Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 April 1887 — SAW THE DEED DONE. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

SAW THE DEED DONE.

Leavitt Testifies that Ho Witnessed the Killing of Haddock by Arensdorf. He Describes How He Learned of the Plot and How It Was Carried Out. ‘’Bismarck’s” Testimony Strongly Cor-roborative-Incidents of the Celebrated Trial. ■(SIOUX CITY COKKESPONDENCE.] Interest in the trial of the slayers of ( the Rev. Dr. Haddock has been so great here in Hioux City that for the past week it has dwarfed all other themes. Scarcely anything else is discussed or talked of in the store, the workshop, the drawing-room, or at the dining-table. The introduction of evidence began on Friday of last week. Physicians and others testified as to hearing the shot, finding the body, the nature of the wound, and the

flight of the conspirators, among whom Leavitt, the State witness, was identified. On _,M<}nday Leavitt was placed upon the witness stand and told his story. It was identical with his original confession, or statement, and very damaging to Arensdorf's chances of acquittal. Condensed into a narrative, Leavitt’s testimony is as follows: In the latter part of December, 1885, he ■came toJSioux City, but went away and returned in the first week of January, 1886. He. opened his variety theater on Pearl street in February. In June he went East and came back to this place a few days before. the killing of Dr. Haddock. There was'a saloon connected with the theater. There was a bar up-stairs and another down-stairs. “Doc” Darling and a brother of witness were bartenders. Dan Moriarty wasuoorkeeper and Billy Dorsam treasurer. Witness knew John Arensdorf; he became acquainted with him in January, 1886, and bought beer of the Franz Brewing Company to the extent of SSO or $75 a week.. Arensdorf was seen at the theater and about town frequently by the witness. Leavitt,§>roceeded to describe in detail his return to Sioux City from Mount Clemens, ■Mich., late in July; how the plan of having him join the Saloonkeepers’ Union was proposed; how the meeting mentioned by Witness Adelsheim was held and i Leavitt made a.member of the organization. After he joined, several persons, among them Arensdorf, the defendant, agreed to tha: something should be done to riclytho town of temperance workers. Arensdorf said there was S7OO or SBOO in Junk’s safe, which he thought sufficient to effect the purpose. Arensdorf said that somSthiug must be done, and suggested that Haddock g or Turner’s house be blown up or burned down.

The next day witness went down to the Ht. Paul Kailroad yards to see Dan Moriarty and.lry to get him to whip Dr. Haddock. They were willing to give him SIOO for the job, and witness thought him to be the fjrdper person for the work. Moriarty refused, to whip anybody. Witness testified to seeing Dr. Haddock on the stand as a witness in the injunction casjs then on trial. The day before the saloon-keepers’ meeting, on the evening of Aug. 3, Leavitt met by chance Plath, TreiFred Munchrath, Jr., and two Germans, whom he afterward knew to be Grandp and Koschnitzki. They were standing bn the Sioux City National Bank corner, on Fourth street, talking about Haddock’s trip to Greenville. Leavitt joined in the conversation. Witness described the hack ride to Greenville “to see how the preacher got his evidence in the whisky cases.”

On returning from “Greenville,” which as near the easlem limits of town and is a local designation, the party was driven directly to Junk’s saloon. The four men went jnto the saloon. Treiber eot money and.paidthe driver, Adams. Leavitt treated the crowd to cigars and remained three or four minutes. Arensdorf, Grady, ScoK lard aiid jJunk were there. Then all seemed their homes; at least witness did .so. As they reached the street “Bismarck’’ came up and said the buggy had turned. Arensdorf said: “Let’s go up and Arensdorf, Peters, Treiber, Plath and Leavitt went toward the stable on Water street, Arensdorf and Peters lead•ing t Sherman walked with Leavitt. This Waa the first time witness saw Sherman. Leavitt saw John Byau on the street and spoke to him. The party stopped by the board fence, corner Fourth and Water streets. Munchrath was seen there by witness and heard to say: “If you lick Haddock, just give him a black eye or 6ome•ming that won’t hurt him or get any of us in aqy trouble." Witness heard Arensdorf Bay something about “a drunken Dutchman.”

