May 31, 1897 was an eventful day in the District of Columbia. First came the pomp and circumstance of Decoration Day parades and ceremonies. Then, just before two o’clock in the afternoon, the strongest recorded earthquake in area history shook the city. But the thing that remained in the public memory for the next several decades happened later, in an alley bordered by Q, R, Third, and Fourth Streets in Northwest: a Black man named Dorsey Foultz shot and killed Charles Robinson, another Black man, then simply walked away.
Unlike most sensational crimes, the murder itself wasn’t all that interesting. This wasn’t a whodunit; at least five people identified Foultz as the culprit.1 The motive—some confluence of jealousy and anger—lacked intrigue. Yet hundreds of articles referencing Foultz appeared in Washington newspapers between 1897 and 1953. What made Dorsey Foultz a notorious local celebrity well into the twentieth century? He was never caught.
Detail of “The Matthews-Northrup Up-to-Date Map of Washington, D.C.” from 1897 with the approximate location of the Robinson murder circled in blue. Note the White House at the bottom left of the image. J.N. Matthews Co.; Matthews-Northrup Company, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
While D.C.’s Metropolitan Police painted Foultz as especially skilled at evasion—a detective described him as “as slippery as an eel”—Washingtonians weren’t convinced it was skill so much as abundant opportunity that allowed him to maintain his freedom.2 According to the Evening Star and Washington Post, the police bungled their response early and often. Immediately after the incident, they reported, Foultz “might easily have been captured had a posse of officers from the different precincts gone in pursuit, but this was not done[.]”3 Then the Second Precinct failed to report the crime to headquarters for several hours, resulting in a two-day delay before detectives were assigned.4
Almost a week after Robinson’s death, the police surrounded a sewer where Foultz was reportedly hiding only to be tricked into leaving their posts when they heard a nearby distress whistle. While investigating, they left the sewer’s exits unguarded long enough that Foultz “could then have reached almost any part of the city.”5 Over the next several years, false leads, mistaken identities, and purported sightings in at least six states and five countries ran the police ragged.
District residents wanted to know: was it negligence or incompetence? It was hardly a new question. In the late 1890s, Washingtonians were growing more and more frustrated with the Metropolitan Police’s perceived failures. The department’s superintendents and some sympathetic citizens argued that a lack of resources kept police from curbing crime in the city. But the force’s size had nearly doubled over the last decade, and despite the increase in manpower—not to mention funding—their effectiveness still left much to be desired.6 “It is neither satisfactory to hear, when a robbery or assault has been committed, that the police have no clew, nor yet that they have one, but are unable to follow it to the point of capturing the robber or assailant,” remarked a Washington Times editorial.7 In April 1897, plumbers discovered a clog in the Police Court’s sewer consisting of discarded weapons, drugs, and stolen property—evidence that policemen were failing to search prisoners before taking them into the station.8 Even tasks as simple as clearing a parade route seemed to be too much to expect, leading to a large group of disgruntled bicyclists in July 1896.9 As the Metropolitan Police repeatedly failed to apprehend Foultz in the weeks and months after the murder, local papers took it as proof that the issue was one of quality, not quantity.
This new public focus on police performance wasn’t unique to D.C. As the current of Progressive Era reform swept through departments around the U.S., their social welfare duties diminished until crime control became their primary responsibility.10 According to historian Eric Monkkonen, “The narrowing focus of police on crime in turn came with a new set of external pressures, including demands for efficiency, honesty, and crime control.”11 To meet these demands, departments hired more men, increased communication with other police departments across the country, and emphasized the need for professionalism in the force.12
But if capturing Foultz was a test of the Metropolitan Police’s reform efforts, it was one white Washingtonians felt they were failing. The Second Precinct was a favorite target of ridicule in the local papers:
Their faces wear haunted looks; their treads are stealthier and more cautious than was their wont, as they walk their beats nightly. They lurk in shadows, and if the shadows bear any resemblance to a small colored man, they feel for their pistols and grab their clubs more firmly.”13
An early July article announced a detective was “finally detailed” to work on the case full-time, noting that since Foultz shot Robinson, “several murderous assaults have been committed by colored men, who are also still at large—enough to form an anti-police society.”14 Following another crime, the Star reported police botched their follow-up so extremely that officers didn’t know about the incident until informed by the paper’s reporter. Discussing an incident where an accused rapist escaped from his cell while the assigned officer slept, the Star noted, “Some of the older officers thought there would be some removals because of the alleged negligence, following so closely upon the manner in which the Dorsey Foultz murder case was handled.”15 However, no major personnel changes came as a result.
