MURDER DONE BY TEXANS. Congressman and His Brother Shot Dead.

The headline in the San Francisco Call Bulletin was longer and far more dramatic than the rest of the article. It was April 25, 1905. Newspapers in Texas were still reeling from the trauma. The San Francisco paper scooped all of them.

A political rally in the courthouse of Hempstead, Texas centered on a hot-button issue. Congressman John McPherson Pinckney, representing the 8th Congressional District in Texas and successor to Thomas Ball (“Tom Ball” for Texans in Tomball), spearheaded a petition to convince the governor of Texas to send the Texas Rangers to enforce the law. To shut down illegal operations. To return Texas to LAW AND ORDER.

Headline from The San Francisco Call Bulletin, April 25, 1905, page 1. Image is public domain.

The law in question wasn’t abortion. It had little to do with the eternal undercurrent of racial tensions. The law absolutely had nothing to do with immigration or border issues.

The issue that got Congressman Pinckney so hot and bothered in April 1905: Prohibition.

Texas was an early adopter of prohibition. My great-grandparents’ household would have been representative of the passions on both sides of the debate. My great-grandmother was a devout Methodist, married to a German-secular-Jew-agnostic who drank his three Maβ of beer. Daily.

Rep. Pinckney’s district, centered in Hempstead outside Houston, was more volatile than most.

At the time, the State of Texas was using a version of “states rights” arguments to permit municipalities and counties to enact prohibition, the so-called “local option” that outlasted Prohibition itself. Pinckney and his supporters were furious that law enforcement in “dry” towns like Hempstead, Waller County, refused to arrest offenders. On April 20, 1905, Hempstead residents had voted to become “dry.” Tell that to the sheriff!

Pinckney therefore traveled to Hempstead to hold a “mass meeting” at the courthouse. He and his private secretary, R.F. “Doc” Tompkins, stirred up the crowd with inflammatory speech demanding that Texas Governor Lanham send the Rangers to enforce the law. Long before the shooting started, it was not a pretty sight. Rage ruled.

At some point, Tompkins made a statement that set off the “wet” or anti-Prohibitionists in attendance. Captain Browne, using “vigorous language” (The York Daily, April 26, 1905), grasped the lapel on Doc Tompkins’ coat. Pinckney took umbrage and sprang forward.

News reporting throughout April and May 1905 is muddled at best. Some eyewitnesses claimed that the shooting started as Pinckney lunged forward. Others stated that “the trouble began when Captain Brown (sic) attempted to secure recognition to speak at the meeting” (The Cincinnati Enquirer, April 26, 1905).

All witnesses – in April 1905 – seemed to agree that Rep. John Pinckney was the first to be killed, shot in the back. No one agreed regarding who had fired the first shot.

Reporting was sketchy at best. The San Francisco reporters said that both John Pinckney and his brother Thomas were killed. Kennebec Journal said that three men were killed: John Pinckney, Captain Brown, and J.E. Mills, with Tom Pinckney and R.F. Tompkins badly wounded. The Daily Nonpareil of Council Bluffs, Iowa wrote that J.N. Brown, Congressman Pinckney, and Tom Pinckeny (sic) were dead, while “Doc” Tompkins, John Mills (alternately described as anti-Prohibitionist and Prohibitionist), and Rolling Brown (sic) were badly wounded, updating the story to note that Mills had died during the night.

Everyone agreed that approximately 100 shots had been fired by multiple attendees – on both sides of the Prohibition issue. It’s surprising that there were not more fatalities. It’s also a clear example of bothism, claiming that anti-Prohibitionists had started the shooting.

Governor Lanham immediately dispatched a large number of Rangers to Hempstead. While the governor did not impose martial law, Hempstead residents were prohibited from carrying weapons publicly (“No one is permitted to bear arms,” said the Cincinnati Enquirer). An uneasy and temporary peace settled over Hempstead.

Roland Browne, son of Captain Browne, initially confessed to having fired the shots that killed Congressman John Pinckney.

The Rangers stayed on in Hempstead once families of those killed descended on Waller County. It took an iron fist to keep the violence from restarting. Even Browne’s arrest did not lessen the tension.

