-
Chapter 25: “This Don’t Bring Back My Dead Brothers”
- University of North Texas Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
207 An O.K. Corral Obituary The prosecution of Territory of Arizona vs. Morgan Earp et al. began at 3 p.m. on Oct. 31st in the courtroom space being leased by the county in the Mining Exchange building on Fremont Street near the corner of Fourth Street, a building only a hundred yards down the street from the scene of the shootings. The hearing’s first witness was coroner Matthews who testified to examining the three bodies, but was only specific about wounds he considered mortal. The Nugget couldn’t resist another jab in its next issue: “Dr. Matthews, our most worthy coroner, testified yesterday he was over twenty-one years of age, and there isn’t a man or woman in town who for a moment doubts that statement.” Matthews’ age was 56.1 Initially, press coverage of the hearing was suppressed. Said the Nugget, “At the commencement of the examination the rule was invoked and enforced that none but those interested, and one witness at a time should be allowed in the court room.” The order was soon reversed. The Nugget was printing a summary of the testimony anyway. As of the second full day of the hearing, Thomas Fitch rose to suggest that the court reverse its order, “as it appeared impossible to curtail the enterprise of the press …”2 By the time Will McLaury arrived in Tombstone, the hearing had been in progress for three days. Testimony had been taken from an eye-witness, William Allen, and two county officials, the coroner and the sheriff. On Friday the 4th, Sheriff Behan was on the witness stand, concluding his lengthy testimony. So far, the prosecution had established that the three men died from gunshot wounds, that the sheriff had not only witnessed the event but had attempted as a peace officer to intervene and was brushed aside. Many of the details of people’s movements before and during the shooting were established according to the sheriff’s own eye-witness testimony. Under cross-examination, the question was posed, “Had not the Clanton party … a reputation for courage and determination?” Behan stated: “They have that reputation. That is, Ike Clanton and Frank McLowery—I never “This Don’t Bring Back My Dead Brothers” Twenty-Five 208 The McLaurys in Tombstone, Arizona heard anything about the other two discussed.” The next day, Judge Spicer ruled that testimony regarding the dead men’s reputations would be stricken from the record.3 With the testimony of Mrs. Martha King, the case was going ahead to attempt to establish the case for murder. She testified about seeing Frank McLaury and his horse outside Bauer’s market. She was annoyed because “the parties who keep the shop seemed excited and did not want to wait on me.” Shortly afterward, she saw the Earps approach four abreast and heard the man on the outside (Morgan Earp) say to the one she could identify on the side next to the building (Doc Holliday), “Let them have it.” The remark could hardly have been either casual or said soto voce in private conversation. It was spoken loud enough to be overheard three people away as the men strode down the street. There is conjecture that it was a conditional instruction, part of an ongoing conversation. It may have been said to either encourage or intimidate. In any case, the reply was just as chilling. “All right,” replied Holliday.4 W. R. McLaury introduced himself to District Attorney Price and the other members of the prosecution. For reasons that are not entirely clear, Mr. Price agreed to include this McLaury brother as a member of the prosecution team, perhaps because McLaury had been instrumental in hiring attorneys Campbell and Robinson. At this point in the proceedings, whoever was the architect of the case against the Earps and Holliday, it was not W. R. McLaury. On November 4th, his first full day in Tombstone, at the conclusion of the sheriff’s testimony and before moving on to the next witness, McLaury was introduced to the court. “On motion of L. Price, W. R. McLowery was admitted as associate counsel on the part of the prosecution.”5 Naturally, the fellowship of being a bereaved brother meant that Will McLaury spent time—very likely a good deal of time—with Ike Clanton. Clanton’s name may have been familiar to him from correspondence with his brothers and there is no doubt that he believed what Clanton told him. Whether...