The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-06-23
The Wclchcr of Nacirema.


sonal acqualntances Of Mr.. FELIX AGNUs,
an employee of the company publishing
| the baltimore American.
In the baltimore American OF June 16,
| two days after the publication OF the letter
Of apparent denial artfuly procured from
| nant-Commandcr HoDGsoN by Rear
| Admiral SCHLEY, Mr.. FELIX AGNUs thrust
| his foolish self into the case with this offer:
II do believe that the conversation alleged by
THE NEw YoRK suN to have taken place between
| Admiral SCHLEY and Lieut. HopGsoS at the time the
Brooklyn turned to the right just at the beginning
of the Santiago night ever took place. Ibelieue that
the whol> story is pure fabrication. dbsolutlp cith
omtounddon, and will pay to any chartable organ
ization in the city Of New York designated by THE
| NEW YoRK srs to receive It, the sum Of S.. ooot
| THE New YoRK Sun will produce testimony to prove
| that the conrerSati0n ever occurred"
| Tho italics, OF course, are ours. They are
intended to bring out clearly the character
| and conditions Of Mr.. AGNUss voluntary
offer He did not then stand on any bubble
| concerning absolute literal accuracy in the
| report of the conversation on the Brook
| lyn 1t was not question whether
| HoDGsoN used this or that proposition
| in his remarks to SCHLEY, or whether
SCHLEY employed this or that adjective in
| his replies to HoDGsoN. What Mr.. AGNUs
| declared was his conviction that 1.-The whole
| story" was "a pure fabrication. absolutely
without foundation" and he promised to
| donate to charity So, 900 Of his own money,
| upon the production Of proof that 1.-The
| conversation ever occurred"
An editorial article in the Baltimore Amer
icdn OF the same morning paraphrased Mr.
AGNIrS'S pffpr in tho fnIlpIytpu
| The Am,rican's publisher believes absolutely
that the whole story is base fabrication and else
where in this issue offers to donate $4,000 to
charity If THE Sun will produce the proof that the
| collequy ever took place"
| This offer OF cash was Mr.. AGNUs's or
| Admiral SCHLEY's own idea. 1t was not
necessary to the establishment Of one side
or the other OF the case. 1t was not In
vited by THE Sun, or suggested by any
thing THE Sun had said In common par
lance, it was cheap bluff, prompted by
what seemed to Mr.. AGNUs at that
moment the sure success Of the trick
played by ScHLEY upon HoDGsoN. And it
derived its only Importance or interest
from the circumstance that at the time it
was made Admiral SCHLEY was Mr. AGNUs's
guest at the place he calls Nacirema, and
that the ridiculous person who inhabits
Nacirema was assuming in various news
paper interviews to be the custodian OF the
| Admrals controversial interests and Dor
sonal honor.
Since the date when an offer OF s., 900 for
proof seemed to Mr. AGNUs both effectiyeas
concerned Admiral SCHLEI s reputation and
safe rs concerned his own pocketbook. the
proof he demanded has been Forthcoming.
1t is presented In official and conclusive
form in the two reports OF Capt. CHAD
WICK to the Secretary Of the Navy convey
ing respectively the direct testimony
OF Leutenant-Commander HoDGsoN and
the corroborative evidence of Lieutenant
Commander HEILNER This evidence has
convinced everybody not dull or dishonest
in his adherence to SCHLEY's cause that the
| conversation did occur, and that THE Sun
printed tho substantial and probably the
literal truth about that conversation in the
version as originally published
acknowledgements HoDGsoN testifes
that the conversation did occur, and in
every material point substantially as first
reported; that SCHLEY asked him to write
a denial of what lie styled ian oft-re-
peatcd calumny"; that in reply he wrote
|
his recollection Of the conversation; that
SCHLEY wrote back request for something
which would show that the dialogue did
not occur" adding an implied threat Of I'M
pleasant consequences to HoDGsoN in case
he should not comply; that HobGsoN then
furnished "A form of denial intended by him
to deny only the absolute verbal accuracy
of the version published in The Sun, and at
the same time wrote q second letter Of ex-
PLANTATION to SCHLEY defining the limita-
tions of the denial of verbal accuracy.
SCHLEY promptly published the denial of
verbal accuracy as il it were denial of
substantial truth and suppressed both Of
HoDdsoN's other letters. 1T, the letter
Iof denalh' testines HoDGsoN, was a
denial Of the words as they stood in the
published article; denial OF their literal
correctness, and not a denial OF the sub
stantal correctness OF the statement"
HoDGsoN also testified that he informed
Admiral SCHLEY that he had told THE
Sun correspondent that the substance Of
tn" conversation was correct
IicutCnant-COmmandcr HEILNER'S men,
DRY for words probably n surer organ than
Mr. HODGSON's. He tcstiiics that on several
occasions during the sessions of the board
to establish tn" ships positions that is to
say, last autumn soon after the battle, Mr.
lloDGsoN repeated 20 him the conversation
with Admilni NrHLEY, and that the report
a. published by The Sun was practically
the conversation rs repeated to me-"
Here, then. is precisely the proof for
which Mr., AGNUs of the Baltimore Amcyi-
can called on June ~ under the terms Of
his voluntary offer; proof that the, whole
| story was not "a pure fabrication, ALSO