PROF. FORBES ON "HARNESSING NIAGARA." 201 



ary efforts. One singular example of lack of dignity in the paper 

 under discussion is an attack on Lord Kelvin, describing a line of 

 action of his as hitherto unknown among professional men, in 

 which he attempts to take the edge off that statement by men- 

 tioning that distinguished man as his most esteemed and oldest 

 scientific friend. 



A remarkable thing is that Prof. Forbes admits that there are 

 exceptions to his somewhat sweeping condemnation of this coun- 

 try, for, after making the uncompromising generalization about 

 the average American, he says that it is not necessary to meet 

 the specimen except in hotels and trains, and thereafter follows a 

 list of no less than fifteen names in one paragraph of fashionable 

 friends of his who were, of course, delightful, the bearing of 

 which on the title matter of the paper is obscure. At the begin- 

 ning of his article also he makes disparaging reference to our 

 experts, and, at the end, "wishes to bear tribute to the kindly 

 friendship which I almost universally experienced at the hands 

 of American engineers." We have one fine sentiment to record : 

 " An Englishman in America should always try to retain his Eng- 

 lishness." This should apply to any one who is proud of his 

 country ; but, unfortunately, the reasons the professor urges for 

 holding that aim in view constitute only another fling at Ameri- 

 cans. 



Turning now to such portions of the paper as do actually bear 

 upon the Niagara work, we have, as above mentioned, the pro- 

 fessor's remarkable claim to originality in the matter of the 

 revolving fields. Again, in describing the steps leading to his 

 choice of apparatus, he says : " I soon realized the fact that not 

 only could the latter (alternating) current be more easily obtained 

 at high pressures, but that it could more easily, and without 

 moving machinery, be transformed to any required pressure at 

 any spot when it was wanted." This statement, it is to be re- 

 gretted, is nothing short of dishonest. Forbes is here speaking 

 of the year 1890, at which date the fact that he refers to as hav- 

 ing worked out for himself was literally the A B C of electrical 

 work, and part of the common knowledge of thousands of " line " 

 laborers throughout the world. 



With regard to the two points so far mentioned the distin- 

 guished engineer has not sought to belittle the work of others, 

 but only to magnify his own ; he has not, however, confined him- 

 self to this more moderate course, and we find him stating that 

 " the highest scientific authority in America had taken up the 

 same position as Lord Kelvin," referring to the latter's alleged 

 strenuous opposition to the us.e of the alternating current. The 

 eminent authority referred to would seem to be Prof. Rowland, of 

 Baltimore. This gentleman, who ought to know what it was he 



