Copyright USGenNet Inc., 2015 All Rights Reserved USGenNet Data Repository Please read USGenNet Copyright Statement on this page: Transcribed and submitted by Linda Talbott for the USGenNet Data Repository http://www.us-data.org/ ========================================================================= USGenNet Data Repository NOTICE: These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or presentation by any other organization. Non-commercial organizations desiring to use this material must obtain the consent of the transcriber prior to use. Individuals desiring to use this material in their own research may do so. =========================================================================== Formatted by USGenNet Data Repository Chief Archivist, Linda Talbott All of the above information must remain when copied or downloaded. =========================================================================== Joint Documents of the State of Michigan For the Year 1897, Vol. 4 (Transcriber's Note: This is the recommendation of the Advisory Pardon Board in regards to the four men named below who were convicted in 1892 of the August 23, 1875, murder of ALBERT MOLITOR) [73-86] Advisory Pardon Board AUGUST GROSSMAN, File No. 247. AUGUST FUHRMANN, File No. 248. HENRY JACOBS, File No. 249. CARL VOGLER, File No. 250 In the matter of the several petitions for pardon of the men above named, we respectfully submit the following report of our investiga- tion in the premises, the facts and circumstances of the case as we understand them, and our recommendation thereon: 1. The several petitioners were tried and convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree in the circuit court for the county of Alpena, to which county the cases had been transferred from the county of Presque Isle, and each were sentenced for life to the State Prison at Jackson, Michigan. The cases were tried before Hon. Robert J. Kelly, circuit judge, and a jury impanelled for that purpose. The prosecuting officers were Attorney General ADOLPHUS A. ELLIS, PHILIP A. INGLESBY, and JAMES McNAMARA. GROSSMAN was tried in the November term of 1892 and the others jointly tried in the May term of the next year. 2. The crime of which these men were convicted was the murder of ALBERT MOLITOR at Rogers City, Presque Isle county, on the 23d day of August, 1875. This murder was the result of a widespread conspiracy and a large number of men were implicated in it. 3. We have been under strong pressure in this case from prominent men all over the State, and we have fequently been assured by men of unquestioned character and high official standing, that the release of these men would meet with almost universal approval in the State. But in this case, as in others, we have endeavored to act impartially and free from prejudice, sentiment and outside influences, and to do not so much what kindhearted people wish us to do, but what we ought to do. It may seem that we have been tardy in coming to a conclusion in this matter; but the importance of the cases, the magnituded of the interests involved and the voluminous testimony taken on the trials (3,000 folios) which it was necessary for us to thoroughly understand in order to comprehend the documentary evidence subsequently filed, and other facts learned upon investigation, and the necessity of going to Rogers City and Alpena, the scene of the crime and the place of the trials respectively, all required much time and hard work. We have been charged with being dilatory in these cases, but we could not act hastily or inconsiderately. We must bear the responsibility of our own action and not the kindhearted people who have asked us to act quickly. We have given the case the careful, pains-taking and exhaus- tive investigation that its importance demanded. As above suggested, and as your excellency is aware, we have been to Presque Isle county and Alpena and gathered there, so far as it was possible, the facts and circumstances bearing upon the commission of this crime, and in so doing we have interviewed a large number of the best people in these counties. As a result of our investigation, there and elsewhere, with the documentary evidence produced since the trial, we have before us a great mass of facts and circumstances not presented to the jury on the trial of these cases, which we will incorporate as clearly and con- cisely as we may in the history of the case and statement of fact com- prehended in this opinion. Your excellency will pardon the seeming prolixity of this report, in view of the fact that we deemed it important that you should be advised as to the social and business conditions in Presque Isle county at the time of the commission of this crime, and the influences that brought it about, as well as the history of the transaction itself. In what we shall say in regard to ALBERT MOLITOR and his character and the manner of his treatment of those around him, we do not wish to be understood as alleging these things as an excuse for the commission of the crime, but we merely give them in partial ex- planation of the conditions that maintained in Presque Isle county at the time of this tragedy and the causes which led to it. In the year 1868, when what is now Presque Isle county was almost an unbroken wilderness and was still a part of Alpena county, ALBERT MOLITOR, who was a native of Germany, came from Detroit and settled on the shore of Lake Huron, at a place now known as Rogers City. He brought with him certain people of his own nationality but of more lowly birth, and from