Part I - The Normans in Southern Italy - Background

One of the most under-rated military campaigns took place in southern Italy beginning in the early 11th Century and ending in the fourth decade of the 12th Century. The takeover of southern Italy was accomplished by the Normans. Perhaps it is under-rated because there was no "invasion" of Italian land by a Norman army.  In fact the Normans (in small bands of adventurers and fortune hunters) appear to have first come there as pilgrims and shown their mettle in small skirmishes with Lombards, Arabs/Muslims and Byzantines, and then second, been invited by several of the leaders of southern Italy somewhat later to help protect themselves.

Southern Italy

Southern Italy at the turn of the 11th Century was a mixture of three distinct zones. Apulia or Puglia (Longobardia) and Basilicata (Lucania)/Calabria were ruled by the Byzantine empire, the island of Sicily by the Arab/Muslims or Saracens (as it had been since their conquest of the ninth century) and the central mountains of Campania/Benevento which were divided between three major Lombard principalities (dating back to the 6th Century) - Capua (north of Naples to the border with the papal states), Salerno in the south (from the Amalfitan peninsula down to the Gulf of Policastro) and the remnants of Benevento (in the inland mountain district, from Avellino northwards to Spoleto - the Abruzzi and the Adriatic). In the Abruzzi, lay a series of independent counties, partly Lombard, partly Frankish in character, but this region was in almost every aspect, geographic, economic and social, separate from the south proper. On the west coast there were three small duchies, Gaeta, Naples and Amalfi, which had throughout the earlier middle ages retained a determined yet precarious independence from their larger neighbors, the principalities of Capua and Salerno. Both Naples and Amalfi still acknowledged dependence on the Byzantine empire, largely as a means of protection against the aggressive instincts of their neighbors, the Lombard princes.  These Lombard princes also subjected themselves to (at various times) to the Byzantines or alternatively to the Germanic rulers of East Francia (the Holy Roman Emperors) lying north of the Papal States.

Southern Italy Circa 1000 CE.  (Wikimedia Commons)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Southern_Italy%2C_ca._1000_AD.svg

Fragmented as the political divisions of southern Italy were, the cultural and religious divide was more complex still, for it did not coincide with the political boundaries. In the Byzantine dominions the population of northern and central Apulia was almost entirely Lombard, by this stage speaking Latin-Romance dialects, and observing Latin religious rites. Southern Apulia and Lucania were more mixed, although the Greek part of the population was probably in the majority, and had been strengthened in Lucania by emigration from Sicily (after the Muslim conquest). Calabria was mainly, and in the south almost entirely, Greek.

Normans Arrive into the Mix

Into this cauldron of political, religious and ethnic mixtures, Normans (from the region of Normandy in France) who were the descendants of the Vikings, began to appear.  Normans first arrived in Italy as pilgrims, probably on their way to or returning from either Jerusalum or from visiting the shrine at Gargano - the Sanctuary of Saint Michael, the Archangel., during the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. These Norman pilgrims would travel to Rome and thence to Salerno, to Gargano and finally to Brindisi to depart for the Middle East.

Modern Day Sancturary of St. Michael, the Archangel (Wikimedia Commons)

As these Normans appeared in transit, soon they began to interest the Lombard-led populations.  Several theories have been put forward by Norman chroniclers - Amatus of Montecassino, William of Apulia, and Leone Marsicanus (all in the eleventh and twelfth centuries).  Another theory comes from Radulfus Glaber in his earlier work, ca. 1030 (right after the events themselves occurred).

