On reading the pieces, I found them to be based in a petty spirit of fault-finding, uncandid, illiberal, and without wit, science, or learning.  It is said in a book, which my critics did not seem to have caught the spirit of—­“Should not the multitude of words be answered, and should a man fall if talk be justified?  Should thy lies make men hold their peace, and when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed?” (Job xi. 2, 3.) My blood boiled.  I could have accepted and approved candid and learned and scientific criticism.  I replied in the papers, pointing out the gross illiberality of the attack, and tried to provoke a discovery of the authors.  But they were still as death; the mask that had been assumed to shield envy, hypercriticism, and falsehood, there was neither elevation of moral purpose, courage, nor honor, to lay aside.

In the mean time, all my correspondents and friends sustained me.  Men of the highest standing in science and letters wrote to me.  A friend of high standing, in a note from Washington (Oct. 24th) congratulating me on my recovery from the fever at Chicago, makes the following allusion to this concealed and spiteful effort:  “When in Albany I procured from Mr. Webster copies of them (the pieces), with a view to say something in the papers, had it been necessary.  But, from their character and effect, this would have been wholly unnecessary.  They have fallen still-born from the press.”

Mr. Carter (Oct. 28th) says:  “G.  C. was at my room, and spoke of the numbers with the utmost contempt, and thought they were not worth noticing.  The same opinion is entertained by everyone whom I have heard speak on the subject.  Chancellor Kent told me that your book is the most interesting he has ever read, and that the attack on it amounts to nothing.  Others have paid it the same compliment, and I think your fame is in no danger of being injured by the Trio.”

Mr. Baldwin, a legal gentleman of high worth and standing, made the following observations in one of the city papers, under the signature of “Albanian":—­

“True criticism is a liberal and humane art, and teaches no less to point out and admire what is deserving of applause, than to detect and expose blemishes and defects.  If this be a correct definition of criticism, and ‘Trio’ were capable of filling the office he has assumed, I am of opinion that a different judgment would have been pronounced upon Mr. Schoolcraft’s book of travels; and that they would have been justly eulogized, and held up for the perusal of every person at all anxious about acquiring an intimate knowledge of the interesting country through which he traveled, and which he so ably and beautifully described.  It is certainly true, that we abound in snarling critics, whose chief delight is in finding fault with works of native production; and though it is not my business to tread upon their corns, I could wish they might ever receive that castigation and contempt which they merit from a liberal and enlightened