Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Morning Oregonian. (Portland, Or.) 1861-1937 | View Entire Issue (June 22, 1905)
-1 tl 4L THE CORNING OREGONIAX," THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1905. 11 FREDERICK A. KRIBS TELLS OF HIS DEALINGS WITH MITCHELL which he Is now holding:. Naw, when ! that came about. It became necessary ; to rearrange the affairs between 1 an ner and Senator Mitchell. The firm was 1 doing: a considerable business. They had been for a Ions: time, -durinjr the whole four years. 1 think, drawing- a salary from the Southern Pacific Kail road, and from other comji.ur.-ts and their private business. They had been doing that right along: during- tnc four years that Senator Mitchell had been practicing here, and out of o'flce. and tiiey nad quite a good business. But Tanner thought that, as Mirchell wan going: to be away and in Washlnon that he ought to have mo.-e than one third, as he would have to Jo most of the work practically a largj snare of the work. Senator Mitchell's t'.me would be taken up largely- by his duties In Washington, and Tanner w "JlJ have the most of the work to do; and he thought that he ought to have more, and Senator Mitchell agreed tnat he should have more, and to they rear ranged their contract. Now, ill this was done in a hurry. Senator Mitchell had not expected that he would be elected to tne United States Senate at that time at least had not counted upon It witli any assurance. It is a matter, as you know, that cannot be counted on with assurance one way or the other, and he was elected. His eervl?.s were demanded at once back in Washington; there was a vacancy, if I remember rightly Oregon was not represented, or only represented by one Senator. There were Important matters coming up there and everything was done in a hurry. His business nere was closed up and such changes as were made, were made more or less hurriedly. Now, in redrawing the contract after Senator Mitchell was elected and pro Tiding that Tanner should receive one half, instead of one-third, as he had before, the clause In relation to the division of the pay for services that were to be rendered at Washington. In advertently remained as it had been before and was Inserted. I do not know who drew that contract, but It doesn't make any difference. The only change that was made in the old contract was to change from a third to a half; otherwise, they followed the old con tract substantially as they had before. Senator Mitchell never paid any atten tion to tnat never thought anything about it. and probably Mr. Tanner did not think anything about it. Neither one of them ever acted upon that clause in the contract. Now I don't know, from what has been aid to you by Mr. Heney, what Mr. Tanner Is going to testify. I take It he is going to testify entirely differently from what he has at any time yet. Mr. Heney: Did you ever hear him testify? Division of Kecelpts. Judge Bennett: No, but you had his testimony reported in the newspapers as you had everything els-i you have done In the case, and I read It. And, I say gentlemen, 'that if he tes tifies as has been stated here by Mr. Heney, It will be shown to you that he has testified entirely differently from what he has ever testified to before in relation to these matters. I don't know exactly what he Is going to testify to you. but if he tells the truth he will probably say to you that he did not know tnat that clause was in the con tract, or anything about It at that time. At any rate, 1 do not think he will un dertake to testify that ho ever turned over to Senator Mitchell all the receipts for work before the departments, as that contract called for. He will prob ably testify, if he testifies as he did before, that he turned 'over half of It. But there will be nothing that will make it appear that either one of them ever followed this clause in the con tract at all. or that it was ever paid any attention to. Senator Mitchell un derstood that if any of that sort of work was being done, he was not getting it at all, and Mr. Tanner seems to hae understood that it was to be divided tnc same as their other work, and tnat Senator Mitchell was to have half f it; or at least I understand tnat that is what he did, but neither one of 'hem followed that clause in the contract. Now. another thing, gentlemen; the clause In the contract, even if It had been put there Intentionally it was not was Innocent enough, because there was much work before the De partments which Senator Mitchell could properly do under the law. and charge for. and this contract did not say a word about matters in which the Gov ernment was interested, and this is the only kind of matters in which Senator Mitchell was barred. In all other mat ters, in patent matters and in all other matters in which the interest of the Government was not involved. Senator Mitchell had a perfect right, under the law. to act in any department or in any court, or anywhere else; had a perfect right, unaer the laws to appear ana act and charge for his services. He was in no way prohibited any more than he was from appearing before the Supreme Court (and as you know, -all of the Senators appear there. If they are lawyers at least whenever they get an opportunity and are generally proud to do it.) Now. gentlemen, as I was saying, this contract was drawn In that way. "Careless in Habits and Methods." Now. Senator Mitchell is a man who Is essentially careless in his habits and methods. He is not a careful busi ness man, and you must not judge him upon the theorv that he is a careful business man. for he is not. He trusted almost everything in relation to the business here to Judge Tanner. He trusted almost everything to him In relation to business matters. It is said by Mr. Heney that at one time Mr. Tanner made a statement, in response to a request of Senator Mitchell sent a copy of a portion of the books back to Senator Mitchell: and It may be true that in one Instance that was done. If so. I think it will appear that that was the onlv timo that it was ever done. Now. there was some correspondence back and forth between them. Mr. Heney says there were letters written by Tanner to Senator Mitchell in which the matter of these different fees was referred to. It may be true that there were more or less indefinite statements In some of the letters In relation to these matters. I think, in going back over the copies of such correspondence, such copies of Senator Mitchell's corre spondence as he happens to have, that he has not lost. I think from what ex aminations I have made, you will find that the letters from Mr. Tanner in re lation to that matter were verr equivo cal. Sometimes he would write as though the feos belonged to the firm, and some times he would write as though they were his individual matters, and