This court, located at Paris, Texas, from 1889 to the late 1890's had jurisdiction of all felonies committed in the Chickasaw Nation and the lower half of the Choctaw Nation. Most of its records were destroyed in an early 20th century fire, so I thought it might be good to set up a forum where cases from there can be recorded and or discussed.

Example from the Purcell Register of January 3, 1894:
"Three men sentenced yesterday to be hanged in Paris, Texas, on Friday, March 30, 1894. They are Manning Davis, Ed Gonzales, and Jim Upkins. The two former are for murder and latter for rape."
"Upkins is a coal black and brutal looking Negro convicted of committing rape upon his little stepdaughter at Ardmore last spring. When asked if he had anything to say why the sentence should not be passed upon him, he replied he was innocent of the charge, and begged for a new trial."
"Gonzales is a Mexican convicted of a murder committed in the Territory several months ago. The evidence against him, while being circumstantial, was very clear that he had committed the deed charged to him. When asked if he had any excuse to offer why the sentence should not be passed, he made quite a lengthy talk, in which he repeatedly asserted his innocence."
"Davis is a white man who was convicted of a murder committed in the Territory a few months ago. He had gone to the house of his victim, and in the presence of his wife, who was in a delicate condition, stabbed to death her unarmed husband while he was pleading for mercy. In reply to the question...he said he was not guilty of murder and would like a new trial. Judge Bryant said it was not often that he had any harsh words to offer in passing sentence, but in this instance the crime committed was so horrible and revolting he had no sympathy for the criminal and felt not slightest sorrow for his approaching doom. Davis accepted his fate with indifference."
Same issue, next column: "Andy Guthrie, now of Cloud Chief, Oklahoma, but formerly of this place, who was recently tried at Paris for complicity with Frank Gowan in robbing a man at a wagon yard in this city, was cleared of the charge. Gowan when being sentenced to the penitentiary, asking the Judge to turn Andy loose and declaring he had nothing to do with the robbery. Judge Bryant expressed his positive belief that Gutherie was innocent of the charge and ordered his release. Andy's friends have been satisfied all the time that he was in no manner implicated...and are glad to learn that after a thorough investigation his innocence is clearly proven."

great post!

Thank you kind sir, here's another tidbit.
Within months of the Paris court being assigned expanded jurisdiction, its jurisdiction was expanded even more. That came about because, as an outgrowth of the (Kansas) Stephens County seat war, in July, 1888, Sheriff John M. Cross and two possemen were gunned down by Sam Robinson and his party within what would become Texas County, Oklahoma. It seems S. N. Wood, a newspaperman and namesake of Woodsdale, Kansas, vigorously pursued the prosecution of the men thought responsible. His problem was that No Man’s Land was not specifically assigned to any Federal Court. But, Woods finally got federal warrants and then found a court to hear the charges.
According to the Territorial Topic, November 28, 1889, p.1, c.4, the opinion of the Attorney General Kellogg of Kansas: “...that Kansas criminals could not be legally arrested in the Indian Territory has been refuted by the recent arrest of a number of parties in No Man’s Land charged with the murder of Sheriff Cross, of Stevens County, Kansas and who are now held by the authorities by virtue of the decision of Judge Foster, of the U. S. District Court of Kansas. The same paper in column 3 explains Foster’s ruling: “Texas has Jurisdiction—Topeka, Kansas, November 20: Judge Foster of the United States district court decided this morning that the alleged Stevens County murderers should be transferred to Texas for trial...Judge Foster, in deciding the case, stated...the act of 1834 under the rulings of the U. S. Supreme court became applicable to this territory acquired from Texas the moment it was so acquired and it became...for the purpose of construing statutes, treaties, etc., Indian country. Being Indian country, it was by the act of 1885, attached to and became a part of the Northern District of Texas and was a part of that district when the offense was committed; that by the act of 1889, it was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas at the time the offense was committed.”
The upshot of all this wrangling is that 12 defendants stood trial at Paris, Texas on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder, with the prosecution alone subpoenaing 300 witnesses at a cost to the court for their expenses averaging above $100 each. Six of the men charged were acquitted and six convicted and sentenced to hang on December 19, 1890. Then, on appeal, the conviction was reversed mainly because it was obvious the prosecution team was biased to the extreme. In the fall of 1895, the case was dismissed. Sam Robinson, who killed Sheriff Cross, by the way was not among the defendants as in 1889 he robbed a store/post office, was caught, convicted, and sent to prison. He left the facility in 1898 and disappeared from history. (See: Robert Barr Smith’s article in WildWest, June, 2003 issue and Henry F. Mason, “County Seat Controversies in Southwestern Kansas;” Kansas Historical Quarterly, February, 1933(Vol. 2, No. 1), pages 45 to 65. The KHQ is online.)

