Address of the Retiring President, Charles S. " 
 
 cle by Carl Snyder in a recent number of the Nort k; •Vsisr’&a!^ 
 
 • » it* • * • • • 
 
 of that paper, as well as the final conclusion from the great 
 flood of denial, explanation and further criticism which the 
 original article has called forth in American and European 
 
 periodicals. A professional critic can always be distinguished 
 
 by the simple open-or-shut test which he applies to any propo¬ 
 sition which comes under his critical eye. There is to him 
 no mean ground, no qualifying circumstance. His finely bal¬ 
 anced judgment is like the litmus paper of the chemist; if it 
 be applied to one proposition and turn red, that means one con¬ 
 clusion ; if it turn blue, that means the opposite conclusion. In 
 the rainbow of the true critic there are no colors but red and 
 blue. So in the paper referred to, we need not be surprised 
 if we fail to find a careful analysis of the subject under dis¬ 
 cussion. A blue or red test is more to Mr. Snyder’s liking. 
 He adopts, therefore, the simple device of establishing his 
 proposition by a series of comparisons between American and 
 Continental achievement in selected lines of research, with no 
 attempt at explanation, or discussion of causes or present ten¬ 
 dencies. Our attention is first directed to Pasteur’s memora¬ 
 ble discovery of forty years ago, that the process of fermenta¬ 
 tion is due to the action of micro-organisms. The culmina¬ 
 tion of Pasteur’s researches in the germ theory of disease, and 
 the great army of workers in European, states that took up 
 and extended Pasteur’s work is contrasted with the claim that 
 in all the brilliant list c ?s and applications, not one 
 
 
o 
 
 Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 
 
 American name is to be found. There is not only no Lord 
 Lister, no Behring, no Koch, among the Americans, but no 
 name of even secondary importance. 
 
 Mr. Snyder’s second arraignment of American science has 
 the physicists as the culprits. The theoretical works of Clerk 
 Maxwell and the experimental work of Hertz on electrical 
 waves, called out an army of investigators abroad, including 
 . . .such as Branly of Paris, Riglii of Italy, Slaby, Count 
 
 V .ttnll: "Braun of Germany, Preece and Lodge of Great 
 
 Britain, .bid. yoj .a single American. 
 
 ♦ «r\* * *'.*.** # 
 
 fJai? cfitR Jnfit^akes up a recent continental work on metal- 
 •* ;L| r gy..* •; He. finds it to be almost a dictionary of names of Bel- 
 .* * tgl^^LHaLhAders, Germans, Englishmen, Erenchmlen, and 
 Russians. Two Americans appear in such a host, Professor 
 Gibbs and Professor Howe, and yet, the critic remarks, America 
 is the land of the steel industry and the home of the great trust. 
 
 Considering research on the phenomena of ultra-matter and 
 the aether, the writer finds no American worthy of note among 
 the disciples of Crooks, Roentgen, and J. J. Thompson. 
 
 Mr. Snyder next, directs our attention to the work of the 
 past quarter century which has been expended in the attempt 
 to unravel the mystery of the mechanism of the human brain. 
 A whole library could be filled with the monographs, memoirs 
 and treatises on this subject from Spain, Italy, Germany, Bel¬ 
 gium, Switzerland and Austria, but in all of the many shelves 
 and stacks of this brain library there is not even a pamphlet 
 or reprint from America. 
 
 The critic, having gained enthusiasm with the sweeping char¬ 
 acter of this last conclusion, now takes up a much larger sub¬ 
 ject, that of chemistry. Obscure lands, he says, like Sweden, 
 Norway, Russia have often been to the fore, yet the history 
 of this wonderful science could be written in full detail with¬ 
 out mention of perhaps more than a single American name, 
 which according to our critic would be that of Professor Willard 
 Gibbs. In physical chemistry, or “electro chemistry” as our 
 ciitic calls it, the case is not much better. Not only has Amer¬ 
 ica no name to place with Van’t Hoff, Arrhenius, Ostwald, 
 and Raoult, but a list which should include the names of even 
 
I 
 
 * 
 
 Becent Criticism of American Scholarship. 3 
 
 the lesser builders of this imposing fabric, would hardly con¬ 
 tain a single American. 
 
