Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Morning Oregonian. (Portland, Or.) 1861-1937 | View Entire Issue (June 30, 1905)
II THJS -ULUKMMx OKlSttOMAJi, ifKLDAX, JtJi 3Q, 1K5. TESTIMONY IS NOT CONCLUSIVE BURDEN OF BENNETT'S ARGUMENT! Mitchell about there being any fraud In the matter, but. on the contrary, as sured him that they- -were honest and straight. Mitchell was back there In Washington. He did not know when these men came and aald they had filed on timber land In Roseburg district that It "was not true- "What means did he have of finding out in relation to that matter? 2"one whatever; he had to depend upon trhat Tanner told nim about it. and If he was wrong In this matter, it was the wrong of carelessness. He may have "been careless, bu, that is the most any body could say undor this evidence. Before the Department. Now. gentlemen, when they And the fact that he had gone before the depart ment at the request of Tanner and tried to get those matters expedited, the gen tleman grows eloquent and says, "i'es. trying to gobble up the public lands, try ing to bring this man's large list of en tries in before the little homesteader and the little land claimant who was waiting for his land.' Mitchell was not charged with anything of that kind In this Indict ment. It did not belong here, but he went out of his way to do this for the purpose of prejudicing you, because in that par ticular instance Senator Mitchell had act ed for a man who had a large number of entries. Gentlemen, that was a mean at tempt to take Advantage and to create prejudice In your minds against the Sen ator. I say, shame on you. Mr. Heney; you cannot cry, because that would de tract from your manhood, but if you have a bit of good. warm, manly blood In your veins, let the red flush of shame rise to your cheek and your brow Reproved by the Court. The Court: You will refrain from that Btyle of irgument. Mr, Bennett: That you should have taken the advantage, you who are young and stron- and in the nrlme of life and on the top wave of prosperity, of an old ! man down In the slough of despond and battling the battle of his life for his sa cred honor. Gentlemen of the jury. I pass to another proposition In this oase, a collateral prop osition, before I come back to the real question Involved. I pass to the changing of this contract, the darkest page for everybody concerned that there is in this case. It is all the case against Senator Mitchell; they have no proof of the crime they charge in the Indictment; they proved him not guilty of that crime out of the mouths of their own witnesses; but they have smirched him In relation to this other matter, and I want to say to you. gentlemen, that I am not going to apologize for Senator Mitch ell in that matter. As I told you In my opening statement. I am not going to justify It. nor say that he did right; I am going to leave that to you. asking you all the time to keep in mind that that Is not what he is on trial for. I am going to talk to you about that a few moments, riot because It is the thing that is charged against the Senator, and I don't want you to get that into your head, but I want to talk about It because 1 think It has been made the theme of the most unjust abuse and vilification of Senator Mitchell. In the first place. Judge Tanner is very much Interested naturally In re Jlevlng from his own shoulders as much as possible the opprobrium of that offense; end in the next place because somewhere along the line he has got to earn bis lib erty, his pardon. Tanner Like Hat In a Trap. He has got to satisfy Mr. Heney; Mr. Heney holds him and his son in the hol low of bis hand. I am not going to criti cise Judge Tanner severely; he Is like a rat in a trap. I remember, years ago. when I was a boy living on Gale Creek. In Washington County, there were many beaver in the creek, and I liked to earn an honest dollar when dollars were scarcer than tney are now, and used to set my trap and sometimes catch a bea ver. 1 always found if it was not set so that the beaver would drown I would find In the morning he had cut off his leg and was gone. It taught me the 'desperation of any animal, and what it would do when it Is caught In the trap. Tanner is a rat In the trap. J don't know who was the most to blame in relation to the changing of that contract, and you don't know, and never will know. Tanner says Mitchell suggested the change; It may be true, but according to his own story he was the one that suggested perjury In relation to It. Tanner testifies that he deliberately made up his mind because Senator Mitch ell wanted him to and asked him to com mit perjury, and then that ha dragged his boy into it. Intending to make him com mit perjury, when he say that he had perjury In his mind at the time he went to the boy and dictated the contract to him I don't believe Tanner is as bad a roan as he makes himself out to be; 1 can't believe It Is possible that any man for so small a cause would drag his own boy into such a matter when It was so unnecessary. If he wanted to change the contract he could have gone to some ob scure place, or he could have gone to San Francisco and got somebody to change It, and no one In all the world would know how or by whom or where It was done. But It was not necessary to change It at all All they had to do was to destroy the contract, wipe It out of existence al together. But they say Mr. Robertson might have notes of the contract, or a copy of It. They had evidently forgotten that he had a copy If they kuew that Robertson wroto it at all, and It was un likely that he would have his notes of it. because stenographers In offices do not retain that sot of thing. Snys Tanner's Voice Changed. But if he had It. theyTiad to take their chances on Robertson anyway, if they changed the contract; so why. if they made up their minds to commit perjury, why drag the boy into It? Why not de strpj it outright? I will tell you my own lda about It Is they had not reached the point of perjury at that time. I be lieve right there Is where Mr. Tanner Is earning his liberty It seems to me there was a change In his voice when he passed from the main facts about which he was telling, to that matter. I tell you, gentle- "LL 7"v"J."Jrit up their minds to commit perjury at that time, and Senator Mitchell was asking that perjury be committed, remember that , cui.mui-i nutw wr iisu rauuc wic viy vi wmi i ue worm is Irom the mouth of olr. Tanner. While I do n"t want to say one unkind word un necessarily in reiauon to mm, yet l sud mlt to you. gentlemen, whether it is not true the world over that the man who will swear to what Is false deliberately for the KiFZS, A,fV''''R. K;,D to what is false again to save himself and Ms "son. who Is Infinitely dearer to him than any partner can possibly be. But heove Senator MltSh tney say to en. btranc man who Is so terribly degraded In even- respect? Strange, isn't It. that a man like that can link to himself with bonds of steel every man that knows him well with whom he comes In contact? Earning His Liberty. They will say to you that the stipula tion was that Tanner was to tell the truth. Yes. the stipulation was that he was to tell the truth; but truth