 L.C. Leslie Review of Opening of The Prince and the Pawper Amusements. L.C. Leslie. The new entertainment offered at the Broadway Theatre last night, and to be seen there, we believe, for some weeks to come, demands some description, but only as a matter of news. It is only an insignificant relation to the dramatic art, and one would waste energy and patience to treat of it from a critical point of view. Miss L.C. Leslie has not perceptively increased in stature. Her hair is as plentiful and beautiful as ever. A sweeter, cunninger child than she has never been placed on exhibition. She says the many words of her part nicely, too, and she makes believe she is either a prince or a pauper with perfect self-assurance. The most difficult task she had to perform last night, perhaps, was to stand for ten minutes before the curtain, hand in hand with Mark Twain, who was making a speech. Let any reader imagine himself standing hand in hand with Mark Twain in front of a big house full of folks, and with a glare of the footlights in his eyes, without a word to say, or any prearranged plan of behaviour, and he will appreciate Elsie's predicament. The little girl was not a bit embarrassed, though. She smiled at the spectators, and glanced from time to time inquiringly up at Mark Twain's lips as if wondering when he would stop talking. Mark Twain was making a speech. He was telling how difficult it is to write a play. Most persons who sit under the influence of contemporary dramatic efforts do not need information on that point. Elsie Leslie is not yet an actress, and the prince and the pauper is not yet a good play. Elsie may become an actress in time. She has already learned how to receive bouquets over the footlights, and a great many were handed to her last night. No reasonable person would expect her to reveal real dramatic gifts at her age. If she did, she would be a precocious phenomenon instead of a charming little girl trained to walk and talk on the stage. The prince and the pauper, when it left Mark Twain's hands, was a long, very readable narrative, extravagant in its substance, but simply told. For children, it was an absorbingly interesting story. All that is good in the arrangement of this story made for the purpose of amusing and easily amused public in a theatre is taken bodily from Mark Twain's book. The incidence in Miles Hendon's lodging on London Bridge, where the tattered cavalier waits upon his protégé, never dreaming that the little beggar is really King of England, but striving to humor his whim, form by far the best part of the play, and the words and stage directions are taken from the best passage in the book. On the other hand, the impossible scene between Princess Elizabeth and Seymour in The Thieves' Den, the fortune-telling incident and the jumble of odds and ends of old melodrama, are not in the book at all, and they are abortive and tiresome on the stage. But that does not matter. The prince and the pauper will draw great crowds at the Broadway theatre, because the public likes to see a pretty child as hero of a play, and does not care a rap for good plays or good acting, so long as it is amused. As a show, Mr. Daniel Froman's latest venture is praiseworthy. The pictures shown are all new, and some of them are very handsome. Mr. E. H. Vanderfeld and Miss Annie Mayer, excellent actors, are implicated in the proceedings, and so far as their work goes, the entertainment has some dramatic value. But Elsie Leslie dominates everything. Her costumes, as Prince Edward, son of King Henry VIII, are rich and expensive. Her rags, as Tom Canty, the pauper, are picturesque, and whatever she wears is becoming to her. The scenery is excellent, and a great many persons assist the little girl. There was a large audience to see the first performance, and the applause was very loud and very sincere. People will flock to see an instant monarch cracking nuts with the scepter of royalty. Second of Section 1, January 21st, 1890, Elsie Elsie, read by John Greenman. Section 2 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 3, 1890 to 1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by John Greenman. January 27th, 1890, Mark Twain hauled up, a suit over the prince and the pauper. E. H. House says he was authorized by Twain to prepare the play, and that his ideas were stolen. The story of the prince and the pauper is not fully told on the stage of the Broadway theatre. Some of the omissions will be supplied today in the Court of Common Pleas in arguments for an injunction to restrain the further production of the play until the rights of Edward H. House can be judicially determined. Romance and picturesque effects may not figure in the presentation of the court case which promises nevertheless a narrative of pathetic interest and which will deal with real life in a fashion not devoid of dramatic force. As set forth in the complaint it is a story of a playwright, dependent on his pen for a livelihood, robbed of his ideas which are his stock in business and of his labour, by the prosperous author and owner of the book on which the play is based. From this standpoint the case appeals all the more to public sympathy from the fact that for years Mr. House has been an invalid, and his opportunities are curtailed by his inability to get outdoors to compete with other writers on even terms. Like the majority of writers Mr. House has not had occasion to cultivate commercial habits. Mark Twain, whom he makes the principal defendant in the preliminary proceedings, as will be done also in the suit to follow, is well known to be a conspicuous exception to this rule of business carelessness among literary men. The case in brief was told last week, when the application for an injunction came up for argument, and when both sides agreed to an adjournment. Mr. House in his complaint wrote that he had agreed to dramatize the book, Mr. Clemens, Mark Twain having offered him one-half or two-thirds the profits of the play for his services. When he had substantially finished the work of dramatization, and was only waiting for a suitable person in whom the characters of the Prince and the pauper could be united, Mr. Clemens brought out the play in its present form. Abby Sage Richardson having dramatized it for him. To this statement Mr. Clemens opposes a general denial in the form of an affidavit. He admits having consulted with Mr. House, but declares that he never made any sort of agreement with him. Mr. House submits extracts of letters that passed between the two to show the contrary. On December 17, 1886, Mr. House says he received from Mr. Clemens in reply to a reminder of a former suggestion that the book contained a powerful dramatic subject, a letter in which Mr. Clemens wrote, blank, reminded me that you had spoken of the Prince and the pauper for the stage. That would be nice, but I can't dramatize it. The reason I say this is because I did dramatize it and made a botch of it, but you could do it, and if you will, for one half or two-thirds of the proceeds, I wish you would. Shant I send you the book? Previous to this letter Mr. House says he was assured by Mr. Clemens that the dramatization of the gilded age, known on the stage as Colonel Sellers, had yielded a hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Both Mr. House and Mr. Clemens believed that the Prince and the pauper could be made still more profitable. On December 24, 1886, in reply to the above, Mr. House wrote, As regards the Prince and the pauper, I should be well pleased to undertake the dramatization of it. I shall be glad if you will send me a copy of the book. According to my remembrance of the book, the most taking arrangement would be to give both characters to the same performer, using a silent double in positions where they must for a moment appear together. If there is anywhere about a girl like what Lotta was twenty years ago, or Bijou Heron fifteen years ago, she might fill the duplicate part. In the book the Prince and the pauper are not the same person. The idea of having the same person play both parts is claimed to have had its origin in the letter above quoted, as well as the idea of the silent double. Both of these ideas are utilized in Mrs. Richardson's dramatization, although the contract to write the play was not made by her until two years afterward. Mr. House avers that there was further appreciation of his ideas extending over a good part of the play. Mark Twain says he never gave Mrs. Richardson his own or anyone else's ideas about what the play should be. On December 26, 1886 Mr. House received a letter from Mr. Clemens saying that two copies of the book had been forwarded to him. Soon afterward Mr. Clemens came to New York. It was agreed, Mr. House says, that he should go ahead and should visit Mr. Clemens at Hartford in May of 1887. They were there to put the play in shape. It was to be offered for the stage at a suitable opportunity and Mr. Clemens and Mr. House were to divide the proceeds. Mr. House says he wrote several letters to Mr. Clemens in April 1887 about the play. May 7 he wrote, A few nights ago the complete scheme of the play developed with an effectiveness that I had not expected to arrive at so soon. The mere writing of the scenes and acts ought not now to occupy a great deal of time, but it may take a mighty long time to find the right person to fill the double part. I would rather have it put off two or three years than let it be entrusted to incompetent hands. I can't tell you, my dear Mark, what a comforting thing it is to have this piece of good fortune in prospect. It takes a load of care away from me as you can well imagine. The visit to Hartford began soon after this and lasted six weeks. June 13, 1887 the whole of Act I with the position of the actors, the arrangement of stage scenery, and all details were read to Mr. Clemens. Mr. House says that as the reading proceeded Mr. Clemens expressed his approval in energetic and enthusiastic terms, exclaiming at intervals, that's a play. I see that on the stage. I should like to take hold and help. Mr. Clemens had to go away about this time to be gone three months. It was agreed and arranged Mr. House claims that within this period he should finish the play. He did so. The play, as completed, he says, embodied the novelties he had suggested, which appear in Mrs. Richardson's work and which, as he wrote to Mr. Clemens on August 29, 1887, make the play entirely different from the incidents of the book. The position of Mark Twain in the matter, as shown by the extracts from the above quotations, his affidavit of last week, and other papers in the case, appears to be as follows. Letter December 17, 1886 You could do it, and if you will for one-half or two-thirds of the proceeds, I wish you would. Shant I send you the book? Affidavit. January 1890. Sometime in the year 1886 I suggested to the plaintiff, Edward H. House, the dramatization of the Prince and the Pauper. December 26, 1886. I've ordered a couple of P. and P.s sent to you. At Clemens' house, on hearing at one, that's a play. I see that on the stage. I should like to take hold and help, from the affidavit. At my house, subsequently, there was an understanding that he might take hold and see what work he could do. But there was no agreement that I should have to do any of the work, or that he should have the exclusive