THE TEXAS RANGERS IN A TURBULENT ERA
by
WESLEY HALL LOONEY, B.A.
A THESIS
IN
HISTORY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
Accepted
May, 1971
No.2-'
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
X wish to express my appreciation to Dr. James V.
Reese, the Chairman of my committee, for his valuable
criticism, patience, and encouragement,
I am very grate-
ful to Dr. David M. Vigness for serving on the committee
and for his helpful suggestions.
I would also like to
thank the staff of the Archives in Austin, Texas for their
valuable aid in locating obscure government documents.
X:L
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I.
II.
ii
ANALYZING THE BACKGROUND
ACTIVITIES OF THE TEXAS RANGERS,
1917-1919
III.
IV.
1
21
INVESTIGATION OF THE RANGERS
43
CONCLUSION
75
BIBLIOGRAPHY
79
111
CHAPTER I
ANALYZING THE BACKGROUND
Relations between Texas and Mexico have always
depended in large degree upon whether order or chaos
reigned below the Rio Grande.
The 1910-1920 decade was one
of violent action and reaction along the Mexican border and
within Mexico proper.
President Porfirio Diaz had ruled
the Republic of Mexico since 1884.
In the twenty-seven
years of his iron-handed regime, Mexico had enjoyed peace
and stability.
The stable Diaz government had fostered a
calm along the Texas-Mexico border.
In Mexico natural re-
sources had been developed, internal improvements had been
made, national solvency and firm foreign credits had been
achieved, and prosperity hitherto unknown had appeared.
Yet, there had been a monstrous governmental fault within
this outward betterment.
The Diaz prosperity was slanted.
It reached only the rich and the powerful.
The working
population grew poorer while a small class of property
holders grew richer.
A chasm between the few rich and the
many poor grew too wide for any despotism to bridge.
Henry B. Parkes, A History of Mexico (Boston
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1950), pp. 311-20.
) In 1910 stable conditions in Mexico came to an end
in the form of revolution.
The initial revolt was spear-
headed by Francisco Madero, who pressed for the restoration
of constitutional liberties ruthlessly denied under Diaz.
This revolt, known as the Plan de San Luis, was initiated on
October 5, 1910.
The outcome was successful, as Diaz was
finally forced to resign on May 25, 1911.
Two days later
he slipped quietly away to exile in Paris.
The revolt against suppression by the dictator Diaz
ushered in a period of uneasiness and unrest in Mexico.
In
October Madero called for national elections and assumed
the presidency almost without opposition.
However, counter-
revolutions were soon launched against the new President
by Pascual Orozo, a former follower; Felix Diaz, a nephew
of the old dictator; and Bernardo Reyes, a former cabinet
2
member under Diaz.
All three were unsuccessful at this
time in their bids to overthrow Madero.
This brief peace was short-lived, as fiery students
at the Chapultepec Military Academy rioted and liberated the
imprisoned Diaz and Reyes.
With the support of this group,
plus other factions, Madero was ousted.
Madero and his vice-
president were murdered "while attempting to escape."
Victoriano Huerta was proclaimed President on
February 19, 1912. However, undercurrents of dissatisfaction
2
Charles C. Cumberland, Mexican i^evolution: Genesis
Under Madero (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1952),
pp. 117-29.
with his conservative regime were brewing, as it was soon
obvious that the new leader resembled the despised Diaz.
His support by the army, the clergy, the moneyed class,
and the foreign interests indicated to the people a return
3
to the hated Diaz policies.
As a result, Venustiano Carranza, supported by
those in the northern provinces, led a counterrevolution
with the Plan of Guadalupe as a guideline on March 26, 1913
In the South the insurgents, led by Emiliano Zapata/ rose
in the same kind of violent revolt.
Huerta, failing to
gain the much needed recognition of the United States, was
4
forced out of office in mid-July, 1914.
Carranza held uneasy control, as his power was
soon challenged by his chief lieutenant--the notorious
Pancho Villa.
Carranza's main forces held control over the
border areas south of a line running through Del Rio while
Pancho Villa reigned above that point.
There seemed to be
a lack of central control and leadership in both opposing
camps.
Revolutionary conditions which prevailed in Mexico
from 1910 to 19 20 had a tendency to overrun the border and
to produce in southern Texas conditions similar to those
•^Ibid.
4
Samuel Flagg Bemis, American Foreign Polic\' and
Diplomacy (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1959),
pp. 320-44.
in Mexico, j In the fall of 1914, there were many disturbances along the border.
The weak Carranza government did
little to contain the lawless and revolutionary elements,
and raids in the Lower Valley of the Rio Grande increased.
Appeals for federal troops by Texas authorities were in
vain, for the unrest was regarded by federal authorities
as being strictly local in nature.
But, as the disturbances
increased. General Frederick Funston, commanding the
Southern Department, became convinced that the view held
by Governor James E. Ferguson of Texas was correct—the
5
trouble was more than local.
The revolution, in all its phases, was essentially
a national movement, a surging of the masses seeking equality
and recognition.
As such, it affected Mexicans in Texas
as well as those in Mexico, and encouraged them to assert
their rights and to demand respect.
In the Lower Rio
Grande Valley, the Mexican-Americans, long targets of prejudice and contempt by Americans, formed fertile soil for
the revolutionary promises and ideas.
The Mexicans
along the border, encouraged by the promises and ideas of
the revolutions, became restless.
A strong anti-American
feeling of long standing, nourished by the nationalistic
5
Charles C. Cumberland, "Border Raids in the Lower
Rio Grande Valley," The Southwestern Historical Quarterly,
LVII, No. 3 (January, 1954),' pp. 293-95.
5
tendencies of the revolution, added to the discontent.
To compound the already explosive situation, in
August of 1914 the world faced the advent of World War I.
Of course, as Germany noticed immediately, American sympathies were aligned with the Allies.
Therefore, Mexican
antipathy for the United States and irredentist hopes for
the Lower Rio Grande Valley were measured.
Germany saw
in Mexico a possible base for espionage, and even diversionary activity, against the United States.
Further, the
use of ports along the Mexican coast would strengthen the
German war machinery.
Foreseeing eventualities, the Germans lost no time
in setting up a spy ring in Mexico.
In addition to usual
espionage activities, its agents were also instrumental in
7
fanning hatred between the Mexicans and the Americans.
In 1915 the discovery of a sinister plot by Mexican
revolutionaries to seize the vast Southwestern region of the
United States startled residents in the Lower Valley of the
Richard Marcum, "Fort Brown, Texas: The History
of a Border Post," Cunpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas
Technological College, 1964), p. 282.
7
U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Investigation of Mexican Affairs, S. Doc. 285,
66th Cong., 2d Sess., Serial Nos. 7665-7666, pp. 1223-25.
This government document contains the hearings of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Mexican affairs; most
of the more than 250 witnesses who appeared and most of
the members of the committee were biased against Mexico
and desired to bring about intervention by the United
States. Hereafter referred to as Investigation of Mexican
Affairs. Tom Lea, The King Ranch, II (Boston: Little,
Brown and Company, 1957) , pp. 581-83.
Rio Grande.
As much of the episode centered on the border
town of San Diego, Texas, the conspiracy quickly was
labeled the "Plan of San Diego."
It had a pipedream weird-
ness that bulged old border men's eyes:
p
We, who in turn sign our names, assembled
in the revolutionary plot of San Diego, Texas,
solemnly promise each other, on our word of
honor, that we will fulfill, and cause to be
fulfilled and complied with, all the clauses
and provisions stipulated in this document,
and execute the orders and the wishes emanating
from the provisional directorate of this movement
and recognize as military chief of the same
Mr. Agustin S. Garza, guaranteeing with our lives
the faithful accomplishment of what is here agreed
upon.
1. On the 20th day of February, 1915, at
2 o'clock in the morning, we will rise in arms
against the Government and the country of the
United States of North America, one as all and
all as one, proclaiming the liberty of the individuals of the black race and its independence
of Yankee tyranny which has held us in iniquituous
slavery since the remote times; and at the same
time and in the same manner we will proclaim
the independence and segregation of the States
bordering on the Mexican Nation. Which are:
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Upper
California, of which States the Republic of Mexico
was robbed in a most perfidious manner by North
American imperialism.
2. In order to render the foregoing clause
effective, the necessary army corps will be formed
under the immediate command of military leaders
named by the Supreme Revolutionary Congress of
San Diego, Tex., which shall have full power to
designate a supreme chief, who shall be at the
head of said army. The banner which shall guide
us in this enterprise shall be red, with a white
diagonal fringe, and bearing the following inscription: "Equality and independence," and none
of the subordinate leaders or subalterns shall use
any other flag (except only the white flag for
signals).
p
Testimony of John A. Vails, Investigation of Mexican
Affairs, pp. 205-207.
3. Each one of the chiefs will do his
utmost, by whatever means possible, to get
possession of the arms and funds of the cities
which he has beforehand been designated to capture, in order that our cause may be provided
with resources to continue the fight with
better success, the said leaders each being
required to render an account of everything
to his superiors, in order that the latter
may dispose of it in the proper manner.
4. Every North American over 16 years of
age shall be put to death, and only the aged
men, the women, and children shall be respected;
and on no account shall the traitors to our
race be spared or respected.
5. The Apaches of Arizona, as well as the
Indians of the Territory shall be given every
guaranty; and their lands which have been taken
from them shall be returned to them, to the end
that they may assist us in the cause v/hich we
defend.
6. The movement having gathered force, and
once having possessed ourselves of the States
above alluded to, we shall proclaim them an independent republic, later requesting (if it be
thought expedient) annex'ition to 'lexico, without concerning ourselves at the time about the
form of government which may control the destinies
of the common mother country.
7. When we shall have obtained independence
for the Negroes, we shall grant them a banner,
which they themselves shall be permitted to select, and we shall aid them in obtaining six
States of the American Union, which States border
upon those already mentioned, and they may form
from these six States a republic, and they may
therefore be independent.
It is understood among those who may follow
this movement that we shall carry in a singing
voice the independence of the Negroes, placing
obligations upon both races and that on no account
will we accept aid, either moral or pecuniary,
from the Government of Mexico; and it need not
consider itself under any obligation in this,
our movement.
9
Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1206-07.
8
Basilio Ramos, Jr., one of the leaders of this
movement, was arrested at McAllen, Texas, by Tom Mayfield,
deputy sheriff of Cameron County, about the middle of
January, 1915.
He was then taken to Brownsville where he
was examined by the United States Commissioner and bound
over to await the action of the federal grand jury.
At
the May, 1915 term of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Ramos was indicted, but
when the case was called for trial the court dismissed the
case and discharged the defendant.
Among the papers which
had been found in Ramos' possession was a copy of the Plan
of San Diego and a letter which referred to General Emiliano
P. Nafarrate, the Carrancista commander at Tampico. Also,
he had on his person a pass through the Carrancista lines
signed by General Nafarrate.
Other officers of the
Carranza government were also alleged to be implicated in
the plot.
At the time of Ramos' arrest and indictment,
he was an exile from Mexico.
Some months later amnesty
was granted him, and he was treated graciously by Carranza
officers in northern Mexico and, for the next several
months, was assisted in the furthering of the Plan of San
Diego.
''•^Ibid. , pp. 1287-96.
Randolph Robertson, Vice Consul at Monterrey,
to the Secretary of State, June 9, 1916, copy in Papers
Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States—
1916 (Washington: Government Printing Office), pp. 570-72.
12
Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1302-09.
Many claimed that the grand design of the plan
was inspired by Germany in the hope of wrecking MexicanAmerican relations, while others believed that it was
part of a personal campaign by the Mexican leader Carranza
to gain American recognition for his government.
That he
used the border disorders to force recognition from President Wilson is quite evident.
When he obtained that recog-
nition, these disturbances ceased—and the Plan of San Diego
faded.
Throughout this period the plan was regarded as a
grand design, when actually it was used as a device to
clothe border raids with constitutionality and to win
13
recognition for a Mexican revolutionary.
The Plan of
San Diego well illustrated the unrest that plagued the
Texas border for the first tvzo decades of the Twentieth
Century.
By 1915 it was apparent that irredentism (a movement to regain South Texas for Mexico) along the border
was strong.
The activities of Aniceto Pizano and Luis
de la Rosa, fairly well-to-do residents of Texas, clearly
illustrated this fact.
In the summer months of 1915 these
two men started another movement along the lines of the
Plan of San Diego.