The fascination with Foultz appears to have been primarily a white phenomenon, as he represented the perceived rampant crime of D.C.’s alley communities spilling over into the city’s white neighborhoods.16 Police believed the city’s Black alley communities were feeding and housing Foultz. They arrested Emma White, a witness to the murder rumored to be involved with Foultz, on vagrancy charges, and entered Foultz’s ex-girlfriend Susie Carter’s rooms while she was out in an attempt to ensnare her.17
While the city’s Black newspaper, the Washington Bee, had concerns about crime control in the city, and generally supported the Metropolitan Police as an organization, it rarely discussed the Foultz case. In fact, the paper noted in a July 23, 1898 article that the police force’s officers seemed to target Black people and businesses for crimes they ignored within the city’s white communities. Indeed, according to the 1900 U.S. Census, Black residents made up less than a third of DC’s population yet accounted for over half of the city’s arrests in 1898. The increased pressure on the force to control crime in the capital disproportionately affected the area’s Black population, and the search for Foultz only exacerbated the problem.18
Not only were Black residents like White and Carter targeted by authorities who believed they were aiding Foultz, but continuing disappointment in police’s efforts prompted some white Washingtonians and Marylanders to attempt vigilante justice. A heavily-armed mob in Tenleytown (including a policeman) “had an exciting chase for a man whom they supposed to be Dorsey Foultz in the outbuilding of the new Methodist University” in September.19 The man wasn’t Foultz, but “an inoffensive negro, who had been frightened half to death by the warlike demonstrations of his pursuers.”20 Given white residents’ eagerness to apprehend Foultz, a Star article reported “every strange colored man seen in the neighboring country is required to give an account of himself.”21 With the police unable to assuage public fears, the search for Foultz risked turning into a lynch mob whenever someone spotted a Black man in the city’s rural outskirts.22
As the months dragged on, newspapers became increasingly facetious in their coverage of the Metropolitan Police’s search, constantly finding new angles for their mockery through other current events and well-known figures. “Dorsey Foultz has demonstrated that it is not necessary for a man to go to the north pole in order to get lost,” mocked the Star on October 5, 1897.23 Little more than a week later, another article in the paper referenced a local lawyer with a reputation for releasing his clients from jail, quipping, “it might be a good thing to enlist his services in the efforts to hand Mr. Dorsey Foultz in jail.”24 “Some of the police are still inclined to give Dorsey Foultz credit for an ambition to become one of this city’s oldest inhabitants,” the Star wrote on October 21. The search had stretched on for nearly five months, but the Star made it seem as though it had been part of the paper’s reporting for years.25
The Post’s first humorous treatment of the manhunt appeared in late August after a rash of misidentifications, declaring, “Dorsey Foultz’s double had better secure a divorce from himself until his original is caught.”26 After another notable fugitive was apprehended in Toronto, an article joked, “Possibly we can induce Dorsey Foultz to make a trip to Toronto. The Toronto police are quite vigilant.”27 Like those in the Star, these short pieces commented on the police’s failure to capture their man through references to other current events.
The Post and Star also published several long-form satirical pieces to entertain their readership and criticize the local authorities. “An Interview with Foultz” appeared in the Post on August 16, and relayed the tale of a note appearing in the newspaper’s office requesting a one-on-one meeting with a reporter. The mock interview quotes Foultz as saying, “‘I have been highly entertained with your interesting account of the search after myself, and if ever you need a friend, why call on Dorsey Foultz.’”28 Articles such as this one, implying Foultz was taking walks through the city, talking directly to policemen, and receiving callers to his home, claimed that Dorsey Foultz was right under policemen’s noses—they were simply too ineffective to do anything about it.
The newspapers’ transition to lighthearted coverage indicates that the white public’s initial alarm dwindled as the months passed. Once Dorsey Foultz was no longer considered a potentially dangerous fugitive, he shifted into a symbol of the Metropolitan Police’s—and by extension, the government’s—limitations. In a culture where white people often regarded Black people as “an amusing feature of the capital city,” reporters eagerly adopted the accused murderer as a mouthpiece through which they could deliver humorous commentary on local and world affairs.29 By 1898, Foultz ceased to be portrayed as a person in Washington newspapers; as a (usually racist) caricature, he joined the army, marched in parades, and commented on public issues.
Untitled political cartoon by Clifford K. Berryman, Washington Evening Star, July 2, 1907. This Berryman cartoon (note the trademark “Teddy” bear in the bottom left) is a comment on the 1907 Standard Oil case, during which John D. Rockefeller attempted to evade federal judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis’s subpoena to appear in court. The cartoon labels Rockefeller “The National Dorsey Foultz” thanks to his impressive ability to hide from U.S. marshals.
Dorsey Foultz the man was never seen again. But Dorsey Foultz the cultural icon remained an easily recognizable minstrel figure well into the twentieth century, convenient shorthand for white Washingtonians’ growing frustration with the lag between Progressive Era urban reform efforts and concrete results.
- Articles note Charles Stewart, William Morst, John Smith, Douglas Gordon, and Martha Gordon by name as witnesses who identified Foultz. “Foultz’s Fatal Shot,” Washington Post, June 1, 1897; “Foultz’s Act Deliberate,” Washington Post, June 2, 1897.
