of ~h.cr 
.. ~ ~ " "". ... J ~. .~ ' ..,.. J.-._·.:.. ... '-'-. ._, ...;..., L; t~sir nectins at t~e 
~ ,- . 
l .... C;,.?J..ne 
-.-:-~Yl Yl e 
t·it~o~J ads;ua t a r e c c Ti s i dsr~ti on b y ~hi s b ody and the Trus t ees . 
~r ..... . .,. 
J... .; .... \..,.. .. : : efor e ~cJ ir e t o s t a t s t~c ir opini on t hat t he 
:. n~·.i. :;.enrlon e! ':C . 
3 . I~ pursuancd c~ t he sugcest i on of the s i x t h ar t icle of 
of the Luri:1e 3 i cloc; i cal Lo.-oo·..-
t J.: e rliopo sal 
the occupa~~ cf enc~ to b e furnis hed 
COLUMBIA UNIVER'SITI' 
D IVISION OF 
PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY ANoANTHROPOLOGY 
Garrison-on-Hudson, N.Y. October 8, I902 
Dear ~1hi tman: -
I saw Wilson yesterday and the day before, ar.d he has 
given me news that you will doubtless be glad to learn, namely, 
that Dr. Billings does not now intend to recommend taking over 
the laboratory in November, but proposes to make an offer of a 
grant of JI0,000 a year for three years. Please regard this 
as confidential until you hear from Wilson or Billings. Under 
these circumstances I think that it would not be advisable to 
circulate the petition at present, at least not unless you are 
sure that a large majority of those interested would sign it. I 
shall myself be glad to do so. 
I ought also to tell you that '.1ilson does not lL.;:e the 
reference in your article stating that the initiative in regard 
to owning the laboratory by the Carnegie Institution came from 
the trustees of the laboratory. 
of which I enclose. 
Professor C. O. Whitman, 
University of Chicago 
Enclosure 
He has written a letter, proof 
Very truly yours, 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITf" 
Di\/JSIDN OF 
PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY 
Garriscn-o~-Hudson, Oct ob er 8, IS02 
I s2w ~ilson yesterdey and the day before, a~d he has 
given me news that you will doubtless ~e gl2d to learn , namely 1 
that Dr . Billings Joes not now intend tc reccGmend ta~ing ov er 
the laboratory in Nove~b~~, ' ~ 
... '-·' of r er~ of a 
Please rega~d this 
as confldenti~ unti~ you hs~~ from W5Json or Bil l ings . Under 
these circu~stanc0s I t~ink that it wcuJd not be advisaole to 
:irculate t~e petiticn at ;resent , at le~3t not u n less you 8re 
t~e trJstees of ~he laboratory. 
Enclosure 
.. ,.. 
OCTOBER 10, 1902.) SCIENCE. 59f l DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. ·Tirn MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY AND THE 11 
CARNEGIE INSTITUTION. SOME MATTERS 
OF FACT. 
THE article by Professor Whitman in the 
issue of SCIENCE for October 3d, entitled 
' The Impending Crisis in the History of the 
Marine Biological Laboratory,' contains much 
that is excellent by way of statement of gen-
eral principle, but raises certain questions of 
fact that should be clearly understood by the 
general scientific public. The discussion car-
ried on during the negotiations with the Car-
negie Institution turned largely on the propo-
sition that the existing property of the labo-
ratory should be transferred to the Carnegie 
Institution, and was especially concerned with 
the question whether, under the reorganiza-
tion thus necessitated, the scientific inde-
pendence and representative coopen1tive char-
acter of the laboratory would be surrendered. 
As chairman of the executive committee of 
the laboratory during the course of the nego-
tiations I ask attention to two principal points 
in regard to which Professor Whitman's letter 
creates, I think, a wrong impression concern-
ing the action of our own trustees and those 
Gf the Carnegie Institution. 
The first is contained in the following pas-
sage (p. 511) : 
" It is due to the trustees of the Carnegie In· 
stitution to say that the proposition to acquire 
the laboratory as a condition to supporting it 
did not originate with them. This is the humili· 
ating side of the situation in which we now find 
ourselves. They were told that the laboratory 
was in dire financial distress, that some local 
western institution was machinating to get pos· 
session; in short, that there was an emergency 
requiring immediate action to save the institu· 
tion. They were asked on wh!!;!_l.erms they .would 
consent to own ana -support it." (Italics mine.) 
I desire to state that, by the insertion of the 
words ' to own ' in the above passage, the form 
in which the matter was laid before the Car-
negie Institution by our committee is changed 
in an essential particular. No such question 
was asked or suggested in any of the official 
correspondence, all of which passed through 
my hands; and if such a request or suggestion 
was privately made by anyone connected with 
the laboratory it was without the authoriza-
tion, and without the knowledge of the execu-
tive committee. On the contrary, the opinion 
was expressed to the Carnegie trustees that 
'An organization similar to the existing one 
would be preferable if compatible with ade-
quate financial support' (quoted from a letter 
to Secretary Walcott dated March 8) ; and 
in communications addressed to President 
Gilman, Secretary Walcott and others the Car-
negie trustees were only invited to offer sug-
gestions as to 'the best practicable organiza-
tion that would commend itself to the Car-
negie Institution as an assurance of its 
national representative character' (quoted 
from the same letter to Secretary Walcott). 
The suggestion that the Carnegie Institu-
tion should own the property of the laboratory 
first came to the Marine Biological Laboratory 
trustees from a subcommittee appointed by 
the Carnegie executive committee to consider 
and report upon the general proposition to 
support the laboratory; to the best of my 
knowledge and belief it originated with mem-
bers of this subcommittee. It was based on 
the ground that a guarantee of permanent and 
continuous support, involving the purchase of 
land, erectioh and equipment of buildings, 
and the regular contribution of funds for run-
ning expenses, could only be promised the 
laboratory by placing the Carnegie trustees in 
a position of financial control and responsi-
bility. The grounds for taking this position 
were fully and repeatedly explained to the 
representatives of the laboratory as an obvi-
ous necessity of good business management; 
and at no time during the negotiations was 
the least ground given for the suspicion that 
an unfair_ adv:antag was l:Jeing taken of the 
emergency created by the financial difficulties 
of the laboratory. In the various discussions 
which took place the line was clearly drawn 
between financial control and scientific con-
trol. 
The second point, therefore, to which attenc 
tion is directed is the nature of the guarantee 
of scientific independence offered the labora-
tory by the Carnegie committee. From Pro-
fessor Whitman's letter it might be inferred 
.. 
592 SCIENCE. [N. S. VOL. XVI. No. 406. 
that · the only assurance of freedom of action 
lay in the personal statements of ' one or two 
of our trustees.' His meaning will doubtless 
be clear to those familiar with the basis of 
agreement, but as a statement to scientific 
men in general, who are not fully cognizant of 
the true situation, it is somewhat misleading. 
It is due alike to the Carnegie Institution and 
to the scientific public to state that the entire 
scientific management of the laboratory, under 
the proposed arrangement, is placed in the 
hands of a representative board of scientific 
~ .:::-:;;-~~"""''--"'"=,:;.:men,-tha cens·titution, powe-rs. and fuuctions...o 
which are fully defined in a set of by-laws 
roughly drafted by our own representatives in 
consultation with those of the Carnegie Insti-
tution, submitted in writing to every member 
of our board of trustees, discussed and modi-
fied in subsequent meetings of conference com-
mittees, and finally adopted by unanimous 
vote of the board at their last meeting before 
action by the corporation. Nominated to the 
Carnegie trustees by members of the labora-
tory, and subject only to the limits of the 
appropriations made by the Carnegie Institu-
tion and of income from other sources, this 
board of managers is given entire control of 
the scientific management of. the laboratory 
and its dependencies, and is by the ·by-laws 
constituted an advisory council 'to the Car-
negie Institution. The only conditions limit-
ing the action of this board were that it should 
include one representative of the Carnegie 
trustees, · and that, in accordance with the 
terms of Mr. Carnegie's endowment, the Car-
negie funds were not to be devoted to purposes 
~::..--~=.,,,,,,,._=-===;.~~ instruction.J.Q.__mal!Y of the 
trustees and members of the corporation it has 
seemed that this organization not only gave 
the scientific management the utmost freedom 
consistent with sound financial management, 
but by the constitution of the board as an 
advisory council to the institution gave it full 
opportunity to exert its influence in molding 
the future policy and development of the labo-
ratory. 
