Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Morning Oregonian. (Portland, Or.) 1861-1937 | View Entire Issue (July 4, 1905)
THE OIQRyiXG OREGONIAST, TUESDAY, JULY .4, 1905; DISTRICT ATTORNEY FINISHES HIS ARGUMENT IN THE MITCHELL TRIAL (Continued From First Pace.) what Senator Mitchell did, for while he was being paid for looking after the Gov ernment's interest, he took money and helped plunder the Government of its val uable timber lands. He said that the Sen ator was constantly being bombarded by letters from Tanner telling about the Benson, Kribs and Puter claims, and be cause there was -much talk about In rid frauds, this should have made Sonator Mitchell hesitate, but he did not. The winking at such offenses. Mr. Honey de clared, was as culpable as active thievery Buzfuz vs. Bacon. The District Attorney then turned his attention to Judge Bennett. The speaker said that Judge Bennett had charged that the Government had gone to Buzfuz's speech for his inspiration. He stated thLs was not the truth, but that he had taken Instead the case of Lord Bacon. He com pared Lord Bacon's case to that of Sen ator Mitchell's and after reading some extracts from the trial, he said that al though Lord Bacon's services to his coun try overshadowed those performed for the State of Oregon by Mitchell. Lord Bacon had been convicted. He denied that there was no moral turpitude in the case and called attention to the grav ity of the charges against Senator Mitch e'L He belittled the Importance Jthe de fense had given to the services that the Senator had performed for the state and lie sarcastically referred to the defendant as the "high-minded and moral Senator." Case Goes to the Jury. The District Attorney finished speak ing at 2:35. His peroration was master fully delivered. He had worked up to it point by point, and as he drew near to the -close the entire courtroom was elec trified by the intensity of the speaker. He concluded abruptly, thanked the jurors for their patience, and as those who had been swept along by the. rush of his ora tors" realized he was through, there was a noisy shifting of bodies and feet. In terest was again instantly awakened, how ever, for Judge De Haven rose slowly from his seat and began his charge to the jury- His Honor j-poke just loud enough for the jurors and those very close to the bench to hear. He finished his charge at 3 o'clock and at 3:03 the jurors slowly filed out of their scats, ad journed to the juryroom and began their deliberations. Senator Mitchell listened to Judge De Haven as he read the charge. He remained in court while the clerk read the names of the new jury that had been drawn. Court was adjourned after this and even then the Senator seemed loth to go; he seemed to be expecting a speedy return of the jury. He was al most the last to go. for both of his at torneys had left the courtroom. Judge De Haven Informed United States Marshall Reed that he would wait until 11 o'clock for a verdict, but that If it came later than this, he was not to be disturbed. CLOSING DAY OF THE TRIAL Heney Finishes His Argument and JujISS Gives His Charge. The case of the United States against John H. Mitchell has at last seen the end of the argument and the charge to the Jury, and the fate of the defendant has been placed In the hands of 12 of his neighbors. Mr. Heney filled the fore noon with his closing argument and part of the afternoon, saying his last words to the jury at 2:35 o'clock. Judge Do Daven then began his charge, finishing at 3 o'clock, after which the men to have the chaperonage of tho arbiters of Sen ator Mitchell's future were placed under oath to observe the statutes provided for the guidance of men In their position, and the jury retired. When court was convened In the morn ing Mr. Heney took up once morn his argument where he had left it Suturday afternoon. He stated that he would j gladly submit the case without further j iirgumeni u ne inougm ny so doing lie would fulfill his duty, but he would ask The patience of the jury for a short space of time in which to make plain the fact -hat Senator Mitchell had knowledge of the foes to be received by him for his services before the department in behalf of Kribs. Th speaker then took up in brief form the statement of the case against tho Senator in regard to the receipt of the money paid by Kribs. lie brought up the letters written, tho books with their en tries, the fact that Mitchell had exam ined the , books, the correspondence bo tween Tanner and Mitchell and thu other circumstances tending to show that the Senator was aware of the payment of the fees to Tanner, and that they had been made In expectation of the assist ance of the defendant in securing the expedition of the lands before Hermann in the General Land Olllco. He called to mind the fact that Benson's name had been cut from the letter containing the list of claims sent to the" Senator for presentation to the department, as tend ing to show that Mitchell recognized tho difficulty of having any action taken favorable to a man as notorious as Ben son In land-fraud circles. He argued that Mitchell was not an idiot, that he should have all the correspondence and discussion and do all the work and re ceive the checks as he did without know ing what his Increased dividends repre sented. Mr- Heney declared that the defendant had started with falsehoods and had ended with nothing but falsehoods; that he had tried by subterfuge and distorted evidence and an attempt to destroy the books of the company and by a fabri cated defense to save himself from In dictment, but that he had boon trapped in his own net. "Mitchell was a lawyer, and knew the badges of crime and fraud, and, know ing these, he must have s.een that the lists of land given him hy Kribs wore fraudulent, and therefore, if he were honest, he should have stopped upon the discovery. In the afternoon Mr. Honey took up the testimony of Robertson and of Tan ner and .defended his witnesses from the attacks of the defense, stating that they did nothing they were not compelled to do by the law and their oath to tell the truth. Nearly all of the great cases liad been 'given to justice through some ab surd error In the workings of a guilty mind and this was so in the present case. If the books had been destroyed and the correspondence had been made away with, then the Government would never have had an opportunity to bring the defendant to justice. Mr. Heney finished his argument at 2:35 and was followed by the court with the charge to the jury, the case being given into its hands a few minutes after 3 o'clock. The statement of the law was satisfactory to both the prosecution and the defense. It gave the defendant all the chances to be found In the evidence while at the same time taking away none of the rights of the Government. The gist of the statute under which the in dictment was brought, the court held, was whether or not