Damon Phylax

Five years ago when I conceived the idea of writing a biography of the celebrated journalist and philanthropist Thomas “Golconda” Fairchild I had no inkling of how exotic and perplexing my project would become. I had thought in fact that it would be rather easy. The essential phases of Fairchild’s career—his adventures and explorations in the Caribbean his experiences as a war correspondent his rise to wealth his patronage of utopian projects and his later career as a crusading newspaper editor—were all amply recorded in public documents. Furthermore I had been able after much pleading and cajoling to elicit personal “behind the scenes” recollections of “Golconda” from my own grandfather Wallace Ernst who without a doubt was Fairchild’s best friend and who was associated with him in one way or another throughout his career. With such evidence I felt confident that I would be able to write a life that would be accurate balanced and reliable and yet at the same time flavored with an intimacy that no other biographer would be able to offer.It was not until almost as an afterthought I wrote to Fairchild’s son William that things began to go wrong. Well perhaps “go wrong” is not quite the right phrase. Let me amend it to “that things began to spin out of control”. William Traynor Fairchild as many of my readers may know is a distinguished engineer the designer and builder of renowned bridges and tunnels a rational hard-headed man who deplores what he likes to call “occult nonsense” and I did not expect him to provide much that would be useful in the way of reminiscences or meditations about his father. From earlier conversations I knew that while William had liked his father well enough he had not stood in awe of him and had not regarded him as a kindred spirit. “The old man” he once confessed to me (and he has informed me that he has no objection to being quoted) “struck me as an essentially irrational man who too often yielded to impulses that inevitably got him into trouble and seldom did anyone else any good.” It was therefore with astonishment that in response to my inquiry I received the following letter which I reproduce with his