( 293 ) 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
Mr. Stodder’s Defence.* 
To the Editor of the ‘ Monthly Microscopical Journal.' 
Boston, September 20, 1875. 
Sir, — Mr. Wenham having introduced my name into his letter in 
the September number of this Journal, with comments on some writing 
of mine, I claim the privilege of replying, not from any personal feel- 
ing in the matter, but that the history of the microscope object-glass 
in the third quarter of the nineteenth century may be understanding^ 
read by our successors, say in the year 1925, which it could not be if 
statements of that letter remain uncontroverted. 
Mr. Wenham writes that Mr. Stodder “ refers to me with his 
characteristic rancour as claiming arrangements belonging to others.” 
I had not before been informed that rancour was one of my charac- 
teristics. I certainly do not possess implacable personal malice, or 
stedfast hate, synonyms of rancour, to Mr. Wenham ; on the con- 
trary, I have great admiration of his ingenious mechanical and optical 
appliances for the microscope, and have given him full credit for 
them, and now feel under great obligations to him for originating the 
discussion or controversy, which has done so much to bring into notice 
both in America and Europe the merits of American workmanship. I 
am not aware that I have heretofore charged Mr. Wenham with “claim- 
ing arrangements belonging to others : ” perhaps I shall find before 
I close something like that in his last paper. I have made that charge 
against other parties, and am ready to substantiate the charge at the 
proper time. 
I have assuredly from time to time called attention to some of 
Mr. Wenham’s mistakes, misrepresentations, and instances of forget- 
fulness, endeavouring always to do so in as courteous terms and 
phrases as Mr. Wenham uses himself. Surely he will not ask me to 
select a more accomplished model. I now propose to specify without 
“rancour” those in his last lucubration of September 1. 
First, Mr. Wenham says his “ attention has been called to a letter 
from Mr. Stodder, appearing in the £ Cincinnati Medical News ’ for 
July, 1875, wherein he attempts to claim pre-eminence for Mr. Tolies, 
and asserts that all recent improvements have been taken from him.” 
There is no such letter from me in that issue of that journal ! or in 
any other to which Mr. Wenham’s remarks can truly apply. There is 
certainly a letter of mine in the May number of that periodical, 
written in consequence of some editorial observations in an earlier 
number (April, 1875), on the improvement of objectives in England, 
in which I use Mr. Tolies’ name only as a consequence of its having 
[* Our readers have by this time been fully informed on all points of this 
discussion — if so it may be termed — which Mr. Stodder has been involved in. 
"We must therefore positively decline the insertion of any further correspondence 
on this subject. — E d. 1 M. M. J.’] 
