The Truth About that "Public Be Damned" Interview
By ELMO SCOTT WATSON
'^C|^)ASSENGERS ! The Railroads Love You.
tl] So reads the headline in a recent issue of a popular
J I weekly magazine and the theme of the article thus titled is
the present attitude of the railroads toward the citizens of
vi these United States. \
Lower rates, faster schedules, luxurious "Streamlined
trains, air-conditioned coaches and sleeping cars, better and
cheaper meals in dining cars, special excursions ? all of these they
are offering us now to halt the decline in passenger revenue. For
they "have learned that competition, whether it comes from other
railroads, from automobiles, airplanes or busses, is something to be
dealt with by being nicer to the customer."
In other words : the public be pleased !
now ainerent Is all this ?
from their attitude half a century
ago when an arrogant "railroad
king" spoke for all of them and
Uttered the phrase which has
been inseparably linked with his
family name ever since.
"The public be damnedl" he
snorted scornfully but, contrary
to popular belief, it was not old
Cornelius ("Commodore") Van
derbilt who said that. The man
who did say it was his son, Wil
liam H. Vanderbilt, and the pub
lic, because of its prejudice
against Wall Street and men of
great wealth, never forgot that
it had once been damned by a
Vanderbilt.
Since old "Commodore" Van
derbilt was much more famous
than his son, William, it is only
CORNELIUS VANDKRBILT
He Never Said "The Public Be
Damned !" Even Though Many
Americans Believe He Did.
natural, perhaps, that the phrase
should have been tacked upon
him and perpetuated in the long
list of our "popular beliefs which
are wrong."
That historic phrase was ut
tered in an interview with news
paper men in October, 1882. And
just as there has been confusion
as to the identity of the Vander
bilt who uttered it, so has there
been confusion ? and controversy
?over the circumstances under
which it was said. No less than
three versions of the story, all
agreeing in some details but dif
fering in others, have been told
and retold many times. To give
the true version, based upon au
thoritative sources and contem
porary evidence, is the purpose
of this article.
Three versions.
As for the contradictory ac
counts of this incident which have
been published, one of them says
that it took place at an important
meeting of railroad men in St.
Louis at which William H. Van
derbilt, then president of the New
York Central, was the leading fig
ure. When the conference broke
up, a crowd of newspaper re
porters forced their way into the
room and demanded to know
what had been done. Vanderbilt,
acting as spokesman for the rail
way men, answered that nothing
was yet to be given out. A re
porter, whose identity is not es
tablished in this version, tried to
force the railway magnate to
issue some statement. "Mr. Van
derbilt, the public wants to know
and is entitled to know," he
said, whereupon Vanderbilt re
plied wrathfully, "O, the pub
lic be damned!"
Another version places the
scene in the Grand Pacific hotel
in Chicago. The Pennsylvania
railroad had recently put on a
fast, deluxe train between Chi
cago and the East. It was the
first of its kind and created some
thing of a sensation. Clarence
P. Dresser, a free-lance reporter
(so this account identifies him),
learned that William H. Vander
bilt was stopping at the Grand
Pacific and called upon him
there. Dresser asked what the
New York Central was going to
do to meet this new competition
of the Pennsylvania.
Vanderbilt replied that he did
not know that his company was
going to do anything.
"But won't the public demand
it?" asked Dresser.
"O, the public be damned!"
was the reply.
Still a third version of the yarn
has the same reporter but the
circumstances under which he
obtained his interview are dif
ferent. It says that while Van
derbilt was eating dinner in his
private car, which had been side
tracked in the Michigan Central
yards in Chicago, Dresser forced
his way into the car and de
manded an interview. Vander
bilt replied that he was busy but
the reporter was insistent.
"Well," replied the railroad
president, "sit down at the other
end of the car until I have
finished dinner and I will talk
with you."
"But," insisted Dresser, "it is
getting late and 1 will not reach
the office in time. The public ? "
At this point Vanderbilt inter
rupted him. "The public b e
damned! You get out of here!"
So Dresser "got out" and the
next morning Vanderbilt's ill
tempered retort was heralded far
and wide through the columns of
the Chicago newspapers.
Two Reporters.
