On May 21, 1908, Oscar Straus, Secretary for the U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, sent a communique officially dismissing Immigration Service inspector Robert L. Dodd from the Immigration Bureau.Footnote ¹ Straus made this decision based on evidence most early-1900s investigators would have found suspect, at best. This evidence included dubious testimony from a Japanese smuggler and his Chinese confederate, compounded by a questionable investigative report that applied evidence that damned another officer and conflated it with Dodd’s case. Straus informed Dodd that he was being terminated due to conduct unbecoming an officer of the service, neglect of duty, and conspiracy to secure unlawful admission of aliens. Dodd’s career as a civil servant was over. But was his dismissal a rush to judgment on Straus’s part, and did Dodd’s firing serve a greater purpose than merely purging a bad apple from federal service?

As recent cases regarding immigration officers and bribery indicate, instances of corruption along the U.S.-Mexico border still happen.Footnote ² Yet it says much about our current perception of the professional integrity of the federal bureaucracy that the public regards such cases as anomalous. Present-day Americans expect the federal government to police and vigorously punish federal employees who violate the public trust. While not alien to most Americans, the notion that a bureaucratic institution exists merely to serve the public is certainly not shared across all nations. The U.S.-Mexico border personifies this contrast, as the American perception of Mexican federal bureaucracy is one of corruption. There was a time though, when the culture and practices of the American civil service resembled institutions of modern-day Mexico. How did the culture of the U.S. civil service begin its evolution toward a modern institution? Dodd’s 1908 case makes for a good case study for understanding how the Immigration Bureau grappled with tremendous institutional challenges as it evolved into a professional bureaucracy during the Progressive Era. This case arose a quarter century after the passage of the 1883 Pendleton Act, which initiated the professionalization of the U.S. civil service, transforming it from a patronage system to a merit-based system.Footnote ³ Yet even after the onset of such reforms, corruption and other abuses of power were ongoing challenges to the Immigration Bureau’s leadership.Footnote ⁴ By examining the agency of American civil servants as facilitators of undocumented immigration – and how the bureau dealt with policing its agents – scholars can better understand the uneven rise of federal power along the border at the turn of the century.Footnote ⁵ Dodd’s case shows the Immigration Bureau struggling within ingrained institutional cultures as the bureau sought to redefine acceptable practices with a professionalizing civil service.

Of course, we may start by asking whether Dodd was actually guilty of any charges. This question is significant for three reasons. First, the most damaging evidence against Dodd was testimony delivered by a pair of East Asian men whose credibility typically would have been discounted in turn-of-the-century America. Second, the evidence against one of Dodd’s peers, translator Robert L. Pruett, was solid, and yet investigators, unable to sanction Pruett, instead made an example of Dodd. Finally, there is reason to question how Dodd’s supervisor, Theodore Schmucker, avoided greater scrutiny. Reviewing Dodd’s case illustrates the complexity of how the changes that were informed by the progressive ideals that influenced the upper leadership of the immigration service affected and applied to rank-and-file civil servants.

In recent decades, U.S. immigration scholarship has witnessed a proliferation of studies centered on ethnic groups, migration patterns, human smuggling, and the rise of nativism. Only a few, though, such as Patrick Ettinger’s Imaginary Lines: Border Enforcement and the Origins of Undocumented Immigration, 1882–1930 (2009), pay attention to the role of government officials in facilitating human smuggling.Footnote ⁶ This scarcity is curious when one considers that Erika Lee’s 2002 article, “The Chinese Exclusion Example: Race, Immigration, and American Gatekeeping, 1882–1924,” identifies the need to examine government gatekeepers yet fails to consider them as facilitators of undocumented immigration.Footnote ⁷ Yukari Takai also examines human smuggling and even stresses the need to explore the agency of third parties to fully understand the complexity of migrant passages.Footnote ⁸ Yet Takai ignores collusion by employees of the Immigration Bureau.Footnote ⁹ This article seeks to extend that conversation by examining the practices and extent of official misconduct.

Japanese immigration to the continental United States had been modest until 1884, when the Meiji government eased emigration restrictions for the laboring classes.Footnote ¹⁰ Around the same time, the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 prompted West Coast business interests to turn to Japanese immigrants for railroad and farm labor needs. While the numbers of Japanese migrants were small, the same racism that prompted Chinese Exclusion soon fueled anti-Japanese paranoia.Footnote ¹¹ This bigotry was especially acute in California, where a political movement pressured the Theodore Roosevelt administration to issue Executive Order 589, along with the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1907, in an attempt to curb Japanese immigration into the continental United States. Tighter restrictions prompted Japanese immigrants to seek alternative routes to the United States, especially via the U.S.-Mexico border. In 1907, El Paso, Texas, was a major port of entry, with its strategic location near mines in the Southwest making it an ideal location for mineral refineries. Furthermore, El Paso’s existing rail infrastructure made it a transportation hub connecting the Southwest to the rest of the United States. Ciudad Juárez, across the border, was the terminus of the Mexican Rio Grande, Sierra Madre, and Pacific Railway, and so people, goods, and raw materials from Mexico flowed to the United States. El Paso’s immigration agents covered a region extending 360 miles from the New Mexico-Arizona border to the town of Marfa, Texas, with El Paso being the only legal point of entry.Footnote ¹²

As with Chinese laborers, Japanese immigrants often signed labor contracts to work for industries in Mexico, which had fewer restrictions on migration. Upon arrival, though, most laborers would break the contract and abscond to the United States via rail. The federal government expressed concern over the amount of human smuggling taking place at this juncture, as well as the integrity of federal agents. As Erika Lee has noted, immigrant smuggling provided profitable opportunities for its practitioners, who facilitated their activities by bribing poorly paid civil servants.Footnote ¹³ Theodore Schmucker, the El Paso Chief of Immigration Inspectors, reported that the border was “honeycombed” with people engaged in human smuggling, making it almost impossible to track their activities.Footnote ¹⁴ Schmucker informed superiors that underground tunnels, safe houses, and even language schools (operating across the border) existed to help Asian immigrants blend in as native-born Americans. He asserted that the majority of Chinese arriving in Juarez from the Mexican interior managed to disappear into the United States; Schmucker accused El Paso’s legal Chinese residents of being complicit in aiding this circumvention of immigration law.Footnote ¹⁵ As an example, he noted the recent seizure of high-quality, counterfeit Chinese residency certificates, which entitled owners to legal residence in the United States.Footnote ¹⁶

