Autobiography of Charles Clinton Nourse Part 3

Governor Stone also solicited me to act as special prosecutor in prosecuting the indictments against the secretary for forgery, but in consideration of the fact that the secretary had failed to obtain my services in his defense because of his poverty, I declined to take any retainer or part in the prosecutions.

I only recite these matters here because the secretary for his own purposes saw proper to make a number of virulent attacks upon me in various scurrilous articles that he published. As he was a man of no reputation and soon after left the state and died in obscurity and poverty, it is not necessary here to notice them.

The indictments against the secretary were never tried, I think, for the reason that the trial would necessarily have exposed the fact of the Governor's carelessness and inattention to the detail of his official duties. The Governor was otherwise not to blame for these unfortunate results and was himself free from any taint of dishonesty or corruption.

Notwithstanding my determination to retire from politics and devote myself entirely to the practice of law, the republican state convention, in the fall of 1867, without any procurement or solicitation upon my part, selected me as chairman of the state central committee. I conducted the canva.s.s that resulted in the election of Colonel Samuel Merrill. The entire cost of this canva.s.s, including the employment of a secretary to the committee, was only the sum of $800, one-fourth of which the candidate for Governor contributed. I make note of this, for the reason that in later years, and at the time of the present writing, these central committees of the states and of the nation, are expending thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars upon the election of the candidate of their party.

I also at the time I was chairman of the state central committee, furnished a team to Messrs. Thomas F. Withrow and F. W. Palmer, the latter then editor of the _Register_, to make a political canva.s.s through the western half of the state. The very next year, 1868, Mr.

Palmer became a candidate for congress in this district, Mr. Ka.s.son being again a candidate for a seat in congress and again defeated in the nomination. I attended the congressional convention which was held at Council Bluffs that year, and was well satisfied with the result.

In the summer of 1869 Judge George G. Wright, before that time one of the judges of the supreme court of the state of Iowa, and who had removed from Keosauqua and become a permanent citizen of Des Moines, called upon me to confer with me upon the subject of his election to the United States Senate. He was fearful that Mr. John A. Ka.s.son, who had been a member of the house of representatives of the state the last previous session, would be a candidate for the state senate. He expressed himself as having no confidence whatever in Mr. Ka.s.son's friendship toward him, and he desired me to be a candidate and seek the nomination for the position of state senator. I peremptorily declined, for the reason that I did not want to engage in any political fight or difference with Mr. Ka.s.son, and I could not afford at that time to leave my practice for a place in the state senate. Judge Wright insisted that he must have a friend in the senate from Polk county upon whom he could rely, and urged me to name some one who could be nominated and elected. After canva.s.sing the names of several gentlemen, I suggested the name of B. F. Allen, then the leading banker in western Iowa, giving as my reason for urging Mr. Allen's name that the friends of Mr. Ka.s.son would not present Mr. Ka.s.son's name in opposition to Mr.

Allen at that time, and the further reason that the people of Des Moines would at the then coming session of the general a.s.sembly ask for an appropriation to commence the building of a permanent capitol, and that Mr. Allen by virtue of his influence through the western part of the state especially could probably do more than any other man to secure such an appropriation. Judge Wright replied that the name of Mr.

Allen had been suggested, but that he was satisfied that that gentleman would not accept of the nomination because his business required his undivided attention. I suggested to Judge Wright that I thought I was better acquainted with Mr. Allen than himself, and that if a number of our friends would call upon Mr. Allen, one at a time, suggesting and urging him to be a candidate for the senate, in less than ten days he would not only be willing but anxious to receive the nomination. We accordingly pursued that course, and my prediction was verified. Mr.

Allen became a candidate and received the nomination, but this did not prevent Mr. Ka.s.son from again being a candidate for the nomination to the lower house.

At the ensuing session of the legislature the desired appropriation for a permanent capitol at Des Moines was secured and Judge Wright was elected to the United States Senate, defeating William B. Allison who was then, for the first time, a candidate for that position.