The earliest reported date for the arrival of Norman knights (engaged in combat) in southern Italy is 999.  In that year, according to several sources, Norman pilgrims returning from Jerusalem by way of Apulia stopped at Salerno, where they met with Prince Guaimar III, during which the city and its environs were attacked by Saracens demanding an annual tribute.  While Guaimar began to collect the tribute, the Normans upbraided him and his Lombard subjects for lack of bravery, and they assaulted the Saracen besiegers.  The Saracens fled, much booty was taken, and a Guaimar pleaded with the Normans to stay.  They refused but promised to show their riches to their compatriots in Normandy and to tell them of possible rewards for (mercenary) military service in Salerno. This account of the arrival of the Normans is sometimes called the Salerno tradition. This was first recorded by Amatus of Montecassino in his “Ystoire de li Normant” between 1071 and 1086, then was borrowed from Amatus by Peter the Deacon for his continuation of the “Chronicon Monasterii Casinensis” of Leo of Ostia, written in the early 12th century.  It is also mentioned by Orderic Vitalis in his "Historia Ecclesiastica".

William of Apulia had an alternative explanation from the years 1015-1016 in Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, dated 1088–1110. He does not mention Salerno in his work, though like Amatus he said that the first Normans to come to Italy were pilgrims. In his version, Norman pilgrims to Gargano encountered Melus, a member of the Lombard aristocracy of Apulia (in Bari) who was rebelling against the Byzantines. These Normans recognized the wealth of the region and the opportunities it offered for mercenaries.

Marsicanus, in the original version of his chronicle of Montecassino gives a briefer explanation that differs somewhat. He described the original revolt of Melus (ca. 1009) and then how he took refuge in Capua where he encountered forty Norman "in flight from the anger of their lord, the Count of Normandy" and persuades them to take part in his proposed invasion. Leone listed the leaders of the Normans as Gilbert Botericus, Rodulf of Tosny, Osmund, Rifinus and Stigand. In the later revision of the chronicle (by Leone or someone else), Amatus’ account is inserted almost verbatim while the list of the Norman leaders is omitted.  Amatus had in his account continued and described how the Count of Normandy had exiled a man called Gilbert Buatère for killing an individual called William, how Gilbert and his four brothers (Rudolf, Osmund, Rainulf and Asclettin) came to Italy and at Capua met Melus joining him in a new uprising. There are a variety of problems with this account especially the dates wherein Amatus appears to contract events that occurred over 20-30 years to imply they occurred in rapid succession. The latter two series of events are referred to as the Gargano traditiion.

The common elements in these accounts are: 1) Normans as pilgrims, 2) the role of political exiles, 3) the naming of Gilbert Buatère and 4) Norman involvement in Melus' second rebellion. Radulf's  version of the Normans’ arrival in "Radulfus Glaber Opera", edited by J.France, N. Bulst and P. Reynolds, Oxford Medieval Texts, Oxford, 1989, pages 96-101, refers to a man called Rodulf who had angered the count of Normandy, correctly named as Richard II (996-1026). Rodulf went with some companions to Rome where it was Pope Benedict VIII (1012-24) who recruited them for an attack on Apulia. Glaber’s suggestion that the pope was the instigator of or at least party to, the attack on Apulia in 1017 is supported by a contemporary French chronicler Adehemar of Chabannes: "Chronicon", edited by J. Chavanon, Paris, 1897, pages 178. Glaber also noted that news of their initial victories led to many other Normans leaving France and coming south. Certainly relations between the papacy and the patriarchate of Constantinople were poor in the 1010s as the papacy had been trying to reassert its authority, largely unsuccessfully, over the bishoprics of Byzantine Italy since the mid-tenth century.

It is possible that these stories are just the two or three tales that survived the times. They may include and be conflated with other stories known then but forgotten now. What we can ascertain is the following:

1. The events of 999-1000 in Salerno of the Normans against the Saracens need not be dismissed as legend nor does it have to be related to the second rebellion of Melus in 1016-17. Moreover, this account does not invalidate other versions of the Normans’ arrival.
2. William of Apulia's version of events should be seen as separate from the role of the Norman pilgrims at Salerno. There was a longstanding link between Normandy and the shrine at  Gargano. The presence of Melus at Gargano is likely. 
   
