SCIENCE. 



FRIDAY, JULY 20, 18S3. 



THE U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM. 

 I. 

 The brief pamphlet reeeutly issued b\- the 

 assistant director of the museum as his special 

 report for 1881 is, perliaps, one of the most 

 important documents which has yet appeared 

 in the liistor^- of science in this country. It 

 represents the institution which in the natural 

 course of events should become the leading 

 organization of its kind on this continent, 

 and also furnish the motive and the pattern 

 for the many similar copies which will natu- 

 rally follow its example in other parts of 

 our extensive possessions. It also presents 

 to foreign nations the ideals, which, thej- will 

 naturally suppose, represent our existing scien- 

 tific culture and the tendencies of science in 

 this country- They will hardlj- imagine that 

 it has not been debated at all by scientific men 

 at large, that it is the work of no represen- 

 tative commission, and that it cannot in any 

 sense be considered as the deliberate result 

 of consultation with the leading men of the 

 United States in all departments. 



In this respect, we think that the action of 

 the government — if the plan is, as we under- 

 stand, already- adopted in the museum — is 

 open to the severest criticism, and that it shows 

 a curious want of prudence to definitely- settle 

 the future of an institution in which the whole 

 country is more deeply interested than any 

 other of its kind, without allowing the voice 

 and criticisms of scientific men to be heard. 

 It is certainly a wide departure from the wise 

 exannile of the Smithsonian, and shows, that, 

 at Washington, success has already begun to 

 dull the edge of the wise forethouglit which 

 led to such successful results in the planning 

 of that institution. 



That the museum must be a loser in influ- 

 ence bj- such a proceeding lies in the nature 



No. 24.— 1883. 



of things. The science of this country is 

 certainly not responsible for the plan, and, 

 however good it may prove to be, has had no 

 proper opportunities for expressing its opinion 

 about a matter in which its deepest interests 

 are concerned. 



In his opening considerations, Mr. Goode 

 divides museums into three classes, — those for 

 record, those for research, and those for educa- 

 tion. He considers that all three of these ob- 

 jects are essential to the development of an^' 

 comprehensive and philosophical!}- organized 

 museum. By record, the author means the 

 preservation of collections which have served 

 as the instruments of past research ; and by 

 research, the accumulation of materials of 

 all kinds to provide for new investigations. 

 The author here assumes an historical stand- 

 ard, and thinks that the objects of museum 

 administration determine their classification ; 

 whereas, in our opinion, practical considera- 

 tions reall}- settle the class to which a given 

 museum should be referred. There is. as the 

 author remarks, no separation of the two pur- 

 l)oses of record and research ; and it would 

 perhaps have been clearer to the inexperi- 

 enced in this branch of technology if the 

 preservation of records, and accumulation of 

 materials for research, together with adequate 

 provision for the pul)lication of original results, 

 which is not mentioned b}- him, had been de- 

 fined as the inseparable trinity of a museum 

 of the first class. Mr. Goode's opinion, that 

 such museums should have exhibition-rooms, 

 and display botli their records and the results of 

 research, indicates a broad and well-balanced 

 judgment of the aims of museum administra- 

 tion. The prevalent opinion among young 

 investigators, that no public displ.aj- of records 

 should be made, arises from obstacles which 

 the expenses of exhibition have heretofore 

 presented to the successful performance of the 

 proper functions of this class of museums in 

 the encouragement of research, and also to 



