Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 9, 1891

Mr. Miller to Mr. Adee.

Department of Justice,
Washington, May 19, 1891.

Sir: Inclosed I hand you copy of the report of the grand jury at New Orleans, which was sent to me in this form by the United States attorney. This in reponse to your note of May 18 requesting the same.

W. H. H. Miller,
Attorney-General.

[Inclosure.—From the New Orleans Picayune of May 6, 1891.]

Report of grand jury as to telling in New Orleans parish prison of certain persons charged with the murder of Chief of Police Hennessy.

Grand Jury Room, May 5, 1891.

To the Hon. Robert H. Marr, Judge of the Criminal District Court of the Parish of Orleans, Section A:

When this grand jury entered upon its term of service there was pending in section B, this tribunal, the trial of nine men indicted for participation in the assassination of the late superintendent of police, D. C. Hennessy, on the night of October 15, 1890. The enormity of that crime, executed at the midnight hour, created unusual interest throughout the whole country, while in our own city, vitally concerned in the administration of justice, as deeply affecting her social, political, and material welfare, the sentiment of the populace had crystallized into the concrete form of expression that justice be rendered through the recognized channels of criminal jurisprudence, that the guilty perpetrators, whoever they were, be tried by an impartial jury of American citizens and meet with a righteous conviction. One fact stood out in awful prominence, above and beyond dispute or question by any man—the fact that a crime of unparalleled atrocity had been committed, evidenced by the five terrible death-dealing weapons, the numerous slugs and bullets fired on their mission of human destruction and found imbedded in the fences and houses at the scene, besides the missiles that struck down the solitary man, who would never have been marked as the victim had he not filled the responsible position of chief of police of the law.

It is not to be wondered that attention should be directed to the trial during the many days of its progress in the selection of jurors, the evidence of witnesses, the arguments of counsel, the charge of the judge, and finally concentrated on the twelve men who, by virtue of their solemn oath, sat in awful judgment on their fellow-men. The verdict is now of official record, bearing date March 13, 1891. We can not be mistaken in the assertion that the verdict was startling, amazing, a bitter disappointment, shocking to public opinion, provoking the repeated accusation that some of the jury had been unfaithful to their high office.

We feel that we do not transcend the limits of our duty as the grand inquest to refer to the strong presentation of the case as made by the State through the counsel associated in the prosecution—clear, continuous, complete, convincing in the direct testimony and the material circumstances, it appeared more than sufficient to convince the most unwilling listener with its truth and convey the full measure of its power to those who ventured to doubt.

As the trial neared its termination it was not possible for an observer to fail to realize the comments made on every side touching the action of some members of the jury when the case should be submitted. Charges and speculations abounded, coupled with the well-known connection of certain parties of unenviable notoriety, as shown by their presence daily in the court room and building, arousing the suspicion that the most subtile, dangerous, and powerful influences known to the practice of criminal law were being exercised in behalf of the defense.

These considerations have led us to investigate the subject, embracing all its attendant conditions and incidents. The inquiry has been conducted with the utmost diligence, devoid of fear or partiality, with the single purpose of fastening the guilt to the proper persons and presenting them under indictment to this tribunal.

Each one of the twelve jurors of the trial was summoned and asked to make a statement. None objected, hut all rather welcomed the opportunity. It was a notable feature of the sworn statements that they primarily sought to justify their verdict by attacking the line of evidence presented by the State and attaching much weight to the arguments of counsel for defense. It was freely admitted by the jurors that remarks had been made in the jury room as early as the first day, when the testimony was offered, and repeated a number of times afterwards, that the State was making a poor case] and was positively repeated at the close of the State’s evidence.

One quarrel at least was reported, arising from the accusation by one juror to another with the expression, “You talk like you were fixed before you came here.” They formed no conception of the tension to which the public mind was strung, though impressed with the deep interest as shown each day by the crowd of spectators in the court room.

