A Spring Scandal

or, Trouble in The Family or, A Bank Saved and A Son Lost - An Old Man's Folly

Up and down the City Road,

In and out the Eagle,

That's the way the money goes -

Pop goes the weasel!

- 1853 song, 'Pop Goes the Weasel,' by W. R. Mandale; also attributed to Charles Twiggs.

THE SETTING AND THE PLAYERS

The year 1884 saw the debut of Buffalo Bill's "Wild West" show, Mark Twain's publication of "Life on the Mississippi," and the first German season of the Metropolitan Opera with Tannhauser opening on November 17. On May 1, a general strike was called by the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions in support of a proposal for an 8-hour work day. In the world of finance, the journalist Charles Dow introduced his first Stock Average in the Customer's Afternoon Letter of July 3. On Wall Street, another of the periodic panics that had gripped the markets since the Civil War sold lively copy on street corners. Driving this was a rash of defalcations - the misappropriation of funds - involving a number of banks and brokerages in the city. Leading the dismal news was the collapse of the brokers Grant and Ward and the Marine National Bank at the beginning of May, a debacle involving ex-President Grant and his family. A lesser event  in terms of money misappropriated but nonetheless a blow to the city's pride involved the son of a prominent Manhattan real estate developer, Amos Richards Eno, and the Second National Bank of New York. Of the vivid characterizations employed by Dana L. Thomas, author of The Plungers and the Peacocks, to describe traders in the market, John Eno was a plunger, 'a high-stake gamester who grew rich by taking fantastic risks that won or lost everything.'

John Chester Eno was the seventh of nine children born to Amos Richards Eno and Lucy Jane Phelps.The Enos were a Simsbury, Connecticut, farming family descended from an English Huguenot, James Eno or Enno, who settled at Windsor in 1648. Amos, born in 1810, went into the dry goods business with his first cousin, John Jay Phelps, another farmer's son from Simsbury, in the early 1830s in the garment district of Lower Manhattan, known then as Smith's Valley. In 1835, he married Lucy, the daughter of Elisha Phelps, a former Democratic U. S. Representative and longtime member of the state legislature, whose father, Major-General Noah Phelps, had played an important role in the Revolutionary War. Eno & Phelps developed as a highly successful wholesale business, and in 1850 the pair dissolved their partnership, each to pursue separate interests.

Amos, described for his wealth as "the Merchant Prince," was an early developer of land in the neighborhood of City Hall. In 1859, he built the Fifth Avenue Hotel, No. 200 Fifth Avenue, at Twenty-third street and Broadway, overlooking Madison Square Garden. Rising on the site of Franconi's Hippodrome, a circus structure built in 1853, and before that a roadhouse, Madison Cottage, 1839, at fifteen storeys high and featuring the first application of an elevator in a hotel it was a wonder of the time. Into the beginning of the next century it would be the city's most prestigious meeting place, hosting celebrities such as Mark Twain, the singer Jenny Lind, the presidents Chester Arthur and Ulysses Grant, the Prince of Wales and other dignitaries from around the world. In the penultimate year of the Civil War on the day that Union forces under Grant were sustaining heavy casualties at Cold Harbor, Amos and nine other businessmen found the Second National Bank of New York. Quartered in the hotel, its depositors included many of the neighboring wealthy residing on Murray Hill. Following a successful run, in 1881 the board elected Amos' son, John, president.

John ‘Johnnie’ was born in 1848; there is talk of  a twin who died in infancy. His siblings included Amos “Mo” Frederick, born 1836, Mary Jane, 1838, Anna Maria, 1840, Henry Clay, 1841, Antoinette “Nettie” Phelps, 1842, Salmon Elisha, 1846, Lucy Smith, 1849, and William ‘Willie’ Phelps, 1858. Both Salmon and Lucy would die as infants. Lucy, their mother, was a cultured woman, and the life the family lived in New York was one of wealth and privilege. Time was spent abroad and artists, amongst them Worthington Whittredge and John Frederick Kensett, writers and performers were encouraged in their circle.

While Lucy died in 1882 at the age of sixty-three, she left an indelible stamp of creativity upon her offspring. Amos Frederick pursued mercantile interests in the city, while amassing a print collection of early New York views; Mary Jane married the manufacturer of fine Victorian wall papers James Wallace Pinchot, giving birth to Gifford, a leading light in the allied spheres of forestry and conservation, and Amos Richards Eno, a public spirited citizen and liberal reformer who, with his brother, found the Progressive Party, an offshoot of the Republican Party; Henry Clay was a doctor and well-known engraver; Antoinette Phelps devoted considerable energy to remodeling the family home in Simsbury, contracting the firm of Frederick Olmstead to landscape the grounds; William Phelps was a pioneering traffic expert who gave America its first traffic regulations; and, John Chester who, though an unsuccessful investor, effected a spectacular embezzlement. Members of the family were among the founders of the American Museum of Natural History, 1871, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1880.

John Eno was educated at Phillips Academy, Andover, and graduated A.B. from Yale in 1869. An individual noted for charm, he was voted the 'wooden spoon' – the Spoon Man - as the most popular member of his class in his senior year, becoming a member of the elite Skull and Bones society. Another understanding of the Spoon Man by way of the Yale Record (February, 1995) is that “it was bestowed in grateful acknowledgement of his failure to achieve distinction in his studies.”  Following several years in the employ of the powerful banking firm of Morton, Bliss & Co., John traveled abroad, perhaps visiting his married sister Mary who lived in Paris during the 1870s. In 1875, he married Harriet Andrews Christmas, the daughter of Charles H. Christmas, of Brooklyn. There would be three daughters: Florence Christmas, Mary Pinchot, and Antoinette Wood. In 1917, Mary would marry the timber industry and railroad financier Hakan B. Steffanson, following an introduction from a grateful passenger, a writer Mrs. Edward Candee (Helen Churchill Hungerford), on the Titanic, whom Steffanson, himself a passenger, and another, an Englishman, Hugh Woolner, had helped rescue when it sank in 1912. In the same year that John was married, perhaps as a wedding present, Amos made him a director of the bank, granting him power of attorney, an act he would later bitterly regret.

When John was made president of the bank in 1881 it was one of the more respected of the smaller private banks in the city. Receiving its charter on June 3, 1864, and capitalized with $300,000 ($3,297,000 in today's money) in ten equal shares, under the able direction of  James  Trowbridge, a shrewd financier, it had paid regular dividends over a thirteen year period. While none of its accounts were particularly large, the deposits being generally household accounts for the use of the wealthy, because withdrawals were small there was plenty of cash on hand, and the bank had made able use of this to accumulate a surplus many times larger than its capitalization. John's appointment was opposed by the directors who feared his inexperience, and Amos, the principal stockholder, was obliged to agree to guarantee any losses that might be incurred in consequence.

A PLUNGER FALLS

Though coming to be known as a heavy speculator in the market, it is unclear when the new president began to misuse the bank's funds. His daily appearances on Wall Street and regular visits to his brokers, Messrs. Decker, Howell & Co., H. B. Collins & Co., A. Dyett & Co. and Goffe & Randle, occasioned questions as to how much time he spent tending to the bank's business, seeming to confirm its directors' concerns. His principal stocks were Oregon Transcontinental, Northern Pacific, both common and preferred, and Union Pacific. As with many such speculators, John's response to a decline was to double up his investments in the expectation of a rise, making it easier to get out of the market. At first, he enjoyed a bull market, but then, in 1883, his losses began to attract attention and one of his brokers, fearing that he was using the bank's money, requested him to close his account.

The Northern Pacific Railroad was the biggest venture of  its day, requiring continual injections of capital, making it a lightning-rod for speculation. In 1873, bonds of a questionable nature issued in connection with it were the cause of the failure of the leading banking firm of Jay Cooke & Co. In 1883, under the control of Henry Villard, who sought to corner the transportation market in the Northwest, it became the subject of a bitter struggle on Wall Street, causing its stock to collapse. With his losses in the stock and the market's decline, John was dangerously exposed. Unable to cover his calls, on Sunday, May 11, 1884, he revealed to his father that his debts stood between $4, - and $4,500,000 ($72,727,000 and $81,818,000 adjusted for 2002). While Amos' wealth was said to be in the region of $20,000,000 ($363,636,000), in addition to family members' funds, one-and-a-half-million of his personal securities and three million in ready cash in the bank were gone. There was nothing left to cover the four-and-a half-million of the bank's three thousand or so depositors. It was broke.

On Monday morning, John visited one of his brokers, appearing so distraught that his presence drew queries of concern. In response, he made oblique reference to the failure of another bank and the damage already done by the Marine National: he feared the worst. Then, he left. Returning at three o'clock, he announced the details of the dreadful news of the Second National, reassuring his listeners that the bank would cover its losses without interruption of service.

Meanwhile, as he was in the House, the Honorable William Walter Phelps, Republican Congressman from the Fifth New Jersey district, received a telegram, "Come immediately to New York," signed Amos R. Eno.

William Walter Phelps, born in 1839, was the only surviving son of John Jay Phelps, Amos' erstwhile business partner - another, Francis, had died at the age of eight. The sole daughter, Ella Ada, married the Reverend David Stuart Dodge, son of the founding partner of the mining company Phelps Dodge. William Walter graduated from Yale in 1860, when he married Ellen Sheffield, a daughter of the benefactor of the Sheffield Scientific School at Yale, the cotton shipper and railroad financier Joseph Earl Sheffield. In 1863, he received a law degree from Columbia. Following a successful career as a corporate lawyer in New York, on the death of his father in 1869, William Walter with his family - two boys and a girl - settled at Teaneck, New Jersey, just across the Hudson from the city, proximate to the future site of the George Washington Bridge. Managing his father's estate, railroad financing and extensive real estate interests kept him busy. Running for public office as a Republican, he was elected to Congress in 1872, taking his seat in President Grant's second term. Forming a bond which would last a lifetime with a moderate of the party, the Speaker of the House James G. Blaine, he quickly established himself as an able orator possessed of an independent spirit. Opposing the party, he voted against the Civil Rights Bill in 1874, subsequently failing re-election in the next term. Though out of office, William Walter remained close to the party, helping to arrange financing for James A. Garfield's successful run for the presidency in 1880. A grateful Garfield appointed him Minister (Ambassador) to Austro-Hungary. After the president's assassination, William Walter ran successfully for office, again from the Fifth District, entering the Forty-eighth Congress in 1883.

Fiscally adroit, William Walter was also a man of considerable sympathy and loyalty towards his own and those less well off and facing hardship. In 1880, when the Bergen Savings Bank at Hackensack, NJ, failed, he spontaneously covered the losses of all small depositors, though he had no connection to the bank. A man known for his discretion, his part in the Eno family's troubles would remain largely unknown were it not for his biography written by Hugh M. Herrick, a New Jersey newspaperman and his private secretary, published in 1904. A stockholder and, briefly, a former director of the Second National, throughout the years William Walter had seldom heard from Amos, and thus, when the telegram arrived he presumed an emergency and hastened at once to New York. Arriving late Monday evening, he went immediately to Amos' residence, where he found the family waiting for him in great distress.

Family members present on this dire occasion included the oldest son, Amos “Mo,”  who was a director of the bank. While Anna had died in late March, of the rest there were Henry, Antoinette and her husband Charles Boughton Wood, and William and his wife Marie Louise Alice, daughter of Henry Alanson Rathbone, a New Orleans banker. John, too, the cause of all the trouble, may have been there, though his father's rage and misery at the stain on the family's name more likely suggest a diplomatic absence. Such, indeed, was the seventy-three year old man's shock at his misfortune that he was temporarily incapable of addressing the bank's parlous condition.

William Walter recognized the urgency of the situation at once. It was but a week since the collapse of the brokerage Grant and Ward, taking with it the Marine National Bank.

Ferdinand Ward, a high-flying speculator, had formed a partnership with James D. Fish, president of the Marine National. In 1880, Ulysses Grant, Jr. "Buck", a son of the ex-President, more valuable for his name than his business ability, was brought in to add prestige to the firm, which later also included Frederick, another son of Grant. In 1881, the ex-President himself was recruited as a limited partner. Perennially gullible in financial affairs, Grant had frequently been embarrassed by ill-advised financial dealings and this, his last, would prove no exception. At first, the firm showed a healthy profit. However, Ward, who was left to manage the day-to-day business, began, unbeknownst to his partners, to buy stocks using money borrowed at high interest rates, paying them with new borrowings. When more cash was needed he took loans from the Marine National, of which Fish had made him a director. The market falling in 1884, Ward was nine million short on calls for fifteen. Though the financier William Vanderbilt  made a personal loan to Grant, who went to him cap in hand, he refused to bail out the firm which, along with the bank, failed, taking with it all of the Grant family money.

Since the Civil War, there had been numerous panics large and small on Wall Street, most notably that of Jay Cooke & Co. in 1873, which had heralded a five year period of depressed business cycles. In the country at large, business and manufacture persisted at a depressed level. Most recently, there had been the failure in 1883 of Stedman & Co., and men like William Walter understood the swift retribution in the form of destabilizing public hysteria visited on the business world by a large failure such as that of Grant & Ward and the Marine National - the bad apple was all too prone to affect the healthy. While family considerations were certainly a motivating factor in addressing the bank's woes, possessed of a strong faith in the inherent efficacy of the banking system, William Walter was concerned to limit the damage that would likely follow the inevitable disclosure of the Second National's difficulties, running hard on the heals of the Grant & Ward and Marine fiasco. As a politician no stranger to the newspapers' keen nose for trouble, he knew that he had precious little time before rumors already on the street appeared in print, spreading damaging word far and fast.

Aware of the censorious context in which the directors had agreed to John's appointment as president, William Walter urged Amos to foot the bill. Amos, however, reneged on his former commitment to cover all losses attributable to his son's operations, maintaining that the other directors should share them - the old man's pride and vanity were sorely wounded and he was, in consequence, most likely loath to confront his error. The directors' legal liability extended only to each capitalized share in the bank, no more than a total of $300,000, a drop in the bucket compared to the shortfall. William Walter pleaded with Amos, under no illusion that the other directors would commit to more than their share. The family, unnerved by their father's intransigence and the likely unpleasant consequences of failing to address the dire situation, joined in begging him to settle the matter. At last, without any resolution, the household retired to bed and William Walter to his home.

The next day, Tuesday, William Walter visited Amos in the morning. While the old man remained unwilling to cover the total losses of the bank, he had modified his demands, agreeing to pay two million if the directors would commit one. William Walter, though certain that such a proposal would be refused, nevertheless consented to carry it to the directors. Visiting several of them in the afternoon, despite offering to cover a fifth of the sum himself, he found them, as he had feared, adamant in their refusal to cover losses incurred by a decision they had considered ill-advised from the start. Though disheartened, William Walter persuaded Amos to raise the two million and proposed an immediate meeting of the board. John, still the president, also apparently called for a meeting that evening, though the circumstances of his announcement are unclear and there is every indication that he did not attend it. Was he still vainly hoping to ride out the storm? These initiatives were none too soon, for the bank cashier, O. D. Roberts, had already been obliged to deny rumors abroad on the street and, when, at eight o'clock, William Walter arrived at No. 229 Madison Avenue, the home of one of the directors, Isaac Newton Phelps, the railroad financier, he found seven reporters, including those from the Times and Tribune, waiting on the steps.

THE PRESS CONVENES

In addition to the reports of the Times and Tribune, those of the Herald and World provide the basis for much of what follows.

Earlier on Tuesday, one of John's brokers, A. Dyett & Co., had felt the heat of their customer's rash behavior. Dyett & Co., established for twelve years and said to do a large commission business, was discreetly located in the basement of No. 80 Broadway. The firm had been found by Arthur Dyett, who brought in his cashier, Abraham R. L. Norton, as a partner. Their banker was the Continental National Bank located at No. 7 Nassau St.. Edmund D. Randolph was the president. That morning, John had ordered Dyett to call in his stock, said to be that of Union Pacific, and make up his account, indicating that he would have the money to take the securities in the afternoon. Dyett made calls for the stock of the several houses issuing them, writing checks on their account at the Continental National. When they had drawn the full amount of their account, they sent the stock itself as collateral, until there were securities lodged of $960,000 based on fair market value. While Dyett insisted that there was no risk, the bank was uneasy and, when it was rumored that in the language of the street John had "laid down on his brokers," it would only guarantee $700,000. A number of the checks, therefore, were refused - William Heath & Co., $60,000, William M. Patterson & Co., $40,000, H. C. Kretschmar & Co., $25,000, Jameson, Smith & Cotting, $34,000, W. S. Nelson & Co., $51,000. These houses, wanting their stocks back, made formal claim on them with the bank, ordering that they not be surrendered to other parties.

When John failed to appear with the money at his brokers, it was clear that Dyett was in trouble. Going to the Continental National with those whose checks had been refused, the firm remained until five o'clock, urging the bank fruitlessly to issue a loan, pleading that their securities were more than ample. One whose check had been refused, John Bloodgood, got into a row with the bank president, Edmund Randolph, and was "bounced." Later, he claimed angrily to the press that the bank was unjustified in its actions and seeking to destroy Dyett's credit. Responding to the press following the meeting, Abraham Norton, Dyett's partner, complained that just the other day the bank had "certified" $2,000,000 beyond their securities. Delos McCurdy, Dyett's attorney, blamed the whole affair on distrust in the market following the collapse of the Marine Bank. The bank president, however, was curtly dismissive, saying it was a simple matter of a customer failing to keep his word. Frederick Taylor, the cashier, was more forthright: "Dyett & Co. lost their heads. They postponed making up their accounts until it was too late to secure cash. I understand that the very stocks they left here are sold for delivery in the morning." Everyone, it would seem, except the bank, was out of luck.

On the street the word was that, while Amos would make up the losses of the Second National, he would not cover his son's debts. However, when John was queried on this by the press at Dyett's office at six o'clock following the bank meeting, he flatly denied it: "There is no truth in that statement. It is so absurd that it is ludicrous." When queried as to whether he was the source of Dyett's troubles, he was adamant in denial, "I have no dealings with the firm and am in no way responsible for any strait or position it may be in." Explaining his relations with the firm, he said, "I am an old friend of members of the firm." Denying any significant investment activity, he explained, "I have 160 shares of stock, 10 of which are not on the Stock Exchange list, and 50 shares of insurance stock." Dismissing a query as to his fiscal probity as an investor, he blamed the rumors on Wall Street, "These are like other Wall street stories, and are all news to me."

