With permission of the Court, Gentlemen: In a case like this, it is hard for jurors to divest themselves entirely of their relations, politically and socially, to parties, and come to the consideration of it as a dry question of fact under the instruction of the court.The petition that has been read to you selects from certain articles that were published during the political canvass last fall, three certain items of charges made against Mr. Kasson that it is supposed by Mr. Kasson and his friends cannot be proved. Why those three particular charges out of quite a number should have been selected and the others passed by, I do not know. Probably any one of the other charges damaged him as much as any one of these. But for some reason best known to the plaintiff, he has been willing to stand all the injury and all the damage they did; because he didn't care about having them investigated in court. (He has a right to pick out and say this one is not true, and the other is not true, I put you on the proof of this.) These three particular charges are set out, and they claim so much damages for saying these particular things about this particular individual. The answer I will read to you and then try to give you some idea of the evidence that will be introduced on the part of the defendants. [Here Mr. Nourse read the answer relating to the first charge, and continued.]The facts are, these articles were written by Mr. Savery, and published in theRegister, which was conducted and published by the defendants, Mr. R. P. Clarkson and Mr. J. S. Clarkson.[Reads from petition again, beginning with the words: "Now, sir, this was the way you played your hand."]Mr. Nourse continued: That is the answer we make to the first charge, relating to what is called the Smoky Hill route. I will say, in order that you may understand the evidence, and the facts in reference to that business, that Mr. Kasson was our member of congress in 1866, as will appear by the testimony, living and residing in this town, having for his colleagues Messrs. Price, Wilson, Allison, Judge Hubbard, and Mr. Grinnell. At that time one of the most vital questions to the people of Iowa, especially to the people of this congressional district, was whether or not the roads running east and west through Iowa should connect with, and become a part of the great Pacific route, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. Prior to 1866 congress had passed a law to aid the construction of the Pacific Railway. That law provided for several Iowa branches, and provided for a branch connecting with the St. Louis roads through Kansas, and provided that all these branches should unite at what is known as the one hundredth meridian, some distance west of Omaha. And a further provision in that bill was that the Union Pacific Railroad Company should build from the one hundredth meridian westward, meeting the road that should be built from California eastward. That was the Union Pacific Railroad proper. It will appear in evidence, gentlemen, that Mr. Kasson, up to the very moment, the very day and hour on which he gave this vote in congress, had publicly and privately expressed himself in favor of the Omaha route, and delivered a public lecture against the Smoky Hill route, and explaining to the people of this locality the great advantages they were to derive from being upon the main line of this great thoroughfare. It will further appear in evidence, gentlemen, that the Kansas company, with the Pennsylvania Central road—in combination with the St. Louis interests—devised a scheme, in the winter of 1866, whereby they proposed to make the Kansas road, connecting with St. Louis, the main branch of the Pacific road, and thus entirely defeat the building of the roads westward to the hundredth meridian, connecting with the Iowa roads. That was the scheme that was undertaken, and a bill having that object was rushed through the senate and came to the house of representatives, when Thaddeus Stevens took charge of it. The friends of the bill made a strong combination, refused to let it be referred to a committee, and refused even to allow it to be printed for the information of the house, and put it upon its passage under the spur and whip, crushed out debate, and crushed out explanation and discussion. Mr. Kasson was the only member of the house of representatives from Iowa that was permitted by Thaddeus Stevens, who had the floor, to occupy the time of the house, and to the surprise of everyone Mr. Kasson was found to have gone over to the enemy. We have the depositions of Hiram Price and James F. Wilson, and theCongressional Globethat will explain to you his false position. Mark the explanation Mr. Kasson attempted to make on the floor of congress. He based his defense simply on the claim that the Kansas branch road would make arival roadand afford competition.This, gentlemen, will appear in evidence when we come to investigate this matter. It does not answer the proposition and but for the fact that the money was speedily raised and the road built from Omaha to reach the hundredth meridian, before the Kansas branch got their road built there, we would have lost everything; we would have lost all that congress had granted to us, to build the road up the Platte Valley. This has been carefully concealed by Mr. Kasson in all his explanations and in all his discussions and he has, with his oily, deceptive subterfuges, tried to hide this enormity of his past life from his constituents. We hope, gentlemen, aided by the evidence of these members of congress, intelligent men, honest men, who have stood by the people of Iowa—we hope, with their depositions and the circumstances, and the evidence contained in theCongressional Globe, to show this matter up to you. We will prove to you by men who were on the ground that no sufficient motive could honestly have induced that man to have cast his vote in the way he did; that it was a surprise upon every intelligent man that knew what his pledges and promises and professions had been up to that time. Now, when this man offered himself as a candidate for congress last fall a year ago, one of the defendants in this case, who never was a candidate for office in his life, who had no interest in politics whatever, except as a citizen interested in our material interests, in our city, in our state, took the responsibility upon himself to ask Mr. Kasson through the public press to explain this, his extraordinary conduct and his treachery to his constituents; he got no answer except the insufficient one, the deceptive one, that Mr. Kasson wanted a rival railroad. Again, gentlemen, it will further appear in evidence that this was an additional subsidy of lands, that instead of connecting with the main line at the one hundredth meridian, this Kansas company was authorized to change its route and build the road to Denver, from Denver up to Cheyenne, and receive all the lands on either side of whatever route they may fix upon, and not requiring them to unite with the main line until they got fifty miles west of Denver. That they received on the line from Denver to Cheyenne the heart of the Territory of Colorado. That was a subsidy, and that the road got that subsidy, and that the parties who passed the bill undertook to deceive the members of congress in regard to it.Now, gentlemen, this is all there is on this first matter. This publication was made, public attention was called to the fact that one of our members of congress, when asked how he would explain Mr. Kasson's vote, said he didn't know; but he could have taken twenty-five thousand dollars for his vote. That statement was made public by Mr. Savery in this communication to the citizens of this congressional district. Now this is the first matter which Mr. Kasson has chosen to bring before you, and to make an issue, and claim for damages to his character. Now we cannot prove—Mr. Kasson knows—we have no facilities for proving who was around there, or what money they had, or the means by which that bill was passed by congress. We can show you, gentlemen, only this one thing, that as a citizen of Iowa and as a representative of Iowa he betrayed his constituents wantonly; that he was in a scheme in which there was money; that is all; that this communication was made to the public, stating the bare facts at a time when it was necessary for the public to know them and by a man who had no interest in maligning Mr. Kasson, or injuring him. Savery had no personal feeling, and had no personal animosity towards him, but he felt, as a citizen, some indignation towards the man for the course he had pursued in congress. So much, gentlemen, for the first charge that was made. You are to judge whether that communication at the time it was made, and under the circumstances it was made, was justifiable. You are to take all the facts, and all the testimony with regard to