The Abduction of Mattie Field
“Horrid, Most Horrid!”
Miss Matilda Field was originally heading to California in 1864 with the Pella Company covered wagon train led by Nicholas Earp. During that trip, she met a mysterious man in Salt Lake City, Utah, who subsequently kidnapped, seduced, and came on to her, or so the papers read. This man, who went by C. M. White, was arrested for these alleged crimes shortly after being spotted in a compromising situation with Mattie.
When the New York Times got wind of this story, they reported:
“Considerable interest has been excited here recently over the White-Field case. A Miss FIELD, an emgrant, and a Mr. WHITE, ditto, being the parties in question.” (New-York Times, Oct. 23, 1864)
The initial investigation into the matter, led by Judge Aurellua Miner, was rather light, the trial short, and the planned penalty quite expensive. This brevity may have been financially motivated, as well as an expedient way to make an example from this situation.
(Psst… If you haven’t already read Part 1 of this story, I suggest clicking here to take a quick look back and get caught up before we continue.)
Matilda’s Testimony Questioned
During the affair, Dr. James and Sarah Rousseau, Mattie’s former employers from the wagon train (and the author’s 3rd great-grandparents) had no idea what had happened to their former traveling companion after she left them on September 3rd. Nor did they know what was being said about them in court. They wouldn’t find out until the news reached where they camped near Fillmore, about 145 miles south of Salt Lake City.
Sarah captured the wagon train’s discovery and her shock at the news in her 1864 trail diary:
“Mr. Curtis was reading the newspaper … last night, where he saw the trial of Mr. White in the abduction of Miss Field. We don’t believe the charge she has alleged against Mr. White!” (Rousseau, September 25, 1864)
Sarah listened intently as the report disclosed details of how Mattie was supposedly unhappy with her travel situation and had written an appeal to Mr. White.
“That Mr. White came with the waggon to Utah Lake … with the intention of taking Miss F. back with him.” (Rousseau, September 25, 1864)
I’m not sure which newspaper Mr. Israel Curtis was reading from, but apparently it also held the detail that Matilda made the claim of being abducted. Sarah felt aghast at this lie.
“She said he had come after her. … She went with him voluntarily! I should like to have the papers with the trial. … We felt very much surprised to see such an announcement…” (Rousseau, September 25, 1864)
Though Sarah was likely aware of Mattie’s urgency to find a new means of support, perhaps she thought Mattie might do so without resorting to deceit.
And now, some poor fellow in Utah has just been caught in a vice. After days of unchaperoned time passed between him and his accuser, there was no telling what could have happened between them while no one was looking...
White V. Field, September 16, 1864
Utah Territory “read all about it” in the Union Vedette to find out what would happen to the man called a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who took advantage of a slight young woman who was simply trying to find a bit of work for the winter in Salt Lake City. The news reporter following this case declared at the end of the initial hearing:
“We give the forgoing lately episodes for the benefit of … amorous swains who are too fond of kissing. These things won’t be tolerated if the Courts get hold of them.” (Daily Union Vedette, Sept. 16, 1864)
At the end of the hearing, C. M. White was held in prison with a $1,000 bail ($20K in 2024) for criminal charges of seduction, abduction and coming on rather strong. Adding a twist to the tale, Judge Aurellua Miner’s extreme ruling was immediately undermined.
“The party arrested … was on Friday last [September 16] taken before Chief Justice Titus on a writ of habeas corpus [a demand for them to appear before a Judge in consideration of a release].” (Daily Union Vedette, Sept. 19, 1864)
Well isn’t that interesting? Who could pull a case out from under the rule of Judge Miner, son-in-law of one of the influential Mormon Apostles?
Chief Justice John Titus Could
Chief Justice John Titus of Utah and Arizona’s Territorial Court was appointed a year before at the pleasure of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. Though Lincoln was busy addressing the demands of the Civil War, he still wanted the Union to maintain a strong presence in Utah to ensure that Mormons would not start acting like they live in their own bubble, form a rebellion with their militia, or otherwise undermine westward expansion efforts.
The President trusted Chief Justice Titus to be part of that initiative because of his impartial attitude towards the Mormons. His assignment was expected to limit prosecutions being swayed toward leniency or strictness based on religious motives or affiliations.
Some records even say the Chief Justice told Brigham Young the following:
“I am on this Bench to see that justice is done; when the Mormons have justice on their side they will get it, and when the Gentiles have justice on their side, they will get it.” — “ John Titus…”, Arizona and the West (Spring 1972).
Well, Judge Miner didn’t appreciate having his payday, I mean, court case being picked up by the Chief Justice.
A news reporter at the Council House watched closely as the case unfolded. They appear to have gotten a kick out of demoting Miner who was known to practice crooked laws.
“Mr. Miner, who appeared against the prisoner, objected to the Judge investigating the case … Judge Titus overrule the objected, and cited the Utah statute to show that he was bound to inquire into the merits of the whole question, and the matter then came up de novo [from the beginning], all the witnesses being re-examined.” (Daily Union Vedette, Sept. 19, 1864)
How Far was Mattie Willing to Go?
Matilda Field may have stood before the Grand Jury wearing her inky black hair in a conservative twist, while holding an embroidered cotton handkerchief, and flashing well-timed glances from her big, dark eyes that glistened with tears. She may have been asked to recall for them, again, how she ended up in the arms of a man she hardly knew, instead of remaining under the protection of those in her covered wagon train heading West.
