¹ A year later, 1889, the Westinghouse Electric Company held the pre-eminent position in the incandescent lighting business. Electrical Engineer, Vol. VIII (1889), p. 75.

² The alternating-current lighting system of Westinghouse featured the transformer (often called a secondary generator at the time), the connection of the transformer primaries in parallel, and a generator providing good voltage regulation. None of the fundamental components or principles involved in this system were invented or discovered by the Westinghouse company but the complete system with its commercial potentialities was the conception and implementation of Westinghouse and his engineers. The transformer used by Westinghouse was based on the pioneer transformer of L. Gaulard and J. D. Gibbs. The connection of the transformer primaries in parallel — essential for the economical transmission of power — was introduced by the Hungarian firm of Ganz and Company before Westinghouse designed his system. The alternating-current generators used by Westinghouse in the early experiments had been designed and built by the German firm of Siemens and Halske. For an informative account of the development of the alternating-current system by the Westinghouse Electric Company, see Passer's, Harold C.Electrical Manufacturers, 1875–1900 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1953), pp. 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hereafter cited as, Passer, Electrical Manufacturers.

³ William Stanley, a pioneer in the field of electric lighting, conducted the experiments at Great Barrington. Stanley minimizes the role played by George Westinghouse in promoting the system, maintaining that Westinghouse was advised against the alternating-current system by a trusted expert. According to Stanley, Westinghouse's contribution was to make capital available for experimentation but on terms not favorable to Stanley. Only when Westinghouse saw the system developed by Stanley in operation did he decide to enter actively the alternating-current field. Stanley, William, “Alternating Current Development in America” (paper read before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Feb. 15, 1912), The Journal of the Franklin Institute …, Vol. CLXIII (1912), pp. 568–573.Google Scholar

⁴ Although Edison was to play a part in the AC-DC competition, he no longer had by 1888 a considerable role in the affairs of the electrical industry which he helped to create. He served the Edison companies (especially the Edison Electric Light Company) as a consultant, but most of his time was spent in his laboratory exploring fields other than electric lighting. Passer, Electrical Manufacturers, p. 102.

⁵ The “battle of the currents” was fought most vigorously in the United States from 1888 until 1895, the year when the great alternating-current generators at Niagara Falls began operation and demonstrated dramatically the advantages of alternating current.

⁶ For an extended discussion of the various advantages and disadvantages of the two currents, see the series of papers printed in the Electrical Engineer, Vol. VII (1888), pp. 166–168, 220–224. Also, see Pope, F. L., “The Westinghouse Alternating System of Electric Lighting,” Electrician and Electrical Engineer, Vol. VI (1887), pp. 332–342Google Scholar, for the well-stated opinions of an advocate for alternating current who met an accidental death in 1895 — a victim of alternating current.

⁷ Edison bad developed in 1883 a “three-wire system” of distributing direct current that reduced the cost of the transmission system below the cost of the two-wire system which he had used in 1882. The amount of copper used in the three-wire system for long-distance transmission, however, was still economically prohibitive.

⁸ Stillwell, L. B., “Alternating Current Versus Direct Current,” Electrical Engineering, Vol. LIII (Fiftieth Anniversary Issue, May, 1934), p. 710.Google Scholar

⁹ Ltr. from Harold P. Brown to the editor, the New York Evening Post, June 5, 1888.

¹⁰ Harold P. Brown in a paper read on the occasion of his experiments conducted at the School of Mines of Columbia College on July 30, 1888, and reprinted in his, The Comparative Danger to Life of the Alternating and Continuous Electrical Currents ([Place?], 1889), p. 39. Hereafter cited as Brown, Comparative Danger.

¹¹ Ltr. from T. Carpenter Smith to William H. Browne, June 12, 1888, read before the Board of Electrical Control, reprinted in the Electrical Engineer, Vol. VII (1888), p. 361.

¹² Ibid., p. 362; and from S. C. Peck to the Board of Electrical Control, reprinted in the Electrical Engineer, Vol. VII (1888), p. 363.