Schmucker’s report concerned Washington sufficiently that the federal government dispatched Frank P. Sargent, the Commissioner of Immigration, to undertake an inspection tour of El Paso in January 1906.Footnote ¹⁷ After Sargent’s visit, though, Schmucker discovered that Ging Hasegawa, his Japanese translator, was extorting money from Japanese immigrants by telling them that they needed to pay him a “commission” for his translation services.Footnote ¹⁸ Schmucker dismissed Hasegawa from his post and reported to Sargent that his investigations uncovered evidence that the translator was also involved in the Chinese smuggling business. Yet there was no federal statute permitting prosecution of the interpreter.Footnote ¹⁹ Schmucker understood that people on both sides of the border profited from this illicit business and that human smuggling operations were well-established concerns even before the United States began to curtail Japanese immigration.

It is hard to determine the number of officers Schmucker had at his disposal, but in El Paso, he appears to have counted on twelve to sixteen agents and three interpreters (with knowledge of Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese).Footnote ²⁰ This number did not include customs officers, who were in a separate department. These agents were posted at two bridges (Paso del Norte and Ysleta) as well as at Union Station, the main El Paso railroad terminal. Among the El Paso-based inspectors was Robert Lee Dodd, who had joined the immigration service in 1903.Footnote ²¹ Dodd, a family man, was posted to El Paso in 1907 and his yearly salary was $1,200, the equivalent of about $35,000 in 2023.Footnote ²² Concurrently, Robert Lee Pruett, who had served as a missionary for more than a decade, in Japan, was selected as the new Japanese interpreter for the El Paso sector.Footnote ²³ Pruett and his family arrived in El Paso in January 1907; he took his post at about the same time as Dodd.Footnote ²⁴

Starting in March 1907, directives from Washington, D.C., defined modified provisions for Japanese immigration, discriminating against the laboring classes but affording transit rights to students, professionals, and businessmen.Footnote ²⁵ Smugglers got to work immediately, and that month the first apprehensions were recorded. Paraphernalia found on these men signified smugglers’ organized response to new demand.Footnote ²⁶ Japanese immigration across the border increased dramatically before the law came into full enforcement, especially since Japanese holding passports to Mexico still enjoyed the right of transit on the way to the destination stamped on their passport, thus permitting those determined to stay in the United States the opportunity to discontinue their journey.Footnote ²⁷ The Gentleman’s Agreement and Roosevelt’s March 14 executive order curtailed migrants’ use of passports to Mexico for this purpose, driving “virtually all Japanese migration at the U.S./Mexico border underground.”Footnote ²⁸ Schmucker reported that 388 Japanese immigrants applied for entrance in the month prior to the law’s implementation, and expressed concern that U.S.-based Japanese merchants and labor agents were crossing into Mexico and encouraging migrants to circumvent the law.Footnote ²⁹ Schmucker’s hands were tied when it came to taking measures to stem the tide of undocumented Japanese migration, however, and so by the end of March, record numbers of Japanese (1,251) had entered El Paso.Footnote ³⁰

The Immigration Service dispatched special inspector Marcus Braun to El Paso to investigate conditions on the border. He reported that the border was lined with hundreds of Japanese intent on entering the United States.Footnote ³¹ Braun claimed that 200 Japanese disappeared from Juárez without a trace, armed with considerable money and advice from Japanese labor agents on how to employ the right of transit as a means of entering the United States legally. Braun extended his investigation into Mexico, obtaining the valuable services and expertise of Pruett.Footnote ³² Interviews with Warren Garrett, labor agent for the Transoceanic Immigration Company, found that 400 contracted Japanese laborers had absconded from their original labor agreements and were currently stopped from entering El Paso.Footnote ³³ Pruett reported that Garrett and his Japanese counterpart, Murokami, were unreliable and unprincipled rascals engaged in passing laborers off as students to abuse the principle of transit rights.Footnote ³⁴ He claimed that Garrett bribed a port doctor in Mexico $4,000 to reverse his finding that 423 immigrants were suffering from trachoma, and thus ineligible to disembark.Footnote ³⁵ Conversations with some of these migrants, as well as others he encountered, convinced Pruett that they all intended to enter the United States.Footnote ³⁶ Upon completing his duty with Braun, Pruett indicated a willingness to continue special work, highlighting his language skills and long residency in Japan as suiting him for investigative service.Footnote ³⁷ Frank W. Berkshire, supervisor for the Southwest, ignored his request and restored Pruett to his regular duty.Footnote ³⁸ Pruett, a man with a growing family, would have understood the money a man with his skills and position could make by aiding human smuggling.

Concurrently, Dodd held the post of Chairman of the Board of Special Inquiry, a position within the Immigration Service that dealt with the entry and transport of detained aliens.Footnote ³⁹ The three-member Board of Special Inquiry would examine and question immigration applicants to determine eligibility for admittance. Decisions were usually made on the spot under a majority rule principle.Footnote ⁴⁰ Pruett joined Dodd on the board, and eventually the two men would forge a friendship that ultimately proved fatal for Dodd’s civil service career.

