Extract from District-Attorney Jerome’s recent speech in which he declares that a democratic government won’t work as long as we have government by the newspapers—Mr. Clemens comments upon this speech and upon the evil influence of the daily papers.
District-Attorney Jerome has been telling some straight truths at a banquet the other night. The newspaper report saysⒺexplanatory note:
Mr. Jerome was cheered when he arose and began by praising the British Ambassador, Mr. BryceⒺexplanatory note. He then said that Americans expected that their humor would tide them over the rough places.
“Nothing can be done,” said Mr. Jerome, “if you men will not take more interest in public life. You take this great State of New York and turn it over to Pat. McCarren, Charley Murphy, Fingy Conners and Packy McCabeⒺexplanatory note and then you sit down. I say God bless the Irish and I am glad you haven’t conquered them. Still I don’t want to see the State run by those four Irishmen.”
The District Attorney then took another tack.
“I tell you,” declared Mr. Jerome, “a democratic government won’t work as long as you have government by the newspapers. No other form of government devised by the mind of man requires so much care from its citizens (meaning democratic government). You cannot make things right by statutes, you can only make them work by men. Men may say they don’t care for approbation, but the man who tells you that is a fool and a liar.
“He tells you that he doesn’t care for approbation and he lies and he is a fool if he thinks you will believe it. A democratic form of government should be based on universal suffrage, but it is now based on public opinion. What makes it so is that you men of education have not done your duty. You read the headlines in the [begin page 223] newspapers and it makes no impression upon you. You read them again—the same headlines—for a few weeks and then you have a decided opinion without a single fact to substantiate it. I tell you a democratic government won’t work as long as we have government by the newspapers.
“Here, only recently, the head of a great financial institution killed himself. He made what atonement he could, and then a great journal spread before the public his private lifeⒺexplanatory note. He had two lovely daughters growing upⒺexplanatory note. Did it concern the public in any way to read the story of his personal wrongdoing that was blazoned before the world? Did it make it more possible for us to work out our own institutions?Ⓐtextual note
“It was done for what? It was for cash. And yet we read it and take in every detail that was spread before us. A large advertiser in Philadelphia guilty of a crime committed suicide here. Not a paper in Philadelphia chronicled itⒺexplanatory note. A great and enterprising newspaper of New York owned by a great and enterprising citizen sent a special edition to Philadelphia with the fearful story blazing forth to wreck that home.
“Another instance—a prominent man in this city was shot dead in a department store. Not a paper in the city said where it was doneⒺexplanatory note. If I want a paper controlled where do I go?”
Mr. Jerome here mentioned the names of a number of large department stores of the city.
“The leading publications of this city are dictated to by the counting-rooms,” continued the District-Attorney. “One of our great papers investigated ice. One of its men went up to Maine and looked around, and then he returned and went to the President of the company and said to him: ‘I have got an option on a little ice; don’t you want to buy it.’ That was inⒶtextual note 1906, when ice was scarce, and they might have been glad to get it.
“At any rate they put a price on that ice that netted the young man $5,000Ⓔexplanatory note. These papers lead us by the glamor of their headlines and they trail into the dust the good name of a public officer trying to do his sworn duty—and they do it for personal reasons.Ⓐtextual note
“I recently sat next to a great critic at a musical performance. I am not much of a musician, but I can sing. This great critic told me that his criticisms were blue pencilled in the office because of the advertising end of the paper.Ⓐtextual note
“What do the libel laws of to-day amount to? I was called a thiefⒺexplanatory note, in so many words. For two years I have been trying to get that up in a suit. When the Public Service bill was up in Albany I found that hardly a man had given any consideration to that bill. They said they voted as they did for fear of the newspapers. The same was true of the Eighty Cent Gas billⒺexplanatory note—they were afraid of the papers. This passing of legislation under the whip is wrong. Maybe the judgment of a newspaper man is better than anybody else’s, and if that is true the remedy is to send the editor to the Legislature.”
What we call our civilization is steadily deteriorating, I think. We were a pretty clean people before the war; we seem to be rotten at the heart now. The newspapers are mainly responsible for this. They publish every loathsome thing they can get hold of, and if the simple facts are not odious enough they exaggerate them. There are twenty-five hundred daily newspapers in the country, and I know of only six whose conduct is [begin page 224] not in accordance with what Jerome has said about them and with what I have just said concerning them. Jay Gould made commercial dishonesty a fashion, and respectable; all the attempts made to check the spread of the decay which he started have failed.
