ditor of the "Journal of Ethics," had laid himself, by publishing Dr.
Royce's libel, under the clear moral obligation of according to the
accused the same freedom of the courts which he had already accorded
to the accuser; and to seek to escape this moral obligation was to
incur the censure invited by any one who assumes the editorial
function without properly informing himself of the duties which it
imposes with reference to third parties. Both the one and the other
had estopped themselves from denying to the accused in self-defence
the same freedom of the courts which they had granted to themselves as
accusers in attack.

Notwithstanding these plain facts, Dr. Royce and Dr. Adler united in
denying to me the necessary freedom of self-defence against the attack
which they had united in making.

At first, Dr. Royce undertook to dictate to me beforehand the nature
of my reply to his rejoinder, and sought to restrict it to the
parliamentary freedom of a purely literary discussion. Ignoring the
fact that he had himself rendered a purely literary discussion
impossible by his own reflections upon personal character, he
endeavored now to restrict my defence to a purely literary discussion
of what, with amusing deficiency in the sense of humor, he considered
to be his "criticisms"; whereas these pointless and ignorant
criticisms had no importance whatever except as leading up to his
"professional warning." The only object of a reply to his rejoinder
was to expose its true character as a second libel, and thereby make
plain to the dullest mind the outrage of his "professional warning."
Evidently fearing this, and being anxious to prevent the exposure, he
sent to me through Mr. Weston, who called upon me for the purpose on
April 15, the following unspeakable document, apparently without a
suspicion that it pricked the bubble of his previous iridescent pledge
to "ask no mercy":--

MEMORANDUM OF APR. 13, 1891.

1. Dr. Abbot's article must be in Mr. Weston's hands in MS.
by June 1, for issue in the July No., if possible.

2. This article must not exceed, in actual number of words,
Prof. Royce's last rejoinder.

3. Prof. Royce is not to reply to the above article of Dr.
Abbot before or simultaneously with its publication in the
"Journal of Ethics"; and the controversy is thus to be
closed in the "Journal" by Dr. Abbot.

4. Dr. Abbot's article is to be strictly a rejoinder,