The Loeb-Leopold case - The Clarence Darrow Collection

The Loeb-Leopold Case
contrary. So if you insist on my stating that I acted
wrongly, as a prerequisite to our renewal of friendship,
I feel in duty bound to point out to you that this is
not the meaning of what I wrote. In this do not think
that I am trying to avoid a renewal of these relations.
You know how much I desire a renewal but I still feel
that I must point this out to you, as I could not con-
sider re-entering those relations when you were under the
misapprehension that I had conceded to what you demanded.
On the basis of this construction of my words,
then, Dick, should you base your decision. Next comes
the other point of issue, namely, whether I wish to be
a party to a reconciliation, supposing that you wish on
the basis of the previous statements to do so. Here the
decision rests, not with you, but with me. Now, as I
wrote you yesterday, you obviated my first reason for
a refusal by telling me what I wanted to know, but an-
other arose, the question of treachery, and that is not
quite settled in my mind. For the purpose of this dis-
cussion, I shall not use the short term ' treachery ' as
you suggested in your letter, to cover whatever you
want to call it. I have no desire to quibble over terms,
and am sure we both mean the same thing as treachery.
Very well. The whole question must be divided into
two, namely, treachery in act and treachery in intention.
On your suggestion, the first was to be settled by phon-
ing Dick, as I did, I apologizing verbally on condition
that you were right, and implying the same apology from
you in case you were wrong.
You were proved wrong, and I am sure you are a good
enough sport to stick by your statement, unless you ques-
tion whether I did all you suggested in good faith.
Hence, you remove any previous charge of treachery in
act. If there was such. But the second is not so simple.
I stated, and still hold, that if you still held me
224