That summer, transport agent Yoshisada Nonami arrived in Juárez and teamed up with Ging Hasegawa to coordinate a human smuggling business.Footnote ⁴¹ Organized in June 1907, the so-called Japanese Bureau aimed to monopolize operations in the region. The official-sounding title was calculated to convey a seemingly legitimate connection to the Japanese government.Footnote ⁴² Rumor claimed the Japanese Bureau had bribed immigration officials and other officials to such a degree that locals even referred to Nonami as the Japanese consul.Footnote ⁴³ The business’s success, however, eventually came to the attention of Japan’s minister in Mexico, who received anonymous complaints in September 1907. Complainants claimed Nonami had successfully bribed American officials.Footnote ⁴⁴ Specifically, Pruett was identified as one such official.Footnote ⁴⁵ Concurrently, Garrett had written a letter to Braun warning him that Nonami was in the smuggling business and further asserted that he was aided by corrupt immigration officers.Footnote ⁴⁶ Berkshire eventually received this information, including a package of letters confirming the accusations.Footnote ⁴⁷ This information prompted a formal investigation.Footnote ⁴⁸ Investigator Charles Babcock was delegated to proceed to San Antonio to receive documents from Berkshire and to secure the services of a Japanese translator, named Alfred T. White, who was not attached to the El Paso office. From the outset, apparently, accusations against Pruett were taken seriously.Footnote ⁴⁹ At this early juncture in the investigation, Dodd’s name had been mentioned neither in relation to the accusations against Pruett nor the activities of the Japanese Bureau.

Preceding Babcock’s arrival in El Paso, four significant events in November 1907 affected the investigation. First, Schmucker, at his request, was reassigned to head the Naturalization Bureau in Denver.Footnote ⁵⁰ He was replaced by George Harris, the former chief in Laredo.Footnote ⁵¹ Second, Dodd’s term as chairman of the board of special inquiry ended and he was reassigned to duty at Union Station.Footnote ⁵² Thus, from December 1907 until his suspension in March 1908, Dodd did not have access to head tax receipts, which would be a key element of the accusations that ultimately cost him his post. Third, Pruett’s term on the same board concluded and he took a leave of absence that month.Footnote ⁵³ During that absence, Pruett’s wife Josie purchased a piece of property in Los Angeles for $1,500, an enormous sum (equivalent to about $50,000 or more in 2025) that eclipsed her husband’s yearly salary.Footnote ⁵⁴ Finally, Nonami left Juárez and passed control of the Japanese Bureau to another man named Shinji Kawamoto.Footnote ⁵⁵ A witness alleged that before leaving, Nonami personally introduced Kawamoto to the men in the immigration service he had corrupted. Thus, three of the men who would eventually be at the center of the probe were not present or interviewed during Babcock’s investigation, while the fourth, Dodd, in turn, took his leave in December for a trip to Mexico City.Footnote ⁵⁶

Babcock obtained the names of the accused immigration officers from Japanese embassy officials in Mexico, although those names were not revealed in the final report. Once in El Paso, Babcock noted the porous condition of the border, exacerbated by the paucity of agents in El Paso.Footnote ⁵⁷ He discovered two competing Japanese smuggling rings based in Juárez, including one named the Japanese Benevolent Society. Babcock learned that the head of that organization, Nakazo Nojima, had been under arrest by Juárez authorities on charges of engaging in an illegal business, yet was freed after bribing the police.Footnote ⁵⁸ Babcock interviewed journalist Zeh Torai Junichi, who confirmed that Japanese migrants were not staying in Juárez long; he noted that eight Japanese migrants had been smuggled over the Stanton Street Bridge the first week of December and that the Japanese Bureau had eighteen paying customers stashed in safe houses awaiting the opportunity to be smuggled into the United States.Footnote ⁵⁹ He confirmed that Pruett’s agency had aided the smuggling ring. Junichi claimed Kawamoto had met with Pruett in a Juárez streetcar to discuss business and that Pruett invited Kawamoto to his house so he could warn him about the investigation.Footnote ⁶⁰ Interpreter White concurred, claiming he overheard a conversation between Hasegawa and Kawamoto saying that the Japanese Bureau was holding off activities until receiving an all-clear. He heard Hasegawa mention that “the American” was not available for their purposes, but did not obtain his name.Footnote ⁶¹

B. K Matsunaga, an El Paso-based businessman, testified that while he could not confirm immigration officers were receiving money from the Japanese Bureau, he could confirm that Pruett had maintained a cozy relationship with locally based Japanese.Footnote ⁶² Testimony from Dr. J. W. Tappan, an immigration service doctor, detailed some officers’ suspicious behaviors. He noted gifts of meals, drinks, and cigars, and observed that Schmucker was among those guilty of taking such gifts. Tappan admitted he never saw a direct money transaction but did relate an incident where Dodd and Pruett invited him to a dinner (an invitation he refused) sponsored by “officers” of the Japanese Bureau. Tappan’s testimony marked the first mention of Dodd’s alleged involvement. His name arose a second time when Chinese Inspector Griffin witnessed Dodd and Pruett accepting tickets to a bullfight in Juárez from an unidentified Japanese.Footnote ⁶³ It is notable that in both cases, Dodd was not mentioned without Pruett.

Babcock’s final report detailed important findings. Smuggling rings were notorious for justifying their costs by telling clients that money was needed to bribe immigration officials. Clients took it on faith that officers were being bribed to allow their passage. However, Babcock could not confirm allegations that members of the Immigration Bureau were actually being bribed.Footnote ⁶⁴ If money had been passed, it was directly between officers and smugglers.

Babcock observed that successful Japanese applications for admission rose dramatically between September and November, and then dropped precipitously in December. He explained that this dip was logical as new requirements for Japanese in transit were now being rigorously enforced and that border inspections were done with greater scrutiny. These changes coincided with Schmucker’s reassignment and placement of George Harris as the new sector chief. Babcock concluded that up to November 1907, local smuggling rings had little incentive to suborn immigration agents to smuggle undocumented migrants. He admitted that no direct evidence proved corruption, although he did note that Pruett had demonstrated poor judgment in his associations. Dodd, who had accompanied Pruett on some occasions, was similarly chided for his lack of discretion. Babcock faulted the culture and practices of the El Paso office under Schmucker. He critiqued the Board of Inquiry for handling currency exchanges for incoming aliens, directly purchasing railroad tickets for admitted aliens, and accepting favors from labor agents. All this activity happened “with the knowledge and apparent approval of the former Inspector in Charge.”Footnote ⁶⁵ He concluded by questioning how such activities could have occurred without rebuke and questioned Schmucker’s leadership and integrity.Footnote ⁶⁶

