180 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



better than two. The mistake is especially to be regretted because the 

 eminent committee in question has previously acted with so' much wisdom 

 and ability. 



It seems to me that by far the most important questions which have 

 been raised in the whole discussion are the questions of uniformity and 

 permanence of usage. These were indeed the prime objects of the foun- 

 dation of the German Committee in the first place. Nothing could be 

 more destructive to accurate calculation than a changeable standard of 

 measurement ; and yet this very uncertainty marks the present state of 

 affairs. 



I cannot but think that every one should accept the standard of refer- 

 ence upon which any considerable majority of representative chemists 

 agree, since the matter is rather a question of convenience than a ques- 

 tion of principle. In the first place I preferred O = 16.000 primarily 

 because so much valuable work, both in analytical and in physical chem- 

 istry, has already been calculated upon this basis, and because of the 

 effect of a possible change in the oxygen-hydrogen ratio. At pres- 

 ent a still more important reason for preferring this standard exists, 

 namely the action of the International Committee, consisting of some of 

 the most prominent chemists of many countries, appointed for the ex- 

 press purpose of voting upon this question. This Committee, by a large 

 majority, decided to call oxygen exactly 16.000. I cannot avoid the 

 belief that until a yet more representative body of chemists is appointed 

 by international co-operation, or until the present committee reconsiders 

 its vote in parliamentary fashion, the present verdict of this committee 

 should rule the chemical world. Unless chemists are prepared to ac- 

 cept such a ruling, the appointment of an international committee is a 

 waste of time. 



Representative government in civil affairs would be impossible if the 

 minority refused to act in accordance with the decision of the majority. 

 Does not the same principle apply to scientific rulings ? Of course 

 intelligent discussion is always desirable — the restriction applies to 

 action and not to speech. Before the action of the International Com- 

 mittee the situation might have been called one of scientific barbarism. 

 but at present it may be called one of scientific rebellion. 



Formerly new determinations of atomic weights made at Harvard 

 were expressed in publication both upon the basis O = 16.000 and 

 upon the basis O = 15.879, because the question had not been decided 

 by representative vote. In future, out of respect to the action of the 

 International Committee, only the former standard will be used iu this 



