Letters of Commissioner Edmund Burke
Letters copied from a manuscript collection in the Library of Congress of the papers of Edmund Burke, Commissioner of Patents 1845-1849 (Letters in collection are in chronological order)
-----
Letter from S.P. Shugert to James Buchanan, Secretary of State
Bellefonte [Pa] May 12, 1845
My dear sir,
I was surprised to learn from a letter handed me yesterday by Col. Burnside that you had written to me some time since offering a situation in your office. It never came to hand, and be assured that if it had, I would have embraced the earliest moment of tendering you my most unfeigned thanks for the token of friendship which it contained.
Having no words to express my grateful sense of your kindness, all I can do is to promise my best efforts to serve you, and leave for the future to determine whether your confidence has been misplaced.
Expecting to leave here on Friday next, I will probably arrive at Washington on Monday or Tuesday at the farthest.
Very respectfully yours etc.
S.P. Shugert
-----
Letter from James Buchanan to Edmund Burke
Washington, 5 July 1845
My dear Sir,
Fully aware of the very great importance of the selection of an examiner for your office, I should be glad to receive and examine the testimonials in favor of Mr. Clinton before I approve his appointment. I can assure you that I have no person in view for the place; but I have heard so much concerning the superior capacity and qualifications of the patent agents without the office to the examiners within it, that I feel deeply solicitous that you should obtain a person of superior qualifications for this particular appointment.
From your friend,
very respectfully,
James Buchanan
Hon. Edmund Burke
-----
Letter from James Buchanan to Edmund Burke
Washington, 5 Dec 1845
Dear Sir
The bearer hereof Mr. Thomas C. Smith is a worthy and respectable citizen of Lancaster Penn. He has come on here with my goods and desires to see the curiosities of the Patent Office. Will you be kind enough to have them shewn to him?
Yours very respectfully
James Buchanan
Hon. Mr. Burke
-----
Letter from James Buchanan to Edmund Burke
Private
26 Jan 1846
My dear Sir
I have this moment received your note. Mr. Ellsworth and yourself are friends, and I desire that you should adjust your differences of opinion amicably between yourselves. You know I am opposed to arbitration, and in this case, it is possible that the award might offend both parties. I repeat that it would afford me sincere pleasure to learn that you have parted in peace.
Had it been my duty, as Secretary of State to decide the question I should have done so promptly, and if you and Mr. Ellsworth should wish to talk the matter over before me, as a common friend, I shall be happy to see you at any time at the Department.
From your friend,
very respectfully,
James Buchanan
Hon. Edmund Burke
-----
Letter from Levi Woodbury to Edmund Burke
Boston, 11th April 1846
Dear Sir
The bearer of this is Mr. Thomas Blanchard, a very ingenious inventor and machinist.
He is applying for an extension of his patent for turning things of unequal surface and wishes to use a model before a committee of Congress with a view to explain satisfactorily the mode of its operation.
Any aid you can give him will be gratefully received and confer a favor on a man of genius and whose inventions have been so useful to the community as to render him a public benefactor.
Respectfully
Levi Woodbury
Hon. Ed. Burke
-----
Letter from James Buchanan to Edmund Burke
State Department
15 April 1846
Dear Sir
Permit me to introduce to you Mr. Daniel Large who has been recommended to me by a valued friend in Philadelphia. Mr. Large has invented a propeller for steam ships and boats, which my correspondent believes to be superior to any heretofore known and is anxious to obtain a patent for his invention. I should be pleased if you would examine it. He is an old and respectable engineer.
Yours very respectfully
James Buchanan
Edmund Burke, Esq.
-----
Letter from Edmund Burke to James Renwick et al
Patent Office, Washington
April 16th 1846
Gentlemen,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th inst, expressing the sentiments of the National Association of Inventors, in relation to the annual report of this office, which it becomes my duty to make to Congress during the present session.
