saying that she had reason to believe they were from
my brother; implying that she knew my brother's handwriting, and had had
correspondence with him.
Q. Will you state how the conversation of Miss Harris struck you at that
time—whether she was calm, quiet, and self-possessed, or whether she was
under excitement ? A. At her entrance and during the conversation Miss Harris was entirely calm, and entirely self-possessed, as far as I noted, until the
point where she replied to my question whether he had ever done or said
anything which justified her in the suspicion. In her reply to that question,
when she said he had not, and that he had always been her truest and best
friend, my testimony was, I think, that she said it with evident feeling.
Q. Please state wnether anything was said in that interview of your brother
having been married that day, or the day before ? A. I think there was not.
Q. In point of fact, was he married on the 15th of September ? A. He was.
Q. Prior to his marriage had any body called upon you to inquire whether
he was in town ? A. Oftentimes.
Q. The day before his marriage? A. Not to my recollection.
Q. Do you recollect of a lady calling to see you and inquiring whether he
was in town, and after traversing the room, walking its full length, you replied
saying he was not in town ?
Witness. When ?
Counsel. On the 14th of September.
A. I have no recollection of any lady calling on that day. I recollect of
repeatedly standing, and walking about the floor when persons, among others,
ladies, h#ve called, and remember that was my manner when Miss Harris and
the other ladies called on the 16th or the two or three following days of September. I walked the floor because I was called from the hearing of class to
attend to their inquiries ; was annoyed at being interrupted, which interruption
was contrary to my instructions to servants ; and I wished to indicate by this
manner of mine to those who called that I did not sit down for an interview.
Q. Is your memory perfectly distinct that this interview with Miss Harris
was not as early as the 15th of September ? A. It is.
Q. Where were you on the afternoon of the 15th of September. A. I cannot
recollect my movements. It must have been in the afternoon—after twelve
o'clock—when I left the University to go to the center of the city—some three
or four miles distant.
Q. At what time did that marriage take place. A. The time between leaving
the University and the occurrence of the marriage was spent by myself in
making some purchases—clothing for myself which I wore to the wedding—a
pair of shoes, and some gifts for the parties. I arrived at the house where I
performed the marriage ceremony, I remember, at precisely four o'clock, though
they claimed it was six minutes past that hour.
Q. Did your brother not start from that house for the railroad ? A. He did.
Q. Did you not leave the house about the same time and go back to your
residence? A. I would not have to go back to go to my residence at that
time. My residence lay in the other direction then. I was not residing then
at the University.
Q. Go to your residence, I mean ? A. I left the house with the wedding
party ; went with them to the depot; saw the party start on the cars at about
six o'clock, and then proceeded to my residence,
Q. Nothing was said the next day, when you saw Miss Harris, about your
brother having been married the day before. A. Understand me. I do not say
it was the day afterwards. When that interview occurred nothing was said
about it, I think.
Q. After that, I understand you to say, you did not see Miss Harris until
you saw her here in court ? A. Not to my knowledge
Q. Can you describe about the age and the appearance of the lady who came
with Miss Harris? A. I have only a faint image of her in my mind. I
remember the part of the room where she sat, and have a faint, but only a faint

88

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

recollection of her features. I should judge her, from the image I have m my
mind, to have been a woman of from thirty to thirty-five years.
Q. Was she small or large ? A. It is my impression that she was rather
slender, and pretty tall. I wish distinctly to state that those are very floating,
faint impressions.
Q. Did you know either of the Misses Devlin by sight at that time ? A. I
am not aware that I did. I was not aware that I knew the Misses Devlin until
I saw them in this court.
Q. It was neither of them you think ? A. I did not recognize as I first
looked at them either of them as the lady, though I looked at them with the
view of seeing whether either of them was.
Q. I understood you to say yesterday, that you had never read either of these
letters of September 8 and 12, until they were handed to you on the stand, and
never heard them read. A. I stated I had not read them, though I have repeatedly had them in my hand here. I had read clauses-in them, but only one
or two short clauses.
Q. When those letters were read by me, when standing by the witness, were
you not sitting where the gentleman with the white coat is, and making a
memorandum in a little book ? A. I could not say. I have made memoranda
here in court. As to hearing Mr. Bradley, I will say, that I have found it difficult, sitting there, by the desk of the District Attorney, to hear a good deal
that transpired here.
Q. And did you not turn a very attentive ear to the reading of those letters ?
A. That is very possible ; but I have no recollection of it.
Q. You have no recollection of having heard them read ? A. I have a faint
impression that I was aware that they were being read.
Q. Is that impression any thing like as strong as the facts you have stated
about that conversation and interview happening in September, 1863—only two
years ago ? * A. No, sir; it is not.
Q. I will ask you, sir, if you were not entirely aware, in the spring of 1863,
of a correspondence going on between your brother and Miss Harris ? A. I am
unable to recollect any thing further than what I have already stated on that
subject.
Q. I do not think you have fixed any date ? A. Whatever information I
had on the subject that resembled knowledge, was very likely anterior to the
spring of 1863; but I say again, that, as to the existence of any considerable
correspondence, I had no real knowledge, and scarcely any thing that I am able
to fix as an impression, previously to my seeing the correspondence in this court,
except what Miss Harris herself said to me on the occasion she called, when she
told me she had correspondence with him.
Q. You said yesterday that, in that interview, Miss Harris disclaimed the
fact of any engagement existing between your brother and herself. I will ask
you whether you have not said on more than one occasion that you were aware
there was an engagement between them—and that her want of education was
the impediment to marriage? A. I have not
Q. Do you know Miss Ann Riordan, of Chicago ? A. I have met a Miss
Riordan since my brother's death; and have spoken with her twice since that
time in the store where she attends.
Q. Did you or not go to see her in order to get evidence in relation to this
case ? A. I went to see Miss Riordan in order to learn what facts she knew
bearing on this case.
Q. In the course of the conversation with her did you or not telLher that you
were aware of an existing engagement between these parties, but that the defective education of Miss Harris was a sufficient reason for not carrying it out?
A. I did not
Q. Nor any thing to that effect? A. Nor to that effect. I may have said
something in some slight degree approximating that, which I could detail to you
if the, jury wish. As near as I can recall what I said to Miss Riordan in any
way bearing on that point it was that I was aware the parties—my brother and

TRIAL OP MAEY HARRIS.

89

Miss Harris—»had been acquainted. I cannot remember any expressions but my
general idea was that they had been acquainted with each other—perhaps interested in each other, and think it very likely that I may have said that I presumed my brother might have entertained the thoughts of marrying her, but
when circumstances changed, and he was unable to afford Miss Harris the means
of education, he abandoned the idea, I.presume I have said that to Miss Riordan. I have said it repeatedly since the occurrence, as a presumption, and not
based on knowledge.
Q. Did you or not write a letter to the Rev. Mr. Johnson, of Burlington,
Iowa, with a view to engage his assistance in procuring evidence for this case ?
A. I wrote to the Rev. Mr. Johnson, I recollect, making inquiries in regard to
this case. Whether asking his assistance or not I do not know. I may have
done so.
Q, Did he decline ? - A. He did not.
Q. Have you the letter here ? A. I have one letter of his here, but not that
one.
Q. After receiving that letter from Mr. Johnson, did you visit Burlington?
A. I did
Q. Did you go to Burlington for the purpose of getting up evidence to affect
Miss Harris on this trial ? A. I went to Burlington for the purpose of ascertaining what facts might bear upon the explanation and final trial of this case.
Q, Do you know a gentleman in Burlington—perhaps residing a little out of
town—by the name of Judge Newman ? A. I know a Judge Newman.
Q. Did you visit him with that purpose ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you or not, in that interview, state to Judge Newman that your
brother was engaged to Miss Harris at one time, but in consequence of her
defective education and his want of means, failing in business, that the marriage
had not been consummated? A. I did not.
Q. Or words to that effect ? A. Nor words, to that effect.
Q. State, if you please, what you did say to him ? , A. I stated to him my
theory of their relations. Just what I have previously stated, and received his
reply.
Q. You did not tell him that you knew they had corresponded for a long
time; that you believed or knew they were engaged to be married, and that
the marriage had not been effected by reason of her want of education and your
brother's want of means, or words to that effect ?
Witness. As to the effect of all of the words that you have used ?
Counsel. Yes, sir ; as to the whole, or any part.
A. As to any part of them: you inquire as to whether I told him I knew
they had corresponded. Without remembering positively, I presume that I
used the expression, " I was aware they had long known each other, and corresponded," as I have often expressed myself on other occasions; otherwise not
to that effect.
Q. Did you, during the past spring or summer, visit Janesville, Wis.j where
the Misses Devlin reside, for the purpose of procuring testimony for this case ?
A. I visited Janesville, Wis., for the same reason that I visited Washington.
Q. State whether or not, at Janesville, you had a conversation with a Mr.
Dame, who, I think, is an auctioneer? A. Not to my knowledge. I know
nothing about a man by that name, nor about any auctioneer in Janesville.
Q. You never, then, did say to Mr. Dame that if he would come here and
testify his expenses would be paid, and it would be worth $200 to him? A. I
never spoke to any such man that I know of.
Q. Did you, when in Janesville, procure the attendance of any witnesses to
come here ? A. I did not.
Q. At whose instance, then, were the two witnesses, Mr. Strong and Mr.
Mosely, summoned here ? A. The history of that matter is, that at the time I
was in Janesville I called on the District Attorney there, and asked his advice
as to what was proper in this case, that having been the home of the party who
had shot my brother. He referred me to the United States marshal, Mr. Bui

90

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS,

bee, as a party who would know more, or be able to ascertain facts better, than
any one else. I do not remember in what precise form he put it. I saw Mr.
Burbee, and requested him to look up the facts in this case—everything bearing upon it. He has done so from time to time; and on being advised that this
trial had opened, in Chicago, I wrote—or telegraphed, I think—to Mr. Burbee,
to send any witnesses that he knew of, or such witnesses as he had previously
indicated. I cannot tell in what form 1 put the expression.
Q. Did you or not see those witnesses in Janesville yourself? A. I saw Mr.
Mosely, and I may have seen Mr. Strong, but not to my recollection.
Q. Did you make inquiries of anybody in Chicago, besides Miss Riordan,
concerning the bringing of witnesses here on the part of the prosecution?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Mr. Goode there ? A. I did.
Q. Did you have an interview with him on this subject? A. I did.
Q. Did you learn from him what he would testify to ? * A. In general.
Q. Did you see Mr. Hartwell ? A. I did.
Q. Learn from him what he would testify to ? A. I did, in general.
Q. When Mr. Hartwell was about to come here, did you furnish him with
the money to come ? A. I did not.
Q. Did you give him an order to get money for it ? A. I wrote a note at
the depot as I was starting for Chicago. Mr. Goode replied to me that Mr,
Hartwell had not the means at hand of paying his railroad fare. I wrote a
note to a gentleman asking him if he would see that Mr. Hartwell had the
means of paying his railroad fare, or something to that effect.
Q. Did you not give Mr. Hartwell an order on a gentleman in Chicago,
whose name you will recall if it is so, for the money to pay his expenses in
coming on here ? A. 1 have answered just what occurred on that subject.
Q. To whom did you give that memorandum ? A. To Mr. Goode.
Q. To whom was *it addressed ? A. To Mr. L. C. B. Freer, of Chicago.
Q. Commonly called Judge Freer ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. An elderly gentleman; formerly a lawyer ? A. Y"es, sir.
Q. You wrote a note to him to furnish how much ? A. I do not think I
specified any sum. I may have done so.
Q. The amount necessary to furnish the man with the means to come here?
A. Y"es, sir.
Q. Had you seen or conferred with them before as to the testimony they
could give ? A. I had, both of them.
Q. Any other person in Chicago ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you employ an agent in Chicago to obtain some information in regard to it ? A. I did not, with the exception of asking my counsel there to
make an inquiry for me. I do not know whether I was employing him or not,
for I am unable to say whether he did or did not charge for his service.
Q. Had you been to see persons whom you requested him to see before ? A.
There occurs to me one person whom I had seen whom I afterwards requested
him to see, and it is possible I might think of others by taking time. The one
that occurs to me is Mr. Jjambert.
Q,. Who else ? A. None others occur to me
Q. Miss Riordan ? A. I never asked Judge Freer to see her. I think J have
been to see her.
Q. Do yon not know that after you had visited these parties some one
dressed as a gentleman, at your instance, went around and represented hirn
self to be Mr. Bradley, her counsel, from Washington, come on her account to
obtain information? A. I know that no one ever did it at my instance ; and
I know of no one ever having done it at all. The first I heard of it was the
other day from you in open court. No, I think Dr. Fitch had mentioned the
same thing to me the night before, or shortly before, that that impression existed.
Q. As a friendly service have you asked any one to go to the same persons
whom you had previously visited and see them in regard to this case, or em-

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

91

ployed any one to do so ?' A I cannot at this moment remember any other
persons than Miss Riordan, whom I had visited with a view of making her a
witness, and the witness Lambert. As 1 said before, I believe, J asked Mr
Freer to see him I think I asked Mr. Goodc and Mr. Lambert, one or both, as
thev were acquaintances, friends, as I understand it, to Miss Riordan, to see
her"in regard to it, whether she was willing to come here or not. With that
exception I am unable to remember any instance of the kind. It is possible
some may occur to me.
Q, Daring your inquiries in Chicago did you become acquainted with a
woman named Ellen Wells—see her? A. I did not. I heard of her.
Q Ascertain where she lived? A. I heard where she lived.
(y Did you send any person to her prior to that? A. No, sir ; not prior.
Q. You say you started for this place last week, on the 5th of July, and you
say prior to that you did not request or employ any one, or send any one to
see her ? A. I had spoken to a person, a policeman, and told him it might
become necessary to see her.
Q Who was that policeman ? A. Mr. Douglas.
Q Did he say he had seen her ? A. He did not.
Q Did you ascertain where she resided ? A. Yes, sir ; 94 Quincy street.
Q. Wras Judge Freer aware that you had spoken to Douglas on the subject?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there any understanding between you that Douglas should report to
Judge Freer ? A. No, sir
Q. Did you learn from your counsel that Douglas had spoken to her. A. I did
not
Q Did you receive any information directly or indirectly from other persons
as to what he had said to her ? A. I do not think I obtained any information
directly or indirectly on the subject. I will state just what did occur. I have
no information that Douglas took a step in the matter.
Q; When did you learn from Douglas that she lived at 94 Quincy street. A.
Well, about a month ago, without being at all positive.
Q. Was that before or after your first interview with him ? A. That was at
my first interview with him, I think.
Q. Did you promise Douglas any compensation for his services A He had
rendered no service I did not retain him for service.
Q Did you promise him any compensation if he should do what you
requested him to do in that matter ? A. No, sir.
Q. Was anything said between you. as to compensation ? A. Not by me.
Q Well, by him ? A. He made allusion to the subject at the time, it occurs
to me—a sort of supposition in regard to the matter.
Q. Do you recollect what he said in regard to compensation ? A. As near as
I remember his expression was that the witness was a loose and worthless
woman ; that he did not believe she would ever come here, and that by spending a little money—the matter of $100 or $200—he could get on the same train
with her and take her to any place he had a mind to.
Q. What did you say in regard to that ? A. I made him no reply that I
remember of. It was a mere allusion of his.
Q. You say that your brother arrived in Chicago on the morning of the 11th
of September, 1863. Where did he go on Friday night? A. I did not
positively fix the 11th as the day of his arrival.
Q. Where did he go the first day he came there ? A. I do not personally
know of his movements; I only have it from tradition.
Q Cannot you say whether or not on the day of his arrival in Chicago he
came to your house ? A. I could not say that, because I have already said
that it was only to the best of my knowledge that he arrived there that day.
Q. Cannot you state that he came to that house the day on which he did
arrive? A. On the day on which he did arrive, according to the best of my
knowledge, I think he passed the night at my house, but of this I am not
certain.

92

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Q. Where was he on the next day—Saturday ? A; In the after part of Saturday he visited me at my boarding-place, in company with his intended wife
and another friend or two.
Q. Where did he stay that night ? A. I am not positive. My impression is
that after accompanying the ladies home, he returned and passed the night at
my house..
Q. Where was he on Sunday? A. I' am not positive about his stopping at
my house on either Friday or Saturday, but if he did he left our house on Sunday morning
Q. When did he return ? A. It is very uncertain in my mind ; but I
think he returned and passed Sunday night at our house, and went into town
with me on Monday morning.
Q. Where did he stay Monday night—the night of the day before his
marriage? A. I have no recollection on that subject.
Q. When he first came to your house, whatever day it was, did he bring his
luggage with him ? A. I do not think he brought any heavy luggage there.
Q. Did he bring any light luggage? A. I do not remember what he brought.
Q. Did he bring any luggage to your house after his first arrival? A. I remember nothing about his luggage in any way.
Q. He was married on the afternoon of Tuesday as I understand? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Where did he dress for that marriage? A. I do not know.
Q. Were you or not actively interested in the fact of that marriage—taking a
great deal of interest in it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state how you can recollect with so much distinctness all that
passed at the time Miss Harris called to see you, and yet your memory be so
indistinct in regard to this matter of your brother, about which you were so
much interested? A. Yes, sir. I will state how it is. The reasons why I remember so distinctly what occurred at the interview with Miss Harris, are? that
on inquiring for my brother, and on her producing those anonymous or fictitious
letters, saying that she had reason to believe that he wrote them, I was considerably startled; and the thought flashed across my mind that my brother having
been acquainted with this girl, (as I knew,) the notice of his marriage in the
paper had attracted her attention; and that she likely felt that she had some
claims upon him, and had come on that account. The impression of these circumstances, as is natural I think, very vividly fixed in my mind the connection
between the appearance of the marriage notice in the papers, and their call. I
therefore could not fail to remember it; while the other matters being of no particular consequence, and being very much occupied always, I gave myself no
concern about them.
. Q. I will ask you in connection with this matter, if you did not introduce
your brother to the lady who afterwards became his wife ? A. I do not know
that I introduced him.
Q. According to the best of your recollection? A. I have not the slightest
recollection that I did.
Q. And not present when he was introduced ? A. I do not know where, and
on what occasion he was introduced. She was in the immediate neighborhood
of my residence when my brother lived with me? When he was first introduced to her I do not know. Regarding the remainder of the question as to the
active interest I had taken in the affair, it is proper I should say that at one
stage of the proceedings, I was violently opposed to it; but that at another
stage of the proceedings I was pleased with it. I, however, had nothing to do
with the bringing of it about except as it may have been Drought about incidentally by my brother being at my house.
Q. Since you have been here do you recollect any conversation that you have
had with any of the witnesses from Chicago or Janesville, on the subject of the
testimony they would give?" A. Mr. Strong, Mr. Mosely,~Mr. Goode, and myself, came on together—that is I met Mr. Mosely and Mr. Strong in the cars.
Mr. Goode and myself stopped at the same hotel, and we have met incidentally

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS*

93

p.;noe, but not by any arrangement. The matter of the testimony has been alluded to.
Q .You have mentioned three—are there not four? A. Yes, sir, Mr. Goode,
Mr." Lambert—no, Mr. Iiartwell—I am reminded by that that I have counfounded the names of Mr. Lambert and Mr. Hartweli in my testimony once
before—Mr Mosely and Mr. Strong.
Q Is Hartweli the person that you spoke to in reference to the testimony he
could give as to Miss Harris? A. Yes, sir.
Q Do you mean to say you did not have an interview with Lambert, the
policeman? A. Iliad an Interview with both; but I lemember that 1 have
interchanged their names in the testimony before, as I did just now.
Q. State whether you have had any conversation with any of the witnesses
summoned from Chicago or Janesville, since you have been here, about the
testimony they would give in this case? A. In a general way.
Q Explain what you mean by—in a general way ? A. I have not sat down
for a cross-examination of all the points that .-would be embraced in their testimony, but have understood from them in a general way what would be its
bearing ; and I think very likely that I have communicated what would be the
hearing of mine.
Q Have you or not said to some one or more of them, " However this case
may look now, wait till you are examined," or words to that effect? A. Something like that it occurs to me was said when, the other day after the adjournment of court, the remark was made that the testimony was pretty strong, and
I said that the other side was yet to come ; or, perhaps, I said that the rebutting witnesses are yet to give their testimony.
Q. Do you recollect of having asked any one of them what the effect was out
of doors, and your reply to him, " Wait till you are examined." ? A. I remember
a conversation with one or more of the witnesses, whom I met on the street, regarding the general impression of this case in the community, and remarked,
when he gave his impression of the general feeling outside of this community,
that the rebutting testimony was yet to come. I do not recollect of saying to
any one. "Wait until you are examined," or anything of the kind.
By Judge Hughes, Was the marriage of your brother published in the
newspapers on the morning after it was solemnized ? A. I do not know. It
was published immediately after, but whether actually the morning after or not
I do not know.
Q. Who attended to that? A. I think I left the notice at the offices ; but I
cannot recollect when I left them, though I have an impression that I left them
the .same night of the marriage.
Q. What paper did you furnish that notice to ? A. It is impossible for me to
remember whether to any other than the Chicago Tribune or not; but I presume I did.
Q. That was one for certain ? A. Well, pretty certain; as I often leave
those kind of notices there. There might, however, be a mistake on that subject Maybe I have confounded it with some other notice I left there.
Q. Have you employed counsel to prosecute this case ? A. I have not.
Q. Did you understand, at the time the policeman talked to you about this
Mrs. Mills, that her testimony was material in this case—that she was sought
for as a witness for the defence ? A. I understood that she was sought for as a
witness for the defence.
Q. Then you fully understood that when these remarks were made, spending
a couple of hundred dollars to take her out of the way, that it was carrying
off a witness whose testimony was desired ? A. I did.
Q. You made no reply ? A. None that I remember.
Q. There was no expression of disapprobation on your part? A. None whatv
ever.
.
Q. In the ceremony that you pronounced was the usual form observed of
asking if any person knew of any impediment why the marriage should not
be solemnized by reason of the existence of a pre-contract, or otherwise ? A. I

94

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

do not generally use that form, and did not on that occasion that I am aware
of.
Q. What is the usual form in the church of which yon are a minister?
A. There is no usual form. We have no ritual, you understand, and every
minister follows his own ideas.
Q. Is it not customary, on ordinary occasions, in solemnizing a marriage, for
the minister of your church to make, in substance, that inquiry ? A. I do not
think I ever beard it made, or ever made it myself, except on a few occasions
when I have by request used the Episcopal service.
Q. How long was it after the marriage until your brother's wife returned to
make her first visit to her friends ? A. He was "married on the 15th of September She returned to make her first visit the following summer, arriving. I
think, in July.
Q Did he 'come with her ? A. He did not.
Q. Where was he ? A. To the best of my knowledge in Washington.
Q. Do you know whether he went part of the way from Washington ? A . I
know-nothing only what I have heard him and her say.
Q. How long was it after that until he did com.e to Chicago ? A. He arrived
in Chicago in the month of September, I think.
Q When she came back without him to make her first visit to her family,
did she come entirely alone, or under escort of some friend ? A. I remember
nothing on that subject.
Q. When your brother came back in September, his wife was then in Chicago, was she not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did he stay there ? A. I cannot state exactly, but two or
three weeks 1 should say fully three weeks.
Q. Where did he stay? A. At different places. Part of the time at his
father-in-law's,
Q: Did he stay in Chicago all that time ? A. ISTo, sir. I lived out of Chicago
a little distance, and he passed a week with me.
Q. The rest of the time, where was he? A. 1 have no recollection at this
moment.
Q. Did he inform you, about the time of his contemplated marriage with his
wife, of any embarrassment that he felt in consequence of his relations with
Miss Harris? A. He did not.
Q. No allusion was made to her ? A. JSone.
Q. Was your brother's relation to Miss Harris ever the subject of the conversation between you previous to his marriage ? A. I do not think it was.
Q. Was it afterwards? A. Yes, sir. Do you wish me to state what was
said ?
Q. When was it? A. At the time of his visit to Chicago with his wife.
Counsel. You neec] not state any conversation had at that late period.
Witness. I will say that I think it quite possible that the matter of his rela
tions to Miss Harris may have been casually alluded to previous to his marriage, from year to year.
Q. Do you recollect any conversation about it? A. I do not think that
anything that can be called a conversation ever occurred between my bi other
and myself on the subject previous to his marriage, but think it quite possible
it might have been alluded to
Q. Please state if your brother was very expert with the pen ? A. I considered him so.
Q. He wrote a good hand? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he capable of varying it? A, I do not think he was very much
Q. Do you know who wrote that letter of September 8 ? A. I do not; nor
that of September 12.
Q Are you positive that when Miss Harris called on you she had another
lady with her ? A. I am.
Q. Did you see, when that interview took place, a likeness of your brother ?
A. I did. Miss Harris showed it to me.

TRIAL OF HARY HAH ."US.

05

0. Did you endeavor to get it from her? A. I have an indistinct recollection that I said to her casually that I would like to have that.
•Re-examination :
Bv Mr. Carrinytov
You have been asked, sir, in reference to your visit to
(iiii'^jent places. I suppose you felt it was your duty to have this case
i/hpi ouglily investigated as far as you could ? A. My motives, as far as I understand iiibm, not claiming that I do perfectly understand them, were principally
these : that in the presentation of this matter at the time of its occurrence, and
&?. I understood it was to be presented by the defence, my brother's reputation
and character were more or less involved; and at the request of his widow, for
the sake of his child, I could not feel otherwise than interested so far as it
affected his reputation, in having those things cleared up.
Q. Was he the only brother you had? A. Yes, sir.
Q,. I would ask if you differed, at any time to pay witnesses to come here,
made any proposition of the kind, or encouraged others to do so ? A. No, sir.
By Mr. Bradley. State whether you have or not said that this whole thing
was founded in a conspiracy which you intended to explore, or words to that
effect'
Objected to ; objection sustained.
Exception reserved.
Q. State whether you. have not industriously sought evidence to taint the
character of the accused.
Objected to ; objection sustained.
Exception reserved.
Mrs. E. A. FLEMMIKG sworn:

By Mr. Wilson. I reside at No. 142' Lexington street, Baltimore. My
acquaintance with Miss Harris was on the 6th of January last. She came to
my house to board. She said her business was to go to Washington; that she
was not very well, and she was stopping in Baltimore for she did not know
how loru*. Her object in going to Washington, she said, was to collect money
for the Misses Devlin—the ladies by whom she was employed. That was what
she told me the first evening she came there; Miss Devlin used to do business
in Baltimore, before going to Chicago. The prisoner remained at our house
until the 30th day of January, the day she came to Washington.
Q. State what she said with regard to her expenses.
Objected to by counsel for the.defence. Withdrawn for the time being.
Q. State what her habits were while visiting you. Whether or not you
know from her own statement, of her frequently visiting places of amusement;
and, if so, state with whom ? A. No, sir; she did not visit any place particularly. Well, she used to go out occasionally to evening entertainments.
. Q. In whose society? A. That of Mr. Devlin, brother of the lady with
whom she was engaged". He 'was the only gentleman she ever went out with.
Q. State what she said subsequently to the day you have mentioned
regarding her visit to Washington. A. She said she intended to come down
and sue an old lover for a breach of promise. That she had been engaged to
him for seven years, and that he had married another young lady, but had corresponded with her up to within a month of his marriage. She thought what
induced him to marry^ this lady in Chicago was the fact of her having money.
Her object in instituting a suit she said was merely to clear herself and let the
world see that she was a virtuous girl.
"
Q Did she assign any other reason for bringing this suit? A. Well, she said
something about two anonymous letters that she had received, signed Greenwood.
Q. Did she say anything further about the lady he had married ? A She
merely said that the father of this young lady was very wealthy, and she had
understood and believed that Mr. Burroughs loved her, but married the Other
one because she was rich. She always held him, Mr. Burroughs, in very high
estimation—always speaking very well of him.

98

TRIAL OF MARY HARMS.

Q. State what she said in regard to the delicacy, the modesty, or propriety of
Mr. Burroughs's treatment of hep?
Objected to by counsel for the defence, Objection overruled and witness directed to answer the questions.
A. She said that she had always received the treatment of a father from him,
and looked up to him as such, putting the utmost confidence in him. He had
never wronged her she said.
Q. State what she said in regard to being still in the employment of the
Misses Devlin and as to the payment of her expenses by them ?
Objected to by counsel for the defence. Objection sustained.
Q Will you state whether you observed on the day the prisoner left Baltimore anything remarkable in her deportment ? A. I do not know. I did the
evening previous to her coming to Washington. The Rev. Mr. Dudley was at
the house and while he was playing a hymn on the piano in the parlor, she got
up, picked up one of the ornaments in the parlor, and went round to take up a
collection. I thought that very strange conduct.
Q. Did you observe that she was at that time unwell, or complained of any
disease, and if so, state what? A. Yes, sir. She complained very much of her
throat and complained of being very weak. She had very little appetite.
Q. Did you observe any thing else that was remarkable in her conduct ? A.
Yes, sir. Sometimes she" would be sitting alone apparently engaged in deep
thought, and then she would get up and all at once commence to sing a love
song—
<;
First she loved hirn as a brother,
And be doubted her when her love was stronger."

Then she would come to where I was, and appear to be in a very good humor.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley. I went to the cars with Miss Harris and gave her rny
ticket. She was to return that evening? We were to go to a lecture together.
Dr. Joins" FRED'K MAY sworn:
By Mr. Qarrington. Q. 1. You are known as a physician who has been practicing in this city for a great many years. I desire to have your opinion upon
a hypothetical case, which I will state ? It is as follows:
In the'case of a young woman of a highly nervous organization and vivacious
temperament, and who has suffered from a disappointment in love, theie is observed at intervals of greater or less regularity, at monthly periods, the following symptoms: irregular and insufficient sleep, depression of the spirits, and
melancholy, outbreaks of violence of the following character, attacking a friend
with whom there had been no previous quarrel with a broom, and on" another
occasion with a carving knife, throwing a pin cushion at a customer in the store
in which she was employed, the cutting or attempted destruction of a piece of
fine needle work belonging to a friend, awaking at an early hour in the morning and saying to a room mate that she must leave her, and was going to walk
upon the lake shore, insensibility to cold, and shedding tears. State how frequently you have noticed in your practice such symptoms in cases of hysteria,
or dysmenorrhcea, and whether upon such symptoms you would infer the insanity of the patient ?
A. It is impossible for me to say how frequently I have seen some of the
symptoms enumerated. I have in cases of hysteria seen some symptoms like
these, and others have been absent in such cases. Dysmenorrhcea often occurs
without being accompanied by any such symptoms at all—without any symptom that has been enumerated; but as far as answering such an abstract question as that I should say that if those symptoms occurred at stated periods,
the periods mentioned here, that they were symptoms of nervous excitement,
dependent upon uterine irritability. I could not call that a case of insanity in
the general acceptation of the term " insanity."
Q. 2. I will now ask you this question. A young woman of a highly nervous
organization and vivacious temperament, having exhibited the symptoms ptaie^

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

97

in the previous question, and suffering from dysmenorrhcea, having expressed
during a period of insanity, armed with a pistol, goes in the day time to a public
building, inquires at the door for a person, whose name she gives, and concerning
whom, while in a condition of sanity she expressed anxiety, goes to the door of the
room of that person, and sees him, then conceals herself, and as the person passes
her, without notice, aims and fires the pistol at him, inflicting a mortal wound,
and then cocking her pistol fires at him a second time.
State whether the fact that after the commission of such a homicide, she did
not make any attempt to escape, and no effort to palliate the crime or to allege
a provocation, but expressed sorrow and great distress, and exhibited great
emotion, and the further fact that the party did not avail herself of the first oppoitunity to commit the act, would, cither of themselves or in connection with
the symptoms previously stated, indicate, the insanity of the patient, and
whether in your opinion such facts and symptoms could be accounted for upon
the supposition that the act proceeded from an insane impulse, than upon the
supposition that the party at the time of the commission of the act was sane and
was compelled thereto by any other motive, not insanity.
Q. 3. State whether the fact that the person did not avail herself of the first
opportunity to commit the act, but after the homicide attempted to escape, made
an effort to palliate the, offence, and alleged a provocation ; and although exDressing great sorrow and evincing great emotion, declared that the person
elecease'ei had injured and ruined Tier, and that she was determined to have
revenge, if it cost her life, would by themselves, or in connection with the facts
and symptoms previously stated, indicate the insanity of the patient; and
whether the act or homicide could be better accounted for upon the supposition
that it proceeded from an insane impulse, than upon the supposition that at the
time of committing the act the person was sane, and was compelled thereto by
any other motive ?
"Mr. Voorhees objected to the witness answering the question. He had a
great deal of respect for the witness, and a great regard for his experience as an
expert; but before he was a competent witness it should be ascertained whether
or not he had made that branch of study a specialty. It would have been
necessary for witness to have heard all of the evidence before he could testify
upon abstract cases. This objection was not made from a want of confidence
in the ability of the witness, but because there are certain rules which must be
obeyed, and which require that a professional man must make a study of the
subject upon which he professes to give an opinion.
Mr. Oarrington said the opinion of Dr. Nichols was based upon certain hypothetical causes. His testimony is all predicated on certain causes, such as
that of a party who had been suffering from disease, &c; and Dr. Nichols's
opinion was founded upon the assumption of two causes, one of which was
moral and the other physical, and the prosecution desired to interrogate the
witness relative to causes that might result from the physical condition of a
party suffering under such causes as were stated in the question.
Mr. Wilson argued that as Dr. Nichols had stated the various causes upon
which his opinion was based, and as the questions selected were those pertaining to bodily disease, it was perfectly proper for the witness to say whether,
from his observation of similar symptoms in other persons, they were necessarily a cause of insanity.
The witness (Dr. May) was examined by the Court, and said he was a practicing physician, and had had an experience since 1834. Has had opportunities
of judging of the effect of physical diseases upon the mind, but he distinctly
desired to say he was not an expert on the subject of mental diseases. He
had never made the study of the mind a specialty. He had studied it as much
as educated physicians do generally; but whenever he had a case of insanity
persistent in its nature and strongly developed, he did not attend to it himself,
but put it under the charge of those who had made the study of the mind a
specialty.
7

98

TBIAL OP MARY HARBIS.

Mr. Carfington said he held that any educated physician was a proper *wft.
ness on a question of insanity.
Mr. Voorhees argued that before the physician could be a competent witness:
it was necessary to show that he possessed that skill required by the booW
He argued, further, that the term physician, as used in the books, when a^Dli^]
to cases of insanity, applied only to those who had made the study of the min,]
a specialty.
The Court decided that the question was a proper one, and Mr. Bradley took
exception to the ruling of the Court
Br May said he did not profess to any more skill than a physician in the
ordinary routine of practice might require, and had never made the study of
the mind a specialty.
Mr.. Hughes objected to the form of the first question, and argued that all of the
facts as detailed by the witnesses should have been stated, as the witness had
not heard the testimony in the case. Whether the deceased wrote the fictitious
letters or not, the accused at least believed they were written by him ; and her
disappointment in love, and her belief that deceased intended to disgrace her,
had the same effect as though these facts were actually true, and all the facts as
testified to should be stated to' the witness. The interrogatory goes to the
question of general, insanity This plea had not been set up, but simply that
the insanity of the accused was paroxysmal, and that she was subject to mental
disturbance, which manifested itself in connection with Burroughs. All the
facts in the case must, therefore, be detailed to the witness, and not only a few
of them.
Judge Wylie said he did not know what the evidence was in this case. He
was not the judge of it, and officially and judicially he must close his eyes to
it. All he knew was, that they were trying a case of the United States against
Mary Harris; and at this state of the case a hypothetical statement was submitted to a witness as an expert, and the witness was asked whether a partv
thus affected was insane. The Court was inclined to admit the evidence, but
the prosecution adduced it at their own risk ; and it might be subsequently cast
aside, and the jury warned not to consider it.
The second question was also objected to by Mr. Hughes, on the ground that
it was not a medical question, but one of fact.
Mr. Garrington argued that it was a proper question. Dr. Nichols had been
asked for his opinion as to the insanity of the prisoner in regard to the whole
evidence. He gave that opinion upon the evidence as he understood it; but ho
(in Mr. C.'s opinion) misapprehended the testimony, and assumed what was not
proven. When Dr. Nichols gave his opinion it was on a hypothetical case, the
defence relying upon a hypothesis to prove the insanity of the accused. The
prosecution undertakes to meet that testimony and opinion, not by showing
merely a hypothetical case, but by adopting all the facts upon which the
opinion of Dr. Nichols is based. Mr Garrington argued that the opinion of
Dr. May and other educated physicians was worth more than the opinion of
those who attended only to disease of the mind; for the former looked to all
physical causes for certain effects, while the latter pursued but one branch.
The defence assumes one state of facts to be fully proven and the prosecution assumes another, 3,nd they should certainly be allowed to put the question as they
.understand the facts. The jury was entitled to all the light they could get, and
the prosecution would be derelict in duty if they did not throw ail possible
light upon a homicide which, for.its atrocity, is, as the prosecution understands
iCalmost unparalled in the annals of crime. To palliate this crime the defence
of insanity was set up, and now the prosecution offer to show that no insanity
existed. Mr. Carrington disclaimed any intention of speaking through the
Court to the jury in- making these remarks.
Mr. Hughes, replied to Mr. Carrington and said, this paper seemed to be but a
commentary on the testimony of Dr. Nichols, drawn up by counsel, and to
which they desired to have Dr. May swear. He defended Dr. Nichols's

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

99

testimony and his understanding of the facts proven. But he did not think
guy defence of Dr. Nichols's testimony was necessary.
The Court decided to admit the testimony.
A. I will state that it would be with a great deal of reluctance that I would
aive an opinion in a case where life was involved, in regard to the mental condition of a patient, without knowing all the facts, antecedent aDd subsequent,
connected with the case; but if the question is merely put to me as a hypothetical and abstract question, I am bound to answer it. I will state that, in my
opinion, the antecedent condition of the patient, as mentioned in the first question, and the circumstances that are stated in the second and third questions as
occurring at the time, would not, in my opinion, satisfy me of the insanity of
the patient, in the general acceptation of the term, without there were facts
before and afterwards to confirm that, of which I have no knowledge. The
simple abstract question, as stated here, would not satisfy me that the patient
was insane at the time of committing that act.
The prosecution having closed their examination-in-chief, and the hour of
adjournment having arrived, the court adjourned until to-morrow morning, at
ten o'clock.
NINTH DAY—SATURDAY,

July 17, 1865,

The court met at ten o'clock.
In order to guard against the confusion attendant upon the crowds assembling inside the bar, no one was allowed to enter within the railing except
members of the bar, reporters, and jurors, until court was opened, and after that
ladies were allowed to occupy seats inside the railing. The prisoner was
brought into court about half-past ten o'clock, and was accompanied by her
counsel and her lady friends.
Dr. MAY resumed.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley. In reply to a question propounded by Mr. Bradley, the
witness said: A. I consider that insanity may be comprehended under four different heads. It is true writers make other distinctions, but I think all the
different forms of insanity can be classified or considered under four different
heads or types : mania, manomania, dementia, and idiotcy.
Q. In which of those forms would you embrace what medical writers speak
of as "intellectual" or " mental insanity?" A. The intellect is more or less
affected in all those forms of insanity in different ways, so that intellectual or
mental insanity does not belong especially to any one of the four classes I
have designated.
Q. Do you acknowledge the distinction between intellectual insanity and
what is now called moral insanity ? A. I do.
Q. Is or is not moral insanity also embraced within the four descriptions you
have mentioned, except idiotcy ? A. Certainly.
Q. Among the exciting causes of mental disturbance, is or is not disappointment in love set down as one of the prominent causes ? A. Unquestionably. I
should say a very powerful cause.
Q. Among the physical causes producing any of these conditions of the mind
except idiotcy, is or is not, in the case of females, the disease called to your
notice yesterday by the District Attorney one of the marked cases ? A. I would
state, in reply, that I cannot, in my experience, recollect a case in which I could
distinctly trace insanity as a result of that disease, positively. I will state this,
however, that I have no doubt that where there was a tendency to insanity in
a person—in a female—that that disease would be more likely to develop it.
Q. How would it be affected by a moral cause, such as 1 1 have spoken of?
A. I should think it would aid in developing it.
Q. Is or is not paroxysmal insanity, as it is sometimes called, now a recognized subject of medical treatment ? A. Yes, sir.

