1880. } Editors’ Table. 3) 
to be important that the control of the working material of the 
institution should be in the hands of those who do the work and 
give it its reputation; and further, that lectures should, from time 
to time, be delivered, which would constitute statements of the 
progress of science, as made by the workers of the academy and 
of the world at large. These propositions, whose reasonableness 
is so self evident, bringing the academy, as they would, into con- 
formity with the usage of similar bodies throughout the world, 
were stoutly resisted by some of the members. As discussion 
proceeded, it became evident that without such an organization, 
or its equivalent, the title of “ Academy” is a misnomer, and that 
nothing good could be expected of the club management under 
which it was conducted. It was shown that under this order the 
position of an expert working in the institution was an unenviable 
one; that free use of the museum exposed him to charges of 
misconduct by irresponsible and ignorant persons, and brought 
him in conflict with employés who recognized only the authority 
of the four curators. It was brought to view that the most pro- 
fuse liberality and generosity to the institution afforded no pro- 
tection from these wrongs, and that while gifts of the greatest 
value were gladly accepted, obstacles, often indirect but always 
effective, were thrown in the way of the use, by the donors, of 
these, and even of unpresented private property. It was shown 
that the arrangement and labeling of the collections were fre- 
quently entrusted to incompetent persons, and that the result was- 
what might be expected; also that the museum was not keeping 
pace with the age, and that as a consequence, original work in 
connection with it had almost ceased. The result of the discus- 
sion was as stated, the adoption of the proposed re- organization, 
with only two dissenting voices. 
One of the two noes came from the president, Dr. Ruschen- 
berger. Although standing thus in opposition to the will of the 
academy, the services of this gentleman in the cause of science 
in raising money for the erection of the building the academy 
now occupies, were justly so appreciated by the members, that he 
was reélected to fill the position for another year. A due sense 
of the generous action of the majority in thus electing an oppo- 
nent to the highest position within their gift, if not sufficient to — 
_ induce conformity to the republican principle of a support of the 
views of the majority, should at least have suggested a passive 
attitude towards their attempts to carry their wishes into effect. 
But the friends of progress were doomed to disappointment. A 
determination to stamp out the new measures was manifested by 
a few members, who, having abandoned legitimate opposition, 
adopted the weapon of the weak—personal defamation. By 
introducing damaging personalties, so that a full discussion was 
impossible prior to an election of officers, much injury to the 
interests of the institution, as well as injustice to private persons, 
