THE NEW YORK HERALD WAS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER TO RAISE suspicions of Christian’s involvement in Charley’s kidnapping during the summer of 1874. Since then, Sarah Ross and her brothers had blamed the flurry of sensational journalism and the libel trial for Christian’s deteriorating health. In late December, the Herald issued an apology.
“While [the Herald’s] investigations of the matter carried on at a distance were meant simply to serve the public, they were in certain particulars erroneous in theory and facts. Our correspondent, acting upon false information, believed by him to be true, did the character of Mr. Ross a gross injustice.”
Christian remained at his mother’s home in central Pennsylvania through the holidays. Daily, he waited for a telegram saying the police had found Charley, or that a stranger had led him home to Germantown just as the Kensington man had aided Walter five months before.
On December 20, Sarah’s brothers met again to discuss their frustration with slow police progress. Recent interviews with Mosher family members and friends contradicted initial police intelligence. Although Walling had repeated to the press that he could prove the kidnappers sold their horse and buggy en route to New York from Germantown on July 2, friends and members of the Mosher family placed the men in Philadelphia on July 3, and a Philadelphia bartender remembered talking to Mosher on the 4th. On that day, he told the Inquirer, he had allowed Mosher to pay his bar tab with small wooden carvings of miniature schooners.
The police also wasted time and resources allowing average citizens to contribute to the investigation. Along with one of Christian’s nephews, Detective Heins agreed to meet a spiritualist who claimed she had seen Charley’s spirit since September. Her latest trance, she said, revealed Charley sitting in bed while reading a book. And on December 17, Walling spent a large part of his day inside of his office, receiving any New Yorker who had a suggestion about how to proceed with the search. It was a smart public-relations move. Walling appeared to be exhausting every opportunity to learn more information. That day, one reporter counted sixteen “drop-in” advisers, most of whom were “gentlemen” of the town. When one of these men asked Walling why the police couldn’t offer immunity to whoever returned the boy, the superintendent praised the idea but said he couldn’t make such a promise if Charley were held across state lines. Walling did not, however, pursue this “good idea” in New York.
According to the Evening Bulletin, investors in Mayor Stokley’s initial reward encouraged the idea of immunity. “It is stated that the contributors to the fund for the reward of $20,000 for the arrest and conviction of the abductors and the return of the child, are now considering the propriety of setting aside a portion of the amount for the recovery of the child, with ‘no questions asked.’”
The Lewis brothers were the first to step forward with such an unconditional offer. Although Christian had no knowledge of the advertisement, his in-laws signed his name to the notice. Readers across the country saw it in papers on December 23.
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS will be paid for the return, within ten days from this date, to any one of the addresses named below, of my son, CHARLES BREWSTER ROSS aged four years and seven months, who was taken from Germantown on July 1, 1874.
Being entirely satisfied that his abductors were killed at Bay Ridge, L.I. on the 14th inst., I now offer the above sum for his return, or for information which shall lead thereto, promising to ask no questions.
The brothers instructed interested parties to leave Charley at one of seven different addresses between Washington, D.C., and Boston: two belonged to the businesses of family friends in Baltimore and Washington, one to Christian’s business on Market Street in Philadelphia, one to the Ross home in Germantown, and three to the businesses of the Lewis brothers in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
A response arrived at the Ross home after Christmas. It came in the form of another ransom note.
St. Louis, December 25, 1874
Mr. Ross—Dear Sir—You offer a reward for information that will lead to the recovery of Charley Ross. I know where he is and will tel you. I would have told you before but was afraid to, but since Douglass is dead I can tell you without fear. Last September I became acquainted accidentally with Joe Douglas and Bill Morris or Mosher (he called himself Morris then) and found out that they had Charley Ross hidden away, and they threatened to kill me if I betrayed them, but promised to pay me well to keep quiet. Now if you will give me $500 I will promise to deliver charley into your hands within three days from the time that I receive the money, or if you doubt me or my ability to do so, I will go to Philadelphia and take you to the place where he is now hidden, if you will send me money enough to pay my expenses and take me there, say bout one hundred dollars; then after you get the boy you can pay the rest. I will pledge you my life that I can do this, and would have done so before only I was in fear of my life, and it was only yesterday that I learned that Douglass was dead. If you will send the money I will do all that I have promised. Address James Cannon, care W.S. Wylie, No. 1743 North Ninth street, St Louis, Mo.
P.S. I am living six miles in the country, and Mr. Wylie is a friend, but knows nothing about this. If you send money by registered letter or money order, send it in Mr. Wylie’s name.