How Newspapers Reported The Gunfight At The OK Corral 1881

One of my hobbies is reading period newspapers. I love reading first-hand accounts. I also love reading the difference between how two newspapers report the same incident. To me, there is no better example of two newspapers reporting the same incident and yet reporting two completely different stories about what took place than that now famous 30-second shooting that happened in Tombstone, Arizona, on October 26, 1881. 

Take a look at both newspaper stories for yourself, and see if you can tell the difference in how the incident was reported. First, let's take a look at how The Tombstone Epitaph reported what took place:

Coverage of the Gunfight and Subsequent Developments
October 27, 1881

YESTERDAY'S TRAGEDY

Tombstone Daily Epitaph - October 27, 1881

Three Men Hurled Into Eternity in the Duration of a Moment

Stormy as were the early days of Tombstone nothing ever occurred equal to the event of yesterday. Since the retirement of Ben Sippy as marshal and the appointment of V.W. Earp to fill the vacancy the town has been noted for its quietness and good order.

The fractious and much dreaded cowboys when they came to town were upon their good behaviour and no unseemly brawls were indulged in, and it was hoped by our citizens that no more such deeds would occur as led to the killing of Marshal White one year ago.

It seems that this quiet state of affairs was but the calm that precedes the storm that burst in all its fury yesterday, with this difference in results, that the lightning bolt struck in a different quarter from the one that fell a year ago.

This time it struck with its full and awful force upon those who, heretofore, have made the good name of this county a byword and a reproach, instead of upon some officer in discharge of his duty or a peaceable and unoffending citizen.

Since the arrest of Stilwell and Spence for the robbery of the Bisbee stage, there have been oft repeated threats conveyed to the Earp brothers -- Virgil, Morgan and Wyatt -- that the friends of the accused, or in other words the cowboys , would get even with them for the part they had taken in the pursuit and arrest of Stilwell and Spence.

The active part of the Earps in going after stage robbers, beginning with the one last spring where Budd Philpot lost his life, and the more recent one near Contention, has made them exceedingly obnoxious to the bad element of this county and put their lives in jeopardy every month.

Sometime Tuesday Ike Clanton came into town and during the evening had some little talk with Doc Holliday and Marshal Earp but nothing to cause either to suspect, further than their general knowledge of the man and the threats that had previously been conveyed to the Marshal, that the gang intended to clean out the Earps, that he was thirsting for blood at this time with one exception and that was that Clanton told the Marshal, in answer to a question, that the McLowrys were in Sonora.

Shortly after this occurrence someone came to the Marshal and told him that the McLowrys had been seen a short time before just below town.

Marshal Earp, now knowing what might happen and feeling his responsibility for the peace and order of the city, stayed on duty all night and added to the police force his brother Morgan and Holliday.

The night passed without any disturbance whatever and at sunrise he went home to rest and sleep. A short time afterwards one of his brothers came to his house and told him that Clanton was hunting him with threats of shooting him on sight. He discredited the report and did not get out of bed. It was not long before another of his brothers came down, and told him the same thing, whereupon he got up, dressed and went with his brother Morgan uptown.

They walked up Allen Street to Fifth, crossed over to Fremont and down to Fourth, where, upon turning up Fourth toward Allen, they came upon Clanton with a Winchester rifle in his hand and a revolver on his hip. The Marshal walked up to him, grabbed the rifle and hit him a blow on the head at the same time, stunning him so that he was able to disarm him without further trouble.

He marched Clanton off to the police court where he entered a complaint against him for carrying deadly weapons, and the court fined Clanton $25 and costs, making $27.50 altogether. This occurrence must have been about 1 o'clock in the afternoon.

The After-Occurrence

Close upon the heels of this came the finale, which is best told in the words of R.F. Coleman who was an eye-witness from the beginning to the end. Mr. Coleman says:

I was in the O.K. Corral at 2:30 p.m., when I saw the two Clantons and the two McLowrys in an earnest conversation across the street in Dunbar's corral. I went up the street and notified Sheriff Behan and told him it was my opinion they meant trouble, and it was his duty, as sheriff, to go and disarm them. I told him they had gone to the West End Corral. I then went and saw Marshal Virgil Earp and notified him to the same effect. I then met Billy Allen and we walked through the O.K. Corral, about fifty yards behind the sheriff. On reaching Fremont street I saw Virgil Earp, Wyatt Earp, Morgan Earp and Doc Holliday, in the center of the street, all armed. I had reached Bauer's meat market. Johnny Behan had just left the cowboys, after having a conversation with them. I went along to Fly's photograph gallery, when I heard Virg Earp say, "Give up your arms or throw up your arms."

There was some reply made by Frank McLowry, when firing became general, over thirty shots being fired. Tom McLowry fell first, but raised and fired again before he died. Bill Clanton fell next, and raised to fire again when Mr. Fly took his revolver from him. Frank McLowry ran a few rods and fell. Morgan Earp was shot through and fell. Doc Holliday was hit in the left hip but kept on firing. Virgil Earp was hit in the third or fourth fire, in the leg which staggered him but he kept up his effective work. Wyatt Earp stood up and fired in rapid succession, as cool as a cucumber, and was not hit. Doc Holliday was as calm as though at target practice and fired rapidly. After the firing was over, Sheriff Behan went up to Wyatt Earp and said, "I'll have to arrest you." Wyatt replied: "I won't be arrested today. I am right here and am not going away. You have deceived me. You told me these men were disarmed; I went to disarm them."

This ends Mr. Coleman's story which in the most essential particulars has been confirmed by others. Marshal Earp says that he and his party met the Clantons and the McLowrys in the alleyway by the McDonald place; he called to them to throw up their hands, that he had come to disarm them.

Instantaneously Bill Clanton and one of the McLowrys fired, and then it became general. Mr. Earp says it was the first shot from Frank McLowry that hit him.

In other particulars his statement does not materially differ from the statement above given. Ike Clanton was not armed and ran across to Allen street and took refuge in the dance hall there. The two McLowrys and Bill Clanton all died within a few minutes after being shot.

The Marshal was shot through the calf of the right leg, the ball going clear through. His brother, Morgan, was shot through the shoulders, the ball entering the point of the right shoulder blade, following across the back, shattering off a piece of one vertebrae and passing out the left shoulder in about the same position that it entered the right. The wound is dangerous but not necessarily fatal, and Virgil's is far more painful than dangerous. Doc Holliday was hit upon the scabbard of his pistol, the leather breaking the force of the ball so that no material damage was done other than to make him limp a little in his walk.

Dr. Matthews impaneled a coroner's jury, who went and viewed the bodies as they lay in the cabin in the rear of Dunbar's stables on Fifth street, and then adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning.

The Alarm Given

The moment the word of the shooting reached the Vizina and Tough Nut mines the whistles blew a shrill signal, and the miners came to the surface, armed themselves, and poured into the town like an invading army. A few moments served to bring out all the better portions of the citizens, thoroughly armed and ready for any emergency. Precautions were immediately taken to preserve law and order, even if they had to fight for it. A guard of ten men were stationed around the county jail, and extra policemen put on for the night.

Earp Brothers Justified

The feeling among the best class of our citizens is that the Marshal was entirely justified in his efforts to disarm these men, and that being fired upon they had to defend themselves, which they did most bravely.

So long as our peace officers make an effort to preserve the peace and put down highway robbery -- which the Earp brothers have done, having engaged in the pursuit and capture, where captures have been made of every gang of stage robbers in the county -- they will have the support of all good citizens.

If the present lesson is not sufficient to teach the cow-boy element that they cannot come into the streets of Tombstone, in broad daylight, armed with six-shooters and Henry rifles to hunt down their victims, then the citizens will most assuredly take such steps to preserve the peace as will be forever a bar to such raids.

-- end of article in Tombstone Daily Epitaph, October 27, 1881.

Below is how The Tombstone Nugget covered the gunfight near the OK Corral compared to how The Tombstone Epitaph covered it. When you read both, you will be surprised that they were both covering the same shooting and how they came up with two different views of what took place.

The Tombstone Nugget, October 27th, 1881:

A Desperate Street Fight

Marshal Virgil Earp, Morgan and Wyatt Earp, and Doc Holliday Meet the Cowboys - Three Men Killed and Two Wounded, One Seriously - Origins of the Trouble and its Tragic Termination.

The 26th of October, 1881, will always be marked as one of the crimson days in the annals of Tombstone, a day when blood flowed as water and human life was held as a shuttlecock, a day always to be remembered as witnessing the bloodiest and deadliest street fight that has ever occurred in this place, or probably in the Territory.

The origin of the trouble dates back to the first arrest of Stilwell and Spencer for the robbery of the Bisbee stage. The co-operation of the Earps and the Sheriff and his deputies in the arrest caused a number of cowboys to, it is said, threaten the lives of all interested in the capture. Still, nothing occurred to indicate that any such threats would be carried into execution.

But Tuesday night Ike Clanton and Doc Holliday had some difficulty in the Alhambra saloon. Hard words passed between them, and when they parted it was generally understood that the feeling between the two men was that of intense hatred.

Yesterday morning Clanton came on the street armed with a rifle and revolver but was almost immediately arrested by Marshal Earp, dismissed and fined by Justice Wallace for carrying concealed weapons. While in the Courtroom Wyatt Earp told him that as he had made threats against his life he wanted him to make his fight, to say how, when and where he would fight, and to get his crowd, and he (Wyatt) would be on hand.

In reply, Clanton said: “Four feet of ground is enough for me to fight on, and I’ll be there.” A short time after this William Clanton and Frank McLowry [sic] came into town, and as Thomas McLowry was already here the feeling soon became general that a fight would ensue before the day was over, and crowds of expectant men stood on the corner of Allen and Fourth streets awaiting the coming conflict.

It was now about two o’clock, and at this time Sheriff Behan appeared upon the scene and told Marshal Earp that if he disarmed his posse, composed of Morgan and Wyatt Earp, and Doc Holliday, he would go down to the O.K. Corral where Ike and James [sic] Clanton and Frank and Tom McLowry were and disarm them. The Marshal did not desire to do this until assured that there was no danger of attack from the other party.

The Sheriff went to the corral and told the cowboys that they must put their arms away and not have any trouble. Ike Clanton and Tom McLowry said they were not armed, and Frank McLowry said he would not lay him aside.

In the meantime the Marshal had concluded to go and, if possible, end the matter by disarming them, and as he and his posse came down Fremont Street towards the corral, the Sheriff stepped out and said: “Hold up boys, don’t go down there or there will be trouble: I have been down there to disarm them.”