3. Norman mercenaries were already in Italy in the early years of the eleventh century. They had been recruited by the abbots of Montecassino and Saint Vincent of Volturno around 1010. Amatus decribes how after the early battles in Apulia in 1017 more Normans "from Salerno" joined Melus’ army suggesting they were already there.
4. Even the participation of Normans in Melus' first rebellion should not be ruled out. According to a document included in Finium agri Troiani descriptio faeta a Basilio Boiano Prol Ospdthario Catapano Italiae, a. 1019, XVIII, [in:] Syllabus Graecorum Membranarum, ed. F. Trinchera, Neapol 1865, p. 18 (Syllabus), the Byzantine general Basil Boioannes employed another group of Franks (the Byzantines always referred to Normans as Franks irrespective of their true ethnicity) and set them in city of Troia's fortress in the year 1019. What is especially interesting is that, these mercenaries must have lived in Italy for some time before they pledged allegiance to Basil, having served the counts of Ariano (ton areianiton kometon). These two events show that the Franks/Normans earned the reputation of superior soldiers very quickly and that gave them a

   

   This is the Byzantine Tower in Biccari, several kilometers from Troia. There was a similar structure in Troia built by Boiannes ca. 1017 as part of a network of towers and fortifications extending from northern Apulia to the Adriatic Sea. (Commune di Biccari Website)
   

   
   chance to serve under the Byzantine army. The contingent of mercenaries from Troia proved not only to be useful but also faithful. This is shown in another document concerning the same Franks/Normans, issued in 1024, by the same Basil (See Syllabus a. 1024, XX, p. 21), where the aforementioned soldiers served for considerable period of time (as mercenaries) and some of them might have been promoted.  
5. The involvement by Pope Benedict VIII with Norman mercenaries in Melus’ rebellion is feasible given growing problems between Rome and Constantinople.  
6. Glaber also suggested that Landulf V, prince of Benevento was involved, while Amatus and Leone Marsicanus agree that Melus gathered his forces in Capua, presumably with the concurrence of its princes, the two cousins Pandulf II and Pandulf IV. Both Capua and Benevento, which were temporarily united between 1008 and 1014 has ambitions to recover land their predecessors had held in northern Apulia, so their involvement cannot be surprising.

So by 1015, there were a group of Normans living in southern Italy primarily and employed as mercenaries. They appeared to be in service with the various Lombard princes, the Byzantine army and the Roman church. It is likely that various groups of Normans (sometimes including non-Normans but all lumped together as "Franks") would be on opposite sides of service and they did not align with each other or any political or religious philosophy. But that would be about to change in the next decades.

What factors led to the emigration from Normandy to southern Italy?

The first factor that encouraged many contacts between France and Italy during the last quarter of the tenth and the first quarter of the eleventh century was pilgrimage.  Italy was the crossing point of every major pilgrimage route leading to the Holy Land. Normans became familiar with southern Italy, its politics, its culture and its opportunity for advancement.

The next contributing factor to the Norman migration to the south is the over-population of Normandy, but in the sense of “inheritance”.  The best example of this period is the sons of Tancred de Hauteville, whose reasons for venturing to Italy are suggested by Amatus of Montecassino, Geoffrey Malaterra and Orderic Vitalis. According to Amatus “these people [the Normans] had increased to such a number that the fields and orchards were not sufficient for producing the necessities of life for so many” (Amatus, I. 1.), while Malaterra adds that “the sons of Tancred [Hauteville] noticed that whenever their aging neighbors passed away, their heirs would fight amongst themselves for their inheritance resulting in the division of the patrimony – which had been intended to fall to the lot of a single heir – into portions that were too small. [...] Ultimately, … they came to Apulia, a province of Italy.”(Malaterra, 1. 5) Orderic Vitalis noted this through the last “speech” he put into the mouth of Robert Guiscard on his deathbed in July 1085: “We were born of poor and humble parents and left the barren (sterile) country of the Cotentin and homes which could not support us to travel to Rome.” (Orderic Vitalis, VII, p. 32) These accounts underline the fact that the division of the family patrimony was a serious issue in eleventh century Normandy. Inheritance dashed the aspirations of many younger sons for acquiring a piece of land for themselves. The type of “joint tenure” estate, where the younger sons were given a share of the patrimony under the control of their elder brother, which would satisfy the younger members of a family and discourage emigration became standard only in the late eleventh century.  (See E. Tabuteau, Transfers of Property in Eleventh-century Norman law, Chapel Hill, London, 1988, Cahen, La Regime Feodal, pp. 88-9, and Loud, “How Norman was the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy?”, p. 18) 