according to whom? Who was to be the judge of whether h told the truth? Thre sits the judge In relation to that matter (pointing to Mr. Heney), who holds htm In the hol low of his hand, and he must toll the truth satisfactorily to hlra. The fact is that he knows something that is poison against Senator Mitchell: he must tell the truth according to Mr. Heney according to St. Francis. And here is where Tan ner, in my Judgment, was earning his lib. erty and the liberty of his son. When a man Is In that position that he will swear to what is laipc with n motivo like lhsl ri r.nnt pend upon a thing that he sa against rhe defendant You cannot know whether it is true or false. You mav not blame him; you mav know that he was a rat la a trap, that he eouW not help himself: your sympathy may go out to him as m'no de-s: tuir nt thi nmf tif. u fr 9 rr.'r.e does: but at the same time, so far as his testimony in court is concerned it in absolutely worthless against this defend ant, because they stand there almost with ihe power ef life and death over him. aad be must satisfy Mr. Heney in relation to the matter. Censure for Robertson. Now I cra to the testimony of Robert sen: and right here I want to say that tt 15 not true thiit ive are going to fault any man because be tells tne truth. I don t care whether he is a private secretary or an attorney, or whether he Is In a posi tion of confidential relation or euanl-eon-'i naenca reisru-n. and 1 am not paht; to fault Mr. Robertson because be tells the truth. But. gentlemen, as long as there Is a virtue of gmtltMde It vdll be true that when a man Is called Into a oourt of Jus tice he must either holgl up his band to tell the truth or he meat pet his hao3 in hls pocket and say. "I won't be sworn: do t further, there Is one thing I overlooked. In with me as you will, I am not going to relation to the books that I want to call commit perjury. I am not going to be your attention to. and that Is the conten sworn in this matter at all " That Is the ilon made by the learned attorney for the only choice left him. and I don't fault him f Government that there was such a great at all, whatever his relations may be. if t discrepancy between the amounts received be goes upon the stand and tells the on this land business and the other bust truth: that is the thing he ought to do. " ness that it would lead Senator Mitchell But the man who has been fed and clothed - to think there wax something suspicious and kept by Senator xucneti. wno nas i been closer to him tnan a Dromer. t say ; tnat wnen no nas gone iau conn. ou tes tified to the truth and done his duty as roan to man. he should stop. He has no right to go further than that. I submit to vou that when Robertron sat on the stand in his pert war be had a reason studied up for everything; like Falstaff. reasons were as nlentr as blackberries. He 'had a hundred knives anout mm ana j a hundred places where he wiated to stick UtOSe Knives inio iicsuur jluicaicji. l a- necessary, voluntary, every time he rot a ; chance to say a mean thing he said It. Gentlemen, he was sent out here by Sen- j ntor Mitchell with a letter which he told him to give to Tanner. He says the Sen ator tola him Tanner would tell him what to swear to. The idea! That this man who Is so careful all the time, a man who ac cording to the letter they have produced was suspicious of Robertson, should say in so many words, "You go to Tanner and he will tell you what to swear to." Alto gether Inconsistent with everything else they paint him to be. According to what they say of him he would have said "You go and see Tanner." and he would have left the- rest to Tanner. The Idea that a roan so cautious as they say Mitchell was. and who distrusted Robertson the way he did. would say the unnecessary thing. "You go and see Tanner and he will tell you what to swear to." I don't believe the old Senator ever said that. But sup pose he did? More Sarcasm for Witness. Robertson siys be came out here, went to the hotel and got his breakfast, then reported to the grand jury. He says the reason he did not go to Tanner was be cause he was afraid Tanner wanted him to commit perjury and that he could not resist. A man 3S years of age in the full maturity of his powers, admitted to the bar as a lawyer, tells you that his re gard for the truth was so little he was afraid to trust hUswif to see Tanner. I wonder how often be has those npells? 1 wonder If he ever bod them when he was around Mr. Burns and these other detectives? Then he gofs up to the grand jury room and Is not asked a thing about that letter, but at the noon Intermission he goes Into the room with Mr. Heney and there proceeds to blurt out unin tentionally, "I have got a letter to Tan ner." He, a lawyer, a man of affairs for 15 or 16 years, proceeds to blurt out that he has a letter to Tanner from Sen ator Mitchell, and then what happen? He goes to the hotel, a man with him. be says he told Senator Mitchell, and says it was the truth that that letter was taken away from him In the grand Jury room; yet he says that when he went before the grand jury the letter was in the hotel. He was so afraid that they would get that letter that he went to the hotel and got it and brought it to the grand Jury room so that they could take it away from him. I don't see how they ever got it from a man like that? It Fseras to me there wasn't men enough In the grand Jury room to take away a letter from a man that would go to the hotel and get the letter for the purpose of having it taken away from him. and then go to the grad Jury room and go through the performance of having it taken away from him. Accuses Robertson of Lying. Then he went back to Senator Mitchell In Washington, traveling back with the secret service men. and what does he tell Senator Mitchell? He ys. "No. I didn't He about it; but I told him tnat they had Muit a detective to The Dalles to meet me." What did he mean by thai? What did he intend Sonator Mitchell should understand by that? And he says. "They took mo In custody and I was escorted to the grand Jury room." What did he Intend Senator Mitchell to understand by that? And he says. "They took the letter away from me up there. What did he mean Senator Mitchell to understand by that? Was he or was he not llng in relation to that matter? Is it true that a man can only lie when he tells a thing In words that are di rectly false? Is It true that a deaf and dumb man cannot He? Is it true that Robertson did not He when be said what he did say when he intentionally con veyed a false Idea to Senator Mitchell? I say, gentlemen of the Jury. I leave the matter to you. as to whether the roan was a liar or not. Perhaps they will say to you that he was afraid, this man of 32. to go to Senator Mitchell and tell him the truth as to what be had done. Well, gentlemen, he was not afraid to itand before Senator Mitchell and Insult him. according to bis own testimony, time after time. He war not afraid to say to the old man. "if you sav that you will prove yourself a liar." He was capable of calling the old man a liar to bis face. Calls Hint a Spy. That fellow was not afraid by any means, who sat there on the stand? Whv did he do what he did? I will ten