However, I will peruse it once more.

I have read it again, and it does really seem a good deal more mixed
than ever.

I have read it over five times, but if I can get at the meaning of it I
wish I may get my just deserts. It won't bear analysis. There are
things about it which I cannot understand at all. It don't say whatever
became of William Schuyler. It just says enough about him to get one
interested in his career, and then drops him. Who is William Schuyler,
anyhow, and what part of South Park did he live in, and if he started
down-town at six o'clock, did he ever get there, and if he did, did
anything happen to him? Is _he_ the individual that met with the
"distressing accident?" Considering the elaborate circumstantiality of
detail observable in the item, it seems to me that it ought to contain
more information than it does. On the contrary, it is obscure--and not
only obscure, but utterly incomprehensible. Was the breaking of Mr.
Schuyler's leg, fifteen years ago, the "distressing accident" that
plunged Mr. Bloke into unspeakable grief, and caused him to come up
here at dead of night and stop our press to acquaint the world with the
circumstance? Or did the "distressing accident" consist in the
destruction of Schuyler's mother-in-law's property in early times? Or
did it consist in the death of that person herself three years ago
(albeit it does not appear that she died by accident)? In a word, what
_did_ that "distressing accident" consist in? What did that driveling
ass of a Schuyler stand _in the wake_ of a runaway horse for, with his
shouting and gesticulating, if he wanted to stop him? And how the
mischief could he get run over by a horse that had already passed
beyond him? And what are we to take "warning" by? And how is this
extraordinary chapter of incomprehensibilities going to be a "lesson"
to us? And, above all, what has the intoxicating "bowl" got to do with
it, anyhow? It is not stated that Schuyler drank, or that his wife
drank, or that his mother-in-law drank, or that the horse drank--wherefore,
then, the reference to the intoxing bowl? It does seem to me that if
Mr. Bloke had let the intoxicating bowl alone himself, he never would
get into so much trouble about this exasperating imaginary accident. I
have read this absurd item over and over again, with all its
insinuating plausibility, until my head swims; but I can make neither
head nor tail of it. There certainly seems to have been an accident