INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT. 3 



have been good enougli to ask me why I have so carefully abstained 

 from taking any part in arch^ebiological controversy and in the work 

 upon which it has been based. My apology is this. From the 

 very first it was clear to me, that no ordinary investigator in science 

 could hope to approach this subject successfully, unless by his ante- 

 cedents and present opportunities alike he were specially trained for 

 the work. This view was more deeply impressed upon my mind 

 after the publication of Professor Tyndall's lectures on " Dust in 

 Relation to Disease," and other kindred topics. Obviously it was 

 necessary to be armed at all points. One must not only have been 

 well versed in the modern methods of physiological research, but 

 must also, in addition to the possession of a competent knowledge of 

 Zoology and Botany, have done special work in the laboratory of 

 the physicist in combination with that very difficult manipulative 

 toil which is known only to those who work with the smallest objec- 

 tive glasses. If any one doubts the extreme caution necessary to 

 the worker employing high powers, let him carefully read Dr. 

 Royston-Pigott's paper " On Microscopical Researches in High 

 Power Definition," recently published in the " Royal Society's Pro- 

 ceedings." To those of us who commenced investigating more than 

 thirty years ago, such an expose of the difficulties of a correct inter- 

 pretation of facts observed is very significant. For my own part, I 

 take positive comfort in the reflection that I have rarely had occa- 

 sion to work with objectives higher than the \6y ^ oi an inch. In 

 the matter of Archebiosis, I felt all along that the germ theory of 

 disease and the bacterium hypothesis were in the hands of advocates 

 specially fitted for the task of controversy. It was, in fact, a war 

 of giants, and I said to myself : " Let the giants fight it out ; I for 

 one will not venture to enter the lists." How hot the contest became 

 in relation to the etiology of febrile and other diseased conditions is 

 well known to the medical profession. Thus, one of the profes- 

 sional warriors — a former President of this Club, and certainly one 

 of the most skilled microscopists this country has ever produced ; 

 who disputes the importance of bacteria considered as cause of 

 disease — thus writes concerning the treatment his views received at 

 the hands of another eminent savant. Dr. Beale says :^ — " Afiecta- 

 tion of excessive caution in giving an opinion upon a scientific 

 question may shield a philosopher suffering from confusion of 

 thought, but all the interest connected with the discussion of this 

 subject disappears, if an authority, after a full study of the matter, 



