Letter from Dr. Smith to me, dated March 8th. The italics are mine; they
tag inaccuracies of statement:
Permit me to call your attention to the marked paragraphs in the
inclosed papers, and to ask you to note their relation to the two
conditions named in your letter to the New York _Tribune_ of February
15th.
The first is _Dr. Ament’s denial of the truth of the dispatch in the
New York “Sun,”_ of December 24th, on which your criticisms of him in
the _North American Review_ of February were founded. The second is a
correction by the _“Sun’s”_ _special correspondent_ in Peking of the
dispatch printed in the _Sun_ of December 24th.
Since, as you state in your letter to the _Tribune_, “the case against
Mr. Ament would fall to the ground” _if Mr. Ament denied the truth_ of
the _Sun’s_ first dispatch, and _if the ‘Sun’s’ news agency_ in Peking
also _declared that dispatch false_, and these two conditions _have
thus been fulfilled_, I am sure that upon having these _facts_ brought
to your attention you will gladly withdraw the criticisms that were
_founded on a “cable blunder.”_
I think Dr. Smith ought to read me more carefully; then he would not
make so many mistakes. Within the narrow space of two paragraphs,
totaling eleven lines, he has scored nine departures from fact out of a
possible 9½. Now, is that parliamentary? I do not treat him like that.
Whenever I quote him, I am particular not to do him the least wrong, or
make him say anything he did not say.
(1) Mr. Ament doesn’t “deny the truth of the C. E. dispatch”; he merely
changes one of its phrases, without materially changing the meaning, and
(immaterially) corrects a cable blunder (which correction I accept). He
was asked no question about the other four fifths of the C. E. dispatch.
(2) I said nothing about “special” correspondents; I named the right and
responsible man--Mr. Chamberlain. The “correction” referred to is a
repetition of the one I have just accepted, which (immaterially) changes
“thirteen times” to “one third” extra tax. (3) I did not say anything
about “the _Sun’s_ news agency”; I said “Chamberlain.” I have every
confidence in Mr. Chamberlain, but I am not personally acquainted with
the others. (4) Once more--Mr. Ament didn’t “deny the truth” of the C.
E. dispatch, but merely made unimportant emendations of a couple of its
many details. (5) I did not say “if Mr. Ament denied the truth” of the
C. E. dispatch: I said, if he would assert that the dispatch was not
“authorized” _by him_. For example, I did not suppose that the charge
that the Catholic missionaries wanted 680 Chinamen beheaded was true;
but I did want to know if Dr. Ament personally authorized that statement
and the others, as coming from his lips. Another detail: one of my
conditions was that Mr. Chamberlain must not stop with confessing that
the C. E. was a “false invention,” he must also confess that it was
“_unauthorized_.” Dr. Smith has left out that large detail. (6) The
_Sun’s_ news agency did not “declare the C. E. dispatch false,” but
confined itself to correcting one unimportant detail of its long
list--the change of “13 times” to “one third” extra. (7) The “two
conditions” have not “been fulfilled”--far from it. (8) Those details
labeled “facts” are only fancies. (9) Finally, my criticisms were by no
means confined to that detail of the C. E. dispatch which we now accept
as having been a “cable blunder.”
Setting to one side these nine departures from fact, I find that what is
left of the eleven lines is straight and true. I am not blaming Dr.
Smith for these discrepancies--it would not be right, it would not be
fair. I make the proper allowances. He has not been a journalist, as I
have been--a trade wherein a person is brought to book by the rest of
the press so often for divergencies that, by and by, he gets to be
almost morbidly afraid to indulge in them. It is so with me. I always
have the disposition to tell what is not so; I was born with it; we all
have it. But I try not to do it now, because I have found out that it is
unsafe. But with the Doctor of course it is different.