The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, December 21, 1898, Page 1

The Call 11O 1 ATl to be taken from the Library.++++ UL VOLUME LXXXV._NO. 21. SAN FRANCISCO, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1898. PRICE FIVE CENTS. DUNNING WILL NOT SECRET Handwriting Experts Swear That Mrs. Botkin Wrote the Death Messages. had writing, and denied having touched ft. She also denied having bought chocolate candy and shipping it to Dover. ot. To Mr. Knight—She was a widow, and ning at M Botkin’s house, v the latter part of there was due to an i a social evening. composed of . Beverly Botkin and he The Bot- 1f. he had been to the races on several oc- ions with Dunning and Mrs. Botkin, never alone with D They had e to cafes and restaurants, where th, had dined. This took place two or three where she could not recall. | | was positive in her declaration that she | She was shown in turn all the | Asked them. | plaining to the jury his deductlions, say- REVEAL HIS , AND REMAINS IN JAIL that of artist, editor and examiner handwriting. Attorney of | Hosmer asked a | number of questions to show the wit- ness' qualifications as an expert. Mr. Knight broke in with: “We admit he will qualify as an expert. Now let's get down to it.” The witness was shown ex- | amples of Mrs. Botkin’s handwriting ad- mitted by her to be genuine. With these | h: was shown the wrapper which was | around the box of arsenic-laden choco- | lates; the note in the box, and the anony- | mous letters, both ink and pencil. | ked if after comparing the va- | s in evidence he | state whether or not they were in same handwriting. He said he could, and was asked to ex plain to the jury how he secured the facts. To this Knight objected, ing it was | not how he obtained hi ts, but the | facts themselves. The witness then went on to state tuat he found in the wrapper the writing care- fully disguised, but that it still compared with the personality of the writing in the amples in evidence. Knight objected | trongly to the witness’ method of ex- could the ing: “He can’t throw into this jury his opinions.” He asked the court to in- struct the witness, Who was no novice, | and should know the lines on which he | could present the result of his investiga- tions. | Judge Cook told the expert to point out facts on which his opinion is based, and | not the inference he had drawn from ing agent was one who buys for another person and gets a discount for the work done. W. W. Barnes was recalled and testi- fied to Nixon, the night watchman,®aking two strangers to the Victoria Hotel. These men were placed in the room once occupied by Mrs. Botkin and in which was found the bit of a seal used in Haas’ candy store. Expert Ames then took the stand and continued his droning descrip- tion of curves and dashes. “I would call attention to the use of the Greek * or capital ‘E' which is used in her writing and in the word Dover on the superscription on the wrapper,” he said. “I also draw your attention to the quotation marks in the note and in her writing. They appear in the Price letter and in three instances elsewhere. Note its marked peculiaritie { To Mr. Hosmer he said the anonymous | letters were not written in a natural | hand, although certain characteristics ran throughout it. These were the hard pres- sure and the joining and proportioning of letters. In the word “yours’ where the ‘0" finishes there is a peculiar point going up to join the next letter instead of going down, as natural. This is a char- acteristic of the writer. The expert stated that the writing in the note was not nat- ural. It was carefully disguised in the slope of the writing and in the delibera- tion of the writer. It was drawn, not written. The writing on the wrapper is in a feigned hand, according to Mr. Ames. This is shown in the deliberation of the | lines and the contradictions in the slope ! MR. LONG WILL LEAVE THE CABINET Has Not Yet Apprised the President of His Inten- tion to Resign. Secretary Bliss Will Go Out Also and Slates for the Succession Are in Order. Call Office, Riggs House, jon absolutely responsible author- Washington, D. C., Dec. 20. |ity that Secretary Long has sent It is not unlikely President|in his resignation, to take effect McKinley will entirely recast his | when the President finds a suc- 5 é cessor. ort the allegation of | tkin Candy. the Day. URD TS OPINION. Experts on Handwwriting Consumed a Great Deal of Time Yesterday in the Trial of Mrs. Cordelia Botkin. Experts Were Placed on the Witness-Stand by the Prosecution, and Both Attempted to Convince the Jury That the Accused Woman Wrote the Anonymous Letters and Addressed the Package of Poisoned The Testimony Was Highly Technical and Was Still in Progress When Court Adjourned for | Long's reasons for leaving the Navy Department are entirely personal. He is separated too much from his family and has never cared for Washington life. While deeply interested in the work of the Naval Department, he dislikes the social features of official life in Washington, and with the restoration of peace sees an opportunity to return to pri= vate life, with all it means to him- self and family. The health of his wife, how- ever, is the chief cause for his de- termination to relinquish an of- fice to