be scarce, sir, almighty scarce. Then let us cherish her; let us protect
her; let us give her our support, our encouragement, our sympathy,
ourselves—if we get a chance.
But, jesting aside, Mr. President, woman is lovable, gracious, kind of
heart, beautiful—worthy of all respect, of all esteem, of all deference.
Not any here will refuse to drink her health right cordially in this
bumper of wine, for each and every one has personally known, and loved,
and honored the very best one of them all—his own mother.
ADVICE TO GIRLS
In 1907 a young girl whom Mr. Clemens met on the steamer
Minnehaha called him “grandpa,” and he called her his
granddaughter. She was attending St. Timothy's School, at
Catonsville, Maryland, and Mr. Clemens promised her to see her
graduate. He accordingly made the journey from New York on
June 10, 1909, and delivered a short address.
I don't know what to tell you girls to do. Mr. Martin has told you
everything you ought to do, and now I must give you some don'ts.
There are three things which come to my mind which I consider excellent
advice:
First, girls, don't smoke—that is, don't smoke to excess. I am
seventy-three and a half years old, and have been smoking seventy-three
of them. But I never smoke to excess—that is, I smoke in moderation,
only one cigar at a time.
Second, don't drink—that is, don't drink to excess.
Third, don't marry—I mean, to excess.
Honesty is the best policy. That is an old proverb; but you don't want
ever to forget it in your journey through life.
TAXES AND MORALS
ADDRESS DELIVERED IN NEW YORK, JANUARY 22, 1906
At the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of Tuskeegee
Institute by Booker Washington, Mr. Choate presided, and in
introducing Mr. Clemens made fun of him because he made play
his work, and that when he worked hardest he did so lying in
bed.
I came here in the responsible capacity of policeman to watch Mr.
Choate. This is an occasion of grave and serious importance, and it
seems necessary for me to be present, so that if he tried to work
off any statement that required correction, reduction, refutation, or
exposure, there would be a tried friend of the public to protect the
house. He has not made one statement whose veracity fails to tally
exactly with my own standard. I have never seen a person improve so.
This makes me thankful and proud of a country that can produce such
men—two such men. And all in the same country. We can't be with you
always; we are passing away, and then—well, everything will have to
stop, I reckon. It is a sad thought. But in spirit I shall still be with
you. Choate, too—if he can.
Every born American among the eighty millions, let his creed or
destitution of creed be what it may, is indisputably a Christian—to this
degree that his moral constitution is Christian.
There are two kinds of Christian morals, one private and the other
public. These two are so distinct, so unrelated, that they are no more
akin to each other than are archangels and politicians. During three
hundred and sixty-three days in the year the American citizen is true to
his Christian private morals, and keeps undefiled the nation's character
at its best and highest; then in the other two days of the year he
leaves his Christian private morals at home and carries his Christian
public morals to the tax office and the polls, and does the best he can
to damage and undo his whole year's faithful and righteous work. Without
a blush he will vote for an unclean boss if that boss is his party's
Moses, without compunction he will vote against the best man in the
whole land if he is on the other ticket. Every year in a number of
cities and States he helps put corrupt men in office, whereas if
he would but throw away his Christian public morals, and carry his
Christian private morals to the polls, he could promptly purify the
public service and make the possession of office a high and honorable
distinction.
Once a year he lays aside his Christian private morals and hires a
ferry-boat and piles up his bonds in a warehouse in New Jersey for
three days, and gets out his Christian public morals and goes to the tax
office and holds up his hands and swears he wishes he may never—never if
he's got a cent in the world, so help him. The next day the list appears
in the papers—a column and a quarter of names, in fine print, and every
man in the list a billionaire and member of a couple of churches. I know
all those people. I have friendly, social, and criminal relations with
the whole lot of them. They never miss a sermon when they are so's to be
around, and they never miss swearing-off day, whether they are so's to
be around or not.
