Scientific American Volume 22, No. 1, January 1, 1870 Part 7

The studied ambiguity of the report which awards two first prizes to the competing engines, is no less apparent than the desire to shun responsibility.

A PROTEST AGAINST THE CANADIAN PATENT LAW.

In July, 1869, the New Dominion Patent Law went into operation, but it has not yet been approved by the Queen, and if rejected the Canadian Parliament will perhaps try its hand again. Although Canadians may freely go to all parts of the world and take out patents for their inventions, they have always manifested a mean spirit and adopted a narrow policy, in reference to inventors of other nations. Their present patent laws are so framed as practically to debar all persons except Canadians from taking patents; and the result is that American and English inventions are pirated and patented in the Dominion, without so much as a "thank you, sir," to the _bona fide_ originators.

A protest has been presented to her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, asking that the new law may be rejected, on the ground that it deprives the subjects of the Crown of their equal rights throughout the empire. There is force in this objection, and Lord Granville has promised that it shall be duly considered before the Queen is advised to sign the law.

The probable result will be a revision of the Dominion patent code so as to let in Englishmen but exclude the Yankees, from whom the Canadians derive whatever of improvement, progress, and energy they possess.

THE BRIGHTER SIDE.

Ingrat.i.tude seldom enters into the composition of a true inventor, and nothing in our business career has afforded us more pleasure than the frequent letters addressed to us by those who have, during more than twenty years, employed the Scientific American Patent Agency. We cannot find room for all the pleasant missives that come to us from our extensive list of clients, but we may give a few as samples of the many.

Mr. Daniel J. Gale, of Sheboygan, Wis., has recently secured through our Agency Letters Patent for a "Perpetual and Lunar Calendar Clock." In the fullness of his satisfaction he thus writes: "The fact is, I shall never be able to thank you sufficiently for what you have done for me. I sent you a copy of the paper printed here, which favorably notices my improvement and your great Agency. The fees charged me for my patent have been low enough. Already, by one of my own townsmen, I have been offered $4,000 for my interest in the patent. But I must not take up too much of your I time. Please allow me to add that I regularly receive your valuable paper, the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, and that you may number me as one of its stanch friends."

Mr. Edwin Norton, of Brooklyn, N.Y., in a recent note, says: "Allow me to express my thanks for the promptness and efficiency with which the business of obtaining a patent for my 'Cinder and Dust Arrester' has been conducted through your Agency--and not only in this case but in several previous ones. This is the _fourth_ patent obtained by me through four Agency within nine months. It gives me pleasure to add my testimony to that of many others, with respect to the very satisfactory manner in which your Patent Agency is conducted."

Mr. E. J. Marstens says, in reference to his improved "Field Press"--"I find everything correct. You certainly accomplished more than I expected after the first examination by the Primary Examiner. I hope soon to be able to give you another case."

Mr. S. P. Williams, an old client, writes as follows: "I received the patent on my 'Trace Lock for Whiffletrees,' and I am truly pleased with the prompt manner in which you have done the business. It is only a few weeks since I made the application, and I expected that it would be as many months before the patent could be granted."

PROFESSOR FISKE'S LECTURES AT HARVARD.

It certainly argues well for the intellectual character of the readers of the New York _World_ that during the prevalent taste for sensational journalism, it has found the publication of a series of philosophical lectures acceptable. We thank our neighbor for thus making these lectures available to the general public. Their ability is unquestionable; and the calmness and candor which Professor Fiske brings to the treatment of the subject is such as to add greatly to the force of his logic.

The "positive philosophy" has been shown by Professor Fiske to be much misunderstood, misapprehension not being confined solely to the ranks of its opponents.

His exposition of some of the misconceptions on which Professor Huxley has based some criticisms upon the writings of Comte, strikes us as especially forcible; and the whole course of lectures proves Professor Fiske to be one of the clearest and most able of American thinkers.

These lectures are followed as they appear, with great interest, and their publication in the World we regard as a real and permanent benefit to the public.

SCIENTIFIC LECTURES BEFORE THE AMERICAN INSt.i.tUTE.

The announcement of these lectures came to hand too late for our last issue, and the first has already been delivered. The course is as follows: Friday, Dec. 17, The Battle Fields of Science, by Andrew D.