ask Senator Mitchell to do these things as a, favor to him. saying. I will be great ly obliged if you will do this." and "this man Is a client of mine and I am making a fee In the matter." His let ters in relation to the matter were equivocal and inconsistent .with each other. Sometimes he would write upon one theory and sometimes upon anoth er theory apparently. Now. during all this time. Senator Mitchell was a very busy man. As I have stated, he cut an Important figure upon nil questions of .National importance, and he was chair man of some committees and a member of other committees, and he was over run with public work. And whenever there was a matter not of National im portance, whenever there was a matter of state Importance, like the building of the locks at the canal, or like the Improvement of Coos Bay. or like the getting of an appropriation for the World s Fair, or anything of that kind. In which Oregon was interested, as you all know, and It is a matter of history. Senator Mitchell was the man upon whom we relied to do it. and all of this took a vast amount of work. It re quired a vast amount of energy. Public Work of the Senator. And then, besides that, gentlemen of the jury, during the whole terra that fc-enator Mitchell has occupied a seat in the United States Senate, you all know and every man in the state knows It is a matter of common knowledge that If any man had anything, any little private matter that he wanted at tended to there in Washington, before the departments, he always felt free to write to Senator Mitchell to have It attended to. It didn't make any differ ence what his politics was. whether he was a Republican, whether he was a Democrat, or a. Populist or a Socialist. It didn't make anv difference whether he was high in influence or whether he was some poor widow-woman or some old veteran. It didn't make any differ ence. If he had any matter to be at tended to there. Senator Mitchell was the man be felt free to write to. Sen ator Mitchell was the man that was looked to. and he took it up and ran his legs off. without e-er asking lot a cent and without caring what the man was in politics, or caring what his innuenco was ran his legs off to help them In relation to the matter. . . Well now, II you imagine inat a roan could attend to all these things, and then have much time for his own business cr to keep very accurate track of his own business, why. you are expecting dome thing, gentlemen, that is rather unreason able. As I have said. Senator Mitchell in his own matters was careless. While careful of everybody else's interests, in his own Interests and in his own matters he was a careless man. And. when these j letters came, or these statements be may J have asked for them they would come. I perhaps, in the stress of some time when I something was up which he' had to give undivldea attention to; maybe Jlor weeks and for months they would Be thrown j aslae; thoy would be turned over to his 1 secretary. They would pay no attention I to them - whatever, and as a matter of fact, he did not know, i It does not make any difference what the correspondence may show In relation -4 to this matter he did not know that there were any fees being taken In matters In 1 which he did not have a right to take a I fee. If he had as I have said to you if i he had been grafting in these matters he could have been a rich man today. But i he was not. And while I am not going to I paint Senator Mitchell to you as an angel, nrttnvthlnfAlhat IrtnA' nra nnt tinff ! to say to you that he Is a god; we are not going to say to you that he Is not full of the weak frailty of weak human nature yet at the same time, and as a matter of fact, and if it is investigated. It will be shown to you that his record as & public man is clearer than the record or Jv out of 100 nubile men in the country. He may not have always just done as he should ! have done, or leit undone everything mat he should have; we are not claiming that for him, but we are claiming that his record as a public man was more than ordinarily free. Now. time ran on. and he was appar ently entirely satisfactory to the people of his state, to all the officers, and en tirely satisfactory to the men with whom he was associated there in Washington. At least he held high official position at the hands of the people: high official po sition among h!s associates there. But the time came when a ring seemed to have been formed for the settling of pub lic lands, and the men who were in that ring were largely men fromMinnesota and from other states, but they had associated to themselves men In the State of Oregon. And It seems that high up In that ring was Mr. Frederick A. Krib3. who, with Mr. Tanner, Is a star witness by the Gox emmcnt in this proceeding. And also Mr. Puter and Mr. McKlnley. Enlcr Francis J. Hcncy. Now, then. Mr. John Hall, who was then United States District Attorney, without any blare of trumpets or appeals to the newspapers, or anything of that kind, had quietly gone before the grand Jury and secured an Indictment. John Hall had secured an Indictment of some of the lead ers In this band of thieves; McKlnley. Puter, Marie Ware, Emma I. Watson and some others. John Hall had secured the Indictment. It became important in the cyos of the Government, the matters be ing important matters, that John Hall should have some assistance In prosecut ing these cases, it being too mucn for one man in conjunction with his ordinary du ties of carrying on his office. It became a queston. and the President had ap pointed or was about to appoint Mr. Fran cis J. Heney. a resident of California, as that assistant, and a man by the name of Frost, of somewhat bad odor. Mr. Heney Now. if Your Honor pleases, I do not think this is proper at all. The Court What do you propose te prove. Mr. Bennett? Judge Bennett I was just stating Court I do not think that is a proper statement to this Jury. The thing for you to outline is the evidence you expect to produce here. These personal matters are not proper offer of proof. Judge Bennett I do not wish to say anything offensive about Mr. Frost. Tour Honor, at all. but I was just going on to explain the way In which we expect the evidence will show that these matters arose. Mr. Heney I do not think It Is material how they arose, or how I came to be In the case. They certainly could not prove It on the trial. The Court Confine yourself to a state ment of the evidence that you expect to produce Judge Bennett I was Just proceeding to state to the jury what I understood the evidence would disclose. I was Just going to say, may it please Your Honor, that growing out of this and the protest of the defendant Mitchell and Mr. Hermann and Mr. Williamson against the appointment of Mr. Honey, grew a personal feeling on the part of Mr. Heney towards them. "Xot