The Singular Reorganization of the American Branch Copley Winslow, D.D., D.C.L, LL.D 0 t ttw PRINCETON, N. J. Presented b7^Vo^.!5oVvvv3)r2D^\fv Division Section • Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/truthaboutegypteOOwins Sarony, New York. THE LATE AMELIA B. EDWARDS, Ph.D., L.H.D , LL D Chief founder of the Egypt Exploration Fund The Truth about th%..~;";: Egypt Exploration Fund THE SINGULAR REORGANIZATION OF THE AMERICAN BRANCH— THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED— MONU- MENTAL OBJECTS FOR BOSTON— REQUEST FROM THE LOCAL SECRETARIES TO LONDON — A PERSONAL SKETCH, ETC., Etc., INCLUDING THREE PORTRAITS, ETC. T3y WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D., Ph.D. Founder of the American Branch Boston : 1903 DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF Amelia B. Edwards, LL.D., R. Stuart Poole, LL.D., Erasmus Wilson, LL.D. Founders of the Society PREFATORY. Details are essential in this narrative which should be read from first to last in order to comprehend an evolution of ambition and diplo- macy without precedent, I am sure, in the history of learned societies. The names of 100 or more persons appear in this monograph, and the representative character of subscribers, whose views are given, is seen in the fact that among them is a great historian, a noted editor , a capitalist associated with a vast trust, the most finished scholar of our oldest university, and the head of the largest parish in Am erica. Reference, also, is made to many newspapers and journals; the views of several editors are stated. The portraits of my close associates, Amelia B. Edwards and R. Stuart Poole, will be welcomed by my readers. Had they been living, the disgraceful condition of affairs could not have occurred. I have only a very incomplete list of American subscribers’ ad- dresses, and none of the English. I will mail, free of cost, this mono- graph to such addresses furnished me. Sir John Fowler, predecessor of the present President of the Fund, declared officially that “in any reorganization of the American Branch the approval of American subscribers is essential.” The best English and American sentiment cannot approve of the manner in which the American Branch has been reorganized. Nor can it approve of the course pursued by those controlling the London Committee towards the Boston Office, over whose work I was placed in “general control.” The moral lesson from our “strange but true ” story is this: that “ diplomacy ” has no proper place in the administration of a society like the Egypt Exploration Fund, and that those who practice the art should no longer direct its Committee. Many of the best subscribers condemn the action in London, and, as will appear, a well-known scholar puts this fitting question to the new Committee, “Can you expect to command the confidence and further efforts of subscribers under such circumstances ? ” Boston, July 1, 1903. W. C. W. CONTENTS, PART I. PAGE Statement of President Evans 12 Opinions of Subscribers and Local Secretaries ... 19 Cause of the Troubles 27 Some Essential History 30 What Caused the Split 33 PART II. Duplicity Appears 40 Cotton in Boston 42 Had Cotton Played a Double Part ? 45 A Few Occurrences 49 Unpleasant Discoveries 53 Efforts to Put Things Right 58 How Cotton and Foster Abetted the Secretary ... 63 PART III. R. Stuart Poole, LL.D., (with portrait) 77 Singular Distribution of Ushabtis 82 Recognition of My Services 89 Press Notices 90 How to Become a Member of the London Committee . . 91 Printing Secretly Done 99 A Singular Consultation 101 Cotton is King 104 PART IV. The Outbreak 109 The Storm 115 My Report to London 125 The Action of the Committee 133 PART V. The Boston Committee 140 Legality of the New Committee 143 The Work Accomplished — a Resume 147 Monumental Objects for Boston 153 Conclusions 160 REQUEST OF LOCAL SECRETARIES . . , 169 SKETCH OF WILLIAM C. WINSLOW (with portrait) ... 174 THE TRUTH ABOUT THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. To the Subscribers and Friends of the American Branch of the Egypt Exploration Fund: As founder of this Branch, in 1883, its late Hon’y Sec- retary and Vice President for the United States, I am bound to heed the urgent requests of many representative sub- scribers that the Truth about the radical and arbitrary reor- ganization of the administration of this Branch be stated, together with the causes leading up to it. To the corps of eighty or ninety local Secretaries, many of whom have labored to promote the Society’s cause, to many subscribers who have generously responded to my appeals and letters, and to the press who have for many years kindly commended my efforts to win support, to secure knowledge of the far past and to enrich our museums, to these in particular I owe the duty of revealing the Truth. The publication this spring in the Annual Report of the remarks appended by President Evans to his address at the annual meeting, last November, leaves me no option. I must and do now state the Truth about the Egypt Exploration Fund, respecting this American Branch, to the best of my knowledge; and resting upon evidence, mostly written and largely from official documents. Consider these facts or circumstances: 1. That one per- son, not a subscriber, was empowered by the London Comm, to form a Committee, now named in its circulars as “The Committee for the United States of America.” The Lon- don Committee is elected by the subscribers at an annual 8 THE TRUTH ABOUT meeting. It is not a self-perpetuating corporate body. Yet, without consulting the local Secretaries and subscribers, it delegates authority (if it possessed such authority) to a non-subscriber to organize a Committee which shall rule over and direct the affairs of the American Branch, — in other words, the affairs of half of the total number of subscribers, who give one half of the entire money for the Fund’s support . What if the Committee had treated subscribers in Scotland’ or Ireland, or Wales, or in North or South England, the same way by requesting some one (a non-subscriber ?) in each sec- tion to get up a Committee for that section? That we are three thousand miles away, a different nation, does not lessen the political error. The affinity of scholarly aims and ties should have saved so grave a mistake. Among like pledges is that of Sir E. M. Thompson, chairman at an annual meeting, when the American Branch was discussed: "The London Committee, ever anxious that the American Branch should be administered in accordance with the wishes of American subscribers,” etc. (Annual Report, 1897, p. 8.) He made this remark relative to a committee for the U. S. A. The Committee now existing in Boston is not national or representative — not even a Boston representative com- mittee. Its correct designation would be “The Robinson Committee of the E. E. Fund in Boston.” One of this Com- mittee, a lawyer, had stated his opinion in writing respecting the formation of an American Committee at an earlier date: “I am quite clear that no persons not subscribers were en- titled in any way to represent the subscribers, nor can I see how anything affecting the organization could have been properly done without consulting all the subscribers in this country.” Still another member of the new Committee, also a lawyer, signed a request, in 1897, that the London Committee withdraw its appointment of an American Com- mittee, “pending an agreement that shall be mutually satis- factory between the London Committee and our subscrib- ers.” The note written by his sister, endorsing his request, characterizes the doings as “very extraordinary and most unwarrantable,” and for herself and brother remarks: “I THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 9 enclose the paper forwarded, which Mr. Davis and I have signed. It will at least be of use in assuring you of our con- victions in the matter.” I am unwilling to believe that to put honorable men upon a Committee alters their legal views and convictions. Yet, can Mr. Lothrop explain him- self? Mr. Davis did not attend a meeting of the new Com- mittee and went abroad. 2. That the methods employed to form this new Com- mittee are regarded by many subscribers as secretive, and unfitting for a learned soc’y whose aim is to dig up and not to bury truth. 3. That the request signed by about 80 local Secretaries (representing the entire American Branch in various parts of the land) was simply shelved by the London Committee. 4. That circulars put out by the new Comm'ttee ignored the labors of the founder, the local Secretaries and other members, to which the Soc’y in America owes its existence. 5. That the many earnest and respectful inquiries ad- dressed to the London or Boston Committee, or their officers, from local Secretaries and subscribers of representative character or distinction, have been answered vaguely, or abruptly, or in some unsatisfactory manner. I give one in- stance, that of the reply to President Wm. F. Warren of Boston University, who wrote to President Evans respecting myself: “It is with surprise that I learn of the apparently unceremonious removal of our friend Rev. Dr. William C. Winslow from the office of American Vice Pres’t of the E. E. Fund. In view of the possible effect of this action upon the American subscribers to the Fund, I write to inquire the circumstances and the reasons in view of which the above mentioned action was taken.” Dr. Warren kindly allowed me also to read the reply from Evans, the former writing to me, “ It throws little light upon the situation.” The reply simply gave as “the reasons,” that “whatever has been done was thought to be in the best interests of the Fund.” Consider facts like the above, and no one need wonder that astonishment, indignation, disapproval, one or two or 10 THE TRUTH ABOUT all, exist to-day throughout the Branch. Quite a number of subscribers know nothing of the facts stated — I have not their addresses * A comparatively small number only know even but a portion of the facts forming this strange but true narrative. The statements of President Evans respecting the forma- tion of a Boston Committee are absolutely misleading, are personally insinuating, whatever his intentions may have been. I cannot fathom, much less deal with, his intentions. A Committee formed as was the Robinson Comm, needed bolstering up. It was necessary to counteract my prestige, and to influence subscribers to renew subscriptions. My prestige; for, in 1897, Sir John Fowler wrote to the Editor of Biblia: “Not a single member of the London Comm, would wish that any arrangement should be made in America which had not Dr. Winslow’s entire approval.” A subscriber of long standing in New York, Miss Lowrey, wrote to me: “You had somewhat prepared me for Presi- dent Evans’s reference to the trouble, but I was more than surprised to read his actual words.” His remarks are alien to presidential addresses before learned societies, and unique in the Fund. When the Boston Comm, retired in 1897, after a brief reign, Mr. J. S. Cotton, Hon’y Sec’y, wrote to me: “Sir E. M. Thompson (presiding at the annual meeting) touched upon it as lightly as possible. ... It has always been our policy to avoid all reference to personal questions.” (Italics mine.) Did Cotton persuade the venerable Presi- dent to touch upon the present trouble as heavily as pos- sible ? His own customary report in the last Annual Report does not appear. An ex-Vice Chancellor of a university, a doctor of divinity and civil laws, etc., of the Church of England, writes privately to me : “ It would be a satisfaction, as it seems to me, if you were to reveal all the circumstances connected with the slur that has been cast on you. ... I was surprised that * Only a very incomplete list of addresses is in my hands. Will subscribers aid me to place this brochure in the hands of all subscribers? A postal card with address is sufficient. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 11 you, a moving spirit in the Egypt Exploration Soc’y, should receive such scurvy treatment.” An eminent English writer in a letter to an American cor- respondent which I have just been permitted to read, pithily remarks: “The Egypt Exploration Fund Committee were asses to treat Winslow so.” I am absolutely sure that the treatment of the local secretaries and subscribers in America by those who now control that Committee cannot meet with the approval of many of the best writers and scholars in England, and of the editors who conduct the leading jour- nals there. I now proceed to treat topics in order as scheduled in the Contents. Titles and prefixes will usually not accompany personal names after their first mention, so as to save space. Many abbreviations will occur. 12 THE TRUTH ABOUT PART I. STATEfTENT OF PRESIDENT EVANS. “In former days there existed in Boston, though for a limited period, a well-organized Committee. . . . This Com- mittee resigned, and only the Treasurer and the Vice-Presi- dent, who afterwards became the Honorary Secretary of the Fund in the United States of America, remained. These two, aided by a paid Secretary, constituted what was k nown as the Boston Office. Of late, however, there has been so much friction in the office that, in the interests of the Fund, the London Committee felt bound to intervene. They decided to relieve Dr. Winslow from the duties of Vice- President and Honorary Secretary, and to dispense with the services of the paid Secretary, Mrs. B , the Honorary Treasurer, Mr. Foster, most obligingly consenting to remain in charge. “ A visit to Boston was kindly made by Major Cassatt, an American member of the London Committee, and the inde- pendent supporters of the Fund in Boston now having a free hand have constituted a local Committee, under' whose charge we may hope that the affairs of the Fund in Boston will prosper, and that the office in that city will be regarded, as heretofore, as the head-quarters of the Fund in the United States. . . . “It is of course to be regretted that there should be even the slightest appearance of treating one who has rendered such long and valuable services to the Fund as Dr. Winslow with harshness or even discourtesy. Matters had, however, unfortunately come to such a pass that strong measures were necessary, and it will remain for the Boston Committee to con- sider what steps are now to be taken that will most conduce to the advantage of our Exploration Fund in America.” THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 13 Let me consider some of these statements. 1. That owing to the “friction” in the Boston Office, the Comm, “decided to relieve Dr. Winslow from the duties of V. P. and Hon’y Sec’y.” What are the facts? In April, 1902, the London Comm., “cognizant for some time past of the friction between the officers representing the Fund at Boston,” considered reorganization of the Bos- ton Office necessary. They recommended the formation of a Committee, and, owing to “the want of cooperation” be- tween the Hon. Sec’y and Hon. Treas., that a third party undertake that duty. The Comm, proceeded to pass the resolutions: That Mr. Robinson of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts be asked to form such a Comm.; that to facilitate matters the appointments of the Hon. Sec’y and Sec’y cease at the end of the fiscal year (July 31); “that these resolu- tions (of reorganization) shall in no way affect the Rev. W. C. Winslow’s position as Vice-President of the Fund.” The serious error of Evans that owing to “friction” I was relieved from my position as V. P. and Hon. Sec’y is appar- ent. His words convey clearly the idea that owing to fric- tion the Comm., in reorganizing the Boston Office, consisting only of Hon. Sec’y, Hon. Treas., Sec’y, went still further, and removed me as V. P. That is, that owing to the friction my entire connection with the Fund was severed. The moral effect of so sweeping a statement by Evans added to his closing statement “that strong measures were neces- sary,” do indeed mislead his readers, and are a “slur” upon myself. The Comm, unanimously voted that my quasi honorary position should be intact. It was an act of supererogation; but their action was meant to clinch that position for me.* Mr. H. A. Grueber, Hon. Treas., the official longest in serv- ice, better acquainted than any other man with the inside workings of the Fund and the labors of its members, wrote to me of the meeting: “After a very careful consideration of the present condition of things, and after hearing Major Cassatt s report, the Comm, was of opinion that no other * Otherwise their action was hypocrisy, or a mere pretence. 14 THE TRUTH ABOUT course was open but to try and effect a complete reorganiza- tion, and to propose a Comm, of management. ... I can assure you that the Comm, fully realized their debt of gratitude to you for your untiring services of so many years’ standing.” 2. That “independent supporters of the Fund in Boston constituted” the new Comm, there. Will Evans name these “independent supporters,” or subscribers, who organ- ized this Committee? Robinson alone was asked to per- form this function. Why does Evans omit to give him the credit? Even he was not an “independent supporter” or subscriber. Of his Committee of seven he selected three for it who were not subscribers, and one who had recently become a subscriber; and three of the seven were connected with the museum. Yet, all the English subscribers, many Americans, reading only what Evans says upon the subject, will conclude that the Boston Committee was formed by subscribers in that liberty-loving city. 3. That Mr. Foster most obligingly consented to remain in charge. Evans appears intentionally to have omitted the fact that when, at the meeting in May, it was voted to cancel my V. P., it was voted that Foster’s office should cease at the organization of a Comm. Suppressio veri. 4. That an American member of the London Comm, came to Boston, etc. A newly-appointed member, residing in London, was to visit his family at Christmas in Philadelphia, and he came to Boston to visit friends and inquire into Fund affairs. The statement of Evans makes my removal appear to precede that visit. Whereas my removal as Hon. Sec’y, and retention as V. P., were resolved “after hearing Major Cassatt’s report” of his “visit to Boston.” 5. That “only the Treasurer and Vice Pres’t remained,” etc. The treasurer did not remain; for he, Mr. Lane, resigned. The V. P. was not a part of that “Boston Com- mittee.” 6. That the “Vice President, who afterwards became the Hon. Sec’y of the Fund,” etc. I had been Hon. Sec’y from 1887 till last summer, except during six months in 1897. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 15 7. That “these two, aided by a paid Sec’y, constituted what was known as the Boston Office.” The official ap- pointment of Oct., 1897, reads: “The Hon. Sec’y, the Hon. Treas., and Sec’y shall together constitute the Boston Office.” However inferior the position of the Sec’y, she constituted a part of the Boston Office. Nor was she subject to the “general control” of the Hon. Treas.; nor was the office under his “general control.” But she was appointed to perform her routine work “subject to the general control of the Hon. Sec’y”; and the latter was appointed to “exer- cise a general control over the work of the office in Boston.” The friction, upon which Evans lays stress, becomes another thing in the light of a truthful definition of my authority. 8. That “ the London Committee felt bound to intervene, ” is just half the truth. My official letter of Feb., 1902, to the Comm, called for a halt and a change; and stated that my authority must be upheld by the Comm. I sug- gested that there be a truly representative Committee, and named a number of subscribers in Boston and New York who could form a nucleus to that end. I had consulted probably with 50 subscribers, many of them local Secre- taries. Some 25 representative subscribers, of whom 17 were local Secretaries, individually addressed the London Comm, or its officials upon what Evans calls “friction.” Henry Phipps, Esq., late of the Carnegie Steel Trust, wrote to me when I informed him how my official position was a farce, and I might resign: “Do not be forced to resign. I know I would stop my donations to the objects which you have so long and ably worked for,” etc. To the Comm, he wrote: “As a friend of the Fund, and a local honorary Sec’y, I wish to add my strongest endorsement of Dr. Wins- low, and I much regret the annoyance caused him by . Last spring I sent an extra 8250 in response to Dr. Wins- low’s appeal. To any business man it is clear that Dr. W. should have power to displace and appoint any assistant that he sees fit.” Others writing to London were Prof. C. M. Tyler of Cornell, Rev. Dr. Alexander McKenzie of Cambridge, Gen. C. W. Darling of Utica, Rev. Dr. Zimmer- 16 THE TRUTH ABOUT man of Syracuse, Archdeacon Chambre of Lowell, Pres’t Morton of the Stevens Polytechnic Institute, R. B. Knox, the Duluth banker, Willis Boyd Allen, the author, Boston, Rev. Dr. John Wright of St. Paul, William G. Johnston, Esq., of Watertown, N. Y., Miss Sybil Carter, the revered deacon- ess, Mrs. Johnson, wife of Rev. Dr. Herrick Johnson of Chi- cago, Archdeacon Williams of Washington, Mr. James T. Dennis of Johns Hopkins, and Prof. W. K. Beecher of Auburn Theol. Sem’y. Last, but not least, I name Rev. Dr. James Carter of Williamsport, Pa., and Very Rev. E. A. Hoffman, D.D., etc., head of the General Theol. Sem’y of the Episcopal Church. Want of space forbids extracts. Dr. Beecher wrote to me: “If the evidence you have sent on does not accomplish the purpose, I do not see what will accomplish it.” Dean Hoffman shall be quoted, since Evans pays him just tribute. He wrote to me on Nov. 15, 1901: “I hope when these facts are made known to the people in London, they will act promptly and definitely about the Boston Office. Things cannot go on as they are.” He said that he had written “a very strong letter” to Evans, who replied in just these few words: “ I am in receipt of your letter of Nov. 11, and regret to note its contents. It is, however, difficult to regulate affairs on the other side of the Atlantic.” On March 29, 1902, Hoffman replied to my note: “I wrote, as I told you in my letter of the 24th inst., two very strong letters, one to Sir John Evans, and another on Dec. 23 to the London Comm. If the London Comm, take, as they have done, no notice of my letter, it is absolutely useless to write them again. I stated to them in my letter that a change in the Boston Office was absolutely necessary.” Hoffman passed away last summer. A recent note from Mrs. Hoff- man says: “My sympathies are all with you. I signed the document (to have me appointed Hon. V. P.) and I am true and loyal to you. ... I requested my name to be taken off the list of local Secretaries.” The 25 local Secs, and subscribers all knew that my duty to the American Branch absolutely required me to report the disgraceful state of affairs in the office to the Committee. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 17 9. “That strong measures were necessary,” asserts Evans. Yes; a very simple but decided “ measure” would have stopped all trouble, viz., my “general control,” maintained by vote of the Committee; and, if resisted by the Sec’y by vote “Dr. Winslow should have power to displace and appoint any assistant that he sees fit,” as Phipps so aptly said. How the Comm, failed to keep faith with me through the diplo- macy of Cotton and other influences will appear in this narra- tive. Evans wished simply to clinch his statement about friction and my removal, and he used innuendo. To W. G. Johnston, Esq., Prof. W. W. Goodwin replied: “When a man of the high eminence of Sir John Evans expresses him- self as strongly as this, and omits to say more, it can hardly be expected of those who are not acquainted with the facts of the case that they should question his judgment.” To other inquiries Goodwin has sent type-written carbons of Evans’ remarks, and they have been disseminated from the new Boston Office. Goodwin’s replies all insist, first, on the ignorance of the Boston Comm, respecting the causes of my removal, and, secondly, on that Committee’s entire irre- sponsibility for my removal as V. P., or for my reappointment as such. What says Evans concerning my reappointment as V. P.? Last Oct., he replied to a local Sec’y: “The question of Dr. Win- low’s position in respect to the E. E. Fund appears to me to be one that only American subscribers to the Fund, and especially those of Boston, can properly discuss.” (Italics mine.) To a local Sec’y Goodwin replied: “The present Boston Comm, feel that they are not called upon to consider matters (such as the V. P.) which were decided before their organization.” But who caused me to be removed from the office of V. P.? Robinson of Goodwin’s Comm., which Comm. Robinson formed, and of which he himself became a member! To me Goodwin wrote: “The London Comm, is the only body which can properly consider such ques- tions” (as the V. P.). To Rev. John Wright, Evans replied in re : “ Any suggestions from the Boston Comm, will receive the fullest consideration.” To John Bentley, Esq., of Brook- 18 THE TRUTH ABOUT lyn, Evans replied concerning the V. P. : “ Any further steps will have to be taken by the Boston Comm.” To me Evans replied concerning the late changes that “only American subscribers, especially those in Boston, can properly discuss them.” To Mrs. Donald Y. Leslie, local Sec’y at Buffalo, Goodwin wrote: “Your question should be addressed to the London Comm., who are solely responsible for the action which you criticise.” Do learned bodies usually play battledoor and shuttle- cock? As for the causes of my removal as V. P. let a few citations be made. Goodwin replied to me: “The grounds for their action (in London) are not known to any of us officially, and not at all to most of us (including myself).” To Gen. Darling he replied: “I have no knowledge of the special grounds on which the Comm, acted. . . . Such questions as you addressed to our Sec’y (Lodge) would naturally be sent to the London Comm, who alone can answer them.” As a prominent member of the banking firm of Brown Bros, was in London last autumn, I wrote to ask him if he would question a member of the Comm, whether there was any- thing against me, and why I was removed as V. P. He was courteously told: “I know of nothing against Dr. Winslow. Personally, I would like to have him continued at the head of our American Branch. But the friction in the Boston Office gave others an opportunity to effect a complete change, which was occomplished.” Who caused my removal as Vice President? Robinson had informed me that he declined to form a Comm., and had so cabled the London Comm. As the Comm, had voted unanimously that my V. P. was intact, imagine my aston- ishment to receive a notification a month later from Cotton, without explanation, that the Comm, had rescinded its vote regarding the V. P., and had voted to cancel both the offices I had held. I called on Robinson; he refused to let me see a copy of his official reply to London; what he or others wrote privately to London is their affair. Grueber, how- ever, wrote to me: “Mr. Robinson did not absolutely decline THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 19 to form a Committee. He said he could not possibly under- take the task so long as you had any control (only my office of V. P. remained). Freed from this, he pronounced him- self willing to consider the request of the Comm. After a long discussion at a special meeting yesterday the Comm, felt that the only course to take was to meet Mr. Robinson’s views, and to cancel your official connection with the Fund.’ Who caused my removal as V. P.? Robinson. His “views,” his dictum, caused it. It follows, therefore, that one person not even a subscriber, created the Committee to administer the affairs of the American Branch without the subscribers of that Branch being even consulted — and that at his request the founder of that Branch (in 1883), its unceasing worker, was removed from his official connection with it! “We (the Boston Committee) are in no way concerned with this action,” wrote Goodwin to a local Sec’y. Yet the single hand that put Goodwin upon the Committee struck me down! To a local Sec’y, Mr. J. E. Lodge replied: “Dr. Winslow’s connection with the E. E. Fund was severed by the London Comm, for the reason that they believed it to be in the best interest of the Fund. . . . What I have said to you is really all there is to it.” No wonder that a local Sec’y at last wrote to Goodwin for “some reason why the Boston Comm, assents to the insult put upon Dr. Winslow,” after he failed with Lodge; but Goodwin’s reply disclaimed all responsibility for the Boston Comm., and enlarged upon “the high eminence” of Evans. Opinions of Subscribers. Prof. Elmer T. Merrill, Ph.D., of Wesleyan University, Middletown, wrote to me as follows: “I wrote Mr. Lodge, on the basis of the circular of the new Boston Comm., ask- ing why such a change had been made, and particu- larly why your name did not appear anywhere, remarking that in the lack of explanation the presumption was that you had been treated with discourtesy and injustice in the reorganization. Mr. Lodge’s answer, and a copy of my reply, I enclose for your reading.” 20 THE TRUTH ABOUT Lodge replied: “I am only too glad to give you what in- formation I can regarding the reorganization of this office and the absence of Dr. Winslow’s name from all publications connected with the Fund. In doing this I feel that I can send you nothing better than an extract from the recent address of Sir John Evans before the London Committee.” Merrill rejoined to Lodge: “ . . . You say you are glad * to give (me) what information (you) can regarding the reorgan- ization of (the Boston) Office, and the absence of Dr. Wins- low’s name from the publications connected with the Fund.’ Yet all you send me is a copy of a part of Sir John Evans’ address, which I have already seen in print. You surely are able to recognize that that says nothing at all informative on the matters regarding which you profess to be giving me information. I must therefore understand doubtless that you do not feel at liberty to say anything. “You must allow me to point out that all this puts not only the Fund but your Committee in an unfortunate light, and leaves the presumption precisely as I specified in my last letter. Can you expect to command the confidence and further efforts of past subscribers under such circumstances? . . . The circumstances of your Committee’s assumption of office, and of your present silence, appear to me extraor- dinary. I am only fair in judging that the reasonable rights of subscribers are being violated.” Prof. Samuel Macauley Jackson, D.D., LL.D., of New York University, assist, editor of Schaff’s Bible Dictionary, etc., wrote to Prof. Goodwin: . . The London Comm, owes it to the subscribers in America to explain its extraor- dinary action in depriving Dr. Winslow of his honorary office. . . . The Fund in this country is his creation, and has been for nearly 20 years his joy, his pride, and his absorbing pursuit. I know no reason why he should not be permitted to continue the relations which have been of such immense advantage to the Fund. No reason was given in the circular announcing the formation of your Comm. None are given in the account of the annual meeting of the Fund in the Even- ing Post. I appeal to you as one too honorable to stab a THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 21 brother in the back and in the dark, to send to all the Ameri- can subscribers some official explanation of what looks like a very uncalled for proceeding. I want no personal reply, but a public and official reply.” To which Goodwin replied that he knew no more about it than what Evans had stated publicly; and that his Comm, was not the body to give sub- scribers information on this point. To me Jackson wrote: “The Fund is your creation here. No detractor can rob you of that glory. But your very exceptional success has, I fear, excited jealousy.”* Merrill I have never met, but Jackson I have known from the earliest days of the Fund. They express the views of many subscribers. Views of Local Secretaries and Subscribers. Rev. Morgan Dix, D.D., D.C.L., of Trinity Church, N. Y., a gen- erous member, who added $50 to his previous year’s subscription: I wrote to the office in Boston withdrawing my subscription. I am much displeased at the treatment you have received. Hon. James P. Baxter, President of the New England Historic- Genealogical Soc’y, Boston, who signed the request of the local Secre- taries to London that I be appointed V. P.; but the Boston Comm, sent out before any reply could come from London, pressing notes and bills: “I have just rec’d your circular (a type-written one), and am sur- prised at the action of the Comm. My bill was sent, -with an urgent request to pay my subscription, a week or two ago, and without sup- posing that it would have any effect unfavorable to you I paid it. I now understand the reason of the urgency to have prompt payment. Had I understood what the action (in London) was to be, I certainly should not have subscribed, and never shall again unless you are re- stored (as V. P.), and I hope all who signed the recommendation for your appointment will do the same as I propose to do.” No literary- business man in all New England has a stronger reputation for level- headedness than Baxter, which as Mayor of Portland, Pres’t of the Maine Hist. Soc., etc., etc., he has shown. Archdeacon Williams of the Diocese of Washington (D. C.) : I have also rec’d the circular of the present Comm. My answer has been a complete resignation from all connection with the Fund. . . . I hope enough others will drop out to kill the Comm. here. •Our most prosperous period was 1901-2. I threw my soul into raising larger sums than ever before. 22 THE TRUTH ABOUT Rev. W. Hayes Ward, D.D., LL.D., Editor of Independent: It appears to me that a real injustice has been done. General J. W. dePeyster, LL.D.: My nerves tingle when I read of such cases as yours. I have always considered that your and the Society’s identification is mutual. James Schouler, LL.D., Historian: I sincerely hope that the grave error may be rectified. Prof. Charles M. Tyler, D.D., Cornell University: I have for- warded my resignation (as local Sec’y) and shall not contribute any longer. The Management have destroyed my confidence in them. Prof. Willis J. Beecher, D.D., Auburn Theol. Sem.: I have writ- ten Dr. Goodwin that I do not care to support the Fund further. (Lo- cal Sec. for that region.) Prof. E. H. Williams, late of Lehigh University: I am not partic- ularly surprised as our English brethren are not noted the world over for their courtesy towards others in cases where they have the whip end of them. ... I feel like abandoning the whole affair. ... It is hard for you to see your efforts swept away by those who have come after you, and are reaping where you have sown, and entirely without work of any kind on their part. As far as my sympathy goes, you can count on my depreciation of what has been done. Miss Cox: I have too much respect for the honour and justice of the British nation not to think that before long they will see through the trap that has evidently been laid for them, and rectify the error. In- deed, I shall have a very poor opinion of our own nation if there are not found enough men and women of honour to see that matters are soon adjusted satisfactorily, and until they are I shall have nothing to do with the Fund. Miss Kennedy: It is unpardonable. But it cannot affect the im- mense debt due you from all who have the cause genuinely at heart. Mrs. E. D. Kimball: I hope the number will not be small who will remove their names from the list of subscribers and patrons. Mrs. Zabriskie : It seems an outrage that a man who has been the head and the whole thing for so long a time should be treated in this manner. Mrs. Devereux: It makes me feel like withdrawing all interest since the original association can treat an American official, its head in this country, in such a cavalier and unjust manner, and with such a lack of common courtesy. Mrs. Ely: The entire success of that Fund in this country has been due to your unwearying labors and efforts. Mrs. Barnes : I hope that there will be a general revolt among sub- scribers. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 23 Mrs. Crocker: I am greviously surprised at the action of the Bos- ton Comm, in ignoring entirely your official capacity in the E. E. F. The origin and success of it here is due to you. Mrs. Herrick Johnson, Chicago, wife of ex-Moderator of General Presbyterian Assembly: The conduct of affairs has been shameful. Your past work remains secure, whatever is in the future, and God will take care of results as well as of unscrupulous schemes. Hon. Lynde Harrison, of New Haven: I certainly shall not have any less opinion of you. Prof. Frank K. Sanders, Ph.D., Dean of Yale Divinity School: So far as I understand the case, I am in entire sympathy with your position. Hon. George G. Benedict, LL.D., President of the Vermont Hist. Soc. : On the whole, I should say you are well out of the business. If the other men can stand it, you certainly can. With undiminished respect, etc., etc. Rt. Rev. Frederick W. Taylor, D.D.: I have written to the Sec’y of the Boston Comm, to remove my name from the list of local Secre- taries. My reasons are obvious. With all good wishes, etc. Henry Phipps, Jr., Esq.: You have a proper hold on the office as long as you are willing to retain it (Feb. 17, 1902.). President F. D. Blakeslee, D.D., Cazenovia, N. Y. : Justice de- mands your reinstatement (as V. P.). Timothy Hopkins, Trustee University of California: It is a drastic reflection upon Dr. Winslow and it will certainly do us injury if not based upon broad and equitable reasons. Rev. D. L. Miller, D.D., Mount Morris, 111.: It really seems in- credible. I shall not respond to the new Comm. Walter L. Bogert, the musician, Flatbush, N. Y.: To most of us you are the “Fund ” in America, and no one can take your place. Apart from the slight put upon you (let me rather say, the brutal dis- regard of your feelings), the Fund will suffer loss of subscribers. John Bentley, Esq., Brooklyn: Not only have you been wronged, but the interests of the Fund are imperiled. Prof. W. J. Battle, Ph.D., University of Texas: I sympathize keenly with you. It is but an ill return for many years of hard and disinterested work. Rev. James S. Stone, D.D., rector of St. James, Chicago: I am with you entirely. General J. L. Chamberlain, LL.D.: I do not see how the powers can help granting the V. P., but the whole affair will greatly embarrass the work of the Fund. Rev. James R. Winchester, D.D., Sec’y in St. Louis: Dr. Wins- low, the honorable and courteous representative for years of the E. E. 24 THE TRUTH ABOUT Fund in America, has, in my judgment, after careful perusal of the published facts, been unjustly treated. His removal will be a stumb- ling-block in the progress of the Soc’y. Rev. William Short, D.D., local Sec’y, St. Louis: The American mind rejoices in fair play, and its verdict will be that you have not been treated fairly. Rev. S. M. Newman. D,D., LL.D., pastor at Washington: I have been so disgusted with the evolution of the “Fund ” administration that last week I withdrew from all connection with it both as local Sec’y and as a subscriber. Hon. Reverdy Johnson, Baltimore, patron for many years: I think you have been much maltreated, and that the English parties will in consequence lose many subscribers. I shall decline to con- tribute further. You are at liberty to use my name. Rev. Francis A. Horton, D.D., Philadelphia, local Sec’y: You have my sympathy, and whatever you may decide as best will com- mand my respect. Rev. Charles A. Jessup, D.D., local Sec’y, Greenport, N. Y.: It is impossible not to regret that anything has occurred to deprive the E. E. F. work of your name and labors. I hope the outcome will be to restore you to the place you have honored so long. President James M. Taylor, D.D., Vassar, referring to the V. P.: I am glad to know that something is being said by those who appre- ciate all that you have done in the past. Rev. James Morrow, D.D., Philadelphia, local Sec’y: I trust the movement for your restoration as V. P. will be successful. Col. Jacob L. Greene, Hartford, Pres’t Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. : The most surprising action in the reorganization of the Fund on this side of the Atlantic . . . and I can but regard it as most unfor- tunate. Renwich B. Knox, banker, Duluth : I should be in favor of sever- ing all connection with the present E. E. F., and starting out on our own hook, and let the “ Boston Comm.” control themselves. Robert J. Hubbard, Esq., Cazenovia, N. Y. : I am not only un- willing to remain, but shall cease my subscription. Hon. Henry E. Pierrepont, Brooklyn : Let John Bull go without U. S. money for a while. Archdeacon Chambre, D.D., Lowell: It is altogether too bad — and my sympathies are with you. Archdeacon Carey, D.D., LL.D., Saratoga: You have built up the Soc’y in America, and your name is a tower of strength. .Rev. Joseph A. Seiss, D.D., LL.D., Philadelphia, the eminent Lu- theran author, etc.: My confidence in the managers of the Fund is shaken, and my respect for them much diminished. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 25 Rev. Jeremiah Zimmerman, D.D., LL.D., Syracuse: Such base injustice and gross ingratitude are exasperating. David Harlowe, Milwaukee: I am opposed to paying any sub- scription to the “Committee ” as now organized. C. Leidich, Esq., Detroit: The treatment you have received from a few who have assumed power is not only an injustice to you, but to all members. Rev. J. E. Kittredge, D.D., Geneseo, N. Y. : This London action, if not revoked, must end my personal subscriptions to the E. E. F., and all efforts therefor. My subscriptions began with Miss Amelia B. Edwards in 1883. M. H. Logan, M.D.: Since the death of Amelia B. Edwards some of us have felt that the mantle had fallen upon the shoulders of an honored and worthy successor, yourself. Mrs. H. L. Van Nuts, local Sec’y, Goshen, Ind., upon the circular of the Boston Comm. : It strikes me as rather strange that the London Comm, should “determine ” what may be “for the advantage ” of American subscribers, and thereupon reach across the Atlantic and proceed to set aside an official, nolens volens, after the good old style of King George of blessed memory. And, too, it is rather inconsist- ent that any one member of the new Comm, should not be a sub- scriber. Rev. James Carter, D.D., Williamsport, Penn.: This is a more egregious blunder than that of 1897. If the London Comm, were desirous of offending the American subscribers, they could hardly have chosen a more effective method. It does seem essential that the sub- scribers generally should know the affront which has been put upon them in the indignity showed to you. From letters of those who renewed their subscriptions two extracts. Miss Ellen M. Ward: “It is outrageous, abominable, unjust. ... I finally concluded to send my subscription — I am inclined to think that I shall not renew next year; but I shall see what course events take.” Miss Sybil Carter, deaconess and leader in missionary work: “I am sorry to say my money has gone in. ... I am going to England about April 1, and if by that time you are not appointed V. P., I shall certainly ‘say my say,’ emphatically, too.” Many letters rec’d are too severe for me to quote; others are private; some very sympathetic but pointless unless pro- duced entire. But the foregoing selections sufficiently ex- 26 THE TRUTH ABOUT press variety of opinion from a variety of types of subscribers, such as Dix, Schouler, Ward, Baxter, Phipps, and Mrs. Her- rick Johnson. Just one oral opinion. The correspondent of an impor- tant religious weekly came to me for information. He had seen two or three members of the new Comm., but failed to elicit any definite cause for my removal. I asked him if Foster had given any reason therefor. He replied that Foster could not or would not state any reason, but hinted that perhaps the London Comm, thought I lacked business qualities. This correspondent was amazed at the documen- tary data I showed him; by appointment he devoted sub- sequently at least three hours to reading carefully documen- tary evidence and hearing my explanation thereon. (Some of this evidence will appear in this brochure; some of it simply cannot be published.) He exclaimed, as he was leaving, “You are the worst victimized man I have ever heard of.” Were there decreasing subscriptions? The years 1900- 1902 were the most prosperous in our Branch’s history. I gave my best energies to raising subscriptions, especially securing donations for one division of the work. In view of this and partly because of my subscription of $125 each to the three departments of the Fund, the Comm, elected me an Hon’y Life Member of the Fund in each of the three branches. (See Annual Rep.) This was in early May, 1901. My one aim is impartiality and justice throughout this statement. Whenever I can speak favorably of those mentioned I shall do it. I believe that could the English subscribers become acquainted with the facts causing the arbitrary reorganization of the administration of the American Branch, “ the honour and justice of the British nation,” re- ferred to by Miss Cox, would assert itself in some form among subscribers who attend the next annual meeting in London. But in no way can English subscribers learn of the facts, nor would those now “running” the Committee furnish the addresses of subscribers so that I could send a statement to subscribers. But three or four members of the Comm, make THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 27 a quorum. There are 30 names on the Committee; some of the chief names are seldom represented at a meeting. Why did not Evans give the entire text of the resolutions of April and May, 1902, so that his readers could see for themselves how the reorganization was effected? Because just one man, not even a subscriber, was empowered to reor- ganize the administration over the Americans by selecting a Comm, for them. Because some fair-minded English sub- scribers would have thought: “If the Comm, were in New York, and we the English Branch, would we like to have New York vote that our Comm, in London shall be selected by one man who is not a subscriber, who is not even inter- ested in Egyptology?” At any rate, why did Evans violate the usages of non-personality in a presidential address? CAUSE OF THE TROUBLES. One person caused the troubles in the Boston Office, but others must share with her the responsibility for their con- tinuance, and are accountable for their final results. She shall be called simply Mrs. B. My readers will appreciate how difficult a task is now before me ; and a number of local Secretaries and subscribers, who know at least some of the facts, will sympathize with my trying position. Dr. Charles H. S. Davis, editor of Biblia at Meriden, Conn., replied to Gen. C. W. Darling of Utica, last Nov., touching the cause of the troubles: “She very soon ignored Dr. Wins- low completely, and considered herself as the head of the Fund in this country. She went to London, and ingratiated herself with the Comm. Dr. W. forwarded documentary evidence that she was not fitted to hold her position, and it was thought best in London to organize an entirely new Comm., which certainly is a great mistake.” To me Davis wrote when I informed him that I must publish a statement : “You were undermined by an ambitious and designing woman, aided by persons whom she had hypnotized. There is the whole story, and along with the falsehoods, who could withstand it? The whole truth shcruld be made known, and put very strongly.” He had the best of opportunities 28 THE TRUTH ABOUT for forming an accurate judgment upon the cause of the trouble. In Jan., 1902, Herbert A. Grugber, Esq., Hon’y Treasurer, was good’enough to warn me: “You must stick to your guns firmly, as it is a simple question whether you are the master or not; or whether Mrs. B. is to rule. Her game is to mini- mize your authority, and finally to crush you.” In Nov., 1901, President Evans wrote to me upon some plan of defin- ing more exactly her duties, and added, “Mrs. B. appears to me to entirely misapprehend her position.” The day following the vote for my removal, May 28, 1902, Grueber ended his letter to me, “In future one’s motto must be, Ne cherchez pas la femme pour Secretaire.” But who also is responsible? 1. The London Committee. Had it simply upheld my authority as Hon. Sec’y, the troubles could have ended in the Boston Office where they started. My duties and rights had been clearly defined, and I expected the Comm, honor- ably to uphold “the official representative of the Fund in America” placed in “general control” over the work of the Boston Office. In Oct., 1897, the Committee, in view of my reappointment as Hon. Sec’y, passed resolu- tions defining the duties of the three officials of the Boston Office. From the Resolutions: — The Hon. Secretary shall be the official representative of the Fund in America. In all important matters he is authorized to take the initiative, and to draft and sign cir- culars and letters in his own name. In financial affairs he shall consult with the Hon. Treasurer. As regards the ordinary business of the Fund, he shall exercise a general control over the work of the office in Boston. He shall com- municate officially with the Committee. The Hon. Treasurer shall conduct the financial business of the Fund in America. He shall consult with the Hon. Sec- retary and with the Secretary. He shall communicate offi- cially with the Hon. Treasurer in London. The Secretary shall conduct the ordinary business of the office in Boston on her own responsibility, subject to the general control of the Hon. Secretary. She shall, when nec- THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 29 essary, communicate officially with the Hon. Secretary in London, or with the London Secretary. The Hon. Secretary, Hon. Treasurer and Secretary shall together constitute the Office in Boston. They shall consult together for the general interests of the Fund. Miss Helen Dennison, the previous Sec’y, in Oct., 1897 received Grueber’s reply to her inquiry: “Dr. Winslow has been appointed Hon. Sec’y, which practically restores him to his former position. As Hon. Sec’y he will have the chief control of the affairs of the Fund in America.” To Rev. J. E. Kittredge Grueber wrote: “Dr. Winslow has always been so devoted to his work that I am very glad to see him reinstated at the head of affairs.” Although Mrs. B. con- gratulated me heartily on my reappointment as Hon. Sec’y, she protested to Cotton, perhaps the Comm, also, against my having “control”; but even Cotton, her ally, writing to me upon her objection, remarked of her routine office work: “ The more work she actually undertakes the less is laid upon your shoulders, while the dignity and superior authority will always rest with you.” In 1898, letters from subscribers urged London to maintain my authority; a reply to Rev. John Wright from London concluded: “The Committee will carefully guard his rights as Hon. Sec’y, and Vice President for the United States.” 