( 228 ) 

 COREESPONDENCE. 



Mr. Stodder's Eeply to Mr. Wenham. 



To the Editor of the ^Monthly Microscopiml Journal.' 



Boston, ilirch 13, 1874. 



Sir, — Mr. Wenham having " come out of tlie shell " which con- 

 cealed his anonymous informant, who " told him that the objective 

 performs best with a cover y-th of an inch thick," refers to Dr. Wood- 

 ward's letter in the August number of this Journal. This is the 

 authority that I expected that Mr. Wenham would rely on, if he gave 

 any (for I thought it barely possible that he might read the letter 

 again before he replied to my question, and then see that it would 

 be best to retract j, but I had no right to assume that that letter was 

 his authority. 



Now, Mr. Editor, if you and your readers will refer to the letter, 

 you can see that Dr. Woodward told him nothing of the kind. There 

 is nothing in Dr. Woodward's letter to authorize any such interpreta- 

 tion. Dr. Woodward does say that the objective " performs admirably " 

 with such a cover ; but he does not say that it does not perform 

 admirably also with other thickness of cover. The word " best " is 

 an interpolation of Mr. Wenham's, and on that little word turns the 

 whole tirade of Mr. Wenham. 



And this is a fair average specimen of all that Mr. Wenham has 

 written about this objective since it was put into his hands. 



Personalities were introduced by Mr. Wenham himself, and I 

 commend his remarks and quotation on p. 112 of this volume to his 

 own study, they do not touch me. He reminds me of the boy by the 

 road side throwing stones at the passers by, who when the lash is 

 applied to his back cries out, " You let me alone." 



Although Mr. Wenham says that my letter in the February 

 number needs no further reply than that, yet he adds a foot-note 

 of reply of twice the length of the text, which I cannot pass without 

 notice. He says, " My ex2:)lanations concerning this object-glass have 

 brought invective from Mr. Stoddcr. In his eagerness to attribute 

 dishonesty of intention to me, he overlooks the fact that the extra- 

 neous question of performance may bo set at rest." I deny and 

 repudiate the charge of " invective," or attribution " of dishonesty 

 of intention " against Mr. Wenham ; I also deny that he has made any 

 explanation of his statements about that glass. He has made certain 

 statements of fact as to its performance, which have now been fully 

 contradicted ; yet he neither explains or retracts any one of them. 

 He has made numerous — well say mistakes — I will acquit him of 

 "dishonesty of intention"; but let me remind him of a mot of Talley- 

 rand, " A blunder is worse than a crime." That the question of the 

 performance of that objective " so rashly sent by Mr. Tolles " is 

 extraneous to the scientific question that Mr. Wenham and others have 

 been discussing is self-evident ; but Mr. Wenham must thank himself 

 for unnecessarily introducing it. Having introduced it, and in the 

 anner he did, he must take the consequences. Having attacked 



