Rochester, Monroe, NY
Union & Advertiser
Jan 2, 1880
THE LOCKPORT MYSTERY
A Communication from one of the Chemists Employed in the Hotchkiss Case
On Tuesday evening, Dec. 23d, we published a large portion of the letter
of a correspondent to the New York Times, in regard to the analysis of the late
George C. HOTCHKISS, for the alleged poisoning of whom Mrs. HOTCHKISS and a
Dr. WILSON, are now under indictment. The following is therefore given, as a
matter of justice to the writer thereof, and in correction of some of the statements
made by the correspondent:
To The Editor of the New York Times:
My attention has just been called to a letter published on the first page
of your issue of the 23d inst., bearing date, "Lockport, N. Y., Dec. 20."
I am very much surprised at the statements made therein concerning the HOTCHKISS
poison case. In nearly every particular, important or unimportant, concerning
the exhumation and chemical analysis of the remains of George C. HOTCHKISS,
it is so strangely false as to outrage every feeling of manhood. In this letter
it is stated: "It is certain that suspicion of foul play in regard to the
fate of the husband and son of Mrs. HOTCHKISS had been entertained by many citizens
of Lockport for years, and these suspicions culminated in the exhumation of
the body of the husband on the 20th of June last. This was done before sunrise,
by Drs. A. Walter TRYON and Simeon Tucker CLARK.
These (referring to the portions of the remains taken) with the linings of
the sides and bottom of the coffin, were placed in a two-gallon jar, and before
the honest yeomen of Lewiston were aware, were transported in a wagon and safely
deposited in the laboratory of Dr. TRYON. "Now, the facts of this disinterment
are these: On the morning of the 18th of June (note the date) Drs. CLARK and
TRYON, at the direction of one of the Coroners of the county, indorsed by the
written request of the District Attorney and of the County Judge of Niagara
county, desiring that an examination and chemical analysis of the remains of
George C. HOTCHKISS be made, left Lockport in a carriage about eight o'clock
a.m., and went to Lewiston to execute their wishes. The grave was opened between
the hours of 12 and 1 midday, under direction of the Coroner residing at this
village. There was present ---- a member of the prominent citizens of the locality,
including two practicing physicians. Three of the Coroners of the county, and
a Coroner's jury, composed of well-known and respected citizens of Lockport,
witnessed the whole of the disinterment, and saw Drs. TRYON and CLARK remove
such portions of the remains as they deemed necessary, and this included the
whole trunk, except the bones, placing them in a suitable large glass jar, and
they brought them to Lockport. Now Drs. TRYON and CLARK think they have just
cause to feel outraged when a paper of the high standard of the new York Times
publishes in its most conspicuous columns such false statements. Yet this is
only a small part of the injury done them by your correspondent. They might
have conducted themselves as reported and yet been only knaves and not fools
too. But the details, purported by this correspondent to have been given to
him by Dr. TRYON, of the methods of the chemical analysis performed by him,
making him not only knave and criminal, but fool also. The whole tissue of absurd
nonsense about the ana'ytic processes used by me are the exclusive property
of this correspondent. It would be simply ridiculous if the people could only
know it was his and not mine. That you may personally inform yourself what likelihood
there might be of my attempting any such methods of procedure and call it a
chemical analysis, in a case of supposed murder, I refer you to Charles A. SEELEY,
Analytical Chemist, No. 37 Park Row of your city, whose student I have been.
Further, I never made any statements in favor of
disinterring and making analysis of the remains of Rawley C. HOTCHKISS, the
accused woman's son, now claimed to have been poisoned 10 years ago by strychnine.
Comment upon such correspondence is unnecessary. It would not be noticed now
had it not appeared in a paper of the high character of the T---w. In simple
justice to myself and Dr. CLARK, can I do less than to ask you to insert this
communication in as conspicuous a part of your paper as you did the letter of
your correspondent?
A. Walter TRYON, M. D.
Lockport, N. Y., Thursday, Dec. 25, 1879
___