It is naturally impossible to give even an outline of all the many and
varied applications to which photography can be and has been applied.
In this article it is proposed to give a few of them, more for the sake
of informing the student what has been done, than for teaching him the
practical method of working them. The method of securing the automatic
registration of barometers, thermometers, and magnetometers should
command our attention first. It will be necessary to divide these into
two classes which require different treatment. A mercurial thermometer
may be taken as the representative of the first class.
Supposing we have a darkened chamber, in the side of which is a slit
of just sufficient dimensions to allow the bore of the capillary
tube to fill it, and that light can only have access to that chamber
after passing through that slit when so closed, it is manifest that
if a strip of sensitive paper be caused to pass gradually behind
such a thermometer tube the different height of the mercury will be
registered, owing to the opacity of that fluid to light. If the supply
of paper be properly regulated it is also manifest that the height of
the mercury at any particular instant will be known. Since daylight is
not always available, resort must be had to artificial light to impress
the sensitive paper, and a suitable process of development employed.
Such a method exists for registering the movements of this class of
instruments, the details of apparatus and manipulation being altered
to suit each individual case. There are, however, other instruments to
which such would be totally inapplicable. As an example, we may take
the magnetometer. The oscillations of the suspended magnet as used
for measuring the horizontal or vertical components of the earth’s
magnetism are very minute, so minute indeed that they can scarcely be
perceived by the eye. If to one of these magnetometers, however, we
attach a very small and light mirror, the plane of which is at right
angles to the axis of the magnet, and cause a beam, proceeding from a
source of light, to pass through a small aperture, thence to a fixed
lens on to the mirror, which reflects the beam of light on to a screen
so placed that the image of the aperture is in the focus of the lens,
any small deviation of the magnetometer will cause the beam of light to
deflect on the screen. The amount of the deflection will be dependent
on the focal length of the lens, and the distance of the aperture and
screen from the mirror. Suppose the screen to be opaque, and that a
slit is cut in it in the direction that the deviation of the beam would
take, and lying in the same plane as the deviation, and that a strip of
sensitive paper moves behind that slit in a direction at right angles
to its length, then at each instant the position of the beam of light
will be registered on the paper. On developing the image we shall have
a sinuous line corresponding to the deflections of the magnetometer at
every time of day and night, the reading of the time being dependent on
the rate at which the paper travels.
For meteorological purposes we may also hope that photography will be
more utilized than it has hitherto been. Mr. A. Mallock, at the meeting
of the British Association at Plymouth, has shown a way in which it may
be made subservient to ascertaining the heights of clouds.
In military science it is only necessary to call to mind the service
that the pigeon post performed during the siege of Paris. A large
series of letters were printed on one sheet, and then photographed to a
very small scale on collodion pellicle. Such pellicles, measuring about
6×2 centimeters, were tied to pigeons, which when liberated carried
the dispatch to Paris, where they had been trained. On arrival the
collodion pellicle was detached from the pigeon, placed in a lantern,
and the letters transcribed and sent to the various addresses. Of so
much use was this pigeon post that the German military authorities have
established a regular service of pigeons in the chief fortresses of the
empire, which would be used in case of investment or siege by a hostile
army.
During the investigation of the action of torpedoes the use of
photography was also largely brought into requisition by the writer in
order to ascertain the work that was expended by different charges of
gun cotton. The method adopted was roughly this: A mine having been
laid down at a known depth and position in water, a scale was placed
over it, and photographed from the position the camera was to occupy.
On the explosion of the gun-cotton or powder an instantaneous exposure
was given to a specially sensitive plate, and the height, breadth, and
general form of the resulting column of water was obtained from the
photograph after comparing it with the photographic scale.
At Shoeburyness, again, a regular staff of photographers is kept
in order to photograph all the experimental work carried on by the
artillery against iron shields, &c., and the series of such pictures
has been able to convey more to the minds of committees than elaborate
drawings could do.
