reliance iqwn them. However, law and rij^t ou^t to be vindi-
cated all the same.
Althouc^ we are in the habit of believing that in the
golden age of the Maryland Bar, prior to the Civil War, all
lawyers were gentlemen and that shysters were unknown, the
following letter indicates that no such Utopian condition
existed:
A. W. Machen to his Paiher.
Baldmoce, December 20, 1855.
It is amazing what a deal of rascality is practised by the petty
officials connected with the administration of justice — ^the gaolers,
baili£b, etc. — and also, and in an equal d^ree— there is no com-
parative or superlative to such a standard— in the dirty fellows
who assume the name and guise of lawyers, and in doing so bring
scandal on an honourable profession. Circumstances have very
latdy given Dick and me an opportunity of looking behind the
curtain. I have not room to give you the particulars, but in
brief the &cts are these. We were counsel originally for two
negroes diarged as accomplices in a crime of some magnitude.
One was tried and convicted on very strong circumstantial evi-
Digitized by VjOOQIC
SHYSTERS AT THE BAR 201
dence, the prindpftl witnesses bting a couple of watchmen and
a Dutchman. The other's case was removed into Baltinuwe
County, and» a new judge having been elected in Judge G>nstable's
ptace, wliose iUness and decease caused aU the business of that
Circuit to be at a stand for neady two years, yesierday a trial was
at last to have been had. To our astonishment, on going into
Court in the morning, we were told that our man had the evemng
before been granted a discharge. Upon examination, we discover
that by the jdnt action of certain under-gaolers, the State's
witnesses, and of a member of the bar (with whom, itis needless to
say, we had no concert, and never knew asan associate in the cause,
ihid wonder had been effected It is not uncharitable to suspect
that one of the witnesses was bribed, and therefore kept away
from the Court House. The others became on a sudden quite
ignorant of anything that could tdl very heavily against the
prisoner— curiously so, considering the precision and strength
of their statements heretofore twice made under oath, once be-
fore the Grand Jury, and again at the trial of the other cu^t.
When the matter was thus duly arranged— "the attending witnesses
having (I suppose) received legal advice as to how much it was
necessary to forget,— a rq)resentation was made to the State's
Attorney that this {Hrisoner could not be convicted and had suffered
hardship ahready in a long confinement, and he, willing (I imagine)
to escape joining issue, under circumstances endangering defeat,
sUtted the case, that is, abandoned the further prosecution of it.
The gaoler put the Court's otdct of disdiarge in his pocket, and
tdls the prisoner he may go free on paying to him, his ddieerer —
all that he can rake and wanpt by the assistance of his friends—
an amount liquidated in this instance at $60. At this pdnt we
intervene, inform the negro of his right to an immediate and un-
conditional disdiarge, and insist upon that rig^t being respected —
to the disaiqxHntment and infinite disgust of a whole shoal of
sharks.
A later letter describes an ejectment case in which Machen
and (^ttings were opposed to Robert J. Brent, one of the
leaders of the bar, and by skillful strategy succeeded in
defeating their formidable antagonist:
Digitized by VjOOQIC
202 IN ANTE-BELLUM BALTIMORE
A. W. Machen to his Father.
Baltimore, February 11, 1858.
Last Tliunday we (meaning therdby Dick and I) b^;an the
trial of a land case in the county, wluch was not only not concluded
Friday afternoon when the court adjoumedi but is likdy to
occupy a good part of next week. Robert J. Brent, who is cqypoaed
to us, is a pretty formidable man at a nisi prius trial, tenacious,
hawk-eyed and full of resources; and he is particularly versed in
ejectment law. The case itsdf , Bennett v. North, raises a number
of very interesting pcnnts. It is a question ci the true location of
conflicting patents, and to resolve it we are running bac^ some
two hundred years, raking up as we go a host of old patents, deeds,
surveys and other documents having more or less oonnecti<m with
the subject matter.
The controversy is waged very mudi like a game of diess. We,
being plaintiflb, begin by pushing forward this and that title
pap^. The plats previously prepared under a Warrant of Resur-
vey (under the peculiar Maryland practice) rqyresent the several
Unes and objects respectivdy relied on by the parties in siqiport
of their pretensions; and an intricate and Oder's wd> ajqiearance
they exhibit, suflSdent to confound at first ught, not a jury of
plain country folk only, but a man of dear and practised judgment.
