The New York herald., 1874-08-07
THE KIDNAPPING MYSTERY,
Nothing New Developed in the Cass-Thl
Theories Regarding the Character Of
( the Thisves-What Was the
Motive Of the Crime!
PHILADELPHIA. August 8, 1870

PHILADELPHIA. August 9, 1915
think that am to-day nearer the cew to the
mysterious causes which brought about the
abduction or Charley Ross than have been 81
any moment since took the case In hand. Aftef
many days OF studious and earnest investigation
am convinced OF the following points,
=, FrS-The child was not abducted by pr0fes-
Sscond-He was not carried on with the view os
securing u ransom,
Ihese are two very essential facts and had tho
ponce appreciated them as they should have done
at 'he ootsetlt would not have been necessary
Tor o. HERALD correspondent to make them
thus public tor the hrst time. After the STATE
ment Of the two plain propositions above, the
first question that naturally suggests itself in
How DO yon know that the little one was not ab
Quoted by professionally My answer Ia az fol.
lows:-Had the child been stolen by this class Of
people the only object the thieves would have bad
in view would have been to secure money; to ful
NJ this purpose they would have made their over.
lures to the parents in the most direct BUSINESS
manner imaginable; they would simply have
stated the conditions OF the negotiation aud
nothing else, whereas the parties who actually
made away with the infant have written long and
vltuperative letters to the parent
ABUSING THE MOTHER
to such shameful extent that the father
is unwilling that the abuse should appear
in PRINT. To my mind this fact c0nclu-
sively proves that the parties who stole the
child have a personal enmlty toward Mrs. Ross,
and that they effected their dlabOlical purpose
solely TO crafty personal revenge against her.
The professional thief never wastes his time In
abusing those he has wronged. He deliberately
lays his plans effects his purpose and alterward
calmly prescribes the conditions OF a compromise.
In the case OF the Ross abduction the circum-
stances are Numerically opposite and indicats
that the inhumau act was committed by an en-
tirely different class oil people,
WAS AvARlCE THE MOTIvE9
Again, in respect to my second proposition. tho
question arises How do you know that the child
was not stolen Tor q ransom My answer to this
question Is that mad any gang OF thieves set out
with the determination to steal child for the pur-
pose OF securing large reward they would have
been particularly careful to have carried or tho
son or daughter oi man whom they knew to bs
worth large sum OF Honey, aud not, as in tho
present instance the infant OF an unfortunate
themselves that the danger they incurred would
be ully recompenBed b. an extraordinary reward: !:
while III the case under comment 1t was evident to
those who carried or Charley Ross that his iather
stated the kidnappers have demanded. OF him.
Again, had the boy been stolen for money and for
nothing ese-that Is, had the thieves been in
nuenced solely by desire for greed-s 1t not prob.
offered by the Mayor precluded the pOssi.
buity of the kdnappers receiving o cent.
they would have reliuquished the child.
and that long before this 1t would have been
Most certainly But, contrary to this, the Child Ia
still held under the same mysterious infiuenOea
that took 1t from its father's house.
THE LAST HOPE or THE KIDNAPPERS
receiving any ransom has wholly and absolutely dis,
appeared. yet they conceal the infant, and remain
reticent concerning their motives, while the poo
pie, ignorant OF the subtle agencies which have
to hs s1o
of the mystery, and, as matter OF course grOp0
hopelessly In the dark.