if a third one were held they would have an opportunity of being benefited by an attendance at one meeting at least.

Mr. Lewis F. Lyne.-I conscientiously believe that the phenomenal growth of this organization and the lively interest taken in the topical discussions and the reading of papers has been due chiefly to the frequency of such meetings. I happen to be at the head of an institution which holds annual meetings, and at the last meeting we were unable to transact our business, and consequently we were put back one year. I for one do not expect to attend every meeting of this organization, except when it happens to be near my locality, but there are others who live in the locality where we hold these meetings who are very glad to have thẹ opportunity of taking part in the discussions where otherwise they would be utterly deprived of that privilege. I think, as a matter of right, that we should continue in our present course in order to give all our members, as far as possible, the advantages of the organization. (Applause.)

Mr. W. S. Rogers. I am reminded of an expression which was made use of once by one of our older members who is not here today. He told me to attend all the meetings that I could. "But," he said, "if you cannot go to a meeting you have still an advantage; when I go it does me good, but if I do not get there I have all the papers sent me, and I have all the arguments on my own side," and he says, "I have just as much enjoyment as if I was there, except that I do not get a chance to shake hands." But I want to go a little further than the last speakers; I am selfish in the matter; I would like to have the meetings every Saturday. (Laughter.) I do not want one meeting; I want lots of them. If they are in my locality and I cannot get there, I will do as my friend does-I will get the documents and I can argue it out a great deal longer than if the others were at hand to talk me down.

Prof. R. H. Thurston.-It is almost a waste of time to discuss the matter further; but it may do no harm, as the matter goes on record, to state on what theory we started our system of meetings. If you will read over our constitution and by-laws, I think you will find that they have been very carefully considered. They. were first prepared by Alexander Holley and his committee, two or three gentlemen who perhaps were as competent to frame such a plan as any then living, or to-day living. The consideration of the number, the place and the time of the meetings was of prime

importance, and they were settled upon this theory:--It was considered that we should have one meeting, unquestionably, every year, at the headquarters of the society. The headquarters of the society were placed in New York, because that was the great center of the kind of work and trade in which we are interested; that is to say, there is no place in the country at which it is so easy to concentrate members, and to which they will so naturally drift at certain periods of the year, and that was decided in the expectation that members would make arrangements to come to New York and transact their business there at that time. Then it was proposed to have two other meetings-three meetings per year, the other two meetings to be held peripatetically, in one city to-day and another to-morrow, for the double purpose of enabling members out of New York to meet each other in other sections, and for the second purpose of doing a sort of missionary work— sending out members of the society to portions of the country in which there might be many having common interests with ourselves, but who had not as yet learned the object of the society; and it was supposed by keeping a firm hold on New York City as headquarters, forming a nucleus there that should be immovable, that we could secure the desired permanence, and by sending out members at our missionary meetings we could bring into the society a great many members who otherwise might be unaware of the advantages that would accrue to them by joining the society and attending the meetings. The first year we attempted to carry out this programme; but we had then very few members, and yet the three meetings of the first year, if I remember right, were much better attended proportionally than the meetings are now. But it was a little inconvenient to put two of these meetings so near together-one in the early spring and one in midsummer, and it was proposed to try a system of two meetings only, one held annually in New York, and the other outside that city. That plan has been adhered to since. The attendance at the two meetings is not as great at either meeting, proportionally, as it was before, and I think if we were to adopt the plan now proposed, of a single meeting, the proportion of members would by no means be double the proportion attending each meeting at present. I think it would be found that the simple fact of reducing the number of meetings from two to one would be taken as a confession of weakness, and that the society would lose some strength and some moral status in consequence. The

original plan has always seemed to be a good one, and I should myself personally prefer to hold the annual meeting at New York City and the second meeting, or even a third meeting, at other points in the country, going from point to point, as the popular demand might lead us, from year to year. In handling the British Association for the Advancement of Science abroad and the American Association at home, it has been found very important to secure these transitions from point to point in the country; and the building up of those enormously great societies is largely due to the fact that a point was found for each meeting at which they were sure to have a large attendance, and I think it will be found that this action would be advantageous here. Again, I think that as the society increases in numbers, it will be found there will be no difficulty in securing a large attendance and a good supply of papers at each of our two meetings, and even three; and I can imagine the possibility of the society growing to such an extent as to have a membership numbered not by hundreds but by thousands, like the British Institution of Civil Engineers. I can imagine our holding quarterly meetings, well supplied with papers, and the growth of the society enormously stimulated by the fact of having three meetings every year held in different parts of the country. I am very sure from my own observation that our policy will be to hold at least two meetings and very likely to return to three, and not improbably to have at some time quarterly meetings, and that the more closely we adhere to the original plan of Mr. Holley and his friends, the more prosperous will our society become, the more firmly will it be established, and the more rapid will be its increase of membership. (Applause.)