Mr. Ka.s.son worked diligently to secure the appropriation for the capitol, as did also Mr. Allen in the senate and George W. Jones, Mr.

Ka.s.son's colleague, in the house.

The citizens of Des Moines were very deeply interested in this appropriation for the permanent capitol, and every one, including the ladies, brought to bear all proper influence upon the members to secure their votes for it. The great event of the winter socially was a grand party given by Mr. Allen in the splendid mansion which he had just finished, situated on Terrace Hill, now the property of Mr. F. M.

Hubbell. The ladies of the town also gave an old fashioned concert at Moore's Hall, and an amateur theatrical performance at its close, of which I had the honor to be the author. The play was a farce ill.u.s.trating the absurd features of a general a.s.sembly of the state of Iowa whose members were one-half ladies and the other half gentlemen.

The play represented a session of the general a.s.sembly of the state of Iowa in the year 1900. The old capitol building, then occupied by the legislature, was supposed to have fallen down and to have killed a number of the members of the sitting general a.s.sembly, and one of the bills discussed by the mock legislature was a proposed appropriation for the benefit of the surviving families of the members who had lost their lives in the destruction of the old capitol. The great discussion arose upon a motion to strike out the sum of sixty-two and one-half cents, and many of the speeches that had been made against the appropriation for the new capitol upon the question of economy were largely quoted from, by those opposed to the sixty-two and one-half cents.

Another point made in the play was that upon the question of woman's rights. Dubuque county was supposed to be represented by a lady weighing over two hundred pounds, and her husband, a dwarf, then residing in the city, who weighed about seventy pounds. Whenever a vote was taken upon any question respecting the rights of their s.e.x the legislature divided, the men voting on the one side and the women always on the other. The lady who was supposed to be the wife of the dwarf, whenever a rising vote was taken upon a question of this nature, seized her supposed husband by the coat collar and tried to compel him to stand up and be counted on the side with the ladies. The frantic efforts of the little fellow to desist and to vote with those of his own s.e.x created uproarious applause and amus.e.m.e.nt for the audience, as did also the following part of the play:

The lady supposed to be the wife of the dwarf arose and addressed the speaker upon a question of privilege. She said she had just received a telegram from home, stating that her youngest child was taken suddenly ill, and she requested the house to grant leave of absence for her husband, as it was very desirable that he should return home and care for the sick child. Another member of the house, a gentleman, arose and inquired whether the sick child was a boy or a girl. The lady responded with some acrimony that all her children were girls of whom she boasted she had seven, and was proud of it.

The ladies of the city entered into this play with much spirit and performed their parts so admirably that it furnished a very rich entertainment for the winter.

The bill making the appropriation for the erection of the permanent capitol finally became a law, and Mr. Ka.s.son attempted to monopolize for himself all the glory of the achievement. He had a bra.s.s band serenade him at his house, and John P. Irish of Iowa City make a congratulatory speech to him as the hero that had accomplished so much for the city of Des Moines.

In the year 1874 Mr. Ka.s.son was again nominated as the republican candidate for congress and was successful in the election. In this contest he was opposed by the then editors of the _Register_, a newspaper at that time published by the Clarkson brothers.

In the early part of September, 1874, Mr. J. C. Savery, a citizen of Des Moines at that time, and for several years a client of mine, called upon me and showed me several letters in ma.n.u.script, relating to Mr.

Ka.s.son's conduct while a member of the legislature of Iowa, and while a member of congress, and stated that he proposed to publish those letters as he was opposed to Mr. Ka.s.son's election. He asked my advice as his attorney as to whether or not there was anything in the letters that would make him liable to a civil suit for damages in case of their publication. I advised him that if the letters were published and any suit was brought against him it would be necessary to show either the absolute truth of them or that they were published from proper motives and that he had a good reason to believe that the statements were true.

