— 
 
 A KEY TO THE “TRUSTEES’ STATEMENT.” 
 
 ETTERS 
 
 . 
 
 TO THR 
 
 
 MAJORITY OF THE TRUSTEES 
 
 OP THE 
 
 
 
 DUDLEY OBSERVATORY, 
 
 SHOWING THE 
 
 MISREPRESENTATIONS, 6ARBL1N6S AND PERVERSIONS 
 
 OF THEIR 
 
 MIS-STATEMENT, 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE H. THAOHER. 
 
 FROM THE ATLAS & ARGUS, 
 OCTOBER, 1858. 
 
i KEY TO THE “ TRUSTEE’S STATEMENT.” 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 MAJORITY OF THE TRUSTEES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DUDLEY OBSERVATORY, 
 
 SHOWING THE 
 
 MISREPRESENTATIONS, CARBIINGS AID PERVERSIONS 
 
 OF THEIR 
 
 MIS-STATEMENT . 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE H. THACHER. 
 
 FROM THE ATLAS & ARGUS, 
 OCTOBER, 1858. 
 

54 5,. I? 
 
 r 35, m . 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Introduction, - , 3. 
 
 I. Animus op the Statement, 12. 
 
 II. Curiosities of the Statement, 25. 
 
 III. Dr. Gould’s Incompetency, 31. 
 
 IY. Garblings and Perversions, 39. 
 
 V. Garblings and Perversions, - - - - 48. 
 
 YI. Garblings and Perversions, 59. 
 
 VII. Garblings and Perversions, - - - - 10. 
 
 YIII. Garblings and Perversions, 85. 
 
 IX. Dr. Gould and the Finances, (Dialogue,) 91. 
 
 X. Supposed Dialogue continued, 99. 
 
 XI. Act of Incorporation, 112. 
 
 XII. Letter by the Author to Hon. Erastus 
 
 Corning, and Mr. Corning’s Reply, - 116. 
 XIII. Letter by J. Y. L. Pruyn, Esq., - - - 121. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 TO THE FRIENDS OF THE DUDLEY OBSERVATORY. 
 
 The public are already familiar with the main points 
 involved in the unhappy controversy between the Nine 
 Trustees of the Dudley Observatory, and the founders and 
 Scientific Council, of that Institution. The controversy 
 was made known to the world by Mr. Olcott’s publishing 
 in the Albany and New York papers gross charges against 
 Dr. Gould, the Director, in which he is presented as a 
 liar, a peculator, a reckless squanderer of the Trustee’s 
 money, and a quack astronomer. Up to that moment no 
 man in the United States stood higher or was more distin- 
 guished for all the qualities opposite to those attributed to 
 him by Mr. Olcott, than Dr. Gould. His friends were 
 amazed. None more so than his associate members of the 
 . Scientific Council, who had known him intimately for 
 many years., They had a right to expect, on the ground 
 of courtesy, and in fact, on all the grounds of fair dealing 
 recognised among honorable men, that they should be the 
 first to receive and the first to have the opportunity to 
 investigate any and all charges to be preferred. But Mr. 
 Olcott, with an impulsive precipitancy which he will 
 regret to the last hour of his life, without apparently a 
 moment’s reflection on the gravity of the charges, with- 
 out pausing to consider the deep wound he was about to 
 inflict on a fellow being whose feelings were tender and 
 whose reputation was dearer to him than all things else, 
 
4 
 
 not excepting life itself — Mr. Olcott, a man who has only 
 lately professed to he actuated and governed by the gospel 
 religion, whose chief element is that charity .which “ suffers 
 long and is kind which is “ first pure, then peacable, 
 gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good 
 fruits,” hastens into the arena of public strife and openly 
 assails Dr. Gould in the mode and to the extent described. 
 All this was done too without the previous knowledge of, 
 or warning to the Scientific Council. Conduct like this in 
 all its prominent comparisons has never yet been known 
 among men. The other members of the Council came to 
 Albany and made all possible offers of conciliation. They 
 asked for the evidences to be laid before them to support 
 the charges, and that Dr. Gould should have a hearing. 
 Two of the Trustees urged Mr. Olcott to call a meeting of 
 the board and allow them to act upon this and the two fol- 
 lowing propositions. He refused. Even Robert H. Pruyn, 
 one of the nine Trustees, has since expressed the most 
 emphatic disapprobation of the singular proceeding. The 
 council also proposed to leave the whole matter to the 
 investigation and decision of impartial men. This was 
 refused. Thereupon they proposed to take charge of the 
 Observatory for a time themselves, each supervising it 
 alternately, without reference to Dr. Gould. This was 
 refused. Mrs. Dudley who had given the munificent sum 
 of nearly $80,000, proposed that the Trustees should 
 resign and place the Observatory in other hands. This 
 was refused. About the 20th of August, last, thirty-oDe 
 donors, representing more than three-fourths of the whole 
 amount contributed to the Observatory, presented a peti- 
 tion to the Trustees, through George W. Blunt, Esq., 
 imploring them, in order to prevent scandal and to avoid 
 the ruinous consequences that have since ensued and are 
 yet to ensue, to refer the controversy to the arbitrament 
 of such distinguished gentlemen as Bishop Horatio Pot- 
 ter, President Charles King, Ex-Governor] Washington 
 
6 
 
 Hunt, J. Ingersoll Bowditch, and Hon. Gullian C. Ver 
 Planck. The signatures to the petition were as follows : 
 
 New-York. 
 
 Wm. Oathout, 
 
 Sun Mut. Insurance Co., 
 
 James Brown, 
 
 R. Withers, 
 
 Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., 
 Meredith Howland, 
 
 J. C. Green, 
 
 Goodhue & Co., 
 
 Robert H. Minturn, 
 
 E. & G. W. Blunt, 
 
 H. Chancey, 
 
 C. Barstow, 
 
 M. Livingston, 
 
 Wm. F. Carey, 
 
 Wm. B. Astor, 
 
 Solomon Townsend, 
 
 Howes & Co., 
 
 A. C. Richards. 
 
 Boston. 
 
 Edward Everett, 
 
 M. Wigglesworth, 
 
 J. Wigglesworth, 
 
 B. A, Gould, 
 
 Martin Brimmer, 
 
 J. B. Lincoln, 
 
 N. Thayer, 
 
 Albany. 
 
 Blandina Dudley, 
 Stephen Van Rensselaer 
 M. T. Reynolds, 
 
 A. M. Strong, 
 
 John Taylor, 
 
 R. Townsend. 
 
 The nine Trustees never deigned even the civility to 
 acknowledge the reception of the petition or to reply 
 directly to the petitioners. Subsequently they noticed it 
 in their so called Statement. And how ? On page 172 
 they $ay that the proposition “ Is equivalent to a submis- 
 sion of the question whether the Trustees shall abandon 
 the Observatory and surrender their trust altogether.” 
 
 To illustrate the absurdity and ridiculous inconsistency 
 of this excuse let me now state a fact. In the fore-part of 
 January last, Mr. Olcott and others of his co-majority 
 Trustees were exceedingly anxious to appoint Dr. Peters, 
 the discoverer of the Olcott Comet, to the office of Obser- 
 ver. Conscious that they were doing a wrong, they set to 
 work to entrap many of our citizens and several donors 
 into signing a petition to the board, or which is the same 
 
6 
 
 thing, to themselves , asking that the appointment be made. 
 John V. L. Pruyn, as he abundantly proves in his very 
 able letter on the subject, was induced to sign it, and 
 through him, others, by 'positive misrepresentation on the 
 part of Mr. Olcott. The trick succeeded. Immediately 
 the board met and passed the following resolution : — 
 
 Resolved, That in obedience to its own convictions of duty and of policy, 
 and in compliance with the expressed wishes of so many of the largest 
 donors to the Dudley Observatory, this Board of Trustees do hereby appoint 
 Dr. C. H. F. Peters, as an Observer in this Institution. 
 
 Under the pretense of complying with the cc expressed 
 wishes of so many of the largest donors to the Dudley 
 Observatory,” they passed that resolution. When the 
 appointing power was to be exercised, they could get up a 
 petition to themselves — -procure signatures to it by gross mis- 
 representation, and then pretend to comply with it out of 
 consideration for “ the expressed wishes of so many of the 
 largest donors.” But when the dismissing power is in- 
 volved, a petition signed by thirty-one donors, simply 
 requesting the Trustees to consent to a reference of the 
 difficulties, the petition and petitioners are treated with 
 scorn. They are cavalierly dismissed with a plain intima- 
 tion that, in the opinion of the majority Trustees, they are 
 meddling with matters that do not belong to them. The 
 advocates of an unjust cause always fear the decision of 
 impartial referees. There was the pinch. The excuse 
 made is most flimsy and impotent. • 
 
 But to resume the chain of facts. When the Scientific 
 Council had tried every measure of conciliation and had ex- 
 hausted all possible expedients to check Mr. Olcott in his mad 
 career, they felt it to be due to the public, the donors, to 
 themselves, and especially to Dr. Gould, to make a thorough 
 investigation of the charges preferred. They performed 
 the duty rigorously and carefully, and published a “ Defence 
 of Dr. Gould ” in which they completely exonerated him 
 from blame and pledged their own reputations in his favor 
 by the unqualified averment that all these charges were 
 
7 
 
 without foundation. Following the Defence came the so- 
 called “ Statement ” of the majority Trustees. In this far- 
 famed document, these gentlemen reiterate their former 
 charges, add more, and attempt to sustain them. How 1 
 By the use of mutilated , distorted , perverted , and in some 
 cases partially fabricated extracts from Dr. Gould’s letters. 
 Immediately after the publication of the “ Statement,” Dr. 
 Gould, under his own signature, informed the public of 
 this fact, and gave several examples. Seventeen days 
 subsequently to this, after having ample time to compare 
 the pretended extracts with the original letters in their 
 possession, these majority Trustees published the following 
 communication. Let the reader specially mark the words 
 I have italicised. 
 
 REPLY OF THE TRUSTEES TO THE CHARGE OF GARBLING. 
 
 The Trustees of the Dudley Observatory, having been publicly charged 
 by Dr. B. A. Gould. Jr., with garbling certain letters written by him, in such 
 a manner as to falsify and pervert his meaning, and with having, fabricated 
 one or more letters, and parts of letters, deem it proper to state that there 
 is no more truth in these charges, than there was in any of the numerous 
 false accusations made against them by the same party prior to the publica- 
 tion of their Statement. 
 
 While it is true that in some instances large portions of letters of very 
 great length have been omitted, mainly for the sake of brevity ; and in some 
 other instances, through circumstances that will hereafter be explained, here 
 and there a word has been accidentally changed, and some verbal inaccu- 
 racies have thus occurred, it is entirely untrue that Dr. Gould’s meaning has, in 
 any case , been perverted ; that any alteration , omission or addition has been made, 
 in the slightest degree prejudicial to him or favorable to the case of the Trustees ; or 
 that any letter or sentence not actually written b y Dr. Gould , and the original of 
 which is not in their possession, has been published in their Statement. 
 
 The Trustees are aware that their own friends, and all who are personally 
 acquainted with Dr. Gould, will need no assurance that the charges now 
 made against them are without any foundation. To those of the public to 
 whom all the parties to this controversy are unknown, the Trustees desire 
 to say that they have a satisfactory explanation to give, of all the cases of 
 pretended “ garbling ” which have as yet been cited. As additional charges 
 and a more specific reply to their statements are promised, the Trustees with- 
 hold their answer to Dr. Gould’s last pamphlet until that reply shall appear. 
 At the proper moment these letters, with all their contents , may be given to 
 the public. 
 
8 
 
 In the meantime, the Trustees challenge Dr. Grould to specify the letter 
 or letters, the whole or any part of which he never wrote. They will prove 
 his allegations in this respect to he as destitute of truth, as they have already 
 shown his statements to he* in other instances. 
 
 Thomas W. Olcott, 
 
 Ira Harris, 
 
 William H. Dewitt, 
 
 John F. Rathbone, 
 
 Alden March, 
 
 Samuel H. Ransom, 
 
 Isaac W. Vosbukgh, 
 Robert H. Pruyn, 
 
 James H. Armsbt. 
 
 Dr. Gould replied to this communication, re-asserting 
 with absolute positiveness what he had alleged. In order 
 to bring the question to a fair test, he offered, in that reply, 
 the following proposition : 
 
 “ Under these circumstances, I desire to submit the following questions to 
 the judgment of some impartial tribunal : 
 
 1. Whether the Statement of the nine Trustees does not contain extracts 
 from letters essentially private and unofficial ? 
 
 2. Whether it does not contain portions of letters which were actually 
 marked with the words, “ Private ” or “ Confidential ?” 
 
 3. Whether any of these letters, prior to January, 1858, were addressed, 
 either to the Trustees, or to any of their officers, in their official capacity ? 
 
 4. What proportion of the extracts were published correctly ? 
 
 5. Whether my meaning has not been perverted ? 
 
 6. Whether alterations, omissions and additions prejudicial to me, or 
 favorable to the case of the Trustees, have not been made ? 
 
 7. Whether sentences not actually written by me have not been pub- 
 lished ? 
 
 I can see no better means of attaining the desired end than the following : 
 If Messrs. Olcott, Harris and Armsby, with their associates, will name two 
 impartial men, and place the original letters in their hands, I wil! also name 
 two and submit my letter-books. These four gentlemen shall select a fifth 
 and proceed to compare the passages cited with the original letters and with 
 their press-copies, since any comparison which does not embrace these fac- 
 similes would be manifestly unjust. The committee shall report distinctly 
 upon the seven points above enumerated. I will abide the issue. 
 
 To this day the majority Trustees have shown no indi- 
 cations of a willingness to meet the issue and their denial 
 of the fact of the garblings, as given in their own words, 
 remains unretracted. 
 
9 
 
 In these circumstances I began and wrote the article 
 signed “ Albany ” without any solicitation either directly 
 or remotely from any mortal being on earth. I first took 
 the trouble to investigate the case for my own satisfaction. 
 My conclusions were and are still that not a single charge 
 made in the “ Statement ” of the majority Trustees is sus- 
 tained even in the slightest degree by the pretended ex- 
 tracts adduced, and without these , as the reader will see, by 
 reading my articles and the Statement, all the charges 
 must remain unsustained till other and better evidence is 
 presented. Dr. Gould’s press-copies are open to the in- 
 spection of any fair-minded man. The Trustees dare not 
 deliver the original letters into the hands of impartial men 
 and allow the comparison to be made with these press- 
 copies. Nor do I believe they will ever carry out their 
 threat and publish the entire letters truthfully and without 
 alteration. If they do, they will publish to the world the 
 evidences of their own infamy. Not only that, but they will 
 release Dr. Gould from all honorable obligation whatever 
 to withhold from the public eye certain letters which he 
 has, because they will be necessary to a correct understand- 
 ing of those he wrote in reply to them. Should this be 
 forced upon him, he will have no occasion to say one word 
 more in his own defence. At present there are no symp- 
 toms of relenting on the part of Dr. Gould’s persecutors. 
 They will go on, beyond doubt, and blunder as they have 
 done thus far. They have now retreated behind one soli- 
 tary rampart and that is that they have the legal right to 
 possession of the Observatory property. In defiance, to 
 use their own language, “ of the expressed wishes of so 
 many of the largest donors to the Observatory ” — in defi- 
 ance of the wishes of all the ablest Scientific men of the 
 country — in defiance of public sentiment, they point to a 
 legal technicality in justification of their persistence. This 
 simply resolves itself into an “ I will or I wont.” And 
 what are to be the consequences 1 Disastrous every way. 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 First. A long and sore litigation between them on the 
 one hand and Dr. Gould. and his associates on the other. 
 They force these gentlemen to such a test of their rights. 
 Litigation of a personal character, in all probability, will 
 likewise take place. Mrs. Dudley, too, will, beyond doubt, 
 call Mr. Olcott to account, who at the time acted as her 
 trustee as well as trustee of the Observatory, for using 
 without her authority, and misapplying her donation 
 of $50,000 and the securities in which it stood, before 
 the condition on which the donation was based had 
 been complied with. The Scientific Council are to speak 
 in answer to the “ Statement.” Dr. Gould is likewise 
 preparing his own defence. Where will the controversy 
 end ? Mere possession of the Observatory on the part 
 of the Trustees will not end it. The donors will cause 
 an investigation to be made as to what has become 
 of the $40,000 which the nine trustees tell them has 
 been worse than wasted. If it turn out, as it surely will, 
 in case there is such waste, that these Trustees are, in 
 every essential respect, responsible for the enormous loss, 
 the competent authority can never resist and will not 
 attempt to resist an application for their removal. Time 
 will prove all I say. There is but one true course for 
 these gentlemen to take, and that is to call the donors 
 together and let them, voting in proportion to their re- 
 spective donations, decide what shall bo done. This 
 would be equitable. But they will not do it, nor any- 
 thing like it. “ I will,” governs their conduct, and that 
 one thing will govern them to the bitter end. When 
 the end comes, they will embitter the remainder of their 
 days by regretting this folly. Let them understand dis- 
 tinctly that they mistake their men, if they suppose Dr. 
 Gould and his friends will ever be conquered by measures 
 like those hitherto pursued. Resistance will be the watch- 
 word to the last moment. As sure as day follows night, so 
 surely will Dr. Gould triumphantly refute and hurl back 
 
11 
 
 upon his assailants all the charges made against him. I 
 now submit these Articles with the simple remark that I 
 had no other motive in participating in the controversy 
 than to aid in having justice done to an injured man. 
 
 GEO. H. THACHER. 
 
 
I. 
 
 ANIMUS OF THE STATEMENT. 
 
 TO THE MAJORITY OP THE TRUSTEES OF THE DUDLEY OBSERVATORY, 
 
 Gentlemen : When you began your persecution against 
 Dr. Gould, your real friends, who foresaw the fatal error 
 you were about to commit, met you with argument, persua- 
 sion and kind remonstrance. You would not listen. One 
 of your former number, Gen. Yan Rensselaer, who is pro- 
 verbial for his integrity and nobleness of heart, who gave 
 the land for the Observatory, became disgusted with your 
 proceedings, and resigned both as President and Trustee. 
 You chose a man to take his place as Trustee, whose sub- 
 serviency to certain parties is well known in this commu- 
 nity — a man who showed his zeal in your cause by moving 
 the dismissal of Dr. Gould, within an hour after his election 
 as a member of your board. It is doubtful whether another 
 man could be found in the State of New York, occupying 
 a similar judicial office, who could^possibly be induced to 
 sully his robes by mingling in a strife so unseemly. Four 
 of your board, gentlemen of high standing, foreseeing how 
 ridiculous you would make yourselves appear, withheld 
 their co-operation. Knowing the facts and the circum- 
 stances of the whole case, they would not sacrifice their 
 reputation by participating with you in this wanton and 
 unjust warfare. Better were it for you if the Dudley 
 Observatory were sunk in the bottom of the ocean. The 
 great deep would then bury in oblivion that unenviable 
 immortality which the perpetuation of the institution will 
 attach to your names. Should it survive, even in your 
 hands, and continue after your death, future generations 
 will read with astonishment the narrative of the unworthy 
 
13 
 
 part you have acted during the last few months of its his 
 tory. Review with me for a little, the renowned document 
 you have published, and which you are pleased to call your 
 “ Statement ;” a document which, one year hence, you will 
 be ashamed to have named. I say one year hence, because 
 it is fit that men, who are capable of making such a 
 “ Statement,” be allowed longer time for those emotions 
 to operate which produce shame, than other men. 
 
 1st. Read again your abusive allusions to the Hon. Eras- 
 tus Corning, Gen. Yan Rensselaer, and that noble lady, 
 Mrs. Dudley. What bearing has your abuse of these per- 
 sons on the matter in controversy between you and Dr. 
 Gould ? None whatever. It was most wanton and malig- 
 nant. Will high-minded and honorable men be likely to 
 espouse your cause, when, under pretence of stating facts 
 to justify your removal of Dr. Gould, you deliberately 
 travel out of your path to heap abuse on other parties ? 
 You accusefMr. Corning of “repudiation.” If your accu- 
 sation were true, does that justify your removal of Dr. 
 Gould ? Mr. Corning is too well known, both at home and 
 abroad, to be affected by so vile a slander. The same is 
 true in regard to your insinuation against Gen. Yan Rens- 
 selaer. According to your statement, Gen. Y an. Rensselaer, 
 instead of receiving the laudations which you yourselves 
 showered upon him, when he gave the grounds for the 
 Observatory, ought to have been a mark for the pointings 
 of unnumbered fingers of scorn. For you now insinuate 
 that he did, what 3^ou then applauded as an act of noble 
 generosity, from the miserly and sordid motive of enhancing 
 the value of his surrounding property. Mrs. Dudley, God 
 bless her good and noble heart ! really supposed, when 
 bestowing her princely donations, that she was doing a 
 meritorious act — that she was conferring a lasting benefit 
 on mankind — and unwittingly indulged herself in the grati- 
 fying reflection. But according to your statement, not to 
 Mrs. Dudley, but to Th.os. W. Olcott, is due whatever there 
 
14 
 
 is of merit in her princely gift. You boast that Mr. Olcott, 
 “ and he alone ” procured these donations from Mrs. Dudley. 
 Mr. Olcott must have the credit, and Mrs. Dudley be con- 
 tent with the claim of a mere heartless formality. Nor 
 does this suffice. You must embitter the declining years 
 of this aged lady by proclaiming to the world that she can- 
 not comprehend her own letters, and that she acts a false 
 part in allowing them to be called hers. She dictated those 
 letters herself, and, before attaching her signature, took 
 counsel of a high functionary of our State ' government. 
 She took this wise precaution, not because she doubted her 
 own capacity, but because she knew the character of the 
 men with whom she had to deal. She had discovered their 
 craftiness. She proposed a course to you, which, had you 
 followed it, would have saved the Observatory from ruin, 
 and yourselves from disgrace. For that kind act of hers, 
 you publish and send far and wide over the land a “ State- 
 ment” which contains insinuations tending* to depreciate 
 her capacity, and impliedly impeach her veracity. Had 
 your own mothers been thus treated and thus assailed, nei- 
 ther of you would deserve the name of son till you had 
 inflicted summary chastisement upon the aggressor. For 
 the future, gentlemen, if you have no respect for yourselves, 
 be entreated to regard the feelings of this aged lady. In 
 case you cannot feel the common promptings of humanity, 
 take my advice, and, by all means, counterfeit them, should 
 you have occasion to allude to her again. This kind of 
 hypocrisy the world will overlook. Let her end her noble 
 life in peace. 
 
 2d. Consider the use you have made of Dr. Gould’s 
 letters. You have presented these letters in your “State- 
 ment,” for the purpose of casting dishonor upon Dr. Gould. 
 For the present we will assume that your extracts from 
 them are correct, and your inferences just. You know that 
 many of these letters were written to individuals, and were 
 marked by the writer either with the word “ Private ” or 
 
15 
 
 “ Confidential .” This you have not denied, and will not, 
 and dare not deny it. Among all civilized nations, such a 
 bare-faced betrayal of confidence, as you have exhibited in 
 the publication of these letters, is held to be treason to 
 society. The person who is guilty of so base an act forfeits 
 all claim to the confidence of mankind. Every man asks 
 himself, “Whose turn will come next? What guaranty 
 have I that I will not be betrayed?” No man is safe. 
 Fear may restrain some of your fellow-citizens, who, like 
 Dr. Gould, have written confidential letters to you, from an 
 open reprobation of the disgraceful act, because they, too, 
 are in your power ; but no man who walks on the face of 
 God’s foot-stool, not excepting your own ostensible friends, 
 will fail to despise from his inmost soul this glaring viola- 
 tion of all that is sacred in private friendship. Hereafter, 
 all prudent men will talk with you in monosyllables if pos- 
 sible, and none will dare to commit to paper even a mono- 
 syllable, and entrust it to your possession, unless he be 
 willing to have it proclaimed on the housetops. Do you 
 wish to be treated by those to whom you have written con- 
 fidential letters as you have treated Dr. Gould ? In this 
 case, too, I give you one whole year for that revulsion of 
 feeling which will overwhelm you with shame, and for the 
 reason before stated. By that time, the cautious reserve 
 with which all prudent men will hold intercourse with you, 
 will open your eyes to a realization of that distrust which 
 must become universal. 
 
 Reflect now upon your attitude before the public with 
 respect to the import of these letters. According to your 
 statement and your asseverations since, those letters have 
 not been changed by you, and their import remains the 
 same to this day. Some of them were written in 1855„ 
 some in 1856, and some in 1857. These are facts stated by 
 you. Yery well. These letters were in your pockets all 
 this time. Yet with them in your pockets, you make a lion 
 of Dr. Gould — you make select parties in honor of him at 
 
16 
 
 your own houses — yon take him and introduce him to out 
 first families — you exhaust the vocabulary of praise in 
 speaking of him and bewail the barrenness of the English 
 language, because you cannot find words to express your 
 admiration. You told us he was a marvel in point of scien- 
 tific attainments, and all that constituted social and moral 
 worth. In Albany this is notorious. Every child knows it. 
 Still these horrid letters were in your pockets. You read 
 them before you went to bed — took them from under your 
 pillows in the morning, read them again and placed them in 
 your pockets, and carried them about with you during the 
 day. For the space of three years this was going on, and 
 the import of these dishonorable letters remained undis- 
 covered. Or, if you had discovered their import, you 
 practised a despicable imposition on the community and 
 the friends and donors of the Dudley Observatory. You 
 did not stop with these uninterrupted ovations in honor of 
 Dr. Gould. On the 19th of January, 1858, your board 
 passed resolutions endorsing all he had done up to that time, 
 and praising him in unmeasured terms. You continue on 
 in blissful ignorance of the import of these villainous letters 
 till about the month of June, 1858. Then you discover for 
 the first time, though they had absorbed your studious 
 attention for nearly three years, that they were infamous 
 on their very face, and ought to consign their author to uni- 
 versal scorn. If they are infamous now, they were when 
 written. One of three things is certain. Either you have 
 grossly perverted those letters, or you deceived the public 
 and the donors of the Observatory by suppressing them 
 until this late hour, or you show an utter incapacity to con- 
 trol and direct this trust. There is no escaping one or the 
 other of these conclusions. Which will you take ? Assum- 
 ing your “ Statement ;; to be true, one of them is inevitable. 
 
 But in a- communication published in the Atlas # Argus 
 of Sept. 20th, 1858, to which your names are attached, you 
 enter, to an important extent, a cognovit to the charge of 
 
17 
 
 garbling and perverting Dr. Gould’s letters. You there say, 
 “ It is true that in some instances large portions of letters 
 of very great length have been omitted, merely for the sake 
 of brevity.” So, you did not garble, but you omitted “ large 
 portions ” of his letters. Do you know what “ garble ” 
 means? You preferred not to let the letters speak for 
 themselves, but to cull out such portions as suited your 
 purpose. In that communication you likewise say that, 
 “here and there a word has been accidentally changed” 
 When 3^ou condemn a man by his own words, what right 
 have you to take the liberty of changing a single word ? 
 Your protest that these changes do not affect their meaning 
 amounts to nothing. Are you to be the judges? Dr. 
 Gould will show that these changes do, and that seriously, 
 affect their meaning. Replying to your communication in 
 the same paper and same date, Dr. Gould says : 
 
 Under these circumstances I desire to submit the following questions to 
 the judgment of some impartial tribunal : 
 
 1. Whether the Statement of the nine Trustees does not contain extract# 
 from letters essentially private and unofficial ? 
 
 2. Whether it does not contain portions of letters which were actually 
 marked with the words “ Private ” or “ Confidential.” 
 
 3. Whether any of these letters prior to January, 1858, were addressed, 
 either to the Trustees, or to any of their officers in their official capacity T 
 
 4. What proportion of the extracts were published correctly ? 
 
 5. Whether my meaning has not been perverted ? 
 
 6. Whether alterations, omissions and additions, prejudicial to me, or 
 favorable to the case of the Trustees, have not been made ? 
 
 7. Whether sentences not actually written by me have not been pub- 
 lished ? 
 
 I can see no better means of attaining the desired end than the following : 
 
 If Messrs. Olcott, Harris and Armsby, with their associates, will name two 
 impartial men, and place the original letters in their hands, I will also name 
 two and submit my letter books. These four gentlemen shall select a fifth 
 and proceed to compare the passages cited with the original letters and with 
 their press-copies, since any comparison which does not embrace these 
 fac-similes would be manifestly unjust. The committee shall report dis- 
 tinctly upon the seven points above enumerated. I will abide the issue. 
 
 All men will pronounce this proposition a fair one. Gen- 
 tlemen, you dare not accede to it . Nor can you evade the 
 3 
 
18 
 
 charge by publishing the letters in full. That would not 
 relieve you from the odium already incurred by your 
 garbling them in your “ Statement.” Let the fact that you 
 praised Dr. Gould daily for three years, with these letters 
 in your pockets, and that on the 19th of January last, you 
 formally endorsed by resolutions his scientific and moral 
 character, let these facts interpret the animus which actuated 
 you in presenting these letters to the public in the shape 
 you have chosen. These facts forever estop you from giv- 
 ing them as evidence against him. If your object is self- 
 conviction you have effectually accomplished it. Dr. Gould 
 needs no other vindication. 
 
 Here is an example of your own perversion of Dr. Gould’s 
 letters. On page 149 of your “ Statement ” you represent 
 Dr. Gould as having given a written approval of the name 
 (t Olcott Comet.” You quote from his letter thus : eC it was 
 a very pretty idea to give the Comet the esteemed name of 
 the excellent Mr. Olcott.” Why did you not quote all his 
 words on that subject and let the public know precisely 
 what he did say ? What he wrote was as follows : “ It is 
 a pretty idea to give to the Comet the honored name of the 
 excellent man. But since it is contrary to all my theoretical 
 principles to designate the comet otherwise than by its year and 
 number , you must so arrange it that I do not appear responsi- 
 ble for it. I am willing to play dissembler a little in the mat- 
 ter.” The words italicised above you have left out. You 
 knew perfectly well that the lfctter from which you quote, 
 for you say you have the original, gave you no authority 
 whatever for stating that he approved of the name. Speci- 
 mens of similar perversions can be given, sufficient to fill a 
 volume, and all equally palpable. 
 
