CLOSE
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Hulton Archive/Getty Images

The Ladies' Deposit: The 19th-Century Ponzi Scheme by Women, for Women

Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Sarah Howe never disclosed the methods by which she did business. After establishing the Ladies' Deposit Company in an unassuming brick building in Boston's South End around 1879, the former fortuneteller refused to solicit clients for her brand-new bank. There was no advertising, and no public announcement. Instead, members could only be referred by other members in good standing. They had to be single women, not rich, who didn't own their own homes. Deposits could only be made in amounts of more than $200 but less than $1000, and returns were set at 8 percent interest per month—an incredible amount then as well as today [PDF].

Despite the lack of advertising, word of the Ladies' Deposit Company traveled quickly among Boston's working-class women. Howe's selectiveness endeared her to potential clients, as did the fact that she presented herself as a maternal figure at a time when gender stereotypes and predatory practices often left women and their money at the mercy of men. She even invited her select few depositors to sit with her, offering small talk and compliments. The experience seemed, as one woman put it, "sympathetic."

For the single women of Massachusetts, Howe appeared to be offering a remarkable opportunity to grow their nest eggs in a female-friendly environment. But the Ladies' Deposit was far from what it appeared to be.

A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION

The Ladies' Deposit Company had not been operating for long when its exclusive nature—and its amazing returns—captured the curiosity of local newspapers. One Boston Herald investigator who tried to ask some questions at the bank was rebuffed, so in January 1880, he disguised himself as a woman and successfully got inside. His article reprinted a notice pasted inside each Ladies' Deposit-issued bankbook, which described the establishment as a "charitable institution for single ladies, old and young." When the reporter asked how their interest rates were possible, a clerk had replied, "We never disclose the methods by which we do business."

The answers to further questions were similarly unilluminating. A follow-up article in the Herald included an interview with Howe herself, who described the bank as a "Quaker Aid Society" that had first been formed in Alexandria, Virginia. She coyly claimed that she couldn't provide any further details without angering her superiors.

The more reporters mocked and prodded the Ladies' Deposit, the more business poured in. At the height of the operation's popularity, Howe was serving an estimated 1200 women from Boston and beyond—Buffalo, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Washington. She bought a luxurious home worth $40,000 on Franklin Square, which she paid for in rubber-banded bundles of cash and furnished with thousands of dollars' worth of exotic plants and other decorations.

But although business was booming, it was the beginning of the end for Howe.

On September 25, 1880, the Boston Daily Advertiser ran the first in a series of articles that reignited the controversy around the Ladies' Deposit. Under the title "A Mysterious Bank," the piece detailed the "fabulous rates of interest" offered to "unprotected females," explaining that "the mystery which surrounds and attaches to [the bank] has never been fully dispelled." While the writer wasn't able to solve the mystery of the amazing interest rates themselves, they noted that no one had yet complained about losing even a dollar, which made it difficult to probe much further: "Whatever there may be that is suspicious, nothing unlawful is disclosed, and no depositor comes forward to say that she has been unjustly dealt with."

But the Advertiser's articles were enough to set tongues wagging. Soon, experts wrote in predicting a crash and theorizing that Howe could only afford to pay out her customers with the deposits of other women, a well that would soon run dry. No one used the phrase "Ponzi scheme"—this was 40 years before Charles Ponzi would garner attention for his frauds—but the Advertiser's series, printed over several weeks, proved to be key in turning opinion against the Ladies' Deposit.

As more investors who read the articles became suspicious, they demanded to withdraw their funds. At the end of that September, there was a week-long run on the bank. For a while, Howe was able to sustain the withdrawals, but she soon tried to suspend payments. In response, the Advertiser published an article interviewing seven prominent lawyers, who all said she was liable to pay her depositors' principal without delay. Not long after, as The Atlantic put it, "a storm of legal process burst upon her."

Howe was arrested upon order of the district attorney on October 16, 1880, with her bail set at $20,000. In court, she was tried on five counts of "cheating by false pretenses" by five former depositors. The nail in the coffin was Howe's claim that a Quaker fund backed the Ladies' Deposit. It became apparent during the Advertiser's investigation and her subsequent court hearing that there was no such fund, and that Howe had no connections with any Quaker organization. "She had no more hold upon the Quakers than she had upon the Pope," The Atlantic wrote.

