conviction by Hall independent of Heney, what was to prevent us from submitting to a light fine, as was done in the Cunningham case preceding, or else allow the whole thing to gradually go by the board and resolve itself into a seven-days' wonder?
In the Cunningham case alluded to, the defendant, C. W. Cunningham, a wealthy stockraiser of Umatilla county, Oregon, had induced a number of his employes to file homestead entries on a large tract of vacant Government land which was already inclosed in Cunningham's vast sheep pasture. All involved were charged with conspiracy to defraud the Government of its public lands under Section 5440 of the United States Revised Statutes, and upon the day set for trial, while all the witnesses were on hand ready for the case to proceed, much to everybody's surprise, Cunningham personally withdrew his plea of not guilty and substituted therefor a plea of guilty, and a fine of $5,000 was imposed. He had taken this action without the knowledge of his associates, and with a single exception, the latter lost no time in following his example, a fine of $200 being imposed in their cases, which Cunningham agreed to pay. Upon his subsequent refusal to do so, the Court imposed the cost penalty upon him. No jail sentence was given in any instance, and it was the general impression that Cunningham's political prominence had much to do with United States Attorney Hall's recommendations in his case, and not by reason of any mitigating circumstances.
However, Heney not only secured the substitution of the 11-7 case for that of the 24-1, but succeeded in having the cases postponed until Fall, so that after the demurrers were overruled by United States District Judge Bellinger on October 21st. 1904, the 11-7 case was placed on the calendar for trial a month later.
McKinley and I arrived in Portland shortly before November 21, the date set for trial, and were greatly surprised when ve ascertained the new phase of the situation, and that we were to be tried under the 11-7 indictment instead of that covering the 24-1 offense. We were sorely disappointed because we had made all arrangements for going to trial on the latter case, whereas, on account of the limited time, we were in no position to prepare a satisfactory defense in the 11-7 case.
However, we lost no time in making the best of a bad bargain, and I personally rounded up as many of the original ten entrymen in the township as I could find, and succeeded in holding conferences with Marie Ware, Thomas R. Wilson, Frank H. Walgamot, and Mrs. Watson. The others had either left the country or were beyond our control.
When I talked with Mrs. Watson, she assured me that she had not been approached by anyone during the summer months, so I knew that so far as she was concerned the Government sleuths had obtained nothing. I also advised her of the Government's change of front in switching from the 24-1 case to that of the 11-7, in which she was indicted jointly with Marie Ware, Horace G. McKinley. Dan W. Tarpley and myself, together with some of the other entrymen, and told her that although she had located the claim under the name of Emma Porter, and an indictment had been returned against her for conspiracy, I was informed by my attorney, Mr. Mays, that there was no possible chance of conviction on account of the intervention of the statute of limitation. She was likewise admonished by me to stand pat and decline to be interviewed, all of which she agreed to.
Calling upon Marie Ware, I was somewhat annoyed to ascertain that she had been hounded by Secret Service men all through the summer, and that in the course of a visit with friends at Spokane, Wash., she became acquainted with a dashy sort of a fellow who represented himself as a mining man, and who had paid her devoted attention during her stay there.
"I suspected from the first that all was not right," declared Miss Ware in describing her experiences, "as he spared no expense in my entertainment, taking me to theatres and other places of amusement as often as the opportunity Page 126