 3. You deny that your President, Mr. Olcott, made the 
 charge of peculation against Dr. Gould. Let the public 
 judge. Here is Mr, Olcott’s language : 
 
 “ This discloses the fact, which now, for the first time, comes to our 
 knowledge, that not the Coast Survey, but Dr. Gould, individually, pockets, 
 in addition to his salary, the very considerable income from longitude deter- 
 
19 
 
 initiations. This truly solves a problem and explains his past anxiety to 
 grasp the legislative appropriation.” 
 
 Now take Webster’s definition of peculation : * “Pecula- 
 tion — The act of defrauding the public by appropriating to 
 one’s own use the money or goods entrusted to one’s care.” 
 If Mr. Olcott’s charge, as set forth in his own language 
 above, does not accord with Webster’s definition of pecula- 
 tion, will any mortal man tell us what it does mean ? Did 
 the legislative appropriation belong to Dr. Gould ? Not at 
 all. To u individually pocket ” the State appropriation, as 
 Mr. Olcott says he attempted to do, is peculation of the 
 blackest dye. Yet Mr. Olcott insists that the “ fact ” that 
 Dr. Gould u individually pockets, in addition to his salary, 
 the very considerable income,” &c. 5 “ truly explains ” his 
 attempt to pocket the “legislative appropriation.” 
 
 If this “ fact ” truly “ explains ” Dr. Gould’s alleged 
 attempt to peculate from the legislative appropriation, it is 
 and must be because the two acts are identical in their nature . 
 Otherwise, the former is no explanation of the latter, and 
 human language is utterly devoid of meaning. Our courts 
 and juries have repeatedly convicted persons of libel on 
 language less explicit than the language of Mr. Olcott, and 
 the world has applauded the verdict. 
 
 It is known that the late “ Statement ” of the majority of 
 the trustees was revised by a distinguished lawyer, and this 
 may account for Mr. Olcott’s anxiety to deny in that 
 " Statement ” that he had made the charge. It is also 
 known that the charge, as originally made, is to this day 
 publicly circulated, and with Mr. Olcott’s knowledge. He 
 is still willing to continue the circulation of the charge, 
 while he denies that he made it. Let him take the conse- 
 quences. It is noticed here as another illustration of the 
 animus of your “ Statement.” Dr. Gould will take care of 
 the legal bearings of the charge. 
 
 Who is Dr. Gould ? He is a man in the prime of life. 
 From his school-boy days he has toiled hard and unceas- 
 ingly to earn a name. Distinguished gentlemen in the Old 
 
20 
 
 and New World — the learned and the great — have already 
 placed that name side by side with their own on the glo- 
 rious catalogue of scientific celebrities. With proud satis- 
 faction they have welcomed him to an equal standing with 
 themselves. All that he has on earth that is dear to him — 
 yea, dearer than life — is that well-earned name. What some 
 of you strive to acquire through the agency of money, and 
 the power it gives, he has acquired by the energies of his 
 noble mind. This you would take from him. You would 
 brand him as a thief — as a man who “ individually pockets ” 
 what does not belong to him. Has human character no 
 sacredness in your eyes ? Why then this cruel accusation 1 
 Yet he has the melancholy consolation of being only one of 
 several victims. As previously shown, not satisfied with 
 this attempt to blacken the character of Dr. Gould, you 
 have aimed your poisoned arrows at the other persons I 
 have named. To one of your number, at least, may be 
 appropriately applied Dr. Young’s celebrated apostrophe to 
 the Angel of Death : 
 
 “ Insatiate Archer ! could not one suffice !” 
 
 4th. Of a piece with your other statements, is the impu- 
 tation of deliberate falsehood to Dr. Gould in regard to the 
 “ Corning Clock.” After quoting from his speech at the 
 Inauguration on the 28th of August, 1S56, these words, 
 " even as the Corning Clock noio ticks above my head,” you 
 say : 
 
 “It required great boldness, and a most unenviable indifference to truth, 
 to enable any man to make such a statement, in the presence of such an 
 audience. That the deception might be the more complete, the speaker, 
 when he alluded to the ‘Corning Clock,’ turned significantly to a clock ex- 
 hibited by Mr. Gavit, upon the rear of the platform.” 
 
 Gentlemen, if Dr. Gould, with “great boldness” and 
 " with a most unenviable indifference to truth,” told a delibe- 
 rate lie to that vast assembly, you knew it then as well as 
 you know it now. You connived at the falsehood then — 
 have dono so since. Daring the intervening time you held 
 him up before the eyes of your fellow-citizens as a pattern 
 
21 
 
 of excellence. On the 19th of January, 1858, fifteen months 
 after the Inauguration, you gave your formal sanction, by 
 resolution of your Board, to the character of Dr. Gould, and 
 surrendered the Observatory to his charge. All this you 
 show in your own “ Statement.” In the name of all that is 
 respectable on earth, let me ask, has every spark of shame 
 forsaken you ? You have made out a case against your- 
 selves, if your Statement be true, that must forever degrade 
 you in the eyes of mankind. Indeed, I am tempted to take 
 back my allowance of one year from this time, as the pro- 
 bable period when a realization of your conduct will pro- 
 duce in your minds the first emotion of shame. When 
 deliberate, mature manhood is capable of self-abasement like 
 this, we may well conclude that shame is out of the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Now for the facts in relation to the alleged falsehood of 
 Dr. Gould. At the very moment when Dr. Gould utterred 
 the language you quote, at the very moment when he 
 <c turned significantly to a clock exhibited by Mr. Gavit,” 
 (not a clock, but a dial.) at that moment the clock for civil 
 time was ticking in the Observatory and its tick was indicated 
 by telegraphic communication between it and the dial held 
 up before the audience by Mr. Gavit. On the tablet was in- 
 scribed the name of Erast us Corning , as the giver, and the 
 inscription was on it at that moment. The public will be 
 astounded to learn that Erastus Coming's name had been 
 inscribed on the tablet of that clock before the Inauguration, 
 by the express direction of Dr. Armsby, one of your number, 
 and that it has remained there to this very day. You knew 
 it at the time of the Inauguration — you knew it when you 
 wrote and signed your “ Statement.” 
 
 It is in vain for you to resort to the subterfuge that a 
 portion of Mr. Coming's subscriptions was to be applied to 
 the purchase of a sidereal clock . The fact is before the 
 world, that there was a Coming Clock at that time ticking 
 in the Observatory. That fact was a sufficient justification 
 
22 
 
 of Dr. Gould’s language. Who, then, is the liar in this case ? 
 Gentlemen, this gem from your “ Statement” cannot fail to 
 do you infinite credit among all who read this controversy. 
 Wear it, gentlemen, for wear it 3^ou must. Though, if you 
 prefer to turn the other side of this gem to the world, and let 
 men see, that if Dr. Gould did lie, you connived at it , you are 
 at liberty to present it in that aspect. 
 
 All your tirade about extraordinary and useless expendi- 
 tures and delay, is answered by the simple fact that you 
 yourselves directed and controlled everything. .You have 
 been repeatedly challenged to produce a financial account 
 of these expenditures, with the vouchers for the items. The 
 Scientific Council, the donors to the Observatory, and the 
 public have asked you for it. You will not produce it. It 
 is known in Albany, that if you do this truly and justly, you 
 will disclose evidences of your own most miserable mis- 
 management, that no sophistry or Jesuitical pleading what- 
 ever can gainsay or resist. All you complain of, that is 
 worthy of notice, occurred previously to January of this 
 year. Yet in that month you praise Dr. Gould, and make 
 him the Director of the Observatory. You effectually 
 answer your own statement by your own acknowledgement 
 of this fact . Whatever delay has occurred has originated 
 from two causes. One is the fact that the parties with 
 whom contracts were made by your direction for certain 
 instruments have failed to get them ready at the appointed 
 time. For this you find fault with Dr. Gould. The other 
 is, that you have not furnished the funds which the Scien- 
 tific Council expressly stated to you at the outset would be 
 necessary to equip and endow such an Observatory as you 
 proposed to erect. You made the Scientific Council believe 
 that the “ measure of your liberality,” and that of others, 
 would rise to the requirements of a first-class institution. 
 In this you signally failed. Still you exacted brick, though 
 you refused them straw. They must answer your highest 
 expectations, while you failed to furnish the means you had 
 
23 
 
 promised. “ For which of yon intending to build a tower, 
 sitteth not down and counteth the cost, whether he f have 
 sufficient to finish it ? Lest haply after he hath Jaid the 
 foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it 
 begin to mock him.” Will the tower which you have erected 
 stand as a monument of your folly ? In case you gain pos- 
 session of it, it must so remain. You can never complete 
 it on the plan you have contemplated. For you have effec- 
 tually severed yourselves from that class of influences from 
 which alone the “ material aid ” as well as the moral must 
 come. There is, therefore, nothing for you to gain by this 
 contest but the bare possible victory of possession , and that 
 is a victory which has no spoils but an uncompleted 
 “ tower.” 
 
 We know here in Albany what you conceal from people 
 abroad, viz : that you now give up what before you esteemed 
 as your important positions, and fall back on the subterfuge 
 that Dr. Gould and the other members of the Scientific 
 Council are retaining possession of the Observatory in defi- 
 ance of your legal rights. The truth can be stated in a few 
 words. You made a fair bargain with these parties, in 
 virtue of which you have placed the Observatory under 
 their charge. Now, finding you cannot succeed in making 
 the public believe your “ cock and bull ” stories about Dr. 
 Gould and his associates, you strive to create the impression 
 that they retain their possession in defiance of right. They 
 were induced by you to come here, at great expense to 
 themselves. They came, and now you complain because 
 they have thus far fulfilled their agreement. Do you intend 
 to “ repudiate ” the contract ? You do well to accuse others 
 of repudiation. 
 
 Doubtless these gentlemen would long ere this have re- 
 linquished possession of the Observatory, had you treated 
 them properly. But you forced them to the attitude of de- 
 fence. When the rupture began, they came on here with 
 purposes of conciliation. But they found that you had 
 made public charges against Dr. Gould, which, if unrebutted, 
 
24 
 
 must ruin him forever. They asked you to hear him and 
 let him vindicate his cause. You denied the hearing. They 
 then proposed to leave the matter to the arbitrament of any 
 impartial men that might be selected. This you refused. 
 Then you turned and attacked the other members of the 
 Scientific Council with the same bitterness. Meantime the 
 donors of the Observatory became alarmed. They besought 
 the members of the Scientific Council to adhere to the con- 
 tract made with you and retain possession.. In the circum- 
 stances there was no other alternative left. I only express 
 the common sentiment of this community, when I tell the 
 reader that the great misfortune to the Observatory — the 
 one which has probably given rise to all this trouble — was 
 the discovery of the “ Olcott Comet.” Had the ill-omened 
 visiter passed by our city unseen, Dr. Gould’s “incapacity” 
 his “ indifference to truth,” his “ wasteful expenditures,” his 
 “ individually pocketing ” money that did not belong to him, 
 &c., would, in the opinion of the writer, and in the opinion 
 of those who know the undisclosed portion of the controversy, 
 have likewise remained undiscovered. It all goes to show 
 the mischievous power of personal ambition. The public 
 history of the controversy also shows how the power to 
 wield money w T ill bind men together — how it can bring the 
 press to contribute to the unworthy ends sought to be 
 attained. But, thank heaven, truth is more mighty than 
 personal ambition, or the accidental power which the con- 
 trol of money confers. The truth will come out. By the 
 power of truth you will be met — by its tremendous resist- 
 lessness you will in the end be discomfited. 
 
 It is just that I here give my reason for not signing my 
 proper name to this article. Albany has been my residence 
 for many years ; it was the residence of my father and 
 grandfather, more than fifty years ago. My reason, then, 
 for not signing my name is, that, being so familiar with 
 Albany, I know the unrelenting vindictiveness with which 
 some of your number pursue those who cross your path. 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
25 
 
 II. 
 
 CURIOSITIES OF THE STATEMENT. 
 
 Gentlemen : There are some curiosities connected with 
 your late “ Statement, which, though they have impressed 
 outsiders with great force, may have escaped your notice. 
 To some of these allow me to direct your attention. 
 
 On page 24 of your Statement, you sum up the grievances 
 complained of in the 'preceding pages , and picture in glowing 
 language, the sad regrets and gloomy realizations which 
 oppressed your spirits at the time of the Inauguration, 
 August 28, 1856. That the reader may judge how you felt, 
 I quote your own language, see page 24, as follows : 
 
 “ It brought with it, it is true, some reasons for sadness. It came with 
 hopes unfulfilled, and expectations disappointed. Of all the splendid pro- 
 mises made by Dr. Gould, and the brilliant visions which he had kept 
 before their eyes, not a single one was realized, No Transit, no Meridian Circle, 
 nor any other instrument attracted the admiration of the scientific world. 
 No marvelously constructed clock, noiselessly recorded the accurate passage 
 of time, as it was chimed forth from the ‘belfries of the skies.’ No ‘time 
 ball’ fell in the great commercial emporium. No bond of ever acting sym- 
 pathy, linked together the clocks of Rochester, Buffalo, Troy and Albany. 
 No railroad station exhibited to the scientific members, on their way, any 
 evidence that the trains upon which they traveled, were deriving their time 
 from the Dudley Observatory. The Observatory itself had the appearance 
 of a ruin. The walls of both wings were open to receive the piers and cap- 
 stones, and to permit the working of the ‘Ingenious Crane,’ or as it might 
 more properly be called, the Automaton Mason. Instead of leading their 
 distinguished visitors up the hill, to spread before them the glories of the 
 model instruments, the efforts of the Trustees were directed towards keeping 
 them within the limits of the Capitol, and the large tent, and inducing them 
 to forget the deficiency of the real, in the brilliancy of the fanciful 
 
 More than twelve months after this, just before the rup- 
 ture began, your President, Mr. Olcott, writes to Dr. Gould 
 thus : 
 
 “ All we have done and are doing is for American science and we are dis- 
 posed to be governed altogether by our Scientific Council. We have un- 
 bounded confidence in them in everything, and we wish them to consider us 
 as an humble instrument in their hands in carrying forward this great enter- 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 prise. We have not a personal wish, object or interest in this matter. We 
 are willing to sink or swim, with a Henry, a Peirce, a Bache and a Gould, 
 as the only chance of immortalizing ourselves in this world.” 
 
 After the experience of some six thousand years, our race 
 have adopted the axiom that truth is always consistent with 
 itself. Look at the two pictures. In August, 1856, you 
 fully realized the terrible calamities you complained of in 
 the first twenty-four pages of your Statement. More than 
 one year after this, you are, according to the letter of your 
 President, Mr. Olcott, “ disposed to be governed altogether 
 by our (your) Scientific Council.” He says, “ we have 
 unbounded confidence in them in everything , and wish them 
 to consider us as an humble instrument in their hands, of 
 carrying forward this great enterprise.” Indeed, your 
 ecstacy is irrepressible, for Mr. Olcott adds : “ We are 
 willing to sink or swim with a Henry, a Peirce, a Bache, 
 and a Gould , as the only chance of immortalizing ourselves 
 in this world ! ! n Philosophers regard these contradictory 
 statements as uncommon phenomena of the human mind. 
 They are amazed, nay, astounded at these singular develop- 
 ments. No mental or moral philosophy, ever yet written, 
 can account for them. At this time, August 28th, 1856, 
 Dr. Gould told that monstrous lie, as you allege, respecting 
 the Corning Clock. Twelve months afterwards, Mr. Olcott 
 says : “ We are willing to sink or swim with a Henry, a 
 Peirce, a Bache and a Gould /” History, written or unwrit- 
 ten, may be safely challenged to produce a similar specimen 
 of the moral sublime . To think that Thos. W. Olcott — a 
 man who has for a long life been connected with a Bank 
 that has succeeded so well, and has not “ sunk ” wdth certain 
 other banks that did not succeed so well — to think that such 
 a man, with his co-Trustees, is “ willing to 1 sink 1 with a 
 Gould !” — this passes human comprehension. 
 
 Gentlemen, is it really true, that as far back as August 
 28th, 1856 — “ Of all the splendid promises made by Dr. 
 Gould, and the brilliant visions, which he had kept before 
 
27 
 
 your eyes, not one was realized ?” Did even the u Observa- 
 tory itself have the appearance of a ruin ” in consequence 
 of his neglect ? Did ‘‘No transit— no Meridian circle — no 
 marvellously constructed clock — no 1 time-ball 1 — no railroad 
 station— -no bond of ever-acting sympathy ” — and no sundry 
 other things, exhibit traces of Dr. Gould’s skill and faith- 
 fulness ? Why then, more than one year after this, and 
 when you were on the threshold of this controversy, did 
 your President write to Dr. Gould : “ We are willing to sink 
 or swim with a Gould, as the only chance of immortalizing 
 ourselves ?” Simple-minded people would take this as a 
 joke, were it not that on the 19th of January last, you for- 
 mally placed the Observatory under the charge of this Dr. 
 Gould. With the gravity of the Roman Senate, you re- 
 solved on that occasion, that you “ most gratefully recognize 
 the valuable co-operation of the Scientific Council,” of which 
 Dr. Gould was a member. You also include Dr. Gould as 
 one of the names “ so illustrious in science.” Seepage 68 
 of your Statement. 
 
 Had we any evidence that when your President wrote 
 that letter, and he and you passed these resolutions, youi 
 minds were slightly elevated with an extra sip of wine, we 
 could turn the matter off as an act of pleasantry on your 
 part. Most men will excuse facetious infirmities whatever 
 their origin. But we cannot excuse you on this ground, for 
 we know you are not given to wine. No, we must believe 
 you were really serious on both these occasions. Notwith- 
 standing all your intense sufferings, inflicted upon you by 
 Dr. Gould, and so graphically described on page 24 of your 
 Statement — sufferings which culminated on the 28th of 
 August, 1856, in almost absolute torture — you go on with 
 him for more than twelve months, experiencing in the mean 
 time, numerous inflictions equally terrible, your President 
 then sits down and writes to him — “ We are willing to sink 
 or swim with a Gould as the only chance of immortalizing 
 ourselves in this world 1” This happy state of mind con- 
 
28 
 
 tinues through the month of January, 1858, for in the latter 
 part of that month, you verify your willingness to “sink or 
 swim with a Gould/ 7 by passing resolutions highly compli- 
 mentary to him, and formally placed him in charge of the 
 Observatory. Gentlemen, this letter of your President and 
 this action of your board, furnish a full and complete an- 
 swer to your 173 pages of charges against Dr. Gould. 
 Every one of these charges, excepting that relating to the 
 quarrel got up by Robert H. Pruyn and Dr. Armsby, with Dr. 
 Gould’s assistants, in which the former were clearly in the 
 wrong, is based on events that transpired before your Presi- 
 dent wrote that letter, and your board passed these resolu- 
 tions. What does all this prove ? It demonstates beyond 
 all possibility of contradiction that all these charges were 
 after-thoughts on your part. It shows that they were manu- 
 factured and trumped up for the occasion. 
 
 When the writer commenced this article, it was his in 
 tention to take up these charges, scattered through the 173 
 pages of your ponderous Statement, one by one, and after 
 stating each, place along side of it, its own refutation, in the 
 words of your President, uttered on the eve of the contro- 
 versy : “We are willing to sink or swim with a Gould,” 
 and the further refutation contained in your resolution of 
 the 19th of January, 1858, in which you praise him, and 
 by the terms of which you place the Observatory under 
 his charge. In the light of these stubborn facts you stand 
 convicted before the world, of grossly perverting Dr. 
 Gould’s letters. With these letters in your pockets, you 
 write to their author, “We are wiliing to sink with a 
 Gould ” / In the light of these stubborn facts , you give the 
 lie to all you have said about his “ incompetency ” — his 
 “ indifference to truth,” and all the other provocations of 
 which you complain. In the light of these stubborn facts 
 the public can find the true solution of your gratuitous 
 persecution of Dr. Gould. They can see that the real 
 cause is not what you set forth in your “ Statement.” 
 
29 
 
 In a letter of your President, written to a member of the 
 Scientific Council on the 19th of December last, he says, 
 “If driven from our association with you, we shall be 
 upon the ocean without a star to guide, or compass to 
 direct our course.” Gentlemen, you have severed your- 
 selves from your Scientific Council, and you are now “upon 
 the ocean without a star to guide ” you. The only lumi- 
 nary in the broad expanse of the universe, which looms out 
 before your eyes, is not a “ star,” but the “ Olcott Comet.” 
 Captivated with this delusive object, you have followed its 
 erratic course, till it has led you far out upon the “ ocean.” 
 There you are bewildered and confused. In that ocean 
 there lies imbedded, deep and firm, a mighty rock. Its 
 huge form rises high and frowning above the billows — that 
 rock is the rock of truth. 
 
 The Olcott Comet is decoying the miserable craft on 
 which you float, directly towards that rock, and soon the 
 tempest of public opinion, which^is sure to rise, will 
 contribute to the violence with which it will approach and 
 be dashed to fragments. Then, gentlemen, there will be a 
 “ sinking ” but no “ swimming and a “ sinking,” too, 
 without a “ Gould” Your disastrous fate is inevitable, 
 unless you turn again and hail the “ star,” in whose 
 guidance, on the 19th of December, you wisely reposed 
 your hopes. 
 
 Gentlemen, in attempting to crush Dr. Gould, you have 
 counted without your host. He has friends whose resour- 
 ces and weight of character are fully equal to yours. They 
 will meet you undaunted, and contest every point. They 
 know they are right. You may send out your “ Statement ” 
 by the millions, instead of thousands. We rejoice at it, 
 because you thereby make the reaction, which is sure to 
 bury you beneath its overwhelming wave, the more wide- 
 spread and sweeping. For once, you will find that the 
 dollar is not “ almighty ” — in your hands. As to the 
 assumed weight of your nine names, what is it compared 
 
30 
 
 with the names arrayed against yon ? We specify the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 BOSTON. 
 
 Wm. Oothout, 
 
 Edward Everett, 
 
 Sun Mutual Ins, Co., 
 
 M. Wigglesworth, 
 
 James Brown, 
 
 J. Wigglesworth, 
 
 B. Withers, 
 
 B. A. Gould, 
 
 Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. Martin Brimmer, 
 
 Meredith Howland, 
 
 J. B. Lincoln, 
 
 J. C. Green, 
 
 Nathaniel Thayer. 
 
 Goodhue & Co., 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
 Bobert B. Minturn, 
 
 Blandina Dudley, 
 
 E. & G. W. Blunt, 
 
 S. Yan Bensselaer, 
 
 H. Chauncey, 
 
 M. T. Beynolds, 
 
 C. Barstow, 
 
 A. M. Strong, 
 
 Mortimer Livingston, 
 
 John Taylor, 
 
 Wm. T. Cary, 
 
 Erastus Corning, 
 
 Wm. B. Astor, 
 
 Eliphalet Wickes, 
 
 Solomon Townsend, 
 
 E. Townsend, 
 
 A. C. Bichards, 
 
 J. Y. L. Pruyn, 
 
 Howes & Co., 
 
 Gilbert C. Davidson. 
 Joel Bathbone, 
 
 Ezra P. Prentice, 
 
 and the other donors, who 
 
 represent more than three- 
 
 fourths of the amount contributed to the Dudley Observa- 
 
 tory. 
 
 
 Add to these the names 
 
 of the committee of citizens, 
 
 viz : 
 
 
 D. D. Barnard, 
 
 Dr. Mason F. Cogswell, 
 
 J. B. Plumb, 
 
 Gen. John Tayler Cooper, 
 
 James Edwards, 
 
 Isaac Yanderpoel, 
 
 Dr. Thomas Hun, 
 Orlando Meads, 
 
 H. Pumpelly. 
 
 Will not this array of names at least counterpoise those 
 of your immortal nine ? If not, we will add four other 
 names, which you, in your resolutions of the 19th of 
 
31 
 
 January last, pronounced “ so illustrious in Science.” 
 They are those alluded to, in a letter of your President to 
 Dr. Gould — “ We are willing to sink or swim with a Henry 
 a Peirce, a Bache, and a Gould, as the only chance of im- 
 mortalizing ourselves in this world 75 ! 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
 III. ; 
 
 DR. GOULD’S “INCOMPETENCY.” 
 
 Gentlemen : Your so called “ Statement 57 is replete with 
 “ unfolding glories 77 — glories that will -adorn your reputa- 
 tions through all time. On the eve of this controversy, you 
 seemed to be casting about you for some opportune occa- 
 sion by means of which you could attach “ immortality ” — 
 
 . to your names. In your own estimation at least, your case 
 was apparently desperate. But a happy thought struck 
 your President. His quick eye saw at a glance, one more 
 chance — alas “ the only chance .” Overjoyed atjthe disco- 
 very, he hastens to his desk, and from his nimble pen, flow 
 these memorable words : — “ We are willing to sink or swim 
 with a Henry, a Peirce, a Bache, and a Gould , as the only 
 chance of immortalizing ourselves in^this t world ” ! With 
 his usual rapid discernment, he saw that his long sought 
 for immortalization could be acquired by connecting him- 
 self with “ a Gould,” and in no case would he forsake the 
 Doctor because this was his “ only chance .” At his time of 
 life, and considering the manifold disappointments thatjiad 
 thwarted his aspirations for an'immortalization of his name, 
 no one will dispute the wisdom of his choice. A few 
 months roll around, and this “ illustrious ” Dr. Gould,— 
 this forlorn — this “ only chance,” stands before him a quack 
 astronomer — an incompetent man! Not that this was a 
 sudden discovery. Oh, no. According to your “State- 
 
32 
 
 ment,” you found that out as far back as the Inauguration, 
 August 28, 1856. For you tell uS that when the Inaugura- 
 tion took place , 11 It came with hopes unfulfilled and expec- 
 tations disappointed. Of all the splendid promises made 
 by Dr. Gould, and the brilliant visions he had kept before 
 their (your) eyes, not a single one was realised.” The italics 
 are your own. Poor patient souls ! Conscious that he had 
 treated you so shabbily, you then, as all our citizens know, 
 paraded him before our eyes as the wonderful Dr. Gould ! 
 Judging from the way you acted on that occasion, a 
 stranger would have expressed no surprise, had he seen you 
 go before him, and strew flowers in his path; So adroitly 
 did you conceal the deep chagrin which you now tell us you 
 then felt. Day after day, week after week, and month after 
 month pass by, and this man, as you tell us in your “ State- 
 ment,” continues to demonstrate to your entire satisfaction, 
 his 61 incompetency ” — he proves to you by unmistakable 
 evidences, that he was, to use your own words, “ utterly 
 unsuited to the position he had occupied.” Ignoramus and 
 imposter as he was, after the lapse of twelve months of 
 woful proofs of his <£ incompetency,” you are “ willing to 
 sink or swim ” with him. Nay, sixteen months elapse, and 
 you place the Observatory in his hands by resolution of 
 your board, and vote his name among the names “ so illus- 
 trious in Science.” But alas ! for the poor Observatory ! 
 Dr. Gould, as editor of the Astronomical Journal , had noticed 
 in that journal a certain Comet, as the. 4th Comet of 1857, 
 and not as the Olcott Comet. This proof of his “ incompe- 
 tency ” precipitated matters to a crisis. Measures must 
 now be taken to remove him from his post. Soon your 
 President comes out with a public proclamation of his 
 “ incompetency.” No longer could this ££ unfolding glory” 
 be concealed from the world. Edward Everett, who, in 
 his masterly oration on the day of the Inauguration, vouched 
 for Dr. Gould’s competency — who spoke of him ££ as a man 
 to whose distinguished talent has been added the advan- 
 
33 
 
 tag© of a thorough scientific education in the most re- 
 nowned universities of Europe,” and who “ has shown him- 
 self to be fully qualified for the high trust,” — Mr. Everett 
 must now be told that he then and there stated an untruth, 
 and that Dr. Gould is not competent for the “ high trust.” 
 Encke, Gauss, Airy, Arago, Struve, Hansen, Schumaker, 
 Peters — not the Peters who was formerly Dr. Gould’s 
 assistant but Peters the great astronomer of Altona, 
 and other distinguished astronomers, with whom Dr. Gould 
 had prosecuted his studies, and who were proud to enroll 
 his name with theirs, as a worthy, practical astronomer— 
 they must now be told that they, too, are incompetent to 
 judge of Dr. Gould’s competency, and have imposed upon 
 the world by giving their high sanction to his astronomi- 
 cal qualifications. Professsors Peirce, Bache and Henry, 
 who at the outset staked their reputation on the compe- 
 tency of Dr. Gould, are now informed that the Doctor is an 
 ignoramus, and that their reputation is forfeited. Astro- 
 nomers of Europe, astronomers of America, the learned 
 men of the world, who have chosen this man as a deserv- 
 ing member of their scientific associations — all, all are 
 wrong. Dr. Gould is incompetent ! Mr. Olcott, whose 
 vision seldom expands beyond the circumference of a dol- 
 lar, boldly pits his “ opinion ” against the opinion of those 
 who have swung the telescope and measured the stars, for 
 half a century. This is the man who now pronounces on 
 Dr. Gould’s competency, not with “ surprising assurance,” 
 for we are not suprised at any amount of assurance he may 
 exhibit. 
 
 But there are the stone piers and the “ Ingenious Crane V 9 
 Don’t they prove Dr. Gould’s “ incompetency V 9 Let us 
 see. What was the purpose of those piers 1 They were 
 to sustain instruments which required the nicest possible 
 adjustment, instruments which were to perform the most 
 precise and delicate measurements. An error arising from 
 the awkward and hasty placing of the instruments, though 
 5 
 
34 
 
 tla© error were no more than the thousandth part of an 
 inch, at the point of starting, by extending the line of ob- 
 servation to a far distant object in the heavens, would in- 
 troduce wide uncertainty and confusion into all the calcu- 
 lations based upon it. You seem to think that a stone 
 mason with a few timbers and crow-bars and log-chains 
 and a dozen brawny arms to assist, could have taken these 
 piers and placed them in position in a few hours, and would 
 call anything more than this “transcendental exactness.” 
 Let the mason then throw a little mud into the joints and 
 chinks and all is ready. Gentlemen, Dr. Gould is not the 
 man you take him to be, if you suppose he would risk his 
 own future reputation and that of the Observatory, on the 
 hasty placing of these piers by the rough hands of the 
 stone mason. Had he done this, as you think he ought to 
 have done it, then indeed, he would have demonstrated his 
 “ incompetency.” That, whereof you accuse him, is the 
 strongest possible evidence in his favor. 
 