Whether the working plan thus outlined is 
adequate to the present needs and future de-
, velopment of the laboratory is no doubt open 
to discussion; and it may be stated on good 
authority that it will not be consummated, 
either in its present form or with modifica-
tions, without giving abundant further oppor-
tunity for such consideration. To maintain, 
however, that such a plan involves the aban-
donment of the principles of scientific repre-
sentation, cooperation and freedom, would I 
think be at variance with the facts. That the 
laboratory has hitherto stood for these prin-
ciples, and owes its success largely to their 
successful application, is undeniable; and that 
such cooperation has been possible in so large 
measrn; is- - lasting-honor~to-American~=--=--­
biologists. But before adopting a pessimistic 
view of the prospects of retaining the real 
substance of these much-to-be-desired bless-
ings under the proposed Carnegie reorganiza-
tion, it may be well to ask ourselves, in all 
candor, whether the history of the laboratory 
under its existing organization has left us 
above criticism. 
EDMUND B. WILSON, 
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Ma· 
rine Biological Laboratory during the period of 
tlie negotiations with the Carnegie Institution. 
THE COOLING OF GASES BY EXPANSION AND THE ' 
KINETIC THEORY. 
IN SCIENCE for August 22 there appears au 
abstract of a communication presented ·by Mr. 
Peter Fireman at the last meeting of the 
American Association, in which the cooling 
and heating effects in the classical experiment 
of Joule are referred to a sort of fractioning 
process of the slow and swift molecules. Fi:ow 
rigorous a treatment he has given the subject 
I am unable to judge from the abstrac.t, in 
:which..i · m.erely~cL..that, if a ruol"""'~-'='::.....:.;'=== 
enters the vacuum receiver at a high velocity, 
it will retain this velocity, while if a slower 
moving one enters, it will soon meet with a 
swifter one and exchange velocities with it. 
Just how the fractioning process occurs is not 
very clearly stated. 
This same explanation, only in a much more 
complete form, was given by Natanson more 
than thirteen years ago. His treatment will 
be found in Wiedemann's Annalen, Vol. 
XXXVII., page 341. R.. W. W ooD. 
SAN FRANCISCO, 
September 8, 1902. 
[.Reprinted from SqENCE, N. S., Vol. XVI. 1 No. 4()Q,, 
fa¥ea 66§-667, Octo~6'r 24, 1902.] · · 
~OME MATTERS OF FACT OVERLOOKED BY PR(),,'. 
FESSOR WILSON, 
PROFESSOR WILSON seems to think that the 
general scientific public is in danger of getti~ 
' a wrong impression' of the situation at 
Woods Holl from my article in SCIENCE of 
October 3; and in order to prevent this he ;I 
offers some criticisiWnd insinuations which, S 
I think, may produce a worse impression than 
·the one he desires to correct. Let me say, 
therefore, to begin with, that our different 
standpoints and opinions have been, and will 
doubtless contmue to be held on perfectly 
friendly terms. 
Professor Wilson has favored merging the 
laboratory in the Carnegie Institution, and he 
has insisted very strongly that the independ-
ence of the laboratory would not be thereby 
endangered in any essential respect. This view 
was naturally ~eductive, for what friend of 
the laboratory would not welcome a permanent 
support which could be had without the sacri-
fice of a single principle or condition of vital 
importance~ The financial difficulties under 
which we have so long labored predisposed all 
to accept relief and forget the risk. The assur-
ance that there was no real risk from the one 
who had carried on most of the negotiations for 
our side, and the conditions proposed by the 
Carnegie committee all tended to allay doubt. 
Our organization was to remain essentially as 
it is, our work was not to be interfered with, 
we were to direct the policy of the laboratory 
as hitherto, and our needs in the way of land, 
buildings, boats, libraries, etc., were to be pro-
vided for; in short, we were to have a per-
manent laboratory with staff and equipD1ent 
2 
for work throughout the year, a laboratory that 
would rival the best in the world. So bright 
\lid the prospect appear to Professor Wilson 
that he could speak of it as 'beyond the dream 
of avarice.' With all my faith in Dr. Wilson's 
sagacity, I cannot escape the suspicion that 
he has been u:n,der the spell of some trance-
like illusion, which, for the time being, ex-
dudes a calm consid\lration of ' matters of 
fact.' 
If the latest communi9ation from the Car-
negie committee does not dispel the illusion, 
I do not know what will. This communication 
has gone to all our trustees and V\'Hl probably 
be announced at the proper time. H is suf-
ficient to say, that it conclusively gonfi11ms the 
position I have taken, namely, that the lp,hor" ./.,t-- / 
jltory should remain forever independent. but tf""I--~ 
always ready for cooperation and always grat~ 
ful for such sunport as its work may deserye., 
- Tiiis is the main point of my pap~r, whic.Q 
Professor Wilson criticises in a *rit that f'i1 
seems to me to fall a little short of ami!!-ble i 
but I hope I am mistaken in this. 