time to time, as he needed them in his business, or his interests demanded, he induced others of the same class to settle in that village or to locate on homestead lands in the near vicinity. At this time MOLITOR was a man about 30 years old, physically large and powerful, of commanding presence, and striking personality. He was of gentle birth and a man of no mean ability and was highly educated. As time went on he built a large mill and manu- factured lumber, shingles and other forest products, engaged in the mercantile business and dealt in lands. He thus built up a community of which he became the veritable lord and master. To his equals he was courteous and companionable, but to those whom he deemed his in- feriors he was a despot. For years there was no one in the community who dared to oppose him or provoke him to anger. He compelled all to be subservient to him and would not pay money for labor nor for what he bought of the homesteaders, and compelled the people to depend upon him for the necessaries of life. He was violent in temper, abusive in language and cruel in his treatment of those around him. He played well the role of lord and master and seemed to regard these people as slaves; and he became known as the "King of Presque Isle" and "The Royal Bastard." it being claimed that he was the illegitimate son of the King of Wertemberg, by a maid of honor to the queen. It is charged that he would take the timber from the people's lands and pay for it or not as best pleased him. He seemed to control the officials of the county and dictated the levying of taxes and it is charged that he used the public money in his private business. He seemed to recognize no law but his own will, and to have no regard for the personal or property rights of others, and it is also widely charged that he debauched the girls and women of the county with im- punity. This region was at the time far removed from outside civilization, Alpena being 45 miles away through an almost unbroken wilderness. The mass of the people were ignorant and but few of them spoke the English language, and those but imperfectly. After a time, however, even these people became restless under his despotic sway. Crawford's Quarry was another settlement two miles down the lake, and in 1873 a man by the name of THOMAS CRAWFORD, who resided in that settlement, was elected to the office of county treasurer. The books belonging to the office were in the possession of ALBERT MOLITOR and he refused to surrender them. Some process was taken out and place in the hands of a constable. It seems that no man dared to execute the writ or go to get the books, and nearly all of the farmers of the county, at least 100 in number, assembled and went to Rogers City with the officer to get the books if possible. MOLITOR only abused them and to show his contempt for them sat down and coolly ate his dinner from a table set in the street in their midst. In the fall of this year HERMAN HOEFT came to Rogers City and en- gaged in the same kind of business as MOLITOR and they became bitter rivals, although for a time they had some business intercourse with each other. It is evident that Hoeft both hated and feared MOLITOR, and he went secretly to work to destroy MOLITOR's power in the county. He found an instrument mete for his purpose in the bitter enmity of these ignorant Germans towards MOLITOR, and he became their leader. Through them he was elected treasurer of the county in the election held on the reorganization of the county in 1875. His leadership and influence over these people is shown by the fact that upon the refusal of THOMAS CRAWFORD, the ex-treasurer, to surrender the books belonging to the office, they turned out en masse and accompanied him to Craw- ford's Quarry for the purpose of getting these books. Not satisfied with this political success, and the advantage thus gained over MOLITOR, HOEFT organized a conspiracy that had for its purpose the murder of MOLITOR, and in carrying out this scheme he called to his aid one ANDREW E. BANKS, who proved a pliable tool and fully equal to the role he was called upon to play. Although he had for five years occupied the honorable position of judge of probate of the county, and was then the supervisor of his township, he was a vicious, dangerous man. The fact that he was a German and was better educated than most of those around him gave his opinions weight with them. In pursuance of this conspiracy HOEFT and BANKS went among these ignorant farmers, playing upon their hatred of MOLITOR and tell- ing them that MOLITOR was a very bad man and ought to be killed, and trying to make them believe that if they did not kill him MOLITOR would ruin them by taxation for his own benefit. These men were ig- norant of our laws and customs, and they were told by Hoeft and Banks that if twelve men agreed that a man ought to be killed, any of their number could take his life with impunity. Whether any of them actually believed this or not it is difficult to say, but they were threatened with death if they did not help to murder MOLITOR. The evening of the 23d of August, 1875, was set as the night upon which MOLITOR was to be killed. A large number of men knew what was to be done. Among them were HERMAN HOEFT, ANDREW E. BANKS, WILLIAM REPKE, AUGUST BARABAS, FREDERICK SORGENFREI, STEPHEN REIGER, GOTLIEB MENDE, CARL WEISENGART, FREDERICK TULJETSKI, JOHN BRUDER, FERDINAND BRUDER, AugusT GROSSMAN, HENRY JACOBS, AUGUST FUHRMANN, and CARL VOGLER. The plan as proposed by HOEFT and BANKS was that as many men as