White, President of the Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Friday, Dec.

24, How Animals Move, by Professor E. S. Morse, of the Peabody Academy of Science, Salem, Ma.s.s. Friday, Dec. 31, The Correlation of Vital and Physical Forces, by Professor G. F. Barker, of Yale College, New Haven.

Friday, Jan. 7, The Air and Respiration, by Professor J. C. Draper, of the College of the City of New York. Friday, Jan. 14, The Connection of Natural Science and Mental Philosophy, by Professor J. Bascom, of Williams College, Williamstown, Ma.s.s. Friday, Jan. 21, The Const.i.tution of the Sun, by Dr. B. A. Gould, of Cambridge, Ma.s.s. Friday, Jan. 28, The Colorado Plateau, its Canons and Ruined Cities, by Professor J. S.

Newberry, of Columbia College, New York.

The course is a good one, and ought to be, and doubtless will be, well attended. Abstracts of the lectures will appear as delivered, in the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.

THE BATTLE FIELDS OF SCIENCE.

LECTURE BY PROFESSOR WHITE, BEFORE THE AMERICAN INSt.i.tUTE.

This lecture did not disappoint the expectations of those familiar with the subject of the discourse, which, considering the difficulty of restating familiar historical facts in such a manner as to clothe them in a garb of originality, is high praise. Many, however, found great difficulty in hearing the speaker at the back part of the hall, and some left the room on that account. This was unfortunate, as the lecture will scarcely be exceeded in interest by any subsequent one of the course.

The speaker said that "In all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of religion--no matter how conscientious such interference may have been--has resulted in the direst evils both to religion and science, and _invariably_. And on the other hand all untrammeled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed, temporarily, to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good of religion and science. I say _invariably_--I mean exactly that. It is a rule to which history shows not one exception. It would seem, logically, that this statement could not be gainsaid. G.o.d's truth must agree, whether discovered by looking within upon the soul or without upon the world. A truth written upon the human heart to-day in its full play of emotions or pa.s.sions, cannot be at any real variance even with a truth written upon a fossil whose poor life was gone millions of years ago. And this being so, it would also seem a truth irrefragable; that the search for each of these kind of truths must be followed out in its own lines, by its own methods, to its own results, without any interference from investigators along other lines by other methods. And it would also seem logically that we might work on in absolute confidence that whatever, at any moment, might seem to be the relative positions of the two different bands of workers, they must at last come together, for truth is one. But logic is not history.

History is full of interferences which have cost the earth dear.

Strangest of all, some of the most direful of them have been made by the best of men, actuated by the purest motives, seeking the n.o.blest results. These interferences and the struggle against them make up the warfare of science. One statement more to clear the ground. You will not understand me at all to say that religion has done nothing for science.

It has done much for it. The work of Christianity has been mighty indeed. Through these 2,000 years it has undermined servitude, mitigated tyranny, given hope to the hopeless, comfort to the afflicted, light to the blind, bread to the starving, life to the dying, and all this work continues. And its work for science, too, has been great. It has fostered science often and developed it. It has given great minds to it, and but for the fears of the timid its record in this respect would have been as great as in the other. Unfortunately, religious men started centuries ago with the idea that purely scientific investigation is unsafe--that theology must intervene. So began this great modern war."

Professor White next reviewed the battle between science and theology on the subjects of the "earth's shape, surface, and relations," "the position of the earth among the heavenly bodies," in which Copernicus and Galileo struggled so bravely and successfully for truth.

The lecturer said:

"The princ.i.p.al weapons in the combat are worth examining. They are very easily examined; you may pick them up on any of the battle-fields of science; but on that field they were used with more effect than on almost any other. These weapons were two epithets--the epithets 'Infidel' and 'Atheist.' These can hardly be cla.s.sed with civilized weapons; they are burning arrows; they set fire to great ma.s.ses of popular prejudices. Smoke rises to obscure the real questions. Fire bursts out at times to destroy the attacked party. They are poisoned weapons. They go to the heart of loving women; they alienate dear children; they injure the man after life is ended, for they leave poisoned wounds in the hearts of those who loved him best--fears for his eternal happiness, dread of the Divine displeasure. The battle-fields of science are thickly strewn with these. They have been used against almost every man who has ever done anything for his fellow-men. The list of those who have been denounced as Infidel and Atheist includes almost all great men of science--general scholars, inventors, philanthropists.

