Chess is a scientific game and its literature ought to be placed on the basis of the strictest truthfulness, which is the foundation of all scientific research. W._Steinitz

Have We A Traitor Among Us?
Researched by Nick Pope

    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 man’s 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. Morphy’s 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. Morphy’s 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. Staunton’s 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 Koward’s 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 Koward’s 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 Bulletin’s 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. Staunton’s 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 Bulletin’s 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 Deacon’s letter as well as to Koward’s 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 doesn’t wait for Deacon to furnish his first item of evidence.  It doesn’t 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 -- Riviere’s claim to one of the games -- is all the other way.
    It may be well, in this connection, to show who is the Bulletin’s “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 Bulletin’s 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. Morphy’s 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. Morphy’s associates was too fresh -- if, indeed, the whole forgery be not a late thought of Deacon’s.
    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 Player’s Chronicle.  It is now a traitor in our midst, doing, with a traitor’s industry, a traitor’s 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 Morphy’s is so very fallible, how much more fallible, it must be admitted, may a common memory, like Deacon’s 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. Morphy’s 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 Bulletin’s 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

[Excavations] [Library] [Museum] [Journal] [Market] [Openings]
© 1999 Jacques N. Pope. All Rights Reserved.