We can not conclude these applications of photography without recalling
the fact that it has proved exceedingly useful in the repression
of crime. The portrait of every convict is taken by an authorized
photographer in each convict establishment, and when necessity arises
prints from such negatives are produced by the hundred and distributed,
in order that the various police authorities may be enabled to identify
a criminal who may have happened previously to be placed under their
surveillance.
DANIEL WEBSTER versus STEPHEN GIRARD.
The true relation of Christianity to education has seldom, if
ever but once, been before the Supreme Court of the United States
for adjustment. That time was when Daniel Webster made his great
argument to break the will by which Mr. Girard founded his college in
Philadelphia. Mr. Webster rose to the demands of his opportunity, and
made what was at once a masterly argument for his cause, and a splendid
defense of Christian charity, Christianity, and the Christian ministry.
In the following article we have abridged his speech, but we have tried
to preserve the chain of his argument. It is wholesome reading from the
mind of America’s greatest constitutional lawyer, in the times when
rhetoricians hurl flippant statements against the bulwarks of divine
truth, as though with these they would batter them down.
Two millions of dollars were bequeathed by Mr. Girard for the erection
of a college; detailed plans were drawn specifying where, how, and for
whom it was to be built. The validity of this will was contested by the
heirs-at-law in 1836. In 1841 the case was carried to the Supreme Court
of the United States. In course of the argument, Daniel Webster made
the speech of which we give a synopsis. We follow the argument, giving
only brief quotations. Mr. Webster passes over the details of the
will, taking up the following clause, or restriction, which Mr. Girard
prescribed as among the conditions on which his bequest for the college
was to be enjoyed.
These are the words: “I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic,
missionary, or any minister of any sect whatever, shall ever hold or
exercise any station whatever in the said college; or shall any such
person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the
premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college. In making
these restrictions I do not mean to cast any reflections upon any sect
or person whatsoever; but, as there is such a diversity of opinion
among them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans who are
to derive advantage from this bequest free from the excitement which
clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce.”
Upon these statements Mr. Webster argues: “The first question is
whether this bequest can be sustained otherwise than as a charity.
The bequest is void according to the general rules of the law, on
account of the uncertainty in the description of those who are intended
to receive its benefits, and must therefore stand, if it stand at
all, on the peculiar rules which equitable jurisprudence applies
to charities. This is clear. The question is whether in the eye of
equitable jurisprudence the bequest be a charity at all. I deny that it
is so. It is no charity; because the plan of education proposed by Mr.
Girard is derogatory to the Christian religion, tends to weaken men’s
reverence for that religion, and their conviction of its authority
and importance; and, therefore, in its general character, tends to
mischievous and not useful ends. This scheme begins by attempting to
attach reproach and odium upon the whole body of the clergy of the
country. It places a brand, a stigma upon every individual member
of the profession. No minister of the gospel of any denomination is
allowed to come within the grounds of this college on any occasion,
or for any purpose whatever. They are excluded as if their presence
might cause a pestilence. When have they deserved it? Where have they
deserved it? How have they deserved it?
“I hope that our learned men have done something for our literature
abroad. I hope that our courts of justice have done something to
elevate the profession of law. I hope that the discussions of Congress
have done something to ameliorate the condition of the human race.
But I contend that no literary efforts, no constitutional discussions,
nothing that has been done or said in favor of the great interests of
universal man has done this country more credit, at home and abroad,
than the establishment of our body of clergymen—their support by
voluntary contributions, and the general excellence of their character
for piety and learning; and yet every one of these, the Christian
ministers of the United States, is denied the privileges which are
opened to the vilest of our race. Did a man ever live that had respect
for Christian religion and yet had no regard for any one of its
ministers? Did that system of instruction ever exist which denied the
whole body of Christian teachers, and yet called itself a system of
Christianity?
