Page:Looters of the Public Domain.djvu/174

 Walter Holt, of Wells-Fargo Bank, Portland, identified the certificate of deposit for $250 issued by the bank in favor of Mrs. Emma L. Watson, and indorsed by her to Heidecke.

P. E. Snodgrass, Cashier of the First National Bank, of Eugene, told about the transaction between Hower and McKinley, at which time the George A. Howe claims were given as security for the loan. Snodgrass also related the substance of a conversation occurring between himself and McKinley, wherein the latter's representations regarding the value of the lands was made the basis for the loan of $2100.

At this point Mr. Heney announced that the Government rested its case. He had two more witnesses, he said, both of whom were absent, George Sorenson being reported at Duluth, Wis., while Thomas R. Wilson, the Walgamot witness, was alleged to be too ill to attend the Court proceedings.

Counsel for the defense held a brief consultation as soon as the prosecution rested, after which it was announced that they would introduce no evidence in the case. This move was a great surprise to everybody, as it had been confidently expected that a vigorous defense would be made, quite an array of witnesses having been summoned for that purpose.

At the beginning of the trial, the defense had entered the Court room fully confident that a complete line of defense would be established against anything the Government might present; but as the case progressed, however, it soon became apparent that Montague and Heidecke had turned traitors, which presented a different phase of the situation, with the result that we found ourselves without a peg to stand on, and were obliged in consequence to pin our faith to the belief that whatever judgment of conviction the jury might return could be overcome on appeal to the higher Court.

At the afternoon session, just before the commencement of arguments, the second great surprise of the day occurred when Claude Strahan, a local attorney, arose and said:

"I appear for Defendant Frank H. Walgamot, and at this time I desire to withdraw his plea of not guilty, and substitute therefor a plea of guilty!"

"Is that your wish, Mr. Walgamot?" inquired Judge Bellinger, addressing the alleged trapper.

The defendant arose slowly to his feet with downcast eyes. He did not want to see his fellow-defendants, nor gaze into the eyes of the Court or spectators. Shamefaced and crestfallen, he had lingered until the last minute in the hope that something might develop to turn the tide. But he realized that there was no escape, hence was ready to beg for that mercy which the other defendants, in their loyalty to each other, had scorned to accept.

"I do," he said, with quivering voice.

"What is your plea? asked the Court.

"Guilty!" he whispered, as he sank temporarily into his seat, and then slunk from the Court room under cover of the further proceedings, and was seen no more. It is quite evident that Walgamot's plea came at an opportune moment, as he has never been sentenced, and there is not much likelihood that he will ever be called upon to face any further punishment for his misdeeds.

The sensational incidents of this episode had hardly died away when Mr. Heney arose and produced one of even greater magnitude.

"Your Honor," he said, addressing the Court; "I have long followed the rule in prosecuting not to ask a jury to return a verdict of conviction in a case where I could not conscientiously go into the juryroom and vote the same way myself. I feel that the Government has failed to make out a case against Marie Ware under the terms of this particular indictment, and have therefore to request

that the jury be instructed to acquit her of" this charge." Judge Bellinger assured Mr. Heney that he felt the same way in regard to Miss Ware's complicity in the 11-7 frauds, and indicated an intention of instructing the jury in accordance with this view of the situation. Page 168