Editor's Table [pp. 285-288]

EDITOR'S TABLE.
been fostered and increased by the exhalations of the
grave-yard.
7. Chadwick's report to parliament shows conclusively,
that very deleterious effects have resulted from inter menets in London. Where should cemeteries be? Is it
not certain that they should not be in Cincinnati? Fre quent and superficial interments within the limits of a
city of narrow streets, and scorching sun, and crowded
population! 0, horrible! Is not the idea shocking to
a feeling and sensible man? Are not the probable con sequences appalling?
Our cemeteries, however, may be made a means of
health, instead of disease. Let the corporation pur chase them, and after the dead are removed, ornament
them with trees and shrubbery, and keep them as places
of innocent recreation and amusement, and reservoirs
of pure air. If it be not thought expedient to disinter,
let interments within the corporation limits cease, and
the grave-yards be surrounded with ornamental fences.
But the decay of animal matter in slaughter-houses
and candle-factories, is to be dreaded as well as the pu trefaction of the grave. Portions of our city are be coming excessively offensive from this source. Shall we
ever renew the scenes of Paris, in the time of Napo leon, when such nuisances were removed at a woful ex pense of human health and life?
MESMERISM, ETC.
JMt. Vernon, Jutne 21, 1845.
Dear Doctor,-It affords me high gratification to see
the "Repository" all we have a right to look for in
such a work; yet, I must add, not more than I did look
for on the appointment of its present editor. Each
number has been excellent, and the "last is (I do think)
the best." I have looked through it pretty carefully,
and have read several pieces. Brownsoso's Address is
clear, and full of good sense well expressed. Mrs. Dumrnont is a stately and elegant writer. I have not read
M'Cabe. The "Forest" is beautiful; but I have lost
my relish for the muses to such a degree that I have
little confidence in my judgment in the poetic department. "Farewell to my Brother" is touching.
I had a hearty laugh at the way you skin Miss Martineau in the May number. I confess, however, that the
delight I felt at your acumen and wit was mingled with
some pain at the thought that you were in error; and I
feel so sensitive of your honor and reputation, that I
could wish you never to pen an article that posterity
will condemn. For myself, I have little doubt but you
will live to confess the truth of what you now ridicule
as absurd and unfounded. You profess to hear facts
from the "scientific;" but you must pardon me for saying I doubt whether facts affirmed by any one or many
would convince you at present. It occurred to me, as I
read your piece, that there are two states of mind unfavorable to the investigation of truth-blind credulity
and stubborn skepticism. You will agree with me that,
on this subject, you incline to the latter.
An argument you use in the case of the maid, who
you think was "often plus when the Mesmerizer was
minus," is a sweeper, and could easily be applied to the
"scientific" as well as others, unless science were always a proof of veracity. "Which is most likely," the
person saw these strange things, or "told a falsehood?"
Little as I have seen, I could affirm facts which you
could dispose of in no other way than by a denial of ve
racity, or the assumption of a. guessing power equally
wonderful as Mesmerism itself.
In communication with a man in Mansfield, he affirm ed that, at my father's, in a certain room, alone, a young
woman was crying over a picture. Three weeks after, I
found that, at the same hour and day, and in the de signated room, N. was weeping over a map, while
looking for the residence of her husband, who had de serted her a year before, and from whomn she had the
day previous received a letter. Now, it is possible, I ad mit, that the young woman might state a falsehood to
fulfill the guess of a man she never heard of, and to de ceive me; but is it likely? And could the man know,
when he made so strange a guess, that any one would
help him out thus? I have several cases equally singu lar. But a truce to this matter. I shall take no offense
if you bring out against the queer "critter" all the bat tering rams in your queer cranium. Moreover, I found
an apology in the fact that your city was infested with a
set of worthless experimenters for gain, befooling thous ands out of their time and money, "deceiving and being
deceived;" and it was difficult to arrest the evil ano ad mit the truth. Indeed, if you had faith in it, it would
do harm to your reputation to let it be known; while to
ridicule may detract from your future influence; so it is
much like a porcupine-a dangerous critter to handle.
Now for the editorials. I was delighted with your
piece on the beloved Bigelow. One inaccuracy, which
many will probably notice-he never wept. He often
remarked in the pulpit, "I was never a man of tears."
But the perspiration, which flowed so copiously down
his face, might be easily mistaken for tears. In all other
respects I can endorse your description of that great
man. And when you place him upon the lofty pyramid
of his argument, with "heaven's own light around him,"
your imagery is worthy of the subject. Write on.
Your Editorial Table I read with interest; but must
close this matter by merely saying, that as the great
drouth this season has been generally fatal to bees, it is
no small satisfaction that one of our editors is supplied
with " Honey." (G.
In publishing the above extract from a private letter,
we take a liberty and ask forgiveness. The concern expressed for the editor's reputation is explained by assuring our readers that the writer is our David-sive his
Jonathan. Brother G.'s faith is stronger than ours; for
he thinks we shall live to confess "the truth of what we
now ridicule as absurd and unfounded," by which he
means the Mesmerism of Miss M., &c. If we had space
we could weaken this faith. He may be assured that we
will receive, with thanksgiving, facts well authenticated,
from any quarter; though we would prefer to get them
through scientific observers, like himself. In regard to
our state of mind, we disagree with our friend, thinking
we are right exactly, equidistant from blind credulity
and stubborn skepticism, disinclined to either extreme.
We feel a comfortable consciousness of moral fitness to
examine all such cases. Our correspondent is welcome
to apply our "sweeper" to the scientific as well as others. In examining any testimony to outre things, we are
wont to balance probabilities. But "the fact"-we
make our humble bow to it. It was a coincidence somewhat curious-not very. In a hundred throws, it would
be strange if a few dice did not turn up fortunately, especially if the sharper had been sticking hog's bristles
in them, or loading them with quicksilver.
288