920 Tue Microscope. 
slow to see what their smooth-tongued enemy was after, and in 
a series of editorials he was exhibited in his true light. Now 
comes the interesting part of our story: An editorial appeared 
in his microscopical journal pretending to give an account of 
the year’s work in microscopy in this country, and concludes in 
paying us a compliment by saying, that so far as American 
journalism is concerned outside of his own journal, it has been 
devoted largely to personalities; that popularity thus purchased 
is costly and short-lived, and that no journal devoted to science 
would allow personalities to enter its columns. All this is writ- 
ten as the prelude to a very pretty story. Will our Japanese 
editor turn to p. 692 of the August number of the Royal Micro- 
scopical Society and read the article by one of the editors on 
Central vs. Oblique light? We doubt if any instance can be 
found in “American journalism ” that partakes more of the per- 
sona element. This journal says: “There are occasions when 
personal attack is the only remedy except silence, which is open 
to the aggrieved party.” The highest authority, then, in the 
world, passes judgment and says at times that it is right to go 
to war. Before this bar we stand acquitted of the charge, that 
it is unscientific to hur! back the sledge-hammers that are thrown 
at us. 
But again, this editor even goes so far as to say, that he 
“finds it impossible to believe that Mr. Nelson can have hon- 
estlyl supposed his ideas to be held by any human being.” A 
charge of dishonesty. Did we ever go farther ? 
But again, “ Mr. Nelson attributes to the society the most ab- 
surd views for the purpose of glorifying himself.” Did we ever ac- 
cuse our enemies of more? But again, ‘“‘ When he returns to the 
usages of all decent persons.” Did we ever do worse than to call 
our opponents indecent? But again, “ Mr. Nelson has never read 
the paper which he so elaborately criticises, either in the original 
German or translation.” Have we ever said stranger things ? 
Our readers are not interested in this controversy across the 
waters between certain parties and Mr. Nelson, and the above quo- 
tations from this controversy are here given simply to show that 
this highly scientific journal, the organ of the renowned Royal - 
Microscopical Society of London, does not think it beneath its dig- 
nity to repeal its attacks in the most severe and personal manner. 