Mitchell received the money with knowledge and Intent to break the law, This was for tne jury to de clde. The fact of appearance before the department was not in itself wrong. It was not. on the other hand, necessary to chow that the money was paid to Mitchell, but if Tanner had received it with Mitch ell's knowledge and consent, then the de fendant was guilty of a broach of the law. At the conclusion f the charge the case was given to the Jury and court was ad journed until Wednesday morning at 19 o'clock. HENE1' FINISHES AKGUMEST Declares in Closing Address Thil Mitchell Had Guilty Knowledge. The stenographic report of District Attorney Heney's dosing argument fol lows: May It Picas the Court and Gentle men of the Jury: I had hoped to finish my argument on Saturday, and 1 am satisfied you all honed 1 would, too. but the atmosphere of the courtroom is so verv nnressfve. and affects von. no doubt, just as it does me. I could not help feeling that you were tired and 1 w tlreder. xon had heard argument for a week, and necessarily vou had grown tired of ttiai monotony. .Now, i tee! as If I ought to submit this case without fur ther argument to any treat extent, and 1 would do so were it not for the fact that, if there is so much as one Juror upon this Jury who is not convineed of the guilt of this defendant, it would mean that the whole trial would have to be had over acaln. Now. then, aside from the labor of that, the cost and the dissatisfaction that it would he to ev erybody, the atmosphere having been cleared perhaps of the attempt to try everybody except this defendant first myself, then Tanner, then Robertson, and then 1 don't know who else they didn't attempt to try. after havitir dis posed of all of them, and honing we nave all been acquittoq. 1 mink we should return to the trial of Mitchell. And let us determine now. first, as to whether there is anv reasonable doubt as to whether he took this money with knowledge, because that is the only question in tho case. It is admit ted that the firm received moneys from Kribs; that that went Into the Arm ac count; that that money was divided at the end of each month; it is admitted that Mitchell cot his share, but It is denied that Mitchell knew where it was cotnintr from: so reallv the only question in the case is. Is it proved be yond a reasonable doubt that Mitchell did know where that monv was com ing from, and did know it at the time he received any of it. and did know it before he recelred some of It. and .per mitted Tanner to co on pursuing that course, knowinc that Tanner wan going to take that money and place it to his credit, and then shut his eves so as not to see it. That won't do; that is not want of knowledge. Says -Mitchell Knew. Now. then, in order to determine that Question. I am colng to ask you to be patient with me whilo I run over, not at length, as I did before, but while 1 run over briefly now the evidence which I think tends to establish conclusively- the fact that Mitchell did know that he took this money. Now. we will have this divided into taroe pe riods maybe four. We will have, first, the October payment, when Mitchell was here and received the money himself: and we will- inquire as to whether he knew about that pay ment. Then will take up the payments that were made from time to time after he left on November 9. 1361. until he cot back here on August 2. 1902. and see whether the probability is. or whether It is proven so that no doubt could arise in your mind from the evi dence in the case that he knew, before he used that money, hv checking it out of the bank: that he knew, first, before it was paid into the firm that it was cominc in and made no objection to it: that he knew it wont to the firm credit: and that he knew before he re ceived, at least some of these payments that are involved, knew before August 2. that thev -came from Kribs. or from Burke, or from Benson, because you have a rlsrht to Infer that, if he knew thev came from Burke and from Ben son, that he was nut on notice a to them coming from Kribs. and 1 will show vou many masons for that, with out colng into It at very great length, either. He Examined the Hooks. Then the next question would be when he got back here in 1MK. did be know as to the payments made in that time; be cause then, with all that knowledge, we will rome down to a point where he re ceived the payment of October 3. 1P01. re ceived it here In person; that Is to say, his share of tho firm proceeds, he re ceived In person on November 2 afror making a new contract for the increase of -Tanner's share of the proceeds, after first examining for five days the books of the firm. And 1 will show you. or attempt to show you that the evidence demonstrates that in examining Un hooks for that purpose, he. like any or dinary, commonsense man. during those four or fii'e days, whs looking to see where the largt proceeds of the firm came from during those four years, to see whet Iter iie could afford to say to Tanner. "Yo, I will let you take three fifths of the proceeds of the business from now on. ami I will take two-fifths." Now. ask yourself that question, if you wre going through those book for five days, would you not look for all the large items, to see wltose client that was, and regardless of how tho service was per formed: who brought the business into tho firm. and. if you found out. as you must have found out, that Kribs had paid In more money any anybody, now. out side of this established rojruUr fee of $500 per month, which I sav we have a right to infer and deduct, as an infer ence from its regularity was a salary: that' outside of that Kribs had jtakl m the largest amaunts received by the firm, and practically all of the large amounts that were received by the firm, and that he knew that before he took his share of the Oct. it payment of $3W by Kribs, because he made this agree ment for tne change of the division on November 1. and he did not take that money until November 2, and. he took the check here in person. Not only that, but tliat the eheck he got for his share of the business of the month before was only about $100. and of the month before that, about $200. and so on. and when he comes to this month, it Is larger by res son of the fact that that goes in ami I will show you that that Is the fact, as shown by these lmnk bowks every month, where they, received money from Kriuc or Benson or Burke. Took Share of Proceeds. Now. wo come back then to the first period of October. 1901. Now. what Is the evidence that he knew at the time that he took that money, because he was here now and took his eheck for his share of the proceeds November 2, TJW. himself, now. what is the evidence that he knew that he got his share of the money? The evidence is that Just when he was about to leave Washington he got a telegram from Tanner to wait there for a letter, and he did wait for letter mailed that day. Now. tliat was a let ter of October 4. 19M. from Tanner to Mitchell, in which he tells him "we" have beon employed by Benson. Now it Is "we," unquestionably "we" in the let ter. 1 have read it to you and I will not take up the time to read it agNin. And if I mlrstate or if counsel think I misstate any fact In this argument, which they have no right to answer, J hope they will not hesitate a moment to Interrupt me at once In regard to it. be cause I shall not Intentionally overstate any fact. Now. this letter of Tanner says. "We are to receive a fee of $1500." Now. for what? Because the only evi dence In this case tliat they can rest on at all. and they claim It settles the case, is that Tanner says that at some time, and there is no evidence that It was be fore he took this first payment, that Mitehell told him not to mix him up nor contract for his services in Washington as to any business, and not to mix him up in any land office matters, and that he. Tanner, did not think and did not consider that in making the charge he was charging for what Mr. Mitchell was to do in Washington. Tanner's Last "Think." Now. that Is Tanner's last think on the matter: his think on the witness stand, but all his other thinks Is shown by his acts down to the time is that Mitchell was to have half of it. Now. let's see whether ho thought Mitchell was to do any -art of the business or not. In the Benson letter he states In this letter that the claims are all right: nothing on earth to do with them except thev are dragging, and that Benson wants Mitchell V urge Hermann to expedite them and dispose of them at once. Now. what did Tanner think he was getting the flSflO for when he took It; when he made the contract? Didn't he think he was getting it wholly and sololv for what Mitchell -was to do in hurrying It on to patent? There was nothing else to be done, so he could not have thought otherwise. But It is wholly immaterial as to what Tanner thought, as a matter of fact, as to any of these matters. Let nio so one step further: Tanner thought Mitchell was to get half of the fees be cause he had entered It in the book as firm business, and when the monev was paid in. he credited it in th books rs firm business, and when Benson came hert he admitted that the patents were obtained quickly through the influence of Mitchell with Hermann admitted that. Told It to Tanner, and Tanner wrote It to Mitchell, and says on account of that he has promised to send a substantial payment, which he did as soon as he got to San Francisco, ami that was re ported by Tanner to Mitchell. What Did Mitchell Know? But let's go back and get ahead of the time he accepted these payments . and see what knowledge he had then. I said it was Immaterial what Tanner thought; It Is immaterial. The question is. What did Mitchell know? What did Mitchell think? Not what did Tanner know. Now. when that letter came from Tanner to Mitehell and said. "We have been em ployed by Benson": they are all right: there Is nothing to do In this case except to set them expedited; they are dragging there, and I want you to use your Influ ence with Hermann to do It: "If you have any delicacy about doing It. as Senator, SUMMARY OF THE INDICTMENT UNDER WHICH SENATOR MITCHELL IfAS TRIED, THE TESTIMONY, AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS The Indictment Senator Mitchell was tried under an Indictment for having received compensation for practice before the General Land Office, alleging that John H. Mitchell, while a Senator of the United States, contracted to. find Jld. appear before Blngcr Hermann, then Commissioner of the General Land Office, in the interest of Frederick A. Kribs. of Portland, for the purpose of expediting some 30 claims held for Investiga tion by the department; that these claims were at last passed to patent through the influence of Senator Mitchell, for which services the Senator received his share of the, compensation agreed upon between the firm of Mitchell & Tanner and Kribs; that, on February 13, 1982. Mitchell receive! 5580 from Kribs as a re tainer for the expedition of the clHlms; on June 14, 1902, he received his shure of $1030 pall: that on Septem ber 2". Ifit2, an additional check for $S0) was paid: that on January 4, 1904. the defendant received $555 more ami on October S, Hie, the last payment of $200 was made. The Witnesses for ihe Prosecution Testified Frederick A. Kribs told of his contracts with Mitchell &. Tan ner, by which the lands were to be expedited; of his conversation with Mitchell concerning- the work to be .lone; of his payments to Tanner, the checks for which were Identified: of his having had no personal agree ment or arrangement about the fees with Mitchell, but of having settled the details with Tanner, expecting that the Influence of Mitchell would be given to the undertaking, and of the final passage of the claims through the exertions of Mitchell. A. II. Tanner teld'of the contract of 1901 relating to the fees earned by Senator Mitchell before the de partments: of the change made to it In December, 1904. and the reasons therefor: of his meeting with Mitchell at Kalama. and the subsequent examination of the books of the firm by Mitchell, anl the wish of the Senator to destroy them; of the final decision to stand by the Senator even though It required perjury; of his indict- ' ment for perjury; of the failure of Robertson to uphold Mitchell, and of ?he witness' consequent plea of guilty to the Indictment t gainst him. Tanner identified and explained all the correspondence relating to land mat ters and by his testimony tended to show the Senator's knowledge of the transactions wjilch were illegal. George II. Ogden nnd Jnntra F. Casey, two clerks from the General Land Office. Identified the letters and claims mentionod In the indictment Arthur W. Orion, a bookkeeper In the Merchants' National Bank, Identified a copy of. the firm accounts of Tanner & -Mitchell and of John II. Mitchell, trustee, taken from the books of the bank. - . Ilnrry C. Robertson told of his association with Mitchell and of Mitchell's endeavor to get the witness to testify in accordance with the defense to be manufactured by Tanner: 'of the meeting- with Mitchell In Washington and the rage of the Senator when tne witness refused to perjure himself: of the contract of 1901 and Its original provisions; of the trip to Portland, as a witness before the grand Jury, and of the surrender of Mitchell's letter to Tanner, and of the statement made by Senator Mitchell that he had only received a few small checks fcr what he hud done before the Land Office. The Defense Shovrcd bj- Witnesses T. O. Abbott, of Seattle; W. H. Odell. or Salem: J. P. Fullerton. of Roseburg; A. D. Stillman. of'Pendleton: W. D. Wheelwright, T. B. Wilcox and J. A. Martin, of Portland that, the Senator had done work for them before various departments and in each case had refused to receive compensation for what he