Jump to Navigation

Pomeroy's "Ross Letter": Genuine or Forgery?

by Martha B. Caldwell

August 1944 (Vol. 13 No. 7), pages 463 to 472.
Transcribed by lhn;
digitized with permission of the Kansas Historical Society.

NOT long ago the Kansas Historical Society came into possession of a photographic copy of the famous "Ross letter," reputed to have been written in July, 1862, by Sen. Samuel C. Pomeroy to W. W. Ross. The copy was a gift of Miss Adela C. Van Horn of Kansas City, Mo. [1] Later, the original letter appeared in the Sen. Edmund G. Ross papers recently acquired from Mrs. Lillian Leis of Lawrence, daughter of Ross. The appearance of this original, the contents of which rocked the state in 1872, prompts a review of the Pomeroy-Ross episode. Samuel Pomeroy's name was frequently connected with rumors of corruption and bribery during his political career in Kansas. He has been described as one who "weighed everything by a money standard. He has judged all public measures by the cash that was in them; and estimated all men by the amount it would take to buy them." [2] Ex-Sen. Edmund Ross, commenting upon Pomeroy's proclivities for improving his opportunities in office wrote:

Vide his 90,000 acres of Pottawatomie lands obtained for passing the Pottawatomie treaty-his 50,000 acres of Kickapoo lands for passing the Kickapoo treaty-his two hundred lots in Neodesha for moving the land office to that place-his half of the town site of Augusta for locating the land office there-his half of the town site of Concordia for locating the land office there-his 100 lots in the city of Humboldt for removing the land office from Fort Scott to that place-his 100 lots in the city of Ottawa for passing the Ottawa treaty-his three-sixteenths interest in the Delaware lands for passing the Delaware treaty-the princely fortune in itself, that he stole from the Central Branch Railroad company, consisting of government and railroad mortgage bonds given to it as a subsidy.

Positive proof of all the charges might be difficult to obtain, but if Pomeroy was the author of this "Strictly Confidential" letter he obviously was guilty of corrupt practices. The notorious letter, written when W. W. Ross was Indian agent to the Pottawatomies, proposed a division of profits in certain Indian trading activities. Brought to light ten years later by Sen. E. G. Ross, brother of W.

(463)

464 KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

W. Ross, in whose possession the letter had come,4 it was first printed in Ross's Paper at Coffeyville on March 16, 1872, and read as follows:

Strictly Confidential

Washington D. C. July 22

W. W. Ross

My dear sir
Have you yet recommended any one to sell Goods to the Pottawatomes? If not I have a plan- Mr. J. K. Tappan of New York will take hold and furnish a splendid lot of Goods- provided he gets the license to sell exclusively on the Reserve at St. Mary's mission.
You can give the Indians an order for Goods on this store- And those orders are accepted when the annuities are paid- This proceeding is recognised here at the Department- and is all right.
I send inclosed a form of a letter for you to send back to me- to give to Mr. Dole [5] - But I dont deliver it until Mr. Tappan and Edward Clark of Lawrence- now figuring here on Indian matters- and who have an agreement with each other- about goods- I say I dont deliver your recommendation until I have executed to me a Contract to have ¼ of all the profits paid to W. E. Gaylord [6] as my share- and ¼ of all profits paid to Mr. (name him to me) for your share. You & I, through our two friends are to have ½ of the Profits- And Tappan & Clark the other half- And Tappan to do all the business And we have nothing to do, only to take our share of profits at each payment.
Now if you will fix it up at that end of the line- I will see the writings are all executed right to this end- And we will be all right- Name the man to represent you- with Mr Gaylord who represents me.
You will see from this letter what kind of a recommendation to give Mr Tappan- But dont fail to send it to me- as they must come to terms before they get the License.
Tappan is a grand fellow- Its all right. Let me hear from you at once.Truly,

S. C. Pomeroy

P. S.
I find upon reflection that you must send these papers through Col. Baranch [7] at St. Joe so I will make the contract for myself & you- at once- and you return the Application and Recommendation to Dole- through Col. Branch.

Truly
S. C. P.

This letter naturally made splendid political capital for Pomeroy's enemies and was copied by other papers of the state which

[Photograph of Samuel Pomeroy.]

SAMUEL CLARKE POMEROY
U. S. Senator From Kansas, 1861-1873
Charges of Bribery and Corruption Defeated Him
in His Attempt to Secure a Third Term.