“I maintain that, in any institution for the instruction of youth,
where the authority of God is disowned, the duties of Christianity
derided, and its ministers shut out from its proceedings, there can be
no more charity found to exist than evil can spring out of the Bible,
error out of truth, or hatred from love. If charity denies its birth
and parentage, turns infidel to the great doctrines of the Christian
religion, it is no longer charity. It is no longer charity either in
a Christian sense nor in the sense of jurisprudence, for it separates
itself from its own creation.
“Now let us look at the conditions and prospects of these tender
children who are to be submitted to the experiment of instruction
without Christianity. They are taken before they know the alphabet,
they are kept until the period of early manhood, and then sent into the
world. By this time their characters will be stamped. If there is any
truth in the Bible, if there is anything established by the experience
of mankind, in this first third of life the character is stamped. What
sort of a character is likely to be made by this experimental system
of instruction? What will be the effect on the minds of children left
solely to its pernicious influences? Morality without sentiment;
benevolence toward man without a sense of responsibility toward God;
the duties of this life performed with no reference to the life to
come,—this is Mr. Girard’s theory of useful education. I do not
intend to leave this part of the cause without a still more distinct
statement of the objections to this scheme of instruction. I deem it
due to Christianity to take up this scheme of Mr. Girard, and show how
mistaken is the idea of calling it a charity. In the first place, this
scheme is derogatory to Christianity, because it rejects Christianity
from the education of youth by rejecting its teachers, by rejecting the
ordinary methods of instilling religion into the minds of youth. He who
rejects the ordinary means of attaining an end, means to defeat the end
itself, or else he has no meaning. And this is true, although the means
originally be means of human appointment, and resting on no higher
authority.
“This scheme is derogatory to Christianity because it rejects the
ministry. Where was Christianity ever received, where were its waters
ever poured into the human heart, except in the track of a Christian
ministry? It is all idle and a mockery to pretend that any man has
respect for the Christian religion who yet derides and stigmatizes all
its ministers and teachers. It is all idle, it is a mockery and an
insult to common sense to maintain that a school for the instruction of
youth from which Christian teachers and the ministry is sedulously shut
out, is not deistical and infidel, both in its purpose and tendency.
“In the next place, this plan is derogatory to Christianity because it
proceeds upon the presumption that the Christian religion is not the
only true foundation, or any necessary foundation of morals.
“In what age, by what sect, where, when, by whom has religious truth
been excluded from the education of youth? Nowhere, never. Everywhere
and at all times it has been and is regarded as essential. It is
the essence, the vitality of useful instruction. From all this Mr.
Girard dissents. He dissents not only from all sentiments of Christian
mankind, from common conviction and the experience of all, but from
still higher authority, the Word of God itself. When little children
were brought into the presence of the Son of God, he said, ‘Suffer
little children to come unto me.’ Unto _me_. He did not send them first
for lessons in morals to the schools of the Pharisees or Sadducees,
or to the lessons and precepts phylactered on the garments of the
Jewish priesthood, but opened at once the everlasting fountain of
living waters. That injunction is of perpetual obligation. It is of
force everywhere and at all times. Not only my heart, my judgment, my
belief, and my conscience instruct me that this great precept should be
obeyed, but the idea is so sacred,—the solemn thoughts connected with
it so crowd upon me, it is so utterly at variance with the system of
philosophical morality advocated here, that I stand and speak in fear
of being influenced by my feelings to exceed the proper line of my
professional duties.
“Another important point involved in this question is, what becomes of
the Christian Sabbath in a school thus established? I say that in this
institution, under Mr. Girard’s scheme, the ordinary observance of the
Sabbath could not take place, because the means of observing it are
excluded. There can be no Sabbath in this college. It would be just
as much opposed to Mr. Girard’s whole scheme to allow these children
to go out and attend public places of worship as it would be to have
ministers of religion preach to them within the walls; because, if they
go out to hear preaching, they will hear just as much about clashing
doctrines, and more, than if appointed teachers officiated in the
college.
