is not
to raise essentially new issues, is not to assault any
further his opponent's personal character, is to be
parliamentary in form, and free from personally abusive
language. Otherwise it is perfectly free as to plainness of
speech.

5. Prof. Royce is to see this article at once, and before it
goes to the printer.

6. Should Prof. Royce, after seeing the paper, object to the
article as "_not in conformity with the conditions of No. 4_
(_above_)," then, but only then, the article is to be
submitted, before publication, to the judgment of some
impartial friend or friends of both the disputants, such
friend or friends to be chosen as promptly as possible, and
by agreement, and to arbitrate the question, "_Whether Dr.
Abbot's final rejoinder is in conformity with the conditions
of this present memorandum?_" The arbitrator or arbitrators
may be any person or persons agreable [_sic_] to the wishes
of both the disputants, as determined in case the mentioned
objection of Prof. Royce should be made, but not otherwise.

7. Should Prof. Royce _not_ object to the article, or should
he not formally object _on the grounds mentioned_, then the
article of Dr. Abbot is to close the controversy in the
"Journal of Ethics."

8. Should Dr. Abbot _not_ accept the conditions of the
present memorandum, he is at liberty to withdraw his paper,
or else to let both the papers now in type appear as they
are, at his pleasure.

[Signed] J. R.

It is difficult to conceive the state of mind in which so
extraordinary a document as this could have originated. My answer to
Dr. Royce's officious interference was a short and dry rejection _in
toto_. Dr. Royce was not the responsible editor of the "Journal of
Ethics," and had no power to dictate any conditions of publication
whatever. That a libeller should actually presume to dictate to the
libelled the terms of his defence, to demand that this defence should
be submitted to himself in advance of publication for approval or
disapproval, and, in case of disapproval, to invoke a board of
referees for the sole purpose of enforcing his own arbitrary and
preposterous "conditions,"--this was too exquisitely absurd. But there
was method in the madness. The central aim of the "Memorandum" is
clear on its face: namely, _to refuse the forensic freedom necessar