The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-10-31

4 few evenings ago W. A. Ketcham,
candidate for Encouragement on the re-
publican ticket. at a meeting held under
the auspices OF the Commercial travel
ers' club of his party. a which there were
less than a dozen commercial travellers
and about fifty or sky outsiders present.
extolled ex-President Harrison as chief
among eminent republicans. He spoke of
his leadership as pre-eminent and his
ability as a lawyer and statesman I'M
eQualed and that his recent tour through
the state had been one triumphal ova-
tion
Months before this Mr. Ketcham, as at
torney in what are known as the bank
cases. involving transactions of the In
diana banking company. and William
Needham. with John c. Wright. John c.
New and others, signed a brief which
was filed in the supreme court Of the
state March this year. few weeks be-
fore the republican state convention. In
that brief Mr.. ke.cnsm expressed an
opinion OF the eX-president not consistent
with what he told The commercial trav-
eiers for campaign purposes. Had the
reference to Harrison I'm that brief been
known in time Mr.. ketcham would not
have been the republican nominee. The
cases were filed zen years ago and tried
once before Judge Howe. The result was
adverse 70 the defendants Wright, New
and others. They moved for new trial
and then Immediately secured a change
of venue from Howe. Of whom they al
legged bias against the defendants" The
mex trial was before Judge Walker and
a jury, the jury returning a verdict OF
special finding for he plaintiffs. This YER
dict was set aside and a motion for a
new trial sustained. Ii Is upon these
questions that the cases pending in the
supreme court and in the brief Of which
for appellants, Rand, receiver Of the In
diana banking company. and William
Needham, attorney, Ketcham wrote:
Our learned opponents for some rea-
son or other seemed to think IL was es-
sential TO convince this court of the mer-
its of their defense without the formality
or inconvenience of a trial with the at
tendant risk Of a judgment and have
filled their case, especially their brief
filed Sept %. 1890, with abundant state
ments of alleged facts and circumst ances,
none Of which are I'm the record, and ara
not only not in accordance with the facts,
but if written by one who participated in
the trial that fact must have been known
by the writer. and if the brief was writ
ten by some one not present or participate
ing in the trial the statements as facts
which he could not know occupies in
morals an unenviable position"
Therein is an inuendO that the brief
Of the appellees. Wright & New, was
prepared by Harrison. Much was said
in that brief about the opinion Of Judge
Walker in sustaining a motion for a new
trial and setting aside the verdict Of spe-
cial findings. Concerning that appel.
lants brief has this paragraph:
Attorney Changed sides.
when the opinion referred to by ap.
Del-ee's counsel is formally and defiantly
Haunted in our faces as reason why the
-1,- In faa &c
court be.ow. whether upon a demurrer
to the complaint i'm the one case. or upon
the pleas in abatement in the other case.
it as an entirely proper R04and for such an
Oliver to CAL the courts attention 10 the
well-recOgniZed fact that judges are still
human and that the frailtes and ambi-
lions of men are not always cast aside
when they assume the judicial erminei
that one Of the defendants in that suit
was the owner Of the organ Of the party
to which the judge granted the new trial
belonged and. if further suggestions
were needed along that line the record in
the partnership cases shows that in the
outset of the litigation the plaintiffs IN
each case were represented by a firm.
the senior partner of whien at the time
Of the hearing of the motion for a new
trial represented I'm the senate Of the
United States the party to which both
tie judge and newspaper proprietor be-
.Onged, and that as early as 1856, when
the motion for a change of venue was
fled by the defendants before Judge
Howe. that same firm, with that same
senator at its head. appeared upon the
other side Of those same cases as attor-
ney for the opposite party from those
with which they begun the litigation.
The motion for q new trial is not in the
transcript; otherwise it would show that
as early as that stage in the history or
the litigation that senator. not yet. how
nfrnI n aF1F al
possibility, concluded to change sides dur
ing the legal battle"
In the paragraph following Mr.. Ketcham
indicates that ambition FOR a federal
judgeship which Harrison could at one
time bestOw, prompted the last opinion in
this case i'm the lower court. In this
particular the brief of appellants IS:
1T is doubtless true that a motion for
a new trial ought not to be granted at
the command Of the owners Of the party
organ, even when enforced by the insist
ence Of the head Of the party in the
state, through whom alone a promotion
10 a United States bench should come, II
il come at all. While this IS true. how
ever. il is also equally true that tia
temptation to a Judge Of a local court
to obtain favor with the owners OF the
party organ and party leaders that might
in future result in promotion. is one that,
while having no proper place in the ad-
ministratiOn Of justice, is also quite a
temptation 10 the dIuDlllol OF an dululllOES
man, and after all judges. whether hign
or low, are but human. The decisions OF
the learned justices of the supreme court
upon questions affecting the election OF
the president are very instructive. II not
nustrious examples TO the effect that the
personal predictions Of men are not al
ways destroyed by the ernine that the
judge wears
Merely an Incident.
This matter was an incident in the
animosity that has gown out Of the bank
suits. Mr.. Ketcham's participation in the
suit. during his canvass for nomination
as encouragement. brought against him
the violent opposition OF the owners Of the
party organ referred TO in this brief. They
were unable. however, 10 bring about his
defeat though every inch Of Marion
county was fought over by w. L. Taylor.
supported by the party organ and the
state central committee. In this fight
Ketchanis enemies did not have the bene-
fit of the brief quoted in this article. The
existence Of these paragraphs rejecting
on Harrison and the proprietor Of the
party organ was not known until il was
in bringing about the defeat Of Ketcham.
During the afternoon of the state conven-
ton the matter was discovered and that
night was in possession Of the editors Of
the organ. Mr. Ketcham was nominated
and it was the purpose OF the organ TO
print the matter quoted. This meant open
revolt with dire consequences not only
to Ketcham. but TO the republican party
throughout the state. The dangerous
MISTER was in type when Daniel NJ. Rams
dell, r. o. Hawkins and others Of the