Mr. Merz had one serious objection—that in fifty-six cases I failed to name sources of information. He doesn’t tell you in how many cases I did name sources of information; and it seems to me that in fairness the two figures should have been put side by side. I can only say that I named my sources in every case where I was permitted to name them; and I suppressed them in every case where I had pledged my word to do so. Mr. Merz complains that in some cases I do not even name my “villains”; and again I think he ought to count up the “villains” I do name. Let me tell him, in strict confidence: I think I take more risks of libel suits than any other man in America; but there is a limit to the risks I am willing to run. I never make a statement unless I feel sure it is the truth, but I frequently make statements which cause great distress to friends who happen to be lawyers. As this book goes to press, my wife sends me a special delivery letter from one of these gentlemen: “Of course, if Upton wants to go to jail, this is a good way to break in”—and so on.
In the case of “The Brass Check,” one of the most prominent corporation lawyers in the United States read the manuscript, and told me there were fifty criminal libels in it, and not less than a thousand civil suits—unless I could prove my charges. Right now I am on the point of going over “The Goslings,” for the last time before the manuscript goes to the printer; and in a hundred different places I shall stop with my pencil in the air, and ponder the question: shall I leave in this name, or shall I cut it out? And in each case there will be a series of guesses: what will be in this “villain’s” mind? How much has he done, and how much will he think I know? And if it came to a show-down, would this professor or that teacher stand by me? And would I have to travel to Minnesota, or to Massachusetts, or to Texas to defend a libel suit? And where would I get the money? And how would my poor wife stand the ordeal? You see, Mr. Merz, the rôle of Captain Parklebury Todd is a lot more complicated than you realize; there is really more to it than just walking into a room and ejaculating “Boom!”
To come back to the confessions of myself, my secretaries, and my printer and his “devil”: Somebody—I don’t know who it was—played a trick on my Vassar story, taking one of the letters of the Y. W. C. A. and turning it upside down; which brought a worried communication from the president of that institution, asking if I could possibly be under the impression that it was co-educational. (I wasn’t!) But I made several small slips. I got one professor’s initial wrong; I made Finley J. Shepard a lawyer as well as a railroad official; I made Frank B. Leland, Detroit banker, a brother to the motor-magnate, and confused Ogden L. Mills with his grandfather, D. Ogden Mills. I have a letter from Judge Lindsey, telling me that some high-up educator in Denver proved “The Goose-step” an unreliable book by the fact that I stated “that J. P. Morgan was buried from Trinity Church, when as a matter of fact he was buried from St. George’s Church!”
In this case I seem to be, but really am not, guilty. In “The Goose-step,” page 21, I was drawing a humorous picture of the interlocking directorates, and how they work. I imagined Justice Brandeis, in his account of these directorates, going from railroads and steel and coal and telegraphs, to such things as hospitals and churches and universities. “He ought to picture Mr. Morgan dying, and being buried from Trinity Church, in which several of his partners are vestrymen.” Elsewhere I have described Trinity Church as the “Church of J. P. Morgan & Company”[Company”]—and this not merely because of its supply of Morgan vestrymen, but because of the whole spirit of the institution is Morgan. I was aware that Mr. Morgan himself had his own church, for many times in my boyhood I attended it, and saw the old wild boar of Wall Street passing the collection plate.
Also, I made some statements concerning Delaware, and the benevolent feudalism which the du Ponts have set up in the education of that state. My statements were disputed by an elderly gentleman, formerly connected with Delaware College, and having a reputation as a liberal. On the other hand, the statements were strenuously sustained by the two people who had given me the information, and who have reputations as hard-fighting radicals. Not being able to visit Delaware and make a thorough investigation, I cut these paragraphs from the second edition of “The Goose-step.”
No book of mine can be published nowadays without a report upon the latest activities of Professor James Melvin Lee, director of the Department of Journalism at the University of Jabbergrab. I gave Professor Lee a whole chapter in “The Goose-step,” explaining what a peculiar antagonist he is—you supply him with evidence, and he pays no heed to it, but goes right on clamoring for the same evidence. Among many cases, I listed the following detail:
Thus, to a single anecdote of Gaylord Wilshire being misrepresented by the Associated Press, Professor Lee devoted three paragraphs in the “Globe,” demanding at great length the names of the newspapers and the dates; I supplied him with the names and dates of two newspapers—but to no result that I could discover.
Soon after “The Goose-step” came out I began receiving letters from college professors and others, asking for the names and dates of these two newspapers. So I knew that Professor Lee must be up to his old trick! And sure enough, there came a letter from John Haynes Holmes, stating that Professor Lee persisted in arguing with him concerning my truthfulness, and was now basing his case upon the fact that in “The Goose-step” I stated that I had furnished him with the names and dates of two newspapers dealing with the Wilshire story—whereas I had done nothing of the sort. Dr. Holmes requested that I would be so good as to settle the matter by advising him when and how I had supplied these names and dates to Professor Lee.
This issue had come up during my controversy with Professor Lee in New York “Evening Globe,” mentioned in “The Goose-step,” pages 324-6. The conduct of this controversy was as follows: Professor Lee submitted his first article to the “Globe,” and either sent me a copy, or the “Globe” sent me a copy. I then wrote my reply, and either sent a copy to Professor Lee, or the “Globe” sent it. Each of us studied the other’s arguments in detail, trying to pick flaws therein. I presume therefore I may fairly assume that Professor Lee read my three articles! One of these three articles bears the date of Thursday, August 4, 1921, and in it occurs the following:
IN THE MATTER OF WILSHIRE