In reply, permit me to say that except the conviction that the recommendation in relation to certain reforms in the existing patent laws presented in my report are founded in justice, as well to the community as to the valuable and meritorious class of men whose interest they are intended to promote, nothing could be more satisfactory to me than the assurances so flatteringly and kindly expressed in your letter that they have met with the approbation of an association of men, not behind any others in genius and intelligence, and who may justly be regarded as the true representatives of the interests and sentiments of the inventors of our country.
I need only to add, that, while it shall devolve upon me to fill the somewhat difficult and responsible office which I now hold, it will be my constant endeavour so to administer its duties as to preserve and protect the just rights of inventors which, to a great extent, are committed to my care, having at the same time due regard for the interest of the public, which it is incumbent on me also to [?].
In conclusion allow me to request you to convey to the members of the association whom you represent, my cordial thanks for the unsolicited and generous testimonial in favor of my official conduct which they have presented through you as their agents, and accept for yourselves personally the assurances of my high esteem.
I am very respectfully,
Your obt. Servant
Edmund Burke
To
James Renwick
George Gifford
Jorden L. Mott, &Joseph Centy [?] Esquires
Committee, etc.
-----
Letter from Thomas G. Clemson to Edmund Burke
Brussels, Dec 14th, 1847
Dear Sir
I take much pleasure in sending you a copy of your observations published in your last annual report.
They were translated and published in the Moniteur [?], (The official paper of Belgium). I also take the liberty of forwarding to you by this conveyance a copy of the "Projet de loi du les Brevets et Inventions) [?] reviewed, referenced and augmented by Mr. Jobard the indefatigable and talented director of the Musee d'Industrie of Belgium.
The subject of Patents has long engaged my attention and I hope for the cause of civilization it will shortly receive that of our legislative bodies. It is only surprising that the existing laws should have been so long endured, for they are worse than useless, neither protect or encourage inventors and a most fruitful cause for litigation. I sincerely desire that your efforts should be successful and if a proposed code be created in lieu of that now existing you will justly merit a share in the encomium of all those who desire advancement.
Very respectfully
Your obedt servt
Thos. G. Clemson
Ed Burke, Esqr
Commissioner of patents etc.
-----
Letter from Edmund Burke to President Polk
United States Patent Office
March 17th 1848
To the President of the United States
Sir,
The description of the "Hydrostat or Sonde Libre: invented by Captain Ferdinand, referred by your Excellency to this office has been carefully examined. This instrument promises important usefulness in obtaining soundings ascertaining the state of submarine currents, the character of the water, the degrees of temperature, the nature of the bottom etc. at depths far beyond the scope of any instrument heretofore employed.
It is impossible with the instruments hitherto employed to measure very great depths because the line or wire which sustains them will part, no material having sufficient strength; and even long before the line will part there ceases to be any thing to indicate the moment when the bottom is reached. Captain Ferdinand avoids these hitherto inseparable difficulties by dispensing with the line altogether, and so constructing the instrument that when it reaches the bottom, the heavy body or weight which sinks it is by the action of a very simple mechanism disengaged, and the instrument, being of less specific gravity than water, rises immediately to the surface. The depth may then be determined by the length of time the instrument is under water, or, more accurately, by a simple device which will register the maximum pressure. The instrument seems capable of sounding any required depth.
When a given depth is to be explored, the register above mentioned may easily be made to disengage the weight at the point required, and such other instruments can be connected with the principal one as are necessary to ascertain the desired facts.
Capt. Ferdinand's description of his invention is placed on file for public examination, and, in the opinion of this Office, his communication justly merits a complementary acknowledgement.
