iscomfiture, and death--that Truth may
prevail.

It happened in this way. The criticism in the _Times_ called for
instant expostulation, and my answer was consequently sent in to the
Editor, who forthwith returned it, regretting "that its tone prevented
its appearance in the paper." ... I thereupon withdrew to write the
following note to the Editor in person:--

"Dear Sir--Permit me to call your courteous attention to the fact that
the enclosed letter to the Editor of the _Times_ is in reply to
an article that appeared in your paper--and that, as I sign my name
in full, I alone am responsible for its tone or form; indeed, that
such is its tone and form, is because it is my letter.

"In common fairness the answer to, or comment upon, any statements
made in your paper should be published in your paper, as proper
etiquette prevents its insertion in any other journal.

"Also, you surely would not propose to dictate certain forms or styles
in which alone the columns of the _Times_ are to be approached--as who
should say all other savour of sacrilege!--or acquiescence alone would
do, and you would have to write all your letters yourselves.

"My letter concerns the effect produced by criticism of a commonplace
and inferior kind, wholly unworthy the first paper in England--and I
am startled to learn, and still unwilling to believe, that the _Times_
would shun all ventilation and refuse to publish any letter as its
sole means of screening its staff or protecting its writers.

"I submit that the tone of my letter sins against no laws that are
accepted in antagonism--that it offends in no way the etiquette of
attack known to gentlemen.

"I beg, therefore, again, that if there be still time for its
insertion, you will have it printed in your issue of to-morrow, or
will say that it shall appear in the _Times_ of Thursday morning.

"I am, dear Sir,
"Very faithfully,
"J. MCNEILL WHISTLER."

I was now told, "with the Editor's compliments," "that my letter
should be considered." Taking this in complete good faith, I left the
office, to discover the next day in print a remnant of the letter in
question; that, by itself, entirely did away with sufficient reason
for its being there at all. The two ensuing notes explain themselves:

To J. MCN. WHISTLER, Esq.:

"The Editor of the _Times_ has inserted in to-day's paper the
only portion of Mr. Whistler's letter of November 30 which