APPIiNDlX: ELEPHANT PIPES AND INSCRIBED TABLETS. 315 



From Oscar W. Collet, Esq. 



[Tlic Davenport Academy was indebted to the thoua;^htful courtesv of Mr. Collet for the first 

 infonn:ition received of the accusations made liy Mr. Henshaw ag-a'insl the authenticity of its 

 relics and the intej^rity of its members, and it was larijely due to the em|)hatic opinions expressed 

 by this emment scholar as to the damasj-infj- eflects oif these charges that induced promjjt action 

 on the part of the Academy to repel this imjustifialile attack. As will be seen, Mr. Collet does 

 not approve the methods adopted for this purjiose, and considers that, inasmuch as we did not 

 follow his kindly coimsel, therefore the publication of his orijjmal letter would only do us injury. 

 As indicatinjj-, however, the unscientific methods adopted by Mr. Ilenshaw, ;is well as the disas- 

 trous effects of his accusations if allowed to pass uncontradicted, Ihesi- views of a profound and 

 disinterested investiujator possess i^reat scientific value; and hence we cheerfully avail ourselves 

 of an implied assent, and now place these imporUmt conununications before the scientific public] 



St. Loui.s, Mo., October 8, 1885. 



Dear Sir: I have been ill for a long while, and am scarcely restored 

 to health as yet. I received a letter from Mr. Putnam, but do not 

 know whether I answered it, or was able to answer it, when it came to 

 hand. 



What I wrote at first expressed my sentiments; they remain the 

 same. But what I reprobated was the attack itself, and its manner. 

 I do not go into the scientific value of the finds. I believed, and still 

 believe, the parties at Davenport were strictly honest — not scoundrels, 

 as represented by the Ethnographical Bureau — and that what they gave 

 to the world were facts. As to whether they have themselves been de- 

 ceived, the importance of the finds, Mound-builders theories, contem- 

 l)orariness of man and the hairy elephant in Iowa, and all such matters, 

 they are entirely beyond the question, for they are points for legitimate 

 criticism, whereas personal honesty is not. What excited my indig- 

 nation was not that supposed errors were pointed out, supposed mis- 

 takes criticised, the scientific value of finds attacked, but that the 

 personal honesty, integrity, and truthfulness of men should have been 

 wantonly assailed, their characters vilified, and, outside the special 

 objects under consideration, their entire work deteriorated and dam- 

 aged with a recklessness unjustifiable and uncalled-for. In this I speak 

 only as an ordinary educated gentleman, and, as such, conij^etent to 

 form an opinion in the premises. F'arther than this I do not go, as I 

 do not feel that I possess sufficient knowledge to enter into a discus- 

 sion of architiological questions with those who have made such mat- 

 ters a special study. 



Therefore, as the answer you have deemed it advisable to iniblish 

 has gone beyond the occasion, and taken up the discussion of debata- 

 ble questions, the use of my name, so far from helping your cause, 

 would damage it. Yours truly, 



„ „ „ ^ Oscar W. Collet. 



Prof. Pratt, Davenport, Iowa. 



St. I.ouis, Mo., July 6, 1S84. 

 Prof. W. H. Pratt, Davenport, Iowa, — 



Dear Mr. Pratt: In the 1880-81 Annual Report of the Bureau of 

 Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution, in a i)aper by Mr. Henshaw, 

 there is an attack upon the Davenport Academy of Sciences and Mr. 

 Gass, which not only affects them as scientists, but their personal hon- 

 esty and integrity of character. The t[uestion is not simply one of 



