Interpreters — Have you ever felt victimized by your clients? Read on.
In 1875, Edward Miner Gallaudet’s 16-month-old daughter Eliza died. One month later, his house was robbed by a disgruntled former student. William Richards took items which were valued at an amount high enough to invoke the charge of grand larceny, and was brought into court. There is no indication of any question to Richards’ culpability and fitness to be tried as any other defendant.
In court that day, EMG found himself pressed into service as the interpreter of record. According to customary protocols for interpreters of the time, he stood alongside the accused man inside of a small enclosed area known as the “dock.”
“The testimony fully sustained the charge, and Prof. Gallaudet communicated the result to Richards in the prisoner’s dock, by signs, when he expressed his penitence in the sign language, and his desire to restore the things he had taken.”
As for William Richards, the Gallaudet University Alumni Cards collection has no record of his enrollment, or dismissal. He seems to have been erased from the institution’s history. The Family History Library near me doesn’t have the relevant court or corrections holdings for Washington, DC., so the D.C. Archives will be on my next research trip. Instead of pursuing what happened to the Deaf party, my focus will be the clerk’s minutes describing EMG’s role, his own prosecution, and any transcribed testimony he might have interpreted. I will also search the EMG diaries at the Library of Congress.
Onto the second case of somewhat lighter fare, which happened in Ada, Oklahoma in 1932. If you’re familiar with 20th century U.S. history, you can appreciate why tensions might have set farmers in that region on edge, and occasionally ignited a scuffle or two among neighbors.
The pandering headline grabs the reader’s attention: Why would a case be dismissed without due process of entering witness testimony? (After all, such cheap tactics worked to get you to read this post, didn’t it?)
The unnamed Deaf defendant who “conversed only with the nimble fingers of his left hand,” stood accused of attempted assault with a garden hoe. Justice Hill did not read sign language or fingerspelling, so enlisted the only other person present in the courtroom who did — the alleged unnamed victim of said hoe-strike.
The sitting judge conducted the examination from the bench, with “reason for confidence in what the interpreter said,” because the defendant was acquitted. Through the earnest efforts of the vic.
This remarkable man is worth knowing, but unfortunately, I don’t have access to Pontotoc County, Oklahoma criminal or court records. If Hoegate was heard in a municipal court in Ada, there are probably no extant files to search. If you know of an historian interested in Deaf people, please forward them this interesting case or have them contact me directly.
I love how “trustworthiness” seems to be defined simply by the fact that the person is hearing or “not afflicted”, as the second case describes. I would love to see EMG’s court record for this case, in particular, to see if the matter of conflict of interest (to have a victim interpreting for the accused) was even mentioned in this case or if there was an explanation for why no neutral interpreter was procured.
Fascinating, as always!
“Not afflicted” certainly was period-talk for “hearing,” and I think the OK writer was staging the details for the punchline!
As for EMG, the DC Archives has the jail registers, but I am not sure who has the case bundles. Whether it’s the shambling search room inside DC Superior, NARA, or the DC Archives, they are all equally nightmarish from a patron’s perspective. It’s difficult to even discern who has which holdings in their collections. Next time you’re at Judiciary Square with 10 spare minutes, do ask a human for me!