 Dr. Gould’s colleagues well describe the value of the 
 “Ingenious Crane .' 1 They say, “the apparatus for placing 
 the great piers, by which the meridian circle is supported, 
 we consider as being at once ingenious, economical and 
 well-contrived. The success with which it has accomplished 
 its work is the best demonstration of its excellence. Stones 
 weighing over seven tons each, were to be brought into 
 place with a degree of accuracy with which an ordinary 
 mason could not lay even a brick or corner stone. To talk 
 of placing them properly, without some such apparatus, is 
 to utter ridiculous absurdity ; and this case well illustrates 
 the many practical difficulties with which Dr. Gould has had 
 to contend, in his successful efforts to grapple with the 
 difficult problem of mounting an instrument of such unex- 
 ampled magnitude and delicacy.” You were ready to shout 
 “ Hurrah, boys, seize your crow-bars, watch the timbers f 
 and heave away ! Does it bind — does it hit? Knock off a 
 corner ! Hold, take the sledge ! Poke it with a bar ! 
 
35 
 
 There she goes ! All right ! Now mount the instrument 
 and we will bring our visitors to see it.” Gentlemen, I 
 confess this language makes you appear sufficiently ridicu- 
 lous. But no more so than your own conduct warrants. 
 What do you know about these instruments ? Your Presi- 
 dent, speaking of them before your Board, said, “Every 
 astronomer, conscious of his own ability, would pant for the 
 unfolding glories which they are expected to reveal.” After 
 being over six years connected with the Observatory, he 
 does not know even the use of these instruments ! They 
 were not designed to discover new heavenly bodies, or 
 develop the wonders of distant systems, and in that way to 
 reveal unfolding glories, but simply to measure the posi- 
 tions of those already revealed! Yet this is the man who 
 assumes to pronounce dogmatically on Dr. Gould’s compe- 
 tency, and adduces his cautious precision in placing the 
 piers and mounting the instruments as an evidence. Edward 
 Everett pointed out to you the true office of these instru- 
 ments in his oration. (See page 71 of your inauguration 
 pamphlet.) Read this and be informed. Mr. Everett also 
 furnishes an apt illustration of this aspect of your position 
 toward Dr. Gould. Speaking of the persecution of Galileo 
 by the Dominicans and Franciscans, because he had reas- 
 serted the truth of the Copernician system, Mr. Everett 
 refers to these judges of Galileo’s “ competency ” thus — 
 “ Good heavens ! what a tribunal, what a culprit ! what a 
 crime !” When men like you pronounce judgment on the 
 capacity of Dr. Gould, we too, may exclaim with Mr. Ever, 
 ett — “ Good heavens ! what a tribunal, what a culprit, what 
 a crime !” Especially may we do this, since you, in your 
 ignorance select as a <€ crime ” what in truth demonstrates 
 both his “ competency ” and his faithfulness. Galileo’s, per. 
 secutors were merciful compared with you. They only im. 
 prisoned their victim and put him to bodily torture. You 
 assail a hitherto stainless reputation — brand your victim as 
 a thief and a liar, and that he may have no T redeeming quali- 
 
36 
 
 ty whatever, you add to his burthen the charge of “ incapa- 
 city.” He came to you spotless and illustrious ; you would 
 send him away covered with infamy and hereafter to be 
 despised. Had he yielded to your blind importunity, and 
 placed those piers and instruments in position with the 
 reckless haste you exacted, neither he nor you could have 
 relied on any calculations based on their measurements. 
 He would have rendered himself even more ridiculous in 
 the eyes of all men of science, than you have rendered your- 
 selves by your absurd and heedless exactions. His old 
 astronomical friends would have scouted his calculations, 
 and pointed with derision at both him and the Observatory. 
 He knew that what you urged so strenuously would never 
 answer. Manfully did he withstand your sneers and jeers. 
 No amount of detraction and vituperation could move him 
 from what he knew to be right. However willing you 
 might have been to “sink” with him, he was not willing to 
 u sink ” with you. 
 
 But the Lockport stone rejected by Doctor Gould, you 
 tell us, “ other astronomers ” pronounced to be good enough. 
 Gentlemen, there is a man — Dr. Peters — whom your Presi- 
 dent eulogizes thus : " He is a gentleman, unassuming, 
 truthful, practical and progressive. He is not a specious, 
 entertaining, pedantic theorist, abounding in contrivances 
 of a useless and visionary character. On the contrary, he 
 is a ripe scholar, an accomplished astronomer, and can 
 fathom with a profound mind the profoundest depths of 
 science.” Will his testimony satisfy your minds? Know, 
 then, that he condemned that Lockport stone, in terms une- 
 quivocal and emphatic. His condemnation is in black and 
 white, in a shape that admits of no denial. Not that we 
 value his opinion more than yours. We know him well— he 
 is a little better qualified to judge than you are. But as he 
 seems to be, in your estimation, the greatest astronomer of 
 the age, we offer the conclusive [weight of his testimony 
 against you. Gentlemen, I beg your pardon a thousand 
 
37 
 
 times for what I am about to say, but, to use the favorite 
 language of Judge Harris, “I feel constrained ” to say it ? 
 and say it I must — you have made asses of yourselves in 
 this matter. There is but one thing that sustains you for a 
 moment. Because, forsooth, you have succeeded in mercan- 
 tile and banking pursuits, people who never pause to think, 
 jump at the conclusion that you are learned astronomers. 
 Good Lord deliver us ! All of you, but two, have been 
 Trustees over six years, and you do not know the proper 
 use of the instruments those piers were designed to bear. 
 Your orator, on the day of the Inauguration, more than two 
 years ago, devoted one head of his discourse to an explana- 
 tion of their use. On the 26th day of June last, your Pre- 
 sident told you of the “ unfolding glories these instruments 
 were expected to reveal,” and you then sanctioned and in- 
 dorsed his remarks. You seem not to have had the most 
 distant idea that the office of “ revealing the unfolding glo- 
 ries ” of the heavens, belonged to another class of instru- 
 ments. Still you criticise Dr. Gould’s mode of placing the 
 piers and mounting the instruments. Not only so, but you 
 discover the errors of this blundering, astronomical quack 
 and at once pronounce him “ incompetent.” Well may we 
 repeat the exclamation of Mr. Everett, c ‘ What a tribunal ! 
 What a culprit ! What a crime !” Gentlemen, if the Obser- 
 vatory be not utterly ruined, it will not be your fault. True 
 to his promises, Dr. Gould strove to make it a first-class 
 institution. Hence his care in placing the piers and instru- 
 ments. Excessive caution was an impossibility. 
 
 At the outset of this controversy, you did not pretend to 
 the Scientific Council, or anybody else, that you distrusted 
 Dr. Gould's integrity or truthfulness or competency. You 
 based his removal solely and exclusively on the ground of a 
 11 want of harmony ” between you and him. So you state in 
 your official communication to the Scientific Council. What 
 followed ? Finding the community were incensed at the high- 
 handed outrage you proposed to commit, you must seek 
 
38 
 
 some justification of your course; You were in a predica- 
 ment, and to get out of it, you manufactured 173 pages of 
 charges based on events and transactions which occurred 
 long before your President wrote the letter to Dr. Gould, in 
 which he tells the Doctor that he is “ willing to sink or 
 swim ” with him, and long before you praised him in your 
 resolutions and made him the Director of the Observatory. 
 For the three previous years, you had yourselves given 
 your unqualified sanction to all that Dr. Gould had done. 
 You complain of nothing of consequence that has occurred 
 since you indorsed his entire conduct by the formal resolu- 
 tions of your board. As late as the 4th of June last, Mr. 
 Wilder, in his speech published with the speech of Mr. 
 Olcott, addressed the following language to your board : 
 “ Dr. Gould, in his communication, lays much stress on the 
 gratuitous services of himself and his co-laborers, and while 
 there is no attempt to conceal the great value of the services 
 they are performing, great prominence is given to the fact 
 that they are performed gratuitously.” This language, too, 
 you all indorsed by resolution of your board. Only a few 
 days after uttering this language, in which Mr. Olcott and 
 you acknowledge the “ great value ” of Dr. Gould’s services, 
 you set yourselves at work to prove in a Statement of 173 
 pages, that Dr. Gould’s services were of no value whatever ! 
 Not only so, but you insist that they were a positive detri- 
 ment to the Observatory. No mind, however strongly pre- 
 judiced against Dr. Gould, can require better testimony 
 than this fact discloses that your charge of “ incompetency,” 
 and all your other charges, were after-thoughts. Even were 
 these charges true, you disgrace nobody by making them 
 more than yourselves. Granting them to be true, you show 
 a degree of “incompetency” to manage the trust confided 
 to you, which, compared with the alleged “ incompetency ” 
 of Dr. Gould, is a thousand-fold more culpable. Strange it 
 is that your judicial co-trustee did not see the ridiculous 
 plight in which he and you were about to place yourselves 
 
39 
 
 before the public. Had the learned outside lawyer, who 
 reviewed your Statement, intended to place your judicial 
 friend in this unenviable plight for the purpose of making 
 him a laughing-stock for the profession, he took the most 
 direct course to accomplish that object, by allowing you 
 to publish such a Statement. It was a shrewd joke, and 
 decidedly the best of the season. Any one who says that 
 Nicholas Hill is not fond of fun does not know the man. 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
 IY. 
 
 GARBLINGS AND PERVERSIONS. 
 
 Gentlemen — Wonders never cease. “Unfolding glories” 
 are wonders with fringes on them. To illustrate some of 
 these wonders with fringes, I now call your attention to 
 the subject of “ Garbling . 55 You may have heard of this 
 subject before, but evidently you have only an indistinct 
 conception of the “unfolding glories , 55 which a closer scru- 
 tiny will “ reveal . 55 Be patient, gentlemen. The brilliant, 
 dazzling light of your so-called Statement, which for a 
 few days blurred your eyes, has passed. You should now 
 be in a condition to reflect calmly on what has occurred. 
 We do not despair of you. Late indications encourage us 
 to believe that some of you begin to see things as they 
 really are. To their friends they do not disguise that they 
 have been misled. To the power on the throne of your 
 Board, the Lord only knows what they say. Others of 
 your immortal nine while they do not see with distinctness, 
 confess that they “ see men as trees walking . 55 Only be 
 patient and you will soon be able to tell a man from a tree 
 without difficulty. 
 
 “ To garble , 55 means to cull out to suit a purpose. “ To 
 pervert , 55 means to distort from its true use or end. That 
 
40 
 
 you have garbled Dr. Gould’s letters, in the above sense, 
 you yourselves virtually admit in your communication in 
 the Atlas # Argus of September 20th. For you there say, 
 “ Large portions of letters of very great length have been 
 omitted.” Pause here a moment. We have your confes- 
 sion of this fact . This of itself is sufficient to condemn 
 you before all honorable men. Your excuse that you did 
 it because these letters were of “ very great length,” affords 
 you no palliation. 
 
 Let the reader turn to the extracts you pretend to give — 
 let him assume that they are correct, (which we deny) and 
 it is impossible for him, from the very nature of these ex- 
 tracts, to doubt that the omitted e< large portions ” would 
 greatly modify, and in many instances absolutely change 
 the meaning you attempt to make them convey. Nobody 
 will dispute your right to extract a part of a letter, provi- 
 ded the part so given, is all that is written on a point dis- 
 tinct from the rest. But your pretended extracts show on 
 their face that, if the writer penned them, he must have 
 penned more on the same subject, in the same connection 
 and in s the same letters. Instead of omitting “ large por- 
 tions,” as you confess you did, you ought to have reversed 
 the rule and omitted, if any, the smaller portions. Then 
 the world could judge. As it is, your own confession con- 
 demns you. You show by your very mode of doing it, that 
 you had a sinister object to accomplish. Because, if the 
 partial extracts do in truth condemn Dr. Gould, then the 
 “ large portions ” you say you omitted, would condemn 
 him more. Being of the same tenor they were important 
 to you, in order to make the evidence against him more 
 convincing and more powerful. It is unaccountable that 
 rational beings should have “ large portions ” of such evi- 
 dence in their hands, and yet “ omit ” them, and confine 
 themselves to the small portions. You showed no want of 
 zeal, no deficiency in point of malignity, no mealy-mouthed 
 delicacy, for you openly charged Dr. Gould with pecula- 
 
41 
 
 tion, lying and incompetency. You "could not well say 
 more for the purpose of disgracing him. Yet, in doing 
 this, you “ omit,” according to your own confession, “ large 
 portions ” of the evidences on which you rely to condemn 
 him ! Will Judge Harris tell you that complainants in his 
 court are accustomed to omit “ large portions ” of the evi- 
 dences on which they rely to establish their complaints 1 
 He confesses that he does so, out of court, but does he tell 
 you that such is the practice of lawyers when he is on the 
 bench ? The truth is, you blundered when you made that 
 confession. You should have made a total denial and 
 braved it out to the la-4. Many people would have be- 
 lieved you then. But now, even your friends falter, and 
 the great mass of the community have lost all confidence 
 in your statements, based on these letters. Like a horse 
 in the mire, the more you flounder the deeper you “ sink,” 
 — but you don’t u sink — with a Gould.” What your 
 “ Statement” and your confession plainly disclose, viz : 
 that Dr. Gould’s letters have been garbled and shamefully 
 perverted, will now be established beyond all doubt by a 
 few examples. 
 
 Take first the specimen T noticed in a former communi- 
 cation, in relation to the Olcott Comet. On page 149 of 
 your Statement, in order to show that Dr. Gould at first 
 approved the name, Olcott Comet, you quote these words 
 from one of his letters-— “ It was a very pretty idea to give 
 the Comet the esteemed name of the excellent Mr. Olcott.” 
 In the original letter and immediately following this are 
 the words which you 14 omitted,” viz : “But since it is 
 “ contrary to all my theoretical principles to designate the 
 <■ Comet otherwise than by its year and number — you must 
 “ so arrange it that I do not appear responsible for it. I 
 “ am willing to play dissembler a little in the matter.” 
 
 You quote seventeen words to show that Dr. Gould ap- 
 proved of the name, and omit forty-five words which in the. 
 original immediately follow the seventeen, and which ex- 
 6 
 
42 
 
 press in the plainest possible language, his positive disap- 
 proval. The words before the “but” are convenient for 
 your purpose — the forty-five words after it utterly disclaim 
 the very thing you want to prove, and these you deliber- 
 ately omit. The forty-five words which contain the gist of 
 the pretended extract, are a specimen of the “ large por- 
 tions,” which you confess you “ omitted.” 
 
 Specimen No. 2. — On page 18 of your Statement, you tell 
 us that Dr. Gould had the plans for the enlargement of the 
 two wings of the Observatory building prepared under his 
 direction and subject to his approval. Then you quote 
 from a letter which he wrote the day following April 23d 
 1S56 ; i. e. April 24th, thus — “ the plan for changing the 
 building — that is, altering the two wings — is satisfactory 
 and very handsome.” Let the reader observe carefully 
 what I now say about this extract Either some one else 
 or yourselves, have boldly inserted nine words — one word 
 for each majority Trustee — which words are not in the 
 press copy of the original letter. The words not contained 
 in the press copy are these — that is altering the two 
 wings is satisfactory and — "Hill. What was the motive for 
 iuserting these words? The word “ satisfactory n is inserted 
 to make people believe that Dr. Gould pronounced the plan 
 “ satisfactory ” He says no such thing. What did he say ? 
 You shall have the extract as it ought to have been made, 
 leaving out the inserted words. e; The plan for changing 
 the building seems very handsome, bat then will arise that 
 everlastingly tormenting question which haunts us all through 
 life — $ ?” Another motive for inserting all the nine words, 
 was to intimate that Dr. Gould lied when he said that the 
 west wing was torn down without his approbation. 
 
 By inserting the words — the growings — c= 1BiX he is 
 
 adroitly made to give the lie to what he had said on another 
 occasion. 
 
 But there is another unfolding glory connected with this 
 pretended extract. Only a part of the sentence is quoted. 
 The garbler, whoever he is, as usual, quotes till he butts his 
 
43 
 
 head against the word “ but,” and then he stops. Dr. Gould 
 finishes the sentence by saying — “ but then will arise that 
 everlastingly tormenting question which haunts us all 
 through life — $ V 9 Had the garbler completed the sentence 
 it would have proved the reverse of what he desired. The 
 grand predominant motive, both for the garbling and the 
 insertion of the nine words, was evidently to make Dr. 
 Gould responsible for the acts of the Trustees. But Dr. 
 Gould plainly intimates to you that the question of — u $ ?” 
 (dollars ?) was a serious obstacle — a serious objection, and 
 throws the responsibility where it belongs But all this 
 part of the sentence is left out. As to the insertion of the 
 nine words not in the press-copy, by what term shall I 
 designate such an act? Shall I call it “moral forgery”? 
 Perhaps Judge Harris can suggest a more appropriate term. 
 An indignant community will form their own conclusion 
 
 Let this community not forget, that, after the garbler had 
 omitted a “ large portion ” of a pretended sentence, it did 
 not then suit his purpose, and nine new words were actually 
 fabricated and inserted. 
 
 Specimen No. 3. On page 20 of your Statement, after 
 a remark about “ experimental chronographs,” there is the 
 following pretended quotation : 
 
 “ I was more sanguine of their brilliant success, a fortnight ago, than I 
 am now ; hut while we are trying experiments, we take care 1o put a peg 
 through all that we have already, secured. 7 ’ 
 
 This differs in a most remarkable particular from the 
 press-copy. Where the word “ experiments ” occurs in the 
 above, the press copy has the words “ to progress .” Let the 
 reader now substitute the words “ to progress ^ in the place 
 of “ experiments,” and he will have the extract as it ought 
 to have been made. Here is a positive change of words 
 from what the press-copy shows. Had it been correctly 
 given the extract would read “ we are trying to progress ,” 
 not “ trying experiments.” It was deemed by the garbler 
 important to make the public believe that Dr. Gould had 
 been guilty of wasting the money of the Trustees in vision- 
 
44 
 
 ary “ experiments.” In order to do this, the words “ to 
 progress,” as they appear in the press-copy, are changed by 
 inserting in their places the word “ experiments.” Is this 
 one of the accidental changes referred to in your commu- 
 nication of Sept. 20th, in the Atlas Argus ? You say in 
 that communication “ here and there a word has been acci- 
 dentally changed” What a happy accident! It was just 
 the thing for the purpose in view. Ah ! you are lucky men. 
 It falls in with your design and enables you to prove that 
 Dr. Gould was spending your money in “ trying experi- 
 ments.” Here let me note another point which you have 
 confessed, viz : that “ here and there a word has been acci- 
 dentally changed.” Gentlemen, when you attempt to con- 
 demn a man by his words, you were bound by all that is 
 high and holy, and great and good — by all the ties which 
 link together the brotherhood of honorable men — you were 
 bound to see to it, that changes of words were not made. 
 There is no excuse for you. Your confession on this point 
 ought to condemn you without one item of other evidence. 
 If you keep on, we shall soon have a nice chapter of con- 
 fessions. You confessed that your former charge of pecu- 
 lation against Dr. Gould was groundless — all of you, but 
 one, confess that the charge of incompetency is likewise 
 groundless, for in your Statement you leave Mr. Olcott 
 alone to sustain that charge — you have confessed that you 
 omitted “ large portions ” of Dr. Gould’s letters — you have 
 confessed that “ here and there a word ” has been changed — 
 several of you have confessed in conversation, that you 
 published letters that were marked private or confidential. 
 Gentlemen, for your own sakes keep on in this good work. 
 The confessional is your proper place. Before it } 7 ou can 
 be profitably occupied for the next twelve months. 
 
 Specimen No. 4. On page 66 of your Statement, you 
 pretend to quote from a letter of Dr. Gould — as follows : 
 
 “Doctor Peters is a man who has seen and experienced much, and I think 
 you will like him. Born in Denmark, or rather in Schleswig, a Duchy 
 adjoining Denmark, of which the King of Denmark is the Duke ; educated 
 
45 
 
 in Prussia, he was for a long time employed in the Geodetical survey of the 
 Neapolitan Kingdom ; then in Sicily during the war of the Revolution ; 
 after which he resided some years in Constantinople before coming to 
 America. So he has had plenty of experience.” 
 
 / Let the reader confine his attention to the last short sen- 
 
 tence of the above pretended extract. I will now give that 
 sentence entire and verbatim as it is in the press-copy : 
 So he has plenty of experiences to relate , and little odds and- 
 ends of wisdom , picked up in various corners of the earth.” 
 In this case the garbler did not even wait to run against a 
 “ but." He chops off the sentence in the middle — inserts 
 the word ‘ had ” after “ has ” — converts the word K expe- 
 riences ” into “ experience/’ dropping the “ s,” and 
 then omits the words — “ to relate, and little odds and ends 
 of wisdom, picked up in various corners of the earth.” 
 The garblings and alterations are plain and palpable.' 
 What was the motive ? Why, to make Dr Gould indorse 
 Dr. Peter’s astronomical experience ! To magnify and eulo- 
 gize the astronomical experience of this hero of the Trus- 
 tees ! In order to do this, the garbler changes “ experiences ” 
 into “ experience,” inserts the word “ had ” after “ has,” and 
 leaves out all the rest of the sentence ! ! Here is a two- 
 fold exemplification of your confessions. “ Large portions ” 
 of a sentence are left out, and words accidentally ” of 
 course !) have been changed. Let the reader examine the 
 extract, as I have corrected it from the press-copy, and 
 then see what kind of testimony it bears in favor of the 
 astronomical “ experience of Dr. Peters.” 
 
 Specimen No. 5. On page 35 of your Statement, you 
 quote : 
 
 On the 2d of March, Dr. Gould, as if still anxious to keep up the cou- 
 rage and confidence of the Trustees, although no apparent progress was 
 making, writes from Cambridge, ‘ Everything seems to be going most satis- 
 factorily, and hastening towards completion. I have heard from our clock, 
 which was completed, all but the ‘ putting together.’ ” 
 
 In regard to this pretended extract, three things are 
 worthy of notice. 1st. The press-copy has the date the 2d 
 of June, and not the 2d of March. Why did the garbler 
 
46 
 
 change the date from June to March? Why, to pave the 
 way for the remark in the paragraph succeeding the ex- 
 tract, viz : 
 
 “ Nearly a- year and a half has since elapsed, and the clock has not yet 
 been ‘ put together’ !’ r 
 
 Now look at the extract again, and after the word u seems n 
 place these words 1®“ “ from the accounts of Dr. Peters and 
 Mr. Smith.” The press-copy shows that the words last 
 given were left out by the garbler. It should read, “ every- 
 thing seems, from the accounts of Dr. Peters and Mr. Smith, 
 to be going most satisfactorily .” Had he given the quota 
 tion as the press-cop y has it, it would not throw the blame 
 on Dr. Gould, of having made “ no apparent progress,” 
 but would cast the blame, if any, on Dr. Peters. Two 
 objects must be accomplished by the garbler. The favo- 
 rite, Dr. Peters, must be shielded, and the lately discovered 
 bad Dr. Gould must be- held up as a culprit ! 
 
 Another fact in relation to this quotation is, that the 
 second sentence is taken from the end of the letter — nearly 
 two pages intervening — and placed in connection with a 
 sentence at the beginning t The body of the letter relates 
 to other matters, and this sentence is only an incidental 
 closing remark. By this outrageous transposition of the 
 sentence, and connecting it with one at the beginning, the 
 garbler is enabled to support the assertion that Dr. Gould 
 encouraged the Trustees, while he was really delaying. It 
 required this gross transposition to give coloring to this 
 idea. In this way, a malicious person, who has a few letters 
 written him* by another, can make their author say any- 
 thing he chooses*. What would Judge Harris say to a man 
 who would make such a use of another’s letters, to establish 
 a case in his court ?' Not one instant would he listen. 
 
 Gentlemen,, as sure as there is a God in Heaven, the per- 
 petrator of these atrocious wrongs, whoever he may be, 
 will learn that divine justice “ will not sleep forever.’’ 
 That any man, of any grade or rank in society, could be 
 capable of such gross, deliberate, unjust, and cruel perver" 
 
47 
 
 sions of another man’s letters, unless it were with a worse 
 motive than that which actuates the forger, I could not 
 believe until my own eyes saw the evidence. The half has 
 not been told. From my inmost soul I pity the man whose 
 perversity of heart would prompt him to outrage a fellow 
 being in this wanton manner. If he has any conscience 
 left, every object he sees or touches, will be to him like 
 the darting sting of the scorpion. Who did the wrong, I 
 do not know, nor do I care to know. That most of you 
 have been misled, I do not doubt. What you are to blame 
 for is, that you have not the moral courage to tear your- 
 selves away from those who have misled you. You owe it 
 to yourselves and the community to disclaim all direct par- 
 ticipation in these disgraceful acts. It is by such acts as 
 these that Dr. G-ould is to be crushed. Dr. Gould’s press- 
 copies of his letters speak for themselves. Nor can they 
 misrepresent the originals. They show in a way that ex- 
 cludes all chance for doubt, that they were taken at the 
 time they purport to have been written, and that the author, 
 when he took them, could not have had the remotest idea, 
 that he would ever be compelled to use them in a public 
 controversy. They present every evidence of truthfulness 
 and genuineness, that press books of Mr. Olcott, or any 
 other banker, can produce. 
 
 Mv intention was, gentlemen, to give to the public in 
 this letter, nine specimens, in order that the nine unfolding 
 glories might correspond in point of number with the Trus- 
 tees. There are many more in my possession, and all 
 equally palpable, which, if I were to expose and fully illus- 
 trate, would require more than two issues of the Atlas 
 Argus, occupying all its columns. 
 
 Enough has been shown to prove beyond question, that 
 no reliance can be placed in any of your charges based on 
 his letters. Take all such charges from your Statement, 
 and it has neither backbone nor ribs. It dwindles down to 
 a tissue of mere, loose, reckless assertions. In that condi- 
 tion you are welcome to it. ALBANY. 
 
48 
 
 Y. 
 
 GARBLINGS AND PERVERSIONS. 
 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 “ The truth appears so naked on my side,” 
 
 “ That any purblind eye may find it out.” 
 
 Yet I agree with Steele, that “ it is sometimes difficult to 
 dissipate the illusion to which the senses or the fancy are 
 liable ; Fame, G-lory, Wealth, Honor, have in their prospect 
 pleasing illusions.” Steele well knew the illusions which 
 fame and glory hold in prospect for some men. He could 
 comprehend the difficulty of dissipating such illusions, but 
 an unfolding glory makes the difficulty insurmountable. 
 Steele had never seen a glory of this kind, else he would 
 have said that when the mind once becomes enraptured 
 with it, no power whatever can dissipate the charm. Its 
 victim is past recovery. That, however, which fascinates 
 and incapacitates him, leaves ingenuous minds free to take 
 in and appreciate truth. Some of your number, in ordinary 
 circumstances, belong to the class last named. Your confi- 
 dence in members of your board, who have misled you, has 
 brought you into the unhappy strait of being on the wrong 
 side of this controversy. Your secret heart already de- 
 plores the mistakes of your too confiding nature. But a 
 wily master spirit who knew how to avail himself of this 
 weakness, who felt it to be all important to himself to shield 
 his craft} r schemes behind the weight of your characters — • 
 hastened to get you committed in his favor, hoping, doubt- 
 less, that your pride of consistency, after such committal, 
 would secure your future allegiance. Thus far, the result 
 has verified his expectations, though it has sorely disap 
 pointed your fellow-citizens. If, therefore, I disclose to 
 you, and urge upon your attention, the painful facts that 
 lie before me, it is not because of unfriendliness on my 
 part, but that I may induce you to do yourselves justice, by 
 doing justice to him whom, I trust, you have unintention- 
 ally wronged. Stand no longer in the position of thd 
 
49 
 
 false accuser — stand no longer as a shield before the vil- 
 lainous garbler of Dr. Gould’s letters. Expose the 
 wretched creature, and partake not with him in the deep, 
 damning disgrace. Let the world know who he is, that 
 mankind may mark him forever. 
 
 Ponder awhile with me over a few more of these gar- 
 blings Examine the following specimens — trace out the 
 serpentine policy which twines itself around the statement 
 which precedes each garbled extract, and see the forked, 
 venomous sting, that the inference following it is made to 
 thrust at the man whose guileless words are so cruelly 
 distorted. 
 
 Specimen No. 6. On page 131 of your Statement, in 
 order to prove that Dr. Gould made official application to 
 the Trustees to rebuild the Dome of the Observatory, the 
 following pretended quotation is given : 
 
 “ It (the Dome) ought to he rebuilt. * * * * The had construction of 
 the base cannot he remedied by any reasonable expenditure * * * * 
 As I cannot altogether surrender the hope of yet seeing some equatorial 
 instrument in the dome before long, it seems to me that $1,800 could not 
 be better employed at the Observatory. May I beg for your decision as early 
 as possible V* 
 
 Take the first sentence of the above and see how it is 
 garbled. In the press-copy this sentence has twenty-two 
 words. The garbler gives precisely five of the twenty-two 
 and omits seventeen ! Here it is entire, as it was ori- 
 ginally written : 
 
 “ The truth is, it ought to be rebuilt , and the money question 
 f is the only one of weight on the other side.” 
 
 As given by the garbler, the third sentence has thirty-two 
 words. In the press-copy that sentence has fifty-two ivords. 
 Twenty of the fifty-two are omitted I The garbler does 
 not go on till he runs against a “ but,” as in other cases. 
 No, it is another obstacle, one equally stubborn. What is 
 it ? It is a “ provided ,” and this “ provided” is followed 
 by the gist of the whole sentence. To leave this part of 
 the sentence in will never do, and therefore he chops it 
 
50 
 
 off. The part cut off comes in, separated only by a comma, 
 after the word eC Observatory,” and is as follows : 
 
 “ Provided the means for equipment , fyc., already alluded 
 to in my letter of estimates , are not thereby to be jeoparded .” 
 Here the money question, with which the Doctor began 
 his letter, is brought out again too prominently, and 
 therefore these words were dropped Well, what next? 
 Dr. Gould adds another most significant sentence imme- 
 diately after the one just mentioned. What is it ? “ This 
 
 is the sole question .” Thunder and Mars ! exclaims the gar- 
 bler, if I leave this in, my kettle of fish will be ruined. Out 
 with it — and out it goes. Now let the reader observe how 
 nicely the garbler has arranged the preceding part of the 
 pretended quotation preparatory to the introduction of 
 the concluding sentence. Having cut off from two sen- 
 tences thirty-seven words — having struck out a most signi- 
 ficant and entire sentence which followed them — all these, 
 mind you, relating to the money question, he has pre- 
 pared the quotation to suit his purpose. What purpose ? 
 Why, to show that Dr. Gould had made official application 
 for the decision of the Trustees whether the Dome shall 
 be rebuilt ! Then follows the concluding sentence, which 
 the garbler brings in with a flourish, thus : “ May I beg for 
 your decision as early as possible .” 
 
 The whole tenor of Dr. Gould’s letter relates to another 
 question, viz : the money question. He keeps before the 
 Trustees the one prominent idea. Will your funds war- 
 rant the expenditure for a new dome ? He tells them : 
 “ This is the sole question .” Then he concludes his letter by 
 asking them to decide, what ? An application for a new 
 dome ? No, this “ sole question ” as to their funds, “ may I 
 beg for your decision as early as possible ?” By this out- 
 rageous and unheard-of garbling, his letter is tortured to 
 mean another thing. Let the reader now consider the 
 deliberateness with which this garbling was done. The 
 letter was written to Thomas W. Olcott. This said Tho- 
 mas W. Olcott, in an address to the Trustees, made on the 
 
51 
 
 26th day of June last, had charged that Dr. Gould made 
 official application for the rebuilding of the dome. The 
 Scientific Council in their “ Defence of Doctor Gould,” 
 denied that Dr. Gould’s letters warranted such an asser- 
 J tion. With this denial of the Scientific Council before 
 
 him, Mr. Olcott allows The letter of Dr. Gould to be gar- 
 bled in this shameful manner, and published in its mangled 
 and distorted form over his own signature. This is as true 
 as Holy Writ- If Mr. Olcott will produce the original let- 
 ter, just as it was written, it will prove the truthfulness of 
 my exposition ? Has down-right madness really seized 
 him ? Does he participate with and sanction the conduct 
 of these garblers ? Then “ 0 my soul come not thou into 
 their secret !” 
 
 Specimen No. 7. Page 36 of your Statement has the 
 following pretended quotation : 
 
 “ I have been over-running my authority, by purchasing the Philosophical 
 “ Transactions of the Royal Society of London, from the Astor Library. I 
 “ send by this mail a draft on you for $343 75, which includes the expenses 
 ** of boxing.” 
 
 Let the reader now look at the first sentence of this quo- 
 tation as given. Let him count the words. How many are 
 there ? Twenty-one exactly, and twenty-one ! ! more, which 
 should belong to and form a part of this very sentence, as 
 originally written, are left out ! Of the fort}^-two words 
 that would compose the sentence, if properly given, the 
 garbler takes twenty-one — just half — and rejects the other 
 half. This is not an omission of “ large portions ” of a 
 letter, but the actual omission of twenty-one of the forty- 
 two words composing a single sentence. I will now give 
 the whole sentence, as it should be, italicising the omitted 
 words, and the reader can see that what I say is true. 
 
 c ‘ I have been over-running my authority, and availing my - 
 self of an additional chance too good to be lost , by purchasing the 
 series of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of 
 London, from the Astor Library, at a price scarcely more 
 than nominal ” 
 
52 
 
 In giving this I have adapted . the sentence to the 
 division made in the pretended quotation. But, in reality, 
 the next sentence of the quotation should be connected 
 with it by the word “ and,” and the whole quotation, 
 including the eliminated words, should form one continuous 
 sentence. Taking, however, the last sentence of the pre- 
 tended quotation, as a distinct sentence, and six more words 
 should be supplied, in order to make that the same as it is 
 m the press-copy. Twenty-seven words, therefore, forming 
 an essential part of this short, pretended quotation, are 
 omitted ! 
 
 Now, what was the object of the garbler ? It is plain. 
 He wishes to show that Dr. Gould transcended his autho- 
 rity, and purchased these books without justification. Had 
 the garbler retained the twenty-one words which he elimi- 
 nated from a single sentence, then Dr. Gould's reasons for 
 making the purchase would have appeared and would have 
 been perfectly satisfactory to the public. The omitted 
 words tell Mr. Olcott, that the chance of making the pur- 
 chase was “ too good to be lost,” and that they were pur- 
 chased “ at a price scarcely more than nominal Besides 
 all this, Dr. Gould tells Mr. Olcott, in this same letter, that 
 the books will sell at auction for nearly twice the sum he 
 paid. 
 
 Mr. Olcott knew this when he allowed this mangled quo- 
 tation to be published. He knew it when he signed the 
 “ Statement,” and he knows it now. 
 
 Specimen No. 8. On the same page with the last, also 
 occurs this pretended quotation : 
 
 “We shall have to he making comparatively heavy demands upon you 
 soon for the dome work, observing chairs, &c., &c., which are essentials.” 
 
 Here again is a single sentence composed, as given, of 
 twenty-one words. Three of the twenty-one are fabricated 
 by the garbler, and five that belonged to the sentence are 
 omitted. The words upon you soon “IgiH, were fabri- 
 
 cated and inserted. For what purpose ? It was to give 
 force to the false assertion of the garbler, afterwards to be 
 
53 
 
 reiterated on page 131, that Dr. Gould had made official 
 application for the rebuilding of the Dome. 
 
 We now offier the quotation as it should he , together with 
 the sentence which, in the original, precedes it : 
 
 “ I hope that it will not prove necessary to spend much upon grading or 
 dressing the ground, until the tide begins to rise again. We shall be want- 
 ing to make comparatively heavy demands for the dome w ork ; and then 
 the observing chairs, &c., &c., — which are essentials,” 
 
 Compare this with the garbler’s quotation and mark the 
 variations. 
 
 Consider now, Dr. Gould’s object in writing this letter. 
 Dr. Armsby had an absurd scheme for “ sloping off the 
 ground beautifully,” &c. Dr. Gould sees that the execution 
 of Dr. Armsby’s visionary scheme would be a waste of 
 money. To prevent this he writes this letter, and, as a 
 motive to induce an abandonment of the project, he deli- 
 cately intimates to Mr. Olcott that the money is needed for 
 the dome-work. That is the long and short of the matter. 
 Had Mr. Olcott taken this advice, $800 or $900 would have 
 been saved. As it turned out, that money was wasted, as 
 Mr. Olcott and Dr. Armsby both know. This garbled and 
 partially fabricated quotation was adduced to represent Dr. 
 Gould as urging reckless and extravagant expenditures. 
 To do this, the sentence which precedes and explains it is 
 omitted, and five words are omitted in the sentence quoted 
 that were in the original, and three new words inserted ! ! 
 The fact was, Dr. Gould aimed to prevent extravagant 
 expenditures. Yet his letters must be distorted to make 
 him sanction them ! ! 
 
 Specimen No. 9. On page 28 of your Statement is a 
 pretended quotation to show that Dr. Gould is responsible 
 for the building and location of the dwelling house. 
 Thus : 
 
 “ As for the location of the house, of course you will judge. My views 
 “ were simply founded on personal opinion. Whatever you decide on I will 
 “ aid to the best of my abiliiy. When you ask for my opinion I give it with- 
 tl out reserve, and without any intention of taking it amiss if you decide 
 “ otherwise.” 
 
54 
 
 After the word “ opinion ” at the end of the second sen- 
 tence, these words occur in the press copy, and continue the 
 sentence viz : of general principles.” The object in 
 
 chopping off these words from the latter part of the sen- 
 tence was to make Dr. Gould express an opinion on the 
 subject of the house. But the garbler reads on and finds 
 that this omission does not jibe with the language of the 
 fourth sentence. He therefore strikes out from the fourth 
 sentence eleven words and substitutes five of his own ! This 
 sentence in the press copy reads : 
 
 “ When you ask me to give the results of my expe- 
 rience , I do it without reserve,” &c. 
 
 But the garbler will have the Doctor express an opinion. 
 The Doctor’s real language will not do. So, to mend 
 the sentence he substitutes for the foregoing eleven 
 words, five of his own, and makes the reading thus : 
 “ When you ask for my opinion I give it without 
 reserve,” &c. Of course these charges are “ accidental ” ! 
 
 Specimen No. 10. Ou page 49 of your Statement, there 
 i 3 this pretended quotation : 
 
 “ Dr. Peters was appointed in consequence- of my intercession, against 
 Prof. Bache’s inclination.” 
 
 As this sentence was originally written, it should be 
 read : 
 
 “ Dr. Peters was appointed in consequence of my intercession, against 
 Prof. Bache’s inclination, and stationed at the Dudley Obseevatory upon my 
 application 
 
 Nine words of this sentence — one again for each majority 
 Trustee — it will be seen are omitted. Why was this done ? 
 Because they exposed the base ingratitude of Dr. Peters 
 towards Dr. Gould, who had made him what he is in this 
 country, and more than he will ever be again. 
 
 So effectually had this garbler caught the garbling itch 
 that he garbles even Brunnow’s letter and the letters of 
 Prof. Bache. Take Brunnow’s letter, page 163, as Specimen 
 No 11. The last sentence of Brunnow’s letter is given 
 thus : 
 
“ I also regret that this has chilled the friendly feelings I had towards you 
 since our first acquaintance.” 
 
 Now I will give the sentence complete as Brunnow 
 wrote it : 
 
 ‘ I also regret that this has chilled the friendly feelings I had towards you 
 since our first acquaint mce, and especially since I was received so kindly at your 
 house when I first arrived in this country. 
 
 Such a tribute as these words of Brunnow’s convey, to 
 the noble and generous qualities of Dr. Gould’s heart, must 
 not be allowed to see the light ! To prevent even an inci- 
 dental item of justice to be done to the man who is to be 
 crushed, eighteen of the thirty-six words, just half, are 
 eliminated from the closing sentence of Brunnow’s letter. 
 Here is a case where Dr. Gould has the original letter, and 
 you the copy. 
 
 One of Prof Bache’s letters is horribly mangled. See it 
 on page 46 of your Statement. We offer this as 
 
 Specimen No. 12. Take the fourth sentence as given by 
 the garbler. Thus : — “ Nevertheless, I cannot reproach 
 myself with any want of frankness.” From this sentence, 
 as shown by the copy, forty-one words are omitted ! Here 
 it is in full : — 
 
 “ Nevertheless, I cannot reproach myself with any 
 want of frankness in stating to you , when consulted , the 
 extent of endowment necessary fora first class institution such 
 as you and all concerned in it desire to found and such as would 
 be worthy of the director you have in view.” 
 
 The forty-one words in italics were omitted. Now, what 
 was the motive here ? It was three-fold — 1st, Let it be 
 borne in mind that Prof Bache had warned Mr. Olcott over 
 and over again that a sufficient endowment w T as an indis- 
 pensable prerequisite to the success of the Observatory. 
 This declaration of Prof. Bache, is one of the hinges 
 on which the whole controversy turns. Hence, if the sen- 
 tence under consideration had been given entire , just as 
 Prof. Bache wrote it, it would have told most powerfully 
 against Mr. Olcott on this point. 2nd. By omitting this 
 
56 
 
 part of the sentence, it leaves the reader to infer that, while 
 Prof. Bache says he has always been frank , he has in fact 
 been disengenuous. 3rd. By leaving out these words it 
 helps the garbler to convict Prof. Bache of petulence and 
 fault-finding. But the fifth sentence of this pretended 
 quotation shows altogether a new species of garbling. I 
 will now repeat the sentence — “ We have all labored dis- 
 interestedly and with some energy, you most emphatically 
 so.” Would the reader believe it ? Well, by the change 
 of three letters in the word before and the one after “ em- 
 phatically,” the meaning of the whole sentence is changed 
 from what was written. Look back now at the last three 
 words of the sentence. For the word mo-s-t read “ m-u-s-t ” 
 and for the word “ s-o,” read k ‘ s-a-y.” When you have done 
 this you have these words just as they should be and just 
 as Prof. Bache wrote them ! ! The separation of the letters 
 of the words is made by me to bring out distinctly the 
 alterations. 
 
 A single glance shows the object of this. By changing 
 m-u-s-t into m-o-s-t, and s-a-y into s-o, Prof. Bache is made 
 to say to Mr. Olcott : ■ 
 
 u You most emphatically so ;” i. e. you, Mr. Olcott, have 
 labored disinterestedly , “ most emphatically so ” / / / 
 
 Whereas, what Prof. Bache really clid say, was — 
 “We have all labored disinterestedly, and with some 
 energy, you must emphatically say” And who are the 
 “we”? Obviously the Scientific Council are intended. 
 Instead of that, the idea of Prof. Bache is made by the 
 garbler to turn a complete summerset and compliment Mr. 
 Olcott ! No wonder Prof. Bache was thunder-struck when 
 he came to read this garbled sentence in your “ Statement.” 
 He was unaware that he had given this compliment to Mr. 
 Olcott. When he looked at his copy, sure enough the 
 alteration was palpable. Need I characterize this kind of 
 garbling? Oh! yes, it was one of the wonderful “acci- 
 dents” ! Did ever a “Statement” of a 173 pages before 
 this exhibit such a chapter of “ accidents ” ? 
 
57 
 
 In the sentence next following the one last considered, 
 one word, the adjective “ just,” is omitted, and three other 
 words are transposed from their regular place to another 
 part of the sentence. For this the only rational motive is, 
 that, in case the garbling of the words “ must ” and “ say ” 
 should be detected and pointed out, the garbler could in- 
 stance these changes as an evidence that the conversion of 
 “ must ” into “ most and “ say ” into “ so v was really acci- 
 dental. He can then say what motive had I for the changes 
 in the one case ? There being no plain or obvious motive, 
 he can further say, “ Oh, the truth is I was careless in both 
 cases — I did not mean it — it was accidental 
 
 I could go on with eight or ten more articles giving 
 further specimens and illustrations of garblings just as pal- 
 pable as those already noticed. On page 36 alone, of your 
 Statement, five pretended quotations are cited, containing 
 in all, one hundred and twelve words. Thirty-seven words 
 that belonged to, and were a part of the sentences, and ab- 
 solutely essential to the true meaning, are omitted, and 
 five newly fabricated words have been inserted. My heart 
 sickens at the sight, and therefore at present I forbear 
 * further exposures. 
 
 These pretended quotations pertain to letters about the 
 wings of the Observatory — the dome work — the house — 
 the clocks — the instruments — the books — Dr. Peters, Ac. 
 In every instance the pretended quotation, when corrected, 
 proves directly the reverse of what the garbler desires* 
 
 A mortifying fact is that most of these letters were re- 
 ceived by Mr. Olcott and Dr. Armsby. 
 
 Much might be said about the consistency with which 
 these garbled citations are used. In one place Dr. Gould 
 is overwhelmed with citations to show that he w r as delaying 
 and doing nothing. In another place they are used to show 
 that at the very time he was delaying and doing nothing, he 
 was actually cutting and slashing right and left — tearing 
 down and putting up wings and domes, &c., &c. In one 
 7 
 
58 
 
 place they are used to prove that he lied. In another they 
 are used to prove that his lies were truths ! ! 
 
 In only one respect does the garbler exhibit real cunning. 
 He makes these garbled extracts subordinate to one grand 
 idea which runs through your whole Statement, viz : — to 
 transfer from the Trustees where it truly belongs the re- 
 sponsibility for their wasteful expenditures and saddle it 
 upon Dr. Gould. The garbler feels conscious that proof is 
 wanting. Charges which he knew to be groundless were 
 made against Dr. Gould, and he must somehow sustain 
 them. What is to be done? Dr. Gould’s letters are at 
 hand and he grasps them with the tenacity of a drowning 
 man. He takes them. Here he omits parts of sentences — 
 there whole sentences — here he changes a date — there he 
 changes entire words and substitutes others — here he seizes 
 a sentence at the end of a letter and places it at or near the 
 beginning — and there he transposes sentences in the body 
 of the letter and in many instances words are fabricated and 
 inserted. When each quotation is thus tinckered he intro- 
 duces it with bold assertions and follows it with correspond- 
 ing inferences. Of such material has this so-called u State- 
 ment ” been manufactured. 
 
 How can such a man as Alden March — such a man as 
 Samuel H. Ransom — such a man as William H. Dewitt — 
 such a man as Isaac W. Yosburg — such a man as John F. 
 Rathbone — how can either of these gentlemen walk our 
 streets and look our citizens in the face without disavowing 
 all direct participation in these disgraceful garblings ? 
 They can not. They are gentlemen of standing. Confiding 
 themselves they are slow to believe evil of others and hence 
 have been misled. Now that their own reputation is in 
 jeopardy they cannot and will not persist in sanctioning 
 such conduct. Knowing these gentlemen well, I predict 
 that they will make this disavowal, and that soon. You 
 five gentlemen have much at stake in this matter apart from 
 the Observatory. Public sentiment cannot be braved if 
 you justify these atrocities. As well might you attempt to 
 
59 
 
 swim upwards against the plunging cataract of Niagara. 
 You must therefore come out and disclaim personal partici- 
 pation in these garblings. 
 
 So far as I am concerned, I here affirm, as God is my 
 judge, I have made these mortifying expositions solely be- 
 cause from the depths of my heart, I became convinced, by 
 evidence that I could not doubt, that Dr. Gould was and is 
 the victim of wrongs and persecutions unparallelled in the 
 history of human controversy. When the truth all comes 
 out and the public see it, they will say, what I know, that 
 the half has not been told. Of this I have no more doubt 
 than I have of my own existence. Many are slow to be- 
 lieve these things because they cannot understand how 
 sensible men would do such palpable wrongs and hope to 
 escape detection. So thought I at first. But, when it is 
 considered that by one fell blow it was intended to crush 
 Dr. Gould, and it was supposed that he had not kept press- 
 copies of hi3 letters and hence the cheat would not probably 
 be exposed, then the mystery is unravelled. My articles 
 have carried their own proof with them. He who runs 
 may read. 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
 VI. 
 
 GARBLINGS AND PERVERSIONS. 
 
 Gentlemen: — Take the following on page 14 of your 
 “ Statement ” as specimen No. 13 : — 
 
 “ There is no reason why all the clocks in the city should not form a cir- 
 cuit for themselves, independent, and he strictly sympathetic.’' 
 
 The garbling occurs in the omission of four words from 
 the first line. Instead of reading — “ There is no reason 
 why,” &c., read, “ There is no reason that I see now why,” 
 &c. Mark now the motive in leaving out the four words in 
 italics. What is the great aim here ? The garbler had 
 repeated over and over that Dr. Gould had made absolute 
 
60 
 
 and unqualified promises to the Trustees, which he had not 
 fulfilled. In the context preceding, it is stated that he 
 had kept a “ delusive vision ” before the minds of the 
 Trustees. But, if the qualification indicated by the four 
 words “ that I see now,” had remained in, the reader would 
 see the qualification. The Doctor must be made to give 
 an unqualified promise. Hence this must be garbled so 
 that he shall assert positively that “ there is no reason” 
 Afterwards the Doctor saw reasons why it was not done. 
 The public can judge what reasons they were. 
 
 Look now on page 18 of the Statement and you will find 
 specimen No. 14 : 
 
 “ The drawings I hare been studying, and although my want of familiarity 
 with architecture prevents me from understanding them fully, as yet, I hope 
 to have a clear comprehension of the plan of alteration to-day.” 
 
 I will now give the quotation as it ought to be — italicis- 
 ing the words changed by the garbler. “ The drawings I 
 have been studying, and although my want of familiarity 
 with architectural drawing prevents,” &c. For the words 
 “ architectural drawing ,” the garbler substitutes the word 
 “ architecture.” Old Walton never felt more exquisite 
 rapture in pulling a fine trout from the stream, than did 
 our garbler when this idea popped into his mind. His 
 sensations were glorious — unfoldingly glorious. “Aha!” 
 he exclaims, “ now we have the Doctor. It is important 
 to make him confess by his own letter, that he knows noth- 
 ing about “ architecture” What grand proof this will be 
 to show him up as an ignoramus. Who will believe that 
 a man who confesses himself ignorant of architecture is fit to 
 direct so important a matter as the building or equipment 
 of an Observatory 1 Yes, we will just substitute “ architec- 
 ture” for the real words — “architectural drawing,” and 
 the thing is done ! Of course the change was a-c-c-i-d-e-n . 
 t-a-l . 
 
 On page 44 of your Statement may be found Specimen 
 No. 15. 
 
61 
 
 ** If you feel so earnestly about the suspension of activity at the Observa- 
 “ tory, it shall not be shut up , if I can help it. Since I saw you, both Pro- 
 “ fessors Bache and Henry have been here, and together with Peirce, we 
 “have had various talks about the Observatory. We find ourselves entirely 
 1 1 unanimous on the subject. But while all entertain the same views which 
 “ I expressed to you, adverse to any commencement upon an inadequate 
 “scale, and favorable to the policy of awaiting a new flood tide , we yet will 
 “ none of us urge the closing up entirely, while you feel so strongly opposed 
 “ to it as I infer from your letter. Consequently, I feel sure that^Prof. 
 “ Bache will authorize me to keep some one of my party there.” 
 
 “ There will be some difficulty in finding opportunity to train Observers ; 
 “ and those already accustomed to the use of the class of astronomical in- 
 “ struments which we ought to employ are rare in this country, as yet. 
 “ There are some advantages in employing foreigners, but these are usually 
 “more than counterbalanced by corresponding evils. Furthermore, it is a 
 “ little difficult to devise legitimate Coast Survey work, which can be done 
 “ there without mounting the great instruments, and I would earnestly dis- 
 “suadefrom this ” 
 
 To this pretended quotation I call the reader’s most 
 earnest attention. 
 
 It is a rich specimen. Fix your attention on the fourth 
 sentence. Let me repeat it as it should be, italicising the 
 words for which the garbler substitutes words of his own. 
 
 i( And while all entertain the same views which I ex- 
 pressed to you regarding any commencement upon an 
 inadequate scale, and inclining to recommend the policy of 
 awaiting a new flood tide, we would assuredly none of 
 us urge the closing up entirely,” &c. Now take the 
 garbler’s version with the changes also italicised. “ But 
 while all entertain the same views which I expressed to 
 you adverse to any commencement upon an in- 
 adequate scale and favorable to the policy of awaiting a 
 new flood-tide, we yet will none of us urge the closing up 
 entirely,” &c. 
 
 Here seven words are changed and replaced by the 
 garbler with seven of his own. Having determined to 
 substitute adverse to for the word ee regarding,” 
 the change of “ and ” into “ but,” and the other changes 
 were made subservient to this. What now was the object ? 
 It was to make Dr. Gould say that he and the Scientific 
 
62 
 
 Council were" J® 3 * “ adverse to ” <s ^gj§l commencing opera- 
 tions at the Observatory. Inasmuch as the Doctor does not 
 say so, the garbler strikes out the word “ regarding,” sub- 
 stitutes “ adverse to ” in its place, and then makes the rest 
 of the sentence correspond by changing other words. 
 Keep in mind reader, that the changes I here note, were 
 made for the purpose of founding upon this garbled letter, 
 a grave and important charge both against Dr. Gould and 
 the Scientific Council. Before I enlarge on this point, let 
 me notice more garbling of this letter. It relates to the 
 last sentence which the garbler publishes in italics. I will 
 give the sentence as it ought to be, italicising the words 
 omitted : 
 
 “ Furthermore, it is a little difficult to devise legitimate 
 Coast Survey work, which can now be done there, without 
 mounting the great instruments, and I would earnestly dis- 
 suade from this I® 2 * until they can be entrusted to long expe- 
 rienced observers .” 
 
 The ten italicised words were eliminated from the last 
 sentence, because if retained, they would take off the keen 
 edge of the previously substituted words, “ adverse to,” and 
 also for the purpose of making this sentence end with a 
 most earnest remonstrance. He quotes here not till he runs 
 against a “ but ” or a “ provided.” What i3 it ? An “ until I” 
 Out goes the “ until,” with the eight very important words 
 which follow it. Now the quotation is prepared so that it 
 can be turned with tremendous force against Dr. Gould and 
 the Council. But he is not quite satisfied yet. Having 
 horribly garbled the sentence, and so arranged it as to make 
 it say the opposite of what the Doctor did say, the thought 
 strikes him that it should be printed in italics. He then 
 underscores it, and it is ready. Yes, now it is plain as the 
 noonday sun, that Dr. Gould says unqualifiedly that he and 
 the Scientific Council are utterly “ adverse to ” commencing 
 operations at the Observatory. Reader, be quiet. A bomb 
 shell has fallen into the camp of the Trustees, that is about 
 to explode and scatter them and the Observatory to atoms. 
 
63 
 
 You have no conception of their consternation. Had the 
 “ Mechanics and Farmers Bank ” been on fire, Mr. Olcott’s 
 fright would have been tame compared with the agitation • 
 which had now seized him and his co-majority Trustees. 
 Let them describe their consternation in their own graphic 
 and exciting language, in the very words they use in com- 
 menting on this garbled quotation : 
 
 “It will not "be difficult to imagine tlie surprise and astonishment with, 
 which the Trustees received this communication. ***** 
 And they now found the men, upon whose promises and scientific counsel 
 they had relied, anxious to “ close up ” the Observatory, and only consent- 
 ing, upon the earnest entreaties and expostulations of the Trustees, that, as 
 a mere show of life, some one subordinate of the Coast Survey — a door- 
 keeper, perhaps — should be left at the Institution. They learned, too, with 
 surprise — and not without some indignation — that the instruments in which 
 they had invested so much — and to secure which ” &c. 
 
 In order to show bow anxious they were to magnify 
 their own astonishment at the reception of this letter, I 
 will now give a sentence which followed the one they pre- 
 tended to quote, and which was omitted, viz : “ Still I 
 think that these obstacles may be met and obviated ; and 
 that you may rest easy on that score for some time to come” 
 All honest men will readily endorse the assertion that “ it 
 is difficult to imagine the surprise and astonishment with 
 which the Trustees received this communication !” 
 
 Fortunately for “ all the world and the rest of mankind," 
 the awful consternation here described, although they assert 
 the contrary, proved to be only a passing spasm of hysterics. 
 Reader, I will now tell you ajsecret. Confidentially, only 
 between you and me. Don’t for the world repeat it to any- 
 body. Well it is this : not long after this intense conster- 
 nation, Thomas W. Olcott wrote to Dr. Gould that famous 
 letter in which he says : “We are willing to sink or swim 
 with a Henry, a Peirce, a Bache, and a Gould, as the only 
 chance of immortalizing ourselves in this world." 
 
 But there is another beauty connected with this pretended 
 quotation. Bear in mind, that when Dr. Gould wrote the 
 letter, Dr. Peters was at the Observatory. Had the garble r 
 
64 
 
 retained, in the last sentence, the words — c ‘ Until they can 
 be entrusted to loDg experienced observers, 3 * it might be 
 * construed to express on the part of Dr. Gould, most em- 
 phatic distrust of the astronomical experience of Dr. Peters. 
 Therefore it would not answer to retain these words. For 
 mind you, our skillful garbler has before him another ex- 
 tract, with which by the most atrocious garbling he intends 
 to make Dr. Gould indorse Dr. Peters* astronomical experi- 
 ence. And he brings it in afterwards on page 66. How 
 cruelly that is garbled is shown in specimen No. 4, previously 
 given. The garbler has the sagacity to see that these 
 garbled quotations must be made to harmonize with each 
 other. Hence he chops off from the sentence the nine sig- 
 nificant and expressive words “ until they can be entrusted 
 to long experienced observers.” All these changes, too, 
 were a-c-c*i d-e*n t-a-1. 
 
 I offer now a pretended extract on page 13 of your 
 Statement, as Specimen No. 16 : 
 
 The Trustees of the Dudley Observatory, which has been erected in 
 Albany, and is to commence its activity in August, next, (1856,) beg leave to 
 express to your Honor, the pleasure it will afford them to furnish the city 
 of New York with accurate time. Should the proposal meet your approba- 
 tion, it would be our pride and pleasure, from and after the day of the Inaugu- 
 ration of the Dudley Observatory, to give accurate time to your city, within the 
 fraction of a second, by the dropping of a time-ball ” 
 
 This pretended quotation is introduced by the garbler 
 thus — “ And at the same time in a letter to the Mayor of 
 New York, (J9§P*)Dr. Gould said.” Well, suppose the gar- 
 bler did introduce it in this way ? What of it ? Nothing, 
 except that the impression it is designed to convey to the 
 reader of your Statement, is a bare-faced, out-and-out 
 falsehood. “ Dr. Gould ! ! said, did he 1 N. B. This iden- 
 tical letter was official, and signed by whom ? By Stephen 
 Yan Rensselaer, President, Thomas W. Olcott , Vice-Presi- 
 dent, A. D. Bache and Dr. Gould, on behalf of the Council. 
 Mr. Olcott knew this fact when he signed your so-called 
 Statement, as well as he knew the way to hi3 Bank, or as 
 well as he formerly knew the way to the old Canal Bank. 
 
65 
 
 Everything, however, must be thrown upon Dr. Gould. 
 Dr. Gould did this thing — Dr. Gould did that thing — Dr. 
 Gould did everything, What a horrid man Dr. Gould is ! 
 A letter which Mr. Olcott himself signed must be garbled 
 of three signatures — his own included, in order to enable 
 the garbler to assert that “ Dr . Gould said.” Now here is 
 a pretended quotation where the evidence to prove the gar- 
 bling need not rest either on the original letter or on the 
 press-copy. Mr. Olcott, himself, caused it to be 'published 
 in the New York Papers, Feb. 14, 1856. If more evidence 
 is wanting, I have before me a copy, endorsed as a copy, 
 in the hand-writing of Dr. Armsby. Is not this evidence 
 absolutely overwhelming ? But the garbling does not 
 cease with the signatures. From about the middle of the 
 first sentence twenty. two ! words are eliminated. From 
 about the middle of the second sentence, thirteen more 
 words are eliminated, making thirty-five words from two 
 sentences, and these thirty five words being essential to a 
 correct appreciation of what it is alleged “ Dr. Gould 
 said.” The words omitted from the first sentence state 
 that “ We are earnestly desirous of rendering its scientific 
 “ investigations as serviceable as may be, to the commer- 
 “ cial and material interests of the State.” Do not forget 
 reader, that these words formed an integral part of the 
 sentence pretended to be quoted. They come in after the 
 figures “ 1856,” as above. Now mark. Inasmuch as “ Dr, 
 Gould said ” so and so, he must not be allowed to express 
 any desire whatever to make the “ Scientific investigations 
 of the Observatory serviceable to the commercial and 
 material interests of the State.” By no means. Was it 
 not their great aim to show that he really had no such 
 desire? Wasn’t he acting the hypocrite all this time? 
 “ Don’t for the world,” reasons the garbler, “ let this lan- 
 guage go to the public, for the evident sincerity which 
 pervades it, will convey a different impression from the 
 one we wish. We have stated that ‘ Dr. Gould said ,’ and 
 how oddly it will appear to allow him to contradict, by 
 8 
 
66 
 
 his real language, what we have garbled many of his other 
 letters to prove — viz : that he felt no sincere interest in 
 the Observatory V 1 With the same predominant idea in 
 his mind, he strikes out from about the middle of the next 
 sentence, after the word pleasure, these words — “ To con- 
 tribute our share toward putting the plan into operation.” 
 Here again the garbler reasons. “ Haven’t we been trying 
 to prove, and are we not now trying to prove by our gar- 
 blings that Dr. Gould and the Scientific Council are not 
 doing their e share V Haven’t we asserted that c Dr. Gould 
 said ’ so and so, in behalf of himself and his associates? 
 Now, if we permit them to state here that they will be 
 pleased to 6 contribute our share] &c., will it not show the 
 very thing we are most anxious to avoid? No, we will 
 whittle down their language to bare naked promises, and 
 then we will show that those promises were falsified.” 
 
