In order to answer the following letter from Palmer, SLC tore two sections from it (the top third and bottom third of the same leaf) and wrote numbers next to Palmer’s queries; he then enclosed the two sections with his typed reply, in which he answered the queries by referring to their numbers; Palmer’s entire letter is transcribed here for the sake of intelligibility, with the sections that SLC returned identified below:

I am pursuing a special line of psychological investigation and have some reason to think, that you may be able out of your own experience to give me some important facts. Let me recall myself to you, if possible.

A good many years ago, I had the pleasure of five minutes talk with you on Montgomery St. San Frco. We were made acquainted by our mutual and very uncommon friend, Charles Warren Stoddard,—as you know, the most delicious and needlessly ineffectual of all good fellows. In that brief conversation I noticed two things. First, that there was a very strong facial resemblance between us, with the necessary allowance of ten years’ difference in our ages, and secondly, a very strong dissimilarity in our habits of speech, which however, I thought, might be the difference between our respective modes of survival under the same curse. I was a rapid, tumultuusous stammerer, or rather, stutterer; you talked slowly, measuredly, and with little ictus of emphasis. I was so shamed of my style of utterance as compared with yours that I said as little as possible but watched you. I thought then, but was not perfectly certain, that our facial resemblance had at some time been accompanied by a resemblance in habits of expression, and that you had effectually and enviably relieved yourself, but I had not. I asked no questions and at the time, never did not expected ever to ask any.

Within the past year however, I have made a prolonged effort for self-relief & have measurably succeeded. By particular attention to rhythmatic deep breathing, abdominal effort, great slowness and equi-syllabication in utterance, I have brought myself up to speak with perfect freedom, either slow or fast, in common conversation, or in reading aloud for any length of time, and especially to an audience (the larger the better) provided, I know exactly what I am about to say. But, in other directions, the relief is not complete. Whenever it is necessary for me to manufacture at the same time thought, words, and vocalisation, there is a frequent lack of prompt co-ordination, and something of my old hitching trouble comes back. Of course I must remove this before I can resume the practice of my profession. As it is, it is very good fun, and I enjoy it hugely, to read off an hour’s lecture or to make a ten-minute after dinner speech with an oleaginous smoothness, quite easy for me while I need only attend to the vocalisation, and quite marvellous to those who had known me for twenty five years as a dummy. But if I undertake an extempore speech of any length, and especially if I undertake to argue a legal point on short notice,—a point so new that when I begin the argument upon it I cannot know where the logic will bring me up—the trouble begins.—

Now, I am experimenting upon the remedies for this. I won’t bother you with the process or rather processes which I am trying in turn, but will confine myself to the one in which it occurs to me your own experience may be helpful, whether you ever stammered or not. I want now to ascertain whether extreme slowness of speech is only desirable, or is absolutely essential.

Will you therefore kindly answer me the following questions, or such of them as you feel like answering?—

recto of enclosed scrap 1, the top third of page 5 of Palmer’s letter:

Were you a stammerer?

If so, congenital, or beginning when?

ʺ how long continued?

ʺ did you use other remedy than very slow & meaⒶemendationsured speech?

middle third of page 5 of Palmer’s letter, not enclosed:

ʺ how long was your practice before you obtained perfect relief?

ʺ has your present deliberate utterance grown to be involuntary or do you find yourself obliged ever to make an effort to preserve or resume it?

ʺ do you ever experience the difference I have described between extempore public speech & lecture reading?

recto of enclosed scrap 2, the bottom third of page 5 of Palmer’s letter:

      

1. If not, is your usual extreme deliberation in speech natural or adopted?

2 ʺ under what circumstances, if any, do you vary from it?

———

23.What, by actual count, is the number of words of average length, which you utter in one minute, when reading a public lecture?

verso of enclosed scrap 1, the top third of page 6 of Palmer’s letter:

4 What, the number of words you utter in a minute of usual uninterrupted conversation?

5 What the number in a minute of extempore speech, upon a subject on which you have not arranged your thoughts or language?

middle third of page 6 of Palmer’s letter, not enclosed:

—— I think that the replies you can make to these questions will aid me much. Of course, it must be a nuisance for me to ask because it may be a nuisance for you to reply, but I console myself for that in the thought, that what may give you a little trouble to write may save me much trouble, and I suppose we have both lived long enough to feel that it is well to be altruistic on occasions. verso of enclosed scrap 2, the bottom third of page 6 of Palmer’s letter: But though I have argued myself into the belief that you really ought to help me out if you can, and will be quick to do so, I am also very sure that I shall hold myself under great obligation for any such assistance, either in the lines indicated above, or such as may otherwise suggest itself to you.—

all the questions which come under the head of “were you a stammerer” are answerable by simply and solidly, no. so we will proceed immediately to consider the other list. i will return the list to you to save time and penmanship. (1) it is natural, not adopted. i can give my mother three words the start on a ten word sentence and come in at the home stretch making the head.

(2)Ⓐemendation i vary though in the circumstances, and in these ways: when i am strongly excited pleasurably or viciously, i add considerably to my speed; when very lazy, or very calm, i reduce my ordinary gateⒶemendation quite considerably.

(3)Ⓐemendation this question cannot be answered, because i am in an ordinary room with no audience. i have just timed myself and find that in reading a page broken by dialogue i do 250 words in two minutes. i have also just read a calm deliberate page: result 300 words in two minutes. i did my best in both instances, to read exactly as i would on a platform to an audience, but manifestly i did not do it, for i am not to be convinced that i have ever read calmly and coldly in a large hall, throwing the voice to a great distance, and waiting for it to get there, 150 words in a minute. the thing is impossible. consu equentll y Ⓐemendation i could not answer that question without going and actually reading before an audience. (4). let us consider then that my test just applied if it is my ordinary conversation 250 to 300 words per minute according to the nature of the talk. i could not make a better estimate because in these readings i read just as i would talk in conversation, and that is what i always aim to do, seem to do, and think at the time that i am doing it, but i know perfectly well that i am reading more slowly than i talk in conversation. (5) i never make extempa oraneousⒶemendation speeches, consequently cannot answer this question. i have never stammered, have never had any obstruction in my speech except slow delivery, and that obstruction percept a i Ⓐemendationble to other people only; it does not seem slow to me, and when nigger minstrels imitate it on the platform to what friends of mine call absolute perfection, it always falls upon my ear as a most limitless and extravagant exaggeration.

please give my love to stoddard when you see him, and believe me,