As the matter now turns, we may rejoice 
that our trust and our mistakes have not been 
confounded by the Carnegie trustees; and we 
are most deeply indebted to their wisdom, 
frankness and generosity. It is now, I believe, 
needless to follow Professor Wilson further on 
this point, as he has been answered by the 
communication above mentioned more effect-
ively than by any arguments that I could offer. 
There is just one incident bearing on this 
point, which I wish to recall as a significant 
matter of fact. After our corporation meet-
ing, August 12, a petition was drawn up by 
one of the members and presented to Pro-
fessor Wilson for approval. That part of the 
petition which concerns us here was as fol-
lows: 'We, therefore, hope that the trustees 
of the Carnegie Institution may find it pos-
sible to support the Marine B10logical Labora· 
tory in the manner proposed, without requitr-
8 
ing it to b-ecome a branch of the Carnegie 
Institution.' Professor Wilson read the peti-
tion, and at once declared that he was willing 
to sign it. When the petition was presented 
a few days later, Professor Wilson, for rea· 
sons that need not be given here, declined 
to give his signature, and the petition was 
consequently abandoned. The incident is sig-
TI:iiicant as showing that at that time Pro-
fessor Wilson was willing to endorse a prefer-
,ence for preserving the independence of the 
laboratory. I believe every member of the 
corporation would have been glad to sign such 
a petition, had it seemed safe and proper to do 
so. The fact throws light on the situation as 
a whole, and as it is no secret, I feel justified 
in bringing it forward. 
I regret that Professor Wilson does not 
seem to approve of the publication of my 
paper in SCIENCE. I felt that the time had 
come for me to remove the misunderstanding 
in regard to my position. I stated the situa-
tion as I understood it, and frankly avowed 
my desire to preserve the independence of the 
laboratory. I submitted the paper to a num-
ber of the trustees and finally to Dr. Billings, 
who consented to its publication. Professor 
Wilson stigmatizes my view as 'pessimistic 1 
and closes with a reference to past criticisms' 
of the laboratory which might well have been 
omitted as wholly unprovoked and uncalled 
for. This is the most unkind cut of all, that 
a friend of the laboratory should thus covertly 
countenance its calumniators. 
One point more. Professor Wilson objects 
to my saying that the plan of acquiring the 
laboratory as a condition to supporting it did 
not originate with the trustees of the Carnegie 
Institution. I stated the matter as I under-
stood it and as I still see it. Professor Wilson 
was not the only one on our side who at first 
had a hand in determining events. 
We have been repeatedly told by the Car-
negie committee that they should have pre· 
£erred to recommend support without owner-
ship, and one of them distinctly stated in 
Professor Wilson's presence that it was the 
' emergency' placed before them which led 
them to the proposition finally made to us. It 
is little to the point to refer to the official 
correspondence, for there were preliminary 
discussions. We all know who formulated the 
proposition, and I have authority which no 
6ne will dispute for saying that its author did -
not originate the plan, but simply 'formulated ~t-- / 
it as the result of the preliminary discussioM ~ 
between J!ie memE_ers of our and of theil'. 
";lpecial committee.• 
I ca:iiilot, and have not, asserted that Pro• 
fessor Wilson originated the plan; but I think · 
it safe to say that he knew of the plan befQre·· 
it was presented, that he approved it, pre-
sented it, and opposed the alternative plan of 
support without ownership, which was the 
preference of the Carnegie trustees. By all 
this Professor Wilson made himself its god- -
father. 
In the passage quoted by Professor Wilson-
the statement is made that 'they were asked 
on what terms they would consent to own and 
support it.' 'No such question,' says Pro-
fessor Wilson, ' was asked or suggested in any 
of the official correspondence.' I did not pre-· 
tend to give exact words, nor did I assert that 
the question occurred in the official corre-
spondence. It is a mistake however to say 
that this correspondence did not suggest it. 
It did suggest it to me, and I think my state-
ment fairly summarizes the attitude assumed' 
on our side. 
If Professor Wilson asked or suggested sup-
port that involved 'an obvious necessity' of 
ownership by the. Carnegie Institution, and if 
he has never objected to such ownership, but _ 
has objected to support that did not involve · 
ownership, the objection to my words cannot 
be very serious. C. 0. WHITMAN. 
CHICAGO, October 14.