Trying Mr. Heney." The Court Well, we are not trying Mr. Heney In this case. Mr. Heney No. if we were to try It. I would be perfectly willing to have it said. The Court Do not make these personal reflections Judge Bennett We will take an excep tion. Your Honor. Well, anyway, gentle men of the jury, out of this matter of the appointment of a special assistant attorney grew a feeling, as we expect the evidoncc to disclose, of bitterness, and we expect the evidence will show that from that time to this in the prosecution of this case, the entire object and purpose has been to try to fasten something upon Senator Mitchell and Mr. Williamson and Mr. Hermann, especially upon Senator Mitchell: and also, to some extent, upon Senator Fulton. And that, in order to do that, the persons who are really guilty of gross offenses In the way of public lands have been permitted to go scot free If they would tell something, either true or false, against Senator Mitchell. They have been permitted to go scot free; the Puters and the MeKlnleys; the Indictment against Marie Ware was dismissed. I don't know whether she will be a witness in this matter or not. Puter and McKln ley. although convicted months ago. have never been punished; the Kribs and the Smiths and other persons are not even under indictment; all in consideration, and we expect the testimony will show to you, gentlemen of the Jury, that they will tell something. Tanner has been promised Immunity: if they will tell something that shall be satisfactory to Mr. Heney against Senator Mitchell. Now, gentlemen, when you come to considering tne testimony ot meee witnesses in mat light; In the light of persons who are being bribed by Immunity to testify to something that shall be satisfactory to the District Attorney, and that he shall be willing to accept as truth; and we shall claim to you that the testimony of such witnesses Is worth nothing absolutely nothing. Contract Was Altered. Now, gentlemen. In relation to the mat ter of the change in this contract. Now, there is just that one grain of truth in the statement of Mr. Heney, that they did change the contract. It Is not true that Senator Mitchell made the representation that they have said in relation to that matter. It is not true that he asked Mr. Tanner to swear to anything that was not true In that matter, or to swear to any thing about it wbutevcr. It is not true that he asked Mr. Robertson to do any thing of that kind; it Is not true that he personally ever talked to Mr. Kribs. and, if true, evidence must show It la relation to that matter, or that he ever had any direct knowledge whatever of the Kribs matter. These things are not true, but It is true tbit when Senator Mitchell came back here and they were Investigating before the grand Jury not this matter, not the Kribs matter, but investigating the matter of the charge that Senator Mitchell had conspired with S. A. D. Puter and others for the pur pose of defrauding the Government, and when he demanded to go befere the grand jury in that matter, and did go before the grand Jury to testify in that matter now. at that tune, in order to understand Senator Mitchell's action in changing that contract (and I want to say to you. gentlemen, that that is the only thing wrong that they will ever prove that Senator Mitchell ever did his chang ing of that contract) In order to under stand the circumstances in which that was done, you will be placed in the light in which Senator Mitchell was then placed. In the first place, he was get ting 'to be an old man: he will be 70 years old tomorrow, gentlemen It is his birthday and he is an old man. Since he had been elected to the Senate the last time, he had been almost constantly sick; down, as you all remember It was a mat ter of history to death's door time and sgaln; he was all broken down In health; broken In body and broken in mind. Motives of Mitchell. He understood that Jdr. Heney. with a corps of Government detectives be hind him, was offering every induce ment to these gentlemen that were the real thieves, to say or do something I which should besmirch his reputation; ne understood that tne newspapers here, one of which was edited by an old time political enemy of his. & bitter political enemy of his. were doing everything that they could to pull him down and to besmirch bis reputation, and coming back as he did. broken in health, broken in mind and body, with the Government after him with a corps of trained detectives offering any sort of an inducement to anybody that would testify to anything against him: offering to virtually pardon the whole array of thieves if they would fasten something upon his skirts, and with the newspapers clamoring against him. Senator Mitchell, under all these cir cumstances, coming back here and find ing this contract which had peen put in such a way bv mistake, as It seemed to lend some color. If that matter should come up not that it would bo brought up In the courts, but that it would lend some color to the smirching of his reputation not expecting that the matter would ever come in the courts at all. but having something to show if the newspapers assailed him. he consented to the change of that con tract, and it was changed in that way by his consent; that is. there was a change in relation to the matter of the fees before the departments. The mat ter that had been Included in the orig inal contract by mistake, was thrown out and the contract was dated back to the date when the original contract was drawn. . Now. as I have said, gentlemen. I don't know how you look at that; for tho wrong that Senator Mitchell did in that matter in changing that contract. I don't know whether you would be disposed, in view of the circumstances. his condition ana age. ana stances, to view that la a charitable light, and excuse It or not- I don t know: but I say to you, gentlemen, that he Is not on trial for that, any way: and whether you excuse or whether you do not excuse, you would have no right to take that matter Into consideration, and I tell you. gentle men, that they will never prove to you. beyond a reasonable doubt, or at all. that Senator Mitchell ever knowingly violated any law of the United States Government, lie may nave ocen Icss In relation to me maiicr oi ." ner: he may have not rebuked him as promptly as he should have donc'or watched his business as close as he should have done, but you will never be satisfied bv the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly or Intentionally violated any law of the Government, technical or otherwise. That is all. gentlemen, for the present- I . . Frederick A. Kribs Testifies. Witness Frederick A. Kribs. being first duly sworn bn the part of the Govern ment, testified as follows: By Mr. Heney: . . Q. Mr. Kribs, where do. you reside? A. Portland. Q. How long have yo ll-ed here? A. Since February, 19fi, I have made my residence here. ... , , ,,,, Q. Do you know the defendant In this cae. John H. Mitchell? ' A. I have met him. yes. Q. How long have you known him? A. SInco October, 1$H- Q. Do you know A. H. Tanner? A. Yes. sir. Q. How long have you known him? A. I met him, I think, about January. 