Futility Closet - 074-Charley Parkhurst's Secret

Episode Date: September 21, 2015

"One-Eyed Charley" Parkhurst drove a stagecoach throughout California during the height of the Gold Rush, rising to the top of a difficult, dangerous, and highly competitive profession at its historic peak. Only after his death in 1879 at age 67 was it discovered that Charley was a woman. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast, we'll tell what's known of Charley Parkhurst's courageous and enigmatic life story. We'll also hear listeners' input on the legalities of an anti-Christian town and puzzle over a lucky driver and his passenger. Sources for our feature on Charley Parkhurst: Dan L. Thrapp, ed., Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography, 1991. Gloria G. Harris and Hannah S. Cohen, Women Trailblazers of California: Pioneers to the Present, 2012. Alton Pryor, Fascinating Women in California History, 2003. "Thirty Years in Disguise," New York Times, Jan. 9, 1880. Mark McLaughlin, "Sierra History: The Strange Tale of Stagecoach Driver Charley Parkhurst," Tahoe Daily Tribune, July 11, 2015. "The Secret of One-Eyed Charley," Palm Beach Post, June 29, 1958. This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Jillian Caldwell, who sent these corroborating links (warning -- these spoil the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the Donate button in the sidebar of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Welcome to Futility Closet, a celebration of the quirky and the curious, the thought-provoking and the simply amusing. This is the audio companion to the website that catalogs more than 8,000 curiosities in history, language, mathematics, literature, philosophy, and art. You can find us online at futilitycloset.com. Thanks for joining us. Welcome to Episode 74. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. Charlie Parkhurst drove a stagecoach throughout California during the height of the gold rush, rising to the top of a difficult, dangerous, and highly competitive profession. Only after his death in 1879 was it discovered that Charlie was actually a woman.

In today's show, we'll tell what's known of Charlie Parkhurst's courageous and enigmatic life story. We'll also hear listeners' thoughts on the legalities of an anti-Christian town and puzzle over a lucky driver and his passenger. Our podcast is made possible by our terrific patrons, and if it weren't for them, you wouldn't be hearing us right now. If you like Futility Closet and want to help support the show so that we can keep on making it, please check out our Patreon campaign at patreon.com slash futilitycloset or look for the link in our show notes. And thanks so much to everyone who helps support Futility Closet. This was suggested by listener Bill Bowser. Charlie Parkhurst drove a stagecoach for 30

years in the American West during the height of the gold rush and was considered one of the best four stage drivers in California at the time and was discovered only after his death to be female, a secret that he'd kept

for at least 30 years. There's a lot about the story that we don't know, but I've managed to piece together, I think, everything that is known with any confidence. She was born Charlotte Darkey Parkhurst in 1812 in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and was abandoned by her parents and placed in an orphanage,

and then shortly afterward ran away, stealing some boys' clothing, and thereafter, posing as a boy, met a livery stabler with the enchantingly old-timey name Ebenezer Balch in Worcester, Massachusetts. I should say a word here about pronouns. It appears that Charlie never told a soul her reasons for choosing the life she did. She may have dressed as a man because she felt that was her identity, that's who she knew herself to be, or it may have been simply practical. In the early 1800s, it would have been almost impossible for a young girl to earn a living on her own, but a boy could become an apprentice and learn a trade, which is what Charlie did.

So you don't really know whether she identified as a male or a female. Right. Yeah, we know literally zero about that, because it appears that she just never told anyone at all about this part of her life. Also, later on, a woman would not have been allowed to drive a stagecoach for Wells Fargo, which is what Charlie did. So we just don't know the reasons that Charlie dressed as a man. It could have been either of these, or it could have been both, or something else.

I'm going to call her she here, but we really just don't know the whole truth. She found work as a stable boy, cleaning stables, pitching hay, and caring for horses in Worcester. And Balch observed that she had quite a lot of natural ability with horses and began to train her to handle teams of horses. And apparently she was remarkably good at this. She got quickly skillful driving teams of two and then four and finally six horses. I don't know anything about horses, but apparently that's very

difficult to do and it's very impressive to learn it quickly. Finally, Bulge bought some stables in Providence, Rhode Island, and took her along to work with him, and she began to develop a reputation as an accomplished stage driver. She finally went to Georgia to do some more driving down there, and during her years on the East Coast, she acquired a reputation as an outstanding, sure-handed driver. Just a very good, reliable, talented stagecoach driver. It's really sad to think that if people knew she was a woman, they either wouldn't have let her do that, or I'm sure they would have thought, oh, she's no good. They just would have assumed she couldn't possibly be good at that. Yeah. It's a really impressive story,

but it raises a lot of questions because you just wonder what her experience was. Yeah. Well, how lonely she must have been. I mean, you can't really form relationships with people if you don't want them to catch on to the fact that you're actually a woman. Or if you have any secret that you're just trying to hold on to. The Gold Rush began in 1848 when she was in Georgia, and three years later, in 1851, she went by ship to California, which involves, this is before the Panama Canal, so that means going down, crossing Panama overland, and then going to San Francisco, which is where she wound up. She got work with the California Stage Company, which had recently been established there.

When she arrived in San Francisco, she was nearly 40. The descriptions we have said she was 5'7", with broad shoulders and a raspy voice. She smoked cigars, chewed tobacco, and was a moderate drinker, which I guess maybe describes almost everyone in San Francisco at the time, at least in my mind. So she fit right in. She became one of the most prominent and ablest of all California stage drivers, which, even leaving gender out of it, is an amazing accomplishment,

because this was the gold rush. This was the height of activity in California at the time, and she was just remarkably good at it. She, shortly after arriving in California, she was kicked by a horse and wore a patch over her left eye, which gave her the nickname One-Eyed Charlie. But apparently she was very well known around San Francisco just for her driving abilities. During her tenure with the California Stage Company, she drove coaches through all the gold mining towns in nearly every route in the state, which is big. On some days, she'd cover 60 miles on treacherous roads and make the return trip as well. She also worked for the Pioneer Line, which offered service between San Jose and Santa Cruz. That was taken

over by Wells Fargo in 1866. And sometimes Wells Fargo would give her special missions like transporting gold to New York, all the way across the country. Wow. Which she always returned safely. I mean, that's, I can't imagine a bigger responsibility than that for a stagecoach driver and she always did it successfully. So she was building a great reputation even then. And was apparently ambitious.

She said her goal was to be the best damn driver in California and by all accounts she succeeded at that and became known as one of the Old West's greatest stagecoach drivers. The reason everyone knew her in particular was because in the early days of the gold rush, the gold hunters used San Francisco as a sort of headquarters where they'd exchange information, and then they'd travel outward from the city to the most recently found diggings. And she was a stage driver on the more important routes leading out from the city, so she just had interactions with a great many people who got to know her. By all accounts,

it's an extremely difficult job what she was doing, and she was proud of her skill. It required strength, dexterity, and good judgment. A good driver like her could earn up to $125 a month plus room and board, which is a very high salary for the era, but she really earned it. One account says, he was in his day one of the most dexterous and celebrated of the famous California drivers, ranking with Foss, Hank Monk, and George Gordon, and it was an honor to be striven for to occupy the spare end of the driver's seat when the fearless Charlie Parkhurst held the reins of a four or six in hand. That is a four horse or six horse team. So of the four top, she was one of the four top stagecoach drivers in California at the time in Gold Rush. Throughout her career, from what I can understand in Northern California, she wore blue jeans, pleated blousey shirts, a cap of

buffalo hide, and embroidered buckskin gloves, which covered her small hand, which may have helped, I guess, to disguise her identity. And she carried a brace of pistols stuck in her belt, which was a good thing because she was held up at least once. Apparently, this was a common thing. I guess it makes sense if people are carrying gold all over California, that there is going to be a thriving trade in banditry. There's one bandit I haven't been able to learn much about. His name was Sugarfoot.