Under their leadership many raids were
conducted at widely scattered points in the Valley area.
They organized bands of raiders which included :icxican
•"•^William M. Hager, "The Plan of San Diego,"
Arizona and the West, V, (1963), pp. 327-36.
10
civilians, soldiers of Carranza's army, and American
citizens of Mexican extraction.
Newspapers in northern Mexico freely printed glowing accounts of the victories the Mexican revolutionaries
won in Texas.
couragement.
Their attitude seemed to be one of enThe newspapers could not publish such articles
day after day without the consent and approval of the
authorities; evidently, the Carranza government condoned
them.
Nor could Mexican citizens carry arms without the
knowledge and approval of the officers of government; therefore, it was believed in Texas and Mexico that these raiders
were armed by or with the consent of General Nafarrate,
14
who was then xn command at Matamoros.
There was considerable German activity on both
sides of the border before and after 1916.
The proposals
in the famous Zimmerman Telegram in February of 1917,
which urged Carranza to ally himself with Germany in return for irredentist rewards, bears some similarity to the
Plan of San Diego.
Whether the plan inspired the Zimmerman
proposals is not known.
Certainly, the German government
knew about the plan, and also was aware that irredentism
would be easy to fan in Mexico—especially if Mexican15
American relations were strained.
Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1253ff.
•'•^Ibid., pp. 1231-41.
11
All that ever came out of these visionary plots
was a long series of ragged raids and multiple threats
upon the lives and property of border Texans.
Even so,
events were ominous enough from mid-1915 through 1917 to
disrupt ordinary daily existence and commerce.
Life between
the Rio Grande and the Nueces became almost constantly
complicated with alarm.
Border Texans became increasingly
incensed by each new report of a raid by the revolutionists
or bandits.
The border bandits terrorized the Lower Rio Grande
Valley in the summer and early fall of 1915.
During the
month of May, a band of Mexicans, estimated to be twenty
to thirty men, was seen by various persons in the vicinity
of Rancho Los Indies, about eight or nine miles east of
Sebastian, Cameron County, and thirty-five mil'^^s north of
Brownsville.
Thirty deputy sheriffs and many citizens
joined in the chase but could never locate the Mexicans.
American and Mexican farmers and ranchmen reported almost
daily the loss of cattle, saddles, and other property.
On July 12, 1915 eleven Mexicans, heavily armed,
forced Nils Peterson, a farmer living south of Lyford,
forty miles north of Brov/nsville, to open his store and to
. . 17
supply them with food and ammunition.
•""^Corpus Christi Caller, various issues during
month of May, 1915.
17Brownsville Daily Herald, July 13, 1915.
12
A band of fourteen heavily-armed Mexicans on
August 6, 1915 appeared at Sebastian.
After robbing
Alexander's store of various articles, they proceeded to
the granary near the railroad track and there kidnapped
A. L. Austin and his son, Charlie Austin. The two Austins
were subsequently shot by these bandits. 18
During the first uays of August, 1915, a formidable
group of Mexican horsemen was reported to be in the brush
country north of Brownsville.
When their destination, the
headquarters of the southern end of the King Ranch, became
apparent, Caesar Kleberg telephoned to the Rangers at
Brownsville and to the Army command at Fort Brown, requesting immediate help.
Only a handful of cowboys, headed by
foreman Tom Tate, v/as available to protect the southern end
of the ranch.
Early in the afternoon of the eighth of
August, a special train left Bro\)msville bound for Norias,
about seventy miles north.
It carried an Army captain, a
squad of eight troopers from the Twelfth Cavalry, tv/o Texas
Ranger captains, several Rangers, and a group of local
peace officers. Upon their arrival at Norias, they found
King Ranch horses ready and waiting.
While the Rangers and others went into the brush
to find the bandits, the eight troopers were left at the
ranch headquarters.
The Mexicans attacked the rancli,
•^^Ibid. , August 7, 1915.
13
apparently unaware of the presence of the troops. During the battle Gordon Hill, a deputy sheriff of Cameron
County, and three other civilians, arrived on a gasoline
truck from Harlingen just in time to take part in the fighting.
The beleaguered men turned back charge after charge
of the bandits.
Finally, in the darkness of night, the
raiders slipped away carrying a number of their wounded,
leaving ten dead.
The next morning the raiders were followed
as they headed south toward the river, but they were not
caught.
Some of them had been identified, however; and
more than a dozen were tracked down later and killed.19
Within the next six months, there were twenty-six
recorded clashes in the immediate area with Mexican incursionists.20 They made vicious raids on isolated ranches,
and derailed two trains and shot and robbed the victims
in the wrecks.
There were bloody ambushes, running battles
in the brush, and brutal shootings of helpless captives.
On October 18, 1915, bandits derailed a passenger
train six miles north of Brownsville.
Among the passengers
were four unarmed soldiers on a recreation trip; Dr. E. S.
McCain, State Health Officer stationed at Brownsville;
Harry Wallis, formerly a Ranger; John Kleiber, District
19
Testimony of Caesar Kleberg, Investigation of
Mexican Affairs, pp. 1550ff.
20
Frank Cushman Pierce, A Brief History of the
Lower Rio Grande Valley (Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta
Publishing Company, 1917), pp. 92-99.
14
Attorney of the State Court for the district; and several others.
As soon as the train had come to a complete
stop, four Mexicans entered the train and began shooting
at the citizens, and then, seeing the soldiers, turned
their fire on them.
One soldier was killed instantly,
but the other three, although severely wounded, survived.
Dr. McCain and Wallis sought refuge in the toilet.
The
bandits fired through the toilet door and one of the shots
struck McCain in the abdomen, resulting in his death the
next day.
Wallis was shot in the arm and hand, but re-
covered.
Kleiber, lying on the floor, was covered with
blood from the soldiers, and the bandits supposed him to be
^ ^ 21
dead.
On October 21, 1915 a party of Mexicans attacked
some sleeping soldiers at Ojo de Agua ranch in Hidalgo
County.
At the time of the attack, there were eight or
nine men of the signal corps and seven or eight of Troop G,
Third U. S. Cavalry, at the ranch.
The raiders, apparently
well organized in military formation, killed three men
and wounded eight of the soldiers during an engagement
22
which lasted nearly an hour.
The shooting was heard in
the vicinity and aroused reenforcements from another patrol,
who were largely responsible for driving off the raiders.
21
Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1269-82.
22
Corpus Christi Caller, October 22, 1915.
15
In the brush surrounding the ranch house,'the
soldiers found five dead bandits.
An indication that the
raid was more than mere banditry was that two of the
dead men were Carranza soldiers.
23
This was the last of
the serious encounters until June of the next year.
Confronted with rumors of raids and plots which
they could not understand and actual raids and plots which
seemed to threaten their very lives, the residents of
South Texas became almost panic-stricken.
In the Lower
Valley, where the raids were concentrated, local vigilante
groups sprang into being, while representatives of Willacy,
Starr, Cameron, and Hidalgo Counties met behind locked
doors in early August to organize a protective society.
24
An aroused citizenry armed itself in fear of an actual invasion from the south.
Anglo-Americans in the Valley un-
leashed their frustrations and vengeance on numerous hapless citizens of Mexican descent.
Many of these people,
guilty of having the wrong ancestry, sought asylum in Mexico
Any man of Latin appearance was suspected of being a spy
or a raider.
Prejudice and discrimination appeared to be
25
the motivating forces for some of the acts of reprisal.
Trigger-happy civilians and local officers were prone to
23
Investigation of xMexican Affairs, pp. 1302-09.
Corpus Christi Caller, August 5, 1915.
25
Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1199ff.
16
shoot before ascertaining the intentions of such men.
Lynchings became almost commonplace.
Adolfo Munoz, thought to have been involved in the
murder of a merchant at Lyford, on the night of July 28,
1915 was being taken by officers from San Benito to the
county jail at Brownsville.
The trip had been undertaken
for fear of mob violence in San Benito.
A few miles out
of town, the car was surrounded by men armed with rifles who
forced the officers to leave immediately.
The prisoner was
then taken from the car by eight or nine masked men and
hanged from a nearby tree.
There was no clue to the iden-
tity of the masked men and no action was taken by the county
26
authorities.
Three Mexicans among six prisoners arrested after
one of the raids were killed near San Benito on September 14,
1915, after escaping from jail.
Their bodies were found
some distance from the town with bullet holes in their
27
backs. No investigation of the incident was conducted.
The San Antonio Express observed in September of
that year;
"The findings of dead bodies of Mexicans, sus-
pected for various reasons of being connected with the
troubles, has reached a point where it creates little or
no interest.
It is only when a raid is reported, or an
^^Corpus Christi Caller, July 30, 1915.
27
San Antonio Express, September 15, 1915.
17
American is killed, that the ire of the people is aroused.
28
The lynchings and executions were not the only indications of fear and vengeance.
Firearms were taken from
families of Latin extraction of vigilante committees and
local officials.
Homes of many innocent persons of Mexican
extraction were burned on the basis that they were suspected
of being involved in the plots and raids.
Mexican-American
families in outlying regions were forced to move into populated centers where they could be watched more effectively.
"Black Lists" were circulated throughout the Valley.
29
The name
of any Mexican who was suspected to be a "bad" Mexican by
any reputable Anglo-American was placed upon the list.
These
Mexicans whose names v/ould appear on these lists would often
"disappear."
The response of the Mexican-American population of
the Valley to these actions of the Anglo-Americans was a
mass exodus from the region.
Hundreds of families of Latin
extraction began fleeing into Mexico by early September.
31
It was estimated that at least half the Mexican-American
families in the Valley left the rural areas during September
and early October of 1915.
32
^^Ibid., September 13, 1915.
29
Cumberland, "Border Raids in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley," pp. 300-02.
30 Investigation of Mexican Affairs, p. 354.
31
San Antonio Express, September 7, 1915.
32
Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1181-84.
18
The retaliatory acts of the enraged AngloAmericans only served to multiply the number of "bandits"
with which they had to contend.
The hanging and shooting
of innocent Mexicans enraged their relatives, who many
times set out to seek revenge.
Like the terrified Mexican-Americans, many fearridden Anglo-Americans took what they could carry with them
and hastily left the Valley heading northward.
Others,
farmers and ranchers that lived out in the country, removed their families to the towns.
Patrols were organized
O A
by several towns to guard their inhabitants at night.
Along with these apprehensive acts, there were
heated requests for more United States troops to guard the
river.
The War Department, believing the incidents to be
of a local nature, had normally been reluctant to bear the
responsibility of curbing the raiding before 1915. During March, 1911, for example. President Taft ordered the
mobilization of 25,000 United States troops along the border.
33
Texas, Proceedings of the Joint Committee of the
Senate and the House in the Investigation of the Texas State
Ranger Force, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, pp. 356-59,
558-60, 682-90. This document contains the hearings of the
committee created when Representative J. T. Canales of
Cameron County in January of 1919 introduced a controversial bill to the Texas State Legislature providing for
reorganization of the Texas Rangers. A preponderance of
the testimony was aimed at individual Rangers for alleged
misconduct or violation of laws. Hereafter referred to
as Investigation of Texas Ranger Force.
34
Investigation of Mexican Affairs, pp. 1308-09.
19
but the soldiers were stationed at Fort Sam Houston, Bay
City, and Galveston.
Few were sent to the immediate
border vicinity.
But, as evidence accumulated showing the raids to
be more than local, federal troops began patrolling the
border on a large scale.
By November 15, 1915 there were
741 officers and 19,944 enlisted men stationed on or near
the border.
Primarily because of possible involvement in
the European war and Pancho Villa's raid into New Mexico
in the summer of 1916, the troop count along the border
35
was more than doubled by the end of 1916.
Thus, as the border situation became more complex
and inflamed with each passing day, it presented a great
challenge to the law-enforcement agencies of the Valley.
Who knew the area better than the local Rangers, whose
familiarity with the country was renowned?
Major John B.
Jones led the Frontier Battalion in a clean-up campaign in
the 1870's that virtually cleared Southwest Texas of marauding Indians.
During these Indian campaigns and other
campaigns to curb lawlessness along the border from 18 801910, the Rangers acquired a reputation as knowing the
border country and being able to track in that country.
The Texas Rangers had had a long and spectacular
history dating from October 19, 1835.
They fought in the
Marcum, "Fort Brown, Texas:
Border Post," pp. 284-86.
The History of a
20
Battle of San Jacinto.
