launched August 3, 2013
to
project
home page
to Hill Beachey Day Proposed
to research question number 1
to research question number 2
to research question number 3
to research question number 4
to research question number 5
to research question number 6
to research question number 7
to research question number 8
to Hill Beachey Day Proposed
to research question number 1
to research question number 2
to research question number 3
to research question number 4
to research question number 5
to research question number 6
to research question number 7
to research question number 8
Research Question Number 1: What
transpired at Beachy's meeting with California's Governor Leland
Stanford?
I haven't been able to find much on this crucial meeting. Beachey needed Stanford to grant him leave to take custody of the prisoners and transport them back to Lewiston for trial.
Stanford issued such a warrant, dated November 2, 1863.
I haven't been able to find much on this crucial meeting. Beachey needed Stanford to grant him leave to take custody of the prisoners and transport them back to Lewiston for trial.
Stanford issued such a warrant, dated November 2, 1863.
A meeting between Stanford
and Beachy apparently led to the warrant's issuance. Ladd
Hamilton (This Bloody Deed: The
Magruder Incident,
Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1994) offers a rich account
of Beachey's encounter with Stanford in Sacramento (see pp. 130-133 and
136-138). But Hamilton readily conceded that his account was
wholly fictionalized. "I had to imagine what probably occurred,"
wrote Hamilton (p. ix).
So we are, at the moment at least, quite emptyhanded as to what actually transpired.
It may be noted that it is curious that Stanford's warrant identified the fugitives by the names Johnson, Clark, Smith, and Perkins. These were the surnames employed in William B. Daniels' warrant issued in Lewiston on Oct 23rd, 1863. There may have been some purely legal reason for Stanford's use of them in this document.
Yet, there is also some evidence that the fugitives real names -- or at least better names -- were already known by the time Stanford signed the warrant on Nov 2nd.
The Sacramento Daily Union for Nov 6th, reprinted an account offered in the Nov 4th edition of the San Francisco Bulletin in which the suspects were identified as "William Page, Chris. Lowery, James Romaine and Daniel Howard." How much earlier than the Nov 4th publication date, I wonder, were these names known?
So we are, at the moment at least, quite emptyhanded as to what actually transpired.
It may be noted that it is curious that Stanford's warrant identified the fugitives by the names Johnson, Clark, Smith, and Perkins. These were the surnames employed in William B. Daniels' warrant issued in Lewiston on Oct 23rd, 1863. There may have been some purely legal reason for Stanford's use of them in this document.
Yet, there is also some evidence that the fugitives real names -- or at least better names -- were already known by the time Stanford signed the warrant on Nov 2nd.
The Sacramento Daily Union for Nov 6th, reprinted an account offered in the Nov 4th edition of the San Francisco Bulletin in which the suspects were identified as "William Page, Chris. Lowery, James Romaine and Daniel Howard." How much earlier than the Nov 4th publication date, I wonder, were these names known?
Leland Stanford
William B.
Secrest's
professional biography of San Francisco
police detective Isaiah W. Lees (Dark
and Tangled Threads of Crime: San Francisco's Famous Police Detective,
Isaiah W. Lees, Sanger, California: Word Dancer Press, 2004)
quotes a telegram Lees sent to Hill Beachy "on the evening of October
30," informing Beachey that "Renton" (Daniel or "Doc" Howard's real
surname) had been arrested.
The name issue is interesting and important for a number of reasons. Accurate names were apparently not known when Acting Governor Daniels was approached for an Idaho Territory warrant -- otherwise, of course, they would have been used on the Idaho warrant itself. Neither did Beachey appear to know the names when he sent a telegram to San Franciso police chief Martin J. Burke, on Oct 29, 1863 (this date, according to Secrest's account, p. 114). The first indications of the correct names may have arisen when San Francisco police detectives unearthed that a considerable amount of gold dust had been deposited at the San Francisco mint "by parties calling themselves 'James M. Romaine, Dan. Howard & G. Clark'" (in Secrest, p. 114).
The matter of the names aside, I've discovered only a single newspaper report of Governor Stanford's issuance of a warrant -- this, in the Sacramento Daily Union for Nov 3rd, 1863. This account read in part: "Perkins, one of the gang, whose right name is Fenton [sic], is now under arrest in San Francisco. He had on his person $6,000 of the money. Yesterday Governor Stanford granted a warrant on requisition for the alleged murderers and robbers to Hill Beachey, who traveled overland."
