The duplicate death

by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies

It was an unwise remark to have made. Mr. Baxter, a steady-going solicitor, in the security of his knowledge of the law, scoffed at the possibility of interference. He had no experience of the inquisitive prying of a sensational evening paper. The latter, irritated by the contempt of the solicitor, laid itself out to teach him a due and proper respect for the power of the Press. Day after day it returned to the attack, demanding, in the interests of justice, a full disclosure. So reiterated became the demand, so irritating to the public curiosity was the blank non possumus of the solicitors, that at last the inevitable happened and the public came to believe (a perfectly unwarranted hypothesis) that in the details of the trust which had been created lay the explanation of the murder, and the partners and executors were publicly hounded into the position of accomplices in the crime, on the assumption that by keeping the trust secret they were assisting the culprit to evade the claims of justice. It is not difficult for an energetic newspaper to create such an impression, and the obstinate silence of the surviving partners of Sir John fanned the flame of public curiosity. So rooted did this conviction become that at last it took hold of Scotland Yard. Once a settled conviction obtains a footing in that quarter, it usually sticks, and the Home Office took a hand in the game and asked for an assurance from the firm that the secret trust had no connection with the murder.

The firm replied that they were unable to give that or any other assurance.

A lengthy correspondence followed, which culminated in a personal letter from the Home Secretary, egged on by Scotland Yard, asking the partners of the firm to disclose in confidence the terms and purposes of the secret trust, and conveying concurrently an intimation that the disclosure could be made personally to the Home Secretary without witnesses, and his personal assurance that, no matter what the trust might be, no action against any member of the firm should be based upon any such disclosure.

The letter was misunderstood. The promise of the indemnity was made bona fide. The Home Secretary was perfectly cognisant that many secret trusts are illegal or made for illegal objects, and his only desire was to let the firm know that he personally would respect that trust and their confidence, if they would show him that this particular trust had nothing to do with the murder.

Knowing the high reputation the firm deservedly enjoyed, the partners were perfectly furious at the bare suggestion that they might be parties to either illegal or dishonest actions, and the reply to the Home Secretary was brief and to the point.

“Sir,—On behalf of myself and the other surviving partners of this firm, I beg to state that we resent the tone and contents and the insinuations of your letter. We point-blank decline to supply you with any information whatsoever.—I am, sir, your obedient servant, (Arthur Baxter) for Rellingham, Baxter, Marston & Moorhouse.”

The Home Secretary replied in another personal letter, regretting that his letter had been misunderstood, and stating that he felt assured the letter of Mr. Baxter had been written in momentary irritation, and that the firm, upon reconsideration, would see that the most satisfactory course to pursue would be a compliance with his suggestion. The answer to the second letter was still briefer than had been the former.

“Sir,—You can go to the devil or wherever else you feel inclined.—Yours faithfully, Arthur Baxter.”

And the Home Secretary was on the horns of a dilemma. Afraid to litigate and thus end the trust—for the terms of the will were before him—worried by Scotland Yard to compel a revelation, which the determined opposition he was meeting seemed only to intensify the apparent necessity of—he nevertheless clearly saw there was another possibility. Were the partners in the firm with diabolical cunning simply doing all they knew to compel him to litigate, and by so doing convey to them the actual property in the capital moneys of the trust, free from any legal or moral liability? And with the ingrained suspicion of the Government official he decided this must be the true explanation.

Finally, on an ex parte motion, he obtained an injunction pending proceedings, restraining the trustees from taking any steps in regard to the dissolution and realisation of the trust. Having done this he served notice upon them of his intention to apply for a rule requiring them to show cause why the trust should not be disclosed and the capital moneys paid into court.