Jones v. United States

Decision Date16 May 1910
Docket Number1,731.
PartiesJONES v. UNITED STATES. [1]
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

S. B Huston and Martin L. Pipes, for plaintiff in error.

Tracy C. Becker and Francis J. Heney, U.S. Sp. Asst. Atty. Gens.

Before GILBERT and MORROW, Circuit Judges, and FARRINGTON, District judge.

MORROW Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was charged by indictment in the Circuit Court for the District of Oregon with John H. Mitchell Binger Hermann, John N. Williamson, Franklin P. Mays, and George Sorenson with the crime of conspiracy, alleged to have been entered into on the 15th day of February, 1902, between the parties named, 'and with divers other persons to the said grand jurors unknown,' to defraud the United States out of the possession and use of and title to divers large tracts of the public lands of the United States of great value, to wit, 200,000 acres of the public lands of the United States, lying in divers states and territories of the United States, of the value of $3,000,000. The indictment is framed under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes (page 3676, U.S. Comp. St. 1901) and contains but a single count. It is charged, in substance, that the conspirators named, in pursuance and by means of a fraudulent plan, were to obtain fraudulently from the state of Oregon title to and possession of a large quantity, to wit, 150,000 acres of school lands, lying within the counties of Crook, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Baker, Union, Umatilla, and Wallowa in the state of Oregon, still vacant by reason of the land being arid and worthless, and open to purchase from the state by residents thereof under the laws of the state of Oregon at $1.25 per acre, in quantity not exceeding 320 acres for each resident, upon application made to the proper authorities of the state of Oregon by a resident, supported by his affidavit showing his qualifications to make such purchase, and, amongst other things, his intention to purchase such lands in good faith and for his own benefit, and that he had made no contract to sell the same; that said school lands were to be obtained from the state by making and filing with the state authorities applications for the purchase of the same, and assignments of the same, and of the certificates of purchase thereof in the names of persons not really desiring and legally qualified to purchase such lands.

It is charged that the defendants would procure the use of the names of such persons for the purposes named by paying them respectively small sums of money; that the defendants would support such applications with fraudulent affidavits, known to the defendants to be false, in this, that they would purport to be the bona fide affidavits of the persons whose names were signed thereto, whereas in truth and in fact they would not be the bona fide affidavits of the persons whose names were signed thereto, because such affidavits would state that the affiants therein were persons qualified under the laws of the state of Oregon to make such applications and to purchase such lands, by reason, amongst other things, of their intending to purchase the same in good faith and for their own benefit respectively, and of their having no contract or agreement to sell the same, while in truth and in fact none of such persons were intending to purchase such lands in good faith for his own benefit or at all, but would be knowingly aiding and assisting the defendants in their fraudulent plan. It was further charged that the defendants, through the influence of said John H. Mitchell, who was then a Senator of the United States of and for the state of Oregon, and the said Binger Hermann, who was then the Commissioner of the General Land Office of the United States, to induce and procure the establishment of a forest reserve in the counties named, under the laws of the United States, which would include within its limits the school lands so to be fraudulently obtained from the state; and also a large quantity, to wit, 30,000 acres of such other school lands, lying in said counties which had theretofore been fraudulently obtained by the defendants from the state of Oregon by the same fraudulent means; and also a large quantity, to wit, 20,000 acres of poor timber lands, lying in the said county of Crook, which were to be fraudulently obtained by the defendant Williamson from the United States through purchases from the United States under the laws pertaining to the sale of timber lands, to be made, by his procurement, by persons who would be acting as his agents, and who would not be in good faith purchasing the same for their own use and benefit. It was further charged that the defendants would cause to be relinquished, assigned, and transferred to the United States the titles to and possession of such timber lands and school lands so fraudulently obtained and to be obtained from the United States and from the state of Oregon in exchange for public lands to be selected, and for titles thereto by patent to be obtained under the laws of the United States by and on behalf of the defendants from among the public lands of the United States open to such selection, lying outside of the limits of the forest reserve, so to be established in lieu of such timber and school lands so to be made to lie within the limits of such forest reserve. It is further charged that the defendants, when so causing to be relinquished, assigned and transferred to the United States the titles to and exchanging the timber and school lands to be so fraudulently obtained from the United States and from the state of Oregon, for public lands of the United States, and for titles by patent thereto, well knowing such titles to timber and school lands to be as they would be, false, fraudulent, and worthless, and the possession acquired thereunder unlawful, and intending thereby and by afterwards selling and disposing of such public lands and patent titles to the general public and to persons having no knowledge of the fraud involved in the obtaining of the same from the United States, to defraud the United States out of the possession and use of and title to the public lands so to be selected, obtained and appropriated in lieu of such school lands, to the profit, gain, use, and benefit of themselves and prejudice of the administration of the public laws of the United States, and contrary to the true intent and policy thereof.