With Isaac Newton Phelps at the evening meeting of the bank's board to discuss the Second National's woes was his son-in-law, Anson Phelps Stokes, financier and railroad magnate with mining interests in Nevada, also a director. Other directors present were James A. Trowbridge, a member of the well-known banking firm of Vermilye & Co. at No. 16 Nassau St. and relative of the Second National's former president, Henry A. Hurlbut, and, of course, Amos Eno, accompanied by his attorney, M. Henry Day, and his son, "Mo." Also present were the bank's cashier, O. D. Roberts, a stockholder, Mr. Gordon, and one W. Burnham. Not mentioned but likely present was the remaining director, A. B. Darling.

It was a long and difficult meeting and the first order of business was to replace John as president with James A. Trowbridge. Amos “Mo” was detailed to obtain John's resignation and left the meeting, returning later with his brother's formal declaration of withdrawal from the bank. From the outset of the meeting, Amos was firm in his refusal to put up more than the two million to which he had agreed. Though William Walter offered to put in $200,000 and some made offers above the limit of their liability, others would go no further, still leaving the bank short of  the required amount. It was after midnight when the meeting was about to be adjourned without a decision that William Walter brokered a settlement. Taking Amos and his counsel aside, he persuaded Amos to raise his amount to $2,600,000 if the other stockholders present, no doubt certainly all the directors, would pay in cash three times the value of their stock. This was agreed to and a statement prepared for the press, who remained waiting outside: "The Board of Directors of the Second National Bank take pleasure in informing the public that whatever loss has been incurred has been made up; that its capital is intact, and the bank is prepared to meet its obligations on demand." While the rumors on the street could not be quelled and were certain to be reported in the day's press, it was vital for the bank to offer a firm statement of its solvency in efforts to address what would almost certainly be a run on it. It may also be that William Walter shared his concerns with his close friend, Whitelaw Reid, editor of the Tribune, for that paper's breaking of the news on Wednesday was formal and calming, in contrast with the dramatic details presented by the Times.

A reporter from the Times, detailed to seek out John, went to his house at No. 46 Park Avenue during the evening. Failing to announce his profession and being taken, at first, for a social caller by the servant who answered the door, he was told he was at home. When, however, the visitor's profession was revealed, the servant "learned" that John was absent. The household being pressed for news of John, an unidentified gentleman appeared, declaring that "Mr. Eno" had nothing to say about his private affairs. A similar inquiry of Amos' residence drew the dismissive, "Mr. Eno knows nothing of any transactions in which the public is concerned."

While an agreement for the bank's rescue had been reached, it remained yet on paper. Because his son had lost all his father's securities, Amos had no immediate security to offer for his share of $2,600,000. Mindful of the fast approaching hour of ten in the morning when the bank would open, he prepared to effect his security by offering notes on some of his property, which he planned to mortgage that day. William Walter, no doubt weary from his already strenuous efforts on his relative's behalf, agreed to take these notes to various bankers and trust officers, giving each his own name as security. So it was that sunrise found him rattling about Murray Hill in his coupe, rapping on doors to raise the money men from their beds. His quest was successful and, shortly before nine, he and Amos headed for the bank.

THE BANK UNDER SIEGE

"TWO MILLIONS ABSORBED - FUNDS OF THE SECOND NATIONAL BANK LOST IN WALL STREET - President Eno's Disastrous Speculations And The Trouble He Caused His Brokers - The Bank Perfectly Solvent" - the Times.

"THE SECOND NATIONAL TO GO ON - Action Of The Directors - Making Good Any Loss - President Eno Resigns" - the Tribune.

The newspapers trumpeted the alarm.

Arriving at the bank, Amos and his savior found a large crowd of men, women and messenger boys gathered outside, and policemen were obliged to clear a passage for them. Inside the bank, they met with Augustus M. Scriba, the National Bank Examiner present on instructions from Washington, who set about examining the bank's books. His approval was vital if the bank was to survive the day. Also present were the directors Amos "Mo," Henry Hurlbut and Anson Phelps Stokes, and the president, James Trowbridge. The cashier, O. D. Roberts, teller, J. S. Case, and his assistant and the receiving teller all were preparing for the onslaught. The first cash to arrive for the bank was William Walter's contribution of $90,000 in greenbacks, apparently well in excess of his agreement as a stockholder and effected as an encouragement to the other stockholders to come forward. Because of the crowd, it was decided to open the bank half-an-hour earlier at nine-thirty to accommodate what would clearly be a rush of depositors.                   

At 190 Fifth Avenue, the Second National Bank was located in a long narrow room at the south-east corner of the Fifth Avenue Hotel in the lobby. Upon entering, the directors' room lay to the left and desks for other bank officers to the right, with a narrow passage running behind them at the north wall. The paying teller's window lay directly ahead, out a distance of three or four yards intersected by brass railings, with the cashier's window beyond it to the right. Accessible through a brass gate beyond a mahogany partition, lying between the directors' room and the teller, was a small room having another teller's window. When the doors opened, the crowd pushed past the brass railings, milling before the windows of the Cashier and Paying Teller. Some rapped on the windows with their bank books, demanding to know if their claims would be met. Assuring them that they would, Cashier Roberts, while acknowledging that a heavy run was expected, defended the bank, saying that it was solvent and in good condition. Payment, he announced, would begin at ten.

As they waited for the tellers' windows to open, those inside the bank instinctively separated into two lines: the women on the left forming a queue to the small room with the teller's window, the men on the right lining up along the north wall and doubling back to the cashier's and then teller's other window. In the center of the room stood Police Captain Williams, and good humor prevailed.

Outside, matters were less orderly. The crowd was rapidly growing and there were constant cries for admission, as individuals jostled on the pavement. Four policemen led by Sgt. Westervelt of the 29^th precinct established order, in doing so preserving the gender distinction that prevailed inside. The line of women ran down to Twenty-third St.; that of the men wound about the pillars of the hotel at its entrance on Fifth Avenue. At ten, the lines surged forward as word was passed that the Teller's window was open. A lady at the head of her line presented a check to the teller, who, reassuring her of the bank's solvency, promptly cashed it.

While the opening of the bank appeared to be in hand, at a few minutes after ten, the directors, ensconced in their office with Examiner Scriba, received news that stunned them. The previous afternoon, the Clearing House had cashed a check for John; now, the draft for $95,000 was brought in. This not only exceeded William Walter's contribution, but those of the other stockholders were yet unforthcoming. John had broken the bank a second time.

Amos broke down and could not or would not be consoled; the directors were at a loss as how to proceed; and, the Bank Examiner looked pale, knowing that he could not certify the bank's solvency. Helplessness gripped them all. "I must close the doors then," the awful words were spoken. Yet, he remained reluctant to do so and, casting about for any ray of hope and mindful of William Walter's generous role in the ongoing drama, turned to the stockholder and made a desperate appeal to him to cover John's check. William Walter agreed, on the condition that Amos cover half. The Clearing House accepting Amos' note for $47,500, the crisis passed. With that, the Bank Examiner announced himself satisfied, drawing up a brief statement which was sent to the Stock Exchange, where it was read from the rostrum, copies being posted about the bank.

Word of the Bank Examiner's certification quickly passed along the lines, but though relief appeared to accompany its receipt at first, the depositors soon began to press anxiously forward again.

Meanwhile, stockholder's agreed-upon contributions began to come in and certain deposits were made which helped address the demand. The proprietors of the hotel, Messrs. Hitchcock & Darling, deposited $40,000, Park & Tilford, $10,000, and Herter Brothers, a large amount. Word of these deposits was put about in an effort to calm the crowd, but to little effect.

Approached by the press at his banking office on Nassau St., to which he had withdrawn, President Trowbridge, following his statement that the bank was sound, was asked if the directors were prepared to confront any further trouble that might arise. "Certainly. All are wealthy men, and having lifted the bank out of its present difficulty they are not going to abandon it now and lose what they have put in. But there is no likelihood of any further serious trouble. The bank is now thoroughly solvent and able to meet its liabilities. " When asked the amount of the deficiency of the bank, he replied: "That I would rather say nothing about. Whatever the amount was, the deficiency has been made good and Mr. Eno is no longer an official of the bank. That is all the public are interested in knowing." The lack of reassuring detail constituted perhaps not the most useful communique¢ in the circumstances.

At about eleven o'clock, two of the directors of the bank made further statements to the press. Director Stokes, echoing Trowbridge, denied any need for the public to know anything beyond its solvency, and praised Amos for his "noble manner" in confronting their difficulties. As to John's behavior, "There is only one man with whom we can find fault, and that is John C. Eno, but as I say, his father's noble conduct shuts our mouths completely."

Director Hurlbut was rather more forthcoming. While acknowledging that the bank's deficits were $4,000,000, he announced that the directors had secured $3,500,000. To this Stokes added, apparently relenting on his unwillingness to discuss detail, that Amos had deposited a further $1,000,000 in cash in the bank and would commit another that day and the next, if necessary. Addressing John's conduct, according to the Tribune,  Hurlbut stated his opinion that he was liable to imprisonment, "but in view of the noble conduct of his father, I think no steps will be taken against him." The Times reports that a director, diplomatically left unnamed, "said quite emphatically that John C. Eno ought to go to Sing Sing." Venting his feelings on the troubles besetting the bank, Hurlbut declared, "I am deeply grieved at the want of confidence shown by this ridiculous run. The Second National Bank is an admirable institution, and I should be sorry to see it crippled."

Not long after the directors had met with the press, the U. S. Treasury Secretary, Charles James Folger, made a visit to the bank and declared himself satisfied with its conduct.

Despite all these assurances, the mood of the crowd remained unchanged, each depositor pressing ahead anxiously towards the windows, conscious of the time passing before the closing of the bank at three. In the early afternoon, it was announced that $700,000 yet remained in the bank's vaults and that another $500,000 was available at the Clearing House if needed. By two o'clock it was estimated that $400,000 had been withdrawn. Amos, Stokes in support, while refusing to make any public statement as did Amos “Mo”, denied knowing the full amount and, ignoring the continuing run on the bank, stated brusquely that, if there was another that day, all would be paid on demand. Meanwhile, it was reported that he had mortgaged the hotel to Mutual Life Insurance for $1,250,000, payable September, 1885, at 6%; also, property at Mercer and Grand Sts. for $250,000.

At close to three, when some depositors had left, assuming they would not reach the window in time, James Pinchot, Amos' son-in-law, arrived in a coupe. Pushing his way through the crowds with a bag "as big as a flour sack" understood to contain greenbacks, he disappeared into the cashier's office on the presumption of depositing the money. This dramatic event, whether real or feigned, as with all previous initiatives designed to reassure depositors, however, did nothing to alter their anxious temper. The hour of three came and went and the bank remained open.

While it had been assumed that, as the customary closing hour approached, the depositors would go home, despite the departure of a few, a large number remained. Consistent with their majority as depositors, the larger proportion of these were women. Described by the Times as possessed of "gentle but resistless force," they formed another line, despite the efforts of the police. Sgt. Westervelt, despairing of the efforts of his men to maintain order, appealed to Captain Williams inside the bank for help. "I can't do it," replied the captain, shaking his head decisively. "If they were men, now, I'd know what to do with them. But women! No, I've been there before."

Managing the jostling crowd was not all that was required of the police. While the ladies' window was closed at five, all those remaining in line having been served, the men's stayed open another forty minutes. During this time, a man rushed wildly up to Sgt. Westervelt and inquired after a messenger boy who had been sent to the bank with a check. "There have been several messenger boys here," said the sergeant. "When was your boy sent out?" "Four hours ago and he hasn't returned yet". After a brief consultation with Cashier Roberts, the man ran out of the bank, complaining, "That boy has got away with $240 of my money." "It's a clear case," the sergeant said later. "Another man from Twenty-sixth St. was inquiring for a messenger boy some time ago." There were several similar complaints and another boy was determined to have disappeared with a certified check.

At the end of the day, though Cashier Roberts would not reveal the amount involved, close to five hundred withdrawals had been made. As to deposits, they were noted to be twice as many as the previous day. Bank Examiner Scriba telegraphed the Controller of the Currency, declaring the bank secure, its capital intact with a small surplus. One of the bank's directors gave as his opinion that the bank had weathered the worst of the storm.

GLOOM AND WOE IN THE MARKET

While the bank may have stabilized itself, the market continued its steady decline, adding to the general air of impending calamity. Robert Sobel's Panic on Wall Street gives the figures: Union Pacific, at 66 a share on April 28, stood at 41; Central Pacific, similarly 55, was down to 36; Philadelphia & Reading, 42 and 33; Western Union, 65 and 50; Pacific Mail S.S., 46 and 36.

The Second National was not the only bank in trouble that day. George Ingraham Seney, a wealthy financier, head of a syndicate challenging William Vanderbilt's vast railroad holdings through operation of the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad, was also president of the Metropolitan Bank at Nos. 1 and 3 Third Avenue. He had invested bank funds in railroad stock, and the market's precipitous decline caused his failure and the bank's closing. The vice-president of the bank was John D. Fish, son of James D. Fish, former president of the Marine Bank, now languishing in the Ludlow Street jail; John had been cashier of his father's bank. Seney's transactions linked together a number of brokerages - Nelson Robinson & Co., Goffe & Randle (also one of John Eno's brokers), Donnell, Lawson & Simpson, Hatch & Foote,  J. C. Williams, Hotchkiss, and Burnham - and they failed

At Dyett & Co. the day was an improvement on the previous one. Abraham Norton, anxious to retain the confidence of the firm's banker, Continental National, backtracked on his charge that the bank had recently "over-certified" their account in the amount of $2,000,000. The checks were indeed certified, but the continual flow of checks into their account in response to the sale of stocks had kept them in good standing, he fluffed. While the partners feared being pressed for the sale of their stocks with heavy losses in the declining market resulting, their clients remained supportive, some even offering financial assistance. In an interview with one at the Windsor Hotel, a favorite watering-hole of traders, it was learned that negotiations continuing until nine-thirty the previous evening had achieved satisfactory relations with the bank. When Arthur Dyett was approached in the morning with the sale of some Union Pacific stock, he was persuaded by William Heath, one of the brokers whose checks had been refused the previous day, that the firm's reputation was sound, and business was conducted uneventfully at the Exchange throughout the day.

William Heath was most likely the same broker who had acted for Commodore Vanderbilt, William Vanderbilt's father, in his railroad battles in 1867, and for Jay Gould in his audacious bid to corner the gold market in 1869 in Grant's first term, a scheme which drew in the gullible president. Heath was known as the 'American deer' for his hyperactive manner of conducting business. Following the introduction of the ticker tape in 1867, doubting its efficacy, he persisted in the traditional manner, rushing from office to office yelling out prices.  

On Wall Street, there was angry criticism of Continental Bank for failing to support Dyett. In response, Edmund Randolph, the bank's president, insisted on the need for thorough procedures in the matter of certification as vital to good fiscal practice. Referring to certification protocols as practiced in Europe and Philadelphia, he declared himself "perfectly convinced that this system applied to New York would give great relief, both to the banks and the community, and would serve to avert nine-tenths of the anxiety incident to a period of excitement such as this." Contemptuously dismissing suggestions that he was responsible for the present disasters, he exclaimed, "It is too supremely absurd to think of….The attempt to lay it at our door is more than folly." Blaming it on the Second National's misfortune coming so soon following the disaster of the Marine Bank and now accompanied by that of the Metropolitan, he continued, "I think people are traveling a long way out of their path when they foolishly mention the Continental National Bank in the same breath as the panic today. Dyett & Co., by the way, have settled their account with us." When pressed as to the popularity of his actions, he brandished a congratulatory telegram claiming many others from all over the country. "I am astonished to hear that people cannot recognize the fact that what we did was for their safety."

Of the man responsible for all this stir, beyond the statement desiring to see him in Sing Sing, all officers of the bank remained silent. During the day, Amos revoked the power of attorney he had granted his son nine years before, as well as all others, the document being witnessed by his steadfast supporter William Walter. The only other indication of John's activities was word that he had mortgaged Nos. 225 and 227 South Fifth Avenue to William Heath for $50,000, the broker to whom his debt stood at $60,000.

The next day, Thursday, May 15, showed that the director's forecast for the Second National was accurate. At the opening of the doors, six men formed a casual line at the Paying Teller's window and, while four women sat discussing the bank's condition in the small room that had seen service for the ladies' line the previous day, only one had a bank-book. Though business was steady throughout the day, there were never more than a dozen waiting in line. The directors and president made a brief appearance at the beginning of the day and announced themselves confident that little business would be lost by the bank's "passing" difficulties. Neither they nor Amos had anything to say of John.

If the Second National appeared set to survive, on Wall Street, Fisk & Hatch, whose principal director was president of the Stock Exchange, folded, taking with it several banks including the Newark Savings Association. The next day, A.W. Dimock & Co. failed. The head of the firm had been speculating on stocks, including those of Banker's and Merchants Telegraph, of which he was president. On a more positive note, the Metropolitan Bank was reorganized through the agency of the Clearing House, whose members agreed to issue $4 million in certificates. The bank opened the following day, Saturday, May 17, without a run on it. The market recovered slightly, reflecting, if not a mood of optimism, then at least an acceptance that it could not go much lower.

ENO’S ACTIONS UNDER SCRUTINY

Of John and his doings, word, from "a gentleman, well informed as to the proceedings," finally leaked out to the public through the Times on Sunday. Details of the Tuesday night meeting of the bank's board further demonstrated Amos' reluctance to take full responsibility for John's behavior and the directors' equally strong stand against him in the matter. Some of them felt he was morally responsible, for, it was revealed, they knew him to spend more time in the bank than his son and therefore should have discovered what was going on.

"How much do you suppose I am worth?" Amos asked in response to one director's statement that if it was him he would have no hesitation in taking full responsibility.

"Well," said the director, naming a source, "I was told four years ago that you were worth $20,000,000."

"Then my wealth has been very much overestimated."

"You must recollect, Mr. Eno," continued the director, "that you urged us to make your son president of the bank."

"How can you say that I urged you?"

"Why, surely you must remember, Mr. Eno, that you recommended him very highly."

"Well, I don't like the word 'urged.'"

"When did you first know of the deficit, Mr. Eno?" persisted the director.

"On Sunday last. Up to that time I never had a suspicion that anything was wrong."

What is known of Amos' wealth at that time was that, beyond his securities, which John had made away with, much of it was represented by real estate holdings. It may be that his liquid assets were temporarily in short supply. At the same time, there remains a sense that he was continuing to have difficulty in coming to terms with the fact of his son's treachery. In assessing Amos' feelings, it is worth consideration that John was his third surviving son and the first to marry and produce children. Consistent with the expectations of the social class to which his family belonged, it may well have been a disappointment for Amos that those children were all female. In that moment, in his seventy-third year, neither "Mo," his oldest son then 47, nor Henry, 43, had married, and William, his youngest, though married the previous year, remained childless. In the circumstances of his remarkable rise to wealth, it must have been the bitterest of blows to discover that the son on whom he had placed so much expectation had not only failed him in the matter of an heir, but shamed him publicly as well.