According to one account, that's because he wrapped his feet in uh sugar bags basically instead of clothes instead of shoes i don't know if that's true anyway it's a very colorful name and she met him once driving between stockton and mariposa he uh stopped there basically the bandits ran out to kill people they just wanted the gold that was in a box and uh so if you surrendered your box generally they'd leave your passengers alone which is the foremost concern of the driver right so she was driving from stockton to mariposa encountered him and gave him the treasure box but warned him that she'd break even with them soon and then sure enough they held her up again going back the other direction from mariposa to stockton and she fired at him and apparently hit him at least

according to every account I can find. He made his way to a miner's cabin in the woods and told someone as he was dying that he'd been shot by Charlie Parkhurst, the famous driver, in a desperate attempt with others to stop the stage. So that's at least one... Good for her. ...act of intrepid bravery. She drove stagecoaches until the late 1860s,

but by then the railroads were expanding, and so there was less and less demand for them. And as she was getting older, she began to suffer from rheumatism, which was apparently a common complaint among the drivers. After she retired from driving, she tried cattle ranching for a while and raising chickens. She did those together for about 15 years, even working as a lumberman during the winters

and still presenting herself as a man. One account says, although in his stage coaching day he was hail fellow well met with the migratory miners, and during the succeeding years of his life as farmer and lumberman he was social and generous with his fellows, he was never intemperate, immoral, or reckless, and the sure result was that his years of labor had been rewarded with the competency of several thousands of dollars. For several years of labor had been rewarded with the competency of several thousands of dollars. For several years past, he had been so severely afflicted with rheumatism as not only to be unable to do physical labor, but the

malady had even resulted in partial shriveling and distortion of some of his limbs. He was also attacked by cancer on his tongue. As the combined diseases became more aggressive, the genial Charlie Parkhurst became not morose, but less and less communicative. Till of late, he has to converse with no one except on the ordinary topics of the day.

He finally did die of the tongue cancer. She, I should say, in her cabin near Watsonville, California in 1879 at the age of 67. And it was only then when the neighbors came to lay out her body for burial that they found that she was female. Well, I was just thinking maybe she was never able to go to a doctor. I mean, that would be challenging. I don't know. It raises a lot of questions. Yeah.

Which we'll never know the answers to, but you're right. An obituary was, I mean, this was a sensation, you can imagine. Yeah, sure. An obituary was printed in the local newspaper, the San Francisco Morning Call, on December 28th, 1879. This was reprinted in the New York, the San Francisco Morning Call, on December 28, 1879. This was reprinted in the New York Times, and I think they actually do a pretty good job of praising her for what she accomplished. Here's an excerpt from it. The discoveries of the successful concealment for protracted periods of the female sex under the disguise of the masculine are not infrequent,

but the case of Charlie Parkhurst may fairly claim to rank as by all odds the most astonishing of all of them. That a young woman should assume man's attire and, friendless and alone, defy the dangers of the voyage of 1849 to the then almost mythical California, dangers of which hardy pioneers still grow boastful, has in it sufficient of the wonderful. That she should achieve distinction in an occupation above all professions calling for the best physical qualities of nerve, courage, coolness, and endurance, and that she should add to them the almost romantic personal bravery that enables one to fight one's way through the ambush of an enemy, seems almost fabulous, and that for thirty years she should be in constant and intimate association with men and women, and that her true sex should never even have been suspected, and that she should

finally go knowingly down to her death without disclosing by word or deed who she was, or Hmm. Which is well said, I think. They mentioned their voyage out to California, and I was thinking about that when you were saying it. I mean, on a ship, I mean, usually you have to share cabins on ships. I mean, usually, I just keep thinking, you know, how, I mean, there have been so many movies about people trying to be a different gender, and it's always kind of a joke or whatever. But, I mean, it makes you think how difficult you get into situations where you're just expected to undress in front of somebody or answer nature's call in front of somebody.

And I, you know, you just have to wonder how like every single day she would have had to have been thinking, thinking, thinking how to handle, you know, every situation and,

and sleeping arrangements every night, you know, doing that at all. I mean, just even if she'd just been a woman presenting herself as a woman. Yeah. Going west was a huge deal. Right, yeah.

I mean, going overland or just going down across Panama. Yeah. She did this alone. Yeah. Just, she'd been, from what I understand, she was invited by a stage company in San Francisco, but didn't know anyone out there and just undertook to go to make her way through all these dangers to get to San Francisco and start up a new life there, that would be hard enough to do just for anyone, everyone who did it.

