textfiles/politics/INGERSOLL/daviswil.txt

                        33 page printout

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

          Contents of this file                           page
     Anaconda Standard, Butte, Montana, Sept. 5, 1891,      1
     ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.            2

                         ****      ****

          This file, its printout, or copies of either
          are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.

          Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201

                The Works of ROBERT G. INGERSOLL

                          ****    ****

                              NOTE:
     The matchless eloquence of Ingersoll! Where will one look for
the like of it? What other man living has the faculty of blending
wit and humor, pathos and fact and logic with such exquisite grace,
or with such impressive force? Senator Sanders this morning begged
the jury to beware of the oratory of Ingersoll as it transcended
that of Greece. Sanders was not far amiss. In fierce and terrible
invective Ingersoll is not to be compared to Demosthenes. But in no
other respect is Demosthenes his superior. To a modern audience, at
least, Demosthenes on the Crown would seem a pretty poor sort of
affair by the side of Ingersoll on the Davis will. It was a great
effort, and its chief greatness lay in its extreme simplicity.

     Ingersoll stepped up to the jurors as near as he could get and
kept slowly walking up and down before them. At times he would
single out a single juryman, stop in front of him, gaze steadily
into his face and direct his remarks for a minute or two to that
one man alone. Again he would turn and address himself to Senator
Sanders, Judge Dixon or somebody else of those interested in
establishing the will as genuine, At times the gravity of the jury
and the audience was so completely upset that Judge McHatton had to
rap for order, but presently the Colonel would change his mood and
the audience would be hushed into deepest silence. If the jury
could have retired immediately upon the conclusion of Ingersoll's
argument, there is little doubt as to what the verdict would have
been.

     If Ingersoll himself is not absolutely convinced that the will
is a forgery, he certainly had the art of making people believe
that he was so convinced. He said he hoped he might never win a
case that he ought not to win as a matter of right and justice. The
idea which he sought to convey and which he did convey was that he
believed he was right, no matter whether he could make others
believe as he did or not. In that lies Ingersoll'S power.

     Whether by accident or deign the will got torn this morning.
A piece in the form of a triangle was torn from one end. Ingersoll
made quite a point this afternoon by passing the pieces around
among the jury, and asking each man of them to note that the ink at
the torn edges had not sunk into the paper. In doing this he
adopted a conversational tone and kept pressing the point until the
juror he was working upon nodded his head in approval.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                1

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     Both Judge Dixon and Senator Sanders interrupted Ingersoll
early in his speech to take exception to certain of his remarks,
but the Colonel's dangerous repartee and delicate Art in twisting
anything the they might say to his own advantage soon put a stop to
the interruptions and the speaker had full sway during the rest of
the time at his disposal. The crowd -- it was as big as
circumstances would permit, every available inch of space in the
room and in the court house corridors being occupied -- enjoyed
Ingersoll's speech immensely, and only respect for the proprieties
of the place prevented frequent bursts of applause as an
accompliment to the frequent bursts of eloquence.

                  Anaconda Standard, Butte, Montana, Sept. 5, 1891,

                          ****    ****

                       ADDRESS TO THE JURY
                             IN THE
                        DAVIS WILL CASE.

     May it please the Court and gentlemen of the jury, waiving
congratulations, reminiscences and animadversions, I will proceed
to the business in hand. There are two principal and important
questions to be decided by you:

     First, is the will sought to be probated the will of Andrew J.
Davis? Is it genuine? Is it honest?


     And second, did Andrew J. Davis make a will after 1866
revoking all former wills, or were the provisions such that they
were inconsistent with the provisions of the will of 1866?

     These are the questions, and as we examine them, other
questions arise that have to be answered. The first question then
is: Who wrote the will of 1866? Whose work is it? When, where and
by whom was it done? And I don't want you, gentlemen, to pay any
attention to what I say unless it appeals to your reason and to
your good sense. Don't be afraid of me because I am a sinner.* 

                          ****     ****

     [* NOTE: Col. Ingersoll when speaking of himself as a sinner
in this address is referring to the remarks made by Senator
Sanders. who in the preceding address said:

     "In an old book occur the words. My son if sinners entice thee
consent thou not.' I will not apply this to you, gentlemen of the
jury. But I will have a right to demand of you that you hold your
minds and hearts free from all influences calculated to swerve you
until you have heard the last words in this case." The Senator
enjoined them not to be beguiled by the eloquence of a man who was
famed for his eloquence over two continents and the islands of the
sea; a man whose eloquence fittingly transcended that of Greece in
the time of Alexander."]

                          ****     ****


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                2

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

I admit that I am. I am not like the other gentleman who thanked
God "that he was not as other men." I have the faults and frailties
common to the human race, but in spite of being a sinner I strive
to be at least a good-natured one, and I am such a sinner that if
there is any good in any other world I am willing to share it with
all the children of men. To that extent at least I am a sinner; and
I hope, gentlemen, that you will not be prejudiced against me on
that account, or decide for the proponent simply upon the
perfections of Senator Sanders. Now, I say, the question is: Who
wrote this will? The testimony offered by the proponent is that it
was written by Job Davis. We have heard a great deal, gentlemen, of
the difference between fact and opinion. There is a difference
between fact and opinion, but sometimes when we have to establish
a fact by persons, we are hardly as certain that the fact ever
existed as we are of the opinion, and although one swears that he
saw a thing or heard a thing we all know that the accuracy of that
statement must be decided by something besides his word.

     There is this beautiful peculiarity in nature -- a lie never
fits a fact, never. You only fit a lie with another lie, made for
the express purpose, because you can change a lie but you can't
change a fact, and after a while the time comes when the last lie
you tell has to be fitted to a fact, and right there is a bad
joint; consequently you must test the statements of people who say
they saw, not by what they say but by other facts, by the
surroundings, by what are called probabilities; by the naturalness
of the statement. If we only had to hear what witnesses say,
jurymen would need nothing but ears. Their brains could be
dispensed with; but after you hear what they say you call a council
in your brain and make up your mind whether the statement, in view
of all the circumstances, is true or false.

     Did Job Davis write the will? I would be willing to risk this
entire case on that one proposition. Did job Davis write this will?
And I propose to demonstrate to you by the evidence on both sides
that job Davis did not write that will. Why do I say so?

     First: The evidence of all the parties is that Job Davis wrote
a very good hand; that his letters were even. He wrote a good hand;
a kind of schoolmaster, copy-book hand. Is this will written in
that kind of hand? I ask Judge Woolworth to tell you whether that
is written in a clerkly band; whether it was written by a man who
wrote an even hand; whether it was written by a man who closed his
"a's" and "o's"; whether it was written by one who made his "h's"
and "b's" different. Job Davis was a good scholar.

     No good penman ever wrote the body of that will. If there were
nothing else I would be satisfied, and, in my judgment, you would
be, that it is not the writing of Job Davis.

     It is the writing of a poor penman; it is the writing of a
careless penman, who, for that time, endeavored to write a little
smaller than usual, and why? When people forge a will they write
the names first on the blank paper. They will not write the body of
the will and then forge the name to it, because if they are not
successful in the forgery of the name they would have to write the
whole business over again; so the first thing they would do would 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                3

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

be to write the name and the next thing that they would do would be
to write the will so as to bring it within the space that was left,
and here they wrote it a little shorter even than was necessary and
quit there [indicating on the will] and made these six or seven
marks and then turned over, and on the other side they were a
little crowded before they got to the name of A.J. Davis.

     Now, the next question is, was Job Davis a good speller? Let
us be honest about it. How delighted they would have been to show
that he was an ignorant booby. But their witnesses and our
witnesses both swear that he was the best speller in the
neighborhood; and when they brought men from other communities to
a spelling match, after all had fallen on the field, after the
floor was covered with dead and wounded, Job Davis stood proudly
up, not having missed a word. He was the best speller in that
county, and not only so, but at sixteen years of age he wasn't
simply studying arithmetic, he was in algebra; and not only so,
after he had finished what you may call this common school
education in Salt Creek township, he went to the Normal school of
Iowa and prepared himself to be a teacher, and came back and taught
a school.

     Now, did job Davis write this will? Senator Sanders says there
are three or four misspelled words in this document, while the fact
is there are twenty words in the document that are clearly and
absolutely misspelled. And what kind of words are misspelled? Some
of the easiest and most common in the English language. Will you
say upon your oaths that Job Davis, having the reputation of the
champion speller of the neighborhood -- will you, upon your oaths,
say that when he wrote this will (probably the only document of any
importance, if he did write it, that he ever wrote) he spelled
shall "shal" every time it occurs in the will? Will you say that
this champion speller spelled the word whether with two "r's," and
made it "wherther," making two mistakes, first as to the word
itself, and second, as to the spelling? Will you say that this
champion speller could not spell the word dispose, but wrote it
"depose"? And will you say the ordinary word give was spelled by
this educated young man "guive"? And it seems that Colonel Sanders
has ransacked the misspelled world to find somebody idiotic enough
to twist a "u" in the word give, and even in the Century dictionary
-- I suppose they call it the Century dictionary because they
looked a hundred years to find that peculiarity of spelling -- even
there, although give is spelled four ways, besides the right way,
no "u" is there. And will you say that Job Davis did not know the
word administrators?

     Now, let us be honest about this matter -- let us be fair. It
is not a personal quarrel between lawyers. I never quarrel with
anybody; my philosophy being that everybody does as he must, and if
he is in bad luck and does wrong, why, let us pity him, and if we
happen to have good luck, and take the path where roses bloom, why,
let us be joyful. That is my doctrine; no need of fighting about
these little things. They are all over in a little while anyway. Do
you believe that Job Davis spelled sheet -- a sheet of paper --
"sheat"? That is the way he spells it in this document. Now, let us
be honor bright with each other, and do not let the lawyers on the
other side treat you as if you were twelve imbeciles. You would 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                4

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

better be misled by a sensible sinner than by the most pious
absurdities that ever floated out from the lips of man. Let us have
some good, hard sense, as we would in ordinary business life. Do
you believe that job Davis, the educated young man, the school
teacher, the one who attended the Normal school would put periods
in the middle of sentences and none at the end?  That he would put
a period on one side of an "n" and then fearing the "n" might get
away, put one on the other; and then when he got the sentence done,
be out of periods, so that he could not put one there, and put so
many periods in the writing that it looked as if it had broken out
with some kind of punctuation measles?

     Job Davis, an educated man! And you are going to tell this
jury that that man wrote that will! I think your cheeks will get a
little red while you are doing it. This man, when he comes to this
little word "is" in the middle of a sentence, his desire for
equality is so great that he wishes to put that word on a level
with others, and starts it with a capital, so that it will not be
ashamed to appear with longer words.