I used to be an honest man. I am crumbling. No—I have crumbled. When
they assessed me at $75,000 a fortnight ago I went out and tried to
borrow the money, and couldn't; then when I found they were letting a
whole crop of millionaires live in New York at a third of the price they
were charging me I was hurt, I was indignant, and said: “This is the
last feather. I am not going to run this town all by myself.” In that
moment—in that memorable moment—I began to crumble. In fifteen minutes
the disintegration was complete. In fifteen minutes I had become just a
mere moral sand-pile; and I lifted up my hand along with those seasoned
and experienced deacons and swore off every rag of personal property
I've got in the world, clear down to cork leg, glass eye, and what is
left of my wig.
Those tax officers were moved; they were profoundly moved. They had long
been accustomed to seeing hardened old grafters act like that, and they
could endure the spectacle; but they were expecting better things of me,
a chartered, professional moralist, and they were saddened.
I fell visibly in their respect and esteem, and I should have fallen in
my own, except that I had already struck bottom, and there wasn't any
place to fall to.
At Tuskeegee they will jump to misleading conclusions from insufficient
evidence, along with Doctor Parkhurst, and they will deceive the student
with the superstition that no gentleman ever swears.
Look at those good millionaires; aren't they gentlemen? Well, they
swear. Only once in a year, maybe, but there's enough bulk to it to make
up for the lost time. And do they lose anything by it? No, they don't;
they save enough in three minutes to support the family seven years.
When they swear, do we shudder? No—unless they say “damn!” Then we do.
It shrivels us all up. Yet we ought not to feel so about it, because we
all swear—everybody. Including the ladies. Including Doctor Parkhurst,
that strong and brave and excellent citizen, but superficially educated.
For it is not the word that is the sin, it is the spirit back of the
word. When an irritated lady says “oh!” the spirit back of it is “damn!”
and that is the way it is going to be recorded against her. It always
makes me so sorry when I hear a lady swear like that. But if she says
“damn,” and says it in an amiable, nice way, it isn't going to be
recorded at all.
The idea that no gentleman ever swears is all wrong; he can swear
and still be a gentleman if he does it in a nice and, benevolent and
affectionate way. The historian, John Fiske, whom I knew well and loved,
was a spotless and most noble and upright Christian gentleman, and yet
he swore once. Not exactly that, maybe; still, he—but I will tell you
about it.
One day, when he was deeply immersed in his work, his wife came in, much
moved and profoundly distressed, and said: “I am sorry to disturb you,
John, but I must, for this is a serious matter, and needs to be attended
to at once.”
Then, lamenting, she brought a grave accusation against their little
son. She said: “He has been saying his Aunt Mary is a fool and his Aunt
Martha is a damned fool.” Mr. Fiske reflected upon the matter a minute,
then said: “Oh, well, it's about the distinction I should make between
them myself.”
Mr. Washington, I beg you to convey these teachings to your great and
prosperous and most beneficent educational institution, and add them to
the prodigal mental and moral riches wherewith you equip your fortunate
proteges for the struggle of life.
TAMMANY AND CROKER
Mr. Clemens made his debut as a campaign orator on October 7,
1901, advocating the election of Seth Low for Mayor, not as a
Republican, but as a member of the “Acorns,” which he described
as a “third party having no political affiliation, but was
concerned only in the selection of the best candidates and the
best member.”
Great Britain had a Tammany and a Croker a good while ago. This Tammany
was in India, and it began its career with the spread of the English
dominion after the Battle of Plassey. Its first boss was Clive, a
sufficiently crooked person sometimes, but straight as a yard stick
when compared with the corkscrew crookedness of the second boss, Warren
Hastings.
That old-time Tammany was the East India Company's government, and had
its headquarters at Calcutta. Ostensibly it consisted of a Great Council
of four persons, of whom one was the Governor-General, Warren Hastings;
really it consisted of one person—Warren Hastings; for by usurpation he
concentrated all authority in himself and governed the country like an
autocrat.
Ostensibly the Court of Directors, sitting in London and representing
the vast interests of the stockholders, was supreme in authority over
the Calcutta Great Council, whose membership it appointed and removed at
pleasure, whose policies it dictated, and to whom it conveyed its will
in the form of sovereign commands; but whenever it suited Hastings,
he ignored even that august body's authority and conducted the mighty
affairs of the British Empire in India to suit his own notions.
At his mercy was the daily bread of every official, every trader, every
clerk, every civil servant, big and little, in the whole huge India
Company's machine, and the man who hazarded his bread by any failure of
subserviency to the boss lost it.
Now then, let the supreme masters of British India, the giant
corporation of the India Company of London, stand for the voters of the
city of New York; let the Great Council of Calcutta stand for Tammany;
let the corrupt and money-grubbing great hive of serfs which served
under the Indian Tammany's rod stand for New York Tammany's serfs; let
Warren Hastings stand for Richard Croker, and it seems to me that the
parallel is exact and complete. And so let us be properly grateful and
thank God and our good luck that we didn't invent Tammany.
Edmund Burke, regarded by many as the greatest orator of all times,
conducted the case against Warren Hastings in that renowned trial which
lasted years, and which promises to keep its renown for centuries to
come. I wish to quote some of the things he said. I wish to imagine him
arraigning Mr. Croker and Tammany before the voters of New York City and
pleading with them for the overthrow of that combined iniquity of
the 5th of November, and will substitute for “My Lords,” read
“Fellow-Citizens”; for “Kingdom,” read “City”; for “Parliamentary
Process,” read “Political Campaign”; for “Two Houses,” read “Two
Parties,” and so it reads:
“Fellow—citizens, I must look upon it as an auspicious circumstance to
this cause, in which the honor of the city is involved, that from the
first commencement of our political campaign to this the hour of solemn
trial not the smallest difference of opinion has arisen, between the two
parties.
“You will see, in the progress of this cause, that there is not only
a long, connected, systematic series of misdemeanors, but an equally
connected system of maxims and principles invented to justify them. Upon
both of these you must judge.
“It is not only the interest of the city of New York, now the most
considerable part of the city of the Americans, which is concerned,
but the credit and honor of the nation itself will be decided by this
decision.”
At a later meeting of the Acorn Club, Mr. Clemens said:
Tammany is dead, and there's no use in blackguarding a corpse.
The election makes me think of a story of a man who was dying. He had
only two minutes to live, so he sent for a clergyman and asked him,
“Where is the best place to go to?” He was undecided about it. So the
minister told him that each place had its advantages—heaven for climate,
and hell for society.
MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION
ADDRESS AT THE CITY CLUB DINNER, JANUARY 4,1901
Bishop Potter told how an alleged representative of Tammany
Hall asked him in effect if he would cease his warfare upon the
Police Department if a certain captain and inspector were
dismissed. He replied that he would never be satisfied until
the “man at the top” and the “system” which permitted evils in
the Police Department were crushed.
The Bishop has just spoken of a condition of things which none of us
can deny, and which ought not to exist; that is, the lust of gain—a lust
which does not stop short of the penitentiary or the jail to accomplish
its ends. But we may be sure of one thing, and that is that this sort of
thing is not universal. If it were, this country would not be. You may
put this down as a fact: that out of every fifty men, forty-nine are
clean. Then why is it, you may ask, that the forty-nine don't have
things the way they want them? I'll tell you why it is. A good deal
has been said here to-night about what is to be accomplished by
organization. That's just the thing. It's because the fiftieth fellow
and his pals are organized and the other forty-nine are not that the
dirty one rubs it into the clean fellows every time.
You may say organize, organize, organize; but there may be so much
organization that it will interfere with the work to be done. The Bishop
here had an experience of that sort, and told all about it down-town the
other night. He was painting a barn—it was his own barn—and yet he
was informed that his work must stop; he was a non-union painter, and
couldn't continue at that sort of job.
Now, all these conditions of which you complain should be remedied, and
I am here to tell you just how to do it. I've been a statesman without
salary for many years, and I have accomplished great and widespread
good. I don't know that it has benefited anybody very much, even if
it was good; but I do know that it hasn't harmed me very much, and is
hasn't made me any richer.