The indictment then proceeds to charge certain overt acts alleged to have been committed by individual defendants in pursuance of the conspiracy and to effect its object.

1. It is charged that the defendant John H. Mitchell on February 22, 1902, at Washington, signed a letter addressed to Binger Hermann, Commissioner of the General Land Office, in which the writer said:
'On January 21, 1902, I wrote a letter to Hon. E. A. Hitchcock, Secretary of the Interior, forwarding petitions numerously signed, praying for the establishment of a forest reserve in Oregon to include all of the lands embraced in the following named contiguous localities, being parts of Grant, Malheur, and Harney Counties, state of Oregon, to wit: The entire watershed known as 'Strawberry Mountain'; the headwaters of the north and middle forks of the Malheur river and their tributaries; Silvies river and tributaries; Silver creek and tributaries; the south fork of the John Day river, and its tributaries. I subsequently received a letter from the Secretary saying he had transmitted the same to your office. I desire to know whether they have been received at your office, and what action, if any, has been taken. I earnestly urge early consideration of this matter.'
2. It was further charged as an overt act that Binger Hermann on March 11, 1902, signed a letter addressed to S. B. Ormsby, Forest Superintendent, Salem, Or., in which the writer said:
'I inclose herewith copies of a letter from Hon. J. H. Mitchell, U. S. Senate, and petitions numerously signed by residents of Malheur and Harney counties, Oregon, praying for the early establishment of a forest reserve, in Oregon, to cover a continuous area in Grant, Malheur and Harney counties, designated as follows: (Then follows the description of the lands as in Senator Mitchell's letter.) I also inclose copy of a letter from Hon. Geo. W. McBride, dated at Portland, Oregon, July 29, 1900, protesting against the inclusion at any time within any reserve of townships 13 South, ranges 32, 33, 34, and 35 East, W.M., oregon, and copy of similar protest presented by the Hon. Joseph Simon with his letters of July 30, 1900, dated at Portland, Oregon. It is desired that you make thorough examination and report in this matter at the earliest practicable date, with a view to determining as to the advisability of reserving the designated area, as requested by petitioners. Also report regarding present owners and settlers. Particular attention should be given, in your examination, to the advisable boundaries of the proposed reserve, and you are directed to make your report specific in this respect. You will give careful consideration to said protests if it be found that the four townships described therein are within the general area desired to be reserved. Advise this office what is the earliest practicable date, in view of the other duties incumbent upon you, at which report in this matter may be made.'

3. It was further charged as an overt act that the defendant Franklin P. Mays, during the month of March, in the year 1902, unlawfully conveyed and transferred to Salmon B Ormsby, Forest Superintendent of the United States, detailed to investigate and report to the said Binger Hermann, commissioner as aforesaid, concerning the advisability of creating the forest reserve, and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • United States v. Lovely
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • May 14, 1948
    ...193; Samuels v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 536, Ann.Cas. 1917A, 711; Shea v. United States, 6 Cir., 251 F. 440; Jones v. United States, 9 Cir., 179 F. 584, 585, 610; Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 451, 28 S.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278. The exceptions to the general rule have been h......
  • State v. O'Neil
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1913
    ... ... 405; ... People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286, 62 L ... R. A. 193; People v. Jones, 32 Cal. 80; People ... v. Schweitzer, 23 Mich. 301; Welhousen v ... State, 30 Tex. App ... 107, 49 So. 678; People v ... Friedman, 149 A.D. 873, 134 N.Y.S. 153; Dyar v ... United States, 186 F. 614, 108 C. C. A. 478; Johnson ... v. Commonwealth, 144 Ky. 287, 137 S.W. 1079; ... ...
  • Marino v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 28, 1937
    ...v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 602, 47 S.Ct. 531, 534, 71 L.Ed. 793; Jones v. United States (C.C. A. 9) 162 F. 417; Jones v. United States (C.C.A. 9) 179 F. 584, 610. 9 United States v. Hirsch, 100 U.S. 33, 34, 25 L.Ed. 539; United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 204, 2 S.Ct. 531, 27 L.Ed......
  • United States v. Melekh, 60 Cr. 529.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 20, 1961
    ...Count Two, he not being a co-conspirator named in said Count. The Government refutes this contention with the holding of Jones v. United States, 9 Cir., 1910, 179 F. 584, wherein it was held there was not a fatal variance between indictment and proof because the indictment charged that defe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT