7 Pennsylvania Lithuanian Men For The Gallows by Jay Zane
Edited By: Laurel B. Schunk, Author, St. Kitt's Press
Copyright © 1998 by Jay Zane, Attorney at Law, and the Lithuanian Global Genealogical Society, All Rights Reserved.

Joseph Rutkauskas, after a hard day of labor, apparently had been sitting quietly with his young wife and child. At about 7:30 p.m. the 34-year-old immigrant heard noises outside and went to investigate. His sobbing widow told the police that she accompanied him to the gate and heard a voice say, "We mean to do him no real harm but only cut him up." After that threat was made, her husband was taken by surprise and struck down with an ax, his head nearly severed from his body from the blows he took.

Warrants of arrest were quickly posted for a large group of young men. Early evidence indicated that the murder was premeditated and perpetrated without provocation. Rumors quickly circulated - the responsibile group was a hoodlum gang from "the old country" wanting to carry out the evil traditions they brought with them to America.

Supposedly, the gang openly defied the law and maintained a reign of terror in William Penn for two to three years. Many of the wanted men worked in the William Penn Colliery and Superintendent Michael Golden permitted the police to enter the mines. Arrests were made without difficulty and twelve men were brought to the County seat in Pottsville, creating a spectacle and excitement as they left Shenandoah by train. A monstrous crowd appeared at the "Pennsy" Station to see the young, muscular fellows secured with handcuffs. To avoid attention in Pottsville, the police took a few detours to the jail.

Prisoners included Michael Brozoskas, Joseph Kajinski, Adam Romanaitis, Matthew Bubnis, Rollas Bubnis, Anthony Machulis, Charles Shutchas, Andrew Koras, Peter Stenkawicz, Anthony Stenkawicz, and John Stenkawicz -- all charged with capital homicide. Also arrested for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct were George Yudinskas, Joseph Urban, and John Lokitus. All were Lithuanian immigrants, a number of them no strangers to the inside of a jail cell.

The town-folk soon learned Romanaitis had recently been released from the county prison after serving a year for assault and battery with intent to kill. Machulis had also been convicted of a crime of violence. "Hooligans!" "Criminals!" thought the gentry population, now trying to come to grips with the waves of eastern European immigrants flooding into the coal region. The crime, it was said, was one of the most brutal in the criminal history of the county, and it was thought that many of these eastern Europeans were uncivilized savages.

On September 27, a solemn high funeral mass was held at St. George's Lithuanian Catholic Church in Shenandoah for the deceased, which was attended by many. While the funeral was taking place, rumors persisted there were organized gangs of thugs wandering the county's numerous mining hamlets. The rumors would not go away. The family of the deceased requested the dead man's name be printed as "Rutkowski," and the press obliged.

The trial began in November of that year. The nine men accused of fiendish, cold-blooded murder were represented by a passionate attorney, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by the County's District Attorney. The two Bubnis brothers were able to have their case severed from the others and would have a separate trial in January 1900.

The first witness for the prosecution was the victim's boarder, who resided in the same house in the area of William Penn, known as "The Block of Blazes." The origin of this nickname is unknown. The boarder emphatically testified that he saw Rollas Bubnis strike the fatal blow with the ax while he heard Koras yell, "Give it to him."

A neighbor of the deceased testified that he hid behind a fence when he saw the large unruly crowd gather in front of Rutkauskas' house. "I could not see but I heard Koras say, 'Give it to that bullfrog,’" the witness told the crowded courtroom. On cross-examination the witness defined a large crowd as 6 or 7, and that all the accused, except for Bubnis, were laughing among themselves. He denied seeing many of the defendants at the scene.

The next neighbor to testify was a woman who remembered looking out her window to see all the defendants outside except Shutchis and Romanaitis. She claimed the crowd was unruly. Then, a pistol was fired, stones hurled. "I heard Peter Stenkawicz yell towards the house, 'Was it you, bullfrog, that hit my brother?’" the witness calmly testified. She was followed by another woman, who identified Rollas Bubnis as the individual with an ax in his hand.