We hold the balance of power. Put up your best men for office, and we
shall support the better one. With the election of the best man for
Mayor would follow the selection of the best man for Police Commissioner
and Chief of Police.
My first lesson in the craft of statesmanship was taken at an early age.
Fifty-one years ago I was fourteen years old, and we had a society in
the town I lived in, patterned after the Freemasons, or the Ancient
Order of United Farmers, or some such thing—just what it was patterned
after doesn't matter. It had an inside guard and an outside guard, and
a past-grand warden, and a lot of such things, so as to give dignity to
the organization and offices to the members.
Generally speaking it was a pretty good sort of organization, and
some of the very best boys in the village, including—but I mustn't get
personal on an occasion like this—and the society would have got along
pretty well had it not been for the fact that there were a certain
number of the members who could be bought. They got to be an infernal
nuisance. Every time we had an election the candidates had to go
around and see the purchasable members. The price per vote was paid in
doughnuts, and it depended somewhat on the appetites of the individuals
as to the price of the votes.
This thing ran along until some of us, the really very best boys in the
organization, decided that these corrupt practices must stop, and for
the purpose of stopping them we organized a third party. We had a name,
but we were never known by that name. Those who didn't like us called us
the Anti-Doughnut party, but we didn't mind that.
We said: “Call us what you please; the name doesn't matter. We are
organized for a principle.” By-and-by the election came around, and
we made a big mistake. We were triumphantly beaten. That taught us a
lesson. Then and there we decided never again to nominate anybody
for anything. We decided simply to force the other two parties in the
society to nominate their very best men. Although we were organized for
a principle, we didn't care much about that. Principles aren't of much
account anyway, except at election-time. After that you hang them up to
let them season.
The next time we had an election we told both the other parties that
we'd beat any candidates put up by any one of them of whom we didn't
approve. In that election we did business. We got the man we wanted. I
suppose they called us the Anti-Doughnut party because they couldn't buy
us with their doughnuts. They didn't have enough of them. Most reformers
arrive at their price sooner or later, and I suppose we would have had
our price; but our opponents weren't offering anything but doughnuts,
and those we spurned.
Now it seems to me that an Anti-Doughnut party is just what is wanted
in the present emergency. I would have the Anti-Doughnuts felt in every
city and hamlet and school district in this State and in the United
States. I was an Anti-Doughnut in my boyhood, and I'm an Anti-Doughnut
still. The modern designation is Mugwump. There used to be quite a
number of us Mugwumps, but I think I'm the only one left. I had a vote
this fall, and I began to make some inquiries as to what I had better do
with it.
I don't know anything about finance, and I never did, but I know some
pretty shrewd financiers, and they told me that Mr. Bryan wasn't safe on
any financial question. I said to myself, then, that it wouldn't do
for me to vote for Bryan, and I rather thought—I know now—that McKinley
wasn't just right on this Philippine question, and so I just didn't vote
for anybody. I've got that vote yet, and I've kept it clean, ready to
deposit at some other election. It wasn't cast for any wildcat financial
theories, and it wasn't cast to support the man who sends our boys as
volunteers out into the Philippines to get shot down under a polluted
flag.
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
ADDRESS AT THE ANNUAL DINNER OF THE ST. NICHOLAS SOCIETY, NEW YORK,
DECEMBER 6, 1900.
Doctor Mackay, in his response to the toast “St. Nicholas,”
referred to Mr. Clemens, saying:--“Mark Twain is as true a
preacher of true righteousness as any bishop, priest, or
minister of any church to-day, because he moves men to forget
their faults by cheerful well-doing instead of making them sour
and morbid by everlastingly bending their attention to the
seamy and sober side of life.”
MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE ST. NICHOLAS SOCIETY,—These are,
indeed, prosperous days for me. Night before last, in a speech, the
Bishop of the Diocese of New York complimented me for my contribution to
theology, and to-night the Reverend Doctor Mackay has elected me to the
ministry. I thanked Bishop Potter then for his compliment, and I thank
Doctor Mackay now for that promotion. I think that both have discerned
in me what I long ago discerned, but what I was afraid the world would
never learn to recognize.
