The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-12

we
not give satisfaction to bank correspondents and
depositors generally 1t will also tell the stockholders
that Their investment in the shares of the First
National Bank although not so fruitful n income
Immediately preceding the day of resumption. we
may wish. is undoubtedly sound and will be found to
be as available and subject to little depreciation in
value as any other investment made either in real or
personal property.
W. H. MORRISON, President.
A. d LYNCH, Vice-President.
j. G. MCCUTCHEoN Cashier.
That is the deliberate statement of the dead
MORRISON as to the actual condition of this bank
after he had been president for over six months,
and after every loss had been discovered Is it
true? Did Mr.. Morrison write and publish de-
liberate lief Upon what evidence can you say
he did, What right have you, or these lawyers,
to brand this honored dead man as a larl If
these statements are true they are fatal to the
plaintiffs case. Look at these statements!
What do they show the resources of the bank to
be then! Seven hundred thousand dollars Of
per cent bonds is one item SAG, CSC. 90 real es-
tate, furniture and fixtures: $4l, 900 more of
United States bonds, and other bonds; 81, OS4,-
973 of discounted notes; $50, 9S7 in cash de-
post i'll redemption fund; cash on hand 1921, 236,
and cash deposited in other banks $3.50. 900, a
total value of assets alone of s. 750 524 4S; and
what did it owel 1t owed its circulation $3.50 600,
and it owed to its depositors, of all classes,
81, 487, 243, making its total liabilities on the 9th
of September, 1873. $l937, DAB, and its total
assets s., 728, &c., Now, gentlemen, if you even
count per cent. premium on these United
IL
down to this day 800 900 of per cents would now
be worth nearly $868. 000-but even if we should
not calculate the good will of the bank as worth
anything, and only allow small premium
bonds, that statement of Mr.. Morrison shows
on its face and by its figures, that every dollar
of that stock was, on Sept. 6, 1878, worth moro
than 81. 90, even selling it by the share. Now,
gentlemen, what are you going to do with that
kind of evidence? Are you going to whistle it
down the wind by saying that when old
Morrison made that statement he lied2 Ii you
do, where can you find evidence to support you
in so fndingl If it is true, how are you
going to get over it9 Who has sworn
anything to the contrary as to the
condition of that bank in September,
1878! What are you going to do with Mr. Nor
rison's statement of Sept 8, 1878?
Mr.. Morrison, on the 18th day of March, 1878,
made a certified statement over his own sigma
ture sworn officer of this bank, which
showed this stock to be worth every dollar that
these defendants got for it. On Feb. % and &c,
1879, Mr. Morrison wrote to the Comptroller
again, after making up a careful estimate Of the
losses. On the 10Th he wrote and gave the
figures Of the loss that would occur to the bank
on account of bad paper and bad judgments then
i'll it. He made it S37, LOG, and on the next day,
finding ne had made mistake in his caicula-
tions of few dollars he Immediately wrote
another letter in which he changes the figures
slightly. He was so particular and so careful,
and had made such a thorough Investigation,
that when he found he had made mistake Of
take Was the bank rotten? Was the stock
worthless! have shown you what their evidence
showed it to be worth. have shown You what
Mr.. Morrison said, Sept g. 1873, it was WORTH.
| have shown you what Mr.. Morrison said it was
worth away in February 1879, about year
after he became president of the bank. Ketcham
and Shepard have not once mentioned Morrisons
printed statement of September g. 1878. Judge
Ciaypool will not dare to mention ii. 1t is proof
they afraid to mention or discuss. Will you
"a Quid9Q this ~
ears to it, and listen only to appeals to prejudice
and wanton abuse of witnesses! But gen.
tlemen, the actual condition of this bank on that
day any other day never will be important for
you to consider. AS said to You in the outset,
there are other questions in this case that you
must decide before you reach that. and, If you
decide them on evidence you will never have to
consider that question. If you do, the evl-
dence shows YOU beyond any reasonable doubt,
that that bank stock was worth every dollar
that these defendants got for it. Mr.. Morrison,
in April 1873, and three times III February, 1879,
tells you that the bank was good, and represents
it in as good condition as New or Wright ever
represented it to be. On the 9th of September,
1878, he made deliberate and careful statement
in which he proves, beyond any peradventure,
that no dollar of that stock was then worth less
than $1.65
l am now going to discuss two or three other
questions that l want you to consider. The
first one is this Did the Indiana Banking Com
pany buy this stock of New and Wrightl OF
course, everybody VIII dumlt CnaG III the INDIANA
Banking Company did not buy this stock, these
plaintiffs have no suit here.
Mr.. CLAYPOOL-Yes
Mr.. BUTLER-Mr. Claypool admits that
Did they buy it, Is there any evidence any
where tending to show that, as a firm and
in their firm capacity, they ever pretended to
buy it? No evidence of that at ALL Nobody
pretends that the Indiana Banking Company, as
firm, performed any negotiations at all They
did not, in their firm name and firm capacity,
ever buy this stock Nobody pretends that they
did. They themselves say that the negotiations
were all carried on by Morrison and that it was
agreed that the firm should not buy it in its own
name. Plaintiffs admit that the firm was not to
that the firm was to buy it.
and did buy it, in the name of Morrison and
Miller. That is their statement. Now. gentle
men, who swears that the Indiana Banking
Company did buy this stock? Who swears to itl
F. A. W. Davis and John l.. Ketcham. Who
elsel Not soul. They are the only persons
that pretend to swear that the Indiana Banking
Company had any interest in this stock at any
time until long time after that purchase by
Miller and Morrison. Now, who swears on the
other side2 In the first place. John c. New and
John 9. Wright both swear that Mr.. Morrison
told them that ne was not buying that stock for
the Indiana Banking Company, but for himself
and Samuel Miller. Now let even them off.
Two on one side and two on the other. Are not
John c. New and John C. Wright as credible
witnesses as F. A. W. Davis and John L. Ketch
am? Suppose that we just balance them off
against each other, and count neither of the four
Plaintiffs must have a clear preponderance Of
evidence on that point Now let US suppose
that John G. New and John G. Wright weigh as
much in the scales as F. A. w. Davis and John
l.. Ketcham, and no more. Then that would
settle the question in our favor, without further
evidence
But let us go further and see whether we have
not produced an overwhelming preponderance OF
evidence clearly proving that the Indiana Bauk
ing Company did not buy the stock. First
want to introduce to you two contracts. Here
they are i have said to you that Davis and
Ketcham swear that the stock bought for
the Indiana Banking Company by Morrison. L
have shown to you that New and Wright both
swore that Mr.. Morrison told them, at the time
of the negotiations that the Indiana Banking
Company had not anything to do with it, and
that he was hnving il for Miller and himself