right to dramatize. It was simply experimental. He began to write something in the way of a skeleton, and bring it to me to fill up. For Mr. House's letter of August 29, 1887, this morning I had the satisfaction of seeing the whole five acts completed before me, with a single exception of the closing scene of Act Five. Affidavit. That two weeks thereafter the deponent verbally stated to Clemens that it was ready. Clemens, Affidavit. I have not refused to consent to the production of the plaintiff's play, if any has been written by him, as the plaintiff has never asked me to consult in relation thereto. So far as I knew or know, the play was never completed. Mr. House says that, knowing Twain to be a busy man, and impatient of details, he tried to find someone who could bring out the play, keeping Twain generally informed, but not annoying him with particulars which he knew Twain abhorred. He associated Chandos Fulton with himself in trying to place the play. The urgency of the matter grew because an annuity which Mr. House enjoyed was to be terminated in the present year, and he would need an income to take its place. About the time Mr. Fulton took hold, paragraphs began to appear in the newspapers to the effect that Mark Twain was dramatizing some of his books. These paragraphs proved embarrassing. Mr. House wrote to Mr. Clemens to ask about them. He got no reply until after he had written several times. He excused Twain's delay, he says, because he knew him to be habitually neglectful of letter writing, and assumed that he was busy with his various money-making schemes. When the reply did come it was a startler. It bore date February 26th, 1889, and was as follows. I gather the idea from your letter that you would have undertaken the dramatization of that book. Well, that would have been joyful news to me about the middle of December when I gladly took the first offer that came and made a contract. I remembered that you started once to map out the framework for me to fill in, and I suggested to this lady that possibly you would collaborate with her. But she thought she could do the work alone. However, I never thought of such a thing as your being willing to undertake the dramatization itself. I mean the whole thing. I will look in when I come down. That letter forced an issue. It opened before the patient and long-waiting invalid a dismal prospect in place of the happy one on which he had been counting. Twain had been growing rich while the poor writer, now confined closely to his room and with the last term of his slender annuity nearly at hand, had no resources except in his pen. To see months of labor thrown away at such a time was about as serious a thing as could happen. The situation threatened to present an actual case of prints and pauper, with none of the stage gloss or romance to relieve it. Senator Eugene S. Ives has taken up Mr. House's application for an injunction and will argue it to-day. Howe and Hummel appear for the defendants, Mr. Clemens, Mrs. Clemens, and Manager Froman. End of Section 2, January 27, 1890, Mark Twain, hauled up, read by John Greenman. Section 3 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 3, 1890 to 1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by John Greenman. January 28, 1890. Affidavits that clash. Original ideas that are very much alike. Prints and Arguments on the Rival Claims to the Authorship of the Prince and the Pauper. The promised argument in the Prince and the Pauper case drew to the motion chambers of the Court of Common Pleas yesterday morning many persons whom the case had interested. Mr. Hummel and assistants from his office were there on behalf of Manager Froman and Abbey Sage Richardson, Daniel Whitford of Alexander and Green, represented Mark Twain, while the interests of the plaintive in the action, Edward H. House, were looked after by Senator Ives and his partner, Rollin M. Morgan. Mr. Hummel opened the proceedings by passing to the bench a copy of the book on which the play is founded, Mrs. Richardson's manuscript of the play and a copy of the agreement of May 13, 1889, signed by Mark Twain, Mrs. Richardson and Daniel Froman, under which the book was dramatized and the play produced. Senator Ives, at the same time, passed up Mr. House's manuscript of the play. Mrs. Richardson's answer was read by Mr. Hummel. It recited that she had read the book several years ago and had been well impressed with it. When Little Royd Fauntleroy was produced it occurred to her that Elsie Leslie could make an equal success of The Prince and the Pauper and that the book could be satisfactorily dramatized. Thereupon she called upon Mr. Froman and submitted to him a proposition to write a play from the book, suggesting Elsie for the dual role. Mr. Froman liked the idea but said it would cost a good deal of money to bring out the play and that he would not feel warranted in doing anything with it unless Mrs. Richardson obtained from Mark Twain in writing, soul and exclusive authority to dramatize the book. In December 1888 Mrs. Richardson went to Hartford to see Mark Twain. He informed her that three or four attempts had been made to make a play out of his book but all had failed. If she wanted to go ahead and see what she could do he was satisfied but she must work out the play alone and not bother him about details. Afterward she submitted some of her ideas to him, among them the suggestion that the two roles of Prince and Pauper be taken by the same child. He declined to discuss any schemes with her but did say that Mr. House had suggested the dual role and he had not approved of it, believing that the part should be taken by two children. This idea of a dual role, Mrs. Richardson says, could not be claimed as original by any one of late years for it had been often employed on the stage. She clung to it in spite of Mark Twain's opposition. Thereafter no suggestions passed between them. She worked out the play unaided and the situations, incidents, ideas, and the entire version were her own and in no way a plagiarism or adaptation. Indeed she had never seen Mr. House's manuscript or heard anything about its contents. This denial she meant to be sweeping enough to cover the witchcraft incident which does not appear in the book but is in Mr. House's manuscript as well as her own. She looked up the history, laws, and customs of the times in which the play was laid and, finding witchcraft punishable by death, she decided to make that the charge against the woman who was supposed to have bewitched the king. The witchcraft incident of the play begins in Act IV in Mrs. Richardson's manuscript. In Mr. House's manuscript a similar incident is introduced in Act III. Mr. Hummel next submitted Mr. Froman's answer. Mr. Froman admitted that Mr. House had given him notice that he had dramatized the prince and the pauper before the play came out. Mark Twain, being asked about it, had said that Mr. House tried to make a play of it but failed and that he never had a contract to write the play. As a matter of self-protection, however, when Mr. Froman made his final contract with Mark Twain and Mrs. Richardson, after this notice, he took care to insert a provision that Mrs. Richardson should defend any possible suit or application for an injunction to the extent of one thousand dollars. On behalf of Mark Twain, lawyer Whitford submitted in affidavit saying that he proposed to Mr. House the dramatization of the play in December 1886, and in reply received from Mr. House a letter full of qualified phrases reciting that, while he would be pleased to do something, he was beset by physical limitations which rendered of doubtful value or utility his services in placing the play even after it should be written. There was no contract and no agreement of any kind. During the following spring Mr. House went to Hartford for a social visit, not on business connected with the play, as claimed by him. While there he did dabble with the book in efforts to draw up a skeleton of a possible play, and there was more or less talk about it. Once during the visit he outlined his ideas of an act. The sketch contained hardly more than fifteen lines of dialogue and it had never been used. From the time of that visit Mr. House had never talked of the play, nor had the deponent ever heard that Mr. House meant to write a play or had written one. All of the letters received from Mr. House had been saved. In none of them was there any allusion to the subject of dramatization. He had received no letters containing the alleged quotations in Mr. House's complaint. Mr. Whitford held that if any contract or agreement existed it should be certain in terms material in its character, fair, just, and founded on an adequate consideration. Then the case should be passed upon by a court of equity. It ought never to come up on an application for an injunction. Senator Ives replied to all that both lawyers had presented. He said he was hardly surprised to be answered by affidavits denying everything that could be denied. He would like to submit counteraffidavits from Mr. House as soon as they could be prepared. Mr. House had informed him that when in April last he gave notice to Mr. Froman that he had dramatized the book, Mr. Froman replied, if that is so I will make no agreement. When Mr. Froman did make an agreement, a month later, and before the play was written, he took care to protect himself against liability in possible suits, showing that he had profited by Mr. House's notice. As to Mrs. Richardson's claim of originality, Senator Ives thought it at least singular that the ideas of the dual role and of the witchcraft incident should have occurred to her precisely as they had occurred to Mr. House two years before, when he presented these ideas to her partner Mark Twain. The book did not as much as suggest either ideas. Last April Mr. Froman got his notice from Mr. House. He informed Mr. Clemens, Mark Twain, of it, and was assured that Mr. House had no claim. Mr. Clemens' word, however, did not entirely satisfy Mr. Froman, and before he made his final agreement in May for the production of the play, he insisted that he should be fully protected against a lawsuit. Mr. Froman and Mr. Clemens thus both knew of Mr. House's notice. Mr. Clemens' affidavit, Senator Ives went on, seemed suggestive of ingenuous duplicity. He had received many letters from House, but none of those quoted in House's complaint. The mail might sometimes miscarry, but not regularly. It could be shown by the original letters submitted in court that they were written by Clemens in reply to the very letters from which quotations had been made for House's complaint. In the forthcoming supplemental affidavit from Mr. House, Senator Ives believed that it would clearly appear that Clemens often purposely avoided discussion of the play as if contemplating duplicity, but by answering other portions of the letters set a snare for himself and walked into it. Elsewhere in the affidavit Mr. Clemens said that his own dramatization of the book was not entirely satisfactory, but could be made so without much difficulty. Against this sworn statement of yesterday Mr. Ives placed Mr. Clemens' letter to Mr. House, dated December 17th, 1886, in which Mr. Clemens wrote, I can't dramatize it. The reason I say this is because I did dramatize it and made a botch of it. Next Monday