But they passed on, and when within a few feet of the Marshal said to the Clantons and McLowrys: “Throw up your hands boys, I intend to disarm you.”

As he spoke, Frank McLowry made a motion to draw his revolver, when Wyatt Earp pulled his and shot him, the ball striking on the right side of his abdomen. About the same time Doc Holliday shot Tom McLowry in the right side using a short shotgun, such as is carried by Wells-Fargo & Co.’s messengers.

In the meantime Billy Clanton had shot at Morgan Earp, the ball passing through the point of the left shoulder blade across the back, just grazing the backbone and coming out at the shoulder, the ball remaining inside his shirt. 

He fell to the ground but in an instant gathered himself, and raising in a sitting position fired at Frank McLowry as he crossed Freemont Street, and at the same instant Doc Holliday shot at him, both balls taking effect either of which would have proved fatal, as one struck him in the right temple and the other in the left breast.

As he started across the street, however, he pulled his gun down on Holliday saying, “I’ve got you now.” “Blaze away! You’re a daisy if you have, ” replied Doc. This shot of McLowry’s passed through Holliday’s pistol pocket, just grazing the skin.

While this was going on Billy Clanton had shot Virgil Earp in the right leg, the ball passing through the calf, inflicting a severe flesh wound. In turn, he had been shot by Morgan Earp in the right wrist and once in the left breast. Soon after the shooting commenced Ike Clanton ran through the O.K. Corral, across Allen Street into Kellogg’s saloon, and thence into Toughnut Street where he was arrested and taken to the county jail.

The firing altogether didn’t occupy more than twenty-five seconds, during which time fully thirty shots were fired. After the fight was over Billy Clanton, who, with wonderful vitality, survived his wounds for fully an hour, was carried by the editor and foreman of the Nugget into a house near where he lay, and everything possible was done to make his last moments easy. 

He was “game” to the last, never uttering a word of complaint, and just before breathing his last he said, “Goodbye boys; go away and let me die.” The wounded were taken to their houses, and at three o’clock the next morning were resting comfortably.

The dead bodies were taken in charge by the Coroner, and an inquest will be held upon them at 10 o’clock today. Upon the person of Thomas McLowry was found between $300 and $400 and checks and certificates of deposit to the amount of nearly $3,000.

During the shooting, Sheriff Behan was standing nearby commanding the contestants to cease firing but was powerless to prevent it. Several parties who were in the vicinity of the shooting had “narrow escapes” from being shot. One man who had lately arrived from the East had a ball pass through his pants. He left for home this morning.

A person called “The Kid” who shot Hicks at Charleston recently, was also grazed by a ball. When the Vizina [mine] whistle gave the signal that there was a conflict between the officers and cowboys, the mines on the hill shut down and the miners were brought to the surface.

From the Contention mine a number of men, fully armed, were sent to town on a four-horse carriage. At the request of the Sheriff the “Vigilantes,” or Committee of Safety, were called from the streets by a few sharp toots from the Vizina’s whistle. During the early part of the evening there was a rumor that a mob would attempt to take Ike Clanton from the jail and lynch him, and to prevent any such unlawful proceedings a strong guard of deputies [sic] was placed around that building and will be so continued until all danger is past.

At 8 o’clock last evening Finn Clanton, a brother of Billy and Ike, came to town, and placing himself under the guard of the Sheriff, visited the morgue to see the remains of his brother, and then passed the night in jail in company with the other.

OMINOUS SOUNDS

Shortly after the shooting ceased the whistle at the Vizina mine sounded a few short toots, and almost simultaneously a large number of citizens appeared on the streets armed with rifles and a belt of cartridges around their waists. These men formed in line and offered their services to the peace officers to preserve order in case any attempt at disturbance was made, or any interference offered to the authorities of the law. However, no hostile move was made by anyone, and the quiet and order was fully restored, and in a short time the excitement died away.

AT THE MORGUE

The bodies of the three slain cowboys lay side by side, covered with a sheet. Very little blood appeared on their clothing, and only on the face of young Billy Clanton was there any distortion of the features or evidence of pain in dying. The features of the two McLowry boys looked as calm and placid in death as if they had died peaceably, surrounded by loving friends and sorrowing relatives.

No unkind remarks were made by anyone, but the feeling of unusual sorrow seemed to prevail at the sad occurrence. Of the two McLowry brothers, we could learn nothing of their previous history before coming to Arizona. The two brothers owned quite an extensive ranch on the lower San Pedro, some seventy or eighty miles from this city, to which they had removed their band of cattle since the recent Mexican and Indian troubles. They did not bear the reputation of being of a quarrelsome disposition, but were known as fighting men, and have generally conducted themselves in a quiet and orderly manner when in Tombstone.

-- end of article in the The Tombstone Nugget, October 27th, 1881.

The Tombstone Nugget was published from 1880 to 1882. It ceased to exist after it burned down during the fire of 1882. To me, I find it pretty interesting just how The Tombstone Nugget covered the gunfight versus how The Tombstone Epitaph covered it. It seems that they came up with two different views of what took place -- just proving that media bias is nothing new in the news business.

While there were a lot of articles in Arizona newspapers after the shooting, you'll want to read what The Arizona Star wrote. The article below from The Arizona Star was published about two weeks after the shooting and was carried by The Los Angeles Herald, Volume 16, Number 76, on 16 November 1881. 

I hope you find this interesting. It really is the other side of the coin from what The Tombstone Epitaph printed at the time. 

The Tombstone Tragedy

[Arizona Star] 

The late tragedy at Tombstone, which blah has been termed a fight between the authorities and cowboys, appears from all the evidence thus far brought out on the examination, to have been the aaaasaination of three cattle men —young men who owned their ranches and cattle, and so far as we can learn, no one knows aught against them. 

The McLowry boys were born, raised, and educated in Iowa, and were graduates of colleges. They came to Arizona bat a few months ago, purchased a herd of cattle, and were looked upon as quiet, respectable young men by those who knew them. They had gone to Tombstone to settle for some cattle they had sold to the butchers, and were taking their horses from the stable to return home when they were attacked and shot down. 

William Clanton, a boy of about 19 years, It is said by those who ought to know him, was brave but not known to be quarrelsome, and with his brothers owned a ranch and a number of cattle. They have been living in Arizona for about eight years, and as far as known, William Clanton has never had a difficulty with anyone. 

He was with the McLowrys when the tragedy occurred and met his death with them. Such being the facts, it is, to say the least, very harsh to class these unfortunate young men as criminals of the worst sort, and thus endeavor to palliate the act of those who hurled them into eternity without any apparent cause. 

If we have been misinformed as to the character of the victims of official authority, we bave no hesitation in saying that a large majority of the best citizens of Tombstone are today laboring under tbe same delusion.

-- end of article from The Arizona Star as carried in The Los Angeles Herald, Volume 16, Number 76, on 16 November 1881.

Interesting, isn't it.

Tom Correa

The First Lynching In Sacramento, California 1851

Criminals Faced Consequences In The Old West 

There are a lot of folks today who see lynchings as something that is "racist" or only done by drunken mobs. In reality, lynchings were neither when the people stood up and said, "Enough is enough" to the criminal element in their towns and cities. 

Most of you who read my blog must be tired of me repeating myself when it comes to the need for Citizens Committees, also known as Vigilante Committees or Vigilance Committees, in the Old West. But really, we have to acknowledge the truth of what was taking place at the time and the mindset of the people back then. 

Back in the day, back in the early days, when our nation was young, the law was either new or not present. In some cases in some places, county sheriffs were just being appointed for the first time, city marshal positions were brand new, the law was nowhere to be found for miles, and the people had to apply what they believed was the law. In many instances, they observed laws that were common sense and predicated on an understanding of right and wrong. With that, people created principles to live by. 

Those principles are about the importance of honesty, integrity, respecting others, maintaining a moral compass and doing what's right, having faith in God, and living by the Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated. These principles were crucial because people had to rely on each other for survival during a time when life on the American frontier was difficult and dangerous. And yes, I truly believe that those same principles that helped settle the American West are what we need to live by today. 

When there was practically no law to restrain the criminal element, and when there were those roaming the West who did not value human life, everyone understood that criminals completely disregard civilized behavior. It was understood that there were no excuses for the bad actions of outlaws.

During that time, communities had to form groups to protect their communities. In the earliest days of our nation, the English-speaking Colonies called the citizens who banded together to provide their communities with some sort of security, "Citizen Watch Groups." In Spanish-speaking Colonies, those same groups were called, "Grupos de vigilantes," or "Vigilante groups." The tradition of such groups pre-dates the establishment of organized law enforcement. 

The citizens who participated in those groups were not the bar-flies who hung out at the local saloons, those loafers and petty thieves who were known as "Bummers" at the time, they were not the dregs of society who were considered immoral, worthless, and of no value. Citizens Committees were usually made up of the same people who made up the local militia, they were merchants, members of the fire brigade, teachers, clergy, council members, and respected citizens. And yes, most were well-known and didn't hide behind masks -- at least not at first. 

Because the people, the citizenry, your neighbors, and your friends, provided for the security of your towns and communities, it is a fact that the lack of legal restraint made communities more free from crime than many communities that had no citizen participation because they were under the protection of the law in the form of organized law enforcement. 

The following is about the first lynching in Sacramento. It took place in February of 1851. The story below is taken from the History of Sacramento County, California, by William Willis, published 1913: 

The first victim of the aroused sentiment was a professional gambler named Frederick J. Roe. A quarrel arose at a monte table in the Mansion House, at the corner of Front and J Streets, and he engaged in a fight with an unknown man. They were separated several times by the bystanders, but as often renewed the conflict. 

At length Charles Humphrey Myers, a peaceable and industrious man and a partner in the blacksmithing establishment of Joseph Prader & Co., again parted them and was fatally shot by Roe, the ball, which entered his head, not killing him immediately. He was carried into the shop, where the surgeons announced that his wound was necessarily fatal. 

A crowd gathered and the excitement became intense. Dr. Mackinzie, who was a member of the city council, mounted a wagon and made a vehement address, saying that crime had run rampant long enough and that the courts and officers did not seem able to prevent it. It must be stopped somehow, or honest and respectable people would have to leave the city; that the people had the remedy in their own hands, and they owed it to society that they should exercise it.

David B. Milne and Ross and Taplin spoke to the same effect. A meeting was organized and Ross was chosen president. It was ascertained that Roe had been taken into custody and was in the station house, corner of Second and J Streets, and the meeting determined to bring him out. 

A man named Everard addressed it, saying that if we ever intended to rid the city of the scoundrels infesting it, now was the time.  He advocated the appointment of a committee to determine what should be done, and James Queen urged the selection of a jury to try the prisoner. 

