October 12, 1917] 



SCIENCE 



363 



The " simple explanation " is that these are 

 not conflicting' statements. Each dollar in- 

 Tested in raw rock phosphate paid back $2.29; 

 and, when the dollar invested is subtracted 

 from this amount, the profit is found to be 

 $1.29. 



In this article Professor Mooers bases his 

 opinions in part upon " observations " and 

 "hay data . . . not given in Bulletin 90," 

 states that in his conclusions he " was gov- 

 erned chiefly by a consideration of the soil 

 conditions and the results of the individual 

 series " ; and he criticizes my use of a sum- 

 mary table which he prepared and which he 

 also used in his bulletin^ and in his former 

 Science article.^ His present opinion is that 

 this summary table is not fairly representa- 

 tive of the results secured, and I must bear 

 his criticism for having used it. 



Cyrtl G. Hopkins 



TJNrvERsiTY OP Illinois 



QUOTATIONS 



COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND PROFESSOR 

 CATTELL 



It is contrary to the academic traditions of 

 six hundred years to dismiss a university 

 professor on account of his opinions expressed 

 in a proper way to experts in the subject. It 

 is illegal to dismiss a professor in the middle 

 of the academic year on false and libelous 

 charges, without payment for the year and 

 without the pension which he had earned by 

 twenty-six years of service. 



I am opposed to war and to this war, but I 

 have undertaken no agitation against the 

 government nor against its conduct of the 

 war. I have written nothing against the draft 

 law or against sending armies to Europe, al- 

 though I regard both measures as subversive 

 of the national welfare. 



It is because I care for my country that I 

 deplore its entry into a war of aggression and 

 the government's policy of strangling demo- 

 cratic principles at home. For the same rea- 

 son I have in the journals which I edit done 



1 Bulletin No. 90, Tennessee Agricultural Ei- 

 periment Station. 



2 Science, January 5, 1917. 



what I could to promote national efficiency. I 

 am a member of the Psychology Committee of 

 the National Eesearch Council and spent a 

 large part of last week drawing up for the 

 War Department plans for the scientific selec- 

 tion of aviators. 



In August, 1914, when President Wilson 

 was telling us to be neutral in thought as well 

 as in speech and in act, and Mr. Roosevelt and 

 Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler were " pussy- 

 footing," I wrote in one of the journals that 

 I edit: 



The official German justification of the mad and 

 wanton European war is that it is in defense of the 

 Teutonic culture and people against the semi-Asi- 

 atic and barbaric Slav hordes. The verdict of his- 

 tory will probably be that it was a war of calcula- 

 tion for caste and national aggrandizement, and a 

 war of miscalculation. The German emperor and 

 his bureaucratic military entourage probably held 

 that the time was ripe for an extension of German 

 influence in the Balkans and towards Asia Minor 

 with an increase of its African possessions at the 

 expense of Erance. But it is not clear why, if the 

 serpent was prepared to use its fangs, it did not 

 show its alleged wisdom. . . . We may look for a 

 second Napoleon the little rather than for a second 

 Napoleon the great. 



In June, 191Y, I began a letter to the New 

 York Evening Post with the words: 



An emperor, driven by the militaristic and capi- 

 talistic classes of his people and "by God de- 

 mented," must accept responsibility for the great 

 crime. 



The letter that I vsTote on August 23 to 

 members of the Congress, on account of which 

 I have been dismissed from the chair of 

 psychology at Colimibia University, asked sup- 

 port for a measure then before the Senate and 

 the House to prohibit sending conscripts "to 

 fight in Europe against their will." There is 

 no law requiring or permitting the President 

 to send " conscientious objectors " to fight in 

 Europe. To do this would be contrary to the 

 intent of the constitution and to the uniform 

 policy of the nation. It would provide a less 

 efficient army and might cause disorder and 

 possible revolution at home. Surely this 

 should not be done without careful considera- 

 tion by the Congress after efforts to learn the 