 The critic says that it is easy to multiply examples, but cares 
 to note but a single additional case; namely, the theory of the 
 aether. Wise mien from many lands ha,ve come offering gifts 
 at this isshe of a happy union of experiment and imagination, 
 but in the long line from Kelvin and Helmholtz to Lorenz and 
 Poincare, you discover no faces out of the “desert of the west- 
 ern continent.” The “desert of the western continent” is Mr. 
 Snyder’s name for that part of the map of the scientific world 
 occupied by the United States. 
 
 The above are the principal claimls set forth in the article. 
 The impression made by the criticisms, as a whole, is distinctly 
 that of unfairness. In some cases, as, for example, that of 
 chemistry, the references are decidedly unjust to the rapidly 
 expanding work and reputation of American scientists. It is 
 not our purpose, however, to set up in rebuttal an opposite 
 claim as to America’s position in the scientific world. It is 
 more profitable to consider the possible causes which have made 
 the situation what it is; to note the character of present tenden¬ 
 cies, and to see what hope can be found for the near future. 
 
 First, let us consider the situation in a field of activity very 
 close to that of pure science. It is certain that no one need 
 apologize for America in the field of invention and technical 
 science. The steamboat, the telegraph, the telephone, are 
 enough of the fundamental inventions for any nation to contrib¬ 
 ute in a single century. Even if one find credit for others than 
 Morse and Bell in the last named inventions, one must remem¬ 
 ber that after all, the honors in technical science and inven¬ 
 tion belong not so much to the one who makes a discovery, 
 as is the case in pure science, as to the one who makes a dis- 
 coverv and renders it a commercial success. On this basis 
 
 C/ 
 
 America can take a large share of honor in many lines of en¬ 
 deavor. The vastness and novelty of the problems in a new 
 country have contributed to our success. The great, rivers to 
 be spanned by bridges, the great, mountain ranges to be crossed 
 by highways, the great canals to be built with high priced labor 
 have all resulted in great engineering advance and have placed 
 the rest of the world in the position of pupil to America. But 
 
1 
 
 4 Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 
 
 America has not only advanced engineering science in bridge 
 design, in railway construction and in canal digging, but lias 
 extended engineering science to entirely new fields. A famil¬ 
 iar example is the complex development of the municipal rapid 
 transit systems of the American cities. Another example is 
 the American steel frame sky-scraper, with the difficult asso¬ 
 ciated problems of heating and sanitation. A less well known 
 example, but, nevertheless, one in which the economic results 
 have been of international importance, is the application of 
 engineering science to the design of machine tools—such as 
 the lathes, boring-machines, shapers, planers, etc., used in ma¬ 
 chine shops to give form to the metal parts of a machine. Such 
 tools have not only been made highly versatile and highly auto¬ 
 matic, but the theory of their design has been enormously elab¬ 
 orated. The introduction of improved tool steel and scien¬ 
 tifically designed cutting tools, permitting deeper cuts and 
 higher speed, has increased immensely the earning power of 
 all machine tools. Likewise the introduction of standard de¬ 
 signs and dimensions in cutting tools and other parts and the 
 use of graduated indices have converted the machine tool into 
 an instrument of precision—a quantitative and. not merely a 
 qualitative instrument. The further development of the de¬ 
 sign so as to produce the maximum product in the minimum 
 time has made the cost of unit output nearly independent of 
 the operative and the rate of his daily wage. These achieve¬ 
 ments are of the kind that has enabled this country to enter 
 successfully into international competition, notwithstanding the 
 much higher cost of labor. 
 
 It is unnecessary to multiply examples of American contri¬ 
 bution to technical science, or to enumerate further additions 
 which American necessity has added to the recognized domain 
 of engineering practice. I use these facts to indicate that 
 American leadership in pure science is not hopeless, if in the 
 future there can be provided for the scientist an environment 
 as favorable as the past has allotted to the inventor and tire 
 engineer. One must be blind if he can not see such indications 
 in the present situation. It is obvious that it is not the first 
 concern of the pioneer to cultivate science and scholarship. 
 Speculation about the unknown must give way for a time to 
 
Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 
 
 attention to the more immediate necessities. The savage must 
 he driven bach, the soil must be reclaimed, shelter must be pro¬ 
 vided. 1ST ext, roads, canals, and means of communication must 
 be established, cities built, churches and schools erected. Then 
 business, commerce, and manufacturing must be fostered be¬ 
 fore profits and surplus can accumulate wherewith to provide 
 for leisure and to sustain the arts and sciences. I take it that 
 it is the coming of age of commercialism in this country that 
 has brought technical science to its present commanding place; 
 unless things go quite wrong, the natural evolution of events 
 should next culminate in a like development of pure science. 
 
 The coming change is foreshadowed in the modified character 
 of technical science. In former days engineering technology 
 was founded chiefly upon current practice rather than upon 
 established principles; it was more closely allied to the crafts 
 than to science. Xot only is that day past, but it is no longer 
 the case that technical science looks entirely to pure science 
 for its fundamental material. It has so grown that it is in¬ 
 vestigating for itself and, in greater and greater measure, 
 developing basal principles for its many needs. There are 
 very few American, treatises in pure science which will com¬ 
 pare in scientific thoroughness with several treatises which have 
 lately issued from the engineering press. This is a very hope¬ 
 ful sign in the growth of knowledge—to see applied science and 
 pure science approaching each other at numerous points, so 
 that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish any line of de¬ 
 marcation between them. In this change, science is not sacri¬ 
 ficing any of its strength nor compromising its ideals. It is 
 technology that is changing—that is becoming less empirical, 
 less conservative, more systematic, more quantitative, more 
 exact, more scientific. 
 
 The technical schools are planning their own departments for 
 research and higher work. The Massachusetts Institute of 
 Technology has organized such a department during the cur¬ 
 rent year, -while one of the plans dearest to the heart of the 
 late Dean Johnson v T as an endowment fund for technical re¬ 
 search at Wisconsin. 
 
 There are two results which naturally follow from the situa¬ 
 tion as I have described it. First, applied science, by its ex- 
 
6 Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 
 
 pansion into new fields, by its rapid approximation to a sounder 
 scientific basis, as well as by its great vitality and energy, 
 offers a miost favorable opportunity for tbe rapid development 
 of pure science, if other conditions are favorable. Secondly, 
 unless the forces which are at present working against the high¬ 
 est development of pure science in America are discovered and 
 removed, the greater share of productive energy will flow in 
 technical channels, to the detriment of the best interests of both 
 pure and applied science. 
 
 Let us now consider some of the facts in the present situation 
 which are unfavorable to the highest and best work in science. 
 The most fundamental defect, I believe, is to be found in the 
 peculiarities of our American educational system. The great 
 majority of scholars must always rely for their support upon 
 the colleges and universities. The advancement of knowledge 
 is as much a function of a. university as is the propagation 
 of learning. In fact, so many departments of scholarship in 
 this country have no home outside our educational institutions, 
 that it is highly important for the growth of knowledge that 
 conditions should be as favorable as possible in these higher 
 institutions. We find that the colleges instead of providing a 
 distinctly favorable environment, adhere to substantially tin-; 
 same methods of education that are suited to elementary schools. 
 The American college and university system is largely a sys¬ 
 tem of text book and recitation. Tasks are assigned in small 
 allotments and quizzes held, substantially as in the lower 
 schools. Even the lectures of Junior and Senior grade lack 
 the vitalizing principle appropriate to university or college 
 work. We may explain away this fact as much as we please, 
 we may draw as bright contrasts between the higher college 
 work and the work of the elementary schools as we can, yet 
 it is a fact- that from the time the grade pupil begins his work 
 in spelling, arithmetic and geography until as university stu¬ 
 dent he does his language, history, and science, he is kept con¬ 
 stantly at a grind of chores, doing tasks for a taskmaster. The 
 taskmaster must consume much of his time in holding the 
 student to account, in seeing that things are done at a specified 
 time and in specified amounts. It results that, the work is ema¬ 
 ciated and lifeless, both for instructor and student. The lee- 
 
Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 7 
 
 turer gives in two or three lectures what should he given in 
 one, and the student has twelve to eighteen of these periods 
 per week instead of half as many—numerous lunches instead 
 of half as miany substantial meals. Such a system I believe 
 , to he disastrous to the best scholarship, hto one working under 
 
 such a plan can give or receive the highest inspiration. There 
 is too much detail in instruction and too much detail in ad- 
 ' ministration. The system has not produced scholars, and we 
 
 may doubt if it has adequately succeeded as an educational 
 scheme. Instruction of the higher undergraduates, as well as 
 of the graduate students, must depend, I am convinced, upon 
 inspiration rather than upon watchfulness. It must hope to 
 reflect culture upon the students from the fire of higher in¬ 
 vestigative scholarship, rather than expect to force it upon them 
 by the pressure of an educational system. 
 