This next from the Territorial Topic, May 8, 1890, gives the carinval like atmosphere of a Paris, Texas court session.
Special Cor. Topic, Paris, Texas, May 5, 1890:
The court ground out a few cases the first of the week and unceremoniously adjourned Friday, April 25th, until May 5th. Uncle Sam has a reputation of doing business with dispatch, but in this respect the Paris court is a failure. 1500 witnesses are summoned to appear here the first day of court, most of them coming a long distance, and will be held for several weeks or even months at an enormous expense to the government and much inconvenience to themselves. It would be a great improvement if a sufficient number could be summoned to appear each week to keep the court going and let the others remain at home instead of loafing about Paris dead broke and wondering how matters are progressing at home.
Justice L. Q. C. Larmar, of the U. S. Supreme Court will visit Paris in a few days to determine the jurisdiction of the Paris court in certain murder cases from No Man’s Land.
...The Paris newspapers, if they may be called such, never lose an opportunity of referring to the Territorial people as a “motley crew of criminals with odor of garlic and onions.” The crowds from the Chickasaw Nation are as respectable, and even much more so than the average in Paris...Among all this throng of humanity from the Territory not a single disturbance has occurred in the city limits, only a few cases for drunkenness and the most of them from the Choctaw Nation...The Federal grand jury remained in session during Judge Boarman’s absence, but is not known what they have done as there is no report of their proceedings. About 500 witnesses have been examined and discharged.
Hon. Temple Houston, from the Panhandle was in the city this week. He is quite a favorite among Texans because he is the son of Gen. Sam Houston.
A balloon ascension was made from the public square last week which was witnessed by several thousand people. The aeronaut performed many daring feats while his balloon sailed through the clouds. When nearly out of sight he would hang head down by his feet and would then take hold of the pole with one hand and swing himself in the sky. He disappeared from sight among the clouds when he cut loose from his balloon and with his parachute slowly descended to earth again. He was brought back to town in a carriage where he received quite an ovation. The balloon was found some four miles north of town

From the Territorial Topic, November 5, 1891, quoting the Oklahoma City Gazette:
"The federal grand jury adjourned yesterday after a session of three weeks, during which time it investigated 235 cases, in 171 of which it returned no bills. The indictments returned are for the following: introducing liquor, 68; robbery, 2; horse theft, 40; counterfeiting, 1; burglary, 5; adultrey, 1; intercepting United States mail, 2; bigamy, 1; murder, 23; assault with intent to kill, 19; rape, 1; intercourse with a girl under age 16, 1; arson, 3; perjury, 2; receiving stolen property, 1. In its report it commends the officers of the court for faithfulness and efficiency. The report states that in every case investigated, except one, the crime alleged was committed in the Indian Territory.
The above is the report of the Paris, Texas, grand jury and it must be remembered that all those people whose cases were presented before it are not natives of the state, are hundreds of miles from home, and are pushed vigorously by a prosecuting attorney very anxious for his fees. Even then one-fourth the cases made before the commissioners were ignored, and more than one-fourth were for liquor offenses not known in a white community. As Paris expects to live from this court the showing is a very favorable one for the Indians."

Some of the cases heard:
Joe Sewell, Will Cordell, Fred Conchman, Henry and Ambers Dalton and Joe McClellan, Arson, not guilty. Joe Sewell first had a mistrial
Solomon McCoy, plead guilty to horsetheft and sentenced to 5 years
Robert Jackson and Levi White, introducing, plead guilty and sentenced to 10 days in jail and a $20 fine
Charles Emberson, same charge, plead and sentenced to 1 hour in jail and a $10 fine
James Matthews, murder, not guilty
Frank Patton, horse theft, acquitted
Charles Kenner and W. R. Throng on seperate introducing cases: Kenner, not guilty; Throng one day in jail and a $10 fine
Jackson Wade, Wm. Alexander, and Albert Huckolochully for assault to kill, not guilty.
James Sweat, assault to kill, not guilty
Mrs. S. C. Harris, murder, dismissed
Mat and Anthony Fields,Negroes charged with murder had a hearing to determine jurisdiction which resulted in their being found to have been former slaves of a Paris citizen and not Chickasaw or Choctaw freedmen. Court declared them U. S. citizens and amenable to the Paris court.
Doctor J. F. Newcomb plead guilty to incest and was given 3 years at Detroit, Mich. Newcomb, from Arkansas, abandoned his family absconded with his neice to the Indian Territory and married her. He was arrested, skipped bond, and was recaptured in British Columbia.
Reuben Frizzel convicted of adultry and given 3 years in Detroit. He had run off from San Diego, California with another man's wife and caught with her in the Chickasaw Nation. His lover obtained a divorce but refused to marry Frizzel, his only escape from justice.

