Concerning tin- Suff\ 



United States, and a reputation which would be < < 

 secure him good audiences. As it turns out, M t 

 was father to the thought," but the rumour 

 probable. I should have referred to it as a cont 

 and I simply meant that it might be worth taking 

 account, with reference to the publication of the 

 versy. 



Mr. Harrison says the idea that there was any da 

 of republication in this country by his friends rested 

 upon pure " invention." But I did not say this. I wrote 

 to Spencer, " There is danger that it will be done by otl 

 and if that should occur it would be construed as a triumph 

 of the Harrison party." Mr. Spencer's interpretation of it 

 was, " 1 had to choose between republication by my Ameri- 

 can friends or republication by your friends, with the im- 

 plication that 1 was averse to it." And Mr. Spencer was 

 here substantially right. Although there may have been no 

 apprehension that Mr. Harrison's avowed friends would 

 move in reprinting the book, yet if it had been done by any- 

 body but the Appletons, the inevitable inference would have 

 been that their author had been so badly handled that they 

 declined to back him. The book was looked for from Mr. 

 Spencer's publishers, they had printed it in their magazine, 

 they issued all his works, there was a demand for the vol- 

 ume which was certain to make it a safe business venture, 

 and it represented two sides or schools of thought : if, un- 

 der all these circumstances, D. Appleton & Co. had left the 

 work for others to publish, the certain construction would 

 have been that the book was abandoned to the party op- 

 posed to Mr. Spencer. This is the aspect of the case which 

 he had to meet, and it is not at all affected by Mr. Harri- 

 son's statement that his friends had no idea of printing the 

 controversy. 



Another explanation seems here called for. Those who 

 will refer to the second paragraph of my letter, quotes 