had done. No other defense was made. Dlttrlct Attorney Heney Argued That Mitchell had received fees and that this had been proved by the testimony; that he had knowledge of the source of his income because he had examined the books several times and had calkd for a special copy to be made nnJ sent to him: that the correspondence passed between Mitchell and Tanner in relation to the Kribs matters fixed the knowledge upon the defendant. Mr. Heney In hit; argument followed the documentary evidence Introduced by the Government, dissecting it and declaring It showed the defendant's guilt. The Defence Arjnird That Senator Mitchell had many opportunities to take illegal fees and had not done so. as shown by tne evidence Introduced by the defense; thnt he was a man grown old in the service of tne state but who had made enemies, who were now thirsting for his downfall; thnt the correspondence held up by the Government was innocent of wrong unless perverted as to Its meaning; that the Government had made its case from collateral facts and had not based it upon the main points at issue; that the Indictment allogod Mitchell to have rocolved personally from Kribs the sums mentioned, which allegation was not supported by the proof brought by the prosecution; thnt Tanner made the agreements and tnut Mitchell knew nothing of what had been done: .that he performed the services for Tanner as he would for any citizen of Ore gon and not for pay. as was alleged by the Government; tell him that the firm out here Is in terested." Now. that is his letter to MlichHl. What could Mitehell think that fee of J1SW was to be for? Could he ascribe anything that that $1109 or any part or it was to ie paw for except ms influence with Hermann In getting them expedited? Was there anvthlnc else to be done? Didn't Tanner tell him that was all there was to be done? Didn't Tanner tell him In plain language what we want, ami what iscnson is paying lor. Is your influence to oxnedito these claims your influence with Hermann? Now. what else could Mitchell think. If he Is the man of honor he has- been nalnted by an ex-Senator, who claims- that he served in ( ongress with him. and that he. trom a monetary standpoint, was the cleanest man that ever sat in the United States Senate? Where was his moral conscience then? Could he read that letter without knowing that Tanner was taking $150) for him ami Tanner, for the firm, for noth ing on earth except that he was to use his influence as a Senator with Btnger Hermann, from hit own Mate, to get him to do whut? To expedite these claim." that stood In the name of a man who was so notorious evidently that they did not dare to use his name. John A. Benson: cut his name out; either Tanner or Mitchell or some one. cut his name: we have a right to assume tliat Mitchell cut it himself out of Benson's letter about the contract, before he dared to file t'.ie application in the General I -ami Of fice. becaue he did not want the notori ous Benson's name to appear there. And what further? And. represent that he was doing it for Oregon clients. Because it Is a suspicious circumstance tliat a man should come from California, a land speculator like Benson, and employ a firm of which Tanner Is a member, and of. which a United States Senator from Oregeu if a member, instead of having the Influence of his own California Sena tor. If It wan a Mmlght deal. Now, 1 say It won't do to argue that Mitchell did no: know. Why. is Mitchell an Idiot? They tried to prove tliat he was Incompe tent during thoe four years; that he was unaMe to do any business, and you think he did not see this. But look at the mass of busiaens he did in relation to those matter In which he received money; incompetent? Incompetent rrom the standpoint of tho trustee of the interests of the people of Oregon tliat ought to have been protected by him. but very competent to perform business of this nature, when tliero was a fee in it. Now, getting that letter, what did h do? The fettr telling him to say that it was Cali fornia people they represented? He said it. In his letter to the Commissioner h- stated that It was- Oregon clients. True. Tanner injects Page into it because Page had a commission coming, that was an afterthought: just as rubbing the name of S. A. D. Puter off the books and writing "second lieu list" In there wh an afterthought, done when the vile reputation of Puter appeared during the trial of Puter in this city, as he testifies. Didn't he know the reputation of Puter until that time that he waited until then to take it off his books-? Doesn't his letter of April 24. 192. tell Mitchell that the reputation of Puter is so odious that he must not use his name in the depart ment or have him asfb?t In gelling list No. 3 through, in which Puter was in terested with Krlhs. becaune that n.ime U so odiou and that reputation so bad that that in itself would cam suspicion upon the bona fides of th-se claims? Dkin'i know until then? Didn't know what kind of a man Benson was? This United States Senator of yours was not assisting land speculators to have an ad vantage over the private citizens of Oregon, whom he represented and whom he was being paid a salary as United States Senator, to represent and t- pro tect. And that is where the moral turpi tude of this comes in. They talk about no moral turpitude. What -do you think of an attorney who takes a fee from both sides in a case? That Is ground for disbarment Vhat is a United States Senator doing when he Is being paid a fee to protect the interests of the whole people of the United States, and particu larly of his own state, when he takes a fee to use the influence that he has by reason of the hrnorable position which you have trusted him with, .to enable land speculators from outside your state to steal from the Government of the United States this magnificent domain that belongs to you and your children? No moral turpitude In It? We will come to that presently. We are getting a little too far away from this October. 1901. businvss. Having received mat let ter of Benson, and filed It In the land offl.