Frederick Demond

[Susan Higginbotham]

(10-23-2015 05:05 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Yesterday I received an email from the grandson of Phillip Hanson Hiss. I wrote back and asked if I could have his permission to post his message. He kindly said yes. Many thanks to Richard O. Ames Brown for this contribution to the forum:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: Phillip Hanson Hiss existed and was a bona fide serous journalist

Dear Mr Norton,

On a search on Lincoln I came across your website, and on it discussions of the article by Phillip Hanson Hiss.

The name Phillip Hanson was used (and is to this day) in successive generations in the Hiss family, and this must be born in mind when researching the name. However the grave In Greenmount Cemetery Baltimore identified by one of your corespondents is in fact that of the Phillip Hanson Hiss in question. I know the grave as it is among those of the Hiss and Ames families - my ancestors.

Phillip Hanson Hiss - the writer of the article on Lincoln - did exist, and was a lawyer by training (a graduate of Johns Hopkins). He and his brother had owned a manufacturing business, and after his family had lost its money in a lawsuit over a will, he worked as a writer and journalist.

There was at the time of his death much speculation about it, as he came from a very prominent Baltimore family. It had owned property in Cincinnati and I guess that could be why he was working there.

There were numerous lurid and contradictory accounts of his death (some mentioned on your website), but most cite no reliable sources.

Following his death, the account read as evidence in court was that he had left his office in the very early hours of the morning (in winter), and was found dead on the foreshore of the river. His hat and his coat were found at different places in the street along the route between his office and the river.

In court, the explanation given by the police was that he was trying a short-cut home and in the cold and without his coat he had died of a heart-attack.

At the time of his death he was working for the Cincinnati Enquirer. His colleagues there testified that he was working in his office late as he was near completion of his research exposing large-scale police corruption. They said that they were in no doubt that he was killed by the police.

The court found in favor of the police version and explanation.

I have researched the story very fully because I am his grandson, and my account comes from sources published at around the time of his death.

Richard O. Ames Brown

Roger, does Mr. Brown have a photograph of his grandfather? I for one would be interested in seeing if he's willing to share it.

[RJNorton]

Susan, I shall write him, ask, and post if he sends me one.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(10-24-2015 04:56 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Susan, I shall write him, ask, and post if he sends me one.

Thanks!

[RJNorton]

Many thanks to Mr. Brown for sending a photo of Phillip Hanson Hiss:

[John Fazio]

(10-25-2015 05:19 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Many thanks to Mr. Brown for sending a photo of Phillip Hanson Hiss:

Roger:

I second the motion.

John

[Susan Higginbotham]

(10-25-2015 05:19 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Many thanks to Mr. Brown for sending a photo of Phillip Hanson Hiss:

Thanks, Roger and Mr. Brown! Great photo.

[John Fazio]

Everyone:

Following up on the research re Henry Lipman, please be advised that I received the following communication from Professor (of History) Giancarlo Onorati, from Rome, who kindly did the research for me:

Carrissimo professore
Oggi sono stato all'Archivio di Stato di Roma, ho consultato gli elenchi degli zuavi pontifici e l'unico Lipman che ho trovato e' Lipman Zenone nato in Olanda l'8 ottobre 1845, arrivato al corpo degli zuavi il 10 febbraio 1866, arruolato con il numero di matricola 2209 e posto in carico alla 6a compagnia. Egli fu promosso caporale il 21 giugno 1868 e il 22 ottobre dello stesso anno fu trasferito al corpo di artiglieria. Questi dati sono nel registro di arruolamento degli zuavi pontifici (Archivio di Stato di Roma, Ministero delle Armi, b. 49, reg. 1637, matr. 2209: Lipman, Zenone)

Translation:

Dear Professor:
Today I was at the Archives of the State of Rome, where I consulted the records of the Papal Zouaves. The only Lipman I found was Lipman Zenone, who was born in Holland on October 8, 1845, who arrived at the corps of the Zouaves on February 10, 1866, enlisted with the number of matriculation 2209 and placed with Company 6a. He was promoted to corporal on June 21, 1868, and on October 22 of the same year was transferred to the artillery corps. These data are in the Registry of Enlistment of the Papal Zouaves (Archives of the State of Rome, Ministry of the Army, book 349, registry 1637, matriculation 2209: Lipman Zenone)

