Looters of the Public Domain/Chapter 11
Chapter XI
EVENTS antedating the trial and conviction of myself and associates in the 11-7 case, and incident thereto, will, if carefully analyzed, reveal the contemptible political conspiracy to make us the scapegoats for the accumulated misdeeds of all those who had in any way been implicated in Oregon land frauds, and will show that the ringleader of the scheme was none other than John H. Hall, at that time the United States Attorney for Oregon, but afterwards ousted from office by President Roosevelt on account of his questionable connections.
I am not seeking to vindicate myself by these assertions, or presenting them as any excuse why I ought to have been absolved from receiving my just deserts, but I wish to lay particular stress upon the well-accepted fact that those "higher up" were eager to crucify the 11-7 gang upon any kind of legal cross in the hope that the sacrificial offering would atone for the stains of their own sins, and that Hall was to be the high priest at the ceremony.
With the ink still undried upon his commission as a public servant, and the sacred echoes of his oath of office still ringing in his ears, he was to be the conscienceless medium through which his corrupt political allies hoped to secure immunity from punishment by making us their burnt offering. They were deeper in the mud than we were in the mire, and nobody knew this half so well as John H. Hall; yet he stood ready to prostitute his official position in the manner described, and expected, by making a horrible example of us, to pull the wool over the eyes of the law-abiding element, and soothe the public with the idea that Justice was satisfied!
Abraham Lincoln once gave voice to some expressions that have since become symbolic, and in a measure are applicable in this instance. In the course of one of his most famous addresses, the martyred President said:
"You can fool some of the people all the time; you can fool all the people some of the time; but you can't fool all the people all the time!"
Francis J. Heney was one that they didn't fool. He suspected the United States Attorney for Oregon from the moment it dawned upon him that the latter had attempted to switch the weaker case of the two up for trial, and it is an open secret that the Government kept tab on every move that Hall subsequently made, until he was dismissed peremptorily from public service at Heney's suggestion.
A traitor to the Government, Hall's natural selfish instincts prompted him to betray us, and desert us in our extremity like a rat leaving a sinking ship. People may say that it comes with poor grace for one in my position to 
try and preach an effective sermon, and hint that it is bad policy for the kettle to call the pot black, and indulge in similar side-remarks; but just the same I am of opinion that it would have been far more honorable for Hall to have openly confessed his own wrong-doing and that of his influential political associates rather than seek to divert the bloodhounds of law from the trail of larger game by raising the cry of "Wolf!"
He got caught in the end himself, and now "there are none so poor as to do him reverence," whereas, had he come out in manly fashion as soon as he realized that he had been hoist by his own petard, almost everybody would have had some respect for him, and there would have been many who would have applauded his attitude as a genuine act of atonement.
The course of the United States Attorney in this respect is remindful of a doggerel verse I once learned in my early youth:
{{block center|"He digged a pit, he digged it deep.
He digged it for his brother;
And for his sin he did fall in
The pit he digged for 'tother."
It is barely possible that Hall, because of the failure upon his part to secure from McKinley and myself the sum of $5,000 to quash the indictments against us, thought to take revenge on that account, and this, of itself, may have influenced his action toward us. McKinley, however, was firmly of the opinion that our failure to come through with the cash, when the demand was made upon us through George Sorenson, on behalf of Prosecutor Hall, was wholly responsible for his attitude toward us. However that may be, it is certain that Mr. Hall was willing we should be sacrificed, and I believed then, as I still believe, that it was for no other purpose than to get us out of the way with as much dispatch as possible, use his influence with the Court to the end that we get the limit on McNeil's Island, and thereby eliminate the possibility of our appearing to give testimony against those of his friends against whom he believed indictments might be returned at a later date, and who, both socially and politically, were closer to his friendship than were we.
As to the $5,000 hereinbefore referred to, and which amount George Sorenson hinted to McKinley and I would be sufficient to influence United States Attorney Hall to the end that the indictments against us would be quashed, we agreed with Sorensen to produce the amount named if he could give us any assurance that Hall would live up to the arrangement, whereupon he asked for time in which to consult with Mr. Hall, and on the following day he returned with the assurance that it would be agreeable to the District Attorney and that, if I would meet Mr. Hall in St. Louis, where he expected to spend his vacation in visiting the Fair, the money could be paid to him by me personally at that time. This I consented to do, but as McKinley neglected to fulfill his part of the obligation, the matter was dropped, as I did not feel justified in putting up the entire amount myself.
Some time after my conviction in the "11-7" case, the Federal Government indicted George Sorenson because of his connection with the $5,000 bribe referred to, and Mr. Hall himself, while on the witness stand during the trial of Sorenson, admitted that the latter had offered him the money, but was unable to suggest any excuse for his failure to have him brought to account forthwith for his conduct on that occasion.
At the time the indictments were returned against myself and associates, my attorney, F. P. Mays, advised that it was for the best, as it was sure to come, sooner or later, and that, with his friend John H. Hall in office, he could arrange with him to have the trials put off from time to time and would eventually have the matter quashed altogether. Mr. Hall at that time had full control of the situation, but when it developed later that the Government had appointed a special assistant to prosecute the cases, the status of affairs was materially changed, and more particuarly after Mr. Heney appeared on the scene to prosecute an investigation of the situation prior to the commencement of the trial. It was then, no doubt, that the thought developed in the minds of such men as F. Pierce Mays and Senator Mitchell, that McKinley and I were of little consequence, and then, too, in my opinion, that the plan was conceived to sacrifice us through arrangements made with Mr. Hall to that end.
To be sure, the unexpected, which always happens, occurred when Heney appeared unbidden upon the scene. He was the unknown quantity which is never taken into consideration, and which usually upsets all calculations; but that was no reason why Hall should have consented to make flesh of one and fowl of the other, nor any excuse for our old pals to turn their backs upon us, as described in another chapter, as soon as we were convicted.
It is true the Old Guard, with its political sway in Oregon covering a period of more than a quarter of a century, had endeavored in every possible manner to discount Heney in public estimation as soon as it became apparent that he was to have charge of the Oregon land fraud prosecutions, and kept up a constant anvil chorus with that idea in view.
United States Senators Mitchell and Fulton had registered a solemn protest with the Department of Justice against Heney's appointment, and in this scheme to nip the latter's ambition in the bud, and at the same time protect their friends, they were aided and abetted by Judge M. C. Burch, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, according to a statement made by Heney himself during the course of his argument in the Hall conspiracy case later on.
That Heney keenly appreciated the situation is evident from the fact that for the first three days of the trial, while Hall was keeping him in the background all he could, and trying to make it appear that the famous prosecutor was merely his assistant, Heney became warmer around the collar all the time, and kept sliding further and further under the big courtroom table until at last only the back of his neck was visible, and it resembled a brush heap on fire.
I was in high glee over his discomfiture, and we all came to the conclusion that the imported Government prosecutor was a false alarm, after all; but about the middle of the third day, however, after Hall had personally selected 
Colonel A. R. Greene, Special Inspector, Department of the Interior, had been placed on the stand to identify the title papers as those intrusted to his care by the General Land Office. Judge Pipes, of counsel for the defense, interposed an objection to the line of testimony, claiming that the counsel for the prosecution was "turning this case topsy-turvy." He also attacked the indictment, stating that it was faulty and a monument of ill-shaped phrases, and that it did not tend to connect the defendants with any conspiracy.
Mr. Heney followed out the terms of the indictment, and showed that the pleadings of the opposing attorney were specious, and made one of the strongest presentations heard in the case up to this time. The speech, of itself, was most eloquently delivered, and as Mr. Heney cited innumerable Supreme Court opinions sustaining every contention, his remarks carried great weight and were all too convincing in character to be taken lightly by counsel for the defense. It was common talk, in fact, among defendants' attorneys, that our rank and file must be reinforced by all the reserve forces at our command, for now, indeed, if never before, it was fully realized by all concerned, that Francis J. Heney was a veritable cyclone.
On November 21, 1904, those charged in the indictment with conspiracy to defraud the Government of its public lands in the now famous 11-7 case were brought to trial, with the exception of Harry C. Barr, who had been adjudged insane by Justice of the Peace Waldemar Seton, and sent to the State asylum at Salem, from which institution he later made his escape and has never since been apprehended.
The Government was represented by Francis J. Heney, of San Francisco, Special Assistant to the United States Attorney-General, and John H. Hall, United States Attorney for Oregon, while the following attorneys appeared for the respective defendants: Judge Thomas O'Day, of Portland, for Horace G. McKinley; C. A. Hardy and A. C. Woodcock, of Eugene, Ore., for Marie L. Ware; L. H. Tarpley, of Portland, for his brother, Dan W. Tarpley; while Judge Martin L. Pipes, of Portland, and my brother, Lawrence F. Puter, of Eureka, Cal., assisted by F. Pierce Mays, of Portland, as silent counsel, represented me.
Neither Emma L. Watson or Frank H. Walgamot employed counsel, as it appeared unnecessary for them to do so, on account of the case being in the nature of a joint proceeding. On the last day of the trial, however, Claude Strahan, a Portland lawyer, was engaged by Walgamot to look out for his interests in connection with his plea of guilty, made just before the case went to the jury.