Without a doubt, the most dramatic witness was the young widow. She arose from the audience dressed in deep black mourning garb and slowly took the witness stand. Her faint voice trembled as she identified herself. Everyone in the packed Courtroom felt sympathy and sorrow. Although she was unable to identify her husband's murderer, she testified the three Stenkawicz men and Machulis were present. Despite the testimony, there was little said about any organized gangs. Were the rumors true or false? Only time would tell.

A witness named Peter Chunas testified that earlier that evening he saw many of the defendants leaving Bender's Bar, one of many saloons frequented by miners. According to Chunas, the accused were very unruly. “I heard drunken voices stating that ‘meat will be cheap tonight,’ and I also heard talk about the ‘Zukas.’"

Chunas was followed by a female witness who stated that when she heard a gunshot, she ran outside of her house to get her boy. On the way back home she saw a fight on the Rutkauskas porch. "I saw a woman come out of the house and drag one of the men back inside," she told the Court. “I then heard loud cries of ‘Murder!’" However, she saw no actual attack on the victim and was only able to say that she saw the defendants nearby.

"Today there will be 'Zukas' on toast," Enoch Mochnis told an attentive jury, "that is what I heard Machulas say as a group of inebriated men walked towards Bender's Bar . . . later I saw them leave the bar in a single file and march towards the home of Frank Wylonis, yelling out, 'come out you, Zukas King . . . are you bullfrogs going to fight tonight . . .' " Finally, the jury was getting a glimpse into the gang life of a certain element of the Lithuanian immigrant population present in the anthracite coal fields.

The constable of William Penn was sworn in and testified the Village of William Penn had two competing factions: the Bubnis-Koras gang and the Wylonis gang with Frank Wylonis as the leader. The Bubnis-Koras gang was also known as the Propenokas gang and the Wylonis gang was known as the Zukas gang.

"What does the term bullfrog mean among your countrymen?" the District Attorney asked the next witness, John Muldaizas. It was explained bullfrong was a word of utter contempt, only used in anger and used frequently between the warring factions of the Zukas Propenokis, two Lithuanian factions that appeared to have an inborn hatred for one another. Muldaizas informed the Court the dead man had belonged to the Zukas clan while all of the defendants belonged to the Propenokis clan. Both clans were from Lithuania but from different provinces.

Additional witnesses testified these bitter feelings were transplanted from Europe and, in fact, increased in intensity. Newspapers told their readers the bitter feelings of the Zukas and Propenokis were stronger in America than in "Russia-Poland."

During the prosecution, the District Attorney wanted to prove the victim was a member of the Zukas, Bullfrog gang, the defendants members of the rival Propenokis gang. The motive: gang rivalry or gang revenge - clear and simple, according to the Commonwealth's advocate. Muldaizas tried to explain to the jury that Rutkauskas was a member of the Zukas crowd while the defendants were from the opposing group. These groups were from different areas of the old country.

The defense counsel objected to this line of questioning, "There is nothing relevant in this testimony . . . so what if the men were from different areas of Lithuania?" Frank Zuberinski testified that earlier he heard Machulas saying that "meat will be cheap after tonight as we will kill a bullfrog Zukas . . . much bologna on the streets tonight. Let the Zukas come out." On cross-examination he admitted to being a Zukas. Frank Wylonis, another witness, testified to being a Zukas. In fact, he was the leader of the Zukas faction. He had heard Koras shout outside of his window, "Come down the stairs, you big bullfrog! I will make bologna out of you and sell you for ten cents a pound."

The defendants’ testimonies conflicted with one another, which did not help their case. In fact, one defendant's alibi changed four times while on the witness stand. All denied responsibility for the horrible death but all admitted to consuming large quantities of whiskey and alcohol that evening, all so drunk that accurate recollections were almost impossible. However, one thing was obvious from the testimony of the defendants: all fingers pointed to Rollas Bubnis as the one who may have done the deed. [I said may as none could positively state they witnessed the homicide.]