Next, political factors played an important role in the decision to leave for Italy. Many who did so were exiles, victims of ducal wrath due to their military or political opposition to him, although some were later pardoned by the duke and reinstated. Exile was a common tool of punishment used by the Richard II, known as the “Ullac” (the duke’s right to exile has Scandinavian origin – ullac - and it is first documented in the 1050s: Haskins, Norman Institutions, pp. 27-30; Bates, Normandy Before 1066, pp. 166-67; E. Van Houts, “L’Exil Dans l’Espace Anglo-Normand”, La Normandie et l’Angleterre au Moyen Age, ed. P.Bouet, V.Gazeau, CRAHM, Caen, 2001, pp. 117-27), against uncooperative members of the nobility, in which someone of note would have aroused the interest of the Duke himself.  But the driving force behind the expansion of the 1020s-50s to Italy was the political and social disturbances in Normandy itself and many parts of northern France after the break-down of Robert II’s regime in 1034, and especially during William II’s minority. (See D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror, The Norman Impact upon England, (2nd ed.), Yale University Press, London, 1999, pp. 31-80; Bates, Normandy Before 1066, pp. 46-93)  

Other Normans were escaping the bitter conflicts between aristocratic families, during the crucial decades for the rise of aristocratic power (1035-55).  These years appear in great contrast to the period of relative stability and peace of the late tenth and early eleventh centuries in Normandy, a situation which had attracted political exiles from other parts of France actually, e.g. Anjou and Brittany, who would become leading members of the Norman aristocracy. The dramatic phase of Norman expansion began when the same type of territorial fragmentation and reorganization of family structures became pronounced within Normandy itself. (See Bates, Normandy Before 1066, p. 244.) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Murder of Benjamin F. Yost, Tuesday July 6, 1875

 "Character!  Character!  What can I say of this despicable wretch, this curse let loose from hell, a confessed murderer, a participant in the most fearful of crimes."

--Lin Bartholomew, attorney, dramatically impeaching a witness (James Kerrigan of Newkirk) who had turned state's evidence against his client in the Molly Maguires’ trial - Commonwealth v James Carroll, James Roarity, James Boyle, Hugh McGeehan, and Thomas Duffy - conducted in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania in the 1876. [Shenandoah Herald, July 24, 1876]

Background

During the year 1874 and into 1875, the aforementioned James Kerrigan was in the habit of carousing frequently with Thomas Duffy of Tamaqua, PA. [Details about the people and trials from The Molly Maguires : The origin, growth, and character of the organization by   Dewees, F. P. (Francis Percival), Publication date: 1877, Publisher: Philadelphia : J.B. Lippincott] Being Irish, both belonged to the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) and both were hard drinkers. According to some Duffy was a loud and quarrelsome drunk. Kerrigan was himself described as noisy, reckless, ready for anything. They had both been arrested by the Tamaqua police, and locked up on several occasions.

James Kerrigan

One of the two night-shift policemen in Tamaqua was Benjamin F. Yost, a Pennsylvania German. In making arrests, Kerrigan and Duffy had been harshly treated, and on one occasion, during the fall of 1874, Yost beat Duffy severely on the head with his nightstick.

Benjamin F. Yost

Duffy desired revenge. He brought a prosecution against Yost for assault and battery; this case was, however, settled on unknown terms. But his animosity towards Yost did not end, and he determined to kill him. He proposed this to Kerrigan, who agreed, since he had his own grievances to avenge. 

