Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Morning Oregonian. (Portland, Or.) 1861-1937 | View Entire Issue (June 23, 1905)
THE 3IQRXIXG OREGOXIAX, FRIDAY,, JTJXE 23, 1905.
MITCHELL'S FORMER LAW PARTNER IS THE ONLY WITNESS OF THE DAY
.Continued .From Tint Page.) j
ator to hasten in the matter and to aoid
A telegram was also read from Mitchell,
teJlJng that the claims under considera
tion had been certified for patent by the
4spartment. The prosecution next read a
letter from Tanner In answer to the tele
gram, telling that they were entitled to
HOOO extra as soon as Krlbs was certain
that the claims would certainly be pat
ented. What was perhaps one of the most Im
portant letters Introduced was one of May
12, J802. from Senator Mitchell, acknowl
edging the receipt of a, deposit slip for
the previous month, and asking that a
copy of the day book, covering the time
elapsed since his departure for Washing
ton, be sent to him. This copy should
contain an Itemized account of all money
received, from whom received and for
. what. The next letter was one of June 3,
containing a copy of the book asked for,
together with a deposit check for 5727.53,
being the amount due the Senator for
At the afternoon session Mr. Heney con
tinued his chronological Introduction of
evidence, bringing up piece by piece the
correspondence relative to the Krlbs
claims. He Introduced the stubs to the
cnecKDOOKs or tne nrm, wnich showed an
the checks paid and to whom. These, by
comparison with the day book, showed
conclusively where the money received
had gone. A carbon copy of the day book,
sent to Senator Mitchell, was identified by
Mr. Tanner and introduced in evidence
after a stubborn fight made by the de
fense. The witness further testified that in
September, 1902. he had entered Into an
other agreement with Krlbs by which
he was to secure the approval of several
lieu selections. For this work the firm
was to receive $1000, $500 in cash and $300
"when the work had been accomplished.
A letter waB Introduced written to Mitch
ell in which Tanner had urged the Sen
ator to poke the matter up, as the fee
-depended upon getting the claims through
Quickly. He identified a check for 5503
paid as the first retainer for the work.
In response Mitchell had written stat
ing that on account of the trouble over
land frauds he did not know whether or
not be could get the claims through
quickly, but would do the best he could.
Krlbs had then sent an affidavit which
was brought out in evidence detailing
that his claims were legal ones and that
there was no reason why they should not
be passed. Mitchell acknowledged this
and promised to' take the matter up with
the department, but that it would be hard
to get anything done. .
This and the Identification of a check
for $200 paid by Krlbs seemed for the
time to end the documentary flood of the
prosecution. Mr. Heney Introduced a
telegram dated December 20, 1901, from
Mitchell to Tanner, asking him to meet
him at Kalama. This was objected to by
the defense, and Mr. Heney took another
tack. He asked Tanner if he had met the
Senator at Kalama.
Ex-Judge Tanner said he had met the
Senator. Blnger Hermann and Frank C.
Baker at Kalama and had returned to
Portland on the same train with them.
The defense Interrupted on the ground
that Tanner was at that time Mitchell's
attorney, and could not tell of what had
taken place, but the court ruled other
wise, and the witness proceeded with his
He said that he had met the Senator on
the train, and that after a general con
versation with him he had had a private
conversation. The Senator was very
anxious about the condition of things
here. He had wanted to know if it were
possible for any of the Government agents
to have gained access to the firm books,
or if the Government were going to be
able to get information out of Krlbs in
relation to the matter. He said he was
afraid of the transaction and wanted to
eee the firm books, and that he would
come to the office the next day and ex
The next day. according to the testi
mony, the Senator went to the office, and
Tanner took the books into his private
office, where they examined them to
gether. The Senator appeared to bo
much surprised at the way they were
kept nnd at the entries made. Tanner
told him If there had been anything wrong
In his actions ho should have told him
so Jong ago. that he had simply made a
record of the business as it happened,
thinking no wrong on the Senator's part.
Senator Mitchell wanted him to destroy
the books and write a new set. leaving out
the entries about the land matters, but
the witness hnd reminded him that there
were several persons who knew what they
had contained, nnd that It was not there
He had seen the Senator next at tho
hotel and he had continued to talk about
the books, saying that the entries could
not only Indict him. but would convict
him If they were to fall into the hands
of the Government.
The witness had advised him to make
a clean breast of It. but the Senator had
continued to talk about the destruction
of the books until he had promised to
help him In any way possible, though it
would be necessary for him to commit
perjnry to do so. He had then called
to mind the clause in the agreement re
lating to department practice, and they
had changed it so that all tho fees for
such work were made payable to Tan
ner. The Senator said that any means
were Justifiable; that Hitchcock was try
ing to ruin him. and that the offense was
not morally wrong. The Senator had
agreed to fix H. Q. Robortson. and the
new agreement had been signed.
