MOORE AND REEVES
Alarmed at the indignation which this brutal deed had enkindled in the
community, Moore and Reeves, at a late hour the same night, fled on foot
in the direction of Rattlesnake. They were preceded by Plummer, who it
was supposed had gone to provide means for their protection. He,
however, afterwards asserted that he left through fear that in the
momentary excitement the people would hang him for shooting Cleveland.
A mass meeting of the citizens was held the next morning, and a cordon
of guards appointed to prevent the escape of the ruffians. When it was
discovered that they had gone, on a call for volunteers to pursue them,
Messrs. Lear, Higgins, Rockwell, and Davenport immediately followed on
their track. The weather was intensely cold. The route of the pursuers
lay over a lofty mountain range covered with snow to a great depth.
After riding as rapidly as possible, they came up with the fugitives at
a distance of twelve miles from town. They had taken refuge in a dense
thicket of willows on the bank of the Rattlesnake. Being challenged to
surrender, they peremptorily refused. Pointing their pistols with
well-directed aim at the approaching party, and interlarding their
discourse with a flood of oaths, they ordered them to advance no farther
on peril of their lives. The advantage was on the side of the robbers,
and they could easily have shot down every one of their pursuers. A
parley ensued. The position of both parties was fully discussed. The
conviction that it was equally impossible for the pursuers to effect a
capture, and for the ruffians to escape such a pursuit as would be made
if they did not return, induced the latter to agree to a surrender, upon
the express condition that they should be tried by a jury. The pursuing
party gave a ready assent to this arrangement, and the fugitives
returned in their custody to town.
Plummer was put upon his trial immediately. While that was progressing a
messenger was sent to Godfrey’s Cañon, ten miles distant, to summon Mr.
Godfrey and the writer, who, with others, were erecting a saw-mill
there. Before our arrival at midnight, Plummer was acquitted, no doubt
being entertained, on presentation of the evidence, that he had killed
Cleveland in self-defence. Several witnesses testified that they had on
various occasions heard Cleveland threaten to shoot Plummer on sight.
At a late hour the people separated with the purpose of assembling for
the trial of Moore, Reeves, and Mitchell early the next morning. Day
broke clear and cold. All work was suspended in the gulch, stores and
hotels were abandoned, and the entire population, numbering at least
four hundred persons, assembled in and about the large log building
which had been designated as the place of trial. Every man was armed,
some with rifles and shotguns, others with pistols and knives. The
friends of the prisoners gave free utterance to threats, which they
accompanied with much profane assumption of superior power and many
defiant demonstrations. Pistols were flourished and discharged, oaths
and epithets freely bestowed upon the citizens, and whatever vehemence
of gesture and expression could do to intimidate the people, was
adopted. Amid all this bluster it was apparent from the first that the
current of popular opinion set strongly against the prisoners. There was
an air of quiet determination manifested in every movement preparatory
for the trial. The citizens were ready for an outbreak, and the least
indication in that direction would have been the signal for a bloody and
decisive battle. It is not improbable that an attempt at rescue was
prevented by the presence of the overpowering force of armed and
indignant citizens.
The efforts of the roughs to suppress the trial only increased the
indignation of the people, and after electing a temporary chairman, a
motion was made that the accused be tried by a miners’ court. This form
of tribunal grew out of the necessities of mining life in the mountains.