Thomas Duffy

Kerrigan was at this time the nominal body-master of the Tamaqua AOH Division, but the real head was James Carroll, who kept the Union House, a tavern on East Broad Street and sort of AOH hangout. Duffy and Kerrigan met at Carroll's with James Roarity of nearby Coaldale and head of the AOH there. Later, Roarity mentioned this nascent plot to Alex Campbell a liquor-dealer and tavern owner in Storm Hill (Lansford) and previous owner of Carroll’s Union House. Coincidentally, at this time in the neighborhoods of Storm Hill and Summit Hill, it had also determined that another murder was being discussed. - that of John P. Jones, a mine superintendent for the Lehigh and Wilkes-Barre Coal Company (LWC). Thus, the idea of an exchange of killings at once suggested itself. Men from Summit Hill in Carbon County would kill Yost and men from Schuylkill County would kill Jones. 

Site of the Union House Tavern, 132 E. Broad Street, Tamaqua

At this time and certainly after the murder and trial, the AOH was synonymous with was to become known as the "Molly Maguires". A private undercover operation headed in part by James “McKenna” McParlan of Pinkerton Detectives and instituted by Franklin Gowen, President of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad was several years along at this time. But it is crucial to note that all of this Yost murder planning took place without knowledge of McParlan or John Kehoe the alleged Molly Maguire kingpin.

The actual killing occurred in the early morning of July 6, 1875 when Hugh McGeehan and James Boyle (both of the Summit Hill area) shot Yost at the corner of Broad and Lehigh Streets in Tamaqua. Kerrigan accompanied the actual killers to the site and then led then away.

The murder remained “unsolved” until Kerrigan later was arrested and confessed to the taking part in the Jone's killing later in September 1875.  McParlan, however, became aware of the transaction in the weeks after the Yost murder occurred (when he was sent by his employer (still undercover) to Tamaqua to investigate) and reported his findings. But the decision was made by his employer to not reveal all facts to the authorities to protect its undercover investigation. Moreover, although the record is unclear, McParlan learned of the Jones plot and, half-heartedly at best, warned Jones’ employers; in retrospect, his and his employers' lack of real action likely caused Jones to lose his life.

The Murder of Benjamin F. Yost

Planning

The planning of the murder took place early in 1975 at Carroll's Tavern. Carroll, the de facto head of the AOH Division in Tamaqua was made aware of Duffy and Kerrigan's intent to murder Yost.  Duffy happened to meet James Roarity, the head of Coaldale AOH, at Carroll's. He spoke to Roarity of the murder and Roarity consented (for money), promising that if he did not do it himself, he would send over others who would.

Roarity, after his talk with Duffy, mentioned that they (Duffy and Kerrigan with Carroll's apparent acquiescence) had in contemplation the murder of Yost, and the request made that he should do it, to Alex Campbell (a prominent member of the AOH). It so happened that at this time others in Storm Hill and Summit Hill had also contemplated a murder, the intended victim being John P. Jones, a boss at LWC, who had black-listed several Summit Hiller's (William Mulhall and Hugh McGeehan). An agreement was then made with Campbell. Men were to be furnished from Summit Hill to kill Yost in consideration of Carroll and Kerrigan sending men from Schuylkill County to kill Jones. Mulhall and McGeehan, as parties especially interested, were selected on the part of Summit Hill. Yost was to be killed first. 

The Murder

The Fourth of July, 1875, fell on a Sunday. July 5 was therefore the national holiday. Roarity had come  to Tamaqua, and, about eleven o'clock in the morning, met Kerrigan at Carroll's. Roarity and Kerrigan walked to Storm Hill, and they would come back together later. Roarity and Kerrigan went at once to Campbell's. Inquiry was made for Mulhall and McGeehan, but Campbell said he had not seen them. Roarity found them and reported to Campbell and Kerrigan that they had agreed to go to Tamaqua that night for the killing, and that he would guide them over. Roarity's pistol, had already been sent to Carroll's bar. The point for the assassination of Yost had been selected by Carroll, Duffy, and Kerrigan - the corner at Broad and Lehigh at the west end of the town. 

