1890.] Editorial. 549 
present during good behavior, but only during the pleasure of the 
appointing powers. Changes have been and will be frequently 
made, and these are not always improvements when considered 
from the standpoint of merit and competency. Then there is that 
poison of the official atmosphere of the capital called “ depart- 
mental courtesy” or “comity.” According to this unwritten law, 
no subordinate of one department, commission or bureau, may 
indulge in criticism of the acts of any other similar organization 
without risk of losing his head ; and few appointments of persons 
known to indulge in such criticism, or to entertain opinions un- 
favorable to the abilities or accomplishments of persons in high 
positions, are made. This so-called comity is observed between 
departments, etc., in no way dependent on each other, and in 
quarters where independence should be expected and even en- 
couraged. The effect of such a state of affairs on the efficiency 
of expert employees can be easily understood. Incompetency, 
which should call forth criticism, is shielded, and those who would 
protect the country from its consequences are muzzled, so far as 
the government employees and their numerous followers are con- 
cerned. It is a lamentable fact that good and otherwise indepen- 
dent men are affected by this false and injurious sentiment after a 
short residence in the official atmosphere of Washington. The 
effect on the expert service is necessarily to depreciate it. The 
inferior men go free, and, sustained by their colleagues, are thus 
enabled to impose themselves on legislators who are not generally 
familiar with specialties in science. Thus it has happened that 
our government and people have been sometimes made ridiculous 
in the eyes of the learned world.. 
Under such circumstances the employment of Government ser- 
vants in responsible positions in a “ National University ” would 
prove disastrous. The best men would be sooner or later rotated 
out of office and inferior men would take their places. The in- 
stitution would become a by-word among the universities of the 
country, and nothing would be gained, while much wouid be lost. 
On the whole, the proposition embraced in Senator Edmunds’s 
bill does not impress us favorably. 
—In a late number of Sczence, Professor J. P. Lesley criticises 
our editorial of May on the coming meeting of the International 
Am. Nat.—June.—4. 
