The King of Forgers
Charles Becker, one of the cleverest forgers of the century, was born in Germany. He came to this country with his parents when young. He is known all over the United States as “The King of check raisers.” It would be impossible to mention all this man’s deeds of daring, nor do we believe it to be necessary.
In 1872 with a number of confederates he robbed the Third National Bank of Baltimore of something like $150,000 and then fled to Europe. They alternated their residences between London and Paris, committing some big forgeries in both cities. For these several of the gang were arrested and jailed.
During the summer of 1876 Gainsborough’s painting of the Duchess of Devonshire had just been sold in London on May 25th, for $10,000. In those days this was said to be a high priced picture. The gang thought that they ought to have this painting as it meant so much ready cash to them. Accordingly, one of their number, Adam Worth, stole the picture from the rooms of the auctioneer, where it was in storage, by cutting it from its frame. This theft caused such a sensation in England that Becker and Company thought it good for their health to return to the United States, which they did. This painting remained in Chicago for several years, but was afterwards sent to London where it was sold to J. P. Morgan for $25,000.
In 1877 Becker and several others of his fraternity robbed the Union Trust Company of Brooklyn, N. Y., of $64,225 by means of raised checks. To save himself from state prison he “squealed” by turning state’s evidence, and Becker, the brains of the gang, was discharged.
The last crime Becker committed was in 1896 in California. Here he raised a check of twelve dollars to twenty-two thousand dollars. It was well planned and with the money that Becker and his “pal” had on hand to beat the case, they might have succeeded, but the other fellow was approached by a Pinkerton gentleman and as a result, turned state’s evidence. On the 29th of August, 1896, Becker was tried, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
As a forger and check manipulator Becker is a genius. With the aid of acids he can erase any writing or figures. In checks that contain perforated figures and lines he fills in with fresh pulp and then irons it over in such a manner that it cannot be detected, even with a magnifying glass.
So skilful with the pen was Becker that he could counterfeit a ten dollar bill which so closely resembled the genuine that even experts were deceived.
While serving a long sentence in a California prison he made such startling revelations to the Pinkerton Detectives that one of the superintendents called on him in the interest of the Government and the Bankers’ Association for verification. Satisfied that he was able to do all that he claimed, a favorable report was made to the Association, and a movement for his release was soon afoot. He was pardoned October, 1903.
Becker is not only a wonderfully clever forger, but has amazing audacity. While in prison he counterfeited several bills of large denomination and would have caused them to be circulated had he found an agent with sufficient nerve. He approached several keepers on the subject but found none with the required courage.
He circulated several counterfeit bills of large denomination among the German farmers in Pennsylvania among whom his knowledge of German and the Fatherland gave him wide influence and many easy victims. He bought a number of horses and cows and paid in counterfeit bills; then he shipped the stock to Philadelphia and disposed of it.
In February, 1888, he purchased a fine residence on one of the most fashionable streets of Baltimore and paid for it with a draft on a New Orleans bank which had been raised from $180 to $18,000. Before the fraud was discovered he had sold the property for $16,000 cash and left the city.
In March, 1899, he purchased a farm in Talbot County, Maryland, tendering as payment therefor a draft on a Philadelphia bank upon which he had raised the figures from $120 to $12,000. The farm was valued at $8,000. Hence he received $4,000 in change besides the $7,500 he was paid for the farm the second day after it was deeded to him.
He is smooth, oily and ingratiating—well-nigh as slick in speech as he is with his pen. His manner is more that of a Frenchman than a German. He talks rapidly, and his gestures are almost Jew-like. He once remarked that if he had been born dumb he would have been able to make himself fully understood by his gestures. He cuts the air, shrugs his shoulders, shakes his head, and assumes all the airs of a tragedian in order to convince his hearers of his honesty and earnestness.
His home training could not have been better, scion of high-class German parents who seriously sought to imbue him with a love for God, and due regard for the property and rights of his fellow beings. He was sent to the best school in Germany and graduated at the head of his class. He was then, by his own choice, apprenticed to an engraver and early developed marvelous skill at the trade. He was obliged to leave Germany because of his attempt to too closely imitate “the coin of the realm.”
Another noted American crook is R—— R——, now living a straight life. The annals of crime do not furnish another like him.
When he began crime he was a man of fine physique, good address, suave in manner, well educated and an accomplished writer for the press. What led him to become a crook is not known.