it. Now as to the second matter that is set out in the answer.Mr. Barcroft: Will you just tell the jury whether the bill that Mr. Kasson voted for under the Iowa Railroad were not built on the continuous line?Mr. Nourse: I have already stated, that but for the extraordinary efforts by which money was raised, and the road pushed to the hundredth meridian first and this scheme defeated, we would never have been on the main line. But no thanks to Mr. Kasson for it. We are on the main line because these men went to work with superhuman energy to get to the hundredth meridian first, and they got there first, and that is the reason we are on the main line. If we had not reached it before they did, we would not have had a dollar of money with which to have built our line, and the other would have been the main line. That is the fact as it will appear conclusively from the testimony in this case. Gentlemen, I invite your special attention to the second charge, for if I can succeed in getting the jury to understand this question it is the end of the plaintiff's case. Fortunately for us on this question we have pretty conclusive proof, and with all the gentleman's ingenuity and that of his counsel, he will not be able to escape. We will show you, gentlemen, that in the year 1868 the old Des Moines Valley Railroad Company had forfeited her rights to the grant of lands that had been granted to her in the year 1858, by reason of not building the road as the original act required. The people of Boone county were dissatisfied because the Des Moines Valley Railroad Company had surveyed their road west up by Grand Junction, instead of going up the Des Moines river. Mr. Orr introduced a bill called the resumption bill, No. 139, in the house of representatives. That bill was read the first and second times, was ordered to be printed, and was referred to the railroad committee, of which Mr. Kasson was a member. The railroad committee prepared a substitute for that bill, as is set out here, in which they provided for a release of the company from all forfeitures and still allow them to have the lands and to build their road upon certain terms and conditions, and reported that bill back to the house of representatives as a substitute for house file No. 139. That substitute, gentlemen, is in Mr. Kasson's own handwriting, and we will be able to produce it here and show you the bill as he reported it originally to the house of representatives.The records will show you, gentlemen, that after that bill came in, after this substitute was reported, Wilson of Tama county, with another gentleman constituting a minority of the committee on railroads, made a minority report in which they recommended what was called the "Doud amendment," or the Granger clause of that bill, in which they provided as set out in the answer: "that the company accepting the provisions of this act was at all times to be subject to legislative control." I will give you the very language of the amendment as it now appears in the law, so you may get the idea fully. [Reads.] "The company accepting the provisions of this act shall at all times be subject to such rules, regulations and rates of tariff for transportation of freight and passengers as may from time to time be enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa." The minority of the committee recommended that amendment, and it was adopted; and it was the only amendment that ever was adopted by the legislature.We will prove to you, gentlemen, that a forgery was committed, and the following words interpolated into that bill: "But the non-acceptance by the Des Moines Valley Railroad Company of this act shall not prevent all the foregoing provisions thereof from having the same operation and effect as if the same had been accepted by said company;" and we will prove to you that these words were agreed upon between Mr. Kasson and the railroad company's attorney, in a private room in the Savery House, and that he agreed to put them in the bill, and the attorney testifies that the provision escaped criticism. And this is the second charge: We charge him with so manipulating that bill as purposely to defeat the will of the legislature. That he did it fraudulently, and that he did it corruptly will be proved to you beyond a doubt; that this charge was made, honestly believing it to be true, in order that the people of this congressional district might know the character of the man that was asking for their suffrages. After he voted against Wilson's amendment, and failed to honestly defeat it, we are prepared to show that by an agreement between him and the general attorney of the road, he undertook to get this nullifying clause into the bill, and that he did get it in the bill, and that he did not get it there by the vote of the house.Mr. Barcroft: You do claim that you have any such allegation in your answer?Mr. Nourse: I claim that what we charge Kasson with was that he manipulated that proviso through the legislature, and we propose to prove it. We propose to prove that it camefrom himand originatedwith him. We may have other evidence on this point more full and complete that it is not necessary now to take the time to detail.The third specification, gentlemen, relates to the vote of Mr. Kasson and his conduct with reference to the C., R.I. & P.R.R. Co. And here, fortunately, I can say to you that we are not without direct and satisfactory testimony. We thought that we could prove that he had taken money on both sides from both parties in the case, but we haven't succeeded fully. We have evidence, however, of this state of facts: That Mr. Kasson in the early part of that session voted for a bill that had for its purpose and object the helping of Tracy, who was then the president of the road, to retain his power and his place as president, and to complete the road from here to Council Bluffs; that a bill for that purpose was passed in the early part of the session and approved on the 11th of February, and that Mr. Kasson voted for it. Thus far all was right. It will further appear by the evidence that the legislature had a recess of a few weeks after that, and that Kasson disappeared from here and turned up in Wall street, New York; that he was found in conference with the men connected with the Northwestern Railroad and who had bought up the stock of the Rock Island road, with a view of obtaining control of it, who were anxious to secure the repeal of the Tracy bill. We will prove to you that Kasson promised these men his influence to have that bill repealed; that he came back to Des Moines and was in conference with them, promising them his aid, that he subsequently changed his mind and abandoned them, that they didn't succeed; and that Mr. Tracy out of sheer gratitude, as Kasson claims, offered him five hundred dollars in money; that he (Kasson) took the money, but stipulated that it should be called a retainer.In his own deposition Kasson swears he got the money. But he says he didn't get the money until after the legislature adjourned, and when it was offered to him as a present, he said he couldn't accept of it unless it was offered to him as a retainer; and that Mr. B. F. Allen, who offered him the money, went away and came back again, and said that he could take it as a retainer; and that he supposed that Allen had seen Mr. Tracy. This is the way Kasson gets out of this. We will prove to you by Mr. Tracy that he never had retained Mr. Kasson, or authorized anybody else to retain him for the company; that he never requested Kasson to perform any professional services for that road; that he never performed any professional services for the road, and that he had been out of the practice of the law for years. It will further appear in evidence that Mr. Kasson has not practiced law since 1860; that this attempt to make it a retainer is simply a subterfuge to cover up the taking of pay for his services in the legislature, to a railroad corporation. Now, this all came to the knowledge of these defendants, and they proposed, in good faith, to publish to the community the facts in regard to Mr. Kasson's conduct. It is said by plaintiff's attorney that they will show to you that the Clarksons were the personal enemies of Mr. Kasson. I will say to you, gentlemen, that it is not true, and that I don't believe they will prove it; I don't believe in this community they can prove a thing that is not true. On the contrary, the Clarksons never had any personal or political difficulty with Mr. Kasson whatever. Every motive on earth that could induce men to act through favoritism was upon the other side of the question.
With permission of the Court, Gentlemen: In a case like this, it is hard for jurors to divest themselves entirely of their relations, politically and socially, to parties, and come to the consideration of it as a dry question of fact under the instruction of the court.