It was clearly indicated that the necessity for secrecy was urged as the several jurors were selected and joined the company of their fellows. It was impressed upon them at various times, and finally, before the verdict was rendered, brought forward again, with the injunction to destroy every vestige of evidence they had and leave every thought and act behind them. Surely the urgency of this was most cunningly devised to conceal the peculiar events that transpired in the jury room. Careful observers testify with special reference to the marked inattention of the jury as the witnesses submitted their evidence—a conduct most unbecoming and fraught with the gravest consequences, when the momentous import of the issue is considered. We are led to conclude that the jury undertook to try the case, when it was submitted, by their own estimate of the value of statements made by parties not called as witnesses. With strange unanimity they dwelt upon what they knew by reading and hearsay of certain incidents of the assassination prior to the trial, and made those the basis of the powerful persuasion for giving the accused the benefit of the doubt and concluding the deliberations in their favor.

We must take occasion to say that it was not expected to obtain any evidence of undue influence from the members of the jury, for those who were uncorrupted had nothing to reveal, while the others would but make themselves particeps criminis; yet, in their numerous statements, much was obtained having a direct connection with, and supported by, the great volume of testimony elicited during the course of the inquiry.

It is clearly brought out by the evidence of the jurors that, as affecting three of the accused—Politz, Scaffedi, and Monasterio—the jury engaged in the deliberations in their case some four or five hours, attended with intense excitement, and on repeated ballots the jury’s vote stood 6 guilty, 6 not guilty. This is a clearly defined indication of the convictions of the jury as to the three accused. It impresses us deeply, as it must everyone to whom the fact is conveyed, and forces the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to justify the six jurors who stood resolute and determined for a verdict of guilty, making it well-nigh impossible to reach any other conclusion than a mistrial. These three accused named above were probably the unwilling actors designated by leaders of the conspiracy to execute a villainous part, in which they had neither personal motive nor interest.

Following this investigation it was quickly learned from various sources that talesmen had been approached; every clew offered was taken up; as a rule the talesmen who had been previously marked out were seen when alone or invited away to some secluded and unsuspected place, well designed pretexts guarding the real meaning of the talks, but quickly leading up to the great trial. Talesmen were visited at their homes during the evening or early morning, intercepted while on their way to the court-house, stopped in the corridor of the court, and the vile work was deliberately carried forward in the court room during the trial. One favorite expression was that “big money might be made by going on the jury and doing right.”

There is no possible doubt that such attempts were made by various parties in the service of the defense, entertained by some of the talesmen, and scornfully rejected by others. These are facts given on the evidence of the talesmen, who, quickly discerning the true meaning of the men who addressed them, indignantly repelled any attempt to control their line of conduct by these emissaries. In several instances a rebuff was answered that the talk was a joke, but surely a well-directed joke of deep significance when the leading part is enacted by the counsel of one of the accused participants in the assassination at the time awaiting trial in the parish prison, now under indictment for attempting to bribe a juror.

Another class of the talesmen took special care to deny any knowledge of the vile work or showed remarkable deficiency of memory as to what they had told their friends, causing us to conclude that they were silent from fear, or had been seen and cautioned about incriminating anyone, till their tongues were silenced as with the hand of death. In this connection we can plainly state that a number of the witnesses most emphatically denied having been approached or spoken to about service on the jury, even after telling it to their friends, who had informed us. Yes, these were young men from whom better things were expected. Of such we can say that to conceal, and thereby attempt to condone, a crime is only a step removed from participation in it. Among the talesmen a number of our citizens have nobly come forward from a sense of duty, relating their experiences, furnishing at least some of the missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence drawn around the organized gang of jury-bribers.

