Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-08-13
TO TIE EDITORS.

GErrLENES: From the introductory paragraph Of Mr..
G W EvELETHs reply to my criticism of his able and
interesting article published in your columns on the 10th
of June last it would appear that he has not received
my structures with entire good feeling and in
perfectly accordance with courtesy and the recognised
etiquette Of scientific discussion Weregret this because
our object is science simply and because it is always
painful to alule the fobles and mental nrmties Of
those whose genius and scientific aanmens render them
worthy Of the esteem and respect Of all.
Those who viii take the trouble read my last article
10 connection with that Of Mr. Eveleth to which it is
reply viii readily discover how much truth and fairness
saving nothing Of courtesy there is in Mr.. Eyeleths
statement in his last article that my only arguments
are aat contradictions Of his statements of facts" This
is, indeed very unique and summary manner Of dis
posing Of the scientific criticism Of whose sole object
to correct in courteous manner, and certainly with
the very best intentions certain grave in science
affecting the highest interests Of religion and liberty
confess that we look upon the opening graph
Of Mr.. Eveleths last article with small degree Of
prise when consider how entirely free last
article from rdicule irony, sarcasm any thing else
calculated to give offence.
Although Mr.. Eyoleth, in rather a scornful way de-
cares, after pronouncing all my arguments only nat
contradictions" offer no rep he nevertheless goes
on to make one and with the exception Of the last para
graph which be devotes to Prof Faraday whose
perments and decisions he processes to be amused his
whole article is devoted TO the subjects Of my last
Instead Of presenting to his statements Of fact Cat
contradictions" showed their falsities showed them
70 be not statements Of facts by brief argument.
pointed out the crudeness unsoundnes and dangerous
character Of his philosophy and showed that was with
out support examined the remarks Of Prof Draper, in
which Mr. Eyeeth lahoref to find basis or at least
some collateral support, for his nderiaiism showed
that Dr. Diapers language would not bear the construc
ton which Mr.. Eveleth put upon it, and that too By
argument also examined Mr. Eveleths attempt to ex
plain certain phenomena Of mesmersm, the movements
Of tables, spiritual rappngs," &C., which showed tc
be exceedingly fanciful also exposed most garine
libel on the whole medical profession Of this country con
tanned in Mr. Rvelehs statement that lit is prevalent
opinion among medical that animal life is nothing
more nor less than electricity circulating through the
nerves as through wires Of copper" Now, oil this expo
sition and argument Mr. Eveleh very courteousy de-
cares to be nothing but Fat contradictions Of state
ments Of facts !"
This is most assuredy very easy and expeditions
mode Of dsposing Of opponents arguments whatever
NAV be thought Of its fairness We confess with
all Difference to Mr.. Eveleth, That exceedingly
amused and set nothing down in malice against him We
will now resume the discussion