As Mr. Savery had been my friend and client, and had not been at all prominent in political life, I advised him as a friend not to mix up in the contest and not to publish the letters, as he was a private citizen having no special interest in the question as to who would or would not be elected to congress. He, however, determined that the letters should be published and he gave them to the _Register_ for publication. These letters were a very severe arraignment of Mr. Ka.s.son's political career, and he thought proper to commence suit in the district court of Polk county against Mr. Savery and the editors of the _Register_ for libel. Such a suit was brought October 21, 1874. Mr. Savery requested me to meet Mr. Clarkson for the purpose of consultation and with a view to my employment, in connection with Colonel Gatch, to defend the suit.

I stated to them that the trial of the cause would involve a good deal of labor and time, that in the then state of political excitement, it would be very difficult to obtain a favorable result as the partisans of Mr. Ka.s.son, if they secured a place upon the jury, would hardly give much weight to the testimony that might be produced. I signified, however, that I was willing to take the employment, provided I was paid liberally for my professional services. To this Mr. Richard Clarkson demurred very strongly, insisting that as Mr. Ka.s.son was at least a political opponent and enemy of mine I ought to be willing to defend their case for an opportunity to ventilate the character of the plaintiff in the suit. I stated to Mr. Clarkson that if I engaged in that suit it would be for the purpose of performing my duty as an attorney and officer of the court, and that I should under no circ.u.mstances allow any personal matters of my own to influence what I might have to do or say in regard to the case; that the court room was not the place for a lawyer to gratify his personal feelings toward any of the parties to the litigation. This conference terminated without any agreement as to my employment. Afterwards, Mr. Savery came to me to see me alone and stated that Colonel Gatch had named a very small sum that he was willing to accept as compensation for a.s.sisting in the trial of the case. Mr. Savery urged upon me that he was then in poor circ.u.mstances financially and not able to pay any large fee; that he had been my client and paid me considerable sums of money in times past and urged upon me that I ought to stand by him now in the time of his trouble; that if I would accept of a like amount that Colonel Gatch had agreed to take for his services, he, Mr. Savery would pay half, and the Clarksons would pay the other half. I finally agreed to these terms. I tried the case. It consumed very considerable time in its preparation and trial. I copy here for information as to the character and scope of this case the opening statement that I made to the jury in regard to the issues involved, and the evidence that the defendants would offer in support of their defense. I always regarded the opening statement of a case as very important and that it should give to the jury a clear idea of the case they were to try, and of the facts upon which my client relied. I always believed strongly in the importance of first impressions, and I give this as a specimen of my skill in that behalf and for the further purpose of showing that it is utterly free from personal feeling or ill will toward the plaintiff. The following is the opening statement as made and reported and published at that time:

With permission of the Court, Gentlemen: In a case like this, it is hard for jurors to divest themselves entirely of their relations, politically and socially, to parties, and come to the consideration of it as a dry question of fact under the instruction of the court.

The pet.i.tion that has been read to you selects from certain articles that were published during the political canva.s.s last fall, three certain items of charges made against Mr. Ka.s.son that it is supposed by Mr. Ka.s.son and his friends cannot be proved. Why those three particular charges out of quite a number should have been selected and the others pa.s.sed by, I do not know. Probably any one of the other charges damaged him as much as any one of these.

But for some reason best known to the plaintiff, he has been willing to stand all the injury and all the damage they did; because he didn't care about having them investigated in court. (He has a right to pick out and say this one is not true, and the other is not true, I put you on the proof of this.) These three particular charges are set out, and they claim so much damages for saying these particular things about this particular individual.

The answer I will read to you and then try to give you some idea of the evidence that will be introduced on the part of the defendants.

[Here Mr. Nourse read the answer relating to the first charge, and continued.]

The facts are, these articles were written by Mr. Savery, and published in the _Register_, which was conducted and published by the defendants, Mr. R. P. Clarkson and Mr. J. S. Clarkson.

