308 Proceedings of the Ohio Academy of Science 
total increases in Ohio. This was putting the increases in membership 
in an unfair light as undoubtedly the Academy members many of whom 
are science teachers and research students were largely responsible for 
these new memberships in the Association. 
The Association after two years of having dues collected by the 
Treasurer in each of the affiliated Academies decided to collect its own 
dues. This seemed to your Treasurer psychologically unsound, as it 
meant that two bills in place of one must be collected from each mem- 
ber. The following paragraph is taken from a letter to Dr. Livingston 
written by the Treasurer under date of March 8, 1923: 
“Your letter of February 23d which should have been sent to me was for- 
warded by Dr. Rice and reached me yesterday. You are doing the Ohio Academy 
of Science a great injustice in supposing that only seventeen new members were 
received through the Academy for the A. A. A. S. Our lists are not worth checking 
over on this point, but I know more than seventeen members have been added. 
You are doing the Academy a serious injury in changing the billing of the A. A. A. 
S. members from the office here to the Washington office because the members 
have just been trained to send the money here. Now your order (for that strong 
word is just about what it amounts to) comes, to abandon this system and substi- 
tute the collection directly through your office. Certainly the Academy can not 
be supposed to have been glad to collect the money for you in the first place. They 
did it simply as an ac commodation and in the matter of the affiliation it seemed as 
though it would be an easy way of completing the arrangement.”’ . 
With all of this there was still nothing but a financial arrangement 
and there was no scientific advance. There was further an annoying 
distinction made between the affiliated academies and the affiliated 
Societies which was also on a financial basis, namely that a five dollar 
initial fee was remitted if the new member was also a member of an 
affiliated Society. It was in consequnece difficult to find out exactly 
what a new member should pay. 
Passing over the correspondence of the next year, we wish to note 
the work of Professor Osborn in attempting to raise the level of the 
basis of affiliation from an exchange of checks to the point where scien- 
tific work might be benefited. A paragraph from a letter of Dr. Transeau 
to Dr. Livingston under date of December 8, 1924, will serve 
“Tn view of the difficulties attending the collection and distribution of the 
dues, and the apparent change in point of view of the American Association indi- 
cated by a comparison of your letter with that of Dr. Howard, I would suggest 
that the proposal made by Professor Herbert Osborn might meet the situation. As 
I understand his scheme, it is that the dues be collected as before the affiliation, 
and that the Association actually subsidize the academies according to their 
membership, $25 for those having one hundred members or less, $50 for those 
having between one and two hundred members, and $100 for those having 3800 or 
more members. These amounts would be credited to the Academy as a whole and 
would not be rebated to members. In this way the affiliation would not be weak- 
ened and the Association would not be called upon for any large contribution to 
the Academies.”’ 
This letter was written shortly before the Washington meeting of 
the Association. Through the Association’s committee on State Acad- 
emies and the letters from the affiliated academies registering protests 
to the secretary there was at the last meeting an attempt to come to an 
understanding and to bring our affiliation to a reasonable arrangement, 
