DUMONT BETRAYS DUMONT.
Fanshaw versus Fanshaw was heard privately by a referee; and before Mrs.Fanshaw's lawyers had a chance to ask that the referee's report be sealed from publicity, the judge of his own motion ordered it.At the political club to which he belonged, he had received an intimation from the local "boss" that if Dumont's name were anywhere printed in connection with the case he would be held responsible.Thus it came to pass that on the morning of the filing of the decree the newspapers were grumbling over their inability to give the eagerly-awaited details of the great scandal.And Herron was Catonizing against "judicial corruption."But Dumont was overswift in congratulating himself on his escape and in preening himself on his power.
For several days the popular newspapers were alone in denouncing the judge for favoritism and in pointing out that the judiciary were "becoming subservient to the rich and the powerful in their rearrangements of their domestic relations--a long first step toward complete subservience." Herron happened to have among his intimates the editor of an eminently respectable newspaper that prides itself upon never publishing private scandals.He impressed his friend with his own strong views as to the gravity of this growing discrimination between masses and classes; and the organ of independent conservatism was presently lifting up its solemn voice in a stentorian jeremiad.
Without this reinforcement the "yellows" might have shrieked in vain.It was assumed that baffled sensationalism was by far a stronger motive with them than justice, and the public was amused rather than aroused by their protests.But now soberer dailies and weeklies took up the case and the discussion spread to other cities, to the whole country.By his audacity, by his arrogant frankness he had latterly treated public opinion with scantiest courtesy--by his purchase of campaign committees, and legislatures, and courts, Dumont had made himself in the public mind an embodiment of the "mighty and menacing plutocracy" of which the campaign orators talked so much.And the various phases of the scandal gave the press a multitude of texts for satirical, or pessimistic, or fiery discourses upon the public and private rottenness of "plutocrats."But Dumont's name was never directly mentioned.Every one knew who was meant; no newspaper dared to couple him in plain language with the scandal.The nearest approach to it was where one New York newspaper published, without comment, in the center of a long news article on the case, two photographs of Dumont side by side--one taken when he first came to New York, clear-cut, handsome, courageous, apparently a type of progressive young manhood; the other, taken within the year, gross, lowering, tyrannical, obviously a type of indulged, self-indulgent despot.
Herron had forced Fanshaw to abandon the idea of suing Dumont for a money consolation.He had been deeply impressed by his wife's warnings against Fanshaw--"a lump of soot, and sure to smutch you if you go near him." He was reluctant to have Fanshaw give up the part of the plan which insured the public damnation of Dumont, but there was no other prudent course.He assured himself that he knew Fanshaw to be an upright man; but he did not go to so perilous a length in self-deception as to fancy he could convince cynical and incredulous New York.It was too eager to find excuses for successful and admired men like Dumont, too ready to laugh at and despise underdogs like Fanshaw.Herron never admitted it to himself, but in fact it was he who put it into Fanshaw's resourceless mind to compass the revenge of publicity in another way.
Fanshaw was denouncing the judge for sealing the divorce testimony, and the newspapers for being so timid about libel laws and contempt of court.
"If a newspaper should publish the testimony," said Herron, "Judge Glassford would never dare bring the editor before him for contempt.His record's too bad.I happen to know he was in the News-Record office no longer ago than last month, begging for the suppression of an article that might have caused his impeachment, if published.So there's one paper that wouldn't be afraid of him.""Then why does it shield the scoundrel?"
"Perhaps," replied Herron, his hand on the door of his office law-library, "it hasn't been able to get hold of a copy of the testimony." And having thus dropped the seed on good soil, he left.
Fanshaw waited several weeks, waited until certain other plans of his and Herron's were perfected.Then he suddenly deluged the sinking flames of the divorce discussion with a huge outpouring of oil.Indirectly and with great secrecy he sent a complete copy of the testimony to the newspaper Herron had mentioned, the most sensational, and one of the most widely circulated in New York.
The next morning Dumont had to ring three times for his secretary.When Culver finally appeared he had in his trembling right hand a copy of the News-Record.His face suggested that he was its owner, publisher and responsible editor, and that he expected then and there to be tortured to death for the two illustrated pages of the "Great Fanshaw-Dumont Divorce! All the Testimony! Shocking Revelations!""I thought it necessary for you to know this without delay, sir," he said in a shaky voice, as he held out the newspaper to his master.