R—— first came into prominence in 1882. At that time he played a bold game to fleece several Yale College professors by means of bogus checks which he desired cashed. He introduced himself to them as an Irish nobleman named Lord Rossa, who wished to found a college in the United States and sought their advice in the matter. He was not only a perfect gentleman in manners but he was so scholarly that he readily threw them off their guard. But the scheme fell through when they would not cash his checks.
After this R—— went abroad, visiting Allahabad, Cairo and Paris and left a trail of gigantic swindles in his path. In India he is said to have swindled a prince out of a thousand guineas. Then he visited Cairo, where he was able to swindle the Khedive of Egypt out of $5,000. He came directly to Paris dressed like a Persian prince who could converse in the Arabian language; he had with him several body servants and a cook. The latter was secured to prove that he was a Persian of royal blood. In Paris he had great success and was able to get acquainted with Sadi Carnot, then President of France. After this he swindled several French bankers out of $50,000 and decamped.
At one time he claimed that he was born in England, but this he denies, asserting that he was born in Ohio and that his right name is Powers, and that he was a school mate and an intimate friend of the late President McKinley.
That he is a man of brilliant parts and an able writer cannot be denied. A number of years since he was on the editorial staff of a Philadelphia paper, often acting as its Washington correspondent. During the reign of terror created by the Klu-Klux Klahn in North and South Carolina, R—— was sent to those states and faithfully reported for the paper the status of affairs eventuating from the lawlessness of this well known society which was organized to bulldoze the negroes and prevent their voting, and to drive the carpet-baggers from the South, thereby securing the domination of a political organization south of Mason and Dixon’s line.
Periodical sprees are the cause of all his trouble. He runs short of money and then utters worthless checks to fill his empty purse. In April, 1901, he was sent to Sing Sing for four years for uttering worthless checks. But for the clemency of Professor Hadley, of Yale College, he would have been sent to Wethersfield Prison on the termination of his sentence in New York.
It is his determination to devote the remainder of his life to journalism and to never again collide with the law to such an extent as to be deemed worthy of arrest and imprisonment.
CHAPTER XII
CHANGING THE GRAND JURY INTO A BUREAU OF CRIMINAL EXPERTS
A New Classification of Criminals
There has been a growing feeling on the part of judges, lawyers and others who are directly concerned in the practice of law in our criminal Courts, not only in this county, but in many parts of the land, that the grand jury system has become so antiquated and ineffective in its practical workings, that it should be abolished and a more modern system put in its place.
In this city at various times during the past few years several of our General Sessions judges, notably Judges Foster, Rosalsky and others, when charging grand juries at the opening of terms, have warned that body against finding indictments against individuals unless they are grounded on legal evidence. Such labors simply put the county to a needless expense and the unfortunate defendants to much inconvenience. And even the past year almost every Presiding Judge of General Sessions when charging the grand jury at the beginning of the term has taken pains to inform the body that under no circumstances must they find indictments against persons charged with crime except on legal evidence. Judge Warren W. Foster, one of the best and fairest of our criminal judges, is especially outspoken against this habit of finding indictments against persons charged with crime on illegal evidence. On a recent occasion Judge Foster took occasion to thank the grand jury for the caution they exercised during the month in refusing to indict persons except on sufficient grounds.
In charging another Grand Jury the Judge said in part:
“A friend of mine who has served frequently on the Grand Jury, and who is a prominent business man in this city, said to me: ‘The more I see of grand juries the more I think it is an antiquated humbug. It is but clay in the hands of the District Attorney to indict whomsoever he wants to and to dismiss any charge he wants to dismiss.’”
“A great many people believe that the Grand Jury is a panacea for all the ills of our body politic. If the Police Department is short of men go to the Grand Jury. If we want a new Court House go to the Grand Jury and if we can’t compel them to build one file a presentment on the subject. The Grand Jury’s duty is clearly defined, and you are not to find indictments except on evidence properly presented to you.”
All this shows that there is considerable feeling abroad against the Grand Jury system and some of our best thinkers believe it should be abolished and something more modern put in its place.
More than once I have sat in Part I, General Sessions, and have watched the Grand Jury file into court, and hand to the Judge on an average from ten to thirty indictments, which was the work of a morning sitting, consisting of about two hours.
Sometimes the morning has been spent in finding only five indictments, but as a rule the work is rushed and only a few minutes given to each case. There is no law as to how much time the Grand Jury shall spend on each case. While I have been amazed at the rapidity of their work, I have been more astonished at the superficial character of the work. It will be readily seen that the Grand Jury has not the time in two hours to examine even five complaints and do justice to each defendant, much less thirty, especially when we remember that these indictments are to brand with crime certain ones for life.
