rosecuho a vt the : Te al | : 
 
 
 
Library of the 
 University of North Garolina 
 
 Endowed by the Dialectic and Philan- 
 
 thropic Societies 
 
 
 
ie? 
 
 
 
 
 WM) HON. ALFRED M. WADDELL, 
 
 
 
 Of Counsel for Prosecution, 
 
 e 
 
 f|| TRIAL OP Dk. EUGENE GRISSOM, 
 
 Supt. of the N.C. Insane Asylum, ; 
 
 
 
 JULY 18, 1889. 
 a 
 a 
 RAGE LGHe ees 
 E. M. UZZELL, STEAM PRINTER AND BINDER. 
 , é ; pi be 
 1889. . 
 =< ra mg < - 
 RE, sf 2 : ; Lee < ews 
 | ee "a _. a POR AAS SB 
 / as 
 ‘; a ae ek. e eg sca . es 
 pW, 2 ee t 
 eT coal x f 
 
1 
 M) 
 : 
 ‘ 
 ) 
 ? 
 \ 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 Pe ad 
 
 oy gy Bah Gils Baas 
 
 Mr. President and Gentlemen : 
 
 Wearied as you necessarily are by your long continued sit=~ 
 tings in this investigation, and satiated, as you must be, with 
 discussion, I feel that in closing this debate I should be as brief 
 as duty will permit, and such will be my aim. Further argu- 
 ment may be unnecessary, but a summary of the leacing facts, 
 and a reply to what has been said in behalf of the respondent, 
 may possibly help you toward a just determination of the issues 
 presented, and is necessary to a proper discharge of the duty de- 
 volving upon me. 
 
 Gentlemen, when I left my home in answer to the call for my 
 services in this case it was with the honest hope that the accused 
 might establish his innocence of all the very grave charges which 
 had been brought against him—a hope based not obly upon that 
 regard for the honor and welfare of my native State which 
 ought to inspire all of her sons, but also upon a kindly senti- 
 ment arising out of an acquaintance with Dr. Grissom from my 
 boyhood. I came with a judicial mind, and the first words I 
 said to my associate counsel upon my arrival were that if the 
 allegation that a conspiracy existed to destroy the accused was 
 Se by the evidence would be the first person to denounce 
 
 Alas! sirs, this allegation of conspiracy, upon which his de- 
 ae is based, has dwindled into a fruitless. attempt to excuse 
 himself from responsibility for the offences alleged” against him 
 by showing that another for whom he was responsible has also 
 been guilty of as great offences. The allegation is more than 
 fruitless. It is admitted to be untrue so far as John W. Thomp- 
 son is concerned. Not one of the counsel for Dr. Grissom has 
 ventured to utter a word reflecting upon the character or the 
 motives of Mr. Thompson. He stands before you—the defendant 
 
and his connsel themselves bearing witness to the fact—an hon- 
 orable, kind, intelligent, big-hearted, generous man, who would 
 scorn a mean acts and they but echo the universal voice of all. 
 who know him when they attribute to him such a character. 
 Recognizing the force of this pregnant fact, and driven to the — 
 necessity of finding some sufficient motive for Mr. Thompson to 
 engage in what they have persistently and vociferously declared 
 to be a wicked and malicious conspiracy, they say that this big, 
 strong, honest and sensible man has been led into it like an im- 
 becile by the wily hand of young Dr. Rogers—that, like the 
 Moor of Venice, he opened his ears to the poisonous words of 
 this Iago, until they drove him blindly to do a desperate deed. 
 Ah! gentlemen, there was a Desdemona in this case, but John 
 W. Thompson had no interest in her—there was jealousy, as 
 testified to by one of the defendant’s own witnesses, but- the 
 green-eyed monster never fastened his fangs upon the heart of 
 John W. Thompson. There was nothing in that heart upon 
 which a cunning Iago could play until it was lashed into fary, 
 John W. Thompson had nothing to gain by prosecuting Dr. 
 Grissom, even if he was convicted, while he had everything to 
 lose if he was acquitted. He already had all he could hope to 
 get at the Asylum. He had been the Steward for eight years, 
 and, being in good repute with everybody, could continue to 
 hold the position as long as he pleased. He knew that Dr. 
 Grissom wielded a wide-spread and powerful influence all 
 over the State, and that in arraying him before this Board and 
 the people of North Carolina he was assaulting one who for 
 years had exhausted every resource of a fertile brain in fortify-_ 
 ing his position. He fully realized the situation, and yet, with 
 a heroism seldom exhibited under such circumstances, he man- 
 fully marched out with the banner of truth and purity and 
 Justive in his hand to fight the battle- -single;handed if necessary, 
 in behalf of the good people of North Carolina. He repudi- 
 
 ates with contempt the allegation that he is the victim of the | 
 
 cunning wiles of Dr, Rogers or anybody else. He said frankly — 
 while on the witness stand, in answer to the question of counsel 
 
3 
 
 why he had so long delayed action in this matter, that it was 
 one of. the sins he had to answer for. He stood what he knew 
 was going on in this institution as long as he could, but, when 
 he became satisfied that it was being transformed into a harem, 
 and the evidence of it was becoming plainer each day, he could 
 and would stand it no longer, and resolved to expose these 
 iniquities to the public gaze. He is no tool in the hands of Dr. 
 Rogers! He is no fool or weakling, but a man, every inch of 
 him, mentally, morally, and physically, a man who fears God 
 and speaks the truth, and who would wrong no human being 
 intentionally. 
 