How had John made away with the money, especially considering his father's steady presence at the bank?

A significant part of the answer to this lies in the bank's arrangements. Securities were kept at a vault in a downtown safe depository thought to be the Mercantile, where much of the business occurred,  there being little demand for loans and discounts at the bank proper. While Amos stayed uptown, John, who spent most of his time around Wall Street, as president had easy access to the funds. Needing money for his speculative activities, he would give a check written on the bank. Returning to the bank, he would present the cashier, O.D. Roberts, with a slip of paper bearing the name of a fictitious individual to whom a loan had been made, indicating that he had accepted securities for it and placed them in the vault downtown. In support of this deception he described equally fictitious securities. The cashier, who was beyond suspicion, never had reason to question these transactions. If he had any personal doubts, it was unlikely that he would have risked confronting Amos with them. As it was, as long there was money in the bank for its legitimate needs, given the lack of banking regulation as existed then, which provided no accounting oversight between the bank and the safe depository, John's nefarious dealings could proceed with impunity.

Questions were asked as to whether John would be prosecuted and if efforts were proposed to recover the lost funds. While there was a reluctance to press one of their own, ill feeling persisting from Amos' refusal to bear all costs prompted some of the directors to press for efforts to recover their money from the lamentable ex-president, who, it was mooted, was worth $1,000,000. Indeed, there was the suggestion that the directors might sue Amos himself for its return. In addition, it was charged that the real reason Amos' had made an effort to save the bank was to protect his son. Of course, protecting John meant protecting himself, and this his son had made all-but-impossible. A painful situation, indeed, for all.

During the following week, high and low finance pursued their tortuous ways. The Metropolitan proved sound under its reorganization involving a new president. In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bank of Pittsburgh failed, as did L. Brownell & Co.. On Wednesday, Charles A. Hinckley, teller at the West Side Bank, disappeared with $95,000 of the bank's deposits. It was soon learned that he had fled to Canada. The market, after starting out at a modestly improved rate over the previous week, ended hardly better than the lows of May 14, the day of the Second National's struggle to survive and the Metropolitan's failure. Still, there was no word of John Eno's whereabouts.

A FATHER FACES THE MUSIC

On the day following  Hinckley's abrupt departure from the city, publicity was given by the Herald to "a letter written by a gentleman in the city to a friend in Boston" concerning the Second National's trials.  Largely corroborating details of Amos and the board's deliberations during the bank's crisis heretofore related, it indicated that the father was, at first, all for having his son arrested. Challenging its reliability as a source, without mentioning his name but identifying him as the contributor in respect of the financial resolution of the difficulties presented by the appearance of John's check on Wednesday morning, the letter incorrectly identified William Walter as a director. When Amos was presented with a copy of the letter, he refused to read it and would say nothing of the bank. The director, Isaac Newton Phelps, however, was willing to take a few questions in respect of its contents.

Phelps, a founding director, was an elderly man and described himself as an invalid. Following the death, two years previously, of the former president, Trowbridge, father of the man chosen to replace John as president, he had retired from the day to day management of the bank, he explained. Though he had made his house available for the meeting on Tuesday night, he was not present at the bank on Wednesday, and of the events of that day he feigned a general ignorance. In response to a query of Amos' anger at his son, Phelps responded, "I cannot say what Mr. Eno's feelings were. I do know that a responsibility which, it is generally believed, he should assume was saddled in part on the directors. It did appear to many that a man who is reputed to be worth $20,000,000 might have borne the burden of his son's shortcomings and sustained the credit of an institution in which public confidence was always reposed, and which but for this young man would never have been subjected to such an ordeal." Were the other directors of similar opinion? "No one wishes to be made amenable for the sins of others. As the directors were not responsible for the squandering of the bank's assets in Wall Street, they naturally were not inclined to shoulder the obligation to the bank's creditors. It was fancied that the Enos might settle it among themselves. But it appeared that we all had to bear a hand in sustaining the burden." Following a brief exchange concerning the fact of Amos' major contribution to the deficiency, Phelps was asked if he had been approached. "I was, and I paid in good round sum." As to the condition of the bank, he declared, "…….There is $4,000,000 in it not drawing interest, and I do not see how its credit can be impaired."

Other news concerned the continuing fallout of John's dealings. Goffe & Randle, already compromised by George Seney and the Metropolitan's failure and offering thirty cents on the dollar, cash, to their creditors, spoke of their claim of $70,000 against John, promising to divide amongst them whatever might be recovered.

On Friday, the Herald and Tribune reported the record of Amos' mortgage of the Fifth Avenue Hotel and the property at Mercer and Grand streets, the previous day. The hotel was in many ways a monument to Amos' successful career and, even though he was a wealthy man and had every expectation of regaining it, it was surely a heavy burden to have to put it on the block for his son's transgressions.

On Friday, John's activities at last began to manifest themselves. He had, it was reported in the Herald next day, transferred all his real estate following his exposure. His residence on Park Avenue and a building and lot at No. 53 Day St. were turned over to his sister Antoinette, Mrs. Charles Boughton Wood, the considerably younger wife of Amos' sometime business partner, for $100,000; No. 73 Mercer St., property on West Sixty-seventh St. and premises on South Fifth Ave., near Canal St., went to his brother, Henry, for $90,000; and, Nos. 408 Madison St. and 301 Monroe St. to a William A. Kopp for $18,500. Before No. 73 Mercer was transferred to Henry, John mortgaged it to his three daughters, Florence, Mary and Antoinette, none of whom were yet ten, for $15,000. What expressions attended that transaction? By these instruments John raised $223,500.

THE HUNT FOR ENO COMMENCES

"WILL JOHN C. ENO BE ARRESTED?  Deputy Sheriff M'Gonigal Not Watching His House -  What The Directors Say" - the Tribune was provocative.          

"SHERIFFS AT MR. ENO'S DOOR  An Order For His Arrest Said To Have Been Issued" - the blunt drama of the Times.

The fashionable area about Park Avenue in the Murray Hill district, the location of John's residence, was the focus of considerable interest on Friday.

"A tall, stout man with a constabulary countenance and a high white hat was an object of much attention yesterday as he paced up and down the west of Park Avenue between Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh streets, or varied the monotony of his procedure by reclining against an iron railing or sitting upon a door-step within the limits described," began the Times. "This mysterious personage, who passed the entire day and even up to 8 P.M. like the dual embodiment of fate and patience on the sidewalk, was generally recognized as a Deputy Sheriff, and he was quite as generally understood to be watching the house of Mr. John C. Eno, No. 46 Park avenue. Indeed, so commonly accepted was this belief that it formed the all-absorbing topic of conversation of many of the people who passed along the street, as well as of the servants who stood behind the area rails and craned their necks to watch the movements of the aforesaid individual. The matter gave rise to various pleasantries. For example, one gentleman, overtaking another almost directly in front of No. 46, tapped him on the shoulder, and, as the latter looked round, said, with a significant inclination of the head toward the house indicated, 'You are wanted!'

"About dusk the constabulary gentleman with the high white hat was joined by several other constabulary persons, who remained after he went away, and three of these kept watch all night, one on Thirty-sixth street, another on Thirty-seventh street, and the third on the west side of Park avenue. Deputy Sheriff McGonigal was also seen in the neighborhood early yesterday morning and again late in the afternoon."

Deputy Sheriff McGonigal was chief of the Order of Arrest Bureau of the Sheriff's Office and it was reported elsewhere that he and three of his assistants had been present in the vicinity of John's house on Thursday night, also.

Throughout the day the press made inquiries of John at No. 46, being told variously that he was not at home by a servant girl, he was ill in bed by his brother-in-law Charles Wood - maintaining that it was not the public's business and indignantly denying that John had fled to avoid arrest, he allowed as how he hadn't seen him for several days - and that he was assuredly in residence by yet others. A number of people, both men and women assumed to be friends of the family, entered and left the house. Amongst these was Father Ducey of St. Leo's Church, who visited at least twice, in the evening. When asked of John, he denied having seen him. Another being questioned replied that John was in his room but that he had not seen him. When McGonigal was queried by a reporter from the Tribune if his mission was in connection with John, he replied rather disingenuously in the circumstances, "I did walk up Park-ave. last night, but I do not even know where Mr. Eno's house is. I was out last night looking for another man, and I'm afraid the publication of the fact that I was seen in the neighborhood will put my man on his guard. No order of arrest for John C. Eno has been issued today, and I do not know that one has ever been applied for."

"At midnight the lights in the windows of Mr. Eno's house were extinguished. The watchers still leaned against the railings and smoked their cigars. One of them said: 'Unless Mr. Eno flies up the chimney, I don't think he will leave that house without our knowing. If he does come out, however, I don't know that we shall stop him, but you may be certain we shall know where he goes,'" reported the Tribune of the conclusion of the day.

The courts were checked, revealing no criminal proceedings against John. President Trowbridge, when approached, offered somewhat clumsily that, while he did not "believe that Mr. Eno has been arrested yet," he had "no knowledge of any steps being taken towards that end." On more solid ground, inquiries of several of the directors, the forthright Henry Hurlbut prominent amongst them, revealed that Anson Phelps Stokes, then at his house on Staten Island, had taken matters in hand and that an arrest order was quite possibly in existence. The fact that its existence remained undiscovered was most likely because it was part of a civil as opposed to criminal proceeding against the ex-president. Such a warrant would not justify entering a subject's house and could only be served on the street, thereby offering an explanation for the circumspect activities of McGonigal and his men.

FATHER DUCEY

Father Ducey, the priest whose visits to John's house had been noted by the press, was born Thomas James Ducey at Lismore, County Waterford, Ireland, on February 4, 1843. His father, James Ducey, is described as a landed proprietor; his mother was one Margaret Walsh by name. While one account has it that his widowed mother brought him to New York, and another that he came with both parents, there is agreement that he arrived in 1848. Almost certainly the Duceys were of the many thousand Irish immigrants who flooded the city in flight from the terrible famines in Ireland in the 1840s. Representing twenty-five percent of the population, these immigrants lived in poverty and were hated by many Americans, who saw them as a threat to their jobs. In response to their plight, numbers of wealthy Irish, including the Bishop of Albany, John McCloskey, organized to provide relief, particularly for the many orphaned children. When Thomas' parents, or parent, died, he was  adopted by a distinguished New York lawyer, James T. Brady, in 1859.

James Topham Brady was born in 1815 in New York. His parents had emigrated from Ireland in 1812, settling in New York, where the father had taught school before entering the law profession. James, admitted to the bar in 1835, had not been long in practice before his parents died, leaving him responsible for his younger brother, John, who also followed him to the bar, and five sisters. James and John formed a law partnership, lasting until the latter was appointed a judge. James Brady was noted as a great advocate, taking on both civil and criminal cases. Amongst his clients were the Goodyear india-rubber company and Jefferson Davis, president of the defeated South. He also represented the indigent and employed the newly-evolving law of moral insanity as a defense. Offered the post of U. S. Attorney-General, he declined, preferring to stay in private practice. He never married, claiming that the demands placed on him by the need to raise his sisters had exhausted all his emotional resources. Despite this, he was ever moved by those in desperate plight, having a particular soft spot for his ancestral countrymen. It is not hard to imagine, in the circumstances, that he was of that group concerned to help the Irish immigrants, and that, in this atmosphere, he came to adopt Thomas Ducey.

In the spirit of his adoptive father, Thomas grew to be a strong advocate for the poor. A reformer and actively opposed to corruption, he chose to go against Brady's desire that he should pursue the law, choosing the church instead. After studying at St. Francis Xavier College and a brief stint in a law office, he entered St. Joseph's Theological Seminary at Troy, NY. In 1868, he was ordained, being attached to the Church of the Nativity on Lower Second Avenue in 1869. In the same year, his adoptive father died, leaving him a substantial estate enabling a private income. During the next three years his crusading zeal led him to speak out against the corruption of Tammany Hall, manifested then by William Marcy "Boss" Tweed and his circle of cronies, and regularly visit the incarcerated at the city prison, the Tombs. He was posted to the Church of the Epiphany, also on Second Avenue, and then St. Michael's on Ninth Avenue, where he established St. Michael's Club for young men. The Right Reverend Monsignor Michael J. Lavelle delivering the eulogy at Father Ducey's funeral in 1909, as recorded in The Catholic News, described the particular facet of his character that drove him to found the club.

"Early in his priestly career Father Ducey developed a fondness for young men, for poor young men and men of easier position, men, who by reason of their position in the world are continually tempted by the snares of the world, and into this field, the welfare of young men, Father Ducey threw himself with all his zeal and energy, receiving for his efforts the commendation of Cardinal McCloskey. It was Father Ducey who established St. Michael's Club, and the formation of this club gave a strong impetus to the task of looking after the welfare of young men in other parts of the city. It was that impetus that filled our St. Vincent de Paul Societies with the flower of our youth."

John Cardinal McCloskey had formerly been the Bishop of Albany concerned to assist Irish immigrants, then Archbishop of New York in 1864, before being appointed America's first cardinal in 1875. He it was who dedicated the opening of St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1879. The society of St. Vincent de Paul, a worldwide charitable organization, was founded in Paris in 1833 by Frederic Ozanam, a French lawyer and professor of Letters 

            As a priest, Father Ducey presented a notably charismatic figure. His image as reproduced in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography reveals a man of vigor and confidence, with an easy charm and humor in the friendly conjunction of the eyes and mouth, as is commonly associated with a certain Irish stereotype. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to be brought to mind of the performer Bing Crosby by his features, and a ringing tenor voice suggests itself. Whether or not this is a felicitous description, it is recorded that he was greatly admired for his meticulous presentation and as a pulpit orator and singer.

Father Ducey, impatient to have his own parish, proposed to build a church in the then-fashionable area of Manhattan about Madison Square Park. Other priests, most notably Archbishop of New York Michael Corrigan, were opposed, claiming that it would weaken adjacent parishes by drawing funds away from them, in particular that of St. Stephen but a few blocks distant. Cardinal McCloskey, however, supported Ducey, along with numerous socially prominent figures impressed by the vigor and sincerity of the young priest.

In 1880, the cardinal granted Ducey his wish, appointing him to a new parish. Beginning with a mass on May 7, the congregation worshipped in Trenor Hall, on Broadway, near Thirty-second St., while the church was under construction. On August 15, 1880, the corner-stone was laid at Twenty-eighth street near Fifth Avenue. Contributions poured in, augmenting Ducey's own personal funds and, within a year, the church was completed at a cost approaching $200,000.

On May 1, 1881, Cardinal McCloskey dedicated the Church of St Leo. The five-thousand square foot edifice of Belleville stone was described as "beautiful," the interior, accommodating a hundred pews, was handsomely finished, the chancel with inlaid stone, the nave, plain. The ceilings were elaborately frescoed and the altar was a gift from one of the parishioners. A lady of the congregation presented Father Ducey with four "beautiful" sets of vestments, valued at about $4,000.

Such an event, with all its showy trappings,  must surely have spawned considerable resentment amongst many of the priests of the archdiocese. It was not every day that a priest could pick and choose his parish and build the church to boot, all with a cardinal's blessing. That Ducey was known to have many friends abroad including members of the English aristocracy, combined with the rumor that the title of Monsignor was under consideration for him, must have been galling to many a struggling priest in less promising environments.

Drawn by his charisma, Father Ducey's flock grew swiftly: Sunday masses served around three thousand. The fashionable came in droves to hear him preach and other speakers, whom he invited on a weekly basis. Ducey's subjects addressed, in typically radical fashion, a wide array of social issues, including support for the evolving women's movement. Not only Catholics attended, but those of other religious followings, some of whom were persuaded to convert. Members of the press, those in the acting profession and artists of all manner, including those from Europe in search of fortune and fame, received a particularly warm welcome and charity when needed. Of this diverse congregation, John and his sister, Antoinette, though Episcopalians, were members, and John was a noted contributor to the church fund.

A WARRANT FOR ENO’S ARREST

"HUNTING ENO AND FISH - A FRUITLESS SEARCH OF THE FORMER'S HOUSE - Officers Examine Every Place Except The Roof And Find Nothing - Mr. Fish Also Among The Missing" - The Times.

On Saturday, May 24, following a conference with Cannon, the Controller of the Currency, responsible for national banking regulation, a warrant for John's arrest was issued by U. S. Commissioner for the southern district of New York John A. Shields, on the application of the U. S. District Attorney for the southern district, Elihu Root. A leading corporation lawyer following the Civil War, Elihu Root had been appointed district attorney in 1883. It was while he was in this office that he made the acquaintance of Theodore Roosevelt, whose friend and legal adviser he became, and for whom as president he would be Secretary of War and, in Roosevelt's second term, Secretary of State. The warrant read as follows.

"The President of the United States to the Marshal of the Southern District of New York and his Deputies or any one of them:

Whereas complaint has been made to me arguing that John C. Eno did on divers days and times, to wit, between the 25^th day of September, 1883, and the 12^th day of May, 1884, at the Southern District, to wit, in the city of New York, he, the said John C. Eno, being then and there the President of a certain national banking association, then and there known in that district as the Second National Banking Association of New York, which said banking association there and then created and organized by the act of Congress applied there and approved June 3, 1864, which said association was acting and carrying on a banking business in the said city of New York under said act of Congress and acts amendatory thereto, did unlawfully misapply certain sums of money, to the amount of $2,120,000, out of the money and fund of said association to his own use, benefit, and advantage with intent to injure and defraud said association, as by reference to said complaint now on file with me doth appear:

Now, therefore, you are commanded in the name of the President of the United States to apprehend the said John C. Eno and bring his body before me, or a Judge of the United States, wherever he may be found in the State of New York, to be then and there dealt with according to the law for said offense.

Given under my hand and seal this 24^th day of May, 1884.    

           JOHN A. SHIELDS, United States Commissioner, Southern District of New York.

ELIHU ROOT, United States District Attorney.

The warrant was issued in conjunction with a criminal prosecution for the misappropriation of the Second National Bank's funds. Section 5,209 of the U. S. Revised Statutes referring to National Banks was the basis for the charge.

"Every President, Director, Cashier, Teller, clerk, or agent of any association who embezzles, abstracts, or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds, or credits of the association, or who without authority from the Directors * * * issues or puts forth any certificate of deposit, draws any order or bill of exchange, makes any acceptance, assigns any note, bond, draft, bill of exchange, mortgage, judgment, or decree; or who makes any false entry in any book, report or statement of the association, with intent, in either case, to injure or defraud the association or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of the association, * * * and every person who, with like intent, aids or abets any officer, clerk, or agent in any violation of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be imprisoned not less than five years nor more than ten."

