Vigilante Days and Ways / The pioneers of the Rockies; the makers and making of Montana and Idaho

by Nathaniel Pitt Langford

The efforts of the roughs to suppress the trial only increased the indignation of the people, and after electing a temporary chairman, a motion was made that the accused be tried by a miners’ court. This form of tribunal grew out of the necessities of mining life in the mountains. It originated in the early days of California, when the country was destitute of courts and law, and still exists in inchoate mining communities as a witness to the fairness and honesty of American character. It is now the general custom among the property holders of a mining camp, as the first step towards organization, to elect a president or judge, who is to act as the judicial officer of the district. He has both civil and criminal jurisdiction. All questions affecting the rights of property, and all infractions of the peace, are tried before him. When complaint is made to him, it is his duty to appoint the time and place of trial in written notices which contain a brief statement of the matter in controversy, and are posted in conspicuous places throughout the camp. The miners assemble in force to attend the trial. The witnesses are examined, either by attorneys or by the parties interested, and when the evidence is closed the judge states the question at issue, desiring all in favor of the plaintiff to separate from the crowd in attendance until they can be counted, or to signify by a vote of “aye” their approval of his claim. The same forms are observed in the decision of a criminal case. The decision is announced by the judge and entered upon his record. Where the punishment is death, the criminal is generally allowed one hour to arrange his business and prepare for death; when it is banishment, a few hours are given him to leave the camp. If he neglects to comply with the sentence he is in danger of being summarily executed. Where the rights of parties are settled by the court, and the defeated party shows any resistance to the decision, it is the duty of the court, if necessary, with the strong hand to enforce it. The court is composed of the entire population. To guard against mistakes, the party in defeat, in all cases, has the right to demand a second vote.

The progress of a trial in one of these courts is entirely practical. Often the miners announce at the commencement that the court must close at a certain hour. Cross-examinations are generally prohibited, and if lawyers are employed, it is with the understanding that they shall make no long arguments. Each party and their respective witnesses give their evidence in a plain, straightforward manner, and if any of the listeners desire information on a given point in the testimony they request the person acting as attorney to ask such questions as are necessary to obtain it. The decisions of these tribunals are seldom wrong, and are always enforced in good faith. They have many advantages in mining regions over courts at law. None of the tedious incidents of pleading, adjournment, amendment, demurrer, etc., which at law so often consume the time of litigants and put them to unnecessary expense, belong to a miners’ court.

The miners themselves have little time to spare, and hence these courts are held on Sunday in all cases where the exigency is not immediate. They are held in the open air. Whenever, from any seemingly unnecessary cause, their investigations are prolonged, as by argumentative display, there are always those present who, by the command “Dry up,” “No spread-eagle talk,” force them to a close.

On one occasion at Blackfoot, in Montana, a rough was on trial for crimes which endangered his life. A motion had been made by his counsel that his life be spared on condition that he would leave the gulch in fifteen minutes,—which motion was carried by a small majority. In anticipation of this favorable result his friends had provided a mule to expedite his departure. The presiding miners’ judge announced to him the condition of his freedom from death. Fearful that a reconsideration might be demanded, the moment he was released he vaulted into the saddle, and looking around upon the crowd exclaimed, “Fifteen minutes! Gentlemen, if this mule doesn’t buck, five will do!” and lashing the sides of the animal he disappeared at double-quick amid the shouts and laughter of the crowd.

It was a trial by this court that the murderers dreaded, and to escape which they made a trial by jury the condition of their surrender. When the motion was made to substitute the miners’ court it fell into their midst like a thunderbolt. They regarded a trial by the mass as certain of conviction as a trial by jury would be of acquittal, not because the latter would be any less likely than the former to perceive their guilt, but because fear of personal consequences would prevent them from declaring it. Men whose identity was lost in a crowd would do that which, if they were known, would mark them as victims for future assassination. The friends of the prisoners showed the estimation in which they regarded this consideration when they openly threatened with death every individual who participated in the trial. They anticipated that, as none would dare in defiance of this threat to act upon a jury, all proceedings would be suppressed, thus renewing the license for their continued depredations.