100

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS,

Q If, then, a disturbance of the mind should occur at certain periods, and
when the female patient was suffering as described yesterday, the moral cause
operating at the same time, when there was no shrieking or shedding of tears,
bat violent excitement of the mind, uncontrollable excitement, what would vou
say in such a case—would you call it hysteria, or dementia in any shape 'y
A I consider hysteria to be a disease sui generis. I know there is a difference
of opinion on that subject, and that there are some physicians who consider
hysteria as primarily existing in the brain; but I think the brain is secondarily affected, I think the disease is primarily seated in the uterus. The term
hysteria indicates that. Still, there are physicians who think the disease exists
primarily in the brain, and even think it exists in man ; but I consider hysteria
as a disease emanating from the uterus; I consider it affecting secondarily the
brain, and producing at times more or less disorder of the brain. I will say in
answer to the latter part of your question, as to whether a person suffering as
you have described was laboring under hysteria or dementia, that that would
depend on circumstances. If there had been antecedents that satisfied me that
the patient's mind had been subject to paroxysmal insanity, I should consider
that ihe condition you speak of was likely to develop insanity in a paroxysmal
form. Hysteria is characterized by certain symptoms which cannot be mistaken.
Q. Do you recognize as a principle " hysterical mania?" A I do not. I do
Dot think that hysteria can come under the head of mania.
Q. Have you seen cases of excitement produced by disease or uterine—diseases such as mentioned yesterday—in which the will of the patient was controlled by the disease, so that the patient was incapable of acting rationally ?
A. I have. You mean in hysteria ?
Counsel. Yes-, sir.
Witness. Yes, sir, I have; acting very irrationally,
Q. In investigating, then, a case of alleged insanity, what course would you
take in order to satisfy your mind, as a physician, whether a person was insane
or not. Would you be satisfied with certain details which were instanced, or
would you inquire into the full condition, the past life of the patient ? A. 1
would,"of course, inquire into all the antecedents of the patient; the whole
history of the case.
Q. If, in thus examining into the past history of the patient, you should find
instances of disturbance in the mind and the conduct of the patient at certain
periodical intervals, and, inquiring into the personal history of the patient,
should find moral causes existing at the same time with those physical causes,
would or would not that to a' great extent influence your judgment, as applied
to the case under examination by yourself? A Undoubtedly it would.
Q A hypothetical case was put to you yesterday, Doctor; and now I put
one to you. It is as follows •
HYPOTHETICAL CASS,

A little girl not more than ten or eleven years of age—still in the dress of
children of that age—attracts the attention of a man almost old enough to be
her father. She had very few advantages of mental or moral culture. He is
an educated man, experienced in the business and affairs of life. They are
thrown into daily association, he being engaged in mercantile business, and she,
the little girl, in a millinery and fancy store, convenient to his place of business.
He plays with her as a child ; she sits on his knee and receives and returns his
caresses. Two years or more pass by, during which this intimacy continues
between them, he being the trusted friend of the lady by whom she is employed,
and is daily at her store. He fails in business, and then comes to keep and post
the books of the little girl's employer. He has a difficulty in the church_ of
which he was a member, and is expelled, and goes to this child, just budding
into womanhood, for relief and sympathy. She believes him to be good—gooo
to her, at least—but persecuted and reviled by the world. He is a Baptist;

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.
S he

101

a Koman Catholic. She now forms new associations. Prepared by his
culture and instruction, she is admitted into the best and most refined and
cultivated society of the city in which she lived. He leaves that city to seels
employment elsewhere, and opens a correspondence with her, which he cautions
her to"conceal from her employer She is eminently open and truthful, yet at
his bidding does conceal the correspondence Her parents discover that this
correspondence is going on Her father is enraged. Her friend's visits then
are prohibited. She counsels with one of the most intelligent and cultivated
ladies, of ripe years, and having daughters of the age of the patient, and that
lady consents to permit them to meet at her house. He is now the declared
lover of the patient. Step by step, intimacy between her and this lover had
iipened into esteem, regard, and on her part the full confiding love of a woman
who trusted everything to the man she loved; and she is formed, moulded,
trained by his plastic hand in her habitudes of thought, morals, and manners.
She is absorbed into, and in all things controlled by him. She yields him her
homage; the;/ are engaged to be married He keeps her constantly advised of
his plans and schemes. Fortune frowns on his efforts and he is too poor to
marry. He prevails on her to leave her father's house and come to him in a
distant city and seek employment there, in order that she may be near him:
and she yields. Shortly after she returns to her home. Again he prevails
upon her to leave the parental roof and come to him, and she does so.
Her nervous organization is fine and delicate; her mental faculties largely
and well developed; her sense of female pride acute and strong. She is pure
and virtuous, and continues so to this day. Her bodily health is remarkably
good. She has more than ordinary flesh; a fine, pure complexion, and good
vision. Her temperament is full of life and spirit, and her life happy, joyous,
and gleeful. She has few associates, and those principally married ladies, or
those older than herself. Her chiefest pleasure is her correspondence with him.
Thus nearly five years are passed. In the meanwhile three different times had
been assigned for their marriage and as often it had been deferred by reason of
his want of means or employment.
He i« about to leave the city where he is "residing to come to "Washington in
search of employment. Their correspondence had begun November 1, 1858,
and continued down to the spring of 1863. When he is thus about to leave
her, the last seen of them together at the time she wTas sitting on his knee, and
he playing with her curls.
Six months elapse. In the meanwhile he has succeeded in obtaining employment in one of the public offices here. She lives on in happy hope, and the
summer passes without a ripple on her summer's sea.
He left his home in March On the 7th of August, 1868, she received a letter
from him asking where he could see her. He had an interview with her, during
the greater part of which he held her hand. What passed between them is not
known, for no one heard what was said; but they seemed to part as ever—
friends On the 8th of September following she received another letter, which
she believed was written by him ; and on the 14th a second, both begging her to
meet him at a house of ill-fame. She inquired, and received clear proof that
these letters, though written in a disguised hand, were written by him. On
being convinced of this fact, she was greatly distressed, and became wild in her
excitement. A few days after this she discovered that four days after the receipt of the first of these letters, and one day after the receipt of the second, he
was married to another lady in the town where the patient resided. Within
less than a week after this discovery, on the first return of the period mentioned
in the hypothetical case put by the prosecuting attorney, she was so sick as to
require the attendance of a physician. A skillful physician was called, and he
treated her for the physical disease, but knew nothing of her personal history,
nor did he* witness any mental disturbance. The sickness lasted but a few days,
but her spirits were gone, her health was broken. She became silent, moody,
melancholy; her flesh and strength wasted; her nights were spent in sleeplessness and tears. She went about her daily duties as usual, but with a broken

102

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS,

spirit. Thus passed on two or more poiiods. At last her physicians directed
that she should lie in bed till after she had had her breakfast. She then slent
as she had from the 1st of May, 1863, in the same bed with the lady in whoso
employment she lived as clerk, and in the same chamber with that lady's sister
There was a vacant chamber adjoining, in which there was no fire, and against
their remonstrances, she would get up from that warm bed and chamber, in the
inclement climate of Chicago, in mid-winter, and go into that adjoining chamber
in her nightclothes only, and sleep on the bare floor. During one of these
periodical'sicknesses, while the patient is still under medical treatment and required by her physician to keep her bed till after breakfast, in the winter time,
in the high northern latitude of Chicago, and while she is occupying the same bed
with the elder of the ladies with whom she lived, she stealthily got up from the
bed—leaving the other, as she supposed, asleep—softly dressed herself, and approached the bedside of her friend, and believing she was still asleep, said in a
low tone, " I must leave you." The friend threw her arms around her neck
and said : " Why, where are you going?" She answered, " I wanted to take
a walk on the lake shore." It was then but the gray of the morning; not quite
clay. The friend restrained her forcibly, and prevailed upon her to undress and
go to bed.
Again, at another of the periods of-her sickness, she was sitting at table with
her two friends, her employers, between whom and herself there existed the
most intimate relations of true and warm friendship and regard. The patient
was sitting nearest the younger of her two friends, to whom as nearer her own
age, she always and undeviatingly showed warm affection, and with .whom-she
had never quarrelled. While thus sitting the patient reached out toward this
young friend, remarking, " Don't you want to read some fine letters? " or letter. The friend recognized the handwring of the man who had so long corresponded with the patient and had been engaged to marry her; and she was
familiar with all the facts as to the manner in which that engagement had been
broken off, and the attempt made by him to get the patient into an assignation
house. She had been with the patient at the time, and had never lost sight of
her or been separated from her to this time; and seeing the letter in the handwriting of the same man, she replied, " No; I never want to see any .of his
writing, or any other such a fellow's; and I never wish to hear Burroughs's
name mentioned again as long as I live." In an instant the patient snatched
up a carving-knife and attacked her friend, who with difficulty made her escape,
while the elder sister, a large and strong woman, restrained the patient, who is
small and delicate, and was then wasted by sickness; and after a severe struggle
of several minutes succeeded in getting the knife from her. The sister, who had
fled, returned after a while, and the patient then insisted upon and attempted
to get out of the window and to go upon the street, and was forcibly restrained
by the two sisters. The elder, then thinking relief to her mind would be quicker
by yielding to her, at last opened the door, and let her go into the street. It
was late in the afternoon. She also directed the younger sister to follow and
keep the patient in sight, but not to approach her or let her see her. She did
so, and saw her, after wandering around two or three blocks, stop a street car,
advance to it, put her foot on the step, then turn away and walk quietly down
the street. She followed her, and saw her enter the private, or ladies' entrance
of the principal hotel in that city; then returned and reported to the elder sister. The two sisters then went for a gentleman, whose wife was a very warm
friend of the patient, and who himself had much influence with her, and they
three went to the hotel and endeavored to prevail upon the patient to return
home. They failed and left, leaving that gentleman to look out for her. Night
was approaching, and she came home alone, composed, and " clothed in her
right mind." This attack, or exhibition of violence, was the longest in duration
that "had then occurred.
In another return of her periodical sickness, without eause or provocation of
any kind, she struck the younger of the two sisters several repeated blows over

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

103

the head with tiiQ window-brush—a heavy brush used to cleanse the store windows.
At another time, during another sickness, she struck with a pincushion, that
had a piece of brick in it to keep it in its place, a lady customer in the store,
who had given her no sort of provocation.
At another time, whether during her periodical sickness or not does not appear, she purchased in Chicago a small-sized Sharpes' ievolving pistol, with a
case of cartridges, which she kept openly exposed in her trunk; and when
asked by the elder of the sisters what she purchased that for, she leplied,
''Many ladies carry pistols;" and added her fear that the man who had deceived and deserted her, and his brother, had a plan to seize and cany her oil,
and she had this for her defence
She employed an attorney and counsel in Chicago to sue the man who had
deserted and endeavored to entrap her. A writ was issued, but he could never
be found. Pier counsel urged and advised her to compromise. She refused,
saying it was not money she sought, but the vindication of her character ; that
she- had suffered in reputation, and desired to have that cleared up. She urged
her counsel to come to Washington with her, and sue him here. He declined;
and declined because he says her love seemed to have been turned to hate by
the effort to get her to that assignation-house; and when she recurred to that,
she became so excited that he thought it would be dangerous for her to meet
him, while at all other times she was calm.
She herself then came to Washington from Chicago, alone, and without a
protector, to institute a suit here. She visited the Department where he was
employed, and learned that he had that day gone with his wife to Chicago.
Sh-* took the return train and travelled without stopping, and when she reached
Chicago found that his wife had arrived there, but lie had not.
The two sisters removed from Chicago to Janesville, Wisconsin. She accompanied them. But change of scene, while it relieved and diminished the periodical exhibitions of a disturbed mind, did not cure it. Her life was the same ;
a brooding melancholy pervaded it. She performed all her duties as clerk and
saleswoman, but she shunned society, and her spirits were gone; and periodically, sometimes not every month, but in two months at furthest, these exhibitions were revived, but with less violence until the latter part of December,
1864, when, while sitting with the two sisters, and a third sister who had been
at work making an expensive patch-work silk quilt, she seized the quilt and
began to cut and tear and destroy it. It required great force to get it from
her, and she was taken to her chamber and securely fastened in. Prior to that,
the elder sister, in hope that it would bring relief to her, had consented to furnish her with money to come to Washington, in order to institute a suit here
for breach of promise.
On the 1st of January, 1865, she left for Washington, by the way of Baltimore, where the friends of the two sisters resided. She travelled alone. On
reaching Baltimore she went to a respectable boarding-house, where she was
unwell with a bad cold, and was detained for three weeks, and then had her
periodical sickness. On Saturday, the 28th of January, she communicated to a
lady who occupied the same room with her the history of her case. She had
with her a large package of letters which she said she had received from Burroughs. She tolcf of his attempt to get her to that bad house. She read parts
of the letters, extending, as she said, through five years. She stated that she
was coming to AVashington to see for herself whether he was here, before she
consulted counsel; that she had attempted once before, and failed ; that she
had the name of a lawyer here whom she was to employ ; that her sole object
was to vindicate her fame and reputation, which had been injured by his desertion of her and his marriage with another. She spoke df him with tenderest
regard, and said that until these last letters were written, he had been her best
friend—more than a father to her; but his desertion had injured her reputation, and she intended to sue him only to vindicate her character. This lady
lay awake until after two o'clock Saturday night; then went to sleep, leaving'

104

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

the patient still talking, and reading and handling that bundle of letters. On
Sunday night the same thing occurred, except that she was then arranging the
package of letters which she was to cany with her to put into the hands of
counsel Long after midnight she was thus engaged ; her room-mate went to
sleep, leaving her thus occupied, She had made an arrangement-with this ladv
to return by the three o'clock or half-past four o'clock train, and accompany
her to a lecture to be delivered that evening by Henry "Ward Beecher. The
lady who kept the boarding-house was a party to this arrangement, and procured for the patient a return ticket. In the morning the small Sharpe's pistol
and the bundle of letters were lying on the bureau She had shown"the pistol
to the lady who occupied the room with her, and made no concealment about
it. "While making her preparations, she was called suddenly by the keeper of
the boarding-house and told she was late She threw the bundle of letters into
the trunk, and, instead of them, put the pistol into her pocket, and hurried
down stairs; in company with the keeper of the boarding-house went down to
the cars, and thence came to Washington alone. She went to the Treasury Department, inquired for and opened the door of the room in which he was, and
saw him distinctly. She wras seen by at least one of the inmates of the room
so distinctly as to enable her to identify her here in court, and who was so
struck with her appearance at that time that she half arose to ask her to come
in, when the patient closed the door.
An hour or more after this, as the clerks were leaving the office, he came near,
or passed her in the passage. She drew the pistol and fired. Iso one saw her
fire, but there were three persons near by who saw her instantly after the shot
was fired. The shot took effect on the deceased, who turned, saw her, exclaimed,
" 0 my God!" and fled. She then cocked her pistol, levelled it in the direction
in which he fled, and when he was about twenty, yards from her fired a second
time, without effect, and he disappeared around a corner of the hall in which
they were. She then turned and walked quietly down stairs and out of the
building. She was very pale, very calm, very quiet, and there was a remarkable expression in the eye. She was arrested just outside of the building and
taken back into it, and placed in a room with a policeman either at the door or
in the room. By this time a justice of the peace had got to the room, and on
his telling her he was a justice of the peace she immediately handed the pistol
to him. Up to that time she had not shed a tear; she paced the room in violent
agitation ; tore her hair ; knelt on the floor and sprang up ; knelt to the justice,
and was raised by him more than once; her face was convulsed but she shed no
tear. Mr. McCullough, the present Secretary of the Treasury, came in and
spoke to her. She asked if Burroughs was dead. He said he had often on the
stage seen representations of mental agony, but he never witnessed the reality
till then. She was still tearless. He fixed her attention for a moment and
put two questions to her: one whether Burroughs had wronged her in any other
way; the other wdiether she was a virtuous woman. She answered both
rapidly, and relapsed instantly into the same excitement To the latter question she replied, solemnly and clearly, " As God is my judge, I am " She was
on her knees, clinging to his clothes. He- raised her more than once. Her
exclamations were, chiefly, " Why did I do it?" or " How could I do i t ; " " I
loved him better than my life; " " I would have died for him," &c , &c. The
policeman was present during this interview She was committed to jail, and
tie says that when on her way to the jail she told him that Burroughs had
caused her to be driven from home and friends; that he had taken her to a bad
house and had seduced her; that she had procured that pistol and came here to
avenge the injury, and that she had done so. He understood that she said she
had got the pistol just before she left home, and came directly here for that
purpose. The policeman cautioned her against making any statements, yet she
persisted in doing so. During the whole time she was greatly excited, and
when they reached the jail she was so exhausted that she had to be supported
by him and others into the jail.
For days after her commitment she paced the room in violent agitation. By

TRIAL OP MA BY HAREIS.

105

the latter part of February she had calmed down. Two friends, a gentleman
and his wile, from her old home at Burlington—persons of education and large
intelligence—came to see her, the lady passing the greater part ol her time for
a week in the prison. She was so clianged they would not have known her
had they not conversed with her. She was changed in appearance, mind, and
manner. This was during her periodical sickness. In the latter part of March,
during that condition her pulse was about ] 10, and her hands were cold. She
sDoke incoherently of the death of Burroughs.
1
On its recurrence in April, as on the previous occasion, she showed great
insensibility to cold. Her pulse was nearly 120; the back part of her head
very warm, and her hands as cold as if they had been in water. When speaking of any matter connected with this cliarge, the pupil of the eye was so
dilated as" almost to cover the iris. At times the face was fixed, and the eye
fixed on vacancy, as in, or similar to, cases of catalepsy. She did not believe
Burroughs was dead; she said she saw him there; had frequently seen him in
that chamber. She was with difficulty calmed down, and then she became
cheerful. After a brief space the excitement returned; the pulse rose to near
120; the same condition of the face and eyes returned; she talked incoherently.
This continued for half an hour or more, when she became composed.
On the return of her sickness in May the same physical condition existed as
in April, but in a much more excited form. Still greater mental disturbance
was disclosed in her language and acts. She said she would not stay any longer
in that prison ; that she was going out; that bars could not restrain her. She
exhibited great violence of manner. She fancied she heard dreadful cries and
voices and shrieks. This occurred again in a less degree on the next day, and
on the third and fourth days after that. Her conversation and language on
these occasions showed that she thought and spoke of Burroughs as then alive,
and she spoke of him in terms of endearment.
In June, at the periodical return, there were but slight changes from her
normal condition. During the intervals the patient is entirely possessed of her
faculties, but is generally very quiet, and oftentimes melancholy—with a
temperament altogether changed from what it was up to the time of her disappointment in love.
Q. I will now ask you whether you think she has been, at any time up to
this period, the subject of mental or moral insanity? A. I have no hesitation
in saying that, having reference simply to the hypothetical case so minute; y
detailed by the counsel, Mr. Bradley, that the person labored under a deranged
intellect, paroxysmal ly deranged, produced by moral causes, and assisted or
increased by a physical cause, derangement of the uterus.
By Mr. Go/rrington. Q,. Will you state whether, upon the hypothetical case
presented to you, you could form, as a scientific gentleman, any opinion as to
whether the homicide was the result of insanity or not ? A. I certainly could.
I should say that a patient who had evinced the symptoms as detailed—the
antecedent symptoms as detailed and the physical symptoms detailed—who had
committed that act as detailed, labored at the time under paroxysmal insanity.
Q. Gould you positively, as a physician, from the circumstances which Mr.
Bradley has detailed, express the opinion that the homicide proceeded from an
insane impulse; and that the party at the time of the commission cf the homicide was not sane, and was not impelled thereto by passion and revenge ? A. I
should say, with all due deference to you, that, if you have reference to the
case of the homicide now before this Court, that would be more properly a case
for the consideration of the jury. But I will state, that taking all the facts as
detailed by Mr. Bradley, I should consider, in the hypothetical case, the homicide to be the act of a person at times laboring under mental derangement.
Q. To which of the circumstances detailed by Mr. Bradley do you attach the
most importance^ in forming your opinion? A. It-is the union of all the
circumstances upon which I form my opinion ; not upon any particular one.
Upon a partial statement of those facts, I might give a different opinion, as I
did yesterday.

106

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Q. Can you speak of any class of symptoms ? A. I can speak of the mental
and physical symptoms both.
Dr. YOUNG sworn :

By Mr. Cairington. Q. You are the physician at the jail, and have been
since the prisoner was confined ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. State if you saw her frequently while you were there? A. I saw her
generally every day; sometimes there would be an intermission of a week or
more.
Q. State if you ever observed any indication of insanity while you were
there? A. No, sir. My attention was not called to the subject at all. I
generally saw her for the purpose of examining as to any physical disease,
without any reference whatever to mental.
Q. Did you observe any particular physical disease—dysmenorrhcea for
instance ? A. No, sir.
By Mr. Bradley. When was her last periodical return ? A. I think from
the 16th to the 19th of June. There is always a variation of several days,
more or less.
Q. Do you recollect at all what the normal condition of her pulse is ? A. I
do not think that I ever referred to it at all, except during the time that she
was laboring under erysipelas, and I do not know that I examined it at that
time.
Dr. WM, P. JOHNSOU sworn:

By Mr. Carrington. Q. You have been a practitioner in this city for a great
many years ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I wish you would state to the jury some of the more prominent symptoms
which are exhibited in the case of hysteria and dysmenorrhcea? 'A. Hysteria
presents such an infinite variety of symptoms that it would be almost impossible
for me to give a pioper idea of the disease, further than to say, perhaps, that it
affects especially the muscular and nervous system, producing convulsions, and
not unfrequently gives rise to mental derangement. The repeated recurrence of
this disease renders the individual still more liable to attacks, so that they become exceedingly impressionable-—very slight causes inducing immediate and
marked effect, " Dysmenorrhcea is severe menstruation, attended with pain, which
is the most prominent symptom ; but, in connection with that, there are also
other symptoms For example, they frequently have just what I have described,
paroxysms of hysteria, convulsions, and delirium, which usually continue during
the paroxysms ; sometimes only for a few hours, sometimes for a day or two,
and sometimes for four or five days, going off and leaving the patient in full or
ordinary health.
Q. I wish to state to you a hypothetical case, and get your judgment upon it?
It is as follows:
In the case of a young woman of a highly nervous organization and vivacious
temperament, and who has suffered from a disappointment in love, theie is observed at intervals of greater or less regularity, at monthly periods, the following symptoms: irregular and insufficient sleep, depression of the spirits, and
melancholy, outbreaks of violence of the following character, attacking a friend
with whom there had been no previous quarrel with a broom, and on another
occasion with a carving knife, throwing a pin cushion at a customer in the storein which she was employed, the cutting or attempted destruction of a piece of
fine needle work belonging to a friend, awaking at an early hour in the morning and saying to a room mate that she must leave her, ana was going to walk
upon.the lake shore, insensibility to cold, and shedding tears. State how frequently you have noticed in your practice such symptoms in cases of hysteria,
or dysmenorrhcea, and whether upon such symptoms you would infer the insanity of the patient?
A. I have no hesitation in saying it would be impossible to answer the question in the way it is put. In order to answer that question correctly, I should

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

107

.have a complete history of all the antecedent and subsequent facts connected
with the case, I have not learned whether this patient at the time she proceeded
to the building was suffering from dysmenorrhea.
Mr. Bradley. They assume, doctor, that she was in that condition.
Witness. Then if that is assumed, and if, as we know she was liable to attacks of mental derangement at that time, while I could not say what was her
motive, I could say that, seeing in her presence an individual whom she believed
had wronged her. and being sensitive and impressionable, liable to have outbursts of passion from what might seem to us, perhaps, insufficient causes, I can
understand that she might give way for a time, where a woman not liable to
such paroxysms, having a strong nervous system, and not hysterical, might not
have yielded.
Q. Will you state whether or not, from your observation and experience, you
would have expected the act of homicide to be the first symptom, or indication
of the presence of one of those spells? A. I could hardly have expected that
to have been the first; but then that would depend a great deal on circumstances:
females are differently affected, as we have shown. If an individual has been
brooding over a fancied wrong for a long time—an individual of that peculiar
temperament we have described—I can understand, that having seen that individual for the first time, perhaps after a long interval, that an impulse to commit homicide might have seized upon her, which it would not have done in a
woman not so liable to such attacks.
Q Will you' state whether or not you would expect to find attending that
impulse circumstances of apparent deliberation? A. A hysterical patient of
that kind might very well adopt an idea—and there is after all, between hysterical derangement and insanity, no line of demarkation—and brooding over it,
in this condition of mind, premeditate an act of this kind, which would be perfectly compatible with the idea, that in the interval of her paroxysms she was
of sound mind.
Q. In a case such as we have^supposed, conceding the party to have been
subject to these paroxysms, and also knew of certain exciting causes that brought
them on, would you'say that in this, or any ordinary case, where the same
facts existed, that the patient had or had not sufficient power of control over
mind and will, as to avoid such an exciting influence? A. Well, I suppose she
might have kept away.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley. Q. Are there not numerous instances where, all these conditions existing, the patient could not control herself; and where they have gone
to persons and asked them to hold their hands, or tie their thumbs with packthreads, because of this influence coming upon them which they could not resist ?
A. Certainly.
Q. And following up that same idea, whether there are not instances where,
under just such a condition of things as you have described, moral and physical,
a patient has been conscious of what he is doing and yet unable to resist it ?
A. Yes, sir ; I should think that might be considered as one of the phases of
hysteria.
Q. Are there not numerous cases, well-authenticated, in medical books, where
mothers have killed their own children, without any power to control themselves, laboring under precisely such description of thing as you have presented
to us ? A. That might occur, and instances have occurred.
Mr Bradley read several cases from the books in illustration.
Q. State whether or not a change or departure from a normal condition,
except at a certain period of life in the females—a decided and marked change—
is or not evidence of disease ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If the moral temperament undergoes as great a change as the physical
condition, is that, or not, a stronger illustration, morally and mentally, of the
existence of mental disturbance as well as bodily ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If, accompanying this change of condition in the body, there is a change

108

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

of condition of mind, embracing in the mind all the facts, moral and intellectual,
is not that an evidence of mental disease also ? A. Certainly.
Q. Again : is not the departure from the natural and healthy character,
temper, and habits, a very strong symptom, from which you would infer a
disease of the mind ? A. It certainly shows some derangement of the mind
of some sort.
Q. I now submit to you the same hypothetical case put to Dr. May, which
you will please to read carefully, and then give your opinion as to the condition
of the patient therein described ? A. (After carefully reading the same,) it appers, from this history, that the patient has suffered, as I have stated previously,
from dysmenorrhcea, attended with marked symptoms of hysteria. Without
being able to say whether she was or was not, at the time of the homicide, in
an insane condition, she was certainly in that condition which had previously
been characterized by evidence of insanity, and the cause, the most marked
that could have occurred, was there to cause some condition certainly analogous
to that which had existed from a much slighter cause—that is, from certain
acts of alienation and of violence that she had committed before.
Q. Doctor, will you state what is the inference, treated medically, from these
facts, upon the question of the condition of the mind ? A. I should have said
that this patient was laboring under this hysterical condition, and I want here
to explain what I mean by hysterical. The ordinary acceptation of that term
is not that which is meant by it medically. It is ordinal ily understood as
something more or less voluntary, as proceeding from a weak mind, and that
the person, therefore, is nervous, in the ordinary acceptation of that term. By
the term, as used medically, we consider an individual suffering from hysteria
as irresponsible for any act which she might commit. I t is just as impossible
for them to prevent violence as it would be for them to prevent being drowned,
if thrown into water deep enough, and there allowed to remain.
Dr. THOS. MILLEE sworn:

By Mr. Bradley. State whether you were in court this morning when the
hypothetical case put by me to Dr. May was read to him. A. I was.
Q. State whether or not you attentively listened to the history of that case.
A. I did!
Q. From the reading of that case, state to the jury what is your opinion as
to the condition of the mind of the patient described in that hypothetical case.
A. I will state in one word that I concur entirely with the views and opinions
expressed by Dr. May.
Q. State whether, especially at one period of your life, you did not pay particular attention to the diseases of the mind? A. I did, many years ago, and
was somewhat instrumental in having the present lunatic asylum established in
Washington. I had special charge of the insane of the District for some years.
They were at that time placed in the jail here prior to being removed to Baltimore.
Dr. F. HOWARD sworn:

By Mr. Wilson. Will you please state some of the symptoms frequently
observable in cases of dysmenorrhcea and hysteria? A. The symptoms of
hysteria are very variable. It may assimilate almost any disease. Women
subject to hysteria are generally very susceptible; sometimes subject to gloomy
despondency and sometimes to joy. They go quickly from one extreme to
another in their moral feelings. The attack of hysteria may be accompanied
with agitation of the muscle, and there may be perversion of the intellectual
faculty or not during the paroxysms.
•Q. State whether or not the existence of the disease of dysmenorrhcea can be
immediately detected upon a short visit to a patient ? A. A physician who
made the proper investigation ought, I think, at his first visit, to decide
whether his patient had dysmenorrhcea or not '

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

109

By Mr Bradley. I believe you have read over the hypothetical case put by
me ? A. Yes, sir. „
Q. State to the jury your opinion as to the condition of the patient thus
described during the period of time covered by that statement. A. I would
suppose the patient thus described to be subject to mental alienation, and that
she was subject to insane impulses—possibly suicidal or homicidal mania.
PETER HAETWELL sworn:

By Mr. Wilson Where do you reside? A In Chicago.
Q" State if you are acquainted with the accused, Mary Harris? A. I am;
and have known her since 1863—I think the spring of 1863.
Q. Will you state how often you have seen her, and when you lost sight of
her before seeing her here ? A. During the summer of 1863, I think, I saw her
nearly every day. For the last twelve months I have seen her but very seldom.
Q. When did you last see her before seeing her here ? A I think about the
1st of January last.
Q, Will you state the occasion ? A. I saw her at the railroad depot.
Q. Did you see her the day before that; and, if so, state where and under
what circumstances you saw her? A. I think two days before that I saw her
at the passenger station of the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne, and Chicago railroads.
Q. Will you state whether about that time you saw her at a company or
entertainment of any sort? No, sir.
Q. How long did you see her the last time? A. I think the interview lasted
about an hour.
Q. Were you conversing with her a part of that time ? A. Part of the time.
Q What day of the month was that? A. I do not remember the exact date,
but it was about the 1st of January I think. I am not sure whether it was
two days before or after the 1st of January, but I think it was after.
Q. Will you state what changes you noticed in her appearance at that time
as compared with her appearance when you had before seen her ? A. I did not
notice amy thing particularly.
Q. Was her manner as to liveliness, vivacity, &c, at the time you last saw
her, the same as before ? A. I thought she appeared to be the same as usual.
Q. You have seen her since she has been here, have you not ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state what change you have noticed in her appearance as compared with either of the times of which you have spoken ? A. I have not seen
her enough here to notice any change,
Q. Have you seen her face ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time you saw her at the depot in January, did she state where she
was going ? A. Yes, sir; she said she was going to Baltimore.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley, Where do you reside ? A. In Chicago.
Q. How did you come to be here as a witness ? A. I was subpoenaed by the
United States marshal.
Q. Who saw you before then about this business ? A. Well, I had some conversation with Dr. Burroughs about it.
Q. You were subpoenaed by the marshal in Chicago ? A. Yes, sir.
Q Did any one furnish you with the money to pay your expenses in coming
on ? Yes, sir.
Q. Who furnished it? A. Dr. Burroughs gave an order on Judge L. C. P.
Freer to Mr. Goode, to give to rne. I presented the order, and Freer accepted
it and gave me the money.
Q,. Dr. Burroughs had seen and conversed with you before that as to the testimony you would give here ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. t)id you board at the same house with. Miss Harris in 1863 ? % A. Y'es, sir.
Q. For how long ? A. For seven or eight months.
Q. During that time how often were you in her company ? A. Very frequently.

110

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS,

Q. Did you pass the store every day? A. Not every day. Occasionally I
would drop in to say something to the ladies there.
Q Did you see her then? A. Yes. sir.
Q. Do you mean to say that at that time she was any more fleshy than she
is now ? A. I think she was more fleshy than she is now.
Q. Do you mean to tell the jury that she had any more color than she has
now ? A. I did not have an opportunity of seeing her face. I suppose, though,
she had more color.
Q. You conversed with her here. Was she not more cheerful at home than
when you saw her here ? A. Yes, sir.
(XEOEGE F. MOSELY sworn :

By Mr. Wilson. Where do you reside ? A. In Janesville, Wisconsin.
Q. What is your occupation ? A. I am a bookseller.
Q. Will you state what acquaintance you have with Miss Harris, the prisoner? A. I became acquainted with Miss Harris about a year since; and saw
her from that time till the time of her leaving Janesville, which I think was in
the latter part of December.
Q. Will you state how frequently you saw her, and under what circumstances ? A. I saw her sometimes every day; at other times, perhaps, not so often,
as she wouid come into my store on different kinds of business*
Q,. Will you state what, during that time, was her general demeanor ? A. She
seemed usually to be cheerful and in fair spirits; quiet in her manner, and quite
self-possessed under all circumstances.
Q. When did you last see her ? A. I cannot recollect exactly, but I think
about Christmas.
Q: "Will you state whether, 'during that time, you observed any extraordinary instances of conduct, or anything that appeared to you to be an evidence
of insanity or mental derangement ? A. I did not.
Q. State whether or not, at any of these interviews, she said anything to you
about her lover; and if so, state what was said, as enabling you thus to arrive
at her state of mind on that subject? A. I do not think she did.
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley. Did Dr. Burroughs talk to you about this case when in
Janesville ? A. He has had some conversation with me in regard to it.
Q, When Miss Harris came into your store, did she come to buy papers, get
change, or anything of that kind ? A. Usually.
Q. She did not sit down to have a chat with you? A. No, sir; I think not.
Q. And this mere store acquaintance is all the acquaintance vou have with
her? A. It is.
Q. Do you belong to any religious denomination ? A. I do ; the Presbyterian.
Q. You are not a Roman Catholic ? A. No, sir.
Q. Nor a Baptist? A. No, sir.
Q. By whom were you summoned ? A. By the marshal.
Q. Were your expenses paid ? A. No, sir.
E. I-I. STEOSTG sworn :

By Mr. Wilson. Where do you reside ? A. In Janesville, Wisconsin.
Q. Do you know the prisoner ? A. She boarded with me last year—in 1864.
Q. How long did she bojircl with you ? A. About ten days.
Q. Had you'ever seen her previous.to that? A. I had not.
Q. Did you ever see her subsequently ? A. I sometimes met her in the street
subsequently._
Q. During the period she boarded with you, what was her spirit? Was she
cheerful or melancholy ? Did you observe anything remarkable about her ?
A. I considered her laboring under mental depression.
Q. Did you observe anything else ? A. Nothing in particular.

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

Ill

Q. Do you know whether at that time she was unwell ? A, I do not think
she was. I thought she was in delicate health.
Q. Did you observe anything singular in her conduct? A. I did not.
Q. Do you know the witness, Miss Louisa Devlin? A. Yes, sir; she was
also at my house at the same time.
Q. How long did she board there ? A. Well, she came there before Miss
Harris. I cannot tell how long. I should think about a month.
Q. Had you known her previously ? A. Not at all.
Q. Did you know her subsequently, after she left your house ? A. No, sir ;
only as I have seen her at her place of business once.
Q. Was her place of business in the same town ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did she carry on business there ? A. I think she commenced
business in May or June. She may have carried it on for a year
Q. Do you know the general reputation of Miss Louisa 'Devlin among her
neighbors; and if so, state what that reputation is for truth ? A. I do not.
What knowledge I possess of the Misses Devlin is of a very limited character,
and derived from very few persons.
Q. Did you have any conversation with anybody, previous to your being
summoned as a witness here, about this case ? A. Yes, sir; I had with the
deputy marshal, when I was summoned, on the 4th of July last.
Q. What arrangements were made for the payment of your expenses ?
A. None.
Q. You hiwe paid your own expenses up to this time ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was nothing said to you about your expenses being paid? A. Yes, sir,
there was.
Q. What was it ? A. The marshal read a letter to me, in which
The District Attorney. I object io the witness stating the contents of any
letter.
The Court cautioned the witness against stating the contents.
Q. Who was the letter from ?
The District Attorney The letter must speak for itself.
Q. Did that letter say anything to you about the payment of expenses?
The District Attorney.
I object.
Objection sustained.
Witness. The marshal said my expenses would be paid and S3 a day.
Q, Was anything said as to the authority upon which he made that statement? A. Well
Q. Did he have the letter in his hand? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he say from whom that letter was? A. Yes, sir, Dr. Burroughs, and
that if it was necessary he (Dr. B.) would advance any funds which might be
required.
The District Attorney stated that having no other witnesses in attendance,
and the hour of adjournment having arrived, he would ask the court to adjourn
at this point until Monday.
The counsel for defence objected. They desired to finish this testimony at
once.
A juror thought they should be consulted in the matter. Some of them were
sick, and they wanted to have the case finished as soon as possible.
The Court said the jury had now been on the case over eight days, and if
the case was protracted much longer, there would, he feared, be no jury to
decide upon it.
He inquired of the District Attorney whether the evidence he yet desired to
introduce was of a new and material character or merely cumulative.
The District Attorney replied that in his opinion it was of rather an important
character, though it was cumulative. He knew the case had already been a
protracted one, but as it was a very important case, he deemed it advisable to
get all the light that could be had in regard to it. He would, however, leave
the question as to whether he should close here or introduce the additional testimony on Monday to the discretion of the Court.

112

TRIAL OV MARY HARRIS.

The Court said if the matter were left for him to decide, he would declare the
evidence closed on both sides, and adjourn the court until Monday morning, at
ten o'clock; which was accordingly done.
TENTH 3)AY—MONDAY,

July IT, 1865.

