JAY GOULD’S RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC.
There are interesting features of the life of Jay Gould regarding his
relations with the public, the church, the press and the people whom he
met.
Jay Gould was not what is called a religious man. He was a pewholder
in the Presbyterian church at Irvington and in the Rev. Dr. Paxton’s
church on West Forty-second street, but not a communicant. If he
ever expressed any religious views it was to the Rev. Dr. Paxton.
Certainly he did not to the Rev. Dr. Henry M. MacCracken, chancellor
of the University, nor to the Rev. Roderick Terry, with whom he was on
intimate terms of friendship. Dr. Terry said:
“There was no pretense about Mr. Gould. He never made any public
profession of Christianity that I know of. On the subject of religion,
as on so many others, he was extremely reticent, unless he unbosomed
himself to his pastor, Dr. Paxton. He certainly never talked with me
about his feelings on the subject of religion, though the opportunity
offered more than once.”
[Illustration: JAY GOULD’S PRIVATE CAR AND HIS YACHT “ATALANTA.”]
Mr. Gould’s wife was a member of the South Reformed church for many
years, but afterward became a Presbyterian. The millionaire of late
years had been a frequent attendant at the Rev. Dr. Paxton’s church
and at the Presbyterian church at Irvington-on-the-Hudson, near his
country place. An old friend of the family said that when a very young
man Jay Gould became converted at a Methodist revival meeting. This
gentleman said:
“When Jay Gould was a young man he was converted in a Methodist church
at Roxbury, Delaware county, N. Y. The Rev. Mr. Dutcher, father of Rev.
E. C. Dutcher, now pastor of the Methodist Episcopal church in Nyack,
Newark conference, was pastor in charge of the Roxbury church. The
elder Mr. Dutcher was holding a series of revival meetings. The little
Delaware county church was crowded night after night.
“At one of the meetings, after a specially earnest appeal by the
venerable preacher, young Gould went forward to the altar and professed
conversion. He subsequently connected himself with the Presbyterians.
The late Rev. Dr. Jacob West, then corresponding secretary of the Board
of Foreign Missions of the Dutch Reformed church, preached a number of
times in the Roxbury Reformed church. Gould always attended, and the
Rev. Dr. West frequently said Gould was always a remarkably attentive
listener.”
Mr. Gould’s name was discussed most prominently in connection with
church work last February, when he gave his check for $10,000 to
the Rev. Dr. John Hall. The circumstances aroused much comment and
considerable unfavorable criticism.
On Tuesday evening, February 23d, the Gould mansion was handsomely
lighted up. Over one hundred invitations had been issued by Mr.
Gould and his daughter, Miss Helen Gould, to prominent Presbyterians
and members of the Presbyterian Board of Church Extension. It was
understood by those receiving the invitations that the reception was
solely for the purpose of raising funds. Mr. and Miss Gould received
the guests. They were assisted by Mrs. Russell Sage and Mrs. J. P.
Munn. The Rev. Dr. Paxton said, in the course of his opening address to
the guests:
“When I asked Mr. Gould about opening his home for a meeting of the
friends of Presbyterian church extension, without hesitation or
deliberation he and Miss Gould said at once, and said it cordially:
‘Certainly, with great pleasure,’ and Mr. Gould added: ‘I believe in
church extension on Manhattan Island.’ But Mr. Gould has taken another
step in the right direction, for since he asked us here--Mr. Sage told
me this--Mr. Gould, who is superficial in nothing, wanted to know what
church extension is, and what church ought to be extended, and so he
read our confession of faith.
“I am not certain of that, for he and the revision and new creed people
would not agree; he is old school; he believes in obeying marching
orders, like Wellington; in walking in the old paths, like the New York
_Observer_. But one thing, Mr. Sage told me, our host has made up his
mind on, and that was that our form of church government was the most
just, the most republican, the best in the world. Therefore, our host
is not only in favor of church extension but of Presbyterian church
extension. He wants no popery, no prelacy, no three orders in a church
in a land where all are equal in rights and before the law. I am sure
this information will warm Dr. Hall’s heart and impart to his speech
increased fervor when he speaks to-night.
“We are here to face the foe, to take heart of hope, to give our money,
our prayers, our tribute, our toil, knowing no such word as fail,
to this good cause of extending, as Mr. Gould says, the only true,
holy, catholic, American church--our old blue-bordered Presbyterian
denomination.”
“I have never met Mr. Gould but once before,” said the Rev. Dr. Hall,
“and that was many years ago. A gentleman in Chicago wrote me regarding
a missionary, who had been called back from China by the illness of his
wife. The wife had recovered after the missionary’s return, and the
couple wanted to return to China again. The Chicago gentleman wanted
to know if I could not secure a free pass for the man. I went to the
railroad authorities, and was referred to Mr. Gould.
