THINGS relatively interesting, contrasts nearly as sharp and as well
calculated to cause one to meditate on the wonder, the beauty, the
uncertainty, the indifference, the cruelty and the rank favoritism of
life, were daily if not hourly put before me. Now it would be some such
murder as this or a social scandal of some kind, often of a gross and
revolting character, in some ultra-respectable neighborhood, or a
suicide of peculiarly sad or grim character. Or, again, it would be a
fine piece of chicane, as when a certain “board-and-feed” stable owner
of the west end, about to lose his property because of poor business and
anxious to save himself by securing the insurance, set fire to the
stable and destroyed seventeen healthy horses as well as one stable
attendant and “got away with it,” legally anyhow. His plan had probably
been to save the horses and the man, but the plan miscarried. I gathered
as much from him when I interviewed him. I put some pertinent questions
at him but could get no admissions on which to base a charge. He was a
shrewd, calculating, commercial type, vigorous and semi-savage. He
evaded me blandly and I had to write the fire up as a sad accident,
thereby aiding him to get his insurance, the while I was convinced that
he was guilty, a hard-hearted scoundrel.
Another thing that I sensed very clearly at this time was the fact that
the average newspaper reporter was a far better detective in his way
than the legitimate official detective, and not nearly so well paid. The
average so-called “headquarters man,” was a loathsome thing, as low in
his ideas and methods as the lowest criminal he was set to trap. The
criminal was at least shrewd and dynamic enough to plot and execute a
crime, whereas the detective had no brains at all, merely a low kind of
cunning. Often red-headed, freckled, with big hands and feet, store
clothes, squeaky shoes—why does such a picture of the detective come
back to me? Pop-eyed, with a ridiculous air of mystery and profundity in
matters requiring neither, dirty, offensive, fish-eyed and merciless,
the detectives floundered about in different cases without a grain of
humor; whereas the average reporter was, by contrast anyhow, intelligent
or shrewd, cleanly nearly always, if at times a little slouchy, inclined
to drink and sport perhaps but genial, often gentlemanly, a fascinating
story-teller, a keen psychologist (nearly always one of the best),
frequently well read, humorous, sympathetic, amusing or gloomy as the
case might be, but generally to be relied upon in such emergencies for
truly skillful work. Naturally there was some enmity between the two, a
contempt on the part of the newspaper man for the detective, a fear and
dislike and secret opposition on the part of the detective. The reporter
would go forth on a mystifying case and as a rule, given time enough,
would solve it, whereas the police detectives would be tramping about
often trailing the reporters, reading the newspapers to discover what
had been discovered, and then, when the work had been done and the true
clew furnished, would step forward at the grand moment to do the
arresting and get their pictures and names in the papers. The detectives
were constantly playing into the hands of the police reporters in
unimportant matters during periods between great cases, doing them
little favors, helping them in small cases, in order that when a big
case came along they might have favors done unto them. The most
important of all these favors, of course, was that of seeing that their
names were mentioned in the papers as being engaged in solving a mystery
or having done thus and so, when in all likelihood some newspaper man
had done it.
Sometimes the tip as to where the criminal was likely to be found would
be furnished by the papers and later credited to the police. Sometimes
the newspaper men would lash the police, sometimes flatter them, but
always they were seeking to make the police aid them to get various
necessary things done, and not always succeeding. Sometimes the police
were hand-in-glove with certain crooks or evil-doers, and you could all
but prove it, but until you did so, and sometimes afterward, they were
stubborn and would defy you and the papers. But not for long. They loved
publicity too much; offer them sufficient publicity, and they would act.
It was nearly always my experience that the newspapers, which meant the
reporters of course plus an efficient city editor and possibly a
managing editor, would be the first to worm out the psychology of any
given case and then point an almost unerring finger at the criminal;
then the police or detectives would come in and do the arresting and get
the credit.
