The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, November 06, 1903, Page 5, Image 5
T'" "' - lOVEMBER 6, 1903, Rp1V!ifll"wil"rfjrT,s' minion, four years later. The solid nrR nf the oast and all the wealth of thn nonntrv hav ever since the canvass opened, concealed the truth end deceived tn$ people regarding the whole ques tion. They have succeeded in making 9K rr nnnt of them believe that If you are elected the coun try will he governed by a lawless, disorganized ;moD. ii you are eiecieu, i trust that you will, flS SOOn aS VOIl Ctn. Igttlia a Wtnr fir mnlrn a 'speech assuring1 them that tho great body of the people are uonesc ana can oe trusted. "This letter is Intended for onlv vnnrsolf nnd wife to ever see. A- feeling of gratitude for what YOU have done ID this nanvasH fnr lmmanttv fni. t; right and justice, prompts me to write and make this offer.1' ... I do not care to read it all,' but I want to read enough to show, not only that his interest commenced before I knew him personally or in timately, but because T want, tn ahnvff nnrm wlmf I foundation his interest rested, and he says, "This letter is mienaea lor only yourself and wife to ever see." Counsel for r.onlstnntR oonm to tr,ir I that it Is a strange thing that there should 1)0 any secrecy anout tins; seems to think that when a will was made, it ought to have been made at a public meeting and everybody invited in. That is not the way wills are usually made, nor is it the way kindnesses am nmmliv vmrtovnA rmm. f sel for contestants seem to think that Mr. Ben- uuu. uugoc -o nave puoiisnea a notice in the paper that he was going to do a certain thing in order that the world might know it. In this letter, written before I could have identified him on the street, he not only proposed this and gave his reasons for it, but expressed the wish that the letter should never be seen by anybody except myself and wife. The evidence also shows that a letter was written to him in reply and his sec ond letter shows that he answered a question that was put to him: "I have yours, dated the lfh. inst. I do not now and never have-owned a dol lar's interest in a gold, silver or any other mine, and do not expect to in this century." And the evidence shows that, before accepting the gift, I inquired whether he was cdnnected with any of the institutions in whose behalf they said we were making tho fight. We were making a fight in the Interests of bimetallism, and it was charged by the enemy that we were making it in the in terest of the mine owners. And when this man. proposed the gift, I asked, as his letter shows, whether ho was interested in the subject that was in controversy. The evidence shows that this acquaintance began then, and continued for four years; that at the beginning of the campaign, or just before the campaign of 1900, he wrote to me in Nebraska, and asked if I would be at home, and that in response to a litter that I would be, ho arrived there, and the testimony, so far as there is any testimony on the subject, and I re gret that I am tho only witness whose testimony I can comment upon, but it is the only testimony that has been produced on the subject, shows that he came and wanted to draw a will. Now, the gentleman speaks of my being a lawyer and I am obliged to him for the emphasis he lays on that fact. During the campaign he arid his friends declared that L was not a lawyer, that I could not succeed in the law; .and I am delighted now that, after mature reflection, my friend finds me to be a thoroughly competent lawyer. I understand the law fn regard to a lawyer's dealings with uis clients and am willing that ev ery presumption that can be inade against a lawyer dealing with his client shall be made against me in this case; but the fact is, and the evidence shows It abundantly, that the relation between Mr. Bennett and myself was not the re lation between lawyer and client There has been no evidence here to show that I was ever Mr. Bennett's lawyer, that he had ever consulted me on any point of law. Tho evidence, so far as our relation goes, shows that It was a political friendship, a personal friendship, ana, so far as it was a business friendship, he had made in vestments for me; but I am willing that you shall take it as he argues it, and place all the presumption against me as though I were his attorney, as though I. had been his counsel, as though I had -rawn all his legal papers for him, and as though he had come to my office at that time to have mo draw up hii will not as a friend, not as a near associate, not as a companion fighting for a common principle and for a com mon creed, but as a lawyer. I am willing that you shall assume that he came there as he would come to a lawyer. I am willing that you shall Place upon that letter and upon every act the harshest construction that you can place upon tho act of a