e scheme to
unite France and America by rail," and this being so, apparently
strongly resented my making a preliminary trip over the ground with dogs
and reindeer. Having ascertained, however, that M. de Lobel had never
visited Arctic Siberia, and had not the remotest intention of doing so,
I scarcely felt justified in abandoning the overland journey on his
account. This ridiculous but somewhat amusing incident was therefore
brought to an end by the following letter:

"To the Editor of the _New York Herald_, Paris.

"SIR,--May I briefly reply to M. Loicq de Lobel's letter
which appeared in your issue of November 23rd. Your
correspondent has already violently attacked me in the
Paris _Journal_, his grievance being that he 'claims the
paternity' of the projected Trans-Siberian and Alaskan
Railway. This fact is probably as uninteresting to your
readers and to the world in general as it is to myself, and
so far as I am concerned M. de Lobel is also welcome to
annex (in his own imagination) the countries through which
the proposed line may eventually pass.

"But this is not the point. According to his own showing,
M. de Lobel only 'conceived the project' of uniting Paris
and New York by rail in the year 1898. As I left New York
in 1896 for Paris by land, with the object of ascertaining
the practicability of this gigantic enterprise, I think
that I may, with due modesty, dispute the shadowy
'paternity' of the scheme, which, after all, is worth
nothing from a theoretical point of view.

"The American and British Press of March, April, and May
1897 will fully enlighten your correspondent as to the
details of my last attempt, which unhappily met with
disaster and defeat on the Siberian shores of Bering
Straits. But I trust and believe that a brighter future is
in store for the 'Daily Express' Expedition of 1901, which
I have the honour to command, and which leaves Paris for
New York by land on the 15th of next month.

"If, as M. de Lobel writes, 'the Englishman thought best
not to answer' it was simply because the former's childish
tirades seemed to me unworthy of a reply. If, however, you
will kindly insert this brief explanation, you may rest
assured that, so far as I am concerned, this correspondence
is closed.

"I am, your