Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1878-02-02

b. ] g. TmzxE~s-
Is-xr 81 30 na tA.znk vp~
sz<ss - ~ $4,000 wszk yu-~ eu<-
r-zzue<.saa P@Aaa%As~d N th~ t.
~-rass Il k@<z >szezwsa4s SD shs@-@
:. - YrsA~k1g xxz1 - 49, - ruzAs
ia E~Azs~l sE e We q uzzv he F-u~-
~sa3~ - exu~ ~uzze as vss-- trs~zats
% -ss thai y~1 ossSsa b - Thxzx
.-x t~o szlg~cE. 1885, n yus1-
zrsscAe Mr. Caok and Erustzfauz- aza
tksz-k tie Ar; - Il h-sbs lzzFsar-
t&nce. ~ All sl@1c~ sr<s .; tg.Gr
truxtnsemf of e Y0z -e~k o. save
the Fepg.ztiOn f0g sorzr1ry q tAls
% intellectual sIzA;. ~ szEIng tia;
lie =Ires - authority for hrs state
Eleats IN Te-ard Ia BAihvlaus. tie
-i...rs-e- -I,srs.al II !>-i~ls~s-s and
-iris. Does If prove that a man is
accurate, to show that lie claims as
authority some worthy periodical :
II You had verified his statement,
and had published an extract form
the journal cited, you might have
shown him accurate in this case, but
l would be truly surprised to find it
SO. The reviewer of his " Biology"
in !Scribner for January, 1878, de-
tects "four objectionable inaccur-
acies in the first paragraph of the
first lecture i'll this book, and the
first one is that he quotes something
from Huxley and gives as his author
ity the Nicroscopical Jo"rnol, but the
reviewer says that Huxley says no
such thing there or elsewhere. This
being the sort of thing that Mr. Cook
is guilt of, the case is not bettered
by showing that he claims to have
good authority for his statement.
I attempted to show that, at any
rate, Mr.. Cook was mistaken in
identifying Bathibius and sulphate
of lime. Why did you not answer
this point? I cited my authorities
and you can see the books at any
time. 1t was, of course, moro easy
to make an impression against me
by calling Mr.. Cook IN intellectu-
al giant" than by showing that he
was right in this matter. I challenge
you to name the leading journals in
which you have read high encomiums
of MIR. Cook and his lectures. "Na-
ton and publications of that Ill.,"
sounds pretty we'll, but when you
include Scribner's Monthly, Popular
Science Monthly, the american Jour
nal Of Microscopy, and few others of
equal standing in the "iM," you
ought to be glad to change the word.
Please name the papers containg the
encomiums, and..we will see what
"ih" they are of.
But now to the more important
matter, the doctrine of Evolution.
You say this "has a status somewhat
we'll defined in the minds of all who
have given it intelligent considera-
ton" This may be true, but if some
one should take for granted that you
meant to imply that all persons who
have given this subject intelligent
consideration, rest in tho the conclu-
sions of Agassiz or Carlyle, or hold
similar views Of Evolution, he would
certainly consider you an ignorant
man. The theory of Evolution has
won its great victories all within
twenty years, and practically both
Agassiz and Carlyle were dead when
the agitation begun. You might
about as well cite Thomas H. Ben
ton and the Pope Of Rome to show
the present state of the question Of
slavery in the United States, ~ 10
qaose Ass~ssr and Carivie o. Esolu-
tl0n- The tiEae w&s xhen nsen eo4ia
even be frixhssned swsy fruza read
NJ "a orss1a Il sF~cse~. s. BE- qsssa.g
Cxrsvi~s f1%1s~h sr@sss s-x1m~s sk~
- Ge~F~I 81 D1rz. hxz 4 n saRv 10
10 h@<kw~~44- fAms snrA sAsnxx are
sss~~zPs~d n~~- SaaAn Fa~Ax. "a F~S-
i~~-ux N E~rxzra Tzzsw<~sex wrz~
mg - tA~ N~rz 2a~zrp-za Eers~w szx
S2@a~<- - @zs~ - sA~ sA~u<w Il
L@@Smzzm@ C~m rusmkd aummG mz
s@~ . Mzx~- ~ zm@ah~< uf @nazuuza
z.3zz&sa~nS wAAx a. as1wzm~ - ~smxx
a. mn& snm h~~aa4us~y ~ sAa~~~ mpw~mrs
~ ~ &~a~r@z=& n - zzmzz kw zAm-
saAzx~=ma 90 @s~@zz&vmzrsA1. mnsa Maxns-