COMMITTEES ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT 263 



since, to question the usefulness of the process, and I therefore continued its use 

 until the Bureau was closed and work on the fractional currency stopped 



" Professor Henry has recently procured additional sheets of water-proofed 

 and not water-proofed paper for the purpose of further testing the matter. 



" On the first instant [March I, 1876] I requested him, by letter, to have the 

 report of the commission made as soon as practicable, it having already been 

 delayed a considerable time." 86 



The committee of the House of Representatives was not 

 satisfied with these answers and on May 2, 1876, called for all 

 the papers in the case, the real state of which then became mani- 

 fest. The report of the committee of the Academy had been 

 finished and sent to the Secretary of the Treasury on April 29, 

 1876, who transmitted it with the other papers. 87 Professor 

 Hilgard's memorandum was also included. 



From these papers it appears that Professor Hilgard had 

 changed his opinion regarding the water-proofing process on 

 account of the results of certain experiments made by Pro- 

 fessor Morton, and had affixed his signature to a report deny- 

 ing the value of the process instead of affirming it, as he had 

 done in his memorandum. In the meantime, Professor Henry 

 had made certain experiments, as indicated above, and had 

 reached the conclusion that the committee had not proved that 

 the process was worthless. He therefore returned the report 

 with the request that the committee would reconsider its decision. 

 This the committee found itself unable to do and Professor 

 Henry then transmitted the report to the Secretary of the 

 Treasury, but attached a note to it expressing his own convictions 

 in the matter. 



The Secretary of the Treasury had secured an independent 

 favorable opinion from Prof. John M. Ordway. It followed 

 therefore, that Hilgard, Morton, Chandler, and Sellers were not 

 in favor of the continuance of the use of the process, while Henry 

 and Ordway regarded it as valuable, or at least were not con- 

 vinced of its worthlessness. 



88 Loc. clt., p. 14. 



87 It forms part of House Misc. Doc. no. 163, part 2, pp. 22-28, 44th Congress, ist Session. 