Defendant Peter Stenkawicz testified most coherently, stating, "We were walking from Bender's bar when Frank Wylonis stuck his head out of his window yelling, 'Here comes Koras the big Indian with his monkey’ . . . he meant Usnokis, his buddy that was with him. I went around the crowd with Usnokis' hat asking for pennies for the “little monkey.” We then asked Wylonis to come outside, but he didn't want to. We kept up the fun as we went along the street, stopping at every gate, asking for pennies for the monkey. Later on Zuberinski and my brother started a fight, and my brother was beaten with a club. Zuberinski ran into the dead man's yard, but Rutkauskas put him out and told him to fight in the street. I don't know who struck him down though . . . I was trying to help my brother . . . I am a cousin of Mrs. Rutkauskas, and I have friends that are Zukas and Propenokas."

Defendant Koras disputed the fact that he was a Propenokas. He testified he was from a province in Europe called "Waver" [which may be a misspelling due to his thick accent], which was nearer to the Zukas province than the Propenokas province.

Repeatedly, defense witnesses wholeheartedly agreed that all of the defendants were extremely intoxicated, but the murder could have been done by another person rather than by one of those charged with the crime. One defendant swore the deed was done by an unknown assailant standing in the victim's yard. As there was so much commotion going on, it was impossible to say for sure.

In his closing remarks to the jury, the defense attorney provided a summary of events . . .

+ The men were celebrating . . .
+ They had certainly drunk too much alcohol, but they were laughing and joking and meant no harm + Frank Wylonis, the Zukas leader, had insulted them and instigated fighting . . .
+ No one had been threatened . . .

But, what had really happened according to the District Attorney was: Rollas Bubnis took advantage of the drunken celebration and struck Joseph Rutkowski. It was stated that Bubnis held a grudge against him since Rutkowski had had him arrested five weeks earlier for disorderly conduct at a wedding.

The jury had little difficulty in returning a unanimous verdict: guilty of murder in the first degree against all except Charles Shutchas and Adam Romanaitis, who were found not guilty and released. After the first ballot eight jurors were in favor of first degree murder, three for second degree and one for voluntary manslaughter. It was dramatic when each juror was individually polled as to each of the seven condemned men; it was the largest conviction in the history of the county.

The seven Lithuanian immigrants were immediately handcuffed and escorted back to prison while their attorney announced he would file a motion for a new trial. Koras yelled out as he was led away, "If I am hanged on the scaffold, I will die an innocent man." The press immediately proclaimed the verdict would have a wholesome effect throughout the county by making those "foreigners" think twice before indulging in the debauchery they were accustomed to. Never in the history of the County had so many men been convicted of first-degree murder - not even during the dark days of the Molly Maguires when five men were convicted and subsequently hung. Many lawyers who followed the trial professed their surprise and believed a new trial would be granted as none of the men were actually seen doing any violence towards the deceased.

The jubilant District Attorney saw things differently: "The jury believed that they were all accessories before the fact and therefore just as guilty as if they each swung the ax. Justice has been served." But, according to three Judges of the County which granted the seven men a new trial on April 30, 1900, justice had not been served. In his motion for a new trail, the defense counsel argued, "These men are of foreign birth, strangers in a strange land who are entitled to the same protection as though they were native born." The new trial for the condemned men would commence in a few weeks. Would these Lithuanian immigrants be saved from the noose, or would they join the Bubnis brothers on the scaffold? Friends of Andrew Koras announced a fund-raiser to gather the money necessary for an appeal, estimated at $1500.

In early January 1900, the homicide case against Matt Bubnis and Rollas Bubnis began in earnest. The two, young dark-skinned Lithuanian brothers remained close throughout the proceedings. Rollas was only 19-years old, his brother 26. They would converse between one another in both English and their native Lithuanian language. With the exception of defendant Koras, the two Bubnis brothers appeared to be the most intelligent.

The defense in the second trial focused on the one alleged eyewitness, Frank Duchas. It was argued Duchas was biased against the defendants and possibly could have committed the murder himself or was covering up the identity of the real killer. Counsel for the defense was determined to prove Frank Duchas was at the bottom of all the trouble and Rollas Bubnis was an innocent man. His eloquent opening statement caused quite a sensation, one of the most dramatic in the history of Schuylkill County court proceedings.