 I have not yet finished my exposure of the garbler of 
 this letter. Headers, the last twenty words of this very letter 
 w r ere fabricated ! ! They are not in the last sentence as it 
 was originally written — they are not in it as published in 
 New York at the time- — they are not in the copy indorsed 
 as correct by Dr. Armsby, and which is in my possession. 
 What was the motive in fabricating and inserting these 
 twenty words ! The reader will see that these words make 
 Dr. Gould (for all this is what “ Dr. Gould said /”) abso- 
 lutely promise to indicate the time to the city of New York, 
 by “ the dropping of a time-ball.” 
 
 If the reader wishes to understand the object of this — if 
 he wants a treat that is infinitely rich, let him turn to page 
 14 of the Statement. The garbler there tells us, that it 
 was one of the “ delusive visions ” Dr. Gould held before 
 the minds of the Trustees, and which they fondly but vainly 
 hoped to see realized — that, 
 
 “ When, in the eloquent language of the immortal Everett, ‘the eternal sun 
 strikes twelve at noon, and the glorious constellations far up in the ever- 
 lasting belfries of the skies chime twelve at midnight ” — then the dropping 
 time-ball in every great city on the continent would announce at so many 
 points on earth, what was thus chimed in the * belfries of the skies. 5 55 
 
67 
 
 How wonderful — what an “ unfolding glory ” would have 
 dazzled the earth and gratified the visions of the Trustees, 
 had Dr. Gould made these time-balls fall in all the great 
 cities of our continent ! Yet, in these fabricated words, 
 Dr. Gould — for “ Dr. Gould said ” and promised this — holds 
 out this “ delusive vision ” before them. What an immense 
 benefit, too, it would confer on all the great cities, to have 
 these time-balls fall at the dead hour of midnight ! Imagine 
 the sailors in the harbors, standing on the decks of their 
 ships, the unseen “ belfries of the skies ” over them, and 
 gazing into darkness to catch a glimpse of the sublime 
 spectacle. Nor does the garbler here lose sight of this 
 “ time-ball.” On page 24 it is enumerated as among the 
 bitter disappointments felt by the Trustees on the day of the 
 Inauguration that “ No time-ball fell in the great commer- 
 cial emporium ! !” 
 
 Poor, deluded innocents. In a letter signed by Mr. 01- 
 cott, there is a promise that a certain “plan” should be 
 begun and carried into effect after the Inauguration, yet, 
 on the day of the Inauguration, it was a sore disappoint- 
 ment to you, as you say on page 24 of your Statement, that 
 “No time-ball fell in the great commercial emporium.” 
 Dr. Gould, — if “Dr. Gould said” it any more than Mr. Olcott 
 did — said what ? Simply that it would be “ our pride and 
 pleasure to contribute our share toward putting the plan 
 into operation from and after the day of the Inauguration.” 
 These are the precise words “ Dr. Gould said,” as any one 
 can see who will examine the JYew York Times of February 
 14th, 1856. But our garbler has the majority Trustees in 
 training. “ Gentlemen,” says he, “ we must, at this point 
 of our story, exhibit deep emotion. We must rehearse the 
 loud lament which we say we exhibited on the day of the 
 Inauguration, before 5000 people, when we thought how 
 Dr. Gould had treated us.” Standing in a half circle, like 
 the nine muses, each of the nine Trustees raises his hand- 
 kerchief to his eyes and nasally wails, “ No time-ball fell in 
 the great commercial emporium /” Capital !” exclaims the 
 
68 
 
 garbler, te go on.” Then comes a groan and the weeping 
 nine add “No bond of ever acting sympathy linked together 
 the clocks of Rochester, Buffalo, Troy and Albany.” “ Gen- 
 tlemen,” says their instructor, “if you will place a little 
 more emphasis on the words Rochester, Buffalo, Troy and 
 Albany, you will beat Garrick himself. You must arouse 
 the indignation of these cities. Once more. Now for 
 railroad stockholders, scientific gentlemen and the public 
 generally.” Agitated to the highest pitch, each handker- 
 chief is pressed more closely, and a loud, dolorous wail 
 ensues. “No railroad station exhibited to the scientific 
 members, on their way, any evidence that the trains upon 
 which they traveled, were deriving their time from the 
 Dudley Observatory !” Here, overcome and exhausted, 
 they resume their seats. But their surrounding friends, 
 who stood aghast at this exhibition, take up the lamenta- 
 tion and “ all Israel ” is agonized with grief. By leaving 
 out of the letter that part of it wherein “ Dr. Gould said ” 
 that the “ plan ” was not to be put in operation till after 
 the Inauguration, the garbler is enabled to get up this 
 affecting scene as represented on page 24 of his Drama. 
 Well may you say, gentlemen, that your Statement is a 
 “ Masterly Production.” 
 
 In another part of the letter there was a reference to the 
 dropping of a large, conspicuous time-ball, or giving some 
 “ equivalent signal” but it did not suit the garbler’s purpose. 
 
 What he wanted was to make Dr. Gould give certain 
 naked promises about the time-ball. Accordingly in regard 
 to these naked promises, the garbler’s first comment upon 
 the pretended quotation is as follows : “ The Trustees, in 
 their simplicity , believed that all this meant something.” 
 Did ever innocent creatures exhibit such “ simplicity V 9 A 
 letter signed m by Thomas W. Olcott as one — is garbled of 
 three signatures — thirty-jive tcords eliminated from two sen- 
 tences — twenty words fabricated, the garbled quotation is 
 then put forth as what “ Dr. Gould said,” and made to 
 convey absolute promises on the part of Dr. Gould ! ! This 
 
69 
 
 is a piece of rascality which has no parallel. Oh, no ! those 
 letters have not been garbled. It was all a-c-c-i-d-e-n-t-a-1 ! 
 
 The letter, as published in the New York Times, has Thos. 
 W. Olcott’s signature as Yice-President. Dr. Armsby’s 
 4 copy has Stephen Yan Rensselaer’s signature as President. 
 
 So Mr. Olcott, even at that early day, showed his anxiety 
 to supplant Gen. Yan Rensselaer. This is noticed only as 
 another “ unfolding glory.” 
 
 I have before me now thirty more specimens, making 
 with those already given, forty-six. 
 
 Let the reader now call to mind an important past event. 
 In the face of the charge made by Dr. Gould, that the let- 
 ters were garbled — with abundance of time intervening to 
 compare the originals in their possession with the pretended 
 extracts — in the face of all this, these majority Trustees 
 come out before the public with a communication in the 
 Atlas §• Argus , Sept. 20th, ult., and unblushingly deny that 
 the letters were garbled ! Rather than be in their shoes in 
 these circumstances, I would prefer to be far away from the 
 habitations of honorable men. 
 
 Nothing would please me better than by some process of 
 law, to compel the production of these original letters in a 
 court of justice. Before that court, let Thomas W. Olcott 
 and Dr. Armsby be summoned as witnesses, and, also, Dr. 
 Gould with his press-copies. My choice would be that 
 Judge Ira Harris should preside. After the evidence is all 
 given, I should be curious to watch his Honor’s counte- 
 nance and listen to his charge to the jury. Let the reader’s 
 imagination supply the rest. I imagine that the charge 
 would be the last straw on the camel’s back to crush Dr. 
 Gould. 
 
 No wonder you would not accede to Dr. Gould’s pub- 
 lished proposition to submit the questions of fact relating 
 to these garblings, to five impartial men. I knew you 
 would not do it, and so predicted and so stated in a previous 
 article. Take now the consequences. 
 
70 
 
 Gentlemen, with these exposures of your so-called State- 
 ment, Dr. Gould’s friends hurl it in your face. 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
 Note. — Immediately after the publication of this article, the Organ of the 
 Majority Trustees published a violent attack upon me, in which there was a 
 most brutal allusion to my family affliction in the loss, early last summer, 
 of an only daughter. I was also taunted with cowardice in writing under 
 an assumed name. To this I replied and gave my name as the author of the 
 articles signed “ Albany.” My intention was to have inserted that reply in 
 its order wdth the other articles, but am compelled to omit it for want of 
 space. G. H. T. 
 
 VII. 
 
 GARBLINGS AND PERVERSIONS. 
 
 Gentlemen : — I now continue my illustrations of Garb- 
 lings by offering a pretended extract from page 16 of your 
 “ Statement ” as specimen No 17. 
 
 Since I saw you, I have ordered one Chronograph and clock, and given 
 direction for estimates and plans for two other Chronographs, the dial for 
 the sideral and the mean time clock, the adjustment to regulate railroad and 
 other clocks on the circuits, the observing keys and the time ball. 
 
 The first correction of the above will be to insert the 
 words' “ the Corning ” before the word t£ clock” in the 
 first line. Then it will read as it should read, viz : — 
 “ and the Corning clock” Let me now briefly explain the 
 matter of the “ Corning clock.” Two kinds of clocks were 
 desired — the one a mean-time clock, and the other a sideral 
 clock. But, inasmuch as the sideral clock, for the pur- 
 chase of which Mr. Coming’s subscription was to be 
 appropriated, would be placed out of sight in the Observa- 
 tory, it was concluded between Dr. Gould and Dr. Armsby, 
 that Mr. Coming’s name should be inscribed on a tablet 
 beneath the dial of the mean-time clock which would be 
 seen by all visitors to the Observatory. Justice would 
 thereby be done to the generosity of Mr. Corning, for his 
 name as donor of a clock would be conspicuously displayed. 
 
71 
 
 Necessity required that the sideral clock should be con- 
 cealed from view and hence they agreed that the mean-time 
 clock should bear the name and be known as the “ Corning 
 clock. 55 Accordingly Dr. Armsby himself caused the in- 
 scription of Mr. Coming’s name to be placed on a tablet 
 beneath the dial of the mean-time clock, previously to the 
 day of the inauguration. With this idea in his mind, Dr. 
 Gould, on that occasion, spoke of it very properly as the 
 “ Corning clock.’ 5 But now, our hero, the Garbler, has a 
 great Statement to make. Two grand thoughts labor in 
 his brain. One is to present Dr. Gould before the public 
 as a monstrous liar. The other is to make it appear that 
 the Doctor was so badly addicted to lying that he began 
 the business as far back as the day of the inauguration. 
 How shall he effect his object ? In this way. The sideral 
 clock was not there at the inauguration. “ Now, 55 says he, 
 “ in our Statement, we will confine the idea of the Corning 
 clock to the sideral clock which has not even yet arrived. 55 
 We will show, he reasons, that the sideral clock was not 
 there, and then we will assert, on p. 27, that when Dr. 
 Gould referred to the Corning clock as actually “ ticking 55 
 on the day of the inauguration, he did it with “ great bold- 
 ness and an unenviable indifference to truth, 55 — he did it 
 openly “ in the presence of such an audience l” His plan 
 is now all marked out, but he finds a serious obstacle in 
 the way. Some of the letters which he intends to quote 
 mention the mean-time clock as the “ Corning clock, 55 just 
 as the Doctor spoke of it on the day of the inauguration. 
 “ Pshaw, 55 he exclaims, what nasty business this garbling 
 is ! Well, I am in for it, so here goes. 55 One stroke of the 
 pen and the words 1®°* “ the Corning 55 are blotted out 
 from before the word “ clock 55 in the above pretended ex- 
 tract. To preserve the consistency of this great tale of 
 fiction, wherever the word “ Corning 55 appears in the 
 Doctor’s letters before the word “ clock 55 as designating 
 the clock for mean-time , the word “ Corning 55 is eliminated, 
 and wherever the sideral clock is mentioned in the State- 
 
72 
 
 ment, the word “ Corning ” is prefixed. Here is a marked 
 example of the 61 accidentally changed ” words ! 
 
 Hereafter this c ‘ masterly production 55 will be the chief 
 attraction in all museums of accidents. No collection of 
 such curiosities will be complete without it. Dr. Gould, 
 on the day of the inauguration, told a bold and palpable lie 
 to an audience of 5000 people. So the majority Trustees 
 affirm in 15,000 copies of the “ Statement.” These majority 
 Trustees, all of whom, if they had been at the Observatory, 
 had seen, at the right hand of the entrance to the building, 
 a dial of the mean-time clock with Mr. Cornings’s name in 
 large conspicuous letters on the tablet, were present and 
 heard the great lie proclaimed. Two years afterwards the 
 enormity of the lie was discovered. In making up the 
 “ masterly production ” it happened that the words “ the 
 Corning” in all cases where Dr. Gould uses them in his 
 letters to designate the mean-time clock are omitted ; and 
 in all cases where the sideral clock is mentioned in the 
 Statement they happened to be prefixed ! In the first line 
 of the pretended extract above is an instance of the first 
 kind of happening ; an instance of the second happening 
 may be seen on page 15. Stranger happenings never be- 
 fore happened since man was created. Nevertheless they 
 have actually happened in numerous instances in this won- 
 derful, this masterly production !” 
 
 From the last sentence of the above pretended extract, 
 twelve words have been severed which immediately follow 
 the last word of the sentence. They are : “ Or what may 
 perhaps be even better, the falling of four arms” In this 
 as in the New York letter already noticed, and in other 
 letters of Dr. Gould where he connects u falling arms ” 
 with u falling time-balls,” the “ falling arms ” are kept 
 back from the reader. The object is to impart force to the 
 great ado, in other parts of the Statement, about Dr. Gould’s 
 imaginary promise to make “ time balls ” fall “ in every 
 great city on the continent ! n All great dramatic writers 
 strive to preserve the three unities of action, time and 
 
73 
 
 place. Shall not our Garbler do the same ? I can now 
 comprehend why some of our majority Trustees enthusias- 
 tically pronounce their Statement “a masterly produc- 
 tion. 5 ’ 
 
 i On page 17 of your Statement find specimen No. 18. 
 
 Weigh all the names of the parties invited, carefully, in order to avoid 
 diminishing the honor of the invitations, by affording them to second or third 
 rate people. 
 
 This pretended quotation is given to show that Dr. 
 Gould is an aristocrat, and that, with respect to invitations 
 to be sent to persons, soliciting them to honor the inau- 
 guration ceremonies by their presence, he was anxious to 
 create invidious distinctions among his own countrymen. It 
 was in contemplation to publish 15,000 copies of the Trus- 
 tees “ Statement 55 and send them over all parts of the 
 United States. Our Garbler, therefore, with a view to 
 avail himself of the prepossessions so strongly rooted in 
 our republican ideas, seizes this letter of Dr. Gould, elimi- 
 nates a large portion of the sentence — retaining only 
 twenty-eight of the ninety-two words which compose it, and 
 applies the words retained, to a purpose totally foreign 
 from the thoughts of the writer ! The steamship compa- 
 nies had generously offered some fourteen free passes 
 across the Atlantic to be given to distinguished scientific 
 gentlemen in Europe, to induce them to be present at the 
 meeting of the Scientific Association which was to be held 
 at the same time of the inauguration. With this limited 
 number of passes, was it not right — was it not commenda- 
 ble in Dr. Gould to be anxious as to the selection of proper 
 persons to receive them ? This letter was written with 
 sole reference to these special invitations. I will now give 
 the sentence as it was written, and the reader will see how 
 well it comports with what I have stated : 
 
 It strikes me, if you in Albany approve, that besides the list of astronomers, 
 Hall, Dana and Agassiz, as also perhaps others, such as Bache, Peirce and 
 Gibbs, be invited to propose one or two names ; — that we weigh these names 
 carefully, to avoid diminishing the honor of the invitations by affording 
 
 9 
 
74 
 
 them to second or third rate people also : and then draw up a neat and 
 pretty invitation, to he issued in the name of the Local Committee, and 
 countersigned by the officers of the association or not, as you may prefer, 
 
 Dr. Gould was General Secretary of the association, and 
 the association was a distinct organization and in no way 
 connected with the Observatory. Dr. Armsby was Secre- 
 tary of the Local Committee at Albany. Hence he writes 
 to Dr. Armsby to be cautious as to whom the few free 
 passes they had should be offered. 
 
 Probably no one perversion of Dr. Gould’s letters has 
 created deeper prejudice against him or wrought him more 
 harm than this. Nothing but diabolical malignity could 
 have prompted or guided the intellect which concocted 
 and carried out a perversion so obviously deliberate and 
 wicked. 
 
 On the same page and pertaining to the same subject is 
 specimen No. 19. 
 
 “ Do not invite and * * * * The invitations 
 
 should be select, in order to make them complimentary. A scientific man, 
 like an artist, is sensitive ; and the inviting a single man of tho wrong kind, 
 while one of the right kind is omitted, might destroy half the charm of the 
 whole affair. To hear that the invitation, which should be a high honor to 
 him, had gone to Mr. Jones, or Mr. Smith, would do much harm.” 
 
 The words “ do not invite ” are not in the press-copy at 
 all, nor does Dr. Gould believe that he ever wrote them 
 any where else in connection with the same thought. A 
 horrid mutilation is here disclosed. Not only are the 
 words “do not invite” absolutely inserted in the fore-part 
 of this pretended extract, but the real words which ought 
 to be there are taken out, a portion of them, and placed 
 below on the same page of the Statement, as if they were 
 from another letter, and used to prove another and distinct 
 point ! ! The body of the extract is a mixture of parts of 
 sentences, taken from various parts of the original letter, 
 away from their proper context, and the words themselves 
 mutilated or changed at that ! But the result is that Dr. 
 Gould is made to say substantially what it is pretended he 
 said in the previous specimen in relation to invitations. 
 
75 
 
 It relates like the other solely to the fourteen free passes 
 across the Atlantic, and not to Observatory invitations, but 
 to invitations in behalf of the American Scientifie Associa- 
 tion ! Another accident. Yes this is a “ masterly produc- 
 tion.” 
 
 In order to prove that Dr. Gould “ expressed much con- 
 cern” about Gavit and Spencer having delayed their 
 departure for Europe, the Garbler gives on the same page 
 as a distinct quotation the following words : — 
 
 “ I will not believe it possible that Spencer should not go just at the last 
 moment. Certainly he ought not to undertake the Heliometer without 
 having visited the European instruments, and he needs Gavit ’s companion- 
 ship.” 
 
 Correction from press-copy : 
 
 ‘‘It is too late for this to reach you before Spencer and Gavit will have 
 sailed, for I will not believe it possible that Spencer should not go, just at 
 the last moment. Certainly he ought not to undertake the heliometer, 
 without having visited the European instruments. And he needs Gavit’a 
 companionship.” 
 
 Dr. Gould’s real words are any thing else but an expres- 
 sion of “ much concern ” as if the sending of these gentle- 
 men were his own act. But the Doctor must here be 
 displayed as anxious and busy and assuming extraordinary 
 responsibility about Observatory matters in order to further 
 the great aim, which is to show afterwards , that all his un- 
 dertakings resulted in severe disappointments to the 
 Trustees. 
 
 Let me again remind the reader that this last corrected 
 quotation belongs to the forepart of the first quotation 
 under this specimen. It ought to be in the place of the 
 words “ Do not invite.” Further comments on the extent 
 to which the whole letter has been mangled are left for the 
 reader himself. 
 
 Another revolting instance of mutilation and perversion 
 of a letter of Prof. Bache may be found on page 22 of your 
 “ Statement.” We present it as 
 
 Specimen No. 20. 
 
76 
 
 •* I hesitate to make suggestions to you, who have done so much, so nobly, 
 and so wisely in this cause ; but I should be recreant to the confidence you 
 have shown in me, did I not ask you to consider the name of the Observatory, 
 and all the consequences that may flow from it. The Dudley Observatory, at 
 Albany ! You will see the train of thought that these names excite, and will 
 follow it more clearly to its consequences, with your business precision of 
 mind.” 
 
 In order to stigmatize Prof. Bache with the imputation 
 of contemptible meanness in suggesting a change of the 
 name of the Dudley Observatory, this pretended extract is 
 introduced. What was the object of Prof. Bache in writ- 
 ing it ? It was not to suggest either a change of name 
 with respect to Mrs. Dudley, nor with respect to the city 
 of Albany, but to suggest to Mr. Olcott the propriety of 
 availing himself of the name Dudley and the name Albany , 
 for the purpose of obtaining liberal patronage both from 
 Mrs. Dudley and from the citizens of Albany. That was 
 the object. But there was a rare chance here to bring 
 Prof. Bache into contempt among our citizens. The motive 
 was the same as in the case of Dr. Gould’s letter about 
 invitations. Well, the Garbler looks at the Professor’s 
 letter, runs his eye carefully over it, and then scowls. 
 What is the trouble ? Why there are two words in it which, 
 if published, will thwart his purpose. They are in the third 
 line, and are next to the word “ name” What are they ? 
 They are the two words “ and location .” Accordingly 
 
 he cuts them off. Had they remained, they would have 
 shown that Prof. Bache had no such idea as the one the 
 Garbler intended to attribute to him. They would have 
 shown that his true meaning was that the name e£ Dudley,” 
 “ and location ” at Albany should be made use of by Mr. 
 Olcott to obtain more liberal contributions. Had the 
 words “ and location ” been retained, the infinite absurdity 
 of supposing that Prof. Bache could have thought of a 
 change of name and location , would have been apparent. 
 For the Observatory had then been named, the building 
 erected, and the location at Albany irrevocably fixed. The 
 charter, too, enacted by the Legislature, had made both 
 
77 
 
 the name and location absolute fixtures. Was Prof. Bache 
 a ninny as well as a villain ? Yet, assuming this construc- 
 tion, Mr. Olcott takes ironical action upon it, as the 
 “ Masterly Production ” informs us, and at once carries out 
 the idea, ironically, by obtaining an additional $50,000 
 from Mrs. Dudley! Pray, reader, if you want a rare and 
 rich treat, turn to page 22 of the “Masterly Production,” 
 and ponder over its sublime comments on this letter. You 
 will be amply paid. 
 
 On page 41 of your Statement find Specimen No. 21 : 
 
 “The work upon the hill is apparently going on well. I trust that your 
 arrangements will be as fruitful and successful as they are wisely and 
 judiciously devised.” 
 
 Here is an instance of mutilation in connection with the 
 transposition of sentences. Corrected, the above reading 
 should be — 
 
 “ Your kind letter of the 10th was duly received, and I trust that your 
 arrangements will be fruitful and successful as they are wisely and judicious- 
 ly devised. The work upon the hill is apparently going on well, and a very 
 few weeks ought to see everything at last completed.” 
 
 Twenty-two words are, in the first place, omitted from the 
 two sentences, and thus being suitably trimmed they are 
 deliberately transposed. First, let me state a fact . Mr. 
 Olcott had written to Dr. Gould in regard to certain “ ar- 
 rangements 77 he (Mr. Olcott) had perfected for making 
 appeals throughout the State for subscriptions to the Obser- 
 vatory. Dr. Gould replies — “ Your kind letter of the 10th 
 was duly received, and I trust your arrangements will be 
 fruitful/ 7 &c. But the Garbler has a purpose to serve. 
 He wants to convert these “ arrangements 77 here mentioned 
 into “arrangements 77 of quite another color. He desires 
 them to relate to the arrangements “ on the hill. 77 To effect 
 his purpose, he first mutilates and then transposes. Now 
 he can make Dr. Gould praise Mr. Olcott, and say that his 
 arrangements pertaining to matters on the hill 11 are wisely 
 and judiciously devised,” and to make the eulogy more 
 impressive he puts these words in italics ! Observe again 
 
78 
 
 reader, that one great aim of the . “ Statement,” which the 
 majority Trustees call a “masterly production,” is to excul- 
 pate them from deserved reprobation foi having wasted the 
 money of the Observatory, and to throw the blame on Dr. 
 Gould. Hence, the Doctor is here compelled to bear wit- 
 ness against himself, and in their favor, and to say to Mr. 
 Olcott that his “arrangements” on the hill are “wisely 
 and judiciously devised ! 1” Do not forget also reader, 
 in this connection, that, after they were charged with using 
 garbled letters, the majority Trustees, in a published com- 
 munication of September 20th, most solemnly avowed to 
 their fellow-citizens that “it is entirely untrue that Dr. 
 Gould’s meaning has, in any case , been perverted ; that any 
 alteration, omission, or addition has been made, in the 
 slightest degree prejudicial to him or favorable to the 
 Trustees.” Their avowal remains to this day unretracted. 
 Of all the wonders of our wide world, now known or ever 
 yet developed in human history, no parallel to this can be 
 produced. Does the sun shine? Do the planetary orbs 
 still hold their places in God’s creation ? Are all things 
 we see, actual existences, or are they fancies ? I ask these 
 questions because, when I look at these gentlemen, who 
 appear to me to be the living beings I once knew — when I 
 see them walking and moving about, in open daylight, after 
 having made the solemn declaration to which I have referred, 
 I begin to doubt my own eyes and my own senses. No, 
 they are not deranged, for they still attend to their business 
 like other men. Who will solve the mystery ? Who ex- 
 plain why they will persist in occupying this unenviable 
 position before the public ? From thousands of voices 
 echo answers “ Who will explain ?” 
 
 On page 42 of your Statement, find Specimen No. 22: 
 
 “ Little notices of a few lines, conveying, each of them, some information 
 relative to the comet, will be snapped up and run round the press, as items, 
 When puffs would not ; and it will be easy, with care, so to frame the lan- 
 guage of a little paragraph, every two or three days, as to keep it before the 
 public, without offending the tastes of scientific men.” 
 
79 
 
 I heard a distinguished Editor of our city — a gentleman 
 who would be the last man in the world to wrong Dr. 
 Gould knowingly— a gentleman who has suffered for some 
 forty years from bitter and deliberate perversions of his 
 V own writings — I heard this gentleman criticise the above 
 
 language as low, and beneath an ordinary politician, much 
 more beneath a distinguished astronomer. My object in 
 stating this fact, is to show how successfully these cruel 
 distortions and perversions have been made to affect and 
 prejudice fair minded men. Let me first correct the above 
 garbling, and I will then state the facts as they were. 
 Correction, with the omitted words italicised : 
 
 “ Little notices, of a few lines, conveying, each of them, 
 some information relative to the comet, will be snapped up 
 and run round the press as items, when long puffs would 
 not. Among those ignorant of astronomy , the detection of a 
 comet passes for a great feat, and it will be eas}^, with a little 
 care, so to frame the language of a little paragraph every 
 two or three days, as to keep it before the public without 
 offending the tastes of scientific men.” 
 
 Eighteen words, forming an essential part of the sen- 
 tences pretended to be quoted, it will be seen, by comparison 
 with the Doctor’s real language, were omitted. They mate- 
 rially modify the sentiment, and what is more, they demon- 
 strate the consistency of the explanatory facts I am about 
 to state, with the true intent and meaning of Dr. Gould 
 when he wrote the letter. A comet had been discovered. 
 Dr. Armsby was in great glee. Like a certain domestic 
 animal rejoicing at the sight of his master after a long 
 absence, he bounded about and run here and there in ecsta- 
 cies of joy. Where is Dr. Gould ? Hurrah, Doctor, we 
 must write splendid notices of the “Comet” — they must 
 be heralded by the press — kept before the people — and the 
 greatness of our exploits be talked of by “ all the world 
 and the rest of mankind.” Seeing that the indiscreet 
 enthusiast was likely to make himself ridiculous and bring 
 the Observatory into disrepute, Dr. Gould exerted his 
 
80 
 
 utmost for a time to restrain him. Failing in this, he chose 
 the next best alternative and wrote this letter for the pur- 
 pose of so modifying his contemplated imprudence that it 
 would result in as little harm as possible. Dr. Gould, 
 therefore, writes to him to do it in a way that will not 
 bring the Observatory into discredit by “ offending the taste 
 of scientific men.” My portrait of Dr. Armsby' will not 
 fail to be recognized by all Albanians as truthful and life 
 like. Nor will any one doubt that the explanation of the 
 circumstances connected wfith the writing of this letter are 
 in every particular conformable to the facts. 
 
 On page 130 of the Statement may be found Specimen 
 No. 23 : 
 
 Gavit will take charge of the Barometers and Thermometers home from 
 Paris. I have written to him about it. 
 
 After the word “ Paris,” in the first sentence, read “ if 
 you ask him,” and leave out from the second sentence the 
 words “ to him,” which have been inserted, and then they 
 will read as they are in the press-copy. These little correc- 
 tions show at once the absurdity of the construction of Dr. 
 Gould’s language, hereby attempted. In order to illustrate 
 the wickedness of the above, I will slightly modify and 
 adopt the comments on the same, made by another person : 
 “ With regard to the barometers, the Garbler, in referring 
 to the Defence of Dr. Gould, by the Scientific Council, who 
 state that he not only did not purchase any thermometers 
 or barometers abroad, but that he placed none in charge 
 of Mr. Gavit to bring home, endeavors to make Dr. Gould 
 refute this assertion by bringing him up as a witness ; and 
 makes the following extract from one of his letters, after 
 stating that the witness against his defenders “ shall he 
 himself” In a letter to Mr. Olcott, he is represented as 
 saying, “Gavit will take charge of the barometers and 
 thermometers home from Paris.” “ I have written to him 
 about it.” Here is an attempt to fix falsehood upon the 
 Scientific Council, by bringing a statement of Dr. Gould, 
 that Gavit would take charge of the barometers, and that 
 
81 
 
 he had arranged with him so to do, Whereas Dr. Gould, 
 in his letters referring to the barometers, says ,* “ I will 
 write to Spencer, asking him to attend to it,” and “ Gavit 
 will take charge of them if you ask him” I will add here, 
 what Dr. Gould avers to be the fact, that the order for the 
 barometers and thermometers was given by Thomas W. 
 Olcott. Dr. Gould also avers that what he wrote was not 
 about orders, but about the best makers from whom to 
 make the purchase. Is not the whole subject now made 
 plain 1 Yet this mutilated quotation is used by the Garb- 
 ler to convict Dr. Gould and the other members of the 
 Council of deliberate falsehood ! 
 