Another thing that impressed me greatly at this time was the
kaleidoscopic character of newspaper work, which, in its personal
significance to me, cannot be too much emphasized. As I have said, one
day it would be a crime of a lurid or sensational character that would
arrest and compel me to think, and the same day, within the hour
perhaps, it would be a lecturer or religionist with some finespun theory
of life, some theosophist like Annie Besant, who in passing through St.
Louis on a lecture tour would be at one of the best hotels, usually the
Southern, talking transmigration and Nirvana. Again, it would be some
mountebank or quack of a low order—a spiritualist, let us say, of the
Eva Fay stripe, or a mindreader like Bishop, or a third-rate religionist
like the Reverend Sam Jones, who was then in his heyday preaching
unadulterated hell, or the arrival of a prize-fighter-actor like John L.
Sullivan, then only recently defeated by Corbett, or a novelist of the
quack order, such as Hall Caine.
And there were distinguished individuals, including such excellent
lecturers as Henry Watterson and Henry M. Stanley, or a musician like
Paderewski, or a scientist of the standing of Nikola Tesla. I was sent
to interview my share of these, to get their views on something—anything
or nothing really, for my city editor, Mr. Mitchell, seemed at times a
little cloudy as to their significance, and certainly I had no clear
insight into What most of them stood for. I wondered, guessed, made
vague stabs at what I thought they represented, and in the main took
them seriously enough. My favorite question was What did they think of
life, its meaning, since this was uppermost in my mind at the time, and
I think I asked it of every one of them, from John L. Sullivan to Annie
Besant. And what a jangle of doctrines! What a noble burst of ideas!
Annie Besant, in a room at the Southern delicately scented with flowers,
arrayed in a cool silken gray dress, informed me that the age was
material, that wealth and show were an illusion based on nothing at all
(I wrote that down without understanding what she meant), that the Hindu
Swamis had long since solved all this seeming mystery of living, Madame
Blavatsky being the most recent and the greatest apostle of wisdom in
this matter, and that the great thing to do in this world or the next
was to improve oneself spiritually and so eventually attain to Nirvana,
nothingness—a word I had to look up afterward. (When I told Dick Wood
about her he seemed greatly impressed and said: “Oh, there’s more to
that stuff than you think, Dreiser. You’re just not up on all that yet.
These mystics see more than we think they do,” and he looked very wise.)
And Henry Watterson—imagine me at the age of twenty-one trying to
interview him when he was in the heyday of his fame and mental powers!
Short, stocky, with a protuberant belly, slightly gray hair, gruff and
simple in his manner and joyously secure in his fame (he had just the
preceding summer said that Cleveland, Democratic candidate of the hour
and later elected, was certain to “walk up an alley to a slaughter-house
and an open grave,” and had of course seen his prediction fail), he was
convinced that the country was in bad hands, not likely to go to the
“demnition bow-wows” as yet but in for a bad corporation-materialistic
spell. And when I asked _him_ what he thought of life——
“My son, when you get as old as I am you probably won’t think so much of
it, and you won’t be to blame. It’s good enough in its way, but it’s a
damned ticklish business. You may say that Henry Watterson said that if
you like. Do the best you can, and don’t crowd the other fellow too
hard, and you’ll come out as well as anybody, I suppose.”
And then John L. Sullivan, raw, red-faced, big-fisted, broad-shouldered,
drunken, with gaudy waistcoat and tie, and rings and pins set with
enormous diamonds and rubies—what an impression he made! Surrounded by
local sports and politicians of the most rubicund and degraded character
(he was a great favorite with them), he seemed to me, sitting in his
suite at the Lindell, to be the apotheosis of the humorously gross and
vigorous and material. Cigar boxes, champagne buckets, decanters, beer
bottles, overcoats, collars and shirts littered the floor, and lolling
back in the midst of it all in ease and splendor his very great self, a
sort of prizefighting J. P. Morgan.
“Aw, haw! haw! haw!” I can hear him even now when I asked him my
favorite question about life, his plans, the value of exercise (!), etc.
“He wants to know about exercise! You’re all right, young fella, kinda
slim, but you’ll do. Sit down and have some champagne. Have a cigar.
