BODY SNATCHING IN OHIO DURING THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY*
by LINDEN F. EDWARDS
Professor of Anatomy, Ohio State
University
The history of the science of human
anatomy is not merely
a biographical record of the leading
personalities or a compila-
tion of the discoveries and
achievements in that science; it is
also the story of a bitter struggle
between a scientific spirit which
demands human bodies for dissection and
an antipathy of the
public mind toward the practice of
human dissection. Treated
as impious by those who adhered to a
superstitious belief that
the dead human body should be left
intact and that dissection
blasphemously exposes the secrets of
nature; objected to by the
laity which viewed human dissection as
being posthumous punish-
ment; discouraged by many who thought
that dissection was a
useless procedure; frowned upon by
others as being repugnant
to man's better feelings; obstructed by
the law but notwithstand-
ing fostered by the love of knowledge
and by its practical appli-
cations to medicine and surgery, the
science of human anatomy
has triumphantly survived since the Age
of Greece.
Prior to the year 1881, when the Ohio
General Assembly
passed an anatomy act legalizing human
dissection in the medical
schools of the state,1 a paradoxical
situation existed. On the
one hand, the public, though bitterly
opposed to the practice of
human dissection, nevertheless expected
the practitioners of medi-
cine and surgery in the state to be
well trained in the subject of
human anatomy. On the other hand, the
lawmakers, expressing
the will of their constituents,
obstinately refused to enact legis-
* This article and the two following
were given as papers at the annual
meeting of the Committee on Medical
History and Archives of the Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Society,
held at the Ohio State Museum, Columbus,
April 15, 1950.
1 Laws of Ohio, LXXVII, 33.
329
330 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
lation permitting medical schools the
use of unclaimed bodies
for dissection. During this period
medical schools were, there-
fore, faced with two alternatives, namely, either not
to offer a
course in human dissection, or
practical anatomy as it was called,
thus failing to properly train their
students for the future prac-
tice of medicine and surgery, or else
to require the subject with
the use of dissection material procured
by the odious method
of grave robbery, resurrection, or body
snatching, as it was
variously and popularly called.
Naturally, the public, which at
the outset was prejudiced against human
dissection, was bitterly
inflamed because of the violations of
places of human sepulture
by resurrectionists or body snatchers.
Popular reaction to the
deeds of the body snatchers took
various forms, ranging from
procedures designed to prevent grave
robbery, such as receiving
vaults still to be seen in some
cemeteries, or the construction of
iron-grilled and cemented permanent
vaults, or the installation of
heavy rocks or timbers in graves, or
placing torpedoes in the casket
or grave, the detonation of which would
result from disturbance of
the grave, or the employment of a
nightwatch to guard a newly
made grave, to actual violence by
organized, armed mobs which
occasionally attacked college buildings
in search of the body of
some friend or relative recently
exhumed from its grave. Mean-
while, Ohio legislators steadfastly
refusing to enact an anatomy
law which would have solved the problem
of grave robbery by
eliminating the necessity for medical
schools to resort to such a
method for their anatomical subjects,
instead passed laws which
made the disturbance of places of human
sepulture a criminal
offense, the penalties for which were
increased from time to time
as the abuses became more flagrant.2
Meanwhile, medical colleges and their
faculties, and par-
ticularly the professors of anatomy,
grew in disrepute with the
public. Nevertheless, some medical
schools continued undaunted
to require one or more courses in
practical anatomy for gradua-
tion even though dissection material
had to be procured illegally.
See Linden F. Edwards, "The Ohio
Anatomy Law of 1881," an article to be
published in a forthcoming issue of the Ohio
State Medical Journal.
Body Snatching in Ohio 331
In spite of the risks involved in
running afoul of the law, or of
violence to life or limb, or of damage
to the college buildings and
their apparatus and equipment, the
practice of body snatching
continued more or less unabated in Ohio
throughout most of the
nineteenth century.
Ohio newspapers furnished the source
material for the
present paper, the chief objective of
which is a resume of the
most sensational cases of body
snatching reported in the state
during the nineteenth century. As to
the total number of graves
in Ohio which were robbed of their dead
by resurrectionists, it
can only be conjectured. Dr. Frederick
C. Waite, who bases his
conjecture of the number of bodies thus
obtained in Ohio during
that era on his statistical study of
physicians, kindly informed
the writer that he estimated that not
far from five thousand graves
in Ohio yielded up their dead for
anatomical instruction during
the century.3 Obviously most of these
cases of illegal disinter-
ment were never recorded in the press,
primarily because they
were not discovered.
Failure of the discovery of grave
robbery could be attributed
to at least two causes. In the first place, if the technique of
exhuming a body were properly carried
out by the resurrectionist,
there would be no telltale evidence
remaining of the grave having
been disturbed. In the second place,
potter's fields in the same
localities as medical schools were the
chief sources of cadavers,
and little or no effort was made by the
authorities to investigate
whether or not the graves there had
been disturbed.4 In support
of the latter statement is a remark by
Dr. James F. Baldwin,
one-time professor of anatomy in the
Columbus Medical College,
to the effect that the cemetery
connected with the Columbus State
Hospital had been common ground for the
resurrectionists for
a long while.5 Moreover,
evidence of such disinterments being
common knowledge is furnished in a
letter to the editor of the
3 Personal communication to the author.
4 Frederick C. Waite, "Grave
Robbing in New England," Bulletin of the
Medical Library Association, XXXIII (1945), 279.
5 J. F. Baldwin, "Grave
Robbing," Ohio State Medical Journal, XXXII (1936),
19.