you why. He was a spy. That is the reason he did It. Of course hthad to make a tender of his resignation, but at the same time he was tollliug Senator Mitchell a story which would, perhaps, make him believe, as he finally aid make him believe, that he had not betrayed him. and that he was com pelled to do what lie did. and that he could not help doing what he did as an honest man and therefore was excusable He was telling that story for the purpose of retaining his employment. He was telling that story for the purpose of get ting something else that he could commu nicate to Mr. Heney, as he had communi cated to him what took place between Senator Mitchell and him after he got back there at that time that is what he said took place botween them, I don't care how near or dear a man's friend Is, when he goes upon the stand he has got to tell the truth. But your friend doesn't have to go bunting up the District Attor ' ney-s oftioe or the secret service man on , ., alltla an ti4l lhlnn when h Icn't sworn, and this roan knew that according to his own story. Because he says to you that three or four days before he was sub- j - eftPtr, , ' XXTJIt), Tim " " ; 7 " . -vV'T talked with him. wanting to know about his affairs out here with Senator Mitch ell and the firm rotations with Krlbs. and that he refused to answer, told him that It was an impertinence to ahk it. Yet he never communicatee; one word of that to I Senator Mitchell. He says the reason was that Senator Mitchell was an old man and had trouble enough of his own. Trouble enough he had. Indeed gentlemen of the 'urj ; DUt how 11 would ch that there was one man faithful to him; how it would have cheered him to have been told by Robertson. "Thev tried to in terview me. but I told them that I did not want any of their Impertinence." But, gentlemen, that was not the reason. He was too smart. Within two or three days after that he was subpenaed. and then he went to Senator Mitchell and said that he was very much surprised that they should subpena him. Why should he be very much surprised, if it was true that three days before that the secret service man had bees after him. he. a lawyer- He was not surprised; he knew it was com ing. itcecss until 2 o'clock. Rotimes Ills Argument. Mr. Bennett (resuming Us argument): May it please the court, perhaps I ought to apologize to the court for overstep ping the Mite in my argument this morn ing. The Court: Counsel wiH understand that i ' " ? "gni or QlSDOMllon to j . "hh0ctL.' ma"nfw " ;e conduct of anyone cos- necled with the case. . Iou were pat of J'He not eve- in urmRg your dock I rem iA iS ,!T,k-t7.f. y remarks ' ffi.it.rHJSH'i-A t i Bennett. e.v our Honor. I apolo- gize for that. Now. gentlemen. I had been discussing the case la a general way and had started to show you what tho real question invoic In the case was. aad that It was a question whether or not this money that was paid by Mr. Kribs to Tanner was for servicos that Senator Mitchell was to render in the department at Washington in appearing before Dinger Herroenn and persuading him to do cer tain things. 1 had also discussed the question -of these letters and "tried to show you that there was nothing in them that, fairly construed, showed that the oefonoant naa actea upon any other tee- ery than the on wMrh tiiey were often- Rlbly acting upon as jhotvn by the testi mony of Tanner: or that they had ever token ices for tn particular service. And I was dtecwMtas the wuastioR of the chsc f tJe cenrmet. and the unfortu nate, (Mngs eannoetfin therewith. Before I jroctod fee dtoeaus the matter anout it ana tnat pernaps ce was iretting paid tor nis woric as Senator in the de partment. Counsel talks about the small receipts. There was some attempt to make proof In relation to that, but we did cot think it was materia, and the court shut It out. But If counsel infers frcm the fact that it did not go in that there fore the receipts of the firm were small, and if you think that Is material in any way. o; cuts any figure, there is a way to estimate closely about what the re ceipts of the firm was for Its business tor the four years during which this money was taken. The statements that Tanner made in the books for each month, as you remember, were offered in evidence by the Government, and they show not only the amount received, but they show the other entries as welL Of course you understand that the -doors were opened wide by the court, so that they con Id go clear back and clear forward, whether they were charged la the Indictment or not. and show every single charge that had been taken by the firm for land mat ters and carried onto the books. They could go clear back of the statute of lim itations as far as they wanted to go. and forward to the time when this last charge was made in Had Books All the Time. They had the books all the time, they have had Tanner to explain them, they have had Robertson, the private secre tary; and you know very well that they have every single Item that was ever charged for land matters, and they have found that there was received during those four years, as Mr. Heney says. fJOOO. Including the Benson matter, which is out of this case, and the Burke mat ter, which is out of this case, and the Chinese case of CO. Five thousand dol lars for the whole business, for all land department matters, though It is a little less than that amount. During the months that these charges were taken the following sums were taken In: In October. JOOO; for this- land matter. JUTS; altogether. J578 therefore, from other mat ters. In February there was taken from '.Cribs JCOQ, total receipts J1C31. leaving J59I from other matters. In May. there was received frjm Benson. SSi and from Burke t5M. and total receipts 51 MO. leav ing JSO from other matters. For June the amount reeel-ed from Krlbs wai J10CO, total receipts leaving J720 from other matters, in sepieroDcr. wnicn was the closing month when there were any receipts on them land matters, there was received from Krlbs $500 and the to tal receipts J1C91. leaving S331 from other matters. In December, the next month. Benson paid ISO. and the total receipts JS14.97, leaving OC4 over. In January. l&CH. when the next charge was received, there Is a Krlbs payment of 5O0i total receipts of 11071. making C7I from other matters. In Februarv. 1901. there was J50 received from Lee Sue out of total receipts of 3. leaving 1X2 from other receipts. So that when you count un the eight months there was over and above any land office charges. $3X0 re ceived by the firm, or a little over JW per month over and above land mat ters. There lr no reason to rmppose they dld not take in as much for other mat ters in the other months as they did dur ing these months; and If you take that eight months for a fair estimate of what they did during the four years. It would amount to J7UO a year, or $30,000 that they took In for other business during the four years covered by this indictment. During that year It is claimed they took In $000 of this doubtful money for charges-, some of which are Included In the indictment and roroe or wnicn are not; but which is claimed by the Gov ernment were for service performed by Senator Mitchell before Blnger Hermann. Says Argument Was Unfair. . Another matter In that connection: You will see gentlemen, that there was only one-sixth of the receipts of the firm that were for anything of this kind dur ing that four years. It was said by the Diitrict Attorney in hip opening argu ment, in which he made an attempt to show you that when they changed that contract In December. 