- “Nothing But Clues,” Evening Star, August 16, 1897. The quote is attributed to Special Officer Brockenborough, one of the department’s few Black members, who is routinely mentioned in articles as investigating the Foultz case.
- “Police Offer a Reward,” Evening Star, June 18, 1897.
- “Foultz Seeking Victims,” Evening Star, June 5, 1897.
- “A Hunt Underground,” Washington Post, June 7, 1897.
- Richard Sylvester, “Report of the Major and Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police Department” in Report of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1898), 115.
- “Will the Police Please Wake Up?,” Washington Times, February 1, 1896.
- “A Remarkable Find,” Evening Star, April 12, 1897.
- “Success Despite Stupidity,” Washington Times, July 15, 1896.
- Eric H. Monkkonen, “History of Urban Police,” Crime and Justice 15 (1992): 556; Eric H. Monkkonen, America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities & Towns, 1780-1980 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 93-94. Monkkonen claims that “the city government that emerged from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century emphasizes active service, not passive regulation” and that this “new and pervasive assumption that government has an obligation to provide safety” was the impetus behind these reforms. In “The Dynamics of Police Behavior: A Data Reanalysis,” Historical Methods 24, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 16-24, Catrien C.J.H. Bijleveld and Eric H. Monkkonen claim 1894 as the statistical turning point in U.S. urban police shifting their focus to violent crime arrests.
- Monkkonen, “History of Urban Police,” 556.
- The lasting nature of the Foultz manhunt was at least partially due to this emphasis on cooperation between police departments and the increased use of technology to create a national network of communication. Telegrams from other cities’ departments reporting alleged sightings kept the case active for several years. Eric H. Monkkonen, Police in Urban America, 1860-1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 156-57.
- “Davis Wants Foultz,” Washington Post, June 12, 1897.
- “Detective Lacy Specially Detailed,” Evening Star, July 1, 1897. Foultz was not the only alleged criminal successfully evading police that summer, though he had been on the run the longest. “The Absent Foultz,” Evening Star, August 27, 1897; “Hawkins Still At Large,” Evening Star, September 4, 1897.
- “Shrouded in Doubt,” Evening Star, August 2, 1897.
- For more on Black alley communities in Washington, see James Borchart, Alley Life in Washington: Family, Community, Religion, and Folklife in the City, 1850–1970 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980).
- “Close Search for Foultz,” Washington Post, June 5, 1897; “Girl Ran to Foultz,” Washington Post, June 11, 1897. Police frequently raided the alley communities while searching for Foultz. “A Function Without Foultz,” Washington Post, October 16, 1897; “Crowds Hunt for Foultz,” Washington Post, August 9, 1897; “The Officers Confident,” Evening Star, August 9, 1897; “Thought She Saw Foultz,” Washington Post, August 15, 1897; “‘Tobe’ Jones’ House Searched,” Washington Post, August 16, 1897; “Nothing But Clues,” Evening Star, August 16, 1897; “Foultz Sat at Her Door,” Washington Post, August 25, 1897; “Ubiquitous Dorsey Foultz,” Evening Star, August 25, 1897.
- See Sylvester, “Report of the Major and Superintendent of the Metropolitan Police Department,” 125. For information on incidents of police brutality in this period, see Chris Myers Asch and George Derek Musgrove, Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation’s Capital (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017), 173.
- “Man Who Looks Like Foultz,” Washington Post, September 19, 1897; “Affairs in Georgetown,” Evening Star, September 18, 1897; “Interest in Dorsey Foultz,” Evening Star, September 20, 1897. The Evening Star specifies that members of the mob were “armed with weapons of all sorts, from a horse pistol, with a two-foot barrel down to a pick ax handle.” The Methodist University referenced is American University.
- “Man Who Looks Like Foultz,” Washington Post, September 19, 1897.
- “Interest in Dorsey Foultz,” Evening Star, September 20, 1897.
- Mob violence was an ever-present threat to Black people across the U.S. Based on the MonroeWorkToday Dataset Compilation, no lynchings occurred in Washington, DC proper in the 1890s, but two occurred in Alexandria, VA (1897 and 1899) and one occurred in Rockville (1896). “White Supremacy Mob Violence Map,” MonroeWorkToday.org, accessed November 29, 2017.
- Untitled, Evening Star, October 5, 1897. This may have been a reference to the ill-fated 1897 Andrée arctic expedition.
- Untitled, Evening Star, October 14, 1897.
- Untitled, Evening Star, October 21, 1897.
- Untitled, Washington Post, August 28, 1897.
- Untitled, Washington Post, September 8, 1897. A similar joke appears in the Evening Star on September 23: “Up to the present time, Dorsey Foultz had the sagacity not to put in an appearance at Toronto, Canada.”
- “An Interview with Foultz,” Washington Post, August 16, 1897.
- Asch and Musgrove, Chocolate City, 207.