They were the advance guard for
General Taylor's army during his march into Mexico"Terry's Texas Rangers' wrote thrilling pages in the
annals of war, as they left their bones on a hundred battlefields during the days of the Confederacy.
The Indian
problem of Southwest Texas had been solved with their
valuable assistance.
They formed the backbone of
Roosevelt's Rough Riders.
And now, 1914-1918, there was
another challenge for them to meet.
CHAPTER II
ACTIVITIES OF THE TEXAS PvANGERS, 1917-1919
The alarm caused by the raids of 1915-1917 became
so great that the state felt it had to take preventative
measures.
In November of 1917 Governor William Hobby,
acting with the authorization of the state legislature,
created a Ranger Home Guard.
Consisting of four companies,
it was not to exceed one thousand men, and it was to be
selected and appointed by the governor.
The new men were
inexperienced and in some cases incompetent; their activities were not always in keeping with the traditions of
the Ranger Service.
During the fifteen months following the creation
of the Home Guard, a series of incidents raised grave
doubts about Ranger methods in South Texas and elsewhere,
which culminated in the call for an investigation.
In
December of 1917 the Rangers stationed in the Brownsville
area were searching for Ignacio Trevino, who was wanted
on three criminal charges.
He had been a fugitive from
justice in that country for some time.
The Rangers learned
Texas, General Laws of Texas, 35th Legislature,
1917, pp. 57-59.
21
22
through a Mexican by the name of Andreas Uresti that
2
Trevino had been slipping into town at night.
About twelve o'clock one night, Pat Haley, the
Deputy Sheriff of Brownsville, went to Captain Sanders and
told him that he had this fellow Trevino located in a house
on the outskirts of town.
Travelling in a hack, Sanders,
two of his men, and Haley chose to go a back way through
town in order to avoid the Mexican police.
Arriving at the
house, they knocked on the door and could not get an answer.
They then proceeded to surround the house.
Looking in one
of the windows, they found Trevino laying naked in bed right
by the open window.
The Rangers pulled him through the
window and his wife, or somebody in the house, threw his
clothes out the windov/ to him.
The Rangers put Trevino 5n
the hack and started to jail with him.
Six or seven blocks away from this place, they met
two policemen on horseback.
The policemen called to the
hackdriver to light his lights as it was against the city
ordinance for hacks to be on the street vzithout lights.
Receiving no response, they attempted to stop the hack.
At
this point Sanders and his men opened fire on the policemen who commenced shooting into the hack.
After several
shots one of the policemen fell off his horse.
^Testimony of Deputy Sheriff Pat Haley, Investigation
of Texas l^anger Force, pp. 1275-78.
23
. . . and the hackman, he got scared, the man
who was driving and he whipped up his team and
made a pretty good start off and I hollered
to him to stop, and Uresti, on the front seat,
grabbed the lines and stopped, and the other
man was gone down the street and he ran back
there, but could not find anybody. . . .
Although the Rangers had no warrant for his arrest, nonetheless they locked Trevino in the county jail.
The Rangers began hunting the two men that had shot
at them.
They learned that uptown there was a Toribio
Rodriguez, a Mexican policeman, suffering from gunshot
wounds.
Captain Sanders and two of his Rangers forced them-
selves into Rodriguez's home.
They took the Mexican, bare-
foot and partially clothed, and began walking toward town.
About a block from the house from which he was taken, he
was shot in the back.
He was then placed in a hack and
carried to the city sanatorium where he died.
The Grand Jury of Cameron County failed to find sufficient evidence to return an indictment in this case.
R. B. Creager, a Brownsville lawyer for several years,
charged that Rodriguez had been murdered by the Rangers.
He
claimed that it was impossible to obtain a conviction for
this crime because there was a reluctance to indict a Texas
4
Ranger.
El Porvenir, a little Mexican settlement isolated
in the wilderness of the Big Bend area, was inhabited by
3
Captain J. J. Sanders to Captain W. M. Hanson,
December 17, 1917. Adjutant General's Papers. Hereafter
referred to as A.G.P.
4
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 356-59.
24
Mexicans whose relations were much closer to the people
of Mexico than they were to those of Texas.
Many of the
ranchmen that lived along the border were certain that
much of their trouble came from the Mexicans who lived at
El Porvenir.
Raymond Fitzgerald, owner of a large ranch
in the area, testified:
Their standing as thieves, informers,
spies and murderers has been well known in
this section for two or three years. They
used this El Porvenir ranch as headquarters,
. . . but stayed in Mexico during the day
and occasionally came over at night. Several
of these people were cousins to the noted
Chico Cano bunch of bandits who were known
all over this section of Texas as being one
of the worst gangs the Citizens and officers
had had to contend with during the last few
years.
The Brite Ranch was located in Presidio County
about twenty-five miles from the border and El Porvenir,
On Christmas morning, 1917, while Sam Neill and his family
were celebrating the occasion, a Mexican raiding party
surrounded the Ranch.
Mr. Neill described the raid.
Well, . . . the women folks claimed
they wanted to get up early, so I have always
been an early riser, and I got up and went
into the kitchen for my coffee; my breakfast was always coffee, that is all I ever
eat, and started me a pot of coffee . . .
and I came back . . . in my son's room, to
make a fire. They had no kindling—we were
then surrounded by those fellows, but I
didn't know—I take basket and went to the
woodpile, about sixty yards from the house,
and got the kindling and made the fire. I
1918.
Statement by Raymond Fitzgerald, January 28,
A.G.P.
25
went back to the woodpile again and got
other kindling and made one in my wife's
room. . . .
When I got back to the kitchen the coffee was ready, the cook had come in and fixed
a cup of coffee. I turned from the stove
and set in the window drinking the coffee,
when I looked down the Candelaria Road, coming from the river, and I saw six men abreast,
riding fast. I looked at them for a few
seconds and I called her attention to it and
she looked and . . . says, 'What can that be?'
. . . As they came around two big circular
tanks . . . I saw them reach and pull their
guns. I dropped the cup and saucer and run
through his room.
'Your son's?'
'Yes sir. He was still in bed; I hollered
and says, 'We are surrounded by bandits and
have got to fight.' I doubled in my wife's
room and got a gun, a six shooter—'
'You mean your rifle?'
'Yes sir. And as I got out in the corner
of the yard—this Mexican . . . jerked his
horse up, and he hollered at I'is men to kill
all the Americans. And as he said it, I shot,
and he didn't, of course, holler no more. . . .
When he hollered that, they jumped from behind
the walls and tank dumps like a bunch of quail
flushed from behind adobe walls . . . I fought
them from the corner of the house. I only got
in three shots until I was knocked down.
The bandits, about forty-five in number, plundered
the Brite Ranch store, packed all they could on their
horses, and set out for the mountains.
The body of the
leader of the party was found a short distance from the
7
Ranch. He had on the coat of a Carranza uniform.
A company of Texas Rangers under the command of
Invesigation of M.exican Affairs, pp. 1517-26.
7
Testimony of Grover Webb, Investigation of
Mexican Affairs, pp. 1526-32.
26
Captain J. M. Fox had been detached to the upper border
in the fall of 1917.
In January of 1918, the Rangers re-
ceived a report that some of the Mexicans at El Porvenir
were seen wearing shoes taken during the December raid on
the Brite Ranch store.
Accompanied by six ranchers, the
Captain and eight of his command immediately started toward
El Porvenir.
The party reached its destination during the
night of January 28th.
The Rangers went into the town and
began searching Mexican houses and found some twenty Mexicans
8
within these houses.
They took these men about a quarter
of a mile from town and shot to death all but four of them.
The Rangers alleged that the Mexicans had attempted to
9
escape.
The State Department at Washington ordered an investigation of the killings.
First Lieutenant Patrick Kelly,
of the U. S. Army, directing the investigation conducted
by the United States Authorities, pointed out that these
sixteen Mexicans, after having been arrested and disarmed
by the Rangers, were killed in cold blood.
Two Americans,
Henry Warren and John Bailey, both of whom were living at
o
Captain J. M. Fox to General James A. Harley,
February 18, 1918. A.G.P.
g
Colonel G. T. Langhorne to Captain W. M. Hanson,
March 18, 1918. A.G.P.
Houston Chronicle, February 8, 1918.
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 14 5-4 6.
27
Porvenir at the time of this occurence, testified that
they were sure that none of the dead men, or survivors,
had participated with the bandits and they knew them to
be law-abiding men.
These men were all farmers—two of them were boys
about 16 or 17 years old.
It was further claimed that
all of the slain were at Porvenir on the day of the raid
12
on Brite's ranch.
Several witnesses testified that none
of the property taken from the Brite Ranch was found among
the dead men's possessions.13
The incident had serious consequences for the
Rangers.
The Adjutant General discharged the Rangers who
committed this outrage as well as Captain Fox, who was in
14
command of the Rangers at the time."^
According to Captain
Fox, although he assumed the responsibility for the killings and asked to be discharged, the Adjutant General of
the State refused to discharge him at the time of the incident.
Captain Fox charged that his subsequent discharge
as Captain of the Rangers was really due to the fact "that
I am not supporting Governor Hobby for Governor, but am a
15
supporter of ex-Governor Ferguson."
12
Testimony of Henry Warren and John Bailey, Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1588-90.
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1585-88.
1918.
Order of General James A. Harley, June 8,
A.G.P.
IK
Captain J. M. Fox to Captain W. M. Hanson,
June 11, 1918. A.G.P.
28
Another Ranger commander whose activities
created controversy was Captain Charles F. Stevens.
Captain Stevens arrived at Brownsville on January 5, 1918,
in charge of Company G and remained in that region until
July of that year.
Captain Stevens' men disarmed some of
the Mexicans on the border and found themselves in conflict with the sheriff of Cameron County, W. T. Vann.
Sheriff Vann claimed that Captain Stevens was not working
in harmony with the local officials and was disarming
law-abiding citizens of the county.
In a meeting between the two men. Sheriff Vann
informed Stevens that he did not think he had done the
proper thing in disarming a Mexican-American by the nam»e
of Pedro Lerma.
Lerma, a large ranch owner, was a peace-
able and law-abiding citizen and one of the oldest MexicanAmerican citizens in that county.
Lerma and several of
his influential friends had served with the U. S. Army
in its efforts to punish the raiders of 1915.
Lerma
had told Sheriff Vann that,
Jfe had been absent from home down at
Brownsville, and that some of Stevens'
Rangers had come there and frightened his
wife and daughters to death. The Rangers
went all through the house, broke open
trunks, and had taken away a lot of old
firearms he had there. He wanted to know
1 f.
Testimony of Judge James B. Wells, Investigation
of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 682-90.
29
why he was treated so and wanted to-know
if he could not get the arms back.-*-'
Captain Stevens said that he did not know anything
about this particular case, but he would investigate it.
He did insist, however, that "upon suspicion my men have
the right to go to a private residence, search it, and
take a man's arms away."
After a great deal of heated dis-
cussion of this and other acts of Captain Stevens, the two
men parted without coming to any agreement.
Captain Stevens
afterwards remarked that he would execute the law in the
future as he had in the past, and that "if this is not
satisfactory, they can move me."
Judge James B. Wells and other respected citizens of
the lower border charged that Captain Stevens and his men
arrested people in one county and took them to another
county to be jailed; also, that the Rangers held prisoners
without filing charges against them or setting bond.
Judge
Wells condemned many of the activities of Stevens and his
men.
In testimony before the State Legislative Committee
of 1919 he cited one particular incident.
. . . I knew two who said they v/ere
Captain Stevens' men, they said, acting under
orders, going to Point Isabel and arresting
one of our Commissioners, Mr. Eddie Edwards,
one of the most prominent men in our community, arresting him without any warrant
and dragging him around without allowing him
17
Testimony of W. T. Vann, Investigation of Texas
Ranger Force, pp. 558-60.
30
any bond, took him by Brownsville and took
him up to San Benito. . . . He wanted to
go to the 'phone, they would not let him go
to the 'phone. . . . Finally, at San Benito
about eighteen miles from Brownsville after
dragging him around the day before and all
night, they seemed to have made out some sort
of complaint against him at San Benito. . . .
He was charged with selling liquor without a
license, something in connection with liquor,
then he demanded to give bond and they would
not let him, then started on through Harlingen,
which is north about eight miles, and he again
demanded there to be allowed to give bond,
and they would not let him, and they then took
him up the road about twenty miles into Hidalgo
County and put him into the United States
military guardhouse.
