Januabt 18, 1907] 



SCIENCE. 



85 



ment of a committee on endowment fund, 

 which should canvass the situation and en- 

 deavor to devise means for the creation of 

 a fund to aid the abstract project without 

 rendering necessary any, or, at any rate, a 

 great increase in the society's dues. The 

 committee's efforts have thus far been 

 without effect. 



Less than a year ago one of our technical 

 chemists wrote me with regard to the feel- 

 ing and attitude of industrial chemists 

 towards our society. The letter was de- 

 cidedly pessimistic in tone, and the writer 

 claimed to voice a feeling which was only 

 partially justified by the facts as to some 

 of the causes of dissatisfaction enumerated, 

 and one or two of its statements were 

 founded on misapprehension. It contained, 

 however, much food for thought, coming as 

 it did from one claiming to know the senti- 

 ment in his section of the countiy among 

 men in the technical industries, who con- 

 stitute, as before said, probably the larger 

 part of our membership. Inquiry in vari- 

 ous directions, chiefly in the large indus- 

 trial centers, confirmed the charges in their 

 main features and showed the existence of 

 a wide-spread feeling that demanded im- 

 mediate recognition. 



The council directed the appointment of 

 a committee of six technical chemists, with 

 the president as an additional member and 

 chairman, which should reduce to specific 

 terms the wishes of this large body of men, 

 so far as they could be ascertained, and 

 present them for consideration to the coun- 

 cil at the Ithaca meeting. This was done. 

 The committee was selected with a view to 

 securing the advice of men prominent in 

 the technical branches, men of acknowl- 

 edged reputation, some of whom had been 

 active in expressing dissatisfaction with 

 existing conditions, yet supposedly open- 

 minded men of ideas, able and willing to 

 look at the question fairly from all sides 

 and hence free from narrow prejudice. 



The committee consisted of the following 

 members in addition to the chairman: G. 

 E. Barton, Geo. D. Chamberlin, A. D. 

 Little, J. D. Pennock, T. J. Parker and 

 W. D. Richardson. It may be said that 

 the bringing together for this purpose, 

 from widely separated parts of the coun- 

 try, chiefly from the great industrial cen- 

 ters, of men representing varied industries, 

 has been and will be productive of good 

 results in more ways than one. By inter- 

 change of views among themselves, and by 

 conversation with others, they were en- 

 abled to ascertain the feeling in different 

 sections of the country, and by contact with 

 the governing body in one of its sessions, 

 any possibly preconceived opinions regard- 

 ing the hostility of that body or of indi- 

 viduals in it toward the technical side of 

 the profession surely became dissipated. 

 They were able to return to their homes 

 and to disseminate a truer view of the situ- 

 ation than had before existed. 



Before taking up the recommendation of 

 the committee it will be well to review in 

 detail some of the causes of discontent that 

 were found to exist, as well as portions 

 of the discussion arising from their presen- 

 tation. 



These were mainly set forth in the letter 

 from the correspondent above referred to 

 and related almost entirely to the char- 

 acter of the Journal. It may be said at 

 the start that in the search for complaints, 

 almost no objection was raised to the con- 

 tents of this publication. It was freely 

 admitted that what it contained was of 

 good quality and there was little, if any, 

 complaint that worthy matter had ever 

 been rejected. The opinion was held in 

 some circles that much of the matter 

 emanating from government laboratories 

 and experiment stations, which finds dupli- 

 cation in national and state publications, 

 might be omitted in favor of matter less 

 favored in this respect. The chief criti- 