Aside from Mays' assurance that any verdict of conviction could be set aside by reason of the operation of the statute of limitations, I took a peculiar satisfaction in the further knowledge that but three of the ten entrymen had used their real names in making their filings, and it would thus become a difficult matter for the prosecution to maintain its case against us in the trial, as the burden of proof would naturally rest upon the Government.
As the case progressed, we learned that J. A. W. Heidecke, the mountaineer whom McKinley and I had employed to steer Special Agent C. E. Loomis and Forest Superintendent Salmon B. Ormsby over the misleading trails throughout the township, had turned against us and joined forces with the Government, but we felt confident in our ability to produce witnesses who could be relied upon to counteract any testimony that he might offer. We concluded that Heidecke would be called to show that there were no cabins or other improvements on the twelve claims under consideration, and that he had either inspected other townships with Loomis and Ormsby, and pointed out the cabins therein as being the ones in 11-7, or else that they had mutually agreed to dispense with the trouble and expense incident to making the investigation, and had concocted a scheme among themselves to make the affidavits appear as if they had made personal examination of each claim. We prepared ourselves for such an emergency, and relied upon our belief that one man's word would offset that of another, and from a numerical standpoint, were satisfied that we held the advantage, as Loomis and Ormsby would have to stand by us.
Our real fear was for the identity of Emma L. Watson, who had filed under the name of Emma Porter, and the question arose in our minds whether or not the prosecution would be able to establish the fact of their being the same person. I felt that inasmuch as she had furnished cash bail, and had thus avoided the necessity of affixing her signature to any bond, it would be impossible for the other side to produce any documentary evidence bearing upon a similarity in the two signatures. How far we were correct in our assumptions may be judged when it is considered that the Government not only introduced Mrs. Watson's deed to Frederick A. Kribs, conveying title to the twelve claims, but numerous other samples of- her signature, all of which had been enlarged by photographic process, so that the jury could readily perceive the similarity in the two signatures without the corroborative aid of expert testimony.
A fortnight before the trial, McKinley and I had sent surveyors and others conversant with timber lands to township 11-7, accompanied by one familiar with the situation, and who was delegated by us to see that these prospective witnesses would view the alleged cabins and improvements through "smoked glass." In other words, they had purposely been shown cabins in other townships that had no relation to those in 11-7, and being ignorant of the deception that had been practised upon them, were prepared to testify in support of the contention of the defense that the homestead laws in regard to improvements and cultivation had been fully complied with. It was while we were in the act of rehearsing their testimony for use at the trial that we became cognizant of the fact that the Government had already sent A. W. Barber, an experienced surveyor, and a clerk of the Division of Surveys in the General Land Office, accompanied by a stafif of assistants, who had not only run out the lines of each claim but had secured numerous photographs that indicated beyond any question of doubt that the purported improvements and cultivation was a myth. Under the circumstances we did not feel justified in placing our doctored testimony in evidence for fear of disastrous consequences.
Much notoriety had already been given the case through the local press, and as eminent counsel had been retained on both sides, the trial proved quite a drawing-card, all available space in the courtroom being occupied by an expectant throng, while the hallways and corridors of the Federal building were jammed to their fullest capacity by an eager mass of humanity.
Less difficulty was experienced in securing the jury than was anticipated, and after the opening addresses had been made by John H. Hall for the prosecution and Judge Thomas O'Day for the defense, the Government called Charles B. Moores, then Register of the Oregon City Land Office, as its first witness, for the purpose of identifying the homestead applications and other papers embraced in the twelve entries. An objection to the introduction of this evidence was interposed by Judge Pipes on the ground that the documents having been dated three years prior to the indictment, were barred by the statute of limitations. The discussion following the question of admissibility of this evidence consumed the balance of the day, and resulted in the objection being overruled.
After the adjournment of Court, I learned that Congressman Binger Hermann, ex-Commissioner of the General Land Office, was in the city in response to a subpcena by the Government to appear as a witness, and I proceeded to call upon him that evening at the Imperial Hotel for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the testimony he expected to give. Mr. Hermann assured me that he was in the dark upon the subject, and in reply to my suggestion that perhaps he had been called to identify Mrs. Watson as the woman who had appeared before him at the General Land Office in Washington, D. C, at the time the patents to the twelve homestead claims were expedited, coincided with my deductions. Whereupon I drew the inference that inasmuch as three years had elapsed since the occasion of Mrs. Watson's visit to his office, it was not likely that he would be able to identify her, and was pleased to observe that Mr. Hermann was willing to admit that I was probably correct in this assumption also.
This was good news, for while I expected that the ex-Commissioner would be found on our side all right, I hardly hoped that he would be able to forget Mrs. Watson with such remarkable ease, especially as she had made repeated visits to his office, and must have impressed him in various ways upon each occasion.
I then called Mr. Hermann's attention to a talk I had just had with Mays, in the course of which he had informed me concerning a telegram he had that day received from Senator John H. Mitchell, stating, in efl^ect, that the latter expected to reach Washington the next day, and would remain at the National capital until the close of the approaching session of Congress. 
Commenting upon this intelligence, Congressman Hermann expressed the opinion that Senator Mitchell would carry out his plans as indicated, remarking that by virtue of being a United States Senator he was permitted under the statutes to exercise his own discretion in the matter of returning to Oregon in obedience to any subpoena as a witness, and that, in such a trifling case as this would prove to be, it was not at all likely he would consider it worthy his time or attention.
This expression on the part of Mr. Hermann had the effect of reassuring my confidence in our position, and I was much pleased over the result of my interview.
At 10 o'clock the next morning, on the third day of the trial. Judge William Galloway, of McMinnville, ex-Receiver of the Oregon City Land Office, was called to the stand for the purpose of identifying the final proof papers of Emma Porter, and also to connect Emma L. Watson, who was in the courtroom, as the person who had filed under the assumed name of Emma Porter.
He was positive in his identification of the title papers, but could not swear that the lady who was pointed out to him as Emma L. Watson was the one representing herself as Emma Porter at the time of making final proof. He admitted, however, that there was a striking resemblance between the two.
H. F. Coleman, a clerk in the General Land Office at Washington, D. C. identified all the original homestead papers connected with the twelve claims in township 11-7 as having passed through his hands in their routine course.
Colonel A. R. Greene, Special Inspector, Department of the Interior, was then placed on the stand to identify the papers as those intrusted to his care by the General Land Office. While he was on the stand, Judge Pipes, of counsel for the defense, objected to the line of testimony on the ground that it did not tend to connect the defendants with any overt act as charged in the indictment for conspiracy, and it was at this juncture that the Special Assistant to the Attorney-General made his debut in the case with such dramatic results.
No sooner had Colonel Greene left the stand than the name of Binger Hermann was called as the next witness for the Government. Instantly there was a craning of necks as the well-known Land Commissioner ambled along in his suave way and with uplifted hand, promised to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God.
Mr. Heney assumed charge of his direct examination, and after some preliminary questions handed Congressman Hermann for identification a letter that had been addressed to him while he was Commissioner of the General Land Office by Senator Mitchell, and was asked if he had any recollection of ever having seen it before. After examining the letter judiciously through his glasses, the witness declared that he could not recall ever having seen the letter before, although he recognized the signature as that of Senator Mitchell.
Mr. Heney thereupon handed him a second letter which met the fate of the first. He then asked the distinguished witness if there was anyone with Senator Mitchell and Mr. Puter at the time they called upon him in Washington for the purpose of expediting the patents to the twelve entries in township 11-7. to which Hermann replied that they were accompanied by a woman.
The witness was then asked if he could identify the woman as one of those sitting in the courtroom.
Hermann returned an evasive answer by stating that inasmuch as he had only met the lady in his office but once, and she had made no impression on his mind, he was unable to say whether the defendant was this woman or not.
He was then handed a third letter, also written by Senator Mitchell, upon the same subject, but its introduction in evidence was objected to by the defense on the ground that the writer was not present in court. As Mr. Heney had failed in his effort to have the ex-Land Commissioner identify them, they were temporarily withdrawn.
Judge Pipes then inquired why they had been submitted, to which the Government attorney responded that he expected to identify them by Mr. Hermann, but failing in this, had decided to withdraw them until Senator Mitchell could arrive, for whom, Mr. Heney stated, he would wire to Washington at once.
Mr. Heney hoped to have Mrs. Watson identified by Mr. Hermann, as he also anticipated that the ex-Commissioner would identify the letters in question, for the purpose of connecting her with the signing of the affidavit at Washington at the time of having the patents expedited. It will be understood, of course, that the affidavit bore her signature written as "Emma L. Watson," in full, as did the homestead application, filing and final proof blanks bear the signature "Emma Porter," written also by Mrs. Watson when she secured a claim in township 11-7 under that name.
It became necessary, therefore, to establish Mrs. Watson's identity first; to follow this with the identity of certain correspondence which had passed between Senator Mitchell and Commissioner Hermann, to prove her connection with the claims referred to; this to be followed by the introduction and identification of the affidavit named, and finally, to introduce the original papers used by Mrs. Watson in acquiring her claim under the name of Emma Porter, after which there would be little or no difficulty experienced in proving the handwriting on the affidavit and title papers identical, thus tending to establish the Government's case against the accused.