The court met at ten o'clock
There was a larger attendance than upon any previous day, especially on the
part of the ladies. Miss Harris occupied in court the same position as
heretofore, and appeared to be more cheerful than upon any previous day
since the: trial commenced; looking about her more, and appearing to take
a greater interest in what was transpiring. The arguments," bearing as they
did exclusively upon points of law, were only for the Court and not for tlie
jgjfey, and consequently the latter were not necessarily obliged to remain in the
court-room, and they were soon permitted to retire. Miss Harris was also permitted to retire, and, with her lady friends, occupied the room adjoining the
court-room all of the afternoon. After it became evident that the day would
be occupied with the discussion oi legal questions, a large number of those in
attendance, upon the trial quietly left the court-room. By consent of counsel,
it was understood that the depositions relative to the ring said to have been
worn by Burroughs were to be admitted in evidence. This portion of the depositions taken in Chicago and Burlington was heretofore excluded until after
other evidence should be adduced relative to the wearing of the ring by the
Mr. Bradley then submitted to the Court the following prayers on the part of
the defence, and asked that the jury be instructed therein:
If, from the whole evidence in the cause, the jury shall find that the prisoner
committed the acts charged in the indictment in the manner and at the time and
place therein named, and thereby produced the death of the said A. J. Burroughs,
as therein stated;
And if, from the evidence aforesaid, they shall further find, that when the
prisoner committed the said acts she was, either by physical disease or some
moral cause not voluntarily induced by herself, or both, operating upon her
mental faculties, unable to control her will and actions with reason and judgment in reference to the acts so committed, then in judgment of law she was
insane, and could not be guilty of the offence charged in the indictment, and is
;
entitled to a verdict of not guilty.
Or if, at the time of committing the said acts as aforesaid, the prisoner was
moved thereto by an insane impulse controlling her will and judgment too
powerful for her to resist, and said insane impulse arose from causes physical or
moral, or from both combined, not voluntarily induced by herself, she is entitled
to a verdict of not guilty.
And if the jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to the soundness of the mind
of the prisoner, as stated in the foregoing instructions, at the time of the committing of said act, she is entitled to the benefit of that doubt, as she would be
to the benefit of a doubt as to any other material fact in the cause, for it is one
of the elements of the crime charged in the indictment in this case, that the
person charged shall at the time of the committing the offence be of " sound
memory''and discretion," and without this the offence is not complete in law.
Mr. Wilson presented the following prayers on the part of the prosecution:
1. If the jury believe, from, the whole evidence, that the prisoner at the bar
left the town of Janesville, Wisconsin, and came to the city of Washington for
the purpose of instituting a suit against the deceased for a breach of promise of
marriage, bringing with her the pistol offered in evidence, and, after arriving in
this city, and armed with the said loaded pistol, on or about the time stated in
the indictment, repaired to the Treasury Department, in this city, inquired for
the deceased, went to his room in said building, and saw him; then concealed
herself, and laid in wait for him, and as he was passing by, fired said pistol at

TRIAL OP MART HARRIS.

113

him, inflicting a wound by which he died, and then, cocking the pistol, fired at
him a second time, they should find her guilty as indicted, unless they are
satisfied by said evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the time said
homicide was committed as aforesaid, the accused had not sufficient reason to
know the nature, quality, and character of the act of homicide, and sufficient
capacity to distinguish right from wrong in regard to that particular act.
2. If the jury find from the whole evidence that the deceased came to his
death at the time and place, and in the manner set forth in the foregoing
prayer, they must find the accused guilty as indicted, unless they arc satisfied
by said evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the time the said homicide
was committed, as aforesaid, the accused had not sufficient capacity to distinguish
right from wrong in regard to the homicide, or was from disease incapable to
resist the commission of the act.
3 If the jury find from the whole evidence that the deceased came to his
death at the time and place and in the manner set forth in the foregoing prayer,
and if the jury further find that the accused entertained feelings of hatred
towards the deceased, and was conscious that she was at certain periods subject
to paroxysmal insanity, and that the presence of the deceased was an exciting
cause of paroxysms of insanity, and having previously armed herself with a
pistol, voluntarily sought the deceased in the manner set forth in the first
prayer, the accused is not entitled to an acquittal on the ground that the act of
shooting was an insane impulse or caused by paroxysmal insanity, but the jury
should find the accused guilty of murder or of manslaughter
•L If the jury find from the whole evidence that the deceased came to his
death at the time and place and in the manner set forth in the foregoing prayer,
in order to entitle the accused to an acquittal on the ground of insanity, it is
not sufficient for the accused to show a state of mind susceptible to disease, nor
is it sufficient that the proof merely shows that it was possible, or even probable,
that at the.time of the commission of the homicide the accused was of unsound
or diseased mind, and subject to fits of insane fury, and was subject to
paroxysmal insanity. .
5. If the jury find from the whole evidence that the deceased came to his
death at the time and place and in the manner set forth in the first prayer, and
if the jury further find that at the time of the commission of the homicide the
accused was insane according to the evidence and the law as stated by the
Court, they should render their verdict in the following form, to wit: Not
guilty by reason of insanity, or words to that effect, act February 7, 11
Statute 158, sec. 5, 1857.
6. If the jury find, from the whole evidence, that the deceased came to his
death at the time and place and in the manner set forth in the first prayer, in
order to entitle the accused to an acquittal on the ground of insanity, it is not
sufficient for the accused to show a state of mind susceptible to disease, nor is it
sufficient that the proof merely show that it was possible or even probable that
at the time of the commission of the homicide the accused was of unsound or
diseased mind and subject to paroxysmal insanity ; but it must be shown to the
satisfaction of the jury, and beyond reasonable doubt, that the act of homicide
proceeded from a paroxysm of insanity occasioned by disease, and not from
criminal intent.
Mr. Bradley, in arguing upon the instructions, said he did not see much
material difference between the first two prayers of the defence and those of the
prosecution upon the same subject. The first proposition of the defence was,
that if the accused, from some moral or physical cause, or both combined, not
induced voluntarily by herself, had committed the act charged, and if her will
was at the time controlled by disease, she was entitled to a verdict of not guilty.
But the prosecution, in their prayers, claimed that the jury must have evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was insane or actuated by an insane
impulse. In the dark ages such narrow views prevailed; but the law advanced
as intelligence advanced. All modern authorities agree with the first proposition on the part of the defence. Medical jurisprudence has advanced, but not
8

114

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

kept equal pace with medical science. Mr. Bradley quoted from page 142.
section 174, of Wharton and Stille's Medical Jurisprudence to sustain his posi^
tion He also referred to 7 Metcalf, 500.
' Mr. Bradley argued that, if, by reason of an overwhelming disease, the will
was controlled by that disease, the accused was not a, voluntary agent in the
commission of a crime; or if it was found, upon investigation, that a disease
existed, and if, in a sudden paroxysm of that disease, and governed by an insane impulse, she had committed the act charged, she was entitled to an
acquittal. The late Judge Crawford had in this very court decided affirmatively upon questions of law similar to those now submitted by the defence in
this case—in the case of John Bay, in "1852; of the Devlins, in 1858.—3 Crawford, 35 ; Sickles case, 3 H., 63. If the proposition upon this point on the part
oi the" prosecution were analyzed, it would be seen that it was the same as that
offered by the defence. The court is now seeking to ascertain what facts and
what condition of things exempt an individual from liability in the commission
of a crime by reason of defective mental capacity. The question was, whether
the accused was capable of exercising a projDer control over the mind, and
whether she had the proper memory, and was capable of understanding her
proper relation to the party upon whom she was about to commit violence.
Could she understand that the act was-a crime against man and God? As to
the last proposition of the defence, Mr. Bradley said he was aware he -was
treacling upon uncertain ground. He was aware that there were authorities
indicating that the burden of proof of a defence of insanity was thrown upon
the defence. But in this case that burden of proof had not been shifted to the
defendant. The prosecution, in their proposition, say that all are presumed to
be sane until the contrary is proven. The Government is bound to prove all
the acts of the accused relative to the crime charged, and this includes the mental capacity to commit the crime.
[NOTE.—The foregoing is abstracted from the report made by the National
Intelligencer, and sufficiently, we think, presents the propositions made by Mr.
Bradley. What follows is the argument of Mr. Bradley on the material question as to the burden of proof.]
Mr, Bradley said he felt great diffidence in approaching the discussion of this
proposition of Jaw as applicable to this case, because lie was aware that, until
within a few years past, it had not been supposed to be law. His attention
was drawn to it some eight or ten years ago, in the trial of John Day, in the
Criminal Court of this District, which was followed by that of the two Devlins,
in the last of which, upon full consideration, the late lamented T Hartley
Crawford, than whom there was not a more laborious and careful judge, or one
who was more fully imbued with the law relative to criminal offences at common law, or by statute, in this country, decided that the burden of proof never
was shifted on the defendant.Mr. Bradley said he spoke without notes, but would endeavor to condense
the outline of his argument, commenting upon the propositions as he stated
them.
First. The rule of law was settled beyond controversy that the burden rests
upon the prosecution to prove every fact material and necessary to the commission of the crime with which a man stands charged; and on the failure of
the Government to establish each and every or any one of such material facts,
beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury were bound to acquit.
Second. The crime charged was murder. To constitute murder, (and he went
back to the elements of the law upon this subject, from which there had been
no essential departure,) they found it stated by Lord Coke, adopted by Blackstone, and affirmed by every judge since his day, that the act must have been
committed by a person of sound memory and discretion, against a reasonable
creature, in, being, and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, expressed or implied 3 Institutes, p. 47; 4 Blackstone, p 195; 1 Leacn C. C,
p. 383. And the fact of soundness of mind in the commission of the offence
was not only an ingredient, but an essential element, in the case itself. Sound

TRIAL OP MART HARRIS.

115

mind and discretion, or memory, by which a party could understand his relations to his God, to his country, to his fellow-man, and himself, in the act which
lie was committing, were therefore essential to be proven by the Government.
To supply the proof in such cases, the law implied—that is, it was stated to be
a presumption of law—that every man is of sound mind until the contrary is
proven; and, therefore, this presumption of law supplied the place of positive
proof, and was admitted to establish the fact that a person was of sound mind
and memory at the time the act was committed. But while this was called a
presumption of law, it was but a presumption of a fact which relieved the Government from the necessity of positive proof of that fact, as in the case of two
persons struggling on a plank in the midst of the sea. The same presumption
of fact, not of law, in its strict sense, was, that " the strongest man lived longest;''' and as the presumption of law was that an infant was doll incapax, and
that a married woman was under duties and constraint by her husband ; all of
which, although called presumptions of law, were but presumptions of fact, for
the convenience of the administration of justice, except the last, which would
sometimes excuse a woman, so this presumption of sanity was but the presumption of a fact, to be met by positive evidence, disproving or raising a doubt or
question about that fact. As in the case of an alibi, set up as a defence, the
jury were bound beyond all reasonable doubt to find that the party was present at the commission of the crime charged against*him ; or where an infant
was charged with a crime, the jury were to find that he was over the age
which furnished an excuse, and that he A as capable of committing a crime—so
Y
if there should be any evidence to show that at the time, and in the commission
of the act, the party was of unsound mind, the burden of proof remained upon
the Government to establish the fact of sanity—a fact essential to the perfection
of the offence. It was wholly immaterial whether this evidence came from the
prosecution in the examination-in-chief, or was introduced on the part of the
defence. Whenever such proof got into the cause, it raised the question of
doubt as to the sanity or insanity of the party. As in every other case the
jury were bound to find the fact beyond all reasonable doubt, the burden of
proof was not upon the accused to show that he was insane at the time of the
commission of the act, and to show this beyond all reasonable doubt; but if
the evidence should be such as to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the
jury, they could not find the party guilty, as they could not find beyond all
reasonable doubt the fact essential to the constitution of the crime.
Mr. Bradley said he was entirely aware that the current of judicial expression was opposed to this view of the case; but he was not aware of more than
one. possibly two cases, in which this direct question had been brought to the
notice of the Court, and the case made to turn upon the burden of proof, before the cases he had mentioned as having been decided by Judge Crawford,
with a single exception, and that was the case of The State vs. Marler, in 2
Alabama Beports, N. S., p. 43. In that case the direct question was brought
up on appeal before the Supreme Court of the State.
Mr. Bradley then read from the opinion delivered by Judge Ormond, as
containing the first judicial exposition of this question. He also asked the
attention of the Court to the cases of Day, Devlin, and Sickles already referred
to by him; reading so much of Judge Crawford's opinion in those cases as
applied to the case at bar. He also referred the Court to the case of the Commonwealth vs. McKee, 1st Gray's Massachusetts, p. 61, in Bennett's Heard's
Leading Criminal Cases, vol. 1, p 351, and read and commented at length on
the cases therein cited, and, in doing so, took occasion to commend this compilation to every careful student, it having been prepared with great labor and
sound judgment. He could add but very little to the argument thus clearly
presented in the "note," and asked the attention of the Court to that note,
especially when it came to read the case cited by the United States in 3d
Parker, New York Criminal Beports, in which this subject was discussed, but,
in his judgment, discussed extra judicially.
Third, sanity or insanity was as much a fact as any other fact connected

116

TRIAL OF MAEY HAEEiS.

with the definition of the crime with which the accused stood charged. It was
a fact to be found affirmatively by the jury, for if the party were insane in
doing the act—-if he was impelled to it by an irresis table, insane impulse—the
jury coaid not find him guilty of the offence charged. To constitute the crime,
the party must be capable of forming and acting upon malice aforethought.
But "malice aforethought implied a reasonable mind ; and unless the jury should
find that the accused in this case acted with malice aforethought, she was
entitled to an acquittal. It was an affirmative fact. If they should find that
she acted without malice aforethought it was reduced to manslaughter. If they
found that she acted in self-defence, it was justifiable or excusable homicide
The jury must, therefore, be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she did
the act with malice aforethought; but if, on the part of the Government, evidence had been introduced to meet that presumption of law as it was called—
that every man was sane—and to raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable
.doubt as to the fact whether she was or not insane at the time of the commission
of the act, they were bound by well settled and admitted principles to acquit, because they could not find beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of that material fact essential to the constitution of the offence. In this particular case
the Government had themselves introduced evidence to raise a doubt of the
sanity of the party at the time of the commission of the act charged. The
defence might have there*rested the case. If from that evidence the jury had
entertained a reasonable doubt whether it was the act of a sane or insane
person, they were bound to acquit, because they could not find the material
element of the offence—malice aforethought. Here the defence had, in addition
to the evidence thus given by the Government, clear proof, not only to raise a
reasonable doubt in. the minds of the jury, but as they say, fully and completely
to establish the defence. It was not necessarily an affirmative fact upon their
part, it was a negative. It was a negative fact to meet that presumption of law,
as it is called, of the continuance of sanity, They had shown as they thought
beyond all controversy, (but that was a question of fact to be determined by
the jury,) that this accused labored under paroxysmal aberrations of mind at
stated periods They had also shown the fact that during these paroxysms she
was incapable of self-control. There was no principle of law better settled
than, this : That if evidence should be given to show that a party had been of
unsound mind, the burden of proof was on the Government to establish the fact
of a lucid interval at the time of the commission of this act.
•Mr. Bradley, in support of this view, read the following extract from Best on
Presumptions, pages 186-187:
<!
So, although the law in general presumes against insanity, yet, where the
fact of insanity has not been shown, its continuance will be presumed, and the
proof of a subsequent lucid interval lays on the party who asserts it."
Here, continued Mr. Bradley, the Government said, upon this so-called presumption of law, that she was sane, of sound mind at the time of the commission of this act. The defence set up is, not guilty, because she was insane at
various times antecedent to the commission of the act. The proof that she was
so was to be considered by the jury. If the jury believed the facts stated by
the unprofessional witnesses to be true, and if they believed the opinion of tine
physicians as to the fact established by that proof was also true, [and the
opinion of the medical men was a fact,) then the jury must find that she was
insane prior to the commission of the act, and the burden of proof was shifted
upon the Government, to establish to the satisfaction of the jury that she was
of sound mind at the time the act was committed. The defense of insanity was
not a plea. It was a fact under the plea of " not guilty," to show that, although
present in the body and acting, yet she was not there" in the spirit, with understanding and reason, with " malice aforethought." Government had the affirmative all the way through. It had never shifted the plea of not/guilty moving
through the whole current of the case, and the defence, to meet that affirmative
issue had given in evidence the facts to which he referred. It, therefore, was
incumbent on the Government to meet and disprove the facts thus exhibited

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS,

117

in evidence by the defence, and they had undertaken that burden in their
rebutting proof, and assuming the law to be as the defence maintained, they had
called witnesses to disprove the fact of insanity at any time, and especially at the
time of the commission of the act. The piosecution admits, therefore, that the
defense had raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the existence
of the affirmative fact of sanity, showing that the burden of proof still continued
on them to establish that affirmative fact. The great error in the consideration
of this question which had prevailed among the judges—(whose opinions might
be or had been referred, and were merely obiter dicta, not necessary to the
decision of the case, but argumentative only)—was that they assumed that
the defense of insanity was an affirmative plea, and to be established by
affirmative evidence, when every judicial mind must see that the affirmative
rested upon the^ Government from the commencement of the case, under the
plea of not guilty, until its conclusion, to establish every fact necessary to the
constitution of the offence. They met the propositions which had been stated
by analogies, drawn from civil practices, pleas in civil courts, or by assimilating them to cases of affiimative issues on the part of the defence, where a
defendant admitted the fact of his guilt, and undertook to set up a special
defence to discharge him from it; as where a man undertook to prove an alibi.
they assumed that he wras setting up an affirmative,defense ; and so when he
set up justifiable or excusable homicide, they assumed it was an affirmative
defence. In judgment of law it was not affirmative, but negative, by showing
that he was not guilty, of the offence charged, and could not be guilty, as he
was at the time of the commission of the act charged either absent from the
place, and therefore could not be guilty, or he was in such a position as tarnished him with an excuse for the killing
Subsequent to the decisions to which he had already referred, the case of
liopps vs. The People, 31 111 11, 39o, was decided by the Supreme Court of Illinois upon a writ of error, bringing up this precise question, and this is the
only case which he had been able to procure, although there were others referred
to in it on which the judges relied as establishing their proposition. He would
read so much of the opinion as related to this particular question; and would
beg leave to ask the attention of the Court to every word of the learned judge
delivering that opinion. He had treated the subject with great perspicuity and
force, and had placed it in its true light before the profession. He was followed
by the Chief Justice of that court in an opinion, the beauty, precision, and eloquence of which had been rarely if ever surpassed by any judicial opinion that
he had seen. He should read the whole of that portion" of the opinion of the
Court, relating to this subject, and the whole of that delivered by the Chief
Justice, as being conclusive of all the questions raised upon this instruction
The Court, he hoped, would indulge him while lie read, in making comments
upon them, so far as was necessary, to illustrate the application of the principles
there laid down, to the case at bar.
Mr. Bradley then read the opinions referred to, and commented upon them
as he did so.
Before concluding, he desired to ask the attention of the Court to certain
rules laid down by Mr. Best, in his treatise upon " Presumptive Proof," which
will be found at sections 200, 203. 210. 212, and 215. They are as follows:
SEC. 200. " The onus of proving every thing essential to the establishing of the
charge against the accused, lies in the prosecutor."
SEC. 203. " The evidence against the accused should be such as to exclude to a
moral certainty every hypothesis, but that of his guilt of the offence imputed to
him.'"
SEC. 210. " The hyjoothesis of guilt should flow naturally from the facts proved
and be consistent with them all"
SEC. 212 " In cases of doubt, it is safer to acquit than condemn, and so on."
Apply these rules to the case at bar, and the question under consideration,
and how could it be possible that the jury could find everything essential to the
establishment of the charge against the accused, unless they were satisfied, be-

118

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

yond all reasonable doubt, that the accused was of sound mind at the time of
the commission of the offence.
How was it possible that the evidence against the accused could exclude, to
a moral certainty, every hypothesis, but that of her guilt of the offence imputed
to her, if the jury should doubt whether she was capable of entertaining malice
aforethought.
How could the hypothesis of guilt naturally flow from the facts proved, and
be consistent with them all, if the jury were not satisfied, beyond all reasonable
doubt, that the accused at the time of the commission of this act had the control
of her will, and was in possession of the ordinary faculties of mind. If these
rules were to be considered as established principles in the administration of
criminal justice, did it not follow that the jury must find affirmatively that the
party was of sound mind at the time of the commission of the act; and if it be
necessary to find that fact affirmatively, how could they render a verdict of
guilty, with a reasonable doubt existing on their mind, as to the sanity of the
party ; and if a reasonable doubt should exist in their mind, whether created by
the proof on the part of the Government, or of that of the defence, the rule of
law was, that the defence should be entitled to the benefit of that doubt and be
acquitted.
The Court here took a recess, and upon its reassembling, Mr. Wilson argued
in favor of the propositions submitted by the prosecution, and quoted as authorities from 3d volume of Cox's Criminal Cases, page 375; Beck's Medical Jurisprudence, page 821; 1st Curtis's, (Massachusetts Reports,) page 7; Archbold's
Criminal Pleadings, page 26; 10th Ohio Reports, page 598 ; 4th Iowa Reports,
page 509: 37th Mississippi Reports, page 393; 24th California Reports; 5th
Alabama Reports, page 241; 12th Ohio Reports, page 483; 6th North Carolina
Reports, page 386; Parker's" Criminal Reports, volume 3, page 309; Leading
Criminal Cases, 1st volume, page 92; and referred also to the case of Foley,
who was tried in the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Wilson's argument was to the effect, that the burden of proof was on the
defence to prove the insanity of the accused, and that facts beyond a reasonable
doubt would be required to convince the jury that they should render a verdict
of not guilty.
Mr. Wilson also argued that the test should be, whether the accused, at the
time of the commission of the homicide, understood right from wrong.
Judge Wylie said he was constrained somewhat by the opinions of Judge
Crawford. They were opinions delivered in this very court, and he was bound
to respect them. He considered this the same court, and that he was the successor of Judge Crawford as presiding over the criminal part of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Hughes followed Mr. AVilson, and combatted his ideas and arguments.
Eesaid he would read from some -of the authorities read by Mr. Wilson, in order
to show to the Court that they had been overruled, and that Mr. Wilson had
unsuccessfully manipulated the books.
Mr. Hughes then referred to some of the books referred to by Mr. Wilson,
and to other authorities, in order to sustain the position taken by the defence
He read from a work by Brittain, on " Man and His Relations," to show how
scientific and learned men complained of the diversity of opinion on the subject
of the treatment of the human mind.
Mr. Hughes also stated the case of the accused, and argued against the position assumed by Mr. Wilson upon the subject of the question of right and wrong
After the argument, the court adjourned until eleven o'clock to-morrow.
ELEVENTH DAY—TUESDAY,

July 18, 1865.

The court met at ten o'clock.
The prisoner was not in the court-room at all during the day, but the crowd
in attendance was no less great than upon any previous occasion. As soon as

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

119

court was opened, Judge Wylie addressed the jury upon the prayers offered bycounsel. He said :
Gentlemen of the Jury: The Court has had submitted to it, by the counsel on
both sides, certain propositions, called prayers I had intended' to write out my
views on all the questions on which it was proper for the Court to give its views
on this most important case. Such has been the pressure of business, I am
campeljecl to restrict myself
Insanity is the defence which has been set up in this case, as no person but
a person of sound mind is responsible in courts of law these days. It is very
plain, from the evidence in tike case here, that the prisoner at the bar is guilty
of wilful murder, or else she is not guilty at all.
Wilful murder is where a person of sound mind and discretion uniawfaiiy
kills any human being in the peace of the government, with malice aforethought or implied.
Judge Wylie read from Sir Mathew Hale
With these preliminary observations, to which I am compelled to limit myself, I proceed now to answer the prayers asked by the gentlemen in the case.
First prayer for the defence; The Court will grant that instruction, striking
out the words, " with reason and judgment,"
The second prayer is granted.
The third prayer is refused.
Whatever may be the individual opinion I may entertain on this question,
as to which I do not wish to be understood as conveying any intimation, I am
convinced the law is not as expressed in this prayer. On the contrary, the
Court instructed you that the defence set up in this case must be made out
affirmatively, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a preponderance of evidence.
There are to be found some authorities in this country which would sustain
the prayer, and I admit that the tendency oi the courts seems now to have set
in that direction • but the weight of authority is still on the other side, and I
feel especially bound, as respects my own course on this question, by the decision in Foley's case made by the late Circuit Court of this District on error to
the Criminal Court.
The first prayer offered by the prosecution is not granted, for reasons on
which the Court has already granted the first and second prayers of the defence.
Judge Wylie spoke at some length on this prayer, giving his reasons for notgranting it. He leferred to several authorities to support his decision. If, at
the time of the commission of the act, the party was laboring under an insane
impulse, produced by either physical or moral cause sufficient to dethrone her
mind, or if frenzy had mounted the throne of reason, so as for the time to dethrone reason, the party was insane.
The second prayer is granted, with this qualification to be added: "or was
impelled to the act by an insane impulse produced either by diseased physical
condition, or by moral causes operating on a diseased state of her system, stinging her to madness, and for the time displacing reason from its seat."
The third prayer is not granted.
If the act in question was committed whilst the prisoner was insane in the
sense already explained, she cannot be made responsible for it by any conduct,
declarations, or behavior on previous occasions, when her mind was under the
government of her reason.
The fourth prayer is granted.
The jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the prisoner was
not merely liable to the insane attacks referred to, but that the act in question
was committed by her whilst she was actually possessed and irresistibly controlled by the presence and power of one of them.
The fifth prayer of the prosecution is refused.
The plea in this case is simply not 'guilty, and the act of Congress does not
require the jury to state upon what reasons th*ey are to find their verdict.
Mr. Bradley said the counsel for defence were gratified with the ruling of the
Court, except as to the refusal to grant the third prayer of the defence ; and ha

120

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

asked permission to reserve exception to the ruling of the Court upon that
prayer
REMARKS OP THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

Mr. Wilson, for the prosecution, then addressed the jury as follows: You
are glad to see that the end of this long and painful trial "is now not far distant.
For nearly two weeks, with a thankworthy and most patient attention, you
have watched the complete unfolding of the dark texture of the prisoner's life,
and the unraveling of the blood-stained threads, in warp and woof; and now
you are to s.ay whether the colors of that texture, its colors of crimson and
of black, are but the shadows of unavoidable misfortune, or the badges of punishable guilt The prisoner, although obscure and poor, has been able to summon to her assistance an array of counsel representing every phase of professional eminence and excellence: she is so fortunate as to be defended by one
whose persuasive eloquence has made the borders of his own State quite too
limited to contain his fame; by another, who has lately adorned a high position
upon the Federal bench ; by another, whose learning has been made conspicuous in many pursuits and offices; by another, the leader of our own bar; and
by a fifth, whose talents and industry give promise of his high professional attainments I say it is gratifying that the prisoner is thus defended, because we
may restJ assured that this eloquence, this learning, this experience, and this
industry, will' not leave an visited any corner of the domains of law, of science,
of fact, of fancy, and will find out and exhibit- all that there is or can be to
palliate or disprove the blood-guiltiness of their client. And I cannot avoid
saying that I find another satisfaction in the recollection of your declarations
at the commencement, of this case, that you had not formed or expressed opinions as to the offence set forth in this indictment We all know how quickly
public sentiment turns its back upon the grave and the dead, and its face toward the living and the present; with what alacrity the funeral-baked meats
are offered as a tribute to youth and womanhood. What, then, are the facts
concerning this homicide, with which it is your business to deal to-day ? They
are these: The prisoner at the bar, in the latter part of last December, armed
with a pistol, sets out on a journey of one thousand miles in search of a
man Whom she hates, and who she believes, or alleges, has violated his promise
to her. When near his place of residence, she stops in a neighboring city ; she
leaves there all encumbering baggage, and taking the weapon which has been
her companion in her travel, she reaches her destination. She arrives here
somewhere near the hour of noon. She goes to the Treasury Department, and
at the door inquires for her victim byname. She goes to his room, and, sees
him at his desk. She conceals herself in the hall to await his coming When
he appears—when he is so near that her pistol's point can almost touch him—
when it is certain that the ball must do its work—she fires ; and as he Hies
from her, wounded unto death, she cocks her pistol and fires a second time. She
then turns and walks slowly along the passage, descends the stairs, misses her
way, corrects her mistake, passes through the outer door, and is about to descend into the street, when she is arrested and brought back; manifests rather
less than more of the emotions that would naturally be elicited by such a deed.
And we are to see whether, in the capital of this nation, in the very chambers
of its civil life, men—aye, the very servants of the public—are to be done to
death, are to be shot down, and no law found to punish the act, and no jury
found to administer the law. We are to see if, while all the courts of justice
are open to those who would redress their private wrongs, a young woman who
fancies herself, or, if you please, has been slighted, aggrieved, or injured, is with
her own hand to execute the offender, and to receive the approval of those who
are the sworn ministers of the law. % Juries are the educators of public morals.
What lesson do you propose to*teach upon this subject? What precedent do
yon propose to establish ? The counsel for the prisoner ask that you inflict no
punishment and express no reproof. They interpose between the accused and

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

121

the sword of justice a defence. That defence is insanity—a refuge always
sought in cases where other refuge there is none. And it is this defence that
you" are to examine—to examine not as a school of philosophers, not as a society
of metaphysicians, not as a board of trustees considering an application for admission into an insane asylum, but as men of honesty and common sense, needing not the speculations and theories of the books, but having the instructions
of" the Court, and in them a guiding-star, a chart, a compass and rudder, by
which you may find and follow that rightful law, whose'aim it is, in all the
fluctuations of interest, in all the vicissitudes of fortune, to punish guilt, whether
in high or low, whether in rich or poor, whether in man or woman The defence is, as T have said, the insanity of the accused But fearing to trust to
this alone—although, if established, that alone would have been of saving efficacy—they have attacked the character of the deceased. There is in the arsenal
of their weapons not only the bullet that destroyed his life, but the poisoned
arrows that are to pierce through his name and memory, and wound the heart
of the widow, and stain and discolor a child's reverence for a father who died
ere its own life began. But their main defence is insanity. What is the insanity, what the character and degree of the insanity, that will entitle the ac
cusecf to an acquittal? You must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
the accused was at the time incapable, through disease, to resist the commission
of the act The defence does not propose to prove a general state of insanity
or monomania; but they desire to show that just enough insanity existed to
make this homicide no murder, and that the homicide having been committed,
the prisoner has returned to a state of sanity. Their defence is paroxysmal
insanity—a defence resorted to when defence there is no other. It has been
their object to prove that in September, 1863, a change occurred in the bodily
and mental health of the prisoner They claim that this change was occasioned,
first, by a disappointment in love; second, by a violation of a marriage engagement ; and, third, by a great moral shock; and to show whence these three
conspirators against her reason came, they refer to the letters of September 8
and 12, 1863. In answer to all that, I refer you to the letter in evidence, dated
January 19, 1862, showing clearfy that, whatever may have been the relations
previously existing, they were broken at that time, and after that date Burroughs wrote to the accused but five letters, and had but four short interviews
with her. He was the discarded suitor; she well satisfied with his absence,
and to have preserved her sanity; for in all the evidence of her acts during the
eighteen months intervening between that time and September. 1863) we hear
not a single note of
" Sweet bells jangled out of tune, and harsh."

In the invention of the letters asking her to meet him at a house of assignation»
she never could have been for a moment deceived, and had no belief that they
came from Burroughs. The very witness first produced by the defence swears
that it was physically impossible that he could have written them. They do
not bear the least resemblance to his handwriting; and furthermore, she asserted only two or three days after, to Rev. Dr. Burroughs, of Chicago, that
she had no reason to suppose ihey were written by Mr. Burroughs, and that
she was sorry that she had entertained the suspicion, and would not have
thought of it unless it had been suggested to her by others. A venomous and
malicious attack has been made on Dr. Burroughs by the accused; but he is a
truthful, christian gentleman, who has done his duty only, and is beyond the
reach of the petty malice of his defamers. If confirmation is needed to add
credibility to her story, we find it in the evidence where, more than a year
afterward, she states that Burroughs had always treated her as a father. This
bungling contrivance of the assignation letters gives to you no explanation of
the Homicide To know its real motive, we have'but to listen to the testimony
of her friend. Miss Devlin.
A change came over Miss Harris after the marriage of Burroughs. Up to
that time she was cheerful and happy. To understand the significance of that

122

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

we need no doctors learned iu the symptoms of paroxysmal insanity and rlysmennorhea. We need only open the red loaves of the hook of the human
heart She had loved him; she had, in coquettishness or for a worse reason,
rejected him ; he had married another; he was lost to .her, and she was jealousher love turned to hatred, her passion to revenge. It is not a new or a"stranpe
story This is not the first tragedy in. which'a woman lias mingled with the
wine of her life that " poison more potent than a mad dog's tooth." She tells her
counsellor that she hates Burroughs, and does not know what she might do
should she see him. A physician is called in soon after that to prescribe foi
bodily ailments, not to minister to a mind diseased. In the act of the homicide there is evidence not of insanity but of premeditation and of deliberation.
!<
If she wras mad, her madness had the strangest frame of sense. Such a dependency of thing on thing as never I heard in madness " In.her subsequent
conduct, while in jail, he who was acting nurse, counsel, physician, and mental
philosopher, saw many touching and sentimental incidents, but an old physician, who saw her every day, saw no evidences of insanity of any sort. The
defence has attempted to put the prosecution in a position of antagonism with
the medical witnesses. We have too much respect for them as men, and too
high an estimate of their professional excellence to oppose them. We agree
with them in all they have said. The prosecution put to them a hypothetical
case. The defence put to them a hypothetical case, and they gave their opinion
upon each. The case of the prosecution was consistent with the evidence ; that
of the defence was not. In the hypothetical case put, the following facts were
presumed to be true which do not appear in evidence: First, that there was a
sudden breaking off of a marriage engagement. Second, there was a serious moral
shock. Third, there wras a disappointment. Fourth, that the accused did not
avail herself of the first opportunity to commit the act. Fifth, that she made
no effort to escape. Sixth, that she did not attempt to palliate the offence.
Seventh, that she was at the time of the commission of the act suffering from
physical disease. Eighth, that there was a sudden and unexpected appearance
of the deceased The disappearance of these facts, together with the opinions
of the physician, that all the other peculiarities of her conduct can be accounted
for by the existence of hysteria, effectually explodes the whole theory of the
defence. It is true that she was susceptible to disease, but in that particular
she is not different from us all. It is true, that like Macbeth, she heard voices
and saw visions that had no existence, but in that respect she does not differ
from all who are visited by the spectres of remorse, and stung by the pains of
of an accusing conscience. In conclusion, we all know that in our own nature,
in all human natures, there is a background of fire, and a world of fierce passions, of hatred, anger, revenge, and malice, that surge and storm against the
barriers that confine them, and threaten at each moment to bring ruin upon
ourselves and danger and disaster to the public peace. They are not to be kept
in subjection by the refinements of metaphysics, or by the witchery of oratory.
or by the pleadings of mercy. It is punishment and the fear of punishmentalone that can keep our hearthstones unstained by blood, and the paths of our
life secure. The pulpit may preach and the press may publish, and we may all
approve those great principles of individual responsibility that are enforced by
the most solemn enactments of the law, and it is in vain, unless the juries of the
land enforce those laws. If the prisoner at the bar was a reasonable being
within the instructions of his Honor, it is the law that condemns her, and
though there may be tears for her womanhood, and pity for her youth, there
should be punishment for her crime.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilson's remarks, which occupied about two hours,
the court took a recess. On reassembling, at fifteen minutes past one, Judge
Hughes proceeded to address the j ury for the defence.
[NOTE.—It is due to Mr. Wilson to state that the above is not a full report of
his remarks, but only a synoptical sketch—taken from the New York Times,
I have had to resort to it, in consequence of the notes taken by me on the
trial having been mislaid.—B&porter.]

TRIAL OF MART HARRIS,

REMARKS OF HOH

1 OQ

JAMES HUGHES.