The petition that has been read to you selects from certain articles that were published during the political canvass last fall, three certain items of charges made against Mr. Kasson that it is supposed by Mr. Kasson and his friends cannot be proved. Why those three particular charges out of quite a number should have been selected and the others passed by, I do not know. Probably any one of the other charges damaged him as much as any one of these. But for some reason best known to the plaintiff, he has been willing to stand all the injury and all the damage they did; because he didn't care about having them investigated in court. (He has a right to pick out and say this one is not true, and the other is not true, I put you on the proof of this.) These three particular charges are set out, and they claim so much damages for saying these particular things about this particular individual. The answer I will read to you and then try to give you some idea of the evidence that will be introduced on the part of the defendants. [Here Mr. Nourse read the answer relating to the first charge, and continued.]
The facts are, these articles were written by Mr. Savery, and published in theRegister, which was conducted and published by the defendants, Mr. R. P. Clarkson and Mr. J. S. Clarkson.
[Reads from petition again, beginning with the words: "Now, sir, this was the way you played your hand."]
Mr. Nourse continued: That is the answer we make to the first charge, relating to what is called the Smoky Hill route. I will say, in order that you may understand the evidence, and the facts in reference to that business, that Mr. Kasson was our member of congress in 1866, as will appear by the testimony, living and residing in this town, having for his colleagues Messrs. Price, Wilson, Allison, Judge Hubbard, and Mr. Grinnell. At that time one of the most vital questions to the people of Iowa, especially to the people of this congressional district, was whether or not the roads running east and west through Iowa should connect with, and become a part of the great Pacific route, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. Prior to 1866 congress had passed a law to aid the construction of the Pacific Railway. That law provided for several Iowa branches, and provided for a branch connecting with the St. Louis roads through Kansas, and provided that all these branches should unite at what is known as the one hundredth meridian, some distance west of Omaha. And a further provision in that bill was that the Union Pacific Railroad Company should build from the one hundredth meridian westward, meeting the road that should be built from California eastward. That was the Union Pacific Railroad proper. It will appear in evidence, gentlemen, that Mr. Kasson, up to the very moment, the very day and hour on which he gave this vote in congress, had publicly and privately expressed himself in favor of the Omaha route, and delivered a public lecture against the Smoky Hill route, and explaining to the people of this locality the great advantages they were to derive from being upon the main line of this great thoroughfare. It will further appear in evidence, gentlemen, that the Kansas company, with the Pennsylvania Central road—in combination with the St. Louis interests—devised a scheme, in the winter of 1866, whereby they proposed to make the Kansas road, connecting with St. Louis, the main branch of the Pacific road, and thus entirely defeat the building of the roads westward to the hundredth meridian, connecting with the Iowa roads. That was the scheme that was undertaken, and a bill having that object was rushed through the senate and came to the house of representatives, when Thaddeus Stevens took charge of it. The friends of the bill made a strong combination, refused to let it be referred to a committee, and refused even to allow it to be printed for the information of the house, and put it upon its passage under the spur and whip, crushed out debate, and crushed out explanation and discussion. Mr. Kasson was the only member of the house of representatives from Iowa that was permitted by Thaddeus Stevens, who had the floor, to occupy the time of the house, and to the surprise of everyone Mr. Kasson was found to have gone over to the enemy. We have the depositions of Hiram Price and James F. Wilson, and theCongressional Globethat will explain to you his false position. Mark the explanation Mr. Kasson attempted to make on the floor of congress. He based his defense simply on the claim that the Kansas branch road would make arival roadand afford competition.
This, gentlemen, will appear in evidence when we come to investigate this matter. It does not answer the proposition and but for the fact that the money was speedily raised and the road built from Omaha to reach the hundredth meridian, before the Kansas branch got their road built there, we would have lost everything; we would have lost all that congress had granted to us, to build the road up the Platte Valley. This has been carefully concealed by Mr. Kasson in all his explanations and in all his discussions and he has, with his oily, deceptive subterfuges, tried to hide this enormity of his past life from his constituents. We hope, gentlemen, aided by the evidence of these members of congress, intelligent men, honest men, who have stood by the people of Iowa—we hope, with their depositions and the circumstances, and the evidence contained in theCongressional Globe, to show this matter up to you. We will prove to you by men who were on the ground that no sufficient motive could honestly have induced that man to have cast his vote in the way he did; that it was a surprise upon every intelligent man that knew what his pledges and promises and professions had been up to that time. Now, when this man offered himself as a candidate for congress last fall a year ago, one of the defendants in this case, who never was a candidate for office in his life, who had no interest in politics whatever, except as a citizen interested in our material interests, in our city, in our state, took the responsibility upon himself to ask Mr. Kasson through the public press to explain this, his extraordinary conduct and his treachery to his constituents; he got no answer except the insufficient one, the deceptive one, that Mr. Kasson wanted a rival railroad. Again, gentlemen, it will further appear in evidence that this was an additional subsidy of lands, that instead of connecting with the main line at the one hundredth meridian, this Kansas company was authorized to change its route and build the road to Denver, from Denver up to Cheyenne, and receive all the lands on either side of whatever route they may fix upon, and not requiring them to unite with the main line until they got fifty miles west of Denver. That they received on the line from Denver to Cheyenne the heart of the Territory of Colorado. That was a subsidy, and that the road got that subsidy, and that the parties who passed the bill undertook to deceive the members of congress in regard to it.
Now, gentlemen, this is all there is on this first matter. This publication was made, public attention was called to the fact that one of our members of congress, when asked how he would explain Mr. Kasson's vote, said he didn't know; but he could have taken twenty-five thousand dollars for his vote. That statement was made public by Mr. Savery in this communication to the citizens of this congressional district. Now this is the first matter which Mr. Kasson has chosen to bring before you, and to make an issue, and claim for damages to his character. Now we cannot prove—Mr. Kasson knows—we have no facilities for proving who was around there, or what money they had, or the means by which that bill was passed by congress. We can show you, gentlemen, only this one thing, that as a citizen of Iowa and as a representative of Iowa he betrayed his constituents wantonly; that he was in a scheme in which there was money; that is all; that this communication was made to the public, stating the bare facts at a time when it was necessary for the public to know them and by a man who had no interest in maligning Mr. Kasson, or injuring him. Savery had no personal feeling, and had no personal animosity towards him, but he felt, as a citizen, some indignation towards the man for the course he had pursued in congress. So much, gentlemen, for the first charge that was made. You are to judge whether that communication at the time it was made, and under the circumstances it was made, was justifiable. You are to take all the facts, and all the testimony with regard to it. Now as to the second matter that is set out in the answer.
Mr. Barcroft: Will you just tell the jury whether the bill that Mr. Kasson voted for under the Iowa Railroad were not built on the continuous line?
