John W. Hunter: giving the lie

Image from National Magazine

The first scandal to put John Ward Hunter's name down in newsprint involved a much more serious charge than the blemish his brief congressional career would later receive. In 1864, he was charged with forging checks during his duties at the United States Custom House in New York City, where he had been employed for over 30 years. Upon looking through a bundle of checks received by the Custom House, an assistant auditor had caught a couple of suspicious ones, one for $4,200 and another for $5,600. Both checks had been presented to assistant treasurer John J. Cisco but not paid over; the checks also bore the signature of Hunter, then serving as assistant auditor.

The case went to trial in April. Cisco was the star witness for the prosecution, saying the handwriting on the checks was a perfect match for Hunter; he testified that the assistant auditor wrote with certain peculiarities that he had not seen replicated anywhere else. Hunter's bank accounts had also shown a recent increase through large cash deposits. "The defense might bring all the world here with speaking trumpets to swear that Hunter was an angel, but it would all turn finally upon the question of his signature," the New York Times summarized in an account of a cross-examination where Cisco was essentially asked if Hunter was a decent person. "It was agreed that the prosecution should concede that Mr. Hunter had always borne a good character."

The defense lawyer proved masterful enough that Hunter's character was not his primary argument in the case. Instead, he focused on Cisco's steadfast testimony that the signatures on the checks belonged to Hunter. A stockbroker and photography analyst both testified that the signatures themselves were forged. The latter witness was especially compelling, as he compared prints of a genuine signature and the ones on the checks. Under magnification, the characteristics on the check suggested that the signature had been constructed from multiple pen strokes rather than a natural flow. A bookkeeper in the Custom House was also able to forge an impressive copy of Cisco's signature; the imitation put the assistant treasurer's recognition skills into question, as he was forced to admit that the forgery looked identical to his own.

The prosecution's case crumbled under further arguments by the defense. The defense explained the cash deposits as a result of many years of savings on his wife's part, combined with Hunter's duties as the executor of an estate. They also questioned why investigators had not taken a serious look at other men in the Customs House who would have had access to Hunter's signature. Cisco was accused of putting pressure on District Attorney E.D. Smith to issue a warrant of arrest for Hunter, and Smith took the stand himself to confirm that he acted on urgent requests from Cisco. Hunter himself testified very briefly. When asked if he wrote the two signatures, he replied, "I never did, nor did I ever see them before the day of the discovery." He answered only one other question, saying he did not know who wrote the signatures.

Immediately after Hunter's testimony, Smith asked for Hunter to be found innocent. He asked for reparations to be paid to him "for the wrong that has been done to him." Cisco also softened in his opinion on the matter. Three months after the trial, he wrote an apology to Hunter and included a check covering the assistant auditor's legal expenses. "Not a doubt rests on my mind of your entire innocence, and I deeply regret the erroneous theory on which I acted," said Cisco. "It was a serious mistake, which I regret should have been made."

Hunter was born in Bedford (now part of Brooklyn) in New York in October of 1807. After his school days, he began working as a clerk in a wholesale grocery store in 1824. From there, he made the switch to banking work and his long career with the U.S. Custom House. He started out as a clerk in 1831, and five years later he was appointed assistant auditor. He only stayed on for about a year after his success in the trial, then resigned to take a position as treasurer of the Dime Savings Bank in Brooklyn.

By some accounts, Hunter first entered the House of Representatives in 1864. However, these seem to be mistaken, as contemporary newspapers fail to mention such an election result. More likely, he first came to Congress following the death of Republican Representative James Humphrey in June of 1866. Successfully running as a Democrat to fill the vacancy, Hunter did not try to keep the seat in that year's regular election. He only served for a matter of months, from December of 1866 to March of 1867.

Hunter did not make much of a lasting impression during this service, but he did manage to earn a rebuke during a heated debate. On January 26 of 1867, Republican Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania said that he intended to press his Reconstruction bill to a vote on the 28th. By the New York Times account, Stevens didn't sound so enthusiastic about it, since he didn't think the proposition was ready and didn't expect to get much done; he also said only five minutes would be allowed for each congressman to speak on the matter. Other Republican congressmen also suggested that the bill was somewhat unsound, but that they would get behind it. Roscoe Conkling of New York criticized Stevens, claiming he was responsible for delays on the vote because the committee on Reconstruction that Stevens chaired had failed to assemble in time to be productive. James Mitchell Ashley of Ohio supported a final vote on the measure, but admitted that the GOP had not arrived at a conclusive policy. Ashley chaired the Committee on the Territories, and had previously backed a substitute plan they were working on as advocated by the Southern Republican Association; however, he said he figured recommitting the bill to committee would kill it. Stevens added that his measure had passed muster with his committee on Reconstruction, and that the House could vote it down if they so desired.

The discussion on the issue ended up devolving into a racially-charged war of words over the Civil War and the proposed reform measures for the South. Elijah Hise, a Kentucky Democrat, suggested that the Republican Party was in favor of disenfranchising the majority and only favored suffrage for those they deemed loyal, including "Negros and interlopers in the Southern states." John Winthrop Chanler, a Democrat from New York, asked Ashley whether he would recognize a state government if it were based solely on the black vote. After a back-and-forth exchange, in which Chanler suggested that Ashley was reluctant to answer, the Ohio congressman finally proclaimed, "If there is a single state of the American Union in which there is not a loyal man except black men, I would clothe them with the right of franchise and every other right under this government."

Under these provocations, Ashley launched an attack on the more conservative elements of the Republican Party as well as the Democrats in general. He raised the question of whether deposed Confederate president Jefferson Davis and other such rebels would be worthy of sitting in Congress, and accused Republican President Andrew Johnson of being a leader of a negative campaign that was just as injurious as the war. "The assumption, the brazen-faced assumption, of men here, who, during the entire war, were in secret alliance with the rebels, coming here now and joining hands with the apostate at the other end of the avenue [Johnson], who is their leader, the recognized leader of a counter-revolution or negative rebellion, as I said awhile ago, passes comprehension."

Charles Winfield, an outgoing Democratic representative from New York, demanded an explanation for the remark. Ashley clarified that it was something of a blanket denunciation, encompassing draft dodgers, conspirators against the North, and people who had been opposed to further funding or manpower for the war. When further pressed by Winfield, Ashley admitted that he could not indict specific members of the House with these accusations, but supposed by their votes that such people might be sitting in the chamber. "I do not propose to be tried on general reputation," Winfield shot back. "I desire to say for myself, and so far as I know for my associates on this floor of my own school of politics, that the insinuation that we are or ever have been in alliance with the rebels is utterly untrue, and if intended to apply to us it is a base and unfounded slander."

At that point, Hunter chimed in, "And I say that, so far as I am concerned, it is a base lie."

Schuyler Colfax, an Indiana Republican and Speaker of the House, chided Hunter for speaking out of order. Hunter was backed up by Samuel Jackson Randall, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, who also spoke out of turn to say that Hunter's statement was truthful even if it didn't abide by the House rules. Ralph Hill, an outgoing Indiana Republican, took a different opinion. He immediately made a motion to censure Hunter because he "transgressed the order of this body."

Most of the representatives didn't care about the squabble. A vote to table Hill's resolution failed with 75 opposed and 32 in favor, but 84 congressmen didn't even participate. The discussion on the censure resolution dissolved into another scene of bedlam. Francis Celeste Le Blond, an Ohio Democrat, suggested that Ashley's statements were far worse than Hunter's passing remark. "When you come down to the debate today in which my colleague participated, using the language which has been just read from the Speaker's desk, I ask the gentlemen what more offensive language could be used to any man who was an American citizen and willing to abide by the laws and the Constitution of his government," Le Blond concluded. The argument brought applause from the galleries, and Schuyler promptly scolded the spectators. When William Elias Niblack, an Indiana Democrat, muttered that the applause was on the Democratic side, Schuyler took offense. Apparently thinking that Niblack was hinting that he only tried to quell the applause supporting the Democrats, Schuyler said he had always asked the galleries to be decorous and threatened to have the spectators removed if they did not quiet down. Niblack apologized, saying the remark was meant to be private and that he did not mean to offend.

In response to Le Blond's suggestion, Hill said the House had allowed similar language to slide in recent debates and that he was getting tired of it. "I thought they had gone far enough; that when we had reached such a point that every day or two we must hear the epithets 'lie' and 'liar' bandied in this House it was time someone should interpose," he said. When Niblack asked if being labeled a traitor was also an example of offensive language, Hill replied that the term could be seen as a compliment depending on the circumstances. Being called a liar, by contrast, was offensive under any circumstances and he wanted the House to make an example to prevent further incidents.

The censure carried 84-34, with 81 congressmen not voting. The tally took place after one representative tried unsuccessfully to be excused, reasoning that he could support neither Hunter's outburst nor Ashley's insinuations. Schuyler delivered the brief punishment: "No deliberative body can preserve its self-respect, or command the respect of its constituents, which tolerates the use of offensive language, condemned by gentlemen everywhere, as well as by parliamentary law. For having transgressed the rules of the House it is resolved that you shall be censured by the Speaker. Having thus declared the censure of the House, you will resume your seat."