Judge Hughes May it please the Court, and you, gentlemen of the jury, it is
essentia] to the discharge of the very responsible duty which devolves upon you
in the decision of this cause that you should well understand the issue which
_you have to try. The indictment charges the defendant with murder; and ill
this charge is included the lower degree^of felonious homicide—manslaughter.
Under this indictment, if the evidence is satisfactoiy of the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt, you ought to find Miss Harris guilty of murder :
01 if the proof fall short of establishing legal malice—that is to say, if the killing, instead of being deliberate and premeditated, was done upon sudden heat—
you might convict her of manslaughter To this indictment, gentlemen, she has
pleaded "Not guilty;" and this pubs the prosecution upon the pi oof of every
material allegation necessary to sustain the chaige ; and this proof must be so
clear that you will be able to say, upon your oaths, that her guilt is established
beyond a reasonable doubt Otherwise you must acquit her.
We propose, or at least I do, to meet this accusation fairly. I have observed,
from the wording of one of the instructions asked for by the counsel for the
prosecution, a disposition on their part, if they fail in obtaining a conviction
for murder, to endeavor to obtain from you a compromise verdict, a conviction for manslaughter.
Gentlemen, this killing was either a deliberate and premeditated murder, or
it was no crime at all; it was either excusable homicide, committed in a state
of mind which rendered the accused irresponsible for her act, or it was a homicide, although with great provocation, yet with a sufficient degree of deliberation and premeditation to constitute the offence of malice. This, then, is the
issue which you have to try ; and it is not amiss that I should direct your attention to the parties to this cause. The accused, as you see, is a woman. It is
the pleasure of the prosecuting attorney, in introducing this case to your attention, to comment on this subject He warned you against sympathy ; he warned
you even against mercy ; and advised, you that the laws of the land lodged the
prerogative of clemency elsewhere. While he himself professed great sympathy
•for woman, he also professed that this particular female was an offender so
black with crime, that she had excluded herself from the pale of sympathy on
that ground He said that she had manifested a savage disregard of human life ;
and later in the progress of the cause, when the oaths of the witnesses ought to
have dissipated any such impression from his mind, he, with great emphasis, in
the presence of the Court and yourselves, pronounced this the most atrocious
murder on record ! It is not, gentlemen, because the defendant is a woman,
that we expect an acquittal at your hands. She is young, and I was about to
say that she is friendless ; but she is not; but I will say this in her praise, that
whatever friends she has, she owes to her own unassuming merits. She has
neither wealth, station, nor kinsfolk ; nothing to make her friends except her
misfortunes and her good conduct.
It is not because she is a woman; it is not because her parents and relatives,
who should be here with her to-day, to sustain her in this trying ordeal, have
been separated from her, and have become to her as aliens and strangers,
through the acts of the unfortunate man whose life she has taken ; it is not for
that that we shall ask you. to acquit lier, but because she is innocent; because
she has a right to a verdict of not guilty from you, under the laws of the land.
And permit me to say that whenever, in the very opening of a prosecution like'
this, counsel, of the learning, experience, and ability of those prosecuting this
case, serve notice upon the Court and jury, and upon all mankind, that they are
seeking for a conviction upon mere technical, grounds, and when throughout
the progress of the cause the same disposition is manifested by repeated objections to testimony as it is offered, and when, in order to induce the Court to
give such instructions to the jury as were not law, for the purpose of conviction, old and exploded doctrines are exhumed, resuscitated, and appealed to,

124

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

and when we see immediately behind the prosecution the party representing
private vengeance in this cause, the prosecution so introduced seldom if ever,
fails to be unsupported by law and by evidence.
Gentlemen, the defendant is brought here by the power of the Government,
to answer this charge. Human life has been taken, and a public examination
of the circumstances attending it is due to public justice; it is proper that she
should be here and answer for the killing of thi3 man -but she comes here helpless, in the hands of a powerful Government; and that Government is the other
.party to this cause. True, the duty of the Government is to enforce the law;
to punish offenders; to protect human life; but~in no spirit of persecution
and with no vindictiveness. It is a painful things and it ought to be so to the
officer of public justice, to arraign, try, and execute even the guilty. Zeal, perhaps overmuch, and passion may be' excused in the prisoner, or in her advo-'
cate when arraigned x>efore the bar of public justice, and charged with the
highest crime known to the )aws K but the representative of the commonwealth
comes here uninfluenced by private considerations. He is presumed to be disinterested, presumed to be impartial, and absolutely to desire as the law desires
that no innocent person should suffer; and to desire to prosecute his cause in
the spirit of the law, which says that it is better that ninety-nine guilty persons
should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.
What has been the spirit of this prosecution? This cause was introduced to
your attention, as I said before, by a speech from the learned counsel, the leading counsel for the United States, in which he'told you, and I desire to recall
it to your attention, that he would show you a case of deliberate, wilful, and
premeditated murder. He warned you against mercy; he warned you against
sympathy, and before a word had been uttered, to cast any aspersion upon the
conduct of the deceased, he boldly introduced him into the arena of this discussion, challenged the examination of his character, and said that he was a man
who lived and died without dishonor. He anticipated the defence of insanity,
before we had announced it, and he stated the law as he then understood it,
but it was incorrectly stated. He stated the facts, as he understood them ; they
were incorrectly stated. The introductory speech of the gentleman utterly
failed. I t was not a success in any particular, except in one, that it manifested
at the very threshold an anxious 'desire to secure a conviction'; and led me to
believe, as it must have you, (for of course you know the'kindly nature of the
prosecutor,) that he could have no personal feeling in the matter, but he was
urged on, prompted., and stimulated by some power, not the United States, but
by some heart full of feelings of private vengeance and malice towards the accused, and it; was not long, gentlemen, before that belief was confirmed on the
presentment of the principal prosecuting witness ; and there is the mainspring
in this case.
In the progress of the case, as I have just remarked, the same spirit has been
manifested down to a period when all illusions regarding the act of this lady
ought to have, been dispelled, by the sworn testimony of the witnesses in the
cause.
In conformity to this same spirit, the gentleman who has just addressed you,
and who was pleased to allude .in terms of so much courtesy and commendation
to the counsel for the defence, for which I sincerely thank him on my part, gave
you his theory of the defence, and what was it? That it was jealousy, arising
from disappointed love, and from disappointment at the marriage of a man who,
according to his argument, this lady had rejected as a suitor In the face of the
fnas.s of evidence before you, he stood up here and boldly denied that there was
any continuousengagement.of marriage; notwithstanding his kindly disposition,
and the natural goodness of his heart-—notwithstanding the clearness 6f his intellect, he has had liis judgment so much warped and so much influenced
by the counsels of the private prosecutor in this cause, that he can stand
up here, in the face of all the evidence that we have adduced, and say,
that although he is willing to admit there were very intimate relations between

TRIAL OK MARY HARRIS.

125

these parties, and those relations at one time looked forward towards marriage,
yet they were broken off, and never again resumed.
Now the fact about it is, that there is a letter in the testimony which shows
that these parties had a lover's quarrel and exchanged tokens, or agreed to do
so; but as the evidence shows, afterwards had an interview, became reconciled, and their affairs floated on in as smooth a current as before. If this be
not so why are these old letters here? why is this picture here ? If the agreement to break off this engagement was carried out, if they never came to a different understanding than that, why are these things here? truly the man must
be blind, I think, who fails to understand that matter, or surely he never was
in love ; never had any quarrels, those lover's quarrels which are said to be so
sweet, and those reconciliations that loom up in after years as the green spots
of memory. He denies here that the engagement to marry subsisted after the
writing of this letter, and asserts that the lady herself broke it off, and that she
was then mistress of her affections and remained so ; that afterwards when the
disconsolate and rejected swain married another woman, she became jealous and
killed him for it! That is his theory. The mere statement of such a theory is
a sufficient refutation, and shows to what straits the prosecution have been
driven. How hard it is for them to meet fairty the law and the evidence in
this case, and to get up even a plausible theory of guilt against this poor unfort-'irv'ite girl.
r
£hen he speaks of punishment, pursuing the same cry for blood that has
characterized this prosecution from the commencement. Punishment is good
for the guilty, but when administered by courts of law it is administered in a
spirit of sorrow and for reformation, not with vindictiveness
Punishment,
indeed! Who is to punish the betrayer of female honor? AVho is to punish
the serpent that with his slimy track pursues from early girlhood into budding
womanhood the unfortunate girl, separates her from her friends, her family,
and leaves her alone and isolated, without father or brother to defend or project her, and then throws her heartlessly upon the world ? Who is to punish
jhim?
I Ah! this unfortunate man no doubt thought that he could do this thing with
impunity, because this girl was friendless. There is a just God, however, who
administers justice in such cases, and he chose as the instrument of his justice,
inl this particular-case, the poor unfortunate girl whose life had been forever
blighted. That little girl, (pointing to the prisoner,) with that little hand
ploised the pistol which might, upon ordinary occasions, have been discharged
a hundred times, or rather snapped, (for they will not discharge one time hi
fifty;) without any serious consequence, but with that toy of a pistol she was
|he instrument of punishment in the hands of God, and He took away her
ieason, and she stands here to-day secure from human justice. That overruling Providence, without whose consent not even a sparrow falls, brought punishment to the door of the deceased—brought it by the hand of her that he had
ihiined, and placed her in a position where she shall answer to Him alone for
^ h a t she has done, and not to human laws.
. Something has been said by the gentleman who has just taken his seat about
attacks, attacks which have been made upon the deceased. Gentlemen of the
jury, one of the most painful duties that ever devolves upon counsel, in the
necessary defense of an accused person, is to throw censure upon those who are
dead—to bring up their faults, their crimes, and perhaps their wickedness—
but wheu it is necessary to the defense, to the true history of a transaction, how
can it be avoided? Could we give you a true history of the causes of this sad
tragedy without tracing the past relations between these parties? Could we
stand here and do justice to dkv client, and draw the veil over the transactions
of that man's past? I submit it to you, gentlemen, if we could have done so,
so far as I was concerned, I would gladly have done it, and I feel assured that
I speak the sentiments of my associate counsel. What attack or what denunciation have you heard of that dead man, from one of us, with the exception,
perhaps, of a single expression, that was brought out by one of the counsel, by

126

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

a most unwarranted attack upon our client from the prosecution ? Attack him ?
The gentleman ought to know that all attacks upon human conduct are harmless, except when the weapons are furnished from the magazine of a man's own
life. A man who leads a pure life, who deals fairly and honestly with his
fellows, may be persecuted, may be hunted down, calumniated, but his character
will only shine brighter for all that, if it can stand the test; and we know that
so well that we would feel assured that an unwarranted attack upon this man
by us would only recoil upon us, and do our cause an injury. But attacks are
fatal where the conduct of the party himself has furnished the weapons with
wrhich to make them; and we submit it to you, gentlemen, whether, in this
case, the unfortunate deceased has not furnished every thing necessary, notwithstanding the boast of the prosecution, in his opening speech, that he died
without a stain? What have we heard of his dying declarations? Why did not
they tell you what he said, if he said anything? It is a singular fact that the
prosecution has introduced no testimony as to that. I do not say there were any
dying declarations, but there might have been, and there might not have been,
lie lived, you will remember, fifteen minutes.
Attacked! Yes, he has been attacked, but not by counsel. Who, then,
you may unthinkingly ask, attacked him? The sworn evidence in the cause
attacks "him. Plis own letters attack him. His inhuman cruelty, in seeking
to destroy the reputation of this poor girl, when he had resolved to desert her,
attack him. His anonymous letters attack him. His assumption of the relation of husband for a most worthy and estimable lady, under the solemn sacraments of religion, occupying the position that he did tc the accused in this case,
attack him; and one who had sought to sustain him in his wrongs, and one who
has been the partner of his cruelty, and I might almost say the partner of
his guilt, toward this young woman—even his own brother—attacks him.
Gentlemen, you have more evidence before you to show you that the Rev.
John C. Burroughs is the responsible cause of his brother's death than you have
to show that this unfortunate girl was.
J
And then, again, they say that we have attacked the Rev. J. C. Burroughs!
When did we attack him? Oh! somebody looked; Mr. Bradley's eye flashed
in honest indignation at the halting manner of some of the prevarications of tr/e
witness. Guilty people are very sensitive about these things. I do not know th/at
we have as yet attacked Dr. Burroughs's testimony, and I would not go one step
to the right or to the left to attack it, if it were not my duty ; but I know that
I mean to attack it; and if 1 failed to do so, I would be recreant to the duty
that I owe to my client in this case. What! a doctor of divinity, who h i s
come here and contradicted the statement of every witness in regard to the material points in this case ! who has testified that his brother was not in Chicagb
upon a certain day, and therefore it was impossible for him to be at a certain
place, who knowing that this prostitute, Ellen Mills, knew the fact, aim
could either sustain or overthrow him, for he himself tells you that when a detective or a policeman told him that, with one or two hundred dollars, he could
get hei out of the way, he made use of no expression of disapprobation—not tb
be attacked ?
'
A reverend gentleman, seeking simply for justice and for truth, to thus make
himself a silent party to the running off of a most material witness for the defence, and then come -here and attempt to swear away the facts upon which
that defence was based! Attack him! Yes, we will attack him ; and the justice of God, that took away his brother's life will, in my humble opinion, brine
to him his share of the punishment; for to him, a clergyman, reputation and
credit are everything If this trial does not condemn him with nis congregation, and with all good Christian people in this iand, then commend me to the
standard of public sentiment in Chicago.
Now, gentlemen, we meet the issue fairly. The killing is admitted. The
Court has laid down the law, that we must assume the burden of proof as to the
insanity. We accept it. The Court'has stated the degree of certainty with
which we must establish it. I reply that we accept it. We will try to meet

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

127

these questions, and to talk to you about the witnesses, and the evidence in the
cause; and if you need argument to convince you, we feel some confidence,
from the strength of our cause, not from an estimate of the ability employed,
that we may satisfy you upon these points entirely.
In regard to this defence of insanity, finding it utterly impossible to go
through this mass of evidence in the short time allotted since the testimony
closed, and to collate the proofs bearing upon that question, a few days ago
when we were engaged in the examination of medical witnesses, believing that
Dr. Nichols, whose testimony stands uncontradicted in this case, as that of an
eminent expert upon these questions, and believing that he, a disinterested
person and medical man, could look over this testimony and select from it more
successfully than I, the facts testified to bearing upon this question of insanity,
I requested him as a favor to draw up a hypothetical case. I furnished to him
notes of the testimony and requested him to prepare a careful statement. He
was kind enough to do so. I thought it unnecessary to use it during the
examination of the witnesses, for the simple reason that the trial had already
been protracted so long and I deemed the evidence already was overwhelming
on that point. I now propose to use it as a part of my argument—merely
as a statement. It is stated as a supposed case, but, with the explanation I
have made, you will see that it is applicable to the proofs before you.
Judge Hughes then read, as follows:
"A girl's parents are poor and humble, but entirely respectable. She did not,
in childhood, enjoy the advantages of much school education, nor of a refined
moral training. At the tender age of about twelve years she is employed to
wait upon the customers of a gentlemen's furnishing store, kept by a respectable
woman of mature years. She is soon noticed and esteemed by some of the most
respectable people of the town in which she resided, for her marked intelligence,
sprightliness, amiability, and engaging manners, and for an elevation of
character much above that usually produced by her limited advantages. About
this period she made the acquaintance of a single man, of about twice her age,
of good natural abilities, education, and social position, who at first showed her
the most devoted and flattering personal attentions; and when they became
separated for longer or shorter periods, wrote her frequent letters, which
abounded in the strongest expressions of praise, endearment, and love, till he
became ' master of her heart and affections,' and she did not seem ' desirous
to /increase her acquaintance on account of her engagement with him,' but
appeared ' to have no other motive or aim in life than to please' the man to
whom she was affianced. She received the attentions of her lover in opposition
to | the decided wishes of her parents, because she was a Catholic and he a
Priotestant. Several definite periods were, in the course of time, fixed for this
marriage, but it was each time deferred for reasons assigned by him. In the
course of their engagement she, at the suggestion of friends, left the town in
which her parents resided, to avoid their persecution on account of it, (the
engagement,) and went to reside in the town in which he resided, where he continued the personal attentions heretofore described, and when he left the latter
town he corresponded with her as before. He once took her from the lastnamed town to that in which their acquaintance commenced, because, as he
alleged, they were to be married in thrde weeks, and he did not wish the
1
woman he was to marry to act as clerk any longer.'
" In the autumn of 1863, a great change in the history of these two persons
took place. Soon after the receipt of an affectionate letter from him, this girl
found that the man to whom she had been so long affianced, and to whom she
had given all the love and trust of an ardent and affectionate nature, had,
without notice from Him or anybody else, and without the least suspicion of any
change in his affection for her, or purpose of marrying her, married another
woman. She also, about the same time, became convinced that he endeavored
to entice her into a house of ill-fame, in order, as she believed, to destroy her
character, and have an excuse for breaking his engagement of marriage with
her. From the moment of this disappointment, accompanied by a supposed

128

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

endeavor to destroy her character, a great change took place in her physical
and mental condition; she became morbidly nervous; she was unable to obtain
either sufficient or regular sleep ; her appetite was poor, and she grew pale and
lost flesh. In a few days after the disappointment, she was treated for a painful
dysmenorrhcea by a highly intelligent physician, who, without knowing anything of her 'social and private history,' observed that she was very nervous
and excited and that her expression was wild. This physician treated her for
the some affection and general condition at different times in the coarse of the
following nine months, at the end of which time she accompanied her employers,
who had removed their business to a town in an adjoining State. Besides the
occasional bodily indisposition, and the general impairment of her bodily
health, and the depression of spirits which began with the disappointment and
sense of great moral injury, she from time to time exhibited acts of impulsive
violence, such as beating over the head with a dust-brush a female friend to
whom she was much attached, to whom she was under many obligations, and
with whom she had had no misunderstanding; pursuing with a carving-knife
another female friend, to whom her relations were similar to those just
described; attempting, without the least provocation, to destroy a beautiful
and costly piece of needlework, and scatter jars of preserves over the carpets;
attempting to visit a lake shore at a very early hour of a cold winter morning,
accompanied by a remark which indicated an intention to commit suicide. It
was difficult to restrain her from these acts of violence, and in struggling to
execute them she exhibited unnatural strength and energy. She rarely said
anything during these paroxysms of excitement and violence.
" In the course of the year which followed the disappointment, and in whicli
the physical and mental phenomena described took place, this girl expressed to
various persons her fixed resolve to sue the man who had abandoned her, and,
as she believed, sought to ruin her, for breach of promise of marriage—not for
the purpose of obtaining indemnity in money for the wrong she had suffered,
but in order to vindicate her own chaiacter, which she thought had suffered
from her long and well-known intimacy with him without marriage In pursuance of this intention, she engaged the services of a respectable lawyer, arid
of a detective officer, to inform her when the man against whom she proposed
to institute the action visited the city in which she resided: and alone, afnd
with slender means, made a journey of over two thousand miles, going and ireturning, which proved fruitless, in consequence of her being unable to find hi|m.
Persisting in her purpose of vindicating her character by instituting a s^iit
against the man who she believed had attempted to ruin it, she a second time
set out from her home, and alone, made a journey of over a thousand milesj to
the town in which he resided, where a writ might be served upon him. On her
way, and when within less than two hours' ride of her destination, she, in consequence of exhaustion and ill health, remained three weeks, and in that time
frequently expressed the single determination to institute the suit for the purpose described, and for that alone. When her strength and health became so
tar restored that she felt herself able to do it, she made the remainder of the
journey, of one and one-half hours by railroad, to the city in which the man in
question resided; visited the building in which he was employed as clerk,
learned which his room was, and, approaching the open door near which he sat,
and through which he could be readily seen, stood gazing earnestly at him for
a few moments, and then retired. Not long afterwards, as he was passing
through one of the corridors to leave the building, in the presence of several
witnesses of the act, she twice discharged a loaded pistol at him, one of the
charges taking effect, and causing his death in the course of a few minutes. At
the time of the firing she made no remark ; she did not attempt to escape, but
was soon arrested ; and to those who first saw her she did not attempt to palliate the act by alleging the provocation, but expressed, both in words and manner, the deepest sorrow and distress Her attention could at this time be arrested
by direct questions, to which she would return coherent answers; but she would
immediately upon being left to herself become incoherent, and her whole ex-

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

129

pression and manner were strikingly and impressively expressive of real horror
and anguish. On the morning of the day of the homicide she made definite
arrangements to return to the city she was about to leave, and there attend a
public lecture in the evening with a friend. On the way from the scene of the
homicide to the jail, in a condition of great excitement and distress, she told the
officer who accompanied her that, in addition to the wrongs already spoken of
which had been done her by thefban to whom she was so long affianced, he had
seduced her and ruined her by taking her to a bad-house ; but as this is the
only time she is known to have made such a declaration, and she is known to
have often made contrary declarations, both before and after the homicide, and
as the latter part of the declaration is shown to be untrue in fact by competent
witnesses, it must be inferred that in the excited, distressed, and bewildered
state of mind referred to, she expressed what she believed the man to whom she
was engaged, and to whom she had so long given her whole confidence and
love, had attempted, rather than what he had actually accomplished. This view
is corroborated by the testimony of the warden of the jail in which she was
confined, who overheard her when she could not have known that any one was
within hearing distance of her saying, ' Oh, how I loved him! (the man she
killed.) Why did I do it?'
" The girl whose supposed case we are describing remained in jail about four
months after the homicide before her trial under an indictment for murder commenced. During this time she was frequently visited by a gentleman of great
intelligence, high character, and considerable observation of physical and mental disease. He observed the symptoms of ill health exhibited by her during
the period in question, and made full notes of them. It appears that she had
periods or paroxysms of great nervousness, in which her sleep appeared to be
irregular and insufficient, if she slept at all, for one or more nights; her pupils
were greatly dilated, staring, and insensible to light; her head extremely hot
and her hands cold ; her insensibility to the draught of cold air through her
room very marked, and in which she expressed a determination to do physically
impossible things, entertained unfounded apprehensions and positive delusions,
and heard false noises and voices. It became necessary for a few moments to
restrain her at these times, and during the restraint she exhibited great unnatural strength. And during the period in question she was visited several times
bykan expert in mental diseases, who testified that she declined to see him when
hercalled on two occasions, for the reason, as his inquiries led him to believe,
that she was suffering from dysmenorrhcea, and was nervous, wakeful, and generally much indisposed; that on another occasion, when he visited her, she was
suffering from an attack of erysipelas in the face, and exhibited great nervousness, and expressed apprehensions and delusions similar to those observed by
the witness already cited, who visited her during the same period."
This summary of the supposed case is fairly collated, gentlemen, from the
evidence that was given before you. Is there enough stated there to create
madness ? Is that history of unhappiness and of wrong enough ? If it fails to
produce general insanity, which we do not claim that it did, is it not sufficient,
upon the appearance in her presence of the man who had wronged her, to cause
(using the language of your Honor) " frenzy to mount up by the side of reason
and hold its hands so that she would be an irresponsible being ?''
If this young lady could go through all this, could bear all this, and yet endure the sight of him and control of her reason, of her conduct, she has a heart
and a soul most obdurate. The mere statement of the case, gentlemen, is
enough. Now, upon that evidence, all of which he heard, and upon the facts
that came within his own knowledge, Dr. Nichols, an eminent physician, having
charge of an insane asylum, possessed of great experience in this particular
branch of science, has stated to you, repeatedly and distinctly his sworn opinion,
that the killing of Mr. Burroughs was the result of an insane impulse. Do you
object to that testimony, gentlemen ? Are you so hungry for conviction in this
ease—do you participate so much in the feelings that have actuated the prosecution—that with the sworn testimony of this eminent physician, supported by
9

130

TRIAL OF MARY HARRTS.

that of every other doctor testifying in the cause, you can say that you require,
any further proof to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt, since such is the
requirement of the law, that this girl was insane, in the sense we claim ? We
do not claim that she was generally insane, as the prosecution insist upon having you believe. Have wo not repeatedly stated that we did not claim she was
even partially insane all the time ; but that simply she was subject to sudden
attacks, overwhelming paroxysms of insane impulses. The testimony of the
doctor met the question fairly and fully, but the argument of the prosecuting
counsel did not meet it all. He had nothing to say about the testimony of Dr.
Nichols.
No ! Dr. Nichols is a mad doctor, for his testimony broke down this prosecution to a great extent.
The learned counsel who opened this case to you, having stated his facts, so
unfavorably to the accused, was kind enough in that statement to express the
hope that they would not turn out as he had stated them. Well, they have not
turned out as he stated them, but just the contrary, and of that I think almost
every one is convinced, except the counsel for the prosecution ; and I have not
yet heard any expressions of satisfaction from the learned gentlemen, at the
facts having turned out differently. On the contrary, he exhibits his rage and
his disappointment by declaring that mad doctors are not to be depended upon,
that he would rather take one common-sense doctor than a host of them. He
calls Dr. May, puts him upon the stand as a common-sense doctor, and then he
supposes a case that happened somewhere in the moon, I suppose, or in some
distant country, for it is not the case before this jury. He had Dr. May to
answer that that was not a case of insanity, and then the Court adjourned.
The next morning when the Court met, Mr. Bradley presented a case truthfully
and fairly taken from the evidence in this case, and the common-sense doctor
responded that lie had no hesitation in saying that this homicide was the result
of an insane impulse, if the facts in this case were such as stated in Mr. Bradley's questions. Then came Dr. Johnson, another common-sense doctor. His
testimony was very much the same. Gentlemen, you can bring in a verdict of
not guilty and very easily acquit yourselves to your conscience, to the public,
and to the law, if you repose as you can do with perfect security upon the testimony of these witnesses. When you find a verdict that this defendant is iiot
guilty, you simply find the fact that; you believe those witnesses. They are mkdical men, they are scientific men, and they know more about this matter than
you or I ; but whether that is so or not, they are the appointed witnesses tjiat
the law calls for to establish the defence.
/
There is an authority which I desire to read upon this question of witnesses,
as to who it is that ought to be believed upon this question. I read from Ray's
Medical Jurisprudence, page 66, section 45:
" It is not enough that the standing of the medical witness is deservedly high
in his profession, unless it is founded on extraordinary knowledge and skill
relative to the particular disease, insanity. Lunatic asylums have so. multiplied
in our country, that patients of this class are almost entirely taken away from
the management of the private physician, and confided to the more skilful'conductors of these institutions; so that many a medical man may spend a life of
full practice without having been intrusted with the care of a dozen insane
persons. To such, therefore, a practical knowledge of the disease is out of the
question ; and thus the principal inducement is wanting to become acquainted
with the labors of those who have enjoyed better opportunities. If a particular
class of men only are thought capable of managing the treatment of the insane,
it would seem to follow, as a matter of course, that such only are capable of
giving opinions in judicial proceedings relative to insanity. True, in important
cases, the testimony of one or more of this class is generally given; but it may
be contradicted by that of others utterly destitute of any knowledge of the
subject on which they tender their opinions with arrogant confidence, and the
jury is seldom a proper tribunal for distinguishing the true from the false, and
fixing on each its rightful value. An enlightened and conscientious jury, when

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

131

required to decide in a case of doubtful insanity, which is to determine the weal
or woe of a fellow-being, fully alive to the delicacy and responsibility of their
situation, and of their own incompetence unaided by the counsels of others,
will be satisfied with nothing less than the opinions of those who have possessed unusual opportunities for studying the character and conduct of the
insane, and have the qualities of mind necessary to enable them to profit by
their observations. If they are obliged to decide on professional subjects, it
would seem but just, and the dictate of common sense, that they should have
the benefit of the best professional advice. This, however, they do not always
have ; and, consequently, the ends of justice are too often defeated by the highsounding assumptions of ignorance and vanity."
Just such testimony, then, as the law requires, we have given you, and it was
no doubtful, no hesitating opinion that this learned and experienced physician
gave you; and his manner was such as must have recommended his testimony
to every impartial mind. We took the risk of that, and put the question to
him, not contenting ourselves with proving acts of insanity before, and acts of
insanity afterwards, but we marched right up directly to the issue and put the
question to him as to the precise moment of time when the homicide was committed. He said that act was the result of an insane impulse. Do you believe
it ? If you do, gentlemen, you must acquit this prisoner. The solemnity of the
occasion prevents me taking up any time here to comment upon the fact that
this learned author differs toto cceto from my learned friend in his opinion on
that doctrine; so I shall pass on. Another authority which I desire to read in
support of this proposition of insanity is from the same book, on page 252.
The indications of insanity are given, section 257.
Judge Hughes then read as follows:
" I. In nearly all, the criminal act has been preceded by some well-marked
disturbance of the health, originating in the head, digestive system, or uterus,
or by an irritable, gloomy, dejected or melancholy state; in short, by many of
the symptoms of the incubation of mania. The absence of particulars in some
of * the cases we find recorded, leaves us no doubt how general this change really
is \ but a careful examination would, no doubt, often, if not always, show its
existence where apparently it has never taken place
"\II. The impulse to destroy is powerfully excited by the sight of murderous
weapons, by favorable opportunities of accomplishing the act, by contradiction,
disgust, or some other equally trivial and even imaginary circumstance.
".III. The victims of the homicidal monomaniac are mostly either entirely
unknown or indifferent to him, or they are among his most loved and cherished
objAtsj and it is remarkable how often they are children, and especially his
own offspring.
" IV. While the greater number deplore the terrible propensity by which they
are controlled and beg to be subjected to restraint, a few diligently conceal it,
or if | they avow it, declare their murderous designs, and form divers schemes
for putting them in execution, testifying no sentiment of remorse or grief
" Y. The most of thern having gratified their propensity to kill, voluntarily
confess the act and quietly give themselves up to the proper authorities; a very
few only—and these, to an intelligent observer, may show the strongest indications of insanity—fly, and persist in denying the act.
" VI. While the criminal act itself is, in some instances, the only indication
of insanity, the individual appearing rational, as far as can be learned, both
before and after the act; in others, it is followed or preceded, or both, by
strange behaviour, if not open and decided insanity.
" v l l . Some plead insanity in defence of their conduct, or an entire
ignorance of what they did; others deny that they labored under any such
condition, and, at most, acknowledge only a perturbation of mind."
That is the experience of science upon this subject, and it is remarkable how
often these insane paroxysms of impulse lead to the destruction of those nearest
and dearest to the unfortunate insane person.
Mr. Wilson, as I was about to remark, has labored to show that this lady

132

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

came here with premeditated purpose to kill this man. He commenced upon
the pistol, the conversation with the lawyer in Chicago, to whom she applied to
bring her suit, and upon her statement made to that lawyer, that she was
afraid to trust herself where Mr. Burroughs was. It is impossible, gentlemen,
for me to adopt the belief that a counsel of so much ability would be continually
citing in support of his positions law which is against him, evidence which is
against him, if he could find any on his side in the cause.
Now, all these citations of testimony are directly against him. For instance,
she appealed to this lawyer to bring a suit there, and he did so ; and, by the
way, why could he not get the process served upon Mr. Burroughs ? The writ
was issued and the officer was watching for him, and why could, the process not
be served upon him? He had just married, come to Washington, and after a
few months his wife wanted to return to her home. I believe on such occasions
it is expected that the husband will stand by his wife. Upon such an occasion
as that, every consideration of propriety, of duty, and of respect for his wife,
and for her friends, required that he should go back with her to her home.
When he started from Washington with her he started upon the very morning
of the day when this poor, friendless, lonely wanderer came here and found he
had gone; upon learning which fact she immediately returned, expecting to
find him in Chicago, but somewhere or other on the journey from here to
Chicago he separated from his wife, and she arrived without him.
Now, why was that? He came back to Washington several weeks or two
months afterward, and visited Chicago again; and his excellent and worthy
brother says he was going about there for two or three weeks; all which time
the officer had a writ to serve on him, and could not find him. Why was this ?
Why this dodging away from his wife? Why the guilty manner in which he
was married, and his hasty departure; his reluctance to go back, and his evident concealment when he got back ? It was because there was ever present to
that man the consciousness of the mountain of wrong he had heaped upon this
poor woman, friendless, unprotected as she was, without her father, (for he had
alienated her,) without a brother, and without a champion. Conscience, which
it is said makes cowards of us all, made such a coward of this man that he did
not like to go to the great city of Chicago, because this injured woman was
there. He feared to be there ; and this is one of those pregnant and speaking
facts in the history of his life which make the armor of his character, so much
harped upon by the learned prosecutor, vulnerable at every point. But Mr.
Wilson says that the interview with Davis furnishes evidence of premeditated
malice. Why, gentlemen, the testimony which he relies upon is, that sbi entreated Davis to come with her. What for ? If she had a preconceived purpose
to commit murder, did she want Mr. Davis to come along and be present when
it was done ?
'
Now, I draw directly the contrary inference from that testimony—that the
fact that she wanted Mr. Davis to come along is evidence to negative thp premeditated purpose to take life. . She stated to Mr. Davis that she did not wish
to see him alone, and entreated him to come with her and be her protector and
her friend; and the truth of that statement is fully shown in the deposition of
Mr. Davis, wherein he states that, after having this conversation together, she
looked across the street, and suddenly was full of uncontrollable excitement,
and exclaimed, " There is Mr. Burroughs !" It was fancy and delusion. She,
unhappy girl! had become so excitable, so crazed, if I may use the expression,
upon the subject of this man, that although she had loved him for years, and
knew his every feature, his walk, and every peculiarity by which to identify
him, she took a perfect stranger for this man, and was about to go into paroxysms then. That was put on, I suppose ? That was accidental ? Davis, in this
deposition, goes on to state that he endeavored, and finally did succeed in dissuading her from i^is visit to Washington, because he realized the full truth
that the consequences would be serious if she had met Burroughs—not to him,
but to her, for it was supposed he would be able to protect himself from any
violence committed by her. The apprehension was that she would die, or at

TBTAL OP MARY HARRIS.

133

least suffer greatly from the presence of the man. It was a friendly feeling for
her. Then, the gentleman infers from this pistol that she endeavored to kill
him. Well, the pistol was bought a year before, and a very dangerous weapon
it is. Had not the bullet been guided by the finger of an all-wise Providence,
it would have passed him by harmless as the idle wind. She bought the pistol,
and remarked that Dr. Burroughs and his deceased brother had a plot to carry
her off. Well, surely, that was no greater atrocity toward her than they had
already perpetrated. They had carried off her happiness; they had broken her
heart; they had blighted all her hopes of enjoyment; and she, with her unsettled mind and her deranged physical health, was haunted by the delusion that
they might come to carry her away. I see no evidence, gentlemen, in these
things, against insanity ; no evidence of a deliberate purpose; while I see much
evidence to the contrary. But I am dwelling longer than I intended upon these
matters.,, It is my purpose to pass more rapidly over this case.
Now, gentlemen, the law is that homicide is excusable, the taking of human
life is excusable, under certain circumstances; and the party must be acquitted,
whenever it is done upon just and legal provocation. For instance, when it is
done in the necessary defence of one's life. That is the law as it is written down
in the books; and it is excusable if the killing of the party deceased is right, in
the meaning of the law, and no punishment attaches; but if a killing, which
otherwise would have been a guilty killing, is committed by an insane person,
even temporarily insane, then there must be an acquittal.
I have endeavored to show you, by a somewhat cursory examination of the
testimony, that there is ample proof before you that this lady was insane when
she killed this man.
Now, gentlemen, I have something to say upon the other branch of this case.
I propose to show you that there was a moral justification, which is by no means
to be lost sight of in connection with the evidence of insanity. I shall not recount the history of these parties, but call your attention to the peculiar state
of the law in regard to homicide. It is written in the books that if a sheriff
hangs a man in pursuance of the judgment of the Court, that it is justifiable
homicide ; if a person kills another in defence of his life, it is excusable homicide ; but if a man or woman kills another in defence of their honor, according
to the letter of the law it is either murder or manslaughter.
There are those things, gentlemen, in this world, that are more precious than
life; and especially is female honor and female character ; yet, according to the
law as it is found in the books, if Mr. Burroughs had imperilled the life of Miss
Harris, she would have been perfectly justifiable, while she was perfectly sane,
in taking his life; but having destroyed her honor, her happiness, and made
life to her a desert waste, without hope, had she taken his life in her sane moments, she would have rendered herself liable to punishment. This is a defect
in our law; yet so it is written, and so it must be administered ; and the gentleman: who opened this case, aware of that, tried even to shut the gates of mercy
upon us. He told you, in his opening speech, that you must not decide this
question upon the law as you thought it ought to be, but upon the law as it is.
And then it so happens, gentlemen, that the great fortress of their argument in
this jcase, the weapon that gives them the only power to make a lodgment
in your mind, springs from the wrongs that the deceased committed against
the accused. Now, let us look at that matter. The fact about it is, that Burroughs had so wronged her, that it became so consistent with human nature, so
reasonable, so natural for her to have come here, with the premeditated purpose
of taking his life, it would have been so appropriate to the passions, and the
just passions of human nature, under the circumstances, tha£ the counsel for the
prosecution find a motive and an argument for a motive in these wrongs.
Now, here you have the evidence that, long before she fired the pistol at Mr.
Burroughs, she flew, without the slightest provocation, upon her friend, Miss
NDevlin, with a carving-knife! Had she not been restrained and controlled, she
doubtless would either have taken the life of Miss Devlin or mangled her with

134

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

that knife. It would not have taken you five minutes to have acquitted her for
insanity in that case.
Now, in the case of Burroughs. No hostility has ever been traced home to
the accused, although she had said that her love was turned to hate ; and what
woman, under the circumstances, would have said less ? We hear of no threats,
except threats of a law suit; and when her lawyer talked to her about having
it compromised, she disdained the idea, and said—mark the expression !—" He
is poor; I do not want his money ; I do not want to ruin him; but I want my
character vindicated." No threats, then, we see against this man's life; but in
speaking of him, such expressions used as show a womanly sympathy still lingering about her for this man. The prosecution say the assumption that she
came on here to kill him is consistent with this state of facts. Why ? Whilst
they tell you in the same breath that he was a man without a stain upon his
honor, and that he had never wronged her, they tell you that she herself broke
off the engagement, and then corresponded with him afterwards as a friend;
that he was a poor man, a member of a church, and a useful member of society.
They would have you believe that she is such a monster of wickedness that she
came on here with a premeditated purpose to take the life of one who had never
wronged her. That is not very reasonable; and lurking behind all this argument is the consciousness that the jury will believe that if she had taken his
life ten times over, that, so far as he was concerned, he richly deserved i t ; but
they would like to impress.upon your minds that it was an act of that sort, so
that under the dry letter of the law a Shylock could demand from you the life
of this poor girl.
Now, let me tell you how the law has provided for these cases, and how human justice, as it moves on, modifies and changes these stern features of the law
in their actual demonstration, so as to make the law, instead of being an instrument of oppression and injustice, the safeguard of the citizen and the deliverer
of those who are unjustly accused.
Why, gentlemen, see how the law is changed upon this question of insanity.
You have heard a great deal read about it here in the progress of this cause.
Some years ago, if it was proved in a court of justice that a man almost raving
mad, and incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, should take jbhe
life of a man, that he should be punished the same as if he had deliberately
committed murder in a perfectly sane state of mind. But such is not the jaw
now. In its actual demonstration the law is changed. It is changed by courts,
it is changed by juries, to suit the manners of the people, the spirit of their* institutions, and the wants of society; and these changes come long before; the
record of them is made in the books; and for many a long year after the law
has been radically changed, we find the judges constrained from the bench, contrary to their sympathies, contrary to their wishes, but because bound to find
the law in the books, laying down as the law that which they think ought, not
to be the law, and that which the jury always takes care shall not be thej law
in its practical application to human affairs. After a while it gets into the
books. At the present time, in this country, to shoot down an adulterer in the
act is manslaughter; and the man who does so, though he does it in the defence
of his honor, must suffer, if the law as recorded in the books applies. But there
are provisions that no person shall be tried for a criminal offence, or be convicted, without a jury ; and in this country I do not believe that a single jury
has ever found a man guilty in such a case.
How is this ? They are sworn to observe the law, they always receive it
from the courts, ^,nd the Court always tells them how it is in the books. Why,
it is in this way : the Constitution has provided that every man shall be tried
by a body of men taken from his fellow-citizens who are imbrued with the
spirit and the manners of his country, and they in the application of the law
will relieve any harsh and oppressive features; and thus it is that while juries
will not say that a man is justifiable in committing a certain act, for that
reason they find some other reason of a technical character for acquittal in

TRIAL QF MARY HARRIS. .

