Doc Holliday

by Gary L Roberts

  On March 26, the Rocky Mountain News made its final case for the return of Holliday—who the paper reported was “completely broken up by the arrival of the requisition”—to Arizona. The News doubted that Judge Elliott would surrender Holliday without assurances that he could be protected from mob violence. This, the paper alleged, was viewed by Paul “as a piece of impertinence,” and Paul’s conduct was “an excellent refutation of the statement that the arrest is simply for the purpose of getting Holliday into the hands of the cowboys.” The News took another strong slap at those working to help Doc: “Desperate efforts are being made by Holliday’s friends to prevent his removal, not the least disreputable of which is the circulation of a story intended to prejudice the authorities here against Arizona authorities. This is that Holliday and the Earpps were Republicans, and acted under the United States Marshal, while the local authorities were Democrats, and that the troubles arose from this fact.”68

  The News concluded that there was no real reason “to defeat the ends of justice” by not honoring the requisition. With that flourish, the public debate was largely over. The newspapers had taken their stands, but the behind-the-scenes activities on Doc’s behalf went on. From the beginning, Doc’s public advocates were numerous, including Bat Masterson, Dave Cook, and Chief Lomery, all affiliated with law enforcement; George Tritch, a prominent hardware merchant; George Reppy, Charles Reppy’s brother; and more. The Denver Tribune, which initially went along with the portrayal of Holliday as a dangerous criminal, soon became his champion. And was John J. Valentine’s presence in Denver the week before the case was settled a coincidence?69

  That Doc was represented by attorneys of the caliber of W.S. Deckard, Frank Naylor, and Colonel John T. Deweese did not fail to impress the observant, although it might have also raised questions about where a frontier gambler, on the run for more than a month, found the resources to hire them. Masterson had Naylor working on Doc’s behalf within an hour of his arrest, and a Pueblo paper curiously noted that “[s]everal United States officers, as well as the marshal of Trinidad, are making strenuous efforts to secure his liberty,” raising the instant question of which federal officials were involved and why.70

  Governor Pitkin was in a difficult spot. In all probability, given their mutual connections, he and Governor Tritle of Arizona had already arranged sanctuary for the Earps in Colorado, which would account for the string of newspaper reports that the Earps already had been “pardoned” by Tritle before they arrived in Colorado. Mallon was the fly in a carefully prepared ointment. The arrest of Doc Holliday in such a sensational, public way forced both governors to consider the political implications of pushing forward with the private deal. That was the reason so much energy had to be expended on Doc’s behalf. The Earps’ friends could take no chances.

  Lieutenant Governor H.A.W. Tabor might have been expected to be a spokesperson for Holliday, given his association with Doc’s friend, John Vimont, and other associates of Doc and the Earps, but he kept a low profile, most likely because he and Governor Pitkin were involved in a political squabble at the time.71 It is also likely that U.S. Marshal Crawley P. Dake was applying pressure on his counterpart in Colorado, which would account for the “United States officers” whom the Chieftain mentioned. Just how much Wyatt Earp knew about what was going on from his haven in Gunnison was never clear, but almost certainly the management of Doc’s situation was out of his hands.

  In the meantime, Paul’s delay in returning to Arizona and reports that only Holliday was actually in custody produced anger even in papers, like the Tucson Star, that had argued for his right to act over Behan’s. “But this concession is based on the presumption that Paul had the intention and the courage to perform his duty,” the Star fumed. “His return with only Holliday in custody will be simply an outrage upon public decency.”72

  Governor Pitkin returned to Denver on Sunday, March 29, to find a cauldron waiting for him. George Tritch called on him that afternoon and advised him “that from his knowledge of the cowboys and their hatred of Holladay [sic], he was confident that the latter would be killed by them were he taken back there.” Tritch also made a statement to the Daily Times to the same effect. Bat Masterson returned to Denver on Sunday as well and, having no direct access to the governor, visited the offices of the Denver Tribune, where he pleaded Doc’s case to E. D. Cowen, the paper’s capitol correspondent. He insisted, as well, that Doc would be murdered if he were returned to Arizona. Late that evening, Cowen called on the governor and presented the case against granting extradition. Cowen later claimed that his presentation persuaded the governor to order a public hearing.73

