398 
practise of the day and makes valuable 
suggestions respecting the way out of these 
conditions. 
Dr. Dudley’s plea was authoritative and 
convincing, and attracted much interest 
when it was made public. Dr. Hillebrand 
spoke from a fullness of experience and 
with an earnestness which made his criti- 
cism strike home. Dr. Bottger writes from 
the viewpoint of one who is at home in the 
analytical field and has also thoroughly 
familiarized himself with the advances of 
chemical science in other lines which are 
closely related to the work of the analyst. 
Is there, then, an excuse for a fresh homily 
en the status of analytical chemistry ? 
May I say frankly that, had the pamphlet 
from Dr. Bottger reached me before the 
title of this address had been announced 
and its general outline prepared, I should 
have been inclined to answer this query in 
the negative, and may I confess that, since 
Dr. Bottger can write with greater author- 
ity than I on certain phases of the present 
situation, I shall quote freely from him. 
But, on the other hand, it is probable 
that not many of you have recently read 
the addresses referred to above, a thing to 
be strongly recommended at your next op- 
portunity, and it is certainly true that too 
many of the chemical analysts (not alone 
the ‘‘analytical chemists’? in a_ profes- 
sional sense) are not putting out a grade 
of work which is commendable to them. 
It is not unreasonable, then, that we should 
take time to survey the field; nor is it true 
that such a survey will show no signs of 
improvement from which we may take com- 
fort and courage. 
When we consider the relation of analyt- 
ical chemistry to the other branches of our 
science, we still face such questions as 
these: Why is it that analytical chemistry 
lags behind other branches of chemistry in 
its scientific development? Why is it that 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou. XXXV. No. 898 
our journals are so often filled with ‘‘new’’ 
processes of alleged reliability and useful- 
ness, which never acquire general recugni- 
tion and which are frequently condemned 
as worthless by those who attempt to apply 
or repeat them? Why is it that reports of 
commission after commission on ‘‘stand- 
ard’’ methods are published, only to sink 
into oblivion without awakening any inter- 
est or attaining any useful purpose? Why 
is it that the chemical analysts, as a class, 
lack the respect which should be com- 
manded by those who are following a pro- 
fession and practising an art which, in its 
best estate, calls for a very high degree of 
intelligence, as well as manual skill? 
Why is it that chemical analyses have 
come to be made at prices worse thari those 
of the bargain counter? These are, it ap- 
pears, all pertinent questions to-day. 
It has been frequently pointed out that 
analytical chemistry has so long been re- 
garded as the servant of the chemist—re- 
ferred to by Ostwald as the ‘‘hand- 
maiden’’ of chemistry—that far too much 
attention has been directed to obtaining 
large returns for small wages. We have 
nearly forgotten that this ‘‘hand-maiden”’ 
herself has a natural comeliness, and have 
ignored the fact that even a little more en- 
couragement to her to improve her methods 
and accomplish her tasks more thoroughly 
would easily fit her to sit at the family 
table—a privilege, formerly hers, of which 
she has long been deprived. It is easy to 
see, as Dr. Béttger points out anew, how, 
after the days of Liebig, the relegation of 
analytical chemistry to a subordinate posi- 
tion came about amid the interest attach- 
ing, first, to rapid developments in organic 
chemistry, and later to those in physical 
chemistry, and especially through its con- 
nection with the phenomenal growth of the 
industries, which demanded “‘results’’ and 
too often have allowed what appeared to 