332 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
Ohio State Journal (Columbus), dated February 17, 1871, in
which his attention is called to the
shamefully neglected condi-
tion of the graveyard at the Ohio
Penitentiary and ending with the
observation that "there bodies are
buried by day, to be dug up at
night by unforbidden
resurrectionists."
Regardless of the cause of the rarity
of news reports in the
press of grave robbery in potter's
fields, the newspapers in locali-
ties of medical schools occasionally
advertised the approach of
the opening session of these schools
with a macabre notice such,
for example, as the following: "As
the medical colleges in our
vicinity are about to commence their
winter's session it behooves
every good citizen to be on the alert
to prevent grave robbing,
and for the detection of any who may
engage in the business."6
Thirty-three years following the
appearance of the above
notice it was reported in a Columbus
paper that the trustees of
Ohio State University had appropriated
$40 to pay for hauling
dead horses, cows, and other animals
too large for the students
to carry to the zoology laboratory, and
the news item ends with
the remark, "These snatchers are
much less to be feared than
those of medical colleges."7 The
following year the same paper
reported that the medical colleges were
in full blast and sensa-
tions about the capture of stiffs were
in order. Optimistically,
it then stated that "it is said
they are, however, well supplied."8
It is of interest to note in passing
that the following day it was
reported that "body snatchers are
at work about Plain City. The
body of a Mrs. Herriott who died
recently has been removed from
the grave."9
A very common popular misconception
concerning the prac-
tice of grave robbing during the
nineteenth century was that it
was the romance of medical student
life; that every student
thought unless he had had a
body-stealing lark he had not been
fully initiated; and that all doctors
had a romantic story to tell
6 Ashtabula Sentinel (Jefferson), November 4, 1845.
7 Ohio State Journal, November 8, 1878.
8 Ibid., October 29, 1879.
9 Ibid., October 30, 1879.
Body Snatching in Ohio 333
of bold adventure and hair-breadth
escapes in robbing graves.10
In refutation of this popular notion
Waite points out that medical
students rarely attempted disinterments
independently, because
the procurement of dissection material
for medical colleges was
the duty of the demonstrators of
anatomy, who were carefully
instructed in the technique of the art
of exhuming bodies.11
This author also points out that
although practicing physi-
cians exhumed and dissected bodies for
instructing their private
students, renewing their own knowledge
of anatomy, or improving
their art of surgery, the general
public seldom, if ever, suspected
practitioners of engaging in body
snatching.12
Following the Civil War there was an
unprecedented enroll-
ment in the medical colleges of Ohio,
as a result of which the
demands for cadavers were greatly
increased. In order to meet
these demands medical colleges resorted
to the services of pro-
fessional body snatchers, or
resurrectionists, some of whom
became notorious and whose nefarious
trade developed to the
point that they organized into gangs
which trafficked in, or boot-
legged, human bodies.
The first recorded account of a grave
robbing episode to
occur in Ohio was at Zanesville in
1811. This was before the
first medical college was established
in the state, when the training
of medical students was by the
preceptor method. The discovery
was made that the grave containing the
body of an unknown man
had been opened and signs were left in
the snow of the body hav-
ing been dragged down the hill to a
point where it evidently had
been placed in a wheelbarrow, the track
of which was still evident
in the snow. The wheelbarrow track was
traced to the cellar door
of a local hotel where three medical
students of Dr. Hamm lived.
In the words of the newspaper account
this exciting news "spread
on the wing of the wind." The
people became excited and indig-
nant. They collected around the
building, broke open the cellar
door and found the body hid away behind
some logs, whereupon
10 This opinion is expressed in an
editorial in the Cincinnati Daily Gazette,
June 26, 1878.
11 Loc. cit., 272.
12 Ibid., 278.
334 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
the people became furious. Their
indignation knew no bounds.
Some proposed to tear down the hotel,
and but for the interference
of a few cool-headed men it would have
been torn down. The
author of the account goes on to say
that "the students found it
best to keep out of sight of the
enraged people. Had they fallen
into the hands of the people at this
time they would have been
hung to the limb of a tree."13
In 1823 a case of grave robbery occurred
at Fort Meigs,
Lucas County, Ohio, the details of
which were furnished to the
writer by Dr. Louis Effler, Toledo, Ohio. According to
the
account, the body of a dead man was
found partly dissected in
the barn of a local surgeon, who,
incidentally, had attended the
deceased during his last illness. Following this discovery a
public meeting was held protesting the
robbery, during which it
was pointed out by a committee that
under the existing law all
that could be done legally was to
prosecute the accused for lar-
ceny, because the shroud had been
taken. The surgeon was
advised to leave the community in
ninety days. This he refused
to do, however, and he continued to
practice in that locality for
nearly sixty years.
One of the interesting features of this
case was the legal
aspect involved. Prior to the enactment
of a special statute by
the Ohio General Assembly in 1831
providing penalties for the
exhumation of a human body,14 the
taking of a shroud or other
burial apparel was the only felony
involved in so-called grave
robbery, because according to the
principle of English common
law, a dead human body is not property,
and, therefore, the dis-
interment of a dead body did not
constitute robbery.15
In December 1839 a "resurrection
riot" was precipitated in
Worthington, Ohio, resulting from the
discovery that three bodies
had been stolen from their graves in
the potter's field in Colum-
bus. Suspicion was at once directed to
the Worthington Reformed
13 Zanesville Daily Courier, June 29, 1878. The incident is related
in an
article entitled "The Early History
of Zanesville."
14 Laws of Ohio, XXIX, 144-155.
15 William
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (4 vols., Phila-
delphia, 1825), IV, 241.
