Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 6, 1903)
;'' f - B K I eum that ho did not care t accept. At Mr. Bry- ' au's Biiggestion tho money vt'as given to Mrs. Ben nett in trust for him instead of being given direct to him, and that provicion is now being con tested by tho widow and other residuary legatees. If tho sum had been given directly, as -Mr. Ben nett intended when ho proposed it, there would bo no ground for contest, but an" attempt is being mado to -take advantage of the indirect form of.. the bequest. If the $50,000 clause is invalid as a trust, ' one-half of the sum will go to Mrs. Bennett, one-fourth to Mr. Bennett's sister, and one-fourth to Mr. Bennett's half-brother these being the residuary legatees. . . Tho contest was not mentioned to Mr. Bryan , until nearly two months after the death of tho testator, and tho widow and heirs were at onco informed that Mr. Bryan would not accept tho mcmey without tho widow's consent, but that in. case of objection from her, he would distribute tho sum. according to the expressed wishes of Mr. Bennett. While tho question involved in tho case Is purely a legal one, and a very technical one at that, namely: whether under the Connecticut de cisions tho will and tho letter together establish & trust, yot hostile newspapers, for political pur poses, have sought to attack Mr. Bryan's connec tion with tho will as viewed from tho standpoint of morality. It has been charged that Mr. Bryan is trying to cheat a widow and other relatives put of their rights. Now, what are the facts? Ac cording to the will the widow is to receive $76, 000 as a specific bequest, and as residuary legatee is tb receive an additional sum estimated by Mr. Bennett at $25,000. This Mr. Bennett declared in his letter to her would give her a larger income than she could spend and enable her to make bountiful provision for those whom she desired to remember in her will. Mr. Bennett's sister is toi. receive a specific bequest of $20,000, and. her part in the residuary sum is estimated at $12,500. The' 'sister's only daughter received "a specific be-l-questvof $1,000. A half-brother, is to receive. .a specific bequest of $12,500, .and his part in the residuary sum is estimated at $12,500, while his wife received a specific bequest of $3,000 $161,500 thus going to the persons who are contesting the will. Tho sum left to Mr. Bryan, on condition that ho would accept it, was not taken from any- of the relatives nor are they the poorer for his .be ing named'' in the -will. If the sum had not been given to him, the testator would have distributed it among public institutions. Mr. Bennett made it clear in his will and in his letter to his wife that he. had given to his relatives all that he intended them to have. That he acted within his legal rights in not giving all of his money to his rel atives is not disputed; whether he treated his rel atives fairly or not is a question which he could depido . better than anyone else, because no one know as well as he the relations existing be tween him and his kinfolks or could estimate as well as he the use they would make of money left to them. Tho unfriendly newspapers have also inti mated that Mr. Bryan secured tho bequest by ex erting an undue influence over Mr Bennett. This would be a serious charge if true, but the evidence shows that Mr, Bennett traveled fifteen hundred miles on his own initiative for the purpose of hav ing tho will drawn and that tho proposed bequest came as a surprise to Mr. Bryan. The evidence also shows that tho will, while drawn in Nebraska, '- was executed in the city of New York at least two days after Mr. Bennett had departed from Nebras ka. Mr. Bennett, after executing the will, deposited it in a vault Jn New York where it lay for,, more Jthan three yearsMr. Bennett alone having a key to the vault-box. Curing this period Mr. Bennett referred to tho will but once by letter (the letter will be found quoted in the argument) and never otherwise so far as Mr. Bryan can recall. Dur 4ng that period of more than-three years Mr. The Commoner. Bryan did not see Mr. Bennett more than .two, or three times a year on an average, while Mr. Ben nett was with his wife constantly and wjth hia relatives frequently No one can say with any truth that injustice is being done to the widow : or relatives, neither can it be doubted that Mr.; Bennett's act was freevoluntary arid deliberate. The only question of a moral character which can arise is: Should Mr. Bryan haver given a con ditional acceptance (as he did) to ttfe proposed bequest, dr should he have refused it absolutely? To decide this question , Intelligently the reader must .know all the facts, and thoso that would assist one in reaching a decision are presented herewith: ' Mr. Bennett, a childless man, had by his .in dustry, . ability and integrity accumulated- a. for tune of about $300,000 $100,000 more than he desired to leave to his widow and relatives; he 'was and had been tor, years deeply interested, in political questions and. earnestly devoted ta demr ocratic principles; after distributing $30,000 among educational institutions and giving more" than $20,000 1or other purposes of a public nature, ho set apart $ii0,Cu0 for the advancement of his po- litical principles through Mr. Bryan if the latter would accept it, otherwise tor educational and charitable institutions. Mr. Bennett knew that Mr. Bryan was devot ing his 'life to the study and discussion of ques tions of government and was endeavoring to 'se cure the triumph of the political principles that were dear to Mr. Bennett's heart; MVr Bennett knew that Mr. Bryan, becau's'oZof . his. presidential campaign, was in position to labor in a wider field than Mr. Bennett could hope to do although Mr. Bryan could not surpass' him ' in tseal or. earnest ness; ' Mr. Bennett also knew that Mr.. Bryan's political work not only placed him under obliga tions that compelled a large annual outlay of money, if accepted. by jfa 3r yan, 'woifidr enable the latter to devote a larger part of his time' to unremunerative latiof of a public character. Was it, under the circumstances, wrong for Mi Bryan to accept the bequest conditionally? .'