Hunter gave a similarly brief address, explaining that he meant no disrespect to the House and spoke in a "moment of irritation at a false charge." Hill was satisfied enough with his contrition that he asked for the censure proceedings to be stricken from the record, but other representatives objected. One was Ashley, who got in the last word by essentially reiterating his earlier argument and delivering his own rebuke to Hunter. He said that men often speak on the spur of the moment in a heated debate, but that he had not been called to order himself during any of his eight years in the House; Ashley added that he had not meant any offense either, but in clarifying his list of Union enemies he gave the same categories, complete with the Congress-encompassing qualifier "here or elsewhere."

The New York Times reported that Republicans "generally voted for the resolution, yet Hunter had the sympathy of many of them who considered the language of Mr. Ashley totally uncalled for, and though, according to the ruling of the chair heretofore, not strictly out of order, yet as great a violation of the dignity and the decency of the debate as was Mr. Hunter's impulsive remark." The newspaper added that the debate "furnished an unusual amount of interest to the galleries, which were well filled in anticipation of a debate on the Reconstruction question."

After leaving Congress, Hunter made an unsuccessful bid for state assembly and served on the Board of Education. He was nominated for the postmaster's position in Brooklyn, but not confirmed by the Senate. Then in 1873, Hunter won the race for Brooklyn mayor, serving from 1874 to 1875. He apparently lost this job after crossing Democratic party boss Hugh McLaughlin by refusing to appoint a certain water commissioner. The Bankers' Magazine reported that he was instrumental in supporting the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge while in office, and he became a stockholder in the endeavor. In 1886, former commissioner of the Brooklyn public works Thomas W. Adams sued Hunter for $10,000, saying Hunter had publicly accused him while mayor of allowing fraud and corrupt contracts; the outcome of the suit was not reported.

Hunter left politics in favor of a return to his work as treasurer of the Dime Savings Bank. National Magazine claimed that it is "to his financial skill and his reputation for unswerving integrity, much of the success of that bank is due." He became the bank's director as well as the director of a trust company and two insurance firms. In his spare time, Hunter was active in the Old Brooklynites and the Tree Planting and Fountain Society. He suffered a series of personal tragedies in 1881. Three of his children died over the course of a four-month period, including a naval lieutenant who died of poor health and a commission merchant who killed himself in a park in Fall River, Massachusetts. When Hunter died in Brooklyn in April of 1900, he was survived by only one child (a daughter) as well as five granddaughters.

Sources: The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, "The Custom-House Forgeries Cross-Examination of John J. Cisco" in the New York Times on Apr. 12 1864, "The Custom-House Forgeries" in the New York Times on Apr. 14 1864, "The Sub-Treasury Forgeries" in the New York Times on Apr. 21 1864, "Conclusion Of The Hunter Case" in the New York Times on Apr. 24 1864, "Close Of The Hunter Case" in the New York Times on Apr. 25 1864, "Vindication Of Assistant Auditor J.W. Hunter" in the New York Times on Sep. 24 1864, "Excitement In The House" in the New York Times on Jan. 27 1867, "Thirty-Ninth Congress, Second Session" in the New York Times on Jan. 27 1867, "Review Of The Week" in the Lewiston Evening Journal on Jan. 30 1867, "Brooklyn City Government For 1874" in the New York Timeson Jan. 1 1874, "Suicide Of Mr. W.A. Hunter" in the New York Times on Mar. 25 1881, "Death Of Lieut. Hunter, U.S.N." in the New York Times on Jul. 19 1881, "Thinks His Character Defamed" in the New York Times on Mar. 4 1886, "John W. Hunter Dead" in the New York Times on Apr. 18 1900, National Magazine: A Monthly Journal of American History Volume 19, Bankers' Magazine Volume 60, The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge by David G. McCullough, Record of an Examination Under a Warrant by Kenneth G. White, Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States Being the Session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, Record of an Examination Under a Warrant by Kenneth G. White, The Congressional Globe Volume 58 Part 2

Marshall Tate Polk: almost south of the border

Image from findagrave.com

The conclusion of the attempted flight of Marshall Tate Polk Jr. from the country sounds like it could have inspired a Wild West movie. Running from charges that he'd stolen funds from Tennessee while acting as the state's treasurer, Polk wound up on a train making its way through Texas. The conductor of his sleeping coach happened to recognize him from the notices posted along his likely route. Once Polk got off at a station, the conductor disembarked as well, gathered a companion, and told another person to contact the authorities. The conductor then took off after Polk, who had left with his servant on horseback.

The conductor and his friend gave chase. Somewhere in the Texas scrub, the conductor managed to get the drop on Polk, stepping out from behind a bush to confront him. Both Polk and his servant pulled their revolvers on the intruder, but the conductor remained steadfast. He warned that the surrounding countryside was crawling with rangers. "Put up your guns, or I'll have your heads blown over into Mexico," the man warned. Sufficiently intimidated, both Polk and his servant handed over their weapons. It was a bold maneuver, and one that paid off well. The conductor had been unarmed until the two men surrendered their guns, and he and his companion promptly used the revolvers to hold the two men until the rangers actually arrived.

Most of these details come from a New York Times article featuring the conductor's story, so it is quite possible that the trainman chose to embellish the details. The underlying facts are sound, however. Suspected of embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars in state funds, Polk had been riding the rails through Texas. And he was indeed captured not far from the Rio Grande while fleeing with his servant on horseback.

Marshall Polk, who sometimes went by the abbreviated name M.T. Polk, was also somewhat notable due to his relationship to a former President. Polk's father died about a month before he was born in Morgantown, North Carolina, in May of 1831. His uncle, James Knox Polk, was a U.S. Representative from Tennessee at the time, and he took his nephew under his wing; this elder Polk would go on to be the Governor of Tennessee and eleventh President of the United States.

Marshall Polk attended Georgetown University, and graduated from West Point in 1852. He joined the Confederate army during the Civil War as a captain of artillery, and was seriously wounded at Shiloh. The injuries were bad enough that he had to have a leg amputated, but he remained in the service and was promoted to colonel, serving on the staff of General Leonidas Polk (presumably another relative). After the war, Marshall Polk lived on a farm near Bolivar, Tennessee and published the Bolivar Bulletin. He first entered the political field in 1876 by attending the Democratic National Convention as a delegate, and the next year he began serving the first of three terms as Tennessee state treasurer.

It was later determined that Polk had been embezzling for five of his six years in office. The action most cited after the discovery of this crime was the One Hundred and Three Funding Bill to settle the state debt. Polk was given $600,000 to pay interest on the bill, but left in possession of the money after an injunction was started and the bill declared unconstitutional. It was also mentioned that Polk had another $400,000 under his control when the actions regarding the bill took place. As a customary inspection was about to take place in January of 1883, Polk quietly disappeared from the state. The study found that hundreds of thousands of dollars were missing, mostly due to the lack of caution in the banks where the state funds were deposited. Polk had managed to deposit several checks, despite the fact that they lacked the signature of the state controller. With this lack of oversight, it wasn't difficult for the treasurer to withdraw the funds for his own personal use.

When it became clear that Polk had absconded from the state, the Tennessee house of representatives considered offering a $20,000 reward for his capture. That idea fell through after one legislator said the treasurer had nothing with which to repay the state, and so the reward would only add to the financial burden caused by the embezzlement. Polk's bond was good for $100,000, something of a small amount considering the amount of money he had control over. There had been a proposal in the legislature to increase the bond, but the bill had been stolen from the desk of the state senate clerk the day before it was supposed to go to a final vote. In the wake of the embezzlement, the legislature resolved to seize Polk's assets and thoroughly examine the state's books to find if anyone else was involved in the theft. In the midst of the upheaval, reform proposals come fast and heavy in the legislature. They included suggestions to increase treasurer's bond to $500,000 and have the treasurer make a monthly report to the Governor, controller, and secretary. Another proposal would have the treasurer deposit funds in banks with sufficient bond coverage within three days of receiving them, with the checks countersigned by the Governor and controller and marked to show what they would be used for.

Captain James Fleming, Polk's clerk and bookkeeper, helped investigators determine how the money went missing. One popular suggestion was that Polk had diverted considerable funds to political allies, and newspaper reports anticipated further criminal charges. Despite his cooperation, Fleming was arrested the next year as he was tried to leave the state. He was accused of making false entries totaling $40,000 on behalf of Polk, but the case faded from the public eye soon after. It seems no other potential co-conspirators, estimated to number about half a dozen when the scandal first broke, were charged. "Throughout the city in circles where Mr. Polk was known and liked for his generosity, there is universal regret at his disgrace which has come upon him, and perhaps no man's fall was ever more generally regretted," the New York Times declared.

Polk's point of destination was more obvious than that of the Kentucky treasurer who shared one of his names and would take flight five years later. Mexico not only contained a silver mine owned by the treasurer, but also had no extradition policy with the United States. Warrants of arrest were sent to cities along his probable escape route. Polk's wooden leg would provide a ready clue for law enforcement authorities. Five days after his departure on January 2, it was announced that he had been arrested in San Antonio, Texas by a Pinkerton detective.

Much to the horror of authorities and citizens in Tennessee, Polk got away again. The one-legged man claimed he was not Polk, but his cover story wasn't exactly convincing. He gave his name as "Tate" and said he was simply a wealthy man going to look over his mining interests. Outgoing Democratic Texas Governor Oran M. Roberts said he had no authority to hold Polk unless someone made a charge against him while under oath, and the detective said he had no authority to hold the man. When Polk was finally arrested again, about 18 miles shy of the Rio Grande, the detaining marshal suggested that the treasurer had paid off the Pinkerton detective. At the time of his arrest, Polk had several state checks with him.