     And yet the will was written by Job Davis, and Sconce saw him
write it, and Mrs. Downey saw him write it. If there were one
million Sconces, and a million Mrs. Downeys, and they held their
hands up high and swore that they did, I know that they did not,
unless all the witnesses who have testified to the education of Job
Davis have testified lies. There is where I told you a little while
ago that when a lie comes in contact with a fact it will not fit.
These other people in Salt Creek township that have come here and
sworn to that, did not know whether it was spelled right or wrong.
They did not take that into consideration.

     It seems to me utterly, absolutely, infinitely impossible that
this will was written by a good speller. I know it was not. So do
you. There is not a man on the jury that does not know it was not
written by a good speller -- not a man. And you cannot, upon your
oaths, say that you believe two things -- first, that job Davis was
a good speller, and, secondly, that he wrote this will. Utterly
impossible. There is another word here, "wordly" -- "all my wordly
goods." "Worldly" it ought to be; but this Job Davis, this scholar,
did not know that there was such a word as worldly, he left out the
"l" and called it wordly, "all my wordly goods," and they want you
to find on your oath that it was written by a good speller. There
are twenty words misspelled in this short will, and the most common
words, some of them, in the English language. Now, I say that these
twenty misspelled words are twenty witnesses -- twenty witnesses
that tell the truth without being on their oath, and that you
cannot mix by cross-examination. Twenty witnesses! Every misspelled
word holds up its maimed and mutilated hand and swears that Job
Davis did not write that will -- every one. Suppose witnesses had
sworn that Judge, Woolworth wrote this will. How many Salt Creekers
do you think it would take to convince you that he was around
spelling sheet "sheat"?

     Mr. WOOLWORTH. I have done worse than that a great many times.

     Mr. INGERSOLL. You have acted worse than that, but you have
never spelled worse than that.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                5

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     Now, this Job Davis died in 1868. Nobody has seen him write
for twenty-three years, but everybody, their witnesses and ours,
positively swears that he was a good speller. Now, comes another
question: Who wrote this will? Colonel Sanders tells us that it is
immaterial whether Job Davis wrote it or not. To me that is a very
strange remark. If job Davis did not write it, Mr. Sconce has sworn
falsely. If job Davis did not write it, then there was no will on
the 20th of July, 1866, and all the Glasgows and Quigleys and
Downeys and the rest are mistaken -- not one word of truth in their
testimony unless Job Davis wrote that will.

     And yet a learned counsel, who says that his object is to
assist you in finding a correct verdict, says it don't make any
difference whether Job Davis wrote the will or not. I don't think
it will in this case.

     Who wrote the will? I am going to tell you, and I am going to
demonstrate it, so that you need not think anything about it -- so
that you will know it; that is to say, it will be a moral
certainty.

     Who wrote this will? I will tell you who, and I have not the
slightest hesitation in saying it. James R. Eddy wrote this will.
And why do I say it? Many witnesses have sworn that they were well
acquainted With Mr. Eddy's handwriting -- many. Several of the
witnesses here had the writing of Eddy with them. That writing was
handed to the counsel on the other side, so that they might frame
questions for cross-examination. Those witnesses founded their
answers as to peculiarities upon the writings given to the other
side, and not on the writing in this will -- just on the writings
of letters and documents they had in their possession, and that we
handed to the opposite counsel. Now, what do they say? Every
witness who has testified on that subject said that Eddy had this
peculiarity: First, that whenever a word ended with the letter "d,"
he made that "d" separate from the rest of the word.

     And, gentlemen, there are twenty-eight words in this short
will ending with the letter "d"; clearly, unequivocally, in
twenty-seven of the words ending in "d," the "d" is separate from
the rest of the word.

     I do not include the twenty-eighth, because there is a little
doubt about it. The testimony is unvarying, except the writing that
Eddy has done since he has been found out to be the forger of that
will. Nobody has sworn that he had a letter from him in which that
is not the fact, unless that letter was written since the
institution of this suit. Twenty-seven of these words end with "d"
and the "d" is made separate from the rest of the word. Will judge
Woolworth please tell the jury whether any witness testified that
Job Davis made these separate from the rest of the word? Poor Job,
dead, and his tombstone is being ornamented with "guive," and he is
now made to appear as an ignorant nobody.

     Twenty-eight words ending with "d." Now, if that were all, I
would say that might be an accident -- a coincidence, and that we
could not build upon that as a rock. I would say we must go
further, we must find whether any more peculiarities exist in 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                6

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

Eddy's writing that also exist in this will. We must be honest with
him. Now, let us see. He always had the peculiarity of terminating
that "d" abruptly, down just above the line, or at the line,
lifting his pen suddenly, making no mark to the right. Every one of
the "d's" in the will is made exactly that way. Corroboration
number two. These twenty-seven witnesses, the "d's," swear that
Eddy is their father, that they are the children of his hand, that
he made them.

     Another peculiarity: They say that Eddy always made a double
"l" in a peculiar manner. The last "l" came down to the line of the
up stroke, and that "l" as a rule stopped there. It did not go on
to the right -- a peculiarity. Now, let us see. In this will there
are nine words that end with a double "l" (and I want you to look
at that when you go out); each one is made exactly the same way --
each one. Nine more witnesses that take the stand and swear to the
authorship of this will.

     Has any body shown that that was Job Davis's habit? Poor, dead
dust cannot swear; nobody has said that. Another peculiarity is
that Eddy made a "p" without making any loop to the right in the
middle of it. Now and then he makes one with a loop, but his habit
is to make one without. Moses Downey swore that Job Davis made a
"p" with three loops, a loop at the top, a loop at the bottom and
a loop in the middle. That is exactly what he swore, and he was the
one who taught Job to write; and he said he made his letters
carefully, he closed his "a's" at the top, he made his "o's" round,
he made his "h's" after the orthodox pattern, he was all right on
the "b's" -- your witness.

     Now, gentlemen, you remember how that "p" looks, without any
loop; and there are twenty-one "p's" that have no loop to the right
-- twenty-one in this will. Twenty-one more witnesses, and every
one of them is worth a hundred Sconces, with his sheep and hogs
floating in the air. Twenty-one witnesses that swear to the
paternity of this will. Moses Downey, your own witness, swears that
job made a "p" with three loops. There is not a "p" in the will
with three loops, and there are twenty-one without any, and the
evidence of all the witnesses on our side was that it was his habit
to make "p's" without any loop, and they were given the papers that
they might cross-examine every one.

     Now, do you see, we are getting along on the edge of
demonstration.

     These things cannot conspire and happen. They may in Omaha,
but they can't in Butte, or even in Salt Creek township. Nature is
substantially the same everywhere and I believe her laws are
substantially the same everywhere, from a grain of sand to the
blazing Arcturus; everywhere the probabilities are the same. Let us
take another step.

     It is also sworn by intelligent men who have the writing of
Eddy in their possession, (writing shown to the other side) that it
was his habit to use "a's," "o's" and "u's" indiscriminately. For
instance, "thut" that, you all remember in the will.  When you go
out you will see it. He often uses an "o" where an "a" should be, 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                7

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

an "a" where a "u" should be, a "u" where an "a" or "o" should be;
in other words, he uses them interchangeably or indiscriminately.
How many cases of that occur in this will? Twenty-two -- twenty-two
instances in this will in which one vowels is used where another
ought to have been used.

     Twenty-two more witnesses that James R. Eddy wrote this will.
Twenty-two more. They have taken the stand; they won't have to be
sworn, because they can't lie. It would be splendid if all
witnesses were under that disability -- that they had to tell the
truth. That cannot be answered by log-wood ink. Eddy made "p's"
just the same, whether he used logwood or nigrosin, and he used his
"a's" and  "o's" and "u's" indiscriminately, no matter whether he
was writing in ink, red, blue, brown, iron, Carter's, Arnold's,
Stafford's, or anybody else's. Another witness testified that he
used "r" where he ought to use "s," and that he used "s" where he
ought to use "r," or that he made his "r's" and "s's" the same.
Many instances of that kind occur in this will, and every "r" says
to Eddy, "you are the man" -- every one. Every "s" swears that your
will is a poor, ignorant, impudent forgery.

     That is what it is -- the most ignorant forgery ever presented
in a court of justice since the art of writing was invented. It
comes in covered with the ear marks of fraud. And yet I am told
that it requires audacity to say that it is a forgery. What on
earth does it require to say that it is genuine? Audacity, in
comparison with what is essential to say that it is genuine, is
rank meekness and cowardice. Words lose their meaning. All swear
that Eddy scattered his periods with a liberal hand, like a farmer
sowing his grain. Now, we will take the twenty-third line of the
will. "To their use (period) and (period) benefit (another period)
forever (another period)"; twenty-fifth line: " Davis (period) and
(another period) Job (another period) Davis (another period) of
(another period) Davis (another period) County (another period)."
What a spendthrift of punctuation this man was! And yet he was well
educated. studying algebra, going to. the Normal school in Iowa,
champion speller of the neighborhood. Every period certifies and
swears that Job Davis did not write that will. He had studied
grammar. Punctuation is a part of grammar and no one but the most
arrant, blundering, stumbling ignoramus, would think of putting six
or eight periods along in a sentence, and then leaving the end of
that sentence naked without anything. Another peculiarity is, Mr.
Eddy uses "b" and "h" interchangeably. He makes a "b" exactly like
an "h," makes an "h" exactly like a "b." You can see that all
through the will. There are several instances of it, and each one
says that Job Davis did not write it. Downey says he did not write
that way, and each one says that Mr. Eddy did write it, and nobody
else.

     I am not through yet. The testimony is that Eddy was a poor
speller.

     Now, the learned counsel, Mr. Dixon, says that in this case we
must be governed by the probable, by the natural, by the reasonable
-- three splendid words, and they should be in the mind of every
juror when examining this testimony. Is it natural, is it probable,
is it reasonable? We have shown that Eddy was the poorest speller 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                8

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

in the business. Whenever they went to a spelling match, at the
first fire he dropped; never outlived, I think, the first volley.
And one man by the name of Sharp distinctly recollects that they
gave out a sentence to be spelled: "Give alms to the poor," and
Eddy had to spell the first word, give; and he lugged in his "u"
with both ears --  guive," and he dropped dead the first fire. The
man remembers it because it is such a curious spelling of give; and
if I had heard anybody spell it with a "u" when I was six years old
it would linger in my memory still.

     Now, let us take Judge Dixon's test. It is a good one, well
stated, and it is for you to decide whether the misspelled words
were misspelled by a good speller or a poor speller. If you say Job
Davis wrote it, then you are unnatural, unreasonable and
improbable.

