I wanted to add my hosannahs to Wes Britton's tribute to Tom Tenney's
work on the _Mark Twain Journal_, which has been nothing short of
brilliant.  Tom deserves the gratitude of every Twain scholar several
times over for his contributions to the field.  Can we build him an
electronic Medal of Honor?  I would recommend Jim Zwick's pieces on Mark
Twain and anti-imperialism as an excellent starting place if you don't
have time to read all the recent issues of _MTJ_.

I must qualify my praise for Charles Gold's article on Charley Webster,
however.  It makes some terrific additions to the store of knowledge on
the man, but not without some significant errors.  I am attempting to
correct them here, on the Forum, because Gold's criticism of my work was
echoed here last week.

Gold's article makes the very insightful comment that many of the
problems in the management of the publishing company resulted from
Charley Webster's belief that he was a partner in Charles L. Webster and
CO., while Sam Clemens regarded his niece's husband primarily as an
employee.  Less successful, I believe, is Gold's attempt to find a
balance between the stories Sam Clemens told about Charley Webster and
the story Webster's son  told in _Mark Twain, Business Man_, in a much
later attempt to exonerate the man.  This is a scholar's natural
reaction, I think: when two stories contradict, expect the truth to lie
somewhere in between.  Gold traces Webster's reactions and opinions as
his relationship with his famous uncle-by-marriage -- and the publishing
company which bore Webster's name but belonged, primarily to SLC -- fell
to pieces.  I think Gold deserves much credit for articulating Webster's
perceptions of the decline; his research is fascinating.

It is not, however, comprehensive.  By starting so late in the
relationship between SLC and Charley Webster, Gold neglects to notice
that the marriage between Webster and and Annie Moffett only took place
when SLC overruled his sister Pamela's objections to the arrogant and
troubled young Webster.  It also ignores the fact that Webster came to
Clemens' notice in Hartford, when he made a trip there purposely to sell
SLC stock in a shady company, the Independent Watch Co.  It is an open
question exactly how dishonest the company's managers were, and to what
degree Webster was familiar with the dishonesty.  I believe -- given his
future behavior -- that Webster knew.  It is possible he did not.  But
Gold makes no mention of this deeply disturbing incident, despite the
fact that it took place very near the beginning of Webster's business
dealings with SLC.

Gold also neglects any mention of the fact that two of the eleven book
agencies hired to sell Grant's _Memoirs_ defaulted, owing Webster and Co.
tens of thousands of dollars, and that despite SLC's repeated efforts to
get Charley to do something about this he failed to take action.  This
does not prove anything, but suggests that Webster was either massively
incompetent or in cahoots.  It is my opinion that he probably took a
kickback of a percentage of the money owed in return for dragging his
heels in suing for the money owed.  It is just as possible that he simply
screwed up -- at a cost to the company of close to $100,000.  Gold also
ignores the fact that Grant's son pressured the company for an
accounting, feeling that his mother had been short-changed, and that the
company paid him an additional $12,000.  Again, either incompetence or
greed, but certainly not an earnest effort to please an unpleasable boss.

It is my view that when someone finds themselves on the plus side of a
series of misconducts concerning money, they are probably involved in
greedy criminal activity.  I can't prove this; no one can.  But neither
can anyone prove, as Gold asserts, that Charley Webster was "not
dishonest."  Gold has made a valuable contribution in detailing how
Charley Webster handled himself in the midst of either professional
incompetence or criminal greed, but he has overstepped in assuming that
he has demonstrated, through Webster's denial, Wester's honesty.

He also oversteps in asserting that my argument about Webster is flawed
in that I fully accept Mark Twain's assertions about Webster, that I take
Twain's point of view in dealing with Webster in _Inventing Mark Twain_.
I do not need to tell most people on the Forum how unlikely it is that
anything in my biography comes unfiltered from Clemens' perspective.  For
good or bad, I made a conscientious effort to make my own judgments about
the details of Clemens' life, and that effort did not falter when
considering Charley Webster.

Hope to see a good many of you in Elmira this week.

Andy