[Reads from pet.i.tion again, beginning with the words: "Now, sir, this was the way you played your hand."]

Mr. Nourse continued: That is the answer we make to the first charge, relating to what is called the Smoky Hill route. I will say, in order that you may understand the evidence, and the facts in reference to that business, that Mr. Ka.s.son was our member of congress in 1866, as will appear by the testimony, living and residing in this town, having for his colleagues Messrs. Price, Wilson, Allison, Judge Hubbard, and Mr. Grinnell. At that time one of the most vital questions to the people of Iowa, especially to the people of this congressional district, was whether or not the roads running east and west through Iowa should connect with, and become a part of the great Pacific route, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. Prior to 1866 congress had pa.s.sed a law to aid the construction of the Pacific Railway. That law provided for several Iowa branches, and provided for a branch connecting with the St. Louis roads through Kansas, and provided that all these branches should unite at what is known as the one hundredth meridian, some distance west of Omaha. And a further provision in that bill was that the Union Pacific Railroad Company should build from the one hundredth meridian westward, meeting the road that should be built from California eastward. That was the Union Pacific Railroad proper. It will appear in evidence, gentlemen, that Mr. Ka.s.son, up to the very moment, the very day and hour on which he gave this vote in congress, had publicly and privately expressed himself in favor of the Omaha route, and delivered a public lecture against the Smoky Hill route, and explaining to the people of this locality the great advantages they were to derive from being upon the main line of this great thoroughfare. It will further appear in evidence, gentlemen, that the Kansas company, with the Pennsylvania Central road--in combination with the St. Louis interests--devised a scheme, in the winter of 1866, whereby they proposed to make the Kansas road, connecting with St. Louis, the main branch of the Pacific road, and thus entirely defeat the building of the roads westward to the hundredth meridian, connecting with the Iowa roads. That was the scheme that was undertaken, and a bill having that object was rushed through the senate and came to the house of representatives, when Thaddeus Stevens took charge of it. The friends of the bill made a strong combination, refused to let it be referred to a committee, and refused even to allow it to be printed for the information of the house, and put it upon its pa.s.sage under the spur and whip, crushed out debate, and crushed out explanation and discussion. Mr. Ka.s.son was the only member of the house of representatives from Iowa that was permitted by Thaddeus Stevens, who had the floor, to occupy the time of the house, and to the surprise of everyone Mr. Ka.s.son was found to have gone over to the enemy. We have the depositions of Hiram Price and James F. Wilson, and the _Congressional Globe_ that will explain to you his false position. Mark the explanation Mr. Ka.s.son attempted to make on the floor of congress. He based his defense simply on the claim that the Kansas branch road would make a _rival road_ and afford compet.i.tion.

This, gentlemen, will appear in evidence when we come to investigate this matter. It does not answer the proposition and but for the fact that the money was speedily raised and the road built from Omaha to reach the hundredth meridian, before the Kansas branch got their road built there, we would have lost everything; we would have lost all that congress had granted to us, to build the road up the Platte Valley. This has been carefully concealed by Mr. Ka.s.son in all his explanations and in all his discussions and he has, with his oily, deceptive subterfuges, tried to hide this enormity of his past life from his const.i.tuents. We hope, gentlemen, aided by the evidence of these members of congress, intelligent men, honest men, who have stood by the people of Iowa--we hope, with their depositions and the circ.u.mstances, and the evidence contained in the _Congressional Globe_, to show this matter up to you. We will prove to you by men who were on the ground that no sufficient motive could honestly have induced that man to have cast his vote in the way he did; that it was a surprise upon every intelligent man that knew what his pledges and promises and professions had been up to that time. Now, when this man offered himself as a candidate for congress last fall a year ago, one of the defendants in this case, who never was a candidate for office in his life, who had no interest in politics whatever, except as a citizen interested in our material interests, in our city, in our state, took the responsibility upon himself to ask Mr.

