44 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



of opinion in regard to any or all of these 

 objects from the following gentlemen : Pro- 

 fessor Putnam, of the Peabody Museum; 

 Professor Rau, of the Smithsonian Insti- 

 tution ; Colonel Mallery, of the American 

 Association for the Advancement of Science, 

 and chairman of its Anthropological Sec- 

 tion ; and Judge Henderson, of the same 

 section. 



I have no hesitation in saying for my- 



self that I think there is absolute certainty 

 of the genuineness of these objects ; and I 

 can hardly doubt that these gentlemen will 

 avail themselves of an opportunity to con- 

 firm my impression, or disabuse me of my 

 error. 



I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

 William S. Beebe, 



Brevet-Major U. S. Army. 



Brookitn, December 6, 1881. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



THE CHARGES AGAIXST "THE POPU- 

 LAR SCIENCE MONTHLY." ' 



THE publishers of this magazine, 

 having declined any longer to is- 

 sue the " North American Review," be- 

 cause of its recent articles from the pen 

 of Colonel Ingersoll, have been charged 

 with inconsistency on the ground that, 

 in respect to the matter objected to, 

 the periodical they retain is as bad as 

 the one they have dismissed. A writer 

 in the "Evening Post " says: "I would 

 like to know how and where Messrs. 

 Appleton & Co. draw the line which 

 makes the same opinions detestable in 

 the 'North American Review,' which 

 are endured in ' The Popular Science 

 Monthly.' The editorial views of the 

 latter publication are certainly as pro- 

 nounced in their atheistical tendencies 

 as anything Colonel Ingersoll ever ut- 

 tered, and for a long period of years 

 this journal has published everything 

 of interest written by pronounced athe- 

 ists, and excluded everything which 

 has appeared of merit on the other side. 

 The papers of Herbert Spencer, and 

 others of his class, have been presented, 

 but such writers as the Duke of Argyll 

 have never been permitted to offer their 

 views." 



This accusation against "The Popu- 

 lar Science Monthly," that it is a teach- 

 er of atheism, has been made before, 

 and met before; but, as the present cir- 

 cumstances give it point and revive its 

 interest, we propose now to reconsider 

 it, and again see what it amounts to. 



We shall thereby be enabled to judge 

 whether the two magazines really teach 

 the " same opinions " upon this subject, 

 as the writer in the " Post " affirms. 



The paragraph just quoted would 

 have been more satisfactory if it had 

 been more explicit ; for here, if any- 

 where, clear distinctions are demanded. 

 What does the writer mean by " pro- 

 nounced atheistical tendencies " and 

 "pronounced atheists"? Does he mean 

 that their atheism is avowed or im- 

 puted ; that they pronounce themselves 

 atheists or are so pronounced by others ? 

 These are not only different things, but 

 the distinction is here very material ; 

 so that 'it becomes necessary, before we 

 can find out who are truly atheists, 

 to have the test by which they are 

 known. Because a man is called an 

 atheist, are we to hold that he is there- 

 fore, in fact, an atheist? We were 

 once accosted by an inquisitive Irishman 

 thus: "D'ye b'lieve in the mother o' 

 God?" "No." "Be gorry, y'er an 

 atheist; I wouldn't be in y'er boots for 

 twenty pound." Was that a satisfactory 

 basis of classification? Professor Hux- 

 ley had a cook who got on a drunken 

 spree, and made such a row in the house 

 that the police were called. As she 

 was hustled through the yard, she sent 

 back a blast, of which all that could be 

 understood was an emphatic " damn 

 athish I" Is Professor Huxley, there- 

 fore, to be ranked as a "pronounced 

 atheist"? But, if a drunken cook is 

 not an authority on this point, is a 



