{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-10:davis-will-case",
  "slug": "davis-will-case",
  "title": "Address to the Jury in the Davis Will Case",
  "subtitle": "New York, 1883.",
  "excerpt": "An 1883 will contest — widely reported for its eloquence, compared in its day to Demosthenes and Cicero.",
  "year": 1883,
  "volume": 10,
  "category": "Legal",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/davis-will-case/",
  "wordCount": 18723,
  "body": "• The matchless eloquence of Ingersoll! Where will one look\n    for the like of it? What other man living has the faculty of\n    blending wit and humor, pathos and fact and logic with such\n    exquisite grace, or with such impressive force? Senator\n    Sanders this morning begged the jury to beware of the\n    oratory of Ingersoll as it transcended that of Greece.\n    Sanders was not far amiss. In fierce and terrible invective\n    Ingersoll is not to be compared to Demosthenes. But in no\n    other respect is Demosthenes his superior. To a modern\n    audience, at least, Demosthenes on the Crown would seem a\n    pretty poor sort of affair by the side of Ingersoll on the\n    Davis will. It was a great effort, and its chief greatness\n    lay in its extreme simplicity.\n    Ingersoll stepped up to the jurors as near as he could get\n    and kept slowly walking up and down before them. At times he\n    would single out a single juryman, stop in front of him,\n    gaze steadily into his face and direct his remarks for a\n    minute or two to that one man alone. Again he would turn and\n    address himself to Senator Sanders, Judge Dixon or somebody\n    else of those interested in establishing the will as\n    genuine, At times the gravity of the jury and the audience\n    was so completely upset that Judge McHatton had to rap for\n    order, but presently the Colonel would change his mood and\n    the audience would be hushed into deepest silence. If the\n    jury could have retired immediately upon the conclusion of\n    Ingersoll's argument, there is little doubt as to what the\n    verdict would have been.\n    If Ingersoll himself is not absolutely convinced that the\n    will is a forgery, he certainly had the art of making people\n    believe that he was so convinced. He said he hoped he might\n    never win a case that he ought not to win as a matter of\n    right and justice. The idea which he sought to convey and\n    which he did convey was that he believed he was right, no\n    matter whether he could make others believe as he did or\n    not. In that lies Ingersoll's power.\n    Whether by accident or design the will got torn this\n    morning. A piece in the form of a triangle was torn from one\n    end. Ingersoll made quite a point this afternoon by passing\n    the pieces around among the jury, and asking each man of\n    them to note that the ink at the torn edges had not sunk\n    into, the paper. In doing this he adopted a conversational\n    tone and kept pressing the point until the juror he was\n    working upon nodded his head in approval.\n    Both Judge Dixon and Senator Sanders interrupted Ingersoll\n    early in his speech to take exception to certain of his\n    remarks, but the Colonel's dangerous repartee and delicate\n    art in twisting anything they might say to his own advantage\n    soon put a stop to the interruptions and the speaker had\n    full sway during the rest of the time at his disposal. The\n    crowd—it was as big as circumstances would permit, every\n    available inch of space in the room and in the court house\n    corridors being occupied—enjoyed Ingersoll' a speech\n    immensely, and only respect for the proprieties of the place\n    prevented frequent bursts of applause as an accompaniment to\n    the frequent bursts of eloquence.—Anaconda Standard, Butte,\n    Montana, Sept. 5,1891.\n\nMAY it please the Court and gentlemen of the jury, waiving\ncongratulations, reminiscences and animadversions, I will proceed to the\nbusiness in hand. There are two principal and important questions to be\ndecided by you: First, is the will sought to be probated, the will of\nAndrew J. Davis? Is it genuine? Is it honest?\n\nAnd second, did Andrew J. Davis make a will after 1866 revoking all\nformer wills, or were the provisions such that they were inconsistent\nwith the provisions of the will of 1866?\n\nThese are the questions, and as we examine them, other questions arise\nthat have to be answered. The first question then is: Who wrote the will\nof 1866? Whose work is it? When, where and by whom was it done? And I\ndon't want you, gentlemen, to pay any attention to what I say unless\nit appeals to your reason and to your good sense. Don't be afraid of\nme because I am a sinner.* I admit that I am. I am not like the other\ngentleman who thanked God \"that he was not as other men.\"\n  • Col. Ingersoll when speaking of himself as a sinner in\n    this address is referring to the remarks made by Senator\n    Sanders, who in the preceding address said:\n    \"In an old book occur the words, 'My son if sinners entice\n    thee consent thou not.' I will not apply this to you,\n    gentlemen of the jury. But I have a right to demand of you\n    that you hold your minds and hearts free from all influences\n    calculated to swerve you until you have heard the last words\n    in this case.\" The Senator enjoined them not to be beguiled\n    by the eloquence of a man who was famed for his eloquence\n    over two continents and in the islands of the sea; a man\n    whose eloquence fittingly transcended that of Greece in the\n    time of Alexander.\n\nI have the faults and frailties common to the human race, but in spite\nof being a sinner I strive to be at least a good-natured one, and I am\nsuch a sinner that if there is any good in any other world I am willing\nto share it with all the children of men. To that extent at least I am\na sinner; and I hope, gentlemen, that you will not be prejudiced\nagainst me on that account, or decide for the proponent simply upon the\nperfections of Senator Sanders. Now, I say, the question is: Who wrote\nthis will? The testimony offered by the proponent is that it was written\nby Job Davis. We have heard a great deal, gentlemen, of the difference\nbetween fact and opinion. There is a difference between fact and\nopinion, but sometimes when we have to establish a fact by persons,\nwe are hardly as certain that the fact ever existed as we are of the\nopinion, and although one swears that he saw a thing or heard a thing\nwe all know that the accuracy of that statement must be decided by\nsomething besides his word.\n\nThere is this beautiful peculiarity in nature—a lie never fits a\nfact, never. You only fit a lie with another lie, made for the express\npurpose, because you can change a lie but you can't change a fact, and\nafter a while the time comes when the last lie you tell has to be fitted\nto a fact, and right there is a bad joint; consequently you must test\nthe statements of people who say they saw, not by what they say but by\nother facts, by the surroundings, by what are called probabilities; by\nthe naturalness of the statement. If we only had to hear what witnesses\nsay, jurymen would need nothing but ears. Their brains could be\ndispensed with; but after you hear what they say you call a council in\nyour brain and make up your mind whether the statement, in view of all\nthe circumstances, is true or false.\n\nDid Job Davis write the will? I would be willing to risk this entire\ncase on that one proposition. Did Job Davis write this will? And I\npropose to demonstrate to you by the evidence on both sides that Job\nDavis did not write that will. Why do I say so?\n\nFirst: The evidence of all the parties is that Job Davis wrote a very\ngood hand; that his letters were even. He wrote a good hand; a kind of\nschoolmaster, copy-book hand. Is this will written in that kind of hand?\nI ask Judge Woolworth to tell you whether that is written in a clerkly\nhand; whether it was written by a man who wrote an even hand; whether\nit was written by a man who closed his \"a's\" and \"o's\"; whether it was\nwritten by one who made his \"h's\" and \"b's\" different. Job Davis was a\ngood scholar.\n\nNo good penman ever wrote the body of that will. If there were nothing\nelse I would be satisfied, and, in my judgment, you would be, that it is\nnot the writing of Job Davis.\n\nIt is the writing; of a poor penman; it is the writing of a careless\npenman, who, for that time, endeavored to write a little smaller than\nusual, and why? When people forge a will they write the names first on\nthe blank paper. They will not write the body of the will and then forge\nthe name to it, because if they are not successful in the forgery of\nthe name they would have to write the whole business over again; so the\nfirst thing they would do would be to write the name and the next thing\nthat they would do would be to write the will so as to bring it within\nthe space that was left, and here they wrote it a little shorter even\nthan was necessary and quit there [indicating on the will] and made\nthese six or seven marks and then turned over, and on the other side\nthey were a little crowded before they got to the name of A. J. Davis.\n\nNow, the next question is, was Job Davis a good speller? Let us be\nhonest about it. How delighted they would have been to show that he was\nan ignorant booby. But their witnesses and our witnesses both swear that\nhe was the best speller in the neighborhood; and when they brought men\nfrom other communities to a spelling match, after all had fallen on\nthe field, after the floor was covered with dead and wounded, Job Davis\nstood proudly up, not having missed a word. He was the best speller\nin that county, and not only so, but at sixteen years of age he wasn't\nsimply studying arithmetic, he was in algebra; and not only so, after\nhe had finished what you may call this common school education in\nSalt Creek township, he went to the Normal school of Iowa and prepared\nhimself to be a teacher, and came back and taught a school.\n\nNow, did Job Davis write this will? Senator Sanders says there are three\nor four misspelled words in this document, while the fact is there are\ntwenty words in the document that are clearly and absolutely misspelled.\nAnd what kind of words are misspelled? Some of the easiest and most\ncommon in the English language. Will you say upon your oaths that\nJob Davis, having the reputation of the champion speller of the\nneighborhood—will you, upon your oaths, say that when he wrote this\nwill (probably the only document of any importance, if he did write it,\nthat he ever wrote) he spelled shall \"shal\" every time it occurs in the\nwill? Will you say that this champion speller spelled the word whether\nwith two \"r's,\" and made it \"wherther,\" making two mistakes, first as to\nthe word itself, and second, as to the spelling? Will you say that\nthis champion speller could not spell the word dispose, but wrote it\n\"depose\"? And will you say the ordinary word give was spelled by this\neducated young man \"guive\"? And it seems that Colonel Sanders has\nransacked the misspelled world to find somebody idiotic enough to twist\na \"u\" in the word give, and even in the Century dictionary—I suppose\nthey call it the Century dictionary because they looked a hundred years\nto find that peculiarity of spelling—even there, although give is\nspelled four ways, besides the right way, no \"u\" is there. And will you\nsay that Job Davis did not know the word administrators?\n\nNow, let us be honest about this matter—let us be fair. It is not\na personal quarrel between lawyers. I never quarrel with anybody; my\nphilosophy being that everybody does as he must, and if he is in bad\nluck and does wrong, why, let us pity him, and if we happen to have good\nluck, and take the path where roses bloom, why, let us be joyful. That\nis my doctrine; no need of fighting about these little things. They are\nall over in a little while anyway. Do you believe that Job Davis spelled\nsheet—a sheet of paper—\"sheat\"? That is the way he spells it in this\ndocument. Now, let us be honor bright with each other, and do not let\nthe lawyers on the other side treat you as if you were twelve imbeciles.\nYou would better be misled by a sensible sinner than by the most pious\nabsurdities that ever floated out from the lips of man. Let us have some\ngood, hard sense, as we would in ordinary business life. Do you believe\nthat Job Davis, the educated young man, the school teacher, the one who\nattended the Normal school would put periods in the middle of sentences\nand none at the end? That he would put a period on one side of an \"n\"\nand then fearing the \"n\" might get away, put one on the other; and then\nwhen he got the sentence done, be out of periods, so that he could not\nput one there, and put so many periods in the writing that it looked as\nif it had broken out with some kind of punctuation measles?