Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-04-11
CROSS-ExAMiNATION ENDED
United States Attorney Concludes In
terrogating Defendant.
BUSINESS OF THE LAND OFFICE
Signature to Vouchers for Subsistence
Expenses While on Trips.
to the West.

Shortly after - o'clock this afternoon
United States Attorney Baker concluded his
| cross-examination Of former Representa-
tive Binger Hermann. and the defense i'm
mediately took the witness for redirect
testimony. Mr.. Hermann has been in The.
witness chair during the major portion OF
| the past seven days of the trial. Ii had
been promised the case would go to the
| jury by the end of this week but il Is now
evident 1T will run we'll into next week
The only reference in the concluding q,,cs-
tons of cross-examnation to the specific
charge against Hermann, that he de
stroyed thirty-five letter press copy books
was contained In Mr.. Bakers queries
| whether the defendant regarded official
his conversations about maps status of
cases. etc, particularly during his vacation
trips to Oregon in the summers of 1897 1895
1899. 1909 1901 and 1902. The defendant
said he held that any conversation bearing
| upon the business of the land office was
official
The subject of the telegram to F. p MAYS
July % 1902. arose again at the opening OF
court this morning. United States Attorney
Baker continuing his cross-eXaminatIon by
asking Hermann about the incident of the.
meeting, already frequently described. With
Messrs. Rittenhouse. Muller and Hough Ia
a restaurant in Portland
As to Real Purpose.
Was not your real purpose in question
| ing Rittenhouse and Hough about the pos
sible preservation of their stenographic
note books to discover whether they might
| have copy of that telegram to Mays"
Mr.. Baker queried
1T was not the defendant declared and
I wish to make the statement as strong as
human language will permit"
Were you not indicted in Oregon in the
Puter-WatSOn case and again in the Blue
Mountain case?'
Attorney Worthington arose to object but
before the objection was fully uttered MI.
Hermann had admitted the existence Of the
Oregon indictments. The defendant was
then required to traverse in detail the pas
sage through the land Office OF the Puter-
Watson III cases and explain his ac-
ton in having the matter taken up for
special action at Senator Mitchelrs re
quest.
Did you make special any of the F. A
Hyde land selections upon request OF Sen
ator MITCHELL" the prosecuting attorney
asked
Il do not recall Hermann said and 10
that answer he chung in spite of a verltable
bombardment Of varlously phrased ques-
tons.
did you not go to the Office of Britton
d Gray, local attorneys, and say to Mr..
Britton you wanted HIM to come here and
swear that you initiated the suspension OF
the Hyde-Benson entries In December.
1902. and didn't he say he could not do It
because it was not sO?"
Not precisely as you have related 1t,
Mr.. Baker, but can narrate that CONVEX
sation."
Several other queries OF similar import
followed. but the defendant replied, II
cannot recall .
You know Harry c. Robertson"
Yes"
Appointed Session Clerk.
and you had him appointed session
! clerk at the Capitol during the short
CT 81 hafar
| pointed commissioner"
Yes
"Wnat division of his salary with your
| self did you requre?'
mo division whatever"
Objection was made by Attorney Worth
ington, but it was subsequently withdrawn
and United States Attorney Baker asked the
following question:
Did you not go along with Robertson
| each month when his salary due, and
did you not take out $50. give that to him
and etain the balance?"
Mr.. Hermann launched into detailed
explanation. but Justice Stafford required
that he answer the question propounded.
Il cannot recall" he then said. 1T was
not just as you state it. because part Of
Robertson's salary went to pay another
young man who came to my home three
nights each week to take long hand bust
ness"
What was his Nance?
James. l do not remember his full
Where is he now"
Dead"
what proportion of Robertson's salary
went to pay James salary?
Il do not recall, but my impression is he
was paid much less than Robertson.
Was not Robertson paid s7Go for the
short session, $3.50 per month";"
II do not recall.
United States Attorney Baker also aues-
toned Hermann closely to whether No
did not demand the usual divvy' from
Robertson from the extra months salary.
$780, granted Robertson and all other
sion clerks by Congress.
Hermann could not recall whether por-
ton of the extra month was due James or
not
Defendant was also interrogated regard
ing his various vacation trips and whether
he did not receive the regular So per diem
from the government when he was visiting
his home in ROseburg, Oregon Mr.. Her
mann insisted he was transacting official
business commissioner OF the land office
nearly all the time during his trips west
Vouchers were introduced In evidence to
show payments made to Hermann covering
the periods of his absences from Washing
ton.
Two Witnesses Recalled.
Interrupting the redirect examination of
Mr.. Hermann, The defense recalled two
witnesses who desired to return to their
homes without further delay. Charles
Chaffee. president Of the First National
Bank Of Rhinelander. Wis. testified that
he paid 8. A. ID. Puter 5000 In the early
winter Of 1901, payment being ordered
through their correspondent. the First Ma
tional Bank of Milwaukee. On cross-exami-
nation Mr.. Chaffee recalled having paid
Puter $500 In cash short time before the
larger transaction.
Charles Chase, cashier of the First Ma
tional Bank of Milwaukee stated the pay
ment to Puter of 1900 was made by draft
on the First National Bank of Chicago the
draft being cashed through the Continental
Bank of Chicago
Mr.. Hermann then took the stand and
under questioning by Attorney Worthfngton
said that while receiver of the Roseburg
land Office he purchased about 1900 acres
of government land which had been on the