In the Report of the Public Lands Commission published 1905, you will find this discreet description of land fraud beginning on page v:
Under the act of June 3, 1878, generally known as the timber and stone act, there has lately been an unusual increase in the number of entries, which can not be accounted for by an increase in the demands of commerce or by any unusual settlement of the localities in which the greater part of the entries were made. … The law was enacted to meet the demands of settlers, miners, and others for timber and stone for building, mining, and other purposes. There is much evidence, however, going to show that many entries have been made for purposes not contemplated by Congress. … The Commission believes that Congress did not intend that this law should be used for the acquisition of large tracts of valuable timber land by individuals or corporations, but it has been used for such purposes. … [M]any of these entries were made by nonresidents of the State in which the land is situated, who could not use the land nor the timber upon it themselves, and it is apparent that they were made for speculative purposes and will eventually follow the course made by many previous similar entries and become part of some large timber holding.1
The Timber and Stone Act was supposed to provide settlers with timber and stone from lands neighboring their claims, offering such lands not suitable for farming for sale in tracts sized up to 160 acres at $2.50 an acre.
Misappropriating timber lands was big business in the Pacific Northwest, involving pillars of the community like Senator John H. Mitchell, and Representatives John Williamson and Binger Hermann, who assisted investors in finding timber lands they might find suitable, whether or not they were entitled to such lands under the Timber and Stone Act.
Under Theodore Roosevelt, agents of the Secret Service—among them, William “Billy” Burns, who would later become a celebrity private detective and be disgraced as director of the Bureau of Investigation for involvement with the Teapot Dome scandal—worked with prosecutor Francis Heney to bring cases against the fraudsters. They obtained a variety of convictions, including Williamson and Mitchell (though not Hermann).
In 1912, applications for pardon in some of the convictions came before the Justice Department headed by George Wickersham for President William Howard Taft. And Taft did indeed issue some pardons, most notably to one Willard Jones:
… [I]t is perfectly clear that his conviction was effected by the most barefaced and unfair use of all the machinery for drawing a jury that has been disclosed to me in all my experience in the Federal court. It gives sufficient reason to justify the pardon of Mr. Jones, as well as the condemnation of the methods of Mr. Heney and Mr. Burns. …
Sincerely yours,
Wm. H. Taft
Now, astute readers will have thought, as indeed Congressman Israel Foster mildly says here, “1912 was the year there was quite a contest between Taft and Roosevelt, was there not?”
His interlocutor rather hilariously replies, “I do not recall.” Indeed, it was an unprecedentedly and unrepeatedly epic contest. And Theodore Roosevelt, bitter to the last about its outcome, wrote in his Autobiography,
One [sic] of the most conspicuous of the men whom they had succeeded in convicting was pardoned by President Taft—in spite of the fact that the presiding Judge, Judge Hunt, had held that the evidence amply warranted the conviction, and had sentenced the man to imprisonment. As was natural, the one hundred and forty-six land-fraud defendants in oregon, who included the foremost machine political leaders in the State, furnished the backbone of the opposition to me in the Presidential contest of 1912. … [H]alf of the delegates elected from Oregon under instructions to vote for me, sided with my opponents in the National Convention—and as regards some of them I became convinced that the mainspring of their motive lay in the intrigue for securing the pardon of certain of the men whose conviction Heney had secured.
In fact, the Republican National Convention was held just the week after Jones’s pardon—though Taft’s review of the cases extended well into late 1912.
So here’s the mystery: was Roosevelt’s belief that the pardons were politically motivated a correct one? On Roosevelt’s side, the timing is interesting. And most of the time I side with the sentiment of Thomas Gore—”I much prefer the strenuosity of Roosevelt to the sinuosity of Taft”—even if I have a hard time associating that much adiposity with a characteristic sinuosity.
On Taft’s side, Billy Burns was not known for observing the niceties when dealing with juries. And generally, one suspects Taft took the law pretty seriously. Still, you never can tell.
Or maybe you can: does someone know all about this, and I just haven’t seen it?
1Report of the Public Lands Commission with appendix. Serial Set vol. no. 4766, session vol. no. 4. 58th Congress, 3rd session. S.Doc 189.
See also John Messing, “Public Lands, Politics, and Progressives: The Oregon Land Fraud Trials, 1903-1910,” Pacific Historical Review 35, no. 1 (February 1966):35-66.
12 comments
August 28, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Vance
in spite of the fact that the presiding Judge, Judge Hunt, had held that the evidence amply warranted the conviction
Note that he doesn’t say “in spite of the fact that an impartially chosen jury had held” this.
August 28, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Mr Punch
I haven’t looked at this for decades, but I seem to recall that some delegates pledged to TR did defect. Oregon was in the minority of states that had a primary in 1912; Taft was nominated, I believe, despite losing every primary — and in Oregon, I’m quite sure, he finished behind LaFollette as well as Roosevelt.