Leavitt remained calm, and Arensdorf did, not move a muscle during this portion of . the evidence. As Leavitt continued to manner of the killing the audience 'was breathless with interest. The wijnhßS described how Haddock came from the stable, moved north on West Water street to the corner of Fourth, turned eastward, and midway on the crossing was met f>y Arensdorf, who had walked out from the fence to encounter him- “They met, void.Arensdorf looked into Haddock’s face; Haddock raised his hand; the hand came dcprh; Arensdorf passed; then came the Mr. Marsh caused Leavitt to leave the

6tand and impersonate the assassin. He did this in a highly dramatic manner, illustrating to the jury how the shot was fired by first approaching Marsh, gazing in his face, passing him, and then turning quickly from behind with raised hand against the attorney’s neck. This scene corresponded with the one enacted previously belore the jury by Witness Fitzsimmonss who saw the shot fired.

After the shooting the crowd by the fence stood spellbound for an instant and then fled. Leavitt ran northward to Evans house. The last Been of Arensdorf by witness he was going west toward the bridge. Henry Peters followed Arensdorf out from the fence comer, and after the shooting weut in the same diiection as the defendant on trial. The icmaiuder of Leavitt's direct examination pertained to his own conduct. He went to llyan’s Louse into the rooms occupied by Mr. Keilly and Mr. and Mrs. Dorsam, where he toos off his hat and his two coats—a rubber overcoatabd a dark Prince Albert. The hat was of straw. He talked with the Dorsams about what had occurred. The hat he wore was Piath’s, for which he had exchanged his own while going toward Water street. Witness wore Dorsam’s hat away from Ryan’s house. Witness saw John Arensdorf the next day before the latter appeared at the coroner’s inquest. “I said,” he continued, “ ‘Hello, John,’ and asked how he felt. He said he did not feel any too well. He asked me if I had seen it.’ I said: ‘Yes, John. It is a bad thing for you. You ought never to have done that.’

“ ‘I know it,’ he said; ‘but everybody has got to keep still. Did anybody see it besides you?’ “I says, ‘Yes; everybody on the spot there must have seen it, John, because they all stopped dumb when it happened.’ “He said: ‘Can I depend on you as a brother?’

“I said: ‘You can. I am a Knight of Pythias.’ “After the coroner’s inquest I asked him: ‘What did you know, John?’ He said nothing and kind of laughed. He said he couldn t fix Henry Peters for any evidence, and thought about sending him over to Nebraska for a few days, and from there to Germany.” Leavitt was subjected to a rigorous crossexamination by the defense without in the least shaking his testimony.

Mrs. Leavitt was called to the stand, and corroborated her husband’s testimony in regard to the conversation which he had with Arensdorf upon the sidewalk in front of their rooms on Fourth street, soon after the murder of Haddock, in which Arensdorf spoke of sending Peters away to Nebraska or Germany because he could not be fixed for evidence. Attorney Argo condncted the cross-examination. Considerable amusement was created when the attorney asked tne witness whether she had ever drank beer with any men there. She replied: “Yes; I drank beer with you, Mr. Argo.” Albert Koschnitzi, or “Bismarck,” was next placed upop the stand. He strongly corroborated Leavitt. His evidence, summarized, was substantially as follows: The morning of the day of the murder of Mr. Haddock, he went to Fourth street and met George Treiber. He went with him into Trieber's saloon and was given a glass of beer. The two then went together to the court house, where they remained until noon. The injunction cases were being tried. Mr. Haddock was a witness in the cases, and after the court adjourned they went out together and went up the street in front of the court house to Seventh streeth, then east on Seventh street. They walked by Haddock’s house. Treiber, pointing at it, as they strolled by, told him (witness) that Haddock lived there, and that Treiber would give SSOO to have the preacher whipped. Treiber asked if be knew Fritz Folger and Sylvester Granda. Witness said he did. Treiber told him to see Granda and tell him about the SSOO offer. The witness saw Granda that forenoon and told him. Granda agreed to go to Treiber’s saloon that night. On Tuesday morning witness went to Treiber’s saloon. Treiber said that Granda had not been there as he had promised. Witness then sought cut Granda and again talked about the money and the whipping. Granda said he went to the saloon and that Treiber was not there. Witness went back to Treiber with that message. Treiber told him to be sure and bring Granda up that evening. Witness on the day of the murder went with Treiber to the court-house and saw Haddock there. The whisky trial was in progress. He remained in court about an hour and a half. In the evening witness went once to Treiber’s saloon. Granda had not been there, and Treiber wanted witness to go and fetch him, giving him five cents to pay street-car fare. Witness went to Granda’s house, but did not find him, and returned to the saloon.

