Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Morning Oregonian. (Portland, Or.) 1861-1937 | View Entire Issue (June 27, 1905)
;jLJtli5 JJlUltlli UKJSGO'IA, TLESUAX, JLJNJB XI, 1WO,
HARRY C. ROBERTSON IS A STRONG WITNESS FOR PROSECUTION
(Continued From Pint rage.)
the Government tried to show by Judge
Tanner that the firm received each month
a large fee as a. salary from a corpora
tion. It -was argued by Mr. Heney that
If this testimony was allowed it would be
possible to show that there was a steady
income. Reasoning from inference there
fore it could be argued that when large
monthly dividends came in to Senator
Mitchell It would be natural for him to
Inquire concerning the Increase In the
JJrm business. The court, however, refused
to allow the Government to have the evi
dence. Arthur Orton. a bookkeeper at
the Merchants National Bank. Identified
a certified copy of the bank accounts of
Mitchell & Tanner and of John H.
Mitchell, trustee, as found on the books
of the bank. The exhibits were admitted
J. T. Bridges, formerly of the Rose
bJrg Land Offics. was called for a min
ute to testify concerning the Krlbs claims
at the time they were filed upon, and
then Harry C. Robertson, the ex-private
eecrctary to Senator Mitchell, was called
upon the stand by the Government- 'Rob
ertson was a strong witness for the prose
cution, and did not spare his former pa
tron and friend in telling the story he
had to tell. All efforts upon the part of
the defense to break him down In cross
examination failed, though it was able
to set out in the testimony of T. O. Ab
bott, of Seattle, that Robertson had
stated It as his belief that Senator Mitch
ell was innocent of crime, though upon
the stand Robertson denied ever having
made the remark.
The witness after telling of his early
connection with the firm of Mitchell &
Tanner and of his emplos'ment by Sen
ator Mitchell, said that he had written
the original partnership agreement of 1901
at the dictation of A. H. Tanner. The
witness had also se?n Krlbs In the firm
office time and again.
Continuing, Mr, Robertson identified the
receipt which he had given for the copy
of the firm books sent to the Senator, at
his request, and also Identified the copy
as the one he had received. .
After the Senator had looked over the
books, the witness said, he wanted a copy
cf the partnership agreement. About this
time the witness had received a sub
pena to appear before the grand jury,
and he asked the Senator why they should
want him as a witness. He had taken
the summons to Mitchell and asked him
wlij he had been subpenacd. and the
Ftnatnr had said he supposed It was about
the firm books. The Senator told the
witness that Tanner had been before the
Jury and had testified that the agreement
of 1501 gave all of the fees earned before
the departments to himself and not to
Mitchell. The Senator- said that he and
Tanner had talked the matter over and
that he thought any means Justifiable In
defeating the assaults of the unnamable
p pie who were persecuting him.
The witness did not want to go to Port
land, but Mitchell told him to go and to
be sure and see Tanner the first thing,
get a look at the amended agreement
and have Tanner tell him how to testify
eo that their stories would hitch.
One day. after Robertson had been sub
renaed. Mitchell had read him a telegram
saying that Tanner and his son were
threatened with indictment and wanting
t know wlat Harry said. The witness
tolrt the Senator that Tanner was a
Hamed fool to send such a message over
the wire. February 10 Robertson had
rrarhed Portland to appear before the
grand jury. He hnd gone direct from
the train to the Hotel Portland, eaten
Ms breakfast and reported at once to
te ofllce of the United States District
Attorney. He had brought the letter to
Tanner with him. but had left It at the
hotel In his grip. Knowing that Tanner
" "would try to influence him to perjure
nimself and fearing that he would not be
strong enough to resist, the witness had
put off the delivery of the letter until
after he had given his testimony.
now Heney Got the Letter.
Mr. Heney. however, had, after the ses
sion with, the Jury, asked him If he had
seen Tanner, and he had replied that
he was about to go up to deliver a letter
he had brought. Upon this Heney said
he would allow the witness to go to the
hotel for dinner, but that he would have
him escorted back to the Juryroom by an
officer and would take the letter away
from him. That was the way the Gov
ernment had secured possession of the
letter, not through his voluntary surren
der of it.