I have the honor to be
very respectfully
Your obdt. servant
Edmund Burke
Commissioner of Patents
-----
Letter from James Buchanan to Edmund Burke
Private
Washington 31 July 1848
My dear sir
Whilst the nomination of Leonard D. Gale for the appointment of Examiner in the Patent Office was under my consideration, Mr. Frederick Ritter, a clerk in the Treasury Department, called upon me and asked who had recommended that gentleman. The papers were before me and I informed him that he had been recommended by Professor Morse whose letter I read to him. I then asked him if he had any objections to the appointment. He said he knew of none whatever; that all he desired to learn was that Professor Morse had recommended Mr. Gayle. He has since called upon me for a copy of the Professor's letter to be used on a judicial trial. This I presume ought not to be refused and I would, therefore, thank you to furnish him a copy.
from your friend
very respectfully,
James Buchanan
Hon. Edmund Burke
-----
Letter from James Buchanan to Edmund Burke
Washington 22 August 1848
My dear Sir,
Dr. Clinton has appealed to the President against your decision refusing to pay him his salary as a clerk during his suspension and before his removal and the President has referred this appeal to the Secretary of State. I should be glad to see you on this subject and other matters, as soon as it may be convenient.
from your friend
very respectfully
James Buchanan
Hon. Edmund Burke
-----
Letter from James Buchanan to Edmund Burke
Private
Washington 26 August 1848
My dear sir
I shall submit your letter to the President in Clinton's case and regret to say that I feel constrained to differ from you in opinion. I do not believe that the President himself possesses the power of stopping the salary of any officer of the Government by his mere suspension. Until he chooses to exercise the power of removal the officer is entitled to his salary, under the laws of the land. I know well that Clinton's case is an extreme case and your just indignation may have clouded your judgment. The frankness of friendship alone induces me to address you this note.
from your friend
very respectfully
James Buchanan
Hon. Edmund Burke.
P.S. I certainly shall contribute.
-----
Letter from James Buchanan to Edmund Burke
Private
Washington 10 Feb 49
My dear sir,
I have approved Dr. Everett's nomination with considerable reluctance, and chiefly because I was unwilling at the last hour to do any thing not of the kindest character towards yourself.
I regret exceedingly that my clerk Spangler is dissatisfied. If possible I will give him something to do in my office during the present month. He is a frank, warm hearted and talking man whose German connexion is very extensive. He goes from here to Lancaster, my own town to open a book store and there he will tell every body his grievances. I am sorry you could not have permitted him to remain another month in the Patent Office receiving the regular compensation for his work.
from your friend
very respectfully
James Buchanan
Hon. Edmund Burke
-----
Letter from James Buchanan to Edmund Burke
My dear sir,
I do not desire that Mr. Everett's appointment should be suspended especially after your letter. On the contrary, I hope it may be delivered to him immediately.
from your friend
very respectfully
James Buchanan
Hon. Mr. Burke
12 Feb 49
-----
Letter from Horace Greely to Edmund Burke
Washington, Dec 19, 1848
My dear sir:
Yours of this day is just received. It is so frank and just that I hasten to give you all the information in my power.
William L. Mackenzie of our city is the writer of the articles in the Tribune squib [?] 'Moron' [?] but the facts are furnished him by (I presume) Henry O'Reilly, and substantially on his authority. This is as I have understood it, not set forth to be used by you, but if you wish it, I will ascertain farther on the subject. But Mackenzie himself, while he has been unfortunate in the world, is the most strictly conscientious man I ever knew, and I would defend men on his statement of a thing. I mean its veracity, not its absolute accuracy, than that of any man I know. If you will write to Mackenzie (100 Third Avenue, New York) and say you understand he is the writer of these articles, and that the statements therein are unjust to you on such and such points, telling him how he may assure himself that they are so, he will walk five miles at midnight to retract his mistaken assertion. He has no interest to worry you, and interest cannot sway him if he had. By writing to him, therefore, or having some friend call on him with the documents if you prefer that course, you will secure a withdrawal and retraction of all unfounded imputations more emphatic and triumphant than any vindication won [on] your own ever could be.
Yours,
Horace Greely
P.S. As I have not always found the gentlemen involved in this controversy as manly as yourself, I must request you to consider the contents of this note strictly confidential. I don't object to libel suits, I sometimes enjoy them, but I don't care to show my hand to whoever may see fit to beleaguer me.