135

such cases. Now T venture to say that at this day the common law of the
United States, as established by u§age and found in the practical application of
the criminal code to cases that arise, is this: that the killing of an adulterer
taken in the act, is excusable homicide. Your Honor could not say it was
otherwise, for the continuous records of this court and every other court would
contradict you.
It is wonderful, gentlemen, to observe how in the progress of society the provisions of statutes and of laws are moulded and changed to suit the wants of
the people and the existing state of affairs, I want to give you a few instances.
There is a celebrated statute called the statute of frauds and perjuries. I will
read a passage from Smith on Contracts, to illustrate the argument that I am
endeavoring to make.
Judge Hughes then read, as follows:
(!
The third species of contracts enumerated by the fourth section, and required
by it to be evidenced in writing is, any agreement made in consideration of
marriage.
" It has been decided that an agreement between two persons to marry is not
an agreement in consideration of marriage, within the meaning of this'enactment; but that these terms are confined to promises to do something in consideration of marriage other than the performance of the contract of marriage
itself—a decision which shows how very cautious a man ought to be in pronouncing an opinion upon the construction of any statute." (Smith on Contracts, side page 59?)
Now there is a plain legislative enactment, that no contract will be enforced
by tbe courts of justice to do anything in consideration of marriage, unless it is
in writing; and it has been nullified and changed because it was so repugnant
to the public policy, the manners, and the spirit of the age and country in
which it was passed; and to-day that construction is in full force here and will
be carried out and enforced until the manners of the people and the necessities
of the people render it necessary to have it changed.
Before the adoption of our " present Constitution there was an ordinance
passed called the " ordinance of 1787," by which the greater part of all that
niagnificent domain that now constitutes "those growing and glorious Western
St&tes was ceded to the Government. In those days we had no railroads, no
telegraphs, none of those wonderful improvements for commercial, military,
and social purposes that we now have. The fathers of our country thought
they were doing a very wise thing when they inserted this provision as an
article of compact into this ordinance.
Judge Hughes here read from Hickey's Constitution, p. 420, ordinance of
1787, as follows:
* • The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and
the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and forever
free, as well to the inhabitants of said territory as to the citizens of the United
States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy,
without, any tax, impost, or duty therefor." (Fourth article of compact.)
You see those streams that were to carry the commerce of the country, to
carry the produce of the country, from New Orleans to the West were to be
forqver free, as common and public highways to the people ; and had any adventurous' corporation, in advance of the temper of these times, undertaken to
bridge one of those streams so as to interfere with commerce, if the people themselves had not removed the obstruction as a nuisance, without waiting for the
courts, the courts of the country would have done it immediately. But times
have changed. Instead of water courses, we now have railroads, and the contest begun in the courts when they wanted to bridge these streams. The necessities of the people absolutely required that this ordinance should be overcome
in order to let commerce flow in its new channels, and the courts found a way
to do it. There is not a creek nor a river now covered by that ordnance that
is not spanned by more bridges than there are letters in the ordinance to p$-

136

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

etuate it, and it is good law and all right in this day, and yet the ordinance
as never been repealed.
The Constitution of the United States provides that the people shall rot elect
a president, but that they shall choose electors-, who shall sit in conclave, and
who shall have perfect discretion to choose a president And why did the Constitution require electors to be chosen ? Because " the opinion prevailed in the
convention, that the mass of the people would not be sufficiently informed, discreet and temperate to exercise with advantage so great a privilege as that of
choosing the Chief Magistrate of a great Republic, and hence the institution of
an intermediate body called the electoral college—its members to be chosen by
the people, and when assembled in conclave to select whomsoever they should
think proper for President and Vice President. All'this scheme having failed,
and the people having taken hold of the election, it became," &c.—Benton's
Thirty Years, vol. 1, p^ 37.
Here is a great constitutional provision, and article of our fundamental law.
in a most vital matter, construed, modified, and made to answer the purposes
of free government. You see how it is that the spirit of the people and the
requirements of the times enter into these statutes, and give them a construction
which adapts them to practical purposes, but one which, if they are to be considered by the dry letter of the law, no man would ever arrive at.
Another instance. The fifth amendment to the Constitution provides, in the
last lines, that private property shall not be taken for public nse without just
compensation ; and yet. in my own State (Indiana) and others, so great has been
the mania for internal improvements, that the land has been covered by a network of railroads, and they have taken citizens' property for the public use,
regardless of this provision ; and the courts have decided, in conflict apparently
with this last section oi the Constitution, to which I have referred, that this
power could be delegated to a corporation !
But there is something before that. It says this:
ARTICLE 5—AMENDMENTS TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous
crime, unless On presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or on naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual servile,
in time of war or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
ARTICLE 6~AMENDMENTS TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

" In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and District wherein the
crime s^all have been committed, which District shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
have the assistance of counsel for his defence "
And yet, when great public necessities arise, We see how it is that the people
can be tried for criminal offences, not arising in the land or naval forces, tjried
otherwise than by a jury, deprived of life and liberty otherwise than by the
ordinary process of the law. Courts are found, high legal functionaries are
found, who, from the pressing necessities of the case, so construe even this provision as to answer the demands of the times.
I have not overstated the law as it is administered, gentlemen. Cases sometimes arise when, to convict a party who has suffered a great wrong, and to put
him in the category of offenders and criminals when he is entitled to the sympathy, the encouragement, and to the active benevolence of mankind, is so
shocking, and so repugnant to human nature, that there must be found some
evidence by which to administer the law in a milder spirit than the strict letter
of it as laid down in the books.

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

137

The problem for a juror who has conscientious desires to keep his oath is, to
point out for himself the legal way by which this may be done. I would not
insult any one of you by supposing for a moment that you would override the
law and acquit any prisoner, however much you might sympathize with him,
if you thought the clear requirements of the law forbade it; but this difficulty
does not, in many of these eases, exist.
Mr. Carrington, in his opening speech, talked to you about mercy, and said
it was lodged elsewhere. Well, now, let me explain that matter. Mercy for
the guilty is an executive act. It is lodged in the President. The gentleman
need not have warned you against anything of that kind. I do not suppose
you intend to encroach upon the executive for mercy. But there is a mercy in
the law itself; there is a mercy in the mode of its administration, in the machinery appointed for its application to particular cases, which it is as much
your duty to be governed by, which is as much a part of the law as the part
that affixes a punishment for crime. One of these features, repeatedly mentioned, is, that the party should be tried by a jury ; another is the doctrine of
doubts ; in a civil suit, a preponderance of evidence is enough; but in a criminal proceeding, the jury are directed that if they have a reasonable doubt of
the guilt of the accused person, they must acquit him ; they may strongly incline to believe he was guilty; they may feel his conduct has been very reprehensible ; they may feel that public morals, public justice, require that some
rebuke or some punishment ought to be administered; yet, if the doubt that the
party's guilt is made to appear in the precise manner and form of the indictment, by competent proof, they must say to the accused, " Go free." The law
recognizes, the books recognize, and experience proves, that by the application
of this principle many guilty persons are acquitted; but the law says better
that it should be so—better that ninety-nine guilty persons should escape, than
that one innocent man should suffer. There is one of the merciful attributes
of the law.
jThen, again, the law authorizes the jury to give a general verdict. It authorizes the defendant to put in a general plea of not guilty; and, gentlemen,
unless you have made these subjects your study, you will hardly be able to
appreciate the importance of this privilege. There is no judge, no attorney,
no power on earth that can come in and require you to state why or wherefore
of your verdict. It is a matter between you and your conscience. This is
another great privilege. The practical operation of this is, that in this country,
certkin offences against human rights, against society, are committed, which
the law books have not been revised to say are excuses for homicide, but the
experience of men have
Mow, here is a case, speaking of insanity, which is tried in this Court. I have
no desire to refer to cases fresh in the memory of persons, that might be unpleasant, but it is a case in point, to illustrate a portion of my argument, and
it islpublic property. Here, in this court-house, Daniel E. Sickles was tried
upon the charge of murcter, for shooting down, in broad daylight, another person, f He was acquitted on the ground of insanity at the time. Well, now,
.
gentlemen, it is s'aid that the jury acquitted him because they thought he did
righjt. I presume there was enough evidence thrown into the case upon the
question of insanity to authorize them to acquit him upon the ground that the
case /was not made out beyond a reasonable doubt. Here stands the verdict
recorded upon these books. I never expect, gentlemen, to see recorded in these
same books a verdict and judgment against Mary Harris.
Now, gentlemen, I must call your attention to an appeal made by the prosecuting attorney in his opening speech. There is a great deal in that opening
speech. My experience is that the best time to make a speech is after the evidence has been given, and not before. It is a very dangerous experiment to do
otherwise. < The prosecutor told you that Washington city was a centre of licentiousness and crime. That this was the place where people came to commit
offence, and he made a sort of local appeal to you to make an example of somebody, to vindicate the general character of Washington. He said he hoped a

138

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Washington jury would maintain their dignity. Do you think it would be
maintained by convicting an insane woman, because there is too much licentiousness in the town generally ? What kind of an appeal to a jury is that?
Way out in the far West, in the trial of little suits before a justice of the peace,
I have heard appeals made to excite prejudices against a town of people ; but
I admit I was not prepared to hear such an appeal at the capital of the nation.
A city of licentiousness ! If that be so, and a reformation is to begin, wait
until you have before you some man of power and influence, and yon will not
have long to wait. The signs of the times indicate that. Wait until some unprincipled official, who has taken advantage of the disjointed state of the times
to trample upon human liberty, upon human rights, and to disregard statutes,
constitutions, and every sanction of liberty—wait until such men are dragged
here, and then vindicate the law in Washington. In the meantime, let this
poor, blighted, afflicted, ruined, and persecuted girl go. The law has no claim
upon her. Let your verdict follow the partner of the deceased in this plot;
and let Washington justice travel to Chicago, and unmask there, before a confiding and trusting congregation and people, a man who wears the livery of
Heaven to serve the devil under.
Gentlemen, I am now through with this cause, and knowing, as I do, that I
shall be followed by a gentleman, who will far more than supply anything I
may have omitted, so far as I am concerned, I commit the case into your hands,
with the most perfect and implicit confidence, that it will not take you long
when you get this cause finally into your hands to record a Verdict of Not
Guilty.
KEMAKKS OF HOIST. D. W. VOORHEES.

Mr, VOOEHEES said:

It is not necessary for me to attempt to increase your sense of the solemnity
of the issue which is placed in your hands. Nor need I dwell upon the fact
that this is one of the most remarkable cases ever submitted to a jury for trial.
In many of its aspects it wears features more startling and extraordinary thJn
we have hitherto met with in the annals of jurisprudence. There is no man in
this court-room, no one throughout this broad land, whatever his experience or
profession may be, who has ever seen its like in all respects before.
f
A few months ago, in open day, in one of the public buildings of this capital,
and in the presence of numerous observers, a human being was shot down by
the frail hand of the prisoner at the bar, and sent to his final, dread account.
The homicide mentioned in the indictment was thus committed; and if it /was
deliberate, rational murder, then the blood of innocence is crying unappeased
from the ground. But what are the elements which constitute this baleful
crime? From that hour presaging woe to the human race, when the first man
born of woman became a murderer, down to the present time, we have on
record the frightful characteristics of the murderer. ' He is a being in Whose
heart the fires of malice and hate glow in perpetual flames, in whose face the
image of God is blotted out, in whose eyes the light of mercy and lo\Ve is
forever quenched, who lies in wait like the tiger for his prey, and who strikes
his unsuspecting and unoffending victim from motives of revenge or the lust of
gain. Around such a being there centers every conception of horror which
the human mind can embrace. All nature, animate and inanimate, the (very
earth and sky, recoil from him who bears the primal curse, and there is no
communion for his blackened spirit this side of the abodes of the lost.
But turn from this faint picture of a real murderer to the delicate, gentle
being before you We are told that deliberate and atrocious murder has been
committed and that the criminal is in court. We are told that a brutal
assassination has been accomplished, and that the lurking a-nd ferocious assassin
is in our presence Where, gentlemen, where? Am I to be told that this heartbroken young girl, with her innocent, appealing face, and look of supplicating
dependance on you, is the fierce and malignant monster of guilt which is

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

139

described in the indictment and in the inflammatory language of the prosecution?
Am I to be told that her heart conceived and her hand executed that crime for
which the Almighty marked the brow of Cain?
Let us pause and reason together for a few moments on a primary question
in this case The life of this defendant, from the days of her early and happy
childhood to the present hour, has been investigated and laid open before you.
Every trait of her character, all the general incidents of her conduct since she
was ten years old have been elucidated and detailed in your hearing. Of what
vice has she ever been guilty? In what immorality has she ever indulged?
Not one, at no time and under no circumstances. Her life has been amiable,
kind, affectionate, blameless, and pure. Troops of friends, of the best and
most irreproachable in the land, have gathered about her in her quiet sphere at
every stage of her checkered existence. These files of depositions declaring all
her ways for nearly ten years past attest these facts. Then at the very
threshold of this case you are to answer this question: can a young and generous
mind, wholly uncohtaminated with vice, unsullied and unstained by contact
with the evil practices of life, without previous training even in the contemplation of crime, at once, while in a healthy state, in the undisturbed enjoyment
of all its faculties, incur that awful grade of guilt at which civilized human
nature in all ages stands aghast? Is it within your experience that the soil of
virtue bears spontaneously the hideous fruits of vice ? Are there no gradations
in human character and conduct? "Where is the hardened criminal who ever
ascended the gibbet in expiation of his offences who has not marked his downfall from small beginnings, increasing gradually and swelling in volume until
he was hurled onward to the commission of those gigantic crimes for which the
law claimed his life as forfeit ? And yet you are called on to believe that this
defendant, at one single bound, sprang from the paths of virtue, gentleness, and
purity, without any intervening preparation, to the highest and most revolting
grade of guilt and ferocity known to human society. Those who have predetermined her guilt and passed a verdict in advance of the evidence and the law
n/iay indulge in this absurd and repulsive philosophy. They may cherish this
li\bel on human nature. And, in doing so, they may as well go further. Let
trie school-houses be torn down and the churches abandoned. The instruction
an\d moral culture of youth are useless and in vain. The precepts of morality
and the principles of religion afford no security to the minds of their possessors
from the sudden, instantaneous development of the most appalling wickedness.
I p the name of reason and universal experience I utterly repudiate this
shojcking theory, which the prosecution is forced to embrace before it can proceed a single step against the life of this girl. In the name of undefiled and
virtpous human nature I repel it. In the name of innocent childhood and unstaiped womanhood, in the name of your own dear ones at home, I pronounce
it a (slander upon those holy attributes of the human heart which tend upwards,
and\ally us with heaven. I deny that Mary Harris is a criminal. I deny that
any jmurder has been committed. I deny that this young prisoner is responsible
for tjhe death of A. J. Burroughs. I assert that his death was not a crime. He
was [not slain in violation of law, for offences against the law can only come by
thosje who possess a sound mind and an unimpaired intelligence. And now, invoking your attention,%I shall proceed to show you from the story of her life,
whiih must constitute her defence, that it is not your duty to lay your hands
in further punishment on the suffering head of Mary Harris, but that it will
rather be your pleasing task to open her prison doors and bid her go free, attended by the charitable blessings of all Christian people.
- Who is this unfortunate defendant, and whence came she, when her weary
feet bore her still more weary heart to this crowded capital ? A short time
since, and but few here could have answered; but now all is known. We see
at a single glance a gliding, panoramic view of the life of an earnest, devoted
girl. Our eyes first rest upon a point nearly ten years ago. At this time Mary
Harris'was a beautiful and happy child, some ten years of age, in the town of
Burlington, Iowa. In that hour of tender childhood the evidence shows that

140

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Burroughs first met her; and would to God that in that hour she had died!
Gentle memories would have clustered around her peaceful grave, and this bitter
cup whose very dregs she is now drinking would have been spared her. There
is a mercy at times in death, for which the stricken soul longs and gasps as the
parched and feverish earth does for the cooling rain. But He who notes the
sparrow fall, and has a design in all the ways of men, ordered it otherwise;
and she is here to-dayT, weary and heavily laden, but humbly submitting to the
Providence by which her own will has been overruled and her actions guided.
Burroughs at this time, gentlemen, was a man of comparatively mature age,
more than twice her senior—as he afterwards in his letters declares—almost old
enough to be her father. She sat upon his knee in the purity of unconscious
childhood. I speak now from the evidence furnished by his own letters of a
later period, and also from the testimony of those who witnessed at that time
their constant intercourse. He proposed to mold and fashion her mind by the
superior force of his own age, experience, and will, in order that she might at a
future period make him a suitable wife. There is no room to doubt upon this
point. Let those ninety-two letters here produced in court make their appeal.
They speak in no uncertain tone. They show us robust, developed manhood
seeking the ascendency over a confiding child. They show us maturity and
strength striving for the mastery over inexperience and weakness. He assumes
even a paternal interest, and teaches her young heart literally to leave father
and mother and cleave unto him. We hear it stated that no marriage engagement ever existed between them. The miserable desire to inflict indiscriminate
punishment upon the innocent as well as the guilty would even deny this plain
fact, which is established by almost every line of the evidence to which you
have listened. The prosecution itself proved that at one time the very day was
fixed for the fulfillment of their often-repeated vows.
Under these circumstances, need I dwell at length upon the imperious nature
of the influence which he obtained over her ? The child became absorbed in the
man. What else could happen ? They walked the pathway of life hand in
hand for many long years of hope and fond anticipation: He taught her to regard him as her future destiny. He was all the world to her. Her heart opene/i
and expanded under the influence of his smile as the bud becomes a flower beneath the rays of the sun. She grew up to womanhood in unquestioning obedience to his will. The ties by which she was bound to him were the growjth
of years, and embraced all the strength of her whole being. And did all ifliis
have no effect on the subsequent condition of her mind when disaster came ?
He had carried her to the highest pinnacle of happiness and hope. She st©od
upon the summit of joyous expectations, and all around her was sunshine and
gladness. Well might she exclaim to my learned and eminent brother, asfshe
paced her prison floor, " O h ! Mr. Bradley, you should have seen me then); I
was so happy!" Yes; though poor and humble, yet she loved and waslbeloved, and it was enough; she was content. For in that hour, when a virtmous
woman feels for the first time that she possesses the object of her devotion, tpere
comes to her a season of bliss which brightens all the earth before her. (The
mother watching her sleeping babe has an exclusive joy beyond the comjprehension of all hearts but her own. The wife who is graced by her husbapd's
love is more beautifully arrayed than the lillies, and er&ies not the diadems of
queens. But to the young virgin heart, more than all, when the kindling inspiration of its first and sacred love is accompanied by a knowledge that fpr it
in return there burns a holy flame, there comes an ecstacy of the soul, ajrapturous exaltation, more divine than will ever again be tasted this side off the
bright waters and perennial fountains of paradise. The stars grow brighter,
the earth more beautiful, and the world for her is filled with a delicious melody.
This, peculiarly, is woman's sphere of happiness. There she concentrates all
the wealth, the unsearchable riches of her heart, and stakes them all upon the
single hazard. If she loses, all is lost; and night and thick darkness settle down
upon her pathway. It is not so with man. His theatre is broader. No single
passion can so powerfully absorb him A variety of interests appeal to him at

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

141

every step. If disappointment overtakes him, a wide and open horizon invites
him to new enterprises, which will relieve him of tha^ still, deep, brooding intensity which is the pregnant parent of woe, insanity, and death to woman.
I am speaking now of general principles; but every word that I have said is
applicable to the case of Mary Harris. For when her parents, distrusting Burroughs, and fearing that very treachery which afterwards blasted her life as
well as his own, endeavored to break off' the connection and wed her to another,
who, from their previous history, could for a moment doubt the result ? He
went to Chicago, and advised her to do the same in order to be near him. Gentlemen, the language which faithful woman holds to the object of her love when
the hour of separation is threatened is very old and very beautiful •
"Entreat me not to,leave thee, or to return from following after thee ; for
whither thou goest I will go, where thou lodgest I will lodge :
" Thy people shall be my people, thy God my God ; where thou diest there
I will be buried:
" May the Lord do so to me and more also if aught but death part thee and
me."
It was in this spirit and under these circumstances that she came to Chicago
and resided with the Misses Jane and Louisa Devlin. It was Burroughs still
shaping her destiny. It was the man still pointing the course for the child to
follow. And shall this be imputed to her as a fault? Will this prosecution, fed
as I believe it to be from the springs of private malice, assail her because she
trusted Burroughs and confided in his honor ? Had Burroughs been faithful to
his vows, as he was called on to be, by every attribute which ennobles manhood,
by ever^ law human and divine, then this unhappy girl would have been to-day
his respected wife, and the world would have applauded her sublime devotion
to him when the truth between them was sought to be poisoned by whispering
tongues^ Now-, because he was false and broke her heart, you are called on to
believe that this act abased her virtuous brow into the dust of shame. I repel
this calumny. Not only do I pronounce it a slander upon Mary Harris, but it
is equally a slander upon the truth, fidelity, and virtue of womanhood. She
<iid no more than what the proudest, the purest, and the best have done in all
countries and at all times. She endowed him upon whose arm she leaned with
the principles of justice and honor; she crowned his brow with a constellation
of, all the virtues and then trusted him. She turned her back on home, kindred,
and friends and with him faced the world alone.
We are told that no stain shall rest on the name of the deceased. The leading
counsel for the Government, at the very opening of this trial, announced, with
sirigular emphasis, as if anticipating your conclusion, that he was a Christian
who had lived and died without blemish or reproach to that sacred character.
His brother, the Rev. John C. Burroughs, says that his object here is to relieve
his name from the slightest opprobium. Thus we see the purpose of this
unnatural struggle for a conviction, in the face of law and evidence which for
more than two hundred years have prevailed in the defence of the children of
misfortune and providential affliction. Mary Harris is to be condemned, to be
carried to the horrid gibbet, that appalling machinery of death, terror, and
lasting ignominy, in order that the conduct of A. J. Burroughs shall stand
triiimphantly vindicated! I do not wish to assail the dead; but is it expected
that tins monstrous assumption in favor of crime shall be passed -in silence ?
Shall this trial impress upon the public mind, as a lesson for future action, that
it is a part of the Christian character to win the love and confidence of a child,
to cultivate her affections as years advance, engage to become her husband,
induce her to leave her home in order to enjoy his society, and to escape from
another proposal of marriage; and then, after seven years of hope deferred, to
dispel all her bright dreams of life by quitting her in a moment, by dropping
all connection with her without a word of explanation, by marrying another
woman and turning his back on her forever. Government and its officials,
churches and their ministers, the press and its editors are all powerful
auxiliaries of public opinion, and I have heard their loud and clamorous notes

142

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

throughout this trial, but when they ask me to subscribe to this idea of Christian
grace and human 'excellence, I shall confidently appeal to you against them all.
I am now leaving out of view the darkest aspect of the conduct of the deceased
towards this defendant. I am presenting it on grounds where there is no
dispute. No honest man can dispute the courtship of the child, the subsequent
engagement, the allurement from home, and the final, unexplained, silent desertion, and the sudden marriage cf another. His own handwriting, in letters whose
genuineness is not called in question, attest these facts. And even if there was
nothing but their long and peculiar relation to each other proven, you would
easily understand that I have stated the case correctly. Then this is the model
without a flaw, the character without a stain, the name without a blemish!
According to this new theology falsehood has become respectable, treachery
noble, and the base, cowardly betrayal of young, inexperienced female confidence, a qualification for a seat with the just made perfect. I can join in no
such wretched blasphemy. I cling to the old and homely virtues according to
whose teachings such conduct has been loaded with infamy from the earliest
dawn of civilized human society ; and taking my stand on this universal verdict
of all ages, this irreversable judgment of enlightened mankind, I say that such
conduct is more injurious to morality than murder, that it is worthy of the
punishment of death, and that he who is guilty of it ought to die. I do not,
it is true, place this defence on that ground, but when the prosecution sees fit
to tender an issue upon the character of the deceased in the face of the black
and revolting record of his guilt, it is proper that it should be met. When an
effort is openly made to debauch the public mind into the belief that vice is
virtue, that turpitude is morality, and that crime against unsuspecting innocence
is one of the adornments of the Christian religion, then I conceive that the
voice of truth should be heard.
But to proceed. Time passed on with this defendant, bearing her onward to
a region of horrors, to the scene of her dismay and ruin; and I must move
along on the melancholy tide, and approach the sorrowful hour. We have now
traced these parties for years. Burroughs had carried her hopes to the highest
elevation. She was looking forward to a future filled with honor and with
delight. It was of his creation and there was not a cloud within the scope <Jf
her vision. * In such a serene and happy moment as this, with no note M
preparation to her tender and susceptible mind, with no sign of warning, the
blow descended upon her naked head, shivering every hope with which lier
heart was tenanted, and dashing the temple of reason itself into ruins. Is this
statement the work of fancy on my part? Is it not the sad, literal truth? I
appeal to you who have heard the evidence ? Counsel have seen fit to attribute
powers of eloquence to me which I neither possess nor affect. I can only repeat
to you a plain and simple story of wrong, misery, and madness which you
already know, and which is far more eloquent in itself than any words I ca.
employ. Seven years of love were spurned in an instant. Seven years ol
patient hope were turned in a moment to despair. He had lifted her up
almost to celestial heights, only that her fall might be sufficiently great to dash
her to pieces. Though without sin, yet she was cast out from her place of
blissful abode and fell like the sun of the morning to hope no more forever.
In order to understand the effect of disappointment and misfortune, we nfust
fully consider the condition of the mind when the shock came. Adopting this
rule in the present instance, and we shudder at the bare contemplation of the
mental agony of the defendant when she realized that she was abandoned by
him for whom she had abandoned all but her honor.
I am aware that the sufferings of helpless woman, under such circumstances,
are too often discussed with a sneer. There are those, who go in the catalogue
for men, who aspire to be thought wise in the ways of the world, by talking
and writing in flippant and witty strains in regard to woman, her sorrows and
misfortunes. To such sage and philosophic minds there is no such thing as mental derangement, growing out of disappointed love or broken marriage vows.
They are not thus to be imposed upon. The defence of insanity in such cases

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

143

is merely a cunning device of counsel. Well, gentlemen, I am consoled with
the belief that there is nowhere in this court, either on the bench or in the jurybox, one of these ready-made critics of human motives and human conduct, who
are always deaf to law, to evidence, and to reason.
I have endeavored, during my humble career in life, to study somewhat the
causes which most deeply afflict the human breast, and instil into it the bitterest and most intolerable memories. I think I can sympathize, to some extent
at least, with those sensitive natures which are most susceptible to emotions of
pain, and which at times wander in realms of gloom, and pray madly to be released from the unsatisfying scenes of the world. You have heard the character of the defendant in this respect fully delineated. She has been endowed by
her Creator with the highest capacity for enjoyment or anguish. It is with her
a land of sunshine or a land of darkness. She has but few, if any, medium
traits. Dr. Nichols, with the hand of a master, has drawn a picture of those
invisible substances known as the mind and moral affections. He has applied
his learning and science to the case of this poor girl, and we see the very pulsations of her heart laid bare before us. And, with this plain view of her mental and moral organization, and in the presence of the evidence as I now present it, without its further most cruel and harrowing features, I pronounce the
calamity which befell her, by the mere act of his abandonment and desertion,
as one of the heaviest that ever broke on the head of youth and confiding innocence. Is there no cause for insanity here? Do tliese things work no madness in the brain ? Do they not rather plant in the ardent mind of woman the
corroding canker, which no balm can cure—a consuming fire, which no Lethean
waters can quench? I appeal to human experience. It is said that we are
manufacturing a defence for this girl. This charge means that we are assuming
facts in her behalf which do not exist; that her condition at the time of the
homicide was not such as we represent it. Is it not, therefore, a most essential
ingredient of this defence to show that Mary Harris had been visited by those
causes which have been recognized in all ages as the most prolific sources of insanity to her sex? Must we be told that we are standing on doubtful ground?
D^ men of sense gape and stare, because we show that the conduct of Burroughs
made Mary Harris insane? Did such a thing never happen before? Is all this
something so new, that we are to be styled visionary explorers and reckless adventurers ? Why, gentlemen, we are simply following a broad, sorrowful, and
well-beaten track. It is thickly strewn with the wrecks of human happiness—
with broken hearts and ruined intellects. Go to the asylums for the insane—
those awful tombs of living death! See that once-beautiful, but now pallid
and' shrunken face, pressed against the bars of her cell. See the scorching
frenzy of her restless and anxious eye. Her parched lips move, and she calls
upon a name which is strange to our ears. She prays sadly, perhaps, to be
allowed to go to him. She murmurs the broken lines of some song which they
sang together in the days of old. And then upon a sudden, as if a serpent's
tooth had struck her bleeding heart, she shrieks out maledictions, and calls
down the curses of God on his head. At last she cowers down shudderingly in
her corner, where, chained to the barren rock of the past, her one perpetual
memory, with beak and talons sharper and more ruthless than the vulture's,
preys with ceaseless rage upon her vitals. The name she has called upon is
borne by one who is the favorite of fortune, who wears the honors of the world
on his brow, who has wife and children blooming under his roof, who has a
high seat in the sanctuary—is a " Christian without a stain,"—who has forgotten his victim, and is happy. His name may not be Burroughs; but his conduct was not more false, and the ruin which he wrought was not more fatal to
peace and life.
Turn to the books which record the experience of the world in this subject
and see whether this is picture or dreadful reality. I might detain you hour
after hour reading cases of insanity produced by causes similar in kind to those
which disordered the reason of the defendant. I shall content myself with but
few I read from Sir W. C. Ellis, page 79.

144

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

" E. C, a female about thirty years of age ; how long she has been insane is
not exactly known. This case, like the preceding, was the consequence of offended pride. She was a fine young woman, but of ambitious views. She, too,
had become attached to a person in a more elevated situation of life than herself ; and the mortification of being rejected on account of the difference of rank
was a wound to her pride which she could not brook : she became incurably
insane."
We are not told what became of the man of rank. He most likely wore
purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day, while she lived and
diect forgotten by him ; simply " incurably insane." But again :
" M. T., aged thirty has been insane four months. Cause of the attack, disappointment in love. She formed an attachment with a young man about six
years ago ; and he left her after' promising marriage. She says that she has
never been comfortable in her mind since, though she has worked regularly
until within a few weeks. But she has shown evident symptoms of derangement : she neglected her business and returned to her friends saying her state
of mind would not permit her to work. About a week before her admission
she passed a whole night in the street and she has since meditated self-destruction."
How like the case on trial this sounds, only that M. T. had far less to crush
her to the depths of despair than Mary Harris. In the case cited by the author,
she was a woman when she first formed her disastrous attachment. In the
case here in court, her love was engrafted on the tender stalk of childhood, and
it grew with her growth and strengthened with her strength until it became a
component parb of life itself. In the case from the book he left her, and that
was all. It was not all in the case we are trying; no, not all.
But one more case to illustrate this question. " M. D., thirty years of age,
had been insane only a few weeks. She had been brought up as a dressmaker,
but unhappily had been seduced by an officer, to whom she was very much attached ; after living with him for some time he deserted her for another. Grief,
mortified pride, and jealousy, all combined, produced a state of excitement which
ultimately ended in insanity. She had sleepless nights, the natural secretiojns
were disordered, and violent mania was the consequence."
I t is true that in this case the additional crime of seduction occurred ; but I
deny that this fact tends to increase the susceptibility of the female mina to
insanity when laboring under grief from disappointed affection. While it brings
its load of shame, yet it likewise blunts the fine edge of female pride. While
it scalds and blisters the very soul with a sense of degradation, yet the standard
of honor is lowered, and the fires of a former virtuous indignation are turned
to ashes. The woman is humbled in her own estimation and no longer chafes
as formerly under the burden of her wrongs. She has submitted to her bwn
dishonor, and she abandons thereafter the claim which a virtuous woman has
to complain of man's injustice. Pride, honor, and indignation at wrong, are all
attributes of virtue, and when they are assailed and aroused to an unnatural
action, they are the copious springs from which insanity takes its rise. Let it
not then be said that because Mary Harris is pure, her wrongs are less. I have
even heard it urged that because, through all the long and intimate years which
she passed with Burroughs, she kept the vestal fires of chastity alive in her
heart, that therefore her sufferings could not have been so great, when he abandoned her, and attempted to stain her name with pollution, as if she had fallen.
This is not my theory of female character. The just, the pure, the good, those
who have never consented unto iniquity, are those who, as a general rule, are
unable to relieve themselves from those burning memories of cruelty and injustice which so often bring distraction.
But while I have shown, by authority, that the mere abandonment of the
defendant by the deceased, under their peculiar circumstances, would have sufficiently accounted for the deplorable condition in which we afterwards find
her, yet, as I have said, this was not all. No ; gladly would I be convinced
that it was. But I now approach a scene of turpitude which brightens all his

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

145

former conduct by the contrast. He not merely left this girl alone in the world,
robbing her of all the priceless treasures of hope-which she had laid up in the
future, but he endeavored, in the very wantonness of wickedness, to trample
her in the mire under his feet; to make her an object of scorn ; to taint her
name with moral leprosy, and to consign her to odium and shame. I am aware
that it is to be urged that Burroughs was not the author of the infamous Greenwood letters. I am ready for that issue. Tell me, first, is there anybody else
in the world likely to have approached Mary Harris in that way ? Does a
stranger thus approach a woman whose name is unsullied ? Does a mere casual
acquaintance seek thus to gain an intimacy with one whose virtue was never
called in question ? And who but Burroughs was intimate with the prisoner ?
If there was another, it would have been shown. The brother, Dr. Burroughs,
has not slept on the track of the accused. He has spared neither labor nor
money to bring before you every item of her brief and now miserable life which
might bear hard upon her in this trying hour. He wrote to a brother divine
at Burlington to engage his assistance. He went to Janesville to bring every
hidden thing to light. He hunted up all those who had ever known her. He
associated with policemen, and took them into his confidence. He labored day
and night to rake together every grain of evidence which would weigh against
her life in the scales of justice which you now hold. And if any one had ever
sustained such a relation towards her, except Burroughs, as would have rendered it even remotely reasonable that he wrote these letters, would he not have
been discovered and held up in this investigation ? If she had ever borne herself toward any one else in such a manner as to warrant a reasonable being in
such an advance, that fact would have been proven.
And again: who would have used the language to Ellen Mills, at 94 Quincy
street, but Burroughs ? The evening on which he waited and watched for the
meeting which his letter had requested, he said to the keeper of this abode of
sin and shame that he would sit near the window, where he could observe the
approach of his victim, and that he would himself go to the door and let her
in. Why did he assume this task ? Because, as he said, she knew him so well
that she would trust him and come in. Who else but Burroughs did Mary
Harris know so well ? Who else could she so implicitly trust ? And above all,
who else could so confidently assert his power over her ? Who but him, who
ha,d fostered the growth of her confidence from childhood up to womanhood ?
Who but him. on whose arm she had leaned so long and so fondly? "She
knows me so well, that she will trust me and come in." This alone fixes the
paternity of the Greenwood letters. This alone discloses who was that night
waiting for this girl as plainly as if a beam of light had at that moment fallen
on him, and made his guilty face visible to every eye in Chicago. I appeal to
the candid judgments of all. Was there more than one person in the world who
would have spoken and proceeded in this deed of infamy as it is shown that
this man did ? Look, too, at the phraseology of these letters : " My dear Molly."
"Come; do come." Whose language is that? Is it not the peculiar voice of
Jacob, though the hand may be the counterfeited hand of Esau?
But still more on this point. It has been well known for months what our
defence would be. It has been well known that we would prove that Ellen
Mills, the woman of 94 Quincy street, identified Burroughs as the man who
plotted and watched at her house, in pursuance of the plans of these letters. I t
was known to all here concerned as counsel for the Government; and it was
known to Dr. Burroughs, within a few weeks after his brother's death, that this
woman had minutely and accurately described the deceased to Miss Devlin and
the accused, and had also recognized his photograph. I t was equally well
known that a clerk in the post office had done the same. For when these letters were received, the defendant, outraged by their character, took prompt
measures to ascertain their depraved origin. A letter was written in reply,
addressed to J. P. Greenwood, and the clerk was requested to observe with care
who called for it. He identified Burroughs as the man, even to the cornelian
ring on his finger, which had been given to him as a token of love by Miss
10

146

TRIAL OF MARY HARRTS.