The crowd frequently interrupted them with cheers and shouts of "Hang him!" 

City Marshal N. C. Cunningham addressed the crowd, saying that he had the prisoner in custody and that he could not escape, and asked them in the name of God and of Sacramento to let him be tried by the proper tribunal, the courts of the country. He was interrupted by the cries of "No, no; they have proved useless to prevent crime and punish murder." 

"If he doesn't get justice in the courts," said Cunningham, "I will help you to get it. I pledge my honor, I'll resign my office and help you; but I am an officer of the law and cannot let you have him." 

His voice was drowned in cries of "Let the people have a jury."

James Queen spoke again, saying that he was "in favor of having laws and supporting them, but they had proved inoperative. Let us have a people's jury as San Francisco did." [This is a reference to the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance].

C. A. Tweed was called to the chair and said he believed the prisoner was a great scoundrel and ought to be hanged, but he wanted it done according to law. He was hustled out of the chair and a man named Scranton replaced him. Justice of the Peace Bullock pleaded for law and order, but his voice was smothered by cries for a jury. 

A jury was chosen and all accepted except F. C. Ewer, who said he was a newspaperman and must report the proceedings impartially, and Dr. J. V. Spalding was appointed in his place. The jury retired to the Orleans Hotel on Second Street, and Levi Hermance was appointed foreman and George G. Wright secretary. 

A committee was appointed to guard the prisoner and see that the officers did not remove him. The marshal and other officers pleaded, but it had no effect. 

The privilege of a lawyer for the prisoner was proposed and was voted down. Committees were sent to the jury room to ask them to hurry up, as they were too deliberate to suit the crowd of twenty-five hundred people determined on lynching. 

The committee reported that the jury was acting fairly, but needed the protection of the people to keep the lawyers out, as they could elicit the testimony themselves. The lawyers were ordered out — and stayed out. 

Tweed undertook to make the point that Myers was not yet dead, but the crowd would have none of it, and one man shouted that it was a deliberate murder that had made a widow and four orphans. "Blood for blood. He must die. All those in favor of hanging say 'aye'."  He was answered by a storm of "ayes."

Dr. Taylor wanted men to go with him and take the prisoner, saying that if they had him they would know where he was. A large number stepped forward but were stopped by a cry that the jury had agreed.

The verdict was read from the balcony of the Orleans and was listened to in silence. It was as follows:

"We, the committee of investigation appointed by our fellow citizens to investigate the circumstances of the unfortunate occurrence that took place this afternoon, report that after a full and impartial examination of the evidence, we find that at about 2 o'clock p.m. this day, Frederick J. Roe and some other person, whose name is unknown, were engaged in an altercation which originated in the Mansion House, and that after said parties had proceeded to the street, and where they were fighting, Charles H. Myers, who was passing in the street, interfered with words requesting them to desist fighting or show fair play; and that immediately thereupon the said Roe called out, "What the devil have you to say?" and drew his pistol and without further provocation shot said Myers through the head."

Signed; John H. Scrautou, W. F. Prettyman, J.'b. Starr, H. H. Langley, George G. Wright, Harrison Olmstead, John T. Bailey, EdwardCronan, D. 0. Mills, F. B. Cornwall, A. M. Winn, L. Hermance." 

These signers composed the entire jury except Dr. Spalding, who participated for some time, but withdrew in consequence of what he considered the undue influence of the people's committee sent to the jury. 

As soon as the verdict was read, there was a stampede for the station house. Dr. Taylor, who had from the first urged immediate action, stated that he had conversed with the prisoner and found him penitent; that he thought the murder was without malice or deliberation and he hoped a connnittee would be appointed to guard the prisoner till next day, when a course of action might be determined. 

He was hooted down by the crowd. A. D. Rightmyer said the verdict had been murder, and he considered it the duty of all good citizens to see it carried out; he was ready on his part. The assembly elected him marshal by acclamation. 

About 9 o'clock awning posts were pulled up and made into battering rams, under the blows from which the doors of the station house soon gave way. Deputy Sheriff Harris stood in the doorway with a small posse and by remonstrance and threats to tire kept the mob at bay for a short time, but they soon crowded in and took him and his posse prisoners. 

Roe was found chained in an inner cell and it was found difficult to get his shackles off. 

As soon as that was done, he was informed that he was to be hanged forthwith on one of the large oak trees that stood on Sixth Street, between K and L Street. Arriving at the spot where a staging had been placed for the purpose, he was placed on the stage, his hands and feet tied, and Rev. M. C. Briggs was sent for. 

Through him, Roe said that he had shot Myers in a fit of passion and had nothing more to say in self-defense, that he was an Englishman by birth, was twenty years old, and had a mother and sister living in England. After the minister had concluded his duties, a noose was placed around the prisoner's neck, the rope being thrown over one of the big limbs of a tree, and many strong hands drew him up to his fate in the presence of five thousand people. Myers was not yet dead at the time of Roe's execution. Thus was the first lynching in Sacramento, California, in 1851. 

Here is how it was reported in the Daily Pacific News on February 27, 1851:

Immense Excitement at Sacramento

LYNCH LAW AT LAST !!

Yesterday afternoon, about two o'clock, an awful scene took place in front of the Mansion House on the corner of Front and J Streets, which has resulted in the death of two persons. A fight occurred over a French Monte Table, between a man by the name of Fred. J. Roe and a miner (name unknown). 

The two men were parted several times, and finally by Mr. Charles Humphrey Myers from Columbus, Ohio, a quiet and most respectable citizen; Roe shooting Myers for his interference. The ball entered Alyers’ head just in front of the left ear and passed into the lower part of the brain. 

Myers was taken up K street, accompanied by a large crowd, to the blacksmith's shop of his former partner, Mr. Joseph Prader. Here the wound was examined and pronounced to be mortal. 

Councilman McKenzie mounted a wagon and addressed the excited crowd, and was followed by one or two others, the tone of their remarks being in favor of summary punishment. A meeting was immediately organized in front of the police station, and the multitude addressed by Mr. Evrard, Mr. Queen, Mr. Tweed, Mr. Scranton, and others, in favor of immediately hanging the prisoner. 

City Marshal Cunningham, Deputy Sheriff Harris, and other officers, as in duty bound, made an appeal to the crowd in favor of law and order, and protested against any interference of an excited multitude in the course of the law. They said they should resist all attempts to get the prisoner from their hands, at all hazards. 

A jury, consisting of two persons whose names are given below attached to the verdict, was then selected by the meeting, who proceeded to the Orleans House, for the purpose of trying the prisoner. After an hour or two spent in listening to the testimony, the following verdict was rendered.

We, the Committee of Investigation appointed by our fellow-citizens, to investigate the circumstances of the unfortunate occurrence that took place this afternoon, doreport that after a full and impartial examination of the evidence in the case, we find that, at about two o'clock, p. m., this day. Frederick J. Roe, and some other person whose name is unknown, were engaged in an altercation, which originated at a gambling table in the Alansion House, and that after said parties had proceeded into the street, and were there fighting, Charles H. Myers, who was passing in the street, interfered with words requesting them to desist fighting or show fair play; and that immediately thereupon the said Roe called out, "What the devil have you to say?" and drew his pistol and without further provocation shot said Charles H. Myers through the head. Signed: John. F. Scranton, John T. Bayley, W. F. Pretty man, Edward Cronin, J. B. Starr, D. O. Mills, H. G. Langley, P. B. Cornwall, A. Al. Winn, Geo T. Wright, Harrison Olmstead, L. Hermance. 

The report of the committee was received with loud cheers on the part of the people. The crowd again assembled in front of the police station house, corner of J and Second Streets, where the prisoner was confined. The taking of the prisoner from the station is described as follows by the Transcript : 

"It was now about nine o'clock — the night was dark — the mutterings of the people deep yet loud. Some of them rushed to an awning, pulled up the posts, and at once attacked the door of the station house, with these battering-rams. Soon the door yielded, being demolished by repeated blows. Deputy Sheriff Harris stood in the doorway, and with his posse in the rear, held the crowd at bay for some time— remonstrating and threatening. 

Finally, the crowd in the rear made a rush forward, which placed those in the front ranks in connection with Mr. Harris, when he was pushed and jostled from his position, and the populace brought in possession of the prisoner. The prisoner, Frederick J. Roe, was in the inner cell, chained to a post. After a long delay, the chain was severed, and he was then seized and hurried up the stairs, into the street.

It was then announced that the prisoner would be hung on Sixth Street, between K and L from one of the large oaks. The crowd proceeded immediately to that point, at about half-past nine o'clock. The prisoner was strongly guarded, and taken up J to the intersection of Fifth Street, when he was taken down the same, and up K to Sixth and then to the place of execution.” 

The Execution. — The prisoner gave his name as Frederick J, Roe, and was twenty years of age. He was born in England, where his mother and sisters now reside. His features were regular, though the whole countenance exhibited a care-worn appearance, and his physical system seemed to have been entirely prostrated in view, of the awful fate awaiting him. 

A temporary scaffolding had been erected under one of the trees, which was occupied by the prisoner, Mr. Rightmire, a clergyman who had been invited to attend, and several others. 

After arriving at the place of execution, a rope was provided, and the prisoner was furnished with a glass of water, it being understood that he would address the crowd. The prisoner stated through the Rev. Mr. Briggs, that he had done the deed in a moment of passion, and had nothing to say for himself. 

A rope was thrown over a limb, a handkerchief placed over the prisoner's head, his hands and feet tied, and the rope adjusted. The crowd to witness the solemn scene did not number less than five thousand. 

Everything was conducted in an orderly but firm manner, and after the duties of the clergyman were over, the prisoner was launched into eternity amid a profound silence which pervaded the vast multitude.

He was lifted from the platform, and as he was let off, while the rope was drawing up, he uttered a groan and said, "Lord have mercy on my soul." After a struggle, he hung quietly. When fifteen or twenty minutes had elapsed he was lowered and delivered to his friends, who took him to the Mansion House, and endeavored to restore him, but as we learn without avail.

-- end of report from the Daily Pacific News on February 27, 1851.

As you probably noticed, there are slight differences between Willis' 1913 History of Sacramento versus what was reported in the Daily Pacific News story. Besides the rhetoric of the participants and the crowd which was stated in the History of Sacramento, the other thing left out of the newspaper account was that Myers was not yet dead at the time of Roe's execution. The news story also failed to mention how that was the first lynching in Sacramento, California.

