We know very well of this great black man, and of the struggle he had to have some credibility among a bevy of white recording artists in the 1890's. Johnson had a fascinating past, one that was overlooked by everyone that he worked with at the Columbia and Edison studios. With this ignorance of his hardship, his fellows treated him as they would any man of colour in that time. Most of them did, of course, we know that Len Spencer did the least he could to help out this man, not regarding his race as any sort of contribution to any disadvantage or hard luck he happened to have. Spencer was a die-hard republican(this is in the late-1890's mind you!), and believed in the mindset and social justice of Abraham Lincoln, which fared well when befriending Johnson. This must have been one of the reasons that the two stuck together for so many years.
Spencer did justice to any unequal or wrong situation, and tried his best to change anything that could be so. This may have been so when Johnson was involved in a huge Columbia scandal in 1899.
In December, 1899, George W. Johnson, or "The Whistling Coon", was accused of murdering his possibly mulatto wife(maybe girl-friend? this is still unconfirmed...), and the record companies after hearing of this stepped in quivering from the stress and worry of the amount of money that would have been lost. Victor Emerson went absolutely mad over learning of this, and he scrambled to raise a fund and start a following for the seemingly obvious innocence of Johnson. The case opened on December 20, 1899, amid a courtroom full of just over 100, and half of them being Columbia associates and studio artists, on the side of the innocence of Johnson. The prosecutor, John Cowan, was up for an extremely powerful standing of almost all the staff at Columbia, as Columbia had been in numerous risky legal battles before then, and Emerson threw in an immense pile of money, $2,000 in fact, from all sorts of national sources (most of them being Columbia dealers). Johnson had been in some trouble before this very case however, as he was accused of pushing his wife out a second story window and badly injuring her in early 1898, but he went free to go after that one, this was reported as a joke in the Our Tattler section in the February, 1898 issue of The Phonoscope:
This is undoubtedly Johnson that they are referring to here, as to according the many reports in the local papers about this case. Though, as we know from The Phonoscope , they all acted as this was a joke. It's odd to think though that Johnson's name was not at all mentioned, though the titles listed can give some obvious connotations to those who read this magazine. This was really the first of the suspicion that began to surround Johnson, as the woman he was living with since 1896, Roskin Stuart, was always said to have been a wild and absolutely mad woman, who was an awful drunkard, and would often fight Johnson. One thing is for sure about their relationship, is that they often quarreled, and it often got violent, regardless of which one of them was drunk, though more often it would be Stuart. Johnson was a hard drinker too, regardless of what Vic Emerson stated, which was this:
Johnson was always sober, industrious, and gentlemanly, and nobody believed that Johnson would do it on account of the risk involved.
That may be Vic Emerson himself stating that, but that still doesn't sway my feelings completely, as Len Spencer, when he was a Lyceum owner, stated that Johnson was a man who liked to drink, and that he didn't give him too much money, as he would be absent from his place as the doorman for almost a week ofttimes. Len Spencer's account has a little more credibility in this case, as Spencer housed the man for several years, not just seeing him a few times during weekdays like Emerson did. Spencer got to know Johnson much better than Emerson, and he had known him for longer.
When came this second case around the end of 1899, all of Columbia were in a frenzy, digging around for support for Johnson to be surely declared innocent. Of those who testified included Lena Small, one of Johnson's upstairs neighbors, who painted a clear picture of a quarrel only of words, and said that they often fought, as though it was something they had all tired of. Officer Michael McManus was then called up, as he was an officer of whom Johnson approached on the afternoon of the day after. McManus stated that Johnson had approached him and told the officer that she came home drunk at 2am, and when he awoke at 6, he laid her down on the sofa where she was when the officer came to investigate. McManus stated that Johnson told him she was out with some of her friends and got into a fight with them, which explained the blood seeping from her mouth, the hatpin strike, and the awfully dark bruises all over her. McManus suspected something strange, so he then arrested Johnson and "rang up an ambulance".The next up was another neighbor who was Hattie Thomas, who stated that she spoke with Johnson not long after the supposed battle, Johnson told her that both of them were drunk, more so was Stuart though, and that she ought to take a look at her. She stated that she yelled, "This woman is dying!" and Johnson replied, "Do you think so?" she replied, "Yes! And you had better call a doctor!"
Madame Thomas then continued onward to say that Stuart was not a very kind person, which fits the previous descriptions of her.
The next up was William Beveridge, who was a doctor at the hospital where Stuart was at last admitted into. Beveridge spoke of more specifics to her injuries, which is to be expected, and they were pretty much identical to those described before. One item pointed out before then was that Stuart was heard singing at around 8am the morning after, which conflicted with the prosecutor's statements before. This suggested much more in the case, but no one was exactly sure what it said then. The defender, Edward Hymes, by this time moved for acquittal, and from there, much of the case remained a mystery.
