THE TEXAS RANGERS IN A TURBULENT ERA

by

WESLEY HALL LOONEY, B.A.

A THESIS

IN

HISTORY

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Accepted

May, 1971 No.2-'

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

X wish to express my appreciation to Dr. James V. Reese, the Chairman of my committee, for his valuable criticism, patience, and encouragement, I am very grate­ ful to Dr. David M. Vigness for serving on the committee and for his helpful suggestions. I would also like to thank the staff of the Archives in Austin, Texas for their valuable aid in locating obscure government documents.

X:L TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii I. ANALYZING THE BACKGROUND 1

II. ACTIVITIES OF THE TEXAS RANGERS,

1917-1919 21

III. INVESTIGATION OF THE RANGERS 4 3

IV. CONCLUSION 75

BIBLIOGRAPHY 79

111 CHAPTER I

ANALYZING THE BACKGROUND

Relations between Texas and Mexico have always depended in large degree upon whether order or chaos reigned below the Rio Grande. The 1910-1920 decade was one of violent action and reaction along the Mexican border and within Mexico proper. President Porfirio Diaz had ruled the Republic of Mexico since 1884. In the twenty-seven years of his iron-handed regime, Mexico had enjoyed peace and stability. The stable Diaz government had fostered a calm along the Texas-Mexico border. In Mexico natural re­ sources had been developed, internal improvements had been made, national solvency and firm foreign credits had been achieved, and prosperity hitherto unknown had appeared. Yet, there had been a monstrous governmental fault within this outward betterment. The Diaz prosperity was slanted. It reached only the rich and the powerful. The working population grew poorer while a small class of property holders grew richer. A chasm between the few rich and the many poor grew too wide for any despotism to bridge.

Henry B. Parkes, A History of Mexico (Boston Houghton Mifflin Company, 1950), pp. 311-20. ) In 1910 stable conditions in Mexico came to an end in the form of revolution. The initial revolt was spear­ headed by Francisco Madero, who pressed for the restoration of constitutional liberties ruthlessly denied under Diaz. This revolt, known as the Plan de San Luis, was initiated on October 5, 1910. The outcome was successful, as Diaz was finally forced to resign on May 25, 1911. Two days later he slipped quietly away to exile in Paris.

The revolt against suppression by the dictator Diaz ushered in a period of uneasiness and unrest in Mexico. In October Madero called for national elections and assumed the presidency almost without opposition. However, counter­ revolutions were soon launched against the new President by Pascual Orozo, a former follower; Felix Diaz, a nephew of the old dictator; and Bernardo Reyes, a former cabinet 2 member under Diaz. All three were unsuccessful at this time in their bids to overthrow Madero. This brief peace was short-lived, as fiery students at the Chapultepec Military Academy rioted and liberated the imprisoned Diaz and Reyes. With the support of this group, plus other factions, Madero was ousted. Madero and his vice- president were murdered "while attempting to escape." Victoriano Huerta was proclaimed President on February 19, 1912. However, undercurrents of dissatisfaction 2 Charles C. Cumberland, Mexican i^evolution: Genesis Under Madero (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1952), pp. 117-29. with his conservative regime were brewing, as it was soon obvious that the new leader resembled the despised Diaz. His support by the army, the clergy, the moneyed class, and the foreign interests indicated to the people a return 3 to the hated Diaz policies. As a result, Venustiano Carranza, supported by those in the northern provinces, led a counterrevolution with the Plan of Guadalupe as a guideline on March 26, 1913 In the South the insurgents, led by Emiliano Zapata/ rose in the same kind of violent revolt. Huerta, failing to gain the much needed recognition of the United States, was 4 forced out of office in mid-July, 1914. Carranza held uneasy control, as his power was soon challenged by his chief lieutenant--the notorious Pancho Villa. Carranza's main forces held control over the border areas south of a line running through Del Rio while Pancho Villa reigned above that point. There seemed to be a lack of central control and leadership in both opposing camps. Revolutionary conditions which prevailed in Mexico from 1910 to 19 20 had a tendency to overrun the border and to produce in southern Texas conditions similar to those

•^Ibid. 4 Samuel Flagg Bemis, American Foreign Polic\' and Diplomacy (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1959), pp. 320-44. in Mexico, j In the fall of 1914, there were many distur­ bances along the border. The weak Carranza government did little to contain the lawless and revolutionary elements, and raids in the Lower Valley of the Rio Grande increased. Appeals for federal troops by Texas authorities were in vain, for the unrest was regarded by federal authorities as being strictly local in nature. But, as the disturbances increased. General Frederick Funston, commanding the Southern Department, became convinced that the view held by Governor James E. Ferguson of Texas was correct—the 5 trouble was more than local. The revolution, in all its phases, was essentially a national movement, a surging of the masses seeking equality and recognition. As such, it affected Mexicans in Texas as well as those in Mexico, and encouraged them to assert their rights and to demand respect. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Mexican-Americans, long targets of pre­ judice and contempt by Americans, formed fertile soil for the revolutionary promises and ideas. The Mexicans along the border, encouraged by the promises and ideas of the revolutions, became restless. A strong anti-American feeling of long standing, nourished by the nationalistic

5 Charles C. Cumberland, "Border Raids in the Lower Rio Grande Valley," The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LVII, No. 3 (January, 1954),' pp. 293-95. 5 tendencies of the revolution, added to the discontent. To compound the already explosive situation, in August of 1914 the world faced the advent of World War I. Of course, as Germany noticed immediately, American sympa­ thies were aligned with the Allies. Therefore, Mexican antipathy for the United States and irredentist hopes for the Lower Rio Grande Valley were measured. Germany saw in Mexico a possible base for espionage, and even diver­ sionary activity, against the United States. Further, the use of ports along the Mexican coast would strengthen the German war machinery. Foreseeing eventualities, the Germans lost no time in setting up a spy ring in Mexico. In addition to usual espionage activities, its agents were also instrumental in 7 fanning hatred between the Mexicans and the Americans. In 1915 the discovery of a sinister plot by Mexican revolutionaries to seize the vast Southwestern region of the United States startled residents in the Lower Valley of the Richard Marcum, "Fort Brown, Texas: The History of a Border Post," Cunpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Technological College, 1964), p. 282. 7 U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Re­ lations, Investigation of Mexican Affairs, S. Doc. 285, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., Serial Nos. 7665-7666, pp. 1223-25. This government document contains the hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Mexican affairs; most of the more than 250 witnesses who appeared and most of the members of the committee were biased against Mexico and desired to bring about intervention by the United States. Hereafter referred to as Investigation of Mexican Affairs. Tom Lea, The King Ranch, II (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1957) , pp. 581-83. Rio Grande. As much of the episode centered on the border town of San Diego, Texas, the conspiracy quickly was labeled the "Plan of San Diego." It had a pipedream weird- p ness that bulged old border men's eyes: We, who in turn sign our names, assembled in the revolutionary plot of San Diego, Texas, solemnly promise each other, on our word of honor, that we will fulfill, and cause to be fulfilled and complied with, all the clauses and provisions stipulated in this document, and execute the orders and the wishes emanating from the provisional directorate of this movement and recognize as military chief of the same Mr. Agustin S. Garza, guaranteeing with our lives the faithful accomplishment of what is here agreed upon. 1. On the 20th day of February, 1915, at 2 o'clock in the morning, we will rise in arms against the Government and the country of the United States of North America, one as all and all as one, proclaiming the liberty of the in­ dividuals of the black race and its independence of Yankee tyranny which has held us in iniquituous slavery since the remote times; and at the same time and in the same manner we will proclaim the independence and segregation of the States bordering on the Mexican Nation. Which are: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Upper California, of which States the Republic of Mexico was robbed in a most perfidious manner by North American imperialism. 2. In order to render the foregoing clause effective, the necessary army corps will be formed under the immediate command of military leaders named by the Supreme Revolutionary Congress of San Diego, Tex., which shall have full power to designate a supreme chief, who shall be at the head of said army. The banner which shall guide us in this enterprise shall be red, with a white diagonal fringe, and bearing the following in­ scription: "Equality and independence," and none of the subordinate leaders or subalterns shall use any other flag (except only the white flag for signals).

p Testimony of John A. Vails, Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 205-207. 3. Each one of the chiefs will do his utmost, by whatever means possible, to get possession of the arms and funds of the cities which he has beforehand been designated to cap­ ture, in order that our cause may be provided with resources to continue the fight with better success, the said leaders each being required to render an account of everything to his superiors, in order that the latter may dispose of it in the proper manner. 4. Every North American over 16 years of age shall be put to death, and only the aged men, the women, and children shall be respected; and on no account shall the traitors to our race be spared or respected. 5. The Apaches of Arizona, as well as the Indians of the Territory shall be given every guaranty; and their lands which have been taken from them shall be returned to them, to the end that they may assist us in the cause v/hich we defend. 6. The movement having gathered force, and once having possessed ourselves of the States above alluded to, we shall proclaim them an in­ dependent republic, later requesting (if it be thought expedient) annex'ition to 'lexico, with­ out concerning ourselves at the time about the form of government which may control the destinies of the common mother country. 7. When we shall have obtained independence for the Negroes, we shall grant them a banner, which they themselves shall be permitted to se­ lect, and we shall aid them in obtaining six States of the American Union, which States border upon those already mentioned, and they may form from these six States a republic, and they may therefore be independent. It is understood among those who may follow this movement that we shall carry in a singing voice the independence of the Negroes, placing obligations upon both races and that on no account will we accept aid, either moral or pecuniary, from the Government of Mexico; and it need not consider itself under any obligation in this, our movement.

9 Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1206-07. 8 Basilio Ramos, Jr., one of the leaders of this movement, was arrested at McAllen, Texas, by Tom Mayfield, deputy sheriff of Cameron County, about the middle of January, 1915. He was then taken to Brownsville where he was examined by the United States Commissioner and bound over to await the action of the federal grand jury. At the May, 1915 term of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ramos was indicted, but when the case was called for trial the court dismissed the case and discharged the defendant. Among the papers which had been found in Ramos' possession was a copy of the Plan of San Diego and a letter which referred to General Emiliano P. Nafarrate, the Carrancista commander at Tampico. Also, he had on his person a pass through the Carrancista lines signed by General Nafarrate. Other officers of the Carranza government were also alleged to be implicated in the plot. At the time of Ramos' arrest and indictment, he was an exile from Mexico. Some months later amnesty was granted him, and he was treated graciously by Carranza officers in northern Mexico and, for the next several months, was assisted in the furthering of the Plan of San Diego.

''•^Ibid. , pp. 1287-96. Randolph Robertson, Vice Consul at Monterrey, to the Secretary of State, June 9, 1916, copy in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States— 1916 (Washington: Government Printing Office), pp. 570-72. 12 Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1302-09. Many claimed that the grand design of the plan was inspired by Germany in the hope of wrecking Mexican- American relations, while others believed that it was part of a personal campaign by the Mexican leader Carranza to gain American recognition for his government. That he used the border disorders to force recognition from Presi­ dent Wilson is quite evident. When he obtained that recog­ nition, these disturbances ceased—and the Plan of San Diego faded. Throughout this period the plan was regarded as a grand design, when actually it was used as a device to clothe border raids with constitutionality and to win 13 recognition for a Mexican revolutionary. The Plan of San Diego well illustrated the unrest that plagued the Texas border for the first tvzo decades of the Twentieth Century. By 1915 it was apparent that irredentism (a move­ ment to regain South Texas for Mexico) along the border was strong. The activities of Aniceto Pizano and Luis de la Rosa, fairly well-to-do residents of Texas, clearly illustrated this fact. In the summer months of 1915 these two men started another movement along the lines of the Plan of San Diego. Under their leadership many raids were conducted at widely scattered points in the Valley area. They organized bands of raiders which included :icxican •"•^William M. Hager, "The Plan of San Diego," Arizona and the West, V, (1963), pp. 327-36. 10 civilians, soldiers of Carranza's army, and American citizens of Mexican extraction.