We have no complaint against the Grand Jury. They are usually an intelligent and upright body of men. But when they are in consultation with the District Attorney they simply do what he tells them, without knowing whether their acts are just or not.
That this reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be productive of much good I would recommend,
1. The abolition of the Grand Jury as an antiquated system.
I admit that the suggestion is somewhat radical, but for that matter all reforms are radical that overthrow old systems, and are as a rule bitterly opposed by conservative people.
The body known as the Grand Jury has come down to us through many generations. But it may be well to know that the Grand Jury system is not an absolute necessity. At the present moment it is nothing less than the appendix vermiformus of the District Attorney’s office. And as it needs heroic treatment, it should be abolished without delay. The remedy is excision.
In some countries, for example, like Scotland, there is no Grand Jury. The work of preparing indictments against lawbreakers is done by a paid official called the Procurator-Fiscal. He and his assistants make a thorough investigation of every person against whom criminal charges are laid, and if found that there is just cause for such action the accused is then proceeded against in the criminal courts. If not, that is the end of it and the county is spared the expense of further litigation.
In various States, grand juries are usually made up of rich men—owners of real estate and persons of large means and business interests. Whatever else the Grand Jury is, it certainly is not a representative body. The poor man, no matter how good or intelligent he may be, is not allowed to sit with them, nor has he any say in their deliberations. They are composed of active or retired but wealthy business men, and apparently have no real sympathy with the common people. Some Grand Juries were ready to indict labor leaders, no doubt at the request of the District Attorney, but when the case against the ice grafters came up, Judge Rosalsky had to call special attention before anything was done. But this should not be. Independent of the action of the District Attorney, they might have indicted many of the rich thieves that stole millions from the street railroads of New York, and without the aid of the District Attorney they might have indicted several rich Insurance grafters and took pains to see that they were sent to jail for stealing the people’s money. Such action would have commended the Grand Jury to the people. During the McClellan administration some of his own probers have shown that many Tammany office holders have stolen thousands, if not millions of dollars from the city. But neither Mr. McClellan nor Mr. Jerome have taken sweet counsel together to send the grafters to jail. The Grand Jury could have made an original investigation without the aid of the District Attorney and indicted them one and all for grand larceny. It would have looked better if Mr. Jerome had refused to allow any of his assistants to be made Magistrates by the Mayor. In all this the people have wondered why the Public Prosecutor did not send the grafters to jail.
That in the interest of justice the Grand Jury should be abolished and the work it does at present given to a Board of Criminal Experts with enlarged powers. I also affirm that the Grand Jury is no more necessary to the administration of the criminal law in our day than the feudal barons of ten centuries ago or that a canal boat should take the place of our Hudson River steamboats.
At the present moment the District Attorney stands at the door of the Grand Jury room. He holds the key and practically controls it. The Grand Jury spends about two hours a day attending to whatever public business the District Attorney lays before them.
In some states any one suspected of a crime may go before the Grand Jury and present his side of the case. In this state it is not the practice. In a large number of cases men have been indicted without their knowledge, and were compelled to fight for their rights in the Courts, so as to be free from the stain that rested on them. In New York County if the District Attorney sees fit he may permit a single Policeman or other person, to go before the Grand Jury and give a one-sided opinion as to the guilt of some person charged with crime, although he may not possess one particle of legal evidence. If the Grand Jury were abolished, a Board of criminal experts could make a thorough investigation of all charges brought against people, and in all likelihood would give them an opportunity to be heard in their own behalf before they were branded as felons. And this is only right.
Only a few years ago the editor of a small monthly paper in this city was promptly indicted by the Grand Jury for libel for exposing the rascality of Insurance grafters, a work which Governor Hughes has since done legally before the Assembly Investigating Committee. At the time we mention when the insurance grafters were cut to the heart by the trenchant articles that exposed their conduct to public scorn, they went before the Grand Jury and charged this Insurance man with libel. They were permitted to tell a one-sided story to the Grand Jury, so as to silence this critic. Of course he was not allowed to make any reply till after he was brought into Court and branded as a felon. The indictment was afterwards quashed and he received some damages.
And this is but a fair sample of how hundreds of men have been ruined by such unjust methods. In this case the Grand Jury simply did what they were told to do by the District Attorney, he having been wrongly informed by the insurance grafters.