September 13, 1909 Monday

September 13 Monday — The New York Times, p.8, reported a resolution to the Clemens-Ashcroft conflict and law suits:

MARK TWAIN SUITS ALL OFF.

All Litigation Between Him and the Ashcrofts is Finally Dropped

The differences between Mark Twain and his daughter, Miss Clara Clemens, on the one side, and his former secretary Mrs. Ralph Ashcroft, and her husband have been settled without an appeal to the courts. All criticism of the conduct of Mrs. Ashcroft has been withdrawn and all suits have been dropped.

On their part the Ashcrofts ratify and confirm the conveyance to Mark Twain by Mrs. Ashcroft of the house, known as the Lobster Pot, which adjoins Mr. Clemens’s estate at Redding, Conn., the gift of which to his former secretary on her marriage is understood to have been the beginning of the trouble. During the controversy it was contended by Mr. and Mrs. Ashcroft that the deed transferring the house back to the humorist had been signed by Mrs. Ashcroft under duress.

In addition Mr. and Mrs. Ashcroft have agreed to withdraw the suits which they brought against Mark Twain and Miss Clemens for defamation of character.

On the other hand Mark Twain has agreed to drop his suit against Mrs. Ashcroft for an alleged loan of $3,050 and has removed the attachment which he had caused to be placed on the property of his former secretary at Farmington. Reparation has also been made for the hard things which the Ashcrofts alleged had been said of them by the author and Miss Clemens. Mark Twain has signed a document acquitting Mrs. Ashcroft of all blame for her conduct of his affairs while she was in his employ as his secretary. Miss Clara Clemens has also to the satisfaction of Mr. and Mrs. Ashcroft retracted the criticisms she is alleged to have made on Mrs. Ashcroft.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ashcroft continues to be Secretary and Treasurer of the Mark Twain Company, which manages the business connected with the publication and sale of the humorist’s works. It is understood that on the exoneration of his wife he offered to resign his place, but Mark Twain requested him to continue to hold it.

[Notes: Hill writes that “Clemens claimed the story was totally untrue and wrote a letter to Adolph Ochs, owner of the Times, claiming that ‘the interviewer had a personal grudge against me, and the sub-editor who accepted the interviews without verification of their alleged facts had also a personal grudge against me” [239].

Sam wrote to Adolph Ochs, owner of the NY Times about the above article. In full:

Private.
& confidential

My dear Mr. Ochs:
Obscurity and insignificance possess certain privileges which are denied to prominence and distinction. The oiler of your steam presses can slander you and your family in print, but you cannot undignify yourself with a reply. The oiler gets a newspaper-hearing hearing solely on account of your prominence, not on account of any interest the public feel in him, or in his case. He could not get a newspaper-hearing for his grievance against another oiler.

Now these unknown Ashcrofts seem to have welcome use of the columns of the Times whenever they have any falsehoods to tell about me or my daughters, and we are necessarily obliged to endure this in silence. It seems unfair.

At last (a day or two ago), the Times speaks for them! tells their falsehoods for them, and personally tacitly vouches for their veracity! You will agree with me that this is an astonishing thing, and perhaps unprecedented, Can I go into print and defend myself and my daughters against the inventions of these outcasts? Would you do it yourself?

The facts in my case are simple; the matter is a private one, the public has no concern in it, and not the least right to know anything about it. Mrs. Ashcroft (Miss Lyon) was my secretary, and had authority to sign checks for me. She was caught stealing from my bank balance. She had been at it two or three years. An examination of her accounts by expert accountants appointed by H. H. Rogers and John B, Stanchfield proved the thefts, and she was requested to hand back the house I had given her. She did it. This satisfied a part of her delinquencies. There you have the whole thing in a nutshell. I did not bring a criminal action against her. The reward for my forbearance is these recurrent irruptions of falsehood in the Times. Mrs.
Ashctoft gave up her house for one reason only—she could not venture into court to defend a suit.

I have before me the Times’s personal explanation of the present condition of our matters, as published on Sunday or Monday: “Mark Twain Suits All Off.”

The first sentence consists of five lines, and is true.

The next sentence is a plain simple unostentatious lie.

The opening sentence of the second paragraph talks benevolently of “ratifying and confirming.” There was nothing of the kind. The sheriff attended to that.

Next sentence. About “duress.” The deed was read aloud to Mrs. Ashcroft by the notary, in the presence and hearing of her mother, my lawyer, one of my daughters, and another witness. Mrs. Ashcroft signed it without saying anything about “duress.”

The “suits” mentioned in the third paragraph are imaginary, I suppose. The Ashcrofts never contemplated any such thing—while in their right minds, at any rate. ,

Next paragraph. I have not agreed to “drop” any suit for an alleged “loan.” There was no suit for a loan, the suit was to recover stolen money. Mrs.Ashcroft confessed the theft by signing the above deed.

Next sentence. No “reparation” has been made, and none will be made.

Next. I have signed no document “acquitting Mrs. Ashcroft” of blame for her treacherous conduct of my affairs, and I see no reason why I ever should.

Next. Miss Clara Clemens has “retracted” not a word she has uttered about that discredited molluse.

Last paragraph. Mr. Ashcroft does not continue in office in the Mark Twain Company. His wife was not “exonerated.” Mark Twain did not request him to “continue to hold his place.” We elected a new board, and asked him to resign. Which he did. It happened just two days before he furnished the Times with this last grist of lies from his 600 h. p. mill.

It is quite plain that the Times interviewer—and the Times itself—were aware that the Ashcrofts were vile characters, since one of the interviews contained unassailable evidence of it: a private letter from me to one of my daughters. Evidence that they were thieves, also evidence that they were persons without any decency, in that they were willing to misuse the stolen property. That same interview contained a forged document purporting to have been written and signed by me—a document which would convict me of plain dishonesty in the eyes of any one who thought the document genuine.

None of the interviews was up to the standard of matter fit to print in the Times without examination as to their truthfulness, since they assailed the private character of a respectable family. That examination would certainly have been made, but for two quite apparent reasons: the interviewer had a personal grudge against me, and the sub-editor who accepted the interviews without verification of their alleged facts had also a personal grudge against me. The interview contained the name of my lawyer, Stanchfield, and application to him for the truth was at all times easy.

I think I may claim, with justice, that it is unfair for the Times, and also beneath its proper dignity, to allow itself to be used by its subordinates as a medium for the satisfaction and championship of their private grudges. I would like to know—if I may—who they are that hold these personal grievances against me, and what it is I have done to deserve them. They cannot surely be of a very serious nature; certainly not serious enough to move a large-minded man to take vengeance for them out of my unoffending daughters.

Truly Yours, ... [MTP; L-A MS].

James Beauchamp (“Champ”) Clark wrote from Bowling Green, Mo. to Sam.

One night last Summer, when I ought to have been studying the tariff, I suppose, —which, as you are aware, is a very lively subject—I got hold of your book, entitled “Is Shakespeare Dead?” and sat up all night reading it. In my judgment it is the best book you ever wrote, which is saying a great deal. You did not leave the Shakespeare claimants a leg to stand on, and I am glad of it.... If that copyright law don’t suit you, let me know and we will remodel it [MTP].

Day By Day Acknowledgment

Mark Twain Day By Day was originally a print reference, meticulously created by David Fears, who has generously made this work available, via the Center for Mark Twain Studies, as a digital edition.   

This link is currently disabled.