\n\nJob Davis, an educated man! And you are going to tell this jury that\nthat man wrote that will! I think your cheeks will get a little red\nwhile you are doing it. This man, when he comes to this little word \"is\"\nin the middle of a sentence, his desire for equality is so great that\nhe wishes to put that word on a level with others, and starts it with a\ncapital, so that it will not be ashamed to appear with longer words.\n\nAnd yet the will was written by Job Davis, and Sconce saw him write it,\nand Mrs. Downey saw him write it. If there were one million Sconces, and\na million Mrs. Downeys, and they held their hands up high and swore that\nthey did, I know that they did not, unless all the witnesses who have\ntestified to the education of Job Davis have testified lies. There is\nwhere I told you a little while ago that when a lie comes in contact\nwith a fact it will not fit. These other people in Salt Creek township\nthat have come here and sworn to that, did not know whether it was\nspelled right or wrong. They did not take that into consideration.\n\nIt seems to me utterly, absolutely, infinitely impossible that this will\nwas written by a good speller. I know it was not. So do you. There is\nnot a man on the jury that does not know it was not written by a good\nspeller—not a man. And you cannot, upon your oaths, say that you\nbelieve two things—first, that Job Davis was a good speller, and,\nsecondly, that he wrote this will. Utterly impossible. There is another\nword here, \"wordly\"—\"all my wordly goods.\" \"Worldly\" it ought to be;\nbut this Job Davis, this scholar, did not know that there was such\na word as worldly, he left out the \"l\" and called it wordly, \"all\nmy wordly goods,\" and they want you to find on your oath that it was\nwritten by a good speller. There are twenty words misspelled in this\nshort will, and the most common words, some of them, in the English\nlanguage. Now, I say that these twenty misspelled words are twenty\nwitnesses—twenty witnesses that tell the truth without being on their\noath, and that you cannot mix by cross-examination. Twenty witnesses!\nEvery misspelled word holds up its maimed and mutilated hand and swears\nthat Job Davis did not write that will—every one. Suppose witnesses had\nsworn that Judge Woolworth wrote this will. How many Salt Creekers do\nyou think it would take to convince you that he was around spelling\nsheet \"sheat\"?\n\nMr. Woolworth. I have done worse than that a great many times.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. You have acted worse than that, but you have never\nspelled worse than that.\n\nNow, this Job Davis died in 1868. Nobody has seen him write for\ntwenty-three years, but everybody, their witnesses and ours, positively\nswears that he was a good speller. Now, comes another question: Who\nwrote this will? Colonel Sanders tells us that it is immaterial whether\nJob Davis wrote it or not. To me that is a very strange remark. If Job\nDavis did not write it, Mr. Sconce has sworn falsely. If Job Davis did\nnot write it, then there was no will on the 20th of July, 1866, and all\nthe Glasgows and Quigleys and Downeys and the rest are mistaken—not one\nword of truth in their testimony unless Job Davis wrote that will.\n\nAnd yet a learned counsel, who says that his object is to assist you in\nfinding a correct verdict, says it don't make any difference whether Job\nDavis wrote the will or not. I don't think it will in this case.\n\nWho wrote the will? I am going to tell you, and I am going to\ndemonstrate it, so that you need not think anything about it—so that\nyou will know it; that is to say, it will be a moral certainty.\n\nWho wrote this will? I will tell you who, and I have not the slightest\nhesitation in saying it. James R. Eddy wrote this will. And why do I say\nit? Many witnesses have sworn that they were well acquainted with Mr.\nEddy's handwriting—many. Several of the witnesses here had the writing\nof Eddy with them. That writing was handed to the counsel on the other\nside, so that they might frame questions for cross-examination. Those\nwitnesses founded their answers as to peculiarities upon the writings\ngiven to the other side, and not on the writing in this will—just on\nthe writings of letters and documents they had in their possession, and\nthat we handed to the opposite counsel. Now, what do they say? Every\nwitness who has testified on that subject said that Eddy had this\npeculiarity: First, that whenever a word ended with the letter \"d,\" he\nmade that \"d\" separate from the rest of the word.\n\nAnd, gentlemen, there are twenty-eight words in this short will ending\nwith the letter \"d\"; clearly, unequivocally, in twenty-seven of the\nwords ending in \"d,\" the \"d\" is separate from the rest of the word.\n\nI do not include the twenty-eighth, because there is a little doubt\nabout it. The testimony is unvarying, except the writing that Eddy has\ndone since he has been found out to be the forger of that will. Nobody\nhas sworn that he had a letter from him in which that is not the fact,\nunless that letter was written since the institution of this suit.\nTwenty-seven of these words end with \"d\" and the \"d\" is made separate\nfrom the rest of the word. Will Judge Woolworth please tell the jury\nwhether any witness testified that Job Davis made these separate\nfrom the rest of the word? Poor Job, dead, and his tombstone is being\nornamented with \"guive,\" and he is now made to appear as an ignorant\nnobody.\n\nTwenty-eight words ending with \"d.\" Now, if that were all, I would say\nthat might be an accident—a coincidence, and that we could not build\nupon that as a rock. I would say we must go further, we must find\nwhether any more peculiarities exist in Eddy's writing that also exist\nin this will. We must be honest with him. Now, let us see. He always had\nthe peculiarity of terminating that \"d\" abruptly, down just above the\nline, or at the line, lifting his pen suddenly, making no mark to the\nright. Every one of the \"d's\" in the will is made exactly that way.\nCorroboration number two. These twenty-seven witnesses, the \"d's,\" swear\nthat Eddy is their father, that they are the children of his hand, that\nhe made them.\n\nAnother peculiarity: They say that Eddy always made a double \"l\" in a\npeculiar manner. The last \"l\" came down to the line of the up stroke,\nand that \"l\" as a rule stopped there. It did not go on to the right—a\npeculiarity. Now, let us see. In this will there are nine words that end\nwith a double \"l\" (and I want you to look at that when you go out); each\none is made exactly the same way—each one. Nine more witnesses that\ntake the stand and swear to the authorship of this will.\n\nHas anybody shown that that was Job Davis's habit? Poor, dead dust\ncannot swear; nobody has said that. Another peculiarity is that Eddy\nmade a \"p\" without making any loop to the right in the middle of it. Now\nand then he makes one with a loop, but his habit is to make one without.\nMoses Downey swore that Job Davis made a \"p\" with three loops, a loop at\nthe top, a loop at the bottom and a loop in the middle. That is exactly\nwhat he swore, and he was the one who taught Job to write; and he said\nhe made his letters carefully, he closed his \"a's\" at the top, he made\nhis \"o's\" round, he made his \"h's\" after the orthodox pattern, he was\nall right on the \"b's\"—your witness.\n\nNow, gentlemen, you remember how that \"p\" looks, without any loop; and\nthere are twenty-one \"p's\" that have no loop to the right—twenty-one in\nthis will. Twenty-one more witnesses, and every one of them is worth a\nhundred Sconces, with his sheep and hogs floating in the air. Twenty-one\nwitnesses that swear to the paternity of this will. Moses Downey, your\nown witness, swears that Job made a \"p\" with three loops. There is not a\n\"p\" in the will with three loops, and there are twenty-one without any,\nand the evidence of all the witnesses on our side was that it was his\nhabit to make \"p's\" without any loop, and they were given the papers\nthat they might cross-examine every one.\n\nNow, do you see, we are getting along on the edge of demonstration.\n\nThese things cannot conspire and happen. They may in Omaha, but they\ncan't in Butte, or even in Salt Creek township. Nature is substantially\nthe same everywhere and I believe her laws are substantially the same\neverywhere, from a grain of sand to the blazing Arcturus; everywhere the\nprobabilities are the same. Let us take another step.\n\nIt is also sworn by intelligent men who have the writing of Eddy in\ntheir possession, (writing shown to the other side) that it was his\nhabit to use \"a's,\" \"o's\" and \"u's\" indiscriminately. For instance,\n\"thut\" that, you all remember in the will. When you go out you will\nsee it. He often uses an \"o\" where an \"a\" should be, an \"a\" where a \"u\"\nshould be, a \"u\" where an \"a\" or \"o\" should be; in other words, he uses\nthem interchangeably or indiscriminately. How many cases of that occur\nin this will? Twenty-two—twenty-two instances in this will in which one\nof these vowels is used where another ought to have been used.\n\nTwenty-two more witnesses that James R. Eddy wrote this will. Twenty-two\nmore. They have taken the stand; they won't have to be sworn, because\nthey can't lie. It would be splendid if all witnesses were under that\ndisability—that they had to tell the truth. That cannot be answered by\nlogwood ink. Eddy made \"p's\" just the same, whether he used logwood or\nnigrosin, and he used his \"a's\" and \"o's\" and \"u's\" indiscriminately, no\nmatter whether he was writing in ink, red, blue, brown, iron, Carter's,\nArnold's, Stafford's, or anybody else's. Another witness testified that\nhe used \"r\" where he ought to use \"s,\" and that he used \"s\" where he\nought to use \"r,\" or that he made his \"r's\" and \"s's\" the same. Many\ninstances of that kind occur in this will, and every \"r\" says to Eddy,\n\"you are the man\"—every one. Every \"s\" swears that your will is a poor,\nignorant, impudent forgery.\n\nThat is what it is—the most ignorant forgery ever presented in a court\nof justice since the art of writing was invented. It comes in covered\nwith the ear marks of fraud. And yet I am told that it requires audacity\nto say that it is a forgery. What on earth does it require to say that\nit is genuine? Audacity, in comparison with what is essential to say\nthat it is genuine, is rank meekness and cowardice. Words lose their\nmeaning. All swear that Eddy scattered his periods with a liberal hand,\nlike a farmer sowing his grain. Now, we will take the twenty-third\nline of the will. \"To their use (period) and (period) benefit (another\nperiod) forever (another period)\"; twenty-fifth line: \"Davis (period)\nand (another period) Job (another period) Davis (another period) of\n(another period) Davis (another period) County (another period).\" What\na spendthrift of punctuation this man was! And yet he was well educated,\nstudying algebra, going to the Normal school in Iowa, champion speller\nof the neighborhood. Every period certifies and swears that Job Davis\ndid not write that will. He had studied grammar. Punctuation is a\npart of grammar and no one but the most arrant, blundering, stumbling\nignoramus, would think of putting six or eight periods along in a\nsentence, and then leaving the end of that sentence naked without\nanything. Another peculiarity is, Mr. Eddy uses \"b\" and \"h\"\ninterchangeably. He makes a \"b\" exactly like an \"h,\" makes an \"h\" exactly\nlike a \"b.\" You can see that all through the will. There are several\ninstances of it, and each one says that Job Davis did not write it.\nDowney says he did not write that way, and each one says that Mr. Eddy\ndid write it, and nobody else.\n\nI am not through yet. The testimony is that Eddy was a poor speller.\n\nNow, the learned counsel, Mr. Dixon, says that in this case we must\nbe governed by the probable, by the natural, by the reasonable—three\nsplendid words, and they should be in the mind of every juror when\nexamining this testimony. Is it natural, is it probable, is it\nreasonable? We have shown that Eddy was the poorest speller in the\nbusiness. Whenever they went to a spelling match, at the first fire he\ndropped; never outlived, I think, the first volley. And one man by the\nname of Sharp distinctly recollects that they gave out a sentence to be\nspelled: \"Give alms to the poor,\" and Eddy had to spell the first word,\ngive; and he lugged in his \"u\" with both ears—\"guive,\" and he dropped\ndead the first fire. The man remembers it because it is such a curious\nspelling of give; and if I had heard anybody spell it with a \"u\" when I\nwas six years old it would linger in my memory still.