Tue Microscope. 59 
cording to his idea, it was not at all necessary for me to “ work 
it out.” He should have furnished the full drawing with de- 
scription. I do not believe that he has any drawings that an 
ordinary mechanic could use and be able to make a nose-piece 
from. He says, “after some months” I made one, and sent it 
to him, with letter for his approval and further suggestions. 
The letter above referred to is dated Oct. 30th. The meeting 
was from the 9th to the 10th of August, which he calls ‘“ some 
months.” In my letter to Prof. McCalia, I said: “I have just 
sent you, by mail, one of the new Congress nose-pieces, which [ 
have perfected from the idea sugg2sted by you. I think you 
will admit that it is the best one that has been brought out. I 
made two or three different styles before I was satisfied.” If 
any person can make out, in the above, that I wished for any 
suggestions, so as to improve it, he is greatly mistaken. Prof. 
McCalla’s answer to the above by postal, is as follows: * Yours 
rec’d. ann the N. P. also. Many thanks. It is quite perfect. Will 
write more fully next time.”, It is hardly reasonable to suppose 
that I would be wanting suggestions, when the application for 
patent was filed Sept. 22nd, six weeks previous to the date of 
the above letter. And the patent granted three days before he 
wrote the above postal card. 
The microscopists of this country are under great obliga- 
tions to Prof. McCalla for his generous contributions for the im- 
provement of the microscope. He says that he had * perfected 
his idea three years ago,’ But he did not take the opportunity 
to write a description, which need not have taken ten minutes 
of his valuable time. He waited until I put his crude idea 
into practical shape, which cost me time and money, and now 
claims all the credit. By his statement he says that he showed 
the drawings and described his invention three years ago, and 
some of the persons he claims to have shown them to, are 
practical opticians, but if he did, no one thought it of any con- 
sequence, for they never saw any details, and very little of 
what was said can now be remembered. Two of the persons 
that he names in his letter, say they never saw any drawings. 
His whole letter has too many branches of Washington Cherry 
Tree spread through it. And his very liberal offer to the man- 
ufacturers of this country is thrown on barren ground. It would 
