Source:Fleming-cubba-you-quit
"Cubba-You-Quit brings back noted trial: Case of half-Indian girl for vast properties created acute interest: Wayward son story." Pittsburgh Gazette Times, Mar. 11, 1917, sec. 5, p. 2. Newspapers.com 85858541.
CUB-BA-YOU-QUIT is not a name to conjure with. It is odd, and strange to sight and ear. It is a perverted name, too, but it reveals a long story of litigation for vast properties in Pittsburgh, an unsuccessful litigation, tried twice here and taken to the Supreme Court of the United States twice on writs of error.
The name tells also of a wayward son of prominent Pittsburgh people—pioneer people. It tells of the deserted squaw wife of this wayward son and the daughter born to them. It tells of life among the Chippewas in Michigan and of the well laid plans to dispossess holders of realty in Pittsburgh worth millions by a shrewd speculator who in some way gained a knowledge whereby his plans might be carried to successful completion. He staked much and died before his case came to trial. He played for his money.
She Was Chippewa Maiden.
"Cub-ba-You-Quit" is the way the papers spelled the name of the squaw wife—or alleged wife—of William Addison Mowry, son of Dr. Peter Mowry and Elizabeth Addison Mowry, his wife, and grandson of Judge Alexander Addison of Pittsburgh, a just and learned judge who was removed from the bench of Allegheny county's Court of Common Pleas in 1803 by impeachment—a celebrated case of revenge and of party spirit running wild. This story has been told in these articles.
Cub-ba-You-Quit was a Chippewa maiden, daughter of one Perot, pronounced Pero, and a Chippewa squaw. The Perots lived at Kawkawlin, an Indian village about six miles from Bay City, which was formerly called Lower Saginaw. Few whites lived at Kawkawlin.
She Was a Comely Woman.
The name Cub-ba-You-Quit is a corruption or an Anglicized form of the maiden's name. In the Chippewa tongue it was Kab-a-gah-na-quit. Instead of Mary Perot she was known as Mary Cub-ba-You-Quit. There is no doubt she was a comely woman and followed in the footsteps of many of her tribe without a thought of the momentous issues her actions would bring forth and from which she could reap only slight reward and that uncertain.
Cub-ba-You-Quit alley extends from Jumonville street in the old Thirteenth Ward and is in the rear of the Yost Ruch homstead, a stone building still standing at the upper end of Colwell street. Old maps show this alley between Colwell and Ellicott streets. It is contiguous now to a brickyard and an immense cutting of the hillside above it. It is not an inviting neighborhood now. Once it lay among fair acres and amid scenes of rare suburban beauty. It is far removed from the Dr. Mowry holdings in the old Seventeenth and Eighteenth wards to which a Bay City speculator named Bernard L. Meister sought to obtain title through the right of the daughter of William A. Mowry and Mary Cub-ba-You-Quit, this daughter named Elizabeth—the issue of an alleged marriage—a common law marriage it might be termed in Pennsylvania.
Great Interest in Case.
As we have Cub-ba-You-Quit alley (way) in our street nomenclature commemorating an obscure non-resident and recalling a great trial, two great trials, or a retrial, the story of these cases and some related history is worth telling.
The case was first called for trial before Judges William McKennan and Wilson McCandless in the United States Court, December 11, 1874, the court room then in the second story of the government building, or old postoffice at Fifth avenue and Smithfield street.
There was great public interest in the case and the court room was crowded each day. Many Michigan people were here as witnesses and some Chippewas who testified through interpreters. More than 2,000 people lined the streets the first day to catch a glimpse of Cub-ba-You-Quit and Elizabeth.
Title to the Suit.
Clerk H. D. Gamble read the full title to the suit, to-wit: Bernard L. Meister of Michigan versus F. S. Bissell, Joseph Kaufman, Simon Kaufman, Moses Oppenheimer, Robert C. Moore, John A. Moore, Christian Seibert, John Seibert, Peter Keil, Andrew Carnegie, George Kloman, Andrew Kloman, Thomas M. Carnegie, Benjamin Darlington, the Keystone Bridge Company, and the Allegheny Cemetery.
The trial began December 19, 1874, and the verdict was rendered December 21, 1874. It was for the defendants, the jury not leaving the box. The jurors were prominent men of Western Pennsylvania. Among them was Robert B. Carnahan, a Pittsburgh attorney and father of Judge Thomas D. Carnahan. Gen. J. Bowman Sweitzer was the only other Pittsburgher on the jury. Gen. Swietzer [sic] was prothonatary [sic] of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Died Before Trial.