Ka.s.son through the public press to explain this, his extraordinary conduct and his treachery to his const.i.tuents; he got no answer except the insufficient one, the deceptive one, that Mr. Ka.s.son wanted a rival railroad. Again, gentlemen, it will further appear in evidence that this was an additional subsidy of lands, that instead of connecting with the main line at the one hundredth meridian, this Kansas company was authorized to change its route and build the road to Denver, from Denver up to Cheyenne, and receive all the lands on either side of whatever route they may fix upon, and not requiring them to unite with the main line until they got fifty miles west of Denver. That they received on the line from Denver to Cheyenne the heart of the Territory of Colorado. That was a subsidy, and that the road got that subsidy, and that the parties who pa.s.sed the bill undertook to deceive the members of congress in regard to it.

Now, gentlemen, this is all there is on this first matter. This publication was made, public attention was called to the fact that one of our members of congress, when asked how he would explain Mr.

Ka.s.son's vote, said he didn't know; but he could have taken twenty-five thousand dollars for his vote. That statement was made public by Mr. Savery in this communication to the citizens of this congressional district. Now this is the first matter which Mr.

Ka.s.son has chosen to bring before you, and to make an issue, and claim for damages to his character. Now we cannot prove--Mr. Ka.s.son knows--we have no facilities for proving who was around there, or what money they had, or the means by which that bill was pa.s.sed by congress. We can show you, gentlemen, only this one thing, that as a citizen of Iowa and as a representative of Iowa he betrayed his const.i.tuents wantonly; that he was in a scheme in which there was money; that is all; that this communication was made to the public, stating the bare facts at a time when it was necessary for the public to know them and by a man who had no interest in maligning Mr. Ka.s.son, or injuring him. Savery had no personal feeling, and had no personal animosity towards him, but he felt, as a citizen, some indignation towards the man for the course he had pursued in congress. So much, gentlemen, for the first charge that was made.

You are to judge whether that communication at the time it was made, and under the circ.u.mstances it was made, was justifiable. You are to take all the facts, and all the testimony with regard to it.

Now as to the second matter that is set out in the answer.

Mr. Barcroft: Will you just tell the jury whether the bill that Mr.

Ka.s.son voted for under the Iowa Railroad were not built on the continuous line?

Mr. Nourse: I have already stated, that but for the extraordinary efforts by which money was raised, and the road pushed to the hundredth meridian first and this scheme defeated, we would never have been on the main line. But no thanks to Mr. Ka.s.son for it. We are on the main line because these men went to work with superhuman energy to get to the hundredth meridian first, and they got there first, and that is the reason we are on the main line. If we had not reached it before they did, we would not have had a dollar of money with which to have built our line, and the other would have been the main line. That is the fact as it will appear conclusively from the testimony in this case. Gentlemen, I invite your special attention to the second charge, for if I can succeed in getting the jury to understand this question it is the end of the plaintiff's case. Fortunately for us on this question we have pretty conclusive proof, and with all the gentleman's ingenuity and that of his counsel, he will not be able to escape. We will show you, gentlemen, that in the year 1868 the old Des Moines Valley Railroad Company had forfeited her rights to the grant of lands that had been granted to her in the year 1858, by reason of not building the road as the original act required. The people of Boone county were dissatisfied because the Des Moines Valley Railroad Company had surveyed their road west up by Grand Junction, instead of going up the Des Moines river. Mr. Orr introduced a bill called the resumption bill, No. 139, in the house of representatives. That bill was read the first and second times, was ordered to be printed, and was referred to the railroad committee, of which Mr.

Ka.s.son was a member. The railroad committee prepared a subst.i.tute for that bill, as is set out here, in which they provided for a release of the company from all forfeitures and still allow them to have the lands and to build their road upon certain terms and conditions, and reported that bill back to the house of representatives as a subst.i.tute for house file No. 139. That subst.i.tute, gentlemen, is in Mr. Ka.s.son's own handwriting, and we will be able to produce it here and show you the bill as he reported it originally to the house of representatives.