1U n tv vnn hnvo anv business relations with the firm of Mitchell & Tanner? Do you know whether mere was any firm as Mitchell & Tanner In this town In October. 12017 A. Yes. sir. Q. In what business? 1 Ktnrnn'i at law. q. Did you have any business with that firm in October, X Vu air Q. Did' you have any conversation with John H. Mitchell in October. 1901. with reference to any business matter.' A. Vm lr. Q. State where and Just when it was. u nenrltr ac vm 1 ratl A. It was somewhere about the 15th of October. 1801. that I was at the office of Mitchell & Tanner. Judge Tanner Intro duced Senator Mitchell to me for the first time, and I merely paia -my respects w him and Incidentally remarked that I had wr list nf inndu with Judce Tanner. and I would like to get the patents on the same. . . . Q. Had vou had any conversation with Judge Tanner prior to that with reference to the employment of the firm of Mitchell & Tanner; A. Yen sir Q. State what that conversation was? Mr. Thurston: We object to that as iruwnnetent and hearsav testimony. Mr. Heney: I think we can show the employment of the firm and payment to the firm. We avow at this time that we intend to show knowledge on the part of senator Mitchell of this emDlovroent and of the receipt of money. The acts of the agent, in the ordinary course of business ana one partner 4 an agent of the other in firm business are competent for the purpose of proving the employment of the firm, and having proved the employment of the firm and the receipt of the money by the firm, we will have to follow that up by proof of knowledge of the employ ment on the -part of Mitchell and of knowledge of the receipt of the money on the part of Mitchell. Mr. Thurston: We submit that what Is being asked for now is merely hearsay testimony. It certainly cannot be Intro duced at this time. The prosecution must first show. In order to make It relevant or material or competent, that Mr. Tan ner was acting for Senator Mitchell In reference to this particular matter; and we submit that In the ma.-er of the com mission of a crime, no man who Is charged with that commission can be held to have acted through any agent. There Is no such thing as an agency in the com mission of a crime. There is sometimes co-operation, whereby two persons com mit a crime. There is sometimes a con spiracy which. If cnarged. will entitle the prosecution to Introduce testimony as to the overt acts of the different conspira tors, but In the charge of a crime, a statutory offense, as againxt one man. there cannot be shown any such thing as partnership or agency in the commis sion of that offense. The Court: 1 think It Is competent for the Government to prove. If It can. that there was such a contract made as Is charged in the Indictment: that Is to say. ) t V. l- wlfnM VTt4W entered into n contract with the firm of Mitchell & Tan ner, as set forth in tho Indictment. And if that Is the purpose ofthls question, the objection will be overruled. Mr. Heney: That Is the purpose. The Court: If the object Is to get tes timony as to conversations in relation to the contracts Mr. Heney: The sole purpose Is to iden tify the matter of the contract also in the indictment. Objection overruled, and the defendant allowed an exception. Mr. Bennett: There is one other objec tion T would like to have entered on the record In relation to this matter, viz., that it is variant from the pleadings, and this is based upon the argument of Mr. Thurston on the demurrer, that this did not charge that the firm had done these things. Objection overruled; defendant allowed an exception. Conversation With Tanner. Q. Tbu may state to the Jury now. Mr. Kribs, if you nad a conversation with Mr. Tanner with reference to the list which you incidentally referred to in your talk with Mitchell that you have Just testified about. Mr. Thurston: We renew our objec tion to this character of testimony and note an exception to its introduction. A. As I recollect, the conversation won In the first of October, or whenever I took the two separate lists of land. I don't think I took them the same day, but very close to the same time, con sisting of about 20 claims in Douglas and 20 claims in Linn County, 40 claims. I told him I wanted to get patents on these lands. If possible, as there was considerable mooey coming to me and I made a bargain to pay $1000 for those patents. $500 down and $300 when the lands were patented. Q. You said that was in October? Of what year? A. 190L Q. I hand you a paper which Is dated October 22. 1901. Portland. Or at the ton. Do you know the signature of Joan H. Mitchell, when you see It? A. Well, 1 think that Is his signa ture. Q. The question was, do you know it? A. Well, reasonably welL I think that is his signature. 1 have not seen it so very many times. Q. Look over the first sheet of that paper. There Is a list of claims appear ing there. Can you state whether or not those are the lands which you are re ferring to as being the list of claims j you were taiiung witn ianner aooui; i A Yes. that is the list. Mr. Heney: We will offer that sheet in evidence. It bears some file marks upon It. and we will subsequently put a witness on the stand to prove what those file marks arc and woere tan paper came from. The present purpose- or the oner is to snow me list oi claims. We will offer at the present time tho print and typewritten part with the signature. Mr. Thurston: we nave no oojecuon. The Daoer is marked "Government Exhibit No. V Q. I band tne witness a paper dated February S, 1902, Portland. Or., and ask you If yon know the signature of A. H. Tanner? A. Yes. Q. Whose signature is upon the sec ond page? The third page of the pa pers in your hand, but the second page of the letter? A. A. H. Tanner's. Q. Look over the list of claims In that letter and state whether or not those nre a portion of the claims to which you referred In your testimony as to tne conversation with Tanner? A. That's the list. Mr. Heney: We will offer this letter, as to the print and typewritten part and signature, in evidence. There Is a file mark on that which we will later on Identify. The paper is admitted without objec tion and marked "Government Exhibit. No. 2." Mr. Heney thereupon read to the jury the Government Exhibit No. 1, as fol lows: Mitchell's Letter to Hermann. Special and Important. Make a list only with status. B. H. COM. UNITED STATES SENATE. Portland,. Oregon. Oct. 22, 1301. Hon. Binger Hermann. Commissioner of the General Land Office. Department of the Interior. Washington. D. C My Dear Sir: At the instance of friends, who are interested. I desire to be advised as to the present status of the following timber entries, all In the Roseburg land district, Oregon: 1S01 March 15, Mrs. Lizzie Thorn. SE U Sec C. T. 27 S.. R. S W. March 21, Frank N. Sherman. VS. NE. U lots I. 2. Sec 6, T. S S.. R 7 W. March 2L Maggie Sherman, SE. H Sec 6, T. 26 S-. R. 7 V. March .21, Relnhold Maier, E. SW. U. lots 6. 