FullReads

Well, sir, it was a mighty curious campaign. There never really was a day when we could tell where we stood, for certain. As anybody knows, the “better element” can’t be depended on. There’s too many of ’em forget to vote, and if the weather isn’t just right they won’t go to the polls. Some of ’em won’t go anyway–act as if they looked down on politics; say it’s only helping one boodler against another. So your true aristocrat won’t vote for either. The real truth is, he don’t care. Don’t care as much about the management of his city, State, and country as about the way his club is run. Or he’s ignorant about the whole business, and what between ignorance and indifference the worse and smarter of the two rings gets in again and old Mr. Aristocrat gets soaked some more on his sewer assessments. Then he’ll holler like a stabbed hand-organ; but he’ll keep on talking about politics being too low a business for a gentleman to mix in, just the same!

Somebody said a pessimist is a man who has a choice of two evils, and takes both. There’s your man that don’t vote.

And the best-dressed wards are the ones that fool us oftenest. We’re always thinking they’ll do something, and they don’t. But we thought, when we took Farwell Knowles, that we had ’em at last. Fact is, they did seem stirred up, too. They called it a “moral victory” when we were forced to nominate Knowles to have any chance of beating Gorgett. That was because it was their victory.

Farwell Knowles was a young man, about thirty-two, an editorial writer on the Herald, an independent paper. I’d known him all his life, and his wife–too, a mighty sweet-looking lady she was. I’d always thought Farwell was kind of a dreamer, and too excitable; he was always reading papers to literary clubs, and on the speech-making side he wasn’t so bad–he liked it; but he hadn’t seemed to me to know any more about politics and people than a royal family would. He was always talking about life and writing about corruption, when, all the time, so it struck me, it was only books he was really interested in; and he saw things along book lines. Of course he was a tin god, politically.

He was for “stern virtue” only, and everlastingly lashed compromise and temporizing; called politicians all the elegant hard names there are, in every one of his editorials, especially Lafe Gorgett, whom he’d never seen. He made mighty free with Lafe, referred to him habitually as “Boodler Gorgett”, and never let up on him from one year’s end to another.

I was against our adopting him, not only for our own sakes–because I knew he’d be a hard man to handle–but for Farwell’s too. I’d been a friend of his father’s, and I liked his wife–everybody liked his wife. But the boys overruled me, and I had to turn in and give it to him.

Not without a lot of misgivings, you can be sure. I had one little experience with him right at the start that made me uneasy and got me to thinking he was what you might call too literary, or theatrical, or something, and that he was more interested in being things than doing them. I’d been aware, ever since he got back from Harvard, that I was one of his literary interests, so to speak. He had a way of talking to me in a quizzical, condescending style, in the belief that he was drawing me out, the way you talk to some old book-peddler in your office when you’ve got nothing to do for a while; and it was easy to see he regarded me as a “character” and thought he was studying me. Besides, he felt it his duty to study the wickedness of politics in a Parkhurstian fashion, and I was one of the lost.