 Whoever our Garbler is, he is evidently conversant with 
 the unconscious workings of the human mind. I make this 
 observation preparatory to an illustration of my next speci- 
 men, which shall be one of the samples where a whole letter 
 is perverted. As in all tales of fiction, the great actor, 
 who in this case is Dr. Gould, must be so dressed and so 
 introduced that the reader of the “ Statement,” biased by 
 the illusions of probabilities, will unconsciously work him- 
 self into the belief that the character before him is a reality. 
 Appreciating the value of first impressions, our Garbler 
 artfully contrives his arrangement of the words I am about 
 to quote, so that he will fix in the reader’s mind several 
 great falsehoods and entrap him into an assumption of 
 them as truths. Here are the Garbler’s words as found on 
 page 10 of the Statement, and which we give as 
 
 Specimen No. 24 — It is the second letter to which the 
 garbler refers in the “ Statement :” 
 
 “ Under date of October the 24th, he informed the Trustees that he had 
 made a similar contract, with the same makers, for the Transit instrument.” 
 
 This purports to be a concise abridgement of the letter 
 under consideration. In the first place he insinuates that 
 the letter was addressed to the Trustees. What is the fact 1 
 Neither this nor any other of Dr. Gould’s letters pretended 
 to be quoted were officially addressed to the Trustees. Mr. 
 Olcott was the recipient of this letter. What motive had 
 10 
 
82 
 
 the Garbler in view by insinuating that it was addressed 
 to them ? It was to decoy the reader into the assumption 
 at the outset of this marvellous story, that Dr. Gould was, 
 at the early date of October 24th, 1855, to all intents and 
 purposes, the active managing officer of the Observatory, 
 and that in such capacity, he officially addressed his letters 
 to the Trustees. Mark how adroitly this is assumed and 
 left to unavoidable inference on the part of the reader of 
 the so-called Statement, not only in the specific instance 
 under consideration, but in all the subsequent pretended 
 quotations. Had the Garbler made the affirmation direct 
 and explicit, the grossness of the falsehood would have 
 destroyed its effect. For no existing fact can be more 
 easily established than that Dr. Gould did not act either 
 nominally or in reality in the responsible capacity of Di- 
 rector at that time or for a long time subsequent, nor did 
 he address his letters officially to the Trustees. Yet the 
 reader of the so-called Statement who, in most cases, the 
 Garbler knew would be ignorant of the facts, is lured into 
 the belief of a barefaced falsehood. Mark how skillfully 
 the words are framed. He does not definitely assert that 
 the letter was addressed to the Trustees, but he says, 
 “ Under date of October 24th he (Dr. Gould,) informed the 
 Trustees.” If any body “ informed ” the Trustees it was 
 Mr. Olcott, to whom the letter was addressed. But another 
 and far different inference, the Garbler well knew would 
 be drawn by most readers of his vaunted Cc Statement.” 
 In accordance with the same leading idea, Dr. Gould is 
 represented as if he had made a “ contract,” or as the 
 Garbler calls it a “ similar contract.” Similar to what ? 
 Why to the contract for the Meridian Circle mentioned in 
 the preceding context, which he was authorized by the 
 Trustees to purchase, not under a general authorization as 
 an active officially appointed Director, but under specific 
 instructions. Judge how “ similar ” the two contracts 
 were, when I state the fact , that the latter contract was 
 for a Transit instrument for Prof. Bache of the Coast Sur- 
 
83 
 
 vey. It was not purchased as the property of the Observa- 
 tory at all. The Trustees do not own, nor have they 
 owned to this day, a Transit instrument of any kind. This 
 brings us to another great object the Garbler had in view. 
 The subject matter of the letter relates to aT ransit instru- 
 ment, but which he calls the Transit instrument. He de- 
 signs to represent the Trustees as having an interest in 
 this “ Similar Contract ” — Doctor Gould as acting with a 
 view to their interest in making the contract, and in that 
 capacity as purchasing the Transit instrument afterwards 
 to be spoken of at length on page 133 of the 6C Statement.” 
 Let the reader turn to page 133 and read as follows : 
 
 ‘* 'fhat it was the instrument agreed to be furnished by Prof. Bache is suf- 
 ficiently evident from the fact that a room in the Observatory was prepared 
 for it at a cost of several thousand dollars ; that it is now, and has been for a 
 year and a half past, at the Observatory ; and that the freight and charges 
 upon it, amounting to about $300, have been paid by the Trustees. 
 
 It still remains packed up in the boxes in which it arrived from Europe l” 
 
 Here is a grave charge made ; and to prepare the way 
 and form a basis for the charge, Dr. Gould’s letter of Oc- 
 tober 24, 1855 is referred to as shown. Mr. Olcott shall 
 now have the pleasure of seeing himself furnish a contra- 
 diction to the assertion cited from page 133 of his State- 
 ment. In Mr. Olcott’s speech before the board of Trustees 
 June 26th 1858, page 13, he explains the case for Dr. Gould 
 and Prof. Bache, by quoting Prof. Bache’s letter of Sep- 
 tember 29th 1855, in which the Professor says — “ I will 
 provide from the coast survey instrument's a Transit for time 
 ( &c.” Nothing can be plainer than that he meant a Trans- 
 
 it instrument from those then owned and in use by the Coast 
 Survey. Prof. Bache fulfilled his pledge. He sent for- 
 ward the instrument as agreed, but this was not “ the 
 Transit instrument ” Dr. Gould ordered in Europe for Prof. 
 Bache, and to which, the Garbler, by introducing this 
 letter, endeavors to make it refer. Prof. Bache does not 
 say I will provide the Transit instrument Dr. Gould will 
 order for me, but I will provide from the instruments of 
 
84 
 
 the Coast Survey a Transit for time &c.” — meaning from 
 the instruments then on hand. The facts that the other 
 instrument was not then in existence nor expected to be 
 for a Jong time, and that Prof. B. fulfilled his pledge by 
 sending forward as agreed, “ a Transit for time,” conclu- 
 sively point out the real instrument intended. But by a 
 gross perversion of the letter of October 24th, 1855, it is 
 adduced as a basis on which to found several charges 
 against Dr. Gould and the Scientific Council. 1st. That 
 they did not fulfill their pledge. 2d. That they lied in 
 affirming that they had fulfilled it. 3d. That they were 
 guilty of culpable neglect and delay in not mounting the 
 instrument. The new Transit was sent to the Observatory 
 by Prof. Bache, not in fulfillment of his pledge contained 
 in his letter of September 29th, 1855, but in addition to that 
 pledge and without being under obligation to send it. 
 The reasons why it has not been mounted are, 1st, that the 
 practical operations of the Observatory itself do not yet 
 require it. 2d, that to mount it now would incur an ex- 
 pense the Observatory is in no condition to bear. Yet the 
 majority Trustees came out with indigDant accusations all 
 based on the letter of October 24th, 1855, the sense of 
 which the Garbler pretends to concentrate in the few 
 words quoted above. No ordinary intellect could arrange 
 twenty-five words and form out of them such a vile nest of 
 vile falsehoods. 
 
 But the Garbler desires not only to represent Dr. Gould 
 as at this time addressing letters to the Trustees officially, 
 but as actually exercising powers and authority which 
 they themselves boast on page 146 of their Statement that 
 they never offered to him till January 185S ! and also to 
 display him before the reader as hindering and delaying 
 operations at the Observatory. The imagination of a Mil- 
 ton would lack ability to frame language adequate to de- 
 pict the wickedness of this perversion. But the Garbler 
 has borrowed the tailor’s shears, and with it he is deter- 
 emind to cut out a paper coat from Dr. Gould’s letters in 
 
85 
 
 which the Doctor must be arrayed, a nd , at t 
 paraded before the readers of his so-called “ Statement.” 
 Then he proceeds and tacks on patch after patch of these 
 mutilated quotations till his victim’s appearance becomes 
 absolutely hideous. Having done the ignoble service, he 
 chuckles with fiendish delight, while the leading majority 
 Trustees hold up their hands with feigned horror at the 
 sight of the frightful image before them. 
 
 Need I say more ? Need I now review these wanton 
 garblings, mutilations and perversions, and show with 
 what crafty skill they are turned against Dr. Gould and 
 made to substantiate the various charges preferred ? Need 
 I ask the reader whether he can resist the conclusion that 
 charges attempted to be proven by such witnesses are and 
 must be utterly baseless ? All other conclusions are ex- 
 cluded by the nature of things, by the facts disclosed, and 
 by the God-made constitution of the human mind. 
 
 Who will now accuse me of undue severity in charac- 
 terizing these atrocious outrages as I have in these 
 Articles ? “ If any ; speak ! for him have I offended.” 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 GARBLINGS AND PERYERSIONS. 
 
 Gentlemen — There is a bare possibility, though the 
 probabilities are ten thousand to one to the contrary, that 
 there may be some crooked or excentric intellect in which 
 some doubt may yet remain, both as to the fact and the 
 motive of these falsifications. To meet such a case, if 
 there be one, I will add another specimen which rests on 
 other evidences than original letters or press copies; 
 evidences which all can handle with their own hands and 
 see with their own eyes — They are to be found by simply 
 comparing Dr. Gould’s speeches as published and sanctioned 
 by the Trustees in their first Inauguration pamphlet, and 
 
86 
 
 the pretended quotation from that speech on page 26 of 
 the c ‘ Statement.” I will give the quotation as it is in the 
 “ Statement,” and as Specimen No. 25 : 
 
 “ The great Dudley Heliometer, (for which Mrs. Dudley who had so muni- 
 ficently raised her $6,000 to $8,000, has now raised the $8,000 to $14,000,) is 
 to be built by our]countryman Spencer, here, in this city of Albany. Ladies 
 and gentlemen, let me assure you, here in the presence of these five thou- 
 sand witnesses, on this solemn occasion, with the full sense of the respon- 
 sibility before the whole scientific world which the declaration entails, let 
 me say to you, that the Trustees of the Dudley Observatory will never 
 regret it.” 
 
 The first word of this quotation is taken from nearly the 
 centre of a sentence, and is given as if it began a new one. 
 I will now repeat the whole of the first sentence as it was 
 originally uttered, and will italicise the words omitted, to 
 the point where the garbler breaks in and pretends to 
 quote : 
 
 “ Knowing the splendid triumphs of German and French 
 mechanic art , knowing the exalted reputation that most worthily 
 adorns Repsold's name — - the Trustees of the Dudley Observatory 
 have yet confided the construction of this exquisitely delicate in- 
 strument to our countryman , and the great Dudley Helio- 
 meter, (for which Mrs. Dudley, who has so munificently 
 raised her $6000 to $8000, has now raised the $8000 to 
 $14,500) is to be built by our countryman, Spencer, in this 
 city of Albany.” The reader will not fail to see in the 
 omitted words, that Dr. Gould asserted on that occasion 
 not that he but the Trustees had taken upon themselves the 
 responsibility of employing Spencer to make the Helio- 
 meter. This language was published and sanctioned by 
 the Trustees at the time, and never was contradicted by 
 any one till nearly two years afterwards, and that was 
 when the Garbler found it necessary to mutilate the quo- 
 tation as above described. Having done this he introduces 
 it by asserting that “ He (Dr. Gould) spoke of the Helio- 
 meter he had ordered from Spencer in the following 
 
 terms.” He tells us that the “ following terms ” were Dr. 
 
87 
 
 Gould’s words, whereas he had cut off forty words from the 
 first sentence he pretended to quote ! He tells us that Dr. 
 Gould “ ordered ” the Heliometer, and then omits from 
 that first sentence the part of it in which the Doctor says 
 “ the Trustees of the Dudley Observatory have yet con- 
 confided the construction of this exquisitely delicate instru- 
 ment to our countryman ! ” Then in the unsophisticated 
 innocency of his dear heart, our Garbler, after he had 
 given the quotation in this mangled form, goes on and com- 
 ments upon it thus : — 
 
 “ Still the Trustees have the comforting assurance of Dr. Grould, with the 
 full sense of his reponsibility before the whole scientific world, that they 
 will never regret the order he gave to the intended maker.” 
 
 The few words I have here italicised, show how anxious 
 he was to make the falsification impressive. To do so he 
 reiterates his introductory assertion. Another object in 
 omitting the forty words from the first sentence was that 
 they contradicted what had been already stated on page 
 15 of the 16 Statement.” Dr. Gould had there been repre- 
 sented as announcing to a meeting at Mrs. Dudley’s, that 
 he had ordered the Heliometer from Spencer. Of course, 
 if the Garbler had retained the omitted words all his 
 labored attemps to prove, and his assertions to the effect 
 that Dr. Gould had taken the sole responsibility in the 
 matter, would have been abortive. All the facts pertain- 
 ing to Dr. Gould’s connection with Spencer in relation to 
 the Heliometer, will soon be made public. I will, however, 
 say here, that Dr. Armsby was the means of getting the 
 contract for Spencer, and it was one of the few meritori- 
 ous acts into which he blundered. It was a favorite 
 project of Dr. Armsby to have Spencer remove from Can- 
 astota to Albany, and establish his manufactory here on a 
 more extended scale. He solicited the writer of this and 
 many other citizens of Albany, to take an interest in the 
 contemplated establishment. The day previous to the 
 meeting at Mrs. Dudley’s, Dr. Gould, at Dr. Armsby’s 
 request, went with him and visited Spencer at Canastota, 
 
88 
 
 and Spencer came with them to Albany. This was the 
 first time Dr. Gould and Spencer ever met. During that 
 and the day following, the two held long conversations on 
 Observatory instruments, and the interview resulted in Dr. 
 Gould’s becoming perfectly satisfied as to Spencer’s ability 
 and attainments. Spencer returned home on the 6 o’clock 
 train of the evening of the meeting at Mrs. Dudley’s. But 
 Dr. Gould had not then even intimated to him in any way 
 whatever, that he was to have the contract for the Helio- 
 meter, nor did he expect it. “ The award was a complete 
 surprise to Mr. Spencer, a surprise enhanced by the fact 
 that in several conversations between Dr. Armsby and Mr. 
 Spencer, the former had expressed regret that Dr. Gould was 
 so fixed in his conviction respecting the construction of the 
 instrument by Repsold.” 
 
 The foregoing are Spencer’s own words, from a state- 
 ment of his now before me. Dr. Armsby was the pivot on 
 which the whole transaction turned. Dr. Gould’s entire 
 action was simply a cordial approval of the plan after he 
 had made suitable investigations, and a warm co-operation 
 with the Trustees in carrying it into effect. Every essen- 
 tial item of responsibility pertaining to the contract was 
 assumed by Dr. Armsby and his co-Trustees. It met Dr. 
 Gould’s approval, and he has the same high opinion of 
 Spencer to this day ; but he took no further responsibility, 
 except, to announce the award to Spencer on behalf of the 
 Trustees. This he did, and on the day of the Inauguration 
 he told the audience in that part of the sentence omitted by 
 the Garbler, as above previously shown, that the “ Trustees 
 of the Dudley Observatory had confided the construction of 
 this exquisitely delicate instrument to our own country- 
 man.” The Trustees, as before stated, published and 
 sanctioned this language for nearly two years. They knew 
 it to be true. But in order to make out their great story — 
 in order to assert, and attempt to prove, that Dr. Gould was 
 the only man who ever took any active responsibility, they 
 allowed this mutilated and distorted quotation from Dr, 
 
89 
 
 Gould's Inauguration speech to be published and sent forth 
 to the world, accompanied by their solemn certificate that 
 it is God's truth. They base upon it likewise the reiterated 
 assertion that Dr. Gould “ ordered " the instrument. 
 
 Let the reader examine the first Inauguration pamphlet 
 and the Statement, and the comparison of what Dr. Gould 
 actually said with what the Statement represents that he 
 said, will appear as I have stated. When he has made the 
 comparison, let him ask himself, what may not be expected 
 from men who will give their sanction to such a wrong ? 
 Would the man who mangled the pretended quotation un- 
 der consideration halt at any of the similar mutilations of 
 Dr. Gould’s letters 1 Can any one of the majority Trustees 
 maintain his standing in this or any other community and 
 yet justify the outrage ? Will the five, or perhaps six, of 
 these Trustees who have been entrapped into a sanction of 
 these proceedings by signing the “ Statement," and the card 
 of the 20th September, still presume upon retaining the 
 confidence of their fellow citizens unless they first disclaim 
 all participation in or approval of them ? Gentlemen, in 
 all seriousness let me tell you it is an impossibility. The 
 more you hesitate and temporize, the worse it will be. 
 Reports from ex-parte committees cannot save you from the 
 disgrace. But you can relieve yourselves from it by a bold 
 and manly disclaimer. That you will make in the end, 
 whatever course you may pursue now. Dr. Gould and his 
 friends will follow you up and insist upon a fair and honest 
 investigation of the facts. No one sided, white- washing 
 committee, will ever satisfy them, or the public, much less 
 your own consciences. Your present attitude before the 
 public cannot be maintained without serious injury to your 
 reputations. It will do very well for the three leading 
 Trustees to declare before heaven and earth that two and 
 two are five, and insist upon public acquiescence in the 
 proposition, on the strength of their previous character ; 
 but it does not fall to the lot of ordinary mortals to accom- 
 plish the feat. At all events I doubt not that you will 
 11 
 
90 
 
 agree with me, that the achievement, though wonderful, is 
 neither desirable nor within your grasp. Let them have the 
 honor of making the attempt, and the glory, even though it 
 may culminate in an Cl unfolding glory.” 
 
 Many other Specimens, gentlemen, are yet to be dis- 
 closed. For the present, however, they will be held in 
 reserve and for a purpose. Before dismissing the above 
 pretended quotation from Dr. Gould’s Inauguration speech; 
 let me direct your attention to another particular in which 
 it has been mutilated. You will perceive that your “ State- 
 ment ” makes him say that Mrs. Dudley’s contributions 
 for the Heliometer were 814,000. Dr. Gould really stated 
 the amount, as you will see if you look at your first Inau- 
 guration pamphlet, at $14,500. There can be no doubt 
 that there is an object in making this change. For, in the 
 2d edition of your Inauguration pamphlet the $500 is there 
 omitted from your version of his speech. Also on 
 page 15 of your Statement you assert that the sum agreed 
 upon was $14,000. Mr. Olcott, in his speech before your 
 board, on the 26th of June last, states the amount at 
 $14,000. (See page 13.) 
 
 Now Mr. Olcott’s checks for the Heliometer as they ap- 
 pear on Mrs. Dudley’s books, are as follows : 
 
 1855, August 24th, ‘'Heliometer, $6,000” 
 
 1855, September 21st, “ Heliometer, 2,000” 
 
 1856, January 19th, “ Heliometer, 6,500 ” 
 
 Total, $14,500 
 
 At present I do not intend to explain what I deem to be 
 the real object of this obvious misrepresentation. I allude 
 to it here for the purpose of showing the fact that the 
 amount as represented in your pretended quotation from 
 Dr. Gould’s Speech is not as your original Inauguration 
 pamphlet had it, nor as he stated it, and also for the pur- 
 pose of showing that there was a motive for "making the 
 change, because it is studiously carried into three of your 
 other publications. Perhaps if you will scratch your 
 heads a little, the suspicion will, after a while, creep 
 
91 
 
 through your craniums that your “ masterly production ” 
 may contain a few slight variations from the truth. Should 
 this occur, you have an easy remedy. Simply fall back on 
 your dignity — affirm by all that is sacred that two and two 
 are Jive , and boldly deny the right of the public to 
 question the declaration, because to do so would be equi- 
 valent to doubting whether your previous high standing is 
 a sufficient guarranty for your truthfulness. And to doubt, 
 in such a case, we must all acknowledge, would be intoler- 
 able presumption. ALBANY. 
 
 IX. 
 
 DR. GOULD AND THE FINANCES. 
 
 Gentlemen : — -Whether the following dialogue actually took 
 place between your President, Mr. Olcott, and a Donor to the 
 Observatory, is a mooted question. Opinions differ. For my 
 part I regard the question of but little consequence, compared 
 with the light which the Dialogue itself throws upon the subject 
 of your financial operations. It is enough for my purpose to 
 suppose it to have occurred. 
 
 Mr. Olcott to Donor — Happy to see you, Sir. Step into the 
 Bank with me and see how admirably everything is arranged. 
 System, Sir, system ; nothing can be properly done without sys- 
 tem. Our books all neat, accurate, and balanced to a fraction — 
 clerks well drilled — not a farthing lost — can turn to the books 
 in an instant and answer any question respecting our finances — 
 hold a taut rein over all my clerks and agents, Sir ; can show a 
 voucher for every dollar of expenditure. No financier can be- 
 come great, or maintain his financial standing after he becomes 
 so, who allows things to run at loose ends. The stockholders 
 and the public very properly hold him responsible. To be suc- 
 cessful and preserve his reputation he must see to things him- 
 self. My maxim is system, Sir — all depends on system. 
 
 Donor — Admirable I Excellent ! Now, while I think of it, 
 Mr. Olcott, I have been reading your Statement in relation to 
 the wasteful manner in which Dr. Gould — 
 
92 
 
 Olcott — That Dr. Gould is a very bad man — a very bad man, 
 Sir. 
 
 Donor — So you tell us. But what I was about to say was, 
 that he is held responsible for wasting our money. 
 
 Olcott — Bight, Sir, right. I perceive you understand the mat- 
 ter. 
 
 Donor — Yes, that I understand. But there are some things in 
 your Statement which perplex me. For example. You tell us 
 he was not appointed Director till the 19th of January last 
 and — 
 
 Olcott — Excuse the interruption, you touch a point of impor- 
 tance. That impudent creature, or rather his associates, had the 
 audacity to say in their Defence of him that he had never 
 accepted the Directorship till our late appointment, nor had he 
 pledged himself to do so before the completion of the endowment. 
 Did you notice how nicely we turn that upon him in our State- 
 ment ? That Statement, Sir, is a masterly production. Allow 
 me to read from page 146, what we say on this point : “ Dr. 
 Gould had not accepted the office of Director. It had not been 
 tendered to him. He was under no obligations to accept it, nor 
 were the Trustees under any obligations to confer it upon him.” 
 No, Sir, we were too shrewd for that. . 
 
 Donor — Exactly ; you gave him a capital hit. But that is 
 what mystifies me. You say that he was not appointed to the 
 Directorship till the 19th of January last; did notenter upon 
 his active duties till February, and yet you hold him responsible 
 for all these expenditures which, excepting a small amount — an 
 amount less than the publication of your Statement has cost 
 either yourselves or the Observatory, occurred long before 
 January. 
 
 Olcott — Ah ! but he was our adviser. Everything was done 
 by his direction. We always consulted him. 
 
 Donor — From your previous remarks in regard to your extreme 
 care in the management of your Bank, I should hardly suppose 
 so eminent a financier would risk his reputation in this way. Is 
 it customary for able financiers when they manage trust funds to 
 throw the responsibility of losses on bad advisers? Were the 
 stockholders of your Bank to be told that a heavy loss had fallen 
 
93 
 
 upon them, would they excuse you on the ground that somebody 
 gave you bad advice ? 
 
 Olcott — Do you mean to insult me, sir ? 
 
 Donor — I beg your pardon ; I meant no offence. My idea was 
 that your financial reputation would be seriously impaired unless 
 you can show that not you but Dr. Gould, is the responsible 
 party. 
 
 Olcott — Havn’t we shown that ? Is it not the whole drift of 
 our Statement ? 
 
 Donor — Certainly. But then you tell us he was not Director 
 of the Observatory till the 1 9th of January, and did not actively 
 assume the office till February. All the material expenditures 
 were made before that time. Your Statement shows this, and 
 therefore exculpates him. It is not consistent. 
 
 Olcott — B-eally, sir, you seem exceedingly captious. Does not 
 his advisory character make him responsible ? 
 
 Donor — You appear somewhat sensitive on that point. Busi- 
 ness men will have their own opinions. There is, however, one 
 remark I would like to make. On the 19th of January your 
 Board, by resolutions, confirmed your previous appointment of 
 the Scientific Council, — Dr. Gould being one of them. You state 
 in your resolutions that the names of all these gentlemen are 
 “ illustrious in science ” — that up to that time they had rendered 
 you “ valuable service,” and you then formally placed the Obser- 
 vatory under Dr. Gould’s charge. What was the “ valuable 
 service” which Dr. Gould had rendered ? Was it the wasting 
 of the $40,000 you speak of? Surely these resolutions were not 
 ironical ? And if not, it seems very odd that you should tell a 
 story of 113 pages in length to prove that, before this action of 
 your Board, he had rendered no “ valuable service ” — not only 
 so, but that his services were a positive injury. Very odd, Mr. 
 Olcott, very odd this seems. Business men did not expect that 
 an able, far-sighted financier could stultify himself with such an 
 absurdity. To be plain with you, it is monstrous. Candid minds 
 everywhere regard it as a palpable self-impeachment. It at 
 once arouses their suspicions and they naturally look for the 
 “ cat in the meal.” Shall I tell you what they say ? Well, all 
 except your immediate friends, interpret this intricate story of 
 
94 
 
 yours to be an absurd effort to make Dr. Gould a scape goat for 
 the sins of the Trustees. 
 
 Olcott — Ah, you now throw off the mask ; you belong to the 
 enemy. Self-respect, sir, would impel me under other circum- 
 stances to end this conversation, but as you are a Donor, I will \ 
 
 explain. Sir, the fact is we were deceived in Dr. Gould, and 
 blindly followed his advice. That is the secret. We did not 
 discover our error till after we appointed him Director. 
 
 Donor — Let me understand you, Mr. Olcott. Do you mean to 
 say that you, an eminent financier, that you, through whose 
 hands every dollar of this money passed — do you mean to say 
 that you did not know that Dr. Gould had wasted the $40,000 ? 
 
 Olcott — No, sir, I don’t say that exactly • because to say that 
 would impeach my business character. What I mean is, we 
 were deceived in the man — he had misled us. 
 
 Donor — Indeed ! Well now I have the right of it. You knew 
 he had wasted the $40,000, but with a full knowledge of the fact, 
 you declared on the 19 th of January that he had rendered you 
 <l valuable service,” and you then chose him Director for an in- 
 definite period. In fact you must have known it, for you say, on 
 page 81 of your “ Statement,” that he had consumed more than 
 this amount within the two previous years, apart from the 
 amounts paid for observatory instruments. As the expenditures 
 were made before January; I conclude they were the “valuable 
 service” you praise him for in your resolutions. Very odd, Mr. 
 
 Olcott ; very odd. 
 
 Olcott — But you don’t see the point. What has been done by 
 his associates ? They made and published a Defence of Dr. 
 
 Gould, the object of which was to clear him from the responsi- 
 bility. Either he or we must bear the blame. Do you suppose 
 that gentlemen of our standing would submit quietly to the im- 
 putation of having wasted in two years over $40,000 of trust 
 funds ? We made our Statement in reply to their manifesto, to 
 repel a serious imputation on ourselves. There is nothing more 
 sacred among all “ men of sense and business habits ” than trust 
 funds. You know perfectly well that, of all business relations, 
 the relation of Trustee is the most sacred. It is esteemed so the 
 world over. 
 
95 
 
 Donor — “ Plato, thou reasonest well.” There we agree. To 
 be a Trustee is the next thing to being the executor of a will. 
 Quite like it in your case, for the Donors all confided their money 
 to your care, the same as if it were a bequest. Now, “ the na- 
 ture of this obligation is such ” that men will construe your 
 conduct just as our courts formerly did our statute law, that is, 
 strictly, they will hold you to a strict accountability. Was that 
 the aim of the Scientific Council in their Defence of Dr. Gould ? 
 Did they hold you accountable for the expenditures ? 
 
 Olcott — Precisely so, and they went to the extreme of justifying 
 and sanctioning all Dr. Gould had done for the last three years ! 
 
 Donor — Perhaps they had read your resolutions of the 19th of 
 January. Your board on that occasion resolved that he had 
 rendered you “valuable service,” and to prove the strength of 
 your faith in him, you then appointed him Director and surren- 
 dered the Observatory to his control. When you had indorsed 
 and sanctioned all his previous doings, why do you blame the 
 Council because they likewise exculpate him ? When your own 
 resolutions, entered on your own records, show that you sent 
 him up to the Observatory with an expression of your approba- 
 tion equivalent to “well done thou good and faithful servant,” 
 can you reproach his associates for their concurrence with you 
 in this high compliment to his past fidelity ? Very odd, Mr. 
 Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — Sir, you will greatly oblige me if you will say less about 
 these January resolutions. You lose sight of the point. What 
 I said was that our “ Statement ” was a reply to the Defence of 
 Dr. Gould by the' Scientific Council. In their Defence they strive 
 to convey the idea — a novel idea too, that Dr. Gould can with 
 propriety disclaim all responsibility for the expenditures at the 
 Observatory. Our Statement combats this novel idea with tri- 
 umphant success. We had to meet it. 
 
 Donor — Thinking when I left home this morning, that I might 
 fall in with you, I thrust into my pocket a copy of your speech 
 before the Board on the 26th of June last. Your present remarks 
 about this “ novel idea ” remind me of it. Permit me to read a 
 few words on the 18th and 19th pages, where you say — “ This 
 was enacted at our meeting last January, on which occasion Dr. 
 
96 
 
 Gould made the astonishing declaration that he (Dr. Gould) was 
 not responsible for any thing which had been done at the Observatory— 
 that the improvements and alterations and erections — I think he broad- 
 ly included nearly all expenditures — had been not only against 
 his wishes but in opposition to his expressed objections.” If Dr. 
 Gould uttered that astonishing declaration at your January meet- 
 ing, how happened it that you recovered so speedily from your 
 astonishment that you concluded the meeting by making him 
 Director of the Observatory ? And how, nearly five months 
 afterwards, could you treat the declaration of the Scientific Coun- 
 cil that Dr. Gould was not responsible for these expenditures, as 
 a new idea ? Dr. Gould was frank with you on that occasion — 
 he was manly and above board. He told you he was not and 
 would not be held responsible for the past, yet before you ad- 
 journed you appointed him Director ! Very odd, Mr. Olcott, 
 very odd. 
 
 Olcott — You seem possessed with that January meeting, and 
 our January resolutions. I have several times expressed my 
 disapprobation of your constant recurrence to them. Please 
 read our Statement carefully and you will find something more 
 in it than the J anuary resolutions. 
 
 Donor — Oh, I am aware — fully aware that it contains many 
 other things. My difficulty was to reconcile these many other 
 things with these J anuary resolutions. They seem to stamp all 
 your accusations against Dr. Gould in respect to wasteful and 
 extravagant expenditures with the brand of falsehood. By the 
 “many other things” contained in your Statement, this man is 
 held responsible for all this wastefulness. Of course, a financier 
 of your ability and standing, handling every dollar of the money 
 as you did, must have known all this, before the January meeting. 
 Why then did you vote, at that meeting, that he had rendered 
 you “ valuable service ?” Why did you indorse all he had done 
 for the previous three years ? Why, when he announced to and 
 “astonished” you on that occasion with an explicit declaration 
 of his innocence respecting these matters — when he told you 
 point blank that “ nearly all the expenditures had been not only 
 against his wishes, but in opposition to his express objections ” — 
 why did you, with these words ringing in your ears, proceed to 
 give him the highest and strongest possible pledge of confidence 
 
97 
 
 which one man can give another, by appointing him Director of 
 the Observatory ? Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — There are the January resolutions again. What perti- 
 nacity ! You astonish me, Sir — you astonish me. 
 
 Donor — No doubt of it. You and I are very much alike in 
 that respect. So far as I can judge, the Donors and the public 
 are generally astonished. The January resolutions, viewed in 
 connection with the “ many other things ” contained in your 
 •‘Statement,” afford grounds for the most emphatic astonish- 
 ment. Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — Once for all, Sir, I inform you of my settled determi- 
 nation to discontinue further conversation with you unless you 
 dismiss these January resolutions. 
 
 Donor — Very Well. Since these January resolutions are 
 manifestly distasteful to you, please let me take your Statement 
 a moment. There is another resolution passed by your board on 
 the 4th of June last. Let me see — it is on page 87. You recol- 
 lect it, for about that time you dismissed Dr. Gould. In that 
 resolution you base his dismissal solely on difficulties “ arising 
 from want of harmony .” When you passed this resolution you 
 had had nearly five months meditation on that astonishing decla- 
 ration of his, uttered with stupendous impudence at your pre- 
 vious January meeting. What strikes me as singular is that in 
 these circumstances, with the great glaring fact staring you in 
 the face, that he had wasted $40,000 of your money in the two 
 previous years, you then placed his dismissal solely on the ground 
 of a “ want of harmony.” Most trustees, conscious of the sacred 
 obligations of their trusteeship, would have insisted that the 
 squandered $40,000 should be accounted for. Very odd, Mr. 
 Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — You are too sensible a man, Sir, not to know that 
 11 harmony” in such a case was impossible — absolutely impossible, 
 Sir. How could gentlemen of our reputation harmonize with a 
 man who had so recklessly squandered over $40,000 of our 
 money ? You surprise me, Sir. I am amazed to think that any 
 person of ordinary capacity would broach the insinuation. 
 
 Donor — Still I am puzzled. It seems that at your meeting in 
 January, Dr. Gould hurled in your face an indignant assevera- 
 12 
 
98 
 
 tion of his innocence — he totally denied his responsibility, and yet 
 you answered him by resolving that he had rendered you “ valu- 
 able service ” and by appointing him Director ! Now you express 
 the utmost surprise that I would imagine you capable of harmo- 
 nizing with such a reckless spendthrift. With perfect knowledge 
 of his guilt, for you say you knew it, did you not on that grave 
 occasion harmonize with him ! More surprised am I to know 
 that you all harmonize with him for months afterwards. Very 
 odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — Are you a man of honor, sir ? Did you not promise 
 me, sir, that you would not throw these January resolutions in 
 my face again ? What am I to think of you ? What am I to 
 think of you, sir ? Pm indignant. 
 
 Donor— Beg your pardon, Mr. Olcott. In my anxiety to get 
 at the truth, I forgot my promise. Old fashioned people never 
 place reliance on a story which manifestly contradicts itself. 
 On page 16 1 of your Statement you assert that “ The Trustees 
 have thus presented what they believe to be a fair and truthful 
 history of their connection with the four gentlemen who are now 
 in possession of the Observatory.” Being an old fashioned man, 
 these January resolutions seemed to me to contradict, out and 
 out, all else the Statement contains. To my mind, this is very 
 odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — I see, sir, it is useless to bandy words with you. You 
 are determined not to be convinced. 
 
 Donor — By no means, Mr. Olcott, by no means. I am open to 
 conviction. Please make allowance. Old fashioned men like 
 me do seem queer to some people. Being a Donor, I hope you 
 will overlook my infirmity, and that you will condescend to un- 
 ravel this intricate story. Perhaps I can be of some service to 
 you in this controversy. All I desire is the truth. Make what 
 you say in your Statement clear and consistent, and I will go at 
 that Mr. Gould, to speak after the manner of old fashioned peo- 
 ple, tl hammer and tongs.” I’m an old fashioned man, you know, 
 don’t forget that. As I now view your Statement, it is very 
 odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — It can all be explained, sir, all of it. Every particu- 
 lar shall be made satisfactory. Come in to-morrow and we will 
 
99 
 
 resume the conversation. Your influence, I fed to be very im- 
 portant in this emergency, but you will please not mention these 
 January — 
 
 Donor — Oh, as to the January Resolutions, never mind what I 
 say about them. It is only the chattering of an old fashioned 
 man. But those resolutions do seem very odd, Mr. Olcott, very 
 odd. 
 
 Olcott — Well, my Bank business is pressing. System, sir, 
 system, is my motto. Come in to-morrow. Good morning. 
 
 Putting on his old fashioned hat and taking a pinch of snuff, 
 our old fashioned gentleman walked thoughtfully out of the 
 Bank, muttering as he went, “ Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd.” 
 Reported by 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
 X. 
 
 SUPPOSED DIALOGUE CONTINUED. 
 
 Gentlemen — Profoundly impressed with the idea of Mr. OlcotPs 
 systematic habits, our friend the Donor, was punctual to the 
 hour. His bearing was that of an old-fashioned matter-of-fact 
 gentleman. You may well conclude that the preliminaries were 
 speedily despatched and the former conversation resumed. 
 
 Donor to Mr. Olcott — Mr. Olcott, I see by your Statement that 
 you gave $10,000 to the Observatory. I am informed that in 
 fact you gave ten New York Central six per cent bonds. Do 
 you call that giving $10,000 ? Do you not know that the 
 average price of those bonds has not exceeded eighty-five per 
 cent for several years ? At the highest estimate then your 
 donation ought not to be placed above $8,500. 
 
 Olcott—WiM . they not be worth $10,000 when they are paid? 
 
 Donor — There can be no doubt that when they become worth 
 $10,000 they will be worth $10,000. Most of us paid the cash — 
 you did not. Had you paid the cash, you would be entitled to 
 be called a $10,000 donor. Will your Board return our money 
 and allow us to replace it with the same kind of securities that 
 you gave, and accept them at par ? If you will the other donors 
 will receive back about $20,000. Or if you prefer, suppose you 
 
100 
 
 pay in the difference of $1,500 with the interest, and then the 
 Observatory will have some $2,000 more towards liquidating its 
 indebtedness. Otherwise we cannot see how you can publish 
 yourself to the world as a $10,000 donor. Yery odd, Mr. Olcott, 
 very odd. 
 
 Olcott — Are not ten bonds for $1000 each equivalent to 
 
 $ 10,000 ? 
 
 Donor — Yes, if that is their average market value. There are 
 parties in our city who will give twenty, forty, or fifty thousand 
 dollars to the Observatory, provided you will receive in payment 
 the old Canal Bank stock at par. But the market value of that 
 stock is quite another matter. 
 
 Olcott — What do you mean, sir ? 
 
 Donor — Pray do not be offended. I merely alluded to that to 
 illustrate the difference between the value of a piece of paper in 
 respect to what it purports to be worth on its face, and its real 
 market value. Will you discount a $10,000 note at your bank 
 with ten six per cent N. Y. Central bonds as collateral security, 
 the note being otherwise worthless ? If not, ought a contribu- 
 tion of ten of these bonds to the Observatory to be estimated at 
 $10,000 ? Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — I am not here, sir, to be catechised about my own 
 business. You will please drop that subject. 
 
 Donor — Willingly, for I wish to call your attention to other 
 matters. In your speech of the 26th of June, you estimate the 
 value of the Observatory property, exclusive of the lands given by 
 
 Gen. Van Rensselaer, as follows : 
 
 Observatory building, worth $50,000 
 
 Dwelling house, worth, 10,000 
 
 Endowment of Mrs. Dudley, 50,000 
 
 In the 2nd edition of your Inauguration pamphlet, you say, “ The 
 Trustees have appropriated since the Inauguration for the pur- 
 chase of books, instruments and equipments, about ” *30,000 
 
 As you say the Trustees did this, this last item was of course a 
 legitimate and proper expenditure. You have then a total of 
 
 justifiable expenditure and of good property amounting to the 
 
 nice sum of $140,000 
 
 Add the amount which you say Dr. Gould wasted, i. e., 40,000 
 
 Grand total, $180, COO 
 
101 
 
 From various sources we get a clue to your receipts as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Donations as published in your 2nd edition of your Inauguration pamph- 
 
 let, $124,500 
 
 Previous donations not named in that list, about 9,000 
 
 Subsequent donations that we have heard of, but which you omitted 
 to name, 1,000 
 
 Total receipts about $134,500 
 
 Deduct from $180,000 the probable receipts, $134,500, and 
 there is a balance unaccounted for of $45,500 ! ! Will you pleaso 
 inform me where this money came from, and on what Dr. Gould 
 wasted the $40,000 ? 
 
 Olcott — But the $30,000 appropriated by us for books, instru- 
 ments i and equipments were a part of the money which Gould 
 wasted. 
 
 Donor — You forget. For you tell us on pages 81 and 82 of 
 your “ Statement ” that the $40,000 were “ exclusive of the sums 
 that have been paid for Observatory instruments ” Let us omit 
 the round sum of $30,000 and figure again, with reference to the 
 value of the property. 
 
 In your speech of the 26th of June, you say the Observatory building and 
 
 dwelling house are worth $60,000 
 
 You say you have Mrs. Dudley’s endowment, 50,000 
 
 You say the calculating engine is worth 5,000 
 
 You say you have several instruments worth 2,000 
 
 We know you have the meridian circle, worth 5,000 
 
 We know you have the library, worth, at least, 2,000 
 
 Add the allowance to Spencer for the heliometer, of 7,000 
 
 These items give us a total of $131,000 
 
 Total cash receipts, so far as we can judge, are $134,500 
 
 Deduct above estimate of legitimate authorized invest- 
 ments, 131,000 
 
 Balance, $3,500 
 
 There were no doubt many incidental items, such as insurance, 
 stationary, printing, payments to Dr. Armsby for his expenses 
 when on Observatory business, to men for watching and taking 
 care of buildings, &c., more than enough to absorb the $3,500. 
 Now this still leaves us in the dark as to where the $40,000 came 
 
102 
 
 from that Gould wasted ; and as to how or on what it was wasted. 
 Either you have received about $40,000 more in cash than above 
 shown, or else you have made some very strange assertions. 
 That you have stated a deliberate untruth I do not say, but I do 
 say that if you did not receive the $40,000 in addition to the 
 above estimated cash receipts, some of your statements smack 
 strongly of a slight prolongation of elongated veracity. This is 
 very odd, Mr. Olcott — very odd. 
 
 Olcott — Perhaps the sum of $40,000 was not strictly accurate. 
 At all events, Gould has been very wasteful and extravagant. 
 
 Donor — So then you are willing to positively assert and repeat 
 the assertion 15,000 times over, or which is the same thing, 
 by printing 15,000 copies of your Statement, that Dr. Gould 
 "wasted $40,000 of the Observatory money, and yet cannot tell 
 where the money came from nor how or where it was wasted ? 
 
 Olcott — I did not say that. What I said was that the amount 
 of $40,000 might not be strictly accurate. 
 
 Donor — Do systematic men like you make a grave charge, 
 pledge your own weight of character for its truthfulness and yet 
 have no other basis for it than mere conjecture ? If your state- 
 ment was not accurate why did you make it ? Very odd, Mr. 
 Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — We can establish substantially all we have stated, and 
 will do so at the proper time. 
 
 Donor But you have yourself accounted for and approved of 
 expenditures and investments as legitimate and proper to an 
 amount equal to the total contributions paid to the Observatory. 
 How then could Dr. Gould waste $40,000 ? Has that amount 
 been contributed besides the amounts made public ? If so, you 
 have in reality received at least $171,000. This reminds me of 
 other questions I wish to ask. Where is Mr. Everett's donation 
 of $500 ? Why was his name omitted from your list of donors ? 
 What has become of Cornelius Wendell's $500 ? Mrs. Dudley 
 gave in all $77,500. Why did you place the amount in your list 
 at $76,500 ? Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — Errors may easily occur in the sums named in these 
 various documents. Absolute accuracy ought not to be expected 
 till a systematic exhibit shall be made. 
 
103 
 
 Donor — Pray tell me when we shall have that exhibit. You 
 are so systematic in the management of your Bank that you 
 cause a statement to be placed before your directors every week. 
 But Trustees of the Observatory who have acted as such for six 
 years, have not been able to this day to see an exhibit of its 
 affairs. Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — There is a vast difference, sir, between an Observatory 
 and a Bank. 
 
 Donor — Justice to yourself requires me to say that you have 
 in respect to this matter, made a most remarkable difference. 
 Justice to the donors and the public requires me to say that the 
 great cardinal principles of business are the same whether 
 applied to a bank or an Observatory. We as donors have rights, 
 sir, which you are bound to respect. We have rights, too, 
 which shall be respected. You have asserted positively that 
 $40,000 of our money have been “ worse than wasted.” This is 
 a momentous announcement for you to make, one which demands 
 a most searching investigation on the part of the donors. If it 
 be true, either you are responsible for this waste or Dr. Gould is. 
 Yon say the latter ; we want the proof. Give us the items and 
 the vouchers. 
 
 Olcott — Did we not prove all this in our Statement ? Did we 
 not produce any number of extracts from Dr. Gould’s own letters 
 to prove the charge ? And do we not convey the impression on 
 page 81 that the loss of the $40,000 is shown by the Treasurer’s 
 books ? Are we not all honorable men ? Why then call for 
 more proof ? 
 
 Donor — Mr. Olcott, need I repeat to you that this is a grave 
 matter ? Excuse me, sir, old fashioned men do not do business 
 in this way. Permit me to say that other parties, not the accu- 
 ser, are to be the judges as to the nature of the proof required. 
 Falsified quotations of letters introduced by adroit inuendos, and 
 followed by perverse inferences, will never pass for conclusive 
 testimony. 
 
 Olcott — Do you assert, sir, that I have garbled Dr. Gould’s let- 
 ter’s ? 
 
 Donor — No, sir. I hope it will turn out otherwise. Who did 
 it I cannot say. But I will say it has been done by somebody. 
 
104 
 
 I will say, further, that the fact of many of those letters having 
 been addressed to you, is a very unfortunate circumstance. Yes, 
 sir, it is very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. Besides, sir, this gar- 
 bling appears extensively in printed documents. “Albany” in- 
 forms me that Dr. Gould’s speech is altered in important respects 
 in your second edition of your Inauguration pamphlet, as com- 
 pared with the first edition ; and that these alterations, by a very 
 singular coincidence, make Dr. Gould say (contrary to what he 
 really did sayj the same things that are set forth in your 
 “ Statement.” “ Albany ” says further, that these alterations in 
 your second edition of your Inauguration pamplet were made by 
 one of your Trustees, and that he withholds his name solely out 
 of compassion for the man himself. He will not mention his 
 name now, for fear that mischevious people may think that the 
 same hand has been concerned in the other garblings. Perhaps 
 if some of your number will press “ Albany ” to the point he 
 will disclose the name. That some one has atrociously garbled 
 Dr. Gould’s letters, and that this Inauguration speech has like- 
 wise been garbled, are facts that cannot be doubted. Now, Dr. 
 Gould says — 
 
 Olcott — Don’t believe one word that Dr. Gould says. Didn’t 
 you read in our Statement what a monstrous lie he told on the 
 day of the Inauguration, about the Corning clock ? 
 
 Donor — That was another very odd thing, Mr. Olcott. I am 
 told there was a clock at that very moment in the Observatory 
 with Erastus Corning’s name inscribed upon it as the giver. Dr. 
 Armsby caused the inscription to be placed on the tablet. How 
 then did Gould lie about it ? Or, if he did, how could you asso- 
 ciate with him on intimate terms, and continually indorse him for 
 nearly two years afterwards ? Your Statement exhibits abun- 
 dant proof that you did this. Indeed, in one of your letters to 
 him, written near the close of 1851, you tell him that you are 
 willing to sink or swim with him as the “ only chance ” of im- 
 mortalizing yourself in this world. What ! willing to “ sink or 
 swim ” with a liar ? Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. Now, to 
 return to the garbled letters. We regard — 
 
 Olcott— Do you intend to constantly hurl these letters in my 
 face as you did the January resolutions ? Will you pile insult 
 upon insult ? 
 
105 
 
 j Donor — Your memory betrays you. You were the first to 
 refer to these letters. When, in my old fashioned matter-of fact 
 way I asked you for the items and vouchers to prove this grave 
 charge, you pointed to these letters as you do in your Statement, 
 as sufficient evidence. I asserted that the credibility of these 
 quotations is destroyed by the form in which they are given. 
 Your witnesses, therefore, stand impeached. 
 
 Olcott — Well, sir, after all, this great ado about garbling is 
 only a side issue. The great question is, shall Dr. Gould hold 
 possession of the Observatory ? 
 
 Donor — In the estimation of the Donors, you will permit me to 
 say, there is an issue between you and us of far more importance 
 than mere possession of the Observatory. We wish to ascer- 
 tain what has become of the $40,000 — who paid it out — who took 
 and who made the vouchers — in short, who is, in point of fact, 
 responsible. You affirm that Dr. Gould is, and adduce pretended 
 quotations from his letters to prove it. Why attempt to evade 
 the issue ? Meet it, sir, like a man. Bring forth and lay your 
 vouchers before me on this table. You are a systematic man, 
 sir. 
 
 Olcott — I have letters from Boston and from all parts of the 
 country from gentlemen of high standing, who say that our 
 Statement, which, by the by, is a masterly document, makes our 
 case clear and conclusive. With assurances of such a nature 
 before us, do you suppose we will offer further proof ? When 
 we have made our case so clear that these high-toned gentlemen 
 pronounce it overwhelmingly ‘sufficient, it is useless for you to 
 ask, or for us to offer, more. Wouldn’t you like to see the let- 
 ters I have received ? 
 
 Donor — Really, Mr. Olcott, another class of vouchers would be 
 more convincing to me than letters from abroad, written by 
 gentlemen who extemporaneously decide an issue before the tes- 
 timony is closed. It was natural that these gentlemen should 
 believe your witnesses, but they would have displayed marks of 
 cooler wisdom had they waited for the rebutting testimony. 
 That they should write such letters was very odd, Mr. Olcott, 
 very odd. 
 
 13 
 
106 
 
 Olcott — Why, sir, these letters satisfy my co-Trustees — per- 
 fectly satisfy them, sir. 
 
 Donor — Doubtless such letters are more satisfactory to them 
 than garbled letters are to us. 
 
 Olcott — Still you harp on that garbling. What of it ? The 
 meaning is not changed. 
 
 Donor — Why, then, were they garbled ? Why were parts of 
 sentences struck out, words substituted, words fabricated, and 
 sentences transposed ? Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — At all events, we can prove our charges without 
 Gould’s letters. 
 
 Donor — Thank you, sir. Of course, you allude to those 
 vouchers I asked you for. They will solve the riddle. Show the 
 drafts drawn upon you by Dr. Gould — show the bills for the 
 expenditures indorsed or certified by him — show his own re- 
 ceipts — and if those vouchers prove him to have wasted the 
 $40,000, I will denounce him from Dan to Beersheeba. 
 
 Olcott — We hold that it is enough if we show that it was done 
 under his “ auspices,” and that we prove by quotations from his 
 letters. 
 
 Donor-*- What ! a systematic business man like you attempt 
 to hold another responsible for drafts he never signed, bills that 
 he never certified and never saw, and receipts he never even 
 heard of. Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — Don’t we specify in our Statement, drafts drawn on us 
 by him ; and don’t we state that we paid them ? 
 
 Donor — Certainly, but they are only for a trifling amount. 
 Besides, they were for books and instruments, and you tell us 
 that the $40,000 were “ exclusive of Observatory instruments.” 
 The truth, Mr. Olcott, is very apparent to my mind. If these 
 vouchers had been in your possession, you never would have 
 made such a “Statement” as you have made. No man who 
 knows you will believe for an instant that, if you had possessed 
 the vouchers to sustain this momentbus charge, you would have 
 withheld them when you put forth your “ Statement.” You, of 
 all men, are the last to make use of indirect and doubtful evi- 
 dences when you have at hand those which are positive and 
 explicit. 
 
107 
 
 Olcott — Do not the affidavits of the engineer and architects 
 prove that Dr. Gould supervised the expenditures ? What more 
 proof do you want ? 
 
 Donor — But these affidavits do not say that Dr. Gould ordered 
 things to be done without the sanction of the Trustees — nor 
 have you adduced any proof to show that he did more than to 
 give suggestions and directions in answer to applications from 
 members of your own Board. He pointed out what ought to 
 be done and these members of your Board undertook to manage 
 the expenditures. 
 
 If he took the essential responsibility, why did he not, as is 
 always the case in like operations, audit the bills and sign or 
 countersign the vouchers ? Dr. Gould can safely challenge you 
 to produce vouchers that bear his endorsement to an amount 
 that exceeds $4,000. Where then are the $40,000 ? Where was 
 Dr. Gould all this time ? He was seldom here. He lived 200 
 miles away. Another significant fact is, that your favorite, your 
 “ practical, profound,” Dr. Peters, a man who did not abound in 
 “ contrivances of a useless and visionary character,” was, most 
 of this time, the active manager of affairs at the Observatory* 
 Why do those affidavits throw him into the background. Again. 
 You boast that Dr. Gould was not Director, because you had 
 never offered him the Directorship till January. At your 19th of 
 January meeting, though he told you — as you affirm in your 
 speech of the 26th of June — that he was not responsible for the 
 past expenditure at the Observatory, you passed resolutions en- 
 dorsing him and made him Director. According to your “ State- 
 ment,” the expenditures were made before this — the money was 
 wasted when Dr. Gould did not have personal qharge of the 
 Observatory. On pages 11 and 18 of your 26th of June speech, 
 I read — 
 
 “The Committee discovered, in 1851, an unaccountable abate* 
 ment of zeal on the part of Dr. Gould — not only a reluctance to 
 come on and take charge of the Observatory, but a strange dis- 
 position to put off mounting the instruments, and to delay pro- 
 gress in general.” 
 
 Now, if you are to be believed, during the very period while he 
 was actively engaged in wasting $40,000 of your money, he did 
 
108 
 
 not have charge of the Observatory — he showed “ an unaccount- 
 able abatement of zeal ” — he discovered “ not only a reluctance 
 to take charge, but a strange disposition to put off mounting the 
 instruments, and to delay progress in general !” How Dr- 
 Gould could have employed the year 1857 in doing nothing — 
 indeed, in positively hindering “ progress in general,” and at the 
 same time be actively engaged in wasting $40,000 of your 
 money at the Observatory, while he was absent from it — seems 
 to a plain matter-of-fact man, very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — Notwithstanding all that, Dr. Gould is, in point of fact, 
 responsible, because he was our adviser. 
 
 Donor — Being a matter-of-fact man, I conclude the facts then 
 to be these. In fact he did not, in point of fact, have charge of 
 the Observatory, yet he was in fact responsible. In point of 
 fact, he lived in Cambridge ; in fact, he did nothing for you in 
 1857 ; on the contrary, he hindered “ progress in general yet, 
 in point of fact, his active operations at the Observatory during 
 the time he was thus inactive, resulted in wasting $40,000 of 
 your money ! Very odd, Mr. Olcott, very odd. 
 
 Olcott — Do you pretend, sir, that we have not produced suffi- 
 cient evidence that Gould, and Gould alone, was the responsible 
 party ? 
 
 Donor. Most assuredly I do, if you are to be believed. For, 
 in your speech of the 26th of June, you say, on page 17 : “Up 
 to near the close of 1857, I believe, Dr. Gould enjoyed the con- 
 fidence of the Trustees — had their ready concurrence in all his 
 schemes, and the use of unrestricted means, for their execution.” 
 You concurred, . therefore, heartily concurred and sanctioned, 
 “ all the schemes ” by which the $40,000, were wasted. You 
 had the money and poured it out with “ unrestricted ” measure. 
 Why, then, should not the donors and the pnblic hold you 
 responsible ? By- what logic or arithmetic can we arrive at any 
 other conclusion ? 
 
 Olcott — “ That they have .greatly erred, the Trustees painfully 
 realize. But for this they claim that they are entitled to be 
 judged with some indulgence.” 
 
 Donor — So you remark on page 169 of your Statement. On 
 what ground do you claim indulgent judgment ? Is it for the 
 
109 
 
 benefits you have conferred on the cause of science by bringing 
 the Observatory into inextricable difficulties ? Who, after this, 
 will give or bequeath his odd thousands to like institutions ? 
 You have destroyed confidence here and «all over the country in 
 the management of such institutions, by independent boards of 
 trustees. You could have prevented this deplorable consequence 
 by a simple waving of your hand. Shall we judge you with 
 “ indulgence,” in requital for the numerous indulgent judgments 
 you have uttered respecting Dr. Gould, and others whom you 
 "have assailed in your “ Statement ?” “ Judge not that ye be not 
 
 judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged : 
 and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again? 
 Good day, Mr. Olcott, good day, sir. 
 
 Our old-fashioned gentleman with his cane under his arm and 
 snuff box in his hand, had nearly reached the door when he sud- 
 denly wheeled and propounded another question. By the by, 
 said he, will you please to tell me, Mr. Olcott, what you think of 
 tb e articles signed “ Albany ?” 
 
 Olcott — What do I think of them ? Bibald abuse, sir, ribald 
 aouse. Why should the man who writes them interfere in this 
 controversy ? He is not a donor. 
 
 Donor — Three of your majority Trustees, I am informed, are 
 not donors. Certainly their names are not in your published list 
 Allow me to ask you in return why should they interfere ? If to 
 be a donor is an essential qualification to authorize one to par. 
 ticipate in the controversy, why did you, with about a hundred 
 donors on your list, pass them all by and choose three men as 
 Trustees who had never given a dollar ? I can understand 
 why — particularly with respect to two of them. They were men 
 who could be made subservient agencies to accomplish certain 
 objects. When you put such men in your board, it does not lie 
 in your mouth to complain of “ Albany ” because he is not a 
 donor. Please to specify, sir, what “ Albany ” has written that 
 renders him obnoxious to your censure ? 
 
 Olcott — Written ? What has he not written ? He is a villifier 
 of character, sir. 
 
 Donor — Once upon a time a singular case came under my 
 observation. There lived in a distant city a gentleman whose 
 
110 
 
 life had^been consecrated to astronomy. Many long years had 
 he devoted to his favorite science. His ambition was to build 
 for himself a reputation — to carve his name among the many 
 other illustrious names already chiseled on the tablet of astronomi- 
 cal fame. Before the age of thirty-five, success had crowned his 
 efforts. All the great astronomers of Europe and America were 
 proud to acknowledge his right to an equal rank with themselves. 
 Having obtained this high scientific and moral position, a board 
 of Trustees induced him to move to Albany and take charge of 
 a new Observatory. Brilliant prospects were held before him. 
 The President of the board even wrote to him that he and his 
 co-trustees “ were willing to sink or swim ” with him for the 
 purpose of immortalizing their own names. Buoyant with hope 
 he came. A short time elapsed, and a melancholy change 
 ensued. The very hand which wrote the words just repeated, 
 inspired by a bitterness more bitter than gall, attaches its sig- 
 nature to charges which were unprovoked and which were 
 designed to blast forever that hitherto spotless and illustrious 
 reputation. 
 
 It was boldly proclaimed to the world that this man was a liar, 
 and that his assailants had known the fact for nearly two years. 
 It was proclaimed that he had attempted to “ individually 
 pocket” money not his own. It was proclaimed that he had 
 recklessly wasted $40 000 of the Trustees’ funds. It was 
 insinuated that instead of being “ an accomplished astronomer,” 
 he was in fact a “visionary, pedantic theorist” — and it was 
 boldly charged that he was incompetent. Could detraction go 
 further ? Yes, and it did go further. The sanctity of social con- 
 fidence was ruthlessly invaded ■ Letters in their own nature 
 private — letters even marked “private” and “confidential” — 
 letters written in that unsuspecting freedom with which friend 
 holds converse with friend, were garbled, distorted, mutilated 
 and mangled, and these distortions and mutilations, being thus 
 prepared, were published, and sent to all parts of the civilized 
 world, as evidence to sustain these charges. Almost daily for 
 months, the mails were loaded with pamphlets containing these 
 inhuman falsifications. They were sent to almost every city, 
 village and hamlet in America. Ocean steamers bore them to 
 
Ill 
 
 Europe. Had the Evil Genius, who presides over the powers of 
 darkness, called to his aid his myriads of grim-visaged subalterns 
 and commissioned them to fly through the skies and scatter these 
 pamphlets over the earth, it could not have been more effectually 
 done. Whether we contemplate the exalted position of the vic- 
 tim, or the nature of the charges, or the diabolical appliances 
 brought to bear upon him for the purpose of effecting his ruin or 
 the power of his assailants, there is not an element nor a circum- 
 stance wanting to make out the most extraordinary and aggra- 
 vated case of gratuitous persecution. Who was the master 
 villifier in this case? Was he the man who calls “Albany” a 
 villifier of character? The very utterance of the accusation 
 ought to burn his lips and paralize his tongue. Shall I also 
 enumerate the assaults contained in that pamphlet on Hon. 
 Erastus Corning, J. V. L. Pruyn, Gen. Yan Rensselaer, Mrs. 
 Dudley and the committee of citizens, composed of twelve gen- 
 tlemen, who, in point of intellectual, moral and social worth, are 
 far above their assailants ? Shall I specify the wicked assaults 
 made upon Professors Henry, Peirce and Bache ? It comes with 
 an ill grace from the assailants of these parties to stigmatize 
 “ Albany ” as a villifier of character. 
 