The records will show you, gentlemen, that after that bill came in, after this subst.i.tute was reported, Wilson of Tama county, with another gentleman const.i.tuting a minority of the committee on railroads, made a minority report in which they recommended what was called the "Doud amendment," or the Granger clause of that bill, in which they provided as set out in the answer: "that the company accepting the provisions of this act was at all times to be subject to legislative control." I will give you the very language of the amendment as it now appears in the law, so you may get the idea fully. [Reads.] "The company accepting the provisions of this act shall at all times be subject to such rules, regulations and rates of tariff for transportation of freight and pa.s.sengers as may from time to time be enacted by the General a.s.sembly of the State of Iowa." The minority of the committee recommended that amendment, and it was adopted; and it was the only amendment that ever was adopted by the legislature.

We will prove to you, gentlemen, that a forgery was committed, and the following words interpolated into that bill: "But the non-acceptance by the Des Moines Valley Railroad Company of this act shall not prevent all the foregoing provisions thereof from having the same operation and effect as if the same had been accepted by said company;" and we will prove to you that these words were agreed upon between Mr. Ka.s.son and the railroad company's attorney, in a private room in the Savery House, and that he agreed to put them in the bill, and the attorney testifies that the provision escaped criticism. And this is the second charge: We charge him with so manipulating that bill as purposely to defeat the will of the legislature. That he did it fraudulently, and that he did it corruptly will be proved to you beyond a doubt; that this charge was made, honestly believing it to be true, in order that the people of this congressional district might know the character of the man that was asking for their suffrages. After he voted against Wilson's amendment, and failed to honestly defeat it, we are prepared to show that by an agreement between him and the general attorney of the road, he undertook to get this nullifying clause into the bill, and that he did get it in the bill, and that he did not get it there by the vote of the house.

Mr. Barcroft: You do claim that you have any such allegation in your answer?

Mr. Nourse: I claim that what we charge Ka.s.son with was that he manipulated that proviso through the legislature, and we propose to prove it. We propose to prove that it came _from him_ and originated _with him_. We may have other evidence on this point more full and complete that it is not necessary now to take the time to detail.

The third specification, gentlemen, relates to the vote of Mr.

Ka.s.son and his conduct with reference to the C., R.I. & P.R.R.

Co. And here, fortunately, I can say to you that we are not without direct and satisfactory testimony. We thought that we could prove that he had taken money on both sides from both parties in the case, but we haven't succeeded fully. We have evidence, however, of this state of facts: That Mr. Ka.s.son in the early part of that session voted for a bill that had for its purpose and object the helping of Tracy, who was then the president of the road, to retain his power and his place as president, and to complete the road from here to Council Bluffs; that a bill for that purpose was pa.s.sed in the early part of the session and approved on the 11th of February, and that Mr. Ka.s.son voted for it. Thus far all was right. It will further appear by the evidence that the legislature had a recess of a few weeks after that, and that Ka.s.son disappeared from here and turned up in Wall street, New York; that he was found in conference with the men connected with the Northwestern Railroad and who had bought up the stock of the Rock Island road, with a view of obtaining control of it, who were anxious to secure the repeal of the Tracy bill. We will prove to you that Ka.s.son promised these men his influence to have that bill repealed; that he came back to Des Moines and was in conference with them, promising them his aid, that he subsequently changed his mind and abandoned them, that they didn't succeed; and that Mr. Tracy out of sheer grat.i.tude, as Ka.s.son claims, offered him five hundred dollars in money; that he (Ka.s.son) took the money, but stipulated that it should be called a retainer.

In his own deposition Ka.s.son swears he got the money. But he says he didn't get the money until after the legislature adjourned, and when it was offered to him as a present, he said he couldn't accept of it unless it was offered to him as a retainer; and that Mr. B.

