New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-02-08
PROFESSOR PECK AND MR. GODkIN.


ncction with the publication elsewhere in this
papcr of Professor Pecks reply to Mr.. Godkin.
Manifostly the proper place for this reply is in
Mr. Godkin's own widely circulated ana lhiu-
entail newspaper. in which he printed his open
Letter" to the Professor Mr.. GOdkn having
declined the communication with thanks. FRO
fessor Peck naturally turns 10 The Tribune as
that gentleman's nearest friend and only tie
fender in the press Of the city. Except for the
fact that we had ourselves taken issue WIN
Professor Peck upon his statement that he h;id
discovered "a VEN Of moral humbug' In MI
Godkjn. and taken some pains to correct what
we deemed hasty conclusion on his part we
should not feel justified In intrnding into this
somewhat personal controversy. BUT PROFESSOR
Peck. it will be observed. In replying to Mr. Tod
kin's open Letter. travcrses as well the con-
tcntion OF The Tribune that Mr. Godkin when
considered from his own just and Impartial point
of view is not moral humbug. but an OK
tremcly able and superior person. who makes up
I'm profound learning and comprehensive grasp
of everything now known or that ever has been
known or ever will be known in the domain Of
morals. politics. religion, science. philosophy. po-
,,ticol economy. finance or international law
Whatever he lacks In amiablliy and those s"n'l'r
eraces which soften controversy and Sweeten
life And As this raises an issue with The rrib-
mo ne we'll as with Mr. Godkn. we feel i'm
PEELED by our sense Of justice to afford Professor
Peck the hearing which Mr.. Godkin for some
reason declined TO allow.
His reason for this we are Of course. unable
10 state with authority. We shrink however
from the Inference that Professor Peck seems
10 draw. We should greatly dislike 10 believe
that Mr. Godkin. having demonstrated from Ger
tain premises that Professor Peck had made 4
monumental mistake in thinking he had diScov-
cred "a vein ~ moral humbug in him U'odkin',
would purposcly refuse hearing To the FRO
fessor's demonstration that the premises were
false in order to leave the latter. 10 speak. in
a hole" That TO bc sure. Is a consideration that
might enter into the common mind. But not into
Mr. Godkin's And for this reason. Mr. Godkin
is no ordinary controvcrsialist When he enters
the lists and lays down his premises he starts
from fixed and interchangeable facts. They may
be untenabe but they are unchangeablc For
when ne knows thing and says he knows 1t. he
does know It for good. and for keeps. Ana
whether 1t is so or not makes not the slightest
difference Ii is this that gives him his unique
distinction as a coniroversialist Common men
sometimes suspect that he has lapses OF memory;
and there have been times. We regret 10 say,
when he has been accused in the dead language
which he frequently resuscltateS in the heat ~
debate-of ''supprcssio vcr'; but the truth Is
common men do not. never could and never cln
understand him He Is too superior. What he
thinks he knows he does know, no matter what
happens to it, 1t Is not from churlishncSs or bad
manners that he calls men childish and foolish
and silly and dishonest who disagree with him.
II IS because he realizes his own cminencc IN
deed how could he help lt?-and judges all other
men by contrast with himself.
We hesitate 10 think that Mr.. GOdkin declined
TO give the Professor hearing in reply 10 the
open Letter. from any motive II unfairneSs
He doubtless thought that. having established the
fact from his own premises that he IS not moral
humbug it would be useless 10 prolons the con
troversy over unimportant circumstance rs
the falsty OF the premises. 1t occurs 10 us. Also
that the Professor may have made mistake in
COMMUNICATING Mr.. GOdkin at the close OF his
communication on his sincerity and the great
| value Of his work as a publicist. 1t is not I'M
| probable that the communication was declined
| on that account. For Mr.. Godkin cannot bear
| praise He Is above IT, Barring this he will. no
| doubt. rejoice to see that The Tribune publishes
| the Professors letter.