Mr. Nourse: I have already stated, that but for the extraordinary efforts by which money was raised, and the road pushed to the hundredth meridian first and this scheme defeated, we would never have been on the main line. But no thanks to Mr. Kasson for it. We are on the main line because these men went to work with superhuman energy to get to the hundredth meridian first, and they got there first, and that is the reason we are on the main line. If we had not reached it before they did, we would not have had a dollar of money with which to have built our line, and the other would have been the main line. That is the fact as it will appear conclusively from the testimony in this case. Gentlemen, I invite your special attention to the second charge, for if I can succeed in getting the jury to understand this question it is the end of the plaintiff's case. Fortunately for us on this question we have pretty conclusive proof, and with all the gentleman's ingenuity and that of his counsel, he will not be able to escape. We will show you, gentlemen, that in the year 1868 the old Des Moines Valley Railroad Company had forfeited her rights to the grant of lands that had been granted to her in the year 1858, by reason of not building the road as the original act required. The people of Boone county were dissatisfied because the Des Moines Valley Railroad Company had surveyed their road west up by Grand Junction, instead of going up the Des Moines river. Mr. Orr introduced a bill called the resumption bill, No. 139, in the house of representatives. That bill was read the first and second times, was ordered to be printed, and was referred to the railroad committee, of which Mr. Kasson was a member. The railroad committee prepared a substitute for that bill, as is set out here, in which they provided for a release of the company from all forfeitures and still allow them to have the lands and to build their road upon certain terms and conditions, and reported that bill back to the house of representatives as a substitute for house file No. 139. That substitute, gentlemen, is in Mr. Kasson's own handwriting, and we will be able to produce it here and show you the bill as he reported it originally to the house of representatives.
The records will show you, gentlemen, that after that bill came in, after this substitute was reported, Wilson of Tama county, with another gentleman constituting a minority of the committee on railroads, made a minority report in which they recommended what was called the "Doud amendment," or the Granger clause of that bill, in which they provided as set out in the answer: "that the company accepting the provisions of this act was at all times to be subject to legislative control." I will give you the very language of the amendment as it now appears in the law, so you may get the idea fully. [Reads.] "The company accepting the provisions of this act shall at all times be subject to such rules, regulations and rates of tariff for transportation of freight and passengers as may from time to time be enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa." The minority of the committee recommended that amendment, and it was adopted; and it was the only amendment that ever was adopted by the legislature.
We will prove to you, gentlemen, that a forgery was committed, and the following words interpolated into that bill: "But the non-acceptance by the Des Moines Valley Railroad Company of this act shall not prevent all the foregoing provisions thereof from having the same operation and effect as if the same had been accepted by said company;" and we will prove to you that these words were agreed upon between Mr. Kasson and the railroad company's attorney, in a private room in the Savery House, and that he agreed to put them in the bill, and the attorney testifies that the provision escaped criticism. And this is the second charge: We charge him with so manipulating that bill as purposely to defeat the will of the legislature. That he did it fraudulently, and that he did it corruptly will be proved to you beyond a doubt; that this charge was made, honestly believing it to be true, in order that the people of this congressional district might know the character of the man that was asking for their suffrages. After he voted against Wilson's amendment, and failed to honestly defeat it, we are prepared to show that by an agreement between him and the general attorney of the road, he undertook to get this nullifying clause into the bill, and that he did get it in the bill, and that he did not get it there by the vote of the house.
Mr. Barcroft: You do claim that you have any such allegation in your answer?
Mr. Nourse: I claim that what we charge Kasson with was that he manipulated that proviso through the legislature, and we propose to prove it. We propose to prove that it camefrom himand originatedwith him. We may have other evidence on this point more full and complete that it is not necessary now to take the time to detail.
The third specification, gentlemen, relates to the vote of Mr. Kasson and his conduct with reference to the C., R.I. & P.R.R. Co. And here, fortunately, I can say to you that we are not without direct and satisfactory testimony. We thought that we could prove that he had taken money on both sides from both parties in the case, but we haven't succeeded fully. We have evidence, however, of this state of facts: That Mr. Kasson in the early part of that session voted for a bill that had for its purpose and object the helping of Tracy, who was then the president of the road, to retain his power and his place as president, and to complete the road from here to Council Bluffs; that a bill for that purpose was passed in the early part of the session and approved on the 11th of February, and that Mr. Kasson voted for it. Thus far all was right. It will further appear by the evidence that the legislature had a recess of a few weeks after that, and that Kasson disappeared from here and turned up in Wall street, New York; that he was found in conference with the men connected with the Northwestern Railroad and who had bought up the stock of the Rock Island road, with a view of obtaining control of it, who were anxious to secure the repeal of the Tracy bill. We will prove to you that Kasson promised these men his influence to have that bill repealed; that he came back to Des Moines and was in conference with them, promising them his aid, that he subsequently changed his mind and abandoned them, that they didn't succeed; and that Mr. Tracy out of sheer gratitude, as Kasson claims, offered him five hundred dollars in money; that he (Kasson) took the money, but stipulated that it should be called a retainer.
In his own deposition Kasson swears he got the money. But he says he didn't get the money until after the legislature adjourned, and when it was offered to him as a present, he said he couldn't accept of it unless it was offered to him as a retainer; and that Mr. B. F. Allen, who offered him the money, went away and came back again, and said that he could take it as a retainer; and that he supposed that Allen had seen Mr. Tracy. This is the way Kasson gets out of this. We will prove to you by Mr. Tracy that he never had retained Mr. Kasson, or authorized anybody else to retain him for the company; that he never requested Kasson to perform any professional services for that road; that he never performed any professional services for the road, and that he had been out of the practice of the law for years. It will further appear in evidence that Mr. Kasson has not practiced law since 1860; that this attempt to make it a retainer is simply a subterfuge to cover up the taking of pay for his services in the legislature, to a railroad corporation. Now, this all came to the knowledge of these defendants, and they proposed, in good faith, to publish to the community the facts in regard to Mr. Kasson's conduct. It is said by plaintiff's attorney that they will show to you that the Clarksons were the personal enemies of Mr. Kasson. I will say to you, gentlemen, that it is not true, and that I don't believe they will prove it; I don't believe in this community they can prove a thing that is not true. On the contrary, the Clarksons never had any personal or political difficulty with Mr. Kasson whatever. Every motive on earth that could induce men to act through favoritism was upon the other side of the question.
Mr. Kasson had no desire to face his accusers, or subject himself to an examination before the jury. He was not present at the beginning of the trial and had taken the precaution to have his own deposition taken in New York upon interrogatories doubtless prepared carefully by himself, as the interrogatories disclosed nothing as to the explanation he had invented for the purpose of rebutting the testimony against him. This would avoid any cross-examination.