It will be seen that this information exactly confirms the accuracy of the information supplied earlier from the Museum in Amsterdam. We can now be 100% certain that John Surratt and Henry Lipman served in the Papal Zouaves in Italy at the same time. This information, coupled with the information we have recently been given re Hanson Hiss, lends great credibility to the Lipman account of Surratt's escape even if it does not establish the same with 100% certainty. It all fits quite well, in my opinion: Lipman attended Surratt's lecture in New York. Surratt knew he was there and therefore said nothing about his earlier account, which Lipman knew to be false. When he finished, Surratt made it a point to talk to Lipman and express his gratitude. Gratitude for what? For helping him to escape. What else?

John

[Pamela]

Thanks for all the info from Mr. Brown, Roger. It's great to see a photo (and such a nice one) of him. I wonder if HH was friends with, or a social aquaintance of Surratt. Weichmann and A.C. Richards both responded to the interview. Did Hiss respond to them?

John, thanks for the additional research which seems to tip the scales in favor of Lipman's version, when all the information is looked at together.

[Dave Taylor]

(10-26-2015 11:39 PM)Pamela Wrote:  John, thanks for the additional research which seems to tip the scales in favor of Lipman's version, when all the information is looked at together.

Let's be clear, John's wonderful research does not "tip the scales in favor of Lipman's version". What John has done is given Lipman some credibility when, before, he had absolutely none. John has confirmed that Lipman was in the Papal Zouaves at the same time as John Surratt, which is significant I grant you. This revelation does not prove Lipman's version, but merely means that there is at least some chance it could be true. However, the weight of evidence including period documentation from the Papal States and John Surratt's own words, still supports John Surratt making a daring leap from the barracks in Veroli. You may choose to believe Lipman instead, which is your prerogative, but the bulk of the evidence is still vastly in favor of the leap.

I interpret it this way. When John first proposed Lipman's version with nothing beside his (Lipman's) account to give it credibility, he was saying a tiny pebble was more reliable than the bricks of evidence on the other side. With John's research, the pebble has changed into a seed. The evidence against Lipman is still larger, but, if John keeps it up, that seed may grow into a tree that will outweigh the traditional story. Now John needs to continue his research on Lipman's time in the Zouaves and look at the movements of his regiment to see whether or not they were with Surratt's regiment at the times Lipman stated. He should check the names of the other guards Lipman mentions to see if they were stationed at Veroli when Surratt was arrested.

Right now John has proven that Henri Lipman was in the Papal Zouaves at the same time as John Surratt. It's a good start, but just because that small detail is true doesn't mean everything else Lipman states is true. If he keeps cultivating his seed, the evidence may grow but, as of now, the weight of evidence is still in favor of John Surratt's leap.

[BettyO]

Let's be clear, John's wonderful research does not "tip the scales in favor of Lipman's version". What John has done is given Lipman some credibility when, before, he had absolutely none. John has confirmed that Lipman was in the Papal Zouaves at the same time as John Surratt, which is significant I grant you. This revelation does not prove Lipman's version, but merely means that there is at least some chance it could be true. However, the weight of evidence including period documentation from the Papal States and John Surratt's own words, still supports John Surratt making a daring leap from the barracks in Veroli. You may choose to believe Lipman instead, which is your prerogative, but the bulk of the evidence is still vastly in favor of the leap.

Quote:I interpret it this way. When John first proposed Lipman's version with nothing beside his (Lipman's) account to give it credibility, he was saying a tiny pebble was more reliable than the bricks of evidence on the other side. With John's research, the pebble has changed into a seed. The evidence against Lipman is still larger, but, if John keeps it up, that seed may grow into a tree that will outweigh the traditional story. Now John needs to continue his research on Lipman's time in the Zouaves and look at the movements of his regiment to see whether or not they were with Surratt's regiment at the times Lipman stated. He should check the names of the other guards Lipman mentions to see if they were stationed at Veroli when Surratt was arrested.

Right now John has proven that Henri Lipman was in the Papal Zouaves at the same time as John Surratt. It's a good start, but just because that small detail is true doesn't mean everything else Lipman states is true. If he keeps cultivating his seed, the evidence may grow but, as of now, the weight of evidence is still in favor of John Surratt's leap.