 The counsel who opened this discussion, speaking of the history 
 of this institution in connection with a eulogistic biography of Dr. 
 Grissom, said that ‘the unhallowed hands of political partisan- 
 ship had never been and would never be placed upon it, and he 
 alluded to that sad period of the history of North Carolina — 
 directly after the war when she was humbled in the dust. This 
 was an unfortunate reference, indeed, for his client, and it re- 
 lieves me from any obligation not to refer to a subject to which 
 otherwise I would have made no allusion. Does counsel sup- 
 pose that the people of North Carolina have forgotten or ever 
 will forget those days, or the part that his client played in them? 
 - Is he trying to remind us that Dr. Grissom enjoyed the distin- 
 guished honor of presiding over the first convention of those 
 who took possession after the war, and organized hell in our 
 State? Does he remember how that good man and venerable 
 physician, Dr. Fisher, was displaced from the superintendency of 
 this institution? How, after much dirty intrigue, the first 
 notice Dr. Fisher received of his removal was when that “hair- 
 less Celt,” Tim Lee, the carpet-bag sheriff of Wake county, ap- 
 peared at the door of this institution and notified him to get 
 out, as Grissom was ready to take charge? Verily, it cannot be 
 denied that for nineteen years past the hands of political par- 
 tisanship have not been laid upon this institution when they 
 might very well have been, and no living man has such cause to 
 be grateful for it as Dr. Grissom. 
 
+ 
 
 All this is irrelevant to this case, but so was the biographical 
 sketch of Dr. Grissom as a mason and a physician, which coun- 
 sel read, and it is to complete the biography which he left un- 
 finished that I add these little items. 
 
 Gentlemen, when the shock of this great scandal startled the 
 
 people of North Carolina they, with that spirit of fairness and 
 enlightened justice which has always characterized them, turned 
 their gaze anxiously towards this capital and waited for the testi- 
 mony before forming a judgment in the case. 
 
 Since the testimony has been given that look has hardened 
 into one of stern determination, and the hot breath of their 
 righteous indignation fills the air. The thanks of the peo- | 
 ple of North Carolina are justly due, and I am sure will be - 
 cordially given, to those who have unearthed these wrongs, and - 
 especially are they due to the able, and faithful, and indefatiga- 
 ble counsel with whom I have the honor to be associated here, 
 for the valuable service he has rendered to them, and to the 
 cause of good government. They have experienced a humilia-— 
 tion in the discovery that rottenness exists at the very core of 
 their system of charities, but while they wince beneath the blade — 
 that cuts it out they will bless the hand that guides that blade. ‘eg 
 North Carolina has been stabbed before, but thank God the blow: 
 has generally come from alien hands. . If she has beena lageard 
 in the race of so-called progress, she has been still slower in ac- 
 quiring some of the baser arts that accompany it. It has been 
 her chief glory throughout her whole history, in peace or war, 
 that those to whom she confided her honor have been faithful to 
 their trust. Accursed be the day that shall usher in a change of 
 destiny for her in this respect! I sincerely trust that the de- 
 
 velopments made during the progress of this investigation may. - 
 
 be promptly followed by a searching examination into every 
 other public institution in the State, and that all who are in- 
 trusted with any public duty may be continually held to the © 
 most rigid accountability. By this means only can purity and — 
 
 honesty of administration be secured, and the public interests be 
 protected. 
 
5) 
 
 Surely, surely, if there was one institution in our State where 
 the people had a right to expect to find a pure and humane ad- 
 ministration’; if there was, within all her wide borders, one spot 
 where they might justly hope to see prevailing the virtues which 
 have elevated and ennobled our race, it was here, where, by awful : 
 contrast, God’s lesson of RESPONSIBILITY is hourly taught. But 
 those who have so trusted 
 
 
 
 and they were the great body of the 
 people—have been rudely awakened to a realization of the fact 
 that even in this sanctuary of the afflicted the trail of the ser- 
 pent has been made, and that its chosen High Priest—he who 
 should have been its faithful servitor and guardian—has yielded 
 to the tempter and done grievous wrong to them, to this asylum 
 and hiinself, 
 
 Am I using the language of exaggeration? Let us see. 
 
 It is not my purpose to discuss at any length the second and 
 third charges—cruelty to patients and the misappropriation of 
 property—because they have been the theme of my associate’s 
 powerful and exhaustive argument; but I will refresh your 
 memory a little in regard to them, beginning with. the last 
 charge, and taking them, as Gov. Jarvis did, in reverse order. 
 
 Counsel affected to treat with contempt the allegation that Dr. 
 Grissom had misappropriated the property of the institution, and 
 asked if we would not abandon that charge astrivial. I replied 
 that we abandoned nothing, for we had proved all, but that, 
 speaking for myself, I would say that the actual amount of mis- 
 appropriation, showed by their own witnesses, was not so large, 
 when compared with the enormity of the other offences, as to de- 
 mand a great share of our attention. It is to be remembered 
 that the amount of these peculations is exclusively within the 
 knowledge of the accused and his immediate friends, and that all 
 we could hope to establish was the fact that @ system of pecula- 
 tion had long existed, and to prove it by such particulars as we 
 could get out of his witnesses. Well, did we prove the system 
 and the particulars? Did we not prove that, in regard to some 
 matters, the Superintendent and matron actually ordered the 
 housekeeper to make a false report? Did we not prove that out 
 
of 3,000 bunches of celery raised here only 1,444 bunches were 
 given to theépatients, and the rest were disposed of in some other, 
 way? Did we not prove that out of 90 turkeys raised and 
 bought last year the patients only got 35, while Dr. Grissom got 
 41, leaving 14 still here? Did we not prove that liquors in con- 
 siderable quautities, and on numerous occasions, were sent away 
 from the institution? And did we not prove that, in addition — 
 to the acknowledged debt of $500 for supplies, due for two years, 
 other supplies were sent to the Superintendent’s table, and en- 
 tered on the books as “light diet” for the patients? How much 
 of this sort of thing has been done we don’t know, and have no 
 means of ascertaining, but the law forbids any of it; and how 
 you can say that Dr. Grissom has not misappropriated the prop- 
 erty of the institution I do not understand.’ The people of North 
 Carolina are willing to be taxed for the benefit of the insane, but 
 they are not willing to submit to taxation for the benefit of Dr. 
 
 Grissom and his friends. 
 
 But this charge of misappropriation, established as it is, al- 
 most sinks into insignificance by the side of the other two 
 charges of cruelty and immorality. 
 