It is a little odd that Johnson did not testify(it was suggested by the defense though), nor did any of his recording friends, or his manager, to give a candid viewpoint of Johnson. Though, if this were to happen, much of the statements would have been biased, as much of the case already was, even without this.
This whole case has often seemed a little slimy to me, for many reasons, as one of these is the fact that a man by the name of Rollin C. Wooster was one of the non-testifying attorneys in this battle. What might be the significance of this? Well, I immediately thought the date that this all happened was a very turbulent time already for much of Columbia's staff, as Hylands was running his famed publishing firm, involving pretty much everyone at Columbia----
including...Rollin C. Wooster.
That fact immediately made me boil over with suspicion that something was not right here. Hylands did not first mention Wooster, but now I understand why he hired him for the firm...as Wooster was a lawyer, and a good one who had stood by Columbia for years and had a fantastic reputation with Emerson and Master Easton. When Hylands learned of this happening, he must have had an absolute break-down, so nervous he couldn't think straight, as Johnson was helping his music sell, and getting him plenty of money. Hylands probably had a long and very serious talk with Wooster about him diving into this case and learning everything he could about it. Since Hylands worked behind Johnson, he, probably gathered information and eavesdropped in on any sort of talk about Johnson, from either his own mouth, or others. Wooster studied the case to death, and by the day of trial, he and Hylands went to the court stone-faced, or just Wooster, to later report back to Hylands. It could have really worked either way.
Though in the book I got all of this from Lost Sounds, Tim Brooks did not at all mention the significance of Wooster being involved, other than he was an attorney for Columbia, nothing about his silent and somewhat secretive partnership with pianist Fred Hylands. Vic Emerson probably spread the word around to everyone to throw in some money to the mass that was used to get a very firm and sure defense in the court, and most of the staff threw money in, knowing of the case in full from Rollin Wooster and Fred Hylands, whatever it actually happened to be, guilty or innocent.
Len Spencer probably turned down throwing any money into the pit. Why? Well, Spencer was the only one who knew how to create justice within this mess of a case, who was on Columbia's staff and in Hylands, Spencer and Yeager. No matter the case's actual events, he probably turned down the gamble that this most certainly was. Every time that the prosecution entered any sort of heated or somewhat assumed realms, objections were stated, and from everything reported not a bad word was stated of Johnson. That really is strange to consider, since in the prior case, the Columbia staff didn't back him there, and the case was acquitted for the same reason, lack of evidence.
There's so many ideas that go into the story of this case, and it's ever more complicated, more so than Tim Brooks analyzed in Lost Sounds, as if you know the backstory of Rollin Wooster, and what half the staff had their hands in when the case came through in December of 1899, it complicates the tale ten fold. This also adds more under-the-table deals in money, and choosing of the defense. It must be noted, that Columbia's management was a gang of amazingly good lawyers and attorneys, as Columbia's own founder was a skilled lawyer, Edward Easton. Columbia was created for things like this, and Easton knew something like this was going to happen soon, as he saw the whole Russell Hunting case if 1896 go by, though that was much more obvious, and he was clearly guilty there.
Personally, I believe that Johnson was guilty. I don't mean to make this a racial matter by any means, and many of the Columbia management thought the same, in the sense of the legality that is. They still called Johnson, "a good coon"(from a Rollin Wooster statement after the case about Johnson), but that is all mush. They beloved Johnson for being a harmless man when sober, which was in the studio most of the time(that's when everyone saw him!), for not complaining about anything, and making them tons of money. They could not replace Johnson, as his talent was one of a kind, and hiring another whistling black man like him if proclaimed guilty was never going to happen. All of his fellow Columbians knew he was guilty, and were all very good at keeping this hidden. It was one of Columbia's dirty secrets. Vic Emerson wouldn't say anything, Dan Quinn, or anyone else that was later interviewed. Dan Quinn probably knew about it, but he was another who wouldn't have thrown any money in. Spencer was for women's rights, and wouldn't throw money in for a man who supposedly murdered two women. Quinn wouldn't do it for the firm belief he had in temperance, and alcohol was the cause of both incidents, knowing this would have Quinn turn away immediately.
Johnson has a sort of personal life that I have come to believe Fred Hylands led. Well, in the sense that Johnson would come into the studio sober, kind, and amiable, he would drink some throughout the day, still remaining pretty jovial and well-adjusted. But, by the recording day's end, would go out and drink, and become a completely different person. He would be moody, truthful, and violent. This would especially work in Johnson's case since he had been having many problems with Roskin Stuart since 1896, and by 1899, would have at last had enough of it, and in a rage would have yelled at her and beaten her once more. He had been indicated to have beaten her before then as well, furthering the case.
