October 3, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



531 



render, the independence of the laboratory 

 with either lionor or safety. 



It is an undeniable fact that we should 

 all much prefer to have the needed support 

 come to the laboratory rather than see the 

 laboratory go to the support. Why should 

 the support, if it be deserved, not be given 

 to the laboratory, rather than the laboratory 

 to it? Would not the first alternative ac- 

 cord with the declared policy of the Car- 

 negie Institution better than the second? 

 and would it not also better accord with 

 the judgment and expectations of men of 

 science ? 



It is due to the trustees of the Carnegie 

 Institution to say that the proposition to 

 acquire the laboratory as a condition to 

 supporting it did not originate with them. 

 This is the humiliating side of the situation 

 in which we now find ourselves. They 

 were told that the laboratory was in dire 

 financial distress, that some local western 

 institution was machinating to get posses- 

 sion ; in short, that there was an emergency 

 requiring immediate action to save the in- 

 stitution. They were asked on what terms 

 they would consent to own and support it. 



When at the conference with the Carne- 

 gie Committee the question was asked if 

 they would be willing to support the labo- 

 ratory without owning it, the reply was that 

 they should have preferred to give support 

 without taking the whole responsiiility of 

 ownership. It was the 'emergency' that 

 induced them to make the offer of support 

 contingent on our surrender of the owner- 

 ship to them. It was made clear to us, 

 however, that support without ownership 

 might be considerably less than support 

 with ownership, and that it would have to 

 take the form of a grant to run for a limited 

 time, which might or might not be renewed. 



The practical question for us then is : Is 

 our independence plus the possible support 

 by grant from the Carnegie Institution plus 

 the possible outside support, of greater mo- 



ment to us than a permanent support minus 

 independence and minus outside support? 

 The four elements when taken in the com- 

 binations given should be ranked, I believe, 

 in the following order: (1) Independence, 

 (2) outside support, (3) grants, (4) contin- 

 gent permanent support. Holding independ- 

 ence first, contingent permanent support, 

 which excludes it, must be placed at the foot 

 of the list, as the last resort. The other two 

 elements stand for unknown sums that may 

 be realized on the basis of independence. 

 Outside support, including (1) a definite 

 annual gift pledged for a series of years, 

 (2) cooperative subscriptions from imiver- 

 sities, colleges and societies, and (3) indi- 

 vidual donations, may be estimated at 

 from $10,000 to $15,000 a year, with pros- 

 pect of indefinite increase from year to 

 year. 



In deciding a question that involves the 

 whole future of the laboratory, it is but the 

 part of wisdom to take a long look ahead. 

 A source of unlimited support, that has an 

 ever-improving prospect for increase, must 

 count for more in the long run than the 

 largest sum to be expected from the Car- 

 negie Institution. Starting with $10,000, 

 which was the annual donation pledged for 

 five years at the beginning of this year, it 

 is next to certain that this sum could have 

 been increased to $20,000 within three to 

 five years. That sum once reached, would 

 not be henceforth a non-growing quantity, 

 shutting out possibilities of endowment and 

 further donations, but rather one with ever- 

 improving chances of enlargement. 



This unlimited prospective growth of our 

 present support is as much a certainty as 

 that we shall deserve it. With this growth 

 the cooperative policy hitherto cultivated 

 will remain the best guarantee of the na- 

 tional character of the laboratory. We 

 cannot afford to relinquish the possibilities 

 before us for the sake of an immediate re- 

 lief which is far from being equal to a per- 