Bravo! Great detective work, Dave - I wholeheartedly agree.... One has to put together ALL the pieces of the puzzle before assuming anything -

[Pamela]

"One has to put together ALL the pieces of the puzzle before assuming anything." -BettyO

One doesn't need to put all the puzzle pieces together, with history you will probably not be able to find them all. As I recall, Dave assumed that the following statement supported the cliff leap story. I can't find the police report, (Naples?) but this comes from it: "...he had been put in prison for insubordination, from which he escaped, jumping from a window or high wall." Presumably the writer of this report got his information from John Surratt near the time of his escape, who made no mention of jumping from a cliff, thus contradicting the cliff story rather than confirming it.

It's a very interesting story one way or another.

[L Verge]

Have I posted this before? Source: ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article

Surratt thus becomes forewarned of his impending
arrest and begins to make plans to leave. Sainte Marie becomes
aware that Surratt saw the letter, and contacts General King, who
presumably induces the Papal authorities to issue an order for
Surratt's arrest.2" 9 The order is quickly carried out."
Surratt is locked into a cell of a former monastery. The building is
situated so that its rear was flush with the edge of a cliff that rises
about one hundred feet above the plain below. A four-foot wall exists
at the edge of the cliff not covered by the building. At about 4:00
a.m., he is awakened by six Zouaves to be escorted to a military prison
in Rome. He asks for and is granted permission to go to the privy.
He heads in that direction and suddenly leaps over the wall, landing
on a ledge of the cliff about twenty-three feet below.2 ' Dodging
bullets, he successfully makes his way to the bottom.
He then runs into a detachment of Zouaves, eludes them, and runs
for his life toward Italian territory. He runs into an encampment of
Garibaldi's red-shirted irregulars where he is surrounded. He
summons up his best Italian and explains that he is an American
deserting from the Zouaves." 2 Garibaldi's irregulars treat him with
great kindness and help him toward his destination-Naples. He may
have been treated at a hospital for injuries suffered in his leap.213
He arrives in Naples seven days after his escape, still attired in his
uniform. Although he has a small amount of money, he asks the
police to allow him to lodge at the prison, telling them that he is
penniless. He goes to the British consulate, claims to be Canadian,
and tells them of his lack of funds. Some English gentlemen provide
him with some funds to enable him to travel.214 The American Consul
in Naples inquires of the police about the possible whereabouts of
Surratt. He is informed that Surratt had left on board the British ship
209. Sainte Marie's Petition to the Court of Claims, title VII, in Court of Claims
Case File, infra note 240. 1 have seen no record that King asked for Surratt's arrest.
If he did, he was exceeding his authority and would not have made the request in
writing and would have not made a memorandum for the official files. I have not
explored the Vatican archives.
210. Letter from Lt. Col. Allet to the Roman Minister of War, in Pursuit, supra
note 2, at 15.
211. Telegram from Lt. Col. Allet to the Minister of War (Nov. 8, 1866), in Pursuit,
supra note 2, at 15. The telegram said, in part, that "[a]t the moment he left the
prison, surrounded by six men as guards, Watson plunged into the ravine, more than a
hundred feet deep." That the ledge was some twenty-three feet below is stated in a
letter from Lt. Col Allet to the Minister of War, dated November 9, 1866, and
reprinted in Pursuit, supra note 2, at 21.
212. Hanson Hiss Article, supra note 34, at 448.
213. See infra text accompanying note 220

[John Fazio]

(10-27-2015 09:36 AM)Pamela Wrote:  "One has to put together ALL the pieces of the puzzle before assuming anything." -BettyO

One doesn't need to put all the puzzle pieces together, with history you will probably not be able to find them all. As I recall, Dave assumed that the following statement supported the cliff leap story. I can't find the police report, (Naples?) but this comes from it: "...he had been put in prison for insubordination, from which he escaped, jumping from a window or high wall." Presumably the writer of this report got his information from John Surratt near the time of his escape, who made no mention of jumping from a cliff, thus contradicting the cliff story rather than confirming it.

It's a very interesting story one way or another.

Pamela:

What you say here makes sense to me, but there are things in my life now that make it necessary for me to move past this issue. Let everyone make their judgments and live with them, based on the information given in this thread and in the July 2, 2015, issue of BoothieBarn (Jumping John Surratt), including the July 7 post therein in which I set forth what I felt was a comprehensive response to earlier comments.

John