August 28, 2009 at 1:05 pm
eric
Yeah: Vance, I think TR’s phrasing is highly suspicious throughout; Mr P, I’m not doubting the fact of the defection, I’m just wondering if there’s any real basis for thinking the pardons political rather than legitimately grounded.
August 29, 2009 at 8:36 am
Ben Ross
Does anyone understand how this investigation is related to the Interior Department investigation of Senator Warren of Wyoming, who was accused of fencing off public lands? The Warren investigation was aired in a 1913 congressional investigation, after the Democrats had control of the House. The House special committee report on Unlawful Fencing and Inclosure of Certain Public Lands (available on Google books) includes extensive correspondence.
Interior Secretary Hitchcock sent inspector Edward Linnen to investigate. Warren wrote that Linnen, on his arrival under an assumed name, immediately contacted Democratic newspapers and then “conveyed the information to those whom he sought to obtain affidavits from… that he was the man who obtained the conviction of Senator Mitchell…” [p. 19]
Roosevelt rejected the accusations – focusing, however, not on the substance of Linnen’s report but on a synopsis of newspaper clippings that was included as an attachment. He wrote to Hitchcock calling it a “farrago of loose accusation” that “deeply discredits the worth and judgment of Inspector Linnen.” [p. 33]
The Justice Department decided to take no action against Warren. Linnen, however, kept his job. And U.S. Attorney Burke, who Linnen accused of refusing to enforce the laws against fraudulent seizure of public lands, was not reappointed.
August 29, 2009 at 3:20 pm
TheBrucolac
Couldn’t the phrasing questioned by Vance refer to a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict? It would go like this: The jury convicts. The defense then moves for the judge to hold that in light of the evidence, no reasonable juror could have voted to convict; ie, asks the judge to hold that the jury was just wrong. It’s not common, but it is a legit motion. /1. In turning down such a motion, the judge would hold just as Roosevelt writes: that there was, in fact, plenty of evidence to support the conviction.
Though I know nothing of the facts here, this scenario actually makes sense under the circumstances as described. The fraudsters, believing the jury to be biased or tampered-with, may very well make such a motion, hoping to test the evidence in front of the judge, whom Billy Burns might not have reached. Roosevelt, by citing the judge, could be saying “Even if the jury was rigged against the defendants, the verdict is still creditable– the judge said so!”
/1 At least it is a legit motion in civil cases. I bet it, or some analog, works in a criminal case.
August 30, 2009 at 5:57 pm
andrew
For what it’s worth, Lincoln Steffens in his autobiography claims that Burns had to manipulate the jury in order to make it impartial. I can pull the full quote if you want; it’s in the brief chapter on timber frauds in Oregon (appropriately enough). Steffens must have covered the scandal for a magazine or newspaper, but I don’t know where he would have published it. At that point I don’t think he was with McClure’s anymore.
August 31, 2009 at 12:28 pm
herbert browne
*his conviction was effected by the most barefaced and unfair use of all the machinery for drawing a jury* NOT “affected”
So, Taft was saying that the conviction WAS THE RESULT of the “barefaced & unfair”- but not necessarily ILLEGAL- “machinery” that Burns allegedly put in motion… and That was grounds for a pardon? Seems likely that there was pressure unrelated to actual issues at hand, from the looks (& tone) of the transcript from the House Committee.
(Maybe Jones was “too big to fail,” in some relational milieu…) ^..^
August 31, 2009 at 3:08 pm
serofriend
NOT “affected
Looks and tone? Perhaps application of affect is appropriate for this analysis as political theory.
August 31, 2009 at 8:46 pm
herbert browne
Re “affect”–
*Book overview
The main purpose of this monograph is to bring together in one place the lastest observations, data, and concepts from the developmental branches of psychoanalysis and neurobiology. For researchers and students in both disciplines*
I like a monograph that’s firstest with the lastest… thanks, bro.
^..^
August 31, 2009 at 9:06 pm
serofriend
the lastest observations, data, and concepts
The authors are obviously attempting to reconstruct a Kantian hierarchy.
September 1, 2009 at 12:56 pm
eric
Lincoln Steffens in his autobiography claims that Burns had to manipulate the jury in order to make it impartial.
Yes, I’ve read this somewhere else. I’m not sure I quite buy that.
September 1, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Gary Farber
“William ‘Billy’ Burns, who would later become a celebrity private detective”
I’ve long been amused that the William J. Burns National Detective Agency evolved into Burns International Security Services, eventually became what it is today, “subsidiary of the Borg-Warner Security Corporation,”, which just seems too perfect a name.
Resistance is futile.