March 29

APPEALING SUBJECTS
BY CRAIG MANSON
A Monthly - Weekend With Shades - Column









We've discussed previously the Scopes Monkey Trial. Likewise, The issue of "spirit photography" has been dealt with previously at Shades of the Departed in some detail. But spirit photography had its own "monkey trial" some 56 years before Darrow and Bryan squared off in Dayton, Tennessee. In many ways, cultural and political, a pretrial hearing in Manhattan in 1869 presaged the battle between secularism and deism in the 1920's.

The "practice" of spirit photography became popular with the rise of Spiritualism as a belief system in the 1860s. The"discoverer " of spirit photography was one William H. Mumler of Boston and New York. In 1869, Mumler was arrested and charged with fraud, arising out of his spirit photography. This is the story of the unusual legal proceedings in Mumler's case.

The case was described as "so remarkable and without precedent in the annals of criminal jurisprudence as have created a wide feeling of interest on either side of the Atlantic." Indeed, the case had aspects of a show trial. Prosecuted by the great reformer Elbridge T. Gerry, the matter seemed designed to put Spiritualism itself on trial. [Gerry was the namesake of the Massachusetts politician, and later U.S. Vice President whose eponymous contribution to the American political lexicon was "gerrymander."]

Notable and prominent citizens testified for the defense, while the estimable and irrepressible show man, P.T. Barnum, was a government witness.

Mumler, a former sergeant major in the Massachusetts militia, had been an engraver with a Boston jewelry firm, whose hobby was photography.

A 1909 book, After Death --What?: Spiritistic Phenomena and Their Interpretation, by Cesare Lombroso, translated by William Sloane Kennedy, explained Mumler's involvement in spirit photography:

One day, he detected on one of his proofs a figure that did not belong to the group he was developing. He concluded from this that the plate must have received a previous impression, and that it must have been put by mistake among the new plates. But a second proof gave the same result, with an even more distinct appearance of a human form.

. . . In order to satisfy the curiosity of people [Mumler] was obliged to give two hours every day to this new branch of experimentation. Finally, his clientele became so large that he had to give up his business as an engraver. . . .

. . . Mumler was encouraged to continue his demonstrations publicly, and for this purpose, opened a gallery in New York, where he succeeded in convincing his fellow-photographers Silver, Gurney, etc.

In 1869, Mumler and Silver were operating a gallery at 630 Broadway in New York City, where, according to the New York Times, [they were in the habit of producing pictures of persons applying to them with the shadowy outline of a human face in the background, which they pretended had been produced by spiritual or supernatural means.]

Mumler and Silver's operation came to the attention of a Mr. P.V. Hickey, who was a science reporter for the New York World. Hickey "ascertained that the phenomena exhibited by Mumler and Silver were the results of merely natural means, such as are known to nearly every practical photographer."

Hickey went to the Mumler gallery and had Mumler make him a dozen photos of himself "with the shadowy outline of another man's face therein . . . "

Mumler charged Hickey $10 for the photographs.

Hickey complained to New York City Mayor Abraham Oakley Hall. The mayor referred the matter to city Marshal Joseph H. Tooker.

Tooker investigated by going to the gallery where Mumler made him a set of pictures similar to the ones made for Hickey. Hickey then went for a second sitting. Hickey's second set of pictures bore Tooker's face as the "spirit."

Upon the affidavits of Hickey, Tooker, and two photographic experts, Mumler and Silver were arrested and charged with "money being obtained by trick and device." They were brought before Judge Dowling of the Central Criminal Courts at The Tombs, the infamous Manhattan jail. The New York Times observed, ''The prisoners seemed to be much perplexed at their arrest."

Mumler and Silver demanded a preliminary examination as was their right under New York law.

"The Tombs"

The hearing commenced three days later. The Times sets the scene (with what must be two of the longest sentences in the history of journalism):

The courtroom was filled, many of the spectators being ladies. There was present a motley array of believers in the spiritual doctrine. Old men with long white beards and gray hair pushed v behind their ears, sickly and sentimental eyes and cadaverous lantern-jawed physiognomies; young believers of effeminate look, who had the general appearance of having stretched their neck to the utmost tension by constant endeavors to peek into the shadowy world "on the other side of Jordan;" women, young and old, whose countenances betokened the fact of their affiliation with the "strong-minded" of their sex, and whose lives, seemingly are spent in endeavors to ascertain precisely "what's up" in the "happy land of Canaan;" elderly Spiritualists, lank and lean, of shuffling gait and golden spectacles, whose intimacy with ghosts, ghouls and goblins damned has apparently rendered them oblivious to everything that is transpiring around them in this mere material world, but who can discourse in sesquipedalian phrase of the minutest matters affecting the economy of the spheres. Besides these, there were present unbelievers in the theory of spirit manifestations; many who came to enjoy the fun of the thing, and to see how far the doctrine of "ethereal essences" is being carried; and a sprinkling of roughs, whose villainous countenances gave evidence of the little faith they had in a hereafter of any sort, but who would not scruple, if opportunity presented, to give the spirit of man or woman a sudden exit from its mortal shroud, "for stamps."

