Rensselaer Republican, Volume 19, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 April 1887 — SAW THE DEED DONE. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

SAW THE DEED DONE.

Leavitt Testifies that He Wit* nessed the Killing of Haddock by Arensdorf. He Describes How He Learned of the Plot and How It Was 1 , T Carried Out. * “Bismarck’s” Testimony Strongly Cor-roborative-Incidents of the Celebrated Trial. fSIOrX CITY CORRESPONDENCE.] Interest in the trial of the slayers of the Rev. Dr. Haddock has been so great here in Sioux,City, that for the past week it has dwarfed all other themes. Scarcely anyth ng 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 a* 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. Ou Monday 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 to Sioux City, but went away and returned in the first week of January, 1888. 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 w itness were bartenders, Dan-Moriarty was don: keeper and Billy Dpraam treasurer. Witness knew John Arensdorf; he became, acquainted with him in January, 1888, and bought beer of the Franz Brewing Company to the extent of SSO ©r $75 a week. Arensdorf was seen at the theater and about town frequently by the witness. Leavitt proceeded to describe in detail his return to Sioux,City from Mount Clemaps, Mich., late in July; how the plan of having liim jofti the SaTobnkeepers T Trnion 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 the proposal tha. something should be done to rid the town of temperance workera. Arensdorf said there was s7llO or SBOO in Junk's safe, which he thought sufficient to effect the purpose. Arensdorf said that something must be done, and suggested that Haddock’s or Turner's house be blown up or burned down. The next day witness went down to the St. Paul llnilroad yards to see Dan Moriarty and try to get him to whip Dr. Haddock. They were willing to give him SIOO for the job, and witness thought him to be the proper person for the work. Moriarty relused to whip anybody. Witness testified to seeing Dr. Haddock on the stand as a witness in the injunction cases then on trial. The day before the saloon-keepers’ meeting, on the evening of Aug. 3, Leavitt met by chanee Flath, Trailer, Fred Muuohrath, Jr., and two Germans, whom lie afterward knew to be Granda and Koschnitzki. They were standing on 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 eases.” - On returning from “Greenville,” which is near the eastern limits of town and is a local designation* - the party l was • driven directly to Junk's saloon. The four men went into the saloon. Treiber eot money and paid the driver, Adams. Leavitt treated the crowd to cigars and remained three or four minutes. Arensdorf, Grady, Scol* lard and Junk were there. Then all seemed to start for 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 see.” Arensdorf, Peter?, Treiber, Plath and Leavitt went toward the stable on Water street, Arensdorf and Peters leading. Sherman walked with Leavitt. This was the first time witness.saw Sherman. Leavitt saw John Evan on the street and spoke to him. The party stopped by the •board fence, corner Fourth and Water streets. Muiiehrath was seen there by witness and heard to say: “If you lick Haddock. just give him a black eve or something that won’t hurt him or get any of us in auy trouble.” NVitness heard Arensdorf say 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 explain the manner of the killing the audience was breathless with interest. Thei witness 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 by Arensdorf, who had walked out from the fence to encounter him. “They met, and Arensdorf looked into Haddock’s face; Haddock raised his hand; the hand came down; Arensdorf passed; then came the shot." j - " Mr. Marsh caused Leavitt to leave the stand and impersonate the assassin. He did this in a h.ghly 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 be fore the jnry 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 seen of Arensdorf by witness he was going west toward the bridge. Henry Peters followed Arensdorf etit from the fence comer, and after the shooting went in the same direction as the defendant on trial. » __ i

The remainder of Leavitt’s direct examination pertained to his own conduct. He went to Byan’s house into the rooms occupied by Mr. Reilly and Mr. and Mrs. Dorsaffi, where be took A»ff his hat and his two coats—a rubber overcoat and a dark Prince Albert. The hat Was 6f straw. He talked with the Dorsams about what had occurred. The hat lie wore was Plath’s, for whicn he had exchanged his own while going toward Water street. Witness wore Dorsam’s hat away from Evan's houseWitness sfiw John Arensdorf the next day before the latter appeared at the coroner's inqnest. “I said,” he continued, “ ‘Hello, John,’ and fisked bow 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 yon. 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 joa as a brother?’ “I said: ‘You can. I am a Knight of Pythias.’ “After the coroner’s inqnest I asked him; ‘What did yon 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 Btand, 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 Eonrth 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 conducted the cross-examination. Considerable amusement was created when the attorney asked tne witness whether she had ever drank beer with any men there. .Sherepliod; “ Yes; I drank beer with you, Mr. Argo.” Albeit Koschnitzi, or “Bismarck,” was next placed upon the stand. lie 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 be--ing tried. Mr. Haddock was a witness in the cases, and after the court adjourned they went out together aud 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, anil that Treiber would give SSOO to have tie preacher whipped. Treiber asked if he 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.salocii and. that.. Treiber was not there. Witness went back to Treiber with t.hat 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 Graniia’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 show Granda where Dr. Haddock lived. The two men started on that errand, but “Bismarck” said he could not find the house, 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 corner 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 Urn bier’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 from Greenville. Witness found Eberhardt 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 tha man. About an hour later witness saw 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 tfie buggy had returned. The crowd met by witness consisted of Arensdorf, Peters, Leader, Munchrath, Leavitt, Granda and others. They proceeded west until they reached the corner of Water street,'Paul Leader walking with “Bismarck.” Dr. Haddock came along Water street to the crossing ot Fourth. John Arensdorf went out to meet him, passed a step or two by the minister, then turned and fired at Ms 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, but his moral nature is on the 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 discredit on this witness because of his deficient 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 or 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 i

desk. The large opaque windows at the rear of the hench, which had been reified 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 tlie physical emergency, abruptly dismissed the jury from the court-room with but a word or two of instructions that none of them should speak of the case while absent. Order was soon res ored in the audience, the jury was recalled, and the business of the session, resumfed. 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 belijvod was possible. The daughter of “Bismarck,” Minnie Koschnitzki, a little 12-year-old girl, 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, aud 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.