courage. He has espoused unpopular causes all his life. He made a crusade for “16 to 1”.
He was drinking grape-juice when his partisan comrades had no idea that prohibition would ever become an established law and he did not mind being laughed at. He spoke for woman suffrage when best of the great parties had not yet perceived that it must soon be recognized as a political issue. Few men have had Mr. Bryan’s courage and fewer still his marvelous platform gifts to carry a cause to the people.
India had special reason to be grateful to Mr. Bryan, because, unlike many other notable Americans, he made known in his country the true character of British rule in India and its effects and the real condition of this country.
“Ajax” and “The Modern Review”
“Ajax” has written an article in the September number of the Calcutta Review in reply to our remarks on his article in the August number of the same Review. He has cast aspersions on us for which he wishes us to seek “legal redress.” We do not consider it necessary to gratify this desire of his for cheap notoriety and “martyrdom”. We hope he will excuse us for our inability to oblige him. We will not take further notice of the personalities he indulges in. But as regards the facts mentioned by him we will make a few remarks on them, as he says they are facts.
With regard to his use of the editorial “We,” he observes that his “article was originally intended for the editorial columns of the Calcutta Review, but as the Board of Editors had no time to examine it, it was published as a contributed article. Lack of time did not permit any change in the heading or language of the article.” He also adds that “Dr. Stephen deliberately excluded it from the editorial pages”. “Ajax” mentions these facts only now, but there is no difficulty in accepting this explanation as on the whole accurate, though we do not understand why even the heading could not be changed for want of time, consisting as it did only of two words. This part of the explanation is clearly inadmissible.
Preposterously enough, “Ajax” complains that we held Dr. Stephen responsible for his (“Ajax”’s) article, forgetting that we wrote: “it would not be unfair, following his (“Ajax ’s) example, to hold Dr. Henry Stephen responsible for his views.” This we said because “Ajax” omitted the initials of our contributors in quoting from The Modern Review, thus conveying the impression that the extracts were all from the editor's writings.
As regards the charge of abruptly closing controversies brought against us, to the best of our recollection we have never refused the right of one reply to any person who was entitled to send us one, but we have had to use our discretion in allowing or not allowing further discussion; because ours is a monthly and no controversy should generally be kept up in it for month after month. Sometimes we have allowed further discussion, sometimes we have not. Our critics are at liberty to hold and say that we stop further discussion in cases where our case is weak, though, to the best of our knowledge that is not the true reason. Editors have very often to reject or curtail manuscripts for good reasons. If we returned any manuscript of Dr. Surendranath Sen, it must have been for some valid reason, which we do not at present remember. Some persons believe in the bona fides of some editors, others do not. We do not complain that we do not possess the confidence of everybody.
Dr. Nareshchandra Sen Gupta’s criticism was curtailed, but no argument of his was omitted. No editor is bound to print things which are not to the point. Whenever any contribution is curtailed, editors have, of course, to face the possible charge of having suppressed a most vital portion of it. Nevertheless they must do their duty.
In the case of the two replies given by us in Manasi, mentioned by the writer, we were in some doubt owing to some special circumstance whether we had a right to send a second reply. So we wrote to the Editor of the Manasi for his opinion. As he decided in our favour, we sent him the second reply. To that there was a second rejoinder by our critic in which he, as far as we remember, brought up some new points to which consequently we replied in Prabasi.
Regarding the charge that The Modern Review suffers from lack of “editorial policy” we can only say that we care only for truth and principles, not ‘policy’, and that we try always to decide what ought to be said, not with reference to what we may have written before, but in the light of the knowledge and experience we possess at the time of writing. We are not guided by any mechanical adherence to what is regarded as consistency, by regard for truth and principles.
As for the charge that we gave J. C. G.