“I come now to the consideration of the second part of this clause
in the will; that is to say, the reasons assigned by Mr. Girard for
making these restrictions with regard to the ministers of religion,
and I say that these are much more derogatory to Christianity than the
main provision itself, excluding them. He says that there are such a
multitude of sects and such diversity of opinion that he will exclude
all religion, and all its ministers, in order to keep the minds of the
children free from clashing controversy. Now, does not this subvert
all belief in the utility of teaching the Christian religion to youth
at all? Certainly it is a broad and bold denial of such utility. To
say that the evil resulting from the differences of sects and creeds
overbalances all the benefits which the best education can give them,
that is but to say that the branches of the tree of religion are so
twisted and twined, and run so much over and into each other that,
therefore, there is no remedy but to lay the ax at the root of the
tree itself. It means that and nothing less. But this objection to the
multitude and differences of religious sects is but the old story,
the old infidel argument. It is notorious that there are certain
religious truths which are admitted and believed by all Christians.
All believe in the existence of God, the immortality of the soul,
the responsibility in another world for our conduct in this, in the
divine authority of the New Testament; and can not all these truths be
taught to children without their minds being perplexed by the clashing
doctrines of controversy? Most certainly they can. Apply the reasoning
advanced by Mr. Girard to human institutions and you will tear them all
up by the root, as you would inevitably tear all divine institutions
up by the root if such reasoning is to prevail. At the opening of the
first Congress there was a doubt as to the propriety of opening with
prayer, and the reason assigned was, as here, the great diversity
of opinions. At length Mr. Samuel Adams, with an air of impressive
venerableness, rose in that assembly and, with the air of a perfect
puritan, said that it did not become men, professing to be Christians,
who had come together for solemn deliberation in an hour of extremity
to say that there was so wide a difference in their religious beliefs
that they could not bow the knee in prayer to the Almighty, whose
advice and assistance they hoped to attain. Opposed to all prelacy
as he was, Mr. Adams moved that the Episcopalian clergyman should
address the throne of Grace in prayer. The minister read the service
and then, as if moved by the occasion, broke out into extemporaneous
prayer. Those men who were about to resort to force to obtain their
rights, were moved to tears. Depend upon it, where there is a spirit
of Christianity there is a spirit which rises above forms, above
ceremonies, independent of sect or creed, and the controversies of
clashing doctrine.
“It has been said by the other side that there was no teaching against
religion or Christianity in this system. I deny it. The whole testament
is one bold proclamation against Christianity and religion of every
creed. The children are to be brought up in the principles declared
in that testament. They are to learn to be suspicious of Christianity
and religion; to keep clear of it, that their breasts may not become
susceptible of the influences of Christianity in the slightest degree.
They are to be taught that religion is not a matter for the heart
or conscience, but for the decision of the cool judgment of mature
years; that at the period when the whole Christian world deems it
most desirable to instil the chastening influences of Christianity
into the tender and comparatively pure mind and heart of the child,
ere the cares and corruptions of the world have reached and seared
it: at that period the child, in this college, is to be carefully
excluded therefrom, and to be told that its influence is pernicious and
dangerous in the extreme. Why, the whole system is a constant preaching
against Christianity and against religion, and I insist that there is
no charity and can be no charity in that system of instruction from
which Christianity is excluded. Before closing the argument I repeat
again the proposition that the proposed school in its true character,
objects and tendencies is derogatory to Christianity and religion. If
it be so, then I maintain that it can not be considered a charity,
and as such entitled to the just protection and support of a court
of equity. I consider this the great question for the consideration
of this court. I may be excused for pressing it on the attention of
your honors. It is one which, in its decision, is to influence the
happiness, the temporal and spiritual welfare of one hundred millions
of human beings alive and to be born in this land. Its decision will
give a hue to the apparent character of our institutions. It will be
a comment on their spirit to the whole Christian world. I again press
the question to your honors: Is a clear, plain, positive system for
the instruction of children, founded on clear and plain objects of
infidelity,—a charity in the eyes of the law and as such entitled to
the privileges awarded to charities in a court of equity?”