New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-07-27
NOTES FROM LONDON.
CAPTAIN BORUP'S CASE-MR. BRANDER
MATTHEW'S AS AN APOLOGIST FOR
WEBSTERESE.

discussed In papers OF many countries that per-
haps word ought to be said about it. The
more so because Of dispatch from Washington to
the London press to the effect that captain
Borup had been recalled out of Difference to the
French Government, although his own Government
believed him innocent. Were that correct ac-
count Of the matter-I do not believe 1t ls-the
official in Washington who took such a decision
would have something to learn Of the degree OF
difference" due TO foreign government ana
something, still more. Of what is due to an Ameri-
can officer. I do not dispute that Captain Borup
was rightly recalled. do not know whether he
was or not But the reason given for his recall
was not right 1t is probably the fault. not of the
Secretary OF War, or Of any other official. but OF
the news-agent who misunderstood what was told
him and expressed il in a misleading way.
As there is to be an inquiry at home, any
opinion based on a conviction Of Captain Borup's
guilt or innocence would at present, he ont OF
place Let us, however, following the rule OF
American law, assume that he is innocent till
he is proved to be guilty. The fact that he is
accused in France goes for little: and for two
reasons. In France an accused person Is pre-
slmed TO be guilty unless he can prove his
innocence: rule which is unfair. and even I'm
moral There is still. moreover, spy-mania, even
in high places and to allege against any foreigner
that he has sold military secrets to Germany or
to Italy is to condemn him in advance. Captain
Borup denies that he has done this but admits.
as understand. that he bought military informa-
ton for the Use Of his own Government. and for
his own Government exclusively.
Now the rule in diplomacy is one thing: the
practice another The practice undoubtedly Is 70
buy. and buying means bribing, and bribing is an
ugly business. Information must be had:
how is it to be had? The trade Of
diplomacy has never been an over-scrupu-
lous one News in the diplomatic world. in the
journalistic. il a marketable commodity. II Is
bought and sold Somebody must buy and some
body must sell The traffic is sometimes open and
sometimes secret In diplomacy It is generally
secret Just as in journalism ii is generally-not
always-open Where it is secret, the eleventh
commandment comes in force The buyer must
not be found out-nor the seller. This is the CON-
mandment which Captain Borups has violated.
Perhaps the discovery Of his traffic in military
secrets ia rather creditable TO him: crediable to
him as n man and an officer IL not as military
diplomntist. He too honest for the work he
was nut TO- lie had not the experience in secrecy
which an officer who NEEDLES in such matters
must have He trusted Others, his agents, or
tools as an older hand would not have trusted
them and that is why, or may he why, he has
come TO grief. The matter cannot rest where u
is The charge Of selling to other countries in
formation he had obtained for his own is one
which must be met To fail TO meet il would he
confession Of guilt. and it touches the honor.
not Of Captain Borup only, but Of his Government
and his country.
II is distressing 10 have 10 tell Mr.. Brander
Matthews that he has been supplying the Britisher
with amusement at his eXpense-at Mr. Brander
Matthew's expense. His article on American
spelling" in ITarpers" for July has attracted some
not much-attention in England. and the atten-
ton il not respectful. Tie Brtisher, such IL the
stubbornness of his perverse confidence in his own
way Of doing things. reads Mr. Matthews Win
grin. II amuses him 10 see how angry his enemy
is: for Mr. Matthews il seems insists on being re-
carlcd as an enemy He laughs at him, just as
he laughs az what Mr.. Matthews calls American
smelling. and because he calls it American spelling;
which IL is not True, the Briton thinks the bar
barisms which so wrongfully go by that name, ali
surd lie even calls them horrible or at least
horrd' He says, rather unkindly: Mr.. Mat
,hews leaves il in position still more absurd than
il occupied before. for ne not only confesses his
faith in H. but gives his reasons for the faith tnas
is IN him The reasons thought foolish rea-
sons I will quote passage from the BRITISH
critic, which throws urid light on the Matthews
method
A single instance practically covers the whole
OF his argument lie defends the final err against
the re in certain words on the ground that
while in the First Folio Shakespeare 'sepuchre'
and centre are spelt both ways. the words APP
near rather oftener with the err than with the
re-, And he adds with little air Of triumph
the delightful innocence of which would melt the
heart OF Civil Service examiner SO we see that
this so-called American spelling is fully warranted
by the history of the English language one
might be excused. perhaps, for supposing that,
30 far as the evidence goes, the American spelling
was fully warranted only by the happy-go-lucky
ways OF the compositors Of 1923, who picked up
their types pigeons pick up peas"
80 imperfect is my confidence III the accuracy
Of the British journal of literature from which
| am quoting that | heSitated 10 believe
Mr.. Matthews really guilty of the argument at
tributed 70 him. | turned 10 his article 70 verify
il; and | gricve to say. there it is lie bases
himself, indeed, on quotation from Professor
Lounsbery-he it is who has made that valuable
computation of the number Of times in which
sepulchre is spelt sepulcher in the First Folio
But il is Mr. Matthews who draws the triumph
ant deduction; him, / Judge, must rest tho
responsibility for that astounding conclusion.
For it is astounding 1t implies a degree Of UNI
acquaintance with the history of English printing
and of English spelling which should have been
slow 20 impute to Mr.. Matthews on any other
authority than his Probably no book OF
that period-the 18th century-cOuld properly %
quoted as an authority Cor spelling then and long
after very much matter Of haphazard. There
was no scientific basis Of photography; there was
no settled practice. If, moreover, writer haa
views of his own about spelling it was matter
OF chance whether they were expressed in pnn'
or not No writer ever saw proof sheet
There is no evidence that any book of the period
was ever read in proof by anybody but inc
nrirter There is much that il was not reao