As Polk was being returned to Nashville, the legislature appointed attorney Atha Thomas as a replacement on the 22nd ballot. Polk told reporters on his arrival that several reports about his journey were false, including allegations that he had been drinking heavily the entire time. He also seems to have tripped over his words, saying both that he was taking a routine trip to Mexico to check up on the mine and that he intended to raise the defaulted money in order to repay the state in full. The same month that saw Polk's defalcation revealed and his subsequent dash for the border also brought his indictment, which charged that he acquired $484,000 from the state treasury through embezzlement and larceny.

An investigation determined that by 1878, about a year into his job, Polk was defaulting $20,000 to $40,000. By April of 1882, the amount was up to $216,520. The probe blasted the banks involved in the case, since they had extended false credit to Polk. In doing so, committee members determined, the banks had failed to stop the embezzlement when they could have staunched the loss at only $200,000. The banks had honored several checks not countersigned by the state controller, and Polk had distributed the money in several ventures. These included $50,000 for the silver mine, $10,000 to the Nashville American publishing company, and investments in North Carolina lumber and Alabama iron. He also loaned money to Democratic politicians.

Fortunately, Polk's theft was softened by both the attachments against his property and $150,000 which was legitimately owed to him by various people. In February of 1883, his friends proposed a payment schedule to free Polk and the state from debt, but it came to naught. The next month, however, the legislature passed an act allowing settlement. It said Polk could pay $100,000 on genuine bonds and another $150,000 on internal improvement bonds. When paid, the sureties against his property would be relieved. The act specifically stated that the settlement would not absolve him from criminal prosecution. By late June, Polk's friends had paid $75,000 toward the settlement, and there were rumors that the prosecution could be dropped. However, Polk had been arrested again only the month before. He had been granted release due to health reasons, but a $20,000 bond he had given was found to be insufficient and he was suspected of making another run for it.

Polk's trial began in June of 1883. The case was well-known enough that over a thousand people were rejected for jury duty, since they knew all about the matter. A panel was finally assembled from 12 illiterate country bumpkins. An Iowa newspaper, the Carroll Herald, clearly clearly took exception to the claim that an intelligent body had been chosen. "Tennessee has about as much reason to be proud of this phenomenal jury as of the criminal it is to try," the article sniffed. It didn't matter much in the end, as the entire jury was dismissed and a new one assembled before the trial was through. There were lingering concerns about the ability of the jurors to fairly hear the case, with one member in particular having been employed by the widow of former President Polk.

Defense attorneys argued that Polk was only guilty of "default of pay." They said large deficits against the treasurer were common enough, and could be explained through legal reasons consistent with the treasurer's duties. They added that $50,000 had already been put into the state via sureties, with another $10,000 on the way and significant sums available through the sale of the silver mine and lumber interests. The lawyers said the jurors needed to give the ex-treasurer a chance to make good the defalcation. "If he has got that money in his pocket, you can't send him to prison without first giving him a chance to pay it," they said. "He cannot be accused of refusing to pay when no one has demanded of him to pay." The jury agreed with the prosecution's assessment that Polk's actions were embezzlement through and through. He was found guilty in July, and sentenced to serve 20 years in prison with a fine equal to the amount stolen.

In February of 1884, the New York Times reported that his sentence was only 13 years; this may have been a result of an appeal or an error on the paper's part. It added that his mining interests in Mexico had been sold for $2 million, and that his health was very poor. Two days after the article was published, with an appeal set to go before the Supreme Court, Polk died of heart disease in Bolivar, Tennessee. Even this latest development was in doubt, at least in some circles. In 1887, a report claimed that Polk may have faked his death. An Alabama citizen returned from Mexico, saying he had met Polk there. The item apparently did not gain much credibility, and it was not considered any further.

Sources: The Political Graveyard, "A Deficit In Tennessee" in the New York Times on Jan. 6 1883, "Empty Vaults" in the Aurora Daily News on Jan. 6 1883, "Polk Still A Fugitive" in the New York Times on Jan. 7 1883, "Treasurer Polk Arrested" in the New York Times on Jan. 8 1883, "Treasurer Polk Escapes" in the New York Times on Jan. 9 1883, "Treasurer Polk Recaptured" in the New York Times on Jan. 10 1883, "Treasurer Polk's Recapture" in the New York Times on Jan. 13 1883, "Some Of Polk's Methods" in the New York Times on Jan. 13 1883, "Ex-Treasurer Polk Indicted" in the Reading Eagle on Jan. 14 1883, "How The Conductor Captured Polk" in the New York Times on Jan. 15 1883, "Ex-Treasurer Polk's Friends" in the New York Times on Feb. 22 1883, "Settling With Polk" in the New York Times on Mar. 24 1883, "M.T. Polk Again In Jail" in the New York Times on May 4 1883, "Polk's Case To Be Called" in the New York Times on Jun. 25 1883, "Marsh T. Polk On Trial" in the New York Times on Jun. 27 1883, "A New Jury To Try Polk" in the New York Times on Jul. 4 1883, "Polk On Trial" in the New York Times on Jul. 16 1883, "The Polk Trial" in the New York Times on Jul. 22 1883, "Was It A Farce?" in the New York Times on Jul. 23 1883, untitled brief in the Carroll Herald on Jul. 25 1883, "Ex-Treasurer Polk, Of Tennessee" in the New York Times on Feb. 27 1884, "Death of Ex-Treasurer Polk" in the New York Times on Mar. 1 1884, "Mr. Polk Is Living" in the Meriden Daily Republican on Sep. 6 1887, The Banker's Magazine and Statistical Register Volume 37, James K. Polk: A Biographical Companion by Mark Eaton Byrnes

Jefferson Smith: freed by filibuster

Image from suntimes.com

Americans accused of a crime or malfeasance are innocent until proven guilty, but inevitably the very fact that a person is being accused leaves a stain on their image. When Jefferson Smith, an independent Senator from the state of Capra, was charged with misusing his office for personal gain after only a matter of months in the position, the case against him seemed open and shut. It was only after a grueling test of endurance that Smith was vindicated, proving that he was not only innocent but a model for good government.

Smith was born in May of 1908 in Jackson City, Capra. After his graduation from high school, he worked in a printing office for some time before joining the Civilian Conservation Corps. The service was a perfect match for a man who grew up loving the outdoors, and he concluded his long days of planting trees and fish stocking to read books on nature and conservation. With the support of friends and investors, Smith launched two ventures. One, an organization called The Boy Rangers, provided nature workshops, camping outings, and other activities to introduce young men to the outdoors. The other, a magazine entitled Boy's Stuff, featured articles by Smith and contributions from his fast-growing group of readers. He became a hero to boys across the state, and his status was further solidified when he and a group of Boy Rangers fought tirelessly to snuff a wildfire around the town of Sweetwater. Smith and the group were camping nearby when the fire broke out, and they were honored for saving lives and property from the blaze. Smith was also a student of history, and enlightened his proteges with the inspiring speeches of the Founding Fathers and other renowned American figures.

Smith was perfectly happy with his lot in life when Republican Senator Sam Foley died in October of 1939. The decision of who would replace Foley fell to Republican Governor Hubert "Happy" Hopper. The Governor was so nicknamed for his enthusiastic demeanor, and it was with a wide grin that he announced his choice for a replacement: Horace Miller. The crowd assembled for the press conference dissolved into an uproar. Miller was decried as a stooge of real estate tycoon and party boss Jim Taylor. Foley had always voted in line with Taylor's interests, and there was no reason to believe that Miller, a land speculator firmly in Taylor's pocket, would perform any differently. Abashed, and concerned for his own approval ratings, Hopper put the nomination on hold. Democrats promptly offered up their candidate, a former Progressive congressman named Henry Hill.

Hopper was used to falling in line with Taylor's wants, but the upheaval at the press conference made him terrified that putting Miller into office would send him out of office at the next election. By contrast, naming Hill would surely lose him Taylor's backing. At the urging of his children, Hopper chose a third path and surprised the state by choosing Smith. Both Democrats and Republicans shied away from criticizing Smith due to his popular status in Capra. Taylor, at first outraged that Hopper had defied him by naming a "squirrel chaser" to the seat, was mollified when he decided he could mold Smith into another cog in his machine. The state's other Senator, a Republican named Joseph Paine, happened to be Smith's deceased father's best friend. He was also firmly in Taylor's pocket. He promised Taylor that he would be able to manipulate Smith with ease.

Unaware of Paine's machinations, Smith caused the Senator a bit of discomfort at a dinner held following the nomination by recalling his father saying, "Joe Paine was the finest man he ever knew." It so happened that Smith's father, the publisher of a small newspaper, was murdered after his publication vociferously supported the rights of a single miner over a powerful syndicate. In his speech, Smith went on to declare, "I don't think I'm going to be much help to you down there in Washington, Senator. I'll do my best. And with all my might, I can promise you one thing: I'll do nothing to disgrace the office of United States Senator."