It is not to be questioned that the work was systematically executed after careful preparation, and it had to be done quickly, as the hours were few and time precious. The necessity was imperative for complete lists of the talesmen, but such lists were easily obtained, as in other trials. The grand jury knows that the list of five hundred talesmen in the Hennessy case was in the office of O’Malley and Adams at 11 o’clock Sunday morning, February 22, 1891, though the trial judge issued special orders on Saturday evening that the list was not to be made public or given to counsel of either side until Monday morning. It is not shown by whose hands the list was secured, but enough is known to confirm the past secret and powerful influence of the so-called private detective agency and Counsel Adams to handle the machinery of the court.

The official relations of the jury commissioners to the court in the trial of the criminal cases are so intimate and far reaching in their consequences that the maladministration of their duties has become the fountain source of the-success-ful fixing of jurors in important trials. Great and small pieces of evidence show that the lists of names were tampered with when drawn from the jury wheel and before they reached the jury box in the court.

O’Malley was put in possession of the lists almost immediately after the names were drawn, and before they reached the district attorney’s office in due course. Influential friends alone could accomplish these ends, but it was secured in the person of one commmissioner, lately removed. It is further shown that in the office of this detective agency is kept a book of names and addresses of jurymen. Out of three hundred names drawn for the February panel, thirty-two were on the list in O’Malley and Adams’s office, and later, as the talesmen were drawn, many more names appeared that were on that private list. At times special lists were brought to the jury commissioners, which, one of them stated, had been prepared elsewhere and, being looked over by the others, went into the jury wheel. Truly, the business of the enterprising detective agency was facilitated when thirty-two names of their selection could be drawn on a panel of three hundred jurors from a wheel containing one thousand names.

We must express regret that any cause should exist for the criticisms directed toward some of the deputy sheriffs employed in the court and at the parish prison. Unreliability seems to be the feature marking their conduct, interrupting the confidence which should clothe every subordinate officer of the law. There were those whose indifference was so manifest, while not detected in any act of infidelity, that suspicion was aroused as to their sympathy with the accused, calculated to embarrass the best-directed efforts of the prosecution. It is a noteworthy point, in this connection, that the indictments against McCrystol and Cooney, being read in the court room in blank, the fact was at once communicated to them through some subordinates of the court. Under a proper condition of things, the utmost secrecy should have been observed. It is further shown that when the arrest was made of those two parties in the office of O’Malley and Adams, the deputy sheriff was asked by O’Malley to say the arrest was made on Carondelet street, and it was so reported to the court.

In searching for the true causes of the criminal acts connected with the impaneling of the jury in the Hennessy case, the sworn statement of Thomas C. Collins is found of great value; and in this we take occasion to declare that Collins was selected especially for the duties to be performed, and for this purpose secured employment in O’Malley and Adams’s office, which being done, he was commissioned a special officer by the mayor and paid by the city for this service. The money received by him each week from O’Malley and Adams for services rendered there was handed to the designated person at the city hall. The difficult and dangerous duties assumed by Special Collins while acting in his double capacity were performed with the strictest fidelity, as evidenced by the daily reports in writing of everything seen or heard. Minute in all details, the correctness is assured; in fact, the material features of the statement and reports are so closely connected and interwoven with the facts and circumstances connected with the trial, as confirmed by various other witnesses, that there is not the slightest reason to doubt its accuracy and correctness.

It unfolds the whole story of the iniquitous workings of the arch conspirator and his lieutenants, revealing the boundless power of a man to overcome and defy the majesty of the law in criminal and civil proceedings through the operations of an unscrupulous private detective agency.

Truly may it be said that the greater the freedom of action and the removal of restraint under the liberal privileges accorded all men in our country, the bolder become the unlawful practices, the greater the villainy of such a combination of designing and unscrupulous malefactors.

It is well known to the court and will be quickly realized by every thoughtful person that the difficulties of establishing the existence of a conspiracy by adequate proof are almost insurmountable. Such plottings are done in secret places, and their workings often guarded by the advice of counsel well versed in criminal law. Secrecy is an essential element in the successful execution of the designs of a conspiracy. Seldom does it happen that any one of the participants will reveal the villainy either before or after its execution.