After the defendant's testimony had been introduced in part, however, the evidence seemed to make quite an impression against the plaintiff's cause and his counsel in desperation telegraphed to him requiring him to come at once to Des Moines. After a few days, he put in his appearance and I immediately had a subpoena issued and served upon him, requiring his attendance as a witness. After we closed our evidence, Mr. Kasson disappeared between two days and we searched for him in vain in the state. His counsel, Mr. Barcroft, offered his deposition taken in New York, then as rebutting testimony, when the following colloquy occurred, which I here quote from the notes of the official reporter:
Judge Nourse, for the defense, asked to have Mr. Kasson brought into court, stating that a subpoena had been issued for him, and as he was not present, asking an attachment for him. Mr. Barcroft replied: "Whether he will be here or not, I don't know. I think he is out of the state. I don't know that he will be here, and I don't know that he will not, but think the probabilities are that he will not. We don't claim the right to read his deposition if he is present. He is not present, and is not in the state. I don't expect him to be here."
Judge Nourse, for the defense, asked to have Mr. Kasson brought into court, stating that a subpoena had been issued for him, and as he was not present, asking an attachment for him. Mr. Barcroft replied: "Whether he will be here or not, I don't know. I think he is out of the state. I don't know that he will be here, and I don't know that he will not, but think the probabilities are that he will not. We don't claim the right to read his deposition if he is present. He is not present, and is not in the state. I don't expect him to be here."
The deposition was then read.
As already anticipated, the jury could not agree upon a verdict. Six of Mr. Kasson's political friends upon the jury insisted on finding in his favor, and six who were not his political supporters and friends, some being democrats and some republicans, insisted on not finding a verdict in his favor. The case went over the term and was afterwards compromised upon what terms I never understood, except that the plaintiff dismissed his suit and probably paid the costs, and Mr. Savery advised me that as part of the terms upon which the suit was to be dismissed, Mr. Kasson was to make a political speech at Moore's Opera House and Colonel Gatch and the Clarksons were to occupy the platform as indicative of their friendly appreciation of that gentleman, and I also with Mr. Savery was entitled to a like honor. Mr. Savery did not appear upon the platform and I utterly refused to recognize the right of anyone to contract for my appearance there, and I was conspicuously absent.
Mr. Savery paid me his half of the fee that I was to receive for my services, and upon presenting my bill for the other half to Mr. Richard Clarkson, I found he had charged me up for printing the speech I had made to the jury, having at my request printed the revised copy of the speech in pamphlet form, and thus he squared the account, never paying me one cent for my services in the case.
707 Fourth Street, Des Moines
707 Fourth Street, Des Moines,For twenty-seven years the home of Charles Clinton Nourse
CHAPTER V
Some Important Law Suits
It is not within the scope or purpose of this writing to enter into or discuss the merits of the various suits in which I was employed. I cannot, however, give any idea of the fifty years of my life during which I was engaged in a number of important suits, without reference to their nature and character, and the management to which I attributed important results.
In the latter part of the year 1864, whilst in attendance at the supreme court at Davenport, I was retained by the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company, in company with Mr. Thomas F. Withrow, to assist the general counsel of that corporation in a suit, then recently brought in the United States circuit court for the southern district of Iowa, enjoining the company and its agents and employees from putting a certain span of their bridge across the Mississippi river at the town of Clinton, Iowa. Mr. James Grant of Davenport and a Mr. Lincoln of Cincinnati had been employed by the river interests to prevent the completion of this bridge on the ground that it would prove an obstruction to the navigation of the river. Mr. Withrow and myself spent a day in examining the alleged obstruction to navigation, the company furnishing us a steamboat in which we passed through the piers on which the drawbridge was to be placed. We returned to Des Moines late Saturday evening. The United States circuit court at Des Moines met the following Monday. On Sunday Mr. Withrow went to his office and carefully examined the statutes of the United States relating to the powers of the court in granting injunctions. He sent for me in the afternoon. On examination we ascertained that the statute of the United States contained a peculiar provision, not known to the practice in our state courts. It provided that when an injunction was granted in vacation by the judge of the district court of the United States, it should remain in force only until the close of the ensuing term of the circuit court; that if the injunction was granted by one of the judges of the supreme court or a judge of the circuit court of the United States, it should remain in force until it was dissolved by the order of the court. We immediately opened telegraphic communication with General Howe, who was then attorney of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company, and had in charge the defense of the case. He and Judge Grant, it seems, had been engaged in taking depositions and procuring evidence with reference to the question of obstruction of the navigation by the existence of these piers in the river, and both General Howe and Mr. Grant appeared to be acting upon the hypothesis that it was necessary for the defense to make a motion and showing for the dissolution of the injunction. We called the attention of General Howe to the provisions of the United States statute, and as we were well acquainted with the peculiarities of Judge Grant we advised that if we did nothing upon the part of defense at the ensuing term of court, it was probable that Grant would take no action in the matter and the injunction would stand dissolved at the close of the term by operation of law. On examination of the question General Howe agreed with our conclusions, and we then arranged that he take the train on Monday morning and come as far as Ames, Iowa, bringing with him all evidence, depositions, and papers that we might need in case there was to be any hearing before the court; that General Howe should occupy a boxcar at Ames and not subject himself to personal observation, whilst we would take charge of the interests of our client at Des Moines and do nothing save to let the law take its course, and we would advise General Howe by telegram if Judge Grant woke up and attempted to obtain any order of court continuing the injunction. Judge Grant was in attendance upon the court, and several times inquired after General Howe, stating that he was expecting him daily. Day after day of the term passed and nothing was done. Finally, the business of the term being disposed of, Justice Miller, then justice of the supreme court of the United States and presiding, announced that if there was no further business before the court the term would be adjourned. Judge Grant addressed the court and stated that he had been waiting during the entire term expecting the appearance of General Howe; that he understood that Messrs. Nourse and Withrow had been employed in behalf of the defendants, but no motion had been filed with reference to the injunction in the case against the bridge company or railroad company, and he wished to know whether or not we intended to do anything. Mr. Withrow looked at me and placed upon me the responsibility of replying to judge Grant's remarks. I said that it was true that Mr. Withrow and myself had been employed in the case, but only as local counsel and the only authority we had was to act under the instructions of the general counsel of the railroad company, General Howe; that we had no authority or direction to file any motion in the case, and I added very meekly that if any harm should come to our clients by reason of any neglect in the matter the responsibility would rest entirely with General Howe and not with my Brother Withrow and myself. Upon this Judge Grant announced that he had to go to Washington City upon professional business immediately upon adjournment of the court, and he would not consent that any motion would be heard in regard to the injunction matter in vacation. This closed the event and the court adjourned sine die. As Judge Miller passed out of the court house down the stairs, Judge Grant having previously left the room, Mr. Withrow could hardly contain himself and burst into uproarious laughter and attracted the attention of Judge Miller, who looked over his shoulder and remarked good-naturedly that he supposed Judge Grant did not understand us. As previously arranged, the mechanics engaged in the bridge construction had carefully prepared their timber and every bolt necessary for the span that should make up the drawbridge between these two piers. Judge Grant went his way to Washington, and upon his return to Iowa three weeks afterwards he found the cars in operation crossing the bridge. He immediately went to Judge Love, and making the necessary affidavits for contempt of court, obtained warrants for the arrest of the parties engaged in constructing the bridge. Without disclosing what our knowledge and view of the law was upon the subject, the parties at once gave bond and security for their appearance at the next term of court to answer the charge of contempt. When the next term of court convened, Justice Miller and Judge Love presiding, I made the necessary motion to discharge the defendants upon the ground that the injunction had been dissolved by operation of law immediately upon the adjournment of the prior term of court, and there being no injunction in force, the completion of the bridge did not constitute any contempt of court. The motion was sustained and the defendants discharged.