Our newspaper is a singular product. Its editorial page is morally clean; its ideals are high and fine, and its advocacy of them is able, eloquent, and convincing; then along with it, every day, we have seven pages of poisonous dirt in the form of news. Our newspaper is a kind of temple, with one angel in it and seven devils. The nation has become fond of the seven devils, and is feverishly interested, hungrily interested, in all they may have to say; but it is only the select few that listen to the angel. The seven devils wield a prodigious influence; they wield seven-eighths of the influence exercised by the nation’s newspapers, and it is a damaging influence. The good accomplished by the other eighth certainly has a value, but it is the value of one to seven.
We are hearing from the Gould family again. Their doings constitute our court-circularⒶtextual note. I take the following synopsis from a newspaper of last week:
SORROWS OF CUPID IN GOULD FAMILY.
Howard Gould.
Married Katherine Clemmons, an actress, in October, 1898.
Sued by her for a separation in May, 1907, and alimony based on an income of $1,000,000 a year, alleging cruelty and inhuman treatment.
His answer a charge that she was too friendly with “Buffalo Bill” and later with Dustin Farnum.
Awaiting further disclosures and trial.
Anna Gould.
Married Count Boni de Castellane in March, 1895.
He squandered a large part of her fortune and afterⒶtextual note a few years there were reports of trouble between them.
She sued him for an absolute divorce, naming many correspondents, and was freed from one Count only to wed another, if Count Helie de Sagan’s prediction and hopes are fulfilled.
Frank Gould.
Married Helen Margaret Kelly, daughter of the late Edward Kelly, in December, 1901.
A love match which was soon broken by quarrels and finally culminated in a suit for a limited divorce and the angry separation of the coupleⒺexplanatory note.
Anna Gould remains in Europe. Yesterday’s court-circularⒶtextual note announces that she is in Naples, with that fragrant prince, and is going to marry him. She says she prefers Europe as a residence because it is only in Europe that Americans of the best class can find those refinements which make existence tolerable to that kind of Americans. That we should live to hear a Gould talk refinement and admire it!Ⓐtextual note
District-Attorney Jerome . . . The newspaper report says] William Travers Jerome (1859–1934), a graduate of Columbia Law School, was the district attorney of New York City from 1901 to 1909. He was known for his vigorous crusade against crime and vice, and was a persistent foe of the corrupt Tammany Hall political machine. Clemens supported his reelection in 1905, donating twenty-five dollars to the campaign. In 1909, at a dinner honoring Jerome, Clemens made a brief speech expressing regret that as a Connecticut resident he was no longer eligible to cast a vote for him. He concluded, “I am not a Congress, and I cannot distribute pensions, and I don’t know any other legitimate way to buy a vote” (New York Times: “Jerome Reviews His Official Years,” 8 May 1909, 1–2; “Jerome Dies at 74; Long Tammany Foe,” 14 Feb 1934, 19; 14 Oct 1905 to Jerome, CU-MARK). Jerome delivered his speech at the annual dinner of the St. George’s Society, a charity founded in 1770 to assist needy British people living in New York. The dinner was held on 23 April 1908 at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel; the text that Clemens inserts here is from the New York World of the following day (“Jerome Rails at ‘Government by Newspapers,’ ” 2).
British Ambassador, Mr. Bryce] James Bryce (see AD, 2 Dec 1907, note at 181.17–20).
Pat. McCarren, Charley Murphy, Fingy Conners and Packy McCabe] Patrick Henry McCarren (1849–1909) served as a Democratic state senator from 1890 until his death, except for a single term. In 1903 he became the political “boss” of Brooklyn, but remained independent of Tammany Hall. According to his obituary, he was “accused of the basest and lowest forms of political fraud and criminality,” but “remained the most strongly intrenched political leader in New York State.” Charles Francis Murphy (1858–1924) was the Democratic leader of Tammany Hall from 1902 until his death. William James (“Fingy”) Conners (1857–1929), a Buffalo newspaper publisher and Great Lakes shipping magnate, became chairman of the State Democratic Committee in 1906. Patrick (“Packy”) McCabe (1860–1931) was the leader of the Democratic party in Albany County for twenty years. He was elected county clerk in 1899, and in 1904 became a member of the State Democratic Committee (New York Times: “M’Carren Is Dead; Lingered All Day,” 23 Oct 1909, 1; “Chief Is Stricken Suddenly,” 26 Apr 1924, 1; “William J. Conners Dies in Buffalo,” 6 Oct 1929, N6; “P. E. M’Cabe Dies; Once Albany Boss,” 3 Nov 1931, 24).