\n\nNow, let us take Judge Dixon's test. It is a good one, well stated, and\nit is for you to decide whether the misspelled words were misspelled by\na good speller or a poor speller. If you say Job Davis wrote it, then\nyou are unnatural, unreasonable and improbable.\n\nIsn't it altogether more natural, more reasonable, more probable, to say\nthat a bad speller misspelled the words than that a good speller did?\n\nLet us stick to his standard, and see if Eddy spelled give \"guive\"—and,\ngentlemen, you cannot find in all the writing of James R. Eddy, written\nbefore he was charged with this forgery, where the word give appears,\nthat it is not written with a \"u\"—I defy you to find a line in the\nworld where \"given\" is \"guivin.\" Now, let us go another step. Everybody\nadmits that he was a poor speller, and is it not more reasonable to say\nthat he wrote the will on the spelling, than that the champion speller\ndid? We have some more evidence on Mr. Eddy as good as anything I have\nstated.\n\nNow, do not be misled because I am a sinner. Let us stick to the\nfacts. William H. Davis testified to the spelling of Eddy, and while he\ntestified, held in his hand a will that he had seen James R. Eddy write.\nIn this will there were twenty words misspelled; shall, \"shal\" and\nin the James Davis will, shall \"shal.\" Good! Whether, in our will\n\"wherther\"; in the other will, \"wherther\"—just the same; sheet of\npaper, \"sheat\" in our will; \"sheat\" in the other will; in our will\n\"guive,\" in that \"guive.\" Did Job Davis rise from the dead and write\nanother will? Was one copied from the other, and the copy so slavish\nthat it was misspelled exactly the same? You cannot say it was entirely\ncopied, for now and then a word, by accident, is right.\n\nJudge Dixon tells you that Eddy did not disguise his spelling. Good\nLord! How could he disguise his spelling? He spelled as he thought was\nright. No man of his education would think of disguising his spelling.\nHe knows how to spell give; he believes it is with a \"u\" still There is\na prejudice against \"u\" since he was charged with forgery, and so he\nhas dropped it; but he thinks it is right, nevertheless. Now, isn't\nit perfectly wonderful, is it not a miracle, that James R. Eddy made\nexactly the same mistakes in spelling and writing one will that Job\nDavis did in writing another?\n\nIsn't it wonderful beyond the circumference of belief, that a good\nspeller and bad speller happened to misspell the same words? It won't\ndo. There is something rotten about this will, and the rotten thing\nabout it is that James R. Eddy wrote it, and he wrote it about March,\n1890. That is when he wrote it, and he let the proponent in this case\nhave it. We will get to that shortly. So, gentlemen, I tell you that\nevery misspelled word is a witness in our favor. There is something\nmore. Eddy uses the character \"&\" in writing, instead of writing \"and.\"\nThe will is full of them; and it is stated that sometimes when he\nendeavors to write out the word \"and\" he only gets \"an,\" and that\npeculiarity is in this will. \"An\" for \"and\"; that you will find in the\nseventeenth line in the last word of the line. Colonel Jacques swore\nthat one of Eddy's misspelled words was the word \"judgment\"; that he put\nin a superfluous \"e,\" and in this case here is \"judgement\"—\"shall give\nthe annuity that in the judgement of the executors shall be final;\"\nthere is the superfluous \"e\"—judgement. Now, there is another. Their\nwitnesses swore that as a rule he turns the bottom of his \"y's\" and\n\"g's\" to the left. Now, you will find the same peculiarity in this will,\nand the amusing peculiarity that he turns the \"g's\" a little more than\nhe does the \"y's.\" I don't want these things answered by an essay on\nimmutable justice. I want them to say how this is. Another thing, how he\nmakes a \"t,\" with a little pot hook at the top, and that hook has caught\nMr. Eddy. You will find them made in the will, exactly, where the \"t\"\ncommences a word—where it is what we call the initial letter. And what\nelse? When he makes a small \"e\" commencing a word, he always makes\nit like a capital \"E,\" only smaller. That is the testimony, and that\nhappens in this will and it happens in the papers and letters.\n\nNow, I say, that all these peculiarities taken together, the same words\nmisspelled, the same letters used interchangeably, the same mistakes in\npunctuation, the same mistakes in the words themselves—all these things\namount to an absolute demonstration. So, I told you, he uses the capital\n\"I\" with the word \"is\" and that he does twice in this will.\n\nHere are hundreds, almost, of witnesses that take the stand and swear\nthat Eddy is the author of that will. He wrote it—every word of it. He\nnegotiated with John A. Davis for it, and I will come to that after a\nlittle. And how do they support this will that has in it the internal\nevidence that it was written by James R. Eddy? Why do I say it is\nimpossible that he should have written it, and the will should be\ngenuine? Because at the date of that will, or the date it purports to\nbear, Eddy was only eight years old. And we don't know the real date,\ngentlemen, of that will yet. My opinion is that it was dated by mistake,\nso that it came on a date that Davis was not there, or came on a day\nthat was Sunday, and then they folded up that will, and scratched it\nand rubbed it until the date is absolutely illegible, and nobody can say\nwhether it is June, July, or January. There was a purpose. The day may\nhave been Sunday, or they may have afterward ascertained that he was\nnot there. It is a suspicious circumstance that the day is left loose\nso they can have a month to play on, maybe more. Now, they say, can you\nimpeach Sconce?\n\nEvery misspelled word in the will impeaches Sconce, ever; period\nimpeaches Sconce, every \"a\" that is used as \"o\" impeaches him, and \"o\"\nas \"u\"; every \"b\" that is made like an \"h\" impeaches him, every \"h\" that\nis made like a \"b\" impeaches him.\n\nIn other words, every peculiarity of James R. Eddy that appears in that\nwill impeaches J. C. Sconce, Sr.—Captain Sconce. There is a thing about\nthis will which, to my mind, is a demonstration. It may be that it is\nbecause I am a sinner, but I find, and so do you find it in the second\ninitial of Sconce, in the letter \"C.\" There are two punctures, and you\nwill find that exactly where the punctures are there is a little spatter\nin the ink—a disturbance of the line, in the capital first; in the\nsmall \"c\" there is another puncture and another disturbance of the line.\nProfessor Elwell says that these holes were made afterwards. Let's see.\nThere is a hole, and there is a splatter and a change of the line. There\nis another hole and there is another change. There is another hole and\nthere is another change. What is natural? What is reasonable? What is\nprobable? It is that the hole being there, interrupted the pen, and\naccounts for the diversion of the line, and for the spatter. That is\nnatural, isn't it? but they take the unnatural side. They say that these\nholes were made after the writing. Would it not be a miracle that just\nthree holes should happen to strike just the three places where there\nhad been a division of the line and a little spatter of the ink? Take up\nyour table of logarithms and figure away until you are blind, and such\nan accident could not happen in as many thousand, billion, trillion,\nquintillion years as you can express by figures.\n\nThree holes by accident hitting just the three places where the pen was\nimpeded and where the spatters were. Never such a thing in the world.\nIt might happen once. Nobody could make me believe that it happened\ntwice—that is, a hole might happen to get where the pen was interrupted\nonce; as to the second hole, I would bet all I have on earth, as to\nthe third hole, I know it did not. I just know it did not. And yet Mr.\nElwell says that these holes were made afterwards, and he goes still\nfurther, and says that there is not any trouble in the line. If anybody\nwill look at it, even with the natural eye, they can see that there is;\nand, in a kind of diversion, they called Professor Hagan, when he called\nattention to it, Professor Pin-holes and pin-hole expert. He might have\nreplied that that was a pin-head objection.\n\nProfessor Elwell accounts for all the dirt on this will by perspiration,\nall on one side and made by the thumb, and although there were four\nfingers under it at the same time, the fingers were so contrary they\nwouldn't perspire. This left the thumb to do all the sweating. I need\nnot call him a professor of perspiration, for that throws no light\non the subject; but I say to you, gentlemen, that those marks, those\npunctures, were in that paper when Sconce wrote his name. Sconce says\nthey were not—he remembered. He has got a magnificent memory. I say\nthat even that shows that he is not telling the facts.\n\nNow, what else? We went around among the neighbors. He was charged with\npassing counterfeit money, with stealing sheep, with stealing hogs, with\nstealing cattle and with stealing harness.\n\nMr. Woolworth. It was not proved that this man was accused of\ncounterfeiting, of passing counterfeit money.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I tell you how I prove it. A man by the name of Lanman\nwas on the stand. He swore he was acquainted with Sconce's reputation.\nColonel Sanders asked him who he had ever heard say anything about it.\nHe said Lewis Miller and Abraham Miller and a man by the name of Hopkins\nand several others. What did they say? I asked them afterwards, and\namong other things I recollect he was charged with passing counterfeit\nmoney, stealing hogs, stealing sheep, stealing harness, killing another\nman's heifer in the woods. I don't think I am mistaken, but if I am I\nwill take counterfeit money back. I won't try to pass counterfeit money\nmyself, although a sinner.\n\nMr. Woolworth. (Interrupting): He was not charged with killing a heifer.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. No, no; the heifer was there. I have a very good memory;\nI suppose it comes from the habit of taking no notes. Lanman was the\nman, and while we are on Sconce there is a thing almost too good to be\npassed.\n\nMr. Jackson was on the stand, Senator Sanders asked him, \"Whoever told\nyou anything against him?\" \"Well,\" Jackson answered, \"I asked Hopkins—\"\n\"Who else?\" \"Well,\" he said, \"I had a private conversation, I don't like\nto tell.\" \"You have got to tell.\" Mr. Jackson said to the Court: \"Must I\ntell; it was a private conversation.\" \"You must tell.\" \"Well,\" he said,\n\"it was with Mr. Carruthers, one of the counsel for proponent;\" and\nhe said that what Mr. Carruthers said had more influence upon him than\nanything else, because Carruthers was in a position to know.\n\nMr. Sanders. (Interrupting). Were those his exact words?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Yes, that he was an attorney. I tell you that was a\ndeath-blow; that came like thunder out of a clear sky, when you haven't\nseen a cloud for a month.\n\nBesides that he was impeached in open court. What else? The witnesses\nthat came to the rescue of Sconce; how did they rescue him? They lived\ndown there and never heard anything against him. All these rumors, thick\nin the air, the bleating of sheep following him wherever lie went; the\nlow of cattle and yet these people never heard it. Tried for stealing\nharness, they never heard of it They were not acquainted with him. They\nsaid that they had some personal dealings with him and he was all right\nand one man endeavored to draw a distinction between truth and honesty.\nA man could be a very truthful man and a very dishonest man. Just think\nof that distinction, a man of truth but dishonest. That won't do. Even\nSenator Sanders said: \"Some accusations, probably a dozen,\" to use his\nexcellent language—what memories we have! Let me read the exact words:\n\"Some accusations; probably a dozen or more, of stealing sheep and hogs\nlit on Sconce.\"\n\nMr. Sanders: I didn't say that.