January 10, 1916 - A note to Barnet, Joe's nephew.

Here is one page of a letter that Joe wrote his nephew Barnet, oldest son of his brother Charles. Barnet was about five years old. As you can see Joe enjoyed his role as uncle and used his pen to communicate his playful stories.

January 10, 1916

Dear Barnet,

Grandma Shapiro told me that you visited her yesterday and had some fresh custard. And when I arrived last night, I went to the cubbard (cupboard) but found it was bare. What story does that remind you of?

I was in New York Saturday, and when I went into one of the toy stores, I saw a little boy sitting in a corner; he had a pie in his lap and was chewing a plumb. The man said he was a good boy.

Here is a photograph of Barnet with Helen on the front porch of Joe's mothers home. Cats and dogs were always favorites in their home.

The next letter will be on January 20.

January 5, 1916 - Mistrial because of juror's strange action . . .

As a follow-up to the letter Joe wrote to Helen on January 3, 1916 here are two of three articles that hit the newspapers on January 5, 1916. All of that hard work and this small mistake changes the outcome. I am continuing to do research to see what happened when the case was brought back to court and what the verdict was.

 MISTRIAL FOUND BECAUSE JUROR’S STRANGE ACTION

Judge Gager Dismissed Jury in Auto Accident Case After Notification.

JUROR-HANDED NOTE TO DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL

Intention Was Honest, but Oath Was Unwittingly Broken, Said Court.

Through an incident about as ex­ceptional as ever recorded in jury tri­als in this county the case of Benja­min Feinman, administrator, against Caspar D. Wallace, was this morning taken from the jury because of the threat of mistrial.
A juror just before court opened handed to Judge A. B. Beers of coun­sel for Mr. Wallace a slip of paper which stated that there was a juror sitting on the case from the town where the accident happened.
The juror who handed the slip of paper to Judge Beers, was William H. Wessels of Greenwich. Judge Beers immediately informed Judge Edwin B. Gager and his honor, after thinking it over decided that the jury should no longer be retained on the matter.

Oath Violated.

It was not the presence of a juror from Bridgeport which had anything to do with Judge Gager's decision, but it was the fact that a juror had violat­ed his oath, unintentionally as Judge Gager said, in communicating with persons not on the jury regarding the case, which led the court to rule a mistrial.
Juror Wessels was very sorry when he found out how much trouble he had made over a matter of no concern. There is nothing in the law to prevent a juror from a town in which a case is returned sitting on that case. Mr. Wessels thought it did. He apologized after Judge Gager dis­missed the jury.

Has Jury Experience.

The curious thing about it is that Mr. Wessels is a man of considerable jury experience. He is in business in East Portchester in Greenwich, and is a man of the highest standing in that town. He is a relation of form­er Mayor Wessels of this city.
The action on trial is a suit to re­cover $10,000 for the death of a boy of four years, killed 'in April, 1914 on Congress Street in an automobile ac­cident.
The trial was commenced yesterday. Judge Alfred B. Beers and Judge Carl Foster appeared for the defendant, At­torney Joseph G. Shapiro for the plaintiff. A considerable part of the evidence had been put in when court recessed yesterday afternoon.

Hands Note to Judge Beers.

This morning when the court was about to open Juror Wessels handed the note to Judge Beers. The latter quickly realized that a situation had suddenly presented itself which must be brought to the attention of the court. Innocent as the purpose might be, such communication was contrary to the law.
Judge Gager was informed and he also realized the gravity of the seem­ingly unwitting action. After some consideration Judge Gager decided to dismiss the jury from further consid­eration of the case.

Court Calls Jury.

The jury was called in and Judge Gager addressed them. He said he regretted having to take the course he was about to, but under the cir­cumstances it was necessary. He also regretted having to name the juror. He told the jury that Mr. Wessels had communicated with the counsel one side.
Judge Gager went on to say that Mr. Wessels had informed counsel that there was a man on the panel from the town where the accident occurred. Judge Gager said this was nothing in itself. There was no rea­son for disqualification on that ac­count. Mr. Wessels had acted hon­estly, one might almost say, he had, been too honest.
The court read the jurors' oath which swears a juror not to com­municate with any one regarding the case on trial, except a member of the jury. This oath, the court believ­ed, had been violated, unwittingly, it is true, but none the less violated. For this reason, his honor considered it proper to dismiss the jury from furth­er hearing upon the case. His hon­or said further that if the jury thought anything was wrong it should be communicated to the court, which was impartial.
Mr. Wessels stood up manfully and made an apology for his act. He did not realize what the consequences of his act were. He hoped the court would excuse him.
It turned out from a study of the jury panel that there were in reality two Bridgeport men among the twelve, John H. Colgan of 301 Arctic street and Isaac P. Turney the well-known West End newsdealer.
The incident created a considerable, stir about the court house. The old­est inhabitant could not recall any­thing quite like it since the building was put up nearly thirty years ago.