 Olcott — Sir, you shall not address such language to me. I will 
 suffer no man to do it with impunity. 
 
 Donor — 
 
 “ The earth was not of my mind, 
 
 If yon suppose, as fearing you , it shook.” 
 
 Turning on his heel without even a parting salutation, our 
 friend immediately started on his intended visit to Mrs. Dudley. 
 Every few steps — and they were rather excited steps — he would 
 pause to calm his nerves with a pinch of snuff, alternating each 
 with rapid exclamations of— very odd, MA Olcott, very odd — - 
 (shaking his head,) very, very odd. Reported by 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
112 
 
 XL 
 
 ACT OF INCORPORATION. 
 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 The Act of Incorporation whereby you caused yourselves 
 to be constituted Trustees of the Dudley Observatory, deserves 
 and will no doubt receive the proper attention on the part of the 
 Donors to the Institution. We see in that Act the impress of 
 the same ambitious hand that has controlled your action thus 
 far, and which will never loosen its grasp upon the property of 
 the Donors so long as the law which itself created and from 
 which it has derived its power shall remain unaltered. That 
 Act, like many of the other proceedings which have been brought 
 to light by this controversy, as I will now show, was a gross 
 imposition both upon the Donors and the public. While Mr. 
 Olcott and Dr. Armsby held out, as an inducement to procure 
 subscriptions to the Institution, the avowal that it was designed 
 to be the nucleus and form a part of a National University, the 
 moment they had obtained a snfficient sum- to suit their purpose, 
 they secured the passage of the Act in question. Did it in any 
 respect conform to that inducement ? Let the Donors read the 
 Act and judge. It contained no provision for a choice of their 
 Trustees by the Donors themselves. They were not permitted 
 to have the slightest voice either in the primary organization of 
 the Board or control over the management of the affairs of the 
 Observatory by a subsequent election of their own Trustees. 
 On the contrary, they were compelled to receive and be content, 
 without the power of changing them, with such Trustees as were 
 named in the Act itself. A few of these gentlemen, it is true, 
 were unexceptionable, but care was taken to secure a majority 
 who gave promise of little else than subserviency to the behests 
 of a single will. Of this majority, now consisting of the famous 
 Nine — three, viz : Samuel H. Ransom, Robert H. Pruyn and 
 Isaac W. Yosburgh, appear in their published list of Donors as 
 having together contributed nine hundred and fifty dollars — and 
 three others, viz : James H. Armsby, Alden March and Ira 
 Harris (the latter having been lately chosen) do not appear as 
 contributors at all ! All these six gentlemen, except one, were 
 
113 
 
 originally constituted Trustees. The one, Ira Harris, who does 
 not appear as a Donor, was chosen by his present co-Trustees to 
 fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Gen. Van 
 Rensselaer, while actual Donors in our city, gentlemen every way 
 competent in point of standing and education, were thrust aside ; 
 a result which could not have happened had the contributors 
 been allowed to make their own selection. Such is the practical 
 working of the Act of Incorporation with respect to the organi- 
 zation of the Board. The great body of the contributors are 
 excluded from having any voice whatever in the management 
 of the Institution that has been erected through their munificence. 
 Another remarkable peculiarity of the Act was the entire absence 
 of any provision whereby the Board would be rendered subject 
 to the supervisory or appellate jurisdiction of that class of our 
 State officials who have more especial charge of matters per- 
 taining to education and science. When it is recollected that 
 the Observatory was originated and urged upon the attention of 
 our citizens on the ground that it was intended to be, and would, 
 in all probability, become the nucleus of a National University, 
 the incongruity of this omission will not fail to impress all who 
 are truly friendly to the cause of science. In a historical 
 notice of the Observatory, to be found in Munsell’s Annals of 
 Albany, and which is said to have been furnished by Dr. Armsby, 
 the avowed professions of the original projectors of the Institu- 
 tion are set forth, as follows : 
 
 “ During the summer of 1852, several influential gentlemen of 
 the city became impressed with the conviction that something 
 more should be accomplished by the State of New York in the 
 cause of popular education. Though aware that our system of 
 common sell ols, our academies and colleges, were answering 
 all tne purposes which their respective founders had in view, 
 still there seemed to be a deficiency of adequate facilities for 
 prosecuting the higher branches of education to their fullest 
 extent ; in consequence of which our young men were driven to 
 foreign countries for advantages which should be furnished them 
 at home. This suggested the idea of a National University, an 
 institution possessing a character that would meet the'' exigency 
 in question. Several public meetings were held in relation to 
 14 
 
114 
 
 this matter, which many distinguished gentlemen and scholars 
 from other States attended, and favored with their sympathies 
 and counsels. As a result of these deliberations, and as a part 
 of the. great project which we hope yet to see fully realized, it was 
 resolved to establish, at the Capital of the Empire State, an 
 Astronomical Observatory, with such instruments and agents as 
 would meet the present demands of astronomical science. In 
 prosecuting this object, it is gratifying to record the liberal and 
 cheerful response that was made to individual application for the 
 necessary funds.” 
 
 Notwithstanding the promised expansiveness of this contem- 
 plated Institution — notwithstanding it was intended ultimately 
 to embrace all the advantages which a National University could 
 supply and thereby to afford every possible facility for a com- 
 plete education especially to the young men of the Empire State — 
 notwithstanding all this, the supreme control of its affairs was 
 limited to a practically irresponsible Board of Trustees. Neither 
 the Regents of the University nor any of our higher State Officers 
 were allowed to participate in its management. Most of the 
 important Scientific Institutions of our State are, to a greater or 
 less extent, under the control of the Regents of the University 
 or our State Officers. The Observatory at Ann Arbor, though 
 established by private subscription, is subject to the supervision 
 of the Regents of the University of Michigan. They appoint its 
 officers and control its direction. An article lately published in 
 the Atlas and Argus, a very timely and much needed article, 
 shows how well this system works in Michigan and furnishes a 
 safe precedent for our Legislature to follow should they amend 
 the act incorporating our Observatory. These Nine Trustees 
 should be no longer permitted to usurp, under the color of law, 
 an authority so manifestly inconsistent with the avowed objects 
 of the Institution, as set forth at the outset by themselves and on 
 the strength of which, as appears by their own showing, the 
 original subscriptions were obtained. 
 
 Still another defect in the Act of Incorporation, and, no doubt 
 on the part of its framers, an intentional defect, is the omission 
 to require of the Trustees an annual report either to the Donors 
 or the Legislature, of the financial condition of the Institution 
 
115 
 
 As the act exists, they are left at liberty to conceal both from tho 
 Donors and the public all information of their financial proceed- 
 ings, and they have of late availed themselves of that liberty to 
 its fullest extent. They make charges against other parties 
 which could be readily disproved were it possible to extort from 
 them a full disclosure of their financial operations, but they 
 wisely withhold all these evidences. The plain English of • their 
 entire conduct towards the Donors is — “ we have your money — 
 the law has placed it in our hands — we will manage it to suit 
 ourselves and will suffer no interference and will answer no 
 questions.” It is now about six years since the organization of 
 this Board. To this day they have made no financial report, 
 though often called upon to do so. Large sums of money have 
 been received, invested and disbursed, but the donors are not 
 allowed to know by whom received, by whom or how invest- 
 ments have been made, or by whom or how the greater 
 portion has been expended. Will the Legislature permit this 
 state of things to continue ? 
 
 Thus it will be seen that they have had the Act of Incorpora- 
 tion so framed as to conform to, and further, their own selfish 
 ends. They have secured their own appointment and continua- 
 tion as Trustees under it, without regard to the choice of the 
 Donors. They have made themselves independent of the super- 
 visory control or jurisdiction of our State Officers and are not 
 bound by law to report to the Donors or Legislature an annual 
 account of their proceedings either financially or otherwise. 
 They are, to all intents and purposes, an independent and irre- 
 sponsible body. To confer unrestricted power like this on any 
 set of men in our day is a legal incongruity. It is contrary to 
 the spirit of our laws, to the acknowledged policy of the State 
 and pre-eminently inconsistent with the original plan and intent 
 of the Institution. The chief aim of the Donors should now be 
 to procure the interposition of the Legislature, have the law 
 properly amended and the Observatory placed under the jurisdic- 
 tion and control of the Regents of the University, or some other 
 disposition made of it which will secure its permanent usefulness. 
 This is of more consequence to them than any temporary ques- 
 tions now subsisting between the Nine Trustees and the Scien- 
 
116 
 
 tific Council. When the Observatory shall cease to be used 
 for the purpose of the personal aggrandizement of a few of its 
 present Trustees, then and not till then may we hope for the 
 adoption of a policy that will accord with the true interests of 
 science. But it is vain to hope for this under the existing law 
 and with the present organization of the Board of Trustees. 
 
 ALBANY. 
 
 XTL 
 
 LETTER BY THE AUTHOR TO HON. ERASTUS CORNING, 
 AND MR. CORNING^ REPLY. 
 
 Albant, Dec. 2d, 1858. 
 
 Hox. Erasttts Cobbing : 
 
 Dear Sir — In a series of articles recently published in the 
 Atlas & Argus, over the signature of “ Albany, 77 the authorship 
 of which I have avowed, I have had occasion to make several 
 allusions to the attack upon you by the Nine Trustees of the 
 Dudley Observatory in their late “ Statement. 77 Having, by 
 personal inquiry, ascertained from you the true state of the case, 
 
 I felt justified in characterizing that attack as entirely gratui- 
 tous, not being warranted by even the semblance of truth. As 
 these articles are about to be issued in pamphlet form, I desire 
 to fortify the position I have taken on this point by obtaining 
 from you, for the purpose of publication, a statement of the facts 
 pertaining to your original subscription to the Observatory and 
 your version of that transaction. I am well aware of your 
 unwillingness to notice personal attacks of this nature, and 
 would not solicit the favor were it possible to attain my object 
 in any other way. Permit me to say, however, that I am not 
 alone in the expression of the opinion, that the extraordinary 
 proceedings of the Nine Trustees in assailing as they have, 
 without the shadow of an excuse, the private characters of sub- 
 scribers to the Institution — preferring against them charges of 
 grave importance — affirming these charges to be true by attach- 
 ing their proper names to the document containing them — and 
 then multiplying the circulation of that document by the tens of 
 
117 
 
 thousands, constitute an outrage which demands a thorough 
 exposure of the malevolence in which it originated, and the 
 effrontery with which it is attempted to be sustained. Some of 
 these gentlemen, immediately after the publication of their 
 Statement, expressed regret that the allegations against you had 
 been preferred. But they have made no public apology or 
 retraction. When men will so far forget the obligations of 
 honor as to allow their names to remain before the public to sup. 
 port charges which they know to be false, and that, too, with 
 respect to their own neighbors, it is proper that they should be 
 exposed, and that their fellow-citizens should know what may be 
 expected from them hereafter. Your name has been inscribed 
 at the Observatory, for more than two years, as the giver of a 
 clock. It was done by direction of the Trustees themselves 
 This is of itself a sufficient proof that they had no real apprehen 
 sion of a failure on your part to fulfill your agreement in relation 
 to the clock yet to be completed. The motives for the attack 
 upon you could not have had the remotest connection with your 
 original subscription or any subsequent transaction between you 
 and these gentlemen, and must be otherwise accounted for. I 
 may also remark that, although their reference to you is totally 
 foreign to the ostensible and avowed object of their “ State- 
 ment,” they have, nevertheless, seen fit to make it a part of the 
 Observatory controversy. It is, therefore, just and proper that 
 all the facts should be known. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 GEO. H. THACHER. 
 
 Albany, December 3 , 1858 . 
 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 The time which has elapsed since the appearance of the 
 “Statement,” by nine of the Trustees of the Dudley Observatory, 
 affords ample evidence of the intention I had, and to which you 
 refer in your letter of yesterday, not to appear before the public 
 in reference to the personal allusions to me in that publication. 
 Your request however is made under such circumstances, that 
 I cannot well refuse to state the facts, which I shall do very 
 briefly as nearly as I can now recall them. 
 
118 
 
 In the outset of the Observatory enterprise, I was requested, 
 I think by Dr. Armsby, to contribute to the fund. It was in- 
 tended to raise $25,000 — about $5,000 of which I understood 
 was expected to be obtained in comparatively small amounts, 
 and the balance of $20,000 in larger sums. I subscribed one 
 thousand dollars on condition that nineteen others should each 
 contribute a like amount. My subscription was conditional for 
 reasons which I have stated to you verbally, and which I need 
 not now repeat, unless it be to say that a principal one was, that 
 I believed this course, if successful, would enlist a strong influence 
 in favor of the Institution, and give it a large number of warm 
 and active friends. Time has fully confirmed the correctness of 
 the views I then entertained ; for I think I hazard nothing in 
 saying, that no trust like that of the Observatory could have 
 been so sadly mismanaged had the majority of the Trustees been 
 gentlemen who from their early contributions had felt an interest 
 in its success, in place of being persons, most of whom had con- 
 tributed but little to its endowment, and others not at all. Mrs. 
 Dudley shortly afterwards very liberally gave the largest part 
 of the amount sought to be raised, and the plan to which I had 
 subscribed was abandoned. The Nine Trustees admit that the 
 condition attached to my subscription was not complied with, 
 and yet charge me with repudiation in not paying the amount ; 
 how truthfully will be the better understood when I add that, at 
 the request of Dr. Armsby and in order that nothing to which I 
 stood in the remotest degree committed, should be left unfulfilled, 
 
 I agreed to transfer the conditional subscription which I had thus 
 made, to the purchase of a Siderial clock to be paid for when it 
 should be finished and placed in the Observatory. The clock, I 
 learn, was ordered at Altona by Dr. Gould with the sanction, of 
 the Trustees, but has not yet been received. Although the con- 
 duct of the majority of the Trustees has been such as to absolve 
 me from all honorable obligation on this subscription, I intend, 
 nevertheless, when the clock shall have been completed and 
 placed in the Observatory, to pay the amount. That I am not 
 mistaken in what I say as to the terms of my subscription, I can 
 appeal to the Trustees themselves, to show the facts and the 
 consequent falsity of their charge against me ; for in a second 
 
119 
 
 edition of the “ Inauguration ” pamphlet published by them the 
 present year, in enumerating certain donations to the Observa- 
 tory they say : 
 
 “ The Corning Clock was ordered by Dr. Gould, in Altona, in 
 1855. It will cost $1,000 ; Hon. Erastus Corning has agreed to 
 pay for it when it is completed? 
 
 I know nothing about the inscription to which you refer as 
 being on the clock now at the Observatory, indicating that it 
 was presented by me, but have been informed that it was placed 
 there under the direction of Dr. Armsby before the Inauguration 
 for the reasons mentioned in one of your published articles. I 
 was not informed or in any way consulted in regard to it. 
 
 These are the facts ; and I leave it to a fair-minded and honest 
 public, I leave it especially to the citizens of Albany to whom I 
 have been known for nearly forty-five years, to whom I am 
 indebted for many marks of confidence, and with whose business 
 and interests, I trust it will not be considered egotistical in me 
 to say, I have been for many years largely and closely identified, 
 to judge as to the truth or falsehood of the charge of repudiation 
 thus made against me. I have been informed of the circumstance 
 to which you refer, that some of the Trustees, whose names were, 
 by their consent, appended to the “ Statement,” had remarked, 
 immediately after its publication, that they regretted and disap- 
 proved of its personal allusions to me and to others. Still these 
 gentlemen who have thus given the sanction of their names to 
 these unfounded charges, and through an unprecedented edition 
 of their publication have sent them to every part of the country, 
 to every College, Seminary of learning, and Library, to every 
 public officer, and every prominent citizen whose address they 
 could well procure, lack the moral honesty and courage to with- 
 draw them as publicly as they were made ; a duty which they 
 owed alike to community, to the parties assailed, and to them- 
 selves. Indeed the worst feature of the Observatory controversy 
 is the moral recklessness, if I may so term it, which has marked 
 the course of the majority of the Trustees. Several of them no 
 doubt were willing in the outset implicitly to follow the counsels 
 of a few of their number by whom they were deceived and misled, 
 but when the facts were ascertained, when it was manifest that 
 
120 
 
 gross mis-statements had been made, and that individuals had 
 been unjustly assailed, these gentlemen were bound by every 
 obligation of truth and justice to disavow any further responsi- 
 bility for the charges they had thus made. It might have been 
 expected that if such considerations could not influence them, 
 they would have had some regard to the views of the very con- 
 siderable minority of their Board who declined to unite in the 
 action of the majority, a fact which ought in itself to have induced 
 caution and reflection, but it seems to have had no effect. They 
 have chosen to remain silent, prefering to become partners in the 
 moral turpitude of their associates, rather than make an open 
 and manly avowal of their error ; an avowal which might have 
 been made without the least sacrifice of personal honor, and 
 without any prejudice to the other questions involved in the con- 
 troversy. 
 
 But notwithstanding the exposure by your articles, and in 
 various other ways, of the untruths contained in the “ Statement f 
 notwithstanding the outrageous manner, in which it garbled Dr. 
 Gould’s letters, so much so as to compel the Trustees publicly to 
 take notice of the charge and attempt to answer it ; notwith- 
 standing the many facts and circumstances publicly disclosed 
 and discussed since it appeared, and which have shown so many 
 of its assertions to be unworthy of confidence, it has been conti- 
 nually sent out in great numbers to every part of the country, 
 and recently, as I am credibly informed, a further edition has 
 been issued, to be distributed, no doubt, as were the others, as 
 far and as wide as the post can carry it. Yet will it be credited — 
 shame that such should be the fact — this document, thus abound- 
 ing with mistatements and untruths, is deliberately and design- 
 edly sent out under such circumstances with the signatures and 
 the sanction of gentlemen, claiming character and position in 
 society, several of whom are the teachers of morals in Sunday 
 Schools, and nearly all of whom are members, yes, prominent and 
 leading members of Christian Churches in our city. 
 
 Yours, with regard, 
 
 ERASTUS CORNING. 
 
 G. H. Thacher, Esq., 
 
 Albany. 
 
121 
 
 XIII. 
 
 LETTER BY J. Y. L. PRUYN, ESQ. 
 
 The following Letter, from J. Y. L. Pruyn, bears out the 
 statements contained in my introductory article, in relation to 
 the fraudulent procurement of the petition asking for the ap- 
 pointment of Dr. Peters as Observer. It also exposes, like the 
 letter of Mr. Corning, the animus of the “Statement” of the 
 Nine Trustees, and exhibits their utter diregard of a certain 
 element of character which all honorable men most highly prize. 
 I leave the reader to make his own application of this remark 
 after he shall have perused Mr. Pruyn’s letter. 
 
 G. H. T. 
 
 Editors Atlas Sf Argus : 
 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 Absence from the city for some time past, has prevented an 
 earlier notice of the personal allusions to me, contained in the 
 “Statement” recently published by Nine of the Trustees of the 
 Dudley Observatory, in regard to the affairs of that Institution. 
 The flagrant violation in the “ Statement,” of the rule which, 
 among honorable men, protects private correspondence, its at- 
 tacks upon personal character, and its other departures from the 
 line of fair and legitimate defence, stamp its character unmis- 
 takably. 
 
 The Committee appointed at the meeting of Citizens, felt that 
 in stating, as they did in their Address, their reasons for censur- 
 ing the course of those whom they had long known as fellow 
 citizens, and in many cases as friends, good taste and good feel- 
 ing alike called upon them to avoid personal reflections, and to 
 speak only of official acts. The Trustees have chosen to pursue 
 a different course, and they must be responsible for the results. 
 
 At page 53, of the “Statement,” it is alleged that under what 
 are there called the “ embarrassing circumstances,” in which the 
 Trustees were placed, “ some of the largest donors out of the 
 “ Board of Trustees, with other citizens of Albany, began to in- 
 “ terest themselves, urging the necessity of independent action, 
 “ and on the first day of January (1858 ) the Trustees received 
 15 
 
122 
 
 “ a document, of which the following is a copy The document 
 then set forth, having a considerable number of signatures at- 
 tached, urges “ upon the consideration of the Trustees the pro- 
 “ priety of appointing ” Dr. Peters an observer in the Institution; 
 and it is stated that on the ninth day of January, 1858, the Trus- 
 tees “ acting upon the request,” passed certain resolutions, which 
 are quoted at length. One of these was highly complimentary 
 to the “Scientific Council,” and “the distinguished Superintendent 
 “ of the Coast Survey,” declaring that “ the Trustees would ever 
 “ receive with the greatest deference and respect the suggestions 
 “ of gentlemen whose names are so illustrious in Science, and 
 “ who are so distinguished in their efforts for its advancement 
 another appointed Dr. Peters as an Observer in the Institution. 
 
 It may fairly be inferred that the dates of the first and ninth 
 of January above mentioned, were stated to show that the Trus- 
 tees acted with deliberation in considering the document thus 
 presented to them, and in the appointment of Dr. Peters. My 
 signature to this paper is now referred to, as evidence of a want 
 of “ consistency ” on my part in regard to the management of 
 the Observatory. It will be observed that this document was 
 most artfully drawn. It complains of delay in putting the Ob- 
 servatory into operation, but does not venture to charge the delay 
 upon the Scientific Council. Had that been done, it was well 
 known that the desired signatures could never have been obtain- 
 ed. But so far as its statements were concerned, the delay might 
 as well have been considered as chargeable to the Trustees as 
 to the Scientific Council. Its object was to suggest “ the pro- 
 priety of appointing ” Dr. Peters as an observer, and that was 
 the point to which the attention of those to whom it was present- 
 ed for signature was naturally directed. Several of the signa- 
 tures to this document were, I understand, procured by Professor 
 Hall at the request of Messrs. Olcott and Armsby, from the 
 latter of whom he received it, and who accompanied him during 
 at least part of the time he was thus occupied. Most of the 
 residue of the signatures were, I believe, procured by Dr. Armsby 
 in person. It will thus be seen that this document which is re- 
 presented by the Trustees as emanating from other parties, was 
 in reality the work of Mr. Olcott and Dr. Armsby, two of their 
 own number. On the eighth day of January last Professor Hall 
 
123 
 
 called upon me and requested me to sign what I suppose to have 
 been the paper in question. Owing to various circumstances, 
 the principal of which was an absence for a considerable time 
 from the country, I had heard very little about the Observatory 
 for more than a year, and supposed the relations between the 
 Trustees and the Council to have remained entirely harmonious. 
 I informed Professor Hall that I had lately heard that Dr. Peters 
 had been recalled to his former post in- the Coast Survey, and 
 that Dr. Gould was soon coming on to take charge of the Obser- 
 vatory — that I had seen very little of Dr. Peters, and although I 
 entertained the most friendly feelings towards him, I must decline 
 signing the request, until I could feel assured that the arrange- 
 ment would be agreeable to Professor Bache and his associates. 
 I also questioned Professor Hall as to the ability of the Obser- 
 vatory to pay Dr. Peters an adequate salary, but as to this he did 
 not claim to be informed. As Professor Hall continued to urge 
 his request, I proposed to him that we should see Mr. Olcott in 
 regard to the matter, and we accordingly called at his office. — 
 Mr. Olcott briefly explained to us the general conditions of the 
 funds of the Institution, and stated that notwithstanding certain 
 temporary drawbacks, he thought there would be no difficulty in 
 providing an adequate salary for Dr. Peters — that while the 
 Scientific Council fone of whom, Dr. Gould, he had seen but a 
 few day previously) might not be willing to advise the appoint- 
 ment of Dr. Peters, he had good reason from his knowledge of 
 their views to feel assured that they would not object to it if 
 made. My confidence in Mr. OlcotPs good faith was such, that I 
 at once remarked that if this were so, the objection I had made 
 was met, and I immediately signed the application in his pre- 
 sence. I soon learned how grossly I had been deceived : and it 
 now appears from the “Statement” (see pages 48-50,) under 
 Mr. Olcott’s signature, that he knew perfectly well at the time of 
 our interview that the Scientific Council most strenuously object- 
 ed to retaining Dr. Peters at the Observatory. I leave it to others 
 to characterise this transaction in the terms it merits, and especi- 
 ally the use now attempted to be made of my signature ob- 
 tained under such circumstances. It is due to Professor Hall to 
 say, that shortly afterwards, when the Scientific Council were in 
 Albany, and personal explanations took place, he frankly and 
 
124 
 
 honorably admitted that he had acted under mistaken impressions 
 in the course he had pursued. As a large number of signatures 
 were procured to the document after mine had been attached, it 
 could not at the earliest have been delivered to the Trustees 
 until late on the eighth of January, and on the ninth it appears 
 that a meeting of the Board was held and the resolutions already 
 referred to adopted. One of these it has before been shown was 
 highly complimentary to the Scientific Council. Yet it is now 
 claimed, at page 58 of the “ Statement,” that the appointment of 
 Dr. Peters, as an Observer “unless recalled,” would have operat- 
 ed “effectually to sever the relations between the Trustees and 
 the Council.” Further comment on this transaction is unneces- 
 sary. 
 
 At pages 127-130 of the “Statement” the Trustees speak of 
 the “guarantee” for the Heliometer, and charge me with having 
 at the citizens’ meeting already referred to, “appropriated ” to 
 myself “a very just tribute to the desert of another man;” 
 meaning no doubt Dr. Armsby, as they speak on page 128 of his 
 41 first guarantee to Professor Bache at Providence,” and as Dr. 
 Armsby has signed the Statement, he must be considered as 
 claiming thus much for himself ; a claim utterly at variance with 
 his subsequent declarations, and wholly unwarranted by the 
 facts. It is certain that Professor Bache, the person by whom 
 the gaurantee was asked, did not consider Dr. Armsby as having 
 given it, as appears from his letter to Mr. Hawley, quoted by the 
 Trustees, fpage 127), and also from the fact that he relied upon 
 receiving my guarantee, which Dr. Armsby promised or expected 
 to procure. It will be recollected by those who are acquainted 
 with the Observatory controversy, that Dr. Armsby after his in- 
 terview with Professor Bache at Providence in August, 1855, as 
 to the Heliometer, went to Newport, where he supposed I then 
 was, to request me to give an assurance or guarantee that the 
 six thousand dollars needed for the purchase of that instrument 
 should be raised. Finding that I had left Newport, he called on 
 me on his return to Albany, and explained the circumstances and 
 consulted with me about the matter. In view of the importance 
 to the Observatory ( then in an entirely dormant state) of the 
 proposed arrangement with Professor Bache, I did not hesitate 
 to express my strong conviction that the money could be raised, 
 
125 
 
 and pledged my efforts if desired, to aid in doing so. Only a 
 few days later, I heard that Mrs. Dudley had most liberally given 
 the amount needed. Immediately after the “ defence ” of Dr. 
 Gould appeared, Professor Bache, with whom I conversed on this 
 subject, informed me that he had not intended in the defence to 
 use the term “guarantee ” in its strict and formal signification, 
 importing that a written instrument had been signed, as that was 
 not pretended by any person ; but as an honorable obligation, 
 implying a promise as satisfactory to him under the circumstances 
 as the most formal document. That Dr. Armsby having spoken 
 of me as the party whose guarantee he expected to procure, and 
 having informed him that the guarantee had been given, he sup- 
 posed I had given it, and that if there were any mistake about 
 the matter he had been led into it by Dr. Armsby. That what I 
 had said to Dr. Armsby was all the guarantee he had desired ; 
 as he had in substance stated to him at Providence, that if I felt 
 warranted in giving the assurance that in my judgment the pro- 
 ject was one which could be carried out, it would be sufficient 
 for his purposes. In order, however, to avoid any misunderstand- 
 ing or misrepresentation of the matter, as far as I was concerned, 
 I was about to send a note to the Atlas fy Argus briefly explain- 
 ing it, but before I was able to do so the meeting of citizens to 
 which the statement refers, was held. Professor Bache, in his 
 remarks at that meeting, related the circumstances which led to 
 the statement in the Defence as to the “guarantee,” substantially 
 as I have given them, and expressly disclaimed the idea that any 
 “guarantee” had been given in the commercial or legal sense of 
 the term. 
 
 As several reporters for the press were in attendance, it ap- 
 peared to me that the explanation thus made was quite sufficient, 
 especially as the matter was irrelevant to the real questions as 
 to the Observatory then pending. The disingenuousness of the 
 Statement of the Trustees is thus apparent. Its intentional un- 
 fairness as to this matter is the more evident, when it is known 
 that in conversation with one of the Trustees who I supposed did 
 not wish to misrepresent me, I communicated these facts to him. 
 He remarked that Professor Bache had at the citizens' meeting, 
 done great injustice to Dr. Armsby in speaking of their interview 
 at Providence, and that I had not controverted the statement. I 
 
126 
 
 reminded him that I was not present at the interview, and that 
 it would have been a very extraordinary proceeding on my part 
 to have questioned Professor Bache’s account of it ; but that he 
 had candidly and fairly explained my position in reference to the 
 subject. I also remarked to him that the matter having been 
 disposed of at the time by Mrs. Dudley’s liberal gift, it was quite 
 immaterial to the merits of the present questions, whether any 
 guarantee had been given or not, especially also, as Professor 
 Bache was the only person who had requested it, but that if he 
 still thought there was any thing in the matter which needed 
 further explanation by me, I would respond in writing to any 
 inquiry he might choose to make. I deeply regretted to find that 
 this Trustee should, under such circumstances, have chosen to 
 unite in a statement of the transaction and in reflections upon 
 my conduct, so entirely unwarranted by the facts. 
 
 It may not be amiss for me in closing, to make my acknowledg- 
 ments to the Trustees for their implied compliment, in speaking 
 of me as “faithful among the faithless”; nor does it detract from 
 its value, that in this instance as in some others, their citation is 
 not entirely correct. They doubtless intended an allusion to him, 
 who was 
 
 “faithful found, 
 
 Among the faithless, faithful only he 
 
 I trust that at least it may never be my misfortune to forfeit 
 title to the application of another part of the passage — 
 
 “ Nor number nor example with him wrought 
 To swerve from truth.’ * 
 
 JOHN V. L. PRUYN. 
 
 Albany, October 6, 1858. 
 
 Note. — On page 5, some of the names of persons are inadvertently mis- 
 printed in a part of the edition, but are correctly given on page 30. In fre- 
 quent instances I have italicised sentences or parts of sentences quoted from 
 the “Statement,” for the purpose of calling the special attention of the 
 reader to their import. GK H. T.