lawyer. What Is the , testimony in this case? Is it that he desired to make that a direct gift? Coun- The Commoner. sel states that I was too good a lawyer to have it made to mo direct. I assert, and I know he knows it, that if it was mado to mo direct, ho never would have counseled a contest here. I torn him when ho suggested that gift (it was in the beginning of tho cumpalgn which I believed would In all probability result in my olectlon) that if that was tho result, I would not need It, and his answer was, that ho thought I would need it more than If I was defeated. I did not know then how soon ho might die. Ho was not an old man; he was not a frail man; ho was a man in tho vigor of life, and three years afterward, when by accident his life was ended he was still a man, strong and full of vigor, and there was no reason to beliove that death in his Qaso was immediate, and I told him thon, as tho testimony will show, that if, when the time of his death camo, I was In a position whore I did not need it, I did not want it. And thon ho in sisted that if, for any reason, I did not accept it, It should be given in these other ways. It is nothing taken from tho heirs In this case. Mr. Bennett, and no one can dispute these facts, Mr. Bennett gave to his relatives all ho in tended they should have, and when I suggested tuat I might not use it, ho asked that it bo used in another way. The gentleman calls attention to these let ters. He uses language that I am sure ho would not use if there were not in his heart something that rankles worso than any opposition ho ever had before to a man in a law suit Ho says this letter is false; that It docs- not tell tho truth. These letters are In ovidenco and tho court can judge of them. Tho letter to Mrs. Bennett told her that this was for mo, and counsel asks: "Why wasn't it stated in there that part was for Mrs. Bryan?" In talking about this matter,, wo considered the family as one. He wants to know why it was that it was not stated that a part was for other members of the family instead of me. I hope that anyone talking to the judge about his family would not find it necessary to draw nice distinctions between Us welfare and the weir fare of his wife and children. This letter to Mrs. Bennett told her It was to go to me, and his let ter to mo told me what he wanted me to do. I was to keep $25,000 for myself, give $10,000 to my wife, and $15,000 to the children. Your honor, that which went to the family was as much to me as that which went to me, and that which went to me was as much to the family as that which went to the family. Mr. Bennett, in his letter to Mrs. Bennett, stated that it was given to enable mo to devote myself more freely to the work that he and I were interested in, but that this gentleman (Judge Stoddard) was not Interested in. He wants to know why this was not mado known, why it was not proclaimed, why it was kept from the members of tho family. Well, your honor, Mr. Bennett brought a will out with him and that will was used In the drawing of this will. If the judge had wanted to show that my connection with Mr. Bennett had led him to con ceal this will and its provisions it was in his power to prove that the other will had been made public thrqugh the papers and had been hawked around the streets and given to everybody whose name was mentioned in it. There was no evi dence to show that the other will with its pro visions covering relatives had been made known, and there is no rear:n that the judge can give why a reflection should bo cast on 'this will mere ly because its provisions were not made known. He says that i have no right to dispose of this money (intended for my wife and children) or to refuse to accept it, but that I have to act as trus tee. If he will read the letter, ne will find that It says that, It for i ay reason I shall refuse to re ceive this sum, or any part thereof, thct I shall bestow it in a certain way, or make such a dis tribution as he suggests. It is plain, It Is straight forward, and just as soon cs the death occurred, as soon as this letter became a material mat ter I brought the copies of the letters that he sent to me and presented them to Mrs. Ben nett, as the evidence will show. 1 presented them to Mrs. Bennett and she knew just as soon as the funeral was over, all that there was in this case. Could I have done that sooner? Had I any means of knowing whether a change had taken place in his mind in regard to that letter? The evidence shows that not from tho time the will was made was it referred to between us, except in the one case where he referred to it In the letter, a part of which I read here. The sug gestion that the presumption must bo against the attorney who draws the will is merely a presump tion that can be refuted by the facts. Now what were the facts in this case? That after the will was drawn