On April 25, 1881, Howe was sentenced to three years in jail on four counts of cheating by false pretenses. Later that November, she would also be involuntarily declared insolvent after trying to pay back depositors.

A RESILIENT CHEAT

Howe didn't learn any lessons from her experience with the Ladies' Deposit. Upon her release from jail in 1884, she set up a new enterprise, the Woman's Bank, in elegant apartments on Concord Street. The operation again targeted women, but offered a more humble 7 percent interest, as opposed to the Deposit’s 8 percent returns.

The Woman's Bank operated successfully for two years, until in April 1887, one woman from Maine called to retrieve her investment and found she couldn't. Howe soon absconded with an estimated $50,000 in deposits.

Next, she tried a similar scheme in Chicago. Her "Ladies Provident Aid" operated in a familiar manner, promising 7 percent interest a month, with three month's interest offered in advance. Local reporters quickly exposed Howe yet again—proving just how notorious she had become.

Forced to flee once more, Howe made her way back to Boston, where she was arrested in 1888 on an outstanding warrant. By this point, the women preyed upon by Howe received little sympathy at all. "It is plain that Mrs. Howe's methods of business would not have inveigled men," The New York Times wrote. "Men, even when they become victims of the sawdust swindlers, require to see how the tempter can find his account in the offer he makes them." The article neglected to mention that a number of men, seeing an opportunity for quick cash, had enlisted female relatives to invest in the Ladies' Deposit for them.

Howe maintained her penchant for duplicity until the end of her life. After being released from prison for the final time in 1889, she returned to her former profession of fortunetelling, charging 25 cents a reading. She died in 1892 at the age of 65, penniless and alone, but insisted until the day she died that she had not been responsible for the Ladies' Deposit. "It was not I," she said. "I did no swindling."

nextArticle.image_alt|e
(c) Field Museum, CSZ5974c, photographer Carl Akeley, used with permission.
arrow
Animals
The Time Carl Akeley Killed a Leopard With His Bare Hands
(c) Field Museum, CSZ5974c, photographer Carl Akeley, used with permission.
(c) Field Museum, CSZ5974c, photographer Carl Akeley, used with permission.

Carl Akeley had plenty of close encounters with animals in his long career as a naturalist and taxidermist. There was the time a bull elephant had charged him on Mount Kenya, nearly crushing him; the time he was unarmed and charged by three rhinos who missed him, he said later, only because the animals had such poor vision; and the time the tumbling body of a silverback gorilla he'd just shot almost knocked him off a cliff. This dangerous tradition began on his very first trip to Africa, where, on an otherwise routine hunting trip, the naturalist became the prey.

It was 1896. Following stints at Ward’s Natural Science Establishment and the Milwaukee Public Museum, Akeley, 32, had just been appointed chief taxidermist for Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, and he was tasked with gathering new specimens to bolster the 3-year-old museum's fledgling collections. After more than four months of travel and numerous delays, the expedition had reached the plains of Ogaden, a region of Ethiopia, where Akeley hunted for specimens for days without success.

Then, one morning, Akeley managed to shoot a hyena shortly after he left camp. Unfortunately, “one look at his dead carcass was enough to satisfy me that he was not as desirable as I had thought, for his skin was badly diseased,” he later wrote in his autobiography, In Brightest Africa. He shot a warthog, a fine specimen, but what he really wanted was an ostrich—so he left the carcass behind, climbed a termite hill to look for the birds, then took off after a pair he saw in the tall grass.

But the ostriches eluded him at every turn, so he returned to camp and grabbed the necessary tools to cut off the head of his warthog. However, when he and a “pony boy” got to the spot where he’d left the carcass, all that remained was a bloodstain. “A crash in the bushes at one side led me in a hurry in that direction and a little later I saw my pig's head in the mouth of a hyena travelling up the slope of a ridge out of range,” Akeley wrote. “That meant that my warthog specimen was lost, and, having got no ostriches, I felt it was a pretty poor day.”

