exceptin cqm ... . .atrfrf ?.*' .. fatai toi^. 
The paragraph in which ne is alluc. v ' N _. 4 y lecture is in bic n • \ 
such a criticism. He is at fault in ms objections to my reference to his 
<{ recent works alpne;” for in these alone does he adopt my views, and as 
these views are an abandonment of his correlation theory, he is equally 
at fault in referring them back to his memoir of 1850, “with such modifi¬ 
cations as the advance of science has suggested” to him. He is no less at 
fault in assuming that I called in question his “ reputation for truth and 
honesty.” The question was merely in regard to justice to myself; and I 
did not go behind the facts to impugn his motives, with which I had 
nothing to do, and which had nothing to do with that question. As there 
was another horn to the dilemma in which he had unfortunately allowed 
himself to be placed, no system of logic would justify his selecting one to 
answer, and at the same time leaving the other untouched. If he had 
treated the other alternative in a way which I believe he might truly have 
done, no doubt this communication would have been uncalled for, and he 
would not have felt the necessity of sustaining his “ reputation for truth 
and honesty” by argument; but as he elected it rather to impute my re¬ 
marks to an “ignorance of the facts in the case,” nothing is left me but 
to present to the world the facts, that it may judge between us, 
3 