Upon this as our diess board, we push forth, one after another,
patent and deed, with a most careful consideration of the way in
which they may jointly bear against the enemy, and at the same
time kave no opening for a counter attadc. — ^Brent thinks he
spies such an opening. Hie presses upon the point; we make a
show of resistance; he presses vehemently; we yidd; the evidence
is in— and lol it tdls prodigiously in our faivour. We knew better
than he what was bdiind, and enjoyed his discomfiture exceedin^y.
Having at length made out a sufBdent prima facie case, we pause,
so that he is compelled to show his own case in defense, while we
hold the strength of ours in reserve.
In Maryland every piece of patented land bears a patent name,
and this circumstance gives a wonderful liveliness to the contest.
Thus we start under the banner of "St George," supporting its
ancient boundaries by reference to the adjoining or kindred tracts
Digitized by VjOOQIC
TWO TRIUMPHS 203
of Speedwell^ Litton's Improvement^ Richardson's Outlet, Long
Point, Tra€e3r's Level, ToUqr's Hills, &c, &c. Our adver3aries
rally under Ta}dor's Mount and Taylor's Enlargement, whidi are
older than St George. At the last we shall stand upon Fall
HOI, whidi dates back to 1667 and is older than the Enlarganent —
the defendants' ultimate tide. Then will a^^ the final strug^
Brent will use his utmost endeavours to brea& down our location
of Fall Hill, and will even contest its existence as a valid patent.
Monday, 22 Feb.— Bennett v. North was fought through six
long days, with many vidsdtudes and interesting phases* We won
Uie field at last And lucky for our dient it was that we so succeed-
ed, for taxed costs of the case, exclusive of coimsel fees, amount
to some $600, which it would have about ruined her to be com-
pelled to pay.
Another letter narrates a minor triumph upon cross-exami-
nation of a bank cashier whom my father convicted of a
blunder (or worse) in his own dqpartment of accounting:
A. W. Machen to kis Father.
Baltimore, July 11, 1858.
Considering the hot weather, I have lately been rather busy.
The latest incident of any interest, in a professional way, was the
cross-examination of a o^hier of a bank relative to some accounts
he had been giving in his examination in chief. I presumed to
think that, as he had used his figures, the eÂŁFect was to charge
my dient twice with an item of some four or five thousand dollars.
When my question directed his attention to the point, he denied
that any such error had been committed by him. The G)m-
missioner too, who was taking down the testimony— it is a Chan-
cery case— rather scouted my objection, and, although he faith-
fully put down the questions with which I followed up the point,
and the cashier's answers, evidentiy entertained the opinion that
I was on the scent of a mare's nest The witness was cool and
assured, and responded as if he thought it impossible that he, an
experienced ofEicer, a man of figures and figure, the influential
person in a leading bank, could have committed such a blunder,
and been detected in it by a mere lawyer, and a youngish one at
Digitized by VjOOQIC
204 IN ANTE-BELLUM BALTIMORE
that Tbe gentleman who is counsd for the bank, an old and
eminent member of our bar, iqwn my letting fadl the remark that
if I was not rij^t in the matter, I thouj^t I should give up arith-
metic, suavdy observed that his friend William Pinkney onoe,
wbea a lawyer on the other side of the trial table said that if
ke was not ri|^t j^regsrd to some mooted law pdnt, he would
throw away his books, retorted, "ycfa had better read tlmn, sir."
Of course, I was not to be shaken in my own opini<m by this sort
of thing, and I believe my equanimity was not in the sli^test
degree cUsturbed. At any rate, I steadily pushed questicm after
question until I had drawn forth sudi a diain of answers frc»n our
friend the cashier as would idainly exhibit his blunder on the record
(provided it were a blunder) at the risk of equally showing vip
my own cloudiness, if there should prove to be none.
The next day, which was yesterday, the Commissioner, who had
meanwhile transcribed the evidence, came to me and told me that
he had become satisfied, strong as his opinion had been against
me, that it was be himself and not I, who had been muddy, and
that I was dearly rij^t in the issue I had joined with the cashier.
To tdl the truth, I never oould bring myself to doubt that sudi
must be the oondusion of everybody, upon a considerate examina-
tion of the matter. It is rather jdeasant to catch these people,
who pass for such wise men and assume to speak with overriding
authority, committing mistakes in thdr own special dqMurtment
Even in the earlier days of my father's professional Hfe,
when he was himgry for practice, hd did not .seek cruninal
cases; and on one occasion, when a murder case in which
he had expected to be employed had been given to other
lawyers, he wrote:
A. W. Machen to his Broiker.
Baltimoie, December 12, 1854.
