JOSEPH HENRY 



143 



being sent for made a prognosis of a very serious character. Al- 

 though no prospect of recovery could be held out, it was hoped 

 that the progress of the disease would be so slow that, with his 

 healthy constitution, he might still endure for a considerable period. 

 This hope, however, rapidly faded, and it soon became evident 

 that his work was approaching its end, but his intellect was not 

 for a moment clouded nor his interest 'in what was going on 

 diminished. Only a day or two before his death he asked whether 

 the transit of Mercury had been successfully observed and the 

 appropriation for observing the total eclipse secured. He was 

 then gradually sinking, and died at noon on May 13, 1878. 



We should make a great mistake if we measured Henry's useful- 

 ness simply by what he ostensibly did, much as the latter would 

 have redounded to his credit. He was one of those men, now 

 becoming altogether too rare, who felt that his activities should 

 not be bounded by the requirements of official duty, but that one 

 should strive to leave behind him something which would make th 

 world better. He appeared in Washington as a recognized leader 

 of science, whom those connected with the Government coul 

 readily consult and by whose advice they could profit. Our pres- 

 ent system of government science had then scarcely begun. About 

 the only institution of a scientific character which the Govern- 

 ment had established was the Patent Office, to which was at- 

 tached an officer whose duty it was to collect statistics relating to 

 agriculture. Out of this little beginning grew the present Agri- 

 cultural Department. 



A circumstance not to be lost sight of is that Henry, in obedience 

 to one of the great principles of his life, voluntarily relinquished 

 to others each field of investigation at the very time when he had 

 it so far cultivated that it might yield him fame and profit. It is 

 an unfortunate fact that the world, in awarding its laurels, is prone 

 to overlook the sometimes long list of those whose labors have 

 rendered a result possible, and to remember only the one who gave 

 the finishing stroke, or applied previously known principles to 

 some useful result. There are few investigators to whom the 

 criterion in question would do less justice than to the subject of 