     Isn't it altogether more natural, more reasonable, more
probable, to say that a bad speller misspelled the words than that
a good speller did?

     Let us stick to his standard, and see if Eddy spelled give
"guive" -- and, gentlemen, you cannot find in all the writing of
James R. Eddy, written before he was charged with this forgery,
where the word give appears, that it is not written with a "u" --
I defy you to find a line in the world where "given" is "guivin."
Now, let us go another step. Everybody admits that he was a poor
speller, and is it not more reasonable to say that he wrote the
will on the spelling, than that the champion speller did? We have
some more evidence on Mr. Eddy as good as anything I have stated.

     Now, do not be misled because I am a sinner. Let us stick to
the facts. William H. Davis testified to the spelling of Eddy, and
while he testified, held in his hand a will that he had seen James
R. Eddy write. In this will there were twenty words misspelled;
shall, "shal" and in the James Davis will, shall "shal,." Good!
Whether, in our will "wherther"; in the other will, "wherther" --
just the same; sheet of paper, "sheat" in our will; "sheat" in the
other will; in our will "guive," in that "guive." Did Job Davis
rise from the dead and write another will? Was one copied from the
other, and the copy so slavish that it was misspelled exactly the
same? You cannot say it was entirely copied, for now and then a
word, by accident, is right.

     Judge Dixon tells you that Eddy did not disguise his spelling.
Good Lord! How could he disguise his spelling? He spelled as he
thought was right. No man of his education would think of
disguising his spelling. He knows how to spell give; he believes it
is with a "u" still there is a prejudice against "u" since he was
charged with forgery, and so he has dropped it; but he thinks it is
right, nevertheless. Now, isn't it perfectly wonderful, is it not
a miracle, that james R. Eddy made exactly the same mistakes in
spelling and writing one will that Job Davis did in writing
another?

     Isn't it wonderful beyond the circumference of belief, that a
good speller and bad speller happened to misspell the same words?
It won't do. There is something rotten about this will, and the 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                9

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

rotten thing about it is that James R. Eddy wrote it, and he wrote
it about March, 1890. That is when he wrote it, and he let the
proponent in this case have it. We will get to that shortly. So,
gentlemen, I tell you that every misspelled word is a witness in
our favor. There is something more. Eddy uses the character "&" in
writing, instead of writing "and." The will is full of them; and it
is stated that sometimes when he endeavors to write out the word
"and" he only gets "an," and that peculiarity is in this will. "An"
for "and"; that you will find in the seventeenth line in the last
word of the line. Colonel Jacques swore that one of Eddy's
misspelled words was the word "judgment"; that he put in a
superfluous "e," and in this case here is "judgement" -- "shall
give the annuity that in the judgement of the executors shall be
final;" there is the superfluous "e" -- judgement. Now, there is
another. Their witnesses swore that as a rule he turns the bottom
of his "y's" and "g's" to the left. Now, you will find the same
peculiarity in this will, and the amusing peculiarity that be turns
the "g's" a little more than he does the "y's." I don't want these
things answered by an essay on immutable justice. I want them to
say how this is. Another thing, how he makes a "t," with a little
pot hook at the top, and that hook has caught Mr. Eddy. You will
find them made in the will, exactly, where the "t" commences a word
-- where it is what we call the initial letter. And what else? When
he makes a small "e" commencing a word, he always makes it like a
capital "E," only smaller. That is the testimony, and that happens
in this will and it happens in the papers and letters.

     Now, I say, that all these peculiarities taken together, the
same words misspelled, the same letters used interchangeably, the
same mistakes in punctuation, the same mistakes in the words
themselves -- all these things amount to an absolute demonstration.
So, I told you, he uses the capital "I" with the word "is" and that
he does twice in this will.

     Here are hundreds, almost, of witnesses that take the stand
and swear that Eddy is the author of that will. He wrote it --
every word of it. He negotiated with John A. Davis for it, and I
will come to that after a little. And how do they support this will
that has in it the internal evidence that it was written by James
R. Eddy? Why do I say it is impossible that he should have written
it, and the will should be genuine? Because at the date of that
will, or the date it purports to bear, Eddy was only eight years
old. And we don't know the real date, gentlemen, of that will yet.
My opinion is that it was dated by mistake, so that it came on a
date that Davis was not there, or came on a day that was Sunday,
and then they folded up that will, and scratched it and rubbed it
until the date is absolutely illegible, and nobody can say whether
it is June, July, or january. There was a purpose. The day may have
been Sunday, or they may have afterward ascertained that he was not
there. It is a suspicious circumstance that the day is left loose
so they can have a month to play on, maybe more. Now, they say, can
you impeach Sconce?

     Every misspelled word in the will impeaches Sconce, ever,
period impeaches Sconce, every "a" that is used as "o" impeaches
him, and "o" as "u" every "b" that is made like an "h" impeaches
him, every "h" that is made like a "b" impeaches him.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               10

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     In other words, every peculiarity of james R. Eddy that
appears in that will impeaches J.C. Sconce, Sr. -- Captain Sconce.
There is a thing about this will which, to my mind, is a
demonstration. It may be that it is because I am a sinner, but I
find, and so do you find it in the second initial of Sconce, in the
letter "C." There are two punctures, and you will find that exactly
where the punctures are there is a little spatter in the ink -- a
disturbance of the line, in the capital first; in the small "c"
there is another puncture and another disturbance of the line.
Professor Elwell says that these holes were made afterwards. Let's
see. There is a hole, and there is a splatter and a change of the
line. There is another hole and there is another change. There is
another hole and there is another change. What is natural? What is
reasonable? What is probable? It is that the hole being there,
interrupted the pen, and accounts for the diversion of the line,
and for the spatter. That is natural, isn't it? but they take the
unnatural side. They say that these holes were made after the
writing. Would it not be a miracle that just three holes should
happen to strike just the three places where there had been a
division of the line and a little spatter of the ink ? Take up your
table of logarithms and figure away until you are blind, and such
an accident could not happen in as many thousand, billion,
trillion, quintillion years as you can express by figures.

     Three holes by accident hitting just the three places where
the pen was impeded and where the spatters were. Never such a thing
in the world. It might happen once. Nobody could make me believe
that it happened twice -- that is, a hole might happen to get where
the pen was interrupted once; as to the second hole, I would bet
all I have on earth, as to the third hole, I know it did not. I
just know it did not. And yet Mr. Elwell says that these holes were
made afterwards. and he goes still further, and says that there is
not any trouble in the line. If anybody will look at it, even with
the natural eye, they can see that there is; and, in a kind of
diversion, they called Professor Hagan, when he called attention to
it, Professor Pin-holes and pin-hole expert. He might have replied
that that was a pin-head objection.

     Professor Elwell accounts for all the dirt on this will by
perspiration, all on one side and made by the thumb, and although
there were four fingers under it at the same time, the fingers were
so contrary they wouldn't perspire. This left the thumb to do all
the sweating. I need not call him a professor of perspiration, for
that throws no light on the subject; but I say to you, gentlemen,
that those marks, those punctures, were in that paper when Sconce
wrote his name. Sconce says they were not -- he remembered. He has
got a magnificent memory. I say that even that shows that he is not
telling the facts.

     Now, what else? We went around among the neighbors. He was
charged with passing counterfeit money, with stealing sheep, with
stealing hogs, with stealing cattle and with stealing harness.

     Mr. WOOLWORTH. It was not proved that this man was accused of
counterfeiting, of passing counterfeit money.


 

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               11

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     Mr. INGERSOLL. I tell you how I prove it. A man by the name of
Lanman was on the stand. He swore he was acquainted with Sconce's
reputation. Colonel Sanders asked him who he had ever heard say
anything about it. He said Lewis Miller and Abraham Miller and a
man by the name of Hopkins and several others. What did they say?
I asked them afterwards, and among other things I recollect he was
charged with passing counterfeit money, stealing hogs, stealing
sheep, stealing harness, killing another man's heifer in the woods.
I don't think I am mistaken, but if I am I will take counterfeit
money back. I won't try to pass counterfeit money myself, although
a sinner.

     Mr. WOOLWORTH. (Interrupting): He was not charged with killing
a heifer.

     Mr. INGERSOLL. No, no; the heifer was there. I have a very
good memory; I suppose it comes from the habit of taking no notes.
Lanman was the man, and while we are on Sconce there is a thing
almost too good to be passed.

     Mr. Jackson was on the stand, Senator Sanders asked him,
"Whoever told you anything against him?" "Well," Jackson answered,
"I asked Hopkins--" "Who else?' "Well," he said, "I had a private
conversation, I don't like to tell." "You have got to tell." Mr.
Jackson said to the Court: "Must I tell; it was a private
conversation." "You must tell." "Well," he said, "it was with Mr.
Carruthers, one of the counsel for proponent;" and he said that
what Mr. Carruthers said had more influence upon him than anything
else, because Carruthers was in a position to know.

     Mr. SANDERS. (Interrupting). Were those his exact words?

     Mr. INGERSOLL. Yes, that he was an attorney. I tell you that
was a death-blow; that came like thunder out of a clear sky when
you haven't seen a cloud for a month.

     Besides that he was impeached in open court. What else? The
witnesses that came to the rescue of Sconce; how did they rescue
him? They lived down there and never heard anything against him.
All these rumors, thick in the air, the bleating of sheep following
him wherever he went; the low of cattle and yet these people never
heard it. Tried for stealing harness, they never heard of it. They
were not acquainted with him. They said that they had some personal
dealings with him and he was all right, and one man endeavored to
draw a distinction between truth and honesty. A man could be a very
truthful man and a very dishonest man. Just think of that
distinction, a man of truth but dishonest. That won't do. Even
Senator Sanders said: "Some accusations, probably a dozen," to use
his excellent language -- what memories we have! Let me read the
exact words: "Some accusations; probably a dozen or more, of
stealing sheep and hogs lit on Sconce."

     Mr. SANPICRS: I didn't say that.

     Mr. INGERSOLL. I don't insist; but those are the exact words
I remember. And don't you remember that he went into a kind of
homily on neighborhood gossip, that hardly anybody escaped? I 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               12

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

believe a good many of this jury have escaped and a good many in
this audience have escaped. You can pick out a great many men that
a dozen accusations of stealing hogs and sheep and heifers have not
lit on.

     Then, there is another thing about Sconce that I don't like,
gentlemen. Sconce, in giving the history of the affair in Arkansas,
was asked if he didn't say, "Did I say that Davis' name was on it
when I signed it?" and right there he skulked and stated under oath
that when he said that he alluded to the photograph. Could he by
any possibility have alluded to the photograph when he said:

     Did I say that Davis's name was on it when I signed it? Did he
ever sign the photograph? No; he never signed the photograph. Davis
never signed the photograph, and if he ever said those words he
said them with reference to the original will, and he knows it. And
yet, in your presence, under oath, he pretended that when he made
that remark he alluded to the photograph. I wish somebody would
reply to that and tell us whether, as a matter of fact, he alluded
to the photograph.

     Now, Mr. Sconce, as you know, has the most peculiar memory in
the world. He remembers things that had nothing whatever to do with
the subject, photographed in all details, everywhere; and yet,
gentlemen, your knowledge of human nature is sufficient to tell you
that that kind of memory is not the possession of any human being.

     Thousands of people imagine that detail in memory is evidence
of truth. I don't think it is; if there is something in the details
that is striking, then there is; but naturalness, and, above all,
probability, is the test of truth. Probability is the torch that
every juryman should hold, and by the light of that torch he should
march to his verdict. Probability! Now, let us take that for a
text, Probability is the test of truth. Let us follow the natural,
let us follow the reasonable.

     At the time they say this will was made, Andrew J. Davis had
removed from Iowa years before; had settled, I believe, in Gallatin
county. His interests in Iowa were nothing compared with his
interests in this Territory at that time. From the time he left
Iowa he began to make money; I mean money of some account. He began
to amass wealth. He was, I think, a sagacious man.

     Judge Dixon says that he was a man of great business sagacity.
I am thankful for that admission. In a little while he became worth
several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Afterwards he acquired
millions. Now, during all that time, from the 20th of July, 1866,
up to the day of his death, he never inquired after the James Davis
will. It is a little curious he never wrote a letter to James Davis
and said, "Where is the will, have you got it?" Not once. They have
not shown a letter of that kind, not a word. Threw it in the
waste-basket of forgetfulness and turned his face to Montana. Years
rolled by, he never wrote about it, never inquired after it.

     They have brought no witnesses to show that A.J. Davis ever
spoke of the will; not a word. Gentlemen, let us be controlled by
the natural, by the reasonable, by the probable.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               13

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     In 1868 one of the executors died -- Job Davis. I think
Sanders said that if a man of Judge Davis's intelligence, knowing
what a difficult thing a will is to write, should have allowed
Mr. Knight, a Kentucky lawyer, to draw his will, who had not had
much practice, why, he is astonished at that, and in the next
breath tells you that Andrew J. Davis employed a twenty-two year
old boy who could not spell "give" to draw up his will in 1866.
Isn't it wonderful what strange things people can swallow and
then find fault with others! Now, remember:

     In 1868 Job Davis died; then there was only one executor to
that will. A.J. Davis went on piling up his money, thousands on
thousands. Greed grew with age, as it generally does. Gold is
spurned by the young and loved by the old. There is something
magnificent after all about the extravagance of youth, and there
is something pitiful about the greed of old age. But he kept
getting money, more and more, and in '85 he had sold the
Lexington mine. He was then a millionaire. In '85, I think. They
say he sold that mine in '81, maybe he was then a millionaire.
There was the will of '66 down in Salt Creek township, used as a
model for other wills, for the purpose of teaching the neighbors
spelling and elocution, to say nothing of punctuation. They got
up little will soirees down there -- will parties -- and all the
neighbors came in and Mrs. Downey read it aloud and wept when she
thought it was the writing of her brother Job. That accounts for
the tear drops, I suppose; the round spots on the will. 1885;
Andrew J. Davis worth millions. Then what happened? Then James
Davis, the other executor, died. Then there was a will floating
around down in Salt Creek township, sometimes in a trunk,
sometimes in a box, other times in an old envelope, other times
in a wrapper, and when I think of the shadowy adventures of that
document it makes me lonesome. James is dead, poor Job nothing
but dust; a will down there with no executors at all; and A.J.
Davis did not know in whose possession it was, and never wrote to
find out. Let us be governed by the natural, gentlemen, by the
probable. Never found out, never inquired, and after James Davis
died he lived four years more. I think James Davis died on the
5th of December, 1885, then he lived a little more than three
years after he knew that both executors were dead and did not
know whether the will existed or not. Judge Dixon tells us
perhaps if he had made a will before he died it would have been
different from this. I think perhaps it would. What makes him
think that it would have been different? If that will existed in
Salt Creek township he knew it, and he knew it in 1885, 6, 7, 8,
9, and when death touched with his icy finger his heart he knew
it then, and if he made that will in '66, it was his will when he
died unless it had been revoked. He knew what he was doing.

     I tell you there was no will down in Salt Creek township at
all; there wasn't any here. There have been a good many since.
Now, where is the evidence that he ever thought of this will,
that he ever spoke of it?

     What else? He appointed three executors of his will, that
is, in '66, if he made it, and in that he provided that a like
maintenance should be given to Thomas Jefferson, Pet Davis and
Miss Bergett, all three of Van Buren County, State of Iowa. What 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               14

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

else did he say? That the executors should have the right of
fixing that amount, and whatever amount in their judgment should
be fixed should be final. What is the legal effect of that? The
legal effect of that is that the estate could not have passed to
John A. Davis until the last who had a life interest was dead.
The proceeds could have been taken, every cent of them, from that
estate and given to the three persons for life maintenance, and
the youngest of those persons was four years old. John A. Davis
would have had to wait seventeen years. And do you think that
A.J. Davis ever made a will like that, putting it into the power
of two executors to divert the entire income to certain persons
and that there could be no division until they were all dead.

     Now, another improbability. Recollect, all the time. that we
are to be governed by reason and naturalness. Now, then, it was
claimed that Judge Davis held certain relations with a certain
Miss Caroline Bergett. It was claimed that a daughter known as
Pet Davis was his. It was also claimed that a boy, Thomas
Jefferson Davis, was his son. Nobody tells the truth in this will
although it has been alluded to and argued as well, I think, as
could be. There is this trouble in the will that though the boy
Jeff was never in Van Buren County until he was twelve years old
-- was never there until six years after the will was dated, yet
his supposed father describes him as of Van Buren County.

     Next, Miss Caroline Bergett had married a man by the name of
W.V. Smith in 1853, and in 1858, W.V. Smith took his wife and
children and moved to Texas -- eight years before this will was
made, and yet A.J. Davis forgot her name, forgot her residence,
forgot the residence of the boy that was imputed to him; that of
itself is enough to show that he was not present when the will
was made. If there is anything on earth that he would remember
this is it, and you know it. Although Mrs. Downey could not
remember when she was married or when her first child was born,
she does remember the time it took her to dust the room where
there was a clothes-press, a table and three or four chairs. She
recollects that.

     Another improbability:

     John A. Davis, the proponent, had charge of the Davis farm
down in Iowa and stayed there for six years after this alleged
will was made, and although he was acquainted with the Quigleys,
the Henshaws, the Sconces, and all the aristocracy of the
neighborhood, he says he never heard of the existence of this
will which so many people of that section talked about. What a
place for keeping secrets!

     Senator Sanders says that the reason Judge Davis made his
will in Salt Creek township was because in that township they
knew about this woman or these women and these children, and he
didn't want to go into any other community and make his will.

     Any need of publishing his will? Any need of reading any
more than the attesting clause to the attesting witnesses? Any
need to divulge a line? None. Ah, but Senator Sanders said that
he wanted to keep the secret, That is the reason he left the will


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               15

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

upon that table and rode away in a debonair kind of style on his
roan horse with the bobtail, leaving a congregation of Salt Creek
loafers to read his will. He wanted to keep it secret; hoped that
it would never get out. Imagine the scene, Job Davis writing the
will; Mrs. Downey with a duster tucked under her arm like the
soubrette in a theater. Well, when he was writing the will she
was looking over his shoulder and read the will as fast as he
wrote it. That makes me think of the fellow who was writing a
letter and there was a man looking over his shoulder, so he said:
"I would write more but there is a dirty dog looking over my
shoulder," and the fellow said: "You are a liar."

     Everybody read it. Mrs. Downey read it; she read it as Job
wrote it; then he read it aloud; and then he went and got Sconce
and read it again; then in comes Glasgow and he read it. I think
Mrs. Downey must have read this will ten or twelve times.

     Mr. MYERS. She said twenty-five.

     Mr. INGERSOLL. Oh, yes; twenty-five, because it was in job's
handwriting; and whenever the twilight crept around the farm
bringing a little sadness, a little pathetic feeling, she would
light a candle and hunt the will, and read it just to think about
Job. She would see the words "guive" and "wherther" and all that
brought back Job, and she used to wonder "wherther" he was in
Paradise or not.

     Now, John A. lived down there and knew all these people and
never heard of that will.

     What do you think of that? Why is it that John never got any
information from Sconce? Sconce, who saw the will written and who
was one of the attesting witnesses. Why didn't he hear of it from
old Downey? Why didn't he hear of it from the Quigleys or the
Dotsous? Why didn't he hear of it in Salt Creek township, when it
was seen and read and read and read again until I think many of
them knew it by heart? And yet the only person really interested
was walking around unconscious of his great good fortune, and
nobody ever told him. There is another thing: For four months
after Andrew J. Davis died nobody told John about the will.
Nearly four months passed away; I think he died on the 11th of
March, 1890, and this will came to John on the first day of July.
All the neighbors knew it. Just as soon as A.J. died, they all
said: "John is coming right into the fortune now" only nobody
told John; and the first man we find with the will is James R.
Eddy, and the next man we find with the will is John A. Davis,
the proponent. When John A. Davis saw this will, leaving him four
or five million dollars, it did not take much to convince him
that the signature was genuine. Human nature is made that way. If
it was leaving four or five millions to either of us, including
the sinner who addresses you, the probability is that I would
say, "Well, that looks pretty genuine -- pretty genuine." And
then if I could get a few other fellows to swear that it was, I
would feel certain, and say, "That is my money."

     Now, another improbability. All the evidence shows that
Judge Davis was a business-like, quiet, methodical, careful, 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               16

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

suspicious man, secretive, keeping his business to himself,
keeper of his own counsels; and when he did make a will it was
sealed; it was given to one of his friends to put away, and to
keep. It did not become the common property of the neighborhood.
He did not mount his roan horse and ask the people of the
community to look at it. He was a methodical, business-like man,
and I suppose Many of you, gentlemen of the jury, knew him; and I
shall rely somewhat on your knowledge of A.J. Davis, for you to
say whether he made this will, whether in 1866 he left his old
father naked to the world; whether he cared nothing for brothers
and sisters; whether he cared nothing for the children of the
sister that raised him. I leave it for you to say. You probably
know something about this matter. Andrew J. Davis, when he was a
child, when all the children were gathered around the same knee,
the children that had been nourished at the same tender and holy
breast, he would not have done this then. If some good fortune
came to one, it was divided.

     How beautiful the generosity, the hospitality of childhood!
But as they grow old there comes the love of gold, and the love
of gold seems to have the same effect upon the heart that it does
upon the country where it is found. All the roses fade, the
beautiful green trees lose their leaves, and there is nothing in
the heart but sage brush. And so it is with the land that holds
within the miserly grip of rocks what we call the precious
metals.

     The next question in the case is the Knight will. Was any
such will made? And I say here to-day, knowing what I am saying,
I never saw upon the witness stand a man who appeared to be more
candid, more anxious and desirous of telling the exact truth than
E.W. Knight, and from what I have heard there is not a man in
Montana with a better reputation. He has no interest in this
business, not one penny; and it was months and months after the
death of Judge Davis that we knew such a will ever existed --
that is, on our side. Either Mr. Knight was telling what he
believed to be true, or he was perjuring himself. No ifs and ands
about it. He is a man of intelligence and knows what he is
saying. He swears that A.J. Davis made a will.

     And what else does he swear to? That there was also the
draft of a will, which gave away the mine or provided for its
working, and then at the end of that draft, provided that the
rest of the property should be divided in accordance with the
statute. Thereupon Mr. Knight told him: "Your heirs would
interfere by injunction, and you had better bequeath your whole
property and fix the amount to be expended in the development of
the mine." Thereupon he made another will, and that will was
signed.

     Now, Mr. Knight knows whether it was signed or not, The will
was signed or Mr Knight Committed perjury knowingly, willfully
and corruptly. What does he say? That it was signed. What else?
That it was attested. Then these gentlemen came forward with Mr.
Talbot, who says that Knight said that when Davis came to the
bank to get the will he thought he was going to execute it. That
is, the idea being, it was not signed.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               17

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     What was it attested for if it was not signed? That is
absurd to the verge of idiocy. But they say that Mr. Knight is
not corroborated. Let us see. He says that Andrew J. Davis made a
will. Mr. Keith swears that A.J. Davis made a will. Knight says
that Davis went out and brought Keith in, and Keith swears that
he lived next door and A.J. Davis did come in there and get him
and he knows the time on account of the sickness of his child.
Corroboration number two. Knight swears that Davis then went for
another man. Keith says that he did go and get Caleb Irvine.
Corroboration number three. Knight said one of the men who signed
the will was in his working clothes. Corroboration number four.
Knight swears that Davis read the attesting clause. Keith swears
the same. Keith swears that Davis signed it, that he signed it,
and then Irvine signed it. What more? He swears that Knight wrote
it, and he was writing it when he went in. And yet they have --
and I will use an expression of one of the learned counsel -- the
audacity to say that Mr. Knight has not been corroborated.

     And they would have you believe that Knight took that will
over to Helena and put it in the safe when it was not signed by
A.J. Davis, and they would make you think besides that, that it
was attested by two witnesses, and that two witnesses had to say
that they saw A.J. Davis sign it, that he signed it in their
presence, and that they attested his signature in his presence
and in the presence of each other. They proved a little too much,
gentlemen. They proved that by Talbot. They proved that by Andrew
J. Davis, Jr., who expects to fall heir to all that is taken, and
they proved it also by John A. Davis, the proponent,

                             RECESS.

     May it please the Court and gentlemen: When we adjourned I
was talking about the testimony of Mr. Knight, and the making of
the Knight will. The evidence is, the way that will came to be
made, or what started it, is, as follows: A.J. Davis borrowed of
the First National Bank of Helena forty thousand dollars to put
in the mines, and Governor Hauser remarked when 'he got the
money: "Another old man going to fool with mines until he gets
broke." And that it seems piqued A.J. Davis, touched his vanity a
little, and then he said: "That mine shall be developed whether I
live or die. I am satisfied that it is a good mine, and I am
going to make a will and I am going to provide in that will for
the mine being developed." And thereupon he talked with Mr.
Knight. And finally Knight drew up a draft of a will, according
to his testimony, providing for the working of that mine. And
what did he say when he got through with it? "Now as to the
balance of the property, let it be divided according to law. That
makes a good will." That is what he said. Then Mr. Knight said to
him: "If you make the will that way it may be that the heirs will
come in and enjoin the working of the mine on the ground that it
is a waste of money. You had better make a full will and dispose
of all your property as you may desire, and fix the amount to be
used in the development of that mine."

     Now, this is either true or false. It is true if Mr. Knight
can be believed; and he can be believed if any gentleman can be
trusted.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               18

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     What more? Knight says that A.J. Davis made the memoranda
from which to draw that will, had his manager come, and in that
will it told how the shafts should be run, how much work should
be done, and charged his trustees to do development work up to a
certain amount.

     Is that all born of the fancy of this gentleman? And can you
believe that a man like Mr. Knight, who has run the largest bank
in Montana for twenty-five years -- can you believe that such a
man, who is not in any necessity, who is not in need of money,
comes here and swears to what he knows to be a lie, and makes
this all out of his own head, carves it out of his imagination?

     The second will was made, the second will was signed, the
second will was attested, the second will was given Mr. Knight to
keep. They say it was not signed, and yet Mr. Knight swears he
told one man about it. He told Mr. Kleinschmidt, so that if
anything happened to him, Knight, he would know that Knight had
in that vault the will of Andrew J. Davis. Do you think he would
have done that if the will had not been signed, if it were worth
only waste paper? And yet they are driven to that absurdity for
the purpose of attacking the evidence of this man. It will not
do.

     Judge Knowles said that in a conversation at Garrison, he
said that in the will the mine was left to Erwin Davis, and the
reason given for it was that Erwin Davis was a business man. Now,
the only way that can be explained, is one of two ways. One is
that Judge Knowles has gotten two matters mixed; the other is
that he is absolutely mistaken.

     Judge Knowles, the President of the First National Bank of
Butte -- Judge Knowles, who has been the attorney of Andrew J.
Davis, Jr. -- Judge Knowles had this conversation, or some
conversation, with Knight; and why would Knight have taken pains
to tell him a deliberate falsehood?

     There is something more. After all this occurred, Andrew J.
Davis, Jr. went to Mr. Knight and asked him to write out what he
remembered about that will, and Knight dictated it on the spot
and sent it to him.

     Where is that letter? Here it is. I want to read that letter
to this jury. That was a letter written long ago. A letter
written before this will was filed in this court. A letter
written before Mr. Knight knew that A.J. Davis, Jr. had any will.
A letter written before Knight imagined there could ever be a
lawsuit on the subject. Andrew J. Davis Jr. went to him and asked
him to write out what he knew about that will, and he turned,
according to his own testimony, and dictated it, and sent it to
him, like a frank, candid, honest man; and before I get through I
will read that letter, and when it is read I want you to see how
it harmonizes absolutely and perfectly with his testimony here on
the stand.

     I will draw another distinction. Mr. Knight gave two
depositions in this case. These depositions have not been 
suppressed like the deposition taken of Sconce. Not suppressed.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               19

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

Why? Because we are willing that the jury should read the two
depositions and hear his testimony besides, and there is not the
slightest contradiction in the depositions themselves, or between
the depositions or either one of them and his evidence that he
gave here -- except two that they claim; and think what immense
contradictions they are.

     In one deposition he says that A.J. Davis left some bequests
to some aunts. Mr. Knight swears on the stand that he never said
aunts, he said sisters, but if he did say aunts he meant sisters,
because he never heard of his having any aunts, and yet that is
held up as a contradiction, and to such an extent that you are to
throw away the testimony of this man.

     Now, here is the letter. This will was filed July 24, 1890,
and when he wrote this letter he did not know that A.J. Davis Jr.
knew of a will, or that John A. Davis knew of a will. And this is
what he writes:

                              Helena, Montana, July 22, 1890.

     I beg to say that some time in 1877 or 1878, I made a draft
of a will for your uncle Andrew J. Davis, which he duly executed,
and left the same on file with me, as a special deposit for two
or three years, when the same was canceled and destroyed; when I
was led to believe and to conclude that he had made and executed
a will to supersede and take the place of that.

     That explains Talbot's testimony. Instead of saying to
Talbot that A.J. Davis came there, as he thought, to execute the
will, and destroyed that will, it not being signed, what he said
was that he destroyed the will, but from the way he acted he
thought he was going to make another, that he was going to
execute a will; and this is exactly what Mr. Talbot said. To
execute a will, and it took a re-direct examination to swap the
"a" for "the".

     I cannot satisfactorily recall the considerations and
provisions of said will drawn by me, but the main burden and
desire was that the work on the mine known as the Lexington,
should be continued to a certain amount of development, and that
the mill should be carried on under a certain management, and
after providing for the payment of his just debts, he made
certain bequests naming certain nephews and nieces, running from
ten thousand to fifteen thousand dollars each, and you are
especially named for the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, and
if the estate exceeded in value the net sum of five hundred
thousand dollars, then those bequests where to be increased; and
if in excess of one million dollars, the further increase was
named and specified.

     That is the letter he wrote before he ever knew there would
be this suit; before he knew of the existence of this will.

     A certain boy named Jefferson -- claimed to be his son --
was given the sum of twenty thousand dollars to be paid to him in
yearly sums of five thousand dollars for four years, and the same
provision as to a certain girl, claimed to be his child.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               20

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     Is that not exactly what he swore to on this stand?

     Certain executors named E.W. Knight, S.T. Hauser, and W.W.
Dixon, each to receive the sum of ten thousand dollars for
services.

                              Yours truly,

                                             E.W. KNIGHT.

     Now, gentlemen, they were informed of the existence of that
will and of its destruction, and were so informed before John A.
Davis filed this will. And when we pleaded this will, John A.
Davis pleaded that it had bean republished, and yet no evidence
was given in of any republication. They knew that under the
statute of Montana, when a man makes will number one, and
afterwards makes will number two, and afterwards destroys will
number two, that will number one is not revived; that the making
of the second will kills the first, and the destruction of the
second kills that, and leaves the man intestate and without any
will. Now, there is the letter of Mr. Knight -- full, free,
frank, candid, honorable, like the man himself. He says there
that he does not remember all the provisions, but he does
remember that he provided for some nephews and nieces, and
provided for Andrew J. Davis, Jr., twenty-five thousand dollars,
for one Jefferson twenty thousand, for the girl about the same,
and that he provided also for the executors of the will, and
appointed Knight, Hauser, and Dixon as his executors. That is
exactly what he says here.

     Now, was that will made? Have they impeached Mr. Keith? I
tell them now that they cannot impeach him. He has sworn to the
making of that will, apart and separate from Mr. Knight. Oh, they
say, why didn't they bring Knight in, and prove by him that he
then recollected Mr. Keith? What has that to do with it? Mr.
Keith recollected Mr. Knight, swore that he wrote the will, and
that he was writing it when he came in, and swore that he
attested it, that Davis signed it, and Irvine also signed it.
What more do we want on that will? I say, gentlemen, that the
will of 1880 ends this case. There is not ingenuity enough in the
world to get around it, and there was and never will be enough
brains crammed into one head to dodge it. That will was made, and
every man on the jury knows it. That will was executed by Andrew
J. Davis, every man of you knows it, and the will was afterwards
destroyed.

     Now, the question is, did that second will revoke the first
will? Had it a revoking clause in it? E.W. Knight swears it had,
and he swears that he copied it from a will made by an uncle of
his named John Knight, and he had that will in his possession
here and in that will there are two revocation clauses, and
Knight swears that he copied those clauses, and right here it may
be well enough to make another remark. When he read the will to
A.J. Davis, and the passage "hereby revoking all wills," Davis
said: "There is no need of putting that in. I never made any
other will. This is the first." Knight said to him, "Well, that
is the way, that is the form, and I think it is safer to have it 
that way." And Davis said: "All right; let it go."

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               21

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     How do you fix that? There is no way out of it, that the
will was made in 1880, revoking all former wills. What else? The
conditions of the will of 1880, with regard to working the mine,
with regard to bequests to nephews, with regard to bequests to
others, with regard to the twenty thousand dollars given to Jeff
Davis, and the twenty thousand dollars given to the girl; these
provisions are absolutely inconsistent with the provisions of
this will of 1866. So on both grounds the will of 1880 destroys,
cancels, and forever renders null and void the will of 1866, even
if it had been the genuine will of A.J. Davis, and the Court will
instruct you to that effect.

     And after Mr. Keith had testified, the proponents in this
case subpoenaed Mr. Knight, and if they thought that Knight would
swear that Keith was not the man, why did they not put him on the
stand? They ran no risk. He is an honest man. He would tell the
truth. I never had the slightest fear in bringing an honest man
on the stand. Never. I want facts, and I hope as long as I live
that I shall never win a case that I ought not to win on the
facts. No man should wish or endeavor to win a case that he knows
is wrong.

     I say there is not a man on this jury but believes in his
heart and soul this minute that this will was made. You have to
throw aside the testimony of a perfectly good man, and no matter
whether what he said about Erwin Davis to Judge Knowles was true
or not -- and I must say that I never saw a witness on the stand
in my life more eager to tell his story than Judge Knowles was.
Never. He was bound to get it in or die. He answered questions
over objections before the Court was allowed to pass upon the
objections. Why? Because he is the President of the First
National Bank. Now, without saying that he was dishonest about
it, I say he was mistaken. Knight never said one word of that
kind to him.

     It was impossible that he could have said it. So is Mr.
Talbot mistaken. So is Andrew J. Davis, Jr. mistaken, and so is
John A. Davis mistaken. Think of the idiotic idea that a will,
not signed, was given to Knight to keep, attested by two
witnesses, and not signed by the testator. Idiotic! Now, as I
understand it, gentlemen, you will have to find that that will
was made. Now, what is the next great question in this case, and
the question that will be argued at some length, probably, by the
other side? And why? Because it is the first and only point, so
far as facts are concerned, that they have won in this case, just
one. And what is that? Our experts said that they thought that
the ink was nigrosin ink, and the fact that they wanted a test
proves that they were sincere. Their witnesses said they did not
think it was nigrosin ink. Mr. Hodges said it had too much
lustre, but that there was only one way in which it could be
absolutely determined and that was by a chemical test. But, say
these gentlemen, or rather said Judge Dixon, "the moment that ink
turned red the whole case of the contestants was wrecked." Let us
see.





                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               22

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     If there had been no logwood ink in existence -- not a
particle -- after the 20th day of July, 1866; if, on the night of
the 20th of July, 1866, all the logwood ink on earth had been
destroyed and then this ink had turned out to be logwood, why, of
course, it would have been a demonstration that this paper was
written as far back as the 20th of July, 1866. If it had turned
out that it was written in nigrosin ink and that that had only
been invented in 1878, it would have been a demonstration that
the will was a forgery. But you must recollect the fact that it
is written in logwood ink is not only consistent with its
genuineness, but consistent with its being a forgery. Why? There
was logwood ink in existence in 1890, plenty of it, and if Mr.
Eddy wrote this will in 1890, he could have written it in logwood
ink; and the fact that it is written in logwood ink does not show
that it was written in 1866. Why? Because there was logwood ink
in existence every year since 1866, till now.

     Suppose I said that the paper was only ten years old and it
turned out that it was forty, is that a demonstration in favor of
the other side? If it turned out to be ten, it is a demonstration
on our side.

     But if it turned out to be forty, is not that consistent
with the genuineness of the instrument, and also with the
spuriousness of the same instrument? You can see that. Nobody is
smart enough to fool you on that. Nobody. Take the whole question
of ink out and the question is still whether Eddy wrote it or
not. Take the ink all out and it is still the question whether
Job Davis wrote it or not. Absolutely, and all the test proved
was, that our experts -- some of them -- were mistaken about its
being nigrosin ink. Mr. Tolman stated that it was impossible to
tell without a chemical test; that it looked like nigrosin ink
and from the manner in which it seemed to run he thought it was
nigrosin ink, but that it was impossible to tell without a test.
Mr. Hodges, their expert, said it looked to him like logwood ink;
that it had too much lustre for nigrosin, but he added that it
was impossible to tell without a chemical test. That is what he
said. Mr. Ames said the same thing, and I appeal to you,
gentlemen, if Mr. Ames did not have the appearance of an honest,
of a candid, and of a fair man. Professor Hagan said that it was
nigrosin ink, but he admitted that the only way to know was to
test it. And what else? Their own expert, Mr. Hodges, said that
logwood ink penetrates the paper. If this ink has been on here
twenty-five, years it penetrates the paper.

     Sometimes an accident happens in our favor; a piece of that
will was torn off this morning. You see the edge there torn off
slanting. You see that "o-f"; how much that ink has sunk into
that paper. Not the millionth part of a hair. It lies dead upon
the top. Just see how the ink went in there -- not a particle. It
lies right on top. I would call that "float." There is the other
edge. There is where the ink stops. It has not entered a
particle. And when You go to your room I want you to look at it.
That ink has not penetrated a particle. And let us see what this
witness Hodges says: "Logwood ink penetrates the paper." There it
is, "to determine the nature of the ink, use hydrochloric acid."
What else?


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               23

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     "I think this will was written with Reimal's ink, and that
was made in Germany in the neighborhood of 1840. Reimal's ink
penetrates the paper." And then they say that we endeavored to
draw a distinction between modern and ancient. This is what Mr.
Hodges says about it.

     On the addition of hydrochloric acid to logwood ink it will
turn to a bright red. The old-fashioned ink was manufactured by
mixing a decoction of logwood with chromide of potash and formed
a blue black solution. Logwood inks as made to-day differ from
those, in that the modern logwood inks contain another sort of
chrome than chromide of potash; they contain chromium in the form
of an acetate or a chlorine.

     Hodges was the man that talked about ancient and modern
logwood inks; and he, before the test was made, said that the old
logwood ink would turn a bright red, modern logwood not so
bright. And after the evidence was all in, Professor Elwell came
smilingly to the post and said, "they have got it exactly wrong
end to; the older the duller and the newer the brighter." And
after a moment said, "This was kind of dull." Before the test was
made, Mr. Tolman swore, "I agree with Professor Hodges that if it
is an old logwood ink it will turn a bright, scarlet red. In the
case of modern logwood inks I don't agree with him, but to that
extent I think his tests are good," and he drew that distinction
before the test was made.

     Gentlemen, you saw this will. I want to call your attention
to it again. You see that "j" in Sconce's name, that is pretty
red. Not so awfully scarlet, though, that it would affect a
turkey gobbler. You see it in "Job"; you see it in "James Davis,"
but there it is brown, and not red, and not scarlet, and no flame
in it, and Professor Hodges himself said that although both were
logwood inks, he would not swear that Job Davis and James Davis
were written with the same ink. Do you see the red in that "Job"?
Now find the red on that "s" of "James." He said he would not
swear that they were written in the same ink, but both in logwood
ink, that is to say, they might have been different inks. While I
would not swear that they were the same inks, I would swear that
both inks contained logwood. And that is all he swore to, and I
must say that I believe he was a perfectly honest, fair
gentleman.

     Now, all that the ink test proves on earth is that it is
logwood instead of nigrosin, and that doer, not prove that Eddy
did not write the will, because there was plenty of logwood ink
when he did write it. That is the kind of ink he used. And it has
no more bearing -- the fact that it turned out to be logwood --
to show that it is a genuine will than though it had turned out
to be iron ink. Suppose the experts had been wrong on both sides,
and it had turned out to be iron ink, what would have happened
then? Is it a genuine will? Nothing can be more absurd than to
argue that that test settled the genuineness of this will.

     Hodges says another thing; that perhaps the pen went to the
bottom of the ink bottle and got a little of the settlings of the
ink on it, when he wrote "James Davis," and consequently that has


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               24

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

a different color. Well, if the pen had gotten some of this
sediment on it, the more sediment the more logwood, and the more
logwood the brighter the color, Instead of that, it is dull.

     There is another trouble: With regard to the experts, while
undoubtedly there are some men who do not swear to the exact
truth, whether paid or not, undoubtedly some men swear truthfully
who are paid. I do not believe that you doubt the testimony of
Hodges simply because you paid him so much a day. I don't. And
certainly we have found no men philanthropic enough to go around
the country swearing for nothing. I judge of the man's oath, not
by what he is paid, but by the manner in which he gives his
testimony -- by the reason there is behind it. That is the way I
judge and yet Senator Sanders judges otherwise, as he told you in
a burst of Montana zeal.

     I like Montana, too, and I believe the Montana people are
big enough and broad enough not to have prejudice against a man
because he comes from another State. Every State in this Union is
represented in Montana, and the people who left the old settled
States and came out to the new Territories, dropped their
prejudices on the way -- and sometimes I have thought that that
is what killed the grass. I like a good, brave, free, candid,
chivalric people. I don't care where you come from -- I don't
care where you were born. We are all men, and we all have our
rights; and as long as the old flag floats over me, I have just
as many rights in Montana as I have in New York. And when you
come to New York I will see that you have as many rights, if you
are in my neighborhood, as you have in Montana. That is the kind
of nationality I believe in. I hate this little, provincial
prejudice; and yet Senator Sanders invoked that prejudice. That
insults you. We did not insult you when we asked you when you
went on the jury, if you cared whether the money stayed in Butte
or not, or whether you were interested or not, or related or not.
These were the questions asked every juror, and we relied
absolutely on your answers when you said that you were
unprejudiced, and that you would give us a fair trial; and we
believe you will.