Under the circumstances it will be seen that the point at issue was of vital importance to the prosecution, and as Hermann had successfully withstood Mr. Heney's inquisition—without taking his conscience into consideration relative to telling the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"—it became -a matter of utmost importance to secure Senator Mitchell's appearance as a witness. The telegraphic correspondence between Francis J. Heney and Senator Mitchell on the subject of the latter's attendance as a witness for the Government in the 11-7 case follows:
Portland, November 24, 1904.Hon. John H. Mitchell,
United States Senate,
Washington, D. C.
Was surprised on my arrival here to take up the prosecution of the Puter-Watson land fraud case, to find you were not subpoenaed, and immediately made inquiries for the purpose of intercepting you, and was informed you would reach St. Paul last Sunday morning, and wired U. S. Marshal there last Saturday to deliver message to you on Sunday's train. He wired that he failed to find you. It is vitally important for the prosecution to prove by you that Puter and Watson delivered to you their certain affidavits, which you sent to Commissioner Hermann, with your letter dated March 3, 1902, urging him to make special the twelve cases of homestead entries referred to in the abstract attached to said affidavit of Watson, and urging consideration thereof without delay. Without your testimony, the Government's case may fail, and these guilty rascals go unwhipped of justice, and I therefore urge you to treat this telegram as a subpoena, and to return immediately to Portland, as a witness for the United States. The case will not be concluded before the end of next week. Please wire when you will start, and oblige,
(Signed)FRANCIS J. HENEY,Special Assistant to Attorney-General.
Washington, D C, November 25, 1904.Hon. Francis J. Heney,
Assistant to the Attorney-General,
c|o Hon. John H. Hall, U. S. District Attorney,
Portland, Oregon.
Your telegram of yesterday reached me at 3 o'clock today. It is the first intimation I have had from any source that my testimony was desired in any of the prosecutions for land frauds in Oregon. It was known by United States District Attorney Hall that I intended to leave Portland for Washington City on the evening of November 1.5, and no suggestion was made to me that my testimony was desired. I did pass through St. Paul Sunday morning last, arriving there on the Northern Pacific train at 7:30 o'clock and leaving on the Burlington at 8:20 o'clock for Chicago. Surely every opportunity was open to have had me subpoenaed. Had this been done, I should have deferred leaving until the trial was over, but it is simply impossible for me to leave here now. I will here state, and possibly the attorneys for the defense may be willing to concede, that I would so testify if on the stand, that the affidavits of Emma L. Watson and S. A. D. Puter, which were forwarded by me to Commissioner Hermann in my letter of March 3, 1902, were handed me here in Washington by S. A. D. Puter, on or about that date. At that time Mr. Puter brought a letter of introduction to me from a prominent and reliable attorney of Oregon, vouching for his reliability. This is my whole information in regard to the matter. Very strong reasons being given why early action in the Land Department should be had, explains my letter transmitting the affidavits to the Commissioner.
(Signed)JOHN H. MITCHELL.
Hon. John H. Mitchell,Portland, November 26, 1904.
United States Senate,
Defendants' attorneys refuse to admit truth of statements contained in your telegram to me of yesterday. Your testimony is still vitally important to Government. United States Attorney Hall did not consider your testimony important when you were here, but he now agrees with me as to its materiality and great importance. What was the name of the attorney who gave Puter the letter of introduction to you? Will you come, and when?
Washington, D. C.(Signed)FRANCIS J. HENEY,
Special Assistant to the Attorney-General.
Washington, D. C, November 26, 1904.Hon. Francis J. Heney.
Telegram received. As I wired you yesterday, for reasons stated in telegram, it is simply absolutely impossible for me to go to Oregon at this time.
Special Assistant to the Attorney-General,
Portland, Oregon.
(Signed)JOHN H. MITCHELL,
Portland, November 29, 1904.Hon. John H. Mitchell,
You neglected to give me the name of attorney here who gave Puter the letter of introduction to you. Please wire it immediately, so that I can use him as a witness for the Government, and oblige,
United States Senate,
Washington, D. C.
(Signed)FRANCIS J. HENEY,
Special Assistant to the Attorney-General.
It is noteworthy that Senator Mitchell omitted to reply to this last telegram from Mr. Heney.
While the defense had no knowledge of the telegraphic correspondence as above indicated, we were convinced, because of the message received by Mays from the Senator, and the opinion expressed by Congressman Hermann, that the Senator did not propose to be forced into the case, if possible to avoid it, and these telegrams fully corroborate this idea. The "prominent attorney" referred to, as the reader will readily understand, was my old pal, Franklin Pierce Mays.
Ex-Commissioner Hermann was not subjected to any cross-examination by the attorneys for the defense, and when he left the witness stand, was excused from further attendance.
He was followed by John Withycombe, chief draughtsman in the Surveyor-General's office at Portland, who testified to having made a large map of township 11-7, which was introduced in evidence. It was about four feet square, and exhibited the claims of the different homesteaders, besides the general topography of the country as indicated by the field notes from the official Government survey, as well as the Indian or "Minto Trail," which runs through the center of the township. In addition, it showed the various courses pursued by the Government agents while traversing the township in search of settlers' cabins and other evidence of improvements. This big plat was placed upon an easel in plain view of the jury, and was frequently used throughout the trial for their benefit.
After A. W. Barber, the next witness, had certified to the correctness of the map, counsel for the opposing sides offered to consent to an adjournment over Thanksgiving Day, but the jurors insisted that the case proceed. A compromise was finally reached by the Court suggesting that a morning session should be held, and this was agreed to.
The next morning Barber resumed the witness stand, and testified that he was a surveyer and civil engineer by occupation, and had been in the Government service for a number of years. He then proceeded to give full details of a trip he had taken into township 11-7 for the purpose of making investigations, accompanied by Robert G. Pierce, Benjamin Butler Pierce, Sebastian C. Dilley, and Truman W. Pritts, all of whom had borne an equal share in "packing" the camp effects. This trip, Mr. Barber stated, was begun about June 14, 1904, and completed within two weeks.
The testimony of Mr. Barber relative to conditions in township 11-7 created a profound sensation in the courtroom, and the defendants were made the cynosure of all eyes. Heney took up in rotation the final proof papers relating to the twelve different homestead entries which had been introduced in evidence on the preceding days, and through the witness laid the foundation for a complete exposure of the whole fraudulent scheme to acquire title to the lands by process of perjured testimony.
Harry C. Barr, at the time of making proof on the SW ¼ of Section 24, Tp. 11 S., R. 7 E., Willamette Meridian, had sworn that he had established a residence on the claim in September, 1892; that his house, which was constructed of logs, was 16×24, that he had also built a good barn, and had cultivated a few acres of ground, all of which he valued at $400. He stated that he was absent from the claim about four or five months each year for the purpose of earning enough money to improve his place. As a reply to this testimony. Barber declared that there was no road to Barr's Cabin, nor was there any cabin or barn on the claim, or any indications of cultivation. He avowed, in fact, that the entire tract was covered by a dense forest, without signs of human habitation of any sort.
Heney then read the testimony of Emma Porter, made at the time of securing final certificate for the NE ¼ of Section 32. She claimed to have established her residence on the land in October, 1892; that she had built a house of logs, 20×20 feet, with four rooms and a woodshed, and possessed chickens, a cow and good barn, worth in the aggregate $500. She testified further that she had resided thereon most of the time since the house was erected, and had never been absent more than three months at any one time, when she would go to Portland and work to make a living in order to earn sufficient money to make additional improvements to the homestead.
With reference to this claim, Mr. Barber testified that there was no cabin, woodshed, barn, or anything, in fact, to indicate that it had ever been inhabited, and went on to state that the land was near a creek, upon which four trees had been cut, of which he desired to make particular mention, as it was the only point on all the claims involved where there were any other marks than those made by the surveyors.
Heney next read the testimony of Frank H. Walgamot, who claimed that he had built a home in either September or October, 1892; that the house was a good one, made of logs, and 16×25, that he had constructed a good road leading thereto, and had also erected comfortable outbuildings, all of which he was pleased to value at $500. Through the hot and dusty summer months, Walgamot, who was a young dentist of Portland, with hands of such snowy whiteness as to indicate that he had never been guilty of any hard work, had declared that he earned a living in the harvest fields of the Willamette Valley, and during the winter had trapped wild animals while he made his mountain fastness his home. This recital brought forth considerable merriment from the crowd, and resulted in the stylish young dentist being given the sobriquet of "Leather Stocking."
Barber's testimony relative to the Walgamot land was similar in general characteristics to that in connection with the other claims: There was no evidence, he said, to indicate that anybody had ever resided on the place, or even slept there over night.
While the testimony of the different claimants was being read by Mr. Heney, and as rapidly contradicted by the Government witness, the scene enacted in the crowded courtroom was one that shall never become effaced from my memory. The defendants were visibly affected, as this was the first time they had been subjected to such a merciless grilling, and while they were writhing in the agony of their tortured feelings, the spectators as if with one voice proceeded to make merry at their humiliation, until the episode reminded me very forcibly of the antics of a band of cattle, whose beastly instincts prompts them to gore some stricken member of the herd.
Court adjourned at noon, and as we had arranged for a Thanksgiving dinner at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, we felt it incumbent to carry out the plan, although, as a matter of fact, it was anything but an enjoyable repast, haunted as we were by memories of the trial. We all endeavored to put on a bold front and appear jovial, but the presence of the "skeleton at the feast" was too much to overcome, and nobody raised any serious objections when it was suggested that we take our departure from the banquet hall.