It originated in the early days of California, when the country was
destitute of courts and law, and still exists in inchoate mining
communities as a witness to the fairness and honesty of American
character. It is now the general custom among the property holders of a
mining camp, as the first step towards organization, to elect a
president or judge, who is to act as the judicial officer of the
district. He has both civil and criminal jurisdiction. All questions
affecting the rights of property, and all infractions of the peace, are
tried before him. When complaint is made to him, it is his duty to
appoint the time and place of trial in written notices which contain a
brief statement of the matter in controversy, and are posted in
conspicuous places throughout the camp. The miners assemble in force to
attend the trial. The witnesses are examined, either by attorneys or by
the parties interested, and when the evidence is closed the judge states
the question at issue, desiring all in favor of the plaintiff to
separate from the crowd in attendance until they can be counted, or to
signify by a vote of “aye” their approval of his claim. The same forms
are observed in the decision of a criminal case. The decision is
announced by the judge and entered upon his record. Where the punishment
is death, the criminal is generally allowed one hour to arrange his
business and prepare for death; when it is banishment, a few hours are
given him to leave the camp. If he neglects to comply with the sentence
he is in danger of being summarily executed. Where the rights of parties
are settled by the court, and the defeated party shows any resistance to
the decision, it is the duty of the court, if necessary, with the strong
hand to enforce it. The court is composed of the entire population. To
guard against mistakes, the party in defeat, in all cases, has the right
to demand a second vote.
The progress of a trial in one of these courts is entirely practical.
Often the miners announce at the commencement that the court must close
at a certain hour. Cross-examinations are generally prohibited, and if
lawyers are employed, it is with the understanding that they shall make
no long arguments. Each party and their respective witnesses give their
evidence in a plain, straightforward manner, and if any of the listeners
desire information on a given point in the testimony they request the
person acting as attorney to ask such questions as are necessary to
obtain it. The decisions of these tribunals are seldom wrong, and are
always enforced in good faith. They have many advantages in mining
regions over courts at law. None of the tedious incidents of pleading,
adjournment, amendment, demurrer, etc., which at law so often consume
the time of litigants and put them to unnecessary expense, belong to a
miners’ court.
The miners themselves have little time to spare, and hence these courts
are held on Sunday in all cases where the exigency is not immediate.
They are held in the open air. Whenever, from any seemingly unnecessary
cause, their investigations are prolonged, as by argumentative display,
there are always those present who, by the command “Dry up,” “No
spread-eagle talk,” force them to a close.
On one occasion at Blackfoot, in Montana, a rough was on trial for
crimes which endangered his life. A motion had been made by his counsel
that his life be spared on condition that he would leave the gulch in
fifteen minutes,—which motion was carried by a small majority. In
anticipation of this favorable result his friends had provided a mule to
expedite his departure. The presiding miners’ judge announced to him the
condition of his freedom from death. Fearful that a reconsideration
might be demanded, the moment he was released he vaulted into the
saddle, and looking around upon the crowd exclaimed, “Fifteen minutes!
Gentlemen, if this mule doesn’t buck, five will do!” and lashing the
sides of the animal he disappeared at double-quick amid the shouts and
laughter of the crowd.
It was a trial by this court that the murderers dreaded, and to escape
which they made a trial by jury the condition of their surrender. When
the motion was made to substitute the miners’ court it fell into their
midst like a thunderbolt. They regarded a trial by the mass as certain
of conviction as a trial by jury would be of acquittal, not because the
latter would be any less likely than the former to perceive their guilt,
but because fear of personal consequences would prevent them from
declaring it. Men whose identity was lost in a crowd would do that
which, if they were known, would mark them as victims for future
assassination. The friends of the prisoners showed the estimation in
which they regarded this consideration when they openly threatened with
death every individual who participated in the trial. They anticipated
that, as none would dare in defiance of this threat to act upon a jury,
all proceedings would be suppressed, thus renewing the license for their
continued depredations.
The statement of the motion by the chairman was the signal for a violent
commotion among the roughs. One long howl of profanity, mingled with the
most diabolical threats and repeated discharge of pistols, filled the
room. Many shots were turned from their deadly aim by timely hands and
discharged into the ceiling. Knives were drawn and flourished in the
faces of prominent citizens, accompanied with threats of death in case
the motion prevailed. The scene was fearful in the extreme. The miners
in different parts of the crowd could be seen getting their guns and
pistols ready for the collision which at one stage of the tumult it
seemed impossible to avoid. At length the repeated cries of the chairman
for order, and the earnest voices of several persons who were desirous
of discussing the proposition, allayed the noise and confusion, so that
they could be heard. The guilt of the prisoners was so palpable that the
people deemed any sort of a trial which would not speedily terminate in
their condemnation a farce. A very large majority were in favor of a
miners’ court, because they foresaw that any other form of trial
afforded opportunity for escape. Three hours were spent in determining
the question. Many short, emphatic arguments were made. In the meantime
the disturbance made by the roughs waxed and waned to suit the different
stages of the discussion. Shots at one moment and shouts at another
betrayed their approval or disapproval of the sentiments of the speaker.