Upon his arrival in Washington, D.C., he was so awed by the monuments to the nation's leaders and government that he briefly went missing on a self-guided tour. The incident did nothing to improve his image in the minds of reporters. The capital's newspapers took the opportunity to mock Smith as a bumpkin unfit for the job, often printing little of the introductory interview aside from photos of him demonstrating his nature know-how with mocking headlines. The coverage was enough that Senator Pierre Barnes, a Louisiana Democrat, questioned whether Smith was fit for the job since his "astounding and shameless performance for the newspapers" brought his rank "down to the level of a sideshow entertainer."

The barb was the only one directed against Smith that day, and he was swiftly sworn in after a curt defense by Paine. Smith recalls that he confronted the members of the National Press Club (and took swings at quite a few of them), but that they also let him in on the unsettling fact that he would be perceived as little more than a second vote to whatever Paine decided. When he told Paine of this concern, his colleague encouraged him to propose a bill in support of his novel idea: a National Boys' Camp, basically an extension of the Rangers to allow young men to experience nature and learn about the nation's history. Smith followed through on the recommendation, to the laughter of Senators amused by Smith's nervousness but the terrific applause of Boy Rangers who had made it to appear in the galleries. He proposed that the government could make a loan for the project, to be repaid by the contributions of boys across the country who would donate whatever nickels or dimes they could. The bill also stipulated that the camp would be situated on the headwaters of Willet Creek.

Smith happened to be out of the Senate, being wooed by Paine's daughter, when the Senate took up discussion on a deficiency bill. A wide-ranging act to provide funding for public works projects, it also called for the creation of a dam at the exact spot where Smith hoped to build his camp. The bill itself had been heavily influenced by Taylor, who was hoping to award the construction bids to some of his closest political allies. Paine, who supported the bill, had reluctantly sent his daughter to seduce the greenhorn Senator away from his duties. It was only by the intervention of Clarissa Saunders, Smith's chief of staff, that Smith found out about the dupe.

Smith questioned Paine on why the dam wasn't going up in a place where the water would do more good. He also became more suspicious of Taylor, realizing that the appropriation for the dam may have been specifically to benefit the man. Thinking Paine could not be trusted to control Smith, Taylor came to Washington to meet with Smith one-on-one. Taylor bluntly told Smith that he could ensure his political destiny if he agreed with his agenda. It was a rather foolish move in light of the fact that Smith was in Washington for moral reasons.

Determined to expose the corruption, Smith asked to be heard on the $45 million appropriation for the Willet Creek dam in the deficiency bill. He yielded the floor after he was interrupted by Paine, who stunned the Senate by declaring that Smith was not worthy to hold office. Smith, Paine charged, had proposed to build the National Boys' Camp on land he had owned all along. Expecting to expose Taylor's graft, Smith suddenly found himself on the defensive, with Paine openly charging that he was using his office to "legalize an outrageous profit for himself out of the purchase of that land through the nickels and dimes scraped together by the boys of this country."

The matter went before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, where the evidence against Smith was compelling. Kenneth Allen, the owner of the land at Willet Creek, told members that Smith had held camping outings there for many years. He also said he had agreed to deed the land to Smith after the Senator promised he could flip it for a substantial profit and split the money with him. The committee also heard from Governor Hopper, the Register of Deeds of Jackson County, and Senator Paine. All testified that the purchase had taken place, or that Smith had some interest in the land. Paine even said that the placid Senator had raged at him to move the dam when told about the deficiency bill, and that he had found out about the land transfer afterward. A handwriting expert testified that the signatures on documents recording the transfer belonged to Smith. Irked, Smith simply walked out of the committee hearing without saying a word.

The committee promptly recommended the expulsion of Smith, and the next time the Senator spoke in the Senate chamber it was to defend himself against the charges. He managed to gain the floor by becoming the first Senator to speak on the motion, and didn't stop speaking on the issue until over a day later.

Encouraged by Saunders, both before the discussions and from the Senate galleries, Smith showed that he had become quite familiar with the rules of the chamber. He rebuffed attempts by Paine to regain the floor, and assailed the deficiency bill as a graft-riddled fraud. When Paine questioned why he could not have given a defense before the committee, Smith roared back, "I have no defense against forged papers!" He also related his account of Taylor making an offer to keep him in office, which Paine disputed by saying he and Taylor had simply urged Smith to resign in light of the evidence against him. Paine said he felt Smith was insinuating that he was involved in corrupt practices, and declared himself so offended of his "contemptible" counterpart that he walked out of the chamber. After Smith said he would not yield the floor unless both the deficiency bill and expulsion resolution were stayed to give him a week to return to Capra and work things out.

The other Senators showed their scorn by walking out as one body, but Smith promised he would keep up a filibuster. He also managed to get the Senators back into the chamber by calling for the sergeant-at-arms to compel a quorum. As Smith began his long monologue, he alternated between a defense against the corruption charges, criticism of the deficiency bill, and patriotic discussions of the nation's ideals.

The press in Jackson City and other areas of Capra was merciless. Backed by the Taylor machine, they accused Smith of holding up funding for numerous essential public works projects and other essential services to defend his own selfish interests. A spirited defense of Smith came from an unexpected source. The small printing press which produced Boys' Stuff was swiftly converted to a political organ, and it proclaimed Smith innocent. The periodical saw some distribution, but the Taylor forces resorted to reprehensible means to silence them. Public rallies in support of Smith were broken up by the police, and Boy Rangers holding shows of support for Smith were violently attacked. The outbursts, coupled with the later events in the Senate, ultimately led the Taylor machine to collapse in a hailstorm of public contempt.

In Washington, Smith's filibuster ground on past 23 hours. The other Senators, initially ignoring Smith and doing their best to whittle away the time, seemed to become more uncertain of his guilt as the exhausted Senator refused to give up the fight. "There's no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. And if that's what the grown-ups have done with this world that was given to them, then we'd better get those boys' camps started fast and see what the kids can do," he said. "And it's not too late, because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you, or me, or anything else. Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They're right here; you just have to see them again!"

However, Smith's faith in his home state seemed misplaced when Paine delivered thousands of telegrams to the Senate floor demanding that Smith yield. Visibly distraught as he took up and perused the papers, Smith nevertheless vowed to continue even in the face of the opposition, which he denounced as "lies." Instead, he collapsed soon after of exhaustion.

That may have marked the end of Smith's effort for good government but for what happened next. Several gunshots rang out in the hall outside the Senate. Soon after, Paine ran back into the chamber, shouting that Smith's accusations were true and demanding that he be expelled instead. Consumed with guilt over his complicity in the frame-up, Paine had tried to commit suicide but was restrained by other Senators in the hall. The Senate retired for the day, and the deficiency bill was promptly returned to committee for extensive revisions. The expulsion resolution was also taken up, and unanimously defeated. Paine, hospitalized for exhaustion, resigned the same day. He died in 1967.

Hopper promptly took credit for appointing a man as exemplary as Smith; he vowed to support other such men in Congress and rid the state of its Taylor machine. Though the declaration was clearly another example of Hopper swaying to whichever end public opinion favored, he made good on his promise and remained a steadfast Smith supporter. Smith pondered leaving the Senate to return to his work with the Rangers, but bowed to the Capra chorus for him to keep up the good work in Washington. It wasn't long before he married Saunders, the woman who had helped him carry out his famous feat. He easily won election to a six-year term when the seat was opened again in 1942, and remained in office until resigning in 1960 to take up the reigns at the National Boys' Camp he had helped to establish. While in office, he became an outspoken proponent for clean government and conservation. Smith died in Jackson City in July of 1997.

Sources: The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, "The Boy Rangers" in the Jackson City Star on May 3 1939, "Smith Shuns Spotlight" in the Jackson City Star on Aug. 6 1939, "Happy Pick Assailed" in the Jackson City Star on Oct. 14 1939, "Democrats Propose Hill For Foley Seat" in the Washington Herald on Oct. 16 1939, "Ranger Named To Senate In Surprise Pick" in the Jackson City Star on Oct. 18 1939, "First 'Whiff' Of Washington" in the Washington Herald on Oct. 23 1939, "Smith Proposes National Boys' Camp" in the Jackson City Star on Nov. 5 1939, "Paine Accuses Smith Of Land Fraud" in the Washington Herald on Nov. 12 1939, "Smith Walks Out Of Committee Hearing" in the Jackson City Star on Nov. 14 1939, "Witnesses Testify Against Smith" in the New York Times on Nov. 14 1939, "Filibusters In The Senate" in the New York Times on Nov. 17 1939, "Smith Charges Graft, Seizes Floor" in the Pittsburgh Press on Nov. 17 1939, "Stubborn Smith Stalls Bill" in the Jackson City Star on Nov. 17 1939, "Dramatic End To Smith Filibuster" in the New York Times on Nov. 18 1939, "Smith Charges Thrown Out" in the Washington Herald on Nov. 19 1939, "Paine Resigns" in the Jackson City Star on Nov. 19 1939, "Smith Elected In Landslide" in the New York Times on Nov. 8 1942, "Smith To Leave Senate, Lead Camp" in the Jackson City Star on Jun. 20 1960, "Jefferson Smith, Champion Of Clean Government, Dead at 89" in the New York Times on Jul. 3 1997, One Man by Jefferson Smith, The Lady on the Capitol Dome by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Senator Smith by David McCullough, Ethics in the Senate by Michael Clifford, Jackson City Notables by John Herbert

Arthur Brown: second time unlucky

Image from historytogo.utah.gov

By some reports, the dissolution of Arthur Brown's first marriage was punctuated by a gunshot. Unlike his later brides, not much is known about his first wife. Even her name is only recorded as L.C. Brown. Eventually, Arthur Brown took a shine to another woman: Isabel Cameron, the daughter of a state senator. It wasn't long before he deserted his family in favor of this new flame. In some versions, the move so enraged his first wife that she tried to shoot Cameron; in others, she confronted Brown in his law office and actually managed to fire a bullet, though it missed and Brown was able to take the gun away from her.

