Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Morning Oregonian. (Portland, Or.) 1861-1937 | View Entire Issue (June 23, 1905)
10 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 Puter. 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 May. 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 story. 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 amine them. 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 fore safe. 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 court adjourned. FCfrj STENOGRAPHIC REPORT Judge Tanner's Testimony nnd Im portant Documents Introduced. The complete stenographic report follows: 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 tered Into? 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 ruary 13. 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? A. Yes. 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 It? Mr. Bennett: We would like to see the entry before you proceed with that, Mr. Heney. 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 way responsible. 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 facts. The Court: I shall let the witness mako the explanation. Defendant excepts. 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 Jury.) 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 otfered heretofore. 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 the daybook? A. les. sir; page no. Q. And In whose- handwriting is that entry? A. That is in the handwriting f Miss Spencer. Q. She was then an employe in the office? 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 It bears? A. Yes. sir. Mr. Heney: Wc wlM offer that entry In evidence. 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 month? A. Well, that would be the entries of course. I 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 & Tanner? A. Yes. 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, trustee. Q. Do you know of his having any other account than that of John H. Mitchell, trustee? A. No. sir; I do .sot. A-GLIA1PSE 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 be? , 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 4. 1902. 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 Mitchell. Q. You received that paper through the mail? A. Yes. rlr. I did; yes. lr. Q. At about the same time it bears date? 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 land. Or. "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 Mitchell. - 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 books. 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 Southern Oregon. 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 list. 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 Mitchell. Q. You received that about the date it bears? 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 able action. 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 Mitchell. 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 In evidence. 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 follows: 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 reply? ,- 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 reply. 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 office. . 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 follows: 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 signed. 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? A. Yes. Mr. Heney: We will offer this In evl dence. 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 those words? A. That is my handwriting. t Q. When was that written on there with reference to tho date of sending the telegram? 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 telegraph company? A. Yes. it did not go in the dispatch at all. but simply was direction to the telegraph company to charge it to our account. 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 ness. 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 telegram paid? 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? A. res. Q. The amount of the bill was how much? 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 ines7 A. Yes. 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 In evidence. 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 matter. 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 humble servant. Yours truly. ' Q. 1 hand you a typewritten list oC land entries, consisting-oi tnree pages marked Government's Exhibit A,