The witness then identified the contract
as changed, and after the Government
had presented the letter written by
Mitchell asking that Tanner bring .the
books of the firm to Washington the
FCfrj STENOGRAPHIC REPORT
Judge Tanner's Testimony nnd Im
portant Documents Introduced.
The complete stenographic report
The court met pursuant to adjournment
at 10 o'clock A. M., June 22. 1505. Direct
examination of A. H. Tanner continued.
Judge Tanner, did you make any
agreement with Mr. Krlbs n February,
1902, with reference to any other lands
than those described In lists 1 and 2.
about which you have testified?
A. Yes. sir: I had an agreement with
him In regard to another list of land, I
think, some time in February. 1902.
Q. Did you make an entry In your firm
books at tne time that agreement was en
A. I think I did: yes. sir.
Q. I will call your attention to the firm
day book, pace 146. Do you find an entry
there in relation to It?
A. Tes, sir; mode under date of Feb
Q. Now state what the agreement was
with Mr. Krlbs on that occasion?
Mr Bennett: Of course this Is all sub
ject to our same objection, your honor.
A- He brought In a list. I think, con
sisting of some SO odd claims under the
timber act, and said they were In tho
same condition as the others, practically.
That the claims had been proved up and
that the cntrymen were people who lived
around Roseburg and in the vicinity of
the land, and that they were all right,
except this came question was Involved,
whether his having taken deeds to them
soon after they made their final proof
would Invalidate the entries, and I made
another arrangement with him; told him
I thought that we could make the same
arrangement as to the retaining fee. a
thousand dollars, and then if there were
any hearings or contests in the local of
fice at Roseburg be would have to pav In
addition to that whatever the services
woujd be reasonably worth In the matter,
and that was agreeable to him. and we
made a bargain there of that kind.
Payment of Money.
Q. --How was the thousand dollars to
be paid all at once or when?
A, I think it was to be paid air at once.
if I remember rightly; I don't know what
the entry hows there.
Q. Examine the entry and perhaps that
will refresh j'our memory.
A- o. it was to be tne same as me
other. I see by the entry. Five hundred
dollars cash and five hundred doHars when
the entries were approved for patent.
Q- Whose handwriting Is that entry in
on page 145?
.v. That entry is in my nanawnung.
Q. Was it entered as on the date it
bears, about the day of the date it bears?
Q. And that, was what date?
A. February 13, 1902.
Q. At the time it was entered, did it
read Just as it does now?
A. No, Mr; It did not.
Q. What words have been changed in
Mr. Bennett: We would like to see the
entry before you proceed with that, Mr.
Q. What words. If any. have been
changed In the entry since it was first
entered? That is, what words as they
appear now. were not there?
A. To explain the matter
Q. I think we can get at It quicker.
Judge, if you will Just -answer the ques
tion direct; then you can explain fully.
The Original Entry.
A. The entry originally was "To cash
retainer In S. A. D. Puter list land."
Q. But now it reads Instead f S. A. D.
Puter, second lieu?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that It reads "To cash retainer In
second lieu list land." Now when were the
words S. A. D. Puter changed to "second
lieu." and by whom wore they changed?
A. Changed by me.
Q. When? .
A. About the time Putor was being
tried here in this court. I think In De
cember or November. 1901.
Q. Now you may explain if you desire.
Mr. Bennett: We move to strike out
the testimony In relation to this change
of entry as being incompetent and noth
ing for which Senator Mitchell Is in any
Motion denied: defendant excepts.
A. In order to explain the reason for
that change. I would like, to say hat
when this arrangement
Mr. Thurston: We object to any state
ment on the part of the witness as to his
reason for doing same. It is for the Jury
to determine on the statement of the
The Court: I shall let the witness mako
A. As 1 was about to state, when Mr.
Krlbs brought this list In originally. I
did not know Puter from Adam; had
never heard of the man, never met him,
did not know a thing about him. and his
name headed the list, and I think the list
referred to It as the Puter list, and in
order to identity the list, I entered It in
the book that way as the S. A. D. Puter
list. When he was being tried here,
there was so much noise about his being
connected with land frauds, and seeing
that most everything he touched was
tainted In some way or other with fraud,
it occurred to me it would be better If
his name did not. appear In the entry,
and I scratched his name out and
changed the entry to the form in which
it now appears.
Entry Offered In Evidence.
Mr. Heney: I now offer the entry In
evidence. The entry here is under the
date of "Portland. Or.. February' 4. 1902.
The figures 13. meaning February 13. 1992.
Fred A. Krlbs. a cash retainer, second
lieu list of land and he to pay $500 more
when approved for patent. Five hun
dred dollars. By cash $500."
