The Trio (if we admit there are tria juncta in uno, in this knot of savans) pretend to be governed by patriotic motives in attacking Mr. Schoolcraft.  ’In what we have said, our object has been to expose error, and to shield ourselves from the imputation which would justly be thrown upon ourselves.’  The construction of this sentence reminds us of the exordium of Deacon Strong’s speech at Stonington—­’the generality of mankind in general endeavor to try to take the disadvantage of the generality of mankind in general.’  But not to indulge in levities on so grave a subject, we are happy in the belief that the reputation of our country does not demand the condemnation of Schoolcraft’s Journal, as a proof of our taste, nor need such a shield as the trio have interposed, to protect it from the attacks of foreign reviewers:—­

     ’Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis
      Tempus eget.’

It affords us great pleasure to relieve the anxiety of the Trio on the subject of shielding ’ourselves from the imputation which would be justly thrown upon ourselves,’ by stating that one of the most scientific gentlemen in the United States wrote to the publishers of Schoolcraft’s Journal, not a week since, for a copy of the work to send to Paris, adding to his request, the work is so valuable that I doubt not it would be honorably noticed.

“We have not taken the trouble to examine the passages to which the Trio have referred; for, admitting that a trifling error has been detected in an arithmetical calculation—­that a few plants (or vegetables, as this botanist calls them) have been described as new, which were before known—­and that in the haste of composition some verbal errors may have escaped the author, yet these slight defects do not detract essentially from the merit of the work, or prove that it has improperly been denominated a scientific, valuable, and interesting volume.  Our sage critics are not aware how many and whom they include in the denunciation of ’a few men who pretend to all the knowledge, all the wisdom of the country;’ if by a few they mean all who have spoken in the most favorable terms of Mr. Schoolcraft’s book.

“One word in respect to the ‘candor’ of the Trio, and we have done.  It would seem to have been more candid, and the disavowal of ’an intention to injure’ would have been more plausible, if the attack had been commenced when the author was present to defend himself, and not when he is in the depth of a wilderness, remote from his assailants and ignorant of their criticisms.  But we trust he has left many friends behind who will promptly and cheerfully defend his reputation till his return.”