There is a man in England who has a very
unfortunate
name. |
We have known three persons named Church, and
they
were all great rascals. If a mans name is Priest or Parson
or Elder,
you may safely set him down as an undesirable acquaintance. And if
a man goes by the name of Deacon, take care that he does not commit a
forgery
upon you. |
Now, this man in England is named Deacon, and the
name, presumably, has ruined him. Deacon used to live in Bruges,
but now he lives in London. In Bruges he distinguished himself by
the invention of invariably erroneous problems. In London he has
distinguished himself by inventions which are a great deal worse than
erroneous. |
He entered into a conspiracy with Koward
Staunton,
which resulted in the publication of two games of Chess purporting to
have
been played between Mr. Morphy and himself. His dealings with Mr.
Morphy had made Howard the butt of the Chess world, and Koward wanted
the
lofty satisfaction of making it appear that Mr. Morphy had lost a game
to a sixth-rate player. And, very likely, he hoped that the
discussion,
which was sure to follow, would do more or less injury to Mr.
Morphys
reputation among English players. Deacon was to be compensated for
his share in the dirty business, by the notoriety of having won a game
from such a player as Mr. Morphy. |
But Deacon, besides being a rogue, is a
bungler. |
Instead of manufacturing both the games, he
chose,
as one of them, a game which he had played with J. Arnous de Riviere of
Paris. And it so happened that Riviere had shown this very game to
Morphy. So that, when the latter saw the two games in print, he
not
only pronounced them to be forgeries, as far as he was concerned, but
was
able to tell where one of them came from. And before Mr.
Morphys
expose had reached Europe, the game was claimed by Riviere, in a letter
to Howard. |
And now we come to the most interesting
development
of all in this curious affair. We allude to the part which the
Philadelphia
Evening Bulletin has seen fit to take in it. |
In the Bulletin for March 10th we find the
following: |
* * * If the question is one of veracity between Messrs. Morphy and
Staunton, we cannot choose between two gentlemen, both of whom we are
bound
to believe incapable of falsehood.
* * * Why cannot Mr. Deacon speak out, and settle, at once, this
vexed
question? |
|
Who has found the Bulletin to believe Mr.
Staunton
incapable of falsehood, in the face of historical fact that the Chess
career
of the latter has been a career of falsehood from beginning to
end?
We will give only one of a hundred instances of what the Boston Gazette
calls Mr. Stauntons inability to tell the truth. |
Mr. Staunton, who merely entered the arena to lend the undertaking
the support of his name, being like his old antagonist, M. St. Amant,
altogether
out of practice, was, like that once famous player, unhorsed in his last
two games.-Illustrated London News, Sept. 4, 1858. |
|
This was Kowards excuse for getting beaten
by Herr
Lowenthal. |
Mr. S went to Birmingham and entered his name in the list of
combatants
at the late meeting there, mainly to confront Mr. Morphy, but Mr. M.
thought
proper no to appear.-Illustrated London News, Nov. 3, 1858. |
|
And this was one of Kowards excuses from
not giving
Mr. Morphy a chance to beat him. |
A man who undertakes to be untruthful ought to
have
a good memory. Koward is very unfortunate in this respect. |
Why cannot Mr. Deacon speak out, and
settle, at
once, this vexed question? Does such a sentence as this need
any
comment? It expresses, as plainly as language can express, the
Bulletins
determination to believe the unsupported assertions of an obscure
English
player, in preference to the assertions of Mr. Morphy. Deacon is
not asked to give any external evidence of the truth of anything he may
speak out ; and whether he does or does not give such evidence, the
Bulletin
will consider the question settled, on the spot, without giving Mr.
Morphy
time to say anything more, or to produce any testimony on the other
side. |
We have next to notice the following language
which
appeared in the Bulletin for April 14, 1860: |
--- We have received, by the Persia, the English version of the
Morphy
- Deacon affair. We give below a temperate, gentlemanly, and most
conclusive letter from Mr. Deacon, and also Mr. Stauntons comments
on
the anonymous card, published in New York. They are extremely
severe,
but not more so than the provocation warrants. |
|
As is well known that the Bulletins
masterly acquaintance
with the English tongue enables it always to express its ideas in the
clearest
possible manner, we must take it for granted that the words
extremely
severe, in the above paragraph, refer to Deacons letter as
well as to
Kowards comments, notwithstanding the use of the word
temperate just
before. |
Suppose that the Editor of the Bulletin had a
tremendously
fine watch-chain, and that some Philadelphia pick-pocket should relieve
him of it. Would the Editor refrain from accusing the thief, on
the
ground that such accusation would be a provocation warranting the latter
in bringing an action for slander? |
How easy it is to convince a man of that which he
is determined to believe anyhow. The Deaconic letter which the
Bulletin
regards as most conclusive throws not a single ray of new
light upon
the subject. It merely contains sundry roundabout declarations
that
the games in dispute were really what they pretended to be. The
mere
fact that he published the games, was all the assurance the public
wanted
that Deacon asserted their authenticity. What the public did want,
was any evidence of their genuineness which he might be able to bring
forward.