These alleged confrontations came to light in the wake of an incident that occurred a few decades after Brown's first breakup. Once again, a member of the fairer sex was upset with him because he was canoodling with someone else. But this time, the scorned woman had a better aim.

Brown's first relationship troubles took place in his home state of Michigan. Born in March of 1843 in Schoolcraft, he left for Ohio to attend Antioch College. He graduated in 1862, and went on to earn a legal degree from the University of Michigan. After his admission to the bar, he began practicing in Kalamazoo with a focus on mining and criminal law. When he walked out on his first wife, Brown was denounced by hundreds of his friends and associates. He married Cameron after his first wife divorced him, but with his reputation in Michigan broken he left the state in 1879 and relocated to Salt Lake City in Utah. He was later described as a "Gentile in faith, but a Mormon in practice."

Brown had some ambitions to be a U.S. District Attorney, but he settled for a private practice after that appointment failed to materialize. He eventually became a millionaire and well-known enough that he was chosen to represent Utah in the Senate after the territory became a state in 1896. The other Senator chosen, Frank J. Cannon, was picked for a term running through 1899. Brown's term was shorter; he was to begin in January of 1896 for a term ending in March of the next year. He didn't make much of an impact in Washington in this short time. Brown's profile in contemporary newspapers mostly focused on his steadfast opposition to the free silver movement despite its popularity in the West. "He has no consideration for anything that stands in his way, and the Senatorial courtesy is likely to receive many rude shocks," the New York Times said in their unflattering assessment. "He is an intense, bitter partisan with no sympathy for any one who does not share his view on general politics or on silver. Always pugnacious, he would be willing to take up any gauntlet." The Times also reported that there were irregularities in the Republican caucus that chose Brown, but the appointment was never seriously challenged.

Brown opted not to run for re-nomination at the end of his term and resumed practicing law. However, his foray into politics resulted in consequences that rippled through the rest of his life. At the 1896 Republican National Convention in St. Louis, he met Annie Maddison Bradley, a woman 30 years younger than him. Bradley worked as a clerk at the Salt Lake Water Works Department, and from 1900 to 1902 she was a secretary of Republican State Committee in Utah. Brown and Bradley began an affair, which seemed to have more downs than ups. Bradley was fairly open about her dalliances, telling her husband Clarence that the son she had borne in 1900 did not belong to him. Clarence responded by turning to the bottle and then leaving to work for a railroad in Nevada; there, he developed a gambling problem, embezzled from the company to compensate, and ultimately served 18 months of a two-year prison sentence. In September of 1902, Brown filed for divorce from his second wife. Isabel said that Brown abandoned her on the first of that month, and she hired a private investigator to find out what he was up to. For a time, he and Bradley had lived in Grand Junction, Colorado, but they had returned to Salt Lake City to take up rooms in a boarding house. Isabel was not keen on divorce, since she intended to be presented at court in England and divorced women were forbidden to enter there. Instead, she gladly accompanied police to the house to watch them arrest Brown and Bradley for adultery.

This action caused the love triangle to become a sensational public matter. Brown paid his own $500 bond as well as the bond for Bradley. There was a bit of a mix-up in her release, as she was sent out before a judge had officially approved the bond. She wasn't much of a fugitive; she wound up in jail four months later on the same adultery charge, and was ultimately arrested at least four times for the crime. At one point, Brown angrily confronted the police, accusing them of harassing Bradley and acting like cowards by sending out sizable forces to detain her. Brown himself racked up a similar record. In February of 1903, he was jailed after failing to pay a temporary $150 a month alimony to Isabel; he vowed to fight the order until it wound up in the Supreme Court. By October, he was under bond again for improper relations with Bradley, and the next month he was again bonded for $500 for adultery.

Isabel said the affair began about one year after the 1896 Republican National Convention, and details of fiery confrontations between the two women in Brown's life began to emerge. It was suggested that Isabel and Bradley had brawled at one point, with Isabel striking Bradley with a horsewhip. At another point, Isabel interrupted Brown and Bradley's attempt to get away to a hotel in Pontacello, Idaho. There, Isabel grabbed Bradley by the throat and threatened to kill her. In response, Brown gave Bradley a revolver to defend herself against his wife. It was also said that Bradley had accompanied Brown to court every day during a murder trial.

It soon became clear that Bradley was intent on getting Brown to marry her. Isabel blamed Bradley's "hypnotic influence" over her husband for his actions, saying she had repeatedly urged him to divorce her. "Tear up your Brigham Street home," Bradley demanded in one letter produced by Isabel. "I am sick and tired of your dallying. The longer madame stays there the more strongly entrenched is the enemy. You haven't the courage to strike the blow you promised me to strike." Isabel also produced a written statement she had taken from her husband after an incident in which he called her "my bitterest enemy" and vowed to get a divorce. She said he had sent her a letter giving over their house to her and asking that the possessions by divided up according to ownership.

Brown disputed the claims when Isabel tried to get a settlement. Isabel said that Brown owned property in Utah, Idaho, Michigan, and Missouri valued at $291,248, that he had already named Bradley as a beneficiary in his will, and that he would try to hide his assets. She said he made a respectable $1,000 a month from his legal practice, while she earned a mere five dollars a month renting property. She asked that she be given ownership of the house, as Brown had apparently done with his letter, as well as a monthly stipend of $370 for the rest of her life. She won the temporary alimony which Brown refused to pay. Meanwhile, Bradley threatened in October of 1903 to plead guilty to two adultery charges against her and thus take Brown with her to jail unless he finalized the divorce and married her. By this point, she felt Brown had made peace with his wife, but also claimed that Brown had begged her not to enter the plea and promised he would get a divorce. Bradley pleaded anyway, but Brown managed to argue that the charges against him should be quashed because his wife should not be able to testify. The court agreed, and Bradley went to jail as Brown went free.

The scandal gradually faded away, but the relationship between Brown and Bradley resurfaced dramatically on December 8, 1908 at the Raleigh Hotel in Washington, D.C. Brown had traveled to the city to represent the St. Louis Mining Company in a lawsuit against the Montana Mining Company. A maid heard two gunshots and rushed to get the manager, who found Brown sprawled out on the floor and Bradley standing nearby. "She shot me," Brown proclaimed simply. The manager performed initial treatment, namely giving Brown a stiff drink of brandy, and ordered Bradley to leave. "I will remain here," Bradley replied. "I am the mother of his two children."

Bradley was arrested as Brown was rushed to a hospital. He had been shot twice with a .38-caliber handgun, which the manager found in the room. One bullet had grazed his hand, and the other one ended up in his abdomen. The New York Times was optimistic, writing that the former Senator was in critical condition but recovering. The Pittsburgh Press immediately headlined their article by saying Brown had been shot "fatally." The assessment was premature, but turned out to be correct. Four days later, Brown died of kidney damage aggravated by the shooting. He was returned to Salt Lake City for burial.

Bradley proved surprisingly chatty in the days after the shooting, and spoke with the press on a few other occasions in the lead-up to her trial on a charge of murder. She caused a bit of a stir by calling up George Sutherland, a Republican Senator from Utah, after the shooting but said she simply knew him from her days in the newspaper business. She said two of her four children had been fathered by Brown, and that she wanted him to marry her to make them legitimate.

When Brown went to Washington, Bradley thought the nation's capital would provide a nice place for a quiet wedding away from Utah. Brown had thought to send Bradley to the other half of the country; before he left, he bought her a railroad ticket to California. She exchanged it in order to go to Washington, found out where Brown was staying, and took a room. She later confronted Brown in his quarters, and found that he had several letters in his room from Annie C. Adams, the mother of a famous Utah actress. Bradley said she she demanded a marriage, and that Brown had started to walk out. Enraged, she had opened fire.

Bradley was met with a fair amount of sympathy. Brown refused to speak to prosecutors before he died, and the hospital superintendent said he had promised not to press charges if he recovered; one of Brown's sons insisted that a a criminal trial take place, saying it was what his father would have wanted. Adams confirmed that she and Brown had gotten engaged, and that he hoped to make an amicable break with his mistress. Despite the fact that Bradley had taken the life of her future husband, Adams harbored no hatred toward her. "If I could have seen her I am sure I could have prevented this terrible thing from happening," said Adams. "I never met her in my life, but I have a good deal of sympathy with her. I am sure now that she realizes what a terrible mistake she has made." Public opinion of Brown took another dive when it was found that he had explicitly excluded Bradley and the two children she claimed were his from his will. "That man heaped such indignities upon me that, disgraced, robbed of everything a woman holds dear in this world, and refused amends, there was nothing left for me to do but kill him, to wipe out the stain of shame and disgrace he had placed on my life," Bradley said a few weeks before her trial began in November of 1907.