But doing this, having to keep a secret like that is almost unthinkable. Well, as I was saying before, she must have just, I mean, you couldn't reform close relationships with anybody. She would have had to be such a loner her whole life. This is one of those maddening stories where it's hard to research because a lot of writers just give themselves license to make facts up just whatever they think will make a good story and just write it down which is infuriating uh one of the best sources i was able to find for this though is the encyclopedia frontier biography which says that the same autopsy that revealed her sex also revealed evidence that she'd once given birth.

And I've seen that repeated elsewhere. I don't know that for absolutely certain, but that seems like it's possibly true. Wow. It also says that they found in, they found a baby's red dress in a trunk in her cabin. Oh, that's really sad. Yeah, that's, I mean mean that's kind of circumstantial because you don't know quite what it means sure um and i didn't i haven't found i guess i should stress that detail of the red dress i haven't seen that in any other source but it could be true i

mean i trust i trust this source better than the others that's the kind of thing we've we've talked about about things making a good movie it's like you could just imagine that being the very last scene of the movie, like somebody discovering the little red dress and putting together what that must have meant. Yeah. Wow. There's one last detail that's often mentioned in accounts of Charlie Parker,

and that's that she may have been the first woman to vote in the United States. Oh, I hadn't even thought of that. It's said that this happened on November 3rd, 1868, that she cast a ballot in Santa Cruz County while posing as a male. This would have been certainly noteworthy because it was 52 years before the 19th Amendment gave women in general in the United States the right to vote. Yeah. It is known that she registered the Santa Cruz Sentinel of October 17th, 1868 list of Charles Darkey Parkhurst on the official poll list for the presidential election of 1868. This was, for the record, between Horatio Seymour, the former governor of New York, and Ulysses S. Grant, who won.

But there is no record that Charlie actually cast a vote. She registered but didn't cast a vote, apparently. Well, would they have records of that, though? Possibly not, but even if she did vote, that may have made her the first woman to vote in a presidential election in California, but she would not have been the first woman to vote in the United States because actually there were a few states that allowed women to vote before 1868.

So there were already women elsewhere in the country who were voting, but still, I mean, I think even to register to vote deserves mention. Yeah. Because we did know that she got at least that far. So that's, it's often said just flatly that she was the first one, first woman to vote in the United States. And that's. That's not completely true. That's not completely true.

But still. And I guess we wouldn't know if other women dressed like men in order to try to be able to vote. I suppose that's true. Yeah. We wouldn't really know that, would we? We can't assume that she's the only one. So that's everything I can find about Charlie Parkhurst. I think you'd have to say that whatever her reasons were, she lived the life, apparently,

that she wanted to lead. Very successfully, yeah. And succeeded in a very difficult undertaking professionally that everyone agrees universally that she was exceptionally good at. So the rest of this we'll never know the full truth about, but that in itself is something to admire. In episode 71, Greg told us about the town of Liberal, Missouri, which was founded in 1880 by freethinker George Walzer, who was very opposed to Christianity. Walzer was quite bent on keeping Christians out of his town, and Greg questioned how that

could be legal. And some of our well-informed listeners wrote in with some answers for us. They always do. We have such smart listeners. This was a little bit of a crash course for me in constitutional law with regard to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment reads in part, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And Ankur Munjaniya wrote in to say that he is a lawyer, so he found your question right

up his alley. Good. Ankur says, in the late 1800s, the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, was believed to apply only to the actions of the federal government and not to actions of state or local governments. Thus, actions by liberal or its neighbors adopting a pro- or anti-Christianity stance were not unconstitutional or illegal at the time, at least not under federal law. Ankur does note that you were right to think that such actions would be illegal today.

I'm glad. As soon as I asked that question, I worried that it was just a stupid question. No, apparently not. That's good to hear. Now the First Amendment is applied to protecting individuals against actions by state or local governments. Anker says that that happened after the 1940 Supreme Court case of Cantwell versus Connecticut, which found that the free exercise of religion clause does apply to state governments. So it's only been since the 1940s that this actually would have applied to more local governments.