     Now, then, with regard to these experts, you have got to
judge each one by his testimony; and it is foolish it seems to
me, to call them vipers and pirates, as Senator Sanders did. A
very strong expression -- "vipers, pirates" living off, he said,
the substance of others; and yet he had an expert on the stand,
Mr. Dickinson; he had another, Mr. Elwell; he had another, Mr.
Hodges; and after that he rises up before this jury and calls
them "three vipers" and "three pirates." I never will do that. If
I ask a man to swear for me, and he does the best he can, I will
leave the "pirate" out.

     I will drop the "viper," and I will stand by him, if I think
he is telling the truth; and if he is not I won't say much about
him; I don't want to hurt his feelings. But I want to call your
attention again to the fact that every expert on our side swore,
knowing that they had three experts on the other side, and that
if we made a mistake they could catch us in it; and we did make a
mistake in that ink; and the test showed that we made a mistake, 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               25

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

and that is all the test did show; but it did not show that the
will is genuine any more than if it had turned out to be carbon
ink; then both sides would have been mistaken. And yet after all
it did turn out to be modern logwood ink, and it did turn out not
to be Reimal's logwood ink, made of the chromate of potassium;
did turn out not to be that, and I say on this will that there is
an absolute, decided and distinct difference between the color on
the name Job Davis and the name James Davis. And right here, I
might as well say that that man Jackson, who came here from
Butler, Mo. -- and when I said Butler was a pretty tough place,
rose up in his wrath and said it was as good as New York any day
-- that man says that when he saw the will he does not remember
of seeing the names of James Davis and Sconce in it, but he did
remember of seeing the name of Job Davis. I don't think he saw
any of it. Now, there is another question here -- because I have
said enough about ink, at least enough to give you an inkling of
my views.

     There is another question. Why didn't John A. Davis take the
stand? That is a serious question. john A. Davis had sworn, on
the 13th of March, 1890, that his brother died without a will.
John A. Davis, on the 24th day of July, 1890, filed a will in
which he was the legatee. That will came into his possession
under suspicious circumstances. What would a perfectly frank and
candid man have done? What would you have done? You would not
have allowed yourself to remain under suspicion one moment. You
would have said, "I got that will so and so." You would have let
in the light, "I obtained it in such a place, it is an honest,
genuine will, and here it is, and here are the witnesses to that
will." But instead of that, John A. Davis never opened his mouth,
except to file a petition swearing that it came into his
possession the first day of July. He knew that he was suspect,
didn't he? He knew that the men in whose veins his  blood flowed
believed that the will was a forgery -- knew that good men and
women believed that he was a robber, and that he was endeavoring
to steal their portion. He knew that, and any man that loves his
own reputation and any man that ever felt the glow of honor in
his heart one moment, would not have been willing to rest under
such a suspicion or under such an imputation. He would have said:
"Here is its history, here is where I got it, it is not a forged
will. It is genuine. Here are the witnesses that know all about
it. Here is how I came into possession of it."

     No, sir. Not a word. Speechless -- tongueless. And he comes
into this court and comes on to this stand to be a witness, and
is asked about a conversation he had with Burchett, and then we
asked him, "How did you come into the possession of that will?
"All his lawyers leaped between him and the answer to that
question. They objected. If he came by that will honestly he
would have said, "I am going to tell the whole story." He wants
you to believe that he came by it honestly, doesn't he? He wants
you to believe it. He not only wants you to believe it,
gentlemen, but he asks twelve men -- you -- to swear that he came
by it honestly, doesn't he? If you give your verdict that that is
a genuine will, then you give your oath that John A. Davis came
by it honestly; and he wants you twelve men to swear it. And yet
he dare not swear it himself. He wants you to do his swearing. He


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               26

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

is afraid to stand in your presence and tell the history of that
will. He is afraid to tell the name of the man from whom he
received it. He is afraid to tell how much he gave for it; afraid
to tell how much he promised. He is afraid to tell how they
obtained witnesses to substantiate it in the way they have. Well,
now, ought not you to let him tell his own story, ought not you,
gentlemen, to be clever enough to let him do his own swearing?

     Now, I will ask you again if he came by that will honestly,
fairly, above board, would he not be glad to tell you the story?
Would he not be glad to make it plain to you? If that was a
perfectly honest will and came to him through perfectly pure
channels, would he not want you to know it? Would he not want
every man and woman in this city to knowit? Would he not want all
his neighbors to know it? And yet, he is willing, when this case
is being tried, and when he is on the stand, and asked how he got
the will -- he is willing to close his mouth -- willing to admit
that he is afraid to tell; and I tell you to-day, gentlemen, that
the silence of John A. Davis is a confession of guilt, and he
knows it, and his attorneys know it. A client afraid to swear
that he did not forge a will, or have it forged, and then want to
hire a man to defend him and call him honest! Well, he would have
to hire him; he would not get anybody for nothing. And yet he is
asking you to do it. If John A. Davis came properly by it, let
him say so under oath. Don't you swear to it for him, not one of
you.

     Now, there is another question. Why did not James R. Eddy
take the stand? We charged him with forging the will. We made an
affidavit setting forth that he did forge the will, and in this
very court Mr. Dixon arose and said he was glad that the charge
had been fixed, and the man had been designated. Judge Dixon said
here, before this jury, when this case was opened, "the man who
was charged with forging this will will be here. He will stand
before this jury face to face; and he will explain his
connections with the will to your satisfaction." That is what
Judge Dixon said. Where is your witness? Where is James R. Eddy?
Why did you not bring him forward? I know he is here now --
delighted with the notoriety that this charge of forgery gives
him -- with a moral nature that is an abyss of shallowness, --
delighted to be charged with it, and he will probably be my
friend as long as he lives, because I have added to his notoriety
by saying he is a forger. Why did they not bring him on the
stand? Mr. Dixon gives one reason. Because the jury would not
believe him. And that is the man who is first found in possession
of this will. That is the man in whose hands it is, and it is
from that man that John A. Davis received it. And the reason that
he is not put on the stand is that it is the deliberate opinion
of the learned counsel in this case that no jury would believe
him.

     How does that work with you? James R. Eddy here -- his
deposition here -- and they could not read his deposition because
he was here and they had him here and kept him here, so that we
could not read his deposition. They were bound that he should not
go on the stand. Why? Because the moment he got there he could be
asked, Where did you find the will? Who was present when you 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               27

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

found it? When did you first tell anybody about it? When did you
first show it to John A. Davis? How much did he agree to give yon
for it? What witnesses have you talked to in this case? What
witnesses have you written to in this case? What work have you
done in this case? What affidavits have you made in this case?
And what have you done with the other three wills that you have
in this case ?

     Such questions might be asked him, and they were afraid to
put him on the stand. Every letter that he had written would have
been identified by him if he had been put on the stand. Maybe he
would have been compelled to write in the presence of the jury,
to see whether he would spell words correctly.

     They knew that the moment he went on the stand their case
was as dead as Julius Caesar. They knew it and kept him off.

     Now, there is only one way for them to win this case. And
that is to keep out the evidence. Only one way to win the case --
suppress John A. Davis. Keep your mouth closed or defeat will
leap out of it. Eddy, keep still. Don't let anything be seen that
will throw any light upon this. I ask you, gentlemen of the jury,
to take cognizance of what has been done in this case. Who is it
that has tried to get the light? Who is it that has tried to get
the evidence? Who is it that has objected? Who is it that wants
you to try this case in the dark? Who is it that wants you to
guess on your oaths? The failure of Eddy to testify is a
confession of guilt. They dare not put him on the stand -- dare
not.

     Now, gentlemen, there is a little more evidence in this case
to which I am going to call your attention. Something has been
said about a conversation in March, 1891. Sconce had his
deposition taken in Bloomfield, Iowa. That deposition has been
suppressed. John A. Davis was there at the time it was taken.
John A. Davis and Sconce went into the passage leading up to the
office of Carruthers. Mr. Burchett, sheriff of the county, a man
having no possible earthly or heavenly interest in this business,
happened to stop at the corner to read his paper -- looked at it
as he opened it -- and he then and there heard John A. Davis say,
"Stick to that story and I will see that you get all the money
you have been promised," and thereupon Sconce replied, "All right
I'll do it." Sconce denies it, and that denial is not worth the
breath that he wasted in forming the denial. John A. Davis denies
it. Of course he denies it. But he dare not tell where he got
that will. He dare not do it. He wants you to do that for him. He
wants you to lift him out of the gutter and wash the mud off him.
He is afraid to do it himself.

     I want to call your attention to that conversation, and that
of itself is enough to impeach Sconce. That is enough of itself
to show that John A. Davis was entering into a conspiracy or
rather had entered into one with Mr. Sconce. Now, gentlemen,
there is another thing, and we must not forget it. Curious people
down in Salt Creek township, on the other side; of course there
are plenty of good men there or the township could not exist, and
we had a good many of them here -- good, straight, honest, 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               28

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

intelligent looking men. But the other side had some -- all in
the family -- all of them.

     Swaim, he was not in the family, but he is a clerk in
Tremble's bank, where Wallace is the cashier, where they suppress
depositions; say they are not finished when they are signed by
the person who swears to them.

     John C. Sconce, the only living witness, whose "ancient but
ignoble blood has crept through rascals ever since the flood,"
cousin to James Davis, cousin to Job Davis, cousin to Mrs.
Downey, cousin to Eddy, cousin to Dr. Downey by marriage, brother
to T.J. Sconce, Jr., brother-in-law to Abe Wilkinson, cousin to
Tom Glasgow and Sam, cousin to Moses Davis, cousin to Alex.
Davis, uncle to Henshaw's daughter, and father-in-law of George
Quigley. Every one of them united. Blood is thicker than water.
Eddy stuck to his family.

     James R. Eddy -- cousin to Sconce, son of Mrs. Downey, (Mrs.
Downey, the duster lady, who remembers that Davis asked her to
remain, but didn't ask her advice, didn't have her sign the will,
didn't give her any bequest, but there she was with her duster),
grandson of James Davis, nephew of Job Davis, and related by
blood or marriage to both the Glasgows, Moses and Alexander
Davis, to T.J. Sconce and J.C. Sconce, Jr., Abe Wilkinson, George
Quigley, S.M. Henshaw, (the celebrated lawyer). J.L. Hughes, and
Eli Dye, brother-in-law to C.O. Hughes, and foster brother to
John Lisle, and Mrs. A.S. Bishop. And it is just lovely about
John Lisle.

