This is one of the letters that I have where I wish I had Helen's letter to set the scene. Joe does have a way of giving us a sense of the letter without the letter in front of us.
December 32.1915.
Dear Helen:
After having spent a rather miserable Sunday endeavoring to get rid of a slight cold that adopted me for some unknown reason,I found that the State Police had raided a somewhat questionable hostelry in the peaceful Borough of Shelton, and had quite a number of variegated specimens of humanity for me to prosecute Monday morning. A number of the fairer sex-I say that advisedly -who had been caught in the net, and who had furnished bonds for appearance, owing to other engagements no doubt more important than vindicating their fair name in court, failed to put in an appearance, to the disgust of a large audience that had come early to get good seats;and their absence of course relieved me from considerable work.
However, there were enough on hand, with their attorneys to make things hum while the trials lasted, and it was in the afternoon that I found myself on the way to Bridgeport. The Council of Jewish Women had arranged for their monthly meeting for Monday night, and I discovered that I was down for the address that evening on a subject dealing with the romance of the life of Rabbi Akiba who lived about 100 A.D. While meditating whether to deliver an address along the lines or rather frame-work of Hubbard's Little Journey to Mozart (you must read it to appreciate this thrust) the Presiding Officer called and apologized for the fact that they had decided to hold their meeting on January 3rd, owing to the Christmas holidays interfering with the attendance this week.
Tuesday morning, I was trying a case in Court representing my friend Williamson, who was a trustee in an estate here. As I was leaving the office with Williamson, and several more witnesses, I was handed your letter; and as I read it, I thought somebody had thrown some ice water at me, I was mistaken, it was just the atmosphere that seemed to permeate the air that moment. But it woke me up. My case in Court was a very technical one. My opponent was a brilliant lawyer, in fact one time Judge of our higher Court, and but recently our Attorney General. I knew that if there were any flaws in my argument or in my presentation of the evidence he would ferret it out instantly. My fears were quickly dispelled when I saw your letter, however. For, before me, I beheld a perfect specimen of cross-examination and argument in reference to the train schedules of the railroad, corroborated by citations from various newspapers, and then as a grand finale, in riveting your argument you jam my own words down my throat, quoting me verbatim. Faint as any explanations I might have then seemed, and crashed to earth as my excuses then appeared, a new light suddenly broke forth. Why not use that same method of totally annihilating the adversary when I should meet him in Court within the hour? Why not analyze his statements in the same way, and refute his claims by quotations from the newspapers? Why not take some letter he once wrote under circumstances which I knew nothing of, and cared less, and picking out three isolated words/without reference to the context (whatever that was and demand of him what he meant by that? And then ironically kid him along about his wonderful memory ad infinitum raising him up to the observation tower of heaven, and as he steps out of the portico window to gaze upon those beneath, give him a gentle but firm shove off, dashing him to pieces on the pavement below?
Why not? Wasn't it a great precedent I had before me? However, discretion is the better part of valor, and I thought that a little more sunshine would make the traveler remove his coat the sooner.
What I started out to say was this; after that terrible snow-storm of last week, my brother returned from College with the worst cold I ever saw or heard. By morning my mother's home looked more like a' hospital than anything else, with the physicians and medicines etc. I was up all night Wednesday, Thursday, and part of Friday, getting my sleep on the trolley to and from Shelton during the day. Of course eating regularly was out of the question, and between attending to things at the office, and keeping in touch with his condition, for we thought that he was as close to pneumonia as we cared to have him, I somehow caught a cold myself, and carried around a four-ounce bottle of some poison that had to be taken every three hours.
My cold left me in a day or two, and through good attention by my mother and sister, my brother was able to be out of bed yesterday, and will perhaps be able to return to school the first week in January when it reopens after the holidays.
So far as your statements regarding the trains are concerned, suffice it to say that my other brother started for New York Saturday afternoon and arrived at night, and had to stay over rather than take a chance of being up at all hours at night near some way station. After receiving this letter, I thought that I would go to New York not on business necessarily as you state- yesterday after¬noon, if I finished in Court on time, otherwise to-day. Well, we finished about five, and found that I wouldn't be able to get away till seven arriving (if on time at somewhere near nine) so concluded to -night was the night. Vain hope, as you know the best laid plans of mice and men gang oft aglee. My brother was occupied on some matter concerning a murder case he recently tried, and about four o'clock as I was slipping on my Stetson, he gently informed me that he had arranged for a conference on a matter at the office to-night.