1S04. from tho di vision of one-half to two-Aftbs and three fifths, that Senator Mitchell looked over the books and discovered that Tanner had been bringing In all this money to the firm, and that he had been bringing In these large charges for land office matters and so on; and that attorneys figure on who bring in the clients and di vide the proceeds of their business ac cordingly: and that, therefore, for that reason, and becauw they looked over there land entries so carefully, they made the change in the ratio of the division at that time. As a matter of fact, gentle men, how unfair that argument Is when you come to consider that in the three years before that change was made there had been but $7W received for land office matters. Yet they want you to believe It was these land office charges that caused that rearrangement of the division to be made. Is not that perfectly ridic ulous? If they bad been going to change It on account of land office business they Tvould have changed two years before, because the bulk of this land office- busi ness came In during the years UOl and IMC and for two years before that con tract was changed they had only taken in J7&S for land office business. "Qnestion of Perjury Now I proceed to the discussion again of the question of who was to blame for the perjury and subornation of perjury and whether Senator Mitchell was such a reprehensible man. such an all-round alrty cur as he has been painted to you by the learned attorney for the Govern ment. I was discussing particularly the testimony of Robertson to see how far you coukl trust that testimony to be fair and Just to Senator Mitchell; how far you could trust that Ultle words had not been added or little word left out. I had just shown you how he had gone up to the hotel and got the contract and taken it to the Jury room so K' might be taken away from him; and that then he went back to Washington and. by every device, misrepresented to Senator Mitchell the facto la relation to what had happened out here. Caustic for Robertson. Now. gentlemen, again he says that he refused to tell Senator Mitchell what he had testified to before the grand Jury, and told Kim that he had taken an oath. I don't know of any such oath and I have been before grand Juries a good many times. I know that grand jurors are sworn to keep secret the proceedings before the grand jury, but I don't know by what authority of law or that there is any authority of law a witness is forbidden to tell what take? place But whether that is true or falie. It might possOblv be. and I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, be cause I don't want to do injustice to Robertson. Whether he had a right to tell Mitchell or not. be did have a right, and it was his duty to bis emnlover to ' tell him the facts that had transpired out 4de the jury room and give him the benefit of that, fact, so that If there was any wrong or coercion in the matter, he might have the benefit of It- That was only Just and right. Why didn't he do it? Because as rare as there is a Gcd In heaven that man was not dealing up right and honest and fair with Senator Mitchell at that time. Then he comes out here and goes to Seattle. Into the office of Mr. Abbott, who happened to be , an old friend of Senator Mitchell, and hs Robertson tell mm? TAlicn Abbott says. I have known Senator Mitchell so lonsr and so welt that it makes no difference how many times be has been indicted or conxicteu. l coum not oeneve tnat he had been guilty ef any intentional wrapt." And then Robertson jm-s. "That is Just the way I feel about tt. While there are some things that look black to people who don't Know Mitchell, yet I don't be lieve he ever M anything iatenueuady wionc. Yet he wants to come here snd say to you. gentlemen, tbat Mitchell virtually confessed. At Seatl'e he rays to Abbott. "I don't believe-he ever intentionally did any wrong. I who have been his private secretary and been by his side in all the transactions since he has been United States Senator." Not only Is that contra dictory to the story he tells here, but he xcys here on eath tnat he never said tr-it j to Mr. Abbott at aH. Ore of those two xcntlemon has nerJured himself: It Is for you to say which one. The learned coun sel says that Abbott, who is a burlnsss man over there and as. fair, apparently, as xsy witness that went on the stanj. is not entitled to credit becaure he said ever there that he bad known MltcheU so .long and so well that he could cot believe he had ever willfully and Intentionally done a wrong. He says that a man because of that Is not entitled to credit Brings Neighbors as Argument. Gentlemen, don't you know neighbors, everyone of you, you. Mr. Oliver. Mr. Stciner. Mr. Lebeau. whom you have known so long ad so well and always known to be honest and straight, that all the verdicts of all the jurors In tho world will not make you believe that that neigh bor had intentionally committed a wrong? There Isn't a man In the world that boa not the same foe ling towards come of ius neiccoora. or ir mere is ne is a poor neighbor and a bad man. and, therefore, j havine wrong la his own heart, he dis trusts th hesrt of Trroa else. I ex. pect if it is true that that feeling on the I part of Mr. Abbott makes Mr. Abbott a I pcrjurer. that SIS out of every 1CCO men In the State of Oregon are perjurers today. I tell you. gentlemen, it does not make him a man that would tell an untruth, and he stands here with no such stories in his mouth as Harry Robertson has told: he does not stand here a confessed falsifier to his employer, as Robertson does; he does not stand here In the posi tion of a man who went to the hotel and got a paper and took It to the grand Jury room to have It taken away from him and then goes back and tells bis employer virtually that he was escorted from The Dalles to the grand Jury room and the paper taken out of his possession. This young man bad been fed and warmed and taken care of by Senator Mitchell for all these long years. Compares Robertson to a Viper. One of the very first things I read when a boy "was the story of the" man who found a viper out in the cold and he took it In "and warmed It until It came to life, and then It stung him to the death. This man who haa bees taken care of by Sen ator Mitchell, who has eaten his bread for all these years and has been his pri vate secretary; comes here, and not con tent with testifying us to the truth of all matters about which be Is asked, he takes every occasion to stick a knife Into his old employer, as you could see upon the stand. here, that come from made the the copy for the Senator here he made another copy, which he carried back and forth, so that in case he lost his copy he would have another one for him. Hero was the very event he had been waiting for. Why didn't he. when Senator