-----
Letter from Robert Morris to Edmund Burke
Post Office
City of New York
Dec 28th 1848
The Hon. Edmund Burke
Dear Sir:
Yours of the 19th inst enclosing the anonymous letter to the President upon the subject of the stolen jewels was duly received, since which I have been occupied in obtaining information necessary to enable me to give an opinion upon the subject of it. I find that the Police Gazette has for some time past in various articles asserted that the robbers were James Young, formerly a police office of the city of Philadelphia, and Tom Hand, his friend and associate, a noted burglar, who was pardoned by the Executive of one of the states by the efforts and influence of James Young. Hand was closely watched and dogged before the first article alluded to appear in the Police Gazette, and it is known that immediately upon the appearance of the article he disappeared. At the time the jewels were stolen James Young was under bail for the commission of a felony. It is supposed that the jewels were stolen for the express purpose of using their return as the condition for discharging Young from the charge against him.
The argument is, as Young and Hand are advertised as the persons who stole the jewels, they are thus prevented from using the jewels for their benefit or of disposing of them, and they are therefore willing to return the jewels to obtain the infliction of an injury upon the person who exposed them.
I have seen some of Young's handwriting, and there is certainly a resemblance between it and the most naturally written portions of the anonymous letter. I suggest therefore that you authorize me to have a conversation with Wilkes, one of the editors of the Police Gazette upon the subject. I do not wish to talk to him without your consent, because I fear he might publish the matter. I will get his promise that he will not publish and he may keep it.
Truly yours,
Robt Morris
-----
Letter from Robert Morris to Edmund Burke
Post Office
City of New York
January 3, 1849
The Hon. Edmund Burke
Dear Sir:
Other circumstances have reached me confirming the suspicion that the persons indicated in my letter to you were the persons who committed the robbery.
If you will authorize me to make an arrangement with the Police Gazette so that they may understand why the publication is stopped it had better be done immediately.
Truly yours
Robt Morris
-----
Letter from George Wilkes to Edmund Burke
New York, 13th Jan 1849
Sir
You will perceive by a copy of the National Police Gazette which I herewith send you that your wishes in relation to the desertion list have been complied with and you will also perceive that the supplementary requirement of the thieves has also been complied with in the temporary transfer of the list to the columns of another paper. In this arrangement I leave to you the explanation to the War Department, of the apparent infraction of the agreement and understanding between us. Having now performed our duty, we have nothing further to do at present than to abide by the desperate hope that the thieves will feel enough revengeful satisfaction in ...ding [?] the organ which has crippled them to keep their word and return the jewels as speedily as possible.
Resp yr obt srt
At Command [?]
Geo. Wilkes
Edr
Natl Police Gazette
Hon. Edmund Burke
Com. Patents
Wash D.C.
-----
Letter from George Wilkes to Edmund Burke
New York 12th Feb 49
Dr Sir
Nothing has yet resulted from our agreement with the conditions of the anonymous letter to the President, and I begin to fear that nothing will. The thieves probably have a suspicion of our motives, and have taken a second thought not to move. If nothing transpires during the present week, that is up to Saturday next, I think I had better resume the desertion list in the succeeding publication. If you agree in this opinion you will please acquaint me; if not, I shall be happy to yield to your requests.
It may perhaps be well, if this is to be the conclusion of the affair, to give the particulars to the Washington Union for publication. It will serve to show the country with what accuracy the National Police Gazette has indicated the thieves, and will be of much service to my paper. The Police Gazette will then furnish the minor details in a supplementary account. I regret that we have not been more fortunate, but we have the consolation of having done the best we could. I am still inclined to believe that the jewels will come back but how is at present the puzzle. Young has endeavored to get a report to my ears that they have gone to England, under the charge of a celebrated English burglar named Tom Ponts, but this I do not believe. If Young has not got them himself they are doubtless in this city. I think when the desertion list is resumed that I will have Tom Hand and Young arrested, if possible. As to the latter, I have a hope to identify the anonymous letter as his handwriting.