Witness Barber was subjected to a rigid cross-examination by attorneys for the defense in the effort to trip him up on some of his statements, as well as to show the utter impossibility of his having covered so much territory by his investigations in such a short space of time; but on the whole the bombardment of questions had little or no effect upon the main facts, and his testimony was corroborated in every essential particular by those who accompanied him on the expedition.
In addition, John D. Daly, the United States Surveyor-General for Oregon, told how he had lived for a number of years, during the summer months, on his claim in Section 15, township 11-7, which he referred to as his mountain resort; that the Minto trail—the only one in the township, and over which would necessarily come all the travel—ran through his claim and directly in front of his cabin; that the claim was" located on a small prairie, where he had "squatted" 
some twelve years previously, in the hope that the Corvallis & Eastern railroad would eventually run through there and his location would make a good site for a station. In all this time he had neither seen nor heard of the alleged homesteaders.
William M. Brown, postmaster of Lebanon, Ore., and editor of the Criterion, published at that place, testified as to the publication of the final proof notices of the twelve homesteads in his paper. Edwin Hobson, of Eugene, was the last witness of the day. It will be recalled that he was the person who had purchased the "Simpson" claim from McKinley, mention of which transaction is made in another chapter. Some months prior, and shortly before the 24-1 case was expected to come to trial, we learned that Hobson was to be subpoenad as a witness for the Government, so McKinley, with whom Hobson was on very friendly terms, prevailed upon him to leave the State. During the summer, however, the Secret Service Department succeeded in locating him, and he was promptly arrested and landed in the Multnomah county jail at Portland, where he was obliged to remain several days before being released on bail, to appear as a witness whenever the Government wanted him.
Jail life was not exactly "Hobson's choice," by any means, but it served to make a "Good Injun" of him, hence, notwithstanding the fact that he was on the most friendly terms with McKinley, he was ready to tell the whole story of his life from beginning to end, and more too, when placed on the witness stand. In his eagerness to show his good intentions, and at the same time curry as much favor as possible with the prosecution, he even went to the extent of answering questions before they were half asked.
Hobson admitted an acquaintance with Marie L. Ware, Horace G. McKinley and Clyde D. Lloyd, but denied knowing me, although he stated that he had received a letter from me concerning the business relations existing between McKinley, Lloyd and himself.
Against the objections of the defense, deeds were introduced in evidence exhibiting the transfer of all the fraudulent homestead claims to Emma L. Watson. This was done for the purpose of connecting her with the conspiracy. Dan W. Tarpley, one of the defendants, was the notary before whom all the deeds were acknowledged.
Following this, a deed was admitted in evidence showing the transfer of the entire twelve claims from Emma L. Watson to Frederick A. Kribs, aggregating 1,920 acres.
C. A. Wintermeyer, an attorney of Eugene; S. R. Williams, a real estate dealer of the same place; M. B. Rankin, a timber locator of Portland; Fred Poindexter and Mrs. Mary McDonald, keepers of hotels at Prineville, testified as to the friendly relations existing between the defendants, the idea being that on account of these close ties they would not hesitate to enter into a conspiracy of the character before the Court.
Clyde D. Lloyd was the next witness. It will be remembered that he was the young notary public who took the acknowledgment of Robert Simpson, a fictitious person, in transferring a claim in 24-1 to Hobson.
His testimony merely corroborated other witnesses as to the business and social relations existing between McKinley, Tarpley, Miss Ware, Mrs. Watson and myself, and he was followed in quick succession by Mrs. Ella Graves, who conducted an apartment hotise at 135 Tenth street, Portland, her husband, F. W. Graves, a local music dealer, and Mrs. Frances Rodgers, of San Francisco, formerly of Portland, who gave similar testimony.
At this point the Government switched the nature of its evidence, and called George R. Ogden, a clerk in Division "P," of the General Land Office, who identified all the papers connected with the twelve fraudulent entries as having passed through his hands, and stated that under instructions from Commissioner Hermann, he had directed Special Agent C. E. Loomis to investigate the status of the various claims.
Mr. Ogden declared further, that being dissatisfied with the Loomis report, he had authorized Captain S. B. Ormsby, at that time Superintendent of the Cascade Range Forest Reserve, to make additional investigation pertaining to conditions in township 11-7.
Mr. Heney then offered in evidence the reports of Special Agent Loomis covering the twelve homestead entries, and despite the strenuous opposition of the 
lawyers for the defense, they were admitted, their reading before the jury forming one of the most interesting features of the case, as reveahng the depths of fabrication to which trusted employes of the Government have been lured by the glitter of land fraud gold.
In fact, during the course of argument on the admissibility of these reports, Mr. Heney took occasion to score both Loomis and Ormsby in unmeasured terms, and wound up his tirade of denunciation by declaring that the Government expected to prove that these two men were as guilty as those on trial, and should have been indicted with the other conspirators.
It is noteworthy that Ormsby was a member of the Federal Grand Jury that returned the indictments against myself and associates in the 24-1 case, and that both himself and Loomis have since been indicted for their part in the Oregon land frauds.
As the reports of the two Government agents were similar in their general characteristics, the contents of one furnishing a fair index of the whole twelve fraudulent claims, I have selected their findings upon the "Nellie Backus" claim as the standard, and present herewith the two reports in full, together with the corroborative affidavits of Heidecke, Jacobs, and the two Thomas brothers, in addition to claimant herself:
Name of Claimant—Nellie Backus.
Description of land covered by filing or entry—E ½ of SW ¼, and E ½ of NW ¼, Sec. 19, Tp. 11 S., R. 7 E., Willamette Meridian.
Date of examination—June 6, 1901.
Character of land—Timbered, agricultural land. Good soil. Not heavily timbered. Would be fine agricultural land if cleared.
Character, extent and value of improvements in detail—A log house, about 14×16, a small henhouse, a log barn about 12×14. About two acres near the house cleared and seeded with tame grass. Evidences that a small garden has been cultivated there. Another tract further from the house, of natural meadow, has had the brush cut and burned and grass seed sowed but is now grown up to brush again.
Considering that this entryman is a young woman, and hence had to hire all of the work done, and the difficulty and expense of getting material packed up there into the mountains, a fair estimate of the value of the improvements, work upon trails, footbridges, etc., would be three or four hundred dollars, at least.
Residence of claimant—From the best evidence which I can obtain, aside from the affidavits herewith, by talking with those who may be supposed to know about it, my conclusions are as follows: She established residence there July 18, 1892, upon unsurveyed land, being led to do so by the fact that the railroad was surveyed through the township, and was being constructed within a few miles of the claim, which brought a great many people there, and she could obtain employment near the claim. She is a poor girl and works out for her living. After the railroad was abandoned she was obliged to go out to the valley to work, and she for some years put all of the money that she could earn into improvements in the way of clearing, etc., upon the claim. She expected to be able to make proof soon after the survey in 1896, but the survey was not accepted until 1900, and she has neglected her improvements, but retained possession of her claim, in the face of great obstacles, by going there as frequently as those for whom she worked would permit, and has remained each time as long as she could. The abandoning of the railroad has so changed conditions in the township that she could not make a home there for herself, now, and she has since final proof sold it. Was legally qualified.
| Names of witnesses— | J. A. W. Heidecke, | Detroit, Ore. | Reliable men. | |
| L. Jacobs, | „ „ | |||
| William Thomas, Charles Thomas, |
„ „ „ „ |
Do not stand so well among their neighbors, but no reason that they should not be given credence. |
The affiant Heidecke is a typical mountaineer; went to the vicinity in 1890, took up a homestead and lived upon it a few miles from this claim; has ranged those mountains ever since; knows every trail and every settler, and has visited their claims very frequently. His evidence is reliable.
The affiant Jacobs keeps the store and hotel where they had to go for supplies, and to stop in passing back and forth, and while he cannot give dates and particulars, his evidence is strongly corroborative and is reliable.
The witnesses Thomas do not stand well in the community, and if standing alone, their evidence would not be satisfactory; but if called as witnesses at a hearing their testimony would be as indicated, and there would be no reason for excluding it. I avoided taking affidavits from the other entrymen, and obtained evidence as far as possible from disinterested parties.
Heidecke's homestead is in Sec. 36, Tp. 10 S., R. 7 E.
Was the fraud willful?—No.
Have any legal proceedings been instituted?—No.
Action recommended by Agent—That the entry be sustained.
Dated at Oregon City, June 25, 1901.
C. E. Loomis,
Subscribed and sworn to March 19, 1901.
C. E. Loomis,
Special Agent, G. L. O.
Affidavit of J. A. W. Heidecke—J. A. W. Heidecke, being duly sworn, deposes and says: My P. O. address is Detroit, Ore.; I have lived there since 1890; I am well acquainted with Nellie Backus, and with her H. E. No. 13185, the E. ½ N. W. ¼, and E. ½ S. W. ¼, Sec. 19, Tp. 11 S., R. 7 E., W. M.; I have a ranch about six or eight miles from there, where I live a portion of each year; I know that she located upon her claim in the summer of 1892, and has made her home there from that date to this; she is single and poor, and has to work for her living, and has left her claim temporarily for this purpose several times, but has never abandoned it, but went there as her home when not thus employed, and at frequent intervals; she built a log house about 16×18, a barn about 12 feet square, and a henhouse; she had four or five acres cleared, and cultivated and sowed with grass seed; this is now neglected and grown up with brush to some extent; the abandoning of the railroad, and the long delay in the surveying of the land has been a great hardship to her, as well as to all the other settlers, and has greatly hindered and discouraged her, and has caused the neglect of the improvements, as she, with many others, have been very doubtful about ever being able to obtain title; since the survey she has done what she could to get her improvements into better condition; she has done the best that she could in her circumstances.(Signed)J. A. W. Heidecke.