Newspapers in northern Mexico freely printed glow­ ing accounts of the victories the Mexican revolutionaries won in Texas. Their attitude seemed to be one of en­ couragement. The newspapers could not publish such articles day after day without the consent and approval of the authorities; evidently, the Carranza government condoned them. Nor could Mexican citizens carry arms without the knowledge and approval of the officers of government; there­ fore, it was believed in Texas and Mexico that these raiders were armed by or with the consent of General Nafarrate, 14 who was then xn command at Matamoros. There was considerable German activity on both sides of the border before and after 1916. The proposals in the famous Zimmerman Telegram in February of 1917, which urged Carranza to ally himself with Germany in re­ turn for irredentist rewards, bears some similarity to the Plan of San Diego. Whether the plan inspired the Zimmerman proposals is not known. Certainly, the German government knew about the plan, and also was aware that irredentism would be easy to fan in Mexico—especially if Mexican- 15 American relations were strained.

Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1253ff. •'•^Ibid., pp. 1231-41. 11

All that ever came out of these visionary plots was a long series of ragged raids and multiple threats upon the lives and property of border Texans. Even so, events were ominous enough from mid-1915 through 1917 to disrupt ordinary daily existence and commerce. Life between the Rio Grande and the Nueces became almost constantly complicated with alarm. Border Texans became increasingly incensed by each new report of a raid by the revolutionists or bandits.

The border bandits terrorized the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the summer and early fall of 1915. During the month of May, a band of Mexicans, estimated to be twenty to thirty men, was seen by various persons in the vicinity of Rancho Los Indies, about eight or nine miles east of Sebastian, Cameron County, and thirty-five mil'^^s north of Brownsville. Thirty deputy sheriffs and many citizens joined in the chase but could never locate the Mexicans. American and Mexican farmers and ranchmen reported almost daily the loss of cattle, saddles, and other property. On July 12, 1915 eleven Mexicans, heavily armed, forced Nils Peterson, a farmer living south of Lyford, forty miles north of Brov/nsville, to open his store and to . . 17 supply them with food and ammunition.

•""^Corpus Christi Caller, various issues during month of May, 1915. 17Brownsvill e Daily Herald, July 13, 1915. 12 A band of fourteen heavily-armed Mexicans on August 6, 1915 appeared at Sebastian. After robbing Alexander's store of various articles, they proceeded to the granary near the railroad track and there kidnapped A. L. Austin and his son, Charlie Austin. The two Austins were subsequently shot by these bandits. 18 During the first uays of August, 1915, a formidable group of Mexican horsemen was reported to be in the brush country north of Brownsville. When their destination, the headquarters of the southern end of the King Ranch, became apparent, Caesar Kleberg telephoned to the Rangers at Brownsville and to the Army command at Fort Brown, request­ ing immediate help. Only a handful of cowboys, headed by foreman Tom Tate, v/as available to protect the southern end of the ranch. Early in the afternoon of the eighth of August, a special train left Bro\)msville bound for Norias, about seventy miles north. It carried an Army captain, a squad of eight troopers from the Twelfth Cavalry, tv/o Texas Ranger captains, several Rangers, and a group of local peace officers. Upon their arrival at Norias, they found King Ranch horses ready and waiting. While the Rangers and others went into the brush to find the bandits, the eight troopers were left at the ranch headquarters. The Mexicans attacked the rancli,

•^^Ibid. , August 7, 1915. 13 apparently unaware of the presence of the troops. Dur­ ing the battle Gordon Hill, a deputy sheriff of Cameron County, and three other civilians, arrived on a gasoline truck from Harlingen just in time to take part in the fight­ ing. The beleaguered men turned back charge after charge of the bandits. Finally, in the darkness of night, the raiders slipped away carrying a number of their wounded, leaving ten dead. The next morning the raiders were followed as they headed south toward the river, but they were not caught. Some of them had been identified, however; and more than a dozen were tracked down later and killed. 19 Within the next six months, there were twenty-six recorded clashes in the immediate area with Mexican in- cursionists. 20 They made vicious raids on isolated ranches, and derailed two trains and shot and robbed the victims in the wrecks. There were bloody ambushes, running battles in the brush, and brutal shootings of helpless captives. On October 18, 1915, bandits derailed a passenger train six miles north of Brownsville. Among the passengers were four unarmed soldiers on a recreation trip; Dr. E. S. McCain, State Health Officer stationed at Brownsville; Harry Wallis, formerly a Ranger; John Kleiber, District

19 Testimony of Caesar Kleberg, Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1550ff. 20 Frank Cushman Pierce, A Brief History of the Lower Rio Grande Valley (Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company, 1917), pp. 92-99. 14 Attorney of the State Court for the district; and sev­ eral others. As soon as the train had come to a complete stop, four Mexicans entered the train and began shooting at the citizens, and then, seeing the soldiers, turned their fire on them. One soldier was killed instantly, but the other three, although severely wounded, survived. Dr. McCain and Wallis sought refuge in the toilet. The bandits fired through the toilet door and one of the shots struck McCain in the abdomen, resulting in his death the next day. Wallis was shot in the arm and hand, but re­ covered. Kleiber, lying on the floor, was covered with blood from the soldiers, and the bandits supposed him to be dead^ ^. 21 On October 21, 1915 a party of Mexicans attacked some sleeping soldiers at Ojo de Agua ranch in Hidalgo County. At the time of the attack, there were eight or nine men of the signal corps and seven or eight of Troop G, Third U. S. Cavalry, at the ranch. The raiders, apparently well organized in military formation, killed three men and wounded eight of the soldiers during an engagement 22 which lasted nearly an hour. The shooting was heard in the vicinity and aroused reenforcements from another patrol, who were largely responsible for driving off the raiders. 21 Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1269-82. 22 Corpus Christi Caller, October 22, 1915. 15

In the brush surrounding the ranch house,'the soldiers found five dead bandits. An indication that the raid was more than mere banditry was that two of the 23 dead men were Carranza soldiers. This was the last of the serious encounters until June of the next year.

Confronted with rumors of raids and plots which

they could not understand and actual raids and plots which

seemed to threaten their very lives, the residents of

South Texas became almost panic-stricken. In the Lower

Valley, where the raids were concentrated, local vigilante

groups sprang into being, while representatives of Willacy,

Starr, Cameron, and Hidalgo Counties met behind locked 24 doors in early August to organize a protective society.

An aroused citizenry armed itself in fear of an actual in­

vasion from the south. Anglo-Americans in the Valley un­

leashed their frustrations and vengeance on numerous hap­

less citizens of Mexican descent. Many of these people,

guilty of having the wrong ancestry, sought asylum in Mexico

Any man of Latin appearance was suspected of being a spy

or a raider. Prejudice and discrimination appeared to be 25 the motivating forces for some of the acts of reprisal.

Trigger-happy civilians and local officers were prone to

23 Investigation of xMexican Affairs, pp. 1302-09. Corpus Christi Caller, August 5, 1915. 25 Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1199ff. 16 shoot before ascertaining the intentions of such men.

Lynchings became almost commonplace.

Adolfo Munoz, thought to have been involved in the murder of a merchant at Lyford, on the night of July 28,

1915 was being taken by officers from San Benito to the

county jail at Brownsville. The trip had been undertaken

for fear of mob violence in San Benito. A few miles out

of town, the car was surrounded by men armed with rifles who

forced the officers to leave immediately. The prisoner was

then taken from the car by eight or nine masked men and

hanged from a nearby tree. There was no clue to the iden­

tity of the masked men and no action was taken by the county 2 6 authorities.

Three Mexicans among six prisoners arrested after

one of the raids were killed near San Benito on September 14,

1915, after escaping from jail. Their bodies were found

some distance from the town with bullet holes in their 27 backs. No investigation of the incident was conducted. The San Antonio Express observed in September of

that year; "The findings of dead bodies of Mexicans, sus­

pected for various reasons of being connected with the

troubles, has reached a point where it creates little or

no interest. It is only when a raid is reported, or an

^^Corpus Christi Caller, July 30, 1915. 27 San Antonio Express, September 15, 1915. 17 2 8 American is killed, that the ire of the people is aroused.

The lynchings and executions were not the only in­ dications of fear and vengeance. Firearms were taken from families of Latin extraction of vigilante committees and local officials. Homes of many innocent persons of Mexican extraction were burned on the basis that they were suspected of being involved in the plots and raids. Mexican-American families in outlying regions were forced to move into pop- 29 ulated centers where they could be watched more effectively.

"Black Lists" were circulated throughout the Valley. The name of any Mexican who was suspected to be a "bad" Mexican by any reputable Anglo-American was placed upon the list. These

Mexicans whose names v/ould appear on these lists would often

"disappear."

The response of the Mexican-American population of the Valley to these actions of the Anglo-Americans was a mass exodus from the region. Hundreds of families of Latin 31 extraction began fleeing into Mexico by early September.

It was estimated that at least half the Mexican-American families in the Valley left the rural areas during September 32 and early October of 1915.

^^Ibid., September 13, 1915. 29 Cumberland, "Border Raids in the Lower Rio Grande Valley," pp. 300-02.

30 Investigation of Mexican Affairs, p. 354. 31 San Antonio Express, September 7, 1915. 32 Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1181-84. 18 The retaliatory acts of the enraged Anglo- Americans only served to multiply the number of "bandits" with which they had to contend. The hanging and shooting of innocent Mexicans enraged their relatives, who many times set out to seek revenge. Like the terrified Mexican-Americans, many fear- ridden Anglo-Americans took what they could carry with them and hastily left the Valley heading northward. Others, farmers and ranchers that lived out in the country, re­ moved their families to the towns. Patrols were organized

O A by several towns to guard their inhabitants at night. Along with these apprehensive acts, there were heated requests for more United States troops to guard the river. The War Department, believing the incidents to be of a local nature, had normally been reluctant to bear the responsibility of curbing the raiding before 1915. Dur­ ing March, 1911, for example. President Taft ordered the mobilization of 25,000 United States troops along the border. 33 Texas, Proceedings of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House in the Investigation of the Texas State Ranger Force, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, pp. 356-59, 558-60, 682-90. This document contains the hearings of the committee created when Representative J. T. Canales of Cameron County in January of 1919 introduced a controver­ sial bill to the Texas State Legislature providing for reorganization of the Texas Rangers. A preponderance of the testimony was aimed at individual Rangers for alleged misconduct or violation of laws. Hereafter referred to as Investigation of Texas Ranger Force. 34 Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1308-09. 19 but the soldiers were stationed at Fort Sam Houston, Bay City, and Galveston. Few were sent to the immediate border vicinity.

