188 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



On January 17, 1905, Senator Mitchell rose in the Senate to a 

 question of personal privilege, and made an eloquent denial of all the 

 charges against him.^* "I assert in the most positive and unqualified 

 manner," he said, "that each and every one of these charges, in so far 

 as they relate to or involve me, are absolutely, unqualifiedly and atro- 

 ciously false, and I here and now indignantly and defiantly denounce 

 their authors, and each and every one of them, and brand them pub- 

 licly as malicious and atrocious liars. I challenge them to produce any 

 evidence, other than that of condemned thieves, forgers and perjurers, 

 to sustain any such charges." The gray-headed senator seemed to 

 command a great deal of sympathy at the time, for the presiding 

 officer threatened to clear out the galleries before the applause could 

 be stopped. Within six months, however, Senator Mitchell was con- 

 victed and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine of $1000, 

 after his law partner. Judge Tanner, had perjured himself in an 

 attempt to shield him.®^ 



Three of the four men representing Oregon at Washington were 

 indicted in connection with these frauds, and the other one. Senator 

 Fulton, would have been indicted, it is said, had not the statute of 

 limitations run against his offense.^*^ Two of them, Senator Mitchell 



64 Cong. Bee, Jan. 17, 1905, 959. 



«5 Report, Sec. of Int., 1906, 30. Senator Mitchell's conviction was accomplished 

 only after one of the finest chains of circumstantial evidence was forged about 

 him. Judge Tanner, in Mitchell's defense, produced a contract between himself and 

 Mitchell bearing date of 1901, in which it was agreed that Mitchell should have his 

 salary, get one half of the proceeds of law cases, but that he would accept no fees 

 for appearing before the departments in legitimate matters affecting his con- 

 stituents. The watermark on the paper on which this contract was written was 

 "Edinample." The Government showed that no sample of this paper had appeared 

 on the Pacific coast until 1903. It also showed by the color of the ribbon of the 

 typewriter on which it had been written that it was not in existence before 1903. 

 Furthermore, the contract had three words misspelled — "legitimate," "salary," 

 and "constituents." When Tanner's son was asked to write a sentence containing 

 these words he made the same mistakes. Then he broke down and admitted that he 

 had "faked" the contract of 1903, and said that department fees, instead of being 

 the property of his father, were the property of Senator Mitchell. {Outlook, Feb. 

 23, 1907, 427 et seq.: Puter and Stevens, "Looters of the Public Domain," Ch. 

 XIII.) 



^^ Report, Sec. of Int., 1905, 27: Outlook, Feb. 23, 1907, 427 et seq.: Collier's 

 Weekly, Apr. 4, 1908, 13. Regarding Senator Fulton, the following excerpt from 

 Roosevelt's "Autobiography" seems worth quoting: "The other case was that of 

 Senator Fulton of Oregon. Through Francis Heney I was prosecuting men who 