An 1875 treatise, The Law of Literature, Reviewing the Laws of Literary Property in Manuscripts, by Appleton Morgan, described the proceedings:

The prisoner, William H. Mumler, stood charged by the People—First: With having, by false pretenses, defrauded one Joseph H. Tooker out of, and of having obtained from him the sum often dollars, lawful money. Second: Of having, by means of gross frauds and cheats, practiced habitually upon the public for the purpose and with the result of obtaining sums of money from credulous persons. Third: With stealing, taking, and carrying away by trick or device, the sum aforesaid from said Tooker, and other similar sums from other persons*

The facts upon which the charge of false pretenses was based, were—

First: A statement made by the prisoner "that he was a spiritual medium; that he produced spirit likenesses; that no other person could take such wonderful pictures; that the pictures were not the result of a trick or deception; " coupled with the exhibition of a picture with a faint outline of another form than that of the sitter, and a further assertion by the prisoner " that he (Tooker) would come to recognize the face as that of some relative or friend."

Second: A previous payment of two dollars, by Tooker, on the strength of a previous similar statement made by one Guay, who acted as agent for the prisoner; and a subsequent payment by him of eight dollars on the strength of the prisoner's statement, and on the furnishing of certain photographs purporting to be of spirit forms, and on receiving a printed book containing an additional statement by the prisoner, over his signature, and designed to further induce a belief that the indistinct form on the picture was not produced by mechanical or natural means.

Third : A discovery by Tooker, after parting with his money, that the photographs were ordinary photographs, and that all the forms on them were produced by mechanical means.

A number of individuals testified that they had visited Mumler's studio and had spirit photographs made and that they had noticed nothing unusual from a mechanical standpoint in the manner which Mumler used to make the pictures. Some of these people were of high standing in the community and some were photographic experts. For example, (again from the Morgan treatise):

Hon. John W. Edmonds, ex-judge of the N. Y. supreme court, and all during his life a firm believer in and advocate of spiritualism, testified that he went to this gallery of Mumler's on a preconcerted notice. He knew nothing of photography; that he paid ten dollars for the first, and five dollars for the second sitting, and went away satisfied; but said, "I do not say that they (the shadowy forms alleged) are produced by spiritual means."

William Gurney, a photographer, testified that he saw Mumler have his hand on the camera, but could not discover the trick ; that he has been a photographer for twenty-eight years;. and that it was not possible to produce such an object except from outside the instrument.

Rockwood, a photographer of large experience, testified that he had produced similar "ghosts" in different ways; and that although not exactly a " spiritual " process, there was certainly something remarkable about it.

Elmer Terry testified that he went there expressly to get a picture of the spirit of a deceased friend. He paid his money in advance, on the statement that he would be furnished with such a picture, and he paid afterwards when he thought he had it. He recognized the " spirit" of a four-year-old boy, who died twenty years ago, and he recognized the picture of Miss Frances Catlin, whose portrait he had seen only four days before this photograph was taken.

Jacob Kingsland testified that he recognized the likeness of Miss Catlin, but could not speak positively of the children.

Paul Bremond testified that he was a believer in "spirits," and was so fifteen years ago, when he used to hear the voices, and that he recognized the " ghosts" that Mumler photographed as likenesses of the departed. He particularly recognized "Elizabeth Trapp."

As significant as all of the foregoing testimony may have been from a legal and scientific perspective, the most interesting day of the trial was April 29, 1869. For then came the moment the crowd had been waiting for. The impresario Phineas Taylor Barnum was called to the stand by District Attorney Gerry. Barnum testified that he had known Mumler by reputation for about seven years. He said that he had some brief correspondence with Mumler on the subject of spirit photographs some years before.

Barnum had written a book in 1865 called The Humbugs of the World and it was about this book that he had written to Mumler. he said that in his book he devoted an entire chapter to the "Mumler humbug."