Robertson had returned to Washington
about February IS and had met the Sen
ator He had remarked upon the meet
ing that there seemed to be more trouble,
upon which Mitchell became angry and
Fwore at him. saying that Robertson and
Tanner had entered Into a conspiracy to
ruin him. and that they were helping
the prosecution. Robertson tendered his
resignation and the Senator said he would
think of It Then he asked the witness
if he had seen a copy of the genuine
agreement, and if it contained the clause
about the departmental practice. Rob
ertson said the document contained the
clause, and the Senator swore at him
again, shook his fist in his face and
said it was a mass of lies. The Senator
broke down In discussing the agreement
and cried, saying they ought not to prose
cute him. as he only got some small
checks out of the transactions;
The witness said the Senator made a
statement to the press, but that he had
t Id him it was too strong and ought
f be changed. Mitchell sent every one
out of the room and asked why the state
ment was wrong. Robertson advised him
not to make any statement at all. as
both knew Kribs to have been a client
of the firm. The Senator shook his fist
at his private, secretary again and told
him he was a liar, that it was all a lie.
and he would swear to It on a stack of a
thousand Bibles. Afterwards he admitted
that he had known Kribs and changed
Cross-Exnmlnntlon Is Severe.
Senator Thurston cross-examined the
witness and handled him severely. He
dwelt upon his service for the Senator
and tried to make the witness admit that
he had lied to Mitchell about the delivery
of the letter Into the hands of the Gov
ernment, and In other things, but he was
unsuccessful. The witness denied having
been met by any Government officials
upon his arrival In Portland to go before
tle jury, and said he had done every
thing of his own volition.
Senator Mitchell and Representative
iiliamson. the witness declared, had
tried to make him give them a written
statement of his actions while In Port
land, of those whom he had seen and the
conversations held, but he had refused
to violate his oath.
The Government closed Its case at 2:45
o clock and the defense "was commenced.
T O. Abbott, a lawyer of Seattle; W. H.
Odell. of Salem; J. P. Fullerton. of Rose
burg. A. D. Sttllman, of Pendleton; Will
iam D. Wheelwright and T. B. Wilcox,
of Portland, were called as witnesses to
show that the Senator did not charge for
his services before the departments and
that he had repeatedly refused fees when
offered. Each of the witnesses had at
me time or another received valuable
aid from the Senator in advancing claims
before the departments for them and in
each case when liberal fees had been of
fered the defendant had refused them
with show of Impatience.
It is thought that the Senator will be
placed upon the stand this morning, or
before the defense is ended, though no
statement will be made by the attorneys.
It Is expected that the case will go to the
Jury by Wednesday night at the latest
FULIr STENOGRAPHIC REPORT
June 26. 1905. 10 o'clock A. M.
Court met pursuant to adjournment
Arthur W. Orton was called as a
witness for the-Government and sworn.
Be testified that he was employed In
HARRY ROBERTSON THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS YESTERDAY AT THE MITCHELL TRIAL, EX-SENATOR
THURSTON AND SENATOR MITCHELL AS SKETCHED DURING THE TESTIMONY
the Merchants National Bank of Port
land, and ne identified copies of the
accounts of the firm of Mitch oil A Tan
ner and John H. Mitchell, as kept in
that bank, and the copies were admit
ted In evidence over the objection of
the defendant, the copies being treated
as the original books.
A. H. Tanner was recalled and Iden
tified some additional checks of the
firm which had been Issued to the de
fendant, and those checks were read
In evidence, and some that hud alroaJy
been read in evidence heretofore, but
not marked as exhibits, were now re
ceived and marked. i
The witness also testified that he
did not see Harry Robertson In Feb
ruary, before the latter testified be
fore the grand Jury, but the witness
knew that Robertson had boon before
the grand Jury before he pleaded guilty
to the indictment of perjury
Sure Regarding; Entries.
On cross-examination. Mr." Tanner
testified tnat he was quite sure t.ie de
fendant Imd made none of the entries
In the firm books during the years
1961-2-3, which have been Inquired
into; that the checks which he testi
fied were given to tne defendant were
the checks of the firm, and were for
the balance due the defendant for the'
firm business generally.
Joseph T. Bridges was sworn as a
witness In behalf of the Government
and testified that from 1901 to Novem
ber. 1904. he was register of the LanJ
Office at Roseburg. and ho Identified
the various lists of lands heretofore In
troduced as lands which were open to
entry at tne time the selections were
filed. On cross-examination, the wit
ness testified as to the difference b$r
tween the proceedings at tho date of
entry and at the date of final proof, and
us to the procedure generally in mak
ing application for entries of timber
Robertson a Witness.
Harry C. Robertson, sworn on part
of the Government, testified as fol
lows; Direct examination by Mr. Heney;
Q. How old are yon, Mr. Rob-rt-
I am 53.
Where were you bora? .
Did you ever live In Oregon?
I aave lived here infest of the
time since 1S90.
Q. Were you in the employ of the
firm of Mitchell & Tanner at any time?
A. I was in the employ of Mitchell
& Tanner from some time in August,
1S91, almost continually up until 1901.
Q. At what time in 1901 did you
ceae to be In the employ of the firm?
