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