Subscribed and sworn to June 18, 1901.
C. E. Loomis,
Special Agent, G. L. O.
Charles Thomas and William Thomas, being duly sworn, depose and say, each as follows: My P. O. address is Detroit, Ore.; I am well acquainted with Nellie Backus, and have heard the accompanying affidavit of J. A. W. Heidecke regarding her homestead entry; I know the circumstances, and know the statements therein to be true.
(Signed)
his
Charles X Thomas,
mark
his
William X Thomas.
Subscribed and sworn to June 18, 1901.
C. E. Loomis,
Special Agent, G. L. O.
Affidavit of L. Jacobs—L. Jacobs, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: My P. O. address is Detroit, Ore.; I have lived there since 1890, and am engaged in keeping a general store and hotel; I am well acquainted with Nellie Backus, who made Homestead Entry No. 13185 for the E ½ NW ¼ and E ½ SW ¼. Sec. 19, Tp. 11 S., R. 7 E., W. M., and I know that she located there in the summer of 1892, and has made her home there from that time to this; she is single and has to work for her living, and has worked out at times when she could get employment, for this purpose, but has gone to her claim as her home when not thus employed; she had to come to Detroit for supplies, and in passing back and forth to and from her claim, and I have frequently seen her upon such occasions; she has never abandoned her claim, and has done the best she could; I know nothing about the improvements.
Subscribed and sworn to June 18, 1901.
C. E. Loomis,
Special Agent, G. L. O.
Date of examination.—January 14, 1902.
Character of land.—About two-thirds of this claim has timber of medium density. The remainder is hghter. The western portion is rough, and the creek runs through a small canyon. One-half the claim would be fit for agriculture if cleared.
Character, extent and value of improvements.—Log house, about 14 × 16; another small building used as a henhouse, and stable about 10 × 12. Buildings were substantial when built, and evidently made to be permanent. A tract of about 2 acres had been cleared, which included a small garden, and the remainder sowed to grass. Another tract of about one acre had been cleared, but now overgrown with brush. The premises have not been occupied for some time, and have been somewhat neglected. It seems she made the improvements herself, and as everything had to be packed on horseback from Detroit to the claim, a distance of not less than 22 miles, these improvements must have cost not less than $200 or $250.
Residence of claimant.—The fact that the claimant, after being compelled to forego a continuous residence on the land, did use a part of her earnings in making improvements thereon, seems to show good faith on her part in maintaining a residence. The evidence is that she entered on the land in July, 1892, and resided there continuously until the Fall of 1894, when she was compelled to leave to obtain work elsewhere. She seems, however, to have spent her earnings when away in improving the land. She is not the head of a family. Was known in the neighborhood of the claim, and was qualified to make the entry.
The claimant seems to have acted in good faith throughout, and I think this entry might be sustained.
The affidavits of J. A. W. Heidecke and L. Jacobs, accompanying the foregoing report, are similar in character to those they made for Loomis.
The amusing feature of the two reports—wherein both Government agents describe the claimant as a hard-working girl—exists in the fact that she is, in reality, one of the most stylish and refined young women of the West, with hands and features to indicate that she never performed any drudgery in her life.
She assumed the name of "Nellie Backus" for the sake of convenience, and she appeared personally before Special Agent Loomis when she made the affidavit that told of her struggles in the backwoods to win a home from the forest. Any honest official could have seen at first glance that she was falsifying, but then Loomis is excusable on the plea that "suthin' got in his eyes."
The so-called "Nellie Backus" was never any nearer township 11-7 than Albany, Or., fully 100 miles distant, and neither of the Government agents were ever on her claim, or those of the other homesteaders. No efifort was ever made to erect improvements of any kind on the land, which, like all the fraudulent claims, was entirely unfit for cultivation, and heavily covered with a dense growth of timber, besides being- rough and mountainous.
Her real name was Nellie Gilbert at the time she filed her homestead entry as Nellie Backus, and she was then a resident of Portland. She afterward married Elbert K. Brown, the son of a wealthy Eugene hopgrower. In conjunction with Forest Superintendent Salmon B. Ormsby, Special Agent Clark E. Loomis, William H. Davis (Mayor of Albany, Ore.), Henry A. Young, George Sorenson, Binger Harmann, Horace G. McKinley, Emma L. Watson, Dan W. Tarpley, Frank H. Walgamot and myself. Brown and his wife were indicted by the Federal Grand Jury of Oregon on December 27, 1904, for the part they took in the 11-7 frauds, but the case has never been tried.
After George R. Ogden had been recalled for the purpose of identifying the Ormsby report, Mr. Heney then brought out the letter written by Senator Mitchell to Commissioner Hermann, in which were enclosed the affidavits of Emma L. Watson and myself, pertaining to the 12 fraudulent homestead claims. 
Ogden admitted that the letter and affidavits had much to do with the issuance of patents.
A. S. Dresser, Register of the Oregon City Land Office, was the next witness and produced the original patents issued upon the homestead entries of Mattie S. Lowell, William McLaughlin, A. O. Austin, J. R. Foster. James Wakefield, Christie E. Langham and James A. Taylor. These documents were offered in evidence, Mr. Heney stating that, although they had not been deeded to Emma L. Watson, he expected to prove that the patents had been fraudulently obtained by the defendants to tracts of land in township 11-7.
As I had never heard of any such persons as those whose names had just been mentioned, nor had I any knowledge of their filings in township 11-7, the introduction of these documents in evidence came as a great surprise to me. McKinley, also, disclaimed any knowledge of the entries, whereupon our attorneys interposed an objection, but as usual it was overruled. Heney's contention being that he proposed to prove that the seven patents were secured through fictitious entries; that the claims, after final proofs had been made, were transferred to George A. Howe, a fictitious person, thence to Horace G. McKinley and by the latter relinquished to the Government in making selection of other lands, which McKinley had sold to an innocent purchaser. Certified copies of the deeds conveying the lands embraced in the seven fictitious entries to Howe, were next introduced in evidence, and as another link in the chain, the prosecution introduced a deed from Howe to McKinley, Dan W. Tarpley, as a notary public, having taken the acknowledgement in transferring the lands to McKinley, without the affiant being present in person, as set forth in the jurat. J. H. Booth, Receiver of the Roseburg Land Office, testified to an acquaintance with McKinley covering a period of five years. He also identified the forest reserve selection that had been filed by Howe based on lands in township 11-7, and this application was likewise identified by Special Inspector A. R. Greene, of the Department of the Interior, besides H. J. Coleman and George R. Ogden, clerks in the General Land Office.
It was evident the prosecution concluded that the jury was tired of the monotony entailed by the introduction of so much similar testimony, as Miss Ella Wyman, of Chicago, was placed on the stand. She testified to being the proprietress of a private boarding house on Dearborn Avenue, Chicago, and that in March, 1904, Mrs. Watson had engaged a room at her establishment under the name of Mrs. Porter, remaining several days, or until arrested by Captain Porter, of the Government Secret Service.
Andrew Jackson, a colored porter in the employ of Miss Wyman, corroborated her testimony.
Next in turn was Captain Thomas I. Porter, of Chicago, who had been connected with the Secret Service of the Treasury Department for 18 years. He testified to having "shadowed" me through the streets of Chicago and to my room at the Grace Hotel, where I was registered under my real name. Later, while I was delivering a telescope basket to Mrs. Watson, he had followed me to her boarding house, and in that manner had discovered her whereabouts. Her arrest followed the next morning.
George B. McLeod, treasurer of the Astoria Company, of Portland, recounted certain business dealings with McKinley and myself, stating that he had arranged to purchase the 12 claims in township 11-7 from me at $5 per acre, but delivery of title was not made to him, as I had informed him that transfer thereof had been made to another person.
Frederick A. Kribs was the next witness, and testified to an acquaintance with me of several years' standing, and of various land transactions with me; that he also knew Mrs. Emma L. Watson, from whom he had purchased the 12 claims in township 11-7, upon which the defendants were being tried.
Frank E. Alley, a searcher of records of Roseburg, Ore., identified a plat of township 11-7 as one that he had made for McKinley.
After M. B. Rankin had been recalled to testify relative to land deals had with McKinley, Tarpley and myself. Court adjourned until the following morning at 10 o'clock.
W. A. Richards, Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington, D. C, who was Assistant Commissioner during Hermann's administration, was called to the witness stand on Tuesday morning, and identified the letters received by Binger Hermann from Senator Mitchell, together with the affidavits of Mrs. Watson and myself in support of the 12 claims. These were the same that Hermann had failed to identify while on the stand.