Body Snatching in Ohio 335
Medical College, the students and
faculty of which had been under
suspicion of grave robbery in Franklin
and Delaware counties
for several years. In fact the faculty
had been threatened by
civil suits for illegal disinterment
numerous times, and in 1838,
Dr. T. V. Morrow, president and
professor of anatomy of that
institution, was actually sued in court
on criminal charges but
was acquitted. On two occasions the
college building was sur-
rounded and searched for missing bodies
by the sheriff and his
posse but without success. On this
particular occasion, however,
when the mob entered the building the
bodies missing from the
potter's field were found. As a result
the medical college was
forced to close its doors, although it
subsequently was rechartered
in Cincinnati as the Eclectic Medical
College of that city.16
The medical department of Willoughby
University of Lake
Erie was also accused of obtaining its
dissection material by
body snatching, as a result of which
public clamor arose against
it. The Bluffton News of
November 13, 1947, carries a syndi-
cated column called "True Tales
About Ohio" by Harry L. Hale,
in which it is claimed that in the year
1843 nearly the whole
town of Willoughby mobbed the medical
college, broke up the
furniture, broke out the windows, and
threw parts of cadavers
through them, following the discovery
that the body of a Mr.
Tarbell recently buried was missing
from the grave.
In the Painesville Telegraph, December
21, 1842, is a
report covering a public meeting which
was held at the Town
House in that community on December 14
for the purpose of
interchanging sentiments in regard to
the flagrant outrage com-
mitted on the sanctity of their burying
ground in the wanton
digging up and carrying away of the
body of John Hudson, on
Sunday night, December 11, 1842. A
committee of five was
appointed to report resolutions
expressive of the sense of the
meeting upon this revolting depredation
upon the dead and
another committee was appointed to
investigate the matter and
to take measures to bring the offenders
to punishment.
16 Harvey W. Felter, "Worthington
College, Ohio, Reformed Medical Depart-
ment," Old Northwest
Genealogical Quarterly, VI (1903), 155-170.
336 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
One of the resolutions which was
reported was as follows:
"Resolved, That the mayor and
common council of this town
be respectfully requested to offer a
reward of one hundred dol-
lars for the apprehension and
punishment of the grave robbers."
The item ends with the following
statement: "The committee think
proper to inform the public that the
investigation has led to the
arrest of Dr. E. M. Clark of the
Medical Institution at Willoughby
who was required to furnish $500 bail
to appear before the
Court of Common Pleas." Further
search through subsequent
issues of the same newspaper failed to
disclose what the outcome
of this case was.
In October 1845 a shipping box labeled
merchandise and
addressed to a Dr. Sherwood in
Cleveland was deposited at a
warehouse at the harbor in Ashtabula.
Suspicions were aroused
by the stench arising from the box, and
when it was broken open
it was found to contain the bodies of a
woman and a child. The
woman's body was later identified as a
Mrs. Preston and the
child's as Jane Austin, both of which
had been stolen from their
graves in Austinburg about a week prior
to the time of their dis-
covery in the shipping box. Public
sentiment was greatly aroused
over this episode, particularly among
the citizens of Austinburg,
which held a town meeting protesting
the robbery.17
In view of popular opposition to human
dissection and of
the aroused public sentiment consequent
to the illegal disinter-
ment of the bodies of these former
residents of Austinburg, a
very unusual sermon relative to the
incident was delivered by the
Rev. S. W. Streeter of the
Congregational church of that village
on Sunday, October 12. After pointing
out the justification of the
public emotion for the outrages upon
the social and moral senti-
ments of the community and the biblical
basis for man's reverence
for the dead, the minister commented as
follows:
It does not follow that it is either
morally wrong or undesirable for
human bodies to be dissected. That this
is one of the means of advancing
and perfecting the science and art of
surgery and medicine cannot
17 Ashtabula Sentinel, October 7, 14, 1845.
Body Snatching in Ohio 337
reasonably be called in question. So
long therefore as the highest in-
terests of the whole race of the living
may, in this way, be promoted
we can never be justified in uttering an
indiscriminate condemnation
of this practice-the feelings are not
exasperated because medical men
dissect bodies but because they steal
them that the public feel injured
and outraged. If men, while living,
freely give their own bodies for
this purpose I know of no one who would
wish to interfere or prevent
it. If the medical faculty themselves
will set the example we will not
complain. If they will persuade their
own wives, sons and daughters
to do the same we will not find fault.
But we do utterly deny their right
to steal our wives, sons and daughters
for this purpose. . . . So far as
the medical profession can obtain
subjects for dissection in an honorable
and lawful way we should carefully
abstain from interfering with them.
. . . If our legislature can and ought
to do more to aid our medical
institutions let their duty be made
apparent and a public sentiment
created that will sustain the operation
of necessary, wise and wholesome
laws. . . . It is certain that if our
laws are defective or remain unexecuted
we have reason to fear that private
violence will demolish our medical
institutions. Who that denies the
advancement of sound medical science,
the best interests of society, and the
prevalence of order would not
deplore such a catastrophe? Let those
who wish to preserve respect for
our medical institutions and who wish to
see law, order and decency
prevail unite in asking of our next
legislature laws that will more ef-
fectually preserve inviolate the
sanctity of the grave and do what the
nature of the case will admit towards
advancing sound medical knowl-
edge.18
This was, indeed, a courageous
expression of an unusually
tolerant attitude for that day,
particularly when the public was
clamoring for the legislature to impose
more severe penalties to
combat grave robbing rather than the
more logical procedure of
providing medical colleges means of
legal acquisition of bodies
for dissection.