On starting to go, witness met Treiber, Granda, Platt, Munchrath, and Paul Leader on the corner of Fourth and Pierce streets. Treiber told “Bismarck” to go and 6how Granda where Dr. Haddock lived. The two men started on that errand, but “Bismarck” said he could not find the bouse, and Granda declared he would not do the whipping, anyway. So many knew of the offer he was afraid to do it. “Bismarck” proposed that they go back to the saloon and make Treiber give them a few drinks. The two men then went back to Fourth street, and on the comer of Pierce again met the crowd. Leavitt and Henry Peters were with the others. At this encounter Plath gave Granda twenty-five cents.. Witness and Granda went to Umbler’s saloon and took a drink. They returned to the corner. Treiber sent them down to the Columbia House to see if Haddock had returned trom Greenville. Witness found Eberhnrdt at the Columbia House playing cards and called to him to come out. In response to Bismarck's request Eberhardt sent a man to the stable next door to make the inquiry about the buggy. Fitzsimmons was the man. About an hour later witness 6aw the horse and buggy come back. He was watching for it in the rain at’ the corner of Fourth and Water streets. Granda was with him. The two men went east on Fourth street and told the crowd near Junk’s saloon that the buggy had returned.

The crowd met by witness consisted of Arensdorf, Peters, Leader, Munchrath, LeaVitt, Granda and others. They proceeded west until they rt ached the corner of Water street, Paul Leader walking with “Bismarck.” Dr. Haddock came along Water street to the crossing ol Fourth. John Arensdorf went out to meet him, passed a step or two by the minister, then turned and tired at his head. “Bismarck’: underwent a long cross-ex-amination at the hands of the attorneys for the defense, but the witness did not vary

from his original statements by a material word. The general effect of “Bismarck's” story was favorable to the State. He confessed his own faults and weaknesses with such a total disregard of conventional morality that he seemed childlike without being mentally weak. His mind is vigorous enough, bnt his moral nature is on the j plane of being capable of conspiring against Haddock more for the drinks than from malice. His idea was to have some fun. The defense will try to bring dis- ; credit on this witness because of his defi-

cient moral sensibilities, but that is what the State would be strengthened by having them do. This man’s original revelation was made in California almost simultaneously with Leavitt’s confession. There could have been no collusion between them, yet their stories corroborate each other in the closest manner. In the midst of “Bismarck’s” cross-ex-amination Mrs. Haddock, who had borne the nervous strain of the direct narrative by force of will without evincing distress, was unable longer to endure the excitement of the trial. A moan startled the audience, causing hundreds to spring to their feet. Judge Lewis instantly perceived both the cause and the perils of the alarm. He commanded all to resume their seats and observe quiet. Sheriff McDonald hastened to Mrs. Haddock’s side, and, aided by friends, bore her, insensible, to the Judge’s libra y, immediately behind the judicial desk. The large opaque windows at the rear of the bench, which had been raised to improve the ventilation of the courtroom were rattled down and the doors closed. Meanwhile Judge Lewis, prompt to appreciate the legal as well as the physical emergency, abruptly dismissed the jury from the court-room with bnt a word or two of instructions that none of them should speak of the case while absent. Order was soon restored in the audience, the jury was recalled, aud the business of the session resumed. The Judge’s conduct illustrates his instinctive fairness. He perceived that the sympathies of the jury might be aroused by this scene of a heartbroken wife’s anguish. Mrs. Koschnitzki and her daughter were placed on the stand and corroborated “Bismarck’s” statement relative to the conduct of the defendant after the crime. As it now looks, the prosecution has made a stronger case than many of its warmest friends believed was possible. The daughter of “Bismarck,” Minnie Koschnitzki, a little 12-year-old gill, was placed on the stand, and testified in regard to her father’s movements immediately preceding and following the murder, and to the paying of money to her mother by Arensdorf. At this point the State rested its case, and the defense began by attacking the character of the principal witnesses for the State—“ Bismarck” and the Leavitts. Several witnesses swore that the former was beastly drunk on the night of August 3, and that his character was bad. Testimony was introduced to the effect that the Leavitts had denounced the murdered preacher, and expressed the hope that he would be killed.

Several witnesses swore positively that an hour before the murder they saw Leavitt on Fourth street, wearing light pants. Other witnesses testified to his having made remarks about killing Haddock the day of the murder. The defense are evidently laying the foundation of a plot charging Leavitt with the act of murder.

MR. MARSH, THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.

MR. ARGO, OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE.