Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1878-07-21
Answers the Nashville Christian Adyo-
cate, and Positively Denies POlyga-
my-He Maintains that All
Men are Descended from
One PrOgenitOr,
And Holds that the Great Body Of Scien-
tific Men Agree with Him that
Method Of Evolution has OBJ
tanned i'm the History
of the World.
To the Nashville American:


of the article in this case, however, processes
! to give hitherto unpublished motives and
procedures of the board of trust, and thereby
| conveys the impression that he speaks from
the inside. l am thus led to the belief that
| this sderial signature may represent
real scintillation from the ceiling of the ''star
| chamber" The article, moreover, bears GER
tain marks from which | infer that it sis
given by inspiration" and that of very
| personal kind. My main purpose in taking
notice of this production Is to use it to Illus
| trate and confirm my article In the american
of June 18th. In that communication |
| stated that Or. Summers, as editor, had
| misrepresented my views, and had thus dill
| gently disparaged me and the interests of sci
| ence In the estimation OF his readers | did
not state the fact that he had sometimes re-
| viewed and condemned my published writings
| without reading them, nor that in one instance
| he thus denounced an article in which, pro-
| fessedy, only undertook to give an exposi-
| ton of another writer's views, wide as the an
| tipodes from the thing which he denounced.
| Now the reader shall see whether he under
stands himself and the subject on which he
| speaks by authority. 1t is what | have re-
corded In my pamphlet on Addmites and Pre-
| AddniiteS that is In question. DIR. Summers
| or his three starred mouthpiece- says:
''Polygeny means that there are more species
of men than one. The professor holds to the
| theory of several distinct Adams.
| The professors complacent statement that
| the great body of scientific men hold his
views is not upheld by the best authorities.
The unity of the human race as against poly
geny is generally accepted, and in teaching
| poygeny he is behind the age" q wish to
interject two or three exclamation points
| here.) Let me say in good Anglo Saxon, L
do not hold to many beginnings Of men. |
denounce polygeny. Iargue against it in my
pamphlet. | maintain that all men are de-
| scended from one progenitor-are ''of one
blood ~ have moral and Intallactual
| ture; have one spiritual code to obey, and
one destiny to await. (See Addniites and
Pre-Adan.ites, pages 49, 20, 26, q, 35, 36,
43.) DIR. Summers has heretofore insinuated
my disbelief in the unity of the human spe-
cies; and | took the occasion of his delivery
of a lecture on the subject, in Sawrie
chapel, April 11tr, to state to him that had
no dispute with him on the subject, and that
the scientific world are agreed upon the unity
of the human species. Would it be thought
credible, after all this, that DIR. Somers should
write, inspire, or editorially permit such ac-
cusations as 1 have cited above? Does the
doctor still condemn my pamphlet without
reading it? Or, reading, has he failed to
understand? If this, will he say my style is
unintelhgibe, after having several times
comphmented me on my style? 1t the doc
tor does not understand, and the fault does
not lie In the style, it may be necessary to
hold an inquest on his mental condition.
This denunciation for opinions not held was
one of my complaints against the doctor.
These certainly unconscious misrepresenta-
tons have generated prejudices against me,
and against biological science in the board of
trust. My statement that ''the great body
of scientific men" hold with me 'thaU a
method of evolution has obtained in the his
tory of the world" is styled "complacent,"
and is made to apply to the theory of plu-
rality of human species. | have just shown
how total perverson this is of my views;
and | wish now to point out the dislngenuous
ness of such a Juxtaposition of my sentiments, |
even if both had been correctly set forth. 1t
is the doctrine of evolution in which | am In |
accord with "the great body of scientific |
men"-however l might dIverge in respect |
to the order of succession of races. Does DIR.