could be gotten together, but not including themselves, should meet early in the evening of the day in question, in the woods at a place called Renke's Hill, four and one-half miles from Rogers City. From this place they were to go in a body to the place of business of MOLITOR in Roger's City and shoot him. HOEFT and BANKS insisted that they could not be present and actually participate in the murder, because they said that they at once would be suspected, because of their well-known relations with MOLITOR. Thereupon HOEFT, after perfecting this plan and arranging for its consummation, went to Detroit and was there at the time of the murder. Banks went to Renke's Hill late in the after- noon of the day in question and was there with some of these men, en- couraging them, but before it was dark, and some time before they started for Rogers City he left for one of the neighbor's and stayed there until late at night, so that he would be prepared to prove an alibi. The dangerous and reckless character of this man is well illustrated by an incident in connection with this transaction. His feet were in some way peculiar so that his boots, after being worn for a time, assumed an unnatural shape and were turned over and twisted. A pair of these boots he took there and gave to FREDERICK TULJETSKI, who was one of the men who was actually present and went down and helped to kill MOLITOR. BANKS had TULJETSKI wear them so that the tracks which they would make would be recognized and he (BANKS) would be arrested for the murder, so that he could prove an alibi, for which he had arranged, and thus throw the officers off the track and dis- courage them. Of the men above named, REPKE, REIGER, SORGENFREI, MENDE, WEISEN- GART and JOHN BRUDER, all admit that they went to Renke's Hill that night and that they went from there to Rogers City and took a more or less active part in the murder of MOLITOR; they all, except REPKE, swear that GROSSMAN, JACOBS, FUHRMANN, and VOGLER were also there. It is clearly shown that TULJETSKI and BARABAS were there and took part in the transaction. BARABAS and TULJETSKI have been dead for some years, but it is claimed that BARABAS made a dying declaration in relation to the MOLITOR murder, which will be referred to hereafter. GROSSMAN, JACOBS, FUHRMANN, and VOGLE all swear that they did not go to Renke's Hill and that they took no part in the murder of MOLITOR; but they say that HOEFT and BANKS told them what was to be done and wanted them to help and threatened to kill them if they ever revealed the matter. FERDINAND BRUDER admits that he was asked to be present but it is generally conceded that he did not go, although it seems that he started out and got very near to the rendezvous. Many of the men who knew that MOLITOR was to be killed refused to go but acquiesced in the proposed murder by keeping silent then and afterwards. Eight of the above named men, if not all met, then, at Renke's Hill that night pursuant to this arrangement and BARABAS swore them to eternal secrecy. The form of the oath is left somewhat vague, but it seems that the substance of it was that they would not reveal what occurred that night so long as the sun and moon shone and the milky way maintained its arc in the heavens. They then went in a body to Rogers City but on the way stopped, where they found a jug of whiskey, which is said to have been placed there by the orders of HERMAN HOEFT. They drank of this whiskey and then went on and upon arriving at MOLITOR's store they again stopped, and BARABAS, who appears to be a leader, proposed to go forward and reconnoiter and try to shoot MOLITOR for an indecent assault which MOLITOR had committed upon BARABAS' wife. BARABAS went down to the store and, thinking he saw MOLITOR coming out, fired off his gun in the direction where he thought MOLITOR was but only struck the fence and an outhouse. He went back and then they all went down to the store and found MOLITOR in his office, in which he could be seen through the window. They went up near this window and through it several of them shot at MOLITOR and mortally wounded him so that he died a month later. As MOLITOR fell his clerk, EDWARD SULLIVAN, came to his assistance and another shot was fired which mortally wounded SULLIVAN. The assassins then fled and gathered again on Renke's Hill where they took another oath of secrecy, and REPKE now says that they also swore that if any one ever revealed who killed MOLITOR they would swear it on him and those who did not come. It will be remembered that TULJETSKI wore RENKE's boots. The peculiar tracks made by the boots were found near the scene of the crime, as BANKS had predicted. In the meantime, as strange as it may seem, BANKS had taken the boots to the shoemaker's in Rogers City, professedly to have them mended, but apparently for the express pur- pose of having them fall into the hands of the sheriff, which they did. Thereupon occurred one of the strangest episodes in the history of this remarkable case, which illustrates the strange influence which this man BANKS exercised over these people. He got others to help him and went around in the night and called out the farmers to go to Rogers City and help him to get his boots. By early morning he had gotten together, at Crawford's Quarry, nearly 100 farmers, many of them being armed, and then, after drinking a keg of beer furnished by BANKS, they marched in a body to Rogers City after BANKS' boots. The sheriff could not be found and they did not get the boots, but a few days afterwards BANKS proved by