Judge Howe and Judge Blodgett of Chicago were so delighted with the result, that they telegraphed to Chicago for a case of wines and inviting Judge Grant and Mr. Lincoln of Cincinnati, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, into our room, we spent a very merry evening together and all seemed to enjoy the evening save Judge Grant who could hardly forgive himself for his over-confidence which had resulted fatally to his clients.
During the evening many excellent anecdotes were indulged in: among others was one by Judge Blodgett for the benefit of plaintiff's counsel. He said in the early history of the lawyers who were in the habit of traveling the circuit in Illinois, they had a gentleman come among them who would never admit that he had made a mistake. The attorneys were accustomed to amuse themselves in the evening at the hotel, and among other amusements they had a game called "kicking the slipper," which consisted in inducing some green victim to put a slipper upon one foot and attempt to throw it into the air and kick the slipper with the other foot before it reached the floor. One evening they induced the over confident attorney to undertake the experiment, with the result that he came flat upon the floor in the attempt to kick the slipper with the other foot. The other lawyers thereupon greeted him with a hearty round of laughter, but he sprang to his feet and said to them, "Now, gentlemen, you needn't laugh, you needn't think you fooled me, for I want you to understand that I had no sooner struck the floor before I understood that it was a trick." Mr. Lincoln was a merry, good-natured man and enjoyed this anecdote at his expense very much, but Judge Grant hardly saw the application of Judge Blodgett's anecdote.
At the next session of congress the railroad company obtained the passage of a law constituting the bridge a part of the mail route of the United States, and the court subsequently dismissed the plaintiff's case. Thus we were successful in gaining our case by knowing when it was best to do nothing. The use of the bridge was invaluable to our clients, and the railroad company sent me a draft for two hundred dollars as compensation for the short speech I had made advising Judge Grant in the court that we had no instructions to do anything in the case, and the responsibility of our failure to do anything, if injurious to our client, would rest with General Howe, attorney in chief of the road.
Whilst upon this question of management I will give you an account of another case of some importance that resulted in our complete success because we did something that we did not learn out of any of our law books.
A certain young woman in the last stages of consumption had been turned out of the house of her near relatives, and compelled to take up her quarters in a second-class hotel in Des Moines during her last sickness. She had made a will in which she willed to the Catholic priest of the city, Father Brazil, a valuable tract of land for the use and benefit of the Catholic church. After her death her relatives, who had neglected her shamefully during her sickness, brought suit to contest the validity of this will upon the ground of undue influence on the part of Father Brazil, and mental incapacity on the part of the deceased. Judge Kavanaugh, a young bachelor then about thirty years of age and a member of the Catholic church, and since then judge of the court in Chicago, Illinois, had been employed by Father Brazil to defend the suit, and he subsequently came to me and retained me to assist him in the trial of the cause. During the sickness of the deceased she had employed a professional nurse, a young woman about thirty years of age. We were informed before the trial came on that the relatives who were contesting the will had been very courteous and kind and generous toward this young nurse woman, and during the holidays had made her valuable presents in consideration of her kindness to the deceased. At the opening of the term I noticed this young woman came into court, receiving the courtesies and attention of Judge Cole, who was counsel for the relatives that were contesting the will. She was rather a handsome woman, evidently intelligent and quick-witted, rather fond of admiration, and as she was to be the star witness for the other side of the case, I at once made up my mind that the whole case must turn upon her testimony. As the deceased had been frequently under the influence of opiates, administered by the physician for the purpose of relieving her suffering from time to time, it would be a very easy matter for a young woman gifted as this one was with facility of speech, to make the most of the incoherent utterances of the patient while under the influence of opiates. I foresaw that it would not do to subject this young woman to a severe cross-examination or say anything that implied that we doubted her honesty or veracity, and yet something must be done or we were sure to lose our case. I took my young bachelor friend, Judge Kavanaugh, to one side and told him wherein we were in danger, and as he was a member of the same church and was himself an Irishman, and had no doubt "kissed the Blarney stone," it was absolutely necessary for him to cultivate the acquaintance of this witness, even to the very verge of proposing matrimony. I told him I could easily attend to the law of the case, the cross-examination of the witnesses, but this witness was outside my jurisdiction. He readily agreed to undertake the part of the case that I assigned to him. He accompanied the lady to and fro from her hotel at every adjournment or sitting in the court, and she evidently was very much pleased with his attentions. I cautioned him not to talk too much about the case, but talk of other things that he would find probably more agreeable subjects of conversation to the witness and to himself. He performed his part so admirably that when Judge Cole called upon his star witness she proved a flat failure upon his hands. She said yes in answer to his questions, that when the deceased was under the influence of her opiates she was a little flighty, but that amounted to nothing, that when the influence of the opiate was gone she was perfectly rational and capable of understanding what she was doing at all other times. The result was that the jury found a verdict in our favor and the will was sustained. Judge Given, however, who was a member of the Presbyterian church, seemed to be disappointed at the result of the suit, and set aside the verdict and granted the parties a new trial. From this action of the court we took an appeal to the supreme court, and the supreme court reversed Judge Given's decision, holding that there was no evidence that would have justified the jury in finding against the validity of the will, and they remanded the cause with orders to the district court to render judgment in our favor. In conversation with Father Brazil after the case was over we were discussing the probable reasons that induced Judge Given to set aside the verdict of the jury. I suggested that perhaps he had been reading Eugene Sue's remarkable work calledThe Wandering Jew. I asked Father Brazil if he had ever read that book. He smiled pleasantly and said yes, and when I expressed my surprise that he should indulge in such literature, he remarked very calmly that he always thought best to know what the world was saying about his church and people.
