32 SCIENCE 
mittees of Congress before whom he was sum- 
moned from year to year to justify his requests 
for money to be used in the extension of his work. 
He was always received with the heartiest welcome, 
and these keen, bustling, practical men of busi- 
ness, who ordinarily rushed with the greatest of 
expedition through the routine of the day, forgot 
their usual hurry when Professor Baird was be- 
fore them, and listened so long as he could be in- 
duced to talk, and not infrequently would wander 
from the business before them to ask him ques- 
tions upon subjects which his remarks suggested. 
A yery practical evidence of their appreciation 
was the prompt action upon the bill, passed soon 
after his death, giving twenty-five thousand dollars 
to his widow in recognition of the uncompensated 
services which he had rendered as commissioner of 
fisheries. 
The secret of Professor Baird’s power 
rests at bottom on his entire unselfishness, 
and thorough preparedness. Of such a sci- 
entific man as he one could say, and of 
every scientific man one ought to be able to 
say, paraphrasing a celebrated letter to cer- 
tain people of Corinth: He is not puffed 
up, seeketh not his own, rejoiceth in the 
truth, and hopeth all things. 
Around the Smithsonian Institution as a 
nucleus are clustered the various buildings 
of the National Museum and Department 
of Agriculture. Whatever else they may 
stand for, they are, in an important sense, 
monuments of such work as that which 
Professor Baird performed when he en- 
listed the interest of Congress in scientific 
questions. With these examples of the 
generosity of Congress towards science be- 
fore us it may be asked why take time to 
argue for an accomplished fact? It is true 
that a good beginning has been made, and 
no fault is to be found, so far as I am aware, 
with the relations which exist between the 
scientific bureaus of our government and 
Congress. The life and work of Professor 
Baird laid broad and secure foundations 
upon which others have builded well. But 
there exists between science in this country 
[N. S. Von. XLVIII. No. 1228 
as represented by laboratories of research 
in universities and elsewhere, on the one 
hand, and our state and national legisla- 
tures on the other, a gulf that is but inade- 
quately bridged. I remember seeing, a few 
years ago, in some of our periodical litera- 
ture, remarks that were meant to be derog- 
ratory, about what the writers called 
‘‘ Washington science.’’ Such deliverances 
were, of course, but little more than evi- 
dence of ia certain state of mind; neverthe- 
less they are an index of a gulf, or barrier, 
or unexplored middle ground, between sci- 
ence, as represented by some of our most 
talented investigators, and members of our 
law-making bodies who desire to be shown 
probable practical benefits that are ex- 
pected to follow legislation which they are 
asked to favor. Professor Baird, through 
his own contributions to knowledge, won a 
place among the first American men of sci- 
ence. By his example and influence he 
opened up avenues of research and pro- 
moted investigations that led to the ad- 
vancement of knowledge to a greater de- 
gree than any other American has done. 
Science under his direction suffered no loss 
of purity by being clothed in garments of 
utility and thus made attractive to minds 
not otherwise prepared to appreciate her 
charms. With men equipped as he was to 
bring before legislative bodies projects in 
the interests of the public, selfish interests, 
which thrive on the ignorance of the people, 
would have little effect in hindering wise 
legislation. With men like him to the fore 
unkind remarks, caleulated to widen the 
breach between science and legislation, such 
as ‘‘impractical and visionary scientists,’’ 
on the one hand, and ‘‘pork-barrel politic- 
ians,’’ on the other, would not be made. 
They would not be made because scientific 
man and legislator would meet on common 
ground, and, understanding each other, 
would say to their fellows, and to the pub- 