In December 1845 the body of Chauncy
Carver was stolen
from the grave at Aurora, Ohio, and on
January 9, 1846, an
anti-grave robbing meeting was held at
the Baptist church in that
village. It was resolved that a
petition be forthwith drawn,
18 Ibid., November
4, 1845.
338 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
signed, and forwarded to their county
representative praying to
make grave robbing a penitentiary
offense.19
The next reported incident of grave
robbing to occur in
Ohio took place in Cleveland in
February 1852, when it was dis-
covered that the body of a young woman
by the name of Johnson
had been taken from her grave. The
father, having been sus-
picious that her body was in one of the
two medical colleges of
that city, made a search of the
buildings but without success.
Rumor and gossip, however, soon induced
him to believe that her
remains had been found in the building
of the Cleveland Home-
opathic College, whereupon, armed with
an ax, he started for that
institution accompanied by a howling,
furious mob, which over-
powered the police, forced an entrance
into the building, and
demolished its furnishings and
equipment. This shameful demon-
stration of violent human emotion
failed to disclose any remains
of Miss Johnson; no proof was obtained
by the courts detrimental
to the college; and unfortunately the
trustees of the institution
were never compensated by the city of
Cleveland for the property
destroyed.20
In November 1855, Dr. Proctor Thayer,
demonstrator of
anatomy, and two of his medical
students, of the Cleveland Medi-
cal College, were apprehended in the
act of taking from the grave
in Woodland Cemetery the body of a
person who had died in
the city infirmary. They were arraigned
before the police magis-
trate, who charged them with illegal
disinterment of a human
body for the purpose of dissection. The
case was continued for
the express purpose of eliciting public
opinion by request of the
faculty and trustees of the medical
college, which defended the
demonstrator upon the grounds that the
college had the right to
take bodies of paupers from graves for
the purpose of training
medical students. To the writer's
knowledge this is the only
case on record in which a medical
college faculty and its board
of trustees came to the defense of the
demonstrator of anatomy
19 Cleveland Herald, January 20, 1846.
20 David H. Beckwith, "History of
the Cleveland Homeopathic Medical College
from 1850-1880," Cleveland
Homeopathic Reporter, 1900, pp. 10-32.
Body Snatching in Ohio 339
by requesting an expression of public
opinion as to the discharge
of his duties to the medical profession
and to society. Petitions
were circulated in behalf of the
accused, and although at first
the press criticized the faculty and
trustees for their singular
request, it shortly thereafter
editorialized in their support and
the case was eventually dismissed on
payment of costs.21
Perhaps because of the intervening
Civil War, no reports
of body snatching were found in the
newspapers examined during
the years from 1856 until 1870. In the
latter year there was
reported a case of body snatching from
the Union Church grave-
yard located in the Big Run
neighborhood off Jackson Pike in
Franklin County. The widow of a Mr.
Goetschius, some time
following his burial, purchased a lot
in Green Lawn Cemetery
and made arrangements to have her
husband's remains removed
to the new lot. The men employed to
remove the body found his
clothing a few inches from the surface
of the ground and when
they dug down to the coffin they
discovered that the body was
missing and that the grave had been
hastily refilled.22
The Cincinnati Enquirer of
August 31, 1871, carries the
story of the arrest of a notorious
professional resurrectionist by
the name of Cunningham, better known as
"Old Cunny." He had
been supplying the various medical
colleges of that city with sub-
jects for dissection for the past
twelve or fifteen years, almost
without molestation. Although by his
adroitness and singular
good fortune he had hitherto escaped
punishment, the law finally
caught up with him on August 30 when
two police officers appre-
hended him with two subjects for
dissection in his conveyance.
He was arrested and subsequently
indicted by the grand jury on
charges of illegally disinterring
bodies for dissection and having
them in his possession. He did not
appear at the next session of
the common pleas court, however, as the
January 31, 1872, issue
of the Enquirer announced the
death of "Old Cunny."
Four more years intervened before any
other reports are to
be found. In the spring of 1874 the
father of a young man who
21 Cleveland Herald, November 27, 1855.
22 Ohio State Journal, November 1, 1870.
340 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
had been recently buried in Lorain
County, had a presentiment
that the body of his son might be
stolen for dissection, whereupon
he set out for the cemetery intending
to watch the grave. Upon
his arrival he discovered to his horror
that the body had already
been stolen from its resting place. The
alarm was given, and
at the father's insistence a search for
the body commenced. It
was shortly found in a ravine nearby,
where it had been left by
the resurrectionists in their haste to
escape. The corpse had been
divested of all clothing, and the rope
which was used to pull the
body from the coffin was still around
the neck of the deceased.23
In the fall of 1874 a girl who had been
under the care of the
sisters of St. Francis Hospital for
about four months, died and
was buried in Calvary Cemetery. It was
discovered the following
morning that her grave had been opened,
the coffin broken into,
and her body stolen. Father Eis of Holy
Cross Church heard of
the episode and secured a search
warrant. Accompanied by four
police officers he went to Starling
Medical College to search for
the missing body. According to the
newspaper account the officers
were given permission to extend their
observations from cellar to
garret; they were shown the room in the
depths of the building
where bodies are kept before being
placed on the dissecting tables
and were given a long walk through the
mysteries of the establish-
ment. Their search was fruitless, however.24
In September 1875 the Somerset Press
reported that the
grave of John Sheridan, Sr., father of
Gen. Philip Sheridan, had
been disturbed. Investigation revealed
that the earth had been
removed as far down as the boards which covered the
casket but
that the latter was undisturbed. It was
believed that the resur-
rectionists became alarmed and abandoned their work,
as they
left a spade, a pair of glasses, and a
pencil. Tracks in the soil
showed evidence of a wagon drawn by one
horse and of two
horses which had evidently been ridden.
