Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (April 22, 1904)
rynii, 05 -v The Commoner. APRIL 22, 190C 3 1' COMMERCIALISM AND MR. BRYAN ff N Immediately following will be found an edi torial which recently appeared under the abo;e title in the Record-Herald of Chicago. It has been impossible as well as useless to take notice of the many criticisms that have appeared in the moie partisan of the republican, papers and in those pa pers which, although calling themselves demo cratic, have been studiously and continuously at tacking all who remain true to democratic prin ciples. T3ut the Record-Herald is one of the fair est of the papers calling themselves independent, and for that reason I call the editor's attention to the facts. If he had said that my connection with the Bennett will case had given political enemies a chance to ' misrepresent me, I might have an swered that it is impossible to escape misrepre sentation, for whether I speak or remain silent whether I travel or remain at home no macter what I do, my action is made the basis of mis representation. I have grown accustomed to this, and it does not disturb me; But the criticism which, the Record-Herald makes, if well founded, is a serious one, because I cannot expect to ex ert an influence in behalf of moral principles if I can rightfully bo accused of conduct inconsistent with the doctrines which I advance in speech and through my paper. I cannot complain that "the public conscience has been stupifled by commer cialism" if I, myself, am guilty of any act which can bo criticised from the standpoint of morals. It is not necessary that one shall himself be blameless in order to criticise others, but it is necessary that he shall endeavor to make his life harmonize with his doctrines ' and be willing to correct his actions whenever he finds them to be at. variance with his utterances. As I desire not now only, but in all the yoais to come, to throw whatever influence I may pos sess upon the side of righteousness- in individual life as well as upon the "side of good government and purity in politics, the reader will pardon me for mentioning here enough of the facts con nected with the Bennett case to meet the criticism of the Record-Herald. TWhile the Becord-Herald does not specifically set forth the grounds of its criticism, a careful reading of the editorial indicates that it takes exception to three things first, to the 'act that I drew the will; second, to the fact that the be quest was made in an indirect form, and third, to the fact that I have taken an appeal to the Bupreme court. Let me take up these criticisms in the above order. First, as to the drawing of the will. The undisputed facts are that about the 10th of May, 1900, Mr. Bennett made a trip from New York to Nebraska for the purpose of having the will drawn. He brought with him a former will and certain memoranda, which were used in drawing tho new will. Ho did not discuss with me . the provision made for any of his relatives except the provision made for his wife and that was not a discussion, but merely a statement upon his pan that he had left her sufficient to cover all possible needsl , , TTe did not consult me as a lawyer, but came to me because he desired to leave some money to mo, and desired me to distribute an additional sum for him. I had never been his attorney and never discussed any legal question with him, but I stated in -the probate court that I js perfectly willing to have any presumption weighed against me that could be invoked against me had I been his attorney and had I drawn the will torWm his attorney: After making such, Pulsion for his family ana relatives as he desired to make , he wanted to use certain oher sums for the 'advance ment of his political views and for educational and charitable purposes. These -purposes were set forth in the will and the sealed letter and I they were the only purposes about which he consulted me. The first question is, therefore, should I have declined to assist in fsf Should I have sent him back to New York to have the will drawn by someone else? Was the draw ing of the will by me immoral, or did it in any. waymanifest a "commercial spirit? rrhe will was not executed in Nebraska It was carried back to New York and executed there ten days later. Mr, Bennett was fifteen hundred miles away from me when he summoned the wit nesses and executed tho will, wrote tho sealed let ter, and -put both away in a safe deposit vault or his own selection where they remained under his control until his" death, more than three years afterwardgj . . , The prdbato judge, a republican, after hearing the testimony, declared that the circumstances ot tho case fully and completely rebutted any pre sumption arising from the fact that I am by pro fession a lawyer, t As to tho second question. Tho sealed lottor was excluded by the probate court not because of any undue influonce in" the making of tho will, but on tho legal ground that it was not sufficient ly identified by the will to bo made a part of it. It is my fault that the bequest was not made di rect, and I explained in court tho reason for sug gesting tho indirect form. I did not care to ac cept the gift unconditionally. I preferred to leavo the matter to be decided at tho time of his death. Tho will was made just boforo the opening oi tho campaign of 1900, and at a time when my re nomination was certain. I tpld him that I did riot caro to accept the money unless I needed it, and that I would not need it if, as then seemud probable, I should bo elected. I did not care to have my name appear in the will if I did not oc cept.the money, and at my suggestion it was made to tho wife in trust, and the terms of tho trust were set forth in the sealed letter. m Was it Immoral to accept the bequest con ditionally instead of unconditionally?, Did it be tray a "commercial spirit" to put the matter in. the hands of the wife, instead of making it direct, as in tho other cases? Can either Mr. Bennett or I be accused of unfairness to the wife in making the bequest in the form in which it was mado? When I objected to receiving it as a direct and unconditional bequest, he stated how ho desirod it disposed of in case I refused to receive it. Tho alternative plan was that it should bo distributed by me among educational and charitable institu tions, and this alternative provision was clearly set "forth in the sealed letter, (written with his pen). which was left with the will. The third question relates to the appeal. Tho will and the sealed letter taken together set forth the testator's purpose clearly and unequivocally, and no one who knows the facts in the case can doubt for a moment that I am endeavoring to car ry out the will of the testator.j I stated both in the probate court and in tho circuit court that not a dollar of this money will be used by my self or' by my family without the consent of the widow. Tho case can bo disposed of any moment if the widow and heirs will agree that the $50,000 shall be distributed among educational and char itable institutions. I