The New York herald., 1873-10-26
THE KELSEY VERDICT.
All Of the Parties Implicated Held Responsible
rs Giving Countenance to the Outrage
What May Yet Be Done by Way Of
Investigation by the Grand
Jury Of Suffolk County.


| public will be somewhat astonished to learn that
| the Kelsey inquest was not permitted to extend
| into eternity and that to-day, at Oyster Bay,
| verdict has been rendered Affirming that the
| human remains about which so much has been
said and written are the remains Of Charles G.
| Kelsey, and duplicating participants ana abet-
tors OF the crime of killing him nearly all the per-
sons who had been prominently mentioned In
connection with the famous and feather outrage
| and tragedy or last November.
| The jury were about ten hours actually In de-
Lucrative session-about six and half hours last
| night and three and half hours to-day. They
were allowed to separate at two o'clock this morn
ing by the Coroner as there seemed to be no rea-
sonabe hope that by sitting up all night they
would be able to render q unanimous verdict, and
this was just what the Coroner and counsel and
the whole anti-tar party desired especially II each
juror had brought in o separate verdict, as they
had the right to do or even II one half OF them
varied from the findings OF the other half there
would have been vast amount OF dissatisfaction
manifested both In Huntington and Oyster Bay.
In Oyster Bay as almost all the whole
county, there is but one sentiment and that Ii
ant-tar. Half OF those who 30 believe will not be
convinced but that DR.. Banks, Royal Sammis and
others took part in the
WORST THAT WAS DONE TO KELSEY.
That, however. Is absurd to assume. In Hunt
uOWcVoTp bueTc ~ u CidSS WHICH BCdluS III
defence OF the tar party and which, outside Of this
quarrel is socially second to no other part OF the
community. outside Of this latter comparatively
limited class, again, the verdict derived was
sweeping one, and most people feared that there
would be such difference Of opinion among the
twelve jurors on the question OF the relative re-
sp0nsibiity OF the various individuals involved
that united verdict would not be likely result.
And just upon this question, I understand from
several of the jurors, there was long discussion
and much compromise before an agreement looked
at all probable.
In order to reach it they had to weigh carefully
the relative share Of participation, active or
passive, Of each person shown to have been en-
gagged in
THE CONSPIRACY AND FINAL OUTRAGE
The testimony OF Streeter the young man who
testified yesterday In reference to the long CONVEX
sation he overheard in railway car, was not
seriously considered by the jury, and they gen.
orally believe that, under the circumstances he
was mistaken in what he supposed he heard, and
got the actual statements OF the parties conver-
sation muddled
wheelen, the man to whom he credits the asser-
tions, is q well known anti-tar man, just such
man, too, as would take hand in iavor OF the
weak side wherever he might see several men as
sault one. BY dint OF argument and concession,
however, the jurors reached verdict which, while
it unquestionably includes some persons who are
not legally guilty OF any offence is, on the whole,
one that will meet with general public approval
OF course none of them are as yet proved guilty.
and with the evidence now at hand, 1t is doubtful
whether any Of them could be convicted. This is
speaking in full view OF the facts far as proved,
and making no allowance for what the accused
parties may be able to bring forward in their own
defence. A large proportion OF the testimony
taken at the inquest would be utterly incompetent
before Court having jurisdiction Of the case for
trial. And while some Of this has had an effect In
colorng the crude case before Coroner Baylls and
will never again become matter OF official record,
it is only just to say, too that even here be-
leves that admitting the crime to be murder, 1t
was done wfully, or that any Of the parties named
In the verdict took any part physically in the In
Fiction Of the injuries which produced death
The verdict as rendered is generally admitted to
be, under the circumstances, as severe as the jury
could be justified In finding. OF course there are
some rabd people who do not think it is pointed
enough and these, II they could do so would doubt
less have the Coroner's jury render q verdict OF
conviction absolute against all hands.
THE TEXT OF THE FINDING
is as follows:-
An inqusition taken before Valentine Baylis, one
OF the Coroners of Queens county, state OF New
York, and a jury of twelve men, duly summoned
and sworn, held at the house Of A. A. Reed. In the
village OF oyster Bay, on the remains found float
ing in the harbor OF Oyster Bay, Queens county,
state OF New York, on the 2sth day OF August.
q the town Of Huntington, surolk county,
that that place on the night Of November i, 1872 And
the Jury further hnd that the said Charles G.
ment received at the hands Of certain persons
to the jury unknown In said town Of Huntington,
nnd that Royal sammis, George B. Banks, Arthur
7. Hurd William J. Wood, John Mckay and Henry
their presence the commlttal Of the gross outrage
and
NHuMAN VIOLENCE
upon the person OF the said Charles G. Kelsey which
lea to his death on the night OF November4 A. 1872;
and that Arthur III. Prime Claudius b. Prime, 8.
H. Burgess, Rudolph Sanmis and James Mckay
were accessories before the Mcs-yaentne Baylis
Cor0ner James M. Burtis foren1anj Samuel 8.
Summers, John Wilson Smith, Alexander Fleming,
James Starkins James Satterlee Clark, John II.
Vail, Joseph b. Wright, Edward Long, Joseph Lud-'
lam, Daniel N. Cashow, John Wood.
The next inquiry by almost every one after the
rendering Of the verdict was, "Well, what are
they going to do next9" and thisI have been trying
to find out. The finding OF the Coroner's jury SIM
ply warrants the taking OF such further action by
the attorney, as would be taken by justice OF the
peace after an examination--namey, the commit
tai OF the accused parties to await the action OF
the Grand Jury. But the Coroner is an official
OF Queens county. The outrage was COM
mtted In Suffolk county, where the subject
as wen as all the parties involved, reside. The ac-
cident that the remains were found floating In the
limits OF Queens county, may bring up curious
question OF Jurisdiction. Therefore the Coroner
inclines to the opinion that he may issue his war
rant OF commlttal to await the action OF the Suf
folk County Grand Jury; but he is not yet def
nitey informed as to the correct Interpretation OF
the law. Justice Monfort and Mr.. Platt, counsel
for the people OF Suffolk county, are OF the belief
that Justice Monfort may nc once issue warrants
for the arrest OF the parties, based on the Official
record OF the COroner's court =.
TIE SUFFOLK COUNTY GRAND JURY /"
meets on Monday, and II Is Just possible tnat they
NAV find indictments upon presentation by the
District Attorney and thus cut the jurisdctional