7, Sec. 6, T. 25 S.. R. 7 W. March 1. Chas. H. Carter. SB. U Sec IS. T. 25 S.. R. 7 W. March H. Chas. H. Bruce. SE. U. NW. y. lot 3, E. H SW. Sec IS, T. 25 S.. R. 7 W. March 1G. Mrs. Julia E. Brice. Iota 3, 4. 5, C Sec. 2S, T. 25 ., R. 7 W. March 7. John E. Cunlff, NW. U Sec ?2. T. 23 S.. R. 7 W. March 7, Arthur Lee Thornton, SW. U Sec 2. T. 25 S.. R. 7 W. June 2S. Date Schmidt, lots 1, 2, S. H NE. H Sec 6, T. 2 5., Iv. S W. April S. R. Emma Lone, S. NW. H. SW. y. XE. U. NW. 14. SE. Sec S. T. April . Joseph Blobergcr. SW. Sec 8; T. t s.. n s w. April S. Max Weiss. NE. U Sec IS, T. 21 S. R S W. March S, Mrs. Nellie Cunlff. SE. U Sec. 1?. T. 24 S.. R. S W. April 8. Frederick Stauffer. NE. U Sec 20. T- 21 S.. R. S W. April S. Frank B. Long, NW. H Sec 20. T. 24 S.. R S W. April S. Gus Sulser. NE. H Sec 20, T. 21 5.. K. 5 V . April 6. Constant Toussaint. N. j. SE 1'. Inl. t Cw. ?A T -1 T s w March IS. Mrs. Margaret C Carter, S. M. NE U. lots 1. 2. Sec IS, T. 25 S., R. 7 W. I hone vou will let me have this as soon as convenient. andI will confer with you poraonallv In regard to the same when l reach waaningion. very respect' fully. JOHN H. MITCHELL. Mr. Heiiey: Mr. Kribs. after conversa tion relating to this list or lands which you nare Just testified about, with Tan ner. did you have any further conver sation with John h. MitcneiiT A. Tes. Q. When and where? A. At the office of Mitchell &. Tan ner in the Commercial.- block here. Q. About when was it as nearly as you xnn say A. I should think It was about two or three, days alter the ISth. I fixed my da?e by the time that I made a pay ment to the firm, and I know It was very shortly after that. O. On the lth of October? AJ Of October. 1S01. 1 went la anl told him that on the most of these lands there was considerable money coming to me. whenever the titles to the lands were perfected, and 1 had nn-pd tn clve. Judce Tanner o. (Mr. -rnursioni Are you iciung now. what you told Mitchell? A. Yes sir. Q. dir. Henev) Go ahead. A. Thru I had agreed to give Judge Tanner S10U0 for getting the patents for those 40 claims. He bald he did not care to talk anything concerning tho fees In this case, out as i una leit mo list of lands with Judge Tanner, to talk with Judge Tancr about it. L told nim I was very anxious, my recollection Is. that he would write a letter to Wash ington concerning these mutters. Q. Mr. Kribs. do you know the sig nature that Is upon the paper you now hold In your Aand? A. Yes. Q. "Whose Is it? A. Mine. Q. What did you do with that paper after signing It? A. Gave It to Judge Tanner. Q. On what day. can you tell? A. October 13, 1S0L Q. Where was that? A. Here In Portland, In his office air. Heney We will offer the paper In evidence. Mr Thurston We object to It as- Imma terial and Irrelevant, being at variance with the- Indictment and as Incompetent at this time. Objection overruled and defendant al lowed an exception. Paner admitted and marked Government Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Heney then read the face of th2 check to the Jury as follow: Kribs Check Introduced. ROSEBURG. Or., October 15. 1901 First National Bank of Roseburg. Pay t Mitchell and Tanner or order, 5500.00. Six hundred and no-130 dollars. FRED A. KRIBS. ' Mr. Thurston Wc object to council reading anything on the bace of It. Mr. Heney I will omit that until I prove the Indorsement. I will offer just tho face of the check for the present. Q. For what purpose was that check banded to Tanner? A. I agreed on this list of about 40 claims to pay (1000: $300 of that check was the first check; SS00 was to be paid when the landa passed to patent. Mr. Thurston We would like to have It understood that this same objection of ours continues as to each question relat ing to this class of testimony, with per mission to note It afterwards if we ever have to. The Court Very welL Q. What was tha other $100 for? A. That was attorney's fees -and ex penses of John Van Zante for attorney's work up in Linn County In assisting in procuring affidavits on some of these claims. Q. As to the 40 claims, what kind of claims were they? A. Timber and stone entries. Q. What was their condition: where were they s to their status In the mat ter of the applications? Mr Thurston We object to that as not the best proof, secondary evidence. (The question was withdrawn.) Q. What, If anything, to your knowl edge was being done by the Government at that time with reference to these claims here In Oregon. Defendant objects as Immaterial and Ir relevant. Mr. Heney I propose to show knowl edge on the 'port of the defendant. Objection overruled, and defendant al lowed an exception. A. There was an examination made of the matters of these claisss for the Gov ernment. The Government agent was hunting up these different claimholders and taking affidavits from them In sup port of their entries, and getting what Information they could. Q. What was his name? A. Stafford. Q. What. If anything. di this Jl pay ment have to do with that? A. Mr. Van Zante was sent up there Defendant objects as immaterial and ir relevant. The Court I will sustain the objection to that. . Mr. Heney Your- Honor, of coarse, does not yet know what tie facts are In rela- tion to that. We propose .to show that xanner or ust nrm was empiojca io t- tend to this, and that Van Zante was merely sent by them to get those affida vits. The Court The witness has already tes tified that SI CO of that check went to Van Zante. and it is not material what It was for. The testimony already is that the 5300 went to the firm of Mitchell & Tan ner. The court admonished the Jury. Whereupon a recess was taken until 1 o'clock P. M.. June 21. 1S05. AFTERXOOX SESSION. Mr. Heney The second letter which was Identified by Mr. Kribs as containing a list oi a portion of tho 40 claims I will now "read in evidence. Tanner's Letter to Mitchell. Mitchell & Tanner, Attorneys and Counselors at Law. Rooms 60S. 609. 610. 611 Commercial Block. Second and Washington Streets. Both Tele phones 542. John H. Mitchell. Albert H. Tanner. PORTLAND. Or.. Fobruary S. 1902. Hon John H. Mitchell. U. S. Senate. Washington. D. C Dear Senator: Would you kindly call upon the honorable Com missioner of the General Land Office for information as to tho present status of the following- timber entries In the Roseburg Land Office: 1800 August 15. Fred Watll. the SE & of Sec 26. T. H a. R. : E. August 15. O. Judd Mcaley. SW. i of Sec 26. T 14 S, R. 2 E. August 15. J. A- Thompson, NE.U of Sec 26. T. 14 &, R. ! E. August 27, Andrew Wiley, SE. H of Sec IS, T. H, S, R. 2 E. August 27. Olive Erickson. lots 1. 