Of course, I found it interesting that the date of the lynching, February 26, 1851, was left out of Willis' 1913 History of Sacramento. Thankfully the newspaper gave us that information. 

As for those who repeat the lie that lynchings were "racist" or only done by drunken mobs? As you can see from the story of what took place in Sacramento, California, in February of 1851, there was nothing "racist" or "offensive" about townspeople standing up and saying, "Enough is enough" to the criminal element in their town. 

And no, it was certainly not "a mob." It was not a drunken reckless mob gathered to override the courts and law while striking terror into the hearts of peaceable citizens. It was an organized assembly. They saw themselves as assisting the courts in the great end for which they were formed -- to serve justice. They called for a meeting of the townspeople and thousands showed up. 

Of course, as with people today, even back then people in the Old West knew how lawyers would get their guilty clients lighter sentences, pardons, and acquittals. Many acquittals were granted because of technicalities in the law back in the day, just as they are today. Knowing this, the people said, "No, that's not going to happen in this case." They proved that when they dismissed the lawyers from attending the deliberation over the facts of the case. 

Let's remember what the people of San Francisco agreed to when they formed their now famous Vigilance Committee of 1851: They "unite themselves into an association, for the maintenance of the peace and good order of society and the preservation of the lives and property of the citizens of San Francisco, and do bind ourselves, each unto the other, to do and perform every lawful act for the maintenance of law and order, and to sustain the laws when faithfully and properly administered. But we are determined that no thief, burglar, incendiary, or assassin shall escape punishment either by the quibbles of the law, the insecurity of prisons, the carelessness or corruption of the police, or laxity of those who pretend to administer justice."

In Sacramento on that February night in 1851, thousands of townspeople decided that they were not going to allow murderer Frederick J. Roe to "escape punishment either by the quibbles of the law, the insecurity of prisons, the carelessness or corruption of the police, or laxity of those who pretend to administer justice." That simply wasn't going to happen that night. 

Because of the diligence of the people, and as a result of their distrust in the Justice System to do its job, they made Frederick J. Roe face the consequences for what he did. He was made to answer for the senseless cold-blooded murder of Charles Humphrey Myers. 

And while people will write to tell me that such executions were "racist," "offensive," and "uncivilized," it's not "racist," "offensive," or "uncivilized" to make criminals account for breaking the law.  It's certainly not "racist," "offensive," or "uncivilized," to hang someone who murders someone in cold blood. While it may have been retribution, "the punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act," punishing a cold-blooded murderer is certainly not seen as "racist" or "offensive" by most people -- even today. 

The story above talked about how the townspeople came together by the thousands. They did not conduct the affair with blind rage. They were organized. They called witnesses, both for and against, and they deliberated the facts. They then rendered their finding and made a criminal answer for murdering an innocent man. 

The murderer killed someone who was not a threat. Roe killed Myers with malice -- and without an ounce of concern for who he was or what he was doing. Roe consciously and deliberately killed Myers. Roe was fully aware of what he was doing when he took that man's life.  

The execution of the murderer was all about making him answer for his cruel callous cold-blooded act. While some today may see executing a criminal, especially a proven murderer, as somehow wrong because they see it as "racist," "offensive," or "uncivilized," there's nothing "racist," "offensive," or "uncivilized" about taking the life of someone who kills another just because he felt like it. 

It's interesting how at least one witness reported what he saw take place. In another newspaper report of what took place that night, that witness said, "All was finished, and the sentence executed deliberately. And after this great excitement, were our people lawless and ungovernable? No. The crowd dispersed quietly." 

This case is about townspeople ensuring that a murderer would face the consequences of his actions. He was made to pay for what he did. It was simply right.

Tom Correa

 

Corporal Punishment In Schools: What Does The Past Teach Us

Corporal Punishment In American Schools In The 1960s

I've been asked about bringing back harsher physical punishment in schools since the level of violence in American schools is higher than ever. So let's look at what corporal punishment is and what its purposes are. Let's also look at a few incidents in schools in the 1800s to see if they teach us anything.

Let's understand that "corporal punishment" is a form of physical punishment that involves causing pain or discomfort to correct or punish someone's behavior. How long has it been in existence? Well, it's been around so long that it predates the birth of Jesus Christ. In fact, the nailing of Christ to the cross was a form of corporal punishment and capital punishment, used by the Romans. It was a way of showing others what physical punishment awaited them if rules weren't followed. 

Judicial corporal punishment, such as whipping or caning, as part of a criminal sentence ordered by a court of law, has been around for centuries. And yes, it is still practiced in some countries. Prison corporal punishment has always been considered disciplinary punishment. In the old days, it's what took place when prison authorities directed their officers to beat inmates for misconduct while in custody. And yes, some countries still practice such things. 

Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 7, Number 1048, 3 August 1854

WHIPPING — The Placer Democrat newspaper says that a youth of 20 summers, convicted of petit larceny, on two distinct indictments, was sentenced for the first offense to be imprisoned in the County Jail for thirty days, and for the second to receive twenty-five lashes on his bare back. On Friday, the sentence of the Court was carried into execution in the presence of a crowd of spectators.

Corporal punishment in the military was routinely handed out for many centuries. Canning, whipping, and floggings at the mast aboard ships were commonplace even into the 1930s. Some say it went on past that. 

And yes, in case you're wondering, Slave Owners practiced corporal punishment on the slaves for things like not working hard enough, stealing, trying to escape, and violating their rules. Slave-owning nations in Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia, including in China's work camps still practice such things. 

Corporal punishment in schools with students receiving paddlings by teachers and school administrators still goes on today in America, but nothing like it once was. Back when I was a kid, I remember being in the First and Second Grades and attending a Catholic school, the Nuns would hit us with yardsticks and pointers. If we misbehaved, the Nun, our teacher, would do it herself or send us to Mother Superior, the principal.

I still remember being in the First Grade and being frightened about being sent to Mother Superior who would pull up my shirt and have me bent forward, then she gave me 10 whacks with a yardstick across my lower back. 

I also remember later in the 7th Grade when I was attending a Public school, being sent to the vice principal's office. He used a paddle on me and actually hit me so hard that he broke the paddle in three pieces. For me, all it did was make me hate going to school. And yes, it seemed as though I was always being sent to the principal's office. For a long time, I started to feel like I had a target on me for every teacher who was having a bad day. 

In the case of children or teenagers in schools in America receiving corporal punishment, spanking a student, slapping them, hitting them with a belt, stick, cane, or a yardstick, some schools actually made youngsters kneel facing a corner or wall for long periods, made students eat soap, and of course shaming the student in front of the whole class, were all commonplace throughout America for many years. In some cases where communities had small schools, teachers would beat and shame students in front of the whole school. 

Please understand, that the purpose of corporal punishment is to stop unwanted behavior, stop it from happening again, instill fear and intimidation into the minds of all, assert power, and use the punishment as an example to others. 

I can still remember the looks on the faces of the other students and even the satisfaction on at least one teacher's face when I returned from a principal's office hurting after being whipped with a belt or after being paddled. 

Corporal punishment solved some problems because it certainly did change someone's behavior. In societies, the fear of corporal punishment kept many citizens in line. In jails and prisons, it served as intimidation to keep the inmates in line. In the military, it served as intimidation to keep soldiers, sailors, and Marines in line. In schools, it served as intimidation to keep students in line. In all those cases, physical punishment was a great persuader to make people do what those in authority wanted. 

As for changing someone's behavior, or creating fear in students, trust me when I say that it changed my behavior when I was a little kid attending a Catholic school. As a kid, I became terrified of teachers.    

Some say corporal punishment, such as paddling, wouldn't be bad in our schools today. With all of the violence in our schools today, many believe that bringing back some "consequences" to one's poor behavior wouldn't be bad. Of course, as is the case today, many worry about returning to the days of child abuse in schools. 

So what do we do about the violence taking place in schools today? Would bringing back more physical punishment remedy the situation or worsen it? Let's look at a few newspaper stories from the 1800s and the two news stories I chose to represent the opening of the 1900s. 

American students, both small children and teens, were taken to task pretty regularly. But as you will see below, violence in schools may not have been as widespread as it is today, but it was present -- and came from students and teachers. Imagine that.

The Daily Dispatch, August 16, 1856:

School Master Murdered

An atrocious murder has just been committed in Florence, Alabama. A correspondent of the Mobile Morning Herald thus furnishes the particulars: A schoolmaster had a tame sparrow of which he was very fond, and he had warned his scholars that if any of them killed it, they should die by his hands. 

By accident, or intentionally, one of the boys stepped on the bird and killed it. Alarmed at the threats of the master, the boy was afraid to return to school, but the master tranquilized the boy's mind, and begged him to come back. He did so, and after the lessons were finished, he took him into a private room and strangled him. 

Upon the boy's father hearing what had occurred, he loaded his gun and went and shot the schoolmaster dead.

The Cleveland Tri-Weekly Leader, February 06, 1864:

Murder In Ashland County

The Ashland Times of this week, states that a young man named Alfred Desem was shot at Pyfer's School House, near Ashland, by George W. Longfelt, and killed instantly. The murderer was the school teacher of the district, and still at large, having left immediately on the commission of the deed. 

No particulars are given as to why the teacher shot his student. His parents reside in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. He is described as about five feet six inches high, weighing about one hundred and sixty
pounds, with dark curly hair, and black eyes, about nineteen years old. He has a hat and cap with him, and wears a grey shawl. 

George W. Longfelt, the school teacher of the Pyfer's School House, killed student Alfred Desem and fled.

Nebraska Advertiser, February 26, 1874:

One day this week a school teacher, called Prof. Hayes, near Agency, Missouri, was shot three times in the abdomen, and fatally injured, by one of his pupils, a young man of about twenty years, named Thomas Squires. Squires had been ejected from the schoolroom for disobedience, when, a day or two
afterward, meeting Prof. Hayes some distance from the schoolhouse, he shot him without warning.

Daily Evening Bulletin, December 22, 1881:

Charles J Gregory a school teacher in Shelby County, Indiana, shot at a pupil because he refused to write on a slate. The bullet missed the boy but his face was filled with powder. The teacher was arrested and great excitement prevailed.

The New York Times, June 12, 1887:

In Cleveland, Tennessee, excitement over the shooting of Miss Irene Fann by Will Guess. It was first believed that Guess playfully turned his rifle on Fann and it accidentally went off. But now it is believed he shot the teacher for whipping his little sister in class over an infraction of the rules of the school. A case of cold-blooded murder.