2. Francis C. Foster, Hon. Treasurer. Had not this man, owing to his infatuation, or for other reasons, upheld the Sec’y in her career, thereby leading him to interfere with my own department, the troubles could have been checked. Probably, the Sec’y would not have attempted to “minimize” my authority to the extent she aimed at. But far worse; he accepted her statements on all matters as true and gov- erned his action accordingly. Nor did he justly and honor- ably give me any opportunity “to speak or explain,” but acted in a most ex parte manner. He would not heed any written statements from me; nor evidence proffered; nor requests to make inquiries regarding Mrs. B.; and up to May, 1902, was, like Ephraim, joined to his idol. Then he col- lapsed under evidence * forced upon him by a friend, and, I * Some of which will appear in this narrative. 30 THE TRUTH ABOUT believe, urged a clean sweep of both my offices, in his mighty pique. I shall not discuss his personal motives, his sincerity, in his unprecedented course towards a fellow official, and his devotion to Mrs. B. I am dealing with facts in this narrative. 3. James S. Cottox, Hon. Secretary. Had not Cotton been the devoted ally of Mrs. B., from the date of his visit to Bos- ton, and used his official position in her interests, she might have modified her efforts to rule the Boston Office, and Foster have advised her to be more discreet in her official position. Had it not been for Cotton, neither Foster nor she would have gone to the lengths that they did in the fall of 1901, after her trip to London, where “she ingratiated herself with the Comm.” But I anticipate the facts in their sequence. SOME ESSENTIAL HISTORY. Retrospect is needed here, to throw light upon facts yet to be stated. 1. How came Mrs. B. to be a local Secretary? She made a few calls at the office, while Miss Dennison was Sec’y, in 1895; Gen. Loring had also commended her interest in the Egyptian collection at the museum. She told me that through her suggestion I had been asked to speak on Egypt at the Baptist Social Union; and when I did so I noticed on their program lines, “Egypt, my Dream,” dedicated to me, which she sent to Biblia for March, ’96. Her interest in the cause seemed intense. I assented to her wish to be a local Sec’y, so that she could feel authorized to solicit subscriptions. 2. How came Mrs. B. to be Secretary of the Boston Com- mittee? But, first, the context. Several times I had intimated to the London Comm, the desirability of having a Comm, here to cooperate with me in the work. I did not like so much responsibility. In Oct., ’95, I named several subscribers, one of them Gen. Loring, as suitable persons for the nucleus of what might evolve into a representative committee. For I did not then, do not now, think that any plenipotentiary committee should be placed over the American Branch without reference to subscribers or, at least, to local Secretaries. Assuredly not, THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 31 in opposition to their wishes. I had been officially informed that “such an arrangement the Comm, would leave entirely in your hands.’ ’ I received a copy of resolutions, first of all handsomely recognizing my labors, and then reorganizing the Boston Office by appointing a Committee of five persons, including Loring as chairman, and myself as a member of it. Of the three others appointed, one had been named by me in my letter to London, but the other two were not even sub- scribers and not interested. I reflected a day or two upon the subject. On going to Loring I found that the resolutions had been sent him; that he had already written to the other three appointees, had rec’d their acceptance, had appointed a meeting to organize, and that he had just indited a note to me asking my attendance. So my resolutions were really a copy of resolutions sent to him! Yet I was the Hon’y Sec’y (as well as V. P.) in the United States, and he a subscriber simply. I felt I ought to have explanations from London. As it proved, and I ascertained while in London the following year, the appointment of a chairman was illegal — it was ultra vires in English law. Thompson replied to me, regretting any mistake, and Grueber, regretting any annoyance caused me. But Presi- dent Fowler officially declared to me: “The Committee FULLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT IN ANY REORGANIZATION OF the American Branch the approval of American sub- scribers IS ESSENTIAL. THEY CAN DESIRE NOTHING ELSE.” He had uttered a minor Magna Charta, as true now as then. Prof. A. H. Sayce wrote to me: “I feel sure that nothing will be done without due consultation with one whose work and experience in America are unique. I remember Miss Amelia B. Edwards describing you as ‘the Fund’ on the other side of the Atlantic, and that it is through your en- thusiasm and exertions that American subscribers have been obtained for our labors in Egypt.” As Loring was soon to take a vacation in Europe he post- poned “reorganization” till the fall. Some of the local Secs, and subscribers had already expressed disapproval of the new deal, and some of these insisted that I should be 32 THE TRUTH ABOUT the head of any committee organized in Boston. Loring, on the other hand, expatiated to me upon the honor and responsibility that would belong to the office of Hon. Sec’y, to which the new Comm, would assuredly appoint me. “It will make you literary head,” he said. But my own wish, as stated in my circular subsequently, was to have as Presi- dent a man of national reputation, such as Norton of Har- vard, Low of Columbia, Harper of Chicago, or our hon’y V. P., Chas. Dudley Warner. But, before he sailed, Loring urged upon me the importance of our having a very capable woman for Sec’y in the office, and he suggested Mrs. B. as fitted for the place. Whether he and she had discussed this point I have never known. But she had expressed to me privately her disapproval of having Loring at the head of the Comm., and she opened correspondence with subscribers who had also opposed the new deal. In my great love for the cause I had finally determined to sink every personal feeling and work with Loring upon any possible basis of unity. I accepted his invitation to attend the meeting of reorganization in Nov., which, however, the two members who were not sub- scribers did not attend. Only Loring, Mrs. Whitman and I were present. He had asked me if I would assent to appoint- ing Mrs.B., and if I would speak to her concerning the salary. I urged that Miss Dennison had proved a capable, and alto- gether a reliable and faithful Sec’y, even if she lacked the knowledge of “Egypt” which Mrs. B. possessed. Mrs. B. proposed to have the office at her rooms, “in order to save rent.” I urged Loring to place a niche, “just a desk,” at our disposal in the museum. He said the space could not be spared. The salary had been $600, but, in view of not having rent to pay, it was raised to $800, which included the free use of her library-room as an office. (The office rent had been $360 a year.) I told Mrs. B. that such an arrange- ment would be experimental; that with the expected increase of subscriptions we might well afford to pay her $800, and also rent a suitable office for perhaps $300. Thus, in Nov., 1896, Mrs. B. was installed Sec’y, and Mr. G. M. Lane, who had not attended the meetings, became Treasurer. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 33 WHAT CAUSED THE SPLIT. When the circular with Loring as head of the new Comm, appeared, many letters of disapproval came from subscrib- ers. Some thought I had been too easily placated. Loring attended to the printing of the circular, and the title, “The Executive Comm, for America,” was used. I had objected to assuming such a title (as I do now) for any local Comm., or until such a Comm, could be truly representative both in itself and in its proper appointment. Although the official letter from London authorizing the organization of the new Comm, was addressed to Loring, he had proposed to me to print the one addressed to me, “Because,” he said, “it would look better,” etc. Sir E. M. Thompson, presiding at the annual meeting, on Nov. 13, 1896, stated the case thus: — The Committee have felt for some time that Dr. Winslow, who has been the sole manager in America, and who has done such good service, has had too much responsibility thrown upon him personally, and the Committee felt it was best to have an American Committee, leaving to that body the management of their own affairs and the making of their own arrangements. There has been some little difficulty in getting the matter settled, but General Loring, the Presi- dent, who was in England last summer, and whom I had the pleasure of seeing, this morning sent me a cablegram telling me that the Committee was organized, that Dr. Winslow was appointed Honorary Secretary and Mr. Lane Treasurer, and we may consider that their arrangements are now in working order. But the official letter to Loring (drawn up by Thompson and Grueber) had stated: The Committee of the Egypt Exploration Fund have had under serious consideration a letter which Dr. Winslow ad- dressed to them on the 18th of October last, and in which he proposed that certain gentlemen and one lady in the United States should be added to the Committee, or should form an American Committee if thought more expedient. He has also expressed on other occasions a desire to be relieved 34 THE TRUTH ABOUT of the labors and responsibility of managing single-handed the affairs of the Fund in America. With these considera- tions before them, etc. Thus the statement at the meeting gave the distinct impression that the Comm, had originated the idea of having a Comm, in Boston, and acted upon it. The official letter to myself had put the case quite differently. The circular of the new Comm, had been distributed before a copy of the London proceedings reached me. I was a little nettled, of course, particularly so after yielding so much for peace and for the cause. I wrote to London upon this discrep- ancy (apparently) of statements, and its lack of fairness to me, but Thompson’s statement was allowed to appear, later on, in the Annual Report for 1896. Unfortunate for peace was this statement of Thompson added to the tactics of Loring. It afforded the new Sec’y her opportunity. She remarked that Loring had prejudiced Thompson against me in their London interview. Already she had complained to me of Loring’s arbitrary manner and ways. I assured her that in his museum work he had acquired that manner, and allowance must be made. I need not go into details. She had written many subscribers upon the “mistake” of London and the “gross wrong” done me. Of the perhaps 150 letters of protest sent to London from subscribers fully one half of them were inspired by her. I frequently restrained her ardor, and bade her be careful of her assertions to influence subscribers. She said Lane was discourteous to her, treating her more like a menial than an official, and that he commented upon me in a way that she did not like. During the winter he called twice upon me. He thought me altogether in the wrong, and Loring altogether in the right. He impressed me as one of the most deter- mined men I had ever met, and he seemed surprised that I did not yield to his views at once. His language was such at the last interview that Mrs. Winslow urged me not to see him again. It so happened that Mrs. B. had told me of an outrageous remark which (she said) Loring made and I was in no mood to be browbeaten by him. (See 2 below.) THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 35 Had Loring treated me with frankness at the outset, and on that basis had we conferred together, we should have come to some agreement. But the powers of evil seemed to have been favoring the designs of Mrs. B. What made RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE LORING COMMITTEE AND MY- SELF apparently impossible ? I specify but four reasons. 1. The Honorary Secretaryship. Repeatedly had Mrs. B. said to me that with Loring as head of the Comm, my post of Hon. Sec’y would be an empty title. She would cite remarks which she said he made, indicating his intention to be director de facto of our affairs. She said she believed Loring would abolish the office of Hon. Sec’y as soon as the new Comm, was firmly intrenched: which meant that I, simply a member of the Comm., would be powerless. I knew that Lane and Mrs. Whitman would form with Loring the majority, and that they would act together. Mrs. B. said she did not like to have Loring dictating to her in all her work at the office. I combated Mrs. B.’s views respecting the Hon. Secretaryship, for they meant that Loring was playing double. He had particularly emphasized to me the dignity and duties of that office! Later on, Mrs. B. renewed her statement, adding, “I had a note from Loring, and since you don’t believe it possible that your office may be abol- ished, I can show it to you.” As she knew I could not speak of the note to Loring, she gave it to me. This note to Mrs. B., in Loring’s handwriting, staggered me. It contained these words: “ When you speak of the Treasurer, please do not use the ‘Honorary’ — it is an English fad that in America had best be dropped. We appointed Mr. W. Hon’y Sec’y because he is fond of titles.” Even then, I tried to explain the matter to Loring’s advantage, but Mrs. B. promptly met it by remarking that when the “fad” is dropped from your office, how can there be two Secretaries? I said, “Do you think General Loring capable of playing a double part?” Her reply was, “I think him capable of doing anything.” The thought flashed over me how Loring did not wish my appointment as Hon. Sec’y by his Comm, confirmed in Lon- don, and that strengthened Mrs. B.’s statement that my 36 THE TRUTH ABOUT office would be abolished. For confirmation by the London Comm, would be an obstacle to Loring’s alleged scheme.* 2. A Brutal Remark. Some time later, Mrs. B. referred to her remark that Loring was “capable of anything,” by quoting to me what she declared he had said to her regarding a matter in my own family. He had referred to me as not altogether sane, and then, she stated, added the brutal re- mark. She insisted upon the accuracy of her statement. I had her repeat her statement in the presence of a reliable and interested person. 3. A Statement by Mr. Lane. Mrs. B. informed me with commingled banter and gravity that I must be taken care of, and that formerly I had been an inmate of an insane asylum! “Mr. Lane says so.” Later on, I asked Mrs. B. if she would make this statement over her signature. She drew up and signed on our official note paper this statement : “This is to certify that on or about Jan. 20, 1897, I called at Mr. Gardiner M. Lane’s office upon Egypt Exploration Fund business. During the interview he said: ‘No doubt Dr. Winslow is insane; he was once confined in an insane asylum.’ ... I inquired where he obtained his information; he replied: ‘From a reliable source.’” It is needless to remark that I was never under any medi- cal treatment for any serious ailment in my life except that la grippe annoyed me in March, 1897. 4. An Extraordinary Statement. Early in March the B’s began to urge me to go to London and “get the appoint- ment of the Boston Comm, canceled.” As a supreme effort, they informed me that I must go, for Loring had declared to them that the London Comm, considered me not honest, or words to that effect. I requested the B.’s to put this in writing, and, on March 16, they gave me a paper signed by them both, stating what Loring had said to them. It stated that Loring said that a statement had been laid before the London Comm., and their paper concluded: “Gen. Loring * Documentary and epistolary quotations, for some of my statements are omitted for brevity’s sake. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 37 represented (to Mr. and Mrs. B.) that the London Comm, wished to have Dr. Winslow exposed, but to save Dr. Winslow and a scandal he (Gen. Loring) and his Comm, were trying to prevent such exposure. Gen. Loring added that Dr. Winslow’s unsoundness of mind weighed with them.” . . . “ We can add to our statement of March 16, 1897, that Gen. Loring remarked that it was very fortunate that Dr. Wins- low suggested having a Comm, to work with him, as it gave the London Comm, the opportunity to select the Comm, appointed.” Promptly I cabled Grueber that I should sail at once and bring accounts with me. Reply: “No need to bring ac- counts. Question has not been raised.” A note from Loring said he had rec’d a cablegram which he did not compre- hend; asking him to stop my going to London; and that “the London Comm, know nothing about accounts.” The B.’s reiterated their statement to me. I concluded that Lor- ing had made remarks upon which they formed their impres- sion. One of my circulars dealt with finance: “English and American Support Compared.” And I showed that the actual net support from the U. S. for a decade had far ex- ceeded the English net support. What we sent was all net and should not be compared with the English gross receipts. I included what American branches, people, libraries, had sent to London not through our office. To have it published that America had raised more funds for exploration nettled some of the London Comm., but, on the other hand, Thomp- son remarked at the annual meeting that “the American subscriptions during the year exceed the British.” Long afterwards, I decided that the B.’s had distorted Loring’s comments into what they asserted he had declared. I concluded it best for me to go to London and try to adjust differences. But before we get there I will say a few things . The American Branch disapproved of the new organiza- tion. Dr. Davis had been requested by subscribers to call for a vote on three propositions — one of them that an active worker head the new Comm., and that I head it. He rec’d 38 THE TRUTH ABOUT hundreds of signatures and many scores of letters. One of the signers was Francis C. Foster, and he wrote to Miss Dennison as follows: “The whole affair seems to me out- rageous, and I cannot imagine any American subscriber lending himself to such proceedings, or continuing his sub- scription under such conditions. I certainly shall not. I cannot understand the stupidity, to put it mildly, of those on the other side, so ignoring and insulting Dr. Winslow’s past invaluable services. They have done him, and the — his — cause, a grievous wrong.” It seemed to me during the winter that Mr. J. C. Gray, one of the Boston Comm, who had not been a subscriber, was placed in an unfair position. He had gone upon the Comm, quite ignorant of the circumstances. And he had heard only ex parte state- ments. I regretted afterwards that I could have not inter- viewed him personally. What was my opinion of Mrs. B.? That she was ener- getic, enthusiastic, devoted to “Egypt”; high-strung, and not always just in her criticism; demonstrative, and dramatic in manner at times; possessing much religious fervor, which, if genuine, stamped her as prayerful and deeply religious. My first impression was that she lacked sincerity; but her devotion to the work and to aiding me dispelled the thought as unjust. I did not see in her the least magnetism — her mannerism would repel that — and her comments upon two persons, one a clergyman, affected me unpleasantly. But I sailed for London in the belief that she was devoted to the cause, to my interests, and to having our American Branch properly administered. Never once had she exhibited her latent consuming fire to control our affairs. Incidentally I alluded to my cablegram and asked Grueber if my accounts had ever been questioned. He was surprised and said, “Certainly not.” I should have dismissed the subject, but it occurred to me that I might wish more than my own statement when I got back, and I asked Grueber if he would mind writing down officially what he had re- marked in re. “With pleasure”; and he handed me this note : THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 39 British Museum, March 29, 1897. Dear Dr. Winslow : With regard to our conversation this morning, I can assure you that the accuracy of your accounts as regards the funds of the Egypt Exploration Fund has never been questioned by the London Committee. Yours sincerely, H. A. Grueber, Hon. Treas. I met the Comm, formally and discussed matters frankly. I felt that Thompson might be hurt regarding my circular in which I had pointed out the discrepancy between the formal letter appointing the Boston Comm., and his state- ment of it in the annual address. Also, I felt that Judge Baylis, a member of the Comm., might be offended because I pointed out to him at the meeting that the naming of a chairman (Loring) in London for the Boston Comm, was not legal in English law. But the entire conference was amicable, and I thought a mutual favorable impression was made Mrs. B. wrote, requesting me to cable privately the results in Boston. I cabled : “ Loring illegally appointed Chairman — nothing definitely settled.” She cabled me, blindly, to cable something about books, and I cabled back quite in the dark as to her object. The use she made of my cablegrams will appear in Part II, which will be a revelation, doubtless, to many subscribers. 40 THE TRUTH ABOUT PART II. DUPLICITY APPEARS. 1. The Loring Circular. Before I left Boston for London I said to Mrs. B., “Suppose the Boston Comm, publish a/ circular during my absence?” She replied that she would not send it to subscribers during my absence. As I had hopes of adjusting matters, I begged her to refrain from doing anything to make a settlement impossible. On my return I found that a circular had gone out, and she said that she had mailed it. Her explanation was: “Loring thinks I sent the circular to all the subscribers, but I sent it to a selected list only, mostly your friends, and here is the list.” She presented me with the list, in her own writing, and laughed as she described the circular as the great literary work of Loring’s life! I told her this was playing double, and that I could not approve of it. Space is wanting to criticise the circular. Prof. Beecher of Auburn Theol. Sem’y wrote to the Boston Committee: “Your circular in explanation of Egypt Exploration Fund matters is at hand. It is disingenuous. It condemns itself. Better apologize for the mistake that has been made, and rectify it.” George Foster Peabody, of New York, had written to me : “As one of the more recent subscribers to the E. E. Fund, for which you have labored so steadfastly, I beg to thank you for the (published) letter setting forth the entirely justifying comparison of the contributions from England and America. I think the action of the Eng- lish Comm., as I gather from your report, was simply an outrage. I am astonished that Gen. Loring should have been a party to any such proceeding. I think that the American subscribers should withhold their subscriptions until matters are put on a proper basis.” THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 41 Charles Eliot Norton, D.C.L., of Harvard, wrote to one who had assisted me • “I am truly sorry for the trouble which has arisen concerning the future management of the Fund, and I entirely agree with you that, in order to ensure its future success, the management of it should remain prac- tically in the hands of Dr. Winslow.” How much more the words of Peabody and Norton apply to now than to then! Then, the London Comm, itself appointed a Comm., including myself upon it; now, one per- son, not even a subscriber, selects the Boston Comm. ; omits my name upon it; and even my honorary post of V. P., at his request, has been cancelled. Nor can this one person devote any time or labor to the cause! 2. The Two Cablegrams. I found that Mrs. B. had shown to Loring the private cablegram which she had requested me to send to her. She claimed it was done to give her a chance to find out “what Loring was up to.” I saw at the office two notes from Lane respecting his authority (as treas- urer) over the books, and, by close questioning her, I ascer- tained that her purpose in cabling me was to get authority for removing the books should she wish to do so. I knew that she disliked Lane exceedingly. This seeming action on my part naturally turned him all the more against me. I spoke earnestly to Mrs. B. of my disapproval of all such double dealing. She defended it on the simple ground of necessity. Such was my disquiet that I purposed a note to Loring asking for an interview. But Cotton came ! Had he arrived a week later, this narrative probably had never been written. He took charge of affairs at once. He was in Boston two or three days before seeing me. He had already interviewed a number of persons. I think he was at the office before he called on me. To illustrate “double dealing,” I anticipate by quoting from two notes received by me a year later. Miss Dennison had seen much of Mrs. B. She called on Foster when she saw Mrs. B. was giving me much trouble, and cautioned him regarding her. He spoke indignantly to me of her remarks about “that devoted Christian woman.” I wrote 42 THE TEUTH ABOUT to Miss Dennison, and she replied (Jan. 10, 1898): “It is not my habit to deal in insinuations, and I said plainly that Mrs. B. was the most thorough hypocrite it had ever been my misfortune to meet, and I mentioned as an example the very disrespectful way in which she would speak of Gen. Loring while all the time I knew that she was ingratiat- ing herself with him because she wanted favors from him.” Miss Dennison was highly recommended by Mr. Torbert, the assistant of Mr. (now Bishop) Brent, rector of St. Ste- phen’s Church, in Boston. Miss Grafflin, a local Sec’y, had rec’d from Mrs. B. earnest letters against Loring and favoring my interests. Miss G. was not a little surprised to have a fierce attack upon me from her: “She begins the subject,” writes Miss G., “by accusing you of using the same methods to remove her from office that you did against the Boston Comm. Now she endorsed your methods in that connection, and this is a distinct note of insincerity.” In August, ’97, but four months after Cotton’s visit, I informed Dr. Davis of my anxieties respecting Mrs. B.’s course since her appointment from London. In his reply was this sentence : “ But for her I firmly believe that Loring would have been in power. And yet she holds his friend- ship. A truly remarkable woman, and a mystery.” COTTON IN BOSTON. What did Mr. Cotton accomplish? Two things: the re- tirement of the Boston Comm. ; an alliance, utterly unknown to me at the time, with Mrs. B. He came over to maintain the Loring Comm., and London expected him to do it. But he did not propose any con- ference for explanation, or even that I should meet Loring and talk the matter over. On my part, I simply explained the case further to him. He was here some ten days and took efficient steps to cause the Comm, to retire. The Comm, would resign, he said, if I would resign with them, and would not answer their circular, nor call for any vote of the sub- scribers. The Loring Comm, would nominate a Sec’y to London, and would I nominate an Hon. Treasurer? He THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 43 added that Loring and his associates would nominate Mrs. B. as Sec’y, and, evidently noting my surprise, said she was friendly to me, and I ought to be pleased with the arrange- ments he had planned. Two persons having declined to serve, and seeing Foster’s name on our roll, and recalling his “strenuous” letter, I went to him. He seemed to hesitate; did not wish any more work at his age. I told him we needed an Hon. Treas. simply to “take care of the funds” — could he serve tempo- rarily? Later he said, “If I can have no labors or cares other than as a curator of the funds I will accept. Next fall, we can see whether I had better continue.” The under- standing was explicit — he was not to be burdened in the least with the cares of the Boston Office, which would devolve entirely upon the Sec’y and myself. This point should be made clear to my readers. In Sept., ’97, he wrote to me: “My only care is to guard any funds coming into my hands, not to instruct others as to their duties.” “When you urged me to accept the position of Hon. Treas. I was only to have charge of the funds, and little or no work to do, and I reluc- tantly so assented.” In Oct., ’98, he objected to paying a small bill (approved of later by the Hon. Treas. in London), and I wrote him that my duties as Hon. Sec’y gave me the right to incur some expenses, etc. He replied: “I entirely disclaim all intention of determining your official duties. I am simply, as you say, ‘curator of the funds.’ ” Before I signed the compact of resignation I questioned Cotton closely upon two points: first, my office of V. P. He said that Lane urged that the V. P. should lapse with our resignation as would my office of Hon. Sec’y, but that he assured Lane that was impossible — the V. P. was an original appointment from London, and had not lapsed with the appointment of the Boston Comm., and was really not a part of the Boston Office. I told Cotton that I depended upon being reappointed Hon. Sec’y. His reply was, “We must let the Comm, go with the least friction, and you must be content to drop the use of that title for the present. Later on, you will be reappointed. We must let things cool down just now.” (My memoranda.) 44 THE TRUTH ABOUT Soon after I asked Cotton what my status would be till reappointed Hon. Sec’y. “Magnify your office of V. P.; make it cover the authority you need at the Office.” He then spoke to me of Mrs. B.’s position as being clerical and continuing just the same. “ I hope you will direct and advise Mrs. B. all you can, as needed.” Similar remarks were made by him at the office, and Mrs. B. made no objection. But I determined to have from Cotton a written statement regarding my reappointment; nor would I have signed the compact had he refused. I had rec’d him frankly, and afforded him every facility in my power to aid him in his duties as “minister plenipotentiary.” But there seemed to be diplomacy of some kind in the air. He wished me to “keep quiet” about the Hon. Sec’yship, and yet it was to be restored. He wished me to “ magnify ” (his exact word) my V. P. in my duties. I had been surprised at the ease with which the Loring Comm, was dispossessed, especially, as Mrs. B. informed me, on my return, that not one of the Comm, had the least idea of resigning. (They had rec’d every assurance of hearty support from London as I knew.) During his ten days in Boston, Cotton was daily, sometimes twice a day, at the office. Mr. B. commented on it with pride, and as an evidence of Mrs. B.’s great influence. He saw that I observed the smell of tobacco in her rooms, and he remarked that Cotton asked the privilege of smoking cigarettes during his calls, and, of course, Mrs. B. could not refuse the representative of the London Comm. I dislike personalities in this narrative, but I must here cast all pos- sible light upon his alliance with Mrs. B. I asked Cotton for the written statement already mentioned. He wrote this letter Young’s Hotel, Boston, April 23, 1897. Dear Dr. Winslow: In view of the joint resignation of the American Committee, which I may now consider to be a settled business, it is my duty as representing the English Committee, to express my grate- ful sense of the frank and cordial manner in which you have met me, in my endeavors to arrive at an amicable settlement of the recent differences. At the same time, I must assure you of the good will which all the THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 45 members of the Fund in England entertain towards you for your single-handed and enthusiastic services for the prosperity of the Fund in the United States, dating from the first organization under Miss Amelia B. Edwards. In particular, I wish to convey to you my absolute conviction that the London Committee never contemplated, and never will contem- plate, any arrangement by which you will cease to be Vice-President of the Fund in the United States. Your position as Honorary Secretary for America stands in a difi ferent position. That office you now hold by appointment of the American Committee, with the additional sanction of a confirmation from England. The joint resignation of the American Committee carries with it the lapse of that appointment. And it would not be consistent with the spirit of our arrangement, to take advantage of the English confirmation as an independent and continuing appoint- ment. This, however, I will say : that I shall make it a matter of personal obligation on myself that, when I return to London, I should press on the Committee, as being the fulfilment of an honorable understand- ing between you and me, to continue your former appointment as Honorary Secretary for America, as from the date of the next annual meeting of the subscribers of the Fund, which will probably be held in November, 1897. HAD COTTON PLAYED A DOUBLE PART? 1. Consider, first, the status of Mrs. B. and myself. Her nomination as Sec’y (by the Loring Comm.) was confirmed in May by the London Comm. After my circular of appeal had gone forth, after I had devoted two weeks of toil in N. Y. for the Fund, after I had written personally 300 letters and raised $2,000, after she had secured Biblia by artifice; in a word, only after she was fully intrenched did she so much as hint that she was other than the Sec’y in the Office as she was under the Loring Comm. Then she declared that she was to follow her judgment in all things ! Even in writ- ing she asserted this. A note from her said: “I have been fully instructed in regard to my duties by Mr. Cotton. My directions were in all matters to use my own judgment, and when I could not decide for myself to consult with you if it seemed best, but to ask advice from London in any case of importance.” But, to soften the blow of what she knew 46 THE TRUTH ABOUT was a surprise to me, the note said: “I did not think to ever tell you, for I cared so little for power (sic) or dignity, or authority, that I was well content that you should regard me as in the same position as my predecessors.” No, in- deed, she “did not think to tell” me this when Cotton was in Boston, but she did think to allow him to tell me the reverse. Her note to me was dated July 26, and on July 27 she wrote to Cotton, for on Aug. 6 he replied to her, and a copy of his reply was sent to me by her. He wrote this: . . . “You ask me to define your position as Sec’y. Your appointment was made by the London Comm., in pursuance of the understanding which led to the joint resignation of the Boston Comm. The essence of that understanding was that the Sec’y and Hon. Treas. should constitute the Boston Office. They are responsible only to the London Comm., who on their part will communicate officially only with them. . . . It is true that your position is necessarily affected by the conspicuous place which Dr. Winslow has long held, owing to his unique services to the Fund. . . . You are not his subordinate, nor bound to take orders from him.” Now had Cotton “instructed” Mrs. B. thus when he was in Boston ? On Aug. 26 she wrote to me : “ The letter from Mr. Cotton to which I referred is the one sent you, dated Aug. 6. Its contents, only the written definition of my position as verbally stated to me during his visit in Boston.” “The Secretary and Hon. Treas. constituted the Boston Office!” What was I? Of what use my “conspicuous place ” and “ unique services ” ? I had already written to Grueber regarding Mrs. B.’s efforts to control our affairs. On Aug. 18 Cotton wrote that Grueber had forwarded the note to him. He said: “It is right that you should know that, in response to a pressing appeal from Mrs. B., I sent her an official letter* defining her position as Secretary.” An official statement, therefore, was that definition of her status ! But on Aug. 27 I had written a very pointed letter to Cotton — reminding him of what our subscribers would think if such discrepancies saw the light. On Sept. 8 he replied: . . . Simply bis views. No one authorized his reply. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 47 “ I admit that some of the expressions in my official letter to Mrs. B. were not the same as I should have used if I had been writing to define your position as V. P. I regard you as the chief representative of the Fund in the U. S., empow- ered to issue circulars, and to take action on your own re- sponsibility about the general affairs of the Fund. To- gether with the Sec’y and Hon. Treas. you constitute the American (or Boston) Office. ... I apprehend that your position would not be affected if you were reappointed Hon. Sec’y for America. You would hardly become the repre- sentative of the Fund to a greater extent than you are now; and your position towards the Sec’y and the Hon. Treas. would be but slightly changed. So long as you worked harmoniously with them, all the public reputation of the Fund would remain in your hands. Circulars would be drafted by you, and signed in your name; while the daily clerical work would be conducted by the Sec’y. All impor- tant business would be yours.” Was this a bid for me to remain satisfied simply as V. P.? Had “the Egyptian Princess” cast a further spell upon Cotton? As I afterwards knew, she tried to prevent my reappointment, and then to make it a farce. 2. Consider, now, my reappointment as Hon. Sec’y — any double dealing here? That summer proved the neces- sity of my reappointment. In writing to Foster I referred to my anticipated reappointment. His reply contained these words: “The London Comm, ought not to ignore the agreement of the Comm, of four (Loring, Lane, Gray, Mrs. Whitman) by restoring the title.” I responded that Cotton had assured me that I would be reappointed. Who told him I was not to be reappointed? Foster rejoined: “Gen. Loring was the one who told me it was one of the chief stipu- lations in the resignation of the Comm, of four, and trouble will follow its restoration. . . . We have a very efficient, capable, and zealous Sec’y in Mrs. B.” This was Aug. 24. In Oct. I was appointed Hon. Sec’y. I called on Loring; he said that Cotton fully agreed to the stipulation that I was not to be made Hon. Sec’y. He could not see how 48 THE TRUTH ABOUT such a mistake could be made. In justice to Cotton, I quote from his note to me : “ I admit that I never told Gen. Loring of my intention to support your appointment (prac- tically thought not technically a reappointment) to the office. ... On the other hand, I most strongly maintain that I never gave Gen. Loring to understand that the Ameri- can Hon. Secretaryship would permanently lapse.” The question, however, relates to just one person, myself. All the members of the Loring Comm, (except myself) understood that 1 was not to be made Hon. Sec’y — the permanent lapsing of the office itself had nothing to do with the question — and Cotton only declares that he did not inform Loring of his intention to get me reappointed. In the light of subsequent events, I cannot doubt but that Cotton played a double part regarding both my status and my reappointment. And when this entire narrative shall have been read by subscribers I feel sure that many of them will agree with me on the former of two things, viz., that Cotton and Mrs. B. formed an alliance during his Boston visit. Of the other matter, my opinion is that he was dere- lict in modifying (if not changing) his determination to serve the cause of the English Comm. He found that, in the judgment of some of the Boston subscribers, a mistake had been made by the London Comm., but a subtle and the effective cause of his dereliction was the 'personal in- fluence of Mrs. B., whose one aim was the retirement of the Loring Comm. To have Loring retained in power, and a Comm, to back him up, meant to her no control at all of affairs; to have Winslow an appointee, like herself, from London, and to secure Cotton as an ally, afforded her ambition a field for manoeuvres and possible victory. Were Cotton earnest for the London Comm, he would at least have had Cotton, Loring, Winslow, confer together, and the last named would have questioned Loring so directly that the duplicity of Mrs. B. would have been seen. For either Loring or she had not spoken the truth; and either Lane or she had not spoken the truth — the truth on matters of most serious import. I judge Cotton from a proper standard. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 49 Call his conduct “diplomacy,” but it is a diplomacy not suited to a learned society. 3. Was Foster impartial, and frank towards me? On Aug. 24 he had written to me that the post of Hon. Sec’y. was not necessary. “You are the widely known and ac- knowledged head and front of the E. E. Association in this country. . . . You can do just as much without the mere title, since you are Vice President.” But he had already read the official letter from Cotton defining the authority of himself and Mrs. B.; stating that Foster and she “con- stituted the Boston Office,” and “while Mr. Foster is supreme in financial affairs you are equally so in conducting the ordinary business of the Office, subject only to your own discretion and your sense of loyalty.” I anticipate by re- marking that subsequently he not only allowed this letter to be authoritative (as we shall see), but he relied on what- ever Cotton advised or directed. Consequently, I submit that Foster was not impartial or frank towards me in trying to make me think that a V. P. would include all necessary authority. Cotton’s definition simply put the Sec’y and Hon. Treas. in charge of the Office; in fact, I did not belong to the Office at all! A FEW OCCURRENCES. A few occurrences will now be stated , which form a fitting sequel to the section, “Duplicity Appears.” 1. Early that summer a N. Y. man desired to be made a local Sec’y. Mrs. B. corresponded with him after I had replied to him. I deferred action in order to make inquiries about him. But Mrs. B., for some reason anxious to have him appointed, announced to him his appointment. She told me she could not take it back, and would not repeat the blunder. So, the appointment stood. Looking over a pile of official notes I came upon one from the appointee assailing Rev. Dr. Schauffler for advising us to go slow in making him a local Sec’y. I questioned Mrs. B. closely, to find that she had betrayed the confidence of Schauffler by informing this man of his advice to us. She either be- 50 THE TRUTH ABOUT trayed astonishing ignorance of the proprieties of the office she held, or she was trying to enlist this man as her ally. 2. Dr. Davis had long wished me to be associate Editor of Biblia. He corresponded with Mrs. B. about her pub- lishing it, and in Boston. She and I discussed this plan thoroughly, and decided that her duties as Sec’y would not permit of it. She took the early morning train for Meri- den, Conn., and closed the deal. Hearing of this later, I asked her for an explanation. Her reply was: “It came to me as an inspiration that night, as things often come in that way.” I wrote to Dr. Davis, and he replied: “When Mrs. B. came here to talk about Biblia I was led to infer that there was the most perfect harmony, and that y®u were to assist her in booming Biblia. Why she is so secre- tive to me, I do not know.” 3. Grueber sent me proofs of the English circular of the “Graeco-Roman Branch” as a basis for our own circular. He marked Hon. Sec’y U. S. A. upon it. I mentioned this fact to Mrs. B., but did not request her to use that title for me. Instead of consulting me (in New Hampshire), she cabled to London if that title was to be used. When her letter’arrived saying she had cabled, I wrote her that she should first have written to me. “I had a perfect right to cable,” she replied. “ . . . Besides, I laid the whole case before Mr. Foster, and he told me to quote him to you as saying I could do no otherwise. He favored the cablegram, in fact said he regarded it as necessary.” I asked Foster if he had advised cabling; he wrote: “I advised doing nothing until the corrected ones (Eng. circulars) were rec’d, with instructions and orders which I thought she must follow.” She said Davis favored her cabling. He replied to me: “I do not see how Mrs. B. could cable on my advice.” In the after-light cast upon her character I knew later what I had just begun to see: the “inwardness” of her object was this, — to have me appear to London regardless of my understanding with Cotton, that the Hon. Secretaryship was in abeyance; to Foster, as pushing myself forward to rule, and to have her loyalty to the London Comm, be made mani- THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 51 fest, and cause her conscientious zeal to impress Foster. His note to me said : “ I feel she is anxious to do right, and is open to advice, etc.” To me she replied, enlarging upon the law of righteousness: “The law is upon my heart. Who, my friend, is to blame if I learn lessons so well that they rule my actions — protect me from the appearance of evil as a wall of fire? Why, my pastor who taught me must be blamed, and not I, his loving pupil.” In 1902 a lady of Tremont Temple spoke to me of her rare faculty of “insinuation,” and another of the great fervor of her prayers after her im- mersion and “profession” in 1888. By her “insinuation” I had supposed her still a member of that congregation in 1897; and the “fervors,” as will appear, must have been astonishing evidences of pure and sincere piety. 4. In Sept., 1897, I returned to Boston determined to speak plainly to this Sec’y, and to ask London for a defini- tion of my authority. After greeting her, reference was made to a new photograph of herself which she had enclosed to me a little before. She said: “Please don’t allude to it before my husband; he is just now very irritable.” This was a new “insight” for me, but I simply answered, “I do not accept photographs under any such circumstances.” Mrs. Winslow thought I should return the photo, and I did so soon after. During my next call Mrs. B. alluded to “ those papers” relating to Loring, Lane, etc., and hinted that they were now of no use and had better be destroyed. I spoke plainly but kindly to her upon the need of straightforward dealing with me in our work. “I have lost confidence in you, but you can regain it by open and fair dealing with me.” She said “she owed her position to Loring, and what had I ever done for her ? She toiled to get rid of that Comm., I was again at the head, and under obligations to her.” She said, “You must take that back,” and she became dramatic in her manner. Some days later, after we had transacted business and she had most amiably declared that “all should go on nicely now,” she said that “those Loring and other papers” were of no value now, had better be destroyed, and would I bring them to her? I replied, 52 THE TRUTH ABOUT “Not now — perhaps later on.” Then she used all her per- suasive power, and promised devotion to the cause and my interests. I was reflecting a minute or two before replying, when she used every inducement to have me promise to return the papers. My reply was decisive. She flared up, became sullen; I turned to the desk to finish a little business, and then left. “Those Loring and other papers” are particularly re- ferred to in the section, “What Caused the Split?” Mr. B., some time later, remarked to me that he had given me a statement just to aid me in “ getting rid of Loring,” and he would like to have back the paper. Mrs. B., always irregular in her methods of work and hours, was absent on several successive calls which I had to make — it must never be for- gotten that the entire machinery was in her hands — records, data, addresses — and when I spoke to her about her irregu- larities, I got only evasive answers. When my appoint- ment as Hon. Sec’y arrived, she heartily congratulated me, and, some time later, gave me a singular reason for her irreg- ular hours, which reason, however, harmonized with remarks she had made during the preceding winter in her criticisms of two persons. 5. My Reappointment. The London Comm, wisely thought their definition of our duties as Hon. Sec’y, Hon. Treas., Sec’y, should be indorsed by us all to avoid future dissent by any one of us from the action of the Comm. I met Mrs. B.’s gracious congratulation in a kindly spirit, telling her that my general control would still leave her the largest possible liberty in the daily office work, but I told her she must deal frankly with me in all matters. This was mid-October. On Nov. 3, Grueber wrote to me: “She does not like your having a general control of matters con- nected with the Office. I do not see how you are to be at the head of the E. E. F. in the U. S. without knowing all that is going on at the Office. ... Is your position to be a reality or a farce? If a reality, then you must know what goes on.” Now, Mrs. B. had written Grueber several weeks before regarding my reappointment — its probability, etc. In THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 53 his answer Grueber had said: “I shall bring the matter up as soon as possible, as I consider Dr. Winslow should have controlling power, as formerly.” To show to me her “hearty desire” to have me reinstated, she had enclosed to me Grueb- er’s note, and her own letter contains this sentence : “ I have received the enclosed reply from Mr. Grueber, which is en- tirely satisfactory to me, as I judge it also will be to you. . . . I desire everything that can by any possibility be produc- tive of good for the noble cause we love.” Comment un- necessary. Foster also delayed his approval, telling me: “It is of no use for me to sign it unless she does.” He had already quite passed under, not her “general control,” but her special control! I wrote to him when an earnest note from London pressed the importance of our united approval, and he replied: “Subscribers or those specially interested know that you are now Hon. Sec’y, and that is all that is necessary for them.” But I had no intention of posing as Hon. Sec’y without being so de facto as well as de jure. Cot- ton also wrote to me that the Annual Report was in the printer’s hands, and the names of the Boston Office should go in it. I had written most decided letters to London upon the necessity of my having the post of Hon. Sec’y, and, to Cotton’s credit, I believe he advised Mrs. B. to give her approval of my reappointment. At any rate, I heard her say in early Jan. that she “approved” of it only because Cotton “advised” it. Had the London Comm, refused to appoint me Hon. Sec’y, or to define my authority, I should have mailed to every local Sec’y a copy of Cotton’s agree- ment with me, and stated, briefly, the necessity of my ap- pointment as Hon. Sec’y. He knew my purpose. UNPLEASANT DISCOVERIES. 1. This incident does not rest on documentary proof in my possession. Calling upon Foster on a Fund matter, he said he was busy for a few minutes, and placed a letter from Cotton in my hands with the remark that he spoke of the matter. I came upon a sentence like this: “I hear from Mrs. B. of troubles ahead in the Office, and in such 54 THE TRUTH ABOUT a case you can rely on my support.” Foster took up the letter as if not familiar with all its contents. Nor did he find the exact place he wished at once. He read a portion of the above sentence, and then abruptly passed over it. I made no comment, but was keenly impressed with such a remark. 