During the second trial, the testimony of the witnesses did not vary a great deal from the first trial. When Frank Duchas was on the stand, the defense attempted to impeach him by insinuating that somehow Duchas was involved in the homicide. Questions by the defense as to his romantic involvement with Mrs. Rutkowski, the young widow who was his landlady, were objected to by the prosecution; the objections were sustained. The testimony of Frank Duchas was damning to the defense, as he positively identified Rollas Bubnis as the assailant and the others as in the vicinity. He stated he was within ten feet of the victim at the time of the murder and there was no doubt as to who he saw. He was asked to point out which of the defendants he saw strike Rutkauskas. All eyes in the courtroom turned to the defense table as Duchas pointed his outstretched hand at Rollas Bubnis. At the first trial, he was uncertain who the actual killer was, even though he was only three feet away. Duchas also gave somewhat of an explanation of the two Lithuanian factions. He told the court that Zukas were men from a certain county in Poland while the other faction were men from the part of Lithuania attached to Germany.

Through defendants' testimony, it was learned September 24 had been Matt Bubnis' twenty-sixth birthday, and the brothers had purchased a keg of beer and a gallon of whiskey to celebrate. They started to drink at 12:30 PM and finished at 1:30 PM. They then went to Bender's Bar to continue the celebration with friends. Rollas, who had arrived in the United States in 1897, was the youngest among the group of so-called Propenokis and was clearly the most intoxicated.

Attorney Seltzer gave a powerful closing address to the jury on behalf of his client, Rollas Bubnis. He referred to the words of Pontius Pilate . . . "I FIND NO EVIL IN THIS MAN" as the rabble shouted: "CRUCIFY HIM" . . . He brought up other interesting points to create the reasonable doubt necessary to acquit including testimony from several that one of the men in the street brawl near the deceased victim's home - that a Mr. Zuberinski also had a billy club or ax with him. Seltzer hammered home one point: all were highly intoxicated, enough to impair any formation of intent. And, Rollas Bubnis was not only intoxicated, he was also "gloriously the drunkest of the lot."

More than three months in solitary confinement in narrow prison cells, with the possibility of death by hanging, had telling effects on the two Bubnis brothers. Rollas had lost more than twenty pounds over the months. They were anxious to get the trial over with. At approximately 7:00 PM on a cold January 10, 1900, they would get their wish: the jury of twelve men came into court and rendered their verdict: Rollas Bubnis was guilty of murder in the first degree. Because little evidence was presented as to his involvement, Matthew was acquitted. In fact, the testimony, if believed, indicated Matthew acted as a peacemaker.

Matthew was immediately released and went home to William Penn. Rollas was handcuffed and led away to a solitary confinement cell in the prison immediately behind the Courthouse to await sentencing. He would join his other condemned fellow countrymen sitting on death row.

In June of 1900, Rollas Bubnis stood before the Judge and without a tremor, listened to his death sentence ". . . You will hang by the neck until you are dead, Mr. Bubnis . . .," Judge Marr calmly proclaimed. Nearly everyone in the packed courtroom stood up when the defendant was led out of the courtroom to his small prison cell.

Seltzer promised a swift appeal. His earlier motion for a new trial had been dismissed by the Court. He was still confident his post-trial motions would lead to a new trial and save the immigrant defendant from the scaffold. Seltzer was convinced Frank Duchas was having an affair with Mrs. Rutkauskas and committed the murder. He had even presented a sworn affidavit that the widow and Duchas had been seen together in her bedroom and Duchas had threatened to kill Joseph Rutkauskas. Although Seltzer firmly believed this, the Court did not; Rollas Bubnis would be doomed unless an appeal was successful.

On February 26, counsel for the original seven condemned men spoke for an hour pleading to the Court for a new trial. The District Attorney argued the "gang" had agreed to kill a Zukas that night - that they became intoxicated and killed Joseph Rutkauskas, a known Zukas - that they kept their promise to make bologna out of a Zukas. "No new trial was warranted as justice demanded that these seven join Rollas Bubnis on the gallows," argued the impassioned district attorney.

The Court viewed it differently and granted a new trial to the seven in late April 1900. This good news was promptly conveyed to the prisoners who had been living in solitary confinement since September. They were overjoyed, eager to prove their innocence. The May criminal term would be overshadowed by the retrial. Incidentally, the order granting a new trial was entered by three judges but without any opinion whatsoever as to the basis of the order. Anyone familiar with American jurisprudence could see the obvious errors. How could the original jury really believe beyond any reasonable doubt that all these men knowingly conspired in advance to kill Joseph Rutkauskas? Was this more of a case involving a drunken group of men out of control?

For the third time in seven months, a trial for the murder of Joseph Rutkauskas would take place in mid-May. The third trial did not attract the large crowds as the earlier two had. The first witness was the widow of the murdered man, her sorrowful face hidden behind her long black veil. When she began to speak, she pulled back her veil and told the story of her widowhood while tears trickled down her checks. Again she was unable to identify the assailant, her testimony mirrored those given in her other two appearances in Court.

Besides the young widow, another dramatic witness would be Thomas Valitas, who testified that he heard defendant Koras state that if he found a Zukas "we would kill him because when I command my children, they must obey. There was only half of my party there that time . . . next time I would have more on hand . . . I am the king of the Propenokas." As Valitas told his story in Lithuanian, it was translated into English and the pale-faced widow wept bitterly.

Anthony Machulsky, the first defendant to testify, dramatically took the stand. "I swear that I had nothing to do with the murder committed by Rollas Bubnis, " the trembling witness stated in his native tongue. "I never conspired to kill Rutkauskas or any other Zukas. Koras earlier in the evening had talked of killing an Englishman, but I was drinking heavily and did not know if he was just talking silly."

The finger of guilt was now shifting to Koras as well as Rollas Bubnis. Jacob Schmidt, a local villager, testified he had been out walking on that fateful night when Andrew Koras grabbed him by the coat and asked, "Are you a Propenokas or Zukas?" Then, Schmidt claimed, someone else yelled out, "Leave him alone as he is a Dutchman or Englishman and we don't kill a Dutchman or Englishman today . . . we want a Zukas. Then," Schmidt continued, ""Frank Koras said, 'We will catch us Frank Wylonis as he is a stout fellow and we will make bologna out of him' . . . everyone around Koras started to laugh."

Again, Wylonis testified to the same facts as before. He attempted to explain the Zukas and Propenokis clans to the jury. "These refer to counties in our native land. They are alike as they are all Lithuanians in the Russia-Poland lands. I am Lithuanian and also the Zukas leader here. There is no Zukas county in Lithuania or Poland; they all come from the same area of our native land." A map was given to him, but Wylonis, an uneducated man, was unable to locate what parts of the "old country" he referred to.

Joseph Shutchas testified that he was neither a Zukas or Propenokis but that he lived about six miles from those clans in the old country. Where he came from he was known as a "Capsis," as each parish had a nickname.

Local newspapers gave the re-trial considerable coverage. An article in Pottsville Republican read: "Whatever may be the final termination of the William Penn murder trial now in progress, the echo of its effect and warning will ring in the ears of Lithuanian immigrants now in America and those arriving in this country...for the next quarter of century. It is a noticeable fact that since last September when the murder occurred there have been very few christening or wedding festivities in the county . . ."

During the retrial, it was obvious the stress was taking a toll on all the defendants. Anthony Stenkawicz was believed to have gone mad. He never raised his head during the proceedings and simply looked at the floor and smiled.

"First degree or nothing," the District Attorney pleaded to the jury in his closing remarks, "a conspiracy to kill was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants did, with Rollas Bubnis, agree to kill a Zukas that night and the loathsome deed was carried out."

While the jury was deliberating the verdict, the press reported the defendants waited in agonizing suspense. "It will be many years before we see such a cowering group suffer such suspense that no pen can adequately describe . . . seven men sitting in a row . . . strangers on an alien shore, ignorant of the language and the institutions of the country which gave them three times the liberty than Russia gave them . . . " was one reporter's description. The wrath of the press was directed at Koras who came across as the huge, menacing chieftain of a clan of lowbrow kinsmen. The most sympathy was directed towards the three Stenkawicz brothers, who had broken their mother's heart as she awaited hearing of their fate back in Lithuania. Anthony, of course, had suffered an apparent mental breakdown and was the most pitiful of the lot.

