Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1904-04-26
BRYAN REPLIES TO CRITICS WHO
ACCUSE HIM OF "COMMERCIALISM'
Nebraskan Explains in The Comrnoner His Re-
1ations With the Late Phi1o S. Bennett
and Part Taken in Will Case.

! that the circumstances of the case
I fully and completely rebutted any pre-
sumption arising from the fact that |
am by profession lawyer.
In Testat,r's Hands Till Death
AS to the second question. The
| sealed letter was excluded by the pro-
| bate court not because of any undue
| influence in the making of the will,
| but on the legal ground that it was
not sufficiently identified by the will
to be made Il part of il. 1t is my
fault that the bequest was not made
direct. and | explained in court the
reason for suggesting the indirect
form. | did not care to accept the
gift Internationally. | preferred to
| leave the matter to be decided at the
! time of his death. The will was made
just before the opening of the cam
| paign Of 1900. and at Il time when
my denomination was certain. | told
him | did not care to accept the mon
ey unless | needed il. and | would not
need it if. as then seemed probable. |
should be elected. did not care to
have my name appear in the will if |
did not accept the money. and at my
suggestion il was made to the wife in
trust. and the terms of the trust were
set forth i'm the sealed letter.
"Was il immoral to accept the be
quest conditionally instead of uncon-
ditionally? Did it betray Il commercial
spirit to put the matter in the hands
of his wife. instead of making it di-
rect. as in the other cases? Can either
Mr.. Bennett or be accused of unfair
ness to the wife in making the bequest
i'm the form in which it was made?
When | objected to receiving it as
direct and unconditional Request. he
stated how he desired it disposed of
in case | refused to receive it. The
alternative plan was that it should be
distributed by me among educational
and charitable Institutions. and this
alternative provision was clearly set
forth i'm the sealed letter. (written
with his penn which was left with the
will.
The third question relates to the APP
peal. The will and the scaled letter
taken together set forth the tcStator's
purpose clearly and unequivucalIy. and
no one who knows the facts in the
case can doubt for a moment that |
am endeaVoring to carry out the will
of the teStator. | stated both in the
probate court and i'm the circuit court
that not Il dollar of this money will
be used by myself or by my family
without the consent of the widow. The
case can he disposed of any moment
if the widow and heirs will agree that
the $4,000 shall be distributed among
educational and charitable institu-
tions. l know. and everybody knows
who understands the facts in the case,
that Mr.. Bennett wanted this money
distributed in this way if | did not re-
ceive it for myself and family. The
trial Judge excluded the sealed letter
and all testimony in regard to the tes-
tator's purpose in making the Will. If
were considering merely my OWN
convenience | would not contest the
case at all. for in contesting it | am
spending time and money without
any probability of pecuniary return
to myself. | am doing il because l
cam. do less and be true to the trust
imposed upon me by a friend. The
question is not settled one in Con
nccticut. and there is no way to set
tie except to obtain an adjudication
of the point by the supreme court.
''Is there anything immoral in leav
ing the question to the supreme court
Do | show commercial spirit in re-
fusin" 10 consult my own convenience
in this matter?
PrOprIety Rather Than Morals.
But the Rccord-Herald overlooks
the questions which are really of
3
the making of the will. since it inVOly |
ed no undue influence. was at most ii
matter of propriety and not Il matter
Of morals, and the same is true of the |
form Of the bequest if-as it was. in
fact-thc desire of the testator to
make the Request. Likewise in regard |
To the appeal. 1t cannot be said to be |
immoral for contestant to take a |
question upon appeal to the highest |
court, especially when. as in this case.
have tried in vain to consolidate the |
rases 50 as to occupy as little time |
and incur as little expense as posi- |
BILE. There are two questions, how |
ever. which involve moral principles,
and if these could be decided against !
me my conduct would he subject to /
Just criticism. First. did the testator i
with my consent do injustice To his |
wife? Ii * not sufficient to say that /
ne WAS the person to decide that |
question. If. as a matter of fact. he
Hid not make suitable provision for /
her, | could not throw the blame upon
him if | should seek to carry out an
unfair provision. But the facts in the
Ease show that the provisions not |
lnly express his own wishes. but that |
n making the disposition he did, he
Vas within his moral as well as his
egal rights. In the sealed letter he
odd his wife that he estimated her
Dequest at $100.00D. and this. he said.
would give her an income larger than
he could spend. and enable her to
make provision for those whom she
lesired to remember. The amount
eft To his wife will enable her to live
n the same style as during his life