know, and everybody knows who understands tho facts in the case, that Mr. Bennett wanted this money distributed in this way if I did not receive it for myself and family. The trial judge excluded the sealed letter and all testimony in regard to the testator's purpose in making the will. If I were considering merciy my own convenience I would not contest tho case at all, for in contesting it I am spending time and money without any probability of pecuniary re turn to myself. I am doing it because I could not do less and be true to .the trust imposed upon mo by a friend. The question is not a settled one in Connecticut, and there is no way to settle it ex cept to obtain an adjudication of tho point by tho supreme court Is there anything immoral in leaving the question to the supremo court? Do I show a com mercial spirit in refusing to consult my own con venience in this matter? But the Record-Herald overlooks the ques tions which are really of greatest importance. The question of the making of the. will, since it involved no undue influence, was at most a mat ter of propriety and not a matter of morals, and the same is true of the form of the bequest if as it was in fact the desire of the testator to make the bequest. Likewise In regard to the appeal. It cannot be said to be immoral -for a contestant to take a question upon appeal to the highest court, especially when, as in this case, I hate tried in vain to consolidate the cases so as co occupy as little time and incur as little expense as possible. There are two questions, however, which involves moral principles, and if these could bo decided against me my conduct would be sub ject to just criticism. First, did the testator with my consent do injustice to his wife? It is not sufficient to say that he was the person i to decide that question. If, as a matter of fact he did not - make suitable provision for her, I could not throw the blame upon him if I should seek to carry out an unfair provision. But the facts in the case show that the provisions not only express his own wishes, but that in making the disposition he d d, he was within his moral as well as his legal rights. In S? Safe? letter he told his wife that he es thoated her bequest at $100 000, and'tbla he said would give her an income larger than she could Send, and enable her to make provision for those whom she desired to remember. The amount left to his wife will enablo hor to Hvo in tho tho samo stylo as during his lifo without exhausting hor an nual income. Tho income from $100,000 at 3 per cont will givo her more than half tho salary paid to sonators, members of congress and many other public officials. She has no children to provido for, and tho sum loft to her will enablo her to loavo to each of hor brothors $60,000, which is more than Mr. Bennett thought It necessary or wlso to leavo either to his slstor or to his half brother. Ho gave to his sister about $30,000 ami to his half-brothor (including his half-brothor's family) about $28,000, besides remembering other rplatlves. If It is true, as stated by him in tho . sealed letter, that hor incomo will bo more than -sufficient for hor needs, then any additional sum loft to hor would havo been loft not to hor, but to her relatives, unless she should dispose of it by will. Is there any reason why her relatives should receive moro? Or has she any better right to dis pose of it by will than ho had? Tho amount left to me conditionally would not havo gone to his wlfo or to his relatives had I rofused it at tho tlmo. It would havo been dis tributed among educational and charitable Insti tutions, but oven this fact would noroxcuso mo if I had accepted, oven conditionally, money which in morals belonged to somo one else. Can it be said, after full consideration of the circumstances In this case, that I was culpable from a moral standpoint in not Insisting when the will was mado that the amount proposed for me or to be distributed by me should havo been given to his wife or Jto his or hor relatives? But the questions which I havo considered bc- foro havo not, altogether, given mo as much con cern as tho last, and to my mind the most vital, of all tho questions in this case, namely, Should I havo consented to this bequest under any consider ation, not as a matter of expediency, but as a mat ter of morals? That "it is more blessed to give than to receive" is recognized by all who havo tried both. Instead of refusing tho bequest abso lutely it was at my request put in a form whoro tho decision could be postponed until the time of his death. In thus postponing to a future time tho decision pf tho question I acted upon what I believed to be satisfactory reasons. The campaign of. 189G had given mo a prominence which, whilo it greatly increased my earning power, imposed upon mo a largo additional expense. For ycais I had been interested in matters of government, and the campaign of 1896 placed mo in a position where I could not lay down the work without what seemed to me a betrayal of trust I could riot return to the practice of tho law without aban doning political work and ignoring a largo corre spondence. The field that seemed most suitable for tho work I wanted to do was the lecture field, because in it I could earn wljat I needed and still have' a large part of my time for public work. I found, however, that the fact that I received pay for lectures was misrepresented and distorted, and I not only reached a sraallor number through- my lectures than I could reach through public ad dresses, but the fact that I received money for lectures was made the basis' of tho accusation (en tirely false) that I received pay for political speeches. Mr. Bennett's purpose, as ho expressed it In the sealed letter," was to make such a provision for me that I could more freely devote myself to pub lic work so that I could do without compensa tion work for which I was then compelled to charge. During tho period between 1896 and the mak ing of the will, I devoted moro time to work which brought no remuneration than I did to re munerative work. There was not a year be tween tho two campaigns that I could not have made $50,000 had I devoted myself entirely to money making. As it was I had up to May, 1900, saved only about $25,000 or $30,000, and of thig about $6,000 was accumulated before tho cam paign of 1896 opened. "If at that time my healLh, had failed under the stress of my work, I wpu'd have had an income of less than a thousand dol larsa sum not half equal to the annual expense of my correspondence between, 1896 and 1900. When Mr. Bennett unexpectedly made thli propositon I considered It carefully, and felt that under the circumstances I was justified in accept- ing it conditionally. I regarded' it as an. insurance against financial embarrassment; in case of a possible break-down in health, and as an after thought wo added it was to be payable to my heirs in case of my death, it being to that extent a life Insurance policy and iayed me tho annual premiums on that amount Since the making ot ' (Continued on Pag 11.. .