Respty
Your obt Ser
At Command
Geo. Wilkes
Edr
Nat. Pol. Gazette
Hon. Edmund Burke
Commr Patents
Washn D.C.
-----
Letter from George Wilkes to Edmund Burke
Private
Office National Police Gazette
N.Y. 23 March 1849
Dear Sir,
Under the terms of the letter of the Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Attorney for this district has had two interviews with Webb and this morning I had one. He was suffered to understand in both that whatever he admitted or insinuated should never in any way be used against him and upon that guarantee he offered to get back the jewels, in chase he were discharged. Mr. Shephard in his interview would not yield to this, and I, in my interview, told Webb it would not do. I told him that it was my deliberate and fixed opinion that under any circumstances, and even if he and Hand were discharged tomorrow, the jewels must come back, and that therefore he really offered nothing. If he would receive remission, he must do something to evince atonement; that restitution under coercion did not come within that view, and that Mr. Shephard must have something better than mere restitution to repose his conscience on, in granting him the least immunity. But he was firm, and would not agree to furnishing evidence against any person else. I left him with the remark that I thought he had chosen an independent policy, as even under the most favorable results that he could hope for, the eyes of a whole nation would be fixed upon him wherever he should go, even though he evaded miscarriage for ten years.
You will see by this that we can get back the jewels when we please, and it now remains for you and the Secretary to give absolute directions in the matter. Before proceeding to decide however, it is proper that you should reflect that it is the opinion of Judge Betts and of Mr. Shephard that we have not sufficient testimony to convict Webb as the matter stands, but it is at the same time proper, you should know, that this opinion was given by them, before they were informed of the fact that there is a merchant in Washington who describes a person whom he saw descending the Patent Office steps, very early on the morning of the robbery, exactly after the appearance of Webb. Finally, lit is necessary that you should also know, that there is great doubt whether the witness in Baltimore, who saw the robbers get out of the Washington train on the morning of the 8th Novr. and who subsequently spoke to Young on the subject will now stand by his words with his oath. His name is Ridgely and his [sic, he?] is one of the clique of rotten old police officers of that city. As soon as Young saw the allusion to Ridgely in the Police Gazette exposure, he went directly to Baltimore and for the last ten days has been drinking and playing cards (as I have heard) with Ridgely and others of that old adhesion.
These are the main points, for and against, which are to be taken into consideration previous to your making up your decision. Under the best view, there seems to be great doubt if we can convict Webb, though if the Washington witness should testify positively, it might, with a jury who knew this character, be enough. The case of Hand however is different. The testimony against him is positive. The letters to the President make him at the best accessory after the fact, and they are sworn to be his, by witnesses in Philadelphia who have seen him write. Upon these general circumstances, there have been held consultations between Mr. Shephard, the post master, myself and Justice McGrath. A.M.C. Smith, who are profoundly skilled in matters of police and they rather incline to the opinion that the return of the jewels by Webb will be in effect such a production of testimony on behalf of the Government as will bring him beneficially within the rule of which I spoke, and which will at the same time convict Tom Hand. If it turn out that the sword is broken, and the diamonds in the condition described by the first letter to the President, the conviction of Hand, whom we prove to be the writer of that letter, may be considered certain. On the other hand, Webb may walk away from us on a habeas corpus when he will, unless we are fortunate enough to secure the witness in Washington, and unless Webb prove to be the man whom he saw descending the Patent Office steps. But if this fail, and Ridgely of Baltimore fail too, Webb is free from danger at our hands. Indeed, it rather seems to me, that he has refrained to use his power of technical release, merely on the calculation that remaining long enough in prison for us to see the weakness of our legal hold, will enable him to rid himself of the jewels safely, and wash his hands of the business for good. You now have the whole case, and the points which I have defined, is left for yourself and the Secretary to decide. Mr. Shephard will expect from the Secretary a positive answer, yea or nea, whether he may get what he can from Webb before he leaves him; or to let him go and hope to catch him at more advantage in the future. I have just received your letter (as I write) and have to thank you for its guarantees and hope that I, and those who aid me, may be fortunate enough to deserve their entire measure. I have but to add that if you will send for Captain Goddard of your police, he will furnish you the name of the person who saw the man come down the steps of the Patent Office on the morning of the robbery, and if he can be so induced, he should by all means be sent here to take a look at Webb, with direction to be in Philadelphia on Monday morning next.