In the attempts to influence the talesmen of the Hennessy case no visible act was committed, and we fully realize the difference between a crime committed by words only and what are known as visible acts, which might be witnessed by other persons and tell the tale of crime. In the attempts to influence talesmen, and the successful part of it, whispered words conveyed the insinuation or directly offered the money influence. This reference will serve to show the barriers this inquest has encountered in securing evidence, but sufficient was offered by voluntary and reliable witnesses to justify the indictment of six men, as follows: Thomas McCrystol and John Cooney, with D. C. O’Malley, for attempting to bribe a talesman; and Birnard Glaudi, Charles Granger, and Ferdinand Armant, for attempt by each to bribe three different talesmen. These parties are already shown to have been intimate with O’Malley, often at his office, informed of all doings, and were active workers in the jury-fixing business generally.

We are prompted to express ourselves in deprecation of the hesitation of many of our citizens to be connected with criminal prosecution by seeking relief from jury duty. The intelligent and law-abiding, while engaged in the various enterprises of business and trade, must recognize the obligation without which the guilty too often go unpunished. We urge them to cast off this repugnance, to rise superior to the annoyances attendant upon trials, standing up with the great majority of their fellow-men in the condemnation of the detestable practices brought to a high degree of perfection by their frequency—practices which threaten to deaden and destroy the virtues of the criminal code, to debase the temple of justice for ignoble ends, and degrade the cherished right of “trial by jury” from its high position as the exponent of truth, justice, and right.

Taking into account the volume of testimony admitted by the numerous witnesses before this grand jury, and considering that evidence, not only in the abstract relation to each party, but in its aggregate and collective bearing, we are forced to the conclusion that Dominick C. O’Malley is chargeable with a knowledge of and participation in most, if not all, of the unlawful acts in connection with that celebrated case. With his skill, as acquired by years of experience, the most cunningly devised schemes were planned and executed for defeating the legitimate course of justice, the chief aim and object being to place unworthy men upon the jury in the trial of the nine accused. Without his assiduous and corrupting influence we believe the verdict would have been radically different, and, as a natural consequence, the tragic occurrences of the 14th of March last never would have been recorded.

In the persons of the indicted McCrystol and Cooney there were reliable and trained assistants; the former’s connection, with some intermissions, extends back through several years. McCrystcd’s voluntary statement to the grand jury, partly in the shape of a confession, reveals some points of the trial and causes us to think he would have told more but for the power and influence of O’Malley and associates. We know that such influence has been used in connection with a friend of the nine men lately on trial. These two men were the trusted accomplices and figure throughout the whole affair with a prominence showing the high appreciation in which their services were held. They are the men who approached several talesmen, as before stated, the proposals being mostly refused. In one instance it is shown that O’Malley took money from his safe and gave it to Cooney, who said, “McCrystol, you know that fellow better than I do; give him the money.” This was to complete a bargain reported made with a talesman, who was shortly afterward accepted as a juror. And here mark the words of one Fanning: “You fellows better get up there now.”

We can not fail to refer to the intimate relations existing between a class of ward politicians and the prime mover in all the infamous doings. His office was a place of rendezvous; all were deeply concerned in the appointment of a successor to the late chief, and speculation abounded as to the availability of such a one for their use. It was also important that the agency should be informed of the workings of the city special officers, and O’Malley managed to have a friend appointed. He was assigned to the police, and not the detective force, when he resigned rather than wear a uniform.

We have it most directly, and confirmed by other evidence, that a person holding the position of inspector of weights and measures was often at the agency and stood sentinel at the door several times. The same person was seen coming to the court-house in company with a talesman the day he was accepted as a juror. There is confirmed evidence that the influence of D. C. O’Malley with the night watchman and inspector at the electric-light plant was so great that he could cause them to manipulate the light at the corner of Girod and Basin streets the evening the jury was taken to the scene of the assassination.