But, as evidence accumulated showing the raids to be more than local, federal troops began patrolling the border on a large scale. By November 15, 1915 there were 741 officers and 19,944 enlisted men stationed on or near the border. Primarily because of possible involvement in the European war and Pancho Villa's raid into New Mexico in the summer of 1916, the troop count along the border 35 was more than doubled by the end of 1916. Thus, as the border situation became more complex and inflamed with each passing day, it presented a great challenge to the law-enforcement agencies of the Valley. Who knew the area better than the local Rangers, whose familiarity with the country was renowned? Major John B. Jones led the Frontier Battalion in a clean-up campaign in the 1870's that virtually cleared Southwest Texas of maraud­ ing Indians. During these Indian campaigns and other campaigns to curb lawlessness along the border from 18 80- 1910, the Rangers acquired a reputation as knowing the border country and being able to track in that country. The Texas Rangers had had a long and spectacular history dating from October 19, 1835. They fought in the Marcum, "Fort Brown, Texas: The History of a Border Post," pp. 284-86. 20 Battle of San Jacinto. They were the advance guard for General Taylor's army during his march into Mexico- "Terry's Texas Rangers' wrote thrilling pages in the annals of war, as they left their bones on a hundred battle­ fields during the days of the Confederacy. The Indian problem of Southwest Texas had been solved with their valuable assistance. They formed the backbone of Roosevelt's Rough Riders. And now, 1914-1918, there was another challenge for them to meet. CHAPTER II

ACTIVITIES OF THE TEXAS PvANGERS, 1917-1919

The alarm caused by the raids of 1915-1917 became so great that the state felt it had to take preventative measures. In November of 1917 Governor William Hobby, acting with the authorization of the state legislature, created a Ranger Home Guard. Consisting of four companies, it was not to exceed one thousand men, and it was to be selected and appointed by the governor. The new men were inexperienced and in some cases incompetent; their activi­ ties were not always in keeping with the traditions of the Ranger Service. During the fifteen months following the creation of the Home Guard, a series of incidents raised grave doubts about Ranger methods in South Texas and elsewhere, which culminated in the call for an investigation. In December of 1917 the Rangers stationed in the Brownsville area were searching for Ignacio Trevino, who was wanted on three criminal charges. He had been a fugitive from justice in that country for some time. The Rangers learned

Texas, General Laws of Texas, 35th Legislature, 1917, pp. 57-59. 21 22 through a Mexican by the name of Andreas Uresti that 2 Trevino had been slipping into town at night. About twelve o'clock one night, Pat Haley, the Deputy Sheriff of Brownsville, went to Captain Sanders and told him that he had this fellow Trevino located in a house on the outskirts of town. Travelling in a hack, Sanders, two of his men, and Haley chose to go a back way through town in order to avoid the Mexican police. Arriving at the house, they knocked on the door and could not get an answer. They then proceeded to surround the house. Looking in one of the windows, they found Trevino laying naked in bed right by the open window. The Rangers pulled him through the window and his wife, or somebody in the house, threw his clothes out the windov/ to him. The Rangers put Trevino 5n the hack and started to jail with him.

Six or seven blocks away from this place, they met two policemen on horseback. The policemen called to the hackdriver to light his lights as it was against the city ordinance for hacks to be on the street vzithout lights. Receiving no response, they attempted to stop the hack. At this point Sanders and his men opened fire on the police­ men who commenced shooting into the hack. After several shots one of the policemen fell off his horse.

^Testimony of Deputy Sheriff Pat Haley, Investigation of Texas l^anger Force, pp. 1275-78. 23 . . . and the hackman, he got scared, the man who was driving and he whipped up his team and made a pretty good start off and I hollered to him to stop, and Uresti, on the front seat, grabbed the lines and stopped, and the other man was gone down the street and he ran back there, but could not find anybody. ... Although the Rangers had no warrant for his arrest, none­ theless they locked Trevino in the county jail. The Rangers began hunting the two men that had shot at them. They learned that uptown there was a Toribio Rodriguez, a Mexican policeman, suffering from gunshot wounds. Captain Sanders and two of his Rangers forced them­ selves into Rodriguez's home. They took the Mexican, bare­ foot and partially clothed, and began walking toward town. About a block from the house from which he was taken, he was shot in the back. He was then placed in a hack and carried to the city sanatorium where he died. The Grand Jury of Cameron County failed to find suf­ ficient evidence to return an indictment in this case. R. B. Creager, a Brownsville lawyer for several years, charged that Rodriguez had been murdered by the Rangers. He claimed that it was impossible to obtain a conviction for this crime because there was a reluctance to indict a Texas 4 Ranger. El Porvenir, a little Mexican settlement isolated in the wilderness of the Big Bend area, was inhabited by

3 Captain J. J. Sanders to Captain W. M. Hanson, December 17, 1917. Adjutant General's Papers. Hereafter referred to as A.G.P. 4 Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 356-59. 24 Mexicans whose relations were much closer to the people of Mexico than they were to those of Texas. Many of the ranchmen that lived along the border were certain that much of their trouble came from the Mexicans who lived at El Porvenir. Raymond Fitzgerald, owner of a large ranch in the area, testified: Their standing as thieves, informers, spies and murderers has been well known in this section for two or three years. They used this El Porvenir ranch as headquarters, . . . but stayed in Mexico during the day and occasionally came over at night. Several of these people were cousins to the noted Chico Cano bunch of bandits who were known all over this section of Texas as being one of the worst gangs the Citizens and officers had had to contend with during the last few years.

The Brite Ranch was located in Presidio County about twenty-five miles from the border and El Porvenir, On Christmas morning, 1917, while Sam Neill and his family were celebrating the occasion, a Mexican raiding party surrounded the Ranch. Mr. Neill described the raid. Well, . . . the women folks claimed they wanted to get up early, so I have always been an early riser, and I got up and went into the kitchen for my coffee; my break­ fast was always coffee, that is all I ever eat, and started me a pot of coffee . . . and I came back . . . in my son's room, to make a fire. They had no kindling—we were then surrounded by those fellows, but I didn't know—I take basket and went to the woodpile, about sixty yards from the house, and got the kindling and made the fire. I

Statement by Raymond Fitzgerald, January 28, 1918. A.G.P. 25 went back to the woodpile again and got other kindling and made one in my wife's room. . . . When I got back to the kitchen the cof­ fee was ready, the cook had come in and fixed a cup of coffee. I turned from the stove and set in the window drinking the coffee, when I looked down the Candelaria Road, com­ ing from the river, and I saw six men abreast, riding fast. I looked at them for a few seconds and I called her attention to it and she looked and . . . says, 'What can that be?' . . . As they came around two big circular tanks ... I saw them reach and pull their guns. I dropped the cup and saucer and run through his room. 'Your son's?' 'Yes sir. He was still in bed; I hollered and says, 'We are surrounded by bandits and have got to fight.' I doubled in my wife's room and got a gun, a six shooter—' 'You mean your rifle?' 'Yes sir. And as I got out in the corner of the yard—this Mexican . . . jerked his horse up, and he hollered at I'is men to kill all the Americans. And as he said it, I shot, and he didn't, of course, holler no more. . . . When he hollered that, they jumped from behind the walls and tank dumps like a bunch of quail flushed from behind adobe walls ... I fought them from the corner of the house. I only got in three shots until I was knocked down. The bandits, about forty-five in number, plundered the Brite Ranch store, packed all they could on their horses, and set out for the mountains. The body of the leader of the party was found a short distance from the 7 Ranch. He had on the coat of a Carranza uniform. A company of Texas Rangers under the command of

Invesigation of M.exican Affairs, pp. 1517-26. 7 Testimony of Grover Webb, Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1526-32. 26 Captain J. M. Fox had been detached to the upper border in the fall of 1917. In January of 1918, the Rangers re­ ceived a report that some of the Mexicans at El Porvenir were seen wearing shoes taken during the December raid on the Brite Ranch store. Accompanied by six ranchers, the Captain and eight of his command immediately started toward El Porvenir. The party reached its destination during the night of January 28th. The Rangers went into the town and began searching Mexican houses and found some twenty Mexicans 8 within these houses. They took these men about a quarter of a mile from town and shot to death all but four of them. The Rangers alleged that the Mexicans had attempted to 9 escape. The State Department at Washington ordered an inves­ tigation of the killings. First Lieutenant Patrick Kelly, of the U. S. Army, directing the investigation conducted by the United States Authorities, pointed out that these sixteen Mexicans, after having been arrested and disarmed by the Rangers, were killed in cold blood. Two Americans, Henry Warren and John Bailey, both of whom were living at o Captain J. M. Fox to General James A. Harley, February 18, 1918. A.G.P. g Colonel G. T. Langhorne to Captain W. M. Hanson, March 18, 1918. A.G.P. Houston Chronicle, February 8, 1918. Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 14 5-4 6. 27 Porvenir at the time of this occurence, testified that they were sure that none of the dead men, or survivors, had participated with the bandits and they knew them to be law-abiding men.

These men were all farmers—two of them were boys about 16 or 17 years old. It was further claimed that all of the slain were at Porvenir on the day of the raid 12 on Brite's ranch. Several witnesses testified that none of the property taken from the Brite Ranch was found among the dead men's possessions. 13 The incident had serious consequences for the Rangers. The Adjutant General discharged the Rangers who committed this outrage as well as Captain Fox, who was in 1 4 command of the Rangers at the time."^ According to Captain Fox, although he assumed the responsibility for the kill­ ings and asked to be discharged, the Adjutant General of the State refused to discharge him at the time of the in­ cident. Captain Fox charged that his subsequent discharge as Captain of the Rangers was really due to the fact "that I am not supporting Governor Hobby for Governor, but am a 15 supporter of ex-Governor Ferguson."

12 Testimony of Henry Warren and John Bailey, In­ vestigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1588-90. Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1585-88. Order of General James A. Harley, June 8, 1918. A.G.P. IK Captain J. M. Fox to Captain W. M. Hanson, June 11, 1918. A.G.P. 28 Another Ranger commander whose activities created controversy was Captain Charles F. Stevens. Captain Stevens arrived at Brownsville on January 5, 1918, in charge of Company G and remained in that region until July of that year. Captain Stevens' men disarmed some of the Mexicans on the border and found themselves in con­ flict with the sheriff of Cameron County, W. T. Vann. Sheriff Vann claimed that Captain Stevens was not working in harmony with the local officials and was disarming law-abiding citizens of the county. In a meeting between the two men. Sheriff Vann informed Stevens that he did not think he had done the proper thing in disarming a Mexican-American by the nam»e of Pedro Lerma. Lerma, a large ranch owner, was a peace­ able and law-abiding citizen and one of the oldest Mexican- American citizens in that county. Lerma and several of his influential friends had served with the U. S. Army in its efforts to punish the raiders of 1915. Lerma had told Sheriff Vann that, Jfe had been absent from home down at Brownsville, and that some of Stevens' Rangers had come there and frightened his wife and daughters to death. The Rangers went all through the house, broke open trunks, and had taken away a lot of old firearms he had there. He wanted to know

1 f. Testimony of Judge James B. Wells, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 682-90. 29 why he was treated so and wanted to-know if he could not get the arms back.-*-' Captain Stevens said that he did not know anything about this particular case, but he would investigate it. He did insist, however, that "upon suspicion my men have the right to go to a private residence, search it, and take a man's arms away." After a great deal of heated dis­ cussion of this and other acts of Captain Stevens, the two men parted without coming to any agreement. Captain Stevens afterwards remarked that he would execute the law in the future as he had in the past, and that "if this is not satisfactory, they can move me."