2. In mid-November Mr. B. said to me at the Office, “That has come on from N. Y. and is constantly with Mrs. B. He has gone out with Mrs. B. He was also out ■with her last evening.” A Baptist minister also called at the Office while I was there, and when I returned he left. Then B. resumed the discussion. The man from N. Y. was the one whom Mrs. B. had caused to be placed on our rolls as a local Sec’y. (See “A Few Occurrences.”) I felt anxious, and called on Foster at his residence, Sunday after- noon, and mentioned the circumstances to him. He was non-committal. During my next call on Mrs. B. the N. Y. man came in. My next call found him at the Office. After he had left the Office, I remarked to Mrs. B. that I should soon be in N. Y. for a week, and perhaps she would advise me how I could get this N. Y. man to aid our cause, for he seemed anxious to help. She replied: “I know him so slightly I could not advise you; he comes here only to get his mail.” But it happened I had written to Dr. Davis about this man’s visit to Boston, and in his answer Davis said Mrs. B. wrote, “stating that she was overwhelmed with work, but fortunately Mr. was visit- ing Boston for a week, and was kindly helping her out.” Later on, Mrs. B. wrote to a N. Y. lady: “Mr. came to Boston representing (!) Mr. Chas. Dudley Warner, our Hon. V. P. It was Mr. Warner’s wish to organize a N. Y. Branch.” Mrs. B. went into details in her letter. Now during his fortnight in Boston, where he took a room near the Office, neither he nor Mrs. B. referred in any way to Warner, or a N. Y. Branch. Mr. B., however, told me that the N. Y. man spoke of it, and of Warner as “Dud,” and “my dear Dud.” Had Warner commissioned the man to go to Boston, he would have given him a note to me, or THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 55 have written me himself. The Baptist minister referred to, I wrote to after my return from New York; he called on me, and said Mrs. B. told him substantially what Mr. B. had said to me. This minister did not like the N. Y. man’s “cut,” and he advised me to inquire of some of the N. Y. clergy and others concerning him. But I antici- pate. It is fair to Mrs. B. to state that Mr. B. did not refer to the unpleasant subject, later on, and I fancied there had been an “understanding” established. I arranged with Mrs. B. the proposed circular upon the Graeco-Roman Branch, and directed her to mail copies at once to the local Secre- taries. I also wrote her, just as I was leaving Boston, a letter on various important items, one of them relating to the circular, and, if my memory is correct, stating that I should see Mr. in N. Y. She was promptly to mail me some of the new circulars for my “missionary work” in the metropolis. A note came from her to me in N. Y. stating that she had just mailed circulars to me, and had corrected an error in my MS. for the circular before printing it. Her letter ended with the Egyptian greeting, and “.Very sin- cerely yours.” But what had she done? Upon the morning that her letter came, I went to a book store which Mr. used for his address. I was told to place my card where mail matter for the clergy and others was put, and which they freely looked over for their own mail. A place open to any one to inspect the mail. I put my card in an envelope addressed to him, and as I laid it down I saw two letters addressed to him in Mrs. B.’s handwriting, and a one-cent envelope, bearing our imprint, with circulars in it. I turned over the open envelope to find my circulars almost bulging out of the envelope. I just turned the edge of a circular to make sure that it was my circular when a thin piece of paper fell out upon the floor. I was thinking of the “error” she said she had “corrected” in my circulars ; my own circulars came later that day. I was replacing the piece of paper when I noticed handwriting upon it — the entire page of a half 56 THE TRUTH ABOUT sheet of note paper written upon. Now Mrs. B. had been careless about infringing the postal laws, and I had warned her to avoid this mistake. My eye caught the words, “Just a line, my dearest,” and instantly my resolve was taken. As I put down the envelope I turned over both her letters to Mr. , and saw that one of them was sealed with wax. I went to a desk and reflected: “I must protect the Fund office, the Government, and, if possible, save Mrs. B. from indiscretion. Here were our envelope and my circulars — circulars sent by my direction, as if I had myself mailed them. The official correspondence of the Office, especially with the local Secretaries, was always under my inspection. My first thought was to write Mr. B. and enclose to him this note; but it would probably fall into her hands. I determined to speak decidedly to Mrs. B. on my return, and tell her that I should inform the Comm, if she did not desist from such correspondence. But I decided, first, to write Mr. to meet me]on Fund business, and then to tell him to his face that he must stop her writing such notes to him. I wrote to him at least three times during my stay — once naming a time to meet me at the book store. I spent two hours there one forenoon. I saw two more letters from her awaiting him. I am precise and full on these details because Mrs. B., as will be seen, so grossly distorted the facts. She made mistakes, even in addressing letters to me, especially when overwrought, or behindhand in her office work, and one of these letters lies before me now, a most important one, addressed to “525 Beacon St., New York City,” which the keen clerk in N. Y. rectified and mailed to me. She evidently intended to place this note in the second letter she wrote upon the same day, but slipped it into the wrong envelope. What had she done? The note reveals four things: That Mrs. B. had dishonored the pro- prieties of our Office by endorsing to Mr the very letter I had written to her just as I was leaving Boston, to which she replied to me, with so cordial an Egyptian greeting ! That she had already written to Mr. a long letter “ this morning.” That she ridiculed me, her superior officer, by THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 57 referring to me as “Dear Sweet Swilliam” (which, personally, I did not mind). That she addressed Mr. as “My dearest,” although she had so recently declared she knew him “but very slightly.” My sole charge in this printed statement respecting this note is that Mrs. B. was indiscreet, and that it showed her lack of proper qualities essential for the Sec’y to possess. I asked a member of a prominent legal firm in Boston what he thought of such a note, and, after a few questions, he replied: “If our Sec’y and stenographer did such a thing she would not remain in our office twenty-four hours.” 3. On my return Mrs. B. was ill for several days. Then a conference “for the general interests of the Fund” was proposed by Mrs. B. We met on Jan. 5, 1898. I took the note with me, as there might be an opportunity for me to hand it to Mrs. B. privately and ask her for an explana- tion. I remarked that I must prepare the annual circular at once. (This, of course, meant that my signature as Hon. Sec’y would be appended to it.) Mrs. B. instantly turned to Foster and said, “We don’t need more circulars, there are plenty on hand.” Foster seemed to take the cue, for he said: “If Dr. Winslow prints any new circulars I won’t pay for them! ” I explained to Foster that we would soon be entirely out of the regular E. E. F. circulars (as a few weeks proved); that an annual circular was expected; and I reminded him that I was “authorized to draft and sign circulars and letters in my (his) own name,” and that this involved necessary expenditure. I remark now upon two vital points. Foster always entertained the extraor- dinary conception of his powers that he was to judge of all expenditures. Mrs. B. assumed at this early stage of my reappointment as Hon. Sec’y, that we were a Comm, of three, and a vote could determine all our business. I shall show this in the last conference held. Foster’s letters show that he liked the idea. Two against one! I omit other doings at this conference except to add that Mrs. B. charged me with saying that she was “mentally unsound.” I refuted this; she turned to Foster and said, 58 THE TRUTH ABOUT “You have said so.” Foster winced, but answered that “it was so.” I asked for the alleged language — when? where? — and all he could say w r as that that was the impression he got. I may say here that Foster’s memory was most treacherous. In discussing matters with him, I have heard him exclaim, “My memory is getting very treacherous.” Mr. B., who had entered the room during the confer- ence, remarked that he wished Mrs. B. were “out of it” and would resign. I said if you both feel that way why does not Mrs. B. resign? 4. To illustrate the animus of Mrs. B. respecting my re- appointment, I add that she got printed our letter paper for 1898, and omitted my title as Hon. Sec’y in the heading. It was the official paper of the Office. “The Hon. Sec’y. Hon. Treas., Sec’y shall together constitute the Office.” Thus she printed the second and third of the officials, but omitted the first, who “exercised a general control over the work of the Office.” This would make Mrs. B. appear as sole Sec’y. And yet she only reflected Foster’s own written words to me in July that one Sec’y was enough ! It is needless to add that Foster promptly paid the bill for a large edition of this (strictly speaking) illegal letter paper. The woman had indeed begun to “minimize my authority,” and, if necessary, “to crush” me. That conference decided my course. I determined to consult a few subscribers and state my view's to the London Comm. Two or three days after the conference, Mrs. B. told me that she had resigned her position, and showed me her note to that effect. It placed her resignation in the hands of the Comm. She added that, of course, she would sever her connection with Biblia. EFFORTS TO PUT THINGS RIGHT. 1. To Sir E. M. Thompson I wrote “that no honorable man would serve actively as Hon. Sec’y and be responsible for affairs as they are now conducted. The Sec’y holds the entire machinery of gov’t and publishes our official medium (Biblia).” “I propose to call the attention of THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 59 the Comm, to the fact that our office is not per se a proper one, and to ask that I be empowered to procure an office accessible to business men and others and in charge of a gentleman as Sec’y.” On Jan. 10, I spoke earnestly to Fos- ter upon the need of having another office. He said it would cost too much, and did not favor it. On Jan. 21, I mailed to the Comm, a formal statement beginning: “As the Sec’y has placed her resignation in your hands,” etc. I also mailed a still more important statement to three members of the Comm. On Feb. 7 a note from Grueber said: “Mrs. B. has not resigned; she only says ‘ Dr. Winslow desires my resignation,’ and then goes on to say ‘that her heart and soul is in her work, or words to that effect.’ . . . My ad- vice to you privately is to insist, in the first place, on having a separate office for the Fund. In this I am sure Mr. Foster will support you. ... I do not myself see how it is pos- sible for you to go on with the present arrangements.” I called on Foster and asked if I could see his copy of Mrs B.’s resignation. Not till after I had carefully considered it did I inform Foster what Grueber stated, and added that Mrs. B. had prepared two “resignations” and imposed a false one of them on me. “ Impossible, impossible ! ”* said Foster; “she would not do such a thing.” His desire to protect her was such that he would not let me copy his copy of her resignation. Then I wrote him for a copy, but he advised me to get it from Mrs. B. I wrote her; she declined. Then I renewed the request later on, saying her resignation was official, and where any “official” of the Fund could inspect it. She wrote she would do “ whatever Mr. Cotton directs.” But I had also promptly written to the London Office for a copy, and it revealed absolutely what I believed, viz., that Mrs. B. had shown to me a bogus copy of her resignation! I had shaped my entire letter of Jan. 21 to the Comm, on the understanding that Mrs. B. had placed her resignation in their hands! I have the correspondence upon the subject, but of course, I have not a copy of Mrs. •By coincidence, the very words Foster used in May, 1902, when his friend placed in his hands legal and other data relating to Mrs. B. These data will be given later on. 60 THE TRUTH ABOUT B.’s bogus resignation. I was forced at once to explain the occurrence to the Comm., and I said: “I respectfully request that Mr. Cotton suggest to Mrs. B. that she im- mediately place an unequivocal resignation in your hands.” The trick played upon me had a fitting counterpart in the artifice used by Cotton and Mrs. B. to place her name on the roll of the Comm, at a later date — a story in itself, as will appear. 2. My statements to London. Document No. I pointed out clearly that a proper office was a necessity, and that an out- lay even of £40 rent should not hinder this step. That Biblia should not bear the name of the Secretary alone as publisher. I said: “ Biblia is ‘the official medium’ and I ‘the official representative of the Fund’; but the Sec’y keeps me as ignorant of its news upon Egypt as I am of the contents of the Academy until published. Mrs. B. has published matter and added a name as contributor, of which Dr. Davis disapproves.” That Mrs. B. encouraged sensa- tional articles upon herself in the press (evidence enclosed). That her secretive methods were such that I could not work with her under existing conditions (Specifications). That she unfairly secured the appointment of a local Sec’y in N. Y., and betrayed the confidence of our Office. And other matters likewise. Document No. II, also dated Jan. 21, was sent to three of the Comm., and later I asked that a sub-Comm. report upon it to the Comm. This document detailed the visit of the N. Y. man to Boston, Mrs. B.’s note to him, and enclosed extracts from two Bishops’ letters, etc., etc. As no acknowledgment of my official state- ment had come — and my position was trying in the ex- treme — I wrote to the Comm, the last of Feb. that “Your resolutions are a farce. Only on paper am I Hon. Sec’y. For Mrs. B. to-day both controls and directs affairs. As an additional instance she refused to print in Biblia the names of the new local Secretaries that now appear in the new Annual Report.” I quoted the opinions of eminent sub- scribers. I added: “Subscribers will be apt to feel that my past and present status in the Fund entitles me to proper THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 61 consideration in my present solicitude and wishes; that the wishes of a clerk or secretary of much less than a year’s service under your appointment cannot be weighed in com- parison with those of one you have so highly honored.” 3. Views of Rev. George C. Lorimer, D.D., LL.D. Some time previous to sending my'^talenaent to London, Dr. Lorimer, whom I knew very slightly, spoke to me in an electric car upon the appointment of Mrs. B. as Sec’y and publisher of Biblia. He expressed surprise. I encouraged him to speak by saying Mrs. B. gave me much trouble. Dr. Lorimer, her former pastor, made some criticism upon her ways while at the Tremont Temple, and then asked if he could speak confidentially with me. Accordingly I natu- rally called upon Lorimer for advice later on. He said my statements to London should be even stronger. Not one of my advisers expressed himself more forcibly. “You must get rid of her.” He read her note to the N. Y. man. I saw Lorimer twice afterwards. He said a former associate (or assistant?) pastor knew more about the B.’s than he did. From that pastor Irec’d a reply that “with- out doubt the Secretaryship should be placed in other hands,” etc. But this anticipates the sequence of events. 4. Good advice. Rev. Mr. S. called in Jan. at my request. He was the minister who was at the Fund Office when Mr. B. was so distressed over the N. Y. man’s visit. He said Mr. B. told him substantially what I said B. had told me. He advised me to write to clergymen and others and inquire about this N. Y. man. I did so. Without giving names, I made extracts from ten letters, certified to as accurate, and sent the typewritten extracts to the Comm. 5. As Mrs. B. now published Biblia, she printed a con- spicuous notice of her N. Y. friend’s lectures after those of the Palestine and Egypt Exploration Fund, and she placed his name in the list of contributors upon the inside cover. It did not vex me that she removed my name from the head of that list and put Cotton’s there. I asked Dr. Davis, editor, why the New York man’s name appeared as 62 THE TRUTH ABOUT contributor. He replied: “I was surprised to see ’s name as a regular contributor, and immediately wrote a protest.” Later: “How can I get ’s name off the cover?” Another note said: “She already knows my opin- ion of him,” etc. Since early Jan. I had not been to the Office, but in March I called with a subscriber and told Mrs. B. both my views and those of Dr. Davis respecting the list of contributors. She alluded to the “N. Y. Branch” as a matter of her knowledge since she saw me last; but, in fact, this N. Y. man had talked with her about it the previous Nov. She did not think the New York man would care if dropped from the list of local Secs., for as Sec’y he would be in charge of the N. Y. Branch. However, she knew him “very slightly,” and could not speak for him. As for Dr. Davis, he had never alluded to the subject or to the N. Y. man in any way. She reiterated this positively. The subscriber who accompanied me to the Office was Mr. Edward Royall Tyler of Beacon Street. He was sur- prised when I informed him that Dr. Davis had told me the exact opposite of what Mrs. B. declared. Living near me, I showed the proofs of it to him that evening. He said he would write to London, and he enclosed to me this copy : To the Committee of the Egypt Exploration Fund: Gentlemen, — As long a member of your Society and deeply inter- ested in its welfare I beg to give you the following particulars. Dr. Winslow, the Hon. Secretary, invited me to go with him to the Office. There I heard the Secretary, Mrs. B., repeatedly say to him that Mr. Davis, who edits “ Biblia,” had never asked her to remove the name of a Mr. from the list of contributors. She declared that Mr. Davis had never even mentioned his name in his letters to her. My surprise was indeed great when Dr. Winslow showed me several letters from Mr. Davis which showed that he had requested Mrs. B. to remove Mr. ’s name from the list of contributors. I feel that you should know under what difficulties Dr. Winslow conducts the affairs of the Office. I am, with great respect, Yours very truly, E. Royall Tyler. March 18, 1898. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 63 How my wish to have a proper “Office,” to have the Bos- ton Office properly administered, was passed over by the Comm., will now appear. Nor did the opinions of prominent subscribers appear to have had any weight in London. One of them, Dean Hoffman, wrote to me (Feb. 16): “I do not see what the Comm, can do except to get rid of Mrs. B. as soon as and as quietly as possible. Her continuance in office will do a great injury to the cause of the Fund. “ There is no reason why you should resign your office; in fact, every reason why you should not.” “A great injury to the cause of the Fund.” This Head of a great School of the Prophets prophesied well. Had Cotton been asked by the Comm, to suggest to Mrs. B. that she resign quietly, the “great injury” had all been averted. Who is to blame? HOW COTTON AND FOSTER ABETTED THE SECRETARY. My readers, you can hardly realize the difficulties of my position at this crisis of affairs. Foster would listen to no statement or evidence that I then possessed respecting Mrs. B. Cotton was her fast ally. The Editor of Biblia urged me to be careful. He wrote: “If Mrs. B. has not sent in her resignation, then, with Cotton in the field, I do not be- lieve for a moment that London will accept it. . . . Cotton will stand by Mrs. B., and there is no telling what her friends in Boston are up to.” On the last of Feb. a note from Grueber said: “We can only wait here and let matters work themselves out with you. . . . Your position is a most try- ing one, and I hope you will devise some plan that we could support.” Concerning the note from Mrs. B. to the N. Y. man which I described in my letter, Grueber remarked: “The charges are too serious to be brought forward without corroborative evidence. Mind, I do not question what you say; but plainly no action can be taken officially.” This note is described under head second of “Unpleasant Discoveries.” The chief object of her note to the man obviously was to help him to decide his course towards me 64 THE TRUTH ABOUT when I saw him. Accordingly, she had enclosed to him my confidential official letter to her. I asked a former impor- tant official of the U.'S. if I had in anyw ay violated the law ? “Certainly not, the spirit of it,” he said; “for you were offi- cially bound to prevent any misuse of the mails by the Sec’y; also to protect the Fund, and yourself as the chief official.” As the circulars were Fund property, and mailed as such, by my direction, the note was official property. I knew by sad experience that to speak to Foster about the note would be useless; in fact, that he would “plan and plot” with Mrs. B. Am I severe? Read what is to follow later on. 1. How Cotton kept his Word. I found that I must use all possible means to convince the Comm, that Mrs. B. should not retain her office. I must convince Grueber that the note was genuine. He could assure Mr. T. F. Hall or Mr. F. W. Percival that I had stated a fact, and that would influence their action. Hall had ended a kind note to me immediately after my visit to London in April, 1897, “ Where you are right I will not cease to support you, if needs be,” that is in his Committee. Percival had impressed me as an honorable gentleman. Unfortunately, however, he is con- stantly abroad from England. I mentioned my perplexity to a legal friend, making a social call, and he instantly said: “ Send your London correspondent a photo, of the note — that will convince him.” In strictest confidence I mailed to Grueber a photo, of the note, taken by a friend privately. But Grueber, as will appear, showed the photo, to Cotton in confidence. He did it to convince the Hon. Sec’y that he was mistaken in his (declared) opinion of Mrs. B. Grueber felt he was acting for the best. How little he realized the hold “the Sec’y in the Boston Office” had upon the Hon. Sec’y of a learned society in England! I anticipate the sequence, however, by quoting from Grueber’s personal letter to me dated April 15, ’98. I had questioned him at once when I found that Mrs. B. was disseminating as news that I had “distributed copies in England” of a photo, of one of her letters. Copies! His reply reads: “In accord- ance with your request I return herewith the photograph, THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 65 which I had intended to destroy. I must admit that in the course of a conversation on the general subject of your let- ters (to the Comm.) in re the Boston Office, I did show the photograph to Mr. Cotton, but it was in the strictest con- fidence, and I am deeply grieved and annoyed that he should have made any reference to it. I need scarcely say it was A MOST SERIOUS BREACH OF CONFIDENCE. ... I Can Only add that I deeply regret what has occurred, and that there should have been such a breach of confidence.” I italicize the words above. 2. What did the Committee Reply? On March 26 their answer came to my statement of Jan. 21. It was in the form of a brief letter written and signed by Cotton. The delay in replying was because the Comm, “felt it necessary to communicate with Mr. Foster, and obtain from him inde- pendent information,” etc. Cotton said: “The Comm, have not concerned themselves with minor matters . . . taking another office for the Fund in Boston,” etc. They answer now “the one question of pressing importance,” etc. They decide “that no sufficient reasons have been shown why Mrs. B. should be called upon to resign.” Then, adroitly, he commits the Comm, to no action upon specifi- cations by adding: “Without expressing any judgment on particular acts, they think it due to her to state their belief that her conduct generally as Sec’y has been intelligent, zealous, and loyal” (to the Comm.). The responsibility for my own “resignation” (?) must rest with myself. My instantaneous thought was “resignation.” Asking Foster for independent (that is, unbiased) information!* Certainly Cotton knew what information he would furnish. “Judgment on particular acts.” Why, particular acts were the gist of my document! Specifications are all in all in charges made. Could honorable men and women on the Comm, consider such actions as her note “intelligent, zeal- ous, loyal,” for the Sec’y of a learned body? But I re-read and re-read Cotton’s diplomatic letter; at last I detected •Foster had, through Mrs. B., officially informed the Comm, that he should immediately resign if Mrs. B. were retired. Certified to by Emily Paterson, Sec'y, on March 9, 1898, from Mrs. B.'s note of Jan. 6. 66 THE TRUTH ABOUT the possibility that the contents of my more important statement were not officially known to any of the Comm., that is, at a meeting. And I guessed correctly. Accordingly my reply to the Comm, waived my resigna- tion; but I distinctly said that the carbon copies of my type- written letters to the Comm., submitted to several of our best members, had their full endorsement. I added “a protest against the apparent part taken by Mr. Cotton as an ally of Mrs. B.’s, especially in secret correspondence with her upon recent events.” “I ask that I may know what my associates communicate to you; they may always know the communications you receive from me.” Comments on my Reply. Two subscribers, living in Cambridge, wrote to me. Rev. Dr. Alex. McKenzie said: “I am confident that you will have the sympathy of all friends of the society in your efforts to give it a proper stand- ing in the community.” Prof. Joseph Henry Thayer ended his note : “ By your constancy, you will in time not only win your soul but also win the recovery of everything to its legitimate uses.” J. V. V. Booraem, the eminent engineer, wrote: “You are fully justified in your demands for a man in the office.” Miss Georgiana Willard, a most liberal sup- porter, declared: “You could not conscientiously have kept silent.” Archdeacon Chambre, of Lowell, wrote: “You should insist on a full and complete resignation on the part of the present Sec’y. Either a resignation or a dismissal.” Prof. C. M. Tyler, Cornell, said: “My feeling is that the London Soc’y is acting in a cowardly way to leave you to fight the battle.” The foregoing extracts show how sub- scribers who knew of the facts sympathized with me. Re- garding my intimation that official correspondence from Boston to London should always be open to my associates or myself, I remark that I requested from London a copy of Foster’s “independent information” which he had sent to the Comm., but was refused it (I have the reply from Lon- don); but, on the other hand, Foster had copies of my offi- cial statements to London. He secured them from a sub- scriber in Boston who requested them from me. That Foster THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 67 influenced some at least of the Comm, against me is certain. That Cotton expected his letter would impel me to resign appeared as late as Oct., 1901, when Mrs. B. jeered me at a conference with Foster, for not having been man enough to resign when Cotton wrote me so pointedly! (See “A Singu- lar Consultation.”) Mr. Hall was quite transformed by Foster’s statement, but I will not quote his personal note to me, nor other notes in which he enlarged upon their pri- vacy. I think Thompson, Baylis, perhaps one or two others, still felt sore over the retirement of the Loring Comm., and that that influenced them to vote not to retire the Sec’y. But I questioned Grueber explicitly upon the Committee’s reply. He answered that a few members thought it not expedient to have my more important letter go before the Comm. He kindly remarked: “I am afraid that you have a very tough antagonist, and it will take all your wisdom to steer your course clear of the breakers.” Dean Hoffman, on April 5, wrote: “I cannot understand the action of the London Comm, in leaving things in such a muddle.” Two explanations. No. 1 is mine, — that Cotton was her ally and Foster her tool. No. 2 is a voice from Auburn Theol. Sem’y. Prof. W. J. Beecher wrote to me in Febru- ary, 1902, what applied as well for 1898: “I know of no INFATUATION MORE HOPELESS THAN THAT OF A BODY OF RE- SPECTABLE MEN WHEN THEY FALL UNDER THE DOMINION OF A SHARP WOMAN.” These two “explanations explain” the “muddle.” 3. What had Foster done? Soon after I had rec’d Cotton’s reply for the Comm., subscribers began to notify me of a singular typewritten circular rec’d by them from Mrs. B. Complaints of letters received of a very personal nature came to me. Her circular stated that I was circu- lating documents “detrimental to the welfare of the So- ciety,” and she most virtuously declared that “The E. E. Fund stands for higher things than a channel for personal grievance.” One of the complainants, Prof. C. R. Gillett, D.D., of the Union Theol. Sem’y in N. Y., wrote to me: “It is very desirable that you should let the London au- 68 THE TRUTH ABOUT thorities know of the whole state of the case, and that they should be warned to have nothing more to do in the matter of recognizing * at all or Mrs. B. any more. She is a snake in the grass, and is undermining you in every way that she can.” Her circular implied Foster’s approval of it. I wrote to him at once to ask if he approved of her typewritten circulars. He replied: “I learned while at the South that Mrs. B. intended to send the circular to which you refer . . . and entirely approved her action.” Simply on her state- ment, in a letter to Foster, he had “entirely approved her action”! What could be more unjust and discourteous to me, his associate, than to not merely afford me no oppor- tunity for explanation, but to join secretly in circulating a paper that was a serious reflection upon myself, and was per se “detrimental to the welfare of the Society”? I mentioned this partisanship to several persons, who expressed astonishment at it. One of them, a lawyer, who has addressed the Supreme Court at Washington on a noted case, volunteered to write to Sir E. M. Thompson, and, after stating the facts, remarked to Thompson: “I must express my surprise at such an ex parte proceeding by the Hon. Treas- urer, who at the least should have notified the Hon. Sec’y and heard his statement of the case.” To Foster I replied that I had “sent out” no “circulars” or anything of the sort; but I had submitted to some of the subscribers, for their advice, my own carbon copies of my official statement to London, and that I had informed the Comm, of such action. That I protested against his sanc- tion of Mrs. B.’s circular without notifying me and hearing what I had to say about it. 4. Foster upholds the Secretary. Made more daring by the reply from Cotton, counting absolutely upon Foster and Cotton, Mrs. B. wrote astonishing letters, said aston- ishing things to people, and did an astonishing act. First, the act. A postoffice inspector, a friend of the B.’s, called on me to say that Mrs. B. claimed that I had a private letter mailed by her to a friend on personal matters. I informed * Her New York friend. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 69 him that the note, however personal in one sense and not a good sense, treated of Fund matters, and I explained the case entirely to him. I showed the note to him. He seemed amazed at its contents, and said that any publicity would injure the Soc’y and hurt the writer. I went to his office, perhaps the next day, and remarked that since the Comm, had acted in the matter of Mrs. B.’s resignation, the note was useless to me. I discussed the question of the sanctity of the mails with him. He struck me as a thorough martinet. I soon concluded that Mrs. B.’s effort was a flash in the pan. Some time on, a note from the inspector asked if I would call at his office. There I met Foster and Mr. and Mrs. B. A legal friend had accompanied me. Mrs. B. read a letter from Cotton which showed that he had more than abused Grueber’s confidence: Cotton saw no harm at all in her note — perhaps one expression might have been changed a little. No harm in her abusing the confidence of the Bos- ton Office! Then she read a letter from a valued Western subscriber with whom I had long corresponded. His letter was in her favor. Little did I know then that Loring had been induced to write this gentleman. And what? Finally, Mrs. B. declared that I had no control over the office and official correspondence, and, to cap her audacity, produced Cotton’s letter of Aug. 6, 1897, already described by me in “Had Cotton played a double part?” I was dumfounded. Then I told the inspector that Cotton’s letter had no appli- cation at all; that he had written to me quite another kind of a letter; that the Comm, had since defined my authority, that I was placed in “general control,” etc. I appealed to Foster, but he was dumb. I had no documentary evidence with me. The inspector told me that I seemed like the one obstinate juryman — the English Hon. Sec’y, the American Sec’y, the American Treas., and others (referring to Loring and this Western man) “all against you and your views of the matter.” Then he proceeded to lecture me upon my exceeding my authority, and added that under the circum- stances I ought to apologize to Mrs. B. (!). To do him justice, he said that if such a note got into the papers it 70 THE TRUTH ABOUT would injure the Soc’y and hurt the writer of it. As I learned later on, Mrs. B. and Foster had got Loring to speak against me to the inspector, and Loring, still smarting over his re- tirement as chairman of the Boston Comm, and in a mood to listen to whatever Mrs. B. and Foster might say to him, acquiesced. Little did I dream, however, what was said to him by Foster and herself. At the least, the outrageous invention tinctured Loring’s letter to the Western subscriber, and his remarks to the inspector. Shortly after the episode at the inspector’s office, I called on Loring, determined to let light in upon his ignorance of past but recent history. He admitted seeing the inspector, etc., etc., but when I began to touch on Mrs. B.’s part in the retirement of his Comm., etc., and pro- duced papers, he cut me short with the remark that he did not wish to discuss that matter — it was a matter of record — and when persistently I began to say that Mrs. B. played a double part, he rose and said the interview had better end. To do the man justice, and I believe he was sincere, he la- bored under the spell of an outrageous invention — which will be disclosed in the evolution of this phenomenal history. I was willing to lay the case before the U. S. Commis- sioner at once, but Mrs. B. had no desires that way. The “apology” and all connected with the case soon melted into thin air. There was a reason for this which I did not then know. In going before the Commissioner she would have had to give her name under oath. She had not been using her lawful name as the Sec’y! The name that appeared on the circulars, in the Annual Report, and which she ap- pended to her official correspondence, was not her proper legal name, certainly not her name in the eyes of the Church. This fact, and any publicity, would have brought out infor- mation which, in all probability, would have forced her to resign. This information some of the London Comm, were aware of last spring or summer. The day after the meeting at the inspector’s office, I called there with an ex-Dist. Att’y for the U. S. I showed to the inspector a few letters from eminent men, and then the THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 71 original document of my official appointment as Hon. Sec’y. After reading it, he exclaimed: “What can I believe now?” Secondly, the astonishing letters. How Mrs. B., emboldened by the vote of the London Comm., by Cotton’s quasi approval of her note, by Foster’s tacit approval of it — by the apparent support of the Comm, and sure support of Cotton and Foster — began to write astonishing letters will be now twice illustrated. The first sample shows her care in addressing a clergyman. He promptly sent her letter to me. Rev. Chas. J. Wood, York, Penn.: Dear Sir, — I send you, inclosed, a letter now being mailed by the advice of my Counsel to some of our Hon. Secs. It is important that this document be secured for the London Comm. I have some in- dignant letters from those who have rec’d the papers referred to. These gentlemen would have returned the copies but did not keep them. . . . The London Comm, have formally met and notified Dr. Winslow as well as Mr. Foster and myself that — but I will quote the passage for you. (Relating to her “resignation”) ... In the absence of Mr. Foster, with his knowledge, however, I write to say that we both would prefer that such copy as you may have be sent to him, at our office address (Mrs. B. opened all his mail). Comments. “Indignant letters.” She had rec’d a letter from a Western subscriber, already referred to, then ill, since deceased, to whom Loring, and probably Foster, per- haps Cotton, had written. I had consulted this esteemed subscriber, and, on Feb. 28, he replied: “It should be en- tirely in the power of the American end of the work to remove such incumbents (as Mrs. B.). I would hardly dele- gate the living of a clerk to a London Committee.” I wrote to this gentleman, and, in view of what Loring had written to him, I am not surprised now that his last^reply was curt. The other letter was written by Mrs. B. to an esteemed local Sec’y, somewhat an invalid, and to whom (owing to her previous sympathetic notes to her) Mrs. B. thought she might vent her feelings : “ . . . I fear I shall distress you, I am so sorry about it. ... I have counsel appointed by the London Comm., and am advised to send out the inclosed 72 THE TRUTH ABOUT circular for the purpose therein stated. I will also tell you this. From Dec. 6 to 13 Dr. W. was in New York City. During that time he purloined a letter written by me to one of our Hon. Secs. . . . The letter was about him. ... He had this photographed and distributed copies in England to harm me. The recipients there informed me of it. . . . The sentence is payment of $500, or one or two years im- prisonment at hard labor, or both. The case will rest until we have advice from London.” “I am so sorry about it,” was too much for the genuine woman to whom Mrs. B. wrote, and she placed the letter in my hands. Comments by me. “Counsel appointed by the London Comm. ! ” The same that advised her to write to Rev. C. J. Wood? Would the Comm, sanction her send- ing out such a circular ? “Copies in England?” To whom? Where? “The recipients there informed me of it.” Did Cotton constitute these recipients? And so on. Thirdly, the astonishing things said. Just two illus- trations. Mr. William G. Brooks, of Boston, informed me of statements made by her to him in a public place. At my request he placed his signature to these statements made on or about April 28. I condense the statements: That the Comm, resolved to turn Dr. W. out of office unless he made a written apology to her. That the Comm, had instructed her not to allow Dr. W. to see her except in the presence of a third party. That Mr. Cotton told her when he was in Boston that the Comm, had long regarded Dr. W. as a detri- ment to the Fund and meant to get rid of him. * That Dr. W. had admitted in the presence of a postoffice inspector that he had opened and kept three letters which she had written to a certain person. When I showed Mr. Brooks’ statement, which he signed and a witness also signed in my presence, to the legal friend who was with me at the interview with the inspector et al., he noticed instantly the magnifying power of Mrs. B. to turn one into three! To Renwick B. Knox, the banker, a * Compare this with Cotton’s letter to me when he was in Boston. (See “ Cot* ton in Boston.”) THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FEND. 73 local Sec’y, Mrs. B. wrote that Cotton on behalf of the Comm, notified her that I must apologize to her — “at least must do that.” 5. A Refutation from London. To Cotton I could not write upon these astonishing perversions. Accordingly, I presented the case explicitly to the Hon. Treas, Grueber. On May 13 he replied about the perversions pointedly, offi- cially: “As regards our Committee, we decided to take no part at all in the differences between you and Mrs. B. Mr. Cotton was wrong if he pledged us in any way. And we made that perfectly clear at a special meeting, after which Mr. Cotton had to write to Mrs. B. to that effect.” “ If” is a vital word. How much had Cotton really abetted her? How much had she magnified his assurances to her? On July 4, Grueber, alluding to the troubles, wrote to me: “I am glad there is peace again, and may it last. No doubt your course will be a difficult one to steer; but I hope there will be no casualties. As you are aware, the Committee WOULD NOT TAKE ANY ACTION IN THE DIFFERENCES.” Impartiality is my aim paramount to all else. In the fall I mentioned to Grueber that* the stories “the Comm, wished to get rid of me” floated about (started by Mrs. B.?), and thus on Nov. 30, he replied: The statement as to the London Committee’s feeling towards you is perfectly false. Though, at one time, as you know, our relations were a little strained, yet the London Committee always appreciated your zeal for the Fund, and the immense services you have rendered over so long a period. The fact of the London Committee accepting your view about the disbanding of the Boston Committee dispenses with any idea of dis- missal. Had such an idea ever suggested itself, their line would have been quite the contrary. The course taken, on the other hand, shows how much your services are esteemed. I hope this will stop the voice of the slanderer. For Loring, too, I wish to say a word. In the fall of 1897 I knew that the statements about him made to me by Mrs. B. must be inventions or distortions of the truth; and what he said to me, in 1902, as a kind of amende, revealed to me that he, too, realized, to some extent at last, the wrong he 74 THE TRUTH ABOUT had done me in listening to such inventions as those of Mrs. B. and accepted as true by Francis C. Foster. I have devoted much space to the details respecting Mrs. B.’s note to the N. Y. man, and to her private circular, because I have never known to how many subscribers she distorted the facts and to how many she mailed her circular. I took no notice at all of her circular. She also circulated typewritten slips containing just that portion of Cotton’s letter for the Comm, upon “resignation,” which related to her own vindication (?), and the suggestion that the respon- sibility of my resignation would be mine alone. Subscrib- ers who had known of no troubles were mystified by her circulars. 6. An effort by Foster. That Foster, sure of the support of Cotton after the refusal of the Comm, to retire Mrs. B., tried to “get rid” of me, and quite expected to, appears in a note dated April 25 to Charles W. Sloane, Esq., local Sec’y in N. Y. He informed Mr. Sloane: “We are likely to have a change here this week, which, if effected, may prove a surprise to many, and will, I think, put a stop to such circulars as you rec’d last March.” Foster’s “sur- prise,” however, came when “Cotton had to write to Mrs. B.” that the Comm, would take no part in the differences. From the start Foster wanted no Hon. Sec’y — no one to rank superior to him in the Boston Office. Upon this foible Mrs. B. relied, aside from her hypnotic influence. It will appear how carefully I had refrained from the slightest in- terference with Foster’s department. Now as to the “cir- cular” Foster refers to, he had been informed officially by me that I had sent out no circulars, nor had he the least evidence that there were circulars. Yet, he persistently refers to “circulars.” I have the official correspondence thereon. It is sufficient to add respecting the N. Y. man with whom Mrs. B. corresponded, that, following his retirement as a local Sec’y and special contributor to Biblia, he retired as a local Sec’y of the Palestine Exploration Fund and as Sec’y of the “N. Y. Branch.” THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 75 7. What was I to do? Resign? No one of my advisers favored it. The London Comm, earnestly desired adjust- ment of the troubles ; they would not remove the Sec’y ; and I could not be ousted by Foster and Mrs. B.; indeed, assurances came to subscribers that my status would now be maintained by the Comm. What if I resigned? Mrs. B. would explain matters in her own way to the subscribers, and to injure my personal reputation. She would quote Cotton and Foster and herself as against me — three to one — and Cotton’s letters to her. The Fund would be con- ducted in her interests (see what is to come), and my dream of, my toil for, a high standard of administration would have been in vain. In all probability I should be thrown out of touch with the news — coveted news — of discov- ery for my articles. Did not I owe much to many local Secretaries and subscribers, and should I leave them in the lurch? Even the crowning motive, my love for the cause, might not have stayed my resignation had not I learned that Mrs. B. had been critically ill and earnestly sought for an adjustment of the troubles. She professed deepest regrets and asked that a veil be dropped upon the past. “Such a state of things could never happen again!” The preceding winter she had suffered from a nervous trouble, now relieved by an operation, and had said and done things which would have otherwise not have been said or done. Thus she pleaded with me. The result was that I agreed to go on as Hon. Sec’y; and, to relieve her ambitious spirit, I told her that I desired her to have all possible freedom in her daily routine work as Sec’y. All I asked from her was perfect frankness in our relations and mutual labors. And I purposely ever thereafter avoided making many inquiries legitimately mine to make, in order not to vex her sensi- tive soul. I kept my intention so well that when in 1902 I published a slip, “Status of the Hon. Sec’y,” in answer to many letters, I truthfully said in a footnote: Over “the ordinary business of the office,” conducted by the Secre- tary, such as recording, receipting for subscriptions, her correspond- ence in reply to letters, her solicitation of subscriptions, her keeping 76 THE TRUTH ABOUT of the books of the Secretary, not the least “control ” has been exercised. In these and like matters she has had complete autonomy. She comes and goes as she pleases ; fixes her own vacation ; arranges all the plans and details of her secretarial work. Nor has the Hon. Secretary ever offered the least suggestion to the Hon. Treasurer of his depart- ment. Notwithstanding my good reasons for this adjustment, I unhesitatingly declare that I made a mistake and therein erred. I plead my love for the cause, but I should have unalterably decided that I would not be associated with her — and accordingly, have resigned. No man has a right to sacrifice himself to the extent that I did. I erred, conscien- tiously. In justice to myself, I add that I resolutely deter- mined that if any troubles occurred thereafter I would re- sign if Mrs. B. remained. Had I known that she practiced a deception upon her former church and upon the Fund by illegally using the name she w T as known to us all by — a name throughout differing from her legal name — I would have notified the Comm, that unless she resigned (or was removed) I should instantly sever all connection w T ith the Fund. Neither Dr. Lorimer had hinted such a fact to me, nor had the former associate pastor in his letter to me. The latter simply declined to discuss matters when written to in 1902 by her present pastor in Boston, w T hose note to me will appear in this narrative. Why Mrs. B. was so anxious for me to adjust “differences” w T as that my resignation would have led to inquiries which would result in a revela- tion of the deception practiced by the Secretary in appear- ing to be in name what she was not. She was not the “Mrs. B.,” but Mrs. B. w r ith entirely different lettering after the B from the lettering she used. But of such a fact I knew nothing. ( From a sketch by Miss Edwards.) THE LATE R. STUART POOLE, D.C.L., LL.D. One of the founders of the Egypt Exploration Fund. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 77 PART III. R. STUART POOLE, D.C.L., LL.D. Associated with Amelia B. Edwards in founding the Egypt Exploration Fund was Reginald Stuart Poole, head of the Department of Coins and Medals in the British Museum. He was the foremost numismatist in the world, and his pub- lications are standards in authority and use. He was one of England’s leading Old Testament scholars, as witness his work for Smith’s Bible Dictionary. He was thoroughly versed in Egyptology. His wide range of learning appears in the fact that he wrote for the Britannica upon Hieroglyph- ics as well as Numismatics. He was one of the most ver- satile lecturers at the Royal Institution and in university courses. Mr. Augustus Lowell asked me to name to him a man qualified to give a full course of lectures upon Old Egypt, which would interest as well as instruct, and I named Poole, who conditionally accepted the invitation to lecture at the Lowell Institute, Boston. But he could not be spared long enough from his duties and standing engagements to visit America. Both Poole and Sir Erasmus Wilson joined Miss Edwards in founding the Egypt Exploration Fund. Sir Erasmus became its first president, but he died the year following. He removed the obelisk from Alexandria to the banks of the Thames. I stood by the other obelisk, now in Central Park, when it was deftly lowered from its true place for Central Park. Through the thoughtfulness of Miss Edwards I have as mementoes of Wilson his beautiful pri- vate seal and his cuff buttons. But for their modern type I should be tempted to imagine that the gold buttons (“E. W.”) belonged to Edward Winslow of Plymouth Colony, whose gold ring brightens the case containing his relics at Plymouth. 