The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1870-02-12
SChOeDDe Case.


The case OF DR. Schoppe is one that has created
much excitement throughout the country
Governor Geary having refused new trial. the
matter Is now before the Supreme Court of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and would
have been disposed Of ere this, but delay was
granted in order TO allow the Governor to place
his signature to bill passed by the Legislature
charging the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
so as to allow them in such cases to consider and
review the evidence in the case, as we'll as the
law.
Various efforts have been made by influential
parties to secure new trial, but hitherto thew
have failed in their purpose. 1t appears that the
sensation gotten up to prove that be is not the
identical Berlin criminal, has signally failed of
its purpose. The Baltimore Wecker of the 9TH inst.
says:
But isympathy with Schoeppe, individually,
there can be none any more thought of, as, from
| the following communications, there is scarcelv
| any doubt that he is the Berlin criminal-and
| what criminal
| In spite of all his cunning, Schoeppe has made
during the last few weeks, some great fau9-pas
in the identity question. He makes Mr.. Boetticher
swear that he visited the gymnasium in Zuliichau
| The Berlin trial ELECTS that the Berlin criminal
| Schnppe has visited the same college. True
| Betticher says the Carlisle Scheppe was still
pursuing his studies in Zullichau when the trial
| in Berlin took place but minister in Illinois
| says Paul SchGppe left the gymnasium at
| Zullichau in 1860, and so says the Berlin trial
| Now is it all possible that two Paul Scheppes
both sons of ministers, visited the gymnasium in
Zullichau But the Carlisle Scheppe makes, by
his now contradicted Schoefe story and by his
total silence about his former life, this SUPPOSE
ton nearly impossible Being brought into
corner by his own contradictions he has the i'm
| pudence TO declare, in a letter to the Illinois
| Stats Zeitung that il was none of the business
| of the public what his personal antecedents had
bcen-it was sufficient for him to say that he was
not the Berlin Scheppe He wants the sympatlies
| of his countrymen in America, but he tells them
| ''they have no business to know who he is"
| But even the Berlin statement is very nearly
! that of his father and his. A very remote posi-
biity that the Carlisle Sch@ppe is not the Berlin
SchGppe would underlie the superstition that
his real name is not Paul SchGppe, but Fritz
| SchGppc he being the younger brother But
| then it is nearly impossible TO think that one
whose record is clear should assume the name of
a convicted brother
Pastor Schmidt too, heaps by his many wri-
| tings only more suspicion on the Carlisle Sch9ppe
| SO TAR aS DlS Identity Is concerned. fOf ne
contradics himself continually, and cannot say
| in what place his client is born although he
makes him appear to have been born in the
Kingdom of Hanover
If the Carlisle Scheppe is the Berlin SchGppe,
so is due to him the name of a very cunning and
| a very bold thief and liar. Only see from the
following accounts of the Berlin trial his attempts
| to throw on the wife of his benefactor Count
Blankensee, the suspicion of adultery with him,
and to make her appear to be his accomplish in
theft and further, to intimidate the Count
himself and extort money from him--atempts
which the scoundrel himself was compelled TO
admit to be outrageous falsehoods.
| But, of course, the identity of the Carlisle
Scheppe with the Berlin Scheppe is no proof at
all that he murdered Miss Steinnecke, as the
| highest authorities think it much more probable
that she died natural DEATH
The Berlin Sch@ppe was convicted of forgery
under aggravating circumstances.
After reviewing the whole statement of the
facts for and against him, the New Yorker De-
mocrat, the most careful of German paper says :
sour own opinion of this case has been from
the first that young man, but rs years Of age,
who engages himself to old person of 65, and
secures his Appointment as sole heir, cannot be
tonished when the public suspects criminal in
tentons and even If the facts in the case not
clearly elucdated, a conviction on the suspicion
may be justfable.'