¹³ Smith, op. cit., p. 362. Between 1885 and 1890 Harold P. Brown was issued a number of letters patents for inventions relating to a means for combining the incandescent light and the arc light on the same high-voltage circuit (patents numbered: 325,389; 325,390; 330,465; 337,923; 352,035; 387,615 and 422,910).

Brown subsequently claimed that his “converter” was withdrawn from sale as of 1883 and that he did not intend that the high voltages should be used in homes but in commercial establishments and on the streets where they could be properly safeguarded. Harold P. Brown in a paper read on July 30, 1888, at Columbia College and reprinted in his Comparative Danger, pp. 42–43.

¹⁴ Byllesby used the term direct current instead of the conventional term then used — continuous current. It seems likely that this alternating-current advocate may have seen the advantage of reminding the public that, while alternating was converted to a safe voltage before entering the home, the other came “directly” in. Ltr. from H. M. Byllesby to C. H. Jackson, July 14, 1888, read before the Board of Electrical Control, and reprinted in the Electrical Engineer, Vol. VII (1888), pp. 367–368.

¹⁵ Brown, Harold P., “The New Instrument of Execution,” North American Review, Vol. CXLIX (1889), p. 586.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Brown asserted that another objective of these initial experiments was to determine the practicality of an apparatus suggested by him for making continuous current safer. He also maintained that his primary motive was to save human life, ibid., p. 586. This may have been the approach used to Edison.

¹⁷ Arthur E. Kennelly (1861–1939), who was educated at University College School, London, England, assisted Edison from 1887–1894 and later became professor at Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Edison described Kennelly — who was an electrical engineer — as his “walking” set of “tables.”

¹⁸ State of New York, “The People of the State of New York, Ex. Rel. William Kemmler, Appellant, Against Charles F. Durston, Agent and Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent,” 2 vols. bound in Court of Appeals, 1847–1911, DCCCXCIII (Buffalo, New York, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 648–649. Hereafter cited as Electrocution Hearing. Kennelly testified in 1889 that it was not unusual for Edison to allow “experimentalists” — even comparative strangers — to use his laboratory. Electrocution Hearing, Vol. II, p. 752.

¹⁹ Brown, Comparatine Danger, p. 11.

²⁰ Individual invitations were issued to the demonstration “in Prof. Chandler's Lecture Room at the School of Mines, Columbia College.” Among those receiving an invitation was Thomas A. Edison. The invitation is in the archives of the Edison Laboratory National Monument at Orange, New Jersey. The museum and archives are administered by the National Park Service with Mr. Norman R. Speiden as acting superintendent. Items in these archives will hereafter be identified by “Edison Archives.”

²¹ Peterson, a physician, had practiced for four years in Buffalo, New York, for three years in a lunatic asylum at Poughkeepsie, New York, and 1888 was practicing in New York City. He had — according to his own testimony — studied medical electricity, mental and nervous diseases at Vienna, Strasbourg, and Leipzig. Peterson had been using electricity daily in his medical practice for about four years (in New York City by 1889 he was making an average of thirty applications a day of electricity in hospitals and dispensaries with which he was associated). Dr. Peterson's activities are evidence of the early attempts to use the still novel power of electricity for medical purposes. (Harold Brown had at one time sold and adjusted electro-medical apparatus.)

²² The Electrical Engineer, Vol. VII (1888), p. 369. The dog's appearance elicited conflicting reports: although the Electrical Engineer thought it “mild,” the New York Herald reported it as a “large mongrel Newfoundland, with a vicious eye and ready tooth” that bit two attendants while being put into the cage. New York Herald, July 31, 1888.

²³ New York Times, July 31, 1888.

²⁴ Brown, Comparative Danger, p. 10.

²⁵ New York Times, July 31, 1888. A ballad was composed upon the occasion of the dog's death and read in part as follows:

… The dog stood in the lattice box,

The wires around him led;

He knew not that electric shocks

So soon would strike him dead.