2 and 3 and the SB. U of the NW. K of Sec 12. T. 14 S.. R. 2.E. August 27. William W. Billings. NW. li of the NW. of Sec 17, and the N. !4 of thb NE U and the SW. U of the NE. k of Sec 18. T. 14 S R. 3 E. August 27, Charles Wiley, the W. of the W. of Sec 13. T. 14 S.. R. 3 E. August 27. Samuel D Pickens, W. of the SW. M.. SE. U of the SW. U and the SW. i of the SE U of Sec 11, T. 14 S.. R. 3 E. August 27. John Thomas Parker. N. i of the NE y and SE U of the NE. i anC the NE U of the SE. H of Sec 11, T. 14 S.. R. 3 E August 27. Joseph O. Mlchelson. the W. H of the E. i of Sec 10. T. 14 S.. R. 3 E. August 27. Joseph H. Stengraat. E. of the E. S of Sec 10, T. 14 S.. R. 3 E. August 27, George W. Pickens. E. of the W. M of Sec 12. T. 14 S.. R. 3 E. October 9. Alexander Gould. E. of tHe.NV. U and the SW. &i of the NW. 4. the SW. U of the NE H of Sec 24. "October 9, Sidney H. Scanland. W. H of the NE U. NE. of the NE K-ot Sec 2o. and the NW. Vi of the NW. U of Sec 27. T. 14 S.. R. 4 E. October 9. John J Gilliland. NW. U of Sec 2S. T. 14 S.. R. 4 E. October 9. Lewis Maynari. W. of the SW. xi. NE i of the SW. U and the NW. of the SE. i ot Sec 22, T. HS.R.4E. r October 9. R F. Malone. the NW. of Sec 22. T. 14 S.. R. 4 E. October 9. Tuthill. the S. W of the SE U and lots 3 and 4, of Sec. 18, T. 14 S.. R. 4 E October 9. William J. Lawrence, the E. 4 of the SW. U and the S. of the SE U or sec 30. T. n a.. K. 4 tt. October 9. James W. Rort-11. tr.o N. 4 of the SE i and the N. Vt of the SW. of Sec 2S. T. 14 S.. R. 4 E. October 17, Richard C. Wntkinds. the W. t of the NE. the SE i of the NE U and the NE. 4 of the SE. U of Sec 22, T. 14 S.. K. 4 ii. Very truly your.. A. H. TANNER. O. Mr. Kribs. did you have any bus! ness with the firm of Mitchell &. Tanner In February. 1S02 A. Tes. sir. O. With whom did you make any agree ment on any business matter In Febru ary. 12037 A. Judge Tanner. O. Can vou irive about the date? A. Somewhere about the middle of Feb ruary. 1S02. the 15th or 16th. I think. O. What did It relate to? A. I took a third list of 30 claims to him to see if he could procure patents on tee same. Q. What sort of cMIms? A. Timber and stone claims. Q. What conversation did you have with him In relation to It? Mr. Thurston That is objected to as Incompetent, irrelevant. Immaterial and hearsay, and not supporting any of the averments of the indictment. Mr. Henev The nurnose is to prove an agreement with the firm of Mitchell & Tanner, but we will confine it to a con versation In relation to the employment OI UIC lirill 111 n'fidiu iU urcoo Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. A. I asked him what It was worth. He said a thousand dollars, and I paid him $300 down at the time and J30O after patents were Issued. That is. wnen tne natents were Issued I was to pay the other JSOG. O. Tn do what? A. To see that those lands passed to rmtent- Q. What further was said by either of you In regard to It. If anything? Sam objection. Objection sustained. Q. What, if anything, was said about the services ot Mitchell &. ianner in con nection with the matter? Samo objection as to the last question Oblectlon overruled. Defendant excepts. A. He said he would send the list on to Washington to Senator Mitchell and write to him nnu can nis auenuon 10 u. aim have him Investigate the entries and see If w could have them Dassed to patent. Mr. Thurston AVc move to strike out that last answer as being Incompetent and hearsay testimony. Motion cirri led. Defendant excCDts. Q. l call your attention to two sheets of letter-size naper. dated February 13, 1S02. which I have Just handed to you. Do you know the signature upon - that ,papcr7 A. ves. sir. Q. Whose Is it? A. A. H. Tanner's. Q. Look over the list of claims de scribed In those two sheets of paper and tatc whether or not those are the claims to which you referred in your tes timony just given, about which the con tract was maae.' A. Those are the same lands. Mr. Heney We will offer those two sheets In evidence. Same are admitted without objection as Government Exhibit 4 and read la evidence as follows: Tanner Mitchell. MITCHELL & TANNER, Attorneys and Counselors at Law, Rooms 608. COO. 610 and 11 Commercial Block. Second and Wash Ington Sts. Both Telephones 541. John H. Mitchell. Albert H. Tanner. Portland. Oregon, Feb., 13. 1902. List No. 3 Hon. John H. Mitchell. Washing ton. D. C Dear Senator: I am anxious In the Interest of a client here to ascer tain the present status of the following timber entries In the Roseburg land dis- Llrlct. Would you kindly call upon the Honoraoie commissioner ot tne General Land Office for the Information and for ward the une to me when furnished. The list of lands, with date of entry. namo of entrymen. and description of lanas is as lonows 1900 April IS, S16S. Stephen A. D. Puter. NW. n sy "vi t 1! r iv April 1$. 5169.' Ira A. Pilkington. SE Sec 2S. T. 14. R. 3 E. April IS. SliO. John L. Green, NW. U Sec 33. T. 14. R. 3 E. . April-IS. Sin. Thomas Wilson, NW. aec zs, . ii. xv. .I tu, April IS, S172. Charles Barr. SW.-i Sec April IS, 8173, Charles Barley, SE Sec S3. T 14. R. 1 S April IS, S174. N. D. Dozier, SW. i Sec -I T 11 Tl t TT April li SITS. Harry Saltraarsh. NW. U sec it, l. i. ti a r. April IS. S173. Basil H. Wagner, SW. U Sec 2S T. 14. R. 3 E. April .IS. S17T. Harry C. Barr, SE Sec. 24. T. i4. R, 2 E. April IS, SITS. Edward Flnley. NE. U Sec 25. T. 14. R. 3 E. April IS. SITS, John J. Jaggy, SE U Sec 24. T. 14. R. 3 E. April IS. S1S0. Jay S. Phillips. NE. ?4 Sec 24. T. 14. R 3 E. t April 13, HISL ZebUn Smith. NW. U Sec 24. T. 14. R. 3 E. April 18. S1S2. Douglas Adklnson, SW. U Sec 24. T. 14. R. 3 E. April IS. SI S3. Sadie E. Puterj NE. H bee JJ, l . ,, April 30. SIM. Josephlee' Jaeota, SEr V Secl22. T..14. R. 3 E. April 30. S15S. Mrs. Elvira S. Jacobs. w. ii sec i. u. n. i t May 16. S231. Isaac R. Forum. SW. U Sec 14. T. 14. R. 3 E. May 13. S232, Benjamin F. Kirk. NE. i Sec 14. T. 14, R. 3 E. May 15. S233, George L. Thompson. NW. X Sec 14, T. 14. R. 3 E. May 16. S23I. Peter Bufflngton. SE. U Sec 14. T. 14. R. 3 E. May 15. S233. John Harrison. lot 1. N. NE. . Sec 20; NW. H. NW. . Sec. 23, T. 14. R. 4 E. May 16. Jennie Moulton. E. M. W. H. Sec 32, T. 14. R. 4 E. jtiay is. sza, Jacob vi. suiiweu. lot i. r. 4. NE. Sec 31: NW. Vt. NW. is. Sec. 32, T. 14. R. 4 E. ' May IS. S243. Elam Miller. NE. K. Sec. 31 T. 14 R. 3 E May 16, S341, Henry Blakeiy. lot 3. SE.lL Sec 30; NW. U. SW. V. Sec 29, . H, H. 4 E. May 16. S242. Hush Blakeiy. lot 4. S. SE. K. Sec 30: SW. U. SW. X. Sec 2S. T. 14. R- 4 E. May 15, S544, Frank w. Buriora. lot S. 4. NE; Vl. Sec. 31: SW. H. NW. U. Sec 32, T, 14. R. 4 E. April 19, SIS5. Rurus urumm. v. Sec 24. T. 14. R. 2 E. lours truly, a. h. j. .c-ri- Llst No. 3. O. Whose signature is uoon the naper you now hold In your hand. Mr. Kribs? A. Mine. Q. What did you do with that paper after skrnintr It? .. l gave it to uuage aanner, Q. On what date? A. It Is dated February 13. 