Learning where Edwards was being kept. Judge Wells phoned
Colonel H. J. Slocum, Commander of Federal troops in the
Lower Valley, and asked him if the United States had any
charge against Mr. Edwards that would warrant him being
confined in the military guardhouse of the Army.
Since the
Army had no charge against Mr. Edwards, Colonel Slocum informed Captain Stevens that he had thirty minutes to get the
man out of his guardhouse or he would release him.
The
Rangers took the prisoner from there to Harlingen.
There
Sheriff Vann approved a bond for Edwards and he was released
after the Rangers were told they had to turn him loose. 18
In answering complaints against he and his men.
Captain Stevens made several statements that were indicative
of his philosophy as well as that of other Rangers of the
18
Testimony of Judge James B. Wells, Investigation
of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 682-90.
31
period.
"in some cases holding without bond may be
best. . . .
I think maybe men ought to be held for a
little while and let him cool off and show him he cannot
cause any trouble. . . . "
He indicated that there were
certain circumstances where the law should be set aside.^^
Three of Captain Stevens' men. Rangers George W.
Sadler, John Sitre, and A. P. Lock, were blamed with murdering Florencio Garcia in another incident.
These three
Rangers, investigating cattle-stealing on the Piper Plantation which was just a few miles below Brownsville, arrested
Garcia on April 3, 1918, and instead of taking him to nearby
Brownsville, took him to Point Isabel on the coast several
miles away.
There they asked permission of a Mr. Charles
Champion to pitch camp in his yard and for the loan of a
lock and chains to chain the prisoner to a post.
Mr. Champion
told them it was rather rough treatment to give a prisoner
and volunteered to obtain the judge's permission for them to
lock him up in the town jail.
Permission was readily granted
and there Garcia spent the night.
Failing to obtain any
information from him concerning the cattle-stealing, the
next day the Rangers, accompanied by two soldiers who happened to be in the same area on patrol, headed toward
Brownsville with their prisoner.
Garcia was riding a mule
they had been using as a pack animal.
At a fork in the road.
19
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1446-48.
32
the two soldiers turned off on the road leading to
Brownsville.
The three Rangers, indicating that they
wanted to question Garcia some more, proceeded with their
prisoner toward San Benito.
again.
Garcia was not seen alive
The Rangers insisted that they had only gone a few
miles before turning their prisoner loose after deciding
that further questioning of Garcia was useless.^^
Miguel Garcia, Florencio's father, had gone to
see Oscar Dancy, County Attorney for Cameron County, and
had reported that his son had been arrested by some Rangers
and that he had not seen him since.
In describing his son
at that time, Miguel Garcia had told Dancy that "he had
a cowboy hat, from the information I had it was a cowboy
Stetson, a light hat, as distinguished from a black hat,
and a cowboy brown or reddish brown, something like that,
jumper. . . . " 21
About a month later the remains of a man were found
within a few miles from the point where the three Rangers
with Garcia in their custody and the soldiers had separated
Several bones, a tattered shirt and jacket with three holes
in both of them, a monogrammed handkerchief, a pair of
shoes, and one grey felt Stetson hat were found in the same
20
Report of Captain W. M. Hanson to General James A
Harley, May 28, 1918. A.G.P.
21
Testimony of Oscar C. Dancy, Investigation of
Texas Ranger Force, pp. 542-57.
33
general area.
22
Miguel Garcia identified the clothes as
belonging to his son.
None of the three Rangers who had had custody of
Garcia before he was killed were discharged from the
Ranger Service, or in any way reprimanded for their action
by the Adjutant General's Department.
Sadler, Sitre,
and Lock, however, along with Captain Stevens, were transferred without explanation to the upper border area some
months later.
In the fall of 1918 Sergeant J. J. Edds, one of
Captain Will Wright's men and newly appointed to the Force,
was involved in a controversial incident which led to further criticism of the Rangers.
Jose Maria Gomez Salinas
had been suspected for some time of stealing horses from
the Yzaguirre Ranch and other ranches surrounding Rio Grande
City.
Following the report of a loss of several horses
from the Yzaguirre Ranch, Sergeant Edds and some cowboys
arrested Salinas a few miles from the border.
Although
they were only a few miles from Rio Grande City, Sergeant
Edds decided the prisoner should be taken to Hebronville.
The reason for not taking him back to
Rio Grande City was because Judge Wells who
was attending court at Rio Grande City,
suggested that I bring Salinas to Rio Grande
City. I figured that Judge Wells might try
to give him bond on this case. I didn't want
him to have bond at that time. . . .
I wanted
22
Testimony of H. N. Gray, Investigation of Texas
Ranger Force, pp. 1056-60.
34
time in which to get my evidence in shape
to convict him on some other cases as he
was considered a very dangerous thief.
Sergeant Edds, unable to take the prisoner to
Hebronville, made arrangements with two cowboys from the
Yzaguirre Ranch, Sabas Ozuma and Frederico Lopez, to take
Salinas to Hebronville.
The three started toward Hebron-
ville with Salinas, handcuffed, riding in front and the
two cowboys a few steps behind.
Ozuma testified:
Everything went all right until we
arrived within four miles of Hebronville,
. . . As we were passing some brush he
looked around and at the same time putting
spurs to his horse and dashed into the
brush, when we fired at him, killing him.
We only fired one shot2each, both hitting
him in the back. . . .
In the subsequent investigation of the incident.
Ranger Captain W. M. Hanson stated that he believed that
Salinas was murdered because his body was found in the
middle of the road, handcuffed and shot in the back.
According to the statements of Ozuma and Lopez, Salinas
was running and had just entered the brush.
If this was
the case. Captain Hanson argued the body could not have
been found in the middle of the road unless the two had
25
carried it there after they had shot him in the brush.
Testimony of Sergeant J. J. Edds, Investigation
of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 761-66.
^^Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 766-68.
^^Captain W. M. Hanson to General James A. Harley,
September 16, 1918. A.G.P.
35
State Representative J. T. Canales charged that the two
Mexicans were given the order by Edds to kill Salinas,
but there is no evidence to substantiate this charge.^^
Another source of difficulty rose from the fact
that the Rangers were given the job of patrolling the
border to prevent young Mexicans of Texas birth from trying
to evade military service.
Two State Rangers, Sergeant
Edds and Sidney Hutcheson, and two Army scouts were
travelling on September 4, 1918, from Salineno to Rio
Grande City with some prisoners.
About six miles above
Rio Grande City their car ran out of water and it was necessary to stop and send for water.
One of the scouts started
toward the nearest house to get some water.
When he re-
turned, he was standing on the running-board of a Ford
automobile in v/hich three young Mexican boys and an older
Mexican were riding.
The four were taken from the car and
questioned individually. 27
Jesus Villareal, a constable of Duval County, insisted that he was doing absolutely nothing wrong.
On the third day of September, 1918, I was
going to Rio Grande City to bring a nephew
(Miguel Villareal) that was going to get married
at Falfurrias, Texas, on the fifteen day of
September, 1918; at Concepcion, Texas, I was
called by Concepcion Benavides; he said he
26
J. T. Canales to General James A. Harley,
November 7, 1918. A.G.P.
27
Testimony of Royal Collins, Investigation of
Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1343-61.
36
understood that I was going to Rio Grande
City, and that if I could take his son,
Guillermo Benavedes, and Eulalio Benavides
(his nephew) that they were going in a buggy
but if I would take them it would be better;
that they were going to purchase some goats;
to which I agreed. . . .
When the Rangers returned to Villareal with the
boys, they said that the boys had confessed that they were
going across to avoid the draft and that Villareal had contracted to deliver them in Mexican territory.
Jesus swore
that this was not so, that he was only taking the two boys
to Roma.
him.
The two Rangers then took him aside and questioned
Jesus continued.
They took me away (two of the Rangers) and
told me to lie down and one set on my stomach
and told me that if I did not say that what
the boys had said, they would kill me, to which
I answered that they could do what they pleased,
that what I had said was the truth. . . .
He claimed they choked him and hit him with their pistols
28
in trying to get him to change his story.
The Rangers
took the four to Fort Ringgold where they were put in the
guardhouse.
Afterwards, they were tried at the Federal
Court at Brownsville, and freed.
On October 6, 1918 Sergeant Edds, stationed at Rio
Grande City, killed Lizandro Munoz at Munoz' Ranch, near
Roma in Starr County, under the impression that he was dealing with Alonzo Sanchez, a deserter from the Army.
The
^^Affidavit of Jesus Villarreal, January 20, 1919.
A.G.P.
37
Rangers had learned through an informer that Sanchez
would be at his father's ranch on the night of October 5.
Sergeant Edds and two other Rangers were sent to the ranch
to capture the deserter.
and surrounded the house.
The three arrived before dawn
Leaving one man to guard the
front. Sergeant Edds and the third Ranger approached the
back of the house.
Edds entered the back yard through a
gate while the third Ranger remained on the outside where
he could watch the rear entrance.
Inside the yard Edds
spotted two men sleeping on separate cots.
One of the men
fit the description of Alonzo Sanchez, which led Sergeant
Edds to conclude that he was the deserter.
gun and approached the sleeping man.
Edds drew his
The Mexican awoke
to find Edds crouching over him with a gun in his hand.
The frightened Mexican grabbed Edds' rifle.
Sergeant Edds
testified as follows:
I told him to turn my gun loose, that I
was not going to hurt him, but he did not do
it, and we scuffled back towards the fence
about fifteen feet. . . . He kept trying to
wrench the gun out of my hands and was a more
powerful man than I. He was about to get
the gun and I pulle^gthe trigger and the ball
hit him in the leg.
The shot awoke the man on the other cot, Zaragosa
Sanchez, brother of the deserter.
. . . The first I knew of the affair was
when the shot that killed Lizandro awoke me.
^^Testimony of Sergeant J. J. Edds, investigation
of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 485-93.
38
I dressed and went to the body that was
lying over there, and he replied it was the
man that was sleeping with me on the other
cot and I asked permission to go and see
the body, and he replied to me, all right
go over and see if it was Alonzo. I replied
that it could not be Alonzo for he had left
the house about twelve o'clock. I then approached the body and saw that it was Lizandro
Munoz, my cousin, and so informed Edds. I
protested to Edds for killing my cousin and he
told me he thought it was Alonzo who he wanted
to arrest, . . . and that he had jumped on
him, and had been compelled to shoot him in
self-defense. I also told Edds that probably
he had the right to arrest Alonzo but did not
have the right to kill him. . . . I did not
see or hear anything before the shot was
fired. , . . ^
This incident inflamed the Mexican-American population of the Lower Valley.
As it turned out, the Rangers
did not have a warrant for the arrest of Alonzo Sanchez.
Judge Wells stated that in his legal opinion, after knowing all the circumstances and reading all the affidavits
concerning the killing. Sergeant Edds was guilty of manslaughter.31 However, since there were no witnesses to
the killing, no one could dispute Edds' story and no legal
action was brought against him.
Not all the questioning and controversy over Ranger
activity came from the border.
A mass-meeting of citizens
from Ranger, Texas, headed by State Senator W. D. Suiter,
called Governor W. P. Hobby's attention to an incident
"^Sxffidavit of Zaragosa Sanchez, October 18, 1918.
A.G.P.
^^Judge James B. Wells to Captain W. M. Hanson,
November 2, 1918. A.G.P.
39
that had occurred the 19th day of December, 1918.
On that
day Rangers J. B. Nalle and John Bloxom, Jr. killed
Ernest W. Richburg in his own place of business in the
town of Ranger.
Nalle and Bloxom claimed that Richburg
had been conducting a gambling operation in the back of
his business.
Several of the local citizens vouched
for Richburg's character and said that they knew of no
gambling in his place of business.
One of these, A. J.
Wallendorff, claimed he was warned by the Rangers to get
out of town during Captain W. M. Hanson's investigation
32
of the matter.
The group headed by Senator Suiter demanded that
the two Rangers be suspended from the Service.
They charged
that this matter was of such notorious character and the
facts were so accessible that the Adjutant General's
Department would have no trouble securing all of the evidence necessary to show that the Rangers who killed
Mr. Richburg did so under circumstances which made them
guilty of murder. 33 When the two men were suspended about
one month later, the irate citizens of Ranger accused the
Department of delaying their suspension in order to try
32
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 722-38.
33
A petition signed by State Senator W. D. Suiter
and several citizens of Ranger, Texas, sent in the form
of a telegram to Governor W. P. Hobby, December 26, 1918.
