Both appeared in the Lauceston Daily Telegraph. Both are
anonymous. The first appeared on 15 November 1907, the day following
Clarks death. It may possibly have been written by E D Dobbie,
who at the time was Solicitor-General of Tasmania, and was a close
friend of Clarks from the 1870s. On the same date, one might
mention in passing, the Telegraph also printed a detailed
obituary of Clark, which from its close description of Clarks
fierce style in Hobart Debating clubs in the 1870, and its close
analysis of Clarks political career and involvement in the
federation movement, may also come from Dobbies hand.
The second reminiscence appeared in
the same newspaper on 16 November in a weekly column, Our
Hobart Letter. The style of this. and other weekly letters,
is unmistakably that the Editor of the (Hobart) Tasmanian News,
Alexander Hume. The special interest of both is their evocation
of relaxed intimacy. They attest a side of Clark most evident otherwise
in his poetry, and in intimate 1870s-80s letters to Clark from close
friends in the Minerva coterie, especially from Joseph Witton, Walter
Gill and George Edwards. (R. Ely)
The short note of 15 November 1907:
The late Mr Justice Clark was a man of literary tastes and habits,
and his library at Rosebank is probably the most extensive
collection of books of the higher forms of literature in Tasmania,
and there are but few comprehensive private collections in Australia.
It was in the rooms in which the books that he loved so well were
carefully classified and shelved, and over the fireplace of which
hung a portrait of Mazzini, that A1 as he was known
to them, used to meet a very large circle of book friends. He and
his library formed the centre of a strong literary coterie. In addition
to his legal and public work he found time for and much pleasure
in contributing to the proceedings of several literary societies.
When in Hobart he was always at home to his friends
on Saturday evening. Those evenings were known to many Australians
on the mainland, and as a matter of course they passed on
to the Padre, another familiar name bestowed by those
who knew him intimately, any distinguished visitors coming this
way. [The names of Alfred Deakin, Chief Justices Griffiths and Way,
and Bernhard Wise are mentioned]
The letter of 16 November
1907:
Mr Justice Clark has joined the vast majority. When one first knew
him he was plain Andrew Clark, a student, a worker, and a real,
right-down good fellow. When two men can claim an acquaintance of
nearly forty years, as was the case with Mr Justice Clark and the
writer, they know something about one another. In the seventies
a little coterie of young men Mr Clark and the writer among
the number formed a kind of democratic society, the main
object of which seemed to be to eat a rattling good dinner on the
4th of July, and listen to speeches which told the democracy to
roll on and make the world its own. There were a few Hobart pressmen
in that society. Ronald Smith and George Edwards were two. If there
were any more one has forgotten them. Mr Clark, even at that time
of day, was allowed to be the best speaker and the soundest reasoner
of the bunch. Debating societies were strong in those days. The
Scotch [that is, Presbyterian] Church of St Johns, Macquarie-street,
had one attached to it, and to the best of ones belief the
present Solicitor-General [E D Dobbie, later a puisne judge of the
Tasmanian Supreme Court] made his debut into the debating arena
in this centre. By nature impetuous and impulsive, Andrew Clark
made his presence felt on the debating floor. He was so thorough
in working up his subject that it was extremely difficult for a
superficial speaker, no matter how brilliant he might be as regards
oratory, to get under his defence.
One could perceive in those days of
long ago that Andrew Clark intended to launch on the political ocean
when the time came along for him to do so. His close friends
those who knew him best felt convinced that he would make
his mark in the political world. Ones own impression is that
he made a mistake ever to touch politics. His nature was too impressionable
and his temperament too finely strung to stand political ricks.
One has seen him in his finest moments in the House work himself
up to a pitch of excitement that would try the nerves of a much
stronger man to stand the racket. His strenuous work in reading
for the law he was touching thirty when he passed
must have told upon him. How he got into politics, what he did when
he got there, and how he ascended the bench is now a matter of history,
and has been told in the newspapers time without number. A short
time ago one met him in the street, when he remarked that his health
was anything but good. Why dont you stop flogging hard?,
remarked one. You have been doing it ever since I knew you.
The string must crack some day. I wish I could,
was the reply. Sometimes I try to go slow, because I think
it is good for me, but there is always something coming along to
upset me. Its no use, my temperament is different to yours.
You are philosophic, and philosophic men as a rule do not worry.
As a man and a firm friend, Andrew
Clark was all that could be wished. He never deserted an old friend,
no matter how far apart they were divided by social surroundings.
Many a man in this community has reason to bless the time that he
secured him for a friend. He was not a rich man judges very
seldom are still he gave freely where it was deserved. Regarding
his social qualities these were large. He was a conversationalist
of the first order of merit, and when one chatted with him round
his own fireside one found out the richness of his strata of literary
knowledge. He leaves a large circle of friends who will not easily
forget him. Slowly, but surely, the little knot of good fellows
that lived in the days when one was young are slipping away into
the unknown.
|