In the Case of Abduction
Utah’s custody laws at this time considered Dr. James and Sarah Rousseau as Mattie’s legal guardians because of their working relationship. They would be held responsible for her safety and well-being while in their employ. Mattie may have previously disclosed to Judge Miner that she consulted both James and Sarah about her decision to stay in Utah and told him that neither one advised her against it, offered to accompany her, or warned her about what could go wrong.
From Sarah’s diary entries, these claims are only half-true. When Mattie was weighing the pros and cons of leaving the wagon train, Sarah documented:
“She was plenty old enough to judge for herself. I talked to her as if she were my own daughter. … She wanted to stay … without a female acquaintance or any person she knew…” (Rousseau, August 24)
If Mattie allowed the court to continue exploring the abduction claim, she’d be dragging the Rousseau name through the mud for neglect, if they were proven to be her legal guardians. Where this argument fails is: 1) Mattie left her job post willingly and 2) the Rousseaus freely released her from their arrangement.
She may have also known that, should the Rousseaus be called in and questioned about the matter under oath, they could be forced to disclose a whole lot more about her, including a secret they’d guarded.
In the Case of Seduction
If Mattie continued to press the idea that she was compromised by C. M. White, her chastity would come into question. Perhaps Mattie thought that circumstances alone would be enough to secure a forced marriage, but if examined by a medical practitioner and found to be unchaste, another thread in her story would unravel.
Instead of playing the innocent youth who knew no better, Mattie changed her testimony.
“The prosecuting witness herself ended the case when she testified that she was 21 years of age, had left her father’s roof without his consent, had no guardian, and was in law and fact entitled to go when, where and with whom she pleased.” (Union Vedette, Sept. 19 ,1864)
From this, Mattie voided the application of custody laws and the abduction charge against Mr. White was dropped. This revelation might have also clarified that she was not so seduced by some form of male mesmerism, even though Mr. White testified that he believed things were heading in a certain direction.
“[Mr. White], though not legally eligible, assumed to become a ‘friend that sticketh closer than a brother,’ and that in an irregular sort of way.” (New-York Times, Oct. 23, 1864)
Still, this wasn’t enough to sway the Judge, who ruled there was blame to share, saying it was, “six of one, and half a dozen of the other.” (New-York Times, Oct. 23, 1864). With that, Mr. White was released from prison.
But What About Mattie’s… Predicament?
Matilda Field had created such a scandal for herself that she’d likely ruined her chance for proper employment in Salt Lake City. And, with no marriage secured, or friend in town, she was left with nothing…
Apparently, the prosecution (Matilda) was counseled to resurrect the claim in Probate Court to restore her to her prior situation as an emigrant with the Pella Company.
“White, although he had been guilty of no crime, had been guilty of improprieties and actions which gave the Court jurisdiction over his person. Under the circumstances disclosed, it was competent for the Court, while dismissing the criminal action, to have bound him over to keep the peace and refrain from further interference with the lady. (Union Vedette, Sept. 19 ,1864)
Basically, since C. M. White financed Mattie’s removal from her traveling companions, it made sense that he would also restore her to her prior state and get her back her to them (except he was given a sort of restraining order and could not deliver her on his own). Chief Justice Titus decided that if Mr. White paid for Mattie’s stagecoach fare to Fillmore, there would be no further issue.
The devoted Vedette newspaper reporter — after having taken a swing at C. M. White, Judge Miner, and the Rousseaus — finally had a word for Mattie:
It is to be hoped that the young lady will take warning from this experience and not lend a willing ear to the protestations of friendship which strangers may … whisper beguilingly to her. She has evidently escaped a snare which might have ruined her for life. (Union Vedette, Sept. 19 ,1864)
The End… Except…
Matilda Field never rejoined the Pella Company. For all I know, she took her stagecoach fare and disappeared.
I have searched for this woman for nearly nine years. I wonder… where did she go? Did she change her name? Did she die or do something drastic? And what about the child I believe she was carrying?
While Sarah Rousseau’s diary provides a fascinating backstory from the point of their May departure in Iowa, up until Mattie’s separation from the wagon train, there is not enough information on Mattie to grab for genealogical research. There is no original hometown, no reason why she was on the journey (other than affordable transportation), or where she was destined after the conclusion of the trip. Was she even twenty-one, like she told the Grand Jury she was? Or was that a lie, too?
And what about this C. M. White dude? What happened to him? The newspapers seem to give the most details, and even those are not enough for me to get anywhere.
“A Miss FIELD, an emgrant, and a Mr. WHITE, ditto, being the parties in question.” … “[Mr. White], though not legally eligible…” (New-York Times, Oct. 23, 1864)
Okay, so he’s not a resident of Salt Lake City, he’s just passing through… but from where? To where? And does his ineligibility to pursue a woman mean that he was married? If so, then where’s his wife in all of this?
This clipping only tells me he stuck around for a while and was up to no good. But without a first name, age, or any other helpful clues… I’m still at a loss.
Genealogy enthusiasts, feel free to join the search for C. M. and Mattie!
About the Author:
Janelle Molony, M.S.L. is an award-winning freelancer and nonfiction author from Phoenix, Arizona. She has a particular interest in women-centric stories and local history. Her writing has been featured in magazines and journals such as History Nebraska, The Michigan Historical Review, Minnesota Genealogist, Annals of Wyoming, the Tombstone Epitaph, and more.
The 1864 Diary of Mrs. Sarah Jane Rousseau has won multiple awards, accolades from critics and academic praise since the 1950s.
Click here to watch the video trailer for the diary.
See more from the author by following on Medium and on social media. More publications by Molony can be found on her official author webpage.