Babcock also uncovered a separate operation. An El Paso-based printing house had been commissioned to manufacture plates “representing portions of Japanese passports.”Footnote ⁶⁷ A separate company was commissioned to deal with the photographic process. Together, these processes could be combined to create a perfect forgery of a Japanese passport. Since the Japanese government controlled the entrance of Japanese laborers into the United States by denying or restricting the usage of their passports, Babcock determined that a Mexican intermediary had commissioned the work at the behest of some Japanese.Footnote ⁶⁸ Firms producing the bogus material were allowed to complete the work but were ordered by the Immigration Bureau to place a mark on the plates to facilitate the identification of any documents made using them as forgeries.Footnote ⁶⁹

Berkshire sat on the report for a few weeks, but by February he returned to El Paso to make a second inspection; he also took the opportunity to transfer Dodd to Canada, effective immediately.Footnote ⁷⁰ Dodd was expected to report to his new assignment near Point Caldwell, Ontario, on March 1. A few days after Dodd received his transfer orders, Pruett went on leave to Los Angeles, failing to inform his superiors that he had no intention of returning to his post.Footnote ⁷¹ By the end of that month, a trio of apprehensions began unraveling the workings of the Japanese Bureau, a maelstrom that turned into a nightmare for Dodd.

Concurrent with Berkshire’s visit, a second investigator, Richard Taylor, was dispatched from Washington to examine the activities of every immigration agent, support personnel, customs agents, and even the U.S. Attorney in El Paso. While Taylor’s mandate was broad, the main target of his investigation was the Japanese Bureau. It started with the capture in a Denver rail station, on February 19, of four Japanese migrants carrying suspected counterfeit head tax receipts. Over the next nine days, another eight migrants carrying bogus receipts were apprehended in Pecos and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Inspector W. B. Green, in Albuquerque, reported that detained migrants identified Kawamoto as the party supplying head tax receipts. The investigation focused on these receipts. If genuine, they would imply that a member of the Board of Special Inquiry had a hand in supplying them to smugglers. Detainees testified that they sneaked into the depot and waited until officials had inspected the train before boarding. They received tickets in sleeper cars, in addition to backdated head tax receipts from Kawamoto, to serve as proof of legal entrance into the United States.Footnote ⁷² This testimony was upheld by a second group of detainees, who identified Kawamoto as the source of their receipts.Footnote ⁷³ They claimed he had made special arrangements with the Japanese interpreter who handed off the receipts.Footnote ⁷⁴ The migrants, though, could neither provide the name of the officer who supplied the receipts nor claim to have witnessed an exchange between Kawamoto and immigration officials.Footnote ⁷⁵ Further interrogations confirmed that none of the detainees had ever personally met Dodd or Pruett.Footnote ⁷⁶

Kawamoto was subject to an order of apprehension and was detained crossing into El Paso on March 7, 1908. He was interrogated, admitted his guilt, and identified Pruett as the source for the head tax receipts.Footnote ⁷⁷ He paid Pruett $700 for twelve receipts, in three separate installments, and claimed Pruett asked him for a $500 loan so he could secure a position as a Pullman conductor.Footnote ⁷⁸ When asked about arrangements with the immigration office, Kawamoto denied any connections beyond those with Pruett and did not identify Dodd.Footnote ⁷⁹ Pruett was immediately recalled to service the next day.Footnote ⁸⁰ On March 10, Kawamoto was arraigned before U.S. Commissioner George Oliver and placed under arrest with bail set at $1,000.

Taylor then interviewed Kanzo Kimura, a competing smuggler also in custody. Kimura readily identified Pruett and his connections to the Japanese Bureau. When asked if he had met with Pruett and Dodd at the Louvre Saloon, Kimura denied he had, even though Taylor led Kimura through a line of questioning designed to implicate Dodd. Kimura continued denying the involvement of any other officer besides Pruett. Taylor proceeded to feed names to Kimura until he came upon Dodd’s, at which point he stated that Kawamoto had taken him to Union Station and identified Dodd as the agent working with them. When Taylor asked him if he could identify Dodd’s picture, Kimura said he was unsure. While Kimura identified Pruett easily, he was less assertive in identifying Dodd.Footnote ⁸¹ Taylor began tilting the target of his investigation toward Dodd, but the record is unclear why. There was considerable evidence of Pruett’s guilt, but no uncoerced evidence implicating Dodd.

Only after Taylor interviewed Yasaji Watanabe, Kawamoto’s business partner, did Dodd’s name arise from a witness. Watanabe confirmed Kawamoto’s involvement in human smuggling and claimed Pruett was an integral part of the operation. At a café, he overheard a conversation where Pruett promised access to head tax receipts with the complicity of other immigration officers. When asked how he came about this information, he contradicted himself by stating that he overheard Pruett speaking to Kawamoto in his office. He then stated that Pruett would visit Kawamoto almost every day, but would not do so openly, instead opting to meet him at the Big Kid Café. It was there that Watanabe allegedly overheard Pruett claiming he had one hundred head tax receipts available. He then contradicted himself again by stating that Pruett went to Kawamoto’s office, and they subsequently removed to the Big Kid so they could have their conversation. It is possible that Watanabe misspoke about how meetings were arranged, but if Pruett and Kawamoto were in the habit of discreetly discussing business away from Watanabe, how was he privy to the details presented to Taylor? Taylor asked if Watanabe had ever seen any immigration official other than Pruett meeting with Kawamoto. He answered in the negative but claimed he overheard a telephone conversation between Kawamoto and Pruett that mentioned meeting with a man, whose name sounded like Dot or Dodd, at Union Station. Taylor gathered a new piece of evidence implicating Dodd, but how did Watanabe know to whom Kawamoto was speaking on the other end of the line?Footnote ⁸²

