Mrs. Bolland and White simultaneously exclaimed, "Why you have surely
made a mistake."
Mr. Bolland said, "I told you not to bother with Erfert; that I believed
he was all right."
At this juncture White (using a slang phrase) "butted in," and said,
"Why, Furlong, you have got your foot in it sure. Erfert surely had
nothing to do with these thefts, and you have made a great mistake by
even accusing him. He has been practically raised by Mr. Bolland and in
his service for many years, and we've always had implicit confidence in
his honesty."
I replied, "Yes, I understand all of that; but Mr. Bolland employed me
to apprehend the party, or parties, who were robbing him, which I have
done. Erfert knows that he is guilty and he has fully admitted his
guilt, and I am satisfied from the evidence that I have found on his
person that he told the truth when he said he was guilty. I, of course,
realize Mr. Bolland's disappointment in finding that Erfert was the
guilty person, but I cannot help his feelings. I have simply done my
duty in the matter, and now it remains with Mr. Bolland as to what shall
be done with Erfert."
"Where is Erfert?" Mr. Bolland asked.
I pointed to my private office and said, "He is there and waiting to see
you. He has promised me that he will tell you what he has already told
my assistant and myself, and that he would at once return a considerable
quantity of the stolen property to you, which I have advised him to do."
I then conducted them to the private room where Erfert reiterated the
statement that he had made to me. He admitted everything. Then I, with
some of my assistants, immediately procured a hack and went with Erfert
to his mother's house, where we found about two hack loads of stolen
goods, consisting of clocks, silver plate, fine umbrellas, and various
articles of bric-a-brac, all valuable stuff.
I had these goods hauled direct to the Bolland store. We then visited
the store of the grandfather, in South St. Louis and recovered about
four hack loads of goods from there. By the time we had hauled the last
load away from there it was nearly daylight.
While this loot was being removed from Erfert's house, by Erfert himself
and two of my assistants, I was standing outside guarding the hack into
which the goods were being placed. A police officer came along. He knew
me and was somewhat surprised to see me at that time of night in that
locality, and asked me, in a friendly manner, what I was doing there. I
told him that there had been some stuff stolen from a jewelry store, and
that it had been taken to this house, and I thought it advisable to
remove the goods after night so as not to attract the attention of the
neighborhood, as I felt sure that the women of the family were not aware
of the fact that the property which had been placed in their house had
been stolen.
The policeman later reported having met me and what I had told him, to
his captain at the Soulard Street Station, and, of course, this report
reached the Chief of Police Harrigan, the following morning. Whereupon,
the chief became exasperated and ordered the policeman suspended
immediately, assigning the reason for so doing the fact that the officer
had not arrested the hack-driver and myself. He also suspended one or
two of the officers connected with the station who were on duty that
night.
The next morning, about ten o'clock, a city detective called on me at my
office and said to me, "I have been sent down by the chief to see you.
The chief understands that you arrested a young fellow by the name of
Erfert last night, and that you recovered a lot of stolen property. Is
this report true?"
"Part of the report seems to be true, while the larger part is not
true," I replied. "You know, and the chief should know, that I have no
legal right to make arrests, and therefore, I have made no arrest, nor
have I caused any to be made within the city of St. Louis, but I did
recover a large quantity of stolen goods last night and early this
morning. I have delivered them to the owner."
"Where is Erfert now?" he asked.
I replied, "I do not know where Erfert is at the present time. Why do
you want to know this?"
"Because the chief instructed me to come down here and get him, and
bring him to headquarters at once," he said.
"Have you any charges against him at headquarters?" I asked.
"I don't know," he replied. "All I know is that the chief sent me down
here to get him and bring him to headquarters."
I said, "I do not know whether there will be any charges preferred
against Erfert or not. His employer seems inclined to sympathize with
him and more especially with his family. I do not believe that he cares
to have him prosecuted for these thefts. I expect Erfert to call at my
office some time during the forenoon, and I am looking for Mr. Bolland
here at any moment. When Erfert comes I will tell him that the chief
wants to see him."