JUROR PASSES NOTE, DAMAGE CASE HALTED

Court  Withdraws Wallace Damage Suit Because of W. H. Wessels' Action.

OATH IS INNOCENTLY BROKEN; NO CENSURE

Greenwich Man Only Wanted to Tell Counsel that One Juror Lived Where Accident Occurred.

Because Juror William H. Wessels of Greenwich passed a note to Attorney A. B. Beers, informing the latter that there was a Bridgeport man on the jury, which was considering the $10,000 dam­age suit of Benjamin Feinman, administrator, against Casper D. Wallace, Judge Ed­win B. Gager this morning in the Civil Superior Court discharged the jury from further consideration in the case, holding that Juror Wessels had innocently broken his oath as a juror, and under the cir­cumstances the court thought that the case should be with­drawn from the jury. Juror Wessels publicly apologized to the court and the apology was accepted.

VIOLATION INNOCENT

There were two men from this city sitting as jurors on the case, John H. Colgan and Isaac P. Turney. It is understood that Juror Wessels referred to Mr. Colgan in his note to At­torney Beers. Before court opened this morning, Juror Wessels passed a note to Attorney Beers conveying the information that a man from the place in which the accident was al­leged to have occurred was acting as a juror. Attorney Beers felt that it was his duty to inform the court of the note, and did so.
Judge Gager immediately took the matter under consideration, and after the jury had been called, he informed them that after thinking the. matter over, he had concluded that he would dismiss them from further considera­tion of the case. He said that one of the jurors had seen fit to hand a slip to one of the counsel in the case that there was a certain juror from the town in which the accident oc­curred, and that such action on the juror's part was an innocent breach of his oath. The court told the jury that it was the duty of each juror to keep his own counsel and that the law provides he shall not speak on the matter he shall have in hand, except with the jurors on the case.

Juror Not Censured

It was Judge Gager's opinion that Juror Wessels had acted with honest motives in  passing the note  to  the lawyer, and he did not censure the juror. He told the jurors that while they must not speak about any phase | of a case, they may have under consideration to anyone but a member of the jury, they had the right to men­tion anything which they thought should come to the attention of the court, to the judge. Judge Gager stated that the attorney did his duty in calling the court's attention to the fact that he had received the note.
It is understood that Juror Wessels received his information from an­other member of the jury, and that he gave the information to the law­yer for the defense, thinking that the latter should know that there was a juror from the town where the acci­dent occurred. There seemed to be no question but what Juror Wessels had the highest motive in passing the information to the lawyer and he felt badly over the sudden termination of the case because of his action, for be­fore Judge Gager had finished talking to the jury, he arose from his seat in the jury box and said, "I would like to apologize publicly to the court." The court accepted the apology. History of Case. Feinman sued Wallace for $10,000 damages claiming that the latter's automobile struck and killed his four-year-old son, Samuel, on Congress street, and that the death was caused by the reckless manner in which the defendant's machine was being operated.
Shapiro & Shapiro represented the plaintiff, and Attorneys Foster and Beers the defendant. There being no work for the jury this week, Judge Gager excused them until next Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.

It appears from this article that the jury was excused until Tuesday January 11.

I did a little research about Judge Gager and found a photograph from the firm he was with at one time in Derby CT as seen below.

 

In the photograph are Col. Wm. B. Wooster (L) with three members of his Derby law firm who went on to become judges - William H.  Williams, Chief Justice David Torrance, and Edwin B. Gager.

I was also able to locate his obituary in New New York Times from April 29, 1922.

The next letter will be posted on January 10.

January 3, 1915 - Standing by the grave of that young soul . . .

So begins a very active letter writing year for Joe. I look at the stack of letters that I have carefully cataloged by date. Each letter, postcard and envelope now place in protective sleeves so the fragile paper does not fall apart. The articles are often a bit more delicate and I work to preserve them so I can publish articles that match up with the dates and letters on the blog. The pile of letters posted in the past two years is much shorter than what is to come.

