like Burnaby’s “Ride to Khiva,” biographies like Mrs. Charles
Kingsley’s “Letters and Memorials” of her husband, histories like
Symonds’s “Renaissance in Italy”--merely scissored and summarized.
Eggleston plumed himself upon being the first to give a thorough
account, thought quite uncritical, of the most important books. Thus
Elie Reclus in 1877 sent the _Post_ a scoop upon Hugo’s new “History of
a Crime”; and a few months later it was delighted to give, in a column
and a half, the first résumé of Schliemann’s story of his discoveries
at Mycenæ. Eggleston was alert to obtain advance sheets of new books,
and the morning newspapers complained that the publishers made him a
favorite. When Tennyson’s “Harold” was issued late in 1876, there was
no previous announcement, and a copy was sent all American and British
literary editors precisely at noon. The _Evening Post_ reviews for
that day were already in the forms, and only an hour remained before
the first edition went to press. But Eggleston resolved to anticipate
the morning papers, enlisted Foreman Dithmar of the composing room,
hurriedly prepared two columns of quotation and comment, and had them
in type ready for the front page within his time-limit. This exploit,
in which it is hard to share his pride, reminds us of the story of
Hugo’s “Legend of the Ages” reaching the _Tribune_ office just before
Bayard Taylor left for the night, and of how Taylor within fifteen
hours finished an “exhaustive” review, including translations of five
poems.
Nevertheless, from time to time a genuinely critical bit of writing
emerged in the _Post_. The reviews of Howells’s “A Foregone Conclusion”
in 1875 and of Henry James’s “The American” in 1877, both appreciative,
would do credit to any literary journal to-day. Parke Godwin wrote
solid historical criticism. The paper was sufficiently discriminating
to prefer the best of Constance Fenimore Woolson to the second-best of
Bret Harte. Its worst misstep, shared by almost every other American
journal, was its low estimate of “Tom Sawyer” in 1877. It thought the
first half passable--“fairly entitled to rank with Mr. Aldrich’s ‘Story
of a Bad Boy’”--but the second half poor, and it issued the grave
warning: “Certainly it will be in the last degree unsafe to put the
book into the hands of imitative youth.”
The subject of international copyright had been reopened in 1867 by an
article in the _Atlantic_, and the republication of Henry C. Carey’s
hostile essays; but a bill failed in Congress in 1868 and another in
1871. Bryant saw that the _Evening Post_ kept up its campaign for a
reform. Some publishers, led by Putnam’s and J. R. Osgood & Co., were
for a liberal law, but others, like Harper & Brothers, stood opposed;
while the type-founders, paper-makers, and binders throughout the
Union were hostile. Carey’s school held that international copyright
would produce a centralized monopoly of bookmaking, and included many
booksellers of the Middle and Western States who complained that the
bulk of English reprints were already monopolized by four or five
Eastern firms. Carey also thought that the best way of giving an author
his due would be simply to compel payment of a royalty to him. But the
_Post_ in 1877 took the view that the chief obstacle to international
copyright lay in the conviction of many manufacturers and farmers of
the West that the patent system was uneconomic and injurious, and their
inclination to regard copyright as a kind of patent.
From Eggleston we learn nearly as much of Bryant in his editorial
capacity as from Bigelow and Parke Godwin. Bryant regarded anonymous
criticism, he told Eggleston, “as a thing quite as despicable, unmanly,
and cowardly as an anonymous letter.” Eggleston’s own notices were
unsigned, but Bryant had given prominence to the fact that he was
literary editor, sending every publisher an announcement, and it was
the rule that contributed criticism should bear at least an initial.
Once when Eggleston was about to publish an anonymous review by R. H.
Stoddard, Bryant’s indignant objections were with difficulty silenced.
According to the literary editor, Bryant’s printed index expurgatorius
by no means included all the words to which he objected; he tried to
rule out “numerous” for “many,” “people” for “persons,” “monthly” for
“monthly magazine,” and so on. He was accustomed to refer to Johnson’s
dictionary as an authority instead of later works. Eggleston recalls
the vigor of Bryant’s literary prejudices, one of them apparently
evinced by his refusal to have the least share in the unveiling of the
Poe monument in Baltimore.