Q. Where the word "second" appears,
were the capital letters "S. A. D. ?
A. I should think so. yes.
Q. And where the word "Meu" appears,
was the word "Putor"?
A. Yes, ir.
Mr. Heney: The book itself shows the
scratching. . .
(The book was then exhibited to the
Q. I hand to you Government exhibit
No. 5. Do you know whose signature
that check boars? ,
A. It is the signature of Fred A. Krlbs.
Q. Is there an Indorsement on the back
A.tYes, sir: it Is Indorsed In the firm
name of Mitchell & Tanner te my own
handwriting. , .
Q. Did you receive that oheck from
Mr. Krlbs about the date it boars7
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Is that -the payment of $600 referred
to in,, the entry in the daybook which
has Just been put In evidence?
A. Yes, sir.
Disposition of Check.
Q. And what did you do with that
check after addressing it?
A. It was depositea in the Merchants
National Bank of this city.
Q. Was It collected?-
A. It was. yes. 4r.
Mr. Honey: We now offer the back of
the check In evidence, which has not been
The same Is marked Government's ex
hibit 5 A.
Q. Were the receipts of the firm for
the month of February. IKtt. divided be
tween you and Senator Mitchell?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. I will hand you the book and ask
you to state when the receipts for that
month were dlvidtd.
A. March 3, IPOS.
Q. Was an entry of the division made
In the books of the firm?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And that appears on page 14S of
A. les. sir; page no.
Q. And In whose- handwriting is that
A. That is in the handwriting f Miss
Q. She was then an employe in the
A. She was then a stenographer and
bookkeeper in the employ of the firm.
Q.' Did you see that entry at or about
tho time It was made?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. It was made at or about the date
A. Yes. sir.
Mr. Heney: Wc wlM offer that entry
Heading of the Entry.
The entry reads as follow:
DiiM th. fnllnn-lni- faille Irv rah: Ran.
croft Whitney court cheek No. 7S7. $4.S:
Pacific Monthly. No. 7SS. 53; Edward
Thompson Company. No. 7S8. $5; J. A.
Oraft & Comnanv. No. 790. 510: Wycoff.
S & B.. February and March Installment,
791. $30; Guide Publishing Company. No.
792. 52; Pacific States Telephone Com
pany No. 798. $11; Title Guarantee &
Trust Company, rent. No. 794. $50: A. G.
Metger. to salary for February. No. 795.
525; total, $121.76. Total receipts. $1091.
Total disbursements. $154.76. Net cosh
for division. $95C.2. A. H. Tanner, check
No. 796, to one-half net cash, $465.12; ex
pense. $1.7S. less amount drawn during
the month. $S. $4(3.97. John H. Mitchell,
to one-half cash. $465.13."
Q. I will ask you to look at the book.
Judge Tanner, for the month of Fobxu;
ary. commencing from the dato of the
settlement for the month of January.
1902 and state when the first entry com
menced that was Included in the division
for the month of February?
A. That would be the entry under Feb
ruary 4. 1902.
Q. What are the entries which make
up the $1091 of total cash receipts of that
A. Well, that would be the entries of
Q. It would be sufficient to ask the
witness whether that cheek of $500 was
included in the cash that was divided.
Q. Was the check of $500 included in
the sum total of 5K81 of net receipts for
that month which was divided, or Is the
sum total of 5936.2 of the cash recolpts
for that month, which were divided?
A. Yes. sir; It was.
Q. In what way was the 54GS.13 charged
to John H. Mitchell, the one-half of the
net cash receipts? In what . way was
that paid to him?
A. That was paid by a check drawn
payable to my order and indorsed by me
to the Merchants National Bank and
deposited to his credit,
5- A check of the firm of Mitchell &
Q. On the Merchants' National Bank?
A. Yes, sir: that was done as I have
alreadv explained, because the Senator
was not here, and in order to avoid hav
ing to 6end the check on to him to be
indorsed before it could be cashed. I
usually drew the check In my own name
and indorsed, it individually, and passed
it to his credit In the bank.
Q. Under" the name?
A. Under the name of John H. Mitchell,
Q. Do you know of his having any
other account than that of John H.
A. No. sir; I do .sot.
Q. When you would deposit to his
credit in that manner, what notice, if
any. would you give him of that fact?
In what manner. If any, would you notify
him of the fact, or did you notify him?
A. I did: yes. sir.
Q. In what way?
A. When I would make the deposit, as
I have already stated, to his credit. I
ook a duplicate deposit tag from the
bank, showing the amount of the deposit
to his crwli, and forwarded that to him
at Washington with a letter.