Despite the rash of crooked dealings in the banking world, beginning with Grant & Ward and the Marine National, this was the first warrant, accompanied by another for James Fish of the Marine, for criminal prosecution. All others issued to-date had been associated with civil processes. Of these the Herald, assuming an indignant tone, complained loudly.

"At last the United States authorities have moved for the arrest of the national bank ex-president, John C.  Eno……..One of the most surprising features of the financial irregularities now fresh in the public mind is that while proof of flagrant criminality has been brought to light no attempt has been made to call any offender to criminal account. It is evident that crimes had been committed by more than one person against the laws of the State, yet the criminal authorities have looked with singular apathy and indifference upon offenses which it was their plain function to proceed against. Ferdinand Ward has been unmasked as an unparalleled swindler, but none of his numerous victims has made any criminal complaint……neither the District Attorney…nor the Grand Jury appears to have taken any step towards his indictment. Ward is in jail, but on civil process. Whether or not James D. Fish……has committed any criminal offense….whether John C. Eno is or is not guilty of a crime for which men are supposed to be sent to state prison, are matters that have been treated with unconcern by those charged with the duty of setting the State law in motion against criminal offenders."

In addition to roasting state officers for negligence, the Herald also chastised federal authorities, who, it claimed, were equally lax. Citing sections of the pertinent statute, the paper pilloried Ward and Fish, saving its greatest wrath for John.

"But the most flagrant and scandalous case of malfeasance ever unearthed in a national bank is that of  the Second National. If report be true, that institution has been plundered by its president to the unparalleled extent of millions. That an enormous deficit was suddenly discovered, that it was mysteriously made up and hushed up by the directors, that the culprit was the president himself, are matters of common notoriety. Did John C. Eno 'embezzle, abstract or willfully misapply any of the moneys, funds or credits of the association?' In plain English, did he, as is commonly reported without contradiction, rob the bank of millions of dollars? If so, he has committed a crime against the national bank law for which the penalty is not less than five years imprisonment. But has any officer of the bank, cognizant of the facts, made any complaint against the offender?"

Consumed by moral outrage, the paper would not be contained. Outlining the failure of public officials to act, it concluded with a roar.

"The apathy and delay on the part of those whose duty it is to take the cognizance of offenses against the national bank law and to proceed against the offenders are more than amazing or mysterious. It is an encouragement of crime that can only be productive of mischief. There has been and should be no lack of confidence in our national banking system. But how can this confidence be maintained unshaken unless presidents who wreck and plunder national banks are dealt with promptly and vigorously by the criminal authorities?"

The warrant for John's arrest was given to Deputy Marshal George H. Holmes, for service early in the afternoon. Proceeding in the company of deputy marshals Peters and Grimes - according to the Tribune; the Times omits Grimes -  he arrived at No. 46 Park Avenue at three o'clock. There, they found a dozen or more watchers distributed about the street, including a number of deputy sheriffs and others identified as detectives of Pinkerton's Detective Agency. In response to Deputy Marshal Peters' queries of John's whereabouts, they were assured that he remained in the house and had not been seen to leave it since the watch began. Friendly with one of the deputy sheriffs, Holmes invited him to join them, and the trio mounted the steps to the front door, where Holmes rang the bell. The door opened by a servant girl, they walked firmly inside, despite her protests, following which she disappeared into the interior of the house. After a few moments, a number of ladies appeared, some assumed to be friends of the family. Holmes presented his warrant.

"Mr. Eno is not here and you can't have him," responded one of the ladies decisively.

Holmes persisted and, while two of the ladies appeared intimidated, shrinking from his presence, the others stood firm. "You'd better go away," said one. "Mr. Eno is not here."

The World, noting the human frailty of the moment, reports that “showing a wife’s devotion and sacrifice to save her husband from arrest and imprisonment,” while “denouncing the United States marshals” she delayed their entrance by “parley(ing)” with them “until her husband had made his escape at the rear.” That John was present at the house is no more than an assumption, for other reports show him to have been elsewhere. Whichever lady it was that declared his absence may well have been telling the truth.

While apologetic, Holmes would have none of this, insisting that he must search the house. At this, "the repressed wrath of the dauntless ladies broke forth into a fearless blaze," as the Times reported.

"Search the house! Never!" screamed one. "We'll call a policeman and have you put out!"

The Times takes up the story.          

"Holmes shrugged his shoulders, and his friend smiled. All waited patiently for the policeman, who eventually unlimbered himself and ran to the house. 'Well,' said Peters in a sarcastic way, as a perspiring lump of flesh swathed in regulation blue cloth came in at the door, 'you've been long enough in getting here.'

"'Officer, put these men out,' said one of the ladies, pointing sternly to the three smiling deputies. 'They've no business here. Arrest them!'

"The big policeman looked helplessly at the angered lady, and turned a puzzled glance upon Deputy Marshal Holmes, who, as a mere matter of form, held out the warrant.

"'I can't do it, Madame,' said the officer, mopping his glistening forehead and making a desperate effort to appear self-possessed. 'The law has got to take its course. These gentlemen have a United States warrant to arrest John C. Eno, and I can't hinder them. It's a criminal charge, you see. Now, if it was one of them Deputy Sheriffs or detectives out there it would be another thing.'

"'It would,' said Deputy Marshal Holmes. 'Now, we will begin our search.'"

The ladies still protesting, Holmes and his men proceeded, according to the Times, down to the basement, while the policeman remained on guard at the door. No sign of John there, they searched the first floor and, then, the second. As they were peering into closets and searching the two stairwells, Henry, John's oldest brother, arrived in haste, perhaps alerted by word of the proceedings, and, following a brief exchange with the officers, led them on a thorough search of the building, lasting half-an-hour. The Times describes the faces of the deputies as bearing expressions of "blank amazement" at their failure to discover John. That said, the paper proceeds to inform the reader that they failed to search the roof, where it opines scornfully that John would likely have gone, if he were in the house. Worse, the Tribune reports that the searchers admitted failing to search the basement, as well. Leaving the house, Holmes and his deputies returned to the Marshal's office to report their "progress," as the Times sarcastically put it.

By five-thirty, the deputy marshals had returned to No. 46 Park Avenue to join the deputy sheriffs, the police, Pinkerton's men, the press and curious bystanders in the watch for John. Deputy Sheriff McGonigal and his men later withdrew, persisting in their failure to give any satisfactory account for their participation and denying that they had any order for John's arrest. Opinions raged as to his whereabouts, one having it that the last time John had been seen was on Tuesday night entering the house. Another offered that, bail being difficult to raise on the weekend, John was concealing himself until Monday to avoid spending time in the Federal building.

"A persistent watcher of the house during the last three nights has been a stout man with a reddish beard who speaks with a German accent. It was said last night that a private detective has been employed by one of the directors for the last few days to shadow Mr. Eno. The presumption is that the man with the red beard is the person so employed. He was inclined to be reticent last night, but said that in his opinion Mr. Eno had left the house on Wednesday," informed the Tribune.

In vain, the Ludlow Street Jail was checked to see if John had been brought there.

Late into the night, the watch continued. At two in the morning, Father Ducey arrived in a cab and, entering the house, remained there an hour. When asked if John was in the house, he denied it, saying that he hadn't seen him for a day or two.

During the day, further inquiries were made of the bank's president and directors. Trowbridge would say nothing of matters; Hurlbut expressed astonishment at the arrest warrant and efforts to serve it; and, Isaac Phelps expressed the conviction that if his son-in-law Stokes, whom he had seen in the afternoon, had taken any steps against John, he would know of them. Rumors that Amos had turned against his son were denied, and he remained unavailable, along with Henry, who had now left town.

The following day, Sunday, found Park Avenue about No. 46 persisting as a focus of attention. McGonigal and his men had returned, and Deputy Marshal Henry R. Curtis, fresh from delivering a warrant on James Fish, joined the throng, which had now swelled to include two or three men who refused to be identified. There were several visitors at the house, including Charles Christmas, John's father-in-law, who entered at ten a.m., remaining until the early afternoon, and Father Ducey, yet again.

THE SHOW GOES ON

If No. 46 and its environs had appeared to assume the aspect of a sideshow in the preceding days, Monday was carnival day.

Deputy Marshals Smith and Brady did day duty, accompanied by the now-customary throng of deputy sheriffs, police, Pinkerton's detectives, reporters, those who declined identification, gawkers and loiterers. Late in the afternoon, a band of street musicians came around the corner of Thirty-sixth street "……and stationing themselves directly in front of Mr. Eno's house, played 'Hail to the Chief' and a number of other harrowing airs not quite appropriate to the occasion. Then one of their number rang Mr. Eno's door bell - but no other - and asked for money. The band then marched away and was heard no more in the neighborhood," the Herald reported. While still attempting a moral tone, the paper had clearly capitulated to the spectacle.

In the early evening, yet another officer stepped up to the mark to attempt delivery of the warrant. Deputy Sheriff James Brown had recently added Ferdinand Ward's arrest to a long list studding his career.

"About 6.20 o-clock last evening," reported the Times on Tuesday, "a thick-set man, of about medium height, dressed in a dark suit, and with a high white hat, leisurely ascended the front steps of Mr. John C. Eno's house, No. 46, Park Avenue, and pulled the bell. The funny-whiskered detective, who stood at the corner of Thirty-seventh street listlessly gazing down the avenue, eyed with evident interest this person, who was no other than Deputy Sheriff Brown. In answer to Mr. Brown's ring the butler opened the door, without taking off the chain." The Herald claims a servant girl, but no matter. "'I want to see Mr. Eno,' said the Deputy Sheriff. The butler eyed him a moment through the crack of the door with evident distrust and then answered, 'Well, you can't!' and emphasized the answer by shutting the door with a bang. Mr. Brown thereupon descended the steps, and, after pausing to chat a moment with the aforesaid detective, went away. He declined to explain the object of his visit."

Noting that Brown disappeared in the direction of the Grand Union Depot, the Herald has a rather more involved account of the encounter.

"…..After a short parley, it (the front door) was closed again. Mr. Brown stood in the vestibule - the outside doors being opened - about 10 minutes, when a male servant came out of the basement and, accosting Mr. Brown, requested him to leave, adding he would compel him to do so. The servant, however, seemed to reconsider this and re-entered the house by the basement way."

Whatever the discrepancies in the two accounts, it was clear that Brown, yet another in "a high white hat," notwithstanding his notable record of successes, now joined the lengthening list of those who had failed to serve the warrant.

At sundown, Deputy Marshals Holmes and Peters relieved Smith and Brady.

"Shortly after nine o'clock last night," continues the Herald, "a tall, well dressed man quickly emerged from the Eno residence, and, after glancing hastily about him, walked off at a rapid gait. He turned the corner of East Thirty-sixth street, going in the direction of Fifth Avenue. The suspicions of one of Pinkerton's detectives were aroused and he ran after the gentleman. Upon overtaking him, however, he perceived that it was not Mr. Eno and returned with a crestfallen air, to be subjected to the good-natured chaff of the other watchers."

The Herald, also, discovered that there were, in fact, two warrants out for John's arrest, one civil arranged by the directors of the bank, in addition to the criminal authorized by Shields and Root. It was understood that Amos had secured a delay in the service of the former to afford his son time to clear his debts or raise bail. Pinkerton's men were there to make sure that he did not escape beyond the Sheriffs' jurisdiction.

Amos, meanwhile, remained unavailable to the press, secluded in his house at No. 233 Fifth Avenue, zealously guarded by his son "Mo": "In a few days, when he is better, he and I shall examine all the statements that have been published, and may possibly decide to prepare a statement for the public. Till then, however, there is nothing more that can be said."

Charles Wood, when questioned, denied that an imminent surrender of his brother-in-law to the authorities was likely. Was he secreting John in his house? "On that subject I have nothing to say."

Of the bank's officials, the loquacious director Hurlbut allowed to the Times as how he thought John had skipped town. Trowbridge and the other directors avoided all encounters with the press.

"A portly gentleman, with a stubble of gray beard on his face, was coming out of Mr. Eno's house last night," reported the Times on Tuesday, "when a reporter confronted him and asked: 'Does Mr. Eno wish to make a statement?' 'I will go and ask him,' replied the gentleman, and thereupon he entered the house. A few minutes later he came out again and said: 'Mr. Eno declines to say anything.'"

In direct contradiction of this, late in the evening, word went about that John was in the custody of a deputy sheriff at a private hotel, but that also proved untrue.

While Tuesday's spectacle lacked itinerant musicians for accompaniment and diversion, it nevertheless managed a repeat of Monday's comedy and enigma.

In the early morning, Deputy Marshals A. L. Smith and August Urban replaced the night shift. At nine a.m., Chief Deputy Marshal Henry R.Curtis was seen in consultation with them. Though the marshals would say nothing of their exchange, there existed a general air that John's arrest was imminent. Smith, responding to a Herald reporter's question concerning whether or not he  was believed to be in the house, said:

"It is my opinion that he is. If it was definitely known that he was not, we would probably not have the house under surveillance. If he is, there is but little chance for him to escape. Too many watchful eyes around for that."

"Might he assume some disguise and thereby endeavor to escape detection?" persisted the reporter.

"No, we are not much afraid of that, though such a movement on his part is within the range of possibility. The petticoat trick would be the most available one. Therefore, all persons leaving the house in female attire are carefully scrutinized. This morning," Smith went on to offer, "a young woman wearing a black suit and hat and a red veil left the house to walk leisurely down to the corner of Thirty-sixth street, at which Urban and I were standing. She approached within two feet of us, eyed us for a second from head to foot, and then, whistling a tune, turned on her heel and re-entered the house. That was a fling at my partner and myself, I suppose." Smith, it would seem, entertained no doubts as to this subject's gender.

Could they not make another search of the house for Eno, the reporter asked.

"We would not do it without express orders from Marshal Erhardt, and for these we are waiting. If another search is made, it will probably be by at least four deputies, headed by Chief Deputy Curtis."

During the same period, between nine and ten, Charles Wood was seen to exit the house and, at the corner of Thirty-sixth street, glance up and down it as if expecting someone. Returning to the house, he re-emerged after a brief spell and, repeating the action, then disappeared in the direction of the Park Avenue Hotel.

Malcolm D. McLean, employed by the Department of Public Works, claiming to know John by sight, was sure that he had seen him in Tarrytown on Sunday. Meanwhile, another deputy marshal, Brady, visiting John's haunts and interviewing his friends, gave the opinion that the residents of the house were covering for him and that John had not been there for a week.

Shortly after seven-thirty that evening, Deputy Marshal Curtis met, at the corner of Park Avenue and Thirty-sixth street, with Deputy Marshals Brady, Peters, and Smith, who had been relieved earlier. By nine, there were five deputy marshals, two deputy sheriffs, one Pinkerton detective, two uniformed private watchmen and a policeman representing authority in the vicinity. Deputy Sheriff Brown arrived and, following a consultation with Curtis, accompanied him down the avenue. It was merely accidental, claimed Curtis, in response to a query as to the reason for the presence of so many officers.

At half-past-nine, a gentleman with red side whiskers alighted from a coupe and entered the house, where he stayed sometime. While it was learned that he had come from the Windsor Hotel, he refused any comment on the object of his visit. A dearth of visitors was noted that day, in contrast with the veritable stream over the weekend.

THE BIRD HAS FLOWN

"ENO'S HOUSE SEARCHED IN VAIN - The Deputy Marshals Find Their Bird Has Flown" - The Times, May 30.

A cold wind blew down Park Avenue on Thursday, May 29, but it did not blow for John.

At eleven in the morning, four deputy marshals, including Holmes, ascended the steps to No. 46, intent on searching the house, again. They were admitted without fuss and, accompanied by Mrs. Eno, Mr. Wood and an unidentified lady, proceeded on a thorough search of the premises, including all conceivable hiding places such as closets and trunks. The Times has it that Wood, to whom it refers incorrectly as Woods, was Mrs. Eno's brother. This, too, appears in error. Of the possible Mrs. Enos, there are but two: John's younger brother William's wife, Mary Louise Alice - most unlikely; and, most obviously, John's wife, Harriet. Wood would have been her brother-in-law.

"No trace of Eno was discovered. In about half an hour the officers came out, apparently satisfied that their man had given them the slip. Two remained on guard duty about an hour shivering in the cold wind. Then word came that they were relieved, and they joyously skipped away, leaving only one Pinkerton detective to look after the much-guarded mansion." The Times was clearly enjoying itself in face of the authorities' antics.

Holmes, questioned as to whether the previous search on Saturday had been as thorough, admitted that it had not, adding that it was his opinion that John was no longer in the city and had not been in the house since the first search.

"'I knew they wouldn't find Eno there,' said the Pinkerton detective who was on duty in the afternoon. 'He hasn't been there since Saturday. The search made then amounted to nothing. Why, the Marshals stood in the hall and parleyed an hour before they began to search the house. That was time enough for a man to get away, and the rear of the house wasn't guarded. To-day the ladies inside were perfectly willing to have the officers go through the house. Eno has surely been gone since Saturday.'"

Queried by a reporter at the Marshal's office concerning the farcical proceedings at No. 46, Chief Deputy Curtis was described as "uncommunicative…..as a bivalve."

"Is it true that your officers have been withdrawn from watching Eno's house?"

"That is something for you to find out."

"Will you explain how Eno slipped through your fingers so nicely?"

"Supposititious questions were ruled out during the Guiteau trial."

The word 'supposititious' is almost certainly meant to be suppositious, meaning hypothetical. Evidently, Curtis sought, superciliously, to block his questioner by suggesting that it was an invalid question, based on a legal interpretation offered in court in a case known as the Guiteau trial. The reporter, Curtis was claiming, had assumed that John had left town, for which no evidence was offered.

"This is not the Guiteau trial, so I will put it in this way: How did Eno slip through the hands of the Deputy Marshals?"

"I don't say that he did. I admit nothing and deny nothing. We have no business to say anything about this until the warrant is served."

"Do you have a chance to serve the warrant?"

"We are looking for Eno."

"'So the Marshals have been withdrawn from the house on Park avenue?' said Mr. Amos R. Eno to THE TIMES reporter, at his office on Pine street. 'Well, that's news to me. I haven't any statement to make, and don't know that I will have. I haven't anything to say.' Then Mr. Eno settled back in his chair, smiling in the most contented manner."