Mitchell Inquired of him It be knew where the original contract was. why didn't he say to the Senator then. "l have got a. caroon copy or it. benator. Gentlemen, when he left Senator Mitch ell's employ that paper belonged to Sen ator Mitchell. Wny didn't he take It, then, and put It with the otner papers and snd It to Senator Mitchell? Why didn't he return It to him? Y by did he keep It? How does he come to have It here at this time? He kept It for a purpose. He was not under oath to keep that paper out; he tws not under escort at that time; he could hare done his duty by his employer: but be kept that out and brings it here to use against elm. and it is just in line with tee other things he has done. I say to you. gentlemen, that here Is the only person who tended to prejudice Senator Mitchell In this matter. Of course, we confess he was to blame In that matter, mere or less, but the only persons upon which ther can found this argument. whlch would ibuse him up one side and down the other as the worst nend teat ever existed In all the world, are Tanner and Robertson: Tanner, who la swearing for the liberty of himself and his son. and Robertson, who has perjured himself upon the stand, unless Abbott has. and who has shown hlmjelf to be the all-round and will.n- liar that he is. Gentlemen, between tne two I would far rather be lieve Tanner, and I don't believe there is a man on this Jury who does not feel the same way about It- You cannot trust Robertson's testimony: it Is poisoned; he Is coloring it every way he can and mak ing It as strong as he can against Senator Mitchell. Evil Follows Evil. Now I will tell you now I think that thing arose. I think when they came out here and changed that contract, they did not think it would be necessary ever to go into court with It. Ordinarily It would not have been. Ordinarily. 1 secret serv ice men came around there and wanted to see the contract and they showed him the contract, that would be the end of it; but it seems . that there waa something about the contract that made the secret service officers auspicious, and therefore this matter went further than they ever intended. Tanner waa brought Into court; Mitchell did not know anytnlng about It; he was not here, he did not know that Tanner was subpena ed. and Tanner was taken before the jury and confronted with that agreement suddenly, and under the circumstances he swore that It was a genuine agreement. Then, of course, evil tollows erlL When tnat had been done. of course, the boy had to go In and swear T,.n ,me n!nafii'e , 3.L .rh..M.,r?,ul.to..??to.r iSrio. Miff Utff.CS Mitchell was mated in nt thai time What juiicneii was pjaceu in ai inai ume. eti togct RobVrlson tortrte ttfmoS 1. Lil?S5rsor.i0 rJPP" 'ne iMumony ke tnat contract ne Drought 1 were being suggested and round that it 1 naa mm m au tae woria ;a?iax i any carbon com-. Where did It I did not read as he thought It did; that , man. You go and see Tanner" ? Nat a ? He telbt vou that when he ! IncOad of readlncr that a. Senator mast. I svmotom of xraf t seaUemea; not asjBSS- roere Question of the contract It wis a d,dJ 1 tand It so? A. I did not so i. Tou were asked in your direct ex . J. , , C V 0.. T!"'.i, Sv- understand it. I never had looked par- amination. Judge Tanner, whether Sen- VT,.nH f Tt-,. lpund guilty Of perjury. That would put inflSce0 It ""S 1? iSl, ?nJSi2? e Svin t' lirt" anJ i! "'ns vlTvi ntr. his partner, and his. son. who had done this thing. Tanner feeling that he bad gotten senator iucneii into these matters. In the first place. It was the protection of Tanner, as well as the fact of his own protection, zor which Mitchell haa to act at that ume. and wnat was he to do? They admit the difficulty of his nositlon when they say to you In one breath that he was a bad man because he tried to get Robertson to corroborate T-. -.i. In tr.it mXl.r an th... .... In the next breath Ut : he is bad and a dirty cur occause ne oia not get nooertaon ana undertake to suborn him to commit per- Jury sooner than he did. cur because he did not get Robertson and Vrons; Follow Wrong. A dirty cur because be stayed back there and permitted Tanner to go to all lengths in relation to this matter, because when he got Tanner's Telegram he did not at once rush to Robertson and try to get hlra to commit perjury; and then they say he is all vile because he did reluctantly and at last tell Robertson to come out hero and talk with Tanner. Well, gentlemen, wrong follows wrong, and when men start Into tne wrong they never know where it will lead. These men when they changed that contract had no Idea where It would end, they had no idea where it would lead to. I have no excuse for them, no justifi cation for any one of them. You will never know who was the most to blame. As far as the record goes, so far as tho perjury matter goes It was Tanner who was suggesting tt. who spoke about it the first time; It was Tanner who perjured himself In the first place when Mitchell was not here: brought the whole thing in. It was Tanner who sent the telegrams back there urging Mitchell to see Rob ertson. 1 don't believe Tanner's explanation tn 5&H J0.uL,.Irt20.nr.i5,eIa; Robertson .drew the torment of 1C1 and see what be soys about It. Tanner says JxMi-S,, C,. iI.i,min ,UiJ5 to Mitchell tbst he wanted him to tlx Robertson; but 1 tell you there was more than that. What Is the use of those words to find out"? Wouldn't it have teen enough to ask him. "What does Robertson say about that contract of l?5l?" When Tanner was examined on the stand In the first place about that telerram. you remember he did not offer 8? cmUm1nced,Ctho fttSTB doubt as to whether-that he bad some xttf recc be comes back heeled: he had got an explanation, and then he brings in this explanation tbat he did not ha c the least doubt; he sa;.s. 'I knew that Rob- STer UFZ<f1! T concerntohose r3aUers7'SKib;un: 2?"fffl5 ? d J3 i!dS Ifili ! derstood It exactly as Tanner did; he un-I-.lnnHlV the t! xtonti i dertood he wa cot paying Senator Mlteh ertson at the time that contract was n anytbinp: he understood be was get drawn, ou must remember MltcheU dia t rtar TannePa service not see the ortsinal contract at that Ume; UB? manners services. Tanner says mat himself : they had the Kribs Sharp Bargain, talk at the .hotel, and the contract was . at the office. Then Tanner went to the t think It Is oulte likely that Kribs was once and dictated this new .contract. making the changer, brougnt It back and showed It to Mitchell: but Mitchell at that time never saw the old contract: I have no Idea .that there a aqy tolk about Itobertsrm at that time, or that they knew tbat Robertson had drawn the old contract. I don't believe they ocr Intended at that Ume that Tanner should commit perjury unnecessarily, and -draw hts own boy lot tt. who had nothing to do with it, and need have nothing to do with it. Not the Matter on Trial. Now. gentlemen, this is not the matter j that is on trial oetore you a: au. 10a may think Senator Mitchell acted so bad la that matter that you cannot find any excuse for him In your heart: but In the cent from those men. and when, they of- wasn't an unreasonable fee the fee that circumstances In which he was