St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-11-24
to Mr.. Tanners story, still another on the
Carrie Moore snIaan and lastly ON Annia


fectly willing that you should consider them
all as one general charge and that you shall
not even give me the benefit of reasonable
doubt" the avenue of escape of so many
wrong-doers. For the sake of convenience,
and to prevent the constant repetition OF the
personal pronoun, / shall speak largely
I'm the third person. First in order
comes the testimony of Mrs. George X.
Tanner. so-called. in reference to the alleged
payment Of $40 to Stevens, in four INSTALL
ments Of SIS each, the first payment being
voluntary gift for supposed service ABOUT
Christmas last and the others at long inter-
walls, for ''makingit all right with the mayor;
that there were on none of these occasions
any prostitutes in her house, but that Stevens
made her believe 1t was
"a Low, MISERABLE PLACE."
that she ''never rented a room to q prosti-
tute, but paid the money because she was
assured that mo matter how corrupt her
household was, if the money came up it
would be covered" and that to cover up this
condition of things for months she paid
Stevens the munificent sum of SIS in all.
Mrs. Tanner is reinforced only by the tes-
timony of her alleged son-in-law, James T..
Slorah, who testified first that ON one occa-
sion he saw Mrs. Tanner give Stevens a SIS
gold piece; afterward that he asked Mrs.
Tanner what she gave Stevens; and after
swearing to large number of alleged facts,
what Tanner or Mrs Tanner told him. mas
much as he also swore that he had resided
there for two or three years since the fall
of 1884, that during that time the character
of the house had been first-rate, and the
only woman there q sick one, supplementing
it with the statement that q certain Jennie
had occupied a room ESQ he had heard, but
couldn't tell who told him) with Stevens,
but was respectable before and after the oc-
currence; that his (Slorah's) wife, Maggie,
was constantly insulted by Stevens without
complaint; that at no time were there any
prostitutes in the house, which statement
he said was as true as any he had made. /
think no time need be wasted upon him.
MR.. TANNER SAYS HE KNOWS
of no moneys ever paid Stevens; that he
never had any transaction with him, and
knows nothing to support his mass of So
called damaging testimony save what his wife
told him-eXcepting only that on one oc-
casion he promised Stevens a Christmas
present, namely an umbrella stand which
Stevens admired-if Stevens would give him
his address, but, unfortunately, Stevens
didn't give it and the matter was dropped.
He further swears that he was at all times
ignorant of the character of women in his
house.
Such is the testimony in the first case in
which Stevens is called upon to defend HIM
self, How does he do it? To prevent repeti-
cred when the next case is reached-when it
will be seen how etfectually each and all of
these witnesses, whose testimony is so much
built upon hearsay, upon what they have told
one another. as to be almost inseparable,
have been impeached not only by themselves
but by crowd of reputable witnesses and a
few of their genial companions. For the
present, then, let it be stated that Mrs. Tan
ners statements are squarely and explicitly
denied by Stevens, who has not been i'm
peached or in any matter told double
story; and that the reputation of the house
and its inmates, concerning which the Tan
ners and Slorah stated that their statements
were as true as any other, was so well estab-
hshed as to force an acknowledgment even
from Aid. Sly. Except as stated, then, let
this case rest upon
THE STORY OF BRoTHEL-KEEPER
on the one hand and of the police
clerk on the other-the one incensed because
her "business" had been broken up and the
other doing the duty the mayor required him
to do. Next comes George r. Tanners story
of the alleged payment by him of 500 to
Capt. Chase for police protection. 1t might
be deemed improper for me to review all the
evidence relative thereto-even though it be
as contradictory as that reviewed-and in the
main l shall couf1ne myself to the portions
evidently intended to implicate Stevens. At
the outset. however, let it be clearly under
stood that all the evidence shows that while
Detective Duffy of Chicago was an old-timer,
boarded at the Tanners when they kept
house" in Chicago, and stopped with them for
the few days (perhaps nearly week. he was
here in August, 1885. Quinlan had but little ac-
quaintance with him-irregular intercourse
during that week-Stevens a mere passing
acquaintance, growing out of an Office intro
duction. and Chase the bare knowledge that
he was Duffy, and then ask yourselves
whether or not the probabilities were in favor
of Quinlan, Chase and Stevens taking this
stranger into their confidence, especially
after Tanner had already preached the matter
to Quinlan, and more especially if Stevens
had previously been bribed on three separate
occasions? Gentlemen, the story is too gauzy
on its facet is too thin and wont wash.
Let us see:
GEORGE R. TANNER
swears that he never had any transaction with
Stevens and never knew of any; that the first
he knew of the 500 matter was when Duffy
limited to him that it was necessary to pay
something for protection just before going to
Chicago; that on the night Duffy and Stevens
went to Chicago he went down to see Quinlan,
having received an address and a request to
call; that thereupon Quinlan told him, s'Mr.
Stevens told me to call On you in regard to a
little matter and to "cOme down and see the
captain;" that the two drove up and saw the
captain, when the $40 transaction occurred;
that he knows nothing of any connection of
Stevens with the matter, except by hearsay;
that he has since admitted that he never paid
Stevens dollar.
So much for George R. Tanners testimony
Does he contradict himself or pave the way
for impeachment? Listen: I never knew
prostitute to be in my house; know Birdie
Smith, but never took drunken man to her
room and suggested that she rob him and go
halves; / don't know E. L. Moynix of St.
Panl; know nothing about the box of cigars,
lo++
never told any one Stevens had received no
money-only that never paid him: the state
ments as to the character of my house and
Birdie Smith are as true as any have made;
James Slorah came as far as the city hall :,
and fought all the way about giving up this
money.
+ LET Us CONFRONT HIM
with few Witnesses will not take too
much of your time: The general reputation
of the house is shown by Wing, Clayton,
Gluck, Ray and others to be that of house
of ill-fame, but Tanner knew it not; Ander-
son swears not only to personal knowledge
but to Tanner and Slorah both Boosting to
him that they were not married; Birdie Smith
acknowledges practicing her calling at Tan
ners with their knowledge and consent and
tells you how Tanner brought drunken man
to her room to be robbed and not one of you
questioned it; Molynix came voluntarily and
unsolicited before the mayor and told how he
had been entrapped by Tanner into writing
that letter, and produced Tanners letter ask
ing him to send the cigars for the purpose,
as he afterwards learned, of placing Chase
in false position; W. A. Tanner, to whom
G.. R. Tanner went for advice. swears that G.
r. Tanner came to him and voluntarily stated
that neither Stevens nor Chase has ever had
cent from his house for protection; William
Gleason says the same thing; Slorah forgets
to tell the story about the visit to the city
hall, hacanSe he wasn't there. and finally
Schmedeman and Anderson swear that after
Tanner had given his testimony he claimed
to have made a bargain with another as to a
portion of the same and to have kept his
word. What that bargain was is wholly
matter of conjecture.
WHAT DOES MRS. TANNER KNOW
of the transaction? She swears that Duffy