MR. and MRS. KRAUS that he was at their home until late in the evening of the 23d of August, and the sheriff returned the boots to the shoemaker. As BANKS had anticipated this fiasco seemed to end all active efforts to discover the perpetra- tors of this crime. As time went on it became generally known in the community who the principal conspirators were. No one could tell just how or from whom this knowledge was gained. After a time TULJETSKI and BARABAS died. Sixteen years passed away. The reputation of REPKE, MENDE, and BANKS in the community is in harmony with the part which they took in the commission of this crime. Of REIGER, WEISENGART and SORGENFREI, we have little to say, except that public opinion in Presque Isle county as to their character and standing, is divided. Of the BRUDERS we know little except what is shown by the records, they having moved to Macomb county six years ago. Up to the time of REPKE's confession, hereafter mentioned, HOEFT continued to live in Rogers City and in a manner he won the position in the county that MOLITOR had occupied and it is evident that he prospered, partially at least, through the results of this crime of which we believe him to have been the chief instigator. One of the remarkable things in this case is the fact that the four men who stood highest in Presque Isle county, and whose reputation was the best of any of the men said to have been implicated in this crime, have been convicted and sentenced to prison for life for its commis- sion, while the actual scheming villains who were primarily respon- sible for it, go unpunished. In the sixteen years following the death of MOLITOR, GROSSMAN, JACOBS, FUHRMANN and VOGLER built up a reputation for good citizenship that is seldom excelled by any four men of like position in life. The people of Presque Isle county and Alpena county speak as with one voice in proclaiming the honesty, integrity and manhood of these men, and up to the time REPKE made his first statement, there was no sus- picion that they were implicated in MOLITOR's murder. In the summer of 1892 REPKE made a confession implicating the whole of the fifteen men above named. At that time REPKE had become addict- ed to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors and was somewhat erratic. His buildings had been recently burned and he claims that that made him desperate and he now says that his condition was then such that he scarcely realized what he was doing or saying. He also says that while he was in jail in Rogers City and Alpena he was kept supplied with whiskey, it being sometimes brought to him with his food and he was kept continually intoxicated. It is difficult to get a clear understanding of the proceedings immediately subsequent to REPKE's confession. REPKE, REIGER, SORGEN- FREI, MENDE and WEISENGART and JOHN BRUDER were arrested and each admitted that he participated in the MOLITOR tragedy, and each made a statement of what he claimed to be the history of the transaction and claiming that GROSSMAN, JACOBS, FUHRMANN and VOGLER took part in the murder. Then they were all discharged except REIGER, who was released on bail. GROSSMAN, JACOBS, FUHRMANN and VOGLER were also arrested, but they strenuously insisted and still maintain that they were innocent and had no knowledge of the affair except what they had learned from others. The cases of these applicants were transferred to Alpena county for trial, and in the November term of 1892 GROSSMAN was tried and convicted and in the May term of the next year the other three were also tried and convicted. On the trial of GROSSMAN, REPKE, REIGER, WEISENGART, MENDE, SORGEN- FREI and JOHN BRUDER were witnesses for the State. Each swore that he took a more or less active part in the MOLITOR tragedy and that GROSS- MAN, FUHRMANN, JACOBS and VOLGER participated in it; and they also implicate HERMAN HOEFT and ANDREW E. BANKS in the affair. FERDINAND BRUDER was also a witness for the people and testified that GROSSMAN asked him to go and help kill MOLITOR and threatened him if he did not, but he says he did not go and it is generally conceded that he was not present. Drs. DANIEL LaFARTE and HERMAN KEIFER were sworn and established the fact of MOLITOR's death from the wounds he received that night. EDWARD MOLITOR testified as to the circumstances of his brother's death in Detroit, to which place he had been removed, and as to what he discovered in and about MOLITOR's store, bearing on the tragedy. He also testified to the fact of the crowd of men coming to Rogers City after BANK's boots, and that GROSSMAN said to him on that day that they would get the boots if they had to resort to force. HENRY CLOTHIER, a brother-in-law of MOLITOR, was sworn as to the relations of MOLITOR with GROSSMAN and the people generally up there, and the circumstances of the shooting of MOLITOR, and gave a descript- ion of the premises and told of the tracks discovered and about the boot episode, and gave some minor details about the matter. FREDERICK BERTRAM was sworn and testified that BANKS brought the crooked boots to him the next day after the murder, and he also testified as to the fact of the mob coming to Rogers City after the boots. CHARLES EMPKE swore that he had a conversation with GROSSMAN on Sunday, before the murder, in which GROSSMAN said something about MOLITOR, indicating that he would be killed. MRS. CATHERINE MOLITOR testified that she was a sister-in-law of MOLITOR and that the night MOLITOR was shot she was upstairs in the same building where the tragedy occurred, and