… At last there came a deadly bolt;

The dog, O where was he?

Three hundred alternating bolts

Had burst his viscerae.

Electrical Engineer, Vol. VII (1888), p. 375.

²⁶ Brown later wrote that he hoped the Board of Health would shut off alternating current in the state. New York Sun, Aug. 25, 1889. See footnote 55 for an evaluation of this source.

²⁷ Ltr. from Harold P. Brown to Arthur E. Kennelly, Aug. 4, 1888, Edison Archives.

²⁸ For a formidable attack upon the validity of the experiments, see a paper read before the National Electric Light Association by Dr. P. H. Van der Weyde. At the conclusion of the reading of this paper the Association unanimously adopted a resolution critical of those pitting alternating and direct-current systems against one another and a resolution asserting that neither current was dangerous (Brown subsequently labeled the Association prejudiced (ltr. from Brown to the New York Evening Post, Nov. 6, 1889). A draft of the paper — revised by Van der Weyde — was reprinted in the Electrical Engineer, Vol. VII (1888), pp. 451–454. According to Brown, Arthur E. Kennelly, Edison's assistant, published a “stinging” reply to the Van der Weyde paper in the Electrical Review on Sept. 22, 1888.

²⁹ In the same issue of the Evening Post carrying Brown's original letter attacking alternating current, there was an editorial commending the adoption of electricity for capital punishment, June 5, 1888. No explicit relationship between alternating current and capital punishment was established, however.

³⁰ Electrocution Hearing, Vol. I, pp. 370–371.

³¹ The first successful commercial installation of alternating current was made by the Westinghouse Electric Company in Buffalo. The alternating-current central station commenced operations there on Nov. 30, 1886.

³² State of New York, Report of the Commission to Investigate and Report the Most Humane and Practical Method of Carrying into Effect the Sentence of Death in Capital Cases … Transmitted to the Legislature of the State of New York, January 17, 1888 (Albany, 1888), p. 82, hereafter cited as Commission Report. See also Electrocution Hearing, Vol. I, p. 370.

³³ Commission Report, pp. 76–77.

³⁴ Thomson, distinguished scientist and inventor, advised against alternating current on the grounds of safety, until he found a protective device for the transformer, and then in 1887 his company began the production and sale of alternating-current equipment. Passer, Electrical Manufacturers, p. 145.

³⁵ F. S. Hastings, secretary and treasurer of the Edison Electric Light Company, wrote to Kennelly to arrange for the use of the facilities at the Edison laboratory. Hastings did not want to trouble Edison with the request. Ltr. from Hastings to Kennelly, Nov. 20, 1888, and Hastings to Kennelly, Nov. 28, 1888, both at the Edison Archives.

³⁶ New York Times, Dec. 6, 1888.

³⁷ Ltr. from Harold P. Brown to A. E. Kennelly, Dec. 6, 1888, Edison Archives.

³⁸ Aware of the significance of the report of the Medico-Legal Society, Brown reprinted it in his Comparative Danger (pp. 16–21).

³⁹ Harland C. Forbes, a vice president of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, stated in a 1954 address before the Newcomen Society (North America) that “they [direct current interests] went so far as to get New York State to specify A. C. generators when the State adopted electrocution as the system of capital punishment.” Forbes, “Con Edison” and Ralph Tapscott, a publication of the Newcomen Society of North America (Princeton, 1954), p. 15.

⁴⁰ Ltr. from George Westinghouse to the Times, Dec. 10, 1888, and printed in the New York Times, Dec. 13, 1888.

⁴¹ Westinghouse claimed that the Edison company only reported an annual sale of direct-current apparatus for 44,000 lights while Westinghouse received orders for equipment to supply 48,000 lights during the single month of October, 1888. Ibid.

⁴² Brown had his challenge printed in several newspapers including the New York Times, Dec. 18, 1888. A copy of the letter is in the Edison Archives.

