[XXIII]
THE MOUSE AND THE LION
There was an activity in the offices of Kenyon, Hood and Gallatin chiefly centering around the doings of the youngest member of the firm which had caused the methodical Tooker some skeptical and unquiet moments. He had witnessed these spurts of industry before and remembered that they had always presaged the bursting of a bubble and the disappearance of the junior partner for a protracted period, at the end of which he would return to the office, pale, nervous and depressed. But as the weeks went by, far beyond the time usually marked for this event, Tooker began to realize that something unusual had happened. The chief clerk could hardly be called an observant man, for his business in life kept him in a narrow groove, but he awoke one morning to the discovery that a remarkable change had taken place in the manner and bearing of Mr. Gallatin. There were none of those fidgety movements of the fingers, that quick and sometimes overbearing speech, or the habit Mr. Gallatin had had (as his father had had it before him) of pacing up and down the floor of his room, his hands behind his back, his brows bent over sullen eyes. Mr. Gallatin’s manner and speech were quieter, his gaze more direct and more lasting. He smiled more, and his capacity for work seemed unlimited. Tooker waited for a long while, and then came to the conclusion that a new order of things had begun and that the junior partner had found himself.
There had been frequent important conferences in Mr. Kenyon’s office between the partners during which Philip Gallatin had advised the firm of the progress of the Sanborn case, but it was clear that for the present at least the junior partner dominated the situation. All his life Tooker had been accustomed to follow in the footsteps of others, and was prepared to follow Gallatin gladly, if the junior partner would give him footsteps to follow. And he was now beginning to appreciate the significance of those long visits of Mr. Gallatin in Pennsylvania, and the infinite care and study with which Gallatin had fortified himself. He understood, too, what those piles of documents on Mr. Gallatin’s desk were for, and in the conferences of the firm, when John Kenyon’s incisive voice cut in, he realized that it was more often in encouragement, advice, and appreciation, than in contention or argument.
The Sanborn Company’s directors were represented by the firm of Whitehead, Leuppold, Tyson and Leuppold. This was one of the firms previously mentioned which had offices upon an upper floor and included among its clients many large corporations closely identified with “The Interests.” A correspondence had been passing between Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Leuppold with all of which Tooker was familiar. Mr. Gallatin’s early letters stated that he hoped for a conference with Mr. Loring. Mr. Leuppold’s first replies were couched in polite formulas, the equivalent of which was, in plain English, that Mr. Gallatin might go to the devil, saying that Mr. Loring had nothing to do with the matter. Mr. Gallatin’s reply ignored this suggestion, and again proposed a conference. Mr. Leuppold refused in abrupt terms. Mr. Gallatin gave reasons for his request. Mr. Leuppold couldn’t see them. Mr. Gallatin patiently gave other reasons. Mr. Leuppold ignored this letter. Mr. Gallatin wrote another. Mr. Leuppold in reply considered the matter closed. Mr. Gallatin considered the matter just opened. Mr. Leuppold fulminated politely and satirically suggested intimidation. Mr. Gallatin regretted Mr. Leuppold’s implication but persisted, giving, as his reasons, the discovery of material evidence.
The next day Mr. Leuppold came in person, was shown into Mr. Gallatin’s office and Tooker had been present at the interview. It had been a memorable occasion. Mr. Leuppold wore that suave and confident manner for which he was noted and Gallatin received him with an old-fashioned courtesy and the deference of a younger man for an older, which left nothing to be desired. Accepting this as his due, Leuppold began in a fatherly way to impress upon Gallatin the utter futility of trying to win the injunction in the Court of Appeals. The contentions of Sanborn et al. had no basis either in law or in equity. Mr. Gallatin had doubtless been unduly influenced by doubtful precedents. He, Leuppold, was familiar with every phase of the case and had defended the previous suit which had been brought and lost by a legal firm in Philadelphia. There was absolutely nothing in Mr. Gallatin’s position as stated in his correspondence and he concluded by referring “his young friend” to certain marked passages in a volume which he had brought in under his arm. Gallatin read the passages through with interest and listened with a show of great seriousness to Mr. Leuppold’s interpretation of them. Mr. Leuppold had a mien which commanded attention. Gallatin gave it, but he said little in reply which could indicate his possible ground of action, except to express regret that Mr. Leuppold’s clients had taken such an intolerant view of his own client’s claims and to deplore the unfortunate tone of Mr. Leuppold’s own letter of some days ago.
When it was quite clear to Mr. Leuppold that the young man was not to be moved by persuasion, his manner changed.
“I have done my best, Mr. Gallatin,” he said irritably, “to prove to you the utter futility of your course. My clients have nothing to fear. I am only trying to save them the expense of further litigation. But if you insist on bringing this case to trial, we will welcome the opportunity to show further evidence in our possession. We have been content for the sake of peace to let matters go on as they have been going, but if this suit is pressed, I warn you that it will be unfortunate for your clients.”
“I hope not. I hope we won’t have to bring suit,” replied Gallatin easily. “I’m only asking for a conference of all the parties interested, Mr. Leuppold. That certainly is little enough, an amicable conference, a discussion—if you like——”
“There is nothing to discuss.”
“I beg to differ. Leaving aside for a moment the question of the new evidence in the Sanborn case, do you think that Mr. Loring, who controls its stock, would care to have his connection with the Lehigh and Pottsville Railroad Company brought into court?”