A. 1 coaled to be in the employ of
firm. I think, about the th of March,
1901. although I continued to do their
work until the time I went to Wash
ington, in November, 1901.
Q. Have you been employed In any
capaclt3' with tne defendant here. John
H. Mitchell; if ao, what, with him in
dividually? A. Of course. I was In his employ
while I was in the firm, and 1 have
also been his private secretary from
March, 1901. up to the 19th of March
of this year.
Q. Are you a shorthand reporter?
A. I write shorthand, but I do not
claim to be rh expert reporter.
Q. What were your duties while
you were with Senator Mitchell?
A. I did his work as private secre
tary, handling his correspondence, do
ing shorthand and typewriting.
i. Do you remember the day. the
time of nts election to the Senate In
Tlint Partnership Agreement.
A. Yes sir; 1 was present at the time.
Q. About that time did you have any
thing to do with the preparation of a
partnership agreement? I wiH show you
Government's Exhibit 1 for inspection.
Did you have anything to do with the
preparation of that particular paper?
A. I typewrote that yea. sir.
Q. In what way did you get the mate
rial from which you typewrote it?
A. Dictated to me by Judge Tanner.
Q. Where was that?
A. In Mitchell & Tanaer's office in this
Q. When was it that you typewrote
that, or about when?
A. I think it was perhaps about the
4 th of March. 1961. somewhere along
there; the 3d or 4th.
Q. Do you know the signature of Jo ha
H. Mitchell and Albert H. Tanner?
A. Yes. I know their signatures very
well; those are their signatures there.
Q. How many originals were executed.
If you know, at the time?
A. There were two originals.
Q. Subsequent to the execution of the
originals, did you ever see either one of
th.em? I mean did yon prior to the time
you appeared here In February. 1906. be
fore the grand Jury?
A. Why. yes. 1 nave seen them, why
certainly, on several occasions.
Q. "When was the first time after the
preparation of this agreement, that you
saw one of the originals?
A. I think It was in July. 1903. I may
have seen them other times, and perhaps
did. but 1 am sure 1 saw it then.
Q. What did you do in July. 1903. If
anything with reference to this agreement
that makes you sure that you saw it
Makes Typewritten Copy.
A. Well 1 know In 193 while we were
out here, that the Senator had mislaid
or did not have It at the time, and asked
me if I could get Tanner's copy of it for
him. and I got It and after looking it
over, bo asked mc to make a typewritten
copy; that he had mislaid his. That is
the reason I remember of seeing it, and
getting this copy of Tanner's.
Q. Where was this?
A. That was in Mitchell & Tanner's
Q. At the time you made that copy did
you run off more than one copy?
A. Yes. I made two copies. I made a
carbon copy and an original in typewrit
ing. y. Have you the carbon copy?
A. This is the carbon copy I made at
lh time, ves. sir.
Q. What did you do with that carbon
copy after making It?
A. 1 made two; I made the original
and this carbon and gave one to the Sen
ator. We compared them with this origi
nal, read them over together to see if
It was correct and 1 gave him the origi
nal, the ink copy, and I kept the carbon
copy and carried It back and forth with
me so that If he should lose this one he
would have another one.
Mr. Heney: "We offer"- this copy in evidence-
Objected to as Irrelevant and lmmate
Overruled: defendant excepts.
The same was admitted as Govern
ment's Exhibit 106. and Is Identical with
the original agreement which has here
tofore been set out In full.
Q. Were you here in Portland In Oc
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Did you at that time meet Fred
erick A. Kribs?
A. Yes. sir: I have seen him In the
office at that time, in the month of Octo
Snw Krlbs With Mitchell.
Q. Did you ever see him In the private
office, or did you at that time see him in
the private office of John H. Mitchell?
A. I did. yes.
Q. Was Senator Mitchell in there at
A. He was. yes.
Q. Did you see Krlbs there on any
A. I have Keen Mr. Kribs a great many
times in Mitchell & Tanaer's office, yes,
Q. After October. l0i. did you come to
Portland at any ether time other than
when Senator Mitchell came?
A. Welt I did not always oeme with
him. but I came out each Summer during
Q. Did he come each Summer, also?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Did you see Senator Mitchell here
in the Summer of 1932?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Or that occasion did you see the
books of the firm, and I refer particularly
to the day book which Is here In evi
dence? A. Yes. sir; I have seen the books of
the firm every year we have been out
Q. Do you know whether or not that
day book was at any time in the year
1KC or in the Summer of IKK when you
wre here in the hands of the defendant
John H. Mitchell?
A. I do. I know bat I have brought
the books to the Seaator for his Inspec
tion. Q. State what he raid In reference to
the bok and what you saw him do.
