The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-31
A QUESTION OF HONOR.


erty affected; by reason, also, of the pecu-
liar circumstances surrounding the several
efforts to probate the various alleged last
wills of the deceased millionaire; and, in
still more delicate sense, by reason of the
family and trust relations involved in the
administration and distribution of this
vast estate as it was the final, but as yet
undetermined intent of it's testator
that it should be done. Every step
in the proceedings therefore has been
and will be matter of immediate pub
lie interest and concern because of the legal
and moral precedents which may be Gre
ated for the making and breaking of dead
mems wills and for the execution or be-
trayal of the trusts which they may seem
to impose.
Ever since the production of that alleged
will of Senator Fair which was most re-
Gently offered for probate, there have been
vague rumors of a compromise between
the children of the decedent and the execu-
tors or trustees under the 9stolen" will
These rumors have taken definite form
within the past few days, and it is broadly
stated that the children of Senator Fair
have offered to each of the executors a
much larger amount of money than they
could hope to realize in fees from the
estate, if they would agree to re-
tire from the field and permit the
first-offered will to be broken and the last
produced document to be sustained
Dame Rumor. has it that while some of the
executors have been willing to acquiesce in
this arrangement Attorney Goodfellow
holds out and firmly refuses to consider
the proposition upon the ground that he
believes that the stolen will is the valid
one and is bound in honor to so maintain
Without in any way, by sign or argu-
ment, intimating an opinion with respect
to the merits of either of the proposed wills
of Senator Fair, we respectfully submit
that from every standpoint of law and of
morals Mr.. Goodfellow is right in
his position, and that for himself or
his associates to retreat from it would
be a public dishonor as well as
private disgrace. If the document which
was first offered for probate is the last will of
Senator Fair, the executors named therein
have been invested with a trust which it is
their sacred and solemn duty to carry out
to the last letter of the dead mans
desire. IT, on the other hand, the
instrument last presented be the latest
expression of Senator Fairs intention,
then the gentlemen first named as his ex-
ecutors are not so in fact; or, if some of
them are so, it is with far less ex-
tended functions than they were to
exercise under the other instrument.
The whole issue in the controversy
is therefore practically whether the gen
tlemen, who for convenience may be
styled the executors sustain or do not
sustain the relation of trustees toward the
property and the children of the late Sena-
tor Fair.
Can any of the parties to the controversy
afford to make this issue a matter of bar
gain and sale, and if so is the public,
and its representative, the press, ex-
pected to look with approval upon
such a proceeding? We say decidedly
not. These executors are the trustees
of Senator Fair or they are not. Their pal
try commission and compensation have
nothing to do with the case. If they are,
and should accept any sum however great
to say that they are not, then would they
be false to the trust which the dead
man solemnly laid upon their consciences,
and would also be guilty of the ex-
press crime of being the recipients of
bride. IT. on the contrary, the 'pen-
Gil" will is valid, then they are not
trustees at all and have NO right to
receive money from the estate for
saying SO. To take such money after thus
far claiming that the stolen win is the only
valid one would be to plead guilty to an
offense very like hlackmail or extortion,
and equally penal. if proven, to the offense
Of the taker of brides.
There is no alternative of honor in this
matter nor any position which, with
decency, the executors can assume save
that taken by Mr.. Goodfellow. Across
the narrow rift which separates
the living from the dead is
stretched the shadowy hand of him who
doubtless left a last will and testa-
ment, to which, with pen or pen
ell, he subscribed the name of James
G. Fair. If that name was written with
pen the shadow of the hand which held it
is laid upon the executors of the will which
that signature made valid as a solemn
suggestion that their trust is not
susceptible of sale for coin without the
barter of their honor with it. If, on the
other hand, the name was written in pen
ell to penciled will, the shadowy hand is
resting upon the heads of the chill
dren of the deceased millionaire,
with an equally solemn warning not
to sully the last will of their father with
the suspicion that they bought silence
from those whose opposition to its validity
they feared. In either case it is, or
ought to be, question of honor, which
cannot be compromised by means of
a money transaction without also and for
ever compromising the parties to the af-
fair
1t may be argued that compromises
between interested parties to litigation
which bids fair to be protracted are to be
favored, and in certain cases this is doubt
less true. Such cases, however, are not those
wherein the will of the dead has imposed
an accepted trust upon the living, espe-
cially where that trust is OF a char
acter which, if imposed at all, was
created with the utmost confidence
that it would be executed to the letter on
the part of its trustees. If in cause of
the fame and magnitude of the Fair will
case the heirs can, with offers of coin, in
duce body of men who believe and assert