Part I

by Michael King

Prescott’s early water supply issues are closely tied to the evolution of public land policies and the designation of the Prescott Forest Reserve. Following the Revolutionary War, lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River came under federal ownership. Due to the large military debt and financial needs of a fledgling nation these lands were viewed as important sources of revenue. Tariffs, taxes and land sales were major sources of income for our new nation.

Later treaties, wars and purchases such as the Louisiana Purchase added to the federal public domain estate. To deal with these land sales, the General Land Office (GLO) was created in 1812 and later, the Department of Interior (DOI) in 1849, to handle the responsibilities of land sales, grants and public land management.

Early public land policy revolved around the idea that the federal government would play a limited role in the political and economic affairs of the nation. Therefore, public land was viewed as being temporary and land was to be disposed of to the states and private parties for developing the country. Early Congressional thinking was two fold: land would be purchased from the federal government and that settlement would be done according to land survey principles.

Over time, Congress debated the thought of giving away land to promote expansion and settlement. Homestead Laws were enacted, primarily to support farming and animal production purposes. Grants were issued for canals and railroads for transportation and to promote commerce. The Department of Agriculture was created in 1862 to assist farmers in their farming and animal husbandry efforts. Also in 1862, the Morrill Act was passed transferring nearly 8 million acres of lands to states. The purpose was to make lands available for sale by the states and use the proceeds for supporting colleges of agriculture and the mechanical arts.

With the philosophy that most public lands would eventually be privately owned or transferred to states, Congress passed only a few laws calling for their protection. Even with the few laws or rules to administer, the General Land Office was overwhelmed with the workload and administration of the nation’s public domain. Private abuses and fraud were abundant in administering the Homestead laws, grants, and protection policies. Annual reports of the GLO and Department of Interior were abundant with complaints of fraud, theft, and misrepresentation. Forest protection legislation was mentioned as "being absolutely necessary."

Land uses in the settled East and Midwest resulted in forest removal for expansion and to support the wood dependant society. The abundant forests of the Lake States were high graded of valuable species and not reforested. The term "cut and run" was used to describe the land ethic of the timber industry of the time. The increasing deterioration of the watersheds due to erosion from vegetation removal by grazing, mining and tree harvesting drew the attention of the scientists and some writers in the 1860s and 1870s. In 1864, George Perkins Marsh wrote his classic monologue, ‘Man and Nature.’ He warned of the consequences of environmental deterioration and lectured extensively about the ethics of proper land use. During this period the concept of "conservation" was born and conservation groups were formed. Various governmental and forestry officials reported an impending "national timber famine." Public awareness for the importance of forests increased.

Congressional response to the idea of conservation and setting aside public land was sporadic. Westerners were slow to accept these ideas and the thoughts of government regulations or land preserves were controversial. Even so, Congress authorized the first major public land reservation by establishing Yellowstone National Park in 1872. This public park was dedicated "for the purposes of pleasure and recreation of the people." (The Park Service was not formally created until 1919 and the Army, under the Secretary of War, administered the park. The current National Park Service uniform hat is a remnant of the early Army uniform.)

In the 1870s, other land disposal laws were passed. The Timber Culture Act and the Timber and Stone Act were enacted which allowed forestry and mineral extraction as a rationale for privatizing public land. Also various mining laws, including the 1872 Mining Act, allowed private use of public resources without remuneration.

Three decades of scientific opinion, public awareness and congressional debate about "reserving land for the public interest" resulted in one of the most important acts in the history of conservation: The Forest Reserve Act of 1891. This legislation was primarily focused in revising some of the previous land laws. However, last-minute adjustments between the Senate and House language in the bill resulted in a little known or understood provision. Section 24 of the legislation provided "That the President of the United States may, from time to time, set apart and reserve, in any state or territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations, and as President shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof."

Concurrently, the 1860s to 1890s were Arizona Territory’s developing years and during this time Prescott served as the territorial capital on two occasions. Prescott and Yavapai County experienced similar conditions that existed throughout the American West. Mining was the main driver of community economic activity. Stream and ephemeral waterways were scarred. Vast stands of trees were cut from the Bradshaw Mountains and Mingus Mountains for mining timbers, charcoal kilns, building materials, railroad ties and fuel wood. Grazing was very evident and often degraded the soil, vegetation, wildlife and watersheds. While a General Land Office presence existed in Northern Arizona and Prescott, land abuse, trespass, theft of timber and mineral resources were sorely evident.

Michael King is the retired Forest Supervisor of the Prescott National Forest (1995-2005). He is interested in local and regional history and is a tour guide and a volunteer at the Sharlot Hall Museum and Prescott Chamber of Commerce. He also participates in numerous community service organizations such as the Yavapai Cemetery Association, Prescott Sunup Rotary, and Sacred Heart parish.

Sharlot Hall Museum Photograph Call Number:(L105pa)
Reuse only by permission.