Judge James B. Wells and other respected citizens of the lower border charged that Captain Stevens and his men arrested people in one county and took them to another county to be jailed; also, that the Rangers held prisoners without filing charges against them or setting bond. Judge Wells condemned many of the activities of Stevens and his men. In testimony before the State Legislative Committee of 1919 he cited one particular incident. . . . I knew two who said they v/ere Captain Stevens' men, they said, acting under orders, going to Point Isabel and arresting one of our Commissioners, Mr. Eddie Edwards, one of the most prominent men in our com­ munity, arresting him without any warrant and dragging him around without allowing him

17 Testimony of W. T. Vann, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 558-60. 30 any bond, took him by Brownsville and took him up to San Benito. ... He wanted to go to the 'phone, they would not let him go to the 'phone. . . . Finally, at San Benito about eighteen miles from Brownsville after dragging him around the day before and all night, they seemed to have made out some sort of complaint against him at San Benito. . . . He was charged with selling liquor without a license, something in connection with liquor, then he demanded to give bond and they would not let him, then started on through Harlingen, which is north about eight miles, and he again demanded there to be allowed to give bond, and they would not let him, and they then took him up the road about twenty miles into Hidalgo County and put him into the United States military guardhouse. Learning where Edwards was being kept. Judge Wells phoned Colonel H. J. Slocum, Commander of Federal troops in the Lower Valley, and asked him if the United States had any charge against Mr. Edwards that would warrant him being confined in the military guardhouse of the Army. Since the Army had no charge against Mr. Edwards, Colonel Slocum in­ formed Captain Stevens that he had thirty minutes to get the man out of his guardhouse or he would release him. The Rangers took the prisoner from there to Harlingen. There Sheriff Vann approved a bond for Edwards and he was released after the Rangers were told they had to turn him loose. 18 In answering complaints against he and his men. Captain Stevens made several statements that were indicative of his philosophy as well as that of other Rangers of the

18 Testimony of Judge James B. Wells, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 682-90. 31 period. "in some cases holding without bond may be best. ... I think maybe men ought to be held for a little while and let him cool off and show him he cannot cause any trouble. ..." He indicated that there were certain circumstances where the law should be set aside.^^

Three of Captain Stevens' men. Rangers George W. Sadler, John Sitre, and A. P. Lock, were blamed with mur­ dering Florencio Garcia in another incident. These three Rangers, investigating cattle-stealing on the Piper Planta­ tion which was just a few miles below Brownsville, arrested Garcia on April 3, 1918, and instead of taking him to nearby Brownsville, took him to Point Isabel on the coast several miles away. There they asked permission of a Mr. Charles Champion to pitch camp in his yard and for the loan of a lock and chains to chain the prisoner to a post. Mr. Champion told them it was rather rough treatment to give a prisoner and volunteered to obtain the judge's permission for them to lock him up in the town jail. Permission was readily granted and there Garcia spent the night. Failing to obtain any information from him concerning the cattle-stealing, the next day the Rangers, accompanied by two soldiers who hap­ pened to be in the same area on patrol, headed toward Brownsville with their prisoner. Garcia was riding a mule they had been using as a pack animal. At a fork in the road.

19 Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1446-48. 32 the two soldiers turned off on the road leading to Brownsville. The three Rangers, indicating that they wanted to question Garcia some more, proceeded with their prisoner toward San Benito. Garcia was not seen alive again. The Rangers insisted that they had only gone a few miles before turning their prisoner loose after deciding that further questioning of Garcia was useless.^^ Miguel Garcia, Florencio's father, had gone to see Oscar Dancy, County Attorney for Cameron County, and had reported that his son had been arrested by some Rangers and that he had not seen him since. In describing his son at that time, Miguel Garcia had told Dancy that "he had a cowboy hat, from the information I had it was a cowboy Stetson, a light hat, as distinguished from a black hat, and a cowboy brown or reddish brown, something like that, jumper. ..." 21 About a month later the remains of a man were found within a few miles from the point where the three Rangers with Garcia in their custody and the soldiers had separated Several bones, a tattered shirt and jacket with three holes in both of them, a monogrammed handkerchief, a pair of shoes, and one grey felt Stetson hat were found in the same

20 Report of Captain W. M. Hanson to General James A Harley, May 28, 1918. A.G.P. 21 Testimony of Oscar C. Dancy, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 542-57. 33 22 general area. Miguel Garcia identified the clothes as belonging to his son.

None of the three Rangers who had had custody of Garcia before he was killed were discharged from the Ranger Service, or in any way reprimanded for their action by the Adjutant General's Department. Sadler, Sitre, and Lock, however, along with Captain Stevens, were trans­ ferred without explanation to the upper border area some months later. In the fall of 1918 Sergeant J. J. Edds, one of Captain Will Wright's men and newly appointed to the Force, was involved in a controversial incident which led to fur­ ther criticism of the Rangers. Jose Maria Gomez Salinas had been suspected for some time of stealing horses from the Yzaguirre Ranch and other ranches surrounding Rio Grande City. Following the report of a loss of several horses from the Yzaguirre Ranch, Sergeant Edds and some cowboys arrested Salinas a few miles from the border. Although they were only a few miles from Rio Grande City, Sergeant Edds decided the prisoner should be taken to Hebronville. The reason for not taking him back to Rio Grande City was because Judge Wells who was attending court at Rio Grande City, suggested that I bring Salinas to Rio Grande City. I figured that Judge Wells might try to give him bond on this case. I didn't want him to have bond at that time. ... I wanted

22 Testimony of H. N. Gray, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1056-60. 34 time in which to get my evidence in shape to convict him on some other cases as he was considered a very dangerous thief. Sergeant Edds, unable to take the prisoner to Hebronville, made arrangements with two cowboys from the Yzaguirre Ranch, Sabas Ozuma and Frederico Lopez, to take Salinas to Hebronville. The three started toward Hebron­ ville with Salinas, handcuffed, riding in front and the two cowboys a few steps behind. Ozuma testified: Everything went all right until we arrived within four miles of Hebronville, . . . As we were passing some brush he looked around and at the same time putting spurs to his horse and dashed into the brush, when we fired at him, killing him. We only fired one shot2each, both hitting him in the back. . . . In the subsequent investigation of the incident. Ranger Captain W. M. Hanson stated that he believed that Salinas was murdered because his body was found in the middle of the road, handcuffed and shot in the back. According to the statements of Ozuma and Lopez, Salinas was running and had just entered the brush. If this was the case. Captain Hanson argued the body could not have been found in the middle of the road unless the two had 25 carried it there after they had shot him in the brush.

Testimony of Sergeant J. J. Edds, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 761-66. ^^Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 766-68. ^^Captain W. M. Hanson to General James A. Harley, September 16, 1918. A.G.P. 35 State Representative J. T. Canales charged that the two Mexicans were given the order by Edds to kill Salinas, but there is no evidence to substantiate this charge.^^ Another source of difficulty rose from the fact that the Rangers were given the job of patrolling the border to prevent young Mexicans of Texas birth from trying to evade military service. Two State Rangers, Sergeant Edds and Sidney Hutcheson, and two Army scouts were travelling on September 4, 1918, from Salineno to Rio Grande City with some prisoners. About six miles above Rio Grande City their car ran out of water and it was neces­ sary to stop and send for water. One of the scouts started toward the nearest house to get some water. When he re­ turned, he was standing on the running-board of a Ford automobile in v/hich three young Mexican boys and an older

Mexican were riding. The four were taken from the car and questioned individually. 27 Jesus Villareal, a constable of Duval County, in­ sisted that he was doing absolutely nothing wrong. On the third day of September, 1918, I was going to Rio Grande City to bring a nephew (Miguel Villareal) that was going to get married at Falfurrias, Texas, on the fifteen day of September, 1918; at Concepcion, Texas, I was called by Concepcion Benavides; he said he

26 J. T. Canales to General James A. Harley, November 7, 1918. A.G.P. 27 Testimony of Royal Collins, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1343-61. 36 understood that I was going to Rio Grande City, and that if I could take his son, Guillermo Benavedes, and Eulalio Benavides (his nephew) that they were going in a buggy but if I would take them it would be better; that they were going to purchase some goats; to which I agreed. . . .

When the Rangers returned to Villareal with the boys, they said that the boys had confessed that they were going across to avoid the draft and that Villareal had con­ tracted to deliver them in Mexican territory. Jesus swore that this was not so, that he was only taking the two boys to Roma. The two Rangers then took him aside and questioned him. Jesus continued. They took me away (two of the Rangers) and told me to lie down and one set on my stomach and told me that if I did not say that what the boys had said, they would kill me, to which I answered that they could do what they pleased, that what I had said was the truth. . . . He claimed they choked him and hit him with their pistols 28 in trying to get him to change his story. The Rangers took the four to Fort Ringgold where they were put in the guardhouse. Afterwards, they were tried at the Federal Court at Brownsville, and freed. On October 6, 1918 Sergeant Edds, stationed at Rio Grande City, killed Lizandro Munoz at Munoz' Ranch, near Roma in Starr County, under the impression that he was deal­ ing with Alonzo Sanchez, a deserter from the Army. The ^^Affidavit of Jesus Villarreal, January 20, 1919. A.G.P. 37 Rangers had learned through an informer that Sanchez would be at his father's ranch on the night of October 5. Sergeant Edds and two other Rangers were sent to the ranch to capture the deserter. The three arrived before dawn and surrounded the house. Leaving one man to guard the front. Sergeant Edds and the third Ranger approached the back of the house. Edds entered the back yard through a gate while the third Ranger remained on the outside where he could watch the rear entrance. Inside the yard Edds spotted two men sleeping on separate cots. One of the men fit the description of Alonzo Sanchez, which led Sergeant Edds to conclude that he was the deserter. Edds drew his gun and approached the sleeping man. The Mexican awoke to find Edds crouching over him with a gun in his hand. The frightened Mexican grabbed Edds' rifle. Sergeant Edds testified as follows: I told him to turn my gun loose, that I was not going to hurt him, but he did not do it, and we scuffled back towards the fence about fifteen feet. ... He kept trying to wrench the gun out of my hands and was a more powerful man than I. He was about to get the gun and I pulle^gthe trigger and the ball hit him in the leg. The shot awoke the man on the other cot, Zaragosa

Sanchez, brother of the deserter. . . . The first I knew of the affair was when the shot that killed Lizandro awoke me.

^^Testimony of Sergeant J. J. Edds, investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 485-93. 38 I dressed and went to the body that was lying over there, and he replied it was the man that was sleeping with me on the other cot and I asked permission to go and see the body, and he replied to me, all right go over and see if it was Alonzo. I replied that it could not be Alonzo for he had left the house about twelve o'clock. I then ap­ proached the body and saw that it was Lizandro Munoz, my cousin, and so informed Edds. I protested to Edds for killing my cousin and he told me he thought it was Alonzo who he wanted to arrest, . . . and that he had jumped on him, and had been compelled to shoot him in self-defense. I also told Edds that probably he had the right to arrest Alonzo but did not have the right to kill him. ... I did not see or hear anything before the shot was fired. , . .^ This incident inflamed the Mexican-American popu­ lation of the Lower Valley. As it turned out, the Rangers did not have a warrant for the arrest of Alonzo Sanchez. Judge Wells stated that in his legal opinion, after know­ ing all the circumstances and reading all the affidavits concerning the killing. Sergeant Edds was guilty of man- slaughter. 31 However, since there were no witnesses to the killing, no one could dispute Edds' story and no legal action was brought against him. Not all the questioning and controversy over Ranger activity came from the border. A mass-meeting of citizens from Ranger, Texas, headed by State Senator W. D. Suiter, called Governor W. P. Hobby's attention to an incident

"^Sxffidavit of Zaragosa Sanchez, October 18, 1918. A.G.P. ^^Judge James B. Wells to Captain W. M. Hanson, November 2, 1918. A.G.P. 39 that had occurred the 19th day of December, 1918. On that day Rangers J. B. Nalle and John Bloxom, Jr. killed Ernest W. Richburg in his own place of business in the town of Ranger. Nalle and Bloxom claimed that Richburg had been conducting a gambling operation in the back of his business. Several of the local citizens vouched for Richburg's character and said that they knew of no gambling in his place of business. One of these, A. J. Wallendorff, claimed he was warned by the Rangers to get out of town during Captain W. M. Hanson's investigation 32 of the matter. The group headed by Senator Suiter demanded that the two Rangers be suspended from the Service. They charged that this matter was of such notorious character and the facts were so accessible that the Adjutant General's Department would have no trouble securing all of the evi­ dence necessary to show that the Rangers who killed Mr. Richburg did so under circumstances which made them guilty of murder. 33 When the two men were suspended about one month later, the irate citizens of Ranger accused the Department of delaying their suspension in order to try