The New York Times, February 28, 1903:

Boy Shot by Teacher is Dead

On February 24, 1903, in Inman, South Carolina. Edward Foster, a 17-year-old student at Inman High School, was fatally wounded by his teacher Reuben Pitts after jerking a rod from Pitts' hands to avoid punishment. It is reported that several students attacked Pitts while he was whipping Foster. During the scuffle to try to stop the teacher from whipping Foster, Pitts drew a pistol and shot 17-year-old Edward Foster dead. The story of the teacher does not agree with what the students reported. According to the teacher, Foster struck the pistol that Pitts had drawn and caused it to fire. Pitts was acquitted of murder on grounds of self-defense.

Los Angeles Herald, September 12, 1909:

TEACHER SLAYS PUPIL WHO WOULD RUN SCHOOL

Bully Who Told Pedagogue Session Must Cease Is Shot and Killed by the Master

In Gravette, Arkansas, on September 11, John Bufram, a pupil, was slain yesterday by his teacher, A. T. Kelly, at the edge of McDonald County, Missouri. Butram had caused the teachers of the Bear Hollow school considerable trouble and had succeeded in thrashing two of them. When Kelly took the school he "went prepared." 

Young Butram is said to have announced there would be no school yesterday, and Kelly insisted the session would continue as usual. During the discussion, Butram drew a knife, whereupon Kelly shot him. Kelly surrendered to authorities.

-- end of news articles.

So now, can you image a student, a bully, demanding that a school shut down operations because he said so? And really, can anyone blame the schoolmaster for arming himself? Not me. I stand behind what that teacher did. He did right.

Also, can you imagine a teacher in the previous news story? He tried to "whip" a student, but then the other students tried to stop the teacher. Then the teacher pulls a handgun and shoots the student he was trying to discipline. Then the teacher is acquitted of murder on the grounds of self-defense? Can you imagine if that were to happen today? Can you imagine if teachers felt so compelled to beat a student that the teacher created chaos in the classroom? I can't help but wonder how that would go over today.

So, is there something other than physical punishment as an option for creating a safe place where students learn to respect others -- especially those in authority? What can we do about teaching young people that there are consequences for bad behavior? And by the way, how about we start teaching what bad behavior is? Let's define it in schools so there's no question what people are being asked to do. 

Let's be honest here, some schools refuse to teach manners and civility. Some only teach what is offensive to their political agenda. That's especially true in ultra-Liberal states where disdain for authority is encouraged. Yes, I said encouraged. If you don't think so, ask yourself what the whole "Defund the Police" movement is all about. 

Sadly, some states push Leftist agendas which teach students that conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable and morally right behavior is bad and not necessary.  

So while much of the focus is on how to discipline students as it should be, let's also remember that unbridled power in the hands of teachers can lead to an abuse of power. And please don't kid yourself, there are a lot of examples of teachers abusing their power in the classroom. They are in the news almost every day.

While school violence is a huge problem, today we see another problem with what's taking place in schools across America -- teachers indoctrinating students with their Leftist ideology instead of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. Which, by the way, as test scores are showing, American students are failing.

And really, besides the drug and violence in Public schools today, teachers indoctrinating students with their Leftist ideology is why Homeschools are becoming so popular. Parents don't want their children indoctrinated by political activists who happen to be in the position of teachers. Let's also recognize that parents are fighting teachers and local boards over what their kids should not be getting in schools. 

Many parents today don't like that their kids are being deluged by a Leftist agenda that focuses on sexual orientation concerns instead of focusing on a student's scholastic achievement. Parents are rightfully concerned that their kids aren't measuring up and aren't getting what they need before graduating. Leftist teachers negatively impact a student's potential. Activist teachers significantly impact a student's home life, relationships with others, sense of citizenship, and professional development.

So while I believe that there must be something that can be done that doesn't border child abuse, I also believe parents need to monitor teachers and school administrators. Parents need to find out if a chaotic classroom is their kid's fault, or if it is the fault of an apathetic teacher who allows such chaos to take place. 

Also, we need to find out why students would think it's okay to raise Hell in school. We need to find out if they see their actions as being permissible by their teachers. We need to find out if those kids see being jerks as something that's okay with their parents. 

Finding the root cause of why a bully thinks he can bully others is one way of stopping such behavior. If teachers allow it, then we need to stop them. The same goes for parents. If parents are allowing their kids to be jerks in school, maybe we should figure out ways to get their parents to step up and help resolve the problem. 

As for bringing back some sort of physical punishment, even by a small degree of what used to be condoned in schools, because the level of violence in American schools is higher than ever, I don't see that happening with today's sensitivities. Though that's the case, the question is still the same: What should we, as a society, do to stop our schools from turning into even worse war zones than they are today? And if it's not "corporal punishment," then what other ways of persuasion can we use to change a bully's shitty attitude?

We must ensure our actions ensure students understand that acting out rage, threats, or intimidation is not okay. We must let those with attitude problems know we don't live in a savage society. As with many young people today, school age or older, we need to teach them that there are real consequences for their bad behavior or out-and-out criminal acts. 

History tells us that both students and teachers can take things to extremes. History also teaches us that enforcing rules is the only way to rein in the bad apples. We must demonstrate to everyone that breaking the rules has consequences. The problem today is that people feel there aren't consequences to their bad behavior or criminal acts.  

Tom Correa

Never Again Volunteer Yourself

So here we go, let's talk about "volunteering" with very different organizations and how your experience with each can be very different from the others.  But before I go on, let me just state for the record that I still volunteer for a few organizations these days. Some of them I've been with for many years. 

All in all, for the most part, I enjoy volunteering. Of course, as is the way with many things, I've found that volunteering for some groups can be a lot better than volunteering for others. Part of that also depends on what these groups do and who's running them. 

For almost 30 years, starting back in 1995, I've volunteered my time with several different groups. I remember the first group that I volunteered for was a therapeutic riding group. When it was still going, it specialized in horse therapy for handicapped children. I was "Tom the Wrangler." I helped care for the horses and I'd lead the horses and kids around. It was extremely rewarding. 

Later I volunteered with PTSD groups, then I helped at the Veterans Administration, and later with the local American Legion. I still volunteer with the Pacific Islanders Cultural Association, the John Coffee Hays Club, a Marine Corps League Detachment, and the Calaveras County Sheriff's Office. 

Next year, it will be my 30th year that I've been involved with the Pacific Islanders Cultural Association. And yes my friends, believe it or not, I still coordinate the security for our yearly Aloha Festivals. For me, since I'm originally from Hawaii, it is my way of giving back and enjoying the culture of where I'm from. It's been a wonderful group. 

I used to volunteer at the American Legion at a local post for about 13 years. I was the 2nd Vice Commander and Adjutant for Post 376 in Glencoe, California. That was a horrible situation. I'll talk more about that in a little while.

As for the John Coffee Hays Club? After a speaking engagement with the John Coffee Hays Club, I accepted a volunteer position as that group's Old West Historian. They are all good people. The club raises money for charities. It's a social group of mostly politically incorrect Conservative friends who practice free speech while also respecting others. We like to think we're the way Americans should be -- unmuzzled and unafraid. 

I'm the present Commandant of the Marine Corps League Detachment 1080 in Ione, California. I love being a member of that group. It's a great group to volunteer for. I'm very honored to be their Commandant. Overall, that group is very much a social group, a lot of fun, with very friendly people. Maybe it's because most of us are older and we seem to have pretty thick skin, but not too much offends us in the way of how someone in our group says something -- unless of course, someone acts like a jerk. And really, who likes putting up with a jerk? Not us.

Of course, I'm also still a Calaveras County Sheriff's Volunteer. I've been with them for only about 3 and a half years. Unlike the Pacific Islanders Cultural Association, the John Coffee Hays Club, and the Marine Corps League Detachment which are definitely social groups full of like-minded people, the Calaveras County Sheriff's Volunteer is very different because it is not the sort of volunteer group that someone joins if they're looking for a social group. 

While I have a real sense of camaraderie and friendship with my long-time friends in the Pacific Islanders Cultural Association, the John Coffee Hays Club, and my Marine Corps League Detachment, the Calaveras County Sheriff's Volunteer doesn't really have that. I think the reason for that has to do with our role and the way we support the Sheriff's Office. The Calaveras County Sheriff's Volunteers is a community service-oriented volunteer group of members who really work on their own for the most part. Most of us don't see each other but once a month or less. Of course, just because a group isn't very social and lacks the closeness of other volunteer groups, that should not stop someone from volunteering with it. 

Not all volunteer groups are social groups. And from my experience, I can tell you there's a huge difference between volunteering for various organizations. One of the biggest differences is expectations in the way how the group "requires" volunteers to behave. Some groups are, let's say more understanding of someone's quirky sense of humor, the way someone was raised, their manners, their outlook on life, and of course their dislike of today's political correctness requirements. 

For example, in government organizations, such as the VA, some administrators expect people to speak and act in a prescribed way. It's their job to make sure that policies are followed -- including policies regarding the speech and behavior of paid employees and unpaid volunteers. Those administrators regulate the behavior of everyone from their paid employees to their unpaid volunteers, and maybe even visitors and patients. 

Everyone is monitored. What they say and their actions, if deemed inappropriate to the organization, is noted. Even a joke can get one in deep trouble if the joke is deemed insensitive by the powers to be. 

Of course, political correctness is what it is in our society today. In government organizations and big corporations, administrators today are very concerned with what their paid employees and their unpaid volunteers say and do. Those organizations are very concerned with how your language and behavior affect others. In today's world, both in government and business, no one wants hurt feelings even unintentionally or accidentally. And yes, administrators guard against that. 

While some volunteers and staff will tell you that some of the monitors act like Big Brother on steroids, and how some administrators act like they were trained in the old Soviet Union Communist Party where speech and actions are controlled, it's all part of the world we live in today. Your choice is whether you want to volunteer for an organization like that. Some find it okay, mostly because they are used to it since they retired from working in government, while others end up quitting. I was told that it's one of the reasons for the high volunteer turnover in some groups.   

And believe it or not, there's more to this. Out of their concern for the feelings of others, some organizations will try to "modify" or even "suppress" the free speech and actions of people in their organization. With today's sensitivities, for today's way of thinking, it seems that they believe it needs to be done to make everyone more sensitive and tolerant of others. In that way, everyone can live in a one-size-fits-all society where an individual's actions are regulated. 

Frankly, I found that such things made people more apt to hold back and watch what they said to such an extent that people acted as if they were too afraid to speak their minds out of fear of repercussions. I found it very interesting to watch some of the Counselors at the VA ask a Veteran how he's doing, but then admonish him for not stating his status in a more politically correct manner. Imagine that! 

