Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Morning Oregonian. (Portland, Or.) 1861-1937 | View Entire Issue (June 27, 1905)
11 MITCHELL TO ROBERTSON: "ALL I GOT WAS SOME LITTLE CHECKS" THE MOUNTS G OREGOXUlX, TUESDAY, JTTNE 27, 1905. A. Generally speaking, he did, but not in every instance. Q. It was the habit of the Senator to do that? A. Certainly. It was his habit to answer every letter. Q. How many cases, do you suppose, be wag requested to look after in the de partment In the course of a year? A. Well, including pension cases, which were very numerous, and everything:, I suppose that It would average Ave re Quests a day. Q. Five requests a day? A Yes. sir. Q. That would be 1600 or 1700 in a year? A. Yes. Q. You were In Portland when the Sen ator appointed you as his private eecre tary In March. 1901. were you net? A. Yes. rir: I was. Q. How long did you remain hare be fore going to Washington? A. I remained here until the 2th of November, that year. Q. Was th-s Senator here at that time? A. He was not. no. sir. Q. Where was he. if you know? A. The Senator left here on the 2d of March after his election and went to Washington, and my understanding is that he was sworn in on the 9th. Q. How long was it before he returned to Portland? A. He returned here, I think, the 29th of May. 1901. Q. Then where was he up to the time of his leaving for Washington In the Fall? Senator Mitchell's Health. A. He stayed here until the latter part of June, then he went to Europe. My recollection Is that he sailed from New York on the 17th of July. 1301. I don't recollect exactly how long he was in Europe, but he returned to Portland. 1 think, on the 15th or 16th of October, 1901. Q. Then after he was elected Senator, the first part of March. 1981, he was only in Portland that year about a month, from May 27th to the latter part of June, until he returned from Europe, about the 15th or 16th of the following October. That is correct? A. That Is correct, yes, sir, as I re member it. Q. Do you know what the condition of his health was when he returned to Port land from Washington, about the 27th of May. 1901? A. 1 don't think his health was any different than usual. It seemed to be the same at that time. Q. Isn't it a fact that he brought a doctor with him on the way from Wash ington, to take care of him? A. I believe he did. I believe Dr. Brown came with him. yes. Q. Then you wouldn't say that was about his usual state of health, would ycu? A. Well, when he got here he seemed to be about the fame as ever. Q. He hadn't been In good health for some time, had he? A. I understood that he was sick while he was In Washington, between March 9th and May 29th. Q. Now. during that month from May 27th to the latter part of June, when he was here, did hj give any attention what ever to .the ofhee business attains of the law firm o Mitchell & Tanner? A. I don't think he did. Q. Did he. at that time, so far as you know, examine the books of entry of th firm? A. 1901. that was? Q. 1901. A. Not that I know of: not during the time he was here in May and June. Return From Europe. Q. He returned from Europe 'about the 35th or 16th of the following October. 1901? A. Yes. sir. 1901. Q. How long did he remain here, then? A. I think we left on the 9th of No vember. Q. Then he was only in Portland from the middle of October to about the 9th of November? A. Yes. sir. that Is all. Q. Then he went to Washington? A. That is my recollection. Q. And you went with him? A. Yes. sir. Q. During that short stay In the city did he give any particular attention to the business of the law affairs of th firm of Mitchell & Tanner? A. I don't know that he gave any par ticular attention. I know he was -in tho office. I remember the time; Q. He found on his return a large ac cumulation of mail covering public mat ters, did he not? A. I don't think there was very much of an accumulation. He had cleared It up In the East, himself had a stenog rapher there. I understood. Q. Wasn't there any here? A. Therei was some of course; always moil coming. , Q. Did he attend to that in the office? A. Yes. sli; dictated some In tho office. Q. With your assistance? A. Yes. sir. Inquiry Into OfTice Business. Q. Well, now. do you know of any other business that he did In that office except to attend to his public affaire and correspondence while he was here at that time? A. Well. I remember distinctly seeing him and Tanner In the office, talking, ana I remember distinctly the time that this first entrv here, of the 16th of October, was made that he was there, and I re member distinctly seeing he and Mr. Krlbs talking together. Q. Do you know what they said? A. No. I don't know what their con versation was. Q. Didn't overhear any of the conver sation? , , A. I didn't pay any attention to it; I saw them in there talking. Q. You saw Tanner call Krlbs into Mitchell's office and introduce hlro A. I didn't see Tanner take him . in and introduce him. Q. Don't vou know that was-the first time Mitchell ever saw Krlbs? A 1 don't know that It was. Q. And that Tanner introduced him? A. No. lr, I don't know that Q. You don't know that? A. No. s-lr. Q. All you know Is you saw Mm go into his office saw him In there? A. Yes. sir. Q. Do you know how long he stayed? A. No." I do not. Q. Don't know anything about it? A. Well, they were there a fow min utes. That is all I know. 1 don't know how long. Examination of Hooks. Q. During that period of time from the middle of Octlcr. 1901. to the 9th of No vember, 1P01. while Senator MKchoti wan in thi city, to your knowledge did he examine the books of entry of the Arm? A. I don't know that he did during that time. No, sir. Q. You dwn t know whether he did or not? A. No. sir. Q. Then you cannot swoar that he saw at that time, before he went te Wash ington, that entry of the first Kribs em ployment? A. No. I do not. Q. You don't knew? A. No. Q. You wont to Washington with Mm on the 9th of Novomber; how long did you remain there? A. 1 remained there until the Sth of July. 190!. Q. How kng did the Senator remain there? A. He remained there a couple of weeks longer than that; perhaps three. Q. When did he next reach Portland? A. I think he arrived In Portland either the first or end of August: about that time; I am not certain about It. Q. Earlv in August? A. Yes. Q. How long did be remain here then? A I think he remained here until about the 23d of August at that time Q. Whore did he go then? A. Went to 'Frisco on his way to Hon olulu. Q. Then from 'Frisco, where did he go? A. Honolulu. Q. Did you go with him? The Trip to Honolulu. A. I left here. I think, on the 25th or 27th. and went to "Frisco and met him: we were thore a couple of days, and we jailed from 'Frisco for Honolulu on the mh of August. 1902. Q. Was that on public business, that trip? A. Yes. sir. It was an investigating committee. Q. The Senator was one member of a committee authorized by Congress to go .to the Hawaiian Islands, investigate and report? A. Yes. sir. Q When did he return from that trip? A. We left Honolulu on the 35th of September. I believe. We arrived in Frisco on the 6th of October. I tbJnlc I arrived in Portland on the ttth of Oc tober. Q. When did the Senator reach Port land? A. On the 12th of October. Q. How long did he remain here at that time? A. I think he left here on the 25th of October. Q. To go where? A. He went East. Q. Did he go to Washington? A. I think he went by way of New York first. Q. His ultimate destination was Wash--ington? A. Yos. sir- I beat him there I left a day or so later, and I beat him there, I know, Q. Then Senator Mitchell was only in Portland in the year 1902. on two occa sions. Is that right, from early in August to the 23rd of August, the first time? A. Yes. sir. Q. That is right? A. That is right. Q. From the 12th of October to the 26th of October? A. That is about right, yes. sir. Q. They were tbe only periods of time in that year when he was personally in Portland? A. Yes. sir. Callers at Office. Q. Now. during that first IS or 20 day in August that he was here, do you know of hi attending to any of the business affairs of the law firm of-Mltch-ell & Tanner? A. I .know he was in the office and I know that there were callers. Q. He used the office for the purpose of carrying on his public, correspondence and business, didn't he? A. He receh'ed every one who came, whether they were on public business or j on private business-. 1 Q. A great many people oalled on him there? J A. Yes. sir. Q. And occupied a large part of his time? A. Yes. sir. Q. And yon were always assisting him ia his correspondence and his public mat ters during that time? A. Ye?, sir;, and his private business aloo. Q. Well. now. do you know as te whether or not he did anything at that time in connection with the - law mat ters of Mitchell & Tanner? A. I know he looked over the books at that time. Q. That Is the time he looked over the books? A. Yes. sir. Q. Is that the first time you knew of his looking over the books? A. Oh. he had looked over the books before when he was here, certainly. Q. When? A. Before he went to the Senate. He used to always loek at tbe books about every so often. Q. Before he went to the Senate? A. Yes. sir. First Seen With Account Books. Q. But I am asking you now from the time he went to the Senate. Was that the flrrt time you saw him with the account books of the firm in his possession? A. Yes. sir: that was In August. Q. That was in August. IMS? A. Yes. sir. Q. And how long did he have the books in his possesion? A. I presume he was looking at tltat time for two or three hours. He left them on his desk and when callers would come he would not look at them for the time being. When they went out he would resume hl. examination. Q. Were you In there that time? A. Some of the time; es, sir. Q. Callers coming In and out? A. In and out. yes. sir. Q. Do you know how carefully h ex amined the accounts? A. I don't know exactly bow care fully; I know he looked over them. Q. Iooked over the books? Callers coming in and going out? A. Yes. ir. Q. They lay on his table two or three hours? A. I should say as much as that, may be longer. Q. Was that the -only occasion,. In Au gust, 1002, when he called for it. you saw him have In his possession tho books? A. I don't think he called for them but the once. Q. During his stay in Portland, en his second return In October, from October 12 to October 26. did he have the same general character of visitors, political and otherwise at his office?" Character of Visitors. A. Certainly, the samo character of visitors, so far as I know. Q. His time was very well occupied with people coming to see him and talk ing over matters? A. Certainly. Q. He also during that time transact ed here his correspondence and public business with your assistance? A. Yes. sir. Q. During those fourteen days he was here do you know of his giving attention to any of the business affairs of the liw firm of Mitchell & Tanner? A. I couldn't swear that he did. no, sir. Q. Out of that time he made a trip to the seashore for three or four days, didn't he? A. "I don't remember. Q. He may have done so? A. He may have done so. Q. At that time do you recollect Ms having the books la his possession or examining them? A. I do not. no. sir. Q. So up to the end of 1&T2. or from the time he first wont to tbe senate, left here to go to the senate In October, or early In November. 190L down to the end of 1902. you only know of his having those books In his possession at one time, and that was in August of 1932? A. Yes. sir, I remember It distinctly. I know when It was. Q. That Is the only time you know of up to that date? A. That is the only time I knew of. yes. sir. . Recess taken URtH 2 P. II. Cross-Examlnntlon Continues. Afternoon session. 2:09 o'clock. P. M. Cross-examination of Mr. Robertson re sumed: Q. Mr. Robertson, after Senator Mitch ell went to Washington, as you have testi fied, in Ocetober. 2902. how long did he I remain away from Portland? i A. He came back here about the mld- Jdlc of May. lm. j Q. How long did he remain here at that time? ! A. Until tbe 7th of September. IQ. Then where did he go? A. He went East. Q. So that the only period of time in 1MB during which he was in Portland, j from the middle of May until early la September, was that period? ! A. I think it was. Q. During that time, was he at the office of MitcheH & Tanner much of the time? A. Part of the time: yes sir. Q. And during that period of time, did the seme condition? exist, of his having a great many calls from his constituents and others? A. Yes-, sir. Q. And he also at that office, trans acted with your asstetajice. Ms puMfc business and correspondence from day to day? A. Certainly. Q. At many times these oaMs from constltutcnts were so numerous that he had a watting list in the outside room, hod he not? A. Some time. people had to wait. yes. Q. Vary muck occupied with hi? con trtitutents and public matters? A. Certainly, he was a busy man dur ing those tiroes. Q. During that period of time, so far as you know, did he do any of the busi ness of the firm of Mitchell & Tanner? Called for the Books. A. I den't know that he d4d. I don't know what they may have consulted him about. ' Q. So far as your knowledge goes, you don't know that he did? A. I den't know that he did; no, fir. Q. During that time, te your knowl edge, did he examine any books- of ac count of the firm? A. He did. air. Q. How many times" A. He called for the books. I should say It was some time In July. 1903. It was at the time I made this typewritten copy of the agreement for him. Q. Called for the books at that time? A. Yes. sir. Q. What character of examination -did he give the books, so far as you knew? A. He had them in his office there, and In going in and out 1 saw be would be looking over them and Inspecting them; I don't know what, particularly. Q. You don't know what bis inspection went to. or how general it was, with the accounts la the book, do you? A. The only thing I know. Is that sometimes as I say. he would call me in ask me how ther had arrived at a certain j figure, and I would take my pencil and figure out the month for bun. t Q. He was looking, up the monthly : statements to ascertain if a due portion ; of the net proceeds of the firm had been given to him? , A. That was my understanding, yes. . Q. After he left here is September, UOt. when did he next return to Port- land? A. T think he came back here on the 2t of July. 1904. i Q. Hew long did he remain then? A. And he remained until the lith of ' last November. Inspected the Books. Q. During that time, did tbe same gen eral condition continue as to his seeing conmitutents and transacting his public business here? A. Yes. sir. Q. During that time, so far as your knowledge goes, did he inspect the books of the firm? A. Yes. fIt: during the month of Oct ober1, he Inspected them considerably. He called on me. I should think, as many as four or five different times, to bring the books to him. Q. Do you remember what dates in October? A, Well. In tbe latter part of the month, while he and Tanner were talk ing of making up this new agreement or some new deal between them. Q. But It was after the Sth of Octo ber. 1S04? A. Yes. sir; I should say it was after the 20th. Q. And as far as- you know, prior to HARRY C. ROBERTSON GIVES DAMAGING TESTIMONY. The end of the MitcheH trial Is in sight, and one more day may perhaps send the 'ease te the Jury. The Government has rested in Its efforts, and has now given way to the defense, which began yesterday afternoon to offer evidence in rebuttal to the mass of documents and the seemingly damnfng testimony of Tanner and H. C Robertson. Tanner has passed out of the history of the case and his testimony, enmeshing as It was. paled by the side of the story told by the former private secretary to Senator Mitchell, which stands out as the chief barrier against the defendant's acquittal. The morning session of the court opened with the call of Judge De Haven for the eases remaining on the docket. He announced that the demurrer In the cases of Williamson. Van Gesner and Marion Biggs, and In that of Williamson. E. P. Mays el aL. would be overruled. Mr. Henoy desired that the case of the United States against Williamson. Gesner and Biggs-be the next called, and by order of the court the case was set downfor Monday next, while the court announced that all of the cases yet remaining on the land-fraud calendar would be set for hearing on Friday next." The Jurors who bad been excused were called and excused again until Monday next, when they will be needed for the Williamson trial. These preliminaries out of the way. tbe proceedings in the Mitchell trial were taken up. and Arthur W. Orton. a bookkeeper In the Merchants National Bank of this city, was questioned as to a copy of the bank accounts of Mitchell and Tanner and of John H. Mitchell, trustee, after which the copies were Introduced in evidence. Judge Tanner was called for a short time to identify some checks paid by Krlbj and indorsed by Mitchell. J. T. Bridges, of the'Roseburg Land Office, testified that the Kribs claims had been open for entry en the books of the office, and then Harry C. Robertson was called by the Government. Robertson was a good witness for the prosecution, clever, shifty, and not to be trapped. He told bis story, with all Its aspersions of crime, glibly and confidently,, and though the defense tried hard in cross-examination te shake what he had said. It was unable to do so, and only succeeded in introducing a denial of some of Rob ertson's statements by T. O. Abbott, a Seattle lawyer, who was alleged to have had a conversation with the witness in which he expressed the belief that the Senator was Innocent of the charges made against him. Robertson told of his association with Senator Mitchell and of the trouble arising from the land-fraud inves tigations. The Senator had maintained that he knew nothing of Kribs in any way, nor did he remember the old clause In the partnership agreement by which he was to receive money for services before the departments. At the time Robertsou was subpenaed to appear before the grand jury. Mitchell had told him that Tanner and he had fixed up the articles and that the witness should go to Tanner as soon as he reached Portland, look over the agreement and hear what he was to testify from Tanner. The witness had given the letter Intrusted to him by Mitchell for Tanner to the Government only upon compulsion. He had told Mitchell that the Government had sent a detective to The Dalles to meet him, and that ho had been escorted to the grand Jury room by an officer, thus letting blm draw his own inferences The witness had tried to get out of coming to Portland, but was told by Mitchell to come and testify accord ing to Tanner's directions. Upon the return of the witness to Washington the Senator grew very angry at him. said he was In & conspiracy with Tanner to ruin him. and swore at the Government officials interested in the land frauds. The Senator had cried and said they should not prosecute him for the Kribs business, because he had only received a few small checks. ,Jn the afternoon Robertson underwent a severe cross-examination by ex-Senator Thurston, but the defense could not shake his testimony. The Government re ted Its case at 2 MS o'clock. Robertson being the last witness. The defonse opened Its case by' calling T. O. Abbott, of Seattle; W. H. Odell. of Salem; J. P. Fullerton. of Rose burg: A. D. Stlllmaa. of Pendleton; W. D. Wheelwright, of Portland, and T. B. Wilcox, of this city, all of whom testified te having received assistance from the defendant before various departments, in oach ease of which the Senator had refused to accept compensation. The case of the defense will be continued and perhaps finished to day, it being the opinion that Senator Mitchell will take the stand in his own behalf. the Eth of October. 19W. he made no ex amination of the books of the firm? A. You mean during the year 1901? Q. Y'es. A. So far as I " know, no sir: I think it was after the 20th whon he examined them. Q. During your service with the Sen ator as his private secretary. Mr. Robert son, your relations were very friendly and confidential, were they not? A. They were. sir. Q: You had charge of Ms office filesv correspondence, etc.? A. Yes. sir. Q. And had charge of all his papers? A. I can't ay that I had charge of all Ms papers; no sir. Some times he did not turn over letters to-me. Q. Well, public papers and A. No. not all his pubHc papers or private papers, no, sir. He did not al ways turn over all correspondence to me. He turned over a good portion of It. Q. When were you subpenaed to come to Portland a a witness? A. On the night of February 3 last. Q. Where? A. la Washington. D. C Secret Service Interview. Q Prior to that time, had you been interviewed by any of tbe Secret Service men or other officers of the Govern ment? . A. About two or three days before that there was & gentleman came to see me at the Dewey Hotel who said his name was Taylor. Q. What did he say Ms position was? A. He told me he was a Secret Service Ofiicer. Q. You had a talk with Mm? "A. He wanted to talk with me In ref erence to land frauds, he said. Q. In reference to what? A. In reference to kind frauds. I told him I did not care to talk to him. and he insisted, and I sold 1 wpuld listen to what he had to say. Q. Did you make any statement to Mm at that time? A. I was Just going to say that. He asked me if I had not been In the em ploy of Senator Mitchell a long time? I teM Mm I had. He also asked me If I had not been In the employ of Mitchell Jfc Tanner a long time. I told him I bad. Then he produced a typewritten state meat of questions and passed them to me and asked me If 1 would answer those. There were five or sir questions to the effect had I been a bookkeeper for Mitchell & Tanner Q. Well, did you answer them? A. I did not. I told Mm I considered it an Impertinence on Ms part and that 1 -would not answer those questions, and our interview ceased there. Q. Did you make any statement to , mm? . t A. I made no statement to him further j than I had been in their employ. IQ. Did you communicate to Senator Mitchell the fact that that Special Agent t of the Government hod called upon you and propounded those Inquiries? I A- I did not. sir. i Q. So that. Hp to the time you left j for Portland. Scooter Mitchell did not know that vou had been approached by j-the Secret Service Officers of the Gov- eminent. j Mitchell Knew of Subpena. !A Not so far as I know. I thought he had troubles enough at that time. I did not care to bother him. as long as I I had not given them any information. Q. Senator MiteheM knew you were j going to Portland Is answer to the subpenaz A. Yes. sir. . . Q. And ofter those conversations you had with him. that you have testified to. he Intrusted to yeu as a confidential messenger, the envelope that you have identified, containing the inclosures you have identified? A. He sent It to me by Max Pracht. Q. You understood It was his wish that you should convey that to Portland and deliver It to "Mr. A- H. Tanner? A- I did. sir. Q. When did you arrive In Portland? A. I arrived In Portland oa the morn ing of February 10. vi. Did anybody meet you at the train? A. There did not. Q. Where did you go? A. I went to he Portland Hotel. Q. What did you do? A. I got my breakfast, and then I re- I ported to the court. ' Q. Had any representative of the Gov ernment waited on you, up to that time? j A. No. sir. : Q. You were not under any duress or ! restraint? j A. I was not. J Q. You were not taken to that office. A. I went of my own free will. Q. You went of your own free will? A. Yes. sir. Q. Why didn't you go and deliver the letter to Tanner first? Did Xot Want to Perjure lilmscir. A. For this reason. Senator Thurston. ! I knew from what-Senator Mitchell had told me that the Senator and Tanner hod ! gotten up this false agreement. I knew that if I went to Tanner, he would make a strong appeal to me to stand la with them and perjure myself, and I was afraid I was not strong enough to resist him. : and I made up my mind that-1 would go ' first and give my testimony. Q. Then you did not go to see Tanner and deliver that confidential letter be- 1 cause you thought Tanner was the kind j of man who would ask you to perjure yourself? Is that It? - A. 1 thought, from what Senator Mitch- 1 ell bad told me. he would certainly do so. I ' Q. You had been with him a long time? 1 A. Yes. sir. Q. Do you mean to 'say you- thought , Tanner would ask you to perjure vou rs elf 1 if you went and delivered that letter to him? I A I have no doubt of It. from the con- I versatlon I had. and Judge Tanner has ' told me also that he expected to. Q. You had no doubt of It? A. No. sir. Q. Then you did not go and deliver that letter to Tanner because you was afraid i he would ask you to perjure yourself? . A. Yes. sir. j Q. And you also were afraid you could I not resist the request? I A. I knew he would make a strong ap- 1 I peal to me on behalf of Mm and, his family, and I was afraid I could not rc I sist It. Q. You were afraid you could not re- sist the request? I A. Yes. sir; I was. j Q. So you went to the District Attor ney s ou:ce? A. Y'es. sir. I did. Why Letter Wns Delivered. Q. Why didn't you send that letter to Mr. Tanner without going there? A. I expected to deliver that letter to Mr. Tanner as soon as I got through with the examination. Q. How did the officers of the Govern ment at the Court hoi ie know that you had such a letter? A. I am not aware how they got their Information. 1 know this much about It: I was examined up until the noon recess". At the noon recess the District Attorney Invited me Into his office. He asked me .t - ui wit- oiuv 4uiuuuiia i itn k. au been asked me In the grand Jury" room, and I gave him the same answers. Among ! them.- he asked me If I had not met a i Mr. Boms. 1 told him I had not. He ; asked me It 1 had been to see Tan- j ner? I told him I had not. He seem- I ed to be under the Impression that I was lying to him about it. He repealed his questions. If I was certain I had not seen Tanner. And before I bethought what I was doing. I said. "No. I am going to see him now; I have got a letter l intend to dell -er to him." Q. Then the first suggestion that you had a letter cume from you? A. I don't know; they seemed to knew a great deal more about It than I did. Q. But as you have stated A. So far as I know. yes. Q. You made the first statement? A. Yes. I made that statement. Q. Suggesting that you had a letter? A. I did not suggest It: I told him. I told him I was going to deliver It to him. Q. Then they asked you to produce It. and you produced it? Jlcney Demanded Letter. A. No. sir: I Insisted that I wan rnicr to do It. and Mr. Henev told me that he would call me back, that they were going to take that away from me. I told him I did not think they had any right to take it away from me. and I was going to take It down to Tanner. Among the questions he asked me. he asked If I had the letter with me. I told him no. that the letter was at the hotel In my grip. Q. That Is what you told Hcney? A. Yes, sir. Q. Weft, was It? A. It was. and I again told Mm I was going up and get it and take It to Tanner now: that I was no longer afraid to talk to Tanner. He said to me this: "You can go to the hotel and get your lunch. If you want to. but I will send an officer to escort you back to the court room, as I Intend to take that away from you." and 1 was escorted back. Q. When you wrote the partnership agreement of March 5 1901. you say Judge Tanner dictated it? A. Tes. sir. Q. Was Mitchell present? A. He was not. Q. As a matter of fact, didn't you have before you. given to you by Judge Tanner. tne lormer arucies or co-partners tup. and you were ashed to copy them except as "wished me to come to his room the next to one or two new clauses which Mr. morning at 9 o'clock, that he and WU Tanner dictated? I llamson would be there, and they de- A. No. sir; my recollection is that ! lrpd me to write them a statement as Judge Tanner dictated the whole agree- Trha,1 had occurred while I was out tnent to me. ' here. I did not go. Q. Didn't he dictate it then, from a copy or the old articles which be had with him? A- I don't know whether he did or not; I presume he did. Q. So far as you know? Wouldn't you know? A. No. I would not remember that. Q. Couldn't you tell whether he was reading or dictating from a former agree ment? A. No. 1 could cot. Q. You can't remember about that? A. No. I presume he did. though. Q. After you were subpenaed at Wash ington, you went to see Senator Mitch ell? A. Yes. sir. Q. Told him you had been subpenaed? A. Yes. sir. Q. What was the condition of the Sen ator's health at that time? A. About the same as it seems to be now. Q. Hadn't he been very much under the weather for some time? A. Nat to my knowledge; no. sir. Q. When was It he was so seriously lit In Washington before that? A. He was seriously 111 In Washington in January and February- of 1303. Q. How was his health after that? A., His health seemed to be about as usual for the last several years. Q. Is It not a fact that In ISO he was eo seriously 111 that his friends were very much alarmed about his condition? A. When? Q. in ISoi; were very much alarmed about a fatal termination of his disease? .V No. not in MM; that was In ISO. Q. It is a fact. Is It not. that the Sen ator has been in impaired health most or all of the time since his last election to the Senate? A. No; I cr.nnot say that he has. He has been indisposed at times, but I think a good deal of It was hU own fault He was seriously ill In 1908 and he was also seriously 111 In 1S01. I understand, when he went East. 1 was not with him. Q. When you had your conversation with him at his rooms, after you had been subpenaed to eoroe to Portland, do you remember the date? A. That was the night of the 3rd of February, the day I was subpenaed. Q. Tho night of the 3rd of February? A. Yes. sir; the day I was subpenaed. Q. At that time he told you what Tan ner had testified to before the grand Jury? A. He toW me Tanner bad been before the grand Judy with a copy of their