The latter part of the letter is in questionable taste. As though Mr. S. had acquired any right to misrepresent facts, publish misstatements, and deny reparation, on account of "having set his (M.'s) blindfold and other chess-exploits before the public in the most advantageous light."
By so doing, Mr. Staunton merely fulfilled his editorial duty; for the entire chess world was on the qui vive after Morphy's exploits. His games were being published throughout Europe, to the exclusion of nearly all others, and surely Mr. S. could not allow his paper to be behind other journals. But he knew full well that, after the first fortnight or three weeks, Mr. Morphy never gave him a single partie, being hurt at the ungenerous treatment evinced towards him in the notes. Mr. Staunton was using the columns of an influential journal to crush a dangerous opponent, and, at the time he penned the above letter, he well knew that Paul Morphy resented from the first such unfairness, and had positively forbidden any of his games to be sent to him.
Mr. Staunton makes reference, in conclusion, to "very ill advisers." I suppose I must take this mainly to myself, more particularly as it is not the first time of his using the expression during the discussion. Without attempting to defend myself, I would say to Mr. Staunton: "I can reconcile it with my sense of honor and honesty, to impute to you a wilful suppression of the paragraph so frequently referred to. Had you given that paragraph, you would, per force, have been obliged to give your reasons for the assertion therein contained. And I would remind you, sir, that, in all this discussion, you have never touched the real point at issue—never apologized for the misstatement of which Mr. Morphy complains with so much cause. Paul Morphy is acquainted with the reason for that misstatement, but he has never evinced a desire to force you to state it publicly. He can afford to be generous."
It may be cause of regret to some that the match between these two athletæ did not take place. Such a contest would not have afforded any test of comparison, inasmuch as Mr. Staunton is not now the player he was eight or ten years ago. But an infallible test exists by which to judge of their respective merits—viz. their games. "By their fruits ye shall know them."
MORAL.
Mr. Staunton's weakness was want of sufficient courage to say, "He is stronger than I." Löwenthal said it before his match with Morphy was finished; Mr. Boden openly avowed his inferiority, as also Mr. Bird, and many other eminent players. And Saint Amant, in Paris, led the young hero up the steps of the throne, and seated him beside Labourdonnais, proclaiming, "Voiçi notre maitre à nous tous." Had Mr. Staunton so done, he would merely have anticipated the verdict of posterity, and honored himself in the eyes of his countrymen and the world.
FOOTNOTES:
[C] CAPTAIN KENNEDY'S OPINION OF PAUL MORPHY.
To the Editor of the Era:
Sir,—As I understand that Mr. Morphy contemplates another visit to England before his return to America, will you permit me, through your columns, respectfully to suggest to the chess community of this country the propriety of offering him a public entertainment, together with some adequate testimonial which may serve to mark our sense of his transcendent ability as a chess player; and also our appreciation of him as a chivalrous, high-spirited, and honorable man—a character which I hope Englishmen know how to value far more than even any amount of skill at chess.
Should this proposal take any definite shape, I shall be happy to be allowed to contribute £5 towards its accomplishment.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
A. A. Kennedy.
Bath, Jan. 1, 1859.