October '24, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



667 



cori-espondence, for there were preliminary 

 discussions. We all know who formulated the 

 proposition, and I have authority which no 

 one will dispute for saying that its author did 

 not originate the plan, but simply formulated 

 it as the result of the preliminary discussions 

 between the members of our and of their 

 .special conunittee. 



I can not, and have not, asserted that Pro- 

 fessor Wilson originated the plan ; but I think 

 it safe to say that he knew of the plan before 

 it was presented, that he approved it, pre- 

 sented it, and opposed the alternative plan of 

 support without ownership, which was the 

 preference of the Carnegie trustees. By all 

 this Professor Wilson made himself its god- 

 iather. 



.In the passage quoted by Professor Wilson, 

 the statement is made that ' they were asked 

 on what terms they would consent to own and 

 support it.' ' No such question,' says Pro- 

 fessor Wilson, ' was asked or suggested in any 

 of the official correspondence.' I did not pre- 

 tend to give exact words, nor did I assert that 

 the question occurred in the official corre- 

 spondence. It is a mistake however to say 

 that this correspondence did not suggest it. 

 It did suggest it to me, and I think my state- 

 ment fairly summarizes the attitude assumed 

 on our side. 



If Professor Wilson asked or suggested sup- 

 port that involved ' an obvious necessity ' of 

 ownership by the Carnegie Institution, and if 

 lie has never objected to such ownership, but 

 lias objected to support that did not involve 

 ownership, the objection to my words cannot 

 lie very serious. C. O. Whitman. 



Chicago, October 14. 



THE ilARIXE BIOLOGICAL L.ABORATORY AND THE 

 CARNEGIE INSTITUTION. 



To THE Editor of Science : In your article 

 in Science, September 19, 1902, on the ' Car- 

 negie Institution,' you make statements in re- 

 gard to this laboratory on which I beg to 

 comment. You say that ' the corporation of 

 the Marine Biological Laboratory is a corpora- 

 tion composed chiefly of those who have car- 

 ried on research in the laboratory.' 



Pardon me if I express doubt as to the ex- 

 actness of this statement. The corporation 

 has three hundred and fifty-two members. Of 

 these sixty-five are residents of Boston or its 

 vicinity, and most of them are personally 

 known to me. Very few of them have ever 

 carried on research in this laboratory. They 

 have aided the laboratory by donations, but 

 not by work. I think a large per cent, of those 

 who have carried on research in this laboratory 

 are members of the American Society of Nat- 

 uralists. A comparison of the lists of mem- 

 bers of that society and of the corporation 

 shows that but seventy-one (about twenty per 

 cent.) of the corporation belong to the so- 

 ciety; further, that the societ.y has but half a 

 dozen female members, while one hundred and 

 seventeen (about twenty-four per cent.) of 

 the corporation are women. Still further, 

 over fifty per cent, of the corporation give no 

 university or college address, but simply town, 

 street and number. Persons holding univer- 

 sity or college positions generally give their 

 official addresses. All these facts tend to con- 

 firm me in the opinion that the corporation is 

 not ' composed chiefly of those who have car- 

 ried on research in the laboratory.' 



In the past several attempts have been made 

 to secure to this laboratory large financial sup- 

 *port, but on every occasion we have been told 

 by those to whom appeals have been made, 

 that the defects in our business organizations 

 were deterrent to those who might otherwise 

 contribute. We were told that before acquir- 

 ing endowment, land and permanent buildings, 

 all property should be vested in a smaller and. 

 more select body. What our advisers have told 

 us ill the past, the executive committee of the 

 Carnegie Institution has but repeated. The 

 matter of support by the Carnegie Institution 

 was considered at two largely attended trus- 

 tees' meetings, and it was voted unanimously 

 to recommend to the corporation that on a 

 promise of support by the Carnegie Institu- 

 tion, the corporation should convey its prop- 

 erty to that institution. 



At the annual meeting of the corporation, 

 August 12, 1902, a deed conveying the prop- 

 erty was read, and a motion was made in- 



