May 10, 1901.] 
dignified for a chemist to sell his services 
for money. ‘The falseness of this position, 
it seems to me, has been fully set forth in 
the earlier part of this address, and I be- 
lieve that every right-minded. person will 
admit that it is not derogatory to dignity 
to receive pay. Otherwise, I should think 
that we should cast dignity to the winds 
and look out for the ‘main chance.’ In my 
Opinion, it is just as honorable and worthy 
to give professional advice to a great in- 
dustry as it is to discover an unknown 
element. In our society we should have 
far more esprit de corps, more regard for the 
rights and privileges of each other, and a 
better understanding of the ethics of our 
profession. It is true that we now act 
upon the principle that it is dishonorable 
to take an investigation out of the hands of 
a brother who has once commenced it, with- 
out his permission, or in any way to tres- 
pass upon the fields which he has pre- 
empted. In like manner we have learned 
that it is dishonorable to underbid a pro- 
fessional brother in offering our professional 
services. It seems to me that the Society 
can do a great good towards promoting the 
dignity of our profession in this way by 
establishing not a hard and fast schedule 
of prices for professional services, but by 
bringing closer together our members who 
give these services so they may have a 
better understanding of the rights and priv- 
ileges of each other. Other professions do 
this, especially the medical, and great bene- 
fit would be derived from a better under- 
standing in regard to these matters. 
Especially is this true from the effect it 
would have upon the public at large who, 
seeing a profession stand together and in a 
dignified manner demand what is right and 
just, would better appreciate the value of 
the services which they often hope to get 
for the very smallest possible considera- 
tion. 
Perhaps the bitterest criticism to which 
SCIENCE. 
727 
the chemist has been subjected has grown 
out of his services as expert before the 
courts. Here we often have the spectacle 
of two men, under oath, one in affirmation, 
one in negation. It is only natural that 
the expert should favor his client, but that 
favor should never go so far as to impugn 
the truth. When there is room for dis- 
agreement, I can see no impropriety in the 
chemist supporting with all his ability the 
side that employs him. He is not hired to 
discuss the whole problem in all its aspects, 
but to develop those points which make for 
the benefit of his employer. We cast no 
reflection on the honesty of the lawyer who 
defends, nor should we on the rectitude of 
the witness who testifies. But no worthy 
chemist will deliberately undertake to sup- 
port a falsehood. Whatever of viciousness 
may attach to expert evidence is the fault 
of the system rather than of the witness. 
We all admit that it would be far better 
for the court to employ the expert, and not 
the plaintiff or defendant. But until that 
change has been made, the chemist is un- 
doubtedly right in making out the best 
case possible for his client, provided he 
distorts no facts. — 
How far he can go with patent medi- 
cines, nostrums and secret preparations is 
another story. The dignity of our profes- 
sion forbids any taint of humbug or quack- 
ery. This field, therefore, seems to be 
absolutely closed for professional purposes. 
I would not have our Society become a 
trades union, and especially would I be 
sorry to see it exercise the tyranny which 
such unions often manifest, but I would 
like to see a better understanding estab- 
lished in matters of this kind, both for the 
sake of our members and for the benefit of 
the public at large. 
The dignity of the profession of chemistry 
is illustrated in a striking way by the active 
participation which it exercises in many of 
the greater walks of life. I have not time 