she told about hearing the shots and MOLITOR's outcry, and going down- stairs and finding MOLITOR, and describes the condition in which she found him. She also describes the nature of the wounds. These were all the witnesses of importance sworn by the people. For the defense the following witnesses were sworn: GROSSMAN testi- fied in his own behalf and swore that he took no part in the murder of MOLITOR, and that he was at home all that evening. JACOBS, FUHRMANN and VOGLER testified substantially the same. ANDREW BANKS swore that he took no part in the conspiracy to murder MOLITOR, that he did not go to Renke's Hill that night, as several of the people's witnesses had testified, and he gave an explanation of the boot transaction. HERMAN HOEFT also testified that he knew nothing about this conspiracy and took no part in it. It will be remembered that REPKE, REIGER, WEISENGART, MENDE, SORGENFREI and JOHN BRUDER testified that these four applicants were at Renke's Hill that night and went down and helped to kill MOLITOR. Of course if it could have been proved that any one of these appli- cants was not there, it would have tended to impeach these witnesses as well as to establish an alibi in his case. For this purpose AUGUST FUHRMANN, JR., and JOHANNA FUHRMANN, the son and wife of AUGUST FUHR- MANN, testified that he was at home all the evening of August 23d, 1875, and gave the circumstances that fixed the fact in their minds. ALBERTINA GROSSMAN and WILHELMINIA PAULLEY testified that GROSSMAN was at home that night. CARL VOGLER's wife, CAROLINA, testified that he was at home that time. MRS. CAROLINA JACOBS swore that her husband was at home and could not have been there. She also testified that the reason that the reason she knew that he was not there was the fact that on Friday, before the murder, she was injured while helping her husband in the logging fallow, and she being an enceinte and quick with child at the time, this injury seriously affected her, and there being no one in the family except her husband and herself and two small children of the ages of 2 and 4 years respectively, he was obliged to be at home and fare for her and that he actually was at home that night. That on the 27th day of August, 4 days after the murder, she gave birth to a female child which they named AUGUST FREDERICK PAULINA. A circumstance in connection with this attempt to prove an alibi will illustrate the spirit and manner in which the prosecution was conducted in these cases. As above stated JACOBS and his wife swore that at the time of this murder she was quick with a child which was born four days afterwards. At about the close of the trial of GROSSMAN, the prosecution introduced in evidence two certifi- cates of the records of births, kept in Presque Isle county and in the Secretary of State's office respectively, showing that this child, AUGUSTA JACOBS, was born a year later. It is now conclusively shown that Attorney Genereral ELLIS had caused the clerk of Presque Isle county to bring the book of record of births to Alpena. By some error this record contained two entries of the birth of this child, one showing it to have been born in 1875 and the other indicating that it was born in 1876. MR. ELLIS caused the clerk of Presque Isle county to make a certificate of the entry in the record showing the birth to have occurred in 1876, thus making it correspond with the certificate he had obtained from Lansing; then he instructed the clerk to take the record back to Rogers City at once, which was done. When these certi- ficates were introduced in evidence it was too late for the defense to show that they were erroneous. These certificates would naturally lead the jury to believe that the defense was manufacturing testimony, and their introduction must have resulted in a complete annihilation of the defendant's cause. It is now established beyond any question or cavil that the birth of this child took place on the 27th day of August, A.D. 1875, as stated by MR. and MRS. JACOBS. This was known by MR. ELLIS at the time he introduced the certificates. He had in his possession at that time a certified copy of the parish register of births, showing this fact, and he had noted and marked with a pencil in the margin of the record the two entries of this birth. We do not claim that GROSSMAN would have been acquitted if this outrage had not been committed, yet it may have been the cause of his conviction, although JACOBS, FUHRMANN and VOGLER were afterwards con- victed when the actual day of this birth was well established. We note this circumstance not so much because of the effect it may have had upon the result of this trial, but for the purpose of showing the animus and spirit of the prosecution in these cases and the assistance it may furnish when considering other alleged over-zealous methods of the prosecution. Your excellency will observe that the applicants were convicted largely upon the testimony of six self-confessed murders. One of these men, REPKE, now swears that the petitioners are innocent. His intense earnestness and dramatic appearance while asserting the inno- cence of these men, almost enforces the conviction that he is telling the truth now in this particular, although he is a self-confessed purjurer, and we are fully convinced that he is not now truthful in all he says of this transaction. We believe that he was one of the most active participants in the MOLITOR tragedy; that he was one of the most active agents in organizing the conspiracy, and the he alone shot the clerk, EDWARD