32 Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 722-38. 33 A petition signed by State Senator W. D. Suiter and several citizens of Ranger, Texas, sent in the form of a telegram to Governor W. P. Hobby, December 26, 1918. Governor William P. Hobby's Letters. Hereafter referred to as G.L. 40 and protect these men in their unlawful acts."^^ No legal proceedings were ever begun against the discharged Rangers. Concerned about the reported brutality of the Rangers and their maltreatment of Mexicans in the Valley, Thomas Wesley Hook, an attorney at Kingsville, prepared a petition that was signed by Mexicans of the Kingsville area. The petition, declaring the inequities dealt the Mexicans by the Rangers, was presented to Governor Hobby. Hook, using data brought to him by Mexican-Americans, wrote several newspaper articles for the Brownsville Herald. He urged the Mexicans to organize for self- 36 protection. During the term of District Court for Brooks County, Texas, held in the spring of 1918, Captain J. J. Sanders approached Hook while he was in the attorney's enclosure of the courthouse and asked him if his name was Thomas Hook. I replied in the affirmative and he asked to see me when I v;as at leisure. I immedi­ ately . . . followed him and the other Ranger who was with him out into the hall. There he asked me if I had prepared a petition at Kingsville. I replied in the affirmative stating that I had used data brought to me by

A second telegram sent to Governor W. P. Hobby by Senator W. D. Suiter and signed by several citizens of Ranger, Texas, January 27, 1919. G.L. "^Undated petition sent to Governor W. P. Hobby by Thomas Wesley Hook. G.L. 36 Brownsville Herald, several articles from May, 1916 to August, 1918. 41 some Mexicans, and had formulated it into a petition. He asked me if I didn't know that the data was all a lie. I stated that I did not know it to be so, but believed now and believed then it to be true. Thereupon he drew his pistol and attempted to either beat or shoot me with it, he holding it by the handle. I warded it off with my left hand four different times. During this the other Ranger who stood at my left while I faced Captain Sanders, attempted to seize my left hand but I shook him off. Captain Sanders desisted and I said 'You are a petty officer attacking an unarmed citizen with a pistol.' He replied that he didn't know I was unarmed. I stated, 'What is the matter with you, are you drunk?' He replied, 'Do I act as though I am drunk?' I-answered, 'You smell as though you are.' When Deputy Sheriff L. N. Porter and J. B. Dodson, the court stenographer, came out into the hall. Captain Sanders was wildly waving his pistol at Hook. Porter and Dodson were able to subdue Captain Sanders. Sanders made a partial apology and the two Rangers left.3 8 Denying no part of the incident, Sanders, when he was questioned about the scuffle, said that he was "very worked up due to the newspaper articles and the petition. ... He shouldn't have written those things." 39 Perhaps the greatest reason for all the trouble was the attitude of some of the Rangers. Probably no other

37 Testimony of Thomas Wesley Hook, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 334-36. 38 Testimony of Deputy Sheriff L. N. Porter, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 240-45. 39 Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1404-06. 42 Ranger illustrated this better than Captain Henry L. Ransom. Captain Ransom, a native of Fort Bend County, had been a principal figure in the first phase of the Bandit War. Ransom's early life around the Brazos bottom prison farms and his service in the Philippines had caused him to place small value on the life of a lawbreaker. While serving as the chief of police in Houston, he had killed a noted criminal lawyer who resided there. When questioned about his custom of disposing quickly of bandits along the Rio Grande, Ransom answered: A bad disease calls for bitter medicine. The Governor sent me down here to stop this trouble, and I am going to carry out his orders. There is only one way to do it. President Diaz proved that in Mexico. . . . Anybody who has guilty knowledge of crimes committed, or ^JY" one who harbors bandits should be killed.

^°William Warren Sterling, Trails and Trials of a Texas Ranger (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1959), pp. 47-51. ^•'"Statement of Henry L. Ransom, December 19, 1917. A.G.P. CHAPTER III

INVESTIGATION OF THE RANGERS

Such a storm of criticism had arisen over the Rangers' arbitrary methods of restoring law and order to the lower border area that an investigation of the Force and its activities soon became inevitable. J. T. Canales, State Representative from Brownsville, led the attack against the Rangers. Canales, a native Texan and a member of an old landowning family of the Valley, had moved from Nueces County to Brownsville in 1904. After graduating from the University of Michigan, he began practicing law in Texas in 1899 and was first elected to the state legislature in 1904. Canales professed that he had no desire to destroy the Rangers, but only wanted to rid them of unqualified and vicious men and to remove the Force from politics. "I was born and raised on a ranch and am thoroughly acquainted with the Ranger business. ... I have known the Rangers ever since I was born. ..." In response to an inquiry from Walter Prescott Webb as to his purpose for conducting the attack against the Rangers, he wrote as follows:

Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, p. 856. 43 44 Not only myself but all my family have been always friendly to the Ranger force es­ pecially when we had such Captains as Captain Rogers, Captain Brooks, and Captain Hughes, all of whom had been stationed at Alice . . . and our ranch which was located thirty miles south of Alice was used by the Rangers as a station to change horses. . . ." According to Canales, at that time the Rangers were used to protect cattlemen from cattle thieves, desperadoes, and other bad characters. He claimed that later the Ranger Force was used for political purposes. Governor Hobby had appointed a Republican politician as senior captain of the Rangers force. I had Joiown Hanson for a number of years as a corrupt Republican politician. . . . Hanson began to fill the Rangers with cut­ throats and murderers. ... I wanted to clean the Ranger force of such undesirable elements. ... I did not want to destroy the force or impair its efficiency. On January 16, 1919, Canales introduced to the Thirty-Sixth Legislature a bill providing for changes in the policies and regulations for the Ranger Force. The bill increased the salary of captains to $150.00 per month, of sergeants to $100.00 per month and of privates to $75.00 per month. The bill stipulated that each Ranger would need to be at least twenty-five years of age, should have at least two years of experience as a peace officer in the state, and "should possess good moral character and fur­ nish evidence of such from the commissioners' court of his

2 W. P. WebbJ. Papers T. Canale. s to W. P. Webb, January 11, 1935. 45 county." The bill further provided that each Ranger should give bond to the amount of $15,000.00 for captains, $12,000.00 for sergeants, and $5,000.00 for privates. While the Rangers were to be under the control and direction of the governor, the bill made it the duty of the Rangers to cooperate with the local civil authorities in each county wherever they were located. It was further provided in the bill that if the county judge or sheriff of any county should request the removal of Rangers from that county they were to be removed at once or at the expiration of ten days 3 would cease to be peace officers in that county. A heated debate on the floor of the House followed the introduction of the bill. Representative Barry Miller of Dallas led the fight against the bill which he claimed would destroy the effectiveness of the Rangers. During an address before the House, he presented letters and tele­ grams from prominent men from different sections of Texas urging that the Ranger Force be not crippled or destroyed. He cited instances in various localities where the Rangers 4 had served nobly, bringing order out of chaotic conditions. Representative John J. Ford of Nolan County inter­ rupted Miller's address to ask him if the Rangers had not made countless arrests upon suspicion with no evidence and

Texas, Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, pp. 37-39. Austin Statesman, January 24, 1919. 46 then later freed these men with no charges every being 5 filed. This question spurred Miller on to his most caustic and burning remarks. "Yes! In some few cases innocent men were arrested and afterward released when found to be loyal and true, and upon their escutcheon was left no stain! . .'." The Rangers' only purpose in making such arrests, according to Miller, was to establish the truth. They could not take any chances on a single degenerate citizen getting away with a crime. ... It were better that hundreds of innocent men should have been arrested-- innocent men are never in danger in America-- that one rapscallion should have gone un­ molested. Miller contended that the incidents quoted by Canales were exceptions and that the Rangers needed power to act to enforce law in the rough border country. He claimed that the Rangers had rescued the besieged citizens of the border country where local officials failed to enforce the laws and to provide the protection needed by those people living in that "wild country." Another defender of the Rangers, Representative Charles Stewart of Reeves, referred to the fact that his home was only seventy-five miles from the Mexican border and that "God only knows what would have become of many

^Austin Statesman, January 25, 1919.

^Ibid. 47 citizens and their property in that section of Texas had it not been for the presence or nearness of Texas Rangers. ..." He went on to say that the name "Ranger" caused terror to strike deeper in the heart of a Mexican bandit than the words "hell fire" could dig into the heart of an American. "if there be bad individual Rangers, get rid of them, but leave the sound ones, permitting the or­ ganization to go forward unhampered. ..."

Stewart concluded his remarks very forcibly: There are three great moments to Texas liberty in this wonderful state: One is the Alamo—that sacred place where Texans proved to the world that liberty was to be prized more dearly than life. The second is the battleground of San Jacinto, where Texas won her lasting independence—where the "Napoleon of the West" was beaten and overthrown, while his palsied followers fell prone on their faces with the cry 'Me no Alamo, me no Goliad!' The third monument is a living monument so far as Mexican banditry is concerned, and it is none other than the brave, gallant,-dashing and courageous Ranger organization.

Representative Canales, speaking intensely in behalf of his bill, insisted that he was not an enemy to the Ranger Force. "Neither do I want to see the force destroyed; I merely want the personnel purified: I want efficiency, not destruction. ..." He likened the Force to a great, magnificent tree with a few dead branches. He said you would not cut down the tree but would remove the dead

'^Ibid. 48 branches and "leave the great tree to live and thrive as it could not have done burdened with the dead timber."

Canales pleaded for the protection of his own life as well as for the lives of citizens of the border country. Rangers of Texas have committed crimes equal to those of the Germans in Belgium right here in our own civilized state, by spilling the blood of innocent men who were accorded no rights under the law while in their hands. ..."

He asserted that the bill was nothing more than a measure to safeguard the rights of citizens against lawless prac­ tices and that it provided for control of and not destruc- p tion of the Ranger Force of Texas.

Representative D. J. Neill of Eastland County re­ marked that he had made a recent trip to the border country to investigate Ranger activities and that while there sev­ eral Rangers had made insulting remarks to him. He said that reliable information had come to him that citizens of the border had been murdered by Rangers without restraint and that the time had come when the public needed protec­ tion from them. He claimed that Rangers had wantonly killed a citizen of Eastland County, were indicted, released on 9 bond and then turned loose.

Representative W. E. Pope of Nueces County charged that there had been only five people killed in his county in the previous years and that three of those had been

^Ibid. 9 ^Ibid. 49 killed by Rangers. He demanded that the legislature do something to protect the innocent citizen from the Rangers.

The bonding feature was certainly the most con­ troversial provision of Canales' bill. The purpose of the bond was to strengthen the quality of men that formed the Ranger Force. It was considered to be a device to make the individual Rangers responsible for their actions. Rep­ resentative Miller argued that it was not practical because in certain counties a Ranger under bond would be harrassed by suits in courts where he could not obtain justice. Ac­ cording to Miller, placing the Rangers under bond would have the same effect as handcuffing them—their effective­ ness would be materially curtailed.

Defending the bonding provision of the bill. Rep­ resentative J. S. Davis of Van Zandt accused the Rangers of having exceeded their authority in a number of instances. He maintained that Rangers should be regulated to the extent that they are responsible for their actions. Davis continued: I would say that a very large percentage of the population believe in keeping the Ranger Force in existence but believe that there should be strict regulations and strict restraints thrown about,them, such as have not existed in the past.

^°ibid. Fort Worth Record, January 25, 1919.

•^^Ibid. 50 Canales, arguing that bonding the Rangers was essential, said it would eliminate bad characters from the

Force and would prevent politicians from paying their debts with Ranger commissions. Canales contended:

Until you devise some means of throwing a restraint around their operations, these young men, hot blooded young fellovrs without much education, men v/ho are willing to go out and risk their lives for forty, fifty or sixty dollars a month and lead the kind of~lives they do are not the kind of men you v/ant to entrust the lives and properties of the citizens to without throwing around them some kind of safe­ guard. . . .