Mr. House's new affidavit and perhaps others from the defendants will be submitted in court. End of Section 3, January 28, 1890, Affidavits The Clash, read by John Greenman. Section 4 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 3, 1890 to 1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by John Greenman. January 31, 1890. Is his word Twain also, or has Mark's memory been wrecked? Read what Mr. House says about the prince and the pauper and decide for yourself. To the editor of the New York Times. The generous interest which the Times has shown in the lawsuit brought by me against Mark Twain, S. L. Clemens, emboldens me to ask your attention to a singular manifestation of provincial journalism on the part of the Hartford Current, a newspaper published in the city where Mr. Clemens resides. Some days ago the distinguished humorist was permitted by the current to present in an interview his estimate of the merits of the controversy and to accuse me, his opponent, of various misdemeanors including the utterance of absolute untruth. I at once addressed a letter to the editor, claiming the universally conceded privilege of submitting a reply and expressing my confident belief that this request would be granted as a matter of courtesy and justice. To my surprise the letter was returned, with a note from the editor announcing its rejection for the peculiar reason that it might provoke a reply from Mr. Clemens, who had been already heard. I was kindly advised that it would be much better to let the matter take its course in the courts, but that in any case no communication from me long or short would be published by the current. Under these circumstances I take the liberty of sending you a copy of the interview and of my letter with the hope that you may find it convenient to give your readers the opportunity of examining the positions taken by Mr. Clemens and myself, and of guessing shrewdly at the current's motives in refusing me a hearing. E. H. House. A Talk with Mr. Clemens. A current reporter called on Mr. Clemens yesterday afternoon. He was found in his cozy billiard room and seemed quite willing to talk about the matter. He said, Mr. House was never invited to edit the book for me. He asked if he might read the manuscript while lying bed-ridden for several weeks simply to satisfy his own curiosity. He made one suggestion which turned out to be a fallacy. I had used in my book some such expression as this. This person was kindly entreated, etc. Mr. House judged it it was too late a date to use that form entreated and advised leaving off the first syllable. I do not remember whether I corrected it or not. But afterward found that it was in use in the time of Henry VIII. How about suggesting the advisability of dramatizing the work, was asked. As if that was original, exclaimed Mr. Clemens. It needed no suggestion from Mr. House. The story was originally planned for a drama and not as a book. I doubted my ability to write a drama, but wrote it purposely for somebody capable of doing so to turn it into a drama. He says you offered him one half or two-thirds of the profits. Mr. House did not accept the proposition. In his letter he only entertained it in a non-committal way. He did not discard the proposition, but there was nothing in his letter that can be construed into an acceptance. The proposition and his non-acceptance are of the date of 1886. He next speaks of suggesting the idea of having the two parts played by one actress. How as to that? A suggestion made three years before by Mr. Will Gillette promptly returned Mr. Clemens. I tried to get Mr. Gillette to dramatize the book for me, giving him full permission to do so. Mr. Gillette entertained this proposition in 1883 and went so far as to draft the plot for the play, making liberal alterations of the text of the book. Mr. Gillette has never retired from the undertaking, and if an undertaking of that kind can remain in force forever, then it is Mr. Gillette that has a claim upon me and not Mr. House. If I had no right to give Mrs. Richardson permission in 1888 to dramatize, I, of course, had no right to give Mr. House permission in 1886. Somewhere between 1883 and 1888 I dramatized the book myself, but was assured by competent authorities that neither the living nor the dead could act the play as I had planned it. Mr. House affirms, pursued the reporter, that he read you the first act of the play in June 1887. In that part of 1887, continued Mr. Clemens, Mr. House was a guest for a while at my home. I aroused his sleeping interest in the matter and thought he was going to dramatize the piece, but it was a mistake. He merely showed me a skeleton plan for the first act, with some trifles of conversation put in to indicate the drift of the act. That he wrote a complete act is absolutely untrue. Mr. House says in his affidavit that he wrote you that the piece was finished in August 1887. A year ago he wrote me the same statement, changing the date of finishing the piece to September 1887. With anybody else this slight discrepancy of dates would count for nothing. With Mr. House the case is different. If he ever wrote me a letter in which he said he had finished the piece, he has a copy of that letter by him and did not need to make that error. Mr. House is a methodical man, an excellent businessman, and never destroys or mislays any scrap of writing that comes to him from anyone or fails to keep a copy of every scrap which he writes himself. I never received any letter from Mr. House saying the play was finished. I was at home again from the vacation as early as October of that year, 1887, and he did not mention the play in any way during the many months that followed during his stay in Hartford. Early he had dropped the play entirely out of his mind. He was busy with other matters and never made any reference to it. I was thoroughly well pleased with his skeleton of the first act and said so without reservation. But when I recognized that the most I could hope to get from him was a skeleton for me to fill out, my interest in the matter at once disappeared. He was a near neighbor for many months after that. Our intercourse was constant and familiar. He coming to my house and I going to his to talk and gossip after the manner of friends. But throughout this cordial intercourse he remained silent as to that dramatization. I believed then and I believe now that with the skeletonizing of the first act Mr. House's interest in the project came to an end. Late in 1888 Mrs. Richardson wrote and asked permission to dramatize the book. I had always been on the lookout for some person willing to do this work and was not particular as to what the terms might be. So I wrote her promptly and accorded the permission. I also gave her Mr. House's New York address and said that he had once taken an interest in this thing. I suggested that she call on him and see if she could secure his cooperation as he had had practice in dramatic work. She declined however, preferring to do all the work herself. Another matter Mr. Clemens, Mr. House asserts that he saw it stated in the papers that you had allowed Mrs. Richardson to dramatize the work, wrote you, and received no reply. Is that so? Mr. House knew why he received no reply, was the answer. I was not in Hartford. I told him so when I answered his second letter. Now as regards my repudiation of the transaction, if asking him to send me a copy of any contract or agreement existing between him and me so that I might, as I said, undo any wrong suffered at my hands, is repudiating the whole transaction, then I certainly repudiated it, for that is what I wrote, as to the alleged proposition to pay him $5,000 as compensation, a proposition that he says he declined, I would only say that it is another effort of Mr. House's imagination. I never offered him a penny, nor consented to join anybody else in offering him one. Again he says that arbitration was tried without success. If that was done I had nothing whatever to do with it. I would not have consented to arbitrate with a man who had no shadow of a claim against me. After about eighteen months of petrified absence of interest in this dramatization Mr. House's condition instantly unpetrified itself when he found that somebody else was willing to undertake the work. He not only imagines that he has an agreement with me for a dramatization, but that the term of it is eternal. It is only fair, then, that the settling of our dispute should be accorded the same liberal lack of hurry. Mr. House is never so entertaining as when he has a grievance. We shall be able to pass the hereafter very pleasantly. Some of the statements in Mr. House's affidavit are true, but the court will probably give information to amend them. Mr. House, in reply, to the editor of the Hartford current. I have this day received from the Bureau Press Cuttings your issue of the eighteenth, with Mr. S. L. Clemens' review of an article the New York Tribune announcing the commencement of my suit against that gentleman for breach of contract. And I lose no time in assuring you as a matter of courtesy and justice. Permit me to be heard through your column respecting certain features of the contest which Mr. Clemens' comments leave unexplained. The assumption upon which the author of The Prince and the Popper relies for security throughout this extraordinary business is that of absolute and almost unqualified forgetfulness. What he does not remember covers a broad array of important events and documents. What he remembers, more or less imperfectly, is insignificant in comparison. That he remembers anything whatever with literal accuracy I have not yet been able to discover. It was in December 1886 that he wrote me a letter requesting me to dramatize his story and specifying the proportion of the proceeds which he required me to receive, supplied me copies of the book to work with, and sent me for examination his own condemned adaptation. It was in the same month that I formally accepted his proposal, completed the agreement, and described to him a part of the plan upon which I intended to proceed. Two years later, when it pleased him to break our contract, he gave me to understand that these transactions and the correspondence relating to them had entirely passed from his mind. Early in 1887 I applied myself to the task which he had urged upon me, and in a series of not less than six letters informed him of my scheme of operations, at the same time explaining why it would probably be impractical to produce the play before 1890. Several of these letters were acknowledged by Mr. Clemens, but at the expiration of two years he professed himself unable to recall a line of any of them. In June of 1897 at Mr. Clemens' residence in Hartford, which I visited for the purpose, I laid before him the entire plot of the drama, and showed him drawings of the scenic and mechanical accessories that would be needed. I also read to him every word of the first act which was then finished, from a manuscript which remains in my possession unchanged since that day. I observed that Mr. Clemens told your reporter that I merely showed him a skeleton plan of the first act, and that it is absolutely untrue that I wrote a complete act. I shall abstain from contradicting him in matters which depend upon our unsupported assertions. I might affirm, and he might