Scandal at Kansas Normal School: The Case Against E. P. Bancroft
by: Rick Brainard Date: 08/24/04 Part 3
The trial did not start until September. On 7 September 1878 was the Bancroft embezzlement trial date. The court issued a venue for 145 special jurymen and postponed the case until 10 September 1878 to allow time for delivery of the summons. The jury members chosen on this date were as follows: Edward Davis, J.J. Swan, William Burns, Philip H. Horst, Richard Hughes, W.O. Ferguson, O.M. Johnson, M.C. Stark, Hugh Williams, W.H. McMullen, T. McDonald, and John T. Galbreth. Gillet and Forde, Attorney General Davies and J.H. Crichton acted for the prosecution, and Ruggles, Scott and Lynn for the defense.
The following day the testimony for the prosecution began. Senator Crichton was the first witness called to the stand. He stated that he was an appointed Regent of the Normal School in1873 and first attended meetings of the board in 1874. He would continue to testify later. H.C. Cross testified that he had a conversation with Bancroft early in 1873; he said that he notified Bancroft of his
appointment as the land agent for the school. Bancroft had told Cross-that he already had an appointment from the old board of directors. Cross also testified, that he had three other conversations with Bancroft about the lands. Bancroft told Cross, that the lands were appraised too high and thus they could not be sold. Cross knew of no land sales. He resigned from the board in January or February 1877. A Dr. Wright was appointed to take Cross’ place. The board had discussed the lack of land sales. Moreover, the last conversation with Bancroft in1876 left the impression that there were not any sales. Because of this, they would not take a bond from Bancroft. They had talked of reappraising the lands.
Dr. Pomeroy testified for the state. He said that Bancroft was the agent for the land sales and continued to be the agent until removed by the board. Pomeroy further testified by saying that in the spring of 1875 he called at Bancroft’s office and the defendant told him that there was no demand for the lands; therefore, there were no sales. It was brought up in court over the legality of the executive committee’s duties concerning the land. The court ruled that the board had the right to appoint anyone as a committee and that the board was to ratify their acts. Gillett offered in evidence the above-mentioned testimony as facts. After Pomeroy testified, Ruggles for the defense asked the court to throw out the evidence presented because it was past the statute of limitations. The court barred the evidence before 3 March 1876 from the case. Upon
hearing the evidence and argument for the prosecution, the court decided that two facts had to be proved. First the sale of the land and second the reception of the money. The charge of embezzlement is not valid until the prosecution proved that Bancroft used the money for himself. The first question brought up was whether Bancroft was a State agent or an agent for the Board of Regents. The ruling of the court was that Bancroft was an agent for the state of Kansas because when the Federal Government divested itself of the title to the lands in question it
passed to the state of Kansas. Thus, the state was the legal owner of the lands. The agent for the sale of the lands was agent for the state. When Crichton testified, he said that Bancroft did not deposit the money with the treasurer because Bancroft said he was afraid that Sam Lappin (treasurer) would steal it. Therefore, he deposited the money in a Topeka Kansas Bank. Crichton told the jury that Bancroft said many times that he did not sell any land.
On the following Wednesday the chief clerk of the State Treasury testified that no money was deposited. Crichton further testified that when confronted with the matter, Bancroft promised to pay. However, the board did not take him seriously because he did not pay any security. M.M. Murdock testified that the board were not desirous of entering criminal prosecution but were anxious to get out of it to save the state themselves. Documentary evidence given by the prosecution was as follows:
- An exemplification from the general land office, a statement of lands held in trust for the Normal School by the state.
- Reports to state auditor of sale to Patrick Hull, signed by Bancroft.
- Patent for the land mentioned above.
- Contracts and receipts of those land sales that Bancroft misappropriated.