It was very doubtful
whether the body was being sought as
dissection material, since
it had been buried for more than three
months. Some were of
23 Ibid., March 21, 1874.
24 Ibid., October 10, 1874.
Body Snatching in Ohio 341
the opinion that a reward would have
been expected for the return
of the body.25
The Cincinnati Gazette of
October 4 and 11, 1875, relates
two cases of body snatching in that
place by a medical student
and a professional resurrectionist. The
bodies were of a man
and woman who were removed from the
German Protestant Ceme-
tery and taken to the Ohio Medical
College. When the civil
officers, provided with search
warrants, arrived at the college,
they found the doors of the dissecting
room locked. They broke
down one of the doors, which action
created considerable excite-
ment among the students. The officers
considered it necessary
to send for police reinforcements, the
prompt arrival of which
prevented an outbreak.
In January 1877 the mother of a child
which had been stolen
from its grave in the Catholic cemetery
in Columbus, was in-
formed that its body was in the vat of
a local medical school.
The news reached her because of a
careless remark made by a
medical student who claimed he had
participated in the resur-
rection. Accompanied by some friends,
the mother went to the
school and demanded the body, which she
secured upon agree-
ment that no prosecution would follow.26
Less than a month from
that date a grave in Union Cemetery was
discovered to have been
opened and the body removed. Evidently
the job had been per-
formed by amateurs, as the grave had
been left in a deplorable
condition and no attempt had been made
to conceal the fact that
it had been disturbed. The news report
states that the citizens
of North Columbus were quite indignant
over the affair and that
a search of the medical colleges proved
fruitless.27
In November of that year a poor
laborer's wife who had
been aided by the city of Columbus for
several weeks, died. She
was in a deplorable condition, and
since no relative had put in an
appearance, it was assumed that she was
a pauper. On the day
of her death the coroner ordered her
remains buried in the county
25 Ibid., September 4, 1875.
26 Ibid., January 26, 1877.
27 Ibid., February 20, 1877.
342 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
cemetery. The next morning her husband
made his appearance
and claimed he had made arrangements
for her burial that day
at the Wesley Chapel Cemetery. He and
the coroner proceeded
to the county cemetery to exhume the
body preparatory to its
removal to the latter cemetery. When
they opened the grave
they came upon the casket about a foot
from the surface; the lid
had been opened and the body was
missing. It was implied in
the news report of this episode that
there might have been col-
lusion between the authorities and some
local medical college,
because the husband was dissuaded from
making a search for his
wife's body at any of the colleges.28
Following upon the heels of this affair
was the news of the
discovery of the decomposed and
partially dissected body of a
three or four year old boy that was
found in a shallow grave in
the Franklin County Cemetery by two
young men while out
hunting. Since no child of this
description had been buried in
the cemetery within a recent period, it
was assumed that the body
had been procured elsewhere and having
been in too high a state
of decomposition was reinterred in that
cemetery by the would-be
dissectors.29
In December 1877 the potter's field in
Circleville was dis-
covered to have been invaded and two
bodies, a male and a
female, resurrected. Wagon tracks and
footprints led to the dis-
covery of the disturbed grave of a man
who had died mysteriously
a short time before, while the other
discovery came about when
the brother of the deceased woman
arranged to have her remains
removed to another lot and the sexton
found the coffin empty. The
belief was expressed that the
resurrectionists were from Colum-
bus and the comment made that steps
were being taken to guard
against like outrages in the future.30
The year 1878 was a banner year in the
annals of body
snatching in Ohio. Whether there was an
actual increase in the
practice due to an increased enrollment
in medical colleges, or
28 Ibid., November 21, 23, 1877.
29 Ibid., November 22, 1877.
30 Cincinnati Gazette, December 25, 1877.
Body Snatching in Ohio 343
whether more emphasis was placed on
practical anatomy, or
whether body snatching received more
publicity by the press than
it had in former years is not known. It
is certainly true, however,
that more cases were reported for that
year than for any previous
year.
Akron, according to the news write-up,
experienced its first
case of body snatching when the body of
a destitue man was
resurrected from the potter's field in
the sixth ward cemetery on
the north side of East Market Street.
The reporter made the
interesting comment relating to the
unpleasant revelation that with-
out doubt it had taken place and that
similar incidents probably
had occurred with greater frequency
than the public had any idea
of.31 In Columbus a Mrs.
Worthington committed suicide and
was to be buried in the potter's field.
Her friends, though of
poor circumstances, raised enough funds
to have her remains
interred in Green Lawn Cemetery. The
money was given to the
husband to purchase the lot. However,
he immediately disap-
peared and she was buried in the
potter's field after all, only to
be resurrected a few hours later.32
One wonders if her scoundrel
husband collected a second time. The
body of Lewis Smith, a
bricklayer, was illegally disinterred
from the grave in North
Columbus in the fall of that year.33
An aged farmer who resided four miles
east of Delaware
died and was buried in the Catholic
cemetery in Delaware. That
night a man who was passing the
cemetery noticed a team of
horses hitched to a huckster's wagon
standing by the fence. The
next day he reported his observations
to friends of the deceased,
who investigated and discovered the
grave had been disturbed
and the body resurrected. Suspicion
pointed to the Columbus
medical colleges, as the conveyance was
traced to that locality.