The true story of this incident
contains some of the elements of
the second and third versions
quoted above. It is true that
Clarence P. Dresser was present
at the interview when Vander
bilt made his historic reply but
he was not the reporter who
asked the question which pro
voked it. That reporter was John
Dickinson Sherman, who at the
time of his death in 1926 was
feature writer for Western News
paper Union and who once told
the writer of this article the com
plete story of that famous inter
view.
In 1882 Sherman was Hyde
Park correspondent for the Chi
cago Tribune and his friend,
Clarence P. Dresser, was Hyde
Park correspondent for the City
Press, an organization which sup
plied routine news to most of the
Chicago newspapers. Learning
that Vanderbilt was en route to
Chicago in a special train these
two enterprising reporters on
Saturday night, October 7, per
suaded the crew of a freight
train to let them ride on it to
Michigan City, Ind. When the
Vanderbilt special arrived the
next day and stopped at Michigan
City for a few minutes to change
engines, they went aboard.
After the train was well on its
way, they succeeded in getting
into Vanderbilt's private car
where he sat alone after his Sun
day dinner. Explaining the rea
son for their intrusion, they asked
permission to ride with him to
Chicago and ask him some ques
tions. He agreed to this and the
interview began. It led finally to
this question which was put to
him by Sherman:
"Do your limited express
trains pay or do you run them
for the accommodation of the
public?"
"Accommodation of the pub
lic? The public be damned!"
replied Vanderbilt. "We run
JOHN DICKINSON SHERMAN
The Reporter Who Got the Famous
"Public Be Damned" Interview.
them because we have to. They
do not pay. We have tried again
and again to get the different
roads to give them up; but they
will run them and, of course,
as long as they run them we
must do the same."
After that there were many
other questions ? about freight
rates, wages of railroad em
ployees, a proposed union depot
for Chicago, the condition of
other railroads, his interest in
them, etc.? and upon their ar
rival in Chicago, the two re
porters hurried to write their
stories for the next day'* edi
tions.
For some reason, the railroad
editor of the Tribune saw fit to
change Sherman's story in one
THE EMPIRE STATE EXPRESS LOCOMOTIVE
The New York Central "Flyer" Which Made Railroad History
at the Turn of the Century.
important particular. Instead of
giving Vanderbilt's famous reply
varbatim, the story in that paper
quoted him as saying "Accom
modation of the public! Non
sense! They do not pay either.
We have tried again and again to
get the different roads to give
them up; but they will run them,
and, of course, as long as they
run them, we must do the same."
But if this editor, sensing the
"dynamite" in the railroad king's
answer, was trying to protect
him from the consequences of his
intemperate words, he failed.
Other Chicago papers, using the
City Press (Dresser's) account
of the interview, had not been so
charitable. Typical of their han
dling of the story was Victor Law
son's Chicago Daily News which
displayed the story prominently
on page one under the headline:
Mr. W. H. VANDERBILT
The Magnate Talks Plainly
He Deprecates the "Nickel Plate"
? Railroads Are Not Run for
the Dear Public
And Dresser's version of the
famous question and answer was
this:
"Does your limited express
pay?"
"No, not a bit of it. We only
run it because we are forced
to do so by the action of the
Pennsylvania railroad. It
doesn't pay expenses. We would
abandon it if it was not for our
competitor keeping its train
on."
"But don't you run it for the
public benefit?"
"The public be d? d! What
does the public care for the
railroads except to get as much
out of them for as small a con
sideration as possible. I don't
take any stock in this silly
nonsense about working for
anybody's good but our own,
because we are not. When we
make a move, we do it be
cause it is our interest to do
so, not because we expect to
do somebody else some good.
Of course, we like to do every
thing possible for the benefit
of humanity in general, but
when we do we first see that
we are benefiting ourselves.
Railroads are not run on senti
ment, but on business princi
ples and to pay, and I don't
mean to be egotistic when I
say that the roads which I have
had anything to do with have
generally paid pretty well."
Vanderbilt's Denial.
When a report of the interview
was telegraphed to New York,
the New York Times printed it
and editorially recommended to
the people that they go to Van
derbilt's house and tack placards
on it bearing the words: "Damn
the public." Realizing the blunder
that he had made, VanderbUt
resorted to the expedient since
used by so many public men to
save face when there is an un
favorable reaction to one of their
utterances. He declared that he
had been misquoted by the re
porters. "I have frequently been
interviewed by the New York
press and everyone knows I never
use the language or expressions
attributed to me by the re
porters," he said in formal state
ment disavowing the words at
tributed to him.
