Among the many pleasing and profitable features and incidents of the late meeting of the Association, there is only one criticism or regret that has reached us. This relates to the failure to hear the many reports of local progress and movements in Science, that had been prepared. This failure grew out of two circumstances: the first, the unforeseen amount of new business that claimed attention,—the second, the length of several of the papers read. The Executive Committee did a great work in preparing and systematizing the work of the meetings. The same method will doubtless be followed in organizing for next year, care being taken to profit as to some details from the experiences in this year's proceedings.
Probably a three days' session may be found desirable. The first day could be given to executive sessions, with closed doors, as it is already evident that the growing importance of the interests of the organization will bring out many matters that should be so considered. With two days for reviewing the work of the past year, and laying plans for the year to come, opportunity would be afforded to hear from all. But the reports should be limited to five to ten minutes, and "time" should, in justice to all, be inexorably called on any one passing his limit.
The reading of essays should be stricken from the list of exercises. When Scientists come together, yearly, from such distances, they do not care for one another's opinions about Science. What they want is reports of progress, and points of experience, for encouragement and for building up. When they leave the yearly meeting, it should be with a clear idea of the progress and condition of Science, over the whole field; with distinct ideas as to the special lines of effort to be followed, and with a fresh inspiration for their several fields of labor.