-e; having applied to have them ex pedite It. he comes home Immediately; he write." a letter, saying that he Is com ing home: the information had come be fore, or Tanner would not have wired him to wait; and he comes home. Now. that letter left here October 4: would get there October 9; and October 16 he Is in Portland, showing that he left there the next day after he accomplished what he was asked to wait there for. He had for sottcn about the Benson matter, had he. when he reached Portland? Took the train the next day and came direct to Portland, and then he forgot It. had he? Well, if he had forgotten It. there was something to bring it forcibly to his mind, this honorable, high-minded man: tltere was- something happened to bring It forcibly to his mind the day he got here. What was It? Kribs. another land speculator from outside the state, or representing- people outside the state, came to this firm, and wanted the influence of its United State Senator to expedite tim ber claims timber claims bearing the bndge of fraud timber claims that were then under investigation for fraud. Your Senator, advised of that fact within two or three months later, and long before they pasred to patent, and advised by the Commissioner-General of the Land Office himself that they were being ex- I 'amlncd by Stratford for fraud. The let ' ter Is here In evidence. Kribs nnd Ills Forty Claims. This man Kribs comes into the office i with a bunch of 40 claims, which he ex , plains to Tanner he bought on or about ; the day that they were proved up on. and mat ts me only nadgc or fraud? well, it is a badge of fraud? Well. It Is a badge to start with. It is enough to put this high-minded, moral man upon his guard to start with: he Is a lawyer: he knows what badges of fraud are. and what sort of evidence constitutes them: but what does he do? Tanner tells him who and what Kribs Is. Tanner tells him then thnt Kribs represents Minnesota capital ists engaged in tho business of securing kirge tracts of your most valuable timber land: and what does" Kribs want? He wants jo have his claims expedited to patent. Now. It Is true he suggests a very little more than what Benson wanted; ' Benson wanted nothing else; but these j investigations were being made by Strat- toni; simply Hint he was going to tne en trymen and taking their affidavits, ami Tanner prepared an affidavit for Kribs to make as to the bona fides of his purchase, and bis want' of knowledse, I suppose', when he purchased, and Kribs. he said, was to pay $10C) and to pay extra for any other work in the land office: but for ad vising him as to the kind of affidavits ami, mark you. this investigation had been going on" for six months, as shown hy this record that is In evidence here and the affidavits, nnd the form of them, therefore, was well known to Stratford, and there was nothing on earth for Tan ner to advise him about In the way of affidavits except the form of the affidavit for Kribs to make himself about a $.1 Job. and for that what was the agree ment? That Kribs was to pay $1C0 for getting these 41 claims to patent. How did Tnnner understand It? Did he under stand that Mitchell was to have ary part of It? Why. he put It on the books the very same day In the firm books as an agreement with the firm: and he credited the $ro to the firm, and he deposited on the same or the next dny the $00 to the credit of the firm, and nobody could draw that out except for firm matters until the division would be made at the end of the month. Immaterial What Tanner Thought. What did Tanner think, then, if it is immaterial what Tanner thought? Didn't he think nnd know and understand that he was not to get any $100 for writing a letter or for preparing an affidavit? Do you think that Kribs was such a fool that he would have undertaken to pay $1000. or that Tanner was so green that he thought that tliat was what Kribs was paying it for? Not at all. Now. admit that Tanner thoucht thnt this could j be done without Injury to Mitchell: admit that he did not understand and know the I law we have every evidence that the de J fondant knew and understood the law. t because he wrote time an again to other j parties, saying that he knew the law and j could not take any money for services to i be performed by him before the depart j ments. I Now. that is October 16 that he gets I here with this letter fresh in his mind. ' Just having come from there, knowing the nrm nad been employed in mat. and Kribs walks Into him and says, in his private office. October 19: "I have left a list of lands with Tanner, and I want you to write a letter to the department to hurry them up. Senator" something to that effect. I think that was all the con versation tho first time; he comes In the next day. and has a practically similar conversation, in which he says: "I have agreed to pay Tanner $10CO for getting, these claims expedited." says it to the defendant Mitchell. What does Mitchell say, this high-minded, moral man that has been painted to your view? What does he say? What would you say If you had such high moral principles and knew that you were, betraying your constitu ents? That you were violating a law you helped to make yourself? What would you say. I ask you? Wouldn't you at once say. "Look here. Kribs. If you are paying any $1000 to Tanner with the expectation that I. as a United States Senator, am going to take up .these claims and have them expedited, 1 want to tell you right now. that my duty as a United States Senator will not permit me to do It: that 1 don't propose to take one dollar of your money or have anything to do with this, because if I do it. though I do It for Tan-v ncr. and take any part of the fee. It would reflect upon my honor, which I think more of than I do of filthy lucre." Did he say iat"; Isn't that what an honorable man would have said? Isn't that what any one of you men would have said under like circumstances? Oh. no! that Is not what he said. He said. "Kribs. don't talk about fee. to me; arrange that matter with Tanner." What does that, mean? What does that mean? Doesn't It mean that this defendant did not intend to put him self In lh power of Kribs. whom he wouldn't trust? Doesn't it mean that, he was willing to trust Tanner, but nobody else, and hasn't he been Justified In trust ing Tanner, for hasn't he walked to the doora of the penitentiary until they al most swung to on him to protect this defendant, and for that he receives from the attorneys for the defendant nothing but abuse because he didn't go Inside and let the key be turned upon both him and his son in order that this beaver caught in the trap might not. like Mr. Bennett's beaver, gnaw his own leu off. but In his abhorrent and stupendous selfishness, that he might gnaw off the leg of the dearest and best friend he has on earth, and the leg of ever- other one who comes near him inorder that he may get out of the trap: No. you don't find him gnawing his own leg off nor even scratching it. So Instead of telling Kribs that he could not do that, he tells Kribs. '"Don't talk to me about fees": but what Kribs wanted was Mitchell's Influence to get these expedited. Iand he didn't care a twopenny whether he talked to Mitchell about the fees or , not. orovlded Mitchell would do the work that he wanted done. He aldto Mitchell, ! "I want you to write a letter to the Com i mlssioner." Did he do It? Why. ho did it three days later: on October 22. 