COMMITTEES ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT 263 
since, to question the usefulness of the process, and I therefore continued its use 
until the Bureau was closed and work on the fractional currency stopped... . . 
“ Professor Henry has recently procured additional sheets of water-proofed 
and not water-proofed paper for the purpose of further testing the matter. 
“ On the first instant [March 1, 1876] I requested him, by letter, to have the 
report of the commission made as soon as practicable, it having already been 
delayed a considerable time.” °° 
The committee of the House of Representatives was not 
satisfied with these answers and on May 2, 1876, called for all 
the papers in the case, the real state of which then became mani- 
fest. The report of the committee of the Academy had been 
finished and sent to the Secretary of the Treasury on April 29, 
1876, who transmitted it with the other papers.’ Professor 
Hilgard’s memorandum was also included. 
From these papers it appears that Professor Hilgard had 
changed his opinion regarding the water-proofing process on 
account of the results of certain experiments made by Pro- 
fessor Morton, and had affixed his signature to a report deny- 
ing the value of the process instead of affirming it, as he had 
done in his memorandum. In the meantime, Professor Henry 
had made certain experiments, as indicated above, and had 
reached the conclusion that the committee had not proved that 
the process was worthless. He therefore returned the report 
with the request that the committee would reconsider its decision. 
This the committee found itself unable to do and Professor 
Henry then transmitted the report to the Secretary of the 
Treasury, but attached a note to it expressing his own convictions 
in the matter. 
The Secretary of the Treasury had secured an independent 
favorable opinion from Prof. John M. Ordway. It followed 
therefore, that Hilgard, Morton, Chandler, and Sellers were not 
in favor of the continuance of the use of the process, while Henry 
and Ordway regarded it as valuable, or at least were not con- 
vinced of its worthlessness. 
TL (ah tn ity 
“Tt forms part of House Misc. Doc. no. 163, part 2, pp. 22-28, 44th Congress, rst Session. 