John McPherson Pinckney was a, shall we say, unusual man. His father had been crippled in a farming accident. When John was sixteen (1861), his mother died. John’s response: Join the Confederate Army. He firmly and ardently believed in the Confederate cause, which is odd, since his immediate family owned no slaves and was themselves dirt poor. But the Pinckneys hailed from South Carolina. John’s forebears had money. And likely slaves.

John McPherson Pinckney. C. M. Bell Studio. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Living in Gettysburg, I am interested in his participation in the Gettysburg Campaign. He was one of the Texans whom Robert E. Lee sent to fight at Little Round Top without sleep, food, or water. The divisions from Texas and Alabama were decimated at Little Round Top. Pinckney survived.

After the Civil War, Pinckney worked odd jobs, supporting his disabled father and siblings. He and his older sister grew extraordinarily close. They shared a home, adopting orphans and raising the children as their own. Pinckney eventually went to law school and served as district attorney for ten years, and then as county judge in Waller County for three. When Thomas Ball resigned from his US congressional seat, Pinckney won the special election (1903), and one year later, was re-elected.

His passion for the anti-abolition, pro-slavery cause was replaced by his passion for Prohibition, likely fueled in part by his sister’s views on temperance.

When John Pinckney was killed – along with his brother Tom, Captain Browne, and J.E. Mills (once facts were established, those were the four who were confirmed dead in the melee) – Hempstead did in fact settle down. There’s little or no reporting about the incident in May 1905.

So John Pinckney’s sister Sue stirred the pot. She wrote a letter to the editor of the Houston Post, published on May 16, 1905, in which she “expressed her thanks and appreciation for the expression made by the Young Men’s Democratic Club recently in regard to her late brother, Hon. John M. Pinckney, was read by the secretary (sic).” She and the club stepped up their activities on behalf of Prohibition, in the name of her (martyred) brother.

As if to keep the issue front and center, one month later the “local Baptist church” held a memorial service for the Pinckney brothers and Mr. Mills. According to the Houston Post, “it will be remembered, they were killed here in the court house on April 24 last while holding a law and order meeting.” The Baptist pastor went beyond the implied martyrdom of Sister Sue’s May 1905 letter, and outright called all three men “deceased martyrs.” Rev. Morgan challenged the attendees to “carry the battle which is being waged so fiercely about us.” They were knighted as “heroes.”

The trial of Roland Browne began on February 19, 1906. There had been a change of venue. Instead of Waller County, the trial took place in Austin, Texas, Travis County. About 140 individuals were to be called as witnesses to the mass shooting. Miss Sue Pinckney was granted a place of honor “within the bar.”

The Houston Post covered the trial in great detail. They listed the name, race, occupation, and hometown of every juror. Whether “Joseph Theohold of Austin, German, teamster,” or “Jesse M. Edwards of Austin, colored, farmer,” or “C.D. Morris of Fiskville, American, farmer,” every juror had their five minutes of fame, whether they wanted it or not.

The district attorney prosecuting the case opened with an extraordinary statement. He said the prosecution had not been able to obtain a copy of the inquest papers from the coroner in Hempstead. Browne’s defense counsel told the judge the inquest documents had been in Austin all along, that it had been up to the district attorney to obtain them. D.A. wanted the trial to be delayed, but the judge would have none of it. He gave the prosecution thirty minutes to obtain and read the findings of the inquest.

The first day of the trial continued with legal wrangling over minutiae – the legality of the voir dire, whether Austin was proper venue, and – an objection raised by the defense – the failure of the sheriff to subpoena or enforce subpoenas on over forty witnesses.

The trial caught the attention of the New York Times as well. On Page 1 of the February 21, 1906 edition, they reported that J.D. Harvey, defense counsel and brother-in-law of the accused Roland Browne, had showed up to court armed. Harvey was also a county judge in Waller County (the change of venue may have had more to do with that fact, than it did with presumption of violence).