Respectfully your ob svt etc.
Geo. Wilkees
Hon. E. Burke,
Patent Office,
Washn
-----
Letter from Munn and Co to Edmund Burke
[very ornate letterhead with picture of home office, and various important inventions around it.]
Munn and Co. Publishers
Office of the Scientific American
New York July 2d, 1849
Hon Edmund Burke
Dear Sir
In the last number of the Union, we noticed that the National Whig published in your city, had charged you with partiality and corruption in your administration of the duties of Commissioner of Patents. During the past three years we have transacted a large amount of business with the Patent Office, and take pleasure in stating that so far as our knowledge extends, of the manner in which you discharged the responsible duties of Commissioner, we have never detected the slightest manifestation of partisanship, or an inclination to subserve the interest of your political friends. On the contrary we believe that you aimed solely to advance the interest of the inventor as well as all others having business connected with the Patent Office.
We do not presume that our testimony will add or detract from the general good opinion already entertained by the large body of inventors and patent agents throughout the country of your management of the Office.
Very Respectfully,
yr obt svts
Munn & Co.
P.S. We take no part in politics whatsoever, but dislike to see a faithful public officer abused, be he Whig or Democrat.
-----
Letter from Edmund Burke to Thomas Ewing
Patent Office
May 8, 1849
Sir:
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the letter of George Wilkes Esq. dated May 2d, claiming indemnity of the Government for the expenses incurred by him in consequence of his agency in arresting and convicting Jacob Schuster for theft of the Government jewels, together with your instructions endorsed thereon, directing me to "report what in my opinion should be done in the premises."
In complying with your instructions I have deemed it proper to submit to you a succinct statement of the most important events and circumstances following the robbery to the final conviction of Hunter, one of the robbers. As the circumstances connected immediately with the robbery were made public at the time, and are really of general notoriety, it will not be necessary to do more than to allude to them.
The Patent Office was robbed on the night of the 8th day of November 1848. It was entered in the afternoon by one of the robbers, who passed through the National Gallery (then open for visitors) into the attic story or rafter garret of the building where he concealed himself until night, when he came down, and in connection with his accomplices, effected the robbery, the particulars of which were stated in the public newspapers at the time of the commission of the crime.
The principle objects stolen were the diamond snuff box, the pearl necklace, a gold sword scabbard, the attar of roses, and several gold, silver, and copper medals, nearly all of which objects were presents of foreign potentates and governments to the Government of the United States, and amounting in value to several thousand dollars.
Deeming the honor of the Government of the United States involved in the preservation of the articles which had been thus bestowed upon it by the generosity of other nations, or in the prosecution to condejin[?] punishment of those persons who might be guilty, of despoiling the government of them, in consultation the next day with the Hon. James Buchanan, then Secretary of State and head of the department to which the Patent Office was then attached, and with his concurrence I concluded to offer and did offer the high reward of $1500, for the recovery of the articles stolen and the conviction of the thief or thieves, or for information which world lead to the discovery of the one and the conviction of the other.
Immediately after the perpetration of the robbery and I think within the space of one or two weeks from that time, Mr. Wilkes, Editor of the Police Gazette, published in the city of New York, announced with great positiveness in an editorial article published in his paper that the perpetrators of the robbery were two notorious thieves known as James Webb and Tom Hand, alias Jacob Schuster, giving at length his reasons for such a conclusion, and the motives which he supposed actuated the robbers in perpetrating the crime. And from that moment to this Mr. Wilkes has never ceased to charge it upon them.
But notwithstanding these positive assertions of Mr. Wilkes, I was without the knowledge of any proof tending to fix the crime upon the persons indicated by him, his opinion being originally founded upon his previous knowledge of the persons before mentioned and some slight circumstances which merely afforded color to the charges which he reuliced[?] to make against them.