Summers deny such accord? Why does he |
take the trouble to deny what never uttered |
and never believed? Is he afraid to face the |
facts? Was this not (virtualJ dismissal |
from office for such sole reasons as the bishop !
assignedp If so, then why these after |
thoughts in reference to fifth wheel?" If |
not, then why did the bishop confne his con-
versation to these? Is it not true that was |
falsely accused of teaching evolution and the |
''nebular theory and ''polygeny'' on occa-
sions when those theories were not touched? |
This 1 charged, and this is not denied, but,
on the contrary, is repeated As to the mer-
its of evolution, has it been shown to be other
than the divine method of originating? Do
not the facts sustain a theory of evolution?
1t is the fact which we want, not a theOlogi-
cal husk. As to the descent of black races
from our Adam of white complexion, has it
been shown by the Nashville or st. Louis
AdUOcate or Southeastern Presbyterian to
have been a living fact? Or is
it an old medieval mummy wrapped
up in in sacramental cloth? Does
either of these papers drop the method
of viliGcation and resort to an honest argu-
ment? 1t dares not Is itnot true that these
are questions of fact which have to be found
out by searching in the realm of cognate
facts? Was it not a perfectly analogous
question of fact In the realm of nature which
the church, in the time of Calico, attempted
similarly TO settle by a decree, and without
due search in the domain of facts? Answer
me and the world these questions, gentlemen
of the surplice and the stole, and no longer
indulge in misleading perversions and confu-
sing dlatrlbes on Inc insequentlal and trivial
concomitants of the main issue. Now may
l be allowed an allusion to the official history
which comes to US from the same trlnastral
authority? OF what | have been part l
can speak. In February, 1875, Bishop
Nj 'Iyeire, after personal interview some
days previously, offered me, in writing, the
chair of geology and natural history In Van
derbilt university. For reasons thought sat-
lsfactory, l declined, and strongly recon-
mended DIR. Stafford for the position. Sub
sequentiy the Bishop proposed to divide the
chair and the salary. 1t resulted that DIR.
i going to my other work at Syracuse
when my term at Vanderbilt was ended,
and he going to his duties as medical probes
sor, or otherwise, when his term was ended,
and having the use of a house as compensa-
ton for resident oversight of the department
In which we were coadjutors. He occupied
the students matrlculated In our school
during SIX months; | occupied them through
the same hours during these months, and en-
ployed as many more hours IN giving instrnc-
ton which was optional with students. My
activity began when his ceased. My work
stood in exactly the same relation to the
schedule as DIR. Safford's. 1t was provided
for by exactly the same measures. 1t was a
"wheel" which worked on exactly the same
pinion. l never heard OF any '.jostling' un-
into fifth wheel" Nor was my position
ever styled "a lectureshIp." 1t was even ex-
pressy stated on one occasion by Chancellor
Garland that my chair was to be considered
as strictly and as permanently constituent
of the organization as any other chair. Now,
as to "setting the faculty by the ears"
freely admit that reproduced conversations
with great reluctance. Perhaps the persons
concerned would not have consented, even
for the vindication of a recent col
league So three stars" intimates.
But violated no condolences, and an arbi-
trary attack on my reputation constrained me
to show that it was only the old bigotry, so
natural to the church, which had treated me
SO ungraciousy. Nor did l report anything,
even in self-defense, at which any one should
feel hurt. If the late editor of the AdUOcGte
does represent the sentiment of his church,
why has that sentiment displaced him? An
unwelcome truth, but, for my purpose, of
some use. As to the liberty of the church or
the university to employ co-workers In accord
with the governing authorizes, there is no
question. In Utah university" might be
organized in which no professor should be free
70 danv that the Rank Of MOt-nlO1l was writtan |
by divine inspiration. The affront OF which
the world have the right to complain would
not be the discontinuance of a dissenting
professor, but the gross and crying an
archism of medieval creduhty in the latter
part of the nineteenth century. Vanderbilt
university has an inalienable rights to
gather together a body of professors who
believe the world was suddenly created six
thousand years ago. The thing which
disgraces modern intelligence, ls-frst, that
such a body of professors could be gathered;
secondly, that they could assume to consti-