Even though he did disavow
using the "language or express
sions" attributed to him, there is
available other evidence of his
contemptuous attitude toward the
public. The Chicago Times, in
stead of using Dresser's report,
sent one of its own reporters to
interview the railroad king at
his hotel the next day, and in
its report he is quoted as saying:
"Railroads are not run for the
public benefit but to pay. Inci
dentally, we may benefit human
ity, but the aim is to earn divi
dends."
But the News, while printing
this denial on page one, said edi
torially: "Mr. VanderbUt rises to
explain and deny the interview
with him published in the Chicago
papers a few days ago. It is not
strange that he should be dis
gusted even with himself when he
read his profane, egotistical re
marks on paper. But that be did
sa y what wai credited to him
is beyond all question, his own
pointed denial to the contrary
notwithstanding. There were two
reporters present at the inter
view; both report it substantially
alike and their notes agree al
most exactly. The fact is, Mr.
Vanderbilt is in the habit of re
vising his interviews before they
appear in print and it is very
evident that he had better insist
upon such a privilege in the fu
ture although it was not accorded
him in this instance."
A day or two later the Chicago
Times printed in its "Gotham
Gossip" dispatches from New
York the following:
"In regard to Vanderbilt's ex
traordinary damnation of the
public in Chicago but one opinion
prevails in Wall Street. Every
one firmly believes that he did
use the words attributed to him
and every one declares him to be
a crazy loon for having done
so. 'Everyone knows,' he said in
his letter of denial, 'that I never
use such language as attributed
to me by the reporter'. But ask
any of his friends and they will
tell you at once: 'Why, it's W. H,.
all over!.' "
"Four Fatal Words"
Newspaper paragraphers made
wisecracks about "the four fatal
words" and editorial denuncia
tion of his statement became so
widespread that the Cincinnati
Gazette finally declared:
"It is surprising, to say the
least, that the sayings of a man
like Vanderbilt should so disturb
the world in general and country
editors in particular. His Chicago
interview amounts to nothing at
W. H. VANDERBILT
The Railroad President Who Uttered
the "Four Fatal Words."
all, and the public is giving both
Mr. Vanderbilt and his silly talk
altogether too much prominence.
If he were a great railway man
ager, or a great financier, or if he
understood the first principles of
the science of transportation,
some weight might be attached
to his utterances. But he is
nothing of the kind. From a tiller
of the soil, and a very common
tiller at that, he sprang at on*
bound to the top round of wealth.
But in point of experience in
ways of trade and commerce,
and in the elements of greatness,
he stopped short off in the sub
cellar of progress, philanthropy,
generosity, liberality and broth
erly love. The public condemn
him for doing and saying out
landish things when he can not
help doing and saying them. He
knows no better ..."
A week later the Tribune car
ried this significant news story:
"W. H. Vanderbilt and party re
turned from their Western trip
yesterday afternoon and put up
at the Grand Pacific hotel where
they remained overnight. Mr.
Vanderbilt refused to be inter
viewed again, as his experience
in this respect when he passed
through here on his Western trip
seemed to have taught him the
lesson that 'speech is silver but
silence is golden' "1
That was more than 50 years
ago, but to this day mention of
the name Vanderbilt brings to
the mind of the average Ameri
can the "four fatal words" which
one of them once uttered ? "The
public be damned!" The public,
it seems, like the elephant, never
forgets I
? Weittra Ntwwtptr Vmiom.
Wives, Know Yourselves! ?
? Accurate Analysis Will Do Much to
Overcome Difficulty in Wedded Life
C PEAKING on the question ot
^ trial marriages, a well known
writer said, "There should be no
need for trial when two people
know their own abilities and have
measured themselves accurately.
Two people who understand them
selves will never, I believe, have
any difficulty living happily to
gether after marriage."
That is a new slant on the ques
tion of success in marriage, sup
plements a woman writer of na
tional fame. Not "Know thy hus
band" ?or "wife," but "know
thyself I"
And, come to think of it, isn't
most of the discontent and dissat
isfaction in marriage traceable to
ideas of ourselves ? that may be
misconceptions, no less than our
illusions about the other person?
