The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-05-21

hem over loudly, seems 10 know
put little,-have hitherto sealed
our lips. But we owe it to the liv-
ng not to be silent when they are
even though we are COM
PEELED to speak of the dead, truths
which we would gladly have left
to forgetfulness.
Space does not permit me to
take up the article of Mr.. Steven
son in detail. It would require
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..
Stevenson's letter contains nothing
worthy of a reply. 1t admits every
allegation 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
important of all, and on which the
whole controversy really turns.
Mr.. Stevenson had heard the
charge in question once before, in a
half drunken crowd in a bar-room
in Samoa, among whom he seems
to have been passing the evening.
The author appears to assume that
DR.. Hyde had not heard it from
any more authoritative source. He
intimates that prurient gossip must
furnish favorite topic of CONVEX
sation in DR.. Hyde's family,--a
contemplate insinuation coming
strangely enough from any gentle
men, doubly strange here, since it
seems to apply much better to it's
Bohemian author, who by his own
account heard the story from a
drunken rowdy IN a bar-room, than
it does to DR.. Hyde.
Just why Mr.. Stevenson should
assume that DR.. Hyde had the
story from no more authentic
source than he himself had, we are
at loss to say. Perhaps the dis
tinguished author of Olalla and
Kidnapped feels that he has the
right to logic as we'll as to a
morality of his own. We will not
pretend to pass upon the point, but
certainly the inference that be-
cause the drunken rowdy afore-
said regarded the offence as venal
one, therefore DR.. Hyde was bound
to do so too, is a striking confrma-
ton of this view. To us who share
the current respect for Aristotle and
have no peculiarly morality of our
own, it seems necessary part
of Mr.. Stevenson's case to show
either that the fact alluded to by
DR.. Hyde either was not a fact at
all, or at any rate to make it clear
that he had nothing more than
common rumor to base his belief
upon. In the absence of these
proofs (the place of which can by
no means be supplied by insulting
innuendoes) our humble appre-
hension cannot avoid the conclu-
sion that Mr.. Stevenson's savage
attack upon DR.. Hyde is as repug-
nant to reason as it is to charity
and good feeling. The conclusion
seems to lie very near at hand that
the power to write great romances
does not exclude a total want OF
the capacity to think straight, to
exercise sound judgment, and a
little charity, and that man in the
defense of imaginary ideals, may
ruthlessly trample on the rights
and reputation of his fellow crea-
lures.
| Possibly this is one of Natures
compensations by which Gin order
not to make affront too much our
common clay) she has deprived the
distinguished author of Prince
Otto Ct the ordinary discernment
moderation, justice and charity
which she dispenses to average
mortals. Certainly this seems
hardly an extravagant inference
from a letter as wanting as well
may be in all these qualities.
| We are not concerned here with
the truth of falsity of the allega.
ton with regard to Father Damien
nor with the source from which
DR.. Hyde obtained his information
Git was probably not in a bal
room). Those were matters fol
Mr.. Stevenson, if he could but have
seen it. We are simply calling at
tention to the gratuitous character
of the assumptions on which the
whole fabric of insult and detrac.
ton is erected. 1t may be an.
swered that Mr.. Stevenson contends
that, true or false, DR.. Hyde was
barred from making any comments
on the character of a member of .
rival faith. Mr. Stevenson does
certainly make this contention, and
does SO with q vast display of rhe
toric and. fine indignation. We car
only say that this is establishing q
censorship over the private CORES.
pondence which would probably be