, 1865-08-11
THE MARY HARRIS CASE,
statement by Rev. DR.. Burroughs,

HaI!1s md her relations TO my lamented
brother, probably renders 1t proper that !
knowledge, not so much for the public, Is
for the readers Of this pape', to whom may
speak as to friends, OF whose kindness and
sympathy IN the painful duty that has fallen
to my lot In connection With the case have
had many assurances, md whose candid and
unprejudiced Judgment know can rely on.
Not that ] find fault with the Judgment
| which the public has passed. Oa the con
tra1y, ! hare been impressed with the cor
rect moral dfscetnment and the high sense
Of Justice which that Judgment cyinccs. The
press Of every portion of:tlc country has
shown o remarkably correct estimate Of the
case, especially In rieE Of the meagreness Of
known lacts and the distortions to which tho
little that Is known has been subjected by
! tie lawyers for the defense. The Chicago
TRIBUNE, In Particular, through tbs intellI-
gent letters Of its Washins Oh correspond
ent. and In its editorial articles, gayc 50 cor
rect an account Of facts and 80 just II judy
little 10 add to what Ia there contained.
Was there ever al engagement Of marriage
between my brother and Mary HarFfss On
this subject ! ktow little which 10 not Eal-
retdy known 10 all Who hare read tbs pro
ceedings Of the trial. Since 1861, l have
had sscn him once or twice III her company.
had oss{bly been introduced to her by him,
and had heard him occasionally alluae 10 her.
always In terms Of kindness; this WAS ALL
Though for more than two years from Feb.
1uary, 1861, he was mtmber OF my fanily,
md She living much Of that time in Chicago,
had not the slightest intin2atlon or suspI.
cion OF any special intimacy between them,
any thing more than friendly acquaintance.
The same was true Of every member of my
family, 80 that as the time of the murder not
one of rs could remember her name, nor for
nf1A IIr $T,o ,f-k~
In the dispatches With the parson va had
seen In hts ccmpany. Even to thosn with
whom be Was most intlmate-au1 there we're
two, IN particular, q sister and a male friend
With whom he Was On terms OF most unre-
strained confidence, and to whom he freely
communicated everything pertaining to hts
relations to ladies,- even to them te had al
ludcd to MaTy Harris only as q friend whom
he might hare had more Intimate relations
with, but. who as things we're, Fas out Of the
question.
To the same effect also is the fact that, to
his wife before their engagement, and after
Their marriage, he always spoke In the most
unIc9t1ained way Of Mary Harris, bis init.
macy with her, their correspondenco-de-
sc1ibipg the playful extravaganza of the lat
ter, 60 that on Its publication, bis wife de-
elares that there was nothing 10 1t which she
spoke Of her In the came way, as one for
whom he entertained q friendship and might
have mas11sd, but only on conditions which
were never realized. 4 ronth be;ora his
marriage he spent week in Chicago, and one
be had inst beea 70 cs11 ' on :" Mollie Has1it,'
had infollued her OF his INTENDED marriage,
and she bad told him that she was engaged
70 NJ. Deyltn Of Baltimore. During The
following winter be received, in Washinstou,
SnlcsGo paper. containing notice Of tho
Chlcago with hia wife in septembe- follow.
tDg, be proposed and 1t VAS arranged that
they should call on Mary on their way home
through Baltimore. They we're oply prc-
yentxd from the attempt to do 90 By an accI-
The presumption arising from these tacts
eeems TO me clear, that there vas no engage
ment Of marriage, and that he was Ienorant
o. any such claim By her, and supposed. up'
70 The very moment that he died by heF
haEd, that unbroken friendship existed be-.
lEeen Il en-. 1t ahould be remembered that
ne suit for breach of promise, or the fin
Of that sort, he never beard anr iat!matInn
q, nor had any Of his friends I'LL tidice bis
=. 1n his letters, then, II anywhere, exists the
evidence to contradict thas presumption, aud
% establish M engagement Of marriage. Do
they furnish such evidence? On thls point
several things should be remembered.