F. Allen, who offered him the money, went away and came back again, and said that he could take it as a retainer; and that he supposed that Allen had seen Mr. Tracy. This is the way Ka.s.son gets out of this. We will prove to you by Mr. Tracy that he never had retained Mr. Ka.s.son, or authorized anybody else to retain him for the company; that he never requested Ka.s.son to perform any professional services for that road; that he never performed any professional services for the road, and that he had been out of the practice of the law for years. It will further appear in evidence that Mr.

Ka.s.son has not practiced law since 1860; that this attempt to make it a retainer is simply a subterfuge to cover up the taking of pay for his services in the legislature, to a railroad corporation.

Now, this all came to the knowledge of these defendants, and they proposed, in good faith, to publish to the community the facts in regard to Mr. Ka.s.son's conduct. It is said by plaintiff's attorney that they will show to you that the Clarksons were the personal enemies of Mr. Ka.s.son. I will say to you, gentlemen, that it is not true, and that I don't believe they will prove it; I don't believe in this community they can prove a thing that is not true. On the contrary, the Clarksons never had any personal or political difficulty with Mr. Ka.s.son whatever. Every motive on earth that could induce men to act through favoritism was upon the other side of the question.

Mr. Ka.s.son had no desire to face his accusers, or subject himself to an examination before the jury. He was not present at the beginning of the trial and had taken the precaution to have his own deposition taken in New York upon interrogatories doubtless prepared carefully by himself, as the interrogatories disclosed nothing as to the explanation he had invented for the purpose of reb.u.t.ting the testimony against him. This would avoid any cross-examination.

After the defendant's testimony had been introduced in part, however, the evidence seemed to make quite an impression against the plaintiff's cause and his counsel in desperation telegraphed to him requiring him to come at once to Des Moines. After a few days, he put in his appearance and I immediately had a subpoena issued and served upon him, requiring his attendance as a witness. After we closed our evidence, Mr. Ka.s.son disappeared between two days and we searched for him in vain in the state. His counsel, Mr. Barcroft, offered his deposition taken in New York, then as reb.u.t.ting testimony, when the following colloquy occurred, which I here quote from the notes of the official reporter:

Judge Nourse, for the defense, asked to have Mr. Ka.s.son brought into court, stating that a subpoena had been issued for him, and as he was not present, asking an attachment for him. Mr. Barcroft replied: "Whether he will be here or not, I don't know. I think he is out of the state. I don't know that he will be here, and I don't know that he will not, but think the probabilities are that he will not. We don't claim the right to read his deposition if he is present. He is not present, and is not in the state. I don't expect him to be here."

The deposition was then read.

As already antic.i.p.ated, the jury could not agree upon a verdict. Six of Mr. Ka.s.son's political friends upon the jury insisted on finding in his favor, and six who were not his political supporters and friends, some being democrats and some republicans, insisted on not finding a verdict in his favor. The case went over the term and was afterwards compromised upon what terms I never understood, except that the plaintiff dismissed his suit and probably paid the costs, and Mr.

Savery advised me that as part of the terms upon which the suit was to be dismissed, Mr. Ka.s.son was to make a political speech at Moore's Opera House and Colonel Gatch and the Clarksons were to occupy the platform as indicative of their friendly appreciation of that gentleman, and I also with Mr. Savery was ent.i.tled to a like honor. Mr.

Savery did not appear upon the platform and I utterly refused to recognize the right of anyone to contract for my appearance there, and I was conspicuously absent.

Mr. Savery paid me his half of the fee that I was to receive for my services, and upon presenting my bill for the other half to Mr. Richard Clarkson, I found he had charged me up for printing the speech I had made to the jury, having at my request printed the revised copy of the speech in pamphlet form, and thus he squared the account, never paying me one cent for my services in the case.

[Ill.u.s.tration: _707 Fourth Street, Des Moines_, For twenty-seven years the home of Charles Clinton Nourse]