The property in dispute comprised 92 acres of land including 54 acres of the Allegheny Cemetery. On the other parts were erected many dwellings and some large manufacturing plants, the value of the whole aggregating millions of dollars.
Meister, who prosecuted the cases, lived in Saginaw, Mich., where he kept a clothing store.
It appears from the records that he died before the cases were tried, as the charge of Judge McKennan appears in the issue of the Pittsburgh Legal Journal for the week succeeding the first trial with the title of the case, "Rebecca Meister, executrix of Bernard L. Meister versus F. S. Bissell et al., and the same plaintiff versus Robert C. Moore, et al."
Startling Headlines.
It was the belief in Pittsburgh and argued by the defense that the magnitude of the suit tended to induce perjury and corruption in order to obtain possession of the immense property.
Some of the headlines were startling. They were generally "The Indian Case," "The Chippewa Case" or the "Cub-ba-you-quit Case," but the Telegraph at the outset headlined "The Indian Romance; Mowry and the Lily of the Saginaw Valley, Thirty Years Ago and Now," etc.
Again a headline appeared on the same paper when the defense was being heard, which read: "The Indian Case, Conceived in Iniquity and Brought Forth in Corruption." There was much perturbation in Pittsburgh, especially among those who owned lots and had loved ones interred in the Allegheny Cemetery. The case was watched with keen interest and the verdict was approved universally.
Mowry Clerked in Store.
In 1844 or 1845 William A. Mowry went from Pittsburgh to Michigan, to the vicinity of Bay City. His brother, Alexander Addison Mowry, was with him at least part of the time. William Mowry came back to Pittsburgh several times between 1845 and 1850. The date of his marriage was allowed to have been in 1845.
In Michigan William Mowry clerked for a merchant named William Bacchus, who kept a general store at or near Bay City, his principal trade being with the Chippewas, taking the furs they brought in exchange for provisions and clothing, and that Mowry became acquainted with many of the tribe, including Cub-ba-You-Quit, who testified she first met him in Bacchus' store. She was a good-looking, half-breed maiden, as Mowry himself was wont to boast on his return, "as fine a looking girl as one would see walking about the streets of Lawrenceville."
Bought Her With Gifts.
The Mowry land lay east of the old borough of Lawrenceville. It was part of Col. George Croghan's grant and where he had the home Washington visited in 1770.
Cub-ba-You-Quit testified that she met William Mowry about 10 times before her marriage to him, which marriage was simply going to him as his squaw in the Indian manner. Mowry arranged this with Perot, the father, by gifts of money and goods.
Girl's Mother Objected.
Cub-ba-You-Quit's mother objected to Mowry as a son-in-law, saying he was a white man and like white men would live with the girl for awhile and then leave her, and this is just what he did.
A Methodist missionary among the Indians—the Rev. G. E. Brown—went to Perot's house and endeavored to marry the girl and Mowry, but Perot would not permit the ceremony, saying she was married "good enough." Nor would Mowry consent to any ceremony, though frequently importuned by the Rev. Mr. Brown, who remonstrated with him time and again for the life he was living, but to no avail. While Mowry was in Michigan he and the girl Mary, or Cub-ba-You-Quit, lived as man and wife, one child was born, Elizabeth, who married Isaacs, an Indian.
Spoke of His Indian Wife.
Meister came on the scene years afterward. William Mowry died in Pittsburgh in 1852, intestate. Upon his return to Pittsburgh he would admit that he had an Indian wife in Michigan and would speak well of her and praise her beauty. He left no issue but Elizabeth.
On the trial both women testified. Elizabeth, or Mrs. Isaacs, attracted much attention. She was clad, the reporters noted, in a plaid dress and shawl, wore a green veil and green gloves. She had a pleasant face and smiled frequently in court. At the time of the first trial she was about 24 years old. Both women testified that they had received some clothing and provisions from Meister and very little money—Mary $3 and Elizabeth $10, but they were to get a share of the property if Meister won.
The "deed" to Meister of their interests was simply an agreement of assignment. It was signed by Mary Cub-ba-you-quit, Elizabeth Isaacs and Henry Jacob Cub-ba-you-quit, who became Mary's husband after Mowry's death.
Gave All to Meister.