which he devoted much wearisome toil during the late war. Mrs. Long and her young son have been at their home in Massachusetts most of the time since Secretary Long came into the Cabinet. This enforced sep- aration has not been agreeable to the Secretary, and, having con- ducted the administration of the Navy Department to the full satisfaction of the President and the country, he feels that he is entitled to release from its man- agement and can now yield to his successor the conduct of the or- dinary routine. Mr. Long, being a man of con- | siderable means and a member of o one of the most successful law i Lo 7 @ | firms of Boston, is not dependent s T oyl o the salary he now: receives. For all of these reasons he will signify to the President his ear- nest desire that his successor be named as early as is convenient. His proposed retirement will doubtless be strenuously opposed CARL EISENSCHIMEL EXPLAINS To THR JURY ., | Two We insist upon the she said: “I ha feeling aga Knight against her? “I don't care for her, although we never had any words."” Knight She Cook said the facts witne 2 you - any f{ll objected to your going was friendly with am still did you address Dun- lemm swe might ing “I always called him Mr. Dunning. He ing a wit- | was a gentleman.” : dvantage of thiz plea | “How did you address her son?" : it could not be brought | wy cajled him Beverly."” 1 S ‘e js| Knight: “He wasn't a gentleman?” . 4 untll the. guestion is an.|. O, ves; but I looked upon him as a I ) that Ames h Mr. Dunning, you will stand | PoY In comparison with Mr. Dunning. T itted until you consent to answer | Didn’t Mrs. Botkin object to your asso- i} l tons put to you. Call the mext Cation with Beverly because you wanted £ A Hbakie to marry him? 3 ning having been taken from the| ‘I Was not going to marry Beverly. I 1 1 Julian treasurer of the | Bad no matrimonial ideas regarding him. 8 is, was called. After a few | He was but little over 2 years, and I al- | ma it developed that he was not | Ways treated him as a boy and a friend.” Mr. Knight was about to go deeper into n who could give the information hiis regarding cashing of postal orders which | the relations of Mrs. Seeley and Beverly, duce s. It is likel t | Mr. Hosmer desired. He was excused, |the stepson of Mrs. Botkin, when mr. Mrs on the s stand | Professor Wolf, chemist, of Delaware, | HOSMEr objected strenuously. Before he | Guring was recalled to say that there way nj | could Blve Voice to all his reasons Knight - Qifre in the poisonous qualltics o¢|S2id quickly, “Withdraw the question, illine and amorphous arsenic. Both | Fithdraw the quesii No further pues- tions.” This ended what gave promise of being further exploitation of the glamour- dly. were ,Harry Pennington was recalled. Dur- | jeqg vice that was rampant at 97 Geary ing his cross-examination Attorney Hos- | meset bl Arding | At this point J. B. Pennington was re- P X o ; Mr. | canl r e va Pennington and that gentleman: Mr. | o lico-Apparently the purpose of /it was to show that he alone knew that Hu this ves- | Hosmer withdrew the objection and de- i . o B X | anonymous letters had been received in te 3 w to prison for | gired Mr. Knight to ask it again. Mr. | Dover, addressed to Mrs. Dunning. It had ¥ gt question.” | Knight affirmed he had no desire to do " % ng previously been shown that Mrs. Botkin had at various times spoken of three let- ters, hence the inference that she was the author of them. Mr. Pennington said he received the third letter and placed it with private papers in his office desk, where it remained until after the death of Mrs. Dunning. He had not delivered | it to her, as she did not wish to see any € d: *“Do you , whereupon Mr. Hosmer proceeded to - wer to the ques- | propound it to the witness. The attorney 3 t | for the defense objected to this, and the phaysaa sl Ly objection was sustained. Judge Cook held $ UPOD | ¢par unless Mr. Knight asked the question re YOu | no one else could do so. The witness left the stand without disclosing the informa- tion he possessed. Mrs. Louisa L. Seeley next took the more letters in that handwriting. No one stand. She testified that she knew Mrs. | knew he had it, he said, except the writer Botkin and Mr. Dunning, having met and such persons as she might shown it them at 927 Geary street in the early part of 1897. The witness had seen Dunning in to. Detective Gibson testified that Mrs. Bot- which was 1 nt, any of the women whose | Mrs. Botkin’s room and that their manner | kin told him voluntarily she went to the ht mention were responsible | toward one another was very friendly. |ferry in this city and thence to St. Helena wife I might feel The three of them went out together fre- | August 4. The arsenic-laden package I feel assured in | quently. Asked if she had ever written | should have been mailed in this city on my own mind that not one of them is in | to Mrs. Dunning, she said: “No, sir. I|that date to have reached Delaware on any way connected with this case. I must | flatly deny that I have ever written any- i the day it did. #till decline to answer.” thing of the kind.” Danifel T. Ames of New York was the Judge Cook hesitated a moment and She was shown the anonymous Iet!!rs‘flrs[ expert on handwriting called by the