placed. fred to pay blm. be would net bare it? Tanner was charging wasn't aa usrea with the people after big game. as j Gentlemen, this is the strongest kind of sonable fee for the work that he was do- lanner naa xoia mm. ana iney wens ouenug immunity would swear man. oast the taiciy some excuse tor mm as weu as i for Tanner tn that matter. But no la not on trial for that; the only thing is i It may nave some remote searing in tae i fact that he was trylag to do these , things In order to make his record clear. I It is claimed that It bears upon the cues- tion of whether he old take fees-; hut I i half of I5CC0 of money that they ckdsx to others. He had to go to work and pre Mibroit to oj that 1t has no proper J be wrongful. less part of the office ex- ' paro an abstract of the base land upon bearlnr. As has been said by the Gov- l senses: sav CtX or $300 a rear. Here ! which. ;hr TKriion n eminent attorney, many an Innocent man. under the stress of suspicious clrcum- stances has nut CD fabricated testimony. and It is the poorest kind of testimony to show the main fact In the case, be cause in hundreds of cases it has been the cause of innocent people being con victed, and in many ether cases It has been done when there waa no conviction. It is the most remote and worthless testimony that there can possibly be. But they say that according to Tanner. Mitchell eays when he was there that the book would indict and convict him. and claim that s&ows eulltv knowledge. But how do you know he said it? iou t have Tanner's story for It. Can you de- . pend upon Tanner's story in a matter of this Kin a I can you aepena upon tnat , beyond a reasonable doubt? If he has j testified falsely In saying anything of . testified falsely In saying anything of . in one matter for a small object, wouldn't ! he testify falsely for a greater motive? J Ana even ir you suppose what does that show? that the old man in his mind was afraid that something that Tanner had gotten over me une regaruing; max. percaps ne aaa ; examined tne statute when these matters j not do this work before the department. I that It read that he must not take pay for work that he did for another, and that their theory of th law had not been quite right. Jist bout that time the Burton case was pending tn the Su preme Court- It waa the tint time for forty years that this law had been en forced In the courts or particular atten tion attracted to It. When that matter came up. tt was the most natural thing for Mitchell to examine the law more carefully than he had more lately done; that he should refresh his memory In relation to It, and having done to he might have found the statute was broad er than he thought tt was. and'that there were some of those things that might possibly come under the statute. Doeo that tend to prove that he bad. as a matter of fact, taken Kribs money for his own services In the United States Senate? That is the charge made In this case which you are to try. Ask for Proof. What Is the proof In relation to that matter, for after all. those other matters are only Indirect? Let u? come to the direct proof. What Is It? It is the evi dence of the ntate5 own witnesses. Mr. Tanner, for whose credit they vouch, and they cannot say now that what he said Is not true, for they have said to you that here is a witness whom you can believe, here Is a witness upon whose testimony partly we ask you to convict a man. upon which we ask you to dis grace a man for all time and dlsquallfy Elm from holding office, a man who ha been an honorable man and ls. now well advanced In the Journey of life what does Tanner say In relation to this vita! point? I don't know how he came to say lt- I suppose Mr. Heney could not have known or realized the importance of it: I cannot believe he .would have admitted It had he understood its Importance to the defendant; but this la what Tanner says; "Q. Was there anything in that charge for services which Senator Mitchell mlghi render In the department at Washington? A. I did not so understand It. Q. You did not Intend to charge Mr. Kribs any thing for that, nor to Include that In your charge of $1000? A. No. sir. I did not. Q. And It was not so included? A. No, there was nothing included for any serv ice that he rendered there. Says It Is Conclusive. Now. gentlemen of the jury. Is not that conclusive in this cose? Are you going to say that In spite of that you are satis fied beyond a reasonable doubt that It was not proved? Again: "Q. You were going on the theory, were you not, that It was iwful and right to charge for work firm? A. Certainly. Q. But that It would not be to charge for work that the Sen- fJfVJiss uuusiw i it wouia . v involve th Senator r all" ' You dW noL.noNU,,t er any- tnlag wrong about It? If there was. you ucuinriy or ana mv aiicnuon caiiea pur- I Ueala-it t thl statute under h!h h ttoularly or had mv attention called pur- ! 1 indicted. Q. You were litendlngto kep '"""'T within the law? A. Certainly . Q- And If you got over the law tn any I Jt '7. sight, is that right? A. If there was any violation of the itw on his part, I did not know it : did not understand tbat It would be for him tolo what I asked him to do there in punching those matters alonj; ai you did not understand that if rot T.1?1 J?? f? .it- getting teem tnrougn. it ne coma. 1 7Ct . . v " , . " t. V- -i . . j i j . ' ' 1 Liru "ul- , "amic" 1: and If , anrthHe with annarent frnnv. he trVlf-E? f4ni t h "J? and swears them out ef court, and they I have absolutely nothing to show that he ' is not telling the truth In relation to that matter. They have nothing to show that ! Senator Mitchell's services were included In that, or that anything was Included which was done at the department In Washington. Because nobody ever ap peared there and tried to persuade Blnger Hermann, so far as the evidence shows, untess It was the defendant himself. In this mutter. There is some evidence that Tanner nied a oner in tee Chinese mat- fer. .but that Is not In this indictment, but f they got over the faw unintentionally in that matter-a thing Tanner had a nsai to v s , w Into the firm business you are not golnr outside of the record to try to convict upon a technicality. . rr.,t- .testimony. von that Krihi ,M Takes Up Kribs' Now. I want to show you that Kribs did not swear tbat he was Mitchells serv stand It any more Is his testimony: versatl took place xou two were aione wnen teat con a. les. nr. u. i Tes, MltcheU lhat you had employed Tanner ,-v in- land matter.? Wa 1 ia' the substance of the conversation? A. Tes. Q. Did you tell him how much you had agreed to pay? A. Yes. Q. And then senator juitc&eii declined to cave any talk with you about the matter of payment, did he? A. He referred me to Judge Tanner. Q. Told you you must ; esotovment or navraent dM . J?. empJeyment or Jfem eld 'SIK wun Judge 'ianaer aooui any cues- oeT submit Ji? 1 1 QUrov Tit Here is the leTter whteh "Dear Senator Mitchell: I had quite a .enrtfcy talk wltn -mice Tanner the other i day. wno is my attorney m ail land mat- ; driving a sharp baryxln. I expect he ! i thought Because he had employed Tanner. ! : Mitchell would be more active than be otherwls would, and he wocM ret for b! pillry $j a claim. 