As the sun began to set, Akeley and the boy turned back to camp. “As we came near to the place where I had shot the diseased hyena in the morning, it occurred to me that perhaps there might be another hyena about the carcass, and feeling a bit ‘sore’ at the tribe for stealing my warthog, I thought I might pay off the score by getting a good specimen of a hyena for the collections,” he wrote. But that carcass was gone, too, with a drag trail in the sand leading into the bush.

Akeley heard a sound, and, irritated, “did a very foolish thing,” firing into the bush without seeing what he was shooting at. He knew, almost immediately, that he'd made a mistake: The answering snarl told him that what he’d fired at was not a hyena at all, but a leopard.

The taxidermist began thinking of all the things he knew about the big cats. A leopard, he wrote,

“... has all the qualities that gave rise to the ‘nine lives’ legend: To kill him you have got to kill him clear to the tip of his tail. Added to that, a leopard, unlike a lion, is vindictive. A wounded leopard will fight to a finish practically every time, no matter how many chances it has to escape. Once aroused, its determination is fixed on fight, and if a leopard ever gets hold, it claws and bites until its victim is in shreds. All this was in my mind, and I began looking about for the best way out of it, for I had no desire to try conclusions with a possibly wounded leopard when it was so late in the day that I could not see the sights of my rifle.”

Akeley beat a hasty retreat. He’d return the next morning, he figured, when he could see better; if he’d wounded the leopard, he could find it again then. But the leopard had other ideas. It pursued him, and Akeley fired again, even though he couldn’t see enough to aim. “I could see where the bullets struck as the sand spurted up beyond the leopard. The first two shots went above her, but the third scored. The leopard stopped and I thought she was killed.”

The leopard had not been killed. Instead, she charged—and Akeley’s magazine was empty. He reloaded the rifle, but as he spun to face the leopard, she leapt on him, knocking it out of his hands. The 80-pound cat landed on him. “Her intention was to sink her teeth into my throat and with this grip and her forepaws hang to me while with her hind claws she dug out my stomach, for this pleasant practice is the way of leopards,” Akeley wrote. “However, happily for me, she missed her aim.” The wounded cat had landed to one side; instead of Akeley’s throat in her mouth, she had his upper right arm, which had the fortuitous effect of keeping her hind legs off his stomach.

It was good luck, but the fight of Akeley’s life had just begun.

Using his left hand, he attempted to loosen the leopard’s hold. “I couldn't do it except little by little,” he wrote. “When I got grip enough on her throat to loosen her hold just a little she would catch my arm again an inch or two lower down. In this way I drew the full length of the arm through her mouth inch by inch.”

He felt no pain, he wrote, “only of the sound of the crushing of tense muscles and the choking, snarling grunts of the beast.” When his arm was nearly free, Akeley fell on the leopard. His right hand was still in her mouth, but his left hand was still on her throat. His knees were on her chest and his elbows in her armpits, “spreading her front legs apart so that the frantic clawing did nothing more than tear my shirt.”

It was a scramble. The leopard tried to twist around and gain the advantage, but couldn’t get purchase on the sand. “For the first time,” Akeley wrote, “I began to think and hope I had a chance to win this curious fight.”

He called for the boy, hoping he’d bring a knife, but received no response. So he held on to the animal and “continued to shove the hand down her throat so hard she could not close her mouth and with the other I gripped her throat in a stranglehold.” He bore down with his full weight on her chest, and felt a rib crack. He did it again—another crack. “I felt her relax, a sort of letting go, although she was still struggling. At the same time I felt myself weakening similarly, and then it became a question as to which would give up first.”

Slowly, her struggle ceased. Akeley had won. He lay there for a long time, keeping the leopard in his death grip. “After what seemed an interminable passage of time I let go and tried to stand, calling to the pony boy that it was finished.” The leopard, he later told Popular Science Monthly, had then shown signs of life; Akeley used the boy’s knife to make sure it was really, truly dead.

Akeley’s arm was shredded, and he was weak—so weak that he couldn’t carry the leopard back to camp. “And then a thought struck me that made me waste no time,” he told Popular Science. “That leopard has been eating the horrible diseased hyena I had killed. Any leopard bite is liable to give one blood poison, but this particular leopard’s mouth must have been exceptionally foul.”