Location of Yost Murder (July 6, 1875) at Lamp post Broad and Lehigh Sts, in Tamaqua

Roarity then bowed out; his wife had become ill. Then after Kerrigan had left Storm Hill, Campbell and McGeehan, concluded that Mulhall, as a married man with a family, was better left at home, and Jame Boyle, who was available, was asked to go instead, and consented.

After arrival at the Union House, the conspirators wandered about in the kitchen and the barroom, and Kerrigan in different parts of town. The others only went out once before they left. In order to fully appreciate the plan in view, Duffy walked with McGeehan and Boyle up to the chosen location. McGeehan would use the Roarity pistol, and Boyle would have a small single-shot pistol belonging to Carroll. In a bit of irony Kerrigan during the evening met Yost and had a drink with another policeman.

Kerrigan went home to Newkirk and would arrange to meet afterwards. Duffy led McGeehan and Boyle up the back to the (Odd Fellows) cemetery, there to leave them and return to Carroll's bar, as an alibi. Kerrigan met the two at the cemetery and led them to the street-lamp and placed them under large trees nearby where they waited over an hour. Yost and the other policeman (Barney McCarron) came up the street, but, instead of putting out the light at once, as had been expected, they first went into Yost's house to eat. 

The two policemen came out of the house, and Yost proceeded to the lamp post and mounted the ladder, McCarron remaining a distance away across the street. At this moment McGeehan and Boyle stepped forward and shot Yost.  Boyle missed his mark, but McGeehan's pistol inflicted a fatal wound in Yost's right side. Yost staggered from the ladder, exclaiming, "Oh! my God! I am shot! my wife!" 

The murderers, led by Kerrigan, fled. The other policeman ran after them, firing two shots, which, McGeehan returned.  The assailants scurried along the main road to the west and turned towards the Sharp Mountain. Kerrigan took them through unfrequented paths, then again turning into the town they passed through alleys and back streets to the eastern limits of the borough. The had met no one. Kerrigan continued with them until they were certain of their road back, and then returned to his own home unnoticed. 

Dr. Solliday arrived, examined the wound, and confirmed that Yost was mortally wounded. Death did not, however, occur until ten o'clock the next morning. In the meantime Yost conversed with Dr. Solliday, with Squire Lebo, Conrad F. Shindel, and with Daniel F. Shepp, a brother-in-law of Mrs. Yost. Neither policeman could confirm the identity of the shooters nor did they implicate Kerrigan or Duffy only confirming there were two assailants, not seeing Kerrigan.

McParlan in Tamaqua to Snoop Around

After Yost died, an inquest was held without result. Months passed and no arrests were made. The public would settle into the belief that it was but another murder open and defiant but impossible of detection. 

Nevertheless, Michael Beard, Daniel Shepp, and some others in Tamaqua, could not rid themselves of suspicion. Yost had not, to their knowledge, except Kerrigan and Duffy  (cleared by testimony of Mrs. Carroll and the dying declaration of Yost), an enemy in the world, and a murder entirely motiveless was beyond their comprehension. It was determined by Daniel Shepp and Michael Beard to employ the Pinkerton Agency, if necessary, at their own expense. Pinkerton representatives did not disclose to them the details of their ongoing undercover operation, but McParlan received instructions on July 14, 1875, to investigate and report about Yost.  Mc Parlan, as McKenna, made his appearance in Tamaqua, the scene of action, and conducted his investigation. He knew the Union House to be an AOH hangout, and, going there, for the first time formed the acquaintance of James Carroll. Carroll had heard of  McParlan (as McKenna) and one of the trusted AOH leaders of the Mahanoy Valley lodges and thus treated him cordially.

