New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-08-10
SELECTIONS FROM THE MAIL
THE QUESTION OF LOUIS XVII
,cTs HEARING on. THE STORY OF ELEAzER
WILLIAMS.

WILLIAMS
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir. Since the publication OF my book. The Story
Of Louis XVII Of France (Swan Sonnenscheh
Lendon: Macmillan. New-Yor0. there has been
among the French people a great revival OF inter-
eat I'm the question OF the Dauphins fate
The suspicion that the Dauphin did not die In the
Temple has received new force through the general
discussion Of the subject. and the demand Tor salts
factory information has at last been definitely ana
dennltlvely answered in the result OF the recent
Investigations In Paris.
Early IN Tnne OF the present year the Project OF
Police authorized the exhumation Of the body buried
in the cemetery OF Ste. Marguerite In l''' as 'he
deceased Dauphr. and which had already been
taken w in 1916 10y official order and examined by
two physicians appointed To the TASK Inc Se'o''
elimination was conducted under due authority
and tho examination OF the skeleton was made by
four OF the principal physicians OF Paris TWO OF
whom are especially celebrated as anatomlsts
In their report. which unanimous. they de-
clarei that the skeleton was that OF person Ure-
sumebly n male) who must have been sixteen years
old at least and consequently could not have been
tho Dauphin who was only ten years and two
months old at the date OF his supposed decease Inc
sex OF the unknown could not be demonstrated Win
absolute scientific accuracy. because OF the decay
~ certain bones: but the body certainly the
same which had always been supposed TO DE that OF
the Dauphin therefore that part of the question is
now settled
Thus far in America. tho reviewers OF my DOCK
seem disposed to regard the story as hctoh ana
Eieazer Williams az an impostor
.'rhe Atlantic" while admitting that the nissloh-
airy is the only OF the pseudo-Dauphns ior
whom n special plea having n sembance OF plausi-
hutv can be made" Ignores the whole matter. on
the ground OF belief that the Dauphin died IN the
Temple.
THE Nation rests its argument upon charges
against the moral character OF Eleazer Williams.
as does also n later communication from aho'her
source I'm the same paper.
Rut such contributions az these are not an answer
10 the question. 1t has been satisfactorily proved
thar the coffin marked 81" XVII In the cemetery
OF Saintc Marguerite does not contain the remains
of the pauphin and amount Of moral obliquity
IN the character OF Eleazer Williams can be con-
si,lered in itself negation Of his claim TO bourpoh
ancestry ANY we'll founded accusation against hls
character although 1T would not affect the question
Of IDENTITY would naturally and Justly weaken De-
uof I'm the truth OF his statements. ana strengthen
the suspicion OF imposture with regard to his claim
IN b. the Dauphln, If that claim had rested entire'
IL upou his own assertion But 1t must be remem-
bered that he did start that story himself
Tho first direct mention OF Eleazer Williams as
Identical with the Dauphm was made oy Mr'
Thomas Kimball. Of Baton Rouge. Louisiana, In
ts.s in a letter to Eleazer Williams. containing the
deathbed confession of Belanger that he had
brought the Dauphn to America. where ne was
known as the Rev Eleazer Williams, missionary to
the Oneida Indians.
The most important evidence OF all, ana wnich
entirely corroborated the Beanger confession, was
piven under oath by Margaret Brown. or New'
orleans formerly wife Of the private secretary or
conn, TArtos Eleazer Williams had never seen
nor heard OF this woman. and he had nothing 10 DO
with the obtaining Of her testimony
The affidavit OF Mrs. Williams that Eleazer was
NOT her SON but had been adopted from Foreign
rotion was copied By Mr.. Hanson from the legai
ocor,e and Eleazer williams took part in that
transaction.
something about the matter when ne shouid propd'
hy never reveal but Eleazer born for great
man. and he intended to give him an eduea''oh 10
nrenare him for the station. testified to under
nath nv Mr. Elv's niece in 1853 Eleazer Williams
being previously ignorant that such statement
had over been made by his teacher.
The account in Eleazer Willamss journal or his
interview with Prince de Joinville In lsil. and or
Mr. Kimbalrs revelation In lsB, was first made pub
lie in 1853 by Mr. Hanson. who saw the whole jour-
ma, for both years and convinced that there
had been no Interpolation In the manuscript.
The fact that Prince de Joinvle sought out Flea
yer Williams (and OF that fact there Is abundant
evidence, is in itself a strong proof OF the identity
NJ the Indian missionary with the lost Dauphin.
E,eazer Williams was not prominent In either
church or State there many halfbreed Indians
hs,;er educated and more talented than he: more
ovor he was not authority respecting the early
French settlements In America, nor upon any other
historical question which might nave Interested
foreign traveller.
published memoirs Of Prince de Jonvllle Eieazer
extend TO 84s and the Western journey OF the Prince
10 described length including the names OF many
chance acquaintance and even character'zations