And yes, I've found that some government organizations condition their people to walk on eggshells so they wouldn't "offend" others. The other thing that I've learned when dealing with the VA was how they wanted volunteers to adhere to their politically correct rules and regulations, even if some of us who grew up in a different generation have never had to put up with those sorts of limits on our freedoms. Most of us were brought up with common sense and common courtesy for others dictating what we could or couldn't say or do. 

It wasn't easy to be around and associate with people who were always monitoring your behavior and correcting you on your speech, or even how you pronounced something. I hated feeling like everything I did or said was noted and would be somehow used against me later -- all because I may have inadvertently offended someone's sensitivities. That's partly why I quit volunteering there. Frankly, volunteering there started out as feeling pretty rewarding. But after a while, I just didn't want to be there. 

So really most of the volunteer groups that I've belonged to have been either a lot of fun, just filled with great friends and camaraderie, or as with the Sheriff's Volunteers more business-like and not so social based. The several years I've spent volunteering at the American Legion were filled with worry, frustration, jealousy, hate, back-stabbing, bickering, and petty politics with everyone wanting to be the boss but no one wanting to step up to help. While it had its moments of few laughs over the years, it's an organization that I truly regret volunteering for. 

From 2009 until 2022, I was the 2nd Vice Commander at a local American Legion Post here in Glencoe, California. All officers, whether it's the Commander or the Sergeant-At-Arms, are volunteers. As the post's "Second Vice," following the Post ByLaws at the time, my position put me in charge of the day-to-day operations of the post, the running of the canteen (bar) and kitchen, the special events such as Bar-B-Ques and Holiday celebrations, the rental of the facility, the maintenance of the post, the licenses, and I was in charge of the post's Honor Guard. 

It sometimes felt like a full-time job. And while over the years I got a lot of help from the Finance Officers and volunteers who were not Veterans, I never got any help from the Post Commander who would only show up once a month to run the Monthly Meetings. He'd show up, I'd had him his "script" on what to say, then he'd return to the bar. 

Looking back on it now, with all of the cliques, the animosity and hate swirling around the place, especially the jealousy and backbiting. and the constant negativity that was thrown toward me and a few other volunteers by the local drunks who sat on their backsides while the Finance Officers and I worried about how to keep the place afloat, I see those 13 thankless years of busting my tail as being wasted. 

After I finally resigned from my position in 2022, I found out that many people there really hated how I ran the post. I found out later, as silly as it sounds, the number one reason that they hated me was because I tried to turn that American Legion Post into a more family-friendly place. Imagine that. 

When I got there, the local American Legion was a snobbish group of local drinkers who didn't even want to spend the money fixing its damaged walls and foundation, or painting the place. For what was supposed to be a "Veterans Club," it was not inviting to veterans.  And worse, it was going broke. 

In a town with a population of 189, they didn't like that some of us wanted to make it our community's gathering place. It's amazing how many people were against that. But a few of us saw the need to get the community to support the place. And after a while, we built what became our community's center. 

Of course, at the time, I brushed off the shitty attitudes as not worth worrying about because the people who did the most complaining about the kids being present, or the lights being turned up, or the noise from everyone having a great time, were coming from the same people who didn't volunteer to help out around the place. All they did was complain and point their fingers at how others weren't doing things right. And no, they weren't happy.    

Friends, it's not like I didn't see the writing on the wall when I first got there. Please understand, that when I got there, I was amazed to find out how many veterans were against helping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was amazed to find out that the American Legion didn't do anything for local veterans. I was also amazed to find out that members of that post weren't interested in doing anything for veterans. 

Besides not wanting to spend a dime to even paint the old building, they said "No" to helping vets. In fact, at one of our monthly meetings, I remember bringing up sending Care Packages to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was told, "No." I was told, "They must have an Exchange over there." Image that. And that happened at a meeting of veterans in charge of the American Legion post. 

I also remember wanting to raise funds to help veterans in our area who needed assistance. I was told, "No." I also remember wanting to get our American Legion post to help out at the VA Hospital in Sacramento. No one cared for that either.   

It was later that volunteers like myself and others started a Veterans Relief Fund at that post. We made meals inexpensive so Seniors and veterans without much would be able to get a meal for almost nothing. We made it a place where families enjoyed bringing their kids. It took volunteers to stay the course and not quit even though the petty politics of those wanting to return to the bad old days made it a place not worth helping at times. 

Volunteers made it work. While only a few veterans actually volunteered, thankfully a lot of locals who had generational ties to the building came forward. We cooked. We cleaned. We put on events during almost every calendar holiday. We did fundraisers. And we made it into a good place worth coming to -- despite the cliques and jerks who wanted it to just be a place for local drunks. 

I'm told that it's now reverted back to the way it used to be many years ago. I'm told that it's because people have stopped volunteering and have left. And yes, that's why I see those 13 years of busting my tail for that place as being wasted. I find it sad. No matter how much time and effort, all of my own money that I and other volunteers poured into that place, the end result is that it has gone downhill and has become nothing even close to it once was. 

What's ironic is that my friends tell me that the place isn't even for Veterans anymore. A few Veterans hold officer positions, but I'm told the place is run by non-veterans. I heard they keep their Veteran status and the place's 501(3) non-profit status while they rack in a lot of money. And the people who have taken it over, are running it as a "for-profit" business while still claiming a "non-profit" status to get out of paying for-profit taxes.

So frankly, I'm glad I haven't had anything to do with the place for almost 2 years now. It's a shame to see it go from what it was for so many years -- just to return to how it is today. But that's the other part of volunteering, you can only hope something will hold together once you stop volunteering and leave. Of course, as for the American Legion up here, some say it seems just a matter of time before it shuts its doors -- especially since they can't find volunteers to work there.  

A few days ago, I was talking with an old friend who served in the Navy. We both volunteered at the American Legion up here for many years. We were talking about the problems at the American Legion and how they now can't find volunteers to keep the place afloat. He was saying that some of the people still hanging around there are waiting for people like us to return and make things right again. 

Of course, that's not going to happen. As my close friend reminded me recently, we don't have to volunteer for a that is no fun or simply not worth our time. We've been there. We did that. We don't need to do it again. The American Legion may have some good posts, but the one here locally isn't for Vets. And really, that's sad.

As we talked about our time volunteering at the American Legion, we both laughed when remembering the number one rule for all of us who served in the military "Never Volunteer." To make life easier while serving in the military, most of us were given the advice, "Never Volunteer." It seems we forgot that rule when it came to a place like the American Legion where appreciation and gratitude for volunteers were non-existent.

My friend reminded me of what the acronym "NAVY" stands for among Navy Vets. It's an old joke among Sailors. If used as an acronym, the word "NAVY" can be translated to mean, "Never Again Volunteer Yourself."

While I was always told it was a joke, that the acronym "NAVY" meant "Never Again Volunteer Yourself," I had no idea until recently that the phrase "Never Again Volunteer Yourself" is an old adage that originated when Americans volunteered for service in the Navy around World War I. At least that's what I was told. And yes, I was also told the phrase "Never Again Volunteer Yourself" was also used by unhappy Soldiers who volunteered to join the Army during World War II. 

My friend reminded me that we once volunteered and learned the hard way to "Never Again Volunteer Yourself." And yes, from what I remember about my time as a Marine aboard a ship as part of the ship's company, "Never Again Volunteer Yourself" seemed to be the U.S. Navy's unofficial motto. It was a term that perfectly fit those Sailors with disgruntled attitudes. It fits those who don't want to put forth more of themselves than they should. 

My friends, this blog is about volunteering which is defined as offering to do something without being forced or paid to do it. Volunteering is all about stepping forward and doing so through one's own free will. It means not expecting something in return. It means not needing acclaim, reward, or promotion. It means giving time and one's skills freely and without coercion. Most of the time, we volunteer to do things we feel passionate about. 

In the case of the American Legion, it was the only place we had here in our little town where we could have a good meal and enjoy friendships. The petty politics and drama, the bickering and the jealousy, all helped to kill it. Those of us who volunteered to try to keep it alive didn't do it for awards or some sort of acclaim. We did it because we wanted to keep something good here in our little town.  

And I'll tell you this. While appreciation and gratitude go a long way in keeping volunteers happy, volunteers shouldn't expect it. No, whatever you do, don't expect it. No matter how hard you work, no matter how much of a good job you do, you better understand that that's just for you. Frankly, I believe that's the way it should be in the long run. 

I used to remind my volunteers about how much they meant to me personally and the place all the time. But really, I found that it's fundamentally up to you to feel good about what you've given back. If you expect appreciation and gratitude, even if you have worked harder than anyone else there, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. That's why you have to feel good about what you're doing and not expect much more.

If someone is volunteering to gain recognition, or for awards, promotions, or for want to be noted, or if they want cheering crowds, or expect others to throw flowers at their feet as if they're some sort of mythical hero; if someone is expecting accolades and proclamations celebrating their good deeds; then they shouldn't be volunteering. Volunteering is selflessness. 

To me, volunteering should be like making donations. It should be done anonymously without wanting credit or acclaim for it. It should be done without expecting anything in return. But yes, we can all hope that our volunteering can be fun and rewarding with a good feeling about what you're doing. So yes, it should make you feel good. If it doesn't make you feel good, then I recommend you quit and maybe find something else more fulfilling for you. And as you can tell from what I mentioned earlier in this story, there are a lot of very different groups that you can volunteer for -- and feel great about being there.  

But, if you're someone who expects more than just feeling good about volunteering, then you're volunteering for all of the wrong reasons. And yes, in that case, you should "Never Again Volunteer Yourself."

That's how I see it.

Tom Correa

Vigilantes of Bannack and Virginia City, Montana

Present Day Bannack, Montana

Story by Terry McGahey

Gold was discovered on July 28, 1862, alongside Grasshopper Creek in the far west portion of the Idaho territory. Not long after the Montana Territory came into being and gold was discovered in a place called Alder Gulch with Bannack becoming the first capital of Montana. Bannack was only the capital for two years before Virginia City cropped up at Alder Gulch and took over as the capital. Alder Gulch became one of the largest gold finds in the western United States in 1863 bringing thousands of gold seekers to the area and others looking for their fortune as saloon keepers, hardware stores, and others, as was said, those businesses mined the miners.

In 1863-64 the only means of transportation was by wagon, stagecoach, or horseback over horrible rough roads which caused slow travel. This situation became very tempting for road agents who began preying on gold shipments as well as travelers within the area. As the frequency of holdups and murder grew, the locals began to suspect Henry Plummer, the Sheriff of Bannack to be the ring leader because he knew when the shipments would be sent. It was claimed that over one hundred men had been killed by road agents. Who really knows except god, numbers such as these were overstated many times back then.