. Since 189G' Mn Bryan has given nearly . as much, if not quite as much, time to work''7 that brought no compensation as to work 'for which fie received pay, cnd a. large parf of his expense ac count is .chargeable to the public nature of his work. During the nearly seven "years1 that, have elapsed since 1896, he has given in cash more than $20,000 to political organizations and more than $12,000 to education charity and. religion, while his net savings amount to something like $45,000, more than half, of which, sum is invested in his home and household goods and is therefore not income-bearing. With the e::eption of -the campaign year of 1900 and the war year of 1898 .(during nearly half qf 1898 he was in the army), there has not been a year since 1896 when he could not have mado more than the Bennett bequesfc had he abandoned political questions and . devoted himself entirely to money-making. His failure to make as much as he might have mado !' is. not 'a matter of regret to him, because he has derived more satisfaction from his political work than ho could have done from a course which, however remunerative, would have-, taken him away from the consideration of public questions, but reference is .made, to the matter for ..the pur pose of showing why Mr. Bennett desired to -make . this bequest and why Mr. Bryan Jelt constrained', to accept it on condition that he needed it' at the time of the testator's death... Before there was any intimation of a con test, Mr. Bryan had notified Mrs. Bennett of his. intention to regard the sum as a fund for the pay ment of work to bo. dqno for the public, his plan being to deliver without compensation enough lectures in collego towns to make up the sum of $50,000 at the price which he usually receives'from 0LUME 3, NUMBER 1 '... lecture bureaus, and this plan will be cam, whether the money is received or not bee V Bennett did hiS part, and if the b?2 Will not be through any fault of thell Mt If the readers of The Commoner are surl that Mr, Bryan's savings have not SffJ more during the last seven years, they nuBt ? Member that the republican papers have had political motive for attempting t3 exaggerate hi, income and ,us possessions, The Commoner its! has been described asTa bonanza, whereas owin to the low subscription nrice and tho vi..Mi . trust advertisements and other objectionable ad. vertising, the income from the paper has been considerably below what it might have been had it been run with an eye single to proQt. During the nearly three years covered by the existence o! the paper, Mr. Bryan has not felt justified in drawing put more than r.'bout $5,000 a year, the balance being held in The Commoner's reserve fund as a guarantee that each subscriber will rc ceive his paper during the period covered by tho subscription. . '. As Mr.. Bryan stated in the argument beforo the court, fie has no choice left him but to carry out he wishes of the testator even though to do so he must come into conflict with the relatives of the deceased and with an. attorney who is not in sympathy with the political views held by Mr, Bennett- while he "lived and. still entertained by, Mr. 'Bryan. . ' ' ' " ' t ...' JJJ Weary Republican Editors. . : The St. Paul (Minn.) Dispatch is a republican paper. The Dispatch seems, however, to have . grown weary of the methods employed by re publican leaders in the treatment of the tariff quostiqn. ,In aTrecent editorial, the Dispatch, re- j ferring to one of Secretary Shaw's addresses in Ohio, says that- ..the portion of his remarks sent out in the tress Teports contain ''nothing but arguments- that have been worn threadbare." According to tho Dispatch, Mr. Shaw "stands with, the ultras and irreconcilables. He heckles the, old home market straw again as if it made a particle of difference where on this globe men ate." , The Dispatch points, put that "m uths must be filied whether they open in Austria, Italy, or Germany and no law yet. -has been found to pre vent steady multiplication, of. these entrances to hungry stomachs. Whether the bread made from wheat, grown in-Minnesota 'Is -eaten in the United States; the United Kingdom-or on the continent, " affects not a penny the prices the farmer who raises tho wheat gets for it Time was when farmers thought it did. That;day is about passed." The Dispatch explains that it is inclined to credit Secretary Shaw with a desire to protect the' "great basal industries of the country from the reactions, of crazy speculators first upon the banks and then upon business.'? But the Dispatch says Mr. Shaw's 'course lays him open to tho charge now being made by the opposition press that he merely sought to save the speculators from the consequences of their own folly; that Mr. Shaw accepted state and city bonds for de posited securities; segregated internal revenue by a trick in bookkeeping; aejd it out of the treas ury whence under the constitution It could only be drawn by appropriation-; refunding maturing bonds, prolonging debt and Interest paying. " The Dispatch declares: "Only a tariff laid for other ends than revenue could crea'o conditions which would render such financiering possible. And that tariff the secretary holds unimpcacn- able; a veritable bull Apis whjch no unsanc tilled hand must profane. He thus leads the justification of his actions to the suspicion that he was more interested in the Street than the people." And then this republican paper, in a hurst o candor, says: "Thus the republican party, dom inated by the beneficiaries of special PrivIleJ Is compelled to lose an -opportunity to close -,, u