Yet he lays emphasis upon Bryant’s unwillingness to deal severely with
fellow poets. The old editor said he had always found it possible to
say something good about the writings of the poorest--to praise some
line, some epithet, at least. Once Eggleston in despair showed him a
volume of which it was impossible to commend a single word. Bryant
admitted that it was idiotic; he admitted that even the cover was an
affront to taste; but, he said, looking at it with an expression of
total disgust, “You can commend the publishers for putting it on well.”
This was one expression of Bryant’s innate gentleness. He was seriously
distressed when some scribbler of verse on one occasion caught up a
single commendatory phrase in Eggleston’s unfavorable review, and asked
Bryant to allow him to use that phrase as an advertisement, with
Bryant’s own name attached. Eggleston answered the appeal, and did it
forcibly. The poet would change his “day” at the office, or would work
in the composing room, to avoid bores, but he never would be impolite
to them. Once, indeed, a literary hack pestered him all morning in an
effort to obtain the material for articles to publish upon Bryant when
he died. Bryant came in obviously disturbed, and said to Eggleston in
his mild way: “I tried to be patient, but I fear I was rude to him at
the last. There seemed to be no other way of getting rid of him.”
CHAPTER NINETEEN
WARFARE WITHIN THE OFFICE: PARKE GODWIN’S EDITORSHIP
Six weeks before Bryant’s death preparations were made, as with a
prevision of that event, for the uninterrupted control of the newspaper
by his family. A reorganization was forced, under circumstances later
to be recounted, upon the business manager, Isaac Henderson. The poet
assigned the presidency of the Evening Post Company to Judge John
J. Monell, but kept the editorship; Henderson resigned as publisher
and was succeeded by his son, Isaac, Jr.; and Parke Godwin became a
trustee, resuming his connection as a writer on artistic, scientific,
and literary topics. In June, 1878, immediately after the funeral of
Bryant, Godwin, his son-in-law, took his place, and was formally named
editor in December. His editorship, which endured but three years,
affords an opportunity to pause for a survey of the men who made the
_Evening Post_ of the seventies, and of the figure believed by many to
be trying to unmake it.
The newspaper establishment of which Godwin became head was one which,
small and antiquated though it would seem now, had made extraordinary
strides since the Civil War. During the conflict it had been housed
in a dingy, rickety firetrap on the northwest corner of Liberty and
Nassau Streets, where it had its publication office on the first floor,
its five small editorial rooms together with the composing room on the
third floor, and its presses in the basement. But in 1874–5 Henderson
had erected a new and imposing building of ten stories on the corner
of Fulton and Broadway, which the _Post_ occupied until 1907. Here the
composing rooms, unusually spacious and well-lighted, were on the top
floor, the editorial rooms next below, and the offices on the ground
floor.
It was necessary then to be near the postoffice to ensure the early
delivery of mails, and there being no “tickers,” evening papers had
also to be near Wall Street. Stock quotations were long printed from
the official sheet of the Stock Exchange. A messenger boy was kept
waiting for the first copy of this publication, and it was hurried to
the newspaper office, there cut into small “takes,” and put into type
with all possible speed. In the seventies and early eighties the _Post_
was printed from a huge eight-cylinder press, direct from type which
was locked upon the curved cylinders, while men standing in tiers upon
each side fed in the paper. The last minutes before the press hour in
the composing room, as the managing editor stood over the forms and
decided what news should be killed, what used, and what held over, were
highly exciting.
As for the staff, though still small, it had been steadily enlarged
in the sixties and seventies. The first managing editor was Charles
Nordhoff, who came in 1860, when the title was still an innovation,
having recently been borrowed from the London _Times_ by the _Tribune_
to apply to Dana. For a generation it signified not a mere manager of
the news columns, as it did later, but a man who in the absence of
the editor performed all his functions. When Bryant was not in the
office, and Godwin did not supply his place, Nordhoff was expected
to take charge of the editorial page. The first literary editor, as
we have seen, John R. Thompson, was employed in 1868; for a time he
was expected also to review some plays, but within a few years the
_Evening Post_ had a special musical and dramatic editor in the person
of William F. Williams, and by the middle seventies Williams was
practically confining himself to music while J. Ranken Towse took over,
to its vast improvement, the dramatic criticism. Thus there were three
valuable employees doing work which had previously been ill-done or
done not at all. As for the news force, when in 1871 William Alexander
Linn accepted the position of city editor, he found it to consist,
besides himself, of six men. These were the managing editor, at this
date Charlton Lewis; his assistant, Bronson Howard; the telegraph
editor, financial editor, one salaried reporter, and one reporter “on
space.”