The prosecutor complained about Harvey’s pistol, and the judge ordered that he be disarmed. Harvey protested that he was an “officer of the court.” That only provoked Judge Calhoun’s ire. He summoned all witnesses to the courtroom and advised them that no one, but no one, was to show up in his court bearing a weapon.

When testimony began the next day, the carefully narrated martyrdom stories began to crumble pretty quickly. Sister Sue clutched a button to her heart that she claimed still had her brother’s blood on it. She testified regarding the bullet holes she had seen in his coat, but when she produced the coat, the bullet holes didn’t match her testimony. Part of the legend had been that John Pinckney had been shot in the head. The coroner’s report directly contradicted that.

Sister Sue said she must have brought the wrong coat with her. The judge ordered her to produce the “right” coat. The defense realized that much of Sister Sue’s testimony was invented out of whole cloth, since Sister Sue had not been at the courthouse, so they asked that she be excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses. Prosecutor nearly blew a gasket, but Judge Calhoun ruled for the defense.

The next prosecution witness sounded more like a defense witness. Although he acknowledged that he had seen Roland Browne there, he stated that he saw Tom Pinckney fire the first shot, and that (contradicting Sister Sue’s testimony), John Pinckney had also raised his arm to fire at Captain Browne, the defendant’s father. That witness – J.D. Cummins, dentist and political ally of the Pinckney brothers, secretary of the “law and order” meeting – also testified that he knew at least five or six men were shooting their weapons.

Question from the prosecutor: “Was the room pretty well filled with smoke after the first few shots were fired?”

Cummins: “I couldn’t tell you.”

Question: “Why not?”

Cummins: “I was under a bench and probably had my eyes shut.”

Further, Cummins testified that when he crawled out from under that bench, he saw the bodies, presumed dead, of John and Tom Pinckney and Captain Browne. He also saw the Methodist minister struggling with Roland Browne over a pistol in Roland’s hand. He (Cummins) took the pistol away from Roland Browne.

Undermining the prosecutor’s case, Cummins further stated that when he retrieved Browne’s pistol, it was cold. As if to detract from that damning testimony, the prosecutor asked if Cummins still had the minutes to that meeting. Cummins laughingly said he did not. They tried to rescue Cummins’ testimony by stating that they could not know whether Roland Browne had fired another pistol and had simply retrieved one that had not been fired. But that bell had been rung.

District attorney repeatedly tried to undo the damage that his witness had caused his case. But he could not even get the Prohibitionist witness Cummins to state for certain that the Prohibitionist Tom Pinckney had not been drinking. Cummins, when pressed, would not even state as fact that the Prohibitionist John Pinckney was sober, something the district attorney desperately tried to walk back.

The next witness, a railroad employee named Jones, testified profusely about the drunkenness of Captain Browne, his filthy language, and anger of son Roland. He blamed Captain Browne for starting the shooting. But when Jones’ testimony both at the inquest and before the grand jury were read back to him, it was clear he was now perjuring himself.

It’s unclear from the record whether the district attorney or defense counsel asked Jones about his political leanings. Jones proudly stated he was a Prohibitionist. The attorney questioning Jones asked what he knew of the political leanings of Captain Browne and his son Roland. Jones: “They are anti-Prohibitionists!” The attorney corrected Jones, pointing out that Roland Browne had voted for prohibition in Waller County, and his father had not voted.

After that, Jones’ testimony changed. He had seen Captain Browne hit Tompkins with his pistol, not shoot Tompkins. And he now stated that Tom Pinckney and Captain Browne pulled their weapons at the same time.

The judge questioned him from the bench. Was he sure both men had pulled their weapons simultaneously? Jones admitted that Tom Pinckney was standing on the platform with weapon drawn even before Captain Browne hit Tompkins. But, he added, John Pinckney had complained that Browne was disturbing the “law and order” meeting.

The next prosecution witness only dug the hole deeper. After following the anti-Browne lead, he begrudgingly admitted that he was sitting at a table with Roland Browne, laughing and joking, at the time the first shots were fired. And he couldn’t positively say that he saw Roland ever fire his pistol.

