[To TIM EDITOR OF TUN "sescrATon."1 SIR,—I read in your
issue Of August 24th a letter from Dr. Dillon in which he made certain statements about Mr. Bernard Pares and his work in Russia. I am in a position to question these statements, and I feet I must say a word in answer to Dr. Dillon's attack on Mr. Pares. For the last two years I have been most intimately associated with Mr. Pares We have been working together collecting materials for our respective University studies. I was therefore surprised to hear of Mr. Pares's " inadequate knowledge of the history and language." I know how deeply Mr. Pares has gone in his Studies of Russian history. As for his knowledge of the language, I can simply remark that we have been travelling in the interior provinces for the last two months, and that only one of our many conversations with local party workers has been in English. In each place we look up representatives of all parties. I have heard Mr. Pares question these men in a way which required not a mere smattering, but a sound know- ledge of the language. I have been with Mr. Pares almost continually during his visits to Russia these last two years. I was present at one of the three conversations which Dr. Dillon had with Mr. Pares. We had called on Dr. Dillon out of courtesy to his long experience in Russia. He told us of his work as Professor at the University of Kharkov. We talked about. the Russian student and the Russian character in general. I do not remember that we 'spoke of present polities that afternoon. And when we left we thanked Dr. Dillon with the courtesy due to a host. I know, therefore, what our relations to Dr. Dillon have been, and cannot accept his interpretation of them. I hope you will give me the opportunity to dispute those statements which Dr. Dillon has made about Mr. Pares.—I am, Sir, &c., SAMUEL N. HARPER,
Instructor in the Department of Political Science,
• the University of Chicago. Tambov, Russia.
[We cannot print any further letters on either side in this controversy.—En. Spectator.]