Page:Looters of the Public Domain.djvu/453

 "No. 2944—Indictment returned April 8, 1905, against James Benson, of Cottage Grove, Or., charging him with a violation of section 5392, Revised Statutes, consisting of perjury committed in giving testimony before the Federal Grand Jury with relation to a timber and stone entry made by him for a tract of land in the Roseburg Land District.

No. 2945—Indictment returned April 8, 1905, against Clarence B. Zachary, charging him with a violation of section 5392, Revised Statutes, being perjury committed in giving testimony before United States Commissioner James S. Stewart as witness at the final homestead proof of Charles A. Watson.

No. 2984—Indictment returned September 2, 1905, under section 5440, Eevised Statutes, charges Claude Thayer, Clark E. Hadley, Maurice Leach, Walter J. Smith, Thomas Coates, John Tuttle, Charles E. Hayes, G. O. Nolan, John Doe and Eichard Eoe with conspiracy to defraud the United States out of several thousand acres of timbered lands in Tillamook County, Oregon."

This case is described fully in Chapter 23.

"No. 2988—Indictment returned September 2, 1905, against Herman K. Finch, Thaddeus S. Potter, Bert Blauvelt, John Doe and Richard Roe, charging them with a violation of section 5440, Revised Statutes, being conspiracy to defraud the United States out of two quarter sections of land entered by Finch and Potter, respectively, under the Siletz homestead act.

No. 2991—Indictment returned September 8, 1905, against C. Sam Smith and Dr. Van Gesner, charging them with a violation of section 5440, Revised Statutes, consisting of conspiracy, having for its object the intimidation of certain Government witnesses called to testify at the trial of the case of the United States vs. J. N. Williamson and others."

Smith was sheriff of Crook county, Oregon, during the Williamson trial, and was accused with Dr. Van Gesner with having attempted to intimidate witnesses who had given testimony against the defendants in that case.

"No. 3006—Indictment returned September 15, 1905, under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes charges Charles A Graves, Erwin N. Wakefield, Ora L. Parker and Robert B. Foster with conspiracy to defraud the United States out of certain tracts of land in Crook County, Oregon, by means of false and fraudulent sworn statements under the timber and stone act, and by false testimony at final proof in connection with the same land.

No. 4849—Indictment returned April 9, 1906, against Richard Jones, William H. Smith, Jacob C. Cross, David E. Goodwin, Will D. Gould, Frank A. Stewart, William T. Kerr, John E. Miller, Fred W. Dennis, Richard Hynes, H. M. Riley, Lee K. Myers, George L. Stearns, Jeremiah Huntley, Amos S. Johnston, Warren Gillelen, E. W. Kenny, A. H. Hedderly, John Doe, Richard Roe, Robert Roe, Thomas Roe, Annie Roe, charging them with a violation of section 5440, Revised Statutes, known as the "Los Angeles ease.""

Richard D. Jones and William H. Smith, of San Francisco, formerly of Portland; Jeremiah Huntley, formerly United States Commissioner for Curry county; Amos S. Johnston, formerly Deputy County Clerk of Curry county; Frank A. Stewart, merchant of Ophir; William T. Kerr, of Coquille; John R. Miller, of Port Orford; Warren Gillelen, president of the Broadway Bank & Trust Company, of Los Angeles; R. W. Kenny, cashier of the same institution; George L. Stearns, ex-president of the Pacific Furniture & Lumber Company, of Los Angeles; Jacob C. Cross, director of the same company; David M. Goodwin and A. H. Hedderly, physicians of Los Angeles; Richard Hynes, M. M. Riley and Lee R. Myers, Los Angeles stock brokers; Will D. Gould, a Los Angeles attorney, and Fred W. Dennis, a San Francisco broker and real estate dealer.

All of the men named in the indictment are accused, under section 5440 of the revised statutes, of conspiring together to defraud the Government of immense acreage in Southern Oregon. The conspiracy is alleged to have commenced some time during 1901 and to have been effective up to August 26, 1904. The general plan of the scheme, as it is outlined in the indictment, is very similar to those of the other two large land fraud indictments that were returned by the grand jury.

Although the accused men are said to have gained possession of only about 6000 acres, it is alleged that the original conspiracy had a much broader scope and that they hoped to rob the Government of about 30,000 acres of rich timber Page 447