The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-11-04

PRESIDENT HARRISON.
"reminiscences Of His Career as an
Indiana Lawyer.
4 Good Cross-Examinsr-He Often Got
Witnesses Badly "Rattled" But
Never Lost His Own Cool
Self-POescssion.
COPYRIGHT, 1897. |

Never Lost His Own Good
Self-Possession.
COPYRIGHT 1921
Residents of Indiana are often asked:
''What kind of a lawyer was President
HARRISON" "How did he rank with
other members of the bar when in prac-
tice? what were his specialities and
characteristics" "In what way did he
distinguish himself?' These questions
are asked more frequently now than
formerly. People who supported him
as the nominee of party now have an
interest in the man Even the opposi-
ton. which In the campaign of 'S4 was
won't to dub him, scornfully, "a coun-
try lawyer" now manifests a curiosity
to learn what it was in the country law
yer that made him leader.
Mr.. Harrison had no specially. He
was An ''all around" lawyer.
1.-The best ever knew" said law
yer of large practice and wide acquaint-
ance, "by all odds the first in the state.
Weak spots9 He had no weak spots.
When he came into court he was
equipped for the case from head to foot.
He had no Achilles heel; he was invul-
nerable. Other lawyers in Indiana
were strong in certain directions but
had their weak places; Mcdonald had,
Hendricks had; Harrison had not He
was strong in the management of
case; he was clear and forcible in argu-
ment; he was unegualed in the exami-
nation and cross-examination of wit
nesses. ] have heard Senator Evarts,
Ben Butler and Judge Porter, of New
York, In cross-examination, and think
Harrison their superior. Incident?'
There could be no Incidents worth relat-
ing in connection with his practice.
The unexpected did not happen with
him. There were no surprises. He knew
his cases too well"
The man who spoke thus is under
stood tc have a personal grievance of long
standing against the president.
All lawyers in Indiana agree as to his
prominence rs a cross examiner. His
memory is hardly less accurate than
stenographer's notes, and woe be to the
unfortunate who is suspected of pre-
led off into fowery paths, he is brought
by gradual turns and unexpected cor
ners to wall that he cannot surmount,
he ia led into a tangle of contradiction,
mi suddenly finds escape impossible.
Ii spite of the assertion quoted, Law
We Harrison met with an occasional
mild surprise One occurred in his first
1vpllnr-f N which
attracted much attention at the time.
A cook was charged with poisoning
hotel full of people in the hope of
;.venging An injury done him by men,
her of the landlords family. Circumstan-
tial evidence was depended on entirely.
Harrison was assistant prosecutor and
was examining a witness who was an
inmate of the house and had observed
some suspicious circumstances.
And now" said the examiner, as
last and casual question before dismiss
ing the witness, do you recall any
other incident that attracted your at
tention to the cooks behavior?"
Nothing but this" drawled the wit
ness, composedly; II seen him open
paper and empty powder into the cof-
fee pot right quick and sly"
The prosecuting attorney who tells
the story with difficulty restrained him
self from executing a war whoop or
dancing Jig in his pleased surprise,
but Harrison retained absolute COM
posture and showed an impassive coun-
tenance in face Of the fact that this I'M
expected bit of testimony had undoubt-
eddy won their case. 1t is hardly neces-
sary to say that he changed his purpose
of letting the witness go at once.
In the celebrated Glenn murder trial
fought in the courts in one form and
another for years, he won renown as an
examiner. The Tiscus story is familiar
in local circles. Tiscus, at the time a
reputable citizen, was a witness, who,
for some reason never clearly made
known, testified in behalf of Mrs Glenn,
the accused Under prolonged and
searching cross-examination conducted
by Harrison he was utterly routed and
C;scredited and never regained his
standing in the community. Some
years later, in a suit conducted by Hon.
Albert G. Porter, now minister to Italy,
Mr.. Porter remarked, concerning wit
ness by whom he hoped to prove GER
tain point: This, gentlemen of the
jury. is stated by Mr.. Tiscus, but not
the Tiscus of the Glenn case" and was
visibly embarrassed when an elderly
juryman piped up: "Yes, he is, Albert;
yes. he is the very same identical, lying
Tiscus."
In suit brought to recover damages
for property destroyed by fire commu-
nicated from a brewery chimney, one
witness for the plaintiff proved excel
lent until asked, in a rash moment, by
Harrison TO give the jury an idea of the
size of the sparks he had seen fall, the
expectation being that he would men,
ton his thumb nail or other small OBJ
ject As the man looked about vague
ly to find a measure for the incandes-
cent atoms a quick-witted, but grace
less member of the opposing counsel
slyly moved capacious cospidor into
the range of his wandering vision.
1.-THE sparks that fell were about the
size of that spittoon," was the prompt
response, and that witness was of no
further use to the plaintiff.
In railroad damage case one of Har-
rison's witnesses testified that he saw
the wrecked train and that the cars
were badly "telescoped"-a statement
contrary to fact, the cars having been
tossed widely apart. Harrison paid no
to this at the moment, not
wishing to confuse the man. but after
getting all his evidence. and just before
letting him go. asked him to give his