SULLIVAN, after MOLITOR had fallen, although this he still denies. His seeming earnestness, appearance of candor, and ready memory when speaking of the petitioners, and in giving an account of this transaction, all desert him when he comes to speak of his own part in the affair, and he at once exhibits the dogged persis- tence, shifting eyes, and defective memory of the typical liar. His confession in prison seems to have been made upon his own motion and unsolicited, and he says that the thought that he had perjured himself to send these men to prison, became unbearable and he could not sleep or rest and that his own conscience forced him to try to undo to wrong he had done them. It is difficult to understand where the truth ends and fiction begins, in the story he tells; yet there are many facts and circumstances not presented to the jury in these cases, that are shown in the files or have been learned in our investigation, that strongly corroborate REPKE in his statement that these petitioners did not participate in the murder of MOLITOR. As heretofore stated REPKE now says that after the assassins had returned to Renke's Hill that night they all swore that should any one ever reveal who killed MOLITOR, the rest would swear it upon him and those who did not come, and he now says that this is what has been done. It may be well to say here that all the petitioners now admit that they knew that MOLITOR was to be killed and that HOEFT, BANKS, REPKE and others asked them to go and help kill him and that they were threatened with death if they ever revealed what had been told them. In fact it appears that they were expected at Renke's Hill that night, but they earnestly insist that they did not go. It will be remembered that at the time of the trial they denied having any knowledge of the intended commis- sion of this crime. It is easy to see now that it would have been far better for them had they admitted what they knew upon the trial; but they now say that HOEFT took upon himself the expense of their defense and hired lawyers and told them if they would say nothing about what they knew of his connection with the affair, he would surely get them out of their trouble. If what they now say is true it is not surpris- ing that they testified as they did. Of course they admit that they committed perjury, but in view of all the circumstances, and if they now tell the truth, one could almost forgive them that offense for they were surrounded by the real murderers, who by perjury were trying to convict them of this crime. In order to shield themselves HOEFT and BANKS played upon their fears and hopes of liberty and used them as their tools, if what they now say is true. REPKE says that he was forced to testify against them. Upon what he says in that connection we make no comment but give his statement verbatim, viz.: "Q. When you were in jail there did you have any talk with ELLIS? "A. Yes; he came to me and spoke to me. MR. ELLIS told me if I should testify certain things, I should go free. I will tell you how it was. I was not locked up in jail but drove the sheriff's team around town and I found out that these four men had a lot of witnesses coming down from Presque Isle to testify for them, and I told this to ELLIS. After the trial he said they wanted to give certain testimony against these men and when they came to trial I would not give it, so the trial was put off three months. Then ELLIS took me out in another part of the room. "Q. Where was this room? "A. I believe it was in justice of the peace office. "Q. What did he say? "A. HENRY CLOTHIER was there with MR. ELLIS. I told MR. ELLLIS that I cannot swear to this testimony; it is not right; it is a lie. I have found out that these men have so many witnesses that will prove that what I say is a lie, and then I will go to Jackson. Here MR. ELLIS got close up to me and laid his hand on me and said, 'MR. REPKE, don't you know I am the man that can send you to Jackson?' If I will make testimony that was given when I was first arrested you will be a free man, and I thought if he could do that I would give the testimony as these men had so many witnesses they can help themselves, and I promised that I would give the testimony on the trial. "Q. What did MR. ELLIS want you to swear to? "A. That GROSSMAN, FUHRMANN, VOGLER and JACOBS were there, and I thought if I said this these four men have enough witnesses to take care of themselves, and I would help him out of the scrape. "Q. Did you tell ELLIS it was not true that they were there? "A. MR. ELLIS took me into the clerk's office, sat down along side of me, and talked to me about the testimony. I told him I would not give this testimony because it was a lie and I wouldn't listen to him. He told me to shut my mouth; that I must say what he told me to say. If any one asked me any question different from this I must say no." We also give below, without comment, what REPKE says as to the influences that surrounded him prior to the trial. "Q. Were you locked up while in jail? "A. No. I moved all over. My boys worked in the bush about twelve miles from Alpena and I took the sheriff's team and drove out where they were, with a keg of beer to treat them with. "Q. Did you get any whiskey in jail? "A. When I was first in jail in Presque Isle county HENRY CLOTHIER brought me a bottle of whiskey. My meals were brought to me while in jail from the boarding house by a boy, and a bottle of whiskey was hid under it for many times. I had more whiskey than I could drink fur- nished me that way, so when