These documents from the New York City Municipal Archives present the charges at a hearing in 1846 before the mayor of New York City against a [young?] Irishman. Edward Mccosker was alleged to have made sexual advances to two males while on duty as a New York City policeman.

McCosker denied the charges, and it is possible he was framed. The documents date to just one year after the founding of the city's police department.

Part I of the documents that follow were discovered in the Archive by a then young scholar, Wilbur Miller, researching the history of the city's police. They were first published in Jonathan Ned Katz's Gay American History: Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S.A, in 1976, pages 29-31. 

Part II includes documents found recently in the Municipal Archives by Riah Lee Kinsey involving the case, in May 1847, of James McGowan versus Edward McClusky, charged with sodomy. Reference to McClusky, about twenty-eight, having been "in the police" and having been born in Ireland first suggested to Kinsey that McClusky was McCosker, and Jonathan Ned Katz agrees.

Parts of this new evidence are presented on OutHistory for the first time copied from the original extremely difficult to read documents.**

====
Notes
*Attempts to locate the 1846 McCosker documents in the the NYC Municippal Archives proved unsuccessful; the documents  location is now unclear because so many have been rearranged and the citation provided by Katz is no longer accurate. WORKING NOTE THAT JNK WILL REQUESTING COPIES OF HIS McCOSKER FILE IN NYPL TO PUT ON OUTHISTORY.

**McGowan v. McClusky, 1847, New York Municipal Archives. Box 7, Folder 75.  IS THIS THE WHOLE CITATION.

==================================================================================

PART 1

On February 20, 1846, the captain of the First Patrol District sent a report to the mayor of New York City concerning policeman Edward McCosker, charged with:

Indecent conduct while on duty. Violent, course, and insolent language and behavior

                                  Specification.
     That on the morning of the 15th Feby. while one Thomas Carey was making water in Cedar St. he was accosted by ... McCosker, who said there was a great deal of grinding [sexual activity] going on [in] that neighborhood. Carey asked him where and he directedhim around in Temple St. and walked around with him, and when he got there, McCosker commenced indecently feeling his privates, and made use of indecent language to him, and asked Carey to feel his (McCosker's) privates, at which Carey became indignant at such conduct and reprimanded him severely, saying he was a "pretty officer," and words to that effect. Mccosker then most grossly abused said Carey making use of very profane and blackguard language, threatening to take him to the Station House, . . . which attracted the attention of the Roundsman Mr. Pierson who came up and enquired the cause of the disturbance, and got the above facts from Carey -- also on or about the 20th day of January last said McCosker committed the same indecent assault on one Michael O'Brien of
137½ Washington St. under similar circumstances.³³

At a hearing before the mayor of New York, several witnesses testified as follows:

     Edward Mccosker being examined[:] on the morning of the 15th, ... between 1 & 2 o'clock, I came up Thames St. from Trinity Place and on getting opposite Temple St. I saw Carey and a female standing close by to the City Hotel. I went around
and came back again and they were still there. I watched them a while, and presently they moved off; I then went around the block and I met Carey in Cedar St. making water. I went up to him and tapped him on the shoulder, and said to him "what
are you doing around here at this hour of the night with the woman?" He said "What woman?" He then became abusive and made use of very indecent language to me; then I arrested him and threatened to take him to the Station House; he
followed me to Thames St. and continued his abuse until Mr. Pierson came up; after some more talk Mr. Pierson told him to go home; Policeman Simons also came up, but would not help me take Carey to the Station House; Mr. Pierson again advised me to let him go, which I did. I was perfectly sober; I deny knowing O'Brien who has also made charge against me, and did not commit the act as stated by him.

     Thomas Carey (sworn) resides at No. 21 Rose St.; on the morning of 15th February last, between 11 & 1 o'clock, saw Policeman McCosker and spoke to him, as I was making water against a wall; he made use of very gross, indecent
language to me, and directed me around the corner in Thames St.; he there indecently took hold of deponent by the privates and at the same time requested the deponent to feel his privates, at which deponent became enraged and called him names,  that  he  was  a  "pretty  policeman"  and  words  to  that  [effect]; he  [McCosker] abused deponent and called deponent names. Shortly after [that] Sargeant Pierson came up, and deponent stated the aforesaid facts to him.

     Cross Ex[amined]. I was going home at that time of the night. I had been in Washington St. to see a friend; I was alone. I had been drinking that night; did not keep account
how much I had drank, probably 3 or 4 glasses of beer; don't recollect whether I drank anything else; I was not so much intoxicated as but what I knew where I was; after I told him he was a pretty policeman he told me to go home; Mccosker
did not accuse me of following after a woman; he threatened to take me to the Station House; he [McCosker] rapped his club on the ground [to call for help]; after Mr. Pierson came up McCosker told Pierson to take me in. Pierson told me to
go home, he said to me "you have been drinking."

     Joseph D. Pierson (sworn); is a Sergeant and was on the rounds on the night of 15th Feby. and saw some person standing near the Shady [tavern] in Thames St. On approaching there heard very loud language; on getting up to them saw Police-man Mccosker who exclaimed "it is a God damned shame," and told deponent that the man Carey had abused him; Carey told deponent that McCosker had
abused him. McCosker then made use of very profane language to Carey who was accusing McCosker of having committed an indecent assault on him. McCosker then took hold of Carey by the collar and threatened to take him to the Station
House; Carey was a little intoxicated but knew what he was about; deponent told Carey to go home, and deponent then left him. Shortly after Carey followed de-ponent and told deponent the facts as stated in his affidavit. Carey said to McCosker "lay down your club and I will lick you."