 The history of the treatment of the insane and the manage- 
 ment of asylums has been learnedly and ably discussed by my 
 associate, and the cases named in the specifications under the sec- 
 ond charge here have been dwelt upon by him at great length. 
 I shall, therefore, not occupy much of your time with them, but 
 will confine myself to only two or three of them, in a brief and 
 general way, in reply to what has been said in defence of Dr. 
 Grissom. As to the advisability of the use of some sort of me- 
 chanical restraint (for the prevention of injury to themselves or 
 other inmates) upon the violent and dangerous insane, it is not 
 worth while to enter into any argument. ‘here is a difference 
 of opinion among alienists, however, even as to such cases. In 
 Europe and in many institutions in this country such restraint is 
 entirely abolished. Nowhere is such restraint ever used as pun- 
 ishment. To punish an insane person is to commit an act Fe 
 wholly inexcusable brutality, and ought to be everywhere, as it 
 
7 ‘ A ? 
 
 is in England, a statutory misdemeanor. In the cases brought 
 to your attention in which Dr. Grissom is charged with e¢ruelty 
 ‘it has not been pretended that the patients were strapped to pre-_ 
 vent them. from doing injury. In, every instance, except one, 
 the strapping was done after the cause of it had passed. Accord- 
 ing to Grissom’s own statement it is clear that such was the case 
 ‘in regard to Miss Foy, Henry Cone, J. D. L. Smith, Mrs. Over- 
 man, Mrs. Lowther, and Upchurch, not to mention the minor 
 cases. Dr. Grissom said that in every case what he did was in- 
 tended not as punishment—oh! no, perish the thought!—but_ 
 “to make a deep mental impression as to the impropriety of their 
 conduct” ! 
 Well, that isa pitiful juggling with words. One of the pur- 
 poses of all punishment is to make a deep mental impression as 
 to the impropriety of doing the thing for which the punishment 
 is inflicted. But with an insane person what does a deep men- 
 tal. impression of this kind amount to? Mr. Guthrie, the able 
 lawyer, who testified (for Dr. Grissom) as to his own treatment 
 and that of others while he was temporarily insane and an in- 
 mate of this institution, and whose statement was s0 interesting, 
 said that while he knew and remembered everything that oc- 
 curred perfectly well, he could not control himself at all; and 
 so it is with other igsane persons. ‘They are keenly alive to any 
 indignity or injury done to them, but, although conscious that 
 they may incur it, they cannot help themselves; and, therefore, 
 such “deep mental impression” as Dr. Grissom inflicted upon 
 them could not prevent the “impropriety” from occurring 
 again, while it only aggravated their sufferings. . But it so hap- 
 pened, as confessed by Dr. Grissom, that in several of these in- 
 stances the “deep mental impression” was made by him when 
 very angry with the patient. He says in regard to one 
 of them that he “was powerfully overcome by anger” upoi re- 
 ceiving an insulting note from the patient, and proceeded 
 thereupon—not to punish him, oh! no, certainly not—but to 
 make ‘a deep mental impression upon him” by applying his 
 machine of torture for some hours. In fact, it does not appear 
 
8 : 
 in any case that he did this in the cool, dispassionate spirit of a 
 ministering physician, or even with that degree of pitying.sym- — 
 pathy with which he kissed Mrs. Perkinson. Her sorrows - 
 touched his heart, it seems, but their hopeless affliction was not 
 even a shield against his violence. Is not this fact enough of 
 itself to show that Dr. Grissom is not a fit man for his position? 
 His “deep mental impressions,” too, according to the witnesses, 
 produced po beneficial effect upon those who were subjected to: 
 them, but, on the contrary, in Smith’s case, at least, they made 
 him worse—or, as one of the witnesses testified, “ meaner ””—than 
 he was before. Is it not remarkable that, even in the cases 
 where Dr. Grissom admits the “deep mental impression” dodge 
 was played, he denies that the occurrence took place as de- 
 scribed by the witnesses, in each and every one of them? Two 
 unimpeached and unimpeachable witnesses (Mr. D. K. Farrell 
 and Mr. J. A. Norwood) swore that he choked Henry Cone 
 severely and threw water in his faee—the former testifying to 
 such an occurrence in 1885, and the latter to a similar one in 
 1887, when he also put his foot on him. But Grissom, while 
 admitting the throwing of the water, denied the choking, and. 
 told ns that ridiculous story about his placing his hands on the 
 sides of Cone’s neck to hold him off, and stop the congestion. 
 He threatened to kick Smith, abused him, told him he ought to 
 be in the penitentiary, and had him strapped a long time, be- 
 cause he wrote him an insulting note; but this was not punish- 
 ment, he says, for he wouldn’t punish a patient; it was only to 
 make “a mental impression as to the impropriety of his con- 
 duct.” Old Mrs, Lowther, a poor, feeble, old woman, spat at or 
 abused him, according to the report of an attendant, and he had 
 her strapped to the bed in that position of torture for two days, 
 and two hours after she was released she died, and no report of the - 
 cause of her death was made, although all other deaths with the 
 cause of death are invariably reported. It has been asserted, or 
 intimated, that the strapping had nothing to do with her 
 death, and that she died of heart disease. Why, then, was it not 
 so reported? And, if it was heart disease, is it not the most 
 
reasonable conclusion that it was produced by her struggles to 
 free herself from the terrible restraint and the result of conges- 
 tion? I will spare you the contemplation of such a picture as 
 might be drawn of that aged woman, writhing in the harness 
 which bound her to the rack, and the supposition that she was 
 your mother or wife, but will leave that.to your imagination. 
 And now, gentlemen, one steady look for a moment at Up- 
 church’s case, and I will leave the second charge in this arraign- 
 mept. 
 
 Something was said about melon by counsel on the other 
 side. Why did not Dr. Grissom come out like a man at the 
 beginning of this investigation and confess his guilt as to 
 Upehurch’s case? Why did counsel wait until driven to the wall 
 by overwhelming proof before they admitted that he had perpe- 
 trated that infamous outrage ? And why, when thus driven to 
 the wall, did they despairingly turn around and try to throw 
 the blame of this confessedly inexcusable crime upon Mr. 
 Thompson ? 
 