Q. In what name would the deposit tag
A. John H. Mitchell, trustee.
Q. I hand you what appears to be a
carbon copy of a letter, one of the letters
enumerated In the notice, of date March
A. That is a carbon copy of a letter
that date enclosing him one of the du
plicate tags I refer to.
Q. Was the original filed and mailed
by you to him?
A. Yf.. Fir.
Mr. Heney: We will offer this in evi
dence. The letter was read in evidence as Gov
ernment exhibit No. 21. as follows:
"March 4, 1902. Honorable John H.
Mitchell. U. S. Senate. Washington. D.
C. Dear Senator: I enclose you here
with duplicate deposit tag for 546S.13, your
share of the proceeds of our business
for the month of February. Trusting
this will find you in good health and
spirits. I remain yours truly."
Q. The original was signed. I suppose?
A. Yen. sir.
Q. Examine the paper now handed you
and state whether or not you know whose
signature It bears.
A. That Is the signature of Senator
Q. You received that paper through the
A. Yes. rlr. I did; yes. lr.
Q. At about the same time it bears
A. Yes. sir.
Mr. Heney: We will offer this In evi
dence. Mitchell Sends Receipt,
The samo was received in evidence as
Government exhibit No, 22. and read as
follows: On the printed letterhead of
the Committee on Coast Detention.
United States Senate. Washington. D C.
John H. Mitchell, of Qregon. Chairman,
iiarcn ltf. Honoraoie a. n. ianner.
Attomey-at-law, Commercial Block, Port
"My Dear Judge: I beg to acknowl
edge receipt of yours of March 4, inclos
ing duplicate deposit tag on the Mer
chants' National Bank, to my credit, for
546S.13. being my share of the proceeds
of our business for the month of Febru
ary, for which accept my thanks. Sin
cerely yours. JOHN M. MITCHELL."
Q. I hand you Government exhibit No.
4. Whose signature does that bear?
A. That Is my signature,
Q. Did you dictate that lettcr7
A. I dif: yes. sir.
Q. What did you do with It there
after? A. Well, I mailed it to Senator
Q. At about the date it bears?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Is that the list referred to In your
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE TESTIMONY AT THE MITCHELL TRIAL.
Senator Mitchell suffered a bad day yesterday, as he had to face the damaging testimony of his former law
partner. Judge A. H. Tanner, who was upon the stand throughout the session, and still remaining, with his story
half told, when the court adjourned at 5 o'clock
The morning session was devoid of Interest, as the prosecution continued in the chronological Introduction of
documentary evidence which had been begun the day .preceding. The latter part of .the afternoon, however, was aa
sensational as the forenoon bad been dull.
Judge Tanner had been occupied throughout the day with identifying letters, telegrams, office- book entries of
checks paid and received and agreements made between himself. Krlbs and Mitchell, but when the afternoon had
half passed. District Attorney Heney began to question him as to his trip to meet Senator Mitchell In December last,
when the Senator was returning to Portland a short time prior to his first Indictment.
Judge Tanner told of having received a telegram from the Senator asking him to come as far aa Kalama. Wash.,
to meet him. The Judge had taken the trip and had met the Senator on the train with Blnger Hermann, and Frank
C. Baker, chairman of the Republican State Central Committee. The Senator was very anxious about the land
fraud news and asked If there was any danger of the Government agents having had access to the books of the
firm. He expressed deep concern about the entries and the transactions he had had with Krlbs. and wanted to see
The following day the Senator went to the office, and In company with Tanner looked over the books page by
page. According to the testimony of the Judge. Mitchell expressed surprise at the way the entries had been made,
and demanded that the old books be destroyed, saying the entries In regard to the Kribs transactions would not
only Indict but would convict him if they fell into the hands of the Government.
Tanner, so, he testified, bad told the Senator that though It would necessitate perjury, and that he had never
done such a thing In his life, he would stand by his partner and do what he could to help him. He had agreed to de
stroy the books. If necessary, and had called the Senator's attention to the clause In the partnership agreements
by which the Senator was to receive all the fees for work done before the departments. He "had changed this, and
the new agreements had been dated back to March 1. 1S0L the same as the original, and had been signed by both.
The subsequent letters passing between the two men were also offered in evidence as tending to show still further
the knowledge of the defendant that he had" been violating the law.
During the recital of Judge Tanner, the defendant sat pale and agitated, his fingers clasping and unclasping along
the edge of the table, while the veins of his forehead stood out swollen and black.
books, the entry of February 13, 1902.
as the S. A. D. Puter list?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Heney: The Jury has already
heard this read as it Is In evidence.
The first name on it as testified by
the witness Is Stephen A. D. Puter. .
Q. Was that list accompanied by
any other letter?
A. Yes. sir: It was accompanied by
a letter of which this Is a carbon copy
which vou handed me.