 It is idle to expect any surrender of educational purpose in 
 our colleges and universities. They must exist for the educa¬ 
 tion of youth quite as much in the future as in the past. The 
 change will come when it becomes apparent that this very work 
 can be better done by a, different and no more expensive sys¬ 
 tem. Associated with such change will come a. broadening of 
 American scholarship. Instructional positions in American 
 colleges and universities will become more attractive to ambi¬ 
 tious scholars, and our position in science materially advanced. 
 
 American scholarship seems to bo content with the filling 
 in of details within boundaries outlined by continental mas¬ 
 ters. Men from other countries have mapped out the new 
 regions and noted the chief features; American work has con¬ 
 sisted in supplying particulars. This is a corollary to what 
 we have said about our peculiar educational system. The sci¬ 
 entific work of young men, of graduate students, is amply en¬ 
 couraged by scholarships and fellowships and the like. Their 
 theses, written in this country or abroad, are too' often the 
 j best, pieces of work that they ever do, for our encouragement 
 
 stops when one of them begins instructional work. At the time 
 of life when the scientist should be producing his best work, 
 y say from 30 to 50 years of age, he is held down to mere in- 
 
 structional routine by the American quality of his college or 
 university professorship. To take the lead in science our schol- 
 
8 
 
 Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 
 
 arship must become catholic; we must contribute to knowl¬ 
 edge a due share of the great generalizations, of the funda¬ 
 mental principles. This requires that all professors in all in¬ 
 stitutions should be engaged in productive work, so that in the 
 multitude the genius may be discovered and advanced to greater 
 opportunity. 
 
 Let us attempt to nanfe, as others have', the great scientific 
 truths which the 19th centurv added to the sum of knowledge. "* 
 The list is about as follows:— 
 
 1. The principle of evolution. 
 
 2. The atomic structure of matter. 
 
 3. The existence of the aether and the undulatory theory of 
 
 light and electricity. 
 
 4. The principles of electro-magnetic induction. 
 
 5. The principles of electrolytic action. 
 
 6. The discovery of micro-organisms and the germ theory 
 
 of contagious disease. 
 
 7. The principle of conservation of energy. 
 
 The question for us to raise is:—-How much would the dis¬ 
 covery of these truths have been retarded if America had not 
 existed ? What would be the loss to science and humianity if 
 the American contributions to these great principles could be 
 removed from the libraries of the world ? The answer must be 
 that America has not materially affected the general result. 
 Such is likely to be the case in the future if the position of 
 the scholar in the educational system is to remain as it is at 
 present. 
 
 A early every college and university instructor in the land 
 needs wider opportunity for productive scholarship than our 
 system permits. It is in the multitude of scientific workers 
 that there is hope. The man of genius is a rare bird, and 
 we must have a numerous class from which to produce him. 
 A few institutions, with high ideals cannot raise America from 
 her present position, if the instructors in other institutions must 
 remain mere teachers, and view from afar the scientific work 
 of others. Matthew Arnold once said that the smallest Ger¬ 
 man university contributed more to human knowledge than Ox- 
 ford and Cambridge with all of their wealth. College Trustees 
 
 *1 have added 5 and G to the list of Sir WUliam Preece. 
 
Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 
 
 9 
 
 and presidents in this country could well afford to ponder over 
 the significance of this criticism. 
 
 A very good indication that America’s inferior position in 
 
 m 
 
 science is due in large part to her higher educational system 
 is seen when we consider those branches of pure science in 
 which America stands highest. I suppose that all will agree 
 that the United States is in the very front rank in astronomy, 
 geology, and meteorology. But there are the very branches 
 which are freest from the influence of the American teaching 
 system. Astronomy has thrived in the National Observatory, 
 in the great university observatories, and in a few private or 
 independent observatories, like the Lick. In all of these cases, 
 instructional requirements are either absent altogether or are 
 at a minimtum. Likewise geology has been fostered by the 
 great government bureau, and the best geologists in the uni¬ 
 versities have had opportunity to work under its auspices, with 
 consequent curtailment of university instruction. Three past 
 presidents of the Wisconsin Academy, Chamberlin, Irving, and 
 Van ITise, have won international fame in this line of work. 
 This was not due to a helpful situation at Beloit or Madison, 
 but to the opportunity which the national survey afforded them. 
 In meteorology the sole patron has been the general govern¬ 
 ment, and the service has honored American science with a 
 long list of names of international currency,—Espy, Bedfield, 
 Loomis, Eerrel, Abbe. Likewise, a few purely investigative 
 institutions, like Wood’s Holl, The Museum of Comparative 
 Zoology, The Washington Botanical Gardens, etc., all bring to 
 bear their share of proof that it is not lack of brains or scien¬ 
 tific capacity that has kept higher scholarship out of our col¬ 
 leges and universities. 
 
 Among the many discussions of the present subject which 
 nil the reviews of the current year, there is one in a French 
 periodical, La Bevue, written by Jean Jussieu. This writer 
 will not admit that America is too young to have attained dis¬ 
 tinction in science and art. He has no doubt that the cause 
 of America’s scientific inferiority is the too great triumph of 
 democracy. He says: “The idea of the moral equality of 
 citizens brings about in most minds the idea of intellectual 
 equality, which is of course a profound error. The result is 
 
10 
 
 Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 
 
 tli© “bourgeoisisme” not only of a class, as in France, but of 
 the whole nation. Democracy assures the triumph of utilita¬ 
 rianism. The formula of both is the greatest good for the 
 greatest number. Now the value of a principle depends upon 
 the person who adopts it. In the mouth of the majority this 
 principle has come to mean:—‘So long as I do not interfere 
 with another, there is no reason why I should honor him rather 
 than myself.’ It is easy to see what this means in the mouth 
 of one of average intelligence; it is the end of all spirit of dis¬ 
 interestedness, not only in science, but in art and in moral¬ 
 ity. Men who will not sacrifice themselves for another man 
 will hardly do so for an idea, a precept. Worldly success, the 
 monev making ideal, has fettered and will continue to fetter 
 
 American science.In the United States, it 
 
 may be said, the school governs science, the masters govern the 
 school, the parents govern the masters, the children govern the 
 parents,—therefore the children govern science.” 
 
 “Again there is too much attention paid to athletics. A di¬ 
 rector of football at an American university gets $6,000.00 a 
 year; a coach, $1,500.00 for ten or twelve weeks’ service, with 
 board and lodging. Sports occupy a proportional amount of 
 space in American newspapers.” 
 
 “The true scientific spirit, according to Herbert Spencer, is 
 the synthetic spirit, which sees likenesses where the common 
 mind only sees divergencies,” It is this which M. Jussieu 
 considers is almost lacking in America, Here scientific writ¬ 
 ings are almost always merely analytical—statistics, compila¬ 
 tions, observations, etc., requiring altogether a lower order of 
 intelligence. 
 
 The criticisms of M. Jussieu cannot be ignored or lightly 
 dismissed. It is hard, or impossible, for an American to admit 
 that science and democracy cannot both triumph on American 
 soil. We are too prejudiced to accept such a proposition even 
 it proved. Nevertheless, may we not agree that, after all, some 
 of our ideals have been fallacious ? Have we not gone too much 
 on the principle that every one must receive a higher educa¬ 
 tion, whether lie will or not ? If in preparation for such an 
 education it is too difficult or too inconvenient to master Greek 
 and Latin, have we not accepted too eagerly such things as 
 
I 
 
 liecent Criticism of American Scholarship. 11 
 
 civics and literary readings as equivalents ? Is it not true that 
 American colleges and universities have cared too much for 
 numbers and for athletic success % It is not too much democ¬ 
 racy that makes it relatively easy for colleges to get buildings 
 1 and so hard to get income, both from! individuals and from the 
 
 state \ Is it not true that too much is made of newspaper pub¬ 
 licity and too little of scholarly reputation ? 
 r Answers to these questions show that Jussieu’s criticisms are 
 
 not without some force. Yet it seems to me that there is no in¬ 
 dication that democracy is necessarily plebeian. The expe¬ 
 rience of Greece and even of our own country seems to show 
 that democracy admits of sufficient refinement and that the 
 evils that the critic notes are not to be considered as essential 
 bnt merely incidental to certain phases of development. There 
 are also a number of facts of a contrary character to those 
 sought out by Jussieu. It is encouraging to know that the 
 people of Wisconsin have erected as their noblest public build¬ 
 ing the Historical Library, a home for advanced scholarship 
 and research. It also is significant that as a class the state 
 universities, founded and endowed directly by the people, have 
 advanced more in investigative scholarship during the past 
 decade than in any other line of their growth. 
 