Commissioner Richards not only remembered the circumstances attending the presentation of these papers to Hermann, but he was positive in his identification of Mrs. Watson and myself as the persons who had been introduced to him by Senator Mitchell, and with whom he had talked with reference to expediting the patents to the 12 claims. Had Binger Hermann identified these letters and affidavits while on the stand, it would not have been necessary for Mr. Richards to cross the continent for that purpose, and it might be stated that had we known in advance of Mr. Heney's determination to establish the identity of the papers named, we should have much preferred that Hermann would have been less forgetful, and in all probability, at the time I visited him at the Imperial Hotel, I should have coached him along different lines than the ones pursued by my suggestions to him at the time. Mr. Richards' testimony was in all truth the most damaging offered against the defendants up to this time, and he was permitted to go without cross-examination.
Edward Meeker, County Recorder of Linn County, Oregon, testified to the fact of McKinley having paid the recording fee on the George A. Howe relinquishment to the Government at the time the forest reserve selection was made in his name.
B. M. Payne, County Cerk of Linn County, identified an abstract of title made for the George A. Howe lands, and testified that McKinley had ordered and paid for the same.
Charles Pfeiffer, proprietor of the Albany Hotel, identified the signature of McKinley on his register of November 18 and 19, 1901, at which time McKinley visited Albany for the purpose of securing the abstract from B. M. Payne.
Receiver Booth, of the Roseburg Land Office, was recalled, his evidence going to show that certain papers being missing from the George A. Howe forest reserve selection, he had communicated with the latter at the address given, and had failed to receive any response. This testimony was introduced for the purpose of showing that Howe was a fictitious person.
Clyde D. Lloyd was also recalled and identified the writing of myself by letters which he had received from me in the course of business transactions. As it was known to our attorneys that Lloyd had secured the appointment as a notary public in order to take the acknowledgments of bogus applicants for Government lands, including the claims of fictitious homesteaders, it was not deemed expedient to cross-examine him too closely as he was known to have turned traitor in order to save his own scalp, hence his testimony could not be of any particular benefit to us.
W. A. Holt, assistant cashier of the Wells-Fargo bank, of Portland, was the last witness of the day. He identified my handwriting, with which he was familiar, in several of the homestead final proofs, and also the signature of Emma Porter as that of Mrs. Watson.
On Wednesday morning, November 30, J. T. Bridges, Register of the Roseburg Land Office, was called for the purpose of proving the mythical character of George A. Howe.
The testimony of Robert B. Montague, the next witness, was of a most sensational nature. For several years he had served as deputy clerk of Linn county. Up to this time neither McKinley or Tarpley had been brought with any degree of prominence into the case, but had become obscured in a way by the flood of startling developments that had come to the surface in other directions. With the advent of Montague, however, it was their day to shine.
After acknowledging an acquaintance with McKinley, Tarpley, Marie Ware and myself covering a period of five years, he testified that during the Fall of 1900 he had entered into a contract with McKinley and Tarpley whereby he was to receive $100 for each person who would file and make final proof on a homestead entry before him, it being understood that McKinley and Tarpley were to produce the entrymen; that they had caused 6 persons to so appear, who had filed and made final proof on claims in township 11-7; that he had received from McKinley and Tarpley all moneys to cover office fees for the filings and final proofs, and that he knew the entrymen appearing before him had not used their right names. This testimony related to the 12 entries in 11-7 concerning which I was familiar.
Montague then testified further that, a few weeks after the filing of the 6 entries referred to, he had entered into a private arrangement with McKinley, whereby it was planned to use fictitious names in securing additional claims in the now- famous township 11-7; that he furnished the necessary blanks to McKinley, who in turn caused them to be filled out in the most promiscuous fashion, and in this way the names of Mattie S. Lowell, William McLaughlin, A. O. Austin, J. R. Foster, James Wakefield, Christie E. Langham and James A. Taylor had been obtained to the blank homestead applications, the body thereof being afterwards filled in by the two conspirators, after which the documents were filed before Montague, as he had such authority by virtue of his office as Deputy Clerk.
After the bogus proofs had been made, all the papers were forwarded to the Roseburg Land Office, where final certificates were issued and returned to Montague. The latter testified also that himself and McKinley had caused deeds to be executed, conveying the claims to George A. Howe, a fictitious person, who in turn had relinquished the claims to the Government in lieu of other lands, which were sold by McKinley and Montague to innocent purchasers for their mutual benefit.
I was more than surprised to learn of the facts developed by the testimony of Deputy Clerk Montague, as this was the first intimation I had that he was familiar with the fraudulent character of our operations in township 11-7, McKinley never having mentioned to me the subject of his relations with the crooked official. It proved conclusively that McKinley, my old partner in wickedness, had given me the "double-cross," and when I turned to him for an explanation I found him the picture of despair.
Before Montague had gone on the stand, McKinley had been engaged in affable converse with those around him, but as soon as the denouement had taken place, I found him with his chin sunk so deep upon his waistcoat that it almost touched the lower buttons. He would not talk, and his reply to my inquiry as to what it all meant was merely a shake of the head, as he bowed still further forward to hide the torture depicted in his countenance.
As for Montague, it is safe to state that he presented the most abject appearance of any that had thus far been called to the witness stand. Remorseful and hollow-eyed, full of contrition, with blanching features and quivering voice, and eyes that constantly sought the floor, he had told the story of his downfall and shame, and it had become part of the history of the fraudulent transactions. He was not cross-examined, as our attorneys thought he had been punished enough.
W. F. Hammer, Clerk of Linn County during 1901-2, testified that he had no knowledge of the fact that his deputy was signing his name to papers other than those of a legitimate character. He corroborated Montague in regard to the signatures.
Miss Minda McCoy, stenographer in the office of the Linn County Abstract Company, who knew McKinley, remembered having furnished him with the abstract for the George A. Howe claims.
Colonel A. R. Greene was recalled, and related the incident connected with his interview with Dr. Frank H. Walgamot at the time he called upon the latter for the purpose of securing a statement from him relative to his homestead entry in township 11-7. The Colonel declared that Walgamot had informed him that one of his witnesses, Charles Burley, was in California, while the other, Joseph Wilson, was the newsboy on a Southern Pacific train, and investigation had proven the so-called "Joseph Wilson" to be none other than Thomas R. Wilson, chief clerk of the State Penitentiary at Salem.
When Colonel Greene was excused from the stand. Air. Heney called for Thomas R. Wilson, but it was found that he was not in the courtroom, and it was discovered later that John H. Hall, for some reason known only to himself, had excused the witness some two days previously. It was evident that Mr. Heney was considerably displeased on account of the absence of Wilson, but so far as McKinley and myself were concerned, we were perfectly indifferent about it, as we had seen and talked with Wilson but a few days before, and he assured us of his intention to "stand pat," no matter what the consequences might be.
Special Agent Edward W. Dixon, of the General Land Office (at present chief of Field Division No. 3, comprising the State of Washington and a portion of Idaho), corroborated Colonel Greene with reference to occurrences in Dr. Walgamot's office.
John P. Marshall, who claimed to be cashier of the Ainsworth National Bank, of Portland, and to be a handwriting expert of vast experience, was the next witness. By the aid of enlarged photographs of the signatures taken from the bonds, and filed with the Court as a standard, he compared the signatures of Emma L. Watson, Marie L. Ware, Horace G. McKinley, Dan W. Tarpley, Frank H. Walgamot and myself with those attached to the filing and final proof papers of the fraudulent homestead entries in township 11-7. This self-constituted "wizard of penmanship" declared that the signature of Joseph Wilson had been forged by Horace G. McKinley; that the names of George A. Graham and George L. Pettis had been forged by Marie L. Ware and Horace G. McKinley, who had used the handwriting of Miss Minda McCoy, of the Linn County Abstract Company, as a standard for operation; that the names of Emma Porter and Emma L. Watson, in his opinion, were written by the same hand; that George A. Howe's signature, as well as that of Thomas Wilkins and Joseph Wilson, had been written by McKinley, while the body of the testimony in the final proof of the Maud Witt entry had been written by myself.
Our attorneys literally made a monkey of Marshall under cross-examination, developing the fact, much to his discomfiture, that the self-styled expert of long experience, had been, at one time, connected with the Ainsworth National Bank, and had, indeed, been privileged, while in the bank's employ, to stand within the wicket of the cashier's department, much in the same capacity that the janitor or porter might have been there, but not, indeed, as cashier of the institution. He had, nevertheless, drawn upon his imagination to the extent that, because of having touched the garments of his superior, he believed that the raiment belonged 
properly to himself, and was pleased, therefore, to assume the title. This probably gave him the idea that he was a marvelous expert in handwriting; but as a matter of fact, a 10-year-old schoolboy forgot more every night on the subject than Marshall ever knew in his life. It was developed further, that this man had not even been in the bank's employ for something like six years, and that, in the meantime, he was playing baseball for a living and was connected with one of the local teams. It will be shown later to what extent his knowledge went as a handwriting expert.
J. F. Shearman, Deputy Clerk of the United States District Court, of Wichita, Kas., was also placed on the stand by the Government as a handwriting expert, and he proved to be a second edition of the preceding witness, so far as gleams of intelligence were concerned.
Shearman gave it as his opinion that the signatures of Maud Witt were made by Dan Tarpley, and that those of Joseph Wilkins, Thomas Wilson and George A. Howe were executed by McKinley; also that Emma L. Watson signed the name of Emma Porter, while Mattie S. Lowell's signatures were written by Marie L. Ware.
