Patriotic citizens were indignant with the Secretary of the Royal Zoölogical Society. He wrote a statement to the press, in which he claimed that for some time past Jumbo had been a source of constant anxiety to the directors of the Zoo. “It is well known,” wrote the secretary, “to all who have had much experience with such animals in confinement that male elephants, when they arrive at the adult age, are periodically liable to fits of uncertain temper.” Jumbo was eleven feet tall and weighed seven tons. In a fit of anger it was likely that he could cause considerable damage. “The possibility of having to destroy the animal,” said the secretary, “would be repugnant to the feelings of all who know and admire him, especially as there seems to be no reason whatever to suppose that when once the removal is over he may not be well cared for and live comfortably.” He pointed out that Barnum & Bailey had more than twenty elephants living together in the circus menagerie, and the fact that they lived in harmony and happiness, said the secretary, was proved by the birth of two baby elephants, “an occurrence hitherto unprecedented in captivity.” The publication of the letter by Mr. Sclater, secretary of the Royal Zoölogical Society, occasioned an answer, which was published in _The Times_ on February 24, 1882, in which the correspondent asked how often, if ever, it had been found necessary to confine Jumbo or seclude him owing to his “alleged recently-developed bad temper.” It was also asked if the Society had already determined to part with Jumbo before Barnum’s offer of $10,000. The correspondent failed “to see why the possession of 20 elephants enables the American firm to make arrangements for their custody so superior to those of our own Zoölogical Society for four or five animals, and I would ask whether it is or is it not a fact that one of the animals at Regent’s Park is at this time expecting that ‘unprecedented occurrence’--viz., an addition to her family in captivity?” The correspondent also asked whether it was, or was it not, a fact that this supposedly dangerous animal had been allowed during the last few days to mix with little children. “Assuming that the transfer of locality,” he concluded, “will not affect his daily exhibition, is it quite fair and honorable to accept so large a price for an animal that will presumably be at least as dangerous, if not more so (for his removal may not improve his temper), to the American, as he is said to be to the English children?”