     John Lisle is one of the fellows that saw this will. "How
did you come to see it, John?" "James Davis," he says, "was my
guardian and he had to give a bond, and so one day when James
Davis was away from home, I thought I would go and see the bond."

     Of course he thought James Davis kept the bond that he gave
to somebody else -- to the county judge; but Mr. Lisle pretends
that he thought the bond would be in the possession of the man
who gave it. And so he sneaked in to look among the papers. Now,
do you believe such a story -- that he thought that man had the
bond? Didn't he know that the bond was given to somebody else?
Foolish! Bishop swears the same thing; James Davis was guardian
for his wife, and he was looking to see if James had the bond;
and another fellow by the name of Sconce, was looking for a note,
and when he opened this double sheet of paper folded four times
and happened to see Sconce's name he said: "Here it is -- a
promissory note."

     Mary Ann Davis -- that is to say, Mrs. Eddy, that is to say,
Mrs. Downey, is the mother of J.P, Eddy, daughter of James Davis,
sister to Job, second cousin to Sconce, wife of Downey, and
related by blood or marriage to Tom and Sam Glasgow, Moses and
Alexander Davis, Abe Wilkinson, S.M. Henshavy, J,O, Sconce, Jr.,
T.J. Sconce, George Quigley and C.O. Hughes. All right in there,
woven together.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               29

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     E.H. Downey -- son-in-law of James Davis, brother-in-law of
Job, husband of Mary Ann Davis-Eddy-Downey, and step-father of
Mr. Eddy.

     S.C. Sconce. Jr. -- cousin to Eddy, nephew of J.C. Sconce,
Sr., cousin to Mrs. Downey, cousin of E.H. Downey, son-in-law of
Henshaw, cousin to George Quigley, related to Tom and Sam
Glasgow, Abe Wflkffison and Moses and Alex Davis.

     George Quigley -- son-in-law of Sconce.

     Sam Glasgow -- cousin of Sconce, son-in-law of Dye, brother
to Tom Glasgow, brother-in-law to Moses and Alex. Davis, cousin
to Abe Wilkinson, and related by marriage to J.R. Eddy. Here they
are, same blood. All have the same kind of memory; runs in the
blood.

     Henshaw -- father-in-law to J.C. Sconce, Jr. Lisle --
adopted son of James Davis, and his ward, and foster brother to
Eddy. A.S. Bishop -- married to Allie Lisle, ward of James Davis,
foster sister of James R. Eddy.

     T.J. Sconce -- Eddy's cousin, J.R. Sconce's brother,
brother-in-law and cousin to the Glasgows, cousin to Alex. and
Moses Davis, brother-in-law to Abe Wilkinson and uncle to J.C.
Sconce, Jr.

     Moses Davis -- cousin of Sconce, brother-in-law to the
Glasgows, cousin to Abe Wilkinson, brother of Alex. Davis, and
related to Eddy and Arthur Quigley.

     Alexander Davis -- cousin to Sconce, brother of Moses Davis,
brother-in-law to the Glasgows, cousin to Wilkinson and related
by marriage to Arthur Quigley.

     Abe Wilkinson -- brother-in-law to Sconce, cousin to Alex.
and Moses Davis, and cousin to the Glasgows.

     Tom Glasgow -- cousin to Sconce, and Abe Wilkinson, and a
brother-in-law of Moses Davis, and a brother to Sam Glasgow, and
related by marriage to Eddy.

     Arthur Quigley -- brother-in-law to Alex. Davis, and brother
to George Quigley, who is a son-in-law of Sconce. John L. Hughes
-- his nephew married Eddy's wife's sister. Eli Dye -- father-in-
law of Sam Glasgow.

     There they are, all of them related except Swaim and
Duckworth and Taylor; and Duckworth, he is in the tie business
along with Eddy. There is the family tree. All. growing on the
same tree, and there is a wonderful likeness in the fruit. Why,
that Glasgow has as good a memory as Sconce. He remembers that
this is the same will he saw -- paper like that, and he swears --
I think it is Sam Glasgow -- that he did not read the contents or
see a signature. And yet he comes here, twenty-five years
afterwards, and swears it is the same paper. And then the paper
was clean and now it is covered with all kinds and sorts of 
stains.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               30

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

     Now, gentlemen, take the signature of A.J. Davis, and I want
you all to look at it. I say it is made of pieces. I say it is a
patchwork. It is a dead signature. It has no personality -- no
vitality in it, and I want you to look at it, and look at it
carefully. I say it is made of pieces. Of course every
counterfeit that is worth anything, looks like the original, and
the nearer it looks like the original the better the counterfeit.
All the witnesses on the side of the proponent who have sworn
that it is his signature, also swear that he wrote a rapid, firm
hand -- nervous, bold, free, and that he scarcely ever took his
pen from the paper from the time he commenced his name until he
finished; and I want you to look at that name. I will risk your
sense; I will risk your judgment -- honest, fair and free --
whether that is a made signature, or whether it is the honest
signature of any human being.

     And now, gentlemen, one word more. I contend, first, that
the evidence shows beyond all doubt that Job Davis did not write
this -- will. Second, that it is shown beyond all doubt, that
James R. Eddy did write this will, and that that evidence amounts
to a demonstration. I claim that the will of 1880 was made
precisely as E.W. Knight and Mr. Keith swear; that that will was
utterly inconsistent with the will of 1866, even if that had been
genuine; that it revokes that will, that its provisions were
inconsistent, and that afterwards that will was destroyed, and
that there is not one particle of evidence beneath the canopy of
heaven to show that it was not made and to show that it was not
destroyed. And the Court will instruct you that the will of 1866,
even if genuine, is not revived.

     This is the end of the case. So I claim that the
probabilities, the reason, the naturalness, are all on the side
of the contestants in this case -- all. And I tell you, that if
the evidence can be depended on at all, A.J. Davis went to his
grave with the idea that the law made a will good enough for him.
Do you believe, if he were here, if he had a voice, that he would
take this property and give it to John A. Davis; that he would
leave out the children of the very woman who raised him; that he
would leave out his other sisters, that he would leave out the
children of his sisters and brothers? Do you believe it? I know
that not one man on that jury believes it.

     This case is in your hands. That property is in your hands.
All the millions, however many there may be, are in your hands;
they are to be disposed of by you under instructions from the
Court as to the law. You are to do, it. And, do you know, there
is no prouder position in the world, there is no more splendid
thing, than to be in a place where you can do justice. Above
everybody and above everything should be the idea of justice; and
whenever a man happens to sit on a jury in a case like this, or
in any other important case, he ought to congratulate himself
that he has the opportunity of showing, first, that he is a man,
and second, of doing what in his judgment ought to be done, and
there will never be a prouder recollection come to you hereafter
than that you did your honest duty in this case. Say to this
proponent: "If you wanted to show us that you got this will  



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               31

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

honestly, why didn't you swear it; if you wanted us to believe it
was a genuine will, why didn't you have the nerve to take your
oath that it is a genuine will?"

     Now, you have the opportunity, gentlemen, of doing what is
right. Your prejudice has been appealed to, but I say that you
have the manhood, that you have the intelligence, and that you
have the honesty to do exactly what you believe to be right; and
whether you agree with me or not, I shall not call in question
your integrity or your manhood, I am generous enough to allow for
differences of opinion. But when you come to make up your
verdict, I implore you to demand of yourselves the reasons; to be
guided by what is natural; to be guided by what is reasonable. I
want you to find that this will was found in the possession of
Eddy in April or March, next in the hands of John A. Davis; and
that John A. Davis dare not tell how he came in possession of it.
John A. Davis, on the edge of the grave -- for this world but a
few days, and according to the law without that will he could
have had an income of over fifty thousand a year. He was not
satisfied with that. He wanted to take from his own brothers and
sisters, wanted to leave his own blood in beggary.

     He never saw the time in his life that he could earn five
thousand a year -- never. And he was not satisfied with fifty
thousand -- he wanted four and a half millions for himself.

     Gentlemen, I want you to do justice between all these heirs.
I want you to show to the United States that you have the
manhood, that you are free from prejudice, that you are
influenced only by the facts, only by the evidence, and that
being so influenced, you give a perfectly fair verdict -- a
verdict that you will be proud of as long as you live. How would
you feel, to find a verdict here that this is a good will, and
afterwards have it turn out to be what it is -- an impudent,
ignorant forgery?

     Now, all I ask of you is to take this evidence into
consideration. Don't be misled even by a Christian, or by a
sinner, for that matter. Let us be absolutely honest with each
other. We have been together for several weeks. We have gotten
tolerably well acquainted. I have tried to treat everybody fairly
and kindly, and I have tried to do so in this address.

     I have had hard work to keep within certain limits. There
would words get into my mouth and insist on coming out, but I
said: "go away; go away." I don't want to hurt people's feelings
if I can help it. I don't want anyone unnecessarily humiliated,
but I say whatever stands between you and justice must give way;
and if you have to walk over reputations -- and if they become
pavement you cannot help it. You must do exactly what is right,
and let those who have done wrong bear the consequences.

     Now, gentlemen, I have confidence in you. I have confidence
in this verdict. I think I know what it will be. It will be that
the will is spurious, and that the will of 1880 revoked it,
whether spurious or not. That is my judgment, and I don't think
there is any man in the world smart enough or ingenious enough to


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               32

           ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE DAVIS WILL CASE.

get any other verdict from you as long as John A. Davis was
afraid to swear that it was an honest will; as long as James R.
Eddy, the forger, dare not take the stand; and they will never
get a verdict in this world without taking the stand, and if they
do take it, that is the end. There is where they are.

     Now, all I ask in the world, as I said, is a fair, honest,
impartial verdict at your hands. That I expect, More than that I
do not ask. And now, gentlemen, I may never see you again after
this trial is over -- separated we may be for-ever -- but I want
to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the attention you
have paid to the evidence in this case and for the patient
hearing you have given me.

     NOTE: The Jury disagreed and the case was compromised.



                          ****     ****










          Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

   The Bank of Wisdom Inc. is a collection of the most
thoughtful, scholarly and factual books. These computer books are
reprints of suppressed books and will cover American and world
history; the Biographies and writings of famous persons, and
especially of our nations Founding Fathers. They will include
philosophy and religion. all these subjects, and more, will be
made available to the public in electronic form, easily copied
and distributed, so that America can again become what its
Founders intended --

                 The Free Market-Place of Ideas.

   The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old,
hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts
and information for today. If you have such books please contact
us, we need to give them back to America.




                          ****     ****







                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               33