Watanabe revealed Kawamoto had kept a private notebook detailing payments to Pruett and Dodd, but that it had been destroyed because he was forewarned by Dodd.Footnote ⁸³ There are incongruent elements to this part of Watanabe’s testimony as the timelines and actions do not match the testimony. For example, Kawamoto did not speak English and Dodd did not speak Japanese, so how could Dodd have communicated warnings of migrant arrests occurring after Pruett left El Paso? In addition, how would Dodd have been privy to details of those arrests when the events took place while he was en route to his new post on the Canadian border? Taylor’s report established that Harris had not communicated the arrest of the group captured in Albuquerque until March 5, long after Dodd was to take up his new post.Footnote ⁸⁴ Even if Dodd was still in El Paso, it is hard to believe that Harris would have kept Dodd in the loop if he was under suspicion. Finally, if Dodd had forewarned Kawamoto, why would Kawamoto foolishly cross into the United States on March 7? As long as he was in Juárez, he was beyond the reach of immigration authorities, and it is hard to believe he would risk crossing if he had been forewarned. By March 10, Berkshire directed Harris to prosecute Pruett if the investigation upheld the accusations.Footnote ⁸⁵ Pruett continued to ignore his summons to return to El Paso,Footnote ⁸⁶ prompting Berkshire to conclude that the forged head tax receipts connected Pruett to the smuggling ring. Berkshire recommended Pruett’s immediate suspension.Footnote ⁸⁷

Taylor continued the investigation by interviewing M. B. Clawson, a bartender at the Louvre Saloon. Clawson detailed an incident in December involving Pruett, Dodd, and an unknown Japanese person in connection with the theft of three glasses. He noted that the two officers had met with a Japanese man at least a dozen times and engaged in some type of money transactions, although the transactions only transpired between Pruett and the Japanese. In his view, Dodd “seemed to be merely a friend of [Pruett], and did not seem to have much to do with the business.” When asked if any other Japanese were seen with the pair, he noted that only once before had he seen another person with Dodd and Pruett. Clawson added that his only direct interaction with the pair involved efforts to retrieve stolen glasses from their associate. Asked to describe the collaborator, he stated he was five feet tall and overweight, with a dark mustache. Clawson was taken to the county jail to identify Kawamoto as the man he saw with Pruett and Dodd. Kawamoto was then brought to the Louvre where Clawson failed to identify him. Clawson’s testimony was troublesome, because not only was Kawamoto five and a half feet tall and thin, but the description also did not fit that of Hasegawa or Nonami. Locals noted that Clawson’s description only fit Nojima Nokazo, the chief rival of the Japanese Bureau.Footnote ⁸⁸ Regardless of the inconsistencies, Taylor accused Dodd of complicity and recommended his immediate suspension.Footnote ⁸⁹ This turn of events was stunning because Taylor had little tangible evidence and he had not interviewed either Dodd or Pruett.

The investigation now turned toward the forged head tax receipts. Printers indicated that they were likely genuine and appeared to belong to a series printed for the Mexican Central Railroad after March 21, 1907. This finding was significant because the confiscated receipts bore dates preceding the date of printing so that their bearers could claim that they had entered the United States before the implementation of the Gentleman’s Agreement. Inspector Joseph Strand interviewed the chief clerk of the Mexican Central, E. C. Escontrias, who confirmed that his signatures were forgeries but could not definitively trace when the 1300 series (to which the twelve head tax receipts belonged), were issued. He speculated that the receipt book had been delivered to Dodd, who in his role as Chairman of the Board of Special Inquiry sometimes had to assess a head tax for aliens who were taken off the train for examination. He added that Spanish interpreter Sierra had submitted a request for a receipt book and that it was delivered right before Dodd took a trip to Mexico City in December.Footnote ⁹⁰ Subsequently, Escontrias clarified that the book requested by Sierra was different from the first one he described. He noted it was strange that they would require two books in such a short period but was unable to provide the exact number of series or dates for when these books were requested.Footnote ⁹¹ Significantly, the forged receipts carried Strand’s initials. He simply claimed the initials were forgeries and there is no evidence that investigators confirmed the veracity of his assertion.Footnote ⁹² Considering that Dodd’s term on the Board of Special Inquiry ended on December 1, and subsequently Strand replaced him as chair, there is reason to question this part of the investigation. Three months intervened between the end of Dodd’s term and the case’s sudden explosion, making the failure to investigate Strand (as well as the rest of the current board members) baffling considering the precise provenance of the forged head tax receipts could not be affirmed.Footnote ⁹³

Local newspapers became aware of the scandal, identifying Dodd, Pruett, and Schmucker as objects of investigation.Footnote ⁹⁴ Schmucker was visiting El Paso at the time for personal business, but he was not interviewed.Footnote ⁹⁵ This despite the fact that Taylor had scathingly evaluated Schmucker’s leadership.Footnote ⁹⁶ Moreover, testimony by interpreter Antonio Sierra suggested doubts regarding Schmucker’s integrity.Footnote ⁹⁷ Taylor indicated his intent to investigate Schmucker, but in the end chose to ignore this angle.Footnote ⁹⁸ Additional testimony by Sierra affirmed Pruett’s close association with the Japanese community, noting a singular occasion when he was accompanied by Dodd while gathering intelligence at the Juárez Mexican Central Railroad station. He noted that Pruett would engage in brief conversations with some Japanese arrivals and even recalled seeing him speak to one of the migrants currently held over for Kawamoto’s case. When asked about the approximate date of this conversation, Sierra asserted it was no later than early November. Taylor asked if this incident might have taken place toward the middle of November, to which Sierra emphatically replied no, as he knew that Pruett was not assigned to the Mexican Central at that time. Sierra denied awareness of the smuggling operations, adding that the first time he saw Kawamoto was when he was taken into custody. Finally, Taylor inquired about a rumor that one agent had scored a large amount of money. Sierra responded that Chinese interpreter Wong Aloy, along with Strand, claimed Pruett had made $2,500 in one smuggling deal. When asked if he believed Pruett and Dodd were guilty of aiding smugglers, Sierra declared that nothing in his dealings led him to suspect the two men participated in such activities.Footnote ⁹⁹