Harris. I repeat, that the prosecution well knew, from almost tbe first step in
the preparation of this case, that we would prove these facts by Louisa Devlin.
They also knew then, and now know from the records of tliis court, that we
labored for months, in every form known to the law, to obtain the testimony
of these two important witnesses, Ellen Mills and the post office clerk. They
were important to us ; but if Louisa Devlin is swearing falsely, they are much
more important to you, [turning to Dr. Burroughs.] Our efforts' to procure
their testimony were in vain. What efforts did you make? You say you are
here to defend your brother's reputation. If the post office clerk did not say
that it was your brother who called for these Greenwood letters, and did not
describe him to Mary Harris and Louisa Devlin, why did you not bring him
here ? If Ellen Mills never made similar statements as to the person who visited her house, why is she not on the witness stand, or her depositions on file?
You have brought witnesses here from Chicago and witnesses from Jauesville,
whose testimony is so immaterial that it trifles with the time of the court. But
here are two witnesses who, if our proof on this vital point be false, can prove
that falsehood, and relieve your brother's reputation where its need is the
sorest; and yet, instead of joining us to bring them here, we find you, by your
own extorted admission, listening to the unscrupulous suggestions of a policeman, that one of them at least shall be carried out of sight by the corrupt use
of money; and the other one escapes us, although we follow him with an order
from the War Department.
Gentlemen of the jury, this Christian minister by profession swears positively
that his brother did not write these letters. But does he not stand before this
court, before this jury, before the world, and before God, convicted, upon his
own testimony, of suppressing the very evidence which would have settled that
question forever ? There is but one conclusion to be drawn from this fact.
These two absent witnesses would have sustained Louisa Devlin; and Dr.
Burroughs and this prosecution knew it. They would have described the deceased here in this court as they did in Chicago. This is no forced assumption
of mine. It is a well-settled conclusion of law. The suppression of evidence
is a grave and almost conclusive presumption against the party that resorts to
it. This is more especially true when, as in this case, the prosecution is sustained by the treasury of the Government in enforcing the attendance of witnesses. What is the object of a trial in a court of justice? We are herein
search of truth. We have, each one of us, under the solemnities of an oath,
invoked the name and help of God in the discharge of that duty. We stand
on holy ground. Life, life, that mysterious gift of the Creator, is the issue at
stake. Its awful import should inspire every breast with a religious desire to
aid this court and jury in arriving, if possible, at the exact truth. Then, what
shall be said of one who admits that he has not done so ? I learn that it is
said that no attack can injure Dr. Burroughs; that his position is so exalted
that no shaft can reach him. I have no desire to indulge in personal assaults;
but no position in life, no assumption of superior piety and virtue, will ever
shield the character of a witness who, in a trial involving life itself, conceals
material evidence, and then attempts to supply its place by his own unsupported oath. Nor need counsel in such an instance waste their time in denunciation, for no language which our tongues could utter could paint his conduct
in colors so dark, in a moral deformity so hideous, as he himself has painted it
by his own testimony. Such a witness becomes at once powerless for evil
before an intelligent jury. He is dead by his own act. And I submit here
now, in all candor, in the face of this court, in the presence of my learned
brethren of the bar, and to you the final arbiters of this sad and trying hour,
that Dr. Burroughs stands in contempt of this court, for his collusion with the
policeman, Douglass, to hide away a witness from its process; he stands in
contempt of society, which requires all its members to aid in vindicating justice ; he stands in contempt of you, in refusing to bring before you all the evidence in his power to establish a point on which he asks you to find in his
favor; and he stands in contempt of the teachings of the merciful Master on

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

147

the Mount, by coming here with deceit and treachery in his heart to strike this
helpless, feeble, sick, and lovely being, to whom his very name is an unendurable misery.
But it is most confidently insisted that these letters are not in the handwriting of the deceased. They may or may not be. After he is identified as
the one who called, in the name of Greenwood, at the post office for a reply,
and who waited at 94 Quincy street for the proposed meeting, it is of no consequence whether he guided the pen or dictated to a confederate. The testimony of Mr. Danenhower is deemed material on this point. He says that the
leave of absence on which the deceased went home to get married commenced
September 8, and hence he could not have been there in time to write them.
My answer is, first, that nothing is more common than for clerks to leave a few
days in advance of the date of their permission; and, secondly, that, in addition
to the identification by Ellen Mills and the clerk at the post office, it is in proof
that Louisa Devlin and Mary Harris both saw him at times corresponding
very nearly, if not exactly, with the dates of these letters. This is conclusive.
There are but two witnesses in the world who could have contradicted these
facts. Dr. Burroughs knew they would not contradict them, and he therefore
kept them away, with the aid of " a hundred dollars or two," as suggested by
the policeman, and came here himself to contradict them.
I t will be asked, however, what motive Burroughs had to thus compass
the destruction of one whose image, if he was human, must have been blended
with his tenderest memories, with the most sacred associations of his heart. A
refuge will be sought in this inquiry, from the irresistable pressure of the proof
which thus far shatters all the assumptions and theories of the prosecution.
Why—why did he do this deed without a name for cruelty and perfidy ? You
will be told that all the actions of sane people have their intelligent reasons.
This is true; and the history of this case gives a ready, an instant answer to
this inquiry. His motive was not the gratification of passion. Lust was not
one of the elements in his calculations. Base and wretched as are such motives
of action, yet, if it be possible, those that actuated Burroughs were still lower and
more depraved. Look calmly at his situation. From Mary Harris he was
about turning away without a word. He knew that such an act would be to
her as appalling as the voice of doom. His conscience made him a coward.
He could not face her with the story of his stupendous crime. He could not
look into her confiding eye and tell her that his whole life towards her had been
one mighty falsehood. Human nature, however depraved, was not equal to
such a task. The past was filled with voices of reproach and terror to his
guilty heart. The future frowned on him full of menace and warning. The
present was haunted hy a sense o£ conscious wrong from which he tried in vain
to escape. He knew, too, that he was in her power. These letters which are
here in court, and many others not here, arose in his memory. He recalled
that one in which he says: " And Mollie, if from any reason whatever I may
change my views or feelings towards you, and I should feel like entering into a
matrimonial alliance with any one else than yourself, I will promptly advise
you of it." He was about taking that fatal step but he had not the manly
honor#to fulfill his promise. He, however, like one who plans the commission
of a crime, took measures for his escape. He was to be married in a few days
to the unhappy lady who now mourns in her widowed home, and whose
melancholy fate I deeply commisserate; and he knew that when that fact
reached the ears of Mary Harris, her cries, her sobs, her voice of wailing would
ascend like perpetual lamentations in the air. She might, in her deep distress,
utter his name to the world in such a way as to stain his character as a
Christian. She might come near him some day and remind him that he ooce
took a child from her parents' roof, and broke her heart. Aye, it was in her
power to denounce him as false and infamous at all times and places, to pursue
him, if she desired, as an avenging shadow, to rob him of peace, and to turn
his days and nights into fear and alarm. But if her foot once crossed the
threshold of shame she was in the fowler's snare and at his mercy. If this

148

TRIAL OF MARY. HARRIS.

defendant had ever entered 94 Quincy street, Burroughs would have breathed
easy, and gone to his approaching nuptials a free and happy man, secure from
molestation at her hands. Her mouth would have been closed forever. I t was
not her soul that he expected to pollute, but her name. He intended to have
been able to prove that she was seen to enter this wretched house, and to hold
that fact in terror t over her. If she struggled and cried out against her cruel
fate, he could silence her. Or if she refused to be still in her sufferings he could
close the ears and steel the hearts of all virtuous people against her. If she
entered that house she would come out covered with an everlasting mildew.
Her heart might be as pure as before, for she was unconscious of its character,
but her name would be spotted with an incurable leprosy. Burroughs had
made up his mind to break his engagement, of long years standing, with Mary
Harris; and the Greenwood letters laid a plan by which he was to* justify that
heartless act and silence her complaints. Is there no motive in this? We find
him capable of one wrong towards her. He deserts her without cause. Is he
not capable of committing the other, when he has a powerful motive in his
desire to escape the consequences of the first ? If he could, in the hour of his
desertion, render her powerless and despised, he was safe and free. The one
absorbing purpose of his heart at that time was to sever the tie that bound them
together, and when we find him unwilling to do so by an interview, we are
prepared to believe that he attempted to do so by consigning her name to
ignominy and pollution.
Gentlemen, you now have nfy views upon that branch of the evidence which,
relates to the Greenwood letters and all their criminal surroundings. I hold—
First. That it is not reasonable from the whole evidence that any one else
t u t Burroughs wrote them.
Second. That Ellen Mills and the post office clerks identified him fully as
the man.
Third. That if he was not their author it was in the power of this prosecution
by bringing these two last named persons here as witnesses, to have conclusively
shown that fact.
Fourth. That instead of procuring the attendance of these parties, we find
those who are in the interest of the prosecution, Dr. Burroughs and Douglas,
the policeman, engaged in planning the suppression of their testimony ; which
fact in itself creates a presumption of law in favor of my position.
Fifth. That Burroughs had a powerful and controlling motive to write them.
But now allow me to say that, for the purposes of our defence, it is only necessary to show that Mary Harris actually believed that he wrote them, and
that they thus became one of the exciting causes of her mental agony and derangement. But I have preferred to show not merely that she believed him to
be the author, but also to show that she had overwhelming reasons for her belief—reasons from which there was no escape. No woman who truly loves ever
willingly consents to blacken and deface her own idol. She rather clings to
him in blind adoration long after the proofs of his treachery have become visible to all eyes but her own. And who will say that this defendant jumped to
conclusions on this point against the deceased ? On th3 contrary, when her
fears and suspicions were alarmed, with what conscientious care she proceeded.
Step by step the painful truth was pressed upon her. The woman of Quincy
street described him. The clerk did the same. But she did not stop there. She
was perhaps convinced, for the letters in themselves to her practiced eye contained terrible proof; but- she had some hope of relief, in some way, not yet well
defined in her thoughts from an interview in another quarter. This young girl,
then but eighteen or nineteen years of age, gathered up the letters of the deceased, took his miniature, took all that related to her seven years of love and
hope, and knowing the standing of the Rev. John 0. Burroughs, knowing his
religious character, went to him like a child to a father, and poured out her grief
and her fears How like the pure and noble girl that she was!
But here we are involved in a contradiction as to the day on which this call
was made. Dr. Burroughs says that she came on the 16th day of September.

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

149

I do not believe him. His brother was married on the 15th, and I do not
believe him, because, in order to free himself from reproach, it is necessary for
him to fix his interview with the defendant subsequent to his,brother's marriage. I do not believe him, because Louisa Devlin swears that it took place
on the 15th. I do not believe him because Jane Devlin swears it was the loth.
i learn that they are to be assailed in the interest of Dr. Burroughs, in order to
sustain him. Let it be so. You have looked upon those two honest, truthful
faces, and observed their patient candor under the most protracted examinations. They have been the good angels of human nature in this cause. They
were the friends of Mary Harris in sunshine, and they have abided through
darkness. Others may have shrunk from her side, but they have stuck closer
because of her calamities. Like the petrel of the sea, their friendship has spread
a stronger pinion and pursued a bolded flight in the midst of the lightning and
the tempest. Are such pure and unselfish beings as these to be degraded by
counsel in order to support the testimony of one who appears in this case more
like a criminal than an honest man ? Make the contrast between them, gentlemen. Who failed to note that damning hesitancy of manner which caused
every eye in this court-room to rest upon him with suspicion ? Who could fail
to perceive that he was weighing the effect—not the truthfulness—of his
answers before giving them? Who ever heard an equal number of qualifying
adjectives expressive of cautious doubt and uncertainty used in the same space
of time as when he was under cross-examination ? No, his oath will not weigh
an instant in your minds as against theirs. You will believe, from th.e evidence, that the defendant and Dr. Burroughs met on the 15th and not on the
16th of September.
But if you will allow me, I will state another reason why it was on the 15th,
the day of the fatal marriage. The law gives the prisoner the right to stand
where'l am standing, if she had the power to do so, and speak for herself. I
am but speaking for her, and in that capacity, I have the right to say that it
was the 15th, because she says so, because that awful day has left an'indelible
scar on her brain that fixes her recollection. And every word that has fallen
from her pallid lips on this subject, has carried truth to my mind. Dr. Nichols
has sworn to her exalted sense of truth and female virtue, and a mountain of
oaths by Dr. Burroughs would not shake my faith in her integrity. I do not
believe at this dreadful moment she would purchase her. life by the utterance
of a falsehood, no, not even to escape that death from which we shrink back in
speechless horror.
Thus, then, these two persons met on the 15th of September, 1863. Dr. Burroughs says a woman came with the defendant. If we were manufacturing a
defence we would say so too, and have one of the Misses Devlin to personate
this third party, and then by her testimony show what took place at this interview, and contradict Dr. Burroughs. But it is not true. Mary Harris went
alone, and I am somewhat at a loss to know why this unknown woman has
been conjured up. If she has a real existence why was she not brought here,
as so many others have been, to uphold, if possible, the private part of this
prosecution ?
Let*us, however, now examine for a few moments the account which Dr.
Burroughs gives of that meeting between himself and the prisoner. He admits
she came to see him in regard to his brother, and that she apprized him of her
long and intimate relations with him. The Greenwood letters were submitted
to him, as also her reasons for believing that the deceased wrote them. She
was in grief and trouble on that account She inquired whether he was in
Chicago. Dr. Burroughs admits to Judge Newman that he knew of their long
correspondence ; but while asserting that this interview took place on the day
after his brother's marriage, he is forced io admit that lie did not inform her of
that fact. Why did he so carefully conceal his brother's marriage of the day
previous? Wby did he not tell her the truth ? He admits that be did not do
so. He says that he asked her if his brother had broken any engagement with
her, and that she said he had not. The force of this answer will be fully ap-

150

TEIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

preciated when it is remembered that at this time the defendant was not aware
that the deceased was married, and that this reverend witness was purposely
concealing that fact from her.
But he says that Mary Harris told him that no marriage engagement had
ever existed between her and his brother. Now, gentlemen, if she had made
such a statement to Dr. Burroughs on that occasion, it would constitute a
marvel and a wonder in the history of human nature. It would stand alone
as a contradiction of the universal experience of the world. Here was a young
girl for the first time in her life in an agony of apprehension for fear she was
about to be betrayed by the man whom she loved. The fact that she was
engaged to marry him does not admit of a doubt. That is all clear now.
Some trouble had even at one time arisen because she was about to marry out
of the church—that is, to Burroughs. You remember his own letter on that
point. No one now disputes the engagement. You are called, then, to believe
•that this defendant, going to Dr. Burroughs on the very subject of her relations
with his brother, to whom she was in fact engaged—the evidence of which
she carried with her to show to him, complaining also of the contemplated
breach of faith—that she, under these circumstances, told an absolute falsehood
and of such character as to utterly deprive her of all claims upon the accused
or of any right to inquire of bis movements or conduct! In other words, we
are to believe that she bore false witness voluntarily against herself upon a
subject of the most supreme and sacred moment; that while discussing her
rights with the deceased, she admitted she had no rights; that while hunting for
him with nearly a hundred of his letters in her pocket promising marriage, she
deliberately settled the whole case against herself by informing his brother that
there was nothing whatever between them except the ordinary relations of
friendship. What an interview, according to Dr. Burroughs! He knew of the
long intimacy and correspondence, as he told Judge Newman. She came to him
on-the 16th, as he asserts. She wanted to know where A. J. Burroughs was.
He told her he had left the city the day before. The Greenwood letters were
discussed. And then Dr. Burroughs became inquisitive. How important, too,
were his questions! He must have foreseen this trial. At least he must have
been qualifying himself to swear in an action for a breach of marriage promise.
He asks her if any marriage engagement existed. She frankly says no, -vuien
she holds in her hands at that moment the evidence to the contrary. He asks
her if his brother had ever made any dishonorable proposals to her, and she
again answers no, although she at that time was painfully impressed with the
fact that he had attempted to allure her into a house of ill-fame. Another very
comprehensive question: Had the deceased ever broken any engagement with
her'? and once more she gives the necessary answer in the negative. There this
extraordinary interview quietly ends by Dr. Burroughs forgetting to tell this
distressed girl that the object of her solicitude, and in whom indeed they were
both so deeply interested, was married on the day before. This is the testimony
of Dr. Burroughs, as given in your hearing. Is there a man in the world, of
common intelligence, who will believe it? Is it not -monstrous and most
unnatural ? It sounded from the witness-stand like ironical fiction, told to provoke a stare and a smile, and in that it succeeded. The defendant went to Dr.
Burroughs for information, and came away almost as ignorant as she went.
Dr. Burroughs, on the contrary, made that the occasion to cram himself as a
witness to every phase which any judicial inquiry might ever assume between
them. He says that he is here simply to protect his brother's reputation, and
he certainty betrayed an early knowledge that it would need protection.
But in this connection allow me a word as to his purpose here, and the spirit
in which he has testified. It has been well known for many months that we
would defend Mary Harris on the ground that grief, disappointment, and deBpair, connected with a severe physical disease peculiar to woman, and in itself
a constant source of insanity, had given rise in her mind to recurring periods ot
mania; and that at one of these periods she committed the act for which she is
now on trial. Well, has not Dr. Burroughs entered the lists upon that issue <
*

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

151

He says that his only care is for the character of his deceased brother. That
would be commendable ; but is it true ? He has taken pains in different ways
to convince the counsel for the defence, as well as this court and jury, that he
does not wish to have the defendant convicted, but that " she ought to be sent
home to her friends." Then why, may I ask, is this long array of witnesses
brought here by him, to put up their crude and unlearned opinions against the
medical evidence on the subject of her sanity ? Was it essential to the Christian
character of A. J. Burroughs to prove that here and there, at Chicago, at Janesville, and elsewhere, a man, a woman, or a child had met Mary Harris for a
few passing moments, and did not discover that she was insane ? No. This
evidence can have but one purpose. It aims at the life of the prisoner. It in
no wise touches the character of the deceased. It is a bold demand on the part
of Dr. Burroughs for blood. It is the key which unlocks and reveals the meaning of his presence, and of all his evidence in this case. Oh! spirit of eternal
justice, what more is this poor shivering victim of man's cruel perfidy to suffer!
is it not enough that one drove her mad, and caused her to cry out—
" I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like molten lead?"

And must the brother come now, and struggle to drag this wan, emaciated, and
stricken being to an awful and ignominious death ? Is he not satisfied with the
ruin already wrought ? Are you not ready to exclaim, " Spare her, Dr. Burroughs ; oh ! spare her! Spare her for the sake of the name you bear. Enough
she has suffered in that name. For the love of God and for the sake of His
mercies spare her broken life. Do not press and trample on the fallen and
undone. She may meet you no more in this world. You may forget her mortal
agonies in the honeyed commendations of your followers. But there comes a day
when the one who murdered her peace, and the one wTho now seeks to murder
her life, will both meet their victim in the presence of the Great Judge, and in
a court above the sun, where misfortune is not a crime, and where earthly distinctions fade away ; where the poor are rich, and the merciful blessed; where
the feeble are strong, and the oppressor's rod is broken; and in that awful
presence they will be called to answer why, at their hands, Mary Harris was
beaten and scourged to madness and death. Spare her; oh! spare her! lest, if
you succeed in your purpose to slay her here, she will confront you in the
eternal world as a bright angel, with her fair hair dabbled in her own innocent
blood, shed by your hand, and there shriek into your shrinking ear, ' False,
fleeting, and perjured!' "
Alas! how often the great rules of right—eternal and unchangeable right—
are perverted in man's administration of justice! How often the accused should
be the accuser! How often the unoffending sufferer bears the punishment due
alone to others! What a scene is this in which we are all engaged ! Here,
before you, sits one of the feeblest and saddest beings ever born of woman—a
mere helpless atom, buffetted and driven here by angry and malignant winds.
The babe in its mother's arms was never more unconscious of the evil purposes
of crime, than the heart of this pale and wasted prisoner. Yet the freezing terrors
of the law surround her on all sides; the judge ivpon the bench, with wise and
atient calmness elucidating its principles; this jury, listening to the story of
er blighted life, and solemnly weighing the evidence; this crowded and anxipus audience watching the result; and men, bearded men, earnestly discussing
the issue, whether she may live or die! And why all this? Because, as she
said to you, [turning to Mr. Bradley,] " I have been beaten and scourged without cause." Yes; bruised, maimed, and mangled, until the divine gift of human
reason gave way, utterly powerless, with less than the instinct of the poorest
worm, that resents in blindness the heel that tramples it to dust. And yet this
is the being against whom we are to listen to a hue and cry as if she were a
monster, a Borgia, or a Hecuba!
Gentlemen, I sometimes tire of life when I see wrong and injustice spreading

E

152

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

their prosperous branches as the green and flourishing palm; when those by
whom offences come in this world, who prey upon virtue and turn it into vice,
who sport with innocence in order to poison it, who make a mockery of love
and a plaything of truth, go not only unscathed of the law, but even applauded
by the hired panderers to a depraved and debauched public sentiment. Whatever of philosophy I have takes a painful and gloomy form, and I feel that I
could say with the great dramatist:
" Out brief candle,
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; a tale told by an idiot,
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Gentlemen of the jury, I have now, to the best of my ability, discussed the
evidence relating to the first proposition of the defence. I am reasoning from
cause to effect; and we have maintained and proven that in the case of the
prisoner there existed overwhelming causes of insanity. To establish this great
fact, I have thus far dwelt upon her relation to the deceased, the hopes he inspired in her breast, the power he obtained over her will and destiny, their final
separation, and the aggravating circumstances by which that separation was
surrounded. But although these moral causes alone, more than account for her
subsequent condition, yet at this point I wish barely to call your attention to
the testimony of Dr. Fitch. He is a gentleman of standing in his profession in
Chicago, and attended the prisoner in her illness soon after Burroughs had
abandoned her. He states that he found her laboring under a painful disease
peculiar to her sex; and every medical man in the world, and every book ever
written on that subject, declare that this disease is a constant physical cause of
periodical, or, as it is more properly termed, paroxysmal insanity. I shall not
discuss or dwell upon this fact. It is only necessary to state it, and to remind
you that it is in proof that she was suffering from one of these attacks when
she entered the Treasury building on the fatal 30th day of January. In this
most important feature of the case there is no conflict of testimony, and no room
for doubt or conjecture. Where, then, in the whole range of judicial history,
was there ever shown a more powerful combination of causes, in the same person, of mental derangement? The well-known moral causes existed in malevolent force; and in fearful alliance with them was a physical disease which is
recognized as one of the principal causes of mischief and malady to the female
mind. Shall we, then, any longer wonder that, with her delicate nervous temperament, she fell before such a terrible combination ? Would it not rather be
matter for astonishment if her mind had survived in calmness and health all
these shocks ? But now, having inquired into and summed up the causes, let
us explore the ground still before us, in order to discover, if we can, whether
the effects of those causes actually did occur in this case. Let us lift the curtain
for a few moments, and look upon that shifting scene of suffering which her
life continuously presents, from the 15th day of September, 1863, to the present
hour.
We behold, for once at least in our lives, a human being totally transformed.
The change is complete in every respect Physically, she is no longer the same.
Her former buoyant health withers away. The bloom of her face dies out, as
it were, in a single night. Her already slight frame becomes still slighter.
Sleep, the gentle nurse in whose arms the peaceful invalid woes the returning
spirit of health, fled from her eyes. Burroughs had murdered sleep; and her
mind was fixed with an appalling intensity on the memory of the past, which
was to her brain as a consuming fire. From this horrible spell there was no
escape. Ellis, from whom I have already quoted, says:
" But in those cases where the over-action of the brain has been brought on
by thinking too long and too intensely on painful truths, from which there is no
escape for the patient, it is exceedingly difficult to divert the attention, and to
prevent the mind from dwelling upon them so continually as to produce disease ;
for although patients are conscious of the injury they are inflicting upon them-

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

153

selves* and of the inutility of their over-anxiety, and judge most accurately of
their situations they do not appear to possess the power of controlling their
thoughts."
No ; and hence we see her mind developing its changes in equal pace with
her body. I t is the seat of the canker, which blighted'lier whole system, and
which no medicinal balm can reach. There was lodged that perilous stuff which
no drug can purge from the distracted breast. According to the evidence, she
was up to that period the merriest and the most joyous of her circle. The world,
the glad earth, the opening day, the bending sky, and the kind faces of friends
were all beautiful to her, and she enjoyed the few years of her unclouded happiness; But now the laugh was gone ; no merriment kindled in her eye; the
future to her was dead ; she lived in the past and it was the charnel-house of
all her hopes and over it hung the mourning cypress. I am reading her condition to you by the light of the evidence alone. I am showing you that effects
were following causes. She grew weary of life. Who does not, when all that
gives life its value has perished? This is, in itself, one of the incipient stages
of insanity. I t is the offspring of that " Black Melancholy," which all authors
designate as one of the parent springs of madness. And when this defendant
rose that morning from Eer bed, and murmured her farewell to the friend, whom
she supposed to be asleep, had she succeeded in taking her " walk by the lake
,shore,-in the darkness before daybreak, she never would have been here on
trial. The winds and waves would have sung her requiem. There might have
been an inquest, and the usual verdict.
" One more unfortunate
Weary of breath,
Rashly importunate
Gone to her death."

Perhaps there would have been an item in the papers of the next morning.
Men would have read it listlessly over their coffee, and forgotten it during the
breakfast. • And yet in that item would have been contained the account of a
wreck of more infinite and incalculable value than all the richly-laden argosies
that ever sunk beneath ^he surface of the deep. I t would have told of a ruin
which calls upon Heaven, Earth, and Hell, as its interested witnesses. It would
have recorded a crime,- which rises in mountain blackness against the soul of
the betrayer of innocence. But the purposes of the suicide were defeated, and
we are left to still further notice her total transformation of character.
How shall I dwell upon thoae unnatural outbreaks of violence which occurred towards those who were the beneficent guardians of her daily life ? We
have found the developments of suicidal mania, and alas ! we now discover the
unmistakable symptoms of homicidal insanity. This whole evidence shows her
natural disposition to have been most amiable, gentle, and affectionate. She
now, at times, lost all these once familiar traits. Where is the man of science
who does not see at a glance what all this means ? Do the moral affections and
the mind all undergo a sudden and radical revolution, characterized by irrational actions, while all the functions are in a healthful condition ? As well
ask whether the dove can change itself at pleasure to the. kite, or the lamb to
the ravening wolf. If Mary Harris was not insane when she aimed a large
and deadly knife at the breast of her dearest friend, then human character can
assume the hues of the chamelion at will, and there are no rules by which
human motives can be fathomed. Again she attacks Louisa Devlin, at another
period she assaults a customer in the store, at another she is so Violent that her
friends imprison her in her room by force, and at another she escapes and flies
along the streets at night, and is secured and brought back, only after great
exertion and difficulty. She tears articles of domestic use to pieces, and in every
way, at stated intervals, displays a morbid propensity to destroy.
This form of insanity is too well understood to require at this time a minute
discussion and a full citation of authorities. I wish, however, to dwell briefly
on some proper distinctions to be observed. We find the most eminent authors
fully recognizing the existence of an insane impulse to commit deeds of vio-

154

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

lence by persons apparently perfectly rational on all other subjects, and acting
without the slightest provocation. Bay, in his great work—Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity—uses the following language :
" The last and most important form of moral mania that will be noticed consists in a morbid activity of the propensity to destroy; where the individual,
without provocation or any other rational motive, apparently in the full
possession of his reason, and oftentimes in spite of his most strenuous efforts to
the contrary, imbrues his hands in the blood of others ; oftener than otherwise,
of the partner of his bosom, of the children of his affections, of those, in short,
who are most dear and cherished around him. The facts here alluded to are of
painful frequency, and the gross misunderstanding of their true nature almost
universally prevalent, excepting among a few in the higher walks of the professions, leads to equally painful results. In the absence of any pathological
explanation of this horrid phenomenon, the mind seeks in vaiu among secondary
causes for a rational mode of accounting for it, and is content to resort to that
time-honored solution of all the mysteries of human delinquency, the instigation
of the Devil. Of the double homicide to which this affection gives rise, there
can be no question which is most to be deplored, for shocking as it is for one
bearing the image of his Maker to take the life of his fellow-being with brutal
ferocity, how shall we characterize the deliberate perpetration of the same deed
under the sanction of law and of the popular approbation ? We trust, how-,
ever, that the ample researches of writers of unquestionable veracity and
ability which are now just reaching the attention of the legal profession, will
be soon followed by a conviction of past errors, and a more rational administration of the criminal law." * * * "Esquirol, in his valuable memoir,
first published in the shape of a note in the French translation of Hoffbauer's
work, observes that homicidal insanity or monomanie-homocide, as he terms it,
presents two distinct forms, on one of which the monomaniac is always
influenced by avowed motives more or less irrational, and is generally regarded
as mad; in the other, there are no motives acknowledged nor to be discerned,
the individual being impelled by a blind, irresistable impulse."
After citing a number of cases to illustrate his views, this enlightened author
further says:
" In most cases of homicidal insanity the presence of some physical or moral
disorder may be detected, and though none is mentioned in those above related,
there is reason to suppose that it might have been ascertained'by a more
thorough examination."
In the case now under investigation in this court, both physical and moral
disorders of the most painful and afflicting character have been discovered.
We do not claim that this is one of those cases which, as Ray observes, have so
often baffled the mind in their solution. On the contrary, we show you a
person sick in mind and body, and assert that such functional disease of the
brain ensued as to impel to this strange and irrational course of conduct. We
are involved in no mysteries. We have the causes, and the effects have followed.
A mind overstrained in the perpetual contemplation of a harrowing theme,
and a body broken by painful disease, gave rise to a paroxysmal insanity which
assumed the destructive form. Ray, speaking further on this subject, says :
" In nearly all, the criminal act has been preceded, either by some well
marked disturbance of the health, originating in the head, digestive system, or
uterus; or by an irritable, gloomy, dejected or melancholy state; in short, by
many of the symptoms of the incubation of mania."
In the light of these authorities the conduct of the defendant seems no
longer wonderful, and we are not compelled to look to the malicious contrivances
of a depraved heart for its solution.
But we have heard it urged by the prosecution, with an air of triumph, that
there is at least one act on her part which clearly proves her a rational being.
She bought a pistol. Now, if any one thing in her whole history more than
another proves her periods of insanity, and especially on the subject of her
misfortune and bereavement, it is this act itself, and the circumstances under

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

155

which the purchase was made. To one, when questioned, she replies that other
ladies besides her carry pistols in Chicago ; but her real reason, as you will
remember she stated it, was one of those frightful ideas which pursue the startled and suspicious minds of the insane. She said that she believed there was
a scheme between her false lover and his brother, Dr. Burroughs, to pick her
up in the streets some day and carry her away, where she would never be heard
of again, and she meant to be ready to defend herself. She was haunted and
pursued by this irrational fear. Says Ray again:
•' In general, mania, especially the early stage, the mind is filled with vague
fears, suspicions, jealousy, and distrust, and the thoughts are sadly confused.
The patient believes that enemies encompass him around, bent on destroying
his reputation or his life. With no special plan in view he arms himself with
swords and pistols, and accident or some unaccountable caprice finally determines his victim."
Winslow, in his masterly work on the brain, in speaking of such a patient,
also says :
" All objects within the range of his perverted senses are tinctured and distorted by a disordered vision, jaundiced eye, and morbidly exalted and excited
fancy. In this incipient phase of mental derangement he shakes with fear at
the reflection of his image; crouches with apprehension at the reverberating
sound of his own footsteps; trembles at the melancholy sighing of the wind
through a neighboring copse; turns pale at the echo of his voice; falls back,
aghast with horror, at the recognition of his shadow, mistaking it for a frightful phantom or grim spectral image,
" Fierce as ten furies; terrible as hell."

Yes; and as Mary Harris hurried with feverish haste along those streets
which she first visited in order to be near him whom she was now to see no
more, and mingled amid those scenes which only spoke to her heart of him, she
beheld a mocking spectre forever at her side.
" She hears a voice we cannot hear,
Which says she must not stay;
She sees a hand we cannot see,
Which beckons her away."

This act, then, on which reliance is placed for a conviction—the purchase of
the pistol—is shown to have been induced by one of those wild delusions which
are absolutely conclusive of a disordered intellect. I t is the culmination of the
evidence which her conduct affords while she yet remained at Chicago.
But she came to Washington, stopping a few days at Baltimore. She thought
Burroughs had blackened her reputation, and that the world had turned against
her. She thought to have a lawyer sue him ; and when the question of damages was suggested, she simply said she did not mean that; he was poor, and
she did not want his money, but she wanted to vindicate her honor. Why,
says the prosecution, this is the talk of a rational woman. Certainly, the light
of reason at times blazed up almost as strongly as ever, though, for a poor girl
without means, except what she borrowed of Miss Devlin, to travel a thousand
miles to bring suit against a man, and then refuse his .money, is, in itself, an
evidence of unnatural excitement. But, let us meet this question here and
now, and test it fairly by the rules of science. Let the inquiry embrace all
that can be urged on this point against the defence. You say that she comes
calmly into this court and does not rave in your presence. You say that, at
certain times, when we catch a glimpse of her, she has exercised the attributes
of reason. You have brought a number of witnesses here from a great distance to say that she was not mad in their unobservant presence. All this we
admit and more. We not only admit, but we assert, that there are intervals
during which she is perfectly sane on all subjects.
I again quote Ray :
" It is weli known that many diseases, especially of the class called nervous,
observe a law of periodicity which is not uncommon in the actions of the

156

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

animal economy. One effect of this curious law consists in an intermission of
the outward manifestations of the disease, so complete as to bear the appearance of a perfect cure, and this, in the present state of our knowledge, is all
that we can with certainty say of it."
"There are few cases of mania or melancholy," says Dr. Reid, " where the
light of reason does not now and then shine out between the clouds. In fevers
of the mind, as well as those of the body, there occur frequent intermissions.
But the mere interruption of a disorder is not to be mistaken for its cure or its
nltimate conclusion. *
*
Madmen may show at starts more sense than
ordinary men."
But I do not stop here. I leave the question of lucid intervals, and approach
the periods of the insane paroxysms. Even then the reasoning powers are
often acute and accurate, defying at times the most patient skill to detect any
malady of the mind.
" The insane," says Esquirol, " group and arrange their ideas, carry on a
reasonable conversation, defend their opinions with subtlety and even with a
rigid severity of logic, give very rational explanations, and justify their actions
by highly plausible motives."
Winslow also says :
" Whilst analyzing the incipient symptoms of insanity, as manifested during
the stage of exaltation and excitement, It will not be irrelevant for me to consider an important subject closely connected with the matter under consideration, but, perhaps, more immediately bearing upon a medico-legal point of great
interest to the jurist, as well as to the practical psychologist. I refer to the
subtlety, quickness of apprehension, ready wit, biting sarcasm, great power of
self-control, extreme cunning, and extraordinary shrewdness of the insane, as
well as the wonderful mastery they have occasionally been seen to exercise
over their acknowledged delusions, whilst under the searching analysis of the
ablest and most accomplished advocates of the day."
Of course, the prosecution here is compelled to fly in the face of all this, and
insist that, in order that insanity may be proved to exist at all, it must appear
so plainly that he who runs may read it, and that the wayfaring man, though a
fool, may behold the fact at a single glance. We all remember the testimony of
the renowned Erskine in regard to this question. He once examined a man
in court with a view to the discovery of his mental alienation, and spent the
entire day in propounding questions, to which the unfortunate man, who was
realty insane, returned answers which were perfectly correct and rational.
In this case which we are now trying, Dr. Young, a very excellent physician
and a worthy gentleman, says that he several times visited the prisoner in
jail, and prescribed for her; that his attention was in no wise called to her
mental condition, and that he did not discover any evidences of insanity.
This seems conclusive to the minds of the gentlemen who represent the Government ; but in the light of scientific truth it is-nothing : it vanishes as an imperceptible mote in the atmosphere. What strange delusions haunt the popular
mind on this subject! We forget that the mind is a many-stringed instrument,
and that, while it requires every cord in a healthful state to create a perfect
harmony, yet one may be strained and broken, and still the others when
touched give forth their own unimpaired tones. It is matter of history that
" Tasso composed his most eloquent and impassioned verses during paroxysms
of insanity. Lucretius wrote his immortal poem, De Berum Natura, when
suffering from an attack of mental aberration. Alexander Cruden compiled
his Concordance whilst insane. Some of the ablest articles in Aikin's Biography
were written by a patient in a.lunatic asylum." Sublime inventions have likewise sprung from the labors of disordered intellects, and exquisite statuary has
stood up at their bidding. But in these most painful instances there was somewhere a hidden wound which would not heal, which bled at the touch. When
it gaped afresh the whole instrument wailed forth in melancholy madness, and
the stricken beings were irresponsible for their acts in the sight of God and man.
And now, gentlemen, as we approach the final and tragical scene where the

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

157

disasters of this girl's life culminated in the death of Burroughs, let us pause a
moment at Baltimore. Mrs. Fleming was called for the Government, and yet
all will admit that her evidence powerfully supports the defence. We see the
defendant fitful, nervous, and wavering ; as the witness says, not natural. At
times she sinks in long and gloomy spells of abstracted silence. She gazes
steadily on space and distance, all unconscious of surrounding objects. She
breaks suddenly from these dismal reveries, sometimes in a ghostly and exalted glee.
" Moody madness,
Laughing loud, amidst severest woe."

At other times she starts up singing in plaintive strains, the broken fragments
of some melancholy song, which tells of disappointed love. When the witness
heard her murmuring " I loved him, but he doubted me," she heard the universal wail of woman's broken heart and wandering mind. And as the hour drew
nigh for her departure to Washington, she spends a sleepless night poring over
these fond letters of the deceased. The midnight is not more gloomy than her
soul. She is communing with the lost—the lost hopes of other and brighter
days—the lost hours of a radiant joy—the lost hours of love, of happiness, and,
promise.. She is amidst the tombs, and the demon, memory, absorbs and binds
her captive. She takes no note of time. The witness calls her and finds her
still buried in her thoughts. She starts in a hurry with a return ticket in order
to go back to Baltimore that evening. Thus this lovely being came here, and
in this mood of mind she went to the Treasury building. No wonder when she
first reached there that the lady, whom the prosecution introduced, noticed &
light in her eyes which alarmed her.
Up to this point, where are the indications or expressions of malice toward
the deceased? Where is the evidence that she premeditated murder? The
pistol itself is scarcely calculated to take life, and it has been shown that she
obtained it under the influence of an insane delusion. She enquired for Burroughs ; she wanted to see him. Was this with a desire to kill ? In the instant
that he fell by her hand she implored God on her knees to spare him. Does
the murderer beseech Divkuty to spare his victim ? She offered her life for his
if he could be saved. Is this the conduct of one who lies in wait and assassinates
in cold blood? As his life was ebbing away, she shrieked " Oh! God, I loved
him better than my own soul." Is this the language of one who, in the exercise
of reason, has smitten to death an object of hate and revenge I Eecall that
awful scene which was delineated before you by the Hon. Secretary of the
Treasury, the force and terror of which even he declared, he could not properly
describe. The rigid features, the white and ghastly face, the blazing and tearless eye, the rapid, and at times, incoherent speech, imprinted upon his mind for
the first time in his life, the dreadful reality of absolute despair. He rendered
a verdict in favor of her innocence, when, with the instincts of the kind gentleman, he took Mrs. McOullough the next morning to visit her in prison. He had
witnessed her state and condition, and judged the case correctly. There was
neither premeditation, malice, nor design. She was incapable of either. It was
the insane paroxysm to which we have already seen her subjected. We have
the medical testimony which I shall directly apply, but I will first support my
position from the books.
Foder6, as quoted by Ray, uses this striking language:
" The mania, which is accompanied by fury, is very often periodical; that is
1
a ? if granting an occasional truce to the patient, it appears only at certain
epochs, between which he enjoys all his reason, and seems to conduct and judge
\n all respects, like other men, if we except in regard to certain ideas the thought
of which may, at any time, oecasion a fresh paroxysm."
Who ever possessed a more painful train of ideas than Mary Harris ; and if
the mere thought of them might, at any moment, unsettle her reason, how shall
we describe the effect of the actual presence of Burroughs ? For a year and
more the memory of her wrongs at his hands had pressed like a hot iron on her
brain, her health was broken, she was pursued by a delusion, and shook like

158

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

an aspen in the wind; her nights were bereft of repose, and to her perturbed
spirit day brought no rest or cheering. And thus the feverish, drifting wreck
of her former self, she met him. Mental philosophers have declared, the result.
I t is at such a time that the beautiful language of his Honor's charge is applicable. Phrenzy mounts up by the side of reason, seizes it, and for the time
being takes it prisoner.
Dr. Combe, one of the ablest thinkers on this subject, also says :
" But, however, calm and rational the patient may appear to be, during the
lucid intervals, as they are called, and while enjoying the quietude of domestic
society, or the limited range of a well regulated asylum, it must never be supposed tbat he is in as perfect possession of his senses as if he had never been
ill. In ordinary circumstances and under ordinary excitement, his perceptions
may be accurate and his judgment perfectly sound ; but a degree of irritability
of brain remains behind, which renders him unable to withstand any unusual
emotion, any sudden provocation, or any unexpected and pressing emergency."
We only claim for this unfortunate defendant the demonstrations of science.
We only ask that what universal experience has found true of others may be
found true of her. She was very frail in mind and body, and " unable to withstand any unusual emotion, any sudden provocation, or any unexpected and
pressing emergency." There was a " cause tbat hurt her brain," and the appearance of the deceased revived it in all its bitterness and power. The flash
of the lightning is not more instantaneous and irresistible than was the awful
impulse which ^followed. I t may have been the swift avenging stroke of Nemesis. He may have beheld the spirit of retribution as he took that last, fearful
glance at her unearthly face; but no attribute of reason guided her blow. I t
was the rebound of his own acts, which were conceived in guilt, but which now
returned in madness to torment the inventor. He had laid for her a frightful
train of ideas, all connected with himself. His presence applied the match, and
the explosion hurled him into eternity.
But thus far, gentlemen of the jury, I have dwelt in my own feeble way upon
the condition, language, and conduct of the prisoner, and the application of
standard works of science, in order to reach the conclusion which is maintained
by the defence. I now, however, take one further and higher step, and plant
myself on sworn facts, which you cannot disregard, except in violation of your
oaths as jurors. We placed upon the stand a gentleman of eminent distinction
as a physician of the diseased mind. Dr. Nichols has pursued this branch of
science as a specialty for over twenty-five years, and has been the Superintendent
of the Asylum for the Insane in this District for the past eighteen years. His
reputation is known extensively throughout the country, and I may be permitted to say that he has deeply impressed me as a gentleman of profound intellect, a vigorous and correct thinker, and a most conscientious laborer in the
vineyard of truth. Life, honor, and justice are all safe in his hands. He comes
before you and relieves this case of every difficulty. He lifts a weighty responsibility from your shoulders, and makes your duties light and easy to be discharged. First, he has heard, and had submitted to him for inspection, every
word of testimony in this cause to which you yourselves have listened. Secondly, he has visited the defendant in prison as often as he conceived necessary,
to enable him to form a correct opinion of her condition. His means of information, therefore, embrace every source. He meets fully and completely the requirements of medical jurisprudence as an expert. No man ever stood up in a
court of justice more amply qualified to give an opinion. And in view of this
girl's history and early life, in view of the mental afflictions which overwhelmed
her, in view of the physical disease which preyed upon her system, and in view
of all the facts which her unhappy case presents to his analytical, discriminating, and scientific mind, he declares to you, as the result of his careful deliberations, that she has suffered from paroxysms of insanity, and that the act of
homicide on the 30th of January arose from an insane impulse, and not from
motives of hate or revenge—in his own language, " that this theory is more in
harmony with the truth than the other:"
The District Attorney. He did not say that.