It's kind of actually surprising to me that it's interpreted that way because the language explicitly says Congress. The language does say Congress, but apparently that's meant in a more broader term. Yeah, I suppose there are state congresses. I don't know. I guess. state congresses. I don't know. I guess. As a side note on this, Anker says that not all of the protections afforded

by the Bill of Rights apply to state and local government actions. Some of them are still only applied to the federal government. He says the most notable is the Seventh Amendment right to a jury in a civil case, which hasn't been applied to the states. And that's why you can have state civil trials without juries

but not federal ones. So that's a bit inconsistent. I civil trials without juries, but not federal ones. So that's a bit inconsistent. I wonder if these things just kind of filter their way down and eventually that will apply. Maybe it will. Like if somebody protests against it and the Supreme Court thinks they have a good argument for it. Yeah. Meredith Raley and Jim Finn wrote in to say that the establishment clause of the First Amendment, that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, was only first applied to state and local governments after the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education. So one clause was fixed in 1940 and the other in 1947. So basically after the 1940s, you couldn't do this for either section.

So basically after the 1940s, you couldn't do this for either section. Both Meredith and Jim also note that even if the people of Missouri did think that the First Amendment protections would have applied to them, nothing actually would have been done unless someone specifically tried to challenge Walzer's actions in court. Which I guess nobody ever did. Yeah, see, and so that's kind of an important point, too. Like even if what he was doing was illegal until somebody brought it to court, nothing would have been done. Yeah. Keith Rockley wrote in with a completely different suggestion for how liberal might have been legal. Keith says, it can be done through a very simple trick, deed restriction. I'm not aware of any secular towns in the U.S. that employ this tactic, but I am aware of a town that does the exact opposite, Ocean Grove, New Jersey. And Keith explains that all of the land in Ocean Grove is owned by a local Methodist camp association. People actually lease their properties from the owners, and thus the businesses and homeowners technically only own the structures on the land, but the land

is still all owned by this Methodist association. So the camp association has a number of laws about what can and can't happen on their land, such as the beach can't be open on Sunday mornings and the sale of all alcohol is prohibited. Keith says, so it can be done. It's just not easy, cheap, or popular. You have to really believe in the cause to make it happen. That's interesting though. It's a really interesting example and I hadn't heard about this, but I don't know if Ocean Grove really could restrict who could live there or what religion they could or couldn't practice. I don't know if they really could put up signs like Walser did.

Only their signs would say, no atheists allowed. There's a bit of a—Ocean Grove has attempted to be considered their own municipality so that they'd have more control over their own local laws. But the state of New Jersey won't grant them that. The state of New Jersey keeps considering them part of the larger township, which gives them somewhat limited control over their own laws. So, for example, Ocean Grove used to have a law that you couldn't have any vehicles on the road on Sunday, which was quite restrictive. I mean, even if you were going to have somebody come visit you from out of town, they couldn't arrive on a Sunday or leave on a Sunday.

No vehicles on the road. But in 1981, a newspaper carrier who needed to deliver his newspapers sued in court for the right to be able to drive on the roads on Sunday, and the court found against Ocean Grove and said that they couldn't tell people they can't drive on Sundays. That's quite recent, 81. Yeah, that is quite recent. found against Ocean Grove and said that they couldn't tell people they can't drive on Sundays. That's quite recent, 81. Yeah, that is quite recent.

So, and even more recently, there was a case involving, they have a pavilion on the beach where people like to get married because it's very pretty. And in 2007, two lesbian couples tried to have civil unions conducted in the pavilion and they weren't allowed and they took the case to court. And the court found against Ocean Grove saying it was discrimination to say that some people could get married in the pavilion and other people couldn't. And so what Ocean Grove basically did was say, okay, no, nobody could get married in the pavilion. We're not discriminating against anybody. Nobody can use the pavilion for marriage. So again, I don't know if Ocean Grove could put up signs that would say like no atheists allowed. But they do have at least some limited ability to control what goes on in

their town just because they own the land. Yeah. For a last couple of tidbits about liberal, Julie Kearns wrote in to say that she knows the origins of the image of liberals plat that we included in the show notes. Julie says, The plat image used in the podcast is from the 1980 centennial issue of the Liberal News. I know because my great aunt sent it to me and I put it on the web. There you go. So she's the one who put it up. Julie also noted that one of the problems that liberals faced was that there was actually a great deal of diversity within the free thought community with friction between the various factions that made communities such as liberal

more likely to fail. I thought that was a really interesting point because much is often made of the divisiveness of religion and how religion contributes to conflicts between different groups. So it's interesting to consider that this dynamic would come into play even in secular communities and start. She says that there were a number of other secular communities that were attempted and that failed also, partly because of this divisiveness between the different factions. Yeah, I remember that in doing the research. No one ever says that explicitly, but you can sort of read between the lines and see that it wasn't all just this harmonious utopia that he and Hoden tended to.