Here is a photo to illustrate what I am facing.

 This gives an idea of the condition of the articles. I can not use all of them but will choose clippings that add some depth to the life of Joseph Shapiro.

Here is the first letter of 1916.

January 3,1916
I know that this letter is what you call curt. I have been at work till quite late to-night preparing for a jury trial tomorrow, and just before closing up the machine thought I'd drop you a line. Speaking of dropping a line reminds me to quote the peroration of my closing address, an idea, that I fished out of the ink pot a few moments ago, and took my brother by surprise. I might add that I make no comment now of the facts or names, because I am very tired,

"Counsel would excite your sympathy for this venerable defendant, He would even refer to his patriotism and to his valor. I do not complain of this; think as kindly as you may of him, and of his brave conduct in the days of yore. That is natural, and it is right. But, even in the matter of sympathy there is another side to this case. Take that mother there and her children, with the father bowed down in grief, and go to that lone and lonely kirkyard, and standing by the grave of that young soul fresh from God already given back to Him who gave it, there beside that grave, unmarked by stone or monument, unknown, unhonored, and unsung, standing by the grave of that baby killed by an automobile, in view of that great sorrow, there write your verdict and when you have done that, the demands of these broken hearts will have been stilled, and a lost soul mutely but partly atoned for,"

Still I have a hunch that the case would be settled ere I get started in the morning.
And my brother is plowing away preparing an argument for the Supreme Court in behalf of a man convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged; which he is to deliver in the morning in Hartford.
By the way, I asked a friend to get me some seats for Leo. He sent me the enclosed as the best he could secure, and if they are agreeable, I expect to be in New York Saturday, and could go; but they are yours to await your doing with them as you see fit.

Sincerely,
Joe

* Peroration is the concluding part of a speech, typically intended to inspire enthusiasm in the audience.

 Two articles from this case will be posted on January 5.

December 22, 1915 - Julius Ceasar, train delays and a number of variegated specimens of humanity

It has been some time since Joe last wrote Helen. My guess it that there were lost letters from the gist of this very long letter below. We are now coming to a close of the second year of this blog and in the next moth you will see a big change in the frequency of the letters.
This is one of the letters that I have where I wish I had Helen's letter to set the scene. Joe does have a way of giving us a sense of the letter without the letter in front of us.

December 32.1915.


Dear Helen:
After having spent a rather miserable Sunday endeavoring to get rid of a slight cold that adopted me for some unknown reason,I found that the State Police had raided a somewhat questionable hostelry in the peaceful Borough of Shelton, and had quite a number of variegated specimens of humanity for me to prosecute Monday morning. A number of the fairer sex-I say that advisedly -who had been caught in the net, and who had furnished bonds for appearance, owing to other engagements no doubt more important than vindicating their fair name in court, failed to put in an appearance, to the disgust of a large audience that had come early to get good seats;and their absence of course relieved me from considerable work.

However, there were enough on hand, with their attorneys to make things hum while the trials lasted, and it was in the afternoon that I found myself on the way to Bridgeport. The Council of Jewish Women had arranged for their monthly meeting for Monday night, and I discovered that I was down for the address that evening on a subject dealing with the romance of the life of Rabbi Akiba who lived about 100 A.D. While meditating whether to deliver an address along the lines or rather frame-work of Hubbard's Little Journey to Mozart (you must read it to appreciate this thrust) the Presiding Officer called and apologized for the fact that they had decided to hold their meeting on January 3rd, owing to the Christmas holidays interfering with the attendance this week.