This whole affiliation with Rollin Wooster and the Murder trial of George W. Johnson might have been another contribution as to why Fred Hylands was refused to be mentioned by Jim Walsh. I had always wondered about some of the other artists having their hands in this mess, and now it seems Fred Hylands contributed to this capitalistic evil.
It must be noted, that Hylands may have thrown in a wad of cash for the innocence of Johnson, though he obviously was one who would call Johnson,
"He's an all-right nigger."
Being one of the founders of the White Rats Actors' union can say everything in that notion.
**This case is still widely debated now, and most record collectors and music history scholars have conflicting opinions as to whether Johnson was guilty or innocent. The majority of scholars who have studied this case believe he was innocent, as sticking to the more easily written and stated evidence presented. You may think what you want, just do some deep digging into the case first before you have a theory. You may disagree with my argument, and stand on whatever you stand on here.**
In December, 1899, George W. Johnson, or "The Whistling Coon", was accused of murdering his possibly mulatto wife(maybe girl-friend? this is still unconfirmed...), and the record companies after hearing of this stepped in quivering from the stress and worry of the amount of money that would have been lost. Victor Emerson went absolutely mad over learning of this, and he scrambled to raise a fund and start a following for the seemingly obvious innocence of Johnson. The case opened on December 20, 1899, amid a courtroom full of just over 100, and half of them being Columbia associates and studio artists, on the side of the innocence of Johnson. The prosecutor, John Cowan, was up for an extremely powerful standing of almost all the staff at Columbia, as Columbia had been in numerous risky legal battles before then, and Emerson threw in an immense pile of money, $2,000 in fact, from all sorts of national sources (most of them being Columbia dealers). Johnson had been in some trouble before this very case however, as he was accused of pushing his wife out a second story window and badly injuring her in early 1898, but he went free to go after that one, this was reported as a joke in the Our Tattler section in the February, 1898 issue of The Phonoscope:
Johnson was always sober, industrious, and gentlemanly, and nobody believed that Johnson would do it on account of the risk involved.
That may be Vic Emerson himself stating that, but that still doesn't sway my feelings completely, as Len Spencer, when he was a Lyceum owner, stated that Johnson was a man who liked to drink, and that he didn't give him too much money, as he would be absent from his place as the doorman for almost a week ofttimes. Len Spencer's account has a little more credibility in this case, as Spencer housed the man for several years, not just seeing him a few times during weekdays like Emerson did. Spencer got to know Johnson much better than Emerson, and he had known him for longer.
When came this second case around the end of 1899, all of Columbia were in a frenzy, digging around for support for Johnson to be surely declared innocent. Of those who testified included Lena Small, one of Johnson's upstairs neighbors, who painted a clear picture of a quarrel only of words, and said that they often fought, as though it was something they had all tired of. Officer Michael McManus was then called up, as he was an officer of whom Johnson approached on the afternoon of the day after. McManus stated that Johnson had approached him and told the officer that she came home drunk at 2am, and when he awoke at 6, he laid her down on the sofa where she was when the officer came to investigate. McManus stated that Johnson told him she was out with some of her friends and got into a fight with them, which explained the blood seeping from her mouth, the hatpin strike, and the awfully dark bruises all over her. McManus suspected something strange, so he then arrested Johnson and "rang up an ambulance".The next up was another neighbor who was Hattie Thomas, who stated that she spoke with Johnson not long after the supposed battle, Johnson told her that both of them were drunk, more so was Stuart though, and that she ought to take a look at her. She stated that she yelled, "This woman is dying!" and Johnson replied, "Do you think so?" she replied, "Yes! And you had better call a doctor!"
Madame Thomas then continued onward to say that Stuart was not a very kind person, which fits the previous descriptions of her.
The next up was William Beveridge, who was a doctor at the hospital where Stuart was at last admitted into. Beveridge spoke of more specifics to her injuries, which is to be expected, and they were pretty much identical to those described before. One item pointed out before then was that Stuart was heard singing at around 8am the morning after, which conflicted with the prosecutor's statements before. This suggested much more in the case, but no one was exactly sure what it said then. The defender, Edward Hymes, by this time moved for acquittal, and from there, much of the case remained a mystery.
It is a little odd that Johnson did not testify(it was suggested by the defense though), nor did any of his recording friends, or his manager, to give a candid viewpoint of Johnson. Though, if this were to happen, much of the statements would have been biased, as much of the case already was, even without this.
This whole case has often seemed a little slimy to me, for many reasons, as one of these is the fact that a man by the name of Rollin C. Wooster was one of the non-testifying attorneys in this battle. What might be the significance of this? Well, I immediately thought the date that this all happened was a very turbulent time already for much of Columbia's staff, as Hylands was running his famed publishing firm, involving pretty much everyone at Columbia----
including...Rollin C. Wooster.