friends come to see me at the jail I had plenty to treat them with. About three or four days after I was arrested I told the sheriff that I wanted to see MR. CLOTHIER to talk with him, and I telephoned him to Alpena, but the sheriff found MR. CLOTHIER was in Rogers City that day and MR. CLOTHIER came to see me. MR. CLOTHIER came into my cell and I asked him what kind of warrant you took out against me and he put his hand in his pocket and took out a bottle of whiskey and said, ' I had to take out such a warrant, for if I did not take out the warrant against you, you would go out a free man and then you would be murdered by the rest of these men I had in- formed on.' These were out on bonds. MR. ELLIS never gave me any whiskey. The sheriff in Alpena county gave me money to buy whisky with myself. When I went out with the sheriff he took me in and treated me. Sometimes he gave me twenty-five cents; sometimes fifty cents, but never a dollar for beer. I took the money and gave it to my wife. I was working around town for saloons and other places while I was in custody in Alpena and had all the whiskey I wanted." The record of these trials is in many respects as remarkable as the circumstances of the crime involved. It would seem that but few of the witnesses told the whole truth. REPKE now swears that they testi- fied falsely when they swore that they knew nothing of the contem- plated murder. We are thoroughly convinced that HOEFT and BANKS com- mitted perjury; and the testimony of REIGER, SORGENFRIED, MENDE, WEISENGART and JOHN BRUDER is so contradictory and impossible that it excites grave suspicion that it is not wholly true. In fact their representative narratives of this transaction so radically differ in many important particulars that it is impossible to reconcile them. There is, however, a suggestive harmony in one particular in their respetive statements. Each swears to a state of facts that would practically exonerate him from the charge of active complicity in the crime, and throw the responsibility of it largely upon REPKE, these four applicants and the two dead men, BARABAS and TULJETSKI. Their hesitating manner and frequent lapses of memory recalls the instruc- tion that REPKE says ELLIS gave him, i.e. "If they ask you anything different, say 'No.'" It is difficult to believe that the important events of that tragedy were not indelibly photographed upon the memory of these men. We do not regard them as habitual criminals. This one event is prob- ably the only experience of the kind in which any of them ever parti- cipated. With the ordinary man the conclusion is irresistible that the important scenes and circumstances of the meeting at Renke's Hill that night, the march to Rogers City and the commission of the murder, would day after day and night after night pass and repass before the mental vision of these men, like an ever-recurring panorama and they could not forget, howsoever much they might desire to do so. In fact we have interviewed all these men, and they now tell us that the mem- ory of that night's terrible tragedy has, during all these years, haunted them, destroying their sleep at night and bringing them pain and remorse always. Can these men have forgotten with whom they went to Renke's Hill that night and whom they found there upon their arrival. We do not believe it. Yet REPKE swears that he went alone and found there at first GROSSMAN, JACOBS, FUHRMANN and BARABAS; and that BANKS then came and gave him a revolver and said, "Soldiers, do good work," and talked about the boots and then went away. SORGENFRIE testified that he and TULJETSKI went there with REPKE from their homes, and that he was with REPKE all the time and that BANKS was not at Renke's Hill that night. While REIGER testified that he went there alone and when he first got there found only REPKE, TULJETSKI, BANKS and SORGENFRIE. These three statements cannot be reconciled, but this is but one of the many inexplicable discrepancies in the testimony of these men. After these applicants were convicted REPKE was tried and con- victed, REIGER, SORGENFREI, WEISENGART, MENDE and BRUDERS testifying against him, and REPKE testifying in his own behalf and probably this assisting in his own conviction. Then REIGER was tried but REPKE refused to testify against him. SORGENFREI, WEISENGART, MENDE and the BRUDERS testified in his case as they had done in the previous trials; yet REIGER was acquitted, al- though he admitted having gone with the others to Rogers City that night and stood by and saw MOLITOR shot. What the result might have been if REPKE had testified in this case cannot be known, but it is possible that, had he done so, REIGER might have been convicted; and it is just as possible that, if he had not testified against the petitioners, whom he now says are innocent, they might not have been convicted. GUSTAVE and GUSTA BARABAS, the son and daughter-in-law of AUGUST BARABAS, now swear that when he was dying, AUGUST BARABAS called them to his bedside and told them that he, REPKE and TULJETSKI killed MOLITOR. PAUL LUCAS now swears that he overheard a conversation between BARNABAS and REPKE in which they claimed to have killed MOLITOR and stated that GROSSMAN and FUHRMANN were not there, declaring that they were two big cowards; and when they discovered that LUCAS might have overheard what they were talking about, REPKE threatened to kill him if he told anything he had heard. (See affidavit on file.) As above stated these four petitioners will assert their innocence, and they do so with an