1991. Mitchell himself sits " down and writes a letter to Hermann i and tells Hermann to send him the status ; of these claims and winds up by say i lng that he takes an Interest In them for friends here. For friends? A false i hood in the besdnnlns showinc euilt- showtug that understanding absolutely the relations between Kribs and the firm: showing thnt knowing that he was going to get a fee for that, and that It was a crime against the laws of the United States, he started off with falsehood Just as he has ended In this case with noth ing but falsehoods. Mitchell Didn't Trust Hermann. So he pretends that he Is representing a friend who wants this information. But mark you whnt he says to Hermann he can trust Hermann prottv well, they have known each other a long time In politics, but he don't trut Hermann on paper, because, .is okl General Cameron sa!d In Pennsylvania "I learned verv early In life that In politics it is better to travel a hundred mites to talk to a man a hundred times over than to write one letter once, because It may always come back to plague you." So Mitchell, with his political experience, did not trust Blngcr Hermann; he did not even trust Tnnner bv writing anything in anv letter that indicated that he knew he was getting the money, because Tanner might lose the letter, or it might be stolen from him. etc.. so he never wrote anything thnt was actually Incriminat ing In his letters to Tanner unless you read them In connection with Tanner's letters and see then from the corre spondence what Mitchell knew, but noth ing over Mitchell's slgnnture that Is criminating until he was caught in the trap in shallow water and was attempt ing to gnaw everybody's else leg off to got free then he does write an 'incrimi nating letter, but says "burn this letter without fall" and rened upon Tanner to burn It. but It got Into our clutches, and. as a matter of course, the person who Is responsible for It getting Into our clutches must necessarily be the worst man on earth. Of course: I told vou they would tell you that before they "got through: I knew they would, but. of course, they don't put It on the same ground that I suggested. Naturallv they can't afford to show you their whole hand because you would know whether to bid or not to bid. Suddenly Gets S 18. Check. Now. having come back here then, and having written this letter himself to Hermann on October 22. 1901. on Novem ber 2 of 1501 he Is still here, nnd they dlvlde up the firm fees. Now. that bank account shows that In June, for the month of May. Mitchell got less than $2f0 for his share of the firm proceeds. We are talklnc about 1101 now. In JhU- ; he got quite a little less than $200; in J August he got less than $150: In Septem- ocr in; koi less man tor sjepiernDer. Now. for October, he here h iie J check for $153. and on October IS Kribs nad paid In $600. Why. that didn't at tract his attention! this poor man. who was living in a 11x16 room, as we have It on the statement of Senator Thurston, not sworn to nnd no chance to cross examine this poor man. who receives less than $125 for his share of the firm business the month before, and no month up to $2 for four or five months before, suddenly gels a check for $tS5. right after having received the Benson letter telling him that Benson had employed the firm, right after being told by Kribs tliat he had agreed to pay Tanner $1000 for this business: here on the ground, with the books right there, the entry in the books the largest Item necessarlly on the books for that month, as shown by the sum total of the month, and the share that he receives, he suddenly gets four times as much money as he got the month before, and more than twice as much as be got any month for four or five months, and tbey say that when h took that check on November 2. 1901. he didn't know that the Kribs money went into the firm. Well, if from that evi dence you can raise a reasonable doubt, from the evidence itself, one which would make you hesitate to act In any of the graver affairs of life in your own busi ness: If you can raise any reasonable doubt from that evidence that he knew on November 2 that he was getting his share of the Kribs payment. I say give him the benefit, of that doubt. Because when we come along a little further we will nail up the door so close that there won't be even that chance, and if there is any doubt there Is a fanciful, chi merical one that Is raised from Imagina tion. It certainly has not come from the evidence, because there Is not a man ,on this Jury, there Is not a man In the United States, who would hesitate one Instant to act upon the gravest matters in his own business affairs upon that evidence, upon the assumption that John H. Mitchell, on the 2d day of November. 1S01. necessarily did know that he got half the $5C0 that appeared right there on the books. October 16. 1901. And not only knew that he got the money, but knew that the sole purpose of that money was to pay for his Influence as United States Senator In expediting these claims, and for practically nothing else. lthln two or three months after that we will find Tanner writing him "use your Influence with Hermann to hurry this matter up: these land fraud cries In Oregon ought not to stop It: If Her mann wants to knock out some claims he could overlook ours if you suggest It to him. and knock out some others. Simile of the Camel. Why. gentlemen, to use an old,, home ly simile, .a camel could crawl through the eye of a needle as easily as the attorneys for the de fense can crawl through this evidence, but- no easier. That Is why they have spent so much time abusing witnesses, and discussing myself and everything but the evidence In the case. You know there was a young lawyer it is an old chestnut, but It Is applicable went to an older one shortly after he was ad mitted and said. "What rule ought I to follow In arguing cases In court?" "Well." says the older lawyer. If you are talking to a jury, why If you are strong on the law and weak on the facts, confine yourself to arguing the law." You will notice they did argue considerable law to this Jury. "But. If you are strong on the facts and weak on the law. confine yourself to arguing facts." I suppose they would like to suggest now that I am doing that and therefore must be weak on the law; however. 1 will leave you to get the law from the court. But. says the old ex perienced attorney, who evidently came from up here In the sagebrush country and knew the Oregon juries, perhaps re lated to Brother Bennett, "when you are weak on both the law and the facts, abuse the other side." Now. reasoning backwards. I think that It Is a fair in ference from the arguments that have been made In the last two days that they are weak on both the law and the facts. In their own opinion. Now. we have reached a point where I think there Is hardly a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew when he got the money that he got November 2. 1901. that It Included his share of the 550i from Kribs of October 16, 1901. Xext Period of Time. Now we come to the next period of time, and that runs from the time ho left here. November 9. 1901. until he got back here on August 2. 