Counsel for the defense subjected Shearman to a g-ruelhng cross-examination, (hiring- which he became greatly confused, and at times experienced considerable difficulty in extricating" himself from perilous positions. Had we so desired, it could have been proven that the two handwriting experts of the Government were entirely incompetent, so far as their general deductions were concerned, but of course, we were in no position to discredit them at that time without exposing our own weakness. Now that the case is over, however, and there is no longer any necessity for concealing the identity of the real signers of the different fraudulent papers. I have no objections to making them public.
The signatures of Joseph Wilson and Thomas Wilkins were made by Thomas R. Wilson. who had made proof on two separate claims. Both the Government handwriting experts had attributed these signatures to Horace G. McKinley.
The name of George A. Graham was signed by Henry A. Young, a clerk under Secretary of State Kincaid, of Salem. Oregon. Young had filed on two claims under his own name and that of Graham.
George L. Pettis was signed by Walter Palmer, and not by McKinley, the experts to the contrary notwithstanding". Palmer was a logger.
The name of Zenas K. Watson was signed by Basil H. Wagner, a well-known resident of Salem.
George A. Howe's signature was made by Guy Huff, a bartender of Eugene. Oregon. Huff' was afterwards indicted for his connection with land frauds.
The signature of Maud Witt was by herself, and not by Tarpley, as contended by the experts for the Government. She was a resident of Portland at that time.
The name of Mattie S. Lowell was signed by Maud Coffin, a well-known young lady of Portland, who had no idea as to the purpose for which it was being used. Marie W'are had nothing whatever to do with the writing of this name.
The only signature, in fact, upon which these so-called experts rendered a correct opinion, was that of Emma Porter, which had been written by Emma L. Watson, who had made no attempt to disguise her handwriting.
Properly speaking, these handwriting experts were imposters of the rankest kind, and in their employment to pass judgment upon signatures, the Government was buncoed out of every cent paid them.
After Marshall and Shearman had given their testimony, the prosecution resumed the introduction of other evidence, and placed J. A. Wilson, manager of the Dennison News Company, on the stand to prove the identity of Thomas R. Wilson, who had been a newsboy in the employ of the witness at the time he filed the fraudulent claims.
John M. Keith, proprietor of a restaurant in Portland, was called to prove Walgamot's continuous residence in Portland during the period it was alleged he was living on his homestead claim in 11-7. He testified that Walgamot had been employed as a waiter in his establishment at one time.
L. Jacobs, of Springfield, Oregon, but formerly of Detroit. Oregon—better known as "Accommodating Jakey," because of his readiness to "accommodate a friend," as he used to put it, through the signing of any old paper that might be presented to him—was the next witness called to the stand.
He testified that he had been in the general merchandise business at Detroit for several years, and that he had been imposed upon by both Special Agent Loomis and Forest Superintendent Ormsby when they induced him to attach his signature to the false affidavits embodied in their respective reports.
During the cross-examination of "Accommodating Jakey," the Hon. A. C. Woodcock, of Eugene. Oregon—who had been paid $1,500 to assist in the defense of Miss Ware and Tarpley, and who, by the way, was regarded in the community where he resides as the greatest legal light since Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Demosthenes, or the rest of the bunch—aroused himself from his customary siesta, 
which had been continuous from the beginning of the trial, and ventured to say a thing or two. When Jacobs admitted having signed the papers for Loomis and Ormsby, the spell which had bound Attorney Woodcock seemed to have been suddenly broken, and he emerged from the dream long enough to ask the witness "if he was not aware that it was a serious offense to make a false affidavit." After which, he waited long enough to get the witness' reply, who stated that, "under the circumstances, he thought he was doing the right thing." When Woodcock, with the wisdom of a Solomon remarked, "that's all," and falling back into his chair, relapsed into everlasting silence, while great globules of condensed wisdom could be observed separating themselves from the triple expansion machinery of his mind. Walter W. Thackery, clerk of the Roseburg Land Office, identified the George K. Howe papers which had passed through the land office in the usual course of title.
Miss Maud Coffin, of Portland, was the next witness called, but for what purpose was not developed, as it was shown that she had no knowledge of the case at issue, and the Court sustained an objection from counsel for the defense.
U. Grant Scott testified to having known Frank H. Walgamot for the past 11 years, and that he had resided in Portland all that time. F. S. Skiff, a local dentist, testified that Walgamot had studied dentistry in his office, but could not say whether or not he had lived in Portland after discontinuing with him.
The last witness of the day was Miss M. A. Aiken, who was called to prove Walgamot's continuous residence in the city, as he had lived at her house.
On Friday morning, December 2, J. A. W. Heidecke, the star witness of the trial, was placed on the stand by the Government. He testified to a residence of several years at Detroit, and claimed to have assisted in making the Government survey of township 11-7; that he knew all the settlers thereabouts, but had never seen or heard of any of the 12 entrymen involved in the case at issue; that he knew Dan W. Tarpley, S. A. D. Puter and Horace G. McKinley; that Tarpley prevailed upon him to go to Albany, where he was introduced to Puter, who employed him to ascertain, if possible, the source of the complaint relative to the fraudulent homestead entries in township 11-7; that he had accepted this employment, but had failed to secure the desired information; that he met Puter again at Albany by appointment, agreeing upon this occasion to show Special Agent Loomis over certain lands in Township 11-7 and represent them as being the claims he had been ordered to investigate, and that Puter had paid him $110 in gold for the service, and had promised him $250 more when the titles were perfected; that he met Loomis according to appointment, and escorted him to the mountains, where he pointed out certain cabins and improvements and represented to the Special Agent that they belonged to the different homesteads forming the basis for the investigation, when, as a matter of fact, they were miles away, and that Loomis did not know the difference; that the latter met with an accident while in the woods, and was unable to further proceed with the farcical inspection, suggesting that they had gone far enough. The following is a verbatim copy of the testimony at this point from the Court stenographer's notes:
Question (by Mr. Heney): "What happened when you got back to camp?"
Heidecke: "Well, I took the horses and staked 'em out on the grass so they couldn't get away, and came into the house on the Peaslee place, where we were staying, and I says to him, 'are you going to examine any more of those claims?' 'Why,' he says, 'you have saw Puter, ain't you?
"I says 'yes, I seen Puter, and I don't like that very well.'
"'Oh,' he says, 'mum's the word! I am a Special Agent, and whatever reports I make out, the Government will not doubt me. Everything will be all right. "And then I says. 'well, here's all those rangers and Ormsby. " 'Oh,' he says, 'Ormsby has no kick coming!'
So I says, 'I guess I will go fishing then.' and when I went out he took out a map, and he says, 'where would you put those cabins? "So I just sat down there and marked around where the cabins would be, and then I went fishing."
Continuing, the witness said in substance:
"The next day we returned to Detroit, and I accompanied the Special Agent to the rear of Jacobs' store, where the affidavits were drafted by Loomis, as he objected to doing so in the main room of the store on account of so many customers being there. After fixing up a set of affidavits for each of the 12 entries, Loomis obtained signatures thereto from L. Jacobs, proprietor of the store, and several others of the townspeople present. I also signed a set for each claim, and induced the two Thomas brothers to do likewise, paying them $10 apiece for their trouble. Altogether Loomis paid me $15 for my two days' work for him in the woods. This was irrespective of the amount I received from Puter.
"My next experience with the deal," declared Heidecke, "was when I met Captain S. B. Ormsby at Albany in accordance with arrangements that had already been made with Puter. Ormsby informed me that the investigation made by Loomis in 11-7 had to be done all over, and suggested that I go with him as a guide. Shortly thereafter I met Ormsby and Tarpley at Detroit, and was paid 
$20 by Tarpley to accompany Ormsby into the mountains. At the same time Tarpley flashed a draft for $250 in my face which was made payable to me, and which Tarpley said would be turned over to me as soon as patents issued on the 12 claims."
This draft was then introduced in evidence by Heney, and proved to be a certificate of deposit for $250 made in the name of Emma L. Watson at the Wells-Fargo Bank in Portland. It was made payable to Heidecke by Mrs. Watson, and also bore the signature of Heidecke as payee.
"The day after Ormsby arrived at Detroit," continued Heidecke, "we started for the mountains, but I had not proceeded far when I pretended to be sick, and returned to Detroit, leaving the Captain in the lurch. He did not stay out very long, either, but came back to Detroit on the following day and asked me to sign a lot of affidavits testifying to the residence, improvements, etc., on the 12 claims.
"At first I declined to do so, but when Ormsby suggested that there was a great deal of timber being illegally cut on Government lands, and that the Forestry Department might require my services in protecting the reservation from devastations of this character, I lost no time in taking the hint and signing a complete set of the affidavits. Later Ormsby secured the affidavits of Jacobs and several others in Detroit. He kept his word in reference to getting me appointed as a forst ranger, which position I held until October 15, 1902, when I was discharged."
Heidecke resumed his testimony by relating all that occurred about two years later when Edward W. Dixon, at that time a Special Agent, called upon him at Detroit and interviewed him relative to the 12 homestead claims in township 11-7. Dixon had been detailed by the General Land Office to make an investigation in search of evidence that could be made the basis for indictments by the Federal Grand Jury, and in the course of his duty, read over some of the affidavits that Heidecke had signed.