Tower;

I have several questions concerning the Paris Court and the "Hay Medows Massacre".

First, a few comments.
Samuel N. Wood was far more than just a newspaper man, He was a Quaker aolutionist, he was a founder of the Republican Party, He was a member of the delegates that petitioned and recieved Statehood for Kansas, he was a state legislator, he was an officer in the civil war and later commander of the Kansas Militia.
Several other residents of Stevens County also
became famous in Oklahoma history after thier involvment in the massacre. Judge Jesse James Dunn was a resident of Voorhees in Stevens County. He was a friend and supporter of Sam Wood. It is reported that he is the one who named Woods County Oklahoma after his friend, Sam Wood. He was a mmber of the committee that roposed Oklahoma for Statehood. He was also one of the early members of the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
On the Hugoton side was J. L. Pancoast. He was County Attorney at the time and stayed fairly non-partison. He was elected the first state legisltor of this new district. He later became famous as an attouney in Oklahoma and served as a justice on the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Lastly the famous lawman Ed Short was town marshal of Woodsdale at the time. His attempt to serve a warrant on Hugoton town marshal Sam Robinson led directly to the massacre when County Sheriff Cross went looking for him.

Your post quoted a newspaper article saying that several US Supreme Court rulings had modified the "act of 1834". Do you or anyone else know what the decisons were about.

The best information I have found can be found at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=...ase=/us/138/157.html
and outher sources that give US Supreme Court Opinions.

By the way,the article you quoted said that the convictions were reversed on appeal and the charges dismissed. In reality, one of the convicted men, C. E., appealed to the Supreme Court that the Paris Court had no jurisdiction and Supreme Court agreed rendering the convictions null and void.
The notion that the prosecution was biased is sort of silly since it is the prosections job to favour it's case over the defendants.

A lot of information can be found in the book "The History of Stevens County and It's People".
This book is long out of print but it can be seen in the Stevens County Library. It has several pictures of groups of people at the Paris Court trial.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tower:

It seems S. N. Wood, a newspaperman and namesake of Woodsdale, Kansas, vigorously pursued the prosecution of the men

. . . . .

According to the Territorial Topic, November 28, 1889, p.1, c.4, . . . . The same paper in column 3 explains Foster’s ruling: “Texas has Jurisdiction—Topeka, Kansas, November 20: Judge Foster of the United States district court decided this morning that the alleged Stevens County murderers should be transferred to Texas for trial...Judge Foster, in deciding the case, stated...the act of 1834 under the rulings of the U. S. Supreme court became applicable to this territory acquired from Texas the moment it was so acquired and it became...for the purpose of construing statutes, treaties, etc., Indian country. Being Indian country, it was by the act of 1885, attached to and became a part of the Northern District of Texas and was a part of that district when the offense was committed; that by the act of 1889, it was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas at the time the offense was committed.”

Six of the men charged were acquitted and six convicted and sentenced to hang on December 19, 1890. Then, on appeal, the conviction was reversed mainly because it was obvious the prosecution team was biased to the extreme. In the fall of 1895, the case was dismissed.

Hey, C12, I appreciate being corrected and educated. That's what this board is all about.
I'm not surprised the Supreme Court rendered the convictions null and void and I'd bet Judge Bryant appreciated not having jurisdiction of the panhandle.
I also appreciate the comments on Samuel Wood. I had read a bit on him, but I knew there had to be more information on him.
And, yes I do know what the act of 1834 was about, but I saw no reason to go there.
I'll have to argue the "silliness" of prosecution bias vs. favouring it's case later, I'm just too tired to go into now.