1 per teat of what thoste claims were worth, tbat he was paying Tanner, possibly he thought be would get Tanner services, and sen part ef the Senator's thrown In: hut he never got it. There Is not a bit of testl- than Tanner did. This I tB aeparunenis. .jAa5 " Jv ; ' ! An nrooerfv a a Senator I am vttor money. rnonr here that Mitchell did any mora I not gov and you must be careful." That for Krlbs than he dM for every man that j Is the substance of It- Just exactly tho applied to him for assistance. What did same thin? that he had: told Mr. 3tlU h do for these men here who had claims man "Anything that i can do properly of 915,093. J2a.W0. SStOCO and $100,000? Didn't. as a Senator X am siad to do to help you he punch thcxa up Just as lively as Tan- j out. ser was asking him to punch up these Now. gentlemen. Judse- Tanner testiiles other matters? Didn't he follow them up positively that the fee wasn't inteaded just as closely and as carefully as he dst to. and did cor, cover any of these the other matters, and never asked a I evidence in this case, xeey say. ua. i nave got against us that amounts to any- ; thing; they practically say that, because . they say that Senator Mitchell was not J afraid of anything In the world except I the Krlbs matter. What does that amount to? They have got a charge that in the I course of four years. Mitchell, got one- t were claims came through his hands upon which ie could have charged four times . as roucn m one ice as wcote ot inn amount. . And he was eolcr the same work that t he had been doimc in the other matter : punching them up Just as assiduously, i telegraphing back end forth Just as ear- neatly, doing everything that could be done for them. Just as ne was In. these matters. Oh. but gentiemea. they say. that he coulda't have charged these people a fee. Why not? They were friends ef his; they would never have given him away; they were perfectly wtlUasr to pay f him. Ana men. hesiaes. gentlemen or tne jury. If he was afraid to do that, there in another way that grafters do those mings. iney wait: ou wuk laeir azaa behind their pocket, r they say "Go. and sec Tanner.- Wtut was to prevet aim. sec Tanner.- wtut was to prevest aim. f from saying to those people. "WeM. I'm j awfully busy, and I could not attend to ness throcgh Tanner, as they waat you m H.jri3iuju. unt wu. - , chance to get this fcij mosey you never torn of it: nethtnx of the way In which gjaftlmc business is done. The only time tf.at they can ever claim that he referred a man to Tanner Is the thae when Krifet bad Tone and seen Tanner, aad had been introduced to him. and v,d employed hla: and then he comes to MltcheU. asd Mitch ell says. "No." What 3Iust Have Taken Place. tnat ne oia not. i inis matter ior raraey. au yeu go aa w , -was- a. pretty sharp thing on tho part of It simply shows j Tanner, and anything that I eaa do for . Kribs. I mink he was impomcg. aad worried state of , you as a Senator I wiH do." What Is the that ae was intending to impose on both there might be V reason. If he ws dolose a graftias bus!- ? Tanner and Snatur itthir In virtue of the Krlbs letters afterwards. : J?, 1JS. "er of a. few vou can see what must have takea pitee. ! ?a,B?'s ecute the patents relation Mitchell said. -No. I won't have aaythteg lt.-lv9a1f.a5is"..TEey printed ia to do with a matter of fees; I nowt ! btaax. aae It 1 only a matter of a aigaa take a fee for my services." He said It : -f. et attention Just exactlv as he said R In these other i "S"? j Senator Mitchell was matters. "I will do whatever I can for willing to do t same iWbS for the hum you 'is Senator there, but I eanaot de ; blet citteen In all the tana; he wU aaythlng for pay in the United States , to do the same thte for aayocd. t-,-.JV.- t j. t wttt ear- i whether be had one claim, er whether he you. whether yo employ Taaaer. or i whether you employ some one etse; it doesn't make a bit It difference; say serv ices are there for any person who caHs for them la relation to any matter of that kind that I con do." And that Is th reason why Krtfes writes to Mitchell; and he says, not that "I employed you.' oat he says. I emtteyed Taaaer.- And that la the reason why Taaaer testifies. as he does squarely, that he wasn t taking any moaey for any services that Mitch any moaev tor any services tnat -Mitca might perform; that they were trying: kn tcitMn the law. and to do notfetaT that was wronr. and that he didn't under stand that he was doing anything wrong. 3Iltcbeir Conduct Conslstent- And now when we eerne to Mitchell's conduct in relation to this matter, isn't his conduct in relation to Taaaer consist ent aH the time with his statement to these other people here, these men that cus to him. and he said to them. No. I can't taktt any compensation" : says that to Wheelwright, says It to this gentleman who was up in the State Land iseara. ana MBifM. rs xd. tfeev who o tiered him a ree or Kaj. am. tey say. a paltry $2Mu W ell. $30 Isa t much more paltry than the sum trt they are trying to make a basis of this prosecution. If he was out for that sort of thing. ISO. anybody -Sixteen years I have been In the Senate, and I never have taken a dol lar for services ef this kind, aad I never will. And when he writes to Mr. StUW man he tells him the same tatag. although. Mr. Stlllman wasn't in his party, aad although he didn't have any poatieal pull tnat could do him any good. Yet be Is Just as ready to help Mr. 3tillssan. woe la a Democrat, as he is to help a Repub lican: lust as reodv to heto anybody who comes from Oregon, or even from Wash- Inrton tost as readv to helo anybody, and to ran his old lezs off to fcfelo anyone that wants anything done back there m. Wash- i lneton. Asd taen when he comes to this iMOW case where e couM have bjida . have Veen overmtwa u be S&Jrz .ro?3-35e - . i grows impntienr. ana says. i ooai - vi Tox.'Sne right dewto Mr Toners , admlsslonf seatleraen of the Jury. ! ator Mitchell hadn't frequently cautioned you. as stated In the Robertson letter, not to mix him up la deportmenc affairs, anil as" I understand you. you answered thar be bxd frecuenilv told you that yeu mustn't take any fee or mix Mes up ha any matter fer his personal services bock mere. iai - . I didn't mean to say that he hod done that frequently. What I meant to say was that he had stated to me tkat he didn't want me to make any contract to blcd him to do any wenc there. Now. Mn U-nrv trees tnat far. but be doesn t go nay farther, "or make a ay eta-re ior He told Tanner I 1JV r to make any 1 t 6 -i. . Z TT i there, "but be stated .that be , V .P eiT2 weotd al tbem mut ter!" and push them along whenever he could," WHinc to Help Now, that Is the proposition. Why should he turn Tanner down any more than anybody else? Why should he be flhag to help everyoeuy eee ateoy in their matters? Why should he.be wttttac to help Still man and Wheelwright and evervbodr else in relation to their mat ten. and not be wlWnr to neio Tanner in exactly the same way that he helped i a -u : Tanner. -Don't make any charges for j anything that I do. I don't want you ' o mix me up in tbe matters.