A. Well, he made various- remark at
the time he was looking them over to the
effect that he wanted to look over and
see bow much business the firm was do
ing and whether he was getting his proper
share, etc. And eometlme he would, in
looking over the month, ask me how they
arrived at certain figures as to bis share,
nd I have taken my pencil and figured
It out for him and snowed him.
Q. I band you Government's exhibit
44. Who signed the name John H. Mitch
ell there. If you know?
A. I did.
Signed at Mitchell's Order.
Q. State under whet circumstances- you
signed that At whose request If any
body's? A. That letter was dictated by the
Senator to Miss Le Baum. who was then
my assistant and affer dictating It he
made some remark about being bus and
going uptown, and he said when It was
written off to sign his name with mv
initials, which I did.
Q. Was that an exceptional thing for
you to do?
A. I have done that under some cir
cumstances under his direction, but it was
net the usual way of signing. He usually
signed his own name.
Q. The Initials on hear are whose?
A. Mine. H. C. R.
Q. This is the letter of June 9. ac
knowledging the receipt of a copy of the
A. I remember 1L
Q. 1 hand you Government exhibit
W. Did you ever see the original of that
A. I have, yes Ir. I saw that In
June. 1P02. In Washington. D. C; that tsv
the original. I did not see this copy.
Q. Under what circumstances.
A. I remember at the time of the Sen
ator writing to Judgo Tanner, shortly be
fore that, for a copy of the entries In
the book, and I remember that coming
on. and I remember the Senator dictating
the acknowledgment which you have Just
shown me. and 1 remember seeing It lying
on his desk, and remember looking
V. iia you ever see it tnere at any
A. I remember jeelng it when he re
ceived it. and dictated the answer and
throwing It over on the desk, and 1
might have seen it other times.
Q. Were you In Portland in the Sum
mer of 1S03?
A. I wa;: yes. sir.
Waa Senator Mitchell here?
Tells of the Day Book.
Q. Did you see the day book whleh Is
before you there, tbe exhibit whleh is la
evidence here, during that time?
A. 1 did. yes.
Q. Did you see It during that time In
the hands of Senator Mitchell?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Under what circumstancest State
what he said and what yod paw.
A. He Just called for the book and
wanted to look over the business, as
usual, and I got It for him; and .that la
the time I made that copy of the agree
ment for him. I remember after looking
over it he asked me about the agreement,
and I went and borrowed Judge Tan
ner's copy and made It for him from lu
Q. Were you subpenacd to appear be
fore the Grand Jury In Portland, about
the month of February. IMG?
A. I was In Washington. D. C.
Q. Did you have any comersatlon with
the defendant John H. Mitchell after re
ceiving that subpena?
A. 1 did; yes. sir. I went and saw him
the same evening and bad a conversation
Q. State what wan said?
A. I went up and told the Senator I
had been subpenaed and showed him the
Q. Where was this?.
A. It was at his residence where he
was living. No. 1433 Rhode Island avenu.
Q. Any one else present?
A. No. sir; not at that time.
Q. State what was said?
Showed Hint Suhpena.
A. I showed him the subpena and asked
him what he supposed they wanted me
for? He told me he presumed they would
want to question me In regard to tfte
firm's business. And I was somewhat
surprised at the lime. He then stated to
me that Judge Tanner had been before
the grand Jury, that he had been there
with a copy of their agreement of 1S01.
and told me that the agreement that
Judge Tanner had sworn to showed that
all fees earned In the departments at
Washington belonged to Tanner. I knew
there was something wrong when he told
me that, and I was perfectly shocked
Mr. Bennett: That Is objected to. Let
him state what he said and not what he
thought. And we ask that that be strlck.
en out? '
A. Well, when he told me that
The Court: Did you have any conver
sation with him after that? Was that
the last thing that occurred? -
A. No. sir.
The Court: Well, go on and tell Just
what took place, but not what you
thought or anything about that Tell
what- he said and what you said.
Mr. Bennett: The other matter will be
stricken out will It, your honor?
The Court: Let It go out. If you think
It Is material.
Q. Confine your statement to what was
said by him and by yoa.
Talk With Mitchell.
A. Well, after he told me that Tanner
who that Tanner was to receive all
fees earned In the departments. I looked
at him. 1 Dresume for a minute, with
otit speaking. He then said to me that
i-a i. t - u7 fcl
was out here In December, and that they
had come to - the conclusion that any
means were justifiable to defeat the as
saults that tfcse s of b s were
making upon them. I asked him If "there
was anywav In "which I could avoid com
ing here. "He- told me no; that I was
compelled to answer the subpena. I said
to him. or asked him. what In the world
I could do. He said I must see Tanner
Immediately on my arrival here, and told
me that Tanner would show me a copy
of the agreement that he had sworn to.