He and the boy must have been quite the sight when they finally made it back to camp. His companions had heard the shots, and figured Akeley had either faced off with a lion or the natives; whatever the scenario, they figured Akeley would prevail or be defeated before they could get to him, so they kept on eating dinner. But when Akeley appeared, with “my clothes ... all ripped, my arm ... chewed into an unpleasant sight, [with] blood and dirt all over me,” he wrote in In Brightest Africa, “my appearance was quite sufficient to arrest attention.”

He demanded all the antiseptics the camp had to offer. After he'd been washed with cold water, “the antiseptic was pumped into every one of the innumerable tooth wounds until my arm was so full of the liquid that an injection in one drove it out of another,” he wrote. “During the process I nearly regretted that the leopard had not won.”

When that was done, Akeley was taken to his tent, and the dead leopard was brought in and laid out next to his cot. Her right hind leg was wounded—which, he surmised, had come from his first shot into the brush, and was what had thrown off her pounce—and she had a flesh wound in the back of her neck where his last shot had hit her, “from the shock of which she had instantly recovered.”

Not long after his close encounter with the leopard, the African expedition was cut short when its leader contracted malaria, and Akeley returned to Chicago. The whole experience, he wrote to a friend later, transported him back to a particular moment at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, which he’d visited after creating taxidermy mounts for the event. “As I struggled to wrest my arm from the mouth of the leopard I recalled vividly a bronze at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, depicting the struggle between a man and bear, the man’s arm in the mouth of the bear,” he wrote. “I had stood in front of this bronze one afternoon with a doctor friend and we discussed the probable sensations of a man in this predicament, wondering whether or not the man would be sensible to the pain of the chewing and the rending of his flesh by the bear. I was thinking as the leopard tore at me that now I knew exactly what the sensations were, but that unfortunately I would not live to tell my doctor friend.”

In the moment, though, there had been no pain, “just the joy of a good fight,” Akeley wrote, “and I did live to tell my [doctor] friend all about it.”

Additional source: Kingdom Under Glass: A Tale of Obsession, Adventure, and One Man's Quest to Preserve the World's Great Animals

nextArticle.image_alt|e
Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons // Nigel Parry, USA Network
arrow
crime
Meghan Markle Is Related to H.H. Holmes, America’s First Serial Killer, According to New Documentary
Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons // Nigel Parry, USA Network
Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons // Nigel Parry, USA Network

Between staging paparazzi photos and writing open letters to Prince Harry advising him to call off his wedding, Meghan Markle’s family has been keeping the media pretty busy lately. But it turns out that her bloodline's talent for grabbing headlines dates back much further than the announcement that Markle and Prince Harry were getting hitched—and for much more sinister reasons. According to Meet the Markles, a new television documentary produced for England’s Channel Four, the former Suits star has a distant relation to H.H. Holmes, America’s first serial killer.

The claim comes from Holmes’s great-great-grandson, American lawyer Jeff Mudgett, who recently discovered that he and Markle are eighth cousins. If that connection is correct, then it would mean that Markle, too, is related to Holmes.

While finding out that you’re related—however distantly—to a man believed to have murdered 27 people isn’t something you’d probably want to share with Queen Elizabeth II when asking her to pass the Yorkshire pudding over Christmas dinner, what makes the story even more interesting is that Mudgett believes that his great-great-grandpa was also Jack the Ripper!

Mudgett came to this conclusion based on Holmes’s personal diaries, which he inherited. In 2017, American Ripper—an eight-part History Channel series—investigated Mudgett’s belief that Holmes and Jack were indeed one in the same.

When asked about his connection to Markle, and their shared connection to Holmes—and, possibly, Jack the Ripper—Mudgett replied:

“We did a study with the FBI and CIA and Scotland Yard regarding handwriting analysis. It turns out [H. H. Holmes] was Jack the Ripper. This means Meghan is related to Jack the Ripper. I don’t think the Queen knows. I am not proud he is my ancestor. Meghan won’t be either.”

Shortly thereafter he clarified his comments via his personal Facebook page:

In the 130 years since Jack the Ripper terrorized London’s Whitechapel neighborhood, hundreds of names have been put forth as possible suspects, but authorities have never been able to definitively conclude who committed the infamous murders. So if Alice's Adventures in Wonderland author Lewis Carroll could have done it, why not the distant relative of the royal family's newest member?

[h/t: ID CrimeFeed]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios