Explanatory Notes        Apparatus Notes ()

Source: University of Virginia, Charlottesville ([ViU])

Cue: "The books came"

Source format: "MS"

Letter type: "[standard letter]"

Notes:

Last modified:

Revision History: AB

Published on MTPO: 2007

Print Publication: v2

MTPDocEd
To Charles Henry Webb
15 January 1868 • Washington, D.C. (MS: ViU, UCCL 00181)
356 C bet. 4½ & 6th
Dear Webb—

The books came—am much obliged.2explanatory note

I tackled the Stag—nothing there. He was scared a good deal, but swore hard that all charges were false. If there was anything there, I was not able to start it. But it was fun, anyway. I wished all the time, that you were present.3explanatory note

Yrs
Mark

Textual Commentary
15 January 1868 • To Charles Henry WebbWashington, D.C.UCCL 00181
Source text(s):

MS, Clifton Waller Barrett Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville (ViU).

Previous Publication:

L2 , 158–159.

Provenance:

deposited at ViU on 17 December 1963.

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

Explanatory Notes
1 

Clemens had recently moved from his quarters at 224 F Street North, which he had shared since November with Senator Stewart. See 9 Feb 68 to Fairbanks, n. 1click to open link, and 21 Feb 68 to JLC and family, n. 1click to open link, for further details about his several Washington addresses.

2 

The “books” were three copies of The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County which Clemens had requested (10 Jan 68 to Webbclick to open link). Clemens sent one of the copies to Charles Langdon, who inscribed it “C. J. Langdon, Elmira, New York, Feby. 5th, 1868.” Another was probably sent to Mrs. Fairbanks, and others had already been promised to Henry Ward Beecher and to Emma Beach’s mother, both of whom Clemens saw in Brooklyn before the month was out (Parke-Bernet Galleries 1941, lot 90; 20 Feb 68 to Fairbanksclick to open link; 8 Jan 68 to Beachclick to open link).

3 

Clemens and Webb had probably known Cornelius Stagg (b. 1827 or 1828) in San Francisco through their mutual friend Frank Soulé, collector for the Department of Internal Revenue, whom Stagg served for a year as deputy until relieved of his post in December 1866. He soon left San Francisco for New York, where, on 2 February 1867, Clemens reported seeing him (SLC 1867). On 31 May Stagg received a 150-day appointment (that is, until the end of October 1867) as a special revenue agent—the kind of position that Clemens wanted to secure for Harvey Beckwith (9 Jan 68 to Fieldclick to open link), except that special agents were free to exercise their police powers anywhere in the United States, not just in one city. A citizen of Chicago characterized this group of special agents as

spies and informers who, under color of some kind of an authority from the department at Washington, and under the name of Revenue Agents, prowl around the country with the nominal object of detecting frauds upon the revenue, but with the real design of making all the money they can out of seizures and confiscations....

These men walk into your office, demand your books and papers and open private letters, look at your safe, and then close your store.... They then go rummaging around for evidences of fraud. No charge is made—no specific allegation; ... and woe betide the man, however innocent or honest, in whose books an error is found,... unless, indeed, he “comes down” (as it is termed) and pays this harpy what he thinks is a fair compensation for his trouble. (Shufeldt, 2)

Webb and Clemens had evidently heard rumors that Stagg was suspected of extorting bribes from whiskey dealers under cover of enforcing the two-dollar-per-gallon whiskey tax. In late November and early December, after Stagg’s appointment had ended, at least one (unidentified) Chicago journalist insinuated repeatedly in print that Stagg was being investigated for such extortion. On 28 November he wrote that the “United States grand jury ... is now on a grand Stagg hunt. It is exhilarating sport; but the chances are that the Stagg won’t be caught” (Chicago Times, 4). On 1 December he came close to direct accusation:

The late Stagg hunt in Chicago was a very exciting affair.... The chief huntsmen were Parker, Lawrence, Gen. Norton local revenue agents, the United States grand jury, and any number of whippers-in, in the shape of detectives and other similar rabble of lesser note.

This Stagg, thus hunted, is the one which we alluded to some days since. It started from the revenue recesses of New York, and ran through pretty nearly the entire country. Some small dogs got after it in Peoria, and it was barked at by the various curs of Pekin, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. A regular hunting party was not organized till the animal reached Chicago.... but the Stagg is not yet caught.

It is a Stagg of more than average size, strength, and speed. Its antlers are immense. It is a Stagg of ten—that is, ten thousand dollars.... But it is to be feared that the antlers of this Stagg will never be nailed as a trophy to the walls of the revenue lodge of this city. (“Stagg-Hunting,” Chicago Times, 1 Dec 67, 4)

As late as 15 December, the unidentified journalist published similar, though briefer, innuendos: “A meeting of whisky men at the national capital may be accepted as evidence that somebody has just made a raid—a la Stagg—among the distilleries.” And, “Stagg was once a Christian. There was a time when he listened to the whisper of a ‘still small voice’” (“The Whisky Men in Washington,” Chicago Times, 4). Formal charges were evidently never brought against Stagg. By late November he was back in Washington, probably to seek reappointment, although apparently without success: he is listed without occupation in the 1868 San Francisco directory (San Francisco City and County 1867, s.v. “Stagg, Cornelius”; Langley 1865, 592; “Cornelius Stagg ...,” Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, 5 Dec 66, 2; McCulloch, 8; “Personal,” Washington Evening Star, 27 Nov 67, 1; SLC 1868, SLC 1868; Langley 1868, 518).

Top