May 19, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



273 



and Stimpson. During these years Dr. Stimpson was actively 

 engaged in investigations, the published results of which would 

 have made his a well-known name among the scientists of the 

 world. 



In 1871 came the great flee destroying the Academy's building 

 with all it contained, sweeping away all the results of Dr. Stimp- 

 son's life-work, as well as swallowing up in the general ruin the 

 private fortunes of the most active supporters of the Academy. 

 The loss of his papers was a severe blow to Dr. Stimpson, from 

 which he never recovered. After the fire he was taken to Florida, 

 where he died the following May. 



At the beginning of 1872, the assets of the Academy, exclusive 

 of the lot, were $33,000, $10,000 of which represented the insur- 

 ance on the burned building. No money was available for build- 

 ing, but it was decided to borrow and erect on the lot two build- 

 ings, one for the museum and one for rental. The courage and 

 hopefulness thus evinced was but a part of that characterizing 

 Chicago after the fire, and, as in the case of many a private in- 

 terest, the too sanguine view was but the prelude to further dis- 

 aster. The buildings were completed in 1873, involving a finan- 

 cial burden of |80,000, afterward increased to |100,000. 



In the general depression of business following the fire, the in- 

 come of the Academy was insufficient to meet expenses and 

 interest, until in 1881 the mortgage was foreclosed and the society 

 was homeless. 



During this time, however, the scientific work was carried for- 

 ward with commendable zeal and success. The records show 

 the interest to have been well sustained and the papers merit- 

 orious, while the museum prospered notwithstanding the finan- 

 cial stress. 



3. Decline. Following the loss of the property, interest 

 flagged, hope died out, and for ten years it became a bare strug- 

 gle for existence. The museum building was retained by rental 

 for two years, after which the collections were transferred to the 

 Exposition Building, where they remained for several years 

 under the care of the curator, J. W. Velie. The meetings were 

 desultory and not well sustained. Two series of valuable bul- 

 letins were issued, however, during this period. 



4. Revival. — In 1891 it was decided by the city authorities 

 that the old Exposition Building should be removed. This re- 

 vived the question of the disposition of the collections. A propo- 

 sition involving its transfer to Chicago University was not favor- 

 ably received by many of the members, when an opportune bene- 

 factor appeared in the person of Mathew Laflin, and settled its 

 location at Lincoln Park. This agreement contains a provision 

 by which the commissioners of the park are to add |25,000 

 toward the erection of the building and to bear all the running 

 expenses, including salary of curator and assistants to an amount 

 not exceeding $5,000 annually. The final arrangements were 

 completed April 1, 1893, since which plans have been accepted 

 and the construction will soon be under way. 



Within these two years interest in the Academy has greatly 

 revived, many new members have been enrolled, and active in- 

 vestigations set on foot along many different lines. Sections 

 have been formed in astronomy, microscopy, chemistry, and 

 other lines of work. 



The disposal of the museum frees the Academy from a heavy 

 burden, thus making the income available for publications which 

 are to be renewed at once. 



One of the enterprises now engaging the attention of the 

 Academy is a geological and natural history survey of Chicago 

 and vicinity. This will include the preparation of a topographic 

 map of the area on a scale of about one and one-half inches to 

 the mile, with contour intervals of five feet, and accompanying 

 reports upon the geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, and 

 archaeology of the district. The work is in charge of a board of 

 managers, and is being prosecuted as actively as possible. In 

 the preparation of papers many noted scientists both in and out 

 of Chicago are giving assistance. 



In connection with this work the board has also undertaken 

 the collection of views from all parts of Illinois and adjacent 

 parts of Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, illustrating interesting 

 features of geology, topography, and other points of interest. 



These will be mounted, classified, and deposited in the, Academy 

 building, where they will be accessible to all who may wish to 

 consult them. 



The president of the Academy is Dr. S. H. Peabody, ex-presi- 

 dent of Illinois University and superintendent of the Liberal Arts 

 exhibit at the World's Fair. Dr. Peabody has been an active 

 worker in the Academy for many years. 



The present hopeful outlook for the society must be attributed 

 in large. measure to the untiring zeal and energy of its efficient 

 secretary, Professor W. K. Higley. Among those identified with 

 more or less of the history of the Academy the following are still 

 among its loyal supporters: Dr. E. W. Andrews, G. C. Walker, 

 E. W. Blatchford, B. W. Thomas, B. F. Culver, C. M. Higgin- 

 son. Professor G. W. Hough, Dr. N. S. Davis, S. W. Burnham, 

 S. H. Peabody, and others. Prominent in the past but no longer 

 appearing on the active roll are the names of Professor M. Dela- 

 fontaine, E. Colbert, J. D. Caton, Professor H. H. Babcock, ex- 

 Gov. Wm. Bross, J. H. Rauch, J. W. Foster, and others. 



IS IT A SCIENCE ? 



BY WILLIAM L. SOEUGGS, ATLANTA, GA. 



In the current discussions of international questions we often 

 encounter the words commonwealth; state, and nation in the 

 alternate form, as if they were synonymous and convertible terms. 

 Now, a commonwealth may be a state or a nation, or both ; a 

 state or a nation may be a commonwealth. But the term nation 

 implies the unity of a people of the same race, descent, and lan- 

 guage under one government ; whereas a state may be composed 

 of people of diverse origin united under one govern ment of what- 

 ever form ; whilst a commonwealth is the unity of a people under 

 a free or representative government. 



Again, we have the commonly accepted statement that "states 

 or nations are bodies politic or societies of men united together for 

 the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the 

 joint efforts of their united strength." This is Vattel's definition, 

 derived from Cicero. But states and nations are not equivalent 

 terms, nor are " societies of men united together for the purpose 

 of promoting their mutual safety and advantage" necessarily 

 either "states or nations." The old Hudson Bay Company was 

 such a "society of men united," but it was neither a nation, state, 

 or commonwealth. Pirates and robbers are so united, but they 

 have none of the essential elements of statehood. The political 

 bodies corporate in the United States, the people of which con- 

 stitute our national government, are literally within Vattel's defi- 

 nition; but they are neither "states" nor "nations" in the strict 

 legal sense. They have a local police system or automatic gov- 

 ernment, but none of the elements of sovereignty or nationality. 

 The very form of their local autonomy is prescribed by a superior 

 power; they can have no diplomatic relations even between 

 themselves, much less with foreign powers ; they cannot declare 

 war or enter into public treaties ; they cannot establish post-offices 

 and post-roads; they cannot levy and collect import duties ; their 

 very local legislation must conform to that of an external and 

 paramount authority ; and their citizens are such only by I'eason 

 of the fact that they are citizens of the United States. Hence, so 

 far from being "sovereign." these political bodies corporate are 

 not even "states" in any just sense. They would be more prop- 

 erly denominated dependencies, provinces, or commonwealths. 



Again, conforming to custom, we are in the habit of speaking 

 of "the law of nations," when it is manifest there is no such 

 thing. Law is a rule of conduct prescribed by some superior 

 power able to enforce obedience. But sovereign states acknowl- 

 edge no superior; all are equal. They recognize no common 

 paramount authority; nor have they established any common 

 magistracy to interpret and apply rules for the regulation of their 

 reciprocal relations. They have no common code illustrated by 

 judicial decisions. True, there is an established usage or custom 

 in the intercourse of nations which by common consent has the 

 moral force of law; the real meaning of which is, that there are 

 certain forms of public opinion which nations, no less than indi- 

 viduals, cannot very well afford to disregard, although the duties 

 thus imposed are enforced by moral sanction only. The old 