 There are some things inherent in democracy which should 
 naturally tend to foster the higher interests of science. There 
 are supposed to he, in republican institutions, no artificial re¬ 
 straints to hold down and keep obscure the exceptional man, 
 the man of genius, no matter how obscure his origin. As 
 Professor Simon 1STewcomb has well said: “The whole history 
 of modern progress, whether in science or industry, is a his¬ 
 tory of the efforts of exceptional mien.” .... “The 
 leader in science, the divinely inspired explorer of nature— 
 whom no university has made what he is, who has learned 
 for himself how knowledge can be advanced, whose main out- 
 
 * fit is the original genius with which nature has endowed him, 
 whose paramount motive is a native impulse,” should have the 
 fairest show in a democracy. But Professor AT ewcomb com- 
 
 * plains that in our failure to estimate and honor the individ¬ 
 ual scientific investigator we stand far behind all other enlight¬ 
 ened nations. Such honor as England showed to Lord Kel- 
 
12 
 
 Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 
 
 vin and Sir George Gabriel Stokes in the impressive jubilees 
 
 held in recent years, the noble tribute paid by all Germany 
 
 to the venerable Helmholtz upon liis seventieth birthday and 
 
 the recent tribute of France to Berthelot, seem quite impossi- 
 
 ble in America. Such honor, suggests Professor [Newcomb, 1 
 
 is not needed so that each investigator may say “See what may ■* 
 
 be done for me if I am successful” but so that all may say 
 
 “See what a high value my countrymen set upon the best kind 
 
 of intellectual work.” 
 
 The most favorable classification of the rank of modern na¬ 
 tions in productive scholarship that I have seen places America 
 in the fourth place. This classification attempts to divide the 
 countries into groups of approximately equal population, and 
 is as follows: 
 
 1. Germany and Austria. 
 
 2. Great Britain and Colonies. 
 
 3. France and Belgium. 
 
 4. The United States. 
 
 5. Italy. 
 
 6. Scandinavia, Holland, and a miscellaneous group of states. 
 
 7. Spain and Spanish Colonies. 
 
 One cannot be satisfied with the position of America in this 
 scheme, but it seems impossible to challenge its truth. Yet 
 it is true that the difference between class 2, Great Britain 
 and Colonies, and class 3, France and Belgium, is exceedingly 
 slight: many would probably prefer to put France and Bel¬ 
 gium in second place, so that America occupies a sort of third 
 place, the second position being nearly evenly divided. But 
 after all, it is not so much our actual grade that, need concern 
 us, as the character of present tendencies and our rate of de¬ 
 velopment. And in this aspect there is much encouragement. 
 
 The American scholar is now wide awake, both to his actual 
 position in the world and to the vast opportunities before him. » 
 
 His ambition is kindled and he is beginning to insist upon op¬ 
 portunity for work and for proper recognition for what is at¬ 
 tained. 
 
 It is the hope of every American that the new Carnegie 
 Institution will have a marked influence upon the advance of 
 
Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 13 
 
 science in this country- This munificent foundation was of- 
 fered to America at a most opportune time. The whole range 
 of American scholarship had just entered upon a season of 
 promising growth. i\o stimulus of greater power to vitalize 
 science can be imagined than the fortunate creation of this new 
 
 corporation for the fostering of research. It is amazing t:> 
 • L - ° 
 
 note, however, the lack of perspective, the inadequggjfof ideals’ 
 among American scientists which have been disclosed by the 
 
 o o , j y o»o j 
 
 founding of this institution. The numerous discussions^ pon-> 
 
 corning the proper use of the Carnegie gift which. hav„e fakeu 
 
 . ^ # ■>»*•* *> .■>*, ■> 
 
 up so much space in the weekly issues of e ‘Scifinfie y*»during ’ 
 the past autumn make one ashamed of the poverty of ambi¬ 
 tion and smallness of scientific scope which many of the 
 scientific men of this country have displayed. If the advisory 
 committees of the Carnegie Institution do not act on higher 
 ideals than those presented by a majority of the suggestions 
 printed in Science, then all the new establishment can hope to 
 accomplish is to add to American science more of the same 
 material that is being abundantly accumulated at the present 
 time. 
 