Lewis Harris seemed to rescue the prosecution’s case. He declared that he was positive Roland Browne had fired the first shot. When defense counsel pressed him during cross-examination, citing his testimony during the inquest and before the grand jury, Harris claimed he was not now perjuring himself, because his previous testimony had not been given under oath. You can almost feel the district attorney’s despair at that point.

The fifth and final witness for the day was a woman, called as an eyewitness. She could only state that she saw Captain Browne pistol-whip Doc Tompkins. But she hadn’t seen any of the shooting.

Prosecution got its ducks in a proverbial row with its next six witnesses the following day. At least, that’s how they thought things were going at the beginning of the day. By day’s end, the statements made by their own witnesses seemed to further exonerate Roland Browne. The Pinckney brothers slowly progressed from certain martyrdom to the agitators who started the whole thing.

Upon cross-examination, Doc Tompkins’ testimony put the incident into proper context. He admitted that he and the Pinckneys, along with others, had gathered all the “coloreds” together and basically committed voter intimidation. Armed with shotguns and pistols, the Pinckneys, Tompkins, and their supporters had commanded Waller County’s Black citizens not to vote on April 20. And the “law and order” meeting was intended only for Prohibitionists. It was not an open forum.

Doc Tompkins’ wife further incriminated the Pinckneys when she revealed the allegedly vulgar thing that Captain Browne had said to her husband. The statement that supposedly kicked off the shooting? Browne to Tompkins: “We will make our friend Tompkins deputy sheriff.” To which Tompkins had replied, “Who is your authority?” – Browne: “The county judge and the sheriff.”

Remember, this “law and order” meeting was called for the purpose of asking the Texas governor to send in the Texas Rangers.

But Mrs. Tompkins persisted with her story that Captain Browne and his son Roland had fired the first shots. Until defense counsel repeated her own testimony back to her, namely that she hadn’t seen who fired the first shot.

A subsequent man, who clearly hated the Brownes, further eroded the prosecution’s case. He admitted that Doc Tompkins was shooting at Roland Browne, and that Roland then returned fire.

The prosecutor re-called Sister Sue, who produced the “right” coat. After she was excused, the district attorney called the Pinckneys’ brother Dick and asked him to wear John Pinckney’s coat, so the jury could see where the bullet holes were. Dick complied.

And the prosecution abruptly rested, with court adjourning until the next day.

On February 22, the prosecution withdrew its announcement that it rested and called another witness, Dr. J.H. Morrison, who had examined the bodies of the men who were killed. Initially, it appeared that the prosecutor finally had his slam-dunk.

Until Dr. Morrison was cross-examined. Defense had done its homework. They knew, and got Dr. Morrison to admit, that the earlier murder of another Pinckney brother had not been committed by Blacks, as had been charged, but by Sheriff Lipscomb and his family, an anti-Prohibition faction, and indeed, in the Lipscombs’ home. And that Roland Browne was in the Lipscombs’ home when Tucker Pinckney was killed by Sheriff Lipscomb or alternately, that the sheriff had protected Tucker Pinckney’s killer. And with that, the prosecutor gave up.

The defense was more than ready. Defense witnesses – excluded from the courtroom, same as Sister Sue – one by one filled in gaps in the martyrdom narrative. John Pinckney was armed, he always was armed, and they had all seen him raise his hand to shoot. They also painted a not-so-nice picture of him as a man, stating that he was mean, and above all, that he was dangerous.

Further, Roland Browne’s siblings painted a sympathetic picture of their father Captain Browne and brother, the defendant. They readily identified the weapons the two men had on their person the night of the “law and order” meeting. The one wielded by Captain Browne to hit Doc Tompkins didn’t shoot straight, they all stated, and belonged to one of Roland’s sisters. That would have been the reason he didn’t fire the pistol. And the weapon that Roland carried did not match the weapon that killed either of the Pinckneys or Mr. Mills. Testimony from the Texas Rangers who processed the crime scene validated that information.

One by one, witnesses for Roland Browne confirmed that Tom Pinckney had shot first. Several also stated that they heard Roland tell the Pinckneys to put their weapons away, that he would take his father home. Only, the Pinckneys – both of them – decided to shoot instead.

