Jasper County Democrat, Volume 13, Number 58, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 October 1910 — BABCOCK’S ANSWER [ARTICLE]

BABCOCK’S ANSWER

To Corporation Lawyer Question Of Rensselaer Republican.The Republican in its issue of yesterday took up about half of its,front page in printing a letter in black-faced type, alleged to have been written to the former law firm of Baughman & Williams of this city in 1906, by John B. Peterson, in reply to a letter they had written Mr. Peterson in which they wished to engage him to assist them in come legal matters thev had in Lake county. Mr. Baughman later sold out his { interest in the business to Mr. Williams and located in Oklahoma City, where he now is. \ The letter, we understand, was among the old firm’s papers, and Mr. Williams informed us yesterday morning that he had givdn it out for publication. He later qualified this statement, however, by saying that he gave it to Mr. Crumpacker and the republican county chairman, when the former was here, and told them they could make such use of it as they saw fit. He “supposed they had given it to the Republican for publication.” Asked if he had written Mr. Baughman or obtained his consent to make the correspondence public, Williams said that he had not; didn’t consider it any of Baughman’s business. The “letter was his and he could do as he pleased with it.” ~ ***■ This is true perhaps, in a legal sense, but we have always understood that there was a sort of code of honor among professional men which w r ould forbid the making public of private correspondence with the intention of injur ing another member of the profession. and the intention in this case is admitted. We do not believe there is another lawyer in Jasper county who would do such art «ct except one, and even be would not unless the other man were a candidate for office against him. We wonder what view the public will take of Mr. Williams’ action, although there is nothing in the letter that would cause any sensible man to change his vote, and that there may be no misrepresentations of what it contained we publish the letter verbatim as it appeared in the Republican: - Dec. la, 1906. Mess. Baughman & Williams, Rensselaer, Ind. Gentlemen: „ Yours of Dec. 14th relating to the case of Spitler et al. vs. Grady et al. received. Owing to my relations wtih certain railroads and other corporations, I am jjnable to accept employment in this casl. My time is taken up almost exclusively by corporation work. I shall, therefore. have to decline your kind offer. I appreciate, however, your good, will, and as you are probably not thoroughly acquainted with all the lawyers here, I would suggest to you the name of Mr. J. Frank Meeker, as a reliable man, who will undoubtedly be willing to give you such assistance as yon need here. I have no hesitancy in recommending him. I think if you suggest to him he has been recommended by me, he will give the matter very careful attention. Very truly yours, JOHN B. PETERSON.

That is all there it to it. Mr. Peterson thought he was doing a favor to brother attorneys in referring them to another lawyer in case which he did not have the time to attend j.o himself: Mr. Williams thought he would be tiding John B. Peterson an injury in making the letter public at this time. Would he do the same thing between attorney and client ? JL. » Mr. Peterson did not say here nor anywhere else that he was noj a regular attorney —that is, the local attorney—for any corporation. What he said was 1 that he never for one minute had been employed an a salary by any corporation. At the time this letter*

was written new railroads were j being built in Lake county, many new enterpri-es were locating in | the county, and it is a well known, fact that every railroad has what is called a local attorney in every county through which its road passes.- These attorneys draw .-no pay whatever except the road lias vrme litigation in that* coun- j ty. when they assist the regular I salaried attorneys in the cases. Harry Kurrie used to be local attorney here for the Monon railroad. and we understand Frank ; Foltz is now such. No one would say that either Mr. Kurrie or Mr. Foltz were corporation attorneys by reason of this. Mr. Kurrie. however, later secured the position of assistant general attorney •for the Monon and moved to Chi*! cago, the headquarters of the! company. He now draws a regular salary and can very properly be referred to as “a corporation attorney.” Dr. Washburn is the local surgeon here for the Monon —they have one at nearly every town of anv size through which their; road passes —but he dnVws no j pay except when some acci- 1 dent happens and he attends! to the injured persons/ Is Dr. I Washburn a corporation doctor by reason of this? \ The whole proposition is too! ridiculous to argue, and only goes to show the straits the opposition is in to resort to such methods, Mr. Crumpacker himself made the “corporation lawyer” charge against his competitor. yet in his speech here Wednesday night he said that “to keep his hand in” he had tried about one case a year since he had been a member of congress,- and, as the Republican states, said lie had “only seven corporation cases in seven years.” Now if he tried one case a year, all these seven cases must have been corporation cases! And he may be “local attorney” for half a dozen railroads in Porter county for all we or The people of this part of the district know.

But what is wrong for Lawyer Peterson is all right for Congressman Crumpacker or “Crump” wouldn’t have said anything about it. Some people have queer ideas about right and wrong.