42 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. ']2i 



The various points raised in reply * to Circular Letter no. 1 1 have 

 been held in mind by the Secretary in framing this Opinion, 



Duty of the Coiwnission under the Plenary Power Resolutions.^ — It 

 will be noticed that in reply to Circular Letter no. ii, the point is 

 raised that the Commission should take very seriously the responsi- 

 bility the International Congress has placed upon us and that the ex- 

 pression " where in its judgment the strict application of the Rules will 

 clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity " is advanced as the 

 standard upon which we must base our opinion ; further, also, that 

 this extraordinary Plenary Power must be exercised with the utmost 

 care and discretion. 



Incompleteness of the statement of case.^ — In respect to the State- 

 ment of Case, two points of view may be considered : 



( I ) It is clear that no Court at Law would consider that the evi- 

 dence submitted by the Appellants is presented in a manner that 

 permits a fair judicial consideration of these cases. The Commission 

 is practically a Court that should decide questions on basis of the 

 evidence submitted, but it has a right to insist that this evidence 

 shall be reasonably complete in order to enable the Commission to 

 consider the cases from every essential point of view. From this 

 standpoint, the Commission would be justified in declining to con- 



5. If only a matter of convenience is involved, is this convenience of suffi- 

 ciently far reaching importance to justify a suspension of the Rules? 



6. If it is your " Opinion " that " greater confusion than uniformity " would 

 result, does this apply to all of the names or only to certain of them? 



7. Have the signers of the Seventh List submitted evidence that the appli- 

 cation of the Rules in these cases would clearly result in greater confusion 

 than uniformity, and is this evidence sufficient to justify favorable action on 

 the part of the Commission? 



8. Is the Secretary correct in accepting the genotypes suggested by Com- 

 missioner Apstein, or should the Secretary, as a precautional measure, request 

 that these genotypes be confirmed by the other signers of the Seventh List? 



9. Would the suspension of the Rules in these six cases involve an action 

 sufficiently conservative to show that the Commission is using the Plenary 

 Power with caution, or would it be sufficiently radical to indicate that the 

 Commission invites a general suspension of the Rules in cases where con- 

 venience only is involved ? 



10. Do you consider all of the six names equal in importance from the stand- 

 point of the suspension of the Rules, or should a distinction be made among 

 them? 



11. Is evidence submitted that any of the names come under paragraph 3 

 (115). If so, for which names? 



* The replies were copied and transmitted to the Commissioners, but it is 

 not necessary to print them with the Opinion. 

 ° See p. 38, Statement of Case. 