The agreement of the women with Meister was drawn up by Judge Marston, subsequently a judge of the Supreme Court of Michigan. It recited that they transferred and set over "all and singular their right, title and interest both at law and in equity in and to the property, real personal and mixed of every kind to which they or either of them may become entitled as heirs or otherwise of William A. Mowry.
Meister was to pay all expenses and give the women one-fourth of the value of all the property he recovered, less the expenses incurred and all advances made. In case nothing was recovered the women were not to be liable to Meister in any way. It was a sordid agreement. The claim was made for Meister that he purchased the title from the women for $50,000. He actually spent, or his estate spent, about $5,000 on the first trial. There were many witnesses brought from Michigan and quite an array of counsel on both sides, including Judge Marston. Presumably his estate spent a like amount at the second trial.
Few in Trial Now Living.
Pittsburgh counsel for the plaintiffs were Ferguson and Murray and Weir and Gibson. For the defendants S. C. Schoyer, M. W. Acheson, later judge of the United States District and Circuits Courts, and J. S. and A. P. Morrison. All these eminent attorneys have passed away and perhaps all the parties to the suit, excepting Andrew Carnegie and the corporations. One or two defendants may be living. We come now to some law in the case, showing how simple an issue can jolt the title to millions of dollars worth of property and disturb and annoy innocent and honest holders of such property for a period of seven years or more, before final adjudication and quieting titles for all time.
Sacredness of Marriage.
We can best do this by quoting the syllabus and part of Judge McKennan's charge at the first trial of the case and some points from the case as reported in Ninety-sixth U. S. reports on the remanding of the case for a new trial, and all through these the sacred nature of the marriage tie is made prominent.
The syllabus of the first trial reads:
"Under the statutes of Michigan it is essential to the validity of a marriage that it shall have been solemnized in the presence of a minister or magistrate and at least two witnesses."
Judge McKennan then stated that both parties claimed the properties which were the subjects of the suits under Dr. Peter Mowry and thence to William A. Mowry, one of his sons. The plaintiff, Meister, was the alienee of the alleged wife and daughter of William A. Mowry and the defendants are his mother's vendees if he died unmarried and without issue.
We are to understand the words alienees and vendees as having the same meaning—purchasers of the properties.
The Judge further stated that the fundamental principle in the case was whether the Indian woman was united to Mowry by a valid marriage, and this was to be determined by the laws of the state where the marriage contract was made. The plaintiff's counsel so requested and Judge McKennan so charged.
The marriage was alleged to have taken place in Michigan in the fall of 1845. From 1833 when Michigan was a territory a statute in relation to marriage was in force and during all that period without any essential changes. No cases could be cited showing judicial construction of that statute or any determination of its effect upon marriage contracts in conformity with its requirements.
The court was therefore left without the guidance of an authoritative exposition to ascertain its meaning and to declare its effects upon the marriage in question—or that of Mowry and Cub-ba-You-Quit.
In the Michigan statute Quakers and Menonites [sic] were exempted, their peculiar ceremonies in regard to marraige not being disturbed.
In conclusion Judge McKennan said:
"If the jury therefore finds that neither a minister nor a magistrate was present at the alleged marriage of William A. Mowry and the daughter of the Indian Perot—and such is the plaintiff's own proof—they are instructed that such marriage was invalid under the Michigan statute and the verdict in such a case should be for the defendant."
U. S. Court Reverses.
The jury so found forthwith. This was a popular verdict. Nevertheless a writ of error was sued out by the plaintiffs and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the judgment of the court below was reversed and a new trial ordered. This opinion is to be found in the ninety-sixth United States reports.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court by Mr. Weir for the plaintiffs in error and by Judge Acheson contra. Justice Strong delivered the opinion of the court. A case was tried in Michigan after the first trial of the Cub-ba-You-Quit case in Pittsburgh, decided by the celebrated Judge Cooley and construing the Michigan marriage law.
Judge Cooley said: "Whatever the form of ceremony or even if all ceremony was dispensed with, if the parties agreed presently to take each other for husband and wife and from that time lived together professedly in that relation, proof to these facts would be sufficient to constitute proof of a marriage binding upon he [sic] parties, and which would subject them and all others to legal penalties for a disregard of its operations. This has been the settled doctrine of the American courts. A few cases of dissent, or apparent dissent, being borne down by the great weight of authority in favor of the rule as we have stated."
