This paper is a technically, and textually, well argued defense of Tarski against John Etchemendy's harsh dismissal of Tarski's pioneering work on logical consequence and model theory. In his: The concept of logical consequence (1990; Zbl 0743.03002), \textit{J. Etchemendy} argued that Tarski gave an inaccurate account of logical consequence, committed a significant modal fallacy and used techniques which are incompatible with current model theory. On the basis of a technical reconstruction of Tarski along with a philosophically sympathetic account of Tarski's aims, the author systematically rebuts Etchemendy's charges to show that without fallacies adequately analyzed a significant notion of logical consequence and set us on the road to model theory.