and Chemistry." Even in New York State there is Hobart College, with its "Professor of Civil Engineering and Chemistry, and acting-Professor of Mathematics and Modern Languages." Professorships like these are by no means rare; they are the rule rather than the exception. A very large majority of our so-called "institutions of learning" employ Jacks-of-all-trades to do the work of instruction, and how well that work is likely to be done we can easily imagine; indeed, it is difficult to understand how a conscientious man can undertake such tasks. Every teacher who is competent to teach at all must know that he is unable to cover so much ground, and should refuse to be a party to such fraudulent teaching. Fraudulent is not too strong a word to use in this connection. An institution which receives money from its students in payment for an education such as it cannot give, is certainly guilty of fraud. These frauds are the natural outgrowth of improperly-granted charters, incompetent or ignorant boards of trustees, and reckless sectarian pride. Every denomination seems to be imbued with the characteristic American anxiety for display, and the establishment of a new college is a convenient piece of clap-trap to resort to. Surely the advancement of religion ought not to render necessary such sacrifices of true principle! If false pretensions are to be thus directly encouraged by the churches, what can we expect from the people at large?
The smaller colleges, however, are not the only ones to blame in this matter of professorships. They are perforce compelled to employ smatterers, because of their inability to pay the proper number of specialists. But institutions of considerable wealth often injure science in their selection of teachers by introducing false issues into the question. Every year professors are chosen, not on account of scientific ability, but for reasons of a theological or sectarian character. If two men, one a Baptist, and the other a Unitarian, were candidates for the same professorship in a Baptist university, the former, even if very much inferior to his rival, would almost certainly be elected. There may be exceptions to this general rule, but they are very rare. Even at Princeton issues of this sort are frequently raised, and the ablest candidates have been rejected on purely dogmatic grounds. Theological soundness in such an institution far outranks scientific ability. If Laplace had lived in America, no college would have tolerated him for an instant. Almost any decayed minister, seeking an asylum, would have beaten him in the race for a professorship. Not many years ago, the ablest chemist America has ever produced was a candidate for the chair of chemistry in a very prominent Eastern college. He did not believe in the Trinity, and for that reason alone failed of an election. The immorality of such a system is manifest. When success or failure is made to depend upon a mere profession of belief, a direct premium is put upon hypocrisy. Incompetent men are not unlikely to be unscrupulous also. Science cannot really flourish