agreement of 1001. Q. 1 am not asking you what he said: but he told you at that time Tanner had been before the grand Jury and tes tified? A. Ye?, sir. Q. Do you know when Mr. Tanner did go before the grand Jury? A. No. sir; I don't know the date. Q. Do you know, as & matter of fact. that he had been been before the grand jury at t Rat time or not? A. Not except from the Senator's state ment. Q. Now. Mr. Rorbertson. In that Inter view when you told Senator Mitchell that you were going to Portland to an swer a subpena and as-ked him what you should say. It is not true that he told you to tell the truth? A. He did not. Q. He did not? A. He told me this Q. I am not asking you what he told you. you have been over that. A. He didn't mention the word truth. Q. He did not tell you to. tell the truth? A. No. sir. x Q. Did not advise you ta-tell the truth? A. No. sir; he did not. - - Q. xou are positive about that? A. I am very positive about that. Q. You came out here and testified? A. I dW. Q. And went back? A. Ye. sir. Q. And had the other conversation with Senator Mitchell you have narrated? A. Yes. sir. Q. Remained in his employ after that? A. I tendered my resignation that nlzat. Q I am not asking about that. Tou remained in his employ after that? A. He was at liberty to accept my resigsatiOR at any minute. Q. How long did you remain In his employ axtor that? , Cut Off Mitchell's I'ny-Roll. A. I think he cut me off the roll on the 21st of March. Q. During that time you drew a sal arj? A. I drew the salary, yes. sir. Q. Did you serform am- services? A. I took no dictation from Senator Mitchell after that time. He had me cosy the different Indictments Q. How many times after that before you were discharged did you go to see senator Aiucneu : A. I saw Senator Mitchell How la that question? ! Q- How many times after that did you o see aenaior -uncneii.' a. x saw senator Jiucneu in tne com ' mlttee room on Monday and Tuesday fol lowing. I saw him at my hotel, the ; Dewey, on the Friday evening following. I I saw him la his committee room the , next Satur-laj- afternoon, and I saw him at at souse tne next sunaay. Q. Kept away from him most of the time, didn't you? A. I was In .very bad health myself: I had caught the grip when I was out nere and in addition 'to that I did keep una) iium mm. Q. You dW keen away from him? A. Yes. sir. Partly on account of my illness ana partly oecause l wanted to reslca ray olace. Q. I am not asking yon what you laougni. Bui tor lac ucu. lou aid Seep away irom nun; A. Yes. sir. Q. And as a matter of fact, on several occasions, when he sent for you. you did not up pear, did you? A. He sent for me on the Wednesday morning following. He had told me Tuesdar afternoon In the office that h wished me to come to his room the next Q. xou did not go? A. No. sir. Q. Did he send for yon on other oc casions wnea you aid not go; A. I don't remember any. Q. Did he irlve you certain direction by letter or otherwise, as to packing-up Ms papers and affairs and transportlnr them to Portland? A. He did. Q. He asked you to do that? A. Yes. sir. Q. Did you do that? a. r did. Q. When you reached Portland, did you resort to him? A- I did not. sir. I simply sat right down and wrote him a letter, tendering my resignation aosoiuieiy. Q. You did not go near him? A. No. sir. Q. At the time Senator Mitchell called at your hotel In Washington, ho simply t called to ascertain as to the state of your health, did he not? A. He had sent his grandson the day I befor with one of the indictments and , asked me to copy It: and I was confined to my bed at tbe time the Senator called , on Friday OTealng. I had sent for my j dinner, and was la bed eating It when I c came up. I Q. He cnHed on you to see how you were? A. I don't know what he eome for. Q. Had no conversation? A. We did. Q. What was said? Did Xot Betray Me. A. Among other things, he referred to the fact that he wanted me to codv this Indictment as soon as I was abfe: make Mm several copies of It. He also referred i to the fact that he wanted a statement , from me as to what had occurred while I w-is out here. He also said this: H ' said: "I have come to the conclusioa. that you did not betray me when you were out there, and that you can stay i if vou want to." And I diri not mat whether I wanted to or not ', Q. xou did not tell him what you had , done or said or testified to In Portland, t did you? i -v i ciu not ten nun. no. sir. I tokl , him stme things. i VI. Aitnough he requested information? i A. Yes. sir. j Q. Didn't vou teH Senator MitcheH. t after you returned to Washington, that ) ine uovernment aetecttves nad met you ; at Tho Dalles, and compelled you to give up mat ieuerT A. I told Senator Mitchell this: Q. Didn't you tell him that? A. I did not. Q. In substance, what did you tell Mm? A. I told Mm this: There were news paper articles to that very effect, and he asked me that question. I told Mm that they had sent an officer of the Govern ment to meet me; I also told Mm that I was escorted to the grand Jury room: and I also told Mm the letter was taken away from me In the grand jury room, which were the facts. He could draw Ms own Inference. Q. Then you Intended to convey te Mm the understanding that the officers of the Government did meet you at The Dalles and took charge of you and compelled you to produce that letter? A. No. sir. Q. That was your statement? A. No. sir; I let him draw his own In ference. Q. You told him they sent an officer to The Dalles to meet you? A. I did not tell him an officer met me; I told him they sent one. Q. Sent one to meet you? A. Yea. Q. And that when you gat to Portland the officer took you to the grand Jury room? A. I told htm I was escorted. Q. Were you? A- I was. yes. sir. Q. Where from? A. From the Portland Hotel for the next examination. Just as Mr. Heney told me. Q. But you went te the District Attor ney's office without an escort? A. Yes. I did rHe first time. Q. Do you know Mr. T. O. Abbott? A. I know Mr. Abbott, yes. Q. A lawyer In the Alaska, building at Seattle? A. Y'es. sir. V. - j i have a conversation wKh Mm at his office early in April. 