It would have been impossible to cover the news with this force had
there not been a city news association which lent valuable assistance.
Even then, in emergencies Linn had sometimes to call upon the bright
young men of the composing room to accept assignments, and developed
some good journalists in this way. The foreman of the composing room,
Dithmar, was a German of rare culture, who with little early schooling
had mastered five languages, and whom Bryant sometimes delighted in
pitting against pretentious men of small attainments. Indeed, Bryant
often discussed poetry, German philosophy, and journalistic problems
with him in the most intimate fashion. He maintained an almost
tyrannical discipline in his department, sometimes quarreled violently
with the managing editor when the latter wanted copy set which would
necessitate the killing of matter already in type, and even claimed the
right to protest to the editors against their editorial views whenever
the latter displeased him. Later he was appointed American consul at
Breslau, Germany, and filled the position with credit. One of the
compositors whom he recommended to Linn speedily made his mark as a
political reporter, and was for more than twenty years the Washington
correspondent of the _Times_.
The managing editors who succeeded Nordhoff after his resignation
in 1871 were all men of distinction. Charlton Lewis, the first, was
characterized by _Harper’s Weekly_ when he died as “a college graduate
who knew Latin.” As a matter of fact, his versatility, his ability to
win distinction in many different fields, was remarkable. He became
well known in classical circles by his prodigious labors in producing
the Latin Dictionary published under his name, a revision and expansion
of Freund’s. He published translations from the German, and at the time
of his death he was engaged in writing a commentary upon Dante. It is
said that a professor of astronomy, chatting with him for an hour
upon the science, expressed astonishment later upon being told that
Lewis was not an astronomer by profession; the mistake was natural,
for Lewis--who had taught both the classics and mathematics at Union
College--was really proficient in mathematical astronomy. His chief
practical success was in the insurance field, where he became one of
the greatest authorities upon both the legal and mathematical aspects
of insurance; while he is now remembered principally for his almost
life-long attention to the problems of charities and corrections.
When managing editor of the _Post_ in the early seventies, be induced
E. C. Wines to write a series of articles upon prison reform in
the various States. Later he became interested in the movement for
probation and parole, and for years was president of both the National
Prison Association and Prison Association of New York. He made an able
managing editor, though he was not wholly liked or trusted by some
members of the staff. Mr. Towse writes:
He did not, as I remember, interfere much, if at all, with the
general organization, confining himself mainly to the supervision
of the editorial page, for which he wrote with his usual fluency,
cogency, and eloquence. He produced copy with extraordinary
rapidity and neatness, seldom making corrections of any kind. The
natural alertness of his intellect was reinforced by an immense
amount of varied and precise knowledge, and he impressed every one
with a sense of his solid and brilliant competency.
Lewis was followed by Arthur G. Sedgwick, the brother-in-law of
Charles Eliot Norton, a brilliant young writer whose promise had
been early discerned by E. L. Godkin, and who had now been working
for some years with Godkin in the office of the _Nation_. That fact
alone would be a sufficient evidence of his ability and character. As
W. C. Brownell wrote years later, Sedgwick’s style was “the acme of
well-bred simplicity, argumentative cogency, and as clear as a bell,
because he simply never experienced mental confusion.” The editorial
page could not have been in better hands than his, but his connection
with the _Post_ was--at this time--brief. The fourth managing editor
was Sidney Howard Gay, who wrote an excellent short life of Madison for
the American Statesmen Series, and whose name is linked with Bryant’s
by their nominal co-authorship of a four-volume history of the United
States. As a matter of fact, Bryant supplied only the introduction and
a little early advice, Gay deserving the whole credit for the work. It
is badly proportioned, but in large part based upon original research,
and readable in style. Gay was not merely an industrious historian,
but a capable journalist, who had been trained on the _Tribune_ in
association with Greeley, Ripley, and Bayard Taylor.