     Timothy H. Simons (sworn); is a Policeman; was on duty night of 15 Feby.: deponent was attracted by the rap of a Policeman to a corner opposite the Shady [tavern] in Thames St. When I got there saw Policeman McCosker and Mr. Carey there. These were using loud and violent language to each other. McCosker asked my assistance to take the man, and laid his hands on Carey and said "I'm damned if I don't take you to the Station House." From what I heard from the parties I thought it was a blackguard scrape; shortly after the mob dispersed I went away. I thought McCosker was intoxicated which was the reason I did not assist him as it was likely that McCosker might have assaulted Carey, as for Carey to assault him. Carey told McCosker if he would lay down his club he would lick him. I think McCosker said he pad asked Carey something about some women.

     James Rees (sworn). Keeps the Shady [tavern] on Limber & Thames Sts. On the night of 15th Feby. I heard some raps of policemen and saw policeman McCosker and Mr. Carey. The latter was calling McCosker "a damned son of a bitch,
if you lay down the club I will lick you." McCosker said "if you don't stop I will take you to the Station House"; after that Policemen Pierson & Simons came up. Mr. Pierson advised him to go home; after it was dispersed I went in the house;
McCosker was not intoxicated to my knowledge. I did not hear McCosker charge Carey with being with a woman that night.

     Michael O'Brien (sworn) of No. 135 Washington St.; is not acquainted with policeman McCosker (non-present) but met him on or about the night of the 12th day of January, about 6 weeks ago. I am setting on a spar at the corner of Rector
and Washington P[lace]. He came up to me and spoke to me and asked me what I was doing there; and after talking sometime about females, he put his hands two or
three times towards deponent's privates in a very indecent manner and making very indecent expressions, and finally put his hands on deponent's privates; after awhile he asked me to go over to the Porter House of Dennis Mullins, where he treated me to a glass of beer . . . . I afterwards left him. --I am a Tobacconist. Is a single man. Policemen Johnston & McCioud asked me about this complaint; . . . . I heard that policeman McCosker was going to sue Carey for slander in making such
charge against him; is confident that Edward McCosker non-present is the man . . . . alluded to.

One more witness testified against McCosker.

     Bernard Campbell one of the policemen of the 1st District being duly sworn deposes and says that one night in the month of January deponent went on his post in Washington Street and that while patroling his beat in company with policeman
Edw. McCosker, said Cosker commenced talking about women and said to deponent "don't you feel stiff now?" and put his hand in deponent's pantaloons and en-deavored to feel deponent's privates; deponent told him to go away and asked him what he meant; he said "nothing", he "only wanted to feel if he [deponent] was stiff"; deponent then took hold of his hand and pushed him away. Further deponent saith not.

An unsigned lawyer's brief argues in defense of McCosker and is included among the records of McCosker's hearing before the mayor of New York.

It suggests that there may have been a conspiracy to frame McCosker on the part of several policemen of the First Patrol District, as well as on the part of Thomas Carey and Michael O'Brien.

The brief argues that Carey and O'Brien were "intimate acquaintances," and that on the night of McCosker's alleged proposition, Carey had "just left O'Brien."

The brief argues that Carey had been drunk, and "did want to fight" McCosker, despite Carey's testimony to the contrary.

Contradictions in Carey's testimony should "shake confidence" in it, the brief says. It argues that in a
court of law Carey's testimony "would be excluded altogether" as might O'Brien's.

The brief also asks the mayor to notice O'Brien's testimony that he went to drink with McCosker after the latter had allegedly propositioned him:

At one moment he [O'Brien] was grossly insulted by the proposition of McCosker and he looked upon him as a brute, yet this same man would go and drink with him. If a man whose views change so quick upon a subject so vital to a man's finer feelings, I am confident that little if any confidence can be placed upon any statements he may be pleased to make.

     The brief for McCosker also includes the affidavits of three witnesses who testified to his good character. One of these follows:

Francis Donnelly of said [New York] city being duly sworn deposes and says that he is a policeman of the first ward of the city of New York; that he is well acquainted with Edward Mccosker above named; that deponent has been in the
habit of sleeping with said McCosker for the last three months, and that said McCosker never to deponent's knowledge acted indecent or indelicate; that deponent never knew said McCosker to be guilty of any improper conduct, nor did he
ever hear that he was guilty of any such conduct until he heard the charges preferred against him by Carey and O'Brien.

     The mayor of New York decided:

Ist Patrol District.

In the matter of Charges against
Edward McCosker
Policeman.

Dated 20th day of Feby 1846

Decision
The . . . . charges are substantiated by the evidence. It is ordered and adjusted that Edward McCosker be and his is hereby dismissed from office as Policeman of the First District. . . .

PART II

==================================================================================
In 1976, when Katz first discussed the charges against McCosker, he felt compelled to state:

"In the context of the present struggle for Gay rights in the area of civil service employment, the reprinting of these documents takes on a charged and controver-sial political character. Antihomosexual bigots have argued in the mid-1970s that to allow homosexuals employment in the New York City Police Department would give license to such behavior as that with which McCosker was charged in 1846."

Katz continued: "The present depth and pervasiveness of such antihomosexual argument unfortu­nately requires that such myths be refuted. It should be unnecessary to say that if the charges against McCosker were true, these documents would still not indicate anything about the prevalence or likelihood of such behavior. The charges against McCosker must be seen in the context of an antihomosexual society in which examples of homosexual misconduct are more likely to be recorded and labeled as such than equivalent heterosexual acts. How many heterosexual policemen, for nstance, made advances toward women without finding this behavior later used as
grounds for serious complaint, much less for dismissal -- and had their cases docu­mented for posterity?"