Governor William P. Hobby's Letters. Hereafter referred
to as G.L.
40
and protect these men in their unlawful acts."^^
No legal
proceedings were ever begun against the discharged Rangers.
Concerned about the reported brutality of the
Rangers and their maltreatment of Mexicans in the Valley,
Thomas Wesley Hook, an attorney at Kingsville, prepared
a petition that was signed by Mexicans of the Kingsville
area.
The petition, declaring the inequities dealt the
Mexicans by the Rangers, was presented to Governor Hobby.
Hook, using data brought to him by Mexican-Americans,
wrote several newspaper articles for the Brownsville
Herald.
He urged the Mexicans to organize for self36
protection.
During the term of District Court for Brooks County,
Texas, held in the spring of 1918, Captain J. J. Sanders
approached Hook while he was in the attorney's enclosure
of the courthouse and asked him if his name was Thomas Hook.
I replied in the affirmative and he asked
to see me when I v;as at leisure. I immediately . . . followed him and the other Ranger
who was with him out into the hall. There he
asked me if I had prepared a petition at
Kingsville. I replied in the affirmative
stating that I had used data brought to me by
A second telegram sent to Governor W. P. Hobby
by Senator W. D. Suiter and signed by several citizens
of Ranger, Texas, January 27, 1919. G.L.
"^Undated petition sent to Governor W. P. Hobby
by Thomas Wesley Hook. G.L.
36
Brownsville Herald, several articles from
May, 1916 to August, 1918.
41
some Mexicans, and had formulated it into
a petition. He asked me if I didn't know
that the data was all a lie. I stated that
I did not know it to be so, but believed now
and believed then it to be true. Thereupon
he drew his pistol and attempted to either
beat or shoot me with it, he holding it by
the handle. I warded it off with my left
hand four different times. During this the
other Ranger who stood at my left while I
faced Captain Sanders, attempted to seize
my left hand but I shook him off. Captain
Sanders desisted and I said 'You are a petty
officer attacking an unarmed citizen with a
pistol.' He replied that he didn't know I
was unarmed. I stated, 'What is the matter
with you, are you drunk?' He replied, 'Do
I act as though I am drunk?' I-answered,
'You smell as though you are.'
When Deputy Sheriff L. N. Porter and J. B. Dodson,
the court stenographer, came out into the hall. Captain
Sanders was wildly waving his pistol at Hook.
Porter and
Dodson were able to subdue Captain Sanders. Sanders made
a partial apology and the two Rangers left.38 Denying
no part of the incident, Sanders, when he was questioned
about the scuffle, said that he was "very worked up due to
the newspaper articles and the petition. . . .
have written those things." 39
He shouldn't
Perhaps the greatest reason for all the trouble
was the attitude of some of the Rangers.
Probably no other
37
Testimony of Thomas Wesley Hook, Investigation
of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 334-36.
38
Testimony of Deputy Sheriff L. N. Porter,
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 240-45.
39
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 1404-06.
42
Ranger illustrated this better than Captain Henry L.
Ransom.
Captain Ransom, a native of Fort Bend County,
had been a principal figure in the first phase of the
Bandit War.
Ransom's early life around the Brazos bottom
prison farms and his service in the Philippines had caused
him to place small value on the life of a lawbreaker.
While
serving as the chief of police in Houston, he had killed
a noted criminal lawyer who resided there.
When questioned about his custom of disposing quickly
of bandits along the Rio Grande, Ransom answered:
A bad disease calls for bitter medicine.
The Governor sent me down here to stop this
trouble, and I am going to carry out his orders.
There is only one way to do it. President Diaz
proved that in Mexico. . . . Anybody who has
guilty knowledge of crimes committed, or ^JY"
one who harbors bandits should be killed.
^°William Warren Sterling, Trails and Trials of
a Texas Ranger (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1959), pp. 47-51.
^•'"Statement of Henry L. Ransom, December 19, 1917.
A.G.P.
CHAPTER III
INVESTIGATION OF THE RANGERS
Such a storm of criticism had arisen over the
Rangers' arbitrary methods of restoring law and order to
the lower border area that an investigation of the Force
and its activities soon became inevitable.
J. T. Canales,
State Representative from Brownsville, led the attack against
the Rangers.
Canales, a native Texan and a member of an
old landowning family of the Valley, had moved from Nueces
County to Brownsville in 1904. After graduating from the
University of Michigan, he began practicing law in Texas in
1899 and was first elected to the state legislature in 1904.
Canales professed that he had no desire to destroy
the Rangers, but only wanted to rid them of unqualified
and vicious men and to remove the Force from politics.
"I
was born and raised on a ranch and am thoroughly acquainted
with the Ranger business. . . .
ever since I was born. . . . "
I have known the Rangers
In response to an inquiry
from Walter Prescott Webb as to his purpose for conducting
the attack against the Rangers, he wrote as follows:
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, p. 856.
43
44
Not only myself but all my family have
been always friendly to the Ranger force especially when we had such Captains as Captain
Rogers, Captain Brooks, and Captain Hughes,
all of whom had been stationed at Alice . . .
and our ranch which was located thirty miles
south of Alice was used by the Rangers as a
station to change horses. . . ."
According to Canales, at that time the Rangers were
used to protect cattlemen from cattle thieves, desperadoes,
and other bad characters.
He claimed that later the Ranger
Force was used for political purposes.
Governor Hobby had appointed a Republican
politician as senior captain of the Rangers
force. I had Joiown Hanson for a number of
years as a corrupt Republican politician. . . .
Hanson began to fill the Rangers with cutthroats and murderers. . . . I wanted to
clean the Ranger force of such undesirable
elements. . . .
I did not want to destroy
the force or impair its efficiency.
On January 16, 1919, Canales introduced to the
Thirty-Sixth Legislature a bill providing for changes in the
policies and regulations for the Ranger Force.
The bill
increased the salary of captains to $150.00 per month, of
sergeants to $100.00 per month and of privates to $75.00
per month.
The bill stipulated that each Ranger would need
to be at least twenty-five years of age, should have at
least two years of experience as a peace officer in the
state, and "should possess good moral character and furnish evidence of such from the commissioners' court of his
2
J.Papers.
T. Canales to W. P. Webb, January 11, 1935.
W. P. Webb
45
county."
The bill further provided that each Ranger
should give bond to the amount of $15,000.00 for captains,
$12,000.00 for sergeants, and $5,000.00 for privates.
While the Rangers were to be under the control and direction
of the governor, the bill made it the duty of the Rangers
to cooperate with the local civil authorities in each county
wherever they were located.
It was further provided in the
bill that if the county judge or sheriff of any county
should request the removal of Rangers from that county they
were to be removed at once or at the expiration of ten days
3
would cease to be peace officers in that county.
A heated debate on the floor of the House followed
the introduction of the bill.
Representative Barry Miller
of Dallas led the fight against the bill which he claimed
would destroy the effectiveness of the Rangers.
During an
address before the House, he presented letters and telegrams from prominent men from different sections of Texas
urging that the Ranger Force be not crippled or destroyed.
He cited instances in various localities where the Rangers
had served nobly, bringing order out of chaotic conditions.
Representative John J. Ford of Nolan County interrupted Miller's address to ask him if the Rangers had not
made countless arrests upon suspicion with no evidence and
Texas, Journal of the House of Representatives of
the State of Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919,
pp. 37-39.
Austin Statesman, January 24, 1919.
4
46
then later freed these men with no charges every being
5
filed.
This question spurred Miller on to his most
caustic and burning remarks.
"Yes!
In some few cases
innocent men were arrested and afterward released when
found to be loyal and true, and upon their escutcheon was
left no stain! . .'."
The Rangers' only purpose in making
such arrests, according to Miller, was to establish the
truth.
They could not take any chances on a
single degenerate citizen getting away with
a crime. . . .
It were better that hundreds
of innocent men should have been arrested-innocent men are never in danger in America-that one rapscallion should have gone unmolested.
Miller contended that the incidents quoted by
Canales were exceptions and that the Rangers needed power to
act to enforce law in the rough border country.
He claimed
that the Rangers had rescued the besieged citizens of the
border country where local officials failed to enforce the
laws and to provide the protection needed by those people
living in that "wild country."
Another defender of the Rangers, Representative
Charles Stewart of Reeves, referred to the fact that his
home was only seventy-five miles from the Mexican border
and that "God only knows what would have become of many
^Austin Statesman, January 25, 1919.
^Ibid.
47
citizens and their property in that section of Texas had
it not been for the presence or nearness of Texas
Rangers. . . . "
He went on to say that the name "Ranger"
caused terror to strike deeper in the heart of a Mexican
bandit than the words "hell fire" could dig into the heart
of an American.
"if there be bad individual Rangers, get
rid of them, but leave the sound ones, permitting the organization to go forward unhampered. . . . "
Stewart concluded his remarks very forcibly:
There are three great moments to Texas
liberty in this wonderful state: One is the
Alamo—that sacred place where Texans proved
to the world that liberty was to be prized
more dearly than life. The second is the
battleground of San Jacinto, where Texas won
her lasting independence—where the "Napoleon
of the West" was beaten and overthrown, while
his palsied followers fell prone on their
faces with the cry 'Me no Alamo, me no Goliad!'
The third monument is a living monument so far
as Mexican banditry is concerned, and it is
none other than the brave, gallant,-dashing
and courageous Ranger organization.
Representative Canales, speaking intensely in behalf
of his bill, insisted that he was not an enemy to the Ranger
Force.
"Neither do I want to see the force destroyed;
I merely want the personnel purified:
not destruction. . . . "
I want efficiency,
He likened the Force to a great,
magnificent tree with a few dead branches.
He said you
would not cut down the tree but would remove the dead
'^Ibid.
48
branches and "leave the great tree to live and thrive as
it could not have done burdened with the dead timber."
Canales pleaded for the protection of his own life
as well as for the lives of citizens of the border country.
Rangers of Texas have committed crimes
equal to those of the Germans in Belgium right
here in our own civilized state, by spilling
the blood of innocent men who were accorded
no rights under the law while in their hands. . . . "
He asserted that the bill was nothing more than a measure
to safeguard the rights of citizens against lawless practices and that it provided for control of and not destrucp
tion of the Ranger Force of Texas.
Representative D. J. Neill of Eastland County remarked that he had made a recent trip to the border country
to investigate Ranger activities and that while there several Rangers had made insulting remarks to him.
He said
that reliable information had come to him that citizens of
the border had been murdered by Rangers without restraint
and that the time had come when the public needed protection from them.
He claimed that Rangers had wantonly killed
a citizen of Eastland County, were indicted, released on
9
bond and then turned loose.
Representative W. E. Pope of Nueces County charged
that there had been only five people killed in his county
in the previous years and that three of those had been
^Ibid.
9
^Ibid.
49
killed by Rangers.
He demanded that the legislature do
something to protect the innocent citizen from the
Rangers.
The bonding feature was certainly the most controversial provision of Canales' bill.
The purpose of
the bond was to strengthen the quality of men that formed
the Ranger Force.
It was considered to be a device to make
the individual Rangers responsible for their actions.
Rep-
resentative Miller argued that it was not practical because
in certain counties a Ranger under bond would be harrassed
by suits in courts where he could not obtain justice. According to Miller, placing the Rangers under bond would
have the same effect as handcuffing them—their effectiveness would be materially curtailed.
Defending the bonding provision of the bill. Representative J. S. Davis of Van Zandt accused the Rangers of
having exceeded their authority in a number of instances.
He maintained that Rangers should be regulated to the
extent that they are responsible for their actions.
continued:
I would say that a very large percentage
of the population believe in keeping the Ranger
Force in existence but believe that there should
be strict regulations and strict restraints
thrown about,them, such as have not existed
in the past.
^°ibid.
Fort Worth Record, January 25, 1919.
•^^Ibid.
Davis
50
Canales, arguing that bonding the Rangers was
essential, said it would eliminate bad characters from the
Force and would prevent politicians from paying their debts
with Ranger commissions.
Canales contended:
Until you devise some means of throwing a
restraint around their operations, these
young men, hot blooded young fellovrs without
much education, men v/ho are willing to go out
and risk their lives for forty, fifty or sixty
dollars a month and lead the kind of~lives they
do are not the kind of men you v/ant to entrust
the lives and properties of the citizens to
without throwing around them some kind of safeguard. . . .
Unless some restraints were placed on the Rangers, then,
according to Canales, Texas v/ould fare infinitely better
without the Force than it had in the last few years with
them.