After this interview, Taylor wrote a dismissal recommendation for both men. While damning toward Pruett, it was weak regarding Dodd’s complicity. Only Watanabe directly connected Dodd to any illicit activity, and this testimony was hearsay. Clawson’s testimony did not add any accusatory evidence against Dodd beyond the fact that he socialized with Pruett. Regardless, Taylor misrepresented evidence by claiming the Japanese man who accompanied Dodd and Pruett at the Louvre was identified as Nonami when local immigration officers clearly identified a different suspect.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ He further misrepresented information by claiming Escontrias was under the impression that the book he sent to Dodd was of the 1300 series, although he provided a not definitive response. Taylor finally admitted he could not connect the head tax receipts to Pruett, which precluded criminal charges against the interpreter. Yet with little evidence, he accused Dodd as a participant in the smuggling operation, asserting that during Dodd’s term as Chairman of the Board, 624 Japanese migrants out of 1,107 were permitted entrance upon primary inspection. This accusation ignored the fact that rigid enforcement of regulations did not occur until Harris arrived as the chief inspector, weeks after Dodd’s term as Chairman of the Board ended.Footnote ¹⁰¹ He accused Dodd of dereliction of duty, noting that he allowed the twelve captured Japanese migrants on three occasions to board trains he was tasked with inspecting. Taylor took this accusation as evidence of Dodd’s guilt, especially in conjunction with “positive evidence of his habitually associating with notorious Japanese smuggler Nonami in company with inspector Pruett.”Footnote ¹⁰² The last conclusion was especially troubling, as the record presented no incidents connecting Dodd to Nonami, except for the one Taylor misrepresented.

The evidence categorically disproved Taylor’s assertion that the departure of twelve migrants by rail provided evidence of Dodd’s guilt. Only the last group had departed from Union Station and boarding the train would not have required complicity of the agent on duty.Footnote ¹⁰³ Taylor’s own reports contradicted his accusation. Two weeks earlier, he had asserted that the force available for train inspections was “inadequate to cope with the situation.”Footnote ¹⁰⁴ Then a week later he declared that trains at Union Station could not be “successfully” covered after dark.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ Furthermore, he characterized efforts to stem undocumented immigration in El Paso as a “farce” due to inadequate personnel numbers employed to police the border.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ Regardless, Berkshire upheld the dismissal recommendation but recognized that evidence was insufficient to warrant criminal prosecution for either man.Footnote ¹⁰⁷ Kawamoto, unable to post bail, was kept in jail to await the convening of the grand jury.Footnote ¹⁰⁸ Upon indictment, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months in county jail. Berkshire regarded this sentence as light but was satisfied that it would dissuade Kawamoto from future smuggling.Footnote ¹⁰⁹

Berkshire could not do much to pursue Pruett, who had resigned from the Immigration Bureau, and the evidence at hand was insufficient to pursue a criminal prosecution. Dodd was another matter, however, as he was still an active federal officer. He was formally charged with conduct unbecoming an officer, neglect of duty, and conspiracy. The first charge concerned alleged associations with Nonami, Hasegawa, Kawamoto, and Pruett. The second charge concerned Taylor’s suggestion that the twelve captured migrants could only have boarded the trains with Dodd’s collusion.Footnote ¹¹⁰ The final charge alleged that Dodd conspired with Pruett and Kawamoto to smuggle Japanese for profit, and it cited misuse of head tax receipts as Dodd’s key role in the conspiracy.Footnote ¹¹¹ Dodd denied the charges. To the first accusation, he responded that his relationship with Pruett merely extended to an occasional lunch at the Florence Café. He added that after completion of their mutual service in the Board of Special Inquiry, they were posted in different areas and rarely associated. He asserted that everyone in the service considered Hasegawa a disreputable character and that no one could truthfully say Dodd was ever in his company. He denied knowing or socially interacting with Kawamoto, whom all the inspectors assumed engaged in smuggling. Finally, Dodd stated that while he knew about Nonami, his only social interaction with the head of the Japanese Bureau was when Pruett introduced them during a bullfight. Dodd denied ever meeting Nonami anywhere else. He noted that Nonami had been absent from El Paso since the previous October, contradicting Taylor’s assertion that Nonami was the Japanese person that Clawson saw with Dodd and Pruett at the Louvre in December.Footnote ¹¹²

Dodd challenged the charge of dereliction of duty by noting that inspector A. G. Bernard was on duty with him on the day in question. Often, they rode the half mile to the old depot to ensure no undocumented migrants boarded the train on the way out of town. They were tasked with inspecting up to seven trains in the period that the smuggling occurred, but there were more than a dozen places a person could enter the railyard, making it physically impossible to detect every one. He closed by stating: “Knowing that I was to be transferred to a station on the Canadian border … I cannot conceive of any reason why anyone would think that I would throw to the winds my opportunity for the future, when nothing could be gained.” Since investigators did not possess evidence that Dodd had enriched himself through smuggling, this argument had merit. He asserted Kawamoto could not identify him if he saw him in the street and that if smugglers were led to believe he would aid them, then it was done without his consent. He denied furnishing Pruett with head tax receipts, claiming that the only fraudulent documents he ever saw were those captured on February 24 and returned to El Paso immediately before his departure. Like his colleagues, Dodd speculated the receipts were forgeries connected to fraudulent passports. Dodd furnished a list of witnesses he felt could vouch for his character and requested a copy of all statements from inspectors with whom he worked. He asked for the opportunity to return to El Paso so that he could clear his name.Footnote ¹¹³

Berkshire ordered Harris to reexamine witnesses and interview Dodd’s character references. George Mershon, a policeman at Union Station, regarded the inspector as professional and competent in his job and asserted he neither witnessed nor heard anything that reflected negatively upon Dodd.Footnote ¹¹⁴ A depot gateman, Ivan Alter, asserted that in all their interactions he found Dodd truthful and trustworthy.Footnote ¹¹⁵ The chief clerk found Dodd to be competent and added that Dodd impressed him favorably.Footnote ¹¹⁶ The depot’s night watchman confirmed that the railyard’s structure made it possible for people to board a train unnoticed even after an inspection.Footnote ¹¹⁷ Ticketing agents, in turn, denied ever bringing tickets to Dodd anywhere except the immigration offices, contradicting Clawson’s testimony that agents had delivered tickets to him at the Louvre Saloon.Footnote ¹¹⁸ Clawson, meanwhile, had skipped town and could not be interviewed again.Footnote ¹¹⁹ This development was significant because Clawson was the only witness who directly placed Dodd alongside Pruett’s activities with the Japanese Bureau. A. G. Bernard, the agent posted at Union Station with Dodd, added little to implicate Dodd. The only detail of interest was that Bernard had ridden the train to Sierra Blanca, Texas, on the same night the last four Japanese migrants boarded for Albuquerque, leaving Dodd on his own at Union Station.Footnote ¹²⁰