The most notable of the other employees of the _Evening Post_ in the
seventies was Newton F. Whiting, the financial editor, who was followed
and esteemed by the financial community as few journalists have ever
been. It was far more difficult then than now to obtain a financial
editor who could be trusted to abstain rigidly from dabbling in Wall
Street and to hold the scales even between rival commercial interests.
John Bigelow relates that in the fifties he once spoke of this
difficulty at the Press Club to Dana. “Well,” said Dana, “how could
you expect to get a man in that department who wouldn’t speculate?”--a
rejoinder that Bigelow rightly thought a little shocking. But Whiting
filled his position with an integrity that was not only absolute, but
never even questioned; and with a quickness of intelligence, soundness
of judgment, and scrupulous accuracy that made his death in the fall
of 1882 a shock to down-town New York. Had he lived longer he would
have become a figure of national prominence. The words of a memorial
pamphlet issued in his honor were not a whit exaggerated:
His ability to unravel a difficult situation in Wall Street was
remarkable. In the event of a sudden crisis, the facts bearing
on it were immediately ascertained and lucidly exposed; and the
service thus rendered in the early editorials of the _Evening Post_
has often proved the means of turning a morning of panic into an
afternoon of confidence. His service in arresting the progress of
distrust on such occasions has perhaps never been fully estimated.
The widespread feeling of regret in Wall Street on the news of his
decease was in no small degree expressive of the loss of a helmsman
in whom all had been accustomed to trust.
Becoming financial editor in 1868, it was he who condemned the
Federal Government’s interference in the “Black Friday” crisis, when
its sudden sale of $4,000,000 in gold in New York city destroyed
the plans of Jay Gould and James Fisk, jr., for cornering the gold
market. Whiting’s contention was that the importation of gold from
Europe and other points would have crushed the corner anyway, and that
it was not the Treasury’s business to intervene in a battle between
rival gangs of speculators, particularly since it had promised not
to sell gold without due notice. He believed in hard money and wrote
many of the _Post’s_ editorials against the greenback movement. Being
totally opposed to the coinage of silver by the United States so long
as other nations declined to coöperate in establishing the double
standard upon a permanent basis, for years he daily placarded the
depreciation of the standard silver dollar at the head of the _Post’s_
money column--a device that greatly irritated silver men. His rugged
strength of character was well set off by a rugged body, for he was
broad-shouldered, deep-chested, and an expert horseman, boxer, and
wrestler. No man in the office was better liked.
The telegraph editor under Nordhoff was Augustus Maverick, known to
all students of journalism by his volume on “Henry J. Raymond and the
New York Press”; a good newspaper man, but a swaggering, egotistical
fellow, whose Irish hot temper and tendency to domineer over others
marked him for a stormy career. He was soon dismissed from the _Post_
for insubordination, he made an unfortunate marriage, and his life
had a tragic end. The musical editor, William F. Williams, was for
some time also organist of St. George’s Church. Those were the days of
Mapleson and Italian opera, when a genuinely critical review would have
been thought cruel, and Williams supplied the perfunctory and kindly
notices wanted by the managers; the distribution of tickets in return
was always generous. He was a burly, genial fellow, a veritable Count
Fosco in physical appearance, and with something of the indolence which
accorded with his flesh. When he found that J. Ranken Towse was keenly
interested in the theater, he gladly permitted Towse to represent him
upon even highly important occasions; and thus was responsible for the
beginnings of dramatic criticism of a high order in the _Post_.
From one point of view, Parke Godwin will be seen to have succeeded to
editorial control of an influential organ, ably equipped and officered,
and making from $50,000 to $75,000 a year for its owners. From another
point of view, he succeeded to an irrepressible conflict, and the
_Evening Post_ was only the arena in which he was to fight to the
bitter end with a wary, persistent, and experienced antagonist. The
struggle was between the Bryant and Henderson families for possession
of the _Post_; between the counting room and the editorial room for the
dictation of its policy. It had covertly begun while Bryant was alive,
and now became open.
Isaac Henderson by 1868 was in a well entrenched position. He had
one-half of the stock of the newspaper, fifty or even fifty-one shares;
he owned the building outright; his son, Isaac, jr., was in training
to succeed him as publisher; and his son-in-law, Watson R. Sperry, an
able and honorable young graduate of Yale, had become managing editor.