1902. That Is not very long, but there Is a great deal of business bunched in that time a great deal. Now. let's see what It was. and If you don't reach the conclusion that at the time he took this 1901 payment he had knowledge, and infer fronf that that he had knowledge of these other fees that were coming in. Now let us see" If. after you have heard all that happened In these few months, you don't reason that when he took the October payment he certainly did know, must have known. Now. what happens? He goes back to Washington November 9. 1S01. and im mediately he Is bombarded by Tanner with letters In relation to what? Thev wer not In relation to his constituents because Tanner says he only wrote three letters In four years In regard to land office business: and you have seen the stack that we brought In and put In evidence, and that were here In Tan ner's lap In addition to that when he testified that he had gone through them: that there were only three he had ever written that were on land ofilce business, and only 20 on other business, although he started off with several hundred. Now then he commenced to bombard him with these letters, and what were they All about? They were all about fees: they were all about expediting, and that means to hurry up. claims: they were prat-tlcally all about expediting the claims of Kribs and Benson the no torious Kribs and the notorious Ben son: and with Kribs was Interested the notorious Puter. and of that Mitchell was advised by Tanner, and at that time, as we will see from these letters, a great Jiue and cry was being raised In Oregon that, the land of the Government was being stolen by timber speculators who had come Into Oregon from the outside. Mitchell Hurries "Up Hermann. Now. you would think that might make your Senator hesitate and look Into these claims", or that It might make Tan ner hesitate; but no. He writes Mitchell to hurry Hermann up. nnd If he wants to knock out any on account of fraud, to knock somebody else's out. and Just overlook ours; and you know for a pub lic officer to wink or close one eye while something crooked U being done Is just as much a hreach of duty and of trust, and It ought to be Just as abhorrent to a good citizen as if he had kept both eyes- open and .both hands open, just long enough to clutch the money that was put into the hand. for doing an act under a bribe. If you can't trust your public servants to be not only neutrally honest by not stealing themselves, . but to be aggressively honest by stopping all others from stealing when they come within the mark and line of their duty. thl republic can never last. It Is not the material prosperity of this- country that is- to make It great: It Is the stand ard of citizenship tha't we succeed In establishing, and the future honor and greatness of Oregon lies In the Integrity and manhood of Its men and the virtue of its- women, and not in the question of whether a few Jetties have been built in front of your rivers or harbors; they come In good time when commerce de mands it. and when they do. they come through a committee of the House and not through the suggestion or a benator; the appropriation bill on rivers and har bors always- Is Inaugurated In the lowe house and very rarely Is there any In crease added to It In the Senate, and all this twaddle about what Senator Mitch ell has done In that way for Orogon was meant merely as an appeal to you to forget your citizenship, to forget your duty and your oatlu- and to accept that as "pu" for the commission of a wrong bv vou In extenuation of a wrong by, him. There Is a Fee Due 31c." Now. let us see what he did do when he went back there. We started In In February. 1901. and you will see that these things crowd up rapidly In Febru ary. March. April and May. and in a few letter? Tanner says: "There is a fee due me." "There is a fee due me." "My elient." Now. I wonder If that had any thing to do with Mitchell on May 9. ! after he got tne miormation ot an tnese fees coming in and they say only one letter said that the fees were "ours." and the rest all said. "I" or "my"; I have not looked them over since if they do. I wonder if that i? what makes Mitchell say to himrelf. "Tanner refers to these fees as mine. I wonder If Tan ner Is taking the whole of that; I am doing the work: I am getting thera things expedited; 1 wonder if Tanner is taking the whole of that fee." If he did. that would account for the letter of Mitchell of May 9. 1902. saying. "Send me copy of the books from the time I left there." November 9; another signifi cant fact showing that he knew of the payment of October 16. 1901. because he did not care to see the books prior to the time he left here: Why? Because he had already seen them and knew what was1 there before he left; but send me the books- from the time 1 left up to when? Mrs- 0 he writes up to the June division. Now, why up to the June division? He had wired Tanner early ln May that the Kribs matters had all gone to patent and Tanner had written him that there was- $1000 due from Kribs whenever the patepts Issued, and had wired him or written him to send him some Information, some official informa tion that they had gone to patent; of course, so that he could collect the fee. because Kribs. probably, he says, the client, may not want to pay until he has some evidence that they have gone to patent. ISow, knowing that there was $1000 going to be received from there; having received a letter in regard to Burke paying $S0O if It could be expedited, and having on April 3 wired that If he had succeeded In getting the Burke matter expedited: having re ceived a letter that Benson had been here and acknowledged that he owed the pass age of these claims to Mitchell's Influence and had agreed to send tt substantial fee as soon as he got home; all these things having happened within two or three months, one right on top of the other, having received letter of February 13. 1JMJ2. saying that he had been employed again with a now list, the Puter list, and that Krlhs had agreed to pay an addi tional fee for this, did he say to himself. "Why. Tanner occasionally refers, to these fees as 'mine: I wonder If Tanner is keep ing It all." So he sends .for a copy of the books, and that copy of the hooks reaches him on top of the receipt of all these let ters telling about the $500 from Burke: telling about the $250 from Benson: telling about the new employment by Kribs and the additional fee that is to be paid: all these letters reach him before the copy of the books reaches him. and when the copy of the books reaches him, which It does about June S. It contains the payment: and It contains the full statement that Is In the books In regard to the Kribs pay ment of February 13. 