The mountaineer declared that the statements therein contained were true and correct in every particular, as he was well acquainted with the 12 homesteaders. Shortly thereafter he was subpoenaed to appear before the United States Grand Jury, at Portland, but before doing so, sought out Captain Ormsby, at Salem, and consulted with him relative to the situation. He was deliberating whether or not to ignore the subpoena altogether and skip out, but Ormsby advised him not to do so, claiming there was no danger as there was no power on earth could break the two reports, and for him to stand pat, at the same time suggesting that he see Dan Tarpley about the matter before taking any further action.
Heidecke called upon Tarpley, as advised by Forest Superintendent Ormsby, and was furnished with certain data which he was to commit to memory for use before the Grand Jury. He wrote down in his memorandum book that Maud Witt was light, and of medium height, while Nellie Backus was heavy and dark; in fact, he had descriptions covering each person who had made the homestead filings. Somehow or other his memory went back on him when he faced the inquisitorial body, and after holding out for a time, he finally went all to pieces and told everything, making a complete confession of his part in the fraudulent transaction. Judge Thomas O'Day, of counsel for the defense, took Heidecke in hand and subjected him to an excruciating cross-examination, and one which, in all truth, the witness will have good reason to remember for the remainder of his natural life.
"Heidecke, you self-confessed perjurer," thundered the counsel, "you, who have come here and had the audacity to declare that you accepted this money, and knew at the time that you were lending yourself to the commission of a crime, yet wavered not, and after benefiting thereby, and with no offer made to refund your ill gotten gain, state to this court and jury that you have repented, and, in the hope of saving your cowardly self, you would make believe that this thing was forced upon you?"
Heidecke, like Montague, was on the verge of collapse, and when counsel for the prosecution came to his assistance, it reached him none too soon, for he was indeed a sorry plight.
Frank O'Brien, clerk of the St. Charles Hotel at Albany, and Charles Pfeifer, of the Revere House, of the same city, both identified the signatures of McKinley, Tarpley, Loomis. Heidecke and myself from the registers of their respective hotels, at different times when those named had stopped there.
Ira P. Hower, of Eugene, testified to having loaned McKinley $2,100 on the George A. Howe claims. Through this witness the title to the different fraudulent tracts was traced from McKinley to N. Haskell Withee, of La Crosse, Wis. The next morning this witness was recalled and told how he had been accustomed to keeping the Howe deeds in a certain bureau drawer at his residence with other valuable papers, but that in searching for the documents a few days previously, the discovery was made that they had "mysteriously" disappeared. L. E. Bean, Hower's attorney, corroborated his client relative to the search for the missing deeds. 
P. E. Snodgrass, Cashier of the First National Bank, of Eugene, told about the transaction between Hower and McKinley, at which time the George A. Howe claims were given as security for the loan. Snodgrass also related the substance of a conversation occurring between himself and McKinley, wherein the latter's representations regarding the value of the lands was made the basis for the loan of $2100.
At this point Mr. Heney announced that the Government rested its case. He had two more witnesses, he said, both of whom were absent, George Sorenson being reported at Duluth, Wis., while Thomas R. Wilson, the Walgamot witness, was alleged to be too ill to attend the Court proceedings.
Counsel for the defense held a brief consultation as soon as the prosecution rested, after which it was announced that they would introduce no evidence in the case. This move was a great surprise to everybody, as it had been confidently expected that a vigorous defense would be made, quite an array of witnesses having been summoned for that purpose.
At the beginning of the trial, the defense had entered the Court room fully confident that a complete line of defense would be established against anything the Government might present; but as the case progressed, however, it soon became apparent that Montague and Heidecke had turned traitors, which presented a different phase of the situation, with the result that we found ourselves without a peg to stand on, and were obliged in consequence to pin our faith to the belief that whatever judgment of conviction the jury might return could be overcome on appeal to the higher Court.
At the afternoon session, just before the commencement of arguments, the second great surprise of the day occurred when Claude Strahan, a local attorney, arose and said:
"I appear for Defendant Frank H. Walgamot, and at this time I desire to withdraw his plea of not guilty, and substitute therefor a plea of guilty!"
"Is that your wish, Mr. Walgamot?" inquired Judge Bellinger, addressing the alleged trapper.
The defendant arose slowly to his feet with downcast eyes. He did not want to see his fellow-defendants, nor gaze into the eyes of the Court or spectators. Shamefaced and crestfallen, he had lingered until the last minute in the hope that something might develop to turn the tide. But he realized that there was no escape, hence was ready to beg for that mercy which the other defendants, in their loyalty to each other, had scorned to accept.
"I do," he said, with quivering voice.
"What is your plea? asked the Court.
"Guilty!" he whispered, as he sank temporarily into his seat, and then slunk from the Court room under cover of the further proceedings, and was seen no more. It is quite evident that Walgamot's plea came at an opportune moment, as he has never been sentenced, and there is not much likelihood that he will ever be called upon to face any further punishment for his misdeeds.
The sensational incidents of this episode had hardly died away when Mr. Heney arose and produced one of even greater magnitude.
"Your Honor," he said, addressing the Court; "I have long followed the rule in prosecuting not to ask a jury to return a verdict of conviction in a case where I could not conscientiously go into the juryroom and vote the same way myself. I feel that the Government has failed to make out a case against Marie Ware under the terms of this particular indictment, and have therefore to request
that the jury be instructed to acquit her of" this charge." Judge Bellinger assured Mr. Heney that he felt the same way in regard to Miss Ware's complicity in the 11-7 frauds, and indicated an intention of instructing the jury in accordance with this view of the situation.
United States Attorney John H. Hall made the opening argument for the government in a speech that consumed several hours. It was not regarded as much of an effort from an argumentative standpoint, the main features being a facetious fling at the romantic ideas involved, when the bachelor element among the bogus entrymen were supposed to soften the asperities of their isolated existence by paying alternate court to "Nellie Backus," "Emma Porter," and "Maud Witt," while the poor girls were hoeing potatoes out in the snow during the long hours of the Wintry nights.
My brother, L. F. Puter, of Eureka, Cal., followed the Government attorney, in an address that was listened to with close attention by the jury, although it was plainly apparent from the outset that no power on earth could stem the current of their conviction that we were guilty.
Probably the most impressive scene of the whole trial was witnessed after my brother had finished, and Judge Thomas O'Day had resumed his closing appeal for the defendants. Naturally of commanding presence, the Judge was never more so than on this occasion, as with stately tread, after the noon recess, he took a position directly in front of the jury. Opening a large volume of the Holy Bible, and spreading it before him on a pedestal that had been improvised for the occasion, he commenced to read from the VIII Chapter of St. John:
"Jesus went into the Mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
"And the Scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they said unto him, 'Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned; .but what sayest thou?' "
"This they said, tempting him. that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. "And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last; and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, 'Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? "She said, 'No man. Lord.' And Jesus said unto her, 'Neither do I condemn thee; Go, and sin no more.'"
Turning his pockets inside out. Judge O'Day faced the Government attorneys and shouted in stentorian tones:
"I carry no rocks with me, I don't see any coming from the other side!"
Taking the scriptural injunction as a text, Judge O'Day proceeded to deliver one of the most effective sermons ever listened to from any pulpit. His reading of the quotation, coupled as it was with so many dramatic features, produced a profound impression upon jury and audience alike. The application was apparent to all. Outside attempts had been made during the progress of the trial to connect the female defendants in some way with certain scandalous rumors, and the action of Judge O'Day was taken as a reply to these vague and senseless insinuations.
Of splendid physique and endowed with deep, penetrating voice, the Judge held the closest attention of the entire court room, and a death like stillness pervaded the atmosphere while he was making his eloquent appeal for mercy. That was all it could be called, as we were forced to throw ourselves at the feet of the jurymen by reason of having absolutely no case.Whatever effect the words of our counsel may have produced was quickly dispelled when Mr. Heney began the closing address for the Government. He summed up the evidence in the most convincing manner possible, and it is doubtful if the prosecutor exists who is gifted with such wonderful powers of concentration when it comes to analyzing the testimony in a case. His efforts stamped him at once as a person of rare legal ability, and his reputation has since been greatly enhanced.
Heney's speech occupied the entire morning session of Court, so that at 2 o'clock on the afternoon of December 6, 1904, Judge Bellinger began reading- his instructions to the jury. They were fair and impartial throughout, as were practically all the rulings during the trial, and at 2:15 P. M. our fates were in the hands of the twelve men, good and true.
After being out about forty minutes, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against all the defendants with the exception of Marie Ware, whose acquittal had been recommended by Mr. Heney; and Frank H. Walgamot, who had entered a plea of guilty shortly before the case was submitted. The jury was composed as follows:
A. Blevins (foreman) farmer, Albany, Linn County; E. A. Griffin, stockman, Dufur, Wasco County; John B. Bridges, contractor, Portland, Multnomah County; J. L. Howard, stockraiser. Heppner, Morrow County: J. L. Barnhouse, stockraiser. Wheeler County; G. H. Newell, farmer, Lakeview, Lake County: A. E. Austin, general merchandise, Woodburn, Marion County; J. C. Weatherly, farmer, Wallowa County; C. H. Duncan, farmer. Baker County; V. H. Dilley, contractor and builder, Benton County; I. M. Foster, farmer, Clatsop County, and Richard Waugh, stockman, Pendleton, Umatilla County.