 A wretched maniac is thrown to the floor by three strong 
 men, who hold him powerless on his back, and this gentle and 
 humane Superintendent walks up to him, and, with the weight 
 of his two hundred pounds of flesh, stamps him in the face, say- 
 ing: “ You d—d son of a: , how does that feel 2”? And the 
 only thing counsel have to say is that if John W. Thompson 
 had gone'to his assistance it would not have happened!! I re- 
 fuse to dignify such a pitiful plea—a plea so insulting to your 
 
 
 
 common sense—with any argument, but will leave it to your 
 comrniseration. 
 , And now, although counsel have affected to pooh! beioli it, 
 and whistle it down the wind as of no consequence, I will pro- 
 ceed to discuss the gravest charge brought against Dr. Grissom. 
 The first charge against Dr. Grissom is that he has been guilty 
 ‘of gross immorality in connection with the female attendants of 
 the institution, and others. Has this charge been sustained by 
 the evidence adduced? We introduced three witnesses to prove 
 it in the case of Miss Burch, and two witnesses to prove it in re- 
 
10 
 
 gard to others. Each of these witnesses (except the poor colored 
 boy, Emanuel Jones) has established a character for veracity by 
 the mouths of many witnesses, and each swore absolutely and 
 unequivocally to the facts in the respective cases named in the 
 specifications. How does the accused meet this proof? By a 
 denial of the facts and an attempt to discredit the witnesses. He 
 was the first witness in his own behalf, and, taking the charges 
 and specifications seriatim, he flatly denies every damaging 
 statement of the witnesses for the prosecution in regard to each 
 and every one of them. It is, gentlemen, manifest that there 
 has been an immense amount of false swearing in this case by 
 somebody.’ There has been lying by wholesale and retail either 
 against or in behalf of the accused. There has been no room — 
 for mere differences of memory or judgment. The unmistakable 
 odor of perjury is perceptible in the atmosphere of this case. 
 
 Whence does it come? With sincere sorrow I ask you if the 
 evidence does not justify the belief that some of it, at least, 
 comes from those lips whose sympathetie touch was so gratefully 
 received, as they themselves tell us, by the wife of an humble 
 employee of this institution—from those lips, which, kindling 
 with an increasing fervor, sought again and again, as that wife 
 tells us, to meet her own—which asked her to dishonor herself, 
 her husband and her sick child by becoming a prostitute, and 
 which, when that proposition was indignantly rejected, pitifully 
 begged that she would not tell her husband, and offered hush- 
 money to secure secrecy—from those lips which also “sympa- 
 thized” so strongly with a seventeen-year-old girl who was an 
 attendant, that when sick in bed she was solicited by them to 
 submit to a kiss first, and afterwards to personal degradation— 
 aye, gentlemen, from those lips which, fresh from contact with 
 the volume of God’s Holy Seripture, by which they swore to 
 speak “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” 
 denied the truth of almost every material allegation sworn to. by 
 a cloud of respectable witnesses? 
 
 In regard to the first charge, that of immorality, he positively 
 swore that it is absolutely false in every particular under every 
 
I] 
 
 specification, only admitting that he had kissed Mrs. Perkinson 
 one time when she was in trouble, “out of sympathy.” As to 
 Miss Edwards, he swore that her testimony was a “a tissue of 
 falsehoods from beginning to end,” with the exceptiom of one 
 immaterial fact, and he swore that the testimony in regard to 
 Miss Burch was wholly untrue. So that he makes a general de- 
 nial of the whole and a special denial of each particular allega- 
 tion. : 
 
 I shall invite your attention for a few minutes to the testi- 
 mony of Miss Edwards. It would be uncandid in me if I did not 
 say to you at the outset that I recognize the fact that the discov- 
 ery and publication of Dr. Rogers’ letter was calculated to dis- 
 credit any testimony of which he might be supposed to be the 
 originator, or any young woman with whom he might be sup- 
 posed to be on terms of intimacy. And yet, when you come to 
 consider with fairness and justice all the facts sworn to by Miss 
 Edwards, and all the facts offered for the purpose of discrediting 
 her, it is impossible to disregard her testimony. She is a young 
 person, she is very sprightly and pretty, and correspondingly 
 giddy. She was manifestly a cause of jealousy between two men, 
 and openly declared, according to Mrs. Williams’ testimony, 
 that she and one of these men were “sweethearts.” The other 
 and older man tried to take liberties with her, which she re- 
 sented ; then finally, when the fight came between these two men, 
 she came here and told what she knew against the one whom she 
 disliked. That is about the sum of it. In regard to some trifling 
 matters she was contradicted, it is true, but they were matters 
 about which it was perfectly natural, and, I may say, legitimate, 
 for her to conceal the truth. She met Mr. R. H. Whitaker on 
 the train, and he says she spoke highly of Dr. Grissom, and said 
 she expected to return to the Asylum. Mr. Whitaker was an 
 utter stranger to her—she had never seen him before. Is it to ° 
 be supposed she would have unbosomed herself about what Dr. 
 Grissom had done to this perfect stranger, who only rode a few 
 miles with her on the train ? 
 
12 
 
 The only other matter about which unfavorable comment 
 could be made was her introducing Dr. Rogers under a false 
 name to Mrs, Williams; and remember Mrs. Williams herself 
 says that Miss Edwards excused herself for this upon the ground 
 that there was jealousy about her, and she didn’t want it known 
 that Rogers had visited her there. 
 