Search of these colleges, however,
proved fruitless.34
An organized band of resurrectionists
was arrested and jailed
in Toledo. The men arrested gave their
names as Charles O.
31 Akron Daily Beacon, November 11, 1878.
32 Ohio State Journal, February 13, 1878.
33 Ibid., November 14, 1878.
34 Ibid., January 21, 1878.
344 Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
Morton, Henry Morton, his brother, and
Thomas Beverly, alias
Johnson. It was disclosed that they had
a regular contract with
the firm of A. H. Jones and Company,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, and
that they operated in different parts
of the state, remaining at one
point for only a short time. Evidence
was found to show that they
were then attempting to fill an order
for seventy bodies, two of
which, that of an old lady and a boy,
had been recently exhumed
at Toledo, and that sixty bodies had
been shipped to the Ann
Arbor firm while the gang was operating
at Columbus.35
An elderly, well-known citizen of
Cleveland, a Mr. Edwin
French, died at the residence of his
son-in-law in Willoughby,
where his remains were buried. Early
the following morning it
was discovered that his grave had been
opened and his body
removed from the casket. Detectives
were at once set on the
trail, and shortly thereafter they
discovered the body in a tank
under a trap door in the floor of the
Homeopathic Medical Col-
lege. Further detective work disclosed
that the body had been
resurrected by a gang of body snatchers
which had been operat-
ing for some time in Cleveland and
neighboring villages. One
of the gang, who turned state's
evidence, confessed they often
robbed as many as six graves in a
single night.36
About two-thirty on the morning of
November 14, 1878,
two policemen were standing under a
street light on Main Street
in Zanesville when a light spring
wagon, pulled by a handsome
sorrel horse, stopped at the curb and
the driver inquired of the
two officers if that was the National
Road to Kirkersville. In
the back of the wagon could be seen
four large gunny sacks, and
while one of the officers engaged the
driver in conversation, the
other felt of the sacks and inquired of
the driver what he was
loaded with. When told that it was
corn, the officer replied,
"This is too soft for corn,"
whereupon the driver suddenly
became excited, raised up from his
seat, and struck the horse a
heavy blow. The frightened animal
thereupon bounded away at
a dead run. The officers' suspicion
having been aroused, they
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid., September 18,
24, 25, November 11, 12, 28, 30, December 2, 1878.
Body Snatching in Ohio 345
secured a team of horses from a livery
stable nearby and started
in hot pursuit after the fleeing
stranger. Finally in the vicinity
of Brownsville they came in sight of
the spring wagon, and when
they got within about one hundred yards
of it, they yelled for
the driver to stop and opened fire with
their pistols. The chase
kept up until the object of their
pursuit reached a toll gate west of
Brownsville. The gate was down, so the
driver leaped out and
escaped into the surrounding woods.
However, the horse was
stopped in its mad flight, and when it
was captured, the officers
discovered that the gunny sacks
contained four dead human
bodies. They requested the tollgate
keeper to rouse the neighbors
and scour the countryside for the
escaped stranger, who was im-
mediately suspected of having robbed
some graves in or about
the vicinity of Zanesville. The two
officers then returned to Zanes-
ville with the horse and conveyance
bearing its load of dead
bodies. Upon their return a huge crowd
soon gathered, the
bodies were quickly identified, and
inspection of their graves
revealed they had recently been
disturbed and the contents of
the caskets removed.37
The reaction of the press in Zanesville
to this episode is quite
interesting, but unfortunately due to
limitation of space it cannot
be dwelt upon here. It should be stated
in passing, however, that
before the affair was settled,
considerable "fightin, fussin, and
feudin" developed involving
Columbus, Newark, and Zanesville.
The stranger who made his getaway at
Brownsville was later
captured and returned to Zanesville,
where under questioning he
revealed his name to be L. S. Eaton,
alias Evans, and his con-
federates to be a young man by the name
of Cap Hilliard and
Dr. Irwin Heyl of Columbus. The latter
two were arrested and
taken to Zanesville, where the three
were indicted on four charges
of illegally disinterring human bodies.
They were subsequently
pardoned by the governor.38
Evidence disclosed that Eaton was a
professional resur-
rectionist who furnished cadavers not
only to the Columbus
37 Zanesville Daily Courier, November 14 to December 2, 1878.
38 Zanesville Signal, July 26, 1879.
346 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
medical colleges but to those in
distant cities.39 As a result of
this disclosure a strong conviction was
held by many that Colum-
bus had been the headquarters of a
resurrection gang for a long
time and that since Morton's exit the
business was being carried
on by his former partners in crime.
Dr. Heyl made the interesting statement
to a Zanesville re-
porter that he was connected with the
invention of a coffin torpedo,
known as the "Clover Coffin
Torpedo," which was patented by
Phil K. Clover, an artist of Columbus.40
At his trial, Dr. Heyl,
when accused by the presiding judge of
stealing bodies for money,
denied that they were taken for money
but confessed they were
for Starling Medical College, where he
was to be the demonstrator
of anatomy the coming year.41
In Cincinnati an old lady died in the
hospital and her re-
mains were sent to the potter's field
for burial. Shortly thereafter
some of her friends arranged to have
her body removed to a lot
in Spring Grove Cemetery. But when the
sexton opened the grave,
he found an empty casket, which was
unbroken, and since there
was no evidence of the ground about the
grave having been dis-
turbed, there was a strong suspicion
that the missing body was
delivered to a medical college before
the casket was put into the
ground. Her friends instituted a search
of the Cincinnati medical
colleges, and the body was recovered
from the Eclectic Medical
Institute, which agreed to give it up
on condition that there would
be no prosecution or notoriety.42
A rather amusing news item appears in
the Ohio State Jour-
nal of December 6, 1878, under the date line Cincinnati,
Decem-
ber 5. The police early that morning
had arrested Henry Goddar
and Rufus Hyms, who had just delivered
the body of a Negro girl
to the Miami Medical College. Hyms, who
appeared to be a new
man in the business, was intoxicated
and talked freely. As a
result, the police followed the case up
and exposed a gang of
39 Ohio State Journal, November 16, 1878.
40 Ibid., November 18, 1878.
41 Ibid., December 21, 1878.
42 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, September 27, 1878.