Q. Was the original signed by you?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. And mailed with the other one?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. -To Senator Mitchell?
A. Tes. sir.
Mr. Heney? We "will offer , this let-
S3 T3 '':' N"
OF JUDGE TANNER AND SOME
ter In evidence. It is one of those men
tioned In the notice.
The letter was received in evidence as
Government exhibit No. 23, anJ read
to the jury as follows:
Tnnner Writes of Krlbs Deal.
Feb. 13. 1902 Hon. John H. Mitchell,
U. S. Senate. Washington. D. C: Dear
Senator As 1 wrote you on Feb. Sth. I
was contemplating another retainer
from Mr. Krlbs In reference to another
list of lands than those about which
I heretofore' conferred with you nnd
written you. and have toJay concluded
arrangement with him as to the addi
tional list, wnich Is set out In the let
ter herewith enclosed for you to send
to Mr. Hermann, with the request for
tne information desired. In order that
you may not get these various lists
confused. I will state that List No. 1
Is the one about which you wrote a
letter to the Commissioner last Sum
mer; list No. 2 Is the one about which
I wrote you February and list No.
3 Is the one referred to in this letter.
1 enclose you herewith copies of the
letters, containing descriptions of these
separate lists of lands, so that you may
have the same before you In any con
ference you may have with the Hon
orable Commissioner In the matter. In
regard to List No. 3. the affidavits of a
number of the entryroen have been
taken by the special agent, and a few
yet remain to be taken, which will be
done. I presume, in due time and for
warded. The lands In all three of these
lists are In the same condition and In
volve the samo question. They are
freo from all conflict or contest of
any kind, but Investigations aro or
dered by the Honorable Commissioner.
In view of the fact that the deeds to
my client were made on the same Jay
or very shortly after the entrymen
proved up. In order to satlsf himself.
1 presume, that there was no fraud or
collusion between them nnd Mr. Krlbs.
The affidavits taken will show that
there was no such collusion, or fraud,
but that he bought the lands In the
due courso of business after the par
ties had proved up, he being engaged
In acquiring large bodies of land in
Having these three lists before you.
you can make the same general state
ment to the Honorable Commissioner
as to all of them, and urge upon him
the injustice that would result In the
cancellation of the entries and show
nlm. on tne authorities cited in my
letter of Feb. S. that the bare fact that
the deeds were made on the day or shortly
after that the entrymen proved up. Is not
sufficient to Justify the cancellation of the
entries We want to bring to pressure
all the Influcnco we can to prevent any
such action and to get these lands
passed for patent, not only because it
means $1300 more of a fee to me. but
also because the cntrymen. as well as.
.Mr. Krips. are an urcgon people, ana it
would be an injustice to all of them
to hold up these entries or to refuse
to pass them to rntcnt.
If there Is any danger of a change in
the office of the Commissioner of the
General Land Office, we want, by all
means, to get these entries passed for
patent before Mr. Hermann goes out.
We can get letter from some friends of
Mr. Hermann's around Roseburg- to him
urging him to allow these entries to pass
to patent and assuring him that there is
no fraud or collusion in the matter. Would
these be proper, do you think, or do any
good in the premises?
Of course. If the -form of this letter
to the Honorable Commissioner herewith
inclosed should not conform to your ideas
of what it should be, you can write such
a letter as you see fit. including In it the
proper data as to the date of entry,
names of entrymen and description of
lands. Very truly yours.
P. S. If on receipt of this you have
not already written the Honorable Com
missioner for the Information ' u to list
OF THE JURYMEN AT THE MITCHELL TRIAL
No. 2. Included In my letter of February
S. It might be well to Include list No. 3.
nerewlth Inclosed you. In the same letter,
calling on him for the Information, desired
as to the present status of thoe entries,
and thus avoid writing him about the list
separately. I would have Included them
in the same list when I wrote you on the
Sth. but I did not have the list No. 3.
and I had not then made the arrangement
with Mr. Krlbs about looking after that
P. S. 2. I saw the Chinaman about
your fee in the case In the Supreme Court.
and ne saw ne would get tne money ror
you next week, and I will then forward
the same to you."
Q. To that letter did you receive a
"A? Yes. sir.
Q. Is the paper you now have In your
hand that reply?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whose signature does it bear?
A. That is the signature of Senator
Q. You received that about the date it
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Through the mall?
A. Well, a little after.
Q. That is. in due course of mall?.
A. Yes. sir.
Mr. Heney We will offer that In evi
dence. The same was received as Government
exhibit No. 21. and read as follows: .
Mitchell Promises to Act.
Fifty Seventh Congress. John K.
