"The proof of Royce's rejoinder, with your notes of the 16th and 17th, arrived this morning at 9 A.M. As I have had to be at my teaching till 3 P.M., it was obviously impossible to mail a reply by 7 P.M. Hence I telegraphed to you at once: '_I protest against the gross injustice of postponing my article, or of publishing this new attack without the last word you promised me. It is impossible to write this now_ [_i. e._, within the ten hours stipulated]. _If you have any love of justice, publish my article now, and postpone the rejoinders to next issue._' Nothing stands in the way of this, the only fair course, except Royce's insistence on his right to deprive me of the equality of treatment which I supposed he himself guaranteed in his--'as we ask none.' To hold back my reply to his libel for three months longer, merely because he is afraid to let it go forth without an attempt to break its force in the same number, would be disgracefully unjust in him and in the 'Journal.' His rejoinder is simply a fresh libel; there is nothing in it to which I cannot easily and effectually reply. But what _right_ is there in refusing to me the opportunity of answering one libel at a time? Or in compelling me to be silent nine months [from October to July], in order to save him from being silent three months [from April to July]? It will be a bitter comment on the sincerity of the 'ethical culture movement' to make so unethical a judgment in so grave a case as this." But the April number of the "Journal of Ethics," nevertheless, was published without my article. The latter was all in type, and the proof-sheets had been corrected; nothing prevented its publication in April except (1) Dr. Royce's insistence that my reply to his first libel should _not be published at all without his second libel_, and (2) Dr. Adler's weak submission to this unjust and pusillanimous demand of his associate.