OCTOBEB 3, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



529 



hospitable 'fellowship' thus extended to 

 him at Washington by Professor Henry and 

 Professor Baird. But its value lay in the 

 acquaintance with scientific men and in the 

 free access to specimens. The reduction of 

 Washington board bills was a mere inci- 

 dent. One duty of the Carnegie Institu- 

 tion should be to make the scientific re- 

 sources of the Capital available to those 

 who can use them. 



In this connection the word scientific 

 should have the broadest definition. It 

 should include historical, economic, literary 

 and linguistic research, all that has a 

 foundation in exact methods. 



David Starr Jordan. 



THE IMPENDING CRISIS IN THE HISTORY 



OF THE MARINE BIOLOGICAL 



LABORATORY. 



The action of the corporation of the 

 Marine Biological Laboratory, at its recent 

 meeting, August 12, leaves the fate of the 

 laboratory to be decided by the trustees 

 of the Carnegie Institution. It was not a 

 welcome step to surrender the laboratory, 

 but the financial situation seemed to offer 

 no other solution. Some felt very strongly 

 that further deliberation was much needed, 

 but there was danger that delay would 

 prejudice our case with the Carnegie trust- 

 ees. Compulsory as were the circum- 

 stances, it is certain that the corporation 

 and the trustees would have said no to the 

 proposition to surrender, had they felt that 

 our work and plans for the development of 

 a biological center of a national character 

 would thereby be hampered or curtailed. 

 As the matter now stands, it only remains 

 for the trustees of the Carnegie Institution 

 to decide whether they will consummate the 

 steps already taken towards acquiring the 

 laboratory and making it a 'department' 

 of the institution. 



In spite of the assurances to the contrary 

 which we have received through one or 



two of our trustees, I think we may al- 

 ready see that the organization of the Car- 

 negie Institution will necessarily limit our 

 freedom of action and perhaps deprive us 

 of the most essential thing in our independ- 

 ence, namely, the power to decide upon 

 the nature and scope of our work. Had 

 such a danger been seen even as a possi- 

 bility, it is doubtful if the corporation 

 could have been persuaded to transfer the 

 ownership of the laboratory; and had it 

 been seen as a probability, it is certain, I 

 believe, that the vote to transfer would 

 never have passed. 



The vote was essentially a vote of con- 

 fidence in our hoped-for supporters. Only 

 our part of the situation was entirely defi- 

 nite. What the Carnegie Institution 

 would develop as an organization was too 

 largely a matter of conjecture to permit 

 of clear vision. Some points had come out 

 in personal conferences with members of 

 the Carnegie executive committee, but 

 these had not been definitely enough for- 

 mulated to bring before the corporation. 

 The visible portion of the situation was a 

 debt of about $10,000, doubled by the pur- 

 chase of land just completed, and an offer 

 of money-relief, contingent on a complete 

 surrender of property rights. It was 

 known, of course, that the transfer of prop- 

 erty would make the laboratory a 'depart- 

 ment' or 'branch' of the Carnegie Institu- 

 tion, centered at Washington. It was not 

 realized that becoming a 'department' 

 might in some fundamental respects en- 

 danger our control of the future develop- 

 ment of the laboratory. In fact, we were 

 told by some of those who had formulated 

 the scheme of amalgamation that we should 

 lose nothing essential to our independence, 

 while we should gain a permanent support 

 that was 'almost beyond the dream of ava- 

 rice'! We were told that if we delayed 

 decision, it would look like lack of con- 

 fidence, and that we might thus lose 



