As the case progressed, we learned that J. A. W. Heidecke, the mountaineer whom McKinley and I had employed to steer Special Agent C. E. Loomis and Forest Superintendent Salmon B. Ormsby over the misleading trails throughout the township, had turned against us and joined forces with the Government, but we felt confident in our ability to produce witnesses who could be relied upon to counteract any testimony that he might offer. We concluded that Heidecke would be called to show that there were no cabins or other improvements on the twelve claims under consideration, and that he had either inspected other townships with Loomis and Ormsby, and pointed out the cabins therein as being the ones in 11-7, or else that they had mutually agreed to dispense with the trouble and expense incident to making the investigation, and had concocted a scheme among themselves to make the affidavits appear as if they had made personal examination of each claim. We prepared ourselves for such an emergency, and relied upon our belief that one man's word would offset that of another, and from a numerical standpoint, were satisfied that we held the advantage, as Loomis and Ormsby would have to stand by us.
Our real fear was for the identity of Emma L. Watson, who had filed under the name of Emma Porter, and the question arose in our minds whether or not the prosecution would be able to establish the fact of their being the same person. I felt that inasmuch as she had furnished cash bail, and had thus avoided the necessity of affixing her signature to any bond, it would be impossible for the other side to produce any documentary evidence bearing upon a similarity in the two signatures. How far we were correct in our assumptions may be judged when it is considered that the Government not only introduced Mrs. Watson's deed to Frederick A. Kribs, conveying title to the twelve claims, but numerous other samples of- her signature, all of which had been enlarged by