Tuesday morning, I was trying a case in Court representing my friend Williamson, who was a trustee in an estate here. As I was leaving the office with Williamson, and several more witnesses, I was handed your letter; and as I read it, I thought somebody had thrown some ice water at me, I was mistaken, it was just the atmosphere that seemed to permeate the air that moment. But it woke me up. My case in Court was a very technical one. My opponent was a brilliant lawyer, in fact one time Judge of our higher Court, and but recently our Attorney General. I knew that if there were any flaws in my argument or in my presentation of the evidence he would ferret it out instantly. My fears were quickly dispelled when I saw your letter, however. For, before me, I beheld a perfect specimen of cross-examination and argument in reference to the train schedules of the railroad, corroborated by citations from various newspapers, and then as a grand finale, in riveting your argument you jam my own words down my throat, quoting me verbatim. Faint as any explanations I might have then seemed, and crashed to earth as my excuses then appeared, a new light suddenly broke forth. Why not use that same method of totally annihilating the adversary when I should meet him in Court within the hour? Why not analyze his statements in the same way, and refute his claims by quotations from the newspapers? Why not take some letter he once wrote under circumstances which I knew nothing of, and cared less, and picking out three isolated words/without reference to the context (whatever that was and demand of him what he meant by that? And then ironically kid him along about his wonderful memory ad infinitum raising him up to the observation tower of heaven, and as he steps out of the portico window to gaze upon those beneath, give him a gentle but firm shove off, dashing him to pieces on the pavement below?

Why not? Wasn't it a great precedent I had before me? However, discretion is the better part of valor, and I thought that a little more sunshine would make the traveler remove his coat the sooner.

What I started out to say was this; after that terrible snow-storm of last week, my brother returned from College with the worst cold I ever saw or heard. By morning my mother's home looked more like a' hospital than anything else, with the physicians and medicines etc. I was up all night Wednesday, Thursday, and part of Friday, getting my sleep on the trolley to and from Shelton during the day. Of course eating regularly was out of the question, and between attending to things at the office, and keeping in touch with his condition, for we thought that he was as close to pneumonia as we cared to have him, I somehow caught a cold myself, and carried around a four-ounce bottle of some poison that had to be taken every three hours.

My cold left me in a day or two, and through good attention by my mother and sister, my brother was able to be out of bed yesterday, and will perhaps be able to return to school the first week in January when it reopens after the holidays.

So far as your statements regarding the trains are concerned, suffice it to say that my other brother started for New York Saturday afternoon and arrived at night, and had to stay over rather than take a chance of being up at all hours at night near some way station. After receiving this letter, I thought that I would go to New York not on business necessarily as you state- yesterday after¬noon, if I finished in Court on time, otherwise to-day. Well, we finished about five, and found that I wouldn't be able to get away till seven arriving (if on time at somewhere near nine) so concluded to -night was the night. Vain hope, as you know the best laid plans of mice and men gang oft aglee. My brother was occupied on some matter concerning a murder case he recently tried, and about four o'clock as I was slipping on my Stetson, he gently informed me that he had arranged for a conference on a matter at the office to-night.

Like the man who came home early in the morning, and as he was just getting his things off preparatory to rolling into bed, his wife heard him, and looking up said "John why are you getting up so early?" to which he to keep up the game replied "why I've got to catch an early train, dear" and so dressed and had to go out into the cold and clammy morning; so when he said that as long as I was going out, I could save him the trouble of going to the Court house to get some papers that he needed,! gladly consented, and upon my return found that arrangements were made for the night.

We have just concluded, and everybody has left. Before leaving I thought that I would drop you a line explaining-though I feel that my explanations are in vain-the situation. It is night, a quarter of eleven; and if I can remember everything that I saw in your letter, I believe that I have touched upon the various matters that you referred to.

Except the fact, of course, that you are going to Lakewood Friday.Tomorrow night would be the only time available for me but last night I agreed to be in Ansonia on Thursday evening, and I do not see how I can get in touch with the people to call that off. One of the men is to come from Waterbury, and I do not believe I can reach him during the day. I presume that you will leave either Friday morning or afternoon, so Friday evening is out of the question. And from the general tone of your letter, you expect to spend the remainder of the year away.