L IL IS not Known. and probably never VIII
be to any but MIss Harris and her laYyera.
Nhat1he letters would establish. Onlye porf
OF the tundle shown with flourish to the
u 1nFy. ana she large n1mber Of which vas made
not The whole? Why, when the residing Of
the Whole was demanded, did Mr.. Braaley
answer, :" Mol these letters are
ours, and you can't come into our camp and
appropriate our material" Why, but because |
Mr. BIadley knew that in. these letters Of the |
aead msn, Inc only lips that could speak,
]yy6$ 81
c11nmoy which he was determined to fasten
On bis memory?
2 The few which were read we're nutiIated
[n almost every way In which It is possible.
10 mutalate manuscript. They were In no |
legal or Just sense the letters Of Judson Bur
Eougha TO May Harris. They were mutilated
scraps, rent from their conneHfon, some hay-
Ing neither beginning nor end others blot
ted with cIatureB, and others With hnlfa line
,r SO cut ont, leaving sentence uufir4shed.
And IN this condition those letters were ad-
nitted as evidence in that cou-ti Is It ne
:cssary to ask Th9?. showed these letters
Thile they wore in court to eminent lawyers
1ay;ng no connexton with the trial. Their
opinion vas unanimous; the bare TACT Of
uch mutilstlon WAS alone enough to damn
my Cause based upon 1t, and any court which
Tou1d permit such an outrage Of the plaintst
,Iinclple Of Justice and tho p!alnest Law Of
8. IN the letters thus copiured into tba
'est possible shape into which the wits nf
mining lawyers could conjQre them to suit
heir purposes, there Is not single rccorni-
Ion Of marriage engagement, nothing, as
n eminent lawyer said to me-w which Of IT,
ELI, ctuld sustain an action for BREACH Of
,1omiee.
!. But this Is nore than all beside and
blink is alone enough 10 settle forever The
question Of breach Of promise, among the
ltte1s is one dated January 10th. 1862. nesrlv
no years btforc his marriage, Terminating as
definitely as language could the Intimacy
Thatever 1t was which existed between them.
u ming her Of the return, at her request, Of
etu1n bis Or bum them, at her option. and
Q postEcsl sorrow at the conclusion, Afier.
his there are q few. psrhaps half q dozen |
otes. hut not syllable looking tpfor ciyinr
r1dence Of the renewal Of their relations.
nd ret we are asked to believe that be con-
nued correspondence with her until within
month of bis marriage, and then, without
oman. The letter written month before
Is marriage, By the way, was note Of four
nes, asking ler the nunber Of her residence, II
lat be might call upon her as be did on. /
'e occasion above alluded to, nothing
What is The truth in relation to this whole
after, as nearly as from the: letters or any i
Their sourceI can make 1t out Is this: In TT
le years 1850 and 1861, the interest which
5 brother had at first felt in Mary Harris as
beautiful but friendless child, ripened into (
nethfng Ike lovers attachment; and at | t
ut lime be entertained thoughts OF mar {
age with her, IN Intention indeed to marry {
+ II certain distinctions, his own poverty, O
e opposition Of her parents, and probably 9
+ own Catholic plejndices could be over 7
me. Those distractions he is careful IN I
most every letter to keep her admonished /
, and Invariably implies thst there is no !
rtainty, Indeed, little probability that their j
as1iage would ever be poeslb1e.t In 1881 he !
eets her for the first time in three years, g
ID then 1t very soon become settled between {
EN- that their Intimacy Is to proceed no. {
rther, ard It Is te.minstcd in the way above D
fclibed; Now, tnst heie Is the head and t
mt Of bis offending; all that, With the ,
,ht that have, l can charge as wrong Q
me1y. that while his intention to marry c
a1y Harris was contingent, not settled he.