It was becoming plain that Henderson wished to acquire unquestioned
control, to install Sperry as editor, and make the _Evening Post_ a
family possession. What was the character of the man who thus seemed on
the point of obtaining “Bryant’s newspaper”?
It would be easy, from the evidence of his enemies, to take too
harsh a view of Isaac Henderson. We must remember that standards of
political and business morality were low after the Civil War. The
fairest judgment is that Henderson was simply an average product of the
days which, while they produced Peter Cooper, produced also Jim Fisk,
Daniel Drew, and Jay Gould. His constant thought was of dollars and
cents. On Sundays he was a prominent member of a Brooklyn Methodist
church; on weekdays he was intent upon driving the hardest bargain he
legitimately could. He built up the _Evening Post_ from a weak and
struggling journal into a great property, which in one year of the war
divided more than $200,000 in profits; from a $7 a week clerk he became
a millionaire. His tastes were mercenary, and he had the sharpness of
a Yankee horse-trader, but there is no conclusive evidence that he
ever did what the business man of his time would have called a clearly
dishonest act. When he undertook to acquire the site of his building,
owned by the Old Dutch Church, he made an investigation, found that
there was a two-inch strip fronting on Broadway that the church did not
own, quietly obtained title to it, and--if we may believe the Evening
_Telegram_ of July 29, 1879--in the subsequent negotiations “profited
by his discovery in the pleasant sum of $125,000, the largest price
ever paid for a lot two inches wide.” At the time many thought such an
exploit creditable, and Henderson fitted his time.
Henderson faced his gravest charge when in January, 1864, he was
dismissed from the office of Navy Agent in New York on the ground that
he had accepted commissions upon contracts let for the government.
Gideon Welles’s Diary for the summer of 1864 contains many references
to this affair. It states that on one occasion Welles discussed the
matter with Lincoln, “who thereupon brought out a correspondence that
had taken place between himself and W. C. Bryant. The latter averred
that H. was innocent, and denounced Savage, the principal witness
against him, because arrested and under bonds. To this the President
replied that the character of Savage before his arrest was as good as
Henderson’s before he was arrested. He stated that he knew nothing
of H.’s alleged malfeasance until brought to his notice by me, in a
letter, already written, for his removal; that he inquired of me if
I was satisfied he was guilty; that I said he was; and that he then
directed, or said to me, ‘Go ahead, let him be removed.’” It is a fact
that Bryant never wavered in his faith in his partner. The charges had
their origin in the malice of Thurlow Weed, who, angered by persistent
attacks made upon him by the _Evening Post_, sought out the information
which he believed to justify them, and laid them before Welles. In May,
1865, they came to a trial in the Federal Circuit Court under Judge
Nelson. The prosecution brought forward a strong array of legal talent,
while Henderson was represented by Judge Pierrepont and Wm. M. Evarts;
the case against him utterly broke down, the judge said as much in his
charge, and without leaving their seats the jury rendered a verdict of
acquittal.
Circumstances, however, inclined many to regard the verdict as one of
“Not Proved” only. It is important to note that Parke Godwin, then
owner of one-third of the _Post_, stated in a letter to Bryant, July
31, 1865, his reasons for thinking the charges true:
I infer from a remark made by Mrs. Bryant, on Saturday evening,
that she still has confidence in Mr. Henderson, and as I have not,
I will tell you why. I will do so in writing, because I have found
writing less liable to mistake or misconstruction than what is said
by word of mouth.
I. My impressions are quite decided that Mr. H. has been guilty
of the malpractices charged upon him by the government, for these
reasons: (1) His own clerk (Mr. Blood) admitted the receipt
of $70,000 as commissions, and that these were deposited by
Mr. Henderson as his own, in his own bank; (2) the prosecuting
attorneys, Mr. Noyes, Judge Bosworth, D. S. Dickinson, asserted
that over $100,000, as they are able to prove positively, were paid
into his office as commissions; Mr. Noyes told me that there could
be no doubt of this; (3) other lawyers (Mr. Marbury, for instance)
assure me that clients of theirs _know_ of the habits of the office
in this respect, and would testify if legally called upon; (4)
his private bank account shows very large transactions, which are
said to correspond singularly with the entries in the books of the
contractors implicated with him.