Pulitzer_ A Life in Politics, Print, and Power - James McGrath Morris [36]
Another representative from St. Louis protested that an investigation was unnecessary. If members didn’t think that existing criminal laws were sufficient for the safety of citizens, they should amend the laws, he said. An inquiry like the one proposed “was beneath the dignity of the House, and ought not be entertained for a moment.” But if Pulitzer was guilty, argued another member, it would affect the dignity of the House. “I do not want to sit with a man who would go to his room and get his pistol and put it to my breast for a trivial offense.”
Luckily for Pulitzer, a sympathetic representative stemmed the pressure for an inquiry by raising the specter of the precedent such a step would set. “Should members by their actions here do this it would lead to the investigation of every member’s behavior that takes place outside of the House,” he said. “If it undertook such a course as this, the next thing would be that when a member goes to a wine party and does something that displeases somebody, the House will investigate that. Some member might happen to kiss a pretty girl, must the House investigate that?”
Seizing the moment, Pulitzer’s defenders immediately moved to table the resolution. A sufficient number agreed to forestall the creation of the committee and thus killed the plan. The subject of the debate, meanwhile, was nowhere to be seen. Pulitzer was off settling the $11.50 fine for disturbing the peace. The St. Louis Times called it the “Cost of Prince Pulitzer’s Pugnacity.”
The House probe may have been thwarted, but the interest of Pulitzer’s colleagues in the press was undiminished. The correspondent for the Missouri Democrat called Pulitzer’s act an “insane folly” and reported that “the feeling against Pulitzer was intense, and I remarked a universal indignation at the outrage from every German fellow-citizen, both in and out of the Legislature.” The Kansas City Journal said, “The town has been all afire with a shooting affair” and “the St. Louis Delegation ran around and condemned Pulitzer in strong terms, except for Ittner and [William] Phelan.” Accounts of the shooting even appeared in papers in major cities such as Chicago and New York.
The clamor impelled Pulitzer, who was lying low, to use the Westliche Post to rebut his opponents, who were hoping this would end his nascent political career. “To the people!” he wrote. “It is with the same reluctance that I felt during the events of the very nearly tragic scene in the state capital, that I now reach for the quill, not to defend the role that I was forced to play in this affair, but only to offer a faithful description of the affair.”
He called Augustine “a man of honor,” but added that he “had a tendency toward violence, knew that he often carried a revolver, but always carried so-called ‘dumb knuckles’ on him, which are at least an equally dangerous weapon.” Pulitzer then offered an account of the fight that matched that of other witnesses except for his claim that he saw what he believed to be brass knuckles in Augustine’s raised hand. Pulitzer offered “the holes that it left in my head” as his proof.
“Thus, the people are presented with the facts of a case that is surely regretted by no one more than myself,” Pulitzer concluded. “All I ask is that before a judgment is pronounced in this matter, that the opposing view be examined and considered. I call for each man to imagine himself for a moment thrust into a similar situation, and then ask himself if he will not cast the first stone.”*
The Cole County grand jury was not impressed by Pulitzer’s public defense. “The grand jury of this town who are a very ‘rambunctious’ set at the best, are determined to find a bill against Mr. Pulitzer, charging him with assault with intent