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

159

Mr. Voorhees. He did say it; and said it even in stronger language, I believe,
than I have used, as the official record will show.
[The evidence of Dr. Nichols on this point was here read, and found to be as
stated by the speaker.—Reporter.']
Mr Voorhees. I knew that I was correct. Here, then, is the whole defence
established by the highest evidence known to the law. The opinion of an expert is a fact in the ease. No other witness can give any opinion at all. Dr.
Nichols, therefore, proves as a fact that, from moral and physical causes combined, the defendant has labored under paroxysmal insanity, and that the act
for which she is now on trial was committed during a paroxysm, and under an
insane impulse. You have no legal right to find a verdict contrary to the testimony of Dr. Nichols, unless he is unworthy of belief, or has been successfully
contradicted by other competent witnesses, whose opinions are entitled to
greater weight than you attach to his. On this proposition I rest securely.
And on the uncontradicted statement of this scientific witness I risk the life of
the prisoner. He is the Saint Peter of my faith, and on this rock I build the
defence; and neither the power of the public prosecution nor the gates of private malice shall prevail against it.
But we are met at this point with a proposition by the prosecution which I
undertake to say is without a parallel in the courts of any country which has
been blessed with the light of civilization. Utterly borne down and crushed
by the evidence of Dr.^Nichols, the gentlemen who represent the Government
boldly and without a* blush declare that the opinions of men who, like him,
have given their lives to the study of the mind in all its various and mysterious
phases, are less reliable in the discovery of insanity than the opinions of those
who have bestowed no particular attention on this great and difficult subject.
The cry of "mad doctors " has been raised, and we heard an appeal against
them in favor of what were styled "common sense doctors." Gentlemen,
I feel humiliated that I have listened to such language from such a source. Is
there such an unappeaseable rage to take the poor life of this prisoner that in
order to do it these distinguished gentlemen are willing to resort to the lowest
and most pernicious arts of the profession ? Do they propose to deride the
disciples of learning, the devotees of science ? Will they stand up here in the
noonday of human progress and enter the lists as the avowed champions of
ignorance? Who are the "mad doctors" of the world at whom this peristent
and systematic sneer is levelled? They are those who have made the subject
of insanity a specialty, who have given their days and nights to incessant and
laborious thought, who have struggled with painful toil to alleviate the direst
woes of their fellow men, to cure those wounds which' the lash of misfortune
inflicts, and to pluck from the diseased mind its rooted sorrows. And is it
found necessary to stamp such characters with odium in order to convict Mary
Harris ? Shall we pluck from the scientific heavens their brightest and boldest
luminaries, and accept darkness, gloom, and mist again ? Shall we strike down
that blazing galaxy of genius, toil, and progress, where the names of Winslow,
Esquirol, Ray, Gall, Spurzheim, Rush, Combe, Prichard, Ellis, Hoffbauer, with
others of the shining host, are burning as stars on the front of the sky; and
into whose glorious companionship we anticipate but a few years by introducing
now the name of Dr. Nichols himself? These are they against whom the
prosecutors invoke the aid of ignorance and prejudice. They have certainly
mistaken the age in which they live. The District Attorney is nearly two
centuries in the rear of the still advancing column of human improvement.
There was a period in the world's history when this assault on men of science
would have relaxed the dull features of stupidity into a smile and caused blind
superstition to nod its ugly head with approval. There was a time when darkness rested upon the face of the waters in the scientific world, when the voice
of learning had not yet brought order out of chaos, when courts of justice were
nurseries of bigotry, when mental derangement was judicially interpreted as
the possession of a demon, and the sufferer declared to be in familiar com
munion T/ith the Prince of Evil. At such a time as this the District Attorney

160

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

could have charged upon " mad doctors " amidst acclamations. Could he have
found an enlightened man of science during such a period he could doubtless
have had him hung as a sorcerer or magician, along with the party whom he
declared to be insane. And even now, to-day, wherever there is a cavern in
which the owls and bats of ignorance, superstition, and gangrened prejudice yet
inhabit, where the rays of liberal enlightenment have not yet penetrated, and
where no beautiful thing has ever grown as a sign of progress, there his voice,
going forth from this court-room, in denunciation of the growth, the achievements, the accumulated treasures of ages, will be hailed as if clothed with the
authority of a heathen oracle in the days of heathen supremacy. Yes, in
order to ask for a conviction at your hands, he is compelled to repudiate the
products of civilization, recede into the darkness of the past, and from the
gloomy fortresses of barbarism shower his missiles on the head of this most
unfortunate being. When Paul explained the mysteries of the redemption, the
barbarian official of Eome cried out—"much learning hath made thee mad."
Dr. Nichols pours a flood of light upon the issue before this court, and the law
officer of the Government says: " Thou art a mad doctor." It is no part of my
purpose to give offence, but in the name of bright-eyed truth, in the name of
immortal science, in the name of the high, advanced banners of civilization, in
the name of the stalwart, conquering spirit of gigantic progress, in the name of
the greatest benefactors of suffering and diseased humanity, in the name of the
liberal, humane, and learned profession of which I am an humble member, and
in the name of an American court of justice, I protest against this attempt to
break down and trample under foot the wisdom, the experience, and the labor
of ages, and to destroy, by an unworthy appeal to the basest prejudices of
mankind, those safeguards which the proudest intellects of the earth have
erected around such victims of misfortune as this young prisoner.
But let us see how the prosecution, after all, has fared in the issue which it
attempted to make between Dr. Nichols and those members of the medical profession who have been introduced as witnesses, under the novel title of "common-sense doctors." Upon a presentation of the case, detailing the evidence
with wonderful fidelity and accuracy, every physician, without a single exception, who was placed upon the stand by the Government, concurred instantly
and unreservedly with Dr. Nichols. Dr. May, Dr. Miller, Dr. Johnson, Dr.
Howard—all very eminent, and of long experience in their profession, standing
in the very front ranks—swear without hesitation that, in their opinions., the
defendant was subject to paroxysmal insanity, and that the presence of Burroughs developed a maniacal impulse, over which she had no control, and before
which he fell. Will it be* said that Mr. Bradley did not submit a fair statement
of facts to these medical gentlemen ? You shall judge of that. Would he fabricate a case on which to obtain their opinions ? The District Attorney and
Mr. Wilson certainly do not mean such an imputation. Can a man at his time
in life, at the head of his profession, eminent in it before some of us were born,
beloved and respected by all; can he afford to attempt to practise a fraud upon
you in your presence, when you have all the means of detecting it ? No. He
submitted the whole case, including his own accurate and most intelligent observations of her wretched condition in prison—a recital so vivid and eloquent
in its faithful simplicity that thoughts of it swell the heart with emotion, and
banish from our minds all idea of guilt in the conduct of the prisoner.
Let us, then, sum up the result of the medical testimony. Five eminent physicians, with Dr. Nichols at their head, in this branch of their profession, establish the irresponsibility of the defendant. Four of them were called,by the
Government to establish the contrary. Not one has given it as his opinion that
she was sane at the time of the' homicide. There is absolutely no conflict of
evidence on the point, and hence we hold that we have brought ourselves
within the ruling of the Court. The Court has charged you that the burden of
this issue is upon us; that it is not enough for us to raise a doubt in your minds
whether she was sane or not, but that we must establish her insanity by the
weight of evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Favorable as this con-

TEIAL OP MART HARRIS.

161

struction of the law is to the prosecution, vet it can avail nothing in behalf of
a conviction, for not merely the weight of the evidence, but all, every particle
of the evidence touching the question of insanity, is with the defence. The
rosecution stands destitute and naked, without a shadow of support. I chalmge the records of the courts of this or any other country to show a more perfect and conclusive defence, or a more powerless and utterly defeated prosecution. We hear much said in regard to the defence of insanity. Many speak
of it as a plea manufactured by counsel. It is, however, in one vital respect,
like all others—it must be supported by proof or it falls to the ground. Have
we manufactured the positive and direct testimony of every medical witness
introduced on both sides ? Is this our handiwork ? I submit to you and to the
candid judgment of the country, that if Mary Harris can be convicted under
this evidence, if Dr. Nichols can be broken down in this court, not by contradiction, but by declamatory appeals to prejudice, and if, finally, the unbroken
chain of scientific testimony can be put aside as naught, then the great and
settled principles of medical jurisprudence are a delusion and a snare, and the
infirmities of the intellect occasioned by misfortune constitute no defence for
violent and irrational conduct.
And why, without one solitary witness to support their theory of the case, do
the prosecutors so hunger and thirst for the conviction of this most desolate and
bereaved of sorrowing mortals ? Why do they clamor so fiercely against the
barriers of the law and of the evidence which encompass her about, in order to
drag that sick and fragile body to a miserable death ? Is it punishment they
seek ? She has suffered more already than the king of terrors in his most
frightful form can inflict. If she had been broken on the wheel, her limbs disjointed, and her flesh torn in piecemeal by the most fiendish skill of the executioner, her tortures would have been merciful compared to the racking which
sunders into fragments the immortal mind. There is no arrow in death's full
quiver that can give this young breast a new sensation of agony. She has
sounded all the depths and shoals of misery and pain. She has lived in

E

" A whirling gulf of phantasy and flame."

Restore her by your verdict to the soothing influence of friends, of home. Let
her go and lay her aching head on the maternal bosom of that Church which
for eighteen centuries has tenderly ministered to her children in distress. Let
her go and seek, in the love and mercy of the Father of us all, consolation for
the cruelty and inhumanity of man.
But it is claimed that a conviction must be had for the sake of example. You
have been told that the people of the District of Columbia demand it. I would
not bring such an argument into court, but when here I will meet it. If it be
true that you desire examples for the correction of vice and the preservation of
morality, I pray you not to commence with the humblest, the feeblest, and the
most helpless. But I deny that the condemnation of the defendant is demanded
by the people of this capital. Who are they who ask her blood at your hands ?
I know this people, and to some extent I think I may speak for them. I have
been the recipient of their constant kindness while in their midst, and as a
representative in Congress I have, in return, dealt with them in a spirit of liberality whenever I have known their wishes. You were told that the defendant came here from a distance—that the States were pouring their criminals in
upon you, and therefore she must suffer as a warning to others. Such a statement is unjust to your people. You want justice, and justice alone, administered upon all: and who believes that this girl's life is required as an offering
upon the altar of public justice? I repel this imputation upon the intelligence
and humanity of this kind and hospitable District. When you are discharged
from your protracted confinement and return to your homes, as you will in a
few hours, ask those whom you meet there, whether they desired you to cut the
feeble thread of this girl's life by your verdict. I will abide by their answer.
To no one has she appeared as the criminal, save to those who conduct and inspire the prosecution. To all others in your midst she has presented the sad
11

im

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.
:

spectacle > of calamity and misery. Her purity, her gentleness, her guileless
truth, shining out in every word and act, have won to her side in this dark
hour your olfct, your best,"and most honored citizens Her prison abode has
been brightened by the presence of the noblest and purest of her own sex, and
delicate flowers from the loftiest station in the world have mingled their odors
with thei breath of her captivity.* Men venerable in years, and strong in their
convictions of the principles of immutable right, have been drawn to her assistance by an instinctive obedience to the voice of God, commanding them to succor the weak, lift up the fallen, and alleviate the distress of innocence. And
now for Mary Harris, and in the name of Him who showered his blessing on
the merciful, who spoke the parable of the Samaritan, who gave the promise to
those who feed and clothe the stranger in their gates, and who visit the sick
and them that are in prison, I thank the people of the capital. Add one more
obligation for her to remember until the grave opens to hide her from the world.
It is in your hands to grant. The law in its grave majesty approves the act.
The evidence with an unbroken voice demands it. Your own hearts press forward to the discharge of a most gracious duty. The. hour is almost at hand
for its performance. Unlock the door of her prison, and bid her bathe her
throbbing brow once more in the healing air of liberty. Let your verdict be
the champion of law, of morality, of science. Let it vindicate civilization and
humanity, justice and mercy.
Appealing to the Searcher of all hearts, to that omnipresent eye which beholds every secret thought, for the integrity of my motives in the conduct of
this cause, and for the sincerity of my belief in the principles which I have announced, I now, with unwavering confidence in the triumph of innocence, surrender all into your hands
REMARKS OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY CARRINGTON.

Mr CARRINGTON said:

May it please the Court, and you gentlemen of the jury, I congratulate you
that we are now rapidly approaching the termination of this long, tedious, and
painful investigation ; and permit meVjust 'here, as the law representative of
the Government and of this community, to express my high appreciation of the
kind, patient, courteous, and respectful attention which you have given to the
evidence, the instructions of the Court, and the argument of counsel. My
voice is familiar to you, gentlemen of the jury, and I cannot hope to entertain
you. I am sure, however, that not only from respect to my official position,
but in consequence of the personal friendship and esteem which I flatter myself
you all have for me, that you will listen attentively to every word I utter
and every sentiment I express. I think that words of admonition are
unnecessary. It is quite obvious that you have determined to discharge your
high and solemn duty conscientiously. I shall not again remind you of the
searching examination to which you have been subjected by the judge, and to
the oath which you have taken to decide this case as every other—according to
the law and the evidence.
Gentlemen of the jury, you see before you on trial a woman. It is a case
somewhat unprecedented in the history of this tribunal. I plead the cause of
woman. Go to yonder churchyard. See that mother weeping over the honored
rave of her only boy. He has fallen in his country's cause. Who is she?
Tobody, in comparison with Mary Harris, the heroine of the day. See that
wife diffusing life, light, joy, and hope around the family circle—the idol of a
husband's heart and the guardian angel of her children. Her little curlyheaded girl is kneeling by her side, and repeating her evening or morning
prayer. Rise from your knees, my pretty child ; you are wrong. When your
little heart is wrung> don't go, as your hymn-book says, and tell Jesus. Arm

f

* I t may not be improper to state t h a t Mr. Voorhees here aJludes to a beautiful bouquet sent to
the prisoner by Mrs Lincoln, before the White House had been darkened by murder, the centro
flower of which signified, in botanical language, " T r u s t in me."—Reporter.

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

163

ourself with a deadly weapon, and avenge your own wrongs with the red

and of violence
Mary Harris, the model
female excellence,
Iheld up before theand of crime. admiration and imitation ofofour mothers, wives,
public for the
arid daughters, has said that the ladies of Chicago carry deadly weapons and
avenge private wrongs, whether real or imaginary, by private means, and we
interid to introduce this fashion into the city of Washington. Permit me here
to say, that if the voice of woman could be heard—gentle, lovely, virtuous
woman—she would denounce this slander of Mary Harris and the Devlins as an
insult to every honest and virtuous lady in the land. I yield to no living man
in admiration for true female character. I have known the inexpressible
tenderness of a wife's, a sister's, and a mother's love. You all have. We each
haVe :Seen the noblest exhibition of true female character during the unhappy
strife which has existed in our country for the last four years. Did you ever
go to yonder hospital ? See that young man. He is pale, attenuated, and
emaciated. He has received some terrible wound, while fighting in his
country's cause. He is far away from family and friends. The agents of the
Government are doing all that humanity and duty can suggest for his comfort
arid relief, but he is not satisfied. No kind mother stands by his bedside to cool the
fevered brow. But hark ! He hears woman's gentle voice, perhaps one which
he has never heard before, but it is woman's ^oice. It falls upon his ear like
the name of home in some distant land, or rain-drops in a thirsty desert. She
administers to his wants, and whispers words of comfort and of consolation.
He"revives; he shoulders his musket and strikes another blow for his Government and his flag. Perhaps his last hour has come. Ever faithful, gentle
woman, points him to a Saviour's dying love; arid as the world recedes from his
viewyliker-a ..true and valiant soldier of the cross, he triumphs over death and
the grave. When tlie noble daughters of America were kneeling by the bedside
of the dying soldier, where was Mary Harris ? That was a time when an appeal
was made to every woman who had a heart to love her country and her race.
Where then was Mary Harris, the model of female excellence ? Arming herself
With this instrument of death, practicing the use of deadly weapons, going in
company with one of the Devlins to Quincy street to a house of assignation
without a protector, arid at last imbruing her hands in the blood of one who
had drawn his sword in his country's cause; and you are called upon to approve,
justify, and applaud this cruel and bloody deed. Are we Christians? Do we
live in a Christian age, a Christian community, and do we worship the Prince
of Peace as the only true and living God ? Gentlemen of the jury, have you
considered the awful responsibility that rests upon you. I have, and I pray
that God may give me grace to discharge my duty.
Behold, here, ladies, gentlemen, and little boys and girls. You are educating
public sentiment. The judge upon the bench, the district attorney, and the
jurors, should not only be men of common sense and of sterling integrity, but of
the purest morality. Will you by your verdict say to these little boys and
girls, that a woman who arms herself with a deadly weapon, and imbrues her
hands in her brother's blood, and commits murder in vindication of female
virtue which has never been injured, is a model for their imitation ? 0 tempora!
0 mores! I appeal to an honest jury of my country, (and the responsibility
rests upon you,) to beware how they record a verdict so hostile to the cause of
justice and religion, and which will be borne by the telegraphic wires to all
sections of the country, and which will be read by the present and succeeding
generations. Oh, gentlemen of the jury, let us rebuke this spirit, and vindicate
the sacred cause of religion and of lawAppeais have been made to your sympathies; and that is all, as I will show.
Sympathy I sympathy! sympathy! and nothing else, and with unusual zeal and
eloquence^ > Good Heaven! Behold what an array of counsel. In Joseph H.
Bradley you behold the Ajax: Telemon of the defence. In my friend William
Y. Fendall you behold the young, the ardent, the amorous Tydides, not casting
hisjayelin at the goddess of love as she flies through the air on her way to
heaven, but, with his armor off, kneeling at her feet. [Laughter.] In Judge

164

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

Mason you behold the sweetly speaking Nestor of the Grecian camp. [Laughter.]
In Judge Hughes the wise, the prudent, the cautious Ulysses. [Renewed
laughter.] In the Hon. Daniel W. Voorhees you behold the fierce, implacable,
irresistible Achilles, [laughter,] and even o]d Agamemnon (pointing to the
judge on the bench) himself, can never look at the gentle sufferer without a
sigh expressive of his sympathy; and there sits the lovely Helen, bathed in
tears, surrounded by her female attendants, urging on these sturdy warriors to
deeds of superhuman valor. Here I stand, aided only by my efficient and
^accomplished assistant.
Gentlemen of the jury, am I not an object of commiseration ? I saw some of
you crying, but I think you cried in the wrong place. Were you concerned for
me? No! no! gentlemen, don't be alarmed. Courage, gentlemen! I stand
clothed in celestial armor, behind the broad aegis of the law, and their javelins
fall harmless at my feet. I hold up the law, and thus I roll back the tide of
sympathy that has been pouring into the jury box. I remind you of your solemn oaths, and then you dry your tears, and nerve yourselves to the discharge
of your stern and solemn duty.
Now, gentlemen, as my friend, Mr. Wilson, said, what do we care for Mary
Harris ? So far as she is concerned, you may put her in a bandbox and send her
home [laughter]—not to the Devlins, however—God forbid!—[renewed laughter]—-but to her father; and I will tell you, before taking my seat, how it can be
done without doing violence to any; man's conscience.
It is the principle, the great principle for which I contend, that the majesty of
the law must and shall be vindicated. I said in my opening address, gentlemen
of the jury, and I now repeat, that we must be cruel only to be kind. We must
punish the guilty to protect the innocent. Obedience to law is the safeguard of
us all. Loyalty to law and government is obedience to God. Crime must be punished, because God commands it. You are the ministers of his justice upon earth.
Having made these remarks, gentlemen, I assume that you will hear the argument which I intend to present to you; and I undertake to say, if there is any
little boy or girl here who will give me his or her attention, I will satisfy him or
her that this jury are bound to convict the prisoner at the bar, unless they close
their eyes to the evidence, and disregard the opinions of the doctors, and trample under foot the law as enunciated by the Court. If you wish to shield yourselves behind the opinions of the doctors I have no objection ; but I have no
idea that a doctor shall swear to one state of facts, and see an honest and intelligent jury of my country make themselves ridiculous before the whole world
by swearing to a different state of facts, or rendering a verdict inconsistent with
the opinion expressed by these scientific gentlemen, who have perhaps said
enough to mislead the jury> if what they have stated be not properly explained
by the law officer of the Government. They were themselves exceedingly cautious not to commit the blunder which you are invited fco perpetuate upon the
records of this court. What doctor has sworn that this woman was so insane
at the time the homicide was committed as to render her irresponsible in law for
her conduct ? None. None of them would dare to do it. He could not do it, in
my judgment, without committing the crime of perjury, and I will prove it. If
this jury acquit this woman upon the ground of insanity, you swear to a fact,
and you perpetuate upon the records of this court a fact, which will not only
make you ridiculous, but which is utterly inconsistent not only with the evidence, but with the opinion of every physician who has been examined within
your hearing. But permit me, gentlemen of the jury, to proceed more logically
to consider the case at bar.
There are four questions, gentlemen of the jury, as I stated to you in my
opening address: 1st. Was the homicide charged in the indictment committed
within the jurisdiction of this court? 2d. Was it committed by the prisoner at
the bar? 3d. If it was, is it a case of excusable homicide, upon the ground of
insanity, or for any other reason? 4th. If not excusable homicide, is it murder
or is it manslaughter ?
I propose briefly to discuss these questions seriatim. I will consider the first

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

165

two propositions, gentlemen of the jury, together ; and in doing so I have only
briefly to recapitulate the evidence.
Gentlemen of the jury, the curtain rises. The scene is laid at a boarding-house
in the city of Chicago. The heroine of the bloody tragedy makes her appearance—
a good, sprightly, black-haired girl. She was without either father or mother
at that time. It is then she forms the acquaintance of Louisa Devlin, another
beautiful, charming, and accomplished lady. Louisa Devlin invites her to go
to her millinery establishment. Prompted by an " insane impulse " she accepts
the invitation. [Laughter.] What sort of a millinery establishment was it?
I wanted to find out, and in the most courteous and respectful manner, for no
one is more courteous to a lady than myself, I asked her how many young
ladies she had in her employment. She threw herself back on her dignity and
said, " That is my business, and none of yours." There is Mary Harris in a
millinery establishment, the character of which the proprietress is ashamed to
describe.
Judge Hughes. May it please your Honor, I dislike to interrupt counsel, but
where, in a closing argument, the evidence is clearly misstated, an interruption
is not only tolerable, but it is the duty of counsel, whose client is affected
thereby, to so interrupt. There is no evidence here whatever as to the character
of Miss Devlin's house. It is true the District Attorney did ask her how many
persons she employed in her house, and she replied, " That is my business."
An appeal was made to the Court, and the Court directed her to answer the
question, but a discussion springing up at the time, the question was lost sight
of, and no answer was given.
The District Attorney.
May it please your Honor, I did not interrupt counsel in their argument, and I hope they will not in mine. If I misstate the evidence, which your Honor knows I will not do intentionally, I have no doubt
you, sir, will correct me.
The Court. A counsel in the closing argument, knowing that there is no one
to come after him, ought to studiously keep himself within the prescribed limits,
unless he wants to be interrupted at every stage. He ought not to pervert or
misstate the evidence—I do not mean tc say that you have done so in this
case—but .1 do think that there is nothing in the refusal of Miss Devlin to
answer that question to justify the suspicions which have been inferred by
the counsel.
The District Attorney. , Is that a question of law, your Honor ?
The Court, (with emphasis.) It is a question of law, sir.
The District Attorney. Gentlemen, after the attack which has been made
upon Dr. Burroughs—'
The Court, (very earnestly.) You shall not retaliate ujfon Miss Devlin for
an attack upon Dr. Burroughs. You must confine yourself to the legitimate
application of your remarks to the evidence of the Misses Devlin. I t is an abuse
01 your position to make such an attack as that upon such grounds.
,, The District Attorney. What had I said, may it please your Honor ?
The Court. You know, sir.
The District Attorney. You had not heard, sir, for I had not completed the
sentence. What t intended to say was this : That after the attack which had
been made upon Dr. Burroughs by the learned counsel, had I not a right (they
justifying that attack upon the testimony of the Misses Devlin) to attack her
testimony.
The Court. You shall not retaliate upon the Misses Devlin. You have a
perfect right to attack the Miss Devlin's testimony as to its inconsistency, either
with itself or with the other evidence, but to launch out in such a latitude of
inference as that you were going upon, in regard to the character of the house
of the Misses Devlin, whose reputation has not been attacked, either for truth or
in any other respect, I cannot permit it in a closing argument.
The District Attorney. Yoiwwill bear in mind, gentlemen of the jury, that I
did not interrupt the learned Counsel. *5fou heard the attack upon Dr. Bur-

166

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS,

roughs, of which I shall have something to say hereafter. You know I must
not dare to lay my fingers on the Misses Devlin.
The Court. The Court did not say so. I will not permit you to misrepresent
the Court or the witnesses. The Court has given you express permission to
comment upon all the evidence given by the Misses Devlin, and compare it
with itself and the other evidence in the case, and sift it to your heart's content; but upon the mere refusal of one of those ladies to tell you how many
clerks she had in her place of business, the Court will not permit you to launch
out in the great latitude of inference you were going upon.
The District Attorney. With the permission of the Court, and you, gentlemen
of the jury, I will say that I do not think any witness contradicted Dr. Burroughs. They justify their attack upon him from inferences drawn from what
he said. I thought I had the same privilege, but I bow with due deference to
the decision of the Court. In this case, as in every other, I intend to discharge
my duty in the fear of God, and without the fear of man. No man can say
with truth that I was ever seen to cower or to" falter in the discharge of my
official duty.
The Court. Well, you shall not go on in that way. The Court will not permit a controversy between you and it to be decided by this jury. You shall
not utter another syllable on that subject. I will put you in the hands of the
Marshal if you do.
Mr. Wilson, Assistant District Attorney, during these interruptions in the
course of Mr. Carrington's argument, advised him to take his seat. Mr. Carrington said, " No, I will complete my argument."
Mr. Carrington. Again I say, and I will endeavor to argue under the instructions of the Court.
The Court. Well, proceed.
The District Attorney. I will proceed.
The Court. In order.
The District Attorney. I was about to argue as to the inference to be drawn
from the testimony of the woman Devlin, her manner, and her answer to the
question which I put, which I thought was competent, but I understand his
Honor to say I was wrong in that opinion.
Judge Hughes. I hope a suggestion from me may assist the District Attorney in the discharge of his duty here. I have no disposition to embarrass him
in his,argument, and I am sure that he must be able .to perceive the awkwardness that results from keeping up a controversy of this sort, and I trust he will
confine himself to the evidence, and relieve me of the necessity of any further
interruption. As to attacks upon Dr. Burroughs, they were legitimate in the
case, and I expect him to make such a reply to our argument on that point as
may seem proper.
The Court. It was a very unpleasant thing for me, and I was reluctant to
interrupt counsel in the course of argument, and would not have done so in
this case, although I observed the impropriety of it, had' it not been called to
the attention of the Court by the counsel on the other side. This is a case of
the greatest importance, and I am resolved that it shall be conducted orderly
and properly, and especially am determined to see that the counsel for the
United States, who so ably represents the interests of the Government here,
endowed with natural gifts of eloquence and power with the jury, shall not in
a closing speech travel beyond the limits assigned to counsel on these occasions.
Mr. Carrington, leaving this branch of the argument, proceeded with his
remarks.
Gentlemen of the jury: Before proceeding to discuss the question of insanity,
I shall be pardoned, I trust, for saying a few words in reference to the brother
of the deceased. Permit me, gentlemen, to ask you one question: Suppose
that one of our ministers—such a man, for instance, as Dr. Gurley, Dr. Samson,
Dr. Gillette, or Father Maguire, men to whom we have been in the habit of
looking up, not only as our spiritual Jathers5< but as our teachers and exem-

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

167

lars—should go to Chicago as a witness, and a woman, who admitted she had
een to an assignation house without a protector, (no matter for what purpose,)
should be put upon the stand to assail the reputation of such minister for veracity—what would you think of it ? You know, and we all know, what would
be your opinion. Now, the Rev. John C. Burroughs stands in Chicago just as
either of these eminent gentlemen to whom I referred stands in Washington.
Mr. Bradley. Who testified to that ?
Mr. Carrington, (addressing the Court.) Have I not a right, your Honor, in
argument, when the gentlemen have departed from the evidence, to—
The Court. The legal presumption is that his character is good.
Mr. Bradley. Go on; it won't hurt us.
Mr. Carrington. I t may not hurt them, gentlemen of the jury. They seem
to think there is a strong prejudice against the whole Burroughs family, judging from what Mr. Voorhees said of the popular clamor and the feeling in the
community against Dr.-Burroughs, and from what Judge Hughes said on the
same subject. I think they are mistaken. If this jury have any prejudice,
which I do not believe ; but if you have, I will simply say that you have sworn
to decide the case without prejudice; and I intend to show you that you cannot
discredit Dr. Burroughs without branding one of the best men in the community with the crime of perjury, and falsifying the record of the Treasury Department. Who is John C. Burroughs ? He has .told you that he is president
of the University at Chicago. Well, I am one of those men who do not believe
that the office makes the man, but that the mail makes the office. I admit
that there are hypocrites, wolves in sheep's clothing; but it is not so in this
case. It may not be amiss here to say, among other things, in order to show
you the character and position of Dr. J. C. Burroughs, that he was, during the
life of the distinguished orator and statesman, Stephen A. Douglas, one of his
most honored and trusted friends, and the remains of that illustrious man now
rest within the inclosure of the university over which he presides.
Judge Hughes. Dr. Burroughs made a speech against the remains being
placed there.
Mr. Carrington. He has, too, been the friend and co-laborer of our fellowtownsmen, Dr. Samson and Dr. Gillette, and is therefore entitled to your respect
and confidence. If what I now say could be heard in Chicago, the good people
there would say, is it possible that Mr. Carrington has deemed it necessary to
pass an eulogium upon Dr. Burroughs ? It is a presumption. It is not necessary to defend him against such attacks, even when made by Judge Hughes and
the Hon. Daniel W. Voorhees.
Now, what has this estimable man, who holds a commission from our Saviour,
which he has never dishonored, done to induce these unjust assaults ? Why,
gentlemen, the head and front of his offending consists in his offering to advance
money to certain witnesses, that they might thus be enabled to come here and
vindicate by their sworn testimony the character of his murdered brother, a
soldier and a public servant, who died at the post of duty by the assassin's
hand, without a stain upon his honor. Is Dr. Burroughs to be condemned for
this noble, generous, and manly act ? Had he not consented to do it, he could
not have been regarded otherwise than as the wretch he is represented to be.
Had he offered to pay a witness to swear falsely, he would have been guilty of
subornation of perjury; and I, in that case, would have been as prompt and
vehement in his denunciation as any one could be, and would instantly tell you
his testimony was entitled to no weight at your hands. But every honest man,
instead of censuring, must commend the noble zeal he has displayed in his efforts
to remove the stigma which is sought to be cast upon his dead brother's character and name.
Again, gentlemen of the jury, it was said that he offered witnesses three dollars a day. That is not so, in point of fact. I know he said he had a letter
from Dr. Burroughs; but the evidence will show that the witness distinctly
stated that the marshal said, on his own responsibility, that he would get three

168

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

dollars a day—that being the fee allowed witnesses in some of the States. Nothing was said in the letter regarding it.
Mr. Bradley. The witness stated that the marshal said that Dr. Burroughs
had written he would advance any money that was necessary.
Mr. Carrington. He said the marshal might draw on him for expenses. Of
course he did ; and he was right in so saying. He would have reflected discredit
upon himself had he not done so.
Again, gentlemen of the jury, they say that he is contradicted. In what
respect? In regard to his brother being in Washington at the time these
" Greenwood" letters were written and mailed; that he has testified falsely in
regard to these letters. All I have to say is, that if he has, so also has Danenhower, one of the most intelligent and estimable gentlemen in this community.
The records of the Treasury Department are false if the testimony of these gentlemen be false. Danenhower swears, and those records confirm his statement,
that A. J. Burroughs was in the city of Washington on the 10th of September,
and these letters are dated on the 8th and 12th of September, and dropped in
the post office at Chicago. From these facts it is conclusive that Dr. Burroughs
has testified truthfully upon the point.
Mr. Bradley. I do not know whether it is proper to interrupt the counsel,
but I would like to remark, that Dr. Burroughs swore his brother was in Chicago on the 11th of September. He could not, then, have been here on the
10th.
Mr. Carrington. Why not? Is that impossible?
Mr. Bradley
It takes thirty-six hours to get to Chicago.
Mr. Carrington, (continuing.) How is it possible that he could have written
the letter dated on the 8th of September ? and it is obvious that the author of
the one is the author of the other.
Again, gentlemen of the jury, he is charged with endeavoring to keep away
a witness—one Ellen Mills—desired by the defence. Is that so ? What is the
evidence on that point? We do not ask1 any favors, gentlemen of the jury, but
we ask justice. The evidence is, that Dr. Burroughs inquired of the officer
whether this woman could be summoned, or could be relied upon. The officer
replied that she was a woman of bad character, and would not appear as a witness unless she was paid; whereupon Burroughs, like an honest man, declined
to summon her. He, supposing her testimony to be important in the case, wanted to summon her for the United States; but, hearing she was a corrupt woman,
refused to have anything to say or do with her. It is said byvthe gentlemen that
they wanted her here, and that her testimony was very material to the case.
Why didn't they summon her? They had the right, and could have got her
here. Or, if they did not want to bring her here, why did they not have her
deposition taken—a privilege, strange as it may seem, granted to them by act
of Congress, but not granted to us in criminal cases.
Again, they say they did not like his manner. Did you ever, gentlemen, observe a more solemn and impressive scene ? There sat the murderess ; near her
were her friends and companions. There stood the witness ; his heart wrung
with anguish, for his only brother had been murdered ; the natural protector of
his widow and his orphan child. Here, by the table, sat the ablest counsel in
the country, eager to catch at every word he uttered, for the purpose of assailing his testimony.
[Judge Hughes here, by permission of the Court, asked Mr. Carrington to
pause, while he read to him, from the official report, the testimony of Drl Burroughs relative to his interview with the policeman about Ellen Mills.]
Mr. Carrington, resuming, said: Is not that exactly as I have stated it? Dr.
Burroughs consults the officers as to whether he shall summon this woman or
not. lie discovers that she is a corrupt woman, and, like an honest man, he
declines to have anything to do with her. But they say, gentlemen, that this
minister of the Gospel is to be censured, because he did not read a lecture to the
detective and this prostitute, Ellen Mills. What does the Bible tell us to do

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

169

m such cases? l ( Not to cast pearls before swine." Dr. Burroughs observed the
Divine injunction. That seems to be his only fault.
I am aware that there are some persons who have a prejudice to ministers of
the Gospel, and are glad of an opportunity to assail them. And there are some
persons, also, who have a prejudice to members of Congress. I will put a
" hypothetical" case.
Upon one occasion I put an old gentleman upon the stand to prove the bad
character of a witness. He testified that he was a person of very bad character.
What did you ever know or hear of him doing wrong ? Nothing in particular;
but I have seen him, day after day, and night after night, associating with members of Congress and other loose characters. (Laughter.)
Now, this is very improper. I like members of Congress just as well as
otber people, when they behave themselves. I have no prejudice against any
class of my fellow-citizens. You know my sentiments on this subject/ I have
for years been warring against sectional feeling and prejudice of every kind.
But. gentlemen, I understand the object of the assault, and I think you must
perceive it. These gentlemen know they cannot injure Dr. Burroughs in the
estimation of the public, or in your estimation, but they; desire to divert me
from the prosecution of Mary Harris to his defence; to divert your attention
from the murderess to the brother of the deceased; but I am too old a warhorse to be caught in that way. What is the rule of l^iw, gentlemen, on this
Eoint? There are three ways of contradicting a witness. First, by assailing
is reputation for veracity; and why didn't they attempt that? They dared
not do it, for tbe reason that he stood too high. He told them who he was—
where he could be found; and yet not a witness, male or female, with the host
of friends that this beautiful murderess has, could be found to assail his reputation for veracity. The second mode of contradicting a witness is by showing
that he has made different statements at different times in regard to the same
transaction. Was not the statement of Dr. Burroughs clear, consistent, honest?
He would say now what he said yesterday, or would say to-morrow. The third
mode is by proving a different state of facts by another witness. What witness
contradicted him ?
(The District Attorney here turned towards Miss Louisa Devlin, paused for a
moment, and then said:)
Yes, Louisa Devlin! And how does she contradict him ? Why, in regard to
an immaterial fact; and—you will, your Honor, pardon me, for I do not wish
to go against the instructions of the Court—is John C. Burroughs, the honest,
Christian gentleman, to be denounced in court, and is my mouth to be sealed
when they rely upon the testimony of this Louisa Devlin ? Who is ^pouisa
Devlin ? When asked about her business, her color would come and go. By
her own admission, she went to an assignation-house on Quincy street on a
fool's errand.
Mn Bradley. I must interrupt the counsel there. Louisa Devlin never went
to that house.
Mr, Carrington. .lane Devlin did. (Turning to Louisa Devlin,) I wonder if
any man ever called her ducky, [laughter,] his darling, his rosebud, or his sugar
plum. [Renewed laughter.] Do you suppose it would have given her paroxysmal insanity ? [Great laughter.] I have no doubt it would have excited her
very much, for, judging from her looks, she ain't used to it. [Renewed laughter. ] And this is the woman upon whom they rely to contradict the honest,
Christian gentleman ! She is indeed the Iago in this bloody tragedy; for Mr.
Bradley told you, in his opening address, that this was the old story of Othello.
It was hatred and jealousy that urged Mary Harris to the commission of this
atrocious murder; for you remember she told her lawyer that her love had
turned to hatred. And, gentlemen of the jury, it was the desire of money that
prompted Louisa. Devlin to fire the jealousy of this love-sick girl, preparatory
to a suit for a breach of promise of marriage, expecting to share the damages,
and Twill prove it from the evidence before taking my seat; for, notwithstanding the eulogium pronounced upon her, I say that she is a woman without deli-

170

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

cacy, without refinement, and without sensibility, for during this trial she has
sat here giggling while her friend was on trial for her life, as though she were
on a debauch in Quincy street, Chicago, at the house of Ellen Mills.
Mr. Bradley. May it please your Honor, I denounce such an accusation in
the strongest terms that man can. There has not been one word of reproach
cast upon Miss Devlin from the beginning to the end of this trial, and I do say
that no gentleman would use such language towards a woman.
The District Attorney. I shall not be betrayed into any indiscretion, if the
object is to insult me. I have only discharged my duty as in my humble judgment seemed proper. I make the same remark in regard to the attack upon
Dr. Burroughs.
Mr. Bradley. I do not wish to insult you; but I do say the man who denounces this woman without the evidence in the case warranting it trespasses
beyond the license of counsel, and abuses the character of gentleman.
The District Attorney. All I have to say is, that I return the insult; your
conduct has been ungentlemanly.
Mr.'Bradley. You can return the insult as much as you please. I despise
you. Say what you please to the jury, I shall not interrupt you again. Here
is a chip "on my head: come and knock it off. [Laughter. About this time the
Court called the marshal.]
The Court. Mr. Cariington, the Court will not permit you to go on without
expressing a strong condemnation of language of that kind, which it thinks entirely without foundation in the evidence.
Mr. Bradley, (to the Court) Thank you, sir.
The District Attorney. Will your Honor be kind enough to make some remarks of that description in regard to the attack upon Dr. Burroughs ?
The Court. That occasion has passed. I understood the attack upon Dr.
Burroughs to be confined to the character of his evidence, compared with itself,
and compared with the evidence of other witnesses. I thought that it was a
pretty severe investigation, to be sure; but then it was not a mere calling of
names and denunciation, without evidence to support it of some kind, whether
sufficient or not. I do think that this denunciation upon the Misses Devlin's
moral reputation, outside entirely of the evidence in the case, ought not to
have been made, and is deserving of the strongest and severest censure which
the Court can declare. I had hoped, Mr. Carrington, that you would not go
beyond what you knew, and especially in regard to a female witness, who is
here, to all appearances, without a protector.
Mr. Bradley. And who challenges the closest investigation as to her character ; and I speak with the authority of gentlemen of the highest reputation in
this country.
The Court. I do not wish to prejudice the case at all by what I have said,
either one way or the other, and I hope the jury will not so regard it.
The District Attorney. I thought I was entirely justified by the evidence. I
may be wrong, but I think my attack is not half so severe as that made upon
Dr. Burroughs.
The Court. You must not retaliate upon the Misses Devlin.
Mr. Bradley. This witness is introduced unc|er my protection. I am responsible for introducing her as a lady of reputation and character, and I regard
the attack upon her as an attack upon me. I know her from the reputation of
men of the highest character in this country. I refer to Mr. Armstrong, of Baltimore, and to Mr. Shoemaker, of Adams's Express Company, and others.
The District Attorney. I refer to the whole city of Chicago in regard to the
Rev. Dr. Burroughs. When he is denounced, I thought it was my duty to expose properly the testimony of the -Misses Devlin. The Judge thinks I have
gone too far, and so does Mr. Bradley. I will say, gentlemen, that it is not
material to this case whether you believe either the Misses Devlin or Dr. Burroughs, or discard both of them.
Mr. Carrington then proceeded: I was going on briefly to recapitulate the
circumstances of this particular case. Afterwards, gentlemen of the jury,

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

171

you find that she and Miss Devlin, if I recollect the testimony correctly, are
prompted by an "insane impulse," to go about the same time away from the
city of Chicago. The prisoner at the bar, prompted by a sane impulse, (for that
was a very sane idea probably) goes to the city of Baltimore and consults a lawyer in reference to the policy and propriety of bringing a suit for a breach of
promise of ma'rriage. In conversation with that lawyer, she tells him that her
love for Burroughs had turned to hate.
" Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,
Hell has no fury like a woman's scorn/'

Prompted by " hatred." Out of her own mouth do I condemn her. Prompted
not by "insane impulse," but by hatred she comes to the city of Washington to
institute a suit for a breach of promise of marriage. She. does not put her writ
in the hands of the marshal, but she goes in person to the Treasury Department,—let us admit with the writ in one hand and the pistol in the other.
When she arrives there, she inquires for Mr. Burroughs. She is told that there
are two gentlemen there of that name ; and this woman, who it is attempted
to be shown to you was insane, says that she wants to see Mr. Adoniram J.
Burroughs, and examines the register, finds his name, is shown to his room, and
looks in. She does not fire. Was that the best opportunity ? No! Mrs. Woodbridge was, I believe, in a direct line with Burroughs. She might have killed
both. There he is at his desk in the discharge of official duty. Old Mrs. Woodbridge sitting near him. She first sees the person and is prompted to get up and
ask what she desires, and to extend an invitation to her to walk in. But just
then she retires. How far, gentlemen of the jury ? Down to that clock, which
has been explained to you in the testimony, and there takes her stand. How
long does she remain there ? As I said in my opening address, and as appears I
think from the evidence, there was time to hear the ticking of the clock and
observe the movements of the hand. There was time for the' clerks to be discharged, for young Burroughs to make his arrangements for the next day, and
start on his way home in company with a companion. There was time for
passion to subside and reason to resume its sway. There was time for " insane
impulse" to pajss away, and the power of volition to return. He passes by.
She fires at him deliberately. He falls ; she fires a second time, aiming directly
at his head. Then she endeavors to escape, and losing her way feels the heavy
hand of justice upon her. She is arrested. She is cool, calm, collected. She
told the officer that this man had injured her. She wanted revenge, and would
have it at the risk of her life. She showed no emotion until the bleeding, mangled corpse of her murdered victim is brought into her presence. And this is
evidence of insanity. It is evidence, gentlemen of the jury, of sanity. It is
woman's nature speaking/Out. When Lady Macbeth was reproving her husband for his irresolution, she said " I had done the deed, but the gray-haired
Duncan resembled my father as he slept." Proud, cruel, ambitious woman.
Still she was a woman. So, Mary Harris, having accomplished her purpose,
and when she sees before her the bleeding evidence of her guilt, suffers the pangs
of remorse. This is sanity. Can you interpret it to be evidence of insanity ?
ISFow, gentlemen, that is this case, and what do you call it ? Science, as the
learned counsel understands it, calls it " insane impulse." Science, as I understand it, and $s I think you understand it, gentlemen of the jury, calls it murder! .The law as they understand it, calls it " insane impulse;" but the law, as
I understand it, and as the Judge interprets it, as I shall contend, calls it murder. Common sense calls it murder, cruel, revengeful murder, unrelieved by a
single mitigating circumstance, and it is idle to shut our eyes to a stern and
solemn truth.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, if this be science, as they understand it, in my
judgment, it is time that the great portion of us, I include myself among the
number, should be dressed in strait jackets, and locked up in the Insane
Asylum.
Mr. Bradley. I agree.