Right, and so I mean, I think that's an important point. So it's like for the people who say, well, if there just wasn't religion, people would all get along better. Apparently not. People just can't get along. So thanks so much to everyone who wrote in to us.

And if you have any questions or comments, you can email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. All right, it's my turn to try to solve a lateral thinking puzzle greg's going to present me with an interesting sounding situation and i have to work out what's going on asking only yes or no questions uh this was sent in by listener jillian caldwell okay after a car journey one of the passengers receives free clothing and the driver is given sports tickets. They have not won a contest and neither expected to receive these gifts. What is going on?

Okay. After a car journey, is that in an automobile? Yes. So these people were inside of an automobile for some period of time? Yes. Okay. were inside of an automobile for some period of time. Yes.

Okay, when you say free clothing, do you mean, do you have something really specific in mind, like a hospital gown or a uniform, like something very specific like that? I want to say yes, but you mean as opposed to like... As opposed to like, you know, just jeans and a t-shirt. Oh, yes. I'll say yes. So, okay. Is this clothing that's

normally associated with an occupation or profession? No. No. Um, is this a hospital gown? No. Okay. Uh, okay. One of the passengers is given free clothing and the other is given sports tickets. Yes. Um, okay. Does it matter how many passengers there were altogether? What a reasonable question to ask. I think I'll say yes. It matters how many passengers there were altogether. Were there more than just these two people? Yes.

It was two individuals, right? One was given sports tickets and a different one was given clothing? That's right. Okay. Okay. Not the same person somehow. And there were more than just those two people? In the car, yes? That's right. Okay. Okay. Not the same person somehow. And there were more than those, just those two people? In the car, yes. In the car.

Okay. And is this, does the time period matter? Yes. Yes. Since the invention of cars. I'm sorry to sound so weird about this. It's just, it depends what matters. And you said it's an automobile.

Yes. Like an automobile car. Okay. Okay. Does it matter what country it takes place in? I guess not. I'm not sure about that. Okay.

Let's say no. Okay. So it's not highly important. Well, okay. Is this on Earth? Yes. Okay. It's not a vehicle on the moon.

Okay. But it matters sort of maybe how many people were in the car altogether. A specific number of people. Yes. Yes. I'm not helping you very much. Okay. sort of maybe how many people were in the car altogether, a specific number of people? Uh, yes. Yes. I'm not helping you very much. Okay. Were any of these people in utero and that's why you're having trouble answering the question?

Yes. Okay. All right. Okay. So it was, it was, let's say a husband and a wife or a man and a woman and a child in utero? Uh. In the car? That were in the car car that were in the car they were in the car yes okay oh well was there also somebody else driving yes okay so there's a driver yes a man and a woman yes and a child in utero yes okay getting somewhere so the one who got

the free set of clothes was that that the child to be born? Okay. Now we got to get sports tickets. I must say you're, as usual, making amazing progress. Would the sports tickets be because I don't know, it was the first child born on the new year, the hundredth or, you know, like something like that. Oh, but you said the time period might be important. Sports tickets are confusing me. Yeah, don't worry too much about the time period. Okay, sports tickets.

Tickets that entitle you to go to a specific sporting event? No. That's not what you mean by sports tickets. No, that, yeah, that's what they are. You just, you don't have to know what the sporting event is. Oh, oh, oh, I don't have to figure out whether it's the World Series or something. Okay, okay. So was it the to figure out whether it's the World Series or something. Okay. Okay. So was it the man who got the sports tickets?

No. The woman who gave birth? No. The child? No. The driver of the car got the sports tickets? Yes. Oh, oh, oh.