Representative Pope pointed out that federal regulations require a bond of every peace officer with authority
to make an arrest.
He questioned why the Rangers should
be an exception if every other lawman in the state had to
give bond.
He raised this question:
If a man has the pov/er of carrying firearms which the citizen is prohibited from carrying, and has the power of making arrests and in
their discretion to imprison men, and perhaps in
their discretion take his life, shouldn't there
be some safeguard thrown,around the life and
property of the citizen?
13
•^-^Ibid.
•^"^Ibid.
51
While debate on Canales' bill progressed in the
House, a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator W. D.
Suiter of Wood County sought complete abolishment of the
State Ranger Force.
This bill provided for the repeal of
the law creating the Force as well as the one making appropriations for the support and maintenance of the Ranger
15
Force.
When the Senate voted on the Suiter bill, it was
overwhelmingly defeated.
On January 28, Adjutant General James Harley sent
a request to the House urging that steps be taken to determine
the truth of charges made against the Rangers during the
debate on the bill.
He suggested a complete investigation
of the Force and all its activities with reference to its
conduct and efficiency.
The good that it does, and the forces of evil
that it must necessarily encounter, in order that
you, as the people's representatives, may know
how to proceed to legislate for or against its
existence—if there are evils existing in the
system that you have a right to know of them so that
legislation may be enacted to correct such evils.
He asked the legislature to enact such measures that
were needed to increase the efficiency and usefulness of
the Rangers.
Since the Force operated under existing laws,
if they were not adequate then they needed to be changed.
He expressed a desire that the House investigate the causes
Texas, Journal of the Senate of the State of
Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, pp. 175-76.
52
that often led to complaints against the Rangers and
the motives that actuated men to make complaints against
them.^^
Consequently, Representative Miller suggested a
thorough investigation which was provided for in a conCurrent resolution.
the resolution.
The House as well as the Senate adopted
House Concurrent Resolution No. 20 provided
that a committee of seven be appointed, four by the Speaker
Of the House and three by the President of the Senate, to
fully investigate the charges against the Rangers."^^ Lieutenant Governor W. A. Johnson appointed Senators Paul D. Page
Of Bastrop, Edgar Witt of McLennan and R. L. Williford of
Freestone, none of whom had participated in the debate on
the Rangers, to form the Senate part of the joint legislative
18
committee.
Speaker R. E. Thomason named as House members
Of the committee Representatives W. H. Bledsoe of Lubbock
County, Sam C. Lackey of Dewitt County, W. M. Tidwell of
Ullis County, and Dan S. McMillin of Grayson County.
Like
their Senate counterparts, none of these men had expressed
Strong sentiment on the Ranger Bill.
16
Texas, Journal of the House of Representatives of
the State of Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg, Sess., 1919,
p. 211.
•'•^Ibid. , p. 212.
18
Texas, Journal of the Senate of the State of
Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, p. 247.
19
Texas, Journal of the House of Representatives
of the State of Texas, 36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919,
p. 238.
53
The investigation began in Austin on January 31,
1919.
Both General Harley and Representative Canales
addressed the committee in its initial meeting.
General
Harley, rather than discussing the accusations that had
been made against the Rangers, chose to direct the committee's
attention to other more generalized points.
He made it plain
that he wanted a conclusion reached as to whether the
Ranger Force was a detriment or a benefit to Texas.
The
Adjutant General then made the pointed statement that he
wanted the committee to find out, in its discretion, if
Representative Canales really meant to improve the Ranger
on
Force as he claimed, or if he sought its destruction.
Representative Canales said that the investigation
might extend as far as the committee wished, but that the
only thing he was advocating was the investigation of the
individual conduct of the Rangers and the weeding out of
undesirables.21 Along this line the members of the committee
suggested that Representative Canales prepare specific
charges against Rangers for violating laws and name witnesses to be called in these cases.
Representative Canales presented eighteen charges
against the Rangers, some of the incidents dating back two
or three years.
The charges ranged from drunkenness to
20
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, p. 42.
^•^Ibid. , p. 2.
54
murder.
He stated that the charges made were not
prompted by malice or any improper motive on his part,
but for the purpose of enabling the committee to investigate the abuses permitted in the present Ranger Force
in various sections of the state.^^
Before any witnesses were introduced. General Harley
again addressed the committee, this time concerning the
charges presented by the Valley representative.
He claimed
that these charges had never been brought to the attention
of the Adjutant General's Department.
He in turn charged
Canales with being derelict in his duty as a citizen for
not bringing them up before.
Any killing of a prisoner by
the Rangers was unavoidable, the Adjutant General pleaded.
He denied that Canales had the evidence to substantiate his
charges.
In conclusion, he stated that the allegations
"were unfair, misleading and made with the attempt to reflect
upon the Adjutant General's Department in the discharge of
23
its duty."
The committee nevertheless continued its in-
vestigation of the specific charges brought by Representative
Canales.
Canales charged that many of the Rangers were prone
to becoming intoxicated and then would become very oppresO A
sive in their behavior.
As an example, he pointed out
^^Ibid., pp. 306, 123-30, 145-50, :n5-38.
^-^Ibid. , pp. 9-18.
Ibid., p. 3.
55
that on November 16, 1918, Rangers George B. Hurst and
Daniel Hinojosa, while in a state of intoxication, fired
their pistols in the streets of San Diego, Texas, and
intimidated several citizens.
Afterwards, when complaints
were made for their arrest, they made threats against the
life of Constable Ventura R. Sanchez in the event he should
attempt to arrest them.
Sanchez, when he appeared before
the committee, supported Canales'claim and testified that
it was not unusual for Rangers to be intoxicated and to fire
their pistols in the streets.^^ Mrs. Virginia Yeager, a
resident of San Diego, said that she had seen the Rangers
26
drunk and abusive many times.
D. F. Strickland, an attorney at Mission since
1912, testified that he had seen Rangers drunk in Bro'vnsville
Some of the Rangers stationed there, according to him, had
reputations as gamblers and "hell-raisers."
A few bad men
had joined the Rangers, said Strickland, and these were
the ones that had given the Force a bad reputation in his
27
section of the country.
The Rangers were charged by Canales with the murder
of eighteen or twenty prisoners.
Canales further charged
that none of the Rangers involved in these killings had
^^Ibid., pp. 337-44.
^^Ibid., pp. 345-47.
^^Ibid., 359-60.
56
been indicted or punished in any way.^^
Several wit-
nesses testified about the mass killings of Mexicans by
Captain Fox's command at El Porvenir, the killing of
Lizandro Munoz by Sergeant J. J. Edds near Rio Grande City,
the mysterious disappearance of Florencio Garcia who had been
a prisoner of Rangers Lock, Saddler and Sittler, and the
killing of Ernest W. Richburg at Ranger, Texas, by Rangers
J. B. Nalle and John Bloxom, Jr.
Sheriff W. R. Vann of Cameron County testified that
after the wrecking of the train by bandits just north of
Brownsville on October 18, 1915, he and a party of Rangers
led by Captain Henry Ransom captured four men suspected of
having taken part in the attack.
The Rangers decided to
take the captives into the brush and shoot them, since they
had had poor experience in getting convictions at trials.
Vann refused to take part in this and was told by Captain
Ransom:
"If you do not have the guts to do it, I will."
29
The four Mexicans were shot.
In all of these incidents, according to the testimony before the committee. Rangers had murdered suspects
without any justification and without giving them an
opportunity to prove themselves innocent of the offenses
charged against them.
Judge James B. Wells testified that
it was impossible to have a Ranger indicted for any crime
^^Ibid., pp. 3-5, 123, 145-46.
^^Ibid., pp. 573-76.
57
he might commit because the people were too frightened
of the Rangers to appear in court against them.^°
Evidence was presented to show that Rangers were
guilty of maltreating, flogging, and horsewhipping prisoners.
Near Donna, Texas, Rangers in August of 1918 had
flogged, horsewhipped, and maltreated a Mexican by the
name of Jose Hernandez because he was suspected of having
31
stolen a jackass.
Fred Winn, a deputy sheriff of Cameron
County, had previously confessed that he had committed
this outrage, apparently to remove suspicion from the
Rangers.
However, evidence brought before the investiga-
tive committee pointed out that the deputy sheriff had
32
not been involved in the incident at all.
In another incident near Donna, Texas, at about
the same time, Rangers, belonging to Captain Stevens'
company, took two Mexicans, Arturo Garcia and Pedro Tamez,
out of the jail at Donna.
" . . . After being taken out of
town in an automobile, we were told to go away and we
were shot at by these Rangers. . . . " 33 Later, on the road
between Donna and Mercedes, J. J. Busby picked up a Mexican
with a wounded leg—Arturo Garcia.
He found him lying on
^°Ibid., pp. 678-81.
31
Secretary of State Robert Lansing to Governor
W. P. Hobby, September 11, 1918, G.L.
32
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 649-65.
^^Affidavit of Arturo Garcia, October 24, 1918,
A.G.P.
58
a railroad right-of-way.
Busby carried him to Mercedes
and turned him over to Captain Stevens for investigation.
About a week later Stevens released him without any charge
ever being filed against Garcia."^^
Aurelio Farfan, a colonel of the Mexican Army during Diaz' administration, told the committee of his experience
with the Rangers.
He had just returned to his room after
going to a dinner given by a merchant of Rio Grande City
when he heard a noise in the yard.
He looked outside and
saw Sergeant Edds running with a pistol in his hand toward
the house.
Edds and Roy Collins stormed into his room and
began abusing him.
"Collins went to open my grip and when
I went to open it for him, he cursed me and shoved me against
the wall. . . . "
Edds thinking that Farfan was armed told
him to stand by.the door and raise his pants legs.
"He hit
me over the head with his gun and took me to a closet where
he locked me up—all the while threatening to kill me. . . .
When the military came, I was treated very courteously by
35
them. . . ."
All the testimony about Ranger abuses did not come
from residents of the border country.
According to W. A,
Anderson, an attorney at San Angelo, Texas, Rangers arrested
a Negro at San Angelo and carried him to Sweetwater and
jailed him there without process.
The Rangers cursed and
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 644-49.
^^Ibid., pp. 622-44.
59
abused the Negro and tried to force a confession out of
him concerning stealing from the railroad.
Everytime the
case was to be tried, the Rangers could not be found.
Several days later local authorities freed the Negro.
Anderson and other local officials tried, without success,
to get the Adjutant General's Department to hold an examining trial of the Rangers' conduct."^^
There had been, Canales charged, a disposition
in the Adjutant General's Department to protect and shield
men of desperate character in such unlawful acts while in
37
the Ranger Force.
Canales pointed to the case of Ranger
D. F. Barnett to prove his point.
On September 24, 1918
Ranger Barnett, a member of Captain Jerry Gray's company
stationed at Marfa, Texas, shot at two Mexicans, wounding
one.
Although the circumstances as shown from the investiga-
tion made by the Adjutant General's Department conclusively
indicated that the Ranger was guilty of assault with intent to commit murder, or at least aggravated assault and
battery, the Adjutant General made the following statement:
I find that Barnett was acting perhaps
indiscreetly but nevertheless not entirely
to blame for the transaction. The matter will
be overlooked this time provided you advise
him to be more careful in future and not to
be using his gun too promiscuously when not
necessary.
•^^Ibid. , pp. 664-67.
"^^Ibid. , pp. 123-25.
60
This statement, according to Canales, was a good indication of General Harley's philosophy as the way to
handle misconduct on the part of a Ranger.^^
The eighth charge in the list of charges presented
to the committee stated that on October 2, 1918, at the
San Francisco Cafe in San Antonio, Ranger W. B. Bentley
brutally assaulted John Thermis, a waiter in the cafe,
striking him over the head with a pistol several times without any provocation. 39 The citizens who were witnesses to
the incident and who made statements regarding this occurrence refused to sign their statements because they were
afraid of being similarly treated by Ranger Bentley.
The
witnesses stated that Bentley had an argument with one of
the waiters and pulled his gun and hit the waiter over the
head.
As he was leaving the restaurant, Bentley pointed his
gun at the waiter and called him "a damn son-of-a-bitch." 40
In the subsequent investigation, conducted by the
Adjutant General's Department, General Harley claimed that
Bentley had been discharged from the Ranger Force prior to
this incident.
However, Canales presented to the committee
a telegram from the Department dated October 7, 1918, in
41
which Harley discharged Bentley from the Force.
^^Ibid., pp. 9-10, 124-25.