- aad i t.at ail: I den t wj that is not oil: I don t want you to rnV anv fee for anything tnat I do. Now. could anything be more clear and unequivocal than that? Asd then as It aces alens; he sees soneiaisg raot moxes I Sim afraid that perhaps Tanner fct mix- , m nIm Bp ln thus matter. soys ' to him again, in rekttiea to that Chinese willing o do for anybody else la the state, ' but any farther than 'bat I con- p-rhaps. would not be despised, eat. any- j .ow. gentlemen, it has bees said h-re way, he writes back to hlra, and he says , to you ey the learned attorney for the -and that waaa t a letter lot ended for , Uafted States that you dent want to try court; that wasn t a. letter intended for t, -vnr.-..:! subi- , t Ann r i tn to tot vou. rust uie saae as x am i to- usos woman's Fkiofunc Willi V ft other's Friend, by its penetrating- 2nd soothing- properties, allays nausea, nervousness, and all unpleasant feelings, aad so prepares the system ior the ordeal that she passes through the event safely and "with but little suffering, as numbers have testified and said, "it is Tcorth its weight in gold." $i.co per bottle of druggists. Book containing valuable information mailed free, things. Why. gentlemen of the jury. It lag Here axone. Take these forty ciaiaBS. the head work, aad the plaanlnjc about the affidavits; forty claims to took, us any questions on; and $2 a claim. One per cent of the amount involved. It wasu't aa unreasonable charge. Look at the vast amount of work he bad to do in some of them, of course, more than made; he had to go to work and set deeds where they were defective; he had to go to wors and do all of these thin3. and he said he had worked on them and was working on them yet. Gentlemen, didn't he earn the paltry fee of $25, to say aetata? of the service of Senator Mitchell la relation to the matter? That Fee From Krlbs. Now. when Krlbs came there. Tanner told him that "My fee win be $1X" and Krlbs says -Well, would It be all right to have JiCO of it down and Eft e the patents are approved?" And Tanner says "Yes.- Now. Kribs had told Tan ner that there wasn't a bit of doubt about theses patents being approved; that . thev fl aMolutlir nil ttnlrhi .- thv only question was the Question of few meeths. more or less-, apparently; nd Tanner was wmtss to do that. It Now. sentlemcn. right here Is this con- necuoa. istre ts aaotaer taln tae.t I oave already alluded to. but I want to aUuce to It is anotaer Kant: and that is the at tempt to excite your prejudice because : Seaator Mitchell did help this. mas. wna . had a big number oc claims, and because : K is said that tt interfered with the ' ef some one else who Bud a little claim. WeU. bow. geathtmeB, I don't understand that to be the fact, t understand that the thing that keeps these matters back ts , net the matter ef time to take theas up. but it ia the matter ef red tape; it is & matter of getting the deparmeat to cut i the red tape that biuds them and holds y a Httle peaatoa matter Ob, yes. they say these Httl pessloa matters don t Involve much work. Wen. I think from what 1 know about pension, matters and I have a right to put it against Mr Heney they do involve com work for less than almesC oaythiBg else a mas has to do. It is net true that all you have to do is to write a little hue. It Is a whole lot of work, and sometimes it takes months and aere are wctaima tnat raider Bad wrtt- . ficant claims, aad. Mitchell was wHling to attend to them there. Robertsca says that Mitchell was getttn? KO to 170 of these matters every year five of them every day atteautog to them and tokin? care of them, whether they were kumble asd iasignificaat or whether they were fctrge and great whether tt was the man that had the one claim er the man that bad 3CO claims, he would go and light tt asd help to gee the red tape cut that held them back. And in view ef aH this, in view of the fact that he was standm? there xeady to run his leg off tor Httle or bis; Isn't it unjust to attempt to excita ' yr prejudice oecause m uus pazncuiar stance the man that awtied to M had t l t n7 . ile thTw-" " bcmcl1 ef tEej claims. your prejudice because 1b this particular Try lilm as a Man. ask you to try him as Senator. He says the question is. Is anybody above the law? I say K is not. Nobody t eJoimins to bo above tho law; nobody Is wanting to be above ihe law. Senator Mitchell is cam tea: here as bumble as any citizen in all the land, at the bar of this court, amen able to the law. 1 say. Don't try him as United States Senator, either. I don't wont you to forget alt tbat be has done, because that is not rt?hc Every man ts entitled, when they are undertaking to . Ik - j . .i ? ..,. vl . caeeic up tne aas. zgamat nun. to nave i , .-.Ji m i ,u tat A ? ,j .i .!. eerytbte tbat Senator Mitchell has don ; and I dent want you to try aim on ac- , .w. that be- ocnratesL or as Valted 3taes Senator. I want you o try atea Just n you would nave tried him if "he had been brought to the bar for this in laBT or ISi. vea ae was a private citi zen baek here still with his record be hind htm. bat as a, private citizen. I want you to try aim as a. man. Yes. gen tlemen ef the Jury, he has been for almost SO years one of your neighbors here in this State of Oregon. I ann't want you to try him as a Senator. I want you to try him as a neighbor. I want you to try bint us you would try your own neighbor across tae way. wno nas nvec oy your 9ide for 39 years, and whom you havs found on the whole to Oe a pretty geoa Mjsabor nor perfect, perhaps, because mv. experience is that neighbors ore not efiea perfect, havta? their faults. Try j-, aavicg his; but ready to accom- j-jjate ycm. ready to do anything that rZ- -,,,- -.nri i r r u 9UCR a neighbor as that. Just a cons- men eniicarv neixnsor .ua ir. renue- men of the- Jury, try tax him like that, you can say. apon your oaths as men. that you are satisfied, la the face of all this testimony, beyond a. reasonable doabt, that John H MiteneB was not tryimc to live up to the law that he was wtSfaUy or tetentionatly violating: the law. that the fees that were received lit this Kriis matter b Tanner were to caver the serv ices of Mitohett as Un&ed States Senator if you ore satisfied of that beyond - , United States Senator, and has . jene, ssscn 8or The state irx which, you live, moke any difference. Status of the- Case. Gen tie men. now a few words Irt re lation to the status ef this case. Asd this is a delicate matter. I don't want to do anybody an injustice; but to my niat the circTxmstances that surround this ease show that somebody fet trytxur. to rata Senator MltcheU, for some purpose other t ion the serpese or mere justice, ia tno i first place, gentlemen, what is the ehorae I against him? Now. as I have sold before, the char is thar la the four years since Ce nas United States senator, the cfiuss. he has get XZCf of imcroser less the amount that bstemred art ef the work ia the. expenses of the office, or that he got, proea&ly t about POO a year, that Is. of Improper Is to lore (rJiHoren, asd ao home can. be completely Bappy -witiiotit them, yet tie ordeal through which, the ex-" pectant mother must pass usually it a cr rrtTI nf rnTVrrnar rur-ncror arrr frty that she looks forward to the critical hour with apprehension and dreL Mother's FrieM