Congress.
14. Stone, Darrow for the Defense; Ruby to Whitlock, Feb. 14, 1912, Mary to Whitlock, Jan. 24, 1912, BW.
15. Los Angeles Examiner, Jan. 30, 1912; Chicago Tribune, Jan. 30, 1912; Los Angeles Times, Jan. 30, 1912; New York Times, Jan. 31, 1912; Baillie, High Tension; Darrow to Everett, telegram, Leo Cherne papers, Boston University; Darrow to Paul, Dec. 29, 1911, CD-UML; Darrow to Masters, Feb. 3, 1912, ELM.
16. Older to Darrow, Jan. 30, 1912, Barnum to Darrow, Jan. 31, 1912, Simon to Darrow, Feb. 1, 1912, Jones to Darrow, early 1912, Mary to Darrow, Jan. 29, 1912, Leo Cherne papers, Boston University; Los Angeles Times, Mar. 3, Apr. 27, 1912; Debs to Darrow, Feb. 19, 1912, Eugene Debs collection, Indiana State University; Darrow to Wood, Feb. 20 and 23, 1912, CESW-UC; Darrow to Wood, Mar. 1, 1912, CESW-HL; Ruby to Older, in Older to Masters, Feb. 2, 1912, Masters unpublished autobiography, ELM. Masters later griped that the “smell of Darrow on me” cost him a federal judgeship he craved in 1913.
17. Sullivan to Wood, Mar. 21, 1912, CESW-HL; Drew correspondence, Harrington statements, Foster autobiography, WD; Willard to Scripps, Jan. 26, 1912, E. W. Scripps papers, Ohio University; transcript, People v. Darrow.
18. Wood to Sara, Apr. 12, 1912, CESW-HL. There was nothing that Darrow could proffer to tie Gompers to the dynamite plots. No one probed the bombings for union connections more than Walter Drew, and, in the end, he absolved the AFL chief. “Are there any professional ethics in the detective business?” Drew wrote Detective William Burns. “Your continued remarks about Mr. Gompers and men ‘higher up’ etc. have, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, become a boomerang and a source of embarrassment and injury … Had any evidence at any time been produced … our association would have followed it up.”
19. Mary to Sara, May 1912, Wood to Sara, Apr. 12, 1912, Sara to Wood, Apr. 1912, CESW-HL; Los Angeles Times, May 17, 18, 1912; Los Angeles Herald, May 15, 1912; Foner, Industrial Workers.
20. Golding wrote Darrow asking for money in 1913. Darrow responded favorably and Golding wrote him back. “You must not consider that you are under obligation to me, because I stood for what was right and just,” he said. But “had I fell into what they wished I would do, and taken a strong stand against you, I probably would not have any debts to worry me.” Darrow left no record of what he gave Golding then, but he told his son Paul to send the juror $4,500 of their profits from the sale of the Greeley gas company in 1928. See Golding letter in CD-LOC and Darrow letter to Paul, Dec. 16, 1927, in CD-UML.
21. Except where noted, description of the trial comes from the transcript of People v. Darrow at the Los Angeles County Law Library and daily coverage of the trial in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Herald, and Chicago Tribune, supplemented by the Los Angeles Examiner and Los Angeles Record. St. Johns, Final Verdict; Drew to J. Badorf, June 5, 1912, WD.
22. It should be noted that the first time Harrington told the story of the $10,000 bankroll, to Oscar Lawler in February, he swore that the conversation took place in their offices in the Higgins Building. See Harrington statements, WD. Transcript, People v. Darrow; St. Johns, Final Verdict; Baillie, High Tension; Cowan, The People v. Clarence Darrow; Darrow to Paul, July 4, 1912, CD-UML.
23. Why was Darrow at the scene? In his autobiography, Darrow chose not to mention that he was there when Franklin was arrested, nor to explain why. The prosecutors did a good job tearing Hawley’s explanation—that Darrow was needed for a political consultation—apart at the trial. But their version—that Darrow was there to supervise Franklin—seems equally convenient, for Franklin had a dozen meetings with Lockwood, Bain, and others in which he attempted to bribe prospective jurors before he was arrested, and Darrow was not present at any of them. So why this day? Rogers contended that Darrow was lured into a trap by an anonymous caller. And Franklin had his own plausible version: that the defense had been tipped off by a source in the prosecution, spurring Darrow, too late, to rush out to stop the crime (“Bert, they are on to you!”). Transcript, People v. Darrow; Los Angeles Examiner, June 23, 1912; Mary to Wood, Aug. 6, 1912, CESW-HL. For a more extensive day-to-day portrayal of the trial, see Cowan, The People