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I don't insist; but those are the exact words I\nremember. And don't you remember that he went into a kind of homily on\nneighborhood gossip, that hardly anybody escaped? I believe a good many\nof this jury have escaped and a good many in this audience have escaped.\nYou can pick out a great many men that a dozen accusations of stealing\nhogs and sheep and heifers have not lit on.\n\nThen, there is another thing about Sconce that I don't like, gentlemen.\nSconce, in giving the history of the affair in Arkansas, was asked if he\ndidn't say, \"Did I say that Davis' name was on it when I signed it?\" and\nright there he skulked and stated under oath that when he said that he\nalluded to the photograph. Could he by any possibility have alluded to\nthe photograph when he said: \"Did I say that Davis's name was on it when\nI signed it?\" Did he ever sign the photograph? No; he never signed the\nphotograph. Davis never signed the photograph, and if he ever said those\nwords he said them with reference to the original will, and he knows it.\nAnd yet, in your presence, under oath, he pretended that when he made\nthat remark he alluded to the photograph. I wish somebody would reply\nto that and tell us whether, as a matter of fact, he alluded to the\nphotograph.\n\nNow, Mr. Sconce, as you know, has the most peculiar memory in the world.\nHe remembers things that had nothing whatever to do with the subject,\nphotographed in all details, everywhere; and yet, gentlemen, your\nknowledge of human nature is sufficient to tell you that that kind of\nmemory is not the possession of any human being.\n\nThousands of people imagine that detail in memory is evidence of truth.\nI don't think it; if there is something in the details that is striking,\nthen there is; but naturalness, and, above all, probability, is the test\nof truth. Probability is the torch that every juryman should hold, and\nby the light of that torch he should march to his verdict. Probability!\nNow, let us take that for a text. Probability is the test of truth. Let\nus follow the natural, let us follow the reasonable.\n\nAt the time they say this will was made, Andrew J. Davis had removed\nfrom Iowa years before; had settled, I believe, in Gallatin county.\nHis interests in Iowa were nothing compared with his interests in this\nTerritory at that time. From the time he left Iowa he began to make\nmoney; I mean money of some account. He began to amass wealth. He was, I\nthink, a sagacious man.\n\nJudge Dixon says that he was a man of great business sagacity. I am\nthankful for that admission. In a little while he became worth several\nhundreds of thousands of dollars. Afterwards he acquired millions. Now,\nduring all that time, from the 20th of July, 1866, up to the day of\nhis death, he never inquired after the James Davis will. It is a little\ncurious he never wrote a letter to James Davis and said, \"Where is the\nwill, have you got it?\" Not once. They have not shown a letter of that\nkind, not a word. Threw it in the waste-basket of forgetfulness and\nturned his face to Montana. Years rolled by, he never wrote about it,\nnever inquired after it.\n\nThey have brought no witnesses to show that A. J. Davis ever spoke of\nthe will; not a word. Gentlemen, let us be controlled by the natural, by\nthe reasonable, by the probable.\n\nIn 1868 one of the executors died—Job Davis. I think Colonel Sanders\nsaid that if a man of Judge Davis's intelligence, knowing what a\ndifficult thing a will is to write, should have allowed Mr. Knight, a\nKentucky lawyer, to draw his will, who had not had much practice, why,\nhe is astonished at that, and in the next breath tells you that Andrew\nJ. Davis employed a twenty-two year old boy who could not spell \"give\"\nto draw up his will in 1866. Isn't it wonderful what strange things\npeople can swallow and then find fault with others! Now, remember:\n\nIn 1868 Job Davis died; then there was only one executor to that will.\nA. J. Davis went on piling up his money, thousands on thousands. Greed\ngrew with age, as it generally does. Gold is spurned by the young and\nloved by the old. There is something magnificent after all about the\nextravagance of youth, and there is something pitiful about the greed\nof old age. But he kept getting money, more and more, and in '85 he had\nsold the Lexington mine. He was then a millionaire. In '85, I think.\nThey say he sold that mine in '81, maybe he was then a millionaire.\nThere was the will of '66 down in Salt Creek township, used as a model\nfor other wills, for the purpose of teaching the neighbors spelling\nand elocution, to say nothing of punctuation. They got up little will\nsoirees down there—will parties—and all the neighbors came in and Mrs.\nDowney read it aloud and wept when she thought it was the writing of\nher brother Job. That accounts for the tear drops, I suppose; the round\nspots on the will. 1885; Andrew J. Davis worth millions. Then what\nhappened? Then James Davis, the other executor, died. Then there was a\nwill floating around down in Salt Creek township, sometimes in a trunk,\nsometimes in a box, other times in an old envelope, other times in a\nwrapper, and when I think of the shadowy adventures of that document it\nmakes me lonesome. James is dead, poor Job nothing but dust; a will down\nthere with no executors at all; and A. J. Davis did not know in whose\npossession it was, and never wrote to find out. Let us be governed\nby the natural, gentlemen, by the probable. Never found out, never\ninquired, and after James Davis died he lived four years more. I think\nJames Davis died on the 5th of December, 1885, then he lived a little\nmore than three years after he knew that both executors were dead and\ndid not know whether the will existed or not. Judge Dixon tells\nus perhaps if he had made a will before he died it would have been\ndifferent from this. I think perhaps it would. What makes him think\nthat it would have been different? If that will existed in Salt Creek\ntownship he knew it, and he knew it in 1885, 6, 7, 8, 9, and when death\ntouched with his icy finger his heart he knew it then, and if he made\nthat will in '66, it was his will when he died unless it had been\nrevoked. He knew what he was doing.\n\nI tell you there was no will down in Salt Creek township at all; there\nwasn't any here. There have been a good many since. Now, where is the\nevidence that he ever thought of this will, that he ever spoke of it?\n\nWhat else? He appointed three executors of his will, that is, in '66,\nif he made it, and in that he provided that a like maintenance should be\ngiven to Thomas Jefferson, Pet Davis and Miss Bergett, all three of Van\nBuren County, State of Iowa. What else did he say? That the executors\nshould have the right of fixing that amount, and whatever amount in\ntheir judgment should be fixed should be final. What is the legal effect\nof that? The legal effect of that is that the estate could not have\npassed to John A. Davis until the last who had a life interest was dead.\nThe proceeds could have been taken, every cent of them, from that estate\nand given to the three persons for life maintenance, and the youngest of\nthose persons was four years old. John A. Davis would have had to wait\nseventeen years. And do you think that A. J. Davis ever made a will like\nthat, putting it into the power of two executors to divert the entire\nincome to certain persons and that there could be no division until they\nwere all dead.\n\nNow, another improbability. Recollect, all the time, that we are to be\ngoverned by reason and naturalness. Now, then, it was claimed that Judge\nDavis held certain relations with a certain Miss Caroline Bergett. It\nwas claimed that a daughter known as Pet Davis was his. It was also\nclaimed that a boy, Thomas Jefferson Davis, was his son. Nobody tells\nthe truth in this will although it has been alluded to and argued as\nwell, I think, as could be. There is this trouble in the will that\nthough the boy Jeff was never in Van Buren County until he was twelve\nyears old—was never there until six years after the will was dated, yet\nhis supposed father describes him as of Van Buren County.\n\nNext, Miss Caroline Bergett had married a man by the name of W. V. Smith\nin 1853, and in 1858, W. V. Smith took his wife and children and moved\nto Texas—eight years before this will was made, and yet A. J. Davis\nforgot her name, forgot her residence, forgot the residence of the boy\nthat was imputed to him; that of itself is enough to show that he was\nnot present when the will was made. If there is anything on earth that\nhe would remember this is it, and you know it. Although Mrs. Downey\ncould not remember when she was married or when her first child was\nborn, she does remember the time it took her to dust the room where\nthere was a clothes-press, a table and three or four chairs. She\nrecollects that.\n\nAnother improbability:\n\nJohn A. Davis, the proponent, had charge of the Davis farm down in Iowa\nand stayed there for six years after this alleged will was made, and\nalthough he was acquainted with the Quigleys, the Henshaws, the Sconces,\nand all the aristocracy of the neighborhood, he says he never heard of\nthe existence of this will which so many people of that section talked\nabout. What a place for keeping secrets!\n\nSenator Sanders says that the reason Judge Davis made his will in Salt\nCreek township was because in that township they knew about this woman\nor these women and these children, and he didn't want to go into any\nother community and make his will.\n\nAny need of publishing his will? Any need of reading any more than the\nattesting clause to the attesting witnesses? Any need to divulge a line?\nNone. Ah, but Senator Sanders said that he wanted to keep the secret.\nThat is the reason he left the will upon that table and rode away in a\ndebonnair kind of style on his roan horse with the bobtail, leaving a\ncongregation of Salt Creek loafers to read his will. He wanted to keep\nit secret; hoped that it would never get out. Imagine the scene, Job\nDavis writing the will; Mrs. Downey with a duster tucked under her arm\nlike the soubrette in a theatre. Well, when he was writing the will she\nwas looking over his shoulder and read the will as fast as he wrote it.\nThat makes me think of the fellow who was writing a letter and there\nwas a man looking over his shoulder, so he said: \"I would write more\nbut there is a dirty dog looking over my shoulder,\" and the fellow said:\n\"You are a liar.\"\n\nEverybody read it. Mrs. Downey read it; she read it as Job wrote it;\nthen he read it aloud; and then he went and got Sconce and read it\nagain; then in comes Glasgow and he read it. I think Mrs. Downey must\nhave read this will ten or twelve times.\n\nMr. Myers. She said twenty-five.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Oh, yes; twenty-five, because it was in Job's\nhandwriting; and whenever the twilight crept around the farm bringing a\nlittle sadness, a little pathetic feeling, she would light a candle and\nhunt the will, and read it just to think about Job. She would see the\nwords \"guive\" and \"wherther\" and all that brought back Job, and she used\nto wonder \"wherther\" he was in Paradise or not.\n\nNow, John A. lived down there and knew all these people and never heard\nof that will.\n\nWhat do you think of that? Why is it that John never got any information\nfrom Sconce? Sconce, who saw the will written and who was one of the\nattesting witnesses. Why didn't he hear of it from old Downey? Why\ndidn't he hear of it from the Quigleys or the Dotsons? Why didn't he\nhear of it in Salt Creek township, when it was seen and read and read\nand read again until I think many of them knew it by heart? And yet\nthe only person really interested was walking around unconscious of his\ngreat good fortune, and nobody ever told him. There is another thing:\nFor four months after Andrew J. Davis died nobody told John about the\nwill. Nearly four months passed away; I think he died on the 11th of\nMarch, 1890, and this will came to John on the first day of July. All\nthe neighbors knew it. Just as soon as A. J. died, they all said: \"John\nis coming right into the fortune now\" only nobody told John; and the\nfirst man we find with the will is James R. Eddy, and the next man we\nfind with the will is John A. Davis, the proponent. When John A. Davis\nsaw this will, leaving him four or five million dollars, it did not take\nmuch to convince him that the signature was genuine. Human nature is\nmade that way. If it was leaving four or five millions to either of us,\nincluding the sinner who addresses you, the probability is that I would\nsay, \"Well, that looks pretty genuine—pretty genuine.