The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-12-29
TWO ANNUAL BANQUETS
THE NATUR1 LISTS IND CHEMISTS
DINED LAST NIGHT.

The Former I'm the New Haven Hous,
and the Latter i'm the Tontine-Bou
Largely Acknowledging Toast List al
Both Dinners.
Inc eighteenth annual dinner of the
american Society of Naturalists, mark
ing the close of its session as a body,
was held in the New Haven house last
evening. Retiring President Professor
w. g. Farlow of Harvard presided, and
large and distinguished gathering of
scientists was present. Among them
We're the following Yale professors:
Professor Verrill, Professor Chittenden,
Professor S. L. Smith, DIR. Coe r. w.
Hail, Professor Mendel, Professor Ev-
ans, DR.. Jackson, Professor Brewer,
Professor H. E. Smith, Professor Fer
ris, Professor Sheath Professor Script
ure, DR.. Swain, DIR. C. J. Bartlett, DR.
Parker, DR.. Osborne, DIR. Ring. A let
ter of regret at his inability to attend
was read from President Hadley.
The opening address was delivered by
Professor Farlow, who spoke on the
American Universities" 1t was very
interesting and is printed in part be-
low. Following the distinguished
speaker toasts We're responded to as
follows:
Chttenden, Yale.
The New Bacteriologist Society-Pro-
fessor Sedgewick, Boston Institute of
Technology
The Washington Scientists-Professo
Howard, Georgetown university.
Progress of Science in the Last Half
Century-Professor Brewer, Yale.
The banquet concluded with the
adoption of a resolution introduced by
Professor e. B. Wilson of Columbia of
a vote of thanks to Yale university for
its courtesy to the society during its
session.
Professor Farlow's address was in
part as follows:
Instead of calling your attention to
any special phase of botany / shall
take the liberty of presenting a few
considerations suggested by a compari~
son of the different methods of or
ganization of universities and other
scientific establishments in this country
dIlu III Europe. SUCH COilSlClti dtlOlS,
although they apply to all advanced
studies and research, whether literary
or scientific are not to be considered
beyond our province for, in more ways
than may at first be supposed, there
is a community of learning and any
method or organization which genuinely
promotes one form of knowledge tends
to promote the study of other branches.
H. = ,,N4 hn
lieve that system which processes to
encourage the exclusive study of one
or few subjects will in the end be
successful.
When one asks how our universities
differ from those of Germany and 9TH
err European countries the answer gen
orally given is that students who en-
ter foreign universities have had a more
thorough preliminary training than our
own; that the instructors, taken as a
whole, have a more profound knowledge
of their specialties and that the equip
ment in the form of libraries, 1aborato-
ries and museums is more complete
than in this country. Were these the
only respects in which our own univer-
stiles differ from those of Germany, for |
instance we might believe that the diff |
future Our preparatory schools, it is
claimed, are improving, our universe |
ties instructors are becoming better I
equipped for their special work and, al
least as far as natural history is con-
cerned, our libraries and laboratories /
are numerous and some of them are
hardly inferior, for all practical pur
poses. to those of the best European
1o I
have mentioned the only ones, we could
say with truth that there is no radical
difference between our universities and
those of Germany, but merely differ
ence in the comparative development
which time would obliterate. There is
however, another fundamental differ
ence on which it seems to me too little
stress has been laid, a difference which,
as far as l can see, tends to become
more marked or which, at least, shows
no signs of diminution in the near fu-
ture. I refer to the method of univer-
sitv government. Strange to say, al
though we are living in a republic the
whole tendency of our colleges and uni
is towards a more autocratic
form while in Germany on the other
hand. it is Of q more democratic char
acter. In other words, excluding the
purely political question of supporting
or at least of not interfering with the
measures of the gov
eminent in power the instructing, the
learned, body, the faculty, has in Ger
many more power in regard to appoint
ments and the general policy of the
while with us the greater
power lies with the president and the
boards known variously as corpora
ions, trustees and overseers. The Ger
man universities have no president, in
DUR sense, but the presiding officer is
rejected annually from the body of pro-
'essors in rotation. Nor is there in the
English universities any officer CORE
.nonding to our college or university
,resident. the CHARACTERISTIC being
,ather an honorary position than one of {
,ctive duties The American president,
IN the other hand, is true executive
" such Importance and intrusted with
inch power that the selection of a
,roper president is vital question. If '
,e is capable the college is successful;
f he is incapable, it quickly falls be- {
lind The successful modern president {