1902. $500: It contains the $300 Burke payment of May 29: It con tains the $250 Benson payment of May 55. and the fees that he had received as his one-half of the proceeds had Jumped up to seven hundred and odd dollars. $T27 for June, and $7S0 they were In July; but they jumped up to $720 for June. Brought Deposit Slip, Too. This letter that brought him the copy of the books brought him a deposit slip that showed ho got $720. whereas he had been used to getting about $250 on It; showed him that he had got $720 for that preceding month, in which month Burke had made that $5CO payment: In which month Benson had made his $250 payment: and you tell me that receiving that copy of the books, and receiving that large check, this, man who Is occupying this 14x16 room, this man who Is walking be cause he did not have carfare, you tell me that he did not look at those books to see where the big amounts came from? I say tha that Is a story so Improbable. It is an absurdity so profound, as Junius seys. that It would "startle the Intellect of an Idiot." 1 won't take the time now to read them through. I have stated to you all that Is in them: you have heard them read: you know it is there; yes. I will read just enough to show you what it was Mitchell understood he was doing for these fees. Now let us see. On Feb ruary S. 1902. Tanner says to him. "See Mr. Hermann "personally In regard to these entries and use your influence with him to order patents Issued In these cases." "See Mr. Hermann personally and use your Influence with him to have patents issued In these cases." Did Mitch ell understand? And In that same letter, he goes on to say. "Kindly arrange for a conference with Mr. Hermann after tha report of the special agent Is received and present this matter to Hermann and- urge upon him all you consistently can the passage of these entries to patent.". All you consistently can. urge it upon him; use your Influence with him; see him per sonally Says Mitchell Understood. Did Mitchell understand? Why. In that very letter he "tells him he Is contem plating another retainer from Kribs on February 13. and a week later he writes him and tells him he has been employed again bv Kribs and an additional fee is to be paid on the Puter list. He didn't understand he was doing- any of the work In these cases for which money was being; paid to that firm, and of which he was getting his share! Let us see whether Mitchell understood. That letter was written February S; five days to get there, February 13. February 14 MItohell writes to Her mann: "I will be much gratified If it can be expedited as speedily as pos sible." Writing about those claims. Then Mitchell writes to Tanner tha same day that he writes to Hermann; the very next day after the receipt of that letter telling him to use his per sonal Influence, and does he tell Tan ner. "I can't Jo this. Tanner?" Does he tell Tanner: "We are getting pret ty close to the border line of this crime, for me. Tanner; be careful, and be sure that I don't get any part of those fees: where did this big check of S7S0 come from?" No. here is what he writes: "I will give the matter my personal attention and do the best I can to hasten action. Will follow tha matter up and secure favorable action as oarly as possible. Hermann has been very good, indeed, in moving as rapidly a3 he can in all these matters." Good to whom? Good to Mitchell. In what matters? What matter is he writing about? In the Kribs matters. He is using his personal influence with Hermann, and Hermann has been very good, indeed, in regard to these matters; these matters in which he is getting a fee: the only matters that Tanner is writing him about. Sends Puter List. That was in answer to his February Sth letter. .On February 13, Tanner writes, sending him the Puter list, and states that there Is an additional fea coming from Kribs for securing- pat ents to tnosje claims. Why did he al ways state "there Is a fee coming?" Isn't It because ne knows that when he tells him there is a fee coming-, it will serve to punch Mitchell up In or der that Mitchell may punch Hermann up? Whnt other motive was there In telling nlm. except to let him know that that tning which moves most tho world Is coming In? With which to greaso the axle, so that the wheels may continue to turn money. But what else did he say there, when he said Kribs wa to pay this additional fee? Dlu Mitchell understand It was for work to be done out here for Tan ner in regard to this Puter list? He says in addition: "We want to bring pressure, all the Influence we can. to prevent any action as to sending them back to Oregon to tne Land Office, and tn irft thosu lands DAssed for Datent. We want to bring pressure, and all the Influence we can to prevent them be ing sent back here and tr have them passed to pntent." Did Mitchell un derstand that his Influence was sought there as a Senator, and did he give It? But. moreover, he knew that these Krlb's claims nad all been bought on or about the date they wero proven up on. Here were 70 of them: here was Puter's name, tne notorious Puter. at the head of this list that is enclosed In this letter of February 13. 1902. when he tells him they want to bring all tho pressure they can. What more did he know? He knew the Government already considered them fraudulent; that It was charged that they were fraudulent, and that an agent was out nere Investigating the frauds; held by a timber speculator, 70 claims in the hands of one man, practically all bought on the day on- which they were nroven up: a magnificent body of timber: the claims as shown by the descriptions, adjoining each other and making: a vast body of timber. Why Jfnsten to Pntent? "Hasten them to patent." Why? 7f honest. I have pointed out to you that the final receipt was just as good as a patent for any honest man. Why hasten them to patent? Why bring all this pres sure? Why bring all this influence? Do your utmost to prevent them being sent back' to the land office in Oregon for fur ther investigation. Because some one of these perjured entrymen might fall down. Would that suggest Itself to the mind of a lawyer like Tanner? Would that sug gest Itself to the mind of a lawyer like John H. Mitchell? Would that suggest Itself to the United States Senator from Oregon, who was there representing you people for the purpose of. among other things, protecting your "magnificent tim ber lands against these timber speculators who were obtaining it by fraud? Would that attiact his attention, knowing tha law, and that there could be no purpose for hastening to patent except the fear that a fraud might be exposed before the land could be put In the hands of a bona fide purchaser, who could laugh at. the Government "You can't get It tack." And If these ideas did come to Mitchell's mind, when he received this word from Tanner, and Tanner's suggestion that Hermann. If he wanted to hold up some lands on account of the great outcries against fraud In Oregon, could overlook ours "overlook ours" If that Idea came to the mind ot John H. Mitchell for one Instant, then what, is the usa of all this argument about no moral turpitude and