The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-05-27
Robert Louis stevensOn.s Letter,

Robert Louis Stevenson's Letter,
Mr.. EDITOR: 1t is with feelings
OF the most intense surprise as well
as Indignation, that one reads the
abusive philippe which Robert
Louis Stevenson has seen fit to
direct against Dr. Hyde. 1t would
seem that the customs of Bohemia
place one above or below the ordi-
nary decencies and restraints of
life. DIR. Hyde writes a short,
hasty, private letter to a friend,
which is published without his
knowledge or consent. This, Mr..
Stevenson, without informing him
self as to whether the publication
was authorized or not, without
making any inquiry into the truth
OF its allegations, without even Civ
ing himself the trouble to deny
them, makes the text of a six col
umn invective against DIR. Hyde,
an invective the brutality and
grossness of which are set in a
more glaring light by the powerful
English in which it is clothed. 1t
Is no excuse to say that Stevenson
did not know that the letter was
not intended for publication. He
ought to have informed himself. 1t
was not merely private IN form,
but bore all the internal evidences
Of this character. 1t was on the
face of it not intended for publica-
ton, and this circumstance ought
10 have put Mr.. Stevenson on his
guard. 1t did not however have
that effect. He gave himself the
trouble of no inquiry, but pro-
ceeded TO constitute himself Judge
in the cause, and damned the Grim
Inal,-a criminal whose only exist
ence was his own heated magma
tion,- without the ceremony of a
hearing.
Father Damien is in his grave,
and we have every wish to let him
rest peaceably there. If Mr. Stew
enson had been contented to do so
as well, it would never have be-
come necessary to write this arti-
Gle. As he has seen fit to make
the character of the dead the text |
from which to draw his accusations
Of the living, we are compelled to |
follow him. Considerations of char |
Reconsideration of which Mr.. |
Stevenson, although he breaches
them over loudly, seems to know
but little,-have hitherto sealed |
our lips. But we owe it to the liv-
ing not TO be silent when they are
maligned, even though we are CON-
PEELED to speak of the dead, truths
which We would gladly have left
10 forgetfulness.
Space does not permit me to
take up the article of Mr.. Steven
son in detail. 1t would require a
volume to follow and refute every
misrepresentation, to expose every
false and unjust inference, to COM
ment on every insinuation. The
letter abounds in insult but not in
argument. 1t is fruitful in abuse
but not in judicious comment. 1t
has all the merits of lively imagln-
alton, heated emotions, and liter
airy facility, but nothing of good
judgment, good taste, and common
charity.
As a matter of argument, Mr.
letter contains nothing
worthy of a reply. 1t admits every
of DR.. Hyde's letter save
one, which it neither admits nor
denies. This happens however to
be Just the one which is the most
of all, and on which the
whole controversy really turns.
Mr.. Stevenson had heard the
charge in question once before, in
half drunken crowd in a bar-room t
IN Samoa, among whom he seems
10 have been passing the evening.
The author appears to assume that {
Or. Hyde had not heard it from !
INV more authoritative source. He
ntimates that prurient gossip must s
iurnish a favorite topic of CONVEX I
'ation in DIR. Hyde's family c
contemplate insinuation coming /
strangely enough from any gentle I
nan, doubly strange here, since it t
seems to apply much better to its V
Bohemian author, who by his own '
lcceunt heard the story from a 4
drunken rowdy In a bar-room, than t
t does to Dr. Hyde. II
Just why Mr.. Stevenson should
.ssume that DIR. Hyde had the |,
tory from no more authentic s
ource than he himself had, we are a
1 loss to say. Perhaps the dis tt
author of Olalla and b
Kidnapped feels that he has the Il
light to a logic as we'll as to a n
4