PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS. 



THE BEGINNINGS OF LIFE FROM THE VIEW POINT OF A 



BACTERIOLOGIST. 



Charles E. Marshall. ♦ 



At the very outset, one diversive thought appeals to me for recognition. 

 In an untechnical or popular development of a general conception or idea 

 such as is designed in this address, evidence which provides substantiation 

 can only be inferred, and cannot be subjected to a satisfactory-^ and critical 

 review. This feature will cause a mental jolt to the investigator who would 

 seek the basis for every statement, but, on the other hand, it has been planned 

 to deal with an audience of general scientific training, rather than specialists 

 who are more or less thoroughly familiar with the material which we have 

 to offer. 



In undertaking to consider "The Beginnings of Life,"' I find it pertinent 

 and desirable to recall, very briefly and generally, some historical thoughts, 

 lest I be misunderstood in my effort to cast some light on the problem as- 

 signed me. I have no wish to discuss such intangible subjects as the creation 

 of life, but rather to state some of the fundamental principles concerning 

 the life which has ah-eady been furnished, to trace that life in its simplest 

 manifestations as it is suggested by the branch of science called bacteriology; 

 for, is it not true, that whatever knowledge science may provide in any of its 

 Ijranches, such knowledge is useful in every branch? I shall seek upon 

 this occasion to have this discussion present a setting in the times, the life, and 

 the thoughts of Darwin. 



So firmly bound together were religion and science, especially in this 

 theme, "The Beginnings of Life," fifty years ago, that the one could scarcely 

 be considered without prejudice, unless the other was, to some degree, 

 involved. The ideas were indissoluble. The church had permitted its arms, 

 amoeba-like, to gradually reach out and incorporate everything within 

 itself, and had begun the process of assimilation, when it was shocked by 

 a morsel, poisonous to it, which would not yield to absorption; consec^uently, 

 its arms flowed back to discharge the effete matter — in this instance, the 

 morsel was science. This check has redounded creditably, however, to 

 each — religion and science. They both have grown more glorious and 

 wholesome with the passing of years, the church, from its "Middle Ages" 

 decadence, and science, from its superstition and haphazard practices. 



Courage in conviction, time for adjustment, and patience in action were 

 required to bring to an end this bloodless revolution — a revolution of thought 

 fought by means of scientific facts on the one hand, and a demagogery of 

 the church on the other. The strife is largeh' over, and all church men and 

 scientists, alike, are enjoying the results of the outcome. As we turn our 