78 THE TRUTH ABOUT It occurs to me to add that I felt America should recog- nize Poole’s learning and work, and so I nominated him to the University of the South for a D.C.L., as that institution confers that degree. Hon. Robert C. Winthrop kindly seconded my request, which was granted in 1886. Thus England gave him LL.D. (Cambridge) and America D.C.L. Barclay V. Head, Ph.D., D.C.L. , succeeded to Poole’s place at the British Museum. For some years he was upon the Comm, of the Egypt Exploration Fund. The deputy keeper of the department in the Museum is Herbert Appold Grueber, F.S.A., Hon. Sec’y of the Numismatic Soc’y, a charter member of the Fund and long its invaluable worker as Hon. Treasurer. The particularly interesting fact about this likeness of Poole is that Miss Edwards sketched it for me from life, as a token of our mutual regard for so helpful an associate, so genuine a man, as Stuart Poole. To resume our most unpleasant but necessary story: the fiscal year 1898 closed on July 31 with peace promised, but with doubt in my soul. 1. Francis C. Foster ruffled the surface by declining to pay for some typewriting on my bill for the year. His note harped upon my sending out typewritten matter “ of a char- acter defamatory of an officer of the E. E. Fund, and, as I am assured, detrimental of both.” I replied: “Your remark reflecting on me personally I ignore, as I am striving to pro- mote peace and prosperity, etc. . . . The typewriting was for my official letters to London, and one to yourself (un- answered). When I found it necessary to consult with others I simply used my own carbon copies in turn.” I referred to Mrs. B.’s “circulars” thus: “It appears not to have occurred to you that 'documents’ on our official paper, calculated to hurt me, were paid for — typewriting, post- ages, stationery — by you as Treasurer. Their indiscrim- inate circulation hurt the Society.” Later he wrote that THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 79 he had written Mr. Grueber for final instructions, “ but I do not propose to reopen or discuss the question.” This was Nov. 28, but, inspired by Mrs. B. he indited a most personal letter to me on Jan. 12, intimating that he would be sus- tained by the Comm. (Had he been corresponding with Cotton?) Grueber, who by legal appointment was Foster’s official correspondent, wrote to me: “I have told Mr. Foster that as in my opinion your charges are perfectly legitimate they should at once be paid.” Again: “I do not consider it necessary to wait till next month to get the leave of the Comm, that these charges should be paid, as it was always understood, in fact ordered, that all your expenses incurred on behalf of the Fund should be repaid you.” The charges of about six dollars were so petty, as was Foster’s perform- ance, that I told him the following spring that if his action implied no intent to interfere with my rights and authority as Hon. Sec’y, I would pay the charges out of my pocket, and end the business. Grueber complimented me on my forbearance, and yielding a small point while holding my rights. Foster had said that Mrs. B. could do all the type- writing I needed. Indeed! Could not I make official com- munications to the Comm., if necessary, without her knowl- edge? Grueber had added: “I wish you could devise some scheme which would free you of such worries. The Comm, here. are perfectly cognizant of your great services to the Fund; and the sums which are transmitted from your office bear witness to them.” I found Mrs. B. averse to typewriting for me, and, .to save the Fund, I did much work which should have been typewritten. So in 1900 I wrote Mr. Grueber that I would like to be officially authorized to get letters typewritten when necessary. His reply will appear. 2. Increase of Salary for the Secretary. In the spring of 1900 Mrs. B. alluded to a note from Cotton in which he said the Comm, favored (or would favor?) an increase of her salary. She said Foster favored it. On questioning him, he admitted that Mrs. B. first spoke to him upon the matter. She complained that the Annual Report lumped the Secretary’s salary and office rent together; she declared 80 THE TRUTH ABOUT that there was no office rent — she gave the “Office.” I reminded her that $200 were added to the former salary of $600, because her rooms were to be our Office. She now rec’d $800, but that included the use of her rooms for our Office. To promote peace I decided I would favor an increase of her salary, as she said the Comm, would approve of it. Accordingly, I forwarded to Grueber a letter for the Comm. His official reply of May 2 remarked: The view held by you with respect to Mrs. B.’s salary and the allow- ance made to her for the use of her rooms was that held by the Comm. — viz., that Mrs. B. should receive a salary of 600 dollars, and that a further allowance of 200 dollars should be made to her for the use of her rooms as an office, by this means saving the Fund the expense of a separate office. After careful consideration the Comm, consider that a salary of 1,000 dollars, if they took Mrs. B.’s view of her position, would be somewhat out of proportion to the general receipts from subscriptions, etc. Being, however, fully sensible of Mrs. B.’s services to the Fund, the Comm, are quite willing that an advance of 100 dollars be made to her, and they leave it entirely to you and your colleagues in what manner this sum should be allowed, whether as an addition to Mrs. B.’s salary, or as an increased allowance for the use of her rooms, or for the rent of the extra room, should the latter be deemed necessary. I am also to convey to you again the thanks of the Comm, for your continued great but unremunerated services, and to inform you that if you can ease your labors by having your letters typewritten, you must not hesitate to avail yourself of that method at the expense of the Fund. * Now at the request of Foster I had met him at the Office where I asked to see Cotton’s note saying that “the Comm, would favor an increase of salary.” It was not at hand, but Mrs. B. thought it might be at Foster’s office. I replied: “Very well, I take your word for it.” Under date of June 6, Grueber officially wrote to me: “It was resolved in defer- ence to your recommendation that Mrs. B.’s salary should be fixed at $1,000 a year, but on the distinct understanding •The following year I charged but $4.80, and the next (1902) but $6.95 for typewriting, the last year including my reports to London upon the affairs of the Office. I wrote at least 1400 letters (many of them long ones) that should all have been typewritten. My aim was to save money for the cause. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 81 that this salary includes the use of her apartments as offices for the Fund.” But my letter to Grueber intimating that Cotton’s declaration had influenced my action in favor, etc., elicited from Grueber a note, saying, “I have just rec’d your letter, etc. . . . Mr. Cotton did not voice the wishes of the Comm.,” etc. It was clear to me that Mrs. B. had misinterpreted what Cotton said. 3. The Official Letter Paper. Under “Unpleasant Dis- coveries” I pointed out how Mrs. B. in printing our official letter paper for 1898, omitted my title as Hon. Sec’y. She had no more right to do this than to omit Hon. Treas. after Foster’s name. She promised me she would not repeat the error. But in writing to me hastily she used note paper from the top of which she had cut off our three names, leaving simply the name of the office and year. She sometimes wrote me upon mutilated sheets, but this type seemed different from that used for the authorized note paper. Comparing it with the latter, I saw the difference. Mrs. B. had simply repeated her error! I asked her if we were nearly out of letter paper, as I had some changes in view, and she produced samples. “Were these all?” “Yes,” she replied. “There are no more printed like those of 1898 without Hon. Sec’y after my name?” “No, indeed!” came her reply. Then I showed the sample I had, and asked what it meant. After an in- stant’s hesitation, she replied that she got out the note paper, but it was “to please Mr. Foster.” “He likes it better; thinks it simpler,” etc. She assured me she would never again make the least change in our letter paper without my sanction. Her note was dated March 2, 1900. I asked Foster if he had authorized Mrs. B. to omit Hon. Sec’y after my name. He said, “Of course not,” and when I told hi m the circumstances, he simply said “it was all accidental,” etc. I found the note paper was being generally used, and Foster began to use it in his official letters to me. So, on May 4, I wrote him most kindly, reminding him that my “general control” in the Office made me responsible for our official printing which was not purely financial, etc. He replied that it “must have been an oversight” by Mrs. B. 82 THE TRUTH ABOUT SINGULAR DISTRIBUTION OF USHABTIS. I pass on to 1901, for this narrative is already a long one. I had done all that mortal man could do to keep peace, and bring prosperity to the cause. Indeed, the year closing July 31, attests the highest Nilometer mark ever reached financially — though a financial inundation (without a Carnegie or Rockefeller) would be impossible. I had thrown myself into the effort to raise funds for the Graeco-Roman dep’t, and Mrs. B. also pressed its importance upon sub- scribers. But I was conscious that “undermining” was going on — the aim and end being just what Grueber has so well defined — “ to minimize your authority, and finally to crush you” — and Davis has described to me: “You were undermined by an ambitious and designing woman ” — and what Davis wrote of her purpose to Darling, viz., to ignore me and put herself at the head. (See “Cause of the Troubles.”) For example, my correspondence with some of the older subscribers fell off, not through my lack of atten- tion; the notion was insinuated that she raised the funds; and because they were sent to the Office (her rooms) she considered that she raised the money! Foster more than once asked me what use I had of envelopes and for so much postage! (She told him she raised the money — that settled it !) When he wanted her salary raised in 1900, he wrote to me: “I am greatly surprised at the amounts she brings me. ... I should be very glad to see her have this increase, so richly earned.” Of course, her notes to England “rung this change” for all that it was worth. Let us now depict a few facts. The distribution of Ushabtis (funerary images) and Papyri formed an interesting incident. The Comm, directed that the 119 papyri should be sent through me as Hon. Sec’y to the designated institutions. They were the gift of the Fund; Prof. Petrie had found loads of ushabtis at Abydos, and they came to London with other objects, as the property of the Comm. It was voted to distribute these thousands of figurines among English and American sub- THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 83 scribers. When they arrived at the Boston Office, and Mrs. B. was directed by the Comm, to distribute them (nearly all by mail), I advised her earnestly to send to each recipient a printed card stating that “ they were found so and so, and that they are sent by direction of the Comm, with their com- pliments,” etc., etc. I told her that she (not I) could sign the card as Sec’y, and would thus have all the credit for her labors of despatch. Later I saw in the Boston Transcript (March 23, 1901), a well-written account of the ushabtis, in which, however, it was not made clear that the figurines were sent to the Office by direction of the Comm., and were to be distributed as their gift. The “cases were consigned to Mrs. B.,” and whether Petrie, who unearthed the ushabtis, or some one else, “consigned” them was not stated. Mrs. B. told me that that journal, learning of the ushabtis at the Custom House, sent a special reporter to her, and he took down the facts. (Soon after I heard a different version, — that no reporter was sent for that purpose, but that he called for another purpose on Mr. B., and “improved the opportunity,” etc.) She said she did not want to print any cards, but purposed to “ advance the cause ” by writing notes, descriptions, etc., to go to subscribers with the ushabtis, and thus to influence some of them to increase their dona- tions. She said she could get out typewritten slips if needs be. It so happened that being in correspondence with Woodbury G. Langdon, Esq., of N. Y. (he sent $50 as a spe- cial donation), he enclosed to me (to save explanation) Mrs. B.’s note to him on the ushabtis. It read: “Prof. Petrie is sending a case of ushabti figurines to me from Egypt,” etc. I showed this note to her, and urged her to have the recipients all clearly know the facts: that our Comm, should have credit, etc. There had been so much “friction” that I did not wish to insist on my “general control,” and, besides, the Comm, had directed her to do the purely clerical work. The ushabtis were noticed in the press, and for other causes various subscribers asked me who presented them. A Boston recipient asked me in the street to whom he was indebted. He then enclosed to me her note to him saying: 84 THE TRUTH ABOUT “I have lately rec’d from Prof. Petrie’s finds a case of ushab- tis. I take pleasure in sending one of the finest of these antiquities to you, with my very kind regards.” He wrote on her note: “It seems to me it would be much better for your Sec’y to use We instead of I,” etc., etc. This was April, and again I kindly cautioned her, but, as events proved, she was on the highway to her goal, and I could not influence her. What were the results? I found that Mrs. B. was not doing her duty justly, and for the Fund’s welfare. My duty was plain. I stated the facts to Grueber, and suggested that in future antiquities be directed to me as Hon. Sec’y, and that if any more ushabtis could be sent I would repair, so far as I could, Mrs. B.’s unequal distribution. Grueber replied officially that “all antiquities and papyri to pass through the Boston Office are to be directed to you,” and he stated another vote by the Comm., viz., that nearly 100 boxes of ushabtis remained and would be sent to me, etc., etc. Miss Paterson inquired (July 10) if I would defer re- ceiving them till autumn. Not till the following Jan’y did I receive them. When the 100 cases (about 600 ushabtis) arrived, I had it stated in the Transcript (Feb. 4) that I had rec’d the in- voice as Hon. Sec’y, “which on behalf of the Committee he is to distribute as their gift to American members of the society.” I issued this card to send to some of the sub- scribers : EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND — Figurines for Subscribers. Another assortment of Ushabtis, or figurines, has just been received from the Committee in London, to be presented to subscribers. Those already sent out by the Secretary in Boston were also direct from London, and were to be presented in the name of the Committee. This additional lot, also found at the tombs of Abydos, is from the office in London, and will be sent in the name of the Committee to subscribers, especially to those who have not yet received ushabtis. Advise Wm. C. Winslow, Honorary Secretary, U. S. A. 525 Beacon Street, Boston, February 4, 1902. Rev. J. B. Nies, Ph.D., of Brooklyn, the promoter of archaeological research, had written me upon the mis-dis- THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 85 tribution by Mrs. B.: “ In London it is an understood thing that all subscribers rec’d ushabtis. I made application for my proportion last year, and rec’d one. I was told in Eng- land that five or six are given with each subscription.” He said pointedly: “No officer of the Soc’y has a right to make a personal gift of any kind from the property of the Soc’y to the members of the same, and certainly no officer can take the property of the Soc’y and give it to non-members without being liable to prosecution under the criminal law.” He had inquired of Grueber respecting the division of ushab- tis, who replied to him: “The mode of division was as fol- lows: They were first divided into two equal portions; one half for England and one half for America. Miss Paterson then wrote to Mrs. B. asking her how many would be required to satisfy her subscribers. The number asked for by Mrs. B. was dispatched. On Dr. Winslow, however, represent- ing that many subscribers had not rec’d ushabtis, the Comm, ordered that all that remained should be sent to him for distribution. . . . Each box was supposed to contain six ushabtis and each subscriber should have received an un- changed box,”, etc. I officially inquired of Miss Paterson how many ushabtis were sent by her to Mrs. B. Her reply was, “Eight cases containing nearly 500 boxes.” I found on examining the 100 boxes sent to me, in one case, that they averaged at least six figurines to a box, which Grueber had said was true of the similar previous boxes. Thus, some 3,000 figurines were placed in Mrs. B.’s hands — enough to give each sub- scriber a box (i.e., six figurines each). Prof. Petrie replied to my inquiry if he had sent ushabtis to Mrs. B.: “I have personally had nothing to do with send- ing out Egypt Exploration Fund ushabtis, and do not know what has been done by the Secretary.” This was Oct. 26, 1901. I wished to give Mrs. B. every chance, and thought it possible she had rec’d figurines from Petrie. I suppose she wished to appear associated with his name, as she had wished to be with Ebers and Edwards in press notices. I reported as follows to London on March 28: “I have mailed some 75 to 80 cards respecting ushabtis to subscrib- ers. The result of about 66 replies is as follows: Of local 86 THE TRUTH ABOUT Secretaries 12 have rec’d none; 14, one; 3 rec’d 2; 2 rec’d more. Of 35 subscribers and patrons 32 rec’d one and three rec’d two.” I mailed in all perhaps 130 cards, and the num- ber who had not received any ushabtis steadily increased. I wrote an account of Ushabtis for Biblia, April, 1902, illus- trated, which was reprinted as a leaflet, and letters from subscribers stated this was how they came to know of the figurines. Judging by all the replies, I concluded that only a small proportion of subscribers could have rec’d their full share each up to nearly 14 months after Mrs. B. had received 3,000 of the curios. Applying this rule to perhaps 500 sub- scribers, and the question naturally arose, “What became of all the ushabtis?” I cannot answer the question, for I do not know. Such local Secretaries as these had rec’d none: Stone, Morrow, Sturges, Adams, Hoppin, Burpee, Hubbard, Wade, Goodwin, Carter, Woodruff, Nevins. Such as these, just one ushabti: Riddle, Taylor, Blakeslee, Co- bern, Perry, Horton, Hall, Ewell, Davis. Such Secretaries as Sloane, Battle, Vaux, were fortunate enough to receive two each. Such interested subscribers or patrons as these rec’d but one ushabti: Hoffman, Bigelow, Gould, Booraem, Brown, Zabriskie, Choate, Bliss, Bruckbauer, Lee, McComb, Hutchinson, Huntington, Ely, Bowdoin, Kennedy, Dana, Farnam, Bentley, Taft, Marquand, Sharpe. One of our most interested patrons and secretaries from the first, Mrs. General J. H. Devereux, of Cleveland, wrote: “I did not receive any ushabtis from Mrs. B. or hear of them except through Biblia.” Literature of the Subject. Let us quote from a few of the notes. Jeremiah Zimmerman, D.D., LL.D., Syracuse: “I am glad to learn from you, on inquiry, that the ushabti which I rec’d was presented by the Comm, and was not a personal gift from Mrs. B., as I inferred from her letter when she sent me the figurine. ... All are indebted to you for the im- pulse that you have given to the work in America.” (Mrs. B. had written: “I have rec’d a case of these objects from Petrie, and take pleasure in sending you one of them.”) THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 87 From Mrs. B.’s notes to subscribers: Mrs. Charles E. Wilbour, New York: I am sending you by mail a ushabti from Abydos. Prof. Petrie has sent me a case of one of these little statuettes, and I select one of the finest for you. (This conveys the pleasing thought that out of but one case, not 8 cases, Mrs. B. selected “one of the finest” for Mrs. Wilbour.) Caroline H. Dall, LL.D., Washington: When you are in Boston it ■will be a pleasure to me if you have the time to call at this office. I have many things to show you. Lately, Prof. Petrie sent me a case of ushabtis, etc., etc. From subscribers: Mrs. N. Lansing Zabriskie, Aurora, N. Y.: I rec’d more than a year ago a “ushabti ” as a gift from Mrs. B. (March 29, 1902). Mrs. Charles B. Potter, Rochester : Mrs. B. has sent me one figurine, a small one. I do not think I had the idea from her letter that they were presented in the name of the Committee. I am sure I thanked her personally for it. Miss Mary A. Sharpe, Wilkes-Barre: Mrs. B. wrote to me that Prof. Petrie had sent her a number of ushabtis and that she sent one to me. Dean Hoffman wrote to me on Feb. 14, 1902: “I have received only one small ushabti from the E. E. Fund, and would be very glad to have some of them for our Seminary.” I had in March, 1901, impressed on Mrs. B. that Hoffman was richly entitled to one of “the best boxes.” He had given much money, and had just started a $500 “Special Papyrus Fund” with $50. She assented. But the Dean was unsusceptible to her flattery, and she “cut him off with” one small ushabti. Mrs. Arthur Brooks, of Cambridge. To this lady, the sister-in-law of Bishop Phillips Brooks, Mrs. B. sent a letter so typical of her “art in putting things,” that I produce it entire. Boston, April 8, 1901. My dear Mrs. Brooks, — I had a little Easter gift for you which I am one day late in sending, but I hope you will accept it now with my kind regards. I have had sent to me a case of ushabtis from Abydos, the result of Prof. Petrie’s work of last season. The figurine is of the XIXth Dynasty, early, about 1400 b.c. It was 88 THE TRUTH ABOUT the function of the beings so represented to labor for the deceased in the next world, to that end each had his hoe on his shoulder and seed-bag upon his back. I trust that this tiny envoy from the Nile will serve you as faithfully as his double in the Upper Egypt is serving the priest to whom he is dedicated. I beg to ask your interest in the following offer: If we complete a special fund for papyri of $500 before the last of May we are promised the last $50. We have all but the last $80 (excepting the pledge of $50), and seem to have reached a standstill. Can you not help us by a five-dollar subscription? The reason for haste is the rapid completion of the great barrage at the 1st Cataract; its flood of waters will make Egypt the garden spot of the world. The proph- ecy of desolation to Egypt has been fulfilled and is past, now her blossoming time is at hand. Let us store papyri against our day of failure. Yours cordially, The above special papyrus fund was the one I started with Hoffman’s pledge of $50. I found that Mrs. Brooks had not received any ushabtis, and informed Mrs. B. of that fact. On Easter Monday Mrs. B. sent one to Mrs. Brooks with the above letter, giving Mrs. Brooks the impression that it had been her intention to make the gift. I add that my address on the letter sheet was inked over by Mrs. B., so that if Mrs. Brooks acknowledged her gift the note could not come to me. I knew Mrs. Brooks a little, but Mrs. B. did not know her at all. When I called on Mrs. Brooks and saw Mrs. B.’s letter, the truth flashed upon me, but not till December did I ac- quaint Mrs. Brooks with the facts, and I then gave her to read a letter to me from a former pastor of Mrs. B. Mrs. Brooks enclosed to me Mrs. B.’s letter, but I do not feel at liberty to print Mrs. Brooks’s note to me, except to quote the following: “I hope this experience may soon, for the work’s sake as well as your own sake, cease to be a present problem. ... I return the letter to you. ... It was un- THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 89 warranted.” Would that there might be on all Committees women of the high type of integrity, free from all “diplo- macy,” which characterizes this lady. The ladies and gentle- men upon the London Comm, were thoroughly informed respecting the manner in which the ushabtis were distrib- uted. That, and their placing of Mrs. B. upon the London Comm., per se “utter volumes” upon the whole subject. A bad feature of the “Singular Distribution of Ushabtis” was that non-subscribers should receive them to the exclu- sion of subscribers A number of such instances have, accidentally, come to my personal notice. I end by describ- ing one of them. I heard that a dealer in antiques had rec’d some figurines from Egypt. I asked him (at his store) if he had any ushabtis; he replied that Mrs. B. had pre- sented him with some ushabtis from a case of them which Petrie had sent to her from his excavations at Abydos. I understood him to say “a dozen ushabtis.” He said they were at his home. He remarked that Mrs. B. sometimes called in to see the curios — “a most interesting woman,” etc. While I was glancing at his curios he pointed to an antique necklace, saying, “I gave one like that to Mrs. B.” This gentleman, of course, had no notion of the facts as stated by me now. A lady who visited the store was told by him the same story respecting the ushabtis. RECOGNITION OF MY SERVICES. I am glad now to outline quite a different chapter in this story. When I was in London anent the Loring Comm, matter, the Comm, presented me with a scarab from Na- ville’s work at the Temple of Queen Hatasu — a simple blue scarab, but valuable from associations with it. When I received 119 papyri from the Committee for various institu- tions, in 1901, among them was a bit of Homer for me, which I intensely appreciated. (Iliad I, 404-447, or about 43 lines, dating the 2d to 3d century a.d.) In April, 1901, I sub- scribed $375, or $125 to each of the three departments of the Fund, in order that this sum might be applied to select- ing one object of historic value from Abydos for the Boston 90 THE TRUTH ABOUT Museum of Fine Arts. The collection at Philadelphia is chiefly formed in this way: a certain sum, sometimes hun- dreds of dollars, is given by a person to the Soc’y there affiliated with the Fund, and thus an entire case of antiqui- ties is designated as presented by the E. E. F. through Mrs. Hearst or Mr. Cramp, or some one to the Museum. Mrs. Stev- enson informed me that that was her special method in se- curing funds and antiquities. As artistic more than historic objects had come to Boston, and as Loring was not satisfied with Boston’s share last received, I thought that I would like to have an archaic relic of special interest from Abydos for Boston, and to feel that 'personally I had secured the trophy. I had toiled to secure monumental objects, but the money I raised came from others. I requested that the $375 be applied as I desired. The reply was a grateful acknowledgment, and that the Comm, had elected me an Hon’y Life Member of each of the Branches (see Annual Report). Later, Grueber wrote that the Comm, had “ thought it best that contributors should arrange it themselves with the curators of the museums to which the objects were as- signed. So if you can arrange this with General Loring, please do so.” This rule, a good one, saved the Comm, trouble. Grueber stated that the object selected to repre- sent my contribution was “the Sard and Gold Sceptre of Khasekhemui, the gem of the whole collection, and, I think, will create wide interest in your city.” This trophy will be mentioned under “Monumental Objects for Boston.” PRESS NOTICES. Various sketches of Mrs. B. had appeared from time to time in the daily papers, nearly all of them containing some high-flown or inaccurate sentences descriptive of her attain- ments, labors, acquaintance with eminent scholars, or the like — thus giving a misleading impression of her status and work. Her likeness appeared in a style not quite fitted for the representative of a learned body. Beyond caution- ing her in a kindly way, I paid no attention to articles calling her “America’s foremost Egyptologist,” “Another THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 91 Amelia B. Edwards,” “The Egyptian Princess,” etc.; refer- ring to her rooms as “the headquarters of the E. E. F.,” to her having “control of Biblia, the official organ of the Fund, and of other learned societies”; to her “semi-official con- nection” with our museum; to her acquaintance with learned men abroad and her ability “to measure swords with the most erudite Egyptian scholars of the present day.” Natu- rally, to her accessible rooms, called “the office,” reporters, photographers, and inquirers went for presumably reliable data. A well-written sketch in a Chicago daily spoke of the “high appreciation of her work” by Ebers and Edwards. It stated: “The Archaeological Survey and the Graeco- Roman branch are two exploration departments of which Mrs. B. has charge, as well as of the Egypt Exploration Fund.” It referred to her “Management” of the Fund and the departments in it. I was kindly named as V. P. and Hon. Sec’y in connection with several other officers; but the impression was clearly given that the labors and respon- sibilities of management were hers. I recognized the ini- tials appended to the sketch as those of an acquaintance. I questioned this correspondent who had called at the office, telling her that I was sure Miss Edwards never knew Mrs. B., and I doubted if Ebers had had acquaintance with her. Not long after, an article in the Springfield Republican upon Mrs. B., copied into the Evening Post and elsewhere, stated that she was in “charge” of the Fund in this country. A reader ignorant of her status and the work of the Boston Office would receive the impression that she “managed” affairs and did the work. It seemed absolutely necessary that a statement should at last be made setting forth the true status of the Hon. Sec’y and Sec’y, and doing justice to both. A carefully prepared letter appeared in the Re- publican of June 10, 1901, quoting the official language of our appointments from London, and adding that “the recep- tion of subscriptions, recording them, receipting for them in the treasurer’s name, attending to the orders for books, and efforts to secure new subscriptions, comprise the Secre- 92 THE THUTH ABOUT tary’s duties in particular. In the last-named item Dr. Winslow takes an active part, as newspaper men well know.” No reply could be made to the data in the letter, for they rested on fact and evidence. The writer of the article, an assistant editor, had secured her information from other papers. Her article was moderate and refined, hence her statements carried all the more weight. In a letter to Fos- ter I alluded to the article in the Republican, and in his note he remarked that Mrs. B. showed him the article containing “much that was very annoying to her, so she wrote the Editor.” She found no fault with the article in speaking to me of it, but said and wrote to me that the letter upon the article was inaccurate. To Foster she said the article was “very annoying to her” — did she, in writing Mr. Sam- uel Bowles, or to the writer of the article, say that the article was “very annoying to her”? I fancy not. She invoked the aid of Cotton, for a member of the Comm, wrote to me: “I wish to back your position as chief of the Fund in America, especially in the city of Boston. This is all the more necessary in the face of the letter to the Republican .” I had begged Mrs. B. to be careful not to sanction officially books published, causes presented, etc., etc. She had done so respecting a book, of which a subscriber complained to me. Mr. Edmund J. Carpenter, the well-known author, enclosed a long advertisement from a Boston daily, which under the conspicuous heading of the E. E. Fund, and over her sig- nature, commended a patent medicine. This advertise- ment over her name had also appeared in the N. Y. dailies. Mr. Carpenter remarked that I should know that the Sec’y, “Mrs. B. appears to be using the name of the E. E. Fund to exploit a patent medicine appliance.” HOW TO BECOHE A MEMBER OF THE LONDON COHMITTEE. This question Mrs. B. solved with the aid of Cotton, her ally. It was my custom on calling at the Office to ask if there were any new subscribers, or large subscriptions, to THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 93 report. As Mrs. B. was sensitive regarding my oversight of affairs, and regarded the record books with a jealous eye, I purposely refrained from glancing at the books except occasionally. Now, I had made special exertions in 1901 to increase subscriptions. I had written a few letters thereon to Pittsburg people, and previously to officers of the Pitts- burg Branch of the Fund. Under the pro rata plan of an- tiquities I was trying to have the Carnegie Museum receive a just share of antiquities. In March-May Mrs. B. had solicited subscriptions from people of that enterprising city. Not only did she keep me entirely in the dark respecting her efforts, but to my usual question, “Any more subscrip- tions?” etc., etc., she omitted all mention of the fine roll of sub- scribers from the City of Steel. But the June issue of Biblia revealed the full secret. Probably $2,000 had come from Pittsburg — even the stirring bit of news that Mr. H. C. Frick had contributed $500 was kept from me! Mrs. B. made some lame excuse for her secretive but normal methods. In June I asked her what her plans for summer vacation were. “ They were not decided upon.” About July 1, I asked her if her plans were made. She said they were not, but would let me know them. I was leaving for the country, and spoke of the necessity of having our records, etc., in a place safe from fire, etc. On July 6, she replied to my note, adding that she would not overlook giving me her address; and on July 12, her note did not even allude to what she had long planned to do — sail for England. It is to be expected that when a Sec’y of a learned Soc’y is about to go to the meeting of that Soc’y’s Comm. — 3,000 miles away — she would refer to that fact in conversation with the Hon. Sec’y in “general control,” etc. I declare that not the least hint in re was given me by Mrs. B., and that on or about July 1 she told me that her plans were not made, etc. Now I had heard some time previously of Mrs. B.’s plan to go to London, and that fact had made me question her more explicitly. On July 17, on steamer letter paper, she wrote to me: “I had no time to write you until on board,” and gave her address as the London Office. I concluded 94 THE TRUTH ABOUT that her object was to confer with Cotton and misrepresent me to members of the Committee. She would reach London long before my letters from New Hampshire could. Be- sides, upon what could I write? She was on vacation — a personal matter — if going officially, she could hardly have kept that secret. But the newspapers put the case differently, and one of these notices, from the Transcript, is preserved: “Mrs. , American Secretary of the Egypt Exploration Fund, left for England to-day to confer with the London Comm, and arrange for the year’s work.” I wrote to Foster to ask if her trip was official, and if so, if the Soc’y paid for it. He replied : “ In no sense that I know of, is her trip an ‘official’ one. . . . The London Comm, have not ‘ requested her presence ’ in any way, to my knowl- edge.” Of the Transcript item he remarked: “The report- ers always know more than others ! ” Why Mrs. B. had kept from me the knowledge of Pitts- burg’s splendid subscriptions, and of her trip to London will now appear. Verily, truth is stranger than fiction. On August 11 came a letter from Grueber, incidentally remarking: “Mrs. B. arrived here last Friday, too late for the distribution of the objects which was completed on the previous Wednesday.” He had, however, looked after the interests of the Boston Museum. On Aug. 26, Grueber remarked that Mrs. B. had attended a Comm, meeting. “She was put on the Comm, to represent Pittsburg. I think this was a mistake, as I believe she was only asked to represent that museum at the distribution. Cotton was against me, and I could not fight the question in her pres- ence.” I saw at once why Mrs. B. had kept me out of touch with Pittsburg and its Carnegie Museum. The branches had each a representative as a regular member of the London Comm. — Chicago and Phila. e.g. — but Pittsburg had none. Here was her chance, and Cotton to help her! I wrote W. J. Holland, Ph.D., LL.D., director of the Carnegie Museum, and on the Pittsburg Branch Comm., to ask if he would give me the facts in the matter. I quote from his reply: THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 95 . . Mrs. B., whom we had every reason to believe was thoroughly responsible and acting under your control and with your approval, early in the present year wrote to me and to others urging the impor- tance, at an early date, of raising money to secure whatever of interest might be secured before the completion of the great dam at Assouan should flood the surrounding country. I wrote personal letters to a number of my friends, and in a short time raised over $2,000, which with subscriptions directly solicited by Mrs. B. from other Pitts- burghers and paid in by them to the Boston office raised our con- tributions for the year to something like $2,500, if I remember rightly. “ Mrs. B. subsequently wrote that she expected to be in London at the time that the annual distribution (of antiquities) would be made, and said that she would be pleased to act as our representative at the distribution, if requested to do so She was by a formal resolu- tion requested to act as our representative, and received from Rev. Mr. Farmer, our Sec’y’s official notification of the fact. ... So far as the actions of Mrs. B., your assistant, are concerned, we had no reason to think that what she did was without your consent and ap- proval, and, as far as we knew, by your suggestion, in all probability.” Dr. Holland stated that Mrs. B. upon her return sent to him a list of the objects for the Carnegie Museum which, if “not representing anything like an adequate return for the money expended,” would make him content in view of the representations of Mrs. B. that it represented an earnest and sincere effort by London to appreciate Pittsburg’s special efforts. But he had that day (Oct. 10) rec’d from Cotton “ a list which does not agree, except in certain minor particulars with the list sent me by Mrs. B. . . . A number of items catalogued in the first list are omitted, and others of trifling importance are substituted.” I urged upon Lon- don the importance of doing justly and generously by Pitts- burg. In justice to the Comm., I can only judge from a list sent to me, on Dec. 13, by Dr. Holland, that the objects actually rec’d were better and more than he had anticipated from Cotton’s list. How Mrs. B.’s list and Cotton’s dis- agreed so, I cannot say. Nor do I know whether Mrs. B. informed Dr. Holland that she reached London after the distribution was made or left him to infer that she was present. 86 THE TRUTH ABOUT But the essential point now is how came Mrs. B. to be a member of the London Committee? On Oct. 11, Grueber wrote to me semi-officially, in re : “I have already expressed my opinion about Mrs. B., and I still think her election a very great mistake. Mr. Cotton brought it up without previous notice, but I objected. It was, however, impossible for me, with Mrs. B. present, to offer a vigorous opposition. I have never before heard of a paid secretary being a member of the Committee which has the direction of her work, her appointment, etc.” Grue- ber was both legal and right. Her election to be a member etc., has no precedent in England or the United States. Nor do members of the Comm, and officers like Pres’t, V. P., Hon. Sec’y, Hon. TTeas., receive any salary. Yet, she a member of the London Comm, de facto (if not de jure), rec’d salary as a paid clerk. Nor could the note from Mr. Farmer be honestly interpreted to mean anything but what it stated — that she was to act for Pittsburg simply at the distribu- tion of antiquities in London in July, 1901. I called for this note in Jan’y, 1902, in the presence of a member of the Lon- don Comm., and carefully noted its contents when it was read aloud. Those present at the Comm, meeting when Grueber objected should have supported him. No matter if Mrs. B. had impressed certain members of the Comm, that she had raised the $2,500,* or inspired the raising of it; and had impressed a few of the Comm, as she had an Ameri- can woman, that “she was the life and soul of the Fund in the U. S.,” — the Comm, of a learned soc’y should not have committed such a solecism. The Hon. Sec’y, a lawyer, acted as her attorney in getting this vote passed. Were she ignorant of his intention (?) she should instantly have cor- rected his error. To make “assurance sure,” I inquired of Rev. W. R. Farmer, Sec’y of the Pittsburg Branch, if Mrs. B. was then officially representing that Branch, and under date of Oct. 30, he replied: “I will say that Mrs. B. is not in any way * I suppose the |t>50 which Mr. Henry Phipps sent to me was apart of the $500 Dr. Holland attributed to Mrs. B. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 97 officially connected with the Pittsburg Branch.” In Decem- ber, a lady who had called upon me to make inquiries re- garding Mrs. B., said she had understood that Mrs. B. was a member of the London Comm. It was reported about Boston as one of her “honors.” This lady, to whom I gave a true version of the “honor,” wrote Mr. Farmer for the facts. She brought his reply to me: “I will say that Mrs. B. was elected by the Pittsburg Branch to look after our interests at the distribution of antiquities in London last summer. That appointment was not considered by us as involving any permanent arrangement.” As for her being upon the London Comm., he added: “We have never elected or appointed any one to act as our representative on the London Committee.” When Dr. Holland kindly prepared and mailed to me a list of antiquities received from the dis- tribution, he remarked upon Mrs. B.’s election: “As you have already been informed by Mr. Farmer, and as I have myself informed you, Mrs. B. suggested to us that as she expected to visit London she would like us to authorize her to represent the institution at the time of the distribution of specimens.” (Italics mine.) . . . “That she should appear officially as our permanent representative on the Committee was certainly not our thought.” This was mid-December, 1901. As was my duty, I stated the facts of the case and evidence so that the London Comm, could avoid further error — such as publishing Mrs. B. as a member of it. But the vol- umes and Annual Report in sequence published her name under “Members of the Committee,” adding “(for Pitts- burg) ” after her name. The Comm, voted the last of April, 1902, that her position as Sec’y, mine as Hon. Sec’y, should terminate in July, 1902. And yet the vol. “ Abydos, Part I, 1902,” which reached this country hot from the press, in August, without our names as officials, still contained her name as a member of the London Comm.! This illegal action of July, 1901, was maintained in July, 1902. I say illegal intelligently. To represent Pittsburg she must have been nominated by that Branch. She was not nominated, 98 THE TRUTH ABOUT and accordingly the initial step was not taken. It would be somewhat analogous to the Senate’s confirming a man who had not been appointed by the President. In the spring of 1902, 1 heard a Baptist minister at a well- attended meeting in Boston speak of Mrs. B.’s “distinguished services and learning in the cause of Egyptology,” and classifying her with Maspero, Naville, and Edwards. As evidence thereof, “she was Corresponding Sec’y of the E. E. F., an honor in itself, and, last summer was invited over to London by the Comm., who, in recognition of her scholar- ship and great services, elected her a member of their Com- mittee — a very great honor,” etc. Mrs. B. sat on the platform and allowed his statement to pass as truthful. The minister’s “information” must have come from Mr. and Mrs. B. Francis C. Foster was present and heard these statements, and, I think, joined in the applause following the minister’s remarks. Foster, it will be recalled, had written to me: “ In no sense, that I know of, is her trip an ‘ official ’ one. . . . The London Comm, have not ‘requested her presence’ in any way.” This episode of how Mrs. B. became a member of the Lon- don Committee well illustrates her career as Sec’y. But more. The action of the Comm, was reprehensible; and when its members knew the facts of the case, as they surely did, the continuance of such a mistake was unpardonable. Here I cannot see one particle of extenuation for those mem- bers who knew the circumstances, and attended the meet- ings. The Pittsburg Branch was and is absolutely free from all blame. It generously contributed, with the aid of loyal Pittsburghers, to the cause, and whether it rec’d a fair pro rata of the antiquities is not for me to say. The London Comm, should have promptly rectified their mistake and rebuked Cotton for his un-Secretarylike con- duct. But Mrs. B. had been to London, and, as Dr. Beecher, already quoted, says, “ I know of no infatuation more THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 99 hopeless than that of a body of respectable men when they fall under the dominion of a sharp woman.” PRINTING SECRETLY DONE. Under “Unpleasant Discoveries” I spoke of how Mrs. B. printed our letter paper for 1898 without my title of Hon. Sec’y, and again in 1900, secretly, note paper with the same omission. It seemed best to me that subscribers should be able to address me without their letters always going through Mrs. B.’s hands — their notes might be very per- sonal, or making complaints. So I prepared a form for letter and note heads, using our seal. In the least conspic- uous type was printed after my name in the corner my address. But the Office and its address were the feature of the sheet. Foster’s name, at the top, was repeated at the foot of the sheet with the statement that cheques should be made payable to his order. This arrangement would allow me to go less to the Office, and save Mrs. B. trouble in for- warding mail exclusively for the Hon. Sec’y. As a fact, however, my own mail continued to go more to the Office than to my house. Mrs. B. had approved heartily and commended the neat appearance of our letter and note paper. There seemed a continuous falling off in letters, sometimes in expected replies from subscribers. This was very marked in the spring of 1901. Just before I left Bos- ton in the summer a lady handed me a note to her from Mrs. B., which she asked more light upon. In it I found that a notification drawn up and signed by me Jan. 2, 1899, had been changed. Mrs. B. had removed my signature and substituted Foster’s signature to something he had not, but I had, written. I determined to adjust this matter in the fall. That summer I found that Mrs. B. had secretly printed letter paper, using our official seal, and omitting my address. She had also erased my address on the author- ized paper in her correspondence. Her object obviously was to keep me from knowing what she was about — e. g., suppose Pittsburg subscribers had written to me, then I might learn of her plans relating to that Branch. Now the 100 THE TRUTH ABOUT seal had been entrusted to me, and I was charged with its proper use. I was in “general control” at the Office, Foster was not; and yet the following Jan’y he had to acknowl- edge that he knew of Mrs. B.’s secretly printing the letter paper, and he paid the bills for the same, but that he kept the matter secret from me. To be just to him, he remarked that he considered the Office address alone on the letter paper sufficient. On my return, late Sept., I asked Mrs. B. why she had printed this other form of letter heads, and without my knowledge. She flared up with the remark: “I won’t have your address on our letter paper,” and pro- ceeded to say that she could run the Office without my aid. Before I left she suggested that the note heads I could still use, and gave me a package of them. She said the note heads had not been changed. But I soon found that she had printed changed note heads as well as letter heads! I called her attention to this, and said, “How do you dare to do such things?” Dramatically she replied, “I dare do anything, and you will find it out sometime.” It must be remembered that she was then fresh from Cotton and from her election as a member of the London Comm.; that Foster was her tool, and Cotton her ally and attorney; and some allowance can be made for her language. A word respecting Foster and Mrs. B. All the circulars specified conspicuously that cheques were to be payable to him; the blank subscription forms to fill out, for all the departments, had his name alone; the book orders for li- braries, ditto; the receipts of all kinds, ditto. One blank was printed that stated, “ Pay cheques to the order of the Hon. Treas.,” and, at his request, his name was appended. I wished in every way to gratify his vanity and to make peace. Mrs. B. used constantly a larger or smaller stamp upon packages, often on circulars and letters, bearing her name alone after that of the Fund and before the address. The Fund and Office address alone were ample. But it was a matter of taste, and I did not care to question what was not vital. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 101 I communicated to Grueber my official views of Mrs. B.’s removal of my address, and a copy of my letter to Foster. He replied: “I quite approve of your letter to Mr. Foster, and I am sending your official letters to Sir John Evans for his consideration, and to see what course should be taken. It is an unwarranted act of insubordination for Mrs. B. to erase your address. ... It was clearly laid down after your visit here that you were to control the Boston Office, and therefore what you propose is only carrying out this injunc- tion.” Later came a note from Grueber saying: “Sir John took a serious view of the case,” and enclosing a copy of an official note to Foster, as follows: British Museum, 14 October, 1901. Dear Mr. Foster: I have received from Dr. Winslow a communica- tion respecting the erasure of his address from the official note paper of the E. E. Fund by Mrs. B.; and he has also sent me copies of his letters to you of the 30th Sept, and 2d Oct. on this subject. ... I deemed it best to submit the correspondence to our President, Sir John Evans, and seek his advice. In consequence Sir John has desired me to write to you and to tell you that in his opinion Mrs. B. has acted very WTongly in eras- ing Dr. Winslow’s address, and that in fact such an act amounts to a great breach of authority, as the control of the work of the Boston office was placed by the Committee in the hands of Dr. Winslow. Will you therefore be so good as to see Mrs. B. and caution her; and also see that the error is rectified? . . . With regard to Dr. Wins- low’s letter to you of the 2d Oct., I think his proposals reasonable, as they will prevent such contretemps in the future. . . . A SINGULAR CONSULTATION. On October 30, I met Foster by appointment at the Office. Grueber’s official letter (see above) was read by Foster, and I stated that upon the official letter paper my name and address ought to appear in the form I desired it; that Foster’s name could be printed as he wished it to appear. Then Mrs. B. began to read letters, or extracts therefrom, from Cotton, and actually based her authority upon a letter to 102 THE TRUTH ABOUT her from Cotton, dated Aug. 6, 1897, before the Comm, had legally defined the status of our respective positions of Hon. Sec’y and Sec’y. At most, Cotton’s letter was an individual opinion. But it had not the least relevancy to our status or to the point discussed — the official note paper and print- ing. Foster sneered at the opinion of Evans and Grueber, and said his own opinion was based upon Cotton’s views as defined by Mrs. B. from his letters. I declared that Mrs. B.’s citations were irrelevant, and quoted from memory the official definition of our powers. (See “Cause of the Troubles.”) When Foster remarked that he had no trouble in business relations with the Sec’y — she brought him sub- scriptions monthly — and all went well, and remarked upon my responsibility for the trouble, this dialogue occurred: Winslow. “Mr. Foster, why compare our positions? I am placed in general control over the work of this office; I have to come here frequently to arrange this work with the Sec’y, and to plan my own labors accordingly. You con- sented to act as Treasurer upon the understanding that no work of any kind was to devolve on you. My position is entirely unlike yours in — .” But Foster burst out: Foster. “Yes, thank God! my work is entirely unlike yours, and I am unlike you from the crown of my head to the sole of my feet.” I walked up to Foster and said: “Mr. Foster, I am a gentleman, and I am here to be treated as such.” He re- plied: “What did you say your position was unlike mine for?” I replied: “You did not let me finish my sentence. I said that your position is entirely unlike mine in the work of this Office.” I read a brief paper defining several points, such as that the official printing is under my supervision; that the Sec’y should not use the official seal without my sanction; that official records and correspondence are to be open to the inspection of Foster and Winslow; that the Sec’y should keep a distinct record of the publications rec’d, and ex- changed or sold by her; that I could examine the bills of the Office before they went to Foster if I so desired; that THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 103 the “Office” in Boston is to be open during business hours to any official calling on the business of the Fund. Here are a few of the reasons why I had drawn up this paper: (o) To prevent, as Grueber, to whom I sent a copy, wrote, “to prevent such contretemps in the future” respect- ing note paper, etc., etc. ( b ) To know just how the vols. of the Fund were disposed of, and to whom each vol. went. I refer to vols. sent to the Office and not those sent from Lon- don in regular orders to subscribers. The value of the pub- lications thus sent that year (1901) footed up $400 to $500. ( c ) To have, if possible, more needed regularity of hours for attendance at the Office by the Sec’y; but not in any way to curtail her doing her work at other hours. To pre- vent her giving business hours of the forenoon to callers not upon the business of the Fund. Could she fall back upon the specious plea that her rooms were the Office, and could therefore close them to any official of the Fund at any moment she pleased, then she could have a caller and be “not at home” to any other caller. She always insisted that her salary did not include the use of her rooms as an “office,” as that term is usually used. I exercised the utmost courtesy in entering the “office,” and in (too often) regulating my calls for her convenience. After I read the paper at this “Consultation,” Mrs. B. treated me with gross disrespect in word and manner, but I paid not the least attention to her. She said: “I should think Dr. Winslow would have had spirit enough to resign when the Comm, declined to let me go.” Repeatedly she alluded to this. She remarked: “When I was in London I arranged with Miss Paterson to take your name off the blanks placed in the books for acknowledging their receipt.” “ I guess your subscription for getting an object for the Museum won’t turn out as you want it to,” etc., etc. I saw through her efforts to enrage me and simply snubbed her. As we broke up to go, and Foster was putting his overcoat on in her bedroom, Mr. B. came in. These were his words: “Well, ‘ Maimy,’ you can rely on that London Comm, every time — on Louis Dyer, Cotton, , , and the rest of 104 THE TRUTH ABOUT ’em ” (naming three or four), but emphasizing Dyer and Cot- ton. He turned to me with a not malicious grin, remarking: “It ain’t no use, Doctor; Mrs. B.’s got control of that Comm., and they won’t stand any more trouble. Next time, some- body’s head will go off — guess it will be yours.” Some days later, Mrs. B. sent to me a copy of her “min- utes ” of this consultation. She mailed her report of it at once to London that it might reach there before my corrected copy could. Her minutes were absurd throughout. No vote had been taken on anything; we were not a committee; I put nothing to vote. Yet of the six points in the paper I had presented, her minutes stated, “ Each head was discussed and voted against by the Hon. Treas. and Sec’y.” Also, she omitted the most important thing of all discussed, viz., the official opinions of Evans and Grueber adverse to Mrs. B., which she and Foster refused to accept — the latter stating that his authority was Cotton and not Evans or Grueber. I recalled how Cotton wrote to Foster in the fall of 1897 that in case of any trouble with me, he (Foster) might rely on his (Cotton’s) support. COTTON IS KING. On receiving the copy of Mrs. B.’s “minutes ” I sent a clear and explicit statement regarding them and the whole case to President Evans, remarking that “the position taken by Mrs. B. is not at all tenable. No legal or equitable interpre- tation of the Resolutions (of appointment) can sustain it. Mr. Foster has no powers of decision, in the routine work or ‘ important business ’ of the Office. These are the properties of the Sec’y and Hon. Sec’y. He can no more dictate to the Hon. Sec’y just how the latter’s address is to be printed on our letter paper than the Hon. Sec’y can dictate to him the form of his financial stationery or concerning his methods of keeping the accounts.” But Cotton, Foster, and Mrs. B. had not been idle, and a resolution of Nov. 5 passed my letter to Evans on the Atlantic. It arrived on Nov. 18 and stated that in the opinion of the Comm, the address of the Office "only should be given in all official correspondence.” Another THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 105 Resolution had been passed “that the Hon. Treas. and the Hon. Sec’y be requested jointly to draw up a scheme of the duties of the Sec’y, and submit it for approval to the Commit- tee in London.” Grueber expressed regret at the former resolution, which was in the teeth of what Evans and he had declared. He said, “However, you must now stand by your guns.” He stated that the point was made at the Comm, meeting that it is usual to use official addresses only of the societies in Eng- land, and he added, “ after all it is only an expression of opin- ion.” In Jan’y, referring to this action, he said, “There is no doubt the root of the evil is that Mrs. B.’s wish is to get the upper hand in the Fund, and to weaken your influence. This is her aim, and it remains to be seen who is the stronger.” To my statement (as above) Evans on Nov. 23 replied: “I am in receipt of your two letters, one of which I will bring before the Comm, at their next meeting. Nothing, however, can well be done until we have Mr. Foster’s and your joint scheme of the duties of the paid Secretary. Mrs. B. appears to me entirely to misapprehend her position.” Not only was I in “ general control ” over the work of the Boston Office by the resolutions of appointment, but the exact and legal definition of the order of our positions was: “The Hon. Sec’y, the Hon. Treasurer, the Sec’y shall to- gether constitute the Boston Office.” The resolution for a “Scheme of Duties of the Sec’y ” placed Foster’s name before mine purposely, for in all subsequent communications to me through Cotton this was done. Grueber, who referred to the change, bade me not mind it. It was a straw, however, in- dicating the way the wind was blowing. Let us turn to the title page of the annual reports, and we shall find that Hon. Secretary U. S. A. always precedes Hon. Treasurer U. S. A. There was not the least argument for this action by Cotton (and others?), and against it the law, the custom, the right. What cannot partizanship do that is mean, especially in try- ing to maintain a weak and wrong position? Comments on the action of the Comm, respecting my ad- dress on official letter paper: We had no organization here, 106 THE TRUTH ABOUT as in England, nor an Office like that in London. I had no Comm, to appeal to, and, in some sense, I, in “general con- trol ” over the office, had delegated to me a sub-committee’s authority, amenable, of course, to London. My status, ex- perience, services, entitled me to full consideration, and if my judgment was that my address in small type after my name was advisable, the Comm, should not have reversed it except for good reasons, assigned. The conditions in England and here were not comparable, but distinct; and, moreover, pre- vious professions of wishing to follow my wishes, to follow those of American subscribers, loud and long, seemed to be now melted into thin air. To place all the correspondence in Mrs. B.’s hands for her to read or forward to me — even notes of privacy for me respecting her mismanagement — was not just to me or wise for the Fund. Cotton, moreover, repeatedly put his private address on official or like letters of importance, and it is placed after his name in the Annual Report. Mrs. B. had told me, “I dare do anything,” at our inter- view described in “Printing Secretly Done,” which see. Not content with erasing my address, printing mew letter paper to suit her taste (irrespective of my address), she “dared” do and did this: Foster’s name had long been placed both at the top and bottom of our letter and note paper, the latter stat- ing that cheques were to be made to his order. She printed a slip in red ink of five lines relating to Foster and cheques; so that in three places his name appeared in her letters to subscribers. I found that she had pasted out, or over, even my name as V. P. and Hon. Sec’y! One instance: The following note is from Mrs. Charles E. Wilbour, chief founder of, formerly and now President of the Sorosis Club of New York. She was long in Egypt. 40 Central Park South, New York, March 18, 1902. Dear Dr. Winslow: ... In this I enclose the note I received from the Sec’y with the slip pasted over your name. . . . The Sec’y has three times asked for my yearly subscription, but when I rec’d the note I now send to you, with your name covered, I did not quite THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 107 understand whether you were yet associated with the work, or whether the Sec’y was gratifying herself in the little meanness. But I shall send to Mr. Foster the subscription quite soon. . . . Very truly yours, Charlotte B. Wilbour. My name was completely pasted over and covered by Mrs. B.’s red-ink notice. One more case : Our Official circular, over my official signature, was doctored in the same way by this red-ink notice placed over my signature as V. P. and Hon. Sec’y. Addresses of subscribers refused. In the spring of 1901, 1 desired to have a list of subscribers’ addresses, to save time going to the Office for them, and Mrs. B.’s time also. I had only an old list of years back and imperfect at that. But we were busy in May and June raising funds, and Mrs. B. promised to have the list ready for me in the fall. But her visit to London, and “the march of events,” encouraged her to do as she pleased. On Nov. 10, she wrote, “ Will prepare the list as soon as possible — by the last of this week.” I had many letters to write, and, as will appear, I did not wish to be going to the Office. On Dec. 11, she wrote, “I will get out the list of names directly.” On Dec. 18, “Your list is in preparation. But for a lecture would have finished it to- day.” On Dec. 19, she refers to having other work to do, and eyes troubling her. But, on Dec. 21, she throws off the mask, and writes: “Mr. Foster has rec’d a copy of the Resolutions passed by the London Comm, at the meeting of Dec. 7, in lieu of which he now instructs me to give no list of our sub- scribers to any one.” Do my readers grasp this outrageous assumption of au- thority by Foster? A recently appointed member of the Comm., an American who is a temporary resident in London, being about to visit his family at Christmas, had been asked by the Comm, to go to Boston during his stay in America, under the Resolution, “That Major Cassatt be requested to enquire on behalf of this Comm, into the constitution and pre- sent condition of the Boston Office and report thereon, making any suggestions that appear desirable, especially with regard 108 THE TRUTH ABOUT to its future management, and having power to request the assistance of an advisory Comm, of gentlemen and ladies interested in the welfare of the Fund.” He had no authority but to report his views to London (which he did), and get to- gether a Comm, of advice (which he did not do). I could with more propriety have directed Mrs. B. not to pay another cent over to Foster, or to recognize him in any way, for I was in general control of the work, and her routine work was sub- ject to my general control. Yet, for me to have done so would have been ultra vires. Now my interview with Foster, on Dec. 14, to be described, may throw light on this action of his on Dec. 21. All goes to show that Foster, Cotton, Mrs. B. were deliberately plotting to get me out of the Boston Office. Indeed, the storm had broken on Dec. 14, and this was only some of the accompanying sheet-iron thunder. The Rev. Dr. D. L. Miller of Mount Morris, 111., long a local Sec’y, wrote to me last Jan’y, when he knew of the circumstances connected with this miserable business : “ Clearly to my mind an intrigue was gotten up to oust you and to deprive you of your well-earned and well-deserved place in the Soc’y, and an behind it. One must exclaim, Can such things be possible! ” What must Mrs. B.’s influence on Foster have been, let my intelligent readers judge, for my business now is with facts. Through Cotton she felt sure of the London Committee; Fos- ter was her tool; she would make a decided if bold move to overthrow the Boston Office as constituted, and be appointed by London the sole Secretary, with Foster as Treasurer. If I could not be forced to resign — and she had not yet suc- ceeded in her efforts — she would throw her final card down — and win ! But, in her temerity and wild ambition, she forgot the old adage that those who live in glass houses must not throw stones. Her ambition conquered her former fear that the truth about herself might become known to me and others of the Society. So the storm broke, as will now be made manifest. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 109 PART IV. THE OUTBREAK. It will be remembered that Mrs. B., immediately after the consultation on Oct. 30, 1901, sent so-called minutes of that meeting to London. She mailed to me several days later her carbon copy of those “ minutes.” She did not intend that I should send to London any correction of her misstatements till the following week. But she did not enclose to me a copy of her comments upon my paper, “Work in the Boston Office,” which I read at the meeting. These comments were mailed by her to Cotton as an official document; they were marked “To be read to the Committee ”; and, bearing Fos- ter’s approval, represented the view's of tw'o departments of our Office. Mrs. B. affixed her name officially to the commu- nication. It will also be recalled that Foster and I had been requested by the London Comm, to prepare a “Scheme of Duties of the Secretary ” and submit it to London for ap- proval. I met Foster at his office for this purpose on Dec. 14, 1901. I prepared a very liberal scheme for my proposi- tions. I found at Foster’s office a young lady whom he had secured as an expert stenographer. As Foster held in his hand a paper that he wdshed to read, I postponed my own. After he had read a paragraph or two, he exclaimed, “You know all about this paper — there ’s no use reading it.” I replied that it was entirely new to me. He said that Mrs. B. sent me a copy of it with her “minutes.” I told him that I did not receive a copy of the paper that he was reading. So he continued the criticisms upon my “ Work at the Boston Office,” which I had read at the consultation on Oct. 30. There were six heads. That Foster could be so weak as to allow Mrs. B. to twdst my paragraph upon “official correspondence ” as she did, and then to fall back upon an 110 THE TRUTH ABOUT obsolete personal letter of Cotton’s as the living official guide superior to the authoritative resolution of the Comm., passed my understanding. To reveal her hypnotic influence upon this man, I will cite the paragraph: “All the official records and correspondence and printed matter at the Office are to be open to the inspec- tion of the Hon. Sec’y or Hon. Treas.” I now quote her “twist,” etc.: “5. To submit all ‘official’ correspondence to Dr. Winslow is to place in his hands the affairs of the Pitts- burg Branch; all letters sent by me; all letters rec’d from the U. S. and abroad; some such as relate to my own personal affairs.” “This annuls the official instructions of Aug. 6, 1897 : ‘ Though Dr. Winslow holds an office (V. P.) superior to your own, you are not his subordinate, nor bound to take orders from him.’ ” “ Our objections (those of Foster and Mrs. B.) were based upon this letter of Aug. 6, 1897, and the official letter of Nov. 3, 1897, confirming its instructions.” Its in- structions (those of Cotton) could not be “confirmed,” for in October, 1897, the Committee passed the Resolution defining our status and powers, which became our law and guide (see Resolutions under “Cause of the Troubles”). But what said this “official ” letter of Nov. 3 from Cotton, as quoted by Foster and Mrs. B.? “ We thought we were doing every- thing possible to protect your position by expressly stating that you should conduct the ordinary work of the office on your own responsibility.” Who is responsible for such suppressio veri in quoting from an official document? Cotton? or Foster and Mrs. B? For the law enacted by the Comm, reads: “The Sec’y shall con- duct the ordinary business of the office in Boston on her own responsibility, subject to the general control of the Hon. Sec’y.” Here was Foster, educated as a lawyer, having the care (it is said) of his wife’s large property — a man most exact in the letter rather than the spirit of things — and with the Resolutions defining our respective Powers before him — allowing Mrs. B. to fool him, or Cotton to deceive him, in wording such an important document as he endorsed to go to our Committee. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. Ill Nor had I used the word “submit,” but simply stated that official correspondence should be open to “inspection ” (not by Dr. W. alone) by either Foster or myself. This perversion of word and fact well illustrates Mrs. B.’s subtlety of insinuation, and either Foster’s astounding blind- ness and weakness, or the direct personal influence upon him by the Sec’y when she was with him. Her eyes became his. To illustrate “Philip drunk and Philip sober,” I ask my readers to peruse again what my paragraph at the Consulta- tion stated, and what Foster and Mrs. B. made it say, and to read what Foster at this Conference instantly assented to as just and proper when I read it from my proposed scheme of Mrs. B.’s duties as follows: “Sixth. All the official records, correspondence and printed matter at the Office shall be open to the inspection of the Hon. Sec’y or Hon. Treasurer.” These are the very words which I had read at the “ Singu- lar Consultation ” on Oct. 30 ! But now the outbreak. Let me depict the scene. Foster read to me Mrs. B.’s paper of “Reasons,” and came to the concluding paragraph, which in the most matter-of- fact way he read as follows: “That Dr. Winslow’s official calls (at the Office) should be confined to the hours between 4 and 6 p.m. refers to himself alone, and is necessary to protect the interests of the Fund as well as to protect myself from his further persecutions. Mr. Buckman is always at home by 4 o’clock, relieving me from the necessity of receiving Dr. Winslow’s calls when alone.” “Please to read that again, Mr. Foster,” I exclaimed. Then I said: “This is an outrage, and an insult. Did you get me here, in the presence of this lady, to insult me in this gross manner? And do you approve of this statement by Mrs. B.?” He replied: “Yes, Sir, I do approve of it.” I proposed going at once. He rejoined, “You can go if, you like.” It flashed upon me that Mrs. B. would report to London that I declined to confer with Foster, as the Comm, had requested. I determined to restrain my- self and demand an explanation as soon as Foster and I were alone. I read to him my proposed scheme, and to nearly all of it he assented. Our amended form was taken down by 112 THE TRUTH ABOUT the stenographer, who was to mail a typewritten copy to each of us. When we were alone, Foster remarked that he should sub- mit the scheme to Mrs. B. for her approval. I replied that he and I were alone requested to prepare this scheme. I handed Foster a circular-slip drawn up and signed by me, but from which Mrs. B. removed my signature and substituted his. I told him that she had done this secretly, and added: “Is this right? ” He replied that he would speak to her and have the mistake “ corrected.” He remarked that Mrs. B. informed him that no new circulars were needed, and he hinted that he did not wish to pay for any new circulars. January 1st was at hand, and I knew that we should soon be out of circulars, and those for 1902 should be at once printed. But I did not care to fight this point then. In a few weeks Gen. Darling of Utica and others were writing me that they could obtain no circulars from Mrs. B. I wrote her regarding cir- culars, and she laconically replied: “Circulars exhausted.” Can my readers grasp my situation? Foster would pay bills for Mrs. B.’s printing of note paper, illegally omitting my title of Hon. Sec’y, but would refuse to pay for the lawful circu- lars, lawfully drawn up by me, and needed for our work and cause. Because Mrs. B. did not mean to have my name go out any more as connected with the office business, the cir- culars must not be printed. I told Foster that as between gentlemen I demanded to know what he and Mrs. B. meant by the outrageous and insulting insinuation in the clause read by him? He replied: “I cannot tell you. I don’t pretend to know all about the affairs of St. You can ask Mrs. B. yourself.” I got no more satisfactory response than this evasive talk. Had I known then of another vile invention that Foster had re- peated, I fear my hand would have seized his collar! I said: “Do you know where Mrs. B. attends church?” “Why, Tremont Temple, of course.” “Do you know this?” “I suppose so, from what Mr. and Mrs. B. say.” “ Do you know anything about Mrs. B. previous to her being Sec’y? ” “Not a thing.” “Have you ever inquired about her? ” “I don’t THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 113 care to.” “Did you know that she pretended great friend- ship for Loring, but worked hard to get him out? ” Rather sneeringly he replied: “That would be a double part.” A day or two later, I called on Foster and borrowed his car- bon copy of Mrs. B.’s and his criticisms sent to Cotton “to be read to the Comm.” They were dated Nov. 1, nearly seven weeks before, and were intended to poison members of the Comm, against me. Here let me be fair to Foster. He de- clared on Dec. 14 that Mrs. B. told him she had sent a car- bon copy to me with her “minutes.” I give him this benefit of a doubt. She deceived him. Here is another clause: “The official printing has been in the charge of the Sec’y since her election to that office, at one third the cost formerly to the Fund on account of the whole- sale rates secured through the courtesy of Mr. B.’s business as wholesale stationer and manufacturer.” This would make the London Comm, feel that she ought to be practically in “charge ” of the business of the Boston Office. “ Wholesale manufacturer ” would cause a laugh among all who know Mr. B.; but to some of the English ears would be inspiringly grand. President Evans is classified as “formerly paper manufacturer ” in “Who ’s Who? ” Now I had purposely refrained from looking into the office accounts. I never turned a leaf to read even an item, for I wished to keep absolutely clear from the least contact with Foster’s department as Treasurer. But I did speak of this discount-of-one-third business to Foster. I asked him what the previous annual circular had cost to print, and he wrote down: “5,500 circulars $25, Grseco-Roman 3,300, $15, Total $40.” Then he remarked how nice it was for us to secure such large discount through Mr. B. I said that if $40 repre- sented a third off, the bill at retail would properly be $50 or $60. Foster had previously commended the large savings to us through such discounts. What is meant by in “her charge ”? The clerical part of the duty, going to the printer, etc., etc. But it was my part to prepare the copy except when secretly changed by Mrs. B. To Mr. Samuel Usher, one of our most reputable printers, 114 THE TRUTH ABOUT I took a copy of each of the two circulars, and asked him what the price would be to print 5,500 copies of one and 3,300 of the other. He replied: $36.50. I asked if $37 would fully cover at retail the cost. Certainly, he said. I returned to Foster, pointed out the figures, and named the printer. He made little comment, but looked surprised. Then he re- marked that Mrs. B. told him she preferred the circular-slip (to which I called his attention on Dec. 14) should be without my name, and he added: “I must insist on it also.” I re- plied, “Mr. Foster, what now is there left for me as Hon. Sec’y to do? ” He replied, good naturedly, “There ’s a great deal left for you to do — you can help Mrs. B. in getting subscriptions.” Before I speak of the storm following the outbreak, I add that I wrote to London officially respecting the comments of Mrs. B. as approved by Foster, which had been sent to Cotton to present at the monthly Comm, meeting, Dec. 3. I took up several of her points, such as printing. Very briefly I touched upon the “Office Calls,” saying that “on Oct. 30 last I determined never to be alone at the Office with Mrs. B.” On that occasion her language and defiant manner had brought to mind her criticisms to me upon her former pastor, and the note from his former associate. I added to the above sentence: I confine my criticism of Mrs. B.’s singular language to two brief quotations: 1st, her former (associate) pastor writes to me : “ I never saw either Mr. or Mrs. B. alone, nor did I visit them except in the company of my wife. My own conduct says a good deal more about my opinion than I care to express in writing.” ... A physician who has prescribed for her, writes: “She is a very ambitious woman, and everything has got to fall before her in order to attain her ambition.” Any one in her way in the management of our affairs has got to “fall before” her ambition, or be “persecuted.” If she will make such an absolutely untrue and unjust statement to our Comm, concerning myself as that sent to London, I am forced to reply, and can continue to do so, if necessary, from documents in my possession. I deplore the necessity. I felt bound to touch briefly but decisively upon the wo- man’s preposterous invention, for she had got a subtle hold THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 115 upon a few of the Comm. So I touched upon the danger to any one’s being alone with her or B. owing to their inventive tongues. Ever since the fall of 1897, I had always kept the door of the Office open during my calls, and I took with me a list of items of business and executed them with dispatch. It became most unpleasant for me to transact business with Mrs. B. after I discovered her traits of character in the fall of 1897. In the summer of 1902 I met Mrs. , who had been in the same house with Mrs. B. She said she was struck with the circumstance that during my calls on Mrs. B. the door was left open, and often in passing by she would see me at the desk or busy with papers. THE STORH. A Startling Statement. In December a well-known Boston lady, a writer of repute, active in society work, called on me to inquire regarding Mrs. B. of whom she had heard. I said little, but I advised her to go to some of the Tremont Temple people and others. In perhaps a fortnight she called with further information. She inquired about the Fund. After I had spoken of my troubles she said Mr. Foster should know of the facts she had learned; but I told her it was use- less to try to make him see things as they were. She was indignant when I told her of the scene between Foster and myself at our conference for preparing the scheme, etc. A little later on, she came to me with startling intelligence. She stated that on her own responsibility she had called on Foster; that their conversation became confidential and could not be repeated, — but that one of his remarks was so outrageous that she felt it her duty to put me on my guard. She stated that Foster told her “ that Dr. Winslow was compelled to leave a parish as its rector, owing to his improper conduct towards the women of the parish.” She instantly asked Foster from whom he got his information, and he replied: “Mr. and Mrs. B. told me so.” She asked for the name of the parish, and he said it was Lee. She expostulated with him for accepting such a slander against such a man as myself from such per- sons. She recalled what Gen. Loring said to her a little be- 116 THE TRUTH ABOUT fore, when she incidentally referred to how much I had done for the Museum. 8he said Loring remarked: “I don’t be- lieve in Dr. Winslow/’ but both being in haste, he added, “Just find out why Dr. Winslow left (or had to leave) a parish where he was rector, and you will see what I mean.” I ques tioned this lady closely in the presence of another party, upon both the foregoing statements, both then, since, and very recently, and she repeatedly gave the same answer. She mentioned calling upon a number of persons, among them Mrs. B.’s present pastor, to make inquiries, but I am not at liberty to quote their remarks, nor do I care to narrate here what information she obtained, or I obtained from a few r calls which I then made for inquiries. After Foster’s aston- ishing action at our conference (see “The Outbreak ”) I was prepared for anything, but this intelligence determined my course instantly. I consulted Hon. F. D. Allen, the ex-Dis- trict Att’y for the U. S., late of the Governor’s Council, who pronounced the affair a gross outrage. He wrote a courteous but decisive note to Foster, asking him to withdraw his state- ments and that “Dr. Winslow’s only remedy, unless you withdraw such statements, is an action at law.” Even if Foster withdrew his slanders great mischief had been done me. Evidently he had conferred with Loring, and his entire attitude towards me, his own reports to London, had been tinctured by such poison. I saw also the reason why that Western subscriber (see “Unpleasant Discoveries”) had so unaccountably written me curtly in reply to a letter. For Loring had written to him in Mrs. B.’s interests when I re- ported to London that she should resign. And doubtless Foster and Cotton had written to him. Foster got a lawyer to call on Allen. Foster seemed disinclined to disclaim any- thing. But Allen followed up the interview with decisive letters. I was in dead earnest. Here was I, a reputable clergyman of the Diocese of Massachusetts, befouled in order that plotters in a learned body might oust me from office therein! In the course of two or three weeks, after “back- ing and filling ” in reply to two decisive and final questions, which I had instructed Allen to put, Foster’s lawyer wrote THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 117 that Foster’s attitude regarding my calls at the office “was based entirely upon what Mr. and Mrs. B. told him” and that “my client has no knowledge of the reasons that led to Dr. Winslow’s withdrawal from Lee.” His action calling for the first question was a recorded fact — he could not dispute it — so I had simply demanded from whom he got his information. But his reply regarding Lee was evasive — for did or did not Foster say to the lady what she stated he had said to her ? “ No knowledge of the reasons ” was evasive. So Allen wrote for a distinct disclaimer regarding his statement about the parish. On Jan. 29, the reply came that “Mr. Foster dis- claims having said or intimated anything in connection with Dr. Winslow’s relations with his parish at Lee, for he has no knowledge of the matter.” This lady had immediately procured a copy of the resolu- tions passed at a parish meeting when I declined to recon- sider my resignation and purposed to remove to Boston. She took a copy of the resolutions to Foster, who replied as he handed them back, “That alters the case, and seems to settle that point.” In the face of such evidence Foster’s “atti- tude ” changed, and he tried to take a back-track as dis- creetly as he could. So base was the B.’s’ invention that I hesitate to print the resolutions : RESOLUTIONS. Whereas, the Rev. W. C. Winslow, Rector of St. George’s Parish, Lee, has deemed it hi6 duty to resign the rectorship of this church, which resignation has been accepted by the Parish to-day, we desire to express to Mr. Winslow, and to place upon record, such testimonial of respect and esteem as is due from a grateful people to a faithful Rector who has endeavored to do his whole duty to his people, him- self, and to God. Therefore, be it Resolved, That Mr. Winslow has the thanks of the Parish for the able and faithful manner in which he has discharged his duties as Rector for three and one-half years; so faithful and earnest in pro- claiming and defending the doctrines of the church, so enterprising and untiring in successfully carrying forward the embellishments and improvements upon the Church edifice, and that we will ever hold in 118 THE TRUTH ABOUT grateful remembrance himself as Rector, friend, citizen, and as a Minister of the Gospel, and bid him “Godspeed” in whatever field he may be called. Charles Barnes, Geo. F. Neale, Geo. E. Callendar, Committee of Parish. A successor of mine at Lee hearing of this invention promptly expressed his indignation in a way that, I judge, reached Foster’s ears. Did Foster (intentionally or innocently) slander me to this lady? I believe he said to her just what she stated he did — for these reasons : 1st, This lady did not know that I had been at Lee, nor that there was such a place as Lee, till Foster referred to it* 2ndly, Why did she pro- cure the resolutions and take them to Foster if “Lee ” had not been mentioned? 3rdly, Foster’s attorney, when he met Allen, referred at once to this lady as the one who charged Foster with this slander. If Foster had not discussed the matter with her, why should he date the charge of slander to her call on him? 4thly, The letters from Foster’s attorney show that Foster did say something against me, for he refers to Foster’s remarks to his caller as “privileged ” and “con- fidential.” 5thly, If there was no truth in what the lady said, why did not Foster at once reply by a simple denial, in plain English? But more remains to be said. I anticipate events in order to focus light upon this outrageous invention. The foregoing scene was enacted in January. Gen. Loring was then in fail- ing health. His manner was kinder and he seemed to appre- ciate my goodwill for the Museum. I knew, later, a reason for this. I determined to speak to him upon this miserable “Lee business,” and during his last two or three weeks at the Museum, in speaking to him about an “object ” I was inter- ested in from Abydos, I remarked: “There is a special reason why I wish you should read this paper, for it will enlighten you upon a matter you should know the truth about. You know why I ask you to read it.” He read my typewritten ♦So indignant was she that she came from Foster to me at once. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 119 copy of the Lee resolutions through carefully. Then he re- marked : “I am very glad to have seen this and to know the facts, for I was told a very different story by Mr. Foster and Mrs. B , that is, by a certain person.” He began her name, but did not finish it. He added : “ I wish I had known this long ago, for it would have made a difference.” Then, as he handed the paper back, he added : “ That ’s very nice ; I am glad to have seen It.” I did not know till May, when the lady referred to returned from the South, that in January she showed to Loring the resolutions of the parish* I know I had been struck by the pleasant change in his manner. This lady remarked to me that in all her experience she had never met with anything so outrageous as the efforts of the Sec’y, aided apparently by Foster, to injure and “get out of the way ” a person in official position. To her credit, she w'rote to President Evans the results of her investigations, and observing the name of Mr. F. W. Percival upon the Comm, she addressed an earnest note to that gentleman, at whose house in London she had visited. The Century magazine had an article from her a little before, and in writing to Evans I mentioned that fact. Subsequently, she said that Evans replied courteously that her letter should have every consideration,” etc., etc. A diplomatic visit. On Jan’y 9 I received from Mrs. B. a request to meet Major Cassatt, “representing the Com- mittee,” at the Office on the following day. He, a captain in the U. S. Army, temporarily residing in London, had been put upon the Comm, (to represent Philadelphia) through the influence of the energetic Sec’y of the Philadelphia Branch, * She informed me that Loring expressed his great regret that he had been so misinformed regarding myself. Nearly a year later, I wrote to ask her what Loring said. Under date of April 23 ult., she wrote : “ If my memory serves me, I can quote Gen. Loring’s words when I showed him the Lee resolutions. I know I repeated them to you and your wife at the time verbatim. He said in sub- stance : ‘ I thank you for showing them to me. I am sorry I have been so mis- informed. In my talk with you about Dr. Winslow, I told you to make inquiries why he left the place where he was settled.’ This is about what he said. I know I told you and Mrs. Winslow exactly word for word what he did say.” In May, 1902, a particular friend of Foster’s inquired of a clergyman, who knew of me at Lee, respecting Foster’s assertion. Unquestionably Foster had spoken about me and Lee to his friend. 120 THE TRUTH ABOUT his personal friend. It was a recent appointment. About to pass Christmas at home, he was asked by the Comm, to report upon the affairs of the Boston Office. On Dec. 27, I had a line from Evans remarking: “Until we have heard from Mr. Foster and Maj. Cassatt has returned, I do not see that much can be arranged.” On Dec. 21, a line from Mr. Grueber thus advised me, as an old associate : “ In discussing matters with Major Cassatt, do not enter at all into any particulars about Mrs. B.’s past history; but state how impossible it is for you to control the Office work if you are not told what is taking place. I should lay special stress on her attempts to override your authority, in not acquainting you with official matters such as the Pittsburg business, and in leaving for England without giving you at least timely warning so that you might direct affairs during her absence.* Keep steadily, therefore, to matters which only concern the Office of the Fund. . . . You can press your own status, viz., that since the foundation of the Fund in the U. S. you have been its head there, and have so successfully gathered in funds for so many years. Never mind if you have a few enemies. What successful man w T as ever without them? ” Although Grueber knew nothing of recent developments, I determined if possible to follow his advice. On entering the office I asked Mrs. B. for Major Cassatt’s address. She replied that he had instructed her not to give it to me — he had reached Boston on the previous morning. When, however, he arrived at the Office, he gave me his ad- dress on my asking for it. I do not know whether he had * Her note to me announcing her departure, written upon the steamer, added : “ The mail will be put in the safe and kept until my return; the books I take with me,” etc. Mrs. B. once mentioned that her landlady had a safe in the house which she could “ put things into.” Thus it appears that not only had I no access to a closed office during Mrs. B.’s absence, but all the correspondence was inaccessible to me in “ general control over the work of the Office.” Mrs. B was bound that all letters officially for me should pass through her hands, and if she were absent, into a safe beyond my reach. So she got Cotton to get the motion passed respecting my address on letter paper, and had got Foster to advocate it also. Now I had asked Foster, who had ample safe room, if he would not keep the valuable books during her absence on vacation. He replied, on July 5, that he could “ take any books for safe keeping, in case she wishes.” Always, if “ she wishes,” or “ so decides,” with him 1 THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 121 previously “interviewed” Mrs. B. He asked me if I had any points to present. I replied that I had supposed this to be a preliminary meeting, and had no papers with me. I alluded to a few things, and took up the “ Pittsburg Branch,” when he remarked that Mrs. B. had been appointed by the London Comm, upon that Comm. — had she not? Certainly, I replied, she was appointed; but I saw it was useless to dis- cuss that point then and there, for he appeared to be under some prejudice in Mrs. B.’s interest, through ignorance of the facts. I think he had attended but two or three Committee meetings. However, I asked for the letter from Pittsburg relating to Mrs. B.’s “appointment,” and, as I knew, it was a simple request to have Mrs. B. formally act in selecting the antiquities, in July, for Pittsburg. Foster enlarged upon the importance of having only the address of the Office (Mrs. B.’s rooms) upon our letters. Mrs. B. referred to Loring’s letter to a Western subscriber, which turned him against me upon the statement of Loring, based upon the “ mis-informa- tion” already stated. Little was accomplished by the inter- view, except that Cassatt suggested that too many letters from the other side to the three officials gave opportunity for conflicting opinions, and he should suggest this be amended. I asked Cassatt to call upon me. He did so at noon the following day, but was in haste to go to a luncheon. I im- proved the scant time by taking him to Mrs. B.’s pastor near by, with whom he conversed fifteen minutes alone. We had but a brief conversation afterwards. He said he would try to call next day in the afternoon. When he called he asked if I had any fault to find with Mrs. B. in “business matters,” that is, outside of character, etc. I showed to him a few im- portant letters, but plainly said, “ I am not at all on the defen- sive.” I offered to answer any questions, and, as in all things during his visit, treated him with perfect courtesy and abso- lute candor. I had intended to follow Grueber’s advice to the letter, but Cassatt alluded to remarks by Mrs. B. attacking my character, and I referred briefly to her efforts to harm me. To speak freely; Cassatt impressed me as a “society man,” a man of the world, to whom the whole business was a bore. 122 THE TRUTH ABOUT He regarded the Boston Office purely as a business affair. On Monday morning I called on him, and advised his going to see Hon. F. D. Allen, who knew much of Mr. and Mrs. B., of the troubles, and could advise him. He did so. He was in Boston five days, but he did not get us together again, nor did he form an advisory Comm, of subscribers. I was prepared to devote my time to him; to aid him; to suggest proper persons for an advisory Comm., etc., etc. After his depar- ture, a gentleman informed me that Cassatt told him that he had seen many people about Fund matters — Gen. Loring was one of them. I got this distinct impression of his visit — only an impression — that Mrs. B.’s pastor’s remarks had greatly affected his views, and that Mr. Allen’s statements and opinions, with papers I showed to him, caused him to decide that the Boston Office had better be wiped out, and a new deal be made here. Another type of man, or one long on the Comm., like Sayce or Grueber, would have decided that changes in the Boston Office were needed. Let me be just. I wrote to him subsequently — he did not reply — that I thought the affairs of the Office might properly be placed in the hands of a Comm. (This I intimated also later to the Comm.) During Cassatt’s visit Foster was a “pretty mad man,” for then my lawyer was prodding him for an hon- est and direct reply. I am sure Cassatt’s opinions under- went a change, and that he told Cotton and others that Mrs. B. must go, and that a reorganization of the Boston Office (consisting of Hon. Sec’y, Hon. Treas., Sec’y) had better be made. At any rate, “after a careful consideration of the present condition of things, and after hearing Major Cassatt’s report, the Committee was of opinion that no other course was open but to try and effect a complete reorganization, and to that end to propose a Comm, of management.” So wrote Grue- ber. But the Comm, also voted that my office of Vice Presi- dent (apart from the “Boston Office”) should be intact. (See Resolutions passed.) But some “other course ” was open: the Committee should have requested me as V. P. and the local Secretaries and THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 123 subscribers in Boston to reorganize the Office. This would have conformed to the repeatedly stated intentions of the Comm, to follow the wishes of American subscribers. Allow me to state why “no other course was open.” I think it a compromise. Cotton and some others were most friendly to Mrs. B., and, to have unanimity, a “clean sweep ” was proposed and prevailed. This, too, is my impression. But both impressions rest on solid reasons. So much for diplomacy. Why my Address should Appear. As a few flashes in the “storm ” I will show practically why my address should be placed after my name on note paper, so that subscribers could write to me direct. D. H. Ayers, Esq., of Troy, wrote to me in December to ask if I would give him some letters, for he was about visiting Egypt. Mrs. B. wrote below his letter, “Rec’d this a.m. with book receipt.” That is, in sending her the book receipt he had enclosed a letter for me. I thought: “Not so. He has written to me, and endorsed in his letter the receipt.” I replied that I would furnish him with the letters, and I asked if he had directed the envelope to me f He responded “ . . . Answering your inquiry as to my former letter, I will say that it was addressed to you on the envelope the same as on the letter, viz., Rev. William C. Winslow, LL.D., Vice Pres’t Egypt Exploration Fund,” etc. N. T. Bacon, Esq., Peacedale, R. I., wrote with a view to securing some “object ” for his collection. Mrs. B. repeated her formula. In replying fully to Mr. Bacon I asked to whom he addressed his letter. His reply states: “My letter was addressed to yourself personally, but very likely to the Office on St.” I wrote to Mrs. B. respecting letters addressed to me — my mail — and her reply came : “ All mail addressed to you received at this Office is always promptly remailed to your personal address.” Here were two letters addressed to me, just before she thus replied, which she had forwarded in the manner described. Suppose my card to subscribers respecting Ushabtis (See “Distribution of Ushabtis ”) had only the Office address upon 124 THE TRUTH ABOUT it, what then? How could I have gathered the data — at least in full — that I did upon her distribution of the figur- ines? The motion that passed the Comm, that in their opinion only the Office address should be used in our corre- spondence was a mistake. The one in “general control” over the Office was better able to judge than a Committee 3,000 miles away. The following note from Mrs. Caroline H. Dali, LL.D., is suggestive : Washington, Feb. 15, 1902. My dear Dr. Winslow: An old acquaintance of mine called yester- day to tell me of the trouble with your under-Secretary. You will remember that, a year ago, I cautioned you against her, and sent you a letter which I considered an assumption of authority not properly hers. She opened a letter addressed to you — and forged a reply. I cannot help thinking that she is a great injury to the cause. I told you at that time that I intended to renew my subscription. I have never done it, because I would not pay money to her. I think you should go to London and take with you the letters you have received. I am not known so far as I am aware to the London Comm., but I am known to Prof. Tylor of Oxford, and was well known to the late James Martineau. In this country I can have the endorse- ment of Senator Hoar and Secretary Long, and I am a V. P. of the American Social Science Association, which, with the help of Gov. Andrew, ex-Gov. Washburn and Dr. Eliot, I had the honor of found- ing. . . . You have shared the common experience, in receiving great ingratitude from those you have served with sincere devotion. Among Dr. Dali’s books is “Egypt’s Place in History.” Her expression “forged a reply” may seem strong, but I wrote no such letter as she described receiving, when she saw me in Boston. I had repeatedly told Mrs. B. that if she ever pub my name to a letter (answered for me), she must desig- nate it in the way customary in signing for others. There lies before me now a note signed by me as V. P., in her hand- writing throughout, but without any indication that I did not myself write and sign it. I suppose that Mrs. B., in her haste or carelessness, omitted the proper designation, etc., when she replied to Mrs. Dali. But for a long time Mrs. B. had not had my permission to append my signature to official matter. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 125 G. T. McComb, Esq., of Lockport, N. Y., acknowledged last winter the receipt of a circular from me, in a way that indicated some misunderstanding. I enquired the cause, and he frankly mentioned receiving from me a circular, etc., singularly addressed, and also that I had not replied to his subsequent notes (addressed to the Office). I responded that no such communication ever came from me, and that I always replied to our subscribers. He answered most courteously and kindly: In regard to the circular that I was put out about, I remember the writing well, and having your letter before me, can say positively, it was not your writing, or anything like it. It is my opinion the late Sec’y wrote it, as it was the same handwriting as other circulars I have rec’d from the office. Of course, it did not amount to much, but you can see it was in poor taste, and offensive. For one I should like to see you back in your old position, an honor you deserve for life. You can see, as in my case, that subscribers know very little about the real facts, and I would be glad to see them placed before the public in some way that would be effective. riY REPORT TO LONDON. The London Committee hold a meeting on the first Tues- day of each month. On Jan. 22, 1902, I addressed them a letter, saying that I would defer my official report till the March meeting, as Major Cassatt would not return to London till then. But I wrote decisively respecting Foster’s attitude, saying that I expected a satisfactory explanation from him, so that I could shape my report accordingly. I emphasized his entire ignorance of the business of the Office (except through Mrs. B.) and his acceptance of office as “ curator of the funds.” My official report of Feb. 18 was commended by Hon. F. D. Allen as clear, exact, conclusive. Its enclos- ures included documents and letters confirmatory of state- ments made; and I gave specifications on important points. An affidavit was enclosed. I quoted from a letter written to me by a former pastor of Mrs. B., and I enclosed the note to me from her present pastor, and referred to another pastor — all simply to prove that, if necessary to attain her am- 126 THE TRUTH ABOUT bitious ends, she would injure the character of another by innuendo or secret slander. One associated with her formerly did not hesitate to write me that “everything has got to fall before her in'order to attain her ambition. ... I have seen such women before, and I am afraid of them.” I make just one point only out of the two letters quoted below, viz., the liability to being slandered in some way by Mr. or Mrs. B., if one is associated officially with her and in the way of her ambition. The first letter is from a former associate pastor of Tremont Temple, to whom I wrote for information in 1898: My dear Sir and Brother in Christ : ... Of course I am unaware of the extent of your conversation with Dr. Lorimer, but some things to which you refer in your letter would seem to indicate that it would be wise for a married man to take his wife with him when he had busi- ness with the party mentioned and to visit her only when he had busi- ness and during business hours. When I say that this is my opinion I do so as a result of an extended acquaintance which was terminated when the good name and honor of a very dear friend was put in jeop- ardy by the indiscreet remarks made by a member of the family you have written to me about. You will understand fully what I mean when you receive the answers to the questions, Why did these parties leave the Tremont Temple? and, What was the beginning of their trouble there? Perhaps Dr. Lorimer could throw a little light on these questions. You will understand that I left Boston in March, 1894. I revisited the “Hub ” in April and May, ’95. During this visit I did not see the parties at all. I again visited the “ Hub ” in April, May and June of ’97, during which time I saw a great deal of the parties. I never saw either Mr. or Mrs. B. alone nor did I visit them except in the company of my wife. My own conduct says a good deal more about rny opin- ion than I care to express in writing. It was Egypt that formed the ground of a renewal of our friendship, the advance being made by Mr. B. who seemed very anxious that what influence I had should be used to smooth matters at the Temple. As a matter of fact, I thought it wise to refrain from any attempt at making their return to the Temple work possible Having some means of her own and getting a taste of being received by nice people, perhaps she has used methods and means to accomplish her advance that people who have received a different training would look upon as reprehensible. You are a man of experience and I need only write one word to THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 127 you, allowing you to follow what it means to its logical conclusion. Opium, headaches, nervousness, loss of sleep, etc., — this may ex- plain certain physical and mental phenomena that you must have observed in the lady under discussion. Without doubt “Biblia,” the Secretaryship, etc., should be placed in other hands for the honor of the Society as well as the social standing of the whole institution. I had hoped that with plenty of work and associations that were con- genial something might be made out of Mrs. B. This hope has not been realized. . . . Your Brother in Christ, Pastor. Before mailing my official report I called upon the Rev. , with whose church Mrs. B. was connected, at least nominally, and I asked if I was putting the case too strongly with reference to himself. I read to him from my report: “Neither of these gentlemen (the two pastors) would call alone upon her, nor would her present pastor. I cannot, I will not call upon her alone, or be alone with her at the office. . . . Here are four clergymen who have sustained, or sustain, official relations towards the persons now discussed, who would not call alone upon her, as a precaution. This fact per se would be convincing to our subscribers if made known to them, and it is of the highest significance to those who control and are responsible for the affairs of the Fund.” The Rev. Mr. replied that I represented him correctly. I asked for a note from him, and he wrote this upon the offi- cial letter paper of his church : Feb. 16, 1902. To Rev. W. C. Winslow, D.D.: My dear Sir , — In response to your question concerning Mrs. , permit me to say that she is now a member of the Church, and that for reasons known to myself I do not deem it wise to call upon her except in the company of my wife or one of my deacons. Very truly yours, Additional Testimony. It will be recalled that in the conference on Oct. 30 (see “A Singular Consultation”), Mr. B. asserted that Mr. Louis Dyer could be relied on to support Mrs. B. “every time.” I mentioned this incident to a Cam- 128 THE TRUTH ABOUT bridge lady of the highest standing every way. She had known something of Mrs. B. Immediately she replied that she knew Mr. Dyer and had corresponded with him. She said she would write to him. But she added very properly, that it would be best for her to obtain independently of me some information. Some two weeks later, under date of Feb. 6, she wrote to me that she had addressed “ a long letter to Mr. Dyer. ... I asked Mr. Dyer to let other members of the Committee know the contents of the letter.” This gentle- man had not been very long upon the Committee; I had met him but once or twice only in my life; he had long known of my labors for the Fund. He could place absolute reliance upon his Cambridge correspondent. He promptly acknowl- edged the letter, intimating that the Comm, were (or would be) well informed of the matter. Of course, I did not myself see his reply. It will be recalled that a well-known Boston lady had pre- viously written to President Evans and to her friend on the Committee, Mr. Percival. Thus two decisive and indepen- dent statements were addressed, one to Dyer and one to Per- cival, each from a friend. Each said that Mrs. B. should not remain as Sec’y. I may add that the letter to Mr. Dyer was given James B. Ames, LL.D., to read, and he remarked that it was a clear statement and would set the Committee to thinking, etc. A few of my readers may not know that he is head of the Law School of Harvard University. I add that I enclosed an autographic note from Dean Hoffman to the Comm, with my report. I close this section with an incident typical of Foster’s ex parte conduct — even lawlessness — which reveals how entirely he was the puppet of Mrs. B. It was impossible for me to distribute the Ushabtis without having an accurate list of at least some of the subscribers’ addresses. I wrote officially to Mrs. B. giving the reason why I wished the addresses. She replied that she had sub- mitted my request to Foster, and added: “I am again in- structed by Mr. Foster to deliver the list to no one, or permit a copy to be made in part or whole of the said list, awaiting THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 129 the final decision of the Committee in London concerning the officers of the Fund in the United States. I am also re- quested by Mr. Foster to notify you that he will pay no bills contracted by you in any distribution of ushabtis until noti- fied by the Committee in London so to do, subscribers having already been supplied with the ushabtis,” etc., etc. The Committee had taken no action at all “ concerning the officers of the Fund in the United States,” nor had Major Cassatt reached London. I was in “general control” over the Office and its work. Foster had no control over the Office, or its work performed by either the Sec’y or myself. The Comm, had voted (as Mrs. B. knew) to send a case of ushabtis to me for distribution among subscribers. Without their accurate addresses, how could I dispatch the “objects ”? She stated: “Subscribers having been already supplied with the ushabtis.” How well (?) they had been supplied by her appears under the section, “Distribution of Ushabtis.” I could have got from the Court a quo warranto, and obtained those addresses, but that meant publicity. I wrote at once to London of my predicament. The Comm, voted: “That the Sec’y be directed to furnish the Hon. Sec’y with an amended list of subscribers in America, for the purpose of distribution of ushabtis, and that the Hon. Treasurer be authorized to pay the expenses of the same.” For their dis- tribution no charge was made to the Fund. The official letter to me from Mrs. B. was “approved ” over his signature. She typewrote it all, took it to him, and he endorsed it at her dictation. Here was a clear case of Mrs. B.’s effort to rule the office, “to crush ” me, as Grueber had remarked. Here was clear evidence of what I had to endure from Foster, and of his utter disregard for the Resolutions of our Appointment, which he had approved by signing. He simply defied the law — that is all. Legal and other Evidence. A fitting sequel to what has been said in these pages will now follow. In the spring I determined to investigate matters for myself. It has been impossible to print statements or opinions expressed to me 130 THE TRUTH ABOUT by various persons acquainted, or claiming to be acquainted, with the past record of one or two persons who figure in this narrative. Nor do I deem it necessary or best to excavate such fields and classify the finds. Was Mrs. B. as Secretary using her legal name? I decided to settle this one doubt. I saw a number of persons and inspected some records. These results were manifest: 1. Mr. and Mrs. B. were living at (the Fund Office afterwards) in 1886-7 as husband and wife, she, however, being the legal wife of a man whose name also began with B. 2. In 1887, in the city registry was entered the death and burial of their child under their name as “ hus- band and wife.” 3. In 1887-8 they “professed conversion,” entered their names as husband and wife on the records of Tremont Temple, added their spiritual experiences, were immersed and joined. It is said that she was very fervent in prayer, and interested in Sunday-school work. Reference here should be made to the letter from the associate or assist- ant pastor under “My Report to London.” 4. Mr. B., the husband, got a divorce in 1895. She refused to appear. The Massachusetts law allows a party from whom a divorce is obtained to marry in two years. 5. In 1896 Mrs. B. be- came Sec’y to the Fund; representing herself to be the legal wife of B., and signing herself, or placing her name, on our records as if she were the wife of B. The name she used, and which appeared in our circulars, was throughout unlike her legal name. 6. The city registry of July 1, 1902, records the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. B. How did this marriage come about? In May her pastor requested me to give him a copy of the foregoing data. They were read at a deacons’ meeting. A committee later on reported that the data were found to be correct. “Mr. and Mrs. B.” were cited to attend a meeting for “ explanation.” They finally did so. They agreed to be married, and the pastor united them in marriage. Her legal surname is now that used on the Fund documents. Her first and middle names are still not those on the documents. But other testimony had been taken. Dr. Kellner of Cambridge is an intimate friend of Foster. We had some THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 131 acquaintance; I called upon him; he was much interested to learn some of the facts relating to Mrs. B., for he had heard of her through Foster. I need not say that he was aston- ished at the evidence showed to him. He declared his friend was deceived, etc. He asked for a memorandum of the first five points specified above — to show to Foster, he said. Later, he remarked to me that Foster would not credit the data, but had yielded to his request to ascertain the truth thereon. Later, Kellner stated to me that Foster had re- quested a lawyer to examine the records, and he had reported to Foster that my data were accurate. If a true gentleman and a true Christian, Foster should immediately have made an amende of some kind to me; he should have written to one or more on the London Comm, that he had labored under mistake. His advocacy of a “clean sweep ” of both my offices should have ceased. But his pique, the smallness of his nature, overpowered him. If there were other reasons for his persistency against me and for Mrs. B., I do not discuss them. The business facts were that he had been deceived — honestly so, let us assume — and honestly and honorably as a man he should have been just, and done right. How easy for him to have asked Kell- ner to arrange a meeting for us three to discuss the affair together? Let me but see honesty and sincerity in a man, and I can forgive and overlook much. Foster’s advocacy of a “clean sweep ” will again be discussed. Letters to London. Abundance of light was given to various members of the Committee. To Mr. Dyer I wrote, earnestly requesting him to inform several members of the contents of the letter he received from his correspondent in Cambridge. He had heard that B. had declared that “ Louis Dyer could be relied on ” to support Mrs. B. Later, I sent to him evidence of importance ; later I begged him to attend the Committee meeting and to use his knowl- edge of matters and his influence for justice and right. I never received from him a word of acknowledgment. I sup- pose him to be a friend to Cotton. To Rev. W. Macgregor I wrote, begging his presence at the meetings, and aid in try- 132 THE TRUTH ABOUT ing to have our American Office 'properly conducted. As he was the one minister on the Comm., I felt that he would try to have all things “decently and in order.” He replied: “I attend the meetings of the Committee so seldom that I do not intend to take up a matter about which I know nothing personally.” To T. F. Hall I wrote, informing him of the letter to Dyer from Cambridge, and asking him to speak with that gentleman about it. I urged him to aid in putting things right. He is one of the best informed men on the Comm, regarding the American Branch. Light has been showered upon him. He told me in London that he disliked “diplo- macy,” and referred to the “diplomacy ” of Cotton and one or two others. He wrote to me confidential notes in 1897-8. He replied to me on March 7th, that he could not fathom the “Boston office quarrel,” and he closed his note saying “I must seek refuge in the future in absolute silence.” To Mr. Herbert Thompson I wrote on April 25, with one or two important enclosures, asking his presence at the meetings, etc. He replied that he had just got home. “In conse- quence of my absence from England I was unable to attend the meeting of the Comm, at which the question of the Boston office was dealt with, and consequently I have not formed any opinion on the questions at issue.” This was May 10 — did he attend the meeting of May 27, when my V. P. was cancelled? F. G. Hilton Price, F.S.A., a courteous gentleman with whom I have occasionally corresponded, replied to me from Menton, April 15, that on his return to England he should discuss matters with Mr. Grueber. I enclosed to him one or two important data. Now on May 6, 1 had mailed to him and to Percival important data. If they attended the meet- ing of May 27, they were in possession of evidence which should have shaped their action decisively. But I give them the benefit of the doubt, and conclude they were absent. Dr. F. G. Kenyon replied from Italy very courteously. He was present at the March meeting, but feared he should not be in England for the meeting of April 22. That meeting reorganized the Boston Office Was he present on May 27 THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 133 when my V. P. was canceled? Dr. Kenyon closed his note as follows : “The question, What do the subscribers to the American Branch themselves feel and desire in the matter, is one which has constantly been brought forward; and J think the only sat- isfactory solution of the present deadlock * will be one which so reorganizes the American Branch as to enable purely Ameri- can questions to be settled by the SUBSCRIBERS to that Branch instead of having to be referred to the London Committee, who, with the best will in the world, are necessarily groping some- what in the dark.” The italics are mine. “What the American subscribers feel and desire,” and the “settlement of purely American questions by our subscribers,” verbally meet the case exactly. Have our local Secretaries and subscribers been consulted at all in the reorganization of our affairs? Was not the re- quest to the London Committee from our representative corps of local Secretaries respecting the Vice Presidentship and myself simply shelved? Diplomacy was defined to me in London by Mr. T. Farmer Hall as “saying one thing and doing another.” He did not like diplomacy, and I agreed with him. A serious trouble anent the London Comm, is the absence of its members at meetings. This affords an Hon. Sec’y and two or three members a chance to pass upon matters of im- portance. I trust the foregoing replies from members of the Comm, will throw additional light upon this non-attend- ance of members, and upon how “London ” deals with burn- ing questions from a safe or evasive standpoint. THE ACTION OF THE COMMITTEE. As will be recalled, the vote of April 22, 1902, provided for the reorganization of the Boston Office consisting of Hon. Sec’y, Hon. Treas. and Sec’y. That of May 27 removed me from my position as Vice President. *1 had stated positively to the Comm, that I would not call alone upon the Sec’y at the Office (altho’ for years I had kept the Office door open during my calls) in order to avoid slander of some kind. The evidence for this step of mine ought to have been conclusive, even 3,000 miles away. 134 THE TRUTH ABOUT On receiving the former notification I called upon Mr. Edward Robinson of the Museum, and had a long conversa- tion with him. He did not intend to accept the appointment to organize a committee here. As he was long the associate and friend of Gen. Loring, I gave him a few points upon the troubles caused by Mrs. B. I clearly explained to him that the Office consisted of the three officials, and I handed to him a small slip defining our respective powers, which had been printed by me to answer many inquiries. The Resolu- tions of appointment were clearly quoted in it. A footnote quoting from Cotton’s letter about my V. P. was purely personal. It began, “I regard you,” etc. Two days later at the Museum, Robinson told me positively that he had ab- solutely declined the appointment. He had so cabled. Near the end of May I was at the Museum for another purpose ; but I asked Robinson if he had further word of any kind from London. He said, “I have heard nothing.” Now certain data respecting Mrs. B. were in my pocket. It occurred to me to hand the slip to Robinson to read, and I added, "Those data have been found to be accurate,” etc., etc. He read the typewritten page, handing it back with the remark, "If that ’s so, I am glad I am out of it.” He certainly knew that my belief w T as that he had declined the appointment, and that he was glad to have nothing to do with it. On June 9 I was astonished by a notification from Cotton that my office of V. P. was canceled. Grueber, however, wrote to me that Robinson did not decline the appointment, but w r ould consider it if my “ control ” (whatever that im- plied) ceased — in other words if my office of V. P. was can- celed. Whether Robinson used the exact word “V. P.” does not matter. To state that he would accept if my official connection ceased meant that he would form a committee were I no longer V. P. “ The Comm, felt that the only course to take was to meet Mr. Robinson’s views, and to cancel your official connection with the Fund.” Grueber puts this ex- actly, although as gently as possible for Robinson’s sake. I called upon Robinson at once and subsequently. He acknowl- edged that he told me that he had declined. “ But I changed THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 135 my mind.” This is what he added in about these words: “The day after you were here Mr. Warren called, and when I told him of the request from London he replied that for the sake of the Museum I ought to have accepted, and thus en- able us to secure more objects for the Egyptian collection. Mr. Foster came over to see me; and I consulted with one or two others, and we thought a new Comm, ought to start with a free hand and a clean sweep, and so I wrote the London Comm, accordingly. You know, Dr. Winslow, that for a few years our portion of 'objects’ for the Museum has been less than formerly.” Robinson’s one controlling motive seemed to be that he should form the new Comm, for the Museum’s sake. He had before candidly told me that his interest did not lie in Egyptian archaeology. Soon after I addressed Robinson two letters (from Barn- stable) upon “the serious mistake made by the London Comm, in rescinding their vote that the appointment of a Comm, in Boston should in no way affect my Vice President- ship. The canceling of my position as V. P. was prompted solely at your request, through your misapprehension of what the office meant.” I put the case mildly as one of “misapprehension.” This would enable him to inform the London Comm, of his own “misunderstanding ” of my status as V. P., and, if he did not care to urge my reappointment as V. P., it would still give the Comm, absolute freedom to do so. Once more I clearly explained that the Boston Office (to be superseded by a Comm.), consisted only of Hon. Sec’y, Hon. Treas., and Sec’y. I distinctly but courteously warned Robinson that trouble must follow such “ inexplicable action of our Committee. . . . Subscribers and members have rights: the Committee is their creation: a President, a Vice President, or the head of one half of the Soc’y, cannot be summarily removed without cause from office. In England, surely in America, all are amenable to public opinion.” Robinson replied that he had “ made no requests whatever of the London Committee.” But, in spite of his diplomati- cally-drawn lines he admitted saying, in his reply to London that he thought it “unwise to commit their new representa- 136 THE TRUTH ABOUT tives (the proposed Comm.) in advance to any one of those among whom the trouble had previously existed.” Robin- son then cited the personal opinion of Cotton upon my V. P., and coolly passed over the official appointment and au- thority given to me by the London Comm, itself. As a par- allel case: Suppose an official of his Board of Trustees had expressed an opinion to Robinson upon R.’s authority; but that later on, the Board had passed resolutions or laws defin- ing his authority. Would he fall back upon an individual opin- ion superseded by legal definition, in exercising his authority? “The Hon. Sec’y, the Hon. Treas. and the Sec’y shall together constitute the Boston Office,” were words before his very eyes when he cited the personal opinion of Cotton. I add here that when I saw Robinson in the fall I asked to see the copy of his official reply to London, but he refused point blank. There was Grueber’s statement — there was Robin- son’s letter to me, as quoted from — but Robinson would not allow me to see his official letter in order to put things right. With his personal letters, those of Foster and perhaps others, to London, I had no business. The obligation of his Museum to the Fund for monuments, Robinson added in his letter to me, also impelled him to accept the appointment. My reply thereon said: “You re- mark upon the obligations of the Museum to the Fund. But who founded the American Branch? Who raised the funds, who made the earnest efforts, both needed, to secure the best monuments in that collection? ” The Part Taken by Foster. That Foster took an im- portant part in securing my removal as V. P., I have no doubt. When I saw Robinson in June he said that “Foster came over to see me,” etc. (already mentioned). When, in the fall, I referred to his letters to London, he significantly remarked, “ I guess there were others also who wrote to Lon- don.” Early in May, after the official action regarding the Hon. Sec’y and Sec’y and reorganization of the Boston Office, but before the news of subsequent action regarding my V. P. had come, I met near Boston a Mrs. , a de- voted friend of Mrs. B. So angry was she over Mrs. B.’s THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 137 retirement that she mentioned her name at once, and began an uncalled-for defense of her. I made no reply except to remark, “Probably you are ignorant of all the facts in the case.” Mrs. , warming in Mrs. B.’s defense, added that “the thing’s not through with yet,” and “there may be a great surprise for you soon.” She repeated this. Soon after, I learned that she had had a long interview with Foster but a day or two previous to meeting me. And after the “news ” came from London that I was removed as V. P., I heard from another source what she meant by her “sur- prise ” for me, and also that the preceding winter or spring she had seen several members of the London Comm, in Mrs. B.’s interest. She acts as courier to small parties of ladies traveling abroad. Dr. Kellner writing me last summer upon the reorganiza- tion of the Boston Office, remarked: “As regards Mr. Foster, I have no reason to suppose that he is not entirely satisfied with the present status of things; it is consistent with his advocacy of ‘ a clean sweep,’ leaving the control of all offices on this side in the hands of an American Committee.” There is no doubt that when Foster knew Mrs. B. was to cease to be Sec’y, and that the Boston Comm., when formed, would not appoint her Sec’y (which Robinson told me at the first), he vigorously advocated “a clean sweep,” which simply meant Winslow’s removal as V. P. Was not he among the “others” besides Robinson who wrote to London? Did he not tell Mrs. B.’s friend, who interviewed him, that he had written “a decisive letter ” to London? When Foster saw that he had been deceived in his opinion of the Sec’y, if he had not the manhood to make some amende to me, he should at the least have “advocated ” my continu- ance as V. P. Was he not one who pressed “ a clean sweep ” upon Robinson? Why did he allow Robinson to suppose (if he really did so) that the V. P. was concerned in the Bos- ton Office or its reorganization? For Foster knew the reso- lutions of our appointments, and that the V. P. was not a part of the Boston Office. Foster is the lifelong friend of Mr. Lane. Mrs. B.’s friend 138 THE TRUTH ABOUT referred to their consultation together on matters, when she spoke to a friend of mine upon the subject. I believe that Lane also urged upon Robinson “a clean sweep.”* When I discussed the “Overturn” with a leading Boston editor, and, to his inquiry, answered that Lane had been upon the former Boston Comm, and was hostile to me, he replied that if Lane and Foster were opposed to me, “that settled it,” for Lane was noted for his set determination. This was after the Robinson Committee was formed. Foster became Lion. Treasurer to the new Committee. In his letter to me, July 8, 1902, Robinson expressly had said that the new Comm, (to be formed) should not be committed in advance “ to any one of those (of the Boston Office) among whom the trouble had previously existed.” Yet Foster, “one of those among whom the trouble existed,” was im- mediately appointed Hon. Treasurer by the new Committee, last October, which shows how fully en rapport he had been with Robinson from the day he “came over to see ” Robin- son, and a “clean sweep” was devised; and the London Committee voted “to meet Mr. Robinson’s views, and to cancel your official connection with the Fund,” as Grueber stated. Foster did not want to become Hon. Treas. when I asked him to be in 1897. Constantly he was desiring to get rid of the burden. When reorganization was voted, in the cheerful words of Evans: “Mr. Foster most obligingly consented to remain.” And when the new Comm, was started, “Mr. Foster agreed to continue to act as Treas- urer.” So, too, when London, in 1896, appointed an Ameri- can Comm, one of the loudest “protestants” was Foster. It was an “outrage” (see his letter). But when one person, a non-subscriber, was asked to do the appointing in 1902, his legal and moral views changed suddenly, and he “struck hands ” with him, and became an official for the new Committee. “ Consistency, thou art a jewel.” ♦In 1897, when the Boston Comm, retired. Lane wished my “retirement” as V. P., in addition to my retirement as Hon. Sec'y. But Cotton told him the V. P. was not a part of the Boston Office, or Boston Committee. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 139 It is stated that Foster, who resigned his post this spring, did so because he could not agree with the new Hon. Secre- tary, and because of the great falling off of subscriptions through dissatisfaction. 140 THE TRUTH ABOUT PART V. THE BOSTON COHniTTEE. About November 1, 1902, a circular appeared containing the names of seven gentlemen constituting the Committee formed by Mr. Robinson. It stated that “ the London Com- mittee of the Egypt Exploration Fund determined some months ago that it was for the interest of the Fund and for the advantage of the American subscribers that the manage- ment here should be put in the hands of a practically inde- pendent committee working in harmony with the Fund in London. The undersigned gentlemen have been requested and have agreed to act as this committee.” The circular bore the name “Boston Committee.” It will be recalled that President Evans closed his remarks by nam- ing the proposed Committee the “Boston Committee.” It was intended to be “a practically independent committee,” and was so announced. Hence to a Boston Committee was to be committed the “management ” of the American Branch. The sentence, “undersigned gentlemen,” etc., diplomatically omits to state how the Comm, was formed, but it may be inferred by many readers, that the London Comm, them- selves appointed this Comm. As already stated, three of the seven members were connected with the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, which partly accounts for the remark that through this Comm, “we shall be brought into close touch with the Society’s work in Egypt, hnd secure an important share of its results.” I have already said that Robinson’s main grievance was that I had not of late secured enough antiquities for the Museum. His essential reason (given to me) for forming this Comm, was the Museum’s interests. It will be seen whether I neglected the Museum during the years 1883-1902. Of the seven members I remark seriatim: THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 141 1. Prof. Goodwin I called upon immediately upon receiv- ing the circular. When I began to speak of the troubles causing reorganization, he remarked upon his ignorance of them, adding, “I did not go upon this Comm, supposing there was to be any controversy.” I think I quote him accurately as also saying that he would not have gone upon the Comm, had he known that there would be “controversy.” He cer- tainly knew before I left him that I had been sorely tried in the work of the Office, and I learn of his decided views ex- pressed to one or two persons respecting the one who caused the troubles. The impression I formed was that he was invited to join in forming a Comm, and did so — just as many a man joins a Comm. — out of kindness, and for the use of his name to advance the cause. 2. Mr. Theodore M. Davis. This gentleman did not at- tend the meeting. I doubt if he knew really anything about the circumstances of “ reorganization ” in Boston. He spends his winters on the Nile with his sister, Mrs. Emma B. Andrews, and both know much of past troubles and her views are his. In February, 1897, she wrote from their dahabeah: “I had heard nothing about the very extraordinary and most unwarrantable proceedings of the new Committees,” i.e., the London and new Boston Committee. “No re- arrangement could with justice or propriety be made without your knowledge or without you in your original office.” Then I was placed on the new Comm., and that Comm, was ap- pointed by London. In Oct. ’97, Mrs. Andrews wrote to a friend of the cause : “ It seems to me most essential that there should be a controlling power on this side over the office Secretary. I do not understand the action of the London people in regard to Dr. Winslow. It seems to me there must have been some influence exercised against him from this side — covert and unfair. I never heard of Mrs. B. until I received from her in the early summer a letter in very bad taste, that made a very unpleasant impression upon me, and made me feel that she had been an unfortunate choice for Sec’y. In which opinion I was confirmed by the incon- ceivably silly picture of her in the .” 142 THE TRUTH ABOUT Her views are significant: “I saw Miss Brodrick, Prof. Sayce, and Mr. Somers Clarke (all members of the London Comm.) in Egypt, and talked over the Egypt Exploration Fund matters with them. They all seemed to think much reform was needed in the management of Soc’y matters. They all spoke most kindly and appreciatively of you and of your work.” (June, 1898, to W. C. W.) 3. Mr. Edward Robinson. He was probably asked to re- organize the American Branch for the reason that he would doubtless be unfavorable to me. He was Gen. Loring’s friend and associate. I had suggested these subscribers to Lon- don as suitable for forming a nucleus of a Comm, upon which a representative one could be made: President Warren of Boston University; Mrs. Ames, local Sec’y for Cambridge, wife of Dean Ames of the Harvard Law School; President Hazard of Wellesley; Bishop Lawrence; Mrs. Arthur Brooks, sister-in-law to Bishop Phillips Brooks; Dean Hoffman, Prof. John P. Peters, Prof. S. M. Jackson, all of New York; and Dr. Alexander McKenzie of Cambridge. I had previously named such persons as the Hon. Seth Low, President Harper, Prof. Norton, etc. 4. Mr. G. M. Lane. He knows nothing of archaeology, certainly Egyptology, and is wedded to finance. He has no time to devote to the cause. His clerical work as Treasurer is delegated, I understand, to his clerks. He was on the Loring Comm, of 1897. 5. Mr. Thornton K. Lothrop. His views are clearly ex- pressed on page 8, respecting the legality of such a Comm, as his. In 1898, he wrote to me : “ As you have always seemed to me the founder and embodiment of the Society in this country, and the person who had practically got the money, I have been and am entirely unable to understand why the London people do not let you have a perfectly free hand here. If there were any general sense here of any injustice done you, the contributions would, unless I am wholly mistaken, dwindle to practically nothing.” Mr. Lothrop knew that I was sorely hampered, and the passage I have underscored means that I ought to have my THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 143 authority over the Office supported by London. I had several conversations with him upon our affairs. I called upon him as soon as I received the circular. He said that he yielded to Robinson’s urgent request to go upon the Com- mittee. I inferred that when the Comm, met for organiza- tion no allusion was made to me. 6. Mr. A. M. Lythgoe. This young man has been exca- vating in Egypt, which will better qualify him for his post of curator in the Museum. His report emphasizes the fact that antiquities from Egypt will soon be a thing of the past. 7. Mr. J. E. Lodge, also a young man, is now Hon. Sec’y, and, I judge, has “a free hand.” I am told that he and Foster ‘‘could not get on together.” I congratulate the former on being now free from such a weight. I should add in justice to the Boston Comm, that, per- ceiving its mistake, it has assmned the name of “Comm, for the United States,” and its new circular also refers to the “Museums in this country.” On the other hand, it is still de facto a Boston Committee. LEGALITY OF THE NEW COMMITTEE. Whether the London Committee possesses the purely legal authority to appoint a self-perpetuating Committee over any large section of its subscribers, is doubtful. James B. Ames, LL.D., dean of the Harvard Law School, was asked for his opinion, and Mrs. Ames replied for him : Mr. Ames wishes me to say that he cannot give a definite answer on the question of the legality of the appointment of the American Committee, as he has not seen the Articles of Association, but he thinks it extremely improbable that the London Committee had the right to act as they did, and he has no doubt at all of the inexpedi- ency and impropriety of their action. Rt. Rev. F. W. Taylor, D.D., etc., of the Comm, on Can- ons and Canon Law, a recognized authority, wrote me that the action in London was ultra vires. Hon. George Foster Peabody, of New York, wrote to the English Committee as follows : 144 THE TRUTH ABOUT I beg to address you as one of the subscribers for several years to the Egypt Exploration Fund through the American honorary secre- tary, and I desire to state that from all the information that comes to me, it seems to me that your society has acted very unfairly to the subscribing friends of the Fund in this country in the re-constitution of the Committee. The matter was certainly not put in proper shape with reference to giving a voice to the subscribers ; and I hope that it may be possible for your society to maintain the most cordial rela- tions between the subscribers in England and those in America by revoking the action taken and providing for an expression of opinion from subscribers in this country. It would certainly seem most strange that there should be any desire on the part of English subscrib- ers to have the American subscribers treated in a different manner from themselves; and they have a right, I understand, to appoint (elect) the officers and committee in England. I write as one of the subscribers to add my protest; for I suppose there are others who have also written to you. I remain, Very respectfully yours, Geo. Foster Peabody. By “re-constitution ot the Committee,” Mr. Peabody meant re-constitution of the administration of the American Branch. Why cite more opinions? I will, however, refer to those of Messrs. Davis and Lothrop, who were placed upon the Boston Comm, by its organizer, Mr. Robinson. Against “ the very extraordinary and most unwarrantable proceedings ” in thus forming a Comm, to direct the affairs of the American Branch, Mr. Davis and his sister, Mrs. An- drews (a local Sec’y), signed a request for a “reorganization, mutually satisfactory, of the Fund on a national footing here, and international as a whole.” They could not approve of the Boston Comm, as then formed. I quote the closing paragraph of the request which they signed : That, inasmuch as “the Committee are all perfectly unanimous in desiring that . . . the position of Dr. W. should be such as will meet the views of all friends in America ” — and because Dr. Wins- low’s experience and acquaintance with the work are peerless — be- cause “the Egypt Exploration Fund can never repay its debt of grati- tude to ” him, as Miss Edwards said — and because an active worker THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 145 is needed to head an initial committee for reorganization — that Dr. Winslow be made Chairman of the new Committee. Mr. Davis, a lawyer, not only disapproved of such reor- ganization as “unwarrantable,” but favored me for a posi- tion which I would not accept. For I wished a Norton, a Low, a Harper, a Gilman, or some other nationally-repre- sentative man to head an American representative Com- mittee. But Mr. Lothrop’s legal opinion was decisive: “That no persons not subscribers were entitled in any way to represent the subscribers.” Yet, we see a non-subscriber (Robinson) forming what is now called “the Comm, for the U. S. A.” Lothrop’s views respecting the rights of subscribers are clear : “Nor can I see how anything affecting the organization could have been properly done without consulting all the sub- scribers in this country.” With great additional force the foregoing opinions apply to the formation of the present Comm, in Boston. Recall those official words of Sir John Fowler: “The Committee fully agree with you that in any reorganization of the Ameri- can Branch the approval of American subscribers is essential. They can desire nothing else.” I conclude with my own views. LTnder the head “Pro- ceedings of Committee,” is expressed this function: “The Committee may from time to time appoint such Members of the Society to be local Vice Presidents, Honorary local Secretaries and Honorary local Treasurers, at home and abroad, as they may think fit, and may also delegate to any such Officer such of the powers of the Committee as they may deem necessary or convenient.” This is the article of association (62) under which the London Comm, appointed Mr. Robinson. In the first place, no mention is made of a or any Com- mittee in the foregoing list of those to whom the London Comm, may delegate “such of the powers,” etc. Nor could any American Comm, be a sub-committee, thus allowing it to act under such designation. For clause 60 expressly 146 THE TRUTH ABOUT states that sub-committees must consist of members of the Comm., and that the President is ex officio a member of all sub-committees. It appears to me a stretch of powers for the London Comm, to itself delegate the powers of “ a practi- cally independent committee ” to any body of men. In the second place, if the London Comm, can delegate “the powers,” etc., as stated in the article, it can delegate such powers only to members of the Society. Here a financial prerequisite to active membership is to be considered. Clause 38 states that “ no member, donor, or annual subscriber shall be entitled to be present or vote at any meeting (of the Soc’y), or upon a poll, or to exercise any privileges as a member, until he shall have paid all moneys for the time being due, and payable by him to the society.” It is clear that the London Comm, can delegate the powers mentioned in clause 62 only to members, subscribing and free from all liabilities. One of the members of the Boston Comm., Mr. Davis, did not attend the meeting for organiza- tion last October. He may have already gone abroad. Of the other six members, three were not, or had not been, sub- scribers, viz., Messrs. Robinson, Lane, Lythgoe. Messrs. Goodwin and Lothrop were subscribers of long standing, Mr. Lodge of comparatively recent date. It follows that in organizing itself as “a practically inde- pendent Committee ” to direct the affairs of American sub- scribers, less than a majority of those organizing were sub- scribers when asked to form a Committee. My opinion is that both in England and the United States a large number of subscribers will conclude with me that Bishop Taylor’s criticism upon the appointment of the former Boston Committee applies more forcibly now. He said: “My opinion, in brief, is that the whole action of the Eng- lish Committee was and is ultra vires” Linder no circumstances would I have accepted the re- sponsibility that Robinson assumed, although I was the founder of this Branch, “the official representative of the Fund in .America,” and was associated with the fine corps of local Secretaries as their head. I do not believe the Lon- THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 147 don Committee have any right to give such power to any one person. Behind that Committee, above it, are the sub- scribers in England, who themselves elect that Comm. I close with endorsing the words of George Foster Peabody: “It would certainly seem most strange that there could be any desire on the part of the English subscribers to have the American subscribers treated in a different manner from themselves.” THE WORK ACCOnPLISHED. The work accomplished during the eighteen or nineteen years of my official connection with the Fund cannot be measured by figures alone. My literary labors, the influ- ence therefrom, and my successful efforts to enlist the inter- est of many people in archteological and especially Egyp- tological exploration, are of that kind of “achievement in life” which never can be put into statistical form. Presi- dent Tucker of Dartmouth recently said, regarding an earnest life called hence, that “ if one is to do anything in this world that is worth the doing, that person must be very lavish of himself.” Nevertheless, some brief data of my labors will perhaps be expected. In December, 1896, a circular to subscribers contained some data from 1883 to July 31, 1896, as follows: Data for Nearly Thirteen Years. Dr. 7,277 subscriptions to the General Fund $68,854.44 923 subscriptions to the Survey Fund 7,449.00 $76,303.44 Cr. Printing $879.72 Government envelopes and postages .... 1,781.66 Stationery 415.44 Miscellaneous (office, etc.) 526 . 65 Rent 731.50 Clerical aid of every kind, packing, etc. . . . 5,631.67 “ American Student ” for Egypt 347 . 60 Drafts, £13,460, 14s. 4d 65,664.11 $75,978.35 Balance to Fund 325.09 $76,303.44 148 THE TRUTH ABOUT These statistics represent more time than money: 1. Total circulars and notices, etc., printed 164 ,000 2. Total government envelopes 43,125 3. Total letters and notes from W. C. W 21 ,360 4. Total articles, letters, etc., for the press from W.C.W ' 2,560 To the above $76,303.44 should be fairly added, to represent a total of American subscriptions, some $2,500, which may be classi- fied thus: $1,000 from Miss Catherine L. Wolfe sent direct to London from N. Y. ; $250 from Chautauqua; some $1,250 in various sums from Americans “on the Nile” and in Europe, and from our libraries direct, etc., etc. I had corresponded with Miss Wolfe, who wished her subscription to be credited to us. Previous to June, 1894, the clerical labor of every kind averaged but $406 per year, notwithstand- ing the enormous extra efforts required to build up a live subscription list like ours. The clerical salary stands to-day at $800. Our office expenses have included duties, mailing reports (the entire edition for 1893-94), packing, etc., not reckoned in the London office costs, but, nevertheless, represent more economy even without reckoning that printing and labor are much cheaper there than here. The gross receipts from July, 1896, to July, 1902, appear from the Reports to have been $44,797.30. But, properly, these additions must be made: Of the $2,215 received during 1898-9 by the N. Y. Branch, of temporary life, some $2,000 represented the names upon the Boston books; Mrs. Thompson contributed $500 through Prof. Petrie, but she wrote to me from abroad that she wished the sum placed to our credit; the Connecticut Branch properly has a number of our old subscribers; considerable raised in Pittsburgh (such as $250 I received from Mr. Phipps) should be credited to our efforts; but I do not include the sums from a fine lot of former subscribers, now attached to the Chicago and Philadelphia Branches. To the $44,797.30 must be added subscriptions not included by Mr. Foster for 1902, amounting to $1,696.50. The results for the six years are: Through the Boston Office $46 ,493 . 30 Through the N. Y. Branch 2,000.00 Through Mrs. Thompson 500 . 00 $48,993.30 The totals are as follows: From 1883 to July, 1896 $78 ,803 . 44 From 1896 to July, 1902 48,993.30 $127,796.74 THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 149 So conservative is this statement that I may place the grand total which fairly belongs to the credit of our labors in Boston at the round sum of $130,000 for the years 1883- 1902, that is, from the date I founded the American Branch to my “retirement” from it last summer. Here I wish to thank local Secretaries and other subscrib- ers for their cooperation and particularly to emphasize the zeal of the late Sec’y, Mrs. B., in raising funds since the office was reorganized in 1897 by the appointment of an Hon. Treasurer and Sec’y by the London Committee. It must be remembered that the formation of the Graeco-Roman Branch in 1896 afforded a splendid enticement to subscribe; and that during the earlier years of the Fund there was no Archaeological Survey branch to attract subscriptions. These two factors account largely for the increase of subscriptions during 1889-1902. As evidence of my personal labors to the last, for the year up to June, 1902, when I was “retired,” I despatched 651 hand-written letters duly recorded. My many assistants, too, must be recognized in all this work. Perfect harmony always existed between us down to the appointment of Mrs. B. from London, except in one instance, that of a person recommended to me by Gen. Loring, but whose ill health utterly unfitted her for the posi- tion. Later, he expressed regret to me, and one of his notes remarked “ that she suffered for many months — if not years — from the most helpless nervous prostration.” I recall how with assistants like Miss Payne, Miss Blanchard, Miss Dennison, not one ripple of disagreement occurred. After thirteen months of service as office Sec’y, Miss Den- nison wrote to me as follows: Dear Dr. Winslow: As I am expecting very soon to leave home I want to express to you again and in writing my appreciation and thanks for the uniform kindness, courtesy, and helpfulness you always showed me while I was officially connected with you in the Fund office. Wherever I may be, I shall always carry with me the happy recollection of congenial duties, performed the more faith- fully for the inspiration your unflagging zeal and earnest counsel gave me. I was often in perplexity because of the many slips and errors in 150 THE TRUTH ABOUT previous record-keeping by my immediate predecessor, but I believe I left the books in much better order than I found them. This again reminds me of the invaluable help your advice and memory gave me. It also gives me satisfaction to think that through our always har- monious efforts the Fund had attained its highest financial standing. I trust that redoubled prosperity still awaits your faith and zeal. Ever faithfully yours, Helen Dennison, ex-Sec’y. Miss Dennison refers particularly to errors in the orders for books sent to the London Office by that Sec’y who was ill much of the time. Miss Marie A. Molineaux, Ph.D., the author, very kindly aided me for several weeks in 1894, when my eyes seriously troubled me. She removed to the suburbs, and I saw but little of her. Accordingly I was the more pleased to receive from this accomplished woman, in 1897, the following note respecting the reorganization of the Boston Office at that time with Gen. Loring as its head: Dear Dr. Winslow: Enclosed is the draft of what I wrote to the Parent Society. I hope I said nothing unwise nor which you would disapprove. I wrote what I felt, and you are not responsible, since you only hear of my action after it has taken place. Hoping the Society will see the erroneous position into which it has been misled, I am, Yours for justice, Marie Ada Molineaux. To the Honorable, the President and Council of the Egypt Exploration Fund, London: Gentlemen , — As a subscriber and one of the local Hon. Secretaries I beg most earnestly that your honorable body give a reconsider- ation to the plan for a reorganization in the United States, feeling sure that the present plan has been entered upon under a misunder- standing of the existent circumstances. The American subscribers, as a whole, I feel should have some voice in the selection of the American Committee, and that Dr. Wins- low, to whom the Fund owes its position on this side of the Atlantic, should not be relegated to a subordinate and inferior place. Many subscribers are wondering what credentials as to activity in the work for the Fund, Gen. Charles G. Loring was able to offer. With sentiments of the highest consideration, I am, Very respectfully yours, Marie Ada Molineaux. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 151 The annual reports may be referred to for their continuous and kind references to the results from my labors; and even when a Sec’y (appointed from London) was a part of the Boston Office, the official English circular of 1899 remarked: “From its foundation, the Egypt Exploration Fund has received large pecuniary support from the United States, chiefly through the enthusiasm and energy of the Rev. Dr. W. C. Winslow, of Boston.” The only criticisms have been the pleasantries that Brother Jonathan should not be allowed to give more than John Bull. Miss Amelia B. Edwards wrote to me: “My dear Friend: It is out of the question that we can accept a £50 donation from you towards the ‘Fowler Fund.’ . . . Your immense and invaluable services, and the large subscriptions you annually collect for our explorations in Egypt, to say nothing of your time, which is money, are enough — more than any other one would give us, either in America or Great Britain. The Egypt Exploration Fund can never repay its debt of gratitude to you,” etc. Prof. F. W. Williams, Ph.D., the Treasurer of the Ameri- can Oriental Society, writes from New Haven: “I cannot sufficiently express my regret at the misfortune to the Fund in losing your services.” He is Treasurer of the Connecticut Branch of the Fund, and its President, Charles Ray Palmer, D.D., has also kindly tendered me his sympathy. James S. Stone, D.D., rector of St. James’s, Chicago, formerly of the Church of England, pointedly writes: “Of course you know I am one who refuses to subscribe to the Fund or to continue as a local Sec’y until some justice is done you.” This is the type of man to be on the English Committee when questions of right or wrong are raised. H. C. Rowley, Esq., publisher of Webster's Dictionary, writes from Springfield: “The conviction has been growing that matters are not being conducted as they should be if loyal support is to be expected from people in this country” (May 13, 1903). Rev. Daniel Goodwin, Ph.D., of East Greenwich, R. I., writes: “ Unless the Committee (in Boston) makes some 152 THE TRUTH ABOUT further explanation of their position, and their ground for omitting your name from the official list of the Fund, it can- not but unsettle the minds of the old subscribers, and cause them, in many cases, to withhold their gifts. The interest of those, I have any acquaintance with, depends primarily upon their confidence in you.” John J. May, an honored citizen of Boston, has recently “passed beyond.” A little before, he had written to me: “ I would sign a respectful request to the parties in England that you be now made Honorary V. P., and if the request is granted, I will renew my subscription.” Thornton K. Lothrop, Esq., of the new Boston Com- mittee, wrote me of the anticipated results from the appoint- ment of the old Boston Committee: “If there were any general sense here of any injustice done you, the contributions in this country would, unless I am wholly mistaken, dwindle to practically nothing.” Prof. Edgar A. Forbes, of the Southern Baptist Theol. Sem’y, wrote to me of the absence of my name on the new circular: “That is the trade-mark on everything Egyptian in these parts.” William G. Johnston, Esq., a patron from the first al- most, sententiously remarks: “You can do better without them than they without you.” But enough. I have simply tried “to do my best” to advance the cause of archaeology by exploration in Egypt. When I began, “Pithom” had been discovered, but the book had not appeared. Now, 23 vols. of the “Fund” work, 12 of the “Archaeological Survey,” and five vols. of the “Graeco- Roman Branch,” in all forty vols. have been published, to which may be added much other valuable matter. Among my laborious efforts was the inducing some seventy insti- tutions to become subscribers to the society. To secure one of these, recently represented, I wrote over a dozen letters. No less than $1,482.50 in the last Annual Report came from these institutions. Except that the G. R. Branch issued no vol. last year, the amount would have been con- siderably larger. The double vol. issued this year at $10 THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 153 will be recorded to the credit of the new Boston Office. As the English Hon. Treasurer knows, I purposed an endowment fund here, and proposed starting it with $500. I thought that perhaps $30,000 would be a nucleus of an endowment for practical purposes, such, e.g., as training an American student in Egypt in the science of excavation and transla- tion. A legacy of $1,000 had been left in my care by a lady whom I had interested in the cause. John J. May’s words are comforting: “I think you may well rest content with the large service that you have rendered to this important work, and the recognition thereof that has been secured.” The words of Mrs. Andrew Bigelow of Southboro, Mass., daughter of the late Hon. Marshall P. Wilder, express the hope of many subscribers: “I hope the real justice of your position will be vindicated.” nONUMENTAL OBJECTS FOR BOSTON. In the early years of the Fund I made strenuous efforts to secure objects for the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. But a broader conception of my duty came with the generous response to my appeals from all over the land, and with the just claim of other museums. I advocated a pro rata rule for the distribution of antiquities, which was adopted. But my story now relates to the museum in Boston. “I believe in the spade,” with Dr. O. W. Holmes, and I ardently believe in the museum as an educator. My illus- trated article, “Egypt at Home,” in the New England Maga- zine for April, 1890, called the Museum in Boston “the crown-jewel of the city’s higher educational advantages.” That sketch affords some idea of the priceless monumental objects in that collection from the Fund. For monumental objects of such size and beauty will not be allowed again to leave Egypt. From 1883 to 1891 were “years of plenty,” monumentally, and I grasped the opportunity with all my energy, nobly supported by Miss Edwards. The new curator, Mr. Lythgoe, wrote in Jan’y, from Egypt, “that the time is not far distant when it will be practically an impossibility to hope to add to our collections to any considerable extent” 154 THE TRUTH ABOUT (Museum Report, p. 96). He refers to the small antiquities, such as have come from Abydos. Samuel Eliot, LL.D., then acting President, officially wrote: “The great value and importance of these additions to the Museum collection are highly appreciated; and, as time goes on, they will minister very largely to the culti- vation of our people. Long years hence, the Egypt Ex- ploration Fund and its officers will be gratefully remembered in Boston.” When the palm-leaf column was set up, he wrote to me that “it calls for the gratitude of all who are interested in the Museum and its work for our people.” Of the first donation, consisting of small objects, Mr. Charles C. Perkins, remarked in the Museum Report for 1885: “Cer- tainly the most notable, if not the largest, donation to the Museum during the year is that made by the Egypt Ex- ploration Fund. . . . The gift made through the Rev. Mr. Winslow, apart from its high historical and archaeological interest, is especially gratifying,” etc., etc. In 1887, the formal vote of thanks from the Trustees concluded: “ made by the Egypt Exploration Fund through the Rev. W. C. Winslow, Vice President,” etc. Gem Loring, in enclosing the certificate, wrote to me: “A plain vote of thanks seems bald for such a noble gift. Our President is in England, and I shall get him to see some of the officers and say what we feel towards them and you.” Hon. Martin Brimmer, in enclosing a later resolution of like tenor, sent to me a long and handsome autographic letter, concluding thus: “The Trustees gratefully appreciate the kind services of Miss Edwards, of Mr. Petrie, and of Mr. Head in the selection and cataloguing of the objects given; and they feel especially indebted to you for the efficient interest you have taken in this gift to the Museum.” Let us turn to the Fund reports for a few excerpts: 1884. “That the meeting present to the Museum of Bos- ton a second selection, accompanied by a cordial vote of thanks to the Rev. W. C. Winslow.” 1885. “Mr. John Evans, F.R.S., moved a resolution that ‘this meeting present to the Fine Arts Museum of Boston, THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 155 with sincere thanks to the Rev. W. C. Winslow, a selection of antiquities/ etc., etc. Hon. E. J. Phelps, American min- ister, in thanking the meeting, added: ‘In regard to the election of the Rev. W. C. W. as a V. P. his Excellency warmly commended the action of the Society, saying ‘they could not have chosen a better man.’ ” 1886. “Touching the donation to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mr. Poole rejoiced to say that it was really a splendid donation, but little inferior to that which had just been voted to the British Museum,” etc., etc. 1887. ‘‘The donation of antiquities to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, was moved by Miss Amelia B. Edwards, who pointed out that the American subscription was this year equal in amount to the sum subscribed on the English side of the ledger. . . . Miss Edwards then said how much . . . she felt she owed to the moral support of their indefatigable and inestimable American V. P., Dr. Winslow, etc. . . . Miss Edwards then proposed that, in addition to minor objects, the following works of sculpture should be pre- sented, and that the action of the Committee in transmitting the statue of Rameses II be approved: (1) A seated statue of Rameses II, of heroic size, in black granite (from the ‘fields of Zoan’). (2) A headless black-granite sphinx of the Hyksos period, etc. (3) A squatting statue, in black granite, of the style of the twelfth dynasty, inscribed with the names and titles, etc. (of the brother of the Pha- raoh of the Exodus). (4) A selection of Greek vases from Naukratis.” Mr. Henry White of the American Legation, “in the absence of Mr. Phelps and of Dr. Winslow,” responded. “He could testify to the interest created in Boston by the arrival of the colossal statue of Rameses II,” etc., etc. 1888. This account is from her address verbatim in Miss Edwards’ handwriting, which she sent me: “. . . The gift which we are send- ing this year is of unexampled magnitude and beauty. . . ” The objects are: (1) “The colossal Hathor Capital in red granite, which is by far the most beautiful and perfect specimen of the ideal school of Egyptian ever discovered,” etc. (2) “The upper half of a colos- sal statue of a king, the companion to which we have just voted to the British Museum,” etc. (3) “The great granite lotus-bud capi- tal,” etc. Weight over 15 tons. (4) “A fine red granite slab in bas-relief from the Festival Hall of Osorkon II,” etc. (5) “Two very interesting bas-relief slabs in fine limestone from a temple to Hathor,” etc. “We thus send to America specimens of the art of the great temple 156 THE TRUTH ABOUT of Bubastis, dating from the time of its founder, Khufu, the builder of the great pyramid,” etc. “We give of the best we have to give — the very flower of all that Naville found at Bubastis.” Excepting the statue of Apepi (historical), “the most beautiful, the most per- fect, and the largest monuments yielded by this great historic site, which has cost, at the lowest calculation, some 2,400 pounds, a sum to which our American subscribers contributed no less- than twelve hundred.” [New England Mag., Ibid.] I now quote from the Report for 1888 : “ Miss Edwards concluded with a cordial reference to the great services of Dr. Winslow, their Vice President for America, to whom the Society was deeply indebted for the zeal with which he had popularized the work of the Fund in the United States, and to whom his fellow-countrymen were no less indebted for the interest which he had induced them to take in a delightful study, as well as for the splendid monuments with which, through his exertions, the Boston collection has been en- riched.” I dislike to cite more upon this topic, especially from Miss Edwards. One or two brief extracts must suffice: “My very dear Friend : Just a line in haste to say that the colossus of Rameses II is to be yours. I am more delighted than I have words to express. This crowning ornament to your Museum (the Egyptian Hall) will cover you with glory, for it is entirely due to your pre-eminent services,” etc., etc. Again: “The colossus is the finest thing of the season, and he (Petrie) describes it as perfect, except a little battered about the head. ... It is recognized by Committee, Petrie and all, that this grand object is due to America for her loyal support, and to you for your great zeal and unpar- alleled services.” Prof. Petrie wrote to me a most interesting letter respect- ing the colossus, indicative of his estimation of the statue. Regarding the Bubastis sculptures, Miss Edwards added: “I don’t know what -we should do without you. You may be sure we shall vote something of the very best to Boston.” Of the gold handle to Pharaoh Hophra’s tray, for which I pleaded, she wrote that “the Committee have voted the big gold THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 157 handle to Boston — that massive lotus-pattern handle, etc. It is unique.” In December, 1891, she wrote me of the Palm-leaf Column (now in Boston) that it and its companions are “the richest columns ever brought to Europe from Egypt.” No such trophy will ever again come to us from Egypt. Its gracefulness adds a strong touch of beauty to the somewhat sombre aspect of the Egypt Exploration Fund hall in the Museum, where Rameses II sits in solemn state. During her visit to Boston to lecture, Miss Edwards most kindly emphasized my efforts for the Museum. The Gazette report of her address at the public breakfast in her honor states “Miss Edwards took the opportunity to point out that to Dr. Winslow was due the credit of every single monument of Egyptian art that had come (from the Fund) to the Museum of Fine Arts,” etc. The Herald, Globe and other reports stated the same, the Globe saying: “ Gen. Loring expressed the thanks of the Museum for many kindnesses from Miss Edwards, who begged permission to say in reply that though always glad and eager to have the best of everything come to America, yet nothing could have come from the Egypt Exploration Fund but for Dr. Winslow, who had devoted himself so heartily to the work and had been so very successful in raising funds for it.” In kindly recognition of my services, and in accordance with the wishes of the Comm., Miss Edwards prepared a large number of cards to be placed in the cases containing the “objects” from the Fund. One set read as follows: “Presented to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts by the Egypt Exploration F und, through the Rev. W. C. Winslow. Amelia B. Edwards, Hon. Sec’y.” Another set of cards stated: “ The contents of this Case are presented to the Art Museum of Boston through the Rev. W. C. Winslow by the Egypt Exploration Fund.” These cards were signed by herself, officially. A few cards were signed by both her and Poole, as Hon. Sec’y’s. I disliked to have a profusion of these cards in the cases, and Gen. Loring favored heartily my plan, later on, of a small neat printed card which read: “The E. 158 THE TRUTH ABOUT E. F. presents the Objects in this case to the Museum of Fine Arts through the Rev. W. C. Winslow, LL.D., of Boston, American V. P. of the Fund. Amelia B. Edwards, Hono- rary Secretary.” Both Poole and Miss E. liked my plan, and she remarked to me, when she was in Boston, that it was “neatly done.” Thus, three or four cases contained two of these cards each. An Unprecedented Act. Why I have been compelled to make so long a prelude (distasteful to myself) to what follows, will now appear. Since 1887-8 three or four of the cases of antiquities have contained the few printed cards as specified. Mr. Robinson formed his Committee in Oct., 1902, and Mr. Lythgoe, who had just been appointed curator of the Egyptian depart- ment, attended the meeting. I do not know this young man personally. Not long after the formation of the Comm., Lythgoe left for Egypt. But, as curator, and a member of the new Comm., he had time to “overhaul” some of the cases, and put labels to objects recently arrived from the Fund. He removed all the cards containing my name. In doing this, he negatived the official action from London, over the official signature of Miss Edwards. He ignored the official recognition by the Trustees of the Museum. He dishonored the official sanction of Loring as director of the Museum, and curator of this department. He disregarded what had become a permanent fixture, viz., the cards placed with the objects for 15 or 16 years. He knew that I visited the col- lection for study, and that I could not fail to note his handi- work. I add that he had never subscribed to the Fund, nor aided in any way towards securing the objects. During the years 1897 to 1902, when Loring felt keenly the “retirement” of his Committee, and I had been so slan- dered to him by Mrs. B. and Foster, he was too much of a gentleman and a man to stoop to an unprecedented act like that just described. But more. In 1902, and after Loring saw that he had been “misinformed” by the two persons just named, he placed a leather label in gold lettering upon THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 159 a facsimile of Mena’s gold bar found at Abydos. The orig- inal went to Chicago, and a facsimile was made for the British Museum. Through Mr. Grueber’s thoughtfulness I secured a facsimile, and presented it personally. It was labeled by Loring as my 'personal gift. This label, also, was removed from this representation of a valuable memento of Egypt’s first king. Was Lythgoe in haste? He had time to have labeled several objects of value and interest loaned by Mr. Davis, a member of his Committee. These labels are beautifully executed. I observe that Lythgoe in his first report to the Museum, while praising the collection from the Fund for its scientific and other value, names par- ticularly the “gold and sard scepter of King Khasekhemui of the second dynasty.” It is the oldest known scepter in the world! Through my earnest request for an archaic ornament, historically valuable, and my subscription of 1375 sent to London, this unique relic was presented to Bos- ton. When I saw Gen. Loring, then feeble, after he had so kindly labeled the facsimile to “Mena’s bar,” I found that he was not aware of all the circumstances connected with the scepter; I read to him one or two extracts from London letters thereon; and he remarked that the scepter could be properly labeled later on. (Here read about the scepter under “Distribution of Ushabtis.”) Is there justification for Lythgoe’s unprecedented trans- action? Suppose he said, “Winslow is no longer V. P.” But the dates, ranging from 1884-5 to 1888, were upon the various objects exhibited. The dates explained the case. The new curator could have added to “American V. P.” the date, e.g., “American V. P. 1886-1902.” In one case a pasteboard of small trifles from Denderah is placed, and another case is treated likewise. I am unwill- ing to think this was an artifice so that Lythgoe could say: “ The cards state ‘ the objects in this case were presented through Rev. W. C. W.,’ but as all of them were not so pre- sented (after my change) I removed the cards.” Rev. Dr. Daniel Goodwin’s remark, already quoted, con- cerning the “ omitting your name from the official list of the 160 THE TRUTH ABOUT Fund” in Boston perhaps points to the aim of a few to obliterate me from all association with past work for the Fund and the results secured therefrom. I add that the best “return” I can possibly have for my sincere and earnest labors for the Museum, are well expressed by Dr. Samuel Eliot: “As time goes on these additions will minister very largely to the cultivation of our people.” What would Perkins, Brimmer, Eliot, Loring, say could they now speak? Note. The eighteen Papyri, from the Fayum, presented by the Committee to this portion of our land, all went to Harvard Library and its Semitic Museum — particularly as Gen. Loring thought it more suitable, and he desired artistic objects for his Museum. I had pleaded for a New Testament fragment, and the oldest extant bit of St. Paul (Romans I) is now in Cambridge. All the 118 papyri passed through my hands for delivery, but simply as an agent for the Fund. In no sense am I officially or personally to be associated with these rare gifts. I only raised money for the work of digging them up, de- ciphering them, and publishing the results. CONCLUSIONS. Some definite conclusions may now be reached from the statements and evidence presented in these pages. They relate to the London Committee, to the Boston Committee, to the American subscribers and to myself. I. The London Committee. It is composed of about 30 members, more than half of whom rarely attend the monthly meeting. Some of them attend a portion of the meetings. Perhaps six or eight constantly attend the meetings. It follows, therefore, that the affairs of the Society are practi- cally administered by a minority — three or four members form a quorum. But for all this the Comm, as a body must be held responsible for the action taken at any meeting. (1) This Committee was well informed of the condition of affairs in the Boston Office and some of its active members were most thoroughly informed thereon. In addition to the evidence in their hands from me were letters received by them from American subscribers containing data of great importance. The letters to President Evans, to Dyer, to THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 161 Percival and others should have alone settled the case. Very Rev. E. A. Hoffman wrote to me: “I cannot see how the Comm, can pass over such letters.” The opinions of two or three pastors were per se enough. The Comm, had evidence, clear and decisive, respecting printing, the distribution of ushabtis, the matter of the Pittsburg Branch, etc., etc. (2) The Committee is otherwise open to criticism. It gave me authority, but did not enforce it. Had it done its duty to me and to American subscribers, all the trouble had been averted or promptly checked. Prof. Tyler, of Cornell, truly remarked that it was “ cowardly ” in the Comm, to leave me “to fight the battle alone.” Henry Phipps, of the Carnegie Steel Trust, grasped the situation: “To any business man it is clear that Dr. Winslow should have power to displace or appoint any assistant that he sees fit.” T. K. Lothrop, of the new Boston Comm., had himself said: “I am entirely unable to understand why the London people do not let you have a perfectly free hand here.” Mrs. Andrews, represent- ing her brother, Mr. Davis, now on the new Boston Comm., had declared “that there should be a controlling power on this side over the Office Secretary.” (3) A proper Office for our American Branch I sought to have had, for ours was not suitable in any sense, and I, placed in “general control ” over the work of the Office, had no con- trol at all over the Office. The Comm, knew my views, and that a proper Office should be obtained. (4) The Committee has not kept its pledge or assurance “that in any reorganization of the American Branch the approval of American subscribers is essential.” (5) When, last January, the Local Secretaries, almost en masse, made a request of the Comm, respecting myself, their request was simply shelved.* The previous President had stated that the Comm, desired “that the composition of the American Comm, and the position of Dr. Winslow should be such as will meet the views of all friends in America.” * This request follows these “ Conclusions,” and should be scanned by my readers. 162 THE TRUTH ABOUT (6) Disrespect has been otherwise offered to American subscribers, of which is the following remarkable instance: In 1897, about 150 letters were sent by subscribers to the Comm., protesting against the appointment of a Boston Comm, in so arbitrary a manner. They were written in con- fidence, and their writers expressed themselves freely. These letters were sent from London to the Boston Committee ! After that Comm, retired I earnestly begged the London Comm, to write to Loring to destroy or return them. When Rev. Chas. James Wood of York, Penn., heard of the trans- action, he wrote to me: “I am surprised that the London Comm, should have sent on personal letters to Gen. Loring. This was an extraordinary proceeding — are there no gentle- men in England that such people be put upon committees? The act was vulgar, it was low.” This well-know T n author voiced the opinions of many others. (7) Finally, it appears that there has been “mismanage- ment ” in London and that some remedy should be applied. It will be recalled how Mrs. Andrew’s letter to me expressed the views of Miss Mary Brodrick, Ph.D., Prof. Sayce and Somers Clarke (all members of the Comm.), whom she met in Egypt, that “much reform was needed in the management of society matters.” Dr. Brodrick, now the first woman Egyptol- ogist in England, editor of Murray’s “Hand-books for Egypt,” Brugsch’s “Egypt,” etc., resigned her local Secretaryship in London because, as she wrote, “ I did not approve of pres- ent management in England.” At my earnest request, she allowed her name to stand as representing the “Boston Office ” on the Comm. The Egyptological department of the British Museum has never been represented upon the Comm., which means that Dr. Birch, the famous Egyptol- ogist, Dr. Renouf, the great grammarian, and now E. A. Budge, Litt.D., LL.D., the head of that dept., and known all over the world by his many books, have not been con- nected with the Soc’y. Nor have Rawlinson and several other scholars of note in England been associated with the Committee. I shall not quote from letters to me from Petrie, from Miss Edwards, and other members of the Comm., THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 163 to show that things have not always been properly managed. In view of this “mismanagement,” Prof. C. C. Stearns, of Hartford, wrote to me last February: “There must be some coward at London headquarters, or some duplicity mislead- ing the highest authorities.” So, too, Mrs. Andrews wrote from Newport to Miss Dennison regarding myself: “It seems to me there must have been some influence exercised against him (myself) from this side — covert and unfair.” I think I have shown just where such duplicity in London exists, and from whom “a covert and unfair” influence proceeded in Boston. Call it in London “diplomacy,” if you please, but as described in these pages, it does not belong to a learned body. Nor do I believe the true Englishman approves of it. I am sure that journals like the Athenaeum, Spectator, Saturday Review, Times, News, Chronicle, Globe, etc., and, of course, the religious press, will agree with me that “ diplomacy ” has no place in the governing body of an archaeological society. What is the remedy? Let the Society place upon the Committee, so far as possible, those who know something of the subject, and always those who are interested. Let such attend the meetings. Let no more “mismanagements,” such as that connected with the “Pittsburg Branch,” be allowed to be “engineered through.” Let Mr. Cotton resign; and let frankness and open dealing characterize every plan or movement, every letter written, and every Annual Report published. Let assurances to American subscribers be kept. And those wholesome, kind, wise words of Miss Edwards, which she so generously applied to me, but I do not merit, may still be realized: “Miss Edwards ventured to think that by Dr. Winslow’s aid a great and noble friendship had been promoted and cemented between the elite of Transatlantic and British schol- ars; a friendship which had its root in their common love of truth, and their desire for the advancement of learning, and which was independent of the errors of creeds and the vari- able atmosphere of politics.” II. The Boston Committee. Here I prefer that readers may chiefly draw their own “ conclusions.” 164 THE TRUTH ABOUT (1) The conclusions of many subscribers are that this Committee is a self-constituted body. Rev. Charles E. Moldenke, Ph.D., the accomplished Egyptologist, wrote to me: “It appears as though the Comm, was entirely ‘self- constituted.’ ” Prof. Merrill, of Wesleyan University, wrote to the Boston Office: “The circumstances of your Commit- tee’s assumption of office . . . appear to me extraordinary.” (2) Mr. Robinson, who formed this Comm., did not deal frankly with me. The truth was kept from me. He fol- lowed the counsels of one or two men, who were hostile to me. No only had he, personally at least, not the least thing against me, but his Museum owed me much. He cannot name one other person who has given of himself, without money, so much for that institution. He not only was not frank, he was most ungenerous. He overlooked the golden rule. (3) Another conclusion is that Messrs. Lothrop and Davis knew that I had been most unfairly placed by the policy of the London Comm., and, consequently, had to contend with an impossible situation. Mr. Lodge soon found how hard, as Hon. Sec’y, it was to deal with such an Hon. Treas., and Mr. Lythgoe thoroughly knows how well he will reap the fruits of my toil. Prof. Goodwin, too, knows enough — at least now — of the extraordinary difficulties under which I con- ducted affairs. Under his wide mantle of fame the Comm, expect to appeal for aid. Dr. Moldenke also remarked: “ Among the names attached to the circular I only recognize that of Prof. Goodwin.” (4) It is certain, too, that the Boston Comm, must know of the great dissatisfaction existing throughout the American Branch. I am unwilling to believe that the slang-adage, - “We hold the fort — What are you going to do about it? ” is the motto of their intrenchment. When a veteran sub- scriber, like Rev. Dr. Morgan Dix of New York, always a staunch supporter, a careful man, writes that he is “much displeased,” and stops his subscription, it is significant. III. The American Subscribers. Those of them who read these pages through will need no “conclusions” from me for them. The subscribers are my jury. If I have their THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 165 sympathy, their respect, their approval, the moral victory is mine. “Everything should be made known to American subscribers,” wrote one of the best of them. “Keep nothing back,” wrote another. This could not be; but, enough has been made known for them to know how subscribers, local Secretaries, and myself have all been unjustly treated. The Rev. William Short, D.D., of St. Louis, President of the Standing Committee in that diocese, includes more than sub- scribers : “ The American mind believes in fair play, and its verdict will be that you have not been treated fairly.” The American Branch has not been “ treated fairly ” by either the London or Boston Committees. IV. Regarding myself as Honorary Secretary. “I hope you will maintain your rights and privileges at all hazards,” wrote Mr. H. C. Rowley, local Sec’y at Springfield, in view of my appeal to London in 1902, to sustain my authority in the Boston Office. But the Hon. Sec’y (Cotton) and a few others did not mean to carry out the resolution defining my powers, and they called the lawless actions of the paid Sec’y, abetted by the Hon. Treasurer, “friction.” The power for good or evil of an Hon. Sec’y in an English Soc’y is immense. The official correspondence is in his hands. He is as a mouth- piece of the Committee to branches and affiliated bodies. He can tincture or color whichever way his inclination tends, in his communications. A splendid Hon. Sec’y, like Amelia B. Edwards, is a splendid power for good. An Hon. Sec’y, altogether diplomatic and unscrupulous in many ways, is the opposite. Cotton claims to have drawn up the resolutions defining the status of the Hon. Sec’y, Hon. Treas., and Sec’y. In them it is stated that the Sec’y in the Boston Office shall correspond with the Hon. Sec’y and Sec’y in London. It is not stated that the Hon. Sec’y here shall correspond with the Hon. Sec’y there. “He shall communicate with the Committee.” The Hon. Treas. here is to “communicate” with the Hon. Treas. there. Why this reversal of custom regarding myself? this making the paid Sec’y of the Boston Office the official correspondent of the London Honorary Sec’y? Because of the understanding between Cotton and 166 THE TRUTH ABOUT the Sec’y when he was here, and to enable them to correspond constantly, which they did. “Cotton gives me the right,” one of her letters says, and this was constantly her cry. It has appeared that my administration has encountered an unscrupulous Hon. Sec’y in England, and has been hampered by a weak and meddlesome Hon. Treasurer here since May, 1897. When I stated to a careful man what Fos- ter read to me at my interview with him on Dec. 14, 1901 (see “The Outbreak,”), and said: “What do you think of that?” he replied, “I should think Mr. Foster was losing his mind.” This gentleman is Samuel S. Shaw of Boston, a lawyer, son of the late Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw. Here are three representative opinions, that of an eminent Harvard man, that of the eminent Babylonian explorer, that of the late Moderator of the Presbyterian Church General Assembly : Prof. Charles Eliot Norton, D.C.L., LL.D.: If new arrange- ments were to be made you had the right to the ordering of them, for the Egypt Exploration Fund would hardly have had existence in America but for your energy and devotion. You have practically been the Fund, and every one interested in the progress of exploration in Egypt must be grateful to you for what you have done to promote it. I hope that justice may yet be done to your unremitting zeal in the work which has been yours for so many years, and that in the reorganization of the Fund you may have the foremost position, which belongs to you. John P. Peters, Sc.D., Ph.D., D.D.: As one of the subscribers to the Egypt Exploration Fund, and one who is, perhaps, somewhat more interested than most others, since I had myself the good fortune to be the Director of the American Expedition to Babylonia, I write to you (the London Comm.) to protest against the action of your Committee with regard to Dr. Winslow and the American subscribers - That the American subscribers have been so numerous, and that the interest in this exploration- is so widespread in America, is entirely due to Dr. Winslow’s efforts. I believe that all of us who are subscribers to this Fund have the completest confidence in him. . . . We believe that we have a right to some word with reference to our organization. Herrick Johnson, D.D., LL.D.: Mrs. Johnson has already voiced my sense of the injustice done you. . . . Dr. Winslow and the Egypt Exploration Fund are virtually inseparable in my own mind. . . • The Executive Committee as constituted would better go into a state of “ innocuous desuetude.” The only road to “right ” is right. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 167 The foregoing views apply even more to the reorganization of 1902. This brochure has aimed to present the views of every class of subscribers. My aim has been to be just and to be impartial. To no one I feel personal animosity in the least. With Dr. Miller, already quoted, I exclaim, “Can such things be possible? ” Concerning the action in London, let the words of Dr. Zimmerman stand: “Such base injustice and gross ingratitude are exasperating.” But I am only indignant, and sorry that so true a story has had to be told. On only one point does my conscience vex me — I ought to have resigned all official connection with the Boston Office in 1898. I sacrificed myself beyond what duty calls upon any man to sacrifice himself to any cause. I purposed on rounding out 20 years’ of service in November, 1903, to retire from all responsibility, retaining only my honorary post of Vice President. But, among our conclusions, is one that Cotton, Foster and Robinson favored “a clean sweep,” after the two former saw that the Secretary must go ; and the London Committee said “go ” to my position of honor. Had we had a proper Sec’y, I would have asked for another Hon. Sec’y to be appointed several years ago. The London Comm, knew that I had done my essential work — and this affected their action not a little. My last conclusions (respecting myself) relate to the press. The regular correspondents of the three most widely circu- lated journals of the Episcopal Church called upon me. Each carefully read data and evidence in my hands, and each ex- pressed himself convinced. Their criticisms upon the Lon- don Comm., I shall not repeat. The Editor of the Living Church wrote to me : “ I am sorry indeed to learn how grave have been the matters that went before the sudden revolu- tion in the Egypt Exploration Fund, and think on the whole that you may be congratulated on being out of it. I hope, however, that there may again be another revolution which will have the effect of placing the whole matter upon its merits. ... I am very sure that at least in this country you need no vindication.” (F. C. Morehouse, Editor.) Rev. Edward T. Sullivan of Newton Centre, Mass., 168 THE TRUTH ABOUT Editor of The Church Militant, wrote to me : “ ... If it were not for the shameful manner in which it was done, I should say that you were well out of it. The method of it will cost the Society subscribers, I am sure, and it serves it right. But your conscience is all right — and theirs cannot be.” Other editors who knew something of the “ revolution ” wrote to me: Rev. A. E. Dunning, D.D., Editor of The Congregation- alist : “ . . .You have my sympathy, and also my congrat- ulations that you have got out of official relations with an organization which has such a load to carry as this one has.” Rev. W. Hayes Ward, D.D., LL.D., Editor of the Inde- pendent: “I am surprised after all you have done that you have been treated so cavalierly. The new Comm, ought to be national, not local,” etc. For the growth and prosperity of the American Branch I owe an unpayable debt to the press. I cannot particularize the New York and other dailies, for the list is too long. They have generously grasped the situation and aided, even when sometimes I was perhaps importunate and over-enthusiastic. I deeply appreciate their indispensable services; and one of the strong evidences of the hold archeology now has upon the intelligent public is seen in the publication, oftentimes conspicuous, of the news of fresh “finds ” in the great dailies whose colossal editions are read by millions of people. William Copley Winslow. 525 Beacon Street, Boston, July 1, 1903. Note. The correspondent of The Church Standard, Philadelphia, called to inquire concerning the “revolution.” He became much interested. He came again and devoted more time to reading the papers in my hands. He was deeply impressed. Urged by many to allow an account of my life to appear, with a likeness, I yielded. This corre- spondent, Rev. A. E. George of Walpole, Mass., kindly rec’d some data, already published in one or two magazines, reports, etc., etc., and made the sketch which follows this long story about the Fund. w. c. w. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 169 THE REQUEST OF THE LOCAL SECRETARIES TO THE LONDON COMMITTEE. There were about ninety local Honorary Secretaries for the United States when the new Committee was formed by Mr. Robinson in October, 1902. They constituted in every sense a thoroughly representative body. Their views con- cerning all matters pertaining to the American Branch were entitled to the highest consideration. A request officially from them to the Comm, should receive approval, and if not, clear and decisive reasons for rejecting such request should be given. To treat lightly any such request would be dis- respectful to the Secretaries, unjust to American subscribers, and would be breaking the pledges of the London Committee, orbits officials, that their one aim in dealing with the Ameri- can Branch is to meet the views of American subscribers. These local Secretaries represented the Society from Boston to San Francisco. The circular of the new Comm, last November caused indignation in many quarters, and was generally a great surprise to the subscribers. When some of the Secretaries learned how I had been relieved of my office of V. P., they conferred together, and Gen. Charles W. Darling, of Utica, sent to the local Secretaries a request for them to sign. The following action by him and them tell their own story: To the President and Committee of the Egypt Exploration Fund, London, England: Ladies and Gentlemen, — Many of the local Honorary Secretaries in the United States expressed dissatisfaction with the removal of the Rev. Dr. William Copley Winslow from both his offices, and some of them wishing that steps be taken to repair so disastrous a blow to the welfare of the American Branch, I have, by request, sent to the Sec- 170 THE TRUTH ABOUT retaries a petition, signed by them, as given below, and I hereby certify that the names affixed are duly authorized by the respective Secretaries over their signatures sent by them individually to me. In their behalf, representing as they do the entire American Branch, in various sections of the land, I urgently and respectfully request your prompt action upon the Petition. Charles W. Darling, Local Hon. Sec’y for Utica, N. Y. Inasmuch as the Rev. Dr. William Copley Winslow is retired from all active and responsible duties connected with the Egypt Explora- tion, We, the ’undersigned, Local Honorary Secretaries in the'United States, do respectfully and earnestly request that he be at once appointed Honorary Vice President for the United States. William W. Adams, D.D., Trustee of Williams College. Mrs. Ames, wife of James B. Ames, LL.D., head of Harvard Uni- versity Law School. Prof. W. J. Battle, Ph.D., Texas University. Prof. W t . J. Beecher, D.D., Auburn Theol. Seminary. Hon. James P. Baxter, LL.D., President of the New England Historic-Genealogical Soc’y, and of the Maine Historical Soc’y. President F. D. Blakeslee, D.D., Cazenovia Seminary, N. Y. Prof. T. Q. Browne, Morristown School (N. J.). Hon. E. R. Burpee, Bangor. Major-Gen. J. L. Chamberlain, LL.D., ex-Governor of Maine Portland. Miss Sybil Carter, Deaconess of the Episcopal Church, New York City. Archdeacon A. St. John Chambre, D.D., Lowell, Mass. Eckley Brinton Coxe, Jr., Esq., Philadelphia. Camden S. Cobern, Ph.D., D.D., Chicago. Hon. Charles H. S. Davis, M.D., Ph.D., Editor of Biblia, Meriden, Conn. Gen. Charles W. Darling, Corresponding Sec’y, Oneida Histori- cal Soc’y, Utica. Prof. John D. Davis, Ph.D., D.D., Princeton University. James T. Dennis, M.A., Johns Hopkins University. Mrs. Gen. John H. Devereux, Cleveland. Mrs. Henry P. Emerson, Lynn. Mrs. Winsor B. French, Saratoga. Edgar Allen Forbes, Ph.D., Southern Baptist Theol. Seminary. Rev. Daniel Goodwin, Ph.D., East Greenwich, R. I. Miss Emma C. Grafflin, Baltimore. THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 171 Mrs. Hoffman, widow of Very Rev. E. A. Hoffman, D.D. (Oxon.), D.C.L., LL.D., New York City. Prof. James M. Hoppin, D.D., Yale University. David Harlowe, Esq., Milwaukee. Edward Herbruck, Ph.D., D.D., Dayton, Ohio. Prof. Samuel Hart, D.D., D.C.L., Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn. Francis A. Horton, D.D., LL.D., Sec’y, etc., Philadelphia. Robert J. Hubbard, Esq., Cazenovia, N. Y. Mrs. Stephen G. Hubbell, Los Angeles. Mrs. William H. Hanchett, Omaha. Timothy Hopkins, Esq., Trustee of Stanford University, Cali- fornia. Mrs. Johnson, wife of Herrick Johnson, D.D., LL.D., ex-Moder- ator General Assembly of Presbyterian Church. William G. Johnston, Esq., Watertown, N. Y. Charles A. Jessup, D.D., Greenport, N. Y. J. E. Kittredge, D.D., Geneseo, N. Y. Renwick B. Knox, Esq., Duluth, Minn. Prof. C. Leidich, Ph.D., Detroit. Mrs. Donald Y. Leslie, Buffalo. Rt. Rev. Cameron Mann, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of North Dakota. James Morrow, D.D., Gen. Sec’y Bible Soc’y, Philadelphia. D. L. Miller, D.D., Editor and Author, Mount Morris, 111. Charles L. Myers, Esq., Jersey City. Prof. Elmer T. Merrill, Ph.D., Wesleyan University, Middle- town. Rev. J. C. Nevin, Ph.D., Los Angeles. S. M. Newman, D.D., LL.D., Washington. Hon. Thomas M. Owen, LL.D., historian, Montgomery, Ala. Prof. Walter S. Perry, Brooklyn. Prof. George H. Perkins, Sc.D., University of Vermont. Charles Ray Palmer, D.D., Trustee Yale University; President Connecticut Branch, E. E. F. Mrs. Charles B. Potter, Rochester, N. Y. Prof. John P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D., New York City. Prof. M. B. Riddle, D.D., LL.D., Western Theol. Seminary. H. Curtis Rowley, Esq., Publisher Webster’s Dictionary, Spring- field, Mass. Prof. F. S. Riley, Ph.D., University of Mississippi. Hon. John E. Russell, LL.D., ex M. C., Leicester, Mass. A. P. Schauffler, D.D., Sup’t City Missions, New York City. Prof. Charles C. Stearns, Hartford, Conn. Edward B. Sturges, Esq., Scranton, Penn. 172 THE TRUTH ABOUT William Short, D.D., Rector, St. Louis. James S. Stone, D.D., Rector, Chicago. Miss Mary A. Sharpe, Wilkes-Barre. The late Rt. Rev. F. W. Taylor, D.D., Bishop of Quincy. C. M. Taintor, Esq., Southport, Conn. Prof. Charles M. Tyler, D.D., Cornell University. Mrs. Harvey L. Van Nuys, Goshen, Ind. Prof. F. E. Woodruff. Ph.D., Bowdoin College. Mrs. Levi C. Wade, Newton Centre, Mass. Prof. E. H. Williams, Andover, Mass. Archdeacon R. P. Williams, Washington, D. C. James R. Winchester, D.D., Rector, St. Louis. John Wright, D.D., Rector, St. Paul. Prof. Irving F. Wood, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. Rev. Charles James Wood, Rector, York, Penn. Frank Waller, Esq., Morristown, N. J. Mrs. Charles E. Wilbour, New York City. Jeremiah Zimmerman, D.D., LL.D., Syracuse, N. Y. There were received 83 replies by Gen. Darling. Of the five who did not sign the request, one did not renew his sub- scription; one has not as yet; two, out of regard for Prof. Goodwin, did not sign. Another wrote to Darling: “Dr. Winslow’s services to the Fund have been so great that the London Committee will in all probability make some recog- nition of it.” He wrote to me: “I should think it might naturally occur to them to recognize in some way your great services, and this I believe they should be free to do in what- ever way they think best.” Four of the Secretaries were known to be abroad; and from three (perhaps also absent) no reply came. Of the former were Mrs. Howard Crosby, and Mr. Phipps whose decisive views are found elsewhere in this brochure. Gen. Darling in January, 1903, sent out a typewritten note to the Secretaries announcing that almost en masse the re- quest was signed; adding: “Let us earnestly hope that the above request will be granted, and that our English friends, with Sir John Evans at the head, will see to it that the Ameri- can Branch will be administered in accordance with the wishes of American subscribers, as is assured by the London Committee in one of its reports.” THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. 173 But those present at the meeting of the London Committee in January returned an evasive answer to Darling that in their opinion a Vice President should not at present be ap- pointed. Perhaps this was a diplomatic way to “shelve” the request : so that if the Committee ever felt forced to make the appointment, it could be taken from the shelf. A Boston paper calling attention to the second circular of the Boston Committee, remarked that “the London Committee declines to accede to the petition of sundry persons in this country to confer upon Rev. Wm. Copley Winslow ” this Office, etc. This “ information,” emanating from the Boston Committee’s office, was corrected by me in that journal, for I could not allow such a designation to be given to my associates before the Boston public. w. c. w. 174 WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. By the Rev. ALBERT E. GEORGE. Since the foundation of the American Branch of the Egypt Exploration Fund in 1883, by the Rev. William Copley Wins- low, he has devoted his best energies in every direction to- wards the promotion of the highest interests of the Society, and in obtaining money for its work of discovery and publi- cation. His valuable services ceased in 1902, when the Lon- don Committee reorganized the administration of the Ameri- can Branch. For nineteen years he has therefore given his time mostly, and his best thought towards building up the Society and creating a wide interest in the cause. He was among the first to interest the American public in archaeol- ogy, and the first in calling its attention to exploration in Egypt. At all times he has been found ready to speak or write in behalf of these interests, and labored unceasingly in obtaining the funds to bring about present results. As early as 1885, Mr. Gilbertson, then honorary treasurer, made this statement at the annual meeting: “I have had opportunities of seeing with mingled surprise and anxiety, what great, I might almost say unreasonable sacrifice of time and labor to promote the interests of the fund, have been made by the Hon. Secretaries, Miss Edwards and Mr. Poole, and by the Honorary Treasurer in America, Dr. Winslow. Looking at the question merely from an accountant’s point of view, I cannot but consider them as by far the largest contributors to our finances.” These amounts were raised, and mentioned in the annual report: Miss Edwards £175; Dr. Poole £288.15; Dr. Winslow 82,865.50, the last net. WILLIAM C WINSLOW D D. Ph D LL D. Founder of the American Branch of the Egypt Exploration Fund in 1883. WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. 