But he took care not to give any such evidence until formally called
upon
to do so. |
But the remarkable feature of this remarkable
controversy
is yet to be chronicled. In its issue of June 9th, the Bulletin
published
an original letter from Deacon, in which it is stated that the disputed
games were played at the British Hotel, in the presence of another
Deacon
and a waiter. As usual, Deacon accompanies his statements with no
proof, but he goes so far, this time, as to declare that he intends to
obtain a corroborative communication from that other Deacon. |
This letter is prefaced by the following Bulletin
paragraph: |
The Morphy-Deacon controversy is yet fresh in the minds of our
readers.
As the opinions of American Chess players have been much divided in
reference
to the matter, we have been at some pains to ascertain for ourselves the
facts of the case, and we have received, just as we go to press, the
following
letter, written by Mr. Deacon, at our instance, to a mutual friend in
England,
which we regard as a final settlement of the point in dispute: |
|
How very kind and patriotic of the Bulletin to
take
so much pains in the matter, and in such a way! One might have
supposed
that an American Editor would have applied to Mr. Morphy for
information,
or that, as the least thing he could do, he would have made application
to him at the same time that he made application to Deacon. |
There has been a division of opinion, certainly
; but we beg leave to suggest that such division was rather
unequal.
It was the Editor of the Bulletin on one side, and every one else on the
other. |
Notice how the Bulletin would leave us to infer
that the facts of the case could only be obtained from the
English side.
Observe how characteristically it looks upon this last Deaconic
emanation
as a final settlement of the question. It doesnt wait for
Deacon
to furnish his first item of evidence. It doesnt linger to
hear
any rebutting testimony from Mr. Morphy. It gives its second
decision
as promptly as it gave its first, in willing forgetfulness of the fact
that the only outside evidence yet produced -- Rivieres claim to
one of
the games -- is all the other way. |
It may be well, in this connection, to show who
is the Bulletins mutual friend in England.
Turning back to its
number for June 2d, we shall find the following among its
Answers
to Correspondents: |
H. S. London.--We wrote to you on some Chess matters
about a month
ago. Did you get our letter? |
|
Howard Staunton is the Bulletins English
friend! |
While we think of it, there are two or three
questions
which we should like to have the Bulletin answer. Why did not
Deacon
publish the games immediately after they were said to have been
played?
Why did he keep them back until Mr. Morphy had been eight months away
from
England? Why did he make no complaint that Mr. Morphys
repeatedly-given
score was incorrect? The vanity of an inferior player would
inevitably
lead him to give to the world, at the earliest possible moment, a game
won of Mr. Morphy. It is quite evident that Deacon dared not put
forth the games while Mr. Morphy was on the spot, and while the memory
of Mr. Morphys associates was too fresh -- if, indeed, the whole
forgery
be not a late thought of Deacons. |
Although the Bulletin has not, as it would make
us believe, put an end to this strange controversy, there is one thing
which its articles on the subject have rendered most
conclusive -- one
thing which its own action has finally settled. And
that is, the
position which the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin occupies among the
Chess
columns of America. |
The Bulletin is only a branch of the Illustrated
London News, in disguise. It has sold itself to Koward Staunton,
and to Falkbeer and his wretched Chess Players Chronicle. It
is
now a traitor in our midst, doing, with a traitors industry, a
traitors
work. It stands, to-day, before the American Chess public, in all
the unenviable notoriety of having twice deliberately decided -- in
favor
of an almost unknown English player -- that Paul Morphy has written, and
caused to be published, a willful lie. This, and this only, is
what
its opinions and its language mean. It cannot, now, hide its
far-carried
animosity to Mr. Morphy behind the weak pretence that Mr. M. has
forgotten
the Deacon games. In common with the rest of the American Chess
world,
it has too much acquaintance with that Macauleian memory of his, to
entertain
any such nonsense. It knows, as well as any one, that Mr. Morphy
plays few games which he cannot recall at any time, and that he plays no
games which he would not invariably recognize at sight. This plea
of fallible memory is only a little bit of hypocritical
plausibility
on the part of Deacon. And it is, moreover, worse than
worthless.
For, if it be asserted that a memory like Morphys is so very
fallible,
how much more fallible, it must be admitted, may a common memory, like
Deacons be. Not for this reason, but for its own purposes,
the Bulletin
has taken care, in all its so freely expressed opinions, not to hint,
even,
that Mr. Morphys repudiation may have occurred, in consequence of
his
forgetfulness. It cannot, therefore, take any such ground, at this
late day. |
We shall not trouble ourselves, at present, to
search
for any very hidden reasons for the Bulletins enmity to Mr.
Morphy.
We content ourselves with the remembrance that Mr. M. has been
intimately
connected with a certain brilliant Chess writer, who used to edit the
Chess
Monthly and the column of the Saturday Press -- who originated the Chess
Congress, and imported Universal Notation -- and who once defeated the
Bulletin in a literary war -- although the latter, English like, tried
to make out that it was a drawn battle. With the
remembrance that
Mr. Morphy favors Universal Notation. With the remembrance that
Mr.
M. is one of the two players who deprived Mr. Montgomery of his
anticipated
prize in the Chess Congress. And with the remembrance that New
Orleans
is one of the two cities whose existence renders the vast pretensions of
the Hub of the Chess Universe on the highest degree ridiculous. |
New York, June 30th, 1860. |
The Spirit of the Times, New York,
1860.06.30
|
|