Give ‘im some cigars, George. These young newspaper men are all all
right to me. I’m for ’em. Exercise? What I think? Haw! haw! Write any
damned thing yuh please, young fella, and say that John L. Sullivan said
so. That’s good enough for me. If they don’t believe it bring it back
here and I’ll sign it for yuh. But I know it’ll be all right, and I
won’t stop to read it neither. That suit yuh? Well, all right. Now have
some more champagne and don’t say I didn’t treat yuh right, ’cause I
did. I’m ex-champion of the world, defeated by that little dude from
California, but I’m still John L. Sullivan—ain’t that right? Haw! haw!
They can’t take that away from me, can they? Haw! haw! Have some more
champagne, boy.”
I adored him. I would have written anything he asked me to write. I got
up the very best article I could and published it, and was told
afterward that it was fine.
Another thing that interested me about newspaper work was its pagan or
unmoral character, as contrasted with the heavy religionistic and
moralistic point of view seemingly prevailing in the editorial office
proper (the editorial page, of course), as well as the world outside.
While the editorial office might be preparing the most flowery
moralistic or religionistic editorials regarding the worth of man, the
value of progress, character, religion, morality, the sanctity of the
home, charity and the like, the business office and news rooms were
concerned with no such fine theories. The business office was all
business, with little or no thought of anything save success, and in the
city news room the mask was off and life was handled in a
rough-and-ready manner, without gloves and in a catch-as-catch-can
fashion. Pretense did not go here. Innate honesty on the part of any one
was not probable. Charity was a business with something in it for
somebody. Morality was in the main for public consumption only. “Get the
news! Get the news!”—that was the great cry in the city editorial room.
“Don’t worry much over how you get it, but get it, and don’t come back
without it! Don’t fall down! Don’t let the other newspapers skin us—that
is, if you value your job! And write—and write well. If any other paper
writes it better than you do you’re beaten and might as well resign.”
The public must be entertained by the writing of reporters.
But the methods and the effrontery and the callousness necessary at
times for the gathering of news—what a shock even though one realized
that it was conditional with life itself! At most times one needed to be
hard, cold, jesuitical. For instance, one of the problems that troubled
me most, and to which there was no solution save to act jesuitically or
get out, was how to get the facts from a man or woman suspected of some
misdeed or error without letting him know that you were so doing. In the
main, if you wanted facts of any kind, especially in connection with the
suspected, you did not dare tell them that you came as an enemy or were
bent on exposing them. One had to approach all, even the worst and most
degraded, as a friend and pretend an interest, perhaps even a sympathy
one did not feel, to apply the oil of flattery to the soul. To do less
than this was to lose the news, and while a city editor might readily
forgive any form of trickery he would never forgive failure. Cheat and
win and you were all right; be honest and lose and you were fired. To
appear wise when you were ignorant, dull when you were not,
disinterested when you were interested, brutal or severe when you might
be just the reverse—these were the essential tricks of the trade.
And I, being sent out every day and loafing about the corridors of the
various hotels at different times, soon encountered other newspaper men
who were as shrewd and wily as ferrets, who had apparently but one
motive in life: to trim their fellow newspaper men in the matter of
news, or the public which provided the news. There being only two
morning papers here (the _Globe_ and the _Republic_), the reporters of
each loved the others not, even when personally they were inclined to be
friendly. They did not dare permit their personal likes to affect their
work. It was every man for himself. Meet a reporter of the _Republic_ or
the _Globe_ on a story: he might be friendly enough but he would tell
you nothing. He wished either to shun you or worm your facts out of you.
Meet him in the lobby of the La Clede, where by common consent, winter
or summer, most seemed to gather, or at the corner drugstore outside,
and each would be friendly with the other, trading tales of life, going
together to a saloon for a drink or to the “beanery,” a famous
eating-place on Chestnut between Fourth and Broadway, perhaps borrowing
a dime, a quarter or a dollar until pay day—but never repaying with news
or tips; quite the reverse, as I soon found. One had to keep an
absolutely close mouth as to all one might be doing.