Logging in the Sierra Ancha Mountains, near Roosevelt, AZ, 1909. The logging and lumbering business helped spur several pieces of federal legislation protecting public lands from environmental deterioration, including the Forest Reserve Act of 1891.

by Fred Veil

The Pleasant Valley, situated in the Tonto Basin in an area surrounding present-day Young, Arizona, was in the 1880s a bucolic land consisting of plentiful grass, clear mountain streams and sunny days. It was perfect for raising cattle, as well as the nemesis of the cattleman – sheep. It was also the site of one of the most infamous events of Arizona history – the Pleasant Valley War, or as it is often known, the Graham-Tewksbury Feud.

The feud:

At the center of Arizona’s Pleasant Valley War was a classic 19th century feud between two families who simply didn’t like each other very much – the Grahams and the Tewksburys. While historians differ on the causes of the conflict that evolved between these two families and which ultimately led to the death of thirty or more of the warring participants, it is abundantly clear that the resultant bloodshed was the product of mixed motives engendered by hatred, retaliation, self-preservation and perhaps even greed.

The war started innocently enough – cattle rustling charges, a spontaneous gunfight and the murder of a sheepherder. But with each such event, and ultimately each death of a participant, the feud escalated and became a war that would not end until only one man remained standing.

Bloody 1887:

The war peaked in 1887 when, in a period of several months, thirteen persons were killed in a series of gunfights, ambushes as well as actions by law enforcement officials of Yavapai and Apache Counties. It started when Mart Blevins, the father of several brothers who had allied themselves with the Grahams, disappeared under suspicious circumstances. The ensuing search for the elder Blevins led to a gunfight with the Tewksburys and resulted in the deaths of one of Blevins’ sons (Hamp) and a cohort named John Payne. Soon thereafter, the youngest of the Graham brothers, Billy, was ambushed and killed on his way home from a dance in Payson. Within weeks, John Tewksbury and an ally, William Jacobs, were ambushed and killed near the Tewksbury ranch.

A few days later, Sheriff Commodore Perry Owens of Apache County, attempted to serve a cattle-rusting warrant on Andy Blevins in Holbrook. Blevins, who reportedly had taken credit for the killing of John Tewksbury and Payne, apparently resisted arrest and was gunned down by Owens who, in a period of less than a minute, also shot and killed Blevins’ kid-brother, Sam, and another ally named Mote Roberts. Andy’s brother John was also wounded in the fracas. Sheriff Owens was unharmed.

Shortly after the ambush killing of another Graham sympathizer, Henry Middleton, Yavapai County Sheriff Bill Mulvenon descended on the Pleasant Valley with a posse and warrants for the arrest of John and Tom Graham and others in connection with the deaths of John Tewksbury and Jacobs. The posse encountered John Graham and yet another of the Blevins brothers, Charlie, at the Perkins Store in present day Young. A gunfight broke out and Graham and Blevins were killed. Tom Graham, who was not present when the gunfight occurred, fled to Tempe where he remained until he peacefully surrendered to Sheriff Mulvenon. He was subsequently released when the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.

Less than six weeks later, Al Rose, a Graham ally, was ambushed and killed. Thus, in a period of four months, thirteen men were killed in the Pleasant Valley, including four of the Blevins family, a Tewksbury and two of the Grahams. By 1888, as relative peace set in the valley, the only male combatants remaining of the feuding families were Tom Graham and Ed Tewksbury.

Tom Graham Ambushed:

On August 3, 1892, more than four years after the Pleasant Valley hostilities had apparently ended, Tom Graham was ambushed near his home in Tempe and died of his wounds several days later. Ed Tewksbury was indicted, tried and convicted for the murder. However, the conviction was set aside due to a legal technicality. Tewksbury’s second trial resulted in a hung jury and the District Attorney elected not to retry him the third time.

Ed Tewksbury, the "last man standing" at the conclusion of this sordid chapter in Arizona history, died of natural causes on April 4, 1904.

A legal perspective:

Historians who have researched and written on the subject of the Pleasant Valley War have universally condemned the law enforcement and judicial system of the 19th century Arizona Territory, accepting without thorough analysis the notion that the legal system was not up to the task of dealing with the rampant lawlessness that existed in the Pleasant Valley of the 1880s. In support of this proposition, historians rely mainly on one indisputable fact: Despite the multiple killings and other felonies which arose out of, or were related to, the Graham – Tewksbury feud, not a single person was ever convicted for such crimes in a court of law of the Arizona Territory. While this is indeed strong evidence in support of the proposition, it is not conclusive.

Citizen Participation in the Criminal System:

The cornerstone of American jurisprudence is citizen participation. In 19th century Arizona Territory, citizen participation was fundamental to the law enforcement and criminal justice system of the territory which, after all, had been patterned after that which existed in the other states and territories of the United States. Such participation is manifested not only in the jury system which applies to our criminal courts, but also by virtue of the fact that citizens elect many of the law enforcement and judicial officials who are responsible for carrying our the will of the people as it relates to our justice system.

In the Arizona Territory of the 19th century, citizen participation in the law enforcement and judicial process was substantial. Citizens served as jurors at inquest hearings convened by elected coroners to determine the cause or causes of a suspicious death and, where possible, the person or persons they believed to be responsible. Citizens served on grand juries and decided whether there was probable cause for the indictment of an accused. Petit jurors in criminal trials were ordinary citizens charged with the responsibility of determining the guilt or innocence of an accused peer.