Like the man who came home early in the morning, and as he was just getting his things off preparatory to rolling into bed, his wife heard him, and looking up said "John why are you getting up so early?" to which he to keep up the game replied "why I've got to catch an early train, dear" and so dressed and had to go out into the cold and clammy morning; so when he said that as long as I was going out, I could save him the trouble of going to the Court house to get some papers that he needed,! gladly consented, and upon my return found that arrangements were made for the night.
We have just concluded, and everybody has left. Before leaving I thought that I would drop you a line explaining-though I feel that my explanations are in vain-the situation. It is night, a quarter of eleven; and if I can remember everything that I saw in your letter, I believe that I have touched upon the various matters that you referred to.
Except the fact, of course, that you are going to Lakewood Friday.Tomorrow night would be the only time available for me but last night I agreed to be in Ansonia on Thursday evening, and I do not see how I can get in touch with the people to call that off. One of the men is to come from Waterbury, and I do not believe I can reach him during the day. I presume that you will leave either Friday morning or afternoon, so Friday evening is out of the question. And from the general tone of your letter, you expect to spend the remainder of the year away.
It may be that my last letter gave you the impression you complained of. It may be true that my language was ambiguous so that you could infer the various "first, second, and third thoughts called up by my statements". I haven't the letter before me, of course. But your inferences certainly are refreshing. For example, you say that on Friday, the trains, according to your papers, we are only 55 minutes late. I will pass the fact that this means an hour, and go on to your remark that on Saturday they were reported to be running normally. That is your version from reading the papers on Monday, It is refreshing in that it recalls to my mind a situation we had in the law school where a sailor was reported to have been tried on the charge of manslaughter for having allowed or caused another to drown, when he might have saved him. The boat had foundered, and the sailor and another man were clinging to a mast or spar, and had been drifting about the whole night during a terrific storm. The sailor feared that both could not be rescued or supported by the wood during that storm, after they had been pitched and tossed about for hours, so he shoved the other fellow off. It just happened that within an hour or so, day break set in, the storm subsided and a passenger ship that had just been passing picked up the sailor and rescued him. In that case it was claimed by the prosecution that the sailor should be convicted because had he permitted the man to cling on to the pole only a few more minutes, the day break would have quieted the storm, and they would have been saved. That would seem to be a simple, and clear cut case. Yet the defense was that the jury should not consider the case as they sat in their comfortable leather chairs smoking their cigars in the warm jury room, and looked back to compute how short a time it was after the deceased had been crowded off that the sun came forth, and how fortunate it was that the passenger steamer hove in sight to lend a friendly hand; but that they should place themselves, figuratively, in the accused's position as on the moment that the tragedy occurred. They should see him as he lifted the women and children into the life boats as their steamer was being dashed to pieces. And then as it was about to take its final plunge, he loosened some pole or other and grasping it plunged into the raging torrent(remember Cassius saying "accoutered as I was I plunged in, and bade him follow, which indeed he did?"),that they should be with him during that long stormy night where hour after hour the two were being dashed around in the angry sea, and when every minute seemed to be an eternity, and at last when the night seemed as if it would never die, and day would never come, frantic and dazed, the poor man back to the first principles of self-preservation acted as he did, they should consider whether at that moment he knew that it would be day-break in a few minutes, and whether at that moment he could expect the friendly boat to pass by. How do you think the jury decided?
There is no analogy in any of the facts, of course, but this case came to me when I read your quotations from Monday's papers as to what transpired on Saturday previous. For while it may be true that they were only 55 minutes late on Friday and normal on Saturday, after the figures were accurately compiled, the situation was slightly different on Friday when you called at the station to inquire about trains and you were told that they were repairing signals and it was difficult to make any definite assurances as to how the trains would keep anywhere near the schedule.
I know that explanations rarely ever explain. In fact, my friend Elbertus truly said ‘your friends don't need explanations; your enemies won’t believe them.’ I am also aware that if my letter contained anything that seemed to be unkind, after reading your letter another of the Fra's epigrams stands the test of truth, 'we are punished by our sins, not for them' He always added this after his statement that he does not offer you any reward for being good, nor threaten you with dire evil for being bad.
By the way where do you expect to be while at Lakewood?
I cannot think of a more fitting and appropriate conclusion than your own, if I can recall it correctly. "In case I do not see you, I hope that the Holiday season will be a very happy one for you.”
Sincerely,
Joe
I continue to be amazed at how Joe crafts his letters. I am sure they were met by an amused audience of Helen and her family when they arrived in New York. I am sure these letters were the center of the evening entertainment.
The next letter will be on January 3rd.
No comments:
Post a Comment