gaid: “I am afrald that Is not a legitl- | and asked if she had written them. She | prosecution. He gave his occupation as three | [ if she felt friendly toward Mrs. Botkin,| The witness went on to say: “I-call 't such a terrible 1l | your feeling | This w. | | | | | expert testimony is dying of slow poi- | these letter: attention to the capital ‘P’ in the It is peculiar in construction.” | s stricken out as being an opin- ion, not a fact. | He said the “p” in the Price letter and on the wrapper were identical and that ihe same ‘“p” occurs in the ink anonymous tter in the fourth line, second page. It | also appeared in the pencil letter. Ths | witness drew attention to a similarity e- tween it and a letter in “the note that was in the box." Knight (savagely)—Strike that out. He don’t know whether the note was in a dry- goods box or in a candy box. The attorney with Senatorial aspirations does not like experts, having a keen re- membrance of the Fair will trial. In an side to Senator McGowan he said: “This wrapper. | | s pert Ames took up the note in the | candy box, “With love to yourself and baby. Mrs. C.,” and dissected it sluwly,{ letter by letter. His usual formula was | to select a single letter in the note and then rummage through all the letters of Mrs. Botkin. “I take this ‘W’ in the note,” he would say, *“‘and place it in jux- taposition with these various ‘W's’ in The jurymen went at it in a painstaking manner, discussing what was placed before them. This was finally objected to by counsel for Mrs. Botkin. Judge Cook then admonished them that they must not discuss among themselves what was shown them, but to reserve it for their dellberations in the jury room. After that the expert placed the results of his work on the rail of the jury box and the jurors in twos and threes examined the exhibits. The work was painfully slow and the throng in the court room thinned out gradually until when time for adjourn- ment at noon arrived hardly a corporal’s guard remained. The expert showéd the “th™ in the word “with” of the note and the same letters in “that” in one of Mrs. Botkin's letters. He took the word “your” in the note and placed it alongside the same word found in various places in the Price letter and also in both the ink and the pencil anony- mous letters. ¥ Upon the opening of court in the after- noon Felix Raynaud, cashier of the City of Paris, was called. He testified to hav- ing frequently cashed postal money or- ders for Mrs. Botkin. He identified an order which he cashed on June 4, about the time Mrs. Botkin is supposed to have fiurchased the thandkerchief. He did not now her as a purchasing agent, he said to Mr. Knight. To him he also volun- teered the information that a purchas- | | the effect of stopping the of the letters. In the “Mrs.” there is a back slant. The “p” is direct while the “J" is indirect. Knight to expert—*You have gone about as far—we object to any more. This had xpert from pointing out the differences he found in the writing. After examining all the known writing of Mrs. Botkin and of that on the wrapper and in the anonymous letters, the expert said: ‘“‘There can be no doubt whatever but that all were in the same handwriting.” To Mr. Knight the expert said he could not be mistaken in his deductions. He was asked about an Eastern case where an attorney wrote an address and he identified it as the work of another. He squirmed out of this dilemma only to face a series of questions as to the compensa- tion he expected for his services. It de- veloped that his fee was $10 a day, but he had no agreement as to what he was to receive in this case. Mr. Hosmer had promised him reasonable compensation. He saild he had no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that all the exemplars were in the same handwriting. He could hardly be more certain if he had seen the work done. Mr. Knight asked him if he had seen a letter written by Mrs. Bot- kin to Dunning at Porto Rico and inter- cepted there. Mr. Hosmer objected to a series of ‘questions on that line, and Knight said he would ask Chief Lees the question, Hosmer: “You won’t find any such letter.” Knight: “It was there.” Hosmer: “It was not."” Knight: “It was there.” Hosmer: “It was not.”” This snappish dialogue might have been continued indefinitely had not Judge Cook put an end to it. Knight then became jocose at the cleverness shown by the ex- pert In ‘extricating himself from tight corners. Hosmer protested at the levity displayed, declaring that Knight was not following the rules of evidence. Mrs. Price, the landlady of the Victoria Hotel, was recalled to answer a question propounded by Juror Heyman. It was whether Mrs. Botkin went at once to her room the Sunday afternoon she came in with certain packages. The witness said she did. Carl Eisenschimmel, handwriting expert, was the last witness of the day. He had not concluded his testimony when the hour for adjournment arrived. He spoke of “muscular recoil,”” ‘“muscular co-ordi- nation” and on other matters with which only experts are on terms of intimacy. by the President, who relies upon Cabinet at the beginning of the | Mr. Long’s wise and conserva- new year. It is stated to-night|tive counsel in Cabinet confer- HON. JOHN D. LONG, Secretary of the Navy.