St. Paul daily globe., 1894-03-11
The state Put the Defendant
Through a Warm Cross. Exam.
ination-Mr. Markham's Hotel
Seven TO Five for Acquittal-
The Jury Out Four Hours.

viction, though at times one OF tile
jurors switched about and voted for ac-
quittal, making it stand Z to 5. Judge
Hicks thereupon discharged the jury,
and the case will have TO be tried over
again.
Yesterday morning Assistant County
Attorney Peterson cross examined MIR.
| Markham. He asked him if he con-
! Quoted hotel in Aitkin, and received a
reply in the affirmative. Then Mr.. Pc
! terson said:
Its saloon you run, is it not, Mr..
Markham"
The witness got mad at this, and
blurted out that it was hotel and one
of the finest in the state. His pride
would not brook the misnamiug of his
hostlery. MIR. Peterson, however, in
sisted upon being answered as to
whether it was a saloon, aud Mr.. Mark
ham replied:
"There is bar in the hotel. 1t would
be fine kind of hotel without bar,
wouldn't it?"
The attorney went on with his cross
! examination and asked:
did you talk with any one besides
! MIR. Glass about the Markham raiiruad
bill you wanted to get through Oh your
own account OH the occasion OF your
| visit to Minneapolis Jan. 2S?'
"Yes. saw Mr.. Akeley."
ANY one else?"
No"
"You said to Mr. Glass that 1t would
| need $1,000 to get the Wyman bill
through. did you?"
No"
What did you say?"
IL said that, Judging from my expert
ence with the railroad tax bill, the lum-:
oermen would have to put up money to
| get the Wyman bill through"
DID you mention any amount?"
IL did not"
'Did you know that the Minneapolis
lumbermen wanted the scaling bill
passed."
They told me they did,"
did you know that Surveyor GEN
eral Brown was against the bill?''
Il don't know whether | did or not"
"I ou know the bill was intended to
cut down his remuneration, did you
no;?''
Il never thought much about it."
You did say to Mr. Glass. did you
| w
"ThatS what | did,"
And that MIR. Wyman was not popu.
lar with the boys?:"
81 think So"
You were member of the logs and
lumber committee, were you not?"
81 was.''
| "Mr. Markham, you say you were in
f, Mr.. Akeiey'S office the same day YOU
were here to see Mr.. Glass. Did you
say TO Mr.. Akeley that Brown was
| spending money freely against the bill
and that II the Minneapolis lumbermen
wanted the bill passed they would have
to put up the stuff also?''
The defense offered strenuous OBJ
lection to this question being allowed,
! claiming that il was going into matters
| the court had ruled should be excluded,
I, Judge Hicks, however, stated that if
MIR. Peterson would be more specific as
10 what bill he had reference to, the
| witness might answer.
Did you mention the Markham bill
to Mr.. Akeley on the occasion OF YOUR
visit" said MIR. Peterson.
Il did not" answered Markham.
viii you swear, Mr.. Markham, that
you had no conversation with Mr.. Axe
ley relative to raising money to put the
| Wyman bill through?'
l L Idft uO IGcOllGcIiOn OF aDV such
| conversation.
! well, refresh your recollection, and
see If you can recall such CONVERSE
tion."
Il can't recall it."
/ "Do you mean," continued Mr.. Peter
| son, that you may be able to recall il
| subsequently,"
u mean just what 1. say. | don't re.
| call 1t: don't think l did say ANYTHING
about that to Akeley."
us 1t not .true that at the time YOU
talked with Glass the Markham bill had
passed the housef''
No. sir; it passed the house on
Feb. 23.'
These petitions you have brought in
| mere 10 snow that your constituents
were against the Wyman bill seem to be
all written on the same typewriter
How about that, Mr. Markham"
II don't know anything about it,"
Don't you know that all these peti.
tlons were prepared by Surveyor
! Brown?"
II don't know anything about It,"
said Markham, vindictively.
| some Of these men who have signed
| live here. do they not?"
Yes"
81 see here the name of Donaldson.
and 1t appears twice. Is it the same
man?''
Maybe so. Guess he wanted to
make 1t stronger" said the witness.
ou know That these petitions were
circulated by Brown. do you nol?'
| mo. sir"
Didn't you say to Backus that these
petitions were being circulated by
| Brown?"
mo. lie asked me if they were not
! all In the same handwriting, and [ told
| hin they might be. / will say, however.
that the petitions referred to were not
the ones you have there. That pile is
not half of them"
You said yesterday they did not
! comprise One-fourth of them, didn't
| you?'
| II don't remember"
| Fred Bonus, formerly of Aitkin, was
called to the stand to testify to the SEN
tlment of the loggers in Mr.. Markham's
district concerning the Wyman bill.
The state. however, objected to the
! testimony on the grounds that it was OF
no value to the case, and the
court so held. A. G. Pray iden.
titled certain petitions that had
been received by the committee
on logs and lumber against the bill
This ended the dtfense's side of the
| case, and Mr.. Peterson recalled MIR.
Glass. He swore positively that Mr.
Markham had made no reference to his
railroad tax bill, or Of having to raise
$1,000 to $1,000 to get his own bill
through. The defense did not cross
examine him. II. e. Akely, the we'll.
known lumberman, was mex,
called to the stand. His tes-
timony was in direct contradiction
OF what Markham had testified to.
He stated that the defendant on the day
in question did come to his Office in the
Lumber Exchange, aud did say to him
that Brown, the surveyor general. was