Mr. Boyd.--For the purpose of closing the discussion, with Prof. Thurston's consent, as he very kindly seconded it, I beg to withdraw the motion. (Applause.)

Prof. Hutton.-I think it is desirable that the motion presented by Mr. Boyd should not be withdrawn. It seems to me important that the discussion of this question should go on record in the Transactions, and for this reason I hope he will not press the withdrawal of his motion.

Prof. De Volson Wood.-It seems to me that the rule is so wisely drawn that there is no need of considering a revision of the rule; that all the abuses, if there be such, of excursions, of excessive number of meetings, of excessive number of papers, or of any

thing else pertaining to the meetings and the papers, may be regulated by the wishes of the society through the Council, so that it seems to me quite unnecessary to instruct them at this time in regard to this matter. I move that the resolution be laid on the table.

Mr. Boyd.—I think that in view of the expression of opinion, which has been so universally against the motion, it would be just as well to withdraw it. The matter is discussed simply with a view of getting at what was best to the interest of the society, and I hope the motion will be allowed to be withdrawn.

The Chairman.-I would remind the gentleman that a motion cannot be withdrawn when seconded, except by unanimous con

sent.

Prof. Hutton. My point is that the withdrawal of the motion would withdraw the discussion of it and the expressions of opinion on the question to which it relates. These opinions will form too valuable a guide to be lost, and for this reason I object to the withdrawal proposed.

Prof. Wood's motion to lay on the table was seconded and carried. Mr. Durfee.-I understand that under that resolution the discussion will be printed.

The Chairman.—Yes, sir.

The circular of the Committee of the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia in reference to the Cresson and Scott medals was read, and after announcements as to the conduct of the meeting, the professional papers were taken up.

The paper of Mr. Chas. T. Main, "On the Use of Compound Engines for Manufacturing Purposes, the Relative Areas of the Cylinders, and the Regulation of the Pressure in Receiver," was discussed by Messrs. Denton, Hutton, Babcock, Durfee, Borden, Suplee, Wheelock, Thurston, Wood, Odell, Rogers, Lyne, and Freeman. After announcements by Mr. W. F. Mattes, Chairman of the Local Committee of Arrangements, the two papers by C. H. Peabody of Boston were read together. Their titles were "Flow of Steam in a Tube" and "A Simple Calorimeter," and were discussed by Messrs. Denton and Babcock, after which the meeting adjourned.

THIRD SESSION. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17.

CALLED to order at 10 o'clock by Vice-President Woodbury. The first paper was the joint one by Messrs. S. W. Powel and

W. L. Cheney, "A System of Worm Gearing of Diametral Pitch," which was discussed by Messrs. T. S. Crane and Oberlin Smith. That by Mr. C. A. Smith of Providence, "An Improved Method of Finding the Diameter of Cone and Step-Pulleys," was discussed by Messrs. Sweet, Denton, and Binsse; that by Mr. F. A. Scheffler of Erie, “A Foundry Cupola Experience," was discussed by Messrs. Snell, Durfee, Firmstone, Suplee, and Barr.

Prof. Lanza's paper, "Some Tests of the Strength of Cast Iron made in the Laboratory of Applied Mechanics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology," was discussed by Prof. Denton. The paper by the latter, "On the Identification of Dry Steam," illustrated by photographic reproductions of appearances of steam jets, was discussed by Messrs. Emery, Peabody, Weightman, Babcock, and Durfee. Mr. Chas. E. Emery of New York then read his paper, "The Cost of Power in Non-Condensing Engines," and it was discussed by Messrs. Denton, Barr, and Wheelock.

Prof. Lanza's second paper, "An Account of Certain Experiments upon Several Methods of Counterbalancing the Action of the Reciprocating Parts of a Locomotive," was discussed by Mr. C. E. Emery.

At the close of this paper, the Topical Queries were taken up, and Messrs. Whitehead, Bond, Barr, Sweet, Oberlin Smith, Woolson, Holloway and Richards discussed the query:

"Is there any recognized method of deciding proper sizes of tap-drills for given threads and for different materials? And, if not, would it not be advisable to formulate one based upon the amount of metal corresponding to some fraction of depth of thread to be left in the hole to be operated upon by the tap for each material?

At the conclusion of this debate, the session adjourned.

FOURTH SESSION. WEDNESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 71.

The session was called to order at eight o'clock. The two papers by Prof. J. B. Webb, of Hoboken, N. J., were the only two read at this session. The first was entitled "The Overhauling of a Mechanical Power," and the second was "The Mechanics of the Injector." The first paper was discussed by Mr. Oberlin Smith, and the second by Messrs. Kent and Denton.

After these two papers, the assigned discussion on Steel Phenomena was begun. This discussion was based upon the resolution at the Nashville Convention, reported at page 727 of Volume IX. of the Transactions as follows: