752 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



scientific co-laborers lias been unques- 

 tioned. 



Moreover, those best acquainted 

 with Prof. Tyndall know that his soli- 

 citude in doing justice to his scientific 

 brethren, as evinced in difficult circum- 

 stances, is so earnest as to be almost 

 morbid. No man is freer from petty 

 jealousies, or the narrowing influence 

 of national bias, than he. Attaching a 

 serious meaning to the common senti- 

 ment that "science is of no country," 

 he has stemmed the violent currents 

 of local feeling in his own, and aimed 

 to be just and generous to foreigners 

 when their claims have been depreci- 

 ated by British scientists. This is per- 

 fectly understood by all who are famil- 

 iar with recent scientific controversy. 

 His championship of the German May- 

 er, the Savoyard Rendu, and the Amer- 

 ican Agassiz, when their rights as 

 discoverers were denied by his own 

 countrymen, showed the breadth of 

 his sympathies and the strength of his 

 sense of justice. Nor is it improper 

 here to add that he came to this coun- 

 try to help on the work of science, 

 moved by no low or sordid considera- 

 tions. He resisted social solicitations 

 in a way that was not a little misinter- 

 preted, that he might do the work he 

 had undertaken in the best manner ; 

 and contributed all that he got from 

 half a year's hard labor to assist in the 

 scientific education of worthy young 

 men of this country for whose special 

 aid there had been, hitherto, no provi- 

 sion. 



We submit that these consider- 

 ations should have been sufficient to 

 protect Prof. Tyndall from the gross 

 assault in the Nation, which could not 

 be replied to until a sensation-seek- 

 ing press had scattered the calumnious 

 charges from one end of the country to 

 the other. ' Something, we say again, 

 was due to character, that should have 

 prevented the diffusion of such asper- 

 sions until they had been thoroughly 

 looked into, and the party most con- 

 cerned had been consulted. We appeal 



to every candid reader, if it would not 

 have been a fairer proceeding for the 

 editor to have sent the article to Prof. 

 Tyndall, if he thought it worth atten- 

 tion, and to have asked him what it 

 meant, that the defense might have 

 accompanied the attack, had he still 

 thought the matter proper for publica- 

 tion. 



The case has now assumed a differ- 

 ent aspect. The anonymous writer in 

 the Nation has recently rehashed and 

 amplified his statement, put his name 

 to it, and published it in the New York 

 Tribune. It is noteworthy that, while 

 the writer announces himself to have 

 been an assistant of Prof. Henry, he 

 recognizes the necessity of disavowing 

 all complicity on the part of that gen- 

 tleman in these assaults upon Tyndall. 

 It would have been well if this had 

 been thought of a little earlier ; and 

 there is no reason for. the disclaimer 

 now that should not have impelled 

 Prof. Henry to protect himself from 

 misapprehension, by following the pub- 

 lication of the article in the Nation by 

 a prompt statement of the fact that he 

 had nothing whatever to do with it. 



With the larger portion of the com- 

 munication to the Tribune we have no 

 concern, as its four closely-printed col- 

 umns are chiefly occupied in trumping 

 up new and petty imputations against 

 Prof. Tyndall that are wholly unworthy 

 of notice. Borrowing a hint from the 

 tactics of our political canvass, the 

 writer seems to think that the way to 

 substantiate one charge is to pile up 

 more. But the case, as now even more 

 fully presented, has not a leg to stand 

 upon. In fact, the writer has put an 

 end to it himself by attempting to give 

 his proofs. We have s:iid that the arti- 

 cle in the Nation made charges without 

 giving the evidence ; that evidence is 

 now forthcoming, and, as we shall see, 

 instead of sustaining, refutes the charges 

 and explodes the case. 



Prof. Tyndall had said in his book 

 on " Sound " that Dr. Derham's paper, 

 published in 1708, and which contains 