deny indefinitely, without producing any result. But in this instance it happens that other persons besides himself knew, and can testify that the act was wholly written, that Mr. Clemens came to my room for the express purpose of hearing it, and that he remained there listening and discussing the subject during the best part of an afternoon. Nevertheless, it appeared, eighteen months afterward, that every material detail of this interview had faded out of his recollection. The entire drama was completed by me in August 1887. Mr. Clemens informed your reporter that a year ago I wrote him, fixing the date of completion in September 1887. He deals me what he evidently conceives to be a staggering blow on the strength of this alleged discrepancy. I will not imitate his concise form of contradiction and say that his assertion is absolutely untrue. I will simply challenge him to produce any letter of mine in which it is stated that the play was not completed until September. But I wrote him, not a year ago, but ten months, to follow his scrupulous minuteness as to intervals of time, was that he was informed in September that the dramatization was finished. I intended to recall to his volatile memory that I had personally acquainted him with that fact in the month referred to immediately upon his arrival home after his sojourn in Almira, but I had also previously sent him a letter on the 29th of August giving the same information. As long ago as February 1889 Mr. Clemens had utterly forgotten both the written and the oral notification and that therefore should not occasion surprise that he failed to remember them when your reporter visited him last week. With respect to his intimation that he was kept in ignorance for many months of my proceedings, I have to say that from the moment when the dramatization was first arranged, his chief desire was that no care or burden of business should fall upon him. He wished to do nothing, to hear of nothing, that should make it necessary for him to take any active part in the affair. Even to converse about the prince and the pauper was a vexation to his spirit. He had put everything into my hands, and there was an end to his cooperation. Consequently my suspicions were not aroused when he repulsed my attempts to bring the subject forward. He was absorbed in the composition of his new book and his preoccupation and unwillingness to discuss topics of minor interest seemed natural and easily explicable. No idea that he had other motives for reticence ever occurred to me. It would not be a joyous task for anybody to persist in forcing Mark Twain's attention upon a subject which was repugnant to him, and I was aware of no necessity for making the attempt. Moreover, I had repeatedly explained that the production of the play might inevitably be deferred until 1890, and he had signified no objection to this delay. But in 1888, without consulting me, without a word of warning, he privately opened negotiations with Mrs. A. D. Richardson for a separate dramatization of the romance. When this was reported to me I indignantly refused to believe it. The thought that I could be thus betrayed by one who had for twenty-five years called himself my friend, and whom I held to be a man of honor, was too monstrous for credibility. But I wrote to tell him what I had heard, and urged that an announcement of the agreement between us should straight away be published. To my amazement and anxiety I could get no answer. Weeks passed before he vouched safe to response, and to obtain this I was compelled to call not once alone, but several times, and with emphatic earnestness, for explanations. It was at this juncture that the remarkable wreck of Mr. Clemens memory was revealed to me, upon almost every circumstance connected with my dramatization his mind was a blank. He never knew I had undertaken one, or that I could have been persuaded to do so. He had no more notion that he had written to propose it, or that I had accepted, than if pens and ink had never been invented and paper were so perishable, that it could not be preserved from destruction. Of the ample correspondence in which I laid bare the purposes I had in view, respecting the construction of the play and the projects for its production, he had not a shadow of remembrance, nor of the enthusiasm with which he had listened to the reading of the first act, nor of my repeated announcements that the piece was finished and ready for his perusal. All these things, one and several, had vanished from his memory, though all these things had occurred within two years. When it appeared, on a closer examination, that there were exceptions to this comprehensive and overwhelming lapse, Mr. Clemens acknowledged, pointing out to Mrs. Richardson in the course of his negotiations with that lady, that it might be well for her to call upon me and find out what could be procured from me in the way of valuable material or suggestion. He did remember enough for that. It may or may not be pertinent that the darkness was just sufficiently dispelled to enable him to recall something which might be to his benefit. In any case, the fact is there. He did retroject himself so far into the dim and remote past of two whole years as to grasp the conception that Mrs. Richardson might turn my labors to profitable account, precisely as he afterwards sent Mr. Froman to me to learn if my version could be purchased, or if I would allow it to be used in conjunction with hers. But in other directions the eclipse was total. On discovering the extent to which my faith in Mr. Clemens had been misplaced, the question left for me to decide was whether I should patiently submit to the wrong inflicted or endeavour to defend my violated rights. If I chose the latter alternative I could not be insensible to the heavy odds against me. A more unequal contest could scarcely be imagined, on the one side, the most popular author of the day in the flush of active health and strength, with unbounded resources of influence, wealth, and established position. On the other, a well-nigh-forgotten writer condemned by illness to years of seclusion crippled by a torturing disease and, as Mr. Clemens knew better than any living being, utterly unprepared to bear the stress of a protracted legal struggle. Nevertheless it did not appear fitting that I should go down without an effort to assert my claims. But I shrank from making a public exposure of our rupture, and in the hope of averting an unseemly scandal, I applied to a man of honourable and exceptional eminence in his profession, requesting him to bring about, if possible, an amicable settlement of the controversy. I selected him especially because he was Mr. Clemens's friend. I did not know him at all. I have never seen him in my life. But I had such confidence in the justice of my cause that I did not hesitate to entrust it to his keeping. I did not expect him to act as a lawyer but as a friendly arbitrator. He was kind enough to meet my wishes and at once wrote to Mr. Clemens. He did not receive the simple courtesy of an answer but was referred to Mr. Clemens's legal advisers. From what was said to your reporter it would appear this circumstance with all the others is totally forgotten. After so conclusive a demonstration that no conciliatory methods would appeal to Mr. Clemens, I made it known to all concerned that I should spare no exertion to enforce my rights. And within a few weeks an offer of compensation was made by Mr. Whitford of the firm of Alexander and Green. I have never said that this offer was made directly by Mr. Clemens. We had ceased to communicate with one another before it reached me. I believe, however, it is generally conceded that a proposal coming from a recognized legal agent is supposed to carry with it the authority of the principal. Mr. Clemens used this language to your reporter. I never offered him a penny nor consented to join anybody else in offering him one. Whether this is to be regarded as another failure of memory or a repudiation of counsel I shall not seek to determine. But the offer was made and rejected and although I have not stated that it originated with Mr. Clemens, I blame no one for assuming that it had his sanction and consent, I now leave you, Mr. Editor, and your readers, to consider whether I am or am not warranted in calling upon judicial authority to guard me against the losses and disappointments which I have suffered in consequence of Mr. Clemens' defective memory and which threatened to become still more severe if his power of recollection is not officially quickened into life, and turn to a detail which I should deem too trivial for public resuscitation if it were not given a fictitious importance in your interview, Mr. Clemens objects to the statement that I edited his story. I certainly should not have chosen that expression and my casual allusion to the manuscript was solely to show my intimate familiarity with his work, but, looking back to the actual circumstances, I am inclined to think that The Prince and the Popper was edited not alone by me but by numbers of the author's friends. With his habitual readiness to avail himself of the labors of others he requested me, and several persons, I believe, to examine the sheets and search for such errors as he might have fallen into. He averse that it was I who asked permission to read the tale, to satisfy my own curiosity, I shall pass by that amusing remark, with simply the inquiry whether anybody can be found to credit that a sick man, bedridden, he says, would crave the privilege, to satisfy his curiosity, of deciphering a thousand pages of Mark Twain's handwriting, unless indeed his malady had taken the form of insanity. I went carefully through the copy, found a great deal to delight me, and a number of flagrant and damaging mistakes. I made a list of these and gave it to him, not neglecting to keep a duplicate. He corrected some, but his indolence in overlooking others would, as I shall presently show, have thrown him into an awkward position if I had not luckily been at hand to save him from grief. He declares, still groping in his deplorable lack of remembrance, that I made one solitary suggestion to it that the period represented was too late for the common use of the word entreated, which should be altered to treated. This single short statement is encumbered by two separate blunders. What I told him was that the period was too early for the common use of the word treated, and that it should be changed to entreated. Mr. Clemens will never get anybody to believe his version of that little anecdote. It is too naively ridiculous to impose upon the proverbial school-boy. The most dussel-tree inspection of the tuner literature, of which there is a fair supply on Mr. Clemens' bookshelves, would have spared him this superfluous mortification. Whoever takes the slight trouble to glance at a concordance to Shakespeare will instantly see that treat had not taken the place of entreat, even in Elizabeth's reign. But there is a sequel, and I fear, rather an unpleasant one, in view of Mr. Clemens' wholesale denial, to the matter of errors in his manuscript. You will observe that his method of saying that I made one suggestion is equivalent to an allegation that I made no other. I did make others, and his carelessness in not heeding them resulted in a notable instance as follows. I was visiting Boston while his book was going through the press, and as I one day looked over the proofs I saw with consternation that he had retained the title of baronet as applied to Hendon's father, and to Hendon himself, thereby committing a gross anachronism of more than one hundred years. It was distressing to find baronets stalking through the scenes of the prince and the pauper, when in truth the order of the prince was not created till several rains later than that of Henry the Eighth. I telegraphed Mr. Clemens at once and he begged me to do what I could to get him out of the mess, at the same time directing Mr. Osgood the publisher, to follow my instructions implicitly. I was fortunate in finding a way to counteract his negligence in a great measure, and to shield him from the imputations of ignorance which he dreaded, though it involved cutting open and refilling the stereotype plates in nearly a dozen places. Some who knew Mr. Clemens were of opinion that it mattered very little what pranks were played with history by a professional joker, but I could not accept their judgment. The prince and the pauper was not a joke, but a very beautiful work of imagination, and I felt at my duty to preserve it from so inexcusable a blemish. Mr. Clemens acknowledged his obligations very warmly at the time, and I supposed his acknowledgments were sincere. But as you have perceived, the incident has glided from his memory to keep company with those forgotten facts, the superior magnitude of which I have endeavored to make manifest in the earlier part of this communication. It would not have been drawn from oblivion by me, but for indiscreet and presumptuous avowal that I had done nothing in connection with the manuscript of his story except to mislead him. Apologizing for this long intrusion upon your space, and thanking you in advance for the privilege which I am sure will be accorded me, I am, sir, yours very truly, Edward H. House, New York, Friday, January 24, 1890. End of Section 4, January 31, 1890, is his word, Twain, also, read by John Greenman. Section 5 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 3, 1890-1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by John Greenman. March 9, 1890. Mark Twain is defeated. The Prince and the pauper case decided. Judge Daly upholds playwright House and says his dramatization or none must be presented. Edward H. House, the invalid playwright, has won in his suit against Samuel L. Clemens, Mark Twain. Judge Daly in the Court of Common Pleas yesterday handed down a decision in joining Daniel Froman from producing Mrs. Abbey Sage Richardson's dramatization of the wealthy Hartford Humorist's novel The Prince and the Pauper, which recently was seen in this city on the stage of the Broadway Theatre. It is a great victory for Mr. House and a personal indication of his honour, as the issue developed in court into one of individual veracity between him and Mr. Clemens. The playwright's attorney, Senator Eugene S. Ives, fully appreciated this. The decision was not handed down until noon. Mr. Ives at once got the necessary papers and sent an officer to Albany, where the piece was presented three previous nights of last week to serve them. The officer left on the two o'clock train. He should have been in Albany before seven o'clock. The enjoined parties have a remedy of law, however, which will enable them to put the play on again on Monday. They can appeal to the general term, and, pending the confirming or reversing of Judge Daley's decision, they can produce the play by filling the necessary bond. There has not been a theatrical lawsuit for years that has awakened the general interest that this case has. This was both owing to the prominence of the parties involved, and to the fact that there was such a wide difference between the stories told by Mr. House and Mr. Clemens that it was very evident that somebody was wandering farther from the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, than was consistent with the oath that forms so important a part of legal testimony. The case is not one that can be called involved or intricate. Briefly it is a story of an alleged injustice done to an author and playwright in straightened circumstances, because of physical infirmity, by a very wealthy author and publisher. Like the majority of writers, Mr. House is not eminent in commercial ability and business shrewdness. Mr. Clemens is a writer who is a notable exception to this rule. He is possessed of a business sagacity that has made him a millionaire. On Mr. Clemens's paramount ability over Mr. House in this regard the tale of woe told by Mr. House in court seems to hang. Briefly Mr. House's allegation was that in the year 1886 he had agreed on the suggestion of Mr. Clemens to dramatize the latter's book The Prince and the Pauper. When he had substantially finished the dramatization, and was only waiting for a suitable person in whom the characters of the Prince and the Pauper could be united, Mr. Clemens brought out the play in its present form, Abbey Sage Richardson having dramatized it. Mr. House's application to the Court of Common Pleas was for an injunction to restrain the further production of the play until his rights could be judicially determined. The fight in court was a bitter one. Senator Eugene S. Ives appeared for Mr. House, Messrs. Alexander and Green for Mr. Clemens, and Mr. Hummel for Daniel Froman and Mrs. Richardson. Mr. House could show no formal contract to dramatize the Prince and the Pauper, but he had a most formidable bundle of correspondence that had passed between himself and Mr. Clemens on the subject. The most important of these letters have already been published in the Times. Substantially the correspondence began with a letter from Mr. Clemens to Mr. House offering him one half or two-thirds of the profits of the play if he would dramatize the book. Clemens acknowledged that he had tried to do it and made a botch of it. The correspondence then traced the course of the work as it progressed in Mr. House's hands, and referred to a visit of the dramatist to the author's home to consult over the finishing touches of the work. The idea that is mainly responsible for whatever success the Prince and the Pauper has attained, that of the dual role, was advanced by Mr. House in this correspondence and insisted upon. It is a strange feature of the case that this and other leading features of Mr. House's dramatization were somehow mysteriously suggested to the mind of Mrs. Abbey Sage Richardson and embodied in her dramatization. Mr. Clemens' reply to the allegation was a general denial in the form of an affidavit. He admitted that he had consulted with Mr. House on the dramatization, but declared that he never made any sort of an agreement with him. Judge Daley's decision is uncompromisingly in favor of Edward H. House. The decision is, like all that Judge Daley hands down, exceedingly exhaustive, thoroughly reviewing the case and abounding in legal references. He quotes extensively from the correspondence that passed between House and Clemens, and finds that Clemens made a proposition to House to dramatize the Prince and the Pauper, and that House accepted it, or, in other words, that correspondence passed between the two which formed a binding contract. The question of veracity between Mr. House and Mr. Clemens was very sharply drawn by the radically different accounts they gave of certain conversations that passed between them. In his decision Judge Daley discriminates between what he considers was the truth and what was not the truth in a most delicate, kid-gloved style, by saying that Mr. House would be much more likely to remember exactly what was said, he being an invalid and accustomed to doing everything very methodically, while Clemens was a busy man, a popular author, and therefore not so likely to remember, with exactness, the details of a conversation. The following is the most interesting portion of the decision. The fact that the plaintiff has no adequate remedy in law is clear. A claim for damages will afford him no relief. It would not be possible to ascertain what some of the plaintiffs should have for a breach of the defendant's contract. There is no basis for estimating what profits would accrue from the performance of the plaintiff's dramatization, and therefore no basis exists for computing damages. It is undoubtedly true that the court cannot practically enforce the performance of this contract by compelling the defendant to put the plaintiff's dramatization on the stage. But a remedy by injunction will do substantial justice by obliging the defendant to carry out his contract, or to lose all benefit of the breach. In other words, the decision says that, while the law cannot lay its hand on Mr. Clemens and force him to produce Mr. House's dramatization of the prince and the pauper, so that Mr. House can obtain the stipulated share of the profits, it can prevent him from profiting by the breaking of his contract by enjoining him from producing any other than Mr. House's version of the play. It is very unfortunate for Mr. House that he cannot obtain material damages, as his infirmity is one that confines him to his house and renders him entirely dependent on his pen. He has been receiving an annuity, but it has expired, and he was practically depending on the months of labor he expended on the dramatization of the prince and the pauper for an income to replace this annuity. Manager Dan Froman was in the Fifth Avenue Theatre last night when a representative of the victorious side of the case came in and served him with the papers in joining him from producing the prince and the pauper. Mr. Froman said he was not surprised at the result, but those who know Mr. Froman are not surprised that he is not surprised, for it is doubtful if he would give any exterior symptoms of emotion if a house fell on him. He did not believe that Knight's performance in Albany would be interfered with, but he had received no information as to whether it had been or not. He said that on Monday the lawyers representing himself and Mr. Clemens would carry the case to the general term on appeal. If they again meet with defeat there, they will go to the Court of Appeals. If they should be defeated there, he supposed they would have to drop the flag unless some settlement was made with Mr. House. They would file bonds on Monday so that the performances could go on until the case was settled. There was much speculation in theatrical circles yesterday as to the effect of Judge Daley's decision in joining Samuel L. Clemens, Mark Twain, Daniel Froman, and Mrs. Abbey Sage Richardson from playing Mrs. Richardson's dramatization of Mr. Clemens, The Prince and the Pauper. The piece was produced in Philadelphia then at the Broadway Theatre here, and last week was started on a long tour through the United States beginning at Hartford, then going to Albany, where at the close of the performance on Saturday night the injunction papers were served. The company, notwithstanding this, adhered to its schedule and, under advice from Manager Froman, took the late train for Detroit, Michigan, where it is advertised to appear tonight. Whether or not this engagement as well as others arranged for the future will be kept is a matter of conjecture. So far as Manager Froman is concerned he is very anxious to live up to his contracts executed with managers along the route. He has the solo right to produce the play in this country for five years, and any break in his program now means loss and annoyance of no ordinary kind. It is probable, therefore, that he will leave nothing undone to check the enforcement of the decision in the court of common pleas in the suit brought by the invalid playwright E. H. House. Persons who have watched the proceedings in the suit closely, long ago, formed decided opinions as to the equity of Mr. House's case, and that his claims are not defective in law, is evident from the findings of Judge Daley. Under the circumstances, therefore, it is possible that the Chief Defendant, Mark Twain, may accept his defeat in the preliminary contest and make overtures for a fair settlement, though anybody who knows how contemptibly mean Twain is, in money matters, may have their doubts on this point. The exigencies of the situation leave this alternative as against an appeal from the decision of Judge Daley to the general term. The modern Munchhausen is expected to arrive in the city from Hartford today to confer with his counsel, Alexander and Green, and the other defendants. There may be a subsequent conference between the lawyers and Morgan and Ives, counsel for Mr. House. If an appeal is decided upon by the defendants, it means a protracted litigation and the filing of a substantial bond pending the final decision. At any rate, important proceedings of some kind must be taken today to enable Manager Froman to do business with Mrs. Richardson's dramatization of The Prince and the Pauper. If the company plays at Detroit tonight without some definite arrangement between the parties to the suit, proceedings in contempt will be in order. End of Section 6, March 10, 1890, Two Ways Left Open, An Appeal, read by John Greenman. Section 7 of Mark Twain in The New York Times, Part 3, 1890 to 1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by John Greenman. March 11, 1890, A Stay of Proceedings. The Prince and the Pauper in Junction Temporarily Lifted. Notwithstanding Judge Daley's injunction restraining Samuel L. Clemens, Daniel Froman and Mrs. Abbey Sage Richardson from presenting Mrs. Richardson's dramatization of Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper, the papers in which were served in Albany on Saturday, the play was given in Detroit last night, according to the schedule arranged for its long Western tour. This was done without defying the law and without incurring the liability for contempt proceedings, for yesterday, Messrs. Howe and Hummel secured from Judge Henry W. Allen of the Court of Common Pleas an order requiring the attorneys of the invalid playwright, Mr. E. H. House, to show cause on March 12, why the injunction should not be vacated and a stay of proceedings pending the result. Subsequently, the order was modified so as to be returnable this morning at eleven o'clock, and then the question will be argued. In support of their motion Messrs. Howe and Hummel submitted affidavits by which their clients agreed to file bonds to any amount that might be fixed by the Court, and to deposit the royalties with the Court pending the determination of their rightful ownership. Manager Daniel Froman said yesterday, in reference to the outcome of the Court proceedings in the matter of the Prince and the Pauper, that he felt that the Court should take action for damages against Mark Twain in behalf of Mr. House, and not against himself, as he entered in good faith upon the execution of a contract with Mr. Clemens, and went to great expense in doing so. So far as he was concerned as a manager, his dealings were with Mr. Clemens as the owner of the book and of the rights to its dramatization. He could not be expected to go beyond the prima facie evidence of Clemens' right to make the contract with him, and if Mr. House has good ground for damages, they are against Clemens, and not against him. End of Section 7, March 11, 1890, A Stay of Proceedings, read by John Greenman. Section 8 of Mark Twain in The New York Times, Part 3, 1890-1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by John Greenman. March 12, 1890, House Makes Terms. Froman's production of the Prince and the Pauper to go on. An agreement was reached yesterday afternoon between playwright Edward H. House and manager Daniel Froman, whereby one branch of the litigation over the Prince and the Pauper is brought to an end. On Monday a stay was secured by Mr. Hummel for Mr. Froman of the injunction proceedings brought successfully by Mr. House, but the order, which was returnable today, was yesterday modified by Judge Allen in Mr. House's favor so far as to make it returnable then. Propositions for a compromise were broached, terms satisfactory to Mr. House were offered by Mr. Froman, and the former consented that the latter should continue to produce Mrs. Richardson's version of the play for five years from date. A written agreement was immediately drawn up and signed by the parties at variance, whereby Mr. House bound himself to vacate his suit so far as Mr. Froman and Mrs. Richardson are concerned, and Mr. Froman bound himself to abandon his motion for a stay of proceedings and his appeal from the injunction. The agreement for the continued production of Mrs. Richardson's version applies only to the United States. The terms secured by Mr. House for this concession were not divulged, but that they are satisfactory was evidenced by the fact that he and his friends were in the best of spirits last night. No negotiations have been had with Mr. Clemens, and so far as he is concerned the injunction remains in force. Untitled Editorial on the Prince and the Pauper Lawsuit In his decision granting an injunction against the further production of the Prince and the Pauper, Judge Dailey points out that there is really no way of estimating the damages which the applicant, Mr. House, has suffered. Mr. Clemens ignored the agreement with Mr. House, which the court finds that he made and under which Mr. House had written the play and prepared it for production. Although the play actually produced embodied ideas which are to be found in Mr. House's version and not in Mr. Clemens' book, its success does not furnish a criterion of what would have been the success of Mr. House's play. This is one of the peculiar hardships of the case and one which the legal maxim that there is no wrong without a remedy should be made to cover. In the absence of a remedy Mark Twain might console himself, although the court distinctly accepts Mr. House's narrative of the agreement and distinctly rejects his own, with the reflection of one of the characters in Mr. Stevenson's wrong box that, all is sacred, but honor. End of Section 9, March 16, 1890, Untitled Editorial on the Prince and the Pauper Lawsuit Red by John Greenman Section 10 of Mark Twain in The New York Times, Part 3, 1890 to 1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Red by John Greenman. September 7, 1890, The Prince and the Pauper and Letter to the Editor from E. H. House The Prince and the Pauper. Mr. House presents his side of the controversy, interview printed in The World. The visitor asked Mr. Clemens when the courts would decide the vexed question involved in the dramatization of The Prince and the Pauper. His face grew slightly melancholy. I expect they will decide, as between Mr. House and Mrs. Abby Sage Richardson, here in New York, probably in October. House never thought of making a play out of my book, in my opinion, until he heard that Mrs. Richardson had done it. He has acted in a sort of a dog-in-the-manger way about it. You ask if I have any doubt about the ultimate decision of the controversy. I can say this. I have no sort of doubt about what the facts are and what the decision ought to be. But I have a good deal of doubt about what the decision of the court will be, for I believe firmly in the uncertainties of the law. By the way, that was an extraordinary opinion which the judge gave when he decided to grant a temporary injunction. It is one of those curiosities of judicial decision, as you suggest, of which we have been reading from time immemorial. The learned court declared that, as Mr. House was a sick man and had been confined to his bed and had time to think and to revolve the facts in his mind and freshen up his memory, his recollection of the facts was probably better than mine because I was such a busy man and was engaged in so many different things. According to that, it would seem that sickness is an admirable way to win a lawsuit, to the editor of the New York Times. Mark Twain does not bear with equanimity the discomforture of a legal overthrow. In the above recently published interview he finds it amusing and becoming to scoff at Justice Daley, who pronounced the decree against him in the Prince and the Paul Pursuit, and to liken my action in the controversy to that of a dog in the manger. The distinguished humorist is happier in the manufacture of modern fictions than in the application of ancient fables. It happens that the manger in this instance was my property and had been so adjudged by the New York court of common pleas. The unfortunate canine illustration betrays a singular inability to recognize the true delinquent. A certain predatory poodle to whose pack Master Mark was formally attached forced his way into my manger and, with instincts akin to those of Esop's animal, did his best to turn me, the rightful occupant, into the kennel. He failed, and I might then have ejected him in disgrace. In the hour of defeat, however, he was a very sick dog indeed, and as he lifted his pleading paws and curled his submissive tail between his legs, I compassionately permitted him to retain a corner in the manger he had attempted to usurp entirely. But because I will not vacate my own premises and leave him in solitary possession I have been yelped at by the intruder and his trained spaniels for the past six weeks with a fury bordering on rabies. Now Mark Twain adds his bark to the chorus. Who, let me ask, is the offending cur in this performance? There was really no occasion for Mark to expose his forgetfulness, or ignorance, of Esop. It is his habit to snarl contemptuously at all literature except his own, precisely as he snaps his teeth in scorn at courts of law which do not decide cases in his favor. But he need not have twisted out of all aptitude one of the most familiar stories of a humorist who died many centuries ago, and of whom, consequently, he has no occasion to be jealous. Again I beg to inquire, who is the dog? E. H. House End of Section 10, September 7, 1890, The Prince and the Pauper, and Letter to the Editor, from E. H. House. Read by John Greenman. Section 11 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 3, 1890-1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by John Greenman. March 30, 1892. Page Typesetting Machines. Mr. Page moves his works from Hartford to Chicago. Hartford, March 29. The Page Typesetting Machine has been removed to Chicago, the designs and models being now on the way to that city. In two weeks the last vestiges of this enterprise, which has been one of special mechanical interest here during the past fourteen years, will disappear from the city. Mark Twain, who was extensively interested in