  Still another advocate on Doc’s behalf was Lee Smith, his friend from Georgia. Smith was living in Denver at the time, speculating in mining properties. He, too, called on the governor and made the case that “[i]t was certain death to Holliday to go back to Tombstone.”74 However, the critical voice may have been that of his friend and business partner George W. Crummy. Crummy was a saloonkeeper, but he also had mining investments in Custer and Hinsdale counties, southwest of Denver in the San Juan district, along with Pitkin. Wyatt Earp later claimed that Crummy was also his friend, and when he received word from Bat Masterson that “it would be necessary to use the last resort as the papers were flawless,” he spoke to Crummy, who left at once for Denver. Wyatt recalled:

  As he stepped into the Governor’s office, the governor was glancing over the requisition papers trying to find a flaw.

  “Governor, can you drive a four in hand?” inquired Crumy [sic].

  The Governor replied that he could.

  “Well then drive a four in hand through that,” said Crumy, pointing at the papers, and the papers were returned to Arizona.75

  Whether Crummy’s influence with the governor was the deciding factor or not, it certainly was consistent with other pleas on Holliday’s behalf and may have swung the balance, although, as it turned out, the papers were not “flawless” as Earp later said. Clearly, though, Crummy was one of the key players, as he would later prove.

  On May 30, Governor Pitkin made his decision. Assistant Arapahoe County District Attorney I.E. Barnum, Deputy Sheriff Linton, and Sheriff Paul attended to present the case for extradition. Barnum presented the state’s case, arguing that John Henry Holliday “should be delivered to the Arizona authorities as they were demanding him on a clearly-worded indictment, for a capital crime, and with a direct requisition from the Governor of the Territory.” He argued that as a matter of equity, the case against Holliday in Arizona was of greater significance than the larceny case against him in Colorado and should take precedence. Holliday’s lawyers argued, by contrast, that a person arrested for a crime in one state should be held to answer for that crime before being turned over to another jurisdiction. They argued further that the indictment from Arizona was faulty.76

  When Deputy Sheriff Linton pointed out to Barnum that the warrant against Doc in Pueblo was dated a day after Doc had been arrested in Denver, Barnum made that point to the governor, who replied, “You forget Mr. Barnum, that he is not to be tried on the warrant, but on the complaint.”77

  With that, Governor Pitkin announced that he would not grant extradition. First, he claimed that the Arizona papers were not in order. An act of Congress required that the governor of the state or territory making demand for a fugitive should certify the authenticity of the indictment attached. In this case, Governor Tritle had not authenticated the indictment, and the certificate of the clerk of court was defective. He asserted his belief that the indictment “would not hold up in any court of record in the country.” Since the papers did not conform to the requirements of an act of Congress, he could not hold the prisoner if a writ of habeas corpus had been applied for. Furthermore, Pitkin ruled, a warrant was in the hands of officers for the arrest of Holliday for the crime of larceny in the state of Colorado, so that even if the Arizona papers had been in order, Holliday was first subject to trial in Colorado. Accordingly,
Pitkin refused to grant extradition.78

  With that, Holliday was carried before Judge Elliott, where Barnum stated that he had no reason for holding Holliday on the charge in question, and Undersheriff Farmer, who was called on to answer by what right he held Holliday, declared that he had no proof of crimes in Arizona nor papers under which he could be held. With that, the writ of habeas corpus was granted, and Elliott ordered Doc discharged. Before he could be processed, however, an arrest warrant for the crime of larceny at Pueblo was presented, and he was remanded to custody yet again.79

  On the morning of May 31, Doc Holliday, in the custody of Deputy Sheriff Linton and accompanied by Bat Masterson and Bob Paul, took the train to Pueblo, where that same afternoon he was taken before Judge McBride on the charge of having swindled Charles White out of $400. Holliday waived examination and was bound over to the July term of court. Bail was furnished in the amount of $300, and Doc was released from custody for the first time since Mallon’s dramatic arrest in Denver. Bob Paul attended the proceeding at Pueblo, and the following day he made preparations for his return to Tucson, arriving home on the evening of June 2.80

