SOCIKTY AI^FAIRS 579 



such a system nomination might easily become equivalent to election. 

 The committee does not wish to be understood, in this connection, as 

 criticising the Executive Council ; the criticism is aimed at the system 

 and the object of this statement is to suggest a remedy. 



Under the circumstances, there was apparently no escape from the 

 constitutional alternative of nomination by petition, even though we 

 believed the method was open to serious question. A list of thirty 

 names was, therefore, circulated, suggesting nominations by petition ; 

 this list included, it was believed, a majority of those whom the 

 membership would be inclined to consider as eligible for Fellow. As 

 a result of this activity, four additional Senior Members were nom- 

 inated. Since that time at least nine others have been nominated 

 upon the initiative of other individuals or units of the Society. 



With this large list of nominees before us, question now arises as to 

 what we are going to do about it, and how we are going to vote. Prob- 

 ably all agree that the standard set by the six men who have so far 

 been elected is very high and that comparatively few, if any, of the 

 present list of nominees can honestly be said to have attained the same 

 standard of excellence. It is, therefore, a question of either deciding 

 that no more Fellows will be elected or else modifying the standard 

 which was indicated by the first election. We believe that few in the 

 Society are in favor of refusing to elect additional Fellows ; it is, how- 

 ever, very difficult to prescribe any standard of excellence for the grade 

 of Fellow which is not subject to a great many interpretations. In 

 the application of any standards adopted, hardly any two men will 

 agree. It is, therefore, hardly worth while to attempt to define more 

 closely the qualifications of Senior Members eligible for election to 

 Fellow. 



As we see it, the objects the Society had in establishing the grade of 

 Fellow are twofold : First, to afford a recognition of exceptional merit 

 and high attainment, and second, to make the individual more useful 

 to the profession by giving him the additional prestige inherent in an 

 honorary title such as Fellow. To attain these objects, the number of 

 Fellows must obviously be restricted. 



It is our suggestion that the situation be met by amending the 

 Constitution to provide for : 



1. An annual vote on Fellows. 



2. A maximum of two Senior Members (instead of ten, as at 

 present) to be elected in any one year. 