the patents financially, sold out last year before leaving for Europe, and James W. Page, the inventor, is now in control of the project. During the past two years Mr. Page has been perfecting his invention, but has not yet secured the final patents in this country and in Europe. These patents will be issued simultaneously in the United States and in Europe. The models were forwarded to Chicago in a ten-ton safe, every precaution being taken to prevent loss or disclosure. The work of manufacturing the machines will be commenced this season, the company in charge being backed by a capital of six million dollars. Employment will be given to five hundred hands in prosecuting this work. Mr. Page says he has orders for four thousand machines, the cost of each one being twenty thousand dollars. He will take with him the skilled employees who have been engaged here on the work. End of Section 11, March 30, 1892, Page Typesetting Machines, read by John Greenman. Section 12 of Mark Twain in The New York Times, Part 3, 1890-1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by John Greenman. October 5, 1892, Work of the Courts. Samuel L. Clemens, Mark Twain, is one of the defendants in a suit brought in the Supreme Court by Hubbard Brothers of Philadelphia publishers, to recover twenty-five thousand dollars damages for alleged false and defamatory statements made in a circular by the firm of Charles L. Webster and company, publishers, of which Mr. Clemens is a member. Each firm published a life of General W. T. Sherman. That of Hubbard Brothers had an introduction by General O. O. Howard, the main portion of the book being written by William Fletcher Johnson. General Howard's was described as a joint author. Webster and company published the memoirs of General Sherman by himself with an appendix by James G. Blaine. In the circular over which the suit has arisen, the latter firm of publishers warned their agents and the public that the Philadelphia firm was making misleading statements to the effect that General Howard was writing a life of Sherman to be published by them, and an extract from a letter from General Howard was given in which he appeared to brand these statements made by Hubbard Brothers as erroneous. Hubbard Brothers have a letter from General Howard saying that it was unfair to pick a single sentence out of his letter. Judge Patterson, of the Supreme Court yesterday, appointed a commission to take testimony in Chicago and other cities in the suit. 3 November 1st, 1893 S. L. Clemens, Tired of Business Read by John Greenman S. L. Clemens, Tired of Business Reason for the sale of C. L. Webster and Company's subscription book department Charles L. Webster and Company have sold the entire subscription book department of their business as booksellers and publishers. There is no reason given for their action except the desire of one of the partners in the firm, Samuel L. Clemens, to retire from business. The best part of their subscription book department consisted in the Library of American Literature, compiled and edited by Edmund Clarence Steadman and Ellen McKay Hutchinson. The value of this work was estimated last March at $250,000. The buyer is William Everts Benjamin. The price paid is not known, but it is rumored that the sum was not half of the estimated value. Mr. Benjamin will enter the field of subscription books this fall with the Library of American Literature and, in addition, limited to 250 copies of a work on the Continent of America, in which John Boyd Thatcher, already the theme of much adverse criticism for his system of awards at the Chicago Fair, defends with an imposing array of documents the right of America's Vespucius to have named the new world discovered by Christopher Columbus. Mr. Benjamin declares that nothing as important has occurred in many years as, in the book publisher's world, his purchase of the Library of American Literature in the Domain of Americana Students, his purchase of John Boyd Thatcher's work, and in the world of bibliophiles his discovery of a book on the topography of Rome dated 1588 and having on its title page the autograph of John Milton. The latter book was a neglected volume of the Sears Library, which is representative of books and their history since the time when pages were printed on one side only from blocks carved in naive outlines. End of Section 13, November 1st, 1893, S. L. Clemens, Tired of Business, read by John Greenman. Section 14 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 3, 1890 to 1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, read by John Greenman. November 10, 1893, Lotto's Dinner to Mark Twain. The Lotto's Club will give the first dinner in its new house, 558 Fifth Avenue, to Mr. Samuel Clemens, Mark Twain, on Saturday evening. Two hundred members and guests will participate in this tribute to the humorist. The capacities of the new clubhouse will be well tested. Mark Twain is one of the oldest members of the Lotto's, but owing to his residence abroad, his fellow members have seen very little of him for a number of years. The demand for seats at the dinner, in his honour, is something unprecedented, and it promises to be a notable one in the history of the club. Among those who have accepted invitations and who are expected to be present and participate in the after-dinner speaking are Seth Lowe, Richard Watson-Gilder, Charles Dudley Warner, Edmund Clarence Steadman, Charles A. Dana, William D. Howells, General Horace Porter, James Brisbane Walker, and Edward Eggleston. President Frank R. Lawrence will preside. Mr. Clemens expected to return to Europe at an early day, but he postponed his departure in order to accept this compliment from the Lotto's Club. End of Section 14, November 10, 1893, Lotto's Dinner to Mark Twain, read by John Greenman. Section 15 of Mark Twain in The New York Times, Part 3, 1890 to 1899. This Libber Vox recording is in the public domain, read by John Greenman. November 12, 1893, Mark Twain at Dinner, the guest of honour in the Lotto's Club's new house. The famous American humorist, greeted by many well-known people. Would he references by Charles Dudley Warner, Charles A. Dana, Seth Lowe, Richard Watson-Gilder, and others? The guest praised for his love of the United States. Mr. Clemens, two speeches. The Lotto's Club gave its first dinner in its new home on Fifth Avenue, near 45th Street, last evening. Samuel L. Clemens, Mark Twain, was the guest of honour. The dinner was a notable event, and it brought together a large gathering of well-known men. Besides Mr. Clemens, there were seated at the head of the table, William Dean Howells, Charles Dudley Warner, John Hay, Richard Watson-Gilder, General Horace Porter, Charles A. Dana, Andrew Carnegie, Edmund Clarence Stedman, James Brisbane Walker, Seth Lowe, and St. Clair McElway. In addition to these were nearly two hundred other men well-known in social, business, literary, and artistic circles. After the dinner, humor, jollity, and good comradeship held undisputed sway. President Lawrence introduced, to use a formal expression, the guest of the evening with a few witty and well-chosen illusions. Mark Twain needed no introduction, however. He made two speeches, abounding with his quaint and inimitable humor. Almost every sentence was punctuated with spontaneous laughter and applause. The other speakers made Mr. Clemens the target of many a jest and joke, which were appreciated by none more keenly than by the famous writer himself. I have seldom, in my lifetime, said Mr. Clemens, listened to compliments more felicitous, nor praise so well bestowed. I return thanks for them from a full heart and appreciative spirit, and I will say in self-defense that while I am charged with having no reverence for anything, I have a reverence for a man who can say such things as your genial president, and I also have a reverence deep and sincere for a club that can confer upon one so confessedly deserving such distinguished tribute of respect. To be the chief guest on an occasion like this is something to be envied, and if I read human nature correctly tonight, I am envied. I am glad to see a club in these palatial quarters. I knew it 20 years ago when it was in a stable, and later when it was in a respectable house, but nothing so fine as this. I am glad to see it is renewing its youth, and I hope it may be continued to the end, and I hope I shall be there. When I was studying for the ministry, there were two or three things that attracted my attention. One was that unfortunate procedure that was introduced with the first banquet recorded in history, and which has been universally followed down to this present moment. I refer to the annoying custom of making the guest of the evening hop on his feet first. In the first banquet recorded in history, that other prodigal son, who had come back from his travels, as I have done, was notified to stand up and say his say. That was unfair. If he had been left alone until his brethren David, Goliath, and the rest of them had spoken, and if he had had as much experience as I, he would have declined. We know what happened. He gave himself away. I am afraid I shall give myself away if I go on. My history is plenty well enough known already. I never wish to add anything to it. Now that you know how I feel about this matter, I will sit down and give the others a chance. If they talk too much, then I will get up and deny it ever happened. Besides, I don't feel well enough to talk any more. I have been in training with the Democratic Party, and the events of last Tuesday have sort of undermined my political health. You can imagine I don't feel very robust. I feel as I do when I see one of those weak-minded young ladies with an extra charge of poetic soul towing a pup around the street. When I translate that pup's feelings, I feel that in that pup is concentrated the Democratic Party. That ought to be a good excuse. Now, if I may beg your permission, I would rather sit down and wait until I find out whether I am a prodigal or a fatted calf. Charles W. Warner was next introduced. He spoke in a happy vein about the reputation which Mark Twain has acquired in every part of the civilized and uncivilized world. After many chafing remarks, Mr. Warner reverted to serious talk for a few moments and said, Now, underneath all this, I have great respect and love for the man I am defending. I believe there is no man of the ordinary sort that is known to so many people as Mark Twain, and that there is none who is held in such friendly and warm-hearted recognition, whether he is in Italy, India, Germany, or England, or whether he is among true-hearted Americans, he is always the same person, the same cordial God bless you, Mark Twain. A telegram from Henry Irving was read as follows. Salutations and greetings to my old and honored friend Mark Twain and to the Lotus Club with its Supreme Good Fellowship. Wish I could be with you. Charles A. Dana expressed his satisfaction at being able to pay tribute of affection and esteem to the guest of the evening. He said, Never have we had from him any word or any suggestion that was not purely and heartily American. There are those today who seem to think it the right thing to do to turn their backs upon the stars and stripes, but Mark Twain is not one of those, and I judge from the light that sparkles in your eyes as I