He told rs- that that was their agree
ment He told me that after Tanner had
shown me the agreement he would tell
me what be had sworn to. and would tell
me what I wa.t to swer to. There w
conversation about other matters. I
don't know whether I could state those
or not? ,
Q. Unless they were connected with
A. They were not connected with this
Q. Did h say anything to you' about
thit contract on any other occasion there
rr!"r to tha oqe you have just been tes
A. He did. He asked me If I knew
where his copy of the firm agreement
Q. When was that?
A. That was en the 31at of January of
Q. Of 1501?
A. No. of this year, the 31st of January.
IMS. That waa at his house, one morn
ing. I told him I supposed he had It
J himself. He sold he was unable to find
, it and wanted to know If I did not have
! . I told him if I had It It was down
j at the committee-room in th tin box
In which he kept the Price estate papers,
and I would take a look for It when I
went down. I went down la a little while,
but was busy and did not look for It at
the time. A little later the Senator came
down and asked me If I had found It.
I told him I would take a look right then,
which I did. and I was unable to find It.
Mitchell's Anxious Query
Q. Did he say anything further at that
time In regard to It?
A. He asked me If I remembered It par
ticularly? I said. No; not particularly,
why? He sald "Well, that Is all right:
you don't need to remember It"
Q Was anything said In this conver
sation after you were subpenaed In re
lation to a letter?
A. The Senator told me he had a tele
gram from Tanner. I believe, or a com
munication, to the effect that some
ner. inr cay l left Washington, which
was Sunday the 5th of February, the
Senator or some one telephoned to the
hotel for me to come to the Raleigh Hotel
ami get a letter from a Mr. Miller. I did
so t n iitorn f tt.. TToi.ik a
Mr II. P. Miller, brother-in-law of Judge
Tanner s. Mr. Miller gave me a. letter In
an envelope addressed to Senator Mitchell
In Judge Tanner's handwriting: 1 took it
up to the Senator's house and delivered
it to him. He took the letter and went
Into another room and stayed a little
ATi- ' ' :T' 'V tt' "i."?
krihrn rVt h. ,rr -.c "
uc nii umc i cipriru id leave, ana l
told him I thought I would leave either
me. I believe. If I would come back: 1
told him I did not know whthet- I trnntii
have time that I had to pack up and get
away. I did not go back, but shortly be
fore I got ready to take the train a letter
was brought to me by Max Prncht.
Q. During that conversation, or either
of those conversations with the Senator
after you were subpenaed. do you recall
as to whether he read to you any tele
gram or stated to you the contents of
any telegram from Judge Tanner, and If
so. state It?
Telegram From Tanner.
A. On the next day after I was sub
penaed he read me a telegram from Tan
ner, to the effect as I remember it. that
Tanner and his son were threatened with
Indictment by the grand Jury In reference-Objected
to as Incompetent.
Overruled, defendant except.
A. In reference to the firm business,
and asking what Harry says. And he
turned to me and says, "what do you
say?" or words, to that effect. 1 replied
that I thought Tanner was a blamed fool
sendln- anv ?uch mesans "SSt thi
and fhat I wSuld nrtwfwer He
, iS'inWiJS? ?.r Jh- H,C
then sold he would have to answer It.
jnd he dictated an answer to me to the
effect that Harry had been subpenaed
Mr. Bennett: We make the same objec
tion to this.
Objection overruled, defendant excepts.
A. and would leave the next day.
and for him to see me Immediately on my
arrival. That Is as near as I can re
member the wording of it
Q. Wb.it did you do with that telegram
after it wa dictated?
A. I wrote It out and sent It On the
uav I left when I saw him at his house.
and he spoke of sending the letter, he
read me another telegram; said he be-
l,. . T.1 " JIITJ h,? 1 SJTl ,
from Tanner, and read something like
this: "Does Horry remember the arree
meat of 1MI or remember writing It?" r
did not see the telegam;
he simply read
It t me.
Mr. Bennett: The same objection to all
Objection overruled, defendant excepts.
A. He asked me then tf I did remem
brr it: I said I dkL That was about all
the conversation I remember In reference
tu the telegram.
Q. I hand yru paper marked for identi
fication. June 193S. bearing tbe printed
letterhead -United SUtes Senate." When
did you first see that paper?
.V That Is the envelope that was de
livered te me bv Max Pracht shortly be-
! fort 1 took the train to come out here in
February to appear before the grand
Q. Was anythinz inside of it to your
knowledge, at the time It was delivered?
A. I aid not ktuw what was In It: It
Q. Dli yet? subsequently see It opened?
A. I did sir. in tne grand jury room.
Q. I call your attention to a letter
marked "Personal and Confidential In
itnari r envelope.