1902: I think that is the day I gave It to him. y. what was me purpose witn wmcn that was given to him? Objected to as asking for a mental con clusion of "the witness. overruled, uerenaant excepis A. The 00 claims that I brought In. Q. The ones just read In evidence? A. Yes. air. I was to par J1C0O. J30O down and J300 when the patents were Is sued, and this is the first payment. Mr. Heney We offer this check in evi dence. Mr. Thurston We object to the intro duction of this paper for the reason that It Is Irrelevant and. Immaterial and In competent, and at variance with the counts of the Indictment; and for the fur ther reason that there Is no testimony showing that the defendant In this case had any knowledge of the transaction or the delivery of this check. Objection overruled, ueienaant excepts. The same was marked Government Exhibit 5 and read In evidence as fol lows: "Roseburg. Oregon. Feb. 13, lsoi first National Bank of Roseburg: Pay to Mitchell & Tanner, or order. $500.00 Five Hundred and no-lCO Dollars. rTtED A. IvxtUBo. It is stamped on the face, "Paid Feb. 14. 1902, Roseburg, Oregon. Mr. Henev .W e . will produce further evidence as to what was done with this check by Tanner, and the indorsements on the back: the Indorsements are not offered now. Q. Mr. Kribs. did you make any runner navment on either of the two agreements about which you have testified, to Mitch ell & Tanner, and if so, when? And to whom 7 w A. I was notified about tire middle of June Mr. Bennett We make the same objec tion to this. Tour Honor. A. I was notified about the middle of June, 1J02. that the lands had been certi fied for patent. I paid $1000, $500 of which was on the first two lists and $300 on the third list of February. 1902. Q. (Mr. Tnurston.j wnat aate was- that? A. Somewhere about the middle or June, 1S02. Q. Who notified you that they had gone to patent? A. Mr. Tanner. Q. Whose siimature. if vou know, does that paper bear Just handed' to you? A. Mine. Q. -WTiat did you do with that paper after signing it? A. i gave it to juage ianner. Q. When? A. I suppose the 14th of June, that Is the date of it. of 1902. Mr. Heney We will offer that paper in evidence. Mr. Thurston vv e make the same ob jection as we made to the offer of the last check. Objection overruled. Defendant ex cepts. Mr. Bennett There are some features of this which I suppose It Is not necessary to repeat as we go along, but when the testimony 13 all In we want to move to strike It out and present the matter to Your Honor at more length than the court would care to hear at this time. The check Is admitted as Government's Exhibit No. 6. and read in evidence as follows: "Roseburg, Oregon, June 14. 1902. First National Bank of Roseburg. Pay to Mitchell & Tanner or- order $1000.00 (one thousand and no 100 dollars). Fred A. Kribs." and bears a stamp on Its face. "Paid June 16. 1202." Q. What was the purpose with which that piece of paper was given to Tanner? Same objection as to a former similar question. Objection overruled. Defendant ex cepts. A. That was-the final payment where the $300 was due on the first two lists and the $5C0 payment on the third list. Q. Those are the lists which you have already identified, one, two and thrse? A. Yes, sir. Q. The first, second and third lists, are those the ones to which you refer? A. Yes. Q. In the month of September, 1S02, did you make any agreement with the firm of Mitchell & Tanner to perform any services for you? Same objection as was made to former testimony of a similar character. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. A. Yes sir. q! State what the agreement was and whom did you have the talk with? A. Judge Tanner. Q. Where? A. In his office here in town. Q. These other talks with Tanner you have mentioned tcok place where? A. At his office. Q. In Portland? A. Yes. Q. What was the conversation In re gard to this third list? Paid $500 Down. A. I had given him, some time prior to that, a list of lands located by forest reserve scrip, and I told him, "I want to hve the titles completed to tne same." and I made a bargain with him to pay him a thousand dollars when the patents were Issued to all of the lands. I paid him $500 down at that time. The witness Is handed a paper. Q. I will ask you whose signature. If you know, that bears? A. It is my signature. Q. What did you do with that paper after signing it? A. Gave it to Judge Tanner. Q. On what date? A. On September 20, 1902. That Is the date of it. and I am sure that Is when I gave it to him. Q. Is that the payment to which you have just referred In your testimony? Mr. Heney We will offer that check in evidence- Same objection as made to the introduc tion or former cnecKs onerea. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. The check was admitted in evidence. "Portland. Oregon. Sept. 20. 1202. "Merchants National Bank of Portland, Oreson. "Pay to A. H. Tanner or order $300.00 (five hundred and no ICO dollars.) FRED A. KRIBS. , Q. Why was that check drawn to A. H. Tanner individually? Mr. Thurston That Is objected to as In comnetent testimony, calling for reasons In the mind of the witness which could not affect the defendant in this case. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. A. I don't know of any particular rea son why it should have been made- out in that way. I guess I Just simply wrote It in, probably. In the office, and passed it over to him. I don't know of any reason for It. Q. Was anything said at the time of this conversation in regard to this list of lieu lands with respect to whether sena tor Mitchell was to perform any services in the, matter or not? Same objection as heretofore. The Court The objection will be overruled- It la not very material what was said there. The real point Is whether Senator Mitchell performed any services in connection with that matter and whether he received any compensation knowingly for that service. Defendant excepts. (No answer was made to the question.) Q. Did you furnish Judge Tanner with a ll3t of lieu selections regarding which this agreement was made? A. Yes. The witness la handed a paper consist ing of three sheets of legal-cap size. Q. Examine those three sheets, Mr. Kribs. and state what it is? A. That is the list of the forest-reserve selections I gave to' Judge Tanner. Q. What number is that? A. That is known as No. 4. Q. Is there any writing on it by which you can Identify it on the outside of It? A. "Kribs No. 4." Q. Who wrote