the testator went back 1,500 miles to tho place of his business; at least two day elapsed, two days for1 contemplation, and two n ghts for rest, and thon 1.G00 miloj away from his beneficiary ho called in three witnesses, and asked them to witness his signature. He took it to tho notary public and ovsn had him acknowl edge It, and thon ho took It to a vault of his own selection, ho put it in that vault, and thcro for moro than threo years that will lay tmdor his control. No member of my family had a key to that vault. No member of my family had ever seen the vault No member of my family had any Influence over him during that time ex copt the influenco that friend had over friend; Three years and moro elapsed from the 22d day of May, 1900, to tho 9th day of August, 1003, and during all that tlmo, tho man visited his homo, visited his store visited his relatives, and all that tlmo that will remained. Was there undue influence In tho drawing of it? There ho had more than three years, 1,500 mllos away from mo, In which to think over It and to change it; and It was possiblo any day of all that time for him to have gono to tho vault and taken out his will and mado any chango in it that ho desired to make. And I might suggest now, since tho gen tleman has spokon of tho lniluenco that was brought to bear on Mm and has polished up his classic loro to show us that ho, too, has studied the history of decadent Rome I might remind him that that letter provided that wo should dis tribute tho $30,000 among colleges. If I had boon using undue Influenco, would I have JoBt tho op portunity to add $30,000 to tho $50,000 that he gave? If I had been seeking to get money from Mr. Bennett, would I havo advised him to give it to colleges and to help students and inspire them ,to tho study of tho science of government? If I may be permitted to go as far outside tho bounds of tho professional othlcs as my friend does In tho arguments, I might suggest that there is one provision in tho will that he hatci abovo all oth ers, not tho $50,000 to mo, but tho prizes in 25 colleges to young men to Inspire them to study the scienco of government If I had been simply interested in getting this money, would I have helped him to draw this will so that instead of keeping it for myself or family it should be thus given out and scattered thro;ghout this land to help tho students who are poor to obtain an edu cation, to help boys who arj poor, and girls who are poor? Would I have suggested to him that ho continue tho plan that I myself had started V And, your honor, if my interest in Mr. Ben nett was purely a pecuniary one, would I havo suggested to him that I would join him In con structing a library and linking his name with mine in tho most sacred project that I had con templated, tho building of a library upon tho site where I was born? To tho building of that library ho contributes $1,500, and I $1,500, and I in addition donate the site for the library. Now, then, this is what Is produced thus far In evidence. What is there here that need be concealed from tho public? And,' your honor, Judge Stoddard wants to know why I formed the opinion of him that I did, and I responded that his conduct from the time I first became ac quainted with him convinces me that there was more politics than law in this matter, and I be lieve that the only purpose was to hold before me tho threat that this would be brought before the public if I did not disregard the will of my friend. But he seems not to understand that the moment the question was raised In regard to that will, that I had more at stake than he or any person connected with this family and that if I had desired to make a compromise, I could not have done so. Why? Because the moment that will Is questioned, the moment my connec tion with it is questioned, I owed it to my good -name that all tho facts in connection with it should be mado public; and this court knows that when I was on the witness stand I asked my at torney not to object to any questions be might ask, asked that he might be allowed to ask any question that he liked whether it was relevant or irrelevant. Why? Because there is not one thought or word or purpose in that transaction between Philo Bennett and myself that I am ashamed to have known to the world. I am not ashamed to have it known that I was his friend and that he . was my friend, because he was devoted to the principles that I believe important and that ho believed Important; and when men, like my good friend (Judge Stoddard) were willing to desert the party, Philo Bennett dared social ostracism and business ostracism to be one of my electors in this state and this gentleman has no power at his command that is sufficient to make me fear to carry out the will of Philo Bennett and to help dispose of his property as he desired it disposed (Continued on Page 13.)