
DISCUSSION WITH M. PASTEUR 161 
si le temps lui permet d’entraprendre davantage, 
votre séjour étant trés court.” 
I felt it absolutely essential to have a distinct 
understanding upon these points, because on the 
mere question of fact I was so positive of being able 
to reproduce my results, that I cared little as to the 
constitution of the Commission. But to enter upon 
the question of interpretation with a Commission so 
constituted would have been quitea different matter. 
More than one public comment had been made in 
this country in regard to the constitution of the 
Commission. Thus, in one of the annotations of 
The Lancet for March 10 the following opinions 
were expressed :— 
“This challenge Dr Bastian has accepted, and all 
who desire, in the interests of science, a solution of 
the important question involved will watch with more 
than curiosity the work of the commissioners. In 
France three members of the Academy have been 
selected to judge the case. These gentlemen are 
all well known for the excellence of their labours, 
but unfortunately hold particular views on the 
subject they are asked to inquire into. The French 
Academy’s Commissionconsistsof M. Milne Edwards, 
M. Dumas, and M. Boussingault, all more or 
less strong supporters of M. Pasteur’s view. The 
objection to such a Commission is obvious ; anyone 
who has worked in science knows how difficult it is 
to arrive at the truth because of the pernicious 
influence which preconceived opinions exercise. We 
would respectfully suggest to the French Academy 
that there are amongst its members men equally 
L 