That fact immediately made me boil over with suspicion that something was not right here. Hylands did not first mention Wooster, but now I understand why he hired him for the firm...as Wooster was a lawyer, and a good one who had stood by Columbia for years and had a fantastic reputation with Emerson and Master Easton. When Hylands learned of this happening, he must have had an absolute break-down, so nervous he couldn't think straight, as Johnson was helping his music sell, and getting him plenty of money. Hylands probably had a long and very serious talk with Wooster about him diving into this case and learning everything he could about it. Since Hylands worked behind Johnson, he, probably gathered information and eavesdropped in on any sort of talk about Johnson, from either his own mouth, or others. Wooster studied the case to death, and by the day of trial, he and Hylands went to the court stone-faced, or just Wooster, to later report back to Hylands. It could have really worked either way.
Though in the book I got all of this from Lost Sounds, Tim Brooks did not at all mention the significance of Wooster being involved, other than he was an attorney for Columbia, nothing about his silent and somewhat secretive partnership with pianist Fred Hylands. Vic Emerson probably spread the word around to everyone to throw in some money to the mass that was used to get a very firm and sure defense in the court, and most of the staff threw money in, knowing of the case in full from Rollin Wooster and Fred Hylands, whatever it actually happened to be, guilty or innocent.
Len Spencer probably turned down throwing any money into the pit. Why? Well, Spencer was the only one who knew how to create justice within this mess of a case, who was on Columbia's staff and in Hylands, Spencer and Yeager. No matter the case's actual events, he probably turned down the gamble that this most certainly was. Every time that the prosecution entered any sort of heated or somewhat assumed realms, objections were stated, and from everything reported not a bad word was stated of Johnson. That really is strange to consider, since in the prior case, the Columbia staff didn't back him there, and the case was acquitted for the same reason, lack of evidence.
There's so many ideas that go into the story of this case, and it's ever more complicated, more so than Tim Brooks analyzed in Lost Sounds, as if you know the backstory of Rollin Wooster, and what half the staff had their hands in when the case came through in December of 1899, it complicates the tale ten fold. This also adds more under-the-table deals in money, and choosing of the defense. It must be noted, that Columbia's management was a gang of amazingly good lawyers and attorneys, as Columbia's own founder was a skilled lawyer, Edward Easton. Columbia was created for things like this, and Easton knew something like this was going to happen soon, as he saw the whole Russell Hunting case if 1896 go by, though that was much more obvious, and he was clearly guilty there.
Personally, I believe that Johnson was guilty. I don't mean to make this a racial matter by any means, and many of the Columbia management thought the same, in the sense of the legality that is. They still called Johnson, "a good coon"(from a Rollin Wooster statement after the case about Johnson), but that is all mush. They beloved Johnson for being a harmless man when sober, which was in the studio most of the time(that's when everyone saw him!), for not complaining about anything, and making them tons of money. They could not replace Johnson, as his talent was one of a kind, and hiring another whistling black man like him if proclaimed guilty was never going to happen. All of his fellow Columbians knew he was guilty, and were all very good at keeping this hidden. It was one of Columbia's dirty secrets. Vic Emerson wouldn't say anything, Dan Quinn, or anyone else that was later interviewed. Dan Quinn probably knew about it, but he was another who wouldn't have thrown any money in. Spencer was for women's rights, and wouldn't throw money in for a man who supposedly murdered two women. Quinn wouldn't do it for the firm belief he had in temperance, and alcohol was the cause of both incidents, knowing this would have Quinn turn away immediately.
Johnson has a sort of personal life that I have come to believe Fred Hylands led. Well, in the sense that Johnson would come into the studio sober, kind, and amiable, he would drink some throughout the day, still remaining pretty jovial and well-adjusted. But, by the recording day's end, would go out and drink, and become a completely different person. He would be moody, truthful, and violent. This would especially work in Johnson's case since he had been having many problems with Roskin Stuart since 1896, and by 1899, would have at last had enough of it, and in a rage would have yelled at her and beaten her once more. He had been indicated to have beaten her before then as well, furthering the case.
This whole affiliation with Rollin Wooster and the Murder trial of George W. Johnson might have been another contribution as to why Fred Hylands was refused to be mentioned by Jim Walsh. I had always wondered about some of the other artists having their hands in this mess, and now it seems Fred Hylands contributed to this capitalistic evil.
It must be noted, that Hylands may have thrown in a wad of cash for the innocence of Johnson, though he obviously was one who would call Johnson,
"He's an all-right nigger."
Being one of the founders of the White Rats Actors' union can say everything in that notion.
**This case is still widely debated now, and most record collectors and music history scholars have conflicting opinions as to whether Johnson was guilty or innocent. The majority of scholars who have studied this case believe he was innocent, as sticking to the more easily written and stated evidence presented. You may think what you want, just do some deep digging into the case first before you have a theory. You may disagree with my argument, and stand on whatever you stand on here.**
H ope you enjoyed this!
No comments:
Post a Comment