I had from the first made myself offensive to my own immediate friends
and intimates by pertinaciously claiming for the prisoners a trial by
jury, and mounting a bench I embraced an early opportunity to give, in a
few pointed words addressed to the assembled miners, my views. I
reminded them of the constitutional provision which secured to every one
accused of crime a trial by jury. It was a law of the land, as
applicable on this as on any other occasion. The men were probably
guilty; if so, the fact should be proved; if not, they had the right by
law, on proving it, to an acquittal. Moreover, they had surrendered at a
time when they could not have been captured, upon the express condition
that they should be tried by jury. I asked, “Shall we ignore the
agreement made with them by our officers?” I concluded by offering a
motion that they be tried by a jury. It was negatived by three to one.
Immediately a cry rose in the crowd, “Hang them at once”; this was
followed by other cries of “String ’em up,” “To the scaffold with ’em.”
Pistols were drawn and flourished more freely than before, and many
personal collisions, resulting in bloody noses, black eyes, and raw
heads, took place in all parts of the room. Another hour was spent in
discussion, and finally by a bare majority it was agreed to give the
prisoners the benefit of a trial by jury.
It is impossible to portray with accuracy of detail the fearful effects
of passion which were exhibited by the assembly while this question was
being determined. On a limited scale it could not have been unlike some
of the riotous gatherings in Paris in the days of the first revolution.
It wanted numbers, it wanted the magnificent surroundings of those
scenes, but as an exhibition of the passions of depraved men, when
inflamed with anger, drink, and vengeance, it could not have been
greatly surpassed by them.
Order at length being restored, a portion of the room was enclosed with
scantling, for the accommodation of the Court and jury. J. F. Hoyt was
elected Judge, Hank Crawford, sheriff, and George Copley, prosecutor.
The jury was next chosen by a vote of the people. My own appointment on
the jury was urged by the roughs, as a compliment for my efforts to
obtain for them a jury trial. I was regarded by them as a friend, and
they hoped confidently for acquittal through my influence.
At first it was determined that the examination of the witnesses for
both prosecution and defence should be conducted by George Copley, the
prosecutor, but upon an appeal for justice in behalf of the prisoners it
was at length decided by a small majority that the accused should be
allowed the assistance of counsel, with the understanding that all the
questions of their counsel were first to be submitted to the prosecutor.
Hon. Wm. C. Rheem was chosen to defend the prisoners, and there were
many threats of violence toward him for consenting to conduct the
defence. It was agreed that the arguments to be made on either side
should be brief, and that the trials should be urged to their conclusion
with all possible expedition. Mr. Rheem’s ability as a lawyer was
unquestioned,—which fact furnished to those who objected to a jury trial
their principal reason for opposing his employment as counsel for the
prisoners. As the extent of Mitchell’s criminality was uncertain, he was
allowed a separate trial. His case was first brought under examination.
It appeared in evidence that he had accompanied Moore and Reeves on
their second murderous visit to the tepee, but he was able to show that
he had not once fired his gun, and consequently could not be guilty of
murder. His trial was soon terminated. The jury recommended that he
should be immediately banished from the gulch.
The guilt of Moore and Reeves was fully established. This result was
foreseen by their friends; and while the trial was in progress they
sought by threats and ferocious gesticulations to intimidate the jury.
Gathering around the side of the enclosure occupied by the jury, they
kept up a continued conversation, the purport of which was that no
member of that court or jury would live a month if they dared to find
the prisoners guilty. Occasionally, their anger waxing hot, they would
draw their pistols and knives, and brandishing them in the faces of the
jurymen, utter filthy epithets, and bid them beware of their verdict.