The dark, dark picture of John Pinckney’s life was put on display in that courtroom. Somewhere, law books likely still carry the grim details of John Pinckney’s life. Voter suppression, threats against Waller County’s Black community if they dared to vote, even meanness like wearing his pistol to get a shave at the local barber, unnerving the barber who knew Pinckney’s reputation.

These were fellow Prohibitionists, these men who testified on behalf of Roland Browne. Some intimated secrets regarding the Tucker Pinckney murder, but those secrets were not deemed admissible.

By the end of defense testimony, it was unclear whether fifty or one-hundred shots had been fired. Whether there were four shooters, or eight. Most, but not all, claimed that Tom Pinckney fired the first shot. But no one could rightly say what caliber weapon each man had carried, and what caliber weapon killed the four victims on April 24, 1905. Or whom those four men had wounded. Or even whether John Pinckney had inadvertently shot and nearly killed his old friend, Doc Tompkins. Testimony was all over the place.

And yet, no matter who sat on the stand to be questioned by the district attorney, with one voice they proclaimed that John Pinckney was an awful human being, who used his power first as judge, and later as congressional representative, to push people around, to bully his opponents, and yes, to prevent Black citizens from voting. These were things his friends said about him! One man in particular vowed he always voted for Pinckney no matter what, although he was scared to death of him.

When Roland Browne – a 22-year-old single man, according to the Houston Post – took the stand in his own defense, the trial was all but over. Roland testified that he had been in a good mood that night. Before stopping in at the courthouse, he and a buddy had gone to his brother-in-law’s office and telephoned a young lady. And once inside the courthouse, he was glad to see friends there. He knew his father was there, but didn’t pay much attention to him until Doc Tompkins read the resolution aloud and he saw his father’s reaction.

The resolution didn’t just call for the Rangers to come to Hempstead. It also stated in plain words that John Pinckney believed local law enforcement was not doing its job. Captain Browne – related to that local law enforcement – told Tompkins to shut up. And the fight ensued.

Roland said he was going to try to get to his father to take him home, but as he reached his dad, Tom Pinckney pulled out a pistol and aimed at Captain Browne. After he fired, Roland shot back at Tom Pinckney, just as John Pinckney also started shooting at Captain Browne. Roland then turned his weapon on John Pinckney. In total, he got off four shots between the two brothers.

There was no doubt, Roland stated, that he shot at both Tom and John Pinckney, but only after they opened fire on his father.

Prosecution was not quite ready to give up. The Methodist minister that the prosecution witness Cummins had mentioned? District attorney called him as a rebuttal witness. And Rev. Kenney initially delivered. Yes, it was all Roland Browne! Not the good Prohibitionists, the good Prohibitionists had not been shooting!

Defense was, once again, ready. “Name one anti-Prohibitionist who was present that night, who was armed.” After fumbling around for a name, Rev. Kenney said, “Ray Urban! He was there!” – Defense: “No, he was in Houston that night.”

Defense then pulled out the article that Rev. Kenney had written for the Christian Advocate about the events of April 24, 1905. To say that Rev. Kenney was annihilated on the stand would be an understatement. He tried to justify his lies by protesting that, well, it wasn’t all false.

Instead of moving to dismiss the case against Roland Browne, District Attorney Warren Moore and his sidekick Judge J.H. Robertson doubled down. They asked for a conviction of second degree murder.

Prosecutorial misconduct wasn’t yet done. Judge Calhoun learned that friends of the Pinckneys had been intimidating defense witnesses during the trial. The judge ordered the jury out of the room and promptly read the prosecution the riot act, advising them that his investigation of that matter would continue after the trial.

Jury was only out an hour. They found that Roland Browne had acted in self-defense and acquitted him on February 24, 1906.

Oh, but the Pinckney faction was not finished. On April 2, 1906, the Dick Dowling camp United Confederate Veterans 197 presented a Confederate uniform worn by John McPherson Pinckney during the Civil War to “Comrade Sapp,” one of its dignitaries.