Body Snatching in Ohio 347
resurrectionists consisting of five
persons, the two men above
named, two women, and a Negro. The two
men were arrested
and sent to the workhouse, one on a
charge of drunkenness and
the other for abusing his family.43 Nothing
was said as to the fate
of the women, and presumably the fact
that the body delivered
under such suspicious circumstances was
that of a Negro made
the matter of no consequence. It is to
be wondered whether the
same attitude might not account for the
indifference shown by the
citizens of Dresden, Muskingum County,
the following year, when
there was a rumor spread about that the
grave of a Negro buried
there had been robbed. The news report
adds, "But the excite-
ment was not high enough to induce an
examination of the
grave."44
The most sensational case of body
snatching ever to occur in
Ohio, and perhaps in the United States,
was the famous "Harrison
case" at North Bend, near
Cincinnati, in 1878. In May of that
year the Hon. John Scott Harrison, son
of William Henry Har-
rison and father of Benjamin Harrison,
died of an obscure disease
and his remains were laid to rest in
the family burial plot at North
Bend. Every precaution was taken to
make his grave secure--a
cemented brick vault was built in the
grave, and after the casket
was deposited and the roof of the vault
completed, heavy stones
mixed with earth were used to fill the
grave. To add to the
security a watchman was engaged to
visit the grave hourly every
night for a week.
On the day of the funeral it was
discovered that an adjoining
grave of young Augustus Devin, who had
died about a week pre.
viously, had been disturbed and his
body stolen. The following
day two of his friends, one of whom was
a son of the recently
deceased John Harrison, journeyed to
Cincinnati to search the
medical colleges there for his body.
Provided with search war-
rants they went first to the Ohio
Medical College, where they
failed to find the missing body.
However, to their horror they
discovered the nude body of John Scott
Harrison dangling from
43 Ohio State Journal, December 6, 1878.
44 Ibid., February 3, 1879.
348 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
a rope which hung taut from a windlass
through a trap door into
a dark and gloomy chute. Naturally this
shocking episode created
a sensation.
Also sensational was the disclosure
that, aided by the janitor
of the Miami Medical College, the
notorious resurrectionist Mor-
ton, alias Gabriel, alias Dr.
Christian, and the demonstrator of
anatomy at the medical college of the
University of Michigan
were in collusion for the purpose of
bootlegging bodies to the lat-
ter institution. It was here that the
body of young Devin was
traced and found in a vat of brine.45
The Ohio State Journal of October
9, 1879, reported that
"some pretty strange stories are told
of the systematic manner in
which dead bodies are carted away from the County
burial ground.
The manner in which it is said to be
done would indicate that
there is some official traffic
connected with the transactions." This
brief item ends with the statement that
the affair should be looked
into. Shortly thereafter, it was
reported that the people in the
vicinity of Harrisburg were convinced
that there was traffic in
cadavers in their locality and that the
resurrection of the body
of a man, with no relatives to look
after his recently made grave,
had taken place there without doubt,
and it was implied that a
local doctor was the guilty body
snatcher.46
An interesting case of attempted body
snatching occurred in
Delaware on November 21, 1879. A man
who had been ap-
proached by a physician of that place
to assist him and another
person, agreed to participate in the
ghoulish affair but turned out
to be a stool pigeon of the police. The
trio met at the cemetery
at the appointed time and were in the
act of exhuming the body,
when at a given signal, the police, who
had been informed and
had surrounded the cemetery, closed in
and arrested the body
snatchers. A general hand-to-hand
encounter took place and sev-
eral shots were fired during the melee.
At the preliminary hear-
ing of the arrested gang the informer
told the police he understood
the body was being procured for a
medical college in Columbus.
45 Cincinnati Daily Gazette, May 31 to June 18, 1878.
46 Ohio State Journal, October 20, 1879.
Body Snatching in Ohio 349
In the same issue of the Ohio State
Journal in which the above
episode is reported, is a news item
entitled "Body Snatching Ru-
mors" in which the statement is
made that "it is stated on good
authority that two professional body
snatchers have recently
arrived in the city and that they are
here in the interest of the
medical colleges."47
In less than a week it was reported
that the body of a Mr.
Dodds of Delaware was taken from the
grave and that the ghouls
had left some of their tools behind
them.48
On Christmas day 1879 a party of boys,
while hunting,
passed through the cemetery near
Waterloo, Fairfield County,
where they found several tufts of human
hair scattered upon the
ground. They reported their findings,
which led to an investiga-
tion, and it was discovered that the
body of the late Jonathan
Boyer had been removed from the grave.
