534 



SCIENCE. 



[N.S. Vol. XVIII. No. 460. 



suggestions in working out the life-history of the 

 organism,' which may be construed as meaning 

 very little, and this is placed in the letter of 

 transmittal, where I consider it is buried. 



When I gave into your possession the evidences 

 on which I based my claim to recognition, you 

 made no mention of any existing evidence that 

 might tend to modify my claim. If any evidence 

 came to your knowledge since our conference last 

 May which led you to consider that I was claim- 

 ing too much, I maintain that it was your duty, 

 before taking final action, to notify me of this 

 evidence and of its nature, in order to afford me 

 the opportunity of rebutting it, if possible. As 

 you have not done so, but have modified my rec- 

 ognition very radically, you have left but one 

 channel open for me to obtain prober recognition 

 for my services, and that is to appeal to the 

 fair judgment of the scientific world. 

 Yours truly, 



(Signed) J. C. Smith. 



To -which the following reply was received: 



Teeasubt Depaetment, 

 BuEEAtr OF Public Health and Mabine 

 Hospital Seevice, 



Washington, D. C, August 24, 1903. 

 Mb. J. C. Smith, 



131 Cabokdelet St., New Obleans, La. 



My Dear Sir: I have to acknowledge receipt of 

 your letter of August 17, entering protest against 

 the style and position of the recognition -^f your 

 services which the Working Party No. , 1 of the 

 Yellow Fever Institute has accorded you in its 

 report. 



I regret that you seem to have some misappre- 

 hension concerning the matter. Before I reached 

 New Orleans in attendance on the meeting of the 

 American Medical Association in May last I had 

 no knowledge whatever of your relations with the 

 working party. I then learned for the first time 

 that you had met with them and that a definite 

 promise had been made to you as to recognition, 

 and that it was believed that no such recognition 

 had been inserted in the report. 



The report was already in print and after your 

 call upon me, on consulting an advance copy in 

 my possession, I found that it was true that 

 there was tio recognition of you in it. I there- 

 upon caused the issue of the publication to be 

 suspended to permit inquiry into the matter. 1 

 found that the recognition had been promised and 

 determined that the promise should be kept. This 

 involved a board of inquiry and as a result the 

 recognition was restored in the report though 



it required an alteration in the printer's form 

 to do so. 



The report was then published and issued, and 

 as published contains the recognition of your ser- 

 vices in the very terms in which it was promised 

 to you and agreed upon by the three members of 

 the working party. 



Respectfully 

 (Signed) Walteb Wymaw, 



Surgeon General. 



(The italics are mine.) 

 To which the following reply, concluding 

 the correspondence, was sent : 



New Oeleans, La., 

 September 1, 1903. 

 Genebal Walteb Wyman, 



Washington, D. C. 



My Dear Sir: In reply to yours of August 24 

 I will say that on my part there is not the 

 least ' misapprehension concerning the matter.' 

 Whether the acknowledgment now in the report 

 is, or is not, the same as was placed there orig- 

 inally and afterwards suppressed, does not con- 

 cern me, as I was not afforded the opportunity 

 of judging if it were commensurate with the ser- 

 vices I had rendered the working party. 



Further, Dr. Pothier, a member of the working 

 party, has just assured me that when he signed 

 the report the acknowledgment then accorded 

 me was placed in the text treating on the para- 

 site, so you will note that the suppressed acknowl- 

 edgment was not even restored as it was orig- 

 inally. 



That I had made proper effort to learn from the 

 chairman of the working party if I were to be 

 acknowledged for my services, and in what terms 

 this acknowledgment was to be, you know from 

 my reply, dated March 10, to Dr. Parker's letter 

 dated March 6; that I failed, you also know 

 from the fact of Dr. Parker treating my request 

 for this information with silence. 



I hold that the form of recognition which should 

 have been considered was that which emanated 

 from me, and which I gave you upon your own 

 request. I also hold that if it were thought 

 that I was claiming too much, the proper and 

 just thing to have done was to have afforded me 

 the opportunity of strengthening, by witnesses, 

 what was related in my brief given to you. 



In conclusion, I will say that I consider that I 

 have been treated unfairly in this whole business, 

 and as I am actuated by the commendable desire 

 to be permanently connected with the results of 

 my work on the parasite, I shall, without un- 