the head of a great financial institution killed himself . . . private life] On 14 November 1907 Charles T. Barney (1851–1907), ousted three weeks previously as president of the Knickerbocker Trust Company (see AD, 1 Nov 1907, note at 177.26–27), shot himself and died several hours later. His financial problems were merely temporary, and he was not suspected of any wrongdoing; according to his friends, it was his “mental anguish” over being asked to resign that drove him to suicide (“C. T. Barney Dies, a Suicide,” New York Times, 15 Nov 1907, I13). Several newspapers speculated that his reasons were more personal, reporting that his wife was divorcing him on account of his illicit relationship with a “prominent society woman” (“Barney’s Home Life Notoriously Unhappy,” Los Angeles Times, 15 Nov 1907, I1). The New York Daily People (and probably other newspapers) went even further: according to a lurid story printed only three days after Barney’s death, letters found in his desk had revealed that he was having an affair with a second woman—the former mistress of a “French prince”—whom he supported in luxury. She ended the relationship when she learned that he was in “financial straits”: “Coming on the top of the financial crash, after he realized that he had sacrificed his family and everything else, this proved the hardest blow” (“Barney’s Secrets. The Skeleton Peeps Out of the Family Closet,” 17 Nov 1907, 1). Moments before he died, Barney signed a new will, reinstating his estranged wife as sole legatee; its primary purpose, however, was (according to his lawyers) “to facilitate as much as he could the payment of his creditors”—presumably the “atonement” Jerome alluded to in his speech (“Died a Brave Man,” Washington Post, 16 Nov 1907, 1).
He had two lovely daughters growing up] Barney and his wife, Lilly, had two married daughters, Helen and Katherine (“C. T. Barney Dies, a Suicide,” New York Times, 15 Nov 1907, 1).
A large advertiser in Philadelphia . . . committed suicide here. Not a paper in Philadelphia chronicled it] On 18 April 1907 Benedict Gimbel (1869–1907), part owner, with his brothers, of a large department store in Philadelphia, was arrested in New York for molesting a sixteen-year-old boy. The boy’s mother had called the police when she learned that Gimbel was spending time with her son and giving him money. Gimbel offered the arresting officer $2,100 for his release and was further charged with attempted bribery. After posting bail, Gimbel went to a hotel in Hoboken, New Jersey, where he slit his throat and wrists; he died several days later. A correspondent for the Chicago Tribune reported, “Evidence of the tremendous influence the Gimbels have in Philadelphia and also the peculiar methods of the Philadelphia newspapers is found in the fact that up to today not a prominent Philadelphia daily paper has published anything about Gimbel’s arrest or his attempt at suicide.” In addition, the Philadelphia chief of police forbade the sale there of New York papers containing news of the “disgrace” (“Gimbel’s Wealth Hides Disgrace,” Chicago Tribune, 21 Apr 1907, 6; “Gimbel Welcomed Death,” Washington Post, 23 Apr 1907, 3). The news was only briefly suppressed. On 21 April the Philadelphia Inquirer reported the incident, but tried to soften the facts as much as possible by claiming that the boy’s mother had “sent the police to find her son” because she was “frightened over the recent kidnapping stories,” and that Gimbel’s family attributed his behavior to a mental breakdown caused by overwork (“Benedict Gimbel Reported Better,” 2).
a prominent man in this city was shot dead in a department store . . . where it was done] Unidentified.
One of our great papers investigated ice . . . netted the young man $5,000] In the summer of 1906 New York experienced a shortage of ice. The American Ice Company was accused of causing the shortage by using monopoly practices to control the Maine ice fields, thereby reducing supply and raising prices. After a lengthy investigation, the grand jury declined in March 1908 to make an indictment (New York Times: “Ice Up to 40 Cents and a Famine in Sight,” 2 Mar 1906, 16; “State Sues Ice Trust; Wants It Dissolved,” 21 Dec 1906, 3; “No Ice Trust Indictment,” 17 Mar 1908, 1). The “young man” who “went up to Maine” has not been identified.
