so far defer to the judgment of Dr. Bell's friends, as to admit that mental failure may be the cause of the disaster.

A man may be spared from serious rebuke for the vices that spring from mental failure or incapacity, but he deserves public punishment for vices that spring from moral depravity. The editor has really spared Dr. Bell for his mental vices; but he deserves punishment for moral depravity. This moral depravity will now be freely exposed and the public will unquestionably inflict the deserved punishment.

On the evening of the 21st of May, the President of the Young Men's Christian Association dismissed an audience which had collected to listen to a lecture, from the editor, on the subject of Florida; he having been invited by this Body to deliver the lecture. The lecture was intended to be the last of the season. The audience dismissed was more than double in numbers those to whom the most distinguished gentlemen in America, (gentlemen, the superiors of the editor in age, in acquirements, and in lecture experience), have lectured in this city, both previously and subsequently to the occasion mentioned.

The President of the Association stated, that Dr. Gaillard was willing and ready to deliver his lecture, but the lecture committee had decided, as the inclemency of the weather had detained many and as the committee did not desire the lecture delivered to an audience of this size, that the delivery of the lecture should be postponed; that there would be returned to all who had purchased tickets the amount paid for them.

The amount returned to the entire audience is known only to the Treasurer of the Association, and he has not (as he has informed the editor) mentioned this amount to any one. The only complimentary tickets issued were eight to the lecturer and the usual tickets to the press. The committee adopted the course they have always adopted when any one was invited to deliver a lecture, for which an admission fee was to be charged. These facts, in relation to the Association have been given to the editor, with the expectation and desire that he should publicly use them.

As in so grave a matter, the editor would not wrong Dr. Bell in the slightest, he gives Dr. Bell's statement of the matter verbatim. A statement that a mean and despicable nature only could have conceived or executed.

In a former part of this notice of Dr. Gaillard, I expressed a fear that Richmond, Va., and Louisville, Ky., scarcely appreciated properly the great light they possess in Editor Gaillard. An event occurred in Louisville, on Friday night, the 21st of May, which relieves Louisville from the charge of failure in this important duty. She showed that night that she does appreciate the great Professor at his right value. The city has been agonized for a week with almost incessant drumming for a large attendance on a magnificent lecture on Florida, by Prof. Gaillard, before the Young Men's Christian Association. In an intimate acquaintance, for thirty-six years, with lectures in Louisville, I never knew of any approach to the amount of drumming used for Dr. Gaillard's lecture. Every pulpit in the city that was accessible to the Young Men's Christian Association was laid under contribution and the various pastors read to their flocks, from a written notice prepared for the occasion, calling attention to this grand, this coming event. The daily press teemed with notices of the prospective glory in reserve for Louisville, and placards of Dr. Gaillard, of Florida, of the Young Men's Christian Association adorned the walls of houses. And, as if the viand was not piquant enough, an attempt was made to whet the public appetite by a pepsine announcement, that the Gaillard-Florida lecture had already electrified the Peabody Institute at Baltimore! The parties engaged in this incessant din must, from the way they worked, have had some foreboding that they were engaged in up-hill labor. The uneasy, restless Peabody Institute lecturer pushed himself into the newspapers and gave the public a specimen of his gifts, in one of the most flagrant violations of the 6th Article of the Code of Ethics of the American Medical Association, with which any medical man ever damned himself. This seemed to give the Louisville public the measure of the missionary of the Young Men's Christian Association.

The eventful night come upon the Louisville people in its proper order. In the leading paper of the city, on the morning of the 22d, the morning after the noche triste of Dr. Gaillard, the city was roused with the following account of the wonders of the preceding night:

Dr. Gaillard's Lecture.

Masonic Temple was filled last night to hear Dr. Gaillard. The reputation of this gentleman as an able and entertaining lecturer suffered nothing, but on the contrary was much enhanced by his effort last evening. His audience realized what before it was told to expect, and we do not wonder that, when the Peabody Institute of Baltimore was founded, this gentleman was among the first six who were selected to lecture before it in compliance with one of the provisions of the noble philanthropist, its author. His discourse last night was listened to throughout with an attention that was highly complimentary both to the man and the matter. It was the most successful and remunerative lecture of the series which it concludes, and the Young Men's Christian have just cause to thank the good fortune which procured them the services of this learned, refined and popular gentleman.

This first-class notice must have glared on the unfortunate Professor, after his dreadful night, in a most unwholesome manner. It must have made him feel that this notice added insult to injury. The scene at the Masonic Temple on the night of the Gaillard lecture was, to "borrow the loan," as the Patlander says, of a Gaillardism, decidedly "conversely" to the newspaper record. There has never been, since the scene in the Arabian Nights Entertainment, a more perfect barmecide feast than that at the Masonic Temple on the night of the Gaillard-Florida lecture. In a hall capable of accommodating two thousand persons, there loomed up before the despairing gaze of Dr. Gaillard, about forty or fifty persons. I have heard no one estimate the number above fiity. As

the Peabody Institute lecturer surveyed the dreary prospect he must have felt, with Dick, in the farce of the "Apprentice," the loathsomeness of "a beggarly account of empty" seats. Milton preferred an audience that was "fit and few," but in the estimation of Prof. Gaillard, the fewness of the auditory rendered it unfit for him. The grand Professor crept away from the Masonic Temple to meditate upon the "vanity of human wishes," not in the style of Dr. Johnson, but in the humor of chewing the cud of disappointed vanity.

