Explanatory Notes        Apparatus Notes ()

Source: Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, 1864.05.24 ([])

Cue: "In your paper"

Source format: "Transcript"

Letter type: "[standard letter]"

Notes:

Last modified:

Revision History: AB

Published on MTPO: 2007

Print Publication: v1

MTPDocEd
To James L. Laird
21 May 1864 • Virginia City, Nev. Terr. (Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, 24 May 64, UCCL 00079)
Enterprise Office,

James Laird, Esq.1explanatory noteSir: In your paper of the present date appeared two anonymous articles, in which a series of insults were leveled at the writer of an editorial in Thursday’s Enterprise, headed “How is it?—How it is.” I wrote that editorial.2explanatory note

Some time since it was stated in the Virginia Union that its proprietors were alone responsible for all articles published in its columns. You being the proper person, by seniority, to apply to in cases of this kind, I demand of you a public retraction of the insulting articles I have mentioned, or satisfaction. I require an immediate answer to this note. The bearer of this—Mr. Stephen Gillis—will receive any communication you may see fit to make.3explanatory note

SAM. L. CLEMENS.
Textual Commentary
21 May 1864 • To James L. LairdVirginia City, Nev. Terr.UCCL 00079
Source text(s):

“Personal Correspondence,” letter I, Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, 24 May 64, clipping in Scrapbook 3:146, Moffett Collection, Mark Twain Papers, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley (CU-MARK).

Previous Publication:

L1 , 290–292; MTEnt , 191–92.

Provenance:

see Moffett Collection, p. 462.

More information on provenance may be found in Description of Provenanceclick to open link.

Explanatory Notes
1 

A partner in John Church and Co., publishers of the Virginia City Union. Church and S. A. Glessner were the other members of the firm.

2 

The full text of Clemens’s editorial of Thursday, 19 May, is not known to survive. A fragment of it appears toward the end of the following, one of the “anonymous articles” published in the Union on 21 May (2):

“HOW IT IS.”

Virginia Daily Union:—The editor of the Daily Enterprise has, during the last two days, in his anxiety to injure a cotemporary, seen fit to place before the public in a false light, and slander in a cowardly manner the printers of this city. We refer to his misrepresentation of the circumstance attending our donation to the Sanitary Fund. We wish it distinctly understood that we have no sympathy whatever in any issue between the proprietors of the Union and Enterprise. Nor do we entertain any feeling of rivalry toward our fellow-crafts-men employed on that paper. We consider that what redounds to our credit is equally due to them. The editor of the Enterprise has asserted that but for his promptings, the employés of the Union would never have paid their last contribution. In this he wilfully lies. The employés of the Union were in no way instigated to make the donation by their employers, and never contemplated repudiating it. Thursday morning’s Union gave a full list of the men who had donated the money, and the receipt of Mr. Black, Secretary of the Sanitary Fund, attesting that it ($315) had been paid. This should have removed all doubts, if any existed, as to who were the donors. Why does not the editor of the Enterprise accuse Mr. Geo. F. Jones, Mr. DeLong and many other prominent citizens who subscribed repeatedly during the evening, of being influenced to do so by a spirit of rivalry toward his establishment.

We can only view his blackguardism as an attack upon the members of our craft. In asserting that we “Had not intended to pay the bill, but on secondary consideration, and for the sake of saving an entirely imaginary reputation for virtue and honesty, concluded to do so,” he has endeavored to misinterpret the generous, patriotic promptings of laboring men who gave their little mite willingly; and in so doing he has proved himself an unmitigated liar, a poltroon and a puppy.

Printer.

The other “anonymous” Union response was an editorial:

THE “HOW IS IT” ISSUE.

When last the Sanitary Commission called for aid, the publishers and employés of the Virginia Daily Union unostentatiously united with their generous fellow citizens and contributed the sum of five hundred and fifteen dollars. We have paid that sum in gold to the Treasurer of the Sanitary Fund for Storey county. The Territorial Enterprise newspaper has only pretended to contribute. It has paid nothing of the contributions which it, with great self-show, promised—always in the presence of a crowd. This sort of showing off was not sufficient in itself. The Enterprise must contemptibly boast of its liberality over the Union, and, in the most unmanly manner, carry its unwarrantable assertions so far as to say that the gentlemen in the employ of the Union would not pay their subscriptions. We showed the utter and unprecedented meanness of the Enterprise in this instance, and that paper yesterday returned a string of despicable stuff knotted so full of lies that there was not left a space sufficient for the smallest thread of truth. Never before, in a long period of newspaper intercourse—never before in any contact with a cotemporary, however unprincipled he might have been, have we found an opponent in statement or in discussion, who had no gentlemanly sense of professional propriety, who conveyed in every word, and in every purpose of all his words, such a groveling disregard for truth, decency and courtesy, as to seem to court the distinction only of being understood as a vulgar liar. Meeting one who prefers falsehood; whose instincts are all toward falsehood; whose thought is falsification; whose aim is vilification through insincere professions of honesty; one whose only merit is thus described, and who evidently desires to be thus known, the obstacles presented are entirely insurmountable, and whoever would touch them fully, should expect to be abominably defiled.

Clemens himself quotes from this inflammatory essay in 21 May 64 (9:00 p.m.) to Laird. Since both the Union editorial and the “Printer” letter must have been written on 20 May, the allusions in them to Clemens’s Enterprise writings of “the last two days” and “yesterday” were meant to refer to “How Is It?” published in the Enterprise on 18 May (SLC 1864, 2), and to Clemens’s largely unrecovered 19 May editorial.

3 

Clemens’s good friend Stephen E. Gillis (1838–1918) was raised in Mississippi and Tennessee, where he was trained as a typesetter. He came to San Francisco with several family members in 1853 and, except for stints as a newspaper editor in Oregon and Arizona, worked on various newspapers there until the end of the decade. When Clemens joined the Virginia City Enterprise in 1862, Gillis was the paper’s foreman. Equally adept as foreman, compositor, and writer, he spent most of the next thirty years as a news editor, first of the Enterprise and then of the Virginia City Chronicle. In 1894 he removed to Jackass Hill, California, where he lived with his brothers James and William until his death (William R. Gillis, 7, 19–20, 22, 26–28, 34–35; West, 18). Well known as a scrappy fighter, Gillis acted as Clemens’s second during the present dispute with the Union and also attempted to become directly involved himself (see 21 May 64 to Laird [9:00 p.m.], n. 2click to open link).

Emendations and Textual Notes
 Enterprise . . . 1864 ● a vertical brace spans the right margin of the place and date lines
Top