Regarding Channel 12’s comments on “the act of 1834,” and the question of whether we on this board are aware of what it is—Most of the regular posters on this board are aware, from having read Harmon's, "Hell on the Border," revised ed., that the passage was a reference in the judge’s decision recognizing authority to act at all came through an 1834 act of Congress, and specific Supreme Court decisions, establishing Indian country west of Arkansas as the responsibility of the Federal Court at Little Rock, Arkansas. (Later the area was transferred to the Federal court at Ft. Smith. )
Regarding Channel 12’s remarks about prosecutorial bias, the following is from Henry F. Mason’s 1933 article in the Kansas Historical Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 45ff:
… “In time a trial was had, ending in conviction. This result was due in a large degree to the persistence and energy of Wood, acting as a voluntary assistant. Upon review the jurisdiction of the trial court was upheld, but a reversal was ordered by reason of a manifest error which can only be accounted for by supposing the judgment of the attorneys in charge of the prosecution was clouded by their zeal…”
Mason goes on to explain that shortly after the murder, Kansas Attorney General S. B. Bradford made a personal investigation and written report to the governor in which he made an unqualified statement the act was murder. Bradford’s term of office expired and he was retained for the defense. He was not called by the defense, but the prosecution team did call him and asked him about the report. Bradford admitted writing it and its findings, but then said he had bad based the report on hearsay, which information he had reason to discredit. And, it was on this insufficient foundation, the prosecution introduced the report into evidence. Then Mason says… “Upon the hearing in the Supreme Court it was confessed that this proceeding was in error requiring a reversal and a new trial was ordered. The Attorney General of the United States became convinced that the district attorney had at least lacked discretion in the conduct of the case—that he had given too much leeway to Colonel Wood in its management, and he was on that account removed. Energetic and finally successful efforts were then made to have the prosecution discontinued, and so far as the courts were concerned the matter ended there…”

Now, if Channel 12 has a problem with this assessment, I suggest he take it up with the Kansas Historical Society and/or write an article/book on the Cross case. I for one would enjoy reading such writing as Mr. 12 seems to know what he’s talking about and has a passion for the subject—both rare commodities.

(By the way, I spent a few of my growing up years out in Ensign, Kansas, about 13 miles southwest of Dodge City, and was curious if your board name had to do with the only channel we could receive back then—Channel 12.)

Actually the question was what Supreme Court rulings had modified the Indian Intercourse Act of 1834 ?
[QUOTE]
Your post quoted a newspaper article saying that several US Supreme Court rulings had modified the "act of 1834". Do you or anyone else know what the decisions were about.

I know what the act is. As Judge Foster pointed out it didn’t say anything about Mo Man's Land since it was a part of another nation up until 1850.
In 1850 the Republic of Texas wanted to come into the nation as a slave state so they had to relinquished claim of their territories above the 36°30' north parallel to the US Government. This line had been established by the Missouri Compromise.
I just wondered what strange principle had been used by the court to say that a new place was governed by an existing land law.

I do know that the Hay Meadow Massacre occurred July 25, 1888 and No Man's Land wasn't assigned to the Oklahoma Territory until May 2, 1890 when the Organic Act of 1890 created that Territory.

As for Mason's article, Mason apparently either worded his statement sloppily or just guessed wrong. He said he was supposing. Supposition isn't fact.
By the way, the history is online at . . . http://www.kancoll.org/khq/index.html
The page you quoted is at http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1933/33_1_mason.htm
The appeal to the US Supreme Court was a Writ of Error meaning that the court had made errors that had been bad enough to prevent the defendant from receiving a fair trial. It wasn't an appeal on the merits of the case or claiming new evidence had arisen as most appeals are.
It is the sole responsibility of the court (meaning mostly the judge) to see that everything is conducted according to law and protecting the rights of all parties. The prosecution may submit written testimony but the court should not allow it if it is not from an eye witness or an intercepted private communication or not an sworn affidavit or deposition.
As I understand US Courts, some hearsay may be allowed within limits.

Since S. B. Bradford was there in person it should have alerted the judge and all of the very notable attorneys present that something was not on the level. In fact surely Mr. Bradford should have raised an objection if none of the other defense attorneys did.
Lot's of other errors were claimed in the appeal also. The jurisdiction error seems to be the big one. It would be great if we had any records from the Paris Court but they were apparently destroyed in a fire.

