New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-02-19

DO ano.scd to Miller In the preparation
q. ia recently ccnpeted edition oil the hg-' eua
and further at his request, had aided In adJus'ns
some compile ations between Miller and bis nIneri-
can publishers In view OF these facts IL scclls
oflciousness to characterize this paragraph Il
epitIets are needed. reader has the aa'a "lo"
which to base them. The least that can be SAID 49,
that the onus rests upon Professor Muller Oh
ing his MANY readers aud admirers i'll England ana
America, whom this extraordinary paragraph must
inevitably mislcad that he has not sought 10 accrue
them by false statements, to coerce them 10y ar-
full insinua;ion and suggestion into false nieieces
The paper closes with an appeal" correctly des-
ignated, we have supposed, by the Daily Review Oh
Oct. 90 which in printing it prefxes In capital lot
tiers the title, Professor Max Mllers Challenge 10
Professor Whitney" This appeal Tor challenged reads
IN. 52S I54GD: "Tn order therefore, 10 satisfy W.
Da,rcn Professor Haeckel. and others uhose good opin
ion Ihigtly rdlue, because know that they care for
truth far more than for victory, now appeal to Pro-
lessor Whitney to choose from among his best
friends three who are Professors Obdinaii in any
university of England France. Germany, or Italy,
and by their verdict promise to abide. Let them
decide the following points as to simple matters OF
fact, the principal bones of contention be-
tween Professor Whitney and myself
ANYHOW. can do no more for the sake
of peace and am willing to appear in person or by
deputy before any tribunal of competent Judges.
To this Professor Whitney replies cAcadeniy, Jan
H. g. will take the liberty of adding that am ready
80 submit Mr.. Miiller's twenty points principal
bones Of contention between u.s. to the Judgment OF
his personal friends instead IF mine ii he can mo
three who are willing TO take them into serious con-
sheraton should only in that case, expect to be
allowed to present Il brief to the court" This seems
10 be categorical enough on both sides. But in
MulleTs tier academy. JAN ~, i'll which lie with
draws from his position in relation to tGht GH9hf,
and d,IiJhi, he describes the twenty points Us " the
twenty indictments which brought against nm
Professor Whitney,, and which ~ for his SAKE, not
for mine Il. | wished him 10 submit 10 the JUG
ment of any of his friends Except for this
ereJesis few readers of the appeal would DIS
cover that it was intended for its authors
opponent. II will be strange If to some OF them'
even in England, the last letter shall not appear
virtual reirlcton.
Whether and how far Professor Whitney has
given provocation TO his opponent must be left
10 those To settle who familiar with Their
respective works. He himself says, Cont Rev,
727 " do not judge men, but views and especially
the arguments By which views are upheld. II
deem the latter insufficient erroneous, confess
that | am apt TO speak my mind about
them too plainly; ard an
ready to be strictly judged by the truth OF
error Of my criticisms The immediate occasion
of Professor Ndilers first article docs not seem
10 have been any personality whatever; but merely
the fact .hat views Of language fundamentally con
dieting with his own brought before the En-
glish public with the arpar mt Endorsement of Mr.
Darwin, which tended to secure them attention and
consideration. if not recognition. Miller, As
to, hoI MT raad Drafp.so Mnifnpfl~
article, but nj .ly Mr. Geo Darwin's abstract.
The r, ad.g public is chi,fy concerned thai oontro-
VERSES like tie prcsent-to be grvtted in any view
of the case-shlll be conducted fairly; especially
when forced upon readers IL a ornament form. Ia
the present il That the personal characters
Of the two controversialiss ut issue II Pro
fessor Whi;ncys words seem at times unduy caus-
tic the scientific world Is indebted to him for series
of thorough ard timely criticisms. And though
rigorous critic, the impression that he makes is thar
o., aims % be- Just. l. this last true of his opponent!
II such his aim, he has sgnally failed. The
above quoted specimens Of his article "ln Self-Dc
f,nsc." seem to subsiantate these positions
He has rarblod quotations irom his and from
Professor Whiiuey's works: he has trayostied OF
otherwise mctamorpho cd passages, and has then
printed tLcia in a manner indiStnFuishahlc from
rerLa-im quotation; he has totally unsupported the
tone aud meaning Of 9th, passages not quoted and
then commented on lis own m.Scport; lie has
omitted to give references 10 nearly half of s real
ar apparent quotations; be quotes his own version
of the Ueuf,cho Ewd,ctGa (whIch he never mentions
and twice mIstranslates to sustain an untenable
POSITION; he is guilty of msstatements and
misjudgnents, indicative Of extreme and cul
pable carcessuess, even though it is this very
charge which it is one of the ayowcd oh
jccts Of his article to repel; he has
quoted his afiorthoughts, from recent and Interpo-
lated editions of his works, mputing 10 his critic
Misrepresentation and assuming credit for this e.
post aeio wisdom; and finally lie has summed up his
article with paragraph which lacks no essential
"a Il fllsrhood, slnco from il his readers
pcil, ii Ia infe. a conclusion tal II false In fact, and
which il seems hardly conceivable that the author
did not intend - compel them to infer although he
tI,ntI IL ,rns II ct nrlfr