I will give here also next an account of the most important criminal case I ever defended. A man by the name of Yard had shot and killed a party by the name of Jones. He claimed that he pointed a shotgun over the shoulder of his wife at the time Jones was approaching his wife about to commit an assault upon her for an illegal purpose, when he fired the gun and Jones fell dead as a result. Jones had come onto the premises where Yard and his wife resided, having in each hand a bucket with which he was supposed to be intending to go to a well for water. The buckets were found some distance, probably twenty-five or thirty steps from the door, and the prosecution claimed that the buckets indicated the place at which the deceased was at the time he was fired upon and killed. Yard and his wife were both in jail at the time I was sent for, and the first thing I did was to enjoin upon them the necessity of absolute silence and refusal to answer any questions or to communicate with any party or parties who might possibly thereafter testify against them. Upon a preliminary trial before the justice I waived an examination of the case and had the defendants enter bail for their appearance at court. A man by the name of Smith, who was the owner of the gun with which the deceased was shot and who had loaned it to Yard only a few days before, was indicted with Yard and his wife as accessory to the crime. As the defense in this case would depend entirely upon the testimony of Yard and his wife I at once appreciated the absolute importance of having these parties tell the exact truth without equivocation or invention. My experience as a lawyer had taught me that persons deeply interested in the result of the trial, participating in a transaction such as the killing of another, are subject to such a state of nervous excitement that they frequently do not remember with any degree of accuracy the collateral facts and circumstances attending the more important events, and persons of ordinary intellect imagine it is important that they should be able to recollect and answer accurately every question that is made in regard to the collateral facts and circumstances attending the principal event, and almost invariably they invent answers to such questions and pretend to know what really they do not know and do not recollect. The result is that they involve themselves in contradictions and impossibilities, and let confusion destroy even the reliable and truthful parts of their evidence, and this was what I feared in this case. I was accused by some members of the bar and outsiders of training these parties as witnesses in their own behalf, and in one sense of the word it was true, but I only trained them to tell the truth, carefully eliminating from their story and had them eliminate everything that I was satisfied upon thorough examination was the result of their invention instead of their recollection. I first examined each of the parties separately and took down their statements carefully, and after comparing them tried to make up my mind as to what was absolutely true and as to what part of their story was invention. I then brought the parties together and discussed with them such parts of their story as I was satisfied had been supplied by them and had them admit and concede that they did not distinctly recollect the matter as stated. I repeated this process the third time. In some manners the man and his wife differed as to their recollections as to some things that had happened, and when I was satisfied that the difference was honest I made no effort to correct or to reconcile their statements, for my experience also taught me that absolute coincidence in every particular of their statements would tend rather to discredit than to confirm the truth of what they related. Another difficulty in the trial of the case was the excitable temperament of Mrs. Yard, and what I feared most was that the prosecutor by severe cross-examination might make her angry and she would display some temper and make some statement that would injure her case. When she was upon the stand under cross-examination by Judge Given, who was then the prosecuting attorney, I kept my eye upon the woman carefully. She was under examination at least three hours, and only once did the prosecutor succeed in exciting her so that she developed any passion. He said to her in a very abrupt and preëmptory manner, "Now please turn and face that jury and tell them that you removed those buckets from the doorstep to the place where they were found." As she turned in a passion to face the jury, flushed with excitement, I was fortunate enough in catching her eye and fixing her attention a moment, when her passion subsided, and in a very calm lady-like way she said, "Gentlemen, I did remove those buckets from the doorstep and place them out in the yard just as I have heretofore related." She said this in such a calm lady-like way that I was satisfied we had gained our case. I proved, of course, the bad character of the deceased and that he was a bad and dangerous man, and also the good character and reputation of the husband, which indeed had been and was unimpeachable up to that time. I examined in this case over seventy witnesses in behalf of the defense. The jury retired and were only out an hour or less, when they returned a verdict of not guilty.
In the latter part of the administration of Cyrus Carpenter as Governor of the state, the State Treasurer was also treasurer of the Board of Trustees of the Agricultural College. The two offices had no legal connection, and it was merely an incident that the same man had been elected to both positions—the one by the people of the state, and the other by the Board of Trustees of the college. The Trustees of the college in making their annual report to the legislature reported that their treasurer had proved a defaulter to the sum of about $27,000, and that they had, in order to secure the college, taken from him deeds for all his real estate including his homestead—all of the property save his homestead having, as they understood, been purchased by their treasurer with funds belonging to the college. About nine o'clock one evening I received a visit from the deputy treasurer of state who informed me that the legislature, then in session, had passed a joint resolution, appointing a committee for the purpose of investigating the question as to what funds of the Agricultural College had been used, and also as to the proper administration of the funds belonging to the state in the state treasury; that the Treasurer of State and of the Agricultural College, being the same person, was about to be examined the next day by this committee of investigation, and upon advice of his friends he wished to employ counsel, and wished that I would act as his counsel in the matter, and particularly the deputy wished me that night to go with him and have a consultation with the treasurer. I accordingly accompanied him to the house of the party. I found him to be an old man probably between sixty and seventy years of age, white hair and beard, blue eyes, a fine stalwart frame, but laboring under intense excitement. I listened carefully to his story, in which the deputy frequently interpolated or supplemented the statements. The care with which both parties persisted that the funds were not state funds, but it was only the funds of the Agricultural College that had been wrongfully used or appropriated, made me fear that neither the principal nor his deputy were telling me all that they knew. I felt as Shakespeare says in one of his plays, "Methinks the person doth protest too much." We were standing in front of the fireplace and the light of the fire threw a peculiarly bright light upon the countenance of the treasurer, and the deputy remarked, "Now you understand these funds were in the hands of the treasurer of the Agricultural College, and that he did not use the state funds. If he was defaulter as Treasurer of State he could be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary, but if he was only defaulter as treasurer of the Agricultural College that would be a different affair. Is it not so?" The State Treasurer was eyeing me very earnestly and watching carefully for my answer to the deputy's question. My answer was that I was not prepared to say that that was true, and the State Treasurer turned still paler and more nervous because my answer was not satisfactory. My conference lasted until after midnight. I returned home feeling very anxious for the old man, but still satisfied in my own mind that I had not heard the entire truth. The next day the committee of investigation, consisting of members of the house and senate, convened, and I was present when the State Treasurer was examined by them. The story was told very much as it was told to me the night before, some questions of a general nature were asked, but nobody seemed to understand the importance of knowing when and what particular fund had come into the hands of the treasurer as custodian of the funds of the college, or when or what particular amounts had been used or confiscated by him. The committee adjourned until next morning. That afternoon the house of representatives had passed a joint resolution requesting the Attorney General to give an opinion as to whether or not a defalcation by the treasurer of the Agricultural