A. ' I san that taken from, this envelope
when It was opened la the graiid. Jury
Q. I call your attention to Govern
ment's Exhibit 50. When did you first
A. I suw that after the envelopes were
opened In tbe grand Jury room to Febru
ary. 1301. I
Q. Taken from those envelopes?
A. Yes. sir. !
Q. By whom?
A. By yourself fMr. Heneyt.
Mr. Heney: We wlH otter the two ea-
velopes ia evidence.
Tne same were received as Govern
ment's Exhibits KS and 10T.
(2. 1 ou came to Portland- std you. m-
mediately after having these eon versa.- !
tions with Senator Mitchell?
Before the Grand Jury.
A. I left Washington on the night
of the 5th of February and arrived
here on the morning of the Mtfe.
Q. And while here, you appeared, be
fore the grand Jury.
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Did you talk with any Govern
ment officer before going before -the
grand Jury on your arrival here?
A. On my arrival here. I west Jf
rectly to tne Portland Hotel a'nd get
my breakfast. I then reported to the
District Attorney's offlee. I went lu.
there were several people there ad I
met Mr. Banks. I had a Mule talk
with him. Just about my trip out here,
told him 1 was there to report, that t
had beca subpoenaed, and toW ahn that
I was tired from my trip and If I was
to be examined that day I would Itke
to be oxamloetl at once: If not I wenU
like to be excused so I eouW go bac
and take a little rest
Mr. Thurston: I have not obJeled
to this so far. but to nay further con
versation I s.lall object
Q. No; I only want to know what
A. Mr. Bank3 went out of (he room
and in a little bit he eame back aaJ
said they wanted me to appear before
the grand Jury at once
Q. What did you do?
A. He told me tney wanted me la
Q. Never mind what he told you.
He came back and what did y-tm ?
A. I went Into the grand 3ry room.
Q. When did you return te Wash
ington. If at all?
A. I v'ut back to Waahfcx&tett. I
think, the night of the ISta of Febru
ary. Q. Did you have any conversation,
wltn Senator Mitchell with reference
to this eitse. r tnese matters, after
your return to Washington? i
Says Mitchell Cried.
A. Yes. sir; I had a conversation
with him the same evening.
Q. Who was present?
A. No one present but he and I. at
Q. Where was It
A. In his room. 1433 Rhode fatead
avenue. N. W Washington.
Q. What was said?
A. When I went Ir he asked roe If
I was back, and I said ye. Asttl I
said -there' Is more trouble. Seaafeoc "
Mx. Thurston: You said what?
A. i suid "there seems to be more
trouble. Senator." He flew into a rae
and began swearing' at me; called me
some names and "said I was helping the
prosecution all In my power. He a Ho
accused Tanner and I of entering; Into
a conspiracy to ruin- him; and he also
said that our testimony, as he sad
read it In the oaDers. was a mass of
.lies from beginning? to end. I teM the
Senator at taat time If he felt that
way about It I would tender my resig
nation and asked him to accept it He
said he would see about that in a few
days, and told me to think ever It. He
alio at tne ame time said he wanted
to get a little statement from me as to
what hud occurred. During' the prog
ress of the conversation, he turned to
me and asked me had 1 seen the gen
uine agreement when I was out here
oefore tae grand Jury. I told htm I
bad. He asked me if It really did
contain a clause to the effect that he
was to r-celve alt fees earned eefor.
the. Departments at Washington, etc I
said to him: "Why. Senator, you
know it does." He flew Into a rage
and shook his fist at me. said It was a
lie. that he did not know aaytalR?
of the kind. That he had never seen
It I replied that I couhI net under
stand, if that wss the case, why he
had been making up a false one ealy
about a month before. After a ht je
quieted down and sat there, the tears
running down his face and he said:
H&rry. you know they hadn't ought to
prosecute me for that AH I ever got
was seme little checks. I felt aw
fully tsorry for him.
Relative to Interview.
Did you have any conversation with
Senator In regard to an interview
"r Lv ,r , KSt-v" 1
! P0? .V- Sr '
, ?- jS1 Jl.Vi alla,,tr T .wv r
t- .p"' SAr m tV" ,hi
the Zo. of February. It was the morn-
ntt f 1 tLKwhto
' ?naa PuWtenJ in tfee Washington
Q. You mean the Indictment against
Senator Mitchell In this ease?
A. la this case. yes. sir. It eame about
In this way. I had gone direct to the
' omce that morning and la a short time
Mrs. Beerbower came down, una. of
i .. iuV . w. r- v... .
!,M that the Senator hatl ctat
Objected to as hearsay.
