THE "EXAGGERATION" OF THE MACEDONIAN OUTRAGES.
[To THE EDITOR OF TIM "SPECTTLT013.1 Sin,—The Rev. Edward B. Haskell has published a second letter in the Spectator (May 2nd) in which he apologises for having accused me of exaggerating, asks your readers to believe that the outrages which he did not himself see never took place, announces his desire to raise a sum of £10,000 which he and his colleagues hope to expend in educating the Macedonians, and inquires whether I feel disposed to subscribe to it. And if this were all I should not trouble you any further on the subject. But the reverend gentleman, not content with his endeavour to whitewash the Turk, goes considerably out of his way to libel a Christian, and, before beginning, prudently requests the editor of the Spectator to give him the right of the last word, that is to say, to suppress my reply. The passage of which I complain as utterly untrue and distinctly libellous reads as follows :—" There are various ways of trying to benefit the peoples of Turkey. One is to sit in England and write brilliant articles about their wrongs. Dr. Dillon did this on behalf of the Armenians,—and the benefits which they have reaped are not apparent." Now that statement, I contend, is false, calumnious, and unworthy, I do not say of a Christian minister, but of a self-respecting Turk. In order to write about Armenian wrongs I went to Armenia, and stayed there too, at the risk of my life. I dated my articles from Armenia, assured my readers that I was there, and my statement found uniform belief. But now this reverend gentleman gravely assures the public that I wrote those articles " sitting in England." If he was ignorant of the truth—and assuredly he is not obliged to be acquainted with such trivial matters—he ought never to have written on the subject ; firstly, because it has nothing to do with the points in dispute, and secondly, because by asking your readers to believe him, he implied that he did know what he was saying, whereby he was grossly abusing their confidence. On the other hand, if he was aware of the truth, and yet thus misstated it, he has rendered himself open to a charge which respect for his sacred character keeps me from qualify- ing. Charity, however, moves me to assume that he wrote in ignorance of the facts, although I cannot quite satisfactorily reconcile that hypothesis with the extraordinary precaution which be adopted in the beginning of his letter of asking that my reply should be withheld. First to gag your adversary and then to malign him is a procedure which runs counter alike to Christian principles and to social usages. I now therefore call upon the reverend gentleman either to withdraw the statement unreservedly, or else to come forward and sub- stantiate it by proof. I will gladly subscribe to the fund for the education of the Christian Macedonians as soon as I have Some guarantee that the delicate task will be confided to people who make a sharp distinction between bestial outrages
on helpless women and the recognised usages of modern war- fare, and who know where to draw the line between legitimate controversy and unwarranted libel.—I am, Sir, &c., E. J. Duzorr.
[Dr. Dillon is not fair in assuming that Mr. Haskell wanted any reply from Dr. Dillon suppressed. He clearly meant only to make an appeal for the printing of his own letter. As regards the other point, if Mr. Haskell intended to suggest that Dr. Dillon dated letters from Armenia, but wrote them in London, the innuendo was damaging and unfair in a high degree, and we deeply regret having published it. We certainly did not take that to be his meaning, for we our- selves were well aware that Dr. Dillon had been in Armenia. We supposed from Mr. Haskell's phrase that his allusion was to leading articles, and not to letters dated from Armenia. We really cannot enter any deeper into this personal cqn- troversy, though we will print any explanation or defence by Mr. Haskell which is confined to Dr. Dillon's challenge, and does not open up any new ground.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