\" And then if\nI could get a few other fellows to swear that it was, I would feel\ncertain, and say, \"That is my money.\"\n\nNow, another improbability. All the evidence shows that Judge Davis was\na business-like, quiet, methodical, careful, suspicious man, secretive,\nkeeping his business to himself, keeper of his own counsels; and when he\ndid make a will it was sealed; it was given to one of his friends to\nput away, and to keep. It did not become the common property of the\nneighborhood. He did not mount his roan horse and ask the people of the\ncommunity to look at it. He was a methodical, business-like man, and I\nsuppose many of you, gentlemen of the jury, knew him; and I shall rely\nsomewhat on your knowledge of A. J. Davis, for you to say whether he\nmade this will, whether in 1866 he left his old father naked to the\nworld; whether he cared nothing for brothers and sisters; whether he\ncared nothing for the children of the sister that raised him. I leave it\nfor you to say. You probably know something about this matter. Andrew J.\nDavis, when he was a child, when all the children were gathered around\nthe same knee, the children that had been nourished at the same tender\nand holy breast, he would not have done this then. If some good fortune\ncame to one, it was divided.\n\nHow beautiful the generosity, the hospitality of childhood! But as they\ngrow old there comes the love of gold, and the love of gold seems to\nhave the same effect upon the heart that it does upon the country where\nit is found. All the roses fade, the beautiful green trees lose their\nleaves, and there is nothing in the heart but sage brush. And so it is\nwith the land that holds within the miserly grip of rocks what we call\nthe precious metals.\n\nThe next question in the case is the Knight will. Was any such will\nmade? And I say here to-day, knowing what I am saying, I never saw upon\nthe witness stand a man who appeared to be more candid, more anxious and\ndesirous of telling the exact truth than E. W. Knight, and from what I\nhave heard there is not a man in Montana with a better reputation. He\nhas no interest in this business, not one penny; and it was months and\nmonths after the death of Judge Davis that we knew such a will ever\nexisted—that is, on our side. Either Mr. Knight was telling what he\nbelieved to be true, or he was perjuring himself. No ifs and ands about\nit. He is a man of intelligence and knows what he is saying. He swears\nthat A. J. Davis made a will.\n\nAnd what else does he swear to? That there was also the draft of a will,\nwhich gave away the mine or provided for its working, and then at the\nend of that draft, provided that the rest of the property should be\ndivided in accordance with the statute. Thereupon Mr. Knight told him:\n\"Your heirs would interfere by injunction, and you had better bequeath\nyour whole property and fix the amount to be expended in the development\nof the mine.\" Thereupon he made another will, and that will was signed.\n\nNow, Mr. Knight knows whether it was signed or not. The will was signed\nor Mr Knight committed perjury knowingly, willfully and corruptly. What\ndoes he say? That it was signed. What else? That it was attested. Then\nthese gentlemen came forward with Mr. Talbot, who says that Knight said\nthat when Davis came to the bank to get the will he thought he was going\nto execute it. That is, the idea being, it was not signed.\n\nWhat was it attested for if it was not signed? That is absurd to the\nverge of idiocy. But they say that Mr. Knight is not corroborated. Let\nus see. He says that Andrew J. Davis made a will. Mr. Keith swears that\nA. J. Davis made a will. Knight says that Davis went out and brought\nKeith in, and Keith swears that he lived next door and A. J. Davis\ndid come in there and get him and he knows the time on account of the\nsickness of his child. Corroboration number two. Knight swears that\nDavis then went for another man. Keith says that he did go and get\nCaleb Irvine. Corroboration number three. Knight said one of the men who\nsigned the will was in his working clothes. Corroboration number four.\nKnight swears that Davis read the attesting clause. Keith swears the\nsame. Keith swears that Davis signed it, that he signed it, and then\nIrvine signed it. What more? He swears that Knight wrote it, and he\nwas writing it when he went in. And yet they have—and I will use an\nexpression of one of the learned counsel—the audacity to say that Mr.\nKnight has not been corroborated.\n\nAnd they would have you believe that Knight took that will over to\nHelena and put it in the safe when it was not signed by A. J. Davis,\nand they would make you think besides that, that it was attested by two\nwitnesses, and that two witnesses had to say that they saw A. J. Davis\nsign it, that he signed it in their presence, and that they attested his\nsignature in his presence and in the presence of each other. They proved\na little too much, gentlemen. They proved that by Talbot. They proved\nthat by Andrew J. Davis, Jr., who expects to fall heir to all that is\ntaken, and they proved it also by John A. Davis, the proponent.\n\nRecess.\n\nMay it please the Court and gentlemen: When we adjourned I was talking\nabout the testimony of Mr. Knight, and the making of the Knight will.\nThe evidence is, the way that will came to be made, or what started\nit, is, as follows: A. J. Davis borrowed of the First National Bank of\nHelena forty thousand dollars to put in the mines, and Governor Hauser\nremarked when he got the money: \"Another old man going to fool with\nmines until he gets broke.\" And that it seems piqued A. J. Davis,\ntouched his vanity a little, and then he said: \"That mine shall be\ndeveloped whether I live or die. I am satisfied that it is a good mine,\nand I am going to make a will and I am going to provide in that will for\nthe mine being developed.\" And thereupon he talked with Mr. Knight. And\nfinally Knight drew up a draft of a will, according to his testimony,\nproviding for the working of that mine. And what did he say when he\ngot through with it? \"Now as to the balance of the property, let it be\ndivided according to law. That makes a good will.\" That is what he said.\nThen Mr. Knight said to him: \"If you make the will that way it may be\nthat the heirs will come in and enjoin the working of the mine on the\nground that it is a waste of money. You had better make a full will and\ndispose of all your property as you may desire, and fix the amount to be\nused in the devolopment of that mine.\"\n\nNow, this is either true or false. It is true if Mr. Knight can be\nbelieved; and he can be believed if any gentleman can be trusted.\n\nWhat more? Knight says that A. J. Davis made the memoranda from which to\ndraw that will, had his manager come, and in that will it told how the\nshafts should be run, how much work should be done, and charged his\ntrustees to do development work up to a certain amount.\n\nIs that all born of the fancy of this gentleman? And can you believe\nthat a man like Mr. Knight, who has run the largest bank in Montana for\ntwenty-five years—can you believe that such a man, who is not in any\nnecessity, who is not in need of money, comes here and swears to what he\nknows to be a lie, and makes this all out of his own head, carves it out\nof his imagination?\n\nThe second will was made, the second will was signed, the second will\nwas attested, the second will was given Mr. Knight to keep. They say it\nwas not signed, and yet Mr. Knight swears he told one man about it. He\ntold Mr. Kleinschmidt, so that if anything happened to him, Knight, he\nwould know that Knight had in that vault the will of Andrew J. Davis. Do\nyou think he would have done that if the will had not been signed, if it\nwere worth only waste paper? And yet they are driven to that absurdity\nfor the purpose of attacking the evidence of this man. It will not do.\n\nJudge Knowles said that in a conversation at Garrison, he said that in\nthe will the mine was left to Erwin Davis, and the reason given for it\nwas that Erwin Davis was a business man. Now, the only way that can be\nexplained, is one of two ways. One is that Judge Knowles has gotten two\nmatters mixed; the other is that he is absolutely mistaken.\n\nJudge Knowles, the President of the First National Bank of Butte—Judge\nKnowles, who has been the attorney of Andrew J. Davis, Jr.—Judge\nKnowles had this conversation, or some conversation, with Knight; and\nwhy would Knight have taken pains to tell him a deliberate falsehood?\n\nThere is something more. After all this occurred, Andrew J. Davis, Jr.\nwent to Mr. Knight and asked him to write out what he remembered about\nthat will, and Knight dictated it on the spot and sent it to him.\n\nWhere is that letter? Here it is. I want to read that letter to this\njury. That was a letter written long ago. A letter written before this\nwill was filed in this court. A letter written before Mr. Knight knew\nthat A. J. Davis, Jr. had any will. A letter written before Knight\nimagined there could ever be a lawsuit on the subject. Andrew J. Davis\nJr. went to him and asked him to write out what he knew about that will,\nand he turned, according to his own testimony, and dictated it, and sent\nit to him, like a frank, candid, honest man; and before I get through\nI will read that letter, and when it is read I want you to see how\nit harmonizes absolutely and perfectly with his testimony here on the\nstand.\n\nI will draw another distinction. Mr. Knight gave two depositions in this\ncase. These depositions have not been suppressed like the deposition\ntaken of Sconce. Not suppressed. Why? Because we are willing that the\njury should read the two depositions and hear his testimony besides, and\nthere is not the slightest contradiction in the depositions themselves,\nor between the depositions or either one of them and his evidence\nthat he gave here—except two that they claim; and think what immense\ncontradictions they are.\n\nIn one deposition he says that A. J. Davis left some bequests to some\naunts. Mr. Knight swears on the stand that he never said aunts, he said\nsisters, but if he did say aunts he meant sisters, because he\nnever heard of his having any aunts, and yet that is held up as a\ncontradiction, and to such an extent that you are to throw away the\ntestimony of this man.\n\nNow, here is the letter. This will was filed July 24, 1890, and when he\nwrote this letter he did not know that A. J. Davis Jr. knew of a will,\nor that John A. Davis knew of a will. And this is what he writes:\n\nHelena, Montana, July 22, 1890.\n\nI beg to say that some time in 1877 or 1878, I made a draft of a will\nfor your uncle Andrew J. Davis, which he duly executed, and left the\nsame on file with me, as a special deposit for two or three years, when\nthe same was canceled and destroyed; when I was led to believe and to\nconclude that he had made and executed a will to supersede and take the\nplace of that.\n\nThat explains Talbot's testimony. Instead of saying to Talbot that A. J.\nDavis came there, as he thought, to execute the will, and destroyed that\nwill, it not being signed, what he said was that he destroyed the will,\nbut from the way he acted he thought he was going to make another, that\nhe was going to execute a will; and this is exactly what Mr. Talbot\nsaid. To execute a will, and it took a re-direct examination to swap the\n\"a\" for \"the.\"\n\nI cannot satisfactorily recall the considerations and provisions of said\nwill drawn by me, but the main burden and desire was that the work on\nthe mine known as the Lexington, should be continued to a certain amount\nof development, and that the mill should be carried on under a certain\nmanagement, and after providing for the payment of his just debts, he\nmade certain bequests naming certain nephews and nieces, running from\nten thousand to fifteen thousand dollars each, and you are especially\nnamed for the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, and if the estate\nexceeded in value the net sum of five hundred thousand dollars, then\nthose bequests were to be increased; and if in excess of one million\ndollars, the further increase was named and specified.\n\nThat is the letter he wrote before he ever knew there would be this\nsuit; before he knew of the existence of this will.\n\nA certain boy named Jefferson—claimed to be his son—was given the\nsum of twenty thousand dollars to be paid to him in yearly sums of five\nthousand dollars for four years, and the same provision as to a certain\ngirl, claimed to be his child.\n\nIs that not exactly what he swore to on this stand?\n\nCertain executors named E. W. Knight, S. T. Hauser, and W. W. Dixon,\neach to receive the sum of ten thousand dollars for services.