In truth I am not sorry to be relieved of the duty. The case,
while of great responsibility as involving the life of a man, is a
pretty black one, and not sudi as to exdte much sympathy in
my breast for the prisoner. Besides, I never was desirous of
"Digitized by VjOOQ IC
CRIMINAL PRACTICE 205
undertaking criminal casea— except under flpedal circumstances
and on rare occasions.
For some weeks at a time, Mr. GittingB> during his term
as State's Attoraey, was incapacitated by illness from per-
fonning the duties of the office; and his partner was there-
fore called upon to take his place. My father did not at the
time relish ibis diversion from civil cases to a branch of the
law which was iqpon the whole distasteful to him:
A. W. Machen to his Paiker.
Baltimore, December 5, 1858.
I went out last night to see Richard dttings, who is confined
to his house by sickness. Though his indisposition does not, I
hope and believe^ threaten any serious consequences, it requires
cessation from labour, and particularly freedom from exposure,
to prevent its developing into real illness. He is forbidden, there-
fore, to attend Court at Towsontown for a week or two at all
events. The term begins to-morrow morning; and as there is a
great press of criminal business, I suppose it will be necessary for
me to take up the duty of prosecuting some of the cases for him.
This is not the kind <k practice I am fond of, but the matter of
agreeableness or disagreableness of the work is not at all to be
considered. What is of more consequence is the extent to which
it will appropriate to itself time that is needed for other purposes.
Of course, while this state of things exists, it will require all the
time I can get, to carry on the several duties that have to be at-
tended to. Hence I fear I shall be prevented from getting to see
you as often as I expected.
Although at the time the criminal work seemed thus irk-
some, yet in after years he often adverted to the value of the
experience so acquired, saying that for a yo\mg lawyer noth-
ing is better than service as prosecuting attorney. He
would also often tell of amasing or interesting incidents
which he witnessed during his unofficial service as State's
Attorney. The following is the only one of these described
in his letters:
Digitized by VjOOQIC
206 IN ANTE-BELLUM BALTIMORE
A. W, Mackm to his Father.
Baltunore, December 8» 1858.
I had a pretty busy day at Towsontown, acting as State's
Attorney in Gittings' place, who cannot yet go to work without
some risk. I tried two cases today. At the conclusion of the
second, quite a scene occurred. The jury found the party— a
burglar— ^guilty; when the officers were about getting into the
box another prisoner (an accomplice of the one last tried), they
were amazed to find him in a deathlike stupor. He had, it seems,
in anticipation of the conviction that awaited him, taken a large
draught of laudanum or some other poison. A ph3rsidan went
to him at once and pronoimced him in a very dangerous condition.
The man certainly gained a postponement of his trial; whether at
the cost of his life or not, was imcertain when court adjourned.
In January and February, 1859, the first cause cdebre in
which Machen and Gitdngs were concerned was tried. This
was an indictment against two men for the miurder of a police-
man named Rigdon. The case was removed from Baltimore
City to Baltimore County for trial, and thus fell into the
hands of Mr. Gittings as State's Attorney for that County.
At his instance, my father was designated to assist in the
prosecution. The case was one of great importance because
the accused were members of two of the most influential
clubs of ruffians— the Vhxg Uglies, the Rq>-Raps, etc, —
which then terrorized Baltimore. They were charged, in-
deed, with being specially deputed by their respective dubs
to commit the miurder. In a letter to my grandfather, my
father gives a dear account of the circumstances of the
miurder:
A. W. Machen to his Father.
Baltimore^ December 31, 1858.
Next Monday Gittings and I expect to be trying the great
murder case of Cropps and another — ^for the State^ of course.
All this week we have been mainly occupied in collecting evidence.
