8 4 4 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



"fly" or rack which takes the sheet and 

 inverts it upon the receiving-table. After 

 leaving the fly, the sheets, as they are piled 

 a hundred or two deep, are attracted to each 

 other, so much so that more than ordinary 

 force is necessary to remove one sheet from 

 another. The pile of printed matter, as 

 placed by the fly on the receiving-table, 

 should be evenly and neatly placed, but be- 

 cause of this difficulty it is left at all sorts 

 of angles. The result is, that not more than 

 one half the work can be accomplished 

 that might otherwise be done. My own ob- 

 servation of the matter leads me to the fol- 

 lowing conclusions : 1. That the electricity 

 is generated by some paper in greater force 

 than by others, sized and calendered book- 

 paper proving the most troublesome. 2. 

 That the paper, if wet, causes an instant so- 

 lution of the trouble. 3. That experiments 

 tried, such as connecting the wooden fly with 

 gas or water mains, by means of a good 



conductor, covering the receiving-table with 

 a metal surface and wiring this to conduct- 

 ors, or connecting different parts of the 

 press when in motion by wire connections, 

 with the hope of neutralizing the positive 

 and negative currents, have all failed, and 

 in the language of the foreman of one of 

 our largest printing establishments, " We 

 must keep our temper, and endure the an- 

 noyance till science comes to our aid," by 

 a practical solution of the problem, we mean 

 a solution subject to the following condi- 

 tions: We can't afford to hire a boy to 

 make adjustments for the escape of the 

 nuisance. We can't wet a book paper with- 

 out ruining it. We can't have the " fly " of 

 iron rather than of wood, as that would 

 make it too heavy. With these conditions, 

 can you, Mr. Editor, give us help, and do 

 the printers a service ? 



A. W. Bacheleu. 

 Manchester, New Hampshire, Feb. 20, 1882. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



GOLD WIN SMITH ON SCIENTIFIC 

 MORALITY. 



AMONG all subjects now undergo- 

 ing investigation there is, per- 

 haps, none so important as that of the 

 relation of science to morality ; and 

 hence every real contribution to it, 

 however apparently slight, should be 

 cordially welcomed. But it is not the 

 easiest of subjects to deal with. The 

 number of those qualified for the origi- 

 nal elucidation of scientific ethics is not 

 great ; traditional opinions resist revis- 

 ion, and there is a wide-spread jeal- 

 ousy of science which resents its en- 

 trance into this sphere of thought as 

 a needless and a dangerous intrusion. 

 This often gives rise to a one-sided- 

 ness and an unfairness in controversy 

 that are greatly to be regretted. The 

 argument of Professor Goldwin Smith, 

 which we republish, notwithstanding 

 the ability with which it is written, is 

 open to this objection. We give it in 

 full as a first-rate representation of the 

 " other side " (which we have been ac- 

 cused of neglecting), but it can not be 

 suffered to pass without some emphatic 

 protest. 



In the first place, there seems a mis- 

 leading element in Professor Smith's 

 question-title. It would naturally be 

 inferred that the paper is an inquiry 

 into the validity and adequacy of a code 

 of morals scientifically based ; but this 

 is not so. The writer does not ask, 

 "Is science competent to elucidate the 

 grounds and determine the principles 

 of morality ? " nor, " Is there such a 

 thing as a valid science of ethics ? " nor, 

 even, " Vhat is the relation of science 

 to morality ? " but be asks, " Has sci- 

 ence yet found a new basis for morali- 

 ty ? " The implication here is, that sci- 

 ence has been hunting after something 

 of questionable existence, and now 

 claims to have found it, and offers it 

 as a new foundation of morals. This 

 conveys a wholly wrong impression of 

 the nature of ethical science. Pro- 

 fessor Smith might as well have asked, 

 " Has science yet found a new basis 

 for combustion ? " The answer will, of 

 course, depend upon what is meant by 

 a " new basis " ; but any answer only 

 raises the further question, " What has 

 science really done in regard to the phe- 

 nomena of combustion ? " To this we 