\n\nYours truly,\n\nE. W. Knight\n\nNow, gentlemen, they were informed of the existence of that will and of\nits destruction, and were so informed before John A. Davis filed this\nwill. And when we pleaded this will, John A. Davis pleaded that it had\nbeen republished, and yet no evidence was given in of any republication.\nThey knew that under the statute of Montana, when a man makes will\nnumber one, and afterwards makes will number two, and afterwards\ndestroys will number two, that will number one is not revived; that the\nmaking of the second will kills the first, and the destruction of the\nsecond kills that, and leaves the man intestate and without any will.\nNow, there is the letter of Mr. Knight—full, free, frank, candid,\nhonorable, like the man himself. He says there that he does not remember\nall the provisions, but he does remember that he provided for some\nnephews and nieces, and provided for Andrew J. Davis, Jr., twenty-five\nthousand dollars, for one Jefferson twenty thousand, for the girl about\nthe same, and that he provided also for the executors of the will, and\nappointed Knight, Hauser, and Dixon as his executors. That is exactly\nwhat he says here.\n\nNow, was that will made? Have they impeached Mr. Keith? I tell them now\nthat they cannot impeach him. He has sworn to the making of that will,\napart and separate from Mr. Knight. Oh, they say, why didn't they bring\nKnight in, and prove by him that he then recollected Mr. Keith? What\nhas that to do with it? Mr. Keith recollected Mr. Knight, swore that he\nwrote the will, and that he was writing it when he came in, and swore\nthat he attested it, that Davis signed it, and Irvine also signed it.\nWhat more do we want on that will? I say, gentlemen, that the will of\n1880 ends this case. There is not ingenuity enough in the world to get\naround it, and there was and never will be enough brains crammed into\none head to dodge it. That will was made, and every man on the jury\nknows it. That will was executed by Andrew J. Davis, every man of you\nknows it, and the will was afterwards destroyed.\n\nNow, the question is, did that second will revoke the first will? Had it\na revoking clause in it? E. W. Knight swears it had, and he swears that\nhe copied it from a will made by an uncle of his named John Knight, and\nhe had that will in his possession here and in that will there are two\nrevocation clauses, and Knight swears that he copied those clauses, and\nright here it may be well enough to make another remark. When he read\nthe will to A. J. Davis, and the passage \"hereby revoking all wills,\"\nDavis said: \"There is no need of putting that in. I never made any other\nwill. This is the first.\" Knight said to him, \"Well, that is the way,\nthat is the form, and I think it is safer to have it that way.\" And\nDavis said: \"All right; let it go.\"\n\nHow do you fix that? There is no way out of it, that the will was made\nin 1880, revoking all former wills. What else? The conditions of the\nwill of 1880, with regard to working the mine, with regard to bequests\nto nephews, with regard to bequests to others, with regard to the twenty\nthousand dollars given to Jeff Davis, and the twenty thousand dollars\ngiven to the girl; these provisions are absolutely inconsistent with\nthe provisions of this will of 1866. So on both grounds the will of 1880\ndestroys, cancels, and forever renders null and void the will of 1866,\neven if it had been the genuine will of A. J. Davis, and the Court will\ninstruct you to that effect.\n\nAnd after Mr. Keith had testified, the proponents in this case\nsubpoenaed Mr. Knight, and if they thought that Knight would swear that\nKeith was not the man, why did they not put him on the stand? They ran\nno risk. He is an honest man. He would tell the truth. I never had the\nslightest fear in bringing an honest man on the stand. Never. I want\nfacts, and I hope as long as I live that I shall never win a case that\nI ought not to win on the facts. No man should wish or endeavor to win a\ncase that he knows is wrong.\n\nI say there is not a man on this jury but believes in his heart and\nsoul this minute that this will was made. You have to throw aside the\ntestimony of a perfectly good man, and no matter whether what he said\nabout Erwin Davis to Judge Knowles was true or not—and I must say that\nI never saw a witness on the stand in my life more eager to tell his\nstory than Judge Knowles was. Never. He was bound to get it in or die.\nHe answered questions over objections before the Court was allowed to\npass upon the objections. Why? Because he is the President of the First\nNational Bank. Now, without saying that he was dishonest about it, I say\nhe was mistaken. Knight never said one word of that kind to him.\n\nIt was impossible that he could have said it. So is Mr. Talbot mistaken.\nSo is Andrew J. Davis, Jr. mistaken, and so is John A. Davis mistaken.\nThink of the idiotic idea that a will, not signed, was given to Knight\nto keep, attested by two witnesses, and not signed by the testator.\nIdiotic! Now, as I understand it, gentlemen, you will have to find that\nthat will was made.\n\nNow, what is the next great question in this case, and the question that\nwill be argued at some length, probably, by the other side? And why?\nBecause it is the first and only point, so far as facts are concerned,\nthat they have won in this case. Just one. And what is that? Our experts\nsaid that they thought that the ink was nigrosin ink, and the fact that\nthey wanted a test proves that they were sincere. Their witnesses said\nthey did not think it was nigrosin ink. Mr. Hodges said it had too much\nlustre, but that there was only one way in which it could be absolutely\ndetermined and that was by a chemical test. But, say these gentlemen, or\nrather said Judge Dixon, \"the moment that ink turned red the whole case\nof the contestants was wrecked.\" Let us see.\n\nIf there had been no logwood ink in existence—not a particle—after the\n20th day of July, 1866; if, on the night of the 20th of July, 1866, all\nthe logwood ink on earth had been destroyed and then this ink had turned\nout to be logwood, why, of course, it would have been a demonstration\nthat this paper was written as far back as the 20th of July, 1866. If\nit had turned out that it was written in nigrosin ink and that that had\nonly been invented in 1878, it would have been a demonstration that the\nwill was a forgery. But you must recollect the fact that it is written\nin logwood ink is not only consistent with its genuineness, but\nconsistent with its being a forgery. Why? There was logwood ink in\nexistence in 1890, plenty of it, and if Mr. Eddy wrote this will in\n1890, he could have written it in logwood ink; and the fact that it is\nwritten in logwood ink does not show that it was written in 1866. Why?\nBecause there was logwood ink in existence every year since 1866, till\nnow.\n\nSuppose I said that the paper was only ten years old and it turned out\nthat it was forty, is that a demonstration in favor of the other side?\nIf it turned out to be ten, it is a demonstration on our side.\n\nBut if it turned out to be forty, is not that consistent with the\ngenuineness of the instrument, and also with the spuriousness of the\nsame instrument? You can see that. Nobody's smart enough to fool you\non that. Nobody. Take the whole question of ink out and the question is\nstill whether Eddy wrote it or not. Take the ink all out and it is still\nthe question whether Job Davis wrote it or not. Absolutely, and all the\ntest proved was, that our experts—some of them—were mistaken about\nits being nigrosin ink. Mr. Tolman stated that it was impossible to tell\nwithout a chemical test; that it looked like nigrosin ink and from the\nmanner in which it seemed to run he thought it was nigrosin ink, but\nthat it was impossible to tell without a test. Mr. Hodges, their expert,\nsaid it looked to him like logwood ink; that it had too much lustre for\nnigrosin, but he added that it was impossible to tell without a chemical\ntest. That is what he said. Mr. Ames said the same thing, and I appeal\nto you, gentlemen, if Mr. Ames did not have the appearance of an\nhonest, of a candid, and of a fair man. Professor Hagan said that it was\nnigrosin ink, but he admitted that the only way to know was to test\nit. And what else? Their own expert, Mr. Hodges, said that logwood ink\npenetrates the paper. If this ink has been on here twenty-five years it\npenetrates the paper.\n\nSometimes an accident happens in our favor; a piece of that will was\ntorn off this morning. You see the edge there torn off slanting. You\nsee that \"o-f\"; how much that ink has sunk into that paper. Not the\nmillionth part of a hair. It lies dead upon the top. Just see how the\nink went in there—not a particle. It lies right on top. I would call\nthat \"float.\" There is the other edge. There is where the ink stops. It\nhas not entered a particle. And when you go to your room I want you to\nlook at it. That ink has not penetrated a particle. And let us see what\nthis witness Hodges says: \"Logwood ink penetrates the paper.\"\n\nThere it is, \"to determine the nature of the ink, use hydrochloric\nacid.\" What else?\n\n\"I think this will was written with Reimal's ink, and that was made in\nGermany in the neighborhood of 1840. Reimal's ink penetrates the paper.\"\nAnd then they say that we endeavored to draw a distinction between\nmodern and ancient. This is what Mr. Hodges says about it.\n\nOn the addition of hydrochloric acid to logwood ink it will turn to a\nbright red. The old-fashioned ink was manufactured by mixing a decoction\nof logwood with chromide of potash and formed a blue black solution.\nLogwood inks as made to-day differ from those, in that the modern\nlogwood inks contain another sort of chrome than chromide of potash;\nthey contain chromium in the form of an acetate or a chlorine.\n\nHodges was the man that talked about ancient and modern logwood inks;\nand he, before the test was made, said that the old logwood ink would\nturn a bright red, modern logwood not so bright. And after the evidence\nwas all in, Professor Elwell came smilingly to the post and said, \"they\nhave got it exactly wrong end to; the older the duller and the newer the\nbrighter.\" And after a moment said, \"This was kind of dull.\" Before the\ntest was made, Mr. Tolman swore, \"I agree with Professor Hodges that if\nit is an old logwood ink it will turn a bright, scarlet red. In the\ncase of modern logwood inks I don't agree with him, but to that extent I\nthink his tests are good,\" and he drew that distinction before the test\nwas made.\n\nGentlemen, you saw this will. I want to call your attention to it again.\nYou see that \"J\" in Sconce's name, that is pretty red. Not so awfully\nscarlet, though, that it would affect a turkey gobbler. You see it in\n\"Job\"; you see it in \"James Davis,\" but there it is brown, and not red,\nand not scarlet, and no flame in it, and Professor Hodges himself said\nthat although both were logwood inks, he would not swear that Job Davis\nand James Davis were written with the same ink. Do you see the red in\nthat \"Job\"?\n\nNow find the red on that \"s\" of \"James.\" He said he would not swear that\nthey were written in the same ink, but both in logwood ink, that is to\nsay, they might have been different inks. While I would not swear that\nthey were the same inks, I would swear that both inks contained logwood.\nAnd that is all he swore to, and I must say that I believe he was a\nperfectly honest, fair gentleman.\n\nNow, all that the ink test proves on earth is that it is logwood instead\nof nigrosin, and that does not prove that Eddy did not write the will,\nbecause there was plenty of logwood ink when he did write it. That is\nthe kind of ink he used. And it has no more bearing—the fact that it\nturned out to be logwood—to show that it is a genuine will than though\nit had turned out to be iron ink. Suppose the experts had been wrong\non both sides, and it had turned out to be iron ink, what would have\nhappened then? Is it a genuine will? Nothing can be more absurd than to\nargue that that test settled the genuineness of this will.\n\nHodges says another thing; that perhaps the pen went to the bottom of\nthe ink bottle and got a little of the settlings of the ink on it, when\nhe wrote \"James Davis,\" and consequently that has a different color.\nWell, if the pen had gotten some of this sediment on it, the more\nsediment the more logwood, and the more logwood the brighter the color.\nInstead of that, it is dull.