  On the day after Pitkin’s decision, the Rocky Mountain News claimed that Sheriff Paul “gave Governor Pitkin a piece of his mind yesterday in strong but temperate language.” That would have been characteristic of Paul, because he believed the governor’s decision would set a bad precedent. Paul spoke with a reporter for the Tucson Star on the evening of his return and gave a more detailed and revealing view of the whole affair. He explained that he had, indeed, had an appointment with the governor before the governor made his decision. Pitkin had advised him of the Pueblo charge. Paul said that Pitkin “also said that he had been informed by prominent citizens of Denver that if Holliday was placed in my custody he would be murdered by cowboys before reaching Tucson.” Paul advised the governor that he already had men placed at Deming, Willcox, and Bowie to advise him of potential trouble, and even proposed to take Holliday back to Denver by way of San Francisco to throw off any Cow-Boys who might have murder on their minds. Pitkin refused to honor the writ, however, because Governor Tritle had not signed it.81

  Paul also provided other new insights into what had happened. He said that when he arrived in Denver, he received a telegram from Gunnison advising him that the Earps were there (with Wyatt ill) and that they could be arrested at any time. Paul purchased a ticket to Gunnison but “was influenced to remain in Denver and look out for Holliday.” He telegraphed the sheriff at Gunnison for more information and was told that Wyatt and Warren had left town in a wagon but could be caught if he had papers. “I hadn’t the requisition papers and hence could do nothing,” Paul said.82

  Interestingly, he claimed that Holliday had told him that he intended to return to Tucson to face the charges against him when court opened. He then provided Holliday’s statement about the Stilwell killing:

  He does not deny or acknowledge the killing of Stilwell. He however states that when his party were at the depot in this city some of them were standing on the rear platform of the train. Two men approached. One he was sure was Stilwell, and the other it was presumed was Ike Clanton. The latter leveled their guns at the Earp party, when he and his friends dodged into the cars, procured guns and jumping from the train started down the track after the other two. At this point Holliday stopped the story and would not say what occurred afterwards.83

  Bob Paul had acquitted himself well, winning the unanimous praise of the Colorado press, even the Rocky Mountain News, which had pointed out his friendship with the Earps. That was no mean accomplishment, but the Arizona papers could not resist a parting shot or two. The Tombstone Epitaph quipped, “Sheriff Paul’s trip to Denver, although intended for a Holliday, proved to be anything but an enjoyable one.”84 The Star called him “a remarkable man,” then added, “He resembles the distinguished soldier who never fought a battle nor won a victory.” In yet another piece, the Star got closer to its real complaint: “Sheriff Paul’s return to Arizona without the prisoner he ostensibly went to secure really creates no surprise. It was not expected he would bring them. It was not believed that those who commissioned him to do so intended that he should discharge his duty. The Republican officials could not afford to have the Earps or any of their crowd returned for trial; and of course the papers were defective. It was the easiest way out of the difficulty.”85

  The Star struck closer to the truth than perhaps even it realized, although probably not for the overtly political reasons that it imagined. The Earp vendetta was not simply a mission to avenge the murder of Morgan, nor was it about party politics. The forces that came together to support the Earps—corporations like Wells, Fargo and the Santa Fe Railroad, government agencies from U.S. Marshal Dake’s office to cabinet-level departments in Washington, business leaders from three states, and two, possibly three, governors—made the Earp posse quite literally a force for order when the legal establishment appeared to have failed. What happened was consistent with appeals to violence in other milieus of American history, and especially in the age of incorporation of which it was a part. This was not simply about Cow-Boys and gamblers, cattle rustling and stage robbery; it was about mining and industry and the search for order—issues that were easily lost in simple and simplistic views of the misnamed Earp-Clanton feud. The Earps and Doc Holliday were at best tools of larger forces at work.

