666 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. V(,L. XVI. No. 408. 



it is, our work was not to be interfered with, 

 we were to direct the policy of the laboratory 

 as hitherto, and our needs in the way of land, 

 buildings, boats, libraries, etc., were to be pro- 

 vided for; iu short, we were to have a per- 

 manent laboratory with staff and equipment 

 for work throughout the year, a laboratory that 

 would rival the best in the world. So bright 

 did the prospect appear to Professor Wilson 

 that he could speak of it as ' beyond the dream 

 of avarice.' With all my faith in Dr. Wilson's 

 sagacity, I cannot escape the suspicion that 

 he has been binder the spell of some trance- 

 like illusion, which, for the time being, ex- 

 cludes a calm consideration of ' matters of 

 fact.' 



If the latest communication from the Car- 

 negie committee does not dispel the illusion, 

 I do not know what will. This communication 

 has gone to all our trustees and will probably 

 be announced at the proper time. It is suf- 

 ficient to say, that it conclusively confirms the 

 position I have taken, namely, that the labor- 

 atory should remain forever independent, but 

 always ready for cooperation and always grate- 

 ful for such support as its work may deserve. 



This is the main point of my paper, which 

 Professor Wilson criticises in a spirit that 

 seems to me to fall a little short of amiable; 

 but I hope I am mistaken in this. 



As the matter now turn's, we may rejoice 

 that our trust and our mistakes have not been 

 confounded by the Carnegie trustees; and we 

 are most deeply indebted to their wisdom, 

 frankness and generosity. It is now, I believe, 

 needless to follow Professor Wilson further on 

 this point, as he has been answered by the 

 communication above mentioned more effect- 

 ively than by any arguments that I could offer. 



There is just one incident bearing on this 

 point, which I wish to recall as a significant 

 matter of fact. After our corporation meet- 

 ing, August 12, a petition was drawn up by 

 one of the members and presented to Pro- 

 fessor Wilson for approval. That part of the 

 petition which concerns us here was as fol- 

 lows : ' We, therefore, hope that the trustees 

 of the Carnegie Institution may find it pos- 

 sible to support the Marine Biological Labora- 

 tory in the manner proposed, without requir- 



ing it to hecome a branch of the Carnegie 

 Institution.' Professor Wilson read the peti- 

 tion, and at once declared that he was willing 

 to sign it. When the petition was presented 

 a few days later. Professor Wilson, for rea- 

 sons that need not be given here, declined 

 to give his signature, and the petition was 

 consequently abandoned. The incident is sig- 

 nificant as showing that at that time Pro- 

 fessor Wilson was willing to endorse a prefer- 

 ence for preserving the independence of the 

 laboratory. I believe every member of the 

 corporation would have been glad to sign such 

 a petition, had it seemed safe and proper to do 

 so. The fact throws light on the situation as 

 a whole, and as it is no secret, I feel justified 

 in bringing it forward. 



I regret that Professor Wilson does not 

 seem to approve of the publication of my 

 paper in Science. I felt that the time had 

 come for me to remove the misunderstanding 

 in regard to my position. I stated the situa- 

 tion as I understood it, and frankly avowed 

 my desire to preserve the independence of the 

 laboratory. I submitted the paper to a num-' 

 ber of the trustees and finally to Dr. Billings, 

 who consented to its publication. Professor 

 Wilson stigmatizes my view as ' pessimistic ' 

 and closes with a reference to past criticisms 

 of the laboratory which might well have been 

 omitted as wholly unprovoked and uncalled 

 for. This is the most unkind cut of all, that 

 a friend of the laboratory should thus covertly 

 countenance its calumniators. 



One point more. Professor Wilson objects 

 to my saying that the plan of acquiring the 

 laboratory as a condition to supporting it did 

 not originate with the trustees of the Carnegie 

 Institution. I stated the matter as I under- 

 stood it and as I still see it. Professor Wilson 

 was not the only one on our side who at first 

 had a hand in determining events. 



We have been repeatedly told by the Car- 

 negie committee that they should have pre- 

 ferred to recommend support without owner- 

 ship, and one of them distinctly stated in 

 Professor Wilson's presence that it was the 

 ' emergency ' placed before them which led 

 them to the proposition finally made to us. It 

 is little to the point to refer to the official 