The deepest Christian life, the most n.o.ble Christian character has not availed to s.h.i.+eld combatants. Christians like Isaac Newton and Pascal, and John Locke and John Howard, have had these weapons hurled against them. Nay, in these very times we have seen a noted champion hurl these weapons against John Milton, and with it another missile which often appears on these battle-fields--the epithets of 'blasphemer' and 'hater of the Lord.' Of course, in these days these weapons though often effective in disturbing the ease of good men and though often powerful in scaring women, are somewhat blunted. Indeed, they do not infrequently injure a.s.sailants more than a.s.sailed. So it was not in the days of Galileo. These weapons were then in all their sharpness and venom.

The first champion who appears against him is Bellarmine, one of the greatest of theologians and one of the poorest of scientists. He was earnest, sincere, learned, but made the fearful mistake for the world of applying direct literal interpretation of Scripture to science. The consequences were sad, indeed. Could he with his vast powers have taken a different course, humanity would have been spared the long and fearful war which ensued, and religion would have saved to herself thousands on thousands of the best and brightest men in after ages. The weapons, which men of Bellarmine's stamp used, were theological. They held up before the world the dreadful consequences which must result to Christian theology were the doctrine to prevail that the heavenly bodies revolve about the sun, and not about the earth.

"The next great series of battles were fought on those great fields occupied by such sciences as _Chemistry and Natural Philosophy_. Even before these sciences were out of their childhood--while yet they were tottering mainly towards, childish objects and by childish steps--the champions of that same old mistaken conception of rigid Scriptural interpretation began the war. The catalogue of chemists and physicists persecuted or thwarted would fill volumes."

After alluding to many other battle-fields of science which might not for want of time be dwelt upon at length the lecturer reviewed the battle grounds of medicine and anatomy on which some of the severest warfare has been waged.

The speaker here remarked that "perhaps the most unfortunate thing that has ever been done for Christianity is the tying it to forms of science and systems of education, which are doomed and gradually sinking. Just as in the time of Roger Bacon excellent but mistaken men devoted all their energies to binding Christianity to Aristotle. Just as in the time of Reuchlin and Erasmus they insisted on binding Christianity to Thomas Aquinas, so in the time of Vesalius such men gave all efforts to linking Christianity to Galen. The cry has been the same in all ages. It is the same which we hear in this age against scientific studies--the cry for what is called '_sound learning_.' Whether standing for Aristotle against Bacon, or Aquinas against Erasmus, or Galen against Vesalius, or making mechanical Greek verses at Eton, instead of studying the handiwork of the Almighty, or reading Euripides with translations instead of Leasing and Goethe in the original, the cry always is for 'sound learning.' The idea always is that these studies are _safe_."

The speaker next proceeded to show that not alone in Catholic countries, has such warfare been waged, and that even now in Protestant America the fight is going on.

One of the fields on which the severest warfare had raged in Protestant countries was that of Geology. "From the first lispings of investigators in this science there was war. The early sound doctrine was that fossil remains were _lusus naturae_--freaks of nature--and in 1517 Fracastor was violently attacked because he thought them something more. No less a man than Bernard Palissy followed up the contest, on the right side, in France, but it required 150 years to carry the day fairly against this single preposterous theory. The champion who dealt it the deadly blow was Scilla, and his weapons were facts obtained by examination of the fossils of Calabria, (1670). But the advocates of tampering with scientific reasoning soon retired to a now position. It was strong, for it was apparently based upon Scripture--though, as the whole world now knows, an utterly exploded interpretation of Scripture. The new position was that the fossils were produced by the deluge of Noah. In vain had it been shown by such devoted Christians as Bernard Palissy that this theory was utterly untenable; in vain did good men protest against the injury sure to result to religion by tying it to a scientific theory sure to be exploded--the doctrine that the fossils were remains of animals drowned at the flood continued to be upheld by the great majority as '_sound_' doctrine. It took 120 year for the searchers of G.o.d's truth, as revealed in nature--such men as Buffon, Linnaeus, Woodward, and Whitehurst--to run under these mighty fabrics of error, and by statements which could not be resisted, to explode them.