I was called a thief] Jerome was repeatedly criticized in the press for his alleged failure to prosecute the executives of large, powerful corporations. In particular, he was accused of laxness in pursuing several insurance companies involved in the scandals of 1905, in return for fifty thousand dollars donated to his second-term reelection campaign (see AutoMT1 , 549 n. 257.6–9, and AutoMT2 , 493 n. 59.5–8). More than one attempt was made to remove Jerome from office for malfeasance, but after a lengthy investigation he was completely exonerated. Before that outcome, however, he attempted to defend his reputation by suing several newspapers for libel. One insignificant lawsuit, against the editor of the Yonkers (N.Y.) Herald, was successful, but Jerome was awarded only $250 in damages. Of greater significance were the lawsuits he initiated in March 1906 against two New York newspapers owned by a longtime political enemy, William Randolph Hearst, which evidently were unsuccessful. At the time of his speech, Jerome was still under fire in regard to several cases involving corporate misconduct (New York Times: “Jerome Raps Hearst and Some Editors,” 19 July 1907, 1; “Libel on Jerome Costs $250,” 16 Oct 1907, 2; “Jerome’s Removal Asked on Charges,” 28 Feb 1908, 5; “Jerome Exonerated in Hand’s Report,” 25 Aug 1908, 1; Chicago Tribune: “Jerome Sues for Libel,” 13 Mar 1906, 7; “Jerome Defends Course,” 30 Mar 1906, 3; “Jerome Is Accused,” Washington Post, 8 June 1906, 1; Richard O’Connor 1963, 254–64).
the Public Service bill was up in Albany . . . the Eighty Cent Gas bill] The Public Utilities Law was passed by the New York state legislature and signed into law in June 1907. It created a commission to oversee and control the corporations that provided gas, electricity, and mass transportation within the city of New York and its suburbs, for the purpose of improving services and lowering rates (“How Utilities Bill May Aid the Public,” New York Times, 9 June 1907, 3). A “new law providing that gas shall be 80 cents instead of $1 a thousand feet in this city” had gone into effect a year earlier, on 1 May 1906 (“Eighty-Cent Gas To-day,” New York Times, 1 May 1906, 1).
SORROWS OF CUPID IN GOULD FAMILY . . . separation of the couple] This newspaper article, describing the marital travails of the children of financier and railroad magnate Jay Gould, appeared in the New York World on 18 April 1908 (for Gould see AutoMT1 , 364, 594 n. 364.19). Howard Gould (1871–1959), a financier and yachtsman, was educated at Columbia University. To counter the charges of cruelty brought against him by his wife, Katherine Clemmons (1874–1930), he alleged that she had lied about her premarital relationship with “Buffalo Bill” (William F. Cody, 1846–1917), who had financed her unsuccessful stage career, and that she had carried on an adulterous affair with Dustin Farnum (1874–1929), a well-known actor. In 1909 Mrs. Gould was exonerated and granted a separation with alimony of thirty-six thousand dollars a year (“Gould’s Answer Attack on Wife,” Chicago Tribune, 7 Apr 1908, 1; New York Times: “Howard Gould Dies Here at 88,” 15 Sept 1959, 39; “Mrs. Howard Gould Dies in Virginia,” 25 Dec 1930, 21). Anna Gould (1875–1961) married Hélie de Talleyrand-Périgord, Duke of Sagan, in July 1908 after he converted to Protestantism, the Pope having denied their appeal for an annulment of her first marriage (“To Plead with Pope,” Los Angeles Times, 1 May 1908, I16; “Mme. Gould’s Wedding To-day,” New York Times, 7 July 1908, 1; “Anna Gould Buried after Rites in Paris,” Chicago Tribune, 3 Dec 1961, K38). Frank Jay Gould (1877–1956) graduated from the College of Engineering of New York University in 1899; while still a young man he proved himself an able financier. His marital difficulties began in 1906, but Mrs. Gould had only recently applied for a legal separation (“Frank Goulds Parted,” Washington Post, 18 Apr 1908, 3; “Frank Jay Gould Dead on Riviera,” New York Times, 1 Apr 1956, 88).
Source documents.
World 1 Facsimile of the New York World (the original clipping that Hobby transcribed is now lost), “Jerome Rails at Government by Newspapers,” 24 April 1908, 2: ‘Mr. Jerome . . . Legislature.” ’ (222.23–223.41).World 2 Facsimile of the New York World (the original clipping that Hobby transcribed is now lost), 18 April 1908, 16: ‘SORROWS . . . the couple.’ (224.15–34).
TS1 Typescript, leaves numbered 2489–94, made from Hobby’s notes, World 1, and World 2.
TS1, which Clemens did not revise, is the only source for the dictated text. For the articles from the New York World we follow the original newspaper; Hobby’s accidental variations from copy are not reported. Two subheadings have been omitted from World 1 on the assumption that they were canceled by Clemens on the clipping that he gave to Hobby. For the same reason, two minor corrections have been made in accord with the TS1 reading.