The detective said, "No, you need not do that. I will wait here and when
he comes I will take him up with me."
I turned to him and said slowly, "If Erfert calls at this office while
you are here, and if you have a warrant for his arrest, charging him
with any crime, you may take him to headquarters; but, unless you have a
warrant, I will not permit you to take him out of this office. I think,
perhaps, you had better go and communicate this to the chief."
This city detective and myself had been friends for a number of years
prior to this occurrence, and I must say that I did not like the idea of
him coming to my office and attempting to have me admit to him that I
had violated the law by having unlawfully detained a citizen, thereby
laying myself liable to prosecution. However, not having violated the
law, I felt perfectly safe. I knew that the chief was over-anxious to
make me trouble as he had made others in my line of business in the
past.
The detective left my office and went to report to his chief. In the
meantime Mr. Bolland came to my office and I told him of the visit of
the city detective and what had been said. Mr. Bolland said that he did
not care to prosecute Erfert; in fact, preferred not to do so, but, as
the police had the right to prosecute the case, he was really undecided
as to what was the best course to pursue.
I advised Mr. Bolland to quietly take Erfert up to police headquarters
and tell the chief what he had said to me, as it occurred to me in all
probability the chief would insist on having Erfert prosecuted.
Mr. Bolland accompanied Erfert to police headquarters, where the chief
and the detective who had called at my office took charge of him and put
him through a series of questions, which were principally concerning
what Furlong had done. They tried to make him say that Furlong had
arrested him and forced him to make a confession of the thefts, and
Erfert afterwards told me that they never did ask him whether or not he
was guilty of having robbed his employer. They bent their efforts to try
and make a criminal case against me, and had gone so far as to prepare a
statement, which they urged Erfert to sign, declaiming that I had
violated the law, instead of Erfert, by having arrested him and then
forcing him to make the statement admitting his guilt, all of which
would have been a violation of the law on my part. Erfert refused to
sign this statement on the ground that it was untrue. I will state right
here that the foregoing is a sample of how criminal cases were handled
at police headquarters about that time. However, all these efforts were
in vain, as Erfert truthfully replied to every one of their questions.
He told them that I had explained to him in the beginning of our
interview that I had no legal right to arrest him, and that I had
advised him that it was optional with him whether or not he returned the
stolen goods, but that if he did not stay with me and help me that it
would be my duty to turn him over to the police, and he then would be
written up in the newspapers and would get a lot of undesirable
notoriety that he wished to avoid.
The chief became very much exasperated with Erfert's statement, by which
he could make no case against me. However, he later made a complaint
himself against me, charging me with running a private detective agency
without a license from the Police Board. He had a warrant issued for my
arrest. I waived a hearing, and in due time my trial was called before
Judge Murphy. I was placed on the witness stand and asked if I was
engaged in the detective business in St. Louis. I replied that I was. I
was then asked if I had a license from the Board of Police
Commissioners. I answered that I had not and had never applied for one.
I was then asked by what authority I was conducting my business. I
stated that I was conducting my business by the authority of a charter
from the State of Missouri. I was asked to produce the Articles of
Incorporation. I did, and after the Judge had carefully read them and
had examined my charter, he dismissed the case and assessed the cost of
court on the complainant.
The Chief of Police insisted on a prosecution in the Erfert case. Erfert
was out on bond, and in due time appeared in court, pleaded guilty and
received a minimum sentence, which, if I remember correctly was two
years in the penitentiary. I understand that he was a model prisoner and
was released under the two-third rule.
The stolen property that had been recovered amounted to several thousand
dollars. I have learned that since Erfert was released from prison he
has been leading an exemplary life and is respected in the neighborhood
where he resides. His confederate was a mere boy and was not
prosecuted, it being understood that he had simply been a tool for
Erfert, and he had not been concerned in many of the numerous thefts.