172

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.
!

Mr. Carrington. If a man or a woman, prompted by revenge, can lie in wait
and commit a deliberate, wilful murder, and science call it " insane impulse,"
of course Mr. Bradley will agree with me when I say, " Dissolve society into
its original elements, raze your churches, your courts of criminal jurisprudence,
close your Bibles, and tell your daughters to learn to be marksmen, and to arm
themselves with a pistol, and the assassin's dagger. When the husband goes
out to work for his daily bread, his wife should stand by his side, with a pistol
in one hand and a bowie-knife in the other, to protect him against the " insane
impulse," of some wicked and revengeful woman, who wishes to gratify her
revenge against him perhaps for some youthful indiscretion.
It is throwing open the doors wide to violence and crime, and I ask, " What
man in the community is safe, if a jury; so far mistake the law as to acquit this
woman upon the ground of " insane impulse?" By such an absurd verdict,
you say to every wicked woman in the city of Washington, kill a man for
revenge if you please, and then take care to tear your hair, cry, and cut up a
few antics, and we will call it insane impulse, and thus we will not only approve, but applaud the act.
Now, gentlemen, I think I understand you. I think I know every man on
that jury. You are anxious to acquit this woman, and this may be creditable to
your hearts. For it may be said to the eternal honor of the American people, that
woman in this court is treated with more consideration than in any other upon
the face of the habitable globe. But I undertake to show that this is a case of
murder, and that this woman is not scientifically insane ; that she is not legally
insane ; that she is not practically insane ; that she is not generally insane;
that she is not periodically insane ; that she is not spasmodically insane ; that
she is not even hypothetically insane ; but that she is as sound to-day as she
was before the murder; and this idea of insane impulse is a modern humbug.
These Western gentlemen, members of Congress, come here to teach us science,
and charge me with relapsing into a state of barbarism. Science, as they understand it, says insanity is that state of the mind that leaves a person all light,
except just when he wants to commit a crime.
They admit that the woman is sane to-day, admit she was sane before tht;
homicide, but claim that she was insane at the precise point o& time she com
mitted it.
Now, what is the rule of law. Having proved the homicide, which I am
bound to prove beyond a reasonable doubt under these circumstances of aggravation which I have detailed to you, what does the Judge say.
[Mr. Carrington here referred to the instruction of the Court regarding the
question of burden of proof.]
Now, is Dr. Burroughs not corroborated ? I appeal to the testimony of
Danenhower; and where is there a more honorable gentleman in the city of
Washington than he is ? I appeal to the records of the Department, to which
I have already adverted. J. C. Burroughs stands before you, gentlemen, not
only uncontradicted, but corroborated. He is an unimpeached—an unimpeachable witness ; illustrating the familiar truth—the highest style of man is the
Christian gentleman.
The learned counsel for the accused have with great art endeavored to place
the counsel for the Government in antagonism to Dr. Nichols and the other
physicians who have been examined here upon this point. But I boldly assert,
if you adopt the opinions of these physicians, you are bound to convict the
prisoner at the bar. Has Dr. Nichols, or any other physician, dared to testify
that this woman, at the time she committed the homicide charged in this indictment, was insane,and so insane as to be irresponsible for her conduct? He has
not done it. He could not do it without eommitting the crime of perjury. Let
him take his place in the jury-box, and, judging from the opinion which he has
expressed as a witness, as an honest man he would render a prompt and decided
verdict of conviction. I should be glad to see him in that jury-box, and relieve
this merciful and kind-hearted jury.
Mr. Bradley. I should be glad to put him there.

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

173

Mr Carrington. Put him there; and, judging from the opinion he has expressed on the witness-stand, as an honest juror he would render a verdict of
guilty.
He has testified most cautiously. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, as you
value the cause of truth, of justice, and of public security, to understand the
opinion before you endeavor to shirk your responsibility, by shielding yourselves behind it. I shall warn you, for if you render a verdict of acquittal, on
the ground of insanity, it will be inconsistent with the opinion expressed by
each and all of these scientific gentlemen; and you will render yourselves
ridiculous, and the intelligent portion of the community will say, either that
you do not understand your duty, or that it was not explained to you properly
by the law officer of the Government. I now wash my hands of all responsibility ; an&j if you will give me your attention, I will show you so clearly, that
he who runs may read, that this woman was not insane, within the legal acceptation of the term, and to acquit her upon the ground of insanity would be in
clear opposition both to the law as expounded by the Court, to the testimony
of the witnesses, and to the opinions expressed by the physicians. Dr. Nichols
expressed an opinion upon a purely hypothetical case ; not upon the case at bar.
He did not hear the whole evidence-in-chief offered by the prosecution, or any
of the rebutting evidence offered by us, and he assumed, as proved from the evidence, that he did not hear, facts which are NOT proved.
The Court. Dr. Nichols heard all the evidence. He did not speak from a
hypothetical case.
Mr. Carrington. He did not hear the testimony of Mr. Everett, one of the
most important witnesses examined-in-chief on the part of the prosecution, and
he did not hear any of the rebutting evidence. And, in addition to this, he did
not, even upon the evidence he did hear, express the opinion that this woman,
at the time the homicide was committed, was so insane as to be irresponsible for
her conduct. HQW could he have expressed such an opinion. Your Honor
should have stopped him if he had, for it would have been allowing the physician to transfer himself from the witness-stand to the jury-box. No! The responsibility is upon you, gentlemen of the jury, and you cannot as honest men
avoid it. I intend to discharge my duty, and I call upon you to discharge
yours. I shall not shield myself behind the opinion of any one, and I charge
you, as honest men, not to avoid your duty, by endeavoring to do so. I repeat,
that Dr. Nichols assumed to be proved what was not proved; and now I demonstrate it.
The Court. Dr. Nichols was present from Saturday morning, the second day
of the evidence, and remained in court each day until the time of his giving his
testimony.
Mr. Bradley. He had read to him the testimony given on Friday, and he
gave his opinion upon all the facts, assuming the evidence to be credible.
The Court. Yes, Dr Nichols assumed all the evidence to be credible; and
assuming that fact, he gave certain opinions upon that evidence. If the jury
differ from him; if they believe that this evidence, or a part of it, was perjured
evidence, or unworthy of belief, to that extent they can set aside the opinion of
Dr. Nichols as an expert; but if they think that the evidence heard, considered,
and weighed by Dr. Nichols is credible, they are bound by the opinions of Dr.
Nichols, as an expert.
Mr. Carrington. If your Honor please, you will remember that upon crossexamination the witness assumed to be proved certain facts, and he went on to
state them. Now, I wish to show to the jury that the doctor assumed as proved
what was not proved in point of fact.
The Court. Certainly; you have a right to do that.
Mr. Carrington. Then, gentlemen of the jury, I will proceed. The opinion
of Dr. Nichols, as I have already stated, is expressed upon an assumed f tate of
facts. First, he assumes as proved that there was a marriage contract, which
was broken; secondly, that the prisoner was melancholy in consequence of disappointed love; thirdly, that she had received a dishonorable proposition from

174

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

her lover, contained in these Greenwood letters, or believed she had; fourthly,
that' she was suffering from dysmenorrhcea at the time.
. |Now, I propose to show that he was mistaken in all these facts. Then, gentlemen, if I show the causes do not exist upon whichhe bases his ogdnion, of
course the effect "of those causes cannot follow as he.supposes. In other words,
gentlemen, if these are tEe "facts upon which his opinion, rests, and J show you
that these facts do not appear from the evidence, the opinion^ is hypothetical,
and cahhot'be regarded by you in forming your verdict. . He erects a superstructure upon these four stones.' I intend to remove them one by one, and
then the entire fabric falls to the ground. First, then, gentlemen, was there a
marriage contract? A marriage contract, like every other contract, requires the
consent of both parties. I defy you to discover a marriage contract from any
of the ninety-two letters offered in evidence. But let us admit, for the sake of
the argument, that there was a marriage contract. I maintain that, if there
was, it Was violated by the lady herself.
Mr. Carrington here referred to a letter, and humorously said : I cannot read
this letter, gentlemen, perhaps, as it should be read. I saw some of you crying.
What are you crying about ? I cannot cry. I will have to get my friend Mr.
Bradley or Judge Mason to cry for me.
Mr. Bradley. If you had half as much sensibility as we have you would cry
also;-

•

• • • : : •

Mr. Carrington. Cry for what? [Holding up the letter.] Perhaps I committed
a mistake, gentlemen. I should have put some one 'of these ladies on the stand
as an- expert. This letter echoes the groans of a discarded and despairing lover.
How, then, stands the case ? The lady discards her ^rue-hearted,, honorable
lover; and he, like ;a man of honor, offers to return her her letters and : her portrait, and try his fortune in another quarter. The lady, exercising a woman's
right, in a spirit of coquettishness, discards the man she loves, and then, fired
by the demon of jealousy, murders him for marrying another, her superior in
all respects. What, then, is the opinion of Dr. Nichols worth when he assumes
she' was suffering because her lover had violated his promise of marriage ? I
said in my opening address, and I now repeat it, that A. J. Burroughs died
without, a stain upon his honor. Is there anything dishonorable in this ? Is
it dishonorable to love a pretty girl and to tell her so ? Then let ,&im who is
without sin cast the first stone. And when discarded by one pretty girl, is i t
dishonorable to love a prettier and a better girl, and to tell her so ? Burroughs
loved Mary Harris tenderly and devotedly, if these letters breathe the spirit of
true love. He was discarded by her ; and meeting with another lady, her superior, loved her, offered her his hand and heart, and, like a true-hearted woman,
she neither flirted nor coquetted with him, but promptly gave him all that a
woman has—a woman's love. *
Again: it is said that the prisoner suffered from melancholy, too, in consequence of disappointed love. Gentlemen of the jury, was she melancholy?
This is a techf icaf term, and has a technical signification. We all know what
is meant by suffering from insane melancholy. In looking through the evidence
we see this poor, melancholy, lovesick girl playing cards, attending parties, conversing with a young gentleman on the very morning she started for the city
of Washington, bent upon her murderous purpose, and collecting money for the
Misses Devlin in her usual good health and spirits. Did she suffer from disappointed love ? True love, gentlemen, is a noble, pure, and generous passion.
It refines the manners, purifies the heart, elevates the thoughts, gives zest and
delight to every energy and to every aspiration.
" Yes; love, indeed, is light from heaven;
A spark of that immortal fire
With angels shared, by Allah given,
To lift from earth our low desire."

Did Mary Harris love the man she so cruelly and inhumanly murdered ?
No, gentlemen of the jury. The kind, gentle, and loving wife may, in a mo-

TRIAL OP MARY HARRIS.

175

ment of passion, speak an unkind word to her devoted husband; but wfren she
sees; him in danger or distress, she will rush to his assistance
"Ah, woman 1 woman! in* hours of joy and ease
So coy, and so hard to please;
But, when pain and anguish ring the brow,
A ministering angel thou."

Did the tender and sacred flame ever burn in the heart of this cruel and revengeful murderess ? To say that she ever loved, with a pure and a holy love,
A. J. Burroughs, is an insult to every honest and virtuous woman in the land.
What, then, becomes of the opinion of Dr. Nichols, when he assumes, as a fact
proved in the case, that the prisoner was a poor, melancholy, love-sick girl, who
committed this horrid crime while in a state of insanity ? If woman is to be
excused on this ground, you give a carte blanche to any lewd and wicked-woman to commit violence and crime. Go to yonder alley in any populous city.
See that woman; her aching brow leaning upon her hands; the paint is washed
away; she is pale, emaciated, sad, and degraded. Who is she?
" She once, perhaps, in village plenty blest,
Hath wept at tales of innocence distrest;
Her modest look the cottage might adorn,
Sweet as the primrose peeps beneath the thorn;
Now lost to all—her friends, her virtue fled—
Near her betrayer's door she lays, her head."

Ask her the story of her life, and she attributes all her woes to disappointed
love.
Her case is a more distressing one than that of Mary Harris; and would you
say upon your oath as jurors, that such a one was insane, and for that reason
has a right by law to murder in cold blood the man who ruined her ?
Thirdly, Dr. Nichols assumes that the deceased was the author of the Greenwood letters, or that the prisoner supposed he was, and thus she received a great
shock to her moral sensibilities. Adoniram J. Burroughs was not the author
of those letters. I appeal to the testimony of the Rev. John C. Burroughs, corroborated and confirmed by the testimony of Danenhower, and the records of
the Treasury Department. The prisoner knew that he was not the author of
those letters; for at the suggestion of the Devlins she went to the house of the
Rev. J. G. Burroughs, and was satisfied from that interview that he was not
the author of the letters, and she returned to her home entirely relieved of all
suspicion. It is true the Devlins were not satisfied, and it was not their purpose to be satisfied; but Mary Harris was. What, then, becomes of the opinion
of Dr. Nichols? Her sensibilities were not shocked; but, on the other hand,
the sensibilities of the deceased were shocked in consequence of the unexpected
discardal by the woman he truly and honorably loved.
Fourthly, Dr. Nichols assumes that she was suffering with dysmenorrhcea^at
the time the homicide was committed. This is not so in point of fact, judging
from the evidence. Mrs. Flemming testifies that she saw her the day previous
to the homicide, and that she complained of a slight sore throat, but was in
other respects in good health. No girl could be suffering with that complaint
without its being known by an old woman with whom she was boarding at the
time.- Every old woman in the country understands the complaint, and knows
how to cure it—simply by putting the patient to bed, applying a few warm
bricks, and administering a little hot tea. [Laughter.] Mrs. MeWilliams" saw
her shortly before the homicide, and her testimony is inconsistent with the idea
of her suffering with dysmenorrhoea at the time of the homicide. Dr. Young,
the physician of the jail, testifies that she was unwell on the 16th of June. The
homicide was committed on the 30th of January, and therefore, in the regular
course of events, it is possible, but not probable, that she was( suffering with
dysmenorrhoea at the time she murdered Burroughs. Gentlemen of the jury* if
you acquit the prisoner by assuming that she was insane from facts like .these;1
you perceive that you render a verdict utterly at variance with the evidence.
But assuming, for the purposes of the argument, that I am wrong in all I

176

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

have said, what is the opinion of Dr. Nichols ? I have it here. He says that
this woman, if insane at all, was paroxysmally insane; and if insanity was the
cause of this murder, it was that kind of insanity known as " insane impulse."
Now, what is his definition of insane impulse ?
" Q. Describe to the jury what is understood in your profession by the term
1
insane impulse ?' A. By ' insane impulse' I understand that an individual
is impelled, in consequence of disease of the brain, suddenly to commit an act
that he is unable to restrain himself from committing. In some instances there
is, probably, a consciousness of the nature of the act; but in most instances I
think there is not."
Now, analyze this definition, and you will find that the opinion of Dr. Nichols
agrees substantially with that of the other physicians, including the testimony
of Dr. Johnson, who certainly appears to be by far the most intelligent physician who has been examined within your hearing on this question.
It is evident, from an analysis of this definition, that, in order to acquit this
woman upon the ground of insane impulse, you must be satisfied from the evidence that she unexpectedly met with the man who had injured her, or whom
she supposed had injured her, and suddenly drew her pistol, which she happened
to have about her person for no particular purpose, without being able to restrain
herself, or appreciate the character of the act she was committing. By way of
illustration, just as a person suffering with typhoid fever would suddenly seize
some deadly weapon lying near him, and strike either friend or foe. Is that
this case? Shall I repeat the evidence? She armed herself with a pistol, tracked
up her victim, concealed herself, laid in wait for him, fired at him, and then,
deliberately stepping into the centre of the hall through which he passed, cocked
her pistol and fired a second time.
Now, in regaid to the opinion of Dr. May, I have a word to say. This eminent physician, in reply to a hypothetical case put by me, said he did not think
the supposed patient was insane. Judge Hughes says I brought this hypothetical case from the moon. If that is so, then Mr. Bradley's hypothetical case
was borrowed from some distant planet, for I do not think that he has presented
the facts of this case so accurately and so fairly as I have done. They are both
hypothetical cases, and the Court should not allow the doctor to express an
opinion upon any other, for it would contravene a familiar and well-settled rule
of law. In answer to Mr. Bradley's hypothetical case, Dr. May says the
patient was insane, and upon cross-examination he gave his reasons for it.
First, he assumes that the prisoner had been suffering from melancholy, resulting from disappointed love ; second, from a shock to her moral sensibilities ;
third, that she did not attempt to escape after committing the homicide; fourth,
that she did not know the man was dead after she had killed him. It needs no
doctor, nor does it need any ghost from the grave, to tell us that such a person
was insane. If you believe from the evidence that Mary Harris was suffering
from insane melancholy, resulting from disappointed love, and that after killing Burroughs she did not know that he was dead, or did not know what she
had done, and made no attempt to escape, or conceal the crime she had committed, I apprehend you would conclude that she was actually insane. But is
that this case? I have already argued that she was not suffering from melancholy, resulting from disappointed love ; that she had received no shock to her
moral sensibilities. Did she not attempt to escape ? The evidence is that when
Burroughs fell, having endeavored to escape from the building, she lost her way
and was arrested in the basement. Did she not know what she had done ? She
told the officer that Burroughs had injured, had seduced, had ruined her, and
she was determined to have revenge at the risk of her life. She shows no emotion, to be sure, until she sees his mangled and bleeding corpse; and then she
suffers, as I have already said, as any other sane woman would, however depraved, the pangs of remorse.
It must have amused you, gentlemen of the jury, to have seen the senior
counsel for the defence—the father of the bar, the venerable Joseph H. Bradley—appearing in the double capacity of counsel and witness-—of lawyer and

TRIAL \>*' MARY HARRIS.

177

doctor! When the learned counsel took the witness-stand, he reminded me c f
*
an old lawyer—to put. a hypothetical case, (laughter)—who came out to Western Virginia for the purpose of practising law. He settled in the village, rented
an office, swung out his shingle, and the next morning the following advertisement appeared in the village paper : " The undersigned will practice law in this
town. Fees moderate, except when evidence is furnished " (Laughter.)
Mr Bradley. Mr. Carrington, do you intend, sir, to impugn my motive? ?
Mr Carrington. Certainly not.
But let us analyze his testimony. He says he observed a peculiar dilation of
xhe pupils. Have you never observed that before, gentlemen of the jury? Did
you never see the gentleman's pupil dilate when he was replying to some attack
that I had made upon his client in a desperate case ?
Again, it is said that she could not sleep ; and in the silent watches of the
night, when honest people were sleeping quietly, she heard unusual and mi
earthly sounds. Is there anything remarkable in tl^is, when we remember that
she had stained her conscience with innocent blood, and that she was suffering
the pangs of remorse ? After the murder of Duncan, Lady Macbeth advised
her husband to sleep, to think no more of his crime, or it would run him mad.
He cried : " Sleep no more ; Glamis hath murdered sleep !"
But, gentlemen of the jury, I shall not trouble you by reviewing the whole
of Mr. Bradley's testimony. I see nothing in it inconsistent with the sanity of
&be prisoner, in view of the fact that these vagaries, to which he testifies, occurred subsequent to the homicide—after the excitement was over, and the prisoner
was confined in jail.
Mr. Voorhees asked if I intended to charge Joseph H. Bradley with fraud ?
Certainly not. He knows, and my brethren of the bar know, my regard and
respect for him; and, if any man on the street should charge him with fraud
in my presence, I would be prompted by an "insane impulse" to knock him
down.
Mr. Bradley. I thank you, sir.
Mr. Carrington. The part he has acted in this case is creditable to his heart.
I do not think, however, that he is in a state of mind to testify intelligently on
the subject of insanity ; for I have never seen his feelings so much excited before.
[NOTE BY M E CAEEINGTON.—As this argument may be read by many who do
not know the relations existing between Mr. Bradley and myself, it may not be
improper to state, that Mr. Bradley is old enough to be my father, and that we
are on the most friendly terms ; and, as stated in one of my arguments to the
Court upon a question of evidence, I have been so long in the habit of looking up to him with veneration and respect, as the father of the bar, that it has
become almost second nature with me.]
But I shall continue this discussion no longer. You know that this woman
is not insane. If you acquit her upon the ground of insanity, it will be a pretext only. Now, gentlemen, if you wish to acquit her, do it because you want
to do i t ; but do not render yourselves ridiculous by listening to this nonsense
of insane impulse.
Here allow me, however, to give you an admonition. Perhaps there are some
higher-law men upon that jury, who have determined to take the law into their
own hands, and mould it to suit their own views. If so, it is my duty to inform you that you commit the crime of perjury before your country and high
Heaven ; for you have solemnly sworn to decide this case according to the law
as it is, and not as you think it ought to be.
How often do you hear this defence of insanity ? It is relied on in every
desperate case of murder, and it is generally treated with contempt by honest
and intelligent jurors. If some poor, trembling criminal in rags and tatters
should dare to make such a defence as this, it would be hooted out of court.
Why should a different rule be adopted in the case of Mary Harris? AVhy was
she not subjected to the inspection of the jury? For your custom is, when the
defence of insanity is made, to examine the prisoner carefully for yourselves,
12

178

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

and form your opinion from a personal inspection and examination of the accused. But it was not so in the case of this veiled and mysterious murderess.
Whenever I hear this defence of insanity, it reminds me of a remark that was
made tp me by my predecessor, Mr. Fendall. He had just purchased a book
upon homicide. He met old Col. Benton on the street, when the latter asked
him what new work he had? He replied, "Sir, J have a work on homicide."
"Why," said Col. Benton, "your money has been misspent. There are only
two defences in cases of homicide in this country—self-defence and insanity."
Col. Benton was right, gentlemen of the jury. If a man injures another, and
the injured party kills him, he pleads self-defence. If a man kills another, who
has never injured him, it is said that there was no motive, and therefore he was
insane. The result is, that skilful counsel may persuade judges and jurors,
who have not the firmness and intelligence to discharge their duty, to give unbridled license to the crime of murder. Put your foot upon this nonsense of
" insane impulse." If you do not, I will. If you approve of this defence by
your verdict, it shall be against my earnest and solemn protest. I now solemnly
protest against this libel upon the laws and religion of my country. When the
excitement of the day passes off, and murder, crime, and blood run riot in your
city, no man or woman shall say it was I who did it.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, let us consider the motives which prompted the
prisoner to the commission of this bloody deed You have heard a great deal
said by the learned counsel about the dark ages. Why, even in the dark ages,
in the age of chivalry, when the bloody code of honor was the rule, the injured
lady called upon her hero, and the dispute was settled by the wager of battle,
in an open field, under a clear sky, where man met man face^to face and beard
to beard. They never employed the assassin's dagger to redress even the blackest and the foulest wrongs. If this injured lady had been governed by the
bloody code of honor, she would have appealed to her father, to her brother, or
some friend—perhaps to the young Tydides. In this country a thousand swords
would leap from their scabbards to avenge a look that threatened with injury
or with insult an honest and a virtuous woman.
Gentlemen of the jury, we do not sit here to administer the law according to
the bloody code of honor. We are Christians ; we live in a Christian age and
are a Christian community ; and we can neither recognize nor tolerate any redress of wrongs, whether real or imaginary, except by an appeal to courts of
justice
It is true that Washington juries have heretofore approved the redress of private wrongs by private means, and juries have been severely censured for it. I
never complained of the verdict of a jury, and I intend to express no opinion
in regard to your conduct on former occasions. Sickles, and I mention his name
with respect, for he has proved to be a true patriot and a gallant soldier, murdered a man who had, or whom he supposed had, wronged him in the tenderest
point, while he was standing near his house, flaunting a handkerchief in front
of his window, in a moment of frenzy, which might with some plausibility be
called a species of " paroxsmal insanity." Jarboe went with his sister into the
presence of her seducer, and demanded reparation. He attempted to draw a
weapon, when the indignant brother shot him dead This, too, with some show
of plausibility, might be called a case of " paroxysmal insanity."
On the other hand, Daniel Woodward slew his wife in a fit of jealousy, and
was convicted, sentenced, and executed. Mary Harris, from jealousy and a
desire of revenge, deliberately murdered the man who had loved her and never
wronged her.
Gentlemen of the jury, it is idle to close our eyes to the truth. I t was not
insanity, either paroxysmal, scientific, or by whatever name you may be pleased
to call it, but it was jealousy! jealousy! I have seen a personification and
representation of the passions upon canvass—hatred, envy, malice, revenge,
and jealousy; and in this collection of imaginary demons the most horrible to
behold is the green-eyed monster. But it is no excuse for crimes. It never has
been, and never can be, where the law is properly administered. Mr. Bradley >

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

179

in his opening address, admits that this a case of jealousy. You remember
his remark, " It is the old story of Othello." But there are marked points of
difference between his and the present case. Othello, when he entered the
chamber of his true and faithful wife, on the fatal night when she was doomed
to die, said:
" Desdemona, have you prayed to-night 1
Yes, my lord.
Bethink you of any sin unftn given?
Yes, my lord; loving you too well.
Then pray; for I would not kill thy unprepared soul."

Not so with Mary Harris. She strikes young Burroughs down, and sends his
soul into eternity without a word of warning, or time to breathe a single prayer.
After the bloody deed was done Othello relents, exclaiming:
" If the world were one entire and perfect crystallite,
I would give it all to restore thy precious life."

Not so with Mary Harris. She is now seen, like a horrid ghoul, burrowing
in the grave, and feeding her revenge upon the remains of her murdered victim ;
and through her counsel, her organ and representatives, who speak her sentiments and represent her views, she endeavors to destroy the reputation of his
only brother, the natural guardian and protector of his widow and his orphan.
But, gentlemen, there was one other motive that prompted Mary Harris in
this bloody tragedy, and that was the desire of money. As I have already
stated, there was another person behind the scenes, pulling the wires, when this
dark and dreadful deed was committed; and that was Louisa Devlin. I do not
mean to say that Louisa Devlin expected to realize money from the murder of
Capt. Burroughs; but her object was to profit by a suit of breach of promise of
marriage. You well remember the testimony upon this point. After the prisoner returned from the interview with Dr. Burroughs, in reference to the Greenwood letters, she expressed herself as entirely satisfied, and apologized for the
intrusion. But the Devlins were not satisfied. They fired the jealousy of this
love-sick girl, by representing that Burroughs was the author of the Greenwood
letters, notwithstanding the representation of his brother, and then urged her
on to institute this suit for a breach of promise of marriage. The prisoner,
finding she could not maintain that action, contrary to their expectations, no
bloubt, in a moment of jealousy, revenge, and disappointment, committed this
terrible murder.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, I reach the last, and, indeed, the only real defence to this indictment. I approach it with fear and trembling, for I do not
see how I can meet it successfully, in view of the extraordinary, but powerful
sympathy that has b&en elicited on behalf of the prisoner. It is this : That she
is a pretty, delicate, little woman. That is all. This is really the only defence,
and you know it. If you acquit this woman, it will be because she is a woman;
and all this nonsense about insanity and moral justification are simply to afford
you a pretext. It is said that she wanted to be the wife of the deceased. Wife,
indeed! That name is sacred as heaven itself. It is associated in our minds
with all that is good, amiable, and attractive. And what sort of a wife would
this woman have made, who had the heart to conceive, and the hand to execute
this bloody deed ? Had she married young Burroughs,
" No heavenly choirs had the hymenean sung."

It might have been said, with more truth than poetry,
"Nor Hymen, nor the Graces should,preside,
Nor Juno to befriend the blooming bride;
But Fiends, with funereal brands, the process led,
And Furies waited at the genial bed."

"When a man of honor strains to his bosom the woman he loves, and calls her
his own, his darling wife, and imprints the melting kiss upon her matron lips,
he must feel and know that she is
" As pure as an icicle,
That hangs from Diana's temple."

180

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

But suppose he hears that she has been to an assignation-house—no matter
for what purpose; and has conversed with the proprietress of that infernal
den—no matter upon what subject; inhaled its pestilent atmosphere; that she
had gone to a prostitute, and inquired whether her lover was faithful to her?
His love would turn to disgust, and he would dash her, like a loathsome weed
away, if it wrung his very heart-strings
I admit that Burroughs once loved Mary Harris. But she was unworthy of
his love, for she never truly loved him; while, judging from these letters, he
loved her with an intensity and ardor which is creditable to his heart, if not to
his head. These letters contained the most violent protestations of love. Like
Shakspeare's Romeo, young Burroughs wTas affectionate, demonstrative, and
violent in his attachments, but honorable and true
It is true, these letters are written in a most extravagant strain. He calls
her " ducky," " a darling," " a rosebud," a " sugar plum." This is the ordinary
language of love. My objection to it is, that it is too tame. (Laughter ) When
he begins to talk about his hair standing on end and flying through the air, he
is just rising to the height of his great argument. (Laughter.) But in these
ninety-two letters I challenge you to place your finger upon a single dishonorable sentiment or a single impure sentence
Have I not, then, redeemed the promise which I made in my opening address, to show you that Capt. Burroughs lived and died without a stain upon
his honor?
No term of endearment is too strong to be applied by a man to the girl he
loves. No demonstration of affection too expressive, provided he is neither impure nor dishonorable. I would not give a bawbee for a young man who did
not love the woman of his choice with an intensity which no language is adequate to describe
Go back in imagination, gentlemen of the jury, twenty years. Think, each
one of you, of the sweet words you have whispered into the ears of the girl you
love, and the billet-doux that you have written her in those halcyon and happy
daj^s. How would you like to have them exposed to the vulgar gaze of the
public? If such demonstrations are evidence of insanity, you and I, and every
true-hearted man, should be dressed in straight jackets, and turned over to the
tender mercies of Dr. Nichols, this propagator of the new and dangerous doctrine—this modern philosopher of the humbug of "paroxysmal insanity."
Having shown that this homicide was committed by the prisoner at the bar,
and that it is not excusable, I reach the fourth and last problem, What is the
quality of the homicide? Is it murder or is it manslaughter? I have already
indicated to you, in my opening address, the distinguishing characteristics of
these two grades of offences, and I think it unnecessary to pursue the discussion
further, for there was neither passion, nor sufficient and recent provocation. On
the contrary, it was wilful, deliberate, and premeditated, and committed under
circumstances of great aggravation, showing a heart regardless of social duty,
and fatally bent on mischief. It is a case of murder; cold-blooded, cruel, causeless murder. Notwithstanding the strictures of the learned counsel for the accused in regard to my reference to the place where this homicide was committed, I repeat that it is, in my judgment, a fearful aggravation of her guilt that
she slew a public servant while at his post of duty, and who drew his sword in
his country's cause in that hour of national danger and distress, when loyal,
patriotic men constituted the great wealth and the chief hope of the republic.
And this, too, in the capital of a great nation. I did say, and I repeat, that
Washington juries have an unenviable reputation abroad. We have no representation in Congress. We are under the power, and to a great extent under
the influence, of the States; but I call on you again to maintain your dignity
and your self-respect, and to vindicate the majesty of the law
Let it not be said that eminent criminals, defended by prominent public men,
may commit a crime with impunity in the federal metropolis. Why did not
this prisoner, I repeat, take the life of the deceased in Chicago, if he injured,
or if she supposed he had injured her ? Did she suppose, as many do, that here

TRIAL OF MARY HARRIS.

181

Bhe could gratify her revenge with impunity? I say what I have often said
before, that the citizens of Washington are a law-loving, law-abiding, and a
religious people, but it is a rendezvous for thieves, murderers, garotters, and adventurers, of both sexes and of every variety—a sewer for all the vices and
immoralities of the age in which we live. Our only hope of safety is in the
firmness and fidelity of the judiciary. I plead the cause of law, order, and
religion; and if you dishonor the records of this court by an approval of this
bloody deed, it shall be against my earnest and solemn protest. This is a central and a radiating point. We exert an influence in all sections of this great
confederacy. Besides, strangers judge our people from the manners and customs
of the federal metropolis. I charge you, then, gentlemen of the jury, to remember the solemnity of your position, and take care how you outrage the public
sentiment, and libel the community of which you are the representatives on
this occasion. I see what is passing in your minds. I can read your thoughts.
You pity the prisoner at the bar. So do I. You wish to shield her from the
consequences of her crime. I have no objection to this, provided the law is
enforced. How is it to be done? It is the simplest thing in the world. The
legislature, in its wisdom, has provided for such cases. Convict the prisoner,
and then commend her to the mercy of the Executive. Do this, and your object
is accomplished without violence being done to any man's conscience. If the
prisoner, in view of all the circumstances, deserves clemency, she will receive
i t ; but in my opinion, stern, inflexible justice is true mercy. I would have
you temper justice with a spirit of mercy, but I would not have you sacrifice
the cause of justice to mercy. When man broke Heaven's high law, his Creator
looked down upon him with compassion. He would show him mercy, but the
claims of justice must be vindicated; and in the counsel of eternity He determined to give his well-beloved and only-begotten Son to die, that guilty man
might live, and by his imputed righteousness alone we are saved. I charge you,
then, in the same spirit, to do justice, and then remember mercy. You are now
the great conservators of the public peace; and I charge you, by the solemn
sanction of a juror's oath, in the eloquent language of another, " that adamantine chain which binds the integrity of man to the throne of eternal justice, do
your duty in the fear of God and without the fear of man."
At the conclusion of Mr. Carrington's remarks the case was given to the jury.
They then retired to their room, where they remained about five minutes, when
they returned, and rendered a verdict of " Not guilty."
Thereupon the court adjourned.

(NOTE BY THE REPOKTER.)

The report of Mr. Carrington's Speech was corrected and altered by himself,
and I am not responsible for any differences that may appear between it and
the original report published in the National Intelligencer and Chronicle
J AS. 0. CLEPHANE, Beporter.