  The Earps initially did not realize how things had changed. On June 4, less than a week after Doc was discharged, Wyatt Earp broke his silence. Asked about the future, he told a reporter:

  My lawyers will have a petition for a pardon drawn up. Everybody in Tombstone knows that we did nothing but our duty. Anyway I’d do it over again under like circumstances, and all the best people there will sign the petition. Governor Pitkin knows the facts pretty well and will sign it too. We look for a pardon in a few weeks, and when it comes I’ll go back; but if no pardon is made I’ll go back in the fall anyway and stand trial. I’d go now, but I know we would have no show. They’d shoot us in the back, as they did my brother.

  Asked if he anticipated trouble if he went back, Wyatt replied, “I don’t know….I suppose so. I’m going to run for sheriff this fall. Behan knows he can’t get it again, and that’s what makes him so hot towards me. I hear the gang is breaking up and a good many are going to other parts of the country.”86 In California, Virgil Earp also said that Wyatt would return to Tucson in the fall, arguing that they did not want to languish in jail through the summer, but asserting that “when the court sits again they will give themselves up, and, with fair play, will be acquitted.”87

  Both Doc and Wyatt promised at one time or another to return to southern Arizona to face the charges against them, and they most likely meant it. They did not return, because the men who had sponsored them and appreciated what they had done also believed that they had served their purpose and that for them to return would generate political problems too great to master. They had restored order—and the case could be made that they had broken up the Cow-Boy combination—but their return could itself be a fresh threat to order. Republicans could continue to defend the Earps, as papers like the Tucson Citizen did, and still be glad the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday were gone.

  Politics triumphed in the end. Pitkin’s decision may well have been a foregone conclusion. Tritle’s failure to sign the documents may well have been deliberate to provide Pitkin with an easy way to dispose of the case (for both of them). The Star could declare that “[t]he Republican party in Arizona has taken shelter under the Earpumbrella,” and then confess that in the matter of the Earps, it had “only treated the political aspect of the Earp difficulty and has not sought to prejudge their personal responsibility for individual crimes.”88 Virgil Earp lamented the political turn of the controversy: “I am sorry to see the thing taken into politics as a personal measure, because the true aspect of the trouble will be lost and new enmities are likely to be created.”89 But that was the way of things i
n Arizona, and history would soon be rewritten to fit a simpler scheme, with the Earps’ voice largely missing.

  Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp were now linked forever, and yet, in an ironic way, because of the Denver episode, Doc was, at least briefly, the better known of the two to the public at large. Because of Perry Mallon, Doc was approaching the edge of legend. The wild tale Mallon told of his pursuit of Doc over seven years and his characterization of Doc as a bloodthirsty villain of the worst sort put the spotlight on him, although it was, as the Tribune put it, “a cock and bull story,” full “of absurdities and monstrosities.”90 At least two of the Denver papers initially bought Mallon’s tale at face value. The Tribune was more careful and soon raised questions about the tale. Mallon miscalculated, though. He was an experienced confidence man, with a reputation larger than he himself imagined. He had been recognized by several men from Akron, Ohio, as a confidence man from their home state, but Mallon did not expect that the publicity he gained in the Holliday case would itself expose him. Not long after Denver became enthralled with the Mallon-Holliday melodrama, an elderly gentleman named A.H. Rublee living in Denver, who had been conned two years earlier in Omaha, Nebraska, in a deal involving a threshing machine purportedly invented by Mallon, recognized him and brought the earlier scam to the attention of the Tribune, which reported it.

  Mallon boldly challenged the Tribune to produce proof, which it was able to do, since Rublee lived in Denver and still had the papers drawn up for the “deal” by which Rublee was cheated out of $50, along with copies of other documents relating to his efforts to reclaim the money. Eventually, Rublee confronted Mallon at the sheriff’s office. Mallon offered him $50, but Rublee turned the matter over to Frank Naylor, who was also Doc’s lawyer, to secure $100 as provided in the contract. On May 24, the Daily Times announced, “Perry Mallen [sic], who arrested ‘Doc’ Holladay, has been made to pay W. H. Ruble [sic], of Omaha, $100, which the latter alleges Mallen swindled him out of by the sale of a patent threshing machine.”91