Unless some restraints were placed on the Rangers, then, according to Canales, Texas v/ould fare infinitely better without the Force than it had in the last few years with them.

Representative Pope pointed out that federal regu­ lations require a bond of every peace officer with authority to make an arrest. He questioned why the Rangers should be an exception if every other lawman in the state had to give bond. He raised this question:

If a man has the pov/er of carrying fire­ arms which the citizen is prohibited from carry­ ing, and has the power of making arrests and in their discretion to imprison men, and perhaps in their discretion take his life, shouldn't there be some safeguard thrown,around the life and property of the citizen?

13 •^-^Ibid. •^"^Ibid. 51 While debate on Canales' bill progressed in the House, a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator W. D. Suiter of Wood County sought complete abolishment of the State Ranger Force. This bill provided for the repeal of the law creating the Force as well as the one making appro­ priations for the support and maintenance of the Ranger 15 Force. When the Senate voted on the Suiter bill, it was overwhelmingly defeated. On January 28, Adjutant General James Harley sent a request to the House urging that steps be taken to determine the truth of charges made against the Rangers during the debate on the bill. He suggested a complete investigation of the Force and all its activities with reference to its conduct and efficiency. The good that it does, and the forces of evil that it must necessarily encounter, in order that you, as the people's representatives, may know how to proceed to legislate for or against its existence—if there are evils existing in the system that you have a right to know of them so that legislation may be enacted to correct such evils. He asked the legislature to enact such measures that were needed to increase the efficiency and usefulness of the Rangers. Since the Force operated under existing laws, if they were not adequate then they needed to be changed. He expressed a desire that the House investigate the causes

Texas, Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, pp. 175-76. 52 that often led to complaints against the Rangers and the motives that actuated men to make complaints against them.^^

Consequently, Representative Miller suggested a thorough investigation which was provided for in a con- Current resolution. The House as well as the Senate adopted the resolution. House Concurrent Resolution No. 20 provided that a committee of seven be appointed, four by the Speaker Of the House and three by the President of the Senate, to fully investigate the charges against the Rangers."^^ Lieuten­ ant Governor W. A. Johnson appointed Senators Paul D. Page Of Bastrop, Edgar Witt of McLennan and R. L. Williford of Freestone, none of whom had participated in the debate on the Rangers, to form the Senate part of the joint legislative 18 committee. Speaker R. E. Thomason named as House members Of the committee Representatives W. H. Bledsoe of Lubbock County, Sam C. Lackey of Dewitt County, W. M. Tidwell of Ullis County, and Dan S. McMillin of Grayson County. Like their Senate counterparts, none of these men had expressed Strong sentiment on the Ranger Bill.

16 Texas, Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg, Sess., 1919, p. 211. •'•^Ibid. , p. 212. 18 Texas, Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, p. 247. 19 Texas, Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, p. 238. 53 The investigation began in Austin on January 31, 1919. Both General Harley and Representative Canales addressed the committee in its initial meeting. General Harley, rather than discussing the accusations that had been made against the Rangers, chose to direct the committee's attention to other more generalized points. He made it plain that he wanted a conclusion reached as to whether the Ranger Force was a detriment or a benefit to Texas. The Adjutant General then made the pointed statement that he wanted the committee to find out, in its discretion, if Representative Canales really meant to improve the Ranger on Force as he claimed, or if he sought its destruction. Representative Canales said that the investigation might extend as far as the committee wished, but that the only thing he was advocating was the investigation of the individual conduct of the Rangers and the weeding out of undesirables. 21 Along this line the members of the committee suggested that Representative Canales prepare specific charges against Rangers for violating laws and name wit­ nesses to be called in these cases. Representative Canales presented eighteen charges against the Rangers, some of the incidents dating back two or three years. The charges ranged from drunkenness to

20 Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, p. 42. ^•^Ibid. , p. 2. 54 murder. He stated that the charges made were not prompted by malice or any improper motive on his part, but for the purpose of enabling the committee to investi­ gate the abuses permitted in the present Ranger Force in various sections of the state.^^

Before any witnesses were introduced. General Harley again addressed the committee, this time concerning the charges presented by the Valley representative. He claimed that these charges had never been brought to the attention of the Adjutant General's Department. He in turn charged Canales with being derelict in his duty as a citizen for not bringing them up before. Any killing of a prisoner by the Rangers was unavoidable, the Adjutant General pleaded. He denied that Canales had the evidence to substantiate his charges. In conclusion, he stated that the allegations "were unfair, misleading and made with the attempt to reflect upon the Adjutant General's Department in the discharge of 23 its duty." The committee nevertheless continued its in­ vestigation of the specific charges brought by Representative Canales. Canales charged that many of the Rangers were prone to becoming intoxicated and then would become very oppres- O A sive in their behavior. As an example, he pointed out ^^Ibid., pp. 306, 123-30, 145-50, :n5-38. ^-^Ibid. , pp. 9-18. Ibid., p. 3. 55 that on November 16, 1918, Rangers George B. Hurst and Daniel Hinojosa, while in a state of intoxication, fired their pistols in the streets of San Diego, Texas, and intimidated several citizens. Afterwards, when complaints were made for their arrest, they made threats against the life of Constable Ventura R. Sanchez in the event he should attempt to arrest them. Sanchez, when he appeared before the committee, supported Canales'claim and testified that it was not unusual for Rangers to be intoxicated and to fire their pistols in the streets.^^ Mrs. Virginia Yeager, a resident of San Diego, said that she had seen the Rangers 26 drunk and abusive many times. D. F. Strickland, an attorney at Mission since 1912, testified that he had seen Rangers drunk in Bro'vnsville Some of the Rangers stationed there, according to him, had reputations as gamblers and "hell-raisers." A few bad men had joined the Rangers, said Strickland, and these were the ones that had given the Force a bad reputation in his 27 section of the country. The Rangers were charged by Canales with the murder of eighteen or twenty prisoners. Canales further charged that none of the Rangers involved in these killings had

^^Ibid., pp. 337-44. ^^Ibid., pp. 345-47. ^^Ibid., 359-60. 56 been indicted or punished in any way.^^ Several wit­ nesses testified about the mass killings of Mexicans by Captain Fox's command at El Porvenir, the killing of Lizandro Munoz by Sergeant J. J. Edds near Rio Grande City, the mysterious disappearance of Florencio Garcia who had been a prisoner of Rangers Lock, Saddler and Sittler, and the killing of Ernest W. Richburg at Ranger, Texas, by Rangers J. B. Nalle and John Bloxom, Jr. Sheriff W. R. Vann of Cameron County testified that after the wrecking of the train by bandits just north of Brownsville on October 18, 1915, he and a party of Rangers led by Captain Henry Ransom captured four men suspected of having taken part in the attack. The Rangers decided to take the captives into the brush and shoot them, since they had had poor experience in getting convictions at trials. Vann refused to take part in this and was told by Captain Ransom: "If you do not have the guts to do it, I will." 29 The four Mexicans were shot. In all of these incidents, according to the testi­ mony before the committee. Rangers had murdered suspects without any justification and without giving them an opportunity to prove themselves innocent of the offenses charged against them. Judge James B. Wells testified that it was impossible to have a Ranger indicted for any crime

^^Ibid., pp. 3-5, 123, 145-46. ^^Ibid., pp. 573-76. 57 he might commit because the people were too frightened of the Rangers to appear in court against them.^° Evidence was presented to show that Rangers were guilty of maltreating, flogging, and horsewhipping prison­ ers. Near Donna, Texas, Rangers in August of 1918 had flogged, horsewhipped, and maltreated a Mexican by the name of Jose Hernandez because he was suspected of having 31 stolen a jackass. Fred Winn, a deputy sheriff of Cameron County, had previously confessed that he had committed this outrage, apparently to remove suspicion from the Rangers. However, evidence brought before the investiga­ tive committee pointed out that the deputy sheriff had 32 not been involved in the incident at all. In another incident near Donna, Texas, at about the same time, Rangers, belonging to Captain Stevens' company, took two Mexicans, Arturo Garcia and Pedro Tamez, out of the jail at Donna. "... After being taken out of town in an automobile, we were told to go away and we were shot at by these Rangers. ..." 33 Later, on the road between Donna and Mercedes, J. J. Busby picked up a Mexican with a wounded leg—Arturo Garcia. He found him lying on

^°Ibid., pp. 678-81. 31 Secretary of State Robert Lansing to Governor W. P. Hobby, September 11, 1918, G.L. 32 Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 649-65. ^^Affidavit of Arturo Garcia, October 24, 1918, A.G.P. 58 a railroad right-of-way. Busby carried him to Mercedes and turned him over to Captain Stevens for investigation. About a week later Stevens released him without any charge ever being filed against Garcia."^^

Aurelio Farfan, a colonel of the Mexican Army dur­ ing Diaz' administration, told the committee of his experience with the Rangers. He had just returned to his room after going to a dinner given by a merchant of Rio Grande City when he heard a noise in the yard. He looked outside and saw Sergeant Edds running with a pistol in his hand toward the house. Edds and Roy Collins stormed into his room and began abusing him. "Collins went to open my grip and when I went to open it for him, he cursed me and shoved me against the wall. ..." Edds thinking that Farfan was armed told him to stand by.the door and raise his pants legs. "He hit me over the head with his gun and took me to a closet where he locked me up—all the while threatening to kill me. . . . When the military came, I was treated very courteously by 35 them. . . ." All the testimony about Ranger abuses did not come from residents of the border country. According to W. A, Anderson, an attorney at San Angelo, Texas, Rangers arrested a Negro at San Angelo and carried him to Sweetwater and jailed him there without process. The Rangers cursed and

Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 644-49.

^^Ibid., pp. 622-44. 59 abused the Negro and tried to force a confession out of him concerning stealing from the railroad. Everytime the case was to be tried, the Rangers could not be found. Several days later local authorities freed the Negro. Anderson and other local officials tried, without success, to get the Adjutant General's Department to hold an ex­ amining trial of the Rangers' conduct."^^ There had been, Canales charged, a disposition in the Adjutant General's Department to protect and shield men of desperate character in such unlawful acts while in 37 the Ranger Force. Canales pointed to the case of Ranger D. F. Barnett to prove his point. On September 24, 1918 Ranger Barnett, a member of Captain Jerry Gray's company stationed at Marfa, Texas, shot at two Mexicans, wounding one. Although the circumstances as shown from the investiga­ tion made by the Adjutant General's Department conclusively indicated that the Ranger was guilty of assault with in­ tent to commit murder, or at least aggravated assault and battery, the Adjutant General made the following statement: I find that Barnett was acting perhaps indiscreetly but nevertheless not entirely to blame for the transaction. The matter will be overlooked this time provided you advise him to be more careful in future and not to be using his gun too promiscuously when not necessary.

•^^Ibid. , pp. 664-67. "^^Ibid. , pp. 123-25. 60 This statement, according to Canales, was a good in­ dication of General Harley's philosophy as the way to handle misconduct on the part of a Ranger.^^ The eighth charge in the list of charges presented to the committee stated that on October 2, 1918, at the San Francisco Cafe in San Antonio, Ranger W. B. Bentley brutally assaulted John Thermis, a waiter in the cafe, striking him over the head with a pistol several times with- out any provocation. 39 The citizens who were witnesses to the incident and who made statements regarding this occur­ rence refused to sign their statements because they were afraid of being similarly treated by Ranger Bentley. The witnesses stated that Bentley had an argument with one of the waiters and pulled his gun and hit the waiter over the head. As he was leaving the restaurant, Bentley pointed his gun at the waiter and called him "a damn son-of-a-bitch." 40 In the subsequent investigation, conducted by the Adjutant General's Department, General Harley claimed that Bentley had been discharged from the Ranger Force prior to this incident. However, Canales presented to the committee a telegram from the Department dated October 7, 1918, in 41 which Harley discharged Bentley from the Force.

