The Latest From Grant, Douglas & Co.

Houqhton, Míen., March 15, 1880. R. A. Beal, Ksq., Ann Arbor, Michigan: Sik- I have Just now read your editorial on my review of yonr so-called "Condensed Hlsturyofthe Qreat Kobbery In Michigan Unlverslty." In that review I have potnted out oertaln particularg In wliich I have charged that your Iilstory Is absolutely untruthful. I have also made cortain other charges regardIng your tnanlpulatlons and management of the case. In your editorial only in a general way have you ventured to deny a single statement of my review, but you have met my charges with personal abuse and attacks upon in v moral chnructor. I slmll not attempt to compete with you In the matter of personal ftbnto. and uk for moral charactr, the people care nothtng for mine or yours, except In so faras lt afrects tholr interests. The people, howwer, do care for the exact facts in controversy. You have Issued a history and claim that it tstruthful. I have wrltten a review of the same, whlch you denounce as "untruthful in every sentence and syllable." Now, lf your history, so-called, bears upon lts face the stamp of truth, and my review that of untruth as you claim, it will most assuredly be for your advantage to secure as wlde a clrculation as posslble of both the history and the review, in order that the people may see and i'iimtuire the untruth wltli the truth. Accordlngly, I challenge you to request the newspapen th;it have Issued your history as a supplement, to Issue my review in the same íorm. I further challenge you to an Investigatlon of the truth of both documenta before the Board Of Recente, you to Joln with me in a reqiust taal toe mmltteeof investlgation sball contel of the inoomlng members who have had notliing to do with the controversy. If these gentlemen, of who.ne predllections on the questlons at issue I know absolutely nothing, shall deelde, upon examlnatioii of the evidence wli nli you and I shall subinlt, that your history is truthful and my review Is untruthful. I am content to ablde by thelr decisión, and hereby pledge myself, in that event, not only to cease from further agitation and dlscusslon of thls unfortunate matter, but also, as faras it may be possible, to wllhdraw my review from clrculation and todlstribute no more copies of the same. Very respectfully, etc., C. B. GRANT. The atove "open letter" toourseives we reprint from the Detroit Free Press, signed "very respeetfully " by one of the partners of Grant, Donglas & Co. In the past ue have raade almost evcry conceivable proposition to have these issues decided by others than the friends and relatives of ])r. Douglas, but they were not accepted or noticed. This "letter" contains the first and only projmsition ever made by fa in. We will not sligbt it, but treat it fairly in a business-like way. lst, We have written a "Condenced Nitory of the University Robbery," which has beenassailed and pronounced untruthful by them in fifteen counts. These, with all othtr statements therein made, we will defond before this proposed committee. Should we be un.successf'ul we will agreo to dónate to the museum of Michigan University thesum of $10,000, provided that Grant & Co. shall dónate $1,000 if they are unsuccessful, and unable to maintain their statements in regard to ibe "History," but h parties to give bonds to this end. We have no desire to sppnd the time necüs.sary in an iuvestigation of this kind and to demónstrate what we already know, OdJom somebody or sotLething is to be bencfited thereby, It is both uuneeessary and surperfluous for us to prove that the "Review" is fa'se and wicked. Every one who has the slightest knowledge of this oase needs no convincing, and without somcthing at stakc otherthan a eomparison of ourselves with Regent Grant as to trutli fulness, or hi.s proiuiae to "ceaso aaitating," it wmild lack the element to makc it in tcresting, not only to u but the pubüc gencrally. We are "ühallenged" in this "letter" to requet-t the newspapers ihat have published our "Hii-tory" todo the sarue by "Grant's Review." Aftcr the eloquent appeals and pleading lettera which they lavisbed upon the state press have failed, they apply to us to use our iüfluence to get their adverse decisions revoked. They overestimate our ability and influence. The angel Gabriel could not get them to publi--li such stuff, and we respeotfully decline tobey this modest request. The "challenge" for an investigaron by outside and disinterested partios gives us boundless eatisfaction. Put in the forfeita and bonds, (our forfeit to be ten times as mueh as yours) and we accept. You have seleeted yourown committe ; we are suited. Get them together and give us six hours notice and we will be on hand, ready to defend the " History" against all corners, and prove the utter falsity of the "Review." We accept Take notico. Put up your forfeit, and get rcady. Regent Grant Bays that we have "attacked his moral character." We did but say that his "Review" was similaioto his moral character, and he calis it "personal abuse." We made the remark suppoting the atream was like the fountain f rom which it flowed. But Regent Grant resenta having his "moral character" father his literary offspring, or compared thereto, and feels hurt and injured. No wonder. When a mao is cajled away from the activity of this life by death, it seeius as if tbe villificrs and slanderers ought to stand back and allow his memoryto rest in peaoe. The persons who will attack the rcputation of a man whom they dared not open their lips against while he was here to defend himself, show, to say the least, a mean and cowardly spirit to rake up the past after he is dead. We refer to those who, for political effect, are endeavorÍDg to bring disgrace upon the memory of the late Senator Chindler by attributing to him bribery in securing the resignation of ex-Senator Christiancy. In thefirst place Mr. Chandler had too great a reputation at stake to stoop to such petty business. In the next place Mr. Christiancy's life has been such that the bitterest political opponent has never dared to cast a reproach thereon. It doesn't staud to reason that after each had attained such eminenoe in political life that one would offer and the other accept a bribe. The story has the stamp of untruth upon the face of it, and the politicians who seek to use it for political effect, will find themselves eondemned for tlieir tblly.