It may be that my last letter gave you the impression you complained of. It may be true that my language was ambiguous so that you could infer the various "first, second, and third thoughts called up by my statements". I haven't the letter before me, of course. But your inferences certainly are refreshing. For example, you say that on Friday, the trains, according to your papers, we are only 55 minutes late. I will pass the fact that this means an hour, and go on to your remark that on Saturday they were reported to be running normally. That is your version from reading the papers on Monday, It is refreshing in that it recalls to my mind a situation we had in the law school where a sailor was reported to have been tried on the charge of manslaughter for having allowed or caused another to drown, when he might have saved him. The boat had foundered, and the sailor and another man were clinging to a mast or spar, and had been drifting about the whole night during a terrific storm. The sailor feared that both could not be rescued or supported by the wood during that storm, after they had been pitched and tossed about for hours, so he shoved the other fellow off. It just happened that within an hour or so, day break set in, the storm subsided and a passenger ship that had just been passing picked up the sailor and rescued him. In that case it was claimed by the prosecution that the sailor should be convicted because had he permitted the man to cling on to the pole only a few more minutes, the day break would have quieted the storm, and they would have been saved. That would seem to be a simple, and clear cut case. Yet the defense was that the jury should not consider the case as they sat in their comfortable leather chairs smoking their cigars in the warm jury room, and looked back to compute how short a time it was after the deceased had been crowded off that the sun came forth, and how fortunate it was that the passenger steamer hove in sight to lend a friendly hand; but that they should place themselves, figuratively, in the accused's position as on the moment that the tragedy occurred. They should see him as he lifted the women and children into the life boats as their steamer was being dashed to pieces. And then as it was about to take its final plunge, he loosened some pole or other and grasping it plunged into the raging torrent(remember Cassius saying "accoutered as I was I plunged in, and bade him follow, which indeed he did?"),that they should be with him during that long stormy night where hour after hour the two were being dashed around in the angry sea, and when every minute seemed to be an eternity, and at last when the night seemed as if it would never die, and day would never come, frantic and dazed, the poor man back to the first principles of self-preservation acted as he did, they should consider whether at that moment he knew that it would be day-break in a few minutes, and whether at that moment he could expect the friendly boat to pass by. How do you think the jury decided?

There is no analogy in any of the facts, of course, but this case came to me when I read your quotations from Monday's papers as to what transpired on Saturday previous. For while it may be true that they were only 55 minutes late on Friday and normal on Saturday, after the figures were accurately compiled, the situation was slightly different on Friday when you called at the station to inquire about trains and you were told that they were repairing signals and it was difficult to make any definite assurances as to how the trains would keep anywhere near the schedule.

I know that explanations rarely ever explain. In fact, my friend Elbertus truly said ‘your friends don't need explanations; your enemies won’t believe them.’ I am also aware that if my letter contained anything that seemed to be unkind, after reading your letter another of the Fra's epigrams stands the test of truth, 'we are punished by our sins, not for them' He always added this after his statement that he does not offer you any reward for being good, nor threaten you with dire evil for being bad.

By the way where do you expect to be while at Lakewood?

I cannot think of a more fitting and appropriate conclusion than your own, if I can recall it correctly. "In case I do not see you, I hope that the Holiday season will be a very happy one for you.”

Sincerely,
Joe

I continue to be amazed at how Joe crafts his letters. I am sure they were met by an amused audience of Helen and her family when they arrived in New York. I am sure these letters were the center of the evening entertainment.

The next letter will be on January 3rd.

September 9, 1915 - All men are alike. It is almost useless to try and please them.

This letter started as a bit of a mystery because as you can see from the envelope there is only part of the date; the year. It took reading and thinking about a few things before I have come to what I think is the correct time of the year. First, it was sent to Lakewood, NJ where Helen would go in the summer with her family. Second, he spoke of the New Year. With the previous clue I decided he must have been speaking of the Jewish New Year. In looking up when that fell in 1915. Erev Rosh Hashanah was on September 8,1915. Here is the handwritten letter with the transcription below.

Friday

Dear Helen,
The last Fra had a quotation to the effect that “work is a blessing, and that winter and rain are as necessary as summer and sunshine. By a similar course of logic, sickness is as necessary as health; but whether that is so, the fact nevertheless is true that there is a large percentage of sufferers here from colds, grippe and pneumonia.

Barnet and his mother are just convalescing, and Myra is producing a new tooth daily, having about six.

I had a good laugh when I received your letter. Many things caused it. Primarily your remark “I can’t understand it, but all men are alike. It is almost useless to try and please them.” Are you really sure about that? The word “almost” implies a doubt. And the Proverbs say that “doubt is the beginning of wisdom.”

And even if all men may be alike; I shouldn’t say that regarding women. If anything, no two are alike. I can quote from the Bible down through Ella Wheeler Wilcox to prove it. For example, Solomon – the wise King- had 1000 wives, and he gave it as his experience that no two were alike. Why multiply illustrations?

Which brings me to the second cause of laughter. Remember Shylock’s

“the villainies you teach us, we will execute And the execution, better the instruction”?

