The herald., 1893-10-01
LIGHT FOR LUMINOUS LUMM|S,
Another Chapter in the Contro-
versy Over Pizarr0.
Was That Adyenturer Philanthr0-
pist or Fiends
a Breezy Reply to . RspIy-Mr. Arthur
Johnston Writes n Breezy Argu-
ment from His Point
" OF View.

lam once more impelled to emerge
from my well-earned obscurity and air
my sentiments in print, "my grievance
and excuse for type" on this occasion
being q communication to the Times OF
September "a, from the pen OF Charles
Lummis, the luminous writer who
lately published in that paper series OF
articles entitled The True Story OF
Pizarro.
OF this production, with sacrilegious
daring which must be abhorent' to all
true believers, presumed to offer lew
criticiems; this has resulted in my
being blown to atoms by the wrathful
breath OF the most puissiapt Lummis,
who is now performing wierd ghost
dance over my remains.
Mr.. Lummis not only objects to my
personality, but has serious objections
to any criticism that comes from the
city OF which have the honor to be
denizen. His sneering reference to the
''olassic shades OF Santa Ana" may not
have been conceived in the best taste,
but this spirit has been shared by
others of the people and press of the
City of the Angels, who do not think 1t
possible that anything good can come
out OF Santa Ana-the same was said OF
old, it is reported, of another city in far
off Palestine. In this, l am glad to be
able to testify, the HERALD has ever
been an honorable exception.
His Communication, dating from
Lima, Peru, begins: "a copy of the
Los Angeles HERALD, which has over
taken me in Peru, brings the not sur
prising evidence that some Arthur
Johnston has rushed in where angels
fear to tread" OF counsel This was
precisely what he was looking for.
Bless you, it didn't surprise him bit?
He expected all the time that "some
Arthur. Johnston"-one OF the vast
horde of miscresnts OF that name that
infest the ''classic shades OF Santa
Ana." suppoae-wonld do the rushing
act.
l ought to be grateful for the delicate
method he has chosen for calling me
fool--it ie so mel,ifuously stated that 1t
reads almost like q complimentary
his quotation, imperfect as 1t is, carries
with it O deeper meaning than that. 1t
works both ways at once censure for
me, laudation for himself. Let us ana
-lyze 1t and see If it be not 30. Fools"
that's your humble correspondent
''rush in'-that is, presume to criti-
else Mr.. Lummis's article-swhere
angels fear to tread"-Ergo, angels fear
TO criticise Mr.. Lupnmis's article. That's
logical deduction that the "Autocrat'
himself could not improve on. Per-
haps. though, the angels fear to break
through it If they tread on it, for it is
very loosely put together.
Mr.. Lummis does not scruple to call
me ignorant, but here he gives me ray
OF hope for a brighter future, for he
says, when had seen and studied as
little as be has, was equally igno-
rant" This is kind indeed.
He Gays l am ignorant and "know
nothing of what has been proved by
science and is now accepted by all
scholars. yet he says, that l charged
him kith sensationalism and with
presented in The Story of Pizsrro, and
that knowingly violated the truth"
in doing 30.
1t seems to me that it is hardly fair to
accuse me Of violating a truth did not
know. But such little incongruities
are not rare with Mr.. Lummis.
y I never charged Mr.. Lummis with
having any ideas-I never supposed, or
stated that he was responsible for the
ideas especially referred to, but did sup
pose that he had run riot with ideas
furnished by others-and this was what
] called sensationalism. To use a
homely expression, he 'bit off more
than he could chew" He started, in
deed, with basis of truth, but lost his
hold when he tried to make it fit every
phenomenon he encountered.
In another place Mr.. Lummis makes
the specific charge that I''wilfully mis-
represented his words" When and in
what way did do this ? Can he point
to single instance where l have not
given his words exactly as they are set
down? He cannot, and he knows It'll
The fact is that his words contradict
each other, and he is the victim of the
deadly parallel
Mr.. Lummis makes guess at my
nativity-so good guess, that l am
tempted to believe that he has not re-
lied upon internal evidence alone, but
has been doing little private detective
wo.k to ascertain the fact. There ia
nothing in my article that could give the
clue-you don't hear the h's drop, you
know, when the words are in print-to
even 30 acute an observer as Mr.. Lum-
mis-, unless my weak effort to plead the
cause of the oppressed furnished it, and
can scarcely believe that Mr.. Lum mis-
holds that to be an exclusive British
propensity.
Mr.. Lummis kindly remarks, refer.
ring to my criticism, "the matter is not
without humor" which raises emotions
OF exquisite delight in my bosom, and
then cruelty dashes my hopes to the
ground by further remarking, "though
for that. no thanks to Mr.. Johneton's
w.t." True for you, honey! The humor
is all your own, and 1t is none the lees
exquisite in that it is unconscious. Note,
for instance, the passage wherein Mr..
Lummis SO highly extols Pizarro for Civ.
ing bis doomed and helpless victim re-
ceipt in 'uIl for the plumber he had ex-
torted, just before consigning him to
bloody death; where he gravely etates
that cannon balls aimed into dense
crowd were mot intended to hurt any
body" this funny reiteraton of the
word war captain, as applied to Alta
hualpa'or the grim humor with which
he figures out, by. mathematical pro-
cess all his own, the number of the VIC
TINS slaughtered in the plaza OF Caxs-
marca, and concludes with the dictum
that 900 is about the right figure"
Again, "the net backing of Mr.. John
sons knowledge is that he has read
one book ON Peru. and that. above all
the book OF Clement r. Markham.
protest never did. / have never even
seen the book. In fact, have never
read any book" on Peru, with the ex-