⁴³ Brown, Comparative Danger, p. 27.

⁴⁴ Brown, by scanning the newspapers and through correspondence, kept a list of all deaths from electric lighting. Ltr. from Brown to Thomas A. Edison, Oct. 22, 1889, Edison Archives. By 1890 Brown publicly claimed thirty deaths attributable to alternating current. Investigation by Westinghouse agents revealed only one possibly so caused. Passer, Electrical Manufacturers, pp. 169–170 and Electrical Engineer, Vol. VIII (1889), p. 498.

⁴⁵ An outstanding example of Brown's role as a publicist is the booklet, The Comparative Danger to Life of the Alternating and Continuous Currents which has been cited above. This booklet was a collection of newspaper articles, speeches, and reports supporting Brown's position. No indication is given of the origins of this publication other than Brown himself, but it undoubtedly involved considerable expenditure.

⁴⁶ Ltr. from F. S. Hastings to Thomas A. Edison, Jan. 21, 1889, Edison Archives. This officer of the Edison Electric Light Company asked Brown to send his polemical literature to a list of legislators and officers of the State of Missouri. Ltr. from F. S. Hastings, secretary and treasurer of the Edison Electric Light Company, to Harold Brown, Feb. 19, 1889, and printed in the New York Sun, Aug. 25, 1889. See footnote 55 for an evaluation of this source.

⁴⁷ In the circular letter Brown put the following phrases in bold-faced type: “produce instant death,” “best method of executing condemned criminals,” “execution purposes,” and “executioner's current.” Brown exploited the new execution law and the report of the Medico-Legal Society fully. The circular letter was received and printed by the Electrical Engineer, Vol. VIII (1889), p. 74. A copy is also in the Edison Archives.

⁴⁸ Brown had hoped to have the high-voltage alternating current outlawed in New York State by the legislature and had also tried to have it removed from New York City by the Board of Electrical Control or the Board of Health as a part of his plan to outlaw the current through public authority. The New York Evening Post, Nov. [?], 1889, clipping in the Edison Archives.

⁴⁹ Dispatch, Richmond, Virginia, Feb. 12 and 13, 1890.

⁵⁰ Opponents of the bill called the legislators' attention to the fact that only two of the fourteen cities and towns in Virginia using electricity patronized the Edison system.

⁵¹ Stillwell, L. B., “Alternating Current Versus Direct Current,” Electrical Engineering, Vol. LIII (Fiftieth Anniversary Issue, May, 1934), p. 710.Google Scholar

⁵² Ltr. from Harold Brown to Thomas Edison, March 17, 1889, and printed in the New York Sun, Aug. 25, 1889.

⁵³ The test of the Westinghouse alternating-current generator followed upon the published claim by Westinghouse that the alternating-current apparatus operated far more economically than any direct-current system. The Thomson-Houston Electric Company authorized Brown to arrange the test. Ltr. from Harold Brown to Thomas Edison, March 27, 1889, and printed in the New York Sun, Aug. 25, 1889. The results of the Johns Hopkins tests were published by Brown in 1890; see Brown, H. P., A Test of the Efficiency of a Westing-house Alternating Current Electric Lighting Plant (New York, 1890).Google Scholar On March 18, 1890, Dr. Louis Duncan and W. F. C. Hasson had a paper read before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers reporting on the efficiency of the alternating-current apparatus presented to Johns Hopkins University by the Westinghouse Electric Company; see, the Electrical Engineer, Vol. IX (1890), pp. 158–160. It is possible that these tests came out of a desire on the part of Westinghouse and Johns Hopkins to counteract any suspicion concerning the objectivity of the test planned by Brown.