He used the pretext of AOH business to re-connect with Alex Campbell to whom he was somewhat acquainted, and by July 25, had learned that Yost's murder had been performed by unnamed members of the Summit Hill lodge. McParlan now temporarily based himself in Tamaqua, calling again at Carroll's bar, and learned about the murder weapons, the two pistols, that one was  Roarity's  and a small one was Carroll's. The conspirators were identified as Duffy, Kerrigan, Roarity, and Carroll. He did not, however, give the names of those who actually committed the crime. McKenna who had been stopping at the Columbia  House (at the Five Points) in Tamaqua now concluded to make Carroll's his local hangout. He also began calling, romantically, on Kerrigan's sister-in-law Mary Ann Higgins, all to avoid suspicion of all his time spent now in Tamaqua,

But the Yost murder remained “unsolved” until Kerrigan confessed to it and another murder in 1876.  McParlan, however, knew of the transaction in the weeks after the Yost murder occurred and reported his findings. But the decision was made by his employer to not reveal all these facts to the authorities to protect its undercover investigation. Moreover, by August McParlan learned that the Yost killing was a trade for the imminent planned killing of John P. Jones of Lansford.  Although McParlan was able to warn Jones, in retrospect, his and their lack of real action caused Jones to lose his life on September 3. The actual perpetrators of that crime were caught in the normal course of policing. It was that first Molly Maguire show trial that was tried without full undercover disclosure.

During the late stages of the Jones trial Kerrigan broke. Locked in solitary confinement, the Tamaquan, became apprehensive and decided to save himself and turned informer. The confession which contained the principal outlines of McParlan’s prior reports of the plans to kill Jones and their relation to Yost's murder in Tamaqua. Now the State/Local authorities could bring that case to trial as they immediately arrested the men implicated by Kerrigan, but they still did not know the presence of undercover agent, McParlan and how he implicated the same men. However, these arrests created a flurry of rumors. Fearing that others involved would leave the area, Coal and Iron Police (acting as the State) rounded up additional men (implicated by McParlan) and beyond Kerrigan's knowledge. Since Kerrigan did not know the men arrested by the second posse, the Molly Maguires could only suspect the existence of a second informer. Shortly thereafter, McParlan disappeared from Schuylkill County until the Yost murder trial.

The Trial

Following the conviction and sentencing of the first two Molly Maguires in Mauch Chunk, attention shifted to Pottsville, where another series of showcase trials was staged in the summer of 1876.The first of these highly publicized proceedings began on May 4, 1876 with James Carroll, Thomas Duffy, James Roarity, Hugh McGehan, and James Boyle facing trial for the murder of Benjamin Yost. James McParlan (in his Pinkerton Reports) and Kerrigan (in his confession) had both linked the Yost killing to the Jones case as quid pro quo to each other.

In the afternoon of Thursday, May 4, 1876, District Attorney Kaercher announced to the court, then in session at Pottsville, that the Commonwealth was ready to proceed in the trial of James Carroll, James Roarity, James Boyle, Hugh McGeehan, and Thomas Duffy, charged with the murder of policeman Benjamin F. Yost on the night of the July 5 and 6, 1875, at Tamaqua. The case was to be tried before a full bench, with Judge Cyrus L, Pershing presiding, with Judges David B. Green and Thomas H. Walker, and Associate Judges Kline and Seitzinger. 

When the case was called the Commonwealth was represented by District Attorney George R. Kaercher, joined with attorneys Hughes, Albright, and Guy E. Farquhar. Attorneys Ryon, Bartholomew, and Kalbfus appeared for the defense. The defendants had agreed to be tried together. The defense was calculating fully on breaking down the testimony of the informer, Kerrigan, and thus, were hopeful.

As in the Jones trials, the jurors were primarily of German extraction. One juror, Levi Stein, admitted, "I don't understand much English"; another, William Becker, asked to be questioned "in Dutch (Deutsch or German) as I am light on English ... I would not understand the witnesses." Both men were accepted as jurors. No juror was Irish. [See Albright, The Great Mollie Maguire Trials, v and Broehl, The Molly Maguires, 296]