 Well, when I wrote an apparently plain letter that our train service was all broken up by the storm and suggested that possibly I wouldn’t be in New York as a result; you drew more conclusions than a magician does rabbits from a hat, and with equal dexterity. Yet when you replied and appeared offended, and as you say didn’t intend to say aught but reply briefly, and I thrust a critics knife into the letter to show that if you are looking for reasons you’ll find them, and so exposed a few nerves, you seemed amazed that any such ideas could be gathered from your remarks.

I’m a bit afraid to say more, because I don’t just know how or what it will convey to you, no matter what it’s intended to do.

However, you’ve no time for this kind of stuff, trying as you are no doubt to take advantage of the holiday season.

New Years is at hand. The last one was good because we here have had peace, health and an opportunity to work. What more can one want?

May the New Year to be ushered in be a very happy one and on this, I hope every deduction of happiness possible may come true.
Sincerely,
Joe

As we can see from this letter there was a dialogue going back and forth from previous letters. I now know that the letters before this were lost over the years. From his comical and somewhat sarcastic response to Helen's letter we get the teasing and flirtation they treasured using their intellect as the base.

The next post on the blog will be on September 24th with an article from the Sentinel.

July 23, 1915 Photographs from Camp

In the summer of 1915 Helen and her family left the heat of New York City and ventured to a camp at Schroon Lake in upstate New York. This was quite a distance from Manhattan. Today it would take about 4 hours by car to drive there on our highways and there are no current train routes to the lake. Since I do not have any letters from this summer I do not know the mode of transportation to the lake but I believe they stayed for at least a few weeks vacation. They went with their family and friends as can be seen in some of the photographs.

 

Helen (21 years old) out for a canoe ride with family friend Jay Kraus. 

 

 Florrie (20 years old) sitting on a fence in a field with Jay Kraus.

 

Florrie sitting on a fence in a field. 

 

Beautiful Florrie.

 Beautiful Helen. In the right photo she has her camera case hanging on her side.

 

 Helen in a field with her hat and camera.

   Helen posing in a field.

One thing you can say about the sisters is that they were not camera shy. There are no photographs of Abe, Lillie and the rest of the family but they may have been lost over the years.

There will be some newspaper articles in the next couple of months.

June 25, 2015 - Coney Island Summer Fun

In the collection of photographs that I have of Helen's family I found this photograph of a family outing to Coney Island. It reminds me of a photograph that was posted in March 1913. Some of the same friends were with them but they are driving a different fake auto.
I have copied the back of the photo because it shows how they printed the photographs so they could be sent to friends and family thru the mail.

The front of the card.

The back of the card.

I can not help but go in close on the strange hat that Florrie is sporting.

There will be more photos of Helen's family coming in July.

June 1, 1915 - Bridgeport Man Faces Trial on Murder Charges

Newspaper clipping from a murder trial.  In researching this I finally found out what happened to Isaac N. Williams of Bridgeport. (See below) Until this article I never heard of Barkhamsted, CT. Oh the things Joe is teaching us all.

BRIDGEPORT MAN FACES TRIAL ON MURDER CHARGE

Bridgeport Post June 1, 1915

Isaac N. Williams Is Charged with Killing Barkhamsted Postmaster.

LITCHFIEILD Conn, June 1. Three jurors were secured from 15 examined at the trial of Isaac N. Williams of Bridgeport, 29, and Harry E. Howe, 21, charged with the murder of  Hubert B. Case, postmaster, banker and storekeeper of Barkhamsted, Conn., who was bludgeoned with an iron wagon axle in his store November 28, 1914 and died without regaining consciousness on the following day.

Judge Joel Reed presided at the session of the Criminal Superior court which was opened for the first time by Sheriff Frank H. Turkington. Assisting States Attorney Donald T, Warner are Frank B. Munn of Winsted and Coroner Samuel A. Herman. Attorneys Charles H. and Joseph. G. Shapiro of Bridgeport, appeared for Williams and Bernard E, Higgins of Torrington for Rowe. Each pleaded not guilty to the indictment of first degree murder.

The Jurors chosen at the morning session were Philo Sperry of Watertown, Asapel Gobson of Woodbury, each a farmer, and Jos. Stillson of Washington, an insurance agent.

When I looked up the name Isaac N. Williams of Bridgeport, CT I was directed to a list of Executions in Connecticut. His name was on the list. This is how it read:

Isaac N. Williams

3325

03/03/1916

Murder, 1st degree

Hanging

On a lighter note, June will have many fun photographs of Helen and her family at camp. I don't have the exact dates. But check back, I am sure you will enjoy them.