We quote the words of Officer Collins, showing the directions given by O’Malley at the detective agency, 7 p.m., March 10: “Go to Mike Fanning’s, and if he is not at home, to the electric-light company and see Jim Waldron, and tell him I sent you. Tell Waldron, in a manner no one but he will be able to understand, to make that light corner Girod and Basin burn weak, as it was on the night of October; to have it done by 7:30 o’clock.” The message was delivered to Waldron, and on the messenger’s (Collins) return O’Malley remarked: “That fellow will break the wheel down if necessary.” No wonder, then, O’Malley could have access to the electric-light works after nightfall, and it doubtless accounts for the alteration found in one of the record books as to the condition of the light at the corner of Basin and Girod streets on the night Hennessy was shot, it being changed to read forty minutes additional of dim light to the time originally recorded for the fatal night of October 15, 1890. It is but justice to state that the president and superintendent of the electric-light company, as also the general manager, who was-in New York, as soon as they were informed that their men were being tampered with, did all and everything in their power to frustrate their plans and preserve the actual record.

From the beginning of our investigation there is continuous evidence brought to our attention of the pernicious combinations of what is known as the D. C. O’Malley Detective Agency. It advertises in the Daily City Item and by a signboard at the office that one of the ablest criminal lawyers at the bar is the attorney for the agency. We know for an absolute fact that the bank account is kept and checks drawn in the name of O’Malley and Adams, the interested parties being D. C. O’Malley and Lionel Adams. Such a combination between a detective and a prominent criminal lawyer is unheard of before in the civilized world, and when we contemplate its possibilities for evil we stand aghast.

The indictment of D. C. O’Malley for perjury was based upon most undoubted evidence. It came originally from Cleveland, Ohio, where, on June 30, 1875, he was convicted of petty larceny and committed to the workhouse of the city of Cleveland, where he served a term expiring June 22, 1876.

He next appears under indictment for perjury in the United States circuit court at New Orleans, where an indictment was based upon the affidavit against one Ed. Schlieder, which O’Malley afterwards contradicted under oath; but he managed to secure an acquittal, owing to the timely disappearance of the affidavit, which he alone was interested in having suppressed. Later he was committed to the parish prison for attempting to levy blackmail upon one George W. Randolph in the proceedings against Randolph for interdiction. The following record is verified by officials, showing his numerous offenses before the criminal court of this parish:

• First. No. 9478, July 3, 1884; indicted for attempting to prevent witnesses from appearing and testifying. Nolle prosequied April 26, 1888.
• Second. No. 4838, May 9, 1884; indicted for threatening and intimidating a witness. Acquitted May 29, 1884.
• Third. No. 2262, June 3, 1879; pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced.
• Fourth. No. 3679, November 3, 1883; convicted of assault and sentenced.
• Fifth. No. 930, April 1, 1881; pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced.
• Sixth. No. 3678, January 3, 1883; pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced.
• Seventh. No. 5186; pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced.
• Eighth. No. 7242, December 4, 1885; convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced.
• Ninth. No. 7241, May 22, 1885; indicted for assault and battery.

So pernicious to the administration of justice were his doings and methods found that while Judge Roman presided in the criminal court he ordered that O’Malley be excluded from the court room. This was during the time his present associate, Lionel Adams, was district attorney, and it is a significant fact that the two indictments against O’Malley for tampering with witnesses were not brought to trial, but were nolle prosequied by the district attorney just prior to the expiration of his term.

The inside view which we were enabled to get of the workings of this agency through City Detective Collins, abundantly corroborated from many sources, convinces us that it had at its command a band of perjurers, blackmailers, suborners, and jury-tamperers, and that has for some time been an element of discord in this community and a stumbling-block to the administration of justice which should be eradicated. That its career of crime has not been cut short is a matter of wonder, and is no doubt due to the fact that O’Malley and his coworkers have banded together for self-preservation.

