By Parker Anderson

For a number of decades scores of western movies, pulp magazine writers, and even some respected historians have expounded the idea of "frontier justice," intimating that law and order in the old Southwest was swift, sure and often unfair. We have been historically fed this so often that nearly everyone accepts it as fact.

I beg to differ. I don't pretend to speak for other areas of the West, but pioneer Arizonans were a high-toned people who fashioned a set of high-toned laws to live by. Indictments for crimes were written in complicated legal jargon, appeal opportunities, pardons and paroles already existed in the territorial days of Arizona and, standards for court admissible evidence was fairly high. This is not to say there were no abuses, but they were not as common as folklore has made them out to be. 

Between 1875 and Arizona statehood in 1912, hundred of murders were committed, yet there were only 49 legal hanging in the Territory during that period. Most murderers usually drew prison terms at Yuma Territorial Prison. In my research, I have encountered newspaper editorials from this period complaining about how easy murderers had it in Arizona. Of those 49 legal hangings, 10 were in Yavapai County. Six of these murders are buried in unmarked graves in Citizens Cemetery on Sheldon Street. 

Lynch mob activity and mob rule were very common in much of America in the 19th century, but for some reason, less common in Arizona. "Judge Lynch" was active in the Territory in the 1870's, but by the 1890s, had almost ceased to exist. Arizonans reached a point where they apparently felt they were above the crude actions of much of America, and they usually chose to let the law take its course. 

There has long been a rumor in Arizona folklore that horse stealing was punishable by hanging. I have never seen evidence to support that, and if it ever was, the sentence was never imposed on anyone. On the other hand, train robbing was indeed legally punishable by death in Arizona, but again, the sentence was never imposed. A popular legend contends that outlaw Abe Thompson was hanged specifically for train robbery in the early 1900s, but to date I have located no documentation that he was ever hanged for anything, let alone train robbery. For the most part, only murderers were put to death legally in Arizona, and not many of them at that. 

Yuma Territorial Prison is historically remembered as a hellhole, and perhaps it was; but convicts never seemed to stay there very long. Contrary to popular belief, pardons and paroles were fairly easy to obtain from the Territorial Governor in those days. Notorious criminals such as Phin Clanton, Pearl Hart, Abe Thompson and Louis C. Miller were all paroled before their sentences were up, and they were far from alone. The Yuma prison population had a fairly high turnover rate. 

Legal technicalities that benefit criminals, believed by many to be a recent phenomenon, also existed in the 19th century. Most notable of these was the so-called Norton Act, passed by the Territorial Legislature in 1897 to redefine what constituted a homicide. It repealed the previous statutes on murder, and in doing so, rendered it impossible to prosecute any murderers who had committed their crimes prior to the passage of the Act, but had not yet been convicted. These killers could only be indicted for manslaughter. Outrage over this gaffe in the law was widespread, but upwards of 60 murderers benefited from the Norton Act, including Richard Cross and William Schultze of Yavapai County. 

This is not to say there were no abuses or injustices in old Arizona. There certainly were; there were laws against such things as using obscene language in public-usually punishable by a hefty fine. There were also Federal laws against selling whiskey to Indians based on the observation that alcohol made Indians violent. 

A scan of Territorial court records also shows that a disproportionate number of Mexicans were accused of various crimes, too many to be completely believable. Some of them were probably guilty, while others undoubtedly had the misfortune to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Since Arizona had a low population of African-Americans, it was Mexicans who took the wrath of racial injustice in the 19th century. 

In the Arizona Territory, accused criminals were first given a preliminary examination before a Justice of the Peace, who decided whether there was sufficient evidence to hold the defendant until the Grand Jury convened-not a current practice. If the J.P. decided in the affirmative, the accused would be jailed by the county until the empanelling of a Grand Jury-this took place 4 times a year-which would decide of all criminals arrested during the previous months would be formally indicted or not. If indicted, the accused went to trial. The County Superior Courts were not in session year round; they convened approximately four times a year, with the same judges circuit riding to hold court in different counties at different times. 

Arizona Territorial law was a sophisticated system for its era, far different from the image of "frontier justice" that folklore has promoted for generations. A serious study of the statutes of the era and the cases is long overdue; such a study is sorely needed to correct the fallacy of Arizona folklore on this topic. 

On Friday April 26 at 4 pm in the Yavapai County Courthouse the Blue Rose Theater will present this year's Law Day historic trial. The public is invited, but it is recommended that you come early, as there are a limited number of seats. 

(Parker Anderson is active with the Blue Rose Theater) 



Sharlot Hall Museum Photograph Call Number: (pb026a6p27). Reuse only by permission.
The old Yavapai County Courthouse Courtroom was the scene of many trials in 19th century Prescott. Many people hope and believe that Arizona territorial law was no more disciplined than a bar room brawl. However, Arizona justice was mostly fair and careful.