May 7, 1915 - The Sinking of the Lusitania

On November 1, 1914 I posted the postcard that Joe sent Helen. I think his joy of making it to Roycroft is obvious. On May 7, 1915 Joe's dreams of seeing Hubbard again were dashed. Hubbard and his wife were on the Lusitania when it went down; neither survived.
The strange part of this story is that Elbert Hubbard had to go to great lengths to get his passport reinstated so he and his wife could take this journey. The articles below explain why he did not have a passport and how he got it back.

 

FAMOUS WRITER WAS ON THE LUSITANIA

ELBERT HUBBARD and his wife were among those who went down when a German torpedo
struck the Lusitania, according to reports from Queenstown.

Elbert Hubbard, the seer of East Aurora, created for himself a unique place in American letters by his wit and epigrams and lately by his philosophy of Big Business. First noted for his pamphlet, "The Philistine," with its keen satire, he later published many books and made a success o£ his own publishing and printing business in East Aurora, where he established a settlement of his workers known as the Roycrofters.

He was born, in Bloomington,Ill on June 19, 1859,and had only a common school education, but he was honored with the degree of master of arts by Tufts college. He started a newspaper career in the West, but went to East Aurora, and from there built up his printing establishment for the publication of de luxe editions and published most of his books.

Of late Fra Elbertus, as he had been known, had written much in defense of leading men in business life and of their business methods, although his early writings were considered radical.

HUBBARD JUST PARDONED.

President   Restored   Citizenship to Give Passport for Trip.

Special to The New fork Times.

WASHINGTON, May 8. The report that Elbert Hubbard was among those lost on the Lusitania brought out today the fact that six weeks ago President Wilson granted a pardon to "Fra Albertus," who had been convicted of an offense against the postal laws, in order to restore his citizenship so that he could obtain a passport for the trip on which he lost his life.

As the story was told today for the first time, Mr. Hubbard came to Washington in March to obtain a passport. When he made his application he was asked the usual question whether he had ever been convicted of a crime and thereby forfeited his citizenship and he then explained that he had been charged two years ago with violating the postal laws and on the advice of his lawyer had pleaded guilty and had been let off with a fine. Subsequently, he said, he had learned that the offense to
which he had pleaded guilty was a felony, and that he had been deprived of his rights as an American citizen.

When Mr. Hubbard learned that he could not obtain a passport he went to the White House and laid his trouble before Joseph P. Tumulty, the Secretary to the President. He suggested to Mr. Tumulty that the only way to obtain the passport was through a pardon from the President (Woodrow Wilson) for the offense of which he had been convicted. Mr. Tumulty was sympathetic and went immediately to the Cabinet room, where the Cabinet was in session, and laid the case before the President, Secretary Bryan, and Attorney General Gregory. He found a ready response to his statement of the plight in which Mr. Hubbard found himself. The Attorney General recommended a pardon, and the following day the
pardon was granted. Mr. Hubbard had no difficulty after that in getting his passport from the State Department.

The official record in the case shows that on Jan. 11, 1913, Elbert Hubbard was charged in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, sitting at Buffalo, with having committed an offense against the postal laws, that he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 the same day. In February, 1913, President Taft declined to grant a pardon to Mr. Hubbard on the ground that the application was premature. On March 22, 1915, the Attorney General recommended-to the
President that Mr. Hubbard receive a pardon to restore his civil rights. The pardon was granted by the President on March 23 and the fact recorded in the Department of Justice on March 25.

Hubbard Foresaw Danger.

CINCINNATI, Ohio, May 8.

"I may meet with a mine or a submarine over there, or I may hold friendly converse with a stray bullet in the trenches." Thus wrote Elbert Hubbard to his friend, E. W. Edwards of this city, shortly before he boarded the Lusitania last Saturday. The letter, now in the hands of Mr. Edwards, was one of the last things that Mr. Hubbard ever penned. He wrote Mr. Edwards about his plans for getting interesting inside news and views of the great war at first hand, and said he intended to " store the information in my head so as to escape the censor." He concluded his letter by saying: "I shall return June 20, perhaps."


For obvious reasons I am not transcribing these next two articles.

Knowing how Joe felt about Elbert Hubbard this must have been devastating news.

The next post will be an article on June 1.