Harris decided to reinterview the recently convicted Kawamoto, who offered contradictory testimony. Now instead of saying that Pruett was the only officer with whom he dealt, he alleged that Pruett and Dodd had met him at the Zeigler Hotel to conduct business.Footnote ¹²¹ Harris visited the hotel, but no one could confirm knowledge of either man. It was only after considerable coaxing that he got the day bartender to claim he remembered seeing them with a Japanese individual.Footnote ¹²² This new evidence was questionable: it was not provided in the initial interview, it was not corroborated during the investigation, and it was only provided after the Evening Post had identified Dodd as a suspect.Footnote ¹²³

Harris concluded by interviewing Sam Sing, owner of the Florence Café. Sing had not initially been interviewed by Taylor, even though Kawamoto had contacted Sing to help him post bail. During the interview, Sing confirmed that Dodd, Pruett, and several other agents patronized his establishment. Harris asked leading questions attempting to connect Pruett and Dodd to Kawamoto. Sing denied knowing Kawamoto, but eventually alluded to multiple meetings between the smuggler and the two agents. Harris showed him samples of head tax receipts, which Sing denied recognizing. Harris insisted that Kawamoto had provided Sing fifty dollars to hand Dodd in exchange for the last four receipts used for migrants caught in Albuquerque. Throughout the interview, Harris led Sing to fill in the blanks and provide the proof needed to assert Dodd’s complicity. Although the majority of the evidence was insufficient, Sing’s testimony placed a bribe – and the head tax receipts – directly in Dodd’s hands.Footnote ¹²⁴ Investigators finally obtained what they needed from a Japanese man facing a potentially lengthy prison sentence, as well as a Chinese business owner (whose testimony was provided “with great reluctance”) who hoped to avoid trouble.Footnote ¹²⁵ Either one of the men was likely aware that Dodd was being targeted in the investigation since he had been publicly identified in newspapers weeks earlier.

The final report was a travesty of justice, punctuated by Harris’s inability to prosecute Pruett. He declared that Pruett’s actions since his suspension were proof of a guilty conscience and that his relationship with Dodd was “exceedingly intimate.” That fact seemed to render Dodd guilty by association. Harris alluded to the incident at the Louvre Saloon and added a comment that was not in accord with the timelines of Dodd’s service on the Special Board of Inquiry. He likely perjured himself by claiming he had interviewed Clawson before Taylor did on March 11, although there is no transcript of that interview in the official record and Taylor’s interview indicated it was the first time Clawson had been approached with questions about Dodd and Pruett. Harris knew the case against Dodd was weak, and so instead appears to have conjured an undocumented interview.Footnote ¹²⁶ Although Harris was forced to conclude that no tangible evidence indicated Dodd ever met or interacted with Nonami or Hasegawa, he declared Sing’s and Kawamoto’s testimony sufficient. He ignored the fact that Kawamoto did not initially identify Dodd, or that he did not gain anything by shielding Dodd from scrutiny. Dodd was gone by the time of Kawamoto’s arrest and there was no benefit in maintaining silence.

Regarding the second charge, Harris conceded that migrants could board a train without an inspector’s knowledge but added that Dodd’s failure to prevent this action pointed toward guilty intent. Yet evidence belied the notion that Dodd was necessary to smuggle people onto a train. Harris failed to illuminate the presence of seven trains at the yard, or the multiple entrance points difficult for a single inspector to cover. The international border at El Paso, unlike today, was lightly patrolled and easily penetrated. It is hard to believe that professional smugglers had not developed good intelligence on immigration officers’ procedures, personnel, and habits, or that the porous border necessitated sharing their money with a corrupt agent.

The final charge of conspiracy was only held together by Kawamoto’s testimony. Harris simply dismissed Dodd’s protestations of innocence by saying that Kawamoto indicated otherwise. He ignored Babcock’s earlier report that local smugglers habitually claimed certain inspectors were on the take in order to justify the high cost for smuggling clients. Harris admitted that no conclusive evidence connected Dodd to head tax receipts, yet emphasized that either he or Pruett must have provided them. This allegation was untrue, because while circumstantial evidence against Pruett was strong, it was less so for Dodd. Harris falsely equated the evidence as equally relevant to both men. Meanwhile, he ignored evidence that passports were being counterfeited in El Paso and that the same process could have been used to make head tax receipts. He further ignored the fact that he turned over that part of the investigation to Inspector Strand, whose signature was on the receipts and currently occupied a position as Chairman of the Board, which should have disqualified him from participation in the investigation. In fact, evidence connecting Strand to fraudulent receipts was stronger than evidence connecting Dodd to them. Admitting the case was weak, Harris still concluded that charges against Dodd were “clearly substantiated.”Footnote ¹²⁷

This final report was troubling. Neither Dodd, Pruett, Nonami, nor Hasegawa were ever formally interviewed, and Schmucker was not deposed. Every time his name came up in testimony, investigators neglected to pursue that line of inquiry, even when expressing reservations over his integrity. It is hard to reconcile the idea that Schmucker’s men would have openly associated with Hasegawa, or any of his confederates, without his knowledge. While Pruett was certainly guilty and it is possible that Dodd was corrupt, Schmucker’s absence within the investigation was incomprehensible. Indeed, his name surfaced two years after the Dodd case in a report submitted by Grover Wilmoth, a covert investigator examining a suspected Chinese smuggling ring based in Cananea, Mexico. Wilmoth interviewed Jake Wong, who had served as a cook in the Schumucker household during their El Paso residence, and claimed that he had worked with the former chief in facilitating Chinese smuggling.Footnote ¹²⁸ Even though this information was uncoerced, Berkshire dismissed allegations against Schmucker, stating that the only established fact was the veracity of Wong’s employment.Footnote ¹²⁹ Considering the questionable evidence used to torpedo Dodd’s career and reputation, Berkshire’s unwillingness to pursue Schmucker was negligent, at best.Footnote ¹³⁰

