It might be supposed that under these circumstances Mr. Pulitzer was
easily deceived, that when there was no evil intention, for instance,
but simply a desire to spare him annoyance, the exercise of a little
ingenuity could shield him from anything likely to wound his feelings or
excite his anger. As a matter of fact I have never known a man upon whom
it would not have been easier to practice a deception. His blindness, so
far from being a hindrance to him in reaching the truth, was an aid.
Two instances will serve to illustrate the point. Suppose that I found
in the morning paper an article which I thought would stir J. P. up and
spoil his day: when I was called to read to him I had no means of
knowing whether the man whom I replaced had taken the same view as
myself and had skipped the article or whether he had, deliberately or
inadvertently, read it to him. The same argument applied to the man who
was to follow me. If I read the article to him I might find out later
that my predecessor had omitted it, or, if I omitted it, that my
successor had read it.
In either event one of us would be in the wrong; and it was impossible
to tell in advance whether the man who read it would be blamed for lack
of discretion or praised for his good judgment, as everything depended
upon the exact mood in which Mr.
Pages:
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116