The name issue is interesting and important for a number of reasons. Accurate names were apparently not known when Acting Governor Daniels was approached for an Idaho Territory warrant -- otherwise, of course, they would have been used on the Idaho warrant itself. Neither did Beachey appear to know the names when he sent a telegram to San Franciso police chief Martin J. Burke, on Oct 29, 1863 (this date, according to Secrest's account, p. 114). The first indications of the correct names may have arisen when San Francisco police detectives unearthed that a considerable amount of gold dust had been deposited at the San Francisco mint "by parties calling themselves 'James M. Romaine, Dan. Howard & G. Clark'" (in Secrest, p. 114).
The matter of the names aside, I've discovered only a single newspaper report of Governor Stanford's issuance of a warrant -- this, in the Sacramento Daily Union for Nov 3rd, 1863. This account read in part: "Perkins, one of the gang, whose right name is Fenton [sic], is now under arrest in San Francisco. He had on his person $6,000 of the money. Yesterday Governor Stanford granted a warrant on requisition for the alleged murderers and robbers to Hill Beachey, who traveled overland."
The Union's
reporter clearly
had some knowledge that the warrant's
names were inaccurate, although "Renton" was misspelled "Fenton."
So, dear collaborator, this is your assignment: Are there records or other newspaper accounts that may be found in Sacramento, San Francisco, Portland, or Lewiston in which Hill Beachey's meeting with Gov. Leland Stanford is recounted?
So, dear collaborator, this is your assignment: Are there records or other newspaper accounts that may be found in Sacramento, San Francisco, Portland, or Lewiston in which Hill Beachey's meeting with Gov. Leland Stanford is recounted?
Finding (8/18/2013)
The office of Debra Bowen, Secretary of State, State of California, kindly sent two items. The first, below, is a page from Gov. Stanford's daily journals. The reverse side shows the catalog number F3637:5. Four items were noted for November 2nd, 1863, the fourth being the warrant issued to Beachey and Farrell.
The second, below, is a sheet from a large-format record of "requisitions" issued by the governor's office, this page for the year 1863. The reverse side shows the title, "SOS Executive Office - official transactions" and catalog number F3680:2. The notation for Beachey's requisition is the fourth one down on this segment of the list.
These
two docments may be -- repeat, may be
-- the only official record of Stanford's issuance of the warrant for
the Magruder
murderers in California's state archives. If so, of course, then
the search for what, if anything, transpired in a meeting between Gov.
Stanford and Beachy will have to be explored elsewhere -- in
contemporary newspaper accounts, in biographies, and in other
archives.
It is notable, incidentally, that Stanford issued two warrants at the behest of territorial governors on November 2nd, 1863. Along with Daniels' request from I.T., Stanford also obliged the request of Gov. James W. Nye of Nevada Territory for the arrest of John Donovan. The Sacramento Daily Union for October 28, 1863, reproduced the following one-sentence report from a San Francisco newspaper: "John Donovan, arrested last night on a warrant from Esmeralda charging that he murdered James McGuire in Aurora two weeks ago, was brought up to-day on a writ of habeas corpus served out by James Carter. Hearing continued till to-morrow morning." Donovan, it appears, sought the same sort of relief from California courts that Magruder murderers did.
It is notable, incidentally, that Stanford issued two warrants at the behest of territorial governors on November 2nd, 1863. Along with Daniels' request from I.T., Stanford also obliged the request of Gov. James W. Nye of Nevada Territory for the arrest of John Donovan. The Sacramento Daily Union for October 28, 1863, reproduced the following one-sentence report from a San Francisco newspaper: "John Donovan, arrested last night on a warrant from Esmeralda charging that he murdered James McGuire in Aurora two weeks ago, was brought up to-day on a writ of habeas corpus served out by James Carter. Hearing continued till to-morrow morning." Donovan, it appears, sought the same sort of relief from California courts that Magruder murderers did.
Send news to ronroizen@frontier.com, along with any pdfs or other copies of the materials.
New materials, whenever they are appropriate, will be published on this page as they arrive.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you!