No case for many years has exdted so much interest Indeed its
Digitized by VjOOQIC
PLUG UGLY CASES . 207
importance can scarcely be ov^estimated. It is the issue joined
between Law and Anarchy. About a year ago, a man named John
Gambrill was arrested on a charge of arson. The witnesses to the
fact were two of the best police officers in the City— ^ne Benton
and one Rigdon. Gambrill was a member of one of the most
noted of the dubs which have formed of late so prominent a
feature of Baltimore. Notice was given to Benton that his
life was to be taken. Accordingly advantage was taken one
night of a street row to shoot him. Henry Gambrill, brother of
the party indicted for the arson, was tried last November for
the homicide in the Criminal Court of Baltimore; Rigdon^ it
happened, was the principal witness to identify him as Benton's
murderer; and, though fully aware of the peril in which he stood,
ddivered his testimony very manfuUy. About 5 or 6 P.M. a
verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree was rendered. At
8 o'dock that evening, as Rigdon, the witness, was standing in
his own house in a back room, by the side of his wife, a shot was
fired through a small window looking into his yard, which de-
posited five balls in his breast, and stretched him dead upon the
hearth. No witness saw who did the deed, but a chain of cir-
cumstances connects the two prisoners as the perpetrators of it.
It is beautiful to see how a host of fragmentary bits of evidence,
each inconclusive in itself, can be made to resolve themselves into
a most convincing body of proof. Such is the terror which the
rowdy dement of which these prisoners are members has impressed
the community in the ndghbourhood of the murder, that a very
considerable difficulty is experienced in tracing up the evidence
to those who possess it Men tremble at the possession of sudi
knowledge as if it were stolen goods.
When the trial once bq;ins I dare say I may have to remain in
the County— the case is in our Court at Towsontown— at night
as wdl as during the day, in consequence of the late evening ses-
sions. Therefore you may not hear from me for several days.*
* The fdUowing letter fnmi my fother to bis brother gives a few additJonal
details:
"I am quite busy. By far the most important matter, intrinsically, is the
preparation of the murder case of Cropps and another set for trial next Monday.
The evidence is circumstantial and consists ol numerous fragments, which
Digitized by VjOOQIC
208 IN ANTE-BELLUM BALTIMORE
The statement in the forqgoing letter that ''men tremble at
the pofisesskm" of evidenoe, is doubtless an allusion to an
incident of which my father often qpoke. When he and Mr.
GittingB first started to work on the case, the evidence was
very scanty, and scarcely more than sufficient to raise a sus-
picion; but while they were preparing for trial, an anony-
mous letter was received, stating that a certain derk in the
Record Office knew something about the case. They at once
went to see derk referred to, who, when infcnrmed of their
object, turned as white as a sheet. At last, however, he
told what he knew; and the evidence thus elidted, together
with other evidence to which it led, built up the case for the
State.
The three following letters give the only accounts which
my father left behind him of the trial and convicdon of the
first of the two prisoners.
A. W. Machen to kis Father.
Baltimore, 4 Januaiy 1859.
Little progress has yet been made in Cropps* Case. The
Court, yielding to the earnest rq)resentation of the respective
counsel of the prisoners, that their defences were inconsistent,
allowed them die privilege of separate trials. We called up
however when pioperiy fitted together will make up I hope a concluBive caie
The muzder, iot cold-bloodednefs and hi^ handed villiany, stands perhaps
akme in criminal aimals. Rigdon, you may remember, was a faithful polke
officer and good dtizen, who in the discharge at his duty in both characters
manfully delivered testimony at the trial last November of a man named
Gambiill, for murder, which led to his conviction. The verdict in GambriU's
case was rendered about 6 P.M. Rigdon from that hour dU S VM, was
dogged from square to square, throoi^ the dty, till, at the hour I have last
mentioned, as he was standing in his own house by the side of his wife, he was
shot dead fr<mi a window at the rear ol the house, and with such fatal pie-
dsion that he scarce had time to utter more thanj^e dying groan. The
case is princtpaUy remarkable because no malice seems to have been borne
against Rigdon for any private matter, but he was deliberately assassinated
for the shiq>le act <rf speaking the whole truth, in fulfilment of his oath, upon
the witness stand." (A. W. M. to /. P. J/., December 29, 1S5S.)
Digitized by VjOOQIC
PLUG UGLY CASES 209
Croi^ first, and the whole of to-day was consumed in efforts to
make up a panel. What vrith the disqualification of many jurors
by previously formed opinions, and the perenq>tory challenge of
others by the prisoner, only six or seven have yet been sworn.
We have good hope, however, of completing the panel early to-
morrow. Our newspaper reports usually give an extremdy
inadequate exhibition of what occurs, the gentlonen who make
them being often gifted vrith a certain curiosa infdicUas which
enables them to execute very remarkable caricatures of every*
thing of which they attenq>t to give an account. But as there is a
fspocxBl interest taken in this case, they may perhaps succeed
somewhat better than usual. The reports of the ^'Oipper''
and ^American'' have so far, judging from the hasty glanoe I
have had time to give them, given the best idea of what took
place.
