In order to present the pros and cons to the reader at one and the same time, I ask you to agree to the following proposition:  I offer to publish in one pamphlet your article and my reply. I undertake to pay the cost and if there should be any profits to divide them with you.

     By accepting this proposal you will show that you are as convinced
     of the solidity of your arguments as I am of the solidity of mine.

     YVES GUYOT.

II.  REPLY OF DR. KUYPER.

I received the following letter, March 29th: 

     AMSTERDAM,
       March 28th, 1900.

     TO M. YVES GUYOT.

     SIR,

Only having received one number of your paper (23,381) I do not know whether your criticism is finished.  As soon as I have it all before me—­with references to the documents cited, if you please, otherwise it is difficult to follow—­I will see whether it calls for a detailed reply on my part, in which case I might, according to American precedent, republish my article, inserting, with your permission, your reply.  This was done by the New York Outlook, when it published in the same number, “the Case of the Boers,” and “the Case of the British.”

At the same time the copyright of my article belongs to the Editor of the Revue des Deux Mondes, without whose permission I can do nothing.  As I shall be in Paris before long I will ask him for it, should your polemic attack seem to me to require a reply.

With regard to your proposal to leave the risks of a fresh publication to you, while sharing the profits, although I appreciate the delicacy of such a suggestion, I could not accept it.

     KUYPER.

The following remarks on his letter were published by me in Le Siecle, March 30th.

“With regard to the first point, I regret that, at the time of writing, Dr. Kuyper should only have received one number of Le Siecle; each of my replies having been sent to him under registered cover on the day of publication.  It is unfortunate for me that Dr. Kuyper’s Article should have appeared in the Revue des Deux Mondes, for that brings me again into contact with M. Brunetiere, and it is well-known that M. Brunetiere who, last year for fifteen days burdened Le Siecle with his prose, does not wish this discussion to be presented to the reader in its entirety.  I am greatly afraid of his desiring the same isolation for Dr. Kuyper’s article.

“As far as I am concerned, having began my reply to Dr. Kuyper I shall continue it.  If it is not M. Brunetiere’s wish that our articles should be published together he will thereby acknowledge anew the force of my replies.  Were they not documented and convincing, he would not fear their proximity.”

III.  ANOTHER LETTER.