With such open admissions, Bradley's lawyers could only hope for acquittal on a technicality. At first, they said they would argue that the killing was justified under "unwritten law." They settled on the argument that Brown's persistent mistreatment of Bradley had led to pent-up emotions and finally an outburst of homicidal insanity after the snub at the hotel. Brown, they said, was essentially responsible for his own death by triggering these emotions.

Prosecutors contended that Brown's death had been premeditated, and that Bradley had made the trip to Washington with the intent of committing murder. The trial ended up turning into an indictment of Brown's character. Bradley said Brown had been a heavy drinker, and their relationship had suffered for it. They argued frequently, and on one occasion she knocked several of his teeth out with an umbrella. She testified that Brown had strung her along with empty promises of marriage. Isabel died in August of 1905, and Bradley had divorced her husband and pushed hard for matrimony since her passing. She said Brown promised in June of 1906 to marry her, and had made another reassurance as late as October of that year. Some jurors teared up at her words. A doctor who took the stand expressed such contempt for Brown that the judge rebuked him.

The trial also introduced letters exchanged between Brown and Bradley, wherein Brown referred to her with terms of endearment such as "little mint julep." In the correspondence, Bradley berated Brown for seeing "that actress" and frequently insisted on seeing him, points which prosecutors said bolstered their argument for premeditation. The judge instructed the jury to find Bradley not guilty by reason of insanity if they determined that she was not capable of understanding her actions or distinguishing between right and wrong. He gave the caveat that if the shooting was "inflamed by rage, jealousy, revenge, or any other passion," it would reduce the severity of the crime but not fulfill the requirements of an insanity defense.

A single juror held out for a guilty verdict for some time, but eventually gave in. Thus acquitted, Bradley returned to the West to live with her sister in Nevada. In an unfortunate epilogue, the son whom Bradley claimed was Brown's and carried his name also inherited his mother's homicidal tendencies. In 1915, he stabbed Bradley's other son to death during a trip in Nevada. The dispute started over the question of who would cook and who would wash the dishes. Bradley herself held a variety of jobs before opening an antique store. She died in November of 1950.

Sources: The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, Utah History To Go, "Utah's Senators Named" in the New York Times on Jan. 16 1896, "Brown May Lose Senatorship" in the New York Times on Jan. 17 1896, "Utah Ex-Senator Sues For Divorce" in the New York Times on Sep. 29 1902, "Lawyer Brown Under Arrest" in the Deseret News on Sep. 29 1902, "Suit Against Arthur Brown" in the Deseret News in Nov. 20 1902, "Ex-Senator Sent To Jail" in the New York Times on Feb. 6 1903, "Brown Will Appeal The Case" in the Deseret News on Feb. 28 1903, "Mrs. Bradley Makes Threat" in the Quebec Daily Mercury on Oct. 1 1903, "Local Briefs" in the Deseret News on Nov. 12 1903, "Ex-Senator Shot By A Woman At Capital" in the New York Times on Dec. 9 1906, "First Wife Shot At Brown" in the New York Times on Dec. 9 1906, "Woman Fatally Shoots Former Utah Senator" in the Pittsburgh Press on Dec. 9 1906, "Senator Brown Dead" in the Lewiston Saturday Journal on Dec. 13 1906, "Arthur Brown Claimed By Death" in the Deseret News on Dec. 13 1906, "Mrs. Adams Was Engaged" in the New York Times on Dec. 16 1906, "Mrs. Bradley Is Not Surprised" in the Pittsburgh Press on Dec. 23 1906, "Mrs. Bradley Tells Why She Shot Brown" in the Arizona Journal-Miner on Nov. 7 1907, "Mrs. Bradley's Tale Makes Jury Weep" in the New York Times on Nov. 20 1907, "Knocked Out Teeth" in the Spokane Daily Chronicle on Nov. 21 1907, "Bradley Defense Rests" in the New York Times on Nov. 27 1907, "Emotional Appeals To Bradley Jurors" in the New York Times on Dec. 1 1907, "Mrs. Bradley Not Guilty" in the Reading Eagle on Dec. 3 1907, Maude Adams: Idol of American Theater 1872-1953 by Armond Fields

Nehemiah G. Ordway: doubling Dakota

Image from history.nd.gov

The town of Yankton, South Dakota, is one of the southernmost communities in the state. Tucked away near the borders with Nebraska and Iowa, Yankton was also the capital of the Dakota Territory when it existed as one large entity. It was thanks in part to the actions of Nehemiah G. Ordway, a Governor of the territory, that the country has two Dakota states and Yankton has been left not as a state capital but only as the seat of a county bearing its name.

Under Ordway's administration, the territory was swollen with thousands of settlers. Between 1879 and 1884, the population more than doubled. The question wasn't if Dakota would be admitted into the Union, it was whether it would be admitted as a single state or two. The consensus seemed to be that Yankton was located too far south to adequately cater to the vast territory, especially with settlement occurring throughout. But it was also thought that the question of whether the capital should be moved would wait until it was decided how many states would be made out of Dakota.

So it was quite a surprise when Ordway, a single-state advocate, initiated the process for a capital move before the statehood question had been resolved. In 1883, he created a nine-member commission to study the feasibility of moving the government offices elsewhere. Even creating the commission was something of a task. There was enough opposition that Ordway only secured passage in the legislature by threatening to veto consideration of communities whose members did not support the study. Eventually, it came to pass that the requirements for the new capital were pretty basic: a parcel of land, $100,000, and a location more central to Dakota.

As in Idaho, the prospect of the capital leaving its original location was met with a great deal of hostility. In the Dakota case, however, the anger arose from the seemingly transparent graft involved in the effort. Three of the commission members were affiliated with the Northern Pacific Railroad, including Alexander McKenzie, a political agent of the railroad and sheriff of Bismarck. Ordway was further influenced by Henry Villard, the president of the railroad. As the removal process went forward, Bismarck was considered for the new capital, and it just so happened that the town was located right on the Northern Pacific line. Across the territory, newspapers and "indignation meetings" denounced the proceedings as corrupt, with one meeting in Sioux Falls vowing to ask the President or House of Representatives to get rid of Ordway. "Individually, we were in favor of removal of the capital," one newspaper said, "but wanted to see it done honestly and in the interest of the territory."

Twelve different towns made a bid for the capital, but the circumstances (and perhaps some bribery) had essentially determined that the capital would go to Bismarck. The town received the honor after offering $100,000 and 320 acres of land, a cash bid equal to the other towns but a land bid twice as large as most of them. At one point, a meeting had to take place in Yankton as part of the removal process, but citizens there managed to get a court order to prevent it. Ordway and the others involved in the process managed to subvert it by holding the meeting on a rail car passing through the town, achieving the necessary requirements while at the same time not quite violating the order. Ordway established the Capital National Bank in Bismarck and began overseeing the construction of a capitol building in Bismarck, as well as public buildings such as an insane asylum, universities, and schools. The territory's split was foreshadowed by the flat out refusal of some of the government offices to leave Yankton. The treasury and supreme court were among those that stayed, essentially dividing the duties of the territory between two different capitals.

Dakotans in the southern portion of the territory were so disgusted by the removal efforts that they created the Dakota Citizens League, and in September of 1883 they held a constitutional convention in Sioux Falls to create a document exclusively for a South Dakota. The constitution was approved, but only 40 percent of the territory's voters bothered to show up to do so. Congress was not impressed, and didn't approve it. Another attempt in 1885 was made, along with an unsuccessful effort to get the capital moved from Bismarck to the present day South Dakota capital of Pierre. The turnout was similarly light, but the House of Representatives passed the constitution. Afraid that two states would upset the congressional balance by inflating the Republican count, however, the Senate turned it down. Finally, in the 1888 elections, the Republican Party turned the Dakota statehood into a campaign issue. In February of 1889, Congress passed an enabling act and, after further revisions to the constitution, North and South Dakota were admitted into the Union in December. So in his questionable actions regarding the capital removal, Ordway had brought about a result he personally disfavored but his party supported.

As was the case in numerous western territories, the residents also took something of a dislike to Ordway because he'd been brought in from out of the area. Born in Warner, New Hampshire in November of 1828, he was elected sergeant of arms of the New Hampshire house of representatives in 1855. The next year, Ordway was returned to the position and earned another two appointments: assistant clerk to the house and high sheriff of Merrimac County, a position he held for five years. In 1857, he was named marshal and tax collector of Concord. He resigned the office in 1861 after he was appointed postal agent for the New England states. Ordway also pursued financial interests, establishing the Kearsage National and Savings Banks in his hometown.

He was commissioned as a colonel in 1862, and the next year he was elected sergeant of arms for the House of Representatives for the first time. He spent 12 years there, and served several terms in the New Hampshire legislature between 1875 and 1880. Finally, Ordway took part in a constitutional convention that established major changes to the state's tax system.

Ordway was appointed Governor of the Dakota Territory in 1880 by Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes. Recognizing that Dakota soil was well-suited for growing a diverse variety of crops, Ordway arranged for a rail car of the territory's agricultural products to tour the fairs and locales of the eastern states. He was also faced almost immediately with a crisis, as heavy snows during the winter of 1880 to 1881 led to a massive spring melt and devastating floods. Though he was out of the territory at the time, he sought to raise $100,000 to go toward the ongoing relief efforts. A hefty study entitled History of Dakota Territory was hardly charitable to Ordway, but conceded that he had done well in the appointment of W.H.H. Beadle as territorial superintendent of public instruction. In fact, the authors claimed they could find not one thing amiss with the administration of education in Dakota. They said that in 1884-1885 the territory was spending more on education than 22 states and had a schoolhouse for every 151 residents, a better proportion than 21 states.