1305? a. i aia. sir. O. Was tout conversation of thi cea. eral substance and effect: After greeting eacn otner. tne conversation turned on was Indicted and convicted, it would not make Mm believe that Mitchell was guilty of any Intentional wrongdoing, as he knew him too long and too welt! A. 1 doa't remember whether he mode that statement or not; perhaps he did. W. xou uon t Know whether he dht or not? A. No; he may have. Q. Didn't you. in reply to that, state In substance and effect that you felt the same way and wMle there were some things which might have a bad look to people who did not know the real facts, you were entirely satisfied that the Sena tor had never knowingly or lntentiouelly been guilty of any dishonest or unlawful act? A. No. sir; I never made that state roan t. Q. You did not make that statement to him? A. No. sir. Q. You are positive about that? A. I am positive I did not make any such statement as that. O. You would remember It if you had said It? A. I remember I had a conversation, but I did not make that statement. Q. You would remember it If you had made It? A. Yes. sir. Q. You cannot be mistaken? A. No. sir. Q. Then. If Mr. Abbott testifies you so said, he will be telling what Is not tree? A. Tes. sir: or mistaken. I would not want to call him a liar. Q. Did not Abbott Immediately and partly respond by saying In substance and effect to you that your statement gave him great satisfaction, or that it gave him great satisfaction at bearing you make the statement, as it came officially and from one who ought to know aM the facts, and. more especially, because you had' been discharged from Mitchell's ser vice? A. I don't remember whether he made that statement or not. Q. Do you know whether he dM or not? A. No. sir; I don't Q. You don't remember? ? A. I don't remember that: no. sir. I remember I had a conversation with Mr. Abbott. Q. Didn't you at the same time and ?lace. thereupon reiterate the statement have just asked you about, and say to Mr. Abbott that you would not allow your discharge to Influence you to de the Senator a wrong, and besides, that tbe Senator would not have discharged you If he had known the real facts? A. I presume I did; I made that state ment to a good many people. I believe. Q. Tou presume you made that state ment? A. Yes. sir; I have frequently made the statement to people, that I would not allow the fact of my discharge te la fluencw my testimony. Q. When Senator Mitchell In Washing ton, after your return, asked you for a statement of what took place here at Portland, did he not say to you in sub stance and effect that the newspapers were full of reports, a ad especially one. that the agents of the Government bad met you en route and had secured thte letter from you. and that the statement he wanted wan as to that matter, and that be did not want any statement from you as to what you had testified to before the grand Jury? . A. This Is the statement he made, that Q. Didn't he say that In substance? A. No, sir; net at first; he did after a while. Q. He did after a while? A. When he saw be coukl not get the other statement. Q. And you would net give that state ment? A. I would net give the other state ment, because I would not break my oath and I told him so plainly. vhy 1 would not do It. Q. In this Interview with Mr. Abbott In Seattle. I have referred you te. waa there anybody else present? A. Not that I recollect. I don't know whether there was or not. Mr. Thurston: That is all. HE-DIRECT EXAM1XATION. By Mr Heney: Q. What was the statement that the defendant. Mitchell, asked you for ia Washington? 3IltchelI Asked for Statement. A. "That was on Sunday before I left there. I had finished copying one of these indictments, and went up to his house to give it to Mm. He had some newspaper article. Mr. Bierbower was present at the time. When I went In. be seemed to be somewhat in a rage at me, and in a rather indignant manner laid out the newspaper article In front of me and asked me what I bad to say to it. I told him I had nothing further to say to It; that I waa not responsible for what the newspapers might .see fit to report He then demanded of me that I make him a typewritten statement as to all people I bad seen from the time I arrived In Oregon until I returned to Washington, and my conversations with them. 1 told hbn I could not make- sash a statement as that: and he wanted to knor why. I tokl Mm It would zetme into trouble. He said he could not sea how it would, get me into trouble. X told him that he knew what my oath was before the grand Jury, and that I could not make a statement about that matter. I told hint it would Involve breach of my oath. He told me that he did not believe that I took anv such oath, he said they had not mads him taka any sach oath. I Insisted that I would not break my oath in that regard. He then modified his demand, and demanded that I make a statement of every one of the conversations and whom I had seen all the time. with, the exception of Just while I was in the grand Jury room. He asked me if I could make that statement. I told him I could, but I did not do so. Q. Did you decltne to do so? A. I did not do It. I have not spoken to the Senator since; w have not had any conversation. I thought they were dobs It for the eTident purpose of try- lng to make me break my oath, and I would not do it. Q. Who was the Williamson that you mentioned that Senator Mitchell wanted you to meet with him? A. That was J. X. WIHiamson. member ef Congress. Q- Had he been indicted at that time. do you know? A. He had. Q. Why did you remain In Senator amcneua employ alter you get cacx. to Washington? objected to as earnng tor the mentat operation of the witness mind and not fr anv fact. Obiection sustained. Q I hand you Government's Exhibit i. is tnat tne agreement u wnicn you referred in your testimony as having been made out about the time that Sen ator Mitchell looked at the books in October. 