Was he purchased sports tickets for doing a really good job? Like the husband really appreciated something? No. Or he had to help deliver the baby and no okay so the driver of the car got sports tickets but it's not like they purchased the sports tickets in some way to thank him or reward him for something he had done that's correct that's correct so why was the driver of the car given sports tickets um okay does it matter does something about the driver of the car important some characteristic or trait or personality thing or uh something about him is important something about

the driver of the car is important it's a he yes doesn't matter doesn't really matter but okay let's say yes okay was the driver of the car is this a taxi cab driver no or something similar like that okay like a limousine driver or... No. And it's a car, not like a bus or something. Correct. Not like an ambulance. That's right.

Was the driver of the car known to the couple before they got into the car? No. No. Was the... Okay, is the type of car important? You mean like the model? Oh, was he like a police officer or something no no um yeah well is there something about the car that i need to know about that's important

uh not physically no but something about the car the type of car the class of car like like a police vehicle you know something like that yes okay and the okay was the driver driving this car as part of his occupation yes okay so the driver is driving this car as part of his occupation was he flagged down by the man and the woman uh no did he notice them in distress no did he cause an accident to them and then he had to drive them to the hospital. Like, my wife's in labor, you idiot. These are all great guesses. Okay. So the driver of the car is doing his occupation while driving a vehicle. Right. And somehow ends up with a man and a woman in his car. Yes. It wasn't entirely an accident, but yes. But okay. Did they call him?

Yes. Did they call him specifically or they called somebody in his occupation? Did they call him specifically? No. They called for somebody in his occupation to show up? Yes. Yes. They called and said we need, but not a police officer, not an ambulance, not a taxi cab. That's right.

But, like, they said we need an ex. Yes. Here, right away. Yes. Oh, my gosh. Does this have anything to do with some kind of geographical feature that they needed to go over? No. What kind of a car do you call?

They called the car because the wife was in labor? Yes. Does this have something to do with them being observant Jews and they couldn't drive on the Sabbath? You're doing really well. So they had to call a Christian to come drive? I will say you're very close and you're on the right track. Okay. All right. Were they in their home when they made the phone call? Yes. They were in their home and they called for a specific occupation to come because they wanted to go to the hospital? That's right. A doctor that makes house calls? No. All right.

Okay. Was there some, besides the fact that the woman's about to give birth, was there some other factor going on that they needed to try to circumvent? Like they knew there was a traffic jam and they knew they'd need something specific to get them through the traffic jam. No. You know, like, or it's a holiday or it's, like there's some other factor that they're trying to get around or deal with no you have the whole picture so i just have to figure out what kind of occupation you'd call

if you were going into labor to have somebody come drive you to the hospital she didn't call a cab but she called something uber yes oh is that it seriously i mean oh apparently this is true jillian writes apparently uber has a policy that if a baby is born in one of their cabs, the baby is given a special Uber rider onesie. The driver's car is cleaned at company expense, and the driver is also rewarded with tickets to a sporting event or other gift. In the case of the Brooklyn story below, the driver received Nick's tickets, and she sent me a link to a New York Post story that says, In March 2015, a pregnant Brooklyn woman woke up to contractions and called an Uber car to take her to the hospital. She gave birth in the back seat. Uber gave the cabbie a pair of Nix tickets

and cleaned the car for him. The baby got an Uber rider onesie. The husband said, I just kept telling the driver I was sorry, but he said, don't worry, that was amazing. My goodness. Wow. Okay. I had no idea. So thanks to Jillian Caldwell for sending that in. Yes. Thank you. And if anybody else has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to use, you can send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. That wraps up another episode for us. If you're looking for more Futility Closet, you can check out our books on Amazon or visit the website at futilitycloset.com, where you can sample over 8,000 absorbing tidbits.

At the website, you can also see the show notes for the podcast and listen to previous episodes. Just click podcast in the sidebar. If you would like to support Futility Closet, please consider becoming a patron to help keep us going. You can find more information at patreon.com slash futility closet. You can also help us out by telling your friends about us or by clicking the donate button on the sidebar of the website. If you have any questions or comments about the show, you can reach us by email at podcast at futility closet.com. Our music was written and produced by Doug Ross. Thanks for listening and we'll talk to you next week.