SCIENCE. 



FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1885. 



COMMENT AND CRITICISM. 



That a wide-spread dissatisfaction with the 

 past management of the U. S. department of 

 agriculture exists, is obvious ; but, be} 7 ond the 

 somewhat puerile scheme for improving the 

 department by a change of name and an 

 access of official dignity to its chief, public 

 discussion has been mainly confined to a con- 

 sideration of the merits of various candidates 

 for the position. A noteworthy exception to 

 this rule is to be found in an article in the 

 Pacific rural press of Jan. 3, by Prof. E. W. 

 Hilgard of the University of California. This 

 article is an abstract of a longer article by the 

 same author in the Atlantic monthly for May, 

 1882, and is especially timely at the present 

 moment. The gist of Professor Hilgard 's 

 proposition is to make the office of commis- 

 sioner of agriculture less, and not more, of a 

 ' political' office, than at present, or rather to 

 remove it from politics altogether. Instead of 

 a cabinet officer, changing with each adminis- 

 tration, if not oftener, he would have him "a 

 technical expert, not only responsible to the 

 government, but amenable to that rigorous 

 and incorruptible tribunal constituted of his 

 scientific and technical compeers, and under 

 the standing menace of a loss of his profes- 

 sional reputation, which no whitewashing com- 

 mittees, in or out of congress, could in anj T 

 manner condone or undo." 



We pass over Professor Hilgard' s man}- 

 other excellent suggestions regarding the man- 

 agement of the department, because this one 

 appears to us to be the one fundamental re- 

 form which is needed, and which, if once 

 secured, would be followed by the others as 

 naturally as daylight follows the dawn. The 

 coast and geodetic survey, and the geologi- 

 cal surveys, have shown what government or- 



Xo. 105. — 1885. 



ganizations can accomplish when divorced from 

 politics, and directed by competent profes- 

 sional men holding office during ' good be- 

 havior.' The interests of agriculture are 

 second to none in our country in magnitude, 

 or in the novelty and difficulty of the problems 

 presented. In no direction could a thorough 

 knowledge of the art and science of agriculture 

 find a wider or more attractive field for its ex- 

 ercise. In the interest alike of agricultural 

 science and of practical agriculture, we hope 

 that Professor Hilgard 's suggestions may be 

 speedily realized, and that the office may be 

 rendered attractive to the class of experts from 

 among whom it ought to be filled, but who, 

 under the present condition of affairs, are 

 neither thought of for the position, nor could 

 afford to accept it if asked. 



We have a prize offered b} T an American, 

 one who would be known as a Good Samaritan, 

 no doubt ; and this prize, offered as it is for 

 the discovery of a new comet or asteroid, has 

 two singular conditions attached. First, the 

 discoverer may not be of the continent of Eu- 

 rope. This condition is singular. Does not 

 the European buy the wares of the Good 

 Samaritan, or is it that the most successful 

 seeker for little planets is a resident of the 

 European mainland? It would seem that in 

 the community of scientific men it would be as 

 well that a Frenchman or an Austrian should 

 have the honor, and should be encouraged as 

 much in the discovery of a little ball of wan- 

 dering rock, or of a comet, as that an English- 

 man, or an American, or a South-Sea Islander 

 should have his ambition for scientific glory 

 stimulated by the hope of a prize. Still there 

 can be no serious objection to the giver limit- 

 ing the competitors for a prize as he may see fit. 



A second condition carries with it some dan- 

 gers. The discoverer must, without notice to 

 others, send word to the director of the ob- 