How many women's dissatisfac
tion with their husband has as its
source the thought of all they gave
up to marry him, all they "might
have had" if they had married a
certain other man?
How many women's discontent
with the role of wife and mother
springs from the thought of how
much more fascinating pastimes
they might have had U they had
followed that career?
How many girl's impossible ex
pectations of a full time lover and
Prince Charming originates in an
exaggerated notion of their own
devastating beauty and charm?
Two Impressions of
the Loveliest Things
A school teacher put this ques
tion to a group of children: "What
are the loveliest things you know,
persons not counted?"
Here is the list of one girl: The
scrunch of dry leaves underfoot,
the feel of clean clothes, climbing
up hill and looking down, hot wa
ter bottle in bed.
Here is one boy's list: The feel
of running, looking into deep clear
water, a swallow flying, water be
ing cut at the bow of a boat, an
express train rushing, a builder's
crane lifting something heavy, the
mounted policeman's horse, the
feel of a dive, a thrush singing.?
Stanley High.
II all discontented wives would
look deeply unto themselves,
measure themselves, stop fooling
themselves, many might discover
that the other man they might
have married is a self-nurtured
illusion; that the career of their
dreams is not a soft snap and a
joy forever; but a grueling, ex
hausting job which might have
worn them out if they had quali
fied for it, which they probably
would have been unable to do;
that they themselves are neither
devastating beauties nor always
charming, but women who are
frequently disappointing and diffi
cult to live with. They might dis
cover and admit to themselves
that they are greatly in debt to
their husbands for many things
that make life easier and better
and more worthwhile? that they
would not get along so well with
out them.
Then they might think more of
doing their part of trying to make
those husbands happy. And that
effort on the part of one most in
evitably go a long way toward a
mutually happy and successful
marriage.
? Bell Sradictu. ? WXU Stfriet.
Mine Rescue Methods
More than 963,000 persona have
been trained in first-aid and mine
rescue methods under the super
vision of the safety division of the
bureau of mines. Since the es
tablishment of this service such
training is estimated to have
saved 069 lives.
AT HE
STATE
y
CLABBER GIRL
BAKING POWDER
QUAKER OATS for DIONNE QUINS
World-Famous Youngsters Eat It Ever) Dav
QUAKER OATS
BOB JOINS THE RANGERS /
uk KWf&mG
IjoJs
heV staling!
HW kNOWf HE _
P OKWr NEED 4/fl^
r MO& MEN -HE'S
r GOT TWO RAH6lX>
. MOW POP. EVERY
~TK.EE
THAT DOESN'T
SOUH0 LIKE SOU ,
WERE PHYSfcTULY
QUALIFIED FOR.
THIS Jot, BOB ?
WHAT DOES
your pocnrt ,
- V? J
r AW- WC 5*fl> iVE ,
(5CT COFFEE- AfEKVE5 /
-7W.D ME TO cor ocn
COFFEe AND SWITCH
To Postum For
JB? WVf-VWMT
tUNK!
~~ A Sfc.
7X?$ CtUCK
WHAT MAfftWEP
TO THE RULES
THE YEAR THEY
HltED HIM!
**>Y
1 3Q PAYS LATrR
J'(M STARTING YOU
OUT /? 7VE TOUGH&Tf
RAN6E ON THe
REfECVE, SOB/ I
KNOW "YOU'LL .
MAKE GOOD /l
THANKS Fog
giving me
THE CHANCE,
CHIEF '1 FEEL
VP Tb
, ANYTHING
[ -SINCE X
switched
tb PoyruM I J
flu!
AM*
Or
ith Ifaatn. If J
I or cant sleep soundly. . . try 1
It contains no fffcin It is i
bran, roasted end slightly a
Tbu may miss coffee at first, bat after 30 ?
jroaH lore Fostum for its own rich, I
Pnslum rnmss in two forms? F
kind yoa bod, and Instant IVastum. i
in the cup. Either way it is easy to n
e< oocaiacal, and may prove a real help A lauilmt of
FREE ? Lac ee sea* yea year flrsc west's >
? /fee/ fl
Cfcj IMS
Fill in u ommiBtm*. print mmmm ?nd iiMim
If yea io CuaCi, wkken: Ocatnl Food*, LsA^
Cobovt. 0?. (Offer ewes July 1. 1?t3