Would this jury be different from the first and save the seven from the gallows that awaited them? On May 26, after twenty hours of deliberations, the jury returned its verdict. People rushed to the courtroom to hear the verdict. The suspense for all was overwhelming. The few minutes waiting for the court bailiff to read the jury verdict seemed like hours. Koras was found guilty of murder in the second degree while the other six were convicted of manslaughter. At no time during the deliberations did followers of the proceedings believe that anyone would be convicted of murder in the first degree due to the lack of sufficient credible evidence.

While the verdicts were being read, the defendants expressed every anxious emotion. Koras showed his great disappointment that he was singled out for the higher grade of homicide, for although he would not hang, he would face long confinement in the Eastern Pennsylvania Penitentiary. He shouted out, "I might as well hang as I am innocent of the crime!" The pitiful Anthony Stenkawicz was apparently indifferent to the verdict and simply smiled while his two brothers showed their relief. Quickly, the thoughts of many turned to the fate of Rollas Bubnis, once one of eight Lithuanian immigrants sentenced to hang, but now the only one doomed to this fate.

It would be difficult to express the feelings that went through the mind of Rollas Bubnis as he heard the verdict while awaiting his appeal to be heard by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The twenty-two-year-old Lithuanian peasant sat alone in his narrow cell in the shadow of the Schuylkill County gallows which loomed before him day after day. When first arrested he was a muscular young man, but as the months dragged on he deteriorated mentally as well as physically. His solitary confinement cell had been stripped of all possessions except for an old mattress on the cold stone floor. He not only thought about himself but openly worried about his father, a widower, whom he had left in Lithuania a few years ago with hopes of bettering himself in the new world. When they bid each other farewell in Suwalki, a Russian-occupied Lithuanian province, did either have any idea of the fate that Rollas would meet?

"Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!" the court crier bellowed. The Honorable Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on January 7, 1901, handed down several opinions in open session. It was not the news that Rollas Bubnis was hoping to hear. The judgment of the lower court was sustained, the appeal dismissed. Bubnis now await the date of his execution. The Supreme Court held evidence was sufficient that eleven members of a Lithuanian gang called the Propreonokus included the prisoner. This gang had made threats against a rival gang member prior to his death; the prisoner had been seen with an ax in his possession before the violent killing. The deceased victim had been a member of a rival Lithuanian gang, the Zukas. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed and the record remitted for the purpose of execution.

Only one question remained: when would Bubnis hang from a rope until he was pronounced dead? The condemned prisioner quickly received the bad news. Governor Stone signed a death warrant establishing April 17, 1901 as the execution date. When Sheriff Beddall, accompanied by Lithuanian priest Rev. Kaminski, read Bubnis the warrant, he held up briefly but then soon broke down in tears.

Time was running out fast. The defense counsel had one last avenue to save Bubnis from the gallows. An application for a pardon was hastily filed. It would be a long shot, but there were no other channels open. Would this have a different result? Only what very little time was left would tell.

Bubnis' daily routine of asking the guards "Any news yet?" would continue for weeks. Many local attorneys and county officials took up the cause of Bubnis and wrote support letters for the condemned immigrant to the Board of Pardons. W.D. Seltzer, his lawyer throughout the case, told the Board that Bubnis' ignominious death on the scaffold would be nothing less of a judicial murder.

In his argument, Seltzer focused on new evidence - the Commonwealth's star witness had been an intimate companion of the widow both prior to and after the death of her husband. Duchas had been a boarder at the victim's home. The victim had been informed that his wife had been caught in their bedroom! Rutkauskas and Duchas had a physical altercation and Rutkauskas ordered all boarders to leave his home. All left but Duchas, as Mrs. Rutkauskas stated that if Frank Duchas left, then she would leave too. Duchas remained and subsequently made threats to kill Rutkauskas.