^^Ibid., pp. 9-10, 124-25. ^^Ibid., p. 125. 40 Unsigned statements, October 9, 1918. A.G.P. 41 Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 750-53. 61 Canales charged that citizens in his county and adjoining counties refused to file charges against Rangers for violations because they had become convinced of the fact that the Adjutant General's Department, instead of investigating the officers who were charged with violating the law, would notify the officers of the charges made against them. When investigations were made, they were biased. Senior Ranger Captain W. M. Hanson, the investi­ gating officer of the Adjutant General, was, charged Canales, unfit to serve in that capacity because he always sought to justify the conduct of the Rangers and to get them exon- 42 erated. In connection with this charge, he pointed out to the committee that Captain Hanson before he started an investigation would often make up his mind that the party to be investigated by him was not guilty of the offense charged. He referred to a letter addressed to the Adjutant General from Hanson. As soon as I can get away from here I will continue my investigation with reference to the mistreatment of Mexican citizens at Donna, Texas, as well as the killing of Lizandro Munoz by Sgt. Edds, above Rio Grande City some time ago. I had a long talk yesterday with our mutual friend Representative Canales, and I find that he is rather bitter, and seems a little bit un­ reasonable, as usual, and that he as well as all other Mexicans believe that Mexicans should not be killed regardless of the facts of justifi­ cation in the case. I am positive from what Captain Wright tells me that Sgt. Edds was perfectly

^^Ibid., pp. 125-26. 62 justifiable. Yet, I think it necessary to fortify your Department with sworn facts from both sides of the question. I will do this as soon as I can get matters shaped up here in a satisfactory manner. To further substantiate the charge that Captain Hanson did not conduct impartial investigations, Canales introduced evidence from the two investigations of the kill­ ings at El Porvenir by Captain Fox's command. One, con­ ducted by Captain Hanson, sought to justify the Rangers in their actions, while the investigation conducted by the United States Army condemned the Rangers as having killed the Mexicans in cold blood. Furthermore, he called the attention of the committee to the fact that the discharge of Captain Fox was probably due to political reasons rather than to the fact that the Captain had assumed the respon-- sibility for the killings. Canales suggested that it was more than a mere coincidence that the discharge of Captain Fox, a Ferguson supporter, followed an election in which 44 Hobby defeated Ferguson. In the investigation of the killing of Ernest Richburg at Ranger, Texas, Canales accused Captain Hanson of also attempting to "whitewash" the actions of the Rangers involved by leading the Department to believe that the killing took place in an attempt to raid a gambling house and thus justify the Rangers in the killing. In this connection he pointed out there had been a criminal trial

"^^Ibid. , p. 127. ^"^Ibid,, pp. 834-50. 63 of one of these Rangers, and the jury had found the 45 man guilty.

Peaceable and law-abiding citizens would not make charges against the Rangers, according to Canalee, because after the charges were made, the Adjutant General's De­ partment would reveal the names of those filing charges. Canales alleged that the Department would put the person charged on notice that charges had been made. He cited an experience of his own. "I reported to Hanson rome abuses and rather than he doing something about it—he told these Rangers that I was making complaints against then;, ..." Several days later Ranger Frank Hamer approached him in Brownsville and said: "You are hot-footing it here, be­ tween here and Austin and complaining to the Governor and the Adjutant General about the Rangers, and I am going to tell you if you don't stop that you are going to get hurt." He repeated the threat after Canales asked that he do so before Jesse Dennett. When Canales filed his charge of the threat made against him by Ranger Hamer with Governor Hobby, the charge was referred to General Harley for investigation. Subsequently, the Adjutant General wired Ranger Hamer as follows:

Under Governor's orders you are instructed not to make any threats against the lives of any citizens especially J. T. Canales and that he is to be given proper protection as a citizen. Complaint has been filed that you have made

^^Ibid., pp. 123-24, 723-45. 64 some threats. Without going into the truth of the matter you are instructed to^be careful and courteous at all times. . . ."^^

Canales alleged that in the Ranger Force there were men of desperate character, notoriously known as gunmen. "Their only qualification being that they can kill a man first and then investigate him afterward. ..." The em­ ployment of such men in the Ranger Force by the Adjutant General was either negligence on his part in the selection of his men, or else it was his policy to have such men in the Force to terrorize and intimidate,"*^ In connection with this charge he asked the committee to review the men that were in the force at that time.

The Adjutant General was accused of using the Ranger Force for the purpose of showing special favors to his political friends and political "pets" of the administra- 48 tion. Canales pointed out to the committee that in his district large numbers of Rangers were stationed at the state's expense on the King Ranch. He accused Caesar Kleberg, general manager of the Ranch, of being one of those political "pets" of the administration and, through his influence, receiving undue and unnecessary protection from the Adjutant General. Kleberg, a member of the Democratic

^^Ibid., pp. 148-49, 886-96.

^^Ibid., p. 148.

Ibid., pp. 126-27. 65 State Executive Committee, had, according to Canales, brought a number of his political henchmen to Austin to act as lobbyists against the bill to regulate the Rangers. Several Rangers were in truth detailed to the King ranches by the Adjutant General. Canales pointed out to the committee that this was open country and some distance from the border and suggested that there was no need for so many Rangers to be stationed there. This, he said, was especially true in Willacy County where there were hardly any people living except the ranch's employees. These Rangers, Canales claimed, were used for the purpose of depriving the people of exercising their rights under the law to hunt in large enclosures or pastures of more than 5,000 acres.

And these political favors are aggravated in view of the fact that the same protection has been requested by other large cattlemen in the state and they have been denied the same pro­ tection, chiefly because-they did not happen to be politicians. . . . The investigation lasted nearly two months and re­ sulted in about two thousand pages of testimony. Witnesses appearing before the committee numbered in the hundreds. Canales summoned witness after witness to substantiate the charges that he had filed against the Ranger Force. It is notable that several Mexican-Americans testified before the committee and none of them spoke in defense of the Rangers.

^^Ibid., pp. 127, 1167-91. 66 Rather than concentrating on specifically denying the charges made against the Force, the Adjutant General's Department devoted a good part of its defense to present­ ing witnesses to the committee that testified as to the value and the necessity of the Rangers to the state. A telegram directed to the Adjutant General was read to the committee: We the undersigned citizens of Presidio, Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Pecos and Jeff Davis Counties, assembled in mass meeting and which was called by Col. George T. Langhorne, for the purpose of organizing the citizens of the Big Bend patrol district for their protec­ tion against bandits and other lawless people respectfully request and recommend that you increase the Ranger Service one hundred more men in the Big Bend district, these men to be selected from the above named counties to assist the militarycforces in protecting our lives and property. Testifying about the violations of civil rights that the Rangers were accused of committing, Thomas Hester said that it was a well-known fact that when anything of this nature happened in the Valley that the Rangers were blamed. The Mexicans especially did this "... for the reason that they know by taking it up thru the Mexican Government they can be further protected in their meanness . . .This class of outlaws was afraid of the Rangers and did not fear any other class of officers." "We look upon the Rangers as more or less of a

^^Ibid., p. 1253. ^•^Ibid. , pp. 830-32. 67 God-send to our Valley. ..." This was the opening state­ ment of a very powerful plea made in behalf of the Rangers by William G. B. Morrison. His testimony reflects the opinions voiced by several other witnesses presented by the Adjutant General's Department, most of whom revealed through their testimony a deep disdain for Mexican-Americans by using the words Mexicans and bandits as one and the same. He stated that the bandits considered the soldiers as a joke and would run into them at every turn of the road. But,

. . . the Mexicans seldom tampered with a Ranger unless he had him dead to rights and could shoot him in the back. . . . The Mexicans know that the Ranger is used to that country, used to track­ ing , used to Texas and the roads, and he knows the Mexicans, and you are just as apt to^run slap-bang into him without seeing him as not. Other witnesses testified that it was absolutely necessary that a substantial number of Rangers be maintained in the Valley and Southv/est Texas; otherwise, the bandit troubles of 1915 would start all over again, and the develop­ ment of that country would be stymied once again. Many of the witnesses objected to the bonding feature of Canales' bill and to making the Rangers answerable to county officials. They contended that if these two features were enacted it would restrict the Rangers so much that they might as well be disbanded. Rather than spending their time pursuing criminals, they would necessarily become immersed in local

^^Ibid., pp. 21-30. 68 affairs since they would be forced to please local citizens to avoid being dragged into court for their ac­ tions. Witness after witness spoke in behalf of Captain Hanson's character. Actually a witness in favor of the Ranger bill. Judge James B. Wells claimed that two or three companies of Rangers stationed along the border had done more good than 25,000 troops under General Parker. However, he focused upon the main issue of the investigation when he complained against the improper enforcement of the law and permitting "... every Tom, Dick and Harry through being special Rangers or loyalty Rangers or something of that kind—people who ought not to carry guns. . . ." He de­ clared that he was "a Ranger man." All the trouble and com­ plaints about violations of the law by Rangers had occurred 53 within the last few years. An incident which occurred while the investigating committee was in session did not help to improve the image of the Ranger Force. Four Rangers, under the influence of liquor, had gone just outside the city limits of Austin to do some practice shooting. While there. Rangers Cunningham, Johnson, Veale, and Mayberry had become even more intoxi­ cated. An argument broke out between Veale and Cunningham with regard to a relative of Ranger Veale. They got out of the car quarreling, Veale drew his pistol and fired at leai^t

^•^Ibid., pp. 676-70. 69 two shots at Cunningham. The other Rangers tried to separate them, but failed, and during that time Veale fired the third shot. Then each of the two quarreling men fired other shots, with the result that Cunningham was wounded in the neck, and he in turn shot and killed 54 Veale. The Adjutant General's Department expelled Rangers Cunningham, Johnson and Mayberry from the Force. The joint committee to investigate the Ranger Force concluded the hearings February 13, 1919, and on February 18 issued their findings in a report. The committee vindi­ cated Adjutant General Harley of charges that he had will­ fully mismanaged the Force for political reasons, and that he had been prompted by improper motives in the assigning or not assigning Rangers to any special work. They found the evidence was, also, insufficient to sustain the charge that the Adjutant General had been guilty of improper con­ duct in the management of the affairs of his office. They further reported that they had found the Adjutant General to be a conscientious, efficient, and faithful officer, that had at all times administered the duties of his office in an intelligent, conscientious, and effective manner. Captain W. M. Hanson was acquitted of the charge of inefficiency, partiality, and unfairness in the discharge of his duties. The report stated that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charges filed against the Captain,

54 Austin Statesman, February 3, 1919. 70 The report stated that many of the charges made about misconduct on the part of various members of the Force had been established by sufficient and competent evi­ dence. These charges included the unnecessary taking of life by different members of the Force, the entering and searching of private residences without warrant of law, the improper arrest of parties by Rangers and confining them in jail without taking them before a magistrate, and the taking of life of prisoners by some members of the Force It found fault with some of the commanding officers for be­ ing arbitrary and overbearing in the discharge of their duties and for assuming authority not given to them. It asked that any of the men involved in such actions that might still be in the Force be discharged. The report commended the Rangers for the great ser­ vice they had rendered to the State of Texas. It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that the conditions existing upon the border between Texas and Mexico at the time were such that the Ranger Force should be maintained in an adequate manner to give protection to the life and property along the border. In regard to the Ranger Force in the future, the committee recommended, . . . that the number of Rangers should be re­ duced: that the Governor of the State should be authorized to increase the number in active service during any time of emergency. . . . That they should be paid an adequate salary, justifying the service of good men. . . . 71 The committee did not recommend passage of the bond feature of Canales' bill.