The statement of the motion by the chairman was the signal for a violent commotion among the roughs. One long howl of profanity, mingled with the most diabolical threats and repeated discharge of pistols, filled the room. Many shots were turned from their deadly aim by timely hands and discharged into the ceiling. Knives were drawn and flourished in the faces of prominent citizens, accompanied with threats of death in case the motion prevailed. The scene was fearful in the extreme. The miners in different parts of the crowd could be seen getting their guns and pistols ready for the collision which at one stage of the tumult it seemed impossible to avoid. At length the repeated cries of the chairman for order, and the earnest voices of several persons who were desirous of discussing the proposition, allayed the noise and confusion, so that they could be heard. The guilt of the prisoners was so palpable that the people deemed any sort of a trial which would not speedily terminate in their condemnation a farce. A very large majority were in favor of a miners’ court, because they foresaw that any other form of trial afforded opportunity for escape. Three hours were spent in determining the question. Many short, emphatic arguments were made. In the meantime the disturbance made by the roughs waxed and waned to suit the different stages of the discussion. Shots at one moment and shouts at another betrayed their approval or disapproval of the sentiments of the speaker. I had from the first made myself offensive to my own immediate friends and intimates by pertinaciously claiming for the prisoners a trial by jury, and mounting a bench I embraced an early opportunity to give, in a few pointed words addressed to the assembled miners, my views. I reminded them of the constitutional provision which secured to every one accused of crime a trial by jury. It was a law of the land, as applicable on this as on any other occasion. The men were probably guilty; if so, the fact should be proved; if not, they had the right by law, on proving it, to an acquittal. Moreover, they had surrendered at a time when they could not have been captured, upon the express condition that they should be tried by jury. I asked, “Shall we ignore the agreement made with them by our officers?” I concluded by offering a motion that they be tried by a jury. It was negatived by three to one. Immediately a cry rose in the crowd, “Hang them at once”; this was followed by other cries of “String ’em up,” “To the scaffold with ’em.” Pistols were drawn and flourished more freely than before, and many personal collisions, resulting in bloody noses, black eyes, and raw heads, took place in all parts of the room. Another hour was spent in discussion, and finally by a bare majority it was agreed to give the prisoners the benefit of a trial by jury.

It is impossible to portray with accuracy of detail the fearful effects of passion which were exhibited by the assembly while this question was being determined. On a limited scale it could not have been unlike some of the riotous gatherings in Paris in the days of the first revolution. It wanted numbers, it wanted the magnificent surroundings of those scenes, but as an exhibition of the passions of depraved men, when inflamed with anger, drink, and vengeance, it could not have been greatly surpassed by them.

Order at length being restored, a portion of the room was enclosed with scantling, for the accommodation of the Court and jury. J. F. Hoyt was elected Judge, Hank Crawford, sheriff, and George Copley, prosecutor. The jury was next chosen by a vote of the people. My own appointment on the jury was urged by the roughs, as a compliment for my efforts to obtain for them a jury trial. I was regarded by them as a friend, and they hoped confidently for acquittal through my influence.

At first it was determined that the examination of the witnesses for both prosecution and defence should be conducted by George Copley, the prosecutor, but upon an appeal for justice in behalf of the prisoners it was at length decided by a small majority that the accused should be allowed the assistance of counsel, with the understanding that all the questions of their counsel were first to be submitted to the prosecutor. Hon. Wm. C. Rheem was chosen to defend the prisoners, and there were many threats of violence toward him for consenting to conduct the defence. It was agreed that the arguments to be made on either side should be brief, and that the trials should be urged to their conclusion with all possible expedition. Mr. Rheem’s ability as a lawyer was unquestioned,—which fact furnished to those who objected to a jury trial their principal reason for opposing his employment as counsel for the prisoners. As the extent of Mitchell’s criminality was uncertain, he was allowed a separate trial. His case was first brought under examination. It appeared in evidence that he had accompanied Moore and Reeves on their second murderous visit to the tepee, but he was able to show that he had not once fired his gun, and consequently could not be guilty of murder. His trial was soon terminated. The jury recommended that he should be immediately banished from the gulch.

The guilt of Moore and Reeves was fully established. This result was foreseen by their friends; and while the trial was in progress they sought by threats and ferocious gesticulations to intimidate the jury. Gathering around the side of the enclosure occupied by the jury, they kept up a continued conversation, the purport of which was that no member of that court or jury would live a month if they dared to find the prisoners guilty. Occasionally, their anger waxing hot, they would draw their pistols and knives, and brandishing them in the faces of the jurymen, utter filthy epithets, and bid them beware of their verdict. Crawford was the object of their especial hate. Their abusive assaults upon him and threats were so frequent and violent that at one time he tendered his resignation and refused to serve, but upon the promise of his friends to stand by and protect him he retained his position. The case was given to the jury at about seven o’clock in the evening. A friend of the prisoners in the court-room nominated me as foreman, but upon my refusal to serve under that nomination I afterwards received the appointment by a vote of my fellow-jurymen.