“I entered the room with fear and trembling and with many misgivings. I
had never seen Mr. Gould, and you can all sympathize with my feelings.
He received me cordially and listened to all I had to say. He said he
thought it was a very deserving case and asked me to leave a memorandum
of it. The next day I received a communication from him containing a
ticket for the railway journey and another for the missionary’s passage
to his destination.”
About $20,000 was subscribed at this reception, and Jay Gould gave
his check for $10,000. The Rev. Dr. Parkhurst was among those who
criticised the affair as an ostentatious display of wealth in the name
of religion. He wanted to know where Mr. Gould got that $10,000.
The religious side of Mr. Gould’s life, so far as the public knew
anything of it, was fully told at this church-extension reception.
Mr. Gould was interested in the extension of the University of the City
of New York. Chancellor MacCracken said:
“Mr. Gould was very much interested in the university from his interest
in telegraphy and telegraph lines and the fact that in this building
the first telegraph had its home. Prof. Morse labored here fifty-five
years ago, and was assisted by two of the university’s professors,
Profs. Gail and Vail.
“I had known Mr. Gould for five years, and from the beginning of our
acquaintance he evinced an interest in the close relation between
the university and telegraphy, and he made it a favorite subject of
conversation. He made the largest single subscription toward our
purchase of the uptown grounds, $25,000, and he gave an additional
conditional pledge which I have never made public and shall not yet.”
In his active, tempestuous business career one might infer that Jay
Gould had little time and less inclination to take up charitable work
to any extent. As a matter of fact, what little is known of him in this
connection became public within a very recent period. His friends say
he gave largely and was generous to a degree when he was assured of the
genuineness of a reported case of distress. He never, so far as can be
learned, made use of any public organization in the disbursement of
funds for any charitable object. Whatever he did he preferred to do
with his characteristic secrecy.
He was greatly influenced by his family in giving, and through his
children quite a large number of institutions were aided by the money
of the financier. For instance, his daughter Helen, of whom he was
exceedingly fond, is interested in many organizations engaged in
charity work. Through her Jay Gould has given frequently and largely.
A pretty story is told of the charity organization society that existed
in Mr. Gould’s own household. Its sessions were held each morning after
breakfast. Like other rich men, he was assailed constantly with showers
of begging letters. These were regularly sorted out every morning, and
each member of the family chose as many from the pile as desired until
none were left. If a letter appeared to describe a case of real need it
was placed in the center of the table. The others were burned.
Then ensued quiet investigation, conducted as secretly as the
operations of the closest detective bureau. People in want were given
aid commensurate with the needs of the particular case, but were
never able to thank the donor, for the identity of the giver was never
disclosed. In this way, it is said, many hundreds of poor people were
relieved.
Another method employed was to look up cases of distress independent of
the petitions poured in by mail. To just what extent this charitable
work was carried on will never be known, for those conversant with it
will not speak of it.
Mr. Gould’s name is unidentified with any great public benefactions.
Astor and Tilden founded libraries, Drew established a theological
seminary, George I. Seney distributed millions and Vanderbilt endowed
a hospital, but Gould’s purse was never opened by any such generous
ambition. He was kind to his relatives, gave his brother a good
position in the Missouri Pacific railroad and built his sisters a
school in Camden. He gave liberally to alleviate the suffering by
the Chicago fire and by the Memphis yellow-fever plague, made big
subscriptions to the Grant and Garfield funds, and added eighty acres
to the Mount Vernon property. This was nearly all he did in a public
way. Gould’s politics sprang from his pocket, not from his patriotism.
He has already been quoted as saying that “in Republican districts he
was a Republican, in Democratic districts a Democrat, and in all an
Erie man.” But Mr. Gould was more a Republican than anything else,
for he obtained, or thought he could obtain, more recognition and
protection from that party than from the Democratic. The Republican
party was the party of large land grants, of liberal appropriations
and of corporation tendencies. In presidential elections Mr. Gould
often contributed heavily to the Republican campaign fund, and his
check was always solicited and joyfully received. In 1880 his money
was probably part of that which bought Indiana for the Republicans,
and it was charged that he obtained reward from President Garfield
in the appointment of Stanley Matthews as associate justice of the
Supreme Court, whose views relative to the Pacific railroads and
other corporation questions were understood to be favorable to Gould.
This charge, of course, was hard to prove, and may be unjust to both
Garfield and Matthews.
In 1884 Gould supported Blaine. He was present at the celebrated
millionaire dinner given to Blaine at Delmonico’s two or three
evenings before the election, and which, with the Burchard incident,
probably turned the evenly-balanced scales of public opinion against
the Maine statesman. Gould’s money was powerful and his presence was
contaminating, and the public distrusted any of its servants who seemed
to be friendly with him.
One of the most sensational stories about Mr. Gould’s career is told by
a prominent politician now in Washington.