 The Carnegie Institution should take its chief warning from 
 the unfortunate history of the Smithsonian Institution, which 
 at one time promised so much for American science. This 
 institution instead of becoming the one place in the United 
 States where the highest science could always find a home, has 
 become very largely a routine institution. It spends its money 
 for salaries ami administration in true American fashion and 
 has a minimum to show for its more than fifty years of ex¬ 
 istence. At the present time about four-fifths of its income 
 goes for salaries and expense of administration. The Ameri¬ 
 can is a great man for stipends, and stenographers, and card 
 catalogs. Fortunate would it have been if a Helmholtz had 
 had charge of this institution. Tie would have been so ab¬ 
 sorbed in his science that he would have forgotten about his 
 clerks and type-writers, but his suggestions and plans, given 
 to his scientific workers, would have made at Washington an 
 institution conspicuous “for the increase and diffusion of knowl¬ 
 edge among men.” It is one of the good signs of the times 
 that scientific journals have come to recognize the deficiences 
 
14 
 
 Recent Criticism of American Scholarship. 
 
 in the work of the Smithsonian Institution and are loudly call- 
 ing for a change of policy. 
 
 A question of much interest to us is: What part shall Wis¬ 
 consin take in the new revival of learning which seems to he 
 upon us ? It has often seemed to me that Wisconsin was des¬ 
 
 tined to become a sort of Scotland to the other states of the Mis- 
 
 c. c ; «■ t 
 
 /sjssippf alley, to be the home of a sturdy people, with high in- 
 • tellectual and moral ideals, even if it could not excel neighbor- 
 c ingt'tates In lAihm&rce and wealth. Wisconsin is a state of roll¬ 
 ing hills* aitd partly drained valleys, marked out by nature for 
 t dairying 2 and"diversified farming rather than for grain and corn 
 raising as it is found on the flat prairies of Illinois and Iowa. 
 Wisconsin has no great beds of coal beneath her soil, and her 
 manufacturing, instead of being of the cruder and grosser soil, 
 must in large part develop the more highly finished products 
 suitable to a more expensive cost of fuel. But these very facts 
 have a compensating advantage. There will be little attraction in 
 Wisconsin for the lower grade of immigrants which are brought 
 
 in by the coal mines and the less finished manufactures. In¬ 
 stead of much wealth in the hands of a few, there is hope that 
 Wisconsin may enjoy a more equal division of the good things of 
 life, more contentment, and immeasurably greater refinement 
 and learning than will be the lot of her more populous 
 neighbors. Wisconsin will be satisfied if she can share in a 
 large way in the intellectual life of the nation and furnish her 
 country with scholars and statesmen. It must be the ambition 
 of every scholar in the state to do his part in building up the in¬ 
 tellectual reputation of Wisconsin, and, more than all, for each 
 one to do all he can to bring about an elevation of ideals in all 
 institutions of learning within our borders, so that her scientific 
 men may enjoy wider opportunities for productive w T ork. Our 
 ambition must extend beyond our individual work, and must 
 especially include the advancement of the best interests of the 
 state Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. It should be the 
 inspiration of every scholar in the state to have within our 
 borders a better Academy than is found in any neighboring state. 
 Our printed Transactions appear upon the shelves of practically 
 every library in the learned world. Ho publication within our 
 state has so wide a circulation, the original of a citation from 
 
1 
 
 Recent Criticism of American Scholar ship. 15 
 
 an Academy paper being instantly accessible in almost any seat 
 of learning in the world. It should be our pride, therefore, 
 that this society, which is the intellectual ambassador of the 
 .state of Wisconsin to the learned world, should be maintained in 
 the highest possible position; that its dignity should be com¬ 
 mensurate with the honor of science as well as with the honor of 
 a great commonwealth. With such a purpose in his mind, let 
 every member of this Academy renew his allegiance and his ac¬ 
 tivity. Let all the productive intellectual forces of the state be 
 united in this society as an instrument for the advancement of 
 investigation and the spread of knowledge. 
 

 
 3 0112 099414457