 She openly declared to Mrs. Williams that Rogers was her_ 
 sweetheart, and she didn’t care who knew it. I must confess that, 
 such being the case, it is not very surprising to me to learn that 
 Rogers was seen with his arm around her waist, but I would 
 rather have some other proof of it than the word of a woman who 
 said she saw it on a pitch black, rainy night, just after leaving a 
 bright light. I don’t mention the other witness, young Williams, 
 who peeped through the blinds, because counsel insist that a 
 man who will peep, like King did, ought not to be believed on 
 oath. Perhaps there may be a difference in the degree of credi- 
 bility to be attached. to one who peeps through blinds from that 
 due to one who peeps through a key-hole, although I do not re- 
 member to have seen it laid down in any work on evidence ; but 
 I will be more liberal than the counsel, and say frankly that I 
 have no doubt Rogers actually did sit on the sofa with his arm 
 around her. It seems to me that I’ve heard of sweethearts. 
 doing that before. But, gentlemen, does that involve any sete 
 turpitude in the young lady ? 
 
 Are you prepared to say that any young lady who will permit 
 her sweetheart to put bis arm around her waist thereby justifies 
 the suspicion that she is devoid of truth and virtue? Hardly. © 
 And yet this is the very worst thing that has been proved against 
 Miss Edwards, and on the strength of it you are asked to say 
 that all the evidence she has given in this case is false. Dr. 
 Grissom swore it was “a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to 
 end,” and yet, as my associate so clearly demonstrated to you, he 
 himself corroborates her testimony in regard to his cruelty to 
 patients. Why should it not be true as to his attempts upon her 
 virtue? She.is the daughter of a respectable physician, and has 
 proved by a number of witnesses an excellent character, and she’ 
 
15 
 
 says that Dr. Grissom on several occasions made these improper 
 advances to her. Counsel ridiculed as palpably false her state- 
 ment that Grissom talked to her about running away with him, 
 and says the idea of a man of his position, with a family, run- 
 ning away with a girl is absurd on the face of it. Certainly it 
 would be absurd, and I have no idea that Dr. Grissom ever con- 
 templated any such thing, but whether he tried to make her be- 
 lieve he would in order to accomplish a purpose is quite another 
 matter, and not so absolutely incredible on the face of it. With 
 this brief notice of Miss Edwards’ testimony, I pass on to what I 
 consider a more important matter. ; 
 
 Now let us for a few minutes consider the case of Mrs. Per- 
 kinson. Dr. Grissom says she told the truth about his kissing 
 her “through sympathy,” but that she swore falsely as to the 
 other kissings and attempts at kissing. He admits that his first 
 kiss was unfortunate, and I think everybody will agree with him. 
 It was very unfortunate—it was, in fact, a calamitous osculation, 
 because it stirred from his lair the devil of lust, who from that 
 hour began to exhibit himself whenever Mrs. Perkinson came 
 into Dr. Grissom’s presence. Hear the pitiful story of this poor 
 woman as gathered from the testimony. (Colonel Waddell then 
 read the testimony of Mrs. Perkinson). Harassed by poverty— 
 seeing not far from her door that gaunt spectre in whose pres- 
 ence the stoutest heart will quail—with her husband unem- 
 ployed, and knowing not where to turn for help—she goes to 
 Dr. Grissom and with tearful pleadings appeals to him to give 
 her husband work by which he might feed his little ones. 
 
 Unable to resist her earnest prayers, and yielding to the better 
 instincts of his nature, he complies with her request—and if he 
 had dismissed her with words of kindness only it would have 
 saved him a load of misery. But right then and there the 
 tempter entered into his heart, and drove him to the first act of 
 what he hoped would bea career of pleasure, but which has proved 
 to beatragedy. It whispered to him, “ Nowis your time to feel the 
 way; kiss her through sympathy and if she takes it kindly you 
 can kiss her again, and go on kissing her.’ He did kiss her 
 
14 
 through sympathy, as she thought, and as he says, and receiving 
 no rebuke for it, he felt that the case started out well and there 
 was a good time ahead of him; but 
 “Oh! what a tangled web we weave 
 When first we practice to deceive.” | 
 
 It was the Genesis of an Iliad of woes for him. I will not 
 go over all the story told by Mrs. Perkinson. You remember 
 it, and the minuteness with which Mrs. Perkinson gave her evi- 
 dence, and you also remember—what is quite as important— 
 her demeanor on the witness stand; and you cannot forget that 
 a large number of highly respectable witnesses gave her not only 
 a good character, but a remarkably high character from her 
 childhood to this hour. Several gentlemen who knew her when — 
 they were students at Wake Forest College and she was at Mrs. 
 Purefoy’s school testified that she was always remarked upon for 
 her singular modesty and lady-like deportment, and some of 
 them, especially Mr. Holding and Mr. Denmark, said they 
 knew her general character to be as good now as it was then, 
 the latter saying that it was as good as that of any lady in 
 North Carolina. 
 
 And yet, gentlemen, you saw the pitiful attempt made in her 
 case, as in that of other important witnesses, to discredit her and 
 make it appear that she, too, was swearing to a lie. . The only 
 witness was an old lady who disliked Mrs. Perkinson’s family 
 because her brother had run away with and married the old 
 lady’s daughter. This old lady said she didn’t think Mrs. 
 Perkinson’s character was very good, and was allowed to leave 
 the witness stand without cross-examination, because we knew 
 what we could prove to the contrary. The last witness, you 
 will remember, said that only last Sunday he heard a large 
 number of the women at the church where Mrs. Perkinson used 
 to attend expressing astonishment that any one should assail her 
 character. | 
 
 You have no right to consider what counsel said he expected 
 to prove by a witness about Mrs. Perkinson, because the testi- 
 mony was excluded. Counsel ought not to have said it, but as 
 
15 
 
 he did, I will say that I ain authorized to assert that if the wit- 
 ness had sworn to it he would have lied. 
 
 Well, here, gentlemen, you have a woman who has proved as 
 good a character as any lady in North Carolina, swearing that 
 Dr. Grissom, after kissing her, as she thought, through sym- 
 pathy for her distress (which he admits to be true), tried after- 
 wards to take liberties with her—and Dr. Grissom swearing 
 that it is absolutely false. I do not care to dwell om this speci- 
 fication farther than to say thar I never in my life saw a woman 
 on the witness stand whose whole conduct and demeanor was 
 more modest and lady-like, whose story was told with more 
 simple naturalness, and who sustained herself better under a 
 severe cross-examination than Mrs. Perkinson did. She is a 
 poor woman who makes an honest living by hard work, and is 
 respected by her neighbors, according to the testimony. If she 
 has told the truth, is it not doubly hard’ on her and doubly 
 infamous in Dr. Grissom to first attempt to seduce her, and, fail- 
 ing in that, to attempt to blacken her character when she tes- 
 tifies against him ? . 
 