Mitchell. Oregon. Chairman; Joseph
R. Hawley. Conn.; George Turner.
Wash.; Julius C. Burrows. Mich.;
Charles A. Culberson, Texas: Boles
Penrose. Pa.; James P. Taliaferro,
Fin.; Charles H. Dietrich. Neb.: Al
exander S. Clay. Ga.; George L. Wlll-lni-ton.
Md.: F. McL. Simmons. N. C:
Hnrrv C. Robertson. Clerk.
Committee on Coast Defenses. United
States Senate. Washington. D. C. Feb
ruary 21. 1903. Hon. A, H. Tanner..
Attorney-at-Law. Portland. Or.: My
Dear Uudge: I am In receipt of yours
of the 13th Instant. Inclosing a Ions'
list of timber land entries in the Rose
burg Land District. Oregon, and in ref
erence to which you ask me to confer
with the Commissioner of Land Office,
ascertain status, and hurry along to
patent' as rapidly as possible. I will
give the matter mv attention and ad
vise you from time to time as to ac
tion taken. It may do some good if
you can get some Influential friend of
Hermann s to write him urging: favor
I had already written the Commis
sioner In regard to list No. 2. for
warded In your letter of February 8.
and have simply had an acknowledg
ment of the receipt of my letter, with
a promise to advise me further soon.
Hastily and sincerely.
JOHN H. MITCHELL.
Q. To your letter of March 23. 1902.
did you receive a reply?
A, Yes. sir; that'ls the reply to It.
Q. Whose signature does It bear?
A. That Is the signature of Senator
Q. Did you receive that In due course'
of mall at or about the date It bears?
A. Yes. I did.
Mr. Heney: We will offer this letter
Mr. Bennett: You don't care about that
portion of the letter which refers to poli
tics? Mr. Heney: No.
The letter was read" in evidence (ex
cept the portion referring to political
matters) as Government's exhibit 28, as
Received the Lists.
Committee on Coast Defenses.
United States Senate,.
Washington, D. C., April i. 19"02.
"Hon. A. H. Tanner, Attorney-at-Law
Commercial Block. Portland. Or.
My Dear Judge: I write to acknowl-
edge receipt of Your of March 28th. .ra-
turalng Hermann's letter March 3t!a
in regard to Ucu land selections In T. 6
N.. 4 and 5 east. Vancouver office, all
of which Is having my attention. I will
write you In a day or two further in re
gard to lists 1. 2 and 3 Involving timber
entries, etc. Hastilv and sincerely.
JOHN H. MITCHELL.
Q. I hand vou a paper, dated Portland.
Oregon. April 9. 1902, on a blank of the
Western Lnlon Telegraph Co. Is that a
paper taken from the files of your office?
A. Yes. sir. It seems to be a copy of
a dispatch that was sent.
Q. In whose handwriting is It?
A. It Is In my own handwriting.
Q. Can you say as to your bc3t belief
whether you sent that telegram or not?
A. According to my best recollection
and belief. I aid: yes.
Mr. Heney: We will offer this In evi
dence. Same was read in evidence as Govern
ment's exhibit 29. as follows:
PORTLAND. Oregon. April 9. 1902.
Hon. John H. Mitchell. 17. S. Senate.
Washington. D. C: Referring to -lists
1. 2 and S will aid suggested my letter
March 28 be any use? Party now in
Washington can arrange for same If de
sired. Can you tell what Hermann going
to do? Answer. A. H. TANNER.
. Q. To that telegram did you receive a
A. Yes." I did. This Is the. reply to It.
Q. You recelved that about the date
it bears or on that date?
A. Yes. I think so.
Mr. Heney: I will offer In evidence the
It is received In evidence as Govern
ment's exhibit 30. as follows:
113 Ch ZP. CN. 84. Govt. Paid. 11:13
A. M. Washington, D. C, April 10. 1902.
"No Outside Help Needed."
Hon. A. H. Tanner. Attorney-at-Law,
Commercial Block Portland. Oregon:
Everything moving as rapidly as we
could expect In all cases In which you
are interested. I expect favorable action
In Burke matter In day or two. Timber
land entries I think will in short time
come through all right. They have to
pass through the hands of several divi
sions, and It reouires time. Conferred
with the department this morning and
am well satisfied with progress. No out
side help needed.
Q. I will ask you If you can Identify
the paper now handed you as a carbon
copy of a letter from the files In your
Mr. Heney: Of this letter we want
only the last paragraph.
A. That Is a copy of a letter that I
mailed to the Senator about that date.
April 14. 1902.
Mr. Heney: We will -offer this last
paragraph of the letter In evidence.
The same was received In evidence as
governments exblbit 31. and read as
April 14. 1S02.
Hon. John H. Mitchell. United States Sen
ate. Washington. D. C
Dear Senator I want to thank you for
your dispatch of April 10. In which you
give me assurance mat tne iana matters
In which I am Interested are moving along
-all right. Very truly yours.