[First Page of the 'ross letter.']

PAGE ONE OF THE POMEROY LETTER TO ROSS -- GENUINE OR FORGERY?

[Second page of the 'ross letter.']

PAGE TWO OF THE SAME LETTER.

[Third page of the 'ross letter.']

PAGE THREE OF THE SAME LETTER.

[Genuine letter of Samuel Pomeroy]

LETTER FROM POMEROY TO THADDEUS HYATT IN 1860 -- GENUINE!

CALDWELL: POMEROY'S ROSS LETTER 465

were opposed to his reelection to the United States senate. On September 16, 1872, the Lawrence Standard published the letter, [8] and soon after the November election it appeared in telegraphic dispatches under an article from Lawrence, dated November 20, 1872. [9] The original at that time was in the hands of J. C. Horton of Lawrence. The editorial comment of R. T. Van Horn, editor of the Kansas City (Mo.) Journal of Commerce, questioning its genuineness, called forth a letter from John Hutchings of Lawrence, who assured the editor that the letter was not spurious and enclosed a photographic copy to prove his assertion. [10] Eastern papers also gave publicity to the "Ross letter." Charles A. Dana, editor of the New York Sun, at the time engaged in exposing political corruption in the United States, published a facsimile in his paper of December 16, 1872. He devoted the leading editorial to it, commenting that the letter would give the public "an exact idea of Pomeroy's handwriting," while the contents of the letter would afford "an equally faithful view of Pomeroy's moral nature." He commended the letter to the consideration of such senators as might "be disposed to meditate on Pomeroy's method of employing the authority of his great office." [11]

Until 1913 United States senators were elected by state legislatures. Just before the meeting of the Kansas legislature of 1873, E. G. Ross published the letter in the first issue of The Evening Paper, which he established in Lawrence on January 8, 1873. [12]

He also published a facsimile on January 13. [13] And again on January 20, he deemed "it advisable to give that letter another insertion," inasmuch as he was publishing in the same paper a threat from Senator Pomeroy to prosecute for libel those who were instrumental in giving the letter publicity. [14] He devoted one page to the facsimile under the caption, "The modus operandi of a Senatorial Indian Steal-How some Senators are made Millionaires on Senatorial Salaries of $5,000 a year." [15]

466 KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

Pomeroy ignored the letter at first, neither admitting nor denying its authorship. With plenty of money, a well organized machine to back him, [16] and an opposition divided into numerous factions, [17] he thought he had nothing to fear. But its wide publication was having an effect, and it was one of the chief weapons in the hands of the opposition. Editors began to express the opinion that if Pomeroy could clear up the "Ross letter" be would be elected. [18] Pomeroy became somewhat alarmed when he saw that his hold on the state was weakening and set about to prove that the letter was a forgery. His plan was to throw the blame on an Edward Clark [19] who had once been a senate committee clerk, and who had also been a law partner of Willis Gaylord, Pomeroy's brother-in-law. [20]

One of his first moves was to have an item inserted in an Eastern paper stating that the pretended facsimile letter attributed to Senator Pomeroy was written by one Edward Clark who had run away from Washington some years before to escape arrest and imprisonment for forgery. The item stated that "the fact of his writing this

CALDWELL: POMEROY's ROSS LETTER 467

letter in Pomeroy's name has long been known at the capital, and that the matter is now only revived because an election for senator will soon be held in Kansas." [21] For proof Pomeroy secured statements from Joseph B. Stewart [22] and O. A. Stevens, Washington attorneys, who were once associated with Clark. What he paid these men, or that he paid them at all for their false assertions, is not known, but it was believed they received a "considerable sum." Stewart's letter, dated December 21, 1872, was addressed to T. D. Thacher, editor of the Lawrence Journal, informing him that he had seen the facsimile and recognized it as the one which Thacher had called to his attention last September 13 in the Journal office. He said that the letter was written by Edward Clark, once a member of the firm of Stewart, Stevens & Clark; that Clark had conceived the idea of making a profit out of Indian trade and had written the letter in his office and signed Pomeroy's name to it, and that it was the same letter Thacher had shown him. He mentioned that Clark after leaving the firm had misused funds and had had to leave the city "under most serious charges against him for embezzlement." He closed by saying, "I write you this letter of my own motive as a simple act of justice, to withhold which would be wrong, and I request you to publish the same in your paper. I shall send a copy of this to the Hon. S. C. Pomeroy." [23] But according to Thacher's sworn statement made on January 27, 1873, he did not receive a copy of Stewart's letter. He further stated that when he showed Stewart the original Ross letter in his office on September 13, Stewart exclaimed, "That's enough; why that letter would impeach him anywhere." [24] O. A. Stevens wrote his statement on December 25, 1872, and addressed it to the editor of the New York Sun. He praised the editor for his fearlessness in exposing "political knavery and trickery," but thought that in some cases the proof did not warrant the severity and irony contained in his paper. He felt that justice demanded a retraction of the leading editorial of his paper under the date of December 16, having reference to the "published autograph letter or facsimile of one claimed to have been written by Senator S. C. Pomeroy." "If you should decline to do this," he wrote, "upon the proofs you have in your possession as to its authenticity, it is but right and