Further, citizens entitled to vote pursuant to the laws of the territory elected the primary law enforcement official of the territory – the county sheriffs, as well as the coroners, the justices of the peace, who were responsible for making the initial determination as to whether an accused person would be bound over for grand jury action, and the district attorneys, who prosecuted criminal cases on behalf of the territory. While the territorial justices who presided over criminal trials were not elected by the people during this period of Arizona’s history, the available evidence suggests that, by and large, they served competently and effectively, dispensing justice fairly and honestly in accordance with the laws of the territory.

Thus, the functioning and application of the judicial system that existed in 19th century Arizona Territory was heavily influenced by the territorial citizenry. This system of citizen participation not only served to protect the rights of the accused, but also ensured that decisions in criminal cases represented the rights, interests and mores of the contemporary 19th century public.

Criticism of 19th century justice is "unjust":

Those who criticize the law enforcement and criminal justice system as applied to the events of the Pleasant Valley War do an injustice to the contemporary 19th century citizenry who were responsible for making the system work. While, as noted above, these historians are quick to point out the importance of the fact that no Graham-Tewksbury feud participant was ever convicted of a crime, these same historians are apparently unwilling to acknowledge an equally compelling counter-point; that is, the myriad of events that comprised the feud resulted in almost every instance criminal charges which were subjected to contemporary review by (1) citizens sitting in judgment of their peers and (2) popularly-elected public officials who were responsible for carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Territorial judiciary. When viewed in this light, a compelling case can be made that the judicial system functioned as it was intended and that justice, as conceived and understood in 19th Century Arizona Territory, was done with respect to the crimes arising out of the feud.

An analysis of the criminal complaints and charges made as a result of the killings and other unlawful acts emanating from the feud demonstrate, in the judgment of this writer, that the legal system was alive and well in terms of its application to those events. Law enforcement officials and the judiciary did their jobs in making accused persons account to the judicial system for their alleged actions. The fact that no person was actually convicted is immaterial. Justice was done when either the judiciary at any level, or citizen jurors, functioning as they are obligated to under the law, made decisions that there was insufficient evidence to either prosecute or convict for the crimes of which the alleged perpetrators were accused.

Clearly, the insufficiency of credible, probative evidence was the primary reason that alleged perpetrators of these crimes were not indicted, or if indicted, convicted. In the 19th Century the only reliable source of such evidence, especially in a homicide case, was eyewitness testimony by persons who had first-hand knowledge of the events in question. More often than not, such testimony was not readily available as witnesses for the prosecution were non-existent, unreliable or unavailable at the various steps of the process where their testimony was required. Further, many of the witnesses who did appear to give testimony on behalf of either the territory or the accused were influenced by elements of fear, family relationships, loyalty and perhaps even financial inducements. In this respect it was not uncommon for alibi witnesses to appear at all levels of judicial review to give testimony that the accused was at another place at the time the crime was committed. Thus, obtaining a conviction in a case arising out of the Pleasant Valley War was not an easy task for a prosecuting attorney.

Conclusion:

Arizona’s Pleasant Valley War effectively wiped out two families of Arizona pioneers, as well as many of their friends and allies and others who inhabited the area and simply had the bad luck to get caught up in the feud. It caused the Arizona Territory to obtain national notoriety, which undoubtedly was a major reason that statehood was not granted to the territory until well after the turn of the century. The notion, however, that the law enforcement and judicial system was ineffective in dealing with the crimes committed during the war is an unfair indictment of the law enforcement and judicial officials of the Graham-Tewksbury era and, by implication, the citizens who played such an important role in the process.

(Fred Veil, a semi-retired lawyer, is a member of the Prescott Corral of the Westerners and served as that organization’s sheriff in 2004. This article is a summary of a presentation he and author Lee Hanchett made at the Fourth Annual Western History Symposium that was held at Sharlot Hall Museum on October 13, 2007. The Symposium is an annual event that is co-sponsored by the Prescott Corral and Sharlot Hall Museum).

Our readers’ thoughts…

My Grandfather Orvil Baker was Caretaker of the Tewksbury home from
1986 to 1990. Its owned by Frank Chapman. And I was lucky enough to see
all the old belongings, furniture and relics of the Tewksbury homestead.
There is still glass filled holes in the walls to defend themselfs
against intruders, by breaking the glass with guns to shoot through. Also
many large apple trees still grow there. I also had many meals cooked on
the Tewksbury stove. I also have a few pictures of the home if you
need them.



Norm Baker
February 29, 2008

Sharlot Hall Museum Photograph Call Number:(edtewksbury) Reuse only by permission.

Sketch of Ed Tewksbury, patriarch of one the feuding families of the Pleasant Valley War. Drawing by Marcia Jeglum for Lee Hanchett’s book ‘Arizona’s Graham-Tewksbury Feud’. Provided by author.

Sharlot Hall Museum Photograph Call Number:(tomgraham) Reuse only by permission.

Sketch of Tom Graham, patriarch of the Graham family, by Marcia Jeglum.