Another cemetery in Fairfield County
was visited by body
snatchers about the same time. The body
of Daniel Rudolph,
who committed suicide at Topeka,
Kansas, was shipped to Sugar
Grove for burial. Since three or four
strange men were seen
prowling around the vicinity after the
burial of the corpse, the
sexton became suspicious and visited
the grave every night at
regular intervals. One night about
eleven o'clock when he made
his usual visit, he espied three human
figures moving around the
newly made grave. He silently crawled
to the graveyard fence,
where he could make out through the
darkness that the ghouls had
already reached the casket and were
making preparations to re-
move the body. At this juncture he gave
a yell and discharged
several shots from his pistol at the
would-be body snatchers, who
took to their heels and were seen no
more.49
In 1881 the body of John L. Roll was
stolen from the grave
at New Philadelphia, Ohio. It was
subsequently found at a Cleve-
land medical college and returned by
friends to the burial ground.
According to the newspaper account it
was rumored that the whole
47 Ibid., November 22, 1879.
48 Ibid., November 27, 1879.
49 Ibid., January 1, 1880.
350 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
matter would be dropped because several
prominent men were
engaged in the affair. It went on to
say that "the friends are very
indignant over the matter, saying they
will spend $15,000 but
what the body snatchers shall be
brought to justice."
A more serious incident was reported
near the village of
Gann about the same time. When three
men attempted a grave
robbery, they struck a torpedo which
had been planted near the
bottom of the grave, instantly killing
one of the men and breaking
a leg of one other. The third party,
who was keeping a watch,
succeeded in getting his companions
into a sleigh, taking flight,
and evading arrest.50
A body snatching episode reminiscent of
the notorious ghouls
Burke and Hare of Edinburgh,51 took
place in Cincinnati on Feb-
ruary 15, 1884. On that date a
one-story log cabin situated on
Reading Road beyond the corporate
limits of Avondale, burned
to the ground. It was the home of an
old colored couple by the
name of Taylor and their adopted
daughter. Following the fire
no human remains could be detected
among the ashes. Murder
was at first suspected. However, since
the man had been confined
to his home with rheumatism for some
time, and his wife was
forced to take in washing, it was
reasoned that the motive must
not have been robbery. The marshal
thought of body snatching
and decided to investigate the medical
colleges. At the Ohio
Medical College he learned that three
colored bodies had been
delivered there on the night of the
fire. When the three bodies
were examined, evidence of foul play
was plainly visible, the
skulls having been fractured. The
murderers proved to be two
colored men, one of whom admitted being
a professional resur-
rectionist and having dug up a number
of bodies from the Colored
American and the Duck Creek cemeteries
in the previous few
months and disposed of them to the
local medical colleges. An
ironical feature of this affair was the
disclosure that old Beverly
Taylor was himself at one time a body
snatcher.52
50 Ibid., January 20, 1881.
51 William
Roughead, The Enjoyment of Murder: The Wolves of the West
Port (New York, 1938).
52 Cincinnati News Journal, February 22, 23, 24, 1884.
Body Snatching in Ohio 351
Waite estimates that of the two
thousand cadavers which
were used by medical colleges in
Cincinnati during the nineteenth
century as many as five hundred came
from the adjoining states
of Indiana and Kentucky.53 Evidence
to substantiate this opinion
is furnished by the following news item
which appears in the Ohio
State Journal of October 26, 1874: "There is great excitement
at
Seymour, Indiana, over an attempt at
body snatching, the remains
of a young lady having been taken from
the grave and found in
a trunk in a baggage car bound for
Cincinnati." Moreover, evi-
dence is furnished in another news
report that bodies were shipped
into Cincinnati from still more distant
states. Thus in the same
paper, with the date line Chattanooga,
November 28, 1879, it is
reported that when a man there
attempted to ship a box labeled
"cotton seed" to Cincinnati,
he was arrested on a charge of body
snatching, as the box was discovered to
contain the body of Ten-
nessee Keeth, who had died recently.54
It is reasonable to assume, as a result
of this survey of body
snatching in Ohio, that there are far
more empty graves in the
state than were ever suspected. We of
the twentieth century
should give thanks to an enlightened
public opinion which sanc-
tions our present anatomy law that has
eliminated that odious
character, the body snatcher, whose
deeds are now only history.
53 Personal communication to the author.
54 Ohio State Journal, November 29, 1879.
BODY SNATCHING IN OHIO DURING THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY*
by LINDEN F. EDWARDS
Professor of Anatomy, Ohio State
University
The history of the science of human
anatomy is not merely
a biographical record of the leading
personalities or a compila-
tion of the discoveries and
achievements in that science; it is
also the story of a bitter struggle
between a scientific spirit which
demands human bodies for dissection and
an antipathy of the
public mind toward the practice of
human dissection. Treated
as impious by those who adhered to a
superstitious belief that
the dead human body should be left
intact and that dissection
blasphemously exposes the secrets of
nature; objected to by the
laity which viewed human dissection as
being posthumous punish-
ment; discouraged by many who thought
that dissection was a
useless procedure; frowned upon by
others as being repugnant
to man's better feelings; obstructed by
the law but notwithstand-
ing fostered by the love of knowledge
and by its practical appli-
cations to medicine and surgery, the
science of human anatomy
has triumphantly survived since the Age
of Greece.
Prior to the year 1881, when the Ohio
General Assembly
passed an anatomy act legalizing human
dissection in the medical
schools of the state,1 a paradoxical
situation existed. On the
one hand, the public, though bitterly
opposed to the practice of
human dissection, nevertheless expected
the practitioners of medi-
cine and surgery in the state to be
well trained in the subject of
human anatomy. On the other hand, the
lawmakers, expressing
the will of their constituents,
obstinately refused to enact legis-
* This article and the two following
were given as papers at the annual
meeting of the Committee on Medical
History and Archives of the Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Society,
held at the Ohio State Museum, Columbus,
April 15, 1950.
1 Laws of Ohio, LXXVII, 33.
329