108 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXIX. No. 733 



disease that a speedy recovery might be ex- 

 pected. Indeed, I have already begnn to re- 

 ceive letters from these unfortunate diabetics 

 ■who have thus had their hopes falsely raised. 

 Francis G. Benedict 



NUTEITION LABOEATOEY, 



Cabnegie Institution of Washington, 

 Boston, Mass. 



the late professor packard's "guide to the 

 study op insects " 



My father, Professor Alpheus Spring Pack- 

 ard, had purposed to rewrite and bring the 

 " Guide to the Study of Insects " up to date, 

 as soon as he had finished Part II. of his 

 " Monograph of Bombycine Moths," which 

 was going through the press at the time of 

 his death. He left many notes and references 

 in regard to the " Guide," which we had in- 

 tended to use as a preface, but we find they 

 can not be edited properly by another hand. 

 Alpheus Appleton Packard 



New London, Conn., 

 January 2, 1909 



QUOTATIONS 



THE administration AT THE UNIVERSITY OF 

 ILLINOIS 



The University of Illinois has been coming 

 to the front in the last few years more rapidly 

 than any of the other state universities. It 

 now ranks eighth among the great universities 

 of the United States in the number of stu- 

 dents, and is receiving large appropriations 

 from the legislature, for the people of Illinois 

 are determined that their own institution shall 

 not be surpassed by any within the state, espe- 

 cially one founded by John D. Eockefeller. 

 More important than its growth is the raising 

 of the standard of scholarship, the introduc- 

 tion of new men of ability and promise, and 

 the opening of a graduate school. This rapid 

 progress is to be credited chiefiy to the energy 

 and initiative of President Edmund J. James, 

 who left Northwestern four years ago to take 

 charge of the state university. 



But the University of Illinois is suffering 

 somewhat from the twinges of gi-owing pains. 

 Such a radical and rapid transformation can 

 not be effected without hurting the feelings of 



some one or several. One such. Dr. George T. 

 Kemp, has made his grievance a public ques- 

 tion by his articles in the local papers and in 

 Science of October 9, charging President 

 James with duplicity, dishonesty and abuse 

 of official powers. Dr. Kemp does not ask for 

 sympathy on personal grounds. If his manner 

 of leaving the university has impaired his 

 chances of getting a position in another col- 

 lege, he can fall back on his profession, and 

 make more money by the practise of medicine. 

 But he holds that the question of academic 

 freedom versus presidential tyranny is in- 

 volved in his case, and it is therefore of public 

 importance. 



The essential facts seem to be as follows: 

 When the graduate school was established a 

 year ago, certain departments vrere selected 

 for development, as it was impossible to bring 

 them all at once to this rank. Professor Kemp 

 was not one of the professors promoted, his 

 salary was not raised to the prevailing rate, 

 and his department did not share in the gen- 

 eral prosperity. He felt, doubtless rightly, that 

 this indicated that he was not in favor with 

 the administration, and, being a high-spirited 

 man, he resented it as a slight upon his honor 

 and ability. He forced the issue by demand- 

 ing " a court-martial " before the board of 

 trustees and the formulation of specific 

 charges. This mode of procedure was not 

 adopted, but Dr. Kemp appeared before the 

 board two or three times, presenting witnesses 

 and papers to prove his success as a teacher 

 and investigator, and calling attention to al- 

 leged defects in the organization of the uni- 

 versity. Then finding the opposition to him 

 still undefined and undiminished, he resigned 

 his position and has since been waging war 

 from the outside against President James and 

 " the system." The board of trustees, regard- 

 ing his resignation as voluntary, refuses to 

 reopen the case and holds that he had no just 

 grievance against the administration. 



Dr. Kemp bases his charge of duplicity and 

 unfair treatment chiefly on the fact that after 

 his last appearance before the board his case 

 was discussed by the president, who at that 

 time stated his opinion of Dr. Kemp and why 

 he did not regard him as worthy of promotion. 



