T. U. TAYLOE — SCIENCE AND THE STATE. 
51 
partment. It was only a few years ago that the superintendent of one of 
the most important 'scientific bureaus was dismissed for finding more in- 
spiration in the concrete demijohn than in abstract or applied science. 
At another time thousands of dollars and months of labor of many special- 
ists were spent in calculating a table of logarithms to a useless extent, 
whose only reliability was due to its being verified by lower tables. But 
in each case it was the guilty party that suffered and not the department. 
And not only has science to carry the load of such derelicts as the shirker, 
dreamer, and soft-berth scientist,, but also the bombast and advertiser. 
He is known in the community, because he keeps it thoroughly posted. 
He offers expert testimony and uses methods of publication that the 
patent medicine advertisers would eschew. But verily, all such have 
their reward. ’Tis true that there are some morphological forms of 
the scientist, but they are known by their fruits. I should like to inject 
two remarks here, made by two eminent scientists of America who have 
never played to the galleries. Professor Rowland, of Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity. said: “But for a man to occupy the professor’s chair in a prom- 
inent college, and by his energy and ability in the commercial applica- 
tions of his science, stand before the local community in a prominent 
manner, and become the newspaper exponent of his science, is a dis- 
grace both to him and his college.” Dr. T. C. Mendenhall said in an 
address: “The scientific dilettante, or, worse, the charlatan, is often 
much nearer the public than the genuine man of science, and the in- 
ability to discriminate sometimes results in disaster in which both science 
and the public suffer.” 
And now we come to consider the duty the State owes to science. 
For the material welfare of the State as a State, and of its citizens as 
subjects of the State, it behooves us to inquire carefully into the question 
of the aid the State should afford to scientific expansion. And first, we 
must consider the duty the State owes to pure science as distinguished 
from applied science. To him who reflects there can be but one de- 
cision, for if there was no pure science there would be no applied, and 
if there were no applied the human race would still be using the ox cart 
and the clam shell. Pure science is the great underground reservoir 
that is refreshing the earth here and there by some magnificent spring 
of pure and sparkling water in the shape of applied science, that invites 
mankind to come and slake his intellectual ‘thirst. There may be 
alchemy, astrology, and empirics without pure science, but no order, no 
organization, and everything haphazard. I know that there is a doubt 
in the minds of many as to the utility of science. What is the use of 
spending so much money on this investigation? To the true lover of 
science such questions excite pity. It is related that Parady was once 
asked the question, “What is the use of an abstract discovery in science?” 