Q. Don't state anything that was said
by her or you net In the absence of
A. All right Well, she tad some dic
tations which she wrote out After writing-
tt out It was a statement to the
press ghe naased It over te me for In
spection. We looked over It and I said.
"This cannot go out."
Mr. Thurston: Was Mitchell there
A. Mitchell wasn't there at that time.
Q. Don't state anything when Mitchell
was not there-
A. I placed the statement on my desk.
I think both Mr. Brown and "Mr. Breek
ens'came In and asked If there was a
statement and X told them there might
be a little later.
Objected to as hearsay. Objection sus
tained. Gives Statement to Mitchell.
Q. Don't state aaythinz whMe Sena
tor Mitchell was not present.
A. After a bis the Senator came down,
and he asked for the statement and I
! fve it to him. I told him at that tit:
lhit 1 thought there ought to be sor
i corrections, or changes In It; I want
to talk to him before he sent it out. He
asked me what was the matter with it
and 1 started In to ten" htm. He then
Q. What bad you said up to that
A. I started in to tell him that I would
not make It so strong. He stopped me
In the middle of a sentence and he teM
Mrs. Beerbower. who was there, and
his grandson. Jeha MiteheH Handy, to
go out of th room, that he wanted
to talk to me akw a little bit He 'told
them to go up to the gallery or some
where for a few minutes. WheH they
bad left the room he turned to ate and
wanted to know what was the matter
with tbat statement I explained te him
that I thought it was too strong. In
fact. I said. "Senttor. if I was you, I
wouldn t maice any statement at
veil know and I Know tnat
been p. client tf Zhe effisrtft there for
several years, and hasten piyta? money
In." He flew intp-a very violent rage
and shook his fin st m aad said It wa
a lie: tbatire didn t know anything of
the kind and that he would swear to K
on a stack of a thouind Bieiest Tbat
Is almost his exiut words, aa near as I
can remember. I sa!d. "Very welt Sea
ator. vuu are liable to make yourself out
a liar if you do so. because I know tet
ter: Tanner "knaa better: Krifex knows
better, aad Tanaer's st?-aogj.pher and
perhaps others." He studied a Ml tie hit
and anally he raid he believed he did
remember seeing Kribs last fall. Jest
before a Wt a little while and saya
"I will fix It" He took hfctOpenHL struck
out part of it aad wrote la othvrs. and
then he handed it to m to copy It over,
and as near a I n rememcer tt read'
HUe this in 8ubstaa'.e.
Mr. Tburstoo: VV objc.t to the cm
tents of that papr as not the best evi
dence and no proper foundation lakl for
i ssttarfruy vtdvace of Us mates.
Mr. lime: I tsittk that r mc . stav
what it was that he u jld to lute. 11 aa., -
thtnR- la re&ttea to what ins wrotyr lit
the Slrst paper.
Objections, and Ruilnss.
Ms. Thurston: I azr not ehjectisf to
what was said there.
Q. Was anything; sakt as to what it
was la the first paper that was wross?
A. Why. t&e statement ?ras nad; it
the first paper
Mr. Thurston: No. not what state
ment was made: what was said there.
Q. What became of the first paper?
A. I presume It waa thrown, kx the
waste-basket, after I had made a new
copy making: the changes.
Cj. WeH. now. what was said te the first
9per about this matter that you. were
Mr. Thurston. We renew the same ob
The objection, k overruled.
A. The first paser was to the effeet tthat
he did not know Kribs: that he had sever
seea him and has never had any conversa
tion with him. and also denyla; speirift
eaHy having received the sum. of mney
as published in the morning's paper. The
second one that 1 wrote was te the effeet
that he had never had any eoavecsatlen
with Mr. Kr& to regard to any land or
business matters, and loavteg- In th same
duBse denying' the receipt of the moaey-
ro-s-Examination of Robertson.
Questions by Mr. Thurston.:
Q. When, aid you nest Beet Senator
A. I think I met him first nt the Sptdex
A. In his office here In Portland.
Q. Was he a Senator of the United
Slates at that time?
A. Yes. sir.
Q. Ana eoattawed to be so w? to Mown
A. Ktgh'een ninety-seven.
Q. Wat a were yott emofnyed In. ike; of
flee? A. I was first employed In. the oAos of
Mttchelt & Tanner en the )tb of, Au
Q. That was before you had seen Sea
A- Yes. sir.
Q. And In what capacity?
Q. How long did yo remain as aa em
ploye to the omce?
A. I was with them continuously op
until some tfcne to November. toSS. Thea
I went to WaahingtOR.
Q. How dd were- yeu at the tnae of
your first emoteymen. In the office in 3l?
A I was b years w.