intensity and appearance of candor that cannot fail to impress your excellency when you come to interview them, al- though they now admit having had knowledge of the conspiracy, prior to MOLITOR's death. We have tried in every way to get these men to admit that they were present when MOLITOR was killed, but they have withstood every test to which we have subjected them. We may have gone too far in this attempt, for we have stated to them that we thought that they were there that night, and tried to make them believe that their only hope of release lay in a full confession. We have taken them singly and tried to make them each believe that the others had admitted their guilt, but were only met with an indignant and dramatic denial that, at the time, almost compelled us to believe them. Yet with all we have learned in our exhaustive investigation into this case, and our knowledge of and experience with all the men said to have been implicated in this crime, we cannot say that we are fully convinced that the applicants were not with these other men that night; nor can we say that we believe them to be guilty; but we do say that we have grave doubts of their guilt. Assuming that they are guilty it may be said that they deserve no clemency, because they do not now candidly acknowlege their guilt and throw themselves upon that mercy which lies in your excellency's power to extend to them. We admit that we have been affected by this view of the matter, and have hesitated because of it, but it is difficult place one's self in the position of these men under all the circumstances and conditions sur- rounding them then and now, and prescribe for them a course of action. But upon the hypothesis that they are guilty of taking an active part in this tragedy, what should be done? Even if they were there that night we are convinced that they did not originate the conspiracy that resulted in this crime, nor were they the ones who most deserve pun- ishment. If they were there at all then they may deserve some punish- ment, under all the circumstances, but it is abhorrent to our sense of justice that these men should be required to make vicarious atonement for the sins of those whose crime is greater. But let us recall the social conditions under which this crime was committed: The circumstances that led up to it; the motive and the provocation; and the influence brought to bear upon these ignorant foreigners. It was only fifteen years ago that mob law ruled in California, and many men whose crimes were not greater than those com- mitted by MOLITOR were executed by the vigilance committee; and many men who participated in those executions were among the best men in California. The cases are not entirely parallel, but those men were under the leadership of those whom they believed to be wiser than they. In civilized, enlightened states like Michigan, in recent years, excited and indignant mobs of men who were ordinarily peaceable and law-abiding citizens have taken the law into their own hands and taken human lives without the intervention of any court. In many such cases little effort has been made to bring the lynchers to punishement. We do not seek to condone or excuse these summary methods of vengeance, but we do insist that justice knows no distinction and brings all men to a common level. Just contemplate what this man MOLITOR was guilty of in addition to his despotic treatment of these people and his gross disregard of their personal rights and the sanctity of their homes. He obtained a fraudulent appropriation of money and built with it a private logging road six miles into the forest, getting for it $4.50 per rod. He took $3,000 for building a bridge that cost no more than $40; traded school bonds for the face value of $2,500 for flour and feed. He caused the highway commissioners, who were his tools, to sign blank highway orders which he used in his private business, and he robbed the people in many other similar ways. These petitioners need no reformation. In the sixteen years pre- ceding their arrest they maintained a record for good citizenship, and their standing in the community where they lived needs no further com- ment than has already been made in this opinion. Society surely needs no protection from such men as these. But it may be said that their punishment should be made exemplary for the purpose of deterring others from the commission of crime. To this we only say that we be- lieve it to be the consensus of opinion of the large number of respec- table people who understand the circumstances of this case, that further punishment of these men would only demonstrate that the law may sometimes be used as an engine of injustice. The only possible reason for retaining these men in prison, then, is purely vindictive. We are fully aware of the gravity of the action we are about to take, but in view of the circumstances of this case we cannot con- scientiously do otherwise. We have grave doubts of the guilt of the applicants, and even if they were with these other men that night we are convinced that no good can result from their further detention. We believe that if released they would go home to their respective wives and children and continue to be the good, law-abiding citizens they were for the sixteen years prior to their arrest for this crime. We therefore unanimously and earnestly recommend that the petition- ers, AUGUST GROSSMAN, HENRY JACOBS, AUGUST FUHRMANN and CARL VOGLER, be pardoned at once. ===========================================================================