On December 23, 1863, The Vigilance Committee Of Alder Gulch was organized by the Virginia City residents. The founders of this group were Wilber F. Sanders, Major Alvin W. Brockie, John Nye, Captain Nick D. Wall, and Paris Pfouts. Some of these men had been involved with the San Francisco Vigilance Committee in California and used that as their guidelines. Paris Phouts was elected president of the committee and along with some of the other voted-in officers they wrote their by-laws. Below are those by-laws:

It shall be the duty of members to attach themselves to some company and whenever any criminal act shall come to their knowledge to inform his Captain or Lieutenant of the same, when the officers so informed shall call together the members of his company, (unless the company has chosen a committee for such purpose) when they shall proceed to investigate the case, and elicit the facts and should the said company conclude that the person charged with any offence should be punished by the committee, the Captain or Lieutenant will first take steps to arrest the criminal and then report same with proof to the Chief who will thereupon call a meeting of the Executive Committee and the judgement of such Executive Committee shall be final. The only punishment that shall be inflicted by this Committee shall be death.

Now, those by-laws meant business, I would hate to have had a finger pointed at me for something I didn’t do back then, That would not have been good. All in all and as far as we know the Vigilance Committee of Alder Gulch had executed twenty-one men of the Henry Plummer gang in 1884. The names of these men are, Henry Plummer, the sheriff of Bannack, Erastus “Red” Yeager, George Brown, “Dutch John” Wagner, Ned Ray, Buck Stinson, “Greaser Joe” Pizanthia, Frank Parish, Boone Helm, Jack Gallagher, George “Clubfoot” Lane, Hayes Lyon, Steve Marshland, Bill Bunton, Cyrus Skinner, Aleck Carter, Johnny Cooper, Bob Zachary, George Shears, “Whiskey Bill” Graves and Bill Hunter.

Other executions committed by the Vigilance Committee include an unknown nineteen-year-old who was hanged for shooting and killing an unarmed man in one of the saloons.

Doc Howard, Chris Lowery, and Jem Romaine. All three were hung for robbery and murder.

Jack Slade for breach of the peace while firing his revolver errantly and could have possibly killed someone.

James Brady for shooting a man. The man didn’t die.

Personally, I have been to Virginia City and Bannack Montana, and should you ever get the chance to be within that area of Montana, I would highly suggest visiting these old west towns. You won’t regret it, they are still original for the most part.

About the Author

Terry McGahey
Associate Writer/ Old West Historian

Terry has been a working cowboy, a writer, and an Old West historian. He is best known for his fight against the City of Tombstone and its historic City Ordinance Number 9.

He was instrumental in getting the famous Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 repealed while at the same time forcing the City of Tombstone to fall in line and comply with the laws of the State of Arizona.

If you care to read how he fought Tombstone's City Hall and won, check out:

The Last Gun Fight -- The Death of Ordinance Number 9 (Chapter One)

Tombstone Daily Nugget - The Earps' Examination - November 8, 1881

Tombstone, Arizona, 1881

Four days after what's become known as the "Gunfight at the OK Coral," the Earps and Holliday were charged with murder. During the preliminary hearing in regards to the murder charges filed against the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday, Justice of the Peace Wells Spicer heard testimony from several witnesses during the next 30 days.

Well, again I want to remind my readers that the 30-second shooting which became glamourized as the "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral," took place on October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, Arizona Territory. The shooting took place when Deputy U.S. Marshal Virgil Earp, who was also holding the position of Tombstone Town Marshal at the time, Assistant Town Marshal Morgan Earp, and temporary deputy marshals Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday attempted to disarm Ike and Billy Clanton, Frank and Tom McLaury, and Billy Claiborne.

Ike Clanton and Tom McLaury were both unarmed. Ike Clanton threw up his hands and ran off. Billy Claiborne, who was armed, ran out the back of the lot. So when the shooting started, only Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury were armed while facing the Earps and Holliday.

With all three Earp brothers and Doc Holliday were armed, and only two "Cowboys" Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury were armed. When the shooting started, the two armed cowboys were overwhelmed and in about 30 seconds Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury were shot dead. Also as I've stated before, I believe it's important to note that an unarmed Tom McLaury was also shot and killed by a shotgun blast from Doc Holliday. 

The Tombstone Daily Nugget published the following on November 8, 1881:

THE EARPS EXAMINATION

Continuation of Testimony for the Prosecution - Wyatt Earp and J. H. (Doc) Holliday Remanded in the custody of the Sheriff.

At the convening of court yesterday morning, the prosecution re-opened the case by introducing West Fuller, who being sworn testified as follows:

Reside at Tombstone; occupation gambler, was at Tombstone, Cochise County, on October 26, 1881; I saw a difficulty between the Earp brothers and Holliday on one side and the Clantons and McLowrys on the other side, on that day; the difficulty occurred on Fremont street, near the corner of Third street; the parties were Doc Holliday, Wyatt Earp, Virgil Earp, and Morgan Earp on one side, and Tom and Frank McLowry and Billy Clanton and Ike Clanton on the other side; I was right back of Fly's photograph gallery, in the alley-way; the alley-way runs length wise with Fly's gallery and west of the gallery; it was the first vacant alley-way next the gallery; [Witness marks on the diagram his position in the vacant lot, about seventy-five feet from Fremont street and about ten feet from Fly's building]. I was going down the Allen street to where to Clanton boys were standing for the purpose of telling Billy Clanton to leave town. I mean the parties I saw was Billy Clanton, John Behan, and Frank McLowry; could not see any other person from where I was; well, I expected he was going to get into trouble, as I saw the Earp boys and Holliday armed.

Q. Where were the Earps and Holliday when you saw them armed?

A. On Fourth and Allen Streets.

Virg. had a shotgun; the other had sixshooters; I did not get close enough to say anything to Billy Clanton or any of that party before the shotting commenced; I saw the Earps coming down; saw them just as they got there; heard someone say "throw up your hands" some of the Earps said it; Billy Clanton throwed up his hands and said,

"DON'T SHOOT ME, I DON'T WANT ANY FIGHT."

at the same time shooting commenced; I did not see Tom McLowry at the time; I did not see Ike Clanton at the time of the first shooting; I did not see Frank McLowry. The Earp party fired the first shots; two shot; almost together; I would not be positive if they were gun or pistol shots; after these shots the firing commenced very rapidly; both parties were firing then; after the first two shots, Billy Clanton, staggered and fell against the side of the house; there were five or six shots fired by the Earp party before Billy Clanton or Frank McLowry fired and they, Billy and Frank, were the only ones of the Clanton party I saw fire a shot at all; at the time of the first two shot by the Earp party, the hands of Billy Clanton were up. (By demonstration, witness shows hands up even with the head). Frank McLowry, just as the shooting commenced, was standing by holding his horse; I don't think he was doing anything; I saw his hands and nothing was in them; if he had had a weapon in his hand, I would have seen it; I think the first two shots were aimed at Billy Clanton; I saw he was hit; he threw his hands down on his belly; and partly turned around;(witness here shows manner of Clanton). I did not see, at that time, the effect of any shots on any one else; Frank McLowry drew a weapon and fired some shots during the fight; Frank McLowry was in Fremont street when he drew his weapon; I think he was a little past the middle of the street when he drew his pistol; (Witness on the diagram "A," shows the position of Frank McLowry at the time the first two shots were fired by figure 11).

Q. About how far from that position was Frank McLowry when you saw him draw his weapon, and in what direction?

A. He must have be thrity or forty feet from there. At the point 1 marked 12 on the diagram; (northeast direction);

Q. How many shots, if any, had been fired by the Earps and Mr. Holliday, prior to the time you first saw Frank McLowry draw his weapon?

A. There were several shots fired; I don't know how many; can't say exactly; I would say seven or eight.

Q. Did you see Tom McLowry or Ike Clanton during the fight at all?

A. Yes.

Q. When and Where?

A. After the fight had been going on I saw Tom Mclowry pass through an open space in Fly's building. I do not know where he went; did not see him afterwards until until he was brought into the house; saw Ike Clanton pass right out a head of Tom, and that was the last I saw of him.

Q. In what condition was Tom when you saw him in the open space of Fly's building?

A. He was walking along slow; appeared to be hurt; he was staggering.

Q. How long after this was Tom McLowry brought into the house?

A. I don't know; it was probably ten minutes.

Q. What condition was he in then?

A. He was dying; shot in the right side.

Q. Who carried Tom in the house?

A. I don't know.

Q. Who was in the room?

A. Billy Clanton was in there and a man named Keith, and others I do not remember.

Q. Did you examine Tom McLowry after he was brought in the house?

A. I did.

Q. Did he have any arms on at that time?

A. He did not.

Q. Did he have a cartridge or other belt on?

A. I did not see any.

Q. State whether or not, at the time of the shooting, you at any time saw Ike Clanton with any arms?

A. I did not.

Q. Did you see Billy Clanton after the shooting, and if yes, where was he and what condition was he in?

A. I saw him at the house next below Fly's building. He was lying there rolling around in agony from the shot. He said: "Look and see where I am shot." I looked and saw he was shot twice, once in the belly, about here I should judge, (showing), and another shot under the left nipple; the first shot was, I think, a little above the navel and a little to the right. I told him he could not live. He said: "Get a doctor and give me something to put me to sleep." That was about all I recollect him saying, I did not leave until he died.

Q. State whether or not you saw Billy Clanton fire any shots?

A. I did.

Q. Did you see Billy Clanton when he first drew his weapon?

A. I did, it was a pistol.

Q. In what position was his body at the time he first drew his pistol?

A. he was in a crouched, stooping position, leaning against the house, and while so drew his pistol with his left hand; his body was out from the corner so I could see him.

Q. At the time you saw him draw his pistol about how many shots had been fired by the Earps and Holliday?

A. I would judge there had been some six or seven shots.

Q. Do you know whether Billy was wounded in either of his hands or arms?

A. Yes, he was shot through his right wrist.

Q. At the time you saw Frank McLowry about the middle of Fremont street drawing his pistol what condition was he in, or his appearence or actions indicate he was in?

A. He seemed to be wounded, he was staggering and dizzy.

Q. Did you during the shooting, see any horses there, and if so where were they and who had them?

A. I did, Billy Clanton had one and Frank McLowry had one.

Q. Did you or not see any arms on those horses or about those horses, and if so, what description were they?

A. I saw arms on them; I supposed they were rifles from where I was; I am positive there were arms on one, about the others I am not positive; Frank McLowrys horse is the one about which I am certain had arms on him; I saw a rifle on Frank's horse, that is all the arms I saw on him.