⁵⁴ Electrocution Hearing, Vol. II, pp. 1011, 1014, and 4019. Carlos F, MacDonald of the state asylum for insane criminals at Auburn, New York, suggested to Brown that he be present with a proposal, including costs, at a meeting of the superintendent of state prisons and the wardens of Sing Sing, Auburn, and Dannemora. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the apparatus for carrying out electrocution. Ltr. from MacDonald to Harold Brown, March 19, 1889, and printed in the New York Sun, Aug. 25, 1889. Elbridge T. Gerry, head of the commission of the New York State Legislature recommending electricity for capital punishment, made it quite clear that neither his commission nor the law specified the type of apparatus, but that this was entrusted to the superintendent of state prisons. The superintendent of prisons, in turn, delegated skilled practical electricians to provide the apparatus. Gerry, Elbridge T., “Capital Punishment by Electricity,” North American Review, Vol. CXLIX (1889), p. 325.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ These negotiations are described in a series of forty-five letters printed by the New York Sun (Aug. 25, 1889), as an exposé of Brown. Hereafter cited as Sun letters. Some of the letters were received by Brown and others were copies of letters sent by him. Included was correspondence with Thomas A. Edison (but the original of the letter to Edison is not to be found in the Edison Archives at the Edison Laboratory National Monument in West Orange, New Jersey), the Edison Electric Light Co., and the Thomson-Houston Electric Company. The authenticity of the letters is supported by Brown's own action: he offered $500 reward for information to convict the person who, he alleged, opened his desk and stole a number of papers. He noted that some of these were published in the Net York Sun; see the New York Times, Sept. 5, 1889. Brown intended to present his case to a grand jury in New York City but no further record has been found of the outcome of this activity.

In an editorial about the letters, the Sun made the following accusations: “that the state law respecting execution by electricity has been availed of as an expedient whereby certain electrical interests should derive advantage at the expense of a competitor; that there is a conspiracy against the concern known as the Westinghouse Company; that Harold P. Brown is the appointed agent of the conspiracy”; and recommended that his services be dispensed with by the State of New York inasmuch as he was not fit to supply or apply the apparatus for execution. Despite the publication of the letters, Brown continued his well-publicized campaign against alternating current and his work in connection with the supplying of the electrical execution equipment for the state.

⁵⁶ Brown assured Edison that his (Brown's) scheme would result in the cutting off of the overhead alternating-current circuits in the state and help “all legitimate electrical enterprises.” Ltr. from Brown to Edison, March 27, 1889, Sun letters. On Oct. 15, 1889, the Chief Inspector of the Health Department of the City of New York did recommend to the Sanitary Superintendent — as a result of “leakage tests” run on alternating-current circuits in the city — the prohibition of high voltage upon wires in the city. Enclosure in a letter from Brown to Edison, Nov. 7, 1889, Edison Archives.

⁵⁷ The Edison and the Thomson-Houston companies probably cooperated because not only did they have opposition to Westinghouse in common, but also because, even this early, a merger between the two companies was being considered. According to Harold Passer, all available evidence indicates that the consolidation between Thomson-Houston and Edison which was to create General Electric in 1892 was under consideration as early as 1889. Electrical Manufacturers, p. 321. The Thomson-Houston company was especially well suited to render Brown assistance because it was not associated in the public mind with opposition to Westinghouse and alternating current as was the Edison Electric Light Company.

⁵⁸ See above, footnote 53.

⁵⁹ Ltr. from Harold Brown to C. A. Coffin, May 13, 1889, Sun letters. As noted, above, the account of Brown's activities in obtaining the generators is from this source (Sun letters).

⁶⁰ New York Times, Aug. 6, 1889. State Superintendent of Prisons, Austin Lathrop, delegated the building of the first electric chair to Edwin F. Davis, an electrician. Robert Elliott, G. (with Beatty, Albert R.), Agent of Death (New York, 1940), pp. 22–23 and 29.Google Scholar Subsequent to the first electrocution at Auburn, Davis was recommended by the Edison people when the authorities at Clinton Prison, New York, sought their recommendation for an electrician to supervise an electrocution. A memo in the “electrocution file” at the Edison Archives (no date). According to Nikola Tesla (1856–1943), one of the prominent pioneer inventors for the electrical industry, he and another engineer designed the prototype of the electric chair for commercial use, but then the opponents of alternating current had the chair adopted for capital punishment. The New York World, Nov. 17, 1929.