^^Ibid., p. 125.
40
Unsigned statements, October 9, 1918. A.G.P.
41
Investigation of Texas Ranger Force, pp. 750-53.
61
Canales charged that citizens in his county and
adjoining counties refused to file charges against Rangers
for violations because they had become convinced of the
fact that the Adjutant General's Department, instead of
investigating the officers who were charged with violating
the law, would notify the officers of the charges made
against them.
biased.
When investigations were made, they were
Senior Ranger Captain W. M. Hanson, the investi-
gating officer of the Adjutant General, was, charged Canales,
unfit to serve in that capacity because he always sought
to justify the conduct of the Rangers and to get them exon42
erated.
In connection with this charge, he pointed out
to the committee that Captain Hanson before he started an
investigation would often make up his mind that the party to
be investigated by him was not guilty of the offense
charged.
He referred to a letter addressed to the Adjutant
General from Hanson.
As soon as I can get away from here I will
continue my investigation with reference to the
mistreatment of Mexican citizens at Donna, Texas,
as well as the killing of Lizandro Munoz by
Sgt. Edds, above Rio Grande City some time ago.
I had a long talk yesterday with our mutual
friend Representative Canales, and I find that
he is rather bitter, and seems a little bit unreasonable, as usual, and that he as well as
all other Mexicans believe that Mexicans should
not be killed regardless of the facts of justification in the case. I am positive from what Captain
Wright tells me that Sgt. Edds was perfectly
^^Ibid., pp. 125-26.
62
justifiable. Yet, I think it necessary to
fortify your Department with sworn facts from
both sides of the question. I will do this
as soon as I can get matters shaped up here
in a satisfactory manner.
To further substantiate the charge that Captain
Hanson did not conduct impartial investigations, Canales
introduced evidence from the two investigations of the killings at El Porvenir by Captain Fox's command.
One, con-
ducted by Captain Hanson, sought to justify the Rangers in
their actions, while the investigation conducted by the
United States Army condemned the Rangers as having killed
the Mexicans in cold blood.
Furthermore, he called the
attention of the committee to the fact that the discharge of
Captain Fox was probably due to political reasons rather
than to the fact that the Captain had assumed the respon-sibility for the killings.
Canales suggested that it was
more than a mere coincidence that the discharge of Captain
Fox, a Ferguson supporter, followed an election in which
44
Hobby defeated Ferguson.
In the investigation of the killing of Ernest
Richburg at Ranger, Texas, Canales accused Captain Hanson
of also attempting to "whitewash" the actions of the
Rangers involved by leading the Department to believe that
the killing took place in an attempt to raid a gambling
house and thus justify the Rangers in the killing.
In this
connection he pointed out there had been a criminal trial
"^^Ibid. , p. 127.
^"^Ibid,, pp. 834-50.
63
of one of these Rangers, and the jury had found the
45
man guilty.
Peaceable and law-abiding citizens would not make
charges against the Rangers, according to Canalee, because
after the charges were made, the Adjutant General's Department would reveal the names of those filing charges.
Canales alleged that the Department would put the person
charged on notice that charges had been made.
an experience of his own.
He cited
"I reported to Hanson rome abuses
and rather than he doing something about it—he told these
Rangers that I was making complaints against then;, . . . "
Several days later Ranger Frank Hamer approached him in
Brownsville and said:
"You are hot-footing it here, be-
tween here and Austin and complaining to the Governor and
the Adjutant General about the Rangers, and I am going to
tell you if you don't stop that you are going to get hurt."
He repeated the threat after Canales asked that he do so
before Jesse Dennett.
When Canales filed his charge of the
threat made against him by Ranger Hamer with Governor Hobby,
the charge was referred to General Harley for investigation.
Subsequently, the Adjutant General wired Ranger Hamer as
follows:
Under Governor's orders you are instructed
not to make any threats against the lives of
any citizens especially J. T. Canales and that
he is to be given proper protection as a citizen.
Complaint has been filed that you have made
^^Ibid., pp. 123-24, 723-45.
64
some threats. Without going into the truth
of the matter you are instructed to^be careful
and courteous at all times. . . ."^^
Canales alleged that in the Ranger Force there were
men of desperate character, notoriously known as gunmen.
"Their only qualification being that they can kill a man
first and then investigate him afterward. . . . "
The em-
ployment of such men in the Ranger Force by the Adjutant
General was either negligence on his part in the selection
of his men, or else it was his policy to have such men in
the Force to terrorize and intimidate,"*^
In connection
with this charge he asked the committee to review the men
that were in the force at that time.
The Adjutant General was accused of using the Ranger
Force for the purpose of showing special favors to his
political friends and political "pets" of the administra48
tion.
Canales pointed out to the committee that in his
district large numbers of Rangers were stationed at the
state's expense on the King Ranch.
He accused Caesar
Kleberg, general manager of the Ranch, of being one of those
political "pets" of the administration and, through his
influence, receiving undue and unnecessary protection from
the Adjutant General.
Kleberg, a member of the Democratic
^^Ibid., pp. 148-49, 886-96.
^^Ibid., p. 148.
Ibid., pp. 126-27.
65
State Executive Committee, had, according to Canales,
brought a number of his political henchmen to Austin to
act as lobbyists against the bill to regulate the Rangers.
Several Rangers were in truth detailed to the King
ranches by the Adjutant General.
Canales pointed out to the
committee that this was open country and some distance from
the border and suggested that there was no need for so many
Rangers to be stationed there.
This, he said, was especially
true in Willacy County where there were hardly any people
living except the ranch's employees.
These Rangers,
Canales claimed, were used for the purpose of depriving the
people of exercising their rights under the law to hunt in
large enclosures or pastures of more than 5,000 acres.
And these political favors are aggravated in
view of the fact that the same protection has
been requested by other large cattlemen in the
state and they have been denied the same protection, chiefly because-they did not happen
to be politicians. . . .
The investigation lasted nearly two months and resulted in about two thousand pages of testimony.
Witnesses
appearing before the committee numbered in the hundreds.
Canales summoned witness after witness to substantiate the
charges that he had filed against the Ranger Force.
It is
notable that several Mexican-Americans testified before the
committee and none of them spoke in defense of the Rangers.
^^Ibid., pp. 127, 1167-91.
66
Rather than concentrating on specifically denying
the charges made against the Force, the Adjutant General's
Department devoted a good part of its defense to presenting witnesses to the committee that testified as to the
value and the necessity of the Rangers to the state.
A
telegram directed to the Adjutant General was read to the
committee:
We the undersigned citizens of Presidio,
Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Pecos and Jeff
Davis Counties, assembled in mass meeting and
which was called by Col. George T. Langhorne,
for the purpose of organizing the citizens of
the Big Bend patrol district for their protection against bandits and other lawless people
respectfully request and recommend that you
increase the Ranger Service one hundred more
men in the Big Bend district, these men to be
selected from the above named counties to
assist the militarycforces in protecting our
lives and property.
Testifying about the violations of civil rights
that the Rangers were accused of committing, Thomas Hester
said that it was a well-known fact that when anything of
this nature happened in the Valley that the Rangers were
blamed.
The Mexicans especially did this " . . . for the
reason that they know by taking it up thru the Mexican
Government they can be further protected in their meanness
. . .This class of outlaws was afraid of the Rangers and
did not fear any other class of officers."
"We look upon the Rangers as more or less of a
^^Ibid., p. 1253.
^•^Ibid. , pp. 830-32.
67
God-send to our Valley. . . . "
This was the opening state-
ment of a very powerful plea made in behalf of the Rangers
by William G. B. Morrison.
His testimony reflects the
opinions voiced by several other witnesses presented by
the Adjutant General's Department, most of whom revealed
through their testimony a deep disdain for Mexican-Americans
by using the words Mexicans and bandits as one and the same.
He stated that the bandits considered the soldiers as a
joke and would run into them at every turn of the road.
But,
. . . the Mexicans seldom tampered with a Ranger
unless he had him dead to rights and could shoot
him in the back. . . . The Mexicans know that
the Ranger is used to that country, used to tracking , used to Texas and the roads, and he knows the
Mexicans, and you are just as apt to^run slap-bang
into him without seeing him as not.
Other witnesses testified that it was absolutely
necessary that a substantial number of Rangers be maintained
in the Valley and Southv/est Texas; otherwise, the bandit
troubles of 1915 would start all over again, and the development of that country would be stymied once again.
Many of
the witnesses objected to the bonding feature of Canales'
bill and to making the Rangers answerable to county officials.
They contended that if these two features were enacted it
would restrict the Rangers so much that they might as well
be disbanded.
Rather than spending their time pursuing
criminals, they would necessarily become immersed in local
^^Ibid., pp. 21-30.
68
affairs since they would be forced to please local
citizens to avoid being dragged into court for their actions.
Witness after witness spoke in behalf of Captain
Hanson's character.
Actually a witness in favor of the Ranger bill.
Judge James B. Wells claimed that two or three companies
of Rangers stationed along the border had done more good
than 25,000 troops under General Parker.
However, he
focused upon the main issue of the investigation when he
complained against the improper enforcement of the law and
permitting " . . . every Tom, Dick and Harry through being
special Rangers or loyalty Rangers or something of that
kind—people who ought not to carry guns. . . ."
clared that he was "a Ranger man."
He de-
All the trouble and com-
plaints about violations of the law by Rangers had occurred
within the last few years.
53
An incident which occurred while the investigating
committee was in session did not help to improve the image
of the Ranger Force.
Four Rangers, under the influence
of liquor, had gone just outside the city limits of Austin
to do some practice shooting.
While there. Rangers Cunningham,
Johnson, Veale, and Mayberry had become even more intoxicated.
An argument broke out between Veale and Cunningham
with regard to a relative of Ranger Veale.
They got out of
the car quarreling, Veale drew his pistol and fired at leai^t
^•^Ibid., pp. 676-70.
69
two shots at Cunningham.
The other Rangers tried to
separate them, but failed, and during that time Veale
fired the third shot.
Then each of the two quarreling
men fired other shots, with the result that Cunningham
was wounded in the neck, and he in turn shot and killed
54
Veale.
The Adjutant General's Department expelled
Rangers Cunningham, Johnson and Mayberry from the Force.
The joint committee to investigate the Ranger Force
concluded the hearings February 13, 1919, and on February 18
issued their findings in a report.
The committee vindi-
cated Adjutant General Harley of charges that he had willfully mismanaged the Force for political reasons, and that
he had been prompted by improper motives in the assigning
or not assigning Rangers to any special work.
They found
the evidence was, also, insufficient to sustain the charge
that the Adjutant General had been guilty of improper conduct in the management of the affairs of his office.
They
further reported that they had found the Adjutant General
to be a conscientious, efficient, and faithful officer,
that had at all times administered the duties of his office
in an intelligent, conscientious, and effective manner.
Captain W. M. Hanson was acquitted of the charge of
inefficiency, partiality, and unfairness in the discharge
of his duties.
The report stated that there was insufficient
evidence to sustain the charges filed against the Captain,
54
Austin Statesman, February 3, 1919.
70
The report stated that many of the charges made
about misconduct on the part of various members of the
Force had been established by sufficient and competent evidence.
These charges included the unnecessary taking of
life by different members of the Force, the entering and
searching of private residences without warrant of law,
the improper arrest of parties by Rangers and confining
them in jail without taking them before a magistrate, and
the taking of life of prisoners by some members of the Force
It found fault with some of the commanding officers for being arbitrary and overbearing in the discharge of their
duties and for assuming authority not given to them.
It
asked that any of the men involved in such actions that
might still be in the Force be discharged.
The report commended the Rangers for the great service they had rendered to the State of Texas.
It was the
unanimous opinion of the committee that the conditions
existing upon the border between Texas and Mexico at the
time were such that the Ranger Force should be maintained
in an adequate manner to give protection to the life and
property along the border.
In regard to the Ranger Force
in the future, the committee recommended,
. . . that the number of Rangers should be reduced: that the Governor of the State should
be authorized to increase the number in active
service during any time of emergency. . . .
That they should be paid an adequate salary,
justifying the service of good men. . . .
71
The committee did not recommend passage of the bond
feature of Canales' bill.
The committee expressed appreciation to Representative Canales and General Harley for their aid in the investigation.