The evidence is beyond question that O’Malley went uptown in the Carondelet street car on Saturday, March 14 last, in company with a party, reaching Fourth street shortly before 11 a.m. The party was sent twice to Seligman’s house, after which O’Malley in person went to the house, and within a few minutes Seligman was running up Carondelet street and entered a carriage in waiting near the corner of St. Charles and Washington avenues. O’Malley was next seen walking rapidly up St. Charles avenue. Were it possible for any doubt to exist as to the acquaintance and sympathy or even closer bond of fellowship existing between these two men it must be dispelled by the above recital, as showing the first thought and effort for Seligman when O’Malley realized the danger expressed in the thundering tones of popular indignation.

The extended range of our researches has developed the existence of the secret organization styled “Mafia.” The evidence comes from several sources, fully competent in themselves to attest its truth, while the fact is supported by the long” record of blood-curdling crimes, it being almost impossible to discover the perpetrators or secure witnesses. As if to guard against exposure, the dagger or stiletto is selected as the deadly weapon to plunge into the breast or back of the victim and silently do its fearful work. Revenge was their motto. Jealousy and malice speedily found solace in these methods, while the burning vengeance of the vendetta sought satisfaction in the life-blood of an enemy.

The officers of the Mafia and many of its members are now known. Among them are men born in this city of Italian origin, using their power for the basest purposes, be it said to their eternal disgrace. The larger number of the society is composed of Italians or Sicilians, who left their native land, in most instances under assumed names to avoid conviction and punishment for crimes there committed, and others were escaped convicts and bandits, outlawed in their own land, seeking the city of New Orleans for the congenial companionship of their own class. These men know the swift retribution of the law in Italy, for hundreds have been shot down at sight by the military in the mountains of Sicily without a second thought. To-day there is recorded in the office of the Italian consul in this city the names of some 1,100 Italians and Sicilians landed here during several years past, showing the official record of their criminality in Italy and Sicily. Hundreds of them are among us to-day. We doubt not that the Italian Government would rather be rid of them than be charged with their custody and punishment. Such is the well-known character of the Italian colony, as it is called, who are domiciled in this city and vicinity.

It can not be questioned that secret organizations whose teachings are hostile to the fundamental principles of the Government of the United States must be a continual menace to the good order of society and the material welfare of the people. Whether under the name of Mafia, socialist, nationalist, or whatever it may be, whether located in New Orleans, Chicago, or New York, the meetings of their members create and disseminate seditious opinions with a manifest tendency toward overt acts, whose commission partakes of the rankest treason.

We may say that the many societies created and chartered for the laudable purpose of exercising a healthful influence in the various departments of the body politic enjoy a hearty approbation and are productive of good results. But in marked contrast to all those is the “Mafia,” whose every thought and act is in opposition to law and order, as contemplated by every nation of the civilized world, and in open defiance of the statutes of this State and nation and the cherished traditions of our people. Law is truly regarded as the embodiment of the wisdom of all ages, and its just execution the safeguard of society, by the punishment of transgressors; its just execution expresses the will of the people in condemnation of crime, but, where this lofty principle is contemned by the practice of assassination for revenge or spite, and concealment under the most binding oaths renders powerless the efforts of the law to reach the chief actors and secure witnesses, it becomes the duty of the people, in the exercise of their sovereign rights, to issue their decree or condemnation. Trial verdict has been rendered; the power of the Mafia is broken; it must be destroyed as an element of danger, a creation of leprous growth in the community.

Taking into account the mass of evidence presented, which is only partially summarized in the foregoing, it becomes our painful duty to make a declaration most severe in its reflection upon the action of some of the jurymen. We are so deeply impressed with the facts of the case that the moral conviction is forced upon us that some of the jurors impaneled to try the accused on the charge of assassination of the late chief of police were subject to a money influence, to control their decision.