⁶¹ New York Times, Aug. 6, 1889.

⁶² Franklin L. Pope, the second president of the A. I. E. E., was employed by the Westinghouse company at the time of the hearing; Schuyler S. Wheeler was the electrical expert for the New York Board of Electrical Control; and Kennelly was president of the A. I. E. E. from 1898–1900.

⁶³ The hearing and subsequent legal developments are described in Electrocution Hearing. See above, footnote 18.

⁶⁴ At this time the theory of alternating currents was not fully understood and methods for making power measurements had not been perfected. MacLaren, Malcolm, The Rise of the Electrical Industry During the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1943), pp. 146–147.Google Scholar Therefore, those testifying on behalf of the state found it impossible to satisfy completely the objections of Bourke Cockran.

⁶⁵ The Brush Electric Company pioneered the development of arc-lighting in the United States. Charles Francis Brush, who held a bachelor's degree in chemistry from the University of Michigan, began experimenting with electricity in the 1870's. His arc-lighting company expanded rapidly during the period when Brown was employed.

⁶⁶ Brown's letterhead, after he became self-employed, carried the following description: “Designer of Apparatus for Special Purposes, Contractor for Arc and Incandescent Electric Lights and Steam-Power, City Street Lights Tested and Compared with Contract Requirements, Complete Plants Erected for City Lighting. Harold P. Brown, Electrical Engineer, 201 West 54th St., New York.” Letter from Brown for general circulation, Edison Archives, no date [Jan., 1889?].

⁶⁷ Edison testimony, Thomas A., Electrocution Hearings, Vol. II, pp. 648–650.Google Scholar Although Edison denied close involvement with Harold Brown, he was interested enough in winning public support for the direct current in the current controversy to write an article for the North American Review, Vol. CXLIX (1889), pp. 625–634, in which he characterized alternating current as unnecessary and-unalterably dangerous. Edison also opposed the utilization of rights to an European alternating-current system acquired by the Edison company in 1886 and as noted above he took part in the hearings before the legislature committee of the State of Virginia in February, 1890. Although Edison did not supervise the various experiments on animals conducted at his laboratory, or even plan for them, his interest in the current controversy is also attested to by the part he instructed — or at least allowed — his assistant, Kennelly, to play in conjunction with Brown, Dr. Peterson, and at the request of F. S. Hastings of the Edison Electric Light Company in preparing and carrying out the animal experiments. Nor was George Westinghouse inactive in this phase in the “battle of the currents.” In addition to his letter to New York newspapers, he wrote a reply to the Edison article in the next issue of the North American Review and in another article in the same periodical, “Sir Wm. Thomson and Electric Lighting,” Vol. CL (1890), pp. 321–329, he counterattacked in the campaign to outlaw “dangerous” currents by recommending that only those currents be allowed in dwelling places that were insulated from the main electric lines by transformers. Such a regulation would have reduced the fire hazard, according to Westinghouse.

⁶⁸ Thomas A. Edison testimony, Electrocution Hearing, Vol. II, p. 636.

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 645.

⁷⁰ Ltr. from A. E. Kennelly to Harold Brown, June 29, 1889, Sun letters.

⁷¹ Kennelly testimony, A. E., Electrocution Hearing, Vol. II, pp. 655–714, passim.Google Scholar In view of Kennelly's prominence, his role in the Brown episode deserves comment. Kennelly, instructed by Edison to assist Brown in the series of animal experiments, maintained that he did not help Brown write the polemical literature (Brown's, Comparative Danger) which presented the results of the experiments. On the other hand, Kennelly did play a leading part in carrying out the various animal experiments for the Medico-Legal Society. Dr. Frederick Peterson, chairman of the committee on electrical execution, carried on a correspondence with him in regard to these experiments. Ltr.s from Peterson to Kennelly, Dec. 10 and 26, 1888, Edison Archives.