468 KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

fairhanded justice to give further particulars in reference to the hand-writing referred to by you editorially as that of Senator Pomeroy." He then explained that in the spring of 1862 the firms of Stewart, Stevens & Co. and Clark & Gaylord were merged for business purposes, the latter firm reserving all matters pertaining to Indian affairs. As an associate of the firm he became conversant with Clark's business arrangements; his connection with Indian contracts, and the "modus operanda, whereby he was enabled in a measure to control that species of business." He said that Clark as a partner of Willis Gaylord, a brother-in-law of the senator, represented that he had full authority to use Pomeroy's name for business purposes and did use his name on many occasions. "It is with this knowledge," he concluded, "that I pronounce the autograph or facsimile referred to as the handwriting of said Edward Clark, from `strictly confidential' to the `P. S.' signed `Truly, S. C. P.' Of this fact I am willing to affirm." [25]

With these two letters in his hand Pomeroy then sought Edward Clark to secure a signed confession from him. With the aid of Schuyler Colfax he located Clark at Sharon, Pa., and arranged by telegraph for a meeting at Pittsburgh early in January. [26]

In the meantime a press dispatch of December 31 stated that Pomeroy was leaving for Kansas to look after his chances for reelection and that "The Senator has just received proof of the forged character of the letter purporting to be signed by him relative to sharing with an Indian agent in trading profits, and will carry sworn statements with him. He expects to make the editor who first published the same retract or undergo a libel Suit." [27]

Pomeroy met Clark in Pittsburgh on January 4, 1873, and told him that his enemies were using the letter against him. Since Clark had been in Washington at the time the letter was written, Pomeroy said, he thought perhaps he might remember something about it, and he asked Clark to write a statement to that effect.

For such a letter of confession he was willing to pay $1,000. When Clark showed him the items in the Pittsburgh Commercial of December 20 and 31 Pomeroy denied having seen them.

Although Clark denied that he wrote the letter and had ever seen or heard of it he permitted Pomeroy to write out the statement that he wanted signed. This was in the form of a letter to "Mr. Thacher, of the Lawrence Journal, Kansas." It mentioned that several Eastern papers had alluded

CALDWELL: POMEROY'S ROSS LETTER 469

to the letter "purporting to have been written by Senator Pomeroy, . . . and published now with the evident intent to injure him in his re-election." It declared that he (Clark) had resided in Washington while W. W. Ross was agent to the Pottawatomies, that he had had a contract with the Pottawatomies of Michigan to prosecute their claims before the department, that he was acquainted with E. A. Smith, a clerk in the Indian office, that he was intimate with Senator Pomeroy and had business relations with his brother-in-law, Willis Gaylord, and that he had never known Pomeroy to do anything to compromise his position as senator. After some discussion Clark took the paper and finished the letter as follows:

Mr. Gaylord and myself often acted as his amanuenses, and that such a letter as has been alluded to may have been prepared by Gaylord or myself is possible; but as nothing came of it I feel quite certain that the senator knew nothing about it, and am quite as certain that none of us derived any benefit therefrom." [28] Pomeroy then asked Clark to sign the document, offering to give him a hundred dollars and to send his wife fifty dollars. Clark refused to sign, took the one hundred dollars as a lawyer's fee; got possession of the letter, and decided to go to Kansas to investigate the matter, and turn in and help defeat Pomeroy. [29]