 And now, gentlemen, I will proceed to consider the first speci- 
 fication under the first charge. I confess that there is an inex- 
 pressible sadness about the case of Miss Burch from any point 
 of view, and there are horrors suggested by it that are enough to 
 sicken the soul. In dealing with it I realize the impotency of 
 any language at my command. I feel as if I was entering a 
 charnel house, and being forced to commit an act of desecration, 
 and this, too, upon any theory of the evidence. And yet, gen- 
 -tlemen, I cannot drive away the thought which haunts me that if 
 she is conscious of these proceedings, which God forbid, even the 
 shame with which they will overwhelm her will be swallowed up 
 in the satisfaction of knowing that retribution has overtaken him 
 who wrought her ruin. How lame, and how poor and weak is 
 the story told by the accused to explain away the evidence of 
 -Mr. King and Emanuel Jones and Mr. West in regard to what 
 occurred in the matron’s bedroom! Having listened to all they 
 said before going himself upon the witness stand, and knowing 
 
16 
 
 that a simple denial would not answer, and having abundant 
 time to invent a theory and abundant capacity to do so, he tells 
 a tale that he thinks will fit the facts sworn to. | 
 
 Ah! gentlemen, it was ingenious, but it will not do. It lacks 
 those elements of probability which are absolutely necessary to 
 carry conviction against such direct and positive testimony. 
 
 Let us dissect this story. He says this poor lady consulted 
 him as to a complaint incident to her sex; that he had reason to 
 attribute it to a certain cause which required a private examina- - 
 tion; that he made other examinations, generally in the matron’s 
 room, the matron sometimes being present in the adjoining room, 
 and sometimes not; that he applied the necessary remedy and 
 relieved the trouble to some extent, but not entirely, and that 
 he never committed the act with which he is charged in regard 
 to her. : 
 
 You will observe that, acorn to. this statement, the wit- 
 nesses (King, Jones and West) are corroborated, so far as their 
 evidence as to Dr. Grissom’s and Miss Burch’s visits to the 
 matron’s room is concerned, and also as to the matron’s absence 
 at the time, because he admits that his private examinations 
 of Miss Burch generally occurred in the matron’s room, and 
 that sometimes the matron was absent. There is no con- 
 flict between their testimony and his as to those two facts. On 
 the contrary, his admission directly supports what they said. So 
 that out of the three facts, viz.: that they went together to the 
 matron’s room, that she was absent, and that the occurrence took 
 place there, two are proven; and as to the other fact—the act 
 done—we have the oaths of two eye-witnesses against the oath 
 of the party charged with the act, and, of course, vitally inter- 
 ested in disproving it. 
 
 Now the rules of evidence and the dictates of common sense 
 demand that unless it has been shown that Mr. King and 
 Emanuel Jones are wholly unworthy of credit—that they ought 
 not and cannot be believed on oath when testifying to a fact 
 which they say they saw with their own eyes, and in regard to 
 which there appears no motive for them to swear falsely—this 
 
‘ea 
 
 ‘ 
 
 / \ 
 
 Board or any other tribunal. before which such testimony is de- 
 livered would not be justified in refusing to believe it. 
 
 Is there any evidence before you to show that Mr. King is a 
 man who is unworthy of credit? On the contrary, has he not 
 proved by some of the most respectable citizens of the State that 
 he is a man of unimpeachable character? He is, to be sure, only 
 a poor mechanic who makes an honest living by the sweat of his 
 brow, and perhaps it may be a great crime for an humble man 
 like him to testify against a man of influence and power like Dr. 
 Grissom; but he was a brave Confederate soldier who fought 
 four years for the honor of North Carolina, and his neighbors 
 and all who know him say he is honest and truthful, and that no 
 man can impeach him on that score. 
 
 One ground of attack on him by counsel was, that seeing a sus- 
 picious state of things, he took the only means of verifying his 
 suspicions by peeping through a key-hole, and they denounce 
 such conduct as incompatible with the character of an honest and 
 truthful man. Counsel grew eloquent in their scorn of such an 
 act, and said that no man who will do it is worthy of belief under 
 oath, and yet I venture to say that they would not apply that 
 rule to every adulterer, for instance. But which of the two 
 acts is it that necessarily makes its perpetrator a liar? It is no 
 crime, it is no violation of law, human or divine, to peep through 
 a key-hole, but it is a violation of both human and divine law 
 to commit adultery. If, therefore, adultery does not disqualify 
 aman to speak the truth (and counsel will not say that), why 
 should peeping through a key-hole do so? It will not do to say 
 that although Mr. King proves as good a character for truth and 
 honesty as any man can, yet you must believe that he has come 
 here and perjured his soul simply and solely because, suspecting 
 a wrong, he peeped through a key-hole to ascertain the truth of 
 his suspicion. It was not polite or refined to do it, to be sure, 
 and probably neither of you would do it, but it is not a crime, 
 and it doesn’t follow that because King did it he cannot be be- 
 lieved on oath, notwithstanding he has proved a good character. 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 But they say it was a physical impossibility for King and the 
 boy Jones to see what they said they saw; and counsel got an ex- 
 pert to come here and examine the locality about dusk one 
 evening last week, and to take measurements from the key-hole, 
 and so forth. They introduced the expert (Mr. Ashley) and 
 his drawings with an air of satisfaction that was pleasant to be- 
 hold, and they questioned him minutely as to the lines of vision 
 from the key-hole, and how much of the bed in the matron’s 
 room could be seen, and the like. But when my associate 
 finished cross-examining Mr. Ashley and you had all gone to 
 the key-hole, and looked for yourselves, how much was left of 
 the argument about the physical impossibility of seeing such an 
 occurrence as King and the boy swore to? Not ashred. They 
 said King could not possibly have seen from the stage, whether 
 the door of the matron’s sitting-room was open or shut, and 
 that he couldn’t hear it shut from there; and yet the expert 
 said that, although he thought upon his examination late in the 
 evening that such was the case, he found upon second trial, at a 
 different time of day, that both were quite possible. According 
 to the careful measurements of their own expert, too, it ap- 
 peared that the least space on the bed visible from the key- 
 hole was 114 inches near the foot, and the greatest space (I be- 
 dieve) 274 inches in the middle of the bed, as placed now. 
 This would have been amply sufficient for the sight King said 
 
 he saw, but it appears that the bed was a small iron one on. 
 