Herbert Tonney was the only survivor of the massacre and star witness at the trial. In his own words he says . . .
A vast political "pull" was exercised at Topeka and Washington. After the sentence had been passed, the case was taken up to the Supreme Court on the ground that the Texas Court had no jurisdiction in the premises and on the further grounds of errors in the trial. The United States Supreme Court in 1891 reversed the Texas Court on an error and on the admission of evidence and remanded the case.

This is taken from an article by Herbert Tonney found in "The History of Stevens County and it's People" Hay Meadow Massacre by Herbert Tonney pages 47-55.
This article is currently being reprinted in The Hugoton Hermes newspaper.

Mr. Tonney's Grand Niece has put the original indictment, the original of Mr. Tonney's Deposition from the trial and his Obituary online at . . .
http://web.mac.com/jannb8/iWeb/Site%208/Stevens%20Count...rs%20-%20Kansas.html

She claims this is the only existing record from that court because of the fire and I certainly haven't heard of any other

On another note, no I'm not that channel 12. You are referring to Channel 6 licensed to Ensign Kansas the transmitter and old studio are just a little west at the highway that turns north to Cimarron. It mostly just carries the Channel 12 signal of it's parent station in Wichita.
I use the channltwelve name because so many people called me that. I ran an Educational Access television station on cable here in Hugoton for 21 years before my liver transplant. I haven't considered a book but I am looking into a series of television programs on local history.

I stand instructed and in all seriousness thank you.

There's no question the Judge's reasoning was off plumb; Foster was most interested in getting the case off his docket. And, no, I don't have the specific cites to Foster's assertion of Supreme Court cases backing his decision--yet.

Please do proceed with the tv series and let us know. Your area of Kansas has a lot of interesting history.

Well, since the last post, I have to appologize to (posthumously) old Judge Foster, the fellow who put the Cross case in the lap of the Paris, Texas court. I read the act and section defining the jurisdiction of the Court of Paris, EDT, and at the tag end it says, "and all that portion of the Indian Territory not annexed to the District of Kansas by the approved January sixth, eighteen hundred and eighty-threee, and not set apart and occupied by the Five Civilized Tribes, shall, from and after the passage of this act, be annexed to and constitute a part of the Easter Judicial District of the State of Texas, for judicial purposes." In short, this language means the present Oklahoma Panhandle, then called No Man's Land. So, the EDT was by law responsible for felonies and civil cases originating there after March, 1889. And, Foster's, bifurcated opinion, published in part above, was not as dingy as it first appearred. He was simply working his way around the problem that the EDT's responsibility did not start until after the crime had been committed.

Tower, you have help to solve a mystery for me. In the autobiography on Oklahoma Lawyer Buck Colbert Franklin, father of noted historian John Hope Franklin, titled "My Life and An Era," there is references to the Panhandle that didn't resonate with me initially. Franklin and his dad raised cattle in the Chickasaw Nation. Curious to see the strip after the land opening in 1889, Franklin's father took him with him on a five day trip to Beaver. Buck's writes that on the ride they run into John Swain and Bob Fortune, who are on the trail of a gang that robbed the bank at Beaver. This would pre-date Fortune's stint with the Fort Smith court and place him as a deputy or posseman with the Paris court. I just wrote an article on Fortune for the Oklahombres Journal. After arriving in Beaver, Buck states that there were many deputies there trying to pick up clues on the bank robbery. Most notably present was Heck Thomas, whom I was aware of did work for the Paris court.

I was always under the impression that "No Mans Land" was under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities in Kansas. This most interesting given the distance from the Paris court.

Art, those deputies were up there at that time because they were after the Dalton gang following the Red Rock train robbery in June, 1892. A posse was sent, complete with horses, from Purcell. They picked up the outlaw's trail and followed them to the "mesas" of the Oklahoma panhandle. They lost them there because the Dalton's had horses stashed along their escape route. The Dalton's eventually wound up at their sister's house near present Meade, Kansas and the deputies went home.
Heck Thomas was a deputy for the EDT under Marshal J. J. Dickerson and for a time held concurrent commissions from Paris, Ft. Smith, and the Oklahoma Territory.

Tower, in Buck Franklin's biography, they are placing this story about a bank robbery in Beaver around 1889 or 1890. You are absolutely correct about the deputies in 1892 hunting the Daltons. Have you ever heard about a bank robbery in Beaver around that time?

There is a book written mainly from Eva Dalton Whipple’s perspective that is promoted on the Dalton Gang Hideout page of the Old Meade County website that you might find of interest. I’ve not read it.
I have been to the Hideout many times since I was a kid since I live near Meade.

