CORRESPONDENCE. 
204 
been used by the editor. The paper cannot be fully understood except 
in connection with the prior editorial. 
This paper in the May number is possibly the foundation for the 
text of Mr. Wenliam’s discourse ; but why such a mistake in the date? 
I will now take up seriatim Mr. Wenham’s misrepresentations of 
that paper, supposing it to be the one subject to his criticisms, know’- 
ing of no other to which they can possibly apply. 
“ Mr. Tolies is there boldly put forth as the maker of the best 
objectives in the world.” Nothing from me in the paper that will 
bear such an interpretation. The editor had said in the April article 
on object-glasses, “ that since the superiority of R. B. Tolies’, of 
Boston, new four-system lenses has been demonstrated, the distin- 
guished English makers of objectives are abandoning their old formulas 
and instituting new ones.” My paper used Mr. Tolies’ name only, as 
a necessity after that remark. 
When I put forth the claim attributed to me it must be supported 
by such evidence as will be satisfactory to Mr. Wenham himself, and 
to the next generation of microscopists. 
“ It is imputed that Messrs. Powell and Lealand have based their 
recent improvements on the fact of having seen Mr. Tolies’ ^th. . . . 
I am in a position to say that they have not copied.” 
I did not “ impute ” or “ insinuate ” that that highly respectable 
firm, wliose work is the admiration of two continents, had “ copied.” * 
I did say that their new j— inch glass was made after seeing the Tolies’ 
l-th, and I knew nearly a year before it was exhibited at the exhibition 
of the Royal Microscopical Society that it was promised. 
“ And further .... that they also considered that much-vaunted 
object-glass not a subject for imitation.” Neither do I ! That £tli 
possesses a peculiar characteristic, which has not been repeated in the 
same degree in any one of the kind that I have seen, made since, 
a characteristic in regal’d to which there is a difference of opinion 
among experts, one, however, that was specified by a late writer in 
England as proof positive of the surpassing excellence of a certain 
object-glass of Andrew Ross. 
Messrs. Powell and Lealand can learn my estimation of their work 
by referring to the very paper in the May number of the ‘ Cincinnati 
Medical News.’ If they thank Mr. Wenham for his championship, so 
be it. 
“ The four-system combination is claimed by Mr. Tolies as his 
invention.” Never ; Mr. Tolies has made no such claim. He was 
perfectly aware — perhaps before Mr. Wenham — that A. Ross had 
made four-system objectives. It does not follow, however, that he 
made the same combinations. 
“ That in which one single front lens works both wet and dry is 
not copied from America.” Does Mr. Wenham make that denial of 
his own knowledge ? I repeat and insist on the statement as made in 
* It would be as impossible for them to copy that ^th as it would be for 
Mr. Tolies to copy any one of the many objectives of their make which have been 
shown to him, without taking it entirely apart, dissecting it, i. e. destroying it. 
