“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.”