The Greatest Showman On Earth: P.T. Barnum

Barnum said, according to the New York Times,

I believe in spooks. It is very easy to see them if you only believe in them. When I was a boy I used to believe in them and saw lots of them oftentimes.

He then testified that he had gone the previous day into the gallery of Abraham Bogardus (who testified previously in the trial) and said that he, Barnum, wanted a spirit photograph taken but he didn't want any "humbug" about it. The courtroom shook with laughter.

Barnum said that he had thoroughly examined Bogardus' operations but couldn't detect any fraud on his part. But when his photograph was taken, there was a spirit on it that of the departed Abraham Lincoln.

The defense wanted to have a field day with the irascible Barnum. He was asked if he'd ever been in "the humbug business." He said he did not consider himself as being in the humbug business; that he never made use of a humbug except by way of advertisement. But he always had given people "the worth of their money," as he put it.

Then came this exchange:

Q.: How about the Woolly Horse?
A.: The Woolly Horse was a remarkable curiosity. It was exactly what I represented it; the appearance was what I represented it to be. It was not a horse woolled over. I'm glad to enlighten the public on this point; there was no deception about it whatever. I did not intend to humbug the public in that manner. The horse was exhibited just as it was born. The mermaid was represented to me to be what I represented it to be to the public and I've never been disabused of the idea . The mermaid was presented to the public as I believed it to be. I never owned it; I hired it.

Q.: Have you never taken money for exhibiting curiosities that were not what you represented them to be?
A.: Well, I may have given my curiosities a little drapery at times. [Laughter].
Q.: How about as to Joice Heth?
A.: She was represented to me as having been the nurse of George Washington; she did belong to Washington's father. I bought her. I had a bona fide bill of sale for. Before I got through exhibiting her, I may have entertained doubts as to her being the real nurse of Washington. I'll endeavor generally not to have a very profound belief in what I did not actually note to be just so. I paid $1000 for her. I believed in her at first, but subsequently may have had a little doubt about her. I never put myself out of the way to disabuse the public, even after I began to doubt the genuineness of the old lady.

(Barnum went on):

When I called on Mr. Bogardus yesterday, I asked him to bring down the spirit of Joice Heth, Washington's nurse, but he said he could not do it, as it was late in the day, and his stock of vitality was nearly exhausted. He offered to bring her down in the spirit form today, and I think he would have done it had I called on him. I should like to renew my acquaintance with the old lady. [Laughter.]

And with that Barnum left the stand.

The defense imagined they had hoisted Barnum on his own petard. In 1835, Barnum had launched his career as a showman with a seven-month traveling exhibit of Joice Heth, an elderly black woman who had been a slave. Heth was said to have been 161 years old and allegedly the former nursemaid of President George Washington. Heth was blind and almost completely paralyzed. Obviously, this exhibition was highly controversial. Barnum, whether he
believed her age or not, said that upon her death she would be publicly autopsied.





Heth died in 1836. About 1500 spectators paid money to observe the autopsy in the City Saloon in New York. The surgeon declared her to be about 80 years old, and later Barnum admitted the hoax.

The reference to the woolly horse had to do with yet another Barnum exhibition. In 1848, in Cincinnati, Barnum, as he put it in one of his several autobiographies, came upon the exhibition of a "woolly horse" he described it as follows:

It was a well formed horse of rather small size without any mane or the slightest portion of hair upon its tail. The entire body and limbs were covered with a thick fine wool curling tight to his skin.

Barnum had the animal sequestered in Connecticut until an opportunity arose to use it for something. The opportunity came later in 1848 when John C. Fremont and his party became lost in the snows of the Rocky Mountains. Barnum described what happened next:

The public mind was excited. Serious apprehensions existed that the intrepid soldier and engineer had fallen a victim to the rigors of a severe winter. At last, the mail brought intelligences of the safety of [the party]. The public heart beat quick with joy. I now saw a chance . . . . The woolly horse was carefully covered with blankets and leggings that nothing could be seen excepting his eyes . . . . conveyed to New York, and deposited in a rear stable where no eye of curiosity could reach in. The next mail was said to have brought intelligence that Colonel Fremont and his hearty band of warriors had, after three days days, succeeded in capturing, near the river he left, a most extraordinary nondescript which somewhat resembled a horse, which had no mane or tail and was covered with a thick coat of wool. Accounts further added that the colonel had sent this wonderful animal as a present to the U.S. Quartermaster-General.

But the public appetite was craving something tangible for Col. Fremont. The community was absolutely famishing. They were ravenous. They could have swallowed any thing, and like a good genius, I threw them, not a “bone,” but a regular tit-bit, a bon-bon—and they swallowed it in a single gulp!

