Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-06-24
EVIDENCE AGAINST
SENATOR MITCHELL
All Day Losg Prosecution Was
Introducing Document After
Document,
MONOTONY BROKEN But ONCE,
Was Nh'n Court Rulcd II Vas Proper
10 Show That Defendant had Ac
ccp,gd Fees In similar Cases,

Portland ur June 3.-judgo Az
bent II Tanner chief witness for the
prosecution / nthc case Of the United
states against United states senator
MiJoholl occupied the witnoswstond all
of today The direct examination was
concluded late THE afternoon after
which court WAS adjourned lil lomor.
row when the defense win begin lts
rloswcNnmnutium
only once loduy did anything occur
10 break tine monolonous plng up "
documentary evidence by the proscou-
ton This was when the court ruled
that % was proper 10 introduce eyl.
donco loudiug TO show that senator
Mitchell had knowingly acopoDod fees
IN other but similar cases to the one
at Issue for the purpose Of proving T.
hack Of probability that AN acceptance
NJ a fee IN the ease nj ISSUE had been
by madyorlcnco or carclcssncss,
The disagreement arose over the Of
lor of a letter ana testimony from
Judgc Tanner showing that Tanner
ana Mitchell had made an agreement
WIN the krlbs 10 expedite certain
claims IN December 1903 The defense
objected on the ground that the agree
men. came outside of those alleged In
The indictment II such evidence was
admitted the defense argued, II would
force senator Mitchell without notice
Ia dlspruyp allegations not sct forth In
the Indictment ON which no was bee
lng tried I'M other words, hy trying him
for mlsdomcunors Of witch he Is not
accused
Mr. llonoy cOntondcd that The rules
OF evidence admitted such testimony
IN certain cases az tending u prove
knowledge ana intent where ~ lack
WAS set out ~ u defense, ns In this
case one Offonsr, continued Mr. lio-
ncy, might perhaps be an accident ar
an inadvorloncc but with the Increase
Of similar onenscs, said the district at.
lorncN the probability OF lack NJ
knowledge decreased. The court held
Win Mr. Honey ana as u result the
testimony Of Judge Tanner was adj
mlttcd IN relation to the work done for
Henson ana hyde Of California, ", u,
Burke uf eastern oregon and lee
Sue, q Portland Chlnaman, ms well as
other transactions before the depart
menl of commerce ana labor, In all OF
which n was cOnlondcd, that Mr.. Nit
chcll had received his share NJ the fees
paid,
The Introduction and identification by
Judge Tanner of documentary evidence
continued throughout the entire day
Letter after letter, and telegram after
telegram, which had passed between
Senator Mitchell and Judge Tanner
were offered IN evidence despite the
efforts OF the defense 10 stem this Hood
Az, according 10 the government. res
lated 10 transactions alleged to have
been carried on In part by senator Mil,
chcll In Washington mainly hNorc
the general land office In relation 10 the
krbs claims They comprised mNrlic,
lions ana suggestions sent by Jndgc
Tanner, lists of lands references 10
the fees 10 be received and deposit
slips sent by Tanner 10 Mitchell
In some Of the letters the senator
asked II hls name had been used In
nllng the papers, warning the Judge
mat he could not appear M an attorney
before any ~ the government depart.
monts, In otherN, Tanner referred 10
the matter stating that he had not
allowed the senator's name 10 be plHc.
I'd to any papers \ letter from Tan.
ncr 60 his partner told Of conyorsa.
ton had with Benson, who was thon In
Portland, In which he had cautioned
Benson that the senator could not he
known IN any Of the transactions. At
hnlf.past the seemingly endless sun.
ply OF documents came to an end, and
Mr. lienoy announced that the govern.
mrnt had finished with the witness.
Atlor court had adjourned Mr. lloncy
shld thnl he expected the government
would complete ~ case late Monday
afternoon,