175 The literary side, Miss Amelia B. Edwards referred to at a meeting of the Society in the Royal Institute, July, 1886 : Miss Edwards then went on to draw the attention of the meeting to the great and gratifying support which the Egypt Exploration Fund continued to receive from the citizens of the United States. . . . Among the learned societies represented by their presidents and vice- presidents, as contributors to this fund, were the American Oriental Society, the Archaeological Institute of America, the American His- torical Association, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philological Association, the New England Historical So- ciety, the Massachusetts Historical Society, the New York Historical Society, the Institute of Hebrew, the Institute of Christian Philoso- phy, the American Metrological Society, and the Webster Historical Society. Turning to representatives of the Church, no less than thirty-nine bishops of the Episcopal Church (including the Primate), and seventy-eight clergymen of various denominations were sub- scribers to the work. Of presidents of colleges and professors there were no less than 108, including all the foremost scholars and thinkers of their time; while of eminent statesmen, magistrates, scientists, authors, and other men of mark, there were about 160 more entered in the last list issued by the society's eminent and zealous vice-presi- dent, the Rev. Dr. W. C. Winslow, of Boston. Miss Edwards then dwelt with much warmth and earnestness upon the untiring energy, devotion and enthusiasm of Dr. Winslow, to whom the society were indebted for this unparalleled accession to the dignity and treasury of the Egypt Exploration Fund. With the one single exception of the late Sir Erasmus Wilson, Dr. Winslow had done more than any one, not merely for the work of this society, but for the cause of Biblical research and the spread of Biblical knowledge in connection with Egyptology throughout the civilized world. Miss Edwards ven- tured to think that by Dr. Winslow’s aid a great and noble friendship had been promoted and cemented between the elite of Transatlantic and British scholars; a friendship which had its root in their common love of truth and their desire for the advancement of learning, and which was independent of the wars of creeds and the variable atmos- phere of politics. Prof. R. S. Poole also spoke in the same emphatic way upon the labors of Dr. Winslow. When the latter nominated George William Curtis to succeed James Russell Lowell, and then afterwards in succession, Charles Dudley Warner, as honorary Vice Presidents, the London Committee deferred 176 WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. to his wisdom and judgment. His proposition for Chicago to have its own vice president, found the Committee willing to acknowledge the nomination of Messrs. Mason and Hutch- inson, respectively, for that place, and then for Canada, Dr. Bourinot and Sir J. W. Dawson in turn. This was also recog- nized in his appointment of local honorary secretaries in the United States. His thorough understanding of the status of the Fund, and the ways and means of encouraging financial support either in general affairs, or in varied details, was very helpful, and appreciated by the Committee. To look over the annual reports from 1883 to 1902, one sees at a glance the remarkable growth of the Fund and what testimony they bear to his intelligent zeal and keen enthusi- asm for the cause. The report for 1901 gives the sum of $12,500, all raised through the Boston office. The magazine Biblla for May, 1896, edited by Dr. C. H. S Davis, of Meriden, Conn., contains the following edi- torial : The Reports themselves best testify to the prosperous evolution of the Society, on our soil, in the interest it has awakened in discoveries in Egypt, and in their prosecution, and in the testimony afforded, not only in the splendid array of some five hundred names of eminent men and women, who have been enrolled on the subscription list, but in their words of hearty commendation. There comes to mind, how- ever, here and now, the words applied so truly by Dr. Winslow to his loved associate, now sorely missed from the council of the field of action: “The Egypt Exploration Fund ow T es an unpayable debt to Miss Edwards; that debt is now due, will be ever due, to her memory." Let us now glance at his career. The Rev. Dr. William Copley Winslow was born in Bos- ton on Jan. 13, 1840. He is the second son of the Rev. Hubbard Winslow, D.D., the successor of Dr. Lyman Beecher, once pastor of the famous Bowdoin Street Church. Here it was that Lowell Mason was conductor of the choir, and composed his best selections of music. * Dr. Winslow is in the seventh generation from Kenelm Winslow, brother of * “America” was sung^rsi by Mr. Winslow’s Sunday-school. WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. 177 Governor Edward Winslow. On his mother’s side, he is descended from the Colmans and Pembertons of Colonial days in Boston. Preparing for college at the Latin school, he naturally would have entered Harvard or Yale (his father’s college), but as his father was then pastor of the Presby- terian Church in Geneva, N. Y., he concluded to enter Hamil- ton College, Clinton, N. Y., and was graduated in 1862, the semi-centenary of that institution. It is a coincidence to note that Dr. Charles Dudley Warner, ’51, and Dr. Winslow, both officials of the Egypt Exploration Fund, received hon- orary degrees from this college in 1886. While in college, Mr. Winslow showed an inclination to- wards literary pursuits, and aided Joseph Cook, and W. G. Sumner, of Yale, in founding the University Quarterly Review, of which he was an associate editor for some time. His connection with the Hamiltonian as editor, and his preparation of the college catalogue known as the student’s edition, and several other literary ventures, marked his career as one likely to devote his future usefulness to literary work. Passing through a period of doubt over his calling in life, pressure was brought to bear upon him to be an editor. He had a strong inclination to be a clergyman. So many of his friends considered him well adapted for literary work that he concluded for a time to yield to their desires, and, with a letter to William Cullen Bryant from Edward Everett, he was promised a position upon the Evening Post. He accepted, however, for a short time a position upon the World, then doing its best literary work. During that winter, the old inclination to enter the ministry revived, and he concluded to become a student at the General Theological Seminary in New York City, which he did in 1863. He edited the Christian Times with Dr. Tyng during a portion of his seminary days, and upon his graduation, in 1865, he temporarily officiated at the Wainwright Memorial Church, and was asked to deliver a commemorative sermon upon the late rector, the Rev. E. R. T. Cook,fand a Thanksgiving ser- mon, which were published. Needing some rest, and de- 178 WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. siring to study in Italy, he spent four or five months there in the study of archaeology, and upon his return to this country lectured upon this topic. From June, 1867, to October, 1870, he was rector of St. George’s Church, Lee, Mass., where he labored as Chairman of the School Committee in the town, and was twice honored with the position of orator upon Decoration Day. The Adirondacks became an interesting subject to him during his summer vacations, and he aided to prepare charts and maps upon this then unfrequented locality. His last, and twenty-sixth trip to the Adirondacks, was made in October, 1892, and a year previous to this he camped on Mt. Adams, in mid-October, and explored in New Hampshire the “Presidential Range.” Part of the year 1892 he spent in New Hampshire, and with the help of Prof. R. Pumpelly and his brother, he cut a new path up Mt. Monadnock from the Dublin side, and, six years later, he spent three weeks in the vicinity of Mt. Kearsarge, and en- gaged in recutting a path from near the “Winslow House ” to the summit. He was an active member of the Appa- lachian Club, Boston, for several years. In removing to Boston in 1870, after his rectorship of St. George’s Church, Lee, he has since devoted much of his time to literary pursuits. He gave his services for several years as Chaplain of St. Luke’s Home for Convalescents, and has advanced the interests of the Free Church Association in Massachusetts in his position as Secretary of that body. His extensive membership in historical and other learned soci- eties has brought him in touch with some of the most repre- sentative minds in this country. The following organizations and societies have valued his services as an officer or upon committees: The Webster Historical Society, The Institute of Civics, the New England Historic-Genealogical Society, the Bostonian Society, and the Society for the Promotion of Good Citizenship, which he helped to form, and afterwards became a director in the same. The American Statistical Association, the Economic Society, the Archseological Insti- tute of America, the American Oriental Society, and other bodies have his papers in their Proceedings. He was ap- WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. 179 pointed upon the Committee to obtain records of Oriental antiquities sent to America at the fiftieth meeting of the American Oriental Society. At the Chicago Exposition, his help was valued in the department of history and phil- ology, and also his papers dealing with the section devoted to Africa were well received. Upon the latter topic, he read a paper from Naville. Some of the societies where Dr. Winslow has lectured have placed him upon their honorary rolls, such as the Oneida Historical Society, the N. Y. Biographical Society, the Long Island Historical Society, the New Haven Colony Historical Society, the N. Y. Churchman’s Association and the Danvers Historical Society. He is honorary member of twenty-three State Historical Societies, including five of the New England States. In Canada, he is the honorary correspondent of the Natural History Society of Montreal, of the Nova Scotia and Quebec Historical Societies. In Great Britain he is honorary fellow of the Royal Archaeologi- cal Institute; corresponding member of the British Archaeo- logical Association; honorary correspondent of the Victoria Institute; honorary fellow of the Society of Arts and Sciences, and for a number of years was fellow of the Society of An- tiquaries, Edinburgh; and in the United States, correspond- ing member of the Anthropological Society of Washington. Dr. Winslow was for ten years Prelate of the St. Bernard Commandery of Knights Templars in Boston. When Dr. Leemans completed his fifty years’ service as director of the Leyden Museum, the invitation was extended to Dr. Winslow to contribute an article to the splendid pub- lished album commemorating the event, and four or five other writers were likewise chosen from the United States to perform this duty. When the German Government pub- lished the great Book of the Dead in three costly volumes, two copies were presented through Naville, their editor, the great Egyptologist, to America; one going to the American Oriental Society, and the other to Dr. Winslow. In consideration of his varied services and writings, espe- cially in archaeology and history, the following universities and colleges have conferred degrees upon Dr. Winslow : 180 WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. 1. St. Andrews, the senior university of Scotland, LL.D., in 1886. 2. Amherst College, D.D., in 1887. 3. University of King’s College, D.C.L., in 1888. 4. Columbia University, at its centennial, L.H.D. 5. St. John’s College, Annapolis, at its centennial, Sc.D., “ in recognition of the learning and ability with which he had conducted scientific investigations.” 6. Griswold College, S.T.D., in 1889. 7. We have already said that he received Ph.D. from his Alma Mater, Hamilton. When but twenty-five years old he received Hon. M.A. from Hobart College for his journal- istic work. In 1880 Mr. Winslow’s studies led him to visit the monu- ments and sites of Egypt, and articles soon followed upon these important matters. When the discovery of Pithom (Ex. 1:11) was announced, he began a correspondence with Sir Erasmus Wilson and Amelia B. Edwards, which led up to his founding of the American Branch of the Egypt Explor- ation Fund. In 1883 he became honorary treasurer for America; in 1885 its vice president, and in 1889, the honorary secretary, the same position which Miss Edwards held in England. Dr. 0. W. Holmes wrote him that graphic and witty letter upon exploration, which has since appeared in his “Life and Letters,” and J. G. Whittier wrote such fresh and clever expressions of interest in Dr. Winslow’s work that his letter may be found in his published correspondence. In 1892 the subject of this sketch remarked to the editor of Biblia regarding his literary and business labors for the Society, “that so far as toil is concerned he had rather fill the most laborious professorship in Harvard University than act as the representative of the Society and Egyptological interests in this country, and as treasurer of the Fund.” For probably a dozen years after he founded the American Branch Dr. Winslow devoted nearly all his time to the cause in order to plant firmly the Fund and make “Egypt” known to our WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. 181 people. One of his objects in inducing Miss Edwards to lecture here was to popularize the subject through her gifts of speech. It is certain that from all these special efforts down to 1895-6 have sprung the interest in several centers like Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, New Haven, etc. A leaf culled from the published “Journal of Convention ” of the Diocese of Massachusetts for 1889 conveys some idea of his busy life. In obedience to the canon Dr. Winslow reports to his bishop: “Including nearly 300 editorials, articles, letters for the press and 17 lectures, in relation to Egyptian and Biblical exploration and re- search, much the larger part of my year’s work has been for the Egypt Exploration Fund. Nearly 2,000 personal notes, countless circulars despatched, 580 receipts written, the entire financial management, with its arduous clerical toil, are among my drudgeries. The bright side of the labor to me — a sufficient reward — is in the noble achieve- ments of the Fund for Religion and Science, and in the personal receipt by me of scores of grateful and inspiring letters from some of the best and greatest men in our land. Passing by congenial work in connec- tion with the Free Church Association, various societies of our State, and with several learned bodies of Europe and America, I simply add that I have officiated at 110 services, attended 97 meetings (taking part in 82 of them), for philanthropical, charitable, educational, or historical purposes, and been present at 27 committee meetings. Sermons, addresses, remarks, lectures, for all occasions, church and secular, foot up 199.” The report in 1892 runs like this: “Delivered or read 42 lectures, addresses, papers, on subjects chiefly historical, archseological, Bibli- cal; wrote 282 articles, letters, editorials, for the press: despatched 3,200 official letters and notes; mailed 17,000 circulars.” Probably 1,000 volumes of the Egypt Exploration Fund were distributed dur- ing the past year in the United States, and the money sent to England by Dr. Winslow footed up £1,350. During the years 1886-9 Dr. Winslow saw the golden time had come for seeming monumental and other valuable ob- jects for the Museum in Boston. It can never come again. He raised money, pleaded with the Committee, especially with Miss Edwards, and as a result the monuments are un- rivalled in any other Apierican Museum. The colossal statue of Raineses II, the gigantic column from Bubastis, the colos- 182 WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. sal head of Hathor, the Hyksos sphinx, the statue of the brother of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the processional blocks from Bubastis, and the exquisite pilm-leaf column from Ahnas, are among these treasures * Miss Edwards herself officially referred to this indebtedness to Dr. Winslow at the Fund meeting. The report says of the Bubastis sculptures: Miss Edwards concluded with a cordial reference to the great services of Dr. Winslow, their Vice-President and Honorary Treas- urer for America, to whom the Society was deeply indebted for the zeal with w T hich he had popularized the work of the Fund in the United States, and to w T hom his fellow countrymen were no less indebted for the interest which he had induced them to take in a delightful study, as well as for the splendid monuments with which, through his exer- tions, the Boston collection has been enriched. Let all who visit the Egyptian halls in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts remember that “ through his exertions the Boston collection has been enriched ” so nobly. While reviews, magazines, proceedings of learned bodies, as well as the daily and weekly press have frequently pub- lished Dr. Winslow’s archaeological writings, he has not been idle in other departments of intellectual labor. Until re- cently he preached about every Sunday, and he has preached in about 115 Episcopal churches in Massachusetts alone. He has devoted much time to New England, especially Ply- mouth Colony history, among his brochures being “The Pilgrim Fathers in Holland,” “Gov. Edward Winslow,” with numerous magazine or journalistic articles relating to colo- nial history. He has done work in this line for the cyclopae- dias, and is consulted thereon as an authority. Among his Egyptological writings are: “What says Egypt of Israel?” “ Explorations at Zoan ”; “A Greek City in Egypt ”; “The Identification of Avaris ” ; various small brochures or pam- phlets on “The Distribution of Papyri in the United States ”; “Egyptian Antiquities for our Museums”; “Ushabtis in *We learn that among the precious relics from Abydos is the Sard and Gold Scepter of King Khasekhemui of the second dynasty — the oldest known scepter in the world. Owing to Dr. Winslow’s personal appeal to London, and own generous subscription, this rare historic and archaic memento is now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, where it was placed in 1902. WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. 183 America”; and his tribute to Miss Edwards, “The Queen of Egyptology,” was widely read. Of Dr. Winslow’s successful and untiring labors to secure support for the Fund no one except Miss Edwards knew better than Mr. H. A. Grueber, long the English treasurer. In 1890 he reported: Upon comparing our present position with that of former years, it will be seen that, financially, the Fund continues to make steady progress. To keep it up to this high level, I need scarcely say is no light task; and the credit of the prosperous state of affairs is due, now as before, to the great organizing powers and unremitting exer- tions of your Hon. Secretary and Vice-President, Miss Edwards; to the continued brilliant services of your Hon. Treasurer for America, the Rev. W. C. Winslow; and also to the hearty cooperation of the several Local Honorary Secretaries. Sir John Fowler, the President, in 1892 said in his annual address, as reported: Before closing his address, the President referred to the remarks of a former speaker as to the relative proportion of the American and English subscription lists, stating that the American subscriptions were due to the indefatigable exertions of our eminent Hon. Treas- urer and Vice-President, the Rev. W. C. Winslow, D.D., LL.D., etc. He said that the Balance Sheet was, as it ought to be, most satisfac- tory, but two circumstances led him to hope for an increase in the English subscriptions: Firstly, a feeling of jealousy or rivalry that England should be equal to America. He assured the subscribers that this would not offend the Americans ; and said that he should not be content so long as he was President of the Fund till this object was gained. The official circular of the Society in London for 1899 states that “from its foundation, the Egypt Exploration Fund has received large pecuniary support from the United States, chiefly through the enthusiasm and energy of the Rev. Dr. W. C. Winslow of Boston.” It was owing to Dr. Winslow’s earnest persuasion that Miss Edwards came to America, and to his untiring efforts that a large part of her brilliant series of lecture-engagements, especially university or academic, was secured. Her first 184 WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. collegiate lecture was at Vassar. We quote from his bro- chure, “The Queen of Egyptology No single achievement of my life is more gratifying to me than my successful effort to induce my friend to visit the United States. The invitation was a fitting avant coureur to the welcome and success that everywhere were hers. Having written over two hundred personal notes to representative men and women in every department of life and work, I put out a leaflet, on March 1st, 1889, upon her capacities to lecture and her topics, to which I appended the following invitation, signed by Whittier, Lowell, Holmes, Curtis, Warner, Parkman, Booth, Vanderbilt, Morton, Storrs, the editors of Harper’s, The Century, The Atlantic, Scribner’s, The Nation, The Critic, The Literary World, about all the leading university and college presidents, etc., — some two hundred names in all : The proposed visit of Miss Amelia B. Edwards to the United States to see our country and to lecture upon subjects in which she is an ac- knowledged authority, if carried into effect, will be an event of special interest to the intelligent and cultivated people of our land. She may be assured of a hearty welcome, and her lectures cannot fail to prove of rare profit and pleasure to her audiences. President Barnard, of Columbia University, asked Dr. Winslow’s opinion upon the conferring of a degree on Miss Freeman, then president at Wellesley, which, it is needless to say, he heartily commended. Dr. Winslow presented the merits of Miss Edwards so forcibly that both women received L.H.D. from Columbia. That a woman's college should recognize Miss Edwards’ merits and work was in his mind, and he wrote to President Seelye accordingly. So that Dr. Edwards was the first English woman who ever received LL.D., and upon her, Smith College, Northampton, bestowed its initial honorary degree. All who heard her lectures and read her “Pharaohs, Fel- lahs and Explorers ” (her lectures here) are indeed indebted to his foresight and good judgment in winning her to come to America and interest people in Old Egypt. What a change from 1883 to 1902! From the spades that dug up the Israelite-made bricks, straw and strawless, at Pithom, to the spades of Petrie at Abydos, is represented a remarkable devel- opment in discovery, results, and popular growth. The WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. 185 labors of Dr. Winslow for a decade were a seed-time, a plant- ing, from which local societies in various places in the United States have sprung, and are doing to-day a good work in secur- ing funds for the Society and “objects” for their Museums. The devotion of nearly nineteen years to a cause, which Dr. Winslow has so ably championed here in America, has been carried on without any financial recompense. No man has more unselfishly applied his time and his energies for such a long time with such deep interest. When the Egypt Ex- ploration Fund was first started, there were many difficulties to be overcome, requiring patience and tact. These would well nigh discourage any one except the ardent student of archaeology. In the early days of the Fund it required the constant study of details to make a presentable case before the literary and other societies of this country. Only those who know of such efforts can estimate how much untiring labor was involved in this undertaking. Bishop Paddock of Massachusetts, the immediate prede- cessor of Phillips Brooks as Bishop, spoke to the writer of this sketch how well repaid he was in attending one of Dr. Winslow’s lectures, and how valuable was his service to the Christian Church in the manner in which he could adorn such a subject as Egyptian exploration to the ordinary listener. The religious press opened its columns to his contributions, and was always glad to welcome them, for, while his scholar- ship was known, it never came in the shape of dictatorship, but was modest and unassuming. Consequently, with the increase of the interest for the Fund there was the ardent assurance that his leadership in promoting it would be sensitive of the expectations of those who were contributing annually towards its support. Nothing has ever been reason- ably objected to in his administration, and the published reports themselves testify to his successful leadership of the American Branch of the Society. His zeal in its promotion has been characterized by prudence in expenditures, and careful summaries of results secured. The name of Dr. Winslow must inevitably stand for most in the history of the Egypt Exploration Fund in this country; 186 WILLIAM COPLEY WINSLOW, D.D. and when the important results from his labors are widely known, as they are already recognized by American scholars, his long, honorable and successful service in promoting the cause of archaeology in this country, and in popularizing the work of exploration in Egypt, will be held in grateful remembrance. Walpole, Mass., June, 1903. A. E. G. OPINIONS OF AMERICAN SUBSCRIBERS THE SINGULAR REORGANIZATION OF THE EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND. The monograph of one hundred and eighty-six pages, “ The Truth about the Egypt Exploration Fund,” receives the strong approval of representative subscribers of the American Branch of that Fund. One of its three illustrations is a fine likeness of the lamented Miss Amelia B. Edwards. In it the founder of the Ameri- can Branch, Rev. Dr. William Copley Winslow, describes how the London Committee asked a non-subscriber, uninterested in the work, to form a Boston Committee, without consulting subscribers, and against the pro- test of many of them; and how the request of the eighty Local Secretaries was utterly ignored’ This, too, in face of the official declaration that “ in any reorganization of the American Branch the approval of American subscribers is essential ”! To meet the demand, it becomes necessary now to 'print some of these “ opinions.” The list below could be duplicated several times numerically. Many subscribers have not yet seen the book. Dr. Winslow, 525 Beacon Street, Boston, mails it free to all such who apply for a copy. Rt. Rev. T. U. Dudley, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., Chairman of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church: “ The behav- iour of the London Committee is incomprehensible. I do not see how any American Churchman can contribute to its fund until it shall have made amends to you and reorganized its representation (The Boston Committee) in this country.” Rt. Rev. George F. Seymour, D.D., LL.D., of Illinois, the eminent theologian, formerly Dean of the General Theological Seminary (N. Y.): “ My personal knowledge of you for many years counts for a great deal with me, since those years have revealed to me a character of the highest integrity, uncom- promising honesty, fidelity to duty, and at the same time of the most generous and charitable impulses. This I say must be added by me at least as a preface to the book which you kindly sent me, because it makes me doubly sure in the conclusion that you have been treated, as our representative by the London Committee, in a manner which baffles explana- tion. The American Branch owes its existence and pros- perity to you, and the entire society more to you than to any one else; accordingly, you were entitled to receive every con- sideration at the hands of its Committee. “ It is not for me to criticise the motives of these parties any farther than to say that I shall hereafter withhold any coopera- tion with them until satisfaction has been given to you, and not only to you, but to us, for the treatment which you, and we, through you, have received at their hands.” Rt. Rev. 0 . W. Whitaker, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Penn- sylvania: “ It has the charm of a well-told detective story, but its revelations of ambition and deceitfulness on the part of some, and of unscrupulousness and inconsistency on the part of others with whom you were associated, are painful. The action of the London Committee is amazing. The Fund owes far more to you than to any one else who has been connected with it, and I feel sure that if all the facts could be put before a full meeting of the Committee, there would be a reconsidera- tion of the unjust action affecting your relationship to the organization. I wish I could hope for a reconsideration of the action of some persons in Boston, but I fear they will find no place for repentance. “ I shall certainly not renew my subscription to the Fund so long as the present organization of the American Branch remains unchanged.” Rt. Rev. Cameron Mann, D.D., Bishop of North Dakota: “ I entirely sympathize with you, and am utterly amazed that such a cabal as was manufactured against you could ever have existed. “ It is of course needless for me to say that I shall have noth- ing more to do with the Egypt Exploration Fund (as Honor- ary Secretary) until it has made all honorable amends.” Rev. Morgan Dix, D.D. (Oxford), D.C.L., Rector of Trinity Parish, New York City, former President of the House of Cleri- cal and Lay Deputies of the Episcopal Church in the United States, wrote the following letter: My dear Dr. Winslow, — Thank you very much for send- ing me your pamphlet “ The Truth about the Egypt Explora- tion Fund.” I have just finished it, going through it from beginning to end. My feelings in reading it were those of sur- prise, astonishment, indignation and disgust. It has almost the quality of a romance; not the unreality, but the absorb- ing interest. What a strange story has been yours! To have labored so long, so disinterestedly, so enthusiastically, so suc- cessfully for a great cause, only to be circumvented and thrown aside, the victim of secret plots and a miserable ambition! It is lamentable to think of the breaking up of that work in this way; and I feel aggrieved at the weakness and carelessness with which those persons behaved, who should have upheld you and routed your adversaries. I am very glad that you have stated your side of the case so clearly; and, as one of your many friends, I repeat with reverence, applying the words as the occasion suggests, “ He shall make thy righteousness as clear as the light, and thy just dealing as the noonday.” I was, as you know, deeply interested in the work of the Egypt Exploration Fund, and a giver, according to my ability, to its support and labours.* But now I withdraw entirely from membership, and decline to aid any further until full justice shall be done to you, and reparation such as the wrongs de- mand. It is, I suppose, unreasonable to indulge a hope or dim expectation of such a result; but meanwhile you have my sympathy and the assurance of my full confidence and warm regard. Very sincerely yours, Morgan Dix. The Rev. Wm. Copley Winslow, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D. Prof. Herrick Johnson, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., Chicago, former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian * Dr. Dix and the late Dr. Hodman, Dean of the General Theologicnl Seminary, were the most liberal donors to the society among all the clerical subscribers. The Dean wrote two very strong letters, one to Sir John Evans and another to the Committee. lie wrote to Dr. Winslow: “ If the London Committee take, as they have done, no no- tice of my letter, it is absolutely useless to write them again. I stated to them that a change in the Boston Office was absolutely necessary.” Church in the United States, President of the Presbyterian Hoard of Education, etc., etc. : “You have a perfectly clear case, and I cannot understand why the English Committee have behaved a a they have. If there is anything you can do to bring the matter to a direct issue it should be done, and repa- ration compelled.’’ President W. F. Warren, D.D., LL.L)., Boston Univer- sity, author of “ Constitutional Law in the Methodist Episco- pal Church,” etc., etc.: " 1 have carefully read every page of your most interesting statement, and I am glad to have the lacurur in my previous information so authentically filled. “ The reading has fully decided me to withhold further con- tributions until the London Committee bring forth fruits meet for, and evidence of, repentance.” Bishop I). L. Miller of the German Baptist Church in the United States: “ You have shown the true inwardness of the entire matter.” Rev. Samuel M. Warren, Brookline, Mass., of the New Jerusalem (Swcdenborgian) Church, author, etc.: “ I have read it with a feeling of astonishment at the unaccountable injustice of the London Committee to yourself personally — who have done so great service to the Fund — and to the whole body of American subscribers. . . . The poor unworthy Secre- tary, impelled by her paltry ambition, would soon have come to the end of her tether, without great harm to anybody but herself, if the Committee had acted like a body of judicial minded men intrusted with the management of grave affairs. ... I shall not subscribe until they undo what they have done, and consent to our forming a representative Committee for ourselves.” Rev. Philip S. Moxom, D.D., Springfield, Mass., Congrega- tionalist, University Preacher at Harvard, Yale, Cornell, etc., author: “ It is my conviction that you were shamefully abused by either stupidity or malice, or both. I have no patience with those people. I quite agree with what Dr. Goodwin* says about the London Committee.” Rev. A. P. Putnam, D.D., Salem, Mass., the eminent Uni- tarian divine and author, President of Danvers Historical Society, says: “ My thanks for the copy of your masterly vin- dication of yourself, and your very able and thorough expose of the monstrous wrong that was done you in displacing you from that position or office which you had made so high and honorable by your remarkable fidelity and success in the dis- charge of your duties. ... 1 was more grateful to you than I can toll for all your magnificent and unselfish labors in the work you loved so well, and for which no other American was so well fitted as yourself by your tastes, learning, zeal and energy.” Rev. J. Zimmerman, D.l)., LL.l)., the eminent Lutheran divine, author, lecturer at Syracuse University, etc.: “ Y'our position is unanswerable.” Archdeacon R. P. Williams, Diocese of Washington, 1). C., Local Secretary there: “ How anyone can read the book dis- passionately and free from personal bias, without becoming righteously indignant, is more than I can conceive. . . . You arc insulted, the subscribers to the Fund have been insulted, and the work has been stricken in the house of its self-styled friends.” Archdeacon A. St. John Ciiamrre, D.D., Lowell, Dean of the Eastern Convocation: “ Y’our book vindicates you.” Archdeacon Joseph Carey, D.D., LL.l)., Saratoga Springs: “ You have been the mainstay of the society here. The Lon- don office must see this and reinstate you.” Very Rev. R. W. Norman, D.D., D.C.L., Toronto, of the •Ukv. Daniki Goodwin, Pii.D., D.D., author, Ixical Secretary in Rhode Island, hud said: " Unless the London Committee retraces its stops by making all possible amends to you and apologising to the local secretaries (eighty in number) for so cavalier treatment of them, it will stand permanently discredited in America ” Canadian Church: " I cannot recall another such instance of disgraceful and outrageous conduct. ’ Rev. James S. Stone, D.D., of the Standing Committee, Diocese of Chicago, Local Secretary there: “ You have fully vindicated your position. The evidence is complete and be- yond dispute. . . . The London Committee owe some ex- planation of their conduct to the local Secretaries (about eighty) who asked them to recognize your services by making you an honorary officer.” Rev. Dr. William Short, St. Louis, President of the Stand- ing Committee, Diocese of Missouri: “ The London Committee ought to acknowledge its error.” Rev. J. Newton Perkins, I). I)., Secretary of the American Church Building Fund: “This action is outrageous.” Rev. R. F. Alsop, D.D., Rector of St. Ann’s Church, Brook- lyn (1,510 communicants): “ I am convinced that the London Committee have acted unfairly and very unwisely.” Major-General J. L. Chamberlain, LL.l)., former Gov- ernor of Maine and once President of Bowdoin College: “ It is a wonderful story and you have told it with great prudence and skill, considering what you had to say and to refrain from saying. The injustice done you is made manifest and it is unaccountable.” Hon. E. E. Farm an, LL.D., former Consul-General to Egypt, through whose efforts the obelisk was secured for New York: “ I shall not renew iny subscription until this great wrong shall have been righted, as it certainly will be if there is any manliness or sense of justice in the London Committee.” James Schouler, LL.T)., Boston, the eminent historian, former President American Historical Association: “The pamphlet confirms me in the opinion that you have been treated most unjustly." Rev. Alexander McKenzie, D.D., Cambridge, long Secre- tary to the corporation of Harvard University: “ I have read your pamphlet and you prove your case. ... It was unjust and I think the Fund must suffer for it.” Hon. James P. Baxter, President of the Maine Historical Society, Mayor of Portland, President of the New England Historic-Genealogical Society in Boston: “ Your monograph presents the subject in such a concise form that I have been interested anew in it, and more fully realize the great wrong that has been done. It is indeed a strange story and should overwhelm those who have plotted against you with confu- sion. I quite agree with Dr. Dix.” Hon. Samuel Sloan, President of Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R.: “ You have the confidence and respect of the subscribers,” etc. R. B. Knox, Esq., banker, Duluth, a Local Secretary: “ I read it with a great deal of care. The Committee has acted hastily, injudiciously, and without full knowledge.” David Harlowe, Esq., Milwaukee, Local Secretary: “ It covers the subject thoroughly in all its parts.” Edward B. Sturges, Esq., Local Secretary at Scranton: “ Though generally a very busy man, I read the entire book, and have never sent a dollar to the Fund since.” F. Colling wood, C.E., Esq., Elizabeth, N. J.: “I will have nothing to do with the American office as at present consti- tuted.” Chief Engineer F. G. McKean, U. S. N., YVashington: “ You have been treated very badly, but I have no doubt you can stand it if the other side can.” Chief Quartermaster W. E. Coleman, U. S. A., San Francisco: “ The conduct of the Committee was disgraceful. Carry the war into Africa until the great wrong is righted and justice done.” Major-General A. S. Webb, LL.D., U. S. A.. Commander- General of the Military Order Foreign Wars: " I have read all of the Monograph. I also am indignant. . . . Proper re- spect must be paid to American subscribers, or there will be no American subscribers.” Hon. Samuel Small, York: “ I think it an outrage, and for the life of me cannot understand what the Committee means.” _ Charles W. Sloane, Esq., lawyer, Local Secretary in New York: " You, the founder of the Fund here, merited treatment other than that appropriate for a mischief-making subordinate.” John Gray, Esq., of the law firm of Gray, Abbott & Wil- liston, Chicago: “ It seems to me to be an incontrovertible statement of facts, and plainly shows that a great wrong has been done in retiring you from the position you held so long, and in which you did so much to interest the public. The answer of the London Committee to the request of the Ameri- can Secretaries shows that the former have little regard for the opinions of American subscribers.” Ellis L. Motte, Esq., of Schouler & Motte, Boston: ” .All who read your book will at once see how complete is your ab- solute exoneration from the least fault, not only that, but also that your behaviour under the tremendous strain was flawless.” Prof. J. J. Stevenson, Sc.D., LL.D., New York Univer- sity, President American Geological Society, New York Acad- emy of Sciences, etc.: “ I have read most of it carefully, and am free to say that you have been treated shabbily. . . . The London Committee owes it to itself to make some explanation. The explanations offered do not explain" (Italics added). Colonel Jacob H. Greene, Hartford, President Connecti- cut Mutual Life Insurance Co.: ‘‘The whole performance is astounding. We are entitled to know from London what they mean by it.” D. H. Ayers, Esq., Troy: “ It appears to me that an ex- planation is in order, as silence under the circumstances seems to imply a confession of guilt.” Hon. David E. Heineman, Detroit: “ I read it carefully, and it seemed to me that an answer, if one could be made, was due from London. That answer is not forthcoming, and in its absence but one conclusion can be drawn — that no answer can be made. I desire to thank you for the undeviating course you have pursued, and to offer you the encouragement em- bodied in Lincoln’s .phrase, that ‘ nothing is settled until it is settled right.' ” Hon. Henry N. Loud, President Michigan Board of Library Commissioners: “ My sympathies are certainly with you in the matter.” Rev. C. R. Palmer, D.D., trustee of Yale, and President of the Connecticut Branch, Egypt Exploration Fund: ‘‘I can- not understand from your representations how such a course as has been pursued by the London Committee is to be justi- fied.” Prof. C. Leidich, Ph.D., of the Detroit Branch, Egypt Ex- ploration Fund: “ I still view the matter from the same stand- point that you do. . . . We do not think that you have been justly treated.” Prof. J. D. Davis, Ph.D., D.D., Princeton: "Your history of the case is most illuminating. . . . The essential facts are so clear and so well known that no statement made by the other side can reverse the general verdict.” Rev. W. W. Adams, D.D., Trustee of Williams College: “ I regarded your displacement as injustice to you, and impolitic on the part of the English managers.” Prof. G. H. Perkins, Sc.D., Vermont University: “ I greatly regret the very unwise and singular action of the Eng- lish Committee.” Prof. F. W. Williams, Ph.D., of Yale, and an official of the American Oriental Society: “ You have made a strong case which perfectly justifies you.” Prof. E. H. Williams, Sc.D., Lehigh University: “ I think it about as convincing a document as one would wish to read.” Prof. 8. M. Jackson, D.D., LL.D., of the American His- torical Association: “ You have defended yourself on all points, and produced a crushing answer.” Prof. C. M. Tyler, D.D., Cornell University: " It is anni- hilating.” Prof. T. C. Estey, Rochester University: “ I congratulate you upon the convincing character of your presentation. I had forgotten that educated men could behave so much like sav- ages.” Prof. H. C. G. Brandt, Ph.D., Hamilton College: “ Such a policy is outrageous and suicidal.” President J. M. Taylor, D.D., LL.l)., Vassar College, con- cludes his note: " I feel that your long and most highly honor- able service to this cause should not have been forgotten.” Prof. Irvino F. Wood, Ph.D., Smith College : “ You have made a strong case.” Prof. F. K. Sanders, Ph.D., Yale: " I am in entire sym- pathy with your position.” President F. D. Blakeslee, D.D., LL.D., Cazcnovia Sem- inary: “ I shall never pay another dollar until this great wrong is righted.” President II. C. Haydn, D.D., LL.D., Western Reserve College, concludes his note “ with regrets that your long and honorable connection with the Society has been interrupted.” Prof. J. Burkitt Webb, Sc.I)., formerly of Cornell, now of Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N. J.: " The world consists of two classes of people — those whose worth and work entitle them to a place in it, and those who are not thus entitled. The latter, if not content, must resort to unfair and underhanded means to better themselves.” Franklin Carter, Pii.D., LL.D., former President of Wil- liams College: “ It seems to be one of those cases where men do all the work to make a thing a success, — and make it, too, — and are pushed out to make way for those who do not know what the cost has been.” Prof. C. C. Tohricy, Ph.D., Editor American Oriental So- ciety Journal: “ You have indeed been unjustly and unworth- ily treated.” J. N. FRADENnunr.ii, Ph.D., LL.D., the eminent orientalist: " Your revelations are amazing. The publication was not only justified, but demanded in vindication of yourself and in the cause of truth and justice.” Arthur S. Cooley, Ph.D. (Harvard): “ One who had done so much for the Fund deserved far different treatment.” Prof. W. T. Battle, Ph.D., American School of Classical Studies, Athens: “ It is clear that your book abundantly justi- fies your protest against the treatment that you have received. I sincerely wish for your reinstatement.” President G. E. Merrill, D.D., LL.D., Colgate University: " It seems as if the Committee had not done tne right thing.” Prof. George T. Little, Litt.D., Bowdoin College, ends his note, “ deeply regretting the injustice done you,” etc. A. H. Griffith, Director of Detroit Museum of Art: " I feel that you are in the right.” Rev. John Wright, D.D., St. Paul, author, lecturer on Egypt: "It covers the ground completely and is a clear vin- dication.” Mrs. Henry F. Durant, trustee of Wellesley College (founded by Mr. Durant) : " You have been most singularly, unjustly treated, after having been used as the chief promoter of the cause.” Mrs. Esther B. Steele, Litt.D., historical author: ‘‘There certainly seems something inexplicable in the recent manage- ment of the Egypt Exploration Fund. . . . You certainly have the sympathy and respect to which your devotion entitles you.” Miss Sybil Carter, deaconess, Local Secretary in New York: “ What a disgraceful record the Egypt Exploration Fund has made for itself! I shall not give the present management a cent.” Mrs. Thomas S. McGraw, Detroit, life member: “ I have as yet not read more than half your exposition of the shameful facts, although I found it intensely interesting. ... I have faith that somehow good will come out of this evil, but I am confident that such good will not be credited to the account of the London Committee,” etc. Mrs. William Thaw, Pittsburg, patron: “The habitual pig-headed selfishness of the British organization (Committee) is, of course, responsible for the whole situation. To turn down the man who had organized and carried on the work from the outset is as indefensible as it is stupid.” Editorial Opinions. Only a small number of Editors have read the book, some of whom are here quoted : W. H. Ward, D.D., LL.D., The Independent, N. Y.: “I am fully convinced of the injustice of the treatment you have received, and of the unwisdom, to say the least, of those who have made this revolution.” Rev. E. T. Sullivan, The Church Militant, Boston: “The method of it will cost the Society subscribers, I am sure, and it serves it right.” F. C. Morehouse, The Living Church: “ At least in this country you need no vindication.” Rev. A. E. Dunning, D.D., The Congregationalist, Boston: “ You have my sympathy, and also my congratulations that, you have got out of official relations with an organization which has such a load to carry.” Rev. J. B. Drury, D.D., The Christian Intelligencer , N. Y. : “ You have been badly and most unjustly treated.” Paul Carus, Pii. D., The Open Court, Chicago: “ The reve- lations which you make cause me to feel alarmed with the way in which the Egypt Exploration Fund is being run.” The Churchman editorially remarks that, “ subscribers ought to take cognizance of a pamphlet on the singular reorganiza- tion to which this American Branch has been subjected.” The Pacific Churchman, San Francisco, editorially says: “ The book is one of absorbing interest and very great impor- tance. ... It is a story of no credit to the English Parent Society; it ought to rouse the love of fair play which all Eng- lishmen are said to hold very dear,” etc. Records of the Past, the illustrated monthly magazine, Wash- ington, devoted to archieology, remarks: The success of the Egypt Exploration Fund has been largely due to the financial aid contributed by Americans. For the interest created here in the work in Egypt and for the large sums of money contributed annually by the people of this country, both Americans and English- men are almost entirely indebted to Dr. Winslow. He was unselfish and devoted in his work. He did not ask for and did not receive a salary. He succeeded in interesting the American Press throughout the country in the work and contributed many articles to newspapers and magazines. He wrote thousands of letters to individuals appeal- ing for contributions to the Society, and, as we have stated, was emi- nently successful. In the whole history of exploration there is not to be found nnother such example of self-sacrifice and devotion. . . . Last year Dr. Winslow informed the London Committee that he would no longer be associated with such an .office secretary, and suggested the names of several prominent subscribers in America for a commit- tee to represent the American Branch and conduct its affairs. But Mr. Cotton and Iris clique, who were seemingly in control of the London Committee, ignored the rights of the subscribers in this country and requested a person who was not a subscriber to the fund to form an American Committee. . . . The founders of the Egypt Exploration Fund intended the Society to labor for the great cause in which the scientific and religious world was, is and ever will be interested — Truth. The London Committee had better go back to first principles. The treatment Dr. Winslow has received from it has been resented by hundreds of subscribers to the Society. . . . We advise all contribu- tors to withdraw their support to the Egypt Exploration Fund until its Directors right the great wrong they have done Dr. Winslow and restore him to the position he filled for so many years with honor and credit to the Society and the work of historical research. If the Lon- don Committee will not do this, then Americans interested in the work of exploration in Egypt should organize an American society and con- duct their own explorations. The following extracts represent the drastic and mild type of criticism: Rev. M. B. Lambdin, St. Albans, W. Va. : “ It has been read with exceeding care, and in a judicial frame of mind. You have been not simply shabbily treated, but outrageously so. While perusing its pages I felt the constant sense of a rising righteous indignation in view of what you have been made to suffer. It almost passes belief. ... It does seem to me that, as an outcome of your expose, not merely self-respect, but a regard to individual decency, honesty and justice, ought to prompt the London Committee at once to right an atrocious wrong, — so far as they can, — not only in restoring you to office, but by a manly and public apology.” President , of : “ The London Committee act like an hallucinated batch of idiots.” William G. Johnston, Esq.: Watertown, N. Y., Local Sec- retary and patron: “ It would be impossible for any candid person to read your monograph without coming to the conclu- sion reached by Dr. Morgan Dix. It does not seem to rre that the London Committee can offer any apology adequate for the shameful manner of their treatment of you. . . . Instead of injuring you in the least, they have greatly injured themselves and the Society they represent.” Rev. S. M. Newman, D.D., LL.D., pastor in Washington: “ . . . I wrote them squarely that I was disgusted with the management of affairs and wished my subscription cancelled.” Rev. Dr. James Carter, Williamsport, Pa.: “It is an ex- haustive presentation of the case. Nothing could be plainer. It should settle conclusively the question of the propriety of the English action in the matter.” Dr. J. E. Kittredge, the well-known pastor and writer, Geneseo, N. Y.: “ A most remarkable little volume. It is so clear, so concise, so complete a statement of the conduct of the London Committee, and of the whole case as related to yourself, that one can reach but one conclusion. The Com- mittee, under some fatal hallucination, has made an enormous blunder.” * Prof. Charles Eliot Norton, LL.D., Harvard University, ends his letter of good wall with the hope “ that you may have the satisfaction of knowing that what you have done in the service of the Fund receives due recognition.” George Zabriskie, Esq., New York City: “ The London Committee did you a grave injustice, which is resented by the American subscribers. With this feeling I associate myself.” Edgar G. Miller, Esq., Baltimore, the antiquarian: “ I have no doubt that your book will cause the English Com- mittee to regret its action.” Boston, March, 1904.