⁷² Electrocution Hearing, Vol. II, p. 1,067.

⁷³ New York Evening Post, May 14, 1889, and reprinted in the Electrical Engineer, Vol. VIII (1889), p. 247. (The Evening Post had expected the victim to be dispatched by the simple touch of a wire or a knob.)

⁷⁴ The Scientific American, Vol. LX (1889), p. 2.

⁷⁵ The Electrical Engineer, Vol. VIII (1889), p. 372.

⁷⁶ Proceedings of the National Electric Light Association at its Tenth Convention (Semi-Annual Meeting held in the Casino at Niagara Falls, N.Y., Aug. 6, 7, and 8, 1889), Vol. VII (New York, 1890), p. 135. Hereafter cited as Proceedings of N. E. L. A.

⁷⁷ Proceedings of N. E. L. A., p. 136.

⁷⁸ Not only had the public's fear of alternating current been stimulated, but direct current earlier, and street-railway electrification simultaneously, had been subjected to attack — if to a lesser degree — as menaces to public safety. Exemplifying the general public's interest was an article in a popular periodical written to lessen the public's exaggerated fear of electricity and make it aware of the few real dangers that did exist (Trowbridge, John, “Dangers of Electricity,” Atlantic Monthly, Vol. LXV [1890], pp. 413–418).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Proceedings of N. E. L. A., pp. 157–158.

⁸⁰ Ltr. from C. A. Coffin to Harold Brown, May 22, 1889, Sun letters.

⁸¹ Electrical Engineer, Vol. IX (1890), p. 2.

⁸² Brown, Harold P., “The New Instrument of Execution,” North American Review, Vol. CXLIX (1889), p. 587.Google Scholar

⁸³ The Weekly Sentinel, May 2, 1890.

⁸⁴ Article from the Weekly Sentinel was reprinted in the Electrical Engineer, Vol. IX (1890), p. 350.

⁸⁵ State of New York, Report of Carlos F. MacDonald, M. D; on the Execution by Electricity of William Kemmler, alias John Hart: Presented to the Governor, September 20, 1890 (Albany, 1890), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as, MacDonald Report.

⁸⁶ MacDonald Report, p. 14.

⁸⁷ The Utica Globe quoted from Correction, Aug., 1940, in Barnes, Harry Elmer and Teeters, Negley K., New Horizons in Criminology (New York, 1945), p. 419.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Scientific American, Vol. LXIII (1890), p. 200.

⁸⁹ Huntley, Charles R., “Kemmler's Execution as Seen by an Electrician,” Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review, Vol. XXVII (1890), pp. 278–279.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as Telegraphic Journal. Leo W. Sheridan, in his account of the career of Robert Elliott (who came to be known as America's foremost executioner) characterizes the Kemmler execution as a “horribly bungled job.” I killed for the Law (New York, 1938), p. 15. Sheridan's description of the execution was drawn from newspaper reports and seldom agrees with the official report.

⁹⁰ “Mr. Edison and the Kemmler Execution,” Telegraphic Journal, Vol. XXVII (1890), p. 280.

⁹¹ comment, Editorial, Telegraphic Journal, Vol. XXVII (1890), p. 260.Google Scholar

⁹² Scientific American quoted in, Telegraphic Journal, Vol. XXVII (1890), pp. 230–231.

⁹³ MacDonald Report, p. 19.

⁹⁴ Public sentiment was not always sympathetic to Brown's point of view. A popular speaker in New York alluded to Brown as “a lizard-blooded scientific promoter of murder, a creature to be forever loathed.” New York Times, Aug. 12, 1889.

⁹⁵ Tables in Passer, Electrical Manufacturers, pp. 149–150.

⁹⁶ By 1917 more than 95 per cent of the electrical energy generated annually in the United States was alternating current. Commerford Martin, T., Forty Years of Edison Service, 1882–1922 (New York, 1922), p. 89.Google Scholar