There matters remained until about the 20th of December last, when Mr. Polk, then President of the U.S. received an anonymous letter, purporting to have been written by the person who committed the robbery of the Patent Office, in which he stated that he, the writer, was the robber and had the articles in his possession -- that his original purpose was to compromise with the Government for their return, but that his object had been ... frustrated by the Police Gazette which had destroyed[?] all compromise -- and he proposed to the President that if he would cause to be taken from the Gazette the advertisement of the deserters last published in it by the War Department, he would return the jewels and other articles stolen. That letter the President caused to be sent immediately to me, and I forthwith communicated it to Robert H. Morris, City Postmaster of New York, with instructions to consult with Mr. Wilkes and the police of that city, and to take such measures with a view to the discovery of the writer as they should consider best adapted to that end. I also obtained the consent of the Secretary of War for the transfer of the advertisement from the Police Gazette to another paper, which was accordingly done, and these were the conditions of the writer of the anonymous letter to President Polk, complied with.
From that time nothing of importance occurred until the month of February last, when another anonymous letter written in the same hand as the first, was addressed to the President, in which the writer expresses a fear that a ruse had been played upon him, and asks of the President that if the transfer of the advertisement had been made in good faith, he would cause the fact to be stated in the New York Herald. This letter was also sent to me, and by me forwarded to Gen Morris
In the meantime, a letter written by Jacob Shuster and known to be genuine, fell into our hands, and on a careful comparison of the handwriting with that of the anonymous letters to the President, the conviction was inevitable that Shuster was the writer of both, and consequently the robber or one of them according to his own acknowledgement. Some other slight circumstances had also come to light tending to strengthen this conclusion, and therefore, on the advice of Gen Morris, I gave instructions for the immediate arrest of Shuster.
But, before his arrest, Jim Webb, his supposed accomplice, was arrested by Office Bowyer of the New York police, it's said, on an old indictment pending against him in the county of New York. He was committed to the Tombs, and led to believe that he was arrested for the Patent Office robbery. There was, however, no proof against him. But, so strongly impressed was he that he was arrested for that crime, that he morufuled[?] a disposition to make letty[?] with the Government by giving such information concerning the robbery as would lead to the discovery and conviction of the other robbers and the recovery of the property stolen, provided he was himself unharmed. Regarding proof depending mainly upon the identity of handwriting as very uncertain, and believing that there was insufficient proof for the conviction of Shuster in the possession of the government, it was deemed advisable to give Webb the assurance that he should not be prosecuted by the government if he would give the information necessary for the discovery, arrest and conviction of the other parties concerned in the robbery and the recovery of the property. Upon this assurance he made a disclosure of the circumstances of the robbery, by which it appeared that he and Shuster were the perpetrators of the crime, but that it was originally suggested by Shuster. This disclosure was made in the city of New York, to the District Attorney, but was not reduced to writing. Webb was then sent on to this city, and on his arrival here, he declined giving any information concerning the robbery, alleging in excuse that he had not been treated by the agents of the government according to the agreement made with Morris[?] in the city of New York. He was however, persuaded to make a written disclosure and by the information thus obtained from him, the government was enabled to recover possession of the jewels and others probably stolen although in a mutilated state and to procure sufficient testimony to charge Shuster with the crime and finally to convict him of it.
It is proper to state that after the second disclosure of Webb made in this city as before stated, the jewels had not been recovered and were supposed to be then in the hands of a person in New York to whom they had been delivered by Shuster, but of this Mr. Webb was not certain. On the contrary, inasmuch as a week or more had elapsed between his own arrest and that of Shuster, he feared that the latter had taken the opportunity to obtain them from his depository, and secrete them beyond the reach of the Government. And, knowing that Shuster was one of the guilty persons and the principal instigator of the crime, and fearing that I might never be able to recover the jewels unless he could be persuaded to give them up, I accetgiced[?] a proposition be made to him to the effect that if he would plead guilty to the charge, and restore the jewels, I would use my efforts to have the term of his imprisonment reduced one year. This proposition he declined acceding to. Webb was then taken back to New York, and there made oath that the stolen goods were in the possession of the individual first named by him, upon which oath authority to search was procured, and the property fortunately found.