1504? When he called for them four or five timeo? A. Yes. sir: that is the supplemental agreement that was made at that time. HE-CHOSS EXAMINATION- Q. What representative of the Govern ment went with you from Portland East after you had testified before the grand Jury? A. Mr. Heney. Mr. Bums and Mr. Rlttenhouse. I believe they were on the same train. Q. Burns Is a Secret Service man? A. Yes sir. Q. I believe you are an attorney and counselor at law. Mr. Robertson? A. I have been admitted to the bar. yea. sir. HE-DIRECT EXAMINATION. Q. Did you return to Washington aa see as you got through here at the grand Jury? A. I returned immediately after my dis charge. I was discharged Monday after noon and I went and immediately settled up with the Marshal, went down and secured a berth and my ticket and went back on the morning train. Q. DW the going of these other par ttas have anytMng to do with your go lug? A. No. sir. In fact. I did not know they were golBg the next morning. It you will take the trouble to look at the newspapers you will find a statement to tbe effect that the grand Jury expected to hold over that day even. I went as quickly as I could get back. RECi:OSS-EXA3IIXAT10N. Mr. Thurston: I want to ask about a matter I negieeted to ask before. Q. When was it. If you know, that the books. oaDers and corresDondence or ! Mitchell & tanner's office were taken In ( charge by the special agents of the United j Stntes? a- snins it was on jtonuay. me xuia. oeen oarar to that ere out hero ' before the grand Jury? ! A. Yes. sir. Q- Did you assist in that matter? I A- I wm in the office talking to Judge Tanner when Mr. Burns came In with, i be subpena. Mr. Burns demanded cer- I ww laings Q. Hadn't you had any anranxecasst. with Burns or other detectives' "offfth Government .""? A. No. sir. Q. That you would be there? -rt. A. I did MU no, sir. I went tlwre pf my own uecount te see Judge Tuitr Q. That Is the only way you. hwg aujsl to be there? A. That kt aM. Q. You had nothing te do with that matter of the seizure of these books and papers by the officers of the 'Govern ment? A. It had nothing whatever to do with, that, any more thaa I happened to bo there at that time. Excused. Government Rests Its- Case. A. H. Tanner was recalled en the part of the Government, and identified the telegram Introduced by the witness Al land. as one he had sent to the defend ant, and that the agreement referred to 1r the telegram was the substitute pre pared in December last. He testified that he sent the telegram because he had been recalled before the grand Jury and informed that his testimony regarding; said agreement was doubted. He further testified that he had exam ined a larse number of copies of the let ters he had written to the defendant, with a view to ascertaining how many were on the subject of land matters, and that he bad found 30 or 31 letters relating- to pension matters and claims of one Kind and another in tbe department: and that during the four years the defendant was Senator the lost time, he bad found only three letters relating to land matters. On cross-examination he testified that in all these instances no fee had been charged by Mmself, nor. so far as he; knew, by Senator Mitchell but that they had all had prompt attention en the part of Senator Mitchell. Whereupon the Government rested its case. DEFENSE OFFERS TESTIMONY Many Witnesses Tell or Senator's Services AYlthont Fees. The first witness ealled for the defense was T. O. Abbott, of Seattle, who testified that the conversation about which Harry Robertson was asiced on his crossrexami nation took place as detailed in the ques tions propounded to Robertson. He further testified that he had known Senator Mitchell, and that he had bad some communication with him while ha was Senator regarding a matter pending ia the department at Washington. Involv ing a claim of about $25.Ct. and that Sen ator Mitchell's active assistance helped Mm to succeed in securing its adjust ment. Oa cross-examination he testified that the claim grew out of a breach of con tract where the Government had rented a building owned by Mm en a flvt years' lease far postoffice purposes In Tacoma. J. C. Fullerton. attorney-at-law. Rose burg. Or., was sworn on behalf of th defendant and testified that he had known Senator Mitchell over 20 years; that ho bad had correspondence with him in March. 1202. In reference to some claims In the Indian Depredatloa Department, in wMch he had told him that there would, be a fee in it for blm. and that the Sena tor bad written him declining: to accept any compensation, and tbe correspond ence relating thereto was Introduced. A. B. StUlman. attorney-at-law. of Pen dleton. Or., was also sworn and testified along similar lines. W. H. Odell. clerk of the State Land Board, in 1385. testified to a matter pend ing before the Land Department, in which Senator Mitchell's services were reiet ed and compensation offered, which the Senator declined. William D. Wheelwright, of Portland, president of the Chamber of Commerce, testified to services rendered by Senator Mitchell, in connection with a cJata for freight for the transportation of cargoes to Manila, and that he had proposed to Senator Mitchell that he would pay him for his services. wMch the Senator re fused to consider, stating that his serv ices were at his disposal without aay compensation. Theodore B. Wilcox, of Portland, also testified in regard to services rendered him by Senator Mitchell In tho matter oZ the seizure by RuaMa. of the Arabia and. the Calchos. and that he had proposed to. pay the Senator for his services, which, offer Senator Mitchell absolutely declined?, to entertain. J. A. S laden, clerk of the Usited State3 Court, testified regarding a matter before the Controller of the Treasury, in which, he was trying- to get a decision, and that be sought Senator Mltehell's advice and assistance concerning it. and offered t- employ him as an attorney and pay bias, for his services, which the defendant de clined. Whereupon the court adjourned until 19 o'clock A. M.. June 27.