Even more repellant, on April 29, 1906, the United States House of Representatives dedicated a day to their ‘beloved’ hero and fellow fighter in the cause of Prohibition. Yes, the entire House stopped its business for a day, so Prohibitionists could honor a violent, dangerous man who intimidated voters and suppressed the votes of Black citizens of his district.

Scott Field of the Sixth Congressional District in Texas said that Pinckney “fell under the deadly fire of passionate and misguided men.” Field falsely claimed Pinckney was unarmed, that he died defending the rule of law. Field, however, gave Pinckney a backhanded compliment when he said that Pinckney was unfamiliar with House rules of procedure, so his primary contribution had not been legislation, but rather his vote.

“Mr. Pinckney was never neutral,” said Field. “Every question of public interest was to him either right or wrong. If right, he considered it his duty to uphold it; if wrong, to publicly condemn.” And that was followed by Field’s gushing praise for Pinckney’s service during the Civil War. This speech was held at the People’s House in Washington, DC, not in Hempstead, Texas.

Representative Lemuel P. Padgett, Sixth Congressional District of Tennessee, uttered ironic words, apparently with a straight face. “[Mr. Pinckney] believed in temperance. He believed in private and public sobriety.” Said of a man whose character witnesses would not swear under oath that he was sober the night he was shot. Padgett went on to say that Pinckney’s death was a “holy moment.”

I found this incident when writing my autobiographical fiction novel [social media title] Middle Earth Houston, about my great-grandfather’s immigrant story, his early life in Texas. The utter hypocrisy of John Pinckney and his faction. The disregard for human life. The ease with which a dispute over who “had the floor” devolved into a gunfight. A Methodist minister’s willingness to perjure himself — lie — on the stand for a political cause. Witness intimidation. Voter intimidation. Suppression of Black votes. Nonexistent women. Corrupt politicians. Bullies.

Culminating in political allies turning a colleague into a martyr, to suit their narrative. At taxpayer expense.

I suppose we have made some progress in the last 120 years. But some days, when politicians lie, lie about lying, lie about lying about lying, with no shame, no embarrassment. When votes are still suppressed, Blacks are still marginalized and threatened, clergy still bears false witness. When disputes are settled with weapons… It can feel overwhelming.

We can only hope that these days, when the case goes to the jury, they (we!) recognize the deception, the fraud, and return the proper verdict. And vote against those whose words and deeds promote violence that still threatens the land we love.

Postscript: Roland Duncan Browne did not lead an exemplary life following his acquittal. May 4, 1909, he and Sheriff Perry of Waller County got into a shooting match, apparently at the same courtroom where the Pinckney incident occurred. Roland Browne was struck once in the ear, the .45 bullet leaving a large hole. Browne’s shots missed the sheriff, so Browne pistol-whipped the sheriff. No charges were filed against Browne.

At some point, Roland married. The December 22, 1912 Houston Post mentioned they had been visiting his uncle and were now returning to Paducah.

No wedding announcement. No birth announcements. After his acquittal, except for his run-in with Sheriff Perry and his December 1912 visit in Hempstead, Roland Browne disappeared.

There is not even an obituary for Roland Duncan Browne. Thanks to Find A Grave, I only know that he didn’t live much longer. He was born December 10, 1881, and died January 12, 1915, less than nine years after he was acquitted.

When violence is the answer, no one wins.

Questions? Comments? Go to our Chat Room! If you enjoyed this post and would simply like to leave me a tip, I would be grateful! Buy Me A Coffee!

Return to Real Texas History index.

© 2024 Denise Elaine Heap. Please contact me for permission to quote.

Everything in this post is thoroughly documented. Newspaper articles, dates, pages, and other reference materials... if you are researching this topic and would like me to share these references with you, please contact me. There will be a nominal $25 charge for that information, along with agreement to properly cite this post.

No part of this post may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the copyright holder, except for the “fair use” of quotations that are properly cited and credited, including identification of the translator if applicable. No part of this post may be in    cluded in any Large Language Model without proper licensing from the copyright holder, Denise Elaine Heap.