According to Clark's affidavit he arrived in Topeka on January 13 and took a room at the Tefft House, Pomeroy's headquarters. He talked with Pomeroy on January 15 and again on the next day. At that time he agreed to copy the "confession" and sign it for $2,000, his expenses to Topeka, and an office if he should want one. In copying the letter he addressed it to Pomeroy instead of Thacher, dated it January 13, and at Pomeroy's suggestion added that he had come out voluntarily to help him. Also at Pomeroy's request the original copy was burned. On January 18 Clark went to Lawrence, stopping at the Eldridge House. There he met his old friend, James Blood, and through him learned of the letters of Stewart and Stev ens which placed the blame on him. Also he saw a copy of the "Ross letter" and found that his name was mentioned in it, although Pomeroy had told him that it was not. He said that he could not understand why Pomeroy used his name as a beneficiary unless it was "as a decoy to get an extra quarter of the profits." When Clark returned to Topeka Pomeroy told him that he had just received a let-

470 KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

ter from Gaylord admitting that he had written the letter. Then on January 22 Horton showed him the original Ross letter and he recognized it as Pomeroy's hand writing.

Clark concluded that the whole matter was a conspiracy of Pomeroy, Stewart, Stevens and Gaylord to fasten the crime on him, and decided to go home to prepare to prosecute the perjurers, but advised Blood to telegraph him if he was needed. The opposition apparently wanted him on the grounds and sent him a message to return. When he again reached Topeka Clark found that Pomeroy was exhibiting the letters of Stewart and Stevens, together with his "confession." He then took the advice of friends and went before D. M. Valentine, associate justice of the supreme court, and made a deposition of the whole proceedings, emphatically denying that he had written the letter. His affidavit appeared in The Kansas Daily Commonwealth of January 28, 1873, and filled more than three columns. He also attended an anti-Pomeroy caucus. on January 27, read his affidavit and displayed the $2,000 which he had received.

Of this incident William S. Blakely wrote: "The Senatorial fight is red hot. Clark appeared before the anti-caucus and read the affidavit which is published in the Commonwealth, and showed the $2,000.00 in greenbacks which he rec'd. I think Pom is gone certain, but it is difficult to tell who will be the man." [30]

Included among other declarations in support of Pomeroy was one from a number of citizens of Lawrence, dated January 27, certifying that Edward Clark, "formerly of Lawrence, afterwards of Washington, D. C., more recently of parts unknown," had from the first borne an infamous reputation, and that because of their personal knowledge of his transactions and his character they would not believe his statement under oath. The signers were T. B. Eldridge, Ed. S. Eldridge, W. Barricklow, William Hayes, M. W. Reynolds, W. A. Rankin, A. D. Searle, Abram Cutler, H. Shanklin, Ephraim Nute, Jr., C. L. Edwards, J. H. Shimmons, John Speer, John Hutchings, C. F. Garrett and J. L. Speer. [31]

With the letters of Stewart and Stevens placing the blame on Clark, and with Clark's own statement admitting that he might have written the letter, together with the statement of the Lawrence citizens blackening Clark's reputation, Pomeroy considered that he had cleared up the matter. When questioned, he would present his proofs and avoid if possible absolutely denying writing the letter.

CALDWELL: POMEROY'S ROSS LETTER 471

But if the proofs did not satisfy an inquirer he did not hesitate to make a denial. When Col. A. M. York with whom Pomeroy was bargaining for his vote, read the proofs and then continued to ask if he had written the "Ross letter," Pomeroy replied, "I did not write the letter." [32]

W. W. Ross, however, to whom the letter had been written, ridiculed the idea of forgery and said that the letter came direct from Pomeroy. He declared "that Pomeroy quarreled with him because he would not enter into the swindling arrangement with him." [33] "If there is any forgery about the case," he asserted, "it is in the preparation of the intended proof now on the way to Kansas." [34]

James Blood of Lawrence likewise made a sworn statement that he had been acquainted with the handwriting of S. C. Pomeroy for seventeen years, that he had carefully compared the letter with other letters written by Pomeroy and that he had no doubt that the letter was written by him. [35] And W. F. Downs, one of Pomeroy's henchmen, when asked if the letter was in Pomeroy's handwriting, declared that if it was counterfeit, it was "admirably executed." [36]

In this atmosphere of accusation and counter accusation the Kansas senate met on the morning of January 28 to vote for a United States senator. Then before the balloting began, John P. St. John offered the following resolution:

WHEREAS, The sworn evidence is before the members of the Senate, that one of the citizens of the State of Kansas, S. C. Pomeroy, now a United States Senator, and again aspiring to that position, has with his own hands given a bribe of two thousand dollars in United States Currency here at the city of Topeka, January 16, 1873, to a citizen of the United States, named Edward Clark, to procure from him, the said Clark, a statement in writing that said Pomeroy did not write a certain letter known as the "Ross letter," and
WHEREAS, This statement was procured and exhibited to the present members of the Legislature by the said Pomeroy and his friends to deceive them, and
WHEREAS, Said Pomeroy has never denied the genuineness of the said "Ross letter;" therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate:
That a Committee of five be appointed to investigate the charges contained in the affidavit of the said Edward Clark, T. Dwight Thacher and J. Blood, with power to send for persons and papers, and to report without delay the result of the investigation, and
Be it further resolved, That Senator S. C. Pomeroy be invited by the Com-

472 KANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

mittee to appear and answer as to the facts contained in this preamble and the resolutions. [37]

The resolution was adopted and the -president of the senate appointed J. P. St. John, Nathan Price, W. A. Johnson, W. M. Matheny, and J. C. Wilson as the committee. [38] But on the next day before the committee had had time to meet, a more startling exposure took place. The two houses met in joint session at 12 noon to elect a United States senator. Just before the vote was taken Alexander M. York, senator from Montgomery county, arose and addressed the convention, giving details of the course he and others had taken to determine whether money was being used in the election. He then handed the chief clerk a package containing $7,000 which Pomeroy had given to him for his vote and reported that another $1,000 was to have been delivered after his vote was cast. The effect was overwhelming. The balloting began shortly afterward, and John J. Ingalls, who had previously been agreed upon in an anti-Pomeroy caucus, [39] was almost unanimously elected on the first ballot. Pomeroy, whose friends had been confident of his election a few minutes before, did not receive a single vote.

The "Ross letter" was an effective instrument in the hands of the opposition and might possibly have caused Pomeroy's defeat without the York exposure. With the downfall of Pomeroy, interest in the letter for political purposes ended. And as the committee did not meet to investigate, the controversy remained unsettled. Another committee of the legislature did investigate Pomeroy's dealings with York and others of its members, however, and found him "guilty of the crime of bribery, and attempting to corrupt by offers of money, members of the Legislature of the State of Kansas," [40] but a select committee of the United States senate concluded that the charges were part of a plot to defeat him for reelection. Pomeroy's term ended March 4, 1873. He remained in Washington several years afterward and later made his home at Whitinsville, Mass., where he died on August 27, 1891.

Photographic reproductions of the three pages of the "Ross letter" accompany this article. Another Pomeroy letter, which is authentic beyond question, is also reproduced to enable the reader to compare the handwriting and decide for himself whether the "Ross letter" was a forgery. The letters were written on lined paper, 93/4 x 73/4 inches.