Further than this, we may say it appears certain that at least three, if not more, of that jury were so unduly and unlawfully controlled. Some of the jurors themselves have testified in more emphatic terms that if it had not been for the persistent and well-directed efforts of three of the jurymen, most conspicuous from the time that body was impaneled, the verdict would have been materially different from that rendered. This is a sad and terrible commentary from their associates on the jury as against those whose every action was intended to make them the controlling power. It is certain that the special effort of counsel for defense was to select for service on that jury such men as were of the acquaintance and well under the influence of O’Malley and his assistants, notably those talesmen who were on the detective agency’s list.

What can be thought when three of the jurors were accepted with only some unimportant questions, or the clerk to “swear” them without a question. This is a proceeding almost unheard of in trials for capital offenses, but it has its meaning as well as the other instances have their significance. One of the jurors, young in years, was, by his own statement, so susceptible to the influence of a dream that he changed his mind between night and morning. Others of the jury plainly stated that their age and inexperience did not qualify them to assume responsibilities of jurymen in that case. Impatience prevailed toward the close, and it is thought by several of the jurors to have hastened the conclusion. Surely a remarkable jury, but fully competent to render the remarkable verdict. It has gone to the people, whose intelligence and virtue enable them to discern between truth and falsehood, to decide between right and wrong.

No question is more intimately connected with the subject-matter of this report than that of immigration. It deeply interests the people of our whole country, by reason of the good results following the landing on our shores of large numbers of meritorious and law-abiding foreigners, or the damage attendant upon the introduction of a vicious and indolent class, who leave their native country for that country’s good, seeking an asylum here, soon again to follow in their footsteps of the past. We know that this question more deeply concerns the city of New Orleans than it does any city on the Atlantic seaboard. Its great importance is forcibly expressed in the columns of the public press, till there seems to be an awakening to the danger that threatens the situation and the necessity for a radical reformation. That past immigration laws were sorely deficient or badly administered is indicated by recent legislation of the National Congress, and even these new regulations will not be effective unless strictly enforced by the proper officials charged with such duties. That is the intention at present and for the future, yet, by some design or other, the details of the law may be evaded. For instance, so high an authority as the Italian consul, this city, in his sworn statement before the grand jury, charges that nine Italians were recently landed from the steamship Entella whose names were not on the passenger list. This point has been referred by him to the Italian Government, and is being investigated, the steamer being due at Palermo about this time. The consul claims that nine hundred and forty-one persons were landed, while the passenger register showed nine hundred and thirty-two names. If it is finally shown that these nine Italians were so landed in violation of the laws of both nations, they should be returned whence they came and the steamship Entella be heavily fined.

We have stated in our remarks about the Mafia that several hundred Italian criminals are in this city to-day who should not have left their native land without the indorsement of the American consul as to character, and should not have been permitted to land here. The time has passed when this country can be made the dumping” ground for the worthless and depraved of every nation. The crisis is reached, and, in the magnitude of the issue, it becomes the duty of the next Congress to quickly enact such vigorous laws that complete protection can be afforded henceforth against these evils.

At the same time we shall plainly say, from our own experience and knowledge, that a large part of the Italian colony in this city is recognized as a worthy class. They do not indulge freely in the use of beer or alcoholic drinks. Fairly industrious, those who remain in the city soon save up a few dollars, more by the strictest frugality than otherwise, and soon are doing something for their own account. As if by common consent, the fruit and oyster business has drifted into the hands of the Italians, the volume of which, in wholesale and retail lines, reaches immense proportions. What more could they wish? What more could they ask? No other country on this earth would extend to any newcomers such privileges. And what do we ask in return? Simply that they, like all others of foreign birth, should conform to existing laws, by which their persons and property are protected; to assimilate in thought and deed with our own people in denouncing the wrong and upholding the right; to rise above the fears and persuasions of secret societies, helping to crush their power; and, above all, else, showing an allegiance to the principles of the National and State Governments with no doubtful fidelity, realizing that the one flag, as the emblem of freedom, not less the index of a nation’s power, is the Stars and Stripes, which must and shall be respected.