Q. State whether or not the rifle which you say you are certain you saw on Frank McLowry's horse was used during the shooting?

A. I did not see anybody use it.

Q. Was it on the horse when the shooting was over?

A. I don't think I saw the horse after the shooting was over.

Q. Did you see Frank McLowry when he left the horse?

A. I did.

Q. About where did Frank McLowry leave the horse?

A. In the street, probably twenty feet from where he stood when the first shot was fired-near the middle of the street.

Q. When Frank McLowry keft his horse where was his rifle?

A. It was still on the horse.

Q. State whether there was any attempt by any one to get possession of the gun or to use the gun that was on Frank McLowry's horse at any time during the shooting, and if so, by whom?

A. Frank McLowry himself tried to get the gun; he was fooling with the horse and it looked to me that he was trying to get the gun out of the scabbard, but there was so much shooting, and the horse keep jumping around and the horse finally got away from him.

Q. About how many shots had been fired by the Earps and Holliday before Frank McLowry commenced to try to get the gun.

A. Seven or eight, probably more.

Court adjouned until 1 p.m. Met pursuant to Adjurnement. Motion was made by the attorney for the prosecution that the defendants' be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff without bail. The point taken was that the proof was conclusive of murder, and overcomes the affidavits filed by on motion for bail. That the proof so far was conclusive of murder, and under the proof the defendants' ought not be admitted to bail in any sum.

Council for defense took the ground that the court having once admitted defendants'to bail, had no jurisdiction to again raise the question of bail until all the evidence was completed. The answer made to this was that the court once having jursidiction could not lose it, until it finally passed on the case. That the defendants' before him were at all times under his direction and it was the right of the court at any time to make any order permitting or refusing bail according as the evidence showed quilt or evidence of the offense charged. That if the court had at first refused bail, whenever subsequently the evidence showed the proof not positive or the presumption not great, then the court had the power and ought to admit to bail. On the other hand, the court was bound were the proof was positive and presumption was great to remand the prisoners to the Sheriff, and so keep them until the presumption was overcome by evidence for the defense.

The court after reviewing the Compliled Laws and wieghing the arguments and authorities cited, said: "The statutes give in one section a right of discretion in the court on the application of bail when a party is charged with murder, but the statutes take such discretion away in a subseqent action." When, in the course of investigaton, "the proof became evident and the presumption great" that the parties accused of murder are guilty of as charged, then the court was bound to remand the prisoner to the custody

of the proper officer. The prisoners were remanded to the custody of the Sheriff until further order of the court. Counsel for defendants before proceeding with the cross-examination of the witness, Fuller, demanded that they be permitted forthwith to produce evidence in behalf of defendants, to show that this case is one where defendant should be admitted to bail, and they herewith make application for such admission to bail.

CROSS-EXAMINATION



Q. State as near as you can, when you was on Allen street, when you first saw Billy Clanton, Frank McLowry, and John H. Behan, on Fremont street?

A. I was standing between Third and Fourth; I was on the north side of Allen; I don't know exactly how far from the corner of Third; I was just below the O. K. Corral.

Q. You stated in your direct examination that you saw the Earps and Holliday on Fourth and Allen streets, and that they were armed; Virgil Earp with a shotgun and the others with sixshooters. State how you knew the other had sixshooters. State when and in what manner the other carried or exhibited sixshooters.

A. I saw Holliday put one in his coat pocket; I saw one in Morgan Earp's pocket, on the right hand side of his coat; Wyatt had his right back here, (indicating) stuck in his pants; i think a little on the right side; I saw this on the corner of Fourth and Allen; I was not very far; I was about ten or twelve feet from Holliday, Morg and Virg; I don;t recall what kind of coat Wyatt had on.

Q. Did Wyatt Earp's coat cover the pistol? Was the pistol under the coat?

A. It was at times.

Q. Did not Wyatt have a overcoat on?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Do you know whether his coat was buttoned or not?

A. When I saw the pistol it was not.

Q. Well how was it about Virgil Earp?

A. Virg had a shotgun.

Q. After seeing the Earps and Holliday on the corner of Fourth and Allen streets, in which direction did you go? How rapidly did you proceed, and at what point did you stop?

A. I went right down Allen street; I walked along, not very fast, and I first stopped, probably four or five seconds, and spoke a few words as

I WAS GOING THROUGH



The alley between Fremont and Allen; I spoke to Mattie Webb; I met and spoke to her first at the rear of her house.

Q. Were you not talking to Mattie Webb at or near her building when the first shots were fired?

A. I was not.

Q. By what route did you go from the corner of Fourth and Allen street to the point you have designated on the diagram as 10?

A. I don't remember which house it was I went by on Allen street to get to that point, it was below the O.K. Corral.

Q. Did you during the shooting at any time move from the point you have designated on the diagram as 10, and if so when did you move and in what direction?

A. I did move after the shooting commenced; after several shot I moved, not before; I moved back towards Allens street a few steps and then came back again, and was dodging about some, as bullets were flying about; I might have moved back some twenty feet or so towards Allen street, and then back again.

Q. Did you move stepping backwards and keeping your face towards Fremont street, or did you turn around and face towards Allen street as you moved?

A. I was watching the fight all the time; I was stepping back and turning around there.

Q. When you finally stopped had the firing ceased?

A. I don't think it had; I am not positive how many shots were fired after I ceased to move; I am positive that two shots were fired.

Q. Locate as near as you can on the diagram No. 13, the point where Billy Clanton stood when you heard him say, "Don't shoot me, I don't want to fight?"

A. I locate it about here (locating it at a point near the house below Fly's building.)

Q. Locate as near as you can by figure 14 the point at which Frank McLowry was

WHEN THE FIRST SHOT

was fired?

A. Eleven is the point where he was, as i have already said.

Q. Locate as near as you can on this diagram the position of the Earp party when the first shots were fired?

A. I think I only saw Doc Holliday and Morgan Earp; I mark 14 for Holliday and 15 for Morg.

Q. Which of the Earp party fired the first shot?

A. I think Morg Earp and doc Holliday fired the first two shots; could not tell which of the two fired first.

Q. Against who or in whose direction was the first two shots fired?

A. I thought they were fired at Billy Clanton.

Q. State by what means you know that the first shot preceded from the Earp party?

A. I saw them shoot them.

Q. What kind of weapon was in the hands of Doc Holliday?

A. I would not be positive; I was looking more at Morg Earp.

Q. If you did see, and therefore can't be posative as to the charachter of the weapon, what was it, if anything about the shooting that you saw, which enables you to state that one of the first two shots was fired by Doc Holliday?

A. I saw a weapon in his hand, heard it go off, and saw the smoke; don't know if it was a pistol or shotgun.

Q. Were you not so excited at the time as to be incapable of accurate observation?

A. No sir.

Q. Had you been drinking any intoxicating liquor that day, if so about how many drinks had you taken and what king of liquor?

A. I had not been drinking that day.

Q. Where were you the night before the day of the shooting, when did you go to bed,if at all, and when did you arise in the morning?

A. If I recollect right it was about three o'clock in the morning that I went to bed and I got up between eleven and twelve.

Q. Had you been drinking any the day or evening before the day of the fight?

A. I had.

Q. To what extent?

A. Considerably.

Q. Over what period of time continusly had that extent over drinking extend?

A. I don't recollect.

Q. Had you had any time during the day, or two, or more, before the time you went to bed at 3 o'clock on the morning of the 26th?

A. I had not.

Q. Describe the charachter of wound on Billy Clanton's wrist?

A. I don't think I could do it; Don't know whether it went through; I only saw the shot on the arm, (designates the place about three inches from the palm of his hand on the arm); don't recollect whether it was on the inside or outside.

Q. Was it on both sides?

A. I don't know.

Q. Was the wound deep or shallow?

A. I cannot say.

Q. Did you see any bullet in the wound?

A. No.

Q. Was it anything more than a mere scrathc or scrape?

A. I did not examine it; I saw it was a shot.

Q. What made you think it was a shot?

A. Blood was about the only thing.

Q. Did you notice whether the skin was knoocked of or not?

A. It was.

Q. Did Frank McLowry first draw his pistol before or after he left his horse or it got away from him?

A. Well, about that time.

Q. Are you unable to say whether it was before or after?

A. I would not be positive.

Q. Did Frank McLowry fire any shots, before he became seperated from his horse?

A. I think not.

Q. You said on your direct examination that you saw Ike Clanton pass through the vacant lot between Fly's building. Are you sure of that?

A. I am.

Q. Are you as sure of that as you are of everything else you testified to?

A. I am positive I saw him pass through there.

Q. You said in your direct examination that you saw Tom McLowry walk as if he were hurt, and staggering, and slowly into the same vacant space between Fly's building. Are you sure of that?

A. I am.

ARE YOU AS SURE OF

That as anything else you have testified to?

A. I am. I am positive I saw him go through there.

Q. Do you know Wm. Allen?

A. I do.

Q. Do you know if Wm. Allen was one of the parties that brought Tom McLowry into the house?

A. I don't recollect who brought him in.

Q. In what house was Tom Mclowry brought?

A. In the house on the corner of Third and Fremont; it was the second house below Fly's gallery, on the same side of the street.

Q. Did Billy Clanton ever leave the position, in which you have ascribed him, at the corner of the house, as crouched? If so, when and where did he go?

A. He was rolling around on the ground; he did not leave that place.

Q. What became of the horse Billy Clanton had?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know at what stage of the fight Billy Clanton and his horse became seperated?

A. Almost immediately after the fight began; I did not see anything more of the horse.

Q. Locate the horses on the diagram, showing which was Frank McLowry's horse and which was Billy Clanton's horse,at the time the first shot was fired?

A. Can't say what position Frank stood in relation to his horse; Billy Clanton the side of his; Billy's horse was to the left of him.

Q. What are your feeling towards the defendant, Holliday?

A. We have always been friendly.

Q. Are you so now?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you not on the 5th day of November, 1881, about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, in front of the Oriental saloon, in Tombstone, say to, or in the presence of Wyatt Earp, that you nothing in your testimony that would hurt the Earps but that you intended to cinch Holliday, or words to that effect?

A. I told Wyatt Earp I thought Holliday was the cause of the fight. I don't think I used the words that I would cinch Holliday; I will not be positive.

RE-EXAMINED,

Q. At the time you had the conversation referred to with Wyatt Earp in the last interrogatory, who was present, if anyone?

A. There were several parties there, but I do not remember any one.

Q. Who were you talking to?

A. Wyatt Earp.