The general consensus, unfortunately, was that Ordway was an easily corruptible Governor. He had gotten into office with the support of New Hampshire land speculators, and later gave one of his associates from that state the lucrative contract for a Sioux Falls penitentiary. He gave his son the well-paying position of territorial auditor. He spent a great deal of time outside of Dakota, acting as something of a representative to Washington even though that role was already taken by the territorial delegate to Congress. This delegate, John B. Raymond, refused to introduce a bill for single statehood because he had come to office promising division. In retaliation, Ordway and his supporters managed to get Raymond's nomination overturned at the Republican Territorial Convention. He was also criticized for vetoing dozens of bills for the construction of public buildings during the 1881 legislative session, but letting thousands of bills of questionable importance through in 1883.

By the time Ordway's appointment was coming to a close in May of 1884, petitions had started to pour into the White House begging Republican President Chester A. Arthur to give them a different Governor. Their wishes were soon met by a new, more solid controversy that erupted not long before Arthur had to make up his mind on the appointment. Under territorial law, counties could petition for organization after sending the signatures of fifty residents to the Governor; the Governor could then appoint commissioners. After that point, the commissioners would assume the appointment of county officials and other matters, including where to locate the county seat (a process the Governor was not supposed to have a role in).

Several accusations about shoddy practices in the process came to light. It became apparent that the organization of counties was largely corrupt, with people forced to give cash or land to influence the appointment of commissioners who would favor their town for the county seat. Ordway was said to have rescinded the appointment of a commissioner in Hyde County upon realizing that the man wouldn't fall in line in a vote on where to place the county seat. In another incident in Potter County in 1883, the commissioners for Potter County held a meeting about where the county seat would be located. One of the commissioners was shut out, and by the time he arrived he discovered that the seat and county officers had already been chosen. He immediately wrote to a judge, accusing one of the other commissioners of bribing Ordway to receive his appointment.

A federal investigation began, and Ordway was indicted for taking bribes to influence the appointment of commissioners in Faulk County. During the criminal proceedings, Ordway ceased to be Governor and Arthur removed him from office, naming Chicago writer Gilbert A. Pierce as the next Governor. United States Attorney Hugh Campbell sought to capture Ordway in a wide net of corrupt practices. He said the Governor had delayed the organization in Faulk County for about a year despite receiving petitions. At that point, an acquaintance of Ordway's had come to Dakota and approached the authorities in two towns hoping to receive the county seat. Both towns were told they could receive the seat if they were found to be favorable, and so they each raised land and funds for that goal. Eventually, LaFoon Townsite Company was chosen after giving half of their 440 acres and some cash to help Ordway make up his mind.

The defense employed a loophole, arguing that Ordway couldn't be punished in a criminal court because of his authority. The only punishment he could receive would be removal from office by the President, something that had already happened. The prosecution fired back that Ordway was the subject to the same criminal laws as everyone else and removal alone was insufficient. The judge agreed with Ordway's defenders, and the indictment was quashed. The acquittal did nothing to save Ordway's reputation. History of Dakota said it was unfortunate that a Governor such as Ordway was in office when such strides were being made by the territory's inhabitants. "He did little for Dakota except to stir up strife and spread abroad scandalous reports regarding the integrity of the people," the publication said.

Ordway returned east to take up business pursuits and agriculture, establishing an estate of 400 to 500 acres. He also joined his friends at the Northern Pacific Railroad, becoming a special agent with the company and leading their Washington lobby. Though it was reported that Ordway's health had been seriously impaired by his efforts in Dakota, the reports were exaggerated or he managed to recover. He survived until July of 1907, when he passed away in Boston.

Sources: The State Historical Society of North Dakota, "A Dakota Bribery Case" in the New York Times on Dec. 30 1883, History of Dakota Territory Vol. 2 by George Washington Kingsbury and George Martin Smith, North Dakota Magazine Vol. 2 Issue 2, The United States: Louisiana to Ohio by Benjamin F. Shearer, South Dakota: A Bicentennial History by John R. Milton, The WPA Guide to South Dakota, A Shovel of Stars: The Making of the American West 1800 to Present by Ted Morgan, Men of Progress by Richard Herndon

James Brooks: out of stock

Image from civil-war.net

With the half of the country still missing at the time of the 1864 elections, the question of how to proceed with the ongoing Civil War raised the passions of the candidates and voters. The Democratic Party had split between "Peace" faction, which favored a truce with the Confederacy, and the "War" faction, who supported the effort to reunify the nation. James Brooks, a New York City candidate for re-election to the House of Representatives, fell into the former camp. During his time in Congress, he had become a proponent of peace negotiations with the seceded states. This position did not necessarily translate into support of slavery. Brooks had asked his wife to emancipate her slaves before their marriage, and he later publicly declared slavery a dead or dying institution that could not be defended.

Old-fashioned politicking played a role in the New York election as well. Tammany Hall, the Democratic machine, had nominated former congressman Thomas J. Barr to contest Brooks in the general election. The Brooks campaign offered him $5,000 if he would withdraw from the race. Barr, a War Democrat, in turn sought to get the Republican candidate, William E. Dodge, to drop out. When he was not successful, he asked for $5,000 from the Dodge campaign to stay in the race and split the Democratic vote and received $2,000. It almost worked. When the ballots were counted, Barr came in a distant third with 4,544 votes; Dodge earned 8,435, and Brooks squeaked past with 8,583. One month after his election, Brooks and his brother, Erastus, were arrested after Peter Sweeney of Tammany Hall accused them of libel in printing accusations of about Tammany interference in the election through payouts and having inspectors ignore Brooks' votes.

Brooks' new term began in March of 1865, but the election was close enough that Dodge contested it to the House Committee on Elections. His appeal charged widespread ineptitude or corruption on the part of the election inspectors. Dodge said thousands of votes from people who weren't residents of the district had been counted, soldiers' votes had been forged, Dodge's votes had been improperly rejected, public notice had not been given of registration areas or voting places, and bribery and coercion had been used throughout. Brooks said Dodge was simply using his personal wealth to try to sway the election and the district to his side. The question dragged on into 1866, when the majority report of the committee declared that Brooks was not entitled to his seat and Dodge was. In April, the matter went to the House. After unsuccessful attempts to declare the seat vacant and refer the issue back to the people or send the question back to committee, the members agreed that Brooks should no longer be seated in an 84-45 vote, with 54 abstaining; soon after, they voted 72-52, with 59 abstaining, to put Dodge in his place. Brooks' absence was short-lived, however. Dodge, a reluctant nominee, did not seek re-election after his truncated term and Brooks won the seat back in the November election.

The hiccup in his political career and almost immediate recovery give an example of the relative success Brooks enjoyed in his life. Born in Portland, Maine in November of 1810, he earned money to attend college by working as a store clerk in Lewiston. After graduating from Waterville College in 1831, he briefly studied law and taught school while frequently writing letters to the Portland Advertiser. This last activity led to his career in editing the newspaper and serving as a political correspondent in Washington, D.C. Brooks served one term in the Maine house of representatives in 1835, and, after an unsuccessful attempt at re-election, traveled through Europe and the South, continually writing back to the Advertiser to document his adventures.

Upon his return to the United States, Brooks moved to New York City and established the New York Daily Express. He served in the New York state assembly in 1847, and in the next year was elected as a Whig to the House of Representatives, winning one more term there before he was turned out in the 1852 election. During the gaps in his political career, Brooks continued with his editorial duties, and continued working on the Express for the rest of his life.

When the war was concluded, one of the most important projects in the United States was the construction of a transcontinental railroad. Unfortunately, this undertaking was fraught with corruption and greed. The Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads, swollen with land grants, federal bonds, and state and local purchases of their stock, soon became the largest corporations in the country. In part, the project got off the ground because Thomas Durant and seven other directors of the Union Pacific bought up a defunct Philadelphia holding company and dubbed it Credit Mobilier after a prestigious French credit company. By having Credit Mobilier buy Union Pacific stock and sell it below face value, the railroad raised enough money to begin construction.

Of course, this meant Credit Mobilier was essentially a dummy organization through which Union Pacific could pay itself to collect rich dividends. The directors were well aware of this fact, and eagerly sought to increase their profits in any way possible. By being both part of the railroad and Credit Mobilier, they could not only overcharge for services but approve the faulty figure as well. The railroad further cut corners by using shoddy building materials, not paying subcontractors for work, and, most notoriously, paying laborers paltry wages for the often dangerous work. Credit Mobilier held the valuable bonds resulting from the project, while the Union Pacific's debt increased. When the two spurs linked up in Promontory Point in Utah in 1869, the railroad was $74 million in the hole while Credit Mobilier had produced some $16 million to $23 million for stockholders. The impressive accomplishment of the transcontinental route was undermined by the sub-par quality of the railroad and the unjust enrichment of Credit Mobilier. Mired in debt, Union Pacific went bankrupt in 1893.