Did the reporter read something into that smile? Was it perhaps born of the simple satisfaction of denying the reporter any further information? Or did Amos know something more of the reason for the marshals' decision to withdraw?  Did he know more about John's whereabouts than they did? Had influence been brought to bear upon the authorities behind the scene? Was the old man covering for his son, at the last?

In the afternoon, Pinkerton's man left the vicinity of No. 46, not to be replaced, and that night, the first in almost two weeks, there were no officers to be seen on the street.

"Assuming the search for Eno to have been conducted in good faith, it cannot be said to have reflected luster on the office of the United States Marshal or on any of the private detective agencies which have been employed in the case," complained the Times. The United States District Attorney did his duty in procuring a warrant for the arrest of Eno under a statute which appeared to have been violated. There is no reason to suppose that Eno expected this action or that the warrant might not have been served if an effort had been made to serve it promptly and secretly. Eno was probably in hiding in his own house when a pretense was made of searching it, and the search, if not actually collusive, was very slovenly. After learning that the warrant was out Eno naturally took himself off. The next time the Marshal has a warrant to serve, he will do well not to try to serve it by means of a brass band," the editorial writer concluded acidly.

Elsewhere in the windy city a related domestic drama was enacted. The World, reporting two days later from Montreal, details the faithful but doubtless unhappy proceedings of John’s wife, Harriet:

“Surrendering every dollar to needy Mr. Eno on his flight across the border, she found it necessary to raise funds somewhere, and it is stated on good authority that on Thursday she called at a pawn-shop in the upper Bowery, and disposed of a large number of valuable diamonds. She took her position heavily veiled in the rear of the shop, leaving her cab at a convenient distance, and having obtained the money she needed, returned to her carriage and was driven home. The WORLD’s informant was told by one of the attendants at the pawn shop that the lady in black was Mrs. J. C. Eno, and that her diamonds were very valuable.”

ENO CAPTURED

"ENO CAPTURED IN CANADA - HIS MOVEMENTS WITH FATHER DUCEY IN MONTREAL - Arrested By Pinkerton's Detectives On The Steamer By Which He Had engaged Passage To Liverpool."

"STORY OF THE ARREST - HUNTING FOR PAYING-TELLER HINCKLEY THE DETECTIVES STUMBLE UPON ENO."

"TRACKING THE PRIEST AND ENO - FATHER DUCEY HELD IN CANADA BY PINKERTON'S ORDERS."

"THE FLIGHT OF ENO"

- the Times, Sunday, June 1.

Some confusion and considerable difficulties attended the authorities attempts to apprehend John, and the newspaper accounts reflect this, while not infrequently contradicting each other in respect of unfolding events. The reasons for the confusion were varied. The various law enforcement agencies involved operated independently of one another. John was not the only fugitive sought: indeed, ex-teller Hinckley of the West Side Bank and mooted confederates were, initially, the foremost subjects of inquiry. And, the agencies were operating outside their jurisdiction and subject to the laws of another country, which were not always clearly understood. In addition, while newspaper reports indicate that Pinkerton's principal field man recognized John early in the chase, the facts offer less surety of this and suggest a hazy pursuit more akin to a generalized fishing expedition. The main impediment, however, to John's capture was that the terms of extradition prevailing did not lend themselves readily to efforts to secure him for trial in the U. S.

The Webster-Ashburton Treaty (generally referred to as simply the Ashburton Treaty) of 1842 formulated by Secretary of State Daniel Webster and Lord Ashburton, the British envoy in Washington, though principally concerned with boundary lines between Canada and the U. S., included terms agreed upon for extradition of alleged criminals. Article X  listed the crimes which applied: "….all persons….charged with the crime of murder, or assault with intent to commit murder, or piracy, or arson, or robbery, or forgery, or the utterance of forged paper…." In the years since the signing of the treaty, the U. S. had made efforts to circumvent these terms to secure the prosecution of subjects for crimes other than those specified. In view of this, the British had come to insist upon a strict interpretation of the terms of the treaty, that fugitives should not be surrendered, unless a guarantee existed that they would be tried for the crime for which their extradition was sought and none other. In addition, following from a case in 1865 in which a bank clerk, Charles Windsor, was sought for forgery, the British insisted that the crime must come within the definition of British law, which differed to a degree in interpretation from that prevailing in American practice. In 1870, an act of Parliament, the Imperial Act of Extradition, gave this policy additional weight.

During President Grant's administrations, 1869-1877, a smuggler was extradited from Canada on the grounds of forgery and then charged with violating revenue laws. Subsequently, in another case, that of Winslow, the British refused to give up the individual because the U. S. would not guarantee that he would be charged with anything other than the forgery for which his extradition was sought, and threatened to suspend the treaty. Angered by the threat, Grant and his secretary of state, Hamilton Fish, insisted on the doctrine that such fugitives should be surrendered to justice generally, as opposed to on any specific charge. In response, the British followed through with their threat and temporarily suspended the treaty. In 1877 an extradition act with Canada was signed based on the Imperial Act of 1870.

This contentious difference of opinion concerning the Ashburton Treaty would continue to plague relations between the U. S. and other countries. It was argued, for example, that if general justice were to be the standard, it would allow for the prosecution of political crimes or those of  personal belief, from which an individual might reasonably seek asylum in another country. The charge laid against John in the U. S. was misappropriation of funds. The only crime conceivably applicable in the extradition treaty was forgery, and it remained to be seen if it could be made to apply. Failing this, the only other recourse to secure prosecution was to shanghai John and bring him back to the U. S.

On the day, Saturday, May 24, when deputy marshals Holmes, Peters and Grimes attempted unsuccessfully to serve the warrant issued by commissioner Shields on application of district attorney Root for the arrest of the owner of No. 46 Park Avenue, John Eno was en route to or had arrived in Montreal. On instructions from the authorities in New York, detectives from two competing agencies, Pinkerton's under the direction of Robert Pinkerton, one of the founder's sons, and the Metropolitan under the field management of Detective Kellert, were combing Montreal for Hinckley and his associates, aware also of the search for John. The following Monday, when the itinerant musicians were sounding "Hail To The Chief" on the steps of No. 46 Park Avenue and Deputy Sheriff Brown ascended them in a further ill-fated attempt to deliver the arrest warrant, Detective John Fahey of Pinkerton's received an intimation of John's possible presence in Montreal. This came from the proprietor of a brokerage, W. L. Labbe, who had uncovered defaulters in the past.

The World, though offering a conflicting report as to the date of John’s arrival in Montreal – Monday; elsewhere the previous Saturday, also Sunday – nevertheless gives a detailed account of his activities in the city. These involved visits to several banks and brokerages in St. Francis Xavier St., Montreal's financial district. The brokerages included that of Mr. Weir, of H. R. Marler, of W. L. Labbe, and of McIver & Barclay. At each of these banks and brokerages he exchanged small amounts of American bills for gold, to avoid raising suspicions; in all, $1,000. A nervous manner accompanying these transactions was noted. At H. R. Marler’s where he sought one hundred English pounds, a shortage of twenty sovereigns led to a clerk being sent out to get the balance. At this John became visibly anxious and went out into street, fearing that it was a ruse to fetch an officer. When the clerk returned alone, his confidence was restored and the transaction completed. At McIver & Barclay’s he called frequently to discuss the recent panic in the New York markets and obtain quotations, conveying the impression that he was a trader. During the last of these visits, a New Yorker thought he recognized him and bluntly asked, “Are you President Eno?’ John brushed aside the query with a laugh, saying that he was frequently mistaken for him. However, when John visited W. L. Labbe’s, the proprietor, convinced of his identity, sent word to Detective Fahey.

The detective “shadowed” the suspect to the Windsor Hotel. There it was revealed that John, accompanied by another gentleman, had registered as Joseph Bouton, of Troy N.Y.; his companion, as Joseph McCloskey. Conflicting accounts identify John’s registered alias as C. T. Marshall and his friend, P. McElroy, Jr., of Toronto.

At the New Dominion steamship line ticket office, Pinkerton's men, who had been keeping an eye on the outgoing steamships, observed the suspect purchasing passage for Liverpool, England, on the Vancouver, using the name Marshall or Bouton - accounts vary. They also noted the presence of a companion, a man dressed in priestly garb and appearing well-heeled, who drew attention to the pair by his "luxurious" manner.

On Thursday, the suspect and his companion boarded the Vancouver at Montreal, taking cabin No. 10. The ship would dock at Quebec City, before taking passage for England on Saturday. It was customary for transatlantic passengers to embark at Quebec City instead of Montreal, and the pair's unusual point of embarkation added weight to the suspicions surrounding them.

The next stage of the proceedings is informed by a series of apparent errors on the part of the pursuers, possibly attributable both to the urgency occasioned by the suspect's plans and certain incompetencies in legal matters. A third interpretation of events, supported by considerable local speculation reported in the press, is that there was never any intention to permit John to seek legal relief through the Canadian courts, where he might prevail against efforts to extradite him. Once detained, by whatever means, it was supposed that he would be hustled back over the U. S. border to stand trial.

As the Vancouver, described as "a splendid new vessel," was about to sail from Montreal, Pinkerton's detectives received a photograph of John from New York, which appeared to identify him as the suspect. The World claimed their published picture as the source, but other evidence suggests there were several likenesses about the city. Detective Fahey disguising himself as a seamen, gained admittance to  John’s cabin by feigning consideration for the occupant’s comfort. Recognizing him, the detective left the boat and telegraphed Pinkerton’s in New York. A reply ordered him to make the arrest. Too late to do so as the boat had sailed, Fahey, with Adolphe Bissonnette, High Constable of Montreal, struck out for Quebec City.

The pair took with them a warrant made out by the police magistrate, M. Desnoyers, in Montreal, in response to Fahey's affidavit, citing Charles A. Hinckley, Joseph McCloskey, Joseph Bouton, C. T. Marshall and another party, whom the detective, it was stated, would identify later. Though the intent appears to be to cover the waterfront in respect of any and all suspects’ known identities and aliases, the absence of P. McElroy, Jr., of Toronto, suggests the haphazard nature of the proceedings. Incongruously, all were charged with bringing stolen money into Canada in connection with the misappropriation of funds from the West Side Bank of New York, of which Hinckley was the paying teller. Already perhaps seeking to define the prosecution's case, telegrams from Pinkerton's obtained by the Times, however, referred to the crime as forgery. Whether Fahey had really identified John but had not had time to obtain a new warrant, or he was unsure of his identification and had spread a broad, rather clumsy net in the hopes of getting one or more of his quarries, or his principal interest was but to grab John and hustle him back to New York, the fact is John's name was not mentioned. Neither that nor the Second National City Bank of New York and the alleged defalcation. Fahey and Bissonnette were followed, in short order, by a detective from the Metropolitan agency, which had been working up their own clues.

On Friday, Fahey and Bissonnette, with the Metropolitan's man five minutes behind, boarded the Vancouver at Quebec City and inquired after Marshall. Being told that he was in his cabin with a friend or friends - again, accounts vary - Fahey decided to repeat his ruse in Montreal to ascertain if the suspect's appearance conformed to the photograph of John. Donning a stewards' cap, he gained access to the cabin, where he asked if there was anything the gentlemen required. Satisfied that the appearance of the subject of his inquiry accorded with John's picture, Fahey proceeded to serve the warrant. John appeared unperturbed and laughed at the notion of his extradition. Following examination of the warrant, he observed that, as his name was not on it, such an arrest was invalid. Undaunted, Fahey insisted that John allow himself and his baggage to be searched. While no "stolen" money was found, the detective discovered papers and a wallet bearing John’s initials reflecting the identity of the man he was proposing to arrest, John C. Eno. According to John's deposition presented in court the following Monday, Fahey then said in an apparent non sequitur, "I am convinced this is Mr. Eno and he is not the man we are after." Following this, the officers withdrew, to return shortly with further assurance, "Gentlemen, neither of you is the man we are looking for, and against whom the warrant was issued. We're sorry to have caused you so much annoyance, and you may continue on your journey." Events would soon enough belie these statements.

On Saturday morning at nine-o'clock, as the Vancouver was preparing to sail, Fahey and Bissonnette returned to cabin No. 10. The High Constable announced to John that he was obliged to re-arrest him and, when asked on what authority, produced a telegram from New York, probably from Pinkerton's. Taking John into custody, they presented the old warrant to the ship's captain as their authority for his removal. Held ashore at the Central Station, John sought protection from the U. S. consul, Wasson, saying that though "he had been led into the commission of serious wrongs,….he had done nothing….for which he could be extradited."

Two of many legal issues that would complicate matters for the arresting officers now arose. The cities of Montreal and Quebec, though within the same province, represented separate legal jurisdictions. A warrant issued in one for the commission of a crime was invalid in the other, until it had been endorsed by a judge of the Sessions in the latter city. Whether it was from carelessness arising from haste or simple ignorance, the arrest warrant under which John was removed from the Vancouver was not in fact endorsed by such a judge in Quebec until after his arrest. Equally compromising, the warrant failed to mention, as was required, the jurisdiction in which the alleged crime had occurred.  Its contents and circumstances of issuance would be scrutinized carefully at the Court of Queen's Bench the following Monday.

With John ashore and still in their custody, Fahey and Bissonnette, having secured endorsement of the arrest warrant from Police Magistrate Chauveau, made plans to spirit him away to Montreal, suggesting that they recognized their legal quandary and were intent on returning him to the original and legal jurisdiction of the warrant. To do this they hustled him aboard a steamer bound for Montreal that was to leave at five in the evening. The U. S. consul, meanwhile, had secured legal representation for John in the person of James Dunbar, Q.C. (Queen's Counsel). Going before Justice Caron of the Superior Court, Dunbar, while acknowledging his customary representations on behalf of the Crown, declared that in this case he was "too glad to be able to assist in the prevention of a disgraceful abduction." Stating the urgency of the situation, he asked for, and was granted, a writ of habeas corpus. This was served on the officers aboard the ship, ordering that they produce John in court that night, whereupon they withdrew with their charge to the St. Louis Hotel. Presented before Judge Tessier in the evening, John was released into the custody of High Constable Gale of Quebec City and his case postponed until Monday.

The writ of Habeas corpus, a legal cornerstone of the rights of an individual's freedoms, stems from a British Act formalized in 1679. It protects the individual from detention without due cause and demands a hearing before a judge, at which the arresting authority must declare its reasons for the detention, thereby giving the defendant an opportunity to seek legal relief. In following this course, John's counsel was ensuring that he would not be removed from the city lawfully, at least until a judgment had been made concerning the circumstances of his custody.

From this point on, all legal efforts on John's behalf were aimed at keeping him within the jurisdiction of Quebec City. Not only might he be satisfactorily protected from efforts to kidnap him and take him over the border, but the city, possessed of  a population of mixed heritage, French and British, with a disinclination to bend the knee towards the U. S., presented a more hospitable venue for the resolution of his quandary than Montreal with its closer ties to its southern neighbor. Offering tacit testimony for this, the wealthy suburb of Quebec City, Sillery, situated atop and at the base of the steep bluffs which run from Cap Diamant to Cap Rouge, included among its residents a number of  wealthy Americans who had fled prosecution for crimes in the U. S. 

While John was securing sanctuary, the U. S. Marshals office in New York got their first word that he had been arrested. Until this point in time, Pinkerton's had been the principal recipient of information and prime agent in seeking to detain him. The manner in which the U. S. Marshals came by word of him illustrates the larger, murky context in which he was sought.

The Times reports that "someone in this city (New York), who heard of Eno's presence in Quebec (City), sent a dispatch to the police authorities there requesting them to arrest Eno and signed it 'Walling.'" The officer in the Marshals' office, Superintendent Walling, when questioned, denied his authorship or authorizing any other, and expressed surprise when the dispatch itself was shown to him.

Was the superintendent telling the truth or did he wish his part in the matter to remain unknown, fearing the displeasure of others more influential, who were perhaps concerned to protect John from prosecution - John's family and friends? If not the superintendent, then who had let the cat out of the bag?

Whatever the truth of the authorship of the dispatch, in response, the U. S. Marshals sent a telegram to High Constable Bissonnette: "Will Eno consent to return without extradition? If so will have officer meet you at Rouse's Point; if not, will have officer meet you at Montreal tomorrow with papers."

At 6 pm came the answer addressed to Joel B. Erhardt, U. S. Marshal, and signed by Bissonnette with Fahey's name also attached: "Eno says he will not return voluntarily. Will be in Montreal in the morning."

Deputy U. S. Marshal George H. Holmes, who had figured prominently in the stakeout of No. 46 Park Avenue, was provided with papers and detailed to take the 7 pm train to Montreal, where he would arrive the following day, Sunday, at about noon. Since John refused to return voluntarily and embezzlement was not an extraditable offense, some other charge would have to be found to secure his return.

All of the activity in Quebec City surrounding John occasioned much attention and he appears to have garnered most of the sympathy. The World reports that “Eno….and the priest…both enjoyed themselves, having plenty of money, which they spent freely…” John’s manner throughout was calm and good-natured, and he made no effort to resist the officers. Their conduct, in turn, was seen as crude and offensive, and encouraged an interpretation of their motives as more concerned with personal plunder - presumably the money that might be found on the persons of those sought - than with the pursuit of justice. The evening papers condemned the arrest as a violation of the Ashburton Treaty, charging that American authorities would never allow such carryings on in one of their ports. Acknowledging the determination of the arresting officers to stay their course, it was assumed that further warrants would be served, if John were to be acquitted following the Monday hearing.

MYSTERY ATTENDS THE PRIEST”S ACTIVITIES

What, all this while, of John's companion, the well-heeled cleric, in these contentious proceedings?

When Detective Fahey and Corporal Bissonnette first boarded the Vancouver at Quebec, on Friday, they learned that, whereas John had secured passage as Joseph Bouton, Father Ducey had done so as Joseph McCloskey. In respect of the last name, McCloskey, the Times opines that this being the name of an assistant of Father Ducey's at his church, it readily presented itself to the priest when he sought to pass as another. Confronted with the warrant, the priest, entering into explanations, convinced them that he was in fact the Reverend Father Ducey of  St. Leo's parish in New York. As with John's identification as Eno, the officers were unable to make an arrest of Father Ducey.

What might the nature of Father Ducey's explanations for employing an alias have been? Indeed, what exactly was Father Ducey up to? Here, after all, was a noted New York priest traveling under an alias, far from his parish, in another country, in the company of a suspected felon, with whom there was every indication that he intended to sail to England.