Air. Bennett: wrxit signature was sup
posed to be to tnatz was it supposed to
be signed by Mr. Tanner?
Mr. Heney: Yes..
The witness: Yes. sir; the original was
Q. I will ask vou to examine papers
now handed you and state whether that
is a carDon cony or a letter taxen rrom
your office files?
A. Yes. It Is.
Q. Was the original of that letter
mailed by you to Senator Mitchell at
about the date this copy bears?
A. Ye3. It was.
Q. And signed by you?
Mr. Heney: We will offer this In evl
Same was received as Government's Ex
hibit No. 32, as follows:
Warned About Mnj-s and Puter.
April 19, 1902.
Hon. John H. Mitchell, United States-Sen
ate. Washington. D. C: '
Dear Senator In regard to lists 1. 2
and 3. Involving timber entries of which
I have been heretofore writing you. I
wish to diaw your attention to the fact
that one S. A. o. Futer is in some way
Interested In list o. 3: ne has no con
nection with the other two lists. He has
heretofore had some contract with the
people I represent to procure redwood
lands in California, and has gotten Into
some controversy with them on account
of his failure to comply with his agree
ment, and I fear is disposed, unless he
can force them to a settlement satisfac
tory to hlra In regard to the California
lands, to make trouble with the list No.
3 rererred to, ano wun tnis eno in view,
T .m InfitrataJ tVio t Via Vias aaTt4 "Co of
taking with him F. P. Mays, who will
shortly turn un in Washington and en
deavor to prevent list No. 3 from being
passed for patent, unless he can force the
settlement out of the people he had the
contract with In regard to the redwood
lanrtc in California, and try and eet the
list remanded for hearing in the local
office, so as to hold It over our people
as a club to try and force a settlement
of the other matter.
You tirobably know something of Mr.
Puter, and I do not need to warn you as
to the character of the man. Mr. Mays
rfnM Tiot represent our people, but. Is
coming there in the Interest of Mr. Puter
to make trouoie uniess mcy can rorce
thU settlement referred to.
I explain this situation to you so that
ir they snouia come mere asiung your as
Rlatance In the matter, you will under.
fstond that It refers to one of the lists of
lands that l am interested m having-
passed tor paiem icr mo reasons wnicn
t have already explained to you. If Mr-
Puter attempts anything of the -kind, the
fact that he ano ma wire are entrymen
ia tie -list should be.sufficIentwto sdlenra
him from complaining that there is any
thing wrong in connection with them,
and indeed, there Is nothing wrong with
them, and the main purpose he would
have in getting a delay and a hearing
in the local office Is, as I have already
stated, to use It as a club on account of
the other matter. I am In hopes that
the matter in controversy between him
and the people I represent may be ad
Justed, in which case. I presume, he would
have no opposition to make to list No.
3. and would be anxious to have the list
passed for patent; but I should think It
would be better for him to let the mat
ter alone entirely, as a man of his rep
utation Interfering might at once arouse
the gravest suspicions as to the character
of the entries.
Kindly let me know if either he or
Mr. Mays attempts to do anything with
reference to these lands, or either of
them, and greatly oblige. Yours truly.
Q. I hand you two Western Union
Telegraph blanks- bearing date April
22. 1902. and evidently constituting out
one writing. In whose handwriting
are those papers?
A. That is a copy of a dispatch sent
that date. It Is In my own handwrlt
insr. Mr. Heney: We will offer that In
evidence, the whole of it
Mr.,. Bennett: I would like to ask a
question or twb of the witness.
Mr. Heney: I will offer the other
part of it. then, separately, so you can
get your objection In shape.
Pater aad Mays Hostile.
The one part of the writing was re
ceived as Government Exhibit 33. and
read as follows:
April 22. 19ft Hon. John H. Mitch
ell. Washington. D. C: Puter and
Mays there soon: about lists number
three timber entries. They are , hos
tile to the interests of mv clients. Do
nothing for them in matter. Mailed you
letter on subject April 29 explaining
situation. "A. H. TANNER.
Q. There are some words-below the
telegram. In whose handwriting are
A. That is my handwriting. t
Q. When was that written on there
with reference to tho date of sending
A. At the same time. I suppose.
Mr. Heney; We will offer that part
In evidence now. First., however. I
will ask the witness another question.
Q. Was the money paid for the send
ing of this telegram entered in any
book by vou as a chance? v
A. I don't know: I donH think it
was; I don't remember about that, but
I can explain that. I think.
Q. Does the telegraph company ren
der a bill every month? That 13. your
telegrams are charged?
A. les. sir. they rendered monthly
bills. I simply indicated to them to
charge it to the account.