Congress, overseeing several of the financial and other issues required to move the construction forward, was not immune from the corrupt practices. Several members had been appointed government directors of the Union Pacific, including Brooks in October of 1867. Though they were forbidden from holding the lucrative stock in companies related to the project, the temptation was overwhelming. "The members of it are in Congress; they are trustees for the bondholder, they are directors, they are stockholders, they are contractors; in Washington, they vote the subsidies, in New York they receive them, upon the Plains they expend them, and in the Credit Mobilier they divide them," journalist Charles Francis Adams wrote of Credit Mobilier in 1869. "As stockholders they own the road, as mortgagees they they have a lien upon it, as directors they contract for its construction, and as members of the Credit Mobilier they build it."

Though Adams' charge essentially outlined the Credit Mobilier problem, the issue did not explode into a full scandal until September of 1872. The New York Sun, a prominent enemy of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant's administration, published an article charging that Credit Mobilier had given 2,000 to 3,000 shares of stock to the chairmen of congressional committees related to the transcontinental railroad. The scandal broke in part because of bad blood among the Credit Mobilier group, with trustee and stockholder Henry S. McComb suing the corporation and its officers, including Republican Representative Oakes Ames of Massachusetts and former Republican congressman John B. Alley of Massachusetts, in an attempt to retrieve a signficant amount of stock he felt he had earned. The article concluded that Ames had written McComb three letters in late 1867 and early 1868, revealing that Credit Mobilier stock had been sold at a steep discount to congressmen and mostly kept in trust to hide their names. The letters also hinted that the sales aimed to influence legislation and that the stock should be put "where it will produce most good for us." The Sun implicated 12 Republican officials in the affair, including former Vice President Schuyler Colfax; Henry Wilson, a Massachusetts Senator chosen to replace him on the 1872 ticket for Grant's re-election; and Representatives James G. Blaine of Maine and James Garfield of Ohio. Brooks, who had won re-election in 1868 and 1870, was not among the names.

Coming as it did on the eve of the major election year of 1872, pro-Grant newspapers such as the New York Times accused the Sun's account of amounting to mudslinging. The Sun had indeed been highly critical of corruption during the Grant administration, and expressed its support for newspaper editor and renowned antebellum abolitionist Horace Greeley as the Presidential candidate of the Democrats and a splinter group of liberal Republicans. Though Brooks' involvement in the Credit Mobilier affair was still unknown, the Times nevertheless had harsh words for him and urged support of Republican candidate Adolphe G. Dunn. The newspaper said Brooks had been disloyal during the Civil War, shown more loyalty to Tammany Hall than the district, and that his career was "chiefly distinguished by the accumulation of a large fortune for himself." Within the year, it would be determined that this last charge had hit the nail on the head.

The Sun's accusations had little effect on the elections, which saw the re-election of Grant as well as Brooks. In December, Blaine called for an investigation into the Credit Mobilier affair, saying he wanted the "slanders" to be addressed. The House approved the formation of a committee of five attorneys led by Judge Luke Poland of Vermont. The committee called on the targeted politicians as well as representatives from Credit Mobilier, the Union Pacific, and the Central Pacific. The initial hearings were conducted behind closed doors, but certain tidbits leaked out. One involved McComb saying that Brooks had received 50 shares of Credit Mobilier stock to influence his own decisions and those of the Democrats regarding legislation about the Union Pacific railroad. Permitted to speak to the charge on the floor of the House, Brooks angrily denied the accusation. "If this charge is true, I am unfit to be a member of the House and ought to be expelled--and not only from the House, but from all association with decent men," he said. Brooks explained that his son-in-law, Charles Neilson, was the person who owned the shares and that he could produce the receipt to prove it; moreover, he said, McComb had become complicit in the crimes he was accusing Brooks of by bribing members of the Louisiana legislature to support railroad interests McComb had a stake in. "Mr. Brooks weakened the force of his explanation greatly by bringing in a great deal that seemed unnecessary, and by his bitterness toward McComb," the New York Times judged, "but his denial was very broad and very emphatic, and he left McComb a very badly impeached witness."

After the closed hearings were criticized, the proceedings were made public in January of 1873, along with transcripts from the private activities of the Poland Committee. In the same month, the House formed a second select committee to conduct their own investigation.

When the Poland Committee completed their work, they determined that Brooks had only been telling half the story in his assertion that the Credit Mobilier stock belonged to Neilson. The committee said that Brooks had spoken with Durant about acquiring $15,000 to $20,000 in stock, but no formal agreement was made. When the value of the stock increased substantially in December of 1867, Brooks again wanted a piece of the profits and sought a transfer of 200 shares. He had been made a government director of the Union Pacific railroad two months before, however, and such ownership was forbidden. To circumvent this prohibition, Brooks arranged for 100 shares of Credit Mobilier stock, $5,000 in Union Pacific bonds, and $20,000 in Union Pacific stock to be transferred to Neilson. The committee found that Neilson was not complicit in the activity, since Brooks had purchased the shares for him and Neilson immediately turned over the dividends to his father-in-law. When the Credit Mobilier stock increased by 50 percent, Brooks made the dodgy claim that it entitled him to an additional 50 shares via the agreement he had made. Even the Credit Mobilier parties were skeptical of the assertion, but Brooks ended up receiving the bonus.

Neilson admitted receiving an additional 50 shares, but denied that Brooks had ever received dividends on the stock. The committee did not believe there was sufficient evidence showing that Brooks was merely a third party, however. It discovered that Neilson had given Brooks $9,000 in dividends in June of 1868, ostensibly to repay Brooks for $10,000 that had been advanced for the purchase of the 100 shares of Credit Mobilier stock. This left only $1,000 left on the loan, yet Brooks continued to hold $16,000 worth of Union Pacific bonds given to him by Neilson as a security. The committee concluded that Brooks had been the proprietor of his son-in-law's funds, and had received the 50 shares of Credit Mobilier stock worth $15,000 to $20,000 worth of Credit Mobilier at a price of only $5,000.

While the Poland Committee determined that most of the people accused in the scandal had merely been indiscreet, it had different conclusions for Brooks and Ames. Brooks, they said, had knowingly defrauded the government and rather foolishly tried to hide the benefits of the stock while still managing the investment and dividends. They confirmed that Ames had used discounted Credit Mobilier stock to try to bribe congressmen. In February, the committee recommended that both congressmen be expelled. Two days later, the congressional committee led by Republican Representative Jeremiah Wilson of Indiana concluded that Credit Mobilier had bilked the U.S. taxpayers and Union Pacific out of millions of dollars to enrich their directors. It recommended suing to recover the lost funds.

The matter went before the House later in the month. The congressmen proved reluctant to go forward with the Poland Committee's recommendation. The chamber voted 164 to 59 against tabling the whole matter, and agreed in a 115-110 vote to accept Republican Representative Aaron Sargent's suggestion that Brooks and Ames be censured instead. The House voted 174 to 32 to censure Brooks, and 181 to 36 to censure Ames. Some Republican members immediately apologized to Ames, saying they had voted for his censure only because they felt it was what their constituents would approve. The votes also set off a barrage of abortive resolutions to retain the Poland Committee to further investigate other members charged in the scandal, since there was some grumbling that Ames and Brooks had simply been chosen to mete out symbolic punishment to both parties. These efforts eventually burned out, and the Poland Committee was discharged.

Brooks had continued to travel throughout his life, and at the time of his censure he was extremely ill after picking up a fever in Asia. The proceedings may well have further drained the vitality from him, but he retained a bit of kick in the final months of his life. He thanked the black members of the House who had voted against his punishment, and issued a statement in March reiterating his innocence. He said the Poland Committee had ignored other testimony and exploited his illness, and once again claimed that Neilson had owned the 150 shares of Credit Mobilier stock rather than him. He died in April, and Ames followed him to the grave eight days later.

Sources: The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, "Criminal Prosecution Of The Editors Of The Express For Libel" in the New York Times on Dec. 13 1864, "Arrest Of Hon. James Brooks" in the New York Times on Dec. 28 1864, "Washington News" in the New York Times on Mar. 27 1866, "Washington News" in the New York Times on Apr. 7 1866, "New-York Contested Election" in the New York Times on Apr. 11 1866, "James Brooks" in the Lewiston Evening Journal on Apr. 17 1872, "Dunn vs. Brooks" in the New York Times on Nov. 1 1872, "The National Capital" in the New York Times on Dec. 18 1872, "Credit Mobililer" in the New York Times on Jan. 14 1873, "Telegrams Condensed" in the Reading Eagle on Feb. 27 1873, "Ames And Brooks" in the New York Times on Feb. 28 1873, "Credit Mobilier: Mr. James Brooks Again Explains His Connection With It And Loses His Temper" in the New York Times on Mar. 8 1873, "Obituary: Hon. James Brooks" in the New York Times on May 1 1873, Nothing Like it in the World: the Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad by Stephen E. Ambrose, Empire Express: Building the First Transcontinental Railroad by David Haward Bain, The Reconstruction Era: Primary Documents on Events from 1865 to 1877 by Donna Lee Dickerson, Final Freedom: the Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment by Michael Vorenberg, William E. Dodge: the Christian Merchant by William Carlos Martyn, The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century by Richard Franklin Bensel, The Election Frauds of New York City and Their Prevention by John I. Davenport, The Credit Mobilier of America by J.B. Crawford, Campaign of '84 by Thomas V. Cooper, The House: The History of the House of Representatives by Robert Vincent Remini