Crawford was the object of their especial hate. Their abusive assaults
upon him and threats were so frequent and violent that at one time he
tendered his resignation and refused to serve, but upon the promise of
his friends to stand by and protect him he retained his position. The
case was given to the jury at about seven o’clock in the evening. A
friend of the prisoners in the court-room nominated me as foreman, but
upon my refusal to serve under that nomination I afterwards received the
appointment by a vote of my fellow-jurymen.
[Illustration:
JUDGE J. F. HOYT
_Miners’ Judge at trial of Moore and Reeves_
]
The jury were occupied in their deliberations until after midnight. No
doubt was entertained, from the first, of the guilt of the prisoners,
but the exciting question was whether they could afford to declare it.
They all felt that to do so would be to announce their own death
sentence. They knew that the friends of the prisoners fully intended to
have life for life. They had sworn it. One of the jurymen said that the
prisoners ought never to have been tried by a jury, but in a miners’
court, that he should not be governed in his decision by the merits of
the case, but that, as he had a family in the States to whom his
obligations were greater than to that community, he should have to vote
for acquittal. After much conversation of this sort, which only served
to intensify the fears of the jurymen, a vote was taken which resulted
as follows: not guilty, 11; guilty, 1; myself, the supposed friend of
the roughs, being the only one in favor of the death penalty. It was
apparent that further deliberation would not change this decision, and
the jury compromised by agreeing to a sentence of banishment, and a
confiscation of the property of the prisoners for the benefit of those
they had wounded.
The court met the ensuing morning, when the verdict, under seal, was
handed to the judge. He opened and returned it to the foreman, with a
request that he read it aloud. An expression of blank astonishment sat
upon the face of every person in the room, which was followed by open
demonstrations of general dissatisfaction, by all but the roughs, who,
accustomed to outrages and long immunity, hailed it as a fresh
concession to their bloody and lawless authority.
Mitchell returned to Bannack after a few days’ absence, which was
seemingly regarded as a full expiation of his sentence. A miners’ court
met soon after his return, and in view of the fact that his sentence was
not enforced, revoked the sentence of Moore and Reeves, who again
rejoined their fellow-miscreants. Thus the first scene in the drama,
which had been ushered in by such a bloody prologue, terminated in the
broadest farce.
The trial of Moore and Reeves was one of the earliest instances in the
Territory where the lovers of law and order on one side, and the
criminal element on the other, were brought into open, public
antagonism. No one knew at that time which of the two was the stronger.
The roughs had full confidence in their power to run the affairs of the
Territory in their own way, and while the trial was progressing sought,
by brandishing their revolvers in the court-room, by much loud-mouthed
profanity, and by frequent interruptions and threats of vengeance
directed against the judge and jury, to intimidate and terrify all who
were concerned in conducting the proceedings, and arrest them in their
purpose. The life of Judge Hoyt, the acting magistrate of the occasion,
was often threatened; but he not only manifested no fear, but was all
the more active and efficient in the discharge of the duties of his
difficult position. Being the central figure in the court, his calmness
and firmness inspired all the other persons engaged in the prosecution
with courage equal to the occasion, while it daunted the roughs and
probably prevented bloodshed.
Professor Thomas J. Dimsdale, in his account of this trial, says: “To
the delivery of this unfortunate verdict may be attributed the
ascendency of the roughs. They thought the people were afraid of them.
The pretext of the prisoners that the Indians had killed some whites,
friends of theirs, in 1849, while going to California, was accepted by
the majority of the jurors as some sort of justification:—but the truth
is, they were afraid of their lives, and, it must be confessed, not
without apparent reason.”
Mr. Rheem, who defended the prisoners, says: “My conscience has more
than once pricked me for interposing between the rogues and the halter,
but I never believed till the last hour of their trial that they would
escape hanging.”