The "mermaid" referred to the so-called Feegee Mermaid - a mummified body of some creature that resembled a half mammal and half fish. In fact, it is said that the mermaid was actually the torso and head of a monkey sewn onto the back half of a fish. Supposedly, the exhibit is now housed at Harvard University's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

The "Fee Gee Mermaid"

After Barnum had left the stand, the prosecution called three more expert witnesses to debunk the theory of spirit photography. At this point, the hearing was all over but the shouting; i.e., final arguments of counsel. They were set for the next Monday morning, May 4, 1869.

Upon argument that Monday morning Mumler's counsel, Mr. Townsend, suggested that there were at least 11 million spiritualists in the country and asked somewhat more than rhetorically, "Can all of these people possibly be insane?" And as to the allegation of Marshal Tooker that he did not get a spirit form on his photograph, Townsend said the defense answer was that there is no proof that he did not get such a representation. Townsend noted that Mumler had been in the spirit photography business for seven years without complaint and that it took a newspaper reporter to detect the "fraud" that "great minds" had missed. As for the expert witnesses who testified for the prosecution, Townsend said that they were stuck in the rut of ossified scientific orthodoxy. "Men like these would have hung Galileo, had he lived in their day."

Townsend argued that throughout the Bible there was mention of spirits. Balaam and his ass, and the witch of Endor who raised in the spirit of Samuel were given as examples. Finally, as to P.T. Barnum, Townsend said, his testimony was "a very pretty illustration of a humbug." Townsend said, "His very name smells of humbug."

District Attorney Elbridge Gerry argued last. The New York Times reported that he argued as
follows:

The onus of proof is thrown on the defense because the law presumes that such a thing is impossible and so in the numerous reported cases where a man laboring under an hallucination hears voices ordering him to commit murder, sees forms pointing him to the commission of crime in a defense based on the assertion that those forms or voices were real, would be held untenable and wrong for the reason that law does not recognize the possibility of any superior or spiritual influences sufficient to justify what it asserts to be a felony.

As to the numerous defense witnesses who testified that they had seen spirit photographs produced by Mumler, Gerry said that each one of them was fully possessed of a belief in spiritualism before he or she went to Mumler's and hence it was that each became so suddenly convinced of the supernatural in the pictures. He claimed further that Mumler's manual skill was such as to enable him to deceive not only ignorant and would be believers but also experienced photographers.

About spiritualism, Gerry said, "It is only a revival of the heathen pantheism. It denies the authenticity of the holy Scriptures and stands directly opposed to the Christian religion. It denies the general resurrection as foretold in the Bible, and even denies the efficacy of the atonement."

When argument was over, according to the New York Times, Judge Dowling said:

After a careful and thorough analysis of this interesting and may I say extraordinary case, I've come to the conclusion that the prisoner should be discharged and will state however and I may be morally convinced there may have been trick and deception practiced by the prisoner it as I said as a magistrate to determine from the evidence given by the witnesses according to law I'm compelled to can decide that I would not be justified in sending this complaint to the grand jury, and in my opinion the prosecution have failed to make out their complaint. I therefore dismiss the complaint and order the discharge of the prisoner.

Mumler was therefore a free man. Although its adherents claimed victory, spirit photography had seen its zenith. Mumler went on to a career of distinction as an inventor. He held perhaps six patents for various devices, such as the mat which rings a bell when a customer enters a store. Here is how William Howard Mumler was memorialized in 1884.

MR WILLIAM H MUMLER a well known inventor and treasurer of the Photo Electrotype Company died at his residence in Boston on the 16th ult. He was born in Hanover Street Boston in 1832 and if he had lived a few days longer would have reached his fifty second year. He first began business as an engraver and in the twenty years in which he followed that profession attained considerable prominence but becoming much interested in photography he entered that business and succeeded in securing a wide reputation as a photograph publisher. He had much inventive genius and a taste for experiment which finally resulted in the discovery of what is known as the Mumler process by which photo electrotype plates are produced and as readily printed from as wood cuts on an ordinary printing press and at great saving of expense. A company was formed about seven years ago and he had been treasurer of it ever since. He had lately been further experimenting upon improvements in dry plates for instantaneous photography and the mental and physical strain brought on a disease which became fatal in about two weeks. The deceased at one time gained considerable notoriety in connection with spirit photographs.

The Photographic Times & American Photographer, Volume XIV, page 304 (1884)