The Hideout page is at
http://www.oldmeadecounty.com/hideout.htm
The books are at
http://www.prairiebooks.com/

Since, as I said, I live in the area, I will try to get over to Beaver soon and look up any bank robberies.
There is a two volume book that was put out locally years ago called the History of Beaver County. Surely a bank robbery would have been included.

Art, I know nothing of the earlier bank robbery you mentioned, maybe C12 can help. The story of the June 1, 1892 Dalton gang’s hold up of the Santa Fe Texas Express at Red Rock, Oklahoma Territory is in Glenn Shirley's "West of Hell's Fringe." It is the only robbery/manhunt I'm aware of wherein the deputies you mentioned were all invoved. In it, he talks about several, five, I think, posses, including one led by Heck Thomas, covering all of northern Oklahoma Territory. Shirley says Swain was specifically requested by railroad detective Fred Dodge to cut off a northern escape by taking a posse and carload of horses from Purcell via rail to the end of the track at Englewood, Kansas. But, once again the legend needs pruning, for although Dodge may have made such a request to railroad officials, in reality on June 2nd, a telegram was sent to Purcell agent W. E. Maxon asking Commissioner George Gates to authorize a posse complete with horses to go to Red Rock on the first available train. Gates did as requested and organized a group composed of Swain, Matt Cook, Jake Hocker, Charlie Smith, John Walner, Nichols, and Farmer. This group then left Purcell at 2 p.m. the same day. Arriving and off-loading at Red Rock, the deputies rode west some 20 miles and there found where the Daltons had stopped and opened express packages. Ten miles further west the officers found where the outlaws had exchanged horses. Thereafter, the Purcell posse pressed the outlaws so closely... “Their horses’ backs got do scalded they hid their saddles in the brush and kept up the chase bareback.” Then, after tracking their quarry to the mesas of No Man’s Land, the common name for the present Oklahoma panhandle, and although only an hour behind the outlaws, the deputies abandoned the chase because they learned the Daltons had obtained fresh mounts. The posse then returned to Purcell without having ever seen an outlaw, but not empty handed for Deputy Swain had in charge two of the horses dropped by the gang. After posting the “taken up” animals’ descriptions in the local paper for several weeks without receiving any inquiries, Swain then was allowed to confiscate the critters for the expense of upkeep. He named the big bay: “Dalton.” The other, an iron gray roan, he called “Geronimo,” for as he said: “I never saw a white-eyed horse that was not mean.”
References: Purcell Register, June 3, 1892; Another listing for the posse, given in the 1960's, is John McCord, Bud Logue, John Adams and Bee Grate (who is probably Ben Goode).
Purcell Register, June 17, 1892 and Stillwater Gazette, June 17, 1892 which relates deputies Kress and Severns returned home the previous day and the Purcell posse was on the same train. Then it details the outlaw band obtained a relay of fresh horses. (Shirley claims this exchange was made as Riley’s Ranch.) The Gazette also states four abandoned horses were brought back by the marshals.
Purcell Register, June 24, 1892, p.7, c.3 and Purcell Register July 16, 1962 p. 3, c. 3-5: The full description of the captured horses was: “a large bay, 16 hands high, white spot and scar in forehead, branded bar 66 of left hip, two L’s on left shoulder and the other an iron gray roan, 16 hands high, no brand but H has been cut of left shoulder with knife.”

According to the book "Beyond The Law" by Emmett Dalton himself, on pages 120-121.

along in JULY ( ?) word was sent to us tha there would be an opportunity to get a train near Red Rock . . .

next morning Bob sent me to Woodward to see Miss Moore . . .

While we were lying in camp a few days after the Red Rock robbery, Bill Powers and Bill Doolin started to look for their saddle horses which had strayed away.
Walking up the creek about one mile from camp, they met United States Marshals Swayne and Cook and their two posse-men. Powers immediately recognized the horse which Marshal Swayne was riding as his.
He and Doolin immediately covered the four with their Winchesters and made Swayne get off of Powers' horse, took all the cartridges hey had and threw them in he creek.
They told them to get out of that country and stay out - which they did.

I don't know how un-biased Emmett is with this but at least you can say he was there and should know the facts.

Emmett was a wind bag. Practically none of his statements coincide with the facts. But, this is an incident deserving further investigation.