that? A. Judge Tanner. Q. I hand you another three sheets qt legal-cap size. What Is that paper? A. That Is the forest-reserve selections I gave Judge Tanner, marked No. 5. Q. In whose handwriting? A. Judgo Tanner's. Mr. Heney 1 will offer these lists ia evidence, first list No. 4. It bears some lead-pencll writing upon it which evi dently was not upon the sheet originally. Q. Was the lead-pencil writing on there when this was delivered, do you know? A. I don't know. Mr. Heney At present we will confine the offer to the typewritten matter that appears on the sheets offered. Mr. Bennett We object to this upon the same grounds as the others and upon tha further ground that no such list or claim Is specified in the indictment; that It is variant from the indictment, and if in tended to apply to the three last counts of the indictment, they are so -Indefinite, and uncertain that they are not sufficient to permit testimony to be offered. Objections Aro Overruled. Objection overruled. Defendant ex cepts. Mr. Heney We will offer the llat marked No. 5 in evidence. Same objection. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. The two lists last Introduced are marked respectively Government exhibits 3 and 9, and are detailed lists of claims which were to be expedited by Tanner and Mitchell. Q. Did you at any time make any further payment to the firm of Mitchell & Tanner under the agreement In rela tion to lists 4 and 5, which you have just testified about? Mr. Thurston We make the same ob jection to this as heretofore made to the same class of testimony. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. A. In October. 1904, I made a pay ment of $200 on account. Q. (The witness is handed a paper.) Whose signature does the check bear which you now have In your hand? A. My signature. Q. What did you do with that after signing It? A. I gave it to Judge Tanner. Q. A. Q. A. Where? In his office, I think. In Portland. Oregon? Ye3. sir. Is that the Dayment to which vou Q. referred Just now? A. l es. Q. On what date? October S. 1904. A. Kribs' Check in Evidence. Mr. Heney We will offer this check in evidence. Same objection as to the same charac ter of checks heretofore offered. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. Check received In evidence as Govern ment's exhibit 10, as follows: "Portland. Oregon. Oct. Sth. 1904. "Merchants National Bank of Portland. Oregon. "Pay to Mitchell & Tanner or order ($200.00) two hundred and no 100th dol lars. FRED A. KRIBS." Q. Did you make any other agreement with Mitchell & Tanner at any other time with reference to the land entries? A. Yes. Q. With whom did you have the talk in relation to it? 'A.- Judge Tanner. Q. Where? A. In his office in Portland. Q. When was that? A. I cannot remember the exact time, but I made payment on that contract In February. 1904. of $500. though that check, as I recollect if. was for a larger sum: but the balance of it was for other work. Q. I hand you a paper purporting to be a check. Whose signature does tha paper you now hold In. your hand bear? a. .Mine. Q. What did you do with mat paper after signing It? A. I gave It to Judge Tanner. Q. Is that the payment to which you have just referred? A. Yes. Q. What is the date of it? A. January 4th. 1904. Q. What is the amount? A. $555.00. To Show Knowledge . of Defendant Mr. Heney I will offer that check in evidence. That is not In the Indictment, but the purpose of this testimony Is to show a similar transaction for the pur pose of showing knowledge on the part of the defendant, as we will by letters, m relation to this transaction, prior to thi3 last payment made of October. 1904: knowledge on the part of the defendant of the fact that these other transactions had been entered into. Mr. Thurston We object to the intro duction of this check In evidence, for the reason that it 13 Incompetent testimony. Irrelevant and immaterial to the issues here framed; responds to no counts in the indictment, and if it shows anything, it shows an outside and different trans action, having no relation to the matters charged in the indictment. Mr. Heney I would suggest, your honor, that this is not the proper tima for this particular testimony to be put in. except it would save recalling the witness. The Court I think it better be put In In fts proper order. Q. Mr. Kribs, did you have any corre spondence with Senator Mitchell at an- time after this first contract wa3 made in October 1901, either by letter or tele gram? A. I think I wrote a couple of letters, but I cannot say Just when. I never kept any copies of them, so I cannot tell the exact time. Q. Were . those letters in relation to any matters about which you have testi fied? Objected to a3 calling for the contents of a written Instrument and being sec ondary evidence. Overruled. Defendant excepts. Mr. Heney I think the record properly ought to show that I served notice on the other side to produce the particular orig inals. The Court The witness says he wrote the letters but did not keep copies of them. Answer the question. A. I wrote one letter that I cannot rs member, concerning some of these forest reserve selections, to find out why mat ters were dragging so slowly, as I had complied with all the requirements of the department several months before; and I did not get any .action. And the re ply I received Objected to as incompetent and not the best evidence. Q. Did you receive a reply to your letter? A. Yes. sir. Q. Have you the reply? A. No. sir. Q. What did you do with it? Letter Destroyed or Mislaid- A. I either destroyed It or mislaid it: It Is a long time ago and there was not much of anything to it. Q. Have you made any search for it? A. Yes, sir. Q. -To what extent? A. I have looked through all my files and papers In my house and office and never could find it. Q. You may state what the contents of the answer was. Objected to on the ground that, sufij 'cient foundation has not been laid for the Introduction of secondary evidence of the contents of the paper. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. A. As I recollect It. that there was a vast amount of business in the forest re serve department, and that the matters would be taken up In their turn, some thing like that. Anyway, there was not very muqh satisfaction In it, and I did not keep It, I think,, on that account. Mr. Thurst8n Cross-Examines. By Mr. Thurston: Q. Where do you live, Mr. Kribs? A. Portland. Q. How long have you lived here? A. Since Febrauray. 1902. . Q. What has been your business hers since that time? A. Buying and selling of lands. Q. Where did you come from here? A. Minnesota. Q. How long had you lived there? A. About 17 years. Q. What had been your business prior to coming to Portland? A. Buying and selling lands and. the examining of lands. Q. What other parties were interest.