•1890–1894
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • MONDAY 28 APRIL 1890
OFFICE OF THE COUNSEL TO THE CORPORATION April 28 1890
My Dear Lloyd
It seems to me very necessary that we should get up a big “citizens meeting” as you once proposed to give support to the strikers.1 I fear that their cause will be lost unless we move at once & show that there is something back of them. I see that Franklin Head2 et al. are getting up what is called a “Patriotic Club” or something of that kind & are to hold a meeting on April 30th. Do you see? This is one more evidence of the truth of Johnston’s statement that “Patriotism is the last resort of a knave.” Can you not come & see me right away.
As Ever C.S. Darrow.
MS: ALS, WHi, Lloyd Papers.
TO PAUL DARROW • MT. CLEMENS, MICHIGAN • WEDNESDAY 7 JANUARY 1891
THE FOUNTAIN HOTEL. Jan 7, 1891
Dear Little Boy
I was glad to get your letter and should have answered it a good while ago. I think I will be home on Sunday or Monday. I am better than when I went away. Have taken a bath every day.3 The water has salt and iron and lots of other things in it; it is so heavy that you can’t sink in it and when you come out your ears are full of salt. When I come back I will see if I can not get some one to give you some lessons on the fiddle. I think you ought to learn to play.
I expect Uncle Hube4 to come up here from Detroit to see me today. I suppose school has commenced and that you are going every day. I will send a letter with this to mama.
Your father | C.S. Darrow.
MS: ALS, Darrow Family. ENVELOPE ADDRESS: Paul Everett Darrow Esq. | Chicago | 86–53rd. St. POSTMARK: Mt. Clemens, 7 January 1891.
TO JESSIE DARROW • MT. CLEMENS, MICHIGAN • WEDNESDAY 7 JANUARY 1891
THE FOUNTAIN HOTEL. Jan 7 1891
Dear Jessie
Enclosed find $5. I would send more but I borrowed this. Have had no money since I came. Will be home on Monday morning at the latest & will then get some money. I have plenty in the bank. If any thing happens that I stay longer will send for some money & see that you get some. I am sorry I did not do it before. It is no matter about the piano. You had better spend all the time practicing that you can while Helen tends to the house.5 It is just as well if she wants to do it. Let them do as they please & get along as we will not be there long & if you want to go away for a month when I get back you can do it. I am continuing to get better & think I will be in pretty good shape when I return though not quite well. Am sorry to hear Everett is sick. Have heard nothing from father—
Clarence—
MS: ALS, Darrow Family.
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • WEDNESDAY 23 DECEMBER 1891
CHICAGO & NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY CO. Dec. 23rd ’91
My Dear Lloyd
It will not be possible for me to meet you tomorrow so I write you a few lines in answer to your question.6
The police are supposed to be appointed to enforce the law nothing more. They & their lords have no more right to do an illegal act than a human being has. The constitution guarantees the right of free assemblage & all kinds of people have the legal right to meet & express their views. I know of no limit to this right except the right to disperse a meeting at times of riot or great public excitement, when the gathering of a crowd causes immediate & imminent danger as for instance during a great strike or some great popular excitement. The gathering of crowds might be prevented on the street. This can not be construed to prevent meetings in public halls, certainly at a time when no riot is imminent. Every person has the right to say what he will being responsible for what he says. One may be guilty of murder by directly advising an other to commit it. He may also be guilty of using seditious, or obscene language, but the use of this by a speaker gives no warrant whatever for the breaking up of a meeting. The evidence & decision of J.P. shows that no words were used at the meeting that were actionable, none were charged, but if the speaker instead of saying the Mayor was a dude had advised his hearers to kill him on sight it would have given no warrant for interfering with the meeting. It would have simply justified the arrest of the speaker, & the proper way to have done that would have been to procure a warrant.7 To say that a meeting may be dispersed because a speaker uses illegal language save in case of riot is absurd. A man with the best of intentions may attend a meeting where some crank uses language he does not indorse. This does not justify a policeman in driving the auditors from the hall. No audience can be made responsible for what the speaker says. A man might attend a meeting with the best of intentions & even you or I might be called on to speak. The raid was illegal without any sort of warrant. This being so, those who occupied the hall had the right to defend their possession with weapons against the police if they wished. The fact that these policemen invaded the hall & violated the rights of the people assembled shows that it was reasonable for the people to go armed. You might take a hint from this & go prepared on Sunday night.
I do not think of any other points. If there are others send me word or telephone me to no. 618 on Saturday A.M.
Am sorry not to meet you.
Sincerely Yours | C.S. Darrow.
MS: ALS, WHi, Lloyd Papers.
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • MONDAY 28 DECEMBER 1891
CHICAGO & NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY CO. Dec. 28th. ’91
My Dear Lloyd
Your speech last night was great.8 In logic & law it can not be disputed. It made me feel that I am a hypocrite & a slave and added to my resolution to make my time of servitude short.
I am glad that you dare to say what is true & know so well how to say it.
Sincerely | C.S. Darrow.
MS: ALS, WHi, Lloyd Papers.
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • SATURDAY 12 NOVEMBER 1892
Nov. 12th. ’92
My Dear Lloyd
To night Mr. Catlin told me something of today’s meeting of the “Labor Committee”—and for that reason I wish to state my position to you.9 Two weeks ago I sent my resignation to the committe as I became thoroughly convinced that it was organized to prevent honest discussion of the “labor question” instead of promote it. I did this as I believed only after a fair trial of the committee and on sufficient evidence to support my theory. More than a year ago at my request & in a meeting when you were present they promised to report to us within two weeks (or at next meeting) the relation between the labor committe & the “so called” Auxilliery. Nothing has been done in a year but to delay & leave the “labor committe” completely in the hands of Mr. Bonney10 and some more bumptious fanatics with full power to revise and annul every thing the committe does. This after these men have shown their caliber by declaring publicly that they will discuss all phases of the labor question but “Anarchism” and all religions but “Mormanism” provided no one says any thing about against Christianity. This committe has set apart six days for discussing labor and six weeks for discussing religion showing that they have the orthodox idea of the relative value of the poor man’s body and soul, and which they propose to help.—The result will be that they will spend the six days teaching the poor to be patient in this world and the six weeks in telling them how happy they will be in the next. Mr. Mills—Rev. Mills,11 has tried to quiet the committe by telling them that they need no pledges from Mr. Wordy Bonney but that if they go ahead in their own way the bosses will consent to any programme they make, this after being told in advance what they must not do and after advertising to the world their own narrowness and imbecility.—They have not had the candor to say fairly to the committe what they can do knowing that if they did the committe would resign & go to work on their own account, but instead of that have deceived and misled them believing the Christian doctrine that lying is proper if it results in the glory of God, which of course means his agents. The programme at the Dedicatory exercise was sufficient further evidence of their purpose & caliber.12 I have never seen or written to any of the members privately about this matter before. I said what I thought in the committe and the rest did not see it my way, so I quit resigned. You were not present and for that reason I desired to give you my views. I believe the committee is being deceived and played with for the purpose of confounding and misleading the cause of labor, and especially to prevent any radical utterances by any independent men or bodies and I am surprised that the committee, composed of individuals who are sincere in their devotion to the cause of the poor can not understand their schemes and tricks.13
When I was East last summer I stopped at New Port a day and tried very hard to see you but could not get across, so I contented myself looking at Vanderbilt’s home.14 I have been hoping to see you ever since your return but have been disappointed. I wish you might drop in some time when you are down. I should be very glad of a call. I hope soon to see the book and am sure it will be fine—I have become a great enthusiast over Howells. Remember me kindly to Mrs. Lloyd
Sincerely your friend | C.S. Darrow.
MS: ALS, WHi, Lloyd Papers. PLACE: no reason to doubt Chicago.
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • FRIDAY 28 APRIL 1893
CHICAGO & NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY CO. April 28
My Dear Lloyd
On Saturday night (tomorrow) I am to read a paper to the law club on Judge Gary’s article.15 Would you like to go? If so please come to my office at 5–30. You do not need to go but Judge Gary (high executioner) will be there & the debate will perhaps be lively.16
Very truly | C.S. Darrow.
MS: ALS, WHi, Lloyd Papers. DATE: appended.
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • MONDAY 10 JULY 1893
CITY OF CHICAGO July 10th ’93
My Dear Lloyd
Today’s mail bring me a notice of a meeting of executive committee at Mr. Barry’s17 office tomorrow Tuesday at 5–30 P.M. I hope you can come as I am anxious to see this committee disband. I do not like to see Barry’s name in print in connection with any thing in which I believe and I do not like to be subject to his call at any moment. I am always afraid he will say or do something for the papers & I think we ought to wind up the concern and place it on a new basis. I hope you can come tomorrow. I see by the papers that Mr. Howells is to be here this week. If it should be convenient to you & him I wish I might meet him some where. If you & he were to be down town at lunch hour I wish you could arrange to go to Iroquois Club with me.18 Of course this matter is of more importance to me than to Mr. Howells.
Very truly | C.S. Darrow.
MS: ALS, WHi, Lloyd Papers.
TO THE CHICAGO HERALD • CHICAGO • MONDAY 4 SEPTEMBER 1893
CHICAGO, Sept. 4.—Editor of The Herald: It has been the custom of the press to publish the number of paid admissions each day, also the number of admissions by passes.19 This rule has been universal except as to Sunday, when only paid admissions are given. No doubt this is because no information is given out upon the subject of Sunday admission by passes.
Sunday, by the grace of Judge Goggin,20 I attended the fair and for some time watched the people enter the grounds. I discovered that the pass gates were crowded while the pay gates were poorly patronized. This demonstrated what was before plain to me, that few people had religious objections to attending the fair on Sunday provided they held a pass. It shows conclusively that the paid admissions are comparatively small because people do not wish to pay full price for half a show. It cannot be accounted for on the ground that exhibitors and employees go on Sunday and therefore passes are used. This class of people stay away more generally on Sunday than on any other day. The passes are used by well-dressed, well-to-do people—such as always have passes—and these go on Sunday in spite of the fact that there is less to see than on other days.
If the directors would reduce the price to 25 cents on Sunday with children free, the grounds would be filled. All the other public parks and places of resort are over-crowded on Sunday, better patronized than on week days. Why would not the rule be the same with the fair?
And why should not this be done? No complaint can be made but that the fair management has been very courteous and considerate to princes and princesses, lords and ladies, ra-jays and other jays of high degree, but the people who built the fair and made all its exhibits have not been able to see its wonders.
Everyone knows that the times are very hard, that thousands are out of work, that wages have been reduced, and that a committee is at work in Chicago feeding the hungry. Everyone knows that this year at least the working people and their children cannot afford to visit the fair at the regular price of admission. In addition to this $5,000,000 has been raised by taxation on the citizens of Chicago. This sum in the end comes out of labor, as all burdens must at last come from production. Should not the poor have some benefit from this?
There are thousands of little children in Chicago who cannot see the fair unless they are admitted free. There are thousands of men and women who cannot see it at the regular price. Would it not be wise and generous for the directors to give these little ones some pleasure from the fair, especially when it can be done without expense and when they have paid a large sum by way of taxation to make what it is.
To give these poor children and other less favored people a chance to see the fair will pay. If it does not pay in dollars, it will pay in general culture, in education, refinement, good fellowship and good will among all our citizens, and when the fair is over and the directors confront a bankrupt treasury it will be well to have some of these assets to their credit.
C.S. DARROW.
MS: “Voice of the People. To Make Sunday Opening Popular. Assistant City Attorney Darrow Argues for 25-Cent Admission to the Fair on Sunday—Present Rates a Barrier to the Poor,” Chicago Herald, 8 September 1893.
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • THURSDAY 12 OCTOBER 1893
GOODRICH & VINCENT October 12th, 1893.
My dear Lloyd:—
You will no doubt remember that about a year after the execution of the anarchists Judge Gary made a speech at a bar dinner in which he said that the extortions of capital amounted to very little, but that labor unions were great tyrants, etc.
I well remember your reply to him in the Herald.21 Can you give me the exact date of this speech, and if you have a copy of it you can spare for a short time. I would be very glad to have it at once. I think it would be a good thing to circulate at this time.
I wish you would call and see me some morning soon at the office.
C.S. Darrow
MS: TLS, WHi, Lloyd Papers. INSIDE ADDRESS: Mr. Henry D. Lloyd, | Winnetka, Illinois.
TO THE CHICAGO HERALD • CHICAGO • SATURDAY 18 NOVEMBER 1893
CHICAGO, Nov. 18.—Editor of The Herald: If any further evidence were needed to show that man had his origin in the brute creation, the conduct and utterances of the public in reference to the shooting of our mayor has furnished that proof.22
Everyone realizes the terrible nature of the deed and the frightful consequences of the act. Nothing can be said or done to make the calamity less or greater or to unmake the facts that are beyond recall. Heaping reproaches upon the miserable being who took his life cannot help the dead or alleviate the sorrows of his family and friends.
It seems as if the whole community had gone mad at the sight of blood and were ready to forget the better instincts that it was supposed civilization had developed in mankind. Some of our papers say that no loophole of the law must be found by lawyer, judge or jury that will permit the prisoner’s escape. Others, that all that is now needed is a piece of rope and that no time should be wasted in a trial of the case. We read a graphic description of how the prisoner was told by guards and fellow prisoners that a mob outside the jail were preparing to batter down the walls and put him to death without the aid of law. We are told how he trembled and turned pale with fear, and as we realize his exquisite torture we are consoled for the loss of the thumbscrew and the rack and conclude that we can accomplish the same object quite as well without.
Most men admit that the prisoner was insane and yet lawyers, doctors, merchants and men of all classes are almost unanimous in saying that, whether sane or insane, the wretched being ought to hang. In this cry for blood the clergy seem to lead. They are paid for teaching mercy and pity, and it seems as if some of them, at least, might say some kind word of the unfortunate being or, at least, of his mother and his kin. I suppose that from their standpoint even he has a soul that must be saved or lost. The ablest criminal lawyer in the west has been employed to prosecute the case and numberless expert doctors have been hired by the state to prove him sane.
Against this array the voice of justice must be very loud to be heard above the din. Is it possible that the community measures the consequences of its acts?
Here was a young man or boy delivering papers from door to door; he caught the mania of a popular craze; he caught it in the air from those who write and speak; he believed that he was to be made corporation counsel, although a paper peddler who had never read a line of law; he went to the law office of the city and told the corporation counsel that he wished his place. The corporation counsel told him he could have it in a little while, and introduced him to the office force as his successor in the place. He did not get the office; he went to the mayor’s house and shot him, then went out onto the streets, no one knowing who he was or what he was, went two miles or more to a police station and placed himself in the custody of the law. Were these the acts of a sane man, responsible for his deeds?
The chief of police, Inspectors Shea, Kipley and Ross are all on record as saying that he is insane, and still it is proposed to kill him whether he is sane or not.
It is urged by nine men out of ten that it makes no difference whether he is crazy or not, he ought to be hanged, and those who protest are called “sickly sentimentalists.” Is it not time for a sober second thought? Under the laws of Illinois, if this man were crazy he is not guilty of a crime. Can we afford to sweep away the law because a great majority believe a prisoner has no right to live? Shall a majority say that the law shall be ignored when they believe the necessities demand? If this be the case, then there is no longer need for law. If the law is not strong enough to protect the humblest and weakest citizen it deserves the contempt of all. We cannot use it when we would and ignore it when we will. We cannot sow the wind without reaping the whirlwind.
Can the community afford to say that they hanged a lunatic against the law, because the world was better with him dead? If this were the standard the hangman and the foolkiller would be a very busy pair.
Suppose this man had been ill with typhoid fever and in a moment of delirium had seized a revolver and gone to the mayor’s house and shot him down; would the community say he should be hanged, lest if he were locked up the fever might sometime leave him and he would be turned loose? Neither in morals nor in law is he responsible if he was not himself, and to put a crazy man to death would not be worthy of a savage tribe.
The law of compensation controls the universe. It may not matter much to the unfortunate prisoner or even to his mother and brother whether he shall live or die; but the spectacle of a civilized community pitilessly killing a crazy man will furnish an example of cruelty and fury that in some way must bear evil fruit.23
C.S. DARROW.
MS: “The Cry for Blood,” Chicago Herald, 20 November 1893.
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • FRIDAY 12 OCTOBER 1894
COLLINS, GOODRICH, DARROW & VINCENT Oct. 12th ’94
Mr. Dear Lloyd
Thanks for your suggestion as to auditorium meeting. I will see that it is carried out.24
Can we not do something with the Times? I am told that it must be sold and will be and that it can be had at any price. Don’t you think something can be done at once.25 I am anxious to have some talk with you before I speak, & as early as I can. I am somewhat in doubt as to the line I should adopt. Can you not come in some day to lunch.
Yours C.S. Darrow.
MS: ALS, WHi, Lloyd Papers.
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • THURSDAY 22 NOVEMBER 1894
863 THE ROOKERY Nov. 22d.
Dear Lloyd
Do you know that they are making history very fast in America, and all the history is against freedom.26
Yesterday several A.R.U. men were convicted in Los Angeles—practically for striking.27 Trials are now on all over the country. Next month some will be convicted here. The people are dead. Can any thing be done to resurrect them, before liberty is dead? I am very much discouraged at the prospect. I can not join the other side but what can be done?
I am also in a quandry about the People’s Party. I might be willing to join a Socialists party, but I am not willing to help run an other Socialist movement under the guise of “The People’s party.” We must take some stand or drop out altogether.
I hoped I might see you before this.
I send you a pamphlet which the Rail roads are circulating everywhere to help make opinion for fools, which is for everyone—What do you think? Can you see any way to do any more to counteract it?
This is one of the days when I feel blue. Will you kindly return the pamphlet as I want it in the case and may not get an other one?
Truly Yours | C.S. Darrow
MS: ALS, WHi, Lloyd Papers. DATE: “[1894]” is appended.
TO HENRY DEMAREST LLOYD • CHICAGO • SATURDAY 24 NOVEMBER 1894
863 THE ROOKERY
Dear Mr. Lloyd,
If I can possibly come tomorrow I will but fear I can not, at least until late.
I think you did not understand my position. I never did and never will believe in banning any one out of any thing least of all the Socialists of whom I am one. My only suggestion was as to whether we could claim to commit the People’s party to Socialism. I think it was done too much in the last campaign—for instance all the litterature circulated at the meeting was entirely socialistic such as the “People’s party” would not indorse and as it was under their auspices it ought not to have been such as was antagonistic to a large portion of the party. I have no objection to the speakers talking Socialism as all of us did but these were understood views, but I must say I think the effort was made to commit the party further than the party ever went.—I am inclined to think that I would be willing to support a straight Socialistic movement and perhaps that is best, but if we intend to work with the great national “People’s party” we must keep in line with it, leaving each person to have their own views & express them but not seeking to commit the party to any thing they do not wish to indorse. I believe the Socialists are the best Radicals we have and I always have and always will support and defend them. I only insist that we ought to make the movement stand for just what it pretends or we can not keep it together. I hope I can see you and talk it all over.
Sincerely Yours | C.S. Darrow.
MS: ALS, WHi, Lloyd Papers. DATE: “[24 Nov. 1894]” is appended.