\n\nThere is another trouble: With regard to the experts, while undoubtedly\nthere are some men who do not swear to the exact truth, whether paid\nor not, undoubtedly some men swear truthfully who are paid. I do not\nbelieve that you doubt the testimony of Hodges simply because you\npaid him so much a day. I don't. And certainly we have found no men\nphilanthropic enough to go around the country swearing for nothing. I\njudge of the man's oath, not by what he is paid, but by the manner in\nwhich he gives his testimony—by the reason there is behind it. That is\nthe way I judge and yet Senator Sanders judges otherwise, as he told you\nin a burst of Montana zeal.   *\n\nI like Montana, too, and I believe the Montana people are big enough and\nbroad enough not to have prejudice against a man because he comes from\nanother State. Every State in this Union is represented in Montana,\nand the people who left the old settled States and came out to the new\nTerritories, dropped their prejudices on the way—and sometimes I have\nthought that that is what killed the grass. I like a good, brave, free,\ncandid, chivalric people. I don't care where you come from—I don't care\nwhere you were born. We are all men, and we all have our rights; and\nas long as the old flag floats over me, I have just as many rights in\nMontana as I have in New York. And when you come to New York I will see\nthat you have as many rights, if you are in my neighborhood, as you have\nin Montana. That is the kind of nationality I believe in. I hate this\nlittle, provincial prejudice; and yet Senator Sanders invoked that\nprejudice. That insults you. We did not insult you when we asked you\nwhen you went on the jury, if you cared whether the money stayed in\nButte or not, or whether you were interested or not, or related or not.\nThose were the questions asked every juror, and we relied absolutely\non your answers when you said that you were unprejudiced, and that you\nwould give us a fair trial; and we believe you will.\n\nNow, then, with regard to these experts, you have got to judge each one\nby his testimony; and it is foolish it seems to me, to call them vipers\nand pirates, as Senator Sanders did. A very strong expression—\"vipers,\npirates\" living off, he said, the substance of others; and yet he had an\nexpert on the stand, Mr. Dickinson; he had another, Mr. Elwell; he had\nanother, Mr. Hodges; and after that he rises up before this jury and\ncalls them \"three vipers\" and \"three pirates.\" I never will do that, If\nI ask a man to swear for me, and he does the best he can, I will leave\nthe \"pirate\" out.\n\nI will drop the \"viper,\" and I will stand by him, if I think he is\ntelling the truth; and if he is not I won't say much about him; I don't\nwant to hurt his feelings. But I want to call your attention again to\nthe fact that every expert on our side swore, knowing that they had\nthree experts on the other side, and that if we made a mistake they\ncould catch us in it; and we did make a mistake in that ink; and the\ntest showed that we made a mistake, and that is all the test did show;\nbut it did not show that the will is genuine any more than if it had\nturned out to be carbon ink; then both sides would have been mistaken.\nAnd yet after all it did turn out to be modern logwood ink, and it\ndid turn out not to be Reimal's logwood ink, made of the chromate of\npotassium; did turn out not to be that, and I say on this will that\nthere is an absolute, decided and distinct difference between the color\non the name Job Davis and the name James Davis. And right here, I might\nas well say that that man Jackson, who came here from Butler, Mo.—and\nwhen I said Butler was a pretty tough place, rose up in his wrath and\nsaid it was as good as New York any day—that man says that when he saw\nthe will he does not remember of seeing the names of James Davis and\nSconce in it, but he did remember of seeing the name of Job Davis.\nI don't think he saw any of it. Now, there is another question\nhere—because I have said enough about ink, at least enough to give you\nan inkling of my views.\n\nThere is another question. Why didn't John A. Davis take the stand? That\nis a serious question. John A. Davis had sworn, on the 13th of March,\n1890, that his brother died without a will. John A. Davis, on the 24th\nday of July, 1890, filed a will in which he was the legatee. That will\ncame into his possession under suspicious circumstances. What would a\nperfectly frank and candid man have done? What would you have done? You\nwould not have allowed yourself to remain under suspicion one moment.\nYou would have said, \"I got that will so and so.\" You would have let\nin the light, \"I obtained it in such a place, it is an honest, genuine\nwill, and here it is, and here are the witnesses to that will.\" But\ninstead of that, John A. Davis never opened his mouth, except to file a\npetition swearing that it came into his possession on the first day of\nJuly. He knew that he was suspected, didn't he? He knew that the men in\nwhose veins his blood flowed believed that the will was a forgery—knew\nthat good men and women believed that he was a robber, and that he was\nendeavoring to steal their portion. He knew that, and any man that loves\nhis own reputation and any man that ever felt the glow of honor in\nhis heart one moment, would not have been willing to rest under such a\nsuspicion or under such an imputation. He would have said: \"Here is its\nhistory, here is where I got it, it is not a forged will. It is genuine.\nHere are the witnesses that know all about it. Here is how I came into\npossession of it.\"\n\nNo, sir. Not a word. Speechless—tongueless. And he comes into this\ncourt and comes on to this stand to be a witness, and is asked about a\nconversation he had with Burchett, and then we asked him, \"How did you\ncome into the possession of that will?\" All his lawyers leaped between\nhim and the answer to that question. They objected. If he came by that\nwill honestly he would have said, \"I am going to tell the whole story.\"\nHe wants you to believe that he came by it honestly, doesn't he? He\nwants you to believe it. He not only wants you to believe it, gentlemen,\nbut he asks twelve men—you—to swear that he came by it honestly,\ndoesn't he? If you give your verdict that that is a genuine will, then\nyou give your oath that John A. Davis came by it honestly; and he wants\nyou twelve men to swear it. And yet he dare not swear it himself. He\nwants you to do his swearing. He is afraid to stand in your presence and\ntell the history of that will. He is afraid to tell the name of the man\nfrom whom he received it. He is afraid to tell how much he gave for\nit; afraid to tell how much he promised. He is afraid to tell how they\nobtained witnesses to substantiate it in the way they have. Well, now,\nought not you to let him tell his own story, ought not you, gentlemen,\nto be clever enough to let him do his own swearing?\n\nNow, I will ask you again if he came by that will honestly, fairly,\nabove board, would he not be glad to tell you the story? Would he not\nbe glad to make it plain to you? If that was a perfectly honest will and\ncame to him through perfectly pure channels, would he not want you to\nknow it? Would he not want every man and woman in this city to know it?\nWould he not want all his neighbors to know it? And yet, he is willing,\nwhen this case is being tried, and when he is on the stand, and asked\nhow he got the will—he is willing to close his mouth—willing to admit\nthat he is afraid to tell; and I tell you to-day, gentlemen, that the\nsilence of John A. Davis is a confession of guilt, and he knows it, and\nhis attorneys know it. A client afraid to swear that he did not forge a\nwill, or have it forged, and then want to hire a man to defend him\nand call him honest! Well, he would have to hire him; he would not get\nanybody for nothing. And yet he is asking you to do it. If John A. Davis\ncame properly by it, let him say so under oath. Don't you swear to it\nfor him, not one of you.\n\nNow, there is another question. Why did not James R. Eddy take the\nstand? We charged him with forging the will. We made an affidavit\nsetting forth that he did forge the will, and in this very court Mr.\nDixon arose and said he was glad that the charge had been fixed, and the\nman had been designated. Judge Dixon said here, before this jury, when\nthis case was opened, \"the man who was charged with forging this will\nwill be here. He will stand before this jury face to face; and he will\nexplain his connections with the will to your satisfaction.\" That is\nwhat Judge Dixon said. Where is your witness? Where is James R. Eddy?\nWhy did you not bring him forward? I know he is here now—delighted with\nthe notoriety that this charge of forgery gives him—with a moral nature\nthat is an abyss of shallowness,—delighted to be charged with it, and\nhe will probably be my friend as long as he lives, because I have added\nto his notoriety by saying he is a forger. Why did they not bring him\non the stand? Mr. Dixon gives one reason. Because the jury would not\nbelieve him. And that is the man who is first found in possession of\nthis will. That is the man in whose hands it is, and it is from that man\nthat John A. Davis received it. And the reason that he is not put on\nthe stand is that it is the deliberate opinion of the learned counsel in\nthis case that no jury would believe him.\n\nHow does that work with you? James R. Eddy here—his deposition\nhere—and they could not read his deposition because he was here—and\nthey had him here and kept him here, so that we could not read his\ndeposition. They were bound that he should not go on the stand. Why?\nBecause the moment he got there he could be asked, Where did you find\nthe will? Who was present when you found it? When did you first tell\nanybody about it? When did you first show it to John A. Davis? How much\ndid he agree to give you for it? What witnesses have you talked to in\nthis case? What witnesses have you written to in this case? What work\nhave you done in this case? What affidavits have you made in this case?\nAnd what have you done with the other three wills that you have in this\ncase?\n\nSuch questions might be asked him, and they were afraid to put him on\nthe stand. Every letter that he had written would have been identified\nby him if he had been put on the stand. Maybe he would have been\ncompelled to write in the presence of the jury, to see whether he would\nspell words correctly.\n\nThey knew that the moment he went on the stand their case was as dead as\nJulius Caesar. They knew it and kept him off.\n\nNow, there is only one way for them to win this case. And that is to\nkeep out the evidence. Only one way to win the case—suppress John A.\nDavis. Keep your mouth closed or defeat will leap out of it. Eddy, keep\nstill. Don't let anything be seen that will throw any light upon this. I\nask you, gentlemen of the jury, to take cognizance of what has been done\nin this case. Who is it that has tried to get the light? Who is it that\nhas tried to get the evidence? Who is it that has objected? Who is it\nthat wants you to try this case in the dark? Who is it that wants you to\nguess on your oaths? The failure of Eddy to testify is a confession of\nguilt. They dare not put him on the stand—dare not.\n\nNow, gentlemen, there is a little more evidence in this case to which\nI am going to call your attention. Something has been said about\na conversation in March, 1891. Sconce had his deposition taken in\nBloomfield, Iowa. That deposition has been suppressed. John A. Davis was\nthere at the time it was taken. John A. Davis and Sconce went into the\npassage leading up to the office of Carruthers. Mr. Burchett, sheriff\nof the county, a man having no possible earthly or heavenly interest in\nthis business, happened to stop at the corner to read his paper—looked\nat it as he opened it—and he then and there heard John A. Davis say,\n\"Stick to that story and I will see that you get all the money you have\nbeen promised,\" and thereupon Sconce replied, \"All right I'll do it.\"\nSconce denies it, and that denial is not worth the breath that he wasted\nin forming the denial. John A. Davis denies it. Of course he denies it.\nBut he dare not tell where he got that will. He dare not do it. He wants\nyou to do that for him. He wants you to lift him out of the gutter and\nwash the mud off him. He is afraid to do it himself.\n\nI want to call your attention to that conversation, and that of itself\nis enough to impeach Sconce. That is enough of itself to show that John\nA. Davis was entering into a conspiracy or rather had entered into one\nwith Mr. Sconce. Now, gentlemen, there is another thing, and we must\nnot forget it. Curious people down in Salt Creek township, on the other\nside; of course there are plenty of good men there or the township could\nnot exist, and we had a good many of them here—good, straight, honest,\nintelligent looking men. But the other side had some—all in the\nfamily—all of them.