Q. This. then, was a direction to the
A. Yes. it did not go in the dispatch
at all. but simply was direction to the
telegraph company to charge it to our
Q. The original, which was sent to
the Telegraph company, bore the same
words, did It?
A. I presume It did. yes, sir. though
do not remember about it. but that
would be the usual course of busi
The Court: That Is evidently no part
of the telegram, and It is not admissa
ble In evidence. The witness may tes
tify td the fact.
Q. By whom was the cost of this
A. I could not say from memory I
am sure. I suppose from that entry it
would be charged to the firm account
and paid at the end of the month, but
I have no recollection about it.
Q. There was a bill of the Western
Union paid at the end of the month or
on May 5 for the month of April, was
there not. as shown by the book on
page 154 the daybook?
Q. The amount of the bill was how
A. $13.67 paid by check No. 314.
Q. From your books and from the
copy of the telegram which you kept
m your tiles, what can you say as to
your best belief as to whether that
telegram was charged to you person
ally or to the firm?
Mr. Bennett: I would like- - to be
heard about that matter.
The court: it is competent to prove
that it was naid for by the firm of
Mitchell &. Tanner, and the witness
can testify to it.
Mr. Heney: As to that particular tele
gram I don't think I can bring the speci
fic knowledge of that to the defendant.
I will withdraw tee question.
Q. I hand you a paper written on the
"Received" Drinted headincr of the West
ern Union, is that paper taken from your
Q. Did you receive that telegram at
the date It bears?
A. Yes. sir; I think so. about the date;
I guess the same date probably.
Mr. Heney: We will offer this telegram
Hermann Makes Report.
The same was read In evidence as Gov
ernment's exhibit 34, as follows:
Washington, D. C. April 29, 1902. Hon.
A. H. Tanner Attorney-at-Law. Com
mercial Block. Portland: On Saturday
last .Hermann reported to becretary uz
Interior. I think, on all Roseburg land
and stone cases In which you are inter
ested, with a recommendation that they
be ordered to patent. The cases will bo
taken up before the Secretary of Interior
Immediately and considered.
JOHN H. MITCHELL.
Q. I hand you two sheets of paper
and ask you if they are carbon copies
of letters taken from your office flies?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Were the originals of those two let
ters mailed by you to Senator Mitchell
at about the date' they bear?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. And signed by you?
.A Yes sir
Mr. Heney: We will offer this in evl
Same was received as Government's
exhibits 33 and 33A, and read as follow:
Sends Kribs List Xo. 4.
Government's Exhibit No. S5:
April SO. 1902. Hon. John H". Mitchell.
U. S. Senate.. Washington. D. C Dear
Senator: I was glad to receive your dis
patch of April 29. in which you say that
Hermann has reported to the Secretary
of the Interior the timber entries In the
Roseburg land district with the recom
mendation that they be passed for pat
ent, and that the cases will be taken up
by the Secretary of the Interior immedi
ately for consideration. I presume they
will be passed for patent In due course,
without any further delav I want to
thank you for your consideration In this
I enclose you herewith a separata
letter relating to other lands in the
Roseburg land district which have been
selected In lieu of forest reserve lands
under the act of June 4, 1S97. I am to
get a fee for getting the Information de
sired In these cases. I would like to get
the present status of the cases, and also
have them made special, so that you may
be notified of any steps taken therein
and of any defects or omissions which
we may have to correct or to supply. I
enclose you also a copy of this list and
have marked it "Kribs No. 4." so that in
our subsequent correspondence you will
know the list referred to, by that namo
and number. Very truly yours.
Government Exhibit 35a.
April 30, 1902. Hon. John H. Mitch
ell, U. S. Senate. Washington, D. C:
Dear Senator Please find enclosed
herewith list of lands selected In lieu
of forest reserve lands In the Roseburg
Iand district, under the act of June 4.
197. My clients have informed me that
these lisJ5 were forwarded by the local
Land Office about two years ago. and
that tney have not heard anything
from them since that time and are get
ting anxiou3 to know whether the se
lections are all right and will be ap
proved, or whether there Is something
wrong In regard to them- A reason
for having the selection made 3peclal,t
If you can do so Is that the estate
of the late Governor Plllsbury. of Min
nesota, is Interested in these lands, and
In order to settle up the estate It Is
necessary to get these selections pat
ented as soon as It can b6 done In the
due course of business. Would you,,
therefore, please call upon the Honor
able Commissioner of the General Land
Office fof a statement of the present
status of these selections, and if pos
sible have him make them special so
that we may be advised of action taken
from time to time in reference to them.
By dolny so you will greatly oblige the
parties Interested, as well as your
Yours truly. '
Q. 1 hand you a typewritten list oC
land entries, consisting-oi tnree pages
marked Government's Exhibit A,