CORRESPONDENCE. 
297 
tradesmen, I ordered from you, and also urged the Maryland Academy 
of Sciences, Microscopical Section, to do the same. But your conduct 
is alike in both cases, and reflects no credit on your house. 
“ I leave this letter open that the gentleman delivering it may 
know its contents and demand an answer. 
“ Respectfully, &c., 
“ Christopher Johnston, M.D. 
“Mr. L. Beneche, Berlin, Prussia.” 
The Proposed Medal. 
To the Editor of the ‘ Monthly Microscopical Journal .’ 
Montpelier Place, Brighton, October 8, 1S75. 
Sir, — I am obliged to F.R.M.S., who, in your issue for the present 
month, has drawn attention to my proposal of a prize medal for 
objectives showing the best histological work. It is true we differ 
widely upon the subject as yet ; nevertheless, I hope to bring him 
over to my way of thinking ; for I am sure so good-humoured an 
opponent will be amenable to reason, and will not be influenced by 
any motives not in the true interests of the microscope. 
The objections of F.R.M.S. to my suggestion seem to be chiefly 
directed to the practical difficulty of carrying it out, and fairly and 
impartially awarding such a distinction. He has, I regret to see, no 
confidence in the integrity of the opticians themselves, nor in that 
of those who would be selected as judges, and as little, I presume, 
in the efficacy of any safeguards that might be adopted to secure 
a real and unbiassed competition. Hence his opposition. 
If, however, it can be shown that he is probably mistaken upon 
the first of these points, and certainly so upon the second and third, 
his hostility will, I am sure, cease ; and in that case I even trust 
to claim him as a coadjutor in my scheme. 
For my own part, I quite fail to see why the honour of the makers 
of objectives is to be impugned ! I cannot believe that our cele- 
brated opticians, the world-wide reputation of whose firms is the 
well-earned guarantee at once of the thoroughness of their work and 
the reliability of their word, would be at all likely to exhibit other 
than the most upright conduct in the matter. I am now, without dis- 
paragement of foreigners, speaking of English opticians, being 
naturally best acquainted with them. But if their brethren of 
repute in other countries resemble them, then I feel no doubt that 
all those sad, and let me say humiliating apprehensions of backstair 
interest and underground motives entertained by F.R.M.S. will be 
found to vanish when submitted to the test of actual trial. 
If, however, my confidence in the independence and concurrent 
straightforwardness of the opticians were unhappily not justified by 
the facts, we should still have the security of the unimpeachable 
ability and fairness of the judges. These would naturally be not 