College funds constituted a crime, and also instructed him that in case it constituted an offense he should at once commence a prosecution against the party in question. Fortunately, this action of the house of representatives offered me a good excuse or pretext at least, to have the treasurer refuse to answer any further questions by the investigating committee, and we accordingly withdrew him from the witness stand. Within the next day or two the deputy came to me and showed me a lot of memoranda made on slips of paper in his handwriting, containing certain figures, the aggregate of which amounted to the sum for which it was claimed the treasurer of the Agricultural College funds was in default. The deputy advised me that these slips had been kept in the state treasury vault and had been counted as cash items from time to time. Within a few days after that I had an interview with Dr. Welch, the president of the Agricultural College, and he stated to me that he was not satisfied that the funds that had been used by the treasurer were Agricultural College funds at all, and that the loss was saddled onto the college very much to the embarrassment of that institution, as they now had to wait for their money until such time as the property which had been turned over to the trustees could be turned into cash. He said he had a letter in his possession written by the deputy stating that the treasurer was away from home at that date and that he had not drawn the $30,000 theretofore appropriated by the legislature for the benefit of the college, but that the treasurer would return in a short time and that he would advise the president on his return. At my request the president furnished me this letter and its date, and I found upon comparing it with the date of the warrant drawn in favor of the treasurer of the Agricultural College for the $30,000 and the cancellation of that warrant; that is, when it was marked paid, that there was a wonderful correspondence between the date of the letter and the date when the warrant was marked paid. The deputy, at my request, had given me these slips of paper containing this memoranda and I had carefully locked them away in my iron safe, thinking that possibly they might be of future use. At the next term of the district court of Polk county the grand jury found two indictments against the State Treasurer, one as defaulter to the state of Iowa as Treasurer of State, and the other as defaulter to the State Agricultural College, but examining the minutes of the grand jury, I found that there was no evidence whatever before the grand jury that the State Treasurer had used any state funds at any time for any purpose, and the indictment of him as such a defaulter was not justified by any testimony taken by the grand jury. I immediately suspected that there was a secret hand at work intending that this old man should be convicted, if not of one offense, then of the other. Upon investigation I found that there had been some informality and illegality in drawing and impaneling the grand jury that found these indictments. On proper motion in court I had both indictments quashed and the matter continued for the action of the grand jury at the succeeding term of court. At the next term of court a new grand jury was impaneled, the foreman of which was a personal friend of the treasurer and a very honorable gentleman. He took occasion to suggest to me that it was very painful to him to have to find indictments against my client, the treasurer, but that he should certainly perform his duty in that respect. I said to him that that was all right, but it was not right for a grand jury to find an indictment against any man without some evidence before it, tending to show he was guilty of the particular crime for which they found their indictment, and told him that the former grand jury had indicted my client for defalcation as Treasurer of State without a particle of evidence, save and except that as treasurer of the Agricultural College board he had made default as to that fund. The result was that this grand jury brought in an indictment only against my client as defaulter as treasurer of the Agricultural College, and for unlawfully using and converting to his own use the funds of that institution. The case was continued from term to term for several years, and in the meantime the property that had been turned over to the trustees had been converted into money, and the loss of the State Agricultural College had been made entirely good. Still the indictment remained against my client and had to be tried and disposed of. The old man had given up his house and his home and there was much sympathy existing in the community for him, and a general impression got abroad that he was the victim of others who had unloaded some very unprofitable property upon him and induced him to invest in it with the expectation that it could be re-sold to advantage and the money refunded before it should be called for. Whether this was true or not and who the parties were that had induced the old gentleman to betray his trust, I do not know and have never tried to ascertain. The time came finally that the man was to be put upon his trial. He came into my office the day before the case was to be called for trial, looking pale and haggard, told me he had bid his wife good-bye and his boys and that he was prepared for the worst, that he supposed there was no hope for him, that he could endure it but it was hard on the family at home. I invited him into my private room and seating him at the opposite side of my table I said to him that for the sake of his wife and children I had made up my mind that he should be acquitted. He looked at me incredulously and asked what I meant, and how it was possible for him to escape conviction. He said he had already confessed his fault and they had his confession all taken down in writing before the investigating committee. I stepped to my safe and took out the memoranda that I had obtained from his deputy and laid them down before him. Looking him fully in the face, I said, "Tell me what those papers mean?" He asked me where I got them, and said he supposed they had been destroyed long ago. I told him no, that I carefully preserved them because it might be, as I thought, for his interest at some time or other to tell the truth, that there had been enough lies told about the business, and now probably the truth might save him. He asked what I meant. I said to him, "Here is a memoranda of the amounts that you took out of the safe that belonged to the state of Iowa. They never were in your hands as treasurer of the Agricultural College and you know it and you have known it all the time. You thought I was deceived, but I was not. I have known the truth and I hoped the time might come when the truth might benefit you more than the falsehood." I showed him the letter written by the deputy to President Welch. I had a memoranda of the date of the cancellation of the $30,000 warrant issued to him as treasurer of the Agricultural College. I looked him fully in the face and said, "You never had that money in your hands, you never received it, you were not at home when that warrant was cancelled, and you know it." He sighed deeply and said, "That is true, but I told a different story and now what am I to do?" I said to him, "All you have to do is to tell the truth." The old man took courage and told me that I had guessed the truth and it was true that he had never used a dollar of Agricultural College funds. Upon the trial I introduced in evidence the memoranda that had been kept in the safe of the State Treasurer, I introduced the warrant that had been issued by the auditor to the treasurer for Agricultural College funds, I proved by Dr. Welch the letter that had been written him by the deputy and the date of the transaction, and I satisfied the jury beyond a doubt that my client was not guilty of the only crime for which he then stood indicted, to-wit, defaulter to the Agricultural College funds. Judge Leonard, then upon the district bench, had been former prosecutor in the district and did not listen with complaisance to any defense which tended to acquit an accused person, but after wrestling with him for quite awhile he finally admitted my defense and the testimony sustaining it, and instructed the jury flatly that the defendant was not on trial as defaulter to the funds of the state of Iowa, but as defaulter as treasurer of the Agricultural College funds, and they must find him guilty of the latter or they must acquit him, and the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty. This result created quite an excitement in the community and throughout the state, and I acquired some reputation as a criminal lawyer, but few persons understood the real nature of the defense that was made or how it was that the defendant was acquitted in the case, and attributed it to some extraordinary ability upon my part, whereas in truth and in fact I only gained my case by insisting upon my client telling and proving that which was true and abandoning a falsehood that I suspected then and have ever since believed was invented for him in order that other persons should not be suspected of any guilty knowledge of what had really occurred. My client returned to his home, to his wife and children, at least free from a record of conviction for a felony.