Murdock further testified that the board as individuals had no personal feelings toward Bancroft but in their official capacity, they had no choice but to prosecute. The state treasurer’s record offered proof of Bancroft’s hiring. Crichton testified that the
agent for the Normal School was required to deposit all monies received from the sale of the lands to the State Treasury as the law provides. (9) Bancroft testified that from time to time, the state treasurer received and deposited from a portion of money, in small amounts, to his credit together with other monies; the state treasurer refused a portion of it. Other portions Bancroft used for personal reasons and at the time, he was unable to replace it. He was cross-examined on Thursday and Friday of the next week. (10)
After Bancroft, Crichton and Cross testified, the judge read his twelve part instructions as well as the charges that Bancroft was facing to the jury. These instructions ranged from making unbiased, emotionless decisions, using common sense etc. in deciding whether the defendant was guilty or innocent according to the evidence brought up in court. There were two counts, number one, Bancroft embezzled about $9000 while in his official capacity as land agent, and number two, failure to hand over the money while it was in his possession when the board demanded that he pay. The defendant concealed his crime. The jury deliberated for four hours on 14 September 1878. They came back with the verdict of guilty on both
counts. The judge sentenced Bancroft to five years hard labor and ordered him to pay the cost of prosecution. The judge denied the defense motion for a new trial. The case eventually went to the Kansas State Supreme Court, which upheld the verdict. Bancroft served two of the five years of his sentence at the Leavenworth State Penitentiary. (11) Reaction across the state varied. Some people thought it was a political persecution, others felt this was going to happen because of bad commissioners. Still others thought Bancroft guilty and justice
prevailed. Some people said that we should have known that one man in many positions weakened the checks and balances system. Someone suggested a way to curb this type of corruption was to have one treasurer’s position for all agencies under the government’s control. (12) The Emporia News held of comment until after the trial. The paper wrote that their sympathy must go to the settlers whom Bancroft cheated. These people had to repay to the Board of Regents, what Bancroft took or they would lose their claims. The efforts of the prosecutors in the
case should meet with “outspoken approval of every honest citizen and newspaper.” The paper continues to state that no matter what position one holds in society, he cannot escape justice. This case was both a lesson and a warning to all who felt tempted to use money not authorized for their personal use. This presents a moral well worth remembering, that is, honesty is the best policy. (13) The impact upon the Normal School was embarrassing at best and damaging at worse for it proved that the members of the board were not doing their job. The board
members did not keep tabs with the progress of the land sales. Nobody bothered to ask for regular reports of progress from Bancroft until the discovery of his crime. The board hastily made a record of the land sales when the scandal went public. There were no records kept until then either by the board or by Bancroft. The school was out $10,000. Some settlers, who renewed their contracts, received credit for the money they paid to Bancroft. The board hired a new agent and this time, they demanded and received bond from him. By 1880, the school had sold all of the land.
This scandal happened during the Gilded Age, the decades following the Civil War, marked by materialism, ruthless exploitation of the environment and the lower classes by the so-called Robber Barons. These men pursued profits with methods that were unethical and dangerous to the public. The upper classes displayed vulgarity of taste. Political and business corruption was rampant throughout the nation, the Saline land scandal being a prime example. It proved to Kansans that the corruption that existed back East, existed in their own backyard.
Sources
- State v. Bancroft, 22 Drassler, 130, 156-57. (1879)
- Emporia News Extra, Report of the executive committee. 1868: A History of the first one hundred years of Emporia Normal School, Wyat p. 4, 8.
- 3. Legislative acts of Kansas, 94-95., 1863.
- 4. Emporia News, 2 October 1865.
- 5. A history of the state Normal school for the first 25 years, Kansas publishing house, 1889, pp. 104-105.
- Emporia News, 8 March 1878.
- Emporia News, 8 March 1878.
- Emporia News, 29 March 1878.
- Emporia News, 13 September 1878.
- Emporia News, 20 September 1878.
- Emporia News, 20, 27 September 1878.
- Emporia News, 10 March 1878, Topeka Commonwealth, 4,6, 8 March 1878.
- Emporia News, 27 September 1878.
Part 1 Part 2 |
