Arizona republican., 1905-06-28
Mitchell Did not Raise His
 Voice in His Behalf
A NEGATIVE DEFENSE
He Had on Other Occasions Refrained From Committing Crimes Similar tO That now Charged - The Case Will Go to the Jury Today.

Portland. Ore, June 27-United States Senator Mitchell did not bear testimony for himself in his struggle
 for honor and perhaps for liberty in the land fraud cases. The long trial has practically come to-a close. The court room was crowded today when the session opened. many being drawn by
 the story that today the aged senator
 would take the stand and, by his own
 words, attempt to disprove the testi-
 mony of his former partners, Judge A. H. Tanner, and of his former private secretary, Harry C. Robertson. But all these were disappointed and sur
 prised, for the case for the defense was rested within an hour after court had
 been called to order
 Only one witness was examined bv
 the defense, he being K A. Martin of
 Portland, who testified that he had
 asked the senator to secure the
 establishment of harbor lines several
 years ago in order that a wharf might
 be constructed. The senator did as re-
 quested and refused all compensation
 for his efforts. Ali of the evidence fn-
 troduced by Senator MitcheITs attor-
 ney has been in this line and though it
 was held to be immaterial by the court.
 was allowed by the prosecution until
 this morning when MT. Heney began to grow restive. as did the court, and the defense gave over further effort and rested its case.
 Senator Thurston addressed inc court in an argument as to the instruc- tions to be given to the jury when the case was sent to them. He contended that the indictment alleged that money had been paid to the senator by Fred A Kribs and argued that the proof showed that the checks had been given to Tanner, who, in turn sent the checks to Mitchell, thus preventing any knowledge on the part of the defend l ant as to the source of his dividends paid him by the firm.
 The defense claimed a close simi- larity to the case of Senator Burton of Kansas. and maintained that while the Indictment charged the direct receipt Of money from Kribs by Mitchell the most that could be shown was the in direct receipt of money from bank > and that while the indictment alleged the receipt of checks. this did not oc- cur, as the checks were purchased by the bank and the money later indirect ly received by Mitchell was not Kribs' money, but that of the bank District Attorney Hcney maintained that the indirect receipt of the money was all that was contemplated by the statute.
 Attorney A. S. Bennett wanted Judge DeHaven to instruct the jury that in case it was shown that Mitchell had received money without knowing it wss acquired. a later knowledge of this by the defendant could not lay him open to q charge of crime.
 Mir. Heney presented the case of the prosecution to the jury in an argu- ment extending over two hours He said it was the duty of the jury to de- eide the case on it's merits and upon -he evidence, irrespective of the age or position in the life of the defendant dis regarding the tears of grown men and -he sophistry of the speeches made md to be made by the attorneys for he defense. Throughout the argument he speaker made no attacks upon MT Mitchell but followed the evidence as t had been presented. He made no ef- 'ort at Reclamation but his remarks were forceful. clear and brought up in vivid array the evidence gathered by he government and upon which the prosecution based it's hope of convic- ion.
 Judge Bennett and Senator Thurston will present arguments for the defense : tomorrow and it is expected that the 'ase will go to the jury early in the fternoon.