In this absence of nine years I find a great improvement in the city of
New York. I am glad to speak on that as a toast—“The City of New York.”
Some say it has improved because I have been away. Others, and I agree
with them, say it has improved because I have come back. We must judge
of a city, as of a man, by its external appearances and by its inward
character. In externals the foreigner coming to these shores is more
impressed at first by our sky-scrapers. They are new to him. He has
not done anything of the sort since he built the tower of Babel. The
foreigner is shocked by them.
In the daylight they are ugly. They are—well, too chimneyfied and too
snaggy—like a mouth that needs attention from a dentist; like a cemetery
that is all monuments and no gravestones. But at night, seen from the
river where they are columns towering against the sky, all sparkling
with light, they are fairylike; they are beauty more satisfactory to the
soul and more enchanting than anything that man has dreamed of since the
Arabian nights. We can't always have the beautiful aspect of things. Let
us make the most of our sights that are beautiful and let the others go.
When your foreigner makes disagreeable comments on New York by daylight,
float him down the river at night.
What has made these sky-scrapers possible is the elevator. The cigar-box
which the European calls a “lift” needs but to be compared with our
elevators to be appreciated. The lift stops to reflect between floors.
That is all right in a hearse, but not in elevators. The American
elevator acts like the man's patent purge—it worked. As the inventor
said, “This purge doesn't waste any time fooling around; it attends
strictly to business.”
That New-Yorkers have the cleanest, quickest, and most admirable system
of street railways in the world has been forced upon you by the abnormal
appreciation you have of your hackman. We ought always to be grateful to
him for that service. Nobody else would have brought such a system into
existence for us. We ought to build him a monument. We owe him one as
much as we owe one to anybody. Let it be a tall one. Nothing permanent,
of course; build it of plaster, say. Then gaze at it and realize how
grateful we are—for the time being—and then pull it down and throw it on
the ash-heap. That's the way to honor your public heroes.
As to our streets, I find them cleaner than they used to be. I miss
those dear old landmarks, the symmetrical mountain ranges of dust and
dirt that used to be piled up along the streets for the wind and rain
to tear down at their pleasure. Yes, New York is cleaner than Bombay. I
realize that I have been in Bombay, that I now am in New York; that it
is not my duty to flatter Bombay, but rather to flatter New York.
Compared with the wretched attempts of London to light that city, New
York may fairly be said to be a well-lighted city. Why, London's attempt
at good lighting is almost as bad as London's attempt at rapid transit.
There is just one good system of rapid transit in London—the “Tube,” and
that, of course, had been put in by Americans. Perhaps, after a while,
those Americans will come back and give New York also a good underground
system. Perhaps they have already begun. I have been so busy since I
came back that I haven't had time as yet to go down cellar.
But it is by the laws of the city, it is by the manners of the city, it
is by the ideals of the city, it is by the customs of the city and by
the municipal government which all these elements correct, support, and
foster, by which the foreigner judges the city. It is by these that he
realizes that New York may, indeed, hold her head high among the cities
of the world. It is by these standards that he knows whether to class
the city higher or lower than the other municipalities of the world.
Gentlemen, you have the best municipal government in the world—the
purest and the most fragrant. The very angels envy you, and wish they
could establish a government like it in heaven. You got it by a noble
fidelity to civic duty. You got it by stern and ever-watchful exertion
of the great powers with which you are charged by the rights which were
handed down to you by your forefathers, by your manly refusal to let
base men invade the high places of your government, and by instant
retaliation when any public officer has insulted you in the city's name
by swerving in the slightest from the upright and full performance of
his duty. It is you who have made this city the envy of the cities of
the world. God will bless you for it—God will bless you for it. Why,
when you approach the final resting-place the angels of heaven will
gather at the gates and cry out:
“Here they come! Show them to the archangel's box, and turn the
lime-light on them!”
CHINA AND THE PHILIPPINES
AT A DINNER GIVEN IN THE WALDORF-ASTORIA HOTEL, DECEMBER, 1900
Winston Spencer Churchill was introduced by Mr. Clemens.