Q. What chance wts nude to your- re
lation to the otfiee. if any. at tbe Ifcae
you first went to WaehiwttaHi with Sena
tor MMcboll. DM you hMt th wffice
A. Xfs. sir.
Q. And ceaeed to be an employe eC tho
A. Ye sir.
Q. And of the law firm?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And accepted what position?
A Hermann's Secretary.
A. I accepted a positiea as cierk to the
committee on Irrigation of arki huM&t of
the House. In other wwrdo. the ydm
secretary of Binger Hermann.
Q. You went there wit Binger Knr
mum as. his secretary?
A. Yes. sir ?
Q. How leng iUl you continue to that
A. Up until the h of Marcs. 1BR.
when Ms term expired.
Q. Then waat wan your nxt etnolay
ment? A. My next employment was aeaistin-s
Senator Mc Bride tar a whole, and nfcen
for a whHe 1 was one of the decks fc
Q. When did ye resume your relation
with. Senator MHehelt?
A. I returned, to .fwrtiand ht the ntter
part of September. 1S87. and about Shres
weeics later i u a gam erapteyea oy tne
Q. And contieued In that employ down
to what time?
A. Continued to that employ dews to
the tfene I was appointed his private sec
retary." Q. When was that?
A. I believe that was the 3th. of March.
Q. Did Senator MitcheK tender yoa
A. He did. yes. sir.
Q. What was the eompeasatioa?
A. The compensatieR at first, until ha
get a chairmanship, was SIS a mentis.
Q. And after he secured a enairmaa
ship, what was it?
A. It was HS& each month, and we
always got an extra month of tho same
Q. Then you went to Washington with,
A. Yes sir.
Q. And assumed the confidential rela
tions existing betweea the Senator and
hie private secretary?
Q. And conUneed to that relation down
to about March of this year?
A. Yes. sir. '
Had Charge of Correspondence.
Q. During- all that time you had, charge
In a general way of the Sesa tor's corre
spondence, did you net?
A. I did.
Q. Public and private?
A. Not of his privar correspondence.
Q. Net of his private correspondence?
A. No. slr
Q. Who attended to that?
A. I never Interfered with his private
i correspondence, and he always attended
to tnat mmseir. l nave written teiters
frem dictation to members of hfc family,
but letters received from members of his
family, that were private, or anything: of
that kind, they were never opened by
y. I am. set referring to family letters.
I am referring- to letters generally, busi
A. Oh. business letters? Yes. certainly.
Q. And general letters on ether sub
jects than pubHc -business?
A. Yes. sir. -
Q. Ail that class of matter, except hi
familv correspondence, you had eharge of?
A. WelL. 1 handled It as stenographer
iand bis secretary, yes. sir. I didn't have
absolute charge of It
Q. Did yeu have authority to open this
cerrespondence coming to hlxn without
I first submitting- it to him?
. A. I did not. except in a few cases,
j The Senator opened his own malt and.
I generally dictated an answer to every
i letter received, himself personally.
j Heaty Correspondence.
Q. About what was tbe extent of bis
j correspondence- after he returned to tho
Senate la 1531?
A. Well, hit eorrespoKdeace would run
j Quke heavy; some days we would hare
1 1C0 letters: aome days we would have 30.
I I suppose It would average, perfaapsv 30
I letters a day.
Q. Did the Senator answer all his let
A. He alwavs endeavored to answer
Levery letter received; yest sir.
V. And promptly as receives :
A. As promptly as received;. yes, sir.
Q. Now how much time did It reuuiro
from him every day to handle his mail
and dictate and make answers?
A. Well. I should say about three hours
a day would be sufficient to .die tat a
the answer? and sign, the malL I don't,
think It wouhl average that. It Is a
very heavy mall that takes that long.
Q. Did Senator MiteheH receive many
requests for the nee of his services as
Senator la matters pending before tho
different departments? -
A. Why. of course; every Senator re
ceives lets of reaves tc.
Q. Every Senator receives such rs
guestj? A. Yes. sir.
Q. And to It net a fact owing- te the
location, and iaterescs of the State of
Oregon that Senator Mitchell's mall in
that matter was very heavy from time
A. At times- hi mall was very heavy,
Q. Do you know whether he attended
to aH tho request made of him?
A. He endeavored to. yes. tr.
Work of the Seaator.
Q. By wrRiag to the different depart
ments' and by waHlntr noon the officers
of the departisfrat attemptktxr to secure
faverahlo actK-a to each- case for his
A I don't kaow exactly who he may
have endeavored te secure to each. ene.
but J know that he atterderl to them In
tb ordinary course of buHne?s.
f. And he answered alt those reqeencs
wUn a statenteat wf what he had dis
covered ir bad dene to the department
did he not?
X. I couM not say that he did that In
tViTY nttactc en. h
A Oei-t. a ly i-wo.