, 1906-05-25
RATHER SEVERE CRITICISM

Under the caption, Land Thief
Caught-Stole 1OO,O 900 Acres, But Was
Released With a Light Fine" the
Grand Encampment Herald passes the
following rather severe structure upon
the case of Henry J. Weare.
Henry ]. Woare, the wealthy cattle
man of Crook county, paid n fine OF
S3eO to the United States court and
spent one day in jail for illegally fenc-
ing 100000 acres of government II
He had the land fenced in for more
than ten years. The fine amounted to
less than $50 per year for The use OF
100, 900 acres. Pretty cheap rent! And
considering the fact that the land was
being stolen from Uncle Sam, 1t vas n
pretty easy penalty. SpoSe one Oh
this wealthy Cattleman's thirty dollar
cowpunchers had been caught carrying
off ten dollars worth of Uncle Sans
postage stamps. What do you sup
pose the United States court would
have done to him?"
II the fencing of the public domain
were regarded as a crime in the same
sense that stealing postage stamps,
Their it is entirely probable that the
penalty would be just as severe. But
what has been the general rule-the
custom of the entire west? Is 1t not
a fact well known to all ranchmen that
fully nine-tenths of the stockmen have
some public land under fence? There
is no use beating about the bush or
denying it, this is the truth. Nothing
has been said about the matter except
in cases where some one concern or
individual attempted to hog" great
tracts to the detriment of an entire
community or where a neighbcrhood
quarrel melted some person to file com.
plants. When complaint has been
made the officers of the law have in
varlably taken prompt action.
When all the facts in the case of Mr..
Weare are considered, his case does
o appear so bad. nor does his sent
ence appear unusually easy" About
a year & the stern arm of the law
reached out for his fences and his at
tention was directed to the fact that
they were illegal II must come down.
He called upon the United States at
torney and asked to see the charge
against him and the law under which
it was drawn. After n careful reading
of both, he said he believed he was in
violation of the statute and would pro-
coed at once to put himself within the
act of congress, 1t was too late to try
the case at that term of the United
States court and MI. Weare went home
an dtook down his fences with all pos
sible speed. At the present term of
the our he presented himself and
DlDaHAl n,tf1f,. e., thn nharaa STATING
that he had removed his fences and
was now a ~law-abiding citizen, asking
for such mercy as the judge in his wis
dom might deem it proper under the
circumstances to grant.
In such a case and unded such cir
cumstances was not the penalty of one
day in Jail and $500 fine quite sufic-
lent?
The Republican is not an apologist
for evil-doers, but il does believe that
when a man is arrested for the first
time for a crime-t that is common prac-
tice and bows humbly to the mandate
of the court, at the same time doing
all in his power to place himself with
in the law, that his punishment is suf-
icient if he is merely given the ignom-
my of a fine n Imprisonment. no mat
ter how light they may be. In the case
of offenders who defy court orders and
laugh at the officers of the law, it is
entirely different. When men rob the
United States mails or steal postage
stamps from postofHces, as suggested.
they know what to expect and should
be punished. The offense is entirely
different 1t is not common practice
to steal Uncle Sans postage stamps or
to rob his mails.
In the no distant future it is altogeth-
er probable the fences upon the public
domain will be removed, but until such
time as the strong arm of the govern.
ment takes hold of the matter in dead
earnest, insisting upon the criminal
prosecution of every man maintaining
an illegal enclosure, it is not proper to
refer to stockmen who have such as
thieves and criminals.