Hence Justice Strong concluded that there was error in charging the jury that if they found there was neither minister nor magistrate present at the alleged marriage of Mowry and Cub-ba-You-Quit, such marriage was invalid and the verdict should be for the defendant.
Polygamy Among Indians.
Justice Strong held also that there should have been testimony concerning any words the parties may have said at the time of the alleged marriage.
There was testimony given to show that polygamy was not uncommon among the Chippewas and that a man would frequently put away a wife and take another. The idea of a civil contract of marriage had no force with them, but the missionaries in time taught them.
A revival at Kaw-kaw-lin shortly after Mowry's taking up with the girl resulted in the conversion of most of the Chippewas in that town, and had one curious result. All those living as man and wife who had not been married in accordance with the exactions of the Michigan statute were married in due form by the ministers. Mowry would have no such ceremony. The missionary, Brown, so testified and his testimony was fatal to the plaintiffs. This testimony was fully corroborated.
Second Trial Opened.
The case came on to be heard again in the Circuit Court of the United States in Pittsburgh, May 13, 1879. By agreement of counsel the two suits were tried before a struck jury. No local men were on the jury. Justice William Strong of the United States Supreme Court was on the bench. The trial lasted 10 days. Most of the former witnesses from Michigan and some new ones testified. There were some changes of counsel. Thomas M. Marshall appeared among plaintiffs' counsel. The testimony was practically the same as before. Judge Strong was careful not to fall into the error he had pointed out. The court room was again crowded and public interest again was acute. At the first trial there were no addresses by counsel to the jury, they submitting the case on points. At the second trial Mr. Marshall and Judge Acheson pleaded, each speaking for two hours. Justice Strong charged the jury and aroused much criticism from the plaintiffs' side, who alleged his charge was more like the argument of a paid advocate than the judicial utterances of a trial judge. The jury was out only five minutes when they returned with verdicts for the defendants. A great load was lifted off Pittsburgh.
Mowry Died in 1852.
William A. Mowry left Michigan some time in 1850. His habits were not good. He was attended frequently by Dr. Robinson, one of Lawrenceville's old-time physicians. Dr. Robinson was a witness at the trials. Mowry died at his mother's house in 1852.
Dr. Peter Mowry was a large owner of realty, not only in and about Pittsburgh, but at Canton, O. His will is of record in Will Book No. 4, in the office of the Register of Wills in Pittsburgh. He died in 1833. His will is long. He appointed his wife, his son-in-law, John D. Davis, his brother-in-law, Dr. William Addison, and his good friend, John Thaw, his executors. He made liberal bequests and devises to his daughter, Elizabeth N. Davis, his son, John C. Mowry, and to his other sons, Alexander Addison, William A., George Ross, and James Grant Mowry and his grandson, Peter Mowry, Jr., son of Bedford Mowry. He especially left his widow well-to-do, and left his brothers Philip and Daniel his military donation lands in the Sixth District, presumably granted for service in the Revolution.
Issue to Take Parent's Share.
He created a residuary fund, one-fifth to go absolutely to his wife, the remaining four-fifths to be divided when any of the sons attained the age of 23 years. Each son was then to take his share in fee simple.
If any son died under 23, leaving no lawful issue, the share of such son was to vest in the surviving brothers, and division was to be made accordingly; but where lawful issue was left, such issue was to take the share its parent would have taken had he lived to the age of 23. Elizabeth, daughter of William Addison Mowry and Mary Cub-ba-you-quit, was adjudged illegitimate at two trials and on the second appeal the verdict stood, so the titles to much land here were not and can not be disturbed.
The land in question, of which Dr. Mowry was seized, he describes in his will as bounded by the lands of Mrs. Collins, by the Butler road, "between the lands of George A. Bayard and myself." Mrs. Eliza Mowry was living in 1860; a letter was produced at the trial, wherein she offered to settle a sum upon Elizabeth, and in the letter she complained of the increasing feebleness of her brother, Dr. Addison.
Plot books of Pittsburgh for 1872 show Mrs. Mowry's land extending from Stanton avenue, at Butler street, to the Keystone Bridge holdings at Fifty-first street. The Bissell property lies opposite "Pic Nic," Mrs. Schenley's ancestral home; the Moore tract adjoins the cemetery on the south.
Today one can visit this large area and wonder at the vastness of it. He may also think of Cub-ba-you-quit and Elizabeth Isaacs.