Following the failure to arrest the pair, they were kept under surveillance and, throughout Friday, were observed about the town. However, on Saturday, Ducey's absence being noted in the instance of John's arrest, another steamer that was about to sail, the Sardinian of the Allan Line, was searched to no avail. Later, it was learned that a man answering the priest's description had made inquiries of trains for New York at the station, and it was assumed that he had left. While a Times headline speaks of his detention in Canada, there is no evidence to support his legal apprehension there.

Father Ducey's frequent visits to No. 46 Park Avenue and his constant denials of John's presence there had roused the suspicions of the press. His comings and goings kept under observation, his absence from his parish since the previous Sunday was noted with considerable interest. When John's flight the previous Saturday became known, much speculation arose concerning Ducey's role in the unfolding drama, and it was assumed that he had and was continuing to aid his former benefactor to escape justice. In pursuit of their story, the press set siege to Father Ducey's home at No. 16 East Twenty-ninth St., a block away from St. Leo's. The house, leased from one Elbridge T. Gerry, a railroad financier, adjoined the pastoral residence and was in the process of renovation. On Saturday evening, a reporter from the Times rang the doorbell. Responding to an inquiry concerning Father Ducey's presence in the house, "a very young man in clerical garb (who) spoke in a shrill voice and was evidently in a high state of excitement" stated that he was not.

"'When will he be in?' was asked.

"'I don't know, but he won’t see anybody when he does come. That's what you want to know.'

"'When did he get home?'

"'Who told you he'd been away?' was the counter question.

"'That is what I hear,' said the reporter; 'I hear that he has been in Montreal. Is that so?'

"'Well, that's what you want to know. Who told you?'

"'I hear it on very good authority. When did Father Ducey go away?'

"'I didn't say he'd been away. That's what you want to know.'

"By this time the young man's excitement had gone beyond his control. His voice trembled, and he failed to make his second assertion that Father Ducey wasn't in as emphatic as intended.

"'When will he be in?' was again asked.

'"He won't see anybody when he does come. That's all you want to know. There's no need of your staying around here.'

"'Will you be kind enough to give me your name?'

"'No, Sir. That's what you want to know.'

"Then the young man in clerical garb reached tremblingly for the door-knob, and in an uncertain kind of way closed the door. For an hour nobody entered the house. Then the reporter called again. The clerical young man had vanished, and with him his fund of information. His place was taken by an elderly woman of decidedly robust appearance. She eyed her visitor suspiciously.

"'Is the Rev. Father Ducey in?' was asked.

"'He never sees anybody after 10 o'clock,' was the reply.

"'I beg pardon, but I asked if the Rev. Father Ducey was in.'

"'He never sees anybody, even if he is in, after 10 o'clock.'

"'Is he in the city?'

"'I'm not going to say anything. He don't see anybody after 10 o'clock.'

"Then the door was pulled to, only to be opened an inch or two as the reporter closed the gate. A young man, who declined to give his name, soon emerged from the house. He had been in the church he said; had seen nothing of Father Ducey, and didn't know whether he was at home or not."

Under the headline "CAN MR. ENO BE EXTRADITED?" in the following Tuesday's issue of the Times was the sub-head, "Comment On Father Ducey's Conduct - Hope Of a Satisfactory Explanation." Indeed.

The unexplained behavior of the noted pastor of St. Leo's had occasioned considerable shock amongst his parishioners. While news had been received suggesting his return to the city on Monday, he failed to appear. Vicar-General Quinn, when approached by the press at his house on Madison Avenue, denied any useful knowledge of matters. Father Thomas McCloskey, one of Father Ducey's assistants, stating that the last time he had seen his superior was on Sunday of the previous week, expressed doubt that Father Ducey had gone to Canada with Mr. Eno, but rather had gone to Montreal on ecclesiastical business.

Of more use to the public interested in the priest's activities was the statement of "an old friend of the Father's."

"Father Ducey went to Canada out of the purist and best motives. I believe that Mr. Eno was in a despondent frame of mind and talked so wildly in his communications to his family that they sought Father Ducey's advice and he went on to Canada to try to prevent anything happening to the young man by his own act. Some days ago I passed some rather severe remarks upon Mr. Eno in the Father's hearing. He said to me then that if I could only see Eno I would be sorry for him, so completely was he broken down. Father Ducey added that six months ago he noticed a change in Mr. Eno's manner and said to him, 'John, you've got something on your mind. Tell me what it is.' Eno refused to make a confidant of the Father, who told me if only he had done so he could have saved him at that time."

Speculation centered on whether any legal action might be taken against Father Ducey. To this, Assistant U. S. District-Attorney Foster advised that while it was an offense to obstruct the service of a warrant, it was necessary to show accompanying violence to secure a conviction.

Meanwhile, the siege at No. 16  East Twenty-ninth St. continued. Father McCloskey and another assistant, Father Tole, were observed passing in and out in the course of their professional activities. At 10 o'clock, Charles Wood, John's brother-in-law, paid a brief visit. Asked of Father Ducey's presence in town, he denied any knowledge.

The Times' piece concludes with detail of the renovations under way at the house, including that a billiard room was under construction. Painters and paper-hangers hired for the work had been sent away, it was learned, at the same time that Father Ducey had disappeared. The second floor was let to John Bryan, a member of the church, and described as a "warm friend" of Father Ducey.

ENO IN COURT

While the press pursued the priest in New York on Monday, his erstwhile companion sought to free himself from the bonds his pursuers were attempting to place upon him in Quebec. Judge Tessier of the Court of Queen's Bench presided over the hearing in the morning set to address John's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Counsel for the petitioner held:

"1. That the offense charged in the warrant of arrest does not constitute a legal offense according to our laws.

"2. That it appears that the party arrested is not one of the parties that could be legally arrested by the warrant.

"3. That in case of substantial defects the party arrested will be liberated under a writ of habeas corpus."

The Crown was represented by Messrs. Amyot, M. P. (Member of Parliament), and Pelletier, the private prosecution by Messrs. C. P. Davidson, Q. C., of Montreal, and Charles. Fitzpatrick, of Quebec, and the prisoner by Mr. James Dunbar, Q. C., the Hon. Geoffrey Irvine, Q.C., Messrs. Jules Tessier, son of the judge, and J. J. Curran, Q. C., M. P., of Montreal. George H. Holmes, the deputy U. S. marshal sent by the New York office, was present. The court was packed, the case having attracted wide interest, and observing the proceedings was a member of the Second National Bank's law firm in New York, Butler, Stillman & Hubbard, Thomas Hamlin Hubbard.

Butler, Stillman & Hubbard was one of several incarnations of a distinguished New York commercial law firm known today as Thacher, Proffitt &Wood and begun in 1848 by Benjamin Franklin Butler and his son, William Allen Butler, at No. 29 Wall St. Initially concerned with admiralty law, the city's financial interests increasing, it had become by 1880 one of the leading commercial firms. Thomas Hubbard, born in Hallowell, Maine, 1838, and graduated from Bowdoin College, 1857, joined the firm as a clerk in 1861, when it was Barney, Butler & Parsons. A distinguished commissioned officer in the Civil War, he rose to the rank of brigadier general. Leaving the army, he was known thereafter as General Hubbard. In 1867, he rejoined the firm as a junior partner. When Barney and Parsons left in 1873, he, along with Thomas E. Stillman, who had replaced him as clerk during the war, became the new partners. In 1887, Hubbard and Stillman would part from the company, Hubbard interesting himself in railroads in the U. S., Guatemala and the Philippines. He represented U. S. interests in the collection of indemnification in connection with the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900 and was a major backer of the Arctic explorer Captain Robert Peary, who named Cape Thomas Hubbard for him. He died in 1915.

Dunbar opened for the defense, taking up, first, the history of the servicing of the warrant. To substantiate the initial service which had resulted in John being freed, he proposed to present the defendant's affidavit in support of the event. Davidson for the prosecution objected to the presentation of any affidavit attacking the veracity of High Constable Bissonnette, but was overruled. Pelletier for the Crown, while stating that he stood ready to undertake any investigations ordered by the court, declared a lack of any basis for the Crown's interest in the matter. Opposing the defendant's application on the grounds that it was a private matter, he left the merits of it to be argued before the court by the affected parties.

            The Crown having stood aside, a decision that later events clearly show piqued the prosecution, Judge Tessier proceeded to examine the evidence.

Dunbar, having established the shaky process of the service of the warrant by getting John's affidavit into evidence, tore into the wretched document.  First, he adroitly established its jurisdiction to his client's advantage. While the Montreal magistrate, Desnoyers, was entitled to issue such a warrant in any district of the Province of Quebec, the law stipulated that he must be in the district in which it was his intention to exercise his authority and the accused must be brought before the proper authorities of that district. The warrant, he argued, under which the arrest had been made was endorsed by Magistrate Chauveau of Quebec City and therefore had become a matter for his jurisdiction. Next, he pointed out that it had been endorsed by the Quebec City magistrate after it had been served, rather than as properly before, indicating further weakness. He exposed the failure of the warrant to specify where the alleged offense had taken place, as required by law. To declare the whole of Canada was far too broad.  "It might have been committed in British Columbia, and what jurisdiction would Mr. Desnoyers have in such a case?" The charge, he said, was that Mr. Eno was in possession of money fraudulently obtained in New York.  Mr. Eno being in the district of  Quebec City, the offense alleged was therefore, at the time of his arrest, by the legal reasoning of the prosecution, committed there, and  the Montreal magistrate had no power to issue a warrant in Montreal for an offense committed in Quebec City. To issue such a warrant, he would have had to be in Quebec City. Finally, he addressed the charge. An essential aspect of this was that the accused knew that the money in his possession was stolen. But this was not alleged and therefore no offense had been committed. These broadsides having been delivered, Dunbar handed the defense's baton to Irvine.

Mr. Eno was, by the admission of the arresting officers in the first instance of the warrant's service, not the man they sought, Irvine maintained. Having subsequently ascertained that "he was a person they might be asked to look for," they detained him until they could arrest him under his own name and on a different charge. By this, the warrant was clearly invalid. The High Constable of Montreal having liberated the accused had no right to re-arrest him on the same warrant. He then turned to the charge specified on the warrant, that of bringing stolen money into Canada. While acknowledging the legal basis for extradition, Mr. Eno, he claimed, was not guilty of any of the offenses covered by the law. Repeating Dunbar's point, he charged that jurisdictional considerations demanded that Mr. Eno be heard in Quebec City and not Montreal.

Tessier concluded for the defense by presenting a number of authorities supporting their case.

Davidson for the prosecution did the best he could with thin cloth. Attempting to taint the charge that the warrant should not have been served a second time, he maintained that it had not been served in the first instance because Mr. Eno was not imprisoned or held in custody. Moving from this, he declared that the prisoner had neither declared his innocence of the charge laid against him in the warrant nor his responsibility for it. Equally, he had not denied ever passing under any of the names in the warrant. Then he addressed the jurisdictional issues. Sidestepping issues of legal protocol in respect of a magistrate's powers relevant to the location of the crime, he maintained the Montreal magistrate's authority over the whole province. "It was a contradiction in terms to say that the magistrate in Montreal with jurisdiction over the whole Province should not have jurisdiction in the district of Quebec (City), unless he followed the criminal into that district. That would be reversing our usual order by carrying the Court to where the prisoner is rather than bringing the criminal to the Court." In any event, the warrant had been endorsed locally by Magistrate Chauveau. As to the failure to cite a location for the crime, ignoring the absence of same in the text of the charge itself, he declared it was clearly stated in the heading of the warrant: "'Canada, Province of Quebec, district of Montreal.' There it was where the offense was committed, and no one, on reading the warrant, could suppose any other section of the country was intended, and it would be absurd." What of the issue raised by the defense that Mr. Eno did not know the money in his possession to be stolen? This was merely a red herring and had nothing to do with the charge, which was that of stealing money and keeping it. He concluded by quoting a number of authorities in support of his arguments.

Fitzpatrick argued at length in support of the Montreal magistrate's jurisdictional authority, like his partner Davidson, staying clear of any discussion concerning jurisdictional issues in respect of the location of the crime. Further authorities were presented and the prosecution rested their case.       

Following the court's adjournment for an hour, at 3.30 pm Judge Tessier pronounced judgment.

While the warrant was styled in the margin as issued in Montreal, the body of the text containing the substance of the charge clearly indicated Canada as the place where the offense was committed. Based on this, the arrested individual had every right to be brought before any justice of the peace in the district where he was arrested and seek a trial there. As to the details of the charge, they were inadequate. It was no crime to have stolen money in one's possession. Knowledge of the stolen nature of the money was necessary for it to be a crime and the warrant had not specified this. "But," the judge continued, "there is another fatal defect in the arrest of the petitioner: it is that he is not mentioned in the warrant under which he has been arrested." Referring to the "and another party whose name is unknown……to be pointed out by John Fahey," he inquired as to who this Fahey was and what jurisdiction he had in the proceedings. No, it was all "too arbitrary and too dangerous to be allowed under our laws." While Bissonnette had arrested C. T. Marshall, he had not arrested John C. Eno going under the name of C. T. Marshall, therefore Eno's arrest was invalid. Citing an authority, Hurd, Judge Tessier declared this further fatal error "denotes a complete defect in the proceedings" and ordered John released.

The result was received with applause. Amid the excitement, however, High Constable Bissonnette produced a new arrest warrant from the Montreal magistrate, endorsed by Magistrate Chauveau of Quebec City. This new writ bid to rectify the errors of the first, specifying authorization for the arrest of John C. Eno on the charge of stealing $135,000 from the Second National Bank of New York on May 7 and bringing it into Canada on May 26. This latter date being a Monday, quite possibly at least two days after John had in fact entered the country and the day on which it was reported that Pinkerton's man Fahey had noted John's presence in Montreal, most likely represents the date of the first warrant. As to the check and its date, four days before John's transgressions were first revealed to his father on May 11, it no doubt had been selected as representative evidence for the charge. Davidson for the prosecution, claiming the warrant incontestable, demanded that John be handed over. The judge, granting that he would order the arrest, would have none of it while the Court was sitting. Irvine for the defense opposed the demand and the judge ordered the warrant handed over to the clerk of the court, and then retired to chambers, where he made himself available to counsel.

Following the judge's departure from the courtroom, Irvine asked to see the warrant. Bissonnette demurred, Davidson expressing his objections. Nevertheless, it was handed over, whereupon Irvine subjected it to a lengthy examination, to which Davidson objected. These contentious actions stirred new excitement in the court, which reached a pitch when Irvine, responding to Davidson's complaint, declared that he was not through reading the document and that "the High Constable was an insolent fellow."

When the warrant was at last returned, High Constable Gale, still John's custodian, announced that he would go to Magistrate Chauveau with him. Once outside the courthouse, Bissonnette served the new warrant. Taken before Chauveau, John was remanded into Gale's custody until the follow morning, with an order that the Montreal magistrate be advised of the arrest in the meantime. Deputy Marshal Holmes, who had been attending the proceedings, asked John if he would voluntarily return to the U. S., to which John replied he would not.

In New York, meanwhile, doubt circulated as to the likelihood of John's extradition. Trowbridge, president of the Second National and tight-lipped as ever, referred the press to the bank's lawyers, Butler, Stillman & Hubbard. The firm, in turn, had little of substance to say. The General (Hubbard) was in Quebec looking after the bank's interests and all would depend on the course taken by the Canadian authorities. Robert Pinkerton now denied that he had any warrant for John's arrest in his possession, declined to comment on the legal aspects of the affair, and said he was waiting for his man Fahey's written report. District Attorney Olney visited Mr. Foster, Bank Examiner Scriba and the directors of the bank to determine if there was any evidence of John having committed forgery that might be presented to the Grand Jury, which was to convene in a day or two.

Tuesday's Times editorialized, waxing contemptuous of the folly of the chase and clearly stating its contention that it was all an elaborate cover-up.

"Of course Eno was liberated yesterday. Of course this result was foreseen by the District Attorney who issued the warrant for his capture and by the Marshal who was entrusted with its service. Of course it was evident beforehand that Eno would not come back of his own accord to undergo arrest when he had just run away to escape arrest. Of course all proceedings that have been had since it was discovered that he was not secreted in the piano or the kitchen stove of his own house have all been a farcically solemn method of locking the stable door after the fugitive horse."

Wednesday's Tribune reported the return of John's brother, "Mo," to the city from Quebec, where he had been visiting his sibling. Beyond declaring him to be in excellent health, he would say nothing of his activities. Meanwhile, giving weight to the Times' contentions, an unidentified family member had this to say of matters regarding John:

"John C. Eno left New York on Thursday week and arrived in Montreal on Friday. There he remained a week instead of proceeding to Quebec and thence to England, as he might easily have done. He made no attempt at disguising himself and even wore the same suit of clothes he left this city in. He was arrested on the boat under the supposition that he was Hinckley, but when on being searched a pocket-book bearing in silver letters the name 'John C. Eno' was found, the detective at once let him go, afterward, however, telegraphing to New York and obtaining the authority from Superintendent Walling to rearrest him. The charge of being in possession of stolen money, however, did not hold good, and it is believed by all his friends he will not be extradited."

On Tuesday morning, Magistrate Chauveau presided over a hearing to address John's status.

Pelletier, representing the Crown, called on Davidson to state what actions he proposed to take against the defendant. Huffily, Davidson retorted that Pelletier had, the day before, declared the Crown's willingness to undertake any investigation ordered and he had no intention of assuming that responsibility himself, particularly as his legal opinions were decidedly contrary to those guiding the examination. Throwing the matter back into Pelletier's hands, he disdainfully declared himself ignorant of the procedure which had transferred the defendant from the high constable of Montreal into the hands of a local officer and equally mystified as to what further proceedings might be contemplated. Pelletier asked that the case be remanded until the following morning. Seeking a quick resolution, Irvine for the defense objected and requested John's immediate release. Davidson scoffed that the prisoner was "enjoying the luxury of apartments at a hotel, and an adjournment was not likely to cause him much personal suffering." The magistrate, while stating his right to hear the case, declined to say whether he would return it to Montreal and agreed to the Crown's request for a remand.

That evening, Curran, another member of the defense team, traveled to Montreal to examine Fahey's affidavit, which was the basis for the warrant. The Montreal magistrate refused his request. After consultation with his associates, Curran was directed to make application to see the affidavit before the Queen's Bench in Montreal.

Yet again, the persistent Deputy U. S. Marshal Holmes asked John if he would voluntarily return to New York. With equal consistency, John replied that he would not.

MORE WARRANTS AND WRITS

In New York, Bank Examiner Scriba, some of John's brokers and a cashier of the Second National met with Assistant District Attorney Allen. The bank's books were examined with a view to presenting evidence to the grand jury and Allen ventured that forgery in the third degree would be the most likely charge. This, however, could not, the assistant district attorney declared, serve as a basis for John's extradition, since British law would not view it as an extraditable offense. As to the money lost by the bank, it was understood that suits were to be brought against John's former brokers: Dyett & Co. for $2,000,000 and Goffe & Randle for a smaller amount.