“His next appearance here after the ‘Black Friday’ excitement,” said
the politician, “was when he tried to bribe Congress to let up on the
Union Pacific railroad, which then owed the government $1,000,000,000.
He desired the passage of a bill giving favorable terms to the railroad
in adjusting its outstanding liabilities with the government.
Huntington was here with Gould. Money was plentiful as water. As one
man who got some of it said, ‘All that was necessary to do was to
stretch your hand and take it.’ Gould, flushed by success with his own
creatures, fancied he could buy a majority. In fact, he thought he
could buy the entire Congress if he desired. He went into a prominent
senator’s room on Fourteenth street whom he knew slightly. He told
him he wanted to talk to him about the pending bill. ‘Mr. Gould,’ the
senator replied, ‘if you want to see me about public affairs, you will
have to call on me at the senate.’
“‘But I don’t want to go to the senate. I won’t go there. I want your
assistance and I desire to make it worth your while to assist me.’
“‘Mr. Gould,’ said the senator, rising and pointing to the door,
‘oblige me by leaving my rooms.’
“Gould, dumbfounded, went. But he was more successful elsewhere. He
needed forty votes. I saw a list on the day the debate was to end. It
contained the names of forty-three senators who were to vote for the
bill. I called old Thurman out. I told him he was beaten. He asked why.
‘Because,’ I said, ‘Gould and Huntington have forty-three votes.’ He
said it was impossible and I told him of the list I had seen. He wanted
the list. I doubted my ability to get it. ‘You must get it,’ he said. I
was a correspondent, and after a while secured the list and copied it
for my paper. Then I showed it to Thurman. He put on his glasses, took
a pinch of snuff, read the list, and exclaiming, ‘This is just what I
want,’ rushed into the senate.
“When Stanley Matthews, one of Gould’s creatures, who was speaking,
sat down, Senator Thurman rose to close the debate. I was in the press
gallery. Gould and Huntington sat in the senators’ special gallery with
the list of their creatures in their hands to check off every senator
as he voted in order that they might know who were faithful to their
bribes. They smiled pityingly when the old Roman began. They did not
believe in integrity. To them every man had his price, and they had
paid the price of a majority--Thurman’s speech could not hurt them. It
was a magnificent speech. Thurman rang all the changes and his honest
face, his earnest voice, imposing presence and piercing eyes made many
a public bribe-taker wince. His eloquence was wonderful, and toward the
last the smile of pity on Gould’s face gave way to a look of anxiety
and that to fear. When in ending, the old Roman, rising to his fullest
height, cried out: ‘It has been charged that mighty millionaires have
purchased a majority of this senate; that they have collars around the
necks of forty-three. There are circumstances which suggest, if they do
not prove, the correctness of that charge. Can it be true? A list has
been prepared containing the names of the forty-three. Here it is.’
“He took it from his pocket, and while many a face blanched he read it.
‘And now,’ he concluded after an almost breathless silence, ‘now we
will see if the charge be true.’
“Well, the vote was taken. Before it was half over I knew that most of
the forty-three had taken to the woods. Blaine, Matthews and Hill, of
Georgia, I remember, stood their ground and voted for Gould; but when
the clerk footed up the vote it was found that Gould had, instead of
forty-three, only fifteen votes. His face was black with rage, and so
was Huntington’s. It was a hard day for them, but it was a glorious one
for Thurman, and to him the country owes a debt of gratitude.”
No man in the country had a wider audience than Gould. Whatever he
had to say was sure of publication in every newspaper in the land.
Journals that continually denounced him would print everything he had
to say as a matter of news. Gould was always an interesting figure. The
public never tired of reading about him, his operations, his yacht,
his home, his daily life. Every word he uttered was eagerly reported
and his movements were watched as closely as the President’s. In his
later years he was quite accessible to newspaper men, and they found
him not averse to the process of interviewing if he had anything to
say. The _Tribune_ and _Sun_ were his favorite mediums of communication
with the public, because they seldom attacked and often defended
Gould. Indeed, they were looked upon as his personal organs during
a part of his life. But Gould would frequently give interviews to
other papers. He recognized the fact that the papers which opposed
him were of the widest circulation and influence, and that if he had
anything to say it was time to give it to the largest circulation. The
_World_ was foremost in denouncing his operations, but he was often
pleased to reach the public through its columns, even if his words
were accompanied with severe editorial criticism. Mr. Gould was a good
talker; he possessed the art of saying little or much, as he pleased.
The most skillful of interviewers could not trap him into saying
something which he did not wish to say. When he got through he would
stop, and no amount of ingenuity could induce him to continue. Mr.
Gould was fond of testifying to the honesty and good faith of newspaper
men. When he knew his man he said he could trust him not to betray him.
But Gould almost invariably insisted on seeing the proof-sheets of the
interview before publication.
