844 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



made in the interest of economy and 

 efficiency. It is alleged that several 

 of the bureaus now duplicate one 

 another's work, partly through sheer 

 want of system and partly thi'ough 

 not knowing what one another are 

 doing. The writer, Dr. Charles W. 

 Dabney, Jr., thinks it is amazing 

 that the Government has accom- 

 plished so much excellent scientific 

 work through the agency of so un- 

 scientific an organization. The rem- 

 edy he prescribes is " a general co- 

 ordination of the scientific work of 

 the Government " ; but just what 

 would be the effect of such a co-ordi- 

 nation he does not describe further 

 than to hint tliat it would save 

 money. 



On the other hand, a writer in the 

 same journal, who signs '" Washing- 

 tonian," does not believe in Dr. Dab- 

 ney's scheme at all. He inclines 

 to the opinion that " consolidation 

 would diminish results, impair effi- 

 ciency, and do away to some degree 

 with individual responsibility." He 

 thinks that, as things are at present, 

 practical objects are better kept in 

 view and more effectually pursued 

 than they would be under a depart- 

 ment that had the whole field of sci- 

 entific investigation for its prov- 

 ince. " The chemical laboratories," 

 says Washingtonian, " being con- 

 solidated, the chief chemist would be 

 a greater man than any of his col- 

 leagues. No director of a bureau 

 could control his own chemical work. 

 With demands for particular jobs 

 from several bureaus on hand it 

 would be wholly uncertain when 

 any of them would be finished. 

 Complaints would be met by play- 

 ing off one against another. Re- 

 sponsibility, and to a large extent 

 efficiency, would be lost." 



In this dispute we are disposed to 

 hold with Washingtonian. A gen- 

 eral department of science would in 

 our opinion be altogether too vague 



in its objects, and too little governed 

 by a sense of the practical, to render 

 satisfactory service to the public. It 

 would be almost impossible to pre- 

 vent it from wandering off into 

 purely theoretical work and into all 

 the fads of specialist research, and 

 in a very few years taking up a 

 position and assuming a character 

 never contemplated when it was es- 

 tablished. We hold, moreover, that 

 it would be quite woi'th while to move 

 the previous question: whether, al- 

 ready, the Government does not en- 

 gage in various lines of scientific 

 activity which might perfectly well 

 be left to private effort. Govern- 

 ment work has this peculiarity, that 

 it is never done; just as "infant in- 

 dustries" have the peculiarity, of 

 never outgrowing the tariff bottle. 

 If a geological survey is undertaken, 

 it must go on ad infinitum. If a 

 private company had a piece of land 

 which they wanted surveyed geo- 

 logically or otherwise, and employed 

 certain persons judged to be compe- 

 tent to take the work in hand, they 

 would expect them to finish it, and 

 that within a reasonable time. They 

 would not expect them to camp ever- 

 lastingly on the ground, and never 

 hint at any finality to their alleged 

 labors. With Government work it 

 is different; it goes on for its own 

 sake, or for the sake of the salai'ies 

 connected with it ; and the rustic 

 voter who expects to see it some day 

 completed will have an experience 

 like that of the more ancient rustic, 

 who stood by the river side expect- 

 ing to see the stream run itself dry. 



What we want, of course, far 

 more than a national department of 

 science, is an intelligent and honest 

 Congress, ovit of which can be formed 

 intelligent and honest committees 

 capable of criticising the work of 

 government, and intent on reduc- 

 ing it within the limits indicated by 

 considerations of public utility. It 