On Wednesday, John's counsel petitioned Judge Tessier for a second writ of habeas corpus, accompanying it with a request for a writ of Certiorari. This latter writ grants a defendant the right of review by a higher court of a decision made by a lower. A week later, Tuesday, June 10, having granted the petitions, the judge issued his judgment.

Referring to the theft and its location as charged in the warrant, Judge Tessier, while acknowledging that John was subject to extradition, noted that no such request had been made, this despite the lapse of several days since his arrest. Turning to the  ancillary charge of bringing stolen money into Canada, he cited a case, Regina v. Hennessy, reported in the Upper Canada Queen's Bench Reports. In this case, the defendant, who had stolen money in Illinois, was charged with three counts in connection with bringing stolen money into Canada. One of these counts, still referring to the money stolen in Illinois, charged larceny in Canada. While the other counts were dismissed, on this one the defendant was found guilty, based on  the interpretation that the money retained its stolen character in Canada, as specifically charged. However, in John's case, the money was only referred to as stolen in New York, over which Canadian courts had no jurisdiction. Turning to the issue of the charge of the stolen money having been brought into Canada, the judge questioned whether a person could be arrested twice for the same crime. Citing further judicial authority, he ruled against it. Since the theft and its location were non-starters judicially and only presented to substantiate the money in question, the warrant was essentially the same as the first - there was no new charge and it could not go forward. Addressing the writ of  certiorari, the judge noted that the evidence for the charge presented to the magistrate was merely hearsay. There was no more evidence to be had in Canada and no demand that evidence from New York be presented. In light of this, there was insufficient to present even a prima facie case. Admitting the complexities of international law, Judge Tessier quoted another judge, Sullivan:

"It is the duty of all judges and magistrates to be always ready to maintain the public faith with a foreign country; but the citizens of that country, when they come amongst us, are entitled to precisely the same measure of justice as our own people."

The second warrant having been shown to be almost as shoddy as the first, John was released.

Increasingly, it was becoming clear that legal efforts in Canada to obtain John's body for prosecution in the U. S. were unlikely to succeed. At the same time, it was learned that yet another arrest warrant had been issued in Montreal. Concerned that John might be kidnapped while in the custody afforded by an arrest warrant, his counsel appealed for relief. To this end, as soon as John was acquitted on Tuesday, his counsel petitioned for yet another writ of habeas corpus. This writ requested that the court demand and examine the evidence for the charge of extradition leveled against him, and for which he had reason to believe another arrest warrant had been issued. Judge Louis Bonaventure Caron granted the writ.

John's counsel's information as to the issuance of yet another arrest warrant was correct, and their timely intervention brought him the protection of the court from the clutches of High Constable Bissonnette.

In Judge Caron's summing up accompanying his order, he acknowledged the need to afford the petitioner protection, citing the case of Lamirande. In this instance in 1866, a French bank cashier fled to Canada with embezzled funds. Charged with forgery by the French, he was arrested and jailed in Canada under a warrant of the Governor General , the intention being to hand him over. His defense was granted a writ of habeas corpus, but the prosecution opposed his immediate release and were accorded a brief adjournment. During this, French police officers in possession of the Governor General's warrant spirited him away and back to France, where he was convicted. Not only had Canada's legal system been tainted, but the French charge of forgery would never have held up in a Canadian court, disallowing Lamirande's extradition. In John's case, while the prosecution requested his transfer to Montreal's jurisdiction, no reasons were offered for the move. Why, the judge asked, Montreal over Quebec City? Surely, he wrote, the people of the richest state, New York, in the U. S. were not concerned with expense. If that were the case, he added, why not try him in Sherbrooke or Sweetsburg on the border? Responding to the defense's concerns, Judge Caron ordered Bissonnette to bring John before the court, where a remand was granted and John released into the custody of the Quebec City high constable, Gale. Bissonnette's warrant, meanwhile, was placed in the custody of a local justice, Monck, and the high constable was ordered to produce the evidence that was the basis for the charge accompanying it. For eight days, the interval permitted while the court examined the issues, John was safe.

A QUESTION OF CHECKS

Following due deliberation, citing the support of his fellow judges, Tessier, Stuart, Casault, Monck, and Chief Magistrate Meredith for the legality of the proceedings, Judge Caron set the following Thursday, June 19, as the date on which he would hear the grounds presented by the prosecution for extradition.

At the hearing, the defense, claiming a narrow interpretation of the Ashburton Treaty, attempted to limit the testimony to that which would show their client's innocence of the charge. The judge, however, asserted that the importance of the issues involved demanded a full examination of the prosecution's case. This rested upon the bill of indictment containing twelve charges handed down by the grand jury in New York on June 11 and several checks signed by John, both being supported by a number of witnesses. The treaty allowed for the introduction of bills of indictment as proof but, importantly, declared that the crime must be shown to stand the legal tests of the country in which the accused was arrested.

In presenting the New York grand jury indictment in evidence, the prosecution proved a copy and presented a New York lawyer, Adams, who explained the state's forgery laws. Later, in detailed testimony on the stand from Cashier Roberts and the bank's accountant, Allen, involving a discussion of the checks, it came out that the grand jury had been less than thorough in their questioning of the witnesses. This would later be shown to weaken the prosecution's case, in so much as it brought into question the validity of the grand jury's findings.

The substance of eight checks signed by John were presented in evidence by the prosecution and attested to by Roberts and Allen. Written between September 25, 1883, and May 13, 1884, the amounts ranged between $95,000 and $200,000. All were made out to either Goffe & Randle or A. Dyett & Co., two of John's brokers, and five of them were the subject of the grand jury's indictments. Three carried a charge of forgery in the third degree, one, forgery in the second, and another, forgery in the first.

While shown later to be of little real merit, the prosecution also engaged in challenges to procedure and attempted to show that the extradition treaty required no more than proof of proper arrest.

A significant problem for the prosecution lay in the disparity of interpretations of forgery affecting the case. Canadian law was based on British law, and the bottom line was that forgery could be shown only if the accused had presented himself as being other than who he was. In the U. S.,  a diverse array of forgery laws prevailed throughout the states. In New York, there were in fact three degrees of forgery, only one of which, the first, could apply in this instance. To complicate matters, in a recent case involving a British request for extradition of a forger, Tully, the New York judge, Brown, had made his ruling on the basis of an interpretation that affirmed the British definition of the crime, thus giving weight to the prevailing doctrine.

Addressing the checks, the prosecution put Cashier Roberts on the stand. He explained the procedure whereby the checks were effected and recorded by the bank. On a note or other indication from the president, he or another employee of the bank had prepared the checks for John's signature, understanding them to be loans. They were then recorded in the books. A discrepancy between the names in the books and those on the face of the checks was explained: National Bank laws prohibited loans for more than $50,000 to single parties and "it was customary for the bank to evade the law….by dividing up a loan amongst several persons." Thus, a check made out to Goffe & Randle for $200,000 was recorded as a loan to Randle, Fraser, Cook and Smith. It was past practice and John's predecessors had conducted themselves similarly.

The check that carried the one charge, forgery in the first degree, that stood a chance of satisfying Canadian law, was the subject of intense examination. Written for $95,000 on Tuesday, May 13, it was the last John had signed. Roberts showed that it had been written before three in the afternoon and presented to the Union National Bank before closing time. It had been returned and honored by the Second National, the next day. In further testimony, it was revealed that John had resigned as president at about nine in the evening, following a meeting with his brother "Mo." Additional evidence was presented showing that the directors of the bank had examined the check and paid it. John's father, Amos, and William Walter Phelps had guaranteed it in response to Bank Examiner's Scriba's  threat to withhold his certificate of the bank's soundness in the event of their failure to do so.

Unable to demonstrate that John was not the president of the bank when he signed the check, the prosecution maintained, without presenting any evidence, that he had known the bank was insolvent when he did so. However, the failure to make the same charge with respect to the other checks led the judge to suspect that the grand jury had, in fact, tried to prove, without adequate proof, that John had signed the check when he was no longer president.

On the basis of Roberts' and Allen's testimony, there was no forgery.

The prosecution's case was a weak one from the start. In reporting on the trial, the Times challenged the Post's narrow discussion of the proceedings. The latter, while acceding to the need for a common understanding of the offense referred to in the treaty, charged that John had committed "American forgery." The Times maintained, however, that clearly John was not guilty of forgery under English law, as commonly characterized in the description, "'telling a lie does not become a forgery because it is reduced to writing.'" Quoting the doctrine in Massachussetts, moreover, "'the mere false statement or implication of effect, not having reference to the person by whom the instrument is executed, will not constitute a crime.'"  "The cookery of accounts to cover an embezzlement is forgery by the statute of New York only," the Times concluded, "and, of course, it is even more preposterous to maintain the extradition treaty must be construed by the statute of one state than if such a construction were general in this country." In later succinct comment, the Times observed that, while Eno "might" have been convicted of a low degree of forgery in New York, "even the New York statute does not go the length of saying that a man shall be held to have committed forgery on the strength not only of what he writes but of what he does not write."

Judge Coram and the Times were in agreement. In his summing up on July 12, the judge made it clear that the extradition act of 1877 with Canada was based on English law and the Ashburton Treaty of 1842 and, by that standard, John was not guilty of forgery. His review of the case is curiously contradictory in certain less-than-crucial details. At the outset, he refers to two of the eight checks as being issued to A. Dyett & Co., but later speaks of three. Compounding the apparent error, he notes the amounts of the three checks - two for $100,000 each and a third, $200,000 - and then pronounces the total "half-a-million." Despite his faulty notation and arithmetic, his lengthy discourse on legal matters, with its numerous citations, presents erudite and well-argued. Addressing secondary issues, he challenged the grand jury's indictment as proof of a crime. Of what validity was it in Canada, anyway, when even in the U. S. one state's grand jury indictment required the certification of the governor in seeking extradition from another? As to John's claims to the bank employees of the checks as loans, this was only false representation, which was not an extraditable offense. In concluding, he showed himself, however, fully aware of the character of John's actions:

"I am not obliged to discuss the nature of the other deeds of the accused, who abused his high position of president of the Second National Bank of NY; he could have caused the ruin of most of his clients, who had entrusted him with their fortune, if it were not for the generous intervention of his father and other close relatives; thanks to them, an enormous disaster was averted.

"But my duty is as inflexibly circumscribed as the law, and I cannot go beyond that.

"Dura lex, the prosecution will say, sed lex." (The law is harsh, but it is the law)

John was ordered released.

After excoriating the inadequacies of the extradition treaty in permitting an offender such as John to go free, the Times acidly concluded, "We trust that his lawyers enjoyed 'the champagne lunch' which he provided for them, and felt at home in the society of a man of his distinguished and well-known virtue."

ENO IN EXILE

Freed from the clutches of the U. S. authorities, John set about making a life for himself in Canada. Ever the speculator, it is reported that he interested himself in the building and financing of Canadian railroads, specifically the Quebec and Lake St. John, the Canadian Northern between Quebec City and Montreal, and the Lower Laurention connecting Quebec with Hawkesbury, attracting American capital in the process. He is listed as a director of the Great Northern Railway of Canada, which incorporated the aforementioned lines. His home, made with his wife and family who came to join him, remained in the province of Quebec, and his sister, Antoinette, came to live with them at Sillery, Quebec City. Rumors connected her and her husband, Charles Wood, with John's nefarious activities at the bank - Wood himself was a known speculator - but nothing was ever proven.

Of John and his family’s lives in their self-imposed exile there are newspaper accounts, several of them derived from a family scrapbook kept by Orpha Amanda Eno Vail, a second cousin to Amos Eno. These latter, though lacking datelines in some instances but suggesting the early years of the period, convey something of the atmosphere.

“ENO’S LIFE IN CANADA

- Correspondence Cincinnati Enquirer, Saturday, August 21, 1886

“Eno is very absent-minded and this seems to be growing upon him. It may be in his reverie he is contrasting life in Canada with that of the convict pounding stone in Sing Sing or Auburn. He is indifferent to all visitors except Americans. These he is partial to, and will sit for hours in one of the satin-cushioned hammocks, with which his grounds abound, listening to what they may have to say of the country of his first love. His wife, a very pretty woman, with a graceful figure, is generally by his side. She dresses twice each day; whether with her family only or when entertaining it is all the same. Their residence is a quaint old place, fitted luxuriously. The furniture is all of old design and of heavy oak and mahogany. It cannot cost Eno less than $5000 per year to live in the style he does, but this never seems to trouble him. Four of the best horses which he could buy in all the country about are in his stables, and at least once a day, when the weather is fine, he can be seen behind a span of jet black  mares driving at a three-minute gait to or from the ancient capital. Try as he will the absconder cannot feel at home. The doors of the Rosses, the Tachereaus and the Morrins, all first families, are closed against him. Had Eno hunted all Canada over he could not have found a city which he would have had as much difficulty in obtaining an entree into society as he has had here.”

Another article discussing a number of defaulters living in Canada leads with John.

"He lives well in one of the finest houses in the suburbs.  Financially he appears to be at ease. He drives good horses and is liberal with his money, but socially he is not known.  Neither he nor his wife is ever invited out, nor are they visited by society people.  Eno has never been asked to the garrison mess, and does not belong to the only social organization in Quebec of any pretensions- the Garrison Club.  His acquaintances are principally made at barrooms. The commercial club he belongs to is a small place where men of business meet.  It has no social significance….men meet Eno in a business way.  They do not ask him to their homes. He paid many visits on New Year's Day.  Most of them were not returned.  He attends cocking mains and billiard tournaments and he is a constant visitor to St. Roch.  This is the roughest suburb of the city.  Mrs. Eno is admired, but society people will not receive her. This is owing to her husband's irregularities."

‘Cocking-main,’ a cock-fighting term, was the culmination of bouts between pairs of birds; the main was awarded to the pair that had won the most.

            John had his supporters and they were anxious to rebut the charges of  social ostracism. Hyperbole runs a close tie with bathos in the foregoing.

“ENO IN QUEBEC – Living a Quiet, Economical, Sorrowful Life – Mrs. Eno’s Popularity in Society – His Domesticity and Respect for the Age – Has McNeil of Clinton Any Connection with the Man?

“On the heights overlooking the ancient city of Quebec there stands a small but beautiful residence, which is now rented by John C. Eno the former New York banker.

“Unlawful acts and rash speculations have effected his complete ruin, and brought to his home and friends nothing but disgrace and trouble. The financial career is too well known to need repeating. The story of his life, so varied in detail and disastrous in results, has reached its concluding chapters, and though he live a score of years or more, his life is but a blank in the world’s eyes.

“Banished from home and friends, he pursues his solitary existence from day to day, finding in his exiled life little enjoyment save within the precincts of his home.

“II

“There is a strange story connected with his provincial life. Since his first appearance upon the streets of the "walled city" he has created a sensation of no small proportions.

“Never has an absconder from the States excited so much attention. This is due mainly to the appearance of his beautiful wife in local society, where she now reigns as a leader, but probably a great portion of the interest is owing to the immense amount of money that was sunk by the ex-president in New York.

“Although Mr. Eno has been credited with wealth, and notwithstanding the fact that he lives in a house which costs him $600 per year, it is true that the family have felt the tightening reins of economy severely since their coming to Quebec, and (are) largely dependent upon help from New York friends for support.

“III

“Mrs. Eno is reputed as being a woman who always makes the best side show; and judging from the appearance of her family, both at home and abroad, she succeeds wonderfully. Her children are always exquisitely dressed, and her home is the perfect pattern of elegance. Situated in one of the best locations in the city, it commands an admirable view of the vast meadowlands below, where glides the placid river on its way to the sea. The house is a beautiful one, and is tastefully furnished throughout. Reserved in manner and care-worn in appearance, the master is much of the time at home, where he ponders thoughtfully over his condition, and grows graver and more sorrowful each day.

“Recognizing the severity of the burden which is weighing down her husband’s mind, Mrs. Eno manages in every way to make him forget his troubles. She has admittance to many of the best families in the city, and her cheerful face and winning manner have made a  big impression on fashionable Quebec. Her house is often the scene of musicales and receptions, and she plays the part of hostess with the same becoming ease which characterized her formerly in Gotham.

“Through all of these occasions her husband moves with sober mien and ill-affected pleasure.

“It is not so easy for him to forget the position which circumstances have bound him to occupy. He accepts all with a feeling of apparent resignation, and seems more contented when the company has gone and he is once more permitted to hide himself from the world.

“He is undeniably a home man. Generally, if the weather is fair, he walks down town in the morning, and after passing a few hours in business circles, he returns home and spends the evening there. He keeps no horse, and the sum of his livestock is a dozen or more hens and a cow of which he takes sole care. Among the men of the town he is quite popular. Sometimes he drops in to pass an hour at the club, and his appearance is always the signal for much good-fellowship. But in spite of all well-meant hospitality, he drinks but little.

“IV

"’”Whatever may be said of Mr. Enos's business life in New York,” remarked an intimate provincial friend, “there is one thing certain, he is as much of a gentleman as there is in the city today. I am intimately acquainted with him, and I know that there is not a man in town who pays closer attention to his family or lives a more worthy life than does Mr. Eno. He is always at home nights, and firmly but pleasantly refuses all invitations to go to the club or keep the boys company. Besides, he says he cannot afford it. He is obliged to practice the strictest economy, and therefore cannot afford luxurious living. In fact, he considers at best his future life can be an atonement for what he has done, and I do not think there was ever a more sincere statement made than when he once said, ‘Oh, if I only had my life to live over again, what a change I would make in it!’”

“It is said on good authority that he once remarked in the presence of a visiting friend from home, ‘If I could only avert the disgrace that would fall upon my  family by being a convicted felon, I would willingly give up all I have and go back to New York and serve a five-years’ sentence. But, God knows I have been punished enough as it is.’

“As a rule, Mr. Eno says nothing about his former life, but the observant man can easily see that it is ever uppermost in his mind.

“He greets all callers in a pleasant abut reserved manner, which shows them at once his indisposition to discuss personal affairs.

“V

“A noticeable characteristic of the man is his great respect for age. Standing one day in the company of several business men, the reporter noticed the approach of an old man, whose very looks gave evidence of extreme poverty. He drew near the group of laughing merchants with an embarrassed air, and pausing for a moment near by, signaled out Mr. Eno, who was among the number, ‘Pardon me, sir,’ he said, with feeble accents, addressing the ex-banker, ‘but may I speak with you a moment?’