After the jury was chosen, on Saturday morning the case was opened by Kaercher. He confirmed that the testimony of James Kerrigan, the accomplice, would be offered, and that a man who for years had lived in the county, associating periodically with these men, and who had learned the history of their crimes, known to them as James McKenna, would also be put upon the witness stand. His name was James McParlan, and he was a detective employed by the Pinkerton Agency, in the employ of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad. This was the first public acknowledgment of an undercover plant infiltrating the so-called secret society of Molly Maguires. (It is useful to remember that neither Kerrigan or McParlan testified in the Doyle or Kelly trials. So this would be their coming out party.) [See McParlan's testimony in the Yost trial, Among the Assassins!, 16—17; and, for a fuller account, see his testimony in K.C.K, 92-98. Cf. Pinkerton, The Molly Maguires and the Detectives, 497-508; Dewees, The Molly Maguires, 252-74; Broehl, The Molly Maguires, chapter 11.]

During the Kaercher’s opening speech, Franklin Gowen, the President of the Philadelphia and Reading and himself an attorney, entered the court and took his seat at the counsel-table of the prosecution. Benjamin Franklin, head of the Pinkerton Agency at Philadelphia, entered at the same time, and took his seat close behind the bar. 

The LWC, which had openly shown their position in the Doyle and Kelly prosecutions made no secret of the fact that they had also engaged the private counsel in the present prosecution. The presence of Gowen indicated that not only was his legal ability (he had been the Schuylkill County District Attorney in 1862-1864) to be used on behalf of the Commonwealth, but also that the Railroad, with its vast resources and power, was openly engaged in the contest with the "Molly Maguires." 

In another bit of showmanship, the drama was heightened when, toward the end of Kaercher's opening, ten more “Molly Maguire” prisoners were led past the courthouse in chains to Schuylkill County prison, having just been arrested. They included John Kehoe, the AOH delegate for Schuylkill County and the alleged ringleader. "The news of the latest 'catch' spread through the town like wildfire, gathering in a short time an immense concourse of excited citizens all anxious to learn the details … Poor fools! They imagined themselves sharp and capable of committing any deviltry without being followed—not to mention captured by that justice which sleeps, but never dies." [Shenandoah Herald, May 8, 1876] Now at last, the Herald exulted, the Mollys were about to be "swept from the face of the earth."

Late on Saturday, May 6, just after Kaercher's opening speech, James McParlan entered the Pottsville courtroom for the first time, accompanied by Captain Linden (both a Pinkerton and railroad employee) and two Pinkerton bodyguards. On the first day of his testimony, McParlan described his relation to the Yost case, how he had heard firsthand confessions from Carroll, Roarity, and Kerrigan, and how Duffy was the mastermind behind the whole affair. This evidence, on its own, might have convicted the defendants, but on Monday the prosecution extended its case into a general indictment of the AOH, which McParlan (in retrospect conflated with and) called the "Molly Maguires".

This constant linking of the AOH and the Molly Maguires was an important prosecution strategy, as it attributed the crimes to a large, well-organized society, supporting Gowen’s claims that it was the basis of a major conspiracy. Remarkably, by McParlan’s third day on the stand, even the defense had accepted this admission that the organizations were the same. At one point Bartholomew asked McParlan: “As I understand from your testimony, you were initiated into the Ancient Order of Hibernians or Mollie Maguires, on the 14th day of April, 1874?” [The Daily Miners’ Journal, May 9, 1876] McParlan thus offered minute details of the inner workings of a conspiracy. Much of his testimony was corroborated by the informer Jimmy Kerrigan. [MJ, May 5 to May 18, 1876; Among the Assassins!]

With the prosecution poised for a major conviction, the trial was suddenly disrupted on May 18, when the aforementioned Levi Stein, one of the German-speaking jurors fell ill. The case was suspended, and when Stein died on May 25, the judge dismissed the jury and declared a mistrial. 

The setback for the prosecution was temporary.  There was little doubt in anybody's mind that the testimony offered by McParlan and Kerrigan had doomed the five defendants. All that was needed was to arrange a new trial. In the meantime, the defendants in the Yost case were remanded in custody. 

That new trial took place between July 6 and 22 and resulted in the expected guilty verdict for four of the five defendants. Duffy requested and was granted a separate trial, which was held in September.  He was likewise convicted.