Since there was no eyewitness to the murder, did this not create a reasonable doubt as to who swung the ax? Did not a witness testify that she saw a scuffle on the Rutkauskas porch and saw a woman pull a man into her house? Could this have been Frank Duchas being pulled back into the house after he struck the fatal blow? With this drunken crowd outside could he have the perfect cover? Instead of a gang fight, could the murder have been born from a lover’s triangle?

The facts were presented to the board. One defendant had signed an affidavit that Duchas paid him $25 to point the finger at Bubnis. A letter from two of the jurors indicated they now had reasonable doubt as to the first degree conviction based on the intimacy between the widow and the star witness and requested clemency for the convict.

At the conclusion of his hour-long argument, the members of the Pardon Board told the impassioned Seltzer that he had set forth a compelling case and that the sentence would be commuted from death to life imprisonment. In fact. the Board congratulated the defense counsel for one of the best presentations ever given. It was indicated that additional clemency could come later after a more thorough investigation.

Although he believed his client innocent of the charge of homicide, Attorney Seltzer was pleased, he had saved a human life. When Bubnis received the news through an interpreter, he simply smiled and expressed joy and then lay down to rest on his straw mattress. On April 12, 1901, Bubnis was removed to the Eastern Pennsylvania Penitentiary to spend out the rest of his life. The night before, he was paid a farewell visit by Attorney Seltzer, who told him to keep hope alive. Jail officials called him a model prisoner and were sorry that he could not stay in the county jail, which was his preference. A large crowd waved good-bye to Rollas Bubnis as the Philadelphia & Reading "Flyer" pulled away from the station.

On August 27, 1900, the widow of Joseph Rutkauskas and her boarder, Frank Duchas, the prosecution's star witness, were quietly married and began a new life together.

EPILOGUE Only one hundred years ago, a brutal murder occurred and eight Lithuanian immigrants were sentenced to death. I am unaware of any other mass death penalty conviction in the history of the United States of this magnitude. This sad story has been forgotten with the passage of time. Only one book that I could find [The Slav Invasion and the Mine Workers by Frank Julian Warne, J.B. Lippincott Company (1904)] mentions the saga of the Zukas-Propenokis rivalry.

The author discussed the increasing criminal activity of the foreign element in the coal regions of eastern Pennsylvania, which alarmed the native population. He stated, "This William Penn murder case, in which a man named Rutskowski was killed, is of interest here, in that it brought to the attention of the authorities the existence of two societies among the Slavs - the Zukes and the Propenokis - who are indirectly responsible for the crime. They are not secret societies, like the Molly Maguires, organized particularly for murder, but crime is rather an indirect result. The real object is social, in itself harmless enough, but through them is preserved and not infrequently intensified the personal jealousies and hatreds bred in Continental Europe, and which now and then are given scope for exercise through the society. Usually the Zukes and Propenokis are composed of members of the same race coming to the coal-fields from the same geographical unit or neighborhood in Europe. Not infrequently crime is traced to feuds between these societies . . ."

It was this small mention of the feud that led me to research the Archives of the Pottsville Republican and Shenandoah Evening Herald, two major daily papers in Schuylkill County, which gave substantial coverage to the murder and subsequent trials. What is to be learned from this story? Should it have been forgotten as an embarrassment to a nationality? No, history is history and one must accept the good with the bad. Certainly the population that was attracted to the dangerous mining occupation had many individuals prone to over-consumption of alcohol, which in turn led to criminal activity. The large influx of young single males without the assistance of an extended family structure led to "hooliganism" and worse. In reading the story one can almost think of other "down and out" ethnic groups that may make the news for a larger portion of criminal behavior. Perhaps by reading this story you will leave behind any perception that one ethnic group has a moral superiority over another. There is good in all ethnic groups as well as bad in all ethnic groups.

Commercial use strictly prohibited. Printing of this file for non-commercial purposes and by libraries is encouraged, providing all notices and submitter information is included. Any other use, including uploading files to other sites requires permission from Lithuanian Global Genealogical Society. We encourage links.