It is not deemed necessary to state particularly the circumstances of the two trials of Shuster, as they are matters of notoriety not only in this city, but throughout the country. It is sufficient to say that upon the last trial he was convicted of the offense with which he was charged.
In relation to Webb, it remains to be stated that, inasmuch as no proof whatever exists against him to my knowledge or that of the District Attorney, tending to convict him of the robbery, except the facts stated in his own disclosure made under such circumstances as would prevent its use against him in a court of justice, he was discharged from arrest.
Such, briefly, are the principal circumstances connected with the robbery, and the arrest and conviction of Jacob Shuster, one of the persons concerned in its perpetration.
It remains now for me to comply with your particular instructions, and also to state my opinion as to the person or persons entitled to the reward.
With regard to the special claim of Mr. Wilkes for compensation for monies expended in and about the arrest and conviction of Shuster, it is my opinion that he should have refunded to him all that he has justly and truly expended in his efforts to discover and bring to punishment the perpetrators of the robbery of the government property. I think it is just and equitable that the government should not only recompense Mr. Wilkes for the money he has expended, but that all others who have spent their time or money in this business should be fairly and just compensated. I think this course is required not only by the obligations of justice towards the individuals indicated, but also, by a due regard for the decency[?] and cupectastley[?] of the government which should owe nothing to its citizens in such matters. -- an opinion in which I have no doubt your own magnanimity and sense of justice will induce you at once to concur.
With regard to whom the reward is due, it appears that these are the parties claiming it, namely Mr. Wilkes in behalf of himself, Officer A.M.C.[?] Smith[?], and Justice McGrath of the one part, and Officer Bowyer of the other.
In support of the claim by Officer Bowyer nothing appears except the single fact his arrest of Webb. It does not appear that he had any proof in his possession tending to show the guilt of Webb, or his connection with the robbery, nor has he furnished to us, or to the District Attorney, of my knowledge, a particle of proof going to show the guilt of either Webb or Shuster. It appears only that he was the nunopment[?] of the arrest. But it is not to be denied that great benefit has resulted to the government by this arrest of Webb. It does not, therefore, appear that Mr. Bowyer has brought his claim within the conditions of the reward.
On the part of Mr. Wilkes and other claiming with him, it appears that he was the first to charge the robbery on Webb and Shuster, that his assent to the arrangement by which the deserter's advertisement was transferred from his paper to another, was essential to the discovery of Schuster's connection with the robbery, that he also charged the securing of the stolen goods upon the person in whose possession they were afterwards found. In short, I am fully of the opinion that, without the active, willing[?] and vigilant assistance and cooperation of Mr. Wilkes, and the persons acting with him, the robbers would never have been discovered, nor the property recovered. And, in this opinion, Gen. Morris concurs, as you will see by a copy of his letter addressed to me which is hereto attached.
Besides, in proving the robbers who are among the most daring and distinale[?] well as most accomplished in the country, Mr. Wilkes ran great risk of pecuniary loss and personal peril. I believe I do him no more than justice to say that few men would have engaged in a business of this kind, and pursued it with more ardor, perseverance, and intrepid activity from the beginning to the end, than he has done. I feel under great obligation to him for his very efficient services in the matter, and trust that you will concur with me in the opinion that he is entitled not only to his special claim, but also to the reward which should be paid to him on condition that he say pay equitable proportions of it to those who have counselled with and assisted him and the government in discovering the robbers and bringing one of them to punishment.
I have the honor to be
very respectfully,
your obedient
[Edmund Burke]
To the Hon. Thomas Ewing
Secretary of the Interior
Washington, D.C.
Go to top page of Patent Office history material
.