gaze upon you, that all the Lotus Club is first and always American. For that we say to Mark Twain God bless you, and we will always carry you in our hearts. Seth Lowe was the next speaker. He referred humorously to the political events of the last few days, and said that while all New York knew that what they saw in the sun was so, he had not been able to find anything in that newspaper that would lead him to believe that there had been an election. St. Clair McElway made a witty defense of Brooklyn and rejoiced at the vindication of right at the last election. He said that he expected many New Yorkers to move to Brooklyn now, and that some Brooklyn people would migrate to New York en route for a climate further up the river. He told many humorous stories about Mark Twain which occasioned roars of laughter. General Horace Porter followed in another brilliant speech. There were, again, loud calls for Mark Twain, and he responded as follows, I don't see that I have a great deal to explain away. I have got off very easily indeed, considering the opportunities these gentlemen have had. Neither Mr. Warner nor President Lowe said anything that I can object to, but I never heard so many lies, as Mr. McElway told you. I consider myself a pretty capable liar, but when he got through I was more than gratified to see how many things he had not found out. Mark Twain then became Samuel L. Clemens, and he spoke seriously and feelingly about what had been said of his Americanism. I have been on the Continent two and a half years, and have met many Americans there. I tell you it is very gratifying that wherever you find Americans in Europe, they have in almost all cases preserved their Americanism. The American abroad likes to see the flag of his country. He likes to see the stars and stripes fluttering proudly in the breeze. In those two and a half years I met only one American lady to be ashamed of. That is a very good record. That woman glorified monarchical institutions and lauded titles of nobility. She kept on until it was plain to me that she had forgotten such a country as the United States and such a flag as our flag. Finally when I could stand it no longer I said, We have at least one merit. We are not as China is. The lady replied that she would like to know what the difference was. I answered, China forbids a dissatisfied citizen to leave the country. We don't. I was born a mugwump, and I shall probably die a mugwump. This election merely proves what I have contended abroad. I have said there that when Europe gets a ruler lodged in her gullet there is no help for it but a bloody revolution. Here we go and get a great big, a medical ballot and heave it up. Richard Watson Gilder, the editor of the Century, was the last speaker. He spoke briefly but with quaint humor. End of Section 15, November 12, 1893, Mark Twain at Dinner, read by John Greenman. Section 16 of Mark Twain and the New York Times, Part 3, 1890-1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by John Greenman. December 11, 1893, Mark Twain visits editor Bunner, Newark, New Jersey, December 10. Mark Twain, Clemens, visited nutly New Jersey last night. He drove in a cab to the house of editor H. C. Bunner of Puck. The humorists were together only a few hours before rumors were afloat that Mr. Clemens had come to nutly to see the Poppishan Pig, which was described recently in the New York Times. End of Section 16, December 11, 1893, Mark Twain visits editor Bunner, read by John Greenman. Section 17 of Mark Twain and the New York Times, Part 3, 1890-1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by John Greenman. December 15, 1893, Mark Twain too ill to lecture. Samuel L. Clemens, Mark Twain, is confined to his hotel in this city suffering from a severe cold. He was announced to lecture last night in the club room of St. George's Church Men's Club on reminiscences of a Mississippi pilot, but his medical advisor forbad it. End of Section 17, December 15, 1893, Mark Twain too ill to lecture. Read by John Greenman. Section 18 of Mark Twain and the New York Times, Part 3, 1890-1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by John Greenman. February 27, 1894, Mark Twain's Old Stories. The motive that prompts men and women to attend an entertainment in which Mark Twain figures as a star attraction is not to be misconstrued. They want to be amused. Their minds are made up for an evening of laughter. Having set themselves in that purpose, nothing can turn them from it, not even Mark Twain. Last night's audience at the concert hall of the Madison Square Garden turned out to look, hear, and laugh. It executed that intention thoroughly, while Mark Twain loitered through several of his back numbers. He prefaced his story of the jumping frog by saying that it was 29 years old, while Udenot, his second number, was aged but 27 years. The audience listened to him with as close attention and was convulsed with determined merriment as completely as if the frog's handicapped of five pounds of shot snugly stuffed into its interior, and the story of the man who led a blast skyward for half an hour and was docked his wages for time lost had come off the humorous reel for the first time. He responded to the demands for more with his Washington birthday speech at Farmingham, and the stammering story. The evening bill was evidently arranged with reference to calls for more. Its seven numbers were accordingly doubled. James Whitcomb Riley contributed three of them, each multiplied by an encore. His skill in Hoogier dialect was first shown in Hodden Gray and Jim, which were followed by real-life people, the little man in the tin shop, the child genuine, and goblins, all well rendered. Gaps in the bill left by the two stars were filled by Douglas Shirley, described as the Kentucky storyteller, whose pen seems to have abjured bluegrass fertility for unrealities across the ocean. The trio will appear again to-night. End of Section 18, February 27, 1894, Mark Twain's Old Stories, read by John Greenman. Section 19 of Mark Twain in the New York Times, Part 3, 1890 to 1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Read by John Greenman. May 10, 1894. Charles L. Webster in Company's Affairs. The liabilities placed at about $80,000. Mark Twain Sales for Europe. Samuel L. Clemens, Mark Twain, Senior Partner of the Publishing House of Charles L. Webster in Company, sailed for Europe yesterday on a steamship New York. Before his departure, Mr. Clemens held an extended conference with Bainbridge Colby, the assignee of the company. Later Mr. Colby made the following statement. The liabilities of the firm will not exceed $80,000. The largest claim against the company is one for $25,000. There is no truth, whatever, in the report that Mrs. U.S. Grant has a large sum of money due her on the grant memoirs. Her claim will not exceed a few hundred dollars. I am convinced there is only one way to realize on the assets of the Webster Company, and that is to sell them in the usual course of business. I still have hopes that some plan may be perfected which will make it possible to sell the stock, which is on hand, without resorting to such a costly alternative as an assignee's sale. Mr. Clemens feels keenly the conditions in which his affairs are involved, and whatever the result of the plan which he has adopted for the working up of the assets and the continuation of contracts, I do not think that he will consider himself relieved of the moral obligation to repay his creditors. Mr. Colby said Mr. Clemens sailed for Europe to be absent indefinitely. He has a number of important engagements abroad, but will return at once should there be any need here for his presence. End of Section 19, May 10, 1894, Charles L. Webster in Companies Affairs, read by John Greenman. Section 20 of Mark Twain in The New York Times, Part 3, 1890 to 1899. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain read by John Greenman. August 16, 1894. Mayor Gilroy sails for Europe. He has a celebrated, but gloomy fellow passenger in the person of Mark Twain. Judging from the number of cabin passengers who were carried out by yesterday's outgoing steamships, the tide of eastward travel has begun to ebb. There were many staterooms to spare on the ships that sailed, but there were also many notables among the passengers, a full list of whom was printed in The New York Times yesterday. Mayor Gilmour, who was among those who sailed by the Paris for Southampton, said just before embarking that he was making the trip simply for arrest, and that he intended to return on the train early in September. I do not expect, he added, to see Mr. Grace, and my trip has no political significance, whatever. I have just come from the city hall where I have been saying good-bye to my friends. At my request, none of them came here to see me off. The mayor is accompanied by his two sons and Miss Fanny Gilroy. His party was followed over the gangplank by a solemn visaged, grisly, mustached individual who is known to his fellow passengers as Samuel L. Clemens, and to a wider circle as Mark Twain. A deckhand stationed at the gangplank eyed Mark with suspicion and, blocking the way, demanded to know if he was a passenger. The innocent who was going abroad looked dismally at his questioner and said, he didn't know. Then he carefully deposited a pictorial carpet bag on the gangplank and drew forth a passenger list, which he consulted with much deliberation. He found his name inscribed thereon and announced with an air of triumph that he was a passenger. Then he gathered up his belongings and resumed his funerial march, while the astonished deckhand made anxious inquiries as to who the melancholy person was. To the reporters, Mark Twain explained that he was going over to see his wife and family who are in Etretat—S-I-C—note, probably Etretat, France—and who are, according to the husband, supporting a couple of doctors at that place. When a European doctor gets hold of a good patient, Mark Twain observed, the medical man passes the patient along to some friend in another place and, like the wandering Jew, the sick person is constantly kept moving. I am getting to be very fond of the ocean, he added gravely, and then said more seriously that after the first six or seven days he found a boundless enjoyment in a trip across. The author neglected to add that the average time of passage these days is less than six days, and there is consequently a suspicion that his love for the ocean wave is not so very deep, after all. Mrs. Mary Frost Ormsby, who also sailed by the Paris, goes to represent the Universal Peace Union and the American Peace Society at the International Peace Congress in Antwerp. She says she deems her appointment by both organizations to represent America in another peace congress a sufficient reply to all the published attacks against her. Others who sailed by the Paris were Henry E. Abbey, E. A. Abgar, Dr. William H. Bennett, J. E. Cummins, Colonel Green of the 71st Regiment, and Mrs. Green, Mrs. E. Staufer-Chalmers, Balacy Coralphy, Mrs. J. V. L. Preen, Ms. Matilde Townsend, the Reverend and Mrs. Kiersey Thomas, Count and Countess Piola Caselli, W. H. Dayton, Mr. A. G. Menacol, Bishop and Mrs. A. N. Littlejohn, and Ms. Littlejohn, and F. D. Millett. End of Section 20, August 16, 1894, Mayor Gilroy Sails for Europe, read by John Greenman.