Last night I suddenly recalled this speech that I first read when Ed Larson and I were considering what to include in our book, “The Essential Words and Writings of Clarence Darrow.” It seems like an appropriate item to publish today on Ethics Alarms.
I am considerable older than Clarence was when they gave him a gala birthday party in Chicago on April 18, 1918, even if one doesn’t take into consideration the Spanish Flu that was then ravaging populations here and abroad. The average age of mortality for men was about 55 in 1918, so Darrow was past his pull date. I’m almost as far under the 2025 average mortality number for men as Darrow was over his. Darrow, however, made it clear in his speech that he didn’t feel old. Neither do I.
One should note that Darrow, despite issuing his own testimonial, had not yet participated in the three sensational cases upon which his current reputation as the Greatest American Trial Lawyer Ever rests: the Scopes trial, the Sweet case, and the defense of “thrill killers” Leopold and Loeb. His career still had a lot of “kick” left. It is also revealing that Darrow was already considered a major celebrity before his legal exploits shifted into territory that would be mined extensively by books, plays and movies over the next century.
I find it fascinating that Darrow claims to be modest—-he always thought he was the smartest one in the room, because he usually was—and that he claims to despise “moralizing.” Darrow, whose secret weapon in so many of his trails was jury nullification, promoted his vision of right and wrong aggressively and effectively; it was what drew me to Darrow as a student of ethics. The speech is remarkable in how completely Darrow neglects to mention, thank or acknowledge his long-suffering wife Ruby, his virtually abandoned son, or even any friends. Not surprising, however. Darrow was a narcissist. I am not sure that he had any close friends for any length of time, or missed having them.
Darrow didn’t prepare this speech, evidently. It rambles and leaps from topic to topic, but Clarence Darrow rambling is more entertaining and thought-provoking than all but our most brilliant historical figures speaking after days of preparation. By today’s standards the speech is far too long, but these were times before attention span had been decimated by modern media, the speeding up of life and inferior education. And this was a lawyer who once won a case with a twelve-hour closing argument. Guests at the party probably weren’t even squirming in their chairs.
Darrow (he hated being called Clarence) was by all accounts a riveting speaker, and that certainly helped. As you will see, he also was incapable of speaking for long without uttering a memorable quip or a trenchant observation.
Now enough from me…Here’s Darrow:
***
Ethics Alarms 