“Mr. Eno turned as he heard the voice and faced the stranger. A look of sincere pity passed over his countenance as he noticed his condition. ‘Certainly sir’ was the reply, and respectfully removing his hat as he led the aged man to a seat, he kindly inquired, ‘What can I do for you?’

“What the conversation was that ensued between the parties could not be heard, but as the ex-NewYorker arose he hurriedly pulled a bill out of his vest pocket, and quietly passed it to the man. ‘God bless you, sir!’ was the only reply that followed the acceptance of the gift.

“VI

“There is no truth to be placed in the report that Mr. Eno proposed to start a hotel in Quebec. Where that rumor started from cannot be conceived, but there was nothing in it. He has not intention, either of leaving the province.

“Owing to circumstances attending his discharge from the courts of Montreal at the time of his arrest there, it is not safe for him to go there. It is doubtful if he ever leaves his present home.

“Mr. Eno has hopes of some day settling the accounts against him in the States but is extremely doubtful if he ever succeeds in doing so. Two of his children are with him while the third is living with relatives in New York.

“The total sum of his defalcations was $3,185,000 and of this has been paid $2.6000,000, leaving the snug little sum of $585,000 that keeps him out of New York.

“It is a strange rumor that on a recent occasion, while Detectives Innes and Rhodes of the Massachusetts State force were hunting for President McNeil of the Lancaster Bank in Montreal, a man answering his description was said to have been seen in company with Eno. Then,  as the story goes, the strange man suddenly disappeared.  Whether any relations exist between the two absconders which would prove a motive for the concealment of McNeil is not known. Neither has it been possible to obtain any substantial information in regard to the matter.

“VII

“The statements which have recently appeared in the papers of New York and Boston concerning an alleged sensation in the social circles of Quebec over the appearance in local society of Mr. Eno and his estimable wife were evidently written in a more malicious spirit than otherwise. When asked concerning the matter by THE GLOBE commissioner, one of Montreal’s most eminent barristers recently said:

“‘I was present on the occasion when the so-called shock over Mr. Eno’s presence took place. It is a nonsensical story, and entirely without foundation.  I am no friend of Mr. Eno’s as I have never met him but out of respect for his estimable wife I will say this. The entire story is made out of whole cloth. Mr. Eno has at present the entree of many of the best families in the city. I know this positively. It is an injustice to him and his family to allow such reports to be undisputed. He has acted the part of a gentleman throughout and whatever may have been his actions in the States, the presence of his wife has wrought much in his favor in this city.’"

The Times, datelined, Ottawa, Ontario, March 22, 1888, reports neutrally:

"John C. Eno, late of New York, is in town. He denies the story that he has settled with his creditors, but anticipates returning to New York within a few years. Mr. Eno is becoming quite a favorite in social circles here. He sat in the Speaker's gallery of the House of Commons today listening to the debate. Tonight he dined with Sir Adolphe Caron, Minister of Militia, meeting several members of the Cabinet, including the Minister of Justice. Mr. Eno returns shortly to Quebec, where he is building a Summer residence."

Whatever the miseries of exile, his was clearly not the lot of the footsore fugitive.

On November the 15^th, 1884, six months after John’s flight to Canada, John’s sister Antoinette, responding to a letter from cousin Amanda noting the anniversary of the death of Antoinette’s mother Lucy in 1882, wrote:       “My Dear cousin Amanda

“Your kind note of sympathy was duly received & appreciated.

“Yesterday was the anniversary of our Beloved Mother's death, and each year we mourn her loss more & more. I have always felt that if mother had been spared to us, we should still be a united happy family. You know that Mother was so sympathetic that she had the entire confidence of her children and Johnny with his noble generous, lovely nature was particularly near & dear to her --- But now that the worst has come, we must do as she could have done, make the best of it and hope for and work for a brighter future---

            “I shall hope to see you when you come to the city. My stay is uncertain as I am trying to dispose of this house No. 46 Park Avenue and as long as I am in the city I shall be here at No. 46 Park Ave---I have Johnny's Baby with me, Antoinette Wood Eno, and in December I am going back to Canada---

            “With love & thanks for your sympathy & affection

“Your Cousin

            “Antoinette E. Wood”

Antoinette continued the devoted sister. No. 46, Park Avenue, which she hoped to sell for her brother, was John’s principal residence. Antoinette Wood Eno, for whom she was caring, was the youngest of John’s three daughters.

THE PRODIGAL SON RETURNS

John had every intention of returning to the U. S.. However, because he was a fugitive from justice, to which the statute of limitations did not apply, he was obliged to rely on time and friends to effect a nullification of the charges against him. His friends heeded the clock industriously behind the scenes.

“ENO WANTING TO RETURN - Efforts Making For A Suspension Of Criminal Proceedings

“That efforts are being made by some of the close friends of John C. Eno, the absconding ex-President of the Second National Bank, looking toward the quashing of the indictments against him and providing for his return from Canada to this city is no longer a matter of doubt.  Although his family is not directly concerned in the matter, some of his relatives have always been of the opinion that he was more unfortunate than criminal, and as his father’s health is poor and he is known to be eager for his son’s return, they have decided to bring influence to bear on Attorney-General Garland to induce him to advise the suspension of criminal proceedings.

“The indictments against Eno are for forgery and for the misappropriation of $2,120,000, which latter charge rested mainly on the affidavit of Augustus M. Scriba , the bank examiner. It is a well-known fact that the father paid over two millions and a half to make good the deficiency, with the exception of  $150,000 surplus, and the family has cause to know that John C. took no funds away with him. The President of the bank said yesterday: "The bank is in a sound condition. It never had to close its doors, and its stock is steadily rising. I can deny the statement that the surplus of $150,000 has been restored to the bank, and that the bank is party to any application compounding a felony." Mr. Montague, however, would not deny that he had been approached by some of Eno’s friends with propositions relating to the action of the bank officials.”

The nature of the ‘surplus of $150,000’ is unclear.

A separate article addresses some of the authorities who may or may not have been involved in efforts to clear the charges.

“If there are any negotiations pending in Washington looking to such a settlement of the case against ex-President John C. Eno, of the Second National Bank of New-York, as to make it safe for him to return to the United States, the Government officers here who would naturally know what was going on say they are ignorant of the fact. The report has been circulated that friends of the defaulter were arranging matters with the Treasury Department in such a way that the indictment against him could be quashed, or that he might be admitted to bail and trial indefinitely postponed. Acting Secretary (Charles S.) Fairchild said today that he knew nothing about such negotiations, and such a matter would not belong to the Treasury Department anyhow, but to the Department of Justice. Inquiry among the few officers of that department now in the city resulted in a negative answer in each case. Solicitor-General (George A.) Jenks, who is the Acting Attorney General, said that he knew there had been no questions of any kind concerning the Eno case before the department for the last 10 days, since he had been acting in Mr. Garland’s place, and he was quite sure that there was nothing in the report, as he had never heard Eno’s name mentioned. Assistant Attorney-General Howard also said he had never heard anything of the kind. Other officers of the Treasury and Justice departments were also sure the reported negotiations were not going on, although one of the Treasury officers had  heard some days ago that the amount of Eno’s defalcation had been made good and that the case against him might be settled by the authorities in New-York.”

Augustus Hill Garland, a former senator from Arkansas and a strong defender of citizens’ constitutional rights, was Attorney-General, 1885-1889, in Cleveland’s administration.

In the meanwhile, Charles Wood, Antoinette's husband, died, May 13, 1889, and John's father, Amos, retired in ill-health to the family home at Simsbury, that of his former father-in-law, Elisha Phelps. He had never recovered from the shame brought upon him by his son's activities and had excluded him from his will.

By 1893 the road was paved for John’s safe passage, and on February 1 he returned to New York. District Attorney Nicoll announced that "he would prosecute him if the evidence in the case warranted a hope of conviction." Evidently, the local authorities shared misgivings with the Canadian judiciary over the likelihood of gaining a conviction. John was admitted to bail for $10,000, the bond furnished by Benjamin Knower of 113 Duane St. and J. Hicks Bloodgood of 6 West Fortieth. John’s friends had done their work well.

John and Antoinette moved into their father's household and set about persuading Amos to reinstate John in his will. Their actions included the aggressive move of replacing Amos' servants with their own. The rest of the surviving family joined together angrily to oppose this. Amos "Mo," Henry, Mary and William made a secret agreement to share their father's estate equally, even in the event John and Antoinette were successful in gaining control of his assets.

Amos died on February 21, 1898. His will showed that John had been partly successful in his efforts to be reinstated: though he himself received no money, he was made an executor and his three daughters were each left $500,000.

During the years following John's return, no successful efforts were made to re-open his case and, on June 22, 1899, application was made of Judge Newburger in the Court of General Sessions to dismiss his bail. In making the motion, Deputy Assistant District Attorney Schwartzkopf, noting that the defendant had made no effort to evade the court, presented a letter from the officers of the Second National Bank leaving the matter up to the judge. Taken under advisement, the indictments were later quashed.

His full freedom restored, John took to traveling abroad frequently. Meanwhile, Antoinette became the mistress of the family home, which had been passed on to her at Amos' death. Following unsuccessful attempts to evict her and prevent her from remodeling the house, Amos "Mo" levied a lifetime tenancy charge of $100,000.

Afterword

Harriet Andrews, John’s loyal wife, died, October 3, 1912, in Paris; her blithe husband, February 28, 1914.

The administration of John’s estate by William Leon Graves revealed that his debts far exceeded his assets. There was a lot of "worthless" mining stock, collectible claims totaled $12,000, and debts were over $60,000. Walter Phelps Dodge, the international lawyer and author, had a claim for $7,700, while William Nelson Cromwell, the lawyer known as "the Fox," noted in connection with the development of the Panama Canal and, ironically in this instance, a specialist in corporate bankruptcy law, a judgment against the estate for $57,765 - John had outfoxed even "the Fox." Assets were roughly $8,500. If nothing else, John had behaved, or misbehaved, consistently in his life - a charming "rascal," as the Times characterized those who evaded extradition despite their likely guilt, whose careless passage served none other than the traveler, and the wreckage of which was, as ever, left for others to manage.

Demonstrating errors of fact and discreet omission that tests the adjective’s limits, John's entry in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. IX, records his career at the bank and afterwards:

"He was elected president of the Second National Bank of New York in 1879, but resigned in May 1880 and went to Quebec, Canada, where he became interested in the building and financing of Canadian railways. He was instrumental in completing the constructions of the Quebec and Lake St. John and Canadian Northern railways between Quebec and Montreal and succeeded in attracting American capital to Quebec. In 1893 he returned to New York and during the later years of his life spent much of his time abroad. A delightful raconteur, he was a man of rare personal charm and broad culture."

Vol. XXIII of the Cyclopedia gets a little nearer to the mark:

“Eno prepared for college at Phillips academy, Andover, and was graduated A.B. at Yale in 1869. In his senior year his classmates voted him the wooden spoon as the most popular member of his class. After graduation he spent several years in the banking house of Morton, Bliss & Co. in New York, and in 1873-74 traveled abroad. He was elected president of the Second National Bank of New York in 1879 but resigned in May 1884 and went to Quebec, Canada, where he became interested in building and financing of Canadian railways. He was instrumental in completing the construction of the Quebec & Lake St. John and the Canadian Northern railways between Quebec and Montreal and succeeded in attracting American capital to Quebec. In 1893, he returned to New York and during the later years of his life spent much of his time abroad. He was an amateur billiard champion and well known as a collector of coins.”

Amos Frederick "Mo" Eno died on October 21, 1915. In addition to his brother John's death the previous year on February 28, his brother Henry Clay had died on July 16 of the same year, and his sister Mary Jane, who had married James Wallace Pinchot, on August 25.  The secret agreement that "Mo" had made with Henry, Mary and William opposing Antoinette and John became known on his death, and his will was the subject of a challenge on the grounds of mental incompetency. Surviving members of the family, which included Antoinette and William, entered a legal battle that lasted into the 1940s and included Columbia University, another legatee. Antoinette Phelps Eno died on January 11, 1930; William Phelps Eno, December 3, 1945.

Father Ducey died August 22, 1909. His part in the foregoing events is revealed in the New York Times obituary the following day.

“FATHER T. J. DUCEY, LONG ILL, IS DEAD – Pastor of St. Leo’s Catholic Church Expires of Dropsy in His Home on Long Island

“OPERATION FAILS TO HELP – Body of Priest Noted for His Charity and Interest in Political Affairs Brought to This City

“The Rev. Thomas J. Ducey, pastor of St. Leo’s Roman Catholic Church, died yesterday at St. James, L.I., where he had a country place, after a long illness from dropsy. Father Ducey had acquired reputation throughout this city among clergymen and politicians for the deep interest he took in public affairs.

“About six weeks ago he was operated on for dropsy, and failed steadily until the end yesterday. On Saturday night the Rev. John Gauferz of Setauket, L.I., was summoned and administered the last rites of the Church. Dr. Thomas Kelly and Dr. Janeway of this city were with Father Ducey constantly up to the time of his death. The body was brought to this city on the 6.15 P.M. train yesterday, and last night lay in the rectory in East Twenty-eighth Street. The funeral arrangements have not been decided upon.

(Three paragraphs of biographical detail already covered have been omitted.)

“Father Ducey’s career in the priesthood was marked by unusual prominence for his rank. He was up to the time of his last illness almost constantly in the public eye.

“Father Ducey was active always in the discharge of his duties, and held many important appointments within the Church. It was for his activity at the time of the Lexow investigation in this city, however, and in public movements since that he will be most warmly remembered by New Yorkers.

“In 1894 a report came from Rome that Father Ducey had been made a Monsignor, and though rumor had it that Pope Leo had conferred the honor on the priest he never bore the title officially. His parishioners used to call him Monsignor, and he was reminded by higher dignitaries of the Church that he should not countenance the title. Many friends firmly believed that the Pope did elevate Father Ducey, and that the appointment to higher honors was pigeonholed in Archbishop Corrigan’s desk.

“Father Ducey was a warm friend of the Rev. Dr. Edward McGlynn, whose cause he espoused in the latter’s bitter fight for reinstatement to priestly duties.

(There follows a description of St. Leo’s previously presented.)

“There was much excitement in the summer of 1884 when Father Ducey’s close friend, John C. Eno, President of the Second National Bank, was charged with defaulting for $2,000,000 or so. Eno disappeared and it was rumored that he was concealed in Father Ducey’s rectory. Father Ducey denied that, but when Eno was arrested in Quebec Father Ducey was with him under the name of Mr. Priestman. Describing the incident in a letter, Father Ducey said he went to Canada at the solicitation of Mr. Eno Sr., and was the guest of the Archbishop of Montreal, who wrote to Cardinal McCloskey and Archbishop Carrigan concerning Father Ducey’s activities. They approved of his conduct toward one of his flock.

“Father Ducey’s name again came prominently before the public in 1890, following a denunciation of him by James G. Blaine, Secretary of State. Father Ducey had married Secretary Blaine’s youngest son to Miss Maria Nevins. It was a secret marriage and turned out unhappily.

“Father Ducey’s rich and influential parishioners gradually drifted away from St. Leo’s. The property was mortgaged and foreclosure proceedings were threatened three years ago. Offers of financial support halted the foreclosure, and prominent theatrical managers held a benefit which netted a good sum.

“Father Ducey gave generously to his church and to charities from his private means. It was announced last night that he had willed his fortune to the Church.”

To Detective Fahey’s list of ostensible failures in his pursuit of John must be added his failure to list ‘Mr. Priestman’ on the warrant for arrest. The ‘Lexow investigation,’ a major probe of citywide police corruption  was established by a committee formed by State Senator Clarence Lexow. Sitting from 1894 to 1895, ironically, at the Tweed Courthouse on Chambers Street, named for the corrupt politician William “Boss” Tweed formerly head of Tammany Hall, the hearings produced a body of evidence that played a significant part in the defeat of Tammany Hall, the Democratic party political machine, in the 1894 elections.

Father Ducey’s social activism, which included support for the indigent, infirm and women’s suffrage, was exceptional and clearly presented an obstacle to advancement in the church. His wealth enabled him to challenge the status quo from a position of influence uncommon for a priest. Some amongst his peers were jealous, while others in the hierarchy feared a threat to their comfortable sinecures.

Father Ducey’s actions attending John’s flight to Canada beg some questions. What if Detective Fahey had failed to remove John and his companion from the Vancouver, as it was about to commence its transatlantic passage from Quebec? Would Father Ducey have accompanied John to England? And then what? We may suppose, at the least, that Amos made a sizeable donation to St. Leo’s for the priest’s good ministrations on behalf of his son. Barring a sudden impulse to help one of his flock, we may presently settle for a bold, flamboyant expression of humanity on behalf of a troubled parishioner.

Bibliography

Beavis, Debbie  Who sailed on the Titanic?: The Definitive Passenger Lists  Ian Allan Publishing, 2002.

Grant, James  Money of the Mind: Borrowing and Lending in America from the Civil War to Michael Milken  Farrar Straus Giroux, 1992.

Herrick, Hugh M.  William Walter Phelps: His Life and Public Services  The Knickerbocker Press, 1904.

Richardson, Douglas C.  The Eno and Enos Family In America: Descendants of James Eno of Windsor, Conn.  Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1973.

Sobel, Robert  Panic on Wall Street: A Classic History of America's Financial Disasters - with a New Exploration of the Crash of 1987  Truman Talley Books/E. P. Dutton, 1988.

Thomas, Dana L.  The Plungers and the Peacocks: 170 Years of Wall Street  Texere LLC, 2001.

Thomas James Ducey  National Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. IX

Thomas James Ducey  Appleton's Encyclopedia

Magazines, Newspapers, etc.:

Clarke, I. Edwards  A Great Advocate: James T. Brady  Galaxy, Vol. 7, Issue 5, May 1869.

New York Herald

New York Times

New York Tribune

The World

The Quebec Law Reports, Vol. X, 1884

Of numerous Web sources consulted, the following presents much pertinent Phelps material:

In Their Own Words: Diaries, Memoirs, and Letters of the Past www.webmousepublications.com

Acknowledgements:

Dawn Hutchins Bobryk, President of the Simsbury Historical Society, Gail Chandler Gaston, Marian Griswold, and Ellen Sheffield Wilds, proprietor of In Their Own Words, for the availability of many of the documents used in compiling this account and Eno family history.

Hilde Baert for her translation of French portions of The Quebec Law Reports.

Theresa Gregory, of the Hartland Public Library, for her diligence in seeking out texts.

Ó Alex Phelps - FranKanTru Productions, 2003. Library of Congress: TXU1-085-676