\n\nSwaim, he was not in the family, but he is a clerk in Trimble's bank,\nwhere Wallace is the cashier, where they suppress depositions; say they\nare not finished when they are signed by the person who swears to them.\n\nJohn C. Sconce, the only living witness, whose \"ancient but ignoble\nblood has crept through rascals ever since the flood,\" cousin to James\nDavis, cousin to Job Davis, cousin to Mrs. Downey, cousin to Eddy,\ncousin to Dr. Downey by marriage, brother to T. J. Sconce, Jr.,\nbrother-in-law to Abe Wilkinson, cousin to Tom Glasgow and Sam, cousin\nto Moses Davis, cousin to Alex. Davis, uncle to Henshaw's daughter,\nand father-in-law of George Quigley. Every one of them united. Blood is\nthicker than water. Eddy stuck to his family.\n\nJames R. Eddy—cousin to Sconce, son of Mrs. Downey, (Mrs. Downey, the\nduster lady, who remembers that Davis asked her to remain, but didn't\nask her advice, didn't have her sign the will, didn't give her any\nbequest, but there she was with her duster), grandson of James Davis,\nnephew of Job Davis, and related by blood or marriage to both the\nGlasgows, Moses and Alexander Davis, to T. J. Scotice and J. C. Sconce,\nJr., Abe Wilkinson, George Quigley, S M. Henshaw, (the celebrated\nlawyer). J. L. Hughes, and Eli Dye, brother-in-law to C. O. Hughes,\nand foster brother to John Lisle, and Mrs. A. S. Bishop. And it is just\nlovely about John Lisle.\n\nJohn Lisle is one of the fellows that saw this will. \"How did you come\nto see it, John?\" \"James Davis,\" he says, \"was my guardian and he had\nto give a bond, and so one day when James Davis was away from home, I\nthought I would go and see the bond.\"\n\nOf course he thought James Davis kept the bond that he gave to somebody\nelse—to the county judge; but Mr. Lisle pretends that he thought\nthe bond would be in the possession of the man who gave it. And so\nhe sneaked in to look among the papers. Now, do you believe such a\nstory—that he thought that man had the bond? Didn't he know that the\nbond was given to somebody else? Foolish! Bishop swears the same thing;\nJames Davis was guardian for his wife, and he was looking to see if\nJames had the bond; and another fellow by the name of Sconce, was\nlooking for a note, and when he opened this double sheet of paper folded\nfour times and happened to see Sconce's name he said: \"Here it is—a\npromissory note.\"\n\nMary Ann Davis—that is to say, Mrs. Eddy, that is to say, Mrs. Downey,\nis the mother of J. R. Eddy, daughter of James Davis, sister to Job,\nsecond cousin to Sconce, wife of Downey, and related by blood or\nmarriage to Tom and Sam Glasgow, Moses and Alexander Davis, Abe\nWilkinson, S. M. Henshaw, J. C. Sconce, Jr., T. J. Sconce, George\nQuigley and C. O. Hughes. All right in there, woven together.\n\nE. H. Downey—son-in-law of James Davis, brother-in-law of Job, husband\nof Mary Ann Davis-Eddy-Downey, and step-father of Mr. Eddy.\n\nJ. C. Sconce. Jr.—cousin to Eddy, nephew of J. C. Sconce, Sr., cousin\nto Mrs. Downey, cousin of E. H. Downey, son-in-law of Henshaw, cousin to\nGeorge Quigley, related to Tom and Sam Glasgow, Abe Wilkinson and Moses\nand Alex. Davis.\n\nGeorge Quigley—son-in-law of Sconce.\n\nSam Glasgow—cousin of Sconce, son-in-law of Dye, brother to Tom\nGlasgow, brother-in-law to Moses and Alex. Davis, cousin to Abe\nWilkinson, and related by marriage to J. R. Eddy. Here they are, same\nblood. All have the same kind of memory; runs in the blood.\n\nHenshaw—father-in-law to J. C. Sconce, Jr. Lisle—adopted son of James\nDavis, and his ward, and foster brother to Eddy. A. S. Bishop—married\nto Allie Lisle, ward of James Davis, foster sister of James R. Eddy.\n\nT. J. Sconce—Eddy's cousin, J. R. Sconce's brother, brother-in-law and\ncousin to the Glasgows, cousin to Alex, and Moses Davis, brother-in-law\nto Abe Wilkinson and uncle to J. C. Sconce, Jr.\n\nMoses Davis—cousin of Sconce, brother-in-law to the Glasgows, cousin\nto Abe Wilkinson, brother of Alex. Davis, and related to Eddy and Arthur\nQuigley.\n\nAlexander Davis—cousin to Sconce, brother of Moses Davis,\nbrother-in-law to the Glasgows, cousin to Wilkinson and related by\nmarriage to Arthur Quigley.\n\nAbe Wilkinson—brother-in-law to Sconce, cousin to Alex, and Moses\nDavis, and cousin to the Glasgows.\n\nTom Glasgow—cousin to Sconce, and Abe Wilkinson, and a brother-in-law\nof Moses Davis, and a brother to Sam Glasgow, and related by marriage to\nEddy.\n\nArthur Quigley—brother-in-law to Alex. Davis, and brother to George\nQuigley, who is a son-in-law of Sconce. John L. Hughes—his nephew\nmarried Eddy's wife's sister. Eli Dye—father-in-law of Sam Glasgow.\n\nThere they are, all of them related except Swaim and Duckworth and\nTaylor; and Duckworth, he is in the tie business along with Eddy.\nThere is the family tree. All growing on the same tree, and there is a\nwonderful likeness in the fruit. Why, that Glasgow has as good a memory\nas Sconce. He remembers that this is the same will he saw—paper like\nthat, and he swears—I think it is Sam Glasgow—that he did not read the\ncontents or see a signature. And yet he comes here, twenty-five years\nafterwards, and swears it is the same paper. And then the paper was\nclean and now it is covered with all kinds and sorts of stains.\n\nNow, gentlemen, take the signature of A. J. Davis, and I want you all to\nlook at it. I say it is made of pieces. I say it is a patchwork. It is a\ndead signature. It has no personality—no vitality in it, and I want you\nto look at it, and look at it carefully. I say it is made of pieces.\nOf course every counterfeit that is worth anything, looks like the\noriginal, and the nearer it looks like the original the better the\ncounterfeit. All the witnesses on the side of the proponent who have\nsworn that it is his signature, also swear that he wrote a rapid, firm\nhand—nervous, bold, free, and that he scarcely ever took his pen from\nthe paper from the time he commenced his name until he finished; and I\nwant you to look at that name. I will risk your sense; I will risk your\njudgment—honest, fair and free—whether that is a made signature, or\nwhether it is the honest signature of any human being.\n\nAnd now, gentlemen, one word more. I contend, first, that the evidence\nshows beyond all doubt that Job Davis did not write this will. Second,\nthat it is shown beyond all doubt, that James R. Eddy did write this\nwill, and that that evidence amounts to a demonstration. I claim that\nthe will of 1880 was made precisely as E. W. Knight and Mr. Keith swear;\nthat that will was utterly inconsistent with the will of 1866, even if\nthat had been genuine; that it revokes that will, that its provisions\nwere inconsistent, and that afterwards that will was destroyed, and that\nthere is not one particle of evidence beneath the canopy of heaven to\nshow that it was not made and to show that it was not destroyed.\n\nAnd the Court will instruct you that the will of 1866, even if genuine,\nis not revived.\n\nThis is the end of the case. So I claim that the probabilities, the\nreason, the naturalness, are all on the side of the contestants in this\ncase—all. And I tell you, that if the evidence can be depended on at\nall, A. J. Davis went to his grave with the idea that the law made a\nwill good enough for him. Do you believe, if he were here, if he had a\nvoice, that he would take this property and give it to John A. Davis;\nthat he would leave out the children of the very woman who raised him;\nthat he would leave out his other sisters, that he would leave out the\nchildren of his sisters and brothers? Do you believe it? I know that not\none man on that jury believes it.\n\nThis case is in your hands. That property is in your hands. All the\nmillions, however many there may be, are in your hands; they are to be\ndisposed of by you under instructions from the Court as to the law.\nYou are to do it. And, do you know, there is no prouder position in the\nworld, there is no more splendid thing, than to be in a place where you\ncan do justice. Above everybody and above everything should be the idea\nof justice; and whenever a man happens to sit on a jury in a case like\nthis, or in any other important case, he ought to congratulate himself\nthat he has the opportunity of showing, first, that he is a man, and\nsecond, of doing what in his judgment ought to be done, and there will\nnever be a prouder recollection come to you hereafter than that you did\nyour honest duty in this case. Say to this proponent: \"If you wanted to\nshow us that you got this will honestly, why didn't you swear it; if\nyou wanted us to believe it was a genuine will, why didn't you have the\nnerve to take your oath that it is a genuine will?\"\n\nNow, you have the opportunity, gentlemen, of doing what is right. Your\nprejudice has been appealed to, but I say that you have the manhood,\nthat you have the intelligence, and that you have the honesty to do\nexactly what you believe to be right; and whether you agree with me or\nnot, I shall not call in question your integrity or your manhood. I am\ngenerous enough to allow for differences of opinion. But when you come\nto make up your verdict, I implore you to demand of yourselves the\nreasons; to be guided by what is natural; to be guided by what\nis reasonable. I want you to find that this will was found in the\npossession of Eddy in April or March, next in the hands of John A.\nDavis; and that John A. Davis dare not tell how he came in possession\nof it. John A. Davis, on the edge of the grave—for this world but a few\ndays, and according to the law without that will he could have had an\nincome of over fifty thousand a year. He was not satisfied with that.\nHe wanted to take from his own brothers and sisters, wanted to leave his\nown blood in beggary.\n\nHe never saw the time in his life that he could earn five thousand a\nyear—never. And he was not satisfied with fifty thousand—he wanted\nfour and a half millions for himself. .\n\nGentlemen, I want you to do justice between all these heirs. I want you\nto show to the United States that you have the manhood, that you are\nfree from prejudice, that you are influenced only by the facts, only by\nthe evidence, and that being so influenced, you give a perfectly fair\nverdict—a verdict that you will be proud of as long as you live. How\nwould you feel, to find a verdict here that this is a good will, and\nafterwards have it turn out to be what it is—an impudent, ignorant\nforgery?\n\nNow, all I ask of you is to take this evidence into consideration. Don't\nbe misled even by a Christian, or by a sinner, for that matter. Let us\nbe absolutely honest with each other. We have been together for several\nweeks. We have gotten tolerably well acquainted. I have tried to treat\neverybody fairly and kindly, and I have tried to do so in this address.\n\nI have had hard work to keep within certain limits. There would words\nget into my mouth and insist on coming out, but I said: \"go away; go\naway.\" I don't want to hurt people's feelings if I can help it. I don't\nwant anyone unnecessarily humiliated, but I say whatever stands\nbetween you and justice must give way; and if you have to walk over\nreputations—and if they become pavement you cannot help it. You must\ndo exactly what is right, and let those who have done wrong bear the\nconsequences.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I have confidence in you. I have confidence in this\nverdict. I think I know what it will be. It will be that the will is\nspurious, and that the will of 1880 revoked it, whether spurious or not.\nThat is my judgment, and I don't think there is any man in the world\nsmart enough or ingenious enough to get any other verdict from you as\nlong as John A. Davis was afraid to swear that it was an honest will;\nas long as James R. Eddy, the forger, dare not take the stand; and they\nwill never get a verdict in this world without taking the stand, and if\nthey do take it, that is the end. There is where they are.\n\nNow, all I ask in the world, as I said, is a fair, honest, impartial\nverdict at your hands. That I expect. More than that I do not ask.\nAnd now, gentlemen, I may never see you again after this trial is\nover—separated we may be forever—but I want to thank you from the\nbottom of my heart for the attention you have paid to the evidence in\nthis case and for the patient hearing you have given me.\n\nNote: The Jury disagreed and the case was compromised.\n"
}