National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-06-09
Prof. Thomas TayIor's Re;o,nder.

EDITOR NATIONAL REPUBLIcAN: Not
withstanding the interest in scientific dis
covery pleaded by Prof. G. V. Riley in
justification Of his unseemly interference
with the work Of 'co-ofllclal in the same
governmental department." every man who
has any acquaintance with scientific meth
ods OF thought and investigation Will
recognize the worthlessness, from scien-
tific point OF view, Of such matter Of pure
opinion as Prof. Riley has seen flt to OBJ
trude upon public attention in his recently
published comments upon the value Of my
Investigations on butter and fats as com
pared with those Of Prof. Weber. | too
have an interest In scientific discovery, and
should feel obliged TO any scientist who,
either by independent investigation or by
critical examination Of my own expert
ments, should contribute anything Of value
to what is already known on the matters in
question, but no such service to science is
apparent In the outgivings Of Prof. Riley
In relation to my work, and In the absence
OF anything higher rs the result of his
criticism, 1t Is not unfair to attribute the
criticism itself to q personal motive.
He very justly says that personality
should have no place in such matters, but
this is by no means the first occasion on
which he has given me reason to know that
this excellent maxim does not form the
guide OF his own conduct, nor am | the
only one who could bear such testimony.
Prof. Riley thinks that ought not to OBJ
1eet TO his stepping outside his own scien-
tihc specially TO criticise my work when /,
as he alleges, have "trenched on the work
OF botanist, chemist, veterinarian, entomolo-
gist, and horticulturalist.n No one would
object-l for one certainly should MOTTO
Prof. Riley's entering any field of science
Tor the purpose Of doing useful work
therein. found fault only with his step
ping outside Of his own province for the
purpose OF criticising work with which he
mas no acquaintance-a purpose for which
no one can accuse me, or ever has accnsed
me, OF having trenched on his field of labor
Prof. Riley sarcastically speaks OF my
labors as "attenuated." That my published
reports should be small in bulk as com
pared with those Of the chief of the entomo
logical division should not be wondered at
In view Of the fact that outside of my own
salary have not received on an average
mora than one or two hundred dollars per
year for assistance and all other purposes,
as against the tens of thousands annually
appropriated for the entomologlst and his
numerous assistants, and though IL is con.
trary TO my practice to criticse my co-of1i-
cials, 1t will not be deemed improper under
the circumstances TO mention that the editor
OF Scicnce, himself an expert entomologist,
in the issue of that journal for June ~
1885, commented with considerable severity
on Prof. Riey's report for 1884, stating
that.the amount Of work therein embodied
was not commensurate with the large
amount Of money expended for 1t.
l have recently received the bulletin of
Prof. Weber referred to in Prof. Riley's
communication, and shall take an early op.
portunity OF referring to 1t, recogizing with
pleasure what there Is Of interest aud nov
city in his experiments. / will only say
here that, interesting as they are, consid-
cred In themselves, the conclusions he de-
duces from them, so far as regards my own
work, are In the main based upon msappre-
henston, and are not pertinent to the points
which he seeks to establish by them. / NAV
add that, with single exception, no point
is raised in opposition to my own conclu-
sions which has not been anticipated in nv
report for 1886, placed in the hands OF the
commissioner Of agriculture nearly year
ago, and embodied In the annual report of
the department for that year, now nearly
ready for distribution.
THOMAS TAYLOR, NJ. D.
WARRINGTON, D. O., June 7, 1855.