From 1880 to 1883 Mr. Gould owned the _World_. We have his own word
(in an interview in the _World_ in June, 1883) that he purchased the
control of the paper from Col. Tom Scott, the famous Pennsylvania
railroad king, as a part of a negotiation which included also the
purchase of the Texas Pacific railroad. Mr. Gould said that Col. Scott
appealed to him at Berne, Switzerland, in 1879, to take the road and
the paper off his hands. William Henry Hurlbert, who was editor of
the _World_ under Gould, gave a different version of the transaction,
claiming that the purchase from Col. Scott was the result of a
negotiation opened by Mr. Hurlbert with Mr. Gould.
The _World_ did not thrive under the ownership of Gould. It did not
possess public confidence. The paper was used as an instrument in
Gould’s Wall street operations. Brilliant editorials could not redeem
it from the withering influence of Gould’s name. Its circulation had
shrunk to 15,000 when Mr. Joseph Pulitzer purchased it in May, 1883.
After church, charities, politics and the press, the relations of Mr.
Gould with his employes are interesting to notice.
Mr. Gould was not a believer in cheap men. In the employment of help
he regarded economy as poor policy. In the various branches of his
extended business he aimed to secure the best men possible, and he was
never known to dicker over the amount of pay. His conspicuous success
in avoiding the legal shoals through which he was obliged to thread
his way during his eventful career was due mainly to the fact that he
always had in his employ the very best legal talent that money could
procure.
The story about Mr. Sage and his office boy has been frequently told in
Wall street, but it has never appeared in print. Mr. Sage had an office
boy who had been with him for several years, was familiar with his
methods and moods, and understood perfectly well the status of each of
Mr. Sage’s customers. The boy was alert, tactful and faithful, and in
due course of time received tempting offers to leave Mr. Sage’s employ.
He, however, stuck to Mr. Sage for a long while, imbued with the false
hope of advancement.
The boy’s salary was $15 a week, and when he told Mr. Sage one day
that he had been offered $25 a week to go elsewhere, Mr. Sage coldly
told him that he had better go, and he went. Jay Gould happened in Mr.
Sage’s office a few days afterward and casually remarked: “Why, where
is John?”
“Oh! he has left me,” said Mr. Sage. “He got extravagant notions in his
head and I had to let him go. But I’ve got a new boy and I save $3 a
week on his salary.”
“You do, eh?” remarked Mr. Gould, with undisguised disgust. “Well, have
you figured how much you will lose on his blunders?”
When Col. F. K. Hain was made general manager of the elevated railroads
in this city, he was unknown to Mr. Gould. It was not long, however,
before the quiet little millionaire began to take a lively interest
in him. Col. Hain possesses qualities which excited admiration in Mr.
Gould’s breast. One day, not many years ago, Mr. Gould, as president
of the Manhattan Railway Company, received Col. Hain’s written
resignation. In great surprise he sent for Mr. Hain and asked him to
explain the reason for his resignation.
“Mr. Gould,” said the colonel, “I have received from the Reading
Railroad Company an offer of the position of general manager at a
salary of $12,000 a year, and in justice to myself and my family I do
not think that I ought to refuse it.”
“How much are you getting here?” asked Mr. Gould.
“Six thousand five hundred dollars a year,” replied Col. Hain.
“Is the increase in salary your only reason for your resignation?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Will you stay with us for $15,000 a year?” asked Mr. Gould.
“Certainly,” responded Col. Hain.
“Very well, let it be so,” said Mr. Gould. “And, Colonel, I am
perfectly satisfied with your work. Never let a question of money come
between us.”
The loyalty of S. S. H. Clark, general manager of the Missouri Pacific
and president of the Union Pacific, to Mr. Gould has been the subject
of frequent comment. Mr. Clark is by no means a low-priced man, and the
fact that he has long been one of Mr. Gould’s trusted lieutenants means
that he has not worked for low pay.
It is related that the Atchison people once tried to get Mr. Clark
to enter their employ by offering him an advance of $10,000 on the
salary the Missouri Pacific company was giving him. Mr. Clark promptly
refused the offer and said nothing. Mr. Gould, however, heard of the
matter from other sources, and on the Christmas day following Mr. Clark
received a check for $50,000 with a short note which read: “A merry
Christmas to my loyal friend.--Jay Gould.”
“During the big strike troubles in the Missouri Pacific,” said one
broker, “one of the employees who stood by the company was shot and
killed. I entered Mr. Gould’s office a few days later and found him
making out a check. As I approached the desk I saw that the check was
for $5,000, drawn to the order of the widow of the murdered man. Mr.
Gould quickly turned the paper face downward.
“‘You are too late, Mr. Gould,’ I said. ‘I unintentionally read the
check.’
“He smiled a little as he quietly remarked, ‘We must look out for those
who stand by us.’”