The counsel of all of these men was to get the news in any way possible,
by hook or by crook, and to lose no time in theorizing about it. If a
document was lying on an official’s table, for instance, and you wanted
to see it and could not persuade him to give it to you—well, if he
turned his back it was good business to take it, or at least read it. If
a photograph was desired and the one concerned would not give it and you
saw it somewhere, take it of course and let them complain afterward if
they would; your city editor was supposed to protect you in such
matters. You might know of certain conditions of which a public official
was not aware and the knowledge of which would cause him to talk in one
way, whereas lack of that knowledge would cause him to talk in another.
Personally you might think it your duty to tell him, but as a newspaper
man you could not. It was your duty to your paper to sacrifice him. If
you didn’t some one else would. I was not long in learning all this and
more, and although I understood the necessity I sometimes resented
having to do it. There were times when I wanted to treat people better
than I did or could. Sometimes I told myself that I was better in this
respect than other newspaper men; but when the test came I found that I
was like the others, as eager to get the news. Something akin to a dog’s
lust of the chase would in critical moments seize upon me and in my
eagerness to win a newspaper battle I would forget or ignore nearly
every tenet of fairness and get it. Then, victorious, I might sigh over
the sadness of it all and decide that I was going to get out of the
business—as I eventually did, and for very much this reason—but at the
time I was weak or practical enough.
One afternoon I was sent to interview the current Democratic candidate
for mayor, an amiable soul who conducted a wholesale harness business
and who was supposed to have an excellent chance of being elected. The
city had long been sick of Republican misrule, or so our office seemed
to think. When I entered his place he was in the front part of the store
discussing with several friends or politicians the character of St.
Louis, its political and social backwardness, its narrowness, slowness
and the like, and for some reason, possibly due to the personality of
his friends, he was very severe. Local religionists, among others, came
in for a good drubbing. I did not know him but for some unexplainable
reason I assumed at once that the man talking was the candidate. Again,
I instinctively knew that if what he was saying were published it would
create a sensation. The lust of the hunter stalking a wild animal
immediately took possession of me. What a beat, to take down what this
man was saying! What a stir it would make! Without seeming to want
anything in particular, I stood by a showcase and examined the articles
within. Soon he finished his tirade and came to me.
“Well, sir?”
“I’m from the _Globe_,” I said. “I want to ask you——” and I asked him
some questions.
When he heard that I was from the _Globe_ he became visibly excited.
“Did you hear what I was saying just now?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Well, you know that I was not speaking for publication....”
“Yes, I know.”
“And you’re not to forget that.”
“I understand.”
Just the same I returned to the office and wrote up the incident just as
it had occurred. My city editor took it, glanced over it, and departed
for the front office. I could tell by his manner that he was excited.
The next day it was published in all its crude reality, and the man was
ruined politically. There were furious denials in the rival Democratic
papers. A lying reporter was denounced, not only by Mr. Bannerman, the
candidate, but by all the other papers editorially. At once I was called
to the front office to explain to Mr. McCullagh, which I did in detail.
“He said it all, did he?” he asked, and I insisted that he had. “I know
it’s true,” he said, “for other people have told me that he has said the
same things before.”
Next day there was a defiant editorial in the _Globe_ defending me, my
truthfulness, the fact that the truth of the interview was substantiated
by previous words and deeds of the candidate. Various editors on the
paper came forward to congratulate me, to tell me what a beat I had
made; but to tell the truth I felt shamefaced, dishonest, unkind. I was
an eavesdropper. I had taken an unfair advantage, and I knew it. Still,
something in me made me feel that I was fortunate. As a reporter I had
done the paper a great service. My editor-in-chief, as I could see,
appreciated it. No other immediate personal reward came to me, but I
felt that I had strengthened my standing here a little. Yet for that I
had killed that man politically. Youth, zest, life, the love of the
chase—that is all that explains it to me now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------