The committee expressed appreciation to Representa­ tive Canales and General Harley for their aid in the in­ vestigation. Canales, according to the committee, had not been prompted by any improper motives in making the charges that he had made against the Ranger Force, and the people of Texas were indebted to him for the good that should come to the Force as a result of the investigation.^^ In increasing Ranger salaries, the law followed the pay structure set up in Canales' original bill: Captains would receive $150.00 per month, sergeants $100.00 per month, and privates $90.00 per month. Additional allow­ ances were provided for those with more than two years of continuous service. Acting through the Adjutant General, the Governor was to have command of the Force; . . . to be operated under his direction in such manner in such detachments and in such localities as the Governor may direct. . . . The Governor is authorized to keep this force, or so much thereof as he may deem necessary, in the field as long as in his judgment there may be necessity for such a force. . . . The Adjutant General and the Governor were to draw up reg­ ulations for the control and government of the Force in order that it would be as effective as possible.

55 Texas, Report of Ranger Investigating Committee, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, pp. 596-99. 72 The law relieved the Rangers of some of their free­ dom of action; now they were clearly directed to work closely with their associate units and to cooperate fully with local officers. The Force had all the powers of peace officers; but few more. The Rangers were to be governed by the same laws that regulated and defined the powers and duties of local peace officers when engaged in discharge of similar duties. The essential difference between the local peace officers and the Rangers remained that the Rangers had the power to make arrests and to execute all process in criminal cases in any county in the state, while local peace officers were limited to their own locale. The Texas Legislature adopted the report of the Ranger Investigation Committee and subsequently passed House Bill No. 5 on March 31, 1919. The vote was decidedly in favor of the bill and the legislators apparently were relieved that they were no longer faced with the task of reorganizing the Rangers. The law as passed by the Legis­ lature and approved by Governor Hobby reduced the Ranger Force to four regular companies, each having a captain, a sergeant, and not more than fifteen privates. In addition, it provided for a headquarters company which would consist of one captain, who would be designated the senior captain of the Force, one sergeant, and not more than four privates. The Governor would have authority in cases of emergency to increase the Force to meet the extraordinary conditions. 73 All officers and men selected were to be men of good moral character and each would need to furnish sat­ isfactory evidence to that effect. The Governor was to prescribe the qualifications for appointment and all appli­ cations for appointment to the Force would be made to him. Preference would be given to discharged soldiers holding certificates of honorable discharge from the United States Army. The captains would be appointed by the Governor and removed at his pleasure; unless so removed by the Governor they would serve for two years at which time they could be reappointed. Appointments of the enlisted men and non­ commissioned officers of each company would be made by the Governor with the advice of the Adjutant General and the recommendation of the captain, under whom such men were to serve. The term of service for enlisted men and non­ commissioned officers was also two years. To meet past criticism of the Rangers, the law further provided that it was the duty of any citizen who knew of misconduct or violation of the law by any member of the Force to at once notify the Adjutant General in writ­ ing. If a complaint was made to the Adjutant General charg­ ing any Ranger with misconduct or violation of the law, the Adjutant General would have not only the right, but also obligation to investigate the charges. At the request of the Adjutant General, witnesses would be called to appear and testify concerning the alleged offense and the Adjutant 74 General was to take such action as the facts warranted. If he judged the charge valid, he was required to insti­ tute proceedings before any magistrate in the county where the offense was alleged to have been committed. He then without delay was to submit all evidence and a report of his actions thereon to the Governor for his approval or disapproval. The new law thus encompassed most of the provisions of Representative Canales' original bill. The only major provision not included was that requiring the Rangers to be bonded which, on the recommendation of the investigating committee, was thrown out by amendment.

^^Texas, General Laws of Texas, 36th Legislature, 1919, pp. 263-66. «?<<>•

CONCLUSION

While several works have been written on the Rangers, most have dealt with the highly romantic period of the early frontier. The Rangers of the Twentieth Century have been neglected somewhat, especially those Rangers involved in the border troubles of 1914-1918, The revolt against suppression by the dictator Porfirio Diaz led to a period of uneasiness and unrest in Mexico. The lack of discipline and organization of the Mexican government from 1910-1920 contributed to lawless­ ness on both sides of the border. Evidence of this was the frequent raids across the border into Texas by Mexican bandits which reached their height from 1914-1918. The Texas Rangers, utilized to combat this banditry, were in some ways responsible for contributing to the lawlessness. To meet the border crisis, the number of Rangers had been increased to 1,000 men. Many of these men v/ere inexperienced. It appears that a number of them were malicious and overbearing braggarts, prone to ex­ cessive drinking. Some of them used poor judgment and others were needlessly harsh and cruel. The attitude of many of the Rangers apparently was that they were above

75 76 and beyond the law and that the end results justified the means.

Thus, many innocent Mexican-Americans were killed and others were forced through fear to sacrifice their property and flee elsewhere. According to a list pub­ lished in 1917 by Frank Pierce of Brownsville, more than one hundred Mexican-Americans had been executed by Texas Rangers and local peace officers without due process of law between August 4, 1915 and June 17, 1916. Others placed the figures as high as three hundred. Rather than reduc­ ing the lawlessness along the border, the summary injustice dealt out to Mexican-Americans by Rangers probably caused even more raiding and killing. For the first time in the history of Texas, the respectable citizens of the state lost confidence in the Texas Rangers. The arbitrary methods of the Rangers were instru­ mental in bringing about a legislative investigation. Pro­ fessing that he only wanted to "clean-up" the Rangers, Representative J. T. Canales introduced his Ranger bill to the House of Representatives in January of 1919. Debate on the bill in the House led to the resolution for a,thorough investigation of the whole matter. During his investigation, which began on January 31, 1919, Mr. Canales presented

Pierce, A Brief History of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, pp. 102-03 77 nineteen charges against the Rangers. He was able to sub­ stantiate most of them.

The outcome of the investigation was the bill re­ ducing the Ranger Force to four regular companies and a headquarters unit—a total of seventy-five men. Not only were the Rangers reduced in number, but the importance of the Force as a police body was lessened and it was never to regain the place it had held in the past. Although the frontier was gone, many Rangers re­ fused to acknowledge the fact. The Nineteenth Century had called for Ranger "justice," but the Twentieth Century pre­ sented an entirely different picture. "To shoot first and investigate afterwards" now was regarded by society to be cold-blooded murder. The Rangers, as they were before the reorganization law, were something of an anachronism. Many Rangers and their methods were relics of a frontier that had disappeared: The Cameron County of 1875 was not the county of 1915. The Ranger Force as constituted in 1920 was much better prepared to face its job as a law-enforce­ ment agency. Perhaps the greatest improvement was the es­ tablishment of specific rules and regulations regarding management of the Force. The qualifications for being a Ranger as outlined in the law of 1919 and the salary in­ creases helped to insure that the Force would be composed of capable men. Now that the Rangers were to operate fully with local officials, it was hoped that the conflict which 78 had existed between the two would be resolved. Finally, it appeared that the Rangers would be careful not to perpetuate in the future the published abuses of this controversial period of Ranger history.

The Rangers improved their image in the next few years with their efforts to enforce prohibition and later their role in bringing noted gangsters, such as Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, to justice. The nature of the Force was again altered when in 1935 a law combined the Rangers and the State Highway Patrol in a Department of Public 2 Safety.

2 Walter Prescott Webb, The Texas Rangers—A Century of Frontier Defense (Austin: University of Texas Press, ^ 1965), pp. 513, 536-46, 567. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Source s

Government Documents Texas. General Laws of the State of Texas. 35th Leg., 1917; 36th Leg., 1919. Texas. Journal of the House' of" Representatives of the State of Texas. 36th Leg., Reg. Sess., 1919. Texas. Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas. 36th Leg,, Reg. Sess., 1919, Texas, Proceedings of the Joint Committee of the Senate and House in the Investigation of the Texas Ranger Force. 36th Leg., Reg. Sess., 1919. Texas. Reports of the Adjutant General of the State of Texas (Biennial), 1914-1920. U.S. Congress. Senate. S. Doc. 285, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., Serial Nos. 7664-7665. U.S. Congress. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington, 1861- ), 1910-1920.

Manuscript Collections Adjutant Generals' Military Papers, 1914-1920, Texas State Archives, Aus tin. Governor James E. Ferguson's Letters, Texas State Archives, Austin. Governor William P. Hobby's Letters, Texas State Archives, Austin. Ranger Records, University of Texas Archives, Austin. 79 80 Walter P. Webb Papers, University of Texas Archives, Austin. '

Newspapers Austin Statesman, 1915-1919, Brownsville Herald, 1915-1919, Corpus Christi Caller, 1915-1919. Fort Worth Record, 1915-1919. Galveston News, 1915-1919. Houston Chronicle, 1915-1919, San Antonio Express, 1915-1919.

Secondary Sources Allhands, J. L. Gringo Builders. Joplin, Missouri: Privately printed, 1931, Bemis, Samuel Flagg. American Foreign Policy and Diplomacy. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1959. Casey, Robert J. The Texas Border. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1950. Castleman, Harvey N. The Texas Rangers. Girard, Kansas: HaIdeman-Julius Publications, 1944. Chatelle, Miriam. For We Love Our Valley Home. San Antonio, Texas: The Naylor Company, 194 8. Clark, James A. The Tactful Texan. New York: Random House, 1958. Cline, Howard F. The United States and Mexico. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1953, Ciimberland, Charles C. "Border Raids in the Lower Rio Grande Valley-1915." Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LVII (July 1953-April 1954), 287-311. . Mexican Revolution: Genesis Under Madero, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1952. 81 • Mexico; The Struggle for Modernity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. Douglas, C. L. Gentlemen in the White Hats. Dallas, Texas: South-West Press, 1934. Fehrenbach, T. R. Lone Star—A History of Texas and the Texans. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968. Fenwick, Virginia M., and Lott, Virgil N. People and Plots on the Rio Grande. San Antonio, Texas: The Naylor Company, 1957. Hager, William M. "The Plan of San Diego." Arizona and the West, V (1963), 327-36. Hildebrand, Walter W. "The History of Cameron County, Texas." Unpublished Master's thesis. North Texas State Teachers College, Denton, Texas, 1950. Hooker, Margaret H. "The Texas Rangers." Unpublished Master's thesis, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 1927, James, Daniel. Mexico and the Americans, New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1963. Lea, Tom. The King Ranch. Boston; Little, Brown and Company, 1957, Link, Arthur S. Wilson, the Struggle for Neutrality, 1914-1915. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960. Lott, Virgil N., and Martinez, Mercuric. The Kingdom of Zapata. San Antonio, Texas; The Naylor Company, 1953. MacCorkle, Stuart A. "American Policy of Recognition Towards Mexico." The John Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, LI (1933), 102-114. Marcum, Richard T. "Fort Brown, Texas: The History of a Border Post." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas, 1964. Parkes, Henry B. A History of Mexico. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1950. 82 Patrick, Ted. "Texas Rangers." Holiday, November, 1948, pp. 114-15, 133-37. Peavey, John R. Echoes From the Rio Grande. Brownsville, Texas: Springman-King Company, 1963. Pierce, Frank Cushman, A Brief History of the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Menasah, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company, 1917. Rippy^ J. Fred. The United States and Mexico. New York: F. S. Crofts and Co., 1931. Schuster, Stephen W. "The Modernization of the Texas Rangers." Unpublished Master's thesis, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, 1965. Stambaugh, J. Lee, and Lillian J. The Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. San Antonio, Texas: The Naylor Company, 1954. Sterling, William Warren. Trails and Trials of a Texas Ranger. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1959, Webb, Walter Prescott, The Texas Rangers—A Century of Frontier Defense. Austin: University or Texas Press, 1965.