 rollers, and nobody can say that it might not have been ex- — 
 actly in the position described by the witnesses, which was just 
 as probably its position as any other. But you all have’in- 
 spected the premises for yourselves; you have examined with 
 your own eyes, and there is not a member of the Board who 
 does not know perfectly well that so far from being a physical 
 impossibility it was a very easy matter for a man looking 
 through the key-hole to ascertain in a second what was going on 
 in that room. Do you believe that, without motive to do 
 such a thing, a man who can prove a good character would 
 come before this Board, or any other tribunal, and deliberately 
 
19 
 
 swear to a lie for the purpose of ruining an innocent man? 
 What motive has been shown in this case? None whatever. 
 The only attempt to show a motive in King that. has been 
 made was so utterly inadequate to that purpose as to excite a 
 smile. It was this: that just before these charges were filed, in 
 an interview with Dr. Grissom, and when the latter had per- 
 sisted in asking him a question many times over, King got mad _ 
 and told him he must not ask him again! And you are asked 
 
 believe from this that a sufficient motive existed to induce 
 King to come here and commit perjury by swearing to a fact 
 which never occurred ! 
 
 Much is made of the fact that King signed a paper saying 
 that he knew of no immorality committed by Dr. Grissom. 
 King swore that the part about immorality was not in the paper 
 when signed by him, and in corroboration of this I want to 
 read to you what Dr. Grissom himself swore to. (Colonel Wad- 
 dell here read Dr. Grissom’s testimony as to the interview be- 
 tween King and himself). 
 
 Now, if King had already signed the paper saying he saw no 
 immorality, why did Dr. Grissom afterwards continue to ask him 
 if he said he had seen none? And why did King avoid 
 the question? And, when King siid that he would “tell. 
 about it when this thing blows over,’ why did Dr. Gris- 
 som say, “It might be too lafe”? Why was he so anxious 
 about getting a verbal answer to the particular matter about 
 “immorality and not about any other part of the paper if he 
 already had it down in black and white over King’s own signa- 
 ture? Why didnot King say, “ You already have my statement 
 to that effect in writing, and what are you asking me about it 
 again for?” And why did he refuse to answer? And why did 
 Grissom think he was bullying him? And why did he talk 
 about killing King? The answer to these questions is apparent. 
 It is that King, knowing there was nothing about immorality in 
 the paper which he signed, and, being again subjected to ques- 
 tions about it after refusing to answer in the first instance, be- 
 came naturally indignant and demanded that Grissom should 
 stop his questions. And here, according to Grissom’s own testi- 
 
20 
 
 mony, occurred one of the most remarkable illustrations of the 
 
 fable of the wolf and the lamb that ever happened. An em- 
 
 ployee is sent for by the most absolute autocrat in North Caro- 
 
 lina to come to his office, and upon his arrival there is plied with 
 
 questions about that autocrat’s moral conduct. He is told there 
 
 might be bloodshed, but declines to answer, and finally tells the 
 
 autocrat that he had already asked the same question four times, . 
 and he wanted him to stop, and thereupon the autocrat says, 
 
 ‘“ You are trying to bully me, and if you do I will kill you!” 
 
 Why, gentlemen, it is true that Dr. Grissom, like him of old, is 
 
 a man in authority, and saith unto this man “go,” and he goeth, 
 
 and to that woman “come,” and she cometh, but the Czar of 
 Russia himself couldn’t do an act of more absolute despotism 
 
 than to threaten to kill a man because he declined to answer 
 questions, especially if the man knew that a truthful answer 
 
 would give mortal offence. 3 
 
 Another hope that counsel seemed to indulge was that they 
 had caught King flatly contradicting himself by saying at one 
 time that there was no one else on the third floor of the build-_ 
 ing at the time he saw Miss Burch and Grissom go into the 
 matron’s room, and at another time saying that he saw the boy 
 Jones peeping. 
 
 One of the newspapers did report King as saying there was 
 no one else on the floor, but the stenographer’s report shows 
 that he did not say “floor” but “stage’’—that there was no one 
 else on the stage but himself at the time—and Mr, King was — 
 recalled to correct the newspaper report, and not to correct any- 
 thing he said. ! 
 
 Now, how are you going to get rid of Mr. King’s idee 
 corroborated as it is by the boy (Jones) in every particular, cor- 
 roborated by Mr. West as to the visits to the matron’s room on ~ 
 two occasions under exactly similar circumstances, and corrobo- 
 rated by Dr. Grisson’s own confession that he and Miss Burch 
 went there more than once in the absence of the matron? Of 
 course, if you are going'to start out with the proposition that 
 everybody except Dr. Grissom has lied, you can get rid of it 
 
 \ 
 
21 
 
 very easily ; but by what right and upon what theory can you say 
 this? ‘ 
 
 I do not choose to repeat the details of King’s testimony as 
 to what he saw. You all remember them, and you know that 
 they are utterly irreconcilable with the theory that Dr. Grissom 
 was making an examination. In the first place every physician 
 on this Board knows very well that it is not only not at all neces- 
 sary, but is not at all usual—in fact, that it rarely or never hap- 
 pens that any lady, particularly a respectable single woman, 
 should be subjected to any exposure, much less to such as was 
 testified to by Mr. King, in order to discover what Dr. Grissom 
 said he thought was the matter with Miss Burch, or to remedy 
 it; and any physician who would be guilty of such brutality is 
 unfit to practice that’ glorious and honorable profession. No, 
 gentlemen, that suggestion, which is the only one offered to ex- 
 plain this transaction, is palpably a false one. It will not do; 
 it is too thin. There is no alternative for you. Hither My. 
 King, a man of proven. truthfulness, whose character has not 
 been and cannot be impeached, has come here and, without any 
 motive for so doing, deliberately and maliciously sworn, to a lie, - 
 or else Dr. Grissom is guilty of this specification, and if he is 
 that ends this case. But there is quite as strong evidence, out- 
 side of what King and the other witnesses swore to, and this evi- 
 dence is furnished by Dr. Grissom himself and. by two of his 
 own witnesses, namely, Mrs. Burch, the mother, and Mrs. 
 Sechrest, the sister, of Miss Burch. I was touched deeply when 
 that old lady, with child-like simplicity and faith in the story 
 she had been made to believe, described her daughter’s condition 
 before she came to this institution, and when she visited her home 
 in December last, and when she had become insane. She and 
 her daughter, Mrs. Sechrest, supposing that they were strength- 
 ening Dr. Grissom’s testimony, said that Miss Burch was suffer- 
 ing from the complaint described by him when she visited her 
 home last December, and also when they came down here to see 
 her after she became insane, and yet Dr. Grissom certified over 
 his own signature, when Miss Burch was committed as an in- 
 
22 
 
 sane patient, that she was not in that condition. The history 
 of a patient’s antecedents, when committed to an asylum, is re- 
 quired to be given with the most minute -details, and for the 
 very plain reason that it is necessary to a full understanding ak 
 of the case and its consequent proper treatment. Now, you all 
 --know that there is no more common cause of insanity among 
 women than a trouble of this kind, and it was, therefore, of 
 vital importance, if she was then afflicted in that way, or even 
 if she had recently been afflicted in that way, that the suver- 
 intendent of the asylum to which she was sent should be ad- 
 vised of it. And -yet when Dr. Grissom came to act officially 
 in her commitment he said not one word about such a trouble, 
 but, on the contrary, certified that her condition in that respect 
 was “regular.” (Colonel Waddell here read the certificate). 
 
 You will remember that, in order to avoid the suspicion 
 which would naturally arise from the fact that he alone examined 
 her, and that he alone visited her after her seclusion, he said 
 that Dr. Burke Haywood was called in as consulting physician, 
 and also Dr. Hubert Haywood, but mark the fact that although — 
 he says he discovered her insanity on the last day of Febraary 
 it was not until about the first of April that Dr. Haywood 
 was called in; that Dr. Haywood never sat -more than a few 
 minutes at a time, coming twice a week; that he made no exami- 
 nation beyond feeling her pulse and only treated her medicinally. 
 Mark, further, that although Dr. Grissom says that she had~ 
 contracted the opium habit, yet after she became insane, accord- 
 ing to Mrs. Burch, she suddenly exhibited a horror of any kind. 
 of opiate, and even refused to take medicine that looked like it 
 had laudanum in it. 
 
 Gentlemen, since the world began, was it ever heard of that a | 
 victim of opium or chloral, so confirmed in the habit as to become 
 insane from its use, suddenly quit and refused to take it, even 
 when administered by a physician? I refuse to swallow any 
 such statement. The only evidence that was offered to show that 
 she had this habit was the declaration of Dr. Grissom that the 
 poor woman, after she became insane, and while suffering from 
 
 * 
 
23 
 
 acute mania, told him so, and the statement of her mother that 
 she subsequently told her the same thing. And yet we are asked 
 to believe that she suddenly so mastered this most enslaving of all 
 habits that she not only stopped using any kind of opiate but 
 exhibited the most intense aversion to it. It is barely- possible 
 that some member of the Board may believe this, but, if so, he 
 will be the only man in North Carolina who will. So much for 
 the case of Miss Burch, wronged and ruined woman, over whose 
 memory of the past the Hand of Mercy has drawn the curtain 
 - of oblivion. 
 
 The counsel who addressed you yesterday said the ‘manhood 
 of North Carolina stands for Nora Burch, the widow’s daughter.” 
 
 “J thank thee, Roderick, for the word.” 
 
 The manhood of North Carolina does stand for Nora Burch, 
 the widow’s daughter. It stands with crest uplifted, and right- 
 “eous wrath blazing from its eye, and be the judgment of this tri- 
 bunal what it may, its voice will soon be heard like the leaping 
 of the live thunder amid the crags, and in the sound of that 
 voice there will be terror for him who has dared or who shall 
 dare henceforth to do the deed which robbed the widow’s daugh- 
 ter of her most precious jewel, and then drove her into a mad- 
 house. 
 
 Counsel asked if she is to have no one to speak for her. Aye, 
 
 
 
 
 
 the manhand of North Carolina stands for. Nora Burch, the 
 widow’s d. Wehter, and it will “plead trumpet-tongued against 
 the deep « fnnation of-her taking off.” Humbly claiming to 
 
 represent some part, however small, of that manhood, I will 
 speak for her, poor, afflicted and benighted soul, and I ask you 
 in the name of God and of an insulted and outraged people to 
 vindicate the wrongs of which she has been the victim, and by 
 your verdict to set the seal of your and their condemnation upon 
 him who in my heart and soul I believe to be the author of all 
 her woes. 
 
24 
 
 And now, gentlemen, I bid you farewell, and leave you to the 
 discharge of the great and solemn duty which rests upon you, 
 and for the performance of which fearlessly and justly in the 
 sight of Him who searcheth the hearts of men, that great jury 
 of the people of North Carolina, to whom the counsel have 
 alluded, wait with absolute confidence. : ie 
 

 
 Tey aN 
 

 
rn 
 
 
 
 FEAR 
 00041090648 
 
 FOR USE ONLY IN 
 
 THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION 
 
 UNCPS 52962