The National tribune., 1882-06-03
THE CHRISTIANCY SCANDAL,
The ex-senator Tells the Story of His Yonng Wife,
MaHMardnsss.

THE CHRISTIANCY SCANDAL,
The ex-senator Tells the Story of His Yonng Wifcs
WayUardness.
Public interest in the Christiancy scandal
case has been revived from the fact that the
testimony Of the ex-senator is now being taken
in the famous divorce suit. Nothing could
illustrate more forcibly than the developments
III this extraordinary scandal the certain evlIre'
suits that must enSue from ill-assorted matches,
and certainly no more iIl-starred union could
be imagined than the marriage of a young and
pretty Government clerk with United States
Senator, her superior socially, and old enough
to have been her grandfather In connection
with the taking of ex-senator Christiancys
testimony, several important letters have been
put in evidence, which, it is thought, will have
weight in the decision of the case. Among
them is long letter written by Mr.. ChristiaRcy
on the 18th Of August, 1875 to his wifc's father,
John ". Lugenbeel, with regard to-Alrs. Chris
tisncy's alleged bad conduct. 1t begins with
reference to the correspondence between the
writer and Miss Lugenbeel before their mar
| riage-a correspondence in which Mr.. Chris
tiancy says he endeavored carefully and scru-
/ pulously TO convince her that she ought not to
marry him, and in which he insisted many
times that she should reconsider the matter.
He urged particularly, he says his own unfit
ness on account of age, and said to her that he
had comparatively short time to live, while
she at his death would be young. He admitted
that he loved her, and said that if after full
and Insture consideration she still wished to
marry him, he would consent. He supposed
and believed, he says that she would see the
uusuittblity OF the match and abandon all
thought Of It, but when, after all his expostu
Iations, she declared that she still wished him
to make her his wife he had, as gentleman,
only one course to take.
The marriage took place, and if the love
which she profe~scd for him had really existed
nothing, he s,could have made him happier.
On the morning Of the wedding however, she
heard of the return of James Lugcnbccl, and
tainted upon receiving the news When they
reached Philadelphia, and were alone, she told
him that she had been engaged to Mr. Lugen-
bcel; that the engagement had been broken
off, and that she did not know how deeply she
loved him until his name was mentioned. She
said she had perjured hersclfin her marriage
vows; that she was miserable, and that she
wanted a divorce forthwith. When they re-
turned to this city all went well until she met
Mr. Lugenbeel in the Art Gallery, and from
that time she seemed detected and desperate
and again asked for divorce. Soon after this
Mr. Frank Anderson became attentive to her,
and her affections seemed to attach themselves
alternately to him and to Mr. Lugenbcel, and
again came the frenzy FOR divorce. Finally she
t, .1c
her husband
After she returned home in August, 1876, her
love for Anderson broke out atresh, and her
hatred for her husband increased. She also
had fondness for Mr. Samuel Register, of Bal
timore, Md, and for a Mr. Mayer.
Mr. Christiancy then refers to the fact that
his wife went to the healing springs in prefer
ence to going to Saratoga or Kansas with him,
and says that he felt suspicious that she had
gone to the springs with some old lover. When
she wrote to him she taunted him with being
old: did not pretend TO love him. said She
would not live with him again; that she would
spend all the money she pleased thst she would
run him in debt and that she wanted a divorce.
The husband replied that he would not quar-
rel with her, nor would he be ruined in the
her at home, treat her kindly, and provide for
her in proportion TO his means, but from that
time forward he would make no apology for
any conduct of his.
In referring again to Frank Anderson, Mr..
Christiancy says that he has received letter
of caution from Mobile, Mr. Andcr,on's resi-
dence, and that reports are already in circu:
Iation with regard to the intrigue between the
latter and Mrs. Christiancy. He closes his
letter by appealing 30 Mr. Lugcnbeel to interest
himself in his daughters welfare, to check her
downward course and to save her from running
her reputation.
The letter of caution referred to by Mr..
Cbrisfiancy in his letter to Mr.. Lugenbecl is
dated Mobile, April 20, 1873, and signed Mollic
+. Lyons. It states in substance that man in
Mobile named f. Y. Anderson, had told the
writer that he had been criminally intimate
with Mrs Christiancy before her marriage; that
he was still in correspondence with her, and
that ne could, through her, control the vote Of
her husband in the Senate in the contest then
p.nding with regard to the United States mar
thal in Alabama
In his testimony Mr.. Christiancy said that
he showed this letter to his wife, and furnished
her with q copy to send to Mr. Anderson for
explanation that the latter denied the truth
of the statements. and said that the letter was
political trick. With this denial he tMr.
| Chri.tiancyy was forced to be content but he
was not satisfied. Subsequently he opened ac-
cidentslly a letter addressed to his wife by her
confidential friend Miss Lille McIoy, and
found in it another letter in the handwriting
of Mr. +. Y. Anderson, addressed to Mrs X.
X Wharton and signed Mamie" The let
ter was unimportant, but began my Darling
Chit" and closed with an assurance that he
would write again upon reaching Mobile.