Notes

1. This photographic copy was the one sent to Robert T. Van Horn, grandfather of Miss Van Horn, by John Hutchings of Lawrence in November, 1872, in an effort to prove to Van Horn that the letter was not spurious but genuine.-See p. 485.
2. New York Tribune, January 30, 1873.
3. Council Grove Democrat, April 25, 1872.
4. Ibid., March 21, 1872.
5. William P. Dole was U. S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1861-1864. 6. Willis E. Gaylord was Senator Pomeroy's brother-in-law.
7. H. B. Branch was superintendent of Indian affairs for the Central Superintendency from 1861 to 1863.-Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1861-1863.
8. Wilder, D. W., The Annals of Kansas (Topeka, 1886), p. 581. 9. Leavenworth Daily Times, November 21, 1872.
10. John Hutchings to R. T. Van Horn, November 25, 1872.-MSS. division, Kansas Historical Society.
11. New York Sun, December 16, 1872.
12. The Daily Kansas Tribune, Lawrence, January 9, 1873.
13. Pomeroy Investigation; Reports of the Joint Committee Appointed by the Legislature of Kansas, 1873, to Investigate Charges of Corruption and Bribery Against Hon. S. C. Pomemy, and Members of the Legislature, . . . (Topeka, 1873), p. 84.
14. Ross published an interview with Pomeroy by a correspondent of the St. Louis Republican, in which Pomeroy said that his legal representative was preparing suits which would be brought against the principal parties to the publishing of the letter. "The letter," he said, is held by some parties with a view to extort blackmail."-The Evening Paper, Lawrence, January 20, 1873.
15. Ibid.
16. One newspaper described Pomeroy's method of political control as follows:
"Pomeroy entered upon the Senatorial contest with all the careful and elaborate preparations of an experienced general. Long before the fall election he had sent out his mandate to his postmasters and office holders 'Fix things at your end of the line, and I will fix things here.' In every county in the State, he distributed money in large amounts to control the elections. In Douglas, Labette and other counties he put forward candidates to defeat the regular nominees where they were known to be opposed to him.
`By these means he secured a nucleus of pledged and positive strength round which to rally his forces. Several of the leading journals of the State were of necessity under his control. The Lawrence Tribune was owned by Postmaster Shimmons. The Atchison Champion was owned by Postmaster Martin. The Paola Spirit was owned by Postmaster Perry. The Parsons Sun was owned by Receiver Reynolds. The Commonwealth was owned by Adams & Veal and other Topeka speculators who wanted the State printing, and wanted still more to get Pomeroy's subscription of $200,000 to the King Bridge Manufacturing Co., which they finally got before the election. Pomeroy told us that he had 'given money to several small papers for party purposes.'
All the railroads of the State have been enlisted in Mr. Pomeroy's support, except the L., L. & G., and this even was awed into a reluctant support by Pomeroy's threats. All the roads furnished free passes to Pomeroy's lobby.
"The influences of the church had been arrayed in his favor. "Woman's pure influence was dragged in.
"Judge Lowe and Col. Phillips were threatened. . We were told that if we did not give in our adhesion to Pomeroy, a new paper would be started in Chetopa, with the Government patronage and post office to back it, and that Pomeroy and his friends, would crush out the Advance.
"The members were beset from the time of their arrival till the very hour of balloting, by the Pomeroy lobby. . . .''-Southern Kansas Advance, Chetopa, February 5, 1873.17. There were at least ten candidates for senator in the anti-Pomeroy ranks, each with his group of supporters.
18. Beloit Weekly Gazette, January 2, 1873; The Independent, Oskaloosa, January 11, 1873.
19. Edward Clark came to Kansas some time in 1854. He presided at a public meeting in Lawrence on January 16, 1865. The census of 1855 lists him as a native of the U. S., lawyer, twenty-one years of age, and having emigrated from New York. In February, 1855, he opened a law office on Massachusetts street and did a general law and land office business until the raid on Lawrence in May, 1856, after which he seems to have left the city. He went to Washington, possibly in 1859. For some time he acted as agent in prosecuting before the Department of Indian Affairs the claims of various Indians and Indian tribes, notably the Pottawatomies in Michigan. He was also a law partner of Willis Gaylord, and in the spring of 1862 the firm of Clark & Gaylord merged with that of Stewart, Stevens & Co. Clark later moved to Pennsylvania.-Kansas Free State, Lawrence, January 24, 1855; Herald of Freedom, Lawrence, February 17, 1855, May 10, 1856; The Kansas Daily Commonwealth, Topeka, January 28, 1873; records of the Office of Indian Affairs, vols. 59-76, microfilm copies in Archives division, Kansas Historical Society.
20. Kansas Daily Commonwealth, Topeka, January 28, 1873.
21. Ibid., quoting from the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Commercial, December 20, 1872.
22. Col. Joseph B. Stewart spent the summer of 1872 in Kansas, attending the United States district court: in which he had a case against the Kansas Pacific railroad. He took an active part m the political campaign m the state. Kansas Daily Commonwealth, Topeka, September 17, 1872, February 2, 1873.
23. Ibid., January 28, 1873.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Junction City Union, January 4, 1873.
28. Kansas Daily Commonwealth, Topeka, January 28, 1873. 29. Ibid.
30. William S. Blakely to George Martin, January 28, 1873.-Martin Collection. MSS. division, Kansas Historical Society.
31. Kansas Daily Commonwealth, January 28, 1873.
32. Ibid., January 30, 1873.
33. The Independent, Oskaloosa, January 11, 1873.
34. Junction City Union, January 4, 1873, a dispatch from St. Louis dated December 31, 1872.
35. Kansas Daily Commonwealth, Topeka, January 28, 1873.
36. Pomeroy Investigation (Topeka, 1873), p. 84.
37. Senate Journal; Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Kansas (Topeka, 1873), pp. 100-108.
38. Ibid., p. 110.
39. Atchison Daily Champion, January 29, 1873.
40. Pomeroy Investigation (Topeka, 1873), p. 4.