Course of Instruction W. W. Turner It was our original intention as the conductors of the "American Annals" to avoid all controversies of a personal nature and carefully to exclude attacks upon individuals under whatever pretence they might be made. At the same time we felt ourselves bound to publish the views of others on all matters pertaining to the deaf and dumb, although differing from our own views on the same subjects. By pursuing this course, we hoped to elicit much important truth on the one hand, and on the other to do equal justice to all, and give cause of complaint to none. We supposed we had succeeded in carrying out this original design in a manner satisfactory to all interested, until; we received the communication from Dr. Peet of the New York Institution, published in the last number of the Annals. Nor have we yet been able to discover in what respect we have deviated from the prescribed course. In our article in the January number which produced such a remarkable sensation in the mind of the Doctor, there was not the most distant allusion to himself, to his institution or to his books. We had received the impression from his reports and from other sources that he had in some respects departed widely from the French system; and that he had claimed with no little satisfaction, improvements for the New York school which would place him above the suspicion of appearing as the champion of that system; and which would render our objections to it less applicable to the New York, than to the Hartford Institution. We were surprised therefore, at receiving a communication from him on the subject; and still more so on becoming acquainted with its extraordinary character. We could scarcely believe that the Doctor could so forget his enviable position as head of the New York school, as to descend to the tricks of a political scribbler; or so far compromit his dignity and sense of propriety as to exhibit the unfairness and bad temper which characterize his article. As an old and tried friend of Dr. Peet we expected from him the consideration and courtesy common among friends; and that if the positions assumed by us in our article were untenable, or the doctrines advanced were unsound, he would show it in a manner calculated to expose our errors and promote the cause of truth, and at the same time in a spirit of candor and conciliation. We were not prepared for the sneers and insinuations designed to make the impression that we are incapable of writing anything correctly; and that the cause of education has nothing to expect from one whose productions are distinguished only for "crudeness of thought," "negligence of expression," "confusion" and want of perspicuity. Above all we were surprised at the Doctor's modesty in sending us his complimentary artic1e to be published in our journal, requesting us to inform the public that in his opinion we are in point of capacity and intelligence, considerably below par. As the Doctor had never before contributed so much as a single line to our columns, we could not consent to deprive [End Page 40] others of the benefit of his lucubrations, however they might reflect upon us. But we shall not break friendship with him, nor give him up yet. We certainly have not been struck dumb by his arguments, nor petrified by his exposure of our ignorance. We have still somewhat to say in our own defence. We propose, therefore, to analyze the Doctor's article, and to show that his attack upon us was unprovoked, captious and unfair; that his criticisms are puerile and his arguments of little weight; and that the whole is characterized by a bad spirit, appearing very much like the breaking out of some old concealed grudge, or the hasty expression of a recent provocation. In the first place we will just glance at the Doctor's criticisms in the commencement of his article. How these verbal criticisms can have any bearing upon the matter at issue, or answer any useful purpose except to show off the Doctor's erudition, we have not...