THE ROSS ABDUCTION CASE.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1577, 10 March 1879, Page 3

THE ROSS ABDUCTION CASE.

The circumstances surrounding the myste rious disappearance of the little boy, Charles Brewster Rj6s, son of Christian K. Ross, of Philadelphia, U.S.A., merchant, may still be in the recollection of our readers. The elucidation of the mystery, saya the " Melbourne Telegraph," so far as the Australian colonies (where the child is now supposed to be) are concerned, has been placed in the hands of Mr Thomas W. Lloyd, of this city, to whom carte blanche instructions have bpen given to spare no pains in causing the necessary inquiries to be made and bring to justice those who heartlessly abetted, or were instrumental in his abduction ; and for the information of such who are unacquainted with the particulars of this heinous crime, we place beforo them a brief outline of the particulars connected with his disappearance. On the Ist of July, 1874, Charley Ross, aged four years and two months, and his brother Walter, his senior by two years, were playing in the public thoroughfare, at Q-ermantown, near Philadelphia; and for several days prior to this the youngsters had been met and presented with lollies by two men driving a cart. On this day, childlike, little Charley and his brother asked the men to give them a ride, which was at once complied with. After driving for some considerable time, Charley began to cry, and begged to be taken home, and to pacify him, the men gave his brother Walter money to buy fireworks, and, during his absence on this deceitful mission, the fellows drove off with Charley. When Walter returned from the shop he found the cart, along with his brother and the men, had disappeared, and not seeing or hearing anything of them, and finding himself alone, he began to cry loudly, collecting a crowd, one of which kindly took him home. On returning to his home in the evening, Mr Ross was distressingly alarmed at the absence of little ; Charley, and from what Walter told him about the two men with the cart, the only reasonable conjecture he could form was that the child had been stolen, and, without delay, he placed the matter in the hands of the police authorities. Wuiter described the appearance ot the men, the horse and cart, and, strange to say, they were unknown to any one. The detectives and officers of the police were at a loss what to make of the affair. For weeks and months Mr Ross unavailingly continued the searoh. Every sympathy was ftit for the unfortunate father, and the only rational supposition that could be formed was that Charley had been stolen by two scoundrels, in the hope of getting a heavy ransom for his restoration. The conjecture that the child had been stolen proved to bo the right one. On the 3rd of July, the abductors had the audacity to write to Mr Ross, telling him he might keep his mind easy about Charles, but unless good payment was offered, he would never get him. The police concluded the boy was in Philadelphia, and now made a more minute and vigorous search, and every nook and slum of the city were fruitlessly searched. On the 4th of July, Mr Ross advertised lie would give a reward of 300 dol. for the restoration of his child ; on the 6th he received a response intimating that the required ransom would be 20,000d01., and if Mr Ross was prepared to negotiate, he could do to by advertisement in the " Public Ledger." A lengthy correspondence to and fro tiok place, which came to nothing, the ingenuity disphijod by the captors meeting with no recompense. The whole of the Amo.icun and English Press took up the theme, and at length it appeared almost conclusive that Cnarley's captors had gone to Now York, and, i'rom rigorous investigation, it was certain their names were Mosher and Douglas. No child, however, was with them. The New York police made every effort to secure their capture, and they were heard nothing further of until the 14th of December following, when the residence of Judge Van Brunt, ot tlio Supremo Court of New York, (it Long Island, was broken into. The judge and I'amiJy being absent for the neaso'i, and the house shut up, offered, as was thought, a good chance tor a burglary. The judge, however, had furnished it with a

"burgUr alarm' telegraph," which conveyed information of the slightest interference with the doors and windows into the Isdroom of his brother, who resided near. The burglars were interrupted, and in the course of the melee which opened, Mosher was Bhot dead, and Douglas so se7er«!y wounded that he died fifteen minutes afterwards. Before his death, he said :—" It is no use lying now— Mosher and I stole Charley Ross from Cwmantown." When asked why, ho replied, "To make money." When asked where the child was, he said, "Ask Mosher, he knows." On being told Mosher was dead, he remarked : " God help his wife and family," and expired. Walter Ross, Charley's brother, recognised the bodies of Mosher and Douglas as those of the men who had taken them into the waggon. Others afterwards identified them as the men vrho had been seen driving the childrenaway. Mosher's wife was unavailinglv interviewed, snd, disappointed in every quarter, Mr Ross fruitlessly offered 5000 dollars for the return of his child within thirty days. The confederate who conducted the correspondence was subsequently arrested, and died in gaol, without throwing any light on the mditer. It would afford us immeasurable satisfaction if the inquiries now being instituted should happily help to recover poor lost Charley Ross.