It may be thought we have exceeded the bounds that should compass the report of a grand jury, but let it be remembered the subjects embraced are of such extraordinary character in connection with the events of the recent past that, to some extent, we are compelled to refer to them from our position as citizens as well as from our official relations to this honorable court.

In the presentation of the main features given to us as evidence, condensed as far as possible by the selection of the most important portions of the inquiry, we have referred mainly to the evidence bearing upon the trial of the nine accused in section B of this honorable court; but directly connected with all those circumstances are the terrible events transpiring on the 14th day of March last-events which in themselves may be charged as directly traceable to the miscarriage of justice as developed in the verdict rendered on the 13th of March.

We are deeply impressed with the serious charge delivered by your honor to this body on the subject, and at no time since have we lost sight of the necessity for a thorough investigation of all the conditions antecedent to it. We have engaged ourselves most assiduously with the examination of a large number of witnesses, embracing those who were present at the meeting on Canal street, in the vicinity of the parish prison, as well as several hundred of our fellow-citizens taken from every rank and class of society. It is shown in the evidence that the gathering on Saturday morning, March 14, embraced several thousand of the first, best, and even the most law-abiding of the citizens of this city, assembled, as is the right of American citizens, to discuss in public meeting questions of grave import.

We find a general sentiment among these witnesses, and also in our intercourse with the people, that the verdict as rendered by the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence and secured mainly through the designing and unscrupulous agents employed for the special purpose of defeating the ends of justice. At that meeting the determination was shown that the people would not submit to the surrender of their rights into the hands of midnight assassins and their powerful allies.

The assassination of the late chief of police shows the culmination of a conspiracy. His death was deemed necessary to prevent the exposure and punishment of criminals whose guilt was being fast established by his diligent pursuit.

The condition of affairs in this community as to a certain class of violators of the law had reached such a stage that the law itself was well-nigh powerless to deal with them, so far-reaching was their power and influence in the trial of criminal cases.

Good citizens were profoundly impressed by the repeated and signal failures of justice. The arts of the perjurer and briber seemed to dominate in the courts, paralyzing and rendering powerless the ends of justice. Certainly this was a desperate situation. In the public meeting above referred to—general and spontaneous in its character, as truly indicating an uprising of the masses—we doubt if any power at the command of the authorities would have been sufficient to overcome its intentions. Evidence is before us from official sources that all persons were killed in the attack on the parish prison. In the careful examination as to citizenship of those men we find that eight of them were, beyond question, American citizens, and another had “declared his intention” in this court, which act carries with it the renunciation of allegiance to his native country.

It is a noteworthy fact, in connection with the uprising, that no injury whatever was done to either person or property beyond this one act, which seemed to have been the object of the assemblage at the parish prison. We have referred to the large number of citizens participating in this demonstration, estimated by judges at from 6,000 to 8,000, regarded as a spontaneous uprising of the people. The magnitude of this affair makes it a difficult task to fix guilt upon any number of the participants; in fact, the act seemed to involve the entire people of the parish and city of New Orleans, so profuse is their sympathy and extended their connection with the affair. In view of these considerations the thorough examination of the subject has failed to disclose the necessary facts to justify this grand jury in presenting indictments.

Respectfully submitted.

• W. H. Chaffe,
  Foreman.
• Geo. H. Vennard.
• O. Carriere.
• G. A. Hogsette, Jr.
• E. Gauche.
• G. C. Lafaye.
• John H. Jackson.
• Paul J. Christian.
• Emile E. Hatry.
• D. R. Graham.
• David Stuart.
• T. W. Castleman.
• W. L. Saxon.
• A. S. Ranlett.
• H. Haller.
• W. B. Leonhard.