Canales, according to the committee, had
not been prompted by any improper motives in making the
charges that he had made against the Ranger Force, and the
people of Texas were indebted to him for the good that
should come to the Force as a result of the investigation.^^
In increasing Ranger salaries, the law followed
the pay structure set up in Canales' original bill:
Captains would receive $150.00 per month, sergeants $100.00
per month, and privates $90.00 per month.
Additional allow-
ances were provided for those with more than two years of
continuous service.
Acting through the Adjutant General, the Governor
was to have command of the Force;
. . . to be operated under his direction in
such manner in such detachments and in such
localities as the Governor may direct. . . .
The Governor is authorized to keep this force,
or so much thereof as he may deem necessary,
in the field as long as in his judgment there
may be necessity for such a force. . . .
The Adjutant General and the Governor were to draw up regulations for the control and government of the Force in
order that it would be as effective as possible.
55
Texas, Report of Ranger Investigating Committee,
36th Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1919, pp. 596-99.
72
The law relieved the Rangers of some of their freedom of action; now they were clearly directed to work
closely with their associate units and to cooperate fully
with local officers.
The Force had all the powers of peace
officers; but few more.
The Rangers were to be governed
by the same laws that regulated and defined the powers and
duties of local peace officers when engaged in discharge
of similar duties.
The essential difference between the
local peace officers and the Rangers remained that the
Rangers had the power to make arrests and to execute all
process in criminal cases in any county in the state, while
local peace officers were limited to their own locale.
The Texas Legislature adopted the report of the
Ranger Investigation Committee and subsequently passed
House Bill No. 5 on March 31, 1919.
The vote was decidedly
in favor of the bill and the legislators apparently were
relieved that they were no longer faced with the task of
reorganizing the Rangers.
The law as passed by the Legis-
lature and approved by Governor Hobby reduced the Ranger
Force to four regular companies, each having a captain, a
sergeant, and not more than fifteen privates.
In addition,
it provided for a headquarters company which would consist
of one captain, who would be designated the senior captain
of the Force, one sergeant, and not more than four privates.
The Governor would have authority in cases of emergency to
increase the Force to meet the extraordinary conditions.
73
All officers and men selected were to be men of
good moral character and each would need to furnish satisfactory evidence to that effect.
The Governor was to
prescribe the qualifications for appointment and all applications for appointment to the Force would be made to him.
Preference would be given to discharged soldiers holding
certificates of honorable discharge from the United States
Army.
The captains would be appointed by the Governor and
removed at his pleasure; unless so removed by the Governor
they would serve for two years at which time they could be
reappointed.
Appointments of the enlisted men and non-
commissioned officers of each company would be made by the
Governor with the advice of the Adjutant General and the
recommendation of the captain, under whom such men were
to serve.
The term of service for enlisted men and non-
commissioned officers was also two years.
To meet past criticism of the Rangers, the law
further provided that it was the duty of any citizen who
knew of misconduct or violation of the law by any member
of the Force to at once notify the Adjutant General in writing.
If a complaint was made to the Adjutant General charg-
ing any Ranger with misconduct or violation of the law,
the Adjutant General would have not only the right, but
also obligation to investigate the charges. At the request
of the Adjutant General, witnesses would be called to appear
and testify concerning the alleged offense and the Adjutant
74
General was to take such action as the facts warranted.
If he judged the charge valid, he was required to institute proceedings before any magistrate in the county where
the offense was alleged to have been committed.
He then
without delay was to submit all evidence and a report of
his actions thereon to the Governor for his approval or
disapproval.
The new law thus encompassed most of the provisions
of Representative Canales' original bill.
The only major
provision not included was that requiring the Rangers to
be bonded which, on the recommendation of the investigating
committee, was thrown out by amendment.
^^Texas, General Laws of Texas, 36th Legislature,
1919, pp. 263-66.
«?<<>•
CONCLUSION
While several works have been written on the
Rangers, most have dealt with the highly romantic period
of the early frontier.
The Rangers of the Twentieth
Century have been neglected somewhat, especially those
Rangers involved in the border troubles of 1914-1918,
The revolt against suppression by the dictator
Porfirio Diaz led to a period of uneasiness and unrest in
Mexico.
The lack of discipline and organization of the
Mexican government from 1910-1920 contributed to lawlessness on both sides of the border.
Evidence of this was the
frequent raids across the border into Texas by Mexican
bandits which reached their height from 1914-1918.
The Texas Rangers, utilized to combat this banditry,
were in some ways responsible for contributing to the
lawlessness.
To meet the border crisis, the number of
Rangers had been increased to 1,000 men.
men v/ere inexperienced.
Many of these
It appears that a number of them
were malicious and overbearing braggarts, prone to excessive drinking.
Some of them used poor judgment and
others were needlessly harsh and cruel.
The attitude of
many of the Rangers apparently was that they were above
75
76
and beyond the law and that the end results justified
the means.
Thus, many innocent Mexican-Americans were killed
and others were forced through fear to sacrifice their
property and flee elsewhere.
According to a list pub-
lished in 1917 by Frank Pierce of Brownsville, more than
one hundred Mexican-Americans had been executed by Texas
Rangers and local peace officers without due process of
law between August 4, 1915 and June 17, 1916.
the figures as high as three hundred.
Others placed
Rather than reduc-
ing the lawlessness along the border, the summary injustice
dealt out to Mexican-Americans by Rangers probably caused
even more raiding and killing.
For the first time in
the history of Texas, the respectable citizens of the state
lost confidence in the Texas Rangers.
The arbitrary methods of the Rangers were instrumental in bringing about a legislative investigation.
Pro-
fessing that he only wanted to "clean-up" the Rangers,
Representative J. T. Canales introduced his Ranger bill to
the House of Representatives in January of 1919.
Debate on
the bill in the House led to the resolution for a,thorough
investigation of the whole matter.
During his investigation,
which began on January 31, 1919, Mr. Canales presented
Pierce, A Brief History of the Lower Rio Grande
Valley, pp. 102-03
77
nineteen charges against the Rangers.
He was able to sub-
stantiate most of them.
The outcome of the investigation was the bill reducing the Ranger Force to four regular companies and a
headquarters unit—a total of seventy-five men.
Not only
were the Rangers reduced in number, but the importance of
the Force as a police body was lessened and it was never to
regain the place it had held in the past.
Although the frontier was gone, many Rangers refused to acknowledge the fact.
The Nineteenth Century had
called for Ranger "justice," but the Twentieth Century presented an entirely different picture.
"To shoot first and
investigate afterwards" now was regarded by society to be
cold-blooded murder.
The Rangers, as they were before the
reorganization law, were something of an anachronism.
Many
Rangers and their methods were relics of a frontier that
had disappeared:
The Cameron County of 1875 was not the
county of 1915.
The Ranger Force as constituted in 1920
was much better prepared to face its job as a law-enforcement agency.
Perhaps the greatest improvement was the es-
tablishment of specific rules and regulations regarding
management of the Force.
The qualifications for being a
Ranger as outlined in the law of 1919 and the salary increases helped to insure that the Force would be composed
of capable men.
Now that the Rangers were to operate fully
with local officials, it was hoped that the conflict which
78
had existed between the two would be resolved.
Finally,
it appeared that the Rangers would be careful not to
perpetuate in the future the published abuses of this
controversial period of Ranger history.
The Rangers improved their image in the next few
years with their efforts to enforce prohibition and later
their role in bringing noted gangsters, such as Bonnie
Parker and Clyde Barrow, to justice.
The nature of the Force
was again altered when in 1935 a law combined the Rangers
and the State Highway Patrol in a Department of Public
2
Safety.
2
Walter Prescott Webb, The Texas Rangers—A Century
of Frontier Defense (Austin: University of Texas Press, ^
1965), pp. 513, 536-46, 567.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Source s
Government Documents
Texas.
General Laws of the State of Texas.
1917; 36th Leg., 1919.
35th Leg.,
Texas.
Journal of the House' of" Representatives of the
State of Texas. 36th Leg., Reg. Sess., 1919.
Texas.
Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas.
36th Leg,, Reg. Sess., 1919,
Texas,
Proceedings of the Joint Committee of the Senate
and House in the Investigation of the Texas
Ranger Force. 36th Leg., Reg. Sess., 1919.
Texas.
Reports of the Adjutant General of the State of
Texas (Biennial), 1914-1920.
U.S.
Congress. Senate. S. Doc. 285, 66th Cong., 2d
Sess., Serial Nos. 7664-7665.
U.S.
Congress. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations
of the United States (Washington, 1861- ) ,
1910-1920.
Manuscript Collections
Adjutant Generals' Military Papers, 1914-1920, Texas State
Archives, Aus tin.
Governor James E. Ferguson's Letters, Texas State Archives,
Austin.
Governor William P. Hobby's Letters, Texas State Archives,
Austin.
Ranger Records, University of Texas Archives, Austin.
79
80
Walter P. Webb Papers, University of Texas Archives,
Austin.
'
Newspapers
Austin Statesman, 1915-1919,
Brownsville Herald, 1915-1919,
Corpus Christi Caller, 1915-1919.
Fort Worth Record, 1915-1919.
Galveston News, 1915-1919.
Houston Chronicle, 1915-1919,
San Antonio Express, 1915-1919.
Secondary Sources
Allhands, J. L. Gringo Builders. Joplin, Missouri:
Privately printed, 1931,
Bemis, Samuel Flagg. American Foreign Policy and Diplomacy.
New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1959.
Casey, Robert J. The Texas Border. Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1950.
The
Castleman, Harvey N. The Texas Rangers. Girard, Kansas:
HaIdeman-Julius Publications, 1944.
Chatelle, Miriam. For We Love Our Valley Home.
Texas: The Naylor Company, 194 8.
Clark, James A. The Tactful Texan.
House, 1958.
New York:
San Antonio,
Random
Cline, Howard F. The United States and Mexico. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1953,
Ciimberland, Charles C. "Border Raids in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley-1915." Southwestern Historical
Quarterly, LVII (July 1953-April 1954), 287-311.
. Mexican Revolution: Genesis Under Madero,
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1952.
81
• Mexico; The Struggle for Modernity.
Oxford University Press, 1968.
Douglas, C. L.
Texas:
New York:
Gentlemen in the White Hats. Dallas,
South-West Press, 1934.
Fehrenbach, T. R. Lone Star—A History of Texas and the
Texans. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968.
Fenwick, Virginia M., and Lott, Virgil N. People and
Plots on the Rio Grande. San Antonio, Texas:
The Naylor Company, 1957.
Hager, William M. "The Plan of San Diego."
the West, V (1963), 327-36.
Arizona and
Hildebrand, Walter W. "The History of Cameron County,
Texas." Unpublished Master's thesis. North Texas
State Teachers College, Denton, Texas, 1950.
Hooker, Margaret H. "The Texas Rangers." Unpublished
Master's thesis, Baylor University, Waco, Texas,
1927,
James, Daniel. Mexico and the Americans, New York:
Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1963.
Lea, Tom. The King Ranch.
Company, 1957,
Boston;
Little, Brown and
Link, Arthur S. Wilson, the Struggle for Neutrality,
1914-1915. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1960.
Lott, Virgil N., and Martinez, Mercuric. The Kingdom of
Zapata. San Antonio, Texas; The Naylor Company,
1953.
MacCorkle, Stuart A. "American Policy of Recognition
Towards Mexico." The John Hopkins University
Studies in Historical and Political Science,
LI (1933), 102-114.
Marcum, Richard T. "Fort Brown, Texas: The History of
a Border Post." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas, 1964.
Parkes, Henry B. A History of Mexico.
Mifflin Company, 1950.
Boston:
Houghton
82
Patrick, Ted. "Texas Rangers." Holiday, November,
1948, pp. 114-15, 133-37.
Peavey, John R. Echoes From the Rio Grande. Brownsville,
Texas: Springman-King Company, 1963.
Pierce, Frank Cushman, A Brief History of the Lower Rio
Grande Valley. Menasah, Wisconsin: George Banta
Publishing Company, 1917.
Rippy^ J. Fred. The United States and Mexico.
F. S. Crofts and Co., 1931.
New York:
Schuster, Stephen W. "The Modernization of the Texas
Rangers." Unpublished Master's thesis, Texas
Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, 1965.
Stambaugh, J. Lee, and Lillian J. The Lower Rio Grande
Valley of Texas. San Antonio, Texas: The Naylor
Company, 1954.
Sterling, William Warren. Trails and Trials of a Texas
Ranger. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1959,
Webb, Walter Prescott, The Texas Rangers—A Century of
Frontier Defense. Austin: University or
Texas Press, 1965.