A. W. Macken to his Paiker.
Baltimore, Januaiy 9, 1859.
Judge Price having allowed the two prisoners jointly indicted
for the murder of Rigdon, the right of being tried separately, we
took up first the case of Cxopp& and have been occupied with it
all the week. The notoriety of the case made it difficult to get a
panel who had not made up their minds as to the prisoner's guilt.
It was therefore not until the middle of the day on Wednesday
that the cause was fidrly launched. I made the opening statement.
You will find something like a report of it in the ''Sun'' of Thursday.
It is very imperfect of course, for our reporters here are not stenog-
raidiers but undertake to give a paraphrase of what they have
heard, from recollection. The main points are generally omitted;
but this is not so bad as putting in one's mouth a great deal of
bad Enj^ish, bad sense, and bad taste, which he really did not
utter.
We are making a very strong case against the fellow, who is a
hardened villain and one of the most dangerous men vrith whom
Baltimore has lately been cursed. The murder was a very high-
handed one and many doubtless, besides the two immediate
actors, were privy to it. We expect to dose our evidence tomorrow
and then will, I suppose, have to encounter a deal of hard swearing.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
210 IN ANTE-BELLUM BALTIMORE
For these organued acoundrds, all fully c^xible of murder, do
not stidL at any required amount of perjury. Somewhere about
the middle of the week, we may get to the jury. I shaU open, and
(Mttings win dose.
A. W. Machm to his Father.
Baldmoce, January 12, 1859.
Yesterday we dosed the case of Cnq>ps. The verdict, as you
will have heard from other quarters, was murder in the first
dqpree — a most righteous judgment. Both (Mttings and I fdt
very sensibly the great responsibility that was iqx>n us. For such
is the critical condition of sodety in this dty, that if this murder,
which in faict marked the issue audaciously joined by banded
ruffianism vrith government and law, had not been visited with
legal punishment, the people must have been driven to take the
work into their own private hands. The fullest account of the
last day's proceedings, and of the argument of counsd, is con-
tained in the ^'American" of to-day— Wednesday; of which I
vriU send you a copy .
We doll begin the twin case of the other accused to-morrow
or as soon thereafter as an unbiased jury can be procured.
Of the trial of the other of the two accused m^i my father's
extant letters give no narrative. The following reference to
the ^>eeches to the jury is ahno^ all that they contain:
A. W. Machm to his Father.
Baltimore, January 24, 1859.
The ''Sun" of this morning contains a synopsis of my speech to
the jury Saturday. There is some reason to apprdiend that the
jury is not all sound, and that it has been pached. Hence I spoke
to them in pretty plain terms But if the pre-
vailing speculations are wdl founded, there will be no verdict,
or only a verdict of murder in the second degree. But I still
hope better of the jury.
Notwithstanding these fears, the trial resulted in a con-
viction, and the reputation of the counsd ipdio had tried the
Digitized by VjOOQIC
PLUG UGLY CASES 211
cases for the State was increased by their conscientious ax^I
capable discharge of duty:
A.W.Machmto his Father.
Baltimore, January 27, 1S59.
I believe I did not unduly press the case for the State. There
were circumstances connected with the constitution of the jury
which made it necessary to talk pretty plainly to them, and to
point out their duty so dearly that they coidd have no excuse
for departing from it. Both Gittings and I have been spoken
of in very favourable terms in regard to the conduct of these
trials, and, although we of course were governed (so far as we
know ourselves) solely by our sense of what was right, it is pleas-
ant to have men think and speak weD of us.
The importance of these cases can scarcely be exaggerated.
The witnesses each day were taken to Towson in an omnibus
guarded by armed men. My father's mother and sister
were much concerned for his safety; but he said that he him-
self had never felt that he was in danger; inasmuch as the
Plug Uglies and R^)-Raps, while bearing naalice against the
State's witnesses, whom they regarded as mere volunteers,
did not extend their animosity to the lawyers, ivdiom they
regarded as simply earning their living. After the convic-
tion, both men anticipated a rescue, even down to the very
day of their execution. The State had never been able to
prove which of the two had actually fired the feital shot; and
at last, when all hope of being rescued had vanished, Cropps