As the weary wheels of time rolled over the dreary prospect, the President of the Young Men's Christian Association announced that owing to the "inclemency of the weather" the lecture would be postponed, and the money refunded to those who had paid. A gentleman informs me that one dollar and fifty cents were refunded, the rest of the audience being, probably, dead-heads. The "inclemency of the weather" is fudge.

When carefully examined this statement is found to contain the following willful and malicious falsehoods: 1st. That the committee resorted to unusual modes of advertising. 2d. That there was an unwillingness to deliver the lecture. 3d. As to the size of the audience. 4th. As to the value of the audience pecuniarily to the Association. 5th. As to the number of those that Dr. Bell vulgarly calls "dead-heads;" and, 6th. As to the amount refunded. In addition, this statement contains what is far worse than a falsehood, an ingenious and despicable effort to create a false and ruinous impression, in regard to the action of the editor. Dr. Bell speaks of his "pushing himself into the newspapers;" see line 25 of his statement. The meaning intended by Dr. Bell to be conveyed by the text, context and general arrangement of this statement is, that the editor sought eulogistic notices or caused such notices to be written in regard to himself and his lecture. This could not be said directly, for Dr. Bell knew that it was a falsehood, but he used a dishonest and contemptible mode of creating this impression. Can the reader imagine what part of the code of ethics was "violated." Strictly speaking, the editor did not violate any portion of it, as the code of ethics has no jurisdiction whatever in regard to the relations of a journalist to a public Institution, but the violation claimed by Dr. Bell, was, that the editor had published, in a daily paper, a correspondence between himself and the Faculty of the University of Louisville. The University made charges, over its seal, that were decided by the largest medical Society of this city, to be unjust and untrue,* and decided

* Will it be believed, that these charges have not been withdrawn, though the Faculty, after the editor requested an investigation, accepted the committee as an umpire?--ED.

also, that the editor's replies to the charges made, were "defensive and blameless." (See Report in Evening Sun, of Louisville, June 19th, 1869.) In this correspondence, the editor replied to these charges in the following language: "I say, deliberately and responsibly, that the writer and endorsers of such charges are cowardly and pusillanimous falsifiers who have stained the official seal of a puble Institution, by making it a shield for persona! insult, which not one of them dares to offer me, over his private signature." Dr. Bell wrote the letter in which the charges made were replied to in the quoted language given.* It should be said, that, "by a vote of the College (the Medical Society) Dr. Gaillard was justified in publishing the correspondence."(Evening Sun, June 19th, 1869.) It will be seen that Dr. Bell, in the two pages extracted from his article, is guilty of six falsehoods and of the intention to deceive the reader in regard to the meaning of the text, "the restless lecturer pushed himself into the newspapers in one of the most flagrant violations of the code," etc.

It should be said that Dr. Bell may have made the statement in regard to the editor's lecture, without inquiry, but if so, the act was reckless, base and infamous; if the statements were made after inquiry, they were falsehoods.

In what language can such conduct be correctly denounced. In 1855, Blackwood's Review published the following bitter and awful denunciation of the notorious Barnum, of New York: "No foul bird of prey, nailed to a barn-yard door, as a warning to its fellows, presents a more revolting and disgusting aspect, than does Phineas T. Barnum, in his publication before us." For fourteen years, the entire world has been unable to find any one who could be presented in challenge or refutation of this terrible declaration. The editor has been more successful; he presents Theodore S. Bell, whose record, as shown in the base statement published, is so vile, that, in comparison, the carcase of the foul bird of prey becomes sweet, and the character of even Phineas T. Barnum is made respectable.

The editor, of course, expects the vilest abuse possible, in the Nashville Journal, for August. He hopes this will come from Dr. Bell and his chosen friend, Dr. Bowling;

*But induced the Dean to sign it.--ED.

that it will be to use Dr. Bell's elegant expression a duplex retort; a double-barrel explosion. The editor, when a boy, was fond of hunting sparrows and acquired much skill in killing two at a shot. In his maturer years, it is only fair that he should be allowed an opportunity of enjoying his old recreation. He promises not to use any. thing larger than mustard seed shot; recollecting the old rule, that small game should have only small shot; such shot as he has thought sufficient for the present occasion. He is very fond of hunting birds and will be ready to take a sparrow hunt as long and as often as he is invited.

The editor expresses the hope that Dr. Bell will reap a satisfactory return from the several hundred pamphlet copies of his article, which he had issued for distribution, not only to his medical admirers, but to the laity in this city and throughout the country. If, however, these pamphlets are as much derided, and their author as much despised by the multitude to whom Dr. Bell sent them, as has been the case with the very many who have expressed their opinions to the editor, Dr. Bell will realize the truth of the damaging satire which Colonel Damas bestowed upon Beauseant: "Curse on, Monsieur Beauseant, but let me tell thee a proverb which the Arabs have: curses, like chickens come home to roost."

Eight months since, Dr. Bell was scarcely known out of Louisville; not satisfied with his obscurity, he came before the public to be admired; being not as admirable as he had expected and being rasped somewhat severely, he turned upon the instrument which cut him and tried to destroy it; how far he has done so or can ever do so, he must learn by a painful but a very ludicrous experience; he can only learn what injury he is capable of inflicting, by a continuation of an attack which he is pleasantly invited to prolong, for as many months as may suit his purse, his peace or his pleasure.

This charming little episode in the life of Dr. Bell, is so pleasingly illustrated by a fable of great antiquity, (one might say an almost pre-historic fable) that the editor takes the liberty of adding it as the finale to the present act of that charming drama which Dr. Bell, with an exquisite indulgence in fiction, has entitled BELL ON GAILLARD; a title suggestive of a disaster to the editor too monstrous to contemplate. The fable promised is that pleasing allegory of