A significant element that remained unaddressed was the allegation that even though Pruett earned a large amount of money from the operation, Dodd did not share in the windfall. Recall that Pruett’s wife had paid $1,500 for a property in Los Angeles in 1907. This was a huge amount of money for a former missionary raising four children on a translator’s salary. If Dodd was implicit in the fraud, then Pruett must have bamboozled him. Notably, the report did not indicate investigations into either man’s finances, which would have been a logical step. What would have prevented Pruett from using his friend, so that smugglers believed they needed to charge clients a higher amount? Even a conman can be taken in by a smarter conman. The report also failed to recognize that without Pruett’s involvement, Dodd had no way to effectively communicate with Kawamoto and coordinate the operation. Since Kawamoto did not speak English, any conversations between him and Pruett in Dodd’s presence would have taken place entirely in Japanese. If Dodd wanted to know what was being discussed, he had to rely entirely on Pruett for that information.

Dodd was found guilty largely upon testimony delivered by Kawamoto and Sing. The fact that Sing communicated with Kawamoto after his arrest, along with Dodd’s public identification as a suspect long before he was deposed, should have rendered both men’s testimony unreliable. Certainly, Sing had an opportunity to coordinate testimony with Kawamoto. We can also ask the question of how they communicated. The investigation did not establish whether either man was conversant in the other’s language, and facts suggest they were not. In addition, the United States of 1908 was far from a racially egalitarian society. This fact was confirmed not only in the openly racist terms used to describe East Asians in public newspapers but was also reinforced by Berkshire’s attitude toward the reliability of an Asian’s testimony. In his dismissal recommendation report, Berkshire said he was “loathe to convict an officer, particularly on Oriental testimony, yet it seems to me, in this instance, that the statements are so conclusively established and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, as to permit little doubt concerning the guilt of the officer accused.”Footnote ¹³¹ The primacy given to the testimony of a convicted Japanese smuggler and a suspected Chinese smuggler over the word of an Anglo-American officer, especially when the supervising officer admitted the circumstantial nature, was remarkable.

Finally, it is apparent, based on the official record, that the immigration officers were aware an investigation was in progress. The first two groups of Japanese immigrants were transported out of El Paso concurrent to Berkshire’s February visit. Why would Dodd proceed with smuggling operations? For a man with a career to protect, it would have been foolhardy to flout his part in a smuggling operation during an investigation. It made more sense on the part of Pruett, who already had an exit strategy in place, to take risks for a big payday. This idea adds credence to the theory that Pruett used Dodd as a cover. Ultimately, the most solid incriminating evidence the investigation uncovered was the notion that Dodd was guilty of befriending Pruett.

The Dodd case marked the beginning of a more aggressive policy of professionalization and accountability for the Immigration Bureau in the Southwest. Berkshire’s aggressive posture was in line with President Theodore Roosevelt’s determination to reform that federal bureau. Historian Thomas Pitkin focused considerable attention on the problems and reform efforts at the turn of the century at Ellis Island. In his study, he characterized the operation of America’s largest port of entry as being plagued by widespread corruption and staffed by a “certain percentage of worthless and dishonest characters.”Footnote ¹³² He detailed a litany of corrupt practices at Ellis Island that paralleled those found in El Paso. Agents abused their power by tricking and extorting immigrants and even received favors from transportation companies and labor contractors to facilitate the passage of immigrants. However, Ellis Island Commissioner William Williams and his successor Robert Watchorn so thoroughly reformed the culture of Ellis Island in the span of a decade that by 1909 the station was praised for its culture of honesty and efficiency.Footnote ¹³³ Roosevelt’s appointment of committed reformists such as Frank Sargent as Commissioner General and Williams as head of Ellis Island indicated that toleration of the spoils system culture of the Immigration Bureau had met its end. It stands to reason that Roosevelt’s efforts at reforming this branch of his government extended beyond just the commissioner or the head of the largest port of entry. Berkshire’s selection to head the El Paso sector was in line with the top-down initiatives to reform the Immigration Bureau.

Consistent with progressive ideals, Sargent believed the bureau’s job was to protect the United States from the harmful effects of unchecked immigration.Footnote ¹³⁴ This belief marked a further ideological break from the older bureaucratic culture, as the leadership clearly signaled an intolerance for open corruption among its agents and a willingness to persecute and make examples of those who betrayed their oath.Footnote ¹³⁵ Schmucker’s and Dood’s transfers combined with Babcock’s and Taylor’s investigations attested to Berkshire’s commitment to these reforms as he removed those he distrusted and replaced them with men who shared both his prejudices and zeal for structuring an efficient organization. Under Sargent, the Immigration Bureau’s primary objective for achieving reform was centered upon the integrity of its gatekeepers. Even if an agent was potentially innocent, it was of secondary consideration. What mattered most was the message sent to agents in the El Paso sector: that the dubious standards and practices of old would no longer be tolerated. Was Dodd guilty of violating his oath as a federal agent? The results of the investigation would indicate there was sufficient room for doubt. The report and recommendation for dismissal, though, indicate that this point was incidental to Dodd’s superiors. He was an example. Men like Sargent and Berkshire personified the influence and application of turn-of-the-century progressive ideals upon the bureaucracy of the federal government. They also represented the puritanical intolerance common among men of their ilk. It is useful to remember that truth and fairness are not always considered essential for achieving certain reforms. Over the following decade, investigations in the El Paso sector would discover, purge, and bring to justice agents and employees who continued to engage in illicit or questionable activities. At the time, Dodd’s case served notice to members of the immigration service in that sector that the agency’s permissive culture was a thing of the past. Dodd’s dismissal, justified or not, served its purpose in helping reshape the Immigration Bureau into a modern, twentieth-century institution.